Effects of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (<i>Amaranthus retroflexus</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanistic weed models focus on determining the outcome of weed and crop interference. An understanding of weed phenology is essential for simulation model development. Phenological development is a major factor determining the outcome of weed–crop competition. Growth cabinet studies were conducted to characterize the influence of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Results indicated that redroot pigweed is a quantitative short-day species. Four development phases of redroot pigweed were described according to its response to photoperiod: (1) a juvenile phase of 1.1 d; (2) a photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase of 7.9 d; (3) a photoperiod-sensitive post-inductive phase of 39.9 d; and (4) a photoperiod-insensitive phase of 2.2 d. This information is useful for the development of mechanistic models and for comprehending the distribution and competitive ability of redroot pigweed with crops. The utilization of these results could help in predicting the phenological development of redroot pigweed. Key words: Phenology, mechanistic weed models, juvenile phase
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".