Abstract
In order to test the weeding effect and the safety for maize, the weedcide Acetochlor was applied in different developments stages of maize after the seedling emergence. The results showed that it produced light contacting injury to maize plants under 1500,2250 and 3000ml/hm2 of 50% Acetochlor emulsion were applied, Houwgver it was not found that this weedside has growth - inhibiting effects or produced mosouic symptoms. The late grouth of maize leaf was also not affected,The yield was increased by2.84% ~ 10.35% than that of CK and decreased by 4.79% ~ 10 .7% than that of artificial weeding. The results also showed Acetochlor had good weeding effict when it was applied in the period before 3 leaves.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Three Acetochlor rates caused light contact injury to maize.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it produced light contacting injury to maize plants under 1500,2250 and 3000ml/hm2 of 50% Acetochlor emulsion were applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Acetochlor did not inhibit maize growth or cause mosaic symptoms.
- Treatment
- this weedsidee0
- Outcome
- growth - inhibiting effects or produced mosouic symptomse0
- Direction
- not founde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was not found that this weedside has growth - inhibiting effects or produced mosouic symptoms”
e1“of maize after the seedling emergence”
Claim · model-written summary
Acetochlor did not affect late maize leaf growth.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The late grouth of maize leaf was also not affected”
e1“the weedcide Acetochlor was applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield rose 2.84%–10.35% relative to CK after Acetochlor.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield was increased by2.84% ~ 10.35% than that of CK”
e1“the weedcide Acetochlor was applied”
e2“of maize after the seedling emergence”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield fell 4.79%–10.7% relative to artificial weeding after Acetochlor.
- Treatment
- Acetochlore2
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 4.79% ~ 10 .7%e0
- Comparator
- artificial weedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased by 4.79% ~ 10 .7% than that of artificial weeding”
e1“The yield was increased”
e2“the weedcide Acetochlor was applied”
e3“of maize after the seedling emergence”
Claim · model-written summary
Acetochlor provided good weed control when applied before the three-leaf stage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Acetochlor had good weeding effict when it was applied in the period before 3 leaves”
t0“OF MAIZE”
The same questions in other papers
acetochlor · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
acetochlor · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →acetochlor · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.