Plant names carry a significant amount of information without providing a lengthy description. This is an efficient shorthand for scientists and stakeholders to communicate about a plant, but only when the name is based on a common understanding. It is standard to think of each plant having just two names, a common name and a scientific name, yet both names can be a source of confusion. There are often many common names that refer to the same plant, or a single common name that refers to multiple different species, and some plants are without a common name at all. Scientific names are based upon international standards; however, when there is not agreement in the taxonomy, two scientific names may be used to describe the same species. Weed scientists and practitioners can easily memorize multiple plant names and know that they refer to the same species, but when we consider global communication and far-reaching databases, it becomes very relevant to consider two sides of this shift: 1) A need for greater standardization (due to database management and risk of lost data from dropped cross-referencing) and 2) the loss of local heritage which provides useful meaning through various common names. In addition, weed scientists can be resistant to changing names that they learned or frequently use. The developments in online databases and reclassification of plant taxonomy by phylogenetic relationships have changed the accessibility and role of the list of standardized plant names compiled by the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). As part of an attempt to reconcile WSSA and USDA common names for weedy plants, the WSSA Standardized Plant Names Committee recently concluded an extensive review of the Composite List of Weeds common names and had small changes approved to about 10% of the list of over 2800 distinct species.

Competition between genotypes within a plant population can result in the displacement of the least competitive by more competitive genotypes. Although evolutionary processes in plants may occur over thousands and millions of years, it has been suggested that changes in key fitness traits could occur in as little as decades, with herbicide resistance being a common example. However, the rapid evolution of complex traits has not been proven in weeds. We hypothesized that changes in weed growth and competitive ability can occur in just a few years because of selection in agroecosystems. Seed of multiple generations of a single natural population of the grassy weed giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.) were collected during 34 yr (i.e., 1983 to 2017). Using a “resurrection” approach, we characterized life-history traits of the different year-lines under noncompetitive and competitive conditions. Replacement-series experiments comparing the growth of the oldest year-line (1983) versus newer year-lines (1991, 1996, 1998, 2009, and 2017) showed that plant competitive ability decreased and then increased progressively in accordance with oscillating selection. The adaptations in competitive ability were reflected in dynamic changes in leaf area and biomass when plants were in competition. The onset of increased competitive ability coincided with the introduction of herbicide-resistant crops in the landscape in 1996. We also conducted a genome-wide association study and identified four loci that were associated with increased competitive ability over time, confirming that this trait changed in response to directional selection. Putative transcription factors and cell wall–associated enzymes were linked to those loci. This is the first study providing direct in situ evidence of rapid directional evolution of competitive ability in a plant species. The results suggest that agricultural systems can exert enough pressure to cause evolutionary adaptations of complex life-history traits, potentially increasing weediness and invasiveness.

To avoid major negative impacts of the widespread adoption of biofuel species, whether they are exotic species, natives, or novel constructs, we need a system for screening their weed potential. Australia is an important global center of biodiversity and also has major cropping industries to protect. Prevention of the entry of further weeds is therefore a major national priority. The Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) system was developed and implemented for importation decisions in 1997; it has since been introduced into other countries and is probably as good as any system currently in operation. However, we need to be aware of the limitations of any system, to address these, and to work toward improved or alternative systems. WRA is a very simple spreadsheet requiring answers to questions about a species' life-history traits, dispersal, habitat suitability, impacts on other species, and history overseas, which are then added together and compared with numerical decision criteria. Its predictive powers are limited by this simplicity and by the complexity of human attitudes toward risk and impact. Alternative risk-management methods are available but, even so, the capacity for improvement is limited. It is quite possible, therefore, that in using any trait-based system to assess the negative risks of importation or interstate translocation of biofuel species, we will wrongly reject a valuable species or approve a species that turns out to be a major weed. It is suggested that, rather than attempting to improve a single-tiered decision-support system (the quarantine “sieve”), a multitiered system (nested sieves) would lead to a more effective system and greater cost-effectiveness. The key to this would be a postentry screening process for those species that have successfully passed through the WRA system.

The seemingly inexorable expansion of global human population size, significant increases in the use of biofuel crops and the growing pressures of multifunctional land-use have intensified the need to improve crop productivity. The widespread cultivation of high-yielding genetically modified (GM) crops could help to address these problems, although in doing so, steps must also be taken to ensure that any gene flow from these crops to wild or weedy recipients does not cause significant ecological harm. It is partly for this reason that new GM cultivars are invariably subjected to strict regulatory evaluation in order to assess the risks that each may pose to the environment. Regulatory bodies vary in their approach to decision-making, although all require access to large quantities of detailed information. Such an exhaustive case-by-case approach has been made tractable by the comparative simplicity of the portfolio of GM crops currently on the market, with four crops and two classes of traits accounting for almost all of the area under cultivation of GM crops. This simplified situation will change shortly, and will seriously complicate and potentially slow the evaluation process. Nowhere will the increased diversity of GM crops cause more difficulty to regulators than in those cases where there is a need to assess whether the transgene(s) will enhance fitness in a non-transgenic relative and thereafter cause ecological harm. Current practice to test this risk hypothesis focuses on attempting to detect increased fitness in the recipient. In this paper we explore the merits and shortcomings of this strategy, and investigate the scope for developing new approaches to streamline decision-making processes for transgenes that could cause unwanted ecological change.