MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969279339 · doi:10.4141/cjps09164

Plant production after defoliation of native, Northern Mixed Prairie on hummocky terrain in Saskatchewan

2010· article· en· W1969279339 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
A. Pantel, J. T. Romo, Y. Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStanding cropForbGrazingRangelandGrowing seasonLandformAgronomyCropBiologyGrasslandBiomass (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resting plants after grazing is central to sustaining potential plant production. Growth of graminoids and forbs was determined for 3 yr after a single defoliation to 7.5 cm in May, June, July, August, September, October, November, or April on five different landform elements in the Northern Mixed Prairie. Green standing crop and cumulative green standing crop of forbs, graminoids, and their total varied with months of defoliation, landform elements, and years after defoliation. Green standing crop and cumulative green standing crop of forbs, graminoids, and their total was less than the control (P ≤ 0.05) on at least one of five landform elements until the second year after defoliation. This pattern of growth suggests the need to defer grazing for at least 1 yr after use to allow plants to regain their production potential. Plants defoliated early in the growing season recovered their production sooner or at the same time as those defoliated later in the growing season or when dormant. Generalizations that spring or early summer defoliation of native range reduces production and late summer or dormant season grazing has no effect on production warrants reconsideration where adequate rest is provided following a short period of grazing.Key words: Landform, landscape, primary production, rangeland, regrowth, standing crop

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207