MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of granular nematicide incorporation depth and potato planting depth on potatoes grown in land infested with the potato cyst nematodes <i>Globodera rostochiensis</i> and <i>G. pallida</i>

2000· article· en· W2024930520 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Woods, P. P. J. Haydock

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Applied Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsPotato cyst nematodeSowingGlobodera pallidaGlobodera rostochiensisBiologyAgronomyYield (engineering)OxamylPopulationHorticultureNematodeChemical controlSolanaceaeMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Field experiments at Harper Adams, Shropshire and Wisbech, Cambridgeshire investigated the effect of nematicide incorporation and seed tuber planting depth on the yield of the potato (Solamum tuberosum L.) cultivars Estima and Maris Piper and the population control of the potato cyst nematodes Globodera rostochiensis Woll. (Skarbilovich) and G. pallida (Stone). The nematicide fosthiazate was applied at 3 kg−1 ha and either not incorporated, or incorporated to 20 cm or 35 cm. Potatoes were mechanically planted to three depths; approximately 10 cm, 15 cm and 25 cm. Incorporation to 20 cm with tubers planted at a depth of 10 cm or 15 cm, reduced root invasion compared with the other treatments. Incorporating nematicide to 20 cm also gave consistently higher ware yields and better nematode control than the other incorporation methods, which were not significantly different to the control. However, ware yield and nematode multiplication rate were not significantly affected by planting depth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Applied BiologySame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207