Novel and conventional control of Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica in a semi-arid grassland of British Columbia's southern interior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica) is a major concern in disturbed areas of British Columbia’s interior due to its pronounced ability to displace native vegetation. To investigate the most appropriate control method, including efficiency, a study was established in Kenna Cartwright Nature Park, Kamloops, BC in 2016. Manual removal and three herbicide treatments were compared by collecting live and dead stem count in 6m by 6m replicates (n=30) during baseline, post-treatment and end-of-growing season assessments. Tordon 22K was applied at 213 g a.e. ha-1 picloram mixed with Agral 90 surfactant (0.025% by volume) using broadcast spraying, spot spraying and hand wicking (August 23rd). Treatment had a significant effect; broadcast and spot spraying provided the highest overall success resulting in mean stem counts of 1.7 ± 1.07 and 6.33 ± 2.67 at the end of the growing season, respectively. Wicking offered the same overall success as spot spraying in reducing total live stems. However, wicking contained 61% of the live stems at the end of the growing season, relative to baseline, whereas spot spraying only contained 31%. Broadcast spraying offered the greatest success in which survivorship was 13%. Only broadcast and spot spraying provide statistically significant reduction in vegetative stems from baseline to end-of-season; broadcast spraying contained zero stems in this life stage. Despite eliminating all stems at time of treatment, manual removal experienced high regrowth which resulted in statistical similarity to the control and appeared to encourage vegetative regrowth. Nearly all of the regrowth experienced in the control, manual removal, spot spraying and wicking at the end of the growing season were rosettes. Seedlings did not greatly contribute to reproduction in any treatments and were absent from broadcast spraying. For high density sites (>31 stems/m2), broadcast spraying offers the greatest chance of success based on both success and efficiency. Low to medium density sites can be controlled by spot spraying, however the lower residual soil activity must be considered. Ultimately, the effect on the native plant community must be evaluated when selecting one of the recommended treatment methods and future research should focus on tracking the communities through time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".