Manganese uptake and redistribution in soybean as affected by glyphosate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detrimental effects of glyphosate on plant mineral nutrition have been reported in the literature, particularly on Mn uptake and redistribution. However, in most of the experiments conducted so far glyphosate-susceptible plants were used. Effects of glyphosate on Mn absorption kinetics, accumulation, and distribution within the plant, as well as soybean response to Mn as affected by glyphosate were studied in three experiments. In the first experiment, in nutrient solution, the effect of glyphosate on soybean Mn uptake kinetic parameters (Imax, Km and Cmin) was determined. In a second experiment, also in nutrient solution, differential Mn accumulation and distribution were studied for a conventional soybean cultivar and its near-isogenic glyphosate-resistant counterpart as affected by glyphosate. In a third experiment, response of glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars to Mn application was studied in the presence of glyphosate, in pots with Mn-deficient soil. Maximum Mn influx (Imax) was higher in the herbicide-resistant (GR) cultivar than in its conventional counterpart. Glyphosate applied to nutrient solution at low rates decreased Km and Cmin. A few days after herbicide treatment, RR soybean plants developed yellowish leaves, a symptom which, in the field, could be misinterpreted as Mn deficiency, but herbicide application had no effect on Mn uptake or distribution within the plant. In the soil experiment, soybean Mn uptake was increased by Mn application, with no effect of glyphosate. Under greenhouse conditions, there was no evidence of deleterious effects of glyphosate on Mn absorption, accumulation and distribution in the plant and on soybean cultivars response to Mn application.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".