Evaluation of 2,4-D Amine, Glyphosate, 2,4-D Amine plus Glyphosate DMA and 2,4-D Choline/Glyphosate DMA for Their Efficacy on Glyphosate Susceptible and Resistant Canada Fleabane Populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA formulation has reduced drift and volatility compared to the amine or ester formulation of 2,4-D and therefore is advantageous compared to a tank mix of 2,4-D amine or ester with glyphosate. The objective of this research was to compare the control of glyphosate susceptible and glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane with 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA with 2,4-D amine, glyphosate, and a tank mix of 2,4-D amine and glyphosate. Ten rates of 2,4-D amine (0 - 6708 g·ae·ha-1), glyphosate (0 - 7052 g·ae·ha-1), a tank mix of glyphosate plus 2,4-D amine (0 - 7052 g·ae·ha-1 + 0 - 6708), and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (0 - 13760 g·ae·ha-1) were examined in the greenhouse for the control of two susceptible (GS) and two resistant to glyphosate (GR) Canada fleabane biotypes. The tank mix of 2,4-D amine plus glyphosate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA provided equivalent control of the GR Canada fleabane biotypes at 35 days after the application (DAA). The 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA treatment was more efficacious than the tank mix on the GS biotypes. Glyphosate (880 g·ae·ha-1) provided 50% and 100% control of the resistant and susceptible biotypes, respectively. The 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA formulation and the tankmix of 2,4-D amine and glyphosate provided similar control of GR Canada fleabane.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it