Comparative evaluation of four herbicides for effective control of post-emergence weeds in cotton fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of four different herbicides, namely Glyphosate, Paraquat, Dicamba, and S-metolachlor, in controlling post-emergence weeds in cotton fields. The experiment was conducted in Layyah, and the selected weed species included Pigweed, Canada thistle, barnyardgrass, Field bindweed, Purslane, Bermuda grass, Green amaranth, and Puncture vine. A randomized complete block design was employed, with four treatments and four replications within each treatment. One-meter quadrates were randomly placed within each replication to collect data on weed abundance. The recommended herbicide doses were applied, including 3 liters per hectare of Glyphosate, 1 liter per hectare of Paraquat, 1 liter per hectare of Dicamba, and 1.5 liters per hectare of S-metolachlor. The effectiveness of the herbicides was observed at regular intervals, noting the time taken for visible weed control and weed mortality. Data were collected for three time points to assess the herbicides' long-term efficacy. Data analysis revealed variations in the effectiveness of the herbicides on different weed species. Treatment T3 (Dicamba) consistently exhibited the highest control, while T4 (S-metolachlor) showed the lowest effectiveness. Mean weed densities across the treatments indicated significant reductions in pigweed, Canada thistle, barnyardgrass, and field bindweed. However, no statistically significant differences were observed among the treatments for purslane, Bermuda grass, green amaranth, and puncture vine. These findings provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different herbicides in controlling post-emergence weeds in cotton fields. The results can inform farmers and agricultural professionals in selecting appropriate herbicides for effective weed management. Further research is warranted to evaluate the long-term effects and environmental considerations associated with the herbicides. The study highlights the importance of multiple data collection time points to assess the sustained effectiveness of herbicide treatments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".