MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243511719 · doi:10.5539/jas.v13n8p54

Comparison of Soil Biological Properties and Bacterial Diversity in Sugarcane, Soybean, Mung Bean and Peanut Intercropping Systems

2021· article· en· W4243511719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shangdong Yang, Jian Xiao, Ziyue Huang, Renliu Qin, Weizhong He, Limin Liu, Hongjian Liu, Ao‐Mei Li, Hongwei Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIntercroppingMonocultureAgronomyArachis hypogaeaVignaBiologySoil fertilityRadiataSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sugarcane intercropping with soybean [Glycine max (Linn.) Merr.], mung bean [Vigna radiata (Linn.) Wilczek] and peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn.) as well as a sugarcane monoculture were conducted to study the impacts of intercropping on soil biological characteristics and bacterial diversity. The results showed that soil cultivable microorganisms, the activities of soil enzymes and microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus were all significantly improved by intercropping with soybean and mung bean. Additionally, soil bacterial diversity and richness in sugarcane fields were also significantly enhanced by intercropping with soybean and mung bean. In addition, soil bacterial community structures in sugarcane fields can be altered by intercropping with different legumes. Proteobacteria, a high-nutrient-tolerant bacterial assemblage, became the dominant bacteria in the sugarcane-soybean and sugarcane-mung bean intercropped soils. Twenty four, 28, 26 and 27 dominant soil bacterial genera were found after the sugarcane-soybean, sugarcane-mung bean, sugarcane-peanut and sugarcane monoculture treatments, respectively. Sugarcane-mung bean intercropping being the most promising system for regaining and improving soil fertility and soil heath and facilitate agriculture intensification of sugarcane.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207