Review

Received: 21 August 2017 Revised: 2 December 2017 Accepted article published: 9 December 2017 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/ps.4821

The challenge of herbicide resistance around

the world: a current summary
Mark A Peterson,a* Alberto Collavo,b Ramiro Ovejero,c Vinod Shivraind
and Michael J Walshe

Abstract
Herbicide-resistant weeds have been observed since the early years of synthetic herbicide development in the 1950s and
1960s. Since that time there has been a consistent increase in the number of cases of herbicide resistance and the impact of
herbicide-resistant weeds. Although the nature of crop production varies widely around the world, herbicides have become a
primary tool for weed control in most areas. Dependence on herbicides continues to increase as global populations migrate
away from rural areas to cities and the agricultural labor force declines. This increased use of herbicides and the concurrent
selection pressure have resulted in a rise in cases of multiple resistance, leaving some farmers with few or no herbicide options
for certain weed infestations. Global population and economic forces drive many farmer choices regarding crop production and
weed control. The challenge is how to insert best management practices into the decision-making process while addressing
various economic and regulatory needs. This review endeavors to provide a current overview of herbicide resistance challenges
in the major crop production areas of the world and discusses some research initiatives designed to address portions of the
problem.
© 2017 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: Asia; Australia; Europe; Latin America; North America; South America

1 INTRODUCTION Another measure of HR is the area infested with various HR

It is difficult to deny the importance of herbicides to modern crop
production. In most developed nations, agriculture involves the
widespread use of herbicides for weed control, and in develop-
ing countries, mass migration from rural to urban areas is reduc-
ing the labor pool for hand-weeding and other labor-intensive
operations.1 Until the 1970s, reported instances of herbicide resis-
tance (HR) appeared to be limited and lagged behind the number
of resistance reports for insecticides and fungicides.2 However, by
the 1980s, HR had begun to appear at a much greater rate. In some
areas, herbicides have become the only means by which weeds
are controlled, leading to widespread HR by means of increasingly
powerful and complex resistance mechanisms.3,4
Current reports of confirmed resistance in various species can be
found on the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds
website.5 A few caveats must be stated regarding the data. The
survey depends largely on voluntary reporting and researchers
are most apt to submit cases that involve the first instances
of resistance in a weed species, whether that be for a given
site of action (SOA) or new combinations of multiple resistance.
Once a given SOA/species resistance becomes more common,
researchers tend to stop investigating and reporting cases of
that nature. Also, reporting of cases occurs most in areas where
there are more active university or institute scientists interested
in studying resistance. For instance, countries such as Australia
and the USA have fairly high numbers of reports, whereas there
are fewer reports from Asia and some Latin American coun-
tries. Significantly fewer cases are reported in Africa even though
there are some areas of intensive agriculture where herbicides are
routinely used.5
biotypes. This is a much more difficult figure to ascertain.6 Results
from farmer surveys regarding resistance on their farms can be
biased depending on the prominence of resistance to certain
herbicides in the news, product failures unrelated to resistance,
or discussions with neighbors that can lead to farmer perceptions
about resistance on their farm that may not be accurate. Detailed
studies of resistance conducted by researchers that randomly
collect seed and run greenhouse screenings are usually done for
only one species within a limited geography due to cost. Similar to
the situation with reported cases, estimates of infestations tend to
be more common in more developed agricultural areas.
Within these limitations, this review endeavors to provide an
overview of the current state of HR around the world, and to
explore differences and commonalities among geographies as to
how resistance is developing and how farmers are dealing with the
problem.
∗ Correspondence to: MA Peterson, Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268, USA. E-mail: mapeterson@dow.com
a Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA
b Bayer AG Crop Science Division, Frankfurt, Germany
c Monsanto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
d Syngenta, Singapore
e School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Narrabri,
Australia

Pest Manag Sci (2018) www.soci.org © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry

 www.soci.org MA Peterson et al.

resistance (Liu D, Hunan Plant Protection Institute, personal com-

Table 1. Overview of herbicide resistant weeds’ presence in Asian
countries infesting rice, wheat and corn production5
munication). Rice production in Japan and South Korea is also
significantly impacted by HR due to a heavy dependence on
Country Rice Wheat Corn Palm/Rubber herbicides. The first documented case of an HR weed in Japanese
rice was ALS-resistant M. korsakowii in Hokkaido prefecture in
Bangladesh –* NA NA NA
1994.5 Since then, the number of resistant weeds in Japanese rice
China xx xx x NA
fields has increased year-on-year (Fig. 1). Currently, 35 prefectures,
India – xxx – NA
representing >95% of the Japanese rice production area, face
Indonesia x NA – xx
heavy ALS resistance in all major rice weeds. Major resistant weeds
Japan xxx NA NA NA
in Japan include M. korsakowii, Lindernia spp., Rotala spp., Scirpus
Malaysia xx NA NA xx
juncoides, Ammania coccinea, Schoenoplectus juncoides11 and
Pakistan x xx – NA
Sagittaria trifolia.12 Another important rice weed, E. crus-galli, was
Philippines x NA – NA
first documented as resistant to acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase)
South Korea xxx NA NA NA
inhibitors in the dry-seeded rice production area of Okayama.13
Sri Lanka xx NA NA NA
Two biotypes of E. crus-galli from this area were also reported
Taiwan xx NA NA NA
to have multiple resistance to ACCase and ALS inhibitors.14 ALS
Thailand xx NA – –
and ACCase inhibitors have been used continuously in rice for
Vietnam xx NA – NA
broad-spectrum weed control in Korea, which has led to the
NA, not a major crop on an area basis in that particular country. selection of HR E. crus-galli and other broadleaf weeds, similar
*No major resistance reported; x, resistance has been reported but to the situation in Japan. In Korea, resistance to ALS inhibitors
is not a very significant threat to crop production; xx, resistance has was first reported in Monochoria korsakowii in 1998.5 Multiple
been reported and is a severe threat to crop production, but options
remain in terms of other modes of action available to manage resistant
resistance to ACCase inhibitors and ALS inhibitors first reported in
weeds; xxx, resistance is a severe threat to crop production and limited Echinochloa phyllopogon in 2006, soon followed by resistance to
options are available to manage resistance. the same herbicides in E. crus-galli in 2008.5 Recent reports indi-
cate multiple-resistant (ALS and ACCase) E. crus-galli populations
are becoming more widespread.15 Currently, in Korea all major
2 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN ASIA rice-growing provinces, representing >90% of the country’s rice
Agriculture in Asia is very diverse in terms of crops grown and the production area, have ALS-resistant weeds.
climatic zones across the region. There are nearly 500 million farm- By contrast, reports of resistant weeds in rice production across
ers across Asia with an average farm size of <1.5 ha. Adoption of India, Southeast Asia, and the Philippines are less common, pos-
new agricultural technologies among small farmers occurs slowly sibly because of the greater use of hand-weeding in these areas
and technologically related problems, such as HR, tend to evolve compared with China, Japan and South Korea.16 Current estimates
more slowly as well. By contrast, in some areas such as commercial are that 70% of the rice production area in India is treated with her-
palm oil plantations in Indonesia and state-run facilities in China, bicides for weed control and the remainder depends on manual
farms can be large and technologically advanced. In Asia, HR has weeding. The majority of the herbicides being used in rice belong
been less of a concern than insecticide and fungicide resistance. to the very long chain fatty acid (VLCFA) inhibitor and ALS inhibitor
However, during the past decade, HR in some cases has become groups. VLCFA inhibitors, which appear to have a lower tendency
a major impediment to growing crops across various Asian coun- to develop resistance,17 are generally applied at pre or early post
tries. Most readily available information on HR in Asia is related to emergence to control grasses. This is often followed by appli-
the major grain crops rice (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum) cations of ALS inhibitors post emergence to manage broadleaf
and maize (Zea mays), as well as palm oil (Elaeis guineensis) and weeds and supplemental manual weeding at a later stage.
natural rubber (Hevea brasiliensis). A brief overview of resistance Wheat is commonly grown in rotation with rice across Asia and in
in these crops is presented in Table 1. some cases, exhibits more difficult resistance issues. Resistance in
Rice is the dominant grain crop across much of Asia, with over grass weeds to ACCase and ALS herbicides is one of the major chal-
139 × 106 ha accounting for ∼ 87% of the world’s production area.7 lenges for wheat farmers across much of the region. This includes
As hand-weeding has declined in favor of more intensive herbicide widespread resistance of Phalaris minor to photosystem II (PSII),
use, resistant weeds in rice have become common. In northeast ACCase, and ALS chemistries across the wheat-producing areas of
Asia, the Yangtze River area, and southern China, nearly 25, 18 and India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Current estimates put
12% of rice production is impacted with acetolactate synthase nearly 4 × 106 ha infested with HR P. minor in northern India (Fig. 2).
(ALS) resistance, respectively, and 8, 12, and 10% of the area is Multiple herbicide resistance development in P. minor is a classic
impacted with quinclorac resistance.8 In China, ALS resistance was example of the loss of effectiveness of different herbicide SOAs
first documented in Echinochloa crus-galli in 2000. Since then other over a period (Fig. 3). In some areas wheat production declined sig-
major rice weeds such as Monochoria korsakowii, Sagittaria mon- nificantly due to widespread HR in P. minor.18–20
tevidensis and Monochoria vaginalis have evolved resistance to ALS In the Yangtze River area of China. ACCase and ALS inhibitors
inhibitors.5 In 2013 E. crus-galli was found resistant to penoxsulam, are the two major classes of herbicides that have been used post
the most widely used herbicide in China.9 Penoxsulam is one of emergence to selectively control grasses in wheat for the past
the most important herbicides to be used in China since 2008, and two decades.21 ACCase resistance was first reported in Beckmannia
has been an excellent tool for rice weed management. However, syzigachne in 201422 and many farmers shifted to ALS inhibitors
recent reports of cross- and multiple-resistant E. crus-galli have such as mesosulfuron-methyl for the control of ACCase-resistant
raised concerns about sustainable weed control options in rice.10 weeds.23 This, in turn, led to multiple-resistance in B. syzigachne
Current estimates are that nearly 2 × 106 ha in the Yangtze River and A. japonicus.21,24,25 Current estimates are that nearly 10% of
area and Ningxia Province are severely impacted by ALS inhibitor the area in the Chinese provinces of Anhui and Jiangsu are under

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry Pest Manag Sci (2018)

Herbicide resistance around the world
Figure 1. Top 10 wheat-producing states in India. The multiple herbicide-resistant Phalaris minor impacts nearly 4 × 106 ha in the encircled region.
serious threat of resistance to both ACCase and ALS inhibitors
across all key grasses, and farmers are once again shifting herbicide
use to PSII inhibitors.21
Maize production is spread across Asia, with even smaller
countries such as Vietnam and Thailand planting over 1 × 106 ha
annually.7 However, maize production in many Asian countries
is predominated by smallholdings where a significant amount
of weed control is achieved by mechanical or hand-weeding.
This may in part limit the number of resistant weeds reported in
maize for these countries. China, however, has a large planted
area of maize (38 × 106 ha).7 Because China does not grow
herbicide-tolerant maize at this point, herbicides such as ace-
tochlor, s-metolachlor, atrazine, nicosulfuron and mesotrione are
the foundations of weed control. At present, there are no data
available on the extent of resistant weeds in Chinese maize, but
recent estimates are that ∼ 15–20% of the maize area is infested
with PSII- or ALS-resistant weeds (Liu D, personal communication).
Palm oil production is concentrated mainly in Indonesia and
Malaysia, often on large commercial plantations where herbicide
use is intense.7,26,27 Natural rubber plantations also are heavily
concentrated in these countries and make extensive use of
herbicides.27 Consequently, resistance to several SOAs, including
glyphosate, paraquat, ALS, auxin, ACCase and glufosinate, have
been documented in species such as Eleusine indica, Hedyotis
verticillata, Clidemia hirta and Chromolaena odorata.28 In the case
of glufosinate-resistant E. indica reported on a palm plantation,
the grower had indicated using up to 24 applications annually.29
Multiple-resistant E. indica has also been identified in these areas.30
2.1 Herbicide resistance management
Across Asia, changing demographics will continue to drive a
greater dependence on herbicides and potentially greater HR,
Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
especially in rice and wheat production. In developed countries
such as Japan and South Korea, labor for farm work has been
limited for some time and hand-weeding is largely impractical.1
Countries with developing economies have seen significant
migrations of people from rural to urban areas and are already
experiencing labor shortages in agriculture.1,27 Herbicide selection
pressure will increase significantly and more weeds with multiple
resistance are likely to arise. Because the evolution of HR weeds is
outpacing the development of new SOA, it is critical for farmers to
utilize a diversity of weed management tools to maintain sustain-
able crop production. Non-chemical weed management practices
that do not involve high amounts of labor should be more
thoroughly researched and communicated. Many agronomic
practices like stale seedbed, early planting, higher wheat seeding
rates, herbicide rotations and sequential herbicide applications are
currently being recommended for the management of problem
species such as P. minor.31 In some areas, producers are undertak-
ing efforts to diversify weed control programs. For example, in one
survey of palm oil producers in Indonesia, 72% of respondents
indicated that they rotated herbicides to prevent resistance.26
The low number of HR weeds reported in some Asian countries
may be indicative of under-reporting due to limited resources for
public institutions associated with weed science, which may in
turn hamper research and education efforts. Private organizations,
government scientists and extension services should capitalize
on recent advancements in communication technology to reach
growers with greater ease, and share relevant scientific informa-
tion and advice that will help farmers to manage HR. Given the
importance of maintaining high levels of food production in the
most populous region of the world, international agencies may
want to consider increased emphasis on assisting these countries
in resistance management efforts.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org MA Peterson et al.

Australia, a key difference is that L. rigidum was established and

adapted throughout the production region.36,37 For most of the
20th century, livestock production dominated the current crop-
ping region and L. rigidum pastures were established as a valuable
source of forage. Thus, by the 1970s, when crop production and
herbicide use intensified, L. rigidum was established in large,
naturalized populations throughout the grain production regions.
L. rigidum is the world’s most resistance prone weed, hav-
ing evolved resistance to 11 herbicide SOAs.5 However, in total
there are 48 HR weed species in Australia with a number of
these resistant to multiple SOAs, such as Raphanus raphanistrum
(five SOAs),38–40 Avena fatua (three SOAs),41,42 Hordeum leporinum
(three SOAs)43–45 and Poa annua (five SOAs).5 However, with-
Figure 2. Phalaris minor cyclical herbicide resistance challenge in India.
In the early 1990s, isoproturon was solely used. With isoproturon resis- out doubt, it is the frequency and distribution of multi-resistant
tance in the mid-2000s, selection pressure was shifted to FOPS and sulfo- annual ryegrass populations that dominates weed management
sulfuron. Pinoxaden became the dominant herbicide to manage ALS and decision-making in Australian cropping.
ACCase-inhibitor resistance around 2010. Since then, pinoxaden resistance The consequence of HR evolution in Australian weed popula-
has been documented in the major wheat-growing areas of India.
tions has been that many previously effective herbicides are no
longer useful. The predominant HR scenario in Australian crop-
3 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN AUSTRALIA ping fields is demonstrated by the evolution of ACCase inhibit-
In the first decade of the 21st century Australia led the world in the ing and/or ALS inhibiting HR in L. rigidum populations.33–35,46
number of HR cases, with high frequencies of multi-resistant popu-
lations evolving on a grand scale throughout all cropping regions.
In the decade prior to this, there was wholesale adoption of highly
productive conservation cropping systems based on no-till and
stubble retention by Australian producers.32 Adoption of this
production system was facilitated by highly effective herbicides
that subsequently became the entire focus of weed management
programs. Conservation agriculture has dramatically increased the
productivity and sustainability of Australian cropping. However,
a consequence is the widespread evolution of HR across the Aus-
tralian grain-producing region (Fig. 4).33–35 Now, a little over two
decades since herbicide reliance became widespread, herbicide
susceptibility in Australian Lolium rigidum populations is rare.
The presence of large populations of genetically diverse,
well-adapted, L. rigidum resulted in the evolution of multi-resistant
populations on a large scale. Although HR weed populations have
evolved in many parts of the world,5 nowhere has multiple resis-
tance evolution been more extensive than across the Australian Figure 4. Frequency of herbicide resistance in randomly collected
grain-producing region (Table 2). Although herbicide reliance for annual ryegrass populations across the Australian grain-production region
the control of resistance-prone weed species is not unique to (shaded green).

Figure 3. Progression of ALS-resistance in different weed species across various prefectures of Japan. Source: http://jhrwg.ac.affrc.go.jp/JHRWG.html

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry Pest Manag Sci (2018)

Herbicide resistance around the world www.soci.org

Table 2. Herbicide resistance in annual ryegrass populations Table 3. Annual ryegrass plant densities in randomly surveyed
randomly collected across Australia’s cropping regions wheat fields across the Australian cropping region

Southern Region Annual ryegrass density (plants/m2 )

Mode of Western New South South
South Australis and Victoria* < 5.0
Herbicide action Australia* Wales* Australia† Victoria† Tasmania
Western Australia† <1.0
Diclofop ACCase 96 64 58 73 46 New South Wales‡ <1.0
Sethoxdim ACCase 79 – – – – Tasmania‡ <1.0
Clethodim ACCase 65 12 9 8 8 Data from
Tralkoxydim ACCase – 32 – – – *Boutsalis P (personal communication),
Chlorsulfuron ALS – 53 70 71 – †Broster J (personal communication) and.
Sulfometuron ALS 98 64 – – 16 ‡Owen et al.33 and Lewelleyn et al.52
Imazamox/ ALS – 49 58 31 20
imazapyr
Trifluralin VLCFA 27 12 57 8 8 available herbicide options. The maintenance of control is likely
Simazine PSII – 0 – – – a response to awareness of resistance issues combined with the
Atrazine PSII 2 – – – – use of new and existing alternate weed control technologies (e.g.
Glyphosate EPSPS 7 2 3 2 0 harvest weed seed control, strategic tillage, crop competition).
Paraquat PSI 0 – – – – Additionally, recent random surveys indicate that the rates of
resistance evolution have slowed and potentially even halted,
*Data from Han et al.,48Rey-Caballero et al.63
and Boutsalis P (personal commu-
nication).
albeit at very high levels.33 Although resistance frequencies will
†Southern NSW and WA values are populations with ≥1% survival, Vic and SA remain high, lower weed densities mean that these populations
values are for ≥20% survival at recommended rate. have a greatly reduced impact on crop production. It now seems
–, herbicide not used in screening; ACCase, acetyl-CoA carboxylase
inhibitor; ALS, acetolactate synthase inhibitor; VLCFA, very long chain clear that Australia no longer leads the world in HR, but instead is
fatty acid inhibitor; PSII, photosynthesis at photosystem II inhibitor; EPSPS, now the global leader in HR management.
5-enolpyruvulshikimate-3-phosphate synthase inhibitor; PSI, photosynthesis at
photosystem I inhibitor.
4 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN EUROPE
Europe is characterized by a highly diversified agricultural sector.
The resistance mechanisms involved are typically dominant to Besides the geographical differences, a diversified agricultural sec-
semi-dominant3,47–50 with little or no fitness penalty,51 ensuring tor is likely to be the consequence of differences in political and
that HR L. rigidum populations will remain in perpetuity. The economic systems across European countries. The European Union
ubiquitous occurrence of HR L. rigidum populations in Australian (EU) has around 10.8 million farms covering 174 × 106 ha of agricul-
cropping systems has resulted in the loss of many highly effective tural land, as a result, the average farm size is 16 ha.53 Farm size and
herbicides from weed management programs. land properties vary greatly among EU countries and most likely
are among the more important factors that influence the adoption
3.1 Herbicide resistance management of agricultural practices. Compared with other regions around the
The extent and severity of HR in Australia ensures that the cost world, minimum tillage is still expanding and is being adopted to
to grain growers of managing resistance reactively is considerable help protect land from erosion and reduce carbon dioxide emis-
and escalating. Recent results from a national grower survey esti- sions, fossil fuel use, nitrogen and pesticide leaching, and improve
mated that HR costs growers an additional A$187 million annu- soil structure.54,55 The relatively complex and diverse weed flora
ally just in additional herbicide costs.52 These costs are associated and cropping systems, as well as highly variable farm sizes found in
with the use of alternate herbicides and herbicide mixtures, as well Europe may have delayed the emergence of resistance compared
as higher application rates and equate to approximately an extra with other regions of the world.56
A$8 ha−1 . Not surprisingly, most of these additional costs (A$103 Although EU cropping systems are diverse, crop rotations are
million) are used in attempts to control HR L. rigidum populations. dominated by winter crops (wheat/barley, 36.5 × 106 ha and
It is more difficult to determine the impact of HR on the use of oilseed rape, 6.4 × 106 ha) and maize (9.3 × 106 ha) or other sum-
additional weed control practices such as tillage, hay cutting and mer crops according to the climate zone because temperature
harvest weed seed control. However, data from this survey allow and water requirements limit maize-growing areas. Europe is the
comparison of overall weed control costs (yield and revenue loss, largest producer of wheat, the second most widely grown cereal
contamination, herbicides, tillage, etc.) between growers with and crop in the world after rice.57 France, Germany, Poland and the
without HR. This comparison estimated that the annual cost due to UK produce more than half the EU’s cereals. In those countries,
HR was an additional weed control cost of A$55 ha−1 . This is con- crop rotations with winter cereals are dominated by annual winter
siderably more than the cost of the herbicide alone and likely more weeds.
accurately reflects the financial burden of HR on Australian grain Although it is difficult to collect precise information on the
growers. spread and intensity of HR, countries where it has been widely
However, despite the dramatic levels of HR in Australian weed reported are the UK, France, Germany and Belgium in central
populations and the consequential loss of herbicide efficacy, L. Europe; Spain and Italy in southern Europe; and Poland, Czech
rigidum densities remain low and may even be declining in some Republic and Hungary in eastern Europe.5 The most intense infes-
areas (Table 3). In particular, across the Western Australia cropping tations are reported in Western Europe. Cases of resistance in
region where the frequency of HR is arguably the highest in the southern Europe seem to be less uniformly spread than in central
world, in-crop densities of L. rigidum remain low despite very few and northern Europe.

Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps

 www.soci.org
Figure 5. Area of wheat production and general areas of major herbicide
resistant weeds (adapted from Trnka et al.57 ).
Considering all the available information, the most important
resistant weeds infesting cereals involve grass species (Fig. 5).
Alopecurus myosuroides is spread mainly in central–northern
regions, whereas Lolium spp. are common in most countries
regardless of latitude. A. myosuroides and Lolium spp. are the
most reported species evolving multiple resistance cases, mainly
to ACCase and ALS inhibitors.5,58,59 Particularly troubling is the
widespread presence of metabolic resistance in A. myosuroides
because this may result in broader cross-resistance, potentially
even to new herbicides.59,60 Multiple resistance in these species
continues to grow, with reports of L. rigidum populations resis-
tant to both glyphosate and protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)
inhibitors recently found in southern Spain.61 Apera spica-venti
is found in central–eastern regions and is generally resistant to
ALS inhibitors, but cases of resistance or multiple resistance to
ACCase or PSII inhibitors have also been found in this species.5,62
Avena spp. (A. fatua and A. sterilis in northern and southern Europe,
respectively), are resistant to ACCase and/or ALS inhibitors. HR
Papaver rhoeas is reported mainly in the Iberian peninsula but
is also present in northern Europe. It is generally resistant to
ALS inhibitors and, especially in the Iberian peninsula, cases of
multiple resistance to ALS and synthetic auxins are increasing.63
Most of the cases reported in maize are old cases related to
the triazines, but more recently some cases of resistance in E.
crus-galli, Sorghum halepense and Amaranthus spp. to ACCase
and/or ALS inhibitors have been reported.5 The past selection
pressure exerted by triazines on certain weeds is even now
affecting active ingredients like metribuzin, terbuthylazine and
metamitron.
Rice production (0.6 × 106 ha EU + Turkey) occurs mainly in Italy
and Turkey and a few other Mediterranean counties. The usual
weed flora is dominated by Echinochloa spp., mainly resistant to
ALS or ACCase inhibitors and a few multiple resistant cases to both
SOA. However other resistant species can be found in rice such
as Cyperus difformis resistant to ALS inhibitors and red rice (Oryza
sativa var. sylvatica) resistant to ALS where the adoption of ALS
herbicide tolerant rice is prominent.5,64
Among broadleaves, Conyza spp. has been reported to be resis-
tant to the 5-enolpyruvulshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
inhibitor glyphosate in perennial crops, which cover around
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
MA Peterson et al.
9 × 106 ha, mainly olive and citrus groves in the Mediterranean
area.5,65 Other cases of resistance to EPSPS involve Lolium spp.
in vineyards, and to a lesser extent in wheat, where the use of
glyphosate after harvesting and before sowing is high.66–68
A rough estimate based on the author’s interviews with weed
resistance experts from public institutions and the agrichemical
industry led to an area of almost 9 × 106 ha affected by resistant
weeds in wheat and oilseed rape cropping systems, 0.2 × 106 ha in
maize, 0.14 × 106 ha in rice and >0.22 × 106 ha in perennial crops.
4.1 Herbicide resistance management
Some countries in Europe have virtually lost the use of ACCase
inhibitors to control A. myosuroides, and resistance to ALS is
steadily increasing. Some simulations have indicated that, if left
unchecked, resistant A. myosuroides may eliminate profitability
for some European farmers.69 The same study indicates that a
proactive approach that utilizes a greater diversity of crops, tillage
and herbicides may reduce net profitability by 4–24% compared
with an intensive cropping system without resistance, but in
the long term will be more profitable compared with resistance
development.70 The consequence of evolution of resistance to
ACCase and ALS inhibitors in grass species in small grain crops
has been an increase in the adoption of pre-emergence herbi-
cides, along with greater use of cultural practices such as occa-
sional inversion tillage and use of false seedbeds, in order to reduce
resistance selection pressure and eventually exhaust the seed-
bank. Studies in the UK, where almost every farm is affected by A.
myosuroides resistant to ACCase inhibitors and resistance to ALS
inhibitors is increasing, have demonstrated that a weed manage-
ment system based on only herbicides is not sustainable, and resis-
tance can increase costs up to €240 ha−1 (cost based on author’s
estimation of on-farm prices plus ancillary costs of cultivation).
Major changes in cultural practices are being implemented when
there are no other economically feasible options. In those areas of
the UK where HR is not manageable with alternative herbicides,
implementation of the following has been observed: (1) innovative
planting and cultivation tools, such as redesigned drilling equip-
ment that causes minimal soil disturbance; (2) delayed drilling
combined with stale seedbeds to reduce early-germinating weeds
cohorts; (3) diversity in crop rotation/cultivation, such as the inclu-
sion of summer crops to disrupt winter grasses; (4) adoption of
cover crops to improve soil structure and drainage to allow flexi-
ble drilling dates on heavy land, as well as give spring crops a head
start over weeds; (5) increasing crop competitiveness by choosing
more competitive varieties, helping to reduce grass weed tiller-
ing, heading and seed production; and (6) enhancing herbicide
performance in various ways (i.e. improved application methods,
proper growing stage and avoiding applications under adverse
conditions). The key lesson from the UK is that it is all about man-
aging the weed population density and soil seed bank, irrespective
of resistance status.
Because of a scarcity of new products in the pipeline and the
withdrawal or enforced dose rate reduction of many active ingre-
dients resulting from the re-registration process, resistance cases
are likely to increase in the near future.70 The biggest problems are
encountered where simplified and standardized agronomic prac-
tices are adopted, such as monoculture and the use of herbicides
with the same SOA.69 It is not surprising that the most affected
cropping systems with major HR issues are those where a limited
number of SOAs are used, for example, winter cereals. The adop-
tion of conservation agriculture, which has major benefits for the
Pest Manag Sci (2018)
Herbicide resistance around the world www.soci.org

soil, also has a side effect of promoting the occurrence of species

germinating from the surface (i.e. A. myosuroides, A. spica-venti and
Lolium spp.).71
Herbicide tolerant (HT) crop varieties are convenient technolo-
gies for weed management, nevertheless the adoption of HT crops
also poses the risk of selecting resistance. ALS-tolerant oilseed rape
and sugar beet introduce the opportunity of using ALS herbicides
across rotations with cereals where ALS herbicides are a major
component of weed management programs. Thus, an aggressive
and proactive anti-resistance management strategy needs to be
implemented in such rotations.
Efforts to convey a common and effective message promoting
the introduction of diversity into cropping systems through the
adoption of integrated weed management (IWM) are being made
by the EU, universities and agricultural research centers, as well as
the industry. Education is critical, and its importance cannot be
underestimated.
5 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN SOUTH
AMERICA
South America represents ∼ 20–25% of the cultivated area in the
world, with a key role in production and global trade. Row crops are
dominant in terms of planted area with 58.7 × 106 ha of soybean
(Glycine max), 20.6 × 106 ha of maize and 0.97 × 106 ha of cotton.7
From the farmers’ perspective, soybean is the main crop that
drives decision-making across each region and this can limit crop
rotation. Farm size varies widely, but in general farms >1000 ha
account for almost 40–50% of the area in crop production.72 By
contrast, some countries have large numbers of small farmers with
holdings of <50 ha.
Climate across South America varies greatly depending on lat-
itude. In much of Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and northern areas of
Argentina, the climate is tropical with high temperatures for most
of the year, but also with a pronounced dry season during the
winter months.73 The southern-most portion of Brazil, most of
Uruguay, and a large portion of Argentina is an area known as the
Pampa, which is a steppe landscape with a more temperate climate
and generally deep, fertile soils.
No-till farming is used by ∼ 90% of South American growers74
and glyphosate is a key part of this system. Crops tolerant to
glyphosate account for almost 96% of the total soybean area in
South America.75,76 Glyphosate is often applied at least three to
five times a year to fields where glyphosate-tolerant soybean is
grown.77,78 This technology has been used successfully over the
past 20 years in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay.
However, the use of glyphosate with no herbicide rotation or
mixtures has led to the selection of tolerant weed species through
weed shifts and the evolution of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed
populations across the main agricultural regions.79,80
Across South America, there are 126 documented cases of weed
resistance: 49 in Brazil, 25 in Argentina, 19 in Chile, 8 in Bolivia, 10
in Venezuela, 6 in Colombia, 5 in Uruguay, 3 in Paraguay, and 1
in Ecuador.5,81–83 Approximately 70% of the reported cases are in
the main soybean-producing countries (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia,
Uruguay and Paraguay) and over half are in soybean (Table 4). Even
though most of the reported cases are species resistant to one
single herbicide SOA, in recent years more cases of multiple resis-
tance to glyphosate and other modes of action (MOA) have been
reported. The frequency of new weed resistance cases is increas-
ing and spreading in South America, changing the herbicide mar-
ket. Cases of resistance include both broadleaf species (30 cases)
Table 4. Number of reported herbicides resistant weeds in South
America in soybean crop by site of action5,81–83
Country Total EPSPS ALS ACCase PPO PSI Multiple*
Brazil 26 8 6 4 1 1 6
Argentina 17 11 2 2 – – 2
Bolivia 9 2 1 4 1 – 1
Uruguay 3 3 – – – – –
Paraguay 3 2 1 – – – –
Total 58 26 10 10 2 1 9
EPSPS, 5-enolpyruvulshikimate-3-phosphate synthase inhibitor; ALS,
acetolactate synthase inhibitors; ACCase, acetyl-CoA carboxylase
inhibitors; PPO, protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors; PSI, photosyn-
thesis at photosystem I inhibitor.
*Resistance to two or more sites of action.
and grasses (28 cases), and in some areas together in the same
field, creating issues with tank mix compatibility and antagonisms
among different herbicides.
In the 1990s, weed resistance to ALS and ACCase herbicides were
predominant across the region because of the intensive use of
those herbicide groups in conventional soybean fields. Between
1993 and 2004, resistance to ALS was reported for Bidens pilosa,
B. subalternans, Euphorbia heterophylla and Amaranthus hybridus
in countries such as Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, and these
biotypes are now widespread.5 Early reports (before 2005) of
resistance to ACCase for Urochloa plantaginea, Digitaria ciliaris and
E. indica were in Brazil and Bolivia.5 The first multiple resistance
case in soybean occurred in Euphorbia heterophylla resistant to ALS
and PPO herbicides.5,77
Within a few years of the widespread adoption of
glyphosate-tolerant soybeans across the region, GR weeds began
to appear in many South American countries (Table 4). Several of
the more problematic GR species are grasses. In 2003/2004, GR
Lolium multiflorum populations were found in annual crops such
as soybean, wheat and maize in Rio Grande do Sul.84 L. multiflorum
is well adapted to the southern region of Brazil, where it is used
as a winter cover crop in the no-till agriculture system, as well as a
cover crop in orchards, or as forage.85 The presence of this weed
can reduce wheat yield up to 62%.86 After the first GR case in Rio
Grande do Sul, farmers began to use ACCase inhibitors to manage
GR L. multiflorum prior to sowing soybean or ALS inhibitors in
corn as alternative management tool.78,84,87 Consequently, in
2010/2011 L. multiflorum populations with multiple resistance to
glyphosate and ACCase inhibitors were reported. Then, in 2017
a population resistant to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors was also
found.5 The main infestation is in southern Brazil and studies
indicate that in 2015 the area infested with GR L. multiflorum was
>4 × 106 ha.88 In Uruguay HR L. multiflorum is estimated to affect
more than 290 000 ha.83
The first control failures of the perennial weed Sorghum
halepense in Argentina were observed in 2003 in soybean pro-
duction areas of the northwest provinces of Salta and Tucumán.
This area has 90% of its agricultural production under no-tillage
and is highly dependent on glyphosate with the first GR case
confirmed in 2005.89–92 Currently, GR biotypes are found in all
Argentinian production regions, where they have spread by har-
vester movement.85,91,93–95 S. halepense can cause up to 40% yield
loss and is a key weed in the region.89 In Argentina, the estimated
area infested with GR Sorghum halepense is currently estimated to
be ∼ 5.0 × 106 ha.96

Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps

 www.soci.org MA Peterson et al.

Another key grass weed with widespread GR is Digitaria insularis, areas should be consider resistant to glyphosate and ALS herbi-
which is common across many areas of Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. cides when planning weed management strategies.80 A. palmeri
The first report of D. insularis resistant to glyphosate occurred resistant to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors was first detected in
in soybean fields of Paraná in 2008.97 GR D. insularis has spread Brazil in Mato Grosso state 2015, but has been contained so far
rapidly from western Paraná State to the central region of Brazil, through cooperative efforts between the Brazilian government
mainly in the grain-producing areas and possibly through har- and local farmer associations.107–110 A 2016 survey of HR weeds in
vester movement as well as independent selections. GR D. insularis Uruguay found 3500 ha affected by GR A. palmeri.83
populations are now found in all geographical regions of Brazil,
with an estimated infestation area of 8.2 × 106 ha.98,99 It is the most
5.1 Herbicide resistance management
important GR species in Paraguay, having spread to approximately
In South America, weed resistance is one of the most important
75% of the soybean-producing regions (Adegas F, personal com-
concerns for farmers, mostly due to new cases, increasing areas
munication). For most GR grasses, farmers have turned to ACCase
of infestation, populations with multiple resistance, and mixed
inhibitors and the overuse of this SOA is leading to the selection of
GR populations (grasses + broadleaves) in the same field. This
multiple resistant populations of these weeds in Brazil, Bolivia and
situation leads to increased complexity and higher costs for farm
Argentina.78,81,82
management. In Brazil, the area with weed resistance has been
Conyza spp. can cause >50% yield loss in soybean and are now
estimated at >20 × 106 ha, and the costs for weed resistance
the most troublesome GR broadleaf weeds in the region.82,95,100,101
management were close to US $3 billion (additional control and
The first reports of GR Conyza bonariensis and C. canadensis in
yield losses).78 In the 2016/2017 season, the costs of weed control
Brazilian soybean occurred in 2005 in Rio Grande do Sul and
in Brazil were US $40–120 ha−1 . For example, mixed infestations of
Paraná.102,103 Subsequently, in 2010, Conyza sumatrensis resis-
GR weeds can increase management costs by US $25–84 ha−1 .88
tant to glyphosate was also reported in Paraná.5 C. canaden-
The cost of weed control in Argentina during the 2016/2017
sis, C. bonariensis and C. sumatrensis infestations are now spread
season varied between US $100 and 131 ha−1 , 40% higher than
across all soybean-producing regions, with an infested area of
during the 2013/2014 season. For example, the cost to man-
10.6 × 106 ha.98 Argentina encountered the first reports of C. bonar-
age mix infestation of resistant grasses and A. hybridus was US
iensis populations suspected to be resistant to glyphosate dur-
$131 ha−1 .111 Additionally, South America’s growers are not highly
ing the 2008/09 season in the Pampa region and Entre Rios.
experienced in the use of alternative herbicides or non-chemical
Currently, C. sumatrensis, infests around 10 × 106 ha in Argentina
weed control practices. Therefore, resistance management to
and has become one of the key weeds due to increasingly
prevent or slow weed resistance evolution remains challenging.
high levels of GR and few effective alternative herbicide sites of
The implementation of comprehensive stewardship programs in
action.101 C. sumatrensis resistant to glyphosate was first observed
South America is critical to the long-term sustainability and viabil-
in Paraguay in 2008, and is now thought to cover ∼ 30% of the
ity of glyphosate-based weed control systems by reducing selec-
soybean-producing area (Adegas F, personal communication). A
tion pressure with the use of alterative herbicides. This includes
2016 survey of HR weeds in Uruguay found C. bonariensis to be
developing diversified weed control recommendations for each
the most serious weed problem in that country, with >1000 pro-
growing region, education programs targeting farm consultants
ducers and almost 600 000 ha affected.83 Once farmers across the
and farmers to communicate best management practices, and
region started to encounter GR Conyza spp. their first reaction was
commercial programs consistent with science-based weed man-
to increase applications of ALS herbicides to control it. Unfortu-
agement recommendations. In some cases, changes in national
nately, this has led to a growing problem with multiple resistance
export policies and land lease arrangements, as well as the expan-
to both glyphosate and ALS herbicides.5 Another Conyza con-
sion of public research will be necessary to support greater diver-
trol strategy has been application of a contact herbicide, such as
sification of cropping and improved resistance management.112
paraquat, shortly after the burndown application of combinations
For the future, a general analysis of forthcoming technologies
of glyphosate with 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid). This
in soybeans shows that they are efficient and offer alternatives
‘double knockdown’ strategy has been largely successful for con-
for controlling broadleaves (2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate), but not
trol of GR Conyza, but unfortunately reports of paraquat-resistant
grasses. Because no new herbicide SOA is likely to be introduced
Conyza are now starting to appear.5
soon, one can speculate that grasses resistant to glyphosate will
A new problem has been the recent appearance and spread
continue to be a primary problem for South American farmers.
of GR Amaranthus species, especially in Argentina. Amaranthus
hybridus is a native species found across the central and northern
regions of Argentina and it is a major weed of summer crops, such
as soybean, peanut, corn and sunflower. The presence of this weed 6 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN NORTH
can reduce soybean yield by between 9 and 40%.104 Populations of AMERICA
GR A. hybridus were reported in 2013 and 2015 with multiple resis- North America (including Canada, Mexico and the USA) produces a
tance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors in south Cordoba and Santa significant portion of the world’s grains and oilseeds. This includes
Fe.82 Amaranthus palmeri populations resistant to glyphosate were 8% of all wheat, 34% of all soybean, and 36% of all maize.7
first detected in Argentina in 2013.105 The introduction of A. Production areas for these crops are largely in the USA and Canada,
palmeri into the south of Córdoba is probably associated with and the vast majority of North American HR cases are reported in
the importation of cereals, oilseeds or forages contaminated with these two countries.5
weed seeds, or from agricultural machinery brought from the The first case of HR reported in North America was Daucus carota
USA.105 Between 2013 and 2015, the presence of this weed was to the auxin SOA in 1957.5 However, very few additional reports
detected in much of the grain-growing area of Argentina.80,106 occurred until the first case of triazine resistance was recorded
Also, A. palmeri resistant to ALS was reported in 2014 in southwest 1970. Triazine resistance dominated reports over the next 17 years
of Cordoba and east of San Luis.82 A. palmeri populations in these until 1987 when the first instances of ALS-resistant species started

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry Pest Manag Sci (2018)

Herbicide resistance around the world
Figure 6. General distribution of key resistant weed species across Canada
and the USA.
to appear. Reports of resistance to ACCase herbicides began about
the same time. By the mid to late 1990s, cases of ALS resistance
were beginning to dominate the survey and instances of multi-
ple resistant populations were appearing. The first case of resis-
tance to glyphosate was noted on L. rigidum in California in 1998
and within 2 years C. canadensis in Delaware was the first reported
GR broadleaf species. Since 2005, the number of GR broadleaf
weeds has increased significantly. Figure 6 provides an overview
of the primary problem weeds in different areas of North America.
Amaranthus species are probably the most impactful HR species
in most of the USA. Much of the southeastern USA is infested
with A. palmeri that is resistant to both glyphosate and ALS herbi-
cides, and increasingly multiple resistant to glyphosate, ALS and
PPO SOAs.113,114 HR Amaranthus tuberculatus is common across
most of the US Midwest and many populations have multiple
resistance.5,115,116 In some cases, resistance to five different SOA
has been documented in the same population.117 Amaranthus
species can germinate throughout the growing season and often
produce seed in very short periods.118 Years of glyphosate use,
given its lack of residual control, has helped encourage dom-
inance by species with extended germination periods such as
Amaranthus. HR C. canadensis is widely distributed in the cen-
tral and eastern portions of North America from Mississippi to
Ontario.5 It is often resistant to glyphosate along with ALS, but
has also demonstrated resistance to PSII inhibitors and, in iso-
lated instances, PSI inhibitors. Early infestations of GR Conyza were
identified in California (orchard floors) and Delaware (soybean)
where glyphosate use was high.119,120 Although it has typically
been considered a winter annual, with the majority of germina-
tion in the fall, researchers have noted significant germination in
the spring.121,122 Shifting emergence patterns combined with resis-
tance to herbicides have made C. canadensis a primary weed prob-
lem for many soybean growers in North America. Ambrosia trifida is
another species that has developed resistance to both glyphosate
and ALS herbicides, and these biotypes are found in much of the
eastern USA and Canada.5 Kochia scoparia is a problematic weed
in the plains of North America that has widespread resistance to
ALS and glyphosate, with some populations resistant to auxinic
herbicides.123–126 This species spreads readily because the plants
often break off at the base following senescence and roll across
the landscape with the wind.127,128 Resistant grasses are less com-
mon than broadleaves in most US row crops, but are common in
the cereal-producing areas of the USA and Canada.5,129 Setaria and
Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
Avena resistant to ACCase herbicides are commonly found in the
north central USA and the Canadian prairies.129 Resistant L. multi-
florum is problematic in many wheat-growing areas across North
America, and GR and ALS-resistant grasses are found in both row
crops and cereals across the continent.130–136
GR is probably the most widespread and economically impactful
resistance across a large swath of North America. GT varieties of
maize, soybean and cotton account for >90% of the area planted
to those crops.137 The use of GT crops also enabled many farmers
to adopt no-till systems, saving time and soil but also increasing
dependence on glyphosate.138,139 This dependence has made GR
weeds tremendously disruptive.
The recent emergence of widespread resistance to PPO inhibitor
herbicides has been particularly troubling for US row crop pro-
ducers. Results from 593 field samples of A. tuberculatus and A.
palmeri collected in 10 Midwestern states indicated as many as
82% testing positive for both GR and PPO resistance, depend-
ing on the state.140 PPO-resistant biotypes of A. palmeri have also
been discovered across much of the mid-South in states such as
Arkansas and Tennessee.141,142 Resistance in these biotypes tends
to be more strongly exhibited to foliar applications of PPO herbi-
cides compared with soil-applied products within the same SOA,
with lower resistance ratios for the soil-applied materials.143 This
may be mainly due to the relatively high dose of soil-applied prod-
ucts made to ensure sufficient length of residual control.
6.1 Herbicide resistance management
The first reaction to GR is often to increase the rate or num-
ber of applications of glyphosate. Given the relatively low cost
of glyphosate and the high tolerance of GT crops the ‘more is
better’ strategy has been a natural response. However, when this
approach worked it was usually not for long because the weed
populations were simply driven to higher levels of resistance. In
some instances, farmers used other herbicide SOA as ‘rescue’ treat-
ments following glyphosate failure. This placed higher selection
pressure on the alternative herbicide because it was often applied
under less than ideal circumstances regarding weed size and sus-
ceptibility. Another, more proactive next step usually consists of
additional applications of herbicides or mixtures of other herbi-
cides with glyphosate. In many cases, this can be a highly effec-
tive means of managing the problem if the herbicides overlap in
spectrum and are equally effective.144 According to proprietary
market research, from 2000 to 2015, the use of pre-plant and
pre-emergence herbicides in soybeans increased from 25% to
almost 70%, largely in response to GR weeds. The use of herbicides
with longer soil residual properties has been helpful to control
weeds with extended periods of germination such as Amaranthus
and Conyza.
However, there has been somewhat of a ‘domino effect’ from
these strategies. As glyphosate failed, farmers who simply moved
to the next best alternative herbicide without implementing other
diversification tactics often saw development of resistance to the
alternative herbicide and more multiple-resistant populations in
their fields. Recent increases in Amaranthus populations with resis-
tance to both glyphosate and PPO herbicides are prime examples
of this sequence of events.140,141 In some crops such as soybeans,
the herbicide options for foliar control of some species have
narrowed sharply. New herbicide-tolerant soybeans and cotton
enable use of auxin herbicides (i.e. 2,4-D and dicamba), a SOA pre-
viously unavailable in these crops.145 However, these technologies
will have to be carefully stewarded to avoid rapid development of
resistance.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org
All these strategies resulted in increased costs for weed con-
trol. As additional herbicides have become necessary to control
GR weeds, overall herbicide costs have nearly doubled.146 In some
cases hand-weeding, costing $57 ha−1 on average, has become
necessary.147 In cotton-growing areas where GR has become
widespread, estimates of overall weed control costs have doubled
or tripled, depending on specific geography.147,148 Often alterna-
tive herbicides or weed control measures can also add complexity.
Residual herbicides bring a risk of carryover injury to succeeding
crops. The timing and precision of application of some herbicides is
significantly more difficult than for glyphosate on GT crops. Farm-
ers also have to spend more time understanding the weed species
present in their fields in order to match the right herbicide.
Alternatives to herbicides are important in an overall weed
management plan. These may include tillage, both pre-plant and
in-season. Narrow row spacings, increased crop density, cover
crops, and other cultural practices can enhance crop competitive-
ness with weeds and put less selection pressure on herbicides.149
Given that a large seed bank increases the odds of having resis-
tant individuals in a field, programs that have a ‘zero tolerance’
for weed escapes are being examined.150 Tools supporting this
approach include post-harvest control of late-emerging weeds,
controlling weeds along field edges, burial of weed seed through
deep plowing, and harvest weed seed control.149,150 Once again,
however, these practices introduce more complexity and invest-
ment of labor.
Changes in the structure of farms in the USA have compli-
cated the implementation of herbicide resistance management.
US farms can be categorized into two main groups.151 One set of
farms is characterized by large size and income from the farm-
ing operation is the primary focus of the operator. These farms
account for the majority of crop production. The other group of
farms is characterized by smaller size and the farm operator often
has other sources of income. In the first case, farmers are driven
to use practices that are quick and efficient to allow them to
manage large areas. This usually means a focus on a limited num-
ber of crops, often only two or three, and therefore crop rotation
is also limited. These farmers also tend to eschew herbicide resis-
tance management practices that take more time such as cleaning
equipment between fields, inter-row tillage, selective removal of
escaped weeds, and post-harvest weed control.152 Cover crops suf-
fer a similar fate given the time and money required both to plant
them and to control them prior to planting the main crop of inter-
est. Farmers who run smaller, part-time operations are similarly
time-constrained because their off-farm employment consumes
a majority of their time. In all cases, farmers tend to believe that
the advent of new herbicides will ultimately solve their resistance
problems and are therefore less incentivized to adopt more diffi-
cult resistance management practices.153
Research into herbicide programs continues to examine ways
to combine various SOA in effective and economical ways. Addi-
tionally, some ongoing work is examining non-herbicidal means
of supplementing weed control. This work is currently focused
on two areas, harvest weed seed control and cover crop suppres-
sion of weeds.154–158 Mechanical weed control has been revived in
some areas. Deep plowing has been shown to reduce emergence
of small-seeded weed species such as Palmer amaranth.156,159
Inter-row cultivation in crops such as corn, cotton and soybeans is
an effective means of removing many weed species, but is sparsely
adopted due to labor concerns.160,161 Robotic removal of weeds
has been posited as a possible tool for weed management,162
but currently there are no such devices commercially available
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
MA Peterson et al.
that could work on a large scale. Flaming of weeds has also been
investigated163 although mainly for organic crop production and
other specialty crop situations. RNA interference has shown some
promise in early stage testing as a means to disrupt herbicide resis-
tance mechanisms in weeds, but still faces some significant tech-
nical and regulatory challenges.164,165
7 CONCLUSIONS
On a global basis, HR weeds continue to grow and ultimately
threaten crop production. How farmers in different countries
respond varies. Unfortunately, the responses still are largely
reactive rather than proactive. Farmers in Australia have become
adept at managing resistance through non-chemical means
mainly because they have lost so many SOAs. To date, reaction to
GR in the Americas has focused on looking for alternative herbi-
cide options. A similar situation exists in Asia with ALS and ACCase
herbicides, but returning to hand-weeding is increasingly imprac-
tical. Although cropping systems in Europe tend to be more
diverse, farmers there are highly dependent on ALS inhibitors
which are used across many crops. Factors such as climate change
may impact the basic ecology of weed populations,166 but more
importantly will change cropping patterns in some areas and
interject greater uncertainty into planned weed control practices
via greater fluctuations in weather. Abnormally low rainfall may
reduce the effectiveness of soil-applied herbicides, while heavy
rainfall during some years will adversely impact the ability to
conduct tillage. Water shortages will complicate maintenance
of water layers in rice to manage weeds. Increasingly affluent
populations in developing countries will eat more animal protein
and increase demand for feed grains,167 potentially decreasing
incentives to diversify crop rotations.
At a very basic level, HR is an evolutionary process driven by
intensive use of single SOAs in the absence of other weed control
practices. In this sense, it seems that the solution to the problem is
straightforward; farmers should diversify their weed control prac-
tices. However, beyond this basic level the issues become more
complicated. Although differences in cropping systems, farm size
and degree of technology adoption vary by country, some basic
concepts tend to drive and influence the issue. The availability of
labor for agricultural operations continues to decrease around the
world as younger generations move to urban areas where living
standards tend to be higher than in rural areas. This has placed a
heavier emphasis on mechanization and herbicides for weed con-
trol. The heavy dependence on herbicides increases selection pres-
sure and subsequent resistance. In many areas, multiple resistance
is eliminating most herbicide options and may force farmers to
adopt non-chemical options or switch to different crops. In some
cases, regulatory pressures are reducing the availability of herbi-
cides and the number of SOAs available for a given crop, while
food chain pressure to meet secondary residue standards is forcing
farmers to use less than optimum rates.168 This is putting increased
selection pressure on the SOAs that remain. Grains are global
commodities and global demand drives prices and consequently
farmer choice as to what crops to grow. Weed-control decisions
are heavily influenced by economics and utilize systems that pro-
vide the greatest measurable, near-term economic return. In many
cases, proactive resistance management comes at a short-term
cost, even though it may enhance long-term profits.69
The above issues heavily influence farmer adoption of resistance
management practices and make some of these practices diffi-
cult to implement. Continued education and incentives will be
Pest Manag Sci (2018)
Herbicide resistance around the world
needed to move farmers to more sustainable weed management
systems. Research into new weed control technologies and inte-
grated weed management systems will help combat the effects
of herbicide resistance but farmers will face increasing complexity
and potentially cost to control weeds. While some may lay respon-
sibility for addressing resistance on various parts of the system, the
burden of implementing sustainable food production systems ulti-
mately rests with society as a whole.
REFERENCES
1 Gianessi LP, The increasing importance of herbicides in worldwide
crop production. Pest Manage Sci 69:1099–1105 (2013).
2 Gressel J and Segel L, The paucity of plants evolving genetic resis-
tance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J Theor Biol
75:349–371 (1978).
3 Powles SB and Yu Q, Evolution in action: plants resistant to herbicides.
Ann Rev Plant Biol 61:317–347 (2010).
4 Powles SB and Gaines TA, Exploring the potential for a regula-
tory change to encourage diversity in herbicide use. Weed Sci
64:649–654 (2016).
5 Heap I, The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. [Online].
Available: http://www.weedscience.com [10 July 2017].
6 Soteres JK and Peterson MA, Industry views of monitoring and
mitigation of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 63:972–975 (2015).
7 US Department of Agriculture. World agricultural production.
[Online]. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Circular Series WAP
07-17. Available: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/
production.pdf. [1 September 2017].
8 Liu D, editor, Status of rice herbicide resistant weeds in China. Rice
Weed Resistance Conference, 8 June 2016, Wuhan, China (2016).
9 Yang X, Yu X-Y and Li Y-F, De novo assembly and characterization
of the barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) transcriptome using
next-generation pyrosequencing. PLoS One 8:e69168 (2013).
10 Chen G, Wang Q, Yao Z, Zhu L and Dong L, Penoxsulam-resistant
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice fields in China. Weed
Biol Manag 16:16–23 (2016).
11 Sada Y, Ikeda H and Kizawa S, Resistance levels of sulfonylurea-
resistant Schoenoplectus juncoides(Roxb.) Palla with various
Pro197mutations in acetolactate synthase to imazosulfuron,
bensulfuron-methyl, metsulfuron-methyl and imazaquin-
ammonium. Weed Biol Manag 13:53–61 (2013).
12 Iwakami S, Watanabe H, Miura T, Matsumoto H and Uchino A, Occur-
rence of sulfonylurea resistance in, Sagittaria trifolia, a basal mono-
cot species, based on target-site and non-target-site resistance.
Weed Biol Manag 14:43–49 (2014).
13 Hirayama S, Nasu H and Itoh K, Distribution of resistance to
cyhalofop-butyl in Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli and
Echinochloa crus-galli var. fomosensis under dry seeded rice fields.
J Weed Sci Technol 57(Suppl.):127 (2012).
14 Iwakami S, Hashimoto M, Matsushima K-i, Watanabe H, Hamamura
K and Uchino A, Multiple-herbicide resistance in Echinochloa
crus-galli var. formosensis, an allohexaploid weed species, in
dry-seeded rice. Pestic Biochem Physiol 119:1–8 (2015).
15 Won O, Shivrain V, Lee J and Park K (eds), Barnyardgrass resistant to
acetolactate synthase and acetyl-CoA caroxylase inhibitors in paddy
rice fields in Korea. Proceedings of the Global Herbicide Resistance
Challenge, Denver, Colorado (2017).
16 Baltazar AM, Herbicide-resistant weeds in the Philippines: status and
resistance mechanisms. Weed Biol Manage 17:57–67 (2017).
17 Somerville GJ, Powles SB, Walsh MJ and Renton M, Why was resis-
tance to shorter-acting pre-emergence herbicides slower to
evolve? Pest Manag Sci 73:844–851 (2017).
18 Chhokar RS and Malik RK, Isoproturon-resistant littleseed canarygrass
(Phalaris minor) and its response to alternate herbicides. Weed
Technol 16:116–123 (2002).
19 Malik RK and Singh S, Littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor) resis-
tance to isoproturon in India. Weed Technol 9:419–425 (1995).
20 Chhokar RS and Sharma RK, Multiple herbicide resistance in littleseed
canarygrass (Phalaris minor): a threat to wheat production in India.
Weed Biol Manag 8:112–123 (2008).
21 Li L, Liu W, Chi Y, Guo W, Luo X and Wang J, Molecular mechanism
of mesosulfuron-methyl resistance in multiply-resistant American
Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne). Weed Sci 63:781–787
(2015).
22 Pan L, Li J, Zhang Wn and Dong L, Detection of the I1781L mutation in
fenoxaprop-p-ethyl-resistant American sloughgrass (Beckmannia
syzigachne Steud.), based on the loop-mediated isothermal ampli-
fication method. Pest Manage Sci 71:123–130 (2015).
23 Bi Y-L, Liu W-T, Li L-X, Yuan G-H, Jin T and Wang J-X, Molecular basis of
resistance to mesosulfuron-methyl in Japanese foxtail, Alopecurus
japonicus. J Pestic Sci 38:74–77 (2013).
24 Feng Y, Gao Y, Zhang Y, Dong L and Li J, Mechanisms of resistance to
pyroxsulam and ACCase inhibitors in Japanese foxtail (Alopecurus
japonicus). Weed Sci 64:695–704 (2016).
25 Chen G, Wang L, Xu H, Wu X, Pan L and Dong L, Cross-resistance pat-
terns to acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors associated with differ-
ent mutations in Japanese foxtail (Alopecurus japonicus). Weed Sci
65:444–451 (2017).
26 Rutherford M, Flood J and Sastroutomo SS, Roundtable for sus-
tainable palm oil (RSPO): Research project on integrated weed
management strategies for oil palm. Final report. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.rspo.org/file/RSPO%20IWM_FINAL%20REPORT
%20to%20RSPO%209%205%2011.pdf [1 November 2017].
27 Dilipkumar M, Chuah TS, Goh SS and Sahid I, Weed management
issues, challenges, and opportunities in Malaysia. Crop Prot https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.08.027 (2017).
28 Chuah TS and Ismail BS, The status of weed resistance in plantation
crops of Malaysia. Planter 86:615–620 (2010).
29 Jalaludin A, Ngim J, Bakar BH and Alias Z, Preliminary find-
ings of potentially resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) to
glufosinate-ammonium in Malaysia. Weed Biol Manag 10:256–260
(2010).
30 Jalaludin A, Yu Q and Powles SB, Multiple resistance across glufosi-
nate, glyphosate, paraquat and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in an
Eleusine indica population. Weed Res 55:82–89 (2015).
31 Singh S, Role of management practices on control of
isoproturon-resistant littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor) in
India. Weed Technol 21:339–346 (2007).
32 Llewellyn RS, D’Emden FH and Kuehne G, Extensive use of no-tillage
in grain growing regions of Australia. Field Crop Res 132:204–212
(2012).
33 Owen MJ, Martinez N and Powles SB, Multiple herbicide resistant
Lolium rigidum (annual ryegrass) now dominates across the West-
ern Australian grain belt. Weed Res 54:314–324 (2014).
34 Boutsalis P, Gill GS and Preston C, Incidence of herbicide resistance in
rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) across Southeastern Australia. Weed
Technol 26:391–398 (2012).
35 Broster JC, Koetz EA and Wu H, Herbicide resistance levels in annual
ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaud.) and wild oat (Avena spp.) in south-
western New South Wales. Plant Protect Q 28:126–132 (2013).
36 Kloot P, The genus Lolium in Australia. Aust J Bot 31:421–435
(1983).
37 Donald CM, The progress of Australian agriculture and the role of
pastures in environmental change. Aust J Sci 27:187–198 (1965).
38 Walsh MJ, Powles SB, Beard BR, Parkin BT and Porter SA,
Multiple-herbicide resistance across four modes of action in
wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci 52:8–13 (2004).
39 Owen MJ, Martinez NJ and Powles SB, Multiple herbicide-resistant
wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) populations dominate West-
ern Australian cropping fields. Crop Pasture Sci 66:1079–1085
(2015).
40 Ashworth MB, Walsh MJ, Flower KC and Powles SB, Identification of
the first glyphosate-resistant wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum
L.) populations. Pest Manag Sci 70:1432–1436 (2014).
41 Mansooji AM, Holtum JA, Boutsalis P, Matthews JM and Powles SB,
Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides in two wild
oat species (Avena fatua and Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana). Weed
Sci 40:599–605 (1992).
42 Owen MJ and Powles SB, The frequency of herbicide-resistant wild
oat (Avena spp.) populations remains stable in Western Australian
cropping fields. Crop Pasture Sci 67:520–527 (2016).
43 Powles SB, Appearance of a biotype of the weed, Hordeum glaucum
Steud., resistant to the herbicide paraquat. Weed Res 26:167–172
(1986).
44 Tucker ES and Powles SB, A biotype of hare barley (Hordeum lep-
orinum) resistant to paraquat and diquat. Weed Sci 39:159–162
(1991).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org
45 Owen MJ, Goggin DE and Powles SB, Identification of resistance to
either paraquat or ALS-inhibiting herbicides in two Western Aus-
tralian Hordeum leporinum biotypes. Pest Manage Sci 68:757–763
(2012).
46 Broster JC and Pratley J, A decade of monitoring herbicide resistance
in Lolium rigidum in Australia. Aust J Exp Agric 46:1151–1160
(2006).
47 Busi R, Vila-Aiub MM and Powles SB, Genetic control of a cytochrome
P450 metabolism-based herbicide resistance mechanism in Lolium
rigidum. Heredity 106:817–824 (2011)
48 Han H, Yu Q, Vila-Aiub M and Powles SB, Genetic inheritance of
cytochrome P450-mediated metabolic resistance to chlorsulfuron
in a multiple herbicide resistant Lolium rigidum population. Crop
Protect 65:57–63 (2014).
49 Han H, Yu Q, Owen MJ, Cawthray GR and Powles SB, Widespread
occurrence of both metabolic and target-site herbicide resis-
tance mechanisms in Lolium rigidum populations. Pest Manag Sci
72:255–263 (2016).
50 Yu Q, Abdallah I, Han H, Owen M and Powles S, Distinct non-target
site mechanisms endow resistance to glyphosate, ACCase and
ALS-inhibiting herbicides in multiple herbicide-resistant Lolium
rigidum. Planta 230:713–723 (2009).
51 Vila-Aiub MM, Neve P and Powles SB, Fitness costs associated
with evolved herbicide resistance alleles in plants. New Phytol
184:751–767 (2009)
52 Llewellyn RS, Ronning D, Ouzman J, Walker S, Mayfield A and
Clark M, Impact of weeds on Australian grain production:
the cost of weeds to Australian grain growers and the adop-
tion of weed management and tillage practices. Report for
GRDC: CSIRO, Australia. [Online]. Available: https://grdc.com.au/
resources-and-publications/all-publications/publications/2016/
03/impactofweeds [14 June 2017].
53 Dietrich C and Devuyst P, At a glance, July 2016. Agriculture in the
European Union and United States. [Online]. Available: http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/586615/
EPRS_ATA(2016)586615_EN.pdf [31 July 2017].
54 Cerdeira AL and Duke SO, Effects of glyphosate-resistant crop culti-
vation on soil and water quality. GM Crops 1:16–24 (2010).
55 Basso B, Sartori L, Bertocco M, Cammarano D, Martin EC and Grace
PR, Economic and environmental evaluation of site-specific tillage
in a maize crop in NE Italy. Eur J Agron 35:83–92 (2011).
56 Sattin M, Herbicide resistance in Europe: an overview. Proceedings of
the British Crop Production Council International Conference Crop
Science & Technology, Glasgow, UK (2005).
57 Trnka M, Rötter RP, Ruiz-Ramos M, Kersebaum KC, Olesen JE, Žalud Z
et al., Adverse weather conditions for European wheat production
will become more frequent with climate change. Nat Clim Change
4:637–643 (2014).
58 Moss SR, Perryman SA and Tatnell LV, Managing herbicide-resistant
blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides): theory and practice. Weed
Techol 21:300–309 (2007).
59 Keshtkar E, Mathiassen SK, Moss SR and Kudsk P, Resistance profile
of herbicide-resistant Alopecurus myosuroides (black-grass) popu-
lations in Denmark. Crop Prot 69:83–89 (2015).
60 Drobny HG, Salas M and Claude J, Management of metabolic resis-
tant black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.) populations in
Germany-challenges and opportunities. Z Pflanzenkr Pflanzen-
schutz 20:65 (2006).
61 Fernandez-Moreno PT, Rojano-Delgado AM, Menendez J and De
Prado R, First case of multiple resistance to glyphosate and
PPO-inhibiting herbicides in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in
Spain. Weed Sci 65:690–698 (2017).
62 Hamouzova K, Soukup J and Paterova L, A farmer survey on her-
bicide resistance in loose silky bent grass in the Czech Republic,
in Weed management in changing environments: 17th European
Weed Research Society Symposium, 23–26 June, Montpellier, France
(2015).
63 Rey-Caballero J, Royo-Esnal A, Recasens J, González I and Torra J,
Management options for multiple herbicide-resistant corn poppy
(Papaver rhoeas) in Spain. Weed Sci 65:295–304 (2017).
64 Scarabel L and Sattin M, Imazamox-resistant red rice (Oryza sativa L.,
var sylvatica) in Italian Clearfield rice crop: monitoring and risks.
Herbicide tolerant varieties workshop, 21 May, Frankfurt, Germany
(2014).
65 González-Torralva F, Cruz-Hipolito H, Bastida F, Mülleder N, Smeda
RJ and De Prado R, Differential susceptibility to glyphosate
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
MA Peterson et al.
among the Conyza weed species in Spain. J Agric Food Chem
58:4361–4366 (2010).
66 Collavo A and Sattin M, Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum
selected in Italian perennial crops: bioevaluation, management
and molecular bases of target-site resistance. Weed Res 52:16–24
(2012).
67 Collavo A and Sattin M, First glyphosate-resistant Lolium spp. bio-
types found in a European annual arable cropping system also
affected by ACCase and ALS resistance. Weed Res 54:325–334
(2014).
68 Gruppo Italiano Resistenza Erbicidi, Database of herbicide resistance
in Italy. [Online] Available: http://www.resistenzaerbicidi.it [31 July
2017].
69 Gerhards R, Dentler J, Gutjahr C, Auburger S and Bahrs E, An
approach to investigate the costs of herbicide-resistant Alopecurus
myosuroides. Weed Res 56:407–414 (2016).
70 Duke SO, Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in
recent years?. Pest Manage Sci 68:505–512 (2012).
71 Melander B, Munier-Jolain N, Charles R, Wirth J, Schwarz J, van
der Weide R et al., European perspectives on the adoption of
nonchemical weed management in reduced-tillage systems for
arable crops. Weed Techol 27:231–240 (2013).
72 Food and Agriculture Organization, Country pasture profiles.
[Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/
Counprof/regions/latamerica.htm [2 November 2017].
73 Rada N, Assessing Brazil’s Cerrado agricultural miracle. Food Pol
38:146–155 (2013).
74 Derpsch R, No-tillage and conservation agriculture: a progress report,
in No-Till Farming Systems, ed. by Goddard T, Zoebisch MA, Gan YT,
Ellis W, Watson A and Sombatpanit S. World Association of Soil and
Water Conservation, Bangkok, pp. 7–39 (2008).
75 James C, 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercial-
ization of biotech crops and biotech crop highlights. 2015 ISAAA
Brief No. 51. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY (2015).
76 Brookes G and Barfoot P, GM Crop Impact: Global Socio-Economic and
Environmental Impacts 1996–2013. PG Economics Ltd, Dorchester,
UK (2015).
77 Gazziero DLP, Maschede DK, Adegas FS, Vargas L, Karam D, Maciel
CDG et al., A era glyphosate, in A era glyphosate: agricultura,
meio-ambiente e homem, ed. by Meschede DK and Gazziero DLP.
Midiograf, Londrina, Brazil, pp. 11–21 (2016).
78 Vargas L, Adegas F, Gazziero DLP, Karam D, Agostinetto D and Silva
WT, Weed resistance in Brazil: historical, distribution, economic
impact, management and prevention, in A era glyphosate: agricul-
tura, meio-ambiente e homem, ed. by Meschede DK and Gazziero
DLP. Midiograf, Londrina, Brazil, pp. 219–239 (2016).
79 Vila-Aiub MM, Vidal RA, Balbi MC, Gundel PE, Trucco F and Ghersa CM,
Glyphosate-resistant weeds of South American cropping systems:
an overview. Pest Manag Sci 64:366–371 (2008).
80 Tuesca D, Papa JC and Morichetti S, Biology and management of
Amaranthus palmeri in Argentina, in A era glyphosate: agricultura,
meio-ambiente e homem, ed. by Meschede DK and Gazziero DLP.
Midiograf, Londrina, Brazil, pp. 295–319 (2016).
81 Franco P, Condori N and Flores H, Resistencia múltiple a glifos-
ato y herbicidas inhibidores de ACCasa en Digitaria insularis (L.)
Mez ex Ekman y resistencia a glifosato de Amaranthus quiten-
sis H.B.K. en Santa Cruz, Bolivia. XXII Congreso de la Associación
Latino-americana de las Malezas. Asociación Latino-americana de
Malezas, Buenos Aires, Argentina, p. 264 (2015).
82 AAPRESID (Agriculture No Till Farmers Association), REM. [Online].
Available: www.aapresid.org.ar/rem [29 June 2017].
83 MGAP-DIEA, Encuesta Agrícola ‘Primavera 2016’, in Serie Encuestas
Marzo, 2017 N∘ 344. Estadísticas Agropecuarias (DIEA), Uruguay
(2017).
84 Vargas L, Roman ES, Rizzardi MA and Silva VC, Identificação de
biótipos de Azevém (Lolium multiflorum) resistentes ao herbicida
glyphosate em pomares de maça. Planta Daninha 22:617–622
(2004).
85 Valverde BE, Status and management of grass-weed herbicide resis-
tance in Latin America. Weed Technol 21:310–323 (2007).
86 Paula JM, Agostinetto D, Schaedler CE, Vargas L and Silva DRO, Com-
petição de trigo com azevém em função de épocas de aplicação e
doses de nitrogênio. Planta Daninha 29:557–563 (2011).
87 Christoffoleti PJ, Trentin R, Tocchetto S, Marochi A, Galli AJB,
Lopez-Ovejero RF et al., Alternative herbicides to manage Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) resistant to glyphosate at
Pest Manag Sci (2018)
Herbicide resistance around the world
different phenological stages. J Environ Sci Health B 40:59–67
(2005).
88 Adegas FS, Vargas L, Gazziero DLP, Karam D, da Silva AF and
Agostinetto D, Impacto econômico da resistência de plantas dan-
inhas a herbicida no Brasil. Circular técnica 132. Embrapa, Brazil
(2017).
89 De la Vega MH, Fadda D, Alonso A, Argañaraz M, Sanchez Loria J and
Garcia A, Curvas dose–resposta em duas populacões de Sorghum
halepense ao herbicida glyphosate no Norte Argentino. Congresso
Brasileiro da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas. Sociedade Brasileiro da
Ciência das Plantas Daninhas, Brasília (2006).
90 Olea I, Raimondo J, Vinciguerra F, Sabaté S and Rodríguez W, Sorgo de
Alepo Resistente a Glifosato: detección en el noroeste argentino,
aspectos principales y recomendaciones para su manejo. Avance
Agroindustrial 28:8–12 (2007).
91 Valverde B and Gressel J, Dealing with the evolution and spread of
Sorghum halepense glyphosate resistance in Argentina: a consul-
tancy report to SENASA, Argentina, Servicio nacional de sanidade
y Calidad Agroalimentaria, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www
.sinavimo.gov.ar/files/informesensa.pdf [15 July 2017].
92 Vila-Aiub MM, Balbi MC, Gundel PE, Ghersa CM and Powles SB, Evolu-
tion of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in
glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 55:566–571 (2007).
93 Olea I, Glyphosate-resistant weeds in northwestern Argentina: cur-
rent status and management, in Viabilidad del glifosato en sistemas
productivos sustentables. Amalia Rios, Serie tecnica N204, INIA, pp.
51–58 (2013).
94 Tuesca D, Nisensohn L and Papa JC, Resistencia a glifosato en biotipos
de sorgo de Alepo (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. de la Región
Sojera Núcleo de Argentina. Congresso Brasileiro da Ciência das
Plantas Daninhas (26), Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana
de Malezas (18, 2008, Ouro Preto, MG, BR). Sociedade Brasileiro da
Ciência das Plantas Daninhas, Atas. Ouro Preto (2008).
95 Papa JC and Tuesca D, Current weed problems in the soybean
Argentinian region: origin and management tools, in Viabilidad
del glifosato en sistemas productivos sustentables. Amalia Rios, Serie
tecnica N204, INIA, pp. 59–74 (2013).
96 REM, Cuáles son las zonas con mayores problemas de malezas? Red
de Innovadores/Aapresid. 158, Año 24, octubre 2017, pp. 12–14
(2017).
97 Adegas FS, Gazziero DLP, Voll E and Osipe R, Diagnóstico da existên-
cia de Digitaria insularis resistente ao herbicida glyphosate no sul
do Brasil. Congresso Brasileiro da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas.
Sociedade Brasileiro da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas, Ribeirão
Preto, Brazil, pp. 162–165 (2010).
98 Adegas F, Vargas L and Gazziero D, Status of herbicide weed resis-
tance in Brazil. Proceedings of the Global Herbicide Resistance
Challenge, Denver, Colorado (2017).
99 Lopez Ovejero RF, Takano HK, Nicolai M, Ferreira A, Melo MSC, Cave-
naghi AL et al., Frequency and dispersal of glyphosate-resistant
sourgrass (Digitaria insularis) populations across Brazilian agricul-
tural production areas. Weed Sci 65:285–294 (2017).
100 Gazziero DLP, Adegas FS, Voll E, Vargas L, Karam D, Matallo MB et al.,
Interferencia da buva em área cultivadas com soja. Congresso
Brasileiro da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas. Sociedade Brasileiro da
Ciência das Plantas Daninhas, p. 329 (2010).
101 Frene R, Baez Buchanan M, Ravotti M and Serafini L, Weed con-
trol programs for Conyza sumatrensis glyphosate-resistant bio-
types in glufosinate-, glyphosate- and 2,4-D- tolerant soybeans in
Argentina. Proceedings of the Global Herbicide Resistance Chal-
lenge, Denver, Colorado (2017).
102 Lamego FP, Vidal RA, Resistência ao glyphosate em biótipos de
Conyza bonariensis E Conyza canadensis no estado do Rio Grande
do Sul. Planta Daninha 26:467–471 (2008).
103 Adegas FS, Gazziero DLP, Voll E and Osipe R, Diagnóstico da existência
de biótipos de Conyza spp. resistentes ao herbicida glyphosate no sul
do Brasil. XXII Congresso da Sociedad Española de Malherbologia
/ XIX Congresso da Asociación Latinoamericana de Malezas / II
congress Iberoamericano de Ciência de las Malezas. Fundação
Calouste Glubenkian, Lisbon, Portugal (2009).
104 Barat E and Faccini D, Influencias del yuyo colorado sobre el
rendimiento del cultivo de soja. Revista Acaecer 146 (1988).
105 Morichetti S, Cantero JJ, Nuñez C, Barboza G, Ariza Espinar L,
Amuchastegui A et al., Sobre la presencia de Amaranthus palmeri
(Amaranthaceae) em Argentina. Bol Soc Arg De Bot 48:347–354
(2013).
Pest Manag Sci (2018) © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
106 Tuesca D, Papa JC, Morichetti S. Nueva alerta: Amaranthus palmeri S.
Watson. El desafío de la maleza que nos debe encontrar prepara-
dos. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologìa Agropecuaria, Centro
Regional Santa Fe, EEA Oliveros (2013).
107 Andrade Júnior E, Cavaenaghi A, Guimarães S and Carvalho S,
Primeiro relato de Amaranthus palmeri no Brasil em áreas agríco-
las no estado de Mato Grosso [First report of Amaranthus palmeri in
Brazil in agricultural areas in the state of Mato Grosso, Portuguese].
Circular Técnica IMA-MT 19:1–8 (2015).
108 Carvalho S, Goncalves Netto A, Nicolai M, Cavenaghi
A, Lopez-Ovejero R and Christoffoleti P, Detection of
glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)
in agricultural areas of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Planta Daninha
33:579–586 (2015).
109 Bagolin DJ, Silveira OR, Arruda RAC, Gazziero DLP, Souza CH and
Silva JB, Amaranthus palmeri: programa de erradicação da espé-
cies no estado do Mato grosso, in A era glyphosate: agricultura,
meio-ambiente e homem, ed. by Meschede DK and Gazziero DLP.
Midiograf, Londrina, Brazil, pp. 321–336 (2016).
110 Gonçalves Netto A, Nicolai M, Carvalho SJP, Borgato EA and Christof-
foleti PJ, Multiple resistance of Amaranthus palmeri to ALS and
EPSPS inhibiting herbicides in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Planta Daninha 34:581–587 (2016).
111 Bertello F, Guerra a las malezas: el aumento de los costos de con-
trol amenaza la renta agrícola. [Online]. Available: http://www
.lanacion.com.ar/2020724-guerra-a-las-malezas-el-aumento-de-
los-costos-de-control-amenaza-la-renta-agricola [6 May 2017].
112 Rubione C and Wards SM, A new approach to weed management to
mitigate herbicide resistance in Argentina. Weed Sci 64:641–648
(2016).
113 Ward SM, Webster TM and Steckel LE, Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 (2013).
114 Riar DS, Norsworthy JK, Steckel LE, Stephenson DO IV, Eubank TW
and Scott RC, Assessment of weed management practices and
problem weeds in the Midsouth United States – soybean: a con-
sultant’s perspective. Weed Technol 27:612–622 (2013).
115 Bradley K, Herbicide-resistance in the Midwest: current status and
impacts. Proceedings of the Weed Science Society of Amer-
ica, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://wssaabstracts.com/public/17/
proceedings.html [10 July 2017].
116 Rosenbaum KK and Bradley KW, A survey of glyphosate-resistant
waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Missouri soybean fields and pre-
diction of glyphosate resistance in future waterhemp populations
based on in-field observations and management practices. Weed
Technol 27:656–663 (2013).
117 Evans CM, Characterization of a novel five-way-resistant population
of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois (2016).
118 Schonbeck M, Weed profile: pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.): eXtension
.org, 2014 [Online]. Available: http://articles.extension.org/pages/
65208/weed-profile:-pigweeds-amaranthus-spp [10 July 2017].
119 Shrestha A, Steinhauer KM, Moretti ML, Hanson BD, Jasieniuk
M, Hembree KJ et al., Distribution of glyphosate-resistant and
glyphosate-susceptible hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) in
central California and their phenological development. J Pestic Sci
87:201–209 (2014).
120 VanGessel MJ, Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed
Sci 49:703–705 (2001).
121 Buhler DD and Owen MD, Emergence and survival of horseweed
(Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 45:98–101 (1997).
122 Davis VM and Johnson WG, Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean.
Weed Sci 56:231–236 (2008).
123 Cranston HJ, Kern AJ, Hackett JL, Miller EK, Maxwell BD and Dyer WE,
Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Sci 49:164–170 (2001).
124 Crespo RJ, Bernards ML, Sbatella GM, Kruger GR, Lee DJ and Wilson
RG, Response of Nebraska kochia (Kochia scoparia) accessions to
dicamba. Weed Technol 28:151–162 (2014).
125 Godar AS, Glyphosate resistance in kochia. Doctoral dissertation,
Kansas State University (2014).
126 Varanasi VK, Godar AS, Currie RS, Dille AJ, Thompson CR, Stahlman PW
et al. Field-evolved resistance to four modes of action of herbicides
in a single kochia (Kochia scoparia L. Schrad.) population. Pest
Manag Sci 71:1207–1212 (2015).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org
127 Baker DV, Beck KG, Bienkiewicz BJ and Bjostad LB, Forces necessary to
initiate dispersal for three tumbleweeds. Invasive Plant Sci Manag
1:59–65 (2008).
128 Friesen LF, Beckie HJ, Warwick SI and Van Acker RC, The biology of
Canadian weeds. 138. Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. Can J Plant Sci
89:141–167 (2009).
129 Beckie HJ, Lozinski C, Shirriff S and Brenzil CA, Herbicide-resistant
weeds in the Canadian Prairies: 2007 to 2011. Weed Technol
27:171–183 (2013).
130 Avila-Garcia WV and Mallory-Smith C, Glyphosate-resistant Italian
ryegrass (Lolium perenne) populations also exhibit resistance to
glufosinate. Weed Sci 59:305–309 (2011).
131 Liu M, Hulting AG and Mallory-Smith C, Characterization of multiple
herbicide-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne ssp. multiflo-
rum) populations from winter wheat fields in Oregon. Weed Sci
64:331–338 (2016).
132 Karn E and Jasieniuk M, Genetic diversity and structure of Lolium
perenne ssp. multiflorum in California vineyards and orchards
indicate potential for spread of herbicide resistance via gene flow.
Evol Appl 10:616–629 (2017).
133 Dickson JW, Scott RC, Burgos NR, Salas RA and Smith KL, Confirmation
of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne ssp. multi-
florum) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 25:674–679 (2011).
134 Riar DS, Norsworthy JK, Bond JA, Bararpour MT, Wilson MJ and Scott
RC, Resistance of Echinochloa crus-galli populations to acetolactate
synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Int J Agron 2012:8 (2012).
135 Riar DS, Norsworthy JK, Johnson DB, Scott RC and Bagavathiannan
M, Glyphosate resistance in a johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
biotype from Arkansas. Weed Sci 59:299–304 (2011).
136 Mueller TC, Barnett KA, Brosnan JT and Steckel LE, Glyphosate-
resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) confirmed in Tennessee.
Weed Sci 59:562–566 (2011).
137 US Department of Agriculture, Recent trends in GE adoption 2017.
Economic Research Service. [Online]. Available: https://www.ers
.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-
crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx [10 July
2017].
138 Duke SO and Powles SB, Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide.
Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325 (2008).
139 Givens WA, Shaw DR, Kruger GR, Johnson WG, Weller SC, Young
BG et al. Survey of tillage trends following the adoption of
glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 23:150–155 (2009).
140 Plewa D and Bissonnette S, University of Illinois plant clinic her-
bicide resistance report. [Online]. Available: http://bulletin.ipm
.illinois.edu/?p=3821 [1 November 2017].
141 Salas-Perez RA, Burgos NR, Rangani G, Singh S, Refatti JP, Piveta L
et al., Frequency of Gly-210 deletion mutation among protopor-
phyrinogen oxidase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaran-
thus palmeri) populations. Weed Sci 65:718–731 (2017).
142 Giacomini DA, Umphres AM, Nie H, Mueller TC, Steckel LE, Young
BG et al., Two new PPX2 mutations associated with resistance to
PPO-inhibiting herbicides in Amaranthus palmeri. Pest Manag Sci
73:1559–1563 (2017).
143 Hager AG, Herbicide resistance: are soil-applied herbicides immune?
[Online]. Available: http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/?p=290 [1
November 2017].
144 Evans JA, Tranel PJ, Hager AG, Schutte B, Wu C, Chatham LA et al.,
Managing the evolution of herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci
72:74–80 (2016).
145 Wright TR, Shan G, Walsh TA, Lira JM, Cui C, Song P et al., Robust
crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by
aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
107:20240–20245 (2010).
146 Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa. Iowa State University
Extension, Ames, IA. [Online]. Available: https://www.extension
.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-20.html [10 July 2017].
147 Sosnoskie LM and Culpepper AS, Glyphosate-resistant Palmer ama-
ranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and
hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 (2014).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry
MA Peterson et al.
148 Norsworthy JK, Schwartz LM and Barber LT, The incidence and ram-
ifications of glyphosate resistance in cotton. Outlooks Pest Manag
27:31 (2016).
149 Norsworthy JK, Ward SM, Shaw DR, Llewellyn RS, Nichols RL, Webster
TM et al., Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best manage-
ment practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 (2012).
150 Norsworthy JK, Griffith G, Griffin T, Bagavathiannan M and Gbur
EE, In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence
supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237–249 (2014).
151 MacDonald JM, Korb P and Hoppe RA, Farm size and the organization
of US crop farming. USDA-ERS 2013. [Online]. Available: http://
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/
err152.aspx [10 July 2017].
152 Hurley TM and Frisvold G, Economic barriers to herbicide-resistance
management. Weed Sci 64:585–594 (2016).
153 Foresman C and Glasgow L, US grower perceptions and experiences
with glyphosate-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 64:388–391
(2008).
154 Wiggins MS, McClure MA, Hayes RM and Steckel LE, Integrating
cover crops and POST herbicides for glyphosate-resistant palmer
amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in corn. Weed Technol
29:412–418 (2015).
155 Wiggins MS, Hayes RM, Nichols RL and Steckel LE, Cover crop and
postemergence herbicide integration for Palmer amaranth control
in cotton. Weed Technol 33:348–355 (2017).
156 Price AJ, Monks CD, Culpepper AS, Duzy LM, Kelton JA, Marshall
MW et al., High-residue cover crops alone or with strategic tillage
to manage glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri) in southeastern cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Soil Water
Conserv 71:1–11 (2016).
157 Price AJ, Santen Ev and Sarunaite L, Cover-crop management
influences residue biomass and subsequent weed suppression
in a conservation agriculture corn and cotton rotation, in Cot-
ton Research, ed. by Abdurakhmonov I. InTech, London (2016)
Available: https://www.intechopen.com/books/cotton-research/
cover-crop-management-influences-residue-biomass-and-
subsequent-weed-suppression-in-a-conservation-a.
158 Norsworthy JK, Korres NE, Walsh MJ and Powles SB, Integrating herbi-
cide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall man-
agement practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer
amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 64:540–550 (2016).
159 Sosnoskie L, Culpepper A and Webster T (eds), Palmer amaranth seed
mortality in response to burial depth and time. Proceedings of the
Beltwide Cotton Conference, Cordova, TN. National Cotton Council
of America, Washington, DC (2011).
160 Cerdeira AL and Duke SO, The current status and environ-
mental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. J Environ Qual
35:1633–1658 (2006).
161 Owen MD, Beckie HJ, Leeson JY, Norsworthy JK and Steckel LE, Inte-
grated pest management and weed management in the United
States and Canada. Pest Manag Sci 71:357–376 (2015).
162 Owen MD, Diverse approaches to herbicide-resistant weed manage-
ment. Weed Sci 64:570–584 (2016).
163 Datta A and Knezevic SZ, Flaming as an alternative weed control
method for conventional and organic agronomic crop production
systems: a review. Adv Agron 118:399–428 (2013).
164 Green JM, Current state of herbicides in herbicide-resistant crops. Pest
Manag Sci 70:1351–1357 (2014).
165 Shaner DL and Beckie HJ, The future for weed control and technology.
Pest Manag Sci 70:1329–1339 (2014).
166 Lima M, Navarrete L and González-Andujar JL, Climate effects and
feedback structure determining weed population dynamics in a
long-term experiment. PLoS One 7:e30569 (2012).
167 Babcock BA, Charting growth in food demand. Iowa Ag Review
14. [Online]. Available: https://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_
review/summer_08/article4.aspx [5 November 2017].
168 Hillocks RJ, Farming with fewer pesticides: EU pesticide review and
resulting challenges for UK agriculture. Crop Prot 31:85–93 (2012).
Pest Manag Sci (2018)