MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978907936 · doi:10.1021/jf404095h

Investigation of MCPA (4-Chloro-2-ethylphenoxyacetate) Resistance in Wild Radish (<i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i> L.)

2013· article· en· W1978907936 on OpenAlexaff
Mithila Jugulam, Natalie DiMeo, Linda J. Veldhuis, Michael Walsh, J. Christopher Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMCPARaphanusBiologyBackcrossingWeedBotanyAgronomyWeed controlGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenoxy herbicides (e.g., 2,4-D and MCPA) are used widely in agriculture for the selective control of broadleaf weeds. In Western Australia, the reliance on phenoxy herbicides has resulted in the widespread evolution of phenoxy resistance in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) populations. In this research the inheritance and mechanism of MCPA resistance in wild radish were determined. Following classical breeding procedures, F1, F2, and backcross progeny were generated. The F1 progeny showed an intermediate response to MCPA, compared to parents, suggesting that MCPA resistance in wild radish is inherited as an incompletely dominant trait. Segregation ratios observed in F2 (3:1; resistant:susceptible) and backcross progeny (1:1; resistant to susceptible) indicated that the MCPA resistance is controlled by a single gene in wild radish. Radiolabeled MCPA studies suggested no difference in MCPA uptake or metabolism between resistant and susceptible wild radish; however, resistant plants rapidly translocated more (14)C-MCPA to roots than susceptible plants, which may have been exuded from the plant. Understanding the genetic basis and mechanism of phenoxy resistance in wild radish will help formulate prudent weed management strategies to reduce the incidence of phenoxy resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207