Search

The mobility of weeds, use of biological controls and spread of herbicide resistance mean that weed management is a landscape-scale problem. Area-wide management (AWM) presents one approach for land managers, industry and government representatives to collaborate to manage weeds across public and private properties. Such an approach has been successfully used for other landscape-scale problems, such as managing animal and insect pests. This study aims to identify what individual, community and institutional factors are associated with growers' participation in collaborative weed management in three cropping regions of Australia. Survey responses from 604 cropping growers from the Riverina (n = 218), Sunraysia (n = 200), and Darling Downs (n = 186) regions of eastern Australia were recorded between July and September 2021. Questions were designed to collect information on: socio-economic characteristics; the nature of farming operations; weed management concerns and beliefs; and individual and collaborative weed management practices, which constitute area-wide weed management (AWWM). Fisher's Exact test was applied to assess differences between growers who do and do not work together with others to manage weeds. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Boruta random forest function was used for feature selection and a random forest regression including the selected variables was then applied to determine the accuracy of the model that explains whether land managers collaborate with others on weed management. Almost all (95%) growers agreed that each land manager has a responsibility to the whole region to control weeds and 84% agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. Yet only 24% of growers currently work with other land managers on weed management. Growers who are less likely to work with others to manage weeds are those who: are less concerned about herbicide resistant weeds spreading to neighbouring land; are unlikely to share information with other land managers about weeds; or who are unlikely to attend meetings about local weed issues. Supporting greater uptake of AWM of weeds in the future will require increased awareness and education about the spread of herbicide resistance, building of new networks among growers and other key stakeholders, and development of AWWM activities that are accessible to all land managers regardless of time and financial constraints. This research demonstrates for the first time the limited extent of AWM of cropping weeds among growers in eastern Australia, and that AWWM is hindered by knowledge, network and access constraints. [Display omitted] • This is the first multi-state survey of Australian growers' attitudes and practices toward area-wide management of weeds. • 84% of growers agreed or strongly agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. • Only 24% of growers self-reported that they work with other land managers on weed management. • Growers concerned about herbicide resistance spreading from their properties were more likely to work on weeds with others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Area-wide collaboration across private and public property boundaries can enhance the management of weeds and minimise the spread of herbicide resistance. Yet we know little about the practices individual land managers engage in to achieve area-wide weed management (AWWM). This paper uses Social Practice Theory (SPT) as a framework to understand how cropping land managers engage with the practices of AWWM, and what the drivers and barriers are to their participation. 30 qualitative interviews were undertaken with land managers in Australian cropping regions of the Darling Downs (Queensland), Gwydir (New South Wales), Riverina (New South Wales) and Sunraysia (Victoria). Thematic analysis of the interviews explored the three dimensions of SPT—meanings, materials, and competences—of AWWM and the interactions between these elements. There is a value-action gap between growers' desire to participate in AWWM practices and their capacity to do so. The analysis reveals that narrowing this gap requires interventions at the points where the SPT elements intersect. It recommends beginning by leveraging existing commonalities between growers who already have a desire to participate in AWWM then scaling out by encouraging trusted agronomist networks to link diverse growers to facilitate collaborative weed management practices. There is also a role for government in supporting the development of leadership capabilities among growers, providing an enabling environment for agronomists to act as systemic facilitators and leading by example on public land. Most of the research on collective management of weeds has focused on formal groups in grazing systems. This study provides new insights into how and why weeds are largely managed independently in cropping systems and proposes ways growers may be supported to adopt more collaborative practices to address this landscape-scale problem. • Most growers believe area-wide weed management (AWWM) would be beneficial. • Few growers participate in AWWM: there is a value-action gap. • Growers are confident they have the competences needed to manage weeds on their own. • Lack of action from neighbouring private and public land managers undermines confidence in AWWM. • Diverse meanings about autonomy and financial imperatives create contradictions that constrain AWWM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]