The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Log-Logistic Analysis of Herbicide Dose-Response Relationships
Abstract
Dose-response studies are an important tool in weed science. The use of such studies has become especially prevalent following the widespread development of herbicide resistant weeds. In the past, analyses of dose-response studies have utilized various types of transformations and equations which can be validated with several statistical techniques. Most dose-response analysis methods 1) do not accurately describe data at the extremes of doses and 2) do not provide a proper statistical test for the difference(s) between two or more dose-response curves. Consequently, results of dose-response studies are analyzed and reported in a great variety of ways, and comparison of results among various researchers is not possible. The objective of this paper is to review the principles involved in dose-response research and explain the log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. In this paper the log-logistic model is illustrated using a nonlinear computer analysis of experimental data. The log-logistic model is an appropriate method for analyzing most dose-response studies. This model has been used widely and successfully in weed science for many years in Europe. The log-logistic model possesses several clear advantages over other analysis methods and the authors suggest that it should be widely adopted as a standard herbicide dose-response analysis method.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical review
Motulsky, H. J., & Ransnas, L. A. (1987) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fasebj.1.5.3315805 · Cited by 1,327
Cited by
Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., & Hanna, W. W. (2006) · Weed Science · doi:10.1614/ws-06-001r.1 · Cited by 423
Wilde, K. L., Stauber, J. L., Markich, S. J., Franklin, N. M., & Brown, P. L. (2006) · Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00244-004-0256-0 · Cited by 192
Inácio, Â. S., Mesquita, K. A., Baptista, M., Ramalho-Santos, J., Vaz, W. L. C., & Vieira, O. V. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019850 · Cited by 141
“The cell viability dose-response curves were fitted to a four parameter sigmoid equation [24,25] through computer-assisted curve fitting (SigmaPlotH 11.”
MethodCharacterization of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in China
CHEN, J.-C., HUANG, H.-J., WEI, S.-H., ZHANG, C.-X., & HUANG, Z.-F. (2015) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60910-2 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., & Fuerst, E. P.
- Venue
- Weed Technology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 218-227
- ISSN
- 0890-037X (ISSN-L)
- 1550-2740
- OpenAlex
- W39552409
- Cited by
- 1,359
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.59
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Log-Logistic Analysis of Herbicide Dose-Response Relationships. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0890037x00023253
- The paper
- Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., & Fuerst, E. P. (1995). Log-Logistic Analysis of Herbicide Dose-Response Relationships. Weed Technology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890037x00023253
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.