The Vertical Distribution Pattern of Alfalfa's(Medicago sativa L.) Root Biomass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide the evidences for further research of alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.),the substantial studies of alfalfa root biomass in China,the United States and Canada were summarized.The vertical distribution pattern of alfalfa root biomass and its dominant factors in different natural regions were discussed.Factors included the depth of soil layer,underground water level,soil properties,fertilization,irrigation,cutting,mixture sowing,cultivar,and growth period.The distribution of alfalfa root biomass in topsoil was increased as the depth of soil layer lessened and the level of underground water increased,or soil conditions became worse.Fertilization,especially phosphate fertilizer increased the distribution in submerged soil.Different irrigation amount,frequency and pattern had the complex effect on vertical distribution of alfalfa root biomass.Less single irrigation amounts and higher irrigation frequency increased the distribution of alfalfa root biomass in topsoil.Higher cutting frequency decreased the distribution in submerged soil.Mixture sowing with graminous plants increased the distribution of alfalfa root biomass in topsoil.Alfalfa cultivars have different vertical distribution patterns of root biomass.The soil layer of vertical distribution became deeper as the plants grew.Alfalfa root biomass decreased exponentially with soil depth increasing.Under normal conditions,the distribution ratios of alfalfa root biomass in the 0~30 cm depth were about 60% to 90%,and in the 0~60 cm depth were about 65% to 95%.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".