Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:06:12.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed science in sustainable agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Robert L. Zimdahl
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Professor, Weed Research Laboratory, Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Get access

Abstract

Five thoughts about the role and future of weed science in agriculture are analyzed. Much about the tools, techniques, and achievements of weed science should be lauded. Its achievements in basic science and its worldwide contributions to agricultural production and productivity are incontestable. The discipline has been based primarily on chemical technology, and the weed science community has been shaped by the available technology and by the purposes of its members. New, sustainable weed management systems will rely on knowledge derived from answers to new questions about weed-crop relationships and management techniques. As weed scientists develop better management systems, they will need to find better words to describe what they do and why it is important.

Keywords

herbicidesweed managementpopulation biologyecology
Type
commentary
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 138 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

References

1.Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., and Tipton, S.M.. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American life. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
2.Browne, W.P., Skees, J.R., Swanson, L.B., Thompson, P.B., and Unnevehr, L.. 1992. Sacred Cows and Hot Potatoes: Agrarian Myths in Agricultural Policy. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
3.Burnside, O. 1993. Weed science — the step child. Weed Technology 7:515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
5.Danbom, D.B. 1992. Research and agriculture: Challenging the public system. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Doering, O.C. 1992. The social and ethical context of agriculture: Is it there and can we teach it? In Agriculture and the Undergraduate. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 237–244.Google Scholar
7.Duke, S.O. 1992. Weed science — The need and the reality. Phytoparasitica 20:183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Dundon, S.J. 1982. Hidden obstacles to creativity in agricultural science. In Haynes, R. and Lanier, R. (eds). Agriculture, Change, and Human Values — A Multidisciplinary Conference. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 836–868.Google Scholar
9.Jackson, W. 1984. Toward a unifying concept for an ecological agriculture. In Lowrance, R. and House, G.J. (eds). Agricultural Ecosystems. John Wiley, New York, N.Y. pp. 209–221.Google Scholar
10.Kennedy, P. 1993. Preparing for the Twenty-first Century. Random House, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
11.Kremer, R.J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecological Applications 3:42–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Leopold, A. 1949 [1970]. A Sand County Almanac. Reprinted by Ballantine Books, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
13.Liebman, M., and Dyck, E.. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications 3:92–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Mayer, A., and Mayer, J.. 1974. Agriculture, the island empire. Daedalus 103:83–95.Google Scholar
15.Meyer, J.H. 1993. The stalemate in food and agricultural research, teaching, and extension. Science 260:881, 1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mohler, C.L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecological Applications 3:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Palmer, P.J. 1993. To Know as We are Known: Education as a Spiritual Journey. Harper Collins, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
18.Rolston, H. 1990. Wildlife and wildlands: A Christian perspective. Church and Society 30(4): 16–40.Google Scholar
19.Roper Reports. 1989–1992. Cited in The Bottom Line. Aug. 1992. DowElanco, Indianapolis, Indiana, p. 3.Google Scholar
20.Shader-Frechette, K. 1991. Pesticide policy and ethics. In Blatz, C.V. (ed). Ethics and Agriculture. Univ. of Idaho Press, Moscow, pp. 426–433.Google Scholar
21.Soule, J., Carré, D., and Jackson, W.. 1990. Ecological impact of modern agriculture. In Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., and Rossett, P.M. (eds). Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. pp. 165–188.Google Scholar
22.Swift, Jonathan. 1726 [1972]. Gulliver's Travels. Reprinted by Pocket Books, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
23.Thill, D.C., Lish, J.M., Callihan, R.H., and Bechinski, E.J.. 1991. Integrated weed management — a component of integrated pest management: A critical review. Weed Technology 5:648–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Weiner, J. 1990. Plant population ecology in agriculture. In Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., and Rossett, P.M. (eds). Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. pp. 235–262.Google Scholar
25.Wojcik, J. 1989. The Arguments of Agriculture. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
26.Woodwell, G.M. 1979. Address of the past president. Bull. Ecological Society of America. 08, pp. 190–195.Google Scholar
27.Wyse, D.L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technology 6:162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Youngberg, G. 1986. Why another journal? Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Zimdahl, R.L. 1991. Weed Science — A plea for thought. Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar