Bioherbicidal Concept: A Novel Strategy to Control Weeds

  • Vikas Kumar
  • Neeraj K. Aggarwal
  • Anjali Malik


Weeds have the potential to reduce the yield or quality of crops and produce a damaging effect on economic, social or conservation values. As peoples are more aware about environmental conservation, pressure is mounting for the development of effective and environment-friendly approaches to control weeds, on the scientists and active researchers in biological control field. Phytopathogenic microorganisms or microbial compounds, known as bioherbicides, for the biocontrol of weeds are most prominent alternative to minimize the hazardous chemicals/herbicides. Besides consistent research efforts and attempts in the area of bioherbicides throughout the globe, only 17 mycoherbicides have been registered worldwide. Advancement to develop mycoherbicides is relatively in suspended phase due to various restrictions like biological, economic and regulatory factors. Although only few bioherbicides are available in the market, biological control technology will be the leading approach to control unwanted plants. As the use of toxic herbicides is less desired because of their negative impact on crops, environment, ecosystem and human being, more funding needs to be applied to encourage researches for bioherbicides. In this review, we are concerned with various types of strategies, formulation of bioherbicides, steps in the development of mycoherbicide and constraints.


Weeds Bioherbicides Phytopathogenic Mycoherbicides Formulations 


  1. Agrios GN (2005) Plant pathology, 5th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Aneja KR (1999) Biotechnology for the production and enhancement of mycoherbicide potential. In: Singh J, Aneja KR (eds) From Ethnomycology to fungal biotechnology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 91–114CrossRefGoogle 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, Kumar V, Jiloha P, Kaur M, Sharma C, Surain P, Dhiman R, Aneja A (2013) Potential bioherbicides: Indian perspectives. In: Salar RK, Gahlawat SK, Siwach P, Duhan JS (eds) Biotechnology: prospects and applications. Springer, New Delhi, pp 197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonymous (2003). A study of socio-economic impact of combine harvesters. Final report submitted to NATP, New Delhi, pp 1–39Google Scholar
  6. Ash GJ (2010) The science, art and business of successful bioherbicides. Biol Control 52:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auld BA (1992) Development and commercialization of biocontrol agents. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Weed Congress, AgMedia, Malbourne, Australia, pp 269–272Google Scholar
  8. Auld BA, Morin L (1995) Constraints in the development of bioherbicides. Weed Tech 9:638–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Auld BA, Hertherington SD, Smith HE (2003) Advances in bioherbicide formulation. Weed Bio Manag 3:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bailey JA, O’Connell RJ, Pring RJ, Nash C (1992) Infection strategies of colletotrichum species. In: Bailey JA, Jeger MJ (eds) Colletotrichum: biology, pathology and control. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 88–120Google Scholar
  11. 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 52:222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bateman R (2001) IMPECCA: an international, collaborative program to investigate the development of a mycoherbicide for use against water hyacinth in Africa. In: Julien MH, Hill MP, Center TD, Jianqing D (eds) Biological and integrated control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, 9–12 October 2000, Beijing, China. ACIAR Proceedings 102, ACIAR, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyetchko SM, Peng G (2004) Challenges and strategies for development of Mycoherbicides. In: Arora DK (ed) Fungal biotechnology in agricultural, food and environmental applications. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 11–121Google Scholar
  14. Boyette CD, Walker HL (1985) Evaluation of Fusarium lateritium as a biological herbicide for controlling velvet leaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa). Weed Sci 34:106–109Google Scholar
  15. Boyette CD, Quimby PC Jr, Connick WJ Jr, Daigle DJ, Fulgham FE (1991) Progress in the production, formulation and application of mycoherbicides. In: TeBeest DO (ed) Microbial Control of weeds. Chapman Hall, New York, pp 209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyette CD, Quimby PC, Caesar AJ, Birdsall JL, Connick WJ, Daigle DJ, Jackson MA, Egley GH, Abbas HK (1996) Adjuvants, formulations and spraying systems for improvement of mycoherbicides. Weed Technol 10:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnside AC (1979) Weeds. In: Ennis WB Jr (ed) Introduction to crop protection. American society of agronomy, Madison, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  18. Charudattan R (2001) Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens: significance for integrated weed management in modern agro ecology. Biol Control 46:229–260Google Scholar
  19. Charudattan R, de Loach J (1988) Management of pathogens and insects for weed control in agroecosystems. In: Altieri MA, Liebman M (eds) Weed management in agroecosystems: ecological approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 245–264Google Scholar
  20. Chutia M, Mahanta JJ, Bhattacharyya N, Bhuyan M, Boruah P, Sharma TC (2007) Microbial herbicides for weed management: prospects, progress and constraints. Plant Pathol J 6:200–218Google Scholar
  21. Connick WJ Jr (1988) Formulation of living biological control agents with alginate. In: Cross B, Scher HB (eds) Pesticide formulations: innovations and developments, ACS symposium series no. 371. American Chemistry Society, Washington, DC, pp 241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Connick WJ Jr, Boyette CD, Mcalpine JR (1991) Formulations of Mycoherbicides using a pesta like process. Biol Control 1:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daniel JT, Templeton GE, Smith RJ Jr, Fox WT (1973) Biological control of northern jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal disease. Weed Sci 21:303–307Google Scholar
  24. Egley GH, Boyette CD (1995) Water corn oil emulsion enhances conidia germination and mycoherbicidal activity of Colletotrichum truncatum. Weed Sci 43:312–317Google Scholar
  25. El-Sayed W (2005) Biological control of weeds with pathogens: current status and future trends. Z Pflanzenkrankh Pflanzenschutz 112:209–221Google Scholar
  26. Foy CL (1989) Adjuvants: terminology, classification and mode of action. In: PNP C, Gran CA, Hinshalwood AM, Simundson E (eds) Adjuvants and agrochemicals, vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  27. Freeman TE (1977) Biological control of aquatic plants with plant pathogens. Aquat Bot 3:145–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman TE, Charudattan R, Zetter FW (1973) Biological control of water weeds with plant pathogens, Water resources research publication no. 23. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  29. Fullaway DT (1954) Biological control of cactus in Hawaii. J Econ Entomol 47(4):696–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green S, Steward Wade SM, Boland GJ, Teshler MP, Liu SH (1998) Formulations of microorganisms for biological control of weeds. In: Boland GJ, Kuykenadall LD (eds) Plant-microbe interaction and biological control. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, pp 249–281Google Scholar
  31. Gressel J, Michaeli D, Kampel V, Amsellem Z, Warshawsky A (2002) Ultralow calcium requirements of fungi facilitate use of calcium regulating agents to suppress host calcium-dependent defenses, synergizing infection by a mycoherbicide. J Agric Food Chem 50:6353–6360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hajek AE (2004) Natural enemies- an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hasan S, Ayres PG (1990) The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. New Phytol 115:201–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heap IM (2006). International survey of herbicide resistant weeds online. Accessed 2 Aug 2016
  35. Klein TA, Auld BA, Wang F (1995) Evaluation of oil suspension emulsions of Colletotrichum orbiculare as a mycoherbicide in field trials. Crop Protect 14:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li y, Sun Z, Zhuang X, Xu L, Chen S, Li M (2003) Research progress on microbial herbicides. Crop Prot 47:252Google Scholar
  37. Loretta OR, Martin M, Williams II (2006) Conidial germination and germ tube elongation of Phomopsis amaranthicola and Microsphaeropsis amaranthi on leaf surfaces of seven Amaranthus species: implications for biological control. Biol Control 38:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mortensen K (1988) The potential of an endemic fungus, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides for biological control of round-leaved mallow (Malva pusilla) and velvet leaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 36:473–478Google Scholar
  39. Mueller-Schaerer H, Frantzen J (1996) An emerging system management approach for biological weed control in crops: Senecio vulgaris as a research model. Weed Res 36:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mueller-Schaerer H, Scheepens PC (1997) Biological control of weeds in crops: a coordinated European research programme (COST-816). Integr Pest Manage Rev 2:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connell PJ, Zoschke A (1996) Limitations to the development and commercialization of mycoherbicides by industry. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international weed control congress. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 1189–1195Google Scholar
  42. Oehrens E (1977) Biological control of the blackberry through the introduction of rust, Phragmidium violaceum in Chile. FAO Pl Prot Bull 25:26–28Google Scholar
  43. Paau AS (1988) Formulations useful in applying beneficial microorganisms to seeds. Trends in Biotech 6:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prasad R (1993) Role of adjuvants in modifying the efficacy of a bioherbicide on forest species: compatibility studies under laboratory conditions. Pest Sci 38(2–3):273–275Google Scholar
  45. Prasad R (1994) Influence of several pesticides and adjuvants on Chondrostereum purpureum-a bioherbicidal agent for control of forest weeds. Weed Technol 8:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quimby PC (1982) Impact of diseases on plant populations. In: Biological control of weed with plant pathogens. Wiley, New York, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  47. Quimby PC, Zidack NK, Boyette CD, Grey WE (1999) A simple method for stabilizing and granulating fungi. Biocontrol Sci Tech 9:5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rhodes DJ (1993) Formulation of biological control agents. In: Jones DG (ed) Exploitation of microorganisms. Chapman Hall, London, pp 411–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sands DC, Miller RV (1993) Evolving strategies for biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Pest Sci 37:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. TeBeest DO, Templeton GE (1985) Mycoherbicides: progress in the biological control of weeds. Plant Dis 69:6–10Google Scholar
  51. Templeton GE (1992) Use of Colletotrichum strains as mycoherbicides. In: Bailey JA, Jeger MJ (eds) Colletotrichum: biology, pathology and control. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 358–380Google Scholar
  52. Templeton GE, Smith RJ Jr, Tebeest DO (1979) Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Ann Rev Phytopath 17:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tranel PJ, Wright TR (2002) Resistance of weeds to ALS- inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned? Weed Sci 50:700–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varshney JG, Prasad Babu MBB (2008) Future scenario of weed management in India. Indian J Weed Sci 40(1&2):1–9Google Scholar
  55. Walker HL, Connick WJ Jr (1983) Sodium alginate for production and formulation of mycoherbicides. Weed Sci 31:333–338Google Scholar
  56. Watson AK (1989) Current advances in bioherbicide research. Brighton Crop Protection Conference- Weeds:987–996Google Scholar
  57. Watson AK (1991) The classical approach with plant pathogens. In: TeBeest DO (ed) Microbial control of weeds. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson AK, Wymore LA (1990) Identifying limiting factors in the biocontrol of weeds. In: Baker R, Dunn P (eds) New directions in biological control. UCLA Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology, New Series 112, Alan R. Liss, New York, pp 305–316Google Scholar
  59. Weidmann GJ (1988) Effects of nutritional amendments on conidial production of Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae on sodium alginate granules and on control of Texas gourd. Plant Dis 72:757–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson CL (1965) Consideration of the use of persimmon wilt as a silvercide for weed persimmon. Plant Dis Report 49:780–791Google Scholar
  61. Wilson CL (1969) Use of plant pathogens in weed control. Ann Rev Phytopath 76:411–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winder RS, Watson AK (1994) A potential microbial control of fire weed (Epilobium angustifolium). Phytoprotection 75:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Womack JG, Burge MN (1993) Mycoherbicide formulation and the potential for bracken control. Pest Sci 37:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yaduraju NT (2006) Herbicide resistant crops in weed management. In: The extended summaries, golden jubilee national symposium on conservation agricultural and environment. Banaras Hindu University, Banaras, pp 2970–2980Google Scholar
  65. Yang S, Jong SC (1995) Host range determination of Myrothecium verrucaria isolated from leafy spurge. Plant Dis 79:994–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vikas Kumar
    • 1
  • Neeraj K. Aggarwal
    • 2
  • Anjali Malik
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyMaharishi Markandeshwer University, MullanaAmbalaIndia
  2. 2.Department of MicrobiologyKurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia
  3. 3.Department of MicrobiologyChoudhary Charan Singh UniversityMeerutIndia

Personalised recommendations