TL;DR: Discussion continues on agent selection, but host-specificity testing is well developed and reliable, and post-release evaluation of impact is increasing, both on the target weed and on non-target plants.
Abstract: Classical biological control, i.e. the introduction and release of exotic insects, mites, or pathogens to give permanent control, is the predominant method in weed biocontrol. Inundative releases of predators and integrated pest management are less widely used. The United States, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand use biocontrol the most. Weeds in natural ecosystems are increasingly becoming targets for biocontrol. Discussion continues on agent selection, but host-specificity testing is well developed and reliable. Post-release evaluation of impact is increasing, both on the target weed and on non-target plants. Control of aquatic weeds has been a notable success. Alien plant problems are increasing worldwide, and biocontrol offers the only safe, economic, and environmentally sustainable solution.
TL;DR: Results of a literature survey indicate that weed population density and biomass production may be markedly reduced using crop rotation (temporal diversification) and intercropping (spatial diversify) strategies.
Abstract: Results of a literature survey indicate that weed population density and biomass production may be markedly reduced using crop rotation (temporal diversification) and intercropping (spatial diversification) strategies. Crop rotation resulted in emerged weed densities in test crops that were lower in 21 cases, higher in 1 case, and equivalent in 5 cases in comparison to monoculture systems. In 12 cases where weed seed density was reported, seed density in crop rotation was lower in 9 cases and equivalent in 3 cases when compared to monocultures of the component crops. In intercropping systems where a main crop was intersown with a "smother" crop species, weed biomass in the intercrop was lower in 47 cases and higher in 4 cases than in the main crop grown alone (as a sole crop); a variable response was observed in 3 cases. When intercrops were composed of two or more main crops, weed biomass in the intercrop was lower than in all of the component sole crops in 12 cases, intermediate between component sole crops in 10 cases, and higher than all sole crops in 2 cases. It is unclear why crop rotation studies have focused on weed density, whereas intercropping studies have focused on weed biomass. The success of rotation systems for weed suppression appears to be based on the use of crop sequences that create varying patterns of resource competition, allelopathic interference, soil disturbance, and mechanical damage to provide an unstable and frequently inhospitable environment that prevents the proliferation of a particular weed species. The relative importance and most effective combinations of these weed control tactics have not been adequately assessed. In addition, the weed-suppressive effects of other related factors, such as manipulation of soil fertility dynamics in rotation sequences, need to be examined. Intercrops may demonstrate weed control advantages over sole crops in two ways. First, greater crop yield and less weed growth may be achieved if intercrops are more effective than sole crops in usurping resources from weeds or suppressing weed growth through allelopathy. Alternatively, intercrops may provide yield advantages without suppressing weed growth below levels observed in component sole crops if intercrops use resources that are not exploitable by weeds or convert resources to harvestable material more efficiently than sole crops. Because of the difficulty of monitoring the use of multiple resources by intercrop/weed mixtures throughout the growing season, identification of specific mechanisms of weed suppression and yield enhancement in intercrop systems has so far proven elusive. Significant advances in the design and improvement of weed-suppressive crop rotation and intercropping systems are most likely to occur if three important areas of research are addressed. First, there must be continued attention to the study of weed population dynamics and crop-weed interference in crop rotation and intercropping systems. More information is needed concerning the effects of diversification of cropping systems on weed seed longevity, weed seedling emergence, weed seed production and dormancy, agents of weed mortality, differential resource consumption by crops and weeds, and allelopathic interactions. Second, there needs to be systematic manipulation of specific components of rotation and intercropping systems to isolate and improve those elements (e.g., interrow cultivation, choice of crop genotype) or combinations of elements that may be especially important for weed control. Finally, the weed-related impacts of combining crop rotation and intercropping strategies should be assessed through careful study of extant, complex farming systems and the design and testing of new integrated approaches. Many aspects of crop rotation and intercropping are compatible with current farming practices and could become more accessible to farmers if government policies are restructured to reflect the true environmental costs of agricultural production.
TL;DR: The relatively rapid emergence of “weedy” rice, rice phenotypically similar to cultivars but exhibiting undesirable agronomic traits, has been observed in several Asian countries practicing DSR, and this poses a severe threat to the sustainability of the production system.
Abstract: Rice ( Oryza sativa L.) is a principal source of food for more than half of the world population, especially in South and Southeast Asia and Latin America. Elsewhere, it represents a high‐value commodity crop. Change in the method of crop establishment from traditional manual transplanting of seedlings to direct‐seeding has occurred in many Asian countries in the last two decades in response to rising production costs, especially for labor and water. Direct‐seeding of rice (DSR) may involve sowing pregerminated seed onto a puddled soil surface (wet‐seeding) or into shallow standing water (water‐seeding), or dry seed into a prepared seedbed (dry‐seeding). In Europe, Australia, and the United States, direct‐seeding is highly mechanized. The risk of crop yield loss due to competition from weeds by all seeding methods is higher than for transplanted rice because of the absence of the size differential between the crop and weeds and the suppressive effect of standing water on weed growth at crop establishment. Of 1800 species reported as weeds of rice, those of the Cyperaceae and Poaceae are predominant. The adoption of direct‐seeding has resulted in a change in the relative abundance of weed species in rice crops. In particular, Echinochloa spp., Ischaemum rugosum, Cyperus difformis , and Fimbristylis miliacea are widely adapted to conditions of DSR. Species exhibit variability in germination and establishment response to the water regime postsowing, which is a major factor in interspecifically selecting constituents of the weed flora. The relatively rapid emergence of “weedy” (red) rice, rice phenotypically similar to cultivars but exhibiting undesirable agronomic traits, has been observed in several Asian countries practicing DSR, and this poses a severe threat to the sustainability of the production system. Stale seedbeds, tillage practices for land leveling, choice of competitive rice cultivars, mechanical weeders, herbicides, and associated water management are component technologies essential to the control of weeds in DSR. Herbicides in particular are an important tool of weed management, but hand weeding is either partially or extensively practiced in countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Though yet to be globally commercialized, transgenic rice varieties engineered for herbicide resistance are a potential means of weed control. The release of herbicide‐resistant rice for red rice control in the United States has indicated the need to critically examine mitigation methods for the control of gene flow. Integrating preventive and interventional methods of weed control remains essential in managing weed communities in DSR, both to prohibit the evolution of herbicide resistance and to maximize the relative contributions of individual components where herbicides are not widely used. There remains a need to further develop understanding of the mechanisms and dynamics of rice weed competition and of the community dynamics of weed populations in DSR to underpin sustainable weed management practices.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a comprehensive overview of chemical weed control, including properties and use of herbicides, as well as their application in the field of weed management and control.
Abstract: Preface. Introduction. Weeds - The Beginning. Weed Classification. Ethnobotany. Weed Reproduction and Dispersal. Weed Ecology. Allelopathy. The Significance of Plant Competition. Methods of Weed Management and Control. Biological Weed Control. Introduction to Chemical Weed Control. Properties and Use of Herbicides. Herbicides and Plants. Herbicides and Soil. Herbicide Application. Herbicide Formulation. Herbicides and Environment. Pesticide Legislation and Registration. Weed Management Systems. Weed Science - The Future. Appendices. Glossary. Index.