Herbicide discovery in light of rapidly spreading resistance and ever-increasing regulatory hurdles.

According to the United Nations, the global population is expected to grow to almost 10 billion people in 2050. This means that the demand for food, feed and fiber will double while at the same time, agriculture is being challenged by a scarcity of water, global warming, less land available for farming, protection of natural habitats, a demand for biodiversity on farms and other factors. In addition, crop protection products are under pressure from rapidly spreading resistance and increasing regulatory requirements. Many regulatory bodies are also moving away from a risk assessment approach to a more hazard-based approach to grant registrations. Nevertheless, chemical crop protection compounds remain attractive and necessary to combat pests, particularly weeds. Industry has increased its efforts to find new molecules that are highly biologically effective on target species, including resistant populations, but safe for non-target organisms. To manage resistance in the future, a diverse toolbox is needed that includes herbicides with a variety of different chemistries and modes of action, combined with non-chemical measures in integrated systems. However, discovering a herbicide and getting it registered and to the market is an extremely complex endeavor full of risk, much of it incalculable. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry.

New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk.

Agricultural intensification is critical to meet global food demand, but intensification threatens native species and degrades ecosystems. Sustainable intensification (SI) is heralded as a new approach for enabling growth in agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts. However, the SI literature has overlooked a major environmental risk. Using data from eight countries on six continents, we show that few governments regulate conventionally bred pasture taxa to limit threats to natural areas, even though most agribusinesses promote taxa with substantial weed risk. New pasture taxa (including species, subspecies, varieties, cultivars, and plant-endophyte combinations) are bred with characteristics typical of invasive species and environmental weeds. By introducing novel genetic and endophyte variation, pasture taxa are imbued with additional capacity for invasion and environmental impact. New strategies to prevent future problems are urgently needed. We highlight opportunities for researchers, agribusiness, and consumers to reduce environmental risks associated with new pasture taxa. We also emphasize four main approaches that governments could consider as they build new policies to limit weed risks, including (i) national lists of taxa that are prohibited based on environmental risk; (ii) a weed risk assessment for all new taxa; (iii) a program to rapidly detect and control new taxa that invade natural areas; and (iv) the polluter-pays principle, so that if a taxon becomes an environmental weed, industry pays for its management. There is mounting pressure to increase livestock production. With foresight and planning, growth in agriculture can be achieved sustainably provided that the scope of SI expands to encompass environmental weed risks.

Resistance risk assessment within herbicide authorisation--a call for sensitivity data.

In most European countries, the risk of herbicide resistance is assessed as part of the authorisation of herbicides in accordance with EPPO Standard PP 1/213(2). Because the susceptibility of weed populations to a certain herbicide may vary greatly, one part of resistance risk assessment is the testing for sensitivity variation among different populations of target weed species with a high resistance risk. This paper emphasises the importance of sensitivity data provision with regard to the recent EU Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and outlines the main technical requirements for sensitivity data. A useful principle is that sensitivity data should be provided for all herbicides with a high resistance risk regardless of whether resistance has already evolved against the herbicidal substance. Methodical details regarding the generation of sensitivity data are discussed, together with remaining questions that will need to be addressed if a harmonised assessment of herbicide resistance risk is to be achieved.

Herbicide-resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate.

This review focuses on proactive and reactive management of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds. Glyphosate resistance in weeds has evolved under recurrent glyphosate usage, with little or no diversity in weed management practices. The main herbicide strategy for proactively or reactively managing GR weeds is to supplement glyphosate with herbicides of alternative modes of action and with soil-residual activity. These herbicides can be applied in sequences or mixtures. Proactive or reactive GR weed management can be aided by crop cultivars with alternative single or stacked herbicide-resistance traits, which will become increasingly available to growers in the future. Many growers with GR weeds continue to use glyphosate because of its economical broad-spectrum weed control. Government farm policies, pesticide regulatory policies and industry actions should encourage growers to adopt a more proactive approach to GR weed management by providing the best information and training on management practices, information on the benefits of proactive management and voluntary incentives, as appropriate. Results from recent surveys in the United States indicate that such a change in grower attitudes may be occurring because of enhanced awareness of the benefits of proactive management and the relative cost of the reactive management of GR weeds.

Integrated weed management (IWM): will it reduce herbicide use?

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC), part of the EU Thematic Strategy for Pesticides, requires Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to be actively promoted. A key objective is to give greater priority to non-chemical methods of plant protection to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) can be considered part of IPM, and many non-chemical methods are available. For example, a recent review of methods for control of Alopecurus myosuroides (black-grass) in winter wheat found the following mean annual levels of control: ploughing 67%; delayed drilling 37%; fallowing 70%; higher seed rates 30%; competitive cultivars 27%. In comparison with herbicides these efficacy levels are mediocre, and A. myosuroides would be classified as resistant (R) or moderately resistant (MR) to all these methods if the criteria used by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate in the UK for assigning ratings to herbicide efficacy were used. It is, therefore, not surprising that farmers are reluctant to embrace IWM and continue to place greater.reliance on herbicides as a more reliable and cost effective method of weed control. While non-chemical methods will not replace herbicides on most farms, reduced reliance on herbicides will be necessary both for practical (increasing resistance, lack of new herbicides) and political reasons (complying with EU legislation). Farmers will use nonchemical control methods when they have a major weed problem, and have no alternative, but they must be encouraged to adopt IWM at an earlier stage. Research into IWM must be relevant and practical, and not simply conducted as some sort of 'academic' exercise. More effective knowledge transfer is vital, and this is a challenge due to the decline in independent, state funded, advisory services in many European countries. The question arises; is it possible to achieve reductions in pesticide use by simply promoting non-chemical methods of weed control, or will statutory limits on pesticides be needed to achieve this goal?