Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying the challenges of promoting ecological weed management (EWM) in organic agroecosystems through the lens of behavioral decision making

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ecological weed management (EWM) is a scientifically established management approach that uses ecological patterns to reduce weed seedbanks. Such an approach can save organic farmers time and labor costs and reduce the need for repeated cultivation practices that may pose risks to soil and water quality. However, adoption of effective EWM in the organic farm community is perceived to be poor. In addition, communication and collaboration between the scientific community, extension services, and the organic farming community in the US is historically weak. In order to uncover the most persistent obstacles to promoting effective weed management in organic agroecosystems, we use the mental models approach to generate an expert model based on interviews with experts (e.g., weed scientists, weed ecologists, and extension personnel) and theories from the behavioral sciences. The expert model provides two main insights: (1) EWM is a complex strategy that may cause farmers to use heuristics in management decisions and (2) the long-term benefits of EWM, rather than the risks, need to be emphasized in communication with and outreach to organic farmers. The basis for new research topics and outreach material that incorporates these insights from the expert model are discussed. We briefly explain how the expert model is an incomplete picture of on-farm practices, but provides the basis for the second step of our mental models research, the farmer interviews and farmer decision model development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. 2010. A rotation design to reduce weed density in organic farming. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(3): 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascher, T., R.S. Wilson, and E. Toman. 2012. The importance of affect and perceived risk in understanding support for fuels management among wildland-urban interface residents. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22: 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaans, L., M.J. Kropff, J. Goudriaan, and H.H. van Laar. 2000. Design of weed management systems with a reduced reliance on herbicides poses new challenges and prerequisites for modeling crop-weed interactions. Field Crops Research 67: 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaans, L., R. Paolini, and D.T. Baumann. 2008. Focus on ecological weed management: What is hindering adoption? Weed Research 48(6): 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, D. 2008. Systems approach to no-till in the future. Pierre: Dakota Lakes Research Farm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. 2004. Farming for us all: Practical agriculture and the cultivation of sustainability. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, A., B. Fischhoff, and M.G. Morgan. 1992. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and application to radon. Emmitsburg: National Emergency Training Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, A., M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and D. Read. 1994. What do people know about global climate change? Mental models. Risk Analysis 14(6): 959–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman, N.C., and E.L. Vazquez. 2011. A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis 31: 1919–1934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brossard, D., and B. Lewenstein. 2009. A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. In Communicating science: new agendas in communication, ed. L. Kahlor, and P. Stout, 11–39. Florence: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 60: 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R., C. Kuczera, and G. Schwarz. 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48(1): 16–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardina, J. 2010. Managing weeds in organic field crops. Paper presented at the OEFFA Developing a Farm Plan.

  • Cox, H. 1913. Controlling Canada thistles. US Department of Agriculture 545: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A.S., and M. Ngouajio. 2005. Introduction to the symposium beyond thresholds: Applying multiple tactics within integrated weed management systems. Weed Science 53(3): 368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delate, K. 2009. Organic grains, oilseeds, and other specialty crops. In Organic farming: the ecological systems, ed. C.A. Francis, 113–136. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil Science Socieety of America, Inc.

  • Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49: 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., J.S. Downs, and W.B. Bruine de Bruin. 1998. Adolescent vulnerability: a framework for behavioral interventions. Applied Preventive Psychology 7: 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40: 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallandt, E.R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Science 54(3): 588–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallandt, E.R., and T. Molloy. 2008. Exploiting weed management benefits of cover crops requires pre-emption of seed rain. In Cultivating the future based on science: 2nd conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR).

  • Hanson, J., R. Dismukes, W. Chambers, C. Greene, and A. Kremen. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: views of organic farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19(04): 218–227. doi:10.1079/RAFS200482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, P.E., and B. Melander. 2003. Combining physical, cultural, and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research 43(5): 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute, The Rodale. 2013. The farming systems trial. http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/farming-systems-trial-30-year-report/. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.

  • Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. 1997. Ecology in agriculture. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W.G., and K.D. Gibson. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistance management strategies: an Indiana grower perspective. Weed Technology 20(3): 768–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58(9): 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, W., J. Boster, and J. Hartley. 1997. Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, P. 1999. Understanding individual’s environmental decisions: a decision sciences approach. In Better environmental decisions: strategies for government, businesses, and communities, ed. K. Sexton, A. Marcus, W.K. Easter, and T. Burkhardt, 37–56. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56(4): 519–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legleiter, T.R., and K.W. Bradley. 2008. Glyphosate and multiple herbicide resistance in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations from Missouri. Weed Science 56(4): 582–587. doi:10.1614/ws-07-204.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebman, M., C.L. Mohler, and C.P. Staver. 2001. Ecological management of agricultural weeds. Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, R.S., R.K. Lindner, D.J. Pannell, and S.B. Powles. 2004. Grain grower perceptions and use of integrated weed management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44(10): 993–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. 2004. Civic agriculture: reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1994. A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Ghersa, M.A., C.A. Worster, and S.R. Radosevich. 2003. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: A revisitation. Weed Technology 17(1): 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, I.J., and S.M. McLachlan. 2008. Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: Postrelease evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis 28(2): 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirsky, S.B., E.R. Gallandt, D.A. Mortensen, W.S. Curran, and D.L. Shumway. 2010. Reducing the germinable weed seedbank with soil disturbance and cover crops. Weed Research 50(4): 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohler, C.L., and S.E. Johnson. 2009. Crop rotation on organic farms. National Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES) Cooperative Extension.

  • Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, and C.J. Atman. 2002. Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morss, R.E., O.V. Wilhelmi, M.W. Downton, and E. Gruntfest. 2005. Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: lessons from an interdisciplinary project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(11): 1593–1601. doi:10.1175/bams-86-11-1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazarko, O.M., R.C. Van Acker, and M.H. Entz. 2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 85(2): 457–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, M.D.K. 2001. Importance of weed population shifts and herbicide resistance in the USA corn belt. In The BCPC conference: weeds, 407–412. Brighton: The BCPC Conference.

  • Parker, J.S., R. Moore, and M. Weaver. 2007. Land tenure as a variable in community based watershed projects: some lessons from the Sugar Creek Watershed, Wayne and Holmes Counties, Ohio. Society and Natural Resources 20(9): 815–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J.S., R.S. Wilson, J.T. LeJeune, and D. Doohan. 2012. Including growers in the “food safety” conversation: enhancing the design and implementation of food safety programming based on farm and marketing needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3): 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. 2008. The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. In The construction of preference, ed. S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, E. 2008. Weeds and what they tell. Junction City: Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemens, M.M., R.M.W. Groeneveld, M.J.J. Kropff, L.A.P. Lotz, R. Jan Renes, W. Sukkel, and R.Y. van der Weide. 2010. Linking farmer weed management behavior with weed pressure: More than just technology. Weed Science 58: 490–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sass, J., and A. Colangelo. 2006. European Union bans atrazine, while the United States negotiates continued use. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 12: 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schonbeck, M. 2010. Twelve steps toward ecological weed management in organic vegetables. eOrganic. http://www.extension.org/pages/18539/twelve-steps-toward-ecological-weed-management-in-organic-vegetables. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.

  • Simon, H.A. 1959. Theories of decision making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review 3: 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slagle, K., R. Zajac, J. Bruskotter, R.S. Wilson, and S. Prange. 2013. Building tolerance for bears: A communications experiment. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 863–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., M.L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D.G. Macgregor. 2007. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 177(3): 1333–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, C.J., K.J. Mahoney, K. Chandler, and R.H. Gulden. 2008. Integrated weed management: Knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed Science 56(1): 168–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, C.J., and S.D. Murphy. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Science 44: 437–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, C.J., and S.F. Weise. 1991. Integrated weed management: The rationale and approach. Weed Technology 5(3): 657–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C. 1999. Weeds: control without poisons. Austin: Acres USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E.U. 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change 77(1–2): 103–120. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R.S. 2009. Targeting the farmer decision making process: a pathway to increased adoption of integrated weed management. Crop Protection 28(9): 756–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of the interviewees for their time and continued feedback. We would also like to thank Dr. Emmy Regnier for proof reading the manuscript and offering her expertise in weed management. This research was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative competitive grant program “Mental Models and Participatory Research to Redesign Extension Programming for Organic Weed Management” (USDA Award No. 2009-51300-05653).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Rd., 316 Kottman Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Sarah Zwickle & Robyn Wilson

  2. Horticulture and Crop Sciences, The Ohio State University, 216 Williams Hall, OARDC-Wooster, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Doug Doohan

Authors
  1. Sarah Zwickle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robyn Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doug Doohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Zwickle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zwickle, S., Wilson, R. & Doohan, D. Identifying the challenges of promoting ecological weed management (EWM) in organic agroecosystems through the lens of behavioral decision making. Agric Hum Values 31, 355–370 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9485-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9485-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation