MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281391187 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14181

Limited impacts of adaptive multi‐paddock grazing systems on plant diversity in the Northern Great Plains

2022· article· en· W4281391187 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Grenke, Edward W. Bork, Cameron N. Carlyle, Mark S. Boyce, James F. Cahill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsGrazingBiodiversityGrasslandPlant communityEcologyConservation grazingLivestockHabitatForageSpecies diversityPlant diversityStockingAgronomyAgroforestryGeographyEnvironmental scienceSpecies richnessBiologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grassland plant community structure and function are dependent on the type, timing, frequency and intensity of disturbance. Grazing systems employing dense herds of livestock for short periods of time (e.g. Adaptive Multi‐paddock Grazing; AMP) are gaining popularity as a potentially sustainable practice. Effects of AMP systems on plant diversity and composition are unknown, though theory provides some expectations. Spatially homogeneous grazing used by AMP may be a uniform ecological filter, thereby lowering plant diversity; alternatively, the AMP practice of using multiple paddocks might enhance habitat heterogeneity. Maintaining plant diversity, particularly of native species, is a key aspect of sustainability. As such, an understanding of the real‐world effects of AMP grazing is needed. We studied grasslands within 18 pairs of ranches across the northern Great Plains. Ranches managed under AMP were paired with a neighbouring ranch (N‐AMP) using regionally representative grazing practices. We collected surveys of management practices and conducted 2 years of on‐farm sampling to identify plant composition and diversity. Ranch management practices used by self‐identified AMP ranchers differed significantly (p < 0.1) from those used on neighbouring ranches, with higher stocking densities (number of animals per area at a single time) but not stocking rates (total number of animals per unit time per area) on AMP relative to N‐AMP ranches. There were fewer plant species in AMP grasslands at both the plot and landscape scales compared to N‐AMP ranches despite no overall difference in plant community composition. Management type did not alter the variability of plant community composition (beta diversity) or plot‐level species evenness. Although there were trends for lower diversity of native and introduced species at both spatial scales, a significant effect was found only for native species at the landscape scale. Synthesis and applications. The impacts of AMP grazing system management were limited to a minor reduction in plant diversity, with a modest decline in native species richness. We conclude that the benefits of AMP grazing in the northern Great Plains do not include the maintenance of plant diversity, and this system could hinder the conservation of remaining native plant species.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207