Tolerance of Foxtail Millet to Combinations of Bromoxynil, Clopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and MCPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When solid stands of foxtail millet are cut for swath grazing, the grazing season for cattle is extended and winter feeding costs reduced. The economic success of this practice depends on inexpensive weed control. Eight single- and double-rate herbicide combinations (g ai/ha) were evaluated and compared to a weed-free check: MCPA + bromoxynil (280 + 280 or 560 + 560); MCPA + clopyralid (560 + 100 or 1120 + 200); MCPA + fluroxypyr (562 + 108 or 1124 + 216); and MCPA + clopyralid + fluroxypyr (560 + 100 + 144 or 1120 + 200 + 288). This study was conducted at Indian Head, Saskatchewan (SK) in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 and at Scott, SK, in 2006 and 2007. Crop injury and dry matter yield were measured. Results of the study indicate that crop injury exceeded 20% at only one out of six sites at 7 to 14 d after herbicide treatment. Double-rate MCPA + bromoxynil treatments had higher injury ratings than the weed-free check 7 to 14 d after treatment in all site years. As the growing season progressed, injury ratings tended to decline except at Scott in 2007, where injury ratings at the 21 to 35 d period were numerically greater than the other two rating periods. There were no differences among treatments for crop biomass production. We conclude that all four herbicide combinations at the labeled rate are safe to use on foxtail millet in Saskatchewan, and probably in other areas with similar environmental growing conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".