Replication data for: Effects of simulated wastewater nutrient amendments on Sphagnum productivity and decomposition within a subarctic ladder fen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peatlands dominate the flat landscape of the Hudson Bay Lowland (HBL). Sphagnum mosses are the key peat-generating plants allowing for important ecosystem services such as carbon storage and water polishing. The HBL also has current and proposed industrial mining development projects, and its peatlands may become increasingly used to polish secondarily-treated wastewater from mining camps. We examined biological changes in the plant community associated with the addition of simulated secondarily-treated wastewater to a subarctic ladder fen, a wetland type commonly found throughout the HBL. We determined how the nutrient additions affected the productivity, decomposition, and nutrient ratios within the ponds and raised peatland ridge components of the ladder fen. Our results show between a four to twelvefold increase in productivity rates of the low-lying Sphagnum rubellum species, and a twofold increase in productivity for the higher hummock or ridge-dominating species Sphagnum fuscum in locations closest to the point source of nutrient effluent. Regions of the experimental ribbed fen greater than 50 m away from the point source showed little difference in productivity rates or nutrient content than the reference fen levels. No significant changes to the rate of decomposition of Sphagnum were observed with relation to distance away from point source nutrients as the experimental fen decomposition rates were comparable to the reference fen rates. Sphagnum productivity per year remained greater than mass lost to decomposition. Therefore, this study suggests that, in the short-term, subarctic peatlands exposed to nutrient levels comparable to that present in treated domestic wastewater will increase their capacity to generate Sphagnum-peat and store carbon. This experimental research aids in understanding to what degree plants mediate shifts in ecosystem dynamics within subarctic ladder fens. Policy makers, community planners, and industries may consult these results for mining development projects within the HBL and elsewhere in subarctic and boreal biomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.058 |
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".