The effect of non-targeted application of propiconazole on the yield and quality of malt barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karamanos, R. E., Flore, N. A., Harapiak, J. T. and Stevenson, F. C. 2012. The effect of non-targeted application of propiconazole on the yield and quality of malt barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 341–349. There is a desire to use non-targeted applications of foliar fungicide to improve malting barley production under higher fertility situations. An experiment was conducted at 80 sites (location by year combinations) with a 12 combinations of N/P/K rate-placement to determine if applications of propiconazole improve malt barley yield and quality under high fertility conditions. Treatment differences for days to maturity were no greater than about 1 d. Fungicide by fertility treatment interactions were not significant (P>0.05). Applications of propiconazole improved yield by 305 kg ha−1 (6%) and plump kernels by 3 g kg−1 (3%) across all fertility treatments, which included N fertilizer rates ranging from 0 to 90 kg N ha−1. The effect of fungicide on yield was greatest at sites with highest yield potentials (ca. 8000 kg ha−1) and was not statistically significant at lower-yielding sites (ca. 3000 kg ha−1). Application of propiconazole also improved net returns [barley revenue – (N cost+propiconazole cost+other operating costs)] by $22 ha−1 with higher barley priced ($190 T−1) and high yield potentials. At sites with low yield potential, the application of propiconazole resulted in net losses of about $7 ha−1 compared with not applying propiconazole. Nitrogen fertilizer rates from 0 to 90 kg N ha−1 (15/30-0 P-K fertilizer treatment combinations) increased yield and protein concentration, and reduced plump kernels in a curvilinear fashion when averaged across fungicide treatments. Net returns were maximized at N fertilizer rates slightly less than 90 kg N ha−1, depending on the price/cost regime. Consequently, malt barley producers will have to consider tradeoffs regarding N fertilizer rate that optimizes yield/returns and kernel quality. Also, decisions regarding fungicide applications and N/P/K fertilizer rate-placement applications can be made independent of each other for malt barley production.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".