Predispersal seed predation of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to determine if (1) seed predation of redroot pigweed plants occurred in agricultural fields, (2) corn-cropping patterns could be manipulated to influence the quantity of weed seed predation, and (3) alterations in corn canopies affected the microenvironment, possibly influencing predator populations. Corn was planted in standard (75 cm) or narrow (37.5 cm) rows with corn population densities ranging from low to very high (2.5 to 10 plants m−2). The extent of seed predation occurring on terminal weed inflorescences in the treatments was evaluated. Predation levels of redroot pigweed were highly variable spatially and temporally. Coleophora lineapulvella Chambers (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae) was the dominant predator of redroot pigweed seed. Seed predation was higher in 2000 than in 1999 (P < 0.05). On average, C. lineapulvella larvae attacked 11% of the inflorescences in 2000 and 3% of inflorescences in 1999. The proportion of damaged seeds per attacked inflorescence was as high as 93% in 2000 but only 42% in 1999. Row spacing and corn density did not affect levels of weed seed predation (P > 0.05). But canopies of closely spaced corn increased shading to redroot pigweed plants growing below the canopy, consequently decreasing total weed biomass and seed production.
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".