Weed Science Research and Funding: A Call to Action

Adam S. Davis, J. Christopher Hall, Marie Jasieniuk, Martin A. Locke, Edward C. Luschei, David A. Mortensen,Dean E. Riechers, Richard G. Smith, Tracy M. Sterling, and James H. Westwood*

Weed science has contributed much to agriculture, forestry and natural resource management during its history. However, if itis to remain relevant as a scientific discipline, it is long past time for weed scientists to move beyond a dominating focus onherbicide efficacy testing and address the basic science underlying complex issues in vegetation management at many levels ofbiological organization currently being solved by others, such as invasion ecologists and molecular biologists. Weed sciencemust not be circumscribed by a narrowly-defined set of tools but rather be seen as an integrating discipline. As a means ofassessing current and future research interests and funding trends among weed scientists, the Weed Science Society of Americaconducted an online survey of its members in summer of 2007. There were 304 respondents out of a membership of 1330 atthe time of the survey, a response rate of 23%. The largest group of respondents (41%) reported working on research problemsprimarily focused on herbicide efficacy and maintenance, funded mainly by private industry sources. Another smaller group ofrespondents (22%) reported focusing on research topics with a complex systems focus (such as invasion biology, ecosystemrestoration, ecological weed management, and the genetics, molecular biology, and physiology of weedy traits), fundedprimarily by public sources. Increased cooperation between these complementary groups of scientists will be an essential step inmaking weed science increasingly relevant to the complex vegetation management issues of the 21st century.

As scientists, and collectively as a scientific society focusedon basic and applied research, we engage in reflective thinkingin order to take stock of how our work addresses narrow andmore broadly-defined societal problems. There have been timeswhen such reflection has revealed much about the origin of ourdiscipline. For example, in Zimdahl’s Weed Science: A Plea forThought, we see that the weed science discipline arose inresponse to a rapidly expanding herbicide industry and byaccelerated adoption of herbicides by farmers (Zimdahl 1991).This identity has been difficult to change despite many paperschallenging weed scientists to think outside the herbicideefficacy/herbicide fate box. Such papers appear to come inwaves. In the early 1990s we were reminded that our disciplinemust broaden beyond herbicide-centered weed management(Radosevich and Ghersa 1992; Wyse 1992; Zimdahl 1991).Nearly a decade later, the Weed Science Society of America(WSSA) Research Committee proposed that ‘‘weed sciencewould be advantageously positioned for the future if researchfocused on decision processes, weed biology and ecology, weedmanagement practices, herbicide resistance, issues related totransgenic plants, environmental issues, and potential benefitsof weeds’’ (Hall et al. 2000 p. 647). The opinion that weedscience would benefit from a broader and more ecologically-focused research agenda was also the theme of several otherpublications that appeared during that time period (Booth andSwanton 2002; Buhler 2002; Liebman and Davis 2000;Liebman and Dyck 1993; Martinez-Ghersa et al. 2000;Mortensen et al. 2000; Norris 1999; Zimdahl 2004).

Predictions of increased demand for broader and moreecologically-focused weed research have been validated as moreand more funding is being allotted to interdisciplinary problemsolving. To see this rise in interdisciplinary funding opportunitiesin the United States, one need look no further than the recentrequest for proposals for such U.S. Department of AgricultureCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service(USDA-CREES) funding programs as Biotechnology RiskAssessment, Weedy and Invasive Organisms, IPM Risk Avoid-ance and Mitigation, etc. Here, those with expertise in systemsanalysis, plant population and community analysis, molecularbiology and genetics, restoration ecology following vegetationcontrol, methods of monitoring, and assessment of pre- and post-control, among others, are called on to address the complexproblems that today face society. We believe that weed scientistsare ideally suited for interdisciplinary vegetation management,but are members of the society heeding this call, or does thesociety remain narrowly focused on herbicide research?

Given our stated concern about avoiding a narrowly-defined discipline, we sought to gauge how our membershipperceives itself. Specifically, we were interested to know whattypes of research WSSA members are engaged in and todetermine what subject matter and funding sources wereprominent within the discipline by polling our colleagues.The WSSA Research and Competitive Grants committeeconducted a member survey in the summer of 2007 to gatherinformation about the research and funding priorities of themembership. The survey was designed to probe twofundamental issues for WSSA members: 1) what types ofresearch are perceived to be most critical for advancing weedscience and management, and 2) how will weed scientists fundthe basic and applied science needed to develop the nextgeneration of weed management tactics and provide advancedtraining and education for graduate students?

Materials and Methods

Survey Design. The WSSA Research and Competitive Grantscommittee designed the Research and Funding Survey in springof 2007, and implemented it using commercial online surveysoftware.1 The WSSA Research and Funding Survey was posted

DOI: 10.1614/WS-09-020.1* First author: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL61801; second author: Department of Environmental Biology, University ofGuelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; third author: Department ofVegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; fourth author:USDA-ARS, Water Quality and Ecology Research Unit, Oxford, MS 38655;fifth author: Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706;sixth and eight authors: Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park, PA 16802; seventh author: Department ofCrop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801; ninth author:Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, New MexicoState University, Las Cruces, NM 88003; tenth author: Department of PlantPathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA 24061.Corresponding author’s E-mail: asdavis1@illinois.edu

Weed Science 2009 57:442–448

442 N Weed Science 57, July–August 2009

online at www.surveymonkey.com between July 10 and August21, 2007, with the goal of obtaining a representative sample ofthe WSSA membership. An initial invitation to participate inthe survey was sent out to all members 2 wk in advance ofposting the survey, and two follow up messages were sent duringthe posting interval to solicit further responses. Our target forthe number of survey respondents was 298 out of 1,330members, the number required to attain a 5% margin of error ata 95% confidence level (a 5 0.05). The margin of error of asurvey is equal to the half width of the 1 2 a confidence intervalof sample proportions, Cp, obtained as the product ofcumulative normal probability, Za, and the standard error ofsample proportions, [p(1 2 p)/n]0.5. In this case, because thedesired response level was greater than 10% of the total WSSAmembership, the margin of error calculation also included afinite population correction, [(N 2 n)/(N 2 1)]0.5 (Rea andParker 1997) to yield

Cp~+Za

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffip 1{pð Þ

n

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiN{n

N{1

r½1�

where n is the sample size, p is the response proportion (often setat 0.50 when determining maximum allowable error), and N isthe total WSSA membership size. To determine the necessarysampling level to arrive at a 5% margin of error, we usedEquation 2, obtained by solving Equation 1 for sample size n(Rea and Parker 1997):

n~Z 2a p 1{pð Þ½ �N

Z 2a p 1{pð Þ½ �z N{1ð ÞC 2

p

½2�

The survey consisted of 29 multiple choice and shortanswer questions divided into three major sections: demo-graphic data, research priorities, and funding outlook (seeonline-only appendix for survey questions). Demographicquestions covered educational background, length of service asa science professional, primary focus of appointment,institution type, and location, among other details. Memberswere surveyed on their research priorities, using the categorieslisted in Hall et al. (2000) as a starting point. Respondentswere asked to list their top two priorities for work performedfor their primary stakeholders, research expertise sought incollaborators, and research expertise sought in new hires. Thefunding section of the survey included questions on primaryfunding sources and funding levels.

Statistical Analysis. The results presented in this articleconsist largely of binned response proportions to multiple-choice questions. To understand how demographic informa-tion about the respondents was related to their answers, weused two-way contingency tables (Gotelli and Ellison 2004),implemented in the TWOWAY subroutine of SYSTAT11.0.2 For each demographic variable (i.e., institution type,area of expertise, etc.), we created dummy variables to extractinformation about subgroups. Analyses of subgroups wereconducted only if tests of the unpartitioned demographicvariables were significant at P , 0.05.

Results and Discussion

There were 304 responses to the survey, out of a totalWSSA membership of 1,330 in the summer of 2007, for an

overall response rate of 23%, which exceeded our originaltarget. Data on institutional affiliation, however, revealed thatour survey sample was not representative of the WSSAmembership as a whole: employees of academic andgovernment institutions were overrepresented by 9 and 6%,respectively, in the survey, whereas industry employees wereunderrepresented by 16% (x2

3~32:7, P , 0.001). Therefore,inferences from the results of this survey are limited to whatamounted to a convenience sample rather than a simplerandom sample (Rea and Parker 1997). Because our samplerepresented a considerable proportion of the WSSA member-ship, however, we believe the results are still instructive.

Demographic Profile of Respondents. Respondents to thesurvey spanned a wide range in experience as principalinvestigators, with the largest proportion (42%) having been aprimary investigator (PI) for over 20 yr, 28% having been PIsfor 10 to 20 yr, and 30% of PIs having less than 10 yr ofexperience. There was also considerable disciplinary diversityamong respondents. Although more than 50% of therespondents were trained as weed scientists, others weretrained in a wide variety of disciplines, including agronomy,ecology, genetics, molecular biology, plant physiology,chemistry, soil science, entomology, forestry, plant pathology,plant breeding, botany, zoology, horticulture, agribusiness,biochemistry, and many others. In addition to belonging toWSSA, respondents reported affiliations with 56 otherprofessional societies spanning the globe. Over 50% wereemployed as academics; the majority of the remainder wassplit between industry (22%) and government (19%), with asmaller proportion in regulatory (1%), consulting (3%), and avariety of small businesses (3%). Most respondents identifiedresearch (59%), outreach (22%), or teaching (5%) as themajority of their appointment. The remaining 14% hadprimary appointments that included policy, consulting,administration, technical work, global information system(GIS), business, and inspection, among others. Respondents

Figure 1. Primary study systems of survey respondents.

Davis et al.: WSSA Survey N 443

worked in a wide variety of management systems (Figure 1),with over 30 different systems reported in the survey.

Over the past 5 yr, 55% of the institutions represented inthis survey maintained the same number of weed science fulltime employees (FTEs), 10% increased the number of weedscientists, while 35% decreased the number of weed scienceFTEs. For those respondents training graduate students, 55%said that they were training fewer weed science graduatestudents compared to 10 yr ago. Lack of funds and careeropportunities for new graduates were cited as top reasons forthis change. Another possibility is that graduate studentsworking on weed science related issues are receiving trainingin other departments, by those who may not identifythemselves as weed scientists. For example, at PennsylvaniaState University, two-thirds of the students working on weedecology and management problems are pursuing their degreein an interdisciplinary graduate program in ecology. There-fore, the perceived reduction in weed science graduatestudents may signify a broadening of the research skill-setamong students studying weedy plant ecology and manage-ment, rather than a reduction in the number of futurequalified ‘‘weed scientists,’’ narrowly defined.

The top three hiring opportunities perceived by respon-dents were industry (42%), academia (25%), and government(14%). These numbers are roughly in proportion to thecurrent distribution of employer institutional types amongsurvey respondents.

Research Priorities of Survey Respondents. Research is acentral activity for WSSA, with nearly 60% of respondentshaving research as the primary aspect of their appointment(hereafter referred to as ‘‘researchers’’). Those respondentswho publish do so at a steady, moderate rate: 56% ofrespondents had between 16 and 30 publications in the last5 yr, 35% had between 1 and 15 publications, and 5% hadmore than 30 publications.

There was a difference in academic backgrounds associatedwith different PI experience levels (x2

45~49:5, P 5 0.30).Respondents with less than 10 yr of experience as a PI weremore likely to have been trained as weed scientists (68%) thanin some other discipline (x2

1~12:2, P , 0.001). Thoserespondents with more than 10 yr of experience as a PI weremore than twice as likely to have been trained in otherdisciplines, including agronomy (33% in the . 10 groupcompared to 16% in the , 10 group), ecology (10% in the. 10 group compared to 0% in the , 10 group) and plantpathology (22% in the . 10 group compared to 3% in the, 10 group) (x2

1~9:93, P 5 0.002). Differences in trainingwere not linked to differences in funding sources or fundinglevels (x2

90~106:72, P 5 0.11).If the differences in academic backgrounds described above

had been associated with a breakpoint in PI experience levelsof 30 or 40 yr, one possible explanation for more newerscientists being trained primarily as weed scientists might havebeen the prior scarcity of such programs. However, since the

Figure 2. Top areas of research identified by respondents with respect to (a) their primary stakeholders, (b) whom they seek as collaborators, and (c) whom they choose to hire.

444 N Weed Science 57, July–August 2009

1970s, there have been weed science programs located at mostof the land grant universities. Another possible explanation maybe that younger scientists not trained in traditional weedscience, but who nevertheless work on weeds or invasive plants,might be less likely to be members of WSSA so that ouryounger scientists do not represent a random sample of weedscientists. For example, the students of one survey respondentwork on weeds and consider themselves weed scientists andapplied ecologists, but consider WSSA too applied andagricultural for their tastes, gravitating instead to moreecological organizations. Reaching out to such early careerscientists may be a promising avenue for increasing both WSSAmembership and a diversity of skills within the organization.

Research performed by respondents for their primarystakeholders (Figure 2) was heavily dominated by studies ofherbicide efficacy (22%) and herbicide resistance (21%). Nextin importance were invasive plants (14%), decision supportsystems (9%), and cropping system ecology and weed/cropecology (8%). Academic preparation was tightly linked toresearch priorities (x2

130~176:51, P 5 0.004). Over 75% ofthe respondents working on herbicide efficacy and herbicideresistance were trained as weed scientists and agronomists;other research priorities were more evenly spread acrossdisciplinary lines. Research priorities were also related to thenature of the respondent’s institution (x2

39~100:20,P , 0.001), with industry employees focusing on herbicideefficacy and resistance work, and academic and governmentresearchers more likely to cover ecological relationshipsbetween crops and weeds, invasive species, and integrated ornon-chemical weed management.

Respondents who worked for industry were more likely(x2

3~8:71, P , 0.05) to collaborate with, and to make newhires of, those with the same research priorities (40% ofrespondents) than were respondents affiliated with academic(25%) or government (15%) institutions. This difference maybe due to the greater preponderance of set tasks to beperformed in industrial settings, requiring many scientistswith a specific type of training and research focus, comparedto academic and government settings where the emphasis is ondiversity of expertise, and where scientists largely set their ownresearch agendas.

Other important research areas that were not listed in thesurvey but were identified by survey respondents included, in

order of decreasing frequency, 1) herbicide discovery, 2)integrated weed management, 3) site specific management, 4)herbicide fate, 5) weed management in organic systems, 6)biocontrol, 7) weed seed biology, 8) basic weed biology andecology, 9) biofuels, 10) drift management, 11) social aspectsof weed management, 12) weed physiology, 13) weedevolution, 14) weed community shifts, 15) global changeand invasive species, and 16) allelopathy.

Most respondents reported having significant stakeholderimpact. Industry affiliates were more likely (80%; x2

1~10:58,P 5 0.001) than nonindustry respondents (50%) to havedeveloped a patented product that had been widely adopted.Those who had impact from technology transfer were morelikely (64%; x2

1~17:79, P , 0.001) to have made managementrecommendations that had been widely adopted than those whodid not have substantial technology transfer (31%). Ofrespondents who had been PIs more than 10 yr, 80% had madewidely adopted recommendations compared to 60% of thosewho had less than 10 yr experience (x2

1~6:07, P 5 0.014).

Current Funding Sources of Respondents. Commercialorganizations (private industry and commodity groups) werethe primary source of funding for most (43%) of therespondents (Figure 3). Publicly funded extramural grantprograms were the primary source of funding for 35% ofrespondents. State and federal governments accounted for17% of primary funding sources. More than 60% ofrespondents’ awards from their top sources were less than$100,000 yr21; however, overall funding levels (includingboth extra- and intramural funding) for 55% of respondentswere between $100,000 and $500,000 yr21 (Figure 4). Thisindicates that respondents had either relatively widespreadsuccess in obtaining funds from multiple sources, substantialbase funding, or both. Although 65% of respondents said thattheir activities were in some way affected by shortfalls infunding, funding shortfalls were comparatively modest, withover 60% of respondents reporting shortfalls of less than

Figure 3. Primary funding sources of survey respondents.

Figure 4. Funding status of survey respondents. Panels represent (a) size ofaward from top source of funding, (b) overall funding level (base and extramural),and (c) size of shortfall.

Davis et al.: WSSA Survey N 445

$10,000 yr21. This level of funding discrepancy is well withinthe reach of many extramural funding sources.

Duration of respondents’ experience as PIs was not related totop funding source (x2

45~49:5, P 5 0.30), award size from topsource (x2

20~20:9, P 5 0.40), overall funding level(x2

20~26:8, P 5 0.14) or shortfall in funds (x216~8:53,

P 5 0.93). However, scientists working at the basic scienceand implementation end of the research continuum (hereafterreferred to as ‘‘BI scientists’’) had different top funding sourcesthan those working at the implementation and maintenance endof the research continuum (hereafter referred to as ‘‘IMscientists’’) (x2

9~21:3, P 5 0.01). Among BI scientists, 47%obtained most of their funding from federal sources (x2

1~12:5,P , 0.001), whereas IM scientists obtained 60% of theirfunding from private sources (x2

1~5:8, P 5 0.016). BIscientists brought in larger awards from their top extramuralsources (x2

5~12:34, P 5 0.03), with 53% of their awardsgreater than $50,000 yr21, whereas 68% of IM scientists’extramural awards were less than $50,000 yr21 (x2

1~5:60,P 5 0.018). Overall funding level, however, did not differbetween BI and IM scientists (x2

5~6:47, P 5 0.263),presumably because IM scientists brought in a larger numberof small grants or had greater base funding from theirinstitutions. Funding shortfalls also did not differ between BIand IM scientists (x2

4~5:84, P 5 0.211).Principal investigators affiliated with different institutional

types pursued different funding sources (x227~103:5,

P , 0.001). At opposite extremes, respondents working forindustry obtained 89% of their funds from private sources(x2

1~21:2, P 5 0.009), whereas government employeesobtained 75% of their funding from U.S. federal governmentsources (x2

1~18:7, P , 0.001). Academics were evenly splitin obtaining funds from private and public sources(x2

1~0:004, P 5 0.95), and within public sources of funding,were evenly split between federal and state dollars (x2

1~2:46,P 5 0.12). Respondents affiliated with industry were morelikely (25%; x2

4~11:19, P 5 0.025) than nonindustryrespondents (4.3%) to have research funding shortfalls ofmore than $100,000, perhaps representing oscillationsassociated with the business cycle.

Those working in field crop research were more likely to befunded by private sources than public sources (x2

9~25:58,P 5 0.002), whereas rangeland and natural areas research wasmore likely to be funded by federal sources (x2

9~19:87,P 5 0.019). Award size, overall funding levels, and size ofshortfalls were not related to primary study system of the PI(x2

45~42:13, P 5 0.59).

Moving beyond Disciplinary Boundaries. Several importantpoints emerge from this survey of the WSSA membership.First, the society continues to have a large proportion of itsmembership engaged in herbicide efficacy research, with 43%of respondents indicating that their primary researchconcerned herbicide efficacy, herbicide resistance, or both.This result is not entirely surprising, considering the history ofweed science as a discipline, and highlights a disciplinarystrength in chemically-based weed management within theWSSA. Also not surprising is the finding that the majority ofthose respondents that identify herbicide efficacy and/orresistance as their primary research focus were trained astraditional weed scientists and continue to rely on industryfinancial support as the single largest source of funds to drive

their weed science research programs. The survey was notintended to obtain information from non-WSSA members,but it is reasonable to infer that those scientists with weedscience training and interests in herbicide efficacy would findvalue in WSSA membership and thus gravitate to the society.

Although unsurprising, these results are also troublingbecause they suggest that a significant portion of the WSSAmembership may be overlooking opportunities (or beoverlooked by others when opportunities arise) to engage incritical multidisciplinary research dealing with complexenvironmental challenges such as invasive species and ecologicalrestoration. In addressing such challenges, expertise on thepractical aspects of herbicides and applied weed managementwould be invaluable. Yet a persistent cultural divide appears toseparate agronomists and ecologists. Weed scientists workingon weed management in agricultural systems have much tocontribute to invasive species research, as they have been dealingwith many of the same issues that are currently challenging landmanagers interested in controlling invasive plants (Smith et al.2006), but are rarely called upon to offer such contributions(see, for instance, Catford et al. 2009). We therefore challengethe more traditional weed scientists within the society toidentify opportunities to contribute their expertise in herbicidesto a broader array of environmental issues, such as invasivespecies management, in which significant funding opportuni-ties exist or are emerging.

This argument is equally true for weed scientists with interestsin the genetics, molecular biology, and physiology of weedytraits. Many nonweed scientists are making important contri-butions to the understanding of traits such as seed dormancy,perennial growth, response to competition, acquisition ofresources, genetic adaptability, and plant communication withother organisms. These subjects are generally investigated with anod toward potential weed implications, but without the insightthat could be provided by an experienced weed scientist. Wewould also challenge weed scientists to investigate potentialcollaborations in these areas.

In addition to the finding that WSSA members predom-inantly engage in herbicide efficacy research, there appears tobe something of a bimodality to the society, in that asignificant percentage of WSSA members report havingresearch priorities that do not rely exclusively on herbicides.Thus, a large proportion of the society is already quite broadlyfocused. We see this as a positive attribute of our society andsee an increasing need for research collaborations, includingthose with an applied plant science background who arebroadly trained and focused. These broadly-trained memberscan contribute expertise not just in chemical control of weeds,but also in non-chemical and cultural approaches toagricultural weed and nonagricultural vegetation managementand restoration. We are also certain that the training/mentoring and support needed to drive our society towardmore interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving requiresa more diversified research and education portfolio.

As we have tried to point out throughout this paper, thecurrent environmental challenges we face require a differentkind of individual to come into our graduate programs andfaculties. Subject matter expertise, narrowly defined, must becomplemented with an ability and willingness to engage inmore multidimensional problem solving. Of course, all of thiscomes down to funding, for funding influences researchpriorities and the ability and willingness to engage in researchoutside of one’s disciplinary specialty. Thus, being aware of

446 N Weed Science 57, July–August 2009

some of the less traditional funding opportunities available toweed scientists, broadly defined, may encourage a greaterproportion of the WSSA membership to actively broaden theirresearch horizons. Conversely, we as a society are not limited topursuing available funding sources. In fact, there is oftensignificant opportunity to influence the direction of funding;however, this requires that our membership be more proactivein talking with granting agencies and managers than currentlyappears to be the case. The USDA CSREES-National ResearchInitiative (NRI) (now AFRI, Agriculture and Food ResearchInitiative) program provides an example of how fundingopportunities available to researchers with expertise in weedcontrol and management may be overlooked or underappreci-ated when we fail to step outside of our disciplinary box.Although this program only funds U.S. scientists, we believe itmay also have relevance outside of the United States.

USDA CSREES-NRI as a Case Study for ExtramuralFunding. For many years, the USDA CSREES-NRI Compet-itive Grants Program has been an important source ofextramural funds for weed scientists in the United States. Therehas been some concern in the weed science community in recentyears (Davis 2007; Shaw 2005) that changes in NRI grant panel51.9, among them its being renamed ‘‘Biology of Weedy andInvasive Species in Agroecosystems’’ from ‘‘Biology of Weedyand Invasive Plants,’’ may limit its importance to weedscientists. Concerns include a) widening the scope of theprogram to include non-plant taxa and non-crop ecosystems; b)focusing on the population level of organization and above, tothe exclusion of basic biology at lower levels of organization thatmay be necessary to drive further innovation in weedmanagement; and c) the perception that management-orientedproposals are not supported by the program. To determine thecurrent relationship of the WSSA membership to the NRIgrants program, we included a number of questions on thesurvey related to program participation.

Only 17% of respondents applied to NRI regularly; of therespondents who did not apply regularly, 43% said that theprogram’s priorities did not overlap with their own. This is anunfortunate perception problem for the NRI program, as therequest for proposals continues to be written with agriculturalweed scientists in mind, a large proportion of the funded grantsin any 1 yr go to agricultural weed science, and panel managersare often drawn from within the ranks of WSSA (Bowers 2008,personal communication). During the past 5 yr, four of fivepanel managers were active members of WSSA.

Ten percent of respondents had written a successful NRIgrant in the past 5 yr. Among those who had been funded, thetop three project topics were a) ecological relationshipsbetween crops and weeds, b) invasive species, and c)nonchemical weed management. Investigator experience wasnot related to NRI application rate (x2

4~3:6, P 5 0.46) orsuccess (x2

4~1:9, P 5 0.75), and BI and IM scientists wereequally (un)likely to apply to the program (x2

1~1:94,P 5 0.164). However, BI scientists were more than 5.5 timesmore likely to have had a successful grant application withinthe past 5 yr (x2

1~7:718, P 5 0.005). This discrepancyhighlights an important opportunity for synergy between BIand IM scientists. Program 51.9 in AFRI now requires that allproposals be integrated projects, which were consistentlyundercompeted in previous competitions (Bowers 2009,personal communication). Integrated projects are expressly

designed to bridge research and outreach and have routinelybeen awarded to research teams that span this continuum. Thisstringent requirement may, however, exclude basic scienceinvestigations necessary to develop future weed managementtactics if there is no immediate management connection.

Funding Outlook. As we stated earlier in the paper, it isimportant to recognize that our discipline is evolving and thatour skill-set must increasingly include systems-approaches toproblem solving. This point was borne out by several invitedspeakers at a recent Northeast Weed Science Society symposiumon the emerging bioeconomy and an associated discussion ofwhere weed scientists fit (NEWSS 2009). The following questionwas put to three of the preeminent invited speakers: ‘‘What arethe elements of a graduate training program for the nextgeneration of scientists?’’ The words used to describe the capacityof the next generation of scientists included research thataddresses a multifunctional agriculture, integrates fundamentalexperiments with modeling, accounts for space-time dynamics,includes many disciplines, includes the human element, andrespects scale and landscape mosaics. In short, these speakersreaffirmed what we began this paper stating, that the newgeneration of scientists needs to be prepared as systems thinkerswith practical experience, and with experimental and quantitativetraining that enables one to conduct such research. An increasedcommitment to basic understanding of complex issues invegetation management will require interactions betweenscientists at many levels of scale, from molecule to ecosystem.

We are encouraged to see that in addition to the AFRIprogram, many other regional and national competitivelyfunded programs are funding systems research. A traditionallytrained weed scientist might argue that these are not exclusiveweed science programs; this is true, and is a vital point incrafting competitive applications to such programs. Sinceintegrated programs require a meaningful outreach oreducation component, WSSA BI and IM scientists who formteams comprising complementary skill sets with scientists inrelevant related disciplines will strengthen their chance ofcompeting successfully for these funds. For those seekingpublic funds to support research underway in their lab andfield programs, it is essential that they be aware of theportfolio of opportunities currently available. Those conduct-ing a mix of applied and basic work are in a position to pursueregional IPM funds. Historically, weed scientists have receiveddisproportionately fewer IPM funds than other pest manage-ment disciplines. There was a time where panels were biasedin favor of funding entomology and plant pathology projects;however, that time has passed. In fact over the past 10 yr,regional and national IPM competitive grant programs placeda higher priority on weed science research, broadly defined,and more weed science work was funded. Ironically, in recentyears, regional and national IPM panels have received very fewproposals from weed scientists, and the lack of submissionshas resulted in fewer weed science projects being funded.National competitive IPM funds are also available annuallythrough the Crops at Risk (CAR) and Risk AvoidanceMitigation (RAMP) Programs. Both programs fund largeprojects that often involve multistate collaborations. Whileweed science proposals have been funded through thisprogram, here again, weed science applications have beenmodest at best (Mortensen, personal communication, recentpast chair of these two programs).

Davis et al.: WSSA Survey N 447

The reality of many pest management problems in the field isthat the level of complexity requires multidisciplinary teams todevelop effective solutions. Weed scientists who develop strongcollaborations across disciplines (as opposed to those who writeproposals from a weed science perspective and make nominalreferences to other disciplines) are more likely to successfullycompete for funds from interdisciplinary funding sources. Forexample, the USDA Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants(BRAG) program addresses risks and benefits of geneticallymodified crops. Given the widespread adoption of GMherbicide-tolerant crops and the increasing problem of herbicideresistant weeds, this program is ideally suited to support weedscience research. Weed scientists involved in sustainableagriculture and organic research and outreach can pursuesupport from the regional Sustainable Agriculture Research andExtension (SARE) program or the USDA Organic Transitionsprogram. Also, while non-WSSA member scientists have crossedover and now receive support from the NRI for invasive plantsresearch, there is no reason why WSSA member weed scientistsbased in the United States can’t cross over in the oppositedirection into more basic funding sources like the PopulationBiology section of the National Science Foundation.

In closing, our scientific society is engaged in two kinds ofresearch, privately funded herbicide performance implementa-tion and maintenance research, and publicly funded researchwith a stronger systems orientation. Given that our society isapproximately split between industry on one hand and publiclyfunded scientists and outreach educators on the other, these twoapproaches are not surprising. It is our view that to answer thecall to address increasingly complex interdisciplinary problemsinvolving pest management, invasive plant ecology andmanagement, and production systems that include an emergingbioeconomy, our society will need to continue to evolve toinclude more systems-scientists. The WSSA Research Commit-tee realizes that traditional weed science research will continue tounderpin our society; however, we are also certain that aconcerted move toward embracing multidisciplinary, systems-oriented research and education and associated fundingopportunities will be necessary in order for our society membersto address the complex environmental challenges of today, andthe emerging questions of tomorrow.

Our survey indicates that what most imperils a vibrantfuture for the Weed Science Society of America is the inabilityto see beyond a narrowly-defined vision that continues tocenter on herbicide efficacy and fate. While it is certainly truethat expertise in integrated weed management is an essentialcornerstone in our discipline, it is important that we not putall our eggs in one basket. Let’s not paint ourselves into the‘‘herbicide efficacy’’ box while others outside our disciplinechoose to engage in the messier, more complex problems ofsystems-level vegetation management.

Sources of Materials

1 Professional-level access, www.SurveyMonkey.com.2 SYSTAT Software, Inc., 225 W Washington St., Suite 425,

Chicago, IL 60606.

Acknowledgments

We express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous surveyrespondents who made this study possible. Many thanks also to Dr.

Brian Schutte and two anonymous reviewers whose insights greatlyimproved the manuscript. Mention of trade names or commercialproducts in this article is solely for the purpose of providing scientificinformation and does not imply recommendation or endorsementby the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Literature Cited

Booth, B. D. and C. J. Swanton. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weedcommunities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.

Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weedmanagement. Weed Sci. 50:273–280.

Catford, J. A., R. Jansson, and C. Nilsson. 2009. Reducing redundancy ininvasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework.Divers. Distrib. 15:22–40.

Davis, A. S. 2007. Report on WSSA Research and Funding Priorities. CSREESStakeholder Workshop. Alexandria, VA. http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/stakeholders/2007/FinalStakeholdersReport2007.pdf.

Gotelli, N. J. and A. M. Ellison. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics.Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 150 p.

Hall, J. C., L. L. Van Eerd, S. D. Miller, M.D.K. Owen, T. S. Prather, D. L.Shaner, M. Singh, K. C. Vaughn, and S. C. Weller. 2000. Future researchdirections for weed science. Weed Technol. 14:647–658.

Liebman, M. and A. S. Davis. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weedmanagement in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:27–47.

Liebman, M. and E. Dyck. 1993. Weed management: a need to developecological approaches. Ecol. Appl. 3:39–41.

Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., C. M. Ghersa, and E. H. Satorre. 2000. Coevolution ofagricultural systems and their weed companions: implications for research.Field Crops Res. 67:181–190.

Mortensen, D. A., L. Bastiaans, and M. Sattin. 2000. The role of ecology in thedevelopment of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49–62.

[NEWSS] Northeastern Weed Science Society. 2009. Proceedings of the 63rdAnnual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Baltimore, MD:NEWSS. 250 p.

Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weedmanagement. Pages 31–58 in D. D. Buhler, ed. Expanding the Context ofWeed Management. New York: Haworth.

Radosevich, S. R. and C. M. Ghersa. 1992. Weeds, crops, and herbicides—amodern-day neckriddle. Weed Technol. 6:788–795.

Rea, L. M. and R. A. Parker. 1997. Designing and conducting survey research.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 254 p.

Shaw, D. 2005. Report on WSSA Research and Funding Priorities. CSREESStakeholder Workshop. Alexandria, VA. http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/stakeholders/2005/wssa.pdf.

Smith, R. G., B. D. Maxwell, F. D. Menalled, and L. J. Rew. 2006. Lessons fromagriculture may improve the management of invasive plants in wildlandsystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4:428–434.

Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Publishing. 220 p.Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Weed Science: A Plea for Thought. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. 34 p.

Received January 27, 2009, and approved April 12, 2009.

Online Appendix. WSSA Research and CompetitiveGrants Survey Questions:

I. Background1. In which discipline did you receive your terminal degree?

A. Weed ScienceB. AgronomyC. EcologyD. Plant PhysiologyE. Genetics/Molecular BiologyF. Soil ScienceG. ChemistryH. EntomologyI. Forestry

448 N Weed Science 57, July–August 2009

J. Plant PathologyK. Plant breedingL. Other

2. What category best describes the institution you work for?

A. IndustryB. AcademiaC. GovernmentD. RegulatoryE. ConsultingF. Other

3. Which type of activity best describes the majority of yourappointment?

A. ResearchB. TeachingC. Technology Transfer/ExtensionD. PolicyE. ConsultingF. Other

4. How many years have you been doing research as aprincipal investigator?

A. 1–5B. 6–10C. 10–15D. 15–20E. . 20F. Not applicable

5. Where are you located?

A. Eastern United StatesB. Central United StatesC. Western United StatesD. Southern United StatesE. CanadaF. Latin AmericaG. EuropeH. AustraliaI. AfricaJ. AsiaK. Middle EastL. Other

6. What is the primary management system that you work in?

A. Corn/soybeanB. Small grainsC. Forage/fiberD. HorticulturalE. OilseedF. Organic/low-external inputG. BiofuelH. OrnamentalI. RangelandJ. AquaticK. ForestL. Other

7. Which of the following professional societies do you belongto? (Pick as many as apply.)

A. WSSAB. NCWSSC. NEWSSD. WSWSE. SWSSF. IWSSG. EWRSH. ESA (ecology)I. ESA (entomology)J. ASA / CSSA / SSSAK. ASPBL. ACSM. Other

II. Priorities for Research and EducationUse research areas in Table 1 to answer questions 8, 9, and 11in Section II.

8. Rank the top three research areas in the following list(WSSA Priority Research Areas, Hall et al. 2000. WeedTechnol. 14:647–658) that you believe will be most pressing5 yr from now for your primary clientele.

9. Rank the top three research areas from Table 1, in order ofdecreasing importance, that you will look for in potentialcollaborators to complement your research skills for the next5 yr. (If ‘‘Other,’’ please give one- to three-word title below.)

10. In your department/unit/research group, the number ofweed science FTEs in the past 5 yr has:

A. DecreasedB. IncreasedC. Remained the same

11. For FTEs that were added, list from Table 1 the top threeresearch areas that describe responsibilities of those positions. (If‘‘Other,’’ please give one- to three-word title below.)

12. Compared to 10 yr ago, how many graduate students areyou training?

A. MoreB. LessC. SameD. Not relevant to my program.

Table 1. WSSA Priority Research Areas (Hall et al. 2000. WeedTechnol. 14:647–658).

A. Knowledge-based decision support strategiesB. Weed response to selection pressureC. Ecological relationships between cropping systems and weedsD. Weed competition and economic thresholdsE. Invasive weedsF. GenomicsG. Herbicide efficacy enhancementH. Non-chemical weed management methodsI. Weed management system modelsJ. Herbicide resistanceK. Issues related to transgenic plantsL. Crop toleranceM. Effects of weeds and weed management on environmentN. NeutraceuticalsO. PhytoremediationP. Other

Davis et al.: WSSA Survey N 449

13. If more or less (from Q12), rank below the factorscontributing to this change:

A. MS/PhD-level job availability/career opportunitiesB. Funding availabilityC. Institutional prioritiesD. Qualified applicant poolE. Change in my prioritiesF. Not applicable

14. If you train graduate students or postdocs, what categorybest describes the institutional type that will hire thoseindividuals in the near future?

A. IndustryB. AcademiaC. GovernmentD. RegulatoryE. ConsultingF. Not applicable

III. Funding15. Have reductions in funding limited your ability to pursuehigh priority research topics?

A. YesB. No

16. Rank the top three sources of funding from the followinglist in order of decreasing importance to your researchprogram:

A. CommodityB. NRIC. Private industryD. Regional (IPM, SARE)E. HatchF. USDA-ARSG. NGOH. Other Federal programs (NSF, DOE, EPA)I. USAID, Fulbright, other international grant programsJ. State DNR, DOTK. Not funded

17. What size award did you get from your top source offunding over the past 5 yr?

A. # $10 K/yrB. # $50 K/yrC. # $100 K/yrD. # $500 K/yrE. . $500 K/yr

18. What is a realistic level of funding (both internal andexternal) that you hope to achieve for your program?

A. # $10 K/yrB. # $50 K/yrC. # $100 K/yrD. # $500 K/yrE. . $500 K/yr

19. How has the rise in importance of invasive species biologyand management as a federal funding priority affected yourresearch program? (Select all that apply.)

A. Increased activityB. Increased fundingC. Decreased activityD. Decreased fundingE. No effect

20. Do you regularly (at least every 3 yr) apply to NRI 51.9(Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species)?

A. YesB. No

21. If the answer to #20 was ‘‘no’’, please explain why:

A. Program priorities don’t overlap with my research.B. The application process takes too much time.C. I haven’t had a successful grant in so long that I’ve

gotten frustrated.D. My research doesn’t require funding at this level.E. Other (write in below).

22. Have you had a successful grant with 51.9 in the past 5 yr?

A. YesB. No

23. If your answer to Q22 was ‘‘yes,’’ what was the generalresearch area that your proposal addressed (choose from Table 1)?(If ‘‘Other,’’ please give one- to three-word topic below.)

IV. Relevance and Impact24. How much end-user demand is there for the primaryfocus of your program?

A. High level of demand, with vocal supportB. Moderate demandC. Little immediate demand, basic research targeted

towards future needs

25. Have any of your studies led directly to technologies thathave been implemented and/or marketed (and directlyattributable to you)?

A. YesB. No

26. If you answered yes to Q25, what was the most importantfactor in bringing these technologies to the marketplace?

A. Consumer demandB. Right place / right timeC. Industry partnerD. Advances in other areas of scienceE. OtherF. Not applicable

27. Have any of your studies led directly to widely adoptedmanagement recommendations?

A. YesB. No

28. If so, what was the most important factor in widespreadadoption?

A. Strong producer organizations / information networksB. Novel concept with large effect on crop/weed relations

450 N Weed Science 57, July–August 2009

C. Tireless extension effortsD. Regulation requiring a change from the status quoE. Recommended practice led to higher profitsF. OtherG. Not applicable

29. How many peer-reviewed publications have you had inthe past 5 yr?

A. # 5B. # 15

C. # 30D. # 50

30. What proportion of your manuscripts do you send firstto either Weed Science or Weed Technology?

A. , 20%B. , 40%C. , 60%D. , 80%E. # 100%

Davis et al.: WSSA Survey N 451