No differences in soil structure under winter wheat grown in different crop rotational positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yield decline in wheat grown after wheat is frequently attributed to fungal disease occurrence, but it is also found without visible disease infection. Thus it is hypothesized that other factors such as N supply or soil structural degradation may lead to wheat yield decline when grown after wheat. The aims of this study were to analyze if (i) the crop rotational position of winter wheat causes differences in soil structure at the beginning of the growing season and (ii) the soil structure is related to differences in wheat biomass formation by this date. Different soil structural properties under winter wheat as well as total aboveground biomass of wheat grown in different crop rotational positions (monoculture, first, second and third wheat after oilseed rape) were investigated in two long-term field experiments with contrasting soil texture. At both field sites, no significant effect of the crop rotational position in any of the analyzed soil structural parameters was found. Wheat biomass in spring was on average 54% higher for wheat grown after oilseed rape compared to second and third wheat after oilseed rape or monoculture. In conclusion, growth reduction of wheat cultivated after wheat was not linked to soil structure as measured in spring.
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) | 0.001 | 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".