Responses of Three Bromegrass (<i>Bromus</i>) Species to Defoliation under Different Growth Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bromegrass species are important forage crops in temperate regions of world. This study compared responses of three bromegrass species to defoliation in the greenhouse and field to determine if the former could predict responses in the latter. Experiments were conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Saskatoon ( 52°07′ N, 106°38′ W), Canada on meadow bromegrass (Bromus ripariusRehm.), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermisLeyss.), and hybrid bromegrass (B. ripariusX B.inermis) following defoliation to 5 cm stubble height. When defoliated at the vegetative stage, above-ground biomass was similar among the three species in the field, but meadow bromegrass produced greater above-ground biomass than smooth bromegrass in the greenhouse. When defoliated at the stem elongation stage, meadow bromegrass produced greater above-ground biomass than smooth bromegrass in both environments. In the field, for all defoliation treatments, tiller number was greatest in meadow bromegrass, intermediate in hybrid bromegrass, and least in smooth bromegrass. In the greenhouse, however, the three species did not differ in tiller number. Similar results were found for below-ground biomass. Thus, testing the effect of defoliation in the greenhouse environment did not accurately predict the effect in the field environment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".