Intervention effectmodel-written summary

flufenacet/isoxaflutole/thiencarbazone‐methyl fb glufosinate in 76‐cm row spacing yielded zero Palmer amaranth seed production.

A claim from Integrated effect of row spacing and herbicide programs on photosynthetically active radiation, control, and seed production of multiple herbicide‐resistant Palmer amaranth in corn · 2025

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

flufenacet/isoxaflutole/thiencarbazone‐methyl fb glufosinate in 76‐cm row spacing yielded zero Palmer amaranth seed production.

Treatment
flufenacet/isoxaflutole/thiencarbazone‐methyl fb glufosinate in 76‐cm row spacinge0
Interactor
Palmer amaranthe0weed
Outcome
Palmer amaranth seed productione0
Direction
zeroe0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Palmer amaranth seed production was zero with acetochlor/mesotrione fb glufosinate, and glufosinate fb dicamba/tembotrione; flufenacet/isoxaflutole/thiencarbazone‐methyl fb glufosinate in 76‐cm row spacing; and acetochlor/clopyralid/flumetsulam fb glufosinate in 38‐cm row spacing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1712–1993
t0

“Integrated effect of row spacing and herbicide programs on photosynthetically active radiation, control, and seed production of multiple herbicide‐resistant Palmer amaranth in corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–180

Title

Integrated effect of row spacing and herbicide programs on photosynthetically active radiation, control, and seed production of multiple herbicide‐resistant Palmer amaranth in corn

Ramandeep Kaur; Nevin C. Lawrence; Yeyin Shi; et al. Agrosystems Geosciences & Environment 2025. doi:10.1002/agg2.70074

Other claims from this paper (14)

Record rev-a006fbc5927e8342d078d39a04c914f7a8bc9e9fdbc86ccc82ccd4ed20ff0225 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 14 in the model’s answer

glufosinate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

22 papers: 11 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this claim · 7 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Highest-rate early glufosinate reduced corn yield by 13% on average.

    Rice (Oryza sativa) and Corn (Zea mays) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate1 · 2003

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    The lowest glufosinate rate reduced corn yield through incomplete weed control.

    Influence of Herbicide Application Rate, Timing, and Interrow Cultivation on Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays) Yield in Glufosinate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Resistant Corn · 1999

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Glufosinate did not reduce grain yield.

    Evaluation of Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays) and Glufosinate: Efficacy on Annual Weeds · 1999

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    A 500 g ha-1 glufosinate application did not reduce yield of resistant hybrids.

    Post-emergence application of glufosinate on maize hybrids containing the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase gene (pat) · 2020

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Herbicide treatments caused no negative impact on maize yield despite injury.

    Glufosinate, nicosulfuron and combinations in the performance of maize hybrids with the pat gene · 2022

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Corn yield was not affected by isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine or nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr applied at 20 to 100% of the MRR.

    EFFECT OF REDUCED HERBICIDE RATES ON WEED CONTROL AND YIELD OF CORN. · 2008

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Glufosinate had no reported effect on yield even at the highest rates.

    INSECT-RESISTANT MAIZE HYBRIDS TOLERANT TO GLUFOSINATE DUE TO THE pat GENE, UNDER DIFFERENT GLUFOSINATE RATES · 2022

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Corn yield and net returns were similar between glufosinate and standard systems.

    Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays) · 1999 · compared with standard systems

    No difference from an alternative

13 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

isoxaflutole · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 8 positive, 4 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    RPA 201772 did not reduce corn grain yield.

    Biologically Effective Dose and Selectivity of RPA 201772 for Preemergence Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays) · 1998

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Isoxaflutole with cyprosulfamide had no effect on sweet corn height, cob size or yield, and its injury was transient

    Cyprosulfamide Safens Isoxaflutole in Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) · 2013

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Corn yield was not affected by the HPPD-inhibiting herbicide applications.

    Is There a Benefit of Adding Atrazine to HPPD-Inhibiting Herbicides for Control of Multiple-Herbicide-Resistant, Including Group 5-Resistant, Waterhemp in Corn? · 2021

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Corn yield was not affected by isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine or nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr applied at 20 to 100% of the MRR.

    EFFECT OF REDUCED HERBICIDE RATES ON WEED CONTROL AND YIELD OF CORN. · 2008

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    The twice-applied reduced-rate mixture of tembotrione, flufenacet plus isoxaflutole, and MSO plus AMN adjuvants produced maize grain yield similar to one recommended-rate herbicide application.

    Impact of tembotrione and flufenacet plus isoxaflutole application timings, rates, and adjuvant type on weeds and yield of maize · 2014 · compared with tembotrione or flufenacet + isoxaflutole herbicides were applied only once at recommended rates

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Escaped Palmer amaranth under isoxaflutole or flumetsulam caused 13% corn yield loss at three plants per meter, versus 30% from untreated weeds.

    Annual weed competitiveness as affected by preemergence herbicide in corn · 2006 · compared with untreated Palmer amaranth

    Same direction

  7. positive
    No-till corn treated with EXP 31130A yielded similarly or up to 29% more than hand-weeded corn in 1996.

    EXP 31130A Efficacy and Corn (Zea mays) Response in Western Kansas · 1999 · compared with hand-weeded corn

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Several specified herbicides gave corn yield comparable to the weed-free control.

    Long-spine sandbur [Cenchrus longispinus (Hack. in Kneuck.) Fernald] control in corn · 2010 · compared with weed-free control

    Same direction

3 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

flufenacet · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
    The twice-applied reduced-rate mixture of tembotrione, flufenacet plus isoxaflutole, and MSO plus AMN adjuvants produced maize grain yield similar to one recommended-rate herbicide application.

    Impact of tembotrione and flufenacet plus isoxaflutole application timings, rates, and adjuvant type on weeds and yield of maize · 2014 · compared with tembotrione or flufenacet + isoxaflutole herbicides were applied only once at recommended rates

    Same direction

  2. positive
    Flufenacet and metribuzin combinations increased corn yield up to 19% over untreated checks where stunting was absent.

    Flufenacet and Metribuzin Combinations for Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays) Tolerance1 · 2003 · compared with untreated check

    Same direction

See all 3 papers →

3 of 5 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.