Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:42:10.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of Weed Science at Universities and Experiment Stations in the Northeastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey F. Derr
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jderr@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed science is an important component of pest management. Weeds cause approximately 12% loss in United States crop production, reduce crop quality, poison livestock, and adversely affect human health, recreation, and transportation. Herbicides comprise approximately 65% of pesticide expenditures, whereas insecticides and fungicides each comprise less than 20%. The total effect of weeds, including crop losses and costs of control, in the United States was estimated in 1994 to be $20 billion annually. A survey was prepared and mailed to weed scientists at universities and experiment stations in the northeastern United States to determine the number of faculty positions and course offerings devoted to weed science. There are approximately five times as many entomologists and more than three times as many plant pathologists as weed scientists at universities in the northeast. There are more than six times as many graduate students currently in entomology and more than four times as many in plant pathology compared with weed science. Few undergraduate courses in weed science are taught, and most universities have no graduate classes in weed science. There are almost seven times as many undergraduate entomology courses and more than twice as many plant pathology courses as weed science classes in this region. There are more than 17 times as many graduate entomology courses and more than 15 times as many plant pathology courses compared with weed science graduate classes. There are no departments devoted solely to weed science in the northeast, whereas entomology and plant pathology departments are both common. Most universities have little to no faculty assigned to aquatic, forestry, noncrop weed control, weed ecology, or laboratory trials, and numbers assigned to agronomic and horticultural crop weed management are limited. Additional university resources are needed if weed science research, teaching, and extension efforts are to meet the priority needs in weed management.

Keywords

Entomologyfaculty positionsgraduate classesgraduate studentsplant pathologyundergraduate classesFTE, full-time equivalents.
Type
Review
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1150 - 1156
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Bridges, D. C. 1994. Impact of weeds on human endeavors. Weed Technol. 8:392–395.Google Scholar
Department of Entomology, Rutgers. 2004. History of Rutger's Department of Entomology. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey: Web page: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/estab.html. Accessed: February 19, 2004.Google Scholar
Department of Entomology, UMASS Amherst. 2003. Department History. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Web page: http://www.umass.edu/ent/about/history.html. Accessed: February 19, 2004.Google Scholar
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech. 2004. History of the Department. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Web page: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/history.html. Accessed: February 19, 2004.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 2003. The status of weed science in the northeast. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 57:158–163.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Sankula, S. 2003. The Value of Herbicides in U.S. Crop Production. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Kuhns, L. J. and Harpster, T. L. 1997. Agriculture needs more weed scientists. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 51:192–197.Google Scholar
National Invasive Species Council. 2003a. Web page: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/advisory.shtml. Accessed: November 4, 2003.Google Scholar
National Invasive Species Council. 2003b. Executive order. Web page: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/main.shtml. Accessed: November 4, 2003.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 1999. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in the United States:. Web page: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html. Accessed: November 4, 2003.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. 182 p.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Applied Weed Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 2–17.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D. 1996. History of the Northeastern Weed Science Society 1947– 1995. Northeastern Weed Science Society. Pp. 1–19.Google Scholar