MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022272266 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-12-00013.1

Response of Direct-Seeded Dry Bulb Onion to Simulated Glyphosate Drift with Variable Rates and Application Timings

2012· article· en· W2022272266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joel Felix, Rick A. Boydston, Ian C. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateBulbShikimic acidBiologyHorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies were conducted in 2011 at the Malheur Experiment Station, Ontario, OR and Prosser, WA to evaluate the effect of simulated glyphosate drift on direct-seeded dry bulb onion. Glyphosate was applied at 8.6, 25.8, 86, 290, 434, and 860 g ae ha −1 when onion plants were at the flag-, two-, four-, and six-leaf stages. Onion foliar injury was directly related to the glyphosate dose and varied with application timing. Foliar injury at 7 d after treatment (DAT) ranged from 0 to 12% for glyphosate ≤ 25.8 g ha −1 . Foliar injury increased at 21 DAT when glyphosate was applied ≥ 25.8 g ha −1 to plants at the flag- and four-leaf stage, and ranged from 24 to 99%. The 50%-injury glyphosate dose at 21 DAT was lowest when onion was treated at the four-leaf and flag stages and was estimated to be 76.8 and 81 g ha −1 , respectively. Onion injury severity increased when glyphosate was applied at ≥ 86 g ha −1 and eventually resulted in plant death at 860 g ha −1 . Foliar injury was inversely correlated to U.S. no. 1 onion yield. Onions displayed sensitivity to very low glyphosate doses especially at the four-leaf stage. Shikimic acid accumulation increased with the increase in glyphosate dose and was positively correlated with foliar injury and negatively correlated with plant height and onion yield.

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 score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207