Does genetic variability in weeds respond to non‐chemical selection pressure in arable fields?

At a time when herbicide use is being challenged by the selection of herbicide‐resistant weeds, reliance on other, innovative weed control strategies is becoming increasingly necessary. However, one may question the sustainability of these novel farming practices if weeds adapt rapidly to these non‐chemical selection pressures. Although farmers and agronomists impose many selective processes through farming practices, there is a paucity of literature demonstrating these selection cases in arable fields. In contrast to the relatively simple case of herbicide resistance, random trait association and variability in selection pressures in field conditions could explain why there are so few clear examples of adaptive processes to non‐chemical control in arable fields.     

Does Fusarium‐caused seed mortality contribute to Bromus tectorum stand failure in the Great Basin?

Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass, downy brome) is an important invader in western North America, dominating millions of hectares of former semi‐arid shrubland. Stand failure or ‘die‐off’ is relatively common in monocultures of this annual grass. The study reported here investigated whether soil‐borne pathogens could be causal agents in die‐offs. Soils from two die‐off areas and adjacent B. tectorum stands were used in a glasshouse experiment with sterilised and non‐sterilised treatments. Soil sterilisation did not increase emergence, which averaged 80% in both die‐off and non‐die‐off soils. Seedling biomass was higher in die‐off soils, probably due to increased nitrogen availability. Fusarium was isolated from 80% of killed seeds in non‐sterilised soil treatments. In pathogenicity tests with 16 Fusarium isolates, host seeds incubated under water stress (?1.5MPa for 1 week prior to transfer to free water) suffered over twice the mortality of seeds incubated directly in free water (25–83% with water stress vs. 5–43% without water stress). These results suggest that soil‐borne Fusarium could play a role in B. tectorum stand failure in the field, but that low water stress conditions in the glasshouse experiment were not conducive to high levels of disease. Pathogenic Fusarium isolates were obtained from seeds planted in both die‐off and non‐die‐off soils, suggesting that microenvironmental factors that affect levels of water stress might be as important as relative abundance of soil‐borne pathogens in mediating spatial patterns of disease incidence in the field.     

Does soil warming affect the interaction between Pasteuria penetrans and Meloidogyne javanica in tomato plants?

A system to grow tomato plants infected by Meloidogyne javanica under constant temperatures of 18, 21, 24, 27 and 30 °C was developed and used to assess how temperature and the application of the biological control bacterium Pasteuria penetrans affected plant growth, the nematode population and endospore production. Each plant was inoculated with 300 second‐stage juveniles (J2) with four or five spores of P. penetrans attached to their cuticles or with 300 nematodes without P. penetrans. Increasing soil temperature increased tomato growth, the number of endospores per female, and the number of galls of M. javanica at the end of 38 days. Increasing temperatures up to 27 °C also increased the number of egg masses produced by M. javanica. Presence of P. penetrans reduced the numbers of galls and egg masses at all temperatures by up to 52.2% and 61.4% at 27 and 30 °C, respectively. Pasteuria penetrans reduced the M. javanica population even at soil temperatures of 18 and 21 °C. However, temperatures of 27 and 30 °C enhanced nematode control and the production of P. penetrans endospores is faster. The system developed in this work is simple and efficient for growing plants under constant temperatures and can be used for different purposes.     

Can the parasitic weeds Striga asiatica and Rhamphicarpa fistulosa co‐occur in rain‐fed rice?

Striga asiatica and Rhamphicarpa fistulosa are important parasitic weeds of rain‐fed rice, partly distributed in similar regions in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). It is not evident whether their ecologies are mutually exclusive or partially overlapping. In Kyela, a rice‐growing area in south Tanzania where both parasites are present, three transects of about 3 km each across the upland–lowland continuum were surveyed in June 2012 and 2013. A total of 36 fields were categorised according to their position on the upland–lowland continuum as High, Middle or Low and soil samples were taken. In each field, parasitic and non‐parasitic weed species were identified in three quadrats. Additionally, in two pot experiments with four different moisture levels ranging from wilting point to saturation, influence of soil moisture on emergence and growth of parasites was investigated. Striga asiatica was observed in higher lying drier fields, while R. fistulosa was observed in the lower lying wetter fields. Furthermore, non‐parasitic weed species that were exclusive to S. asiatica‐infested fields are adapted to open well‐drained soils, while species that were exclusive to R. fistulosa fields are typical for wet soils. The experiments confirmed that S. asiatica is favoured by free‐draining soils and R. fistulosa by waterlogged soils. These results imply that changes in climate, specifically moisture regimes, will be crucial for future prevalence of these parasitic weeds. The non‐overlapping ecological range between their habitats suggests that their distribution and associated problems might remain separate. Thus, management strategies can be focused independently on either species.     

Are honeybees suitable surrogates for use in pesticide risk assessment for non‐Apis bees?

Historically, bee regulatory risk assessment for pesticides has centred on the European honeybee (Apis mellifera), primarily due to its availability and adaptability to laboratory conditions. Recently, there have been efforts to develop a battery of laboratory toxicity tests for a range of non‐Apis bee species to directly assess the risk to them. However, it is not clear whether the substantial investment associated with the development and implementation of such routine screening will actually improve the level of protection of non‐Apis bees. We argue, using published acute toxicity data from a range of bee species and standard regulatory exposure scenarios, that current first‐tier honeybee acute risk assessment schemes utilised by regulatory authorities are protective of other bee species and further tests should be conducted only in cases of concern. We propose similar analysis of alternative exposure scenarios (chronic and developmental) once reliable data for non‐Apis bees are available to expand our approach to these scenarios. In addition, we propose that in silico (simulation) approaches can then be used to address population‐level effects in more field‐realistic scenarios. Such an approach could lead to a protective, but also workable, risk assessment for non‐Apis species while contributing to pollination security in agricultural landscapes around the globe. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry     

Is acetyl/butyrylcholine specificity a marker for insecticide‐resistance mutations in insect acetylcholinesterase?

Substrate specificity has been widely studied in vertebrate cholinesterases and it has been shown that two phenylalanines in the acyl pocket of acetylcholinesterase govern the acceptance of the acetyl/butyryl moiety of the choline esters. As an insecticide‐resistance mutation has been evidenced in the acyl pocket of Drosophila melanogaster and Musca domestica acetylcholinesterase we investigated the possibility of linking changes in acetyl/butyrylthiocholine specificity with mutations in insect acetylcholinesterase. We thus analyzed the effect of 28 mutations in Drosophila enzyme on acetyl/butyrylthiocholine, N‐methyl/N‐propyl‐carbamates and ethyl/methyl‐paraoxon preference. It appeared that the highest changes on acetyl/butyrylthiocholine and N‐propyl/N‐methyl‐carbamates preference were due to mutations in the acyl pocket. Nevertheless, other insecticide‐resistance mutations, not located in the acyl pocket, also modified these substrate preferences. Moreover, the effect of mutations in the acyl pocket was hidden when some other insecticide‐resistance mutations were combined in the enzyme. Consequently, acetyl/butyrylthiocholine preference alteration cannot be used as a marker to localize a mutation in the insect AChE. © 2000 Society of Chemical Industry     

Does synergized pyrethrin applied over wetlands for mosquito control affect Daphnia magna zooplankton or Callibaetis californicus mayflies?

BACKGROUND: Public health agencies may apply aerosolized synergized pyrethrin over wetlands repeatedly to control mosquitoes. This concerns wildlife managers because studies have shown the accumulation of pyrethroids, which are chemically similar to pyrethrin, in sediments in amounts that can be toxic to invertebrates. The authors tested whether repeated applications of synergized pyrethrin over wetlands caused mortality of two aquatic invertebrates: the zooplankton Daphnia magna Straus and a mayfly, Callibaetis californicus Banks. Fifteen wetland mesocosms were either exposed to repeated pyrethrin sprays or were protected by lids. Invertebrates in screened cages were placed in mesocosms before the fifth and eleventh spray, and directly into wetlands before spray 11. Six mesocosms were exposed to spray deposition. Caged adult mosquitoes were used to verify that sprays drifted over mesocosms. Sediments were analyzed for insecticide residues.RESULTS: There were no detectable effects of synergized pyrethrin on 36 h survival of Daphnia or mayflies, but most exposed adult mosquitoes died. Some exposed sediments yielded pyrethrin (< or =34.5 ng g(-1)); most showed piperonyl butoxide (PBO) (< or =14.9 ng g(-1)).CONCLUSIONS: Deposition of aerosolized 25% pyrethrin + 5% PBO may contaminate wetlands, but its application at rates used for mosquito control did not produce detectable effects on indicator species.     

Regulated non‐quarantine pests: fact or fiction?

A new category of officially regulated pests has been introduced during the past decade. The aim of this new categorization is to protect plant health and, in particular, farmers’ and growers’ crops against the introduction of pests via propagation material. The phytosanitary term ‘regulated non‐quarantine pests’ (RNQPs) is relatively new. It was introduced in 1997 as part of the new revised text of the International Plant Protection Convention. These RNQPs differ from the common category of quarantine pests in that they can be widespread within the territory of concern. Unlike quarantine pests, a level of tolerance could be applied for RNQPs infesting certain plants for planting. Some certification systems for the production of propagation material may specify certain tolerance levels, however, these systems are usually not regulated by national plant protection organizations and the tolerance levels are usually not based on scientific evidence. To date, only a few countries have applied the concept of RNQPs: notably Uruguay and Brazil. To apply the concept and, in particular, to determine specific tolerance levels presents many challenges. The concept may be embraced in the coming years by the European Community as part of the revision of the EU Council Directive 2000/29/EC.     

Does <Emphasis Type="Italic">Puccinia hemerocallidis</Emphasis> regularly host-alternate between <Emphasis Type="Italic">Hemerocallis</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Patrinia</Emphasis> plants in Japan?

Daylily rust fungus, Puccinia hemerocallidis, was proven to host-alternate between a wild daylily, Hemerocallis fulva var. longituba, and a patrinia, Patrinia villosa. No proof was obtained for the early belief that the fungus is pathogenic to plantainlilies, Hosta species, in addition to daylilies, Hemerocallis species. The fungus seems to alternate regularly between daylilies and patrinias in Japan because most daylily species are deciduous, and a vegetatively reproducing stage of the pathogen does not seem capable of successfully overwintering free of the living host tissue.     

Is the current state of the art of weed monitoring suitable for site‐specific weed management in arable crops?

Weed monitoring is the first step in any site‐specific weed management programme. A relatively large variety of platforms, cameras, sensors and image analysis procedures are available to detect and map weed presence/abundance at various times and spatial scales. Remote sensing from satellites or aircraft can provide accurate weed maps when the images are obtained at late weed phenological stages. Cameras located on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been shown to be adequate for early‐season weed detection in a variety of wide‐row crops, providing images with relatively high spatial resolutions. Alternatively, weed detection/mapping systems from ground‐based platforms can achieve even higher resolutions using a variety of non‐imaging and imaging technologies. These ground systems are suited, in some cases, for real‐time site‐specific weed management. Despite this rich arsenal of technologies, their commercial adoption is, apparently, low. In this study, we describe the state of the art of remotely sensed and ground‐based weed monitoring in arable crops and the current level of adoption of these technologies, exploring major constraints for adoption and trying to identify research gaps and bottlenecks.