Growth of Common Plants of Boreal Reclamation Sites in Oil Sands Tailings Cake Mixes and Process Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil sands surface mining and processing in Alberta generate large volumes of fluid tailings and process water high in salts and metals, which must be reclaimed. We investigated growth of four common plants (two native and two non-native) found in boreal oil sands reclamation sites as influenced by substrate type (tailings cake, and mixtures of cake-sand, cake-peat, and cake-forest floor mineral mix) and water quality (0%, 50%, and 100% oil sands process water). Overall, cake-peat supported the highest aboveground biomass among substrates whereas cake and cake-sand performed poorly, possibly due to high sodium and chloride concentrations. Adding process water to substrates generally reduced growth or increased mortality. Grasses had greater growth than forbs, and for each functional group, non-native species performed better than native species. Hordeum vulgare had the highest overall growth with no mortality followed by Agropyron trachycaulum with negligible (0.5%) mortality. Chamerion angustifolium was most affected by the treatments with the lowest growth and highest mortality (56%). Sonchus arvensis had higher growth than C. angustifolium but its slow growth makes it less suitable for reclaiming tailings. Our results indicate that H. vulgare and A. trachycaulum could be good candidates for use in initial reclamation of oil sands tailings.
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".