Paper · 2005 · Scientia Agricola

Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L. to ALS-inhibiting herbicides in soybean

Gerson Augusto Gelmini; Ricardo Victória Filho; Maria do Carmo de Salvo Soares Novo; et al.

6
claims
15
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Herbicides are widely used in soybean for weed control, and the selection pressure attributed to the repeated use of herbicides with similar modes of action on the same site has caused selection for resistant biotypes within and among previously susceptible species, such as Euphorbia heterophylla L., in relation to ALS enzyme inhibitors, in the states of Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, and São Paulo, Brazil. Seeds of E. heterophylla were collected to examine possible new cases of resistant populations and to test alternative herbicide treatments to manage these populations, in the Caarapó region, State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, in areas where plants of this species have survived continuous herbicide applications. The experiment was carried out under greenhouse conditions, where biotypes with a history of suspected resistance were compared with a known susceptible biotype. Several post-emergence herbicides were sprayed at zero, one, two, four, and eight times the recommended field application rates. Twenty days after application, plants were harvested, and control percentage and fresh weight were determined to establish dose-response curves, in the aim to obtain the resistance factor using CD50 and RD50 data. The chlorimuron-ethyl resistance factor values for the control percentage and fresh weight parameters were higher than 16.5 and 16.9, respectively, while imazethapyr showed resistance factors higher than 25.0 and 23.5, respectively. The resistant biotype showed different resistance levels to chlorimuron-ethyl and imazethapyr, showing cross-resistance to the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone groups. Nevertheless, this biotype was effectively controlled by fomesafen (250 g ha-1), lactofen (120 g ha-1), flumiclorac-pentyl (40 g ha-1), glufosinate-ammonium (150 g ha-1), and glyphosate (360 g ha-1).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The chlorimuron-ethyl resistance factor for control percentage was higher than 16.5.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Treatment
chlorimuron-ethyle1
Outcome
control percentagee1
Direction
highere1
Value
16.5e1
Comparator
a known susceptible biotypee2

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e1

“The chlorimuron-ethyl resistance factor values for the control percentage and fresh weight parameters were higher than 16.5 and 16.9, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1374 · show in text ↑
e2

“compared with a known susceptible biotype”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 842–883 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The chlorimuron-ethyl resistance factor for fresh weight was higher than 16.9.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Treatment
chlorimuron-ethyle1
Outcome
fresh weighte1
Direction
highere1
Value
16.9e1
Comparator
a known susceptible biotypee2

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e1

“The chlorimuron-ethyl resistance factor values for the control percentage and fresh weight parameters were higher than 16.5 and 16.9, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1374 · show in text ↑
e2

“compared with a known susceptible biotype”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 842–883 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The imazethapyr resistance factors were higher than 25.0 and 23.5.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Treatment
imazethapyre3
Outcome
resistance factorse3
Direction
highere3
Value
25.0 and 23.5e3
Comparator
a known susceptible biotypee2

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e3

“while imazethapyr showed resistance factors higher than 25.0 and 23.5, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1376–1459 · show in text ↑
e2

“compared with a known susceptible biotype”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 842–883 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The resistant biotype showed cross-resistance to the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicide groups.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Material
resistant biotypee4
Outcome
cross-resistance to the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone groupse4

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e4

“The resistant biotype showed different resistance levels to chlorimuron-ethyl and imazethapyr, showing cross-resistance to the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone groups”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1461–1625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The resistant biotype was effectively controlled by fomesafen, lactofen and flumiclorac-pentyl.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Treatment
fomesafen (250 g ha-1), lactofen (120 g ha-1), flumiclorac-pentyl (40 g ha-1)e5
Outcome
effectively controllede5

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e5

“Nevertheless, this biotype was effectively controlled by fomesafen (250 g ha-1), lactofen (120 g ha-1), flumiclorac-pentyl (40 g ha-1), glufosinate-ammonium (150 g ha-1), and glyphosate (360 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1627–1825 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The resistant biotype was effectively controlled by glufosinate-ammonium and glyphosate.

Taxon
Euphorbia Heterophylla L.t0
Treatment
glufosinate-ammonium (150 g ha-1), and glyphosate (360 g ha-1)e5
Outcome
effectively controllede5

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Resistence of Euphorbia Heterophylla L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
e5

“Nevertheless, this biotype was effectively controlled by fomesafen (250 g ha-1), lactofen (120 g ha-1), flumiclorac-pentyl (40 g ha-1), glufosinate-ammonium (150 g ha-1), and glyphosate (360 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1627–1825 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · control · Euphorbia heterophyllaResults agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.