Glyphosate-Resistant Weed Control and Soybean Injury in Response to Different PPO-Inhibiting Herbicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In Nebraska, 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) as well as acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibitor-resistant weeds occur in many soybean fields where herbicides from these modes-of-action have been frequently used in the past. Currently, the protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibitors are the only effective herbicides for POST control of both glyphosate- and ALS-inhibitor-resistant weeds in soybean. Greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2014 to evaluate the efficacy of PPO-inhibitors applied POST for the control of three glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds and potential for soybean injury, when applied at two growth stages. All herbicide treatments controlled 10- and 20-cm tall GR common waterhemp ≥ 95% at 21 DAT. GR giant ragweed and kochia were controlled 86 to 99% when treated at 10-cm height and 78 to 92% at 20-cm height by 21 DAT. Herbicide treatments reduced shoot biomass in the three GR weeds 88 to 100% when treated at 10-cm height and 73 to 100% when treated at 20-cm height, at 21 DAT. Soybean injury and shoot biomass data revealed that acifluorfen and lactofen were more injurious (≥ 17%), whereas fomesafen, and fomesafen plus glyphosate were relatively safer (&lt; 10% injury). Overall, fomesafen and fomesafen plus glyphosate caused least injury to soybean and were more effective in controlling GR common waterhemp, giant ragweed, and kochia compared with acifluorfen and lactofen.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".