Response of selected glyphosate-resistant broadleaved weeds to premix of fluthiacet-methyl and mesotrione (Solstice™) applied at two growth stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ganie, Z. A., Stratman, G. and Jhala, A. J. 2015. Response of selected glyphosate-resistant broadleaved weeds to premix of fluthiacet-methyl and mesotrione (Solstice™) applied at two growth stages. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 861–869. A premix of fluthiacet-methyl and mesotrione (1:17.5 ratio) has recently been registered for post-emergence (POST) broadleaf weed control in corn. The objective of this study was to determine the response of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp, giant ragweed, and kochia to a premix of fluthiacet-methyl and mesotrione when applied to 10- and 20-cm-tall plants. Greenhouse dose response studies were conducted and log-logistic models were used to determine how the response varies between the weed species at two growth stages under various rates ranging from 21.8 to 218.5 g a.i. ha −1 (0.25× to 2.5×). The effective rate required to achieve >90% control and shoot biomass reduction varied depending on the weed species and growth stage. The rates required for 90% control (ED 90 ) of 10-cm-tall glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp, giant ragweed, and kochia were 78, 251, and 17 g a.i. ha −1 , respectively, compared with 144, 489, and 79,349 g a.i. ha −1 , respectively, for 20-cm-tall plants at 21 d after treatment (DAT). Based on visual control estimates at ED 90 level, glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp was the most sensitive at both growth stages; kochia was sensitive at 10-cm height, while giant ragweed was the least sensitive at both growth stages. Irrespective of weed species or growth stage, the ED 90 values calculated on the basis of shoot biomass reduction were mostly higher compared with visual control estimates. It is concluded that premix of fluthiacet-methyl plus mesotrione can be potentially used as a POST herbicide in corn for controlling glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp and kochia (≤ 10 cm tall) at the labeled rate (87 g a.i. ha −1 ).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".