Vegetation‐related influences on carbon and water dynamics of two temperate forage crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Improving understanding of how water use efficiency (WUE), evapotranspiration (ET), and gross primary productivity (GPP) (CO2 exchange) vary across agricultural systems can help farmers better prepare for an uncertain future due to climate change by assessing water requirements for a crop as a function of current environmental conditions. This study: (a) quantified field‐scale plant–water–carbon dynamics for silage maize (Zea mays L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) crops – two dominant forage crops in southern Ontario, Canada; and (b) identified differences in plant carbon–water dynamics between these two crops, relating these differences to vegetation‐driven ecosystem controls. Climate and soil properties were similar between the two study sites, and water availability was not limiting, suggesting that the overall temporal differences in carbon–water relations were driven by vegetation differences, mainly crop choice and management practices. Alfalfa had greater seasonal GPP, ET, and WUE than maize, due to a longer growing season. Differences in daily WUE between maize and alfalfa were driven by differences in GPP rather than ET. Multiple harvests reduced leaf‐aging effects and promoted periods of rapid growth in alfalfa. In contrast, late seedling emergence and self‐shading reduced GPP in maize. Under a warmer future climate, crop selection (i.e., perennial vs. annual), harvest regimes, and changes in growing season length should be considered when trying to manage for increased WUE. However, longer duration studies to validate these results are required to better address the impacts of climatic variability—especially antecedent conditions—to better inform future crop choices within a climate change context.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".