Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:59:20.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Science Research, Teaching, and Extension at Land-Grant Institutions in the United States and its Territories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey F. Derr  and
Aman Rana
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Aman Rana
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds are one of the main limiting factors in crop production, causing billions of dollars in annual global losses through degraded agricultural and silvicultural productivity. Weeds also reduce access to land and water, impair aesthetics, and disrupt human activities and well-being. The number of positions devoted to weed science teaching, research, and extension at 76 land-grant institutions across the United States and its territories was determined and compared with that for plant pathology and entomology. The number of classes and graduate students in these disciplines at those institutions was also determined. There are more than four times as many entomologists and more than three times as many plant pathologists as weed scientists at land-grant institutions. There are approximately five times as many graduate students currently in entomology and almost three times as many in plant pathology compared with weed science. There are approximately five times as many entomology and two and a half times as many plant pathology undergraduate classes compared with weed science classes. These differences increase when graduate courses are considered. Most land-grant universities have either none or few graduate classes in weed science. There are more than six times as many graduate entomology courses and more than five times as many plant pathology courses compared with weed science graduate classes. There are no departments devoted solely to weed science, whereas entomology and plant pathology departments are both common. Most universities have little to no faculty assigned to ornamental, fruit, aquatic, or forestry weed control. Number of faculty assigned to vegetable, turf, non-crop, ecology, and basic/laboratory studies in weed science are also limited. Additional university resources are needed if weed science research, teaching, and extension efforts are to meet the priority needs for the management of weeds in the agricultural, natural resources, and urban ecosystems.

Las malezas son uno de los principales factores limitantes en la producción de los cultivos y anualmente causan billones de dólares en pérdidas globales, debido a la reducción de la productividad agrícola y silvícola. Las malezas también reducen el acceso a la tierra y el agua, deterioran la estética e interrumpen las actividades y el bienestar de los humanos. El número de posiciones dedicadas a la enseñanza, investigación y extensión en la ciencia de las malezas en las instituciones agrícolas de los Estados Unidos y sus territorios se determinó y se comparó con el número dedicado a fitopatología y entomología. Se determinó también el número de clases y de estudiantes de post-grado en estas disciplinas. En dichas instituciones hay más de cuatro veces el número de entomólogos y más de tres veces el número de fitopatólogos que científicos de las malezas. Actualmente, existen aproximadamente cinco veces más estudiantes de post-grado en entomología y casi tres veces más en fitopatología, comparados con los que estudian la ciencia de las malezas. Hay aproximadamente cinco veces el número de clases a nivel de licenciatura en entomología y dos y media veces más en fitopatología que el número de clases en la ciencia de las malezas. Estas diferencias se incrementan cuando los cursos de postgrado son considerados. La mayoría de las universidades agrícolas tienen pocas o ninguna clase a nivel de post-grado en la ciencia de las malezas. A nivel de post-grado, hay más de seis veces el número de cursos de entomología y más de cinco veces el número de cursos de fitopatología, en comparación con los de la ciencia de las malezas. No existen departamentos dedicados exclusivamente a la ciencia de las malezas, mientras que los de entomología y fitopatología son comunes. La mayoría de las universidades tienen pocos o ningún profesor asignado a la enseñanza del control de malezas en horticultura, sistemas acuáticos o forestales. También es muy limitado el número de profesores asignados a la enseñanza de la olericultura, céspedes, áreas no cultivadas, ecología y estudios básicos o de laboratorio en la ciencia de las malezas. Se necesita generar recursos adicionales en las universidades si la investigación, enseñanza y extensión de la ciencia de la malezas van a cubrir las necesidades prioritarias en el manejo de malezas en la agricultura, recursos naturales y ecosistemas urbanos.

Keywords

Educationcrop protectionentomologyplant pathologyweed sciencefaculty positionsundergraduate classesgraduate classesgraduate students
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 277 - 291
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

Avery, A. A. 2006. Nature's Toxic Tools: The Organic Myth of Pesticide-Free Farming. Center for Global Food Issues. http://www.cgfi.org/2001/02/natures-toxic-tools-the-organic-myth-of-pesticide-free-farming/ Accessed: September 15, 2010.Google Scholar
Avery, D. T. 1997. Saving the planet with pesticides, biotechnology, and European farm reform. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 1:3–18.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 403 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1994. Impact of weeds on human endeavors. Weed Technol 8:392–395.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1993. Weed science-the stepchild. Weed Technol 7:515–518.Google Scholar
Department of Entomology, Rutgers 2010. History of Rutger's Department of Entomology. Rutgers, the: State University of New Jersey. http://www.mosquito.rutgers.edu/hist.htm. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Department of Entomology, UMASS Amherst 2010. Department History. University: of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/psis/about/history.html. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech 2010. History of the Department. Virginia: Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://www.ppws.vt.edu/history/. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 2004. The status of weed science at universities and experiment stations in the northeastern United States. Weed Technol 18:1150–1156.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. WSSA enters a new era of invasive weed communication. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage 1:1–2.Google Scholar
Gadoury, D. M., Andrews, J., Baumgartner, K., Burr, T. J., Kennelly, M. M., Lichens-Park, A., MacDonald, J., Savary, S., Scherm, H., Tally, A., and Wang, G. 2009. Disciplinary, institutional, funding, and demographic trends in plant pathology: what does the future hold for the profession? Plant Dis 93:1228–1237.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Reigner, N. 2006a. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production: 2002 Fungicides and Herbicides. CropLife Foundation. http://www.croplifefoundation.org/Documents/PUD/NPUD%202002/Fung%20&%20Herb%202002%20Data%20Report.pdf. Accessed: March 29, 2010.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Reigner, N. 2006b. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production: 2002 Insecticides and Other Pesticides. CropLife: Foundation. http://www.croplifefoundation.org/Documents/PUD/NPUD%202002/Inst%20and%20OP%20Data%20Report.pdf. Accessed: March 29, 2010.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Sankula, S. 2003. The Value of Herbicides in U.S. Crop Production. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Hay, J. R. 1974. Gain to the grower from weed science. Weed Sci 22:439–442.Google Scholar
Higher Education Resource Hub A listing of land-grant institutions. http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/land_grant_colleges.htm. Accessed February 15, 2011.Google Scholar
Kuhns, L. J. and Harpster, T. L. 1997. Agriculture needs more weed scientists. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 51:192–197.Google Scholar
National Invasive Species Council 2009. The National Invasive Species Council. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/index.html. Accessed: April 15, 2010.Google Scholar
Oerke, E. C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci 144:31–43.Google Scholar
Oerke, E. C., Dehne, H. W., Schnbeck, F., and Weber, A. 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 808 p.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 1999. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in the United States. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/speciespcosts.html. Accessed: September 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. 182 p.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Applied Weed Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 2–17.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D. 1996. History of the Northeastern Weed Science Society 1947–1995. Fredericksburg, PA: Northeastern Weed Science Society. Pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Timmons, F. L. 2005. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci 53:748–761.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010a. AFRI Program Deadline Dates. http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/afri/afri_program_deadline_dates.html. Accessed: September 16, 2010.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010b. National Institute of Food and Agriculture State and National Partners List of Land Grant Institutions. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html#maps. Accessed March 24, 2010.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001. 2000–2001 Pesticide Market Estimates: Sales. http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/sales2001.htm. Accessed: April 14, 2004.Google Scholar
U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service 2010. Agrichemical Chemical Use Database for 2006. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm. Accessed September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Wikipedia, . 2011. List of land-grant universities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land-grant_universities. Accessed February 15, 2011.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Sicher, R. C., George, K., and Mohan, J. E. 2007. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and potential impacts on the growth and toxicity of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Weed Sci 55:288–292.Google Scholar