A comparison between reclamation stockpile and boreal forest seed banks and plant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil stockpiles are essential to the reclamation of large‐ and small‐scale mining and other industrial sites. However, stockpiling soils can lead to the degradation of seed banks. This study examines the diversity, composition, depth of seed storage, and relationships between the aboveground and seed bank plant communities in stockpiles and compares them to the nearby boreal forest. The seed bank and aboveground vegetation sampled at eight stockpiles and six mature forest sites were near Fort McMurray (57.337°N, 111.755°W) and Cold Lake (54.695°N, 110.730°W), Alberta, Canada. Seed bank samples were taken from the forest floor (LFH) and depths of 0–5, 5–10, 10–20, 20–30, >50 cm. Aboveground vegetation cover was also estimated at these locations. The seed bank composition was determined using the seedling emergence method in a greenhouse. Stockpile seed banks had higher seedling abundance and species richness than nearby forested sites but were dominated by grasses and non‐native forbs. Most seeds germinated from the surface layer, with 92% of seeds germinating from the LFH layers in the forested sites, and 68% from the 0 to 5 cm layer in the stockpiles. Mature forest sites had more similar aboveground and seed bank communities than the stockpiles. Overall, integrating information on seed bank and aboveground plant communities would improve reclamation decisions, rather than relying on aboveground vegetation alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".