Factors Affecting the Presence and Persistence of Plant DNA in the Soil Environment in Corn and Soybean Rotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated factors that influence occurrence and persistence of plant DNA in the soil environment in three crop rotations. In each rotation, soil was sampled in May before planting, in July and August while crops were growing, and in October after harvest. Total DNA was recovered from soil samples taken at two different depths in the soil profile and quantified. Three target plant genes (corn CP4 epsps , corn 10-kD Zein , and soybean CP4 epsps ) also were quantified in these DNA extracts using species-specific quantitative real-time PCR assays. In general, total plant DNA content in the soil environment was greatest when the crop was growing in the field and decreased rapidly after harvest. Nevertheless, low levels of target plant DNA were often still detectable the following spring. Age of rotation did not influence target DNA quantities found in the soil environment. Data were collected for a combination of 10 location-years, which allowed for estimation of the variance components for six factors including time of sampling, year, location, crop, sampling depth, and herbicide to total and target DNA content in the soil samples. Mean target recombinant DNA content in soil was influenced most strongly by time of sampling and year (85 and 6%, respectively), whereas total soil DNA content was less dynamic and was most strongly influenced by location and year (49 and 25%, respectively). Over the duration of this study, no accumulation of transgenic plant DNA in the soil environment was observed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".