Efficacy of POST glyphosate applications in combination with other POST herbicides in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of glyphosate-resistant corn has facilitated a shift from a reliance on preemergence residual herbicides to postemergence (POST) herbicides, and in some cases exclusively glyphosate. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that is relatively slow-acting, which may allow weeds to continue to compete with corn after application and potentially decrease crop yield. The addition of several POST corn herbicides, with some residual control, to an early-season glyphosate application was examined to determine if the tankmix combination would improve the speed of weed control compared to glyphosate applied alone. Seven field trials were conducted over three years (2009, 2010 and 2011) near Ridgetown and Exeter, Ontario. The control of common ragweed was improved 3 days after application (DAA) with three POST glyphosate tankmixes compared to glyphosate alone. However control was still less than 55%. Depending on the weed species examined, at 28 DAA two of the glyphosate tankmix treatments tested provided better common ragweed, common lambsquarters, or green foxtail control than glyphosate alone. Treatments providing better weed control at 28 DAA also typically decreased weed density compared to glyphosate alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".