A total of 123 responses were received encompassing 34 out of 39 rice-producing counties, and accounting for 236,414 hectares out of the 583,152 harvested rice hectares (40.5%) in Arkansas for 2020 (Hardke, 2021) (Table 1). Of the 123 respondents, 55, 45, 19, and 4 respondents reported their primary occupation as farmer, consultant, industry representative, and “other”, respectively (Table 1). Respondents that selected “other” each fell into more than one of the designated categories. Most survey participants (75%) had been actively involved in rice production for 11 years or more (n = 122) (data not shown). Fifty percent had been actively involved in rice production for 21 years or more. Only 5% of survey participants had been active in rice production for <6 years.

A total of 105 responses were returned for flooded rice and 92 responses were returned for furrow-irrigated rice regarding the most problematic weed species in the respective production systems. Results revealed that in flooded rice the most problematic weeds were ECG, followed by Cyperus spp., and Oryza sativa L., respectively, while in furrow-irrigated rice they were, in order of importance, ECG, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats., and Cyperus spp. (Figure 1). ECG recorded the largest total number of points in flooded (292 of a possible 315) and furrow-irrigated rice (236 of a possible 276) indicating nearly every respondent considered ECG to be the #1 most problematic weed species in rice, regardless of growing environment. Cyperus spp. included Cyperus iria L., Cyperus esculentus L., Cyperus difformis L., Cyperus flavicomus Michx., and the generic term “sedges”. Oryza sativa L., the third most problematic weed in flooded rice, was the sixth most problematic weed in furrow-irrigated rice. Diplachne spp. were perceived as the fourth most problematic weeds in flooded rice and fifth most problematic in furrow-irrigated rice. Other problematic weeds reported in flooded rice by respondents were Urochloa platyphylla (Munro ex C. Wright) R.D. Webster, Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P., Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats., Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill) McVaugh, and Digitaria spp. In furrow-irrigated rice, other reported weeds included Digitaria spp., Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill) McVaugh, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn., and Urochloa platyphylla (Munro ex C. Wright) R.D. Webster. Therefore, the top two problematic broadleaf weeds in flooded rice were Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. and Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P., while the top two problematic broadleaf weeds in furrow-irrigated rice were Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. and Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill) McVaugh.

Results from the question that asked respondents to provide two areas of weed management research that would benefit their operation's profitability and/or overall weed control are presented in Figure 2. Singular keywords or phrases detected most frequently in responses indicated research needs including “Echinochloa-crus-galli” and “MOA” (modes-of-action), followed by “residual”, “resistance”, “preemergence”, and “grass” (Figure 2A). The most generalized common area of weed science research requested by survey respondents was “Control of Echinochloa crus-galli” (27 responses) (Figure 2B). “Preemergence or residual herbicide effectiveness” and “development of new modes of action or chemistry” each received 21 responses as an important area of research that would benefit rice production. “Herbicide resistance” (16 responses) was the only other reported research need by survey participants to receive a minimum of 10 responses [excluding the catch-all “other” category that included broad-spectrum topics such as biology, agronomy, identification, etc. (12 responses)].

Twelve current research or educational efforts were also rated by importance on a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important). Respondents perceived development of new herbicide options as very important with the highest average ranking of 4.79 (Table 2). One important comment made by a survey participant was, “We need novel solutions to resistance issues. Nothing is working!” However, effective, non-chemical approaches to weed management were ranked as the least important current research or educational effort with an average ranking of 2.97 (slightly to moderately important).

Ninety responses were returned regarding the rate of concern for herbicide-resistant weeds (data not shown). Seventy-eight percent of survey participants reported high concern with herbicide-resistant weeds while 21 and 1% of respondents reported moderate and slight concern, respectively. Among farmer respondents, 67% reported high concern with herbicide-resistant weeds while 86% of consultants, 83% of industry representatives, and 100% of other respondents reported high concern with herbicide-resistant weeds (data not shown).

Eighty-four percent of survey respondents also indicated they are managing herbicide-resistant weeds (excluding ECG) currently in their rice hectares (Table 3). When asked to provide the weeds (excluding ECG) and herbicides to which they were resistant, 39% of the respondents (44) reported Cyperus iria L. as resistant to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibitors and synthetic auxin herbicides (Table 4). Oryza sativa L. received the second highest number of responses (19 responses, 17%) and was believed to be resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Third was Diplachne spp. (13%), thought to be resistant to acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase)-inhibiting, Photosystem II (PSII)-inhibiting, and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Fourth was Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. (12%) believed to be resistant to synthetic auxins, PSII-inhibitors, protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibitors, and 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)-inhibitor.

Eighty-six responses were returned for the question, “Are you implementing any strategies to minimize the occurrence of new herbicide-resistant weeds or spread of resistance?” Thirteen percent of the total number of respondents were not implementing any strategy to minimize the occurrence of new herbicide-resistant weeds or spread of resistance (Table 3).

Seventy-two survey participants that indicated they suspected herbicide-resistant weeds in their rice fields responded to, “What strategies are you using to control herbicide-resistant weeds?” A chi-square test of homogeneity revealed that strategies implemented to control the herbicide-resistant weeds were not dependent on occupation type (chi-square = 2.9, P = 0.82) nor on number of years of involvement in rice production of survey participants (chi-square = 7.3, P = 0.69). Therefore, averaged across all respondents, the most commonly used method reported for managing herbicide-resistant weeds was crop rotation (85%, either alone or in conjunction with other strategies) (Table 5). Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated the use of alternative herbicides either alone or in combination with other methods to manage herbicide-resistant weeds (Table 5). However, 5% of survey participants were using solely alternative herbicides to manage herbicide-resistant weeds (data not shown). Seed (trait) selection (38%), weed seedbank management (31%), and earlier rice planting (24%), were the next most commonly reported methods for managing herbicide-resistant weeds (Table 5).

Although crop rotation was listed as a primary method for managing herbicide-resistant weeds, 48% of respondents indicated 10% or more of their reported hectares were in continuous rice (3 consecutive years or more) (Figure 3). When weighted by number of hectares reported, 18% of the total hectares were designated as continuous rice (data not shown). Multiple reasons were provided by respondents as limitations for rice rotation to other crops (Figure 4). Twenty-nine percent of respondents indicated field/soil type was the main limitation for rice rotation to other crops, followed by zero-grade fields (28%) and commodity prices/profitability (23%), respectively.

In addition to strategies utilized for managing already established herbicide-resistant weeds, survey participants were asked what strategies, if any, were being implemented to mitigate the evolution of new herbicide-resistant weeds and the spread of current herbicide resistance. Similar to management strategies for current herbicide-resistant weeds, the most commonly implemented mitigation strategy was crop rotation (54%) followed by the use of multiple mode-of-action mixtures and overlapping residuals, each with 25% of respondents indicating use (Table 5). One interesting note, of the 16 strategies that were reported to mitigate herbicide resistance, half involved the use of or improvement of chemical control strategies (Table 5).

Respondents (n = 85) reported that 92% of their rice hectares were infested with ECG equating to 174,323 of a possible 189,522 reported hectares (data not shown). Additionally, 72 survey respondents indicated they believed they had herbicide-resistant ECG on their farm (n = 84, 86%) (Table 6).

Respondents listed nine different herbicide sites-of-action in which they believed ECG to be resistant to in their rice hectares (Table 6). Most respondents indicated they believed their ECG to be resistant to PSII-inhibitors (WSSA Group 5) (80%), quinclorac synthetic auxin (WSSA Group 4) (80%) and ALS-inhibitors (WSSA Group 2) (79%) (Table 6). Furthermore, 87% of respondents perceived ECG to be multiple-resistant to three sites-of-action or more (Table 6).

Survey participants reported that their first postemergence herbicide application for ECG control often failed. Fifty-two percent of respondents indicated that the first postemergence application failed > 40% of the time with an overall average of 44% of the time (Figure 5). Therefore, almost half of the first postemergence herbicide applications fail to successfully control ECG. After this initial failure from the first postemergence herbicide application, most respondents (53%) believed that two additional postemergence applications were required to effectively control the ECG escapes (Figure 5). Even more concerning, 17 respondents (21%) replied “I never control it” after the initial herbicide failure. When asked to rank the importance of the factors in causing failure of herbicides to control ECG on their farm or scouted hectares on a 1–5 scale (where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important), survey participants perceived herbicide resistance, herbicide selection and weed size at application to be very important (with ranks of 4.28, 4.22, and 4.06, respectively) (Table 7). They also perceived lack of adequate coverage and environmental conditions as moderately to very important with ranks of 3.80 and 3.72, respectively.

ECG densities in the absence of herbicide use (germination potential within a given year based on the soil seedbank) were described to be between 11 and 107 plants m⁻² on average by more than half of the respondents (51%) (Table 8). Although the seedbank is plentiful and germination potential is high, 44% of survey respondents thought ECG densities were from 0 to 1 plants m⁻² at rice harvest in 2020, while 41% believed they were from 2 to 10 plants m⁻² (Table 8).

Survey respondents indicated very similar strategies were employed for ECG control as the aforementioned herbicide-resistant weeds control (Table 5). The chi-square test of homogeneity revealed that strategies implemented to manage ECG were not dependent on occupation type of survey participants (chi-Square = 13.1, P = 0.16) nor on number of years of involvement in rice production (chi-Square = 12.6, P = 0.81). Most survey participants (81%) were using crop rotation alone or in combination with other strategies to manage ECG and alternative herbicides (69%) was the second most commonly used tactic alone or in combination with other strategies to manage ECG (Table 5). Other non-chemical ECG control strategies including seedbank management (24%) and earlier planting dates (30%) were only moderately used.

The average cost of chemical weed control for reported rice hectares was evaluated during the survey. The perceived average cost of chemical control in rice weighted by hectares reported per respondent was $266.20 ha⁻¹ (n = 113) (Figure 6). When asked, “What percent of your overall herbicide expense this year was for ECG control?”, survey participants estimated ~81% of the total herbicide cost was attributed to ECG which equated to an average cost of $215.90 ha⁻¹ (data not shown).

Survey participants were also asked to evaluate the average yield loss on their farms attributed to ECG. Most participants estimated rice yield loss attributed to ECG of 455–959 kg ha⁻¹ (29%) and 203–454 kg ha⁻¹ (29%) (Table 9). Using the average price of $264.50 per metric ton of rough rice in 2020 (USDA-NASS, 2022), the corresponding economic loss would be $121–254 ha⁻¹ and $54–120 ha⁻¹ for 455–959 kg ha⁻¹ and 203–454 kg ha⁻¹, respectively (Table 9). Survey participants were also asked to evaluate the yield loss in their most heavily infested rice field. Most participants (29%) estimated yield loss of 708–1,464 kg ha⁻¹ and 22% of respondents perceived the estimated yield loss to be 1,465–2,221 kg ha⁻¹. The corresponding economic loss would be $188–387 ha⁻¹ and $388–588 ha⁻¹ for 708–1,464 kg ha⁻¹ and 1,465–2,221 kg ha⁻¹, respectively.

The prevalence of ECG as the most detrimental weed in Arkansas rice is consistent with previous survey data that reported it as the most problematic weed in rice production systems (Norsworthy et al., 2007, 2013). ECG was detected in the seedbank of most major cropping systems of Arkansas, and it has a prolonged emergence period from mid-April to late September that contributes to the weeds' success (Bagavathiannan et al., 2011). Cyperus spp. have drastically risen on the Arkansas rice problematic weeds list since the previous survey was conducted in 2011 (Norsworthy et al., 2013). In the previous survey, Cyperus esculentus L. was reported as the 8th most problematic weed, and Cyperus iria L. was not ranked in the top 20; data from the current survey conducted nearly a decade later resulted in the combination of Cyperus spp. being the 2nd most problematic weed species to combat in rice hectares. The presence and spread of ALS-inhibitor-resistant Cyperus esculentus L. and Cyperus iria L. (Norsworthy et al., 2007) might be a major reason why Cyperus spp. are considered so problematic in Arkansas rice.

Oryza sativa L. has held constant as a top four problematic weed species in Arkansas rice as it was previously ranked third in importance and the fourth problematic weed in 2011 (Norsworthy et al., 2013), and more recently, Burgos et al. (2021) also reported it as the third most problematic weed. With infestation levels up to 1,076 plants m⁻² (Burgos et al., 2021), multiple reasons might explain its prevalence including resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides and the morphological similarity to the rice crop. The prevalence of Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. in furrow-irrigated rice as the second most troublesome weed is not surprising as it is one of the two most troublesome weeds in Arkansas soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Riar et al., 2013b) and furrow-irrigated production removes the cultural practice of flooding as a management tactic. Also, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. has evolved resistance to eight different sites-of-action in Arkansas (Barber et al., 2022; Heap, 2022), making it persistent and difficult-to-control across cropping systems. Soybean is the most common rotational crop with rice (Burgos et al., 2021); therefore, the rise of occurrence and herbicide resistance in soybean cropping systems is likely to promote the increase of Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. infestations in rice fields (Norsworthy et al., 2013).

Although Diplachne spp. dropped from the second most problematic weed species in Arkansas rice in 2011 (Norsworthy et al., 2013) to the fourth and fifth most problematic species in flooded and furrow-irrigated rice, respectively, in the present survey, their occurrence of remaining in the top five most problematic weeds indicates persistence and difficult-to-manage nature. In 2006, Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. and Persicaria spp. were the two most problematic broadleaf weeds (Norsworthy et al., 2007), while Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. and Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. were the two most problematic broadleaf weeds in 2011 (Norsworthy et al., 2013). Excluding Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. in furrow-irrigated rice production, minimal broadleaves were reported in the present survey as truly problematic likely due to the morphological difference from rice and the presence of multiple effective herbicide options (Barber et al., 2022).

The most common area of weed management research reported to benefit the respondent's operation profitability and/or overall weed control was “Control of Echinochloa crus-galli” which was similar to the 2011 survey where ECG control was the most common weed research area recommended by respondents (Norsworthy et al., 2013). Major reasons for this request might include the high infestation levels of ECG when left uncontrolled, reduced commodity price when rice seeds are contaminated with ECG seeds, and the presence of ECG seedbank in most Arkansas cropping systems (cotton, soybean, rice). The request of “pre-emergence herbicides” as a major area of research might be due to failure of postemergence control of weeds in the previous growing seasons, the slower evolution of resistance to some soil applied herbicides, and better understanding the probability for rice injury, causes, and yield loss potential.

The request for research of new modes-of-action or chemistry is likely due to the escalation of herbicide resistance to the existing modes-of-action, the lack of introduction of new herbicides, continued failed attempts at successful weed control, and the continued search for an easy method of weed control. Even though discovery of herbicides with new mechanisms-of-action may help to manage herbicide-resistant weeds, changes in the patterns of herbicide use are required to reduce herbicide resistance evolution (Gaines et al., 2021). Ranking effective, non-chemical approaches to weed management as the least important current research or educational effort, is an indication that a paradigm shift in rice producers' weed control line of thought is needed with dwindling herbicide options due to herbicide resistance.

High herbicide resistance concerns reported in the present research are similar to survey results from nearly a decade ago. Norsworthy et al. (2013) also reported moderate or high concern regarding herbicide resistance from 98% of participants, with resistant weeds suspected in rice fields scouted by 88% of consultants. In Arkansas, resistance has been documented in several major weeds that respondents reported including Oryza sativa L. (ALS-inhibitors), Cyperus iria L. (ALS-inhibitors), Cyperus difformis L. (ALS-inhibitors), Echinochloa colona (L.) Link (ALS-inhibitors, PSII-inhibitors, and synthetic auxins), Cyperus esculentus L. (ALS-inhibitors), and Persicaria pensylvanica (L.) M. Gomez (ALS-inhibitors) (Heap, 2022). However, there have been no confirmed cases of resistance for many of the other herbicides and weeds listed by survey participants which implies that control failure in these cases might be due to factor(s) other than resistance (Norsworthy et al., 2012).

Although respondents provided some alternative weed management strategies to chemical control methods, more efforts (research, educational, and on-farm implementation) are needed to diversify strategies. Breeding of more competitive cultivars, robotic systems for weed control, and use of RNA to silence key weed genes through the process of RNA interference (RNAi) are all potential future options to enhance rice weed management efforts (Westwood et al., 2018). “Breeding efforts” were minimally requested by survey participants as important future weed management research needs (Figure 2). However, breeding new rice cultivars with a competitive advantage over weeds (Shrestha et al., 2020) might help to reduce selection pressure. Additional cultural methods pertaining to breeding or cultivar selection include selection of hybrid rice lines with greater tillering and taller growth characteristics (Shivrain et al., 2009), selection of more competitive rice cultivars and optimizing agronomic conditions (Gealy and Duke, 2017), and full-season cultivars that maximize the period with crop cover (Reddy and Norsworthy, 2010).

Earlier planting dates have been implemented as a strategy to combat herbicide-resistant weeds (Table 5), but could be adopted to a wider extent, especially as a strategy to mitigate the evolution of herbicide resistance development. By planting rice earlier, it provides the crop a competitive advantage by emerging and growing prior to the optimum emergence window for some of our most problematic rice weed species like ECG, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx., and Amaranthus spp. (Werle et al., 2014). Additionally, winter flooding, seed burial depth, and the stale seedbed technique can help to reduce the size of soil seedbank and weed infestation (Franca et al., 2020). Preventive measures such as weed-free certified seeds and equipment sanitation are also essential (Norsworthy et al., 2012; Riar et al., 2013a). Crop rotation is crucial and has been previously recommended as a key strategy for controlling herbicide-resistant ECG (Norsworthy et al., 2007) and Oryza sativa L. (Norsworthy et al., 2007; Burgos et al., 2021). The most common rotations in Arkansas are rice–soybean, rice–soybean–corn (Zea mays L.), and rice–fallow–soybean (Burgos et al., 2021) with soybean being the most compatible rotational crop with rice because it allows for alternative herbicide programs to be utilized and increases ease of controlling grass species in a broadleaf crop (Burgos et al., 2008).

Although crop rotation has great benefits for weed management and many survey respondents indicated they used this strategy for the management of herbicide-resistant weeds (Table 5), nearly 1/5th of reported rice hectares were under continuous rice production (≥3 years) which is a concerning practice affecting successful long-term weed management. Proportions of different rice varieties grown were not assessed in the present survey, but a previous survey reported imidazolinone-resistant rice was planted on 64% of the planted rice hectares, 42% of which was treated exclusively with an ALS-inhibiting herbicide for grass control (Norsworthy et al., 2013). Therefore, the probability of continuous rice hectares receiving repetitive herbicide treatments annually is high, resulting in the continued selection for herbicide-resistant weeds. Continued education efforts must be implemented to warn against the overuse of specific herbicide technologies and demonstrate the importance of integrated weed management strategies for long-term weed management success.

In Arkansas, several factors such as decreased labor, ease of management, and potentially fewer input costs increased the interest in precision-leveling fields to zero grade (Hardke, 2021). Unfortunately, zero-grading land constrains growers to a continuous rice production system due to limited water movement inhibiting other non-flooded crop production (Hardke, 2018). Although this practice provides some benefits to Arkansas growers, the crop rotation limitation and resulting monoculture agricultural system establishes a weed spectrum that thrives in that specific environment and quickly adapts to the repeated similar management strategies.

ECG was reported as the most problematic weed species in both flooded and furrow-irrigated rice hectares (Figure 1), with 92% of respondents indicating the presence of ECG in their rice fields. With the occurrence of ECG populations with multiple resistance in the midsouthern U.S. (Barber et al., 2022; Heap, 2022), it is logical that a large proportion of the rice weed control budget would be directed toward ECG control. This may also partially explain the high proportion of reported postemergence herbicide failures, in addition to the inconsistency in control observed from herbicides selectively targeting ECG, a very morphologically similar weed species to rice.

In Arkansas, research has documented ECG resistance to six sites-of-action (when considering quinclorac and florpyrauxifen-benzyl as two separate sites-of-action within synthetic auxins): ACCase-inhibitors (WSSA Group 1), ALS-inhibitors (WSSA Group 2), synthetic auxin (quinclorac, WSSA Group 4), synthetic auxin (florpyrauxifen-benzyl, WSSA Group 4), PSII-inhibitor (WSSA Group 5), and DOXP-inhibitor (WSSA Group 13) (Barber et al., 2022; Heap, 2022). Present survey results indicated respondents believed ECG was resistant to a total of nine different sites-of-action (Table 6). Therefore, either there are undocumented instances of herbicide resistance to additional sites-of-action within the state of Arkansas, or these herbicide failures are the result of other factors such as suboptimal environmental conditions, application errors, weed size, or herbicide selection (Table 7). The lack in implementation of alternative, diverse weed management strategies (Table 5) compromise the sustainability of current weed management options.

Postemergence herbicide failures on ECG were common as reported by survey respondents, and twenty-one percent of survey participants said “I never control ECG” following failure of the first postemergence application (Figure 5). In addition to inducing unacceptable yield loss for the simultaneous rice crop, ECG escapes can produce up to 39,000 seeds plant⁻¹ (Bagavathiannan et al., 2012) that will increase the soil seedbank and compromise subsequent growing seasons. In Arkansas rice fields, the ECG seedbank was previously predicted to contain an average of 6,000 seeds m⁻² with up to 215,000 seeds m⁻² (Bagavathiannan et al., 2011). With 41% of respondents estimating 2–10 ECG plants m⁻² at the 2020 harvest, this has the potential to increase the soil seedbank by 78,000–390,000 seeds m⁻². A primary recommendation for reducing the risks of herbicide resistance is the use of a diversified approaches to weed management that target the reduction of seed production and the number of weed seeds in the soil seedbank (Norsworthy et al., 2012).

The high concern for herbicide-resistant weeds reported by respondents in their Arkansas rice hectares is alarming from multiple standpoints. However, one often overlooked facet of herbicide resistance is the significant increase in weed control costs as additional reactive management strategies are required to be implemented (Llewellyn et al., 2002) resulting in an average additional cost of $65.60 ha⁻¹ that can reach up to $98 ha⁻¹ (Norsworthy et al., 2013). Other additional estimated costs associated with herbicide-resistant weeds are crop yield loss, decreased commodity prices due to weed-seed contamination, and reduced land values (Norsworthy et al., 2012).

Season-long interference of ECG with densities between 1 and 20 plants m⁻² reduced rice grain yield up to 301 kg ha⁻¹ per ECG plant (Stauber et al., 1991) equating to approximately a $79 ha⁻¹ loss for each additional ECG plant present with 2020 rough rice prices (USDA-NASS, 2022). This ECG density range was reported by >41% of respondents at 2020 Arkansas rice harvest (Table 8). Additionally, heavy infestations of ECG are known to reduce land value by removing 60–80% of nitrogen from the soil (Ottis and Talbert, 2007). In addition to ECG impacts on yield, land value, and the soil seedbank, this weed species is likely to contaminate rice seed at harvest leading to price dockages for the producer.

Although chemical weed control options tend to be simpler and offer increased short-term economic returns, the prevalence of postemergence herbicide failures reported by respondents (Figure 5) would significantly increase this cost. Furthermore, after an initial failure from the first postemergence herbicide application, most respondents (53%) believed that two additional postemergence applications were required to effectively control ECG escapes (Figure 5), resulting in an added expense of ~$150 ha⁻¹ (Barber, personal communication).

Alternative integrated weed management practices are often more laborious to enact and may increase the immediate weed management expense. However, when shifting focus from short-term to long-term economics, and the potential for widespread, multiple site-of-action resistance rendering herbicides non-viable, chemical costs of weed control will drastically increase (Davis and Frisvold, 2017). The implementation of integrated weed management strategies for both the management of current herbicide-resistant weeds and the mitigation of future evolution of herbicide resistance is one of the most effective and economical long-term strategies we currently have today. Respondents in the present survey indicated non-chemical weed management practices as the least important current research effort (Table 2); therefore, educational campaigns to enhance adoption are required with an emphasis placed on illustrating the economic benefits of integrated weed management strategies (Llewellyn et al., 2004).