Sensitivity of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum) to various postemergence herbicides
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a limited number of herbicide options available for durum wheat production in Ontario, Canada. Four field studies were conducted in Ontario, Canada over a three year period (2008, 2009 and 2010) to evaluate the sensitivity of spring planted durum wheat to post-emergence (POST) applications of dichlorprop/2,4-D, dicamba/ MCPA/mecoprop, clopyralid, bromoxynil/MCPA, pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil, thifensulfuron/tribenuron + MCPA amine, fluroxypyr + MCPA ester, tralkoxydim and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl/safener at the manufacturers’ recommended dose and twice that dose. Visible injury in durum wheat were 0 to 2.4% with dichlorprop/2,4-D, 0 to 6% with dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop, 0 to 0.4% injury with clopyralid, 0 to 1.4% injury with bromoxynil/MCPA, 0 to 3.5% with pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil, 0 to 5% with thifensulfuron/tribenuron + MCPA amine, 0 to 2.6% with fluroxypyr + MCPA ester, 0 to 5% with tralkoxydim and 0.4% to 8% with fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener at various evaluation dates (1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after treatment). Durum wheat height was decreased as much as 5% with dicamba/ MCPA/mecoprop, 4% with pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil and 6% with fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener but was not affected with other herbicides evaluated. There was no decrease in durum wheat yield with the herbicides evaluated.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it