MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016239457 · doi:10.4141/p99-017

Tolerance of common buckwheat (<i>Fagopyrum esculentum</i>) to low rates of 2,4-D and MCPA

2000· article· en· W2016239457 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David A. Wall, M.A.H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMCPAAgronomyFagopyrumCropYield (engineering)BiologyCrop yieldWeedHorticultureWeed controlBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies were conducted from 1995 to 1997 at Morden and Brandon, Manitoba, Canada, to evaluate the effect of crop growth stage at application on common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) tolerance to low rates of 2,4-D amine, MCPA amine and the sodium salt of MCPA. Each formulation was applied at 140 g a.i. ha −1 to common buckwheat at the two- to three-leaf, four- to five-leaf, and six- to eight-leaf stages. Levels of buckwheat injury and seed yield loss were very similar for the three phenoxy herbicide formulations. Although early-season crop injury was severe, injury was often less, and crop recovery from injury greater, when herbicide was applied at the two-leaf stage than at the four-leaf or six-leaf stage. When herbicide was applied at the two-leaf stage, a significant yield reduction occurred in only one of the five trials. However, buckwheat seed yield decreased when phenoxy-herbicide application was delayed past the two-leaf stage. If low application rates of phenoxy herbicides to early stage buckwheat are effective in suppressing weed growth, then this treatment may enable the crop to out-compete weeds without sustaining yield losses in most years. Key words: Common buckwheat, tolerance, crop growth stage, yield, phenoxy herbicide

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207