MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term Grazing Effects on Genetic Variability in Mountain Rough Fescue

2005· article· en· W2800299735 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yong‐Bi Fu, D. J. Thompson, Walter D. Willms

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Range Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsKamloops Art GalleryAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismGrazingBiologyGenetic diversityGenetic variationPopulationGrazing pressureEcologyEcotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Festuca campestris Rydb. (mountain rough fescue) is a dominant grass species in the montane grasslands of western Canada. Little is known about the genetic diversity of this plant and the effects of long-term grazing on the genetics of populations. The amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) technique was applied to compare the genetic diversity of fescue plants at adjacent grazed and protected areas for 3 populations spread across a longitudinal range: Stavely in the foothills, Milroy in the Rocky Mountain trench, and Goose Lake on the interior plateau. Five AFLP primer pairs were used to screen the tiller samples of about 39 plants in each grazed (or ungrazed) area, and 139 polymorphic AFLP bands were scored for each individual sample. These scored bands had frequencies ranging from 0.03 to 0.98 with an average of 0.56. About 81% of the total AFLP variation resided within the populations. The Goose Lake population had the lowest level of AFLP variation, but genetically was the most distinct. Four AFLP bands were possibly associated with chromosomal segments significant for grazing resistance. Comparisons of AFLP variation between grazing and nongrazing samples revealed variable and relatively small impacts of the long-term grazing on the genetic diversity of the grazed populations. The AFLP variation of grazed samples was 1.5% lower at Goose Lake, 2.2% higher at Milroy, and not different at Stavely. If developing diverse germplasm for rangeland seedings is desired, one should sample across geographic space rather than combining materials with and without historical grazing pressure.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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