Physiological effect of clopyralid on corn as determined by bioassay and light-scattering spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broadleaf auxinic herbicide clopyralid was applied to three varieties of corn (Pioneer 36B08, Pioneer 3730, and Pioneer 3559) to determine whether it was phytotoxic to this crop. The effects of clopyralid on the growth and development of corn were compared with those induced by the auxinic herbicides dicamba, 2,4-D, picloram, and fluroxypyr. When compared with the other auxinic herbicides, clopyralid, applied as a foliar spray at the three- and six-leaf stages of development, caused the least damage to all three varieties of corn. Among the auxinic herbicides tested, fluroxypyr and dicamba caused severe damage to the three varieties, whereas picloram and 2,4-D had significant detrimental effects on the growth and development of varieties 36B08 and 3730. Similar results were also obtained when corn seeds were germinated in petri dishes containing increasing concentrations of the auxinic herbicides. In addition to correlating these growth and development effects with auxinic herbicide–induced physiological changes in corn, we compared the effects of clopyralid and dicamba on proton efflux from isolated protoplasts of the three varieties. Results of these biophysical studies are consistent with those from our growth and developmental studies and confirm that clopyralid is least effective in eliciting a response in corn when compared with dicamba. We conclude that clopyralid does not cause the deleterious effects seen with other auxinic herbicides when sprayed under optimal environmental conditions, i.e., high humidity and temperature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".