Biologically Active In-Tank Formulation of Acid Herbicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis tested in this research is that with the addition of a suitable adjuvant to the spray solution the acid form of weakly acidic herbicides can be directly added to the spray tank without first making the salt yet obtaining the desired weed control activity. This eliminates the formulation steps of making the salt. Greenhouse studies were focused on applying the adjuvant RI with glyphosate acid to velvetleaf, common lambsquarters, and giant foxtail. Weed control in the presence or absence of additional diammonium sulfate was equivalent to control obtained with the RU formulation of the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate with or without additional diammonium sulfate in the spray solution. The RI adjuvant was also evaluated and found effective in increasing biological activity of generic isopropylamine formulations of glyphosate containing less than 15% adjuvant in the formulations. In field trials the adjuvant RI applied with glyphosate acid performed as effectively as it had in greenhouse trials. In field trials the adjuvant RI applied with dicamba acid was much more effective than the commercial formulation of dicamba. Benefits from this technology include the potential for less off-site movement of dicamba vapors due to greater foliar absorption, less transport of water, elimination of the need to make salts of the herbicide acid, and reduced need for container disposal.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".