MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191410601 · doi:10.1002/ieam.4508

A field spray drift study to determine the downwind effects of isoxaflutole herbicide to nontarget plants

2021· article· en· W3191410601 on OpenAlexaff
Dwayne R. J. Moore, Colleen D Priest, Ben H. Brayden, John Hanzas, Meghan R. Arpino, Leif L. Richardson, J. Stryker, Chris Banman, Sara I Rodney, Andrew C. Chapple, Tilghman Hall, Rena Isemer, Lisa S. Ortego, Ismael Rodea‐Palomares, Jane Tang, Mengyuan Wang, Tianbo Xu, Yaning Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsIntrinsik (Canada)
FundersBayer CropScience
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouseShootDeposition (geology)AgronomyAerial applicationHorticulturePesticideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spray drift buffers are often required on herbicide labels to prevent potential drift effects to nontarget plants. Buffers are typically derived by determining the distance at which predicted exposure from spray drift equals the ecotoxicology threshold for sensitive plant species determined in greenhouse tests. Field studies performed under realistic conditions have demonstrated, however, that this approach is far more conservative than necessary. In 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that isoxaflutole (IFT), a herbicide used to control grass and broadleaf weeds, could adversely affect downwind nontarget dicot plants at distances of ≥304 m from the edge of the treated field due to spray drift. This prediction implies that a buffer of at least 304 m is required to protect nontarget plants. To refine the predicted buffer distance for IFT, we conducted a field study in which sensitive nontarget plants (lettuce and navy bean, two to four leaf stage) were placed at various distances downwind from previously harvested soybean fields sprayed with Balance® Flexx Herbicide. The test plants were then transported to a greenhouse for grow out following the standard vegetative vigor test protocol. There were three trials. One had vegetation in the downwind deposition area (i.e., test plants placed in mowed grass; typical exposure scenario) and two had bare ground deposition areas (worst-case exposure scenario). For both plant species in bare ground deposition areas, effects on shoot height and weight were observed at 1.52 m but not at downwind distances of ≥9.14 m from the edge of the treated area. No effects were observed at any distance for plants placed in the vegetated deposition area. The field study demonstrated that a buffer of 9.14 m protects nontarget terrestrial plants exposed to IFT via spray drift even under worst-case conditions. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:757–769. © 2021 Bayer. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). KEY POINTS A field study was conducted in which sensitive non-target plants (lettuce and navy bean, 2–4 leaf stage) were placed at various distances downwind from previously harvested soybean fields sprayed with isoxaflutole (IFT), an herbicide used to control grass and broadleaf weeds. Significant effects of IFT spray drift were observed for only a short distance downwind of the treated area (i.e., 1.52 m in the worst-case trials where test plants were placed on bare ground). No effects were observed downwind of the treated area in the more realistic trial where test plants were placed in a vegetated field margin. The no observed effect distance for IFT was 9.14 m, at least 33-fold less than the no effect distance predicted by the US EPA using their standard approach of comparing a sensitive effect endpoint from a greenhouse vegetative vigor study to a Tier 1 AgDrift spray drift curve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207