Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) Root Distribution Varies with Cultivar during Early Establishment Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil type, crop management practices, annual plant growth patterns, and seasonal changes have all been shown to influence asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) roots. This study describes the changes in root growth that occur over the three establishment seasons of three asparagus cultivars. Starting one year after planting, asparagus root length density and biomass were estimated from soil cores (55 mm diam. × 0.2 m long) collected to 0.9 m at three locations adjacent to the row (0.15, 0.3, and 0.6 m from row center). Samples were collected each spring during the spear harvest period (late April to early May). Soil cores were divided into 0.15 m lengths and fleshy roots were collected for the soil, root length density determined, and dry weights measured. The year of sampling had a significant effect on root development and, as time progressed, fleshy asparagus roots grew deeper into the soil. There was no difference in fleshy root length or fresh weight between the three cultivars evaluated. However, root distribution patterns varied between the cultivars. Fleshy roots for the cultivars Atlas and Jersey Giant extended further from the crown and deeper in the soil when compared to Guelph Millennium. Results can be used to improve crop management practices and increase our understanding of the dynamic changes of root development that occur over time in asparagus.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".