Plant survival and growth in bioretention cells under a cold climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization coupled with climate change results in significant stormwater management challenges. In this context, the use of green infrastructures such as bioswales and bioretention systems to intercept, slow down and filter runoff has been increasing in North America in recent years. However, little data is available on the selection of optimal plant species adapted to cold climates, their optimal positioning in the swale and intra and inter-seasonal variation in plant growth. A field experiment was conducted during three growing seasons from July 2020 to August 2022 in a proximal suburb of Québec City, Canada, to monitor the survival rate. Growth (height and plant area), and floridity (number of flower buds and flower stems) of 22 plant species in 48 cold climate bioretention cells located along streets. The study aimed to understand the influence of planting position (margin: upper position, usually dryer; slope; middle position, fluctuating water conditions; bottom: lower position, usually moister) on species development, in order to identify the species most and least adapted to the different moisture conditions. Results showed that survival was generally high (> 86%) and was not affected by position within the bioretention cells. However, for most species, plant area increased, and height decreased at the margin compared to the slope position, while floridity only increased at the margin for four species (Heliopsis helianthoides (L.) Sweet, Coreopsis verticillata L., Hemerocallis ‘Stella Supreme” L., Verbena hastata L.). Seven species (Campanula carpatica Jacq “Alba”, Hesperis matronalis L., Osmundastrum cinnamomeum (L.) C. Presl, Rudbeckia hirta L., Verbena hastata L., Cerastium tomentosum L., Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ex Mertens) exhibited lower survival and growth rates over time than the others. Overall, 15 out of 22 species performed well in the bioretention cells with minimum maintenance over the course of the experiment. Results also showed that plant area at the end of the growing season was much more influenced by position in the bioretention cells than were height or floridity, while survival was not influenced by this factor. A better knowledge of plant interactions in varying spatial distribution over time can contribute to improving and potentially maximizing bioretention performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".