Pyroxasulfone Is Effective for Management of<i>Bromus</i>spp. in Winter Wheat in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to concerns about acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor–resistant weeds in wheat production systems, we explored the efficacy of managingBromusspp., downy and Japanese bromes, in a winter wheat system using alternative herbicide treatments applied in either fall or spring. Trials were established at Lethbridge and Kipp, Alberta, and Scott, Saskatchewan, Canada over three growing seasons (2012–2014) to compare the efficacy of pyroxasulfone (a soil-applied very-long-chain fatty acid elongase inhibitor; WSSA Group 15) and flumioxazin (a protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor; WSSA Group 14) against industry-standard ALS-inhibiting herbicides for downy and Japanese brome control. Winter wheat injury from herbicide application was minor, with the exception of flucarbazone application at Scott.Bromusspp. control was greatest with pyroxsulam and all herbicide treatments containing pyroxasulfone. Downy and Japanese bromes were controlled least by thiencarbazone and flumioxazin, respectively, whereasBromusspp. had intermediate responses to the other herbicides tested. Herbicides applied in fall resulted in reduced winter wheat yield relative to the spring applications. Overall, pyroxasulfone or pyroxsulam provided the most efficaciousBromusspp. control compared with the other herbicides and consistently maintained optimal winter wheat yields. Therefore, pyroxasulfone could facilitate management ofBromusspp. resistant to ALS inhibitors in winter wheat in the southern growing regions of western Canada. Improved weed control and delayed herbicide resistance may be achieved when pyroxasulfone is applied in combination with flumioxazin.
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 | 0.001 | 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".