Potential Benefit and Risk of Fluridone as a Fall Germination Stimulant in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbicide resistance has increased the need for novel weed control strategies. Fluridone has herbicidal as well as potential germination stimulant activity. The objectives of this study were to evaluate fluridone as a fall-applied germination stimulant for weed control and to assess rotational crop tolerance. Fall-applied fluridone was compared with a nontreated control in areas established with false cleavers, volunteer canola, and wild oat at Lacombe, AB, in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016, and at St Albert, AB, in 2015–2016. In the fall, there was a trend for weed densities to be higher in fluridone treatments than in untreated controls across site-years. The stimulatory effect of fluridone on weed germination was not statistically significant in fall assessments, while the weed control effect was significant in 33% of spring assessments. While fluridone reduced weed biomass for some site-years, it also reduced canola crop emergence and biomass at St Albert in 2015–2016, and caused injury symptoms on wheat and field pea. Risk of carryover to subsequent crops outweighed the benefits of using fluridone in the fall to stimulate weed germination in this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".