MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137203648 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-12-00146.1

Field and Greenhouse Bioassays to Determine Mesotrione Residues in Soil

2013· article· en· W2137203648 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Riddle, John O’Sullivan, Clarence J. Swanton, Rene C. Van Acker

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesotrioneBioassaySugar beetAgronomyGreenhouseCropCrop rotationSoil testEnvironmental scienceBiologySoil waterPesticideAtrazineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-plant bioassays using sugar beet, lettuce, cucumber, green bean, pea, and soybean as test crops were used to detect mesotrione residues in the soil. The test crops were planted in soil treated with mesotrione in the field the previous year at rates of 0 to 560 g ai ha−1and in nontreated soil from the same field, with mesotrione added at concentrations of 0 to 320 μg kg−1. Experiments were conducted in the greenhouse for a 21-d period. Values for the dose giving a 50% response (I50) were predicted using a log-logistic nonlinear regression model. I50values (mean ± SE) of 8.6 ± 1.8, 14.9 ± 2.0, 29.8 ± 11.0, 41.6 ± 7.3, 52.9 ± 6.4, and 67.9 ± 30.3 g ai ha−1for sugar beet, lettuce, green bean, cucumber, pea, and soybean, respectively, indicate that these crops were effective bioassay test species for quantifying mesotrione residues. A greenhouse bioassay was a simple and sensitive tool to detect mesotrione at concentrations of less than 1.0 μg kg−1with sugar beet and lettuce being the most sensitive test species. The I50values for soil treated with known concentrations of mesotrione were lower than for field soil treated with mesotrione the previous year. Knowing the level of mesotrione residues in the soil, growers have flexibility in crop rotations following mesotrione use on corn. Growers can use this information to minimize risk of crop injury by choosing appropriate rotation crops that suffer little or no yield reduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207