Resistance of simple plant root systems to uplift loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant root systems frequently permeate both natural and engineered soil slopes, influencing slope stability via mechanical reinforcement and soil drying. These root systems are often loaded by external forces during slope movements and when plant stems are subject to animal foraging or wind gusts. A series of physical model tests were conducted to examine how root geometries, root properties, and soil effective stress states affect the pullout capacity of simple unbranched model roots. Lengths of wood, rubber, and real roots were pulled from dry and partially saturated sand. The tests revealed the importance of the root to soil stiffness ratio during progressive failure, the mechanical properties of soil (and interfaces) at low effective stresses, the root diameter, and the tortuosity of the root material. Scaling issues due to shear banding are more important, and effective stresses under wet conditions are smaller than in conventional geotechnical practice because roots have a relatively small diameter (typically 10−4–10−1 m) and are at shallow depth (typically 0–2 m). After careful consideration of these effects, predictions were made for the pullout capacity of small root sections based on material data for willow roots (Salix viminalis) in sand.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".