Herbicides are the foundation of weed control in commercial crop-production systems. However, herbicide-resistant (HR) weed populations are evolving rapidly as a natural response to selection pressure imposed by modern agricultural management activities. Mitigating the evolution of herbicide resistance depends on reducing selection through diversification of weed control techniques, minimizing the spread of resistance genes and genotypes via pollen or propagule dispersal, and eliminating additions of weed seed to the soil seedbank. Effective deployment of such a multifaceted approach will require shifting from the current concept of basing weed management on single-year economic thresholds.

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.

Failure of glyphosate to control Palmer amaranth was first reported in Arkansas in Mississippi County in June, 2005. The objectives of this research were to (a) confirm glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in Arkansas, and (b) determine the effectiveness of 15 postemergence- (POST) applied herbicides comprising eight modes of action in controlling the glyphosate-resistant biotype compared to glyphosate-susceptible accessions. The LD50 values were similar among three susceptible Palmer amaranth accessions, ranging from 24.4 to 35.5 g ae/ha glyphosate. The resistant biotype had an LD50 of 2,820 g/ha glyphosate, which was 79- to 115-fold greater than that of the susceptible biotypes and 3.4 times a normal glyphosate-use rate of 840 g/ha. The glyphosate-resistant biotype was effectively controlled with most of the evaluated herbicides, but the use of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides such as pyrithiobac, trifloxysulfuron, and imazethapyr is not a viable option for control of this Palmer amaranth population.Nomenclature: Glyphosate, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPA