Seeding season and mowing affect native plant community development on reclaimed aspen parkland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use intensification and rising production inputs continue to negatively affect many ecosystem services with significant challenges to restore these ecosystem services in the disturbed landscape. Using native species to revegetate disturbed ecosystems continues to gain momentum. An understanding of the role of seeding season and mowing in native plant community development is required to improve reclamation success. Research using 20 native grasses and forbs was conducted to determine how seeding season (fall, spring) and mowing (mowed, unmowed) influenced revegetation of grassland reclamation sites in Alberta, Canada. Species density, biovolume, richness and ground cover were assessed over two growing seasons. Density, biovolume and species richness of seeded grasses and forbs were generally higher in spring than fall seeded treatments, whereas non-seeded grasses and forbs were lower in spring seeded treatments. During the first growing season, mowing increased seeded species density and biovolume and decreased non-seeded species biovolume, with no effect on seeded species in the second growing season. Mowing and fall seeding decreased bare ground in the second growing season. The outcomes of this study suggest grasses and forbs were more successful when spring seeded versus fall seeded, and beyond the first growing season the influence of mowing was negligible.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".