Nutritive Values of Smooth Bromegrass, Meadow Bromegrass, and Meadow × Smooth Bromegrass Hybrids for Different Plant Parts and Growth Stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three hybrid populations between meadow bromegrass ( Bromus riparius Rehm.) and smooth bromegrass ( Bromus inermis Leyss) have been developed through hybridization and recurrent selection. The objective of this study was to determine the concentration of acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and crude protein (CP) of leaf blades, stems, and whole‐plant herbage of three hybrid bromegrass populations (S‐9197, S‐9073 and S‐9183) and the two parental species at vegetative, heading, and anthesis stages of development. Generally, the highest leaf blade NDF, ADF, and lowest CP concentrations were observed in meadow bromegrass, regardless of the growth stage. For the stem fraction, hybrid S‐9183 had the lowest ADF (240 g kg −1 ) and NDF (532 g kg −1 ) at the vegetative stage. At anthesis, in 1997, stem NDF concentrations of meadow bromegrass, S‐9197, and S‐9073 were similar, but lower than S‐9183 and smooth bromegrass. At later stages of development, meadow bromegrass had higher stem CP concentrations (94–114 g kg −1 ) than other entries (62–110 g kg −1 ). For whole‐plant samples, NDF (359–490 g kg −1 ) and ADF (178–214 g kg −1 ) concentrations of the three hybrid populations were consistently lower than the parental species at the vegetative stage of growth. The hybrid populations, particularly S‐9183, were lower in NDF and ADF at early stages of maturity, suggesting that they have potential as high quality forage species for grazing and hay prior to or at heading.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".