MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989129939 · doi:10.4236/ajps.2012.33050

Urea Ammonium Nitrate as the Carrier for Herbicides in Winter Wheat

2012· article· en· W1989129939 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nader Soltani, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Plant Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgricultural Adaptation Council
KeywordsDicambaMCPAMecopropBromoxynilWinter wheatAgronomyAmmonium nitrateUreaNitrogenChemistryWeed controlBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urea ammonium nitrogen can be used as a carrier for herbicides to provide growers with an option for the control of broadleaf weeds and spraying nitrogen fertilizer in one pass in winter wheat. Field studies (six in total) were seeded in the autumn of 2005, 2006 and 2007 at Exeter and Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada to determine if UAN can be used as a carrier for bromoxynil/MCPA, dichlorprop/2,4-D, dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop, or thifensulfuron/tribenuron applied postemergence (POST) at three application timings (approximately April 20, May 1 and May 10) in winter wheat. Winter wheat injury was as much as 4%, 5%, 4% and 5% for bromoxynil/MCPA, dichloroprop/2,4-D, dicamba/MCPA/ mecoprop or thifensulfuron/tribenuron, respectively. There was minimal visible winter wheat injury with treatments evaluated at 4 and 9 week after treatment. There was no significant reduction in winter wheat height or yield with herbicides evaluated at various application timings except for dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop treatment which reduced height 3% and yield 25% at May 10 compared with April 20 application timing. Herbicides carrier had no effect on winter wheat height or yield with evaluated herbicides. Based on this research there is potential for co-application of UAN and bromoxynil/MCPA, dichlorprop/2,4-D, dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop, or thifensulfuron/tribenuron applied (POST) early in the spring in winter wheat.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207