Next Article in Journal
Molecular Simulation Study on the Adsorption Mechanisms of Microbial Components and Metabolic Products on Activated Carbon in HVAC Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Upcycling Coffee Waste: Key Industrial Activities for Advancing Circular Economy and Overcoming Commercialization Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Temporal Fusion Channel Network with Multi-Channel Hybrid Attention for the Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Rolling Bearings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Processes Reusing Potassium-Rich Biomass Ash as a Green Catalyst for Biodiesel Production: A Mini-Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/pr12122764
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Phosphite as a Sustainable and Versatile Alternative for Biostimulation, Biocontrol, and Weed Management in Modern Agriculture

by
Libia Iris Trejo-Téllez
1,
Víctor Hugo Carbajal-Vázquez
2,
Jazmín Lavín-Castañeda
3 and
Fernando Carlos Gómez-Merino
2,*
1
Laboratory of Plant Nutrition, Department of Soil Science, College of Postgraduates in Agricultural Sciences Montecillo Campus, Texcoco 56264, Mexico
2
Department of Plant Physiology, College of Postgraduates in Agricultural Sciences Montecillo Campus, Texcoco 56264, Mexico
3
Department of Tropical Agroecosystems, College of Postgraduates in Agricultural Sciences Veracruz Campus, Manlio F. Altamirano 91690, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2024, 12(12), 2764; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122764
Submission received: 11 October 2024 / Revised: 14 November 2024 / Accepted: 3 December 2024 / Published: 5 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Review Papers in Section "Environmental and Green Processes")
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phosphite (Phi), an analog of phosphate (Pi), is an anion widely used in phytosanitary management and agricultural biostimulation schemes. Given that, unlike some species of bacteria, plants do not naturally have the mechanisms to metabolize Phi once they have absorbed it, Phi must be used in perfect coordination with adequate nutritional management of Pi in the crop since an excessive level of Phi combined with a deficient supply of Pi causes a disruption in ionic balances that can result in serious toxicity or even the death of the plant. In addition to the adequate Phi/Pi balance, high doses of Phi by themselves cause alterations in the mechanisms of perception and response to phosphorus deficiency leading to toxicity in plants. Hence, in various plant species, it has been proven that Phi can be used with herbicidal effects. Genes that encode enzymes involved in the metabolization of Phi have been isolated from bacterial genomes, and they have been transferred by genetic engineering to plant genomes, allowing the development of dual fertilization and weed control systems. This review provides background on the novel uses of Phi in agriculture and breaks down its potential use as an alternative herbicide in sustainable agriculture approaches supported by green chemistry.

1. Introduction

Phosphorus (P) is an essential element in higher plants, which is absorbed as inorganic phosphate (Pi), mainly in the form of the anions H2PO4− and HPO42− [1]. In the plasma membrane of plant cells, Pi transport (PHT) proteins are responsible for the uptake and transport of Pi. Furthermore, PHT proteins are also capable of absorbing other forms of inorganic P, such as phosphite anions (Phi: H2PO3− and HPO32−). However, once inside the plant, Phi cannot replace Pi as a P source, and Phi can cause attenuation of Pi-starvation responses (PSR) and phytotoxic effects if not managed properly [2]. Consequently, Phi exacerbates the adverse effects of P deficiency by misleading Pi-deficient plant cells into perceiving that they are sufficient in Pi when, in fact, their Pi content is remarkably low or null. Thus, Phi effectively hampers the signal transduction pathway by which plants perceive and respond to Pi deficiency at the molecular level [3].
When analyzing the deprotonation process of phosphorous acid (H3PO3) and phosphoric acid (H3PO4) that gives rise to Phi and Pi anions, the formation of H2PO4− and H2PO3− is first observed, followed by HPO42− and HPO32−. Finally, the loss of the third proton is only possible in the HPO42− anion since in the HPO32− anion, the tetrahedral structure is formed with the binding of the proton to the P atom instead of the fourth O atom that the HPO42− anion does contain (Figure 1).
These structural chemical differences may seem of little importance. However, in practice, the mere substitution of an oxygen atom (O) for a hydrogen atom (H) has critical implications for the responses of plants to its application. Phosphate (Pi) acts as the main source of rapid-assimilation phosphorus in plants, while phosphite (Phi) cannot be metabolized in plant cells since they do not have the enzyme phosphite dehydrogenase (PTDH or PtxD) that can incorporate Phi into metabolic processes [4]. This causes the applied Phi to accumulate within the plant cells, which can trigger hormetic-type responses. Those responses can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, depending on the supply of Pi that the plant has, the doses of Phi applied, and the genotype of the plant in question, among other factors [5].
Given the chemical structure of phosphite (H2PO3−), it cannot have the same function as the phosphate anion (H2PO4−) in plants and, therefore, cannot be used as an appropriate source of phosphorus in conventional agricultural systems [2]. However, if Pi is properly supplied, Phi can have some beneficial effects as a biostimulant molecule capable of enhancing production, productivity, quality traits, and responses to abiotic stressors. To observe the beneficial effects of phosphite, the phosphate supply must be at least 50% of the total phosphorus, although it is recommended that it be between 70 and 80%, preferably. In strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa), for example, to have beneficial effects of Phi, its application should not exceed 30% of the total phosphorus to be applied in nutrient solution [6]. Importantly, since Phi is easily transported within plant cells via xylem and phloem, it can be applied in foliar sprays, drench of plant root and neck, injection trunk, through drip irrigation mixed in the nutrient solution in hydroponics, seed treatment, aerial application in low volume, or as treatment in immersion of seeds and fruits [7].
Phosphate (Pi) fertilizers are traditionally solid, have low water solubility and a low diffusion rate, and react strongly with the soil matrix. Given that phosphate is largely immobile in soil, only a small fraction is available for the crop. Phosphate is often fixed in the soil and becomes unusable because it is not available to the plant. Phosphate fertilizers must be applied to the soil at very high rates to affect plant nutrition. Once in the soil, Pi reaches the root surface via concentration gradient diffusion and is, therefore, only effective if it is located near the roots (Figure 2).
The commercial presentation of phosphite (Phi) is generally liquid. The three oxygen atoms increase the mobility of this anion in plant tissue. Phi can be applied both in the aerial part (leaves, stems, fruits) and underground (roots, tuberous roots, tubers, bulbs, corms, enlarged hypocotyls, rhizomes). Being a reduced form of Pi, Phi becomes a highly soluble ion that is absorbed and transported through the xylem and phloem to all plant tissues easily and more efficiently as compared to Pi (Figure 3) [8], but it is a little reactive and more stable in the soil [9], allowing it to be more available to plant roots than Pi.
The oxidation of Phi to Pi by microorganisms in the soil (i.e., bacteria and cyanobacteria) can take three to four months. Non-biological gradual oxidation of Phi can also occur in soil, but at a slower rate [10]. The fact that there are microorganisms in the soil capable of absorbing, assimilating, and metabolizing Phi [8] implies an impact on the Phi cycle, although such an impact does not necessarily result in a higher availability of Phi to the plant.
One of the main sources of phosphite synthesis is phosphorous acid (H3PO3). Phosphite salts derived from phosphorous acid can contain dihydrogen phosphite (H2PO3−) or monohydrogen phosphite (HPO32−) [11]. Some of the accompanying ions of phosphite salts can be aluminum (Al3+), calcium (Ca2+), potassium (K+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+), or ammonium (NH4+), among others [12].
Phosphorous acid is a chemically synthesized compound that does not occur in nature. In phytosanitary biocontrol schemes, phosphorous acid has a mixed form of action since it can act directly with toxic effects on pathogens, or it can activate intrinsic defense mechanisms in the plant itself [13]. This is why it is not classified as a conventional chemical product but rather within green chemistry in sustainable agriculture approaches. However, for phytosanitary regulation purposes, phosphorous acid and the phosphite salts synthesized from it may be subject to certain regulatory requirements.

2. Use of Phi in Biostimulation and Biocontrol

In conventional agriculture, where genetically modified crops are not used, the use of phosphite has gained importance in both biostimulation and biocontrol schemes [4]. Its use as a source of P in fertilization schemes in conventional crops is not feasible, given that plants naturally do not have the biochemical and molecular mechanisms that allow them to oxidize Phi into Pi [3].
The biostimulation of plant metabolism through the application of Phi has been documented in both gymnosperms [14] and angiosperms, both in monocotyledons and dicotyledons [5]. Regarding monocotyledons, Phi has shown biostimulant effects on onion (Allium cepa L.: Alliaceae) [15], sugarcane (Saccharum spp. L.: Poaceae) [16], and rice (Oryza sativa L.: Poaceae) [17], especially in growth indicators, nutritional balance, and quality. In dicotyledons, the biostimulant effects of Phi have been shown in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.: Fabaceae) [18], fruit trees such as mango (Mangifera indica L.: Anacardiaceae) [19], apple (Malus domestica Borkh.: Rosaceae) [20], and papaya (Carica papaya) [21], as well as in vegetables including chili (Capsicum annuum L. Solanaceae) [22], tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.: Solanaceae) [23] cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.: Cucurbitaceae) [24], and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.: Solanaceae) [25]. In species of the Brassica genus (family Brassicaceae), Phi stimulated the synthesis of nutraceutical compounds such as glucosinolates [26].
In biocontrol approaches, phosphite has been effective in controlling bacteria such as Streptomyces scabies (Lambert & Loria: Streptomycetaceae) [27], Pectobacterium carotovorum [formerly Erwinia carotovora] (Jones) Waldee: Pectobacteriaceae] [28], Erwinia amylovora (Rogers & Smith: Erwiniaceae) [29], and Penicillium expansum (Link: Trichocomaceae) [30]. The application of Phi can also be effective against oomycetes such as Peronospora destructor [(Berkeley) Caspary: Peronosporaceae] [15], Phytophthora cinnamomi (Rands: Peronosporaceae) [31], Phytophthora infestans [(Montagne) de Bary: Peronosporaceae] [32], and Plasmopara viticola [(Berkeley & Curtis) Berlese & de Toni: Peronosporaceae] [33]. Phi has also shown effectiveness in the control of fungi such as Alternaria altarnata [(Fr.) Keissl.: Pleosporaceae] [34], Cercospora coffeicola (Berkeley & Curtis: Mycosphaerellaceae) [35], Fusarium solani [(von Martius) Saccardo: Nectriaceae] and Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn: Ceratobasidiaceae) [36]. Nematodes such as Helicotylenchus spp. (Steiner: Hoplolaimidae) and Radopholus similis [(Cobb) Thorne: Pratylenchidae] [37], Heterodera avenae (Wollenweber: Heteroderidae) and Meloidogyne marylandi [Jepson & Golden: Meloidogynidae] [38], and Pratylenchus brachyurus [(Godfrey) Filipjev & Schuurmans-Stekhoven: Pratylenchidae] [39] can also be controlled with applications of Phi.
In oomycetes Phi disrupts cellular metabolism, causing a massive accumulation of polyphosphate (poly-P) and pyrophosphate (PPi). Due to this increase, key pyrophosphorylase reactions essential to anabolism are inhibited [3]. Indeed, Phi competes for phosphate binding sites in phosphorylating enzymes and causes alteration of the nucleotide pool in the pathogen, resulting in disruption of metabolism and growth inhibition. Importantly, Phi triggers a defense mechanism in plant cells. It induces the expression of defensive molecules, such as phytoalexins and pathogen-related (PR) proteins, to block the pathogen directly. These molecules send systemic alarm signals to the noninfected neighboring cells and induce defensive response mechanisms, including cell well modification via deposition of polysaccharides [9].
Phosphite acts systemically, being transported upward in the xylem and downward in the phloem to the roots, and has both protective and curative properties [40,41]. Both direct and indirect modes of action may occur, depending on the time interval between the phosphite application and the inoculation, the applied phosphite concentration, and the tolerance of the host and pathogen to phosphite [42,43]. As compared to other biocontrol agents, including Trichoderma gamsii and T. asperellum, phosphite (as potassium Phi) provides a higher level of control against Phytophthora capsici [44].
Phi and the salts that contain it show low or no toxicity in humans and the environment, which can expand its use in sustainable and safe agriculture approaches [45].

3. Phytotoxicity of Phosphite and Its Uses as an Herbicide

Under Pi deficiency conditions, Phi alters the concentrations of polyphosphates and pyrophosphates and inhibits several enzymes of the glycolysis pathway and the pentose phosphate pathway, thus interfering with P metabolism [46]. Likewise, it causes disruption of the activity of key enzymes related to responses to Pi starvation, such as acid phosphatases and high-affinity Pi transporters (i.e., PHT1) [3]. Thus, by tricking the Pi-starvation response, Phi results in significant changes in the levels of several central metabolites, including repression of anthocyanin accumulation in leaves and a strong growth arrest [47].
With the evidence that high concentrations of Phi applied in conditions of low Pi availability trigger phytotoxic effects in plants, evaluations were initiated to analyze the herbicidal power of Phi in weeds of agronomic importance. The first studies demonstrated the herbicidal effect of Phi on Brachypodium distachyon [(L.) P.Beauv.: Poaceae], Ipomoea purpurea (Roth: Convolvulaceae), Brachiaria plantaginea [(Link) Hitchcock: Poaceae], and Amaranthus hybridus (L.: Amaranthaceae) [48]. Subsequently, effective control of Phi was also demonstrated in a wide range of both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds [9,49,50,51]. In Table 1 and Table 2 we display the lists of weed species in which the herbicidal effect of Phi applied to the leaves or in solution to the soil has been evaluated. Some of these weeds dramatically affect the production of various crops in the world, and the constant application of conventional herbicides has generated genetic resistance in some cases, so the search for alternatives for their control and management, such as the use of Phi, offers a new window of opportunities [48,49,50,51].
The species Alopecurus aequalis has evolved high-level resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl and mesosulfuron-methyl and has shown different cross-resistance levels to other herbicides due to target-site mutations in acetolactate synthase and cytochrome P450 monooxygenase [52].
Amaranthus species are extremely problematic weeds due to their aggressiveness and resistance, A. palmeri, A. retroflexus, A. tuberculatus, and A. hybridus being the most prominent worldwide [53].
In soybean, the species Brachiaria plantaginea is the main grass weed, which has developed resistance to acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase)-inhibiting herbicides [54].
In temperate climates, the Brachypodium hybridum species represents one of the main limitations for crops, and it has shown resistance to herbicides that act as inhibitors of photosystem II [55].
In rice cultivation, the species Chloris barbata and C. radiata have shown resistance to glyphosate [56,57]. Ipomoea purpurea is a common agricultural weed that shows both within- and among-population variation in the level of glyphosate resistance [58]. Euphorbia hirta has shown no resistance to any herbicide evaluated, but is more susceptible to the combination of some herbicides, and the timing of application is essential to obtain success in controlling the species [59].
In rapeseed (Brassica napus) fields, Phi efficiently suppressed aggressive weeds such as Malachium aquaticum, Alopecurus aequalis, Rumex acetosa, and other naturally occurring weeds [51]. Herbicide resistance has also been reported for R. acetosa [60] and M. aquaticum [61].
Different weed species of the genus Oxalis can be very difficult to kill in most crop fields. They are highly resistant to weak herbicide products. The combinations of adequate control methods, such as plows, delay of sowing, and mulches together with residual or foliar herbicides, must be sought for each crop and climate, always considering the weed’s biological particularities [62].
Portulaca oleracea has demonstrated resistance against different herbicides, including linuron, atrazine diuron, cyanazine, and prometryn, but had a low level of negative cross-resistance to bromoxynil, while both resistant and susceptible biotypes of this species have proven sensitive to hexazinone and bentazon [63]. So far, Phyllanthes niruri has not been reported as herbicide-resistant [64].
In order to use the herbicidal power of Phi in dual fertilization and weed control schemes, transgenic plants capable of metabolizing Phi to convert it into Pi have been generated. López-Arredondo and Herrera-Estrella [48] discovered that overexpression of the bacterial phosphite dehydrogenase (ptxD) gene in Arabidopsis and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) led to the oxidation of Phi to Pi and its subsequent assimilation as fertilizer by transgenic plants. Subsequently, Manna et al. [49] reported similar results in transgenic rice plants that overexpressed the ptxD gene. In these transgenic systems, the efficiency of using Phi as fertilizer was close to 100%, given its high solubility and reduced reactivity with soil components and the non-utilization of Phi by most soil bacteria. These features make the supply of Phi more efficient compared to Pi [9].
The process of foliar herbicides being absorbed by plants is affected by several factors, including leaf surface (i.e., amount of epicuticular wax), herbicide type (i.e., pH and active ingredient), absorption barriers to reach the cytoplasm (i.e., cuticle, cell wall, and cell membrane), growth stage (small weeds are generally more susceptible), weed population (with different levels of herbicide susceptibility) and environmental conditions (light intensity, relative humidity, wind speed, etc.) [65]. If the herbicide reaches the soil, several processes, including adsorption to soil particles, movement to another location, and decomposition, will determine its persistence. Soil and herbicide characteristics regulate the adsorption of herbicide molecules onto particles of clay and organic matter [66]. Furthermore, climate change has demonstrated a positive impact on weed growth, negatively affecting the efficacy of many herbicides, which makes weed management a major challenge for sustainable crop production. Therefore, soil or foliar applications of Phi must be tightly regulated in order to guarantee its maximal efficacy.
In addition to the risk of Pi depletion in the near future, modern agricultural production systems must deal with weeds, and herbicides have become less effective in controlling those unwanted plants [49]. Therefore, there is a dire need to develop more efficient systems for the use of phosphorus and reduce the environmental impacts related to its excessive use. Recent advances in the development of transgenic plants have shown the potential use of Phi as a fertilizer once oxidized to Pi, an herbicide, and a selectable molecular marker useful in plant genetic transformation approaches with a wide spectrum of applications in plant biotechnology [9,48,49,67,68].
Like any novel technology, the use of Phi must be continually evaluated in order to monitor its impact on the development of weed resistance, the environment, and human health. In the soil microbiota, there may be strong selective pressure for microorganisms that can use Phi as a P source.
Though the technology has already been developed and the applications can increase in the near future, a pending task is to make these tools cost-effective.
To summarize, since Phi is structurally similar to Pi, it is absorbed by plants via Pi transporters, and thus, plants are not able to prevent its uptake. Due to this similarity, Phi has multiple targets of action inside the cell that would need to be altered to prevent interaction with Phi, which would be energetically costly for the cell and quite unlikely to happen. Potentially, weeds may become resistant to Phi by evolving the ability to metabolize or oxidize Phi, which would require the development of new molecular mechanisms (i.e., encoding a novel ptxD gene) in the weed genome. Nevertheless, gene gain, transfer, or loss takes millions of years [69], and, therefore, it is practically impossible for a plant species to gain a novel ptxD gene in a short span of time. Consequently, the use of Phi as an herbicide might decelerate the pace of the evolution of herbicide-tolerant weeds in nature, even if it does not halt them entirely [49].

4. Conclusions and Perspectives

Phosphite is considered among the green chemicals that have been used effectively in biostimulation and biocontrol approaches in agriculture. As an inorganic biostimulant, Phi can improve the yield and quality of crops, as well as trigger better responses against abiotic stress factors such as drought, salinity, extreme radiation, and temperatures, as well as contaminants. In biocontrol approaches, it has been demonstrated to be effective against a variety of bacteria, oomycetes, fungi, and nematodes, among other pathogens. Since plants do not have the molecular and enzymatic mechanism to convert Phi into Pi, Phi cannot be used as a P source for plant nutrition purposes. Its application with biostimulants or biocontrol purposes must be done when plants are supplied with sufficient Pi. If Pi sufficiency is not guaranteed, and the concentrations of Phi applied are high enough, Phi disrupts plant metabolism, causing toxic effects and even cell death. Therefore, the use of Phi as a potential herbicide has opened novel avenues in weed control. To date, it has been demonstrated that 15 of the most aggressive weeds worldwide have been efficiently controlled by Phi applications. Importantly, most of these weeds have developed resistance against common herbicides, thus challenging their control. Hence, Phi appears as an efficient and sustainable alternative for weed control.
It is worth mentioning that if not formulated correctly, products containing phosphite can have a phytotoxic effect on plants and can also interact with other components of tank mixes (i.e., microelements and pesticides), reducing their effectiveness [10,70]. Importantly, most phosphite products present on the market are positioned as fertilizers with fungicidal or biostimulant effects [66], though no one is positioned as herbicides. Furthermore, the efficacy levels of phosphite vary depending on the accompanying ion bound (potassium phosphite, calcium phosphite, among others), the method of application (via root or foliar), the environmental conditions, and the plant species [7,12,71]. In particular, the chemistry of phosphite compounds and the composition of products containing phosphite determine the effectiveness of the products or the presence of such effectiveness at all [45,72]. While both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous species have been reported to be susceptible to high doses of Phi, in practice, when used for wee control, Phi is more effective against dicotyledonous species [9,49]. Since the uptake, translocation, and distribution pathways used by common commercial herbicides are different from those employed by phosphite [73], they may be used in combination with other herbicides expecting a more effective effect.
Since the last decade, the development of biotechnological crops capable of expressing bacterial enzymes that can convert Phi into Pi (i.e., ptxD) has expanded the use of Phi as a source of P and, in turn, has made the development of Phi-resistant crops for efficient weed control feasible. Furthermore, when provided as the sole source of P in transgenic plants, it allows ptxD to be used as a selective marker, which has resulted in its use in numerous biotechnological and agricultural applications.
Though the potential use of Phi as a sustainable herbicide has been demonstrated, there is an urgent need for full economic evaluations and the development of cost-effective alternatives with applications in modern agriculture. This is particularly important because P is a non-renewable natural resource, while high-grade phosphate rock deposits are rapidly being depleted and claim that economically available deposits may be exhausted entirely within a century [74]. Limiting the consumption of P to essential uses, increasing the efficiency of agricultural use, and increasing recycling and recovery of P may substantially contribute to the reduction of demand for fossil P resources [75,76]. While in conventional agriculture, the benefits of Phi in biostimulation and biocontrol strategies have been fully demonstrated, in modern agricultural systems employing biotech crops, the use of Phi-based fertilization will help to reduce the consumption of Pi fertilizers and facilitate weed and pathogen control using the same ion, therefore providing significant advantages over current Pi-based fertilization [9,49]. Therefore, this technology opens new avenues for basic and applied research aimed at fostering modern agriculture, thus paving the way for sustainable agricultural practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C.G.-M. and L.I.T.-T.; methodology, F.C.G.-M. and J.L.-C.; validation, V.H.C.-V. and J.L.-C.; formal analysis; investigation, F.C.G.-M. and L.I.T.-T.; resources, L.I.T.-T. and F.C.G.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C.G.-M. and V.H.C.-V.; writing—review and editing, L.I.T.-T.; supervision, L.I.T.-T.; project administration, F.C.G.-M.; funding acquisition, F.C.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Funds for the development of sustainable and culturally appropriate alternatives to the use of glyphosate of the College of Postgraduates in Agricultural Sciences (CALL 2024-1; project CONV-GLIF-2024-18).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The National Council of Humanities, Sciences, and Technologies (CONAHCYT) from Mexico granted a postdoctoral fellowship to V.H.C.-V. (CVU 704278) and a Ph.D. scholarship to J.L.-C. (CVU 932230).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alcántar-González, G.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Gómez-Merino, F.C. Nutrición de Cultivos, 2nd ed.; Editorial Colegio de Postgraduados: Texcoco, Mexico, 2016; 443p. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I. Biostimulant activity of phosphite in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. McDonald, A.E.; Grant, B.R.; Plaxton, W.C. Phosphite (phosphorous acid): Its relevance in the environment and agriculture and influence on plant phosphate starvation response. J. Plant Nutr. 2001, 24, 1505–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Gómez-Merino, F.C. Phosphite as an inductor of adaptive responses to stress and stimulator of better plant performance. In Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants, 1st ed.; Vats, S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 203–238. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Gómez-Trejo, L.F.; Ruvalcaba-Ramírez, R.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I. Application of phosphite as a biostimulant in agriculture. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1st ed.; Singh, H.B., Vaishnav, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 135–153. [Google Scholar]
  6. Estrada-Ortiz, E.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Nuñez-Escobar, R.; Sandoval-Villa, M. Biochemical responses in strawberry plants supplying phosphorus in the form of phosphite. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 2011, 17, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yáñez-Juárez, M.G.; López-Orona, C.A.; Ayala-Tafoya, F.; Partida-Ruvalcaba, L.; Velázquez-Alcaraz, T.J.; Medina-López, R. Phosphites as alternative for the management of phytopathological problems. Mex. J. Phytopathol. 2018, 36, 79–94. [Google Scholar]
  8. Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Wu, Y.; Hu, J.; Cong, H.L.; Yang, C.; Fu, J.; Sun, J. Changes in soil properties and the phoD-harboring bacteria of the alfalfa field in response to phosphite treatment. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, e1013896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Achary, V.M.M.; Ram, B.; Manna, M.; Datta, D.; Bhatt, A.; Reddy, M.K.; Agrawal, P.K. Phosphite: A novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 1493–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Lovatt, C.J.; Mikkelsen, R.L. Phosphite fertilizers: What are they? Can you use them? What can they do? Better Crop. 2006, 90, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  11. Havlin, J.L.; Schlegel, A.J. Review of phosphite as a plant nutrient and fungicide. Soil Syst. 2021, 5, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Morales-Morales, E.J.; Martínez-Campos, A.R.; López-Sandoval, J.A.; Castillo-González, A.M.; Rubí-Arriaga, M. Phosphites and their applications in agriculture. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2022, 13, 345–354. [Google Scholar]
  13. EPA–Environmental Protection Agency. Mono-and Di-Potassium Salts of Phosphorous Acid (076416) Fact Sheet. 1998. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-076416_1-Oct-98.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2024).
  14. Cerqueira, A.; Alves, A.; Berenguer, H.; Correia, B.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Diez, J.J.; Monteiro, P.; Pinto, G. Phosphite shifts physiological and hormonal profile of Monterey pine and delays Fusarium circinatum progression. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 114, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Velendia-Monsalve, J.; Viteri-Rosero, S.E.; Rubio-Cárdenas, N.J.; Tovar-Duarte, F.O. Efecto del fosfito de potasio en combinación con el fungicida metalaxyl + mancozeb en el control de mildeo velloso (Peronospora destructor Berk) en cebolla de bulbo (Allium cepa L.). Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín 2012, 65, 6317–6325. [Google Scholar]
  16. Raposo-Junior, L.L.; Gomes, N.J.A.; Silva, S.L.V. Evaluation of different foliar fertilizers on the crop production of sugarcane. J. Plant Nutr. 2013, 36, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Martínez, S. Effects of combined application of potassium phosphite and fungicide on stem and sheath disease control, yield, and quality of rice. Crop Prot. 2016, 89, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Figueira, E.P.P.; Kuhn, O.J.; Martinazzo-Portz, T.; Stangarlin, J.R.; Peliçon, P.M.M.; Lampugnani, C. Histochemical changes induced by Trichoderma spp. and potassium phosphite in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in response to the attack by Colletotrichum lindemuthianum. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 2020, 41, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Araujo, L.; Silva, B.W.M.; Rios, V.S.; Fernandes, S.A.; Rodrigues, F.A. Induction of the phenylpropanoid pathway by acibenzolar-s-methyl and potassium phosphite increases mango resistance to Ceratocystis fimbriata infection. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Felipini, R.B.; Boneti, J.I.; Katsurayama, Y.; Rocha, N.A.C.; Veleirinho, B.; Maraschin, M.; di Piero, R.M. Apple scab control and activation of plant defence responses using potassium phosphite and chitosan. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 145, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Oliveira, S.T.A.; Blum, L.E.B.; Duarte, E.A.A.; Luz, E.D.M.N. Reduction of papaya rot (Phytophthora palmivora) with phosphite and acibenzolar-s-methyl in preharvest and postharvest. Biosci. J. 2018, 34, 1522–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, P.; Li, B.; Lin, M.; Chen, G.; Ding, X.; Weng, Q.; Chen, Q. Phosphite-induced reactive oxygen species production and ethylene and ABA biosynthesis, mediate the control of Phytophthora capsici in pepper (Capsicum annuum). Funct. Plant Biol. 2016, 43, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vinas, M.; Mendez, J.C.; Jiménez, V.M. Effect of foliar applications of phosphites on growth, nutritional status and defense responses in tomato plants. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 256, e109200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ramezani, M.; Rahmani, F.; Dehestani, A. Comparison between the effects of potassium phosphite and chitosan on changes in the concentration of cucurbitacin E and on antibacterial property of Cucumis sativus. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, e295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Han, X.; Xi, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Mohammadi, M.A.; Joshi, J.; Borza, T.; Wang-Pruski, G. Effects of phosphite as a plant biostimulant on metabolism and stress response for better plant performance in Solanum tuberosum. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 210, e111873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Estrada-Ortiz, E.; Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Becker, C.; Krumbein, A.; Schwarz, D. Flavonoid, nitrate and glucosinolate concentrations in Brassica species are differentially affected by photosynthetically active radiation, phosphate and phosphite. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, e371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lobato, M.C.; Olivieri, F.P.; Daleo, G.R.; Abreu, A.B. Antimicrobial activity of phosphites against different potato pathogens. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2010, 1171, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lobato, M.C.; Machinandiarena, M.F.; Tambascio, C.; Dosio, G.A.A.; Caldiz, D.O.; Daleo, G.R.; Andreu, A.B.; Olivieri, F.P. Effect of foliar applications of phosphite on post-harvest potato tubers. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 130, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aćimović, S.G.; Zeng, Q.; McGhee, G.C.; Sundin, G.W.; Wise, J.C. Control of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) on apple trees with trunk-injected plant resistance inducers and antibiotics and assessment of induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, e16. [Google Scholar]
  30. Amiri, A.; Bompeix, G. Control of Penicillium expansum with potassium phosphite and heat treatment. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Akinsanmi, O.A.; Drenth, A. Phosphite and metalaxyl rejuvenate macadamia trees in decline caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Crop Prot. 2013, 53, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liljeroth, E.; Lankinen, Å.; Wiik, L.; Burra, D.D.; Alexandersson, E.; Andreasson, E. Potassium phosphite combined with reduced doses of fungicides provides efficient protection against potato late blight in large-scale field trials. Crop Prot. 2016, 86, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pinto, K.M.S.; do Nascimento, L.C.; Gomes, E.C.S.; da Silva, H.F.; Miranda, J.R. Efficiency of resistance elicitors in the management of grapevine downy mildew Plasmopara viticola: Epidemiological, biochemical and economic aspects. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 134, 745–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reuveni, M.; Sheglov, D.; Cohen, Y. Control of moldy-core decay in apple fruits by β-aminobutyric acids and potassium phosphites. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 933–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Costa, G.B.H.; de Resende, M.L.V.; Ribeiro, J.P.M.; Mathioni, M.S.M.; da Silva, J.P.; da Silva, J.M.B. Suppression of rust and brown eye spot diseases on coffee by phosphites and by-products of coffee and citrus industries. J. Phytopathol. 2014, 162, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lobato, M.C.; Olivieri, F.P.; González, A.E.A.; Wolski, E.A.; Daleo, G.R.; Caldiz, D.O.; Andreu, A.B. Phosphite compounds reduce disease severity in potato seed tubers and foliage. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2008, 122, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Quintero-Vargas, C.; Castaño-Zapata, J. Evaluación de inductores de resistencia para el manejo de nematodos fitoparásitos en plántulas de plátano. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. 2012, 36, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Oka, Y.; Tkachi, N.; Mor, M. Phosphite inhibits development of the nematodes Heterodera avenae and Meloidogyne marylandi in cereals. Phytopathology 2007, 97, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Días-Arieria, C.R.; Marini, P.M.; Fontana, L.F.; Roldi, M.; da Silva, T.R.B. Effect of Azospirillum brasilense, Stimulate® and potassium phosphite to control Pratylenchus brachyurus in soybean and maize. Nematropica 2012, 42, 170–175. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cohen, Y.; Coffey, M.D. Systemic fungicides and the control of oomycetes. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 1986, 24, 311–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barrett, S.R.; Shearer, B.L.; Hardy, G.E.S. Efficacy of phosphite applied after inoculation on the colonization of Banksia brownii stems by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2003, 32, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jackson, T.J.; Burgess, T.; Colquhoun, I.; Hardy, G.E.S.J. Action of the fungicide phosphite on Eucalyptus marginate inoculated with Phytophthora cinnamomic. Plant Pathol. 2000, 49, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Smillie, R.; Grant, B.R.; Guest, D. The mode of action of phosphite: Evidence for both direct and indirect modes of action on three Phytophthora spp. in plants. Phytopathology 1989, 79, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gilardi, G.; Pugliese, M.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Effect of biocontrol agents and potassium phosphite against Phytophthora crown rot, caused by Phytophthora capsici, on zucchini in a closed soilless system. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 265, 109207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, M.; Xu, J.; Du, H.; Zhang, R.; Wu, D.; Xie, X. Role of phosphite in the environmental phosphorus cycle. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 881, e163463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Varadarajan, D.K.; Karthikeyan, A.S.; Matilda, P.D.; Raghothama, K.G. Phosphite, an analog of phosphate, suppresses the coordinated expression of genes under phosphate starvation. Plant Physiol. 2002, 129, 1232–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jost, R.; Pharmawati, M.; Lapis-Gaza, H.R.; Rossig, C.; Berkowitz, O.; Lambers, H.; Finnegan, P.M. Differentiating phosphate-dependent and phosphate-independent systemic phosphate-starvation response networks in Arabidopsis thaliana through the application of phosphite. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2501–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. López-Arredondo, D.L.; Herrera-Estrella, L. Engineering phosphorus metabolism in plants to produce a dual fertilization and weed control system. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Manna, M.; Achary, V.M.M.; Islam, T.; Agrawal, P.K.; Reddy, M.K. The development of a phosphite-mediated fertilization and weed control system for rice. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pandeya, D.; López-Arredondo, D.L.; Janga, M.R.; Campbell, L.M.; Estrella-Hernández, P.; Bagavathiannan, M.V.; Herrera-Estrella, L.; Rathore, K.S. Selective fertilization with phosphite allows unhindered growth of cotton plants expressing the ptxD gene while suppressing weeds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6946–6955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, D.; Xiong, T.; Lu, W.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Xiao, G. The ptxD gene confers rapeseed the ability to utilize phosphite and a competitive advantage against weeds. Agronomy 2024, 14, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guo, W.; Lv, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, Q.; Wu, C.; Lu, X.; Lui, W.; Wang, J. Herbicides cross resistance of a multiple resistant short-awn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis Sobol.) population in wheat field. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 72, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Furlan-Kashivaqui, E.S.F.; Krzyzaniak, F.; Pires, A.; Moreira, S.A.F.; Albrecht, A.J.P.; Albrecht, L.P. Amaranthus hybridus L. resistant to glyphosate and chlorimuron in Paraguay. Chil. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2023, 39, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lamego, F.P.; Vidal, R.A.; Fleck, N.G.; Bianchi, M.A. Brachiaria plantaginea resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides. Rev. Bras. Herb. 2002, 3, 162–168. [Google Scholar]
  55. Frenkel, E.; Matzrafi, M.; Rubin, B.; Peleg, Z. Effects of environmental conditions on the fitness penalty in herbicide resistant Brachypodium hybridum. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bracamonte, E.; Martins da Silveira, H.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; Cruz-Hipolito, H.E.; de Prado, R. From tolerance to resistance: Mechanisms governing the differential response to glyphosate in Chloris barbata. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1118–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vázquez-García, J.R.; Hoyos, V.; Plaza, G.; Palma-Bautista, C.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; de Prado, R. Glyphosate resistance in Chloris radiata from Colombian rice fields involves one target-site mechanism. Chemosphere 2021, 281, e130888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. van Etten, M.; Lee, K.M.; Chang, S.M.; Baucom, R.S. Parallel and nonparallel genomic responses contribute to herbicide resistance in Ipomoea purpurea, a common agricultural weed. PLoS Genet. 2020, 16, e1008593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. de Freitas, M.N.; Inojosa, F.L.A.; Vital, S.V.F.; Sato, T.C.A.; Padovese, L.M.; de Oliveira, J.R.S. Herbicides applied in pre- and post-emergence to control Chamaesyce hirta. Rev. Ceres Viçosa 2022, 69, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, Z.; Boyd, N.; McLean, N.; Rutherford, K. Hexazinone resistance in red sorrel (Rumex acetosella). Weed Sci. 2014, 62, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bai, S.; Liu, W.; Wang, H.; Zhao, N.; Jia, S.; Zou, N.; Guo, W.; Wan, J. Enhanced herbicide metabolism and metabolic resistance genes identified in tribenuron-methyl resistant Myosoton aquaticum L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 9850–9857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Royo-Esnal, A.; López, M.L. Control of Oxalis latifolia: A review and proposals for its improvement. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2008, 35, 121–136. [Google Scholar]
  63. Masabni, J.G.; Zandstra, B.H. Discovery of a common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) biotype resistant to linuron. Weed Technol. 1999, 13, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mathukia, R.K.; Sagarka, B.K.; Panara, D.M.; Gohil, B.S. Efficacy of some post-emergence herbicides and their mixtures against complex weed flora in wheat. Int. J. Econ. Plants 2018, 5, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Varanasi, A.; Vara-Prasad, P.V.; Jugulam, M. Impact of climate change factors on weeds and herbicide efficacy. Adv. Agron. 2016, 135, 107–146. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vats, S. Herbicides: History, classification and genetic manipulation of plants for herbicide resistance. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 1st ed.; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 153–192. [Google Scholar]
  67. López-Arredondo, D.L.; Herrera-Estrella, L. A novel dominant selectable system for the selection of transgenic plants under in vitro and greenhouse conditions based on phosphite metabolism. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2023, 11, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hu, T.; Fang, H.; Pan, Q.; Xu, H.; Lv, T.; Fan, X.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Mou, L.; Xu, J.; et al. Seed microbiome-mediated herbicide resistance evolution in weeds. New Phytol. 2024, 242, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Clark, J.W. Genome evolution in plants and the origins of innovation. New Phytol. 2023, 240, 2204–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Manghi, M.C.; Masiol, M.; Calzavara, R.; Graziano, P.L.; Peruzzi, E.; Pavoni, B. The use of phosphonates in agriculture. Chemical, biological properties and legislative issues. Chemosphere 2021, 283, 131187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. de la Pasture, L. Understanding phosphites. Tech Talk. December 2020, pp. 42–44. Available online: https://www.uniumbioscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CPM-PhosphiteTechDec20.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2024).
  72. Leymonie, J.P. Phosphites and Phosphates: When Distributors and Growers Alike Could Get Confused! New AG International: London, UK, 2007; pp. 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mendes, K.F.; Mielke, K.C.; D’Antonino, L.; Alberto da Silva, A. Retention, absorption, translocation, and metabolism of herbicides in plants. In Applied Weed and Herbicide Science, 1st ed.; Mendes, K.F., Alberto da Silva, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 157–186. [Google Scholar]
  74. Yu, H.; Lu, X.; Miki, T.; Matsubae, K.; Sasaki, Y.; Nagasaka, T. Sustainable phosphorus supply by phosphorus recovery from steelmaking slag: A critical review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mew, M.C.; Steiner, G.; Geissler, B. Phosphorus supply chain—Scientific, technical, and economic foundations: A transdisciplinary orientation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shin, N.H.; Cho, L.H. Phosphate depletion: Research status and challenges in agriculture. J. Plant Biotechnol. 2024, 51, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 12 02764 g001
Figure 1. Structure of the phosphate (Pi; PO43−) and phosphite (Phi; HPO32−) anions, showing the replacement of an oxygen atom (O) in Pi by a hydrogen one (H) in the tetrahedral configuration in Phi.
Figure 1. Structure of the phosphate (Pi; PO43−) and phosphite (Phi; HPO32−) anions, showing the replacement of an oxygen atom (O) in Pi by a hydrogen one (H) in the tetrahedral configuration in Phi.
Processes 12 02764 g001
Processes 12 02764 g002
Figure 2. Mobility of phosphate (Pi) in the soil towards the roots, following the concentration gradient. Phosphate, when applied to the soil as a solid fertilizer, tends to fix, and its mobility is negatively affected. Additionally, the diffusion coefficient of Pi is low in soil. The Pi depletion zone favors its access to the root.
Figure 2. Mobility of phosphate (Pi) in the soil towards the roots, following the concentration gradient. Phosphate, when applied to the soil as a solid fertilizer, tends to fix, and its mobility is negatively affected. Additionally, the diffusion coefficient of Pi is low in soil. The Pi depletion zone favors its access to the root.
Processes 12 02764 g002
Processes 12 02764 g003
Figure 3. Mobility of phosphite (Phi) in the plant. Liquid applications of phosphite to the plant have great mobility in the conductive tissues (xylem and phloem), so its potential hormetic effects are more readily evident.
Figure 3. Mobility of phosphite (Phi) in the plant. Liquid applications of phosphite to the plant have great mobility in the conductive tissues (xylem and phloem), so its potential hormetic effects are more readily evident.
Processes 12 02764 g003
Table 1. List of weed species in which the herbicidal effect of phosphite (Phi) has been tested, including the Phi concentrations applied and the method of application.
Table 1. List of weed species in which the herbicidal effect of phosphite (Phi) has been tested, including the Phi concentrations applied and the method of application.
Weed Common NameWeed SpeciesPhi Concentration Applied (Source)Method of ApplicationSource
Shortawn foxtailAlopecurus aequalis (Solol.: Poaceae)100 or 200 mg kg−1 (K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[51]
Green amaranthAmaranthus hybridus (L.: Amaranthaseae)80 or 120 mg kg−1 (KH2PO3)Salt applied to the soil[48]
Palmer’s amaranthAmaranthus palmeri (Watson: Amaranthaseae)80 or 120 mg kg−1 (K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[50]
Spiny amaranthAmaranthus sponosus (L.: Amaranthaseae)500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Solution applied to the soil[49]
Plantain signalgrassBrachiaria plantaginea [(Link) Hitchcock: Poaceae]80 or 120 mg kg−1 (KH2PO3)Salt applied to the soil[48]
False bromeBrachypodium distachyon [(L.) P.Beauv.: Poaceae]80 or 120 mg kg−1 (KH2PO3, K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[48,50]
Swollen fingergrassChloris barbata [Swartz: Poaceae]500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Solution applied to the soil[49]
SnakeweedEuphorbia hirta (L.:
Euphorbiaceae)		500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application[49]
Common morning gloryIpomoea purpurea (Roth: Convolvulaceae)80 or 120 mg kg−1 (KH2PO3, K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[48,50]
Water chickweedMalachium aquaticum [(L.) Moench:
Caryophyllaceae]		100 or 200 mg kg−1 (K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[51]
SourgrassOxalis sp. (L.:
Oxalidaceae)		500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application[49]
PurslanePortulaca oleracea (L.:
Portulacaceae)		500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application[49]
Gale of the windPhyllanthus niruri (L.;
Phyllanthaceae)		500 mM (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application[49]
Common sorrelRumex acetosa (L.:
Polygonaceae)		100 or 200 mg kg−1 (K2HPO3)Salt applied to the soil[51]
Table 2. List of weed species in which the herbicidal effect of phosphite (Phi) has been tested, including the estimated doses of Phi applied in kilograms of Phi per hectare.
Table 2. List of weed species in which the herbicidal effect of phosphite (Phi) has been tested, including the estimated doses of Phi applied in kilograms of Phi per hectare.
Salt Applied to the Soil
Weed SpeciesPhi Concentration Applied in mg kg−1 (Source)Dose
(kg ha−1) a		Source
Alopecurus aequalis100 or 200 (K2HPO3)270 or 540[51]
Amaranthus hybridus80 or 120 (KH2PO3)216 or 324[48]
Amaranthus palmeri80 or 120 (K2HPO3)216 or 324[50]
Brachiaria plantaginea80 or 120 (KH2PO3)216 or 324[48]
Brachypodium distachyon80 or 120 (KH2PO3, K2HPO3)216 or 324[48,50]
Ipomoea purpurea80 or 120 (KH2PO3, K2HPO3)216 or 324[48,50]
Malachium aquaticum100 or 200 (K2HPO3)270 or 540[51]
Rumex acetosa100 or 200 (K2HPO3)270 or 540[51]
Application in Solution
Weed SpeciesPhi Concentration Applied in mM (Source)Method of
Application		Doses
(kg ha−1) b		Source
Amaranthus sponosus500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Soil application21.6[49]
Chloris barbata500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Soil application21.6[49]
Euphorbia hirta500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application21.6[49]
Oxalis sp.500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application21.6[49]
Portulaca oleracea500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application21.6[49]
Phyllanthus niruri500 (Na2HPO3·5H2O)Foliar application21.6[49]
a For the estimations of the Phi doses applied, a bulk density of 1.35 Mg m−3 and an arable layer of soil of 20 cm were established. b We assumed a total application volume of Phi solution of 200 L ha−1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Carbajal-Vázquez, V.H.; Lavín-Castañeda, J.; Gómez-Merino, F.C. Phosphite as a Sustainable and Versatile Alternative for Biostimulation, Biocontrol, and Weed Management in Modern Agriculture. Processes 2024, 12, 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122764

AMA Style

Trejo-Téllez LI, Carbajal-Vázquez VH, Lavín-Castañeda J, Gómez-Merino FC. Phosphite as a Sustainable and Versatile Alternative for Biostimulation, Biocontrol, and Weed Management in Modern Agriculture. Processes. 2024; 12(12):2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Trejo-Téllez, Libia Iris, Víctor Hugo Carbajal-Vázquez, Jazmín Lavín-Castañeda, and Fernando Carlos Gómez-Merino. 2024. "Phosphite as a Sustainable and Versatile Alternative for Biostimulation, Biocontrol, and Weed Management in Modern Agriculture" Processes 12, no. 12: 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122764

APA Style

Trejo-Téllez, L. I., Carbajal-Vázquez, V. H., Lavín-Castañeda, J., & Gómez-Merino, F. C. (2024). Phosphite as a Sustainable and Versatile Alternative for Biostimulation, Biocontrol, and Weed Management in Modern Agriculture. Processes, 12(12), 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122764

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