How environmental managers perceive and approach the issue of invasive species: the case of Japanese knotweed s.l. (Rhône River, France)

We would like to thank Springer for publishing our article. The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10530-015-0969-1International audienceStudying the perceptions of stakeholders or interested parties is a good way to better understand behaviours and decisions. This is especially true for the management of invasive species such as Japanese knotweed s.l. This plant has spread widely in the Rhône basin, where significant financial resources have been devoted to its management. However, no control technique is recognized as being particularly effective. Many uncertainties remain and many documents have been produced by environmental managers to disseminate current knowledge about the plant and its management. This article aims at characterizing the perceptions that environmental managers have of Japanese knotweed s.l. A discourse analysis was conducted on the printed documentation produced about Japanese knotweed s.l. by environmental managers working along the Rhône River (France). The corpus was both qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. The results indicated a diversity of perceptions depending on the type of environmental managers involved, as well as the geographicalareas and scales on which they acted. Whereas some focused on general knowledge relating to the origins and strategies of colonization, others emphasized the diversity and efficacy of the prospective eradication techniques. There is a real interest in implementing targeted actions to meet local issues. To do so, however, these issues must be better defined. This is a challenging task, as it must involve all types of stakeholders

Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Utilities and Limitations for Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, have transformed the tactics that corn, soybean, and cotton growers use to manage weeds. The use of GR crops continues to grow, but weeds are adapting to the common practice of using only glyphosate to control weeds. Growers using only a single mode of action to manage weeds need to change to a more diverse array of herbicidal, mechanical, and cultural practices to maintain the effectiveness of glyphosate. Unfortunately, the introduction of GR crops and the high initial efficacy of glyphosate often lead to a decline in the use of other herbicide options and less investment by industry to discover new herbicide active ingredients. With some exceptions, most growers can still manage their weed problems with currently available selective and HR crop-enabled herbicides. However, current crop management systems are in jeopardy given the pace at which weed populations are evolving glyphosate resistance. New HR crop technologies will expand the utility of currently available herbicides and enable new interim solutions for growers to manage HR weeds, but will not replace the long-term need to diversify weed management tactics and discover herbicides with new modes of action. This paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of anticipated weed management options and the best management practices that growers need to implement in HR crops to maximize the long-term benefits of current technologies and reduce weed shifts to difficult-to-control and HR weeds

Risk assessment of aquatic invasive species' introductions via european inland waterways

Contains fulltext : 84088.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

No scientific consensus on GMO safety

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature