Herbicide resistance in the Canadian prairie provinces : Five years after the fact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbicide resistance was first recognized as a problem on the Canadian Prairies in 1988 when trifluralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) was reported in Manitoba, and chlorsulfuron-resistant chickweed (Stellaria media) and koehia (Kochia scoparia) in Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively. Since then, the number of resistant weeds has increased to include wild oats (Avena fatua) resistant to triallate and to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione (group 1) herbicides, green foxtail to group 1 herbicides, Russian thistle (Salsola pestifer) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone (group 2) herbicides, and wild mustard to growth regulator (group 4) herbicides. The levels and patterns of cross-resistance to chemicals in groups 1 and 2 vary widely among different populations, with resistance factors [resistant to susceptible (R:S) ratios] derived from dose response curves typically ranging from < 2 to > 150. Group 1 resistance in green foxtail and group 2 resistance in chickweed and kochia populations are due to reduced sensitivities of the target enzymes, acetyl coenzyme-A carboxylase (ACCase) and acetolactate synthase (ALS), respectively. The mechanisms of resistance in the other species including wild oats resistant to ACCase inhibitors (group 1 ) and to triallate/difenzoquat (group 8) are unclear. At present, the only instance of multiple resistance in western Canada is green foxtail resistant to chemicals in both groups 1 and 3 (ACCase inhibitors and dinitroanilines). Future concerns focus mainly on the increasing seriousness of group 1 and 8 resistance across the Prairies, and on the possibility of selecting for multiple resistance in weeds such as green foxtail for which there are few remaining effective control options.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".