Effect of Herbicides on Field Violet (<i>Viola arvensis</i>) in Direct-Seeded Spring Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The agrestal field violet, a pervasive weed in Europe, has been identified in reduced-tillage cereal fields in Alberta. The efficacy of herbicides in direct-seeded spring wheat was assessed on natural field violet infestations in Alberta in 2002 and 2003. Only fluroxypyr + 2,4-D, applied postemergence, provided control of field violet in 2002 when rainfall was limiting. Over both years, this herbicide combination reduced biomass by 59 to 69% and plant density by 83 to 91%, relative to nontreated plots. The herbicides metsulfuron, sulfosulfuron, and thifensulfuron + tribenuron only suppressed weed growth under drought conditions in 2002 but controlled the weed in 2003 when rainfall was greater, reducing plant density by 82 to 92% and rendering remaining plants sterile. Suppression was also observed with MCPA + mecoprop + dicamba in 2002 and 2003 and with metribuzin only in 2003. Effective control of field violet was conferred by a pre–crop emergence application of glyphosate at 445 g ae/ha in 2003, the only year that this treatment was evaluated. Activity of herbicides on three- to four-leaf seedlings was also evaluated in a greenhouse dose– response assay. All herbicides had greater efficacy in the greenhouse, and those that provided control in situ reduced field violet dry weight by 85% at less than the recommended rate used in field experiments. Management of field violet is possible with herbicides registered for use on spring wheat in Alberta. However, the weed does not appear to cause significant crop production losses; hence, herbicide selection should be based on knowledge of all weed species present within the field.
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".