Competition Indices Identify Forb Species That Promote Overyielding of a Dominant Grass in Grassland Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overyielding is a common phenomenon. Overyielding of dominant grasses when in competition with common forbs during grassland restoration could lead to lower plant diversity. My objective was to characterize overyielding of Andropogon gerardii in competition with fcommon forbs. I collected soils representing different stages of restoration (0, 4, and 16 years restored) and conducted a pairwise competition experiment with a dominant grass, Andropogon gerardii, in competition with four subordinate forbs (Oligoneuron rigidum L., Liatris punctata Hook, Lespedeza capitata Michx., or Desmanthus illinoensis Michx.). Relative yield indices (RY) were calculated by comparison with a two-individual monoculture of A. gerardii with both per grass biomass and per grass net absolute tiller appearance rate (TAR). Overyielding of A. gerardii was in competition with Oligoneuron rigidum was indicated by RY values (greater than1) using both biomass and TAR measurements. These findings suggest that O. rigidum should be given low priority for inclusion in tallgrass prairie restoration seed mixes.
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".