Effect of seeding date and depth, seed size and fungicide treatment on <i>Fusarium</i> and <i>Pythium</i> seedling blight of canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hwang, S. F., Ahmed, H. U., Turnbull, G. D., Gossen, B. D. and Strelkov, S. E. 2015. Effect of seeding date and depth, seed size and fungicide treatment on Fusarium and Pythium seedling blight of canola. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 293–301. Seedling blight has a substantial impact on stand establishment and productivity of canola (Brassica napus) on the Canadian prairies. The effects of seeding date, seed size, seeding depth, and seed treatment fungicides on seedling blight of canola caused by Fusarium avenaceum and Pythium ultimum were evaluated under field conditions. In the trials inoculated with P. ultimum, early seeding reduced seedling emergence and seed yield in all 3 yr of the study. However, the interaction of F. avenaceum with seeding date was not consistent; inoculation with F. avenaceum reduced seedling emergence in early seeded canola in 1 of 4 yr, but emergence was higher in early than in mid-seeded treatments in 2 yr and there was no difference among seeding dates in 1 yr. Late seeding reduced seed yield in 2 of 4 yr in the F. avenaceum study. Seed size and seeding depth generally did not have an effect on seedling establishment or seed yield for either pathogen. Seed treatment with Helix Xtra (thiamethoxam+difenconazole+metalaxyl+fludioxonil) and Prosper FX (clothianidin+carboxin+trifloxystrobin+metalaxyl) fungicides increased seedling emergence and yield compared with the F. avenaceum-inoculated control. Seed treatment with Helix Xtra also increased seedling emergence and seed yield compared with the P. ultimum-inoculated control. Manipulation of seeding date did not substantially improve stand establishment or yield of canola when inoculum pressure was high. Seed treatment was the most effective strategy for reducing losses caused by seedling blight of canola in fields infested with F. avenaceum or P. ultimum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".