MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176430520 · doi:10.1614/wt-04-059r.1

Broadleaf Herbicide Effects on Clethodim and Quizalofop-P Efficacy on Volunteer Wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i>)

2006· article· en· W2176430520 on OpenAlexaff
Robert E. Blackshaw, K. Neil Harker, George W. Clayton, John O’Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBromoxynilGlyphosateMCPAAgronomyWinter wheatCanolaGlufosinateVolunteerClopyralidWeed controlBiologyPhytopharmacologyDicambaPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments were conducted at three locations in 2003 and 2004 to examine clethodim and quizalofop-P efficacy on spring wheat seedlings when applied alone or in tank mixtures with herbicides used to control broadleaf weeds. Clethodim at the recommended rate of 30 g/ha reduced spring wheat biomass by 63 to 98% and was only >90% in three of six site years. In contrast, quizalofop-P at the recommended rate of 36 g/ha reduced wheat biomass >90% in all cases. Clethodim or quizalofop-P could be tank mixed with 2,4-D ester, bromoxynil, or bromoxynil plus MCPA ester with little risk of reduced efficacy on wheat. However, 2,4-D amine was highly antagonistic to both herbicides. The commercial mixture of thifensulfuron plus tribenuron reduced clethodim, but not quizalofop-P, efficacy on wheat. Herbicide options exist for simultaneous control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant canola and glyphosate-resistant wheat if the latter technology were to be commercialized in the future.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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