Search results

Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multidimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidimensional and multilevel factors, via multiple ...

Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multidimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidimensional and multilevel factors, via multiple natural and social science disciplines. We exemplify this process in prospect and retrospect. Importantly TWR is not a replacement for current weed research; rather, the intent is to powerfully leverage current efforts. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee

Agricultural landscape homogenization has detrimental effects on biodiversity and key ecosystem services. Increasing agricultural landscape heterogeneity by increasing seminatural cover can help to mitigate biodiversity loss. However, the amount of seminatural cover is generally low and difficult to increase in many intensively managed agricultural landscapes. We hypothesized that increasing the heterogeneity of the crop mosaic itself (hereafter "crop heterogeneity") can also have positive effects on biodiversity. In 8 contrasting regions of Europe and North America, we selected 435 landscapes along independent gradients of crop diversity and mean field size. Within each landscape, we selected 3 sampling sites in 1, 2, or 3 crop types. We sampled 7 taxa (plants, bees, butterflies, hoverflies, carabids, spiders, and birds) and calculated a synthetic index of multitrophic diversity at the landscape level. Increasing crop heterogeneity was more beneficial for multitrophic diversity than increasing seminatural cover. For instance, the effect of decreasing mean field size from 5 to 2.8 ha was as strong as the effect of increasing seminatural cover from 0.5 to 11%. Decreasing mean field size benefited multitrophic diversity even in the absence of seminatural vegetation between fields. Increasing the number of crop types sampled had a positive effect on landscape-level multitrophic diversity. However, the effect of increasing crop diversity in the landscape surrounding fields sampled depended on the amount of seminatural cover. Our study provides large-scale, multitrophic, cross-regional evidence that increasing crop heterogeneity can be an effective way to increase biodiversity in agricultural landscapes without taking land out of agricultural production. ; This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funders French National Research Agency (ANR-11-EBID-0004), German Ministry of Research and Education, German Research Foundation and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, part of the 2011 BiodivERsA call for research proposals. The UK component of this research was funded by the UK Government Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), as Project WC1034. The Canadian component of this research was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Strategic Project, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Environment Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. N.G. was supported by the AgreenSkills+ Fellowship programme which has received funding from the EU's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement FP7-609398 (AgreenSkills+ contract). A.G.-T. (Juan de la Cierva Fellow, JCI-2012-12089) was funded by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain). C. Violle was supported by the European Research Council Starting Grant Project "Ecophysiological and biophysical constraints on domestication of crop plants" (Grant ERC-StG-2014-639706-CONSTRAINTS). A.R.'s position at the University of Alicante is funded by the "Vicerrectorado de Investigación y Transferencia de Conocimiento."