Prospects for Bioherbicides

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 214-217
Author(s):  
Pam Marrone
Keyword(s):  
Acetic Acid ◽  
Organic Agriculture ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Technical Difficulty ◽  
Manufacturing Cost ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Modes Of Action ◽  
Sites Of Action ◽  
Weed Resistance

New solutions to weed management are needed now more than ever. Ag retailers, university extension specialists and farmers consider the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds "one of the most significant developments in agriculture today." Indeed, weed resistance is not just a US problem, but a global one. There are currently 505 unique cases of herbicide resistant weeds globally, with 264 species. Weeds have evolved resistance to 21 of the 31 known herbicide sites of action and to 164 different herbicides. Herbicide resistant weeds have been reported in 95 crops in 71 countries. According to Duke, no new herbicide modes of action have been introduced since the 1980s. Since this paper, only one herbicide with a new mode of action (cyclopyrimorate) has been commercialized. Some major agrichemical companies have announced new discoveries and new modes of action coming in the future, but these are some years off. Given this state of weed management, one would think that biological or natural product herbicides with new modes of action would already be making headway in the market. Unfortunately, few new biological products have been commercialized. The technical difficulty in finding bioherbicides that can compete with the spectrum and price of chemical herbicides has left agriculture with a paucity of new herbicides based on natural products. Most products are targeted at organic agriculture because of their higher manufacturing cost. These products are typically short residual, burndown products that require high volumes and multiple applications. Examples are clove and orange oils. Other natural active ingredients include acetic acid (vinegar), FeHEDTA, NaCl, pelargonic acid, and caprylic and capric acids. This paper reviews the reasons for the lack of new bioherbicides, current and pipeline products and how new technologies may accelerate their progress.

scholarly journals Emerging Challenges for Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Agriculture ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla L. Gage ◽  
Ronald F. Krausz ◽  
S. Alan Walters
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Selection Pressure ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Sites Of Action ◽  
Weed Resistance

Since weed management is such a critical component of agronomic crop production systems, herbicides are widely used to provide weed control to ensure that yields are maximized. In the last few years, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly those that are glyphosate-resistant, and more recently, those with dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) resistance are changing the way many growers manage weeds. However, past reliance on glyphosate and mistakes made in stewardship of the glyphosate-resistant cropping system have directly led to the current weed resistance problems that now occur in many agronomic cropping systems, and new technologies must be well-stewarded. New herbicide-resistant trait technologies in soybean, such as dicamba-, 2,4-D-, and isoxaflutole- ((5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone) resistance, are being combined with glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistance traits to manage herbicide-resistant weed populations. In cropping systems with glyphosate-resistant weed species, these new trait options may provide effective weed management tools, although there may be increased risk of off-target movement and susceptible plant damage with the use of some of these technologies. The use of diverse weed management practices to reduce the selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weed evolution is essential to preserve the utility of new traits. The use of herbicides with differing sites of action (SOAs), ideally in combination as mixtures, but also in rotation as part of a weed management program may slow the evolution of resistance in some cases. Increased selection pressure from the effects of some herbicide mixtures may lead to more cases of metabolic herbicide resistance. The most effective long-term approach for weed resistance management is the use of Integrated Weed Management (IWM) which may build the ecological complexity of the cropping system. Given the challenges in management of herbicide-resistant weeds, IWM will likely play a critical role in enhancing future food security for a growing global population.

scholarly journals Weeds Hosting the Soybean Cyst Nematode (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe): Management Implications in Agroecological Systems

Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 146
Author(s):  
Leonardo F. Rocha ◽  
Karla L. Gage ◽  
Mirian F. Pimentel ◽  
Jason P. Bond ◽  
Ahmad M. Fakhoury
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Soybean Cyst Nematode ◽  
Heterodera Glycines ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Cyst Nematode ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Initial Inoculum ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Sites Of Action

The soybean cyst nematode (SCN; Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) is a major soybean-yield-limiting soil-borne pathogen, especially in the Midwestern US. Weed management is recommended for SCN integrated management, since some weed species have been reported to be hosts for SCN. The increase in the occurrence of resistance to herbicides complicates weed management and may further direct ecological–evolutionary (eco–evo) feedbacks in plant–pathogen complexes, including interactions between host plants and SCN. In this review, we summarize weed species reported to be hosts of SCN in the US and outline potential weed–SCN management interactions. Plants from 23 families have been reported to host SCN, with Fabaceae including most host species. Out of 116 weeds hosts, 14 species have known herbicide-resistant biotypes to 8 herbicide sites of action. Factors influencing the ability of weeds to host SCN are environmental and edaphic conditions, SCN initial inoculum, weed population levels, and variations in susceptibility of weed biotypes to SCN within a population. The association of SCN on weeds with relatively little fitness cost incurred by the latter may decrease the competitive ability of the crop and increase weed reproduction when SCN is present, feeding back into the probability of selecting for herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Therefore, proper management of weed hosts of SCN should be a focus of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to prevent further eco–evo feedbacks in the cropping system.

PRE herbicides influence critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant corn

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Ayse Nur Ulusoy ◽  
O. Adewale Osipitan ◽  
Jon Scott ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Nevin C. Lawrence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Maximum Growth ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Main Plot ◽  
Sites Of Action ◽  
Weed Removal

Abstract Residual herbicides applied PRE provide early season weed control, potentially avoid the need for multiple POST herbicides, and can provide additional control of herbicide-resistant weeds. Thus, field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at Concord, NE, to evaluate the influence of PRE herbicides on critical time for postemergence weed removal (CTWR) in corn. The studies were arranged in a split-plot design that consisted of three herbicide regimes as main plot treatments and seven weed removal timings as subplot treatments in four replications. The herbicide regimes included no PRE herbicide, atrazine, and a premix of saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P mixed with pyroxasulfone. The weed removal timings were at V3, V6, V9, V12, and V15 corn growth stages and then plots were kept weed-free until harvest. A weed-free and nontreated control were included for comparison. The relationship between corn growth or yield, and weed removal timings in growing degree days (GDD) was described by a four-parameter log-logistic model. This model was used to estimate the critical time for weed removal based on 5% crop yield loss threshold. A delay in weed removal until the V2 to V3 corn growth stage (91 to 126 GDD) reduced corn biomass by 5% without PRE herbicide application. The CTWR started at V3 without PRE herbicide in both years. Atrazine delayed the CTWR up to V5 in both years, whereas saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P plus pyroxasulfone further delayed the CTWR up to the V10 and V8 corn growth stages in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Herbicide applied PRE particularly with multiple sites of action can delay the CTWR in corn up to a maximum growth stage of V10, and delay or reduce the need for POST weed management.

scholarly journals HERBICIDE RESISTANT WEED MANAGEMENT USING SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE WEED POPULATION GROWTH CURVE

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
RIBAS ANTÔNIO VIDAL ◽  
FABIANE PINTO LAMEGO ◽  
MICHELÂNGELO MUZELL TREZZI ◽  
RAFAEL DE PRADO ◽  
NILDA ROMA BURGOS
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Population Growth ◽  
Growth Curve ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Logistic Growth ◽  
Control Methods ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Weed Population ◽  
The Past ◽  
Weed Resistance

Strategies to prevent herbicide weed resistance are rarely practiced by farmers. As a consequence, herbicide resistant weed biotypes (HRWB) have been increasing worldwide in the past decades. This paper aims to analyze the weed population growth curve and to propose a strategic plan for prevention and management of HRWB. The existing weed control methods are organized considering the sensitivity analysis of the population growth at each phase of the logistic growth curve. This analysis indicates that tactics directed to reduce the population growth rate are most appropriate for HRWB management, mainly at the initial phase of the resistant weed population growth. This epidemiological approach provides evidence to the importance of early detection and management of HRWB.

scholarly journals Weed Management in 2050: Perspectives on the Future of Weed Science

Weed Science ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Westwood ◽  
Raghavan Charudattan ◽  
Stephen O. Duke ◽  
Steven A. Fennimore ◽  
Pam Marrone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
World Population ◽  
Plant Interactions ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Modes Of Action ◽  
The Future

AbstractThe discipline of weed science is at a critical juncture. Decades of efficient chemical weed control have led to a rise in the number of herbicide-resistant weed populations, with few new herbicides with unique modes of action to counter this trend and often no economical alternatives to herbicides in large-acreage crops. At the same time, the world population is swelling, necessitating increased food production to feed an anticipated 9 billion people by the year 2050. Here, we consider these challenges along with emerging trends in technology and innovation that offer hope of providing sustainable weed management into the future. The emergence of natural product leads in discovery of new herbicides and biopesticides suggests that new modes of action can be discovered, while genetic engineering provides additional options for manipulating herbicide selectivity and creating entirely novel approaches to weed management. Advances in understanding plant pathogen interactions will contribute to developing new biological control agents, and insights into plant–plant interactions suggest that crops can be improved by manipulating their response to competition. Revolutions in computing power and automation have led to a nascent industry built on using machine vision and global positioning system information to distinguish weeds from crops and deliver precision weed control. These technologies open multiple possibilities for efficient weed management, whether through chemical or mechanical mechanisms. Information is also needed by growers to make good decisions, and will be delivered with unprecedented efficiency and specificity, potentially revolutionizing aspects of extension work. We consider that meeting the weed management needs of agriculture by 2050 and beyond is a challenge that requires commitment by funding agencies, researchers, and students to translate new technologies into durable weed management solutions. Integrating old and new weed management technologies into more diverse weed management systems based on a better understanding of weed biology and ecology can provide integrated weed management and resistance management strategies that will be more sustainable than the technologies that are now failing.

scholarly journals Herbicide-Resistant Kochia (Bassia scoparia) in North America: A Review

Weed Science ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipan Kumar ◽  
Prashant Jha ◽  
Mithila Jugulam ◽  
Ramawatar Yadav ◽  
Phillip W. Stahlman
Keyword(s):  
Great Plains ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
North American ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Evolutionary Dynamics ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
The North ◽  
Sites Of Action

AbstractKochia [Bassia scoparia(L.) A. J. Scott] is a problematic annual broadleaf weed species in the North American Great Plains.Bassia scopariainherits unique biological characteristics that contribute to its propensity to evolve herbicide resistance. Evolution of glyphosate resistance inB. scopariahas become a serious threat to the major cropping systems and soil conservation practices in the region.Bassia scopariapopulations with resistance to four different herbicide sites of action are a concern for growers. The widespread occurrence of multiple herbicide–resistant (HR)B. scopariaacross the North American Great Plains has renewed research efforts to devise integrated weed management strategies beyond herbicide use. In this review, we aim to compile and document the growing body of literature on HRB. scopariawith emphasis on herbicide-resistance evolutionary dynamics, distribution, mechanisms of evolved resistance, agronomic impacts, and current/future weed management technologies. We focused on ecologically based, non-herbicidal strategies such as diverse crop rotations comprising winter cereals and perennial forages, enhanced crop competition, cover crops, harvest weed seed control (HWSC), and tillage to manage HRB. scopariaseedbanks. Remote sensing using hyperspectral imaging and other sensor-based technologies would be valuable for early detection and rapid response and site-specific herbicide resistance management. We propose research priorities based on an improved understanding of the biology, genetic diversity, and plasticity of this weed that will aid in preserving existing herbicide resources and designing sustainable, integrated HRB. scopariamitigation plans.

scholarly journals Herbicide Resistant Weed Management: Who's Resisting?

Weed Science ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Herbicide Resistant

Labile carbon and other soil quality indicators in two tillage systems during transition to organic agriculture

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bruce Lewis ◽  
Jason P. Kaye ◽  
Randa Jabbour ◽  
Mary E. Barbercheck
Keyword(s):  
Soil Quality ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Organic Agriculture ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Labile Carbon ◽  
Initial Field ◽  
Soil Attributes

AbstractWeed management is one of the primary challenges for producers transitioning from conventional to organic agriculture. Tillage and the use of cover crops are two weed control tactics available to farmers transitioning to organic management, but little is known about their interactive effects on soil quality during the transition period. We investigated the response of soils to tillage and initial cover crop during the 3-year transition to organic in a cover crop–soybean (Glycine max)–maize (Zea mays) rotation in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. The tillage treatment contrasted full, inversion tillage with moldboard plowing (FT) versus reduced tillage with chisel plowing (RT). The cover crop treatment contrasted annual versus mostly perennial species during the first year of the rotation. The experiment was initiated twice (Start 1 and Start 2), in consecutive years in adjacent fields. By the end of the experiment, labile carbon, electrical conductivity, pH and soil moisture were all greater under RT than under FT in both starts. Soil organic matter and several other soil attributes were greater under RT than under FT in Start 1, but not in Start 2, perhaps owing to differences between starts in initial field conditions and realized weather. Soil attributes did not differ between the two cover crop treatments. Combining our soils results with agronomic and economic analyses on these plots suggests that using RT during the organic transition can increase soil quality without compromising yield and profitability.

The Coaxium® Wheat Production System: A New Herbicide-Resistant System for Annual Grass Weed Control and Integrated Weed Management

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-157
Author(s):  
Raven A. Bough ◽  
Phillip Westra ◽  
Todd A. Gaines ◽  
Eric P. Westra ◽  
Scott Haley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Production System ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
State University ◽  
Wheat Production ◽  
Colorado State University ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
System A ◽  
Grass Weed ◽  
Global Food

The authors discuss the importance of wheat as a global food source and describe a novel multi-institutional, public-private partnership between Colorado State University, the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, and private chemical and seed companies that resulted in the development of a new herbicide-resistant wheat production system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document