Abstract

The escalating environmental and anthropogenic challenges have propelled the biological approach to the forefront of integrated and sustainable weed control strategies. With a historical background spanning century, the success of using biological agents for weed control takes center stage in this chapter. Our exploration begins with a classical perspective on the biological approach, shining a spotlight on arthropods, particularly insects. A unique angle introduced involves the redistribution of local arthropods as a nuanced method for effective weed control. Transitioning to the bioherbicide section, we delve into the realm of formulated natural products and their diverse formulations, recognizing their pivotal role in biological weed control.However, the landscape of biological weed control is not without its challenges. Financial constraints, side effects, and divergent opinions pose hurdles that warrant attention. Yet, despite these challenges, the narrative maintains an optimistic outlook. The underlying belief is that, in the future, biological methods will evolve to offer not only effective but also sustainable solutions for weed control practices. In essence, this abstract navigates through the historical successes of biological weed control, explores specific facets such as arthropods and bioherbicides, confronts existing challenges, and ultimately anticipates a future where biological methods emerge as more promising and sustainable players in the field of weed control.

• 1.   Agrow (2006). Global agrochemical market flat in 2005. A grow No. 490, p. 15.
• 2.   Anaya, A.L., Gliessman, S.R., Ortega, R.C., RosadoMay, R. and Rodriguez, V.N. (1988). Effects of allelopathic weeds used as cover crops on the floristic potential of soils. Proceedings 6th International Conference I.F.O.A.M. Global perspectives on agroecological and sustainable agricultural systems, Santa Cruz, California, USA, 607-624.
• 3.   Bewick, T.A., Shilling, D.G., Dusk, J.A. and Williams, D. (1994). Effects of celery (Apium graveolens) root residue on growth of various crops and weeds. Weed Technology 8:625-629.
• 4.   Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J.P. and Kennedy, A.C.(2000). Biodynamic preparations: Short term effects on crops, soils and weed populations. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15 (30): 110-118.
• 5.   Charron, C.S., Cantliffe, D.J. and Heath, R.R. (1995). Volatile emissions from plants. Horticultural Reviews 17: 43-72.
• 6.   Child, L.E., De Waal, L.C. and Wade, P.M. (1993). Herbicides - is there a better way to control Fallopia japonica. Communications of the 4th International Conference I.F.O.A.M.N on Chemical Weed Control, Dijon, France, 225-232.
• 7.   Dellow, J.J., Mitchell, T., Johnston, W., Hennessey, G. and Gray, P.(1988). Large area blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) control using grazing goats. Plant Protection Quarterly 3(2): 83-84.
• 8.   Evans, H.C. and Ellison, C.A. (1990). Classical biological control of weeds with micro organisms: past, present, prospects. Aspects of Applied Biology 24, The exploitation of micro-organisms in applied biology: 39-49.
• 9.   Fowler, S.V., Holden, A.N.G. and Schroeder, D. (1991). The possibilities for classical biological control of weeds of industrial and amenity land in the UK using introduced insect herbivores or plant pathogens. Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds, 1173- 1180.
• 10.   Goel, U., Saxena, D.B. and Gupta, A.K. (1994). Allelopathic potential of Chenopodium album L. Allelopathy Journal 1(2): 105-113.
• 11.   Hallett, S.G., Paul, N.D. and Ayres, P.G. (1990). Botrytis cinereakills groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) infected by rust (Puccinia lagenophorae). New Phytologist 114: 105-109.
• 12.   Imaizumi, S., Nishino, T., Miyabe, K., Fujimori, T, and Yamada, M. (1997). Biological control of annual blue grass (Poaannua L.) with a Japanese isolate of Xanthomonas campestris pv. poae (JT-P482). Biological Control 8: 7-14.
• 13.   Kosemura, S., Yamamura, S., Kakuta, H., Mizutani, J. and Hasegawa, K. (1993). Synthesis and absolute configuration of lepidimoide, a high potent allelopathic substance from the mucilage of germinated cress seeds. Tetrahedron Letters 34(16): 2653-2656.
• 14.   Lockhart, J.A.R. (1990). The evolution of weed control in British agriculture. In Weed Control Handbook: Principles (R.J. Hance and K. Holly, eds.), pp. 43-74. Blackwell; Oxford.
• 15.   Lovett, J.V. (1982). Allelopathy and self defence in plants. Australian Weeds 2(1): 33-36.
• 16.   Lovett, J.V. (1991). Changing perceptions of allelopathy and biological control. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 8: 89-100.
• 17.   Numata, M. (1982). Weed-ecological approaches to allelopathy. In, Biology and ecology of weeds, Dr Junk Publishers, The Hague, 169-173.
• 18.   Oerke, E-C. (2005). Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144: 31-43.
• 19.   Paul, N.D. and Ayres, P.G. (1986). Effects of rust infection of Senecio vulgaris on competition with lettuce. Weed Research 27: 431-441.
• 20.   Qasem, J.R. and Hill, T.A. (1989). Possible role of allelopathy in the competition between tomato, Senecio vulgaris L. and Chenopodium album. Weed Research 29: 349-356.
• 21.   Rogers, B. (1979). What do women want? Appropriate Technology, 5(4), 8-9. Soil Association (1989). Standards for Organic Agriculture. The Soil Association; Bristol.
• 22.   Scherrer, B. (2000). Anthroposophic, selective weed control. Proceedings 13th IFOAM Conference – The World Grows Organic. Basle, Switzerland, 184.
• 23.   Soil Association (2002). Organic weed and scrub control on nature conservation sites. Soil Association Technical Guide, Soil Association Producer Services, Bristol, UK.
• 24.   Steinsiek, J.W., Oliver, L.R. and Collins, F.C. (1982). Allelopathic potential of wheat (Triticumaestivum) straw on selected weed species. Weed Science 30:495-497.
• 25.   Tukey, H.B.Jr. (1966). Leaching of metabolites from above-ground plant parts and its implications. Bulletin Torrey Botanical Club 93: 385-401.
• 26.   Weidemann, G.J. and Tebeest, D.O. (1990). Biology of host range testing for biocontrol of weeds. Weed Technology 4: 465-70.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding