MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291535233 · doi:10.2307/4003841

Clubmoss Effects on Plant Water Status and Standing Crop

2003· article· en· W2291535233 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler Colberg, J. T. Romo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Range Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsStanding cropAgronomyCropAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyBiomass (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clubmoss (Selaginella densa Rydb.), a low growing, vascular cryptogam forms carpet-like mats that cover up to 80% of the ground in the Northern Mixed Prairie. Many range managers believe clubmoss competes with grasses for water or intercepts precipitation and negatively affects plant water relations and productivity. The objective of these studies was to test the hypothesis that precipitation has greater effects on leaf xylem water potentials (Leafxwp) and plant productivity than clubmoss. Studies examined the effects of clubmoss on Leafxwp of Junegrass (Koeleria cristata Pers.) and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis [HBK.] Lag.), and productivity of forbs and graminoids by: 1) irrigating or reducing precipitation relative to natural precipitation; 2) removing clubmoss relative to clubmoss present, and; 3) irrigating with 0.0 to 25 mm of water when clubmoss was present or removed. Leafxwp of Junegrass and blue grama were unaffected by clubmoss through the growing season (P = 0.33), but Leafxwp were lowest (P or = 0.05) when precipitation was reduced relative to the control and when irrigating. Standing crop of forbs was similar in the control and clubmoss removal treatment (P = 0.22) and among precipitation treatments (P = 0.13), averaging 28 g m-2 (SE = 2.2). Graminoid standing crop was unaffected by clubmoss (P = 0.35) and was greatest (P = 0.02) when irrigated (74 g m-2), intermediate in the control (53 g m-2), and least (36 g m-2) with reduced precipitation (SE = 8.7). Clubmoss did not affect (P = 0.70) total standing crop; total standing crop declined from 102 g m-2 when irrigated to 76 g m-2 in the control, and 69 g m-2 (SE = 9.0) with reduced precipitation. Clubmoss had no influence (P = 0.06) on Leafxwp when irrigated with 0 to 25 mm of water. The decline in Leafxwp from 1 to 7 days after irrigation was the product of the interacting effects of the amount of water applied and days after irrigation (P = 0.03). More than 10 mm of irrigation water were required to impart a significant increase (P < 0.05) in Leafxwp. The hypothesis that clubmoss reduces productivity of associated plants in the Northern Mixed Prairie by increasing water stress is rejected. Similarly clubmoss does not reduce plant water stress or increase production. Precipitation amounts overshadow any effects clubmoss has on Leafxwp and plant production. Range managers in the Northern Mixed Prairie may want to consider maximizing the effectiveness of precipitation in this water-limited environment instead of focusing on reducing or attempting to eliminate clubmoss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Range ManagementSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207