On-farm seed loss does not differ between windrowed and direct-harvested canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haile, T. A., Gulden, R. H. and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2014. On-farm seed loss does not differ between windrowed and direct-harvested canola. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 785-789. Seed loss in canola (Brassica napus) leads to considerable loss of revenue and dispersal of seeds into the soil seedbank. The resulting volunteer canola can create weed problems in subsequent crops and result in further yield loss. The objective of this study was to quantify and compare canola seed loss and seedbank addition from windrowing and direct-harvesting operations on commercial farms in western Canada. A total of 16 direct-harvested and 19 windrowed canola fields were surveyed in central and southern Saskatchewan during 2010, 2011 and 2012. Shattered seeds from these fields were sampled within 3 wk after harvest of the crop using a vacuum cleaner. There were no differences in seed yield, loss or seedbank addition of canola between windrowing and direct-harvesting operations. There was a difference in 1000-seed weight between the harvest methods and seeds of the direct-harvested canola were larger in size. This may suggest that direct-harvesting can be considered as a viable option to harvest canola in western Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 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".