MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024417365 · doi:10.1139/cjss2013-019

Long-term grazing effects on rough fescue grassland soils in southern British Columbia

2014· article· en· W3024417365 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maja Kržić, Sarah F. Lamagna, Reg F. Newman, Gary E. Bradfield, Brian M. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingGrasslandEnvironmental scienceAgronomyOvergrazingFestucaBiomass (ecology)ForageSoil compactionSoil waterBiologyPoaceaeSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Krzic, M., Lamagna, S. F., Newman, R. F., Bradfield, G. and Wallace, B. M. 2014. Long-term grazing effects on rough fescue grassland soils in southern British Columbia. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 337-345. Rough fescue (Festuca campestris Rydb.) is a highly palatable forage species with little resistance to continuous grazing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of long-term cattle grazing on soil properties, above-ground biomass, and canopy cover of key grass species on rough fescue grasslands in the southern interior British Columbia. Soil and vegetation properties were determined on a total of six open grassland sites located at the Lac du Bois and Hamilton Mountain. At all sites, grazing use has decreased over time, with the heaviest grazing occurring prior to 1960. The long-term (25-75 yr) elimination of grazing on these semi-arid grasslands has led to greater above-ground biomass and canopy cover of rough fescue, as well as increased soil polysaccharides; however, no differences in total soil C, N, and aggregate stability were found between pastures with and without grazing. Both soil bulk density and mechanical resistance were greater on grazed plots compared with those without grazing, with differences being more pronounced at the Hamilton Mountain location. The current grazing regime has not allowed for the elimination of negative effects of overgrazing on soil compaction on these rough fescue grasslands, especially at the location that continued to be grazed more heavily (i.e., Hamilton Mountain). Our findings suggest that soils in these grazing-sensitive grasslands need more than 75 yr to fully recover from the impacts of overgrazing.

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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207