Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T16:48:09.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Science Research and Funding: A Call to Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis ,
J. Christopher Hall ,
Marie Jasieniuk ,
Martin A. Locke ,
Edward C. Luschei ,
David A. Mortensen ,
Dean E. Riechers ,
Richard G. Smith ,
Tracy M. Sterling  and
James H. Westwood
Adam S. Davis*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
J. Christopher Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Marie Jasieniuk
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Martin A. Locke
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Water Quality and Ecology Research Unit, Oxford, MS 38655
Edward C. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Dean E. Riechers
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Richard G. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Tracy M. Sterling
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
James H. Westwood
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: asdavis1@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed science has contributed much to agriculture, forestry and natural resource management during its history. However, if it is to remain relevant as a scientific discipline, it is long past time for weed scientists to move beyond a dominating focus on herbicide efficacy testing and address the basic science underlying complex issues in vegetation management at many levels of biological organization currently being solved by others, such as invasion ecologists and molecular biologists. Weed science must not be circumscribed by a narrowly-defined set of tools but rather be seen as an integrating discipline. As a means of assessing current and future research interests and funding trends among weed scientists, the Weed Science Society of America conducted an online survey of its members in summer of 2007. There were 304 respondents out of a membership of 1330 at the time of the survey, a response rate of 23%. The largest group of respondents (41%) reported working on research problems primarily focused on herbicide efficacy and maintenance, funded mainly by private industry sources. Another smaller group of respondents (22%) reported focusing on research topics with a complex systems focus (such as invasion biology, ecosystem restoration, ecological weed management, and the genetics, molecular biology, and physiology of weedy traits), funded primarily by public sources. Increased cooperation between these complementary groups of scientists will be an essential step in making weed science increasingly relevant to the complex vegetation management issues of the 21st century.

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , August 2009 , pp. 442 - 448
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

Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 50:273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R., and Nilsson, C. 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 15:22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2007. Report on WSSA Research and Funding Priorities. CSREES Stakeholder Workshop. Alexandria, VA. http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/stakeholders/2007/FinalStakeholdersReport2007.pdf.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. and Ellison, A. M. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sunderland, MA Sinauer Associates. 150 p.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C., Van Eerd, L. L., Miller, S. D., Owen, M. D. K., Prather, T. S., Shaner, D. L., Singh, M., Vaughn, K. C., and Weller, S. C. 2000. Future research directions for weed science. Weed Technol. 14:647–658.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Weed management: a need to develop ecological approaches. Ecol. Appl. 3:39–41.Google Scholar
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Ghersa, C. M., and Satorre, E. H. 2000. Coevolution of agricultural systems and their weed companions: implications for research. Field Crops Res. 67:181–190.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NEWSS] Northeastern Weed Science Society 2009. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Baltimore, MD NEWSS. 250 p.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. Pages 31–58. In Buhler, D. D. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York Haworth.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. and Ghersa, C. M. 1992. Weeds, crops, and herbicides—a modern-day neckriddle. Weed Technol. 6:788–795.Google Scholar
Rea, L. M. and Parker, R. A. 1997. Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass Publishers. 254 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. 2005. Report on WSSA Research and Funding Priorities. CSREES Stakeholder Workshop. Alexandria, VA. http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/stakeholders/2005/wssa.pdf.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., Menalled, F. D., and Rew, L. J. 2006. Lessons from agriculture may improve the management of invasive plants in wildland systems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4:428–434.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing. 220 p.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Weed Science: A Plea for Thought. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. 34 p.Google Scholar