Evaluation of Herbicides for the Control of Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense L.) Under Non-Crop Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.) are two of the most difficult weeds to control mostly due to their asexual reproduction. Yellow nutsedge reproduces through underground tubers and Johnsongrass through rhizomes. In addition, Johnsongrass is a problematic weed because of its competitive nature due to its C4 carbon fixation pathway metabolism. It typically grows to 1.8 to 2.5 m tall and can severely reduce yields in corn, cotton, soybeans, and other crops. Two separate field studies were conducted in 2020 at the Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi to evaluate the effectiveness of various herbicides on yellow nutsedge and Johnsongrass control in a non-crop scenario. The experiments were conducted as randomized complete block designs with 7 and 11 herbicide treatments for yellow nutsedge and Johnsongrass, respectively. All treatments were replicated three times. Research plots were 4-m wide and 6-m long with 3-m alleys between replications. The 7 yellow nutsedge herbicide treatments consisted of trifloxysulfuron, bentazon, halosulfuron, halosulfuron + thifensulfuron, glyphosate, glufosinate, and paraquat. The 11 Johnsongrass herbicide treatments included clethodim, quizalofop, fluazifop, cyhalofop, fenoxaprop, pinoxaden, glufosinate, glyphosate, clethodim + glyphosate, glufosinate + clethodim, and glufosinate + clethodim + glyphosate. Glyphosate and halosulfuron + thifensulfuron provided only 77 and 72% control of yellow nutsedge by five-weeks after application (WAA). On the other hand, glyphosate, clethodim + glyphosate, glufosinate + clethodim, and glufosinate + clethodim + glyphosate provided 99 to 100% Johnsongrass control 4 WAA. Johnsongrass regrowth evaluation was assessed 3-weeks after the experimental area was mowed. Johnsongrass regrew in every herbicide treatment except for glyphosate which was the only treatment that provided 100% Johnsongrass control with no-regrowth.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".