Comparison of ground and aerial application of fungicide for control of Ascochyta blight in chickpeas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascochyta rabiei control from aerial and ground application was assessed near Saskatoon in 2003 and 2004. Each year, a site of about 12 ha was seeded to kabuli (cv. CDC Xena) chickpeas. At the first sign of disease, applications of fungicide were commenced and maintained at approximately 10-day intervals. In 2003, four applications (two with Headline (pyraclostrobin), two with Lance (boscalid)) were conducted. In 2004, the last Lance application was not done. Aerial application was made using a Cessna AgTruck applying 37 L/ha using CP nozzles emitting a spray with a VMD of approximately 271 μm. Ground applications were conducted using a Melroe SpraCoupe applying 100 L/ha using XR8003 nozzles with a VMD of approximately 246 μm. Disease ratings were done throughout the season, and seed yields were \ntaken at crop maturity. Disease incidence progressed to 80 to 90% in the untreated plots, and fungicide application reduced disease incidence (to 20 to 30%) and increased seed yield in both years. Disease incidence and seed yield were not affected by application method in either season.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".