Cited by 33Weed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFungal Plant Pathogen Control

Characterization of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in China

Open access
CHEN, Jing-chao, HUANG, Hong-juan, WEI, Shou-hui, ZHANG, Chao-xian, HUANG, Zhao-feng·2015·Journal of Integrative Agriculture

Abstract

Goosegrass is a worst grass weed in orchards and turf. The increased use of glyphosate for goosegrass control has led to the occurrence of many resistant populations. Although glyphosate has been used to control weeds for the past 30 years in China, few reports are available on glyphosate-resistant (GR) googegrass. In this study, we determined the GR level of 14 goosegrass populations from Chengdu and Guangzhou, China. Glyphosate only controlled 3.1 and 25.0% of the populations SL5 and SL1, respectively, at the dose of 1 680 g acid equivalent (ae) ha−1 at 14 days after treatment (DAT). In contrast, the susceptible population (XD1) was completely (100%) controlled. The resistant index (RI) of SL5 and SL1 were 5.1 and 4.5, and the RI for SL2, SL3 and ZC1 were 4.2, 3.2 and 2.6, respectively. The RI for other populations was range from 1.8 to 2.5. Under the dose of glyphosate at 1 640 g ae ha−1 at 10 DAT, shikimate accumulation in susceptible population XD1 was 17.6 and 16.4 times higher than SL5 and SL1, respectively. And the chlorophyll content in the plant leaf of populations SL1, SL2 and SL5 were decreased slightly ranging from 22.6 to 28.0. These results confirmed that the SL1, SL2, SL3, ZC1 and SL5 populations had evolved moderate resistance to glyphosate. This is the first report for the GR goosegrass populations confirmed in Chengdu, China.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60910-2

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CHEN, J.-C., HUANG, H.-J., WEI, S.-H., ZHANG, C.-X., & HUANG, Z.-F.
Venue
Journal of Integrative Agriculture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
919-925
ISSN
2095-3119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1531956500
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Integrative Agriculture (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest (201303022)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
Keywords
glyphosate resistance, Eleusine indica, weed resistance, shikimate accumulation, chlorophyll content, herbicide dose, orchard weeds, Chengdu, Guangzhou

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