Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:46:31.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Weed Resistance as a Wicked Problem to Improve Weed Management Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Raymond A. Jussaume Jr.  and
David Ervin
Raymond A. Jussaume Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
David Ervin
Affiliation:
Economics and Environmental Management and Senior Research Faculty, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jussaume@msu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Managing weed resistance has become a major challenge for many agricultural producers. Resistance is growing in terms of the number of weeds exhibiting resistance and the number of herbicides to which weeds are becoming resistant. The susceptibility of weeds to herbicides in many regions is a diminishing common pool resource affected by local producer weed control actions and natural conditions. Given the growing number of weeds exhibiting resistance, and the recognition that weed resistance is not a private property issue, we argue that managing resistance must be viewed as a wicked problem with no standard template across regions. Finding farm management approaches that help farmers successfully address weed resistance requires a shared perspective that incorporates an improved understanding of the human dimensions of weed management. Through an analysis of wicked problem characteristics, we argue that a people-centered approach to weed management is necessary. We offer principles learned from tackling other wicked agriculture and resource conservation issues to guide such approaches. Education, technical assistance, incentive schemes and regulatory efforts, and other strategies can play roles in constructing management approaches for herbicide resistance, but will have to vary from current efforts to unravel the mysteries of more effective weed management. Building a more inclusive approach, in terms of stakeholders and disciplines, will be key to achieving progress.

Keywords

Herbicide resistanceweed managementpeople-centeredadaptive principlesfull stakeholder involvement
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue S1: Special Issue: Human Dimensions of Herbicide Resistance , 2016 , pp. 559 - 569
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by the Weed Science Society of America

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Sarah Ward, Colorado State University

References

Literature Cited

Batie, S (2008) Wicked problems and applied economics. Am J Appl Econ 90: 1176–1191Google Scholar
Blaint, P, Stewart, R, Desai, A, Walters, L (2011) Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. 272 pGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Kichler, J, Sosnoskie, L, York, A, Sammons, D, Nichols, B (2010) Integrating cover crop residue and moldboard plowing into glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth management programs. Page 1650in Proceedings of the 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conference. New Orleans, LA: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C, Jordan, D, Owen, M, Dixon, P, Young, B, Wilson, R, Weller, S, Shaw, D (2014) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Economics of herbicide resistance management practices in a 5-year field-scale study. Pest Manage Sci 70: 1924–1929Google Scholar
Ervin, D, Jussaume, R (2014) Herbicide resistance: integrating social science into understanding and managing weed resistance and associated environmental impacts. Weed Sci 62: 403–414Google Scholar
Fenichel, E, Richards, T, Shanafelt, D (2014) The control of invasive species on private property with neighbor-to-neighbor spillovers. Environ Res Econ 59: 231–255Google Scholar
Foresman, C, Glasgow, L (2008) Grower perceptions and experiences with glyphosate resistant weeds. Pest Manage Sci 64: 388–391Google Scholar
Heap, I (1997) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed April 29, 2015Google Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Allen, D (2006) Expected mobility of herbicide resistance via weed seeds and pollen in a Western Australian cropping region. Crop Prot 25: 520–526Google Scholar
McCoy, N, Amatya, P (2005) Games people play: human behavior and invasive weed management. Rangelands 27: 8–14Google Scholar
Nelson, E, Mendoza, G, Regetz, J, Polasky, S, Tallis, H, Cameron, DR, Chan, KM, Daily, GC, Goldstein, J, Kareiva, PM, Lonsdorf, E, Naidoo, R, Ricketts, T, Shaw, MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7: 4–11Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, N, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012). Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60 (spl): 31–62Google Scholar
Ostrom, E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 15181–13187Google 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
Owen, M, Boerboom, C (2004) National Glyphosate Stewardship Forum. St. Louis, MO. 80 pGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66: 265–275Google Scholar
Rittel, H, Webber, M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 5: 155–169Google Scholar
Sayer, J, Sunderland, T, Ghazoul, J, Pfund, J-L, Sheil, D, Meijaard, E, Venter, M, Boedhihartono, AG, Day, M, Garcia, C, van Ooster, C, Buck, LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 8349–8356Google Scholar
Shaw, D, Culpepper, SA, Owen, M, Price, AJ, Wilson, R (2012) Herbicide-resistant weeds threaten soil conservation gains: finding a balance for soil and farm sustainability. Issue Paper 49. Ames, IA: CAST.Google Scholar
Vencill, WK, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, 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 (spl): 2–30Google Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds incrop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27: 431–436Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Nichols, RL (2012) Changes in the prevalence of weed species in the major agronomic crops of the southern United States: 1994/1995 to 2008/2009. Weed Sci 60: 145–157Google Scholar
Ziska, L (2014) Climate, CO2 and invasive weed management. Pp 293–304in Ziska, L, Dukes, J, eds. Invasive Species and Global Climate Change. Boston: CABIGoogle Scholar