Comparison of weed communities in Manitoba ecoregions and crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997, a weed survey was conducted during July and August in fields of wheat, barley, oat, canola and flax in Manitoba. Field selection was based on a stratified-random sampling methodology using ecodistricts as strata. Species in the Poaceae family were most commonly observed in the survey, followed by species in the Polygonaceae, Asteraceae and Brassicaceae families. The six most abundant weed species were green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.], wild oats (Avena fatua L.), wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.). The survey highlighted significant differences between ecoregions and between crops in residual weed infestations. The weed community in the Boreal Transition ecoregion was dominated by seven species, whereas fields in the Aspen Parkland and Lake Manitoba Plain ecoregions were dominated by two species and the Interlake Plain ecoregion was dominated by only one species. Although significant differences were found between the weed communities in crops, they were not as great as differences between ecoregions. The Manitoba residual weed community in 1997 was very similar to that reported for 1978–1981 and 1986, suggesting that the same species should remain a focus for weed management. Key words: Weed survey, weed relative abundance, weed distributions, Manitoba ecoregions
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".