MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393164507 · doi:10.3390/agronomy14040646

Small Farm Holder Cropping Systems Influence Microbial Profiles in an Equatorial Rainforest Agroecosystem

2024· article· en· W4393164507 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Matindu, Nimalka Weerasuriya, Francis Muyekho, Irena F. Creed, R. Greg Thorn, Anthony Wawire Sifuna

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAgroecosystemRainforestCroppingAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAgronomyEcologyBiologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metabarcoding of prokaryotic and fungal (Ascomycota only) ribosomal DNA was used to describe the microbial communities in soils of a remnant equatorial rainforest, maize–bean intercrop, and sugarcane in western Kenya. Cropping systems influenced the microbial community composition and functional traits (energy source and nutrient cycling) of bulk soil in each crop. Microbial richness and diversity tended to increase with cultivation intensity. The soil of the maize–bean intercrop had lower percentages and sugarcane had higher percentages of unique amplicon sequence variants of both bacteria and fungi compared to the remnant forest. Functional traits were altered by cultivation intensity. Compared to remnant forest soils, maize–bean intercrop soil had lower percentages of aerobic chemoheterotrophic bacteria and higher percentages of N-cycling bacteria, while sugarcane had higher percentages of aerobic chemoheterotrophic bacteria and lower percentages of N-cycling bacteria. In the face of increasing forest loss and pressures for agricultural productivity, this landscape provides a rich site for studying the impacts of cropping systems on soil health.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207