Abstract
Several sequences of POST herbicides applied each year in fall alone, in spring alone, or both in fall and again in spring controlled Canada thistle stands in spring wheat by severely decreasing root biomass and the numbers of adventitious root buds to a depth of 50 cm over four years. These treatments included dicamba applied at 1.7 or 2.2 kg ae ha –1 for the first two successive falls followed in wheat by either chlorsulfuron at 30 g ai ha –1 plus nonionic surfactant, MCPA plus bromoxynil at 280 plus 280 g ha –1 , or 2,4-D amine at 560 g ha –1 applied annually for each of four consecutive years from the start. Chlorsulfuron at 30 g ha –1 applied alone in spring for each of four years also reduced and prevented Canada thistle root growth as effectively as a sequence of fall-applied dicamba followed by spring-applied chlorsulfuron in spring wheat.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fall, spring, or combined POST herbicide sequences controlled Canada thistle stands in wheat by decreasing root biomass.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- Several sequences of POST herbicidese0
- Interactor
- Canada thistle
Cirsium arvensee0weed - Outcome
- root biomasse0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Qualifier
- to a depth of 50 cm over four yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Several sequences of POST herbicides applied each year in fall alone, in spring alone, or both in fall and again in spring controlled Canada thistle stands in spring wheat by severely decreasing root biomass and the numbers of adventitious root buds to a depth of 50 cm over four years.”
Claim · model-written summary
The same herbicide sequences decreased Canada thistle adventitious root buds.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Several sequences of POST herbicidese0
- Interactor
- Canada thistleCirsium arvensee0weed
- Outcome
- Canada thistle standse0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Qualifier
- numbers of adventitious root buds to a depth of 50 cm over four yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Several sequences of POST herbicides applied each year in fall alone, in spring alone, or both in fall and again in spring controlled Canada thistle stands in spring wheat by severely decreasing root biomass and the numbers of adventitious root buds to a depth of 50 cm over four years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring chlorsulfuron alone reduced Canada thistle root growth as effectively as fall dicamba followed by spring chlorsulfuron.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Chlorsulfuron at 30 g ha –1 applied alone in spring for each of four yearse0
- Interactor
- Canada thistleCirsium arvensee0weed
- Outcome
- Canada thistle root growthe0
- Direction
- reduced and preventede0
- Comparator
- a sequence of fall-applied dicamba followed by spring-applied chlorsulfurone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorsulfuron at 30 g ha –1 applied alone in spring for each of four years also reduced and prevented Canada thistle root growth as effectively as a sequence of fall-applied dicamba followed by spring-applied chlorsulfuron in spring wheat.”
The same questions in other papers
chlorsulfuron · Cirsium arvense · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →herbicide · Cirsium arvense · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →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.