MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097066827 · doi:10.1614/ws-d-13-00173.1

Hexazinone Resistance in Red Sorrel (<i>Rumex acetosella</i>)

2014· article· en· W2097066827 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhenyi Li, Nathan S. Boyd, Nancy McLean, Katherine Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexazinoneNova scotiaHorticultureBiologyBotanyAgronomyChemistryWeed controlGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biannual applications of hexazinone have been applied in many lowbush blueberry fields in Nova Scotia for more than 30 years. Persistent reliance on a single herbicide chemistry may have selected for hexazinone-resistant red sorrel. The recommended rate of hexazinone (1.92 kg ai ha−1) no longer controls red sorrel in many growing regions. Six levels of hexazinone (0, 0.48, 0.96, 1.92, 3.84, and 7.68 kg ai ha−1) were applied to red sorrel plants grown in a greenhouse from seeds collected from three commercial fields and a no blueberry area to determine if they were hexazinone resistant. Red sorrel from two sites where hexazinone had not been applied regularly died at the 0.96 kg ai ha−1rate of hexazinone whereas red sorrel from two commercial fields survived at 7.68 kg ai ha−1. It is concluded that red sorrel is hexazinone-resistant in some wild blueberry fields. A portion of thepsbA gene was sequenced and it was determined that resistant plants had a Phe to Val substitution at position 255 in the D1 protein. This is the first recorded instance of hexazinone resistance in a perennial broadleaf weed in blueberry fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207