Promotion of weed species diversity and reduction of weed seedbanks with conservation tillage and crop rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a 6-yr study on four farms (36 fields) in Ontario, Canada, we tested the effects of tillage (moldboard, chisel plow, no tillage) and crop rotations (continuous corn, corn-soybean, corn-soybean-winter wheat) on emerged and seedbank weed species diversity and density. Aside from the imposed experimental treatments, all other management was generally consistent among farms. Tillage had the largest effect on weed diversity and density. No tillage promoted the highest weed species diversity, chisel plow was intermediate, and moldboard plow resulted in the lowest species diversity. These results are consistent with ecological succession theory. The increase in weed species diversity resulted from 20 species being associated with no tillage systems, 15 of which were winter annuals, biennials, or perennials. Emerged weed density was affected only by tillage. Over 6 yr, seedbank declined in no-tillage systems from 41,000 to 8,000 seeds m−3. Crop yields were not affected by tillage or crop rotation. In practical terms, reduced tillage in combination with a good crop rotation may reduce weed density and expenditures on weed management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".