Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:23:52.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant Protection Issues. I. A Commentary on New Weeds in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Randy G. Westbrooks
Randy G. Westbrooks*
Affiliation:
Noxious Weed Stn., Whiteville Plant Methods Cent., Sci. and Technol., Anim. Plant Health Insp. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New or recently introduced weeds are biological pollutants in our natural and agricultural ecosystems. Unlike chemical pollutants, new weeds left unchecked often proliferate and pose problems that may not become apparent until eradication is too expensive or impractical. Management strategies for weeds should include: 1. prevention (from entering foreign commerce); 2. exclusion (detection of weed contaminants in imported products at ports of entry); 3. detection, containment, and eradication of incipient infestations; and 4. perpetual control (of widespread species that cannot otherwise be addressed). Appropriate legislative authority, modern weed technology, funding, and a renewed commitment to the concept of prevention are needed to prevent the introduction of new weeds. A national initiative to prevent the establishment of new weeds would be beneficial by saving on future losses and perpetual control costs. Actions taken now will prevent the continued introduction and spread of new weeds in the United States.

Keywords

Biological pollutantsevolving land use practicesFederal Noxious Weed ActFederal Seed Actforeign weedsinfection pressureweed containmentweed detectionweed eradicationweed exclusionglyphosateCentaurea solstitialisEichornia crassipesFestuca arundinaceaHydrilla verticillataIpomoea trilobaMelaleuca quinquenerviaNassella trichotomaSalsola ibericaStriga asiaticaUrochloa panicoides
Type
Education
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 232 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1972. Extent and cost of weed control with herbicides and an evaluation of important weeds. USDA ARS-H-1. Beltsville, MD. 227 p.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1990. Exotic Pest Plants in Florida. Biological Pollutants in Florida's Environment: Exotic Pest Plants. Florida Department of Natural Resources. Division of Resource Management. March, 1990. 9 p.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1990. Melaleuca Management Plan for South Florida. Recommendations from the Melaleuca Task Force. Interagency Task Force. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 50 p.Google Scholar
4. Austin, D. 1978. Exotic plants and their effects in southeastern Florida. Environ. Conserv. 5:25–34.Google Scholar
5. Baker, H. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. p. 147–172 in The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L., eds. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Baker, H. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America. p. 44–57 in Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Mooney, H. A., and Drake, J. A., eds. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
7. Campbell, M. 1985. Serrated tussock. Identification and life history. Agfact Bull. # P7.6.29. Dep. Agric., New South Wales, Australia. 8 p.Google Scholar
8. Campbell, M. 1985. Serrated Tussock Control. Agfact Bull. #P7.6.30, 1st ed. Dep. Agric., New South Wales. Division of Plant Industries. 4 p.Google Scholar
9. Campbell, M. 1985. Serrated Tussock Control. Herbicide and insecticide recommendations. Supplement to Agfact #P7.6.30. Dep. Agric., New South Wales. Division of Plant Industries. 3 p.Google Scholar
10. Campbell, M., and Gilmour, A. 1979. Effect of time and rate of application of herbicides on serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) and improved pasture species. I. Glyphosate and 2,2-DPA. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. Anim. Husb. 19:472–475.Google Scholar
11. Campbell, M., Gilmour, A., and Vere, D. 1979. Effects of time and rate of application of herbicides on serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) and improved pasture species. 2. Tetrapion. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Husb. 19:476–480.Google Scholar
12. Chandler, M. 1985. Economics of weed control in crops. p. 9–20 in The Chemistry of Allelopathy. Biochemical Interactions Among Plants. Thompson, A., ed. ACS Symposium Series, No. 268. American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Craeger, R. 1988. The biology of Mediterranean saltwort, Salsola vermiculata . Weed Technol. 2:369–374.Google Scholar
14. Craeger, R. 1990. Control of Mediterranean saltwort (Salsola vermiculata) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:376–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Ewel, J. 1986. Invasibility: Lessons from South Florida. p. 214–230 in Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Mooney, H. A., and Drake, J. A., eds. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
16. Foy, C. L., and Forney, D. R. 1985. A history of the introduction of weeds. p. 115–130 in Proc. Int. Conf. on the Movement and Dispersal of Agriculturally Important Biotic Agents. McKenzie, D., Barfield, C., Kennedy, G., Berger, R., and Toronto, D., eds. Claitors Publishing Division. Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
17. Foy, C. L., Forney, D. R., and Cooley, W. 1983. History of weed introductions. p. 65–92 in Exotic Plants and North American Agriculture. Wilson, C. L., and Graham, C. L., eds. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
18. Hatch, S. 1977. New Grass distribution records for New Mexico and the United States. Great Basin Naturalist 37:530–531.Google Scholar
19. Hill, B., and Blaney, B. 1980. Urochloa panicoides (liverseed grass) as a cause of nitrate poisoning. Aust. Vet. J. 56:256.Google Scholar
20. McWhorter, C., and Patterson, D. 1980. Ecological factors affecting weed competition in soybeans. Proc. World Soybean Res. Conf. II. 16:399–413.Google Scholar
21. Morrow, L., and Appleby, A. 1984. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) history, biology, and control in agricultural production systems. (Preface to symposium proceedings) Weed Sci. 32(Suppl. 1):1.Google Scholar
22. Parsons, W. 1973. Noxious Weeds of Victoria. Inkata Press. Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. 300 p.Google Scholar
23. Patterson, D. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata), corn (Zea mays), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:549–553.Google Scholar
24. Patterson, D. 1980. Shading effects on the growth and partitioning of plant biomass in cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from shaded and exposed habitats. Weed Sci. 28:735–740.Google Scholar
25. Patterson, D., and Flint, E. 1979. Effects of simulated field temperatures and chilling on itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata), corn (Zea mays), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:216–224.Google Scholar
26. Patterson, D., Flint, E., and Dickens, R. 1980. Effects of temperature, photoperiod, and population source on the growth of cogongrass. (Imperata cylindrica). Weed Sci. 28:505–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Patterson, D., Meyer, C., Flint, E., and Quimby, P. Jr. 1979. Temperature responses and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:77–82.Google Scholar
28. Patterson, D., and Mortensen, D. 1985. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on common crupina (Crupina vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33:333–339.Google Scholar
29. Patterson, D., Musser, R., Flint, E., and Eplee, R. 1982. Temperature responses and potential for spread of witchweed (Striga lutea) in the U.S. Weed Sci. 30:87–93.Google Scholar
30. Patterson, D., Terrell, E., and Dickens, R. 1983. Cogongrass in Mississippi. Res. Highlights. Mississippi State Univ. 46:1–2.Google Scholar
31. Ross, M., and Lembi, C. 1985. Applied Weed Science. Burgess Publishing Company. Minneapolis, MN. 340 p.Google Scholar
32. Salisbury, E. 1961. Weeds and Aliens. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
33. Sand, P., and Manley, J. 1990. The Witchweed Eradication Program. Survey, regulatory and control p. 141–150 in Witchweed Research and Control in the United States. Sand, P., Eplee, R., and Westbrooks, R., eds. Monograph Series of the Weed Sci. Soc. Am. No. 5.Google Scholar
34. Schmitz, D. 1990. The Federal Noxious Weed Act revisited. Needed changes. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 30:34.Google Scholar
35. Schmitz, D. 1990. The invasion of exotic aquatic and wetland plants in Florida: History and efforts to prevent new introductions. Aquatics 12: 6–13,24.Google Scholar
36. Westbrooks, R. 1981. Introduction of foreign noxious plants into the United States. Weeds Today 14:16–17.Google Scholar
37. Westbrooks, R. 1983. Federal Noxious Weeds: A close look at hydrilla. Weeds Today 14:6–7.Google Scholar
38. Westbrooks, R. 1990. Introduction of serrated tussock [Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hackel ex Arech.] into the United States. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 30:40.Google Scholar
39. Westbrooks, R., and Eplee, R. 1989. Federal noxious weeds in Florida. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:316–321.Google Scholar
40. Woodall, S. 1983. Establishment of Melaleuca quinquenervia seedlings in the pine-cypress ecotone of Southwest Florida. Fla. Sci. 46:65–72.Google Scholar
41. Zamora, D., Thill, D., and Eplee, R. 1989. An eradication plan for plant invasions. Weed Technol. 3:2–12.Google Scholar