Paper · 2025 · GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Productive and qualitative indicators of forage yield of forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) varieties when controlling associated broadleaf weeds with 2,4-D 72% pre-emergence herbicide

Abdulmueen Shabeeb Hamad Al-Mafrajy

16
claims
38
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out during the spring season of 2023 in a farmer's field in the Kuldarah area of ​​Altun Kopri district in Kirkuk Governorate, with the aim of knowing the effect of 2,4-D 72% herbicide on the growth of broad-leaved weeds accompanying the white corn crop, the dry and green fodder yield of this crop, and the qualitative traits in terms of the percentage of protein and fiber for six varieties of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) The experiment was applied according to the Randomized Complete Block Design (R.C.B.D.) with three replications, The treatments included (2,4-D herbicide, weed control and weed-free treatment, the varieties were (Buhuth - Giza - Rabeh - Lilo - Enqaz - J). The 2,4-D herbicide was sprayed before emergence using a (16) liter capacity continuous pressure backpack pump at a quantity of 1.5 liters. ha-1, then it was mixed with the soil to prevent the light effect on the herbicide. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence recorded the highest weed inhibition rate, reaching 79.111%, and the lowest weed index rate for green and dry fodder yields, reaching 9.742% and 24.637%, respectively, and an increase in the green and dry fodder yield, reaching 48.427 tons. ha-1 and 11.495 tons. ha-1, respectively, the percentage of protein and fiber increased by 8.940% and 53.768% respectively. As for the varieties, the Bohouth variety was superior and recorded the highest weed inhibition rate of 30.889%. The Giza variety was superior in the weed index trait for dry fodder yield and recorded the lowest average weed index of 21.279%. The varieties (J, Giza and Bohouth) were superior in the green fodder trait and recorded 45.079, 44.860 and 44.103 respectively. The interaction coefficients between the study factors showed a noticeable variation in most of the studied traits, as the Bohouth variety combination was superior when controlled with 2,4-D 72% herbicide before germination in the inhibition rate trait and recorded the highest average of 92.667%, as well as the lowest percentage of weed index for dry fodder yield, which reached 10.550%. The dry fodder obtained It reached 13.476 tons. ha-1, while in terms of qualitative traits, the combination of class (J) with 2,4-D herbicide was superior, as it recorded the highest average of 9.496%.

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 16

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre emergence 2,4-D gave a 79.111% weed inhibition rate.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed inhibition ratee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
79.111%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence recorded the highest weed inhibition rate, reaching 79.111%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1092 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre emergence 2,4-D gave a 9.742% green fodder weed index.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed index rate for greene0
Direction
loweste0
Value
9.742%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest weed index rate for green and dry fodder yields, reaching 9.742% and 24.637%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1199 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre emergence 2,4-D gave a 24.637% dry fodder weed index.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed index rate for green and dry fodder yieldse0
Direction
loweste0
Value
24.637%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest weed index rate for green and dry fodder yields, reaching 9.742% and 24.637%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1199 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre emergence 2,4-D increased green fodder yield to 48.427 tons. ha-1.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Outcome
green and dry fodder yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
48.427 tons. ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“an increase in the green and dry fodder yield, reaching 48.427 tons. ha-1 and 11.495 tons. ha-1, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1314 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre emergence 2,4-D increased dry fodder yield to 11.495 tons. ha-1.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Outcome
green and dry fodder yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
11.495 tons. ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“an increase in the green and dry fodder yield, reaching 48.427 tons. ha-1 and 11.495 tons. ha-1, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1314 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The herbicide increased protein percentage by 8.940%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Outcome
percentage of proteine0
Direction
increasede0
Value
8.940%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the percentage of protein and fiber increased by 8.940% and 53.768% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1316–1396 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The herbicide increased fiber percentage by 53.768%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Treatment
spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergencee1
Outcome
percentage of protein and fibere0
Direction
increasede0
Value
53.768%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the percentage of protein and fiber increased by 8.940% and 53.768% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1316–1396 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying 2,4-D herbicide before emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bohouth had the highest weed inhibition rate, 30.889%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Bohouthe0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed inhibition ratee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
30.889%e0

Verbatim

e0

“the Bohouth variety was superior and recorded the highest weed inhibition rate of 30.889%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1420–1509 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Giza had the lowest dry fodder weed index, 21.279%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Gizae0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed index trait for dry fodder yielde0
Direction
loweste0
Value
21.279%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The Giza variety was superior in the weed index trait for dry fodder yield and recorded the lowest average weed index of 21.279%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1511–1639 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

J green fodder value was 45.079.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Je0
Outcome
green fodder traite0
Direction
superiore0
Value
45.079e0

Verbatim

e0

“The varieties (J, Giza and Bohouth) were superior in the green fodder trait and recorded 45.079, 44.860 and 44.103 respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1641–1768 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Giza green fodder value was 44.860.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Gizae0
Outcome
green fodder traite0
Direction
superiore0
Value
44.860e0

Verbatim

e0

“The varieties (J, Giza and Bohouth) were superior in the green fodder trait and recorded 45.079, 44.860 and 44.103 respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1641–1768 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bohouth green fodder value was 44.103.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Bohouthe0
Outcome
green fodder traite0
Direction
superiore0
Value
44.103e0

Verbatim

e0

“The varieties (J, Giza and Bohouth) were superior in the green fodder trait and recorded 45.079, 44.860 and 44.103 respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1641–1768 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bohouth with 2,4-D had the highest weed inhibition, 92.667%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Bohouthe0
Treatment
2,4-D 72% herbicide before germinatione0
Outcome
inhibition rate traite0
Direction
higheste0
Value
92.667%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the Bohouth variety combination was superior when controlled with 2,4-D 72% herbicide before germination in the inhibition rate trait and recorded the highest average of 92.667%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1889–2066 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bohouth with 2,4-D had the lowest dry fodder weed index, 10.550%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Bohouthe0
Treatment
2,4-D 72% herbicide before germinatione0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed index for dry fodder yielde0
Direction
loweste0
Value
10.550%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the Bohouth variety combination was superior when controlled with 2,4-D 72% herbicide before germination in the inhibition rate trait and recorded the highest average of 92.667%, as well as the lowest percentage of weed index for dry fodder yield, which reached 10.550%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1889–2158 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The dry fodder value for the reported combination reached 13.476 tons. ha-1.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Outcome
dry foddere0
Value
13.476 tons. ha-1e0

Verbatim

e0

“The dry fodder obtained It reached 13.476 tons. ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2160–2212 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

J with 2,4-D had the highest reported qualitative average, 9.496%.

Taxon
forage sorghumt0
Material
Je0
Treatment
2,4-D herbicidee0
Outcome
highest averagee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
9.496%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the combination of class (J) with 2,4-D herbicide was superior, as it recorded the highest average of 9.496%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2252–2360 · show in text ↑
t0

“forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–92 · show in text ↑

2,4-D · yield · SorghumResults differ

14 papers: 7 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

2,4-D · weed · SorghumResults agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

herbicide · yield · SorghumResults differ

66 papers: 52 positive, 14 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

62 papers more in this group

See all 66 papers →

processing · disease · SorghumPositive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

herbicide · disease · SorghumPositive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

herbicide · weed · SorghumPositive and negative results

35 papers: 34 positive, 1 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

31 papers more in this group

See all 35 papers →

application · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results

88 papers: 81 positive, 7 negative or no effect

80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

84 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

herbicide · quality: protein · SorghumResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

8 of 11 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.