ALELOPATHIC SENSITIVITY OF OILSEED RADISH TO THE MAIN SPECIES OF WEEDS AT THE STAGE OF LABORATORY GROWTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article summarizes the importance of studying alelopathic interactions between plants, taking into consideration the ecologization and biologization of the weed control system in agrocenoses of agricultural crops. The urgency in solving this issue with the use of intermediate forage and green manure crops and, in particular, oil radish, has been emphasized. The paper presents the results of studying the efficiency of using oil radish as a phyto-mediator in crop rotation to suppress and control various biological weed species by determining the germination of seeds of the oil-bearing radish variety Zhuravka by two research methods – germination on filter paper when moistened with water extracts of various types of weeds and germination on soil subtrate when moistened with the same extracts in a mode close to real soil conditions for germination of oil radish seeds. The used wide range of concentration of aqueous extracts from 0.25% to 16.0% with equal interval step allowed us to confirm the significantly different sensitivity of oil radish at the germination stage both in the version of traditional germination on filter paper and in germination on a soil substrate. At the same time, it was noted that oil radish has a sensitive reaction to water extracts of the studied 20 species of weed plants in the concentration range from 0.25% to 16% with the boundary value of the formation of the minimum level of laboratory seed germination at a concentration of 4.0%. The maximum effect of the impact on the indicators of laboratory germination of oil radish seeds, taking into consideration the minimum permissible level of decrease in the value of germination of seeds, was noted in the concentration range of aqueous extracts of 1.0-4.0%. Gradual growth of allelopathic pressure on germination of oil radish seeds on filter paper can be placed in such an increasing row: Field mustard (PA) - Artemisia ragweed (PA) - Tenacious ragweed (PA) - Wild radish (PA) - Actinoid thistle (PA) - Lettuce wild (PA) - Wheatgrass (PA) - Field cabbage (VA) - Common shchiritsa (VA) - Rough highlander (VA) - Field bindweed (VA) - Kulbuba officinalis (VA) - Field horsetail (VA) - Golinsoga small-flowered ( VA) - Common herringbone (VA) - Gray bristle grass (VA) - Canadian malignant (VA) - Yellow thistle (VA) - Pink thistle (VA) - White Mary (VA).
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".