Interference of Urochloa plantaginea on Morphophysiology and Yield Components of Black Beans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the factors which affect crop productivity, there are weeds which compete for environment resources. The objective of this work was to determine the periods of interference of alexandergrass on the morphophysiology and productivity components of black beans. The experiment was conducted in a complete randomized block design with four replications. The bean cultivar of the black type used was IPR Uirapuru, being the treatments separated in two models of interference: in the coexistence group, the crop of the bean lived with the alexandergrass by growing periods of 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and throughout the cycledays after emergence and throughout the cycle; in the control group the crop was kept free of the infestation for the same periods described previously. At 42 DAE were evaluated the variables related to plant morphology and physiology (height of bean plants, number of trifoliate leaves, dry mass plant, number of grains pods, number od pods plants, stomatal conductance, internal CO2 concentration, photosynthetic activity, efficiency of carboxylation, efficient use of water, transpiration rate). Considering the results, it is possible to conclude that the critical period of interference prevention (CPIP) comprises 24 to 50 DAE, the period before the interference (PBI) was 24 DAE and the total period of interference prevention (TPIP) was 50 days and that the morphological and physiological variables of the plants were negatively affected in the coexistence with the alexandergrass when compared to the treatments kept free of weeds throughout the crop cycle.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".