MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113169601 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-12-00095.1

Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in the Canadian Prairies: 2007 to 2011

2013· article· en· W2113169601 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hugh J. Beckie, Chris Lozinski, Scott W. Shirriff, Clark A. Brenzil

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedFoxtailAcetolactate synthaseBiologyAgronomyWeed controlLambsquartersPopulationWeed scienceImazapyrAnimal scienceChenopodiumVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A late-summer survey of herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds was conducted in Alberta in 2007, Manitoba in 2008, and Saskatchewan in 2009, totaling 1,000 randomly selected annually cropped fields. In addition, we screened 1,091 weed seed samples (each sample from one field) submitted by Prairie growers between 2007 and 2011. Of 677 fields where wild oat samples were collected, 298 (44%) had an HR biotype. Group 1 (acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitor)-HR wild oat was confirmed in 275 fields (41%), up from 15% in previous baseline surveys (2001 to 2003). Group 2 (acetolactate synthase)-HR wild oat was found in 12% of fields (vs. 8% in 2001 to 2003). Group 8 (triallate, difenzoquat)-HR wild oat was identified in only 8% of fields (not tested in 2001 to 2003); the frequency of occurrence of group 1+2-HR wild oat was similar (8%, vs. 3% in 2001 to 2003). Group 1-HR green foxtail was found in 27% of 209 fields sampled for the weed (vs. 6% in 2001 to 2003). Group 2-HR spiny sowthistle was confirmed in all Alberta fields sampled (vs. 67% in 2001); common chickweed was found mainly in Alberta in 40% of fields (vs. 17% in 2001). Group 2-HR weed biotypes not previously detected in the baseline surveys included false cleavers mainly in Alberta (17% of fields) and Saskatchewan (21%), Powell amaranth in Manitoba (16% of fields), wild mustard (three populations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba), and wild buckwheat (one population in Alberta). No sampled weed populations across the Prairies were found to be resistant to herbicides from group 4 (synthetic auxins), group 9 (glyphosate), or group 10 (glufosinate). Based on the proportion of total field area at each site infested with HR weeds, it is estimated that 7.7 million ha (29% of annually cropped land) are infested with HR weeds (eight-fold increase from 2001 to 2003), in a total field area of 9.9 million ha (37%)—over a two-fold increase. Of 816 cases of HR wild oat identified from submitted samples, 69% were group 1-HR, 15% group 2-HR, and 16% group 1+2-HR. Additionally, there were 10 populations of group 1-HR green foxtail in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, and six populations of group 1-HR Persian darnel in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. Various group 2-HR broadleaf weeds were identified, including 17 wild mustard populations mainly from Saskatchewan and 39 cleavers populations across the three Prairie provinces. Herbicide-use data from 2006 to 2010 indicated continued reliance on group 1 herbicides in cereal crops and group 2 herbicides in pulse crops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207