MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408531646 · doi:10.1111/avsc.70019

Nontarget Plant Community and Biomass Responses in Northern Mixed Grassland Treated With Indaziflam for Invasive Annual Brome Control

2025· article· en· W4408531646 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anabel Dombro, Lisa L. Raatz, Edward W. Bork

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Vegetation Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersRangeland Research Institute, University of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsGrasslandBiomass (ecology)Plant communityInvasive speciesEnvironmental scienceAgronomyAgroforestryBiologyEcologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Aims To understand how northern temperate grassland vegetation responds to indaziflam herbicide treatment used to control invasive annual bromegrass, we studied the initial and longer‐term effects of indaziflam on plant species composition, richness, diversity, and biomass. We additionally assessed the influence of indaziflam on the recruitment of perennial grasses and forbs from the seedbank, and root and shoot biomass of young perennial grass plants. Location Dry Mixed Grassland of Alberta, Canada. Methods Plant biomass and cover composition were monitored over 4 years after indaziflam application in fall and spring at concentrations of 0, 37.5, 75, and 150 g ai ha −1 across two field sites, with four replication blocks for each concentration. Seedling emergence was assessed in the greenhouse using soil cores from fall plots two seasons after treatment. Root and shoot biomass of greenhouse‐cultivated perennial grasses treated with indaziflam at 2 months age were quantified 2 months later. Results Indaziflam did not affect the cover, richness, or diversity of non‐brome plant species until the fourth year after treatment. In the fourth year, indaziflam reduced plant richness and diversity and affected the cover of the three most abundant grasses but not the cover of the three most abundant forbs. Total shoot biomass decreased in the second year, increased in the third, and stabilized by the fourth year following indaziflam treatment. Perennial grass biomass either increased or remained the same but did not decline under any indaziflam treatment in any year. Forb biomass was not affected. In the greenhouse, indaziflam‐treated soil had reduced seedling emergence of forbs but not perennial grasses, and indaziflam applied at 2 months of age reduced root and shoot biomass of four‐month‐old perennial grasses. Conclusions Our study provides an improved understanding of how indaziflam affects nontarget plant community composition and biomass within northern mixed grasslands where native vegetation is relatively intact but under increasing risk of invasion by annual bromegrasses. Land managers considering indaziflam application will have to weigh small reductions in diversity and subtle changes in perennial grass composition against the beneficial control of annual brome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Vegetation ScienceSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207