plant physiology preview. published on august 7, 2014, as doi
TRANSCRIPT
Herbicides state of the art. I. Overview
Hansjoerg Kraehmer
Kantstrasse 20, D-65719 Hofheim Germany
+49 6192 296560
Plant Physiology Preview. Published on August 7, 2014, as DOI:10.1104/pp.114.241901
Copyright 2014 by the American Society of Plant Biologists
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Herbicides as weed control agents – state of the art. I. Weed control research and safener technology: the path to modern agriculture
*Hansjoerg Kraehmer, Bernd Laber, Chris Rosinger, Arno Schulz
Bayer CropScience AG, Industriepark Hoechst, Building H 872, D-65926 Frankfurt am Main
An overview on the development of weed control and safener history and of screening tools to find them over the past 100 years is presented.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of modern industrial herbicides is to control weeds. The species of weeds that plague crops today are a consequence of the historical past, being related to the history of the evolution of crops and farming practices. Chemical weed control began over a century ago with inorganic compounds and transitioned to the age of organic herbicides. Targeted herbicide research has created a steady stream of successful products. However, safeners have proven to be more difficult to find. Once discovered, it became important to determine the mode of action, partly to help the discovery of further compounds within the same class. However, mounting regulatory and economic pressure has changed the industry completely, making it harder to find a successful herbicide. Herbicide resistance has also become an increasing problem and increased the difficulty of controlling weeds. As a result, the development of new molecules has become a rare event today.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Introduction and historical background of herbicide research
Modern industrial herbicide research begins with the analysis and definition of research objectives. A major part of
this lies in the definition of economically important weeds in major arable crops (Kraehmer 2012). Weed associations
change slowly over time. It is therefore important to foresee such changes. Today’s weed associations result from
events in the distant past. They are associated with the history of crops and the evolution of farm management. In
Europe and the Americas, some large-acre crops such as oilseed rape, canola and soybean have attained their current
importance only within the last hundred years. Other “Old world” crops such as cereals have expanded over a very
long time span and were already rather widespread in Neolithic times (Zohary et al. 2012). The dominance of crop
species in agricultural habitats only left room for weed species which could adapt to cultivation technologies. Changes
in crop management and the global weed infestation have happened in waves. A major early factor in Europe was
presumably the grain trade in the Roman period (Erdkamp 2005). The Romans spread their preferred crops and,
unintentionally, associated weed seeds throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. A second wave of global vegetation
change started in the sixteenth century after the discovery of the Americas. Crops and weeds were distributed globally
by agronomists and botanists. Alien species started to spread on all continents. A third phase can be seen in the
nineteenth century with the industrialization of agriculture and with the breeding of competitive crop varieties. The
analysis of weed spectra in arable fields starts from this historical background. Weeds are plants interfering with the
interests of people (Kraehmer and Baur 2013), which is why they have been controlled by farmers for millennia.
Chemical weed control began just about a century ago with a few inorganic compounds such as sulphuric acid, copper
salts and sodium chlorate (Cremlyn 1991). The herbicidal activity of 2.4 D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) was
detected in the forties of the last century (Troyer 2001). Table 1 provides an overview on selected chemical families,
selected representatives and earliest usage reports according to Cremlyn (1991), Worthington and Hance (1991) and
Büchel et al. (1977). Targeted herbicide research began in the fifties of the last century. In the early days, herbicide
candidates were progressed from screens purely on the basis of their having biology that would satisfy farmers’
requirements. Mode of action (MoA) studies did not play a major role in the chemical industry prior to the seventies of
the last century. The development of analytical tools and the rapid elucidation of plant pathways and in vitro-based
screen assays were used from the eighties onward. However in the nineties and beyond, ever increasing regulatory and
economic pressures has changed the situation of the industry completely and to satisfy the new requirements, selection
criteria beyond biological activity have needed to be applied. Consequently, regulatory and economic pressure have
fundamentally changed the situation of the industry. Selection criteria beyond biological activity have had to be
applied. Herbicide resistance in weeds has developed into a more serious problem that now constrains the application
of certain types of herbicides in some markets. Finally, the introduction of crops resistant to cheap herbicides and of
glyphosate-resistant soybean in particular, took value out of the market and resulted in an enormous economic pressure
on the herbicide-producing industry. As a result of this changing and more difficult landscape, the development of new
molecules is now a rare event.
The present article is structured into three main topics. First, it provides an historic overview on the development of
weed control history and of screening tools over the past 100 years. Thereafter, we will concentrate on the use of MoA
studies as a tool for optimizing chemical structures based upon knowledge of their receptors. Finally we review the
invention and use of safener technologies as a tool for improving the crop selectivity of herbicides. In a second
companion review entitled “Herbicides as weed control agents – state of the art II. Recent achievements” (Kraehmer,
et al. 2014), we address the serious challenges that farmers now face due to the evolution of herbicide resistance in
weeds and the types of innovations that are urgently required.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Agricultural changes in the past and their influence on weed infestation
Crops grown on arable land within the last 100 years, weed management and changes in weed infestation
Crop management practices have had a major impact on weed infestation. Animals such as horses were used as
production tools in the beginning of the last century. The horses required feeding and as a result, for example, in 1920
oats were grown on more than 40 million acres in the USA (area harvested); today the acreage amounts to only 1
million acres. It is not surprising therefore that wild oats, which were nearly impossible to control in the past, spread so
quickly over many continents.
Table 2 illustrates a few other striking facts: corn was already planted on 101 million US acres in 1920 and on around
97 million acres in 2012. In sharp contrast, soybeans were cultivated on less than 500 000 acres in 1920 but on 76
million acres in the year 2012.
One very effective weed management tool is tillage. Mechanical weed management is, however, time consuming,
labor intensive and leads to a high energy consumption. It has also regrettably resulted in major erosion problems all
over the world (Montgomery 2007). Erosion rates on US arable land declined considerably between 1982 and 1987:
From 3.06 billion tons down to 1.73 billion tons or from 7.3 tons per acre to 4.8 tons per acre (NRCS – 2007 National
Resources Inventory; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012269.pdf). Changes in
tillage practices were partly responsible for this achievement.
Weed infestation in spring crops and winter crops can differ considerably (for example Håkanson, 2003). The
profound reduction of spring crops, and especially the reduction of the oat acreage when tractors replaced horses,
resulted in a complete shift from wild oats ( Avena fatua L.) as a major grass weed to black-grass (Alopecurus
myosuroides Huds. ) and silky bent grass ( Apera spica-venti (L.) P. Beauv. in Europe (Kraehmer and Stuebler 2012).
The hard winters in Canada prevent the cultivation of winter crops in many agricultural areas. This is why winter
annuals such as black-grass do not play a major role there. Canada has a long tradition of conducting weed surveys.
Despite major changes in the use of agrochemicals, the most dominant weeds have remained the same for decades (see
for example Leeson et al. 2005). The Weed Mapping Working Group of the European Weed Science Society
endeavors to map the most common weeds of Europe in all major crops and to document changes in weed infestations
(http://www.ewrs.org/weed_mapping.asp). One obvious result is that weed spectra change with cropping practices and
environmental conditions and that some species are better adapted to the warmer climates in the Mediterranean area
such as Abutilon theophrasti Medicus or Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., whereas others are more frequent in northern
Europe such as Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. or Apera spica-venti (L.) P. Beauv. The weed species Chenopodium
album L. and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. are characterized by a wide ecological aptitude (Kraehmer 2010) and
can be found everywhere in Europe and in many crops.
Biological screening
Glasshouse and field screening
In the early days, indicator species or model plants played a major role in herbicide discovery screening. Weed target
species were often not available. Most herbicide screening in the agrochemical industry (Fig. 1) between the fifties and
eighties of the last century was characterized by a protocol where solutions of test chemicals were sprayed over sets of
plants in pots, or over seeded bare soil in the case of pre-emergent screens.
The screening compounds were either pre-dissolved in solvents such as acetone or they were formulated as wettable
powders, emulsion concentrates or suspension concentrates before dilution in water. The spraying process simulated
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
the actual spraying situation in the field. Every company had its own, specially designed spraying equipment. The
screening process was divided into two to four initial selection steps. The initial, or plus-minus activity, tests started
with high dose rates, generally between 1 and 10 kg a.i./ha (active ingredient/ha). Compounds were sprayed in pre-
and post-emergence trials. Later steps with lower dose rates and varying plant species followed to further refine
activity and weed spectrum. The results of these trials were usually visual phytotoxicity ratings on different scales,
such as on a 0 to 100 % rating scale, 0 meaning no phytotoxicity, 100 % equaled complete control of plants. Fresh or
dry weights were used for comparisons in special tests only. Symptomology was an essential and integral part of
ratings. Each chemical class of compounds usually resulted in typical patterns of symptoms. Observations made in
different screening indications (for example, insecticide, acaricide, nematicide or fungicide screens) were also taken
into account during evaluation (Figures 2 and 3).
Chemists usually prepared sample amounts of 3 to 5 grams. This amount allowed the early testing of chemicals in all
screening indications. Most mid-size and large companies tested between 1000 and 5000 compounds per year. IT tools
suitable to facilitate screening were not available before the eighties of the last century and structure-activity
relationships had to be derived manually in long and time-consuming procedures. The last glasshouse step was a
profiling procedure in which recommendations for field testing were derived. Often, special tests were carried out
before or in parallel to field tests to check the soil-dependent performance of a compound, the influence of different
formulations, potential carry-over risks and crop selectivity ranges. Depending on company size and resources,
between 10 and 100 compounds were advanced into field testing per year. Compounds were tested in different parts of
the world on plots between 1m² and 10m² with three to four replicates.
Two to three years in the field were usually sufficient to make informed development decisions. In the third quarter of
the last century, it usually took between four to six years from the first synthesis of a compound until entry into the
market in the third quarter of the last century. Later, the development process became more involved and took a greater
investment of time to develop a new herbicide, as we will show later.
Early mode of action studies
The number of modes of action was quite limited between 1950 and 1970. Most commercial products were
characterized as auxin-type herbicides, PS I-inhibitors or PS II-inhibitors or inhibitors of cell division. During the
seventies, inhibition of photosynthesis was typically tested at the whole plant level using Infrared Gas Analyzers in
growth chambers. At the biochemical level the so-called Hill-reaction served as a tool for the identification of
photosynthesis inhibitors in isolated chloroplasts (see for example Arndt and Kötter 1968). In the eighties, Clark-
electrode measurements with isolated leaf cells and fluorescence emission assays with whole leaves provided further
non-destructive tools for the characterization of PS II herbicides (Voss et al. 1984 a+b).
Plant tissue cultures coupled with HPLC analysis have been used since the seventies to characterize herbicide-induced
changes in metabolism. Cultures of aquatic plants such as Lemna minor have also long been used as an herbicide test
system. Perennial weeds sometimes required a different approach. Systemic action of herbicides is required for the
control of perennials such as couch (Elytrigia repens (L.) Gould), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.) or
field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Special translocation tests were used to check for this property. For
example, Phaseolus beans with two leaves provided some indication of systemic action when one of the leaves was
treated. Translocated compounds then led to symptoms in the untreated leaf.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
From the eighties onwards, special biochemical assays were developed for the characterization of target sites and for
binding studies. Target enzymes of plant-specific pathways were preferred in order to avoid toxicological problems in
mammals. We will come to this period in one of the following paragraphs.
Miniaturized screening assays
A perennial problem faced by the agrochemical industry has been the question of where to obtain new compounds in
amounts sufficient for screening. At the end of the last century, an intensive exchange of compounds between non-
agrochemical and agrochemical origins began. Universities and private institutes offered agrochemical companies their
stocks and undertook the synthesis of additional desired compounds. Natural products were available for testing also.
Since most third-party compounds were provided in low amounts, it drove the adoption of miniaturized herbicide
discovery assays. These assays provide a basic initial test for phytotoxicity but give only limited discriminatory
information to guide compound optimization. Seed germination assays in Petri-dishes were also quite commonly used.
The first purpose of these assays was to find hits which would justify the synthesis of analogues and of samples with
larger substance amounts. Tissue culture tests as described by Gressel et al. (1993) were also employed in a number of
companies. Some companies have kept and improved such miniaturized assays until today, for example, as published
by Grossmann et al. (2012). Several assays were incorporated into high-throughput screening systems which allow the
screening of one million compounds per year and more (Kraehmer 2012). We will touch upon this screening approach
in one of the following chapters.
Glasshouse to field transfer
One disadvantage of early screening sets of the last century was the use of model plants such as onions, carrots,
potatoes and others. They were employed because the seed of target weeds was not available in the early herbicide
screens. Today, specialized providers can deliver high quality weed seed in guaranteed quantities. Nevertheless, even
given the use of real target weeds, laboratory and glasshouse data are still not usually fully predictive of the
performance of compounds in the field. Many parameters contribute to the variable transfer factors from glasshouse to
field (Kraehmer and Russell 1994). One of these parameters is the test species. Model plants such as Lemna species,
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. or Brachypodium distachyon P. Beauv. differ from weeds in many ways including
their specific uptake and translocation properties, metabolism, their specific life cycle and environmental requirements
for growth - Lemna species are aquatic weeds in contrast to terrestrial weeds. Arabidopsis thaliana and Brachypodium
distachyon are not serious competitors within arable crops under agricultural conditions. The same rules apply to many
other species in miniaturized assays. General phytotoxicity principles can only rarely be used for the optimization of
chemical structures or for structure-activity relationships. Too many positive results in an indicator assay often require
repeated screening steps to reduce their numbers. Certain types of herbicides may not be detected at all if the indicator
species is too different from the screen model species. For example, ACCase-inhibiting graminicides would not have
been detected by screening against Arabidopsis. Similarly, the potential of a compound to control perennial weeds will
not be evident from screens that only include annual species and information about soil-plant interactions is absent
from screens based upon liquid systems that do not include soil. The potential of a compound to control perennial
weeds will often not be detected with annual species. Plant cells grown in tissue cultures are very different from whole
plant cells because they are undifferentiated and can derive nutrients, often present in excess, from the culture medium
and are buffered such that the influence of pH values on the uptake of compounds is masked.The actual value of a new
compound is always based upon its performance against economically important weed species. It is highly
questionable if all compounds controlling Lemna, Arabidopsis and Brachypodium will, for example, automatically
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
control herbicide resistant Amaranthus species. This is presumably why cells or tissues of target species have now
found their way into physiological profiling assays (see for example Grossmann et al. 2012).
Environmental fate of agrochemicals
Advances in the sensitivity of analytical tools in the seventies and eighties allowed the detection of trace levels of
agrochemicals in groundwater, and through such analyses some chemicals proved to be persistent in the environment
(Kraehmer 2012). This has all led to a tightening of regulatory requirements and an increased need for agrochemical
companies to test and characterize degradation rates of compounds in soil and water under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. The physicochemical parameters such as vapor pressure and the octanol-water partition coefficients of new
compounds are now measured routinely and increasingly sophisticated toxicology tests are carried out before field
testing.
How has chemical weed control changed agriculture so far?
Herbicide innovations have appeared in waves (Stuebler et al. 2007). The early auxin-type herbicides primarily
controlled dicot weeds. Later on, monocots could be controlled with the advent of photosynthesis-inhibitors, cell
division inhibitors and very long chain fatty acid biosynthesis inhibitors (VLCFA-inhibitors). Yields were
considerably increased in all crops between 1940 and 2010 (Table 3). Many factors contributed to this increase, one is
definitely breeding but herbicides have also had a major impact. The value of herbicides was shown by Zimdahl
(2004) who published data showing the influence of defined weed species on the yield of different crops.
Herbicides made it possible to control weeds in crops much more easily than before. Before the advent of herbicides,
controlling weeds required hard physical labor such as hoeing. A particular example is weed control in sugar beet
where high labor costs meant that farmers rapidly adopted herbicide technology once it became available. Another
crop that could be cultivated more easily with the invention of new herbicides was oilseed rape. Broad spectrum
products such as paraquat and atrazine accelerated the use of reduced-tillage measures in agriculture and helped
prevent soil erosion, which had become a major issue especially in the USA during the first half of the last century, as
mentioned above. Selective post-emergence grass control in some crops came in the mid-seventies. The ACCase-
inhibitors selectively controlled grass weeds in post-emergence treatments and the use of safeners even made their
application in cereals possible. Glyphosate is a unique molecule with very specific properties. It allowed the farmer to
kill weeds and to plant new seed within a few days after its application (similar to paraquat). It killed perennials and
had a short soil half-life. Therefore, it was also regarded as one of the most effective products in plantation crops.
Glufosinate was another non-selective molecule with a new MoA. It was strong against a few hard-to-control weeds
such as Equisetum species and it appeared to be a bit safer to plantation crops than glyphosate. The introduction of
ALS-inhibitors drastically reduced the total amounts of agrochemicals applied per hectare. Most of them could be
applied with a few grams per hectare, whereas many older chemicals required amounts in the kilogram range. Finally,
HPPD- and phytoene-desaturase-inhibitors were ideal mixture partners for existing products and closed some evident
gaps. No major new MoA has been found by the industry since the eighties of the last century. As early as 1990,
agrochemical market research indicated that the crop protection market was approaching maturity and that it was
becoming increasingly difficult to discover new agrochemicals with significant advantages over existing products
(Kraehmer and Drexler 2009). The average total costs for the development of an herbicide had increased from 50
million US$ to 250 million US$ between the years 1975 and 1995 (Rüegg et al. 2007). GM (genetically modified)
crops entered the market in the second half of the nineties. The high standard of existing products in the market and the
high registration costs caused many chemical companies to give up their agrochemical business. Following numerous
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
mergers and acquisitions only a few companies with herbicide research capacity remained. The number of companies
devoted to herbicide discovery was reduced from more than 40 in the 1970s to 5 to 8 today. It is highly questionable,
therefore, if farmers will experience many new innovations within the years to come and yet there is an urgent need for
new weed control solutions. Several cropping systems in the Americas as well as in Europe are no longer sustainable
without further herbicide innovations, as we will see in our final chapters.
Modes of action and herbicide diversity
There are several excellent reviews and books on the mode of action of herbicides (Dayan et al, 2010; Krämer at al,
2012; Liu et al, 2009; Seitz et al, 2003), therefore, there is no need to repeat what has been published recently. Instead,
it is intended to give a short overview of previous and current trends in MoA research and the factors that affected the
search for herbicides with novel MoAs.
Between 1960 and 1970 only one herbicide with a novel MoA, asulam, an inhibitor of dihydropteroate synthase, was
discovered. In the early 1970´s this period of low innovation with respect to herbicides with novel MoAs was
superseded by what in retrospect might be called the golden years of herbicide discovery. From 1971 to 1985
herbicides with eight novel MoAs were discovered, among them inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis (glyphosate,
glufosinate, acetolactate synthase, or ALS, inhibitors), lipid biosynthesis (ACCase) inhibitors and inhibitors of pigment
biosynthesis (PDS and HPPD inhibitors), MoAs which still today dominate the herbicide market (Fig. 4 and 5).
These herbicides not only had a profound impact on weed control in agriculture, but also played a major role in
expanding the understanding of fundamental plant processes through their ingenious use as molecular probes (Dayan
et al, 2010). Many academic groups in the US as well as in Europe embarked on this path, either studying the MoA of
herbicides or using herbicides to study plant metabolism.
From the mid-1980s until today more than 140 new herbicide active ingredients have been commercialized (Gerwick,
2010). Surprisingly, only two of these, the narrow-spectrum herbicides cinmethylin and oxaciclomefone, have an
unknown and still not fully understood molecular MoA despite publications describing biochemical effects attributed
to these compounds. All the other new active ingredients target old (known) MoAs. The reasons for this lack of
novelty have been reviewed recently and have been attributed to a number of mostly economic factors (Duke, 2012;
Kraehmer et al., 2007). Two such factors are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
Due to their very low application rates in particular, ALS inhibitors easily outcompeted other chemical classes in the
herbicide screening programs and drew significant synthesis capacity away from them. In addition to ALS inhibitors,
significant synthesis capacity was directed towards one other chemically productive herbicidal MoA, PPO inhibitors
which controlled weeds with very low application rates. PPO inhibitors had a very broad chemical scope too, but their
commercial success was limited. The fast action of these herbicides prevented systemic action, selectivity for in-crop
use was lacking and the toxicological profile was often problematic.
Even though no major new MoA has been introduced into the market in the last 30 years, herbicide discovery has not
come to a standstill. At least 14 target sites for herbicidal compounds have been discovered during this time period
(Fig.4). However, no compound interfering with any of these targets has made it to the market. Reasons for the lack of
commercialization are diverse and include high application rates, incomplete weed spectrum, high costs of production
or a combination of any of these factors. Furthermore, limited scope for the chemical variation of the inhibitors for
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
some of these targets, i.e. KARI, AMPDA, and AdSS, hampered their optimization towards high bioefficacy and low
field application rates.
The traditional method to discover a novel herbicide was by random screening of large numbers of synthetic
compounds in the greenhouse. Based on this approach, at least one commercial product targeting each of today’s
marketed MoAs was introduced before its MoA was elucidated. This random discovery approach was challenged in
the mid-1990s by the introduction of novel research technologies in the pharmaceutical industry. Most big
pharmaceutical companies had started to pick up molecular targets such as enzymes, receptors, etc., which became
accessible by the genomic revolution and a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease.
Pharmaceutical companies tried to identify efficient inhibitors of these targets by using high-throughput in vitro
screening. Progress in organic chemistry facilitated this approach, since combinatorial chemistry made it possible to
prepare tens to thousands or even millions of compounds within a short time period. Most agrochemical companies
also followed this strategy, especially after the full genome of Arabidopsis thaliana had been published in 2000.
Henceforward it became possible to “validate” putative herbicidal targets by genetic technologies on a large scale. The
analysis of the phenotype of a plant in which a certain gene had been knocked-out completely or the expression had
been reduced to a significant extent by antisense RNA enabled the identification of so-called lethal targets. These
targets, mainly enzymes, were subsequently subjected to high-throughput in vitro screening of chemical libraries to
identify inhibitors. However, the transmission of the in vitro activity of compounds discovered this way into the
greenhouse turned out to be an insurmountable hurdle. Therefore, not only have no herbicides with a novel MoA been
discovered but also, to the authors’ knowledge, no compound with broad herbicidal activity at low application rates
has been identified in this way.
In the past few years, the focus of herbicide research has once again shifted back towards random screening of
synthetic compounds in the greenhouse and to the use of hits as starting point for targeted optimization processes. If a
phytotoxic compound with interesting bioefficacy is identified, studies are undertaken to find out the underlying MoA
as soon as possible and to use this MoA information in rational chemical design approaches. Technological advances
in molecular biology, such as gene expression profiling (transcriptomics) have also been adopted for this task (Eckes
& Busch, 2007). When a plant is treated with an herbicide, vital processes of that plant are affected. This is reflected
by distinctive, MoA-dependent changes in the transcriptome. By comparing the transcriptome of a plant treated with a
phytotoxic compound from the research pipeline to a library of response profiles to compounds with known MoAs, it
may be possible to classify this compound into one of the known MoAs. If the compound cannot be classified into an
already existing MoA, it can be assumed that it has a new MoA, for which the profile might also provide clues.
The lack of herbicide innovation has triggered novel attempts to fight herbicide resistant weed species. Monsanto is
investigating the use of topically applied RNA molecules to induce a process called RNAi in glyphosate-resistant
weeds in order to counteract resistance to glyphosate. It remains to be seen if this approach will be successful.
Countries which do not accept GM crops must rely solely on the chemical industry to deliver novel herbicides with
novel MoAs. To achieve this goal, previously discovered but not commercialized targets might be reconsidered in the
light of new technological advances in drug discovery in the last 20 years, such as fragment (ligand) based drug
design. Alternatively, hits from greenhouse screening might be subjected to MoA elucidation using state-of-the-art
´omics technologies (Grossmann et al., 2011; Tresch, 2013) in order to identify novel starting points for herbicide
discovery.
Herbicide selectivity via safeners
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
For chemical weed control in fields of crops the herbicide products that can be used must fulfil two contradictory
objectives: control the weed plants but not injure the crop plants. Some herbicides provide these features innately (e.g.
atrazine for weed control in corn). However, as a general rule, when herbicides are highly active against a wider range
of weeds, the chances are much lower that they will also be highly crop selective. Crop sensitivity is itself a complex
issue being influenced by many features such as crop variety, application timing, soil properties or weather conditions.
Therefore, some herbicides may be selective in some cases but not in others. Other herbicides may be selective in
certain crops but not in others. For this reason methods have been developed to increase crop selectivity. The two key
selectivity technologies are herbicide tolerance traits (either from mutant selection or genetic modification) and
safeners. Safeners (sometimes called antidotes or protectants) are chemicals that prevent herbicidal injury to crop
plants without reducing weed control.
Safener commercialization
Based on an accidental observation in 1947 by Otto Hoffmann of the Gulf Oil Company, the concept that certain
chemicals could increase the tolerance of plants to herbicides was born (Hoffmann 1953). Hoffmann had seen that
tomato plants treated with 2,4,6-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid appeared to be protected from 2,4-D vapor injury.
Whether or not this was the first time an herbicide researcher had seen such effects is not known. However, in this case
Hoffmann realized that this may provide a useful tool to increase crop tolerance to herbicides. Gulf Oil initiated a
research program which eventually led to the first commercial compound, 1,8-naphthalic anhydride [NA]. When
applied as a seed treatment to corn, this compound gave protection against various pre-emergence and pre-plant
incorporated herbicides from the thiocarbamate class (e.g. EPTC). Subsequent research in various agrochemical
companies has subsequently provided nearly 20 commercial safeners (Hatzios and Hoagland 1989, Davies and Caseley
1999, Davies2001, Rosinger et al 2012, Jablonkai 2013).
The early phase of safener commercialization during the 1970s and early 1980s was dominated by seed treatment or
soil active (pre-emergence) safeners (Figures 6 and 7). Seed treatment applied safeners offer certain advantages and
disadvantages. A key advantage is that the safening only influences the crop plant and not the weeds. Therefore the
safener does not need to be crop specific per se. However, a key disadvantage is that the treated crop may be sprayed
subsequently with herbicides from other competitor companies making value capture difficult. Conversely, pre-
emergence tank-mix or co-formulated safeners must be innately crop specific (i.e. with no antagonism on weeds) but
offer significantly simplified safener technology for the farmer and manufacturer. The product could be used just as if
the herbicide were itself selective. The manufacturer has better control of the performance of the product containing
their herbicides.
In the late 1980s a significant innovation leap occurred, whereby “leaf-active” safeners were developed for co-
formulation with post-emergence herbicides. Fenoxaprop-ethyl was launched in 1984. This molecule controlled
grasses with post-emergence selectively in broad-leaved crops, but it lacked sufficient selectivity in cereals; being
moderately damaging to wheat and more severely damaging to barley. Therefore a research project with the aim of a
safener for post-emergence use with fenoxaprop-ethyl in cereals was started in the 1980s. A new class of substituted
triazole safeners was found from which fenchlorazole-ethyl was developed and introduced in 1992 as a post-
emergence co-formulation product with fenoxaprop-ethyl (Bieringer et al, 1989). This product meant that fenoxaprop-
ethyl could now be used for grass weed control in wheat and rye. However, barley was not sufficiently safened by
fenchlorazole-ethyl so testing for further improved safeners was continued. Relatively quickly a new class of safeners
was identified with a modified central chemical scaffold (pyrazoline) from which mefenpyr-diethyl was developed
(Hacker et al 2000). This compound had a much stronger safening activity in cereals than fenchlorazole-ethyl making
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
it possible to also use fenoxaprop-ethyl in barley. Amongst other ACCase inhibitors was clodinafop-propargyl which
was launched in 1991. Like fenoxaprop, clodinafop had strong grass weed activity but lacked sufficient crop tolerance
in cereals. Ciba-Geigy did not launch clodinafop without a safener. They used the highly effective safener,
cloquintocet-mexyl, which has a quite different (quinoline) scaffold from fenchlorazole or mefenpyr (Amrein 1989).
The structures of the above mentioned ACCase inhibitors and safeners are shown in Figure 8.
The safener innovation required to overcome the cereal injury meant that by the end of the 1990s, mefenpyr-diethyl
and cloquintocet-mexyl were well established in the cereal market and the two safeners could respectively be tested
with new research compounds. At the end of the 1990s iodosulfuron and mesosulfuron were introduced for use in in
cereals (Hacker et al 1999, Hacker et al, 2001). Both had selectivity limitations which could be overcome by using
mefenpyr-diethyl. Cloquintocet-mexyl was also used as a safener for pinoxaden; a herbicide from the novel aryl-1,3-
dione class of ACCase inhibitors (Hofer et al 2006). More recently, the safening of mefenypr-diethyl in cereals was
used as the selectivity technology for the HPPD inhibitor pyrasulfotole (Schmitt et al, 2008) and the ALS inhibitor
thiencarbazone. Since the basic patents for mefenypr and cloquintocet have now expired, other companies have used
them in their own safened products. Of particular note is a co-formulation of the ALS inhibitor pyroxsulam with
cloquintocet as a safener (Wells 2008).
During the 1990s and 2000s safener research was continued. One target was the extension of the fenoxaprop market
into rice which was not tolerant to this herbicide. Screening efforts identified the safener isoxadifen-ethyl (Figure 9)
which again retained the carboxylic acid ester of fenchlorazole-ethyl and mefenpyr-diethyl, but with a new
heterocyclic isoxazole core. Although fenoxaprop in rice was the original target, early on in the research and
development phase it was found that isoxadifen-ethyl could also safen post-emergence against the sulfonylurea
herbicide ethoxysulfuron in rice and foramsulfuron and iodosulfuron in corn (Collins et al 2001, Pallett et al 2001
Hacker et al, 2002). Therefore, isoxadifen now represents the current pinnacle of multi-crop and multi-herbicide
safening.
The most recently launched safener is cyprosulfamide (Figure 9). Like isoxadifen-ethyl it is strongly active post-
emergence in corn but has the significant advantage, for certain herbicides, of also having strong pre-emergence
safening activity. Cyprosulfamide comes from a class of safeners (acyl sulfonamides) discovered during the mid-
1990s. It is now used to support a significant number of different corn herbicides (Philbrook and Santel 2008, Santel
and Philbrook 2008, Watteyne et al 2009).
Safener Mode of Action
Theoretically safeners could increase crop tolerance in two main ways. They may reduce the amount of herbicide
reaching the active site or interfere with the herbicide interaction at the target site. Both of these possibilities have
further subdivisions (discussed below) and the MoA of safeners has been extensively investigated and reviewed
(Davies and Caseley, 1999, Riechers et al, 2010; Rosinger et al, 2012).
Several studies found no significant interaction between safener and herbicide at the target site (Köcher et al 1989,
Polge et al 1987). However, Walton and Casida (1995) reported competitive binding of the dichloroacetamide safener
R-29148 and the herbicides EPTC or alachlor at a protein in maize extracts. This, together with good correlation
between competitive binding of dichloroacetamide compounds and their safening activity, was taken as support that
some safeners act as receptor antagonists for the herbicides. Another mode of action might be the safener causing the
crop to increase the activity of the herbicide target. Rubin and Casida (1985) found that the safener dichlormid caused
an increase in ALS activity in maize. Milhomme and Bastide (1990) and Milhomme et al (1991) also found an
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
increase of ALS levels in maize treated with the safeners NA and oxabetrinil. However, Barrett (1989) could not find
any enhancement of ALS activity in maize and sorghum seedlings after treatment with the safeners NA, oxabetrinil,
flurazole or dichlormid. It is now felt that interactions between the safener and herbicide at the target site play, if
anything, only a small role in safener MoA.
Regarding possible effects of safeners on herbicide uptake, Davies and Caseley (1999) extensively reviewed the
literature for herbicide/safener combinations and concluded that most cases showed no reduction in uptake.
Subsequent studies carried out with the safener mefenpyr-diethyl and sulfonylurea herbicides mesosulfuron-methyl
and iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium also found no effect on herbicide uptake (Köcher 2005).
For post-emergence cereal herbicides, which have long distance transport between the treated leaf and the sensitive
meristems, safening action my involve inhibition of this transport. So far no case is known in which a safener directly
interferes with the long distance translocation of these herbicides. However, the final proposed safener mechanism is
enhanced herbicide metabolism/detoxification within the safened crop which could indirectly reduce the amount of
active herbicide reaching the target site. It is well understood that differences in herbicide metabolism play an
important role in herbicide selectivity (Hatzios and Penner 1982, Drobny et al 2012). Therefore, it is not surprising that
this was proposed as a possible safener mechanism as early as the 1970s and has been studied extensively since that
time. Hatzios and Hoagland (1989) reviewed in detail the early studies, especially on the seed treatment safeners and
pre-emergence safeners. This showed a large amount of evidence that safeners were indeed increasing the rate of
herbicide metabolism in the safened crop plant. For more recent post-emergence safeners, metabolism studies
combined with gene expression analysis has strengthened the understanding of safener MoA. In wheat (but not the
target grass weed) the level of fenoxaprop-ethyl and the free acid fenoxaprop declined (conversion to inactive
metabolites) more rapidly when plants were treated with fenchlorazole-ethyl (Köcher et al 1989, Yaacoby et al 1991).
For the safener cloquintocet-mexyl, the safening of wheat against clodinafop-propargyl was also reported to be based
on enhanced detoxification (Kreuz et al 1991, Kreuz 1993). Mefenpyr-diethyl also enhanced the rate of conversion of
fenoxaprop to non-phytotoxic products in wheat but not in target weeds (Hacker et al 2000). Similarly, mefenpyr-
diethyl enhanced the rate of metabolic degradation of iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium and mesosulfuron-methyl in cereals
but not in the grass weeds tested (Hacker et al 1999, Hacker et al 2000, Hacker et al 2001). In corn, the post-
emergence safener isoxadifen-ethyl has also been shown to enhance the metabolism of foramsulfuron (Hacker et al
2002, Pallett et al 2001).
Herbicide metabolism in plants involves several enzyme mediated steps (Hatzios, 1991; Van Eerd and Hoagland,
2003). The first step may sometimes be a conversion of an inactive pro-herbicide to the active herbicide. However, the
metabolic steps relevant to safening are those which convert the active herbicide to inactive metabolites. Cytochrome
P450 enzymes may catalyze the reduction, oxidation or hydroxylation of the herbicide and thus provide functional
groups for further metabolic steps. These often involve conjugation reactions between the first metabolite and
glutathione (GSH), glucose (Glc) or amino acids which are catalyzed by multifunctional enzyme, glutathione S-
transferases (GSTs) or glycosyltransferases (UGTs) (Armstrong 1994, Hatzios 2001, Lamoureux 1991, Marrs 1996).
Additonally, conjugation with malonate via malonyl-Co-A has also been reported (Sandermann et al 1997). The next
step in herbicide detoxification is the transport of the conjugates into the vacuole which may be catalyzed by ATP-
binding cassette (ABC) transporters (Tommasini et al, 1997). Once in the vacuole the conjugates may be further
degraded by peptidases with the removal of glycine and glutamate. The speed of herbicide metabolism/detoxification
therefore may depend on the level of activity of several key enzymes and therefore the level of expression of genes
which code for these enzymes. Advances in biotechnology over the past 2 decades have allowed increasingly detailed
studies into the effect of safeners on gene expression. It has been shown that genes encoding for enzymes involved in
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
herbicide detoxification are induced within a few hours of safener application (DeRidder et 2002, Cummins et al 1997,
Kreuz and Tommasini 1996; Scalla and Roulet 2002, Theodoulou et al, 2003; Zhang et al, 2007).
Gene expression studies have indicated parallels between the oxidative stress related oxylipin pathway and safener
signaling (Riechers et al, 2010). They have also indicated possible overlaps with the plant stress defense signaling
pathway involving salicylic acid (SA). For example, it could be shown that many safener-regulated genes are induced
by salicylic acid (Behringer et al, 2011). Therefore, whilst the primary site of safener reception is still not known, it
seems that several signaling pathways contribute to the full safener response in plants.
Future perspectives
There have been very few new safener structures patented in the past decade suggesting that little research into new
compounds is being conducted in the agrochemical industry. This is probably mainly due to the emergence of
geneticaly modified herbicide tolerance as a major selectivity tool (e.g. glyphosate tolerant Round-Up Ready® cotton,
soybean and corn) as well as the availability of strong existing safeners for use with newer herbicides. However, as the
problem of weed resistance increases and the existing safeners reach the limit of their potential, stronger “next
generation” safeners may indeed be required for future selective weed control products. As biotechnology methods
develop quickly, it is possible that the target site(s) of safeners will be identified in the not too distant future. It may
then perhaps be possible to use rational design to identify new safener structures.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Stephen Lindell for critically reading our manuscript.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
LITERATURE CITED
Amrein J, Nyffeler A, Rufener J (1989) CGA-184927 + S: A new post-emergence grasskiller for use in cereals. Proc.
Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds, 1: 71–76
Armstrong RN (1994) Glutathione S-transferases: structure and mechanism of an archetypical detoxication enzyme.
Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol., 69: 1-44.
Arndt F, Kötter C (1968) Zur Selektivität von Phenmedipham als Nachauflaufherbizid in Beta-Rüben. Weed Res. 8:
259-271
Barrett M (1989) Reduction of imazaquin injury to corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with antidotes.
Weed Science 37: 34-41
Behringer C, Bartsch K, Schaller A (2011) Safeners recruit multiple signaling pathways for the orchestrated induction
of the cellular xenobiotic detoxification machinery in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Environ. 34: 1970-1985
Bieringer H, Bauer K, Hacker E, Heubach G, Leist K, Ebert E (1989) Hoe 70542 - a new molecule for use in
combination with fenoxaprop-ethyl allowing selective post-emergence grass weed control in wheat. Proc. Br. Crop
Prot. Conf. – Weeds, 1: 77–82
Büchel KH, Draber W, Fest C, et al (1977) Pflanzenschutz und Schädlingsbekämpfung. Georg Thieme Verlag
Collins B, Drexler D, Merkl M, Hacker E, Hagemeister H, Pallett K, Effertz C (2001) Foramsulfuron – a new foliar
herbicide for weed control in corn. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds, 1: 35–42.
Cremlyn RJ (1991) Agrochemicals. Wiley & Sons Ltd
Cummins I, Cole DJ, Edwards R, (1997) Purification of multiple glutathione transferases involved in herbicide
detoxification from wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) treated with the safener fenchlorazole-ethyl Pesticide Biochem.
Physiol, 59: 35–49.
Davies J, Caseley JC (1999) Herbicide safeners: a review. Pesticide Science, 55: 1043–1058
Dayan FE, Duke SO, Grossmann K (2010) Herbicides as Probes in Plant Biology. Weed Sci 58: 340-350
DeRidder B, Dixon D, Beussman D, Edwards R, Goldsbrough B (2002) Induction of glutathione S-transferases in
Arabidopsis by herbicide safeners. Plant Physiol. 130: 1497-1505
Drobny H, Schulte M, Strek H (2012) 25 years of sulfonylurea herbicides – a few grams changed the world of
chemical weed control. In: Proc. 25th German Conference on weed biology and weed control. Nordmeyer, H. and
Ulber, L., Julius-Kühn-Archiv 434: 21-33
Duke, SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci 68: 505-512
Eckes P, Busch M (2007) Fast identification of the mode of action of herbicides by DNA chips. In Krämer W,
Schirmer U (eds.) Modern Crop Potection Compounds, Vol. 3: 1161-1174, Wiley-VCH-Verlag, Weinheim, Germany
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Erdkamp P (2005) The grain market in the Roman empire. Cambridge University Press
Gerwick BC (2010) Thirty years of herbicide discovery: surveying the past and contemplating the future. Agrow
(Silver Jubilee Edition): VII–IX
Gressel J, Shaaltiel Y, Sharon A, Amsellem Z (1993) Biorational in vitro screening for herbicide synergists. In JC
Streibig and P Kudsk, eds. Herbicide Bioassay. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 217-252
Grossmann K, Christiansen N, Looser R, Tresch S, Hutzler J, Pollmann S, Ehrhardt T (2012) Physionomics and
metabolomics - two key approaches in herbicidal mode of action discovery. Pest Manag Sci 68: 494-504
Hacker E, Bieringer H, Willms L, Schnabel G, Köcher H, Hagemeister H, Steinheuer W (2002) Foramsulfuron plus
safener – a new technology for weed control in maize. Z. Pflanz. Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft XVIII: 747–756
Hacker E, Bieringer H, Willms L, Lorenz K, Köcher H, Huff H, Borrod G, Brusche R (2001) Mesosulfuron-methyl- a
new active ingredient for grass weed control in cereals. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds, 1: 43-48
Hacker E, Bieringer H, Willms L, Rösch W, Köcher H, Wolf R (2000) Mefenpyr-diethyl – A safener for fenoxaprop-
P-ethyl and iodosulfuron in cereals. Z. Pflanz. Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft XVII: 493–500
Hacker E, Bieringer H, Willms L, Ort O, Köcher H, Kehne H (1999) Iodosulfuron plus mefenpyr-dietyl: An new foliar
herbicide for weed control in cereals Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds, 1: 15–22
Håkanson S (2003) Weeds and weed management on arable land: an ecological approach. CABI
Hatzios KK, (2001) Functions and regulation of plant glutathione-S-transferases. in J. C. Hall, R. E. Hoagland, and R.
M. Zablotowicz, eds. Pesticide Biotransformation in Plants and Microorganisms: Similarities and Divergences.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society: 218–239
Hatzios KK (1991) Biotransformations of herbicides in higher plants. In: Environmental Chemistry of Herbicides.
Grover, R. and A.J. Cessna, Boca Raton, CRC Press: 141-185
Hatzios KK, Hoagland RE (1989) Crop Safeners for Herbicides. San Diego, Academic Press
Hatzios KK, Penner D (1982) Metabolism of herbicides in higher plants. Burgess Pub. Co Minneapolis, Minn.
Hofer U, Mühlebach UM, Hole S, Zoschke A (2006) Pinoxaden – for broad spectrum grass weed management in
cereal crops. J. Plant Dis. Prot., XX (Special Issue): 989-995
Hoffman OL (1953) Inhibition of auxin effects by 2,4,6-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Plant Physiol, 28: 622–628
Jablonkai I (2013) Herbicide safeners: Effective tools to improve herbicide selectivity. In: Agricultural and Biological
Sciences : Herbicides - Current Research and Case Studies in Use. Price, J. and Kelton, J. A., Online, Intech
(http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55168
Köcher H (2005) Mesosulfuron-methyl and combination partner iodosulfuron-methyl sodium – mode of herbicidal
action. Pflanz.-Nachrichten – Bayer, 58: 179–194
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Köcher H, Büttner B, Schmidt E, Lötzsch K, Schulz A (1989) Influence of HOE 70542 on the behavior of fenoxaprop-
ethyl in wheat. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds: 495–500
Kraehmer H, van Almsick A, Beffa R, Dietrich H, Eckes P, Hacker E, Hain R, Strek H, Stuebler H, Willms L (2014)
Herbicides as weed control agents – state of the art. II. Recent achievements. Plant Physiology, in preparation
Kraehmer H (2012) Changing trends in herbicide discovery. Outlook on Pest Management 23: 115-118
Kraehmer H (2010) Weed surveys and weed mapping in Europe. Proceedings of the 15th EWRS symposium in
Kaposvar: 128
Kraehmer H, Drexler D (2009) Global herbicide development – opportunities and constraints. Prairie Soils & Crops
Journal 2: 12-16
Kraehmer H, Russell PE (1994) General problems in glasshouse to field transfer of pesticide performance. BCPC
Monograph 59: 3-16
Kraehmer H, Schulz A, Laber B (2007) Where are the new herbicides mode of action? FarmTech 2007-Proceedings:
88-97
Kraehmer H, Stuebler H (2012) Technical demands and political restrictions for weed control. Julius-Kühn-Archiv,
434: 15-19
Kreuz K (1993) Herbicide safeners: recent advances and biochemical aspects of their mode of action Proc. Brighton.
Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 3: 1249–1258
Kreuz K, Gaudin J Stingelin J Ebert E (1991) Metabolism of the arylphenoxypropanoate herbicide CGA 184927 in
wheat, barley and maize: different effects of the safener, CGA 185072. Z. Naturforsch. 46c: 901-905
Kreuz K, Tommasini R, Martinoia E (1996) Old Enzymes for a New Job Herbicide Detoxification in Plants. Plant
Physiol. 111: 349-353
Kraehmer, H, Baur P (2013) Weed anatomy. Wiley-Blackwell 2013
Krämer W, Schirmer U, Jeschke P, Witschel M, eds: Modern Crop Protection Compounds. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim,
2nd ed., Vol. 1, eds. (2012) Modern crop protection compounds. Wiley-VCH
Lamoureux GL, Shimabukuro RH, Frear DS (1991) Glutathione and glucoside conjugation in herbicide selectivity, in
J. C. Caseley, G. W. Cussans, and R. K. Atkin, eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann: 227–261
Leeson JY, Gordon Thomas A et al (2005) Prairie weed survey – cereal, oilseed and pulse crops 1970s to 2000s.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Liu W, Ye J, Jin M (2009) Enantioselective phytoeffects of chiral pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57: 2087–2095
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Marrs KA (1996) The functions and regulation of glutathione s-transferases in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant
Mol. Biol., 47: 127-158.
Milhomme H, Bastide J (1990) Uptake and phytotoxicity of the herbicide metsulfuron methyl in corn root tissues in
the presence of the safener 1,8-naphthalic anhydride. Plant Physiol. 93: 730–738.
Milhomme H, Roux C, Bastide J (1991) Safeners as corn seedling protectants against acetolactate synthase inhibitors.
Zeitschrift Fuer Naturforschung. 46: 945-949
Pallett KE, Veerasekaran P, Crudace M, Köcher H, Collins B (2001) Foramsulfuron and isoxadifen-ethyl: absorption,
translocation and metabolism. Proc. NCWSS Conf. : 77
Philbrook B, Santel HJ (2008) A new formulation of isoxaflutole for preemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) Weed
Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr.: 116
Polge ND, Dodge AD, Caseley JC (1987) Biochemical aspects of safener action : Effetcs on glutathione, glutathione-s-
transferase and acetohydroxy acid synthetase in maize. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds, 3: 1113-1120
Riechers D, Kreuz K, Zhang Q (2010) Detoxification without intoxication: herbicide safeners activate plant defense
gene expression. Plant Physiology, 153: 3-13
Rosinger C, Bartsch K, Schulte W (2012) Safeners for Herbicides. In: Modern Crop Protection Compounds. Krämer,
W., U. Schirmer, P. Jeschke and M. Witschel, Weinheim, Wiley-VCH: 371-398
Rubin B, Casida J (1985) R-25788 effects on chlorosulfuron injury and acetohydroxy acid synthesase activity. Weed
Sci. 33: 462–468
Rüegg WT, Quadranti M, Zoschke A (2007) Herbicide research and development: challenges and opportunities. Weed
Research 47: 271–275
Sandermann H, Haas M, Messner B, Pflumacher S, Schroder P, Wetzel A (1997) The role of glucosyl and malonyl
conjugation in herbicide selectivity. in K. K. Hatzios, ed. Regulation of Enzymatic Systems Detoxifying Xenobiotics
in Plants. NATO ASI, Series. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 211–231
Santel H, Philbrook B (2008) Thiencarbazone-methyl and isoxaflutole: a new herbicide premixture for preemergence
weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr.: 117
Scalla R, Roulet A (2002) Cloning and characterization of a glutathione-S-transferase induced by a herbicide safener
in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Physiol. Plant 116: 336-344
Schmitt MH, van Almsick A, Willms L (2008) Discovery and chemistry of pyrasulfotole, a new dicot herbicide for
cereal production, Pflanzenschutz-Nachr. 61: 7-14
Seitz T, Hoffmann M, Krähmer, H (2003) Chemical plant protection. Herbicides in Agriculture. Chem. Unserer Zeit
34: 112-126
Stuebler H, Kraehmer H, Hess M, Schulz A, Rosinger C (2008) Global changes in crop production and impact trends
on innovation in weed management - an industry view. Proc. 5th Int. Weed Sci. Cong. 2008, 1: 309–319
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Theodoulou FL, Clark IM, He X-L, Pallett KE, Cole DJ, Hallahan DL (2003) Co-induction of glutathione-S-
transferases and multidrug resistance associated protein by xenobiotics in wheat. online: Pest Management Science,
59: 202-214
Tommasini R, Vogt E, Schmid J, Fromentau M, Amrhein N, Martinoia E (1997) Differential expression of genes
coding for ABC transporters after treatment of Arabidopsis thaliana with xenobiotics. FEBS Letters, 411: 206-210
Tresch S (2013) Strategies and future trends to identify the mode of action of phytotoxic compounds. Plant Sci 212:
60-71
Troyer JR (2001) In the beginning: the multiple discovery of the first hormone herbicides. Weed Science 49: 290–297
Van Eerd L, Hoagland RE, Zablotowicz RM, Hall JC (2003) Pesticide metabolism in plants and microorganisms.
Weed Science, 51: 472–495
Voss M, Renger G, Gräber P (1984a) Measurements of penetration and detoxification of PSII herbicides in whole
leaves by a fluorometric method. Z. Naturforsch. 39: 359-361
Voss M, Renger G, Kötter C, Gräber P (1984b) Fluorometric detection of photosystem II herbicide penetration and
detoxification in whole leaves. Weed Science 32: 675-680
Walton JD, Casida JE (1995) Specific binding of a chloroacetamide herbicide safener in maize at a site that also binds
thiocarbamate and chloroacetanilide herbicides. Plant Physiol. 109: 213–219
Watteyne K, Castillo T, Hinz J, Philbrook B, Bloomberg J (2009) isoxaflutole + cyprosulfamide, thiencarbazone +
isoxaflutole + cyrosulfamide: performance in university corn trials. Proc. North Central Weed Science Society Conf:
119
Wells G (2008) Pyroxsulam for broad-spectrum weed control in wheat. Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds
Conference, North Queensland, Australia: 297-299
Worthington CR, Hance RJ (1991) The pesticide manual. 9th ed., BCPC
Yaacoby T, Hall J, Stephenson G (1991) Influence of fenchlorazole-ethyl on the metabolism of fenoxaprop-ethyl in
wheat barley and crabgrass. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 41: 296–304
Zhang Q, Xu F, Lambert KN, Riechers DE (2007) Safeners coordinately induce the expression of multiple proteins
and MRP transcripts involved in herbicide metabolism and detoxification in Triticum tauschii seedling tissues.
Proteomics, 7: 1261-1278
Zimdahl R (2004) Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Wiley-Blackwell
Zohary D, Hopf M, Weiss E (2012) Domestication of plants in the old world. 4th ed. Oxford University Press
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
FIGURE LEGENDS
Figure 1: Plants in pots; left: untreated, right: experimental herbicide at 300g a.i./ha
Figure 2 Typical symptoms of HPPD bleachers in an advanced screening stage
Figure 3 Typical auxin-transport inhibitor symptoms in a nematode screening assay
Figure 4: Year of market introduction (commercial) or publication (experimental) of the first herbicide with a given
mode of action. The mode of action of the corresponding herbicide might have been elucidated at later date. The
molecular modes of action of cinmethylin and oxaciclomefone are still not fully understood despite articles describing
biochemical effects attributed to these compounds.
ACCase: acetyl-CoA carboxylase; AdSS: adenylosuccinate synthetase; ALS: acetolactate synthase; AMPDA: AMP
deaminase; Auxin: auxin herbicides; Cellulose: cellulose biosynthesis inhibitors; CytOx: cytokinin oxidase; DHPS:
dihydropteroate synthase; DXR: 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate reductoisomerase; DXS: 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-
phosphate synthase; EPSPS: 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase; FPS: farnesyl-diphosphate synthase;
GibB: gibberellic acid biosynthesis; GS: glutamine synthetase; GSAT: glutamate semialdehyde aminotransferase;
GPAT: glutamine phosphoribosylpyrophosphate amidotransferase; HPPD: 4-hyddroxphenylpyruvate dioxygenase;
IGPD: imidazole glycerol phosphate dehydratase; IMDH: 3-isopropylmalate dehydrogenase; KARI: ketol acid
reductoisomerase; LyCyc: lycopene cyclase; Microtubule assembly: inhibitors of microtubule assembly; Microtubule
organisation: inhibitors of microtubule organisation; ObtDM: obtusifoliol demethylase; PDS: phytoene desaturase;
PPO: protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase; PS I: photosystem I; PS II: photosystem II; PyrDH: pyruvate dehydrogenase;
TrpS: tryptophan synthase; VLCFA: very long chain fatty acid biosynthesis; ZDS: zeta-carotene desaturase.
Figure 5: Herbicide market share in 2010 according to mode of action. For abbreviations see Figure 4.
Figure 6: Seed treatment safeners
Figure 7: Pre-emergence tank-mix safeners
Figure 8: ACCase inhibitors and the associated safeners for post-emergence use in cereals
Figure 9: Structures and use of isoxadifen-ethyl and cyprosulfamide
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Table 1 History of chemical weed control innovations (MoA = mode of action, post = post-emergence application, pre
= pre-emergence application, based on data from Cremlyn (1991), Worthington and Hance (1991), Büchel et al.
(1977), HRAC (www.hracglobal.com) and others
MoA, target site Chemical family Examples Use Earliest reports
Unspecific Inorganic herbicides H2SO4, Cu2SO4,
FeSO4, Na ASO2
Total 1874
Uncouplers Dinitrophenoles DNOC Post, dicots 1934
Auxins Aryloxyalkanoic acid
derivatives
2,4-D Post, dicots in
cereals
1942
Microtubule
organisation
Arylcarbamates Propham,
chloropropham,
Pre, monocots in
various crops
1946
Lipid synthesis
inhibitors
Chloroaliphatic acids TCA, dalapon Pre, monocots in
various crops
1947
Thiocarbamates EPTC, triallate Pre, mono- and
dicots in various
crops
1954
PS II- inhibitors Arylureas Monuron, diuron,
isoproturon,
linuron
Pre and post
mono-and dicots in
various crops
1951
1,3,5 -Triazines Atrazine,
simazine
Pre and post; broad
spectrum in maize
1952
Pyridazines Chloridazon Pre; dicots in sugar
beet
1962
Uracils Bromacil,
terbacil, lenacil
Soil applied, broad
spectrum in various
crops
1963
Biscarbamates Phenmedipham Post, dicots in
sugar beet
1968
1,2,4 -Triazinones Metribuzin Pre in soybeans 1971
Very long chain
fatty acid
biosynthesis
Chloroacetamides Allidochlor,
alachlor
Pre; monocots and
dicots
1956
PS I Bipyridyliums Diquat, paraquat Non-selective 1958
Protoporphyrinogen
oxidase
Diphenyl ethers Nitrofen ,
acifluorfen
Pre and post,
various crops
1960
Oxadiazoles Oxadiazon Rice, non-selective 1969
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Microtubule
assembly
Dinitroanilines Trifluralin,
pendimethalin
Pre against mono-
and dicots
1960
Cellulose
biosynthesis
Nitriles Dichlobenil Plantations 1960
EPSP synthase Glycines Glyphosate Post, non-selective 1971
Phytoene desaturase Pyridazinones Norflurazon Pre and post in
cotton
1973
ACCase Aryloxyphenoxy-
propanoates
Diclofop,
fluazifop
Post, grasses 1975
Cyclohexane diones Alloxydim,
Sethoxydim
Post grasses 1976
Glutamine
synthetase
Glufosinate Non-selective 1981
AHAS- or ALS Sulphonylureas Chlorsulfuron,
metsulfuron m.
Mono- and dicots
in various crops
1982
Imidazolinones Imazapyr,
imazethapyr
Non-selective or
selective in soy
1983
Pyrimidinyl
benzoates
Bispyribac
sodium
Rice
HPPD-inhibitors Pyrazolynate,
sulcotrione
Various crops,
mono- and dicots
1984
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Table 2 Acreage changes in US crops during the last 100 years (million acres harvested)
1920 1970 2012
Barley 7.5 9.7 3.2
Canola <0.1 <0.1 1.6
Corn 101.4 66.1 97.2
Cotton 34.4 11.2 9.4
Hay 73.1 61.5 56.3
Oats 42.8 18.6 1.1
Potatoes 3.3 1.5 1.2
Rice 1.3 1.9 2.7
Rye 4.9 1.5 0.3
Soybeans <0.5 42.3 76.1
Sugarbeets 0.9 1.5 1.2
Wheat 62.4 43.6 49
All crops 347 283 309
Source: USDA Crop Production Historical Track Records, April 2013
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Table 3 Yields per acre of five US crops between 1940 and 2010; b = Bushels, t = tons
1940 1950 1960 1970 2010
Barley (b) 23 27.2 31 42.8 73.1
Corn (b) 28.9 38.2 54.7 72.4 152.8
Soybeans (b) 16.2 21.7 23.5 26.7 43.5
Sugarbeets (t) 13.4 14.6 17.2 18.7 27.7
Wheat (b) 15.3 16.5 26.1 31 46.3
Source: USDA Crop Production Historical Track Records, April 2013
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
www.plantphysiol.orgon March 13, 2018 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.