Comparative seed predation of woolly cupgrass (<i><scp>E</scp>riochloa villosa</i>) and yellow foxtail (<i><scp>S</scp>etaria pumila</i>) along a field border in <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seed predation of woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa), an invasive weed of East‐Asian origin, was compared to that of yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila), an established and widespread weed, along a field border in Canada. The seeds of both species were glued to sandpaper cards and their removal in field conditions was recorded from July to September during the 3 years of 2009, 2010 and 2011. Predator exclusion cages allowed the evaluation of seed loss to be attributed to invertebrates, vertebrates and total seed loss due to predation for both species. Pitfall traps were installed and collected once in 2010 and during all the seed sampling dates in 2011 in order to evaluate predatory pressure from ground beetles and crickets. The average amount of seed loss that could be attributed to invertebrates was higher for S. pumila than for E. villosa, while the amount of seed loss that could be attributed to vertebrates was higher for E. villosa than for S. pumila in 2009 and 2010. The level of S. pumila seed loss to invertebrates was correlated with the sum of crickets (Gryllus pennsylvanicus) and beetles (Harpalus spp. and Ophonus rufibarbis) trapped during the 2011 season. During the same period, correlations between E. villosa seed loss to invertebrates and trapped insects were not observed. Reduced postdispersal seed predation by invertebrates could increase the local fall survival of the unburied seeds of invasive E. villosa populations, compared to other naturalized, smaller‐seeded weedy grasses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".