The biomass and nutrient levels of <i>Calamagrostis canadensis</i> and <i>Carex stricta </i>under different hydrologic and fungicide regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether fungicide and the subsequent reduction of soilborne pathogenic fungi would differentially enhance the productivity and foliar nutrient content of two coexisting species, Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. and Carex stricta Lam. This was tested under hydrologic regimes that simulated those in prairie wetlands and included a 32-d cycle (flooded 16 d, dry 16 d), 6-d cycle (flooded 3 d, dry 3 d), flooded, well-watered, and dry hydroperiods. Calamagrostis canadensis biomass increased 26%45% in the wet hydroperiods (6-d cycle, well watered, and flooded) when fungicide was applied but remained fairly constant over all hydroperiods in nonfungicide treatments. Calamagrostis canadensis grown in the wet hydroperiods without fungicide produced the same biomass and growth rates as plants treated with fungicide in the dry hydrologic regime, suggesting that pathogenic fungi in wet hydrologic regimes have the same effect as major environmental stresses such as drought. In contrast, the biomass and growth rate of Carex stricta generally did not vary significantly with fungicide treatment. The only exception was in the rapidly alternating hydroperiod (6-d cycle), where Carex stricta treated with fungicide produced 48% more biomass and grew 46% faster than plants not treated with fungicide. Mean concentrations of foliar phosphorus generally were not significantly different between the fungicide and nonfungicide treatments for either plant species, while foliar nitrogen concentrations were higher in both species when treated with fungicide in the 32-d cycle, dry, and well-watered hydroperiods. The effect of fungicide on the biomass and foliar nutrients of these two co-occurring plant species depended on the species and the hydrologic regime, and our results suggest that seasonal and interannual changes in hydrologic regimes may confer a temporary advantage to one species or the other that, over the long term, allow them to coexist.Key words: benomyl fungicide, foliar nitrogen, foliar phosphorus, hydroperiod, marsh reed grass, wetland.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".