Recovery of dry mixed grass prairie well sites 15 years after reclamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mixed grass prairie region of North America, well sites and their associated infrastructure have many ecological effects, including changes to soil physical, chemical and biological properties, loss of vegetation cover, altered plant species composition and habitat fragmentation. Reclamation of disturbed grassland is a challenge faced by many rangeland and conservation managers. The objective of this research was to examine the effect of time on reclaimed grassland well site soil properties and plant communities in southern Alberta. Seeding with three mixes of different numbers of species and proportions of native wheatgrasses (Triticeae tribe) was compared to natural recovery and undisturbed prairie after 15 years. Chernozemic soil was more similar to undisturbed prairie than Solonetzic soil, where soil chemical properties and plant species composition were less resilient following disturbance in some revegetation treatments. All reclaimed treatments had significantly lower soil organic matter, organic carbon and total nitrogen than undisturbed prairie. Vegetation cover and species richness in reclaimed sites did not usually differ from undisturbed prairie. An increase in the proportion of native wheatgrass cultivars in a seed mix did not result in a community dominated by them. Multivariate analysis showed species compositional differences in seeded and natural recovery relative to undisturbed prairie on Solonetzic soil, with no difference on Chernozemic soil except with the dominant wheatgrass seed mix. Thus recovery may require longer than 15 years for Solonetzic soil and revegetation with a dominant wheatgrass seed mix. Presence of early to late successional species indicated natural recovery could be a potential option for mixed grass prairie well site reclamation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".