Biology,ecology and management of the invasive parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.)

Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) is one of the most aggressive invasive weeds, threatening natural ecosystems and agroecosystems in over 30 countries worldwide. Parthenium weed causes losses of crops and pastures, degrading the biodiversity of natural plant communities, causing human and animal health hazards and resulting in serious economic losses to people and their interests in many countries around the globe. Several of its biological and ecological attributes contribute towards its invasiveness. Various management approaches (namely cultural, mechanical, chemical and biological control) have been used to minimise losses caused by this weed, but most of these approaches are ineffective and uneconomical and/or have limitations. Although chemical control using herbicides and biological control utilising exotic insects and pathogens have been found to contribute to the management of the weed, the weed nevertheless remains a significant problem. An integrated management approach is proposed here for the effective management of parthenium weed on a sustainable basis. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry     

Biological control of weeds in European crops: recent achievements and future work

Approaches to the biological control of weeds in arable crops and integration of biological weed control with other methods of weed management are broadly discussed. Various types of integrative approaches to biological control of weeds in crops have been studied within the framework of a concerted European Research Programme (COST‐816). During the period 1994–99, some 25 institutions from 16 countries have concentrated on five target weed complexes. Some major scientific achievements of COST‐816 are: (i) combination of the pathogen Ascochyta caulina with an isolated phytotoxin produced by this fungus to control Chenopodium album in maize and sugar beet; (ii) the elaboration and preliminary field application of a system management approach using the weed:pathogen system Senecio vulgaris:Puccinia lagenophorae to reduce the competitiveness of the weed by inducing and stimulating a disease epidemic; (iii) combination of underseeded green cover with the application of spores of Stagonospora convolvuli to control Convolvulus species in maize; (iv) assessment of the response of different provenances of Amaranthus spp. to infection by Alternaria alternata and Trematophoma lignicola, the development of formulation and delivery techniques and a field survey of native insect species to control Amaranthus spp. in sugar beet and maize; (v) isolation of strains of different Fusarium spp. that infect all the economically important Orobanche spp. and development of novel, storable formulations using mycelia from liquid culture. Although no practical control has yet been reached for any of the five target weeds, potential solutions have been clearly identified. Two major routes may be followed in future work. The first is a technological approach focusing on a single, highly destructive disease cycle of the control agent and optimizing the efficacy and specificity of the agent. The second is an ecological approach based on a better understanding of the interactions among the crop, the weed, the natural antagonist and the environment, which must be managed in order to maximize the spread and impact of an indigenous antagonist on the weed.     

Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt

Glyphosate is the world's most important herbicide, with many uses that deliver effective and sustained control of a wide spectrum of unwanted (weedy) plant species. Until recently there were relatively few reports of weedy plant species evolving resistance to glyphosate. Since 1996, the advent and subsequent high adoption of transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops in the Americas has meant unprecedented and often exclusive use of glyphosate for weed control over very large areas. Consequently, in regions of the USA where transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops dominate, there are now evolved glyphosate-resistant populations of the economically damaging weed species Ambrosia artemissifolia L., Ambrosia trifida L., Amaranthus palmeri S Watson, Amaranthus rudis JD Sauer, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq) JD Sauer and various Conyza and Lolium spp. Likewise, in areas of transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops in Argentina and Brazil, there are now evolved glyphosate-resistant populations of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers and Euphorbia heterophylla L. respectively. As transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops will remain very popular with producers, it is anticipated that glyphosate-resistant biotypes of other prominent weed species will evolve over the next few years. Therefore, evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds are a major risk for the continued success of glyphosate and transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops. However, glyphosate-resistant weeds are not yet a problem in many parts of the world, and lessons can be learnt and actions taken to achieve glyphosate sustainability. A major lesson is that maintenance of diversity in weed management systems is crucial for glyphosate to be sustainable. Glyphosate is essential for present and future world food production, and action to secure its sustainability for future generations is a global imperative.     

The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide

The 1995/6 International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds recorded 183 herbicide-resistant weed biotypes (124 different species) in 42 countries. The increase in the number of new herbicide-resistant weeds has remained relatively constant since 1978, at an average of nine new cases per year worldwide. Whilst 61 weed species have evolved resistance to triazine herbicides, this figure now only accounts for one-third of all documented herbicide-resistant biotypes. Triazine-resistant weeds have been controlled successfully in many countries by the use of alternative herbicides. Due to the economic importance of ALS and ACCase inhibitor herbicides worldwide, and the ease with which weeds have evolved resistance to them, it is likely that ALS and ACCase inhibitor-resistant weeds will present farmers with greater problems in the next five years than triazine-resistant weeds have caused in the past 25 years. Thirty-three weed species have evolved resistance to ALS-inhibitor herbicides in 11 countries. ALS-inhibitor-resistant weeds are most problematic in cereal, corn/soybean and rice production. Thirteen weed species have evolved resistance to ACCase inhibitors, also in 11 countries. ACCase inhibitor resistance in Lolium and Avena spp. threatens cereal production in Australia, Canada, Chile, France, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and the USA. Fourteen weed species have evolved resistance to urea herbicides. Isoproturon-resistant Phalaris minor infesting wheat fields in North West India and chlorotoluron-resistant Alopecurus myosuroides in Europe are of significant economic importance. Although 27 weed species have evolved resistance to bipyridilium herbicides, and 14 weed species have evolved resistance to synthetic auxins, the area infested and the availability of alternative herbicides have kept their impact minimal. The lack of alternative herbicides to control weeds with multiple herbicide resistance, such as Lolium rigidum and Alopecurus myosuroides, makes these the most challenging resistance problems. The recent discovery of glyphosate-resistant Lolium rigidum in Australia is a timely reminder that sound herbicide-resistant management strategies will remain important after the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops. ©1997 SCI     

Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops

The adoption of glyphosate-based crop production systems has been one of the most important revolutions in the history of agriculture. Changes in weed communities owing to species that do not respond to current glyphosate-based management tactics are rapidly increasing. Clearly, glyphosate-resistant crops (GRCs) do not influence weeds any more than non-transgenic crops. For most crops, the trait itself is essentially benign in the environment. Rather, the weed control tactics imposed by growers create the ecological selection pressure that ultimately changes the weed communities. This is seen in the adoption of conservation tillage and weed management programs that focus on one herbicide mode of action and have hastened several important weed population shifts. Tillage (disturbance) is one of the primary factors that affect changes in weed communities. The intense selection pressure from herbicide use will result in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes or shifts in the relative prominence of one weed species in the weed community. Changes in weed communities are inevitable and an intrinsic consequence of growing crops over time. The glyphosate-based weed management tactics used in GRCs impose the selection pressure that supports weed population shifts. Examples of weed population shifts in GRCs include common waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq ex DC) JD Sauer], horseweed (Conyza canadensis L), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L) and other relatively new weed problems. Growers have handled these weed population shifts with varying success depending on the crop.     

The development of flamprop-isopropyl—A new wild oat herbicide for use in barley

Flamprop-isopropyl, isopropyl (±)-2-[N-(3-chloro-4-fluorophenyl)benzamido]-propionate, has been shown to give good control of Avena spp. in barley. Results from glasshouse tests have been confirmed in field trials over two seasons, in 8 European countries, using a 200 g/litre formulation of the herbicide. In Spring barley the crop stage during which application should be made for optimum weed control and crop benefit lies between late tillering and the formation of the second node.     

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies

Physical, cultural and biological methods for weed control have developed largely independently and are often concerned with weed control in different systems: physical and cultural control in annual crops and biocontrol in extensive grasslands. We discuss the strengths and limitations of four physical and cultural methods for weed control: mechanical, thermal, cutting, and intercropping, and the advantages and disadvantages of combining biological control with them. These physical and cultural control methods may increase soil nitrogen levels and alter microclimate at soil level; this may be of benefit to biocontrol agents, although physical disturbance to the soil and plant damage may be detrimental. Some weeds escape control by these methods; we suggest that these weeds may be controlled by biocontrol agents. It will be easiest to combine biological control with fire and cutting in grasslands; within arable systems it would be most promising to combine biological control (especially using seed predators and foliar pathogens) with cover‐cropping, and mechanical weeding combined with foliar bacterial and possibly foliar fungal pathogens. We stress the need to consider the timing of application of combined control methods in order to cause least damage to the biocontrol agent, along with maximum damage to the weed and to consider the wider implications of these different weed control methods.     

Biological control of weeds in crops: a coordinated European research programme (COST-816)

For dominant weed species that are difficult to control by traditional means, the development of new, selective, control methods that can be implemented in integrated pest management (IPM) is essential. Here, biological control can be the appropriate means of control due to its high degree of selectivity and environmental safety (direct control value). The biocontrol strategy is based on a detailed analysis of the crop environment and, thus, provides a fundamental tool for developing sustainable agroecosystems (indirect, heuristic value). The successful application of biological weed control will lead to substantial reductions in pesticide use and, thus, will also contribute to the conservation, augmentation and utilization of biodiversity in agroecosystems, an explicit objective of IPM. Only cooperative and concerted efforts, such as those envisaged by COST, will allow the effective completion of weed biocontrol projects within a reasonable period of time. At present, over 25 institutions from 14 countries are participating in this COST action. The following six objectives have been defined for COST-816: to bring together European institutions, to promote a programme for scientific research and exchange, to draw up a general protocol for biological weed control in Europe, to integrate biological control into general weed management strategies, to establish a protocol to resolve potential conflicts of interest and to establish a list of agricultural weed species in Europe for biological control. Three principal methods of biological weed control are used in COST-816: the inoculative or classical approach, the system management approach and the inundative or microbial herbicide approach. Initially, Amaranthus spp., Convolvulus arvensis/Calystegia sepium, Chenopodium album and Senecio vulgaris were chosen as target weeds, each being the subject of a working group. A fifth working group on the control of Orobanche spp. control is in preparation. This concentration on a few target weed species has greatly stimulated cooperation and facilitated technology transfer between the research groups     

A new multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for simultaneous detection of five soil-borne fungal pathogens in winter wheat

Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection - Wheat (Triticum spp.) is often coinfected by several soil-borne fungal pathogens, causing serious crop yield and economic losses. Rapid diagnosis of...     

发展化学除草重视综合治理

我国农田杂草有２５０多种，全国农田受草害面积４３００多万ｈｍ２，平均受草害减产１３．４％，每年减产粮食１７５０万ｔ，皮棉２５．５万ｔ和大豆５０万ｔ。传统农业生产采用机械作业及人力等除草。随着农村经济的发展，化学除草面积迅速扩大，全国农田化学除草面积从１９７５年的１７０万ｈｍ２增加到１９９５年的４１３３万ｈｍ２。但是，长期化学除草也带来了除草剂土壤残留对后茬作物药害、农田杂草种群更替和产生抗药性等新问题。必须重视农田杂草综合治理，通过采用各种有效的农业技术措施，为农作物保持良好的生态条件，结合化学除草才是最有效的防除杂草方法     

Are herbicides a once in a century method of weed control?

The efficacy of any pesticide is an exhaustible resource that can be depleted over time. For decades, the dominant paradigm – that weed mobility is low relative to insect pests and pathogens, that there is an ample stream of new weed control technologies in the commercial pipeline, and that technology suppliers have sufficient economic incentives and market power to delay resistance – supported a laissez faire approach to herbicide resistance management. Earlier market data bolstered the belief that private incentives and voluntary actions were sufficient to manage resistance. Yet, there has been a steady growth in resistant weeds, while no new commercial herbicide modes of action (MOAs) have been discovered in 30 years. Industry has introduced new herbicide tolerant crops to increase the applicability of older MOAs. Yet, many weed species are already resistant to these compounds. Recent trends suggest a paradigm shift whereby herbicide resistance may impose greater costs to farmers, the environment, and taxpayers than earlier believed. In developed countries, herbicides have been the dominant method of weed control for half a century. Over the next half‐century, will widespread resistance to multiple MOAs render herbicides obsolete for many major cropping systems? We suggest it would be prudent to consider the implications of such a low‐probability, but high‐cost development. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry     

Constraints in implementing biological weed control: A review

Biological weed control is a selective, environment-friendly process, utilizing host-specific control agents towards targeted weeds that prevent damage to non-target crops or native plants. The objective of biological control for weeds is not to eradicate but, rather, to regulate weed populations below levels that cause economic injury. There has been criticism that biological weed control research efforts aim to substitute one purchased input (a bioherbicide) for another (a chemical herbicide). It is essential to remember that 'bioherbicides' and 'biological weed control' are not synonymous. Biological control of weeds involves using any organism to reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of weed populations, whereas bioherbicides utilize plant pathogens repeatedly. The integration of herbicides, both chemical and biological, into ecologically based weed management is an essential process for the sustainability of agriculture. Throughout this review, the constraints affecting the implementation of biological weed control are described. Greater understanding of the morphology, phenology and genetic diversity of targeted weeds is emphasized and the need to examine all aspects related to biocontrol agents is stressed. Improved technologies, better public support and financial aid, and more scientific interest, will all contribute to the progress of the 'science of biological weed control'.     

A decade of weed research in the Indo-Canadian Dryland Project

Weed research within the All India Co-ordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture over the past decade has included weed surveys to determine the dominant weed flora in various regions and cropping systems of the country: weed interference studies to determine the losses caused by weeds in various crops, weed control studies involving traditional and improved tillage methods: chemical control of weeds with emphasis on herbicides available in India, and studies of integrated weed-management systems. Much useful information has been accumulated and improved weed-control practices have been developed. The strategies for weed-control research and technology transfer discussed in this paper may be helpful in developing or introducing improved weed control practices in other Third-World countries.     

A critique of studies evaluating glyphosate effects on diseases associated with Fusarium spp.

With the large-scale adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops in North America, there are concerns that non-target microbial populations might be affected by increased frequency of glyphosate use. Stimulation of fungal species associated with crop diseases, including Fusarium spp., has been observed in laboratory and glasshouse experiments. Although field surveys in Saskatchewan detected positive associations between the incidence of Fusarium head blight and application of glyphosate formulations, few field experiments have been successful at demonstrating a stimulatory effect of glyphosate on crop diseases, including diseases associated with Fusarium spp. Taken at face value, there is little evidence from experimental field trials to support a causative link between glyphosate and crop diseases associated with Fusarium spp. However, we are concerned that the experimental field trials investigating links between glyphosate and Fusarium spp. are not representative of interactions that occur under actual farming conditions. In addition, inadequate consideration may have been given to microbial ecology during the design and maintenance of these experimental field trials. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove a link between glyphosate and crop diseases associated with Fusarium spp. and this area should receive high research priority, given the rapid and widespread increase in glyphosate use.     

Host range ofCercospora piaropi andAcremonium zonatum, potential fungal biocontrol agents for waterhyacinth in Mexico

The host ranges ofCercospora piaropi andAcremonium zonatum, fungi native to Mexico and pathogens of waterhyacinth(Eichhornia crassipes), were evaluated using 31 plant species (some with several cultivars tested) representing 22 families of economic and ecological importance. The results showed that only waterlettuce(Pistia stratiotes), another abundant weed in Mexico, was infected byC. piaropi. The use of those pathogens in the biological control of waterhyacinth would not be expected to affect plants of economic and ecological importance in Mexico.     

Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows

Weed control within crop rows is one of the main problems in organic farming. For centuries, different weed removal tools have been used to reduce weeds in the crop rows. Stimulated by the demand from organic farmers, research in several European countries over the last decade has focused on mechanisation using harrowing, torsion finger weeding and weeding with compressed air (Pneumat). Intelligent weeders are now being developed which offer more advanced ways to control weeds, including larger ones and to leave the crop plants unharmed. One of the first commercially available intelligent weeders, the Sarl Radis from France, has a simple crop detection system based on light interception, which guides a hoe in and out of the crop row, around the crop plants. The inclusion of innovative technologies, including advanced sensing and robotics, in combination with new cropping systems, might lead to a breakthrough in physical weed control in row crops leading to significant reductions, or even elimination, of the need for hand weeding.     

Direct and host‐mediated interactions between Fusarium pathogens and herbivorous arthropods in cereals

Fusarium head blight and fusarium ear rot diseases of cereal crops are significant global problems, causing yield and grain quality losses and accumulation of harmful mycotoxins. Safety limits have been set by the European Commission for several Fusarium‐produced mycotoxins; mitigating the risk of breaching these limits is of great importance to crop producers as part of an integrated approach to disease management. This review examines current knowledge regarding the role of arthropods in disease epidemiology. In the field, diseased host plants are likely to interact with arthropods that may substantially impact the disease by influencing spread or condition of the shared host. For example, disease progress by Fusarium graminearum can be doubled if wheat plants are aphid‐infested. Arthropods have been implicated in disease epidemiology in several cases and the evidence ranges from observed correlations between arthropod infestation and increased disease severity and mycotoxin accumulation, to experimental evidence for arthropod infestation causing heightened pathogen prevalence in hosts. Fusarium pathogens differ in spore production and impact on host volatile chemistry, which influences their suitability for arthropod dispersal. Herbivores may allow secondary fungal infection after wounding a plant or they may alter host susceptibility by inducing changes in plant defence pathways. Post‐harvest, during storage, arthropods may also interact with Fusarium pathogens, with instances of fungivory and altered behaviour by arthropods towards volatile chemicals from infected grain. Host‐mediated indirect pathogen–arthropod interactions are discussed alongside a comprehensive review of evidence for direct interactions where arthropods act as vectors for inoculum.     

To what extent are soil amendments useful to control Verticillium wilt?

The genus Verticillium includes several species that attack economically important crops throughout the world. The control of Verticillium spp. becomes especially difficult when they form microsclerotia that can survive in the field soil for several years. It has been common practice to fumigate soil with chemicals such as methyl bromide and/or chloropicrin to control soil‐borne fungal pathogens. Other chemicals that are used against Verticillium spp. are the antifungal antibiotic aureofungin, the fungicides benomyl, captan, carbendazim, thiram, azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin and the plant defence activator acibenzolar‐S‐methyl. However, the potential risks involved in applying phytochemicals to crop plants for both the environment and human health, together with their limited efficacy for controlling Verticillium‐induced diseases, support the need to find alternatives to replace their use or improve their efficacy. Soil amendment with animal or plant organic debris is a cultural practice that has long been used to control Verticillium spp. However, today the organic farming industry is becoming a significant player in the global agricultural production scene. In this review, some of the main results concerning the efficacy of several soil amendments as plant protectors against Verticillium spp. are covered, and the limitations and future perspectives of such products are discussed in terms of the control of plant diseases. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry     

Induced Systemic Resistance and Promotion of Plant Growth by Bacillus spp

ABSTRACT Elicitation of induced systemic resistance (ISR) by plant-associated bacteria was initially demonstrated using Pseudomonas spp. and other gram-negative bacteria. Several reviews have summarized various aspects of the large volume of literature on Pseudomonas spp. as elicitors of ISR. Fewer published accounts of ISR by Bacillus spp. are available, and we review this literature for the first time. Published results are summarized showing that specific strains of the species B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. pasteurii, B. cereus, B. pumilus, B. mycoides, and B. sphaericus elicit significant reductions in the incidence or severity of various diseases on a diversity of hosts. Elicitation of ISR by these strains has been demonstrated in greenhouse or field trials on tomato, bell pepper, muskmelon, watermelon, sugar beet, tobacco, Arabidopsis sp., cucumber, loblolly pine, and two tropical crops (long cayenne pepper and green kuang futsoi). Protection resulting from ISR elicited by Bacillus spp. has been reported against leaf-spotting fungal and bacterial pathogens, systemic viruses, a crown-rotting fungal pathogen, root-knot nematodes, and a stem-blight fungal pathogen as well as damping-off, blue mold, and late blight diseases. Reductions in populations of three insect vectors have also been noted in the field: striped and spotted cucumber beetles that transmit cucurbit wilt disease and the silver leaf whitefly that transmits Tomato mottle virus. In most cases, Bacillus spp. that elicit ISR also elicit plant growth promotion. Studies on mechanisms indicate that elicitation of ISR by Bacillus spp. is associated with ultrastructural changes in plants during pathogen attack and with cytochemical alterations. Investigations into the signal transduction pathways of elicited plants suggest that Bacillus spp. activate some of the same pathways as Pseudomonas spp. and some additional pathways. For example, ISR elicited by several strains of Bacillus spp. is independent of salicylic acid but dependent on jasmonic acid, ethylene, and the regulatory gene NPR1-results that are in agreement with the model for ISR elicited by Pseudomonas spp. However, in other cases, ISR elicited by Bacillus spp. is dependent on salicylic acid and independent of jasmonic acid and NPR1. In addition, while ISR by Pseudomonas spp. does not lead to accumulation of the defense gene PR1 in plants, in some cases, ISR by Bacillus spp. does. Based on the strains and results summarized in this review, two products for commercial agriculture have been developed, one aimed mainly at plant growth promotion for transplanted vegetables and one, which has received registration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for disease protection on soybean.     

Development of lowland weed management and weed succession in Japan

Since the introduction of rice production in Japan, lowland areas have been managed for rice production with the purpose of better rice growth, as well as lesser weed infestation. Rice is cropped every year in lowland fields by repeated cultivation of a single crop, with high yields and without soil sickness usually being observed in upland fields. This is probably because the irrigation water supplies various nutrients for healthy rice growth and the drainage washes out and removes harmful factors. However, until recently, the wet or flooded conditions of lowland fields in the Asian monsoon region never have allowed humans to cultivate useful summer crops, except rice or some aquatic plants. Therefore, the management of lowland areas in the Asian monsoon region has been significantly different from European field management, where crop rotation has been the traditional standard practice. Paddy weeds are aquatic plants or hygrophytes that have adapted to lowland fields. Traditionally, tillage and puddling were practiced seasonally in lowland fields on a regular schedule every year. Rice cultivation technology was developed and supported by regional irrigation systems that created stable environments for typical paddy weeds to complete their life cycle. After the introduction of chemical weed control, rice fields became very severe habitats for these paddy weeds, where they could not grow and reproduce without strategies for survival under herbicide exposure. Even so, many of the traditional paddy weeds survived because of their accumulated or uneradicated seed banks, although several aquatic plants were listed as endangered or threatened species. The important weed species changed, sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly, depending both on their reproductive system and their biological response towards field management and weed control systems. Very recently, the level of perennial weeds, herbicide‐resistant weeds, and weedy rice has increased in paddy fields that are highly dependent on herbicide use. In addition, several hygrophyte species have invaded paddy fields. In order to address these issues, the improvement and application of integrated weed management methods are expected to be critical.