Selected forage crops control foxtail barley and downy brome in saline soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of forage crops to out-compete foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) weeds often fails in saline soils. Ten forage treatments [alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)], Nuttall’s salt-meadow grass [Puccinellia nuttalliana (Schult.) Hitchc.], smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), the “Saltmaster” forage blend, and six wheatgrass treatments: western [Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) Löve], northern [Elymus kronokensis (Kom.) Tzvelev], tall [Thinopyrum ponticum (Podp.) Barkw. & Dewey], and green (Elymus hoffmannii Jensen & Asay) in 30 and 15 cm rows and alternating rows with slender [Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould] were compared with plots left unseeded. After three growing seasons, the smooth bromegrass, tall, and the average for the three green wheatgrass treatments, respectively, limited foxtail barley shoot growth to 4%, 2%, and 1% of the total shoot biomass at a negligibly to moderately saline site near Warner, AB; downy brome was also limited to 4%, 4%, and 2%, respectively. The three green wheatgrass treatments at the moderately to severely saline site near Alsask, SK, required twice the time to limit foxtail barley growth to 5%, 8%, and 18%, respectively, of the total. At least 95% of the foxtail barley and 98% of the downy brome were suppressed by green wheatgrass in soils averaging ≤14 dS m−1.
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".