A first survey for herbicide resistant weeds across major maize growing areas in the North Island of New Zealand

Zachary Ngow; Trevor K James; Ben Harvey; Christopher E Buddenhagen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299539

. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0299539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299539

A first survey for herbicide resistant weeds across major maize growing areas in the North Island of New Zealand

Zachary Ngow ^1,^*, Trevor K James ¹, Ben Harvey ², Christopher E Buddenhagen ¹

Editor: Ahmet Uludag³

PMCID: PMC10919694 PMID: 38451981

Abstract

Weeds are increasingly documented with evolved resistance to herbicides globally. Three species have been reported as resistant in maize crops in New Zealand: Chenopodium album to atrazine and dicamba, Persicaria maculosa to atrazine and Digitaria sanguinalis to nicosulfuron. Despite knowledge of these cases, the distribution of these resistant biotypes is unknown. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of known resistant weeds in major maize growing areas in New Zealand, and to pro-actively screen other species for resistance. Weed seeds of broadleaf and grass species were collected from 70 randomly selected maize growing farms in the North Island in 2021–2022. Seeds were grown and treated with herbicides at recommended field rates. Atrazine-resistant C. album were recorded in a third of surveyed farms and nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis in a sixth. Half of Waikato farms and a quarter of Bay of Plenty farms (no Hawkes Bay or Wellington farms) had atrazine-resistant C. album. Dicamba-resistant C. album were not detected, nor were atrazine-resistant P. maculosa. Nicosulfuron resistant D. sanguinalis was recorded in 19% of Waikato farms, 6% of Bay of Plenty farms and 9% of Hawkes Bay farms (no Wellington farms). Amaranthus spp., Fallopia convolvulus, Persicaria spp., Solanum spp., Echinochloa crus-galli, Panicum spp. and Setaria spp. were not resistant to any of the herbicides tested. Twenty-nine to 52% of maize farms in the North Island are estimated to have herbicide resistant weeds. Resistance is common in maize farms in Waikato and western Bay of Plenty. Resistance is rare in southern regions, with only one instance of nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis and no resistant C. album. Most annual weeds in maize are not resistant to herbicides; although atrazine resistant C. album is widespread, it is currently controlled with alternative herbicides. Resistant D. sanguinalis appears to be an emerging problem.

Introduction

Maize is an important crop in New Zealand, grown on an estimated 70,000 hectares as silage and grain maize to support animal agriculture [1, 2]. Growers of maize rely heavily on herbicides to control weeds. Across the world, repeated use of herbicides within a single mode of action has led to repeated evolution of herbicide resistant weeds [3]. Nineteen species are now reported to have herbicide resistance in New Zealand [4, 5]. Almost a fifth of worldwide cases of herbicide resistance are in maize crops [6]. Here, only three species are known to be resistant in maize.

The first documented case of herbicide resistance in New Zealand was atrazine-resistant Chenopodium album L. from maize grown in the Waikato region in 1979 [7]. A short time later, atrazine-resistant Persicaria maculosa Gray was also found in Waikato maize [8]. By 1990 it was believed that most C. album in maize in New Zealand was atrazine-resistant [7, 9]. In the case of P. maculosa, an intensive eradication programme was undertaken and the resistant biotype was not believed to have spread [9]. In 2003, C. album populations resistant to both atrazine and dicamba were detected in eastern Waikato [10]. Many other post-emergent herbicides still controlled these populations, and growers in the area appeared to be using these alternatives [11]. Despite there being several documented cases of resistance, no systematic survey for resistant weeds in New Zealand maize crops has been conducted. In 2017, nicosulfuron-resistant Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop populations were detected in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato [5, 12]. The current lack of knowledge regarding the prevalence of these resistant biotypes, including the recently discovered nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis, motivated an investigation of the prevalence of resistant weeds in maize.

Recent herbicide resistance surveys in Canterbury cereals demonstrated higher levels of resistance than had been suspected in known resistant species and detected several new species of herbicide resistant weeds [5]. We anticipated that similar detections of new resistant weed species could be observed in surveys for resistance in maize. Weed species common in maize such as Amaranthus powelli S.Watson, Solanum nigrum L. and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. have evolved herbicide resistance repeatedly in other parts of the world and were predicted to have a high risk of evolving resistance in New Zealand [13].

Randomized surveys can provide a reasonable estimate of the rate of resistance across farms [14]. By knowing that resistance is present, sector wide communication about the problem is possible, which can lead to farmers changing their weed management practices [15]. Repeated surveys can reveal temporal trends of resistant weeds, as demonstrated in Australian weed surveys [16, 17].

This study presents results from the first randomized survey for herbicide resistant weeds in New Zealand maize. We estimate the prevalence of herbicide resistant weeds across major maize growing regions (Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa).

Materials and methods

Sample collection

Farmer contact information was sourced from Agribase [18], and the Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) member list. Farmers were contacted in randomised order, to obtain permission for field sampling, from two databases to provide a total 70 randomly selected farms, 36 from Waikato, 16 from Bay of Plenty, 11 from Hawke’s Bay and 7 from Wellington. Farmers were contacted by phone again to confirm their permission on the day we visited their farms. One field, fitting the criterion of being cropped for at least two consecutive years, was sampled for each farm.

Fields were sampled before crop harvest when most weed seed was mature. This was between late February to early March 2021 for Waikato and Bay of Plenty, and in late January 2022 for Hawke’s Bay and Wellington (Wairarapa). Seed samples were collected from individual weeds (not combined across multiple plants) within surveyed fields; seed from up to ten plants per species were collected from per field, at distances of at least 20 metres apart. Our goal to detect the presence of resistance, not to characterize the proportion of resistance in individual fields. Collecting from individual plants means that the seeds collected share a genetic history (from the ‘mother’) and a larger proportion of the seed sample is likely to contain resistant traits. This approach also allowed us to detect any possible cross-resistance or multiple resistance as plants share a common genetic background. Weed seeds from non-cropped areas were collected to use as susceptible control populations, and resistant control populations from prior studies of C. album and D. sanguinalis were included [5].

Plant propagation

Seed samples were stored at 5°C for at least a month before being planted. To break dormancy, seeds of all species except Persicaria spp. and Solanum spp. were treated with a solution of 0.2% KNO₃ for 24 hours [19]. Depending on seed availability, up to 20 seeds per sample (per herbicide) were planted in rows into plastic propagation trays (Egmont RXPROPT; 34cm × 20cm × 6cm) filled with potting mix (Dalton’s grass and clover mix; 33.3% coco-coir, 33.3% pumice, 33.3% bark). Trays contained four samples, with a susceptible and a resistant sample (if available) planted in the centre rows. Samples were grown in the soil medium that was kept moist (watered every 2–3 days) and kept in a temperature-regulated glasshouse at Ruakura and maintained between 18 and 25°C. Plants were grown during their normal growing seasons, between spring and autumn, with the majority planted in November.

Herbicide treatment

Post-emergent herbicides were applied to seedlings at the 3-leaf stage for grass species and 4-leaf for the broadleaf species, according to recommendations on herbicide labels, at the highest recommended rate (Table 1). Herbicide treatments were applied with a moving belt sprayer, fitted with a single TeeJet TT11002 flat fan nozzle at 200 kPa, positioned 440 mm above the top of the trays, and calibrated to apply a water rate of 200 L/ha. The moving belt is positioned in the central third of the fan area for even coverage.

Table 1. Herbicides tested.

Herbicide	Mode of action	Rate (g a.i ha^-1)	Adjuvant	Species treated
atrazine	Photosystem-II inhibitors [group 5]	1500	-	broadleaves
dicamba	Synthetic auxin [group 4]	300	-	broadleaves
nicosulfuron	Acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors [group 2]	60	0.5% Bonza^®	broadleaves and grasses
topramezone	4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors [group 27]	67.2	-	grasses

Open in a new tab

Plant survival was assessed after susceptible controls had died, usually 3–5 weeks after treatment. Seedlings with active growth that survived herbicide treatments were considered resistant. Similar to other studies [16, 17], including our earlier survey [5] we use a threshold to classify samples, those with fewer than three seedlings surviving treatment were not classified as resistant. This choice is appropriate for samples collected from individual plants. Seed samples without sufficient germination (less than 4) were classified as ‘collected’ but not ‘tested’.

Farms with resistant weeds were mapped using the ggmap R package [20], using map tiles by Stamen Design under CC BY 4.0 and information from OpenStreetMap contributors and the OpenStreetMap Foundation under the Open Database License. Binomial 95% confidence intervals for the proportion of farms with resistant weeds were calculated with the binom R package using the ‘binom.prop.test’ function [21].

Results

Weed samples collected

The most frequently collected species were Amaranthus spp. (32 samples), C. album (112), Fallopia convolvulus (L.) Á.Löve (38), Persicaria spp. (144), Solanum spp. (23), D. sanguinalis (152), E. crus-galli (74), Panicum spp. (50) and Setaria spp. (65; Table 2). Together, these made up 79% of the 869 seed samples collected. The Amaranthus species were A. blitum ssp. oleraceus (L.) Costea, A. deflexus L., A. powelli; Persicaria species were P. decipiens (R.Br.) K.L.Wilson, P. hydropiper (L.) Spach, P. lapathifolia (L.) Delarbre, P. maculosa; Solanum species were S. americanum Mill., S. nigrum; Panicum species were P. dichotomiflorum Michx., P. miliaceum L.; Setaria species were S. pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult., S. verticillata (L.) P.Beauv.

Table 2. Count of farms and seed samples of weed species that were tested.

This omits sites with samples that did not germinate. Seed samples were collected from individual plants within farms.

	Waikato		Bay of Plenty		Hawkes Bay		Wellington		Total
Weed	farms	samples	farms	samples	farms	samples	farms	samples	farms	samples
*Amaranthus*	9	17	4	4	2	7	0	0	15	28
*Chenopodium*	23	71	9	28	0	0	0	0	32	99
*Fallopia*	5	5	1	1	0	0	0	0	6	6
*Persicaria*	26	85	5	26	0	0	0	0	31	111
*Solanum*	4	9	1	4	0	0	0	0	5	13
*Digitaria*	22	66	10	24	3	6	0	0	35	96
*Echinochloa*	11	14	2	2	2	2	2	2	17	20
*Panicum*	5	6	7	14	2	4	0	0	14	24
*Setaria*	11	32	3	3	2	3	0	0	17	38
Farms Surveyed	36	305	16	106	11	22	7	2	70	435

Open in a new tab

Of the 689 seed samples collected, 435 samples successfully germinated and were then treated with herbicides (Table 2). Most seed collected was from Waikato (305 samples) and Bay of Plenty (106) farms; only 24 seed samples tested were from Hawke’s Bay (22) and Wellington (2), these were Amaranthus spp. (7 samples), D. sanguinalis (6), E. crus-galli (4), Panicum spp. (4) and Setaria spp. (3).

Broadleaf species

Thirty-one percent of surveyed farms (95% binomial confidence interval (CI): 21–44%) had atrazine-resistant C. album (Table 3); this was half of surveyed Waikato farms (mean = 50%; 95% CI: 34–66%) and a quarter of Bay of Plenty farms (mean = 25%; 95% CI: 8–53%). Sixty-seven percent (CI: 58–77%) of C. album seed samples tested were atrazine-resistant, and 69% (CI:50–83%) of farms with C. album collected and tested had atrazine-resistant C. album. Atrazine-resistant C. album was found throughout the entire Waikato region and in both the western and eastern Bay of Plenty. No farms in Hawke’s Bay or Wairarapa had any C. album present for collection. No resistance to dicamba or nicosulfuron was observed for C. album in Waikato or elsewhere (Table 3). No resistant populations of the broadleaf species Amaranthus spp. and F. convolvulus, Persicaria spp. and Solanum spp. were identified.

Table 3. Prevalence of herbicide resistant broadleaf weeds in 70 maize farmss in the North Island (mean percentage farms resistant out of those surveyed; 95% confidence interval percentage farms resistant out of those surveyed).

The number of farms tested are those where seed samples of that weed species were collected and tested with herbicides.

Species	Farms Tested	atrazine	dicamba	nicosulfuron
Amaranthus spp.	15	0	0	0
Waikato	9	0	0	0
Bay of Plenty	4	0	0	0
Hawkes Bay	2	0	0	0
Wellington	0	-	-	-
*Chenopodium album*	32	22 (31%)	0	0
Waikato	23	18 (50%)	0	0
Bay of Plenty	9	4 (25%)	0	0
Hawkes Bay	0	-	-	-
Wellington	0	-	-	-
*Fallopia convolvulus*	6	0	0	0
Waikato	5	0	0	0
Bay of Plenty	1	0	0	0
Hawkes Bay	0	-	-	-
Wellington	0	-	-	-
Persicaria spp.	31	0	0	0
Waikato	26	0	0	0
Bay of Plenty	5	0	0	0
Hawkes Bay	0	-	-	-
Wellington	0	-	-	-
Solanum spp.	5	0	0	0
Waikato	4	0	0	0
Bay of Plenty	1	0	0	0
Hawkes Bay	0	-	-	-
Wellington	0	-	-	-

Open in a new tab

Grass species

Overall, 13% of farms surveyed (95% CI: 6–24%) had nicosulfuron resistant D. sanguinalis, this included seven Waikato farms (19%; 95% CI: 9–37%), one Bay of Plenty farm (6%; 95% CI: 0–32%) and one Hawkes Bay farm (9%; 95% CI: 0–43%; Table 4). Fourteen percent (CI: 7–22%) of D. sanguinalis samples tested were nicosulfuron-resistant, and 26% (15–47%) of farms that had D. sanguinalis samples collected and tested had nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis. No resistant populations of the grass species E. crus-galli, Panicum spp. and Setaria spp. were identified.

Table 4. Number of farms with herbicide resistant grass weeds in 70 maize farms in the North Island (percentage farms resistant out of those surveyed; 95% confidence interval percentage farms resistant out of those surveyed).

The number of farms tested are those where seed samples of that weed species were collected and tested with herbicides.

Species	Farms Tested	nicosulfuron	topramezone
*Digitaria sanguinalis*	35	10 (13%)	0
Waikato	22	7 (19%)	-
Bay of Plenty	10	1 (6%)	-
Hawkes Bay	3	1 (9%)	0
Wellington	0	-	-
*Echinochloa crus-galli*	17	0	0
Waikato	11	0	0
Bay of Plenty	2	0	0
Hawkes Bay	2	0	0
Wellington	2	0	0
Panicum spp.	14	0	0
Waikato	5	0	0
Bay of Plenty	7	0	0
Hawkes Bay	2	0	0
Wellington	0	-	-
Setaria spp.	17	0	0
Waikato	11	0	0
Bay of Plenty	3	0	0
Hawkes Bay	3	0	0
Wellington	0	-	-

Open in a new tab

Prevalence of resistant weeds

Twenty-nine to fifty-two percent of maize farms were estimated to have herbicide resistant weeds present (mean = 40%. No resistant weeds were detected in Wellington (0%), but one farm in Hawkes Bay (9%; 95% CI: 0–42%), five in the Bay of Plenty (31%; 95% CI: 12–59%) and twenty-two in Waikato (61%; 95% CI: 44–76%; Fig 1) had resistant weeds. Six farms had both atrazine-resistant C. album and nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis, sixteen had only resistant C. album, six had only resistant D. sanguinalis and forty-two had no resistant weeds. The farms with both resistant C. album and D. sanguinalis were all located in Waikato.

Fig 1 — Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 4.0. Contains information from OpenStreetMap and OpenStreetMap Foundation, which is made available under the Open Database License.

Discussion

Assuming our sample is representative, after processing nearly 700 samples from randomly selected farms, we estimated 40% (CI 29%-52%) of maize farms had resistant weeds present in the North Island. Similar rates of herbicide resistance were recorded in the South Island arable surveys, where 48% of farms had resistance (CI 37%-59%) [5]. In those surveys, multiple weed species were identified as herbicide resistant for the first time in New Zealand [5]. Contrastingly, most weed species in maize are not resistant to herbicides, except for C. album and D. sanguinalis.

Atrazine resistant C. album is widespread (though not in the Hawke’s Bay and Wellington regions) but is mostly well controlled, as several other available herbicides remain effective. Nicosulfuron resistant D. sanguinalis was found in Bay of Plenty, Waikato and Hawke’s Bay and appears to be an emerging problem, being resistant in 13% (CI 6%-24%) of farms. It is unclear when resistance in D. sanguinalis first arose; the grower in the first detected case (in 2017) is known to have applied nicosulfuron for six consecutive years [22], but our data provides a useful baseline for future work looking at the rate of change in resistance in maize. Whilst there are many herbicides available for resistant C. album and P. maculosa [13], there are fewer control options for D. sanguinalis, though chloroacetamides (e.g. acetochlor) and HPPD-inhibitors (e.g. topramezone) are effective.

It appears that the previously reported atrazine-resistant P. maculosa [8] and dicamba-resistant C. album [10] have failed to spread, as no resistant populations were detected. The targeted control of those biotypes with other herbicides appears to have succeeded [8, 9, 11]. In the case of dicamba-resistant C. album, it may be that the known fitness cost associated with resistance [23] contributed to the decline of the biotype. Atrazine-resistant C. album was not found in Hawke’s Bay or Wellington. This may indicate that resistant biotypes had never spread to those regions, or that they are well-controlled there. Those regions differ from Waikato and Bay of Plenty by their increased amount of arable cropping, as opposed to maize monocropping or dairy/maize systems. Crop rotation is believed to delay the evolution of resistance [24], which is possibly a factor in those regions’ lack of herbicide resistant weeds in maize.

With increasing awareness of the resistance problem, farmers are more willing to take precautions against resistance development [15, 25]. Herbicide resistance surveys and a free testing service briefly offered to farmers and rural professionals over a five year period [26] in Canterbury have provided direct evidence that they needed to manage their resistant weeds and encouraged a growing sense of urgency for action in farmers [5, 15]. In maize, we identified an emerging problem of nicosulfuron-resistant D. sanguinalis. Here, there is a great potential for farmers to act early.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Herbicide resistance screening data.

This data is from weed seed samples collected from North Island, New Zealand maize crops.

(XLSX)

pone.0299539.s001.xlsx^{(76.2KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We thank the farmers who allowed us to sample for weeds in their crops. Tracey Dale, Ben Wynne-Jones and Bridget Wise, Fiona Anderson and Nikita Beck assisted with collecting weed seeds and Deborah Hackell, Bridget Wise and Ben Wynne-Jones assisted with glasshouse experiments.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by a New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment grant from the Endeavour fund: C10X1806, Improved weed control and vegetation management to minimise future herbicide resistance. The funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Booker JW. Production, distribution and utilisation of maize in New Zealand [MAppSc Thesis]. Thesis, Lincoln University. 2009. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/10182/1074. [Google Scholar]
2.FAR. New Zealand survey of maize areas and volumes: June 1, 2023. Christchurch, New Zealand: Foundation for Arable Research, AIMI; 2023 Jun p. 12.
3.Heap I. Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Management Science. 2014;70: 1306–1315. doi: 10.1002/ps.3696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Ghanizadeh H, Harrington KC. Herbicide resistant weeds in New Zealand: state of knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019; 1–12. [Google Scholar]
5.Buddenhagen CE, James TK, Ngow Z, Hackell DL, Rolston MP, Chynoweth RJ, et al. Resistance to post-emergent herbicides is becoming common for grass weeds on New Zealand wheat and barley farms. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0258685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Heap I. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds - www.weedscience.org. In: International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds [Internet]. 2023. Available: http://www.weedscience.org/.
7.Rahman A, James TK, Mortimer J. Control of atrazine-resistant fathen in maize. Proceedings of the 36th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. 1983. pp. 229–232. Available: https://www.nzpps.org/journal/36/nzpp_362290.pdf. [Google Scholar]
8.Rahman A, Patterson TM. Polygonum persicaria—a triazine-resistant biotype. pnzwpcc. 1987;40: 186–188. doi: 10.30843/nzpp.1987.40.9933 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Rahman A. Current status of herbicide resistance in New Zealand weeds. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference. 1990; 196–200. [Google Scholar]
10.James T, Rahman A, Meilsop JM. Fathen (Chenopodium album) a biotype resistant to dicamba. New Zealand Plant Protection. 2005;58: 152–156. doi: 10.30843/nzpp.2005.58.4321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.Rahman A, James TK, Trolove M. Characteristics and control of dicamba-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Biology and Management. 2014;14: 88–98. doi: 10.1111/wbm.12036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Harrington KC, James T.K. Managing herbicide resistance in maize crops. In: Pesticide Resistance Strategies [Internet]. Feb 2022. [cited 2 Feb 2022]. Available: http://resistance.nzpps.org/index.php?p=herbicides/triazine_maize. [Google Scholar]
13.Ngow Z, James TK, Buddenhagen CE. A herbicide resistance risk assessment for weeds in maize in New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection. 2021;74: 78–86. doi: 10.30843/nzpp.2021.74.11738. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Buddenhagen CE, Gunnarsson M, Rolston P, Chynoweth RJ, Bourdot G, James TK. Costs and risks associated with surveying the extent of herbicide resistance in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019;63: 430–448. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2019.1636829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Espig M, Dynes RA, Henwood RJT, James TK. The drivers of herbicide use among arable farmers in Canterbury, New Zealand: toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources. 2022;35: 281–300. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2032516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Owen MJ, Martinez NJ, Powles SB. Multiple herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum (annual ryegrass) now dominates across the Western Australian grain belt. Weed Research. 2014;54: 314–324. doi: 10.1111/wre.12068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Broster J, Boutsalis P, Gill GS, Preston C, Broster J, Boutsalis P, et al. The extent of herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum Gaud. (annual ryegrass) across south-eastern Australia as determined from random surveys. Crop and Pasture Science 2022. [cited 5 Sep 2022]. doi: 10.1071/CP21753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Sanson RL. Agribase–Introduction and history. Proceedings of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Epidemiology and Animal Health Management Branch Seminar, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt, New Zealand, 23. Wallaceville, Upper Hutt: Massey University; 2000. pp. 61–64.
19.Panozzo S, Scarabel L, Collavo A, Sattin M. Protocols for robust herbicide resistance testing in different weed species. Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE. 2015. [cited 26 Oct 2020]. doi: 10.3791/52923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Kahle D, Wickham H. ggmap: Spatial Visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal. 2013;5: 144–161. [Google Scholar]
21.Dorai-Raj S, Dorai-Raj MS. Package ‘binom.’ CRAN Google Scholar. 2009. [Google Scholar]
22.Hutching G. Maize weed showing resistance to commonly used herbicide. In: Stuff [Internet]. 18 Jul 2017. [cited 18 Jun 2021]. Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/94845621/maize-weed-showing-resistance-to-commonly-used-herbicide. [Google Scholar]
23.Ghanizadeh H, Harrington K. Fitness costs associated with multiple resistance to dicamba and atrazine in Chenopodium album. Planta. 2019;249. doi: 10.1007/s00425-018-3040-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Harrington KC. General principles of herbicide resistance. Pesticide Resistance: Prevention and Management. 2005. [Google Scholar]
25.Espig M, Henwood RJT. The social foundations for re-solving herbicide resistance in Canterbury, New Zealand. PLoS ONE. 2023;18: e0286515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Buddenhagen CE, Ngow Z, James T, Harvey B, Gunnarsson M, Ghanizadeh H, et al. The value of a herbicide resistance testing service for the agricultural sector in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 2023; 1–12. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2023.2209328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299539.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ahmet Uludag

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-28614A first survey for herbicide resistant weeds across major maize growing areas in the North Island of New Zealand.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ngow,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Very few edits are required.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Unfortunately, it took long time due to reviewer finding difficulty. We have three reviewers because one of them have connections with you. His review was fair but we would like to stay in safe side of ethical issues. I hope you can complete immediately and our reviewers accept reviewing.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript reports the results from 2-year surveys on herbicide-resistant weeds in maize farms in New Zealand. Such surveys provide constructive and helpful information about how widespread herbicide resistance is. The manuscript is well-written and easy to read. The method deployed by the authors is valid, and the statistical analysis is robust. I only suggest a few edits to the text (please see below).

L 23 List the herbicides that you tested

L 27 Nicosulfuron-resistant

L 31 herbicide-resistant. Please check the manuscript and place a hyphen between “herbicide” and “resistant”, where both words are functioning together as an adjective.

L 35 atrazine-resistant. Please be consistent. The authors should check the entire manuscript for such inconsistencies.

L 46 Here?

L 48 Delete “from” after “Chenopodium album L.”

L 84 You should be consistent with using either American or British spelling. Earlier, you used “randomized”, but here, you used the British version.

L 85 “a total of 70”

L 101 Fertilizer?

L 102 Soil medium? Earlier, you indicated that you had grown them in the potting mix.

L 104 How about the day length? Species such as C. album require a day length of 14hday/8hnight in order to remain growing vegetatively.

L 109 Please be consistent with using “/ha” or “ha-1” (see Table 1 for example).

L 110 In Table 1, you should also include the trade name of the chemicals you used. Also, the label on atrazine recommends the addition of non-ionic surfactants. Did you use any?

L. 124 to 127 The genus of some species can be abbreviated since you did it earlier. For example, C. album.

L 136 Please be consistent with abbreviating the binomial names. If you abbreviate the genus earlier, it should be consistent for the rest of the manuscript.

L 151 “any herbicides”

L 152 Italicize “Solanum” in Table 3.

L 162 “ Echinochloa” can be abbreviated to “E.”

L 172 “22 in Waikato”

L 173 “16 had”

L 189 “Data” is a plural noun, so it should read “Our data provide”

Reviewer #2: this study provides the evidence about resistant weeds in maize fields. more dose of herbicide need to be apply to test the resistance. current data only support the weeds are not sensitive to the herbicides.

Reviewer #3: Was there the need for keeping the seed collected from the individual plants separate as in the text the results and discussion refer only to the percentage of farms with resistance

See attached file for further information

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Ngow et al Reviewers comments.docx

pone.0299539.s002.docx^{(16.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0299539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299539.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

5 Dec 2023

Authors’ response to reviewers’ comments on: A first survey for herbicide resistant weeds across major maize growing areas in the North Island of New Zealand

Overall comments

Was there the need for keeping the seed collected from the individual plants separate as in the text the results and discussion refer only to the percentage of farms with resistance.

Response: We made addition of this text to the second paragraph under the subheading ‘Sample collection’: “Our goal to detect the presence of resistance, not to characterize the proportion of resistance in individual fields. Collecting from individual plants means that the seeds collected share a genetic history (from the ‘mother’) and a larger proportion of the seed sample is likely to contain resistant traits. This approach also allowed us to detect any possible cross-resistance or multiple resistance where plants share a common genetic background.”

Introduction

Line 43 I always query the term of ‘over-use’ of herbicides in relation to the evolution of resistance. When many herbicides were first released herbicide resistance was not discussed so how can something be over-used if it is the best method of achieving something. In hindsight yes but with the available knowledge at the time no.

Change: Growers of maize rely heavily on herbicides to control weeds. Across the world, repeated use of herbicides within a single mode of action has led to the repeated evolution of herbicide resistant weeds [3].

Line 57 Were any non-random surveys done elsewhere as well? Line 60-61 basically repeats Line 57-58 but adds the non-random element.

Change: Reworded to remove repetition. To answer the question: investigations in the past of resistance did include sites around farms with resistance, but these were not done in a randomized, systematic way (see James et al. 2005, Rahman & Patterson 1987 and Rahman et al. 1983). We also tested some samples collected ‘outside’ of the survey (which were not included in the manuscript).

Line 64 This sentence doesn’t really fit anywhere. Maybe add this to end of sentence Line 68 ‘…maize in New Zealand as nor systemic random surveys have been conducted’

Change: Suggested changes made, sentence deleted.

Materials and Methods

Line 83-4 This sentence is not required, it states the obvious.

Change: Removed as suggested.

Line 91 Change ‘up-to’ to ‘up to’

Change: Suggested changes made.

Line 95-104 What time of year? Did the daylength equate to that of the weeds normal growing season?

Change: Spring-autumn. Added text: “Plants were grown during their normal growing season between spring and autumn, with the majority planted in November.”

Additional change: Subheading added for plant propagation, moved herbicide treatment to the precede the appropriate section.

Additional change - added the bolded text: Seed samples were stored at 5°C for at least a month before being planted.

Line 108 Was this a flat fan nozzle (designed for overlapping nozzles) or an even flat nozzle (banding) as a single flat fan nozzle will have different application rates across the width of the spray band without the overlap from extra nozzles.

Response: Sentence added and clarified that it is a “flat” fan nozzle. “The moving belt and trays or pots are positioned in the central third of the fan area to ensure even coverage.”

Line 110 Move Table so that it is not across two pages.

Response: The table (and other tables) now do not cross more than one page.

Line 116 Why was three chosen? Did this vary if below 20 seeds germinated. Resistance is commonly defined as greater than 20% survival, why wasn’t this definition used for consistency with other research?

Response: We clarified germination criteria for inclusion in the text. We used the same threshold in our earlier survey work, and we think this threshold is appropriate as we were not bulking samples, which is also different from the bulking approach used in Australia.

Change: In the second paragraph under the heading “Herbicide treatment” we added: “Similar to other studies [16,17], including our earlier survey [5] we use a threshold to classify samples, those with fewer than three seedlings surviving treatment were not classified as resistant. This choice is appropriate for un-bulked samples. Seed samples without sufficient germination (less than 4) were classified as ‘collected’ but not ‘tested’.”

Results

Line 124-6 C. album, D. sanguinalis and E. crus-galli don’t need their genus spelt out as they have already had their full name written in the text