MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120022082 · doi:10.1080/07060660509507193

Effects of crop rotation and tillage on blackleg disease of canola

2005· article· en· W2120022082 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Xiaoqiang Guo, W. G. Dilantha Fernando, Martin H. Entz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCanolaBlacklegTillageCrop rotationAgronomyLeptosphaeria maculansCropBiologyConventional tillageBrassica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of a 4-year crop rotation and two tillage systems on blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) disease of canola were determined in a field experiment carried out from 1999 through 2002 at Carman, Manitoba. Crops in rotation were canola (Brassica napus) (C), wheat (Triticum aestivum) (W), and flax (Linum usitatissimum) (F). Rotations were done under conventional tillage (T) or zero-till (Z) systems. Diseased stem incidence and severity were assessed. Diseased stem incidence and severity in 2001 and 2002 were significantly lower when canola was rotated with wheat, and rotated with wheat and flax under both tillage systems. The CCCCT rotation had a higher disease incidence than CWCCT, CWFCT, and CCWCT rotations, which were not significantly different from each other. Zerotill plots had significantly greater diseased stem incidence and severity than tilled plots, with or without rotation. Tillage reduced the disease when it was performed with a simple-crop rotation; however, the effect was reduced with a two-crop rotation. The results suggest that an appropriate rotation and tillage strategy could be effective in reducing the severity of blackleg of canola in farmers' fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207