Agronomic practices to reduce leaf spotting and Fusarium kernel infections in durum wheat on the Canadian prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
May, W. E., Fernandez, M. R., Selles, F. and Lafond G. P. 2014. Agronomic practices to reduce leaf spotting and Fusarium kernel infections in durum wheat on the Canadian prairies. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 141-152. Fusarium head blight (FHB) has become an important disease of durum wheat [Triticum turgidum L. ssp. durum (Desf.) Husn] in the humid and sub-humid regions of the prairies along with leaf spots, black point and red smudge. Together, they contribute to lower grain yields and grain quality. The study objective was to determine the effect of seeding rate, nitrogen (N) fertilizer rate, fungicidal treatment, and cultivar on disease severity, crop development, grain yield and quality in durum. A four-way factorial design was used with two seeding rates (150 and 300 viable seeds m-2), two N rates (75 and 100% of recommended rate), three cultivars (AC Avonlea, AC Morse and AC Navigator), four fungicide treatments (no application, propiconazole at flag leaf, tebuconazole at anthesis, and propiconazole at flag leaf followed by tebuconazole at anthesis) and three locations (two in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba) from 2001 to 2003. There were no interactions among fungicide, seeding rate, N fertilizer and cultivar for all measured variables. Foliar fungicide treatments resulted in greater kernel weight, grain yield and test weight than the no-fungicide treatment. The application of tebuconazole at anthesis did not reduce the amount of FDK in the harvested grain. The application of a fungicide increased the percentage of kernels infected by black point from 0.38% to over 0.50% and red smudge from 0.54 to 0.61%. Two fungicide applications increased red smudge to 0.85%. Grain yield increased by 2.4% when the seeding rate was increased from 150 to 300 plants m-2. Increasing N fertilizer rate increased grain yield by 5.2%, protein concentration by 5.4% and hard vitreous kernels (HVK) by 2.6%, but decreased test weight by 0.5%. Cultivar selection had the largest effect on FDK. In conclusion, effects of a fungicide application on durum wheat did not interact with selection of seeding rates, cultivars or N rates used in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".