<i>In situ</i>Turfgrass Establishment: I. Responses to Arbuscular Mycorrhizae and Fertilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-year field study was conducted to evaluate the impact of fertilization and arbuscular mycorrhizae on the in situ establishment of turfgrasses in low and high phosphorus content experimental sites. Organic or chemical fertilizers were applied on Kentucky Blue-grass and Creeping Bentgrass plots inoculated with either Glomus mosseae, G. aggregatum or G. intraradices. The arbuscular mycorrhizal control was made from original soils with their respective indigenous fungal populations. Soil surveys for indigenous Glomales populations revealed the predominance of Gigaspora margarita and Scutellospora calospora species at the high and low P sites, respectively. Both turfgrass species showed higher root colonization levels, up to 60%, at the low phosphorus soil site. Root colonization levels of Creeping Bentgrass were found to be almost twice those of Kentucky Bluegrass for all mycorrhizal treatments. The average growth rates of aerial parts were not affected by either mycorrhizal or fertilization treatments. Statistical analyses showed a significant interaction (P ≤ 0.05) between high and low phosphorus sites for Creeping Bentgrass, and root colonization levels, especially with G. intraradices treatment. For both turfgrass species, fertilization and site effects were predominant. As turfgrass is highly dependent on soil quality and as arbuscular mycorrhizal benefits vary with plant species, special care in the development of turfgrass management practices should be taken into account to optimize the arbuscular mycorrhizal turfgrass establishment process.
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".