Fall and spring seeding date effects on herbicide-tolerant canola (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.) cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More flexible and effective weed control with herbicide-tolerant B. napus canola allows for additional seeding management options, such as fall (dormant) and early spring (ES) seeding. Field experiments were conducted at Lacombe and Beaverlodge (1999–2001), Didsbury (1999–2000), and Lethbridge (2000–2001), Alberta, Canada, primarily to evaluate the effect of fall (late October-November), ES (late April-early May), and normal spring (NS) (ca. mid-May) seeding dates on glufosinate-, glyphosate-, and imidazolinone-tolerant canola development and yield. Fall seeding resulted in 46% lower plant density and nearly double the dockage than spring seeding. ES-seeded canola had 19% higher seed yield and 2.1% higher oil content than fall-seeded canola. ES seeding significantly increased yield compared to fall-seeded canola for 8 of 10 site -years or compared to NS seeding for 4 of 10 site-years; ES-seeded canola equalled the yield of NS-seeded canola for 6 of 10 site-years. Yield response to seeding date did not differ among herbicide-tolerant cultivars. Seeding date did not influence root maggot damage. Seeding canola as soon as possible in spring increases the likelihood of optimizing canola yield and quality compared to fall seeding and traditional spring seeding dates. Key words: Dormant seeding, seeding management, root maggot, herbicide-resistant crops, yield components, operational diversity
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".