Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:08:54.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiential Learning Activities in the Weed Science Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert S. Gallagher ,
Edward C. Luschei ,
Eric Gallandt  and
Antonio DiTommaso
Robert S. Gallagher*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802
Edward C. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Eric Gallandt
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considerable discussion has occurred among the weed science community regarding the potential benefits and limitations of integrated approaches to crop and pest management. This discussion also needs to occur in our weed science classrooms, where students from a wide range of academic disciplines are trained in the fundamentals of weed ecology and management. Although the inherent complexity of integrated crop and pest management can make this adaptation to our weed science courses challenging, the use of experiential learning techniques provides an effective means to promote understanding and retention of these concepts. This paper outlines several classroom activities based on the experiential learning approaches that have been implemented by the authors. The activities focus on (1) weed identification and natural history, (2) weed population processes, and (3) integrated management systems. For each activity, we offer our rationale for the exercise, an example of its implementation in the classroom setting, potential pitfalls, and student feedback regarding their perceptions of the activity's educational value. With this paper, we hope to provide examples that may be useful to other weed science educators wishing to incorporate more experiential learning activities into their courses and to initiate a dialogue between educators that can help our community improve and enliven weed science education.

Keywords

Educationteachingweed identificationintegrated weed managementherbicide-tolerant cropsagricultural systems
Type
Teaching/Education
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 255 - 261
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

Andersson, L. 1998. Post-dispersal seed removal in some agricultural weeds. Asp. App. Biol. 52:159–164.Google Scholar
Atherton, J. S. 2002. Learning and Teaching: Learning from experience. [On-line]: UK: Available: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/experien.htm. Accessed: 13 July 2004.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E. 1994. Seed-predators reduce broadleaf weed growth and competitive ability. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 48:27–34.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., ed. 1999. Expanding the context of weed management. in. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghamton, NY Haworth. 1–7.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Norquay, H. M., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abultilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:534–539.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. in Buhler, D.D., eds. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York Food Products. 239–267.Google Scholar
Carmona, D. M., Menalled, F. D., and Landis, D. A. 1999. Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera:Gryllidae): laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. J. Econ. Entomol. 924:825–829.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 47:184–194.Google Scholar
Davis, G. A. 1993. Learning styles and preferences. in. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass. 185–192.Google Scholar
DiTommaso, A. and Watson, A. K. 2003. An innovative new tool for teaching weed identification, biology and management. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 43:67.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. L. 1996. A reintroduction to integrated weed management. Weed Sci: 44:409–412.Google Scholar
Gibson, L. R. and Liebman, M. 2003a. A laboratory exercise for teaching plant interference and relative growth rate concepts. Weed Technol. 17:394–402.Google Scholar
Gibson, L. R. and Liebman, M. 2003b. A laboratory exercise for teaching critical period for weed control concepts. Weed Technol. 17:403–411.Google Scholar
Gibson, L. R. and Liebman, M. 2004. A laboratory exercise for teaching depth of weed emergence concepts. Weed Technol. 18:473–479.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1995. Challenges and prospects of integrated pest management. in Revenuti, R., ed. Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest Management. Boca Raton, FL Lewis. 1–19.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Fay, P. K., and Nelson, J. E. 1989. Teaching weed identification at twenty U.S. universities. Weed Technol. 3:186–188.Google Scholar
Luschei, E. C. 2002. An undergraduate weed science laboratory experiment integrating weed ecology concepts with weed-crop competition. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42:88.Google Scholar
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Worster, C. A., and Radosevich, S. R. 2003. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: a revisitation. Weed Technol. 17:202–210.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K. A., and Landis, D. A. 1999. Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 77:193–202.Google Scholar
Pannell, D. J., Stewart, V., Bennett, A., Monjardino, M., Schmidt, C., and Powles, S. B. 2004. RIM: a bioeconomic model for integrated weed management of Lolium rigidum in Western Australia. Agric. Syst. 79:305–325.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed ecology: implications for management. New York Wiley. 589.Google Scholar
Reader, R. J. 1990. Control of seedling emergence by ground cover: a potential mechanism involving seed predation. Can. J. Bot. 69:2084–2087.Google Scholar
Spafford-Jacob, H., Minkey, D., Gallagher, R., and Borger, C. 2005. Variation in post-dispersal weed seed predation in a cropping field. Weed Sci. 54:148–155.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Hofman, A., Vet, L. E. M., and van der Werf, W. 2002. Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 95:417–425.Google Scholar