Phytosociological Survey of Weeds in Coffee Plants Irrigated Under Different Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to identify the species and quantify the importance value index of weeds in the cultivation of arabica coffee in two irrigation systems, at different times of the year, in the northern region of Minas Gerais. A phytosociological survey was carried out in each season of the year (spring, summer, autumn and winter) in an area cultivated with the species Coffea arabica, subjected to two irrigation systems (sprinkling and dripping). The coffee crop was implanted at a spacing of 3.5 m between rows and 0.7 meters between plants. The collection of weeds was performed using the standard method of the square inventory, which was launched between the lines of the crop. The identification of the species was carried out, the number of individuals was quantified, the dry mass, frequency, density, abundance, importance value index and coverage, and the similarity index. 33 weed species were identified, being the species with the highest IVI Euphorbia hirta, Brachiaria plantaginea, Digitaria horizontalis, Cyperus rotundus and Amaranthus spp. It was observed a higher occurrence of weeds from the monocot group in the sprinkler irrigation system while in the drip there were predominance of dicot plants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".