Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Cultivars to Glufosinate-Ammonium and Diquat Used as Desiccants<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desiccants are used in potato production to remove vines before harvest to make harvest easier. We evaluated the new herbicide glufosinate-ammonium for potential as a vine desiccant, for its effect on seed tuber sprouting, and plant growth the following season. Glufosinate-ammonium was applied at 0, 0.3, 0.45, 0.6, and 0.75 kg ai/ha and compared with diquat at 0.84 kg ai/ha when applied as desiccants in mid-September in 1997 and 1998. Potato leaf and vine desiccation were rated 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment (DAT). Yields were obtained at maturity and tubers retained and stored over winter at 3 C and 95% relative humidity for determination of stem end discoloration (SED), tuber sprouting in March, and plant growth of daughter tubers planted the following year. Application of glufosinate-ammonium resulted in slower leaf and stem desiccation at 3 and 7 DAT than did diquat. By 14 DAT leaf desiccation was the same but stem desiccation was slightly less than with diquat. Tuber SED and marketable tuber yield were no different with either desiccant. At higher rates of application, glufosinate-ammonium reduced daughter tuber sprout weight but had no effect on number of sprouts in growth room sprouting tests when compared with untreated controls. Daughter tubers from glufosinate-ammonium-treated plants planted the next growing season had markedly slower emergence and established full emergence 7 to 14 d later than diquat-desiccated tubers.Nomenclature: Diquat; glufosinate-ammonium; potato, Solanum tuberosum, #3 SOLTU.Additional index words: Tuber sprouting test, daughter tuber replant test, Russet Burbank, Shepody, Kennebec.Abbreviations: DAE, days after emergence; DAP, days after planting; DAT, days after treatment; RH, relative humidity; SED, stem end discoloration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".