Weed Control in Dicamba-Resistant Soybean with Glyphosate/Dicamba Applied at Various Doses and Timings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seven field trials were completed over a three-year period (2016 to 2018) in southwestern Ontario, Canada, to assess weed control in conventional-till dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean with glyphosate/dicamba (2 : 1 ratio) applied postemergence (POST) at 3 doses (900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha −1 ) and 3 application timings (up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds). There was minimal soybean injury (≤2%) from treatments evaluated. Glyphosate/dicamba applied at application timing of up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds, controlled Amaranthus spp. (pigweed spp.) 87–96, 94–99, and 99%; Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) 93–99, 97–99, and 99–100%; Chenopodium album (lambsquarters) 89–99, 95–100, and 99–100%; Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyardgrass) 81–84, 94–96, and 96–97%; Setaria faberi (giant foxtail) 37–90, 77–98, and 99–100%; and Setaria viridis (green foxtail) 94–96, 99, and 99–100%, respectively. Additionally, glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha −1 controlled Amaranthus spp. 90–97, 95–98, and 97–99%; A. artemisiifolia 95–98, 97–99, and 99–100%; C. album 92–99, 95–100, and 98–100%; E. crus-galli 84–88, 93-94, and 95-96%; S. faberi 74–95, 75–97, and 79–98%; and S. viridis 98, 98–99, and 98–100%, respectively. Weed interference reduced DR soybean yield as much as 51% compared to the highest yielding treatments. Results indicate that glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at the label doses can provide an adequate control of troublesome weeds in DR soybean. Weed control was generally most consistent when glyphosate/dicamba was applied at the highest registered dose in Ontario (1800 g·ae·ha −1 ) and when weeds were up to 25 cm tall.
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".