MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742203000 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01453

Understanding the Differential Response of <i>Setaria viridis</i> L. (green foxtail) and <i>Setaria pumila</i> Poir. (yellow foxtail) to Pyroxsulam

2017· article· en· W2742203000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Norbert M. Satchivi, Gerrit J. deBoer, Jared L. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoxtailSetaria viridisSetariaBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green foxtail [ Setaria viridis (L) Beauv.] and yellow foxtail [ Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult.] are among the most abundant and troublesome annual grass weeds in cereal crops in the Northern Plains of the United States and the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Greenhouse and laboratory experiments were conducted to examine the differential responses of both weed species to foliar applications of the new triazolopyrimidine sulfonamide acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicide, pyroxsulam, and to determine the mechanism(s) of differential weed control. Foliar applications of pyroxsulam resulted in >90% control of yellow foxtail at rates between 7.5 and 15 g ai ha –1, whereas the same rates resulted in a reduced efficacy on green foxtail (≤81%). The absorption and translocation of [ 14 C]pyroxsulam in green and yellow foxtail were similar and could not explain the differential whole-plant efficacy. Studies with [ 14 C]pyroxsulam revealed a higher percentage of absorbed pyroxsulam was metabolized into an inactive metabolite in the treated leaf of green foxtail than in the treated leaf of yellow foxtail. Metabolism studies demonstrated that, 48 h after application, 50 and 35% of pyroxsulam in the treated leaf was converted to 5-hydroxy-pyroxsulam in green and yellow foxtail, respectively. The acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibition assay showed that ALS extracted from green foxtail was more tolerant to pyroxsulam than the enzyme extracted from yellow foxtail was. The in vitro ALS assay showed IC 50 values of 8.39 and 0.26 μM pyroxsulam for green and yellow foxtail, respectively. The ALS genes from both green and yellow foxtail were sequenced and revealed amino acid differences; however, the changes are not associated with known resistance-inducing mutations. The differential control of green and yellow foxtail following foliar applications of pyroxsulam was attributed to differences in both metabolism and ALS sensitivity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207