Response of Corn Hybrids Differing in Canopy Architecture to Chemical and Mechanical (Rotary Hoeing) Weed Control: Morphology and Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weed interference with the growth and yield of corn plants is affected by both mechanical and chemical means of weed control. Recently, corn hybrids accumulating more leaf area, maturing earlier, yielding better in narrower row spacings and tolerating higher plant populations better than conventional hybrids have been developed. Because of more rapid leaf area accumulation during the earliest stages of canopy development and overall canopy architecture, they may be more susceptible to damage due to mechanical weed control. The objective of this study was to assess the response of corn hybrids with a wide range of canopy architectures to chemical and mechanical (rotary hoeing) weed control, with an emphasis on quantifying morphology and grain yield responses. Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Three hybrids were tested: leafy reduced‐stature (LRS1 and LRS2), and the conventional hybrid Pioneer 3979 (P3979). Rotary hoeing alone had very little effect, while herbicide application reduced the interference of weeds with growth and grain yield of all hybrids. Hybrid P3979 had more total leaf area than LRS1 and LRS2, but the percentage of leaf area above the ear was much higher for LRS hybrids (70 %) than for P3979 (51 %). Generally, LRS hybrids were much shorter with more leaf area above the ear than P3979, contributing to the large differences in canopy architecture between the LRS hybrids and P3979. However, morphology and grain yield response of hybrids to rotary hoeing and herbicide weed control was not different, indicating that the new hybrids were not more susceptible to damage caused by mechanical weed control than a corn hybrid with a conventional canopy architecture.
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 | 0.000 | 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".