Impact of post-anthesis glyphosate on woolly cupgrass seed production, seed weight and seed viability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse, R. E., Darbyshire, S. J. and Simard, M.-J. 2015. Impact of post-anthesis glyphosate on woolly cupgrass seed production, seed weight and seed viability. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 1193–1197. Herbicides are generally applied at early stages of crop and weed growth to protect crop yield. Few studies have evaluated the effect of late (post-anthesis) applications of glyphosate as a management option to limit the seed production of weed escapes, such as woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa). We propagated woolly cupgrass under greenhouse conditions and then applied three glyphosate treatments post-anthesis including: (1) an untreated control; (2) 900 g a.e. ha −1 ; and (3) 1800 g a.e. ha −1 . Terminal inflorescences were collected 21 d after glyphosate application, and seed production, seed weight and embryo viability were assessed. Post-anthesis glyphosate applications did not influence seed production, but reduced seed weight and viability by 50 and 96%, respectively. Therefore, glyphosate applied just before the woolly cupgrass inflorescence begins to emerge from the leaf sheath (as late as the R1 stage in soybeans) is an effective strategy to manage woolly cupgrass reproduction and stop viable seeds from entering the soil seed bank or other dispersal pathways.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".