Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:17:35.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicide resistance in Bromus spp.: a global review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2023

Victor H. V. Ribeiro*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Judit Barroso
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Caio A. C. G. Brunharo*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Carol Mallory-Smith
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
*
Corresponding authors: Victor H. V. Ribeiro; Email: [email protected] Caio A. C. G. Brunharo; Email: [email protected]
Corresponding authors: Victor H. V. Ribeiro; Email: [email protected] Caio A. C. G. Brunharo; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This review summarizes what is currently known about herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. worldwide. Additional information on the biology and genetics of Bromus spp. is provided to further the understanding of resistance evolution and dispersal of the different species. Cases of herbicide resistance have been confirmed in Bromus catharticus Vahl., Bromus commutatus Schrad. (syn.: Bromus racemosus L.), Bromus diandrus Roth, Bromus japonicus Thunb. (syn.: Bromus arvensis L.), Bromus madritensis L., Bromus rigidus Roth (syn.: Bromus diandrus Roth ssp. diandrus), Bromus rubens L., Bromus secalinus L., Bromus sterilis L., and Bromus tectorum L. in 11 countries. Bromus spp. populations have evolved cross- and multiple resistance to six herbicide sites of action: acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase, acetolactate synthase, photosystem II, very-long-chain fatty-acid, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors. Resistance mechanisms varied from target-site to non–target site or a combination of both. Bromus spp. are generally highly self-pollinated, but outcrossing can occur at low levels in some species. Bromus spp. have different ploidy levels, ranging from diploid (2n = 2x = 14) to duodecaploid (2n = 12x = 84). Herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. is a global issue, and the spread of herbicide-resistance alleles primarily occurs via seed-mediated gene flow. However, the transfer of herbicide-resistance alleles via pollen-mediated gene flow is possible.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Bromus (Poaceae) is a large genus of grasses that includes nearly 160 C3 species with wide geographic distribution (Acedo and Llamas Reference Acedo and Llamas2001). The genus contains annuals, biennials, and perennials either self- or cross-pollinated and adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions (Armstrong Reference Armstrong, Armstrong, Tsuchiya and Gupta1991). This genus is well known for its complex taxonomy (Acedo and Llamas Reference Acedo and Llamas1999) due to morphological variation, plasticity, and hybridization (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008). Polyploidy and hybridization have played a major role in the evolution of this genus, resulting in a diversity of species with a different number of chromosomes and genome sizes (Stebbins Reference Stebbins1981). The Bromus genus contains species with ploidy levels ranging from diploid (2n = 2x = 14) to duodecaploid (2n = 12x = 84) with the basic chromosome number x = 7 (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011).

Bromus spp. have been treated in multiple ways by taxonomists because of the complexity of this genus. Tzvelev (Reference Tzvelev1976) classified the species into five distinct genera: Eubromus, Bromus, Ceratochloa, Neobromus, and Bromopsis. Smith (Reference Smith1970) divided the species into six sections: Genea, Bromus, Ceratochloa, Neobromus, Nevskiella, and Pnigma. Stebbins (Reference Stebbins1981) took an intermediate position and distributed the species into seven subgenera: Festucaria, Ceratochloa, Stenobromus, Bromus, Neobromus, Nevskiella, and Boissiera. Smith’s classification based on “sections” has been the most used since its publication in 1970. The sections are differentiated morphologically according to the number of nerves in the glumes, spikelet shape, and lemma and awn morphology, in addition to karyotypes, genome relationships (chromosome pairing), ploidy levels, and serological differences (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011). Among the six sections, the major agricultural species are in the Ceratochloa (Bromus catharticus Vahl., Bromus sitchensis Trin.) and Pnigma (Bromus inermis Leyss.) sections, whereas several species in the Genea (Bromus tectorum L., Bromus sterilis L., Bromus rubens L., B. madritensis L., Bromus rigidus Roth [syn.: Bromus diandrus Roth ssp. diandrus]) and Bromus (Bromus japonicus Thunb. [syn.: Bromus arvensis L.], Bromus secalinus L., Bromus commutatus Schrad. [syn.: Bromus racemosus L.]) sections are troublesome weeds of both agricultural and nonagricultural systems (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011).

Weeds are the main limiting factor in agricultural systems, because they reduce crop yield and profitability (Ghersa and Roush Reference Ghersa and Roush1993; Patterson Reference Patterson1995; Swanton and Weise Reference Swanton and Weise1991). Herbicides are considered the most cost-effective available tool for achieving successful weed control (Heap Reference Heap1997; Pleasant et al. Reference Pleasant, Burt and Frisch1994). However, the continuous reliance on weed management programs based heavily on herbicides has selected numerous herbicide-resistant weeds (Holt Reference Holt1992; Moss and Rubin Reference Moss and Rubin1993; Powles and Howat Reference Powles and Howat1990), including Bromus spp. (Table 1).

Table 1. Herbicide-resistant Bromus spp. reported globally and reviewed in this study.

a Herbicide site of action (SOA): ACCase, acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (Group 1); ALS, acetolactate synthase (Group 2); EPSPS, 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (Group 9); HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (Group 27); PSII, photosystem II (Groups 5 and 7); VLCFA, very-long-chain fatty-acid (Group 15).

b Chemical family abbreviations: AOPP, aryloxyphenoxypropionate; BF, benzofurane; CHD, cyclohexanedione; GLY, glycine; IMI, imidazolinone; PU, phenylurea; PY, pyrazole; SU, sulfonylurea; TAZ, triazinone; TAZN, triazolinones; TP, triazolopyrimidine; TZ, triazine; UR, urea.

c Mechanisms: NA, not available; NTSR, non–target site resistance; TSR, target-site resistance.

Herbicide-resistance mechanisms in weed species fall into two categories: (1) resistance conferred by mutations in the herbicide target enzyme or gene amplification (target-site resistance [TSR]) and (2) resistance conferred by mechanisms not involving the target enzyme (non–target site resistance [NTSR]) (Délye et al. Reference Délye, Jasieniuk and Corre2013; Gaines et al. Reference Gaines, Duke, Morran, Rigon, Tranel, Küpper and Dayan2020). TSR is typically determined by monogenic traits (i.e., conferred by major alleles) (Délye et al. Reference Délye, Jasieniuk and Corre2013; Scarabel et al. Reference Scarabel, Pernin and Délye2015). Conversely, NTSR can be under monogenic or polygenic control (i.e., governed by multiple alleles) (Busi et al. Reference Busi, Neve and Powles2013; Scarabel et al. Reference Scarabel, Pernin and Délye2015). NTSR mechanisms can be the result of physiological and biochemical alterations such as reduced herbicide absorption and translocation, enhanced herbicide metabolism, and herbicide vacuolar sequestration (Jugulam and Shyam Reference Jugulam and Shyam2019; Yuan et al. Reference Yuan, Tranel and Stewart2007). NTSR is of particular concern, because it can confer resistance to herbicides from different chemical families across multiple sites of action (SOAs), including herbicides not commercially available (Ma et al. Reference Ma, Kaundun, Tranel, Riggins, McGinness, Hager, Hawkes, McIndie and Riechers2013; Petit et al. Reference Petit, Bay, Pernin and Délye2010; Preston Reference Preston2003), thus limiting the herbicide options for weed control.

The evolution of herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. is of concern. Currently, there are 40 reports of herbicide resistance in the genus, including the diploids (2n = 2x = 14) B. japonicus, B. sterilis, and B. tectorum; the tetraploids (2n = 4x = 28) B. commutatus, B. madritensis, B. rubens, and B. secalinus; the hexaploids (2n = 6x = 42) B. catharticus and B. rigidus; and the octoploid (2n = 8x = 56) B. diandrus (Table 1). Herbicide resistance to six SOAs has been reported in Bromus spp.: acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase, Group 1), acetolactate synthase (ALS, Group 2), photosystem II (PSII, Groups 5 and 7), very-long-chain fatty-acid (VLCFA, Group 15), 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS, Group 9), and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD, Group 27) inhibitors. Cross-resistance is prevalent in Bromus spp., with 20 reports confirmed in six countries, including Australia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Instances of cross-resistance include resistance to ACCase and ALS inhibitors (Ball et al. Reference Ball, Frost and Bennett2007; Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020; Kumar and Jha Reference Kumar and Jha2017; Owen et al. Reference Owen, Goggin and Powles2012, Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015; Ribeiro et al. Reference Ribeiro, Brunharo, Mallory-Smith, Walenta and Barroso2023; Sen et al. Reference Sen, Hamouzová, Mikulka, Bharati, Košnarová, Hamouz, Roy and Soukup2021). Multiple resistance is less common, with four cases confirmed in Bromus spp. In some regions, such as the United States Pacific Northwest, multiple resistance to two and four SOAs has been reported: the four SOAs were ACCase, ALS, PSII, and VLCFA (Mallory-Smith et al. Reference Mallory-Smith, Hendrickson and Mueller-Warrant1999; Park et al. Reference Park, Fandrich and Mallory-Smith2004; Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004, Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2005), and to two SOAs were ACCase and ALS inhibitors (Zuger and Burke Reference Zuger and Burke2020). The two other cases of multiple resistance were documented in Spain, with resistance to both ALS and EPSPS inhibitors (Escorial et al. Reference Escorial, Loureiro, Rodríguez-García and Chueca2011); and in China, with resistance to four SOAs: ACCase, ALS, PSII, and HPPD inhibitors (Lan et al. Reference Lan, Zhou, Lin, Cao, Wei, Huang, Li and Huang2022).

Because of the worldwide importance of the Bromus genus and the increasing cases of herbicide resistance, a comprehensive review that summarizes what is known about herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. is needed. Therefore, the objective of this review is to provide an update on the status of herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. globally and what is known about the resistance mechanisms. Additionally, relevant information, including the biology and genetics of Bromus spp., is provided to further the understanding of the resistance evolution and dispersal of the different species.

Bromus catharticus

Bromus catharticus, commonly known as prairie grass or rescue grass, is one of the major agricultural species of forage grass in the Bromus genus (Abbott et al. Reference Abbott, Filippini, Delfino and Pistorale2012). Native to South America, B. catharticus is an annual or short-lived perennial cool-season grass that has been introduced on a wide geographic scale, including Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and North America (Aulicino and Arturi Reference Aulicino and Arturi2002; Muzafar et al. Reference Muzafar, Khuroo, Mehraj, Hamid and Rashid2016; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011). This species is considered a valuable forage crop because of its high biomass production, fast growth rate during winter and spring, great adaptability, and ability to remain green after seed maturation (Sun et al. Reference Sun, Dong, Yang, Wu, Zhang, Zhang, Zhao, Xiong, Jia and Ma2021). In the Pampas of Argentina, B. catharticus is cultivated as a winter forage crop for grazing, but it can also behave as a weed in several winter crops such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and pea (Pisum sativum L.) (Poggio et al. Reference Poggio, Satorre and de la Fuente2004; Yanniccari et al. Reference Yanniccari, Vázquez-García, Gómez-Lobato, Rojano-Delgado, Alves and De Prado2021). Bromus catharticus typically germinates in midsummer and fall (Ahumada and Troiani Reference Ahumada and Troiani2016; Iroulart Reference Iroulart2020), when applications of glyphosate are extensively performed for weed control before to planting winter cereals such as wheat and barley (Vigna et al. Reference Vigna, Papa, Ponsa, Bedmar, Guevara, Rainero, Olea, Gigón, Istilart, López, Arguissain, Picapietra, Fernández, Leguizamón and Acciaresi2014). If not controlled preplanting, B. catharticus can cause yield losses of up to 70% in these crops (Iroulart Reference Iroulart2020).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus catharticus reproduces entirely by seeds, and its inflorescences consist of drooping panicles with spikelets that are strongly laterally compressed and attached to 2- to 4-cm-long pedicels (Auld and Medd Reference Auld and Medd1987). Lemmas have a short awn (<5 mm) arising right below the apex. Bromus catharticus can produce both cleistogamous (closed) and chasmogamous (open) flowers, but its reproduction is mainly through self-pollination, although outcrossing can occur (Gutierrez and Pensiero Reference Gutierrez and Pensiero1998; Naranjo Reference Naranjo1992; Rosso et al. Reference Rosso, Pagano, Rimieri and Ríos2009; Table 2). The outcrossing rate for this species was estimated to be 1.8% (Morant et al. Reference Morant, Pahlen, Cladera and Serrano1994). Flowering depends on flower morphology, photoperiod, and soil moisture (Ragonese and Marcó Reference Ragonese and Marcó1941, Reference Ragonese and Marcó1943). For instance, the chasmogamic flowering period typically happens at the beginning of spring, and the cleistogamic period at the end of spring and during the summer (Perez López Reference Perez López1975).

Table 2. Biology and genetics of Bromus spp. globally reviewed in this study.

a Nuclear DNA amount 1C values were obtained in the website: https://cvalues.science.kew.org/search.

b Genome size was estimated based on the conversion of nuclear 1C DNA amount in picograms to the numbers of base pairs suggested by Doležel et al. (Reference Doležel, Greilhuber and Suda2007): 1 pg DNA = 0.978 × 109 bp.

Bromus catharticus is a hexaploid species (2n = 6x = 42; AABBCC; 12.36-Gb genome size) in the Ceratochloa section (Stebbins and Tobgy Reference Stebbins and Tobgy1944; Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 12.64 pg (Klos et al. Reference Klos, Sliwinska, Kula, Golczyk, Grabowska-Joachimiak, Ilnicki, Szostek, Stewart and Joachimiak2009). This species has an allopolyploid origin that probably arose through hybridization between extinct diploid (2x) and tetraploid (4x) species (Stebbins Reference Stebbins1956).

Despite being predominantly self-pollinated, hybridization between B. catharticus and other Bromus spp. is possible (Table 3). Bromus catharticus can hybridize with Bromus bonariensis Parodi & J.A. Cámara, Bromus brevis Nees ex Steud. (syn.: B. catharticus), Bromus parodii Covas & Itria (Naranjo Reference Naranjo1992), Bromus carinatus Hook. & Arn. (Stebbins and Tobgy Reference Stebbins and Tobgy1944), and Bromus haenkeanus (J. Presl) Kunth (syn.: B. catharticus) (Hall Reference Hall1955). Bromus catharticus can produce fertile hybrids (≤7.9% pollen viability and ≤3.48% flowers with mature seeds) when crossed with B. brevis (7.9% pollen viability and 2.8% flowers with mature seeds), B. parodii (6.8% pollen viability and 4.81% flowers with mature seeds) (Naranjo Reference Naranjo1992), and B. haenkeanus (4% seed fertility) (Hall Reference Hall1955). In contrast, B. catharticus × B. bonariensis (2.4% pollen viability and 0% flowers with mature seeds) and B. catharticus × B. carinatus hybrids are sterile (Naranjo Reference Naranjo1992; Stebbins and Tobgy Reference Stebbins and Tobgy1944).

Table 3. Interspecific hybridization of Bromus spp. reviewed in this study.

a NR, not reported. The study only indicated compatibility between species.

Resistance in Bromus catharticus

Glyphosate-resistant B. catharticus was identified in 2017 in Argentina (Yanniccari et al. Reference Yanniccari, Vázquez-García, Gómez-Lobato, Rojano-Delgado, Alves and De Prado2021; Table 1). The resistant population was found in a fallow field that had been under wheat–soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and barley–soybean crop rotations for at least 8 yr with frequent use of glyphosate. This resistant population was 4-fold less sensitive to glyphosate compared with the susceptible population. No evidence of TSR or enhanced glyphosate metabolism was detected in the resistant population. Conversely, lower foliar retention of glyphosate (138.34 μl solution g−1 dry weight vs. 390.79 μl solution g−1 dry weight), reduced absorption (54.18% vs. 73.56%), and translocation (27.70% vs. 62.36%) of [14C]glyphosate from the labeled leaf were observed in this glyphosate-resistant population. As a consequence, the resistant plants accumulated a 4.1-fold lower concentration of [14C]glyphosate in the roots compared with the susceptible plants. Therefore, low foliar retention of glyphosate and reduced herbicide absorption and translocation were reported to be the major mechanisms endowing NTSR in B. catharticus. This is the only case of resistance reported in B. catharticus. Because of B. catharticus’s reproductive system and widespread occurrence and the number of sympatric, compatible species, the risk of transferring herbicide-resistance alleles from B. catharticus to other Bromus spp. exists and should be of concern. In the Pampas of Argentina, B. bonariensis, B. brevis, and B. parodii occur sympatrically with B. catharticus, and they are sexually compatible (Leofanti and Camadro Reference Leofanti and Camadro2017; Naranjo Reference Naranjo1992); therefore, hybridization under field conditions and spread of resistance alleles is possible.

Bromus commutatus

Bromus commutatus, known as meadow brome or hairy chess, is native to Europe and western Asia and has been introduced throughout North America (Pavlick Reference Pavlick1995; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011). In the United Kingdom, B. commutatus is a troublesome weed commonly found in field margins and headlands of winter cereal crops and rarely seen in spring crops (Cussans et al. Reference Cussans, Cooper, Davies and Thomas1994). This species has become more widespread and difficult to control in the United Kingdom because of the increased adoption of minimum tillage; restricted crop rotations, including mainly fall-sown crops; and limited effective herbicide options for control (Davies and Hull Reference Davies and Hull2018). Bromus commutatus can have winter or spring annual or biennial life cycles (Finnerty and Klingman Reference Finnerty and Klingman1962; Table 2). Integrating cultural and mechanical practices, including late sowing (beyond the conventional fall window), spring crop rotation, and stubble management using improved mechanical weeders, is a key strategy to control B. commutatus, reduce herbicide dependence, and consequently, reduce herbicide-resistance evolution (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Moss and Orson2000).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus commutatus is largely self-pollinated and only reproduces by seeds (Table 2). Bromus commutatus produces flowers on a panicle with ascending branches (12- to 25-cm long) containing pediceled spikelets (1.8- to 3.3-cm long; 8 to 11 flowered) with awns (8- to 11-mm long) (Bryson and DeFelice Reference Bryson and DeFelice2010). In the United Kingdom, seed is usually shed between May and October, and seedling emergence takes place between July and November (Bayer Crop Science UK 2022). Research has shown that B. commutatus seeds should be left on the soil surface for approximately 28 d before any tillage, because warm temperatures minimize seed dormancy (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Moss and Orson2000). Subsequently, the utilization of mechanical control methods such as plowing becomes more effective, resulting in less viable seed after burial.

Bromus commutatus is an allotetraploid species (2n = 4x = 28; 10.66-Gb genome size) belonging to the Bromus section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 10.90 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). The allopolyploid origin of this species has not been reported in the literature.

Although B. commutatus is predominantly self-pollinated, hybridization between B. commutatus and other Bromus spp. can occur (Armstrong et al. Reference Armstrong, Fitzjohn, Newstrom, Wilton and Lee2005; Table 3). Bromus commutatus (4x) and Bromus racemosus (4x) are interfertile, and naturally occurring hybrids are produced (Smith Reference Smith1973). Hybrids of B. arvensis (2x) × B. commutatus (4x) and Bromus macrostachys Desf. (4x) × B. commutatus (4x) resulted in some chromosome pairing, suggesting a compatibility relationship between these genomes (Jahn Reference Jahn1959). Bromus mollis auct. Non L. (syn.: Bromus hordeaceus L. ssp. hordeaceus) (4x) and B. commutatus (4x) crossed readily, but F1 hybrid seeds did not germinate (Knowles Reference Knowles1944).

Resistance in Bromus commutatus

A case of cross-resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides was reported in B. commutatus in the United Kingdom with resistance to mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium and pyroxsulam (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020; Table 1). This population was >16 times more resistant to mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium and pyroxsulam compared with the susceptible population. Molecular evidence suggested that cross-resistance to sulfonylurea (mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium) and triazolopyrimidine (pyroxsulam) chemical families in B. commutatus resulted from both TSR and NTSR mechanisms. The ALS gene sequence analysis revealed an amino acid substitution from tryptophan to leucine at position 154 (Trp-154-Leu). Additionally, enhanced levels of the glutathione transferase phi (F) class 1 enzyme, referred to as AmGSTF1, were detected in the resistant population compared with the susceptible population (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020). This enzyme has a functional role in regulating NTSR. Based on the reports of sexual compatibility between B. commutatus and other Bromus spp., the transfer of resistance alleles from herbicide-resistant B. commutatus to other Bromus spp. is possible. In the United Kingdom, a survey of growers and agronomists reported the occurrence of multiple Bromus spp., including B. commutatus, B. diandrus, B. hordeaceus, B. secalinus, and B. sterilis, across cereal-growing areas (Davies and Hull Reference Davies and Hull2018). These species were present on 34,730 ha of cropland and were reported to occur in 39 of 168 fields surveyed. Although sexual compatibility among these species has not been documented in the literature, research on potential outcrossing among these species would be relevant, as they are locally distributed and co-occur.

Bromus diandrus

Bromus diandrus, known by the common names ripgut brome or great brome, is a winter annual species (Table 2) native to the Mediterranean region and widely introduced elsewhere in the world. This species is a highly competitive weed in cereal crops in different geographies including Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, and Oceania (Clapham et al. Reference Clapham, Tutin and Warburg1952; Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1989). Previous research has shown that a B. diandrus infestation of 100 plants m−2 can cause a yield loss of 30% in wheat (Gill et al. Reference Gill, Poole and Holmes1987). Moreover, B. diandrus seed can contaminate harvested grain and cause injury to livestock if the awns become embedded in the animal’s nose or mouth when grazing (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon, Blacklow, Groves, Shepherd and Richardson1995). The increased cropping frequency through minimum tillage and the lack of effective herbicide options for selective B. diandrus control have resulted in a significant increase in the importance of this species in cereal crops in southern Australia (Gill and Blacklow Reference Gill and Blacklow1985; Heenan et al. Reference Heenan, Taylor and Leys1990; Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1988), Spain (Fernandez Garcia and García-Baudín Reference Fernandez García and García-Baudín1997), and the United Kingdom (Davies and Hull Reference Davies and Hull2018). This high incidence of B. diandrus in cereal crops under no-till systems may be associated with the germination behavior of this species, which increases the difficulty of its control (Kleemann and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2013). Bromus diandrus germination is characterized by two distinct flushes when soil moisture and temperature are not limiting (Del Monte and Dorado Reference Del Monte and Dorado2011). The first and main flush typically occurs in fall with the first rains, originating from superficially buried or shaded (by the field stubble) seeds. The second flush occurs in spring and comes from seeds that remain on the soil surface. In this second flush, the seeds are directly exposed to light, and germination is inhibited by light; hence, the dormancy is prolonged until seeds lose their negative photoblastism and germination can occur. Therefore, delayed B. diandrus establishment allows this species to escape preplanting weed control tactics and infest crops where its selective control is more difficult.

Biology and Genetics

Bromus diandrus produces loose and drooping panicles, 150- to 200-mm long, with long spikelet branches (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1988). The lemma of this species is short (≤1 mm) and rounded at the tips. Bromus diandrus plants are largely self-pollinated with outcrossing frequencies of less than 1% (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1990; Table 2). Chasmogamy in B. diandrus commonly occurs under favorable conditions such as high soil moisture (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1990). Under irrigated conditions, the anthers of B. diandrus in the chasmogamous florets (2- to 8-mm long) were longer than those in cleistogamous florets (<2 mm). In the same study, attempts at hybridization between B. diandrus × B. rigidus failed, and there was no evidence of naturally occurring hybrids. Thus, further research is needed to investigate pollen viability under different levels of soil moisture, temperature, relative humidity, and flowering synchrony, as well as potential hybridization between B. diandrus and other species.

Bromus diandrus is an allooctoploid species (2n = 8x = 56; 11.64-Gb genome size) classified into the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 11.90 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). Bromus diandrus may have originated from the hexaploid B. rigidus (female genome donor) and the diploid B. sterilis (male genome donor), and the proposed genomic formula for this species is either AABBCCDD (disomic inheritance) or AAAABBCC (disomic and tetrasomic inheritance) (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008).

Resistance in Bromus diandrus

Bromus diandrus populations have evolved resistance to three herbicide groups: ACCase inhibitors, ALS inhibitors, and the EPSPS inhibitor (glyphosate) (Table 1). The evolution of cross-resistance to ALS- and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides has been widely documented in B. diandrus populations in Australia (Boutsalis and Preston Reference Boutsalis and Preston2006; Boutsalis et al. Reference Boutsalis, Preston and Gill2012; Owen et al. Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015) and the United Kingdom (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020). Boutsalis and Preston (Reference Boutsalis and Preston2006) identified an ACCase-resistant population that exhibited high levels of resistance to fluazifop-P-butyl (resistance factor [RF] > 50) and haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl (RF = 24). Boutsalis et al. (Reference Boutsalis, Preston and Gill2012) found five ACCase-resistant populations with prevalent resistance to fluazifop-P-butyl (RF = 4 to 16) and quizalofop-P-ethyl (RF = 8 to 16), and to a lesser extent to clethodim (RF = 4 to 10) and haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl (RF = 3 to 7), and two ALS-resistant populations exhibiting moderate levels of resistance to mesosulfuron-methyl (RF = 4 to 5) and pyroxsulam (RF = 3 to 4). The population reported by Owen et al. (Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015) was cross-resistant to clethodim and fluazifop-P-butyl with >85% survival when treated with the labeled rate of these herbicides and survived two times the labeled rate of both herbicides. The ALS-resistant population reported in the United Kingdom was >5.8 and 2.7 times more resistant to mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium and pyroxsulam compared with the susceptible population, respectively (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020). However, the mechanisms of resistance were not reported in the populations from Australia and the United Kingdom. Resistance to glyphosate was identified in two populations of B. diandrus in Australia (Malone et al. Reference Malone, Morran, Shirley, Boutsalis and Preston2016). These populations were 4.7- to 4.9-fold more resistant to glyphosate than the susceptible population. The mechanism of resistance in these two glyphosate-resistant B. diandrus populations was conferred by EPSPS gene amplification. These populations contained 10 to 36 additional copies of EPSPS compared with the susceptible population. Increased EPSPS expression was also observed in the resistant populations, but the levels were not correlated with the number of EPSPS copies. A case of multiple resistance in B. diandrus was documented in Spain with resistance to both glyphosate and sulfosulfuron, but the mechanism of resistance in this population was not elucidated (Escorial et al. Reference Escorial, Loureiro, Rodríguez-García and Chueca2011).

Bromus japonicus

Bromus japonicus, Japanese brome, is an indigenous Eurasian species commonly found along roadsides, in floodplain wetlands, and in agricultural areas, including wheat fields (Li Reference Li1998). This species is extensively dispersed in Asia, Australasia, Europe, Northern Africa, North America, and South America (Che et al. Reference Che, Yuan, Jin, Wang, Zhang, Hu, Wu and Tian2010). It is estimated that a B. japonicus infestation of 4 plants m−2 can result in 2.11% to 2.24% yield loss in wheat (Li et al. Reference Li, Du, Yuan, Guo, Li and Wang2016).

Bromus japonicus is a winter annual (Table 2) with seedlings typically emerging in September and October, flowering occurs in early May, and seed dispersal starts in early October (Baskin and Baskin Reference Baskin and Baskin1981). The optimum temperature for B. japonicus germination is between 25 and 30 C (Li et al. Reference Li, Tan, Li, Yuan, Du, Ma and Wang2015). The authors found that light and pH are not limiting factors in germination, except under highly acidic conditions (pH ≤ 4). Seedling emergence is relatively greater (98%) when seeds are left on the soil surface compared with seeds buried at a depth of 5 cm (7%). Additionally, the authors found that seeds are tolerant to osmotic potential and salinity, with germination occurring under a wide range of salt concentrations (20 to 320 mM).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus japonicus is exclusively self-pollinated (Oja et al. Reference Oja, Jaaska and Vislap2003; Table 2). It reproduces only by seeds, and a single plant can produce an average of 1,885 seeds that can be dispersed by water or wind due to their light weight (Wang Reference Wang1986). Bromus japonicus produces flowers on an open panicle, 17- to 30-cm long and 6- to 13-cm wide, with the lower branches drooping at maturity (Bryson and DeFelice Reference Bryson and DeFelice2010). Spikelets are 5 to 10 flowered, 2.0- to 3.2-cm long with awns. Glumes are 4.0- to 7.6-mm long, minutely scabrous, with the second glume longer than the first. The lemma is 7.2- to 9.1-mm long, scabrous, and tip bent-awned from between two teeth.

Bromus japonicus is a diploid species (2n = 2x = 14; 5.38-Gb genome size) in the Bromus section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 5.50 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). Previous studies, including serological analysis (Smith Reference Smith1972), isozyme analysis (Oja et al. Reference Oja, Jaaska and Vislap2003), and DNA analyses (Ainouche and Bayer Reference Ainouche and Bayer1997; Ainouche et al. Reference Ainouche, Bayer, Gourret, Defontaine and Misset1999), showed that B. japonicus and Bromus squarrosus L. are closely related species. According to Oja and Paal (Reference Oja and Paal2007), these species can be reliably distinguished based on the lemma margin, where plants with conspicuously angled margins are identified as B. squarrosus.

Resistance in Bromus japonicus

Herbicide resistance in B. japonicus was first reported in the United States in 2007 (Heap Reference Heap2022) and in China in 2022 (Lan et al. Reference Lan, Zhou, Lin, Cao, Wei, Huang, Li and Huang2022; Table 1). In both cases, the reported populations were ALS resistant with broad-spectrum cross-resistance patterns. The population identified in China exhibited a 120-fold increase in flucarbazone-sodium resistance (Lan et al. Reference Lan, Zhou, Lin, Cao, Wei, Huang, Li and Huang2022). The DNA sequence analyses of the ALS gene revealed a single nucleotide substitution of CCC to TCC at codon 197, resulting in a Pro-197-Ser mutation. Additionally, the application of malathion + flucarbazone-sodium reduced the 50% growth inhibition rate (GR50) value of this population by 60%, suggesting a cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (P450)-mediated metabolic resistance. This population was cross-resistant to mesosulfuron-methyl and pyroxsulam, with ≥ 95% survival when treated with the labeled rate and two times the labeled rate of the herbicides. Multiple resistance to ACCase, PSII, and HPPD inhibitors was also observed in this population, with ≥90% survival when treated with the labeled rates of clodinafop-propargyl, isoproturon, and cypyrafluone.

Bromus madritensis

Bromus madritensis, known as compact brome, originated in the Mediterranean region (Oja Reference Oja2002b). This species is found in southern and western Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008), and North America (Oja Reference Oja2002b). Bromus madritensis grows in a variety of disturbed environments (Warembourg and Estelrich Reference Warembourg and Estelrich2001) and agricultural areas (Heap Reference Heap2022). Because of its close morphological similarity to B. rubens, there is controversy as to whether B. madritensis and B. rubens should be treated as subspecies (Sales Reference Sales1994) or as separate species (Oja Reference Oja2002b). Population genetics analysis suggested independent origins of B. madritensis and B. rubens (Oja and Jaaska Reference Oja and Jaaska1996). These species can also be differentiated based on their panicle and spikelet characteristics. Bromus madritensis typically has longer panicle branches and looser panicles, whereas B. rubens is distinguished by its brushlike condensed panicles (Oja Reference Oja2002b).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus madritensis has a winter annual life cycle and is predominantly self-pollinating (Table 2). Its panicles are longer (3 to 15 cm) than they are wide (2 to 6 cm) and less dense; panicle branches are 1 to 3 cm, ascending to spreading, never drooping, containing 1 or 2 spikelets (Hitchcock et al. Reference Hitchcock, Cronquist, Janish, Rumely, Shin and Porcino2018; Roché et al. Reference Roché, Brainerd, Wilson, Otting and Korfhage2019). Spikelets are 30 to 50 mm, longer than the panicle branches, with parallel sides or widening distally, and are moderately laterally compressed with 6 to 10 florets (Hitchcock et al. Reference Hitchcock, Cronquist, Janish, Rumely, Shin and Porcino2018; Roché et al. Reference Roché, Brainerd, Wilson, Otting and Korfhage2019). Glumes are pilose with lower glumes (5 to 10 mm, 1-veined) shorter than the upper ones (10 to 15 mm, 3-veined) (Hitchcock et al. Reference Hitchcock, Cronquist, Janish, Rumely, Shin and Porcino2018; Roché et al. Reference Roché, Brainerd, Wilson, Otting and Korfhage2019). Lemmas are 12- to 20-mm long with a linear-lanceolate shape, pubescent, and with awns (12 to 23 mm) (Hitchcock et al. Reference Hitchcock, Cronquist, Janish, Rumely, Shin and Porcino2018; Roché et al. Reference Roché, Brainerd, Wilson, Otting and Korfhage2019).

Bromus madritensis is a tetraploid species (2n = 4x = 28; 4.79-Gb genome size) in the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 4.90 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). It has an allopolyploid origin that possibly resulted from the hybridization of the diploids Bromus fasciculatus C. Presl (maternal parent) and B. sterilis (paternal parent) (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008; Oja Reference Oja2002a; Oja and Jaaska Reference Oja and Jaaska1996).

Despite B. madritensis being predominantly self-pollinated, hybridization with other Bromus spp. has been reported (Table 3). Attempted hybridizations between B. mollis × B. madritensis showed compatibility between these two species; however, F1 hybrids were sterile (Knowles Reference Knowles1944). Compatibility with other species is unknown.

Resistance in Bromus madritensis

To date, there is only one report of herbicide resistance in B. madritensis (Vázquez-García et al. Reference Vázquez-García, Castro, Royo-Esnal, Palma-Bautista, Torra and De Prado2023; Table 1). In 2018, six glyphosate-resistant B. madritensis populations were identified in orchards and cereal fields in Spain (Vázquez-García et al. Reference Vázquez-García, Castro, Royo-Esnal, Palma-Bautista, Torra and De Prado2023). The resistant populations accumulated ≤600 μg g−1 shikimic acid and had RF > 4 based on 50% death rate (LD50) and GR50 values. Populations with higher RFs factors showed lower shikimic acid accumulation. The resistance mechanisms were not reported in the study.

Bromus rigidus

Bromus rigidus, rigid brome, is an indigenous Mediterranean species with a winter annual life cycle (Table 2) that has become a severe weed problem in cropping systems in Australia (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1990), New Zealand (Dastgheib et al. Reference Dastgheib, Rolston and Archie2003), and North America (Gleichsner and Appleby Reference Gleichsner and Appleby1989). In southern Australia, B. rigidus is commonly found in cropping areas with >250-mm annual rainfall and lighter, sandy soils (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon, Blacklow, Groves, Shepherd and Richardson1995). In early vegetative growth stages, B. rigidus and B. diandrus are very similar morphologically, causing difficulties in identifying these species. Bromus rigidus differs from B. diandrus by having shorter and sparser hairs on the adaxial surface of the leaf blades (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1988). The germination behavior of these two species is also an important distinguishing feature. Bromus rigidus has longer seed dormancy compared with B. diandrus (Gill and Carstairs Reference Gill and Carstairs1988; Kleemann and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2006; Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1988), and its seeds are more likely to persist in the soil from one growing season to the next (Kleemann and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2009). The longer seed dormancy observed in B. rigidus is related to inhibition factors in the embryo (Gill and Carstairs Reference Gill and Carstairs1988; Kleemann and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2006). Bromus rigidus germination is strongly inhibited by light exposure (Kleemann and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2006). Studies from Spain (Del Monte and Dorado Reference Del Monte and Dorado2011) and Australia (Kleeman and Gill Reference Kleemann and Gill2013) have shown that B. diandrus seems to be photosensitive, with seeds having longer dormancy when exposed to light. These findings differ from previous Australian studies, which reported that B. diandrus populations have low levels of seed dormancy (Cheam Reference Cheam1986; Gill and Blacklow Reference Gill and Blacklow1985; Gill and Carstairs Reference Gill and Carstairs1988; Harradine Reference Harradine1986).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus rigidus is a predominantly self-pollinated species (Table 2) with minimal outcrossing (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1990). The inflorescences of B. rigidus are erect and compact, 90- to 210-mm long, with short spikelet branches (Kon and Blacklow Reference Kon and Blacklow1988). The lemma calluses are elongated (≥1 mm), compressed, and pointed; the abscission scars are elliptical. Seed production in B. rigidus varies from 1,156 to 2,908 seeds per plant.

Bromus rigidus is an allohexaploid species (2n = 6x = 42; 8.41-Gb genome size) in the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 8.60 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). This species is closely related to B. diandrus, and they share the same maternal parent. Based on a molecular phylogenetic study, there are at least three different genomes involved in the parentage of B. rigidus, including the diploids B. tectorum (T clade; TT), B. fasciculatus (F clade; FF), and an unidentified third ancestor (X clade; XX) (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008). It is unknown whether B. rigidus (XXFFTT) originated independently or from hybridization between a tetraploid ancestor (related to B. rubens) and an unidentified parent.

Previous research reported compatibility between B. mollis and B. rigidus (Knowles Reference Knowles1944; Table 3). In the same study, the cross between B. mollis × B. rigidus yielded a total of 10 seeds, but none germinated. Further research investigating the potential hybridization between B. rigidus and other Bromus spp. is needed.

Resistance in Bromus rigidus

Herbicide resistance to ACCase and ALS inhibitors was documented in B. rigidus populations in Australia, including single- and cross-resistance cases (Table 1). Because there are limited herbicide options for selective B. rigidus control in crops, the selection for resistance to these two herbicide SOAs is a loss for Australian growers. Owen et al. (Reference Owen, Goggin and Powles2012) identified six B. rigidus populations that were resistant to the ALS inhibitors sulfometuron-methyl (RF ≥ 3) and sulfosulfuron (RF ≥ 6) from Western Australia. Similar findings were reported 3 yr later in the same region, showing that the continued selection in the field by the use of the ALS-inhibiting herbicides sulfometuron-methyl and sulfosulfuron resulted in 100% plant survival at the field rate (Owen et al. Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015). In both studies, resistance was reversed when the plants were treated with malathion, suggesting enhanced metabolism (NTSR) as mechanism of resistance. The ACCase resistance mechanisms and cross-resistance mechanisms for both ACCase and ALS were not elucidated.

A survey conducted in the Western Australian grain belt showed the presence of several Bromus spp. in this region, including B. diandrus, B. rigidus, and B. rubens (Owen et al. Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015). These species were present in 91 of 466 crop fields surveyed. Bromus diandrus (85%) occurrence was widespread in all agronomic regions of the Western Australian grain belt; B. rigidus (13%) occurred in the northern agricultural region; and B. rubens (2%) was confined to the drier areas of the eastern wheat belt. The overlap of Bromus spp. commonly occurs in this region, particularly between B. diandrus and B. rigidus. Moreover, the presence of herbicide-resistant Bromus spp. populations has been documented. Of the 91 Bromus spp. populations screened in this survey, 13% exhibited resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides, and only one population was resistant to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides. All ALS-resistant populations were identified as B. rigidus, and the ACCase-resistant population was identified as B. diandrus. Because of the overlap of these species in some agronomic regions of the Western Australian grain belt and the evolution of herbicide-resistant populations, research investigating the hybridization between these species and potential gene flow is warranted.

Bromus rubens

Bromus rubens, red brome, is a Mediterranean grass species with widespread occurrence. This species is found in Southern Africa, Australasia, Europe, North America, and South America (USDA-ARS 2022a). Bromus rubens thrives in a variety of disturbed and non-disturbed environments and relatively shallow soils and drier areas (Crampton Reference Crampton1968). In North America, B. rubens is a successful colonizer in the southwestern United States deserts (Salo Reference Salo2004, Reference Salo2005). Bromus rubens was introduced to the United States in 1980 and has since become dominant in areas of the Mojave (Beatley Reference Beatley1966; Hunter Reference Hunter1991), Sonoran (Burgess Reference Burgess1965; Burgess et al. Reference Burgess, Bowers and Turner1991), and Great Basin deserts (Tausch et al. Reference Tausch, Svejcar and Burkhardt1994). This species can also be found in cropland. In southern Spain, growers utilize B. rubens as a cover crop in perennial cropping systems, such as olive (Olea europaea L.) and almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch) orchards; however, this species has also become a severe weed in these systems (Vázquez-García et al. Reference Vázquez-García, Castro, Cruz-Hipólito, Millan, Palma-Bautista and De Prado2021). In Australia, B. rubens is a competitive weed in cereal crops and is confined to the drier areas of the eastern wheat belt in Western Australia (Owen et al. Reference Owen, Martinez and Powles2015). This distinctive ability of B. rubens to adapt to different environments is driven by key strategies such as rapid growth rates, high propagule pressure, low soil-moisture requirements for germination, and positive responses to disturbance, including fire (Beatley Reference Beatley1966; Salo Reference Salo2004; Wu and Jain Reference Wu and Jain1979). The optimal temperature for B. rubens germination is 19 C, with a hydrothermal-time constant of 38.9 MPa C−1 and water potential of −1.35 MPa (Horn et al. Reference Horn, Nettles and Clair2015). Bromus rubens does not have a persistent soil seedbank (Forcella and Gill Reference Forcella and Gill1986; Pake and Venable Reference Pake and Venable1995), and seed viability is negatively impacted by burial depth and timing (Jurand et al. Reference Jurand, Abella and Suazo2013). A relatively small proportion of B. rubens seed retained viability for 2 yr, and viable seed proportions were significantly lower at 5- and 10-cm burial depths.

Biology and Genetics

Bromus rubens is a winter annual, highly self-pollinating species (Table 2) with outcrossing rates of less than 0.1% (Wu Reference Wu1974). Bromus rubens produces a dense and erect panicle (2- to 10-cm long by 2- to 5-cm wide), often reddish-brown; branches are 0.1 to 1 cm, ascending, never drooping, with 1 or 2 spikelets (Hitchcock et al. Reference Hitchcock, Cronquist, Janish, Rumely, Shin and Porcino2018; Roché et al. Reference Roché, Brainerd, Wilson, Otting and Korfhage2019). Spikelets are much longer than the panicle branches, ranging from 18 to 25 mm, densely crowded, subsessile, with parallel sides or widening distally, moderately laterally compressed, with 4 to 8 florets. Glumes are pilose; lower glumes and upper glumes are 5 to 8 mm and 8 to 12 mm in length, respectively. Lemmas are linear-lanceolate (10- to 15-mm long) and awned (12- to 23-mm long).

Bromus rubens is an allotetraploid (2n = 4x = 28; 4.79-Gb genome size) in the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 4.90 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). Bromus rubens and B. madritensis are closely related species derived from same the maternal donor (B. fasciculatus) and different paternal species (B. tectorum, and B. sterilis, respectively) (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008; Oja Reference Oja2002a). Despite the low outcrossing rates, hybridization between B. rubens × B. mollis can occur, but F1 hybrids are sterile (Knowles Reference Knowles1944; Table 3). Further investigations into reproductive compatibility between B. rubens and other species are needed.

Resistance in Bromus rubens

Bromus rubens populations have evolved resistance to glyphosate (Table 1). The first case of glyphosate resistance in B. rubens was documented in a fallow field in Australia in 2014 (Heap Reference Heap2022; Table 1). In 2018, 17 B. rubens populations were confirmed to be glyphosate resistant in perennial crops including almonds, olives, and other orchards in southern Spain (Vázquez-García et al. Reference Vázquez-García, Castro, Cruz-Hipólito, Millan, Palma-Bautista and De Prado2021). The RF in these populations varied from 4.35 to 7.61 (based on GR50 values) compared with the susceptible population. The resistant populations had lower shikimic acid accumulation (1,200 to 1,700 μg g−1 fresh weight) compared with the three susceptible populations (300 to 700 μg g−1 fresh weight) when treated with glyphosate. No difference in glyphosate retention was detected between the resistant and susceptible populations in the foliar retention assays. Further investigations are needed to characterize the mechanisms of resistance in these populations.

Bromus secalinus

Bromus secalinus, also known as rye brome or cheat, is a native species to Eurasia that has spread widely into warm and temperate regions globally (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011). This species is found on all continents except Antarctica (USDA-ARS 2022b). Bromus secalinus invades open waste areas, dry grasslands, limestone glades, grassy meadows, abandoned fields, field margins, roadsides, and railway tracks (Zech-Matterne et al. Reference Zech-Matterne, Derreumaux, Pradat, Luccioni, Ruas and Toulemonde2021). In croplands, B. secalinus is a common weed in cereal fields, particularly winter wheat and winter rye (Secale cereale L.) (Koscelny et al. Reference Koscelny, Peeper, Solie and Solomon1990; Pytlarz and Gala-Czekaj Reference Pytlarz and Gala-Czekaj2022), and other crops such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (Pike and Stritzke Reference Pike and Stritzke1984). Bromus secalinus typically grows in more acidic and sandy soils, but it also grows in damp clay soils (Zech-Matterne et al. Reference Zech-Matterne, Derreumaux, Pradat, Luccioni, Ruas and Toulemonde2021). Bromus secalinus typically germinates in the fall and less frequently in spring (Adamczewski et al. Reference Adamczewski, Kaczmarek, Kierzek and Urban2015). Optimum germination in B. secalinus occurs at temperature variations of 20/30 C. Seedling emergence is 89% to 92% when seeds are left on the soil surface and completely inhibited when seeds are located at 10-cm depth. The B. secalinus soil seedbank is relatively short-lived (2 to 3 yr). Because of its similar phenology to wheat, B. secalinus typically ripens simultaneously with this crop and can be a major contaminant of wheat grain during harvesting (Stone et al. Reference Stone, Peeper and Solie2001). Cultural practices such as row spacing, seeding rate, and planting date are the foundation for B. secalinus control in winter wheat, as selective herbicide options are limited (Koscelny et al. Reference Koscelny, Peeper, Solie and Solomon1990, Reference Koscelny, Peeper, Solie and Solomon1991).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus secalinus is a self-pollinated species and has an annual or biennial life cycle (Table 2). This species reproduces exclusively by seed, and a single plant can produce from 8,000 to 16,000 seeds (Adamczewski et al. Reference Adamczewski, Kaczmarek, Kierzek and Urban2015). The inflorescence of B. secalinus consists of an erect, loose, or contracted panicle, ranging from 5- to 23-cm long (Bryson and DeFelice Reference Bryson and DeFelice2010). The spikelets are 17- to 21-mm long, with 4 to 7 florets and pediceled. The first glume is 3- to 5-veined and is shorter in length (4 to 6 mm) than the second glume (6 to 8 mm). The lemma is 6- to 9-mm long with apical teeth, and the awn ranges from 1.5- to 9-mm long.

Bromus secalinus is an allotetraploid (2n = 4x = 28; 13.69-Gb genome size) in the Bromus section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 14.00 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). Hybridization between B. secalinus and other Bromus spp. is not common but can occur (Table 3). Hybrids of B. arvensis (2x) × B. secalinus (4x) showed some chromosome pairing, indicating a relationship between the genome of these two species (Jahn Reference Jahn1959).

Resistance in Bromus secalinus

There are currently three confirmed cases of herbicide-resistant B. secalinus populations (Table 1). Two populations were identified in the United States in 2007 and 2009, respectively (Heap Reference Heap2022), and one population was documented in the United Kingdom in 2020 (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020). All populations are resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Both resistant populations reported in the United States had broad cross-resistance patterns including all four ALS herbicide chemical families, imidazolinone, triazolopyrimidine, triazolinones, and sulfonylurea. The population identified in the United Kingdom was resistant to the sulfonylurea herbicide mesosulfuron + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020). This population was 3.9-fold less sensitive to mesosulfuron + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium compared with the susceptible population. The mechanisms of resistance in these populations were not reported.

Bromus sterilis

Bromus sterilis, commonly known as barren brome or poverty brome, is an annual or biennial grass species that originated in the Mediterranean and southwestern Asian region (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011; Table 2) and has been introduced into several countries in Australasia, North America, and South America (USDA-ARS 2023a). It naturally occurs in field margins and waste ground areas and has become a troublesome weed in cropland (Green et al. Reference Green, Barker, Marshall, Froud-Williams, Peters, Arnold, Dawson and Karp2001). This species is a particular problem in cereal crops because of the increased adoption of minimum tillage and limited herbicide options for its control. Lack of B. sterilis control can result in yield losses ranging from 30% to 60% in winter wheat (Gehring et al. Reference Gehring, Thyssen and Festner2006).

Bromus sterilis typically germinates in early fall with winter cereals and its germination can occur within a broad range of temperatures varying from 5 to 35 C (Žd’árková et al. Reference Žd’árková, Hamouzová, Holec, Janků and Soukup2014). The optimum temperature for its germination is between 20 and 30 C (95% to 100%) and germination is greater in the dark than in the light regardless of temperature. The primary dormancy of B. sterilis is typically short and lasts about a month. Previous research showed that light induces dormancy in B. sterilis (Peters et al. Reference Peters, Atkins and Brain2000; Pollard Reference Pollard1982). Seedling emergence is marginally greater when seeds are buried at a 2-cm depth (58.5%) than when they are left on the soil surface (53%) (Žd’árková et al. Reference Žd’árková, Hamouzová, Holec, Janků and Soukup2014). Bromus sterilis seeds retain short viability in the soil (<2 yr), suggesting a short-lived soil seedbank (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Hull, Moss and Neve2019; Žd’árková et al. Reference Žd’árková, Hamouzová, Holec, Janků and Soukup2014).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus sterilis is predominantly self-pollinated with low levels of outcrossing occurring occasionally (Green et al. Reference Green, Barker, Marshall, Froud-Williams, Peters, Arnold, Dawson and Karp2001). The inflorescences of B. sterilis are open and nodding (10- to 20-cm long by 5- to 12-cm wide) with spreading branches typically longer than the spikelets (Meyers et al. Reference Meyers, Jaster, Mitchell and Hardison2015). It has 1 or 2 spikelets (20 to 35 mm), moderately laterally compressed, containing 5 to 9 florets. Glumes are smooth or scabrous; lower glumes (8 to 10 mm; 1- to 3-veined) are shorter than upper glumes (12 to 15 mm; 3- to 5-veined). Lemmas are 14 to 20 mm, narrowly lanceolate, pubescent, and 7- to 9-veined. Lemma awns are straight and range from 15 to 30 mm in length.

Bromus sterilis is a diploid (2n = 2x = 14; 2.91-Gb genome size) species in the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 2.98 pg (Pustahija et al. Reference Pustahija, Brown, Bogunic, Bašic, Muratovic, Ollier, Hidalgo, Bourge, Stevanovic and Sijak-Yakovev2013). This species is closely related to B. tectorum based on chloroplast DNA sequences (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008). Evidence in the literature suggests possible hybridization between B. sterilis and other Bromus spp. (Table 3). Based on isoenzyme analysis, B. sterilis (male parent) and B. fasciculatus (female parent) are the most plausible progenitors of B. madritensis (Oja Reference Oja2002a).

Resistance in Bromus sterilis

Herbicide resistance in B. sterilis has been reported in four countries, including the Czech Republic, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Table 1). Resistant B. sterilis populations were identified in cereals including wheat, postharvest stubble, and rapeseed/canola (Brassica napus L.) (Table 1). Resistance has been reported for ACCase inhibitors, ALS inhibitors, and for the EPSPS inhibitor glyphosate. An ACCase inhibitor–resistant B. sterilis population was documented in Germany and was cross-resistant to cycloxydim (cyclohexanedione [CHD]) and propaquizafop (aryloxyphenoxypropionate [AOPP]) (Table 1). Cases of cross-resistance to two and three ALS chemical families have been documented in resistant B. sterilis populations in the Czech Republic, France, and the United Kingdom. An ALS-resistant B. sterilis population found in a wheat field in the Czech Republic was 288 times less sensitive to pyroxsulam than a susceptible population and was cross-resistant to propoxycarbazone-sodium (RF = 575) and sulfometuron-methyl (RF = 88). The resistance mechanisms in this population were associated with overexpression of the ALS gene (almost 2-fold overexpression; TSR) and enhanced metabolism via P450 enzymes (NTSR) (Sen et al. Reference Sen, Hamouzová, Mikulka, Bharati, Košnarová, Hamouz, Roy and Soukup2021). In the United Kingdom, Davies et al. (Reference Davies, Onkokesung, Brazier-Hicks, Edward and Moss2020) reported B. sterilis populations with reduced sensitivity to the ALS inhibitors mesosulfuron + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium (RF = 3.5 to 8.3) and pyroxsulam (RF = 2.9 to 16). Enhanced levels of AmGSTF1 proteins were observed in the resistant populations, suggesting the presence of an NTSR mechanism. Glyphosate-resistant B. sterilis populations were identified in postharvest stubble in the United Kingdom (Davies et al. Reference Davies, Hull, Moss and Neve2019). The effective rate to control 50% (ED50) of these resistant B. sterilis populations ranged from 420 to 810 g ha−1, resulting in an RF of 1.6 to 4.5. The mechanisms of resistance were not reported.

Bromus tectorum

Bromus tectorum, commonly known as downy brome or cheatgrass, is a native species from the Mediterranean and southwest Asian region (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Stewart, Williamson and Kole2011). Bromus tectorum has been introduced to northern Europe, North America, Japan, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America, and in single localities in Iceland and Greenland (Mitich Reference Mitich1999; USDA-ARS 2023b). Genetic evidence suggests that B. tectorum’s introduction into North America occurred independently multiple times on both coasts (Bartlett et al. Reference Bartlett, Novak and Mack2002; Novak and Mack Reference Novak and Mack1993). The soil used as ballast in ships sailing from Eurasia into North America was probably one of the main carriers of B. tectorum seeds (Mitich Reference Mitich1999). The first report of B. tectorum in the United States was in Pennsylvania in 1790 (Muhlenberg Reference Muhlenberg1793). By the end of the 19th century, B. tectorum had expanded throughout the western United States (Mack Reference Mack1981). Bromus tectorum thrives in a variety of non-crop disturbed and cultivated habitats and can occur in locations with annual rainfall ranging from 150 to 560 mm, including different soil types, and at elevations as high as 2,700 m (Hull and Pechanec Reference Hull and Pechanec1947). In the United States Pacific Northwest, B. tectorum is a problematic weed in dryland winter wheat fields (Rydrych Reference Rydrych1974). In eastern Washington, fewer than 54 B. tectorum plants m−2 reduced wheat yields by 28% on a field with very fine sandy loam soil that received annual precipitation of 250 mm (Rydrych and Muzik Reference Rydrych and Muzik1968). On a field with silt loam soil that received annual precipitation of 550 mm, more than 538 B. tectorum plants m−2 reduced winter wheat yields by 92% (Rydrych and Muzik Reference Rydrych and Muzik1968). Bromus tectorum is a winter annual that typically germinates in the fall shortly after the first onset of rains (Morrow and Stahlman Reference Morrow and Stahlman1984). If fall moisture is limiting, B. tectorum can germinate in the spring (Hulbert Reference Hulbert1955; Stewart and Hull Reference Stewart and Hull1949). Freshly produced seeds become dormant after dispersal in early summer and lose dormancy through afterripening (Allen and Meyer Reference Allen and Meyer2002). Nondormant seeds can germinate at temperatures ranging from 5 to 30 C (Evans and Young Reference Evans and Young1984). Seedling emergence is greater at 2- (100%) than at 4- (93%) or 6-cm depths (14%) (Hulbert Reference Hulbert1955). Most B. tectorum seeds germinate (96% to 99%) in the first year after entering the soil seedbank (Burnside et al. Reference Burnside, Wilson, Weisberg and Hubbard1996), with few persisting longer than 2 yr (Haferkamp et al. Reference Haferkamp, Heitschmidt, Elaine, MacNeil and Karl2001; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Meyer and Anderson2008). In a winter wheat–summer fallow rotation, B. tectorum seed viability was less than 2% by the third year (Rydrych Reference Rydrych1974).

Biology and Genetics

Bromus tectorum reproduces solely by seeds (Hulbert Reference Hulbert1955). It produces loose and drooping panicles between 4- to 18-cm long with a purplish cast when mature (Bryson and DeFelice Reference Bryson and DeFelice2010). Spikelets are 1.9- to 2.3-cm long including awns and contain 4 to 8 flowers. Glumes are pubescent or glabrous; the first glume ranges from 4- to 9-mm long (1-veined) and the second glume ranges from 7- to 13-mm long (3- to 5-veined). The lemma is 9- to 12-mm long, pubescent, with an awn of 10- to 18-mm long. The palea (1.2 to 2.1 mm) is shorter than the lemma and ciliates on nerves.

Bromus tectorum is a diploid species (2n = 2x = 14; 3.23-Gb genome size) in the Genea section (Table 2), with a nuclear DNA content of 3.30 pg (Bennett and Smith Reference Bennett and Smith1976). Bromus tectorum is predominantly self-pollinated, but outcrossing can occur (Ashley and Longland Reference Ashley and Longland2007; Meyer et al. Reference Meyer, Ghimire, Decker, Merrill and Coleman2013; Novak and Mack Reference Novak and Mack2016). The estimated outcrossing rate for four wild B. tectorum populations from the western United States ranged from 0.27% to 1.33% (Meyer et al. Reference Meyer, Ghimire, Decker, Merrill and Coleman2013). Significant levels of genotypic and phenotypic variations have been detected in B. tectorum populations, which are major drivers of B. tectorum successful invasion across different environments (Ashley and Longland Reference Ashley and Longland2007). Based on chloroplast data, B. tectorum (paternal parent), and B. fasciculatus (maternal parent) were the progenitors of B. rubens (Fortune et al. Reference Fortune, Pourtau, Viron and Ainouche2008). Therefore, interspecific hybridization between B. tectorum and other Bromus spp. is possible (Table 3).

Resistance in Bromus tectorum

Bromus tectorum populations have evolved resistance to ACCase-, ALS-, and PSII-inhibiting herbicides, and to the EPSPS inhibitor glyphosate (Table 1). The first recorded case of herbicide resistance in B. tectorum was an atrazine-resistant population in a cornfield in France in 1981 (Table 1). In Spain, B. tectorum populations resistant to PSII inhibitors were found in an olive orchard (Menendez et al. Reference Menendez, Gonzalez-Gutierrez and De Prado2007) and wheat fields (Menendez et al. Reference Menendez, Bastida and De Prado2006). The resistant population (ED50 = 7.3 kg ai ha−1) identified in simazine-treated olive groves was 73-fold less sensitive to simazine compared with a susceptible population (ED50 = 0.1 kg ai ha−1) (Menendez et al. Reference Menendez, Gonzalez-Gutierrez and De Prado2007). Hill reaction assays showed the chloroplasts of the resistant population were >300 times less sensitive to simazine than the susceptible population, suggesting a target-site mutation (likely due to a mutation of the chloroplast psbA gene that encodes the D1 protein) as the molecular basis for resistance to simazine in this population (Menendez et al. Reference Menendez, Gonzalez-Gutierrez and De Prado2007). The resistant population reported in a wheat field required 7.4 kg ai ha−1 of chlortoluron to reduce growth by 50%, which was 3.4 times the rate required for the susceptible population (Menendez et al. Reference Menendez, Bastida and De Prado2006). Molecular investigations showed that chlortoluron metabolism in the resistant population decreased by 20% when treated with the P450 inhibitor 1-ABT, suggesting a non–target site based resistance via P450–mediated metabolism.

In the United States Pacific Northwest, resistance in B. tectorum is of increasing concern in grass seed production systems and dryland wheat-based cropping systems, where cross- or multiple-herbicide resistance is extensive (Table 1). In 1997, an ALS-resistant B. tectorum population was identified in Madras, OR, in Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) experimental plots (Mallory-Smith et al. Reference Mallory-Smith, Hendrickson and Mueller-Warrant1999). This population was cross-resistant to three ALS chemical families, including sulfonylurea (primisulfuron-methyl and sulfosulfuron), triazolinones (propoxycarbazone-sodium), and imidazolinone (imazamox) (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004). There was a variation in the levels of resistance (based on GR50 values) for primisulfuron-methyl (RF = 18), sulfosulfuron (RF = 9), propoxycarbazone-sodium (RF = 40), and imazamox (RF = 14). The resistance mechanism in this population was related to enhanced metabolism via P450 enzymes (Park et al. Reference Park, Fandrich and Mallory-Smith2004). When [14C]propoxycarbazone-sodium was applied with 1-aminobenzotriazole (1-ABTP; P450 inhibitor), metabolism decreased by 20% at 12 h after treatment (Park et al. Reference Park, Fandrich and Mallory-Smith2004). ALS gene sequencing did not detect any mutation in this population (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004). Further investigations revealed that this population was multiple resistant to clethodim (RF = 2.3) and fluazifop-P-butyl (RF = 1.9) (ACCase inhibitors); atrazine (RF > 14), terbacil (RF = 4.6), metribuzin (RF > 20), and diuron (RF = 3.1) (PSII inhibitors); and ethofumesate (RF = 4.2) (VLCFA inhibitor) (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2005). DNA sequence analysis of the psbA gene, the target site of PSII inhibitors, revealed a single amino acid substitution from serine (AGT) to glycine (GGT) at amino acid 264 in the D1 protein, indicating that resistance to the PSII inhibitors atrazine and metribuzin was due to a target-site mutation (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2005). The mechanisms of resistance to clethodim, fluazifop-P-butyl, and ethofumesate were not investigated. In 1998, another ALS-resistant B. tectorum population was found in a Kentucky bluegrass field in Oregon (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004). This population was cross-resistant to two ALS chemical families, sulfonylurea (primisulfuron-methyl and sulfosulfuron), and triazolinones (propoxycarbazone-sodium) (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004). The level of resistance calculated by the estimated GR50 values showed that this population was 317-, 263-, and 235-fold more resistant than the susceptible population to primisulfuron-methyl, sulfosulfuron, and propoxycarbazone-sodium, respectively. Resistance in this population was conferred by a single-nucleotide polymorphism (C to T) at amino acid position 197, resulting in a Pro-197-Ser substitution (Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004).

Kumar and Jha (Reference Kumar and Jha2017) identified an ALS-resistant B. tectorum population in an imidazoline-resistant wheat field in Montana, USA, with high-level resistance (RF = 110.1) to imazamox and low to moderate levels of cross-resistance to pyroxsulam (RF = 4.6) and propoxycarbazone (RF = 13.9). A target-site Ser-653-Asn mutation was detected in this population. In Washington, among 50 B. tectorum populations tested for resistance, 2% were multiple resistant to ACCase and ALS inhibitors, 52% were cross-resistant to multiple chemical families of ALS inhibitors, and 20% were resistant to a single chemical family of ALS-inhibiting herbicides (Zuger and Burke Reference Zuger and Burke2020). Additionally, three glyphosate-resistant B. tectorum populations (RF = 88 to 165) were confirmed but did not have resistance to any other herbicide SOA (Zuger and Burke Reference Zuger and Burke2020). Resistance to ALS inhibitors is also prevalent in B. tectorum populations in dryland winter wheat fields in Oregon, with cases of cross-resistance ranging from two to four ALS chemical families (Ribeiro et al. Reference Ribeiro, Brunharo, Mallory-Smith, Walenta and Barroso2023, unpublished data. Bromus tectorum populations cross-resistant to ACCase inhibitors were reported in fine fescue (Festuca L. spp.) fields in Oregon (Ball et al. Reference Ball, Frost and Bennett2007; Ribeiro et al. Reference Ribeiro, Brunharo, Mallory-Smith, Walenta and Barroso2023). In 2005, Ball et al. (Reference Ball, Frost and Bennett2007) identified an ACCase-resistant B. tectorum population in a creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. rubra Gaudin) seed production field in Oregon. The population exhibited high levels of resistance to fluazifop-P-butyl (RF > 16) and sethoxydim (RF > 23) and low levels of resistance to clethodim (RF > 2) and quizalofop-P-ethyl (RF > 3). Fifteen years later, nine more ACCase-resistant B. tectorum populations were found in fine fescue seed production fields in the same area (Ribeiro et al. Reference Ribeiro, Brunharo, Mallory-Smith, Walenta and Barroso2023). The levels of resistance varied among the populations for clethodim (RF = 5.1 to 14.5), sethoxydim (RF = 18.7 to 44.7), fluazifop-P-butyl (RF = 3.1 to 40.3), and quizalofop-P-ethyl (RF = 14.5 to 36). The ACCase sequence analysis indicated that the Ile-2041-Thr and Gly-2096-Ala mutations were the molecular basis of resistance to the ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in these populations. In 2021, a glyphosate-resistant B. tectorum population was documented in a rapeseed/canola field in Alberta, Canada (Geddes and Pittman Reference Geddes and Pittman2022). This population exhibited 8.3- to 9.5-fold resistance to glyphosate compared with two susceptible populations. The mechanism of resistance in this population was not elucidated. This population was the first glyphosate-resistant grass weed species confirmed in Canada.

In the United States, B. tectorum and other species such as B. commutatus, B. japonicus, B. secalinus, B. sterilis, and B. diandrus can occur in several agricultural systems, including wheat, alfalfa, and grass seed production fields (Finnerty and Klingman Reference Finnerty and Klingman1962; Koscelny et al. Reference Koscelny, Peeper, Solie and Solomon1990, Reference Koscelny, Peeper, Solie and Solomon1991). The presence of multiple Bromus spp. in the same field, particularly species with sexual compatibility, plays a key role in hybrid speciation as well as the spread of resistance alleles. Research on the risk of gene flow between herbicide-resistant and herbicide-susceptible populations is scarce. Therefore, further investigations into the risk of transferring herbicide-resistance alleles from B. tectorum to susceptible plants are needed, as outcrossing can occur.

Summary and Research Needs

Herbicide resistance in Bromus spp. is a global issue. Cases of resistance have been confirmed in B. japonicus, B. sterilis, B. tectorum, B. commutatus, B. madritensis, B. rubens, B. secalinus, B. catharticus, B. rigidus, and B. diandrus. Bromus spp. populations have evolved resistance to six known herbicide SOAs, ACCase (Group 1), ALS (Group 2), PSII (Groups 5 and 7), VLCFA (Group 15), EPSPS (Group 9), and HPPD (Group 27). Several mechanisms of resistance have been reported in Bromus spp., including TSR, NTSR, and combinations of both. The mechanisms of resistance in many Bromus spp. populations still need to be investigated. Knowledge about the mechanism of resistance and its genetic basis is important for designing suitable management strategies to address resistance management. High-throughput, rapid genetic assays have been developed for herbicide-resistance detection (Kersten et al. Reference Kersten, Rabanal, Herrmann, Hess, Kronenberg, Schmid and Weigel2023), and their deployment will help improve the development of weed management plans to ensure the proper chemistry is chosen. Knowledge of resistance mechanisms is particularly important for populations exhibiting NTSR, because this type of resistance mechanism can be unpredictable. Most studies tested Bromus spp. populations against a short list of herbicides. Therefore, it is possible that some of the populations are also resistant to other chemistries.

Bromus spp. are predominantly self-pollinated with low outcrossing rates (≤1.8%) occurring in some species. The outcrossing rate in some Bromus spp. has not been reported, although the literature indicates that sexual compatibility among species exists. Information on the hybridization of Bromus spp. is very limited and needs further investigation. Furthermore, environmental conditions can impact the outcrossing rates of other weed species, with increased temperatures enhancing the outcrossing rate (Matzrafi et al. Reference Matzrafi, Preston and Brunharo2020), and more information is needed for Bromus spp. in a climate change scenario. The transfer of herbicide-resistance alleles via pollen-mediated gene flow cannot be ruled out, as outcrossing can occur at low rates in some Bromus spp. Most research on hybridization between Bromus spp. has been done within a controlled environment (e.g., greenhouse). However, hybridization needs to be studied under field conditions. Chances of hybridization may be much greater under field conditions, because the number of plants present is greater. In addition, more studies are necessary to further elucidate hybrid seed viability, as well as potential for heterosis, and competitive ability. Although most hybrids produced between Bromus spp. have been reported to be sterile, research on interspecific hybridization involving other self-pollinating species such as jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica Host) and wheat showed restoration of self-fertility in the second backcross between these species (Zemetra et al. Reference Zemetra, Hansen and Mallory-Smith1998). Thus, this assumption of sterility of hybrids between Bromus spp. can be incorrect and needs further investigation. Because Bromus spp. are typically highly self-pollinating, the geographic spread of herbicide resistance occurs primarily by natural (water and wind) and anthropogenic seed dispersal. Therefore, research on tactics to reduce seed-mediated gene flow in Bromus spp., including practices such as harvest weed seed destruction, would be beneficial.

Although herbicide resistance has been reported for most Bromus spp., the underlying genetic, molecular, and physiological mechanisms of many species remain unknown. Because of the parallel evolution of herbicide resistance in diverse continents, cropping systems, and ecotypes, the Bromus genus provides an invaluable opportunity to understand convergent evolution under herbicide selection pressure.

The ploidy levels in Bromus spp. range from diploid (2n = 2x = 14) to duodecaploid (2n = 12x = 84). Self-pollination and polyploidization are important traits responsible for the colonization and invasion success of plant species in a wide range of habitats (Orsucci et al. Reference Orsucci, Milesi, Hansen, Girodolle, Glémin and Lascoux2020). Self-pollination provides reproductive insurance, allowing a single plant to initiate an invasion (Kreiner et al. Reference Kreiner, Stinchcombe and Wright2018), while polyploidization confers partial sheltering from the negative effect of inbreeding, particularly by masking deleterious alleles (Beest et al. Reference Beest, Roux, Richardson, Brysting, Suda, Kubešová and Pyšek2012). However, the scientific literature is limited regarding the influence of ploidy on herbicide-resistance mechanisms. Therefore, more in-depth research is needed to comprehend the complexities of herbicide resistance and evolution in Bromus spp.

Acknowledgments

This research was possible thanks to funds received by the Oregon Wheat Commission and the Crop and Soil Science Department of the College of Agriculture Sciences of Oregon State University. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Vencill, University of Georgia

References

Abbott, L, Filippini, S, Delfino, H, Pistorale, S (2012) Stability analysis of forage production in Bromus catharticus (prairie grass) using three methodologies. Int J Agric Nat Resour 39:331338 Google Scholar
Acedo, C, Llamas, F (1999) The genus Bromus L. (Poaceae) in the Iberian Peninsula. Phanerogamarum Monographiae. Volume 22. Berlin: J Cramer. 293 pGoogle Scholar
Acedo, C, Llamas, F (2001) Variation of morphological characters of lemma and palea in the genus Bromus (Poaceae). Ann Bot Fennici 38:114 Google Scholar
Adamczewski, K, Kaczmarek, S, Kierzek, R, Urban, M (2015) Germination biology and weed thresholds of rye brome (Bromus secalinus L.) in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pak J Agric Sci 52:989995 Google Scholar
Ahumada, O, Troiani, H (2016) “ Bromus catharticus Vahl” in malezas e invasoras de la Argentina, descripción y reconocimiento. Bahía Blanca: EdiUNS. 444 pGoogle Scholar
Ainouche, ML, Bayer, RJ (1997) On the origins of the tetraploid Bromus species (section Bromus, Poaceae): insights from internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Genome 40:730743 10.1139/g97-796CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainouche, ML, Bayer, RJ, Gourret, JP, Defontaine, A, Misset, MT (1999) The allotetraploid invasive weed Bromus hordeaceus L. (Poaceae): genetic diversity, origin and molecular evolution. Folia Geobot 34:405419 10.1007/BF02914919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P, Meyer, S (2002) Ecology and ecological genetics of seed dormancy in downy brome. Weed Sci 50:241247 10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0241:EAEGOS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, KC (1991) Chromosome evolution of Bromus . Pages 366377 in Armstrong, KC, Tsuchiya, T, Gupta, P, eds. Chromosome Engineering in Plants: Genetics, Breeding, Evolution. Part B. Amsterdam: Elsevier Google Scholar
Armstrong, TT, Fitzjohn, RG, Newstrom, LE, Wilton, AD, Lee, WG (2005) Transgene escape: what potential for crop-wild hybridization? Mol Ecol 14:2111–3210.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02572.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashley, MC, Longland, WS (2007) Microsatellite evidence of facultative outcrossing in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): implications for the evolution of invasiveness. Plant Species Biol 22:197204 10.1111/j.1442-1984.2007.00192.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auld, BA, Medd, RW (1987) Weeds. An Illustrated Botanical Guide to the Weeds of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. 255 pGoogle Scholar
Aulicino, MB, Arturi, MJ (2002) Phenotypic diversity in Argentinian populations of Bromus catharticus (Poaceae). Genetic and environmental components of quantitative traits. NZ J Bot 40:223234 10.1080/0028825X.2002.9512785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, DA, Frost, SM, Bennett, LH (2007) ACCase inhibitor herbicide resistance in downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in Oregon. Weed Sci 55:9194 10.1614/WS-06-120.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, E, Novak, SJ, Mack, RN (2002) Genetic variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae): differentiation in the eastern United States. Am J Bot 89:602612 10.3732/ajb.89.4.602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baskin, JM, Baskin, CC (1981) Ecology of germination and flowering in the weedy winter annual grass Bromus japonicus . J Range Manag 34:369372 10.2307/3897906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer Crop Science UK (2022) Grass-Weeds: Meadow Brome. https://cropscience.bayer.co.uk/threats/grass-weeds/meadow-brome. Accessed: April 25, 2022Google Scholar
Beatley, JC (1966) Ecological status of introduced brome grasses (Bromus spp.) in desert vegetation of southern Nevada. Ecol 47:548554 10.2307/1933931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beest, TM, Roux, JJL, Richardson, DM, Brysting, AK, Suda, J, Kubešová, M, Pyšek, P (2012) The more the better? The role of polyploidy in facilitating plant invasions. Ann Bot 109:1945 10.1093/aob/mcr277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, MD, Smith, JB (1976) Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 274:227274 Google ScholarPubMed
Boutsalis, P, Preston, C (2006) Resistance to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase)-inhibiting herbicides in Bromus spp. in Australia. Pages 538540 in Proceedings of Fifteenth Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, SA: Australian Weeds ConferenceGoogle Scholar
Boutsalis, P, Preston, C, Gill, G (2012) Herbicide cross resistance in Bromus diandrus and B. rigidus populations across southeastern Australia. Pages 224228 in Proceedings of Eighteenth Australasian Weeds Conference. Melbourne, VIC: Australasian Weeds ConferenceGoogle Scholar
Bryson, CT, DeFelice, MS, eds (2010) Weeds of the Midwestern United States and Central Canada. University of Georgia Press: Athens. 427 pGoogle Scholar
Burgess, RL (1965) A checklist of the vascular flora of Tonto National Monument. J Arizona Acad Sci 3:213223 10.2307/40022861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, TL, Bowers, JE, Turner, RM (1991) Exotic plants at the desert laboratory, Tucson, Arizona. Madroño 38:96114 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC, Wilson, RG, Weisberg, S, Hubbard, KG (1996) Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci 44:7486 10.1017/S0043174500093589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busi, R, Neve, P, Powles, S (2013) Evolved polygenic herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum by low-dose herbicide selection within standing genetic variation. Evol Appl 6:231242 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00282.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Che, JD, Yuan, ZQ, Jin, DH, Wang, YM, Zhang, GW, Hu, XG, Wu, JZ, Tian, ZY (2010) Study report of Bromus japonicus Thunb. Biological characteristics. Beijing Agric 36:4143 Google Scholar
Cheam, AH (1986) Patterns of change in seed dormancy and persistence of Bromus diandrus Roth (great brome) in the field. Aust J Agric Res 37:471–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, AR, Tutin, TG, Warburg, EF, eds (1952) Flora of the British Isles. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1591 pGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J, Moss, S, Orson, J (2000) The future for grass weed management in the UK. Pestic Outlook 11:5963 10.1039/b006322nCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, B (1968) Range Plants. Davis: University of California, Davis. 154 pGoogle Scholar
Cussans, GW, Cooper, FB, Davies, DHK, Thomas, M (1994) A survey of the incidence of the Bromus species as weeds of winter cereals in England, Wales, and parts of Scotland. Weed Res 34:361368 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1994.tb02005.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastgheib, F, Rolston, MP, Archie, WJ (2003) Chemical control of brome grasses (Bromus spp.) in cereals. NZ Plant Protec 56:227232 Google Scholar
Davies, L, Hull, R, Moss, S, Neve, P (2019) The first cases of evolving glyphosate resistance in UK poverty brome (Bromus sterilis) Populations. Weed Sci 67:4147 10.1017/wsc.2018.61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, LR, Hull, R (2018) Presence and distribution of brome weeds in UK arable farming. Aspects Appl Biol 141:3746 Google Scholar
Davies, LR, Onkokesung, N, Brazier-Hicks, M, Edward, R, Moss, S (2020) Detection and characterization of resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides in Anisantha and Bromus species in the United Kingdom. Pest Manag Sci 76:24732482 10.1002/ps.5788CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Monte, JP, Dorado, J (2011) Effects of light conditions and after-ripening time on seed dormancy loss of Bromus diandrus Roth. Weed Res 51:581590 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2011.00882.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Délye, C, Jasieniuk, M, Corre, VL (2013) Deciphering the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds. Trends Genet 29:649658 10.1016/j.tig.2013.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doležel, J, Greilhuber, J, Suda, J (2007) Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry. Nat Protoc 2:22332244 10.1038/nprot.2007.310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escorial, C, Loureiro, I, Rodríguez-García, E, Chueca, C (2011) Population variability in the response of ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) to sulfosulfuron and glyphosate herbicides. Weed Sci 59:107112 10.1614/WS-D-10-00033.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R, Young, J (1984) Microsite requirements for downy brome (Bromus tectorum) infestation and control on sagebrush rangelands. Weed Sci 32:1317 10.1017/S0043174500060197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez García, JC, García-Baudín, JM (1997) Presencia de Bromus sp. como adventicia en los trigos y cebadas de Castilla y Leon. Phytoma España 94:1315 Google Scholar
Finnerty, D, Klingman, D (1962) Life cycles and control studies of some weed bromegrasses. Weeds 10:4047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F, Gill, AM (1986) Manipulation of buried seed reserves by timing of soil tillage in Mediterranean-type pastures. Aust J Exp Agric 26:7177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortune, PM, Pourtau, N, Viron, N, Ainouche, ML (2008) Molecular phylogeny and reticulate origins of the polyploid Bromus species from section Genea (Poaceae). Am J Bot 95:454464 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaines, TA, Duke, SO, Morran, S, Rigon, CAG, Tranel, PJ, Küpper, A, Dayan, FE (2020) Mechanisms of evolved herbicide resistance. J Biol Chem 295:1030710330 10.1074/jbc.REV120.013572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geddes, CM, Pittman, MM (2022) First report of glyphosate-resistant downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) in Canada. Sci Rep 12:18893 10.1038/s41598-022-21942-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gehring, K, Thyssen, S, Festner, T (2006) Control of brome grasses (Bromus L. spp.) in winter cereals. J Plant Dis Prot 20:659665 Google Scholar
Ghersa, CM, Roush, ML (1993) Searching for solutions to weed problems. BioScience 43:104109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, GS, Blacklow, WM (1985) Variations in seed dormancy and rates of development of great brome, Bromus diandrus Roth., as adaptations to the climates of Southern Australia and implications for weed control. Aust J Agric Res 36:295304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, GS, Carstairs, SA (1988) Morphological, cytological and ecological discrimination of Bromus rigidus and Bromus diandrus . Weed Res 28:399405 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1988.tb00820.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, GS, Poole, ML, Holmes, JE (1987) Competition between wheat and brome grass in Western Australia. Aust J Exp Agric 27:291294 10.1071/EA9870291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleichsner, J, Appleby, A (1989) Effect of depth and duration of seed burial on ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus). Weed Sci 37:6872 10.1017/S0043174500055879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM, Barker, JH, Marshall, EJ, Froud-Williams, RJ, Peters, NC, Arnold, GM, Dawson, K, Karp, A (2001) Microsatellite analysis of the inbreeding grass weed barren brome (Anisantha sterilis) reveals genetic diversity at the within- and between-farm scales. Mol Ecol 10:10351045 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez, HF, Pensiero, JF (1998) Sinópsis de las especies Argentinas del género Bromus (Poaceae). Darviniana 35:75114 Google Scholar
Haferkamp, MR, Heitschmidt, RK, Elaine, EG, MacNeil, MD, Karl, MG (2001) Suppression of annual bromes impacts rangeland: vegetation responses. J Range Manag 54:656662 10.2307/4003667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, BM (1955) Genetic analysis of interspecific hybrids in the genus Bromus, section Ceratochloa . Genetics 40:175192 10.1093/genetics/40.2.175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harradine, AR (1986) Seed longevity and seedling establishment of Bromus diandrus Roth. Weed Res 26:173180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2022) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. http://weedscience.org/Summary/Species.aspx. Accessed: March 18, 2022Google Scholar
Heap, IM (1997) The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 51:235243 3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heenan, DP, Taylor, AC, Leys, AR (1990) The influence of tillage, stubble management and crop rotation on the persistence of great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth). Aust J Exp Agric 30:227230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, CL, Cronquist, A, Janish, JR, Rumely, JH, Shin, C, Porcino, N (2018) Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. 2nd ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 936 pGoogle Scholar
Holt, J (1992) History of identification of herbicide-resistant weeds. Weed Technol 6:615620 10.1017/S0890037X00035910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, KJ, Nettles, R, Clair, SBS (2015) Germination response to temperature and moisture to predict distributions of the invasive grass red brome and wildfire. Biol Invasions 17:18491857 10.1007/s10530-015-0841-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulbert, LC (1955) Ecological studies of Bromus tectorum and other annual bromegrasses. Ecol Monogr 25:181213 10.2307/1943550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, AC, Pechanec, J F (1947) Cheatgrass: a challenge to range research. J For 45:555564 Google Scholar
Hunter, R (1991) Bromus invasions on the Nevada Test Site: present status of Bromus rubens and Bromus tectorum with notes on their relationship to disturbance and altitude. Great Basin Nat 51:176182 Google Scholar
Iroulart, G (2020) Evaluación de estrategias de control de Bromus catharticus en el cultivo de cebada. Undergraduate thesis. La Plata, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 35 pGoogle Scholar
Jahn, A (1959) Cytologische untersuchungen an kunstlichen artbastarden in der gattung Bromus L. Z Pflanzenzucht 42:2550 Google Scholar
Jugulam, M, Shyam, C (2019) Non-target-site resistance to herbicides: recent developments. Plants 8:417 10.3390/plants8100417CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurand, BS, Abella, SR, Suazo, AA (2013) Soil seed bank longevity of the exotic annual grass Bromus rubens in the Mojave Desert, USA. J Arid Environ 94:6875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersten, S, Rabanal, FA, Herrmann, J, Hess, M, Kronenberg, ZN, Schmid, K, Weigel, D (2023) Deep haplotype analysis of target-site resistance locus ACCase in blackgrass enabled by pool-based amplicon sequencing. Plant Biotechnol J 21:12401253 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleemann, S, Gill, G (2013) Seed dormancy and seedling emergence in ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) populations in Southern Australia. Weed Sci 61:222229 10.1614/WS-D-12-00083.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleemann, SGL, Gill, GS (2006) Differences in the distribution and seed germination behaviour of populations of Bromus rigidus and Bromus diandrus in South Australia: adaptations to habitat and implications for weed management. Aust J Agric Res 57:213219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleemann, SGL, Gill, GS (2009) Population ecology and management of rigid brome (Bromus rigidus) in Australian cropping systems. Weed Sci 57:202207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klos, J, Sliwinska, E, Kula, A, Golczyk, H, Grabowska-Joachimiak, A, Ilnicki, T, Szostek, K, Stewart, A, Joachimiak, AJ (2009) Karyotype and nuclear DNA content of hexa-, octo, and duodecaploid lines of Bromus subgen. Ceratochloa . Genet Mol Biol 32:528537 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowles, PF (1944) Interspecific hybridization of Bromus . Genetics 29:128140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kon, KF, Blacklow, WM (1988) Identification, distribution and population variability of great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth.) and rigid brome (Bromus rigidus Roth.). Aust J Agric Res 39:10391050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kon, KF, Blacklow, WM (1989) The biology of Australian weeds 19. Bromus diandrus Roth and B. rigidus Roth. Plant Prot Q 4:5160 Google Scholar
Kon, KF, Blacklow, WM (1990) Polymorphism, outcrossing and polyploidy in Bromus diandrus and B. rigidus . Aust J Bot 38:609–1810.1071/BT9900609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kon, KF, Blacklow, WM (1995) Bromus diandrus Roth and Bromus rigidus Roth. Pages 1327 in Groves, R, Shepherd, R, Richardson, R, eds. The Biology of Australian Weeds. Melbourne: RG and FJ Richardson Publishers Google Scholar
Koscelny, J, Peeper, T, Solie, J, Solomon, S (1990) Effect of wheat (Triticum aestivum) row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar on yield loss from cheat (Bromus secalinus). Weed Technol 4:487492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koscelny, J. Peeper, T, Solie, J, Solomon, S (1991) Seeding date, seeding rate, and row spacing affect wheat (Triticum aestivum) and cheat (Bromus secalinus). Weed Technol 5:707–71210.1017/S0890037X0003373XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiner, JM, Stinchcombe, JR, Wright, SI (2018) Population genomics of herbicide resistance: adaptation via evolutionary rescue. Annu Rev Plant Biol 69:611635 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, V, Jha, P (2017) First report of Ser653Asn mutation endowing high-level resistance to imazamox in downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.). Pest Manag Sci 73:25852591 10.1002/ps.4673CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lan, Y, Zhou, X, Lin, S, Cao, Y, Wei, S, Huang, H, Li, W, Huang, Z (2022) Pro-197-Ser mutation and cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism conferring Resistance to flucarbazone-sodium in Bromus japonicus . Plants 11:1641 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leofanti, GA, Camadro, EL (2017) Pollen viability and meiotic abnormalities in brome grasses (Bromus L., Section Ceratochloa) from Argentina. Turk J Bot 41:127133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q, Du, L, Yuan, G, Guo, W, Li, W, Wang, J (2016) Density effect and economic threshold of Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus Houtt.) in wheat. Chilean J Agric Res 76:441447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q, Tan, J, Li, W, Yuan, G, Du, L, Ma, S, Wang, J (2015) Effects of environmental factors on seed germination and emergence of Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus). Weed Sci 63:641646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, YH, ed (1998) Weeds of China. 1st ed. Volume 2, Weeds of Seed Plants. Beijing: China Agriculture Press. Pp 11801181 Google Scholar
Ma, R, Kaundun, SS, Tranel, PJ, Riggins, CW, McGinness, DL, Hager, AG, Hawkes, T, McIndie, E, Riechers, DE (2013) Distinct detoxification mechanisms confer resistance to mesotrione and atrazine in a population of waterhemp. Plant Physiol 163:363377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro Ecosyst 7:145165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, JM, Morran, S, Shirley, N, Boutsalis, P, Preston, C (2016) EPSPS gene amplification in glyphosate-resistant Bromus diandrus . Pest Manag Sci 72:81–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallory-Smith, C, Hendrickson, P, Mueller-Warrant, G (1999) Cross-resistance of primisulfuron-resistant Bromus tectorum L. (downy brome) to sulfosulfuron. Weed Sci 47:256257 10.1017/S0043174500091736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matzrafi, M, Preston, C, Brunharo, C (2020) Review: evolutionary drivers of agricultural adaptation in Lolium spp. Pest Manag Sci 77:22092218 10.1002/ps.6219CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menendez, J, Bastida, F, De Prado, R (2006) Resistance to chlortoluron in a downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotype. Weed Sci 54:237245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menendez, J, Gonzalez-Gutierrez, J, De Prado, R (2007) Characterisation of a triazine-resistant biotype of Bromus tectorum found in Spain. Weed Res 47:113121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, SE, Ghimire, S, Decker, S, Merrill, KR, Coleman, CE (2013) The ghost of outcrossing past in downy brome, an inbreeding annual grass. J Hered 104:476490 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyers, SC, Jaster, T, Mitchell, KE, Hardison, LK, eds (2015) Flora of Oregon. Volume 1, Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, and Monocots. Fort Worth, TX: The Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 608 pGoogle Scholar
Mitich, L (1999) Downy brome, Bromus tectorum L. Weed Technol 13:665668 10.1017/S0890037X0004639XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morant, A, Pahlen, A von der, Cladera, J, Serrano, H (1994) Determinación del porcentaje de fecundación cruzada en cebadilla criolla (Bromus catharticus Vahl.) Pergamino, Argentina: EEA-INTA. 23 pGoogle Scholar
Morrow, LA, Stahlman, PW (1984) The history and distribution of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in North America. Weed Sci 32:26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S, Rubin, B (1993) Herbicide-resistant weeds: a worldwide perspective. J Agric Sci 120:141148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muhlenberg, H (1793) Index florae Lancastriensis. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia 3:1 Google Scholar
Muzafar, I, Khuroo, A, Mehraj, G, Hamid, M, Rashid, I (2016) Bromus catharticus Vahl (Poaceae): a new plant record for Kashmir Himalaya, India. Check List 12:15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naranjo, CA (1992) Estudios biosistematicos en especies de Bromus (sección Ceratochloa, Poaceae). I. Sistemas reproductivos y barreras de aislamiento. Darwin 31:173183 Google Scholar
Novak, SJ, Mack, R (2016) Mating system, introduction and genetic diversity of Bromus tectorum in North America, the most notorious product of evolution within Bromus section Genea. Pages 99–132 in Germino MJ, Chambers JC, Brown CS, eds. Exotic Bromegrasses in Arid and Semiarid Ecosystems of the Western US. Cham, Switzerland: Springer InternationalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, SJ, Mack, RN (1993) Genetic variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae): comparison between native and introduced populations. Heredity 71:167176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oja, T (2002a) Bromus fasciculatus Presl—a third diploid progenitor of Bromus section Genea allopolyploids (Poaceae). Hereditas 137:113118 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oja, T (2002b) Genetic divergence and interspecific differentiation in the Bromus madritensis complex (Poaceae) based on isozyme data. Biochem Syst Ecol 30:433449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oja, T, Jaaska, V (1996) Isoenzyme data on the genetic divergence and allopolyploidy in the section Genea of the grass genus Bromus (Poaceae). Hereditas 125:249255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oja, T, Jaaska, V, Vislap, V (2003) Breeding system, evolution and taxonomy of Bromus arvensis, B. japonicus and B. squarrosus (Poaceae). Plant Syst Evol 242:101117 10.1007/s00606-003-0024-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oja, T, Paal, J (2007) Multivariate analysis of morphological variation among closely related species Bromus japonicus, B. squarrosus and B. arvensis (Poaceae) in comparison with isozyme evidences. Nord J Bot 24:691702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orsucci, M, Milesi, P, Hansen, J, Girodolle, J, Glémin, S, Lascoux, M (2020) Shift in ecological strategy helps marginal populations of shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) to overcome a high genetic load. Proc Biol Sci 287:20200463 Google ScholarPubMed
Owen, MJ, Goggin, DE, Powles, SB (2012) Non-target-site-based resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides in six Bromus rigidus populations from Western Australian cropping fields. Pest Manag Sci 68:10771082 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, MJ, Martinez, N., Powles, SB (2015) Herbicide resistance in Bromus and Hordeum spp. in the Western Australian grain belt. Crop Pasture Sci 66:466473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pake, CE, Venable, DL (1995) Is coexistence of Sonoran Desert annuals mediated by temporal variability in reproductive success? Ecology 76:246261 10.2307/1940646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, KW, Fandrich, L, Mallory-Smith, CA (2004) Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of propoxycarbazone-sodium in ALS-inhibitor resistant Bromus tectorum biotypes. Pestic Biochem Physiol 79:1824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, KW, Mallory-Smith, CA (2004) Physiological and molecular basis for ALS inhibitor resistance in Bromus tectorum biotypes. Weed Res 44:7177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, KW, Mallory-Smith, CA (2005) Multiple herbicide resistance in downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and its impact on fitness. Weed Sci 53:780786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D (1995) Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlick, LE, ed (1995) Bromus L. of North America. Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum. 160 pGoogle Scholar
Perez López, F (1975) Estudio de la variabilidad de Bromus unioloides de diferentes habitats. MS thesis. Buenos Aires, Argentina: INTA CastelarGoogle Scholar
Peters, NC, Atkins, HA, Brain, P (2000) Evidence of differences in seed dormancy among populations of Bromus sterilis . Weed Res 40:467478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, C, Bay, G, Pernin, F, Délye, C (2010) Prevalence of cross- or multiple resistance to the acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors fenoxaprop, clodinafop and pinoxaden in black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.) in France. Pest Manag Sci, 66:168177 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pike, D, Stritzke, J (1984) Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)-cheat (Bromus secalinus) competition. Weed Sci 32:751756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleasant, J, Burt, R, Frisch, J (1994) Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 8:217223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggio, SL, Satorre, EH, de la Fuente, EB (2004) Structure of weed communities occurring in pea and wheat crops in the rolling Pampa (Argentina). Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:225235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, F (1982) Light induced dormancy in Bromus sterilis . J Appl Ecol 19:563568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S, Howat, P (1990) Herbicide-resistant weeds in Australia. Weed Technol 4:178185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, C (2003) Inheritance and linkage of metabolism-based herbicide cross-resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaud.). Weed Sci 51:412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustahija, F, Brown, SC, Bogunic, F, Bašic, N, Muratovic, E, Ollier, S, Hidalgo, O, Bourge, M, Stevanovic, V, Sijak-Yakovev, S (2013) Small genomes dominate in plants growing on serpentine soils in West Balkans, an exhaustive study of 8 habitats covering 308 taxa. Plant Soil 373:427453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pytlarz, E, Gala-Czekaj, D (2022) Possibilities of using seed meals in control of herbicide-susceptible and -resistant biotypes of rye brome (Bromus secalinus L.) in winter wheat. Plants 11:331 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragonese, AE, Marcó, PR (1941) Observaciones sobre la biología floral de la cebadilla criolla. Revista Argent Agron 8:197199 Google Scholar
Ragonese, AE, Marcó, PR (1943) Influencia del fotoperíodo sobre la formación de flores cleistógamas y chasmógamas en cebadilla criolla. Revista Argent Agron 10:178185 Google Scholar
Ribeiro, VHV, Brunharo, CACG, Mallory-Smith, C, Walenta, DL, Barroso, J (2023) First report of target-site resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in Bromus tectorum L. Pest Manag Sci. DOI: 10.1002/ps.7607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roché, CT, Brainerd, RE, Wilson, BL, Otting, N, Korfhage, RC, eds (2019) Field Guide to the Grasses of Oregon and Washington. 1st ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 488 pGoogle Scholar
Rosso, B, Pagano, E, Rimieri, P, Ríos, R (2009) Characteristics of Bromus cartharticus Vahl (Poaceae) natural populations collected in the central area of Argentina. Sci Agric 66:276279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydrych, D (1974) Competition between winter wheat and downy brome. Weed Sci 22:211214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydrych, DJ, Muzik, TK (1968) Downy brome competition and control in dryland wheat. Agron J 60:279280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, F (1994) Evolutionary tendencies in some annual species of Bromus (Bromus L. sect. Genea Dum. (Poaceae)). Bot J Linn Soc 115:197210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salo, LF (2004) Population dynamics of red brome (Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens): times for concern, opportunities for management. J Arid Environ 57:291296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salo, LF (2005) Red brome (Bromus rubens subsp. madritensis) in North America: possible modes for early introductions, subsequent spread. Biol Invasions 7:165180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarabel, L, Pernin, F, Délye, C (2015) Occurrence, genetic control and evolution of non-target-site based resistance to herbicides inhibiting acetolactate synthase (ALS) in the dicot weed Papaver rhoeas . Plant Sci 238:158169 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, MK, Hamouzová, K, Mikulka, J, Bharati, R, Košnarová, P, Hamouz, P, Roy, A, Soukup, J (2021) Enhanced metabolism and target gene overexpression confer resistance against acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides in Bromus sterilis . Pest Manag Sci 77:21222128 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, DC, Meyer, SE, Anderson, V (2008) Factors affecting Bromus tectorum seed bank carryover in Western Utah. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:430436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P (1970) Taxonomy and nomenclature of the brome-grasses (Bromus L. s. 1.). Notes Roy Bot Gard Edinburgh 30:361375 Google Scholar
Smith, PM (1972) Serology and species relationships in annual Bromes (Bromus L. sect. Bromus). Ann Bot 36:130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, PM (1973) Observations on some critical bromegrasses. Watsonia 9:319332 Google Scholar
Stebbins, GL (1956) Cytogenetics and evolution of the grass family. Am J Bot 43:890905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbins, GL (1981) Chromosomes and evolution in the genus Bromus (Gramineae). Bot Jahrb Syst 102:359379 Google Scholar
Stebbins, GL, Tobgy, HA (1944) The cytogenetics of hybrids in Bromus. 1. Hybrids within the section Ceratochloa . Am J Bot 31:111 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1944.tb07995.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, G, Hull, AC (1949) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.): an ecologic intruder in southern Idaho. Ecology 30:5874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, A, Peeper, T, Solie, J (2001) Cheat (Bromus secalinus) control with herbicides applied to mature seeds. Weed Technol 15:382386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, M, Dong, Z, Yang, J, Wu, W, Zhang, C, Zhang, J, Zhao, J, Xiong, Y, Jia, S, Ma, X (2021) Transcriptomic resources for prairie grass (Bromus catharticus): expressed transcripts, tissue-specific genes, and identification and validation of EST-SSR markers. BMC Plant Biol 21:264 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanton, C, Weise, S (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausch, RJ, Svejcar, T, Burkhardt, JW (1994) Patterns of Annual Grass Dominance on Anaho Island: Implications for Great Basin Vegetation. Proceedings of the Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station. 416 pGoogle Scholar
Tzvelev, NN (1976) Poaceae URSS Tribe 4 Bromeae Dum. Leningrad: USSR Academy of Science Press. Pp 530608 Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (2022a) Taxon: Bromus rubens L. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN Taxonomy). U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. Beltsville, MD: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=7864. Accessed: November 8, 2022Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (2022b) Taxon: Bromus secalinus L. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN Taxonomy). U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. Beltsville, MD: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=7867. Accessed: November 16, 2022Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (2023a) Taxon: Bromus sterilis L. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN Taxonomy). U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. Beltsville, MD: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=7875. Accessed: January11, 2023Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (2023b) Taxon: Bromus tectorum L. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN Taxonomy). U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. Beltsville, MD: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=7880. Accessed: February 19, 2023Google Scholar
Vázquez-García, J, Castro, P, Royo-Esnal, A, Palma-Bautista, C, Torra, J, De Prado, R (2023) First report of a wide distribution of glyphosate-resistant compact brome (Bromus madritensis) in the Iberian Peninsula: confirmation and field management. Weed Sci 71:95103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez-García, JG, Castro, P, Cruz-Hipólito, HE, Millan, T, Palma-Bautista, C, De Prado, R (2021) Glyphosate resistance confirmation and field management of red brome (Bromus rubens L.) in perennial crops grown in Southern Spain. Agronomy 11:535 10.3390/agronomy11030535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigna, M, Papa, JC, Ponsa, JC, Bedmar, F, Guevara, G, Rainero, HP, Olea, I, Gigón, R, Istilart, C, López, R, Arguissain, G, Picapietra, G (2014) El control químico de malezas en cultivos intensivos. Pages 505620 in Fernández, OA, Leguizamón, ES, Acciaresi, HA, eds. Malezas e Invasoras de la Argentina, Ecología y Manejo. Bahía Blanca, Argentina: EdiUNS Google Scholar
Wang, MF (1986) Occurrence, spread and control of Japanese brome in the wheat. Weed Sci 2:35 Google Scholar
Warembourg, FR, Estelrich, HD (2001) Plant phenology and soil fertility effects on below-ground carbon allocation for an annual (Bromus madritensis) and a perennial (Bromus erectus) grass species. Soil Biol Biochem 33:12911303 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00033-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, WM, Stewart, AV, Williamson, ML (2011) Bromus . Pages 1530 in Kole, C, ed. Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources, Millets and Grasses. Berlin: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, KK (1974) Ecogenetic Studies on Population Structure of Bromus rubens L. and B. mollis L. Ph.D dissertation. Davis: University of California, Davis. 147 pGoogle Scholar
Wu, KK, Jain, SK (1979) Population regulation in Bromus rubens and B. mollis: life cycle components and competition. Oecologia 39:337357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanniccari, M, Vázquez-García, JG, Gómez-Lobato, ME, Rojano-Delgado, AM, Alves, PLCA, De Prado, R (2021) First case of glyphosate resistance in Bromus catharticus Vahl.: examination of endowing resistance mechanisms. Front Plant Sci 12:617945 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yuan, JS, Tranel, PJ, Stewart, CN Jr (2007) Non-target-site herbicide resistance: a family business. Trends Plant Sci 12:613 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Žd’árková, V, Hamouzová, K, Holec, J, Janků, J, Soukup, J (2014) Seed ecology of Bromus sterilis L. Julius-Kühn-Arch 443:156164 Google Scholar
Zech-Matterne, V, Derreumaux, M, Pradat, B, Luccioni, P, Ruas, MP, Toulemonde, F (2021) Should Bromus secalinus (rye brome) be considered a crop? Analysis of Bromus rich assemblages from protohistoric and historic sites in northern France and textual references. Veget Hist Archaeobot 30:773787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemetra, RS, Hansen, J, Mallory-Smith, CA (1998) Potential for gene transfer between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci 46:313317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuger, RJ, Burke, IC (2020) Testing in Washington identifies widespread postemergence herbicide resistance in annual grasses. Crops Soils 53:1318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Herbicide-resistant Bromus spp. reported globally and reviewed in this study.

Figure 1

Table 2. Biology and genetics of Bromus spp. globally reviewed in this study.

Figure 2

Table 3. Interspecific hybridization of Bromus spp. reviewed in this study.