Pea-brassica intercropping does not ameliorate root rot in pea, but may provide yield or foliar disease benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root rot, caused by a complex of soil-borne pathogens including Aphanomyces euteiches, Fusarium spp. Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium species, is a serious constraint to field pea production on the Canadian prairies. The only effective means of managing this disease are avoiding planting pea or lentil for at least 6–8 years and avoiding fields known to harbour high levels of root rot pathogens for the production of these crops. Growing a brassica crop as an intercrop with pea could, in theory, reduce the risk of root rot via the release of glucosinolates as brassica tissue decomposes. Glucosinolates break down into isothiocyanates, which interact with soil pathogens and help mitigate their impact. To test the effectiveness of pea-brassica intercropping as a root rot management tool, small plot field trials were conducted from 2018 to 2022 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Brassica spp. included canola; brown, hybrid and yellow mustard; and camelina. Root rot severity in pea was not reduced through intercropping; however, land equivalency ratio (LER) yield benefits were observed in some site-years. Additionally, at one site, the severity of mycosphaerella blight was reduced by intercropping with hybrid brown mustard. Although intercropping with Brassica spp. does not mitigate root rot in pea, it may still be considered a worthwhile practice due to its potential yield and foliar disease management benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".