Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:47:11.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Science Society of America weed biology survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert F. Norris
Robert F. Norris*
Affiliation:
Weed Science Program, Vegetable Crops, Department, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

WSSA members were surveyed in 1993–1994 to determine their perceptions of the contribution of weed biology to weed management. A questionnaire was included in the society newsletter, from which 152 responses were returned by mail or collected at the 1994 annual meeting. Over half the respondents felt that the overall contribution of weed biology to weed management had been moderate to high. Aspects of population dynamics and competition emerged as the areas that respondents felt should have the greatest impact on weed management in the future. The areas of computer modeling, interactions between weeds and other pests, and seedbank dynamics were predicted to show the greatest increases in importance in the future. The relative importance of taxonomy and weed identification was expected to decrease. Allelopathy, morphology and anatomy, and genetics and evolution were considered least likely to be important to weed management.

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , June 1997 , pp. 343 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 144 p.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Roush, M. L. 1993. Searching for solutions to weed problems. Bioscience 43: 104–109.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W L. 1988. Research priorities in weed science. Weed Technol. 2: 2–11.Google Scholar
Moss, S. 1994. Survey on the contribution of weed biology and herbicides to weed management in the UK. Crop Prot. 13: 381–387.Google Scholar
Norris, R F. 1992. Have ecological and biological studies improved weed control strategies? Proc. 1st Int. Weed Control Congr. 1: 7–33.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1981. Introduction. in Pimentel, D., ed. Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Volume I. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. 1989. Applied Nonpararnetric Statistical Methods. London: Chapman and Hall, 259 p.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the corn belt. Weed Technol. 7: 763–770.Google Scholar