Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:22:47.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Social Science into Managing Herbicide-Resistant Weeds and Associated Environmental Impacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Ervin  and
Ray Jussaume
David Ervin*
Affiliation:
241 M Cramer Hall, 1721 SW Broadway, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201
Ray Jussaume
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, 509 East Circle Drive, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1111
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Controlling herbicide resistance (HR) and its associated environmental risks is impossible without integrating social and economic science with biophysical and technology aspects. Herbicide resistance is a dynamically complex and ill-structured problem involving coupled natural–human systems that defy management approaches based on simple scientific and technology applications. The existence of mobile herbicide resistance and/or herbicide tolerance traits add complexity because susceptibility to the herbicide is a resource open to all farmers, impacting the weed population. Weed scientists have extensively researched the biophysical aspects and grower perceptions of HR. They also recognize that the “tragedy of the commons” can appear when herbicide resistance is mobile across farms. However, the human structures and processes, especially private and public institutions that influence individual and group decisions about HR, have received little analysis. To start filling that gap, we discuss an integrative management approach to sustainable weed control that addresses the social complexity of farm heterogeneity. For example, the need for a private or public collective mechanism becomes apparent to address common-pool resource (CPR) aspects when one farmer's weed control actions influence their neighbors' situations. In such conditions, sole reliance on education, technical assistance, and other incentives aimed at changing individual grower behavior likely will fail to stem the advance of HR. Social science theories can be used to enrich the understanding of human interaction with the biophysical environment and identify key actors and social change processes influencing those interactions in the case of HR. The short-run economic advantages of herbicides such as glyphosate work against social change to address HR, including the development of collective actions when mobile HR conditions exist. We discuss seven design principles that can improve the efficacy and cost of such collective approaches and draw insights from CPR approaches outside of HR.

Keywords

GlyphosateAdaptive managementbiophysicalcommon-pool resourceseconomicsherbicide resistanceinterdisciplinary researchsocial capitalsocial science
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 403 - 414
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

Agrawal, A (2003) Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annu Rev Anthropol. 32:243–262 Google Scholar
Batie, S (2008) Wicked problems and applied economics. Amer J Agric Econ. 90:1176–1191 Google Scholar
Bodin, O, Crona, B, Ernston, H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management. Ecol Soc. 11:1–8 Google Scholar
Boerboom, C, Owen, M, comp (2007) National Glyphosate Stewardship Forum II: A Call to Action. http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2007/NGSFII_final.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2013Google Scholar
Bonny, S (2008) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 28:21–32 Google Scholar
Brodt, S, Klonsky, K, Tourte, L (2006) Farmer goals and management styles: implications for advancing biologically based agriculture. Agric Sys. 89:90–105 Google Scholar
Bruckmeier, K, Tovey, H (2008) Knowledge in sustainable rural development: from forms of knowledge to knowledge processes. Sociologia Ruralis. 48:313–329 Google Scholar
Busch, L, Juska, A (1997) Beyond political economy: actor networks and the globalization of agriculture. Rev Int Political Econ. 4:688–708 Google Scholar
Center for Invasive Plant Management (2002) Weed Management Areas. Chapter 11. http://www.weedcenter.org/textbook/11_WMAs.html. Accessed September 28, 2013Google Scholar
Coughenour, C (2003) Innovating conservation agriculture: the case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociol. 68:278–304 Google Scholar
Dill, G, CaJacob, C, Padgetter, S (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Management Science. 64:326–331 Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2009) Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in the future. AgBioForum. 12:346–357 Google Scholar
Duke, S, Baerson, S, Rimando, A (2003) Glyphosate. Plimmer, JR, Gammon, DW, and Ragsdale, NN (eds. Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals. Hoboken, N.J. John Wiley and Sons Google Scholar
Ervin, D (2013) Voluntary resource conservation and environmental management in agriculture and forestry. Pages 124–132 in Shogren, J, ed. Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, Vol. 2. Resources. Amsterdam, Netherlands Elsevier Google Scholar
Ervin, DE, Carrière, Y, Cox, WJ, Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Jussaume, RA, Marra, MC, Owen, MDK, Raven, PH, Wolfenbarger, LL, Zilberman, D (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National Research Council. Washington, DC The National Academies Press. 250 pGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, McBride, W, Klotz-Ingram, K, Jans, S, Brooks, N (2000) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture: Farm-Level Effects. Agricultural Economic Report No. 786. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture., 28 pGoogle Scholar
Frisvold, GB, Hurley, TM, Mitchell, PD (2009) Adoption of best management practices to control weed resistance by corn, cotton, and soybean growers. AgBioForum. 12:370–381 Google Scholar
Frisvold, G, Reeves, J (2010) Resistance management and sustainable use of agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum. 13:343–359 Google Scholar
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK, Jordan, D (2009) A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol. 23:156–161 Google Scholar
Gould, F (1995) Comparisons between resistance management strategies for insects and weeds. Weed Technol. 9:830–839 Google Scholar
Hammond, CM, Luschei, EC, Boerboom, CM, Nowak, PJ (2006) Adoption of integrated pest management tactics by Wisconsin farmers. Weed Technol. 20:756–767 Google Scholar
Hardin, G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science. 162:1243–1248 Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, CS, Coli, WM (2001) IPM adoption in northeastern US: an examination of the IPM continuum. Am J Altern Agric. 16:177–183 Google Scholar
Holt, J (2012) The epidemiology of herbicide resistance. Pages 7–8 in Proceedings of a National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. Washington, D.C. National Academies Press Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Gibson, KD (2006) Glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistance management strategies: an Indiana grower perspective. Weed Technol. 20:768–772 Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Owen, MD, Kruger, GR, Young, BG, Shaw, DR, Wilson, RG, Jordan, DL, Weller, DC (2009) U.S. farmer awareness of glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistant management strategies. Weed Technol. 23:308–312 Google Scholar
Llewellyn, RS, Allen, DM (2006) Expected mobility of herbicide resistance via weed seeds and pollen in a western Australian cropping region. Crop Prot. 25:520–526 Google Scholar
Llewellyn, RS, Pannell, DJ (2009) Managing the herbicide resource: an evaluation of extension on management of herbicide- resistant weeds. AgBioForum. 12:358–369 Google Scholar
Miranowski, JA, Carlson, GA (1986) Economic issues in public and private approaches to preserving pest susceptibility. Pages 313–326 in Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC National Academy Press Google Scholar
Morgan, K, Marsden, TK, Murdoch, J (2006) World of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press. 240 pGoogle Scholar
[NRC] National Research Council (2012) National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Proceedings of a Symposium. Planning Committee for a National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide Resistant Weeds; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC National Academies Press. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci. 60:31–62 Google Scholar
Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 298 pGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E, Chang, C, Pennington, M, Tarko, V (2012) The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation. London, UK Institute for Economic Affairs. 104 pGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E, Stern, P, Dietz, T (2003) Water rights in the commons. Pages 9–12 in Water Resources IMPACT. Middleburg, Virginia American Water Resources Association Google Scholar
Piggott, NE, Marra, MC (2008) Biotechnology adoption over time in the presence of non-pecuniary characteristics that directly affect utility: a derived demand approach. AgBioForum. 11:58–70 Google Scholar
Pretty, J, Smith, D (2004) Social capital and biodiversity conservation and management. Conserv Biol. 18:631–638 Google Scholar
Pretty, J, Ward, H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Dev. 29:209–227 Google Scholar
Rogers, EM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edn. New York Free Press. 519 pGoogle Scholar
Roy, D, Herring, RJ, Geisler, CC (2007) Naturalising transgenics: official seeds, loose seeds and risk in the decision matrix of Gujarati cotton farmers. J Dev Stud. 43:158–176 Google Scholar
Shaw, DR, Givens, WA, Farno, LA, Gerard, PD, Jordan, D, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK (2009) Using a grower survey to assess the benefits and challenges of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems for weed management in U.S. corn, cotton, and soybean. Weed Technol. 23:134–149 Google Scholar
Sheeder, RJ, Lynne, GD (2011) Empathy-conditioned conservation: walking in the shoes of others as a conservation farmer. Land Econ. 87:435–452 Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) (2013) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Washington, DC. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UokspGTF29w. Accessed November 9, 2013Google Scholar
Vencill, WK, Nichols, RL, Webster, TN, Soteres, JK, Mallory-Smith, C, Burgos, NR, Johnson, WG, McClelland, MR (2012) Herbicide resistance: toward an understanding of resistance development and the impact of herbicide-resistant crops, Weed Sci., 60 (Sp1):2–30 Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Sosnowskie, LM (2010) Loss of glyphosate efficacy: a changing weed spectrum in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci. 58:73–79 Google Scholar