Effect of previous crop, tillage, field size, adjacent crop, and sampling direction on airborne propagules of<i>Gibberella zeae/Fusarium graminearum</i>, fusarium head blight severity, and deoxynivalenol accumulation in winter wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of previous and adjacent crop, tillage, field size, and sampling direction on the number of viable airborne propagules of Gibberella zea/Fusarium graminearum trapped at anthesis, fusarium head blight (FHB) index, percentage of seeds infected with F. graminearum, and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation in seed of winter wheat from commercial fields across southwestern Ontario. More viable airborne propagules of G. zeae/F. graminearum were trapped in wheat fields that were planted on corn or wheat stubble than in wheat fields in which previous crops were nonhosts. Previous crop, field size, and tillage interacted to affect the FHB index, DON accumulation, and percentage of seeds infected with F. graminearum; large fields where corn was planted one year previous to wheat with minimum or no tillage had the highest values. Adjacent crops (nonhost, corn, and wheat) affected the number of viable airborne propagules trapped, FHB index, and percentage of seeds infected with F. graminearum. Sampling direction (east–west) did not have a significant effect on any variable. The number of viable airborne propagules trapped at wheat anthesis was not predictive of FHB symptoms or DON accumulation in grain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".