Weather and glufosinate efficacy: a retrospective analysis looking forward to the changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foliar-applied postemergence applications of glufosinate are often applied to glufosinate-resistant crops to provide nonselective weed control without significant crop injury. Rainfall, air temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity near the time of application have been reported to affect glufosinate efficacy. However, previous research may have not captured the full range of weather variability to which glufosinate may be exposed before or following application. Additionally, climate models suggest more extreme weather will become the norm, further expanding the weather range to which glufosinate can be exposed. The objective of this research was to quantify the probability of successful weed control (efficacy ≥85%) with glufosinate applied to some key weed species across a broad range of weather conditions. A database of >10,000 North American herbicide evaluation trials was used in this study. The database was filtered to include treatments with a single postemergence application of glufosinate applied to waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer], morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.), and/or giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.) <15 cm in height. These species were chosen because they are well represented in the database and listed as common and troublesome weed species in both corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Van Wychen 2020, 2022). Individual random forest models were created. Low rainfall (≤20 mm) over the 5 d before glufosinate application was detrimental to the probability of successful control of A. tuberculatus and S. faberi. Lower relative humidity (≤70%) and solar radiation (≤23 MJ m−1 d−1) on the day of application reduced the probability of successful weed control in most cases. Additionally, the probability of successful control decreased for all species when average air temperature over the first 5 d after application was ≤25 C. As climate continues to change and become more variable, the risk of unacceptable control of several common species with glufosinate is likely to increase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".