MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400404217 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n8p61

Two-Pass Weed Management Programs for White Bean

2024· article· en· W4400404217 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nader Soltani, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsLambsquartersBentazonMetolachlorTrifluralinRagweedWeed controlAgronomyTiftonWeedFoxtailHorticultureAtrazineBiologyChenopodiumPesticideForage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is essential to implement effective weed management programs to minimize white bean yield loss from weed interference. Four field experiments were conducted during 2022 and 2023 to determine the efficacy of one-pass compared to two-pass weed control programs. This study evaluated trifluralin + S-metolachlor + imazethapyr or trifluralin + S-metolachlor + halosulfuron applied preplant incorporated (PPI), bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl applied postemergence (POST), and trifluralin + S-metolachlor + imazethapyr or trifluralin + S-metolachlor + halosulfuron applied PPI followed by (fb) bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl applied POST in white bean. There was minimal white bean injury (≤ 5%) with the herbicide programs evaluated. Weed interference decreased white bean yield 44%. Weed interference with bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl applied POST resulted in a 24% decrease in white bean seed yield compared to the weed-free control; however, all other PPI and PPI fb POST herbicide programs resulted in white bean seed yield that was similar to the weed-free control. Weed interference with the one-pass herbicide programs (PPI or POST) resulted in 17% lower white bean seed yield compared to the two-pass herbicide programs (PPI fb POST). Trifluralin + S-metolachlor + imazethapyr, applied PPI, controlled velvetleaf 85%, common ragweed 35%, common lambsquarters 96%, and green foxtail 80% at 8 weeks after the POST application (WAT). Trifluralin + S-metolachlor + halosulfuron, applied PPI, controlled velvetleaf 68%, common ragweed 87%, common lambsquarters 94% and green foxtail 56% at 8 WAT. Bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl, applied POST, controlled velvetleaf 86%, common ragweed 97%, common lambsquarters 34%, and green foxtail 29% at 8 WAT. Trifluralin + S-metolachlor + imazethapyr, applied PPI, followed by bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl, applied POST, controlled velvetleaf, common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and green foxtail 98, 97, 96, and 94%, respectively at 8 WAT. Trifluralin + S-metolachlor + halosulfuron, applied PPI, followed by bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl, applied POST, controlled velvetleaf, common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and green foxtail 97, 99, 97 and 93%, respectively at 8 WAT. Based on orthogonal contrast, the two-pass herbicide programs provided 17, 21, 20, and 38% greater control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and green foxtail in comparison to the one-pass herbicide programs, respectively at 8 WAT. This study concludes that the two-pass herbicide programs of trifluralin + S-metolachlor + imazethapyr or trifluralin + S-metolachlor + halosulfuron applied PPI followed by bentazon + fomesafen + quizalofop-p-ethyl applied POST provides the most consistent weed control in white bean in Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207