Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted at five western Canadian locations in 1996 and 1997 to compare weed control and canola (Brassica napus L.) seed yields in the three major her-bicide-tolerant canola (HTC) systems. The main objective of this study was to determine if significant weed control and yield advantages could be expected by using herbicides "designated" for HTC compared to a more "standard" application of sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron. In 3 of 10 site-years, glyphosate in Quest canola and imazethapyr/imazamox in 45A71 canola provided a yield advantage over the standard treatment. The yield advantages were restricted to the Lacombe and Lethbridge sites and ranged from 13 to 39% increases over the sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron treatments. Among the HTC, weed control was usually greatest with glyphosate, followed by imazethapyr/imazamox, and then glufosinate. Glufosinate efficacy was often restricted due to advanced growth stages on some weeds. The standard treatment of sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron did not provide better weed control than glyphosate, but in some cases did improve weed control compared to imazethapyr/imazamox or glufosinate. The HTC provide growers with new opportunities for the control of difficult weeds along with the option to employ in-crop herbicides with new modes of action in canola. Key words: Weed management, transgenic 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".