Seasonal Changes in Carbohydrates in the Root of Canada thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>) and the Disruption of these Changes by Herbicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roots of Canada thistle were excavated from the soil monthly from 1999 to 2001 near Scottsbluff, NE, to quantify the influence of changing soil temperature on free sugars and fructans in roots. Sucrose concentrations were low from May through August then increased in the fall and remained at high levels during winter and then declined in April as plants initiated spring growth. Changes in sucrose, 1-kestose (DP 3) and 1-nystose (DP 4) were shown to be closely associated with changes in soil temperature. During the second year of the study, average soil temperatures during the winter were colder than the first year and resulted in an increase of sucrose in Canada thistle roots. Experiments were conducted from 2001 to 2004 to determine whether there was a correlation between herbicide efficacy, time of herbicide application, and the resulting herbicide effect on root carbohydrate and Canada thistle control. Clopyralid applied in the fall reduced Canada thistle density 92% 8 months after treatment (MAT) whereas treatment made in the spring reduced plant density 33% 11 MAT. Fall application of clopyralid increased the activity of fructan 1-exohydrolase (1-FEH) in roots and was associated with a decline in sucrose, DP 4, and 1-fructofuranosyl-nystose (DP 5) 35 d after treatment (DAT). Spring application of clopyralid also resulted in a decrease of the same carbohydrates 35 DAT, but by 98 DAT, or early October, sucrose level in roots had recovered and was similar to nontreated plants. Fall application of 2,4-D or clopyralid reduced Canada thistle density 39 and 92% respectively, 8 MAT, but only clopyralid resulted in a reduction of sucrose, DP 4, DP 5, and total sugar and an increase of 1-FEH compared with nontreated plants.
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".