MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510517885 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-16-00087.1

Wheat, Field Pea, and Canola Response to Glyphosate and AMPA Soil Residues

2016· article· en· W2510517885 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaGlyphosateAgronomyShootBiomass (ecology)CropBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tripling of glyphosate use in the Canadian prairies during the past decade has raised concerns over the possible accumulation of glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA in soil over time and whether there could be any detrimental effects on crop production. A controlled environment study was conducted at two locations in Alberta, Canada, to determine glyphosate and AMPA soil concentrations that would injure wheat, field pea, and canola. Treatments included glyphosate acid or AMPA applied at 0, 10, 25, 100, 250, and 500 mg kg −1 soil. Shoot and root biomass determinations 8 wk after emergence (WAE) indicated that shoot and root biomass of all crops progressively declined with increasing soil concentrations of glyphosate at both locations. In contrast, AMPA reduced crop shoot and root biomass at only one of two sites. Estimated soil concentrations of glyphosate causing 20% reductions in shoot and root biomass ranged from 80 to 190, 90 to 350, and 120 to 320 mg kg −1 for field pea, canola, and wheat, respectively. Soil concentrations of AMPA causing 20% crop biomass reductions ranged from 40 to 70, 20 to 30, and 80 to 120 mg kg −1 for field pea, canola, and wheat, respectively. Although substantial crop injury occurred in this study, it must be noted that these rates are very high in terms of field application rates that would be required to achieve these soil concentrations. Doses causing crop injury would convert to estimated glyphosate field rates ranging from 17.6 to 77 kg ha −1 . Overall results indicate that even with frequent high-dose glyphosate applications over several years, the likelihood of wheat, field pea, and canola injury from soil residues is low. Nevertheless, there may be merit in greater monitoring of glyphosate and AMPA soil residues in cropping systems with high glyphosate utilization over a long time period.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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