An investigation to enhance understanding of the stimulation of weed seedling emergence by soil disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Enhanced understanding of soil disturbance effects on weed seedling recruitment will help guide improved management approaches. Field experiments were conducted at 16 site‐years at 10 research farms across Europe and North America to (i) quantify superficial soil disturbance (SSD) effects on Chenopodium album emergence and (ii) clarify adaptive emergence behaviour in frequently disturbed environments. Each site‐year contained factorial combinations of two seed populations (local and common, with the common population studied at all site‐years) and six SSD timings [0, 50, 100, 150, 200 day‐degrees (d°C, base temperature 3°C) after first emergence from undisturbed soil]. Analytical units in this study were emergence flushes. Flush magnitudes (maximum weekly emergence per count flush) and flush frequencies (flushes year−1) were compared between disturbed and undisturbed seedbanks. One year after burial, SSD promoted seedling emergence relative to undisturbed seedbanks by increasing flush magnitude rather than increasing flush frequency. Two years after burial, SSD promoted emergence through increased flush magnitude and flush frequency. The promotional effects of SSD on emergence were strongest within 500 d°C following SSD; however, low levels of SSD‐induced emergence were detected as late as 3000 d°C following SSD. Accordingly, stale seedbed practices that eliminate weed seedlings should occur within 500 d°C of disturbance, because few seedlings emerge after this time. However, implementation of stale seedbed practices will probably cause slight increases in weed population densities throughout the year. Compared with the common population, local populations exhibited reduced variance in total emergence measured within sites and across SSD treatments, suggesting that C. album adaptation to local pedo‐climatic conditions involves increased consistency in SSD‐induced emergence.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".