Relative fitness of s-triazine susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative fitness of s-triazine susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album from Quebec were compared in three greenhouse experiments. Under non-competitive conditions, there was no difference in dry matter production between biotypes, but the resistant biotype allocated less dry matter to seed production and produced fewer seeds than the susceptible. Results from de Wit replacement series performed at 400 plants m2 indicated that the relative proportion of biomass and seeds produced by the susceptible biotype was always greater than the proportion of susceptible plants present in any given treatment. The effects of root, shoot, and full (root + shoot) competition were compared between and within biotypes at planting densities of 400,666,934,1200, and 1466 seedlings m-2. Biotype had the most pronounced effect on all variables among the factors studied. The susceptible seedlings were taller, had a greater leaf area index (LAI), more leaves, and greater leaf, stem, and above-ground dry matter yields than the resistant seedlings, regardless of the planting density or the mode of competition. The fitness of the susceptible biotype was greatest when both biotypes were competing for light. The effects of shoot competition for light on yield, LAI, leaf numbers, and seedling height, were as important as those of full competition. The effects of root competition, although significant, were not nearly as important. The data indicate that if s-triazines are no longer used in a field, the C. album population will revert naturally to susceptibility because of the superior fitness of the susceptible biotype.
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 | 0.001 | 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".