Effekte von Fruchtfolge und Bodenbearbeitung auf die Segetalflora im Ökologischen Landbau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An organic long-term field experiment with two factors has been carried out since 1998 at the experimental station Gladbacherhof, University of Giessen. Effects of 3 different farm types (with lifestock raising, stockless farming with rotational set-aside, stockless farming only cash crops) combined with 4 tillage treatments (mouldboard plough, two-layer-plough, reduced tillage depth and tillage without plough) on plants, soil and environment have been investigated. This article presents results on the coverage rate of arable wild plants (weed coverage), the range of weed species, the abundance of C. arvense (L.) Scop. (Canada thistle) and the weed phytomass during harvest time of the main crops dependent on farm type and soil tillage. It can be concluded that, compared to conventional economic weed thresholds, the weed coverage was generally relatively low and only limited ranges of species were found. Wild arable plants probably did not have any impact on yields of the cultivated plants due to intensive mechanical regulatory measures. In stockless organic farming without alfalfa-grass in the crop rotation Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. (Canada thistle) might become a problem whereas this perennial root-weed does not seem to raise a long term problem in a soil tillage system without ploughing. In all treatments the abundance of weeds like Galium aparine L. (catchweed bedstraw) and Stellaria media L. (chickweed) was high. However, none of the farm types or soil tillage systems succeeded in providing evidence of promoting rare species or encouraging biodiversity. In order to achieve this special support measures should be implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".