Responses of otebo bean (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.) to postemergence herbicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario otebo bean growers have few herbicide options available for weed management. Six field trials were conducted in Ontario, Canada, over a 2 year period (2003 and 2004) to evaluate the tolerance of otebo bean to the postemergence (POST) application of bentazon at 1080 and 2160 g ai ha −1 , fomesafen at 240 and 480 g ai ha −1 , sethoxydim at 500 and 1000 g ai ha −1 , quizalofop‐p‐ethyl at 72 and 144 g ai ha −1 , imazamox plus fomesafen at 25 + 200 and 50 + 400 g ai ha −1 , and imazamox plus bentazon at 25 + 600 and 50 + 1200 g ai ha −1 . All treatments, including the untreated control, were maintained weed‐free during the growing season. The POST application of bentazon, imazamox plus fomesafen, and imazamox plus bentazon caused as much as 9% visual injury and reduced the plant height ≤ 12%, reduced the shoot dry weight ≤ 32%, and delayed maturity but had no adverse effect on the yield of otebo bean. Fomesafen, sethoxydim, and quizalofop‐p‐ethyl applied POST caused as much as 8% visual injury but this was transient and had no adverse effect on the plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield of otebo bean, except for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl, which reduced the shoot dry weight as much as 18%. Based on these results, bentazon, fomesafen, sethoxydim, quizalofop‐p‐ethyl, imazamox plus fomesafen, and imazamox plus bentazon applied POST have an adequate margin of crop safety for weed management in otebo bean production in Ontario. However, care must be taken to avoid spray overlaps to prevent injury from bentazon, imazamox plus fomesafen, and imazamox plus bentazon.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".