Pearl millet as a rotation crop with flue-cured tobacco for control of root-lesion nematodes in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) growers routinely fumigate their soils to control root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus penetrans Cobb). Studies suggest that planting pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) as a rotation crop may control the nematodes; winter rye (Secale cereale L.), the crop commonly grown in rotation with tobacco, is susceptible to the nematodes. In 2002, plots of forage millet (var. CFPM 101), grain millet (var. CGPMH-1) and winter rye were established at three sites and in 2003, tobacco was grown at these sites in non-fumigated plots where the rotation crops grew, except for a winter rye/fumigation treatment. The goal was to evaluate P. penetrans populations and tobacco yield and quality in the millet rotations relative to the traditional rye-fumigation system. In 2002, initial P. penetrans populations assessed in the spring were similar for all treatments; however, the final populations and consequently the ratios of final populations/initial populations (Pf/Pi) consistently differed among treatments. The Pf/Pi ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.79 for forage millet, from 0.18 to 0.94 for grain millet and from 2.33 to 21.65 for rye. In 2003, P. penetrans populations in tobacco plots previously cropped to either type of millet were comparable with those detected in fumigated winter rye plots. Compared with tobacco following rye without fumigation, tobacco yield was 14 to 51% higher following rye with fumigation, 19 to 70% higher following forage millet and 18 to 65% higher following grain millet. Grade index was unaffected. Results indicate that pearl millet offers an alternative to fumigants for the suppression of P. penetrans population and provides equivalent gross returns. Key words: Pennisetum glaucum, rotation crop, Nicotiana tabacum
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".