Tank mixture of glyphosate with 2,4-D accentuates 2,4-D injury in glyphosate-resistant corn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six field trials were conducted at Ridgetown, ON, over a 2-yr period (2015 and 2016) to determine the tolerance of two corn hybrids to 2,4-D (560 and 1120 g a.i. ha−1) and glyphosate (1800 g a.e. ha−1) applied alone or in combination at stage V1, V3, or V5. In DeKalb DKC52-61 corn, 2,4-D caused as much as 24%, 16%, 11%, and 11% visible injury at 1 wk after each postemergence herbicide application (WAT), 2 WAT, 4 wk after the last postemergence herbicide application (WA-C), and 8 WA-C, respectively. Plant stand was not affected, but plant height decreased by 5 cm at 560 g a.i. ha−1 and 7% at 1120 g a.i. ha−1. As the application timing was delayed from stage V1 to V5, there was a trend to increased injury at both 2,4-D rates. Corn yield decreased 8% with 2,4-D applied at 560 g a.i. ha−1 and 12% at 1120 g a.i. ha−1. In Pioneer P0094AM corn, 2,4-D caused as much as 16%, 9%, 7%, and 7% visible injury at 1 WAT, 2 WAT, 4 WA-C, and 8 WA-C, respectively. Plant height was not affected, but goosenecking and brace root malformation were increased as the rate of 2,4-D was increased. There was generally no difference between glyphosate rates (1800 vs 0 g a.e. ha−1) at the V1 corn stage but visible injury, goosenecking, and brace root malformation at other application timings was as much as 15%, 3%, and 19% greater when 2,4-D was applied in a tank mixture with glyphosate, respectively. Yield was reduced by 12% when 2,4-D (1120 g a.i. ha−1) was applied with glyphosate in the tank mixture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".