Search

Weeds pose severe threats to agricultural and natural landscapes worldwide. One major reason for the failure to effectively manage weeds at landscape scales is that current Best Management Practice guidelines, and research on how to improve such guidelines, focus too narrowly on property-level management decisions. Insufficiently considered are the aggregate effects of individual actions to determine landscape-scale outcomes, or whether there are collective practices that would improve weed management outcomes. Here, we frame landscape-scale weed management as a social dilemma, where trade-offs occur between individual and collective interests. We apply a transdisciplinary system approach-integrating the perspectives of ecologists, evolutionary biologists and agronomists into a social science theory of social dilemmas-to four landscape-scale weed management challenges: (i) achieving plant biosecurity, (ii) preventing weed seed contamination, (iii) maintaining herbicide susceptibility and (iv) sustainably using biological control. We describe how these four challenges exhibit characteristics of 'public good problems', wherein effective weed management requires the active contributions of multiple actors, while benefits are not restricted to these contributors. Adequate solutions to address these public good challenges often involve a subset of the eight design principles developed by Elinor Ostrom for 'common pool social dilemmas', together with design principles that reflect the public good nature of the problems. This paper is a call to action for scholars and practitioners to broaden our conceptualization and approaches to weed management problems. Such progress begins by evaluating the public good characteristics of specific weed management challenges and applying context-specific design principles to realize successful and sustainable weed management.

Weed management science and practice largely focuses on eradicating, containing and reducing existing weed populations; the focus is on plants in situ. More recently, the redefinition of biosecurity to include weeds has seen greater attention paid to preventing the introduction of weeds to previously uninfested areas within countries. Thus weed hygiene has come to the fore, with a growing number of publications recommending a diverse range of practices to minimise the spread of weeds across farm, regional and state boundaries. Yet little is known about the uptake of weed hygiene practices. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which best practice weed hygiene is being implemented on, across and along private and public lands. Telephone interviews were conducted with 54 private and public land managers, weed contractors, and agricultural transport operators in New South Wales, Australia. Vehicle hygiene was commonly undertaken across all stakeholder groups when it was consistent with other goals, requirements or norms. Other practices, such as sequencing harvesting from least to most weedy paddocks or including weed hygiene clauses in contracts were often known, but rarely practiced because of the onerous labour and financial costs or concerns about social etiquette. Individual commitment to weed hygiene efforts were also undermined by intra and inter-organisational coordination challenges. Public debate and assessment are needed on the benefits and costs to society of weed hygiene compared to in situ weed control to determine where best to invest limited time and resources., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

For two decades researchers and policy makers have been arguing that community-based collective action is needed to effectively control weeds. Yet there has been little social research into the ways that collective weed control emerges at local scales. The aim of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms through which three local landholder groups in south-eastern Australia collectively manage weeds and the measures they use to evaluate success. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of three Landcare groups-Jerrawa Creek/Upper Lachlan, MacLaughlin River and Towamba Valley-as well as government staff external to the groups. The results reveal that for all three groups collective weed control is about supporting individual weed control efforts as well as proactively engaging landholders with the worst infestations. The groups were seen to be successful because they focused on the common challenge that weeds pose to all landholders, thereby removing the shame associated with having weeds, and because they organised community events that were as much about building and maintaining social relationships as improving weed control. Groups were positive about what they had achieved as collectives of landholders, but also saw an important role for government in providing funding, engaging with landholders who were unwilling to engage directly with the group, and controlling weeds on public lands.

The militaristic metaphors common in public discourses about invasive species have been criticised for promoting combative management approaches and constraining policy responses. But are they really to blame for entrenching a command-and-control approach to managing weeds in Australia? Since 2000, almost every state and territory has introduced new biosecurity legislation encouraging 'shared responsibility'. Yet, this term remains noticeably absent from new legislation in Victoria. We aim to examine whether public discourses around invasive plants have remained unchanged to better understand how invasive plants have been framed and whether this can provide insight into the lack of engagement with 'shared responsibility' in Victorian legislation. This study investigates figurative language used in Victorian newspapers from 1885 to 2020 to describe three invasive plants and their management: Bathurst burr, blackberry and gorse. The figurative language reveals limited acknowledgement of humans' role in the spread of weeds and emphasis on the diverse impacts of weeds on humans. Militaristic metaphors have existed for over 130 years, but are neither the most predominant nor community-mobilising. Overall, figurative language has focused on individual efforts to control weeds, without critical analysis of the inter-relationships between humans and weeds nor having created opportunities for caring or collaborative weed management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mobility of weeds, use of biological controls and spread of herbicide resistance mean that weed management is a landscape-scale problem. Area-wide management (AWM) presents one approach for land managers, industry and government representatives to collaborate to manage weeds across public and private properties. Such an approach has been successfully used for other landscape-scale problems, such as managing animal and insect pests. This study aims to identify what individual, community and institutional factors are associated with growers' participation in collaborative weed management in three cropping regions of Australia. Survey responses from 604 cropping growers from the Riverina (n = 218), Sunraysia (n = 200), and Darling Downs (n = 186) regions of eastern Australia were recorded between July and September 2021. Questions were designed to collect information on: socio-economic characteristics; the nature of farming operations; weed management concerns and beliefs; and individual and collaborative weed management practices, which constitute area-wide weed management (AWWM). Fisher's Exact test was applied to assess differences between growers who do and do not work together with others to manage weeds. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Boruta random forest function was used for feature selection and a random forest regression including the selected variables was then applied to determine the accuracy of the model that explains whether land managers collaborate with others on weed management. Almost all (95%) growers agreed that each land manager has a responsibility to the whole region to control weeds and 84% agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. Yet only 24% of growers currently work with other land managers on weed management. Growers who are less likely to work with others to manage weeds are those who: are less concerned about herbicide resistant weeds spreading to neighbouring land; are unlikely to share information with other land managers about weeds; or who are unlikely to attend meetings about local weed issues. Supporting greater uptake of AWM of weeds in the future will require increased awareness and education about the spread of herbicide resistance, building of new networks among growers and other key stakeholders, and development of AWWM activities that are accessible to all land managers regardless of time and financial constraints. This research demonstrates for the first time the limited extent of AWM of cropping weeds among growers in eastern Australia, and that AWWM is hindered by knowledge, network and access constraints. [Display omitted] • This is the first multi-state survey of Australian growers' attitudes and practices toward area-wide management of weeds. • 84% of growers agreed or strongly agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. • Only 24% of growers self-reported that they work with other land managers on weed management. • Growers concerned about herbicide resistance spreading from their properties were more likely to work on weeds with others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research into the effects of seven management techniques on survival and growth of eucalypt seedlings planted on farmland is reviewed. The techniques include: pre- and post-planting weed control; soil cultivation; fertiliser; mulch; tree guards/shelters; and irrigation. The initial and ongoing effects of each technique are discussed—including the effects of timing, type and quantity. Consideration is given to site, species and climatic influences. A statistical analysis of the published survival rates is then presented, to provide information on the relative importance of, and interactions between, practices. The analysis shows that maximum survival may be achieved by using one or two management techniques. Combining this result with the insights gained from the review suggests that the use of soil cultivation and post-planting weed control are likely to achieve the greatest improvements in early eucalypt survival and growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Area-wide collaboration across private and public property boundaries can enhance the management of weeds and minimise the spread of herbicide resistance. Yet we know little about the practices individual land managers engage in to achieve area-wide weed management (AWWM). This paper uses Social Practice Theory (SPT) as a framework to understand how cropping land managers engage with the practices of AWWM, and what the drivers and barriers are to their participation. 30 qualitative interviews were undertaken with land managers in Australian cropping regions of the Darling Downs (Queensland), Gwydir (New South Wales), Riverina (New South Wales) and Sunraysia (Victoria). Thematic analysis of the interviews explored the three dimensions of SPT—meanings, materials, and competences—of AWWM and the interactions between these elements. There is a value-action gap between growers' desire to participate in AWWM practices and their capacity to do so. The analysis reveals that narrowing this gap requires interventions at the points where the SPT elements intersect. It recommends beginning by leveraging existing commonalities between growers who already have a desire to participate in AWWM then scaling out by encouraging trusted agronomist networks to link diverse growers to facilitate collaborative weed management practices. There is also a role for government in supporting the development of leadership capabilities among growers, providing an enabling environment for agronomists to act as systemic facilitators and leading by example on public land. Most of the research on collective management of weeds has focused on formal groups in grazing systems. This study provides new insights into how and why weeds are largely managed independently in cropping systems and proposes ways growers may be supported to adopt more collaborative practices to address this landscape-scale problem. • Most growers believe area-wide weed management (AWWM) would be beneficial. • Few growers participate in AWWM: there is a value-action gap. • Growers are confident they have the competences needed to manage weeds on their own. • Lack of action from neighbouring private and public land managers undermines confidence in AWWM. • Diverse meanings about autonomy and financial imperatives create contradictions that constrain AWWM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]