Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:32:48.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Echinochloa in mid-southern U.S. and California rice: What is known and what are the knowledge gaps?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2023

Amar S. Godar*
Affiliation:
Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Distinguished Professor and Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
Corresponding author: Amar S. Godar; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several species of Echinochloa P. Beauv., introduced at multiple events, have established themselves as a persistent concern for U.S. rice production. In this review, we highlight the key biological characteristics of economically relevant Echinochloa in U.S. rice production, revisit their historical trajectory, and suggest research directions for their management with special reference to barnyardgrass. Ecologically differentiated Echinochloa species have a distinct association with rice culture methods that have been practiced for the last few decades, barnyardgrass being historically predominant in drill-seeded rice in the mid-South, and early watergrass and late watergrass in water-seeded California rice. However, the emerging evidence challenges the dogma that other Echinochloa species for specific regions are of less importance. Primarily managed by the water-seeding method of rice culture in the early years of the 20th century, Echinochloa species have persisted in the sophisticated U.S. rice culture through the evolution of resistance to herbicides in recent decades. Accumulating knowledge, including those of recent genomic insights, suggests the rapid adaptability of Echinochloa. The last decade has seen a (re)emergence of nonchemical methods as a key component of sustainable management, among which use of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) methods and cover crops in the mid-South and stale-drill seeding in California are being considered as potential methods for managing Echinochloa. In recent years, furrow-irrigated rice has rapidly supplanted a significant proportion of conventionally flooded rice in the mid-South, whereas the propensity for compromised continuous submergence is increasing in California rice. On the cusp of this shift, the question at the forefront is how this will affect Echinochloa interference in rice and how this change will dictate the management efforts. Future research will lead to the development of a clear understanding of the impact of the changing agroecosystems on Echinochloa species and their response to the prospective integrated control interventions.

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

After a decade of commercial rice (Oryza sativa L.) production, JW Jones (Reference Jones1926) wrote the following in USDA Bulletin #1387: “Water grass (Echinochloa crusgalli) is reported to be in several important rice-producing countries of the world, but apparently in none of these countries has this grass become so troublesome as in California.” Introduced from multiple sources and events, several economically relevant species of Echinochloa P. Beauv. have adapted and persisted in the century since U.S. rice culture began, often ranking as the most pressing issue in U.S. rice production (Butts et al. Reference Butts, Kouame, Norsworthy and Barber2022; Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Ateh, Bayer and Hill2000a; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Burgos, Scott and Smith2007a, 2013, 2020). Echinochloa have ecologically co-evolved with rice for millennia in Asian countries (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Fuller, Huan, Perry, Li, Li, Zhang, Ma, Zhuang, Jiang, Ge and Lu2015; Ye et al. Reference Ye, Tang, Wu, Jia, Qiu, Chen, Mao, Lin, Xu, Yu, Lu, Wang, Olsen, Timko and Fan2019), and the species are believed to have invaded U.S. rice primarily as contaminants in rice seed stocks (Barrett Reference Barrett1983; Huelma et al. Reference Huelma, Moody and Mew1996). Echinochloa species, whether one or the other or a composite of them, have been the focal point of weed management interventions ever since the beginning of commercial rice culture in the United States. They are often collectively called “barnyardgrass,” especially in the U.S. mid-South, and “watergrass” or “barnyardgrass” in California. Among the many Echinochloa species, barnyardgrass [E. crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.] is a persistent weed of global rice production (Krahemer et al. Reference Kraehmer, Jabran, Mennan and Chauhan2016; Mitich Reference Mitich1990), often ranking among the world’s most serious agricultural weeds receiving unparalleled attention (Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980; Holm et al. Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022; Yabuno Reference Yabuno1966).

Colloquially referred to as barnyardgrass or watergrass, even by stakeholders in its management, the existence of morphologically intergrading types within Echinochloa (sometimes referred to as Echinochloa complex) is a well-known problem for taxonomists (Danquah et al. Reference Danquah, Johnson, Riches, Arnold and Karp2002; Ruiz-Santaella et al. Reference Ruiz-Santaella, de Prado, Wagner, Fischer and Gerhards2006) and has remained largely esoteric. Echinochloa populations that are continuously associated with specific agricultural systems may have evolved phenological patterns that optimize survival within the most favorable growing areas (Barrett Reference Barrett1983). The differentiation among local ecotypes was probably further encouraged by the self-pollinating reproduction in this genus (Honek and Martinkova Reference Honek and Martinkova1996). Taxonomists have named numerous intraspecific taxa within the barnyardgrass of their respective regions; however, a comprehensive, worldwide, monographic study is still lacking (Barrett and Wilson Reference Barrett and Wilson1981; Hoste and Verloove Reference Hoste and Verloove2022). In the context of North America, multiple introductions from varying sources followed by inbreeding have further complicated the effort to accurately classify them (Barrett and Wilson Reference Barrett and Wilson1981). We agree with Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Wilson1981), Holm et al. (Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977), and Michael (Reference Michael1983) that until taxa in Echinochloa have been correctly identified, interpretation of their biology is greatly hindered. In the last few decades, the rise of molecular studies has greatly improved the identification of these cryptic species of Echinochloa. In this review, we integrate the recent delimitation of taxonomic treatment achieved from genomic analysis of the global collection of Echinochloa species (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022), which closely matches the nomenclature and taxonomic concepts reported by Gould et al. (Reference Gould, Ali and Fairbrothers1972).

The genus Echinochloa (botanical family Poaceae) includes approximately 250 species, of which only a few are agricultural weeds (Bajwa et al. Reference Bajwa, Jabran, Shahid, Ali and Chauhan2015). On a global scale, barnyardgrass is the most prevalent Echinochloa species, followed by junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] and late watergrass [Echinochloa oryzicola (Vasinger) Vasinger] (Krahemer et al. Reference Kraehmer, Jabran, Mennan and Chauhan2016; Yabuno Reference Yabuno1966). These Echinochloa species evolved adaptive and competitive characteristics to evade removal from rice fields during early rice domestication (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017; Ye et al. Reference Ye, Tang, Wu, Jia, Qiu, Chen, Mao, Lin, Xu, Yu, Lu, Wang, Olsen, Timko and Fan2019), whereas in modern agriculture, Echinochloa species have acquired or evolved resistance to multiple herbicides, making them among the most troublesome herbicide-resistant weeds in the world (Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Wilson, Scott and Gbur2014).

Owing to the regional and global economic relevance of Echinochloa, the basic biology, interference in cropping systems, and management techniques have been thoroughly reviewed since the 1960s (Bajwa et al. Reference Bajwa, Jabran, Shahid, Ali and Chauhan2015; Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986; Rahn et al. Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968; Rao Reference Rao2021). Additionally, molecular analyses have provided recent insights into its evolution as a weed (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022). Recently, global cases of herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass were reviewed (Damalas and Koutroubas Reference Damalas and Koutroubas2023). With special reference to barnyardgrass, this article aims to 1) highlight the current state of knowledge on economically relevant Echinochloa species in U.S. rice production in terms of their introduction and persistence/adaptation in U.S. rice agroecosystems, provide a historical overview of their management and emerging herbicide resistance issues; and 2) identify the research needs for their sustainable management in U.S. rice on the cusp of a paradigm shift in weed management approaches. Sustainability in this context entails enhancing the prospect of sustained, long-term positive outcomes through the implementation of measures to mitigate the risk of rapid herbicide resistance evolution, to curtail the abundance of emerged Echinochloa plants and its soil seed banks, and to diminish its interference with rice.

The “Taxonomic Journey” of North American Echinochloa

In 1972, Gould et al. published a strikingly different classification of Echinochloa species of North America (seven classes) than those published by Hitchcock (Reference Hitchcock1920) and Wiegand (Reference Wiegand1921) some 50 yr earlier. In addition to Hitchcock’s and Wiegand’s classification, a few more conflicting taxonomic treatments of the Echinochloa complex and related taxa in North America were described or defined in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The status of native and introduced (adventive) taxa and the intraspecific categories have been the major sources of taxonomic disagreement. Hitchcock and Chase (Reference Hitchcock and Chase1950) and most authors who have published studies of the species have combined native and introduced taxa listed under barnyardgrass, whereas Gould et al. (Reference Gould, Ali and Fairbrothers1972), following the ideas published by Wiegand (Reference Wiegand1921), separate the native populations as rough barnyardgrass [Echinochloa muricata (P. Beauv.) Fernald]. Previously, many authors attempted to clarify the phylogenetic/taxonomic problems in Echinochloa using seed protein electrophoresis and isozyme analyses (Asins et al. Reference Asíns, Carretero, Busto, Carbonell and De Barreda1999; Gonzalez-Andres et al. Reference González-Andrés, Pita and Ortiz1996), and several other molecular tools available at that time (Aoki and Yamaguchi Reference Aoki and Yamaguchi2008; Danquah et al. Reference Danquah, Johnson, Riches, Arnold and Karp2002; Roy et al. Reference Roy, Simon and Lapointe2000; Tabacchi et al. Reference Tabacchi, Mantegazza and Ferrero2006). Recently, Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) have more accurately distinguished Echinochloa species and varieties by integrating morphological characteristics with multiple pieces of genomic evidence, including genome size, reads mapping rate, genome coverage, phylogeny, and population structure, providing remarkable insights into the evolutionary trajectory of Echinochloa species.

Barnyardgrass is native to Eurasia but is distributed worldwide, principally in a latitudinal zone from 50°N to 40°S (Michael Reference Michael2003). It is common as an agrestal and as a ruderal weed in more than 60 countries and three dozen different crops (Holm et al. Reference Holm, Pancho, Herberger and Plucknett1991) and is widespread in North America from southern Canada to Mexico, occurring on disturbed, moist, waste ground and as a serious weed of rice and other irrigated crops. Barnyardgrass is highly variable with respect to growth form (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Finchum and Seaman1977), flowering time, inflorescence architecture, anthocyanin pigmentation, and awn length. Several ecological and physiological biotypes varying in sensitivity to herbicides were reported from the northwestern United States in the 1960s (Roché and Muzik Reference Roché and Muzik1964). In North America, barnyardgrass is uniformly hexaploid, 2n = 6x = 54 (Gould et al. Reference Gould, Ali and Fairbrothers1972). Although the native species of North America, rough barnyardgrass, closely resembles barnyardgrass morphologically, they are genetically distant (Ruiz-Santaella et al. Reference Ruiz-Santaella, de Prado, Wagner, Fischer and Gerhards2006).

Also native to Eurasia, late watergrass (2n = 4x = 36), previously classified as E. crus-galli (L.) Beauv. var. oryzicola (Vasing.) Ohwi, E. oryzicola, E. oryzoides, E. phyllopogon, and E. macrocarpa is an obligate weed of rice fields occurring in rice-growing regions of Asia, Europe, Australia (Michael Reference Michael1983; Yabuno Reference Yabuno1966), and California (Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). The introduction of late watergrass was primarily as a seed contaminant of rice seed stocks, as indicated by its collections right after the commencement of rice culture in California in 1912 through 1915 (Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). Late watergrass established in monoculture Californian rice fields in the 1970s and is rarely found outside of the rice agroecosystem (Barrett and Wilson Reference Barrett and Wilson1981), but this variety is not present in the mid-South rice growing regions (Smith 1970). In California, it is called “late watergrass” because it flowers late in August to September (“late form”) with a close synchrony to rice. This species is an example of a seemingly perfect crop mimic, resembling rice in its morphology and phenology (Vasinger-Alektorova Reference Vasinger-Alektorova1931). Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1966), Gould et al. (Reference Gould, Ali and Fairbrothers1972), Barrett and Seaman (Reference Barrett and Seaman1980), and later followed by Yamasue (Reference Yamasue2001), were not sure of the ploidy status of this variety, and they identified it as a variety of barnyardgrass, although Crampton (Reference Crampton1964) and Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1966) previously differentiated and elevated this taxon to late watergrass.

Strikingly different from barnyardgrass and late watergrass is early watergrass, 2n = 6x = 54 (sometimes previously identified as E. crus-galli var. oryzicola or E. oryzoides). It has defining features such as long awns, and lacks visible anthocyanin pigments. Nevertheless, it was considered a part of the variation encompassed within barnyardgrass prior to the 1980s in California, as implied by Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). This variety is confined to rice fields in California, with its prominent erect plant architecture and drooping inflorescence. There had been some confusion regarding the taxonomic classification of early watergrass and late watergrass. Barrett and Seaman (Reference Barrett and Seaman1980) wrote that two morphologically and phenologically distinct forms of watergrass exist in California (the “early form” and the “late form”), and considered both forms to be under the same variety despite the fact that Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1984) elucidated, from cytological and morphological studies, that early watergrass is closely related to barnyardgrass, leading to the suggestion that early watergrass be relegated to a variety of barnyardgrass, which was apparently not well received by researchers around the world. However, the recent genome-based global delimitation of Echinochloa species by Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) places the “early form” in a separate variety of E. crus-galli (hence, E. crus-galli var. oryzoides), corroborating the classification reported by Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1984), and as opposed to earlier classification as E. oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch by Vickery (Reference Vickery1975), Chirila and Melachrinos (Reference Chirila and Melachrinos1976), and Clayton (Reference Clayton and Tutin1980).

Although Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1966) suggested that barnyardgrass is an allohexaploid produced by natural hybridization between the tetraploid late watergrass with a not-yet-discovered diploid species of Echinochloa and subsequent chromosome doubling, it was not clear until Ye et al. (Reference Ye, Wu, Mao, Jia, Qiu, Lao, Chen, Jiang, Tang, Peng, Pan, Wang, Feng, Guo and Zhang2020) and Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) revealed the evolutionary trajectory of barnyardgrass and other species and varieties of the genus Echinochloa (Figure 1A). Ye et al. (Reference Ye, Wu, Mao, Jia, Qiu, Lao, Chen, Jiang, Tang, Peng, Pan, Wang, Feng, Guo and Zhang2020) found that the diploid genome of E. haploclada (Stapf) Stapf is similar to the unknown diploid progenitor genome of barnyardgrass and used it as a female proxy progenitor. Late watergrass was assumed to be a male donor in the polyploidization of hexaploid barnyardgrass (Akoi and Yamaguchi Reference Aoki and Yamaguchi2008), but recent chloroplast phylogeny analysis indicated that at least two male donors contributed to the origin of barnyardgrass (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022). The whole-plant and a typical seed and inflorescence morphology of barnyardgrass are shown in Figure 1 B and C, respectively.

Figure 1. Economically most relevant Echinochloa in U.S. rice fields. (A) Origin of barnyardgrass (E. crus-galli var. crus-galli) (adapted from Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022; Ye et al. Reference Ye, Wu, Mao, Jia, Qiu, Lao, Chen, Jiang, Tang, Peng, Pan, Wang, Feng, Guo and Zhang2020). (B) Intrapopulation variation in whole plant morphology of a barnyardgrass population from California (adapted from Norris Reference Norris1996). (C) A typical seed and inflorescence morphology of barnyardgrass (adapted from Jepson Flora Project). Adapted with permission.

Seed Size and Ecological Differentiation

The four Echinochloa species that are of major concern in U.S. rice production, in order of ascending seed size, are junglerice, barnyardgrass, late watergrass, and early watergrass (Costea and Tardif Reference Costea and Tardif2002; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022; Figure 2A). Seed sizes vary to some extent, with barnyardgrass being the most diverse. Barnyardgrass in California generally produces bigger seeds, as heavy as 3 mg (Keeley and Thullen Reference Keeley and Thullen1989). Junglerice and barnyardgrass seed germination is relatively water intolerant, as explained below, making these weeds common in the predominantly dry-seeded mid-South rice fields (Jones Reference Jones1952). Conversely, early watergrass and late watergrass seed germination is flood tolerant and found in water-seeded California rice (Kennedy et al. Reference Kennedy, Barrett, Vander Zee and Rumpho1980). Seedling emergence generally decreases with increasing depth, and to a greater extent, under flooding conditions (discussed in the Seed Germination and Seedling Emergence section). A generalized scheme of their ecological differentiation is shown in Figure 2B. The consequence of flooding (submergence) is anoxia in plant tissues, which in turn, reduces the rate of energy production by 65% to 97% compared with the rate in air (Gibbs and Greenway Reference Gibbs and Greenway2003). Like rice, early watergrass and late watergrass can germinate under the reduced oxygen of submerged conditions (Kennedy et al. Reference Kennedy, Barrett, Vander Zee and Rumpho1980; Pearce and Jackson Reference Pearce and Jackson1991; VanderZee and Kennedy Reference Kennedy1981) through an array of metabolic adaptations (Kennedy et al. Reference Kennedy, Rumpho and Fox1992).

Figure 2. Seed size in relation to ecological differentiation in Echinochloa species. (A) Caryopsis size of three Echinochloa species (left, adapted from Costea and Tardif Reference Costea and Tardif2002) and seed size distribution of the global collection of Echinochloa species (right, adapted from Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022). (B) Flood as an ecological determinant for the emergence and establishment of Echinochloa species along with the effect of seed placement in the soil profile.

Echinochloa Interference and Seed Production

Interference with Rice

Echinochloa species have co-existed and co-evolved with rice for millennia (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017), and they have been competitive against both primitive rice and modern, high-yielding rice varieties. Such was probably not the case everywhere; Echinochloa once threatened large-scale commercial rice production in California (Chambliss Reference Chambliss1915; Jones Reference Jones1926). Impacts of barnyardgrass interference have been documented in literature from various parts of the world in several crops (reviewed in Bajwa et al. Reference Bajwa, Jabran, Shahid, Ali and Chauhan2015). In the United States, season-long interference from barnyardgrass can reduce rice yield by up to 70% (Smith 1988). Interference by barnyardgrass at 50 plants m−2 reduced rice yields of a short-statured cultivar and a semidwarf cultivar by 28% and 65%, respectively, from season-long competition, and barnyardgrass densities of 5 to 10 plants m−2 were determined to be economic thresholds for short-statured rice cultivars (Stauber et al. Reference Stauber, Smith and Talbert1991). Among semidwarf cultivars, those with a longer maturity period competed more effectively with barnyardgrass (Smith 1974). In a water-seeded culture in California, barnyardgrass at a density of 86 plants m−2 reduced rice grain yields by 50% (Hill et al. Reference Hill, LeStrange, Bayer and Williams1985). Previously, it was reported that the density of barnyardgrass is more important than the density of rice for the outcome of the competition in terms of rice yield loss and rice panicle number (Smith 1968; Figure 3A). These results were later further supported by Ottis and Talbert (Reference Ottis and Talbert2007) and by Ni et al. (Reference Ni and Robles2004) on relatively advanced rice varieties, indicating no or little scope for using crop density as a management strategy for barnyardgrass. It is noteworthy that barnyardgrass has the potential to cause complete yield loss in rice (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Dingkuhn, Jones and Mahamane1998) and nearly total crop failure in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Keeley and Thullen Reference Keeley and Thullen1991).

Figure 3. Echinochloa against rice. (A) Competitive outcome of barnyardgrass and rice competition in terms of panicle number and grain yield at varying densities (adapted from Smith 1968). (B) Photosynthetic output of Echinochloa species at increasing CO2 concentration in comparison with rice (a. barnyardgrass, b. early watergrass, c. late watergrass, and d. rice; adapted from Bouhache and Bayer Reference Bouhache and Bayer1993). (C) Inhibition of rice seedlings by 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one (DIMBOA) extracted from barnyardgrass seedlings (adapted from Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017).

Late watergrass, a common Echinochloa species in water-seeded California rice, causes up to 50% rice yield losses (Barrett Reference Barrett1983). Interference by one plant of late watergrass with rice in California was 2.3 times greater than intraspecific interference by one rice plant, and the interference was mostly driven by root interactions (Boddy et al. Reference Boddy, Streibig, Yamasue and Fischer2012). In that study, late watergrass plants placed their roots deeper and on average produced seven times more root dry weight than a widely used short-stature modern japonica-type rice cultivar, indicating a remarkable niche differentiation between the two species. When plots were kept free of weeds, including Echinochloa species, for 30 d or longer during a field experiment in California, rice yields were not affected (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2002). That finding leads to the suggestion that management strategies that delay the germination or growth of Echinochloa species relative to rice may give the crop a significant competitive advantage. Early competition from barnyardgrass for up to 20 d did not cause any rice yield loss in Arkansas (Smith 1974). The interactions between weed and crop could be influenced by several variables, two of which would be maturity of the crop and crop stature.

According to a recent genomic analysis, Echinochloa lost a considerable portion of disease-resistance genes during polyploidization, indicating that natural selection may prefer a lower investment in the resistance in this weed to maximize its growth and reproduction (Ye et al. Reference Ye, Wu, Mao, Jia, Qiu, Lao, Chen, Jiang, Tang, Peng, Pan, Wang, Feng, Guo and Zhang2020). The next paragraphs highlight the two distinctive characteristics that Echinochloa species possess that allow them to successfully compete with rice.

C4 Photosynthesis

Echinochloa species possess C4 photosynthetic cellular machinery. Bouhache and Bayer (Reference Bouhache and Bayer1993) studied photosynthetic characteristics of rice (C3) and three species of Echinochloa to determine how these characteristics vary with changes in light (Figure 3B) and temperature. Echinochloa species showed higher photosynthetic activity than rice as indicated by both plants’ response to changes in intercellular partial CO2 pressure, light, and leaf temperature. A C4-specific carbon fixation enzyme in conjunction with spatially separated photosynthesis phases with Kranz anatomy ensures high photosynthetic efficiency in C4 plants (Cui Reference Cui2021; Sage et al. Reference Sage, Sage and Kocacinar2012), providing ostensible competitive advantages such as higher rates of CO2 fixation, decreased photorespiration, and reduced transpiration (Elmore and Paul Reference Elmore and Paul1983). However, the C4 feature does not confer a universal selective advantage (Elmore and Paul Reference Elmore and Paul1983). Rather, a C4 weed should have a competitive advantage over crop species under many field situations, such as under high light intensities and temperatures, and in dry conditions (Elmore and Paul Reference Elmore and Paul1983). Black et al. (Reference Black, Chen and Brown1969) also suggested that C4 photosynthesis may be associated with the more competitive weeds. As is the situation when both weeds and crops are acclimated to the same growth conditions, the C4 weed frequently overwhelms the crop (Holm et al. Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977) due to its higher net photosynthetic rate, which drives biomass production and reduces environmental stressors in C4 plants, whereas these stressors are more readily experienced in C3 species (Elmore and Paul Reference Elmore and Paul1983). Estimates suggest that the photosynthetic efficiency of C3 plants is less than 4.6%, whereas it can reach over 6% in C4 plants (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long and Ort2008). Moreover, C4 plants are known to use water and nitrogen resources more effectively than C3 plants (Cui Reference Cui2021).

Allelopathy

Recent studies have shed insight on how barnyardgrass interacts with rice. In response to rice allelopathy, barnyardgrass is thought to respond by inhibiting the signal transduction of plant hormones (Fang et al. Reference Fang, Li, Li, Li, Ren, Zheng, Zeng, Shen and Lin2015). Recently, three functional copies of the 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one (DIMBOA) synthesis gene cluster have been discovered in barnyardgrass (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Li, Lu, Olsen and Fan2018). DIMBOA or its analogs are the predominant representatives of benzoxazinoids in plants (Frey et al. Reference Frey, Schullehner, Dick, Fiesselmann and Gierl2009), which function as allelopathic compounds against rice in the field (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017). When barnyardgrass was cocultured with rice, transcriptomic analysis showed that expression of genes implicated in metabolic pathways and those associated with cytochrome p450 monooxygenases (CYPs) were enriched and elevated (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017). Also, the allelochemical DIMBOA gene cluster was activated in response to co-cultivation with rice (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017), indicating a key role for DIMBOA in competitive interactions with rice (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Li, Lu, Olsen and Fan2018). As low as a 0.08 mM concentration of DIMBOA inhibited rice height and biomass in laboratory conditions (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017; Figure 3C). Intriguingly, a gene cluster for momilactone A synthesis in barnyardgrass concurrently expressed more after a fungal pathogen infection, indicating that cohabiting with rice benefits barnyardgrass because of enhanced resistance to blast-infection (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017, Reference Guo, Qiu, Li, Lu, Olsen and Fan2018).

Seed Production

Seed production of Echinochloa species, specifically barnyardgrass, has been reported to be highly variable across environments (Clay et al. Reference Clay, Kleinjan, Clay, Forcella and Batchelor2005; Holm et al. Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977; Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986; Norris Reference Norris1992b). Barnyardgrass plants produced 7,170 total seeds according to Stevens (Reference Stevens1932), whereas Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Wilson1983) recorded nearly 18,000 seeds, and Holm et al. (Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977) reported up to 40,000 seed per plant. Research in California exceeded those numbers and estimated that barnyardgrass growing in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) fields averaged nearly 100,000 seed per plant (Norris Reference Norris1992a). According to Mitich (Reference Mitich1990), barnyardgrass has the potential to produce up to 1 million seeds per plant in California. Seed production in barnyardgrass can be highly variable depending on local growing conditions, nutrient availability, and day length (Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986), the associated crop (Clay et al. Reference Clay, Kleinjan, Clay, Forcella and Batchelor2005; Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2003; Lindquist and Kropff Reference Lindquist and Kropff1996), and time of emergence relative to the crop (Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Neve2012; Bosnic and Swanton Reference Bosnic and Swanton1997). In Ontario, Canada, Bosnic and Swanton (Reference Bosnic and Swanton1997) investigated the seed production of barnyardgrass in corn (Zea mays L.) crops and reported that at a density of 10 plants m−2, barnyardgrass produced up to 34,600 seeds m−2 when it emerged by the 3-leaf stage of the crop, whereas the seed production drastically decreased to 2,800 seeds m−2 when it emerged after the 4-leaf stage. In Greece, at a similar density (5 to 10 plants m−1 of crop row), barnyardgrass produced many fewer seeds per plant (1,300) when it emerged with corn, and only 170 seeds per plant when emergence was delayed until the 6-leaf stage (Travlos et al. Reference Travlos, Economou and Kanatas2011). Likewise, in South Dakota, barnyardgrass at a density 1.3 of plants m−2 among corn plants produced seed ranging from 3,385 seeds per plant when planted prior to crop emergence to 158 seeds per plant when planted at the 2-leaf stage (Clay et al. Reference Clay, Kleinjan, Clay, Forcella and Batchelor2005). With soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], however, Clay et al. (Reference Clay, Kleinjan, Clay, Forcella and Batchelor2005) reported that barnyardgrass failed to produce any mature seeds. With rice, barnyardgrass seed production ranged from 2,800 seeds per plant when it emerged with the crop to 100 seeds per plant when it emerged 45 d after rice emergence (Chauhan and Johnson Reference Chauhan and Johnson2010). When emerging with the crop, barnyardgrass produced 16,500 to 35,500 seeds per plant with cotton and 2,900 to 39,000 seeds per plant with rice in Arkansas, and the seed production drastically decreased when barnyardgrass emerged 5 wk or more later (Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Neve2012). Similarly, Tahir and Roma-Burgos (Reference Tahir and Roma-Burgos2021) reported variable seed production among barnyardgrass accessions collected from rice fields in Arkansas in a common garden study. In the same study, few accessions of E. colona produced as much as a three-fold greater number of seed (>200,000 seeds per plant) compared to barnyardgrass. Collectively, these data suggest that seed production by Echinochloa is highly variable across crops and environments, and ecotype differences likely play a significant role in its fecundity.

Seed Dormancy, Germination, and Seedling Emergence

Seed Dormancy

Seed dormancy is crucial for plant ecology because it enables seeds to endure conditions that are unfavorable for seedling emergence. Seed longevity and seed dormancy characteristics are also attributed to the persistence and weediness of Echinochloa species. It has long been known that fresh seeds of barnyardgrass exhibit innate dormancy, the duration of which varies considerably (Barrett and Wilson Reference Barrett and Wilson1983; Rahn et al. Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968), and the dormancy is attributed to the pericarp and epidermis (Arai and Miyahara Reference Arai and Miyahara1963). Even more pronounced is the variability among accessions as reported by Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Wilson1983), for which germination capacity ranged from 0% to >75%. The duration of dormancy is partly determined by the size of caryopses (Honek and Martinkova Reference Honek and Martinkova1996). As a result, a fraction of early produced large caryopses may germinate shortly after they ripen, and a new cohort of seedlings may be established in the same year. In a common garden experiment, three out of nine accessions of barnyardgrass from Arkansas that were after-ripened at room temperature for 6 mo remained dormant, whereas only two accessions of junglerice out of 77 accessions were dormant (Tahir and Roma-Burgos Reference Tahir and Roma-Burgos2021). The other larger-seeded types (early watergrass and late watergrass) are known to have minimal dormancy. Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Wilson1983) compared germination of 18 populations of barnyardgrass and 11 populations of late watergrass with 9- or 15-mo-old seeds and found that the decay of dormancy in barnyardgrass was less rapid than it was in late watergrass following dry storage and burial in soil. Dormancy is generally greater in barnyardgrass than in junglerice seeds (Chul and Moody Reference Chul and Moody1989).

Most research on dormancy has occurred in ex situ environments involving a single population. A better comprehension of the dormancy and germination behavior of varieties of Echinochloa species and populations as affected by tillage and seed depth in situ would aid in the more accurate prediction of seedbank dynamics of Echinochloa species. Despite the fact that seed dormancy is the single most important feature of weed seedbank dynamics and periodicity, it has been customary to avoid addressing dormancy directly within predictive models due to its complexity (Grundy Reference Grundy2003).

Seed Germination and Seedling Emergence

Seedling emergence is a manifestation of the dormancy status, germination requirements, and growth of seedlings to the surface (Vleeshouwers and Kropff Reference Vleeshouwers and Kropff2000). It is one of the most important demographic events in the life cycle of an annual plant species because the emergence timing determines its survival and reproductive success (Forcella et al. Reference Forcella, Benech-Arnold, Sanchez and Ghersa2000), and this is especially true for agricultural weeds. Much research has occurred since the 1930s to understand the effect of manipulation of moisture and seeding depth on Echinochloa emergence. Important research findings on aspects that have shaped today’s rice production practices and been the major determinant of the population dynamics of Echinochloa species are highlighted below.

Common varieties of Californian barnyardgrass populations seeded on puddled soil emerged to a 100% stand, but those submerged 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 cm emerged to a 10%, 5%, 1%, 0%, and 0% stand, respectively (Jones Reference Jones1933). Later, in the 1960s, it became apparent that some Echinochloa plants were emerging through the water-flooded rice fields. Barrett and Wilson (Reference Barrett and Wilson1983) studied the effects of soil moisture and seed burial depth on two Echinochloa species, barnyardgrass and late watergrass. When soil moisture was at field capacity, the seeds of both types germinated equally well at all depths, but the maximum number of seedlings emerged from 1- to 2-cm depths. Seedling emergence decreased with the depth below 2 cm, reaching zero at 10-cm depth. The emergence occurred first at shallower depths. Most of the surface-lying seeds that germinated failed to produce seedlings, probably because of a lack of moisture. In saturated soils, however, seed burial caused a reduction in the rate of emergence even at 0.5- to 2-cm depths; seedling emergence was significantly greater at all burial depths in late watergrass as compared to barnyardgrass; and no seedling emergence in barnyardgrass occurred from 2 cm or deeper depths.

In another study, seedling emergence of late watergrass was also greater than barnyardgrass from soil flooded to 9- and 18-cm water depths (Barrett Reference Barrett1983). Anaerobically grown late watergrass seeds are metabolically active, which may explain their ability to emerge from flooded rice fields (Kennedy et al. Reference Kennedy, Barrett, Vander Zee and Rumpho1980). In a pot culture experiment with Crowley silt loam soil in Stuttgart, Arkansas, seedling emergence of barnyardgrass decreased by 90% with flooding to 1.3 cm (Smith and Fox Reference Smith and Fox1973). Arai and Matsunaka (Reference Arai and Matsunaka1966) reported that when the soil moisture content was 70% to 80% of field capacity, a Japanese population of barnyardgrass seed germinated as deep as 10 cm in the soil. But when the soil was submerged, the seeds germinated only in the top 2 cm of soil. The seedling emergence of barnyardgrass was greatest from shallow depths of 1 to 2 cm in a fine, sandy loam soil (Dawson and Bruns Reference Dawson and Bruns1962), and the best germination occurred at 70% to 90% field capacity (Arai and Miyahara Reference Arai and Miyahara1963; Brod Reference Brod1968). The relatively large seeds of Californian barnyardgrass (weighing up to 3 mg) have been reported to emerge (up to 16%) from 10.1 cm or deeper depths under nonflooded conditions (Keeley and Thullen Reference Keeley and Thullen1989). Collectively, these results give insight into how moisture and seeding depth affects emergence of Echinochloa species (Figure 2B).

Several other factors have been shown to affect Echinochloa emergence. Seeds in which dormancy had been broken (1 yr old) germinated best with continued exposure to light (60%) as compared with continuous darkness (6%) (Rahn et al. Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968). More mature (dark gray, brownish, and shiny) seeds produced significantly greater germination than immature (light gray) seeds (Rahn et al. Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968). The seeds may germinate at a wide soil pH range of 4.1 to 8.3 (Arai and Miyahara Reference Arai and Miyahara1963), but the optimal pH for germination is around neutral (Brod Reference Brod1968). Echinochloa species seeded 30 d after rice in a field experiment in California did not survive (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2002). No reduction in germination of seeds buried in submerged soil for 30 mo was observed by Roché and Muzik (Reference Roché and Muzik1964); however, seeds buried at 10- and 20-cm depths under nonflooded soil conditions for the same period lost considerable viability. Dawson and Bruns (Reference Dawson and Bruns1975) buried seeds of barnyardgrass at 2.5-, 10-, and 20-cm depths in irrigated and nonirrigated sandy loam soil, and they showed that seeds exhumed from 10- to 20-cm depths had highest germination rates in the second year after burial. The seeds buried for 13 yr had 3% viability but those buried for 15 yr were nonviable. Seeds buried at a 20-cm depth remained viable for a longer period than at 10 cm probably because of greater induced dormancy (Roché and Muzik Reference Roché and Muzik1964). Germination was more rapid in sandy loam rather than loam soil, and soil compacted by tamping and surface watering in a greenhouse produced a higher germination rate (Rahn et al. Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968). Robert et al. (Reference Robert, Vezeau and Simon1983) showed thermal adaptation and acclimation of barnyardgrass at the enzyme level, especially in populations collected from warmer locations. A recent report from Europe indicates that adaptation to local environmental conditions leads to interpopulation differences in base temperature, which affects the emergence process in barnyardgrass (Royo-Esnal et al. Reference Royo-Esnal, Onofri, Taab, Loddo, Necajeva, Uludag, Synowiec, Calha, Lars, Jensen, Uremis, Economou, Murdoch and Tørresen2022). Barnyardgrass seeds were found to germinate in a wide soil pH range of 4.7 to 8.3 (Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986). Laboratory studies on junglerice in the Philippines determined that temperature, light, salt, osmotic stress, soil pH, seed burial depth, and rice residue influenced its germination and emergence (Chauhan and Johnson Reference Chauhan and Johnson2009 ).

In a study on naturally occurring seedbanks in Arkansas, barnyardgrass exhibited an extended period of emergence, with emergence varying widely in the initiation time and the duration across sites and years (Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Burgos2011). Such variation was attributed to corresponding rainfall events; however, the vertical distribution of seed in the soil profile was not considered, which is one of the key components to be considered for emergence modeling (Grundy et al. Reference Grundy, Mead and Burston2003). The two contrasting emergence patterns along with relative crop planting time in Arkansas are shown in Figure 4 A and B. Nonetheless, seedling emergence patterns may also be strongly affected by differences in seed dormancy and burial depth and may vary among populations (reviewed in Grundy Reference Grundy2003). Accurate prediction of barnyardgrass emergence, however, will require experiments that adequately control the sources of such variations (Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Burgos2011). In California, late watergrass populations emerge in a biphasic pattern, and the ability to model the second phase of the biphasic emergence curve is necessary (Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2022).

Figure 4. Emergence of barnyardgrass in relation to rice/soybean planting time in Arkansas. (A) Rice/soybean planting progress in 2022 (adapted from USDA-NAAS 2022). (B) Barnyardgrass weekly emergence at two sites in Arkansas in 2008 (adapted from Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Burgos2011). *Percentage of total seasonal emergence.

Echinochloa – A Persistent Issue in US Rice

Considering that all the economically relevant Echinochloa in U.S. rice production are introduced species and have persisted through the most advanced weed management tools at our disposal, revisiting the historical trajectory of their agroecology is important. Broadly, water management and the use of herbicides that shaped the agroecosystem can be attributed as the determinants driving their population dynamics over the course of the century-long history of U.S. rice production (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Historical trajectory of Echinochloa establishment in U.S. rice crops with milestones in its management. Following multiple introductions, the population dynamics of Echinochloa in U.S. rice have been primarily driven by water management and the use of herbicides. Water-seeding rice culture was developed in the 1920s to reduce infestations of barnyardgrass in rice fields. The widespread use of 2,4-D to control broadleaf weeds in the 1950s favored Echinochloa. Producers in the mid-South shifted to dry-seeding rice after propanil became available in the early 1960s, when barnyardgrass became the keystone rice weed. The long-established water-seeded monoculture of California rice was selected for large-seeded, water-tolerant late watergrass. For the past 50 yr, these species have prevailed in their respective regions with the evolution of resistance to almost all major herbicides that were deployed through the decades, leading to the increased abundance of Echinochloa in U.S. rice. Recent reports indicate an increase in barnyardgrass in California and junglerice in mid-South rice in the last two decades. MHR, multiple herbicide resistance.

In the USDA Farmer’s Bulletin (#688), published within 3 yr of commencement of rice culture in California, CE Chambliss (Reference Chambliss1915) wrote “In three seasons, this weed has become a menace to the rice crop of Sacramento Valley, and unless serious action is taken for its control or eradication its presence may seriously affect the normal development of the rice industry of the state. This may be effectively done through county or community organizations with police power.” In the same bulletin Chambliss mentioned that some farmers spent more than 25% of the total cost of rice production just to manually control the weed. However, according to the reports from the 1930s and 1950s (Jones Reference Jones1938, Reference Jones1952), Echinochloa was not among the top five weeds in the early years of commercial rice cultivation in the mid-South. The water-seeding and continuously flooded rice culture that was developed in 1920s was the savior of the young California rice industry that was threatened by barnyardgrass. This method, in which water is maintained on the fields to a depth of 8 to 20 cm for the duration of rice growth, helped to reduce infestations of barnyardgrass in rice fields (Jones Reference Jones1923, Reference Jones1933).

Because rice grew and yielded well in a water-seeding culture, this method became popular in California in the 1920s (Jones Reference Jones1933) and later spread to the southern rice-growing area to control Echinochloa species (Smith and Fox Reference Smith and Fox1973). Right before the introduction of propanil, the widespread use of 2,4-D to control dicotyledonous weeds in the 1950s favored Echinochloa (Holm et al. Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977) in U.S. rice fields, by creating an opportunity for, and an aggressive population shift to, grassy weeds; like the proliferation of Setaria species in U.S. corn and soybean fields (Oliver and Schreiber Reference Oliver and Schreiber1971; Warwick Reference Warwick1990). California rice remained predominantly water-seeded; however, mid-South rice producers shifted to dry-seeding after propanil became available to control a broad spectrum of weeds.

Since then, it was apparent that Echinochloa species, particularly barnyardgrass, became the keystone species in the mid-South (Smith 1970). A well-developed seed dormancy, as noted earliest by Rahn et al. (Reference Rahn, Sweet, Vengris and Dunn1968) and Holm et al. (Reference Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger1977), as well as the slower rate of dormancy decay in barnyardgrass, according to Cohen’s prediction (Cohen Reference Cohen1966) are the traits to be selected in habitats where the risk of failure is high from propanil use (Barrett and Wilson Reference Barrett and Wilson1981). In contrast, the relatively rapid decay of dormancy and the synchronous germination in early watergrass and late watergrass are traits that Cohen (Reference Cohen1966) and Harper (Reference Harper1977) both predicted to be selected in a homogeneous environment where the probability of successful reproduction is high (Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). The water-seeded monoculture Californian rice agroecosystem is an excellent example of a homogeneous environment. The predictability of the rice field ecosystem from year to year enabled these water-tolerant species to build up rapidly and favored their spread throughout the rice-growing areas of California, where they persisted in most rice fields despite attempts at control by herbicides (Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). Additionally, the large seeds of late watergrass probably enhanced their competitive ability and favored coexistence with rice; they may have originally been selected as an adaptation that enabled seedlings to grow and emerge in a natural habitat with deep water (Barrett Reference Barrett1983). Since late watergrass can establish successfully in deep water, it replaced barnyardgrass as California’s most economically important weed of rice (Barrett Reference Barrett1983; Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980). However, as noted by Smith and Fox (Reference Smith and Fox1973), barnyardgrass persisted in shallow-water areas and field borders thereafter. For the past 50 yr, species of Echinochloa, particularly early watergrass and late watergrass in California and barnyardgrass in the mid-South, have prevailed. With the evolution, spread, and prevalence of resistance to almost all the major herbicides deployed, simultaneously or in sequence, as discussed in the later section, it can be assumed that the abundance of Echinochloa in U.S. rice fields has increased compared to that of the era prior to the 1990s.

Outstanding Question: Are Barnyardgrass in California and Junglerice in the Mid-South on the Rise?

Several anomalous reports in recent years (Lui et al. Reference Liu, Singh, Zhou and Bagavathiannan2021, Reference Liu, Singh, Abugho, Lin, Zhou and Bagavathiannan2022; Rouse et al. Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018; Tahir and Roma-Burgos Reference Tahir and Roma-Burgos2021; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) raise the question of whether junglerice has become more established than was previously believed in mid-South rice fields, even to the extent that it has indeed surpassed barnyardgrass. The greater representation of junglerice than barnyardgrass in the samples analyzed does not necessarily indicate the greater relative abundance of junglerice. Nonetheless, it is well recognized that in glyphosate-based cropping systems weed spectrums will adapt or vary in response to changes in production methods or new technologies, especially in crop fields where yearly monoculture is frequently the goal (Reddy and Norsworthy Reference Reddy and Norsworthy2010; Webster and Coble Reference Webster and Coble1997; Webster and Sosnoskie Reference Webster and Sosnoskie2010), favoring the perpetuation of one or several weed species, including those that have evolved the ability to escape herbicide applications (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Bond and Scott2013). This observation in mid-South rice may be attributed to the higher prevalence of herbicide resistance in junglerice, as reported by Rouse et al. (Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018) in Arkansas and by Lui et al. (Reference Liu, Singh, Zhou and Bagavathiannan2021) in Texas. It may also reflect its proliferation in the continuous dry seeding and delayed flooding rice culture, as well as the rice-soybean production system practiced in the region, or a combination of all these factors. Unlike barnyardgrass, junglerice is intolerant of anaerobiosis, and hence cannot germinate in the absence of oxygen (Mujer et al. Reference Mujer, Rumpho, Lin and Kennedy1993; Rumpho and Kennedy Reference Rumpho and Kennedy1983).

Counterintuitively, a majority of Echinochloa seed samples submitted to the University of California–Davis Weed Science Program for resistance screening from 2015 to 2020 were identified as barnyardgrass. It is widely accepted that late watergrass is the most prevalent species in water-seeded California rice crops and that barnyardgrass is not a relevant weed in many fields (Marchesi Reference Marchesi2009). In flooded rice fields in Japan, Yamasue (Reference Yamasue2001) observed that the dominant species of Echinochloa weeds is changing from late watergrass to barnyardgrass because of the shift from manual to herbicidal weed management. Ironically, early watergrass and late watergrass have greater concentrations of antioxidants in their leaves, which may be attributed to greater tolerance to herbicides compared to barnyardgrass (Damalas et al. Reference Damalas, Dhima and Eleftherohorinos2008). Thus, it may not be the relative sensitivity to herbicide among the species, but rather, due to compromised deep water in rice fields. Soon after the introduction of propanil, Oelke (Reference Oelke1966) reported that a deep flood inhibits growth of young rice seedlings, reduces tillering, and lowers grain yield, whereas Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Finchum and Seaman1977) reported that a shallow flood of 2.5 cm to 10 cm, combined with the use of effective herbicides, resulted in weed species control and increases in rice yields compared with a deep flood culture. In the last two decades, most rice fields in California have been treated postemergence with herbicides, including propanil, and in almost all cases, the water depth is lowered so as to expose weed foliage to the herbicide. It is likely that such practices have favored relatively flood-intolerant species such as barnyardgrass. These observations also provoke us to question the extent of hybridization among Echinochloa forms as we discussed in the previous section. This necessitates more efforts to differentiate between established and emerging biotypes of Echinochloa in the California rice agroecosystem. Furthermore, there have been reports of Echinochloa in some rice fields that have yet to be properly identified (WB Brim-DeForest, personal communication). Additionally, a recent study showed genomic evidence of admixtures in some Echinochloa samples, leading to unresolved taxonomic classification for those samples (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022).

Insights From Recent Genomic Studies

Three recent genomic studies have shed light on how Echinochloa have evolved as a weed, made adaptations, and interacted with rice. Pertinent information from these studies to a varying extent has been mentioned throughout this article. Guo et al. (Reference Guo, Qiu, Ye, Jin, Mao, Zhang, Yang, Peng, Wang, Jia, Lin, Li, Fu, Liu and Chen2017) for the first time generated a draft genome of barnyardgrass and provided novel insights into the adaptive molecular mechanisms for its survival and invasiveness in rice fields. The study specifically revealed biosynthetic gene clusters responsible for allelopathic compounds and phytoalexin (DIMBOA and momilactones) in the barnyardgrass genome and decoded evolutionary trajectory of coevolution with rice. Ye et al. (Reference Ye, Wu, Mao, Jia, Qiu, Lao, Chen, Jiang, Tang, Peng, Pan, Wang, Feng, Guo and Zhang2020) improved the genome assembly quality by generating PacBio long reads representing ∼86× coverage of the genome with contig and scaffold N50 sizes of 1.57 Mb and 4.09 Mb, respectively. One of the significant discoveries of the genome research was that Echinochloa may have lowered disease resistance in favor of aggressive growth and development. The other study by Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) unprecedently distinguished a global collection of Echinochloa species and varieties (a total of 596 samples) by integrating morphological characteristics with multiple pieces of genomic evidence. As highlighted by Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022), genomic resources made accessible will accelerate research in Echinochloa evolutionary biology, evolution of resistance to herbicides, interaction between the crop and the weed, and the development of novel weed control strategies. These two studies discovered that this hexaploid genome, yet compact (∼1.4 Gb), contains an incredibly large repertoire of genes for enzymes involved in xenobiotic detoxification, including ABC transporters, CYPs, and glutathione S-transferases (GSTs). These genes in barnyardgrass outnumber those typically found in other grass species. These are the major genetic components that are known to contribute to increased capacity to detoxify herbicides (Yu and Powles Reference Yu and Powles2014); hence, the widespread occurrence of herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass is not surprising.

Of particular interest from the study by Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) is that the Echinochloa samples collected from U.S. rice fields were more diverse than Echinochloa from other countries, albeit the U.S. samples were collected from a narrow geographic area. The study did not represent any samples from California. Of the 39 samples from the United States, more than one-third were E. crus-galli var. praticola and none of them were barnyardgrass. Such a large representation of a less-known Echinochloa is likely due to the site of collection being far from rice fields. Of the six samples collected from Arkansas, which appeared to be from the same rice field based on GPS coordinates, all were junglerice. Further research with a wide pool of Echinochloa samples from U.S. rice fields is necessary to address this apparent shortcoming. Genomic proximity, tiller angle, and dominant types of three varieties of E. crus-galli are shown in Figure 6 (adapted from Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022). Although the varieties show little differentiation at the genomic level, their plant architecture is quite different. The seed size of E. crus-galli var. praticola is on the lower side of barnyardgrass and it has a very prostrate morphology (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022).

Figure 6. Tiller and genomic proximity of three E. crus-galli varieties. (A) Distribution of tiller angle, and (B) genomic proximity as defined by reads mapping rates and genome coverage of reads mapped to a reference genome of a barnyardgrass population from China (both A and B adapted from Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022).

Herbicide Resistance in Echinochloa: An Increasingly Serious Issue

For the past three decades, the U.S. rice industry has been experiencing the predicament of an emerging number of herbicide-resistant Echinochloa species, even for those herbicides that have never been used or are rarely used. Several reports of increased abundance of barnyardgrass populations in response to triazine and thiocarbamate herbicides started to appear in the 1970s and 1980s (reviewed in Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986). That it could evolve resistance to herbicides was realized as early as the 1980s (Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986; Mitich Reference Mitich1990), and since then this fact has been implicated in its remarkable persistence in modern rice cropping systems. Most cases of herbicide resistance in Echinochloa in U.S. rice crops have been documented in the International Herbicide Resistant Weed Database (Heap Reference Heap2023).

The first cases of herbicide resistance in two Echinochloa species, early watergrass and late watergrass, came from water-seeded Californian rice in 2000 (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Ateh, Bayer and Hill2000a). For reference, herbicide use history from 1990 through 2018 in California rice crops is shown in Figure 7 (California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2022 ). Despite the fact that molinate was the only major grass herbicide used in California, those populations of late watergrass were reported to have resistance to multiple herbicides from different chemical classes and modes of action (MOAs) including molinate, thiobencarb (thiocarbamates), cyhalofop-butyl, fenoxaprop-ethyl (aryloxyphenoxy propionate), bispyribac-sodium (pyrimidinyl benzoate), penoxsulam (trizolopyrimidine sulfonamide), and clomazone (isoxazolidinone) (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Ateh, Bayer and Hill2000a, 2000b; Osuna et al. Reference Osuna, Vidotto, Fischer, Bayer, de Prado and Ferrero2002; Ruiz-Santella et al. Reference Ruiz-Santaella, de Prado, Wagner, Fischer and Gerhards2006; Yasuor et al. Reference Yasuor, TenBrook, Tjeerdema and Fischer2008, Reference Yasuor, Osuna, Ortiz, Saldaín, Eckert and Fischer2009). Besides thiocarbamates, all other herbicides were under development at that time. None of the populations were resistant to the less-used herbicide propanil, although they were found to be less sensitive compared to susceptible populations (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Bayer, Carriere, Ateh and Yim2000b; Yasuor et al. Reference Yasuor, Milan, Eckert and Fischer2012). Quite surprisingly, the same populations were later found to be resistant to another herbicide that had also never been used, quinclorac (Yasuor et al. Reference Yasuor, Milan, Eckert and Fischer2012). A single, introduced multiple-resistant biotype (“the founder effect,” as termed by Gressel and Segel Reference Gressel and Segel1990) dispersed throughout California under continued use of molinate and/or thiobencarb (Tsuji et al. Reference Tsuji, Fischer, Yoshino, Roel, Hill and Yamasue2003). Recent results from herbicide resistance testing on grower-submitted samples from California rice fields from 2015 to 2020 indicated the presence of multiple resistance in the vast majority of the Echinochloa samples and the occurrence of multiple resistance up to five MOAs (Becerra-Alvarez et al. Reference Becerra-Alvarez, Estrada, Godar and Al-Khatib2022).

Figure 7. Herbicide use history in California rice fields from 1990 to 2018 (data compiled from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation). (A) First-generation rice herbicides (introduced before 2000), and (B) second-generation rice herbicides (introduced after 2000).

Earlier work suggested that the resistance had primarily endowed by enhanced CYP degradation in late watergrass (Osuna et al. Reference Osuna, Vidotto, Fischer, Bayer, de Prado and Ferrero2002; Yun et al. Reference Yun, Yogo, Miura, Yamasue and Fischer2005; Yasuor et al. Reference Yasuor, Osuna, Ortiz, Saldaín, Eckert and Fischer2009), with some role of GST in conjugating herbicides (Bakkali et al. Reference Bakkali, Ruiz-Santaella, Osuna, Wagner, Fischer and de Prado2007). More recently, Fang (Reference Fang, Yuhua Zhang, Liu, Yan, Li and Dong2019) and Iwakami et al. (Reference Iwakami, Endo, Saika, Okuno, Nakamura, Yokoyama, Watanabe, Toki, Uchino and Inamura2014, Reference Iwakami, Kamidate, Yamaguchi, Ishizaka, Endo, Suda, Nagai, Sunohara, Toki, Uchino, Tominaga and Matsumoto2019) further uncovered the role of two cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP) genes, CYP81A12 and CYP81A21, in imparting resistance to these herbicides from a wide range of classes. Recent studies on the resistant late watergrass by Dimaano et al. (Reference Dimaano, Tominaga and Iwakami2022) demonstrated that resistance to thiobencarb is independent from these CYP genes. In California rice, flooded conditions in the late watergrass populations induces metabolic adaptations (Boddy et al. Reference Boddy, Streibig, Yamasue and Fischer2012) that might lead to the selection of the CYP genes that enable survival after an application of thiobencarb. Additionally, the herbicide bensulfuron-methyl (sulfonylurea) was widely used for controlling broadleaf and sedges in California rice in the 1980s and 1990s; however, it also partially controlled Echinochloa, indicating a sublethal selection from this herbicide (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Bayer, Carriere, Ateh and Yim2000b). Most herbicide resistance mechanism studies in California Echinochloa have been conducted primarily on early watergrass and late watergrass. Hybridization among Echinochloa species has been suggested or experimentally shown, including recent genomic investigations that show some degree of gene flow (Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy Reference Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy2014; Marchesi Reference Marchesi2009; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022; Yabuno Reference Yabuno1981).

Herbicide resistance by Echinochloa species in Arkansas has been well documented via routine screening or surveys; for example, by Riar et al. (Reference Riar, Norsworthy, Steckel, Stephenson, Eubank, Bond and Scott2013b), Norsworthy et al. (Reference Norsworthy, Bond and Scott2013), Rouse et al. (Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018), and Butts et al. (Reference Butts, Kouame, Norsworthy and Barber2022), and the early cases of resistance were reviewed by Talbert and Burgos (Reference Talbert and Burgos2007). Resistance to the extensively used acylanilide herbicide propanil in U.S. rice production (Hoagland et al. Reference Hoagland, Norsworthy, Carey and Talbert2004) was reported in Echinochloa populations from several mid-southern regions in the early 1990s (Baltazer and Smith Reference Baltazar and Smith1994; Carey et al. Reference Carey, Duke, Hoagland and Talbert1995a, Reference Carey, Duke, Hoagland and Talbert1995b). Since its commercialization in the 1960s, propanil had remained the primary herbicide for controlling Echinochloa in mid-southern rice for more than three decades (Carey et al. Reference Carey, Duke, Hoagland and Talbert1995b). Introduced in 1992, quinclorac controlled propanil-resistant barnyardgrass effectively when mixed with propanil (Baltazar and Smith Reference Baltazar and Smith1994; Talbert and Burgos Reference Talbert and Burgos2007); however, several biotypes with multiple resistances to propanil and quinclorac had evolved by the early 2000s (Malik et al. Reference Malik, Burgos and Talbert2010), portending evolution of resistance to the next tool, clomazone (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Scott and Smith2007b), essentially threating the economic viability of rice production in the U.S. mid-South (Malik et al. Reference Malik, Burgos and Talbert2010). Thereafter, clomazone was widely used to control propanil- and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass (Norsworthy Reference Norsworthy, Burgos, Scott and Smith2007a), and still today remains the major herbicide in mid-southern rice because resistance to this herbicide is not widespread (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Wilson, Scott and Gbur2014; USDA-NAAS 2022). Following the commercialization of imidazolinone-resistant rice, imazethapyr was another option for controlling barnyardgrass (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Burgos, Scott and Smith2007a). However, the instances of overuse of the herbicide, especially without crop rotation and the use of multiple effective herbicide modes of action, led to selection for the acetolactate synthase–resistant barnyardgrass (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Bond and Scott2013; Riar et al. Reference Riar, Norsworthy, Srivastava, Nandula, Bond and Scott2013a, Reference Riar, Norsworthy, Steckel, Stephenson, Eubank, Bond and Scott2013b) in a short time. Once used in nearly half of the rice fields, imazethapyr use has decreased drastically in recent years (USDA-NAAS 2014, 2022).

Herbicide resistance in Arkansas rice fields has continuously increased in frequency and complexity with additional resistance to aryloxyphenoxy propionate herbicides (cyhalofop-butyl, quizalofop-ethyl) among Echinochloa populations, including junglerice (Rouse et al. Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018, Figure 8). The evolution is apparently a consequence of sequential selection with different major herbicide MOAs, starting with propanil followed by quinclorac and others (Rouse et al. Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018), unlike in California rice where simultaneous resistance to multiple MOAs occurred. Recently, resistance to the newly registered rice herbicide, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, has been reported in barnyardgrass (Hwang et al. Reference Hwang, Norsworthy, González-Torralva, Priess, Barber and Butts2022). The mechanism is nontarget site-based and involves hydrolysis of a methoxy group followed by glucose conjugation (Hwang et al. Reference Hwang, Norsworthy, González-Torralva, Priess, Barber and Butts2022; Takano et al. Reference Takano, Scott, Ouse, Zielinski and Schmitzer2023), and it is believed to have evolved under the selection of an older rice herbicide, penoxsulam (Takano et al. Reference Takano, Scott, Ouse, Zielinski and Schmitzer2023). Earlier, a similar case was reported in a population of barnyardgrass from China that had been under penoxsulam selection for several years (Fang et al. Reference Fang, Yuhua Zhang, Liu, Yan, Li and Dong2019).

Figure 8. Resistance profile of Echinochloa species submitted for resistance testing in Arkansas (2010 to 2016) to four commonly used rice herbicides (adapted from Rouse et al. Reference Rouse, Roma-Burgos, Norsworthy, Tseng, Starkey and Scott2018).

Research Efforts in the Nonchemical Weed Management Space

In a recent survey on weed management concerns in Arkansas rice, effective, nonchemical weed management strategies were rated as only moderately important as current research or an educational effort, even though 78% of the respondents reported high concern with herbicide-resistant weeds (Butts et al. Reference Butts, Kouame, Norsworthy and Barber2022). This finding indicates an inadequate appreciation of the fundamental importance of nonchemical approaches for sustainable weed management and indeed suggests that the views of rice producers on weed control need to change considering the expanding herbicide resistance profile in Echinochloa species. It is a fact that the commercialization of highly effective herbicides has de-escalated the scope, opportunities, and advancement of nonchemical approaches to weed management. Nonetheless, research in the 1970s and 1980s reported successful management of barnyardgrass under certain crop production practices, particularly with the use of tillage and crop rotation (reviewed in Maun and Barrett Reference Maun and Barrett1986). Although the greater need for integrated weed management (IWM) has been realized by some researchers (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Smith and Bayer1994), widespread recognition of herbicide resistance as an inevitable consequence has emerged only in the past two decades, and significant research and extension efforts are being placed on nonchemical methods of weed control as a fundamental element of an IWM strategy. Specifically for rice, the use of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) methods and cover crops in the mid-South and alternate dry and wet seeding in California are being considered as potential IWM components of sustainable management of Echinochloa.

Harvest Weed Seed Control

The HWSC method effectively expands the number of nonchemical strategies for weed management, but it has been underused until recently. Originating in Australia (Walsh et al. Reference Walsh, Newman and Powles2013) and deemed an effective tool for managing multiple herbicide–resistant Italian ryegrass in cereal crops (Walsh et al. Reference Walsh, Ouzman, Newman, Powles and Llewellyn2017), HWSC strategies are currently being evaluated for use in U.S. field crops (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Green, Barber, Roberts and Walsh2020). As a potent weed seed recruitment preventer (Walsh et al. Reference Walsh, Ouzman, Newman, Powles and Llewellyn2017), this technique is seen as a vital component of sustainable weed management because it directly targets the weed soil seedbank (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Ward, Shaw, Llewellyn, Nichols, Webster, Bradley, Frisvold, Powles, Burgos, Witt and Barrett2012, Reference Norsworthy, Green, Barber, Roberts and Walsh2020). In order for Echinochloa to continue interfering with rice, its seedbank must replenish. In a survey on the adoption of best management practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in the mid-southern United States, prevention of crop weed seed production was perceived as one of the most important practices in rice (Riar et al. Reference Riar, Norsworthy, Steckel, Stephenson, Eubank, Bond and Scott2013b). HWSC techniques have the potential to efficiently disrupt the seedbank replenishment process. Previous research on barnyardgrass has shown that each plant retains approximately 43% of the total seed produced at the time of soybean maturity (Schwartz-Lazaro et al. Reference Schwartz-Lazaro, Green and Norsworthy2017), but information on seed retention of Echinochloa species in rice is lacking. Seed shattering is well known in Echinochloa species, yet some benefit to using the HWSC method for barnyardgrass can be expected. Variations in seed shattering/retention may exist among different forms of barnyardgrass, and it should be considered in future research. In the context of rice-soybean cropping systems of the U.S. mid-South and a significant proportion under furrow-irrigated rice, another problematic weed, Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson), is likely to drive HWSC adoption as encouraging results are being reported regarding its effectiveness on this weed (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Green, Barber, Roberts and Walsh2020; Schwartz-Lazaro et al. Reference Schwartz-Lazaro, Green and Norsworthy2017).

Unlike in the mid-South, the HWSC method has not yet gained much interest in Californian rice. Earlier studies in California reported that late watergrass flowered simultaneously with rice, but most seeds were shed during the period of rice harvest (Barrett Reference Barrett1983; Barrett and Seaman Reference Barrett and Seaman1980; Boddy et al. Reference Boddy, Streibig, Yamasue and Fischer2012), and compared with susceptible plants, those that were resistant to multiple herbicides tended to mature even earlier and shattered greater proportions of their seed before rice harvest (Boddy et al. Reference Boddy, Streibig, Yamasue and Fischer2012; Tsuji et al. Reference Tsuji, Fischer, Yoshino, Roel, Hill and Yamasue2003). Yabuno (Reference Yabuno1966) and Yamasue (Reference Yamasue2001) noted similar observations for this type of Echinochloa in Japan. In a wild form of E. oryzicola from China, Hirosue et al. (Reference Hirosue, Yamasue and Yabuno2000) reported that the spikelet shattering percentage was 99.8% 80 d after heading. Regarding barnyardgrass, several phenological and morphological forms were reported in the 1920s, with varying seed shattering characteristics (Jones Reference Jones1923; Kennedy Reference Kennedy1923), and even more forms are apparent now. Seed shattering from barnyardgrass plants that germinated in mid-May begin to appear by late July or early August (Norris Reference Norris1992a), whereas rice harvest in California does not begin until October or November. However, barnyardgrass that has once gone through the domestication process has a relatively less seed shattering attribute (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022) and could be a good target for the HWSC method. Contrary to the results reported by Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Shen, Jiang, Feng, Tang, Lao, Jia, Lin, Xie, Weng, Dong, Qian, Lin, Xu and Lu2022), Costea and Tardif (Reference Costea and Tardif2002) reported that spikelets persist in the panicle longer in late watergrass than in early watergrass. Even though the effectiveness of HWSC on a broad range of Echinochloa species remains a question, research and analysis need to be initiated to evaluate whether this strategy can yet be a significant component of sustainable management of Echinochloa in California rice.

Cover Crops

Cover crops historically have been adopted on a limited acreage to protect highly erodible lands. However, they are becoming increasingly popular due to the various benefits they offer for soil health, crop productivity, and weed management, as well as the incentives provided by government programs. Cover crops are one of the cultural tools that aid in herbicide resistance management, and their effectiveness in suppressing the initial flush of weeds with various crops has been demonstrated by a recent meta-analysis (Osipitan et al. Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019). Weeds that thrive in current agroecosystems are generally susceptible to the negative effects of shade (Fenner Reference Fenner1978). These weeds are at one extreme of the adaptive continuum in which their inherent physiological trade-offs prevent them from fully adapting to low light (Givnish Reference Givnish1988). Cover crops create a type of agriculture that is diametrically opposed to conventional systems; one that disfavors weeds that have adapted to emerge and prosper in disturbed habitats over time. Given this, it is worthwhile to develop cover crop techniques that can successfully smother Echinochloa in rice and effectively reduce their short- and long-term population dynamics. Even though cover crops might not be immediately compatible with all rice cropping systems in the United States, they can be successfully integrated into dry-seeded rice culture, which is common in mid-southern states. Although cover crop adoption is still limited by several factors such as cost, availability, knowledge, and management challenges, as the benefits of cover crops converge, conjoined with greater efforts to promote grower awareness and support, it is highly promising that the adoption of cover crops will be elevated.

Alternating Dry and Wet Seeding

Water-seeding (wet seeding) has been the predominant method of rice cultivation in California since the 1920s (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Smith and Bayer1994) and has been used to suppress competitive Echinochloa species (Adair and Engler Reference Adair, Engler and Stefferud1955), but this has led to the establishment of water-tolerant introduced Echinochloa species (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Smith and Bayer1994). As herbicide resistance by Echinochloa species emerged as a major economic issue in California rice production (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Ateh, Bayer and Hill2000a; Hill et al. Reference Hill, Smith and Bayer1994; Peterson et al. Reference Peterson, Collavo, Ovejero, Shivrain and Walsh2018), some growers began to modify the dominant water-seeded system they had practiced (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Smith and Bayer1994). For example, rice seedbeds are prepared as usual and flushed with water to promote weed germination, and then broad-spectrum herbicides are used as a burndown treatment (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Williams, Mutters and Greer2006). Currently, drill-seeding (dry seeding) is practiced on a limited number of fields in California. The use of alternate dry and wet seeding has the potential to disrupt the ecological cycle and, as a result, restrict the proliferation of Echinochloa species in the rice cropping system since these species have a niche that is ecologically distinct in terms of moisture regimes. Because frequent drought has increased concerns about water management in California rice, there may be an increase in the number of farmers who practice dry seeding instead of the traditional continuously flooded system (Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2022). Studies on the impact of dry seeding on weed dynamics, its ecological fitness, or its role in managing herbicide resistance have received some attention in recent years (Brim-Deforest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017b, 2022; Ceseski et al. Reference Ceseski, Godar and Al-Khatib2022; Pittelkow et al. Reference Pittelkow, Fischer, Moechnig, Hill, Koffler, Mutters, Greer, Cho, van Kessel and Linquist2012). Brim-DeForest et al. (Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib, Linquist and Fischer2017a) evaluated weed community dynamics under various water management regimes in California rice and found a greater abundance of Echinochloa species occurred in a dry-seeded alternate wet and dry water management regime compared to continuously flooded conditions. However, the study did not consider the relative composition of seedbanks of water-tolerant and water-intolerant Echinochloa species or varieties.

Echinochloa in Furrow-Irrigated Rice

Furrow-irrigated rice has rapidly supplanted a significant acreage of conventional rice in recent years in Arkansas (Hardke et al. Reference Hardke, Sha and Bateman2022) and Missouri, driven by its potential benefits in terms of simplifying crop rotations, decreasing expenses, providing more options in crop management, and conserving water. This system creates more temporal and spatial variability in moisture within the field compared to conventional practices. Furrow irrigation is expected to modulate several key factors in Echinochloa such as emergence, interference with rice and other weeds, response to management interventions, and seedbank renewal. This type of irrigation is generally practiced when crops are planted in rotation, such as with soybean. To better comprehend how this production system influences Echinochloa population dynamics, a relatively longer-term study is required, and the ongoing research efforts should also take junglerice as a potential invader of furrow-irrigated fields into consideration.

Future Directions for Research and its Management

In protecting yield loss from weeds, particularly from Echinochloa species, exciting and depressing moments have both occurred over the course of commercial rice production in the United States. While deep water-seeding saved the growing rice industry in the early 20th century, the discovery of chemicals that selectively killed Echinochloa and other weeds in U.S. rice fields has played a vital role in realizing the monumental gain in rice productivity made possible by improved production practices and the use of advanced genotypes in the last six decades. The U.S. rice industry experienced a “golden period” of weed control in the 1980s when just two herbicides, often only one of which was active against Echinochloa, would keep all the weeds in rice fields at bay. In just six decades of chemical weed management, rice growers today have options for more than a half dozen different MOAs to choose from to target Echinochloa (Barber et al. Reference Barber, Butts, Boyd, Cunningham, Selden, Norsworthy, Burgos and Bertucci2022). However, as indicated by the recent herbicide screening assays, many populations of Echinochloa possess resistance to multiple MOAs of herbicides. The selection of multiple herbicide resistance in Echinochloa species has promoted the development or usage of already available herbicides, but they afford only a partial answer to the weed problem. It might seem intuitive that many herbicides are available or becoming available to target Echinochloa, yet herbicides overlap in their target sites, the mechanism that determines their fate within the plant system, and the way that cellular machinery protects against suffering damage from them. Hence, the selection of mechanisms, especially those that confer the ability to metabolize a broad range of chemical classes, has the potential to render multiple herbicides ineffective. Because the number of herbicide options for Echinochloa control is limited, rice production in the U.S. is becoming more vulnerable to losses from these weeds. The need for an IWM strategy to address Echinochloa issues in US rice is evident. For a more Echinochloa-resistant agroecosystem that dilutes selection from chemical intervention measures, dynamic integration of nonchemical components is important and an apparent future direction. Research efforts into nonchemical practices must gain momentum in the United States as well as globally, especially in light of Echinochloa resistance to herbicides, even those recently introduced. As we enter new endeavors for Echinochloa management, a greater understanding is needed of the adaptive features of the seed biology of such ecologically differentiated Echinochloa types/varieties in varying agroecosystems. Effective management of Echinochloa should rely on knowledge of its population dynamics, including its reproductive potential as affected by chemical and nonchemical intervention efforts. Such knowledge will be useful for manipulating several crop production practices as valuable tools in IWM practices.

Our experience with introduced Echinochloa species clearly indicates that spread and local adaptation are continuous, ongoing processes. Fifty years ago, some water-tolerant Echinochloa species were unknown in U.S. rice fields, and for the last four decades, they have been serious concerns in Californian rice fields. Seemingly, some Echinochloa species have been highly adapted to exploit new opportunities provided by changes in management practices in rice fields. It is to be expected that their response to fundamental selection forces such as changes in crop management practices and the consequential evolution to herbicides will continue to determine the future of the Echinochloa species in U.S. rice fields. The features and adaptations that the surviving Echinochloa plants pick up in this fight will continue to be the immediate issues that U.S. rice producers will face. Therefore, Echinochloa management, as with other weeds, involves the management of selection pressures. The past and present of Echinochloa weeds in U.S. rice crops emphasize the need for understanding its future behavior. From a weed management and overall crop production perspective, the biggest needs for Echinochloa management are the prediction of seed dormancy behavior and seedling emergence pattern, identification, and development; and discovering the most effective use of chemical and nonchemical interventions. Finally, Echinochloa seeds must be prevented from returning to the soil. A modeling study suggests that highly effective herbicide applications and any other efforts that minimize seedbank size are vital for preventing herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Neve2014). As highlighted by Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy (Reference Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy2012), such efforts should take late-season seed production into account. It is also crucial that effective control interventions reflect how they affect weed fecundity (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Korres and Bagavathiannan2018).

Research on the diversity in Echinochloa species driven by management practices in recent decades should continue. Properly construed, the apparent increase in abundance of some species/types acknowledges the need to distinguish and respond to them. Studies on a wider selection of samples is needed so as to elucidate the extent of the diversity in the Echinochloa species, which will lead to the development of prudent management strategies. Using genomics, researchers might study how genetic changes, particularity those that associate with their persistence mechanisms in agroecosystems, have occurred after the multiple introductions of Echinochloa species into U.S. rice and how many resulted from hybridizations among them. A comprehensive genome analysis of Echinochloa that have adapted to U.S. rice fields would probably enable the reconstruction of the evolutionary trajectory of Echinochloa species/varieties, shed light on the developmental origins of diversity in morphological and physiological traits since introduction, and pinpoint the scope and significance of gene flow in the diversification of adaptive mechanisms under various cultural and herbicide interventional regimes.

Obvious historical factors that have determined the persistence and abundance of Echinochloa species, varieties, or ecotypes in U.S. rice crops are the seeding method, water management, land preparation, type and use pattern of herbicides, and their interactions. Those are the ecological or crop production factors that matter most, as they can determine whether, when, and where one or the other Echinochloa species fail or prosper; which production systems are resistant or liable to infestation by a particular species or variety; the impacts that they cause; and the approaches through which they can be managed. Long-term studies comparing the reproductive success of a wide pool of Echinochloa species under varying production systems, taking shifting production practices into account, would provide insight for actions that need to be taken to sustainably manage Echinochloa. Recognizing and implementing ecological and evolutionary principles being the central priority, future research and the efforts should, therefore, lead to its sustainable management through 1) a better understanding of their biology and ecology pertinent to their persistence in the rice agroecosystems of the respective regions; 2) reproductive and genetic mechanisms that drive herbicide resistance evolution, especially that of multiple herbicide resistance; and 3) innovations or new approaches that expand the number of control strategies and effectively disrupt the process of their adaptations, including evolution of resistance to herbicides.

Summary

  1. 1. The discovery of chemicals that selectively killed Echinochloa and other weeds in U.S. rice fields has played a vital role in protecting yield from the monumentally improved productivity of rice in the past several decades. Yet Echinochloa species have been a constant concern and immediate issue for U.S. rice production.

  2. 2. The spread and regional adaptation of Echinochloa species in U.S. rice fields have been a rapid, continuous, and ongoing process. The trajectory of adaptations that the survivors will pick up in the future rice agroecosystems needs to be curtailed with a greater variety of selective forces.

  3. 3. The major adaptation—resistance to multiple MOAs—has promoted the development of new or usage of already available herbicides, affording only a partial answer to the weed problem.

  4. 4. As new herbicides are not effectively expanding the diversity of selective forces for Echinochloa control, rice production in the United States is becoming more vulnerable to weed losses. Henceforth, “dynamic” integration of nonchemical components into the weed management to a potential level is evidently important.

  5. 5. Echinochloa management should rely on knowledge of its population dynamics, including its reproductive potential as affected by chemical and nonchemical intervention efforts.

  6. 6. The changing relative abundance and increasing complexities in forms in Echinochloa species in recent decades indicate an urgent need to reduce the ambiguities regarding its extent.

  7. 7. A comprehensive analysis of genomes of Echinochloa species/types that have adapted in U.S. rice fields could shed light on the developmental origins of diversity in morphological and physiological traits and pinpoint the scope and significance of gene glow.

  8. 8. The seeding method, water management, land preparation, weed control technology, and their interactions are the major determinants of the persistence and abundance of Echinochloa species in U.S. rice production. Future research should lead to sustainable management of Echinochloa through a better understanding of its adaptation and persistence mechanisms, as well as identifying ways to intensify chemical and nonchemical selective forces.

Acknowledgments

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

Adair, CR, Engler, K (1955) The irrigation and culture of rice. Pages 389394 in Stefferud, A, ed. USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Google Scholar
Aoki, D, Yamaguchi, H (2008) Genetic relationship between Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa oryzicola accessions inferred from internal transcribed spacer and chloroplast DNA sequences. Weed Biol Manag 8:233242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arai, M, Matsunaka, S (1966) Control of barnyardgrass in paddy fields in Japan. JARQ-Jpn Agr Res Q 1:59 Google Scholar
Arai, M, Miyahara, M (1963) Physiological and ecological studies on barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli Beauv. var. oryzicola Ohwi). VI. On the elongation of plumule through soils after germination. Proc Crop Sci Soc Jpn 3l:367370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asíns, MJ, Carretero, JL, Busto, AD, Carbonell, EA, De Barreda, DG (1999) Morphologic and isozyme variation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa) weed species. Weed Technol 13:209215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2012) Late-season seed production in arable weed communities: management implications. Weed Sci 60:325334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2014) Pollen-mediated transfer of herbicide resistance in Echinochloa crus-galli . Pest Manag Sci 70:14251431 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Burgos, N (2011) Seedbank size and emergence pattern of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Sci 59:359365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Neve, P (2012) Seed production of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in response to time of emergence in cotton and rice. J Agric Sci 150:717724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Neve, P (2014) Modeling the simultaneous evolution of resistance to ALS- and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Clearfield® rice. Weed Technol 28:89103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajwa, AA, Jabran, K, Shahid, M, Ali, HH, Chauhan, BS, Ehsanullah (2015) Eco-biology and management of Echinochloa crus-galli . Crop Prot 75:151162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakkali, Y, Ruiz-Santaella, JP, Osuna, MD, Wagner, J, Fischer, AJ, de Prado, R (2007) Late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon): Mechanisms involved in the resistance to fenoxaprop-p-ethyl. J Agric Food Chem 55:40524058 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baltazar, AM, Smith, RJ Jr (1994) Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 8:576581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, LT, Butts, TR, Boyd, JW, Cunningham, K, Selden, G, Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, N, Bertucci, M (2022) Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control (MP-44). Publication #MP44-10M−1-21RV. Little Rock: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension ServiceGoogle Scholar
Barrett, SCH (1983) Crop mimicry in weeds. Econ Bot 37:255282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, SCH, Seaman, DE (1980) The weed flora of California rice fields. Aquat Bot 9:351376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, SCH, Wilson, BF (1981) Colonizing ability in the Echinochloa crus-galli complex (barnyardgrass). I. Variation in life history. Can J Bot 59:18441860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, SCH, Wilson, BF (1983) Colonizing ability in the Echinochloa crus-galli complex (barnyard grass). II. Seed biology. Can J Bot 61:556562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra-Alvarez, A, Estrada, S, Godar, AS, Al-Khatib, A (2022) Screening for herbicide-resistant weeds in California rice fields. Page 35 in Proceedings of the 74th Annual Conference of the California Weed Science Society. Sacramento, CA, January 19–21, 2022Google Scholar
Black, CC, Chen, TM, Brown, RH (1969) Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci 17:338344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddy, LG, Streibig, JC, Yamasue, Y, Fischer, AJ (2012) Biomass, fecundity, and interference ability of multiple herbicide-resistant and -susceptible late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon). Weed Sci 60:401410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A, Swanton, CJ (1997). Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouhache, M, Bayer, DE (1993) Photosynthetic response of flooded rice (Oryza sativa) and three Echinochloa species to changes in environmental factors. Weed Sci 41:611614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brim-DeForest, WB, Al-Khatib, K, Linquist, B, Fischer, AJ (2017a) Weed community dynamics and system productivity in alternative irrigation systems in California rice. Weed Sci 65:177188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brim-DeForest, WB, Al-Khatib, K, Fischer, AJ (2017b) Predicting yield losses in rice mixed-weed species infestations in California. Weed Sci 65:6172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brim-DeForest, WB, Al-Khatib, K, Fischer, AJ (2022) Emergence and early growth of multiple herbicide-resistant and -susceptible late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon). Weed Technol 36:101109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brod, G (1968) Unter Suchengen zur Biologie und Okologie der Huhner-hirse Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. Weed Res 8:115127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Kouame, KB-J, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, LT (2022) Arkansas rice: Herbicide resistance concerns, production practices, and weed management costs. Front Agron 4:881667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2022) California Pesticide Information Portal Application (CalPIP). https://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm. Accessed: September 25, 2022Google Scholar
Carey, VF III, Duke, SO, Hoagland, RE, Talbert, RE (1995a) Resistance mechanism of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass: absorption, translocation, site of action studies. Pestic Biochem Physiol 52:182189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, VF III, Duke, SO, Hoagland, RE, Talbert, RE (1995b) Verification and distribution of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 9:366372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceseski, AR, Godar, AS, Al-Khatib, K (2022) Combining stale seedbed with deep rice planting: A novel approach to herbicide resistance management? Weed Technol 36:261269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambliss, CE (1915) The culture of rice in California. Farmer’s Bulletin #688. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2009) Seed germination ecology of junglerice (Echinochloa colona): A major weed of rice. Weed Sci 57:235240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2010) Growth and reproduction of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) in response to water stress. Weed Sci 58:132135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirila, C, Melachrinos, A (1976) La flora vascolare delle risaie romene. Riso 15:8386 Google Scholar
Chul, KS, Moody, K (1989) Germination and seedling development of rice and Echinochloa species. Kor J Weed Sci 9:108115 Google Scholar
Clay, SA, Kleinjan, J, Clay, DE, Forcella, F, Batchelor, W (2005) Growth and fecundity of several weed species in corn and soybean. Agron J 97:294302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, WD (1980 ) Echinochloa Beauv. Pages 343345 in Tutin, TD, ed. Flora Europeas. Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Cohen, D (1966) Optimizing reproduction in a randomly varying environment. J Theor Biol 12:119129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costea, M, Tardif, FJ (2002) Taxonomy of the most common weedy European Echinochloa species (Poaceae: Panicoideae) with special emphasis on characters of the lemma and caryopsis. SIDA Contrib Bot 20:525548 Google Scholar
Crampton, B (1964) Echinochloa oryzicola in California. Madrońo 17:294295 Google Scholar
Cui, H (2021) Challenges and approaches to crop improvement through C3-to-C4 engineering. Front Plant Sci 12:715391 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damalas, CA, Dhima, KV, Eleftherohorinos, IG (2008) Morphological and physiological variation among species of the genus Echinochloa in northern Greece. Weed Sci 56:416423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damalas, CA, Koutroubas, SD (2023) Herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in global rice production. Weed Biol Manag 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danquah, EY, Johnson, DE, Riches, C, Arnold, GM, Karp, A (2002) Genetic diversity in Echinochloa spp. collected from different geographic origins and within rice fields in Côte d’Ivoire. Weed Res 42:394405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, JH, Bruns, VF (1962) Emergence of barnyardgrass, green foxtail and yellow foxtail seedlings from various soil depths. Weeds 10:136139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, JH, Bruns, VF (1975) Longevity of barnyardgrass, green foxtail and yellow foxtail seeds in soil. Weed Sci 23:437440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimaano, NG, Tominaga, T, Iwakami, S (2022) Thiobencarb resistance mechanism is distinct from CYP81A-based cross-resistance in late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon). Weed Sci 70:160166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, CD, Paul, RN (1983) Composite List of C4 Weeds. Weed Sci 31:686692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, C, Li, Y, Li, C, Li, B, Ren, Y, Zheng, H, Zeng, X, Shen, L, Lin, W (2015) Identification and comparative analysis of microRNAs in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in response to rice allelopathy. Plant Cell Environ 38:13681381 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, J, Yuhua Zhang, Y, Liu, T, Yan, B, Li, J, Dong, L (2019) Target-site and metabolic resistance mechanisms to penoxsulam in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv). J Agric Food Chem 67:80858095 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenner, M (1978) Susceptibility to shade in seedlings of colonizing and closed turf species. New Phytol 81:739744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, AJ, Ateh, CM, Bayer, DE, Hill, J (2000a) Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa fields. Weed Sci 48:225230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, AJ, Bayer, DE, Carriere, MD, Ateh, CM, Yim, KO (2000b) Mechanisms of resistance to bispyribac-sodium in an Echinochloa phyllopogon accession. Pest Biochem Physiol 68:156165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F, Benech-Arnold, RL, Sanchez, R, Ghersa, CM (2000) Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res 67:123139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, M, Schullehner, K, Dick, R, Fiesselmann, A, Gierl, A (2009) Benzoxazinoid biosynthesis, a model for evolution of secondary metabolic pathways in plants. Phytochemistry 70:16451651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J, Greenway, H (2003) Review: Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Funct Plant Biol 30:147 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC, Hill, JE (2002) Implications of delayed Echinochloa spp. germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res 42:351358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC, Hill, JE (2003) Crop traits related to weed suppression in water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.). Weed Sci 51:8793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givnish, TJ (1988) Adaptation to sun and shade: a whole plant perspective. Aust J Plant Physiol 15:6392 Google Scholar
González-Andrés, F, Pita, JM, Ortiz, JM (1996) Caryopsis isoenzymes of Echinocloa weed species as an aid for taxonomic discrimination. J Hort Sci 71:187193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, FW, Ali, MA, Fairbrothers, DE (1972) A revision of Echinochloa in the United States. Am Midl Nat 87:3659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J, Segel, LA (1990) Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol 4:186198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, AC (2003) Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res 43:111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, AC, Mead, A, Burston, S (2003) Modeling the emergence response of weed seeds to burial depth: interactions with seed density, weight and shape. J Appl Ecol 40:757770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, L, Qiu, J, Li, L, Lu, B, Olsen, K, Fan, L (2018) Genomic clues for crop-weed interactions and evolution. Trends Plant Sci 23:11021115 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, L, Qiu, J, Ye, C, Jin, G, Mao, L, Zhang, H, Yang, X, Peng, Q, Wang, Y, Jia, L, Lin, Z, Li, G, Fu, F, Liu, C, Chen, L (2017) Echinochloa crus-galli genome analysis provides insight into its adaptation and invasiveness as a weed. Nat Commun 28:1031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardke, J, Sha, X, Bateman, N (2022) B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2021. AAES Res Ser 685. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Harper, JL (1977) Population biology of plants. London and New York: Academic Press Google Scholar
Heap, I (2023) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database Online. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 15, 2023Google Scholar
Hill, JE, LeStrange, ML, Bayer, DE, Williams, JF (1985) Integrated weed management in California rice. Proc West Weed Sci Soc 38:100104 Google Scholar
Hill, JE, Smith, RJ, Bayer, D (1994) Rice weed control: current technology and emerging issues in temperate rice. Aust J Exp Agr 34:10211029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, JE, Williams, JF, Mutters, RG, Greer, CA (2006) The California rice cropping system: agronomic and natural resource issues for long-term sustainability. Paddy Water Environ 4:1319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirosue, T, Yamasue, Y, Yabuno, T (2000) Shattering habit and dormancy of spikelets in a cultivated form of Echinochloa oryzicola recently found in China. Weed Res 40:449456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, AS (1920) The North American species of Echinochloa. Pages 133–153. Contr US Natl Herb 22:3Google Scholar
Hitchcock, AS, Chase, A (1950). Pages 711–715 in Manual of the Grasses of the United States, 2nd ed. Miscellaneous Publication No. 200. Washington: U. S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, RE, Norsworthy, JK, Carey, F, Talbert, RE (2004) Metabolically based resistance to the herbicide propanil in Echinochloa species. Weed Sci 52:475486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, LG, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP, Plucknett, DL (1991) A Geographic Atlas of World Weeds. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1977) The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press Google Scholar
Honek, A, Martinkova, Z (1996) Geographic variation in seed dormancy among population of Echinochloa crus-galli . Oecologia 108:419423 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoste, I, Verloove, F (2022) Taxonomy of the weed species of the genus Echinochloa (Poaceae, Paniceae) in Southwestern Europe: Exploring the confused current state of affairs. PhytoKeys 197:131 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huelma, CC, Moody, K, Mew, TW (1996) Weed seeds in rice seed shipments: a case study. Int J Pest Manag 42:147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, JI, Norsworthy, JK, González-Torralva, F, Priess, GL, Barber, LT, Butts, TR (2022) Non-target-site resistance mechanism of barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.] to florpyrauxifen-benzyl. Pest Manag Sci 78:287295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwakami, S, Endo, M, Saika, H, Okuno, J, Nakamura, N, Yokoyama, M, Watanabe, H, Toki, S, Uchino, A, Inamura, T (2014) Cytochrome P450 CYP81A12 and CYP81A21 are associated with resistance to two acetolactate synthase inhibitors in Echinochloa phyllopogon . Plant Physiol 165:618629 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwakami, S, Kamidate, Y, Yamaguchi, T, Ishizaka, M, Endo, M, Suda, H, Nagai, K, Sunohara, Y, Toki, S, Uchino, A, Tominaga, T, Matsumoto, H (2019) CYP81A P450s are involved in concomitant cross-resistance to acetolactate synthase and acetyl-CoA carboxylase herbicides in Echinochloa phyllopogon . New Phytol 221:21122122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jepson Flora Project, ed. (2023) Jepson eFlora. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed: March 19, 2023Google Scholar
Johnson, DE, Dingkuhn, M, Jones, MP, Mahamane, MG (1998) The influence of rice plant type on the effect of weed competition on Oryza sativa and Oryza glabemma . Weed Res 38:207216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JW (1923) Rice experiments at the Biggs Rice Field Station in California. Department Bulletin No. 1155. Washington: U.S. Department of AgricultureCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JW (1926) Experiments in rice culture at the Biggs Rice Field Station in California. Department Bulletin No. 1387. Washington: U.S. Department of AgricultureCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JW (1933) Effect of depth of submergence on the control of barnyardgrass and yield of rice grown in pots. Am Soc Agron J 25:578583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JW (1938). Rice culture in the Southern states. Farmer’s Bulletin No.1808. Washington: U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Jones, JW (1952) Rice production in the Southern states. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 2043. Washington: U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Thullen, RJ (1989) Influence of planting date on growth of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Weed Sci 37:557561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Thullen, RJ (1991) Growth and interaction of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 39:369375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, PB (1923) Observations on some rice weeds in California. Calif AES Bull 356: 456494 Google Scholar
Kennedy, RA, Barrett, SCH, Vander Zee, D, Rumpho, ME (1980) Germination and seedling growth under anaerobic conditions in Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyard grass). Plant Cell Environ 3:243248 Google Scholar
Kennedy, RA, Rumpho, ME, Fox, TC (1992) Anaerobic metabolism in plants. Plant Physiol 100:16 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraehmer, H, Jabran, K, Mennan, H, Chauhan, BS (2016) Global distribution of rice weeds: A review. Crop Prot 80:7386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kust, CA, Smith, RR (1969) Interaction of Linuron and row spacing for the control of yellow foxtail and barnyardgrass in soybeans. Weed Sci 17:489491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, JL, Kropff, MJ (1996). Applications of an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice (Oryza sativa)-Echinochloa competition. Weed Sci 44:5256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, R, Singh, V, Abugho, S, Lin, H-S, Zhou, X-G, Bagavathiannan, M (2022) Morphophysiological diversity and its association with herbicide resistance in Echinochloa ecotypes. Weed Sci 70:2635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, R, Singh, V, Zhou, X, Bagavathiannan, M (2021) Stakeholder and field surveys on weed issues and research needs in rice production in Texas. Weed Technol 5:242250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, MS, Burgos, NR, Talbert, RE (2010) Confirmation and control of propanil-resistant and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice. Weed Technol 24:226233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchesi, C (2009) Regional analyses of constraints affecting rice production systems in California grain milling quality at harvest and evolution of herbicide resistant Echinochloa spp. Ph.D. dissertation. Davis, CA: University of California. 179 pGoogle Scholar
Maun, MA, Barrett, SCH (1986) The biology of Canadian weeds. 77. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Can J Plant Sci 66:739–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, PW (1983) Taxonomy and distribution of Echinochloa species with a special reference to their occurrence as weeds of rice. Pages 291–306 in Proceedings of the Conference on Weed Control in Rice. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute and International Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Michael, PW (2003) Echinochloa P. Beauv. Pages 390–403 in Barkworth et al., eds. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 25. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Mitich, LW (1990) Intriguing world of weeds. Barnyardgrass. Weed Technol 4:918–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mujer, CV, Rumpho, ME, Lin, J, Kennedy, RA (1993) Constitutive and inducible aerobic and anaerobic stress proteins in the Echinochloa complex and rice. Plant Physiol 101:217226 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ni, HK, Moody, Robles, RP (2004) Analysis of competition between wet- seeded rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) using a response-surface model. Weed Sci 52:142146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF (1992a) Case history for weed competition/ population ecology: barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol 6:220227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF (1992b) Relationship between inflorescence size and seed production in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci 40:7478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF (1996) Morphological and phenological variation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in California. Weed Sci 54:10861093 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013) Weed management practices and needs in Arkansas and Mississippi rice. Weed Technol 27:623630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, NR, Scott, RC, Smith, KL (2007a) Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol 21:832839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Green, JK, Barber, T, Roberts, TL, Walsh, MJ (2020) Seed destruction of weeds in southern US crops using heat and narrow-windrow burning. Weed Technol 34:589596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018) Weed seedbank management: Revisiting how herbicides are evaluated. Weed Sci 66:415417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Smith, KL (2007b) Confirmation and management of clomazone-resistant barnyardgrass in rice. Res Ser Ark Agric Exp Stn Bull 560:113116 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):3162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Wilson, MJ, Scott, RC, Gbur, EE (2014) Herbicidal activity on acetolactate synthase-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas, USA. Weed Biol Manag 14:5058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oelke, EA (1966) Water depth and rice yields. Rice J 69:6970 Google Scholar
Oliver, LR, Schreiber, MM (1971) Differential selectivity of herbicides on six Setaria taxa. Weed Sci 19:428431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, AO, Dille, JA, Assefa, Y, Radicetti, R, Ayeni, A, Knezevic, SZ (2019) Impact of cover crop management on level of weed suppression: A meta-analysis. Crop Sci 59:833842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osuna, MD, Vidotto, F, Fischer, AJ, Bayer, DE, de Prado, R, Ferrero, A (2002) Cross-resistance to bispyribac-sodium and bensulfuron-methyl in Echinochloa phyllopogon and Cyperus difformis . Pestic Biochem Physiol 73:917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottis, BV, Talbert, RE (2007) Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control and rice density effects on rice yield components. Weed Technol 21:110118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, ME, Jackson, MB (1991) Comparison of growth responses of barnyard grass (Echinochloa oryzoides) and rice (Oryza sativa) to submergence, ethylene, carbon dioxide and oxygen shortage. Ann Bot 68:201209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, MA, Collavo, A, Ovejero, R, Shivrain, V, Walsh, MJ (2018) The challenge of herbicide resistance around the world: a current summary. Pest Manag Sci 74:22462259 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pittelkow, CM, Fischer, AJ, Moechnig, MJ, Hill, JE, Koffler, KB, Mutters, RG, Greer, CA, Cho, YS, van Kessel, C, Linquist, BA (2012) Agronomic productivity and nitrogen requirements of alternative tillage and crop establishment systems for improved weed control in direct-seeded rice. Field Crops Res 130:128137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, EM, Sweet, RD, Vengris, J, Dunn, S (1968) Life history studies as related to weed control in the Northeast. 5. Barnyardgrass. Agric Exp Sta Univ Delaware Bull 368:1–46Google Scholar
Rao, AN (2021) Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa colona. Pages 197–239 in Chauhan BS, ed. Biology and Management of Problematic Crop Weed Species. Cambridge. U.K.: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Norsworthy, JK (2010) Glyphosate-Resistant Crop Production Systems: Impact on Weed Species Shift. Pages 165–184 in Nandula V., ed. Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Bond, JA, Bararpour, MT, Wilson, MJ, Scott, RC (2012) Resistance of Echinochloa crus-galli populations to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Int J Agron 893953Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Srivastava, V, Nandula, V, Bond, JA, Scott, RC (2013a) Physiological and molecular basis of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). J Agric Food Chem 61:278289 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013b) Adoption of best management practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol 27:788797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, G, Vezeau, MC, Simon, JP (1983) Adaptation and acclimation at the enzyme level: Thermostability of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase of populations of a weedy C4 grass species, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Photosynthetica 17:557565 Google Scholar
Roché, BF Jr, Muzik, TJ (1964) Ecological and physiological study of Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. and the response of its biotypes to sodium 2,2-dichloropropionate. Agron J 56:155160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, CE, Roma-Burgos, N, Norsworthy, JK, Tseng, TM, Starkey, CE, Scott, RC (2018) Echinochloa resistance to herbicides continues to increase in Arkansas rice fields. Weed Technol 32:3444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, S, Simon, JP, Lapointe, FJ (2000) Determination of the origin of the cold-adapted populations of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in eastern North America: a total-evidence approach using RAPD DNA and DNA sequences. Can J Bot 78:15051513 Google Scholar
Royo-Esnal, A, Onofri, A, Taab, A, Loddo, D, Necajeva, J, Uludag, A, Synowiec, A, Calha, IM, Lars, A, Jensen, PK, Uremis, I, Economou, G, Murdoch, AJ, Tørresen, KS (2022) Comparing the emergence of Echinochloa crus-galli populations in different locations. Part II: similarities and threshold parameters. Weed Res 62:203214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Santaella, JP, de Prado, R, Wagner, J, Fischer, AJ, Gerhards, R (2006) Resistance mechanisms to cyhalofop-butyl in a biotype of Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf) Koss. from California. J Plant Dis Protec 95–100Google Scholar
Rumpho, ME, Kennedy, RA (1983) Anaerobiosis in Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyard grass) seedlings. Intermediary metabolism and ethanol tolerance. Plant Physiol 72:4449 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sage, RF, Sage, TL, Kocacinar, F (2012) Photorespiration and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 63:1947 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Green, JK, Norsworthy, JK (2017) Seed shatter and retention of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) at and after soybean maturity. Weed Technol 31:617622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith RJ Jr (1968) Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci 16:252255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith RJ Jr (1970) Weed control methods, losses and cost due to weeds, and benefits of weed control in rice. Pages 24–37 in Technical Papers, FAO International Conference on Weed Control. Urbana, IL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Smith RJ Jr (1974) Competition of barnyardgrass with rice cultivars. Weed Sci 22:423426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith RJ Jr (1988) Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol 2:232241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ Jr, Finchum, WT, Seaman, DE (1977) Weed control in US rice Production. Agriculture Handbook No. 497. Washington: U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ Jr, Fox, WT (1973) Soil water and growth of rice and weeds. Weed Sci 21:6163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauber, LG, Smith, RJ Jr, Talbert, RE (1991) Density and spatial interference of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 39:163168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, OA (1932) The number and weight of seeds produced by weeds. Am J Bot 19:784794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabacchi, M, Mantegazza, R, Ferrero, A (2006) Morphological traits and molecular markers for classification of Echinochloa species from Italian rice fields. Weed Sci 54:10861093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahir, H, Roma-Burgos, N (2021) Fecundity and seed dormancy variation within and among Echinochloa species. Front Agron 3:623425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, RE, Burgos, NR (2007) History and management of herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol 21:324331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, H, Scott, G, Ouse, D, Zielinski, M, Schmitzer, P (2023) Metabolic cross-resistance to florpyrauxifen-benzyl in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) evolved before the commercialization of Rinskor™. Weed Sci 71:7783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travlos, IS, Economou, G, Kanatas, PJ (2011) Corn and barnyardgrass competition as influenced by relative time of weed emergence and corn hybrid. Agron J 103:16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuji, R, Fischer, AJ, Yoshino, M, Roel, A, Hill, JE, Yamasue, Y (2003) Herbicide-resistant late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon): similarity in morphological and amplified fragment length polymorphism traits. Weed Sci 51:740747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014) 2013 Agricultural chemical use survey. Rice. No 2014-4. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2013_Rice_Highlights/ChemUseHighlights-Rice-2013.pdf. Accessed: March 17, 2023Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2022) 2021 Agricultural chemical use survey. Rice. No 2022-3. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2021_Field_Crops/chemhighlights-rice.pdf. Accessed: March 17, 2023Google Scholar
VanderZee D, Kennedy, RA (1981) Germination and seedling growth in Echinochloa crus-galli var. oryzicola under anoxic conditions: Structural aspects. Am J Bot 68:12691277 Google Scholar
Vasinger-Alektorova, AV (1931) The characterization of the weed-based clogging of the rice plantations of South Primorye (Far East of the USSR). Trudy po Prikladnoi Botanike, Genetike i Selektsii 25:109–152Google Scholar
Vickery, J (1975) Gramineae. Flora N.S.W. 19:189–211Google Scholar
Vleeshouwers, LM, Kropff, MJ (2000) Modeling field emergence patterns in arable weeds. New Phytol 148:445457 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seed in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Ouzman, J, Newman, P, Powles, S, Llewellyn, R (2017) High levels of adoption indicate that harvest weed seed control is now an established weed control practice in Australian cropping. Weed Technol 31:341347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI (1990) Allozyme and life history variation in five northwardly colonizing North American weed species. Plant Syst Evol 169:4154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Coble, HD (1997) Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol 11:308317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM (2010) Loss of glyphosate efficacy: A changing weed spectrum in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 58:7379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegand, KM (1921) The genus Echinochloa in North America. Rhodora 4965 Google Scholar
Wu, D, Shen, E, Jiang, B, Feng, Y, Tang, W, Lao, S, Jia, L, Lin, H, Xie, L, Weng, X, Dong, C, Qian, Q, Lin, F, Xu, H, Lu, H (2022) Genomic insights into the evolution of Echinochloa species as weed and orphan crop. Nat Commun 13:689 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yabuno, T (1966) Biosystematic study of the genus Echinochloa . Jpn J Bot 19:277323 Google Scholar
Yabuno, T (1981) Cytological relationship between Echinochloa oryzicola Vasing. and the French strain of E. phyllopogon Stapf subsp. oryzicola (Vasing.) Koss. Cytologia 46:393396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yabuno, T (1984) A biosystematic study on Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch. Cytologia 49:673678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamasue, Y (2001) Strategy of Echinochloa oryzicola Vasing. for survival in flooded rice. Weed Biol Manag 1:2836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, X, Fuller, DQ, Huan, X, Perry, L, Li, Q, Li, Z, Zhang, J, Ma, Z, Zhuang, Y, Jiang, L, Ge, Y, Lu, H (2015) Barnyard grasses were processed with rice around 10,000 years ago. Sci Rep 5:16251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasuor, H, Milan, M, Eckert, JW, Fischer, AJ (2012) Quinclorac resistance: a concerted hormonal and enzymatic effort in Echinochloa phyllopogon . Pest Manag Sci 68:108115 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuor, H, Osuna, MD, Ortiz, AA, Saldaín, NE, Eckert, JW, Fischer, AJ (2009) Mechanism of resistance to penoxsulam in late watergrass [Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf) Koss.]. J Agric Food Chem 57:36533660 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuor, H, TenBrook, PL, Tjeerdema, RS, Fischer, AJ (2008) Responses to clomazone and 5-ketoclomazone by Echinochloa phyllopogon resistant to multiple herbicides in Californian rice fields. Pest Manag Sci 64:10311039 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, C, Wu, D, Mao, L, Jia, L, Qiu, J, Lao, S, Chen, M, Jiang, B, Tang, W, Peng, Q, Pan, L, Wang, L, Feng, X, Guo, L, Zhang, C (2020) The genomes of the allohexaploid Echinochloa crus-galli and its progenitors provide insights into polyploidization-driven adaptation. Mol Plant 13:12981310 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, C, Tang, W, Wu, D, Jia, L, Qiu, J, Chen, M, Mao, L, Lin, F, Xu, H, Yu, X, Lu, Y, Wang, Y, Olsen, KM, Timko, MP, Fan, L (2019) Genomic evidence of human selection on Vavilovian mimicry. Nat Ecol Evol 3:14741482 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yun, MS, Yogo, Y, Miura, R, Yamasue, Y, Fischer, AJ (2005) Cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activity in herbicide-resistant and -susceptible late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon). Pest Biochem Physiol 83:107114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Q, Powles, SB (2014) Metabolism-based herbicide resistance and cross-resistance in crop weeds: a threat to herbicide sustainability and global crop production. Plant Physiol 166:11061118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, XG, Long, SP, Ort, DR (2008) What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Curr Opin Biotechnol 19:153159 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Economically most relevant Echinochloa in U.S. rice fields. (A) Origin of barnyardgrass (E. crus-galli var. crus-galli) (adapted from Wu et al. 2022; Ye et al. 2020). (B) Intrapopulation variation in whole plant morphology of a barnyardgrass population from California (adapted from Norris 1996). (C) A typical seed and inflorescence morphology of barnyardgrass (adapted from Jepson Flora Project). Adapted with permission.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Seed size in relation to ecological differentiation in Echinochloa species. (A) Caryopsis size of three Echinochloa species (left, adapted from Costea and Tardif 2002) and seed size distribution of the global collection of Echinochloa species (right, adapted from Wu et al. 2022). (B) Flood as an ecological determinant for the emergence and establishment of Echinochloa species along with the effect of seed placement in the soil profile.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Echinochloa against rice. (A) Competitive outcome of barnyardgrass and rice competition in terms of panicle number and grain yield at varying densities (adapted from Smith 1968). (B) Photosynthetic output of Echinochloa species at increasing CO2 concentration in comparison with rice (a. barnyardgrass, b. early watergrass, c. late watergrass, and d. rice; adapted from Bouhache and Bayer 1993). (C) Inhibition of rice seedlings by 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one (DIMBOA) extracted from barnyardgrass seedlings (adapted from Guo et al. 2017).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Emergence of barnyardgrass in relation to rice/soybean planting time in Arkansas. (A) Rice/soybean planting progress in 2022 (adapted from USDA-NAAS 2022). (B) Barnyardgrass weekly emergence at two sites in Arkansas in 2008 (adapted from Bagavathiannan et al. 2011). *Percentage of total seasonal emergence.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Historical trajectory of Echinochloa establishment in U.S. rice crops with milestones in its management. Following multiple introductions, the population dynamics of Echinochloa in U.S. rice have been primarily driven by water management and the use of herbicides. Water-seeding rice culture was developed in the 1920s to reduce infestations of barnyardgrass in rice fields. The widespread use of 2,4-D to control broadleaf weeds in the 1950s favored Echinochloa. Producers in the mid-South shifted to dry-seeding rice after propanil became available in the early 1960s, when barnyardgrass became the keystone rice weed. The long-established water-seeded monoculture of California rice was selected for large-seeded, water-tolerant late watergrass. For the past 50 yr, these species have prevailed in their respective regions with the evolution of resistance to almost all major herbicides that were deployed through the decades, leading to the increased abundance of Echinochloa in U.S. rice. Recent reports indicate an increase in barnyardgrass in California and junglerice in mid-South rice in the last two decades. MHR, multiple herbicide resistance.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Tiller and genomic proximity of three E. crus-galli varieties. (A) Distribution of tiller angle, and (B) genomic proximity as defined by reads mapping rates and genome coverage of reads mapped to a reference genome of a barnyardgrass population from China (both A and B adapted from Wu et al. 2022).

Figure 6

Figure 7. Herbicide use history in California rice fields from 1990 to 2018 (data compiled from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation). (A) First-generation rice herbicides (introduced before 2000), and (B) second-generation rice herbicides (introduced after 2000).

Figure 7

Figure 8. Resistance profile of Echinochloa species submitted for resistance testing in Arkansas (2010 to 2016) to four commonly used rice herbicides (adapted from Rouse et al. 2018).