Influence of Tillage on Control of Wild Oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>) by the Soil-applied Herbicide Pyroxasulfone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild oat control options are limited in western Canada due to resistance to most common herbicides. Control of wild oat with pyroxasulfone, a soil-applied, very-long-chain fatty-acid inhibitor, was investigated. A series of greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to isolate the effects of vertical seed position, site of herbicide interception, and tillage on wild oat control with pyroxasulfone in comparison with triallate. In greenhouse experiments, wild oat shoot length (soil surface to leaf tip) was reduced (P<0.05) in shallow-seeded wild oat compared with deep-seeded wild oat with pyroxasulfone (6.2 and 9.8 cm, respectively) and triallate (3.7 and 13.2 cm, respectively). Soil-applied pyroxasulfone remained in the top 2.5 cm of the soil with or without a simulated rainfall event. Pyroxasulfone was most effective if either the seed or the shoot 1 cm above the seed intercepted the herbicide layer. If a wild oat emerges from deeper in the soil profile, the sensitive part of the seedling may not intercept an effective rate of pyroxasulfone in the soil. In field experiments comparing deep- and shallow-seeded wild oat treated with pyroxasulfone and triallate in fields with and without tillage, there were no significant effects of tillage alone on wild oat shoot length. Deep-seeded wild oat emerged early, and while herbicides reduced shoot growth, shoots were >10 cm. Shallow-seeded wild oat had delayed emergence, possibly due to reduced soil moisture, and herbicides reduced shoot growth to <10cm. Pyroxasulfone is likely to be more effective in no-till fields where wild oat seeds are not located deep in the soil.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".