Additive and synergistic interactions of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) and photosystem II (PSII) inhibitors for the control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (<i>Conyza canadensis</i>) in corn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed [ Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist; syn.: Erigeron canadensis L.] interference can substantially reduce corn ( Zea mays L.) yield. The complementary activity of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) and photosystem II (PSII) inhibitors has been investigated for the control of several weed species, and in many cases has been synergistic; however, there is little information on the interaction of HPPD- and PSII-inhibiting herbicides for postemergence control of GR C. canadensis in corn. Four field trials were studied over 2 yr (2019, 2020) in Ontario, Canada, in commercial corn fields with natural infestations of GR C. canadensis to evaluate the level of GR C. canadensis control with three HPPD-inhibiting herbicides (mesotrione, tolpyralate, and topramezone) and three PSII-inhibiting herbicides (atrazine, bromoxynil, and bentazon) applied individually and in tank-mix combinations, and to document the interaction of the three HPPD inhibitors tank mixed with the three PSII inhibitors. Mesotrione, tolpyralate, and topramezone controlled GR C. canadensis 83%, 84%, and 72%, respectively, at 8 wk after application (WAA). Bromoxynil and bentazon controlled GR C. canadensis 71% and 79%, respectively, while atrazine provided only 31% control at 8 WAA. The joint application of atrazine, bromoxynil, or bentazon with mesotrione increased GR C. canadensis control from 83% to 100% at 8 WAA. Tolpyralate tank mixed with atrazine, bromoxynil, or bentazon controlled GR C. canadensis 96%, 98%, and 98%, respectively, which was comparable to the mesotrione tank mixes at 8 WAA. Topramezone plus atrazine, bromoxynil, or bentazon controlled GR C. canadensis 91%, 93%, and 95%, respectively, at 8 WAA. Interactions between HPPD and PSII inhibitors were synergistic for all combinations of mesotrione or tolpyralate with atrazine, bromoxynil, or bentazon. The interaction between topramezone and PSII inhibitors was additive. All nine tank mixes controlled GR C. canadensis >90%. This study concludes that bromoxynil or bentazon, instead of atrazine, can be co-applied with mesotrione, tolpyralate, or topramezone without compromising GR C. canadensis control in corn.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".