Predispersal seed predation of <i>Amaranthus retroflexus</i> and <i>Chenopodium album</i> growing in soyabean fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Field experiments were made in 1998 and 1999 to determine the influence of tillage and soyabean (Glycine max) row width on predispersal weed seed predation in Amaranthus retroflexus L. (redroot pigweed) and Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters). Soyabean was planted in wide (76 cm) and narrow (19 cm) rows with conventional or conservation tillage. Additional control plots without soyabean were also established. The two objectives were to determine (1) whether predispersal seed predation occurs in A. retroflexus or C. album, and (2) whether disturbance (soil tillage) or microclimate (planting pattern) influence predation level. Mean rates of seed predation were 26% and 4% in A. retroflexus and C. album, respectively. Although these levels were low at the population level, individual plants of both species had predation levels ranging from 0% to 80%, however, very few individuals of C. album had levels of predation above 10%. Differences among tillage and row width treatments occurred for A. retroflexus, but not for C. album. Amaranthus retroflexus and C. album growing within the soyabean crop received less light than those in the no‐crop plots, and produced less above‐ground biomass, smaller terminal inflorescences, and fewer seeds per inflorescence. Plant height, terminal inflorescence weight, and total seeds were correlated with predation in both weed species.
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".