Brought to you by:
Princeton University
Library

Home

Browse

Search

My Settings

Alerts

Help

Quick Search

All fields

Author

Journal/book title

Volume

Issue

Page

Advanced
Search

Geoforum
Article in Press, Corrected Proof -
Note
to users

Result
list |  previous  < 1 of
5 >  next

Font
Size:

Article

Article -
selected

Figures/Tables

Figures/Tables -
selected

References

References -
selected

PDF (398 K)

Thumbnails -
selected | Full-Size
Images

Thumbnails - selected | Full-Size
Images

Article
Toolbox

E-mail
Article

Cited
By

Save as Citation
Alert

Citation
Feed

Export
Citation

Add to my Quick
Links

Related Articles in ScienceDirect

Subject index volume 43 (1985/1986)
Plant
Science

Subject index volume 43 (1985/1986)
Plant
Science, Volume 43, Issue 3, 1986, Pages
235-238

PDF (288 K)

Widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean and weed
...
Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment

Widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean and weed
community richness in Argentina
Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 103, Issue 3,
August 2004, Pages 621-624
J. I. Vitta, D.
Tuesca, E. Puricelli

Abstract

Trends in weed richness
responses to widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean in
Argentina are presented. An experiment was carried out since
1997 to analyse weed community changes associated with the
continuous and exclusive use of glyphosate. Sampling results
showed that weed richness in soybean decreased or remained
stable early in the season before glyphosate application but
increased at harvest. A survey of crop advisers indicated that
37 species were of increasing, 18 species of decreasing
importance. It is suggested that successional changes are
taking place in the cropping systems in response to changes in
weed control practices.

PDF (62 K)

An integrated approach to evaluate the impacts of the
h...
Applied Soil Ecology

An integrated approach to evaluate the impacts of the
herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D and
metsulfuron-methyl on soil microbial communities in
the Pampas region, Argentina
Applied Soil
Ecology, Volume 40, Issue 1, September 2008,
Pages 1-12
María C. Zabaloy, Jay L. Garland, Marisa
A. Gómez

Abstract

The intensive use of herbicides
in agricultural soils of the Pampas region (Argentina) is a
matter of environmental concern. We investigated the impacts
of three widely used, post-emergence herbicides, glyphosate,
2,4-dicholorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and
metsulfuron-methyl, on soil microbial communities by an
integrated approach using short-term soil incubations. The key
structural and functional parameters were estimated by
culturable aerobic heterotrophic bacterial (AHB) density,
substrate-induced respiration (SIR), dehydrogenase activity
(DHA), fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis, and functional
richness. Functional richness was evaluated as the proportion
of carbon sources utilized in microplates containing various
carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, amino acids and aromatic
compounds, and 1,3,5-triphenyiltetrazolium chloride (TTC) as
redox dye. Three different soil types (Typic Argiudoll, Typic
Haplustoll and Petrocalcic Paleustoll) were collected from
agricultural fields with reported history of herbicide
application. Soil microcosms were treated with one herbicide
at a time at a dose 10 times higher than the recommended field
application rates (glyphosate, 150 mg a.i.
kg−1; 2,4-D, 5 mg a.i. kg−1;
metsulfuron-methyl, 1 mg a.i. kg−1 soil)
and incubated for up to 3 weeks. Metsulfuron-methyl had the
least pronounced effects on soil microbial community. 2,4-D
showed transient effects on soils, inhibiting either SIR or
FDA and stimulating DHA. Several short-term effects of
glyphosate on microbial activities and bacterial density were
observed: (1) early stimulation of SIR and AHB; (2) dissimilar
response in the soils for FDA and DHA; (3) transient increase
in functional richness. To conclude, the addition of these
herbicides at a dose 10 times higher than the normal field
application rates caused minor changes to soil microbial
activity, bacterial density and functional richness. The
specific changes varied among herbicides, with the effects of
glyphosate most pronounced.

PDF (786 K)

Impact of glyphosate application on microbial biomass
a...
European Journal of Soil Biology

Impact of glyphosate application on microbial biomass and
metabolic activity in a Vertic Argiudoll from
Argentina
European Journal of Soil Biology,
Volume 45, Issue 2, March-April 2009, Pages
163-167
Elena Gomez, Laura Ferreras, Lorena Lovotti,
Estela Fernandez

Abstract

The widespread use of
genetically modified crops tolerant to glyphosate, has
strongly promoted the use of this herbicide. This work
evaluates the effect of increasing doses of glyphosate on
biomass and metabolic activity and metabolic quotient of soil
microbiota under controlled conditions. Commercial formulation
of glyphosate (48%) was sprayed over a Vertic Argiudoll placed
in trays, at doses of 0.48, 0.96, 1.92 and
3.84 L a.i ha−1. Doses usually
applied in the field are between 0.96 and
1.92 L a.i ha−1. Treatments and
control were incubated at 25 °C and 75% of water holding
capacity. After 4 and 45 days from glyphosate application,
carbon from microbial biomass (C-MB), microbial respiration
rate (MR), metabolic quotient (qCO2), and
dehydrogenase activity (DA) were determined. The C-MB at 4
days of incubation did not differ (P < 0.05)
between the control and the doses of 0.48 and 0.96 L,
while it was significantly lower in the highest doses. After
45 days, C-BM in the dose of 3.84 L was significantly
lower than the control. The MR showed significant differences
over the time but not between doses. Significant differences
were found in qCO2 between doses in both periods of
incubation. Dehydrogenase activity was significantly higher in
the treatments with glyphosate than in the control at the
beginning of incubation. Treatment with 0.48 L presented
the highest value after 45 days, while the dose of 3.84 L
had lowest DA. The variables analyzed showed an initial
inhibitory effect that affected the microbial cells. However,
this effect was temporary at doses equivalent or higher than
those usually applied in the field.

PDF (235 K)

Levels of glyphosate in surface waters, sediments and
s...
Environmental Pollution

Levels of glyphosate in surface waters, sediments and soils
associated with direct sowing soybean cultivation in north
pampasic region of Argentina
Environmental
Pollution, Volume 156, Issue 1, November
2008, Pages 61-66
Pablo J. Peruzzo, Atilio A.
Porta, Alicia E. Ronco

Abstract

Levels of glyphosate were
determined in water, soil and sediment samples from a
transgenic soybean cultivation area located near to
tributaries streams of the Pergamino–Arrecifes system in the
north of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Field work
took into account both the pesticide application and the rains
occurring after applications. The pesticide was analysed by
HPLC-UV detection, previous derivatization with
9-fluorenylmethylchloroformate (FMOC-Cl). In addition, SoilFug
multimedia model was used to analyse the environmental
distribution of the pesticides. In the field, levels of
glyphosate in waters ranged from 0.10 to 0.70 mg/L, while
in sediments and soils values were between 0.5 and
5.0 mg/Kg. Temporal variation of glyphosate levels
depended directly on the time of application and the rain
events. The results obtained from the application of the model
are in accordance with the values found in the
field.

PDF (493 K)

View
More Related Articles

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.009

Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd All rights
reserved.

“Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant
johnsongrass in Argentina

Rosa Binimelisa,
, , Walter Pengueb
and Iliana Monterrosoc

aInstitute of Environmental Science and
Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona),
Spain

bGrupo de Ecología del Paisaje y Medio Ambiente,
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

cÁrea de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Desarrollo Rural, FLACSO, Guatemala

Received 10 January 2008;

revised 20 March 2009.

Available online 28 April 2009.

Abstract

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has become the largest-selling
crop-protection product worldwide. The increased use of glyphosate is associated
with the appearance of a growing number of tolerant or resistant weeds, with
socio-environmental consequences apart from the loss of productivity. In 2002, a
glyphosate-resistant biotype of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.))
appeared in Argentina and now covers at least 10,000 ha. This paper
analyzes the driving forces behind the emergence and spread of this weed and
also examines management responses and their implications.

Preventive strategies against glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass fail because
of the institutional setting. Reactive measures, however, transfer the risks to
the society and the environment through the introduction of novel genetically
modified crops that allow the use of yet more herbicide. This in turn reinforces
the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, constituting a new phenomenon of
intensification, the “transgenic treadmill”.

Keywords: Argentina; Economics of bioinvasions; Genetically
modified soybean; Glyphosate-resistant weeds; Herbicide treadmill; Sorghum halepense; Transgenic treadmill

Article Outline

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. The
Argentinean GR soybean system

3.1. Production
system and technological applications

3.2. The
institutional setting

3.3. The
new social organization of space

3.4. Future
scenarios of the production system

4. “With
the GR soybean we arrived in paradise… but it was so short-lived…”: the
emergence, impacts and responses to GR johnsongrass

4.1. Environmental
history of johnsongrass management in Argentina

4.2. The
emergence of GR johnsongrass biotypes in Argentina

4.3. Potential
impacts associated with GR johnsongrass

4.4. Management
responses to GR johnsongrass

4.5. Enhancing
the market: new developments in the GM scene

5. Discussion
and concluding remarks

Acknowledgements

References

1. Introduction
The use of the broad-spectrum herbicide
glyphosate began in the 1970s. Since then it has grown steadily to become the
largest-selling single crop-protection product worldwide. Over the last years,
several factors have contributed to the increased agricultural use of
glyphosate: price reductions, an increase in supply associated with patent
expiration, further implementation of minimum and non-tillage practices,1and
the adoption of genetically modified (GM) glyphosate-resistant (GR) cultivars
(Woodburn,
2000).

The increased use of glyphosate has led to the appearance of tolerant or
resistant weeds which, in turn, implies environmental and monetary costs beside
productivity losses (Service,
2007). Although glyphosate was initially considered a low-risk for the
development of herbicide-resistance by industrial scientists (Bradshaw
et al., 1997), the first records of GR-weeds date from 1996 in Australia.
Currently, 14 GR weeds have been documented worldwide ([Heap,
2007], [Valverde,
2007] and [Powles,
2008]). This article deals with a highly invasive weed called johnsongrass.
Several cases of GR johnsongrass have appeared in Argentina while two others
have been reported by the University of Arkansas, the Mississippi State
University and Monsanto in the USA (Monsanto,
2008). In Argentina, additionally, some common weeds such as Parietaria
debilis, Petunia axilaris, Verbena litoralis, Verbena
bonariensis, Hybanthus parviflorus, Iresine diffusa,
Commelina erecta and Ipomoea sp. have been reported to be
glyphosate-tolerant (Papa,
2000).

The appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with an increased
consumption of glyphosate by GR cropping systems has become one of the main
ecological risks when releasing GMOs to the environment ([Altieri,
2005], [Barton
and Dracup, 2000], [Ervin
et al., 2003], [Martínez-Ghersa
et al., 2003], [McAfee,
2003], [Powles,
2003], [Snow
et al., 2005] and [Steinbrecher,
2001]). Until today, those documented cases have been solely assessed from
an agronomic perspective rather than accounting for a broader context ([Beckie,
2006], [Duke
and Powles, 2008] and [Powles,
2008]). In this paper we will review and discuss the emergence of GR
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)) biotypes in Argentina and their
associated management strategies by means of analysing the political, economic
and institutional driving forces leading to this phenomenon. We also devote part
of the paper to analysing the consequences for rural dynamics.

In Argentina, over 16 million hectares are dedicated to GM
glyphosate-resistant soybean production. Johnsongrass is a cosmopolitan
perennial grass native to the Mediterranean region, and considered as one of the
10 worst weeds in the world (FAO,
2007). It was introduced in Argentina in the beginning of the 20th century
as forage but by 1936 it was already banned for agricultural purposes. However,
due to its highly invasive nature, it continued spreading and became a key
restrictive factor for agricultural production. The technological package
associated with Roundup Ready soybeans was believed to control the pest by the
mid 1990s. However, Monsanto’s technicians just recently reported a GR
johnsongrass biotype (Heap,
2007). Although the first plots with GR johnsongrass appeared in the north
of Argentina only in 2002, it can now be found practically in every agricultural
region of the country.

The appearance of GR johnsongrass can be linked to some of the main risk
factors associated to the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds discussed in
the weed-resistant management literature. Some of these risks arise from the
frequent application of highly effective herbicides, such as glyphosate, in
intensive low-diversity cropping systems, and the presence of annual weed
species occurring at high population densities and characterised by a wide
distribution, large genetic variability, prolific seed production and efficient
dissemination ([Powles,
2003] and [Beckie,
2006]).

We argue that the political economy of agrarian modernization and
biotechnology, and the economics of bioinvasions can offer additional insights
for understanding the mechanisms of herbicide-resistant weed’s appearance and
spread. Agricultural biotechnology has posed new and cumulative challenges to
the future of rural spaces ([Bridge
et al., 2003], [Gibbs
et al., 2008] and [Marsden,
2008]). Controversies regarding GMOs reflect a clash between agricultural
paradigms and development alternatives ([Altieri,
2005], [Binimelis,
2008], [Levidow
and Boschert, 2008], [Herrick,
2005], [Lyons
and Lawrence, 1999], [Lyson,
2002], [Marsden,
2008], [McAfee,
2003], [McAfee,
2008] and [Verhoog,
2007]). These controversies intensify previous differences dating at least
to the Green Revolution and its social and environmental consequences ([Buttel
and Barker, 1985] and [Buttel
et al., 1985]).

The literature indicates that the diffusion of GM technology took place under
the three neo-liberal pillars of privatization, commoditisation and deregulation
([Kloppenburg,
1988], [Lyson,
2002], [McAfee,
2003], [Roff,
2008] and [Salleh,
2006]). As we will argue later on this paper, GM techniques became the
cornerstone for the development of the agro-industrial model that dominates
Argentinean agriculture. The use of glyphosate allowed the use of non-tillage
practices, in which the crop is sown over the stubble of the former crop,
facilitating erosion reduction and higher production under continuous
agriculture. In this way, biotechnology provided a tool for dealing with
technical problems arising from large-scale intensive-capital monoculture (e.g.
weed management) (Marsden,
2008). This has fuelled the expansion, integration and internationalization
of soybean production and commercialisation, which are main aspects of the
Argentinean agrarian model, to the detriment of other alternatives (Pengue,
2005). It was during the recent soybean export-tax conflict in Argentina in
2008 that the clash between viewpoints regarding the country’s relative position
in the world’s economy and its bet for trade liberalisation and export
competition became more evident. The decline in the price of soybeans in late
2008 because of the world economic crisis will presumably lead to a questioning
of the model of export-led growth.

In general, the neo-liberal approach to agriculture relies on a faith in
nominally “free” markets to determine agrarian dynamics. An essential feature of
this policy prescription is devolution of decisions to the individual sphere ([Binimelis,
2008], [Cocklin
et al., 2008] and [Devos
et al., 2008]), and by setting self-interested free choice as the only way
of safeguarding rights and liberties (Roff,
2008). The same reasoning operates regarding weed management resistance.
However, the social consequences from the application of this approach to weed
resistance management have been largely under-explored. Two approaches represent
the different attitudes for managing weed resistance (Mueller
et al., 2005). These two strategies are also known as mitigation and
adaptation, respectively (Perrings,
2005). The first one is identified with proactive or preventive management,
and includes identifying major pathways and changing environmental conditions to
reduce the likelihood of future resistance, e.g. diversifying the agroecosystem,
rotating crops and/or herbicides with different sites of action, or including
integrated weed management strategies. The other approach is known as reactive
management, and implies actions which aim at reducing resistance costs by
changing the herbicide when it no longer works.

As a result, there is a policy dilemma about which approach to choose for
managing weed resistance. The choice depends on the stage of the process when
the decision is being made but also on the predictability of the resistance and
society’s attitude towards uncertainty. Although a preventive strategy is
usually advised (for the case of glyphosate, see e.g. [Powles,
2003] and [Powles,
2008]), farmers engaged in high-input systems are reluctant to opt for it
because of short-term commercial costs and/or the inability to foresee the
economic risks (Shaner,
1995). The reactive approach assumes that novel strategies will become
available when required, but also that the costs of these future strategies will
not be larger than those of the present management practices. In fact, the
evolution of weed herbicide resistance has neither decreased herbicide use nor
increased non-chemical practices (Beckie,
2006), but rather intensified herbicide consumption – the so-called
“herbicide treadmill”. The examination of this tension between preventive and reactive
approaches for explaining attitudes towards herbicide-resistant weeds comprises
a major drive for this study.

The aim of this paper is to analyze both the driving forces behind the
initial spread of GR johnsongrass and the social, economic and environmental
implications of pre-emptive or reactive response strategies. It also discusses
reasons behind farmers’ willingness or reluctance to adopt preventive resistance
management strategies, as well as institutional conditions and constraints. The
existence of a new form of treadmill phenomenon, not only leading to the increase of herbicide use but
also to the intensification in the use of GM crops, will also be explored.

This paper is structured in five sections. Following the introduction and
methods, we discuss the driving forces behind the appearance of GR johnsongrass.
The Argentinean agricultural system is characterized, with special focus on the
GR soybean production and future scenarios. Next, we describe the environmental
history of johnsongrass and the emergence of GR biotypes in terms of spread,
potential impacts and responses put in place. Finally, we discuss the
implications of different management strategies and provide some concluding
remarks.

2. Methods

There is a small but hitherto undisputed body of evidence concerning the
existence of the invasion process of GR johnsongrass ([Heap,
2007] and [Powles,
2008]). In this study, we present the results of qualitative field research
on actors’ perceptions and understanding of the process. The qualitative
techniques included semi-structured group and individual in-depth interviews as
well as participatory observation.

The use of these techniques is grounded in the characteristics of the case
study. Complexity inherent to the invasion process and to the production system
is reflected in uncertainties concerning the impacts of GR johnsongrass spread.
Data regarding the degree of spread of GR johnsongrass are incomplete due to
lack of official statistics and voluntary reporting (as will be discussed in
following sections). This rules out the analysis of impacts from a quantitative
perspective. At the same time, there are different perspectives regarding the
significance of the invasion, which are better elicited through qualitative
approaches (Kvale,
1996).

The informants were selected among main actors who participate in the
management strategies and/or governance of the issue of GR johnsongrass. During
2007, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted in the provinces of Salta,
Tucumán, Santiago del Estero, Entre Rios and Buenos Aires. These interviews
aimed at eliciting the viewpoints of experts, practitioners and actors involved
in the GR johnsongrass conflict. Interviews were conducted with three botanists
specialized in weeds, three affected farmers, two ecologists, two
representatives of the main biotechnology company in Argentina, three agrarian
technicians, one representative of the National Agrifood Health and Quality
Service (SENASA), four scholars and researchers at private agronomy institutions
and two representatives of producers’ associations. The selection of actors was
based on the different roles and perceptions related to the management of the GR
johnsongrass ([Flick,
2006] and [Bauer
and Gaskell, 2000]). The interview guide included four main aspects: (a)
agricultural transformations and productive dynamics on the study area; (b)
driving forces behind the emergence of GR johnsongrass; (c) an assessment of the
costs and impacts derived from the appearance of the GR johnsongrass; and (d) an
estimation of the GR management measures and proposals. Collected information
was analyzed using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software which handles
large data sets by setting categories, systematising and refining concepts ([Kelle,
2000] and [Lewins
and Silver, 2007]).

Information on the socio-economic and biological processes was collected to
unravel the environmental history of the johnsongrass, the Argentinean GR
soybean system and the current implications of the agronomic production model. A
literature review emphasizing the political economy of biotechnologies and the
economics of bioinvasions and weed management, as well as general insights from
ecological economics and agroecology provided the analytical tools for tackling
the GR johnsongrass conflict.

3. The Argentinean GR soybean system

The driving forces behind the appearance of GR johnsongrass cannot be
separated from Argentina’s rural development model, particularly the
institutional setting and the new agrarian organization of space (i.e. the
agriculturisation and pampeanisation processes, as discussed
below). Seen this way, the emergence of GR johnsongrass could be interpreted as
a foreseeable “side-effect” of these processes, and responses to it would be
determined by the system’s constraints and opportunities as well as by the
future productive scenarios.

3.1. Production system and technological applications

Modern Argentinean agriculture started in the late 19th century with a mixed
production system (based in cattle ranching and agricultural crop rotations)
which promoted an extensive low-input agronomic cropping scheme in the
Pampas (Viglizzo
et al., 2002). The Pampas is a vast, flat pastureland of Argentina,
which covers more than 55 million hectares of arable land. Over the years,
cultivation with inappropriate tillage systems and machinery has lead to
erosion. In the early 1990s, the adoption of no-till practices diminished the
erosion problems but raised herbicide consumption. Non-tillage systems and
soybean–wheat rotation displaced the mixed crop-cattle production system in most
of the Pampas pastures, allowing farmers to produce three crops over a
two years period. These practices also opened a window of opportunity to a range
of herbicides with different modes of action in each stage of the soybean
cultivation system. As a result, weed control became 40% of the input costs for
farmers. By 1987, 50 chemical compounds were marketed for weed control, 22 of
them for soybean fields, under several different formulations. However, only
four principals comprised 60% of the market value (León
et al., 1987). Fifteen companies controlled the market; of which 80% were
multinational enterprises (Pengue,
2000).

These new technologies accompanied the rise of permanent agriculture, which
displaced traditional cattle production to marginal areas or feedlots. The
process of agriculturisation, as it is known in Argentina (Manuel-Navarrete
et al., 2005), transfigured the mixed farming system towards an
agri-industrial model. It is characterised by the diffusion of specialised
mono-cultural crops, the progressive intensification of the system by the use of
external inputs, the geographical separation of livestock and crops and a
growing reliance upon public, but also increasingly private, research and
extension system (Marsden,
2008).

In the extra-pampean areas, which are characterized by more complex
environments, the system gives rise to a greater reliance on external inputs for
weed and pest control. The process, called pampeanisation, entails the
export of the technological, financial and agronomical model of the
Pampas to other ecoregions, such as the Great Chaco or the Yungas (Pengue,
2005), thereby expanding the agricultural frontier. Statistically, this
trend is evident in the demand for new farmland, which has pushed Argentina’s
deforestation rates to 0.85% per year, above those found in Africa (0.78%) and
above the average in South America (0.50%) (Morello
and Pengue, 2007). The Department of Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Fisheries
and Food (SAGPyA, acronym in Spanish) documents a threefold increase in the rate
of soybean expansion between 1996/1997 and 2006/2007 sowing seasons.

The processes of agriculturalisation and pampeanisation were
fostered by the introduction of the mono-cultural GR transgenic soybean model under no-tillage practices in the mid 1990s. Using
glyphosate, farmers were able to control a diversity of weeds (including the
most conspicuous, e.g. Sorghum halepense, Cynodon dactylon,
Cyperus rotundus and Chenopodium album) at a very low cost. This
allowed farmers to manage more land and increase overall productivity and
profitability based on a vertical integration model (Mueller
et al., 2005). In the 2006/7 campaign, 16 million hectares were sown
with soy, and production reached its historical record: 48 million tonnes,
half of the total agricultural production for Argentina (SAGPyA,
2007). Practically 100% of total soybean production is based on genetically
modified GR soybeans.

3.2. The institutional setting

A series of structural reforms were necessary to allow a rapid diffusion of
GM technology. Government policies were among the major driving forces
transforming extensive agriculture and cattle raising to fit the requirements of
international markets.

The shift in Argentinean agriculture towards commoditisation
(including an emphasis on export production) produced a substantial surplus in
the current account balance, allowing payment of interest on external debt,
while increasing economic resources to maintain social plans. Exports account
for most of the improvement in tax revenues and half of these taxes come from
soybeans exports and its derivates (Damill
et al., 2006). At the same time, empowered market forces had a stronger
voice in strategic production decisions. Responsibilities were transferred from
the state to technical NGOs and agribusiness corporations, while services such
as extension usually offered by state institutions were dismantled (Manuel-Navarrete
et al., 2005). As a result, agricultural modernization processes and the
adoption of GM technologies occurred mostly in the absence of state actors and
institutions. This implied an important shift in actors concerning agrarian
dynamics, development pathways and technological modernization. The active role
that private entities played in technological diffusion and professional
assistance is evidenced in strategies that are based on private sector
responses. Multinational corporations become central actors and the major
vehicle of technological modernization (Spielman,
2007).

3.3. The new social organization of space

Linked to the institutional setting, the social organization of space plays a
major role as a driver in the emergence and spread of the GR johnsongrass as
well as in the adoption of response strategies. Changes in spatial patterns of
land use associated with the expansion of soybean in Argentina have been
explored in detail elsewhere (Paruelo
and Oesterheld, 2004). These spatial transformations associated with changes
in land tenure structure are particularly relevant for the analysis of
johnsongrass spread. According to the last agricultural census, units larger
than 10,000 ha have increased 13% in number and 14% in extent in
Pampas between 1988 and 2002 (SAGPyA,
2003). Since the 1990s, there has been also an increase in agricultural land
concentration in the Northern provinces of Argentina, primarily as a function of
soybean production. In the Northern provinces of Salta and Santiago del Estero
between 1988 and 2002 the area devoted to agriculture increased by 70%, which
means an expansion of 120,000 ha per year of the agricultural frontier.
About 66% of this increase is explained by increments of soybean-cultivated
areas (Paruelo
and Oesterheld, 2004).

New forms of land tenure favour an increasing concentration of agricultural
production and management. Informants report that renting land through leasing
arrangements and other financial mechanisms has now come to be an economically
efficient option, a development that coincides with Kloppenburg
and Geisler’s (1985) analysis of the agricultural ladder in the United
States. Their findings confirm that new social forms of production are no longer
linked to the productive chain through ownership, but rather the system has
broader objectives of net revenue and economic efficiency. In Argentina, more
than 50% of the cultivated land is leased and, according to Pengue
(2005), 75% of the grain in the Pampas is produced by large land
leaseholders. Most of the leasing contracts are annual, which impose a high
pressure on the land in order to obtain the maximum revenue in the shortest
time. Production and management concentration facilitates the adoption of
input-oriented (machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, GR soybean) and
process-oriented (no-tillage) systems. However, technological adoption and
change are closely related to capital and information availability. While
changes in production practices and adoption of GM technologies favour yield
increases, Paruelo
and Oesterheld (2004) have documented that beneficiaries of technological
improvements are mainly large producers. For this reason, the extension of the
lease regimes up to 5 years has become one of the main demands of small and
medium-sized farmers (Federación
Agraria, 2008).

In the case of soybean production systems, production processes are dominated
by managerial tasks performed by a contractor (Manuel-Navarrete
et al., 2005) representing either national corporate or international
investment interests. According to Buzzi (quoted in Pengue
(2007)) 3% of the producers are responsible for 70% of the soybean
production. Much of this production occurs under the auspices of the so-called
“sowing pools”. The sowing pool comprises a financial mechanism for soybean
production which brings together a landowner, a contractor and a technician in a
novel form of agricultural enterprise. The sowing pools favour agrarian capital
concentration in the hands of large company contractors that lease the land from
small and medium landholders.

3.4. Future scenarios of the production system

In this section, we analyze major recent trends in Argentina’s agricultural
production system. Besides soybean seed and flour feeding the ever increasing
international meat market, Argentina is also one of the greatest exporters of
vegetable-oil in general and of soybean and sunflower derivatives in particular.
It is considered to have some of the most efficient and technologically advanced
milling equipment for vegetable-oil in the world, producing more than
154,000 tonnes per day. Strategic geographical location of the milling
infrastructures at big harbours facilitates the export of 95% of this oil
production ([Lamers,
2006] and [Pengue,
2006]). The sector is characterised by an industrial oligopoly, as 85% of
the installed milling potential is processed by six companies.

Because of this capacity, Argentina is potentially a prime supplier for the
growing biofuel industry, both for biodiesel (the raw material of which is
vegetable oil from soybeans, sunflowers or canola) or bioethanol (derived from
alcohols obtained from maize or sugarcane). For instance, the EU goal of 5.75%
biofuel blending by 2010 would require a fivefold increase in EU production,
posing a great demand for imported raw materials ([APPA,
2007], [Dufey,
2006] and [Russi,
2008]). Future projections foresee biofuel production taking place mostly in
developing countries, with cheap land and labour and where climatic conditions
are more favourable (Wicke,
2006).

Moreover, with internal demand likely to increase due to the Argentinean
“Biofuels Act” (Law 26.093) requiring 5% biodiesel content in petroleum
derivates by 2010, domestic demand is estimated to reach
600,000 tonnes/year for biodiesel. At the present production rates, it is
calculated that 7.3% of the soybean surface is needed for supplying this annual
target of production in the first year of implementation (3.5 million
tonnes of soy beans). Therefore, Argentina could not become diesel
self-sufficient through soybean-derived biodiesel unless the cultivation surface
is significantly increased. Although Argentinean authorities remain confident of
the opportunities to increase soy yields, most of the large soybean growers,
including Argentina, the USA and Brazil, have seemingly already optimized their
production, as they have experienced little growth in last years (Johnston,
2006). International demand could press further for the expansion of the
agricultural frontier. In the case of ethanol, Argentina is also one of the
world’s lowest cost producers of maize. Domestic demand is estimated at around
160,000 tonnes/year for bioethanol.

4. “With the GR soybean we arrived in paradise… but it was so
short-lived…”: the emergence, impacts and responses to GR johnsongrass

4.1. Environmental history of johnsongrass management in
Argentina

Johnsongrass was introduced in Argentina at the beginning of the 20th
century. Although it was already considered strongly invasive, the Ministry of
Agriculture proposed it as a high-yield forage suitable for poor soil conditions
([Estrada,
1907] and [Vallejo,
1913]). Agronomists in Tucumán (north of Argentina) were soon alerted by its
rapid, invasive potential and recommended its prohibition ([Cross,
1926] and [Cross,
1927]). By this time, land abandonment, decrease of land prices and high
productivity losses in the weed’s wake were also documented (Schultz,
1931), which led to describing the johnsongrass invasion as “the farmers’
terror” (Cross,
1934a). In 1930 it was considered a pest for agriculture in the humid and
semiarid regions of the country. Although international sales and imports of
johnsongrass seeds and rhizomes were forbidden (de
Rocha, 1930), domestic trade was not halted (Cross,
1934b). Only in 1951 were sowing and breeding banned at the national
level.

Despite these policies, by the early 1980s some estimates assert that
6 million hectares of the rolling pampas were infested (Leguizamón,
1983), while other estimates are as high as 15 million hectares, with
over 94,000 affected producers (Ladelfa
et al., 1983). Until the 1970s, control techniques were either mechanical or
manual, and cultivars coexisted with a wide, polyspecific weed population. In
the 1970s, a series of herbicides (e.g. MSMA or Trifluralina) were introduced in
the Argentinean market, and johnsongrass control techniques combined mechanical
and chemical strategies. By 1977 the so-called “Plan Piloto de Salto” was
launched by the National Institute of Stockbreeding Technology (INTA) in the
province of Buenos Aires. Its main objective was to progressively recuperate the
infested fields through implementing management techniques based on rotation
practices, the use of winter cover crops and mechanical and/or chemical measures
(Rossi
and Cascardo, 1981). A series of empirical field trials were conducted to
evaluate the efficiency of these techniques, and to improve background knowledge
on the dynamics of johnsongrass (e.g. reproduction patterns, susceptibility to
the temperature or to fertilisation). Costs of different management alternatives
over three-year rotation periods varied between 20% and 45% of the total
production costs (Cascardo
and Rossi, 1979). At that time, MSMA, Dalapon, Pirifenop and glyphosate were
recommended (Barletta
et al., 1977). In the 1980s, the range and use of herbicides increased, both
for pre-sowing herbicides and grass-specific graminicides.

The subsequent introduction of GR soybeans and the constant use of glyphosate
apparently succeeded in controlling the weed. As one informant reported:
“glyphosate becomes the essential tool for fallow-land and soybean cultivation
in 1996. Johnsongrass practically disappeared from the rolling Pampas,
except from patches on uncultivated land … but none in agricultural
land”.

The illusion of infallibility of glyphosate to control weed species shifted
emphasis toward chemical control at the expense of integrated weed management2
and the weed control experts groups. The soybean herbicide market was
contracted. As one engineer stated in an interview: “Traditional products
reduced their market presence. It is difficult to get any other product.
Everything except glyphosate has to be ordered”. Others have noted that the rate
of innovation in developing new herbicides has declined as agrochemical
companies have acquired seed companies to produce herbicide-resistant crops.
Moreover, farmers’ willingness to use other alternatives or explore weed
thresholds has been reduced after GR crops adoption ([Martínez-Ghersa
et al., 2003] and [Rüegg
et al., 2007]). When surveying Argentinean farmers, White
(1997) found that among the main motivations for adopting GR technology were
better and more simplified weed control in the short term in addition to a
decreased expenditure in herbicides, labour and fuel.

The adoption of herbicide technology in the 1960s, and glyphosate later, has
been accompanied by conceptual changes in the definition of weeds and their role
within the production system. For some actors, weeds may be considered an
intrinsic limiting factor in the agriculturisation process, the economic
impact of which must be minimised; while for others they are an “enemy” to be
defeated in the ongoing effort to dominate nature. Among frequently used terms
in weed management are “control”, “eradication”, “fight”, “defeat”, “wipe out”,
“weapon” and the use of medical metaphors and hygienic terms such as “clean” to
refer to a chemically sterilized field. All these were identified in the
interviews and are examples of the second mindset described above.

Glyphosate consumption became the centre of the weed management strategy,
increasing sharply from 1 million litres in 1991 to 180 million in
2007. Although glyphosate is considered a low environmental risk herbicide by
some authors ([Duke,
2005] and [Duke
and Powles, 2008]), those with an eye on the bigger picture have warned that
“the substitution of traditional crops [in Argentina] by GR soy in the past
decades represents a large scale, unplanned, ecological experiment, whose
consequences for natural ecosystems, and aquatic environments in particular, are
poorly understood” (Pérez
et al., 2007; see also (Altieri,
2004), (Casabé
et al., 2007) and (Relyea,
2005)).3

Initially after the adoption of GM soybeans the increased use of glyphosate
was accompanied by a decrease in the consumption of other herbicides such as
atrazine or 2,4-D. However, during the last growing seasons, the consumption of
these herbicides has risen again (see Fig.
1). These results coincide with those of Bonny
(2008), who concludes after assessing soybean cropping in US that the total
amount of herbicides applied per ha decreased initially between 1996 and 2001,
but tended to rise afterwards.

Full-size image
(19K)

Fig. 1. Evolution in glyphosate, atrazine and 2,4-D consumption in
Argentina, 1996–2006. Source: Statistics have been compiled from Pengue
(2000) and CASAFE
(Cámara de Sanidad y Fertilizantes de la República Argentina (2007)).

View Within Article

4.2. The emergence of GR johnsongrass biotypes in Argentina

Farmers from the province of Salta, northern Argentina, detected the
appearance of a GR johnsongrass biotype in 2002. Samples were taken and brought
to the USA by Monsanto in 2003. However resistance was only reported indirectly
to the National Agrifood Health and Quality Service (SENASA) during a congress
presentation offered by Monsanto in December 2005 (Passalacqua,
2007). The Tucumán University then confirmed it in the same year. It is
possible that this delay has been critical for the future spread of GR
johnsongrass. An affected producer commented on the time lag between early
detection and confirmation: “We warned Monsanto and they came. But we were
losing time, nearly two years passed […] The message from all scientists at that
moment, not only Monsanto’s, was that it was practically impossible to acquire
resistance to glyphosate due to its site of action. Now it has changed”. At that
time, different authors already warned of the potentially intense selection
pressure for weed resistance by genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops.
This would in turn jeopardize the future use of glyphosate ([Owen
and Zelaya, 2005], [Powles,
2003], [Reddy,
2001], [Shaner,
2000], [Snow
et al., 2005], [Tiedje
et al., 1989] and [Wolfenbarger
and Phifer, 2000]). By 2006, eight GR weeds were already confirmed
worldwide; three cases were associated with the use of herbicide-resistant crops
(Cerdeira
and Duke, 2006).

Although the first cases emerged in the Salta province (Valverde
and Gressel, 2006), GR johnsongrass was reported in 2007 in all
agroproductive provinces in northern Argentina and also in some central
provinces, such as Santa Fe. It is estimated that the affected area in the north
of Argentina covers 10,000 ha (Passalacqua,
2007), and our informants expected that the potential affected area might
reach 100,000 ha. Fig.
2 shows the areas where GR johnsongrass’ has been reported.

Full-size image
(75K)

Fig. 2. Areas with confirmed GR johnsongrass in the North and Centre of
Argentina (2008).

View Within Article

4.3. Potential impacts associated with GR johnsongrass

Involved actors offered different analyses of the recent appearance and
spread of GR johnsongrass in Argentina and of its implications. They discussed
the similarity of most of these impacts to those already encountered in the
1930s. Again, increases in the control costs were reported in the affected
fields. Some informants focused on farmers’ capability to adapt to the new
conditions: “This will weed out producers. Those who are attentive will succeed;
those who clean their machinery, etc… will have everything under control.
The problem is with those who are still confident about managing with
glyphosate. They will have problems. Other types of resistance will occur. This
is the big topic.” A major challenge is replacing an extremely simple weed
management, based on a “fantastic technology that makes Argentina competitive
worldwide” (interview, agronomist), with a more complex integrated weed
management system.

Yield loss and incremental control costs have induced changes in the lease
regime (both in the price and length of the contract), as a consequence of the
depreciation of the value of affected lands. Some stakeholders have also
discussed the increase in the control costs as an added driver for the need to
scale-up the economic activity, which will cause the abandonment of small and
medium-sized farms or further push the agricultural frontier in order to
maintain the margin of benefits. The process is similar to the one discussed by
Kloppenburg
(1988, p. 35) regarding technology adoption, in which farmers who fail to
adapt to new technologies are continuously driven out of business and their
operations are absorbed by more successful producers, ensuring a secure and
expanding market for the technology supplier.

The implementation of johnsongrass’ management measures can be related to a
series of socio-economic and environmental impacts. Agronomists in the affected
areas suggest control strategies that involve returning to more severely toxic
and older herbicidal ingredients such as MSMA, 2,4-D and combinations of these
with glyphosate in a new burn-down strategy in the no-tillage GR system, or by
using rucksack equipments for a plant by plant control. Economic costs threaten
to accrue as practices are prescribed for the containment of GR johnsongrass,
such as cleaning of agricultural machinery, or with the potential rise in seeds’
costs due to purity standards. The technology advantage found by farmers in the
implementation of the GR soybean in terms of cost reduction could be lost.
Returning to old herbicides increases control costs drastically, leaving
middle-sized farms in a precarious situation. The increased use of MSMA or
2,4-D, with higher potential environmental and health impacts than glyphosate,
or the promotion and introduction of genetically modified seeds resistant to
other herbicides, will be discussed in next section.

4.4. Management responses to GR johnsongrass

Management strategies can be divided into proactive or reactive, though
options may be limited depending on how advanced the invasion is at the
decision-point. We will now review the different classes of responses and their
implementation in Argentina (see Table
1). It is worth mentioning that the main agricultural extension agents in
charge of farmers’ assessment, especially in the north of Argentina, are
agronomic engineers representing private, mixed companies or private NGOs such
as ProGrano (Northern Grain Producers Association) or AAPRESID (Argentinean
Association of Non-Tillage Producers).

Table 1.

Responses implemented in Argentina for the management of GR johnsongrass.

Before GR johnsongrass emergence

After GR johnsongrass emergence

Prevention

Prevention

–

–

Early detection

Assessment

–

SENASA hires an external
consultancy in June 2006 for evaluating the scale of the problem and to
propose management recommendations

A National Advisory Board
for Resistant Pests (CONAPRE) was launched in November 2006

Two workshops were held in
September 2006 and June 2007, gathering weed experts, producers and
policy-makers

Early detection

A communication system for
detection of GR johnsongrass was implemented

Containment

Informative campaign
launched by the Experimental Agroindustrial Station Obispo Colombres and
ProGrano in 2007

Control

Chemical control has been
tested with several herbicides (MSMA, 2,4-D, halaxifop metil, cletodim, as
well as graminicides applied locally) in soy
fields.

Full-size table

Sources: (ASAPROVE,
2006), (Olea
et al., 2007), (Passalacqua,
2007) and (SENASA,
2007); field work interviews.

View Within Article

Preventive measures: In a glyphosate-based production system,
preventive measures would involve searching for more diversified production,
requiring a sophistication of the system as well as improving management of
knowledge and time. Given the predominance of economic and technological
optimism, no preventive measures were taken before the emergence of GR
johnsongrass, nor in unaffected areas once it had already appeared in other
areas of the country.

Reactive measures: Once GR johnsongrass appeared, reactive measures
were implemented. These can be divided into assessment, early detection,
containment or control measures (GISP,
2007). Eradication has not been discussed as an option by stakeholders.

Assessment can be considered the first step of a management programme.
It involves evaluating the different elements within the current situation
(extent of the area to be managed, determining the management goal or the
stakeholders involved). In 2006, the SENASA hired an external consultancy to
assess the state of affairs in Argentina (Valverde
and Gressel, 2006). Its main recommendations include measures such as
putting in place early detection systems (visual and satellite-based), designing
a public information campaign, promoting rotation schemes for avoiding or
delaying the appearance of resistance, implementing measures for containment and
promoting basic research and investigation on chemical control. Two workshops
were held in September 2006 and June 2007 presenting and following-up this
assessment, convening weed experts, producers and policy-makers. A National
Advisory Board for Resistant Pests (CONAPRE) was launched in November 2006
charged with coordination (SENASA Resolution 470/2007). Its functions are
similar those of the first Board against Weeds created in 1936 to manage common
johnsongrass.

Early detection: SENASA has put in operation a centralised system for
reporting suspected cases of GR johnsongrass. However, there has been a low
number of reports. This can be attributed in part to the severity of GR
johnsongrass’ impact and the uncertainty of the consequences for those who
report. It can be illustrated by some excerpts from interviews: “The reports are
few because people are afraid of reporting because of getting lower rents and
because they do not know how the authority is going to react, because their
fields could be closed down,…”; “If a farmer has or detects GR johnsongrass,
will he say it? Will he identify the problem in his field? He doesn’t know what
could happen because legislation is not clear: would the field be closed down?
Would production be retained? What would be the cost of machinery for him?
Ignorance of legislation can be a limiting factor in confronting the problem […]
While the problem is in the fences, it is everybody’s problem, or others’
problems; but when the problem is in his field, I do not know how he will
react.” Additionally, farmers seem to be reluctant to question their trust on
technology: “In general there still is […] some resistance to accepting the
problem. I make the comparison with some parents that deny that their son is
different. They deny the problem. But it is serious. And what we have detected
is that producers are reluctant to report the problem, to say it, to confess it.
[…] Probably there are many more cases than the ones we have detected.” The
resulting lack of data regarding the scale of the problem makes containment
difficult.

Containment is aimed to restrict the spread of GR johnsongrass and to
enclose the population in a defined geographical range. Again, early detection
and monitoring will be a critical feature. In 2007 the Experimental
Agroindustrial Station Obispo Colombres launched an information campaign through
radio and TV spots, newspapers and posters focused on procedures for avoiding
dispersion, especially those related to hygienic measures for machinery
(agricultural engineer, interview). The Agroindustrial Station is a joint
public–private venture.

Control measures: Much of the effort has been directed to control
measures. The objective of these is to reduce the density and abundance of GR
johnsongrass below a pre-set acceptable threshold. Control methods are usually
classified as mechanical, chemical, biological, habitat management or integrated
pest management (GISP,
2007). SENASA, who is the agency in charge of the control policies, has
mainly promoted chemical methods. The main herbicide companies lead the
research, in coordination with private NGOs (such as PROGRANO) who are in charge
of developing the resulting strategies. In the last years, no new herbicides
with new modes of action have been introduced in the market and no quick
developments are expected (Green
et al., 2008). For instance, the last compound with a new mode of action –
HPPD herbicide – was commercialized in Europe in 1991 (Rüegg
et al., 2007). Therefore, strategies to control GR johnsongrass rely on
already commercialized herbicides, either directly or through the development of
novel GM crops with new herbicide-resistance characteristics, or on varieties
resistant to even higher doses of glyphosate (Service,
2007).

Informants have described trials conducted in Argentina aiming to control GR
johnsongrass in soy fields. At the moment, the resistance mechanism is still
unknown and therefore research for chemical control is conducted on a trial and
error basis. These methods include the use of glyphosate mixed with MSMA, 2,4-D,
cletodim or haloxifop, post-emergence graminicides (e.g. Micosulfuron,
Imazethapir) or for use in fallow fields (atrazine, paraquat, 2,4-D, metsulfuron
metil). They do not fully cover the complete spectrum of weed species treated by
glyphosate, and entail higher management costs for the fields. For instance, Muñoz
(2006) estimated in 2006 that the cost of controlling GR johnsongrass with a
mixture of 2,4-D and glyphosate increases production costs by 19.3% per hectare,
apart from increased biological and human health risks. The price of the two
herbicides has risen steadily since then. Other authors estimated that
controlling a glyphosate resistant weed could double the herbicide expenditure
per hectare in Argentina (Tuesca
et al., 2007). Moreover, herbicide mixtures can inadvertently accelerate the
evolution of multiple resistance if they fail to meet basic criteria for
resistance management or are applied repeatedly (Beckie,
2006). However, weed control specialists remain confident: “in spite of
complexity, it is possible to face and win the battle on this problem”
(interview, weed management expert). Yet their efforts seem to depend on the
continued use of glyphosate. On July 2007, a commercial maize variety, stacked
with RoundUp resistance (i.e. GR) and Bt was released in Argentina. Rotation
with GR sugarcane was also suggested by some companies. Season by season, crop
by crop, including fallow fields, glyphosate seems to be the unique
alternative.

4.5. Enhancing the market: new developments in the GM scene

Biotech companies have recently launched novel GM crops with new
herbicide-resistance as a response to the appearance of GR weeds (Green
et al., 2008). For instance, in September 2007 DuPont and Nidera announced
the glyphosate and sulfonyureas-resistant soy varieties Finesse-Sts (Ciuci,
2007). In their presentation in Argentina, the representatives of Nidera soy
varieties stated: “For growing towards the future, it is necessary to present
solutions to new problems, such as tolerance or resistance to glyphosate.”
DuPont has similarly developed the so-called GAT/HRA technology, which combines
glyphosate and ALS resistance (including sulfonylurea and imidazolinone
herbicides) for soy and maize along with other crops (Green,
2007). The technology has been commercially applied by Pioneer Hi-Bred and
DuPont Crop Protection in the so-called Optimum-GAT trait, with sales
anticipated by 2010–2012 (Pioneer,
2007). To date, 95 species have been reported to be ALS-resistant, including
johnsongrass (Heap,
2007).

In May 2007 Monsanto and the University of Nebraska also presented Dicamba
resistant technology in Science magazine, as a strategy to extend the
effective lifetime of glyphosate and preserve no-till or reduced-till planting
practices (Behrens
et al., 2007). The technology could also be applied to soy, tobacco and
cotton. Dicamba is a synthetic auxine considered as an herbicide with low
toxicity, but with high residuality. It is a selective systemic herbicide for
broadleaf weeds. Chemical researchers recommend that Dicamba resistance genes be
used “stacked” with glyphosate resistance genes to allow farmers to alternate
between the two herbicides or mix them. In the case of glyphosate, whose patent
has expired, gene stacking is particularly profitable as it increases the value
of the seeds by including two or more technological fees rather than just one
(Bonny,
2008). In a study conducted by Peterson
and Hulting (2004), Dicamba was found to have higher relative risks than
glyphosate for five of the nine ecological receptors evaluated. In an estimation
of relative ecological risks of herbicide active ingredients made by Duke
and Cerdeira (2005), Dicamba was classified as having 220 more specific
risks compared to glyphosate. Kochia scoparia, Stachys arvensis
and Galeopsis tetrahit weeds have already been reported as
Dicamba-resistant (Heap,
2007). The first two are present in Argentina.

In turn, Dow AgroScience has recently presented its progress in the
development of maize and soy varieties resistant to 2,4-D, “fop” grass
herbicides and insects (Dow
AgroSciences, 2007a). Although offered as a herbicide with few resistant
weed populations, resistance to 2,4-D has been registered in 16 weed plant
species. First records already date from 1952 (Heap,
2007). The company expects to commercialize GM maize in 2012/3 or 2014 for
soybeans.

In maize production, Dow and Monsanto companies have recently presented a
genetically modified maize, in which eight genes are stacked for herbicide
tolerance and insect-protection. It has been published as the “‘all-in-one’
answer to demands for a comprehensive yield protection from weed and insect
traits” (Dow
AgroSciences, 2007b). The new GM crop –SmartStax – is expected to be
commercialised in the US by the end of the decade, combining glyphosate and
ammonium glufosinate resistance with corn worm protection.

Finally, research has also been conducted to obtain glyphosate-tolerant maize
with higher resistance to the herbicide. Athenix Corp, for instance, expects to
submit a regulatory package by the end of 2008 in the USA for maize capable of
withstanding at least eight times the standard field rate of glyphosate
recommended, providing “the highest levels of glyphosate tolerance available”
(Athenix
Corp., 2007). Field trials for soybean are about to begin.

5. Discussion and concluding remarks

The process of agriculturalisation in the rolling Pampas that
began in the mid 1970s, and the subsequent pampeanisation of
extra-Pampean regions have meant a strong intensification of the productive
system. These processes were enabled by the long-standing representation of
Argentina as an “almost unlimited” land (Garavaglia,
1989), metaphorically described as a desert that could be transformed for
production through the submission of the environment (Pengue,
2003) and the local populations (Navarro
Floria, 1999). Although these material and representational practices
started in Argentina long ago, they played a central role in the massive
diffusion of soybean production in recent years. At the same time, key roles
were played by a series of institutions (e.g. increasing offers of credits for
investments in phytosanitary control, especially herbicides during the 1970s (León
et al., 1987)) and innovations in land tenure arrangements. With the
introduction of the GR technology package, intensification under the efficiency
paradigm became the sole productive alternative (Pengue,
2004).

In these processes, weed management was identified as the bottleneck for the
production model, and great expenses of capital and labour were devoted to weed
control. As the example of johnsongrass illustrates, the “magic bullet” approach
was favoured. As discussed by Scott
(2005), this term was first coined in biomedicine to refer to a model
centred on the agent as the sole cause of disease. Integrated pest management
literature argues that the approach has been similarly applied to weed
management ([Buhler
et al., 2000], [Hoy,
1998], [Neve,
2007] and [Scott,
2005]). Synthetic herbicides are aimed to react once the pest has appeared.
However, herbicides are usually employed without analysing ecological and
evolutionary dynamics of the site, nor the social conditions of application
(ibid). This blind spot has also been discussed in the context of
herbicide-resistant GMOs ([Altieri,
2005], [Altieri
and Rosset, 1999], [Appleby,
2005], [McAfee,
2003] and [Mueller-Schaerer,
2002]).

As a consequence of the approach, every pest becomes a target (Prokopy,
1987). In that sense, weed control has been equated to weed-free, and field
appearance becomes then a major motivation for weed control (Jones
and Medd, 2000). This preoccupation could also partly explain the increasing
glyphosate consumption in Argentina (besides the increment of area sown with
soybeans). As a single post-emergence application is insufficient to achieve
total weed control, repeated applications are needed. This approach has been
metaphorically identified by critics of GM technology as “green concrete”, since
no other plant, except the crop, can grow (Levidow
and Carr, 2007). However, from an economic point of view, the optimum level
of weed control may be less than 100% unless if it is assumed that the crop is
infinitely valuable or control costs are zero (Martínez-Ghersa
et al., 2003).

A ‘golden moment’ of soybean production gave momentum to the magic bullet
approach. The harvest of 2007/2008 broke the historical records for soybean
yield and price (in part due to the sharply escalating biofuels demand) giving
support to the technological optimism that drives industrial agriculture in
Argentina. However, the GR technology may be judged as a technological lock-in,
discouraging the adoption of weed-resistance preventive measures and unable to
cope with GR weeds. As this case study shows, Argentinean farmers were deskilled
at an extraordinary speed, becoming weed “illiterates” as they forgot early
attempts to integrate pest management. In that sense, literature on path
dependency points out that dynamic increasing returns imply that, once chosen, a
technology path has the tendency to be stretched. Results from our case study
coincide with the findings of Cowan
and Gunley (1996), who explain this path dependency by the interplay of
three factors which determine the low rate of adoption of integrated pest
management as an alternative to chemical management: (a) initial low payoff for
this technology, as the necessary knowledge is not available; (b) uncertainty on
the outcomes; and (c) “coordination” problems among farmers in terms of the
effects that neighbouring practices have on their own fields. All these factors
were fostered in this case by “glyphosate dependence”.

Recommendations generally assume that the management strategy of an
individual farmer shapes the future incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds in
his/her fields (see, e.g. Dill
et al., 2008). However, as weeds act as a common factor (Regev
et al., 1976), appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds, or their control,
depend on the weakest point of the system, i.e. the least effective farmer. The
scale would depend on the potential range of spread by the weed (Perrings
et al., 2002). As a result, from an individual farmer’s point of view,
investing in preventing the emergence of herbicide-resistant populations in a
field, might not capture the future benefits of having avoided the costs of
managing the herbicide-resistant weed (Llewellyn
and Allen, 2006), especially in a situation of annual lease regimes. If the
necessary cooperation between farmers is not enhanced, only adaptation or
reactive measures can be taken. In a highly competitive context, preventive
management needs an institutional setting that establishes regulations and
responsibilities.

From a societal point of view, reactive measures favour those with the
resources to adapt to new conditions while transferring risks to society and the
environment (Perrings,
2005). Mueller
et al. (2005) argue that glyphosate in conjunction with GR crops allows
farmers to manage more hectares and increase overall productivity and
profitability. However, this raises equity concerns, in particular those related
to access to resources and finances. For instance, from the analysis of rural
dynamics after the introduction of GR soybeans and the emergence of GR
johnsongrass in Argentina, it can be argued that small and medium-sized farmers
are left in a more precarious position. Having small plots makes them more
vulnerable to the neighbourhood effect. Moreover, the economic and land tenure
(e.g. annual lease contracts) structure discourages the farmers from investing
in uncertain alternative practices, which require long-term planning or
restructuring time. The environmental history of johnsongrass in Argentina shows
that when it was not possible to control this weed, farmers directly abandoned
the land or sold it.

As a result of the intensification of the agricultural model, the appearance
of GR johnsongrass becomes a driver for further concentration while opening new
markets for technology suppliers. Proposed strategies to deal with the situation
rely on reactive measures, potentially causing a series of externalities.
Impacts of the potential increment of herbicide use on human health and the
environment should be further analyzed. The ‘chemical paradigm’ is again the
keystone of the strategy. Since new herbicide developments seem to be in a
deadlock, two routes can be followed if one wants to stay within this paradigm:
either add one of the available herbicides to the glyphosate technological
package directly, or incorporate the technology through the seed. In that sense,
although aiming to overcome the effects of the previous GR crop generation, this
“new generation” of GM crops strengthens the same paradigm. As a new magic
bullet, this process may represent a new form of herbicide intensification: the
“transgenic treadmill”.

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the EU-funded research project ALARM
(Assessing LArge-scale environmental
Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods
(GOCE-CT-2003-506675)). We are grateful to James Klepek, Nicolas Kosoy,
Joan Martinez Alier, Roger Strand, Christos Zografos and three anonymous
referees for their comments on early versions of the article. We are
particularly grateful to all the stakeholders who collaborated in the research
process.

References

Altieri,
2004 M.A. Altieri, Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths,
Environmental Risks and Alternatives, Food First Books, Oakland (2004).

Altieri,
2005 M.A. Altieri, The myth of coexistence: why transgenic
crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production,
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 25 (4)
(2005), pp. 361–371. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Altieri
and Rosset, 1999 M.A. Altieri and P. Rosset, Ten reasons why biotechnology
will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world, AgBioForum 2 (3/4) (1999), pp.
155–162. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

APPA,
2007 APPA, 2007. Biocarburantes y Desarrollo Sostenible. Mitos y Realidades,
Madrid. <http://www.appa.es/descargas/Doc_BIOCARBURANTES_1309.pdf>.

Appleby,
2005 A.P. Appleby, A history of weed control in the United States and Canada
– a sequel, Weed Science 53 (2005), pp. 762–768. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

ASAPROVE,
2006 ASAPROVE, 2006. Taller dinámica de la resistencia a herbicidas: caso
sorgo de alepo. ASAPROVE Bulletin 25, 6–8.

Athenix
Corp., 2007 Athenix Corp., 2007. New glyphosate-tolerant corn from Athenix
demonstrates superior performance. Press release, 14th August. <http://www.athenixcorp.news_081407.html>.

Barletta
et al., 1977 Barletta, U., Arregui, C., Mitidieri, A., 1977. Sorgo de Alepo.
Cartilla de extensión, 3. Información para extensión. INTA.

Barton
and Dracup, 2000 J.E. Barton and M. Dracup, Genetically modified crops and
the environment, Agronomic Journal 92 (2000), pp.
797–803. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

Bauer
and Gaskell, 2000 Bauer, M.W., Gaskell, G. (Eds.), 2000. Qualitative
Researching with Text, Image and Sound. Sage, London.

Beckie,
2006 H.J. Beckie, Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and
practices, Weed Technology 20 (2006), pp. 793–814. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14)

Behrens
et al., 2007 M.R. Behrens, N. Mutlu, S. Chakraborty, R. Dumitru, W.Z. Jiang,
B.J. LaVallee, P.L. Herman, T.E. Clemente and D.P. Weeks, Dicamba resistance:
enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies,
Science 326 (2007), pp. 1185–1188. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

Binimelis,
2008 R. Binimelis, Coexistence of plants, coexistence of farmers. Is an
individual choice possible?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 21 (2008), pp. 437–457. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

Bonny,
2008 S. Bonny, Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA:
adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 28 (2008), pp. 21–32. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

Bradford,
2004 Bradford, S., 2004. Argentina’s Bitter Harvest: What GM Soya Has Done
for Argentina. New Scientist, 2443. 17th April.

Bradshaw
et al., 1997 L.D. Bradshaw, S.R. Padgette, S.L. Kimballs and B.H. Wells,
Perspectives on glyphosate resistance, Weed Technology
11 (1) (1997), pp. 189–198. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (83)

Bridge
et al., 2003 G. Bridge, P. McManus and T. Marsden, The next new thing?
Biotechnology and its discontents, Geoforum 34 (2003),
pp. 165–174. Article
| PDF
(119 K)

Buhler
et al., 2000 D.D. Buhler, M. Matt Liebman and J.J. Obrycki, Theoretical and
practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management, Weed Science
48 (2000), pp. 274–280. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)

Buttel
and Barker, 1985 F.H. Buttel and R. Barker, Emerging agricultural
technologies, public policy, and implications for Third World Agriculture: the
case of biotechnology, American Journal of Agricultural Economics
67 (5) (1985), pp. 1170–1175. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

Buttel
et al., 1985 F.H. Buttel, M. Kenney and J. Kloppenburg Jr., From Green
Revolution to Biorevolution: some observations on the changing economic bases of
economic transformation in the Third World, Economic Development and Cultural
Change 34 (1) (1985), pp. 31–55. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

Casabé
et al., 2007 N. Casabé, L. Piola, J. Fuchs, M.L. Oneto, L. Pamparato, S.
Basack, R. Giménez, R. Massaro, J. Papa and E. Kersten, Ecotoxicological
assessment of the effects of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in an Argentine Soya
Field, Journal of Soils and Sediments 7 (4) (2007), pp.
232–239. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

CASAFE,
2007 CASAFE, 2007. Cámara Argentina de Sanidad y Fertilizantes. Estadística.
<http://www.casafe.org/mediciondemercado.html>.

Cascardo
and Rossi, 1979 A.R. Cascardo and R. Rossi, Control de sorgo de alepo:
Evaluación económica de distintas alternativas, Plan Piloto Salto. INTA,
Evaluación económica 9 (1979), pp. 1–13.

Cerdeira
and Duke, 2006 A.L. Cerdeira and S.O. Duke, The current status and
environmental impacts of GR crops: a review, Journal of Environmental
Quality 35 (2006), pp. 1633–1658. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

Ciuci,
2007 Ciuci, L., 2007. Un nuevo hito en la innovación tecnológica. La Nación,
15th September. <http://www.niderasemillas.com.ar/>.

Cocklin
et al., 2008 C. Cocklin, J. Dibden and D. Gibbs, Competitiveness versus
clean and green? The regulation and governance of GMOs in Australia and the UK,
Geoforum 39 (2008), pp. 161–173. Article
| PDF
(327 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Cowan
and Gunley, 1996 R. Cowan and P. Gunley, Sprayed to death: path dependence,
lock-in and pest control strategies, The Economic Journal
106 (436) (1996), pp. 521–542. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (53)

Cross,
1926 W.E. Cross, La extirpación del pasto ruso (“Sorghum halepense”),
Revista Industrial y Agrícola de Tucumán XVI (1926), p.
71.

Cross,
1927 W.E. Cross, Sobre plagas agrícolas. Nota al Ministro de Agricultura de
la Nación, Revista Industrial y Agrícola de Tucumán XVII
(1927), pp. 261–263.

Cross,
1934a W.E. Cross, La estación experimental agrícola de Tucumán en la lucha
contra el sorgo de alepo (pasto ruso), Revista Industrial y Agrícola de
Tucumán XXIV (9/10) (1934), pp. 181–183.

Cross,
1934b W.E. Cross, La extirpación del sorgo de alepo, Revista Industrial y
Agrícola de Tucumán XXIV (9/10) (1934), pp. 184–195.

Damill
et al., 2006 Damill, M., Frenkel, R., Rapetti, M., 2006. The Argentinean
debt: history, default and restructuring. Desarrollo Económico (Buenos Aires),
[online] 1, special section.

De
Rocha, 1930 De Rocha, A., 1930. Decretos reglamentarios de leyes nacionales.
La Facultad, Buenos Aires.

Devos
et al., 2008 Y. Devos, P. Maeseele, D. Reheul, L. Vanspeybroeck and D. de
Waele, Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: a
(re)quest for sense and sensibility, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 21 (1) (2008), pp. 29–61. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

Dill
et al., 2008 G.M. Dill, C.A. CaJacob and S.R. Padgette, Glyphosate-resistant
crops: adoption, use and future considerations, Pest Management Science
64 (2008), pp. 326–331. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

Dow
AgroSciences, 2007a Dow AgroSciences, 2007a. Dow AgroSciences reveals
progress on new herbicide tolerant trait. Dow AgroScience News Room, 28th
August.

Dow
AgroSciences, 2007b Dow AgroSciences, 2007b. Monsanto, Dow Agreement paves
the way for industry’s first-ever, eight-gene stacked offering in corn. Dow
AgroScience News Room, 14th September.

Dufey,
2006 A. Dufey, Biofuels Production, Trade and Sustainable Development:
Emerging Issues, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED),
London (2006).

Duke,
2005 S.O. Duke, Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after
introduction, Pest Management Science 61 (2005), pp.
211–218. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (43)

Duke
and Cerdeira, 2005 S.O. Duke and A.L. Cerdeira, Potential environmental
impacts of herbicide-resistant crops, Collection of Biosafety Reviews
2 (2005), pp. 66–143.

Duke
and Powles, 2008 S.O. Duke and S.B. Powles, Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century
herbicide, Pest Management Science 64 (2008), pp.
319–325. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

Ervin
et al., 2003 D.E. Ervin, R. Welsh, S.S. Batie and C.H. Carpentier, Towards
an ecological systems approach in public research for environmental regulation
of transgenic
crops, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99
(2003), pp. 1–14. Article
| PDF
(132 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

Estrada,
1907 M. Estrada, Pastos de verano y pastos de invierno. Forrajes
intercalados, Agriculture Ministry Bulletin VIII (1–2)
(1907), pp. 87–100.

FAO,
2007 FAO database, 2007. Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Plant
production and protection divistion. Integrated Pest Management–Weed Management.
<http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/ipm/Weeds>
(accessed 28.10.07).

Federación
Agraria, 2008 Federación Agraria, 2008. El congreso discute el futuro de las
políticas agropecuarias. Press release, 27th June <http://www.faa.com.ar/>.

Flick,
2006 U. Flick, An Introduction to Qualitative Research (third ed.), Sage,
London (2006).

Garavaglia,
1989 J.C. Garavaglia, Ecosistemas y tecnología agraria: Elementos para una
historia social de los ecosistemas rioplatenses (1700–1830), Desarrollo
Económico 28 (112) (1989), pp. 549–575. Full Text via CrossRef

Gibbs
et al., 2008 D. Gibbs, C. Cocklin and J. Dibden, Genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) and the future of rural spaces, Geoforum
39 (2008), pp. 145–147. Article
| PDF
(73 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

GISP,
2007 GISP, 2007. Ecology and Management of Invasive Alien Species:
Management. <http://www.gisp.org/ecology/>.

Green,
2007 J.M. Green, Review of glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicide crop
resistance and resistant weed management, Weed Technology
21 (2007), pp. 547–558. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10)

Green
et al., 2008 J.M. Green, C.B. Hazel, D.R. Forney and L.M. Pugh, New
multiple-herbicide crop resistance and formulation technology to augment the
utility of glyphosate, Pest Management Science 64 (4)
(2008), pp. 332–339. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

Heap,
2007 Heap, I.M., 2007. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. <http://www.weedscience.org>.

Herrick,
2005 C.B. Herrick, ‘Cultures of GM’: discourses of risk and labelling of
GMOs in the UK and EU, Area 37 (3) (2005), pp. 286–294.
Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Hoy,
1998 M.A. Hoy, Myths, models and mitigation of resistance to pesticides,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B,
Biological Sciences 353 (1998), pp. 1787–1795. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)

Johnston,
2006 Johnston, M., 2006. Evaluating the Potential for Large-Scale Biodiesel
Deployments in a Global Context. M.Sc. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Jones
and Medd, 2000 R.E. Jones and R.W. Medd, Economic thresholds and the case
for longer term approaches to population management of weeds, Weed
Technology 14 (2000), pp. 337–350. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)

Kelle,
2000 U. Kelle, Computer-assisted analysis: coding and indexing. In: M.W.
Bauer and G. Gaskell, Editors, Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and
Sound, Sage, London (2000), pp. 282–298.

Kloppenburg,
1988 J.R. Kloppenburg, First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant
Biotechnology, 1492–2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988).

Kloppenburg
and Geisler, 1985 J.R. Kloppenburg and C. Geisler, The agricultural ladder:
agrarian ideology and the changing structure of US agriculture, Journal of
Rural Studies 1 (1) (1985), pp. 59–72. Abstract | PDF
(1455 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

Kvale,
1996 S. Kvale, InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks (1996).

Ladelfa
et al., 1983 A. Ladelfa, D. Lavezzari, N. Moris, R. Silla and A. Núñez,
Control de sorgo de alepo en soja, INTA, Pergamino (1983).

Lamers,
2006 Lamers, P., 2006. Emerging liquid biofuel markets, ¿A dónde va la
Argentina? MSc in Environmental Management and Policy. IIIEE, Lund.

Leguizamón,
1983 E. Leguizamón, Población dinámica. El sorgo de alepo en la secuencia
trigo/soja, Desarrollo rural 24 (1983), pp. 76–79.

León
et al., 1987 C. León, L. D’Amato and M.A. Iturregui, El mercado de
plaguicidas en la Argentina, Desarrollo Económico 27
(105) (1987), pp. 129–144. Full Text via CrossRef

Levidow
and Boschert, 2008 L. Levidow and K. Boschert, Coexistence or contradiction?
GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe, Geoforum
39 (1) (2008), pp. 174–190. Article
| PDF
(827 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

Levidow
and Carr, 2007 L. Levidow and S. Carr, GM crops on trial: technological
development as a real-world experiment, Futures 39
(2007), pp. 408–431. Article
| PDF
(358 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Lewins
and Silver, 2007 A. Lewins and C. Silver, Using Software in Qualitative
Research, Sage, London (2007).

Llewellyn
and Allen, 2006 R.S. Llewellyn and D.M. Allen, Expected mobility of
herbicide resistance via weed seeds and pollen in a Western Australian cropping
region, Crop Protection 25 (2006), pp. 520–526. Article
| PDF
(171 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

Lyons
and Lawrence, 1999 K. Lyons and G. Lawrence, Alternative knowledges, organic
agriculture, and the biotechnology debate, Culture and Agriculture
21 (2) (1999), pp. 1–12.

Lyson,
2002 T.A. Lyson, Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable
agriculture, Trends in Biotechnology 20 (4) (2002), pp.
193–196. Article
| PDF
(32 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

Manuel-Navarrete
et al., 2005 Manuel-Navarrete, D., Gallopín, G., Blanco, M., Díaz Zorita,
M., Ferraro, D., Herzer, H., Laterra, P., Morello, J., Murmis, M.R., Pengue, W.,
Piñeiro, M., Podestá, G., Satorre, E.H., Torrent, M., Torres, F., Viglizzo, E.,
Caputo, M.G., Celis, A., 2005. Análisis sistémico de la agriculturalización en
la pampa húmeda argentina y sus consecuencias en regiones extrapampeanas:
sostenibilidad, brechas de conocimiento e integración de políticas. Serie Medio
Ambiente y Desarrollo 118. CEPAL. Santiago de Chile.

Marsden,
2008 T. Marsden, Agri-food contestations in rural space: GM in its
regulatory context, Geoforum 39 (2008), pp. 191–203. Article
| PDF
(436 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

Martínez-Ghersa
et al., 2003 M.A. Martínez-Ghersa, C.A. Worster and S.R. Radosevich,
Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: a
revisitation, Weed Technology 17 (2003), pp. 202–210. Full Text via CrossRef

McAfee,
2003 K. McAfee, Neoliberalism on the molecular scale. Economic and genetic
reductionism in biotechnology battles, Geoforum 34
(2003), pp. 203–219. Article
| PDF
(190 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33)

McAfee,
2008 K. McAfee, Beyond techno-science: transgenic
maize in the fight over Mexico’s future, Geoforum 39
(2008), pp. 148–160. Article
| PDF
(229 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Monsanto,
2008 Monsanto, 2008. Glyphosate Resistant Johnsongrass Confirmed In Two
Locations. Press release 12th March. Available at: <http://www.monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=580>.

Morello
and Pengue, 2007 Morello, J., Pengue, W.A. 2007. Manifiesto contra la
deforestacion. Notícias, Buenos Aires. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=externObjLink&_locator=url&_cdi=5808&_plusSign=%2B&_targetURL=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.revista-noticias.com.ar%252Fcomun%252Fnota.php%253Fart%253D640%2526ed%253D1599>.

Mueller
et al., 2005 T.C. Mueller, P.D. Mitchell, B.G. Young and S. Culpepper,
Proactive versus reactive management of GR or –tolerant weeds, Weed
Technology 19 (2005), pp. 924–933. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20)

Mueller-Schaerer,
2002 H. Mueller-Schaerer, Principles of integrated pest management with
emphasis on weeds, Encyclopedia of Pest Management (2002), pp. 1–4.

Muñoz,
2006 Muñoz, R., 2006. Implicancias económicas para la agricultura Argentina.
Paper presented at the conference “Dinámica de resistencia a herbicidas. Caso
sorgo de alepo”, Argentina.

Navarro
Floria, 1999 Navarro Floria, P., 1999. Un país sin indios. La imagen de la
Pampa y la Patagonia en la geografía del naciente estado argentino. Scripta
Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, 51 <http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn-51.htm>.

Neve,
2007 P. Neve, Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution and management:
50 years after Harper, Weed Research 47 (2007), pp.
365–369. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Olea
et al., 2007 Olea, I.L., Vinciguerra, H.F., Raimondo, J., Sabaté, S.,
Rodríguez, W.A., 2007. Sorgo de alepo resistente al glifosato. Recomendaciones
para prevenir su diseminación. Gacetilla Agroindustrial, 70. Estación
Experimental Obispo Columbres <http://www.eeaoc.org.ar>.

Owen
and Zelaya, 2005 M.D.K. Owen and I.A. Zelaya, Herbicide-resistant crops and
weed resistance to herbicides, Pest Management Science
61 (2005), pp. 301–311. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

Papa,
2000 Papa, J. 2000. Malezas tolerantes que pueden afectar el cultivo de soja
[Tolerant weeds that can affect the soybean crop]. National Institute of
Agricultural Research [INTA], Santa Fe Regional Center, Extension Agency
Oliveros.

Paruelo
and Oesterheld, 2004 Paruelo, J.M., Oesterheld, M. 2004. Patrones espaciales
y temporales de la expansión de la soja en Argentina. Relación con factores
socio-económicos y ambientales. Agronomy Faculty, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
<http://www.agro.uba.ar/users/lart/bancomundial/INFORME_final.pdf>.

Passalacqua,
2007 Passalacqua, S.A., 2007. El rol del estado en la problemática de plagas
resistentes: Caso sorgo de alepo resistente al herbicida glifosato. Round Table
AAPRESID Congress, 16th August.

Pengue,
2000 Pengue, W.A., 2000. Cultivos Transgénicos “Hacia dónde vamos”. UNESCO.
Lugar Editorial. Buenos Aires.

Pengue,
2003 W.A. Pengue, El glifosato y la dominación del ambiente,
Biodiversidad, Sustento y Cultura 37 (2003), pp.
1–7.

Pengue,
2004 W.A. Pengue, Producción agroexportadora e (in)seguridad alimentaria: El
caso de la soja en Argentina, Revista Iberoamericana de Economía
Ecológica 1 (2004), pp. 30–40.

Pengue,
2005 W.A. Pengue, Agricultura industrial y agricultura familiar en el
MERCOSUR. El pez grande se come al chico… “siempre”, Le Monde Diplomatique,
edición Cono Sur 71 (2005), pp. 7–9.

Pengue,
2006 Pengue, W.A., 2006. Modelo Agroexportador, Hidrovía Paraguay Paraná y
sus Consecuencias Socioambientales. ¿Una compleja integración para América
Latina?. Un enfoque desde la Economía Ecológica y el Análisis Multicriterial.
Coalición Rios Vivos. Rosario. Santa Fe.

Pengue,
2007 W.A. Pengue, Cuando tenga la tierra, Le Monde Diplomatique, edición
Cono Sur 94 (2007), p. 10.

Pérez
et al., 2007 G.L. Pérez, A. Torremorell, H. Mugni, P. Rodríguez, M. Solange
Vera, M. Do Nacimiento, L. Allende, J. Bustingorry, R. Escaray, M. Ferraro, I.
Izaguirre, H. Pizarro, C. Bonetto, D.P. Morris and H. Zagarese, Effects of the
herbicide RoundUp on freshwater microbial communities: a mesocosm study,
Ecological Applications 17 (8) (2007), pp. 2310–2322. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

Perrings,
2005 C. Perrings, Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of
biological invasions, Ecological Economics 52 (3)
(2005), pp. 315–325. Article
| PDF
(159 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

Perrings
et al., 2002 Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E. B., Delfino, D.,
Dalmazzone, S., Shogren, J., Simmons, P., Watkinson, A., 2002. Biological
invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conservation
Ecology 6(1): 1. [online] <http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1>.

Peterson
and Hulting, 2004 R.K.D. Peterson and A.G. Hulting, A comparative ecological
risk assessment for herbicides used on spring wheat: the effect of glyphosate
when used within a glyphosate-tolerant wheat system, Weed Science
52 (2004), pp. 834–844. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

Pioneer,
2007 Pioneer, 2007. Optimum™ and GAT™ Trait: new glyphosate and
ALS-tolerance technology. Press Release, 17th August.

Powles,
2003 S.B. Powles, My view, Weed Science 51 (2003),
p. 471. Full Text via CrossRef

Powles,
2008 S.B. Powles, Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world:
lessons to be learnt, Pest Management Science 64 (4)
(2008), pp. 360–365. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7)

Prokopy,
1987 R.J. Prokopy, Review: holistic pest management. Reviewed work:
ecological theory and integrated pest management practice by Marcos Kogan,
Science 238 (4825) (1987), pp. 410–411.

Reddy,
2001 K.N. Reddy, GR soybean as a weed management tool: opportunities and
challenges, Weed Biology and Management 1 (2001), pp.
193–2002.

Regev
et al., 1976 U. Regev, A.P. Gutiérrez and G. Feder, Pests as a common
property resource: a case study of Alfalfa Weevil control, American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 58 (2) (1976), pp. 186–197. Full Text via CrossRef

Relyea,
2005 R.A. Relyea, The lethal impact of RoundUp on aquatic and terrestrial
amphibians, Ecological Applications 15 (4) (2005), pp.
1118–1124. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30)

Roff,
2008 R.J. Roff, Preempting to nothing: neoliberalism and the fight to
de/re-regulate agricultural biotechnology, Geoforum 39
(2008), pp. 1423–1438. Article
| PDF
(262 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Rossi
and Cascardo, 1981 Rossi, A.R., Cascardo, A.R., 1981. Plan piloto de Salto.
Carpeta de producción vegetal, Generalidades. Información 33. INTA,
Pergamino.

Rüegg
et al., 2007 W.T. Rüegg, M. Quadranti and A. Zoschke, Herbicide research and
development: challenges and opportunities, Weed Research
47 (2007), pp. 271–275. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Russi,
2008 D. Russi, An integrated assessment of a large-scale biodiesel
production in Italy: killing several birds with one stone?, Energy Policy
36 (3) (2008), pp. 1169–1180. Article
| PDF
(196 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

SAGPyA,
2003 SAGPyA., 2003. Resultados Definitivos del Censo Nacional Agropecuario
2002. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos. Subsecretaría de
Economía Agropecuaria. Dirección de Economía Agraria. <http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/economia_agraria/index/censo/Parte_I.pdf>.

SAGPyA,
2007 SAGPyA., 2007. Estimaciones agrícolas mensuales. Cifras oficiales al
17/09/07. <http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar>.

Salleh,
2006 A. Salleh, “Organised irresponsibility”: contradictions in the
Australian government’s strategy for GM regulation, Environmental
Politics 15 (3) (2006), pp. 399–416. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

Schultz,
1931 E.F. Schultz, La exterminación del pasto ruso o sorgo de alepo,
Revista Industrial y Agrícola de Tucumán XXI (1931), pp.
200–202.

Scott,
2005 D. Scott, The magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology,
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18
(2005), pp. 259–267. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

SENASA,
2007 SENASA, 2007. Resolución 470/2007. Crea en el ámbito de la Dirección
Nacional de Protección Vegetal dependiente de este Servicio Nacional, la
Comisión Nacional Asesora sobre Plagas Resistentes (CONAPRE), 3rd August.

Service,
2007 R.F. Service, A growing threat down on the farm, Science
316 (2007), pp. 1114–1117. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

Shaner,
1995 D.L. Shaner, Herbicide resistance: where are we? How did we get here?
Where are we going?, Weed Technology 9 (1995), pp.
850–856.

Shaner,
2000 D.L. Shaner, The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of
other herbicides and on resistance management, Pest Management Science
56 (2000), pp. 320–326. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (71)

Snow
et al., 2005 A.A. Snow, D.A. Andow, P. Gepts, E.M. Hallerman, A. Power, J.M.
Tiedje and L.L. Wolfenbarger, Genetically engineered organisms and the
environment: current status and recommendations, Ecological Applications
15 (2) (2005), pp. 377–404. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (55)

Spielman,
2007 D.J. Spielman, Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can international
research system deliver the goods?, Food Policy 32
(2007), pp. 189–204. Article
| PDF
(166 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

Steinbrecher,
2001 R.A. Steinbrecher, Ecological consequences of genetic engineering. In:
B. Tokar, Editor, Redesinging Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic
Engineering, Zed Books, London (2001), pp. 75–102.

Tiedje
et al., 1989 J.M. Tiedje, R.K. Colwell, Y.L. Grossman, R.E. Hodson, R.E.
Lenski, R.N. Mack and P.J. Regal, The planned introduction of genetically
engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations,
Ecology 70 (2) (1989), pp. 298–315. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (189)

Tuesca
et al., 2007 Tuesca, D., Nisensohn, L., Papa, J.C., 2007. Para estar alerta:
El sorgo de alepo (Sorghum halepense) resistente al glifosato. INTA, <http://www.inta.gov.ar/region/sf/proteccion_vegetal/alertas/2007-11-sorgo-alepo-sorghum-halepense-resistente-a-glifosato.pdf>.

Vallejo,
1913 S. Vallejo, A propósito del cultivo del “Sorghum alepensis” como
forraje, Agriculture Ministry Bulletin XV (1) (1913),
pp. 94–99.

Valverde,
2007 B.E. Valverde, Status and management of grass-weed herbicide resistance
in Latin America, Weed Technology 21 (2007), pp.
310–323. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

Valverde
and Gressel, 2006 Valverde, B.E., Gressel. J., 2006. Dealing with the
Evolution and Spread of Sorghum halepense glyphosate resistance in
Argentina. Consultancy report to SENASA. <http://www.sinavimo.gov.ar/files/senasareport2006.pdf>.

Verhoog,
2007 H. Verhoog, Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering,
Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 54 (4)
(2007), pp. 387–400. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

Viglizzo
et al., 2002 Viglizzo, E., Pordomingo, A., Castro, M., Lectora, F., 2002. La
sustentabilidad ambiental del agro pampeano. Ediciones INTA. Instituto Nacional
de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Buenos Aires.

White,
1997 White, D. 1997. Actitud del sector agropecuario argentino ante la
biotecnologia agrícola. 4° Seminario de Actualización Técnica en Biotecnología
Agrícola. CPIA, Buenos Aires.

Wicke,
2006 Wicke, B., 2006. The Socio-Economic Impacts of Large-Scale Land Use
Change and Export-Oriented Bio-Energy Production in Argentina. MSc Copernicus
Institute, Utrecht.

Wolfenbarger
and Phifer, 2000 L.L. Wolfenbarger and P.R. Phifer, The ecological risks and
benefits of genetically engineered plants, Science 290
(2000), pp. 2088–2093. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (206)

Woodburn,
2000 A.T. Woodburn, Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide,
Pest Management Science 56 (2000), pp. 309–312. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36)

Corresponding author.

1 Non-tillage
practices belong to agronomic conservation systems in which the crop is sown
over the stubble of the former crop. The soil is not turned over and worked with
the minimum movement possible. The system facilitates erosion reduction and
higher production under continuous agriculture.
2 The
aim of integrated weed management (IWM) is to use of a combination of different
practices to maintain weed densities at manageable levels. Methods include
cultural practices, use of biological, physical, and genetic control agents, and
the selective use of herbicides. For more on IWM see (Buhler
et al., 2000) and (Mueller-Schaerer,
2002).
3 For
a discussion on human health impacts derived from glyphosate utilization in
Argentina refer to Bradford
(2004).

Note to users: The section "Articles in
Press" contains peer reviewed accepted articles to be published in this
journal. When the final article is assigned to an issue of the journal,
the "Article in Press" version will be removed from this section and will
appear in the associated published journal issue. The date it was first
made available online will be carried over. Please be aware that although
"Articles in Press" do not have all bibliographic details available yet,
they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI
as follows: Author(s), Article Title, Journal (Year), DOI. Please consult
the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements,
abbreviation of journal names and the use of punctuation.

There are three types of "Articles in Press":

Accepted manuscripts: these are articles that have been peer
reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board. The
articles have not yet been copy edited and/or formatted in the journal
house style.

Uncorrected proofs: these are copy edited and formatted
articles that are not yet finalized and that will be corrected by the
authors. Therefore the text could change before final publication.

Corrected proofs: these are articles containing the authors'
corrections and may, or may not yet have specific issue and page numbers
assigned.

Geoforum
Article in Press, Corrected Proof -
Note
to users

Result
list | previous < 1 of 5 > next

Home

Browse

Search
-
selected

My Settings

Alerts

Help

About
ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2009 Elsevier
B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered
trademark of Elsevier B.V.