Does Elevated [CO2] Only Increase Root Growth in the Topsoil? A FACE Study with Lentil in a Semi-Arid Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2] are increasing steadily. Some reports have shown that root growth in grain crops is mostly stimulated in the topsoil rather than evenly throughout the soil profile by e[CO2], which is not optimal for crops grown in semi-arid environments with strong reliance on stored water. An experiment was conducted during the 2014 and 2015 growing seasons with two lentil (Lens culinaris) genotypes grown under Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) in which root growth was observed non-destructively with mini-rhizotrons approximately every 2–3 weeks. Root growth was not always statistically increased by e[CO2] and not consistently between depths and genotypes. In 2014, root growth in the top 15 cm of the soil profile (topsoil) was indeed increased by e[CO2], but increases at lower depths (30–45 cm) later in the season were greater than in the topsoil. In 2015, e[CO2] only increased root length in the topsoil for one genotype, potentially reflecting the lack of plant available soil water between 30–60 cm until recharged by irrigation during grain filling. Our limited data to compare responses to e[CO2] showed that root length increases in the topsoil were correlated with a lower yield response to e[CO2]. The increase in yield response was rather correlated with increases in root growth below 30 cm depth.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".