Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:59:58.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linking Farmer Weed Management Behavior with Weed Pressure: More than Just Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Marleen M. Riemens ,
Roel M. W. Groeneveld ,
Martin J. J. Kropff ,
Lambertus A. P. Lotz ,
Reint Jan Renes ,
Wijnand Sukkel  and
Rommie Y. van der Weide
Marleen M. Riemens*
Affiliation:
Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Roel M. W. Groeneveld
Affiliation:
Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Martin J. J. Kropff
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Weed Ecology, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Lambertus A. P. Lotz
Affiliation:
Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Reint Jan Renes
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Science, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
Wijnand Sukkel
Affiliation:
Applied Plant Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 430, 8200AK Lelystad, The Netherlands
Rommie Y. van der Weide
Affiliation:
Applied Plant Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 430, 8200AK Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies on weed population dynamics in farming systems have focused on the effects of different weed control strategies. Those studies usually assume that farmers, operating within a particular system, have a uniform management style. However, it is likely that weed management decision making also varies between farmers that operate within a system. In this study, the relationship between weed management behavior and the outcome of that behavior within an organic farming system is studied. It is hypothesized that differences in weed pressure between organic farms can be related to differences in farmers' weed management behavior. We explore which weed and general management factors are of main influence on the weed pressure, and investigate the influence of farmer's beliefs and knowledge on weed control techniques and the observed weed pressure. Preventive measures and timing of main soil tillage operation were identified as the weed management factors most influential for weed pressure. With the increasing number of preventive measures applied, weed pressure decreased, with a stale seedbed being the most important preventive measure. The weed pressure increased with the number of days after September 1st on which the main tillage operation was carried out. Because of this postponement of the tillage treatments, the growing season of weeds was extended and more species were able to reproduce before winter, thereby enhancing weed pressure. Field size, rather than weed pressure, determined the number of hand-weeding hours per ha; with increasing field size the amount of hand weeding per surface area was reduced. On farms with lower weed pressures a higher percentage of competitive crops were grown than on farms with higher weed pressures. The farmer's beliefs and knowledge on weed control techniques differed between farmers with different weed pressures. Market-oriented growers had a higher on-farm weed pressure than crop-growth–oriented growers. It was concluded that studies on weed management behavior and the effect of that behavior can lead to a better understanding of farming systems and to more effective weed management in those systems.

Keywords

Organic farming systemhand weedingbeliefsweed densityweed seed productionmanagement behavior
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 490 - 496
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Albrecht, H. 2005. Development of arable weed seed banks during the 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res. 45:339–350.Google Scholar
Barberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res. 42:177–193.Google Scholar
Bastiaans, L., Kropff, M. J., Goudriaan, J., and van Laar, H. H. 2000. Design of weed management systems with a reduced reliance on herbicides poses new challenges and prerequisites for modeling crop–weed interactions. Field Crops Res. 67:161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beveridge, L. E. and Naylor, R. E. L. 1999. Options for organic weed control—what farmers do. Pages. 939–944. in Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conf.—Weeds, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
[CBS] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2008. Feiten en cijfers landbouw. http://www.cbs.nl. Accessed: January 22, 2009.Google Scholar
De Buck, A. J., van Rijn, I., Röling, N. G., and Wossink, G. A. A. 2001. Farmers' reasons for changing or not changing to more sustainable practices: an exploratory study of arable farming in the Netherlands. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 7 (3):153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, E. and Bell, A. 2005. Invisible force: farmers' mental models and how they influence learning and actions. J. Ext. http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/a2.php. Accessed: 20 September 2009.Google Scholar
Eckert, E. and Bell, A. 2006. Continuity and change: themes of mental model development among small-scale farmers. J. Ext. http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/a2.php. Accessed: 20 September 2009.Google Scholar
Hammond, C. M., Luschei, E. C., Boerboom, C. M., and Nowak, P. J. 2006. Adoption of integrated pest management tactics by Wisconsin farmers. Weed Technol. 20 (3):756–767.Google Scholar
Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobbm, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz, R. F. A., Niemelä, J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., and Young, J. 2008. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 124:60–71.Google Scholar
Hersperger, A. M. and Bürgi, M. 2009. Going beyond landscape change description: Quantifying the importance of driving forces of landscape change in a Central Europe case study. Land Use Policy. 26:640–648.Google Scholar
Hyvönen, T. 2007. Can conversion to organic farming restore the species composition of arable weed communities? Biol. Conserv. 137:382–390.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Bastiaans, L., Kempenaar, C., and van der Weide, R. Y. 2008. The changing role of agriculture and tomorrow's weed research agenda. J. Plant Dis. Prot. (Special issue) 21:3–8.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., Lotz, L. A. P., Lindquist, J. L., Joenje, W., Schnieders, B. B. J., van Keulen, N. C., Migo, T. R., and Fajardo, F. F. 1993. Understanding crop–weed interaction in field situations. Page 134 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. eds. Modelling Crop–Weed Interactions. Wageningen, Netherlands CABI.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. 2001. Weed management: a need for ecological approaches. Pages 1–39. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lotz, L. A. P., van der Weide, R. Y., Horeman, G. H., and Joosten, L. T. A. 2002. Weed management and policies: from prevention and precision technology to certifying individual farms. In Proceedings 12th European Weed Research Society Symposium, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Luschei, E. C., Hammond, C. M., Boerboom, C. M., and Nowak, P. J. 2009. Convenience sample of on-farm research cooperators representative of Wisconsin farmers. Weed Technol. 23 (2):300–307.Google Scholar
Mace, K., Morlon, P., Munier-Jolain, N., and Quere, L. 2007. Time scales as a factor in decision-making by French farmers on weed management in annual crops. Agric. Syst. 93:115–142.Google Scholar
Mallows, C. L. 1973. Some comments on Cr. Technometrics. 15:661–675.Google Scholar
Meerburg, B. G., Korevaar, H., Haubenhofer, D. K., Blom-Zandstra, M., and van Keulen, H. 2009. The changing role of agriculture in Dutch society. J. Agric. Sci. 147:511–521.Google Scholar
Melander, B. and Rasmussen, G. 2001. Effects of cultural methods and physical weed control on intrarow weed numbers, manual weeding and marketable yield in direct-sown leek and bulb-onion. Weed Res. 41:491–508.Google Scholar
Mertens, S. K. 2002. On weed competition and population dynamics, considerations for crop rotations and organic farming. . Wageningen, Netherlands Wageningen University. 34 p.Google Scholar
Nowak, P. J. and Cabot, P. E. 2004. The human dimension of resource management programs. J. Soil Water Conserv. 59 (6):129–135.Google Scholar
Payne, R. W., Harding, S. A., Murray, D. A., Soutar, D. M., and Baird, D. B. 2008. GenStat Release 8.11. Hemel Hempstead, UK VSN International Ltd.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1997. Techniques for reducing pesticide use: Economic and environmental benefits. Oxford, UK Wiley.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. 2008. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:360–365.Google Scholar
Riemens, M. M., Groeneveld, R. M. W., Lotz, L. A. P., and Kropff, M. J. 2007b. Effects of three management strategies on the seedbank, emergence and the need for hand weeding in an organic arable cropping system. Weed Res. 47 (5):442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemens, M. M., van der Weide, R. Y., Bleeker, P. O., and Lotz, L. A. P. 2007a. Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities. Weed Res. 47:149–156.Google Scholar
Ronchetti, E. and Staudte, R. G. 1994. A robust version of Mallows' Cp . J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 89 (426):550–559.Google Scholar
Sjursen, H. 2001. Change of the weed seed bank during the first complete six-course crop rotation after conversion from conventional to organic farming. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 19:71–90.Google Scholar
Sobey, D. G. 1981. Biological flora of the British isles. Stellaria media L. Vill. J. Ecol. 69:311–335.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, H. F. M., van Ittersum, M. K., Rossing, W. A. H., van de Ven, G. W. J., and Schans, J. 2000. Farming options for the Netherlands explored by multi-objective modelling. Eur. J. Agron. 13:263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. 1994. Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices: a critique of assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 1 (1):59–90.Google Scholar
Verschwele, A. and Zwerger, P. 2005. Effects of organic farming on weed abundance—long term results from a site in Northern Germany. In Proceedings 13th EWRS symposium, Bari, Italy.Google Scholar
Vleeshouwers, L. M. and Kropff, M. J. 2000. Modelling field emergence patterns in arable weeds. New Phytol. 148:445–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Weide, R. Y., Bleeker, P. O., Achten, V. T. J. M., Lotz, L. A. P., Fogelberg, F., and Melander, B. 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Res. 48:215–224.Google Scholar
Weide, R. Yvander, Bleeker, P. O., Lotz, L. A. P., Melander, B., and Ascard, J. 2007. Tools and innovations in mechanical weed control in north-western Europe. Pages 27-29. In: CWSS-SCM Annual Meeting, Physical weed control: Progress and challenges, Mont Tremblant, Canada.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. 2001. Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol. Econ. 39:449–462.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. S., Tucker, M. A., Hooker, N. H., LeJeune, J. T., and Doohan, D. 2008. Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technol. 22:339–350.Google Scholar
Wossink, G. A. A., de Buck, A. J., van Nieuwenhuis, J. H., and Haverkamp, H. C. M. 1997. Farmer perceptions of weed control techniques in sugarbeet. Agric. Syst. 55 (3):409–423.Google Scholar