Rosette Recruitment of a Rare Endemic Forb (<i>Gaura neomexicana</i>Subsp.<i>coloradensis</i>) with Canopy Removal of Associated Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gaura neomexicana subsp. coloradensis Munz (Onagraceae), (Colorado butterfly plant), a short‐lived perennial forb, became listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October 2000 because of its small global range and population size. This endemic subspecies consists of only 18 extant populations within southeastern Wyoming, southwestern Nebraska, and northeastern Colorado. Wyoming occurrences are on private land with the exception of three occurrences on F. E. Warren Air Force Base, near Cheyenne. Gaura neomexicana subsp. coloradensis may be displaced by many competitors, including Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. (Canada thistle), an invasive, noxious weed. In June 1998, three G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis populations were examined for rosette establishment in the presence of and after removal of associated species. The four study treatments removed: (1) Cirsium arvense , (2) grass and forb canopy and associated litter, (3) grass and forb canopy, litter, and C. arvense , and (4) no removal of associated plant species (control). Mature G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis plants were evaluated for height, number of leaves, and capsule production. The mature plant characteristics monitored in 1998 were not good indicators of subsequent G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis rosette densities in the following spring. Recruitment was assessed by counting new rosettes in the fall 1999. Although both G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis and the exotic C. arvense have comparable habitat, removal of C. arvense did not increase G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis vegetative growth, seed capsule production, or rosette density. Removal of other forbs, grass, and litter, however, increased G. neomexicana subsp. coloradensis rosette density in the following two years, indicating that canopy removal of associated species can enhance rosette establishment of this rare native. The accumulation of dense vegetative cover and litter associated with the absence of herbivory and fire may contribute to the decline of rare species in rich riparian habitats. Return of herbivory and fire in mesic sites to reduce standing biomass accumulations should be considered in restoring recruitment potential to rare monocarpic species.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".