MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799770117 · doi:10.7939/r3qk54

Insect and agronomic responses in canola and wheat intercrops

2010· article· en· W2799770117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeremy D. Hummel

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyIntercroppingBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intercropping systems offer potential benefits relative to monocultures of increased crop yields and improved pest control through physical, chemical, or behavioural interference and the enhancement of natural enemy populations, prompting increased predation and parasitism. Intercrops of canola (Brassica napus L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in various proportions were investigated at three sites in Alberta, Canada, in 2005 and 2006, to determine effects on 1) agronomic parameters, including crop grain and biomass yields, crop quality (canola oil and canola and wheat protein), lodging, soil microbial communities, and wheat leaf diseases; 2) pest insects, including flea beetle (Phyllotreta spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) damage to seedling canola and root maggot (Delia spp.) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) adult collection numbers, egg populations, and canola taproot damage; and 3) beneficial insects, including ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and the predator-parasitoid Aleochara bilineata Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Crop yields were similar in intercrops and monocultures, and benefits of intercropping were observed in enhanced crop quality characteristics in some site-years. Neither soil microorganisms nor wheat leaf diseases generally responded to intercropping regimes. Intercropping did not reduce flea beetle damage to canola seedlings. Flea beetle damage was greatest at the first true-leaf stage of canola development. Although a thiamethoxam seed treatment reduced flea beetle herbivory, untreated plots generally did not sustain greater than 20% damage, suggesting that seed treatments were usually unnecessary. Adult Delia did not respond to intercropping canola with wheat, but egg populations were lower in intercrops on a land area basis. Canola taproot damage was as much as 13% reduced in intercrops compared to monocultures. Carabid beetles appeared to respond to qualities of the intercrops and monocultures, such as ground cover, rather than to the level of vegetational diversity itself, but carabid diversity was enhanced in diverse intercrops compared to canola monocultures in one site-year. Aleochara bilineata adult populations and parasitism rates were favoured in canola monocultures, but a temporal shift in A. bilineata adult collection numbers suggests reduced preference for canola monocultures in early summer. Benefits of canola-wheat intercrops identified in this study do not appear sufficient to recommend these cropping systems for widespread adoption in western Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207