Impact of Simulated Insect Defoliation and Timing of Injury on Cabbage Yield in Minnesota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1992 and 1994, field studies were done to assess the tolerance of transplanted cabbage to simulated insect defoliation and to determine if the defoliation level and growth stage at which defoliation begins influences final yield. In both years, 6 defoliation levels ranging from 0-100% were applied to transplanted cabbage at 4 time intervals. The time intervals began at transplanting, pre-head and head stages and continued until either head stage or harvest. For both years, the only time interval with significantly higher yield than the trans- plant to harvest interval (longest interval) was the head to harvest interval (shortest interval) and significant yield loss occurred only when defoliation was >12.5%. Results suggest that transplanted cabbage can withstand relatively low levels of defoliation before yield loss occurs but that yield loss is also related to the duration over which defoliation occurs. In early growth stages, to protect yield, pest management practices should focus on reducing the interval over which damage occurs. The use of cultural practices that delay the onset of defoliation or allow avoidance of pests could protect yield. These strategies may include using transplants to shorten the time from planting to harvest or using planting dates that allow significant plant growth (i.e., head stage) before defoliators are able to infest the crop and cause significant damage. In addition, management strategies that reduce pest populations can also protect yield but at the head stage should switch to managing pests to protect marketability by reducing aesthetic damage and head contaminants.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".