Optimising spot weed control regimes for <i>Pinus radiata</i> plantations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spot spraying, in which only the area around individual trees is treated, is an important method of herbicide application during establishment of Pinus radiata D. Don (radiata pine) in New Zealand. Minimising the spot size reduces costs and has possible environmental benefits from reduced overall herbicide use. An analysis of six experiments at five separate sites tested the growth response of P. radiata to spot weed control on sites dominated by herbaceous vegetation, usually as a result of oversowing with a mixture of grasses and legumes. The analysis showed that, on sites dominated by herbaceous weeds, the reduction in rotation length achieved by applying total weed control compared with no postplant weed control ranged from 0.4 to 1.6 years and averaged 0.9 years. A spot diameter of 1 m maintained for 1 year achieved 28% of the benefit of total weed control, whereas a spot diameter of 2 m maintained for 1 year achieved 66% of the benefit. Generally, there was little benefit in maintaining spots beyond 1 year. An economic analysis indicated that weed control of any kind was generally unprofitable when the time-shift gain from weed control was 0.4 years or less but highly profitable for sites with a time shift of 1.6 years or more.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".