MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071318847

Soil properties and agri-environmental conditions affect imazamox : imazethapyr (1:1) and flucarbazone-sodium phytotoxicity and dissipation

2010· dissertation· en· W7071318847 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQR Code Applications and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhytotoxicityAffect (linguistics)DissipationPesticideSoil classification
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2002, approximately one out of four farmers in Manitoba used a herbicide product containing the combined active ingredients imazamox and imazelhapyr.The active ingredient flucarbazone-sodium is equally popular, with 29 o/o of producers surveyed (2002) in Manitoba using herbicide products containing this active ingredient.Imazamox, inazethapyr and flucarbazone-sodium, classified as Group 2 (ALS inhibitor) herbicides, are relatively persistent in soil (with reported half-lives of 20-30, 60-90 and 17 days, respectively), and hence herbicide residues may damage subsequent sensitive crops when herbicide residues persist and are bioavailable to the plant by root uptake.In addition, herbicide residues may persist into years when other Group 2 herbicides are applied.In 2002, 37 o/o ofManitoba respondents surveyed applied soil residual ALS inhibitors in successive years.Concerns have been raised about these repeated applications after f,reld agronomists reported increased incidence of field pea injury when fields were treated with imazamox:imazethapyr (1:1) following flucarbazone-sodium applications in the previous year.No published research was found on the phytotoxicity of imazamox:imazethapyr (1:1) in Manitoba soils, and only one study was found for flucarbazone-sodium phytotoxicity in Manitoba soils.Tliis M.Sc.project utilized an oriental mustard root bioassay applied to four Manitoba soils to determine the irnpact of soil properties, nitrogen applications, herbicide co-applications, soil moisture conditions and soil temperature on herbicide dissipation, particularly phytotoxicity.Root length, as a percent of control, was the response measured in the bioassay that has been shown an effective indicator of flucarbazone-sodium phytotoxicity.Results of the phytotoxicity experiments described in Chapters 2 and 3 demonstrated that oriental mustard was generally more sensitive to imazamox: imazethapyr (1:1) than to flucarbazone-sodium residues in soil.For both herbicides, phytotoxicity showed an inverse correlation with soil organic carbon content, suggesting that herbicide sorption by soil decreased the bioavailability of herbicide residues to plants.Quantification of the sorption of imazamox and imazelhapyr by each of the four soils conhrmed this, as a negative correlation between sorption and phytotoxicity was observed.The effect of nitrogen on herbicide phytotoxicity was dependent on soil characteristics, the concentration of nitrogen applied, and the concentration of herbicide applied.The effects of herbicide co-application were additive or synergistic (i.e.stacking) or antagonistic depending on soil characteristics and the amounts of herbicide residues in soil.For the dissipation experiments described in Chapter 4, soils were incubated with lrerbicides at a range of moisture contents (50, 75 or 100 o/o field capacity), a range of temperatures (5, 15 or 25"C), or a range of soil nitrogen concentrations (0, 75 or 150 kg N ha-r).Results indicated that the phytotoxicity throughout incubation of both imazamox:imazethapyr (1:1) and flucarbazone-sodium was smallest at 100 o/o fteld capacity and at 25oC and that herbicide phytotoxicity increased with decreasing soil iii moisture contents or soil temperatures because of the lesser herbicide degradation in drier and cooler soils.Soil moisture had a greater effect on the dissipation of imazamox: imazethapyr (1:1), while root length response in flucarbazone-sodium-treated soils was more affected by declining temperature.Effects of soil nitrogen treatments on herbicide dissipation were rninimal for flucarbazone-sodium, but pronounced for imazamox: imazethapyr (1:l), where phytotoxicity increased with increasing soil nitrogen level, suggesting that the addition of nitrogen to soil increases herbicide sensitivity.This research supports the notion that weed control or crop injury is not determined by the total chemical concentration of the herbicide in soil, but by the bioavailability of the herbicide residues to the plant.As demonstrated, herbicide bioavailability and hence phytotoxicity is influenced by many factors, some of which interact.In order to minimize the potential for crop damage following the use of imazamox:imazetltapyr (1:1) or flucarbazone-sodium, well-planned rotations must be devised, particularly for soils that are of coarse texture, with low organic carbon contents and that are dry and cool throughout the growing season.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.179 · 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