Greater sage‐grouse habitat restoration with range management, revegetation, and herbicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of Greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), an iconic symbol of sagebrush ecosystems, are declining in native grasslands due to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. We conducted a field experiment in Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada, to investigate how disturbance and land management (cattle grazed, bison grazed, watered, and ungrazed) affected Greater sage‐grouse habitat and the efficacy of common restoration methods. Restoration treatments consisted of a seed mix of native forbs, grasses, and sagebrush; seeding season (fall and spring); planted sagebrush seedlings; and applications of glyphosate herbicide. Total vegetation cover, moss, and lichen cover, and species richness were greater, and litter cover was less with cattle grazing than with other management treatments. Herbicide increased native forb cover and negatively affected established sagebrush. Seeding season (fall and spring) had little effect on vegetation parameters. Establishment of native forbs and grasses by seed was mostly unsuccessful. Planting sagebrush seedlings was more effective than broadcast seeding; although, after 2 years, seedling survival was very low. There was an abundance of diverse forbs for the dietary requirements of pre‐laying hens, chicks, and juveniles with most management treatments. The proportion of litter cover played a significant role in successful vegetation establishment. All sites had key components of sage‐grouse habitat and showed potential for restoration success given some land management modifications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".