MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061370833 · doi:10.1002/ps.1072

The potential efficiency of irrigation management and propargyl bromide in controlling three soil pests: <i>Tylenchulus semipenetrans, Fusarium oxysporum</i> and <i>Echinochloa crus‐galli</i>

2005· article· en· W2061370833 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Allaire, Scott R. Yates, Ping Zhang, Fred F. Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
KeywordsFumigationLoamBiologyPopulationFusarium oxysporumAgronomyNematodeHorticultureIrrigationSoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Propargyl bromide (3-bromopropyne, 3BP) is a potential alternative for methyl bromide. Little information is available about its efficiency in controlling pests. The purpose of this paper is to estimate the 3BP dose required for killing three pests and to compare the efficiency of water management approaches to that of fumigation. The pests, Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht (fungus), Echinochloa crus-galli (L) Beauv (grass) and Tylenchulus semipenetrans Cobb (nematode) were exposed to different 3BP concentrations in a sandy loam at 30 degrees C in a closed system. The lethal dose for killing 90% of the population (LD90) was calculated from the total applied mass, and varied from 0.3 microg g(-1) soil for the nematode, 3 microg g(-1) for the grass, and 9 microg g(-1) for the fungus. The concentration-time index for killing 90% of the population (CT90) was 11 microg g(-1) h for the nematode, 112 microg g(-1) h for the grass and 345 microg g(-1) h for the fungus. 3BP seems as efficient as other fumigant alternatives in controlling these pests. Using an open system, it was shown that the volume of soil in which the pests were controlled varied for different irrigation managements. Even 96 h after fumigation (with a concentration 10 times higher than would potentially be applied in the field), more than 20% of the soil volume had not reached the fungus and grass CT90 of the non-irrigated soil. The soil underneath the furrow and the bed reached CT90 only slowly in all irrigated treatments even though techniques for increasing efficiency were used (tarping, surface sealing with water and high application rate).

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)0.002
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 score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePest Management ScienceSame topicPlant Disease Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207