Advertisement

Bioherbicides: Strategies, Challenges and Prospects

  • K. R. AnejaEmail author
  • S. A. Khan
  • A. Aneja
Chapter
  • 831 Downloads

Abstract

Availability of enough food for ever-growing population is a serious task faced by human race due to pests. Weeds are major kind of pests; their competitive effects on the production and yield of various crops are well documented in India and the world. An increased and indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides, in order to control pests, has resulted in resistance, immunity and resurgence in them. The negative effects of chemical herbicides on nature and natural resources have forced scientists to shift focus on the reliable, sustainable and environment-friendly agents of weed control, the bioherbicides. Microbial-based pesticides, called bioherbicides, are the formulations of host-specific plant pathogens that are applied at high inoculum rates in a similar way as chemical herbicides for the management of weeds. In the majority of the bioherbicides, the fungal organisms are the active ingredients; therefore, the term mycoherbicide has often been used interchangeably with bioherbicide. There has been a great number of naturally occurring fungal plant pathogens worked out for possible use as potential biocontrol agents, but a small proportion has been developed to commercial products. Among the bacterial plant pathogens, Xanthomonas campestris and Pseudomonas fluorescens have shown the potential to be developed as bioherbicides. Some viruses also have been investigated for the potential to control invasive or undesirable weeds (e.g. tobacco mild green mosaic tobamovirus (TMGMV) for control of tropical soda apple in Florida). Twenty-four bioherbicides, based on fungi, bacteria and viruses have been registered around the globe, with several other microbial candidates in various stages of evaluation as bioherbicides. Most of the fungal biocontrol agents used as mycoherbicides have been found to be hemibiotrophs. To make mycoherbicides economical and popular among farmers, there is a strong need to develop mycoherbicides composed of consortia of compatible plant pathogens, each specific to a different weed species that could simultaneously control several weeds at a time. Scientist should lay emphasis on enhancing the pathogenesis of the biocontrol agents for overcoming the dependence on dew, one of the major constraints to make them potential bioherbicide. The pace of development of available bioherbicides including their success and failure, constraints, commercialization as well as current status has been discussed in this paper.

Keywords

Weeds Bioherbicides Mycoherbicides Biocontrol agents Hemibiotrophs DeVineR Collego™ ABG-5003 Dr. Biosedge® Gibbatrianth Xanthomonas campestris 

References

  1. Abu-Dieyeh MH, Watson AK (2007) Grass Over seeding and a fungus combine to control Taraxacum officinale. J Appl Ecol 44:115–124Google Scholar
  2. Aneja KR (2000) Biopesticides (micriobial pesticides). In: Aneja KR, Charaya MU, Aggarwal AK, Hans DK, Khan SA (eds) Glimpses in plant sciences. PragatiPrakashan, Meerut (UP), India, pp 20–27Google Scholar
  3. Aneja KR (2009) Biotechnology: an alternative novel strategy in agriculture to control weeds resistant to conventional herbicides. In: Lawrence R, Gulati AK, Abraham G (eds) Antimicrobial resistance from emerging threats to reality. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 160–173Google Scholar
  4. Aneja KR (2014) Exploitation of phytpathogenic fungal diversity for the development of bioherbicides. Kavaka 42:7–15Google Scholar
  5. Aneja KR, Kaushal S (1998) Occurrence of Gibbago trianthemae on horse purslane in India. J Biol Control 12(2):157–159Google Scholar
  6. Aneja KR, Mehrotra RS (2011) Text book of fungal diversity and biotechnology. New Age International Publishers, pp 621–622Google Scholar
  7. Aneja KR, Mehrotra RS (1996) Strategies in biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. In: Agnihotri VP, Prakash OM, Kishan R, Misra AK (eds) Disease scenario in crop plants. International Books and Periodicals Supply Service, Delhi, pp 243–252Google Scholar
  8. Aneja KR, Kumar V, Jiloha P, Sharma MK, Surian D, Dhiman R, Aneja A (2013). Potential bio herbicides: Indian perspectives. In: Salar RK, Gahlawat SK, Siwach P, Duhan JS (eds) Biotechnology: prospects and applications. Springer, India, pp 197–215Google Scholar
  9. Aneja KR, Khan SA, Kaushal S (2000) Management of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.) with Gibbago trianthemae Simmons in India. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the Xth international symposium on biological control of weeds. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA, 27–33Google Scholar
  10. Aneja KR, Srinivas B, Singh K (1990) Three new pathogenic fungi of water hyacinth from India. Trop Pest Manag 36(1):76Google Scholar
  11. Auld BA, Hetherington SD, Smith HE (2003) Advances in bioherbicide formulation. Weed Biol Manag 3:61–67Google Scholar
  12. Auld BA (1993) Vegetableoil suspension emulsions reduce dew dependence of a mycoherbicide. Crop Prot 12:477–479Google Scholar
  13. Avis TJ, Hamelin RC, Belanger RR (2001) Approaches to molecular characterization of fungal biocontrol agents: some case studies. Can J Plant Pathol 23:8–12Google Scholar
  14. Babu RM, Sajeena A, Seetharaman K (2003) Bioassay of the potentialité of Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler as a bioherbicide to control water hyacinth and other quatic weeds. CropProt. 22:1005–1013Google Scholar
  15. Bailey KL (2014) The bioherbicide approach to weed control using plant pathogens. In: Abrol DP (ed) Integrated pest management: current concepts and ecological perspective. Elsevier, San Diego, CA, pp 245–266Google Scholar
  16. Bailey KL, Boyetchko SM, Langle T (2010) Social and economic drivers shaping the future of biological control: a Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and use of microbial biopesticides. Biol Control 52:221–229Google Scholar
  17. Bailey KL, Falk S, Derby JA, Melzer M, Boland GJ (2013) The effect of fertilizers on the efficacy of the bioherbicide, Phoma macrostoma, to control dandelions in turf grass. Biol Control 65:147–151Google Scholar
  18. Bailey KL, Pitt WM, Falk S, Derby J (2011) The effects of Phoma macrostoma on non-target plant and target weed species. Biol Control 58:379–386Google Scholar
  19. Barton J (2005) Bioherbicides: all in a day’s for a superhero. What’s new in biological control of weeds?. Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, New Zealand, pp 4–6Google Scholar
  20. Bowers RC (1986) Commercialization of Collego™—an industrialist’s view. Weed Sci (Suppl) 34:24–25Google Scholar
  21. Boyetchko SM, Peng G (2004) Challenges and strategies for development of mycoherbicides. In: Arora DK (ed) Fungal biotechnology in agricultural, food and environmental application. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  22. Boyette CD, Templeton GE, Smith RJ Jr (1979) Control of winged water primrose (Jussiaea decurrens) and Northernjointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) with fungal pathogens. WeedSci 27:497–501Google Scholar
  23. Caldwell CJ, Hynes RK, Boyetchko SM, Korber DR (2012) Colonization and bioherbicidal activity on green foxtail by Pseudomonas fluorescens BRG100 in a pesta formulation. Can J Microbiol 58:1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Charudattan R, Walker HL, Boyette CD, Ridings WH, TeBeest DO, Van Dyke CG, Worsham AD (1986) Evaluation of Alternaria cassiae as a mycoherbicide for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in regional field tests. Southern Cooperative Service Bulletin Alabama: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  25. Charudattan R (1986) Cercospora rodmannii: abiological control agent for water hyacinth. Aquatics 8:21–24Google Scholar
  26. Chattopadhyay N, Samui RP, Rathore LS (2011) Strategies for minimizing crop loss due to pest and disease incidences by adoption of weather-base plant protection techniques. In: Attri SD, Rathore LS, Sivakumar MVK, Dash SK (eds) Challenges and opportunities in agrometeorology, pp 235–244Google Scholar
  27. Churchill BW (1982) Mass production of microorganisms for biological control. In: Charudattan R, Walker HL (eds) Biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Wiley, New York, pp 209–222Google Scholar
  28. Chutia M, Mahanta JJ, Bhattacharya N, Bhuyan M, Boruah P, Sharma TC (2007) microbial herbicides in weed management: prospects, progress and constraints. Plant Pathol J 6:200–218Google Scholar
  29. Connick WJ Jr, Boyette CD, McAlpine JR (1991) Formulation ofmycoherbicides using a pasta-like process. Biol Control 1:281–287Google Scholar
  30. Dagno K, Lahlali R, Diourte M, Jijakli MH (2012) Present status of the development ofmycoherbicides against water hyacinth: successes and challenges-a review. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 16(3):360–368Google Scholar
  31. Daniel JT, Templeton GE, Smith RJ, Fox WT (1973) Biological control of northern jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal disease. Weed Sci 21:303–307Google Scholar
  32. El-Morsy EM (2004) Evaluation of microfungi for the biological control of water hyacinth in Egypt. Fungal Divers 16:35–51Google Scholar
  33. El-Sayed W (2005) Biological control of weedswithpathogens: currentstatus and future trends. Z Pflanzenkrankh Pflanzenschutz 112:209–221Google Scholar
  34. EPA (2015) Biopesticides registration action document: tobacco mild green mosaic Tobamovirus strain U2. PC Code: 056705. United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  35. European Parliament (2014) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substancesGoogle Scholar
  36. Evans HC (1995) Fungi as biocontrol agents of weeds: a tropical prospective. Can J Bot 73:S58–S64Google Scholar
  37. Evans HC, Seier MK, Derby JA, Falk S, Bailey KL (2013) Tracing the origins of White Tip disease of Cirsium arvense and its causal agent, Phoma macrostoma. Weed Res 53:42–52Google Scholar
  38. Gadermaier G, Hauser M, Ferreira F (2014) Allergens of weed pollen: an overview on recombinant and natural molecules. Methods 66:55–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Goodwin PH (2001) A molecular weed—mycoherbicide interaction: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae and round leaved mallow, Malva pusilla. Can J Plant Pathol 23:28–35Google Scholar
  40. Greaves MP, Dutton L, Lawrie J (2000) Formulation of microbial herbicides. Asp Appl Biol 57:171–178Google Scholar
  41. Green S (2003) A review of the potential for the use of bioherbicides to control forest weeds in the UK. For Int J For Res 76:285–298Google Scholar
  42. Harding PD, Raizada NM (2015) Controlling weeds with fungi, bacteria and viruses: a review. Plant Sci 6:659Google Scholar
  43. Imaizumi S, Nishino T, Miyabe K, Fujimori T, Yamada M (1997) Biological control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) with a Japanese isolate of Xanthomonas campestris pv. poae (JTP-482). Biol Control 8:7–14Google Scholar
  44. Kazinczi G, Lukacs D, Takacs A, Horvath J, Gaborjanyi R, Nadasy M (2006) Biological decline of Solanum nigrum due to virus infections. J. Plant Dis Protect 32:5–330Google Scholar
  45. Kiely T, Donaldson D, Grube A (2004) Pesticides industry sales and usage, 2000 and 2001 market estimates. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Mathur S (2014) Assocham study suggests annual crop losses worth Rs. 50,000 crore due to pest in India TNN Feb 14Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell JK (1988) Gibbago trianthemae a recently described Hyphomycete with bioherbicide potential for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum). Plant Dis 72:354–355Google Scholar
  48. Morris MJ, Wood AR, den Breeÿen A (1999) Plant pathogens and biological control of weeds in South Africa: a review of projects and progress during the last decade. Afr Entomol Mem 1:129–137Google Scholar
  49. Mortensen K (1988) The potential of an endemic fungus, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides for biological control of round leaved mallow (Malva pusilla) and velvate leaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 36:473–478Google Scholar
  50. Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43Google Scholar
  51. Oerke EC, Dehne HW, Schonbeck F, Weber A (1994) Crop production and crop protection: Estimated losses in major food and cash crop. Elsevier, pp 808Google Scholar
  52. Panetta FD (1992) The role of prediction in determining the quarantine significance of weeds. In: Proceedings of the first international weed control congress. Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc. Melbourne, pp 381–383Google Scholar
  53. Peng G, Wolf TM, Byer KN, Caldwell B (2001) Spray retention on green foxtail (Steria viridis) using airbrush and broadcast sprayers and its impact on the efficacy of a mycoherbicide agent. In: Ni HW, You ZG (eds) Proceedings of 18th Asian Pacific weed science conference, May 28–June 2, Beijing, China, pp 699–706Google Scholar
  54. Phatak SC, Summer DR, Wells HD, Bell DK, Glaze NC (1983) Biological control of yellow nutsedge with the indigenous rust fungus Puccinia canaliculata. Science 219:1446–1447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Pitt WM, Bailey KL, Fu YB, Peterson GW (2012) Biological and genetic characterization of Phoma macrostoma isolates with bioherbicidal activity. Biocontrol Sci Technol 22:813–835Google Scholar
  56. Prasad R (1992) Some factors affecting herbicidal activity of glyphosate in relation to adjuvants and droplet size. In: Pesticide formulations and application systems. Standard Technical Publication, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  57. Quail JW, Ismail N, Pedras MSC, Boyetchko SM (2002) Pseudophomins A and B, a class of cyclic lipodepsipeptides isolated from a Pseudomonas species. Acta Crystallogr C Crystal Struct Commun 58:268–271Google Scholar
  58. Quimby PC (1982) Impact of diseases on plant populations. In: Biological control of weed with plant pathogens. Wiley, NewYork, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  59. Rosskopf EN, Charudattan R, Kadir JB (1999) Use of plant pathogens in weed control. In: Bellows TS, Fisher TW (eds) Handbook of biological control. Academic Press, New York, pp 891–918Google Scholar
  60. Sands D, Miller R (1993) Evolving strategies for biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Pesticides Sci 37:399–403Google Scholar
  61. Schroeder D, Muller-Scharer H (1995) Biological control of weeds and its prospectives in Europe. Med Fac Landbouw Univ Gent 60(2a):117–124Google Scholar
  62. Schroers HJ, Geldenhuis MM, Wingfield MJ, Schoeman MH, Yen YF, Shen WC, Wingfield BD (2005) Classification of the guava wilt fungus Myxosporium psidii, the palm pathogen Gliocladium vermoesenii and the persimmon wilt fungus Acremonium diospyri in Nalanthamala. Mycologia 97(2):375–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Shabana YM (1997) Formulation of Alternaria eichhorniae, a mycoherbicide for water hyacinth, in invert emulsion save its dew dependence. J Plant Dis Prot 104:231–238Google Scholar
  64. Stewart-Wade SM, Neumann S, Collins LL, Boland GJ (2002) The biology of Canadian weeds. 117. Taraxacum officinale G. H. Weber ex Wiggers. Can J Plant Sci. 82:825–853Google Scholar
  65. Stowell IJ (1991) Submerged fermentation of biological herbicides (In: Microbial control of Taraxacum officinale). J Appl Ecol 44:115–124Google Scholar
  66. Tateno A (2000) Herbicidal composition for the control of annual bluegrass. U.S. Patent No 6162763 A. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  67. TeBeest DO, Templeton GE (1985) Mycoherbicides: progress in the biological control of weeds. Plant Dis 69(1):6–10Google Scholar
  68. Templeton GE (1992) Use of Colletotrichum strains as mycoherbicides. In: Bailey JA, Jeger MJ (eds) Colletotrichum: biology, pathology and control. CAB International, Wallingford UK, pp 358–380Google Scholar
  69. Templeton GE, TeBeest DO, Smith RJ (1979) Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Phytopath 17:301–310Google Scholar
  70. Templeton GE (1982) Biological herbicides: discovery, development, deployment. Weed Sci 30:430–433Google Scholar
  71. Wan FH, Wang R (2001) Biological weed control in China: an update report on Alien invasive species. In: Workshop on alien invasive species, IUCN regional biodiversity programme, Asia. Colombo Sri Lanka, pp 8–19Google Scholar
  72. Watson AK (1989) Current advances in bioherbicide research. Brighton Crop Protect Conf Weeds 3:987–996Google Scholar
  73. Watson AK (1991) Prospects for bioherbicide development in South-eastAsia. In: Swarbrick RK (ed) Proceedings 13th Asian Pacific weed science conference. Asian Pacific Weed Science Society and Weed Science Society of Indonesia, Jakarta, pp 65–73Google Scholar
  74. Watson AK, Hong LW, Sastroutomo SS (1999) Can viable weed control be attainable with microorganism. In: Proceedings of symposium on biological control in tropics, MARDI Training Centre, Serdang, Malaysia, 18–19 MarGoogle Scholar
  75. Womack JG, Burge MN (1993) Mycoherbicide formulation and the potential for bracken control. Pestic Sci 37:337–341Google Scholar
  76. Yang XB, TeBeest DO (1992) The stability of host-pathogen interactions of plant diseases in relation to biological weed control. Biol Control 2:266–271Google Scholar
  77. Yang XB, TeBeest DO (1993) Epidemological mechanism of mycoherbicide effectiveness. Phyopathol. 83:891–893Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Formerly at Department of MicrobiologyKurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia
  2. 2.Department of Biotechnology and MicrobiologyBhagwati College of Management and TechnologyMeerutIndia
  3. 3.University Health Center, Kurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations