Weed Control by Herbicides and Fertilizers Applied Separately or Combined on Kentucky Bluegrass Lawn
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporating herbicides application into fertilization has several benefits including saving time and reducing traffics on the lawn. Premixed products of fertilizers and herbicides are commonly known as Weed & Feed in the lawn-care industry. To compare Weed & Feed with separate applications of fertilizers and herbicides on a Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) lawn, a Weed & Feed 28-3-3, containing 0.64% 2,4-D, 0.31% MCPP, and 0.03% dicamba of active ingredients, was used in this study. The first application was in May, with the second in June or Sept. Herbicides in forms of 2,4-D (LV-4, 4EC), MCPP (4EC), and dicamba (Clarity, 4EC) were applied at rates equal to the amounts in Weed & Feed or at half of the rates. The dominant weed in both locations was common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber.) in 2005 and 2004. A secondary weed was Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.) in 2004 and broadleaf plantain (Plantago major L.) in 2005. When applied in May and June, fertilizer plus full rate of herbicides treatment achieved 112.3 and 83.7 days of acceptable turf quality in 2004 and 2005, respectively. During the same period, Weed & Feed resulted in 58.7 and 24.3 days of acceptable turf quality, respectively. Our study showed that Weed & Feed was generally as effective in weed control as the same amount of fertilizer plus half rates of herbicides sprayed although results may vary due to the timing of application. Fertilizer plus full rates of herbicides provided the same or better results of weed control than Weed & Feed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it