Early season soil microbiome best predicts wheat grain quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that it is possible to accurately predict wheat grain quality and yields using microbial indicators. However, it is uncertain what the best timing for sampling is. For optimal usefulness of this modeling approach, microbial indicators from samples taken early in the season should have the best predictive power. Here, we sampled a field every two weeks across a single growing season and measured a wide array of microbial parameters (amplicon sequencing, abundance of N-cycle related functional genes, and microbial carbon usage) to find the moment when the microbial predictive power for wheat grain baking quality is highest. We found that the highest predictive power for wheat grain quality was for microbial data derived from samples taken early in the season (May-June), which coincides roughly with the seedling and tillering growth stages, that are important for wheat N nutrition. Our models based on LASSO regression also highlighted a set of microbial parameters highly coherent with our previous surveys, including alpha- and beta-diversity indices and N-cycle genes. Taken together, our results suggest that measuring microbial parameters early in the wheat growing season could help farmers better predict wheat grain quality.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".