Revegetation of degraded ecosystems into grasslands using biosolids as an organic amendment: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions Biosolids are a source of nutrient‐rich organic material that can be used to improve degraded or disturbed soils. Research on vegetation responses to the land application of biosolids has increased in the past 20 years, but there is no consensus on how plant communities respond to biosolids applications. What factors influence productivity and vegetative cover following biosolids application for grassland reclamation? How does the addition of biosolids impact plant community responses? Location Global, but predominantly North America and Europe. Methods To explore vegetative responses following biosolids application, we used a global systematic review and meta‐analysis of 59 articles. Our meta‐analysis used the log response ratio (LRR) as an effect size for productivity, total cover, species richness, diversity and exotic species abundance and explored covariates addressing various site characteristics and reclamation strategies. Results We found that across sites, the land application of biosolids significantly increased productivity and cover but had no significant overall effect on species richness, Shannon diversity or exotic species abundance on degraded lands. These increases in the LRR for productivity and vegetative cover were lower on sites that experienced a fire prior to biosolids application. Climatic variables like mean annual temperature were shown to alter the response of vegetative cover, where warmer sites tended to have more positive responses to biosolids. Seeding was found to increase plant cover but decrease species richness early in the reclamation process. Conclusions This area of research is growing; most of the publications we used come from the last 20 years and were mostly conducted in North America and Europe. While we can build on the present literature, there is clearly room for more research to ensure the process of reclaiming degraded ecosystems using biosolids results in desired plant communities, e.g. high native species diversity. Future research should consistently report biosolids chemical characteristics as well as application and processing methodologies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".