In situ emergence timing of large and small crabgrass in residential turfgrass of southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turner, F. A. and Van Acker, R. C. 2013. In situ emergence timing of large and small crabgrass in residential turfgrass of southern Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 503-509. Large, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop., and small, Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) ex Muhl., crabgrass are problem weeds in turfgrass. Due to an increasing number of cosmetic pesticide bans in Canada there is a need to better understand the biology and ecology of crabgrass in order to develop and hone management approaches. The assessment of crabgrass recruitment timing is particularly relevant to its management, including the timing of alternative herbicide applications. This study focused on determining the emergence timing of established populations of large and small crabgrass in typical residential turfgrass stands in southern Ontario. Small crabgrass emerged earlier than large crabgrass at 346 and 515 growing degree days (GDD), respectively. In typical southern Ontario lawns both small and large crabgrass emerge after cool-season turfgrass has established and emergence continues late into the summer. For example, even within the last 2 wk of July we observed over 700 seedlings m-2 of large crabgrass emerging in some observation plots. This study also confirmed that small crabgrass emerges earlier than large crabgrass. There was a greater difference in emergence timing between species rather than among sites, suggesting that it is important to differentiate between species when timing management approaches. The late and prolonged emergence of crabgrass makes residential lawns that are not well maintained susceptible to infestation for a long portion of the growing season. This study also demonstrated that cumulative GDD may be a reliable measure for tracking crabgrass emergence suggesting, that it could be used as a tool for management, including the application of alternative herbicides. This study reinforces the importance of maintaining healthy and dense turf stands throughout the season as a deterrent to crabgrass infestations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".