The influence of abiotic (snow fences) and biotic (hedgerows) vertical structures on soil moisture, temperature, and planted seedlings in subarctic mine site reclamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Snow fences increased soil moisture while hedgerows decreased moisture. • Planted green alder and mountain avens seedlings in hedgerows had high survival. • Fireweed survival and biomass showed trends with distance from snow fences. • Soil-water dynamics across the site influenced survival and growth of seedlings. • Structure effectiveness depends on type, height, porosity, and orientation. Mine site revegetation in subarctic boreal ecosystems is often limited by soil moisture under semi-arid conditions, highlighting the need for research into cost-effective, scalable strategies to manage soil–water dynamics across large-scale disturbances. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of vertical structure type (i.e., abiotic snow fences vs. biotic Alnus viridis and Dryas integrifolia hedgerows), height, and distance from structure on soil volumetric water content, soil temperature, and the survival and growth of planted fireweed ( Chamerion angustifolium ) and Canada bluejoint ( Calamagrostis canadensis ) seedlings at a mine site in central Yukon Territory, Canada. Despite considerable interannual variation in snowfall and spring soil moisture, abiotic structure height had limited effects on soil moisture, likely due to the small height differences between fences and shifts in dominant wind direction affecting snow-trapping efficiency. However, vertical structure type significantly affected soil moisture, especially in summer, when both hedgerows had significantly lower soil moisture compared to snow fences. Soil temperature was not influenced by the vertical structures. Planted fireweed and Canada bluejoint seedlings responded more strongly to local site conditions than to vertical structures. Overburden texture varied across the site, with sandier substrates reducing soil moisture retention across experimental blocks, which influenced hedgerow and planted seedling survival and growth. Microtopography shaped water distribution through micro-elevation differences, influencing the effects of vertical structures. These findings demonstrate the potential of vertical structures as a revegetation strategy in semi-arid subarctic boreal environments, while emphasizing the importance of integrating site-specific factors into mine reclamation planning and implementation.
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".