The impact of residue and cover crop management on soil water and temperature regimes in a loam soil in North Dakota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the Northern Great Plains, the period between small grain harvest and the first killing frost leaves soil vulnerable to erosion, particularly if crop residue is removed or reduced by tillage. Integrating cover crops can reduce erosion risk and improve soil health, but in water‐limited areas, overwintering cover crops may lower soil water content and delay spring germination. This eastern North Dakota study evaluated how crop residues and cover crops influence soil temperature and water content. Three treatments were tested after barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.): (1) bare soil, (2) barley residue, and (3) cereal rye ( Secale cereale L.) and flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.) cover crops no‐till drilled into barley residue, producing 224 kg ha −1 of aboveground spring biomass. Soil temperature, water content, net radiation ( R n ), and soil heat flux ( G ) were measured from April 18 to May 23, 2023. Surface cover significantly affected R n , G , and temperature compared to bare soil. Bare soil had the greatest cumulative R n and G , which increased soil temperatures at the 3‐cm depth (9.3°C) compared to barley residue (7.9°C) and cover crops (7.6°C). Although bare soil had higher mean temperatures, it had the lowest minimum temperature during cooling periods. Despite expectations that cover crops would reduce soil water, no significant differences were observed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".