Next Article in Journal
Effect of Deposition Aids Tank-Mixed with Herbicides on Cotton and Soybean Canopy Deposition and Spray Droplet Parameters
Previous Article in Journal
Potential Non-Invasive Technique for Accessing Plant Water Contents Using a Radar System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Confirmation and Characterization of the First Case of Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibitor—Resistant Wild Buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.) in the United States
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management

1
Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Research, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya’ar Research Center, Ramat-Yishai 30095, Israel
2
The Robert H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020280
Submission received: 24 December 2020 / Revised: 28 January 2021 / Accepted: 29 January 2021 / Published: 3 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management)
Herbicides are the most efficient and cost-effective means of weed management. Over the years, intensive use of herbicides, their misapplication, and inappropriate use, as well as stricter herbicide registration requirements and environmental regulations, resulted in a drastic decline in available active ingredients, which has led to strong selection pressure and evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds (http://www.weedscience.com) throughout the world, especially in intensive agro-systems (e.g., monoculture, and herbicide-tolerant crops). Herbicide resistance is driven by either target site (TS) and non-target site (NTS) mechanisms. TS resistance involves alteration of herbicide efficacy via structural modifications of the binding site or overexpression of its target gene [1]. NTS resistance is associated with various anatomical, cellular and physiological processes, such as reduced absorption and translocation, modified subcellular distribution, and detoxification of the herbicide. The evolution of resistance to a specific herbicide comes with a fitness penalty (i.e., fitness cost), characterized by a reduction in the ability of an organism to survive and/or reproduce when the selective pressure is removed [2]. Yet, at the same time, the fitness of herbicide-resistant populations may also result in an advantage related to altered activity of in planta processes under different environmental conditions. The fitness penalty associated with TS mutations is mainly related to reduced substrate affinity due to structural modification, while in the NTS resistance mechanism, the fitness may originate at the expense of other metabolic functions.
Managing resistant weeds is one of the major challenges in ensuring future global food security and sustainability. The papers that comprise this Special Issue on “Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management”, address various aspects of this pressing challenge, including herbicide resistance reports, and elucidation of resistance mechanisms and the fitness of resistant weed species under different environmental conditions (G × E interaction). Moreover, they offer alternative management practices to minimize the impact of resistant populations.
Identification and characterization of new cases of herbicide-resistant weed populations play a key role in understanding the distribution and severity of this problem, and in mitigating failed weed control efforts. Herbicide resistance studies should include elucidation of related resistance mechanisms to broaden our understanding of its evolution. Vijayarajan et al. [3] reported on the first case of Avena fatua resistance to ACCase inhibitors in Ireland. Variability in the levels of resistance and cross-resistance to various ACCase inhibitors (e.g., pinoxaden, propaquizafop and cycloxydim) was identified and characterized. Matzrafi et al. [4] tested the resistance of two Mediterranean weeds, Diplotaxis erucoides and Erucaria hispanica, to various acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors. Herbicide-resistant populations demonstrated resistance to all tested ALS inhibitors associated with various TS mutations in the ALS gene sequence. Auxinic herbicides, 2,4-D, and mecoprop-P, were suggested as a potential alternative for the management of these resistant populations. Pandian et al. [5] reported on the first case of TS resistance to ALS inhibitors in a Polygonum convolvulus population from KS, USA. McKenzie-Gopsill et al. [6] described TS resistance of Chenopodium album to metribuzin, a photosystem II-inhibiting herbicide. The authors also demonstrated alternative herbicide application for weed control in the Atlantic Canadian potato agro-system to overcome the development of herbicide resistance. Mendez et al. [7] investigated the response of Euphorbia heterophylla to imazamox in Brazil. High levels of resistance (>123-fold) were found, and were associated with a Trp574Leu mutation in the ALS gene sequence. Travlos et al. [8] evaluated the efficacy of penoxsulam, profoxydim, cycloxydim, cyhalofop-butyl, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, and glyphosate in controlling Echinochloa colona, and reported on the first glyphosate-resistant populations in Greece. Overall, these studies provide fundamental information on the evolutionary development of herbicide-resistant weeds and highlight the selection process involved in the development of the resistance.
Several papers in this Special Issue present alternative weed management tools, which, in most cases, involve substitute herbicides and alternative methods of application. After testing potential weed management strategies to control glyphosate-resistant Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), Bararpour et al. [9] proposed that early post-emergence application of flufenacet/metribuzin, followed by late post-emergence application of pinoxaden may be used as an alternative treatment. Furthermore, the authors highlighted the importance of seedbank suppression as a long-term strategy to prevent the buildup of an herbicide-resistant field population. Matzrafi et al. [10] assessed the potential of sub-lethal glufosinate rates to select for reduced susceptibility of L. perenne ssp. multiflorum, and cross-resistance to herbicides with different modes of actions. After three generations of selection, the progeny survival rates were higher than those of the parental population, suggesting that reduced susceptibility to glufosinate can evolve in weed populations following repeated applications of low herbicide rates. Kelly et al. [11] examined the effect of integrated weed management using post-emergence herbicide application and strategic defoliation by mowing on the control of Hordeum murinum subsp. glaucum in Australia. Propaquizafop was found to be effective for the control of this weed, as shown by a 98% decrease in H. murinum subsp. glaucum survival and seed production. Integrated with herbicide application, a single repeated mowing treatment resulted in a 95% decline in H. murinum subsp. glaucum seedling emergence. Both means, herbicide use and mowing, were affected by application time and environmental conditions.
Loureiro et al. [12] studied the potential addition of herbicide-tolerant maize to an integrated weed management program in Spain. Reduced herbicide application and changes in weed community composition were observed using glyphosate-tolerant maize. Herbicide resistance may also correlate with changes in other life-history traits, such as germination, flowering initiation time, and response to environmental cues. In their evaluation of the possible interaction between herbicide resistance and salinity on germination of Italian weedy rice and cultivated rice (Oryza sativa), Fogliatto et al. [13] found that the resistant line was more affected by salinity and showed reduced seed germination at high salt concentrations.
Several aspects should be further explored in the context of herbicide resistance and reduced herbicide sensitivity. Studies relating to more basic scientific questions such as regulatory elements, epigenetic alterations, and transcription factors, major players in the evolution of herbicide-resistance, are needed to enhance our understanding of resistance evolution [14]. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence suggesting that extreme weather events play a crucial role in the determination of herbicide efficacy [15]. In light of the predicted global climate change, studies exploring these interactions are of high importance.
While this focus has been of great interest as of late, further research on the development of integrated weed management approaches to address herbicide-resistant weeds is required [16,17,18]. We are pleased to report that two papers on this topic are presented in the current Special Issue [11,12]. However, more efforts should be pointed toward this urgent issue in the near future.
Emerging technologies offer improved opportunities to modify or develop technology and machinery for use in weed seed destruction, for example [19], and offer cost-effective solutions that were previously not feasible, such as weed management through the use of lasers or by electrocution. As new and improved non-chemical control options have received greater attention in recent research across the globe, integrated weed management systems that utilize these tools must be considered, especially for cropping systems with a high probability of herbicide resistance evolution, as in roadside, broadacre, and horticultural cropping systems, or those employing herbicide-tolerant crops.

Author Contributions

All authors equally contributed to the conceptualization, original draft preparation, and review and editing of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Délye, C.; Jasieniuk, M.; Le Corre, V. Deciphering the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds. Trends Genet. 2013, 29, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vila-Aiub, M.M.; Gundel, P.E.; Preston, C. Experimental methods for estimation of plant fitness costs associated with herbicide-resistance genes. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Vijayarajan, V.B.A.; Forristal, P.D.; Cook, S.K.; Staples, J.; Schilder, D.; Hennessy, M.; Barth, S. First report on assessing the severity of herbicide resistance to ACCase inhibitors pinoxaden, propaquizafop and cycloxydim in six Avena fatua populations in Ireland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Matzrafi, M.; Gerson, O.; Sibony, M.; Rubin, B. Target site resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors in Diplotaxis erucoides and Erucaria hispanica – Mechanism of resistance and response to alternative herbicides. Agronomy 2020, 10, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Pandian, B.A.; Friesen, A.; Laforest, M.; Peterson, D.E.; Vara Prasad, P.V.; Jugulam, M. Confirmation and characterization of the first case of acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibitor—resistant wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) in the United States. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McKenzie-Gopsill, A.; Graham, G.; Laforest, M.; Ibarra, S.; Hann, S.; Wagg, C. Occurrence and management of PSII-inhibitor-resistant Chenopodium album L. In atlantic Canadian potato production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mendes, R.R.; Oliveira, J.R.S.; Takano, H.K.; Adegas, F.S.; Gaines, T.A.; Dayan, F.E. A Trp574Leu target-site mutation confers imazamox resistance in multiple herbicide-resistant wild poinsettia populations from Brazil. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Travlos, I.; Kanatas, P.; Tsekoura, A.; Gazoulis, I.; Papastylianou, P.; Kakabouki, I.; Antonopoulos, N. Efficacy of different herbicides on Echinochloa colona (L.) link control and the first case of its glyphosate resistance in Greece. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bararpour, T.; Bond, J.A.; Singh, G.; Hale, R.R.; Edwards, M.; Lawrence, B.H. Glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. spp. multiflorum) control and seed suppression in Mississippi. Agronomy 2020, 10, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Matzrafi, M.; Morran, S.; Jasieniuk, M. Recurrent selection with glufosinate at low rates reduces the susceptibility of a Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum population to glufosinate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kelly, J.E.; Chambers, A.J.; Weston, P.A.; Brown, W.B.; Robinson, W.A.; Broster, J.C.; Weston, L.A. The impact of herbicide application and defoliation on barley grass (Hordeum murinum subsp. glaucum) management in mixed pasture legumes. Agronomy 2020, 10, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Loureiro, I.; Santin-Montanyá, I.; Escorial, M.C.; García-Ruiz, E.; Cobos, G.; Sánchez-Ramos, I.; Pascual, S.; González-Núñez, M.; Chueca, M.C. Glyphosate as a tool for the incorporation of new herbicide options in integrated weed management in maize: A weed dynamics evaluation. Agronomy 2019, 9, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Fogliatto, S.; Serra, F.; Patrucco, L.; Milan, M.; Vidotto, F. Effect of different water salinity levels on the germination of imazamox-resistant and sensitive weedy rice and cultivated rice. Agronomy 2019, 9, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Dyer, W.E. Stress-induced evolution of herbicide resistance and related pleiotropic effects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1759–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Matzrafi, M. Climate change exacerbates pest damage through reduced pesticide efficacy. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Oliveira, M.C.; Osipitan, O.A.; Begcy, K.; Werle, R. Cover crops, hormones and herbicides: Priming an inte-grated weed management strategy. Plant Sci. 2020, 301, 110550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Beckie, H.J. Beneficial management practices to combat herbicide-resistant grass weeds in the Northern Great Plains. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Owen, M.D.K.; Beckie, H.J.; Leeson, J.Y.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Steckel, L.E. Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Walsh, M.J.; Harrington, R.B.; Powles, S.B. Harrington seed destructor: A new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci. 2012, 52, 1343–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matzrafi, M.; Peleg, Z.; Lati, R. Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management. Agronomy 2021, 11, 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020280

AMA Style

Matzrafi M, Peleg Z, Lati R. Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management. Agronomy. 2021; 11(2):280. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matzrafi, Maor, Zvi Peleg, and Ran Lati. 2021. "Herbicide Resistance in Weed Management" Agronomy 11, no. 2: 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop