Late Glyphosate Applications Alter Yield and Yield Components in Glyphosate-Resistant Canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of glyphosate-resistant canola has provided improved weed-management options for growers, but crop tolerance to glyphosate may be inadequate at later growth stages. In this study, glyphosate-resistant canola 45H28 (RR) was used to determine the effects of glyphosate application timing on yield and yield components at several sites in western Canada. Canola received a single glyphosate applications at the two-leaf, six-leaf, bolting, and early bloom stages and sequential applications at the two-leaf + six-leaf, two-leaf + bolting, and two-leaf + early bloom stages. Contrasts were made between early vs. late, single vs. sequential, and on-label (two to six-leaf stage) vs. off-label (above six-leaf stage). In general, differences between application timings were observed for yield and yield components in 3 of 8 site-yr. Off-label applications of glyphosate (later than six-leaf) significantly decreased yield, seeds per pod, and increased thousand-seed weight and aborted pods in canola at the Lethbridge and St. Albert locations. Increased glyphosate translocation because of adequate, but not excessive, moisture to new growth may have suppressed new seed formation and encouraged pod abortion at the time of application in the 2010 and 2011 seasons. Results from this experiment demonstrate the importance of proper application timing of glyphosate on canola and can help better predict the effects of late applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".