Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian prairies are home to a diverse range of native flowering plants and grasses that support a wide variety of birds, insects, soil microbes, and other wildlife. Although most prairie plants propagate easily from seeds, challenges such as low seed production and complex seed dormancy mechanisms could result in poor seed germination and plant establishment in the field. These issues could be overcome by propagating plants by asexual methods. The present study compares the sexual and asexual methods of propagation of prairie native plant species. Fourteen native plant species commonly found in southwestern Manitoba, Canada—curlycup gumweed, western pearly everlasting, yarrow, white sagebrush, Maximilian sunflower, Missouri goldenrod, bluebell bellflower, wild cucumber, white prairie clover, Canadian milkvetch, blue giant hyssop, wild bergamot, blue vervain, and northern bed-straw—were propagated from seeds, stem cuttings, and root suckers. Although all methods lead to the successful propagation of tested native plant species, multiplication with stem cuttings had clear advantages over the other 2 propagation methods. Propagation with stem cuttings was effective, faster, less time consuming, and led to uniform and early flowering plants in the field while also overcoming issues of low seed availability, dormancy, and seasonality associated with seed propagation of prairie native plant species. Root suckers also rooted well in the greenhouse, but rooting took a significantly longer time than did stem cuttings. Additionally, the root suckers were available for collection only in a short time frame during early spring in Manitoba.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".