Abstract
The present study was carried out in the years 2006-2008 in the Bezek Experimental Farm (University of Life Sciences in Lublin). A two-factor field experiment was set up according to a randomized block design, in three replications. The experimental field was situated on medium heavy mixed rendzina developed from chalk rock with medium dusty loam granulometric composition. The soil was characterised by neutral pH, a very high content of P (342.1) and K (278.9) along with a very low level of magnesium (16.0 mg × kg-1 of soil) and organic carbon (over 3.5%). The aim of this research was to compare the effect of three herbicide doses and two foliar fertilizers applied in a winter wheat canopy on weed infestation. The herbicides Mustang 306 SE 0.4 l × ha-1 and Attribut 70 WG 60 g × ha-1 were applied at full recommended doses as well as at doses reduced to 75% and 50%. Foliar fertilizers Insol 3 (1 1 × ha-1) and FoliCare (20 kg × ha-1) were applied at full recommended doses twice in the growing season BBCH* development stage 23-25* and 33-35*). The control was not treated with the herbicides and foliar fertilizers. The weed infestation level was determined by means of the quantitative gravimetric method at two dates: the first one 6 weeks after herbicide application and the second one - before harvest. The number of weed individuals was counted; species composition and air-dry biomass of aboveground parts were estimated from randomly selected areas of 1 m × 0.25 m at four sites on each plot. Galium aparine and Apera spica-venti plants were sampled for molecular analysis 6 weeks after herbicide application (the treatments with the full herbicide dose, a 50% dose and the control without herbicides). The density of weeds and weed air-dry weight were statistically analysed by means of variance analysis, and the mean values were estimated with Tukey's confidence intervals (p=0.05). It was found that the number of weeds and air-dry weight of weeds in the control treatment were significantly higher in comparison with the herbicide treated plots. The application of different herbicide doses did not differentiate significantly the weed infestation level in the winter wheat canopy. Galium aparine, Papaver rhoeas, Viola arvensis and Apera spica-venti were dominant weed species in the winter wheat canopy. Foliar application of fertilizers did not influence the weed infestation level in the crop canopy. Molecular analysis showed that herbicide application did not affect genetic variation in the populations of Galium aparine and Apera spica-venti.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Weed number was significantly higher in control plots than herbicide treated plots.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- herbicide treated plotse0
- Outcome
- number of weedse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was found that the number of weeds and air-dry weight of weeds in the control treatment were significantly higher in comparison with the herbicide treated plots.”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed air-dry weight was significantly higher in control plots than herbicide treated plots.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- herbicide treated plotse0
- Outcome
- air-dry weight of weedse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was found that the number of weeds and air-dry weight of weeds in the control treatment were significantly higher in comparison with the herbicide treated plots.”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Different herbicide doses did not significantly differentiate weed infestation in winter wheat.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- different herbicide dosese0
- Outcome
- weed infestation levele0
- Direction
- did not differentiatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of different herbicide doses did not differentiate significantly the weed infestation level in the winter wheat canopy.”
Claim · model-written summary
Four weed species dominated the winter wheat canopy.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Interactor
- Galium aparine
Galium aparinee0weed - Second interactor
- Papaver rhoeas
Papaver rhoease0weed - Outcome
- dominant weed speciese0
- Qualifier
- Viola arvensis and Apera spica-ventie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Galium aparine, Papaver rhoeas, Viola arvensis and Apera spica-venti were dominant weed species in the winter wheat canopy.”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilizers did not influence weed infestation in the crop canopy.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Foliar application of fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- weed infestation levele0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar application of fertilizers did not influence the weed infestation level in the crop canopy.”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide application did not affect genetic variation in Galium aparine populations.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- herbicide applicatione0
- Interactor
- Galium aparineGalium aparinee0weed
- Outcome
- genetic variation in the populations of Galium aparinee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Molecular analysis showed that herbicide application did not affect genetic variation in the populations of Galium aparine and Apera spica-venti.”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide application did not affect genetic variation in Apera spica-venti populations.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- herbicide applicatione0
- Interactor
- Apera spica-venti
Apera spica-ventie0weed - Outcome
- genetic variation in the populations of Galium aparine and Apera spica-ventie0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Molecular analysis showed that herbicide application did not affect genetic variation in the populations of Galium aparine and Apera spica-venti.”
t0“winter wheat”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 papers →herbicide · Galium aparine · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
herbicide · Apera spica-venti · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →application · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →herbicide · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
361 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
397 papers more in this group
See all 401 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.