Glyphosate, steam and cutting for non‐native plant control in Alberta fescue grassland restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question What are the effects of cutting, glyphosate application and steam application on abundance and diversity of non‐native grasses and forbs and non‐target native grasses and forbs in restoration of a complex disturbed fescue grassland? Location Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, Canada. Methods Cutting, glyphosate application and steam application treatments were implemented at three disturbed sites in an incomplete block design with a control. Plant communities were evaluated for four growing seasons, one before and three after management treatment implementation. Results Glyphosate reduced non‐native grass cover for three growing seasons following application and non‐native forbs for one growing season. Glyphosate led to significant increases in non‐native forb cover, more than double pre‐existing values 2 and 3 yr after application. Native species abundance and diversity were more negatively impacted by glyphosate on sites with higher abundance and diversity prior to management treatments. Low frequency cutting over 2 yr did not consistently control non‐native species, steam reduced non‐native grass cover at the most heavily invaded site. Conclusions Site‐specific conditions must be considered to develop effective control methods for non‐native species. No treatment effectively re‐established native grassland communities. Glyphosate application reduced non‐native grasses, but not non‐native forbs. When native forbs were abundant prior to management, glyphosate reduced them. Steam may have potential and should be further investigated. This is one of only a few studies to investigate methods to manage multiple non‐native species occurring with native species, rather than management of a single undesirable species, and is the first to assess steam as a management option for native grasslands.
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".