Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:43:07.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weeds, Crops, and Herbicides: A Modern-Day “Neckriddle”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Radosevich  and
Claudio M. Ghersa
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
For. Sci. and Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Claudio M. Ghersa
Affiliation:
For. Sci. and Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The agricultural community is currently involved in a debate with other members of society concerning many of the tools and tactics used to grow food. The discipline of weed science represents a microcosm of this larger societal debate, and thus is indicative of many other applied agricultural disciplines. Weed science comprises six fundamental disciplines, which have been arranged to depict its three major areas of research: weed technology, weed biology, and the ethics of weed control. Insight into those components of the debate that involve weed science is gained by examining each area. It seems unlikely that solutions to the “neckriddle” can be found through traditional research because of the integrative nature of agriculture, which involves environmental, economic, and social components. It is hoped that movement toward more holistic approaches to research will lead to resolution of the debate between society and the agricultural community.

Keywords

Biologysocial issuesethicsholism

Information

Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 788 - 795
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

1. Aldrich, R. J. 1984. p. 1–13 in Weed-Crop Ecology: Principles in Weed Management. Breton Publishers, North Scituate, MA.Google Scholar
2. Alexander, R. D. 1976. Evolution, social behaviour and ethics. p. 307–332 in Callahan, D. and Engelhardt, H. T. Jr., eds. The Root of Ethics. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, W. P. 1977. p. 63–118 in Weed Science Principles. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
4. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. p. vii–viii in Mode of Action of Herbicides. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
5. Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. p. 47–85 in Weed Control Economics. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
6. Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1988. Influence of spatial distribution of weeds on crop yield loss. Plant Prot. Q. 3:81.Google Scholar
7. Ballare, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Ghersa, C. M., and Sanchez, R. A. 1987. The demography of Datura ferox (L.) in soybean crops. Weed Res. 27:91–102.Google Scholar
8. Ballare, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Ghersa, C. M., and Sanchez, R. A. 1987. The population ecology of Datura ferox in soybean crops. A simulation approach incorporating seed dispersal. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 19:177–188.Google Scholar
9. Benech, A. R., Ghersa, C. M., Sánchez, R. A., and García Fernández, A. 1988. The role of fluctuating temperatures in germination and establishment of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. I. Inhibition of germination under leaf canopies. Funct. Ecol. 2:311–318.Google Scholar
10. Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
11. Duke, S. O. 1985. p. 1–241 in Weed Physiology, Vol. II: Herbicide Physiology. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
12. Emerson, R. W. 1878. Fortune of the Republic. Houghton, Osgood, Boston, MA. 44 p.Google Scholar
13. Ferre, F. 1988. p. 75–96 in Philosophy of Technology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
14. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.Google Scholar
15. Georghiou, G. P. and Saito, T. 1983. p. 2–50 in Pest Resistance to Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
16. Ghersa, C. M., Benech Arnold, R., and Martinez-Ghersa, M. A. 1992. The role of fluctuating temperatures in germination and establishment of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Inhibition of germination at increasing depths. Funct. Ecol. 6:1–9.Google Scholar
17. Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D. 1990. p. 3–6 in Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
18. Gould, S. J. 1977. p. 201–268 in Ever Since Darwin. W. W. Norton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
19. Grossman, R. and Koppel, B. 1990. The release of bioproducts for agriculture: environmental and health risks. p. 3–13 in Gendel, S. M., Kline, A. O., Warren, D. M., and Yates, F., eds. Agricultural Bioethics. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
20. Harper, J. L. 1977. p. 515–599 in Population Biology in Plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
21. Holling, C. S. 1978. The nature and behavior of ecological systems. p. 25–37 in Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
22. Holt, J. E. 1986. The system level of change and its impact on the role of agricultural organizations. Agric. Syst. 22:203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Holzner, W. and Numata, M. 1982. p. 73–203 in Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
24. Klingman, G. C., and Ashton, F. M. 1982. p. 1–50 in Weed Science: Principles and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
25. Kogan, M. 1986. p. ix–xi in Kogan, M., ed. Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management Practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
26. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effect of woods on crop production. Wood Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Ladriere, J. 1977. p. 70–145 in The challenge presented to cultures by science and technology. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
28. Lakoff, S. A. 1980. Science and ethical responsibility. p. 2–100 in Proc. U. S. Student Pugwash Conf., Univ. Calif., San Diego. Addison-Wesley Co., Reading, MA.Google Scholar
29. LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. 1982. p. 349–361 in Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
30. Levins, R. 1973. Fundamental and applied research in agriculture. Science 181:523–524.Google Scholar
31. Levins, R. 1986. Perspectives in integrated pest management: from an industrial to an ecological model of pest management. p. 1–18 in Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
32. Maxwell, B. D. and Ghersa, C. M. 1992. The influence of weed seed dispersion versus the effect of competition on crop yield. Weed Technol. 6:196–206.Google Scholar
33. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.Google Scholar
34. May, R. M. 1981. Models for two interacting populations. p. 78–104 in May, R., ed. Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
35. Mendelsohn, E. 1983. Knowledge and power in the sciences. p. 31–47 in Home, R. W., ed. Science Under Scrutiny. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht.Google Scholar
36. Monod, J. 1970. p. 100–198 in Chance and Necessity. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
37. Mortimer, A. M. 1984. Population ecology and weed science. p. 363–388 in Dirzo, R. and Sarukhan, J., eds. Perspectives in Plant Population Ecology. Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
38. National Research Council. 1989. p. 3–23 in Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
39. Pimental, D. 1977. The ecological basis of insect pest, pathogen, and weed problems. p. 3–34 in Cherrett, J. M. and Sagar, G. R., eds. Origins of Pest, Parasite, Disease and Weed Problems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, MA.Google Scholar
40. Putnam, A. R. and Tang, C. 1986. p. 1–75 in The Science of Alleopathy. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
41. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. p. 68–90 in Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
42. Radosevich, S. R. and Roush, M. L. 1990. The role of competition in agriculture. p. 341–360 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, Ca.Google Scholar
43. Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1985. p. 20–141 in Applied Weed Science. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
44. Roush, M. L., Jordon, N., and Holt, J. S. 1989. Ecological basis for weed management in IPM. p. 137–157 in Proc. National Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop. Las Vegas, NV. Communications Services, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell, Univ., Geneva, NY.Google Scholar
45. Sagar, G. R. and Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1:1–47.Google Scholar
46. Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. W. 1978. p. 41–394 in Plant Physiology. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
47. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed croppin experiments. 1. Estimations of competitive effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
48. Stewart, R. E., Gross, L. L., and Honkala, B. H. 1984. Effects of competing vegetation of forest trees: a bibliography with abstracts. U.S. Dep. Agric. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-43.Google Scholar
49. Taylor, A. 1949. The varieties of riddles. p. 1–8 in Kirby, T. A. and Woolf, H. B., eds. Philologica: The Malone Anniversary Studies. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
50. Vandermeer, J. 1989. p. 129–204 in The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. Google Scholar
51. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. p. 267 in Herbicide Handbook. Terminology Committee of the Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
52. Weldon, C. W. and Slauson, W. L. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q. Rev. Biol. 61:23–44.Google Scholar
53. Wilson, M. V., Ingersol, C. I., and Roush, M. L. 1989. Vertical movement of seeds during tillage. p. 66 in Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Google Scholar
54. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. p. 137–139 in Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar