Absorption and Translocation of Aminocyclopyrachlor and Aminocyclopyrachlor-Methyl Ester in Canada Thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory studies were conducted using14C-aminocyclopyrachlor (DPX-MAT28) and its14C-methyl ester formulation (DPX-KJM44) to (1) determine the adjuvants' effects on absorption, (2) compare the absorption and translocation of aminocyclopyrachlor free acid with the methyl ester, and (3) determine the rate at which aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester is metabolized to the free acid in Canada thistle. Canada thistle plants were grown from root cuttings and treated in the rosette growth stage. The effect of different adjuvants on absorption was determined by treating individual leaves with formulated herbicide plus14C-herbicide alone or with methylated seed oil (MSO), crop oil concentrate, or nonionic surfactant with and without urea ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. Plants were harvested 96 h after treatment (HAT). For absorption and translocation experiments, plants were oversprayed with aminocyclopyrachlor or its methyl ester at a rate of 0.14 kg ae ha−1in combination with 1% MSO. Formulated herbicide plus14C-herbicide was then applied to a protected leaf, and plants were harvested 24 to 192 HAT. Plants were harvested and radioactivity was determined in the treated leaf and in aboveground and belowground tissues. Metabolism of aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester to the free acid was determined 2, 6, and 24 HAT. All aboveground biomass was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography to establish the ratio of methyl ester to free acid. MSO applied with either herbicide formulation resulted in the highest absorption compared with no surfactant. Significantly greater aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester was absorbed, compared with the free acid, which was reflected in the greater aboveground translocation for the methyl ester. Both formulations had similar amounts of translocation to the roots, with 8.6% (SE ± 3.3) for the methyl ester compared with 6.2% (SE ± 2.5) for the free acid. Approximately 80% of the methyl ester was converted to the free acid at 6 HAT. Based on this conversion rate, aminocyclopyrachlor translocated as the free acid in Canada thistle.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".