MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996703051 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoena.2019.100016

Uncovering traits in recovering grasslands: A functional assessment of oil and gas well pad reclamation

2019· article· en· W2996703051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Randi C. Lupardus, Ermias T. Azeria, Kierann Santala, Isabelle Aubin, Anne C.S. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesNatural Resources CanadaAlberta Environment and ParksAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
KeywordsEdaphicLand reclamationEcologyGrasslandSpecies richnessEnvironmental scienceTraitBiologyAgronomySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil and gas exploration has disturbed extensive areas of grassland in North America. Reclamation of this human footprint is only a first step towards ecological recovery. A trait-based approach may provide a mechanistic understanding of biological and edaphic filters influencing longer-term plant community assembly on reclaimed sites. Using taxonomic indices, trait community weighted means (CWM), and functional diversity (FDQ) combined with multivariate models, we compared biological and edaphic properties of 18 reclaimed well pads in Alberta (Canada), to proximate native grasslands. These well pads were certified reclaimed under two reclamation criteria (old, new). Consistent with practices in other regions, newer criteria emphasize using native plant species in place of historically-used introduced agronomic species. We found significant differences between reclaimed and undisturbed reference soil properties (e.g., pH, electrical conductivity), with greater differences on sites reclaimed using the older criteria (e.g., lower TOC, higher bulk density). Plant trait composition also differed between reclaimed and undisturbed sites, with a lower prevalence of short, native, xeric species, with semi-abundant seed production and large seed weight on reclaimed sites. We found a strong trait-environment relationship underlying trait composition difference. While not significantly different in overall trait composition from new sites, old sites included higher prevalence of introduced species, dispersed by animals, preferring mesic conditions, and high seed production. The increased cover of introduced species reduced trait FDQ and led to an arrested succession. New sites included higher prevalence of tall, native species preferring hydric conditions, therophytes, geophytes, and species with low dispersal capacity. The use of native seed with higher FDQ on new sites seemed to alleviate arrested succession; However, biological trait filters (e.g., tall, hydric preference) and altered edaphic properties, might continue to drive differences between reclaimed and reference sites. Our results suggest that even as practices and policies evolve, reclamation does not fully alleviate the legacy effects of this industrial disturbance. We have demonstrated how trait-based approaches can inform recovery assessment and future reclamation best practices. We must go beyond simply seeding with native species for recovery of plant communities – the traits of these native species matter too.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EngineeringSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207