Effects of dust deposition from diamond mining on subarctic plant communities and barren‐ground caribou forage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dust produced from mining has the potential to reduce plant cover, alter plant communities, and increase metal concentrations in vegetation-changes that may affect the amount, type, and quality of forage for barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). We quantified dust deposition from Diavik Diamond Mine (Northwest Territories, Canada) and investigated the changes on forage quality, type, and quantity for caribou. From 2002 to 2016, dust deposition was measured, and vegetation cover and richness were assessed in permanent plots established adjacent to the mine and in reference areas 1-6 km from the mine. Lichen was collected from areas up to 100 km from the mine to determine metal concentrations. Dust deposition rapidly decreased within 4 km of the mine. Plant communities adjacent to the mine (within 500 m) had disproportionately increased cover of vascular plants and decreased bryophyte and lichen cover. Lichen sampled within 4 km from the mine had greater metal concentrations than those sampled farther afield. Concentrations of Al in lichen collected within 40 km of the mine exceeded safe exposure limits for consumption, assuming lichen comprised 100% of caribou diet. We conclude that dust deposition from mining is altering adjacent vegetation communities but that such changes to forage are unlikely to cause negative effects to caribou due to reduced lichen intake in summer and autumn, their migratory nature, and avoidance of mine-influenced areas. However, minimization and reclamation of mine-related disturbances will be important for maintaining sufficient quality forage and available habitat or space in caribou ranges.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".