Response of Heterozygous and Homozygous Imidazolinone‐Resistant Spring Wheat Genotypes to Imazamox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imidazolinone‐resistant (IR) spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) was released commercially in Canada in 2004, providing growers with a new opportunity to selectively control a broad range of weeds in wheat, including volunteer cereals and annual grasses. Imidazolinone (IMI) herbicides inhibit acetolactate synthase in susceptible (S) plants, but IR wheat plants have an altered target site that confers resistance to IMI herbicides. The IR trait has served as a phenotypic marker in a number of gene flow studies, but the response of IR F 1 wheat hybrids to various doses of imazamox has not been adequately characterized. Therefore, a greenhouse study was initiated to assess the whole‐plant response of several spring wheat genotypes with different parental backgrounds to increasing doses of imazamox. No differences in biomass accumulation prior to imazamox application were detected among genotypes. Biomass accumulation after foliar treatment with imazamox was similar within all groups of genotypes, with no significant differences detected within F 1 or S genotype groups. The resistance factor (GR 50 ratio) of the single IR genotype tested in the study was six‐fold greater than the mean of the F 1 genotypes, which was itself six‐fold greater than that of the S genotypes examined. Differential mortality was observed between some S genotypes at 3.9 g a.i. ha −1 , but no differences between genotypes were observed at any other dose. The results of this study indicate that for the spring wheat genotypes assessed, parental background and market class do not affect spring wheat tolerance to imazamox. Furthermore, results indicate that the IR trait in spring wheat should provide a satisfactory marker for pollen‐mediated gene flow studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".