Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) is a noxious invasive species and was detected in a long-term experiment in a research farm in Goldsboro, NC. A multistakeholder governance model was used to address the invasion of this species. Regulators insisted on the use of fumigation in all fields, but after intense negotiations, a multi-tier eradication plan was designed and implemented, allowing fumigation outside the long-term experiment and a combination of integrated approaches (including physical removal) and intense monitoring and mapping for long-term experimental fields. In the long-term experiment, C. benghalensis populations decreased logarithmically from more than 50,000 plants in approximately 80 ha in 2005 to 19 plants in less than 1 ha in 2019, with a projection of full eradication by 2024. Despite these results, which were considered to be proof of successful ecological management by university researchers, regulators decided to fumigate the fields containing the remaining 19 plants. This decision was made because regulators considered factors such as professional liability and control efficacy. This created serious disagreements between the different stakeholders who participated in the design of the original plan. Despite the goodwill all parties exhibited at the beginning of the governance process, there were important shortcomings that likely contributed to the disagreements at the end. For example, the plan did not include specific milestones, and there was no clarity about what acceptable progress was based on (i.e., plant numbers or the rate of population decline). Also, no financial limits were established, which made administrators concerned about the financial burden the eradication program had become over time. Multistakeholder governance can effectively address plant invasions, but proper definition of progress and the point at which the program must be modified are critical for success, and all this must be done within a governance model that balances power in the decision-making process.

Growers need affordable methods to sample weed populations to reduce herbicide use with site-specific weed management. Sampling programs and methods of developing sampling programs for integrated pest management are not sufficient for site-specific weed management because more and different information is needed to make treatment maps than simply estimate average pest density. Sampling plans for site-specific weed management must provide information to map the weeds in the field but should be developed for the objective of prescribing spatially variable management. Weed scientists will be most successful at designing plans for site-specific weed management if they focus on this objective throughout the process of designing a sampling plan. They must also learn more about the spatial distribution and dynamics of weed populations and use that knowledge to identify cost-effective plans, recommend methods to make maps as well as collect data, and find ways to evaluate maps that reflect management to be prescribed from the map. Foremost, sampling must be thought of as an ongoing process over time that uses many types of information rather than a single event of collecting one type of information. Specifically, scientists will need to identify common characteristics rather than just differences of the spatial distribution of weeds among fields and species, recognize that map accuracy may be a poor indicator of the value of a sampling plan, and develop methods to use growers' knowledge of the distribution of weeds and past spatially variable management within a field for both making a map and recommending a sampling plan. The value of proposed methods for sampling and mapping must also be demonstrated or adoption of site-specific weed management might be limited to growers who enjoy using sophisticated technology.

A questionnaire survey was conducted to find out the information and knowledge of extension workers on thresholds of cotton bollworms, (Helicoverpa armigera and Diparopsis castanea). A sample of 30 extension officers was interviewed in Southern and Central provinces of Zambia. The results showed crucial deficiencies in extension worker's knowledge on thresholds of key pests and their implementation in cotton IPM. More than 60% extension officers were not aware of the basic information and knowledge such as thresholds of cotton bollworms, the recommended time to start scouting (weeks after germination of cotton) and the number of cotton plants to be examined for pest observance in each field. All extension officers indicated a desperate need for more field oriented practical training on thresholds. The recent increase in the incidence of aphids, Aphis gossypii as reported by 50% extension workers is obviously due to calendar sprays of synthetic pyrethroids and the lack of a suitable aphicide in current spray programme. Demonstrations on the practical aspects of thresholds deserve much more attention at college level and also during the in-service training. More co-operation in cotton IPM training for extension officers within Central and Southern Africa is suggested.

A random sample of 90 small scale cotton growers was selected and interviewed in three target areas, to investigate the perceptions of farmers towards cotton insect pest management in Zambia. Information is given on farmers control practices, their perceptions of insect damage and the effectiveness of control. All farmers interviewed were knowledgeable about the common insect pests of cotton. The American bollworm (Heliothis armigera), red bollworm (Diparopsis castanea), and aphids (Aphis gossypii) were reported to be the worst pests. Some farmers use more insecticide applications than is locally recommended probably because they overestimate potential losses. Many farmers felt that the insecticides they use (pyrethroids) are very effective against pests. In some cases, the ED formulation of cypermethrin was reported to be more effective than EC formulations. The commonly practised nonchemical methods of insect control are growing cotton in rotation with other crops and destruction of cotton plants after harvest. Only a few farmers were aware of the role of biological control and the significance of weeding in cotton pest management. Many farmers inspected their crops to decide the timing of spray applications but did not follow the recommended scouting methods.