Mycoherbicides: Fungal Plant Pathogens for Biological Control of Weeds

Article ID: 30439

Diksha Sinha1
1Department of Plant Pathology, CSK HPKV, Palampur (HP), India.

Plant pathogenic fungi are commonly viewed through a negative lens as the major causal organisms for widespread
economic losses they cause on commercial crops. However, they have an alternatively important role in biological
control of weeds. Till date, 36 fungal pathogens have been authorized for introduction across 18 countries for this
purpose. Although these are arguably safe, the risk of their transferability to other plants prevails. Even in the affluent
countries, the development and commercialization of bioherbicides are still plagued by technological hurdles and limited
market potential.

Introduction
Plant pathogenic fungi have been known to cause significant economic losses pertaining to their adverse impact on crop
yields, quality and overall plant health. They are, however, beneficial in some situations, such as in antibiosis and
biological control of undesirable weeds. Weeds are defined as “the native or alien plants that usually have detectable
detrimental effects on the economy, environment, or human health and well-being”. These are majorly problematic
across multiple ecosystems, as they compete against crops and native plants for water, light, and nutrients; and/or affect
human health. Over 30 % of crop losses worldwide have been attributed to weeds, making them the most notorious of
all crop pests. To alleviate this burden, farmers rely on a suite of integrated control methods, including physical removal,
grazing management, synthetic herbicide use, and biocontrol.

Any living organisms that can suppress the growth of weeds are broadly considered biocontrol agents, especially
including arthropods (insects, mites) and plant pathogens for targeted weed control. Weed biocontrol comprises two
main approaches: classical and bioherbicide. The classical approach has been most frequently employed and consists of
managing a problematic weed in a specific region by deliberately introducing specialist natural enemies from the weed’s
native habitat. It is based on the enemy release hypothesis and is considered the only cost-effective approach to manage
abundant and widespread weeds across different land uses. Once an introduced biocontrol agent is established and its
population has built up, it can, in conjunction with other control methods, cause severe damage to the weed that leads
to a decline in its biomass, reproduction, and/or population density.

The bioherbicide approach is based on living microorganisms (mycoherbicide when a fungus is involved) already existing
where the target weeds are present and has been in use since the 1970s. This approach entails the application of massive
doses of inoculum of a pathogen onto the target weed or the soil it grows in a localized field, to create a rapid disease
epidemic that hampers the weed population. It generally involves the production, formulation, and packaging of the
pathogen as well as the registration of the product by relevant authorities for commercialization.

Instances of Classical Biocontrol

1. The rust fungus Puccinia chondrillina was introduced for control of the narrow-leaf form of Chondrilla juncea; Australia
(1971).
2. Puccinia spegazzinii, for classical weed biocontrol of Mikania micrantha, has been introduced in 12 countries to date.
3. Puccinia komarovii var. glanduliferae on Impatiens glandulifera is the first pathogen to be introduced in Europe.
4. Puccinia psidii on Melaleuca quinquenervia in Florida and Melampsora hypericorum on Hypericum androsaemum in New
Zealand and Australia (Not authorized for introduction but recognized as contributing to the biocontrol of their weed
hosts).
5. Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis on Centaurea solstitialis; USA (2003).
6. Puccinia myrsiphylli for the biocontrol of Asparagus asparagoides; Australia (2000).

Suitable Candidate Pathogen

Identifying and introducing suitable agents that can inflict the type and level of damage required to achieve the defined
goal increase the chances of a successful outcome. The decision on which candidate pathogen agents should undergo

Volume 2 - Issue 7 - July 2020 113 | P a g e

comprehensive host-specificity testing relies on early information and prediction of the impact they could have on the
target weed in the new environment.

Foliar fungal pathogens are preferred because they are generally more specific and readily dispersed by wind or rain
splash. The high specificity-level displayed by some rust fungi, and their detrimental effect on the metabolism of their
host plant, has made them the pathogens of choice for weed biocontrol. They rapidly colonize plant tissue, divert plant
nutrients to support their own growth and thus reduce plant productivity. Pathogens that only cause discrete necrotic
leaf spots are less preferred because of the low impact on weed growth.

The intraspecific variation in the pathosystem and genotypic specificity for a precise genetic match between the
pathogen and the weed is another aspect required for biocontrol to succeed. Conversely, the host range of candidate
pathogen agents may be too wide, making them unsuitable for classical biocontrol. A restricted host range is a
prerequisite for any pathogen proposed for introduction into a new country as a classical weed biocontrol agent.

Release in a New Range

Regulatory approval for the release of a pathogen for classical weed biocontrol is contingent on demonstrating that the
pathogen poses negligible risks to species in the recipient country. The objective of the release phase of a biocontrol
program is for the pathogen to establish rapidly throughout the range of the weed. The optimal number and distance
between release sites depend on the natural dispersal of the agent. Pathogens with windborne spores require fewer
releases because they can naturally spread quickly from initial disease foci to other infestations of the weed. Another
simple technique widely utilized to release a pathogen agent in the field involves spraying the target weed with a spore
suspension or misting the inoculated foliage with water and covering it with plastic bags or sheets for the first night or
day after inoculation. Regular visual inspections of the weed at release sites for characteristic disease symptoms caused
by the pathogen are performed to confirm establishment and gather initial data on the spread. Bioclimatic modeling can
assist in identifying release sites that have similar climates to the source location of the agent in the native range and in
monitoring the subsequent establishment, spread, and initial impact of the pathogen in the target area.

Commercial Bioherbicides
Despite the availability of a voluminous literature on possible candidate pathogens for bioherbicide development, only
15 bioherbicides have ever been registered for use globally since the first one, DeVineTM, in 1981 (Table 1). And still, very
few are commercially available.
Table 1 Current status Mycoherbicides
Product name Year of registration Country of Active ingredient Target weed(s)
and current status registration
Di-Bak® Parkinsonia 2018 Registered, Australia Lasiodiplodia Parkinsonia aculeate
commercially pseudotheobromae,
available Neoscytalidium
novaehollandiae,
Macrophomina
phaseolina
Bio-PhomaTM 2016 Registered Canada Phoma macrostoma Numerous broad-
leaved weeds
Sarritor® 2009 Registered Canada Sclerotinia minor Taraxacum officinale
and other broad-
leaved weeds
SmolderTM 2005 Registration USA Alternaria destruens Cuscuta spp
lapsed in 2009
BioMalTM 1992 Registration Canada Colletotrichum Malva pusilla
lapsed in 2006 gloeosporioides f.sp.
malvae
Dr. BioSedgeTM 1987 Registration USA Puccinia canaliculata Cyperus esculentus
lapsed in 1999

Volume 2 - Issue 7 - July 2020 114 | P a g e

CollegoTM 1982 Registration USA C. gloeosporioides f.sp. Aeschynomene
lapsed in 2003 aeschynomene virginica
DeVineTM 1981 Reregistered in USA Chlamydospores of Morrenia odorata
2006 Phytophthora palmivora (milkweed vine)

Challenges and Constraints

1. Risk of transfer to a new host after the introduction
2. Successfully demonstrating the safety of introduced pathogens is paramount.
3. Extensive host-specificity testing for accurate host-range predictions
4. Vulnerability to slight fluctuations in ambient temperature and moisture conditions in the field make them less
reliable.
5. To be commercially successful, a bioherbicide needs to be as easy to handle and as efficacious and have as few
limitations as competing products.
6. Reduction of production cost and bridging technical barriers
7. The development and commercialization of bioherbicides are plagued by technological hurdles encountered during
production and formulation. It is essential in ensuring that a bioherbicide has an acceptable shelf-life, is easy to apply,
and is tolerant of variable environmental conditions at the time of application.
8. The formulation is also a major challenge for mycoherbicides that are sprayed onto the weed’s foliage because they
require moisture for several hours after application for infections to occur.

Conclusion
The present situation of phasing out of several older synthetic herbicides and the high cost of developing and registering
new ones, the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, and use of government policies to reduce or ban synthetic
pesticide usage pertaining to the environmental and health hazards have been the key reasons for the growing interest
in bioherbicides. The classical biocontrol approach has aided in bringing down target weed populations to manageable
levels and has emerged profitable for low-income countries. A close collaboration between plant pathologists,
entomologists, and weed ecologists from both governmental research institutions and universities is critical to harness
this approach to its full potential.

References
1. Bailey K.L. and Falk S. (2011) Turning research on microbial bioherbicides into commercial products: a Phoma story.
Pest Technol. 5:73–79
2. Boyetchko S.M., Bailey K.L., Hynes R.K. and Peng G. (2007) Development of the mycoherbicide, BioMal. In Biological
Control: A Global Perspective, ed. C Vincent, MS Goettel, G Lazarovits, pp. 274–83.Wallingford, UK: CABI
3. Evans H.C. and Ellison C.A. (1990) Classical biological control of weeds with micro-organisms: past, present,
prospects. Aspects Appl. Biol. 24:39–49
4. Lake E.C. and Minteer C.R. (2018) A review of the integration of classical biological control with other techniques to
manage invasive weeds in natural areas and rangelands. Biocontrol 63:71–86
5. Westwood J.H., Charudattan R., Duke S.O., et al. (2018) Weed management in 2050: perspectives on the future of
weed science. Weed Sci. 66:275–85.

Volume 2 - Issue 7 - July 2020 115 | P a g e