Contributions by USDA to weed science before 1900

Abstract

All field scientists involved with weed management understand the importance of accurate weed identification and appreciate the need for widely recognized common names. USDA played a pivotal and critical role with the effort to advance our discipline while weed science was in its infancy.

Introduction

In an article recently published in Weed Science, Young et al. (2023) provided an outstanding overview of recent contributions to our discipline by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The objective of this review, however, is to provide an overview of contributions from the USDA to better identification, understanding, and management of weeds in the earliest years of the agency’s existence. Rather than include the many hundreds of softbound documents published by the USDA, such as bulletins, circulars, pamphlets, handbooks, etc., the focus of this article is an overview of the historically significant material relevant to weed science featured in the hardbound yearly summary document initially titled Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, retitled as Report of the Secretary of Agriculture in 1889, then retitled again in 1894 as the Yearbook of Agriculture of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Pre-USDA Creation

Individuals with strong agricultural interests in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and South Carolina formed state organizations in the late 1700s to promote and advance agriculture in their states (Baker et al. 1963; Poore 1867; True 1925). English agriculturalist John Sinclair advised George Washington to create an umbrella organization that could oversee these state organizations and advances in agriculture on a national scale (Newton 1863), which Washington did in his final address to Congress in 1796 (Baker et al. 1963; Poore 1867). Unfortunately, Washington did not see that agency formed. Instead, Congress tasked the U.S. Office of Patents with the responsibility of documenting and overseeing advances in agricultural technology (Baker et al. 1963).

After this Congressional directive, a few agricultural advances relevant to weed science appeared in the Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1851. Part II. Agriculture (Anonymous 1852a). One advance, for example, was cultivation and production methods of a “new oil plant” known today as false flax [Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz] (Anonymous 1852b). Four years earlier, William Darlington (1847) categorized false flax as a “pernicious and troublesome” weed of U.S. agriculture. Another example from the same Report (Anonymous 1852a) was part of a letter dated 1850 that was sent to the Patent Office by JD Macgowan, a physician and corresponding member of the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of India, which described procedures used by the people of China to harvest, extract, and use oil from seed of the Chinese tallow tree [Triadica sebifera (L.) Small = Stillingia sebifera (L.) Michx (Govaerts et al. 2000)]. Chinese tallow tree was already present in the United States, as 80 yr earlier, Benjamin Franklin had shipped Chinese tallow tree seed to botanist John Bartram to observe and cultivate as a potential oil crop (Franklin 1772). By the time botanist Stephen Elliott (1824) published his text of the flora of Georgia and South Carolina, he stated that Chinese tallow trees produced seed abundantly, but the oil was not used. He further stated that Chinese tallow had completely naturalized on the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia, which should have been an indication of the invasiveness of the species. This exotic woody plant continues to spread in natural areas, as the authors of the present article have observed Chinese tallow trees not only in South Carolina and Georgia but also in North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. In addition to those southeastern states, Weakley (2022) reports that Chinese tallow also occurs in Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma, and waifs occur in Tennessee and Kentucky. Also published in the Report of Patents for 1851 (Anonymous 1852a) was a testimonial titled “On Chess in Wheat” by J Brady (1852), a farmer from Brookville, IN, dispelling the widespread local belief that wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) evolved into (“will change to”) chess (Bromus spp.). Brady explained that by carefully roguing wheat fields before harvest, at harvest, and during threshing, carefully cleaning and recleaning wheat seed reserved for planting, and only planting into the cleanest fields for 3 yr, no wheat had changed into chess. Following these practices, both wheat yield and flour quality had improved. He also stated, “I think I may safely say that not a grain of wheat has changed to chess on that farm, though it has been exposed to all the casualties that are commonly supposed to produce the change. I will even venture the prediction that not a grain ever will change.”

The idea of creating a separate agency to oversee advances in agriculture was still being discussed among government officials and agencies. Patent Office Commissioner Thomas Ewbank (1852) stated that there had been favorable support by the public and from agricultural societies and organizations within the Union for years, resolutions of support had been passed by several states, and U.S. Presidents Taylor and Fillmore encouraged Congress to act. Although there had been much debate in Congress, the responsibility of overseeing agricultural advancements for the entire United States remained the task of a “temporary clerk” in the U.S. Patent Office. Furthermore, Congressional appropriations to cover expenses affiliated with agricultural advances borne by the Office of Patents were insufficient. Commissioner Ewbank stated that a department of agriculture needed to be created and housed in the Smithsonian Institute as dictated in James Smithson’s will (Ewbank 1852; Goode 1897; Rhees 1880). As an example of the type of agricultural work potentially overseen by a department of agriculture that could benefit humanity forever, Ewbank quoted (but did not provide complete details of the citation) from a letter titled “Two hundred, five hundred, or even a thousand new vegetables, ad libitum”, cultural experiments by agriculturalists MM Naudin and Lecoq to grow the thistle [Lophiolepis eriophora (L.) Del Guacchio, Bureš, Iamonico & P.Caputo = Cirsium eriophorum (Mirek et al. 2020)] with edible “thorns” and Heracleum spondylum L., a plant of the same genus as giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier), for livestock and human consumption. Because of the success of these two agriculturalists, Ewbank hoped Americans could soon enjoy consuming dock (Rumex spp.) and pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) with enthusiasm similar to green peas and asparagus.

USDA Is Formed

Sixty-six years after George Washington’s final address to Congress, a year and 2 mo following his inauguration as 16th President of the United States, and less than a year into an internal conflict between the Union and the Confederacy, Abraham Lincoln signed into law the act to form the United States Department of Agriculture on May 15, 1862 (Anonymous 1863; Baker et al. 1963). The primary objective for the newly formed agency stated in the Act is “to acquire and to diffuse among people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” (Anonymous 1863; Baker et al. 1963). The complete Act passed by Congress and signed by President Lincoln can be found in the first Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1862 (Anonymous 1863). Readers interested in an in-depth historical overview of the background that ultimately resulted in the formation of the USDA should see Baker et al. (1963) or for a very brief overview of the diversity of contributions to advance agricultural productivity in the United States during the first century of existence, see After A Hundred Years The Yearbook of Agriculture for 1962 (Stefferud 1963).

Four years after the formation of USDA and 3 yr after his death (Harshberger 1899), Dr. William Darlington’s list of the 100 most common and troublesome weeds to American agriculture was printed on pages 509 to 519 in The Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for 1865 (Darlington 1866). Although Darlington’s list of weeds was numbered to 100, an additional dozen species of vascular plants he also considered weedy were blended into the accompanying text. He also included four fungi. Both scientific and common names of the era were provided for weeds in his list and the life cycle. Most of the written descriptions of the weediness of these plants were taken from American Weeds and Useful Plants: Being a Second and Illustrated Edition of Agricultural Botany: An Enumeration and Description of Useful Plants Which Merit the Notice, or Require the Attention of American Agriculturalists (Darlington and Thurber 1859). Although William Darlington was a physician, not a USDA scientist, this compilation and list of characteristics that make these plants weedy is the earliest weed science information published by the then 4-yr-old USDA. As the USDA developed and grew in its number of scientists and collaborators, more articles relevant to weed science appeared in the publication highlighting advancements of the previous year.

Botanists Hired by USDA

In the late 1860s, USDA hired a botanist whose first commentary titled “Report of the Botanist” appeared in the Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1869 (Parry 1870). The botanist, Dr. Charles Parry, had been part of the explorers who went to Alaska to interact with native people and identify indigenous plants useful for timber, food, or agricultural production (Dall 1869). In the role of USDA Botanist, Parry’s initial focus was to create and build the USDA Herbarium (Parry 1870). However, his tenure in this role was short. The position of Botanist was vacant from September 1871 until April of 1872 (Vasey 1874), when Dr. George Vasey was hired. He remained in the position until he died in 1893 (Coville 1894). In addition to continuing to build the USDA Herbarium, Vasey’s focus as USDA Botanist over the first decade was to collect and identify pastoral, medicinal, and toxic plants. Plants in these groups will be covered in a later article. He also prepared a display of trees in the United States that was displayed at the Centennial Exposition of 1876 in Philadelphia, and expositions held in other cities of the United States (Vasey 1876, 1877).

Perhaps because of the large number of specimens mailed for identification and inquiries related to control sent to the USDA Botanist, Vasey (1887) realized the need for a resource to aid in weed identification, which he stated in his Report (Figure 1). Vasey’s awareness of this need is of primary significance to our discipline today, as few weed scientists are proficient plant taxonomists. As is taught in many introductory weed science, pest management, and pesticide certification training courses, the first step to successful pest management is accurate identification of the pest, a strategy parallel to fighting diseases of humans and animals. In his report, Vasey included a subsection titled Weeds of Agriculture that listed by scientific name of the era, 16 weeds, and botanical description, weedy characteristics, and hand-drawn illustrations. In that same report, he tasked USDA Assistant Botanist AA Crozier to draft general weed control suggestions, shown in Figure 2 (Vasey 1887). The effort Vasey started in the 1886 Report of the Commissioner was an organized attempt to help agriculturalists more easily and accurately identify weeds causing crop and/or animal losses across the country. This USDA effort significantly influenced the discipline of weed science, as several illustrations were produced to facilitate weed identification. Dr. Vasey continued the weed identification focus with drawn illustrations included in Reports of the Botanist for the years of 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892, although the number of weeds described and illustrated varied by year. The Report of the Botanist for the year 1887 (Vasey 1888) contained written descriptions and illustrations of nine weeds, which was triple the number in the Report for the year 1888 (Vasey 1889a), as only three plant descriptions contained the noun weed. All plants characterized with the noun weed were also illustrated. In his report for the year 1889, Vasey (1889b) highlighted the importance of USDA’s Botanical Division and Herbarium as a resource to help agriculturalists identify new weeds that appear on the farm or plants that may cause crop losses or other injury to people or livestock. He gave the example of identification of dodder (Cuscuta spp.) in alfalfa fields in California, introduced in seed imported from Chile (spelled Chili in the Report), as evidence of the ability and importance of this work to assist agriculturalists. Assistant Botanist FV Coville (1889) drafted descriptions with drawings of 10 weeds titled “Noxious Weeds” in the botanist report. In the introductory paragraph, Coville emphasized the importance of preventing seed production as a management strategy for annual weeds. He suggested cultivation during crop production, followed by burning, mowing, and plowing before weeds matured seeds after crop harvest as well as along fence rows and areas adjacent to cropland to minimize future infestations. To control perennial weeds, he stated that constant cultivation would be required. The following year the subsection titled “Noxious Weeds” (Coville 1890) was also part of the report from the Division of Botany, with six additional weeds described and illustrated as well as two forage grasses. Those weeds characterized as noxious by Coville in Reports of 1889 and 1890 are presented in Table 1.

Figure 1. Screenshot from Vasey (1887).

Figure 2. Suggestions for weed control drafted by AA Crozier as part of the report by Vasey (1887).

Table 1. Alphabetical list of weeds classified as noxious by the USDA (from Coville 1889, 1890) Current common and scientific names taken from USDA Plants Database unless otherwise specified

Two weeds, hemp broomrape (called branched broomrape in his report) (Orobanche ramosa L.) and prickly Russian thistle (called saltwort in his report) [Salsola tragus L. = Salsola kali L. ssp. tragus (L.) Celak.] were described and illustrated in “Two Weeds New to the United States” by Assistant Botanist JN Rose (1892) as a subsection of the Report of the Botanist for 1891 (Vasey 1892). As apparently had happened with some other species of weeds, Rose stated his hope was that both species would disappear as quickly as they had appeared. That did not happen, however, as the following year, Vasey (1893) stated that the USDA’s Division of Botany objective was also to investigate weed problems. This was prompted by prickly Russian thistle invasion in the upper Midwest. USDA Assistant Botanist LH Dewey was assigned this task. He summarized that losses due to prickly Russian thistle in Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas exceeded $2 million in 1892. Based on information he could gather, Dewey speculated that prickly Russian thistle was introduced into South Dakota in the late 1870s as a contaminant of flax seed imported from Europe. He gathered anecdotal information on habitats most suitable for invasion, reason for rapid spread, as well as management methods. Management included intensive grazing juvenile plants with sheep, plowing in early fall, burning crop stubble, and raking and burning prickly Russian thistle debris in fallow fields, all with the primary focus to prevent seed production. An illustration of prickly Russian thistle was also included in the Report (Vasey 1893).

Fredrick Coville was named USDA Botanist after Vasey’s death in 1893 (Coville 1894). He stated in his first report that the primary objective for the USDA’s Division of Botany, as outlined by Congress, was to investigate “forage plants, weeds, medicinal plants, and other subjects in economic botany.” A second objective was to manage, oversee, and add to the collection of plants in the United States and other countries. He included additional information on prickly Russian thistle in his initial report, which by 1893 had spread into Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, with estimated losses due to this weed between $3 million and $6 million. He speculated that without a concerted and organized effort to slow the spread, it would move across the Great Plains and other wheat-growing regions of the United States (Coville 1894).

In 1894, the USDA changed the title of the year-end publication that highlighted the most significant contributions to agriculture from Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture (Anonymous 1895). That year, information of specific relevance to weed science listed in the table of contents was titled “Table of one hundred weeds”, described in the article as the weeds most troublesome in U.S. agriculture (Anonymous 1895). The individual who compiled this list was not revealed, nor were illustrations of any weeds provided. In addition to common weed names, the table included scientific names of the era, distribution across the United States, life cycle, time of flowering, time of seed production, flower characteristics such as color and size, seed dissemination method, crops or other areas affected, and method(s) of eradication, which for most weeds was prevention of production, cultivation (or hoeing, plowing, hand removal), smother crops, grazing, etc. Additionally, application of coal oil to the roots of two specific weeds, man of the earth [Ipomoea pandurata (L.) G. Mey.] and Missouri gourd [Cucurbita foetidissima Kunth = Cucurbita perennis (Plants of the World Online 2023)], was suggested as another method of eradication. Thus, coal oil was the only chemical or “herbicide” treatment recommended.

A similar, but more inclusive table of weeds appeared in the Yearbook for 1895 (Anonymous 1896). In this table, the number of specimens was doubled to list the 200 weeds deemed most troublesome to U.S. agriculture. The entry was titled “Two Hundred Weeds: How to Know Them and How to Kill Them” in the table of contents. Again, the individual that drafted this list was not stated. The preface to this list of weeds, however, included several paragraphs of weed control suggestions that were not printed the previous year. In these weed control suggestions, in addition to coal oil, other chemical compounds or “herbicides” were recommended, including salt, strong brine, crude sulfuric acid, and carbolic acid as treatments to control perennial weeds. As this list of weeds contained the largest number of plants listed by the USDA as the most problematic to U.S. agriculture in the 19th century, these are provided in Table 2, alphabetized by current common name and scientific names from the USDA NRCS Plants Database. Also included in Table 2 are those plants identified as weeds reported in earlier Reports or Yearbooks and that appeared in lists of Yearbooks through the end of the 19th century. If the weed was illustrated in any of those volumes, the year is shown in bolded type.

Table 2. Two hundred weeds alphabetized by common name with scientific name (USDA NRCS 2023 unless otherwise stated) from the Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture 1895 (Anonymous 1896). Plants identified as weeds included in other USDA year-end summary volumes lists also indicated by year with years in boldface type indication of illustration included

^a Darlington spelled genus as Erechthites.

^b Darlington listed as Cynodon dactylon (Pers.).

^c Darlington listed as Cirsium lanceolatum (Scop.).

^d Darlington listed as Linaria vulgaris (Mill.).

^e Listed as Linaria vulgaris.

^f Darlington listed as Urtica dioica (L.).

^g Darlington listed as Xanthium strumarium (L.).

^h Darlington spelled specific epithet arvense.

ⁱ Listed as Cnicus arvensis (=Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. [WFO 2023]).

^j Spelled Erigeron canadensis.

^k Possible typographical misspelling of specific epithet curvi.

^l Possible typographical spelling of specific epithet xanthifolia.

^m Possible typographical error spelling Legousia.

ⁿ Listed as Cuscuta trifolii (=Cuscuta epithymum subsp. Epithymum [WFO 2023]).

ⁿ Listed as Cuscuta trifolii (=Cuscuta epithymum subsp. Epithymum [WFO 2023]).

^o Listed as Lychnis githago (=Agrostemma githago L. [WFO 2023]).

^p No current scientific name exists for Taraxacum taraxacum.

^q Darlington listed as Taraxacum dens-leonis (Desf.).

^r Labeled in image as Ascelpias cornuti (=Asclepias syriaca L. [WFO 2023]).

^s Possible misspelling of genus Dyssodia.

^t Darlington listed as Lappa major (Gaertn).

^u Spelled Sitaria viridis (Beauv.).

^v Darlington listed as Datura stramonium L.

^w Darlington listed as Verbascum blattavia (L.).

^x Darlington listed as Cyperus hydra (Mx.).

^y Written as Cyperus rotundus var. hydra.

^z Darlington listed as Leucanthemum vulgare (Lam.).

^aa Written as Acanthospermum xanthioides (=Acanthospermum australe (Loefl.) Kuntze).

^bb Listed as Salsoa tragus.

^cc Possible typographical misspelling of Callirhoe.

^dd Darlington listed as Triticum repens (L.).

^ee Darlington listed as Euphorbia maculate (L.).

^ff Darlington listed as Maruta cotula (D.C.).

^gg Scientific name written Abutilon avicennœ.

^hh Spelled Sitaria glauca (Beauv.).

ⁱⁱ Listed as Chaetochloa glauca (=Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. ssp. pumila [NRCS 2023]).

Though not an obvious “weed science relevant” find in the Yearbook of 1895, Coville (1896) wrote an article on the absence of salads and green pot herbs in diets of Americans. He speculated that the absence of leafy greens could be the reason Americans had the reputation as “bilious”; therefore, he suggested several plants that could be incorporated into the American diet to correct this deficiency, many of which were and are still considered weeds. His suggested list included charlock mustard [Sinapis arvensis L. = Brassica sinapistrum (WFO 2023)], chicory (Cichorium intybus L.), early yellowrocket [Barbarea verna (Mill.) Asch. =Barbarea praecox], a species of dandelion identified as Taraxacum taraxacum (this specific epithet not recognized by plant taxonomists), bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.), curly dock (Rumex crispus L.), patience dock (Rumex patientia L.), amamastla (Rumex chrysocarpus Moris), lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), water arum (Calla palustris L.; Calla misspelled as Callha in article), black mustard [Brassica nigra (L.) W.D.J. Kock.], New Zealand spinach [Tetragonia tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze = Tetragonia expansa], miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata Donn ex Willd.), little hogweed (Portulaca oleracea L.), American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana L. var. americana = Phytolacca decandra), Joseph’s-coat (Amaranthus tricolor L. = Amaranthus gangeticus), slim amaranth (Amaranthus hybridus L. = Amaranthus chlorostachys), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and carelessweed (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson). The accompanying line drawing of carelessweed is shown in Figure 3, which also shows an obvious error in the spelling of Amaranthus as Amarantus. In addition, he stated that the native peoples of Arizona and northern Mexico did not cultivate carelessweed, as naturally recurring populations were sufficiently abundant to be collected and sold in Guaymas markets of Sonora in great quantities (Coville 1896).

Figure 3. Screenshot of carelessweed from Coville (1896).

Two articles relevant to weed science appeared in the Yearbook for 1896. The first was titled “Some Common Poisonous Plants” (Chesnut 1897) authored by Assistant Botanist VK Chestnut. Chesnut (1897) described several species of flowering plants associated with toxicity to humans, livestock, or wildlife. He stated that eastern poison ivy [Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze ssp. radicans = Rhus radicans] was the principal toxic plant in North America. Other toxic plants in the genus Toxicodendron he described in the article were Pacific poison oak [Toxicodendron diversilobum (Torr. & A. Gray) Greene = Rhus diversiloba], poison sumac [Toxicodendron vernix (L.) Kuntze = Rhus vernix], and false poison sumac (Rhus michauxii Sarg.). Illustrations of the first three species were included in the article. Chesnut also shared the recent discovery of toxicodendrol by Harvard Professor Franz Pfaff as the compound that caused toxicity. Finally, he included instructions to wash skin affected by these toxic plants with a solution of powdered sugar of lead dissolved in weak alcohol to relieve irritation. No citation to the discovery of toxicodendrol was provided.

Chesnut labeled spotted water hemlock³ (Cicuta maculata L.) as the most virulent plant in North America. He briefly mentioned the U.S. distribution of three additional species of Cicuta: bulblet-bearing water hemlock (Cicuta bulbifera L.), western water hemlock (Cicuta douglasii J.M.Coult. & Rose = Cicuta vagans), and spotted water hemlock [Cicuta maculata L. var. bolanderi (S. Watson) G. Mulligan = Cicuta bolanderi] and related incidences of deaths caused by these plants. He also mentioned the less virulent poison hemlock (Conium maculatum L.) as well as Mackenzie’s water hemlock (Cicuta virosa L.), a European species not found in the United States at the time or now, but widely distributed in Canada (USDA NRCS 2024).

The second article in the Yearbook for 1896, titled “Migration of Weeds” (Dewey 1897), focused on ways weeds move across the North American landscape. He described movement as natural or artificial. Natural mechanisms described included runners, rootstock, running rootstocks, seed throwing, flying seed, drifting on snow-covered or frozen soil, tumbling, floating in water, or animal dispersal, with examples of weeds that use these forms of movement. It is no surprise that all weeds that move artificially all involve some form of human assistance, whether it be on machinery, in or on nursery stock, contaminants of packing materials, hay, or crop seed, intentionally introduced as ornamentals or other uses, such as medical, human or domestic animal feed, and finally, special avenues, which could otherwise be summarized as transportation corridors such as roads, rail, and port, but animal paths were also mentioned. Dewey’s article also included text on directions of movement in the United States and cited state botanical works that documented the immigration of many weeds from Europe into North America. His article contained numerous illustrations to highlight morphological adaptions that many weed seeds possess to facilitate movement, as well as several species distribution maps across the United States, and illustrations of a few plants mentioned in the article. Not all, but many of the weed examples given in the article are listed only by common names of the era, with no scientific name; therefore, they are not repeated in this article.

In the “Report of the Botanist” printed in the Yearbook for 1897, Coville (1898) again highlighted the number of inquiries sent to the Division related to weeds (Figure 4). In that paragraph, he also emphasized contributions his division made toward weed management (therefore to weed science) to improve the economy of agriculture since USDA hired a botanist. Coville also wrote about collaborations with the Division of Chemistry to fill gaps in knowledge relevant to poisonous plants detrimental to livestock and humans, especially children. Finally, a list titled “Twenty-Five Most Harmful Weeds” in U.S. agriculture was printed following the same format as the ones that appeared in Yearbooks of 1894 and 1895 with common names, site of origin and distribution in the United States, time of flower production, time of seed production, growth habit, life cycle, habitats invaded, and method of eradication (Anonymous 1898). Also, as in prior “worst weed” lists, control focused on mechanical methods, cover crops, and prevention of seeding, along with recommendations for application of salt followed by pasturing sheep, treatment with coal oil, kerosene, carbolic acid, or hot brine. The author of this shortened list of most harmful weeds was not stated, but these weeds were described as “well established”, “widely distributed” across the United States, and “practically impossible to exterminate.”

Figure 4. Screenshot on the role of USDA’s Botany Division to provide weed science information to improve U.S. agriculture from FV Coville (1898).

One article of relevance to weed science in the Yearbook of 1898 was titled “Birds as Weed Destroyers” (Judd 1899). Judd stated there were over 60 species of weeds (listed alphabetically by current common name in Table 3) whose seeds were routinely consumed by various species of birds found across the United States. This conclusion was based on seed found in crops of birds examined or observations of various birds feeding. Judd referred to, but failed to cite specifically, research done by USDA Ornithologist FEL Beal, who estimated that in Iowa alone, populations of the American tree sparrow [Spizelloides arborea Wilson = Spizella monticola (The World Bird Database 2023a)] consumed and destroyed over 875 tons of weed seed annually. In addition to a variety of other birds, Judd specifically mentioned the American goldfinch [Spinus tristis L. = Astragalinus tristis (The World Bird Database 2023b)], because those birds consumed seeds of plants in the Asteraceae (= Compositae) family. He made this connection, because Asteraceae contained many plants considered problematic weeds and because the seeds of those plants were ignored by many other birds. He ended the article by pointing out the value birds contribute to weed control, because their seed consumption was largely ignored by the agricultural community.

Table 3. Weeds that produce seeds routinely consumed by birds across the United States based on observations of feeding and examination of crop contents from Judd (1899)

^a And other species.

^b No current scientific name exists for Taraxacum taraxacum.

^c Listed as gromwell (Lithospermum sp.), which could be corn gromwell (Buglossoides arvensis (L.) I.M. Johnst. or other species of Lithospermum.

^d Possible typographical spelling error of Onopordum as Onopordon.

The second article in the Yearbook of 1898 was titled “Weeds in Cities and Towns” (Dewey 1899). Although Dewey provided examples of far too many weed species frequently seen in cities and towns to list, his focus was to provide an overview of the migratory weeds that appeared on vacant property not occupied with buildings or another planned purpose. He gave examples of weedy plants that occurred on vacant property in cities such as Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, Denver, San Jose, Atlanta, Augusta, Auburn, and Mobile. Dewey concluded that those weeds most frequently seen in these habitats within eastern cities and Pacific coast cities of the United States originated in the Old World, compared to cities within the central United States, where native weeds were primarily found. He mentioned that some benefits of these weed populations in cities were to provide wildlife food and pollinator habitat, wildflowers, oxygen, fall color, and “material for botanical studies” for teachers and students in city schools. Dewey also emphasized potential negative effects of weeds in cities, such as harboring insects and disease organisms, disagreeable odors from certain species, frequent encounters with toxic plants, asthma and hay fever, and decreased land values. He theorized that control of weeds on vacant property in city limits would be most successful if done by city employees, but this suggestion was not likely to have municipal support. He mentioned the success of sheep pastured in parks in Baltimore and New York City, as well as community gardens for unemployed and needy populations in Detroit, Buffalo, Brooklyn, Columbus, and Chicago, with the added benefit of weed control. Drawn images of Canada cocklebur [Xanthium strumarium L. var. canadense (Mill.) Torr. & A. Gray], great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.), sneezeweed [Helenium amarum (Raf.) H. Rock var. amarum], gallant soldier (Galinsoga parviflora Cav.), and carelessweed [Cyclachaena xanthiifolia (Nutt.) Fresen.] were included in the article (Dewey 1899).