Site-specific wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i> L.) management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beckie, H. J. and Shirriff, S. 2012. Site-specific wild oat ( Avena fatua L.) management. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 923–931. Variation in soil properties, such as soil moisture, across a hummocky landscape may influence wild oat emergence and growth. To evaluate wild oat emergence, growth, and management according to landscape position, a study was conducted from 2006 to 2010 in a hummocky field in the semiarid Moist Mixed Grassland ecoregion of Saskatchewan. The hypothesis tested was that wild oat emergence and growth would be greater in lower than upper slope positions under normal or dry early growing season conditions. Three herbicide treatments were imposed on the same plots each year of a 2-yr canola (Brassica napus L.) – wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) sequence: (1) nontreated (weedy) control; (2) herbicide application to upper and lower slope positions (i.e., full or blanket application); and (3) herbicide application to lower slope position only. Slope position affected crop and weed densities before in-crop herbicide application in years with dry spring growing conditions. Site-specific wild oat herbicide application in hummocky fields in semiarid regions may be justified based on results of wild oat control averaged across slope position. In year 2 of the crop sequence (wheat), overall (i.e., lower and upper slope) wild oat control based on density, biomass, and dockage (i.e., seed return) was similar between site-specific and full herbicide treatment in 2 of 3 yr. Because economic thresholds have not been widely adopted by growers in managing wild oat, site-specific treatment in years when conditions warrant may be an appropriate compromise between no application and blanket herbicide application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".