MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391313665 · doi:10.3390/f15020245

Ecological Restoration in Eastern Canada Using Four Early-Successional Species on Severely Degraded Sites Using a Factorial of Site-Preparation Treatments: Growth and Biomass over Two Years

2024· article· en· W4391313665 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dominic Galea, John E. Major

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceEcological successionRestoration ecologyFactorial experimentGeographyForestryBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barren sites that lack soil are exposed to some of the harshest elements, which include high temperatures, solar radiation, wind, extreme temperature changes, and low soil moisture and nutrient conditions. An ecological restoration experiment was conducted using three site-preparation treatments, straw (S), Meri-Crusher (MC), and coarse woody debris (CWD), in a site-/no site-preparation 2 × 2 × 2 factorial on sites that had been barren for 25 years. In addition, four early successional deciduous species, white birch (WB, Betula papyrifera Marshall), gray birch (GB, Betula populifolia Marshall), green alder (GA, Alnus viridis Vill. subsp. crispa Ait), and speckled alder (SA, Alnus incana L. subsp. rugosa Du Roi), were examined. The two- and three-way interactions were almost all magnitude effects and not rank changes. Gray birch had the greatest overall first-year height growth, followed by GA, SA, and WB, with 12.1, 9.7, 9.6, and 5.6 cm, respectively. Straw doubled first-year growth, while CWD and MC increased first-year height growth by 43 and 31%, respectively. Straw’s ability to retain moisture in the dry summer provided the greatest benefit. In the second year, GA had the greatest height growth, followed by SA, GB, and WB, with 42.5, 30.5, 13.4, and 13.0 cm, respectively. Alders form symbiotic relationships with N-fixing bacteria and, although this was observed in some first-year roots, they did not fully express this advantage at these severely degraded sites until the second year, which allowed them to surpass birches in growth. Site-preparation treatments furthered their height growth affect, with S, and CWD doubling second-year height growth and MC, with an increase of 25%. Alders and birches had, on average, three and one stems, respectively, and the mean stem number of alders increased under S and CWD. After two years, overall stem dry mass had very large genus and species differences with GA, SA, GB, and WB, with 58.4, 30.3, 5.4, and 4.0 g, respectively. The N-fixing ability of alders under these conditions resulted in a 13-fold stem dry mass production increase compared with birches. Straw tripled, CWD doubled, and MC increased stem dry mass by 40%. For WB, site-preparation combinations had an additive effect, whereas GB, GA, and SA had several combined site-preparation treatments showing synergistic results, which were greater than the additive effects of single treatments. Under the control (no site prep.), second-year stem dry masses for WB, GB, GA, and SA were 0.7, 1.4, 17.8, and 0.5 g, respectively. Under the three combined treatments, MC × S × CWD, WB, GB, GA, and SA had 6.6, 12.3, 115.7, and 70.6 g stem dry masses, respectively. SA is ecologically a lowland species, hence the low 0.5 g under the control; however, the result under the three combined treatments demonstrates their combined effectiveness on these barren sites. Green alder seems to be the best adapted to the sites, having the greatest stem dry mass under control, although that was considerably magnified under the site-preparation treatments. This study using combinations of treatments with these early successional species introduces a novel research concept, and similar studies in the literature are currently lacking, creating an opportunity for future exploration.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207