MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401029027 · doi:10.3390/land13081142

Management Impacts on Non-Native Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) Control in a Native Fescue Grassland in Canada

2024· article· en· W4401029027 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debra Jean. Brown, Amalesh Dhar, M. Anne Naeth

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBromus inermisGrasslandBromusAgronomyIntroduced speciesInvasive speciesFestucaGrazingTussockAgroforestryWeed controlBiologyBotanyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Native fescue grassland degradation and reductions in plant species diversity due to smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) invasion and dominance have far ranging consequences for both human and ecological systems. A study was undertaken to reduce smooth brome which was invading foothills fescue grassland in Canada and displacing native species. Sheep and cattle grazing, mowing, glyphosate, and burning were applied to control smooth brome-dominant grasslands over three growing seasons. Defoliation (5 to 10 cm, 2 to 4 times) did not reduce smooth brome tiller density, etiolated regrowth, or total non-structural carbohydrates; however, the three heaviest defoliation treatments (sheep 3×, cattle 3×, mowing 4×) reduced smooth brome composition by year 3. Repeated glyphosate wicking (1× year 1, 2× year 2) was the most effective treatment and reduced smooth brome tiller density by 50% by year 3. Early-spring burning, as smooth brome began to grow, stressed the plants and reduced tiller density. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), the subdominant species, increased in all treatments except the reference; thus, reducing smooth brome may result in another undesirable species becoming dominant.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207