MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979998455 · doi:10.1017/wet.2019.97

Minimizing competition between glyphosate-resistant volunteer canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) and glyphosate-resistant soybean: impact of soybean planting date and rate

2019· article· en· W2979998455 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allyson Mierau, Eric N. Johnson, Robert H. Gulden, Jessica D. Weber, William E. May, Christian J. Willenborg

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCameco (Canada)University of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingCanolaGlyphosateAgronomyBrassicaSeedingBiologyVolunteerCompetition (biology)CultivarEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years, soybean acreage has increased significantly in western Canada. One of the challenges associated with growing soybean in western Canada is the control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant (GR) canola, because most soybean cultivars are also glyphosate resistant. The objective of this research was to determine the impact of soybean seeding rate and planting date on competition with volunteer canola. We also attempted to determine how high seeding rate could be raised while still being economically feasible for producers. Soybean was seeded at five different seeding rates (targeted 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 plants m −2 ) and three planting dates (targeted mid-May, late May, and early June) at four sites across western Canada in 2014 and 2015. Soybean yield consistently increased with higher seeding rates, whereas volunteer canola biomass decreased. Planting date generally produced variable results across site-years. An economic analysis determined that the optimal rate was 40 to 60 plants m −2 , depending on market price, and the optimal planting date range was from May 20 to June 1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207