Sugarcane Field Residue and Root Allelopathic Impact on Weed Seed Germination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allelopathy, the chemical interaction between plants, may result in the inhibition of plant growth and development, which can include compounds released from a crop that adversely impact weed species. The objective of this research was to determine the allelopathic impact of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) field residue and root water extracts on seed germination of three weed species. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.)] seeds were treated with five extract concentrations (0, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 g/L) from either sugarcane field residue or sugarcane root extracts. The field residue and roots were from sugarcane variety ‘HoCP 96-540’ plant cane. Germination generally decreased with increasing sugarcane field residue extract concentrations in the three weed species tested. At the highest residue concentration (100 g/L), red morningglory, redroot pigweed, and spiny amaranth germination decreased by 29%, 17.5% and 80.5%, respectively. Germination generally decreased with increasing sugarcane root extract concentrations in red morningglory and redroot pigweed, but not with spiny amaranth. The highest root concentration (100 g/L) decreased red morningglory and redroot pigweed germination by 19.5% and 18.5%, respectively. This research provides the first bioassay demonstrating that sugarcane root extracts have allelopathic activity, and specifically in respect to red morningglory and redroot pigweed germination. Future research should investigate the allelopathic compounds present in the sugarcane field residue and roots, determine if the same allelopathic compounds are present and in similar concentrations among other sugarcane varieties, and further examine which weed species may be susceptible to the allelopathic compounds present in sugarcane roots.
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) | 0.002 | 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".