The Effects of Previous Grazing on the Subsequent Nutrient Supply of Ungulates Grazing Late-summer Mixed-Conifer Rangelands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological, societal, and political discussions abound regarding intra- and inter-specific competition for nutrients among wild and domestic ungulates grazing shared forested rangelands in summer as cascading effects of prior grazing drive subsequent grazing patterns and nutrient intake. Our objective was to determine diet quality and quantity of cattle (Bos taurus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus; deer), and elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in late-summer in response to early-summer forage utilization by cattle and elk in two consecutive years. Four 2.25 ha enclosures were constructed in previously logged mixed-conifer rangelands dominated by grand fir (Abies grandis [Douglas] Forbes.), and within each enclosure, a 0.75 ha paddock was either: 1) ungrazed, 2) grazed by cattle, or 3) grazed by elk in mid-June and mid-July at a moderate utilization level (31.9 ± 2.7%). After grazing treatments, each paddock was subdivided into three 0.25 ha sub-paddocks and sixteen 20-minute foraging bouts were conducted in each sub-paddock using elk, deer, and cattle (n = 4). Within an animal species CP in diets did not differ (p > 0.05) between ungrazed paddocks and grazed paddocks; however, diet CP and IVDMD of each species was higher (p < 0.05) on cattle grazed paddocks compared to elk grazed. Regardless of treatment, cattle diets contained lower CP, IVDMD (p < 0.05) than did deer or elk diets, and relative to elk, deer consistently selected diets which contained higher CP (p < 0.05). In response to grazing, intake rate of DM, CP, ME did not change (p > 0.05) for any of the ungulates. The study revealed that early-summer grazing by cattle or elk at a moderate utilization level has minimal effect on the subsequent nutrient intake rate of cattle, deer, and elk foraging in mixed-conifer forests.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".