Paper · 1989 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

CONTROL OF WILD MUSTARD IN CANOLA WITH POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES

C. J. SWANTON; K. CHANDLER

6
claims
6
verbatim quotes
19
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to determine the effectiveness of DPX-A7881 [methyl 2-[(4-ethoxy-6-methylamino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) = carbamoyl-sulphanoyl]benzoate] and imazamethabenz for the selective removal of wild mustard Sinapis arvensis L. (Brassica kaber [DC] Wheeler var. pinnatifida [Stokes] Wheeler) from canola (Brassica napus L.). Both DPX-A7881 and imazamethabenz controlled wild mustard when applied at the proper dosage and stage of growth. Susceptibility of wild mustard to either herbicide declined when the herbicide treatment was delayed beyond the six-leaf stage. DPX-A7881 applied postemergence at 10–15 g a.i. ha −1 to wild mustard seedlings in the cotyledon leaf stage of development did not reduce crop yields and significantly reduced the level of 4-hydroxy-benzyl glucosinolate from wild mustard found in canola meal. Canola cultivar Global exhibited greater tolerance to post-emergence applications of DPX-A7881 than to imazamethabenz. The total concentration of canola glucosinolates was found to increase in seed samples taken from plants injured by postemergence applications of imazamethabenz.Key words: Canola, herbicides, wild mustard, seed yield, glucosinolates

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both herbicides controlled wild mustard at proper dose and growth stage.

Treatment
DPX-A7881e0
Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
wild mustarde0
Direction
controllede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Both DPX-A7881 and imazamethabenz controlled wild mustard when applied at the proper dosage and stage of growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 356–468 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wild mustard susceptibility declined when treatment was delayed past six leaves.

Treatment
herbicide treatmente0
Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
Susceptibility of wild mustarde0
Direction
declinede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Susceptibility of wild mustard to either herbicide declined when the herbicide treatment was delayed beyond the six-leaf stage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 469–596 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DPX-A7881 at 10–15 g did not reduce canola yields.

Treatment
DPX-A7881 applied postemergence at 10–15 g a.i. ha −1e0
Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
crop yieldse0
Direction
did not reducee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“DPX-A7881 applied postemergence at 10–15 g a.i. ha −1 to wild mustard seedlings in the cotyledon leaf stage of development did not reduce crop yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–746 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DPX-A7881 significantly reduced wild mustard glucosinolate in canola meal.

Interactor
wild mustarde0weed
Outcome
level of 4-hydroxy-benzyl glucosinolate from wild mustard found in canola meale0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly reduced the level of 4-hydroxy-benzyl glucosinolate from wild mustard found in canola meal.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–856 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Global had greater tolerance to DPX-A7881 than imazamethabenz.

Material
Globale0
Outcome
tolerancee0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
imazamethabenze0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Canola cultivar Global exhibited greater tolerance to post-emergence applications of DPX-A7881 than to imazamethabenz.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 857–975 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazamethabenz-injured canola had increased seed glucosinolate concentration.

Organ / stage
seede0
Treatment
postemergence applications of imazamethabenze0
Outcome
total concentration of canola glucosinolatese0
Direction
increasee0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The total concentration of canola glucosinolates was found to increase in seed samples taken from plants injured by postemergence applications of imazamethabenz.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1137 · show in text ↑

ethametsulfuron-methyl · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results 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 →

herbicide · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

51 papers: 32 positive, 19 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 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.