Contrasting response to clipping in the Asian knotweeds <i>Fallopia japonica</i> and <i>Fallopia</i> × <i>bohemica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive species are often managed with the objective of population control or eradication. Here we tested whether clipping techniques influenced the aboveground and belowground structures of 2 closely related invasive taxa: Fallopia japonica and Fallopia x bohemica. We compared the aboveground response (plant height, number of stems, and number of leaves) of rhizome fragments to clipping of both taxa. The second experiment was aimed at comparing the belowground response of both taxa to the same clipping disturbance. Rhizome fragments were planted in rhizoboxes and subjected to a clipping disturbance after 4 weeks of growth. Regrowth, belowground biomass, specific root length, total root length, and distribution of roots in 3 soil layers were measured. Aboveground plant traits of both taxa were unaffected by clipping. On the other hand, clipping induced a reduction in belowground dry mass and an increased proportion of roots in the upper layer of soil in F. japonica. Both taxa of Asian knotweeds are highly tolerant to clipping because they are able to cope with aerial biomass loss. Nevertheless, this tolerance seems to be lower in F. japonica. The potential implications for the impact of these invasive species are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".