IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v41y2024i3d10.1007_s10460-023-10530-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • David Weisberger

    (University of Rhode Island)

  • Melissa Ann Ray

    (University of Georgia)

  • Nicholas T. Basinger

    (University of Georgia)

  • Jennifer Jo Thompson

    (University of Georgia)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • David Weisberger & Melissa Ann Ray & Nicholas T. Basinger & Jennifer Jo Thompson, 2024. "Chemical, ecological, other? Identifying weed management typologies within industrialized cropping systems in Georgia (U.S.)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 935-953, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10530-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-10530-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-023-10530-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-023-10530-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    2. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    3. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    4. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    6. Alexander, Kim S. & Parry, Lucy & Thammavong, Phomma & Sacklokham, Silinthone & Pasouvang, Somphanh & Connell, John G. & Jovanovic, Tom & Moglia, Magnus & Larson, Silva & Case, Peter, 2018. "Rice farming systems in Southern Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production decisions using Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Church, Sarah P. & Lu, Junyu & Ranjan, Pranay & Reimer, Adam P. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2020. "The role of systems thinking in cover crop adoption: Implications for conservation communication," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Robert J. Sheeder & Gary D. Lynne, 2011. "Empathy-Conditioned Conservation: “Walking in the Shoes of Others” as a Conservation Farmer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 433-452.
    9. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    11. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    12. Hancock, Guy & Liu, Yangxuan & Smith, Amanda R. & Plastina, Alejandro, 2020. "Motivations and Challenges of Cover Crop Utilization for Georgia Crop Production," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2020.
    13. Florence Bétrisey & Valérie Boisvert & James Sumberg, 2022. "Superweed amaranth: metaphor and the power of a threatening discourse," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 505-520, June.
    14. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    15. Keith H. Coble & Barry J. Barnett, 2013. "Why Do We Subsidize Crop Insurance?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 498-504.
    16. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    17. Shenan Wu & Barry K. Goodwin & Keith Coble, 2020. "Moral hazard and subsidized crop insurance," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 131-142, January.
    18. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    19. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    21. Chrysanthi Charatsari & Evagelos D. Lioutas & Afroditi Papadaki-Klavdianou & Alex Koutsouris & Anastasios Michailidis, 2022. "Experiential, Social, Connectivist, or Transformative Learning? Farm Advisors and the Construction of Agroecological Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    22. Fabian D. Menalled & Robert K. D. Peterson & Richard G. Smith & William S. Curran & David J. Páez & Bruce D. Maxwell, 2016. "The Eco-Evolutionary Imperative: Revisiting Weed Management in the Midst of an Herbicide Resistance Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-15, December.
    23. Frisvold, George B. & Hurley, Terrance M. & Mitchell, Paul D., 2009. "Adoption of Best Management Practices to Control Weed Resistance By Cotton, Corn, and Soybean Growers," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    2. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    3. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    4. Bullock, David S. & D'Arcangelo, Filippo Maria & Desquilbet, Marion, 2018. "A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops," TSE Working Papers 18-959, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2019.
    5. Arancibia, Florencia, 2013. "Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 79-92.
    6. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    7. Meynard, Jean-Marc & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Le Bail, Marianne & Lefèvre, Amélie & Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Michon, Camille, 2017. "Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 330-339.
    8. Petr Matous, 2023. "Male and stale? Questioning the role of “opinion leaders” in agricultural programs," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1205-1220, September.
    9. Eanes, Francis R. & Singh, Ajay S. & Bulla, Brian R. & Ranjan, Pranay & Fales, Mary & Wickerham, Benjamin & Doran, Patrick J. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2019. "Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: Perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 360-370.
    10. Angeon, Valérie & Casagrande, Marion & Navarrete, Mireille & Sabatier, Rodolphe, 2024. "A conceptual framework linking ecosystem services, socio-ecological systems and socio-technical systems to understand the relational and spatial dynamics of the reduction of pesticide use in agrifood ," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Jean McGuire & Lois Morton & Alicia Cast, 2013. "Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, March.
    12. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    13. Wood, Liza & Lubell, Mark & Rudnick, Jessica & Khalsa, Sat Darshan S. & Sears, Molly & Brown, Patrick H., 2022. "Mandatory information-based policy tools facilitate California farmers’ learning about nitrogen management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Chiaverina, Pierre & Drogué, Sophie & Jacquet, Florence, 2024. "Do Farmers Participating in Short Food Supply Chains Use Less Pesticides? Evidence from France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    15. Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia & Tran, Nhuong & Joffre, Olivier M. & Islam, Abu Hayat Md Saiful & Barman, Benoy Kumar & Ali, Shawquat & Rossignoli, Cristiano M., 2021. "Lock-ins to the dissemination of genetically improved fish seeds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    16. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    17. Hammond Wagner, Courtney & Cox, Michael & Bazo Robles, José Luis, 2016. "Pesticide lock-in in small scale Peruvian agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 72-81.
    18. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    19. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Barnes, A.P. & McMillan, J. & Sutherland, L.-A. & Hopkins, J. & Thomson, S.G., 2022. "Farmer intentional pathways for net zero carbon: Exploring the lock-in effects of forestry and renewables," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10530-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.