<i>Festuca campestris</i>density and defoliation regulate abundance of the rhizomatous grass<i>Poa pratensis</i>in a fallow field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Invasion by the rhizomatous grass Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is a global phenomenon, including into foothills rough fescue (Festuca campestris) grasslands of southwestern Alberta, Canada. In order to better understand the competitive relationships between these species, we conducted a fallow field study where rough fescue bunchgrass tussocks were transplanted at one of three planting densities (15, 30, or 45 cm spacing), and then subject to various treatments in a factorial design, including one‐time intensive summer defoliation and seeding of bluegrass into adjacent bare soil. Rough fescue plants exhibited marked intraspecific competition, as high planting densities increased tussock mortality, while decreasing plant tiller counts and relative inflorescence production, together with plant and tiller‐specific mass. However, high densities of the bunchgrass also reduced the cover and biomass of encroaching bluegrass, coincidental with reduced resource (soil moisture and light) availability in mid‐summer. Although summer defoliation increased rough fescue tiller counts, this disturbance reduced plant and tiller mass, and also increased Kentucky bluegrass. We conclude that while high densities of nondefoliated stands of rough fescue may increase resistance to bluegrass encroachment, a reduction in either fescue plant density or vigor via defoliation can increase the risk of bluegrass invasion within northern temperate grassland.
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".