Response of canola to simulated diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) defoliation at different growth stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In field trials conducted during 1995–1998, canola cultivar "Falcon" was subjected to different levels of simulated insect defoliation at four stages of crop growth. Plants were 0, 33, 67 and 100% defoliated at rosette and flowering stages during the 1995–1996 season as well as 2–4 leaf stage during the 1996–1997 and 1997–1998 seasons. Plants were 0, 50 and 100% defoliated at pod filling stage during all seasons. Over all seasons, defoliation did not consistently affect the number of plants per unit area, plant height, 1000 seed weight, and oil content of seeds for most of the defoliation treatments. However, defoliation at the 2–4 leaf and rosette stages made plants more susceptible to cold injury. Generally, canola could withstand a higher level of defoliation as crop development progressed. Maximum yield reductions occurred for defoliations at the 2–4 leaf stage followed by the rosette and flowering stages of the crop. No significant yield losses were recorded for defoliations at the pod filling stage. Results suggest that canola is most sensitive to defoliation in its early stages of growth. Greater amounts of defoliation can be tolerated as crop development progresses. The relationships between defoliation and yield loss were used to establish diamondback moth economic injury levels for canola at different crop growth stages. Key words: Canola, Brassica napus, oilseed rape, simulated defoliation, economic injury level
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".