Paper · 2007 · Pest Management Science

Managing the risk of glyphosate resistance in Australian glyphosate‐ resistant cotton production systems

Jeff A Werth; Christopher Preston; Ian N Taylor; et al.

2
claims
3
verbatim quotes
42
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glyphosate-resistant cotton varieties are an important tool for weed control in Australian cotton production systems. To increase the sustainability of this technology and to minimise the likelihood of resistance evolving through its use, weed scientists, together with herbicide regulators, industry representatives and the technology owners, have developed a framework that guides the use of the technology. Central to this framework is a crop management plan (CMP) and grower accreditation course. A simulation model that takes into account the characteristics of the weed species, initial gene frequencies and any associated fitness penalties was developed to ensure that the CMP was sufficiently robust to minimise resistance risks. RESULTS: The simulations showed that, when a combination of weed control options was employed in addition to glyphosate, resistance did not evolve over the 30 year period of the simulation. CONCLUSION: These simulations underline the importance of maintaining an integrated system for weed management to prevent the evolution of glyphosate resistance, prolonging the use of glyphosate-resistant cotton.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Simulations found no glyphosate resistance evolution over 30 years when other weed control options supplemented glyphosate.

Treatment
combination of weed control options was employed in addition to glyphosatee0
Outcome
resistancee0
Direction
did not evolvee0
Value
30 yeare0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when a combination of weed control options was employed in addition to glyphosate, resistance did not evolve over the 30 year period of the simulation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 788–938 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–85 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend integrated weed management to prevent glyphosate resistance and prolong glyphosate-resistant cotton use.

Outcome
maintaining an integrated system for weed managemente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“importance of maintaining an integrated system for weed management to prevent the evolution of glyphosate resistance, prolonging the use of glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 984–1151 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

herbicide · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

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.