Burial Environment Drives Seed Mortality of Kochia (Bassia scoparia), Wild Oat (Avena fatua), and Volunteer Canola (Brassica napus) Irrespective of Crop Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of weed population demography are critical to understanding the long-term viability of management strategies. The driving factors of weed seedbank persistence are often underrepresented in demographic models due to the cumbersome nature of seedbank research. Simplification of weed seedbank dynamics may induce substantial error in model simulations. A soil bioassay was conducted to determine whether growth of different crop species, including wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), canola (Brassica napus L.), and field pea (Pisum sativum L.), differentially impact seed mortality of kochia [Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott], wild oat (Avena fatua L.), and volunteer canola in seven burial environments in western Canada. Weed seed survival after the 7 week burial period varied widely among burial environments (from 8% to 88% when averaged among weed and crop species), whereas growth of the different crop species had negligible impact on seedbank persistence. Among environments, wild oat seed survived the greatest (79%), followed by kochia (20%), and volunteer canola (6%). Weed seed survival was associated with soil physical properties (texture) and seed microsite characteristics (temperature), but not crop species or soil chemical properties. Overall, these data support the need for greater integration of soil and environmental parameters into models of weed population demography.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".