MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165747708 · doi:10.4141/p01-136

Phenoxy herbicides in Alberta rainfall: Potential effects on sensitive crops

2002· article· en· W2165747708 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
B. D. Hill, K. Neil Harker, Paul Hasselback, J. R. Moyer, D. J. Inaba, S. D. Byers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDicambaBromoxynilMCPAAgronomySugarEnvironmental scienceBioassayGreenhouseHorticulturePesticideToxicologyBiologyWeed controlEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During 1999–2000, we detected phenoxy herbicides in Alberta rainfall at levels as high as 17 to 53 μg L-1, or 60 to 149 μg m-2. In this study, we conducted indoor bioassays to determine whether injury to sensitive crops could occur from such herbicides in Alberta rainfall. Spray conditions were chosen that maximized exposure of greenhouse-grown plants to simulated rain containing a mixture of 2,4-D, bromoxynil, MCPA and dicamba at 2.25 g ha-1 total rate. Bean and tomato plants showed permanent sub-lethal effects (P < 0.05), sunflowers showed enhanced effects (P < 0.05), while sugar beets showed only transient injury (P < 0.10). There were no effects (P > 0.05) on potatoes. Although caution is required when extrapolating from indoor bioassays, we conclude that injury to beans and tomatoes is possible in the field. Field experiments should be conducted to establish the likelihood of such injury. Key words: Phenoxy herbicides, atmospheric deposition, sub-lethal effects, non-target crops

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207