Effects of lily/maize intercropping on rhizosphere microbial community and yield of <i>Lilium davidii</i> var. <i>unicolor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous cropping of lily (Lilium davidii var. unicolor) or any other crop seriously affects yield and quality. In this study, we compared continuous cropping with lily/maize intercropping. We also examined the lily rhizosphere microbes community in both sole lily cropping and lily/maize intercropping systems, by the llumina Miseq platform. Here we refer to data of recent years field experimentation of a lily/maize intercrop system in different planting configurations in the Gaolan Ecological and Agricultural Research Station. Treatments included sole crops of lily and maize, an intercrop consisting of strips of four lily rows alternating with one maize rows. The land equivalent ratio (LER) of intercrops was 1.294. The results showed that compared to sole cropping, the yield of lily in the first year of planting increased when lily was intercropped with maize. The species annotation of the high-throughput sequencing experiment showed that there was no difference in the diversity of the lily rhizosphere soil microbes on phylum taxonomic level, but the relative abundance of some genus changed obviously. The relative abundance of harmful fungus Fusarium spp. and, Funneliformis spp., decreased, and the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria Sphingomonas spp. and, Nitrospira spp., increased. In addition, we found that Lecanicillium spp., appeared only in the intercropping lily rhizosphere soil and sole cropping maize rhizosphere soil. In conclusion, the findings indicated that lily/maize intercropping could change soil microenvironment, and affect the diversity and structure of microorganism community in lily rhizosphere, with further beneficial effect on the yield of lily.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".