Glyphosate has low toxicity to citrus plants growing in the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravena, R., Filho, R. V., Alves, P. L. C. A., Mazzafera, P. and Gravena, A. R. 2012. Glyphosate has low toxicity to citrus plants growing in the field. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 119–127. There has been controversy over whether glyphosate used for weed management in citrus fields causes significant toxicity to citrus plants. Glyphosate may be toxic to non-target plants exposed to accidental application or drift. This work evaluated glyphosate toxicity in plants of Valencia citrus (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) grafted onto ‘Rangpur lime’ (Citrus limonia L. Osbeck) and citrumelo ‘Swingle’ (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf×Citrus paradisi Macf) by trunk- or foliar-directed herbicide applications under field conditions. In the first experiment, glyphosate was sprayed at rates of 0, 90, 180, 260, 540, 1080 and 2160 g a.e. ha −1 directly on the trunk to a height of 5 cm above the grafting region. In the second experiment, glyphosate was sprayed on the plant canopies at rates of 0, 0.036, 0.36, 3.6, 36, 360 and 720 g a.e. ha −1 . There was no visual damage caused by glyphosate applied directly to the trunk, but the plants were affected by glyphosate sprayed directly on the canopies at rates over 360 g a.e. ha −1 . The main symptom was observed in the new shoots formed after the application, indicating an effect on meristems. Little or no effect was observed in mature leaves. Eight days after application the levels of shikimate, total free amino acids and total phenolic compounds were unaffected. All plants affected by glyphosate recovered between 6 and 12 mo after the treatments. Therefore, despite some transient symptoms Valencia citrus grafted onto ‘Rangpur lime’ and citrumelo ‘Swingle’ were tolerant to glyphosate.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".