Root-to-straw ratios - influence of moisture and rate of N fertilizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root/straw ratios for crops are urgently required by scientists wishing to estimate crop residue inputs to soil and for modeling C and N dynamics in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. In this paper we discuss the influence of moisture and rates of N application on such ratios for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the semi-arid region of the Canadian prairies. Under natural rainfall root/straw (nongrain aboveground material), ratios decreased with increasing rates of N, but under irrigation these ratios were generally constant. We estimated root/straw ratios for roots measured at anthesis (their maximum mass) and straw measured at maturity, under natural rainfall conditions, to be 0.36–0.58 if roots are assessed for the 0 - to 120-cm depth, 0.21–0.34 for the 0 - to 30-cm depth, and 0.15–0.26 for the 0- to 15-cm depth. Under natural rainfall, if roots are measured at maturity (as is commonly done), the corresponding ratios were 0.29–0.37, 0.15–0.21, and 0.10–0.15, for the respective depths. Under irrigation, the ratios when roots were measured at anthesis were 0.36, 0.24 and 0.19 for 0- to 120-cm, 0- to 30-cm and 0- to 15-cm rooting depths, respectively; but when roots were measured at maturity these ratios were 0.30, 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. We suggest that the values based on roots measured at anthesis provide a more accurate estimate of root C available for decomposition. We propose that the ratio used should be dependent on the depth to which changes in soil C or N are being measured. Key words: Soil organic C, roots, straw, fertilizer N, moisture
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".