Potato Response to Simulated Glyphosate Drift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies were conducted in 2008 in Ontario, OR and Paterson, WA to determine the effect of simulated glyphosate drift on ‘Ranger Russet’ potato, including visual injury, shikimic acid accumulation, and tuber yield. Glyphosate was applied at 8.5, 54, 107, 215, and 423 g ae ha−1; which corresponds to 0.01, 0.064, 0.126, 0.254, and 0.5 of the lowest recommended (846 g ha−1) single application dose for glyphosate-resistant corn and sugar beet. Glyphosate was applied when potato plants were at 10-cm height, stolon hooking, tuber initiation, or bulking stage. The greatest visual foliar injury was observed when glyphosate was applied at a dose of 54 g ha−1or greater and potato plants were at the hooking stage. The lowest foliar injury was observed when glyphosate was applied to potato plants at the bulking stage. TheI50glyphosate dose at 42 d after treatment (DAT) was estimated to be 167 g ha−1for potatoes sprayed at the hooking stage. The corresponding glyphosate dose to result in 50% injury for potatoes sprayed at tuber initiation, 10-cm height, and bulking stages were 129%, 338%, and 438%, respectively, greater than hooking stage. The U.S. No.1 potato yield was inversely related to vine injury and shikimic acid accumulation. Shikimic acid accumulation increased when glyphosate was applied at 107 g ha−1or greater. U.S. No.1 potato yield was reduced by 46% and 84% relative to the untreated control (55 and 76 T/ha) when glyphosate was applied at 107 g ha−1to plants in the hooking stage at Ontario and Paterson, respectively. Tuber yields at both sites were lowest when glyphosate was applied at hooking and tuber initiation stages.
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".