Reduced canopy cover and development compromises weed suppression by buckwheat in cover crop mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) is a common cover crop typically grown for its rapid establishment and superior weed suppression. One challenge of incorporating buckwheat into crop rotations, however, is its short generation time, which requires in-season management to prevent viable seed production and volunteers in subsequent crops. Mixing buckwheat at reduced seeding rates with other cover crop species is one way for producers to reduce volunteer potential; however, this may compromise weed suppression. To investigate mechanisms behind buckwheat weed suppression and how using buckwheat in mixtures can affect suppression, we collected a series of morphological measurements in buckwheat monocultures and in three, two-way and four, three-way cover crop species mixtures and modeled their response over the growing season. We found that while buckwheat height and relative growth rate were unaffected with increasing species richness, there was a significant reduction in maximum leaf area index (3.75 vs. 2.85 vs. 2.82 cm 2 cm −2 ) in mixture. Buckwheat monocultures provided superior season-long weed suppression compared to mixtures (85% vs. 53% vs. 50%). Principal component analysis showed that increased height and leaf area index values were associated with greater weed suppression. The link between reduced leaf area index and weed suppression in mixtures compared to buckwheat monocultures suggests that the rapid leaf development and canopy cover associated with buckwheat is a key mechanism behind weed suppression. In practice, producers should expect a dilution effect and weed suppression to be compromised when the buckwheat seeding rate is reduced in mixtures.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".