The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Multiple Resistance Evolution in Bipyridylium-Resistant Epilobium ciliatum After Recurrent Selection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2018.00695 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Berhoz K. Tahmasebi, Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz, Esteban Alcántara, Joel Torra, José A. Domínguez-Valenzuela, Hugo E. Cruz-Hipólito, Antonia M. Rojano-Delgado, Rafael De Prado |
| Abstract |
The use of herbicides with different modes of action is the primary strategy used to control weeds possessing resistance to a single mechanism of action (MOA). However, this practice can lead to selection for generalist resistance mechanisms and may cause resistance to all MOAs. In this research, we characterized the resistance to diquat/paraquat (bipyridiliums) in an Epilobium ciliatum biotype (R1) collected in an olive orchard from Chile, where alternatives herbicides (2,4-D, glyphosate, glufosinate, flazasulfuron and pyraflufen-ethyl) with different MOAs were used, but they have also showed failure in controlling this species. Because the resistance/susceptibility patterns of the R1 biotype to glufosinate, 2,4-D and pyraflufen-ethyl were not clear, a recurrent resistance selection was carried out in field and greenhouse using these herbicides on R1 plants for three generations (R2 biotype). One biotype that was never treated with herbicides (S) was included as control. Results indicated that the S biotype was controlled at the field dose of all herbicides tested. The biotype R1 exhibited resistance to diquat, paraquat and flazasulfuron and natural tolerance to glyphosate. The R2 biotype displayed resistance to glufosinate, 2,4-D and pyraflufen-ethyl with LD50 (herbicide dose to kill 50% of plants) values higher than field doses in all assays. Physiological and biochemical studies determined the resistance to diquat of the R1 biotype, which was due to impaired translocation. The resistance to flazasulfuron in the R1 and R2 biotypes was confirmed by the low sensitivity of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) activity compared to the S biotype. The similar accumulation of shikimate in treated S, R1, and R2 plants with glyphosate supported the existence of innate tolerance to this herbicide in E. ciliatum. Resistance to glufosinate, 2,4-D and pyraflufen-ethyl in the R2 biotype, acquired after recurrent selection, was determined by low sensitivity of the glutamine synthetase, low accumulation of ethylene and protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase, respectively, in comparison to the S biotype. Epilobium ciliatum from Chilean olive orchards had resistance to only two MAOs (photosystem I and ALS inhibitors), but resistance to five MOAs could occur in the next cropping seasons, if alternatives to weed management, other than herbicides, are not included. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Comoros | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,981,442
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#12,265
of 20,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,354
of 330,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#313
of 467 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,707 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 467 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.