Effects of Coffee Bean Grounds on Urochloa brizantha Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of invasive plants is strategic for agricultural areas, since these plants lead to a reduction in productivity. Among potential forms of management is the application of coffee grounds, given that the caffeine present in this residue has allelopathic effects. As such, this study’s objective was to evaluate Urochloa brizantha growth and phytotoxicity when administering different doses of coffee grounds before and after emergence. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse of the Federal University of Lavras. Planting of the invasive species employed 8-liter vases with 50 seeds each. Assays were performed using a randomized block design, with three replicates, in a 4 × 2 factorial scheme. The first factor was coffee ground dosage: 55, 73 and 100 g doses were diluted in 100 mL of water, and each pot received 100 mL of coffee grounds slurry. The second factor was period of application: pre or post-emergence. Evaluated parameters were: plant height; dry shoot mass; phytotoxicity, speed of emergence (SE), and number of emerged plants. We found that pre-emergence treatments significantly reduced the growth of Urochloa brizantha. In respect to the ‘SE’ and ‘number of emerged plants’ parameters, slurry with coffee grounds doses up to 50 g were found to compromise plant emergence. In respect to phytotoxicity percentage, a linear increase was observed according to the increase in sludge dosage. This study concludes that, when applied during pre-emergence and in low concentrations, coffee grounds compromise the growth of Urochloa brizantha.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".