The interacting effects of herbivore exclosures and seed addition in a wet meadow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seed limitation may prevent successful restoration of native plant communities. Seed addition is a common restoration practice but the role of small mammals in affecting seedling recruitment is not well understood. The purpose of this investigation was to test the relative effect of seed introduction in combination with small mammal and bird exclosures in an Ohio wet meadow. We ask whether the ambient population of Microtus pennsylvanicus (1) alters species composition (e.g. forb/grass/sedge, invasive, non‐native); (2) influences plant diversity; and (3) reduces the effect of increasing local plant richness through seed introductions. We established a 2×2 factorial design including a seed addition treatment (0 and 20 seed species added) and an exclosure treatment (open and fenced to exclude all mammalian and bird herbivores and granivores). Seeds from twenty native species were selected to represent a broad range of plant life forms typically found in temperate eastern North American wet meadow communities. All species were obligate or facultative wetland species with forbs, grasses and sedges represented. We found that forb species increased inside exclosures, especially in the seed addition treatment. We also found that relative biomass of invasive species was reduced in exclosures and with seed addition. Species richness increased with seed addition; however, exclosures significantly increased species richness and diversity, particularly of those species that were experimentally introduced by seed. Our results support the seed limitation hypotheses. It is also evident that seed and seedling predation are important factors that can control wet meadow community composition and diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".