MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339474958 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0309

Growth and seed production of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (<i>Ambrosia trifida</i> L.) in response to water stress

2016· article· en· W2339474958 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simranpreet Kaur, Jatinder S. Aulakh, Amit J. Jhala

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRagweedGlyphosateAgronomyBiologyHorticultureShootBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of degree and duration of water stress on growth and seed production of glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed. The degree of water stress included giant ragweed response to 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 12.5% of field capacity. The highest growth index (588 cm 3 ) was achieved at 75% of field capacity with plants typically ≥125 cm tall and ≥57 leaves plant −1 . Giant ragweed seed production was ≥55, 35, 20, and 5 seeds plant −1 at ≥75%, 50%, 25%, and 12.5% of field capacity, respectively. The study of duration of water stress included the response of giant ragweed to withholding water for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 d following 100% of field capacity. Water stress of 4 d or longer reduced giant ragweed plant height ≥20%, root and shoot biomass ≥66%, number of leaves ≥36%, growth index ≥54%, and seed production by 36% compared with 2 d of water stress. Results from this study indicate that giant ragweed can survive and produce seeds at 12.5% of field capacity or 10 d of water stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207