Allelopathy of Cover Crops on the Germination and Initial Development of Euphorbia heterophylla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cover crop is a important way for weed management in agriculture. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of aqueous extracts of the aerial part of Avena strigosa, Cichorium intybus, Chenopodium quinoa and Fagopyrum esculentum in different concentrations on the germination and development of Euphorbia heterophylla. The experimental design was completely randomized, in factorial 4 × 5 with four replicates. Factor A-aqueous extracts of the aerial part of the cover plants and factor B-concentrations of 0%; 1%, 2.5%, 5% and 10%. A total of 25 E. heterophylla seeds, arranged in gerboxes, were used and 15 ml of the extracts were added according to the treatments. The germination test was performed in a growth chamber (BOD) with photoperiod of 12/12 light/dark hours and constant temperature of 25±1 °C. The data were submitted to analysis of variance by the F test, a comparison was made between means and the concentration factor of the extracts and the regression analysis. The C. quinoa aqueous extracts (10%) presented greater allelopathic potential than the other extracts in the variables tested for E. heterophylla. C. intybus presented allelophatic potential with results superior to A. strigosa and F. esculentum. The C. quinoa and C. intybus extracts have allelopathic potential when compared to the control with the highest dose (10%), interfering mainly in the root portion of E. heterophylla.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".