Etiolated regrowth of three bromegrass (Bromus) species after defoliation at different developmental stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.) and hybrid bromegrass (B. riparius × B. inermis) are widely used for hay and pasture in temperate regions of the world. Three bromegrass species have variable capacities to regrow following defoliation and remobilization of stored energy after defoliation may vary among these grasses. A field study was conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Saskatoon (52°07′N, 106°38′W), Canada to determine etiolated regrowth of three bromegrass species after defoliation to a 2.5-cm stubble height at the vegetative, stem elongation, reproductive stages of development, and after plant dormancy in late fall. After 5 and 10 days following defoliation, etiolated regrowth of meadow and hybrid bromegrass was greater than smooth bromegrass at the vegetative stage, and was greatest in meadow bromegrass, intermediate in hybrid bromegrass, and least in smooth bromegrass at the stem elongation stage. By 30 days and thereafter, etiolated regrowth was similar among three bromegrass species when defoliated at any growth stage. Etiolated regrowth was similar among the three species when defoliated at the reproductive stage. Meadow and hybrid bromegrasses produced more etiolated regrowth than smooth bromegrass on dormant plants in a growth chamber. The percentage of total etiolated regrowth to total full light regrowth increased with advanced growth stage in all three bromegrasses, and this percentage was higher in smooth bromegrass than the other two bromegrasses at the stem elongation and reproductive stages. The results of this study suggest that, following defoliation, meadow and hybrid bromegrass can mobilize stored energy more rapidly for regrowth than smooth bromegrass in the early regrowth period, contrary to the greater dependence on stored reserves in smooth bromegrass at the later growth stages.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".