Economic Analysis of Two Mechanical Treatments to Reduce Clubmoss Infestation in Saskatchewan Rangeland, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to complete an economic analysis of pitting and chisel plowing mechanical treatments that are commonly used to reduce clubmoss (Selaginella densa Rydb.) on sandy and loamy range sites in the Dry and Moist Brown Soil Zones, and the Dark Brown Soil Zone, rangelands in the Northern Great Plains in Saskatchewan,Canada. However, economic feasibility of treatment varies and a number of factors affect the final results. This study showed that net present values for chisel plowing were negative, indicating that this treatment is not economically feasible on any range site in all soil zones at either 8% or 10% interest rate. Results for pitting suggest that it is more desirable on economic grounds than chisel plowing. Recovery of total costs of disking on a loamy range site occurred at 10 and 11 years post treatment in the Dark Brown Soil Zone, 12 and 14 years in the Moist Brown Soil Zone, and 15 and 22 years in the Dry Brown Soil Zone at discount rates of 8% and 10%, respectively. It is questionable whether beneficial effects of disking or chisel plowing on herbage production exceed 10 years. Range managers considering disking or chisel plowing to reduce clubmoss on rangeland and improving forage productivity will find the net present value, internal rate of return, and the predicted number of years to make economically prudent decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".