Influence of tillage, vertical seed distribution, and pyroxasulfone application timing and rate on control of wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tillage and new herbicide options may be necessary for the control of herbicide-resistant wild oat. The efficacy of soil-applied herbicides such as pyroxasulfone can be influenced by edaphic factors and weed seed recruitment depth, which varies with tillage system. We investigated the effect of tillage and pyroxasulfone rate when applied in the fall and spring on wild oat biomass at three locations in Alberta in 2014–2015. The vertical position of wild oat seeds, with and without tillage, was examined at each site. Wild oat biomass was greater in untilled plots compared with plots with fall tillage at all locations. In two out of three locations, pyroxasulfone efficacy was superior when applied in the fall compared with spring, possibly influenced by low spring rainfall. A single tillage pass at the Edmonton and Kinsella locations did not affect wild oat seed distribution, but there was an increase in seeds present in the surface layer in the untilled treatment at Lacombe. Tillage, used in combination with soil-applied herbicides, may be an option to achieve acceptable control of herbicide-resistant wild oat.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".