Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T00:13:57.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future Research Directions for Weed Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Christopher Hall,
Laura L. Van Eerd,
Stephen D. Miller,
Micheal D. K. Owen,
Timothy S. Prather,
Dale L. Shaner,
Megh Singh,
Kevin C. Vaughn and
Stephen C. Weller
J. Christopher Hall*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Laura L. Van Eerd
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Plant Science Division, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Timothy S. Prather
Affiliation:
University of California, Parlier, CA 93648
Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
Agriculture Research Division, American Cyanamid Company, Princeton, NJ 08540
Megh Singh
Affiliation:
IFAS, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL 33850
Kevin C. Vaughn
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Lab, United States Department of Agriculture, Stoneville, MS 38776
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jchall@evbhort.uoguelph.ca.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Research Committee was established by the Weed Science Society of America to outline the direction of weed science research during the next decade. Weeds adversely affect humans in both agricultural and nonagricultural environments. It is the opinion of the research committee that weed science will be advantageously positioned for the future if research focuses on research decision processes, weed biology and ecology, weed control and management practices, herbicide resistance, issues related to transgenic plants, environmental issues, and potential benefits of weeds. These future weed science research directions endorse those of the commodity and grower input group Coalition for Research on Plant Systems (CROPS)'99, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-supported initiative. The future of weed science is dependent on a joint effort from industry, government regulators, and the public sector consisting of grower groups, as well as USDA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), and university researchers. It is our opinion that efforts spent on these research areas will benefit not only growers, commodity groups, homeowners, and industry, but society at large, through the maintenance and improvement of the food and fiber production system, and the environment in North America.

Keywords

AAFC, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; CROPS'99, Coalition for Research on Plant Systems (1999)EWRS, European Weed Research SocietyGPS, global positioning systemsHRC, herbicide-resistant cropsIWM, integrated weed managementKBDSS, knowledge-based decision support strategiesUSDA, U.S. Department of AgricultureWSSA, Weed Science Society of America

Information

Type
WSSA Communications
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000, pp. 647 - 658
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., Légère, A., Kelner, D. J., Van Acker, R. C., and Meers, S. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small-grain production areas. Weed Technol. 13: 612–625.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1994. Impact of weeds on human endeavors. Weed Technol. 8: 392–395.Google Scholar
Bouchez, D. and Hofte, H. 1998. Update on genomics: functional genomics in plants. Plant Physiol. 118: 725–732.Google Scholar
Chen, J. and Weng, W. 1998. Medicinal food: the Chinese perspective. J. Med. Food 1: 117–122.Google Scholar
Clark, S., Klonsky, K., Livingston, P., and Temple, S. 1999. Crop yield and economic comparisons of organic, low-input, and conventional farming systems in California's Sacramento Valley. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 14: 109–121.Google Scholar
Cunningham, S. D., Berti, W. R., and Huang, J. W. 1995. Remediation of contaminated soils and sludge by green plants. In Hinchee, R. E., Means, J. L., and Burns, D. R., eds. Bioremediation of Inorganics. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press. pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley Interscience. 325 p.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. 2000. Natural products as sources of herbicides: current status and future trends. Weed Res. 40: 99–111.Google Scholar
Edwardson, S. and Janick, J. 1996. Buckwheat: pseudocereal and nutraceutical. Progress in New Crops: Proc. Third Natl. Symp. 22–25: 195–207.Google Scholar
Foley, M. E. 1999. Genetic approach to the development of cover crops for weed management. In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York: Hayworth Press. pp. 77–95.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2000. International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. Online February 15, 2000. Available at http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hieter, P. and Boguski, M. 1997. Functional genomics: it's all how you read it. Science 278: 601–602.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A. and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Knowledge-based decision support strategies: linking spatial and temporal components within site-specific weed management. In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York: Hayworth Press. pp. 225–238.Google Scholar
Keung, W. M. and Vallee, B. L. 1998. Kudzu root: an ancient Chinese source of modern antidipsotropic agents. Phytochemistry 47: 499–506.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Walter, H. 2000. EWRS and the challenges for weed research at the start of a new millennium. Weed Res. 40: 7–10.Google Scholar
Kwon, T. J., Young, D. L., Young, F. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 1995. PALWEED:WHEAT: a bioeconomic decision model for postemergence weed management in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 43: 595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, T. J., Young, D. L., Young, F. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 1998. PALWEED:WHEAT II: revision of a weed management decision model in response to field testing. Weed Sci. 46: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowes, D. and Bellamy, J. A. 1994. Object orientation in a spatial decision support system for grazing land management. Artif. Intell. Applic. 8: 55–66.Google Scholar
Maillet, J. and Lopez-Garcia, C. 2000. What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Res. 40: 11–26.Google Scholar
Masood, E. 1999. Britain backs biotech, seeks tougher regulation. Nature 399: 228.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. P., Sidoli, C. M., Baker, A.J.M., and Reeves, R. D. 1994. Using plants to clean-up heavy metals in soil. In 15th World Congress of Soil Science. Volume 4a. Acapulco, Mexico, July 10-16. Madison, WI: International Soil Science Society. pp. 310–312.Google Scholar
Michalski, W. J. 1997. Tool Navigator. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. pp. 213–272.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 2000. Kudzu [Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi]. Weed Technol. 14: 231–235.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: and outlook. Weed Res. 40: 49–62.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Ahrens, W. H. 1998. Adjuvants and spray volume affect herbicide efficacy. In McMullan, P., ed. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Memphis, TN. pp. 434–441.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Woznica, Z., and Manthey, F. A. 1991. DPX-V9360 efficacy with adjuvants and environment. Weed Technol. 5: 92–96.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Seefeldt, S. S. 1999. Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci. 47: 74–80.Google Scholar
Owen, M.D.K. 1998. Producer attitudes and weed management. In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Press. pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Pester, T. A., Burnside, O. C., and Orf, J. H. 1999. Increasing crop competitiveness to weeds through crop breeding. In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York: Hayworth Press. pp. 59–76.Google Scholar
Pimetel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States. Bio-Science 50: 53–65.Google Scholar
Price, D. R., Chen, T. H., and Peart, R. M. 1992. A knowledge-based system for control of waste heat for a greenhouse-aquaculture complex. Energy World Agric. 5: 33–46.Google Scholar
Somerville, C. and Somerville, S. 1999. Plant functional genomics. Science 285: 380–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skroch, W. A., Worsham, A. D., Henson, S. E., and Wahlers, R. L. 1998. Efficacy and application with the Burch wet blade system. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:218.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Harker, K. N., and Anderson, R. L. 1993. Crop losses due to weeds in Canada. Weed Technol. 7: 537–542.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. K. and Morren, G.E.B. Jr. 1990. Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource Management. New York: Macmillan. 361 p.Google Scholar
Zeisel, S. H. 1999. Regulation of “Nutraceuticals.” Science 285: 1853–1855.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Aspinall, R. J., and Healey, R. G. 1996. ILUDSS: a knowledge-based spatial decision support system for strategic land use planning. Comput. Electron. Agric. 15: 279–301.Google Scholar