Suchergebnisse

This is the final version. Available from Wiley / Cambridge Philosophical Society via the DOI in this record. ; Durable crop protection is an essential component of current and future food security. However, the effectiveness of pesticides is threatened by the evolution of resistant pathogens, weeds and insect pests. Pesticides are mostly novel synthetic compounds, and yet target species are often able to evolve resistance soon after a new compound is introduced. Therefore, pesticide resistance provides an interesting case of rapid evolution under strong selective pressures, which can be used to address fundamental questions concerning the evolutionary origins of adaptations to novel conditions. We ask: (i) whether this adaptive potential originates mainly from de novo mutations or from standing variation; (ii) which pre-existing traits could form the basis of resistance adaptations; and (iii) whether recurrence of resistance mechanisms among species results from interbreeding and horizontal gene transfer or from independent parallel evolution. We compare and contrast the three major pesticide groups: insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. Whilst resistance to these three agrochemical classes is to some extent united by the common evolutionary forces at play, there are also important differences. Fungicide resistance appears to evolve, in most cases, by de novo point mutations in the target-site encoding genes; herbicide resistance often evolves through selection of polygenic metabolic resistance from standing variation; and insecticide resistance evolves through a combination of standing variation and de novo mutations in the target site or major metabolic resistance genes. This has practical implications for resistance risk assessment and management, and lessons learnt from pesticide resistance should be applied in the deployment of novel, non-chemical pest-control methods. ; European Union Horizon 2020 ; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) ; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) ; Strategic Longer and Larger (LoLa)

Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multidimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidimensional and multilevel factors, via multiple natural and social science disciplines. We exemplify this process in prospect and retrospect. Importantly TWR is not a replacement for current weed research; rather, the intent is to powerfully leverage current efforts.

Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multidimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidimensional and multilevel factors, via multiple natural and social science disciplines. We exemplify this process in prospect and retrospect. Importantly TWR is not a replacement for current weed research; rather, the intent is to powerfully leverage current efforts.