The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Control of yellow and purple nutsedge in elevated CO2 environments with glyphosate and halosulfuron
Open accessAbstract
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have significantly increased over the past century and are expected to continue rising in the future. While elevated levels of CO2 will likely result in higher crop yields, weed growth is also highly likely to increase, which could increase the incidence of herbicide resistant biotypes. An experiment was conducted in 2012 to determine the effects of an elevated CO2 environment on glyphosate and halosulfuron efficacy for postemergence control of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L. and C. esculentus L.). Both species of nutsedge where grown in 3.0-L containers under either ambient or elevated (ambient + 200 μmol mol(-1)) CO2 in open-top field chambers and treated with either 0.5×, 1.0×, or 1.5× of the manufacturer's labeled rate of halosulfuron, glyphosate, or a tank mix of the two herbicides. The growth of both nutsedge species responded positively to elevated CO2, purple nutsedge had increased shoot and root dry weights and yellow nutsedge had increased shoot, root, and tuber dry weights and counts. Few treatment differences were observed among the herbicides at any of the rates tested. At 3 weeks following herbicide application, both purple and yellow nutsedge were adequately controlled by both herbicides and combinations at all rates tested, regardless of CO2 concentration. Based on this study, it is likely that predicted future CO2 levels will have little impact on the efficacy of single applications of halosulfuron or glyphosate for control of purple and yellow nutsedge at the growth stages described here, although scenarios demanding more persistent control efforts remain a question.
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
Cited by
Azospirillum: benefits that go far beyond biological nitrogen fixation
Fukami, J., Cerezini, P., & Hungria, M. (2018) · AMB Express · doi:10.1186/s13568-018-0608-1 · Cited by 624
Cadmium stress in plants: A critical review of the effects, mechanisms, and tolerance strategies
El Rasafi, T., Oukarroum, A., Haddioui, A., Song, H., Kwon, E. E., Bolan, N., Tack, F. M. G., Sebastian, A., Prasad, M. N. V., & Rinklebe, J. (2022) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2020.1835435 · Cited by 601
Selenium Cycling Across Soil-Plant-Atmosphere Interfaces: A Critical Review
Winkel, L., Vriens, B., Jones, G., Schneider, L., Pilon-Smits, E., & Bañuelos, G. (2015) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu7064199 · Cited by 476
Iron homeostasis in plants – a brief overview
Connorton, J. M., Balk, J., & Rodríguez-Celma, J. (2017) · Metallomics · doi:10.1039/c7mt00136c · Cited by 425
Formation of starch in plant cells
Pfister, B., & Zeeman, S. C. (2016) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00018-016-2250-x · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Marble, S. C., Prior, S. A., Runion, G. B., & Torbert, H. A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Plant Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-01-20
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1664-462X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138655218
- Cited by
- 1,940
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 296.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Control of yellow and purple nutsedge in elevated CO2 environments with glyphosate and halosulfuron. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpls.2015.00001
- The paper
- Marble, S. C., Prior, S. A., Runion, G. B., & Torbert, H. A. (2015). Control of yellow and purple nutsedge in elevated CO2 environments with glyphosate and halosulfuron. Frontiers in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00001
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.