Response of the mixed prairie to protection from grazing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mixed Prairie plant communities developed with the influences of fire and grazing. Available evidence suggests that removal of these disturbances could cause succession toward a more mesic type with the accumulation or litter or loss in productivity as nutrient turnover is delayed. Exclosures constructed in 1927 in a semiarid Mixed Prairie community provided an opportunity to examine the effects that protection had on vegetation and soils. Fifteen exclosures were selected for detailed examination; of these, 11 were located on Chernozemic soil and 4 on Solonetzic soil. We measured plant and soil variables both inside and outside the exclosures in a test of the hypothesis that protection from grazing will lead to a loss of production potential of the semi-arid. Mixed Prairie communities in the Northern Great Plains of southeastern Alberta. We found little evidence that 70 years of protection from large animal disturbance reduced the production potential of the plant communities. Conversely, most evidence suggested a neutral effect or an improvement as reflected in an increased cover of Pascopyrum smithii Rydb. (Löve) (P = 0.049) and increased annual net primary production (P = 0.047). The effect of protection appeared largely driven by the accumulation of litter mass that primarily benefits soil and plant indices of quality on the Chernozemic soil type. Although protection tended to reduce species diversity (P = 0.097) among native plants on the Chernozemic soil type, evenness and richness were not affected (P > 0.10). The potential effect that reduced diversity might have on reducing production stability appears more than compensated for by increased litter mass.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".