MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential effect of nematicide treatments on tuber yields in early‐ and late‐maturing potato cultivars

2001· article· en· W2068848225 on OpenAlexaff
J. Kimpinski, W. J. Arsenault, A. V. Sturz

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxamylBiologyCultivarPratylenchus penetransAgronomyPratylenchusYield (engineering)CropPesticideHorticultureNematode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 3‐year field study examined the effects of 1,3‐dichloropropene or oxamyl on tuber yields in four early‐ and five late‐maturing potato cultivars. The nematicide treatments increased total tuber yield by ≈ 12% for early‐maturing cultivars, but by less than 2% for the late‐maturing cultivars. The treatments reduced the numbers of root lesion nematodes (primarily Pratylenchus penetrans ), which were the dominant plant parasitic nematodes at the site. Covariance analysis indicated that treatment effects on total tuber yield were no longer significant after adjusting for root lesion nematodes in soil at harvest, confirming that these nematodes had a direct effect on the host. As expected, there were significant inverse relationships ( P = 0·05) between total tuber yields and numbers of root lesion nematodes in soil and in roots. However, the application of nematicides in late‐maturing cultivars was found to be of no practical value. Crop production systems designed to reduce or optimize pesticide applications can form one criterion in the development of more environmentally sensitive management strategies. The merit of utilizing chemicals for root lesion nematode control are considered with regard to cultivar maturity.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant PathologySame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207