The Effect of Rotation and In-Crop Weed Management on the Germinable Weed Seedbank after 10 Years
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural production systems that reduce the use of in-crop herbicides could greatly reduce risks of environmental damage and the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of in-crop herbicide omissions on weed seedbank community size and structure. A crop-rotation study was sampled 10 yr after a strictly annual rotation and an annual/perennial rotation were exposed to different in-crop herbicide omission treatments. In-crop herbicides were applied either in all annual crops (control), omitted from oats only, or omitted from both flax and oats. Seedbank densities were greatest when in-crop herbicides were omitted from flax and oats, and this treatment also reduced crop yield. Shannon-Wiener diversity differed among crops in the annual crop rotation and among herbicide omission treatments in the perennial rotation. Herbicide omissions changed the weed-community structure in flax and in wheat and canola crops in the annual rotation enough to warrant alternate control methods in some treatments. The magnitude of the effects on the seedbank parameters depended largely on the competitive ability of the crop in which herbicides were omitted. No yield response to omitting herbicides in oats indicated that standard weed management practices have reduced weed populations below yield-loss thresholds.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it