Nutritional Dynamics of Plant Growth Forms in a Forest-Grassland Mosaic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the influence of plant community type, forest stand age, and season on the forage quality of plant growth forms in a forest-grassland mosaic. We determined the forage quality of plant growth forms (graminoids, forbs, and shrubs) at 64 sites in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, over four dates between May and September over two years. Samples were analyzed for crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Sites were classified according to climax vegetation and grouped as either forested (ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa ; Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii ; grand fir, Abies grandis ) or non-forested (meadow or grassland). Forested sites were also categorized as “young” or “old” based on mean diameter at breast height of less than or greater than 37.5 cm, respectively. Graminoid and forb CP in early May were 3.5 and 2.5 points greater in the grand fir community type than the other forested types ( P ≤ 0.01) and were 2.7 and 4.9 points greater in the meadow type than the grassland type ( P ≤ 0.04). In mid-September, graminoid CP was similar between all community types ( P ≥ 0.78). In early May, forb ADF and NDF were similar between all community types ( P ≥ 0.18). In mid-September, forb ADF was 10.7 points lower in the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir types than in all other community types ( P ≤ 0.02). Forb ADF and NDF were greater in young stands than in old stands ( P < 0.01). Furthermore, forb ADF was 11.4 points greater in the young grand fir community type than all other forested types ( P < 0.01). Our study characterizes forage quality across the growing season in diverse vegetation types and, in turn, can be applied to wildlife and livestock management to predict and manage animal landscape distribution.
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".