Characterization of dandelion (<i>Taraxacum officinale</i> Weber in F.H. Wigg.) biotype morphology, chemical composition and response to glyphosate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dandelion plants at the Lethbridge Research Centre, Alberta, have several different leaf shapes and possibly include individuals that are tolerant to glyphosate. The objectives of this study were to determine whether different leaf shapes are due to genotypic differences, whether chemical composition varies with leaf shape, and whether plants vary in their response to glyphosate. Plants with possible glyphosate tolerance were collected in 1998 from a pasture field where forage grasses were terminated with glyphosate, and from an alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) field where no herbicides had been applied. Image analysis of plants that were progeny of the original collection indicated that they have significantly different leaf shapes. DNA analysis confirmed that genotypic differences associated with leaf shape exist among dandelion plants collected at the Lethbridge Research Centre. The biotypes had different metal concentrations, which may be a concern if plants are sampled to monitor metal contamination. All biotypes had acceptable metal concentrations for use as cattle feed. In greenhouse tests, all biotypes required similar doses of glyphosate to reduce growth by 50%. All biotypes have considerable tolerance to glyphosate at rates to at least 1.8 kg a.e. ha-1, root fragments remained that were capable of supporting new leaf growth. Key words: Dandelion, DNA, glyphosate, leaf shape, mineral content, protein
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".