Planting methods influence revegetation success of native species in an arid environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Kuwait, declining native vegetation cover due to prevailing arid conditions and severe anthropogenic disturbances necessitated undertaking revegetation programs. Seed sowing and outplanting of nursery-grown seedlings are the two major plant establishment methods commonly used all around the world. However, the success of plant establishment methods may vary between the species as well as between the methods. Therefore, we compared the effect of sowing of primed or non-primed seeds and outplanting of nursery-grown seedlings on field performance of four dominant native desert species of Kuwait: Vachellia pachyceras, Rhanterium epapposum, Farsetia aegyptia, and Haloxylon salicornicum for 22 months to find the best method for revegetation in arid conditions. A significant species and treatment interaction effect was observed in all plant parameters except plot volume index. Direct sowing of hydro-primed seeds appeared to be the most effective method for establishment and growth of V. pachyceras. In contrast, outplanting of nursery-grown seedlings showed better performance under the field conditions in H. salicornicum and F. aegyptia. These results suggest that direct sowing of primed seeds can also be used effectively along with seedling outplanting for the revegetation of arid lands.
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".