Source: IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY submitted to
INTEGRATING HUMAN BEHAVIORAL & AGRONOMIC PRACTICES TO IMPROVE FOOD SECURITY BY REDUCING THE RISK & CONSEQUENCES OF HERBICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
TERMINATED
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1002477
Grant No.
2014-68004-21855
Project No.
IOW05385
Proposal No.
2013-05745
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Program Code
A5151
Project Start Date
Apr 15, 2014
Project End Date
Apr 14, 2018
Grant Year
2014
Project Director
Owen, M. D.
Recipient Organization
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
2229 Lincoln Way
AMES,IA 50011
Performing Department
Agronomy
Non Technical Summary
Herbicide-resistant weeds are increasing at an increasing rate and represent a significant threat to crop production and thus food security. The evolution of herbicide resistance reflects a complex interaction of agronomic, economic and sociologic factors; similarly developing weed management strategies is equally complex. The project will identify the technical, environmental, and socio-economic features that have contributed to the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds; quantify the relative importance of different barriers to adoption of effective management strategies; and develop solutions that will be acceptable to agricultural production systems. The project will develop and facilitate the adoption of strategies that manage herbicide-resistant weeds in major crop systems. Resulting strategies will provide more effective herbicide-resistant weed management and improved food security. Insights on the private/public approaches, including common pool resource problems, will be delivered to growers and ultimately, risks to food security from yield losses and increased costs will be reduced.
Animal Health Component
0%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
40%
Applied
40%
Developmental
20%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
2051510114010%
2051710114010%
2051820114010%
2132300114010%
2132300301010%
2132300308010%
2165220114010%
2162300301010%
2162300308010%
2166010114010%
Goals / Objectives
Goal: Improve food security in the U.S. by increasing grower adoption of integrated weed resistance management practices that reduce the risk and consequences of herbicide resistant weeds.Objectives:1. Assess current weed management practices and how they have changed with the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds.2. Determine the important drivers, impediments, and perceptions influencing growers' weed and herbicide resistant weed management decisions.3. Identify educational programs, incentives, and institutional innovations that can speed the adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices.4. Develop, target, and deliver innovative extension and educational programs that increase adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices.
Project Methods
This project includes research and extension components. The research component will address the first three supporting objectives. These objectives will be addressed in part by using available ARMS data and optimization models. These questions will also be addressed by identifying and inviting farmers, crop consultants, extension specialists, conservation professionals, and pest control industry representatives to participate in the research process as well as the dissemination of consequent knowledge. The crop production systems included in the project will be those that have had a high adoption of GE technologies, specifically glyphosate-based corn, cotton, and soybean systems. The research and extension components of the project will reflect the region-specific nature of these production systems.One key component of the research component of the project will be the conceptualization, design and implementation of a national survey of growers. This survey will be stratified by the five major regions of the U.S. (Southeast; South-central; Northeast; Central; and Midwest) where the three crop systems of interest are most likely to be found. This is to ensure that our explorations and analysis reflect the environmental and socio-economic contexts that are associated with regional production systems, and thus reflects and explains the diverse range of HRW issues faced by farmers. The conceptualization of the survey will be based on discussions with growers and crop consultants at extension and farm meetings and an analysis of the national ARMS data that represents different programmatic approaches (e.g. public and private) that have been tried to manage HRW by farmers in their communities. Each aspect of the project will be interdisciplinary and reflect the coupled nature of biological considerations, agronomic implications and the social and economic perspectives at the national, regional and community levels. Information about innovative weed management tactics will be collected and barriers to the adoption of these tactics will be described.

Progress 04/15/14 to 04/14/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, land managers, professional agronomists and pest management specialists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? In Arizona, project research served as the basis for one MS thesis in agricultural and resource economics, "Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Owner/Renter Behavior and Hazard Model Analysis," by Joshua Albright. In Arizona, project research served as the basis for one MS thesis in Agricultural and resource economics, "Land tenure, farmer perceptions and the adoption of resistance management practices" by Mustofa Mahmud Al Mamun. In Minnesota, project research served as the basis for part of one PhD dissertation in agricultural economics, "Reducing the risk of pesticide resistance: economics and behavioral factors affecting U.S. farmers' pesticide use and resistance management" by Huichun Sun. In Minnesota, the project provided a graduate research assistantship for David Smith that focused on using USDA Agricultural Resource Management data (David Smith has completed his Ph.D. and is now employed at the USDA). In Michigan, project research served as the basis for one PhD dissertations in rural sociology, "'I would say that might be all it is, is hope": Disruption, attachment and farmers' framing of herbicide resistant weeds" by Katherine E. Dentzman. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? In Minnesota, the project provided a major extension program "Strategic Farming - Growing soybeans that out-compete weeds," whichwas delivered at 10 locations. Frisvold and Ervin organized and co-edited a special issue of Choices magazine on Herbicide Resistance Management that included three articles from project PIs. According to the AAEA, Choices is the, "principal outreach vehicle of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA)." As such, the magazine in widely read by extension economists. Owen presented project results at three international meetings; the 14th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organism (paper submitted to Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology), the Global Herbicide Resistance Challenge and the Organization for Economic and Community Development "Future IPM 3.0 towards a sustainable agriculture". Ervin and Frisvold co-chaired a session "Herbicide resistance: Challenges for farmers and implications for the environment" at the 19th ICABR Conference. Ervin co-chaired a session "Experiential knowledge and interdisciplinary approaches to address herbicide resistance: insights from theory and practice at the 20th ICABR Conference. Numerous presentations and refereed journal papers by the project investigators were developed and given (listed in the products section of this report). A blog written by Jeff Gunsolus, University of Minnesota (http://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2017/09/herbicides-alone-cannot-adequately.html#more) was picked up by AgFax (https://agfaxweedsolutions.com/2017/09/20/minnesota-dicamba-resistant-weeds-need-more-than-herbicides-for-control) and Market Journal (out of Nebraska) (http://www.farms.com/video/crops/soybean/dicamba-in-2018-jeff-gunsolus-128189.aspx). There were numerous other radio, television and magazine articles where project research was mentioned by the investigators as well as numerous extension meetings. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? IMPACT: Evolved resistance to herbicides continues to be a major threat to food security and the economic viability of agriculture in the United States. Attempts to manage the problem have resulted in the greater use of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crop technologies, which in themselves, with the use of concomitant herbicides, represents a problem that typically exacerbates herbicide-resistant weeds and can pose environmental risks. This project has uniquely brought together the agronomic sciences with the social sciences and has made headway in identifying opportunities to address and improve herbicide-resistant weed management. Social scientists describe such a problem as "wicked." Research from this project has identified a number of obstacles in changing farmer behavior with regard to herbicide-resistant weed management. Community-based weed management programs, as identified by the project, likely have the best opportunity to improve herbicide-resistant weed management. Collaborations with the Weed Science Society of America and the project co-Pi's resulted in a number of farmer listening sessions across the United States and represented most of the agricultural production areas. An example as a concept resulting, in part, from the AFRI project is the Iowa Pest Resistance Management. Numerous symposia and presentations using information developed in the project have been made in regional, national and international meetings as well as hundreds of farmer presentations. Objective 1: Assess current weed management practices and how they have changed with the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. The project investigators designed and enumerated a national survey of approximately 900 farm operators to understand current weed management practices and analyze factors that encourage or inhibit more integrated management. Using data envelopment analysis an adoption-intensity index for herbicide-resistance best management practices (BMPs) was calculated. Empirical results for over 1,100 farmers in 22 U.S. states suggest many farmers could improve their herbicide resistance BMP adoption. Growers with higher yields and a greater proportion of acres planted with glyphosate resistant seeds had greater BMP adoption. Soybean and corn farmers have lower adoption intensity than cotton farmers. Farm operations with greater income are associated with significantly higher herbicide use. Farmers that are more concerned that herbicide-resistant weeds can spread from neighbors' fields appear to use a greater diversity of management tactics. Farmers who are optimistic that new herbicides will soon be available are significantly less likely to use multiple herbicides or rotate herbicide sites of action. Farmers who report that human and environmental health concerns are important to their weed management decisions are significantly less likely to use the full labeled herbicide application rate. Farmers who reported that convenience, flexibility and saving time were important considerations for their weed management decisions were significantly less likely to use BMPs. The main "themes" emerging from the focus groups was the ontology of techno-optimism and individualism. In essence, farmers continue to be immersed in an ontology of ease of operation, and thus maintain an optimism (or hope) that a next silver bullet herbicide will be produced by the private sector. The ARMS data analyses uncovered an unanticipated finding that is contrary to most current opinions with regard to how farmers manage herbicide resistant weeds on their own farms versus farms that they rent. Objective 2: Determine the important drivers, impediments, and perceptions influencing growers' weed and herbicide resistant weed management decisions. It is a common perception that land tenure arrangements can be an impediment to grower adoption of resistance management (RM) practices. Specifically, it is frequently stated that incentives to practice RM are lower on leased land relative to owned land. Preliminary analysis of data from the USDA ARMS (Agricultural Resource Management Survey) does not, however, support this assertion. Analysis of survey data from this project's survey yielded similar results. The survey data, facilitated discussions, and listening sessions indicate that a significant proportion of growers are unwilling to discuss herbicide-resistant weed issues with neighbors. A recent effort in Iowa to develop a Pest Resistance Management Plan will include pilot projects to determine if community-based herbicide-resistant weed management can be viable. Preliminary analysis of the survey data identified significant factors that influence the feasibility of community-based efforts. They are concern about HR weeds migrating from nearby lands, communication with neighbors about HR weeds, and belief that cooperation is necessary for resistance management. Three factors influenced the preconditions. They are reliance on Extension educators, concern about weeds resistant to multiple herbicides, and farmer time constraints. Farmers reporting high levels of "techno-optimism" are less likely to feel cooperative action is needed. Objective 3: Identify educational programs, incentives, and institutional innovations that can speed the adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. If weeds are highly mobile, resistance management can become a common property resource management problem that may require collective and coordinated grower adoption of RM practices. Centralized regulatory approaches to mandated collective action can be both politically unpopular with farmers, costly and difficult to monitor and enforce. Research examined four types of community-based efforts to control insects and weeds to consider what lessons they might provide for RM. The four were: (1) area-wide insect control programs, (2) insect eradication programs, (3) area-wide invasive weed control programs, and (4) weed districts and Cooperative Weed Management Areas. Incentive programs, such as rebates on crop insurance or cost-sharing for adoption of residual herbicide use, can potentially delay evolved resistance to post emergence herbicides. For a given level of payment, there are three types of farmers: (1) some will adopt the practice anyway, so the payment is simply a transfer payment that does not increase adoption, (2) for some, the payment is still too little to make adoption economically attractive, and (3) for some growers, the incentive payment is sufficient to move them from being non-adopters to adopters. A cash incentive to adopt cover crops in Iowa has been established. Many of these ideas are detailed in the journal papers that resulted from the project research and are also included in presentations made to farmers. Objective 4: Develop, target, and deliver innovative extension and educational programs that increase adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. In Arizona, resistance management workshops now include multi-disciplinary presentations that include both the biological science and the economics of resistance management. An Iowa Pest Resistance Management plan has been developed and pilot projects for herbicide-resistant weeds have been identified and will be established. Numerous presentations have been given to farmers that describe the need for integrated weed management to better address herbicide-resistant weeds. Presentations have been made and symposia have been organized in regional, national and international professional meeting where the topics of integrated weed management for better herbicide-resistant weed control have been highlighted. Results from this project have also been included in University of Minnesota Extension educator annual updates.

Publications

  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2014 Citation: Ervin, David E. 2014. Community-based approaches to manage herbicide resistant weed. Invited presentation at the Herbicide Resistance Summit II. Washington, D.C.
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Al Mumun, Mustofa Mahmud. 2018. Land Tenure, farmer perceptions and the adoption of resistance management practices. M.S. Thesis. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Frisvold, George F. 2018. (awaiting publication) A weed management game: a teaching tool. Pest Management Science. 74
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2016 Citation: Albright, Joshua. 2016. Herbicide resistant weeds: Owner/renter behavior and hazard model analysis. M.S. Thesis. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Frisvold, George, Joshua Albright, Katherine Dentzman, Wesley Everman, David Ervin, Jeff Gunsolus, Terry Hurley, Raymond Jussaume, Jason Norsworthy, Micheal Owen. Do farmers manage weeds on owned and rented land differently? Evidence from U.S. corn and soybean farms. Pest Management Science. In preparation.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Ervin, David, Elise Breshears, George Frisvold, Katherine Dentzman, Wesley Everman, Jeffrey Gunsolus, Terrance Hurley, Raymond Jussaume, Jason Norsworthy, Micheal Owen, Mustofa Mahmud Al Mamun. Farmer attitudes toward cooperative approaches to herbicide resistance management: A common pool ecosystem service challenge. Ecological Economics. Submitted.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Stahl, Liz, Lisa Behnken, Phil Gogoza, Jared Goplen, Jeff Gunsolus, Ryan Miller, Seth Naeve, Dave Nicolai, Angie Peltier, and Tom Peters. 2018. Strategic Farming  Growing soybeans that out-compete weeds. Presented at 10 locations in Minnesota (Alexandria, Willmar, Fairmont, New Ulm, McIntosh, Slayton, Hutchinson, Faribault, Appleton and Austin.
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2017 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine E. 2017. "I would say that might be all it is, is hope": Disruption, attachment and farmers framing of herbicide resistant weeds. PhD thesis. Department of Sociology. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine. 2018. I would say that might be all it is, is hope: The framing of herbicide resistance and how farmers explain their faith in herbicides. Journal of Rural Studies. 57: 118-127.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine. 2018. Herbicide resistant weeds as place disruption: Their impact on farmers attachment, interpretations, and weed management strategies. Environmental Psychology. Submitted.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine. Mixed methods research and the US farming population: A case study and theoretical foundation in relational pragmatism. Paper in preparation. Journal not yet selected.
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Sun, Huichun. 2018. Reducing the risk of pesticide resistance: Economic and behavioral factors affecting U.S. farmers pesticide use and resistance management. PhD dissertation. Department of Agricultural Economics. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine, Ryan Gunderson and Raymond Jussaume. 2016. Techno-optimism as a barrier to overcoming herbicide resistance: Comparing farmer perceptions of the future potential herbicides. Journal of Rural Studies. 48: 22-32.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Sun, H., T.M. Hurley, K. Dentzman, D.E. Ervin, W. Everman, G.B. Frisvold, J. Gunsolus, J. Norsworthy, and M. Owen. 2017. Economic and Behavioral Drivers of Herbicide Resistance Management in the U.S. (in preparation). Journal to be selected.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Frisvold, George B., Muthukumar V Bagavathiannan and Jason K. Norsworthy. 2017. Positive and normative modeling for Palmer amaranth control and herbicide resistance management. Pest Management Science. 73:1110-1120.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Davis, Adam S. and George B. Frisvold. 2017. Are herbicides a once in a century method of weed control? Pest Management Science. 73(11):2209-2220.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Hurley, Terrance. Softening Shock and Awe Pest Management with IPM Principles. The 9th International IPM Symposium. March 19-22, Baltimore, MD
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Jussaume, Raymond, A., The Social Context of Farmer Weed Management Practices. The 9th International IPM Symposium. March 19-22, Baltimore, MD
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Ervin, D.E., E. Breshears, G. Frisvold, K. Dentzman, w. Everman, J. Gunsolus, T. Hurley, R. Jussaume, J. Norsworthy, M. Owen. 2018. Farmer attitudes toward cooperative approaches to herbicide resistance management. ABS. WSSA: 264.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Frisvold, G., J. Albright, K. Dentzman, D.E. Ervin, T. Hurley, R. Jussaume, J. Norsworthy, M. Owen, W. Everman, J. Gunsolus. 2018. Do growers manage weeds on owned and rented land differently? Evidence from U.S. corn and soybean farms. ABS. WSSA:265.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Barrett, Michael, David E. Ervin, George Frisvold, Raymond A. Jussaume, David R. Shaw and Sarah M. Ward. 2017. A wicked view. Weed Sci. 65 (4):441-443.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2017 Citation: Ervin, David E. 2017. Socio-economic complications of herbicide resistance: the global perspective. Keynote presentation at Living with Lolium (ryegrass) resistance  implications for farmers and the herbicide industry Conferences at Riebeek West and Bredasdorp, South Africa.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2015 Citation: Ervin, David E. 2015. Unraveling the economics of a wicked (weed) problem. Seminar presentation at Portland State University Department of Economics.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2015 Citation: Ervin, David E. 2015. Herbicide resistance: a U.S. perspective. Plenary presentation at the International Consortium on Agricultural Bioenergy Research. Ravello, Italy.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2015 Citation: Ervin, David E. 2015. Common pool resource challenges in managing herbicide resistance. 8th International Integrated Pest Management Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2015 Citation: Ervin, David E. and George Frisvold. 2015. Community-based approaches to manage herbicide resistance. Presentation at the Weed Science Society of America meeting. Lexington, Ky.


Progress 04/15/16 to 04/14/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, AgChem Dealers, Agricultural Business Changes/Problems:The project continues to evolve and new analyses of the data will provide considerable opportunity to develop new peer-reviewed publications and outreach/extension efforts. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?In Arizona, project research has already served as the basis for one MS thesis in agricultural and resource economics, "Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Owner/Renter Behavior and Hazard Model Analysis," by Joshua Albright. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?PIs Frisvold and Ervin organized and co-edited a special issue of Choices magazine on Herbicide Resistance Management that included three articles from project PIs. According to the AAEA, Choices is the, "principal outreach vehicle of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA)." As such, the magazine in widely read by extension economists. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?For professional development opportunities, in Arizona, multivariate regression analysis of the ARMS data will serve as the vehicle for an MS thesis in agricultural and resource economics Multivariate analysis of ARMS data will also be used to (a) identify barriers to RM practice adoption and (b) what size and type of rebate/cost-share programs have potential to cost-effectively increase RM practice adoption. Adoption of RM practices can often increase costs and lower profits in the short run, even though they may increase profits in the long run. Future work will estimated "payback periods" - the number of years it takes for the longer run gains of RM adoption to outweigh short run costs. Development of programs to better distribute BMP information to farms is underway. Efforts continue with regard to presentations to scientific and lay audiences about the issues surrounding herbicide resistance and the implications of this problem nationally with regard to food security and economic stability in the farm sector.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Evolved resistance to herbicides continues to be a major threat to food security and the economic viability of agriculture in the United States. Herbicide-resistant weed populations are increasing at a rising rate, particularly in row crop production systems. Attempts to manage the problem have resulted in the greater use of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crop technologies, which when combined, represent a problem that typically exacerbates the issue of herbicide-resistant weeds. This project has brought together the agronomic sciences with the social sciences and is making headway in identifying opportunities to improve herbicide-resistant weed management. Research from this project has identified a number of obstacles in changing farmer behavior with regard to herbicide-resistant weed management. Community-based weed management programs, as identified by the project, have the best opportunity to improve herbicide-resistant weed management however pose a difficult objective given how farmers interact, as indicated by the project research. Collaborations with the Weed Science Society of America and the project co-Pi's resulted in a number of farmer listening sessions across the United States and representing most of the agricultural production areas. Information from these listening sessions, in conjunction with research from the project will provide avenues to address herbicide-resistant weed management. An Iowa Pest Resistance Management Plan has been developed, again in conjunction with the project. Pilot projects to establish community-based weed management are currently in development. Objective 1: Assess current weed management practices and how they have changed with the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. Using data envelopment analysis an adoption-intensity index for herbicide-resistance best management practices (BMPs) was calculated. Empirical results for over 1,100 farmers in 22 U.S. states suggest many farmers could improve their herbicide resistance BMP adoption. Growers with higher yields and a greater proportion of acres planted with glyphosate resistant seeds had greater BMP adoption. Soybean and corn farmers have lower adoption intensity than cotton farmers. Farmer characteristics associated with greater BMP adoption were greater educational attainment, greater concern for herbicide effectiveness, and greater concern for human and environmental safety. Preliminary analysis of the farmer survey data collected for this project show that farmers' risk and time preferences are consistently and significantly associated with a farmer's decision to use alternative weed management tactics. We also find a consistent attenuating interaction between risk and time preferences. Farm operations with greater income are associated with significantly higher pre- and post-emergence herbicide use. Farmers that are more concerned that herbicide-resistant weeds can spread from neighbors' fields appear to use a greater diversity of management tactics. Farmers who are optimistic that new herbicides will soon be available are significantly less likely to use multiple herbicides or rotate herbicide sites of action, both of which reduce the risk of resistant weeds emerging. Farmers who report that human and environmental health concerns are important to their weed management decisions are significantly less likely to use the full labeled herbicide application rate. Farmers who reported that convenience, flexibility and saving time were important considerations for their weed management decisions were significantly less likely to use multiple herbicides, full labeled herbicide application rates, herbicide site of action rotations, and crop rotations--a result that suggests these non-monetary factors are likely one of the more important drivers of herbicide-resistant weeds. Costs appeared to be an important consideration that discourages farmer use of post-harvest herbicide applications. A number of listening sessions were held across the US with project co-Pi involvement. These listening sessions covered much of the major crop production areas and reinforced the findings of the original project survey and facilitated discussions. Objective 2: Determine the important drivers, impediments, and perceptions influencing growers' weed and herbicide resistant weed management decisions. It is a common perception that land tenure arrangements can be an impediment to grower adoption of resistance management (RM) practices. Specifically, it is frequently stated that incentives to practice RM are lower on leased land relative to own land. Preliminary analysis of data from the USDA ARMS (agricultural resource management survey) does not, however, support this assertion. Twelve weed management practices were compared across fields that were owner-operated versus those that were rented. In most instances, there were no statistically significant differences in practice adoption or herbicide use. In cases where there were significant differences, more often than not, practices associated with greater RM were more prevalent on rented than owned land. The survey, facilitated discussions and listening sessions indicate that growers are unwilling to discuss herbicide-resistant weed issues with neighbors and thus, community efforts are highly suspect. A recent effort in Iowa to develop a Pest Resistance Management Plan will include pilot projects to determine if community-based herbicide-resistant weed management can be viable. Objective 3: Identify educational programs, incentives, and institutional innovations that can speed the adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. If weeds are highly mobile, resistance management can become a common property resource management problem that may require collective and coordinated grower adoption of RM practices. Centralized regulatory approaches to mandated collective action can be both politically unpopular with farmers and difficult to monitor and enforce. In contrast, this project has explored the potential for voluntary, community-based programs to encourage collective RM. Research examined four types of community-based efforts to control insects and weeds to consider what lessons they might provide for RM. The four were: (1) area-wide insect control programs, (2) insect eradication programs, (3) area-wide invasive weed control programs, and (4) weed districts and Cooperative Weed Management Areas. Incentive programs such as rebates or cost-sharing for adoption of residual herbicide use can potentially delay resistance to post emergence herbicides. Yet, simply offering incentive payments are not enough to be effective. Payment levels and structure have to be designed carefully to be cost effective. For a given level of payment, there are three types of farmer: (1) some will adopt the practice anyway, so the payment is simply a transfer payment that does not increase adoption, (2) for some, the payment is still too little to make adoption economically attractive, and (3) for some growers, the incentive payment is sufficient to move them from being non-adopters to adopters. Good economic data on costs and returns for the distribution of growers is needed to structure payments to place the most n growers in that third group. Preliminary research has quantified the challenges of designing cost-effective rebate programs. Objective 4: Develop, target, and deliver innovative extension and educational programs that increase adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. In Arizona, resistance management workshops now include multi-disciplinary presentations that include both the biological science and the economics of resistance management. This was not the case prior to the AFRI project. An Iowa Pest Resistance Management plan has been developed and pilot projects for herbicide-resistant weeds have been identified and will be established.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Ervin, D, G Frisvold (2016) Are community-based approaches to manage herbicide resistance wisdom or folly? Choices 4th Quarter, 31(4), 1- 4.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Ervin, D, G Frisvold, G, D Ervin (2016) Theme Overview: Herbicide Resistance Management, Choices 4th Quarter, 31(4), 1- 8.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Ervin, D, G Frisvold (2016) Community-based approaches to herbicide resistant weed management: Lessons from science and practice. Weed Science 64 (Sp 1), 609-626.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Hurley, T, G Frisvold (2016) Economic barriers to herbicide resistance management. Weed Science 64 (Sp 1), 585-594.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Livingston, M, J Fernandez-Cornejo & G Frisvold (2016) Economic returns to herbicide resistance management in the short and long run: The role of neighbor effects. Weed Science 64 (Sp 1), 595-608.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Pannell, D, P Tillie, E Rodriguez-Cerezo, D Ervin, G Frisvold (2016) Herbicide resistance: Economic and environmental challenges. AgBioForum 19, 136-155.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Dong, F, P Mitchell, T Hurley, G Frisvold (2016) Quantifying adoption intensity for weed resistance management practices and its determinants among U.S. soybean, corn, and cotton farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 41, 42-61.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Hurley, Terrance M. (2016) Shock and awe pest management: time for change. Choices. 31 (4) 1-8
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Jussaume, Raymond and Katherine Dentzman (2016) Farmers perspectives on management options for herbicide-resistant weeds. Choices 31 (4) 1-7.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Jussaume, Raymond A. and David Ervin (2016) Understanding weed resistance as a wicked problem to improve weed management decisions. Weed Science 64 (Sp 1), 559-569.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Ervin, D, Jussaume, R (2014) Integrating social science into managing herbicide-resistant weeds and associated environmental impacts. Weed Science 62: 1-12.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Owen, Micheal D.K. 2016. Diverse approaches to herbicide-resistant weed management. Weed Sci. 64 (sp1): 570-584.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Dentzman, Katherine and Raymond Jussaume (2017) The ideology of U.S. agriculture: How are integrated management approaches envisioned? Society & Natural Resources 10.1080/08941920.2017.1295498.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Norsworthy, J. K., M. Owen, J. Gunsolus, W. J. Everman, D. E. Ervin, G. Frisvold, T. Hurley, R. Jussaume, S. Wechsler. 2017. A survey of BMP adoption of resistance management in U.S. row crops. Abs. WSSA. 57:252.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Frisvold, G., D. E. Ervin, W. J. Everman, J. Gunsolus, T. Hurley, R. Jussaume, J. K. Norsworthy, M. Owen, and K. Dentzman. 2017. Socio-economic factors affecting farmer use of weed best management practices. Abs. WSSA. 57:254.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Owen, M. D., W. J. Everman, J. Gunsolus, J. K. Norsworthy, K. Dentzman, G. Frisvold, R. Jussaume, T. Hurley, and S. Wechsler. 2017. Farmer perspectives and expectations: What is thought about herbicide-resistant weed management. Abs. WSSA. 57:269.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Ervin, D. E., K. Dentzman, W. J. Everman, G. Frisvold, J. Gunsolus, R. Jussaume, J. K. Norsworthy, T. Hurley, M. Owen and S. Wechsler. 2017. Neighbor and community effects of herbicide resistance management: a national survey of farm operators. Abs. WSSA. 57:271.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Frisvold, G. and M.D.K. Owen. 2017. Socioeconomics and human dimensions of herbicide resistance. Proc. Global Herbicide Resistance Challenge. 27.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Frisvold, G. 2017. Economic cost of herbicide resistant weeds in the United States. Abs. WSSA. 57:88.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2017 Citation: Sun, H., T.M. Hurley, K. Dentzman, D.E. Ervin, W. Everman, G.B. Frisvold, J. Gunsolus, J. Norsworthy, and M. Owen. 2017. Economic and Behavioral Drivers of Herbicide Resistance Management in the U.S. Selected Paper: AAEA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.


Progress 04/15/15 to 04/14/16

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, AgChem Dealers, Agricultural Business. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results that are currently available from the ARMS analyses and the focus group meetings have been used in extension presentations, extension publications, and as components of presentations delivered to regional, national and international scientific meetings. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The analyses of the survey will be completed. Multivariate analyses and the implications of management practices will determine how to proceed with regard to assessing future educational programs, incentive possibilities and innovations in the management of herbicide resistant weeds. Scientific publications will be planned and developed. Extension bulletins will be developed and distributed within states, regionally and nationally. The AFRI team will continue to work with the Weed Science Society of America and the National Academy of Science to plan programs to address the management of herbicide resistant weeds.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Goal: Improve food security in the U.S. by increasing grower adoption of integrated weed resistance management practices that reduce the risk and consequences of herbicide resistant weeds. The project will provide information describing why farmers make decisions about weed management that are contrary to accepted scientific principles and agronomic practices. Between February and May 2015, a research team conducted 12 focus group interviews with agricultural producers in Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota with the goal of learning more about how farmers think about and manage herbicide resistant weeds. Insights obtained from growers will be used to develop a survey on herbicide resistance. The objective of the survey will be to assess grower practices and barriers in weed management, and develop outreach strategies for managing weed resistance that fit into contemporary grower management strategies. The survey was created based on the outlined goals of the AFRI project as well as a detailed analysis of the focus group data. Based on the focus group analysis, three major themes were identified. These were ontology, techno-optimism, and individualism. While individualism has been studied among farmers, techno-optimism is understudied and its strength and persistence in the face of serious herbicide resistance problems was surprising. Ontology relates to how farmers think about weed management, with respondents often describing how farming 'should be done'. They often expressed an ontology related to ease and reducing time and labor inputs. The majority of respondents hoped for a 'silver bullet' herbicide that would enable them to stay within a weed management program that was cheap and easy. They did not tend to believe that there were any problems related to chemical technologies in and of themselves, but rather with the bureaucratic and management practices surrounding these technologies. This made them less willing to consider alternative weed control practices. The final major theme to come out of the focus groups was individualism. Primarily, individualism was expressed in that farmers were unwilling to talk with their neighbors about herbicide resistance and lessened the effectiveness of community weed management programs. Based on these primary focus group themes and the overarching goals of the project, the research team developed an approximately 8 page survey for distribution. A list of 9,000 growers representing corn, soybeans, and cotton and from the Southeast, South-Central, Northeast, Central, and Midwest regions of the U.S. was established. Analyses of the survey are underway. It is anticipated that univariate and multivariate analyses will provide information that will be completed soon. A univariate analysis of the USDA ERS ARMS database was conducted to determine difference in owned vs. rented land. Objective 1. Assess current weed management practices and how they have changed with the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. The main "themes" from the focus groups were ontology, techno-optimism and individualism. In essence, farmers continue to be immersed in an ontology of ease of operation, and thus maintain an optimism (or hope) that a next silver bullet herbicide will be produced by the private sector. Farmers are still much focused on organizing individual management practices. Most do not yet see the need, or are not optimistic about the possibility for community level cooperation to address weed resistance. Important findings are: Growers had a high knowledge and awareness of herbicide resistance. Growers employed several practices to prevent and combat herbicide resistant weeds. Chemical control was preferred while cultural practices were less. Farmers agreed that the government should not be involved in controlling herbicide resistance. When asked what would solve herbicide resistance, the most common answer was the continual development of new herbicides. Farmers believed that the development of new herbicides was possible and a good solution to herbicide resistance. Growers in all states were also quick to recognize that weeds would eventually evolve resistance to any new herbicides. Farmers said that they would not speak with their neighbor directly about herbicide resistance. Growers in the Northern groups tended to be more optimistic for the development of new herbicides, whereas growers in the Southern groups tended to be more negative about any potential new herbicides. Farmers placed responsibility for herbicide resistance on others. Growers in all states were very concerned about herbicide resistance. The ARMS data analyses resulting in an unanticipated finding that is contrary to most current opinions with regard to how farmers manage herbicide resistant weeds on their own farms versus farms that they rent. There is no strong evidence to suggest that weed management practices are much different on rented in vs. owner operated land More often than not when there are differences, it looks like there is greater adoption of resistance management (RM) practices on rented land. There might be some unobserved differences between fields that are renter operated vs. owner operated or between owners and renters that could be confounding factors. Whether or not other factors are confounding results or whether land tenure just does not matter could be formally tested using farm-level ARMS data. Objective 2. Determine the important drivers, impediments, and perceptions influencing growers' weed and herbicide resistant weed management decisions. The findings from the focus groups were used to develop a survey research instrument to be distributed to farmers in five regions of the United States. The univariate analyses of the data are completed and discussions are underway within the team to determine how to proceed with the multivariate analyses. The team members with extension appointments have developed several indices to assign relative importance and effectiveness of best management practices. Objective 3. Identify educational programs, incentives, and institutional innovations that can speed the adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. Objective 3 will be addressed when the data analyses are completed. Objective 4. Develop, target, and deliver innovative extension and educational programs that increase adoption of integrated herbicide resistant weed management practices. Objective 4 requires that data analyses and interpretation is completed to fully accomplish the components. However, there are a number of other initiatives that have been accomplished or are underway. Numerous publications have been developed and regional, national and international presentations were given. Symposia were organized and planning for a national herbicide resistant weed summit to be held in Washington, D.C. during the 1st quarter 2017 is underway. The AFRI project team members are key players in the symposia and summit.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Dong, F, P Mitchell, T Hurley, G Frisvold (2016) Quantifying adoption intensity for weed resistance management practices and its determinants among U.S. soybean, corn, and cotton farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 41:42-61.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2015 Citation: Agricultural and Resource Economics 464. Economics of Policy Analysis. University of Arizona. Fall 2014 and Fall 2015. University of Arizona
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2015 Citation: Agricultural & Resource Economics 596A. Graduate Seminar. University of Arizona. Spring 2015. University of Arizona.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Frisvold, G. The Costs of Herbicide Resistant Weeds in US Cotton Production. Poster presented at the Economics and Marketing Conference of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. New Orleans, LA, January 5-7, 2016.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Gunsolus, J.L. 2014. Addressing several barriers to diversification of weed management by revealing the hidden costs of biological time constraints. Proc. North Centr. Weed Sci. Soc. 69:197. http://ncwss.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NCWSS-2014-Proceedings.pdf
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Gunsolus, J.L. 2015. Removing barriers to weed management diversification by highlighting the hidden costs of biological time constraints. 8th International IPM Symposium (33.4) http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposium15/Documents/IPM_2015_Proceedings-final.pdf
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Gunsolus, J.L., T. Hoverstad, F. Breitenbach, and L. Behnken. 2015. Cover story: Taking control through weed science. The Land Online, July 16, 2015 article by Marie Wood. http://www.thelandonline.com/news/cover-story-taking-control-through-weed-science/article_faafb626-2bf7-11e5-a113-3f92fe192e40.html
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Behnken, L., F. Breitenbach, and J.L. Gunsolus. 2015. Cover story: Late weed control is costly  Timing is everything, especially regarding profitable weed control. Corn and Soybean Digest, Dec. 28, 2015 article by Liz Morrison. http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/crop-chemicals/late-weed-control-costly
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Miller, R. P. and J. L. Gunsolus. 2014. Herbicide resistance management series: Introduction to resistance and mode of action; Herbicide mode of action breakdown; Resistance development by site of action. University of Minnesota Extension Crops YouTube web site: https://www.youtube.com/user/UMNCrops
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2016 Citation: David Ervin (dervin@pdx.edu) and David Shaw (dshaw@research.msstate.edu): Experiential Knowledge and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Address Herbicide Resistance: Insights from Theory and Practice. Proposed sequential contributed paper sessions for the 20th ICABR Conference: Transforming the Bioeconomy: Behavior, Innovation and Science, Ravello, Italy, June 26-29, 2016
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Owen, M. D. 2015. Approaches to holistic weed management in order to manage herbicide-resistant weeds. Abs. WSSA. 55:227.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2015 Citation: Crop and Soils Science 288. Principles of Weed Management. Michigan State University.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: David Ervin and George Frisvold organized a plenary session titled Herbicide Resistance: Challenges for Farmers and Implications for the Environment at the 19th International Consortium of Applied Bioeconomy Research Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment and Human Health in Ravello, Italy, June 16 - 19, 2015. The session featured speakers from the United States, the EU, Australia, and Latin America. Preliminary project research findings for the United States were presented and discussed in comparison with experiences from other regions.


Progress 04/15/14 to 04/14/15

Outputs
Target Audience: Growers, AgChem Dealers, Agricultural Business. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The results thus far have been disseminated to communities of interest via symposia presented at the North Central Weed Science Society, the Weed Science Society of America and the Herbicide Resistance Summit II. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Continue to develop the main survey and analyze the ARM data. Application of information as it is developed for target audiences will also be a major component of activities.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? This project will provide information describing why farmers make decisions about weed management that are contrary to well-understood scientific principles and agronomic practices. Failure to follow the "science" resulted in the wide-spread evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds in corn, cotton and soybeans produced in the United States which has become a serious threat to food security. This project uniquely incorporates the agronomic sciences with the social sciences (sociology and economics) to investigate the decision-making process for farmers in a broad geographical area across the US and will include corn, cotton and soybean producers. Information gathered will detail what influences the important decisions made by farmers and what can be done to modify those decisions such that herbicide-resistant weed issues will be abated. The inclusion of the agronomic and social science perspectives represents a new and promising way to develop farm practices that are more sustainable as well as economically appropriate. To address objective 1, a short pre-survey was conducted during the summer of 2014 with grower audiences in several states to build intelligence for constructing the full project survey. The pre-survey questions were designed by the research project team and distributed by weed scientists on the team to agricultural producers at selected meetings. The pre-survey was conducted in order to examine assumptions held by team members as well as to begin preparation for a larger survey on the management of herbicide-resistant weeds that is planned for the winter 2015-16. Members of the research team handed out the 7-question pre-survey at 9 different locations, resulting in 482 responses. The selected locations were chosen based on opportunity and convenience for the project investigators rather than strategic sampling within and across the study regions. Focus group meetings of farmers were conducted during spring 2015 in Arizona, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas and North Carolina, which represent the major production areas for corn, cotton and soybeans. The focus groups provide qualitative information on the perspectives and attitudes about herbicide-resistant weeds, management options and how decisions reflect individual and community biases. Twelve focus group meeting were held in Iowa (4), Minnesota (2), North Carolina (2), Arkansas (2) and Arizona (2). Discussions at the focus group meetings were recorded and transcribed for analyses. The initial analysis has been completed and the data are being used to help develop the multi-modal survey that will be administered in 2016. The Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) conducted by the USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service is considered one of the richest resources available for national information on farm production and economic data which includes both corn and soybean survey data. Information from this survey is being analyzed to better understand growers' weed management practices including herbicide resistance management practices. In both surveys, most farmers that had resistant weeds or a decline in effectiveness of glyphosate indicated that they had applied other herbicides in addition to glyphosate. We plan to see if there is any difference in non-glyphosate herbicide use between farmers without resistance, farmers with resistance that indicated changing herbicide use, and those farmers indicating they did not change herbicide use. In both surveys some farmers indicated that they had changed tillage practices. We plan to see if there is a difference in tillage practices between the three groups of farmers. Objectives 2 and 3 will be established after the completion and analysis of the mixed mode survey that is planned in 2016. To address objective 4, several symposia were organized and held at the North Central Weed Science Society, the Weed Science Society of America and the 8th International Integrated Pest Management Symposium. These symposia addressed the current state of the knowledge to address herbicide-resistant weeds as well as discussions about future needs and initiatives. Participation in these symposia was approximately 500 scientists. Another effort was the 2nd National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide Resistant Weeds that was hosted by the National Academy of Sciences and convened on September 10, 2014. Participation in the summit numbered more than 400 either on-line participation or on site. Target audience was practitioners, decision makers, regulators and legislators and the symposia was extremely well-received. The AFRI project members were key participants in developing and delivering the information.

Publications