Integrating Spring Wheat Sowing Density with Variety Selection to Manage Wheat Stem Sawfly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wheat stem sawfly [ Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae)] (WSS) has been a serious pest of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) since the late 19th century. Adoption of solid‐stemmed cultivars, which are available only in the spring bread wheat class in Canada, can mitigate damage but the trait that confers resistance tends to be variable. Five other classes of wheat are grown within the geographical range of C. cinctus and are vulnerable to WSS infestation, and the entire production area for durum ( T. turgidum L.) in western Canada, Montana, and western North Dakota lies within the geographic range of C. cinctus . Our objective was to test the hypothesis that the response of hollow‐ and solid‐stemmed cultivars to sowing density (150, 250, 350, or 450 seeds m −2 ) would differ and subsequently affect infestation patterns of WSS and an endemic parasitoids. The lowest rates of infestation occurred in the hollow‐stemmed durum cultivar AC Avonlea and declined with increased sowing density. Wheat pith expression was optimized at the lowest sowing density but the same level produced low and variable grain yield. In the solid‐stemmed cultivar Lillian, pith expression was most stable at 250 or 350 seeds m −2 . For all cultivars, grain yield was optimized at the higher seeding rates of 350 and 450 seeds m −2 . Solid‐stemmed wheat should be seeded at low to moderate density to maximize resistance to WSS, but hollow‐stemmed cultivars should be seeded at higher seeding rates to optimize yield, lower WSS infestation, and to increase overall crop competitiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".