Tolerance of cranberry beans (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i>) to soil applications of s-metolachlor and imazethapyr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information on the tolerance of cranberry beans to preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) applications of s-metolachlor and imazethapyr, eithe r alone or in tank mix combination, for selective weed control in cranberry beans in Ontario. Tolerance of two cranberry bean cultivars, Hooter and SVM Taylor, to PPI and PRE applications of s-metolachlor, imazethapyr and their tank mix combination at the label rate (1×) and twice the label rate (2× ) were studied at two Ontario locations (Exeter and Ridgetown) in 2001 and 2002. There were no differences between the two cultivars in their responses to the herbicide treatments. PPI and PRE applications of s-metolachlor alone at the 1× and 2× rate had no effect on visual crop injury and no negative effect on plant height, dry weight and yield compared to the control. The PPI and PRE applications of imazethapyr at the 1× rate did not result in significant visual crop injury, and had no negative effect on bean height and dry weight, but at the 2× rate there was significant visual crop injury, a decrease in height with the PPI application and decreased dry weight with PPI and PRE applications. No negative effect o n cranberry bean yield was observed with the application of imazethapyr at either the 1× or 2× rates. The PPI and PRE applications of the tank mix of s-metolachlor plus imazethapyr at the 1× rate did not result in significant visual crop injury or decreases in bean plant height or dry weight. At the 2× rate, there was significant visual crop injury, a decrease in bean plant height with PPI and PRE applications and decreased dry weight with the PPI application. The tank mix of s-metolachlor plus imazethapyr at the 1× rate had no effect on yield, but the PPI application at the 2× rate caused a decrease in yield at 1 of the 4 site-years. Key words:
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".