MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271664485 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0095

Plant species and mulch application rate affected decomposition of cover crop mulches used in organic rotational no-till systems

2016· article· en· W2271664485 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Caroline Halde, Martin H. Entz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMulchAgronomyCover cropHordeum vulgareRaphanusEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Context (archaeology)WeedBiologyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decomposition of cover crop mulches has received little attention in the scientific literature, particularly in the context of the organic rotational no-till systems adapted for the climatic conditions of the northern Great Plains of Canada. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of plant species and mulch application rate on cover crop decomposition and mulch quality parameters over time. Using the litter bag technique, six plant species and two mulch application rates were tested twice in field studies at Carman, Manitoba, Canada. Among the plant species tested, decomposition was the fastest with oilseed radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and the slowest with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). The effect of application rate on mulch biomass was not consistent between experiments. Mulches released a large amount (46.4%) of their initial N content after only 30 days of field placement, for all levels of plant species and mulch application rates combined. Forty-four percent of initial N content still remained in the mulches by early May (Day 250), and may be available for the subsequent crops seeded in the spring or later in the crop rotation. This research provides us with valuable information on nutrient release, soil cover, and potential weed control from mulches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207