MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385333835 · doi:10.1002/csc2.21069

Grazing intensity effects on sward responses of UF Riata Bahiagrass

2023· article· en· W4385333835 on OpenAlexaff
Erick R. S. Santos, José Carlos Batista Dubeux, Lynn E. Sollenberger, Cheryl Mackowiak, Carlos García, Gleise M Silva, Michelle Christina Bernardo de Siqueira, David M. Jaramillo, Flávia de Oliveira Scarpino van Cleef, Luana Q. S. D. Zagato, Daciele S. Abreu, Nicolás DiLorenzo

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFlorida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
KeywordsGrazingPaspalum notatumForageBiologyAgronomyDry matterPerennial plantRhizomeGrowing seasonPastureAnimal scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum Flüggé) is a rhizomatous, perennial, warm‐season forage widely grown in the southeastern United States "UF Riata" bahiagrass is more upright growing with greater herbage production when days are shorter compared with most other cultivars. Lesser daylength sensitivity extends the grazing season, but in combination with more upright growth may negatively affect persistence under grazing, especially if out‐of‐season herbage production interferes with normal reserve storage. This 3‐year study investigated above and belowground sward responses of UF Riata bahiagrass to three levels of post‐grazing herbage mass (HM) (500 [heavy grazing, HG], 1500 [moderate grazing], or 2500 [light grazing, LG] kg DM ha −1 , where DM is dry matter) imposed by mob stocking every 14 days. Total herbage accumulation (HA) and HA rate were not affected by treatment. Crude protein (CP) was affected by treatment × grazing cycle × year, whereas in vitro digestible organic matter concentrations were affected by treatment × year and grazing cycle × year. Root–rhizome biomass (12,940–9230 kg OM ha −1 , where OM is organic matter) and soil cover percentage (97%–93%) decreased linearly as grazing intensity increased from LG to HG. Proportion of non‐planted grasses was 34% and 17% in HG and LG swards, respectively. Proportion of non‐grass weeds increased across treatments from 2% to 22% over the years. Moderate grazing could maintain similar CP to HG, and similar root–rhizome biomass to LG. Thus, considering both sward persistence and forage nutritive value, a target post‐grazing HM of ≈1500 kg DM ha −1 is recommended when UF Riata pastures are grazed every 2 weeks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207