Cultivar genotype, application and endophyte history affects community impact of <i>Schedonorus arundinaceus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Cultivars of several cool‐season grasses used in forage and turf applications are developed to contain low (E−) or high (E+) seed fungal endophyte presence, and these characteristics may influence their competitive ability and effects on communities. We established a long‐term field experiment to test the predictions that Schedonorus arundinaceus ( SA ) tall fescue forage cultivars differ in their effects on communities from turf cultivars and that E+ cultivars differ in their effects on communities from E− cultivars. Two of the three E+ turf cultivars were low endophyte, and turf cultivars were therefore defined as ‘E+ history’ and ‘E− history’. Forage (E−) plots contained more SA than turf (E− history) plots and differed in community structure and function from turf (E− history) plots. Cultivar identity also influenced community structure and function in pairwise comparisons between forage (E−) and turf (E− history) plots. Within the forage cultivars, E+ plots contained more SA and were marginally less dominated by other grasses than E− plots, but these differences were not consistent in comparisons between specific E+ and E− forage cultivars. Moreover, E+ and E− forage plots were similar in other aspects of community structure and function, indicating that a cultivar's endophyte status does not consistently determine its effects. Despite low endophyte presence in two of three cultivars, E+ history turf plots differed in measures of composition, structure and nutrient cycling from E− history turf plots, indicating that there are genetic differences between E+ and E− cultivars which can influence their effects on communities. Synthesis and applications. Schedonorus arundinaceus cultivars vary in their competitive ability and effects on communities, and this variation may be explained by the application for which the cultivars were developed, their endophyte status and genetic differences among cultivars within application categories. We recommend preferentially selecting cultivars developed for turf applications and cultivars with low seed endophyte presence to minimize negative effects of seeding a non‐native grass on communities. However, final selections should be based on common trial performances because genetic differences between cultivars will affect their performance independently of their application category and endophyte status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".