Crop Production Factors Associated with Fusarium Head Blight in Spring Wheat in Eastern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusarium head blight (FHB) has been increasing in western regions of the Canadian Prairies. The objective of this 4‐yr study was to identify crop production factors (CPF), associated with FHB development in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). From 1999 to 2002, 659 crops were sampled in eastern Saskatchewan for FHB levels, and information gathered on agronomic practices used on these fields. In 2000 and 2001, percent Fusarium‐damaged kernels (FDK) was also determined. Differences in the FHB index among years indicated that environment was the most important factor affecting disease development. The effects of CPFs on FHB were lower in years with high (2001) and low (1999 and 2002) disease pressure, compared with a year with moderate (2000) disease pressure. Previous application of glyphosate [N‐(phosphonomethyl)glycine] formulations (GF) within tillage system, tillage system, previously grown crop, and cultivar susceptibility were the only CPFs that affected FHB. GF application in the previous 18 mo within tillage system was significantly associated with higher FHB levels every year; it was the only CPF in 1999, and one of two CPFs in 2002, that affected FHB, suggesting that its effect was not influenced as much by environmental conditions as that of other CPFs. Percentage FDK was also higher in fields previously treated with GF in 2000 and 2001. Because of the nature of this study, we could not determine if the association between previous GF use and FHB development was a cause–effect relationship. Thus, further research is needed to elucidate the nature of this association and the underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".