J. Verbr. Lebensm.
(2011) 6 (Suppl 1):S85–S89 Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
DOI 10.1007/s00003-011-0679-2
CO N F E R E N C E P R O C E ED I N G S ‘‘D ECI S I O N M A K I N G A N D S CI E N C E ’’
Weed resistance development and management
in herbicide-tolerant crops: experiences from the USA
Micheal D. K. Owen
Published online: 23 March 2011
Ó Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL) 2011
Abstract The evolution of weeds in USA agroeco-
systems predates herbicide tolerant (HT) crops by
several decades. However, given the unprecedented
adoption of genetically engineered (GE) HT crops,
particularly in maize, cotton and soybean and
the concomitant use of glyphosate, the evolution
of glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes of agronomic
important weeds now represents a significant threat
to the sustainability of the GE HT trait and the her-
bicide. Notably, GR biotypes of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis), common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuber-
culatus), Palmer pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri), giant
ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and johnsongrass
(Sorghum halepense) have increased dramatically in
frequency in conjunction with the adoption of crop
production systems based on GE HT crops. Further-
more, other shifts in weed communities have been
observed. It must be emphasized that the GE HT crops
did not directly cause these weed shifts. The industry
was responsible initially for these changes in weed
communities given their initial positions that the
glyphosate-resistant weed problems were unlikely to
evolve and the recommendations to use glyphosate
exclusively for weed management. However, deci-
sions by growers to use glyphosate must be factored
Conference Proceedings: ‘‘Decision Making and Science—The
Balancing of Risk based Decisions that Influence Sustainability
of Agricultural Production’’ 7th and 8th October 2010 in Berlin,
Germany. Sponsored by the OECD Co-operative Research
Programme.
M. D. K. Owen (&)
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011, USA
e-mail: mdowen@iastate.edu
Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
in as imparting selection pressure on the weed
communities resulting in weed management prob-
lems, particularly when university recommendations
strongly suggested not to use glyphosate in this
manner. The key is now to provide growers with
sufficient information to convince them to adopt
integrated weed management programs and utilize
best management practices. Given the presumed and
real benefits of convenience and simplicity of the GE
HT crop production systems; this will be a difficult
task.
Keywords Glyphosate
Glyphosate-resistant crops

Glyphosate-resistant weeds
Management
1 Introduction
Weeds are the most important pest complex
impacting mankind. Herbicide resistance in weed
populations has contributed to the costs incurred by
growers but should not be considered a topic or
concern specifically focused upon the relatively
recent introduction of genetically engineered (GE)
herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. However, the incredible
global change in the agricultural landscape attri-
butable to the GE HT technology has indeed
significantly impacted the evolution of herbicide-
resistant (HR) weeds. Currently, more than 340 HR
weed biotypes in more than 190 different plant spe-
cies have been reported (Heap 2010). Nevertheless,
concerns about GE HT crops have dramatically
changed how HR weeds are now perceived by
123
S86
agriculture, society and the federal government
(Arntzen et al. 2003; Benbrook 2003; Ervin et al.
2010).
Despite considerable effort on many fronts, the
problems associated with GE HT crops and HR weeds
seem to be largely without resolution attributable, in
part, to the general unwillingness of growers to rec-
ognize the implications of their management tactics,
the unrealistic marketing by the herbicide and seed
industries, and the erroneous belief that new tech-
nologies and tactics will be available in the short-
term future (Owen et al. 2009). As a result, weed
populations with evolved resistance to glyphosate
continue to increase (Owen 2009b).
2 Current situations with herbicide-resistant weeds
The HR weed biotypes are increasing globally (Heap
2010). While grower adoption of GE HT crops has
been identified as the primary problem causing the
increase in HR weeds by many advocacy groups, the
evolution of herbicide resistance predates GE HT
crops by more than 3‘ decades (Duke 2005; Ryan
1970). Weeds have evolved resistance to 20 herbi-
cide mechanisms of action and 60 different weed
species have been reported to have evolved HR
biotypes in the USA (Heap 2010). The current num-
ber of HR weeds includes 350 HR biotypes
represented by 195 species and are now estimated to
infest over 400,000 fields (Heap 2010). However,
given the voluntary nature of these reports,
the information may not provide an accurate
nor current description of the extent of HR weed
populations.
The evolution of multiple and cross resistances to
herbicides is becoming increasingly more common.
For example, common waterhemp populations with
cross resistances to ALS inhibiting herbicides and
multiple resistances to glyphosate are widely dis-
tributed throughout the Midwest (Owen 2009a;
Patzoldt et al. 2005). Common waterhemp popula-
tions in Kansas and Iowa have evolved multiple
resistances to PPO and ALS inhibiting herbicides (Falk
et al. 2005; Owen 2009a). In Illinois, populations of
smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and kochia
(Kochia scoparia) have evolved multiple resistances to
PSII and ALS inhibiting herbicides (Foes et al. 1999;
Maertens et al. 2004). Multiple resistances to ALS
inhibiting herbicides and glyphosate are also repor-
ted in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) (Davis et al.
2009).
123
M. D. K. Owen
2.1 Glyphosate resistant weeds
It is clear now that weed populations with glyphosate
resistance are occurring more rapidly and are widely
distributed in USA maize, cotton and soybean GE HT
systems despite grower knowledge have about the
evolution of GR weed biotypes (Johnson et al. 2009b).
Currently there are 20 weed species with evolved
resistance to glyphosate and 12 species in the USA of
which at least seven weed species have evolved
resistance in GE HT crop production systems in
at least 22 states (Heap 2010).
Growers have not demonstrated that they are fully
aware of the factors which affect the evolution of GR
weed populations and generally the level of their
concern is low (Johnson and Gibson 2006). A typical
grower response to GR weeds can be described as
‘‘waiting for the inevitable to occur’’ and then miti-
gating the problem rather than addressing it
proactively.
2.2 Implications of glyphosate resistant weeds
Given the predominance of GE HT maize, cotton and
soybean cultivars and the use of glyphosate, the
implications of evolved glyphosate resistance is sig-
nificant in the USA. The historic lack of integrated
weed management (IWM) by growers has sped the
frequency of the problems (Boerboom et al. 2009).
Importantly, the likelihood of growers adopting cul-
tural and mechanical strategies is low (Green and
Owen 2010; Kruger et al. 2009). Furthermore, given
the cross and multiple resistances that have evolved
in important weeds, the numbers of herbicides that
will provide effective control are limited. Lastly,
consider that it is very unlikely that new herbicides
with new modes of action will be available within ten
to 15 years (Green and Owen 2010).
Another implication of GR weed biotypes is the
impending increases in tillage to manage these weed
populations (Johnson et al. 2009a). In many instances
(i.e. no tillage cotton production in the Mississippi
Delta), the only tactic available to manage GR weed
populations is tillage (Steckel and Gwathmey 2009).
Tillage has major economic implications to growers,
as well as ecological, environmental and societal
concerns in general (Ervin et al. 2010). The economic
considerations for growers reflect the additional
equipment that may be required to implement till-
age practices, the increased requirement for
petroleum fuels and the added personnel and time
necessary to accomplish the tillage.
Weed resistance development and management
3 Management of herbicide resistant weeds
There can be no question that the effective man-
agement of weeds is the most important
consideration for the production of crops and her-
bicides are the key tactic for weed control (Gianessi
and Reigner 2007). However, ill-advised herbicide use
will inevitably result in HR weed populations (Owen
1997). HR weed biotypes are a consequence of the
effectiveness and consistency of herbicides in man-
aging weed complexes and clearly a demonstration
of ‘‘Darwinian evolution in fast forward’’. The GE HT
crops allowed growers to adopt weed management
programs based on simple and convenient systems
and one herbicide (glyphosate) which predictably
selected for GR weed biotypes despite claims by
industry that this would not occur (Bradshaw et al.
1997). As a result of these simple and convenient
weed management tactics, recent concern for the
management of GR weeds is particularly important
in agriculture in the USA.
Educational programs provided by land grant
university extension now focus largely on the man-
agement of HR weeds (Scott et al. 2009). Surveys
developed several years ago, but likely still depicting
a current portrait of USA growers, indicated that
generally growers are not overly concerned about
GR weeds (Johnson et al. 2009b). It is presumed that
as the frequency of GR weed populations increase,
grower awareness and response will also increase.
Importantly, the increasing frequency of GR weed
populations also has social costs and externalities
generally not considered (Marsh et al. 2006). These
include reduced use of conservation tillage, fail-
ure of the current GE HT-based crop production
systems and other environmental issues (Marsh et al.
2006).
Industry has approached resolving the problem of
HR weeds with the development of crops with GE HT
resistances to different herbicides, and in some
instances, with multiple resistances to several herbi-
cides within the crop cultivar. This tactic is unlikely to
resolve the HR weed problem in the long term (Green
and Owen 2010). The management of HR weeds must
include as many tactics as possible (Green and Owen
2010). Consider that on approximately 67 and 27 % of
the GE HT soybean and maize, respectively, only
glyphosate is used (Ervin et al. 2010). Thus, the
inclusion of other herbicides on these crop acres
could greatly help mitigate the pending GR weed
problems. Growers suggested that herbicide rotation
was an important tactic to manage these GR weed
problems (Foresman and Glasgow 2008).
S87
4 Herbicide resistance: implications and costs
Herbicide resistance in weeds has historically been a
threat to global food production (Moss and Rubin
1993). Currently, the evolution glyphosate resistance
has further threatened the productivity of global
agriculture and reinforced the need to adopt IWM
practices (Powles 2008). Furthermore the practices
adopted by growers to mitigate HR weed populations
will be costly; these costs must be considered against
the benefits, whether immediate or longer term
(Orson 1999).
4.1 Implications and grower perceptions
Surveys have been conducted to assess grower per-
ceptions about the issues and implications of
herbicide resistance, weeds, tillage, and integrated
approaches for weed management (Kruger et al.
2009; Llewellyn et al. 2002, 2004). For example, a
robust survey conducted in six states in the USA
reported that growers in the Midwest are more likely
to adopt crop rotation to address weed management
problems than growers in the Southeast (Shaw et al.
2009). Indiana, USA growers considered weeds as the
most important pest complex when compared to
diseases and insects, however they were not overly
concerned about the evolution of GR weed popula-
tions (Gibson et al. 2005; Johnson and Gibson 2006).
The perceptions of growers from Australia were
very different that Midwest growers. Surveys repor-
ted that in the Australian grain-growing regions,
growers had awareness of HR weeds and ascribed a
high economic cost to herbicide resistance (Llewellyn
et al. 2002). Growers in Australia were adopting IWM
and perceived that these tactics had economic value
(Llewellyn et al. 2004). However, practices that
included alternative herbicides were perceived to
have the highest economic return on investment and
growers felt that a stock of new herbicides would be
developed in the short term to better manage the
building HR weed populations (Llewellyn et al. 2002,
2004).
4.2 Herbicide resistance costs
Herbicides are used on more than 90 % of crop acres
in the USA annually and represent 65 % of the pesti-
cide expenditures by growers (Gianessi and Reigner
2007). If herbicides were not available, USA crop
productivity would decline by a minimum of 20 %.
When herbicide use results in the evolution of HR
weed biotypes, this too has associated costs in
123
S88
reduced production, higher expenditures for herbi-
cides and dramatic increases in the weed seedbank
(Peterson 1999). The difficulty is changing grower
perspectives and practices to make the necessary
adjustments in weed management programs. How
this can be accomplished on the scale necessary to
address the pending issues of evolved HR weed
populations in the USA remains to be seen.
5 Conclusions
Weeds represent the most economically important
pest complex to global food production and also
significantly impact mankind at all levels, from
health perspectives to the pursuit of recreation.
Interestingly, the better weed management becomes,
the more difficult it becomes to manage weeds. This
conundrum reflects the diversity of weed genomes
facilitating their continuing adaptation to all forms
of selective practices imparted by man during the
practice of plant production (Barrett 1983; De Wett
and Harlan 1975). During the last five decades, her-
bicides have been an important component for
effective weed management. As a result, biochemical
adaptation or mimicry has become an increasingly
important problem.
Recent weed management tactics have taken a
slightly different path and focus on the use of her-
bicides that are selective to crops due to genetic
engineering (Duke and Powles 2008). The use of
glyphosate in GE HT crops has provided exceptional
control of many weeds and represents the most
important change in technology in the history of
agriculture (Owen 2009b). However, it was inevitable
that weed populations would again rise to the
genetic challenge and resistance to glyphosate would
evolved despite suggestions otherwise (Bradshaw
et al. 1997; Neve 2007). Certainly the costs of man-
aging GR weeds are important but other costs to the
environment are also significant (Cerdeira and Duke
2006). These costs represent the loss of conservation
tillage practices, increased soil erosion and declining
water quality (Cerdeira and Duke 2006). It is thus
surprising, with so many benefits at risk due to the
evolution of HR weeds, that growers in the USA are
not yet fully engaged in adopting mitigation prac-
tices but rather appear to be waiting for the
problems to evolve locally (Johnson and Gibson 2006;
Owen 2008; Webster and Sosnoskie 2010).
The ability to effectively manage HR weeds
including those resistant to glyphosate is well-studied
and tactics readily available to growers (Beckie 2006).
123
M. D. K. Owen
Models clearly demonstrate that the adoption of a
diverse management approach (IWM) to controlling
weeds can prolong the utility of the GE HT cultivars
and glyphosate (Werth et al. 2008). Proactive man-
agement of GR weed populations is economically
sustainable and provides important stewardship
for the GE HT traits; IWM must be implemented
immediately to maintain these crop production
systems.
Conflict of interest The author Micheal D. K. Owen declares
that the manuscript was not sponsored and that he has no
conflict of interest.
References
Arntzen CJ, Coghlan A, Johnson B, Peacock J, Rodemeyer M
(2003) GM crops: science, politics, and communication.
Nat Rev Genet 4:839–843
Barrett SCH (1983) Crop mimicry in weeds. Econ Bot 37:255–282
Beckie HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management
tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20:793–814
Benbrook CM (2003) Impacts of genetically engineered crops
on pesticide use in the United States: the first eight years.
http://www.biotechinfo.net/technical_pap_6.pdf. Accessed
8 Jan 2004
Boerboom C, Sprague C, Owen M (2009) A grower’s conun-
drum: Implementing integrated weed management in a
HRC world. In: Proceedings of the 6th international IPM
symposium, Portland, Oregon
Bradshaw LD, Padgette SR, Kimball SL, Wells BH (1997)
Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol
11:189–198
Cerdeira AL, Duke SO (2006) The current status and environ-
mental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops; a review.
J Environ Qual 35:1633–1658
Davis VM, Kruger GR, Stachler JM, Loux MM, Johnson WG
(2009) Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) populations resistant to glyphosate, ALS-inhibit-
ing, and multiple (glyphosate ? ALS-inhibiting) herbicides.
Weed Sci 57:494–504
De Wett JMJ, Harlan JR (1975) Weeds and domesticates:
evolution in the man-made habitat. Econ Bot 29:99–107
Duke SO (2005) Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten
years after introduction. Pest Manage Sci 61:211–218
Duke SO, Powles SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century
herbicide. Pest Manage Sci 64:319–325
Ervin DE, Carriere Y, Cox WJ, Fernandez-Cornejo J, Jussaume
RA Jr, Marra MC, Owen MDK, Raven PH, Wolfenbarger LL,
Zilberman D (2010) The impact of genetically engineered
crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National
Research Council, Washington, DC
Falk JS, Shoup DE, Al-Khatib K, Peterson DE (2005) Survey of
common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to pro-
tox- and ALS-inhibiting herbicides in Northeast Kansas.
Weed Technol 19:838–8461
Foes MJ, Liu L, Vigue G, Stoller EW, Wax LM, Tranel PJ (1999) A
kochia (Kochia scoparia) biotype resistant to triazine and
ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 47:20–27
Foresman C, Glasgow L (2008) US grower perceptions and
experiences with glyphosate-resistant weeds. Pest Manage
Sci 64:388–391
Weed resistance development and management
Gianessi LP, Reigner NP (2007) The value of herbicides in U.S.
crop production. Weed Technol 21:559–566
Gibson KD, Johnson WG, Hillger DE (2005) Farmer perceptions
of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed
Technol 19:1065–1070
Green JM, Owen MDK (2010) Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities
and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management.
J Agric Food Chem. doi:10.1021/jf101286h
Heap I (2010) The international survey of herbicide resistant
weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed 05 Jan 2011
Johnson WG, Gibson KD (2006) Glyphosate-resistant weeds and
resistance management strategies: an Indiana grower
perspective. Weed Technol 20:768–772
Johnson WG, Davis VM, Kruger GR, Weller SC (2009a) Influ-
ence of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems on weed
species shifts and glyphosate-resistant weed populations.
Eur J Agron 31:162–172
Johnson WG, Owen MDK, Kruger GR, Young BG, Shaw DR,
Wilson RG, Wilcut JW, Jordan DL, Weller SC (2009b) U.S.
farmer awareness of glyphosate-resistant weeds and resis-
tance management strategies. Weed Technol 23:308–312
Kruger GR, Johnson WG, Weller SC, Owen MDK, Shaw DR,
Wilcut JW, Jordan DL, Wilson RG, Bernards ML, Young BG
(2009) U.S. grower views on problematic weeds and changes
in weed pressure in glyphosate-resistant corn, cotton, and
soybean cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:162–166
Llewellyn RS, Lindner RK, Pannell DJ, Powles SB (2002) Resistance
and the herbicide resource: perceptions of Western Austra-
lian grain growers. Crop Protect 21:1067–1075
Llewellyn R, Lindner Robert, Pannel David, Powles Stephen
(2004) Grain grower perceptions and the use of integrated
weed management. Aust J Exp Agric 44:993–1001
Maertens KD, Sprague CL, Tranel PJ, Hines RA (2004) Amaran-
thus hybridus populations resistant to triazine and
acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Res
44:21–26
Marsh SP, Llewellyn RS, Powles SB (2006) Social costs of
herbicide resistance: the case of resistance to glyphosate.
In: 50th annual conference of the Australian agricultural
and resource economics society, Manly Pacific Sydney,
Australia
Moss SR, Rubin B (1993) Herbicide-resistant weeds: a worldwide
perspective. J Agric Sci 120:141–148
Neve P (2007) Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution
and management: 50 years after Harper. Weed Res
47:365–369
Orson JH (1999) The cost to the farmer of herbicide resistance.
Weed Technol 13:607–611
S89
Owen MDK (1997) Risks and benefits of weed management
technologies. In: De Prado R, Jorrin J, Garcia-Torres L (eds)
Weed and crop resistance to herbicides. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London, pp 291–297
Owen MDK (2008) Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant
crops. Pest Manage Sci 64:377–387
Owen MDK (2009) The evolution of herbicide resistant weeds
in Iowa: description, implications and solutions. In: Pro-
ceedings of the integrated crop management conference,
Ames, IA, Iowa State University, pp 65–70
Owen MDK (2009b) Herbicide-tolerant genetically modified
crops: resistance management. In: Ferry N, Gatehouse
AMR (eds) Environmental impact of genetically modified
crops. CAB International, Oxfordshire, pp 113–162
Owen M, Boerboom C, Sprague C (2009) Convenience and
simplicity? An illusion and a detriment to integrated weed
management. In: Proceedings of the 6th international IPM
symposium, Portland, Oregon
Patzoldt WL, Tranel PJ, Hagar AG (2005) A waterhemp
(Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance
across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci 53:30–36
Peterson DE (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on
Kansas Agriculture. Weed Technol 13:632–635
Powles SB (2008) Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around
the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manage Sci
64:360–365
Ryan GF (1970) Resistance of common groundsel to simazine
and atrazine. Weed Sci 18:614–616
Scott BA, VanGessel MJ, White-Hansen S (2009) Herbicide-
resistant weeds in the United States and their impact on
extension. Weed Technol 23:599–603
Shaw DR, Givens WA, Farno LA, Gerard PD, Jordan D, Johnson
WG, Weller SC, Young BG, Wilson RG, Owen MDK (2009)
Using a grower survey to assess the benefits and chal-
lenges of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems for weed
management in U.S. corn, cotton, and soybean. Weed
Technol 23:134–149
Steckel LE, Gwathmey CO (2009) Glyphosate-resistant horse-
weed (Conyza canadensis) growth, seed production, and
interference in cotton. Weed Sci 57:346–350
Webster TM, Sosnoskie LM (2010) Loss of glyphosate efficacy: a
changing weed spectrum in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci
58:73–79
Werth JA, Preston C, Taylor IN, Charles GW, Roberts GN, Baker
J (2008) Managing the risk of glyphosate resistance in
Australian glyphosate-resistant cotton production systems.
Pest Manage Sci 64:417–421
123