MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209940505 · doi:10.3390/plants10112276

Wheat and Cereal Rye Inter-Row Living Mulches Interfere with Early Season Weeds in Soybean

2021· article· en· W3209940505 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles M. Geddes, Robert H. Gulden

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomySecaleCanolaWeedGrowing seasonBiologyMulchBrassicaWeed control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid growth of cool-season weeds in the spring exacerbates weed interference during early soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) establishment in northern climates. This study tested the utility of spring-seeded inter-row living mulches in soybean for early season weed suppression using volunteer canola (Brassica napus L.) as a representative model weed species. The effects of the presence or absence of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) or winter cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) living mulches (mulch type) that had been seeded simultaneously with soybean grown using 38 or 76 cm row spacing (spatial arrangement) and the presence or absence of herbicides used for mid-season mulch termination (herbicide regime) were evaluated in three environments in Manitoba, Canada, in 2013 and 2014. Soybean yield was similar in the presence and absence of the living mulches. In the environment that received the lowest precipitation (Carman 2013), the mulches terminated with post-emergence glyphosate resulted in a 55% greater soybean yield compared to the mulches that remained live throughout the growing season. Inter-row mulches that had been living or terminated mid-season reduced volunteer canola seed production by about one-third (up to 9000 seeds m−2). This study demonstrates the utility of wheat or cereal rye inter-row living mulches for enhanced interference with weeds during early soybean establishment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207