Oat Caryopsis Size and Genotype Effects on Wild Oat–Oat Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inherent similarity between wild oat ( Avena fatua L.) and oat ( A. sativa L.) precludes selective herbicide control of wild oat. Previous studies have reported improved crop yield and competitiveness with the use of large seed. Therefore, a greenhouse experiment was conducted in 2002 and 2003 to examine the effect of caryopsis (dehulled kernel) size and genotype on wild oat–oat competition. Seeds of three oat cultivars (AC Assiniboia, CDC Boyer, CDC Orrin) were classified into three size classes based on caryopsis size (large, ≈35 mg; medium, ≈25 mg; and small, ≈15 mg). Whole oat seeds of each genotype and caryopsis size treatment were grown either in monoculture or in mixture with wild oat (250 plants m −2 ). Neither genotype nor caryopsis size significantly influenced ( P < 0.05) oat emergence. Nonetheless, oat plants established from large caryopses produced 17% more biomass ( P < 0.001) and 15% more panicles m −2 ( P < 0.001) than plants established from small caryopses. Wild oat produced 23% less biomass ( P = 0.004) and fewer panicles m −2 when grown with oat plants established from large caryopses. Genotype only influenced oat panicle production ( P = 0.05) and did not affect oat ( P = 0.09) or wild oat ( P = 0.34) aboveground shoot biomass production. These results suggest that oat plants derived from large‐seeded caryopses may be better able to tolerate wild oat interference. However, further investigation is needed to examine the response of oat–wild oat competition to oat caryopsis size and genotype under field conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".