Comparative fate of glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides in the forest floor and mineral soil of an Acadian forest regeneration site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following applications of three different salt formulations of glyphosate (Vision®, Touchdown®, and Mon14420) and an ester formulation of triclopyr (Release®) to an Acadian forest regeneration site in New Brunswick, Canada, the fate and persistence of herbicide residues in the forest floor and underlying mineral soil were investigated. Within 14 days of treatment, maximal residue levels (average 8.3 µg·g dry mass 1 ) were observed in the forest floor matrix following application of the glyphosate formulations, with higher values (45.7 µg·g dry mass 1 ) observed for triclopyr. Residue maxima in the underlying mineral soil were, on average, 5.7-fold lower than those in the forest floor. In both matrices, glyphosate residues declined exponentially with time, irrespective of the formulation applied. Among the glyphosate treatments no significant differences (p = 0.16, p = 0.97, for forest floor and mineral soil respectively) were observed in the estimated times to 50% dissipation (DT 50 ). Overall, average DT 50 values for glyphosate were estimated as 12 ± 2 and 10 ± 3 days for the forest floor matrix and mineral soil, respectively. Triclopyr residues, particularly in the forest floor, were characterized by a series of transient increases, possibly reflecting temporally varying inputs from dew, rainwash, or litter fall from surrounding treated vegetation. Triclopyr residues also dissipated with time, with approximate DT 50 values ranging from 39 to 69 days in the forest floor and mineral soil, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".