Abstract
Experiments were conducted on a Cedarbluff silt loam and a Cecil sandy loam to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting. Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively. Bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cecil sandy loam were 2.5 to 20 and 10 to 40 ppbw, respectively. Imazaquin and imazethapyr activity was not detectable in soil by 110 to 152 d after treatment. Imazethapyr dissipation was not affected by burning or tillage in the Cedarbluff silt loam and dissipated more slowly in 1989 than imazaquin. Imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1988 was slower in burned plots than in nonburned plots but was not affected by burning in 1989. No differences were observed between imazaquin and imazethapyr dissipation in the Cecil sandy loam and neither burning or tillage influenced their rate of dissipation in either year. No-till-planted cotton was injured at both locations by imazaquin and imazethapyr that had been applied the previous year.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Burning or tillage did not affect imazethapyr dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- burning or tillagee1
- Outcome
- Imazethapyr dissipatione1
- Direction
- not affectede1
- Setting
- Cedarbluff silt loame1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e1“Imazethapyr dissipation was not affected by burning or tillage in the Cedarbluff silt loam”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1988 was slower in burned plots than in nonburned plots.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- burned plotse3
- Outcome
- Imazaquin dissipatione3
- Direction
- slowere3
- Comparator
- nonburned plotse3
- Setting
- Cedarbluff silt loame3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e3“Imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1988 was slower in burned plots than in nonburned plots but was not affected by burning in 1989”
Claim · model-written summary
Burning did not affect imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1989.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- burninge3
- Outcome
- Imazaquin dissipatione3
- Direction
- not affectede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e3“Imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1988 was slower in burned plots than in nonburned plots but was not affected by burning in 1989”
Claim · model-written summary
No differences were observed between imazaquin and imazethapyr dissipation in the Cecil sandy loam.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- imazaquine5
- Outcome
- dissipatione5
- Direction
- No differencese5
- Comparator
- imazethapyre5
- Setting
- Cecil sandy loame5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e5“No differences were observed between imazaquin and imazethapyr dissipation in the Cecil sandy loam”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither burning nor tillage influenced the rate of dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr in either year.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- burning or tillagee6
- Outcome
- rate of dissipatione6
- Direction
- influencede6
- Qualifier
- in either yeare6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e6“neither burning or tillage influenced their rate of dissipation in either year”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazaquin and imazethapyr activity was not detectable in soil by 110 to 152 days after treatment.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- activitye7
- Direction
- not detectablee7
- Value
- 110 to 152 de7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting”
e7“Imazaquin and imazethapyr activity was not detectable in soil by 110 to 152 d after treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn bioassay detection limit for imazaquin in the Cedarbluff silt loam was 2.5 to 30 ppbw.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Compound
- imazaquine1
- Outcome
- detection limitse1
- Value
- 2.5 to 30e1
- Setting
- Cedarbluff silt loame1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn bioassay detection limit for imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam was 5 to 40 ppbw.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Compound
- imazethapyre1
- Outcome
- detection limitse1
- Value
- 5 to 40 ppbwe1
- Setting
- Cedarbluff silt loame1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Bioassay detection limit for imazaquin in the Cecil sandy loam was 2.5 to 20 ppbw.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Compound
- imazaquine2
- Outcome
- detection limitse2
- Value
- 2.5 to 20e2
- Setting
- Cecil sandy loame2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
e2“Bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cecil sandy loam were 2.5 to 20 and 10 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Bioassay detection limit for imazethapyr in the Cecil sandy loam was 10 to 40 ppbw.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Compound
- imazethapyre2
- Outcome
- detection limitse2
- Value
- 10 to 40 ppbwe2
- Setting
- Cecil sandy loame2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
e2“Bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cecil sandy loam were 2.5 to 20 and 10 to 40 ppbw, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till-planted cotton was injured at both locations by imazaquin and imazethapyr applied the previous year.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume1 - Treatment
- imazaquin and imazethapyr that had been applied the previous yeare1
- Outcome
- No-till-planted cottone1
- Direction
- injurede1
- Setting
- both locationse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“No-till-planted cotton was injured at both locations by imazaquin and imazethapyr that had been applied the previous year”
The same questions in other papers
imazaquin · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
Imazethapyr · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
fire · molecular: metabolites · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.