BIOHERBICIDES

PRESENTED BY:VIKRANT MEHTA

ROLL NO. : 301105022
A bioherbicide is a biologically based control
agent for weed. In irrigated agriculture, weed
control through chemical herbicides, creates
spray drift hazards and adversely affects the
environment. Besides, pesticide residues
(herbicides) in food commodities, directly or
indirectly affect human health. These lead to the
search for an alternate method of weed
management, which is eco-friendly.
 HISTORY OF BIOHERBICIDES

Commercial bioherbicides first appeared in the

market in USA in early 1980s with the release of the
products Devine ,Collego and Biomal. Devine,
developed by Abbott Laboratories,USA, the first
mycoherbicide derived from fungi (Phytophthora
palmivora Butl.), is a facultative parasite that
produces lethal root and collar rot of its host plant
Morrenia odorata (stangler wine)and persists in soil
saprophytically for extended periods of residual
control. It was the first product to be fully
registered as a mycoherbicide.
The initiative for using pathogens, phytotoxins from
pathogens, and other microorganisms as biological
weed-control agents began about three decades ago.
Since then, numerous microbes have been screened for
phytotoxic potential, and several dozens evaluated as
bioherbicides as reported by various researchers and
summarized (e.g., Hoagland, 1990, 2001; TeBeest, 1991).
Due to the interest in this area, many other weed
pathogens and phytotoxins (from pathogenic and non-
pathogenic microorganisms) will be discovered that
possess bioherbicidal activity. Most bioherbicides have
been targeted toward agronomic weeds, but these
agents may also be useful to control weeds in
nonagronomic areas (recreational areas, forests, rights-
 Principles of Microbial Weed Control
Boyetchko, 1997

 Approach
 Classical – agent selection, inoculation, self-
perpetuating, long term protection.
 Inundative – mass production, application at high
inoculum levels over a localized area, short term,
repeated application.
 Augmentation – re-establishment of a classical agent.
 Classes
 Mycoherbicide – fungal pathogen
 Bioherbicide – fungi and bacteria
 Microbial Weed Control

 Bruckart and Dowler, 1986: rust fungi are

effective biological control agents - USDA
 Templeton, 1988: predicted widespread
adoption can be achieved
 Strobel, 1991: predicted that bioherbicide
use will realize a tremendous increase in
agriculture
 Why Bioherbicides?
 Demand for decreased use of pesticides
 Large areas where herbicide application not
possible or not cost effective
 Damage to the environment
 Contamination of our water supply
 High yield losses still occur
 $619 million in vegetable, $441 million in fruit and
nut crops in the US
Ideal Characteristics of a Bioherbicide

 Produce abundant and durable inoculum

in culture
 Be target specific
 Be genetically stable
 Be capable of killing a significant portion
of the weed population under a variety of
environmental conditions (weed densities)

Boyetchko, 1997
 Herbicide resistant weed population
 Detrimental effects on non target organisms
 Native plants
AGENTS USED AS
BIOHERBICIDES
FUNGI
BACTERIA
VIRUS
Major Characteristics of Microbial Bioherbicides

Trait Bacteria Fungi Virus

Culture Easy Easy Host

Specificity Excellent Good Excellent

Field Performance Variable Variable Unknown

Formulation Variable Excellent Unknown

Effectiveness Variable Variable Excellent

Genetic stability High Medium Unknown

 Specificity of bioherbicides
 Pathogens of plant (i.e. bioherbicides) are
generally host specific.
 Cherrington, C. A. and L. F. Elliott. 1987.
Incidence of inhibitory pseudomonads in the
Pacific Northwest. Plant and Soil 101:159-
165.
 Isolated pseudomonads from downy brome, winter
barley, winter wheat, pea, lentil roots
 Found 106 - 108 CFU per gram dry weight
 Found isolates that reduced downy brome root
growth but not wheat root growth
 Kennedy, A. C., L. F. Elliott,
F. L. Young and C. L.
Douglas. 1991. Rhizobacteria
suppressive to the weed
downy brome. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 55:722-727
 1000 isolates, 18 inhibitory to
downy brome and not wheat
 Reduced DB population up to
30%
 Reduced DB shoot weight up
to 42%
 Increased winter wheat yields
35%
 Both in greenhouse and in
field trials in eastern
Washington
 COMMONLY USED
MYCOHERBICIDES
Many fungi have been shown to exhibit broad
spectrum weed control ranges.
TABLE 1 EXAMPLES OF FUNGAL
BIOHERBICIDES FOR
ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT
TERRESTIAL AND AQUATIC WEEDS
WEED PATHOGEN REFERENCE
1. Velvet Colletotrichum Hodgson et al.,
leaf coccodes, 1988
Fusarium lateritium Walker, 1981
2.Wild oat Septoria tritici Madariaga and
Scharen, 1985
3.Water Alternaria eichhorniae Shabana, 1987
hyacinth
4.Sickle pod Pseudocercospora Hofmeister and
nigricans Charudattan,
1987
5.Barnyard Cochliobolus lunatus Scheepens, 1987
grass
 EXAMPLES OF BROAD-SPECTRUM
FUNGAL BIOHERBICIDES TESTED FOR
WEED CONTROL
PATHOGEN WEED SPECIES OR REFERNCE
FAMILY
Alternaria cassiae Sicklepod Boyette, 1988;
Coffee senna Charudattan et
Showy crotalaria al., 1986; Walker, 1982,
1983
Amphobotrys ricini Members of Holcomb et al., 1989;
Euphorbiaceae Whitney
and Taber, 1986
Colletotrichum Members of Daniel et al., 1973;
gloeosporioides Leguminosae, Mortensen
Malvaceae, and Makowski, 1997
Convolvulaceae
(dodders)
Myrothecium Sicklepod; various Walker and Tilley,
verrucaria species of 1997
other plant families
 Bacterial Biological Control Agents

 Xanthomonas campestris pv. poannua -

postemergence activity on annual bluegrass
in bermudagrass lawns (Johnson, 1994:
Johnson, Wyse, Jones, 1996).
 Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis - Canada
thistle in soybean (Johnson, Wyse, Jones,
1996).
Risks associated with bioherbicides
In most instances the potential risks associated with the
use of Bioherbicides may includes certain concerns
such as:-
 worker exposure and safety

 Plant host range

 effects to nontarget organisms

(competition/displacement of beneficial
microbes in the community)
 production of chemicals that are persistent or

toxic to mammalian systems

Several examples in which bioherbicidal risk
has been published is presented below
Puccinia melampodii, a rust fungus isolated in Mexico, was approved
for release in Australia in an integrated strategy to manage
the highly allergenic weed, Parthenium hysterophorus, even though
it could also sporulate on several marigold and sunflower cultivars
(Evans, 2000). The Australian Quarantine and Plant Inspection
Service concluded that the actual and potential hazards involved
in not attempting to control this weed were significantly greater
than the perceived risks to nontarget plants.

One of the major hurdles in the use of bioherbicides is the risk

associates with that of secreted metabolites.
Fungi secrete a wide range of metabolites, some of which are
important medicines or research tools (Vey et al., 2001).
Some of these metabolites are highly toxic (fumonisins,
ochratoxins, patulin, zearalenone) or carcinogenic
(moniliformin, aflatoxin). A large amount of data has
accumulated on mycotoxin contamination of foodstuffs
and the risk these metabolites (mostly from saprophytic
fungi) pose to human and animal health (Abramson,
1998). In contrast less is known about metabolites from
fungal biocontrol agents, particularly those from
commercialized mycoherbicides, mycoinsecticides, and
mycoparasiticides (Strasser et al., 2000; Vey et al., 2001).
 RECENT ADVANCES IN
BIOHERBICIDES DEVELOPMENT
There are two particular areas where there appears to
be cause for optimism in the mycoherbicides field; the
use of virulent pathogens for the treatment of the cut
stumps of weedy trees in forest ecosystems, and weed
control targeted at the leisure industry (Evans et al.,
2001). A recent example of the former concerns using
the silver leaf fungus, Chondrostereum purpureum, for
control of black cherry (Prunus serotina: Rosaceae);
an invasive North American species which is a
serious threat to conifer plantations, as well as to
native woodlands in the Netherlands (De Jong et al.,
1990)
The bioherbicide, Biochons, is currently being
marketed by Koppert Biological systems as an
environmentally friendly solution to
undesirable tree regrowth. The use of this
pathogen for management of weedy, endemic,
deciduous trees in conifer plantations and
amenity areas is also being evaluated in
Canada(Prasad,1994).
In complete contrast, advanced technology and large
companies are currently involved in the development of
bioherbicides in Japan, not only in crop protection but
also in the highly lucrative leisure industry. The most
troublesome weed in golf courses is annual bluegrass
(Poa annua) and chemical herbicides are either nonselective
or now considered to be environmentally
undesirable. A highly specific, bacterial endophyte,
Xanthomonas campestris pv. poae, has recently (1997)
been registered under the name Campericos, and
constitutes the first bacterial herbicide to reach the
commercial market (Imaizumi and Fujimori, 1998).
There is no doubt that formulation has played a key
role in the marketing of bioherbicides, such as
Campericos, in order to overcome problems with
storage,establishment and efficacy in the field.
Essentially formulation is mixing the active
ingredient, in this casethe biological propagule,
with a carrier or solvent andother adjuvants in
order to develop a product which can be stored,
for at least 1 year, effectively applied to the target
weed with safe and consistent results.
 FUTURE OF
BIOHERBICIDES
The development of bioherbicides are less expensive than
for chemical herbicides (Templeton et al., 1986). For
example, the cost of developing COLLEGO was
approximately $1.5 million in research and development
in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Heiny and Templeton,
1993), and the cost of developing BIOMAL was estimated
to be about $2.6 million(J.R. Cross, Philom Bios, personal
communication).These development costs, compared to
the $30 millionore more to discover and develop a
chemical herbicide, make bioherbicide development quite
favourable (Heiny and Templeton, 1993).
The role of biomicrobial herbicides in agriculture,
however, is still problematic and insignificant.
Nevertheless, because of pressures to reduce the
reliance on chemical herbicides, bioherbicides could
make a significant contribution to weed control. In
the future, once the well-documented constraints
have been overcome, particularly through improved
target selection, formulation and marketing.
 BAYOT,R., A.K.WATSON, AND K.MOODY, 1992.

Prospects for the development and utilization of bioherbicide technology for major rice

weeds are very good. Work in this area is preliminary for the most part, but virulent

pathogens of some potential weed targets have been identified and initial laboratory and

field results are encouraging. Increased activity in basic and applied science and in

biotechnology have a definite role to play in development, implementation, and

advancement of this weed control strategy in tropical and subtropical regions. Virulence,

efficacy, fermentation, formulation, and application are aspects of prime importance.

Industry must become more involved in small niche markets, and techniques must be

developed for subsistence farmers as well as modern ones. There is likely to be increased

pressure from public and governmental bodies to reduce the use of chemical herbicides.

We are challenged to find acceptable, effective complementary weed control tactics.

 REFERENCES
 Advances in bioherbicides development—an
overview: R. Mohan Babu, , A. Sajeenaa, K.
Seetharamana, P. Vidhyasekarana, P.
Rangasamy, M. Som Prakash, A. Senthil Raja,
K.R. Biji
 BIOHERBICIDES: RESEARCH AND RISKS-
ROBERT E. HOAGLAND, C. DOUGLAS
BOYETTE, and MARK A. WEAVER
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, USDA-
ARS, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
HAMED K. ABBAS Crop Genetics and Production
Research Unit, USDA-ARS,Stoneville, Mississippi, USA.

•CURRENT STATUS OF BIOHERBICIDE

DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPECTS FOR RICE IN
ASIA - Alan K. Watson.
Plant Science Department, McGill University, 21,111
Lakeshore Road,Canada.
•Boyetchko, S. M. 1997. Principles of biological weed

control with microorganisms. HortSci. 32(2):201- 205.

•Cherrington, C. A. and L. F. Elliott. 1987. Incidence of

inhibitory pseudomonads in the Pacific Northwest. Plant

and Soil 101:159-165.
 Kennedy, A. C., L. F. Elliott, F. L. Young and C.
L. Douglas. 1991. Rhizobacteria suppressive to
the weed downy brome. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
55:722-727
 Heiny, D.K., Templeton, G.E., 1993. Economic
comparisons of mycoherbicides to conventional
herbicides. In: Altman, J. (Ed.),Pesticide
Interactions in Crop Production. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 395–408.
Bayot, R., A.K. Watson, and K. Moody.
1992. Control of paddy and aquatic weeds by
pathogeninPhilippinesIn:
IntegratedManagement of Paddy and Aquatic
Weeds and Prospects for Biological Control.
Food and Fertilizer Technology Center, Taipei,
Taiwan.