The effects of soil tillage techniques on weed flora in high input barley systems in northern Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In barley cropping systems of northern Spain, agronomic practices and weather conditions are key components of weed control efficacy. We compared the short-term effects of conventional tillage with minimum tillage (MT) and zero tillage (ZT), in barley monoculture and barley rotation systems. Weed density and weed species number were measured at tillering and flowering barley stages. We found that tillage system can influence weed density and weed species establishment due to, in part, the available light for weed seeds. The results obtained indicate that the MT system facilitates the prevalence of the grass weed Bromus diandrus Roth (50.37%) and the annual dicots Galium aparine (L.) and Buglossoides arvensis (L.) I.M. Johnst. abundant were high in the MT system too, 43.71% and 43.97% respectively. The germination of these species showed a high dependence on light availability. We saw that barley-monoculture plots had a large infestation of Bromus (71.29%) and barley-rotated plots presented more infestation of Galium and Buglossoides (74.36% and 84.4%, respectively). After herbicide application, weed infestation in conservation systems was reduced in barley-rotated plots compared with barley-monoculture. If conservation systems avoided the presence of dominant weeds, the weight of each weed species was balanced within competitive relationships of the cropping systems. Our results confirmed that MT and ZT systems favour different weed species emergences in barley-rotated plots. The combination of MT and barley-rotated cropping system resulted in greater weed diversity and lower total weed density.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".