Community management of herbicide-resistant weeds in the Pacific Northwest

It is no secret that herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds are a serious threat to agronomic production in the United States and around the world (Beckie et al., 2019; Heap, 2020). It is also no mystery how these weeds came to be or what kind of agronomic practices will be necessary to slow their development and manage their impacts (Beckie et al., 2019; Norsworthy et al., 2012). A significant source of confusion and concern, however, lies in the fact that many of these prevention and mitigation practices have been adopted on a very limited basis (Moss, 2019)—while the threat of HR weeds continues to grow (Heap, 2020). The resulting question is often framed as, “Why don’t farmers know what they should be doing to manage HR weeds?” However, multiple studies have demonstrated that farmers do in fact know what is needed to control HR weeds but nonetheless do not always use these practices.

These beliefs are not ungrounded. Herbicide-resistant weeds are a mobile pest and controlling them takes coordinated landscape-level management (Bagavathiannan et al., 2019). Neighbors will need to work together, and poor management on the part of one neighbor can lessen the prevention and mitigation actions of others (Ervin et al., 2019; Livingston et al., 2016). Additionally, new herbicide modes of action have, in fact, historically been developed in time to replace those that are becoming ineffective due to weeds developing resistance. There is precedence for this trend, even though it is highly unlikely to persist at the rate necessary to control current herbicide resistance issues (Livingston et al., 2015). Integrated weed management can also be difficult to implement, especially on large-scale industrialized farms (Barman et al., 2014; Moss, 2019).

Community Coordination Is Key

Farmers are not acting irrationally in response to the threat of herbicide resistance. They are, rather, drawing on their experiences, knowledge, and available resources to guide their actions. Unfortunately, these are unlikely to be sufficient to actually manage HR weeds. If IWM practices are to be adopted, farmers’ current concerns and beliefs must be addressed. We propose that community coordination is key to this effort.

Community-based management addresses the three major reasons farmers do not take action to control HR weeds. First, it brings neighbors together to reach a threshold where enough farmers are managing herbicide resistance to minimize local spread. This addresses farmers’ feelings of pointlessness when their actions can be undone by poor management from neighbors. Second, statistical modeling has shown that when farmers see community action as a viable method of HR weed control, they lessen their reliance on the development of a new herbicide mode of action (Dentzman, 2018a). Finally, pooling the resources of a community—not just the farmers, but crop advisers, university extension, and more—creates greater capacity for management.

In order to assess farmers’ interest in, and capacity for, community-based management, Ervin et al. (2019) used national-level 2016 survey data of corn and soybean growers (n = 839) to look at three fundamental indicators of preparedness for community-based management. They found that 71% of respondents were aware of the mobile nature of herbicide resistance (Figure 1), 56% communicated with their neighbors about herbicide resistance (Figure 2), and 61% agreed that herbicide resistance must be managed cooperatively (Figure 3). In 2018, a similar survey of wheat growers (n = 104) in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) found that 80% of respondents were aware of the mobile nature of herbicide resistance, 60% communicated with their neighbors about herbicide resistance, and 67% agreed that herbicide resistance must be managed cooperatively. This may be indicative that the PNW is more prepared to tackle community-based management than the national average although these higher percentages may also be the result of increasing concern in the two years between the surveys.

Listening Session Responses

Flip charts, notes, and audio recordings were transcribed for each listening session. Responses to each of the four main questions were coded and grouped thematically. While there were some differences between the three listening sessions, there were also clearly identifiable and consistent themes across listening sessions for all four questions. Results are reported in Table 1; we review the responses to each question category below.

When asked whether herbicide resistance was a problem in their community, participants had differing views and levels of awareness. They also agreed that communities in general shared this variation with different people and regions having various difficulties and advantages in understanding and identifying herbicide resistance issues. In general, there were two primary categories of reasons participants thought herbicide resistance was a problem in their community. The first was external causes. This included spread from outside farmers and regions, larger economic trends, laws of nature, and the misuse of herbicides by others. The second category comprised internal causes. This included internal community failings and personal misuse of herbicides while also emphasizing the responsibility and capability of the community to address these problems through high awareness and shared responsibility. In general, participants thought that herbicide resistance was either a current issue or would soon become one and that community coordination would be necessary to address it.

When asked about their community’s strengths for addressing herbicide resistance, participants in the three listening sessions identified factors falling into three main categories: existing networks and relationships, caring and cohesive communities, and regional agronomic advantages. Existing networks and relationships included university programs, such as the Washington State University small-farms program, that could be drawn on for support as well as various existing outreach and networking groups. Positive relationships in their community—and especially across types of stakeholders—was often cited as a strength. This led into the second category of caring and cohesive communities. Participants described their communities as knowledgeable, talented, and willing to help with common goals and strong ethical commitments. Farmers in particular were described as proactive, aware, and educated. Finally, participants saw the PNW as having several agronomic advantages in terms of climate, crop type, and the chemical herbicides available for this region.

While participants easily identified strengths in their communities, they also saw a number of weaknesses that would make it difficult to implement a community-based HR management initiative. These weaknesses fell into four categories: personal/community culture, limited resources and options, difficulty networking and information sharing, and persistent misuse of herbicides. Although a commonly cited strength was the care and cohesiveness of communities, participants agreed that in every community, there are some people who are unwilling to change, set in their ways, or resistant to getting involved. There was also a noted anti-regulation attitude that the county weed board participants found particularly troubling. Limited resources and options involved economic limitations such as commodity prices and a lack of research funding as well as a lack of agronomic options like profitable crops to rotate with wheat. Limited chemical herbicide options, especially for wheat, and a lack of labor were also concerning. While participants saw networking and information sharing as highly important, they identified several ways in which this was made difficult. Differences in people and farming operations—both agronomically and culturally speaking—were seen as driving a lack of communication. Farm sizes that physically separate farmers by great distances contributed to this concern. Low knowledge and education on herbicide resistance issues, and particularly the unevenness in awareness, was also troubling. Finally, participants described the persistent misuse of herbicides by farmers, applicators, the general public, and non-farmer landowners as all contributing to the difficulty of controlling HR weeds.

When asked what their communities would need going forward to develop herbicide resistance management initiatives, participants were thoughtful and creative. They described four primary needs: innovative education and information sharing; developing diverse, accessible, leader-based networks; increased funding; and agronomic innovation and monitoring. Ideas for education and information were particularly creative with participants suggesting social media outlets, podcasts, map making, certification programs, weed management contests, fair booths, and more. Network building was also emphasized with the need for involvement of community members from all backgrounds. Many participants mentioned the possibility of drawing on existing groups, meetings, and networks. The necessity of identifying leaders from academia, farming, and other groups was also cited. Funding to help form these networks was a priority, as was funding for research and farmer incentives. Lastly, there was a perceived need for research on additional options for weed management and detailed programs for monitoring the progression of herbicide resistance.

Our research team is currently working on summarizing these findings and providing detailed, tailored reports back to the communities who participated in our listening sessions. Our goal is to identify practical actions these groups can take to move forward with organizing community-based herbicide resistance management efforts. Our envisioned next step is to identify two or three communities in the PNW in which to implement pilot programs and begin building practical community-based management initiatives. We hope to be able to develop a toolkit and standardized process for creating community-based management initiatives across the PNW and the larger United States. To follow our progress, you can keep an eye on the Weed Science Society of America Herbicide Resistance Education webpage (https://wssa.net/wssa/weed/resistance) for updates.