Competition or facilitation for stored soil water by cover crops in succession and additional effect of fertilization in a juvenile tung-based intercropping system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercropping or agroforestry systems are among the strategies used to prevent soil erosion or crusting and water loss by evaporation in the bare soil during early growth stage of tree crop plantations. However, the pattern of water use in intercropped, juveline orchard crop plantations is still poorly known. This study aimed to evaluate competition or facilitation for soil water stored by cover crops in rotation and the impact of additional fertilization in a juvenile tung-based intercropping system in southern Brazil during the winter and summer periods of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons. A split plot in randomized complete block design arrangement, with four replications, was used comprising crambe winter cover crop plus poultry manure or nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus (NPK) fertilizer; a mixture of oats and vetch, sunflower, and soybean in rotation; and sole tung as control. Cover crop intercropping significantly increased water content of the surface layer of the juvenile tung soil only at the beginning of the second growing season. The cover crops showed interspecific facilitation for water use by tung during the summer period, but no clear-cut trend for the winter cover crops. The additional organic manure did not enhance profile soil water storage. Any of the summer cover crops (soybean, sunflower, or peanut) could be used for soil and water conservation in juvenile tree crop plantations. Further studies are required during the winter season to establish whether the winter cover crops are competitors or facilitators for stored soil water in agroforestry systems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".