MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071723402 · doi:10.1657/1938-4246-43.2.198

Effects of Simulated Grazing in Ungrazed Wet Sedge Tundra in the High Arctic

2011· article· en· W2071723402 on OpenAlexaff
Tammy L. Elliott, Greg H. R. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundraGrazingEnvironmental scienceAgronomyPrimary productionLitterArcticEcologyBiologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wet sedge tundra communities in the High Arctic are valuable sources of forage for several resident and migratory herbivores; however, the effects of grazing on these systems have been rarely studied. We simulated grazing in two wet sedge meadows at a site on Ellesmere Island that has not been affected by grazing. Over two summers, we clipped plots at four different frequencies and removed litter to assess effects on aboveground net primary production, availability of soil nitrogen, shoot concentrations of carbon and nitrogen, and soil temperature and moisture regimes. Available soil nitrate and ammonium were highest in plots with intermediate clipping frequencies. Shoot nitrogen concentrations were also greater at intermediate clipping frequencies in two of the four species studied. Aboveground net primary production decreased after clipping, regardless of frequency. Litter removal resulted in slightly increased soil moisture, but had no effect on aboveground net primary production. Soil temperature was not affected by any of our treatments. These results suggest that nitrogen cycling is stimulated by intermediate frequencies of simulated grazing, but clipping decreased aboveground net primary production in ungrazed high arctic wet sedge tundra.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207