MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405653809 · doi:10.1017/wsc.2024.99

Implications of cover crop management decisions on <i>Amaranthus</i> species density and biomass in temperate cropping systems: a meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4405653809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vipin Kumar, Mandeep Singh, Resham Bahadur Thapa, Ankit Yadav, Humberto Blanco‐Canqui, Sam E. Wortman, Saleh Taghvaeian, Amit J. Jhala

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTemperate climateCover cropCroppingAgronomyBiomass (ecology)AgroforestryCover (algebra)Environmental scienceCropCropping systemBiologyEcologyAgricultureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Weed-suppression benefits of cover crops (CCs) have long been recognized; however, the specific ability of CCs to suppress highly epidemic Amaranthus spp. (Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.), and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer]) has not been widely discussed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the implications of CC management decisions (CC type, planting and termination methods, residue fate after termination, and in-season weed management plan) on Amaranthus spp. weed density (ASWD) and Amaranthus spp. weed biomass (ASWB) compared with no CC (NCC) in temperate regions, including the United States and Canada. We found 41 studies conducted across the United States and Canada and extracted 595 paired observations. The results indicate that CCs reduced the ASWD by 58% in the early season (0 to 4 wk after crop planting [WAP]), by 48% in the midseason (5 to 8 WAP), and by 44% in the late season (>8 WAP). Similarly, CCs reduced ASWB by 59%, 55%, and 37% in the early, mid-, and late season, respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed CCs terminated within 2.5 wk of crop planting reduced ASWD by ≥50%. CC biomass required to reduce ASWD and ASWB by 50% was 4,079 kg ha−1 for ASWD and 5,352 kg ha−1 for ASWB. Among CC types, grasses and mixtures reduced ASWD by 60% and 77% in early season, 53% and 59% in midseason, and 44% and 47% in late season. Legume CCs were effective only during the early season (47% ASWD reduction), while brassicas did not affect ASWD. CC residues remaining on the soil surface were more effective for reducing ASWD than incorporation. CCs did not affect ASWD or ASWB compared with NCC when herbicides were used for in-season weed management. In general, CCs were found to reduce ASWD and ASWB and therefore can be used as an effective tool for integrated management of Amaranthus spp.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.042
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ScienceSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207