Fine Root Distributions in Oilseed and Pulse Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Fine roots are of great importance in the uptake of water and nutrients from, and input of, carbon to the soil. This study determined the proportion of extra fine (<0.4‐mm diameter) to fine (0.4‐ to 2.0‐mm diameter) roots and their distribution patterns for important oilseed and pulse crops. Crops were grown in 150‐mm diameter, 1‐m long lysimeters in the field near Swift Current, SK, in 2006–2007. For oilseeds ( Brassica napus L. canola, Brassica juncea L. mustard, Linum usitatissimum L. flax), roots in the 0.0‐ to 0.2‐mm diameter class comprised about 60% of the total root length, roots in the 0.2‐ to 0.4‐mm diameter about 30%, and those in the diameter class >0.4 mm contributed a small proportion to the total. For pulses ( Cicer arietinum L. chickpea, Pisum sativum L. dry pea, and Lens culinaris Medik. lentil), the proportion of roots in the 0‐ to 0.2‐mm diameter was much smaller than that for wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), whereas the proportions of roots in the thicker (0.4 to 0.6, 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.8 to 2.0 mm) diameters were greater than those for wheat. The relative distribution patterns of extra fine and fine roots in oilseeds, pulses, and wheat may provide a guide for further study of detailed rooting systems for oilseeds and pulses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".