The critical weed-free period in glyphosate-resistant soybean in Ontario is similar to previous estimates using glyphosate-susceptible soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study consisting of 13 field experiments was conducted during 2014–2016 in southwestern Ontario and southcentral Nebraska (Clay Center) to determine the effect of late-emerging weeds on the yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean. Soybean was maintained weed-free with glyphosate (900 g ae ha −1 ) up to the VC (cotyledon), V1 (first trifoliate), V2 (second trifoliate), V3 (third trifoliate), V4 (fourth trifoliate), and R1 (beginning of flowering) growth stages, after which weeds were allowed to naturally infest the soybean plots. The total weed density was reduced to 24%, 63%, 67%, 72%, 76%, and 92% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 soybean growth stages, respectively. The total weed biomass was reduced by 33%, 82%, 95%, 97%, 97%, and 100% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and 28%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% in Environment 2 (Clay Center) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 stages, respectively. The critical weed-free periods for a 2.5%, 5%, and 10% yield loss in soybean were the V1–V2, VC–V1, and VC–V1 soybean stages in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and V2–V3, V2–V3, and V1–V2 soybean stages in Environment 2 (Clay Center), respectively. For the weed species evaluated, there was a minimal reduction in weed biomass (5% or less) when soybean was maintained weed-free beyond the V3 soybean growth stage. These results shows that soybean must be maintained weed-free up to the V3 growth stage to minimize yield loss due to weed interference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".