Critical period of weed control in spring canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical period of weed control is the portion of the life cycle of a crop during which it must be kept weed-free to prevent yield loss due to weed interference. The advent of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus L.) varieties in western Canada has meant that there are now more options for postemergence weed control in canola, and this has prompted increased interest in identifying the optimum timing for weed control in this crop. A critical period experiment was conducted at three locations in southern Manitoba in 1998 and 1999, and it consisted of two sets of treatments. In the first set of treatments, the crop was kept weed-free for increasing lengths of time to determine when emerging weeds would no longer reduce crop yield. In the second set of treatments, weeds were permitted to grow in the crop for increasing lengths of time to determine when weeds emerging with the crop began irrevocably to reduce crop yield. Results of the experiments indicated that canola must be kept weed-free in most cases until the four-leaf stage of the crop (17–38 days after crop emergence [DAE]) and, in one early-seeded experiment, until the six-leaf stage of the crop (41 DAE), in order to prevent >10% yield loss. After the four- to six-leaf stage of the canola crop, few weeds emerged, and late-emerging weeds accumulated little shoot biomass. Weeds needed to be removed by the four-leaf stage of the crop (17–38 DAE) to prevent >10% yield loss due to weed interference. In all but the early-seeded experiment, the critical weed-free period and the critical time of weed removal overlapped, such that a single weed removal at the four-leaf stage of the crop would have been sufficient to prevent >10% yield loss. This information will be useful for providing weed control recommendations to canola producers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".