Associations of Herbicides on the Simultaneous Control of Horseweed and Italian Ryegrass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weed competition negatively affects grain yield on wheat and soybean crops. Due to better practicality and timesaving it is usual the association of broadleaf herbicides with graminicides to control monocot and dicot weeds. However, little is known about the deleterious effects of broadleaf herbicides on graminicides. Thus, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of simple, double and triple association of broadleaf herbicides with graminicides to control of Italian ryegrass and horseweed. The experiment was conducted into greenhouse on completely randomized experimental design with four replications. The treatments consisted of the graminicides clethodim and clodinafop; the broadleaf herbicides 2,4-D, metsulfuron and saflufenacil and non-selective glyphosate, sprayed isolated and in double and triple association to be compared with a control. The variables evaluated were control (%) at 21 and 28 days after treatments (DAT), and dry weight (g) at 28 DAT. The isolated graminicides and the broadleaf herbicides controlled both Italian ryegrass and horseweed respectively. At the double association of broadleaf with graminicides herbicides, 2,4-D antagonized the effect of clodinafop, and glyphosate mixed with clodinafop decreased the control of the graminicide on Italian ryegrass. At the triple herbicide association, when mixed with glyphosate, metsulfuron decreased the control effect of Italian ryegrass by clethodim. The association of broadleaf herbicides with graminicides is effective on the control of monocot and dicot weeds, but it depends on which herbicide used for the combination. When it is evident the antagonism between broadleaf herbicides and graminicides, the detrimental effects go on grass control.
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".