Hydrology of passive and active restoration in abandoned vacuum extracted peatlands, Southeast Manitoba, The
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural, self-regulating bogs have high water tables during wet periods of the year and can retain their moisture content within the acrotelm to sustain the physiological functions of the Sphagnum during dry periods. Peat extraction disrupts the hydrology and natural regeneration of most cut-over bogs. Although regeneration occurs more readily on block-cut sites, vacuum harvesting has become the main method of extraction and therefore requires more rigorous restoration efforts afterwards. Two methods of restoration are observed in this paper, passive restoration at Moss Spur and active restoration at Elma North. To establish and regenerate, Sphagnum moss requires a water table within 0.4 m of the peat surface and soil-water pressure (ψ) not exceeding -100 cm. These parameters were established for bog restoration; however, bogs develop from fens, thus the active restoration is aimed towards a fen system. The hydrogeomorphic setting in Manitoba allowed for Moss Spur to regenerate passively, while Elma presented an opportunity to explore a combination of active restoration techniques used in eastern Canada and Europe. Moss Spur was expected to be barren, much like a comparable site in Quebec, however groundwater discharge was found to occur throughout Moss Spur over three study seasons which likely resulted in its spontaneous regeneration since abandonment. It is still unknown if the active restoration treatments conducted at Elma will shorten fen regeneration time to decades rather than centuries, but in one season the water table levels were increased >100 cm and soil tension improved to bring it well within the acceptable threshold for Sphagnum establishment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".