Effects of clipping frequency on tiller development of crested wheatgrass and hybrid bromegrass at vegetative and reproductive stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on the tiller development of hybrid bromegrass (Bromus inermis × Bromus riparius) is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of clipping frequency at the vegetative and reproductive stages on the tiller development and concentrations of sugars of c.v ‘AC Knowles’ hybrid bromegrass compared with c.v ‘Kirk’ crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L.). This experiment was conducted in a greenhouse using the tillers of the vernalized plants dug from the field. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Grasses were clipped once or four times at either vegetative or reproductive stage. Regardless of the growth stage, four clippings reduced the tiller number of hybrid bromegrass by 25.9% compared with the undefoliated control, while single clipping had no impact. The four clippings had no impact on the tiller number of crested wheatgrass, while single clipping increased its tiller number on average by 50.4% at both growth stages. Crested wheatgrass produced 16.6% more tillers than hybrid bromegrass under the single clipping. The two grass species had a similar number of axillary buds under different clipping treatments. The axillary bud size of crested wheatgrass was larger than hybrid bromegrass. All axillary buds were viable under the two clipping treatments for both grasses. Four clippings significantly decreased the stem base glucose concentration of the two grasses and the root sucrose concentration of crested wheatgrass. Hybrid bromegrass was less tolerant to frequent clippings than crested wheatgrass. Therefore, intensive grazing of hybrid bromegrass pasture may result in a thin stand.
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".