An abstract is required for all the presentations (graduate students, oral or poster in program sections or in symposia).


An abstract (maximum of 300 words) is required and must uploaded by October 30, 2020 by logging into the Fourwaves program with the email used for registration. Please note that titles can be submitted up to October 9, 2020 without abstracts. Abstracts can be submitted separately by October 30, 2020


Information on how to submit titles through Fourwaves can be found by clicking this file link: Submitting titles and abstracts separately.docx.pdf


The abstracts will be printed exactly as submitted, other than format and font changes to make all abstracts the same; therefore, proofread carefully. 

  1. Contents. The abstract should highlight significant results and include an interpretation of the results, as well as essential aspects of the experimental procedure, but without details. Write the abstract so it consists entirely of information. Do not include statements such as "The results of the experiments will be presented" or "The significance of these results will be discussed".
  2. Font, spacing, and file format Page size: 8.5 inches wide x 11 inches long. Page margins: 1 inch on every sides Line spacing: Single space only Font: Times New Roman Font size: 11 pt. only. You can use superscript and subscripts if needed. Text justification: Left justified everywhere Latin names: Use italics for Latin names. Do not underline.  File format. The file should be saved as a Word Document (.doc).  File name: Please use your name for file name. If you are submitting more than one abstract, please add a number after your name. Do not use space, use underlines instead. Example: Daniel_Cloutier.doc or Daniel_Cloutier_2.doc
  3. Order of presentation. The order should be: Title in bold, followed immediately by the list of authors and their addresses (Department, Institution, City and Province). Skip one line and follow with the abstract (see the examples at the end of this text). 


Details. Capitalize only the first word and proper names in the title and end the title with a period. Include both the common and scientific names of weeds, the common names of herbicides and well-known crop plants. Include both the common and scientific names of uncommon crops. The title should be typed in bold-face. After the title, add the name(s) of author(s), family name first, followed by their initial(s). Place a comma after each author and a period after the last author. Follow this with the author(s) address(es) (Department, Institution, City and Province). Do not include street addresses, divisions, P.O. Box or postal codes. End this section with a period. Skip one line and begin your abstract in paragraph form (maximum of 300 words). If there is more than one address, use superscripts as in example 2 below. 

  1. Herbicide nomenclature. Use common names of herbicides as given in the latest issue of Weed Science. When the common name refers to the parent acid, the salt or ester forms used in the experiments should be identified at the first mention of the common name (e.g. methyl ester of diclofop). At the first mention of a herbicide application rate, list whether the weight is acid equivalent (ae) or active ingredient (ai) (e.g., kg ai ha-1). If no common name is available, use its designation (trade name or code) followed by the full chemical name. If the chemistry is confidential, identify source (company) in parentheses after designation.
  2. Adjuvant nomenclature. Where possible, use WSSA Monograph Adjuvants for Herbicides, Weed Science 26:204-205 or the WSSA Herbicide Handbook. Otherwise, use the most complete available chemical description of the adjuvant.
  3. Weed nomenclature. Identify weeds by common names. At first mention of a weed, in the title or text, follow the common name with the scientific name (italic) and authority, if first mention is in the text, in parentheses. Do not repeat the scientific name in the text if given in the title. Use common and scientific names of weeds as given in the Inventory of Canadian Agricultural Weeds at¬titre_e.htm.  If there is no common name, use common scientific names from another source such as the COMPOSITE LIST OF WEEDS, published by WSSA in 1989. 
  4. Crop nomenclature. Scientific names for crop plants are optional. They are not needed for well-known crops, but should be included for less common crops and whenever needed for clarity. Place scientific names in parentheses (italic) following first mention of the common name, whether in the title or text.
  5. Measurements. Report all measurements in SI units. Abbreviate units of measure if preceded by a number. See Weed Science (1991) 39:136-137 for additional suggestions and metric conversions.
  6. Abbreviations. Use abbreviations as shown in Weed Science (1995) 43:713-717 or CBE Style Manual.
  7. Numbers. Use Arabic numerals for all numbers with two or more digits and for all measurements such as time, weight, length, area, quantity, or degree except when the number is the first word in the sentence. Spell out numbers when they are the first word in a sentence or when they are less than 10 and not measurements.
  8. Tables, figures, or literature citations. Do not include these in Abstracts.



Here are some examples






Tillage systems influence emergence periodicity of annual weeds in canola. Bullied, W.J., Marginet, A.M., and Van Acker, R.C. Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB


Variation in emergence periodicity of annual weeds is an attribute that may be utilized as a control strategy to reduce weed competitiveness in canola. Emergence periodicity of annual weeds was determined in spring-seeded canola fields in conventional and conservation tillage systems during spring of 2000 across southern Manitoba, Canada. The impact of tillage system on the emergence periodicity of annual weed species was evaluated in the context of the trend toward reducing levels of tillage intensity while maintaining crop competitiveness. Conservation-tillage promoted earlier emergence for all weed species except wild mustard and redroot pigweed. Differences in emergence periodicity between tillage systems could not be explained by soil temperature or moisture, but were attributed to differences in soil disturbance. For all species, the maximum rate of emergence did not differ between tillage systems. This suggests that differences in emergence periodicity between tillage systems are a result of differences in the emergence lag phase period. Onset of the seeded canola emergence period preceded the onset of the emergence period for all weed species except wild mustard in conservation-tillage, and wild mustard and wild oats in conventional-tillage. For all weed species monitored in this study, the average difference in onset of emergence between canola and the weeds was positive for both tillage systems, however it was greater in conservation-tillage systems. This suggests that canola seeded in conservation-tillage systems may have a competitive advantage through the relative time of crop emergence. The results from this study support canola management strategies for tillage system and weed control timing decisions, as well as validation for weed emergence models.



Hybridization between transgenic canola (Brassica napus L.) and its wild relatives: bird rape (B. rapa L.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.), wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.), and dog mustard (Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz). Warwick S.I.1, Simard M.-J.2, Légère A.2, Beckie H.J.3, Séguin-Swartz G.3 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, ON; 2AAFC-Ste-Foy, QB; 3AAFC-Saskatoon, SK


The frequency of gene flow from canola to four wild relatives, bird rape, wild radish, wild mustard, and dog mustard was assessed in field experiments and in commercial fields. Various marker systems were used to detect hybrids: herbicide resistance traits (HR), molecular markers (AFLPs) and ploidy level. Hybridization between bird rape (AA) and canola (AACC) occurred in a HR canola field experiment (frequency ca. 7%) and in wild populations in commercial HR canola fields (ca. 13.6%). All F1 hybrids were morphologically similar to bird rape, had canola- and bird rape-specific AFLP markers, were triploid (AAC, 2n = 29) and reduced pollen viability (ca. 55%). In contrast, a single wild radish × canola F1 hybrid was detected in 32821 seedlings from a HR canola field experiment. The hybrid was morphologically similar to wild radish except for the presence of valves, a canola trait, had both canola- and wild radish-specific AFLP markers, <1% pollen viability, and a genomic structure of RrRrAC, 2n = 37. No hybrids were detected in commercial fields in Québec and Alberta (22,114 seedlings). No wild mustard or dog mustard × canola hybrids were detected (42,828 and 21,841 seedlings, respectively) from commercial fields in Saskatchewan. These findings suggest that the probability of gene flow from transgenic canola to wild radish, wild mustard or dog mustard is very low (<2-5 × 10-5). However, transgenes can disperse in the environment via wild bird rape in eastern Canada and possibly via commercial B. rapa volunteers in western Canada.


Visit the Canadian Weed Science Society website at