Rethinking Outreach: Collaboration Is Key for Herbicide-Resistance Management

Asmus, Amy; Schroeder, Jill

doi:10.1614/ws-d-15-00068.1

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More emphasis on integrating the human and social dimensions of IWM is required. This requires input from social science disciplines, such as economists and social psychologists …”

Section: Seven Point Action Plan To Improve Uptake Of Iwmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non‐chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Moss

2019

Pest Management Science

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation of integrated weed management (IWM) has been poor, with little evidence of concomitant reductions in herbicide use. Non-chemical methods are often adopted as a means of compensating for reduced herbicide efficacy, due to increasing resistance, rather than as alternatives to herbicides. Reluctance to adopt non-chemical methods is not due to a lack of research or technology but to a lack of farmer motivation and action. Justifiably, herbicides are often seen as the easier option -their convenience outweighs the increased complexity, costs and management time associated with non-chemical alternatives. Greater use of non-chemical alternatives to herbicides will only occur if the following seven aspects are addressed: (i) better recognition of the reasons why farmers are reluctant to use non-chemical alternatives; (ii) encouraging farmers to adopt a longer-term approach to weed control; (iii) changing farmers' attitudes to pesticides; (iv) paying more attention to the individual farmer's perspective; (v). greater involvement of economists, social scientists and marketing professionals; (vi) re-evaluating research and extension priorities; and (vii) changing the mindset of funders of research and extension. If 'persuasion' fails to deliver greater implementation of IWM, authorities may resort to greater use of financial and other incentives combined with tougher regulations.

show abstract

“…More emphasis on integrating the human and social dimensions of IWM is required. This requires input from social science disciplines, such as economists and social psychologists …”

Section: Seven Point Action Plan To Improve Uptake Of Iwmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non‐chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Moss

2019

Pest Management Science

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, these findings echo calls to have more collaboration across groups of influencers to provide a clear and consistent message to farmers regarding herbicide resistance and weed management tactics (Asmus and Schroeder 2016; Barrett et al 2016; Coble and Schroeder 2016; Hurley and Frisvold 2016). In a recent report of listening sessions with various agricultural stakeholders across regions of the United States, participants from the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast said they wanted more education and collaborative communication for managing herbicide resistance (Schroeder et al 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Previous research has shown that often the most influential source of weed management information is the agricultural input network of chemical, seed, and equipment manufacturing companies, distributors, and retail outlets (Coble and Schroeder 2016;Givens et al 2011;Johnson et al 2009), which was also evident in our surveys. Arbuckle (2014) reported that 78% of farmers in Iowa relied on their agricultural chemical retailer for advice on weed management decisions. Contrary to this hierarchy, a survey distributed in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Nebraska asking where growers receive their information on glyphosate resistance indicated that more than 50% of respondents in each state received information from farm publications.…”

Section: Source Of Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferred information and delivery methods for weed management extension in Virginia

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of weed science extension efforts are to encourage and accelerate adoption of diverse, effective, and economical management tactics. To be most successful and efficient, extension personnel need to be aware of growers’ preferred information sources, delivery format, and areas of focus for future research. To this end, surveys were distributed at crop and forage extension meetings in Virginia. The results from 249 responses indicate that both crop and forage producers have similar influences as well as preferences for both programming and future research. Agribusiness personnel (e.g. co-ops, suppliers, vendors, crop consultants, sales reps) had the greatest influence on herbicide-purchasing decisions and the primary source of information for weed management decisions, and thus should be a target audience of extension. Respondents said that economic assessments, weed control data, and yield data are most likely to influence changes in management and that they would prefer to get that information through traditional extension formats (presentations, publications, and on-farm demonstrations). Generally, respondents also indicated that they wanted extension to focus on evaluating new herbicides for weed control and crop safety in the future over alternative non-herbicidal weed control methods. Therefore, extension is likely to be more successful by including herbicides in the integrated weed management approach rather than solely non-chemical approaches.

show abstract

“…Many respondents were not relying on Extension directly as an information source, yet they were not relying much on any other single alternative source either. Asmus and Schroeder (2016) discuss similar results regarding Extension and weed management for agronomic crops, whereas Frisvold and Deva (2012) report similar results for Extension and irrigation management. The survey results suggest there is no “one-stop shopping” for annual bluegrass management information.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Extension event attendance increases adoption of weed management practices by sports field managers

Frisvold,

Agme,

Ervin

et al. 2023

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from a national survey of 348 U.S. sports field managers were used to examine the effects of participation in Cooperative Extension events on the adoption of turfgrass weed management practices. Of the respondents, 94% attended at least one event in the previous three years. Of this 94%, 97% reported adopting at least one practice as a result of knowledge gained at an Extension turfgrass event. Half of the respondents adopted four or more practices; a third adopted five or more practices. Non-chemical, cultural practices were the most-adopted practices (65% of respondents). Multiple regression analysis was used to examine factors explaining practice adoption and Extension event attendance. Compared to attending one event, attending three events increased total adoption by an average of one practice. Attending four or more events increased total adoption by two practices. Attending four or more events (compared to one event) increased the odds of adopting six individual practices by 3- to 6-fold, depending on the practice. This suggests practice adoption could be enhanced by encouraging repeat attendance among past Extension event attendees. Manager experience was a statistically significant predictor of the number of Extension events attended, but a poor direct predictor of practice adoption. Experience does not appear to increase adoption directly, but indirectly, via its impact on Extension event attendance. In addition to questions about weed management generally, the survey asked questions about annual bluegrass management, specifically. Respondents were asked to rank seven sources of information for their helpfulness in managing annual bluegrass. There was no single dominant information source, but Extension was ranked as the most helpful more than any other source (by 22% of the respondents) and was ranked among the top three by 53%, closely behind field representative/local distributor sources at 54%.

show abstract

Rethinking Outreach: Collaboration Is Key for Herbicide-Resistance Management

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non‐chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non‐chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Preferred information and delivery methods for weed management extension in Virginia

Extension event attendance increases adoption of weed management practices by sports field managers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About