Canadian bluejoint response to heavy grazing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A disclimax stand of Canadian bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv.) was heavily grazed by cattle and horses for 4 years to weaken the grass's competition with hardwoods important as browse and cover to wildlife. Stocking at 0.084 ha AUM(-1) resulted in uniform utilization of bluejoint and maintenance of early phenology through the growing season. Etiolated bluejoint declined about 90%, but grass production increased 10 to 15%, as fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium L.), a principal herbaceous component of the stand, decreased in response to trampling. Rhizomes of heavily grazed bluejoint had lower total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) (p = 0.0127), lower weight (g cm(-1) length) (p = 0.05), and reduced biomass (g cm(-3) of soil) (p = 0.05). Shoots of grazed bluejoint maintained higher nitrogen (p = 0.0001) and higher digestibility (IVDMD) (p = 0.0017) than bluejoint that was never grazed. This enabled heavily grazed bluejoint to retain good forage quality through the entire growing season, as opposed to ungrazed bluejoint, which became poor forage at the time of flowering during early July. Following one season of rest, rhizome TNC, shoot nitrogen, and IVDMD returned to levels of never grazed bluejoint. Seedhead production, seed production, seed weights, and seed viability of rested bluejoint were about the same as in ungrazed stands. On wet sites, heavy grazing does not adequately reduce the vigor of this grass.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 it