Residual effects of topsoil replacement depths and onetime application of organic amendments in natural gas wellsite reclamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larney, F. J., Olson, A. F. and DeMaere, P. R. 2012. Residual effects of topsoil replacement depths and one-time application of organic amendments in natural gas wellsite reclamation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 883-891. The success of reclamation on abandoned wellsites depends on their capacity to recover and sustain levels of soil quality similar to those existing prior to soil disturbance. A 1997-2000 study looked at four (0, 50, 100 and 150%) topsoil replacement depths (TRD) and five amendments [compost, manure, alfalfa (Medicagosativa L.) hay, wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) straw, check] in the reclamation of three natural gas wellsites in Alberta. In 2007 (10 yr after establishment) the wellsites were re-sampled to examine residual effects of reclamation treatments on soil properties. In 2007, there was no difference in SOC between the 50, 100 and 150% TRD treatments and all three were significantly higher than the 0% TRD by an average of 18%. Therefore adding half the amount of topsoil (50%) 10 yr previously caused long-term improvement in SOC (vs. 0% TRD), but adding more topsoil (100, 150%) did not produce further gains. Soil organic C (0- to 15-cm depth) on the compost and manure treatments (across all sites and TRD treatments) was significantly higher (+8%) than straw, alfalfa and check treatments some 10 yr later. Results show that initial investment in organic amendments for wellsite reclamation can have residual effects on soil quality.
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".