Evaluation of soil reclamation techniques at the Key Lake uranium mine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olatuyi, S. O. and Leskiw, L. A. 2015. Evaluation of soil reclamation techniques at the Key Lake uranium mine. Can. J. Soil Sci. 95: 153-176. Adequate soil nutrients and water supply are critical to vegetation establishment and creation of sustainable ecosystems in post-disturbed mining sites. This study investigated effects of various amendments and capping techniques on soil quality and moisture distribution on a reclaimed waste rock pile at the Key Lake uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Soil profiles were reconstructed in 2010 using locally available sandy glacial materials to create soil covers of 1 m thickness. The reclamation treatments consisted of a Control plot, commercial peat (Peat), a local lake sediment (Sediment), underlying flax straw (Straw), mulched forest floor and Ae (LFH), fertilizer (NPK), manure pellets (Pellets), and a demonstration plot (Demo) comprised of Sediment, LFH and Pellets. Soil amendments were applied by various techniques as broadcast, surface incorporation, below the surface or surface mounding. Annual plot monitoring was conducted from 2011 to 2013 and soil samples were analyzed for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), available nutrients, cation exchange capacity (CEC), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and regulated metals. Volumetric moisture contents were measured periodically to examine soil moisture response to growing-season precipitation. In 2013, the topsoil of the Control plot was slightly acidic (pH of 6.3) while the Sediment and Demo plots had the lowest pH of 4.0. The EC and SAR values were below 1.0 in all treatment plots. The highest levels of available N, TN, TOC and CEC were in the Sediment and Demo plots, followed by the Peat. The concentration of arsenic exceeded the regulatory limit by 3.4- and 2.6-fold in the Sediment and Demo topsoil, respectively, while concentrations of other metals were below the limits in all treatment plots. The Sediment and Demo treatments were most effective in retaining water in the topsoil, while application of soil amendment by mounding enhanced infiltration and water transmission in the profile. In terms of soil fertility and moisture storage, the combination of organic amendments in multi-layers plus surface mounding, as in the Demo plot, is the most promising capping technique for restoring soil health, vegetative cover and ecosystem functions on the waste rock pile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".