Response of Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus urograndis) Plants at Different Doses of Glyphosate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the response of eucalyptus plants submitted to the application of glyphosate increasing rates. The doses 0.0, 3.6, 7.2, 18, 36, 72 and 180 g ha-1 of acid equivalent (ae) of glyphosate were applied on plants. At 7, 15, 22, 29, 36 and 42 days after application (DAA) was determined leaves relative chlorophyll content and quantum efficiency of photosystem II. At 22 and 42 DAA plant height and stem diameter were measured. At 42 DAA were determined the leaves dry mass, stem dry mass and foliar area. The height, diameter, leaves and stem dry masses and foliar area were converted to percentages, whereas the controls as 100%. These variables were fitted to the model described by Gauss equation. The data chlorophyll content and quantum efficiency of photosystem II were submitted to mean comparison, and when they differed, we performed the Tukey test at 5% probability. All the features presented here showed some hormetic effect promoted by reduced rates of glyphosate and the increments observed in these characteristics (when compared to control) ranged between 5.92 and 33.18% at 42 DAA. From average curve with height, diameter, leaves dry mass, stem dry mass and foliar area can be concluded that the increase averaged 12% on application of 16 g a.e. of glyphosate ha-1. For leaves chlorophyll content significant differences were observed only at 29 DAA, while for quantum efficiency of photosystem II significant differences were found only at 7 DAA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".