Seed Dormancy and Seed Morphology Related to Weed Susceptibility to Biofumigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofumigation is practiced to control soilborne pests and weeds in agronomic fields. The objectives of this research were to assess the dose response of weed seeds to Indian mustard biofumigation and associate responses to seed dormancy state, initial dormancy, and seed parameters. A petri dish biofumigation methodology was developed to expose seeds of common lambsquarters, bird vetch, wild carrot, common ragweed, green foxtail, velvetleaf, hairy galinsoga, and red clover to allelochemicals produced after rehydrating 0 (control), 1.94, 2.90, 5.81, 11.61, and 17.41 mg cm−2of dried mustard powder. Weed species expressed specific dose responses, estimated ED50, LD50, and maximal mortality. Hairy galinsoga and wild carrot were consistently the most affected by biofumigation, with maximal mortality reaching 97% and 95%, ED50values for germination were 1.91 and 2.68 mg cm−2, and LD50values were 3.31 and 3.69 mg cm−2of dried mustard tissue, respectively. Initial dormancy was assessed by germination and tetrazolium tests. Seed parameters such as testa thickness, relative weight of the testa, and seed size were measured directly by manual dissection, weighing seed structures, and stereomicroscopic imaging software measurements. Linear regression analyses revealed initial dormancy to be positively related to ED50and LD50values with a significant interaction with seed surface and seed width, respectively. Exposure to 5.81 mg cm−2of dried mustard powder increased common ragweed seed mortality for after-ripened seeds by 293% and by 58% for primary dormant seeds compared with untreated seeds. Mortality of common lambsquarters secondary and primary dormant seeds increased by 730% and 106%, respectively, and for wild carrot by 1,193 and 156%, respectively. Results underline the potential to incorporate biofumigation into weed management programs for repression of susceptible weed species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".