Nutritive Value of Field Bindweed (<i>Convolvulus arvensis</i>) Roots as a Potential Livestock Feed and the Effect of <i>Aceria malherbae</i> on Root Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop producers might be able to better manage field bindweed, an aggressive perennial weed, by utilizing tillage to bring roots to the surface where they can be consumed by ruminant livestock. The objectives of this study were to provide first perspectives on forage nutritive value of field bindweed roots and to determine root chemistry responses to Aceria malherbae, an eriophyid mite that has been released for field bindweed biocontrol in the western United States and Canada. To accomplish these objectives, root systems were sampled from A. malherbae-infested and noninfested plants occurring in an agricultural field in eastern New Mexico. Sampling took place during autumn and spring of each year for 3 consecutive yr. Results indicated that A. malherbae reduced taproot diameter and increased root concentrations of Ca, P, and Mg. However, A. malherbae did not affect root concentrations of acid detergent fiber, nonfiber carbohydrates, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), crude protein (CP), and total digestible nutrients (TDN). Overall means for NDF (33.8%), CP (11.6%), and TDN (72.1%) were similar to those reported for forages commonly grown in the region, suggesting that field bindweed roots might positively contribute to nutritional programs of ruminant livestock. These results justify subsequent studies on livestock responses to field bindweed roots and field bindweed responses to targeted root grazing.
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".