Evaluation of Alternative Planting Strategies to Reduce Wheat Stem Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) Damage to Spring Wheat in the Northern Great Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheat, Triticum aestivum L., producers are often reluctant to use solid-stemmed wheat cultivars resistant to wheat stem sawfly, Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae), due to concerns regarding yield, efficacy or market opportunities. We evaluated the impact of several planting strategies on wheat yield and quality and wheat stem sawfly infestation at two locations over a three-year period. Experimental units consisted of large plots (50 by 200 m) located on commercial farms adjacent to wheat stem sawfly-infested fields. Compared with a monoculture of a hollow-stemmed cultivar ('AC Barrie'), planting a monoculture of a solid-stemmed cultivar ('AC Eatonia') increased yield by an average of 16% (0.4 mg ha(-1)) and increased the grade of wheat by one unit at the two most heavily infested site-years. Planting a 1:1 blend of AC Eatonia and AC Barrie increased yield by an average of 11%, whereas planting 20- or 40-m plot margins to AC Eatonia increased yield by an average of 8%. High wheat stem sawfly pressure limited the effectiveness of using resistant cultivars in field margins because plants were often infested beyond the plot margin, with uniform infestation down the length of the plots at the two most heavily infested site-years. The effectiveness of AC Eatonia to reduce wheat stem sawfly survivorship was modest in this study, probably due to weather-related factors influencing pith expression and to the high abundance of wheat stem sawfly. Greater benefits from planting field margins to resistant cultivars or planting a blend of resistant and susceptible cultivars might be achievable under lower wheat stem sawfly pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 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".