Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels
As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Weed science 2013-01, Vol.61 (1), p.4-20 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 20 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 4 |
container_title | Weed science |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Burgos, Nilda R. Tranel, Patrick J. Streibig, Jens C. Davis, Vince M. Shaner, Dale Norsworthy, Jason K. Ritz, Christian |
description | As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are faced with the daunting task of testing an increasingly large number of samples across a variety of species and herbicides. Quick tests have been, and continue to be, developed to address this need, although classical tests are still the norm. Newer methods involve molecular techniques. Whereas the classical whole-plant assay tests for resistance regardless of the mechanism, many quick tests are limited by specificity to an herbicide, mode of action, or mechanism of resistance. Advancing knowledge in weed biology and genomics allows for refinements in sampling and testing protocols. Thus, approaches in resistance testing continue to diversify, which can confound the less experienced. We aim to help weed science practitioners resolve questions pertaining to the testing of herbicide resistance, starting with field surveys and sampling methods, herbicide screening methods, data analysis, and, finally, interpretation. More specifically, this article discusses approaches for sampling plants for resistance confirmation assays, provides brief overviews on the biological and statistical basis for designing and analyzing dose–response tests, and discusses alternative procedures for rapid resistance confirmation, including molecular-based assays. Resistance confirmation procedures often need to be slightly modified to suit a specific situation; thus, the general requirements as well as pros and cons of quick assays and DNA-based assays are contrasted. Ultimately, weed resistance testing research, as well as resistance management decisions arising from research, needs to be practical, feasible, and grounded in science-based methods. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1614/WS-D-12-00032.1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1291941328</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1614_WS_D_12_00032_1</cupid><jstor_id>23362980</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23362980</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b466t-7ab39956e0761de6e8c9a5842cb11c87c7bd4656b2b0840b36fb5af4f448fc543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1vEzEQxS0EEqFw5oRYCXF0O-Ov3eWG0kKRIiE1rXq0bK9dOUrWxd6k4r_HdCPgAOLiObzfe543hLxGOEWF4ux2Tc8pMgoAnJ3iE7JAKYGyVvZPyQJAcIqtkM_Ji1I2AKgY9gtyfeUP0T98aJZpDDHvzBTT2KTQXPkSy2RG55spNZc-2-ji4EtjxqG5OJjt_m_oyh_8trwkz4LZFv_qOE_IzaeL6-UlXX39_GX5cUWtUGqirbG876Xy0CocvPKd643sBHMW0XWta-0glFSWWegEWK6ClSaIIEQXnBT8hLybc-9z-rb3ZdKbtM9j_VIj67EXyFlXqbOZcjmVkn3Q9znuTP6uEfTP0-nbtT6vDv14Oo3V8f6Ya4oz25Brt1h-2VgLLVcdVO7NzG3KlPJvnXPF-kf97awHk7S5yzXjZs0AJUB9GchK4HE3s7M5Dnf-jwr_3I7OHhtTGv1_2_wApBieRg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1291941328</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Burgos, Nilda R. ; Tranel, Patrick J. ; Streibig, Jens C. ; Davis, Vince M. ; Shaner, Dale ; Norsworthy, Jason K. ; Ritz, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Burgos, Nilda R. ; Tranel, Patrick J. ; Streibig, Jens C. ; Davis, Vince M. ; Shaner, Dale ; Norsworthy, Jason K. ; Ritz, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are faced with the daunting task of testing an increasingly large number of samples across a variety of species and herbicides. Quick tests have been, and continue to be, developed to address this need, although classical tests are still the norm. Newer methods involve molecular techniques. Whereas the classical whole-plant assay tests for resistance regardless of the mechanism, many quick tests are limited by specificity to an herbicide, mode of action, or mechanism of resistance. Advancing knowledge in weed biology and genomics allows for refinements in sampling and testing protocols. Thus, approaches in resistance testing continue to diversify, which can confound the less experienced. We aim to help weed science practitioners resolve questions pertaining to the testing of herbicide resistance, starting with field surveys and sampling methods, herbicide screening methods, data analysis, and, finally, interpretation. More specifically, this article discusses approaches for sampling plants for resistance confirmation assays, provides brief overviews on the biological and statistical basis for designing and analyzing dose–response tests, and discusses alternative procedures for rapid resistance confirmation, including molecular-based assays. Resistance confirmation procedures often need to be slightly modified to suit a specific situation; thus, the general requirements as well as pros and cons of quick assays and DNA-based assays are contrasted. Ultimately, weed resistance testing research, as well as resistance management decisions arising from research, needs to be practical, feasible, and grounded in science-based methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1745</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2759</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1614/WS-D-12-00032.1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WEESA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>810 East 10th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897: Weed Science Society of America</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Chemical control ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; Design ; DNA ; dose response ; Dose response relationship ; Dose–response assay ; Educational materials ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genetic mutation ; genomics ; Global positioning systems ; GPS ; growers ; Herbicide resistance ; Herbicide resistant weeds ; Herbicides ; mechanism of action ; Mode of action ; molecular-based assay ; Objectives ; Parasitic plants. Weeds ; Pest control ; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection ; Plants ; Polymerase chain reaction ; Population ; quick tests ; resistance management ; Resistance mechanisms ; REVIEW ; Sample size ; sampling ; Sampling methods ; Scientists ; screening ; Seeds ; Species ; Studies ; surveys ; weed biology ; Weeds ; whole-plant assay</subject><ispartof>Weed science, 2013-01, Vol.61 (1), p.4-20</ispartof><rights>Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright © Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright 2013 Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services Jan-Mar 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b466t-7ab39956e0761de6e8c9a5842cb11c87c7bd4656b2b0840b36fb5af4f448fc543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b466t-7ab39956e0761de6e8c9a5842cb11c87c7bd4656b2b0840b36fb5af4f448fc543</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23362980$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0043174500012704/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,777,781,800,27905,27906,55609,57998,58231</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27073680$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Burgos, Nilda R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tranel, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Streibig, Jens C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Vince M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaner, Dale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norsworthy, Jason K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritz, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels</title><title>Weed science</title><addtitle>Weed sci</addtitle><description>As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are faced with the daunting task of testing an increasingly large number of samples across a variety of species and herbicides. Quick tests have been, and continue to be, developed to address this need, although classical tests are still the norm. Newer methods involve molecular techniques. Whereas the classical whole-plant assay tests for resistance regardless of the mechanism, many quick tests are limited by specificity to an herbicide, mode of action, or mechanism of resistance. Advancing knowledge in weed biology and genomics allows for refinements in sampling and testing protocols. Thus, approaches in resistance testing continue to diversify, which can confound the less experienced. We aim to help weed science practitioners resolve questions pertaining to the testing of herbicide resistance, starting with field surveys and sampling methods, herbicide screening methods, data analysis, and, finally, interpretation. More specifically, this article discusses approaches for sampling plants for resistance confirmation assays, provides brief overviews on the biological and statistical basis for designing and analyzing dose–response tests, and discusses alternative procedures for rapid resistance confirmation, including molecular-based assays. Resistance confirmation procedures often need to be slightly modified to suit a specific situation; thus, the general requirements as well as pros and cons of quick assays and DNA-based assays are contrasted. Ultimately, weed resistance testing research, as well as resistance management decisions arising from research, needs to be practical, feasible, and grounded in science-based methods.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chemical control</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>dose response</subject><subject>Dose response relationship</subject><subject>Dose–response assay</subject><subject>Educational materials</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genetic mutation</subject><subject>genomics</subject><subject>Global positioning systems</subject><subject>GPS</subject><subject>growers</subject><subject>Herbicide resistance</subject><subject>Herbicide resistant weeds</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>mechanism of action</subject><subject>Mode of action</subject><subject>molecular-based assay</subject><subject>Objectives</subject><subject>Parasitic plants. Weeds</subject><subject>Pest control</subject><subject>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Polymerase chain reaction</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>quick tests</subject><subject>resistance management</subject><subject>Resistance mechanisms</subject><subject>REVIEW</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>screening</subject><subject>Seeds</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>surveys</subject><subject>weed biology</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><subject>whole-plant assay</subject><issn>0043-1745</issn><issn>1550-2759</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1vEzEQxS0EEqFw5oRYCXF0O-Ov3eWG0kKRIiE1rXq0bK9dOUrWxd6k4r_HdCPgAOLiObzfe543hLxGOEWF4ux2Tc8pMgoAnJ3iE7JAKYGyVvZPyQJAcIqtkM_Ji1I2AKgY9gtyfeUP0T98aJZpDDHvzBTT2KTQXPkSy2RG55spNZc-2-ji4EtjxqG5OJjt_m_oyh_8trwkz4LZFv_qOE_IzaeL6-UlXX39_GX5cUWtUGqirbG876Xy0CocvPKd643sBHMW0XWta-0glFSWWegEWK6ClSaIIEQXnBT8hLybc-9z-rb3ZdKbtM9j_VIj67EXyFlXqbOZcjmVkn3Q9znuTP6uEfTP0-nbtT6vDv14Oo3V8f6Ya4oz25Brt1h-2VgLLVcdVO7NzG3KlPJvnXPF-kf97awHk7S5yzXjZs0AJUB9GchK4HE3s7M5Dnf-jwr_3I7OHhtTGv1_2_wApBieRg</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Burgos, Nilda R.</creator><creator>Tranel, Patrick J.</creator><creator>Streibig, Jens C.</creator><creator>Davis, Vince M.</creator><creator>Shaner, Dale</creator><creator>Norsworthy, Jason K.</creator><creator>Ritz, Christian</creator><general>Weed Science Society of America</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels</title><author>Burgos, Nilda R. ; Tranel, Patrick J. ; Streibig, Jens C. ; Davis, Vince M. ; Shaner, Dale ; Norsworthy, Jason K. ; Ritz, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b466t-7ab39956e0761de6e8c9a5842cb11c87c7bd4656b2b0840b36fb5af4f448fc543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chemical control</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>dose response</topic><topic>Dose response relationship</topic><topic>Dose–response assay</topic><topic>Educational materials</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genetic mutation</topic><topic>genomics</topic><topic>Global positioning systems</topic><topic>GPS</topic><topic>growers</topic><topic>Herbicide resistance</topic><topic>Herbicide resistant weeds</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>mechanism of action</topic><topic>Mode of action</topic><topic>molecular-based assay</topic><topic>Objectives</topic><topic>Parasitic plants. Weeds</topic><topic>Pest control</topic><topic>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>quick tests</topic><topic>resistance management</topic><topic>Resistance mechanisms</topic><topic>REVIEW</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>screening</topic><topic>Seeds</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>surveys</topic><topic>weed biology</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><topic>whole-plant assay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Burgos, Nilda R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tranel, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Streibig, Jens C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Vince M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaner, Dale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norsworthy, Jason K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritz, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Burgos, Nilda R.</au><au>Tranel, Patrick J.</au><au>Streibig, Jens C.</au><au>Davis, Vince M.</au><au>Shaner, Dale</au><au>Norsworthy, Jason K.</au><au>Ritz, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels</atitle><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle><addtitle>Weed sci</addtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>4</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>4-20</pages><issn>0043-1745</issn><eissn>1550-2759</eissn><coden>WEESA6</coden><abstract>As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are faced with the daunting task of testing an increasingly large number of samples across a variety of species and herbicides. Quick tests have been, and continue to be, developed to address this need, although classical tests are still the norm. Newer methods involve molecular techniques. Whereas the classical whole-plant assay tests for resistance regardless of the mechanism, many quick tests are limited by specificity to an herbicide, mode of action, or mechanism of resistance. Advancing knowledge in weed biology and genomics allows for refinements in sampling and testing protocols. Thus, approaches in resistance testing continue to diversify, which can confound the less experienced. We aim to help weed science practitioners resolve questions pertaining to the testing of herbicide resistance, starting with field surveys and sampling methods, herbicide screening methods, data analysis, and, finally, interpretation. More specifically, this article discusses approaches for sampling plants for resistance confirmation assays, provides brief overviews on the biological and statistical basis for designing and analyzing dose–response tests, and discusses alternative procedures for rapid resistance confirmation, including molecular-based assays. Resistance confirmation procedures often need to be slightly modified to suit a specific situation; thus, the general requirements as well as pros and cons of quick assays and DNA-based assays are contrasted. Ultimately, weed resistance testing research, as well as resistance management decisions arising from research, needs to be practical, feasible, and grounded in science-based methods.</abstract><cop>810 East 10th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897</cop><pub>Weed Science Society of America</pub><doi>10.1614/WS-D-12-00032.1</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-1745 |
ispartof | Weed science, 2013-01, Vol.61 (1), p.4-20 |
issn | 0043-1745 1550-2759 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1291941328 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Chemical control Deoxyribonucleic acid Design DNA dose response Dose response relationship Dose–response assay Educational materials Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Genetic mutation genomics Global positioning systems GPS growers Herbicide resistance Herbicide resistant weeds Herbicides mechanism of action Mode of action molecular-based assay Objectives Parasitic plants. Weeds Pest control Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection Plants Polymerase chain reaction Population quick tests resistance management Resistance mechanisms REVIEW Sample size sampling Sampling methods Scientists screening Seeds Species Studies surveys weed biology Weeds whole-plant assay |
title | Review: Confirmation of Resistance to Herbicides and Evaluation of Resistance Levels |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T17%3A06%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Review:%20Confirmation%20of%20Resistance%20to%20Herbicides%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Resistance%20Levels&rft.jtitle=Weed%20science&rft.au=Burgos,%20Nilda%20R.&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=4&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=4-20&rft.issn=0043-1745&rft.eissn=1550-2759&rft.coden=WEESA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1614/WS-D-12-00032.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23362980%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1291941328&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1614_WS_D_12_00032_1&rft_jstor_id=23362980&rfr_iscdi=true |