Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:31:13.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organic Farmer Knowledge and Perceptions are Associated with On-Farm Weed Seedbank Densities in Northern New England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Randa Jabbour ,
Eric R. Gallandt ,
Sarah Zwickle ,
Robyn S. Wilson  and
Doug Doohan
Randa Jabbour*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
Sarah Zwickle
Affiliation:
School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210
Robyn S. Wilson
Affiliation:
School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210
Doug Doohan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rjabbour@uwyo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management remains a high priority for organic farmers, whose fields generally have higher weed density and species diversity than those of their conventional counterparts. We explored whether variability in farmer knowledge and perceptions of weeds and weed management practices were predictive of variability in on-farm weed seedbanks on 23 organic farms in northern New England. We interviewed farmers and transcribed and coded interviews to quantify their emphasis on concepts regarding knowledge of ecological weed management, the perceived risks and benefits of weeds, and the perceived risks and benefits of weed management practices. To characterize on-farm weed seedbanks, we collected soil samples from five fields at each farm (115 fields total) and measured germinable weed seed density. Mean weed seed density per farm ranged from 2,775 seeds m−2 to 24,678 seeds m−2 to a soil depth of 10 cm. Farmers most often reported hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species (Digitaria spp.) as their most problematic weeds. The proportion of the sum of these two most problematic weeds in each farm's seedbank ranged from 1 to 73% of total weed seed density. Farmer knowledge and perceptions were predictive of total seed density, species richness, and proportion of hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species. Low seed densities were associated with farmers who most often discussed risks of weeds, benefits of critical weed-free management practices, and learning from their own experience. These farmers also exhibited greater knowledge of managing the weed seedbank and greater understanding of the importance of a long-term strategy. Targeted education focusing on this set of knowledge and beliefs could potentially lead to improved application and success of ecological weed management in the future, thus decreasing labor costs and time necessary for farmers to manage weeds.

Keywords

Large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAsmooth crabgrass, Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. ex Muhl. DIGIShairy galinsoga, Galinsoga quadriradiata Cav. GAQU.Ecological weed managementfarmer knowledgemental modelorganic agricultureweed seedbanks
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 338 - 349
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

Albrecht, H (2005) Development of arable weed seedbanks during the 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res. 45:339–350 Google Scholar
Alhakami, A, Slovic, P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14:1085–1096 Google Scholar
Ascher, T, Wilson, R, Toman, E (2012) The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland–urban interface residents. Int J Wildland Fire. 22:267–276 Google Scholar
Corbin, J, Strauss, A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd edn. Los Angeles Sage. 342 pGoogle Scholar
Dawoe, EK, Quashie-Sam, J, Isaac, ME, Oppong, SK (2012) Exploring farmers' local knowledge and perceptions of soil fertility and management in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Geoderma. 179–180:96–103 Google Scholar
Eckert, E, Bell, A (2005) Invisible force: Farmers' mental models and how they influence learning and actions. J. Extension [On-line] 43. Available at Web site http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/a2.php Google Scholar
Eckert, E, Bell, A (2006) Continuity and change: Themes of mental model development among small-scale farmers. J Extension [On-line] 44. http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/a2p.shtml. Accessed December 5, 2013Google Scholar
Finucane, ML, Alhakami, A, Slovic, P, Johnson, SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making. 13:1–17 Google Scholar
Fulton, DC, Manfredo, MJ, Lipscomb, J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl. 1:24–47 Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER (2006) How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54:588–596 Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER, Liebman, M, Corson, S, Porter, GA, Ullrich, SD (1998) Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci. 46:238–248 Google Scholar
Graham, MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology. 84:2809–2815 Google Scholar
Hawes, C, Squire, GR, Hallett, PD, Watson, CA, Young, M (2010) Arable plant communities as indicators of farming practice. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 138:17–26 Google Scholar
Jabbour, R, Zwickle, S, Gallandt, ER, McPhee, K, Wilson, R, Doohan, D (2013) Mental models of organic weed management: Comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renew Agr Food Syst. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000185 Google Scholar
José-María, L, Sans, FX (2011) Weed seedbanks in arable fields: Effects of management practices and surrounding landscape. Weed Res. 51:631–640 Google Scholar
Kleindorfer, PR (1999) Understanding individuals' environmental decisions: A decision sciences approach. Pages 37–56 in Sexton, K, Marcus, A, Easter, WK, and Burkhardt, T, eds. Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses, and communities. Washington D.C. Island Google Scholar
Leitgeb, F, Kummer, S, Funes-Monzote, FR, Vogl, CR (2012) Farmers' experiments in Cuba. Renew Agr Food Syst. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170512000336 Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Gallandt, ER (1997) Many little hammers: Ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343 in Jackson, LE, ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic Google Scholar
Macé, K, Morlon, P, Munier-Jolain, N, Quéré, L (2007) Time scales as a factor in decision-making by French farmers on weed management in annual crops. Agr Systems. 93:115–142 Google Scholar
MAXQDA, Software for Qualitative Data Analysis. 2012, Berlin, Germany VERBI Software - Consult - Sozialforschung GmbH Google Scholar
Mevik, BH, Wehrens, R (2007) The pls package: Principal component and partial least squares regression in R. J Stat Softw. 18:1–24 Google Scholar
Morgan, MG, Fischhoff, B, Bostrom, A, Atman, CJ (2002) Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, U K Cambridge University Press. 341 pGoogle Scholar
Nowak, PJ, Cabot, PE (2004) Human dimension of resource management programs. J Soil Water Conserv. 59:128A–135A Google Scholar
Paveglio, T, Carroll, M (2009) Just blowing smoke? Residents' social construction of communication about wildfire. Environ Comm. 3:76–94 Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Assessed December 5, 2013Google Scholar
Riemens, MM, Groeneveld, RMW, Kropff, MJJ, Lotz, LAP, Renes, RJ, Sukkel, W, van der Weide, RY (2010) Linking farmer weed management behavior with weed pressure: More than just technology. Weed Sci. 58:490–496 Google Scholar
Riemens, MM, Groeneveld, RMW, Lotz, LAP, Kropff, MJ (2007) Effects of three management strategies on the seedbank, emergence and the need for hand weeding in an organic arable cropping system. Weed Res. 47:442–451 Google Scholar
Roschewitz, I, Gabriel, D, Tscharntke, T, Thies, C (2005) The effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and conventional farming. J Appl Ecol. 42:873–882 Google Scholar
Siegrist, M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20:195–204 Google Scholar
Slagle, K, Zajac, R (2013) Building tolerance for bears: A communications experiment. J Wildl Manag. 77:863–869 Google Scholar
Slovic, P (1987) Perception of risk. Science. 236:280–285 Google Scholar
Smith, B, Wilson, JB (2009) A Consumer's Guide to Evenness Indices. Oikos. 76:70–82 Google Scholar
Stern, PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Iss. 56:407–424 Google Scholar
Turner, RJ, Davies, G, Moore, H, Grundy, AC, Mead, A (2007) Organic weed management: A review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Prot. 26:377–382 Google Scholar
Wilson, RS, Tucker, MA, Hooker, NH, LeJeune, JT, Doohan, D (2008) Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: Perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technol. 22:339–350 Google Scholar
Wyckhuys, KAG, O'Neil, RJ (2007) Local agro-ecological knowledge and its relationship to farmers' pest management decision making in rural Honduras. Agr Hum Values. 24:307–321 Google Scholar
Zwickle, S (2011) Weeds and organic weed management: Investigating farmer decisions with a mental models approach. . Columbus, OH Ohio State University. 171 pGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jabbour et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Jabbour et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jabbour et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Jabbour et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 58.5 KB