Herbicide Resistance Management: Recent Developments and Trends

Beckie, Hugh J.; Ashworth, Michael B.; Flower, Ken

doi:10.3390/plants8060161

Cited by 114 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, alternative herbicides can be used (alone, in mixtures or in sequence) in order to control the herbicide resistant weeds. Unfortunately, we can't rely on many new herbicide discoveries since developing and registering a new herbicide could cost more than 300 million dollars (Beckie et al, 2019). Globally, there is also an increasing demand for a reduction in herbicides use and dependence (Böcker et al, 2018) and therefore, the role of non-chemical approaches is crucial.…”

Section: What About Management?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Herbicide Resistance in Weeds: Early Detection, Mechanisms, Dispersal, New Insights and Management Issues

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbicides are considered to be among the most widely used plant protection products. Weed management is mainly based on herbicide applications, partially due to their rapid action, high efficacy, and low cost (De Prado et al., 2004; Travlos et al., 2017). Chemical weed control by means of the use of herbicides was broadly adopted in many agricultural areas, reducing the labor costs and the mechanical means dependence. For instance, in USA, herbicide usage in 1950 accounted only for 5-10% of the total area in cotton, maize, and wheat fields, whereas in 1980 the corresponding value was 90-99% (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014). However, this tremendous over-reliance on herbicides along with the absence of any preventive or other cultural practices resulted in the evolution and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds (De

show abstract

Section: What About Management?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Herbicide Resistance in Weeds: Early Detection, Mechanisms, Dispersal, New Insights and Management Issues

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current study confirms the need for resistance monitoring in brome and the use of non‐chemical control methods and integrated weed management to be adopted as preventative strategies. 24 The accurate diagnosis of the types of resistance that are evolving is particularly important as this can direct the most effective intervention to slow or prevent the development of TSR and NTSR in brome species as well as other wild grass speices …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection and characterization of resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides in Anisantha and Bromus species in the United Kingdom

Davies

Onkokesung

Brazier-Hicks

et al. 2020

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Anisantha and Bromus spp. are widespread and difficult to control, potentially due to the evolution of herbicide resistance. In this study, UK populations of four brome species have been tested for the early development of resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides commonly used in their control.RESULTS: Glasshouse assays confirmed reduced sensitivity to ALS-inhibiting herbicides in single populations of A. diandra, B. commutatus and B. secalinus, and in three populations of A. sterilis. By contrast, all 60 brome populations tested were sensitive to the ACCase-inhibiting herbicide propaquizafop and glyphosate. Dose-response with two ALS herbicides showed broad-ranging resistance in the A. diandra, A. sterilis and B. commutatus populations. In the B. commutatus population, this was associated with a point mutation in the ALS enzyme conferring target site resistance (TSR). Additionally, resistant populations of A. sterilis and B. commutatus populations contained enhanced amounts of an orthologue of the glutathione transferase phi (F) class 1 (GSTF1) protein, a functional biomarker of nontarget site resistance (NTSR) in Alopecurus myosuroides. There was further evidence of NTSR as these plants also demonstrated an enhanced capacity to detoxify herbicides.CONCLUSION: This study confirms the evolution of resistance to ALS inhibiting herbicides in brome species in the UK by mechanisms consistent with the evolution of both TSR and NTSR. These findings point to the need for increased vigilance in detecting and mitigating against the evolution of herbicide resistance in brome species in Northern Europe.

show abstract

“…Guidelines for future herbicide-resistant weed management globally should focus on avoiding a general use of reduced herbicide, especially glyphosate [36]. Successful integrated weed management strategies should aim at decreasing weed seed banks and reducing herbicide use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity Analysis of Italian Lolium spp. to Glyphosate in Agricultural Environments

Panozzo

Collavo

Sattin

2020

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical observations generally indicate a shifting and decreased Lolium spp. susceptibility to glyphosate in Italy. This is likely due to the long history of glyphosate use and to the sub-lethal doses commonly used. There is, therefore, a need to determine the variability of response of Lolium spp. to glyphosate and identify the optimum field dose. To perform a sensitivity analysis on Lolium spp. populations in an agriculture area, collection sites were mainly chosen where glyphosate had not been applied intensely. Known glyphosate-resistant or in-shifting populations were included. Two outdoor dose-response pot experiments, including eleven doses of glyphosate, were conducted. The dose to control at least 93%–95% of susceptible Lolium spp. was around 450 g a.e. ha−1. However, to preserve its efficacy in the long term, it would be desirable not to have survivors, and this was reached at a glyphosate dose of 560 ± 88 g a.e. ha−1. Taking into account the variability of response among populations, it was established that the optimal dose of glyphosate to control Lolium spp. in Italy up to the stage BBCH 21 has to be at least 700 g a.e. ha−1. As a consequence, it is recommended to increase the label recommended field rate for Lolium spp. control in Italy to a minimum of 720 g a.e. ha−1.

show abstract

Herbicide Resistance Management: Recent Developments and Trends

Cited by 114 publications

References 45 publications

Editorial: Herbicide Resistance in Weeds: Early Detection, Mechanisms, Dispersal, New Insights and Management Issues

Editorial: Herbicide Resistance in Weeds: Early Detection, Mechanisms, Dispersal, New Insights and Management Issues

Detection and characterization of resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides in Anisantha and Bromus species in the United Kingdom

Sensitivity Analysis of Italian Lolium spp. to Glyphosate in Agricultural Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About