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. Global agrochemical market flat in 2005. Agrow. 2006;(490):15.
• 2.   Anaya AL, Gliessman SR, Ortega RC, Rosado-May R, Rodriguez VN. Effects of allelopathic weeds used as cover crops on the floristic potential of soils. In: Global perspectives on agroecological and sustainable agricultural systems. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference IFOAM; 1988; Santa Cruz, CA. p. 607-24.
• 3.   Bewick TA, Shilling DG, Dusk JA, Williams D. Effects of celery (Apium graveolens) root residue on growth of various crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1994;8:625-9.
• 4.   Carpenter-Boggs L, Reganold JP, Kennedy AC. Biodynamic preparations: short term effects on crops, soils and weed populations. Am J Altern Agric. 2000;15(3):110-8.
• 5.   Charron CS, Cantliffe DJ, Heath RR. Volatile emissions from plants. Hortic Rev. 1995;17:43-72.
• 6.   Child LE, De Waal LC, Wade PM. Herbicides - is there a better way to control Fallopia japonica? In: Communications of the 4th International Conference IFOAMN on Chemical Weed Control; 1993; Dijon, France. p. 225-32.
• 7.   Dellow JJ, Mitchell T, Johnston W, Hennessey G, Gray P. Large area blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) control using grazing goats. Plant Prot Q. 1988;3(2):83-4.
• 8.   Evans HC, Ellison CA. Classical biological control of weeds with micro organisms: past, present, prospects. Aspects Appl Biol. 1990;24:39-49.
• 9.   Fowler SV, Holden ANG, Schroeder D. The possibilities for classical biological control of weeds of industrial and amenity land in the UK using introduced insect herbivores or plant pathogens. In: Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds; 1991. p. 1173-80.
• 10.   Goel U, Saxena DB, Gupta AK. Allelopathic potential of Chenopodium album L. Allelopathy J. 1994;1(2):105-13.
• 11.   Hallett SG, Paul ND, Ayres PG. Botrytis cinerea kills groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) infected by rust (Puccinia lagenophorae). New Phytol. 1990;114:105-9.
• 12.   Imaizumi S, Nishino T, Miyabe K, Fujimori T, Yamada M. Biological control of annual blue grass (Poa annua L.) with a Japanese isolate of Xanthomonas campestris pv. poae (JT-P482). Biol Control. 1997;8:7-14.
• 13.   Kosemura S, Yamamura S, Kakuta H, Mizutani J, Hasegawa K. Synthesis and absolute configuration of lepidimoide, a high potent allelopathic substance from the mucilage of germinated cress seeds. Tetrahedron Lett. 1993;34(16):2653-6.
• 14.   Lockhart JAR. The evolution of weed control in British agriculture. In: Hance RJ, Holly K, editors. Weed Control Handbook: Principles. Oxford: Blackwell; 1990. p. 43-74.
• 15.   Lovett JV. Allelopathy and self defence in plants. Aust Weeds. 1982;2(1):33-6.
• 16.   Lovett JV. Changing perceptions of allelopathy and biological control. Biol Agric Hortic. 1991;8:89-100.
• 17.   Numata M. Weed-ecological approaches to allelopathy. In: Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague: Dr Junk Publishers; 1982. p. 169-73.
• 18.   Oerke EC. Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci. 2005;144:31-43.
• 19.   Paul ND, Ayres PG. Effects of rust infection of Senecio vulgaris on competition with lettuce. Weed Res. 1986;27:431-41.
• 20.   Qasem JR, Hill TA. Possible role of allelopathy in the competition between tomato, Senecio vulgaris L. and Chenopodium album. Weed Res. 1989;29:349-56.
• 21.   Rogers B. What do women want? Approp Technol. 1979;5(4):8-9.
• 22.   Soil Association. Standards for Organic Agriculture. Bristol: The Soil Association; 1989.
• 23.   Scherrer B. Anthroposophic, selective weed control. In: Proceedings of the 13th IFOAM Conference – The World Grows Organic; 2000; Basle, Switzerland. p. 184.
• 24.   Soil Association. Organic weed and scrub control on nature conservation sites. Bristol (UK): Soil Association Producer Services; 2002. (Soil Association Technical Guide).
• 25.   Steinsiek JW, Oliver LR, Collins FC. Allelopathic potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 1982;30:495-7.
• 26.   Tukey HB Jr. Leaching of metabolites from above-ground plant parts and its implications. Bull Torrey Bot Club. 1966;93:385-401.
• 27.   Weidemann GJ, Tebeest DO. Biology of host range testing for biocontrol of weeds. Weed Technol. 1990;4:465-70.