Skip to main content

Agricultural Weed Research: A Critique and Two Proposals

  • Sarah M. Ward (a1), Roger D. Cousens (a2), Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan (a3), Jacob N. Barney (a4), Hugh J. Beckie (a5), Roberto Busi (a6), Adam S. Davis (a7), Jeffrey S. Dukes (a8), Frank Forcella (a9), Robert P. Freckleton (a10), Eric R. Gallandt (a11), Linda M. Hall (a12), Marie Jasieniuk (a13), Amy Lawton-Rauh (a14), Erik A. Lehnhoff (a15), Matt Liebman (a16), Bruce D. Maxwell (a15), Mohsen B. Mesgaran (a2), Justine V. Murray (a17), Paul Neve (a18), Martin A. Nuñez (a19), Anibal Pauchard (a20), Simon A. Queenborough (a21) and Bruce L. Webber (a22)...

Two broad aims drive weed science research: improved management and improved understanding of weed biology and ecology. In recent years, agricultural weed research addressing these two aims has effectively split into separate subdisciplines despite repeated calls for greater integration. Although some excellent work is being done, agricultural weed research has developed a very high level of repetitiveness, a preponderance of purely descriptive studies, and has failed to clearly articulate novel hypotheses linked to established bodies of ecological and evolutionary theory. In contrast, invasive plant research attracts a diverse cadre of nonweed scientists using invasions to explore broader and more integrated biological questions grounded in theory. We propose that although studies focused on weed management remain vitally important, agricultural weed research would benefit from deeper theoretical justification, a broader vision, and increased collaboration across diverse disciplines. To initiate change in this direction, we call for more emphasis on interdisciplinary training for weed scientists, and for focused workshops and working groups to develop specific areas of research and promote interactions among weed scientists and with the wider scientific community.

Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail:
Hide All
Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 5:124.
Barrett SCH, Colautti RI, Eckert CG (2008) Plant reproductive systems and evolution during biological invasion. Mol Ecol. 17:373383.
Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants—a hypothesis. J Ecol. 83:887889.
Breen J, Ogasawara M (2011) A vision for weed science in the 21st century. Weed Biol Manag. 11:113117.
Cousens R, Mortimer M (1995) Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 348 p.
Davis AS, Hall C, Jasieniuk M, Locke MA, Luschei EC, Mortensen DA, Reichers DE, Smith RG, Sterling TM, Westwood JH (2009) Weed science research and funding: a call to action. Weed Sci. 57:442448.
Derr JF, Rana A (2011) Weed science research, teaching, and extension at land-grant institutions in the United States and its territories. Weed Technol. 25:277291.
De Wet JMJ, Harlan JR (1975) Weeds and domesticates: evolution in the man-made habitat. Econ Bot. 29:99107.
Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Quadranti M, Kudsk P, Barberi P (2008) Which future for weed science? Weed Res. 48:297301.
Hall C, Van Eerd LL, Miller SD, Owen MDK, Prather TS, Shaner DL, Singh M, Vaughn KC, Weller SC (2000) Future research directions for weed science. Weed Technol. 14:647658.
Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. London Academic. 892 p.
Knake EL (1975) Pluck a thistle and plant a flower. Weed Sci. 23:246252.
Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience. 62:7584.
Moss SR (2008) Weed research: is it delivering what it should? Weed Res. 48:389393.
Murray JV, Lehnhoff EA, Neve P, Poggio SL, Webber BL (2012) Raising the bar: improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research. New Phytol. 196:678680.
Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci. 144:31.
Peters RH (1991) A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 384 p.
Ren M-X, Zhang Q-G (2009) The relative generality of plant invasion mechanisms and predicting future invasive plants. Weed Res. 49:449460.
Sagarin R, Pauchard A (2012) Observation and Ecology, Broadening the Scope of Science to Understand a Complex World. Washington DC Island Press. 232 p.
Scheiner SM (2013) The ecological literature, an idea-free distribution. Ecol Lett. 16:14211423.
Schierenbeck KA, Ellstrand NC (2009) Hybridization and the evolution of invasiveness in plants and other organisms. Biol Invasions. 11:10931105.
Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:170176.
Vigueira CC, Olsen KM, Caicedo AL (2013) The red queen in the corn: agricultural weeds as models of rapid adaptive evolution. Heredity. 110:303311.
Webber BL, Le Maitre DC, Kriticos DJ (2012) Comment on “Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders”. Science. 338:193.
Wyse DL (1992) Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162165.
Zimdahl RL (2010) A History of Weed Science in the United States. Burlington, MA Elsevier. 224 p.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Science
  • ISSN: 0043-1745
  • EISSN: 1550-2759
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 207 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 24th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.