Alfalfa Root Carbohydrates and Regrowth Potential in Response to Fall Harvests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adverse effect of harvesting alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) during a critical fall rest period on the persistence and the following spring regrowth has been historically attributed to a reduction in the levels of root organic reserves, especially total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC). Recent reports also pointed out the role of specific carbon (C) reserve components in winter survival. This study assessed the effect of the timing of a fall harvest on the regrowth potential in relation to quantitative changes in C reserves in alfalfa roots during fall and winter. The experiment was conducted under simulated winter conditions in an unheated greenhouse with two alfalfa cultivars (AC Caribou and WL 225) subjected to four fall harvest treatments: two summer harvests (control) and a third harvest taken in the fall at 400, 500, or 600 growing degree days (GDD) after the second harvest. Shoot regrowth was reduced by a fall harvest, especially when plants were harvested at 400 or 500 GDD. Root soluble sugar concentrations (sucrose, raffinose, and stachyose) measured during the overwintering period were higher in plants harvested in the fall than in those harvested only twice; these concentrations were also higher in the more hardy cultivar AC Caribou compared with WL 225. A fall harvest did not consistently affect root TNC concentrations, but decreased markedly the total amount of TNC in roots, especially in plants harvested at 400 GDD. In both cultivars, shoot regrowth in spring was correlated positively to the total amounts of root starch (r = 0.54 and 0.61) and TNC (r = 0.55 and 0.56), but not correlated to their concentrations. Our results suggest that the total amount of C organic reserves in alfalfa roots rather than their concentrations can be determinant factors of shoot regrowth.
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 | 0.000 | 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".