The properties of ginsenosides in ginseng garden soil: accumulation, persistence and behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: .). Ginsenosides are secreted into the soil during ginseng growth and are mildly anti-fungal and autotoxic. While an ecological role for ginsenosides in maintenance of the sparse density growth habit of wild ginseng populations can be inferred, the consequence of ginsenoside accumulation in densely populated commercial ginseng gardens remains unknown. The potential for residual ginsenosides in former ginseng gardens to contribute to ginseng replant disease (GRD), a condition in which a new ginseng crop cannot be successfully cultivated in a garden used for ginseng cultivation in the past, has been suggested. However, the extent to which ginsenosides accumulate in ginseng garden soil and persist beyond harvest is poorly documented. Methods: We developed an extraction protocol to extract ginsenosides from ginseng garden soil, and established the behaviour of ginsenosides in soil in controlled experiments using ginseng garden soil packed into columns. Results: Ginsenosides accumulate throughout the first three and a half years of ginseng cultivation and decline during the fourth year. Residual ginsenosides present in garden soil at the time of harvest are largely gone by the following spring. Soil column data revealed that sandy-loam soil has capacity to bind and retain ginsenosides, and that protopanaxatriol-type ginsenosides are more mobile than the protopanaxadiol-type. Conclusion: Ginsenosides accumulate in ginseng garden soil during cultivation, but do not persist. Our data suggest that the impact of ginsenosides on the establishment of GRD occurs during crop growth rather than during the time between plantings. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11104-024-07025-7.
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".