MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559826792 · doi:10.2134/agronj2016.07.0419

Early Application of Harvest Aid Herbicides Adversely Impacts Lentil

2016· article· en· W2559826792 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ti Zhang, Eric N. Johnson, Thomas C. Mueller, Christian J. Willenborg

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateAgronomyRandomized block designBiologyWeed controlResidue (chemistry)GerminationDesiccationHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core Ideas Improper application timing of harvest aids may reduce lentil seed yield and quality, and leave unacceptable herbicide residues in seed. Application of harvest aids before 30% seed moisture content reduced lentil seed yield and thousand seed weight. These application timings resulted in lentil seed samples exceeding residue levels of 2 and 0.03 mg kg −1 for glyphosate and saflufenacil, respectively. Applying harvest aid herbicides can dry down lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) crops evenly and quickly, and can help control late‐emerging weeds. However, improper application timing may reduce yield and quality, and leave unacceptable herbicide residues in seed, which can cause commercial issues when marketing lentil. The objective of this research was to determine the response of lentil to various application timings of glyphosate, saflufenacil, and the combination of these two herbicides. A field experiment consisting of a randomized complete block design was run at Saskatoon and Scott, SK, Canada in 2012, 2013, and 2014 to address the objective. Application of harvest aid herbicides before 30% seed moisture content reduced seed yield and thousand seed weight up to 25 and 8%, respectively. Moreover, application timings before 30% seed moisture resulted in lentil seed samples exceeding residue levels of 2.0 and 0.03 mg kg −1 for glyphosate and saflufenacil, respectively. Adding saflufenacil to glyphosate did not reduce glyphosate residue in lentil seed compared to glyphosate applied alone. However, this tank mixture significantly reduced seed residues of saflufenacil and improved crop desiccation compared with either glyphosate or saflufenacil applied alone. Our data lead us to conclude that a tank mix of saflufenacil+glyphosate should be recommended for crop desiccation and pre‐harvest weed control in lentil over using either product alone. In addition, it is critical to ensure applications of glyphosate or saflufenacil are not made prior to 30% seed moisture in lentil crops.

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)0.000
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 score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207