Effects of cultural practices on weed community and seedbank dynamics in a potato rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stagnant yields and declining soil health are common characteristics of high-intensity, low-residue cropping systems, such as potato, particularly in northeastern North America. Incorporating cultural practices including cover cropping and manure application is a way to combat declines in agroecosystem health and potato productivity. However, manure application and the use of cover crops may exacerbate weed issues through seedbank additions. This study was aimed at investigating how the cultural practices of cover cropping and manure application and their associated management activities can alter weed community dynamics and weed seedbank composition in a northeastern North American potato rotation. The study evaluated the use of eight cover crop mixtures—annual and perennial grasses and legumes—grown over two years with/without manure added in year one of the rotation. It also examined the effects of the cover crop mixtures and the presence/absence of manure on the weed community and on seedbank dynamics within a three-year potato rotation between 2019 and 2021. In year one of the study and directly after application, manure plots had greater weed seedbank density and species richness; however, this did not result in greater in-season weed biomass. Manure application resulted in a gradual decline in weed seedbank density over time regardless of cover crop treatment. Further, manure application increased the in-season competitive ability of cover crops, resulting in greater weed suppression per unit of cover crop biomass. In contrast, in the absence of manure, weed seedbank density remained largely unchanged through time regardless of cover crop treatment. We found that management practices associated with annual and perennial cover crops had distinct ecological filtering effects throughout the rotation on the weed community and prevented the dominance of any particular species. Together, our results demonstrate that combining the cultural practices of annual or perennial cover cropping and manure application contributes to weed suppression and should be considered an important component of sustainable potato production.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".