Do Interactions between Residue Management and Direct Seeding System Affect Wheat Stem Sawfly and Grain Yield?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most semiarid regions of the northern Great Plains are prone to wheat stem sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae, Cephus cinctus Norton) attack. As an alternative to the wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow system, our objective was to determine if continuous cropping infested wheat stubble would inhibit wheat stem sawfly (WSS) emergence. Adult sawfly emergence from undisturbed stubble was compared to stubble harrowed with heavy tine or rotary drum harrows before recropping. Adult emergence from a control of “no recropping” was compared to direct seeding infested stubble with (i) air drills configured with knife‐type openers spaced 23 or 30 cm apart, (ii) an air drill configured with high disturbance shovel‐type sweep openers, and (iii) a low disturbance air drill equipped with disc openers. Pre‐seed heavy tine harrowing reduced adult sawfly emergence but usually required a high tension setting. No‐till planting into infested spring wheat stubble also lowered WSS emergence compared to leaving the field fallow. A system of heavy tine harrows and an air drill equipped with knife openers spaced 30 cm apart reduced WSS adult emergence in spring by 50 to 70%. Grain yield was optimized in spring wheat with air drills equipped with narrow knife openers; in winter wheat optimal yield was obtained with the low disturbance disc drill configurations. Our results indicate incremental benefits from continuous cropping rather than fallowing fields infested with WSS, which is a sustainable alternative to conventional tillage. A systems approach is recommended that integrates these practices with diversified nonhost crop phases and resistant cultivars.
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 | 0.000 | 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".