Response of Glufosinate‐Resistant Canola to Late Applications of Glufosinate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that glyphosate applied to glyphosate‐resistant canola (Brassica napus L.) at later growth stages can reduce yield, particularly if applications are made beyond the six‐leaf stage. We questioned whether similar effects could occur in glufosinate‐resistant canola and therefore, our objective was to characterize the effects of glufosinate application timing on glufosinate‐resistant canola. Plots received either a single glufosinate application at the two‐leaf, six‐leaf, bolt, or early bloom stages or sequential applications at the two‐leaf followed by six‐leaf, two‐leaf followed by bolting, and two‐leaf followed by early bloom stages. Significant differences between application timings were observed when glufosinate applications were made beyond the six‐leaf stage. In the affected site‐years (site and year combinations), delayed applications resulted in reduced plant height (∼8%), increased number of aborted pods (∼68%), and decreased yield (19%). Increased seeds per pod (∼7%) and thousand‐seed weight (∼29%) were also observed with applications beyond the six‐leaf stage at these site‐years. Yield reductions and the increase in aborted pods at applications made beyond the six‐leaf stage may be caused by glufosinate contact to reproductive organs, causing herbicide damage consistent with a contact herbicide. Results from this experiment demonstrate that despite engineered glufosinate resistance in glufosinate‐resistant canola, late glufosinate applications made beyond the six‐leaf stage have the potential to cause marked declines in seed yield and yield components. Although the current label allows for the application of glufosinate at the bolting stage, our results show that glufosinate should not be applied beyond the six‐leaf stage in glufosinate‐resistant canola.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".