Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are produced in all Canadian provinces, and interest has increased in the use of non-synthetic chemicals and organic techniques to provide weed control. Acetic acid has been suggested as a chemical that could potentially provide weed control in potato production. We examined glacial acetic acid and Ecoclear (30% acetic acid, 1.0% naptha solvent and 1.0% trimethyl benzene) for effectiveness in controlling weeds in potatoes when applied in a 30-cm-wide band over the potato row as well as their effect on potato yield components in three experiments repeated over 2 yr. The effects of time of application and volume of application were also examined. Glacial acetic acid at 10% concentration did not injure potato foliage, but at 20 and 30% concentration it injured emerged potato foliage. A concentration of 20% acetic acid was needed to provide acceptable weed control levels of lambs-quarters, corn spurry and wild buckwheat. Marketable yield was reduced by 20 and 30% acetic acid to below the standard herbicide treatment. Sequential applications of acetic acid at concentrations of 10, 20 or 30%, applied 7-10 d apart, caused slightly greater injury and yield was 10 to 15% less than in the single application. Ecoclear applied to emerged weeds and before potato emergence did not injure potato foliage, but when applied post-emergence it caused severe, but short lived, potato injury. Ecoclear gave greater than 80% control of lambs-quarters, corn spurry and wild radish. Potato marketable yield was comparable with that achieved with a herbicide and was reduced only in one year by Ecoclear applied post-emergence. Weed control was 18% or less when Ecoclear was applied at 200 L ha -1 , 54 to 74% when applied at 400 L ha -1 and 91 to 95% when applied at 800 L ha -1 volume of application. Key words: Potato, acetic acid, EcoClear, weed control, application time, application volume
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".