Suppression efficacy of remotely piloted aircraft systems–based herbicide application on invasive <i>Phragmites australis</i> in wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Invasive common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. ssp. australis] has established and dominated Ontario wetlands for decades. The detrimental effects of P. australis invasions on wetland habitats have demanded intervention through aggressive suppression efforts. However, constraints in available control methods to suppress P. australis have led to persistent invasions. To improve P. australis management in wetlands, we investigated remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) as a precision tool for herbicide application. We applied an imazapyr-based herbicide (240 g ai L−1) with a spray-equipped RPAS at selected test sites, marking the first-ever application of its kind in Canada. We then (1) evaluated the efficacy of RPAS-based herbicide application to P. australis and (2) examined the plant community changes 1 yr after the initial herbicide application. We found a >99% reduction in live P. australis stems, along with reductions in species richness (33%), Shannon-Weiner diversity (73%), Simpson’s reciprocal diversity (50%), and Pielou’s evenness (73%) in the year following herbicide application. Plant community changes varied by field site; one wetland underwent a secondary invasion by European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) while the other was dominated by the native spotted jewelweed (Impatiens capensis Meerb.), highlighting the complexities of plant community succession following herbicide application in biodiverse wetlands.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".