Benefit of Adding Ammonium Sulfate or Additional Glyphosate to Glyphosate in Corn and Soybean
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine field trials (4 in corn and 5 in soybean) were conducted over 2 years (2014 and 2015) to determine if there is greater benefit of adding ammonium sulfate (AMS) (2.5 L·haˉ1) or an equal dollar value of glyphosate (406 g·ae·haˉ1) to glyphosate applied at 450, 675 or 900 g·ae·haˉ1 for weed control in corn and soybean. Glyphosate applied at 450 g·ae·haˉ1 controlled velvetleaf 90% to 98%, common ragweed 80% - 97%, common lambsquarters 91% - 99%, Eastern black nightshade 83% - 100% and barnyardgrass 73% - 97% in corn and common ragweed 37% - 89%, common lambsquarters 39% - 98%, barnyardgrass 90% - 98% and green foxtail 91% - 98% in soybean. The addition of AMS to glyphosate applied at 450, 675 or 900 g·ae·haˉ1 provided little to no added benefit for the control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, common lambsquarters, Eastern black nightshade, barnyardgrass and green foxtail in corn and soybean. There was a greater benefit in weed control efficacy by simply adding and equal dollar value of glyphosate (406 g·ae·haˉ1) than AMS (2.5 L·haˉ1) to glyphosate. There was no difference in corn or soybean yield among the herbicide treatments evaluated. Based on these results, addition of AMS to glyphosate at rates evaluated had little benefit on weed control efficacy or yield of corn and soybean.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it