Grain sorghum and late-emerging Palmer amaranth response to sorghum planting density and nitrogen rate in an irrigated environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palmer amaranth germination and emergence occur throughout the growing season; however, little is known about the impact of late-emerging Palmer amaranth on sorghum, a major crop in Kansas. Field trials were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to measure grain sorghum and late-emerging Palmer amaranth’s response to sorghum planting density and nitrogen rate. Trials were comprised of weed-free and weedy sorghum as main plots, three sorghum planting densities as sub-plots, and three nitrogen rates as sub-sub-plot treatments laid in a randomized complete block design with a split–split-plot arrangement. Weedy sorghum was infested with late-emerging Palmer amaranth only. Weed-free sorghum outyielded its weedy counterpart by 42.2%. At the high sorghum planting density (296 400 plants ha−1), applying 112 kg N ha−1 did not improve grain yield or decrease Palmer amaranth’s number, height, and biomass, but increased sorghum head number and height. Altogether, our findings suggest that increasing sorghum planting density and nitrogen rate in an irrigated environment did not facilitate Palmer amaranth control. Strategies for long-season Palmer amaranth control are needed to protect sorghum yield from weed competition.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".