MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117579189 · doi:10.1080/03650340.2025.2610093

Soil losses due to carrot and sweetpotato harvesting: the role of root morphology

2025· article· en· W7117579189 on OpenAlexaff
Suarau Odutola Oshunsanya, Hanqing Yu, Ayodeji Matthew Odebode, Dorcas Ebunoluwa Odeyinka, Precious Oluwabemiwo Samuel

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Agronomy and Soil Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMorphology (biology)Yield (engineering)Chemical compositionPlant morphologySoil waterPlant development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carrots and sweetpotatoes are cultivated worldwide to address food security. However, how carrot and sweetpotato root morphologies contribute to soil loss due to harvesting (SLCHcrop) is not clear. Thus, a 2-year study was conducted to compare SLCHcrop of carrot and sweetpotato with contrasting morphologies, and assess the cost of replacing nutrient loss. Harvested crops were classified into two morphological groups (root crops with indented rough surfaces – IRS and undented smooth surfaces – USS) and were assessed for SLCHcrop. SLCHcrop for sweetpotato (1.46 Mg ha−1 harvest−1) was two times higher than that of carrot (0.62 Mg ha−1 harvest−1). Sweetpotato was higher than carrots by factors of 1.4 for fine-root weight, and 1.2 for fine-root weight per root crop yield. SLCHcrop for IRS was 54% higher than USS. Soil denudation rate by sweetpotato (1.47 × 10−2 mm yr−1) was 2.4 times higher than that by carrot (6.15 × 10−3 mm yr−1). Fertilizer equivalent cost of NPK losses due to sweetpotato harvest was higher than that of carrots by US$5.52 ha−1, while the IRS root crop was higher than the USS root crop by US$7.74 ha−1. Thus, root morphology majorly contributes to SLCHcrop and should be considered for soil degradation assessment for sustainable agriculture.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Agronomy and Soil ScienceSame topicPlant Disease Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207