Coca (<i>Erythroxylum coca</i>) Control is Affected by Glyphosate Formulations and Adjuvants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aerial spray program for the eradication of coca in Colombia uses Glyphos, a local formulation of glyphosate tank-mixed with an adjuvant product, Cosmo-Flux. There are some potential risks to amphibians from direct overspraying of shallow waters. In order to evaluate potential alternative mixtures, a field experiment was conducted at the Center of National Training of Police Operations in Tolima province, Colombia. Plants of coca were established with irrigation and grown to 75 cm tall. A randomized split-plot design experiment was laid out and sprayed with a range of glyphosate formulations and different adjuvants using an experimental ground sprayer. Assessments were made of plant vigor, height, and above-ground standing crop (fresh weight) 3 wk after application. Resprouting of plants was assessed at 9 wk after treatment. Unformulated glyphosate applied as the product Rodeo gave poorer control of coca than two formulated products, Roundup Biactive (from Europe) and Colombian Glyphos. In general, these products performed well without added adjuvants, giving control similar to that of the eradication mixture with Cosmo-Flux. There was some evidence that addition of the adjuvant Silwet L-77 and to a lesser extent Mixture B (from the United Kingdom) gave more rapid herbicide symptoms. There were also indications that glyphosate rates of less than 3.69 kg acid equivalents (a.e.)/ha could give control in the range of 95%. Depending on the environmental risk requirements, the experiment indicates that, should other spray mixtures be required, there are potential alternatives. These would require extensive field testing to cover different environmental conditions, different coca varieties, and particularly aerial application, prior to a recommendation. Should the glyphosate product require changing, Roundup Biactive may be considered. Should the adjuvant require changing, then on the basis of this research, Silwet L-77 and Mixture B would be good candidates for further evaluation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".