MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009209942 · doi:10.4141/cjps09174

Distribution and abundance of an allergenic weed, common ragweed (<i>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</i> L.), in rural settings of southern Quebec, Canada

2010· article· en· W2009209942 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marie‐Josée Simard, D. L. Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbrosia artemisiifoliaRagweedWeedAgronomyAmbrosiaPollenAbundance (ecology)BiologyGeographyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) is an important weed of urban and rural settings in eastern Canada. Where the species is abundant, its wind-dispersed pollen is responsible for most cases of allergic rhinitis or “hayfever” in August and September. Despite its adverse health effects, there is little information on the actual abundance or distribution of ragweed plants in rural settings. Ragweed surveys were therefore done in July and August (after herbicide application) in corn and soybean fields, field borders and along rural roadsides surrounding two cities in southern Quebec. Based on zero-inflated Poisson regression models, ragweed density averaged 4.1 plants m -2 (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu area) and 16.1 plants m -2 (Salaberry-de-Valleyfield area) along roadsides. Ragweed density in field borders (1.3 plants m -2 ) and fields was lower than on roadsides. Conventionally tilled fields and fields where tillage was reduced had equivalent densities of ragweed. Ragweed abundance in fields was likely related to the efficacy of herbicides used in transgenic vs. conventional crops. Transgenic herbicide-resistant corn fields had higher ragweed densities than conventional fields (0.44 vs. 0.07 plants m -2 ), while herbicide-resistant soybean fields had lower densities than conventional fields (0.02 vs. 1.33 plants m -2 ). Field borders located closer to roadsides had slightly higher ragweed counts, while roadside densities did not depend on the proximity of a field entrance. This suggests that roadsides are currently potential sources of spread into fields more than the opposite. Further research on the pollen production and dispersal of these rural populations is needed.Key words: Weed density, corn, Zea mays, soybean, Glycine max, field border, field entrance, roadside, transgenic crops

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207