MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220711504 · doi:10.1134/s106422932205012x

Ecosystem Recovery of the Sudbury Technogenic Barrens 30 Years Post-Restoration

2022· article· en· W4220711504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurasian Soil Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityMcMaster UniversityLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)TransectEnvironmental scienceHumusSoil waterPine barrensMossPlant coverPlant communityRevegetationEcosystemUnderstoryGeologyEcologyForestrySoil scienceEcological successionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sudbury, Ontario, Canada experienced severe environmental degradation from intensive logging, mining, and smelting activities. Acidification and erosion of soils, as well as heavy metal deposition led to widespread vegetation mortality and the creation of 20 000 ha of barren and 80 000 ha of semi-barren land within the Sudbury region. Restoration processes, consisting of limestone application, fertilization, seeding, and tree planting, was initiated in 1978 and continues to present day. Although initial assessments made immediately following restoration predicted a stable, self-sustaining vegetation community would develop, no formal monitoring protocol was initiated. In this study, we describe the state of four restored sites (3 barren, 1 semi-barren), and their naturally recovering (untreated) analogues, within the Sudbury technogenic barrens 25 to 30 years post-restoration. At each site, two belt transects were established in the restored and untreated areas within which soil pH, tree height and diameter, and ground cover of vegetation identified to species were assessed. Soil pits were excavated to examine pedological development. Soils were Dystric Brunisols in all sites. In restored areas, soil pH and humus layer thickness were generally greater than in areas left to recover naturally. Elevated pH through the soil profile at treated sites indicate limestone application effectively reduced acidity and was sustained up to 30 years post-application. In untreated areas, moss and lichen were abundant, and although vascular plant cover was greater in restored areas, vegetation communities are still significantly different from the reference site. Adequate cover of native understory species was not obtained in any of the treated areas. Results indicate that aerial application of limestone, fertilizer, and seed is less effective than ground application, especially in areas with a high proportion of exposed bedrock. Active restoration has been beneficial to the recovery of the Sudbury technogenic barrens. Continued monitoring will be essential to facilitate the development of a self-sustaining vegetation community.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it