Dominant drivers of plant community assembly vary by soil type and time in reclaimed forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Information on plant community assembly mechanisms is limited on forest reclamation sites after mining in the Canadian boreal forest. We assessed the change in plant community composition after Year 2 and Year 5 on species-rich forest floor mineral mix (FFMM) and species-poor peat mineral mix (PMM) reclamation soils by examining assembly mechanisms, i.e., seed bank, seed rain, biotic dispersal, vegetative expansion, and competition. Initial plant cover and diversity were greater on FFMM due to non-native species originating from the seed bank, which had 5× more seeds in the FFMM. By Year 5, both soil types had approximately 40% cover and 80 species richness due to the addition of wind and biotic-dispersed species and were characterized by a shift towards native species. Native forbs using vegetative reproduction expanded up to 2 m from FFMM into PMM. At Year 5 competition does not seem to have a large role in the structuring of the vegetation community. Overall, multiple factors were involved in structuring plant communities on reclamation sites, but we observed a general convergence between plant communities on different soil types in a relatively short period of time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".