Abstract
In Hungary, monocot weed species are present as a signiἀcant yield limiting factor. In practice there is a great demand for efἀciently applying agrochemicals against monocot weeds at a later period and without causing phy totoxicity. Field trials were carried out in 2010 and 2011. The trials aimed to understand whether the cycloxydim-tolerant (CT) maize have cross-resistance to herbicides expressing different graminicide action (quizalofop-p-tefuril, haloxyfop-r-methyl ester, propaquizalofop, Ḁuazifop-p-butyl). The obtained results conἀrm that CT maize has signiἀcant tolerance to cycloxydim active substance. Lower rates of other types of graminicides neither damage maize plants nor reduce the yield, while application of higher rates used to control perennial weeds do. According to the authors’ conclusions, no other types of graminicides can be used to perform chemical weed control in CT maize. Post-emergent use of cycloxydim showed excellent efἀcacy against monocot weeds: Echinochloa crusgalli, Setaria verticillata, Panicum miliaceum. It is well-known that growing genetically modiἀed maize is greatly restricted in Europe, therefore the published scientiἀc results provide good option for the control of monocot weeds in the maize growing areas.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
CT maize has significant tolerance to cycloxydim.
Verbatim
e1“CT maize has”
e2“tolerance to cycloxydim active substance”
e3“Field trials were carried out in 2010 and 2011”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower rates of other graminicides neither damaged maize plants nor reduced the yield.
- Treatment
- Lower rates of other types of graminicidese4
- Outcome
- reduce the yielde4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Lower rates of other types of graminicides neither damage maize plants nor reduce the yield, while application of higher rates used to control perennial weeds do”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of higher graminicide rates used to control perennial weeds damaged maize plants and reduced the yield.
- Treatment
- application of higher rates used to control perennial weedse4
- Outcome
- reduce the yielde4
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Lower rates of other types of graminicides neither damage maize plants nor reduce the yield, while application of higher rates used to control perennial weeds do”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-emergent cycloxydim showed excellent efficacy against the monocot weeds Echinochloa crusgalli, Setaria verticillata and Panicum miliaceum.
- Treatment
- Post-emergent use of cycloxydime5
- Interactor
- Echinochloa crusgalli
Echinochloa crus-gallie6weed - Second interactor
- Setaria verticillata
Setaria verticillatae6weed - Outcome
- monocot weedse6
- Qualifier
- excellente5
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Post-emergent use of cycloxydim showed excellent”
e6“against monocot weeds: Echinochloa crusgalli, Setaria verticillata, Panicum miliaceum”
t0“cycloxydim-tolerant maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that no other graminicides can be used for chemical weed control in CT maize.
Verbatim
e7“no other types of graminicides can be used to perform chemical weed control in CT maize”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · Echinochloa crus-galli · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.