Field performance of imazamox-resistant spring wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The imidazolinone herbicides possess high biological potency at low application rates, and are an attractive alternative for weed control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Four mutation-derived spring wheat lines resistant to the imidazolinone class of herbicides were evaluated in field trials to investigate the levels of resistance to imazamox. Imazamox was applied post-emergence at 0 g (hand-weeded control; HWC) 20 g, 40 g, 80 g and 160 g active ingredient (a.i.) ha-1. A standard herbicide treatment (SHT; clodinafoppropargyl, bromoxynil and MC PA ester) representing a common herbicide application to spring wheat in western Canada was also included. The cultivar CDC Teal was included as a susceptible control. At 160 g ha-1, imazamox reduced yield in lines with a single resistance gene (TealIMI 10A, TealIMI 11A, and BW755) by up to 43% and delayed maturity up to 13 d. TealIMI 15A, the only line evaluated with two resistance genes, was the most resistant of all lines, with no significant increases in days to spike emergence (DSE), days to physiological maturity (DPM), and no reduction in yield at the highest rate of imazamox. The susceptible control was killed within 2 wk of imazamox application, regardless of application rate. These results indicate that two resistance genes are preferable for ensuring satisfactory levels of resistance to the formulation of imazamox used in these studies. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., imazamox, resistance, gene stacking
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".