Impact of agronomic practices and environment on diseases of wheat and lentil in southeastern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the effect of tillage and rotation on plant diseases, their severity and prevalence were monitored on spring wheat, lentil, and field pea grown in rotation with zero and conventional tillage at Indian Head, SK, from 1992 to 1995. Root disease severity of wheat was less under zero tillage than conventional tillage, but leaf spot severity was unchanged. Incidence of the causal agents from roots was variable, such that Fusarium spp. were higher under zero tillage than conventional and Bipolaris sorokiniana was lower. Pyrenophora triticirepentis was the only foliar pathogen more prevalent under zero tillage than conventional. Rotation did not affect the pathogens causing root disease. However, the rotation of canaryseed-sunola-wheat-lentil had higher disease severity and levels of Septoria tritci on wheat compared with wheat-canola-wheat-lentil or wheat-pea-wheat-lentil. Neither crop rotation nor tillage practice had a measurable impact on lentil diseases, but epidemics of Ascochyta lentis and Botrytis cinerea were most severe in treatments with the densest plant stands. Multivariate analyses explored trends of tillage, rotation, and environment over years demonstrating that regardless of tillage or crop rotation practices, the annual environment was the most important factor limiting the severity of disease and the prevalence of causal agents in the complex. Key words: Rotation, tillage, root rot, leaf spot, wheat, lentil
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".