MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018256167 · doi:10.1111/wre.12127

Rising CO<sub>2</sub> can alter fodder–weed interactions and suppression of <i>Parthenium hysterophorus</i>

2014· article· en· W2018256167 on OpenAlexaff
Naeem Khan, D. George, Asad Shabbir, Z. Hanif, Steve W. Adkins

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParthenium hysterophorusFodderShootWeedBotanyBiologyBiomass (ecology)ChemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Three C4 grass (Setaria incrassata, Astrebla squarrosa and Bothriochloa decipiens) and one C3 legume (Clitoria ternatea) suppressive fodder species, were re‐evaluated against the growth of the C3 Parthenium hysterophorus under an ambient (390 μmol mol−1) and an elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 μmol mol−1). Under the elevated atmospheric CO2, shoot dry biomass and suppression index (SI) value of the C4 S. incrassata were both reduced by 32% and 0.7 respectively, while those for A. squarrosa were reduced by 23% and 0.3. In contrast and under the same elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration, the shoot dry biomass and SI of the C4 B. decipiens were increased by 8% and 0.1 respectively, while those for the C3 C. ternatea were increased by 38% and 0.8. Our results suggest that C3 fodder plants along with certain C4 species could be utilised for the effective management of P. hysterophorus under the future elevated atmospheric CO2 conditions. However, this system needs more fodder species to be investigated. Our results suggest that rising CO2 per se may alter the efficacy of suppressive fodder management of an invasive C3 species, P. hysterophorus.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ResearchSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207