Root recovery and elemental composition in a perennial grass as affected by soaking conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Roots of perennial grasses, with their fibrous architecture, are difficult to separate from the surrounding soil. We assessed the effect of five soaking solutions (sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, disodium ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid [disodium EDTA], distilled water, and sodium hexametaphosphate) and three soaking durations (15 min, 2 h, and 16 h) on root recovery and root elemental composition, with and without a mathematical correction for residual soil adhering to roots. Roots were collected by soil coring in a timothy ( Phleum pratense L.) sward on a loam soil. After soaking, roots were washed, digitized, and analyzed for elemental composition. Soaking duration did not affect root mass and length, but the 16‐h duration resulted in the lowest ash concentration (136.7 vs. 146.4 g kg –1 dry matter [DM] on average across shorter durations), indicating a lower contamination by soil. The greatest root recovery was obtained with sodium bicarbonate (0.118 vs. 0.101 g DM core –1 on average across other solutions). Sodium hexametaphosphate led to the lowest root ash and element concentrations but left a P residue on the roots. Distilled water did not impair root cell integrity and led to a similar root recovery as sodium chloride, disodium EDTA, and sodium hexametaphosphate. A mathematical correction improved the estimates of (a) root mass for all soaking solutions and (b) root elemental composition for elements with higher concentrations in soils than in roots. Soaking solutions should be chosen as a function of the study objectives because of the trade‐off between root recovery and contamination by adhering soil.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".