Suppression of Annual Ryegrass in Corn with Nicosulfuron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field studies were conducted to determine the possible rate and timing of nicosulfuron to suppress annual ryegrass (ARG) seeded as a cover crop at the time of corn planting without affecting corn performance near Ridgetown, ON, Canada, in 2016 and 2017. Nicosulfuron was applied at rates from 0.8 to 50 g ai ha –1 when the ARG was at the two- to three- or four- to five-leaf stages, or approximately 3 or 4 wk after emergence of both corn and ARG. There were no differences between the two application timings in grain yield responses or ARG suppression. As the rate of nicosulfuron increased from 0.8 to 50 g ai ha –1 , ARG was suppressed 6% to 76% and 5% to 96%, at 1 and 4 wk after application (WAA), respectively. At 4 WAA, ARG biomass decreased from 29 to 1 g m –2 as the rate of nicosulfuron increased from 0.8 to 50 g ai ha –1 , compared to 36 g m –2 in the untreated control. Where nicosulfuron was not applied to ARG, grain corn yield was reduced by 6% compared to the ARG-free control; similar effects on corn yield were observed with nicosulfuron at the lowest rate applied at 0.8 g ai ha –1 . Grain corn yield was reduced by 2.5% with the application of nicosulfuron at 25 g ai ha –1 (label rate for corn) compared to no ARG control, but this was not statistically significant. This study identified rates of nicosulfuron that suppressed ARG when emerged approximately the same day as corn, but there was evidence that grain corn yields were lowered because of interference, possibly during the critical weed control period. Based on this study, an ARG cover crop should not be seeded at the same time as corn unless one is willing to accept a risk for corn grain yield losses for the sake of the cover crop.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".