MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028836418 · doi:10.4141/p01-165

Rough fescue (<i>Festuca campestris</i> Rydb.) response to heat injury

2002· article· en· W2028836418 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Amanda D. Bogen, Edward W. Bork, Walter D. Willms

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTiller (botany)RangelandFestucaGrazingAgronomyHeat stressBiologyEnvironmental scienceAnimal sciencePoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rough fescue (Festuca campestris Rydb.) is an ecologically and economically important native plant species within grasslands of southwest Alberta. This is also a region where wildfires have become prevalent over the last decade. While the risk of long-term damage from fire may be determined by the susceptibility of rough fescue to heat injury, understanding the additive stress imposed by defoliation may assist in the development of grazing strategies facilitating rangeland recovery. Three laboratory studies were conducted to assess rough fescue sensitivity to heat stress, including the added impact of subsequent defoliation. Results indicated that fescue tillers were capable of withstanding temperatures of 60°C, but only for short periods (e.g., 16 s or less). At lower temperatures, a distinct interaction between exposure time and temperature was evident, with shorter times at greater temperatures causing similar reductions in growth as long exposure times at low temperatures. Decreased plant vigour, as evidenced by lower tiller numbers, resulted from defoliation coinciding with active regrowth, reinforcing the notion that rough fescue is sensitive to defoliation following heat stress. The greatest detrimental impact occurred with relatively longer periods of deferment (8 weeks) until defoliation following exposure to heat treatment. These results have implications for the recovery and conservation of burned rough fescue rangeland. Key words: Defoliation, Festuca campestris Rydb., heat stress, mortality, tillers, water bath

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207