Researchers develop a way to control 'superweed'

Jan 21, 2011

They pop up in farm fields across 22 states, and they've been called the single largest threat to production agriculture that farmers have ever seen. They are "superweeds" – undesirable plants that can tolerate multiple herbicides, including the popular gylphosate, also known as RoundUp – and they cost time and money because the only real solution is for farmers to plow them out of the field before they suffocate corn, soybeans or cotton. Now, thanks to the work of researchers at Dow AgroSciences, LLC, who have been collaborating with a University of Missouri researcher, a new weapon may be on the horizon to eliminate superweeds.

Zhanyuan Zhang, a research associate professor of plant sciences and director of the MU Plant Transformation Core facility, partnered with research scientists at Dow AgroSciences, LLC, to engineer soybean plants that can tolerate an alternative herbicide that may help slow the spread of superweeds, such as tall waterhemp.

According to an article in the May 3 edition of the New York Times, farmers considered RoundUp a "miracle chemical" when it was introduced because it killed a wide variety of weeds, is safe to work with, and broke down quickly, reducing environmental impact. However, weeds quickly evolved to survive gylphosate, and that threatened to reverse an agricultural advance known as minimum-till farming. As the superweeds survive in the fields, farmers must spend more time to get rid of them, even going so far as pulling the weeds by hand. The Times noted that there were 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres of farmland.

Using a massive genetic database and a bioinformatic approach, Dow AgroSciences researchers identified two bacterial enzymes that, when transformed into plants, conferred resistance to an herbicide called "2,4-D," commonly used in controlling dandelions. The enzymes were successfully put into corn and soybean plants, and those new plants showed excellent resistance to 2,4-D, including no negative effects on yield or other agronomic traits. Other advantages of 2,4-D include low cost, short environmental persistence, and low toxicity to humans and wildlife.

"Unlike glyphosate, which targets amino acid synthesis, 2,4-D is a hormone regulator. Because it has a different mode of action, 2,4-D is an ideal herbicide to deal with glyphosate-resistant weeds," said Zhang, who managed the soybean transformation portion of the study and contributed to some data analysis.

Zhang believes that 2,4-D could eventually be combined with other herbicides in the near future. In the meantime, Zhang says an integrated weed management plan can help farmers be productive and ultimately save money for the consumer.

"The less chemicals use in the field, the less money they spend on production," said Zhang. "That leads to less cost for the consumer, as well as improved food safety and environmental safety."

Explore further: Next-door leopards: First GPS-collar study reveals how leopards live with people

More information: Study results were published in the November issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Related Stories

Herbicide diversity needed to keep Roundup effective

Jul 13, 2009

Using a diverse herbicide application strategy may increase production costs, but a five-year Purdue University study shows the practice will drastically reduce weeds and seeds that are resistant to a popular herbicide.

Farmers relying on roundup lose some of its benefit

Apr 14, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Roundup Ready crops have made weed control much easier for farmers, but a new study shows their reliance on the technology may be weakening the herbicide's ability to control weeds.

Roundup resistant weeds pose environmental threat

Jun 21, 2010

(AP) -- When the weed killer Roundup was introduced in the 1970s, it proved it could kill nearly any plant while still being safer than many other herbicides, and it allowed farmers to give up harsher chemicals and reduce ...

Recommended for you

Laser scanning accurately 'weighs' trees

Nov 21, 2014

A terrestrial laser scanning technique that allows the structure of vegetation to be 3D-mapped to the millimetre is more accurate in determining the biomass of trees and carbon stocks in forests than current ...

Cameras detect 'extinct' wallabies near Broome

Nov 21, 2014

Yawuru Country Managers have found a spectacled hare wallaby (Lagorchestes conspicillatus) population, a species which for the last decade was feared to be locally extinct at Roebuck Plains, adjacent to Broome.

User comments : 14

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JRDarby
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
[quote]Now, thanks to the work of researchers at Dow AgroSciences, LLC, who have been collaborating with a University of Missouri researcher[/quote]

Wait a second. Are you telling me that Missouri tax money is going to fund Dow Corporation research? Will the Missouri taxpayer and farmer see a benefit or is that an externality?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
And, 2,4D is not as benevolent a substance as it is being made to sound here in this press release. Basically what thet're saying is that they want to spray millions of acres with a substance which is a somewhat-less-virulent component of Agent Orange.
gmurphy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
These spammers are getting more and more brazen, really starting to annoy me. Physorg, it should be really easy to filter them out, a typical spammer produces nearly identical messages regardless of the article, that should be enough.
Moebius
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Just what we need, more and better herbicides and plants that we eat that tolerate them, what about OUR tolerance for the herbicides?

This spammer could be easily filtered just by a couple words. Who uses polo t-shirt in a post? Better yet, filter with a spell check. It would weed him out as well as some other people, this guy couldn't spell correctly even with the spell check highlighter. Quality is our dignity?
Skate
4 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
Does this sound to anyone like the start of the same cycle as antibiotics? I don't like the entire approach of taking a food crop and making it less sensitive to an herbicide with its "low toxicity to humans". Isn't there a way to genetically alter the weed or its pollen?
BubbiesMom
4 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
We're farmers, and you know what...the next time you go to the grocery, and find that some of the items you were able to afford, are somehow just getting out of hand in the price zone...think abouk how desperately weed control is needed to put food on your table. Because of the weeds, we will be charging more, amd making 150% LESS than you actually pay at the marke thanks to all the hands our product filters through.Please help us find the right way to fight the problem, and make sure you do not complain with your mouth full.
nada
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
Is the weed edible? What is their nutritional value?

Likewise, who was the idiot who decided for us all that our lawns should be "grass". What if they decided our lawns should be dandilions and creeping charlie?

I'd have the best lawn in the country.
lexington
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Why not just burn the motherfuckers?
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
@ BubbiesMom:
My mouth is full of an organically-grown carrot, and with all due respect, as your work is essential to existence, I would implore you to switch over to organic farming methods. Dow Chemical manufactured napalm that was used to burn Vietnamese and Cambodian
children alive, so boycott anything they sell. You shouldn't expose yourself and family to any of this toxicity, or me, your customer. I'll gladly pay the higher price for your produce, instead of the price for Cisplatin.
Kev_C
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
There were numerous errors in this article. First of all an error made in the New York Times should have been referenced. Glyphosate is not environmentally friendly as Monsanto found out in European courts. They lied about that fact. It remains in the soil for years and is responsible for a lot of health issues to people using it and those living near to where it is used.
Second bone of contention there is no way that 2,4-D is safe. As it says in the article 2,4-D is a hormone regulator. Say hello to more birth defects. If you doubt it ask the troops from the Vietnam war. Ask the people still living out there.
In all this article there has not been one mention of the fact that like anti-biotic resistance in bacteria we are creating the self same situation in the plant kingdom.
One poster Telekinetic, spoke the truth. I don't want to eat chemical industry crap and I certainly don't intend to poison my environment or allow it to be poisoned just so some chemical company can profit.
trekgeek1
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
Superweed?! Oh, I see, cancel the Twinkies.
Djincs
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
Ok, all I see is complaining, tell us a different way with coping this weeds, fungy, insects...organic, right, how you do it man, you go and pick it one by one.....not everyone can afford to pay for such food!
Next the shitiest toxins used are on plants not GM, when you GM them they have natural way of coping-the genes taken and inbeded are from nature, not from the lab!I read about banana plant with a resistant gene ot fungy taken from pepper....now you will say they dont know what they are doing, envirenmental risk.....ok then if you dont buy this(not proven to be harmfull, but you see it is new and sceary), buy the bananas with this shitty chemicals used in the wars, becauce they are not new but proven hamfull, really smart think to do, due to ignorance!
Djincs
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
About the weeds, if plants with resistance to two chemicals exist, then the posibility of weed to be resistant to that diminishes really significantly, you can estimate this aprocsimately and you will find that the % really significantly, and more less will be used , because now they use more and more roundup due to this adaptation of plants to the first doses....And beleave me to kill them with hormone(plant hormone nothing to do with the humans hormones) is the best way, it doesnt change their methabolism dirrectly(this is bad because on basic level we have similar metabolism-same dna same mytohonria same cycle for sinthesis) but changing the signaling proceses in the plant(nothing to do with our signaling-it is like to put adrenalin in the plant-nothing will hapen to this plant), so this is smart dont critisise them about that!
Djincs
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
Some people try to solve problems and you just pure shits on them....great job!What the hell are you doing to solve problems?Playing trolls wont work!
Start to read and dont frown any time you hear something about gm plant, there is reason for this to be done(yes money but money speared in order not to use chemicals somethimes, somethimes it is roung up yes-thats why you cant put all gm in one basket!)
Dont hate them all, and dont accept them all this is what a smart person will do, anything elce is just pure ignorance and trolling!

P.S Sorry for the spelling

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.