MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791785897 · doi:10.24266/0738-2898-35.4.161

Efficacy of Bio-based Liquid Mulch on Weed Suppression and Water Conservation in Container Nursery Production1

2017· article· en· W2791785897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Shen, Youbin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Horticulture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulchWeed controlWeedBiomass (ecology)HorticultureSubstrate (aquarium)AgronomyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To assess the effectiveness of bio-based liquid mulch at different application rates and binder loading types for weed suppression and evaporation reduction in container nursery production, a study was conducted outdoors in the summer of 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Three application rates [0.5 1.25, or 2.0 kg·m −2 (0.20 lb·ft −2 )] and two binder loading types (AMP753 with 3.5% binder loading or AMP153 with 7% binder loading) of the liquid mulch were used in the trial. The evaporation rates (ER) from the container growing substrate were quantified daily for three 7-day cycles. All mulched treatments reduced total ERs starting from the second cycle compared to the no-mulch control, with the exception of the treatment binder loading type 3.5% with 0.5 kg·m −2 mulch. All mulched treatments had an equivalent effect at reducing weed numbers compared to the control. The 1.25 and 2.0 kg·m −2 rates were more effective for weed control than the low application rate (0.5 kg·m −2 ) and there were no differences between binder loading types. No negative effects on overall plant health, flower or branch number, total aboveground biomass, leaf area, or plant growth index were observed on Hydrangea paniculata ‘Jane' from the applied mulch. A major shortcoming with the product as tested was that it dried and shrunk within a couple of days of application. This caused a gap of approximately 10 to15 mm (0.39-0.59 inch) between the wall of the pots and the actual dried mulch. The 1.25 kg·m −2 rate of either binder loading type (3.5% or 7%) could be recommended if the shrinking issue of this mulch could be resolved. Index words: Evaporation, witchgrass, Powell's amaranth, green foxtail, little lime hardy hydrangea. Chemicals used in this study: Bio-based Liquid Mulch. Species used in this study: witchgrass ( Panicum capillare L.), Powell's amaranth ( Amaranthus powellii S. Watson), green foxtail ( Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.), common groundsel ( Senecio vulgaris L.), little lime hardyhydrangea ( Hydrangea paniculata L. ‘Jane').

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 score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental HorticultureSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207