The addition of very low rates of protoporphyrinogen oxidase–inhibiting herbicides to glufosinate does not improve control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (<i>Erigeron canadensis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research reported synergism between glufosinate plus very low rates of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)–inhibiting herbicides on select broadleaf weeds. Two field studies, each consisting of four trials, were conducted in 2020 and 2021 in commercial fields with glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed in Ontario, Canada. Study 1 evaluated GR horseweed control with glufosinate plus five PPO inhibitors at 5% of the label rate; study 2 evaluated what dose of saflufenacil is needed when co-applied with glufosinate to improve GR horseweed control. In study 1, glufosinate plus very low rates of PPO-inhibiting herbicides provided low GR horseweed control. At site 1, despite the synergistic increase in GR horseweed control with saflufenacil (1.25 g ai ha –1 ) plus glufosinate (300 g ai ha –1 ), the level of control did not exceed 42% at 2 and 4 wk after application (WAA); the interaction was additive at 8 WAA. The co-application of glufosinate (300 g ai ha –1 ) with pyraflufen-ethyl (0.34 g ai ha –1 ), pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D (26.4 g ai ha –1 ), flumioxazin (5.35 g ai ha –1 ), fomesafen (12 g ai ha –1 ), or sulfentrazone (7 g ai ha –1 ) resulted in an additive interaction for GR horseweed control at 2, 4, and 8 WAA. However, glufosinate plus pyraflufen-ethyl or sulfentrazone was antagonistic at 8 WAA. In study 2, similar doses of saflufenacil were required for 50%, 80%, and 95% GR horseweed control whether glufosinate was included in the mixture or not. Interactions between glufosinate (300 g ai ha –1 ) plus saflufenacil at 1.56, 3.13, 6.25, and 12.5 g ai ha –1 were antagonistic at 2, 4, and 8 WAA at sites 1, 2, and 3; all other interactions were additive. The results of this research indicate there was little to no benefit of adding very low rates of PPO-inhibiting herbicides to glufosinate to improve GR horseweed control under field conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".