Comparative yield, disease resistance and response to fungicide for forty-five historic Canadian wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martens, G., Lamari, L., Grieger, A., Gulden, R. H. and McCallum, B. 2014. Comparative yield, disease resistance and response to fungicide for forty-five historic Canadian wheat cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 371–381. Forty-five historic Canadian spring wheat cultivars, ranging from Red Fife (1870) to modern cultivars, were compared for yield and disease resistance in field trials from 2007 to 2010. A split-plot design was used to test yield, leaf rust and Fusarium head blight resistance, with or without a fungicide application. Older cultivars were generally lower yielding and more leaf rust susceptible than modern cultivars; this difference was greatest in 2007 and 2010 under heavier leaf rust. Response to fungicide application was highest in 2007 and 2010. In 2008, leaf rust was very low, and fungicide application had a slightly negative effect on yield overall. Cultivars that have good leaf rust resistance, such as Pasqua, AC Minto, and 5600 HR, had a negligible response to fungicide, whereas older, susceptible cultivars had a larger response. Fusarium head blight levels were too low to compare the cultivars. The highest-yielding cultivars in the untreated plots were AC Domain, 5500HR, AC Cora, Roblin and Barrie, whereas AC Cora, AC Domain, McKenzie, Roblin and AC Intrepid were the highest yielding in the fungicide-treated plots. AC Domain, AC Barrie and Roblin were among the most popular wheat cultivars in Manitoba, in terms of seeded area from the early 1990s to 2009.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".