Chemical, ecological, other? Identifying weed management typologies within industrialized cropping systems in Georgia (U.S.)

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
David Weisberger, Melissa Ann Ray, Nicholas T. Basinger, Jennifer Jo Thompson
{"title":"Chemical, ecological, other? Identifying weed management typologies within industrialized cropping systems in Georgia (U.S.)","authors":"David Weisberger,&nbsp;Melissa Ann Ray,&nbsp;Nicholas T. Basinger,&nbsp;Jennifer Jo Thompson","doi":"10.1007/s10460-023-10530-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since the introduction and widespread adoption of chemical herbicides, “weed management” has become almost synonymous with “herbicide management.” Over-reliance on herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops has given rise to herbicide resistant weeds. Integrated weed management (IWM) identifies three strategies for weed management— biological-cultural, chemical-technological, mechanical-physical—and recommends combining all three to mitigate herbicide resistance. However, adoption of IWM has stalled, and research to understand the adoption of IWM practices has focused on single stakeholder groups, especially farmers. In contrast, decisions about weed management often occur within a social ecosystem where multiple stakeholder groups co-create knowledge and practices. To more holistically investigate perceptions and decision-making related to herbicide resistant weed management, we conducted 23 in-depth interviews in combination with Q methodology with farmers and public-/private-sector agricultural professionals in the state of Georgia (U.S.). Our investigation focused on the management of an increasingly herbicide resistant weed, Palmer amaranth, which enabled broader conversations about agricultural systems, farmer livelihoods, and sustainability. Factor and thematic analyses allowed us to identify and characterize two distinct typologies: one primarily valued agronomic efficiency and relied upon chemical-technological management practices, while the other valued diversifying weed management strategies as the pathway to agronomic and economic success. Typologies diverged substantially in attitudes toward the three weed management strategies, the role of technology, and systems management generally. These two viewpoints have implications for how we understand underlying stakeholder motivations and choices around weed management strategies, both of which are crucial in promoting and supporting farmer use of diverse, ecologically-sound, weed management strategies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"41 3","pages":"935 - 953"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-023-10530-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the introduction and widespread adoption of chemical herbicides, “weed management” has become almost synonymous with “herbicide management.” Over-reliance on herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops has given rise to herbicide resistant weeds. Integrated weed management (IWM) identifies three strategies for weed management— biological-cultural, chemical-technological, mechanical-physical—and recommends combining all three to mitigate herbicide resistance. However, adoption of IWM has stalled, and research to understand the adoption of IWM practices has focused on single stakeholder groups, especially farmers. In contrast, decisions about weed management often occur within a social ecosystem where multiple stakeholder groups co-create knowledge and practices. To more holistically investigate perceptions and decision-making related to herbicide resistant weed management, we conducted 23 in-depth interviews in combination with Q methodology with farmers and public-/private-sector agricultural professionals in the state of Georgia (U.S.). Our investigation focused on the management of an increasingly herbicide resistant weed, Palmer amaranth, which enabled broader conversations about agricultural systems, farmer livelihoods, and sustainability. Factor and thematic analyses allowed us to identify and characterize two distinct typologies: one primarily valued agronomic efficiency and relied upon chemical-technological management practices, while the other valued diversifying weed management strategies as the pathway to agronomic and economic success. Typologies diverged substantially in attitudes toward the three weed management strategies, the role of technology, and systems management generally. These two viewpoints have implications for how we understand underlying stakeholder motivations and choices around weed management strategies, both of which are crucial in promoting and supporting farmer use of diverse, ecologically-sound, weed management strategies.

Abstract Image

化学、生态、其他?确定佐治亚州(美国)工业化种植系统中的杂草管理类型
自从化学除草剂问世并被广泛采用以来,"杂草管理 "几乎成了 "除草剂管理 "的同义词。对除草剂和抗除草剂作物的过度依赖催生了抗除草剂杂草。综合杂草管理(IWM)确定了三种杂草管理策略--生物-文化、化学-技术、机械-物理,并建议将这三种策略结合起来,以减轻除草剂抗药性。然而,IWM 的采用却停滞不前,为了解 IWM 实践采用情况而开展的研究主要集中在单一利益相关群体,尤其是农民。相比之下,有关杂草管理的决策往往发生在一个社会生态系统中,多个利益相关群体共同创造知识和实践。为了更全面地调查与抗除草剂杂草管理相关的看法和决策,我们结合 Q 方法,对佐治亚州(美国)的农民和公共/私营部门的农业专业人员进行了 23 次深入访谈。我们的调查重点是对一种抗除草剂性越来越强的杂草--帕尔默苋的管理,从而就农业系统、农民生计和可持续性等问题展开了更广泛的讨论。通过因素分析和主题分析,我们确定并描述了两种截然不同的类型:一种类型主要重视农艺效率并依赖化学技术管理方法,而另一种类型则重视多样化的杂草管理策略,将其作为农艺和经济成功的途径。在对三种杂草管理策略、技术的作用以及系统管理的总体态度上,两种类型存在很大差异。这两种观点对我们如何理解利益相关者围绕杂草管理策略的潜在动机和选择具有影响,而这两种动机和选择对于促进和支持农民使用多样化、生态合理的杂草管理策略至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信