MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039354483 · doi:10.4141/p99-132

Tillage, fertiliser and glyphosate timing effects on foxtail barley (<i>Hordeum jubatum</i>) management in wheat

2000· article· en· W2039354483 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert E. Blackshaw, Greg Semach, Xing-Hai Li, John T. O’Donovan, K. Neil Harker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoxtailAgronomyTillageGlyphosateHordeum vulgareWeed controlBiologyWeedPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.) is becoming a more severe weed problem as conservation tillage becomes widely adopted on the southern Canadian prairies. A 5-yr field study was conducted to determine the combined effects of tillage, N rate, N placement and application timing of glyphosate to manage foxtail barley in spring wheat. Wide-blade tillage conducted in fall and spring, compared to zero-till, reduced foxtail barley biomass and seed production in all yr and increased wheat yield in 4 of 5 yr. Foxtail barley was highly competitive with wheat for added N. N fertiliser placed mid-row in 10-cm-deep bands reduced foxtail barley growth in 2 of 5 yr and increased wheat yield in 3 of 5 yr compared with soil surface broadcast N. Wheat yield sometimes was similar when N was banded at 60 kg ha −1 or broadcast at 120 kg ha −1 , indicating the large advantage of banding N in some situations. Glyphosate at 800 g ha −1 applied preharvest or postharvest gave similar levels of foxtail barley control in 2 of 3 yr. Results indicate that foxtail barley can be adequately managed in wheat production systems utilizing conservation tillage. Key words: Foxtail barley, Hordeum jubatum, glyphosate, integrated weed management, nitrogen placement, zero tillage

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207