Influence of Spring Tillage and Glyphosate Treatment on Dandelion (<i>Taraxacum officinale</i>) Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although dandelion has been recognized for some time as a common weed of perennial plant stands, recent weed surveys in western Canada indicate that dandelion has become more common in fields where annual spring crops are grown. Because little has been published on dandelion control in annual crops, a field study was conducted at two locations in southern Manitoba in 1999 and 2000 investigating the effect of spring tillage, glyphosate dosage, and application timing on dandelion control in a spring annual glyphosate-resistant canola crop. The experiments were situated in areas known to have natural infestations of dandelion. Final assessments of dandelion control were performed the spring following treatment, i.e., the next year, to provide a better indication of treatment efficacy on this perennial weed. Spring tillage alone did not significantly reduce dandelion density, as assessed the following spring, but did reduce dandelion shoot dry matter at three of the five site-years by up to 84%. Glyphosate was applied preplant, in-crop, and postharvest at dosages ranging from 450 g ae/ha in-crop to 2,700 g ae/ha postharvest. Glyphosate application after the canola crop had been harvested provided the greatest level of dandelion control, with a single postharvest application of 900 g ae/ha of glyphosate reducing dandelion density and shoot dry matter by 88 and 96%, respectively, the following spring. Applications of glyphosate either preplant or in-crop were not nearly as effective as the postharvest treatments in reducing dandelion density and shoot dry matter the following spring.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".