MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048170342 · doi:10.4141/p00-189

Root growth, appearance and disappearance in perennial grasses: Effects of the timing of water stress with or without defoliation

2002· article· en· W2048170342 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea Flemmer, CA Busso, O. A. Fernández, T. Montani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerennial plantStipaBiologyRangelandAgronomyTussockGrowing seasonPhenologyTemperate climateBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of early and late defoliations were evaluated under different levels of soil water content on root growth, appearance and disappearance in Stipa clarazii Ball. S. tenuis Phil., and S. gynerioides Phil. Field studies were conducted in 1995. 1996 and early 1997. Stipa clarazii and S. tenuis are two important palatable perennial tussock grasses in temperate, semiarid rangelands of central Argentina. where S. gynerioides is one of the most abundant, unpalatable perennial grass species. We hypothesized that (1) root growth is reduced after defoliation at any phenological stage in S. clarazii and S. tenuis in comparison to undefoliated controls, (2) root growth. and root appearance and disappearance in all three species decrease as plant water stress increases, and (3) root growth associated with water stress in S. clarazii and S. tenuis is reduced comparatively less when plants are water-stressed earlier than later, or for a longer period of time during the growing season. Our results led us to reject hypothesis 1 and to accept hypotheses 2 and 3. Maintenance of root growth after defoliation in S. clarazii and S. tenuis would allow these species a greater soil exploration and resource finding to sustain regrowth in their native, semiarid environments. Key words: Root growth, appearance and disappearance, perennial grasses, water stress, defoliation, Stipa species

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207