Influence of Late Applications of Imazamox on Imidazolinone-Resistant Canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that late and sequential applications of glyphosate and glufosinate can have adverse effects on glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant canola. Similarly, imidazolinone (IMI)-resistant canola may be affected negatively by late applications of imidazolinone herbicides. Field trials were established across the Northern Great Plains region from 2010 to 2012 to examine the response of IMI-resistant canola yield, yield components, and seed quality to late and sequential applications of imazamox. Plots received either a single imazamox application at the two-leaf, six-leaf, bolt, or early bloom stages or sequential applications at the two-leaf followed by six-leaf, two-leaf followed by bolting, and two-leaf followed by early bloom stages; an unsprayed control was included for comparisons. Results indicated that in most site-years there was no effect of imazamox application timing on IMI-resistant canola yield, yield components, or seed quality. These results suggest that late and sequential applications of imazamox to IMI-resistant canola should have little effect on canola production, even if they are made beyond the recommended six-leaf stage. In situations where growers are forced to make late applications (beyond six leaves) to IMI-resistant canola, using solely imazamox appears to minimize adverse effects on seed yield and quality.
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 | 0.001 | 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".