A Reflection on My Research in Weed Biological Control: Using What We Have Learned for Future Applications

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghavan Charudattan

When I began my foray into the field of biological control of weeds in 1971, the concept of deliberately using pathogens to control weeds was novel and untested and met with skepticism and resistance. Soon, a worldwide network of plant pathologists, weed scientists, microbial technologists, formulation specialists, and regulatory personnel came together to study, develop, and apply pathogens in safe and effective ways of control of a variety of weeds in crops and natural areas. Several new weed–pathogen systems were studied; a few dozen products and pathogens were brought to use, albeit on a very small scale compared to conventional weed-control products; and along the way, some valuable lessons were learned in phytopathology and weed ecology. A seminal body of information was published on the etiology and epidemiology of several diseases of weeds, many new pathogens were discovered and described, and methods were developed for mass production, formulation, and storage of pathogens. Numerous pathogen-produced herbicidal metabolites were discovered and characterized. Protocols were developed, tested, and applied for safe importation and release of exotic pathogens and for registration of microbial herbicides. Spectacular success was achieved with some pathogens used as classical biocontrol agents, and a new class of herbicide, the bioherbicides, came on the scene. Yet some key opportunities were missed. Notably, weed biocontrol research remained largely preoccupied with agent or product development and deployment while great strides were made during this period in phytopathology to understand the genetic–molecular basis of virulence, host range, host specificity, host response to infection, cell death, and pathogen population structure. Nevertheless, the accomplishments in the field of weed biocontrol by pathogens are truly significant. Certainly, we are poised to apply the knowledge gained toward discovery and development of additional weed-control pathogens, but increased effort should be directed also at using pathogen genes, gene products, and genetic mechanisms for weed control. An investment in the latter could help us gain insights into genetically programmed host–pathogen interactions that may be exploited to kill weeds, restrain weed growth, or knock out traits for invasiveness. In our continuing struggle to manage weeds, biocontrol with pathogens should remain a major thrust. Here I present perceptions I have gained from the work that my students, postdoctoral and technical associates, colleagues, and I have done with several weed–pathogen systems.

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 32 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. B. Yandoc-Ables ◽  
E. N. Rosskopf ◽  
R. Charudattan

Weed biological control using plant pathogens has been successfully implemented for a number of important invasive weeds. Both the classical and bioherbicide approaches have shown promise depending on the characteristics of the target weed. Bioherbicidal activity can be improved with research on formulation and application technology. Other approaches that have improved weed control efficacy for both classical biological control agents and bioherbicides include using a combination of pathogens and insects. Accepted for publication 9 April 2007. Published 22 August 2007.


1991 ◽  
Vol 123 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Harris

AbstractDilemmas in weed biocontrol are wide ranging. Even the term biological control is confusing as meanings may be restricted to the use of parasites and predators or extend to the use of all non-chemical means of control. Another problem is that two-thirds of the agents released do not become numerous enough to inflict major damage to the weed population, although this statistic is misleading as it includes agents costing little in pre-release studies where failure is of little consequence and those costing about two scientist years each, or currently about $400,000. Many of the suggestions for improvement are costly and time consuming. Delay is unacceptable where agent release is seen by sponsors as a mark of progress in a program likely to require 20 years and funding is difficult. Analysis of previous biocontrol attempts for attributes of "success" have been disappointing, partly because there are a number of steps involved, each with its own attributes. This paper recognizes four graded "success" steps and discusses many agent selection methods.There are public demands for a change in emphasis from chemical to biological control; but in the absence of effective enabling legislation, the practice of biocontrol can be legally and politically hazardous; biocontrol should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team but it is usually assigned to a single scientist; it needs to branch in new directions to remain scientifically stimulating, but this increases the risk of failure. Possible solutions for these dilemmas are discussed.


Insects ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 695
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Gaffke ◽  
Hans T. Alborn ◽  
Tom L. Dudley ◽  
Dan W. Bean

In agricultural systems, chemical ecology and the use of semiochemicals have become critical components of integrated pest management. The categories of semiochemicals that have been used include sex pheromones, aggregation pheromones, and plant volatile compounds used as attractants as well as repellents. In contrast, semiochemicals are rarely utilized for management of insects used in weed biological control. Here, we advocate for the benefit of chemical ecology principles in the implementation of weed biocontrol by describing successful utilization of semiochemicals for release, monitoring and manipulation of weed biocontrol agent populations. The potential for more widespread adoption and successful implementation of semiochemicals justifies multidisciplinary collaborations and increased research on how semiochemicals and chemical ecology can enhance weed biocontrol programs.


2004 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 102-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. Paynter ◽  
S.V. Fowler ◽  
A.H. Gourlay ◽  
M.L. Haines ◽  
H.M. Harman ◽  
...  

The safety record of weed biocontrol was questioned recently when examples of damage to nontarget plants were reported overseas Until now systematic investigations of nontarget feeding have not been performed in New Zealand Results of surveys looking for evidence of nontarget damage caused by 20 biological control agents released against weeds in New Zealand are presented Most agents (16) are apparently hostspecific However two species (Tyria jacobaeae and Phytomyza vitalbae) were recorded attacking native plants although their attack was very minor and predictable from hostrange testing performed prior to release For two other species Bruchidius villosus and Cydia succedana nontarget attack was not predicted from hostrange testing Larval feeding by these species was confined to mainly weedy exotic plants that are closely related to their target plants The reliability of hostspecificity testing and overall safety record of weed biological control in New Zealand are discussed


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-223
Author(s):  
Louise Morin

Plant pathogens have played an important role in weed biological control since the 1970s. So far, 36 fungal pathogens have been authorized for introduction across 18 countries for the classical biological control of weeds. Their safety record has been excellent, but questions continue to be asked about the risk that they could transfer to other plants. Quantitative data documenting their impact on the weed populations are still limited. Of the 15 bioherbicides based on living microorganisms that have ever been registered, only two were commercially available at the time of this review. The development and commercialization of bioherbicides in affluent countries are still plagued by technological hurdles and limited market potential. Not-for-profit small-scale production and distribution systems for bioherbicides in low-income countries may have potential as an inexpensive approach to controlling pervasive weeds. The types of research underpinning biological control approaches and challenges encountered are highlighted using specific examples.


Weed Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 30 (S1) ◽  
pp. 25-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd A. Andres

Little effort has been directed toward integrating biological control; that is, the use of living natural enemies to control weeds, with more conventional weed control practices. The usual focus of biological control has been on the introduction of weed insects and pathogens from foreign areas to control naturalized range, pasture, and/or aquatic weeds, principally single species that had become dominant over a plant community. The released natural enemies were allowed to reach their own balance with the target weed without added assistance. As economic and environmental perspectives change along with our knowledge and technological capability, however, it becomes worthwhile to review periodically if and how biological control might be integrated with other farming practices. Because my biological control experience has centered on the use of weed-feeding insects, this discussion will focus on methods of enhancing and integrating insect impact on weeds with other weed-control activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document