Species dynamic, forage yield, and nutritive value of seeded native plant mixtures following grazing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schellenberg, M. P, Biligetu, B. and Iwaasa, A. D. 2012. Species dynamic, forage yield, and nutritive value of seeded native plant mixtures following grazing. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 699–706. There is increasing interest in native plants of North America for rangeland reseeding in the semiarid regions of western Canada. However, there is limited information available on forage yield, nutritive value and response to grazing of seeded native plant mixture. The objective of this study was to compare foliar cover, forage yield, and nutritive value of two different native plant mixtures under grazing. In 2001–2004, a study was initiated on Orthic Brown Chernozemic (Aridic Haploboroll) soil near Swift Current (lat. 50°25'N, long. 107°44'W), Canada. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a full factorial arrangement of seed mixtures (7 species and 14 species) and stocking rates (1.3 and 2.7 animal units ha−1) with four replications of each treatment combination. The 7-species mixture produced more forage than the 14-species mixture in July, August, and September of all study years. The 7-species mixture, however, had lower crude protein than the 14-species mixture in August and September in 2002 and 2003. Neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber concentrations were generally similar between the two mixtures for July, August, and September sampling for all 3 yr. Foliar cover of awned wheatgrass [(Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould & Shin. ssp subsecundus (Link) A. & D. Love.] and slender wheatgrass [Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould subsp. trachycaulus] was higher in the 7-species mixture than the 14-species mixture, but foliar cover of other species was similar between the two mixtures. Shrub species were rarely observed in the stand at any year. Higher stocking rate decreased foliar cover of slender wheatgrass and weeds, but foliar cover of other species was similar between the two stocking rates. Based on the results, a seed mixture of native cool-season grasses may be more productive than a combination of native warm- and cool-season grasses under semiarid region of western Canada, but inclusion of warm-season grasses could improve nutritive value by increasing protein content in the late summer months.
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".