MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535956632 · doi:10.11159/awspt16.113

Physiological Effects of Five Herbicides on Wheat Cultivars

2016· article· en· W2535956632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veli Çeliktaş, Sema Düzenli, Hande Otu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended Abstract Herbicides are chemical compounds which used for struggle with weeds to protect the crops in fields. However, it can be harmful to crops sometimes. The aim of this study, to investigate the effects of herbicides on crops. For this purpose five different herbicides applied to wheat cultivars ( Triticum aestivum cvs Adana 99 and Ceyhan 99; Triticum drum cv Selcuklu 97). Seed samples were sterilized in a %3 sodium hypochlorite solution for three minutes and washed several times with distilled water.Then seeds were sown in plastic pots which had 1000 gr soil and 40 seeds per pots.Pots were placed at 24/20 C (day/night) temperature and 16/8 light period (day/night), with a light intesity of 300 μmol/m 2 s, and %60 humidity in a controlled room. Herbicides (2,4D, Derby, Atlantis, Topic, Lintur) were sprayed with a spray gun ( 5000 L/ha volume) in a controlled room (15 0 C) two weeks after germination. Plants were harvested when beginning of tillering three weeks after herbicide application. Pigment, proline (an aminoacide that increase against stress), lipid peroxidation (LP, which degrades membrane integrity), ascorbic acid ( a non-enzymatic antioxidant) and SOD (superoxide dismutase, a antioxidative enzyme that remove reactive oxygen species) analisies were conducted respectively according to Arnon 1949 and Lichtenthaler and Wellburn, 1983; Bates et al. (1973); Hodges et al.,1998; Cakmak and Marshner, 1992. Statistical analysis of data of the application was performed using the software SPSS ® Statistics 20.0 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA). Each parameter was analyzed seperately by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the changes in each application. Significant differences (p<0,05) reanalyzed by LSD (Least Significant Difference) to determine which parameter was significantly different from controls. Derby, Topic and Lintur herbicides affected the ascorbic acid content of Adana 99 cultivar negatively. But only Lintur effected ascorbic acid content significiantly according to LSD (p<0,05). It was observed significantly that Topic has negative effect on total chlorophyll, malondialdehyde (MDA; biomarker to measure the level of LP), superoxide dismutase activity and carotenoid content, unlike Topic 2,4D had pozitive effect on carotenoid content . The herbicides exclusive Derby increased prolin content significantly of this cultivar. It was determined that Topic had been the most toxic herbicide for Adana 99 cultivar. In Ceyhan 99 cultivar; Topic and Atlantis affected positively ascorbic acid level (p<0,05). Atlantis decreased carotenoid level and in addition to this increased ascorbic acid content. Topic had riser effect on ascorbic acid and proline concentration.The herbicides had no significant effect MDA and total chlorophyll content. Derby and 2,4D had negative affect on SOD activity. In Selcuklu 97 cultivar Topic had negative effect on ascorbic acid level (p<0,05). All of the herbicides exclusive 2,4D had significant increasing effect on total chlorophyll content. Atlantis and Lintur increased carotenoid level. Derby and Atlantis increased MDA content while whole herbicides decreased SOD activity. Proline was not affected by herbicide applications significantly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207