Effect of repetitive mowing on common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) pollen and seed production.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L (common ragweed) is a familiar roadside weed in southern Québec (Canada) that produces large amounts of airborne pollen responsible for multiple rhino-conjunctivitis (hay fever) cases. As roadside weeds are increasingly controlled by mowing alone, the effect of a mowing treatment on pollen production was evaluated. Ambrosia artemisiifolia plants were grown in a greenhouse at 4 densities (1, 3, 6 and 12 plants per 314 cm(2) pot) and either left intact or mowed (10 cm from the ground) when the plants reached 25 cm in height, i.e. twice during the life cycle of this annual plant. Pollen production per male inflorescence was collected in open-top bags and counted. Inflorescence mass, length, location on the plant and date of anthesis onset was noted. Above-ground plant biomass and seed production was also evaluated. Mowed plants produced less pollen per unit of inflorescence length than intact plants. Pollen production per plant was reduced by a factor of 8.84 by the double mowing treatment, while viable seed production per plant was reduced by a factor of 4.66, irrespective of density. Mowing twice has the potential to reduce airborne pollen loads but Ambrosia artemisiifolia seed banks are unlikely to be depleted by this management strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".