Impact of Indian mustard growth and incorporation on annual weed population dynamics and communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Biofumigation from Brassica cover crops may be used to control soilborne pests and weeds. A study was conducted to understand the influence of biofumigation on key processes of annual weed population dynamics. Five combinations of Indian mustard (M) and oat (O) cover crop treatments were assessed in a 3 year field study at two locations in Québec, Canada. Treatments included four spring/fall cover crop combinations (M/M, M/O, O/M, O/O) and a weedy check control with no cover crop. Prior to mowing and incorporation of cover crops, weed identification, count and biomass measurements were recorded to evaluate the total weed density, to calculate the relative neighbour effect ( RNE ) and weed diversity metrics and to perform principal co‐ordinates analyses. Indian mustard cover crops had no impact on weed establishment in 2014 due to low biofumigant potential compared to the oat cover crop. In 2015 and 2016, Indian mustard isothiocyanate ( ITC ) production increased and weed establishment within the Indian mustard cover crop decreased. Moreover, post‐cover crop incorporation decreased the next year spring weed emergence. Allelopathic interference of Indian mustard was significant when plant tissues produced more than 600 μg of allyl‐ ITC g −1 . It is now possible to rationalise the use of Brassica cover crops and biofumigation for weed control with an enhanced understanding of the impact of biofumigation on key processes of weed population dynamics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".