An assessment of the concept of early time of weed removal in field pea using natural weed populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The economic and agronomic benefits of including annual grain legumes in cropping systems has resulted in a large increase in field pea production in Western Canada. Concerns have been raised about the large year-to-year variability in field pea grain yields and recent attention has focussed on weed management. A study was conducted to quantify the effects of time of post-emergence herbicide application to normal leafed and semi-leafless field pea types under natural weed populations and conservation tillage practices. Odyssey™ herbicide (50:50 imazethapyr:imazamox) was applied either 1, 2 or 3 wk after crop emergence with an untreated check included. The study was conducted at seven locations across the major agro-ecological zones of Saskatchewan in 1999 and 2000. The results of this study support the merits of early herbicide application 1 to 2 wk after crop emergence. Benefits of early time of weed removal occurred in 7 of 14 sites-years. There was no yield penalty recorded from early applications of herbicide, but some yield penalty was observed with later applications at certain locations. Spraying early rather than late minimizes the risks associated with delayed applications resulting from adverse weather conditions and a possible decrease in crop tolerance as was observed at the Swift Current site. Results support the early removal of weeds from field pea crops to optimize seed yield. Key words: Crop-weed interference, Pisum sativum L., weed management, timing of 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 | 0.000 | 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".