Comparison of synthetic and organic herbicides applied banded for weed control in carrots (<i>Daucus carota</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main, D. C., Sanderson, K. R., Fillmore, S. A. E. and Ivany, J. A. 2013. Comparison of synthetic and organic herbicides applied banded for weed control in carrots ( Daucus carota L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 857–861. The necessity to reduce environmental impact and control the increasing cost of production has many carrot growers seeking new methods of crop management. This research evaluated the potential of applying herbicides in 30-cm bands over the carrot row in combination with between-the-row cultivation to control weeds. Linuron applied in a 30-cm-wide band over the row and linuron applied broadcast provided effective weed control and comparable yield. Clove oil and citrus oil gave slightly better weed control and yield than acetic acid and flaming at the late seeding date. This study demonstrates that acceptable weed control with minimal impact on yield can be achieved with the use of synthetic and organic herbicides applied as a 30-cm-wide band over the row combined with between-row cultivation. This method of weed control provides a 66% reduction in herbicide applied per hectare compared with a broadcast application.
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".