ALS-Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Eastern Black Nightshade (<i>Solanum ptycanthum</i>) from Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of eastern black nightshade suspected of being resistant to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors have been reported since 1999 in different locations in Ontario, Canada. This event has threatened the use of ALS inhibitors for control of this species. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the spectrum of resistance to different ALS-inhibiting herbicides and to examine the effectiveness of alternative modes of action herbicides. Growth room experiments were conducted to determine the response to imazethapyr and atrazine in seven suspected ALS inhibitor– resistant populations. One resistant and one susceptible population were further characterized for their response to ALS inhibitors and chloroacetamides. Seven populations were able to survive imazethapyr at 100 g ai/ha, while there was no resistance to atrazine. Compared to a susceptible (S) population, resistant (R) population SOLPT 1 had 726-, 31-, 6-, and 4-fold resistance to postemergence (POST) applied imazethapyr, imazamox, primisulfuron, and flumetsulam, respectively. Preemergence (PRE) application of imazethapyr, flumetsulam, cloransulam, nicosulfuron, prosulfuron, and rimsulfuron did not provide control of the R population, whereas they totally controlled the S population. The chloroacetamide herbicides metolachlor, dimethenamid, and flufenacet all provided at least 90% control of both R and S populations when applied PRE at the recommended field rates. The ALS inhibitors will not provide adequate control of these resistant populations, but acceptable control could be achieved with chloroacetamides or with atrazine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".