Herbicide resistance management strategies: How do they compare with those for insecticides, fungicides and antibiotics?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh J Beckie ◽  
Roberto Busi ◽  
Francisco J Lopez‐Ruiz ◽  
Paul A Umina
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management

Genetic Aspects of Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Christoffers
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Selection Pressure ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Frequency Increase ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Case Basis

Weed populations develop herbicide resistance when they evolve due to selection pressure. Mutations and gene flow contribute to genetic variability and provide resistant alleles. The speed of resistance gene frequency increase is determined by the inheritance of resistance alleles relative to wild-type susceptibility and is influenced by the interaction between gene expression and selection. The goal of herbicide resistance management is to minimize selection pressure while maintaining adequate weed control. However, the specific nature of each herbicide, weed, and resistance combination determines the practices that optimize undesirable selection pressure. Therefore, generalized management strategies should be recommended with caution and must not be mandated without thorough evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

scholarly journals Mechanisms of evolved herbicide resistance

2020 ◽  
Vol 295 (30) ◽  
pp. 10307-10330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd A. Gaines ◽  
Stephen O. Duke ◽  
Sarah Morran ◽  
Carlos A. G. Rigon ◽  
Patrick J. Tranel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Cytochromes P450 ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Gene Families ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Large Gene ◽  
Aryl Acylamidase

The widely successful use of synthetic herbicides over the past 70 years has imposed strong and widespread selection pressure, leading to the evolution of herbicide resistance in hundreds of weed species. Both target-site resistance (TSR) and nontarget-site resistance (NTSR) mechanisms have evolved to most herbicide classes. TSR often involves mutations in genes encoding the protein targets of herbicides, affecting the binding of the herbicide either at or near catalytic domains or in regions affecting access to them. Most of these mutations are nonsynonymous SNPs, but polymorphisms in more than one codon or entire codon deletions have also evolved. Some herbicides bind multiple proteins, making the evolution of TSR mechanisms more difficult. Increased amounts of protein target, by increased gene expression or by gene duplication, are an important, albeit less common, TSR mechanism. NTSR mechanisms include reduced absorption or translocation and increased sequestration or metabolic degradation. The mechanisms that can contribute to NTSR are complex and often involve genes that are members of large gene families. For example, enzymes involved in herbicide metabolism–based resistances include cytochromes P450, GSH S-transferases, glucosyl and other transferases, aryl acylamidase, and others. Both TSR and NTSR mechanisms can combine at the individual level to produce higher resistance levels. The vast array of herbicide-resistance mechanisms for generalist (NTSR) and specialist (TSR and some NTSR) adaptations that have evolved over a few decades illustrate the evolutionary resilience of weed populations to extreme selection pressures. These evolutionary processes drive herbicide and herbicide-resistant crop development and resistance management strategies.

Comparisons Between Resistance Management Strategies for Insects and Weeds

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 830-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Gould
Keyword(s):  
Population Structure ◽  
Insecticide Resistance ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Resistance Literature ◽  
Resistance Evolution ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Structure Lead

Problems with insecticide resistance have long plagued the field of economic entomology. Genetic, biochemical, and ecological information on insects has been used to develop strategies to slow the rate of insecticide resistance evolution. Documented cases of herbicide resistance have increased dramatically over the past 10 yr. This paper compares some aspects of insect and weed biology that can be used in determining whether or not resistance management strategies developed for insects are likely to be useful in combating herbicide resistance. Differences between insects and weeds in terms of genetic architecture, mating systems, and population structure lead to differences in the expected efficacy of some resistance management strategies. Because of the localized population structure of some weeds, it may be easier to get farmers to participate in herbicide resistance management programs and avoid a “tragedy of the commons.” A review of the herbicide resistance literature reveals a number of areas of basic research on ecology and genetics of weeds that could help in designing more appropriate resistance management programs.

An outlook of FMC 's current and future herbicide‐resistance management strategies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahoor A Ganie ◽  
Timothy Obrigawitch ◽  
Il‐Ho Kang ◽  
Drake Copeland ◽  
Steven Gutteridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management

Managing herbicide resistance in China

Weed Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Xiangying Liu ◽  
Austin Merchant ◽  
Shihai Xiang ◽  
Tao Zong ◽  
Xuguo Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Acetolactate Synthase ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Future Research

Abstract Since its initial introduction in the late 1950s, chemical control has dominated weed management practices in China. Not surprisingly, the development of herbicide resistance has become the biggest threat to long-term, sustainable weed management in China. Given that China has followed the same laissez-faire approach toward resistance management that has been practiced in developed countries such as the United States, herbicide resistance has evolved rapidly and increased steadily over the years. Previously, we carried out a systematic review to quantitatively assess herbicide-resistance issues in China. In this review, our main objective is to focus on mechanistic studies and management practices to document the (1) history of herbicide application in China; (2) resistance mechanisms governing the eight most resistance-prone herbicide groups, including acetolactate synthase inhibitors, acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors, synthetic auxin herbicides, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase inhibitors, protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors, photosystem I electron diverters, photosystem II inhibitors, and long-chain fatty-acid inhibitors; and (3) herbicide-resistance management strategies commonly used in China, including chemical, cultural, biological, physical, and integrated approaches. At the end, perspectives and future research are discussed to address the pressing need for the development of integrated herbicide-resistance management in China.

scholarly journals Another view

Weed Science ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Neil Harker ◽  
Carol Mallory-Smith ◽  
Bruce D. Maxwell ◽  
David A. Mortensen ◽  
Richard G. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Profit Motive ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Science Discipline ◽  
Resistance To Herbicides ◽  
Weed Resistance

Weed resistance to herbicides occurs when herbicides are overused and can be mitigated by reducing their use. Consensus on herbicide resistance management strategies is problematic given strong industrial profit motive links in the weed science discipline.

scholarly journals Fitness of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds: Current Knowledge and Implications for Management

Plants ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vila-Aiub
Keyword(s):  
Life History ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Fitness Cost ◽  
Plant Fitness ◽  
Resistance Mutations ◽  
Fitness Costs ◽  
Wide Range

Herbicide resistance is the ultimate evidence of the extraordinary capacity of weeds to evolve under stressful conditions. Despite the extraordinary plant fitness advantage endowed by herbicide resistance mutations in agroecosystems under herbicide selection, resistance mutations are predicted to exhibit an adaptation cost (i.e., fitness cost), relative to the susceptible wild-type, in herbicide untreated conditions. Fitness costs associated with herbicide resistance mutations are not universal and their expression depends on the particular mutation, genetic background, dominance of the fitness cost, and environmental conditions. The detrimental effects of herbicide resistance mutations on plant fitness may arise as a direct impact on fitness-related traits and/or coevolution with changes in other life history traits that ultimately may lead to fitness costs under particular ecological conditions. This brings the idea that a “lower adaptive value” of herbicide resistance mutations represents an opportunity for the design of resistance management practices that could minimize the evolution of herbicide resistance. It is evident that the challenge for weed management practices aiming to control, minimize, or even reverse the frequency of resistance mutations in the agricultural landscape is to “create” those agroecological conditions that could expose, exploit, and exacerbate those life history and/or fitness traits affecting the evolution of herbicide resistance mutations. Ideally, resistance management should implement a wide range of cultural practices leading to environmentally mediated fitness costs associated with herbicide resistance mutations.

scholarly journals Seed production of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in response to time of emergence in cotton and rice

2011 ◽  
Vol 150 (6) ◽  
pp. 717-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. V. BAGAVATHIANNAN ◽  
J. K. NORSWORTHY ◽  
K. L. SMITH ◽  
P. NEVE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seed Production ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Simulation Models ◽  
Effective Resistance ◽  
Southern United States

SUMMARYThe spread of herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli(L.) Beauv.) poses a serious threat to crop production in the southern United States. A thorough knowledge of the biology of barnyardgrass is fundamental for designing effective resistance-management programmes. In the present study, seed production of barnyardgrass in response to time of emergence was investigated in cotton and rice, respectively, in Fayetteville and Rohwer, Arkansas, over a 2-year period (2008–09). Barnyardgrass seed production was greater when seedlings emerged with the crop, but some seed production was observed even if seedlings emerged several weeks after crop emergence. Moreover, barnyardgrass seed production was highly variable across environments. When emerging with the crop (0 weeks after crop emergence (WAE)), barnyardgrass producedc. 35 500 and 16 500 seeds/plant in cotton, andc. 39 000 and 2900 seeds/plant in rice, in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Seed production was observed when seedlings emerged up to 5 WAE (2008) or 7 WAE (2009) in cotton and up to 5 WAE (2008, 2009) in rice; corresponding seed production wasc. 2500 and 1500 seeds/plant in cotton, andc. 14 700 and 110 seeds/plant in rice, in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The results suggest that cultural approaches that delay the emergence of barnyardgrass or approaches that make the associated crop more competitive will be useful in integrated management programmes. In the context of herbicide resistance management, it may be valuable to prevent seed return to the seedbank, irrespective of cohorts. The findings are vital for parameterizing herbicide resistance simulation models for barnyardgrass.

Detection of oomycide-insensitive Phytophthora isolates in Maryland ornamental nurseries and Mid-Atlantic landscapes provide data for reconsidering management strategies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Beaulieu ◽  
Johanna Del Castillo Munera ◽  
Yilmaz Balci
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Mycelial Growth ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Phytophthora Species ◽  
Oak Forests ◽  
Relative Growth ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Potting Media ◽  
Almost All

Five Phytophthora species comprising a total of 243 isolates (77 P. cinnamomi, 23 P. citrophthora, 18 P. multivora, 18 P. pini, and 107 P. plurivora) were screened for sensitivity to mefenoxam, fosetyl-Al, dimethomorph, dimethomorph + ametoctradin and fluoxastrobin using amended agar assays. Mefenoxam-insensitive isolates were detected within P. cinnamomi (4%), P. multivora (11%), and P. plurivora (12%) even at approximately 2.5x the recommended label rate. These isolates were also insensitive to higher (off-label) concentrations of fluoxastrobin. Concentrations of dimethomorph (400 g/mL) and dimethomorph + ametoctradin (100 g/mL) were mostly effective in mycelial growth inhibition, but two P. plurivora isolates were insensitive, suggesting that resistance management is required. All mefenoxam-insensitive isolates were sensitive to fosetyl-Al at the label rate. Surprisingly, the populations of P. cinnamomi from mid-Atlantic oak forests included insensitive isolates. With almost all species, isolates recovered from asymptomatic hosts (e.g., soil/potting media collected of randomly selected asymptomatic hosts) had a significantly greater relative growth rate when compared to isolates recovered from symptomatic hosts (e.g., isolates recovered from lesions or wilted plants). These findings suggest that mefenoxam should no longer be used to manage oomycetes in Maryland ornamental nurseries and that the use of fluoxastrobin should be limited.

scholarly journals Managing Herbicide Resistance: Listening to the Perspectives of Practitioners. Procedures for Conducting Listening Sessions and an Evaluation of the Process

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Schroeder ◽  
Michael Barrett ◽  
David R. Shaw ◽  
Amy B. Asmus ◽  
Harold Coble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Full Group ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Small Group Discussions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractSeven half-day regional listening sessions were held between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide-resistance management. The objective of the listening sessions was to connect with stakeholders and hear their challenges and recommendations for addressing herbicide resistance. The coordinating team hired Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC, to facilitate all the sessions. They and the coordinating team used in-person meetings, teleconferences, and email to communicate and coordinate the activities leading up to each regional listening session. The agenda was the same across all sessions and included small-group discussions followed by reporting to the full group for discussion. The planning process was the same across all the sessions, although the selection of venue, time of day, and stakeholder participants differed to accommodate the differences among regions. The listening-session format required a great deal of work and flexibility on the part of the coordinating team and regional coordinators. Overall, the participant evaluations from the sessions were positive, with participants expressing appreciation that they were asked for their thoughts on the subject of herbicide resistance. This paper details the methods and processes used to conduct these regional listening sessions and provides an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document