Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-qjfxt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-19T01:38:28.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge networks: an avenue to ecological management of invasive weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nicholas Jordan ,
Roger Becker ,
Jeffrey Gunsolus ,
Susan White  and
Susan Damme
Roger Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy of Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Jeffrey Gunsolus
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy of Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Susan White
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy of Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Susan Damme
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy of Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026 University of Minnesota-Duluth, Department of Education, 120 Montague Hall, 10 University Dr, Duluth, MN 55812-2496
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ecological management of invasive weeds will require substantial increases in the application of ecological knowledge and its integration with other forms of knowledge. To enable these increases, we call for purposeful development of knowledge networks in which new knowledge about a complex situation is created by the interaction of different forms of knowledge. We believe that invasive-plant management must be based on a fine-tuning of managed ecosystems, in which operations (e.g., farm activities) are comprehensively adjusted to confront invasives with a wide array of control measures. Land managers must have the primary role in this tuning process because of their holistic knowledge of the ecosystems they manage. Additionally, such ecological management of invasives will require support from new or improved practices in many relevant sectors, e.g., involving extension workers, farm advisors, and researchers of many sorts. Knowledge networks facilitate the creation, application, and integration of knowledge that will be needed to support ecological invasive-plant management. Worldwide, knowledge networks are under very active development as promising solutions to ecological-management challenges. To develop, networks require proactive organization and facilitation. We have developed an experimental knowledge network to facilitate ecological management of field-crop weeds on the basis of collaborative learning groups that help farmers and other professionals develop necessary knowledge. These groups have been favorably evaluated by most participants, and this article describes the results of our project, including our insights into development of such networks.

Keywords

Extension studiesintegrated weed managementcollaborative learningcollective cognitionadaptive management

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 271 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Altieri, M. A. 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Academic Press. pp. 297–305.Google Scholar
Andow, D. A. and Hidaka, K. 1989. Experimental natural history of sustainable agriculture: syndromes of production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, J. 1993. Future Harvest. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 30–53.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. and Jannink, J. L. 2000. A classification of collaborative management methods. Conserv. Ecol. 4:13. Web Page: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art13. Accessed: May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. pp. Xiii, 147.Google Scholar
Boyte, H. and Hollander, E. 2000. Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University: Web page: http://www.compact.org/civic/wingspread/wingspread.html. Accessed: May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. 1998. Fomenting synergy: Experiences with facilitating landcare in Australia. Pages 232–249 In Röling, N. and Wagemakers, M., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 1994. Challenging the Professions. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 60 p.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1999. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. New York: J. Wiley. pp. Xv and 329.Google Scholar
Collay, M., Dunlap, D., Enloe, W., and Gagnon, G. W. Jr. 1998. Learning Circles—Creating Conditions for Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Crookston, R. K. 1992. Decision cases as a research tool in agriculture. Pages 24–28 In Stanford, M. J., Davis, D. H., and Simmons, S., eds. Decision Cases for Agriculture. St. Paul, MN: College of Agriculture, Program for Decision Cases, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. E. and Walker, G. B. 2001. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Press. pp. Xxii and 299.Google Scholar
Engel, P.G.H. 1997. The Social Organization of Innovation. KIT Press. pp. 9–44.Google Scholar
Fernholz, C. 1992. Sustainable Management Practices for the Nineties. Madison, MN: A Frame Press. pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1997. My view. Weed Sci. 45:327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, G. 1998. Co-learning tools: Powerful instruments of change in Southern Queensland, Australia. Pages 172–190 In Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hesterman, O. B. and Fisk, J. W. 2000. Catalyzing systems change through community-based learning. Pages 369–380 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? Pages 3–34 In Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., and Light, S. S., eds. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ison, R. L., High, C., Blackmore, C. P., and Cerf, M. 2000. Theoretical frameworks for learning-based approaches to change in industrialized-country agricultures. Pages 32–53 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Ison, R. and Russell, D. 2000. Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. pp. Xi and 239.Google Scholar
Jiggins, J. and Röling, N. 2000. Towards capacity building for complex systems management: Imagining three dimensions. Pages 429–440 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1996. Weed prevention: priority research for alternative weed management. J. Prod. 9:485–490.Google Scholar
Jordan, N., White, S., Gunsolus, J., Becker, R., and Damme, S. 2000. Learning groups developing collaborative learning methods for diversified, site-specific weed management: A case study from Minnesota, USA. Pages 85–95 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
King, C. 2000. Moving from natural to systemic social learning through systematic reflection and dialogue. Pages 205–225 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. 1986. An overview of innovation. Pages 275–306 In Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N., eds. The Positive Sum Strategy. Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. 2001. Weed management: A need for ecological approaches. Pages 1–39 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. S., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Staver, C. S. 2001. Crop diversification for weed management. Pages 322–374 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. S., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michels, P. and Massengale, A. 2002. Civic Organizing Framework: Web page: http://www.activecitizen.org/CivOrg.html. Accessed May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
Moss Kanter, R. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance. Mastering the Challenges of Strategies, Management and Careers in the 1990s. New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 117–140.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. C. 1994. Participation, empowerment and farmer evaluations: a comparative analysis of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua. Agric. Hum. Values 11:109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patriquin, D. G. 1986. Biological husbandry and the “nitrogen problem.” Pages 81–103 In Lopez-Real, J. M. and Hodges, R. D., eds. The Role of Microorganisms in Sustainable Agriculture, Kent, U.K.: University of London.Google Scholar
Peters, S., Jordan, N., and Lemme, G. 1999. Toward a public science: building a new social contract between science and society. Higher Educ. Exchange 1999:34–47.Google Scholar
Pretty, J. 1998. Supportive policies and practice for scaling up sustainable agriculture. Pages 23–45 In Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raedeke, A. H. and Rikoon, J. S. 1997. Temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge: implications for sustainable agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 14:145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocheleau, D. E. 1994. Participatory research and the race to save the planet: questions, critique, and lessons from the field. Agric. Hum. Values 11:4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. 1995. The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Roling, N. G. and Jiggins, J. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. Pages 283–311 In Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roling, N. G. and Maarleveld, M. 1999. Facing strategic narratives: an argument for interactive effectiveness. Agric. Hum. Values 16:295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roling, N. G. and van der Fliert, E. 1998. Introducing integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia: A pioneering attempt to facilitate large-scale change. Pages 153–171 In Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and the NCEAS Working Group on Population Management. 1998. Management of populations in conservation, harvesting and control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:371–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol. 10:766–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication: preventing invasions from getting off the ground. Weed Sci. 51:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. W. 1998. Boll weevil eradication: area-wide pest management. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 91:239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steins, N. and Edwards, V. 1999. Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agric. Hum. Values 16:309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svejcar, T. J. 1996. What are working groups and why should scientists be involved? Weed Technol. 10:451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. 1991. Thompson On-Farm Research. Greenbelt, MD: Wallace Institute.Google Scholar
William, R. D. 2000. Whole systems inquiry: Watersheds as integral systems for systemic learning and action. Pages 227–240 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., Röling, N., eds. Cow Up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar