Allelopathy: Past Achievements and Future Approaches, Proceedings of a Symposium of the Weed Science Society of America, February 9, 2000, Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of papers published on allelopathy was low until the 1970s but has accelerated rapidly in recent years. Alleged allelopathic activity has been suggested for numerous weed and crop species; however, many studies employed preliminary bioassays (leachates or extracts in the absence of soil). The importance of substratum and of abiotic and biotic stresses (nutrients, shade, herbides, plant diseases, herbivores), plant density, habitat, and climate has been realized in recent years. Laboratory bioassay, the first step to investigate probable involvement of allelopathy, should be designed to correspond to field conditions. Studies need to focus on the effects of (1) climatic, environmental, and habitat factors on allelopathic potential; (2) abiotic and biotic soil components on fate and biological activity of allelochemicals; and (3) allelochemicals on soil nutrient dynamics, microbial ecology, and other abiotic and biotic components. Recently, attempts to find crop cultivars with a competitive allelopathic edge have been made. Interaction of professionals from different disciplines is needed to understand the complexity of the ecosystem. The following are important topics for discussion: allelopathy and the transition to sustainable agriculture; physiological and biochemical studies; using transgenes to produce allelopathic crops; microbial allelochemicals and pathogens as weed biological agents; bioassays for allelopathy (problems and solutions); pollen allelopathy; and an ecological perspective of allelopathy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".