Do applications of sulfur or sulfate influence infestations of root maggots (<i>Delia</i> spp.) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in canola?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the importance of sulfur nutrition for the development of healthy stands of canola is well documented, the role of sulfur in the management of insect pest infestations has not previously been investigated in this crop. Field experiments were conducted at three sites in central Alberta in 1997 and 1998 to determine the influence of sulfur and sulfate applications on infestations of root maggots (Delia spp.) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in canola (Brassica rapa L.). Different formulations (granules, powder, prills, and sprays), application methods (either drilled in with the seed or top-dressed on the soil surface), and application rates were evaluated. To assess the degree of root maggot infestation, oviposition throughout the season and damage to taproots at the end of the season were monitored. Sulfur contents were analyzed from leaf samples collected mid-season and seed yields were measured from all treatment plots. Root maggot responses to the different sulfur treatments and application methods varied among years and sites, indicating that environmental factors have great importance in determining infestation levels by these pests, and the oxidation rate of elemental sulfur in soil. Sulfur formulation and application rate had significant effects on root maggot egg deposition and root damage for some sites and years, but even at high rates of application (112 kg ha-1) reductions in infestation levels were not substantial relative to the controls. While sulfur additions alone will not greatly reduce root maggot infestation levels in canola, growers should employ adequate sulfur nutrition for optimum crop health to enable plants to better compensate for damage by these pests. Key words: Brassica rapa, Delia radicum, Delia floralis, elemental sulfur, sulfate, canola
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".