Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:14:31.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agricultural Weed Research: A Critique and Two Proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah M. Ward ,
Roger D. Cousens ,
Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan ,
Jacob N. Barney ,
Hugh J. Beckie ,
Roberto Busi ,
Adam S. Davis ,
Jeffrey S. Dukes ,
Frank Forcella  and
Robert P. Freckleton
...Show all authors
Sarah M. Ward*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170
Roger D. Cousens
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Management & Geography, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Jacob N. Barney
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Hugh J. Beckie
Affiliation:
Science & Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Roberto Busi
Affiliation:
School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Jeffrey S. Dukes
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, 715 West State Street, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS 1 Soils Lab, Morris, MN 56267
Robert P. Freckleton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Linda M. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, University of Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5, Canada
Marie Jasieniuk
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Amy Lawton-Rauh
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0318
Erik A. Lehnhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Mohsen B. Mesgaran
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Management & Geography, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Justine V. Murray
Affiliation:
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Water for Healthy Country Flagship, G.P.O. Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
Paul Neve
Affiliation:
Weed Ecology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, AL5 2JQ, U.K.
Martin A. Nuñez
Affiliation:
INIBIOMA-CONICET, Laboratorio Ecotono, CRUB-UN Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina
Anibal Pauchard
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales. Universidad de Concepción. Casilla 160-C, Concepción, Chile
Simon A. Queenborough
Affiliation:
Department of Evolution, Ecology & Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Bruce L. Webber
Affiliation:
CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, Private Bag 5, P.O. Wembley, WA 6913, Australia
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Invasion biologyweed scienceweed technology
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 672 - 678
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Baker, HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 5:1–24.Google Scholar
Barrett, SCH, Colautti, RI, Eckert, CG (2008) Plant reproductive systems and evolution during biological invasion. Mol Ecol. 17:373–383.Google Scholar
Blossey, B, Notzold, R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants—a hypothesis. J Ecol. 83:887–889.Google Scholar
Breen, J, Ogasawara, M (2011) A vision for weed science in the 21st century. Weed Biol Manag. 11:113–117.Google Scholar
Cousens, R, Mortimer, M (1995) Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 348 p.Google Scholar
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. 57:442–448.Google Scholar
Derr, JF, Rana, A (2011) Weed science research, teaching, and extension at land-grant institutions in the United States and its territories. Weed Technol. 25:277–291.Google Scholar
De Wet, JMJ, Harlan, JR (1975) Weeds and domesticates: evolution in the man-made habitat. Econ Bot. 29:99–107.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, C, Quadranti, M, Kudsk, P, Barberi, P (2008) Which future for weed science? Weed Res. 48:297–301.Google Scholar
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. 14:647–658.Google Scholar
Harper, JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. London Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Knake, EL (1975) Pluck a thistle and plant a flower. Weed Sci. 23:246–252.Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience. 62:75–84.Google Scholar
Moss, SR (2008) Weed research: is it delivering what it should? Weed Res. 48:389–393.Google Scholar
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. 196:678–680.Google Scholar
Oerke, EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci. 144:31.Google Scholar
Peters, RH (1991) A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 384 p.Google Scholar
Ren, M-X, Zhang, Q-G (2009) The relative generality of plant invasion mechanisms and predicting future invasive plants. Weed Res. 49:449–460.Google Scholar
Sagarin, R, Pauchard, A (2012) Observation and Ecology, Broadening the Scope of Science to Understand a Complex World. Washington DC Island Press. 232 p.Google Scholar
Scheiner, SM (2013) The ecological literature, an idea-free distribution. Ecol Lett. 16:1421–1423.Google Scholar
Schierenbeck, KA, Ellstrand, NC (2009) Hybridization and the evolution of invasiveness in plants and other organisms. Biol Invasions. 11:1093–1105.Google Scholar
Shea, K, Chesson, P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:170–176.Google Scholar
Vigueira, CC, Olsen, KM, Caicedo, AL (2013) The red queen in the corn: agricultural weeds as models of rapid adaptive evolution. Heredity. 110:303–311.Google Scholar
Webber, BL, Le Maitre, DC, Kriticos, DJ (2012) Comment on “Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders”. Science. 338:193.Google Scholar
Wyse, DL (1992) Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2010) A History of Weed Science in the United States. Burlington, MA Elsevier. 224 p.Google Scholar