GENE FLOW IN COMMERCIAL FIELDS OF HERBICIDE‐RESISTANT CANOLA (BRASSICA NAPUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple herbicide resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate, bromoxynil, or imidazolinone in volunteer plants of canola ( Brassica napus ) has been attributed to pollen flow among cultivars with different resistance traits. A study was conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1999 and 2000 to assess gene flow in space and time in adjacent commercial fields of glyphosate‐ and glufosinate‐resistant canola, including (1) estimation of gene flow with distance; (2) frequency and distribution of volunteers, and effect on gene flow; (3) effect of adventitious double herbicide‐resistant seed presence in seedlots planted; and (4) a comparison of various marker systems to track gene flow events. At 11 sites in 1999, gene flow was determined by sampling seeds from plants located at 0, 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, or 800 m along a transect perpendicular to the common border in the paired fields, spraying seedlings with glyphosate and glufosinate, and confirming the presence of the transgenes using commercial test strips and PCR analysis. In the spring of 2000, putative double herbicide‐resistant volunteers that survived sequential herbicide applications were mapped at three of the sites using GPS and resistance in sampled plants was characterized. In 1999, gene flow between the paired fields was detected to a maximum distance of 400 m. Values ranged from 1.4% outcrossing at the border common to the paired fields to 0.04% at 400 m. In 2000, gene flow as a result of pollen flow in 1999 was detected to the limits of the study areas (800 m). Large variation in gene flow levels and patterns among the three sites was evident. Adventitious presence of double herbicide‐resistant seed in glyphosate‐resistant seedlots planted at two of the sites in 1999 contributed to the occurrence of double herbicide‐resistant volunteers in 2000. The results of this study suggest that gene stacking in B. napus canola volunteers in western Canada may be common, and reflects pollen flow between different herbicide‐resistant canola, presence of double herbicide‐resistant off‐types in seedlots, and/or agronomic practices typically employed by Canadian growers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".