Quantifying regrowth characteristics of three bromegrass (<i>Bromus</i>) species in response to defoliation at different developmental stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bromegrasses (Bromus) are widely cultivated for pasture and hay in temperate areas of the world. The objective of the present study was to determine above‐and below‐ground biomass, tiller density, and leaf area index (LAI) of meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) and hybrid bromegrass (B. riparius × B. inermis) after defoliation. The study was conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Saskatoon (52°07′N, 106°38′W), Canada. Plants were clipped to a 5 cm height at the vegetative and stem elongation stages of growth, and an undefoliated control was included. Regrowth was similar (521 g m−2) among the three species when defoliated at the vegetative stage, but meadow and hybrid bromegrass produced 49% and 36% greater regrowth than smooth bromegrass following defoliation at the stem elongation stage. Compared with undefoliated plants, below‐ground biomass was reduced 38% following defoliation. Meadow and hybrid bromegrass produced similar (4863 g m−3) below‐ground biomass after defoliation, which was 66% greater than smooth bromegrass (2923 g m−3). LAI of all three bromegrasses increased linearly with days of regrowth (r2 ≥ 0.88, P < 0.05), and LAI was greatest in meadow bromegrass (4.0, 3.3), intermediate in hybrid bromegrass (3.6, 2.7), and least in smooth bromegrass (3.1, 2.2) following defoliation at the vegetative and stem elongation stages, respectively. Tiller density was also greatest in meadow bromegrass (2107, 1320 tillers m−2), intermediate in hybrid bromegrass (1547, 840 tillers m−2) and least in smooth bromegrass (1093, 520 tillers m−2) following defoliation at the vegetative and stem elongation stages, respectively. In the undefoliated control, 15% fewer tillers of meadow bromegrass reached the reproductive stage compared with the other two bromegrasses. The rapid regrowth of meadow bromegrass appears to be associated with more tillers, more rapid LAI development, and maintenance of greater below‐ground biomass following defoliation.
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".