{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0273972602739726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0334855403348554, 'mean_word_length': 5.092592592592593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disturbance—Not Protection—May Benefit Culture of California-poppy (Eschscholzia californica var. peninsularis Greene)1


Amount of bare ground decreased in a stubble field near Madera, California between 1971 and 1973, but density of California-poppy was unchanged. Continuation of a harsh microclimate through a lack of mulch build up is offered as an explanation. More poppy plants flowered in 1971 and 1973 than in 1972. There were visible differences in size and appearance of poppy plants (related to weather and competition) over the 3-year period. Our results suggest that protecting California-poppy may be the wrong approach to saving the species.