Secondary Growth Control in Garlic With Post Emergency Herbicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to verify the effect of the herbicides in the secondary growth control, productivity, and quality in garlic. The treatments were 5 herbicides: Glyphosate; Etoxissulfurom; 2-nicotinic acid; Halossulfurom and Metsulfurom-methyl and 5 doses (0; 10; 15; 20 and 25% of the smallest dose recommended for control of the weed). The experimental design was a randomized block, with 3 repetitions. The following evaluations were made: the total and marketable yield of bulbs, a percentage of secondary growth in bulbs, the medium mass of commercial bulbs and the number of bulbils per bulb of the commercial production. Larger productivities total and marketable was observed for the herbicide Glyphosate, 13.93 t ha-1, and 13.16 t ha-1, with doses of 10.81% and 13.12% of the commercial dose, respectively. The smallest incidence of secondary growth 4.05% was observed for Glyphosate with 15.58% of the dose. The largest medium mass of commercial bulbs 35.75 g were observed for the herbicide Glyphosate with 15.83% of the dose. The herbicides 2-nicotínic acid and Metsulfurom-methyl reduced the total productivity in relation to the control treatment without herbicide application and they promoted little gain in commercial productivity. Some herbicides can control the secondary growth in vernalized garlic, however, are necessary appropriate doses applied 50 days after the planting.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".