Paper · 2012 · Acta Agrobotanica

The effect of different agrotechnical levels on weed infestation in crops of naked and husked varieties of oat (Avena sativa L.)

Sylwia Andruszczak; Ewa Kwiecińska-Poppe; Piotr Kraska; et al.

4
claims
10
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The present study was carried out in the period 2007- 2009 in the Experimental Farm in Bezek near the city of Chełm. The aim of the investigation was to compare weed infestation of the husked (Krezus) and naked (Cacko) oat cultivars cultivated under conditions of different weed control treatments. The following weed control levels were compared: A - control object; B - harrowing twice; C - application of the herbicide Mustang 306 SE; D - herbicide Mustang 306 SE + foliar fertilizer Insol 3; E - herbicide Mustang 306 SE + two foliar fertilizers: Insol 3 and FoliCare 18:18:18. The husked oat cv. Krezus was more competitive against weeds. Number of dicotyledonous weeds and of monocotyledonous weeds, total weeds, and air-dry weight of above-ground parts of weeds in the crop of this cultivar were all significantly lower compared to the naked cv. Cacko. From the group of dicotyledonous species, Chenopodium album, Galinsoga parviflora, Matricaria maritima ssp. inodora, Polygonum aviculare, and Stellaria media were the dominant species in the crops of the oat varieties under investigation, whereas among the monocotyledonous species Echinochloa crus-galli, Setaria pumila, Apera spica-venti, and Elymus repens occurred in greatest numbers. The application of the herbicide Mustang 306 SE decreased the number of dicotyledonous weeds and air-dry weight of weeds, compared to the treatment in which mechanical weed control had been used.

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 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Krezus had significantly fewer dicotyledonous, monocotyledonous and total weeds than Cacko.

Taxon
oat (Avena sativa L.)Avena sativat0
Material
Krezuse1
Outcome
Number of dicotyledonous weeds and of monocotyledonous weeds, total weedse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
Cackoe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Number of dicotyledonous weeds and of monocotyledonous weeds, total weeds, and air-dry weight of above-ground parts of weeds in the crop of this cultivar were all significantly lower compared to the naked cv. Cacko”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–128 · show in text ↑
e1

“The husked oat cv. Krezus was more competitive against weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–643 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Krezus had significantly lower above-ground weed dry weight than Cacko.

Taxon
oat (Avena sativa L.)Avena sativat0
Material
Krezuse1
Outcome
air-dry weight of above-ground parts of weedse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
Cackoe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“air-dry weight of above-ground parts of weeds in the crop of this cultivar were all significantly lower compared to the naked cv. Cacko”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–128 · show in text ↑
e1

“The husked oat cv. Krezus was more competitive against weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–643 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mustang 306 SE reduced dicotyledonous weed number compared with mechanical control.

Taxon
oat (Avena sativa L.)Avena sativat0
Treatment
herbicide Mustang 306 SEe0
Outcome
number of dicotyledonous weedse0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
mechanical weed controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of the herbicide Mustang 306 SE decreased the number of dicotyledonous weeds and air-dry weight of weeds, compared to the treatment in which mechanical weed control had been used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1443 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–128 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mustang 306 SE reduced weed dry weight compared with mechanical control.

Taxon
oat (Avena sativa L.)Avena sativat0
Treatment
herbicide Mustang 306 SEe0
Outcome
air-dry weight of weedse0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
mechanical weed controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of the herbicide Mustang 306 SE decreased the number of dicotyledonous weeds and air-dry weight of weeds, compared to the treatment in which mechanical weed control had been used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1443 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–128 · show in text ↑

herbicide · weed · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree

13 papers: 13 positive, 0 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.