Winter wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.) response to herbicides as affected by application timing and temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robinson, M. A., Letarte, J., Cowbrough, M. J., Sikkema, P. H. and Tardif, F. J. 2015. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) response to herbicides as affected by application timing and temperature. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 325–333. Field studies were conducted to determine the effects of cold temperatures and physiological growth stage at the time of application on the tolerance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to 10 herbicides used in Ontario, Canada. Herbicides were applied: early during a frost event (when forecasted temperatures ≤ 0°C); at a normal timing (Zadoks 21–29); and a late timing (Zadoks 39). Visible injury, yield, plant height at maturity, test weight and 1000-kernel weight were measured to determine if environmental conditions or growth stage at the time of herbicide application influenced wheat tolerance. Cold temperatures at the time of herbicide application resulted in injury with three treatments: 2,4-D, dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop and dichlorprop/2,4-D. Visible injury was greatest at 14 d after treatment (DAT); it was, however, transient and yield, plant height, test weight and 1000-kernel weight were not affected. The herbicides 2,4-D, dichlorprop/2,4-D, and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl caused visible injury 14 DAT when applied at the normal timing, while 2,4-D at this timing, also caused injury 7 DAT. Dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop was the most injurious herbicide, causing 4% injury at the normal timing and 11% injury at the late application timing (42 DAT). Dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop caused yield reductions of 11 to 24% at two locations in 2010 when applied at the normal timing. Dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop reduced yield at 6 of the 8 site-years when applied late, and also reduced plant height. Cold temperatures at the time of application did not affect tolerance of winter wheat; however, visible injury was more likely to occur when herbicides were applied at later growth stages. In most cases, herbicide injury was transient and no impact on yield was observed. Dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop was the most injurious herbicide, causing prolonged injury at all application timings and reducing yields when applied at the normal timing. In addition, yield and plant height were affected negatively when this herbicide was applied late.
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 | 0.001 | 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".