Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Review Article

Management of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.): An Overview

Vikas Kumar and Kamal Rai Aneja
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail

Trianthema portulacastrum L. (Horse purslane) is an annual broadleaf troublesome weed of tropical and subtropical areas throughout the world. In India, it has been observed as a problematic weed in many states. Remarkable biological and ecological behavior of this weed has enabled its easy and rapid spread and naturalization in a wide range of habitats. Various pre and post-emergence herbicides are used for controlling this weed. With increasing global concern about pesticide residues in the biosphere and public demand for pesticide free-food, alternative pesticides, such as bioherbicides are becoming important. Presently, there are over 17 mycoherbicides against different weeds, which are commercially being used in the developed countries. Of these, 8 are registered in the USA, 4 in Canada, 2 in South Africa and 1 each in Netherland, Japan and China. A total of 9 fungal pathogens have been reported on this weed around the globe. Of these, Gibbago trianthemae has the potential to be developed as a mycoherbicide of horse purslane in the USA and India. In this study, attempts have been made to present distribution, menace and management of horse purslane, a notorious agricultural weed by mechanical, chemical and bioherbicidal means.

Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

  How to cite this article:

Vikas Kumar and Kamal Rai Aneja, 2016. Management of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.): An Overview. Research Journal of Botany, 11: 25-32.

DOI: 10.3923/rjb.2016.25.32

Received: May 16, 2016; Accepted: May 30, 2016; Published: June 15, 2016


The genus Trianthema, a member of the family Aizoaceae is represented by 12 species and of these T. portulacastrum L. (syn. T. monogyna L.) enjoys the weed status. It is commonly known as blackpig weed, carpet weed, gudbur, hog weed, itcit, santha and horse purslane. It is a strong competitor with all types of upland crops and causes substantial yield reduction on account of competition in several cultivated crops. It needs argent attention due to one of the most troublesome terrestrial weed not only of Northwest India, but of many parts of the world1-4. Over 14 billion dollar spent annually on chemical weed control5, excluding immense indirect costs to producers, consumers and the environment. Although, herbicides have played a vital role in improving crops yield and overall production efficiency, overreliance and repetitive use of the herbicides belonging to the same can lead to the development of herbicide resistant weed biotypes. Moreover, persistent residues of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) highly poisonous to humans have been found in vegetables, milk, butter, meat as well as in mother’s milk6. Many chemical herbicides are unavailable in the market due to lack of re-registration, competition from other herbicides and development of numerous genetically modified crops with resistance to broad-spectrum herbicides7. Besides, T. portulacastrum is difficult to control effectively with chemicals when they grow with broadleaf crops like onion, eggplant and other vegetables8. Indiscriminate and excessive use of chemical herbicides has led to several environmental and health related problems. Chemical weed control is not an ideal option in organic cropping system. Practical use of biological control agents, particularly fungal pathogens has gained acceptance as a safe and environmentally friendly approach which minimizes risks resulting from herbicides9.


Horse purslane is a fast-growing, prostrate, profusely branched, succulent, rainy season, annual broadleaf weed in cultivated and wastelands. It produces numerous small white flowers and is a strong competitor with all types of upland crops1,10,11. Plant grows rapidly and reaches peak growth within 40-45 days of its emergence. Maximum seedling emergence takes place during rainy season, when conditions for growth i.e., both temperature and relative humidity are optimum10. The hard seed coat appears to be the primary mechanism of horse purslane dormancy, thus making it a problem for several years and infesting the crops raised subsequently10,12.

Horse purslane, an indigenous plant to South Africa, occurs in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, West Asia, Africa and tropical America10,13. In India, it is a very common weed of various farm crops, non-crop lands, grasslands and wastelands. It grows along roadsides on earthen roofs of old buildings in open waste, vacant and wetlands. It has been observed as a problematic weed in various agricultural crops in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi3,11. Heavy infestations of this weed has been reported in pearl millet14, soybean4,10, black gram15, maize1,16, cotton2,17, mungbean18,19, sugarcane20,21, onion8, pearl millet22,23, pigeonpea24, peanut25 and arhar, maize, mustard, onion, potato, soybean and sugarcane3. It is a common weed of maize, cotton and vegetables all over Pakistan26. It is also reported to be a major weed of garden land representing 85% of weed population27.

Competitive studies have reported heavy reduction in yields due to Trianthema in different crops such as 16-94% in pearl millet14,28, 50-60% in mungbean1,14 and 32% in maize grain29. Trianthema portulacastrum has emerged as a great threat to the sustainability of the soybean production system4,10. Singh et al.30 reported 97% reduction in rice yield due to T. portulacastrum along with Echinochloa colonum and Cyperus iria. It takes up the major portion of added nutrients especially nitrogen and crops suffer due to inadequate plant nutrient supply31. An overall powerful allelopathic inhibition in germination and seedling growth of rice occurred by pre-soaking in leaf extract of T. portulacastrum indicating that there might be inhibitory compounds in aquatic leaf extract, which delayed the germination process of rice seeds32.


Horse purslane has drawn the attention of agriculturalists, plant pathologists and weed control scientists all over the world because of its high infestation amongst various important crops. Attempts are being made to control this weed by all possible strategies i.e., mechanical, chemical and biological.

Mechanical: Mechanical methods of weed control include basic hand tools to sophisticated tractor driven or self-propelled devices33. Mechanical weed control by harrowing is one of the direct non-chemical weed control methods34. It involves cutting and ranking off the weeds. Hand hoeing is a common practice of controlling this weed in most of the developing countries around the globe, but it is quite expensive and time consuming. Moreover, these methods are ineffective as new seeds germinate after every hoeing and re-infest the crop, thus depleting soil nutrients. Hoeing is not possible during rainy season and due to labor shortage further accentuates the problem2.

Chemical: The use of herbicides is the most effective and immediate solution to control horse purslane. Hence, control of this weed alone and/or with other weeds with pre and post-emergence herbicides in different agricultural crops have been carried out around the world. Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), Ludhiana and Haryana Agricultural University (HAU), Hisar are the three major centres where herbicidal control of Trianthema is conducted11,14,23,35,36. Some of the notable studies carried out on the control of horse purslane by herbicides are summarized in Table 1. Out of various pre-emergence herbicides, Walia et al.36 reported that pre-sowing application of fluchloralin (0.35 or 0.45 kg ha–1), pre-emergence application of pendimethalin (0.2 or 0.3 kg ha–1) and oxadiazon (0.2 or 0.25 kg ha–1) showed significant reduction in T. portulacastrum populations. Balyan et al.23 reported that post-emergence application of atrazine (0.25 or 0.50 kg ha–1) at 7 or 14 d.a.s. proved highly effective in controlling the two most competitive and aggressive weeds T. portulacastrum and Echinochloa colonum.

Biological: Biological weed control is the deliberate use of mainly host specific arthropods and fungal pathogens to reduce the population density of a weed below its economic or ecological damage level37. It has gained acceptance as environmentally beneficial method applicable to agro-ecosystems due to the best long-term solution of weed problem9,38-42. Biological control of weeds is approached by two strategies, the classical (or inoculative) and bioherbicidal (or inundative, mycoherbicidal) strategy. The classical strategy is directed principally at plants that have been introduced into a new region or country and become weedy in the absence of their natural enemies. Classical biocontrol has been widely used to control invasive exotic plants43,44. Pathogens are sought from the geographic origin of plants for introduction into new regions, increase in epiphytotic levels and eventually become endemic when the weed is suppressed to subeconomic levels45. The inoculative pathogens are usually fungi because of their desirable characteristics to be a biological control agent46. It can be a highly effective and cost-efficient approach to control invasive weeds. However, classical biological control requires a time period of one to several years to achieve adequate control.

Table 1:Herbicides used to control Trianthema portulacastrum in different crops
Image for - Management of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.): An Overview
aDays after treatment, bDays after sowing and cPre plant incorporation

Some of the notable successful examples of the classical approach to control weeds are: The use of Puccinia chondrillina Bubak and Syn., imported from Mediterranean South Europe for the control of Chondrilla juncea L. in Australia and the USA, Phragmidium violaceum (Schultz) winter from Europe for the control of Rubus constrictus P.J. Mull. and Lefevre and R. ulmifolius Schott in Chile and Maravalia cryptostegiae from Madagascar for the control of Cryptostegia grandiflora Roxb. in Australia47-51. In South Africa, 63 biological control agents have been successfully accepted on 44 invasive exotic plant species since 1913 and 25% of the target exotic weeds have been completely controlled52.

In bioherbicidal tactic, plant pathogenic microorganisms are developed and used to control weeds in a way chemical herbicides are used. When the microorganism used is a fungus, the product is called as a mycoherbicide. However, the use of pathogens other than fungi as bioherbicides is limited. Therefore, the term "mycoherbicide" has often been used interchangeably with "bioherbicide"6. Mycoherbicides are formulations of highly specific disease inducing phytpathogenic fungi that attacks the target weed in large proportion without harm to the crop or any non-target species in the environment53. Presently, there are over 17 mycoherbicides, which are commercially being used in the developed countries of the world54. Of these, 8 are registered in the USA, 4 in Canada, 2 in South Africa and 1 each in Netherlands, Japan and China9,55. The first commercial mycoherbicide appeared in the USA market in the early 1980s with the release of the product DeVine, a formulation of Phytophthora palmivora in 1981 to control milkweed vine in Florida citrus grooves. It was followed by the release in the next year i.e., 1982 of the product Collego, a formulation of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. aeschynomene to control northern jointvetch, a leguminous weed in rice. Other commercially available fungal products are: Casst (a formulation of Alternaria cassiae) to control Cassia obtusifolia in the USA, BioMal (formulation of C. gloeosporioides f.sp. malvae) for control of Malva pusilla in Canada, Biochon (Chondrostereum purpureum) for control of Prunus serotina in Netherland, Lubao (C. gloeosporioides f.sp. cuscutae) for Cuscutta spp. in China and ABG 5003 (Cercospora rodmanii) for control of Eichhornia crassipes in the USA9,54.

A literature study reveals that not much study has been done on the biocontrol of T. portulacastrum by fungal pathogens, except the study of Mitchell56 and Aneja et al.3. A total of 10 plant pathogens (9 fungi, 1 virus) and 2 insects have been recorded on this weed around the globe (Table 2). Gibbago trianthemae is the only fungal pathogen, which has been evaluated for its biocontrol potential. Gibbago trianthemae is a phaeodictyoconidial hyphomycetous fungus. It causes leaf spots on horse purslane (Fig. 1). It was first of all isolated from the diseased plants in 1986 from the USA57 followed by its 2nd isolation from Kurukshetra (India)58 and 3rd isolation from Faisalabad (Pakistan) in 201359.

Mitchell56 studied the biocontrol efficacy of G. trianthemae for the control of horse purslane in green house conditions. It was reported 50% reduction in weed growth at the lowest concentration of spores (5×104 spores mL–1). It was emphasized that further studies are still needed on the impact of environment and on application technology of the potential of this pathogen to develop it into a bioherbicide. Aneja et al.3 reported that in experimental pots, defoliation started after 20 days of inoculum spraying of G. trianthemae.

Table 2:Pathogens/insects reported on Trianthema portulacastrum throughout the globe
Image for - Management of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.): An Overview

Image for - Management of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.): An Overview
Fig. 1(a-c): (a) Trianthema portulacastrum infected plants, (b) Leaf spots due to Gibbago trianthemae and (c) Germinating conidia

Percent infection on leaves ranged between 72 and 84%, 30 days post inoculation with a conidial suspension at concentration of 2.2×105 conidia mL–1. Application of inoculum significantly reduced the production of leaves, height and biomass per plant as compared to control. A significant correlation between the growth and sporulation of the pathogen was reported when tested on 10 different culture media. Best sporulation was found on trianthema extract dextrose agar followed by potato dextrose agar and potato dextrose agar+yeast extract (8.6×105>8.0×105>7.37×105 conidia mL–1, respectively). Best sporulation was recorded at 25°C. Conidia germinated between 15 and 35°C, the best recorded at 25°C. Host range studies conducted on 12 plant species (3 weeds and 9 agricultural crops) belonging to 6 families; Aizoaceae, Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Poaceae, Cruciferae and Fabaceae revealed that none of these except one i.e., horse purslane showed symptoms of the disease (i.e., susceptible to G. trianthemae). Biocontrol studies conducted on the Trianthema-Gibbago system revealed that G. trianthemae has most of the criteria desirable for development it as a mycoherbicide to control horse purslane; i.e., it can be cultured on a cheap medium (trianthema extract dextrose agar), good sporulation capacity, host specificity, fast growth rate and hence can be mass produced in a short time and infection can take place from conidia and/or mycelial fragments3,60. The formulation of the fungus with surfactant has been named gibbatrianth9.


Trianthema portulacastrum L. is emerging as a problematic weed in various crops, especially in tropical and subtropical areas of the world. There are two ways to check the nuisance value of a weed (i) Converting a problematic weed into a resource through its multifarious uses such as its use as a vegetable, fodder, green manure or medicinal and (ii) To control it through integrated pest management strategies. Although, various pre and post-emergence chemical herbicides are available to control this weed but keeping in view the pollution hazards created by chemicals, the need of the hour is to intensify research on to control this weed either through biological agents or with an integrated approach using chemical plus biological agents. Gibbago trianthemae, a fungal pathogen reported on this weed from the USA, India and Pakistan is in the process of development as a commercial mycoherbicide and the scientists are hoping for its release in the near future.

There is a significant interest in developing bioherbicides for use in crops, gardens, rights-of-ways, parks and the alike. Literature study reveals several phytopathogenic fungi have been patented as weed-control agents. The phytotoxic components of most agents have been not elucidated and dis-assessment of much microbial agents are limited. A more through study is needed to tackle the problem. Currently, 9 fungal pathogens have been recorded on Trianthema portulacastrum around the globe. Of the 9 fungal pathogens, G. trianthemae has been found to be a potential biocontrol agent. Before gibbatrianth is commercialized as a bioherbicidal agent to control Trianthema weed scientists need to carry out study on Trianthema-Gibbago system on the following lines, evaluation of potential fungal biocontrol agents (BCAs) for their synergism to be applied as consortium in multicomponent bioherbicidal system for checking the growth of weed as soon as it emerges from the soil, enhancing the bioherbicidal activity of BCAs either by the application of exogenous cellulose and/or pectinase enzymes or by adding a microbes in the consortium having the ability to produce these enzymes to increase the virulence and hasting the process of pathogenesis. In addition to the study has to be carried out on phytotoxin production by the BCAs and their toxicity to the mammalian system.


This study helps the researchers of biological weed control field in following ways:

Study explains the ecological distribution and various methods for controlling Trianthema portulacastrum
It explains the present status of herbicides and biological agents used to control this weed
Some information on total bioherbicides registered throughout the world and classical control strategy


1:  Balyan, R.S. and R.K. Malik, 1989. Control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in mung bean (Vigna radiata). Weed Sci., 37: 695-699.
Direct Link  |  

2:  Brar, A.S., R.J.S. Thind and L.S. Brar, 1995. Integrated weed control in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Weed Sci., 27: 138-143.
Direct Link  |  

3:  Aneja, K.R., S.A. Khan and S. Kaushal, 2000. Management of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.) with Gibbago trianthemae simmons in India. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, July 4-14, 1999, Montana, USA., pp: 27-33
Direct Link  |  

4:  Hazra, D., T.K. Das and N.T. Yaduraju, 2011. Interference and economic threshold of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) in soybean cultivation in northern India. Weed Biol. Manage., 11: 72-82.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

5:  Kiely, T., D. Donaldson and A. Grube, 2004. Pesticides industry sales and usage 2000 and 2001 market estimates. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC., USA.

6:  Aneja, K.R., 2009. Biotechnology: An Alternative Novel Strategy in Agriculture to Control Weeds Resistant to Conventional Herbicides. In: Antimicrobial Resistance: From Emerging Threats to Reality, Lawrence, R., A.K. Gulati and G. Abraham (Eds.). Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, India, ISBN: 9788184870602, pp: 160-173

7:  Weaver, M.A. and M.E. Lyn, 2007. Compatibility of a biological control agent with herbicides for control of invasive plant species. Nat. Areas J., 27: 264-268.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

8:  Singh, S.J., K.K. Sinha, S.S. Mishra, S.S. Thakur and N.K. Choudhry, 1992. Studies on weed management in onion (Allium cepa L.). Ind. J. Weed Sci., 24: 6-10.
Direct Link  |  

9:  Aneja, K.R., 2014. Exploitation of phytopathogenic fungal diversity for the development of bioherbicides. Kavaka, 42: 7-15.
Direct Link  |  

10:  Balyan, R.S. and V.M. Bhan, 1986. Emergence, growth and reproduction of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by environmental conditions. Weed Sci., 34: 516-519.
Direct Link  |  

11:  Singh, G. and R. Prasad, 1994. Studies on the control of Trianthema portulacastrum L. in fodder maize. Indian J. Weed Sci., 26: 64-67.
Direct Link  |  

12:  Umarani, R. and J.A. Selvaraj, 1995. Studies on the growth and yield of carpet weed (Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Indian J. Weed Sci., 27: 209-210.
Direct Link  |  

13:  Duthie, J.F., 1960. Flora of the Upper Gangetic Plain. 1st Edn., Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, India

14:  Balyan, R.S., 1985. Studies on the biology and competitive behaviour of carpet weed (Trianthema portulacastrum L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar, India.

15:  Ali, A.M. and R. Durai, 1987. Control of Trianthema portulacastrum L. in blackgram. Indian J. Weed Sci., 19: 52-56.
Direct Link  |  

16:  Saeed, M., K.B. Marwat, G. Hassan, A. Khan and I.A. Khan, 2010. Interference of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.) with maize (Zea mays L.) at different densities. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 173-179.
Direct Link  |  

17:  Tiwana, U.S. and L.S. Brar, 1990. Effect of herbicides on weed control efficiency and production potential of American cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Weed Sci., 22: 6-10.
Direct Link  |  

18:  Gupta, Y.K., S.K. Katyal, R.S. Panwar and R.K. Malik, 1990. Integrated weed management in summer mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilzeck). Indian J. Weed Sci., 22: 38-42.
Direct Link  |  

19:  Sandhu, K.S., B.S. Sandhu and R.K. Bhatia, 1993. Studies on weed control in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilzeck). Ind. J. Weed Sci., 25: 61-65.
Direct Link  |  

20:  Phogat, B.S., V.M. Bhan and R.S. Dhawan, 1990. Studies on the competing ability of sugarcane with weeds. Indian J. Weed Sci., 22: 37-41.
Direct Link  |  

21:  Chauhan, R.S. and G.B. Singh, 1993. Chemical weed control in spring planted sugarcane. Indian J. Weed Sci., 25: 47-50.
Direct Link  |  

22:  Rathee, S.S., R.K. Malik and S.S. Punia, 1992. Effect of time of nitrogen application and weed management on pearlmillet. Indian J. Weed Sci., 24: 17-21.
Direct Link  |  

23:  Balyan, R.S., S. Kumar, R.K. Malik and R.S. Panwar, 1993. Post-emergence efficacy of atrazine in controlling weeds in pearl-millet. Indian J. Weed Sci., 25: 7-11.
Direct Link  |  

24:  Chauhan, D.R., R.S. Balyan, O.P. Kataria and R.S. Dhankar, 1995. Weed management studies in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian J. Weed Sci., 27: 80-82.
Direct Link  |  

25:  Grichar, W.J., 2008. Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellmelon (Cucumis melo L.) and palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in peanut. Peanut Sci., 35: 38-42.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

26:  Hashim, S. and K.B. Marwat, 2002. Invasive weeds a threat to the biodiversity: A case study from Abbottabad district [North-West] Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 8: 1-12.
Direct Link  |  

27:  Sankaran, S. and P. Rethinam, 1974. An evaluation of chemical and mechanical weed control methods in irrigated cotton (var. MCU 5). Cotton Dev., 3: 25-29.

28:  Umrani, M.K., P.G. Bhoi and N.B. Patil, 1980. Effect of weed competition on the growth and yield of pearl millet. J. Maharastra Agric. Univ., 5: 56-57.
Direct Link  |  

29:  Friesen, G., L.H. Shebeske and A.D. Robinson, 1960. Economic losses caused by weed competition in Manitoba grain fields: II. Effect of weed competition on the protein content of cereal crops. Can. J. Plant Sci., 40: 652-658.
Direct Link  |  

30:  Singh, G., J. Deka and D. Singh, 1988. Response of upland rice to seed rate and butachlor. Indian J. Weed Sci., 20: 23-30.
Direct Link  |  

31:  Mahalle, S.S., 1994. Growth of Trianthema portulacastrum as affected by weedicides and nitrogen application. World Weeds, 1: 41-45.

32:  Mubeen, K., M.A. Nadeem, A. Tanveer and Z.A. Zahir, 2011. Allelopathic effect of aqueous extracts of weeds on the germination and seedling growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., 9: 7-12.
Direct Link  |  

33:  Bond, W., R.J. Turner and G. Davies, 2007. A Review of Mechanical Weed Control. HDRA: The Organic Organization, Coventry, UK., pp: 1-23

34:  Velykis, A., S. Maiksteniene, A. Arlauskiene, I. Kristaponyte and A. Satkus, 2009. Mechanical weed control in organically grown spring oat and field pea crops. Agron. Res., 7: 542-547.
Direct Link  |  

35:  Subramanian, A. and S. Sankaran, 1981. Chemical weed control of common purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) in sesamum. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Indian Society of Weed Science, November 25, 1981, Coimbatore, India, pp: 26-26

36:  Walia, U.S., K.P.S. Cheema and G.S. Brar, 1991. Control of Trianthema portulacastrum L. and other weeds in berseem. J. Res., 28: 324-328.

37:  Schroeder, D. and H. Muller-Scharer, 1995. Biological control of weeds and its prospective in Europe. Med. Fac. Landbouww Univ. Gent., 60: 117-124.

38:  McWhorter, C.G. and G.M. Chandler, 1982. Conventional Weed Control Technology. In: Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens, Charudattan, R. and H.L. Walker (Eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA., pp: 5-27

39:  Charudattan, R., 1991. The Mycoherbicide Approach with Plant Pathogens. In: Chapman and Hall. Microbial Control of Weeds, TeBeest, D.O. (Ed.). University of Chicago Press, New York, ISBN: 0-412-01861-6, pp: 24-57

40:  Auld, B.A. and L. Morin, 1995. Constraints in the development of bioherbicides. Weed Technol., 9: 638-652.
Direct Link  |  

41:  Aneja, K.R., 1997. Discovery and Development of Mycoherbicides for Biological Control of Weeds. In: New Approaches in Microbial Ecology, Tiwari, J.P., G. Saxena, N. Mittal, I. Tewari and B.P. Chamola (Eds.). Aditya Books Private Limited, New Delhi, India, pp: 517-555

42:  Aneja, K.R., 1999. Biotechnology for the Production and Enhancement of Mycoherbicide Potential. In: From Ethnomycology to Fungal Biotechnology: Exploiting Fungi from Natural Resources for Novel Products, Singh, J. and K.R. Aneja (Eds.). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, USA., ISBN: 978-0-306-46059-3, pp: 91-114

43:  Muller-Scharer, H. and U. Schaffner, 2008. Classical biological control: Exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions. Biol. Invasions, 10: 859-874.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

44:  McFadyen, R.E.C., 2000. Successes in biological control of weeds. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, July 4-14, 1999, Bozeman, MT., USA., pp: 3-14
Direct Link  |  

45:  Templeton, G.E., 1982. Status of Weed Control with Plant Pathogens. In: Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens, Charudattan R. and H.L. Walker (Eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA., pp: 29-44

46:  Charudattan, R., 1991. Prospects for biological control of weeds by plant pathogens. Fitopatologia Brasileira, 15: 13-19.

47:  Oehrens, E., 1977. Biological control of the blackberry through the introduction of rust, Phragmidium violaceum in Chile. FAO Plant Protect. Bull., 25: 26-28.

48:  Hasan, S., 1983. Biological control of weeds with plant pathogens-status and prospects. Proceeding of the 10th International Congress of Plant Protection, Volume 2, November 20-25, 1983, Brighton, UK., pp: 759-776

49:  Evans, H.C., 1987. Life-cycle of Puccinia abrupta var. partheniicola, a potential biological control agent of Parthenium hysterophorus. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc., 88: 105-111.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

50:  Evans, H.C. and A.J. Tomley, 1994. Studies on the rust, Maravalia cryptostegiae, a potential biological control agent of rubber-vine weed, Cryptostegia grandiflora (Asclepiadaceae: Periplocoideae), in Australia, III: Host range. Mycopathologia, 126: 93-108.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

51:  Tomley, A.J. and H.C. Evans, 1995. Some problem weeds in tropical and sub-tropical Australia and prospects for biological control using fungal pathogens. Proceeding of the 8th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, February 2-7, 1995, Lincoln University, New Zealand, pp: 477-482
Direct Link  |  

52:  Moran, V.C., J.H. Hoffmann and H.G. Zimmerman, 2005. Biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: Necessity, circumspection and success. Front Ecol. Environ, 3: 71-77.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

53:  Templeton, G.E., R.J. Smith Jr., D.O. TeBeest and J.N. Beasley, 1988. Mycoherbicides. Arkansas Farm Research, March-April 1988, pp: 7.

54:  Aneja, K.R., V. Kumar, P. Jiloha, M. Kaur and C. Sharma et al., 2013. Potential Bioherbicides: Indian Perspectives. In: Biotechnology: Prospects and Applications, Salar, R.K., S.K. Gahlawat, P. Siwach and J.S. Duhan (Eds.). Chapter 15, Springer, New York, USA., ISBN-13: 978-81-322-1683-4, pp: 197-215

55:  Dagno, K., R. Lahlali, M. Diourte and M.H. Jijakli, 2012. Present status of the development of mycoherbicides against water hyacinth: Successes and challenges. A review. Biotechnologie Agronomie Societe Environnement, 16: 360-368.
Direct Link  |  

56:  Mitchell, J.K., 1988. Gibbago trianthemae, a recently described hyphomycete with bioherbicide potential for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum). Plant Dis., 72: 354-355.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

57:  Simmons, E.G., 1986. Gibbago, a new phaeodictyoconidial genus of hyphomycetes. Mycotaxon, 27: 107-111.
Direct Link  |  

58:  Aneja, K.R. and S. Kaushal, 1998. Occurrence of Gibbago trianthemae Simmons on horse purslane Trianthema portulacastrum L. in India. J. Biol. Control, 12: 157-159.
Direct Link  |  

59:  Akhtar, K.P., N. Sarwar, K. Saleem and S. Ali, 2013. Gibbago trianthemae causes Trianthema portulacastrum (horse purslane) blight in Pakistan. Australasian Plant Dis. Notes, 8: 109-110.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

60:  Aneja, K.R., 2010. Biological control of horse purslane (Trianathema portulacastrum L.) by fungal pathogens. J. Mycopath. Res., 48: 181-185.

61:  Grichar, W.J., 1993. Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol., 7: 570-572.
Direct Link  |  

62:  Balyan, R.S. and V.M. Bhan, 1987. Studies on cultural and chemical weed control in maize. Indian J. Agron., 32: 41-43.

63:  Panwar, R.S. and R.K. Malik, 1996. Influence of mulching and herbicides on weed control in cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. Ind. J. Weed Sci., 28: 93-94.
Direct Link  |  

64:  Chiddarwar, P.P., 1962. Contributions to our knowledge of the Cercosporae of Bombay State-III. Mycopathologia Mycologia Applicata, 17: 71-78.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

65:  Rao, A.P. and A.S. Rao, 1987. New fungal diseases of some weeds. Indian Botanical Reporter, 6: 38-38.
Direct Link  |  

66:  Taber, R.A., J.K. Mitchell and S.M. Brown, 1988. Potential for biological control of weed Trianthema with Drechslera (Exserohilum) indica. Proceedings of the 5th International Congress Plant Pathology, August 20-27, 1988, Kyoto, Japan, pp: 130-

67:  Shivas, R.G., 1995. New records of plant pathogens in the Kimberley region of Northern Western Australia. Austr. Plant Pathol., 24: 188-201.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

68:  Darshika, P. and M. Daniel, 1992. Changes in chemical content of Adhatoda and Trianthema due to fungal diseases. Indian J. Pharmaceut. Sci., 54: 73-75.

69:  Darshika, S. and M. Daniel, 1998. Two new host records of fungi from Gujarat. Ind. Phytopath., 51: 206-206.
Direct Link  |  

70:  Gupta R. and K.G. Mukherji, 2001. Environmental effect on the reoccurrence of Alternaria alternata on Trianthema portulacastrum. J. Environ. Biol., 22: 83-86.
PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  

71:  Bohra, B., B.N. Vyas, N.B. Godrej and K.B. Mistry, 2005. Evaluation of Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler for biological control of Trianthema portulacastrum L. Ind. Phytopath., 58: 184-188.
Direct Link  |  

72:  Ray, P. and L.S. Vijayachandran, 2013. Evaluation of indigenous fungal pathogens from horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) for their relative virulence and host range assessments to select a potential mycoherbicidal agent. Weed Sci., 61: 580-585.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

73:  Aneja, K.R., V. Kumar and C. Sharma, 2014. Leaf-spot disease of Trianthema portulacastrum: A new record from world. J. Innov. Biol., 1: 112-116.
Direct Link  |  

74:  Sastry, K.S., 1980. Plant Virus and Mycoplasmal Diseases in India: A Bibliography. Bharti Publisher, Delhi, India, Pages: 1270

75:  De Manero, E.B.A. and S.M. de Argentier, 1996. Spoladea recurvalis (Fabricius) (Lep. Pyralidae): Important defoliator of weed in kidney bean cultivated in the provinces of Jujuy ans Salata, Argentiana. Revista Investigacion Centro Investigaciones Para Regulacion Poblaciones Organismos Nocives, 10: 51-53.

76:  Kedar, S.C. and K.M. Kumaranag, 2013. Report on outbreak of Spoladea recurvalis (Fabricus) on Trianthema portulacastrum L. and its parasite from Haryana, India. J. Entomol. Res., 37: 149-151.
Direct Link  |  

77:  Randrianandrianina-Razananaivo, L., 1991. Parasitoids of Spodoptera littoralis Boisduval (Lop., Noctuidae) on cotton in Madagascar, India. Redia, 74: 245-248.

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved