수생 제초제 시장 : 적용 방법별, 종류별, 제형별, 작용기전별, 최종 용도별, 용도별 - 세계 예측(2025-2032년)

The Aquatic Herbicides Market is projected to grow by USD 3.25 billion at a CAGR of 9.02% by 2032.

A strategic orientation that frames regulatory rigor, ecological stewardship, and application innovation as the defining forces shaping aquatic herbicide decision making

This executive summary opens with a clear orientation to the aquatic herbicide domain, situating the reader within the intersecting currents of environmental stewardship, regulatory oversight, and operational necessity. The sector serves a wide range of water management needs, from algal and plant control in public reservoirs to invasive weed management in commercial aquaculture, and therefore requires a nuanced understanding that bridges chemistry, application technologies, and stakeholder expectations.

The introduction outlines key thematic drivers that inform subsequent analysis: evolving regulatory frameworks that emphasize environmental fate and non-target impact, technological advances in application and formulation that affect efficacy and operational cost, and shifting stakeholder priorities that increasingly value sustainability and demonstrable ecological safeguards. By framing the discussion around these convergent vectors, the introduction prepares readers to interpret downstream insights regarding segmentation, regional dynamics, corporate responses, and tactical recommendations.

Finally, the introduction underscores the importance of cross-disciplinary coordination among product developers, applicators, water managers, and regulators. It emphasizes that successful aquatic herbicide strategies will balance chemical performance with stewardship obligations and that adaptive management, informed by robust monitoring and clear communication, will be essential to maintaining social license to operate.

Rapidly evolving regulatory, technological, and stakeholder expectations are converging to redefine product value propositions and operational models across aquatic herbicide markets

The landscape for aquatic herbicides is undergoing transformative shifts driven by scientific, regulatory, and market forces that collectively raise the bar for product performance and compliance. Advances in formulation science are enabling more targeted delivery and improved persistence profiles, while application innovations-from refined aerial platforms to precision boat-based systems-are reducing off-target exposure and enhancing operational efficiency.

Concurrently, regulatory environments in many jurisdictions are tightening data requirements around environmental fate, ecotoxicology, and non-target organism impacts, prompting manufacturers and applicators to invest in additional testing, stewardship programs, and transparent monitoring. Stakeholder expectations are also evolving, with municipal managers, aquaculture operators, and recreational water stewards demanding interventions that demonstrably minimize ecological disruption while delivering predictable control outcomes.

These shifts are catalyzing new business models. Product developers are increasingly partnering with technology providers and service operators to offer integrated solution packages that combine optimized chemistries, precision application services, and post-treatment monitoring. As a result, competitive advantage is migrating from a narrow focus on active ingredient efficacy toward an expanded value proposition that includes environmental performance, regulatory readiness, and operational support services.

Cumulative trade policy shifts elevated supply chain risk and procurement complexity, prompting strategic sourcing, reformulation initiatives, and local capacity investments across the value chain

The cumulative effect of the United States tariffs implemented in 2025 has introduced a material set of supply chain and cost-structure considerations for producers, formulators, and end users in the aquatic herbicide space. Tariff measures increased the landed cost of certain imported raw materials and intermediate chemistries, prompting procurement teams to reassess sourcing strategies and to weigh the tradeoffs between cost, lead time, and supplier resilience.

In response, many manufacturers accelerated diversification of supplier bases to include domestic and nearshore sources, which often carry different regulatory, quality, and logistical profiles. This shift improved certain dimensions of supply continuity but also increased procurement complexity as companies navigated qualification timelines, alternative quality assurance regimes, and potential formulation adjustments to accommodate feedstock variability. For formulators that rely on specialist co-formulants historically sourced from international suppliers, the tariffs created short-term margin pressure and spurred investment in reformulation and in bilateral supplier development programs.

Downstream, applicators and end users experienced pass-through cost effects to varying degrees, depending on contract structures and the availability of competitive alternatives. Municipal and publicly funded programs, operating under constrained budgets, increasingly evaluated total cost of ownership and often prioritized solutions with lower application frequency or higher operational predictability. Overall, the tariff environment catalyzed strategic reassessment across value chain participants, accelerating vertical integration, supplier development initiatives, and attention to local manufacturing capacity as risk mitigation measures.

A multidimensional segmentation framework that links application platforms, active chemistry classes, formulation science, mechanisms of action, end uses, and timing to practical decision criteria

Understanding segmentation is essential to decode demand patterns and to design offerings that address distinct operational and regulatory constraints. When analyzing application method, consider that the market is served by aerial platforms, which include both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters and offer rapid, large-area coverage for remote or difficult-to-access waters; boat-based application platforms, which encompass motorboat spray systems and pontoon spray systems and are optimized for targeted in-water treatment and near-shore operations; and ground application options, which range from backpack sprayers to boom sprayers and handheld devices and are frequently used for shoreline treatments, small ponds, and precision spot control.

Product type segmentation revolves around core active chemistries such as 2,4-D, diquat, glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr, each presenting distinct efficacy profiles, environmental persistence, and regulatory considerations that influence selection criteria across end uses. Formulation choices further modulate performance, with granular forms differentiated into water dispersible granules and water soluble granules and liquid formats comprising emulsifiable concentrates, solutions, and suspension concentrates; formulation decisions impact handling, application equipment compatibility, and in-water behavior.

Mode of action segmentation separates contact agents, including cell membrane disruptors and protein synthesis inhibitors, from growth regulators that operate as auxin mimics or hormone blockers, and from systemic agents that are phloem mobile or xylem mobile. End use segmentation captures demand across commercial, industrial, municipal, and residential contexts, with commercial deployments spanning aquaculture, water recreation, and water treatment; industrial applications covering hydropower plants, industrial cooling systems, and oil and gas facilities; municipal uses focused on drinking water treatment, stormwater management, and wastewater treatment; and residential needs concentrated in lawn landscaping and pond maintenance. Finally, application timing differentiates post-emergent approaches, which may be nonselective or selective, from pre-emergent strategies that are foliar applied or soil applied, shaping both operational planning and regulatory compliance pathways.

Regional regulatory nuance, infrastructure variability, and end-use diversity require adaptive strategies that reconcile global product platforms with local operational realities

Regional dynamics exert strong influence on regulatory regimes, product availability, and application practices, and they must be considered when crafting market entry and growth strategies. In the Americas, diverse climatic zones and a mix of federal, state, and local authorities produce a patchwork of regulatory requirements and stewardship expectations, leading firms to adopt flexible compliance approaches and localized formulation portfolios. Manufacturers often align distribution and service networks to respond to regional outbreak patterns and to support municipal procurement cycles.

In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory rigor tends to emphasize environmental risk assessment and non-target protection, which influences product registration pathways and drives demand for lower-impact formulations and demonstrable mitigation measures. Market participants in this region frequently prioritize collaborative data generation, joint stewardship programs, and engagement with water authorities to secure approvals and social license.

Across Asia-Pacific, rapid infrastructure development, expanding aquaculture production, and diverse water management needs create significant operational demand for effective aquatic weed control solutions. Supply chain models in this region vary widely, from highly localized manufacturing clusters to import-reliant markets, and companies often pursue regional partnerships, contract manufacturing, and tailored application services to match heterogeneous end-user requirements. Taken together, these regional profiles underscore the need for adaptive strategies that reconcile global product platforms with localized regulatory, ecological, and market realities.

Competitive advantage now favors integrated value propositions that combine chemical innovation, local manufacturing, application expertise, and demonstrable environmental stewardship

Competitive dynamics in the aquatic herbicide domain are shaped by a mix of established chemical producers, specialty formulators, contract manufacturers, and service providers that operate across the value chain. Leading players compete not only on active ingredient portfolios but increasingly on formulation innovation, localized manufacturing capacity, and the ability to deliver integrated service offerings that pair product supply with application expertise and post-treatment monitoring.

Strategic behaviors observed across the sector include targeted acquisitions to secure formulation capabilities or local manufacturing capacity, partnership arrangements with application and monitoring service firms, and investments in research collaborations to address regulatory data gaps related to non-target species and environmental fate. Some firms are differentiating through stewardship programs that provide training, certification, and transparent reporting to public agencies and private operators, thereby reducing deployment friction and easing permitting processes.

Distribution and channel strategies also matter. Companies that cultivate deep relationships with municipal procurement officials, aquaculture integrators, and industrial maintenance contractors position themselves to capture recurring contracts and to pilot new products under real-world conditions. Overall, the competitive landscape rewards players that align chemical innovation with service delivery, regulatory foresight, and demonstrable environmental performance.

Actionable strategic priorities that balance formulation innovation, supply chain resilience, regulatory engagement, and service bundling to future-proof business models

Industry leaders should pursue a set of pragmatic, high-impact actions to strengthen resilience and to capture emerging opportunities. First, prioritize formulation and delivery innovation that enhances target specificity and lowers non-target exposure, thereby simplifying regulatory clearance and improving stakeholder acceptance. Investments in next-generation formulations and in compatible application technologies will yield operational differentiation and reduce total cost to end users.

Second, build supply chain resilience through supplier diversification, qualification of alternative feedstocks, and selective nearshoring of critical manufacturing steps to limit exposure to trade policy volatility. Such moves should be accompanied by rigorous quality management and by collaboration with contract manufacturers to shorten qualification timelines. Third, deepen engagement with regulators, water managers, and community stakeholders by proactively sharing environmental data, supporting independent monitoring, and co-designing mitigation protocols that enable pragmatic approvals.

Finally, expand commercial models beyond product sales to include bundled service offerings-training, certified application, and performance monitoring-that lock in repeatable revenue streams and strengthen customer relationships. These strategic shifts will help leaders reduce risk, improve margins, and sustain market access amid evolving regulatory and commercial pressures.

A rigorous, multi-source methodology combining stakeholder interviews, technical literature, supply chain mapping, and operational case studies to ensure robust, actionable insights

The research underpinning this analysis relied on a structured, multi-source methodology designed to triangulate technical, regulatory, and commercial insights. Primary engagements included interviews with product developers, regulatory affairs specialists, application contractors, and municipal water managers to gather first-hand perspectives on operational constraints, approval pathways, and procurement drivers. These qualitative inputs were supplemented by technical literature reviews focused on formulation advances, modes of action, and ecotoxicological assessments to ensure scientific rigor.

Supply chain and policy assessments were informed by trade flow analyses, supplier mapping, and scenario assessments of tariff and procurement vulnerabilities. The study also incorporated case studies of deployment across diverse end uses-such as aquaculture systems, hydropower cooling circuits, and municipal reservoir management-to ground findings in practical operational realities. Methodological limitations and data gaps were addressed through sensitivity checks and by flagging areas where further primary data collection would enhance decision confidence.

Overall, the methodology prioritized triangulation across stakeholder interviews, technical literature, and operational case studies in order to produce pragmatic, actionable insights while maintaining transparency about assumptions and evidence sources.

Concluding synthesis that emphasizes integrated product, operational, and stewardship strategies as the pathway to sustained market access and stakeholder trust

In conclusion, aquatic herbicide markets are being reshaped by an interplay of regulatory tightening, technological innovation, stakeholder expectations for environmental performance, and supply chain pressures. These forces are collectively encouraging a shift away from single-dimension competition on active ingredient potency toward integrated propositions that combine optimized chemistries, advanced formulations, precise application platforms, and bundled service offerings.

Decision makers should interpret these dynamics as an opportunity to create defensible differentiation through investments in formulation science, localized manufacturing resilience, and collaborative stewardship programs that align regulatory compliance with community expectations. Firms that proactively engage regulators and water managers, that invest in application competence and monitoring, and that adapt commercial models to prioritize recurring services will be best positioned to sustain access and to capture long-term value.

Ultimately, the pathway to durable success will require aligning product development with ecological responsibility and operational practicality, enabling stakeholders to manage aquatic vegetation effectively while maintaining public trust and regulatory confidence.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.4. Currency & Pricing
• 1.5. Language
• 1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Adoption of drone assisted precision spraying techniques for targeted aquatic weed control
• 5.2. Regulatory pressure driving development of biodegradable aquatic herbicide formulations with minimal ecosystem impact
• 5.3. Integration of remote sensing and AI driven mapping tools to optimize aquatic weed management strategies
• 5.4. Rising adoption of granular bioherbicides composed of native plant extracts for sustainable invasive species control
• 5.5. Emerging market demand for subscription based service models offering regular aquatic vegetation monitoring and treatment
• 5.6. Challenges in managing herbicide resistance in common water weeds due to overreliance on glufosinate and diquat
• 5.7. Investment trends in compact automated robotic weed removal platforms for precision control in lakes and ponds
• 5.8. Strategic partnerships between chemical manufacturers and drone service providers to deliver turnkey aquatic herbicide applications

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Application Method

• 8.1. Aerial
  • 8.1.1. Fixed Wing
  • 8.1.2. Helicopter
• 8.2. Boat
  • 8.2.1. Motorboat Spray
  • 8.2.2. Pontoon Spray
• 8.3. Ground
  • 8.3.1. Backpack Sprayer
  • 8.3.2. Boom Sprayer
  • 8.3.3. Handheld

9. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Type

• 9.1. 2,4-D
• 9.2. Diquat
• 9.3. Glyphosate
• 9.4. Imazapyr
• 9.5. Triclopyr

10. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Formulation

• 10.1. Granular
  • 10.1.1. Water Dispersible Granule
  • 10.1.2. Water Soluble Granule
• 10.2. Liquid
  • 10.2.1. Emulsifiable Concentrate
  • 10.2.2. Solution
  • 10.2.3. Suspension Concentrate

11. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Mode Of Action

• 11.1. Contact
  • 11.1.1. Cell Membrane Disruptor
  • 11.1.2. Protein Synthesis Inhibitor
• 11.2. Growth Regulator
  • 11.2.1. Auxin Mimic
  • 11.2.2. Hormone Blocker
• 11.3. Systemic
  • 11.3.1. Phloem Mobile
  • 11.3.2. Xylem Mobile

12. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by End Use

• 12.1. Commercial
  • 12.1.1. Aquaculture
  • 12.1.2. Water Recreation
  • 12.1.3. Water Treatment
• 12.2. Industrial
  • 12.2.1. Hydro Power Plants
  • 12.2.2. Industrial Cooling Systems
  • 12.2.3. Oil Gas Facilities
• 12.3. Municipal
  • 12.3.1. Drinking Water Treatment
  • 12.3.2. Stormwater Management
  • 12.3.3. Wastewater Treatment
• 12.4. Residential
  • 12.4.1. Lawn Landscaping
  • 12.4.2. Pond Maintenance

13. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Application

• 13.1. Post Emergent
  • 13.1.1. Nonselective
  • 13.1.2. Selective
• 13.2. Pre Emergent
  • 13.2.1. Foliar Applied
  • 13.2.2. Soil Applied

14. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Region

• 14.1. Americas
  • 14.1.1. North America
  • 14.1.2. Latin America
• 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 14.2.1. Europe
  • 14.2.2. Middle East
  • 14.2.3. Africa
• 14.3. Asia-Pacific

15. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Group

• 15.1. ASEAN
• 15.2. GCC
• 15.3. European Union
• 15.4. BRICS
• 15.5. G7
• 15.6. NATO

16. Aquatic Herbicides Market, by Country

• 16.1. United States
• 16.2. Canada
• 16.3. Mexico
• 16.4. Brazil
• 16.5. United Kingdom
• 16.6. Germany
• 16.7. France
• 16.8. Russia
• 16.9. Italy
• 16.10. Spain
• 16.11. China
• 16.12. India
• 16.13. Japan
• 16.14. Australia
• 16.15. South Korea

17. Competitive Landscape

• 17.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
• 17.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
• 17.3. Competitive Analysis
  • 17.3.1. Albaugh, LLC
  • 17.3.2. Alligare, LLC
  • 17.3.3. BASF SE
  • 17.3.4. Bayer AG
  • 17.3.5. Certis
  • 17.3.6. De Sangosse
  • 17.3.7. Element solutions Inc.
  • 17.3.8. FMC Corporation
  • 17.3.9. IsAgro SpA
  • 17.3.10. Koppert Biological Systems
  • 17.3.11. Land O'Lakes, Inc.
  • 17.3.12. Lonza
  • 17.3.13. Marrone Bio Innovations
  • 17.3.14. Monsanto Company
  • 17.3.15. Novozymes
  • 17.3.16. Nufarm Ltd
  • 17.3.17. Sanco Industries
  • 17.3.18. Sepro Corporation
  • 17.3.19. SOLitude Lake Management
  • 17.3.20. Syngenta AG
  • 17.3.21. The Dow Chemical Company
  • 17.3.22. UPL Limited
  • 17.3.23. Valent