Most read
This page lists the top ten most read articles for this journal based on the number of full text views and downloads recorded on Cambridge Core over the last 90 days. This list is updated on a daily basis.
4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides: past, present, and future
- Amit J. Jhala, Vipan Kumar, Ramawatar Yadav, Prashant Jha, Mithila Jugulam, Martin M. Williams II, Nicholas E. Hausman, Franck E. Dayan, Paul M. Burton, Richard P. Dale, Jason K. Norsworthy
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 October 2022, pp. 1-14
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The herbicides that inhibit 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) are primarily used for weed control in corn, barley, oat, rice, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat production fields in the United States. The objectives of this review were to summarize 1) the history of HPPD-inhibitor herbicides and their use in the United States; 2) HPPD-inhibitor resistant weeds, their mechanism of resistance, and management; 3) interaction of HPPD-inhibitor herbicides with other herbicides; and 4) the future of HPPD-inhibitor-resistant crops. As of 2022, three broadleaf weeds (Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, and wild radish) have evolved resistance to the HPPD inhibitor. The predominance of metabolic resistance to HPPD inhibitor was found in aforementioned three weed species. Management of HPPD-inhibitor-resistant weeds can be accomplished using alternate herbicides such as glyphosate, glufosinate, 2,4-D, or dicamba; however, metabolic resistance poses a serious challenge, because the weeds may be cross-resistant to other herbicide sites of action, leading to limited herbicide options. An HPPD-inhibitor herbicide is commonly applied with a photosystem II (PS II) inhibitor to increase efficacy and weed control spectrum. The synergism with an HPPD inhibitor arises from depletion of plastoquinones, which allows increased binding of a PS II inhibitor to the D1 protein. New HPPD inhibitors from the azole carboxamides class are in development and expected to be available in the near future. HPPD-inhibitor-resistant crops have been developed through overexpression of a resistant bacterial HPPD enzyme in plants and the overexpression of transgenes for HPPD and a microbial gene that enhances the production of the HPPD substrate. Isoxaflutole-resistant soybean is commercially available, and it is expected that soybean resistant to other HPPD inhibitor herbicides such as mesotrione, stacked with resistance to other herbicides, will be available in the near future.
Quantifying changes in the environmental impact of in-crop herbicide use in Saskatchewan, Canada
- Elisabeta Lika, Chelsea Sutherland, Savannah Gleim, Stuart J. Smyth
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 March 2024, e28
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The sustainable management of herbicides is critical to modern agriculture and the environment. This article examines the evolution and environmental implications of herbicide use in Saskatchewan, Canada, agriculture. It quantifies changes in herbicide use and their environmental impacts by analyzing farm-level herbicide use data from 1991 to 1994 and from 2016 to 2019 through the environmental impact quotient. Results confirm significant reductions in both environmental and toxicological impacts of herbicides used, underlining the pivotal shift from tillage-based weed control to herbicide-resistant cropping systems. The environmental impact of the top five herbicides (glufosinate, glyphosate, clethodim, imazamox, and 2,4-D) used from 2016 to 2019 is 65% lower than that for those herbicides (MCPA, 2,4-D, bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, and trifluralin) used from 1991 to 1994, with a 45% reduction in the active ingredient applied per acre. Despite increased herbicide use due to more crop acres being seeded, the findings highlight a marked improvement in the sustainability of herbicide use, affirming the importance of technological advancements in agriculture. This research contributes valuable insights into long-term trends in herbicide use, offering a practical framework for informed decisions aligning with sustainable agricultural practices as well as reduced biodiversity impacts.
Very long chain fatty acid–inhibiting herbicides: Current uses, site of action, herbicide-resistant weeds, and future
- Amit J. Jhala, Mandeep Singh, Lovreet Shergill, Rishabh Singh, Mithila Jugulam, Dean E. Riechers, Zahoor A. Ganie, Thomas P. Selby, Rodrigo Werle, Jason K. Norsworthy
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, e1
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The herbicides that inhibit very-long-chain fatty acid (VLCFA) elongases are primarily used for residual weed control in corn, barley, oat, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane, certain vegetable crops, and wheat production fields in the United States. They act primarily by inhibiting shoot development of susceptible species, preventing weed emergence and growth. The objectives of this review were to summarize 1) the chemical family of VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides and their use in the United States, 2) the VLCFA biosynthesis in plants and their site of action, 3) VLCFA-inhibitor resistant weeds and their mechanism of resistance, and 4) the future of VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides. After their reclassification as Group 15 herbicides to include shoot growth-inhibiting herbicides (Group 8), the VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides are currently represented by eight chemical families (benzofurans, thiocarbamates, α-chloroacetamides, α-oxyacetamides, azolyl-carboxamides, isoxazolines, α-thioacetamides, and oxiranes). On average, VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides are applied once a year to both corn and soybean crops in the United States with acetochlor and S-metolachlor being the most used VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides in corn and soybean production, respectively. The site of action of Group 15 herbicides results from inhibition of the VLCFA synthase, which is encoded by several fatty acid elongase (FAE1)-like genes in VLCFA elongase complex in an endoplasmic reticulum. The VLCFA synthase is a condensing enzyme, and relies on a conserved, reactive cysteinyl sulfur in its active site that performs a nucleophilic attack on either the natural substrate (fatty acyl-CoA) or the herbicide. As of August 2023, 13 weed species have been documented to be resistant to VLCFA inhibitors, including 11 monocot weeds and two dicot weeds (Palmer amaranth and waterhemp). The isoxazolines (pyroxasulfone and fenoxasulfone) are the most recently (2014) discovered VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides. Although the intensity of VLCFA-inhibitor-directed discovery efforts has decreased over the past decade, this biochemical pathway remains a viable mechanistic target for the discovery of herbicide premixes and a valuable component of them.
Recent Weed Control, Weed Management, and Integrated Weed Management
- K. Neil Harker, John T. O'Donovan
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 1-11
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Integrated weed management (IWM) can be defined as a holistic approach to weed management that integrates different methods of weed control to provide the crop with an advantage over weeds. It is practiced globally at varying levels of adoption from farm to farm. IWM has the potential to restrict weed populations to manageable levels, reduce the environmental impact of individual weed management practices, increase cropping system sustainability, and reduce selection pressure for weed resistance to herbicides. There is some debate as to whether simple herbicidal weed control programs have now shifted to more diverse IWM cropping systems. Given the rapid evolution and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds and their negative consequences, one might predict that IWM research would currently be a prominent activity among weed scientists. Here we examine the level of research activity dedicated to weed control techniques and the assemblage of IWM techniques in cropping systems as evidenced by scientific paper publications from 1995 to June 1, 2012. Authors from the United States have published more weed and IWM-related articles than authors from any other country. When IWM articles were weighted as a proportion of country population, arable land, or crop production, authors from Switzerland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada were most prominent. Considerable evidence exists that research on nonherbicidal weed management strategies as well as strategies that integrate other weed management systems with herbicide use has increased. However, articles published on chemical control still eclipse any other weed management method. The latter emphasis continues to retard the development of weed science as a balanced discipline.
Integrated management of living mulches for weed control: A review
- Vinay Bhaskar, Anna S. Westbrook, Robin R. Bellinder, Antonio DiTommaso
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 July 2021, pp. 856-868
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Living mulches are cover crops grown simultaneously with and in close proximity to cash crops. Advantages of living mulches over dead cover crops may include increased weed suppression, reduced erosion and leaching, better soil health, and greater resource-use efficiency. Advantages of living mulches over synthetic mulches may include enhanced agroecosystem biodiversity and suitability for a wider range of cropping systems. A major disadvantage of this practice is the potential for competition between living mulches and cash crops. The intensity and outcome of mulch-crop competition depend on agroecosystem management as well as climate and other factors. In this review, we consider the management of living mulches for weed control in field and vegetable cropping systems of temperate environments. More than 50 yr of research have demonstrated that mechanical or chemical suppression of a living mulch can limit mulch-crop competition without killing the mulch and thereby losing its benefits. Such tactics can also contribute to weed suppression. Mechanical and chemical regulation should be combined with cultural practices that give the main crop a competitive advantage over the living mulch, which, in turn, outcompetes the weeds. Promising approaches include crop and mulch cultivar selection; changes to planting time, density, and planting pattern; and changes to fertilization or irrigation regimes. A systems approach to living mulch management, including an increased emphasis on the interactions between management methods, may increase the benefits and lower the risks associated with this practice.
Spray water quality and herbicide performance: a review
- Olumide S. Daramola, William G. Johnson, David L. Jordan, Gurinderbir S. Chahal, Pratap Devkota
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 December 2022, pp. 758-767
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Water is the primary carrier for herbicide applications. Spray water qualities such as pH, hardness, temperature, or turbidity can influence herbicide performance and may need to be amended for optimum weed control. Water quality factors can affect herbicide activity by reducing solubility, enhancing degradation in the spray tank, or forming herbicide-salt complexes with mineral cations, thereby reducing the absorption, translocation, and subsequent weed control. The available literature suggests that the effect of water quality varies with herbicide chemistry and weed species. The efficacy of weak-acid herbicides such as glyphosate, glufosinate, clethodim, sethoxydim, bentazon, and 2,4-D is improved with acidic water pH; however, the efficacy of sulfonylurea herbicides is negatively impacted. Hard-water antagonism is more prevalent with weak-acid herbicides, and trivalent cations are the most problematic. Spray solution temperature between 18 C and 44 C is optimum for some weak-acid herbicides; however, their efficacy can be reduced at relatively low (5 C) or high (56 C) water temperature. The effect of water turbidity is severe on cationic herbicides such as paraquat and diquat, and herbicides with low soil mobility such as glyphosate. Although adjuvants are recommended to overcome the negative effect of spray water hardness or pH, the response has been inconsistent with the herbicide chemistry and weed species. Moreover, information on the effect of spray water quality on various herbicide chemistries, weed species, and adjuvants is limited; therefore, it is difficult to develop guidelines for improving weed control efficacy. Further research is needed to determine the effect of spray water factors and develop specific recommendations for improving herbicide efficacy on problematic weed species.
Weed detection to weed recognition: reviewing 50 years of research to identify constraints and opportunities for large-scale cropping systems
- Guy R.Y. Coleman, Asher Bender, Kun Hu, Shaun M. Sharpe, Arnold W. Schumann, Zhiyong Wang, Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan, Nathan S. Boyd, Michael J. Walsh
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 November 2022, pp. 741-757
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The past 50 yr of advances in weed recognition technologies have poised site-specific weed control (SSWC) on the cusp of requisite performance for large-scale production systems. The technology offers improved management of diverse weed morphology over highly variable background environments. SSWC enables the use of nonselective weed control options, such as lasers and electrical weeding, as feasible in-crop selective alternatives to herbicides by targeting individual weeds. This review looks at the progress made over this half-century of research and its implications for future weed recognition and control efforts; summarizing advances in computer vision techniques and the most recent deep convolutional neural network (CNN) approaches to weed recognition. The first use of CNNs for plant identification in 2015 began an era of rapid improvement in algorithm performance on larger and more diverse datasets. These performance gains and subsequent research have shown that the variability of large-scale cropping systems is best managed by deep learning for in-crop weed recognition. The benefits of deep learning and improved accessibility to open-source software and hardware tools has been evident in the adoption of these tools by weed researchers and the increased popularity of CNN-based weed recognition research. The field of machine learning holds substantial promise for weed control, especially the implementation of truly integrated weed management strategies. Whereas previous approaches sought to reduce environmental variability or manage it with advanced algorithms, research in deep learning architectures suggests that large-scale, multi-modal approaches are the future for weed recognition.
2,4-D Past, Present, and Future: A Review
- Mark A. Peterson, Steve A. McMaster, Dean E. Riechers, Josh Skelton, Phillip W. Stahlman
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 303-345
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Since its discovery and initial commercialization in the 1940s, 2,4-D has been an important tool for weed control in a wide variety of crop and noncrop uses. Work studying its chemistry, physiology, mode of action, toxicology, environmental behavior, and efficacy has not only helped elucidate the characteristics of 2,4-D but also provided basic methods that have been used to investigate the properties of hundreds of herbicides that followed it. Much of the information published by researchers over 60 yr ago is still pertinent to understanding the performance of 2,4-D today. Further, new studies continue to be published, especially regarding the mechanisms of 2,4-D action at the molecular level. New uses for 2,4-D, sometimes enabled by biotechnology, continue to be developed. This review strives to provide an overall understanding of 2,4-D activity in plants, plant sensitivity to 2,4-D, toxicological impacts, and current and future uses.
Preemergence herbicide premixes reduce the risk of soil residual weed control failure in corn
- Tatiane Severo Silva, Nicholas John Arneson, Ryan P. DeWerff, Daniel H Smith, Daniel Valadão Silva, Rodrigo Werle
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 June 2023, pp. 410-421
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Widespread occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds and more variable weather conditions across the United States has made weed control in many crops more challenging. Preemergence (PRE) herbicides with soil residual activity have resurged as the foundation for early season weed control in many crops. Field experiments were conducted in Janesville and Lancaster, Wisconsin, in 2021 and 2022 (4 site-years) to evaluate the weed control efficacy of solo (single site of action [SOA]) and premix (two or more SOAs) PRE herbicides in conventional tillage corn. Treatments consisted of 18 PRE herbicides plus a nontreated check. At the Janesville-2021 site, S-metolachlor + bicyclopyrone + mesotrione, atrazine + S-metolachlor + bicyclopyrone + mesotrione, and clopyralid + acetochlor + mesotrione provided >72% giant ragweed control. At the Janesville-2022 site, none of the PRE herbicides evaluated provided >70% giant ragweed control due to the high giant ragweed density and the lack of timely rainfall. At the Lancaster-2021 site, atrazine, dicamba, and flumetsulam + clopyralid provided <45% waterhemp control, but the remaining treatments provided >90% control. At the Lancaster-2022 site, the efficacy of some PRE herbicides was reduced due to the high waterhemp density; however, most herbicides provided >75% control. At the Lancaster-2021 and Lancaster-2022 sites, only dicamba and S-metolachlor did not provide >75% common lambsquarters control. Group 15 PRE herbicides provided >75% control of giant foxtail. Across weed species, PRE herbicides with two (78%) and three (81%) SOAs provided greater weed control than PRE herbicides with a single SOA (68%), indicating that at least two SOA herbicides applied PRE result in better early season weed control. The efficacy of the PRE herbicide treatments evaluated herein varied according to the soil seedbank weed community composition and environmental conditions (i.e., rainfall following application), but the premixes were a more reliable option to improve early season weed control in conventional tillage corn.
Potential wheat yield loss due to weeds in the United States and Canada
- Michael L. Flessner, Ian C. Burke, J. Anita Dille, Wesley J. Everman, Mark J. VanGessel, Breanne Tidemann, Misha R. Manuchehri, Nader Soltani, Peter H. Sikkema
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 September 2021, pp. 916-923
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Yield losses due to weeds are a major threat to wheat production and economic well-being of farmers in the United States and Canada. The objective of this Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee report is to provide estimates of wheat yield and economic losses due to weeds. Weed scientists provided both weedy (best management practices but no weed control practices) and weed-free (best management practices providing >90% weed control) average yield from replicated research trials in both winter and spring wheat from 2007 to 2017. Winter wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 2.9% to 34.4%, with a weighted average (by production) of 25.6% for the United States, 2.9% for Canada, and 23.4% combined. Based on these yield loss estimates and total production, the potential winter wheat loss due to weeds is 10.5, 0.09, and 10.5 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$2.19, US$0.19, and US$2.19 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Spring wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 7.9% to 47.0%, with a weighted average (by production) of 33.2% for the United States, 8.0% for Canada, and 19.5% combined. Based on this yield loss estimate and total production, the potential spring wheat loss is 4.8, 1.6, and 6.6 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$1.14, US$0.37, and US$1.39 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Yield loss in this analysis is greater than some previous estimates, likely indicating an increasing threat from weeds. Climate is affecting yield loss in winter wheat in the Pacific Northwest, with percent yield loss being highest in wheat-fallow systems that receive less than 30 cm of annual precipitation. Continued investment in weed science research for wheat is critical for continued yield protection.