MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014916471 · doi:10.4141/p00-023

Physical sod suppression as an alternative to herbicide use in pasture renovation with clovers

2001· article· en· W2014916471 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Philippe Séguin, Paul R. Peterson, Craig C. Sheaffer, Donald L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyGrazingForagePastureTrifolium repensSeedingLegumeBiologyRed CloverGlyphosateWeedWeed control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using herbicides for sod suppression during pasture renovation by legume sod-seeding often results in the loss of potentially usable forage, weed encroachment, and inadequate legume:grass ratios. Physical sod suppression methods could alleviate some of the problems associated with suppression via herbicide. A study was conducted in Québec, Canada, to investigate, as an alternative to herbicide, sod suppression by sheep grazing or mowing before and after spring no-till seeding of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) or white clover (T. repens L.). Sod-suppression treatments included six physical suppression methods: mowing or sheep grazing, to 5 or 10 cm, at seeding and when the grass sward reached 30 cm during the first 2 mo of clover establishment, or similarly managed mowing or sheep grazing to 5 cm with an additional defoliation the previous fall. Additional treatments included suppression by herbicide (glyphosate [N-(Phosphonomethyl) glycine] at 2.6 kg a.i. ha–1) and two controls: sod-seeding with no sod suppression and no seeding. Among the physical suppression treatments, grazing and mowing to 5 cm resulted in highest clover densities, similar to those achieved via herbicide suppression. Red and white clover had similar plant densities. Yield components and total forage yields varied with sites. Clover yields tended to be higher with herbicide than under physical suppression treatments. However, increasing the severity of physical suppression increased clover yields. Weed encroachment was observed only with herbicide sod suppression. Unlike suppression with herbicide, physical suppression did not decrease total forage yields in the renovation and post-renovation years when compared with controls. Forage quality was increased in the renovation year by both physical suppression methods and herbicide when compared with unrenovated controls; but the increase was greater with herbicide suppression. Only the most severe of the physical suppression methods sustained increased forage quality in the year after renovation. Timely mowing or grazing as methods for suppression of grass sod during renovation with legumes appear to have potential, but cannot yet be recommended as alternatives to herbicide. Key words: Clover, forage, grazing, pasture renovation, sod-seeding

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→