Shattercane X ALS-Tolerant Sorghum F1 Hybrid and Shattercane Interference in ALS-Tolerant Sorghum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ALS-tolerant grain sorghum cultivars are expected to be available for farmers within the next few years. Knowing that: i) crosses between sorghum and shattercane are likely to occur resulting in crop-to-weed gene flow; ii) ALS-susceptible shattercane X ALS-tolerant grain sorghum F1 hybrids (hybrids) were ultimately resistant to ALS-herbicides under field conditions; and iii) hybrid fitness is equal to, or greater than, the wild parent, we conducted a greenhouse study to compare the competitive effect of shattercane and hybrid on sorghum, and whether or not herbicide application would influence the competitive ability of the hybrid plants. An additive design was used where weed densities varied while that of crop remained constant. The treatment design was a factorial with two weedy genotypes, shattercane and hybrid, with the hybrid being either exposed or not exposed to an ALS-herbicide application (nicosulfuron (26.25 g ai ha-1) + rimsulfuron (13.16 g ai ha-1)), and five weed densities (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 plants pot-1). Sorghum density was kept at 1 plant pot-1. F-tests were performed to compare differences across treatment levels. Shattercane and hybrid produced similar amounts of total above ground biomass within each density, and herbicide exposure did not decrease hybrid biomass production. Moreover, shattercane and hybrid competed similarly with sorghum, and a herbicide application did not reduce the competitive ability of the hybrid. Sorghum wild relatives must be managed by alternative methods before and during the adoption of ALS-tolerant sorghum technology to avoid gene flow and crop yield loss due to competition.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".