MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175885649 · doi:10.1614/wt-03-061r1

Response of Common Lambsquarters (<i>Chenopodium album</i>) to Glyphosate Application Timing and Rate in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn

2004· article· en· W2175885649 on OpenAlexaff
Peter H. Sikkema, Christy Shropshire, Allan S. Hamill, Susan E. Weaver, Paul B. Cavers

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambsquartersGlyphosateAgronomyWeed controlWeedBiologyDry weightChenopodiumCropYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies were conducted over 3 yr at two locations to evaluate the effect of glyphosate rate and time of application on common lambsquarters control, density, dry weight, seed production, and the number of seedlings emerging from soil cores taken the year after herbicide application in glyphosate-resistant corn. Glyphosate was applied at 0, 112, 225, 450, 675, or 900 g ai/ha when common lambsquarters were at the two-, four-, or six-leaf stage of growth. Nicosulfuron was applied to all experimental areas to control annual grasses. Visual estimates of percent control increased, whereas density, dry weight, seed production, and seedlings emerging the year after treatment decreased as the rate of glyphosate was increased from 0 to 450 g/ha. Increasing the glyphosate rate above 450 g/ha had little effect on these parameters. Corn yield declined only at glyphosate rates below 450 g/ha. Time of application had no effect on common lambsquarters control and corn yield because little emergence occurred after the first glyphosate application. There was no interaction between glyphosate rate and time of application for any of the parameters evaluated. In these studies, the application of glyphosate at half the manufacturer's registered rate provided control of common lambsquarters equivalent to the full-registered rate with no measured increase in weed seed production and no increase in weed seedlings emerging from soil cores the year after herbicide application. The results suggest that in some cases the use of reduced herbicide rates can provide excellent weed control and maintain crop yields, while reducing the cost of production and the environmental impact of herbicides. The use of extremely low rates (112 or 225 g/ha), however, resulted in reduced corn yields, increased common lambsquarters seed production and seedlings emerging the year after application, and possibly increased weed management costs in subsequent years.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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