MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055242241

Composition and structure of fescue prairie respond to burning and environmental conditions more than to grazing or burning plus grazing in the short-term

2009· article· en· W7055242241 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingGraminoidSpecies richnessGrasslandShrubStanding cropForbBromus inermisTiller (botany)Conservation grazing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burning and grazing are key processes in the natural disturbance regime of the Fescue Prairie. Burning, grazing and their interacting effects on plant species diversity (Hʼ), species richness, and heterogeneity in species composition were studied at two spatial scales for two years in a remnant Fescue Prairie near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Cattle distribution in relation to plant communities was also studied. At the plot scale (100 m²), burning increased Hʼ (P<0.01) on species richness; richness varied between years (P=0.04), averaging 14.2 species m⁻² in year one versus 15.8 species m⁻² in year two (S.E.±0.65). Spatial heterogeneity (P>0.25; x=46%; S.E.±3.0) and temporal heterogeneity in species composition (P>0.21; x=42%; S.E.±3.8) were not affected by burning, grazing, or their interaction. Burning + grazing increased tiller densities in Elymus lanceolatus (68%) and those of Festuca hallii (11%) (P<0.001) compared to the control. Burning decreased total
\naboveground net primary production (ANPP) (P<0.001) (x=305 g m⁻²) compared to unburned treatments (x=500 g m⁻²; S.E.±30.8). Grazing and burning + grazing had no effect on total ANPP or graminoid ANPP (P≥0.36). At the scale of Kernen Prairie (130 ha), H' increased between 1996 (P<0.05) (x=1.10) and 2005 (x =1.40; S.E.±0.094). Species richness increased from 5.2 species 0.25 m⁻² in 1996, to 6.8 species 0.25 m⁻² in 2005 (S.E.±0.505). Heterogeneity in plant species composition tended to increase after prescribed burning was started in 1986 and
\nafter grazing began in 2006. Cattle preferred Bromus inermis- and Poa pratensis-dominated
\nplant communities, areas with intermediate amounts of total aboveground standing crop of
\nplants, and areas in which shrub densities exceeded 16 stems 0.25 m⁻². In the short term, burning
\nand environmental conditions had greater effects on species diversity, richness, and heterogeneity in species composition than grazing or the interaction of burning and grazing. Different responses may be expected with different combinations of timing, frequency, and intensity of burning and grazing at different sites under ever changing environmental conditions.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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