Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) Root Distribution: Cultivar Differences in Mature Plantings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annual plant growth patterns and seasonal conditions have both been shown to influence asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) root development over time. Root biomass and distribution changes in mature asparagus cultivars are herein illustrated and described. Asparagus root length density and biomass were estimated from soil cores using a systematic field sampling approach each spring. Soil cores (0.9 m deep) were divided into 0.15 m lengths and fleshy roots collected from the soil. Root length density and dry weights were determined and root distribution maps generated from collected data. As asparagus plantings matured, the sampling year had a significant influence on root development. Fleshy roots grew deeper into the soil each year but the majority of roots of Atlas, Guelph Millennium, and Jersey Giant were found in the upper 60 cm of the soil profile. For the three cultivars evaluated, minor differences in root length and root weight occurred. By Year 6, Atlas showed a decrease in root length and weight when compared to Guelph Millennium and Jersey Giant. While spear yield differences between the varieties were not significant, Atlas tended to produce more very large and large spears compared to Guelph Millennium and Jersey Giant. These results increase our understanding of asparagus root development.
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".