Effect of Glyphosate on Fusarium Head Blight in Wheat and Barley Under Different Soil Tillages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a serious disease in the wet conditions of eastern Canada. Tillage practices and herbicide applications have been reported to influence disease intensity. This study aimed to determine the effect of glyphosate on FHB development in wheat and barley and on Fusarium graminearum inoculum production under different soil tillages. The experiment was performed during 2 years (2007 and 2008) at two different sites in Quebec, Canada. Six trials were set in both sites, combining two cereal species (wheat and barley) and three soil tillages: moldboard plow, spring tillage (minimum-till), and direct drilling. For each trial, glyphosate or other herbicides were applied on Roundup Ready soybean the year preceding cereal crops, constituting the main plots. The next year, three wheat and three barley cultivars were sown as subplots. FHB index, Fusarium-damaged kernels (FDK), deoxynivalenol (DON) content, and F. graminearum inoculum production were measured. Glyphosate had no significant effect on FHB index, FDK, or DON content, whatever the trial and the site. F. graminearum inoculum production was enhanced by glyphosate in only 1 of 12 trials. Cultivar effect was highly significant on DON content. The relationship between F. graminearum inoculum from soybean residues and DON content was weak.
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".