Using Brassica Cover Crops as Living Mulch in a Vineyard, Changes over One Growing Season
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmers hoping to manage cropping systems sustainably are turning to cover crops to help mitigate plant pathogens. Plants with biofumigant properties are used to control soil-borne pathogens in agricultural settings, especially in till systems, where the brassicas are incorporated into the soil as green manure or seed meal. The effect of these crops is not well studied in no-till systems; thus, it is hard to know if they are as effective as green manure. Whether or not these cover crops can effect changes during a single growth season has not yet been studied. This study compared the response of the soil microbial community to four different brassica cover crops, two of which are commonly used in vineyards (Sinapis alba L. (white mustard) and Raphanus sativus (L.) Domin (tillage radish)) as well as two brassicas that are native or naturalized to the Okanagan (Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. (Shepherd’s purse) and Boechera holboelli (Hornem.) Á. Löve and D. Löve (Holbøll’s rockcress)). Cover crops did not affect fungal species richness, but B. holboelli recover crops were associated with increased evenness among fungal taxa. Both C. bursa-pastoris and S. alba had lower levels of plant parasitic nematodes compared to non-brassica controls. These results were apparent only after a single growing season, which indicates growers could use this approach as needed, minimizing long-term exposure to biofumigants for beneficial soil microbes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it