Influence of Tillage on Common Ragweed (<em>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</em>) Emergence Pattern in Nebraska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spring tillage is a component of an integrated weed management strategy for control of early emerging glyphosate-resistant weeds such as common ragweed; however, the effect of tillage on common ragweed emergence pattern is unknown. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether spring tillage during emergence would influence the emergence pattern or stimulate additional emergence of common ragweed and to characterize common ragweed emergence in southeast Nebraska. A field experiment was conducted for three years (2014 to 2016) in Gage County, Nebraska in a field naturally infested with glyphosate-resistant common ragweed. Treatments consisted of a no-tillage control and three spring tillage timings. The Soil Temperature and Moisture Model (STM2) software was used to estimate soil temperature and moisture at a 2-cm depth. The Weibull function was fit to total common ragweed emergence (%) with day of year (DOY), thermal time, and hydrothermal time as independent variables. Tillage treatments and year had no effect on total common ragweed emergence (P = 0.88 and 0.35, respectively) and time to 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90% emergence (P = 0.31). However, emergence pattern was affected by year (P = < 0.001) with 50% total emergence reached on May 5 in 2014, April 20 in 2015, and April 2 in 2016 and 90% total emergence reached on May 12, 2014, May 8, 2015, and April 30, 2016. According to the corrected information-theoretic model comparison criterion (AICc), the Weibull function with thermal time and base temperature of 3 C best explained the emergence pattern over three years. This study concludes that spring tillage does not stimulate additional emergence; therefore, after the majority of the common ragweed has emerged and before the crop has been planted, tillage could be used as an effective component of an integrated glyphosate-resistant common ragweed management program in Nebraska.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".