Compositional changes over four years for binary mixtures of grass species grown with white clover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kentucky bluegrass, meadow fescue, orchardgrass, tall fescue, timothy, and reed canarygrass were seeded in all possible two-grass combinations with white clover in conventional and underseeded barley treatments using a split-plot design at the Western Agriculture Centre near Pynn’s Brook, NL. The objectives were: (1) to assess dry matter yield (DMY) of two binary grass species when sown with white clover in mixtures under a system with cuttings at similar crop growth stages as rotational grazing and to assess the effect of underseeding to barley on this system; (2) to identify mixtures that enhance herbage distribution throughout the grazing season; and (3) to assess the sward dynamics over successive cropping seasons. The composition of the binary grass mixtures with white clover affected seasonal DMY, seasonal herbage distribution, and sward dynamics over the production years. Orchardgrass in mixtures decreased DMY, shifted the herbage distribution toward early season, and competed with other species. Timothy composition of the stand showed the largest decline over the 3 production years, whereas white clover declined in mixtures with bluegrass, orchardgrass, or tall fescue. Meadow fescue and reed canarygrass with white clover was the most productive mixture with excellent persistence and good yield distribution over the growing season. Orchardgrass was the least compatible species in the mixtures; it dominated first growth and contributed the least to biomass production in later years. Both bluegrass and reed canarygrass performed well in mixtures over the 3 production years; bluegrass appeared to enhance the performance of the other species during summer regrowth whereas reed canarygrass was superior in the later part of the growing season. Underseeding with barley did not affect white clover yield in any production year but detrimentally affected the yield of orchardgrass and meadow fescue in mixtures, and their seasonal distribution. Key words: Bluegrass, orchardgrass, meadow fescue, tall fescue, timothy, reed canarygrass, repeated measurements, principal component analysis, herbage DM distribution, species competition
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".