Genetic Variances in Crested Wheatgrass - Alfalfa Mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since it was first successfully introduced into North America from Eurasia in 1906 (Dillman 1946), crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertner, A. desertorum (Fish. ex Link) Schultes, and A.fragile (Roth) Candargy] has had more impact on revegetation of western rangelands in North America than any other grass. Much of the early crested wheatgrass seedings were made as monocultures ; however, the multiple demands now made on rangelands dictate that other grass, shrub, and forb species be included in the seeding mix. The advantages of grass-legume mixtures in terms of improved forage quality and productivity are well documented (Trenbath, 1974). Significant amounts of nitrogen are transferred from the legume to the grass component in the mixture (Brophy et al. 1984), and this can have significant economic impact as the availability of fossil fuels become more critical. Leyshorn et al. (1981) studied mixtures of grass and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. subsp x varia) in semiarid environments of Saskatchewan, Canada. Alfalfa plus crested wheatgrass and alfalfa plus Russian wildrye [Psathyrostachys juncea (Fisch.) Nevski] produced significantly more forage than either crested wheatgrass or Russian wildrye alone. The advantages of alfalfa in crested wheatgrass stands also were demonstrated by Rogler and Lorenz (1969). Alfalfa-crested wheatgrass mixtures were more productive than pure stands of crested wheatgrass, due not only to the productivity of the additional alfalfa but the increased vigor of the grass component as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".