MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345388645 · doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0573

Winter Wheat Yields Are Increased by Seed Treatment and Fall‐Applied Fungicide

2016· article· en· W2345388645 on OpenAlexafffundabout
T. Kelly Turkington, Brian L. Beres, H. R. Kutcher, B. Irvine, Eric N. Johnson, John T. O’Donovan, K. Neil Harker, Christopher B. Holzapfel, Ramona M. Mohr, Gary Peng, F. Craig Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanAlberta Crop Industry Development FundAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFungicideAgronomyImidaclopridSeed treatmentYield (engineering)BiologyCultivarWinter wheatPesticideHorticultureGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor stand establishment resulting in lower yield is a major constraint to expanding winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) land area across the semiarid temperate regions of the northern Great Plains. We conducted a direct‐seeded study at nine sites across western Canada totaling 26 environments (site‐years) over three growing seasons (2011–2013) to observe the responses of the winter wheat cultivar CDC Buteo to five levels of seed treatment (i) Check–no seed treatment, (ii) tebuconozole [( RS )‐ 1‐(4‐Chlorophenyl)‐4,4‐dimethyl‐3‐(1 H , 1,2,4‐triazol‐1‐ylmethyl)pentan‐ 3‐ol], (iii) metalxyl {2‐[(2,6‐dimethylphenyl)‐(2‐methoxy‐1‐oxoethyl) amino} propanoic acid methyl ester], (iv) imidacloprid ( N ‐{1‐[(6‐Chloro‐3‐pyridyl)methyl]‐4,5‐dihydroimidazol‐2‐yl}nitramide), and (v) dual fungicide/insecticidal seed treatment: tebuconozole, + metalxyl + imidacloprid; and two levels of fall‐applied fungicide (i) Check–no application or (ii) foliar‐applied prothioconazole {2‐[2‐(1‐chlorocyclopropyl)‐3‐(2‐chlorophenyl)‐2‐hydroxypropyl]‐1H‐1,2,4‐triazole‐3‐thione} performed in mid‐October. The check and the fungicide seed treatment, metalaxyl, produced similarly low grain yield resulting in lower net returns, whereas the dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatment provided the highest yield and net returns (CAN+$13 ha −1 ). Fall‐applied fungicide improved yield (0.06 Mg ha −1 ), but decreased net returns (–$12 ha −1 ). Plant density increased slightly (13 plants m −2 ) when seed treatments included the insecticide component, imidacloprid. Fall foliar fungicides generally improved spring plant density; however, no benefit was observed in seed treatments containing imidacloprid. Greater yield and plant stand stability was observed with fall‐applied foliar fungicide applications; however, fall foliar would be cost prohibitive. The benefits of a fall foliar fungicide application requires further exploration in the context of an added input or as an alternative to a spring application as the net returns of a fall foliar compared to no application in the system render the input cost‐prohibitive. Core Ideas Seed treatment increases winter wheat yield. Fall‐applied fungicide increases winter wheat yield. Seed treatment increases winter wheat net returns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207