Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:13:19.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Science—The Step Child

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Orvin C. Burnside*
Affiliation:
Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minn., St Paul, MN 55108

Abstract

A brief evolutionary description is given of the development of the discipline of weed science in the United States. Topics discussed include public recognition of weed science, losses from weeds, allocation of resources, herbicide usage, and future predictions of the development of the discipline. Weed scientists have had a major impact during the past four decades in increasing crop yields and reducing labor requirements for controlling weeds in crop production systems. Weed scientists have been so effective that recognition of their contributions and impact have often been overlooked in academic institutions but not in private industries that have staffed for herbicide development.

Type
Education/Perspective
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

1. Andersen, R. N. 1991. The North Central Weed Control Conference: Origin and Evolution. North Central Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL. 206 p.Google Scholar
2. Bolley, H. L. 1908. Weed control by means of chemical sprays. North Dakota Agric. Exp. Stn., Fargo, ND. Bull. 80:541574.Google Scholar
3. Bridges, D. C., ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States—1992. Weed Sci. Soc. of Am., Champaign, IL. 398 p.Google Scholar
4. Delvo, H. W., compiler. 1990. Agricultural Resources—Inputs Situation and Outlook Report. Resour. and Technol. Div., Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, D.C. AR-17. 59 p.Google Scholar
5. Duke, S. O. 1992. Weed science—the need and the reality. Phytoparasitica 20:183186.Google Scholar
6. Elmore, C. L. 1992. Weed science extension in transition. Weed Technol. 6:171176.Google Scholar
7. Gianessi, L. P. 1992. U.S. Pesticide Use Trends: 1966–1989. Quality of the Environment Division, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 55 p.Google Scholar
8. Goldburg, R., Rissler, J., Shand, H., and Hasselbrook, C. 1990. Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest: Herbicide-Tolerant Crops and the Threat to Sustainable Agriculture. Biotechnology Working Group, Washington, D.C. 73 p.Google Scholar
9. Harr, J. 1992. The role of industry in the future of weed science. Weed Technol. 6:177183.Google Scholar
10. Klingman, G. C., Ashton, F. M., and Noordhoff, L. J. 1982. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 449 p.Google Scholar
11. McDougall, J. and Phillips, M. 1992. Agrochemical Overview 1991. County Natwest Woodmac, Kintore House, 74–77 Queen St., Edinburgh, Scotland. p. 5.Google Scholar
12. McWhorter, C. G. 1984. Future needs in weed science. Weed Sci. 32:850855.Google Scholar
13. Rock, C. 1985. Minnnesota Agriculture Statistics. Minn. Agric. Statistics Service, Dep. Agric., St. Paul, MN. 83 p.Google Scholar
14. Thill, D. C. 1992. Teaching weed science in the future. Weed Technol. 6:166170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Timmons, F. L. 1970. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. 18:294307.Google Scholar
16. U.S. Dep. Agric 1965. Losses in Agriculture. U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, D.C. Handb. No. 291. 120 p.Google Scholar
17. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1971. The Economics of Agricultural Pest Control. USDA Pesticide Review, Econ. and Stat., Washington, D.C. Report No. 14. 60 p.Google Scholar
18. Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162165.Google Scholar
19. Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Weed Science—A Plea for Thought. U.S. Dep. Agric., Cooperative State Research Service, Symposium Preprint, Washington, D.C. 34 p.Google Scholar