How Climate Change Will Shape Pesticide Application in Quebec’s Golf Courses: Insights with Deep Learning Based on Assessing CMIP5 and CMIP6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accelerating impact of climate change on golf course conditions has led to a significant increase in pesticide dependency, underscoring the importance of innovative management strategies. The shift from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) to the latest CMIP6 phase has drawn the attention of professionals, including engineers, decision makers, and golf course managers. This study evaluates how climate projections from CMIP6, using Canadian Earth System Models (CanESM2 and CanESM5), impact pesticide application trends on Quebec’s golf courses. Through the comparison of temperature and precipitation projections, it was found that a more substantial decline in precipitation is exhibited by CanESM2 compared to CanESM5, while the latter projects higher temperature increases. A comparison between historical and projected pesticide use revealed that, in most scenarios and projected periods, the projected pesticide use was substantially higher, surpassing past usage levels. Additionally, in comparing the two climate change models, CanESM2 consistently projected higher pesticide use across various scenarios and projected periods, except for RCP2.6, which was 27% lower than SSP1-2.6 in the second projected period (PP2). For all commonly used pesticides, the projected usage levels in every projected period, according to climate change models, surpass historical levels. When comparing the two climate models, CanESM5 consistently forecasted greater pesticide use for fungicides, with a difference ranging from 65% to 222%, and for herbicides, with a difference ranging from 114% to 247%, across all projected periods. In contrast, insecticides, growth regulators, and rodenticides displayed higher AAIR values in CanESM2 during PP1 and PP3, showing a difference of 28% to 35.6%. However, CanESM5 again projected higher values in PP2, with a difference of 1.5% to 14%.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".