MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247155475 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-3397

Development of tools to assess and mitigate the impacts of peat harvesting on aquatic ecosystems

2021· preprint· en· W4247155475 on OpenAlexaffabout
André St‐Hilaire, Sophie Duchesne, Claude Fortin, Sabiha Hafdi, Hermine Bettis, Moez Khadri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatSettlingEnvironmental scienceStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)SedimentAquatic ecosystemSurface runoffSubstrate (aquarium)Environmental engineeringEcologyGeologyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Peat harvesting in an important industry in northern Europe and in North America. In Canada peat is harvested to be used as a horticulture substrate. The harvesting is generally done by vacuuming the thin dried upper layer of peat found below the acrotelm, after removing the latter and draining the water. Drained water is typically routed to settling basins prior to being released in neighbouring natural water courses. This communication summarizes our research efforts to develop tools to optimize settling pond design and minimize suspended sediment loads and to provide the industry with means to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems that receive the drained water.</p><p>Current settling pond designs are based on simple rules of thumb (e.g. 25 m<sup>3</sup>/ha of harvested peatland). In our study, a hydraulic model was used to test different basin configurations (basins with and without weirs at the outlet, basins in series, basins equipped with a geotextile curtain). It was found that while the trapping efficiency was not significantly improved by adding a second basin compared to a single one, adding a geotextile curtain improved the trapping of coarser sediments. Our results moreover showed that fine sediments deposited during low flow periods, in the downstream end of the basins, could be easily resuspended during and after rainfall events, thus showing the importance of frequent maintenance. There are also some strong indications that wind erosion could be a major source of sediments in the drainage water.</p><p>Different indicators of stream ecosystem health were compared to quantify the impact of peat harvesting on the receiving water bodies. They included 1) using fish abundance and species richness; 2) quantifying sediment deposition and its organic content; 3) determining ionic composition of effluents and receiving waters; and 4) developing a water quality index (WQI) based on multiple physico-chemical measurements (ammonia, conductivity, pH and suspended sediment concentrations). The developed WQI was shown to be the most promising indicator of ecosystem health and allows for a simple classification of water quality downstream of the confluence between the drain outlet and the receiving stream.</p>

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeolian processes and effectsFrench-language works237,207