The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The history and current status of glyphosate
Abstract
Glyphosate is the only herbicide to target the enzyme 5‐enolpyruvyl‐3‐shikimate phosphate synthase (EPSPS). It is a high use rate, non‐selective herbicide that translocates primarily to metabolic sinks, killing meristematic tissues away from the application site. Its phloem‐mobile properties and slow action in killing weeds allow the herbicide to move throughout the plant to kill all meristems, making it effective for perennial weed control. Since commercialization in 1974, its use has grown to dominate the herbicide market. Much of its use is on transgenic, glyphosate‐resistant crops (GRCs), which have been the dominant transgenic crops worldwide. GRCs with glyphosate provided the most effective and inexpensive weed management technology in history for a decade or more. However, as a consequence of the rapid increase in glyphosate‐resistant (GR) weeds, the effectiveness of glyphosate use in GRCs is declining. Critics have claimed that glyphosate‐treated GRCs have altered mineral nutrition and increased susceptibility to plant pathogens because of glyphosate's ability to chelate divalent metal cations, but the complete resistance of GRCs to glyphosate indicates that chelating metal cations do not contribute to the herbicidal activity or significantly affect mineral nutrition. The rates of increases in yields of maize, soybean, and cotton in the USA have been unchanged after high adoption rates of GRCs. Glyphosate is toxic to some plant pathogens, and thereby can act as a fungicide in GRCs. Ultra‐low doses of glyphosate stimulate plant growth in glyphosate‐susceptible plants by unknown mechanisms. Despite rapid and widespread increases in GR weeds, glyphosate use has not decreased. However, as GR weeds increase, adoption of alternative technologies will eventually lead to decreased use. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., & Munro, I. C. (2000) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1371 · Cited by 864
RetractedA Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 · Cited by 869
Duke, S. O., Rimando, A. M., Pace, P. F., Reddy, K. N., & Smeda, R. J. (2003) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf025908i · Cited by 195
Self-citation
Cited by
Overview of glyphosate‐resistant weeds worldwide
Heap, I., & Duke, S. O. (2018) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4760 · Cited by 518
Self-citationMeftaul, I. M., Venkateswarlu, K., Dharmarajan, R., Annamalai, P., Asaduzzaman, M., Parven, A., & Megharaj, M. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114372 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Duke, S. O.
- Venue
- Pest Management Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-08-11
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1027-1034
- ISSN
- 1526-498X (ISSN-L)
- 1526-4998
- OpenAlex
- W2668171802
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 28.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.