Abstract
Field studies were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine the effects of RP-201772 and RP-201772 tank mixtures applied to emerged Zea mays. RP-201772 at 105 g ha −1 and tank-mixed metolachlor/benoxacor or atrazine were applied preemergence and to spike, 2-leaf, and 4-leaf Z. mays. Herbicide treatments over the four application timings provided greater than 90% Chenopodium album, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Amaranthus retroflexus , and Abutilon theophrasti control. However, Setaria faberi control varied among years and application timings. Severe Z. mays injury, 70% and 40%, was observed when RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor was applied to 2-leaf and 4-leaf Z. mays , respectively. Greenhouse studies confirmed Z. mays sensitivity from delayed applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor. Similarly, increased Z. mays injury was observed from postemergence applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with acetochlor/MON-13900. Herbicide absorption, translocation, metabolism, and retention studies were conducted to determine the physiological basis for the observed Z. mays injury from delayed applications of the RP-201772 tank mixture with metolachlor/benoxacor. Metolachlor/benoxacor increased radiolabeled RP-201772 absorption when applied to spike, 2-leaf, and 4-leaf Z. mays. RP-201772 translocation and metabolism did not explain enhanced Z. mays injury. However, RP-201772 retention increased fivefold when metolachlor/benoxacor was present in the spray solution and applied to 2-leaf and 4-leaf Z. mays. Increased RP-201772 absorption and retention appeared to be the basis for Z. mays injury when tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor and applied to emerged Z. mays.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicides controlled Chenopodium album by greater than 90%.
- Treatment
- Herbicide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Chenopodium album
Chenopodium albume0weed - Outcome
- Chenopodium albume0
- Direction
- controle0
- Value
- greater than 90%e0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Herbicide treatments over the four application timings provided greater than 90% Chenopodium album, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Amaranthus retroflexus , and Abutilon theophrasti control”
e1“Zea mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicides controlled Ambrosia artemisiifolia by greater than 90%.
- Treatment
- Herbicide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia artemisiifoliae0weed - Outcome
- Ambrosia artemisiifoliae0
- Direction
- controle0
- Value
- greater than 90%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Herbicide treatments over the four application timings provided greater than 90% Chenopodium album, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Amaranthus retroflexus , and Abutilon theophrasti control”
e1“Zea mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicides controlled Amaranthus retroflexus by greater than 90%.
- Treatment
- Herbicide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Amaranthus retroflexus
Amaranthus retroflexuse0weed - Outcome
- Amaranthus retroflexuse0
- Direction
- controle0
- Value
- greater than 90%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Herbicide treatments over the four application timings provided greater than 90% Chenopodium album, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Amaranthus retroflexus , and Abutilon theophrasti control”
e1“Zea mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicides controlled Abutilon theophrasti by greater than 90%.
- Treatment
- Herbicide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Abutilon theophrasti
Abutilon theophrastie0weed - Outcome
- Abutilon theophrastie0
- Direction
- controle0
- Value
- greater than 90%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Herbicide treatments over the four application timings provided greater than 90% Chenopodium album, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Amaranthus retroflexus , and Abutilon theophrasti control”
e1“Zea mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Setaria faberi control varied by year and timing.
- Interactor
- Setaria faberi
Setaria faberie0weed - Outcome
- Setaria faberi controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Setaria faberi control varied among years and application timings”
e1“Zea mays”
Claim · model-written summary
RP-201772 with metolachlor/benoxacor caused 70% injury at two leaves.
- Organ / stage
- 2-leafe0
- Treatment
- RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacore0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- Severee0
- Value
- 70%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Severe Z. mays injury, 70% and 40%, was observed when RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor was applied to 2-leaf and 4-leaf Z. mays , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
RP-201772 with metolachlor/benoxacor caused 40% injury at four leaves.
- Organ / stage
- 4-leafe0
- Treatment
- RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacore0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- Severee0
- Value
- 40%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Severe Z. mays injury, 70% and 40%, was observed when RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor was applied to 2-leaf and 4-leaf Z. mays , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse results confirmed sensitivity to delayed tank-mixture application.
- Treatment
- delayed applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacore0
- Outcome
- sensitivitye0
- Setting
- Greenhousee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greenhouse studies confirmed Z. mays sensitivity from delayed applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor”
Claim · model-written summary
RP-201772 with acetochlor/MON-13900 increased maize injury postemergence.
- Treatment
- postemergence applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with acetochlor/MON-13900e0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased Z. mays injury was observed from postemergence applications of RP-201772 tank-mixed with acetochlor/MON-13900”
Claim · model-written summary
Metolachlor/benoxacor increased RP-201772 absorption at spike, two and four leaves.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Metolachlor/benoxacor increased radiolabeled RP-201772 absorption when applied to spike, 2-leaf, and 4-leaf Z. mays”
Claim · model-written summary
RP-201772 translocation did not explain enhanced injury.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RP-201772 translocation and metabolism did not explain enhanced Z. mays injury”
Claim · model-written summary
RP-201772 metabolism did not explain enhanced injury.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RP-201772 translocation and metabolism did not explain enhanced Z. mays injury”
Claim · model-written summary
Metolachlor/benoxacor increased RP-201772 retention fivefold.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RP-201772 retention increased fivefold when metolachlor/benoxacor was present in the spray solution and applied to 2-leaf and 4-leaf Z. mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased RP-201772 absorption and retention appeared to underlie maize injury.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased RP-201772 absorption and retention appeared to be the basis for Z. mays injury when tank-mixed with metolachlor/benoxacor and applied to emerged Z. mays”
The same questions in other papers
furilazole · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
Benoxacor · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
metolachlor · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Benoxacor · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →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 →metolachlor · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →isoxaflutole · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
14 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →herbicide · Amaranthus retroflexus · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →8 of 12 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.