Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:42:52.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed ecology and ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven Radosevich
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed Scientists, like many other agricultural scientists and natural resource land managers, often engage in debate with other members of society about values and perceptions of food and fiber production. The focus of the debate is usually on the tools and tactics to grow crops, produce wood, or manage grazing land. Environmental ethical issues have dominated discussions among the membership of WSSA for decades. Examples include the decade-long debate over 2,4,5-T use in forestry and now water quality and human health concerns about atrazine use in agriculture. Ecology is a scientific discipline that seeks knowledge about the interactions of organism, their environments, and, more broadly, the effect of human activities on them. Because weeds are a consequence of how we grow food, the study of both ecological and human components of agroecosystems should allow weed scientists to construct management strategies that more fully address the production, environmental, and social implications of weeds and weeding.

Keywords

Weed ecologyethics

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 6 , December 1998, pp. 642 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Akobundu, I. O. 1987. Weed Science in the Tropics: Principles and Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 522 p.Google Scholar
Alstrom, S. 1990. Fundamentals of Weed Management in Hot Climate Peasant Agriculture. Uppsala, Sweden: Crop Production Science, pp. 184–209.Google Scholar
Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. (eds.). 1988. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. 354 p.Google Scholar
Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Weed Control Economics. London: Academic Press. 175 p.Google Scholar
Berry, W. 1981. The Gift of Good Land. San Francisco: North Point Press. 281 p.Google Scholar
Comstock, G. 1989. Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, Part 1. J. Agric. Ethics 2: 263–306.Google Scholar
De Datta, S. K. and Barker, R. 1977. Economic evaluation of modern weed control techniques in rice. Pages 205–228 in Fryer, J. D. and Matsanuka, S., eds. Integrated Control of Weeds. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. and Comstock, G. 1992. Ethical and environmental considerations in the release of herbicide resistant crops. Agric. Hum. Values 9: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Agricultural Atrazine Use and Water Quality: A CEEPES Analysis of Policy Options. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water and Agricultural Policy Division, Agricultural Policy Branch.Google Scholar
Ferre, F. 1988. Philosophy of Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 147 p.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Harvey, S. J. 1983. Relative abundance in an alien weed flora. Oecologia 59: 292–295.Google Scholar
Fryer, J. D. and Chancellor, R. J. 1979. Evidence of changing weed populations in arable land. Proc. 14th Br. Weed Control Conf. 14:958-964.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Martinez-Ghersa, M. A. 1991. A field method for predicting yield losses in maize crops caused by Sorghum halepense . Weed Technol. 5: 279–285.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Cordray, S. M. 1994. Coevolution of agroecosystems and weed management. BioScience 44: 85–94.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–80 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hall, A. J., Rebella, C. M., Ghersa, C. M., and Culot, P. M. 1992. Field crop systems of the Pampas. Pages 413–450 in Pearson, C. J., ed. Ecosystems of the World. Field Crop Ecosystems. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Harrison, H. F. Jr. 1992. Developing herbicide-tolerant crop cultivars: introduction. Weed Technol. 6: 613–614.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G. 1971. The role of weeds in human affairs. Weed Science 19: 485–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1992. History of identification of herbicide-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 6: 615–620.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S., Powles, S. B., and Holtum, J.A.M. 1993. Mechanisms and agronomic aspects of herbicide resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 44: 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. 1986. Perspectives in integrated pest management. Pages 1–18 in Kogan, M., ed. Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 1982. Agricultural research and the penetration of capital. Sci. People 1: 12–17.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G. and Steiner, P. O. 1981. Economics. 7th ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McGee, A. B. and Levy, E. 1988. Herbicide use in forestry: Communication and information gaps. J. Environ. Manage. 26: 111–126.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. 1980. The Death of Nature. New York: Harper and Row. 348 p.Google Scholar
Mollison, B. 1989. Permaculture: A Designer's Manual. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagan.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1987. Developing appropriate weed management strategies for small-scale farmers. Pages 319–330 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.Google Scholar
[NRC] National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. and Ghersa, C. M. 1992. Weeds, crops, and herbicides: a modern-day “neckriddle.” Weed Technol. 6: 788–795.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Ghersa, C. M., and Comstock, G. 1992. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 635–639.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. M. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M. 1989. Invasibility of plant communities. Pages 369–388 in Drake, J. A., Mooney, H. A., di Castri, F., Groves, R., Kruger, F. J., Rejmanek, M., and Williamson, M., eds. Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Maxwell, B. D. 1990. Future outlook for herbicide resistant research. Weed Technol. 4: 208–214.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V. W. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, A., Wengenmayer, F., and Goodman, H. M. 1990. Generic engineering of herbicide resistance in higher plants. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 9: 1–15.Google Scholar
Shetty, S.V.R. 1980. Some agro-economical aspects of improved weed management systems in Indian semi-arid tropics. Pages 899–910 in Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. H., Rottmann, W. H., Brunner, A. M., and Sheppard, L. A. 1995. Generic engineering of reproductive sterility in forest trees. Mol. Breed. 1: 5–26.Google Scholar
Teich, A. H. (ed.). 1990. Technology and the Future. 5th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press. 390 p.Google Scholar
Tivey, J. 1990. Agricultural Ecology. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Walstad, J. D. and Dost, F. N. 1986. All the king's horses and all the king's men: the lessons of 2,4,5-T. J. For. 84: 28–33.Google Scholar
Way, M. F. 1977. Pest and disease status in mixed stands vs. monocultures: the relevance of ecosystem stability. Pages 127–138 in Cherrett, J. M. and Sagar, G. R., eds. Origins of Pest, Parasite, Disease and Weed Problems. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar