Survey of herbicide-resistant wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>) in two townships in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature and occurrence of herbicide resistance in wild oat in annual crops grown in the Grassland and Parkland regions of Saskatchewan were determined in a systematic survey of fields in two townships in 1997. The survey found that over one-half of fields in both townships had populations resistant to Group 1 [acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors], Group 2 [acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors], and/or Group 8 (e.g., triallate, difenzoquat) herbicides. Forty-three percent of fields in the Grassland township and 48% of fields in the Parkland township had Group 1-resistant (HR) wild oat; 30 and 17% of fields in the Grassland and Parkland township, respectively, had populations exhibiting Group 2 resistance, whereas about 15% of fields in both townships had Group 8-HR wild oat. Single- (Groups 1, 2, or 8) and multiple-group resistance (1, 2; 1, 8; 2, 8; 1, 2, 8) were exhibited in populations in fields in both townships. Frequency of occurrence of resistance was not generally affected by farm size. The nature of resistance in wild oat populations is more diverse, differences in distribution and abundance of HR wild oat biotypes between Grassland and Parkland regions are generally less apparent, and occurrence of resistance is more prevalent than documented previously. Key words: Avena fatua, herbicide resistance, survey
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".