↓ Skip to main content

Controlling weeds with fungi, bacteria and viruses: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
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.
Title
Controlling weeds with fungi, bacteria and viruses: a review
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00659
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dylan P. Harding, Manish N. Raizada

Abstract

Weeds are a nuisance in a variety of land uses. The increasing prevalence of both herbicide resistant weeds and bans on cosmetic pesticide use has created a strong impetus to develop novel strategies for controlling weeds. The application of bacteria, fungi and viruses to achieving this goal has received increasingly great attention over the last three decades. Proposed benefits to this strategy include reduced environmental impact, increased target specificity, reduced development costs compared to conventional herbicides and the identification of novel herbicidal mechanisms. This review focuses on examples from North America. Among fungi, the prominent genera to receive attention as bioherbicide candidates include Colletotrichum, Phoma, and Sclerotinia. Among bacteria, Xanthomonas and Pseudomonas share this distinction. The available reports on the application of viruses to controlling weeds are also reviewed. Focus is given to the phytotoxic mechanisms associated with bioherbicide candidates. Achieving consistent suppression of weeds in field conditions is a common challenge to this control strategy, as the efficacy of a bioherbicide candidate is generally more sensitive to environmental variation than a conventional herbicide. Common themes and lessons emerging from the available literature in regard to this challenge are presented. Additionally, future directions for this crop protection strategy are suggested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 271 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Student > Master 36 13%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 4%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 94 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 102 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 9%
Environmental Science 14 5%
Chemistry 6 2%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 21 8%
Unknown 100 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,264,125
of 24,129,125 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#947
of 22,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,387
of 272,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9
of 300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,129,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,533 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 272,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.