Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:46:28.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concerns a Weed Scientist Might Have About Herbicide-Tolerant Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Radosevich ,
Claudio M. Ghersa  and
Gary Comstock
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Ore. State Univ., Corvallis, OR
Claudio M. Ghersa
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Ore. State Univ., Corvallis, OR
Gary Comstock
Affiliation:
Dep. of Philos., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are three primary activities that characterize the discipline of Weed Science. These activities are weed technology, weed biology, and the ethics of weed control. Each of these activities needs to be considered as herbicide-tolerant crops (HTCs) are introduced. HTCs are the most recent refinement in the existing technology to control weeds. The potential benefits from the improved weed control must be weighed against possible increased costs of production and potential for genes that control herbicide tolerance to escape into non-tolerant plant populations. These questions about herbicide resistance are primarily technological and biological. They demonstrate the paucity of information in Weed Science on weed genetics, gene flow, fitness, and other aspects of weed-crop population dynamics. Other questions about HTCs are ethical. They require that we ask who benefits from the technology and what are the economic, ecological, and social consequences of it.

Keywords

Ethicsherbicide resistancetechnology
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 635 - 639
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Weed Control Economics. Academic Press, London, England. 177 p.Google Scholar
2. 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
3. Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
4. Callicott, J. B. 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. 325 p.Google Scholar
5. Castle, E. 1989. Toward a Philosophy of Natural Resource Management: A Case for Pluralism. Coll. For., Ore. State Univ., Spec. Rep. 58 p.Google Scholar
6. Comstock, G. 1989. Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part one. J. Agric. Ethics 2:263–306.Google Scholar
7. Crouch, M. L. 1990. Debating the responsibilities of plant scientists in the decade of the environment. The Plant Cell 2:275–277.Google Scholar
8. Doebley, J. 1990. Molecular evidence for gene flow among Zea species. BioScience 40:443–448.Google Scholar
9. Ellstrand, N. C., and Hoffman, C. A. 1990. Hybridization as an avenue of escape for engineered genes: strategies for risk reduction. BioScience 40:438–442.Google Scholar
10. Ferre, F. 1988. Philosophy of Technology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 147 p.Google Scholar
11. Fryer, J. D. and Chancellor, R. S. 1970. Evidence of changing weed populations in arable land. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. p. 958–964.Google Scholar
12. Goldburg, R., Rissler, J., Shand, H., and Hasselbrook, C. 1990. Biotechnology's bitter harvest, herbicide-tolerant crops and the threat to sustainable agriculture. A report of the Biotechnology Working Group. 73 p.Google Scholar
13. Gressell, J. and Segal, C. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: Possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:349–372.Google Scholar
14. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology in Plants. Academic Press, London, England. 892 p.Google Scholar
15. Holzner, W. 1978. Weed species and weed communities. Vegetatio 38:13–20.Google Scholar
16. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, U.K. 295 p.Google Scholar
17. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 3:2–13.Google Scholar
18. McNaughton, S. J. and Wolf, L. L. 1979. General Ecology. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, eds. 702 p.Google Scholar
19. Rachels, J. 1989. The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. Random House, Inc. 277 p.Google Scholar
20. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 265 p.Google Scholar
21. Radosevich, S. R. and Ghersa, C. M. 1990. Weed science: A microcosm of agriculture's neckriddle. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 45:?.Google Scholar
22. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. p. ?.Google Scholar
23. Webber, G. 1990. A benefit/risk assessment for the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in Iowa. Iowa State University Biotechnology Update. Ames. 10 p.Google Scholar
24. Wilson, H. D. 1990. Gene flow in squash species. BioScience 40:449–455.Google Scholar