MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539860423 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v127i1.1406

Suspected Selective Herbivory of Bioenergy Grasses by Meadow Voles (<em>Microtus pennsylvanicus</em>)

2013· article· en· W1539860423 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Heather A. Hager, Frances E. C. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPanicum virgatumHerbivoreBiologyMicrotusMiscanthusPerennial plantPanicumPopulationEcologyAgronomyHabitatBioenergyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly productive native and non-native perennial grasses are being grown for bioenergy purposes in North America, and ecological risks of their large-scale production are being assessed to inform breeding and management practices. Giant Miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) were introduced into an old-field habitat in Guelph, Ontario, in 2012. Seedlings of these species suffered severe selective herbivory, being severed at the plant base by an unknown herbivore. We therefore performed a live-trapping survey and mark-recapture analysis of the small mammal community in 2012 to identify the probable herbivore and estimate its population density. Meadow Voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) were the most abundant herbivore in the area, with an estimated population of 265 individuals/ha, a relatively high density. This and other evidence indicate that Meadow Voles were likely responsible for herbivory of >80% of the transplants. Such herbivory could have a substantial effect on the establishment and survival of these grasses, suggesting that future crop breeding programs and ecological risk assessments should take this into consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207