The Status of Weed Science at Universities and Experiment Stations in the Northeastern United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1150-1156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey F. Derr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northeastern United States ◽  
Weed Ecology ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
The Status

Weed science is an important component of pest management. Weeds cause approximately 12% loss in United States crop production, reduce crop quality, poison livestock, and adversely affect human health, recreation, and transportation. Herbicides comprise approximately 65% of pesticide expenditures, whereas insecticides and fungicides each comprise less than 20%. The total effect of weeds, including crop losses and costs of control, in the United States was estimated in 1994 to be $20 billion annually. A survey was prepared and mailed to weed scientists at universities and experiment stations in the northeastern United States to determine the number of faculty positions and course offerings devoted to weed science. There are approximately five times as many entomologists and more than three times as many plant pathologists as weed scientists at universities in the northeast. There are more than six times as many graduate students currently in entomology and more than four times as many in plant pathology compared with weed science. Few undergraduate courses in weed science are taught, and most universities have no graduate classes in weed science. There are almost seven times as many undergraduate entomology courses and more than twice as many plant pathology courses as weed science classes in this region. There are more than 17 times as many graduate entomology courses and more than 15 times as many plant pathology courses compared with weed science graduate classes. There are no departments devoted solely to weed science in the northeast, whereas entomology and plant pathology departments are both common. Most universities have little to no faculty assigned to aquatic, forestry, noncrop weed control, weed ecology, or laboratory trials, and numbers assigned to agronomic and horticultural crop weed management are limited. Additional university resources are needed if weed science research, teaching, and extension efforts are to meet the priority needs in weed management.

Weed Science Research, Teaching, and Extension at Land-Grant Institutions in the United States and its Territories

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey F. Derr ◽  
Aman Rana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Land Grant ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Land Grant Institutions

Weeds are one of the main limiting factors in crop production, causing billions of dollars in annual global losses through degraded agricultural and silvicultural productivity. Weeds also reduce access to land and water, impair aesthetics, and disrupt human activities and well-being. The number of positions devoted to weed science teaching, research, and extension at 76 land-grant institutions across the United States and its territories was determined and compared with that for plant pathology and entomology. The number of classes and graduate students in these disciplines at those institutions was also determined. There are more than four times as many entomologists and more than three times as many plant pathologists as weed scientists at land-grant institutions. There are approximately five times as many graduate students currently in entomology and almost three times as many in plant pathology compared with weed science. There are approximately five times as many entomology and two and a half times as many plant pathology undergraduate classes compared with weed science classes. These differences increase when graduate courses are considered. Most land-grant universities have either none or few graduate classes in weed science. There are more than six times as many graduate entomology courses and more than five times as many plant pathology courses compared with weed science graduate classes. There are no departments devoted solely to weed science, whereas entomology and plant pathology departments are both common. Most universities have little to no faculty assigned to ornamental, fruit, aquatic, or forestry weed control. Number of faculty assigned to vegetable, turf, non-crop, ecology, and basic/laboratory studies in weed science are also limited. Additional university resources are needed if weed science research, teaching, and extension efforts are to meet the priority needs for the management of weeds in the agricultural, natural resources, and urban ecosystems.

Potential yield loss in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with weed interference in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Phillip W. Stahlman ◽  
Curtis R. Thompson ◽  
Brent W. Bean ◽  
Nader Soltani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grain Sorghum ◽  
Control Cost ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Weed Interference

AbstractPotential yield losses in grain sorghum due to weed interference based on quantitative data from the major grain sorghum-growing areas of the United States are reported by the WSSA Weed Loss Committee. Weed scientists and extension specialists who researched weed control in grain sorghum provided data on grain sorghum yield loss due to weed interference in their region. Data were requested from up to 10 individual experiments per calendar year over 10 yr between 2007 and 2016. Based on the summarized information, farmers in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas would potentially lose an average of 37%, 38%, 30%, 56%, 61%, and 60% of their grain sorghum yield with no weed control, and have a corresponding annual monetary loss of US $19 million, 302 million, 7 million, 32 million, 25 million, and 314 million, respectively. The overall average yield loss due to weed interference was estimated to be 47% for this grain sorghum-growing region. Thus, US farmers would lose approximately 5,700 million kg of grain sorghum valued at approximately US $953 million annually if weeds are not controlled. With each dollar invested in weed management (based on estimated weed control cost of US $100 ha−1), there would be a return of US $3.80, highlighting the return on investment in weed management and the importance of continued weed science research for sustaining high grain sorghum yield and profitability in the United States.

Research Priority Dynamics in Weed Science

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 396-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Abernathy ◽  
David C. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Crop Production ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Great Loss ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
History Of ◽  
And Control ◽  
And Training

For this presentation we would like to discuss some history of weeds and their control, the evolution of weed science, the development of herbicides and the changing dynamics of weed science research. As mentioned by previous speakers, weeds cause great loss to almost every crop production enterprise in the United States and around the world. Man has sought to control weeds by various methods including cultural practices, cultivation, hoeing, and with herbicides. Pioneer weed scientists were individuals trained in the areas of physiology, botany, and agronomy. They applied their knowledge and training to the understanding of growth, development, and control of weeds in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Influencing Agricultural Policy: Symposium Introduction

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Gianessi ◽  
David C. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Crop Pest

A major debate is going on in the United States regarding the proper methods for crop pest management. One issue in this debate is whether weed control should be based largely on nonchemical or chemical means. This isn't the only issue that should be of interest to weed scientists, but it is important, and it illustrates the need to extend weed science research to influence public policy.

Research Priorities in Weed Science

1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chester G. Mcwhorter ◽  
William L. Barrentine
Keyword(s):  
Ground Water ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Conservation Tillage ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Technology ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Research Committee

Members from all four Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) regions in the United States ranked the research need to “develop new methods for controlling the movement of herbicides and their metabolites into ground water, surface water, and air” first of six major weed science research needs. Canadian members ranked the need to “devise more efficient and less costly weed control technology for conservation-tillage crop-production systems” first; but they also gave high ratings to “improve base knowledge of weed science, improve applicator training, and transfer of information to Extension Service personnel, farm producers, and administrators” and to “discover new ecological, biological, and non-chemical methods of weed control.” The needs to “develop improved methods of increasing the tolerance of crops to herbicides” and to “develop new technology for control of perennial weeds of crops and rangeland” were ranked low. The WSSA Research Committee, at the request of WSSA Presidents J. D. Riggleman (1985) and O. C. Burnside (1986), asked 977 members to rank weed science research needs. The members (ca 50% of the active membership in North America) were selected at random from every other state, federal, industry, and “other” member of each state or province from the up-to-date list of the WSSA business office. Within the highest ranked priority research need, the 422 U.S. and Canadian respondents consistently ranked the research areas (a) to “develop new application techniques that minimize or eliminate herbicides and their residues in air and water”, and (b) to “conduct research to regulate movement of herbicides through the soil profile to avoid contamination of ground water” high, regardless of the type of employment. They emphasized increasing research on the morningglory (Ipomoea spp. # IPOXX) complex, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPES), quackgrass [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. # AGREE], and several other weeds. More members, regardless of region or type of employment, ranked conservation tillage the most important crop or situation that needed new and improved weed control technology.

Research Needs in Weed Science

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 408-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Dan Hess
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Field Environment ◽  
Primary Basis ◽  
Science Symposium

During 1992, the Research Committee of the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) prepared a list of research needs for the discipline of weed science. The identified needs fit well with the recommendations of the Future Directions for Weed Science Symposium held in Washington D.C. on April 15, 1993, thus are provided as a supplement to the Symposium publication. The Research Committee concluded weed science research should focus on increasing knowledge related to the economic and biological impact of weeds across a wide variety of environments (crop production, forestry, right-of-way and aquatic). An increased understanding of the biology, ecology and genetics of weeds is needed to optimize their management. Research on control of weeds with biological agents and natural products should be conducted with emphasis on optimizing performance in the field environment. The development of weed populations resistant to chemical and biological control agents should be studied so the occurrence of such populations can be minimized. Because herbicides will continue to be the primary basis of weed management for the foreseeable future, research is needed to optimize herbicide application technology and to minimize their impact on the environment, particularly related to surface and groundwater contamination. Finally, new and reliable methods to detect herbicide residues in water, soil and vegetation are needed.

scholarly journals Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Schroeder ◽  
Michael Barrett ◽  
David R. Shaw ◽  
Amy B. Asmus ◽  
Harold Coble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Many

AbstractHerbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance.

Weed Science—The Step Child

1993 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orvin C. Burnside
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Allocation Of Resources ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Recognition ◽  
Labor Requirements

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.

Multicultural Assessment of Personality and Psychopathology in the United States: Still Art, Not Yet Science, and Controversial

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Dana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Racial Identity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Therapeutic Assessment ◽  
Culturally Competent ◽  
Research Attention ◽  
The Status ◽  
Training Research ◽  
Multicultural Assessment ◽  
Personality Description

This paper describes the status of multicultural assessment training, research, and practice in the United States. Racism, politicization of issues, and demands for equity in assessment of psychopathology and personality description have created a climate of controversy. Some sources of bias provide an introduction to major assessment issues including service delivery, moderator variables, modifications of standard tests, development of culture-specific tests, personality theory and cultural/racial identity description, cultural formulations for psychiatric diagnosis, and use of findings, particularly in therapeutic assessment. An assessment-intervention model summarizes this paper and suggests dimensions that compel practitioners to ask questions meriting research attention and providing avenues for developments of culturally competent practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document