Response of wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>) to residual and non-residual herbicides in canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been stated that soil residual herbicides, by controlling successive flushes of weeds, increase effective kill (efficacy) over the growing season, and thus impose a higher selection pressure for resistance in weeds than non-residual herbicides. To investigate this issue, the responses of wild oat to increasing rates of residual and non-residual herbicides in canola and wild oat recruitment in the following year were examined in a field study conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, from 1997 to 2000. The rate-response curves of the wild oat variables indicated that efficacy of the soil residual herbicides, ethalfluralin and triallate, and of the non-residual herbicide, glufosinate, was generally lower than that of imazamox/imazethapyr (residual), sethoxydim, and glyphosate (non-residual). Emergence of wild oat in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the following year did not differ among herbicides applied in the preceding crop year, nor was there a significant herbicide by rate interaction. The results suggest that the soil residual activity o f these herbicides does not strongly influence selection pressure, estimated by reduction in wild oat seed return in canola. Key words: Brassica napus, Avena fatua, selection pressure, herbicide resistance
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".