Liabilities or Assets?

Some Australian Perspectives

on Weeds

Nimal R. Chandrasena
Ecosystem Restoration
1, Kawana Court, Bella Vista
NSW 2153, Australia
nimal.chandrasena@gmail.com

Abstract: Australians generally have a strong negative attitude towards weeds 1 , and a
tendency to label a large number of potentially useful plant resources as invasive species 2 ,
which should be controlled at any cost, while ignoring considerable evidence of the use by
both Indigenous Australians and by European settlers of plants, regarded as weeds. This
attitude may stem from the adjustments that early settlers had to make, to farm in an
environmentally harsh continent. More recently, the application of ‘species-focused’ weed
risk assessments- a field well developed in Australia, may have also contributed to the
maligning of many plant taxa as ‘invaders’ in the public mind. A large number of recent
publications, including government-sponsored reports, have highlighted the losses of
agricultural production caused by weeds, and the threats posed by such species to
biodiversity. The plants in question are mostly ‘colonisers’, which have the capacity to
rapidly occupy human-modified environments. The focus in Australia has been so much on
waging a protracted war on weeds that land managers have tended to overlook the potential
of using these plants as resources.
The literature in a number of fields provides evidence that many colonising taxa may
form worthy resources in diverse areas of human interest. These include their traditional uses
as food, for both humans and animals, and continued use as therapeutic plants. There is
considerable interest at present in obtaining pharmaceuticals from many taxa occupying
disturbed habitats. Other major areas of significant interest include the use of the colonising
strengths of several species in the remediation of water and terrestrial environments that have
been damaged by human activities. Among some outstanding prospects are the potential to
use aquatic species, such as Water Hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms] in
pollution removal, and the use of some strong colonisers in wastewater treatment systems, or
in the rehabilitation of riparian zones of watercourses and rivers. The Common Reed
[Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.] and Cattails (Typha spp.) are examples of such
taxa. Globally, there is considerable interest in using the large biomass produced by these
species in a variety of beneficial ways, including as raw materials for a range of products and
as bio-fuels of the future.

1
The general use of the term weed in Australia encompasses its broadest contemporary
meaning, i.e. a ‘weed’ is any plant growing where it is not wanted. A more technical
commonly used definition is: ‘a weed is a species that adversely affects biodiversity, the
economy or society’ (Groves et al., 2005).
2
Invasive plants in Australia are defined as naturalized species that are spreading;
‘Naturalized’ species are those from distant ecosystems, outside a given region that can
maintain populations in the wild.
 In addition, there are many opportunities for using colonising plants in phyto-
remediation, to scavenge soil pollutants. Furthermore, the awareness of the role of weeds as
part of biological diversity is increasing, and there is continuing interest in creating more
sustainable farming systems, in which colonising species are appreciated. There are also
significant opportunities to further exploit chemical warfare between plants (allelopathic
phenomena) in beneficial ways. These include the discovery of new bioactive chemicals and
the use of allelopathic plant residues within low input agricultural systems. Many colonising
plants are useful in providing such benefits.
The conflict between humans and weeds will continue, so long as humans modify
ecosystems. However, a fresh look at the potential of ‘co-existing’ with weeds and using
them as resources is overdue, given the many possibilities demonstrated. In many cases, the
focus is on managing problematic species in specific situations, rather than on their
utilization. However, if land managers can be led to appreciate the extraordinary strengths of
the colonising taxa, this will allow a better integration of these species into our economies.
Improved understanding of the causes of biological invasions should help to reduce the
current confusion and negative attitudes towards invasive species. This essay discusses the
above viewpoints, and provides examples to illustrate that not all weedy taxa are bad all the
time, just because they may interfere, under certain circumstances, with human interests.

Introduction

We tend to dislike some plant species, because they interfere with our endeavours, such as
agriculture or animal farming, recreational pursuits, including gardening, bush walking,
transport, and water sports. Collectively, we call them ‘weeds’ or ‘invasive species’ and they
include many herbaceous species- grasses, sedges, and small broad-leaved plants, as well as
woody shrubs, medium-sized trees and scrambling vines.
There is no doubt that weeds compete with crop plants, reducing yields and crop
quality, and take the space of native bushlands or garden plants. Some can also taint milk,
and others could be poisonous to humans and domestic animals. Still others have attributes
like thorns and spines, which cause physical injury. They may act as host plants for parasitic
insects or diseases, while yet others can be parasitic on other plants. Through these direct or
indirect effects, weeds often increase the cost of farming and decrease the value of land.
Under some circumstances, they may even threaten the biodiversity of landscapes. Our
dislike for weeds is reflected in the global figures from agrochemical sales. In 2005 alone,
globally we spent approximately $ 33,600 million on agrochemicals, of which 45.8% was
spent on herbicides (AGROW, 2006).
Species can become weeds because they are competitive, adaptable, highly fecund,
and are capable of exploiting man-made habitats. They are not ecologically ‘plants out of
place’, as some older definitions have suggested. In fact, in an ecological sense, the opposite
is true. Weeds are opportunistic species or ‘pioneers of secondary succession’ (Bunting,
1960), that are well adapted to grow in locations where disturbances, caused either by
humans or by natural causes, have opened up space (Grime, 1979). A set of common
biological characteristics (Baker, 1965) appears to allow them to colonise such habitats, to
form extensive populations and, sometimes, to dominate landscapes. These include high
fecundity, the ability to grow rapidly, and a wide range of tolerance to environmental
conditions. However, a species may become an invader of landscapes only if a chance
combination of circumstances makes its attributes particularly advantageous to its growth
and survival (Naylor and Lutman, 2002). In many cases, this opportunity arises because the
lack of specific parasites or herbivores (i.e. ‘natural enemies’) gives them an advantage over
the crops and the native flora. However, in the right place, many of these extraordinary
plants can provide benefits that can be sustainably exploited for human welfare.
In terms of evolutionary success, generally accepted to mean the continuation of a
genetic line over time, most weeds are highly successful because of the numbers of
individuals they produce, their reproductive capacity, and the area and range of habitat they
can occupy (Baker, 1965). Therefore, in terms of the Darwinian concept of the struggle for
existence, weeds, as a class are amongst the most successful plants that have evolved on our
planet (Auld, 2004). However, instead of a balanced view, a somewhat negative attitude
towards weeds is prevalent in Australia, which has led to a large number of plants being
branded as ‘thugs’. This negative attitude towards weeds could arise, at least in part, due to
the harsh farming life that the early European settlers and their descendants experienced over
the past two centuries. It may also be a reflection of the uncompromising way in which
colonisation of the continent occurred 3 . Most people tend to agree that past activities, such as
the large-scale clear felling of native forests to make room for pastoral agriculture, have left
the Australian environment in a perilous state.
Many books, review papers, and government-sponsored reports (e.g. Humphries et al.,
1991; Low, 1999; Brinkley and Bomford, 2002; Virtue et al. 2004; Coutts-Smith and
Downey, 2006) have highlighted the adverse impacts weeds have on biodiversity. These, and
other publications (Lonsdale, 1994; Groves, 1999; Groves and Willis, 1999; Richardson et
al., 2000; Williams and West, 2000; Randall, 2001; Grice and Ainsworth, 2003; Glaznig et
al., 2004a; 2004b; Randall and Kessal, 2004; Spafford-Jacob et al., 2004; Glaznig, 2005;
Groves et al., 2005), have focused attention on the dangers posed by environmental weeds 4
and sleeper weeds 5 . The primary objective of these publications has been to highlight that
some species are already serious problems for Australia, and others can become so in the
future. However, their message can be misconstrued. Weeds are a favourite topic of the
popular media, including magazines, newsletters, and Gardening TV programmes. Most
people are quite happy to use a variety of costly means, in terms of both energy and
resources, to undertake control of various species, regarded as undesirables. There is little
discussion in the same articles that ‘weediness’ is an ill-defined man-made concept; if man
thought about the world differently, there would be no weeds. The absence of discussion on
beneficial aspects of ‘colonising’ species in the afore-mentioned publications may have also
contributed to the hardened negative attitude towards a large number of taxa, presumed to
cause problems all the time. Such attitudes prevent people from considering that colonising
species are useful resources.

3
A controversial concept- terra nullius (Latin for ‘land of no one’) has been used to justify
the colonisation of the continent (Horton, 2000). Essentially, the rationale was, if you did
not farm in the European sense - and Indigenous Australians did not - then, you did not
deserve to keep the land. Anthropologists like Horton (2000) believe that much of
Australia’s environmental problems are the result of the destruction wrought by the
application of British farming practices to a ‘land that deserved better’
4
Environmental weeds are defined in Australia as naturalized plant species that are
deleterious to native vegetation (Humphries et al., 1991). The species are presumed to
impact negatively on native species diversity or ecosystem function. Environmental weeds
are usually non-native species, although native plant species that are invasive beyond their
indigenous range are also included (Groves et al., 2005).
5
‘Sleeper Weeds’ have been defined as a sub-group of invasive plants that arrive at a
region, naturalize (i.e. establish and self-reproduce), and remain localized for a period of
greater than 50 years between naturalization and a marked increase in population growth
and then commence to spread and become seriously invasive (Groves, 2006).
 The inclusion of some plants of world importance, (e.g. Taro [Colocasia esculenta
(L.) Schott], Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss), Guava (Psidium guajava L.) and ‘Ipil Ipil’
[Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) De Witt]), as ‘invasives’ within an Australian context, tends
to confuse the consideration of which taxa should pose serious problems. Often landholders
and public officials do not take into account the full-published details or the rationale for
listing such species. Instead, the information is often misread and misquoted, leading to the
summary condemnation of useful plants. Listing of such species is the result of a narrow,
species-focused approach based on ‘weed risk assessments’, which is largely a product of the
past twenty years. Assessing the potential risk of a species becoming an invader by its
invasiveness elsewhere is widely supported in Australia and New Zealand (Williams and
West, 2000; Arcioni, 2003; Gooden et al. 2006). However, this approach could lead to errors
in judgement, because plant invasions are not taxonomic phenomena, but are often related to
complex bio-geographical factors (Colautti and MacIsaac, 2004). The tendency to categorise
individual taxa, or groups of taxa, as ‘invasives’, because of weed risk assessments, raises
doubts in the public’s mind whether all non-native species are bad for the environment. It
also leads to a negative perception of plant resources of potentially significant value, and this
‘branding’ tends to be perpetuated.
The proliferation of descriptions like ‘invasives’, ‘aliens’, ‘noxious’ and ‘thugs’ in
Australia has led to divergent interpretations, and subconscious associations of some plant
taxa as undesirable 6 . The more serious issue is that, by attributing blame to imprecise plant
characteristics, the significance of human-mediated factors in the spread of plants that may
later invade human-modified environments is downplayed. Human activities are, directly or
indirectly, the major factors implicated in plant or animal invasions in different regions or
continents. Whilst some invasions are related to large-scale disturbances, such as land
clearing or to the discharge of ships’ ballast, vehicles, and machinery, others result from
deliberate or accidental introductions of organisms into new areas. One survey in Australia
(Lonsdale, 1994) showed that 463 grasses and legumes were deliberately introduced between
1947 and 1985, and 60% of those are weeds from an agricultural or conservation perspective.
Other activities, like increased farming in marginal lands, changing farming from sheep to
cattle, and provision of artificial water holes in grasslands, where none existed before, are
also implicated in the spread of invasive species. The latter, presumably to increase
productivity from the plains, has led to farm animals grazing over vast extents of land, and
causing a range of significant negative impacts on the environment (James et al., 1999).
An indicator of a ‘trend’ in thinking within a scientific discipline is often the number
of papers presented at successive conferences of that discipline. Based on this indication, the
‘trend’ in Australian Weeds Conferences over the past 20 years has been almost exclusively
to highlight weed problems, of one kind or another, and their management. The number of
papers espousing any virtues of colonising plants is very low, and is restricted to occasional
papers with different anthropocentric angles; e.g. those which trace the origins of Australian
weeds to overseas floras, or the changes in weed floras occurring in Australia due to human
influences (Kloot, 1987). Perhaps, attitudes have so hardened that consideration of weeds as
a potential resource is seen as outside the realm of Australian Weed Science!
Globally, the utilization of weeds has been patchy over the past five decades. The
most significant uses have been largely restricted to aquatic weeds. These have most often
been used for nutrient removal, with the plant residues largely utilised as mulches. Some
species have been used as sources of food, fibre and pharmaceuticals, and a variety of minor

6
The use of emotive terms and phrases, like ‘Garden Thugs’ (Randall, 2001; Glaznig et al.,
2004b), ‘Damned Weeds!’ (Arcioni, 2003), and ‘Jumping the Garden Fence’ (Groves et al.,
2005) is common in Australia.
uses, mostly in developing countries. Nevertheless, there is a renewed interest in focusing on
utilization of weeds in productive ways, so that people may benefit from an aspect that has
been largely ignored. The need to have a fresh look at weeds was highlighted by several
contributors (Ishizuka, 2001; Harada, 2001; Kim, 2001) to the recently launched Japanese
journal Weed Biology and Management.
Given the magnitude of the negative publicity attached to weeds, it seems paradoxical
to consider that these ‘maligned’ plants may be beneficial as resources. Nevertheless, if we
are concerned about man’s relentless impact on the environment, perhaps we should question
the validity of the summary condemnation of plant taxa. The main objective of this paper,
therefore, is to examine some examples of human uses of colonising plants, from both
Australia and elsewhere, and to discuss the prospects for a better appreciation, and utilization
of such species as biological resources. Part of the essay provides an overview of prevailing
attitudes and opinions towards weeds that have thus far delayed this exploration. If an
attitude change can be stimulated, it will be for the benefit of both the environment and
humans (both present and future generations) in Australia and elsewhere.

Weeds, invasive species and attitudes in Australia

Australia’s hardened attitude towards weeds appears to be entrenched in its land use
practices. In spite of the continent's harsh environment 7 , agriculture is the most extensive
form of land use in the continent. In 2005, the estimated total area of establishments with
agricultural activity was 445 million hectares, representing about 58% of the total land area
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS 2007). Rangeland pastoralism occurs on 53% of the
total land area of Australia (70% of the continent’s arid and semi-arid zones). Pastoral
agriculture accounts for the largest area of land use in agriculture (≈382 million hectares),
which is 85% of all agricultural land. The ABS Report (2007) states that in the higher rainfall
and irrigated areas, livestock grazing has led to the replacement of large areas of native
vegetation with ‘more productive’ introduced pastures. However, creating artificial
waterholes in vast grass plains in the arid and semi-arid zone has led to dramatic negative
impacts. These include areas of extreme degradation around the water holes; spread of
unpalatable perennial shrubs in the areas disturbed, and decreased abundance of palatable
native perennial grasses, due to selective grazing (James et al., 1999).
Australian National Weed Strategy (ARMCANZ, 1999) states that weeds exist all
through Australia. Although some are native species, which have spread beyond their natural
range, most are introduced. The introduction of weed species commenced with the white

7
With the exception of Antarctica, Australia is the world's driest continent. More than a
third of the continent is effectively desert; over two-thirds is arid or semi-arid. The wet
summer conditions of northern Australia are suited for cattle grazing in inland areas, and
the growing of sugar and tropical fruits in coastal areas. The drier summer conditions of
southern Australia favour wheat and other dryland cereal farming, sheep grazing, and dairy
and beef cattle. Within regions, there is a high degree of rainfall variability from year-to-
year, which is most pronounced in the arid and semi-arid regions. The seasonality and
variability of rainfall in Australia is very high by global standards and often results in
lengthy periods without rain. This requires that water be stored. The development of large-
scale irrigation schemes has opened up areas of inland Australia to agricultural activities,
which otherwise would not have been possible, and 70% of water consumption is
accounted for by the agricultural sector (ABS, 2007).
colonisation of Australia in 1788 8 , with species imported for productive and ornamental
purposes. From that beginning, through to the mid-1980s, Australian governments actively
encouraged the use and introduction of species, which are now recognised as weeds
(ARMCANZ, 1999) 9 . There is no evidence of Aborigines introducing species into Australia.
However, their use of fire may have had some minor impact on the distribution of existing
species within the continent (Horton, 2000).
In Australia, weeds are disliked, and are not seen as of much use except for some
recognition that they are part of nature or ‘wilderness’. The main reason for the dislike is that
weeds were estimated to have cost the Australian economy $4 billion in 2001-02 in lost
agricultural production and control costs (Sinden et al., 2004). This figure does not include
flow-on costs to the environment, and would have been significantly higher had those been
estimated. Thee figure of $ 4 billion per annum losses to agriculture is often quoted, and
there is significant concern that Australia’s primary production, unique environment, and
biodiversity are under threat from invasive weeds. The campaigns and government-
sponsored attempts to influence farmer attitudes and modify poor land practices are
decidedly less vigorous compared to the assault on weeds.
The relationship of many Australian weeds to Settlers’ origins, patterns of settlement,
and ‘lines of communications’ between their countries of origin and Australia, as well as to
pastoralism and land management practices is well established (Kloot, 1987, and references
therein). Many problematic species were unintentionally introduced by Europeans
throughout the world they went and ‘colonised’. Some of Australia’s weeds, like Prickly
Pear, resulted from the first contact, but others came later, being associated with continuing
lines of communication (i.e. Europeans maintaining contact with their original lands of
descent). Still others are associated with collections of plants en route to Australia,
contaminated ballast, fodder, and packing. Spread of species, which were later labelled
weeds, occurred through contaminated machinery, footwear, and implements, as well as
through propagules attached to animal coats and fleeces during the earliest periods of
settlement. The establishment of some species can be traced to the way settlement of the
continent occurred. These include the initial sub division of land as grazing properties
(Kloot, 1987), and later sub divisions of such properties for cereal cropping. The spread of
weeds was facilitated further by the abandonment of old gardens and their amalgamation
with adjoining properties. Later additions of species were largely intentional - as fodder
plants. Kloot’s analysis shows that other critical factors implicated in the spread and
successful establishment of these so-called ‘undesirable’ plants are biological (i.e. lack of
natural enemies) and environmental (i.e. climate similarities, water availability, and
suitability of soil). The introduction of species to Australia reads as a human folly of large
proportions, which is likely to be repeated many times over again.
Since the First Fleet arrived in late 18th century with their crops and ornamental plants,
approximately 30,000 plants have been imported into Australia (Groves, 2006). Now,
slightly less than 10% of these are established in the wild (‘naturalised’), and this number
increases by about 10 species per year (Groves et al., 2005). Some naturalised plants have
become environmental weeds, and a large number of others remain as ‘sleepers’ until the
right conditions to ‘awaken’ arrive, which could be a disturbance of some kind. The
heightened concern is that some of these may pose significant threats to biodiversity in

8
The manifest of the First Fleet of 1788 indicates that plants and seeds of Cocoa, Cotton,
Coffee, Eugenia, Guava, Lemon, Oranges, Tamarind were brought, along with Spanish
Reed and Prickly Pear (Opuntia spp.). [http://home.vicnet.net.au/~firstff/story.htm]
9
Promotion of Pampas grass [Cortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult.f.) Asch. & Graebn.]
as a windbreak, ARMCANZ, 1999. National Weeds Strategy, pg 23.
important wilderness areas, largely through habitat modification, competition, and alteration
of disturbance regimes (Mack and D’Antonio, 1998; Coutts-Smith and Downey, 2006).
There is little doubt that some colonising species have the ability to displace native
species, and the effects may flow on to animals that rely on native plants for food and shelter.
Some of these may also be either more flammable or more fire retardant than the Australian
native species that they allegedly displace. This can alter the fire patterns of the communities
they invade, which may have effects on native animals living in those communities.
However, the same species provide food and shelter for native fauna, birds, and pollinating
insects, as well as to some introduced animals, which are also often maligned as ‘invasive’
from agricultural or conservation perspectives.
Many land managers and most farmers recognise that weeds are an integral part of the
landscape, and often seek information in order manage their adverse effects. Scientists agree
that the factors, which cause biological invasions to occur, or ‘sleeping weeds to ‘awaken’
are poorly understood (see discussion in Groves, 2006). Among the conservationists, there is
strong appreciation of strengths and attributes of all plant species, and an interest in utilizing
plants to improve not just the environment, but also the general well being of humans.
However, the hardened attitude towards weeds is likely to continue due to the past
agricultural history, despite the fact that combined pastroalism and cropping agriculture has
contributed less than 3% to the Nation’s Gross National Product (GDP) in recent years (ABS
2007) 10 . Yet, Australian farmers are very protective of their land-holdings and are usually
suspicious of any discourse that might lead to a reduction of profitability from their farms.
The Australian National Weed Strategy 11 (ARMCANZ, 1999) defines a weed as a
plant, which has, or has the potential to have, a detrimental effect on economic, conservation,
or social values in Australia. The Strategy evolved within a wider political and social climate
that was supportive of change towards greater environmental accountability. The Strategy
states that weeds cause major economic, environmental, and social impacts in Australia,
causing damage to natural landscapes, agricultural lands, waterways, and coastal areas. It
also provides guidelines under which more effective weed management can be achieved
strategically, with community participation, integrating the efforts of all stakeholders -
government, industry, landholders, community groups and the public.
Thorp and Lynch (1999) explained that the emphasis of the government Strategy is to
address weed problems, which threaten the profitability or sustainability of Australia’s
principal primary industries, conservation areas, environmental resources of national
significance and biodiversity. Whilst, the National Strategy does touch on why some plants
have become undesirable in landscapes, under certain conditions, there is no recognition of
the beneficial impacts of some colonising species on Australia’s overall biodiversity and
landscapes, and on people’s lives. By focusing wholly on waging a war against weeds,
perhaps an opportunity has been lost to influence the way land managers, including farmers
and private landholders think about weedy taxa, and their potential value as biological
resources, at least under certain circumstances.

10
While Australian agriculture no longer contributes a large share to GDP, it utilises a large
proportion of natural resources, accounting for 70% of water consumption and almost 60%
of Australia's land area (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).
11
In 1996, the Australian federal government endorsed a National Weeds Strategy (NWS)
with a promise of $19 million (AU) over five years for its implementation. Developed with
the involvement of federal and State governments, technical experts, industry and the
public, the NWS is the formal outcome of an extensive social process.
 Weeds or Useful Plants- a ‘matter of opinion and circumstances’
Grice and Brown (1996) highlighted the dilemma of labelling a weed in relation to managing
Australian rangelands. From a conservation perspective, a species may be called a weed
because it is non-native; from a land use perspective, a native or an exotic species may be
labelled a weed because it is toxic to livestock, or reduces productivity from pastoral
agriculture. From an ecological point of view, a species may be called a weed because it
changes the structure of a plant community, or modifies the hydrology of an ecosystem. The
same species may be identified in another situation, by a different group of users, as a useful
plant, and in another, as a weed.
Many species, previously introduced for beneficial purposes by land management
authorities are now classed ‘undesirable’ and are controlled at large costs. Among examples
are several legumes, such as Prickly Acacia [Acacia nilotica (L.) Delile], Mesquite (Prosopis
spp.) 12 , and Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata L.). These were introduced to grasslands in
Central-West Queensland for their nitrogen-fixing capacity, fast growth, and provision of
fodder. The grass plains had been cleared of native trees during the previous 150 years or so,
and revegetation from native perennials was poor, because of factors related to the shrinking
and expanding of clay soils. The legumes were probably thought of as ‘saviours’, which
could tolerate these harsh conditions, and transform the landscape to a more productive state.
Without competition from native trees, the legumes expanded their range in the new
habitats, particularly in the arid and semi-arid grass plains. Their obvious strengths: nitrogen-
fixing capacity and high fecundity, would have contributed to rapid growth, and subsequent
expansion in relatively poor soils. Furthermore, both Prickly Acacia (CRC, 2003a) and
Mesquite (CRC, 2003b) became problems when animal farming shifted from sheep to cattle.
While sheep digest a majority of these seeds they consume, cattle do not, and so act as major
vectors. The extent of Prickly Acacia in the Mitchell Grasslands Bioregion in Central-West
Queensland is estimated as 7 million ha, and the economic costs of this invasion have been
high, with recent estimates that $5 million is lost per year in productivity, and a further $4
million spent on control. All three species, once thought to make the grasslands more
productive, have had the opposite effect as they formed extensive impenetrable thickets.
Economic costs to landholders stem from increased difficulty in mustering stock, a reduction
in stock access to watering points and a decrease in carrying capacity of the grasslands
invaded by the species. Additionally, Parkinsonia infestations are known to provide refuges
for feral pigs (CRC, 2003c). These negative impacts have resulted in costly management
programmes, and the listing of the species as Weeds of National Significance (WONS) 13 .
The European Olive (Olea europaea L.) further exemplifies the dilemma. It was
introduced to the continent in 1805, and was first planted in a farm near Sydney (Dellow et
al., 1987). At that time, Olives were highly regarded for its edible fruit and oil, a view that
prevailed for more than 150 years. In recent times, there has been a significant expansion of
Olive plantations in South Australia. However, ‘feral olives’- those that spread outside

12
Four Mesquite species P. pallida (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Kunth, P. velutina
Wooton, P. glandulosa Torr. and P. laevigata (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) M. C. Johnst.
and their hybrids are recognised as having a serious adverse impact on the grasslands.
13
Weeds Of National Significance (WONS) is a list of 20 species, nominated under the
National Weeds Strategy of 1997, which require a national (trans-boundary) effort to tackle
their management. These weeds affect extensive land use systems, such as conservation
areas and grazing systems, rather than cropping systems. The major criteria used in listing
species are: (1) Invasiveness, (2) Impacts, (3) Potential for Spread, and (4) Socioeconomic
and Environmental Values (Virtue et al., 2001).
plantations, are regarded as a major threat to native vegetation. The spread of feral olives is
largely attributed to birds like starlings and changes in grazing management. There are now
several large-scale projects, such as in the Adelaide Hills in South Australia, to contain the
spread of ‘feral olives’ (Crossman, 2002).
Other taxa, much valued in the past, but now outlawed, include Bitou Bush
[Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera (L.) Norl] and Willows (Salix spp.). Bitou
Bush was accidentally introduced to Australia with ships’ ballast. However, land managers,
such as the NSW Soil Conservation Service and companies extracting Titanium from sand,
saw its potential for stabilising sand dunes. The species was extensively planted in Eastern
Australia during 1946-1968. Spread by birds, wind, and human vectors, Bitou Bush
colonised vast areas of the eastern seaboard, adversely impacting on native vegetation.
Large-scale control programmes have been on going since the 1980s (Holtkamp et al., 1999).
Bitou Bush is now a declared WONS species in Australia.
Similarly, Willows (Salix spp.) were imported from temperate Europe and planted
widely across the States of NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania to prevent stream bank erosion. At
least 32 naturalized and 47 cultivated species of Willows are now present in Australia, and
many are seen growing along watercourses. The negative impacts of Willows on riparian
ecology are poorly understood, but adverse effects on the abundance and diversity of
woodland-dependent native bird species have been highlighted. Once considered extremely
useful in the Australian environment, all species of Willows except Salix babylonica L.
(Weeping Willow), S. x calodendron Wimm. and S. x reichardtii A. Kern. are now declared
as WONS. These include the most invasive ones: Crack Willow (S. fragilis L.), Black
Willow (S. nigra Marshall), and Grey Willow (S. cinerea L.). The eradication of Willows
and their replacement with native vegetation along watercourses in NSW, Victoria, and
Tasmania is now well underway (Ladson and Gerrish, 1996).
These examples demonstrate the tenuous nature of the human judgement on the
virtues of a species, whether it is a weed or a useful plant. Clearly, this is a matter of opinion,
largely based on human needs, wants, and perceptions, at a particular time, place, or
circumstances. Such opinion is easily swayed by the needs of a situation, short-term gains,
and profit motivation, and there is room for significant error.
Indigenous Australians and Uses of Weeds
Aboriginal Australians have occupied the continent since about 50,000 years (Horton, 2000).
Their relationship with plants, and indeed with the landscape, is acknowledged as unique.
For these hunter-gatherers, the use of plant resources was not a matter of choice. They would
have used the broadest possible range of plants, primarily as food, followed by use as tools,
weapons, medicines, and shelter materials.
There is no evidence that any plant was regarded as particularly undesirable by
Indigenous Australians. On the other hand, there are many examples of ‘weedy’ species that
they have used widely. For instance, Common Reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex
Steud.], often described as troublesome in wetlands, has been referred to by various
Aboriginal names in different languages, which reflect the different uses of the plant 14 .
Stems of Phragmites were highly prized for spears, and were cut into short pieces for
necklaces or nose ornaments (Australian National Botanic Gardens, 1998). Sharp edges of
the reed provided ready cutting tools and the leaves were used for making bags and baskets.

14
Some Aboriginal names for Phragmites and language/region: Charr-ak [Djadja wurrung],
Kaerk [Djab wurrung], Taark [Gunditjmara], Jaark [Lake Boga], Djarg [Wemba Wemba],
Kowat [Gunai/Kurnai]
Stems were also bound together for making large rectangular rafts used for mussel collecting
on inland lakes. Tasmanians also ate the shoots of the underground stems (rhizomes).
Bull Rushes or Cumbungi (Typha spp.) in Australia comprise three species: broad-
leaved Cumbungi (Typha orientalis C. Presl), narrow-leaved Cumbungi (Typha domingenis
Pers.) and Cumbungi (T. latifolia L.). All are wetland species, which are generally regarded
as undesirable. However, for Aboriginal Australians, who called all Cumbungi Poorteetch
[Gunditjmara], these were important plants. Their extensive root systems and rhizomes were
cooked by steaming, and chewed to remove starch. The remaining fibre was used to make
string (Australian National Botanic Gardens, 1998). The young shoots were eaten raw as a
salad. Records indicate that Typha was the most important food for people living along the
Murray Darling River systems. Common Nardoo (Marsilea drummondii A. Braun) is another
species commonly called a wetland weed. Indigenous Australians called this species Dullum
Dullum [Wemba Wemba], and used it extensively as a food plant. The root masses were
made into dough and cooked; Spores were either roasted or ground to make flour (Australian
National Botanic Gardens, 1998).
As the oldest continuous culture on earth, Aboriginal Australia contains significant
empirical knowledge and sophisticated understanding of plants as a whole. Much of this
herbal knowledge may have been lost after colonisation of the continent in late-18th Century.
However, many species with the label ‘weed’ have been used by Indigenous Australians for
medicinal purposes. Some examples are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Some examples of weeds used as medicines by Indigenous Australians1

Species & Common Name Recorded Uses

Centipeda cunninghamii This aromatic species has an objectionable odour.

(DC.) A.Braun & Asch.
(Common Sneeze-weed)
Centipeda thespidiodes F.
Muell (Desert Sneeze-weed)
Cleome viscosa L. (Tick-
weed)
Pseudognaphalium
luteoalbum (L.) Hilliard &
B.L. Burtt (Jersey Cudweed)
Pterocaulon serrulatum
(Mont.) Guill. (Toothed
Ragweed)
Urtica incisa Poir. (Stinging
Nettle, Scrub Nettle)
1
Source: Cribb and Cribb (1981)
Aborigines placed the plants around campsites to repel
ants, and used it for bad colds.
Aborigines have used this aromatic species from arid
areas, to prepare a decoction for colds, sore throat and
sore eyes, and as a poultice for sprains.
Aborigines used Cleome to relieve headaches, and
sometimes, to treat wounds and ulcers.
A drink prepared from this Composite has been used by
Aborigines for general sickness.
Aborigines have used the sticky, aromatic leaves of this
herb to treat head colds. The scent was inhaled by
chewing, by preparing a decoction or simply by crushing.
Some tribes have used the leaves for dressing wounds.
Urtication, flogging with nettles, is a traditional European
method of treating rheumatism. Aborigines have done the
same, beating affected parts with a bunch of nettle leaves.
 Uses of Weeds as Medicinal Plants and Source of Pharmaceuticals

‘Weeds are not a pain, but a blessing’ is the by-line of one website (www.detox.net.au),
which promotes the consumption of a variety of herbaceous weeds for their therapeutic
values. However, the practice is not very common, despite the fact that more than 500
Australian plant species growing in the wild have been used as medicines, either in Australia
or overseas (Cribb and Cribb, 1981). Early settlers introduced and cultivated many for herbal
remedies or for culinary purposes, and some of these may have later escaped to become
weeds or wild plants (Dwyer, 2006) 15 . However, examples of plants considered ‘weeds’ used
as medicines are not as numerous in Australia as in Chinese Medicine or in Ayurvedic
Medicine. The predominant Australian medicinal ‘weeds’ are mostly derived from Europe,
China, and other Pacific Rim countries, and there are a very large number of species (see
Cribb and Cribb, 1981). Table 2 provides some outstanding examples, to illustrate the point.
The subject of weeds as medicinal plants for various traditional and modern cultures,
all over the world is vast and a review is beyond the scope of this essay. However, there is
strong recent evidence, discussed below, that weeds are major sources of pharmaceuticals in
the modern sense. Stepp and Moerman (2001), and Stepp (2004) showed that weed species
form a substantially higher proportion of source plants in pharmacopoeias than would be
expected from their proportion in the general flora. These studies provide valuable insights
of the potential of weedy taxa and the promise they hold for drug discovery. Secondary
compounds in colonising species are important chemical defenses against herbivory, and are
implicated in allelopathy as well, where chemicals released by one plant affect the growth of
other plants (Rice, 1984; Putnam, 1994; Rizvi et al., 1992).
Feeny (1976) and Coley et al. (1985) attributed the presence of biologically active
compounds in different plants to two major anti-herbivory chemical defense strategies. The
first strategy is the reliance of long-living plants to concentrate metabolically inactive
immobile compounds (quantitative defenses), such as tannins and lignins, which reduce
digestibility. These compounds are not biological toxins, and anti-herbivory is largely
dependent on having a sufficiently high quantity, to make leaves unpalatable. The second
strategy, used by ephemeral, successional, short-lived, or colonising species is one that relies
on low molecular weight, mobile (qualitative defenses), such as alkaloids, cardiac glycosides
or terpenoids (Feeny, 1976). For these fast-growing, often herbaceous plants with short-lived
leaves, deterrence of herbivores is achieved by small amounts of highly potent, biologically
active compounds, and many species have been found to possess such chemicals.
The evidence of allelochemicals in plants has generated considerable interest in
colonising species as sources of compounds of high pharmacological value. Stepp (2004)
draws attention to the well-known example of a plant from disturbed habitats- Catharanthus
roseus (L.) G. Don, (Holm et al., 1977) 16 , which is a weed of exceptional value to modern
pharmacology. This plant provides two of the most important cancer treatment drugs in the
world, vincristine and vinblastine.

15
Apart from Prickly Pear (Opuntia sp.), which is listed in the manifest of the First Fleet,
‘Jalap’ is one of the plants taken on board at Rio de Janeiro in August 1787 (Collins, 1971,
quoted by Dwyer, 2006). It is probably related to blue-morninglory (Ipomoea indica Burm.
Syn. I. congesta R.Br.). The colonial use of Ipomoea as a purgative may have contributed
to their widespread cultivation. Several Ipomoea species are now environmental weeds.
16
In Sri Lanka Catharanthus roseus is often found growing in disturbed habitats, such as
cemeteries; the local Sinhalese name ‘Mini Mal’ reflects this, meaning ‘Plant found
associated with cemeteries’.
Table 2. Other examples of weeds used as medicinal herbs in Australia

Species & Common Recorded Uses

Name
Centella asiatica (L.) As in Asian countries, Gotu-Kola is valued in Australia as a
Urban (Gotu Kola) medicinal herb, and rarely treated as a weed. Leaf extracts and
‘Gotu Kola Tea’ products are available in herbal shops at $ 10
for 50 tea bags, an indication that users value the product.
Hypericum perforatum This European herb is valued as a remedy for mild depression
L. (St. John’s Wort) and nervous exhaustion. It is harvested from the wild because of
the large market in Europe and North America. Hypericin, an
alkaloid in the plant, causes photosensitisation and blisters in
cattle and sheep (CRC, 2000).
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion, a troublesome weed1, is a well-known medicinal
Webb (Dandelion) plant. Drugs from its root are sold as a diuretic, and used in
treating disorders related to the liver, gall bladder, and digestive
system, or in treatments of chronic conditions such as arthritis,
skin disorders, upper respiratory mucus, and gout.
Silybum marianum (L.) A widespread, common weed in pastures or home gardens,
Gaertn. (Variegated Silybum is used in treating liver related disorders, or gastro-
Thistle intestinal problems. It is the seed of the milk thistle that is used
medicinally. Seeds can be consumed raw, usually freshly milled,
made into a tea and used as a hydro-alcoholic extract. Extracts of
the seed are also presented in tablet form.
Capsella bursa-pastoris An extract of the plant has been used widely to arrest bleeding
(L.) Medik (Shepherd’s during the First World War (Dwyer 2006). Auld and Medd
Purse) (1992) suggested that this and other medicinal uses might be the
reason for its widespread occurrence throughout Australia.
Commelina cyanea R. Early European settlers used Scurvy Weed, a widespread
Br.) (Scurvy Weed) species in NSW, to avoid or alleviate scurvy.
1
Source: www.yourhealth.com.au; www.herbsarespecial.com.au
In the last few decades considerable attention has been focused on the medicinal
plants used by traditional peoples. There is evidence that many cultures in the Brazilian
Amazon preferred secondary forest and disturbed habitats for procuring medicinal plants
(Voeks, 1996; Stepp and Moerman, 2001 and references therein). The list of species used as
medicines by highland Tzeltal Maya of Chiapas, Mexico (Stepp and Moerman, 2001)
includes many common weeds. Some cosmopolitan species, such as Fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare Mill.), Lantana (Lantana camara L.), Mint (Mentha spicata L.), Plantain (Plantago
major L.), Castor-Oil-Plant (Ricinus communis L.), Sorrel (Rumex crispus L.), Salvia (Salvia
lavanduloides H.B.K.), Nightshade (Solanum americanum Miller), Dandelion, and Wild
Sunflower [Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray], are common in disturbed habitats and
roadsides. The list also contains genera such as Ambrosia, Bryophyllum, Erigeron, Ocimum,
and Verbena, which have species implicated in therapeutic medicines of many cultures.
Other taxa in the list, such as Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), Nectarine [Prunus persica
(L.) Batsch], and Guava (Psidium guajava L.), are not considered as weeds by most people.
 The dandelion is an example of a well-known cosmopolitan colonising species. Schütz
et al. (2006) compiled its phytochemical and pharmacological profiles, in order to ascertain
which compounds may be linked to known therapeutic effects. They concluded that the
traditional use of dandelion to treat digestive disorders is supported by its pharmacological
profile. However, they did not find a good correlation of known properties of various
polyphenolics and sesquiterpenes with other supposed health-promoting properties of
dandelion extracts from leaves or roots, e.g. anti-inflammatory, anti-carcinogenic and anti-
oxidative activities. They suggested further studies of the plant’s constituents, and
assessment of their pharmacological activities in humans, as future priorities.
It is clear that new pharmaceuticals are likely to be found in colonising plants, and, as
Stepp (2004) suggested, weeds need to be given more attention as potential sources of
phytomedicines. This is important because 80% of the world population continue to rely
mainly on traditional medicines for their health care (Gurib-Fakim, 2006). Health authorities
world wide, therefore, have a responsibility to understand better both the positive and
negative properties of the active constituents in these plants, since mis-use or over-use could
compromise public safety. Investigating therapeutically or allopathically active compounds
in colonising plants also presents the scientific challenge of elucidating their chemistry and
identifying opportunities for the future development of medicines (Schütz et al., 2006).
Another, reason to encourage further study is the possible relationship of human ecology,
and biochemical defenses that may have evolved in colonising plants. It is possible to
hypothesize that the spectrum of bioactive compounds may be wider in certain taxa, and the
compounds could be concentrated in leaves and shoots, as a response by weeds to increasing
grazing pressure in landscapes modified by man for animal farming.

Edible Weeds
As in most countries, Australians use a variety of plant species as food. However, the use of
weeds as food is no longer common among those of European descent. On the other hand,
most Australians of South and South-East Asian ethnic origins, attach a high value to several
‘weedy’ species as foods. ‘Kang Kung’ (Ipomoea aquatica Forssk.), several amaranths
(Amaranthus spp.), including Amaranthus viridis L., Marsh Water Cress [Rorippa palustris
(L.) Besser], Fennel, and Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) are examples of edible herbage
weeds valued by such communities. All of these are commonly available for purchase in
markets and shopping centres in major Australian cities, albeit in small quantities.
Records indicate that early settlers in Australia used a variety of wild or feral plants as
vegetable foods. Examples are: Cobblers pegs (Bidens pilosa L.), Dandelion, Plantain
(Plantago major L.), flick weed [Cardamine hirsuta (DC.) Hook. f.], Chickweed [Stellaria
media (L). Vill.], Wild Carrot (Daucus carota L.), Wild Mustard (Sinapsis alba L.), Scurvy
Weed, Sorrel (Rumex spp.), Clover (Trifolium spp.), Variegated Thistle, Fat hen
(Chenopodium album L.) and Purslane. Such edible weeds are promoted for consumption by
various web sites, magazine articles and books, although their actual use is insignificant,
except for a few species seen in markets.
The importance of the food value of many colonising species cannot be ignored. The
case of the Sri Lankan community contributing to the spread of Alligator Weed
[Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb] in Australia through mis-identification is a
classic case (Gunasekera and Bonilla, 1999). New immigrants from Sri Lanka mistook
Alligator Weed for a similar species, a popular vegetable in Sri Lanka: “Mukunuwenna”
[Alternanthera sessilis (L.) R. Br. ex DC.]. This example demonstrates how the fondness of
immigrant groups for edible herbs, which are traditional foods in their home countries, could
lead to increased spread of a species. Successful educational campaigns have arrested the
problem. Sri Lankan Australians, nowadays eat the native Alternanthera species- A.
denticulata R. Brown and A. sessilis itself, which have been distributed as substitute
vegetables. Both species are sometimes regarded as weeds.
Taro (Colocasia esculenta) is another valuable food plant with strong colonising
attributes. Nutritionally, Taro compares favourably with other major root crops of the world.
The U.S. National Academy of Science (1975) named Taro as a potential food plant of the
future. Taro’s significance as a food crop is well recognized in Africa and Asia-Pacific
countries (Matthews, 2004) and in Central America (Gomez-Beloz and Rivero, 2006). It is a
common food found in Australian markets yet the plant has been considered to pose an
ecological threat to tropical Queensland and parts of NSW (Groves et al., 2005).
The problems posed by plants with colonising abilities are recurrent themes in
developed countries. Many edible ‘weedy’ species are no longer valued as food, possibly
because no high yielding varieties have been developed for commercial use. The issue
though, can be resolved by a balanced point of view, which recognises the high economic
value and utilization potential of species like Taro to some societies, while acknowledging
the unsuitability of certain taxa for particular landscapes, at a particular time. Taxa like Taro
are too important for human welfare to be summarily dismissed as ‘invasives’.

Weeds, allelopathy and allelochemicals

Harper defined plant ‘interference’ as any physical or chemical mechanism that results in the
reduction of the growth of one plant, over time, due to the presence of another plant (Harper,
1977, p 151). One component of this interference is competition, which is the process
whereby plants interfere with the growth of neighboring plants by competing for growth-
limiting resources, including space, light, nutrients, and moisture. The other major
component of plant interference is allelopathy, mediated through the release of chemicals by
one species into the environment of another (Putnam and Duke, 1974; 1978; Rice, 1984;
Putnam, 1986; 1988a; 1988b; 1994; Rizvi et al., 1992). Plants release chemicals through
roots, rhizomes, leaves, stems, and litter, and these could have beneficial or deleterious
effects on other organisms. However, allelopathic mechanisms are difficult to separate from
interference by competition under field conditions, because interactions usually occur
through the complex chemical matrix of soil; hence, it has been difficult to demonstrate a
causal relationship (Zimdahl, 1999). The literature on the subject is vast and growing.
The compounds involved are secondary metabolites of plants and include a variety of
alkaloids, terpenes and steroids, flavonoids, organic acids, aldehydes, aromatic acids, simple
saturated lactones and tannins. The possible role of such compounds as chemical defences of
plants has been discussed (Feeny, 1976; Coley et al., 1985). As Whittaker (1970) suggested,
some of the repellents and toxicants could be seen as “evolutionary expressions of quiet
antagonism of a plant to its enemies”. Lovett suggested (1989) that allelochemical signals
could be a part of a plant’s defences, serving to offset their sedentary habit. They could also
be a means of conveying messages- as part of a network of communication in which
disparate organisms give similar responses to similar compounds, or families of compounds.
During the last 30 years, the potential impacts of allelopathy on agriculture have been
described and discussed in detail (Putnam and Duke, 1978; Rice, 1984; Putnam, 1986;
Putnam and Weston, 1986; Qasem and Foy 2001; Weston and Duke 2003). More recently,
evidence was presented that allelopathy may explain how certain colonising taxa become
‘invaders’ in distant ecosystems. For example, Callaway et al. (2004) reported much stronger
allelopathic effects in invaded than in native ranges for Centaurea maculosa Lam. through
root exudates. These exudates, largely containing oxalic acid, appeared to be more harmful
to species that had not experienced them before, and perhaps, had not evolved tolerance.
Putnam and Duke (1974) first explored the possibility of utilizing allelopathic
cucumber varieties or accessions to suppress weed growth in fields. Since then, the
possibility of developing weed-suppressive crops has been explored. The allelopathic
potentials of numerous crops such as barley (Lovett and Hoult, 1995), oats (Fay and Duke,
1977), sunflower (Leather, 1983), sorghum (Nimbal et al., 1996), Rice (Dilday et al., 1998;
Olofsdotter et al. 1999) and wheat (Wu et al., 1999) have been reported. Allelopathic crop
cultivars are likely to be developed further, for potential use in the field of sustainable, low
input weed management. However, these may require genetic engineering, by insertion of
genes that produce allelochemicals, rather than conventional breeding, because of the multi-
genic nature of allelochemical biosynthesis (Kim and Shin, 2005).
There is considerable interest in utilising allelopathy phenomena as a management
tool, and there is evidence that colonising species could be useful in this regard. An early
example of this is Slootweg’s discovery in 1956 that marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) planted
into soil, subsequently provided control of the lesion nematode Pratylenchus penetrans in
Daffodil (Narcissus tazetta L.) (Slootweg, 1956). Since then, a large number of publications
have reported the suppressive effects of marigolds on nematode populations, whether utilized
as a cover crop, rotation crop, green manure, or source of nematode-antagonistic extracts
(Miller and Ahrens, 1969; Chitwood, 2002). One of the more successful field trials showed
that rotations of Tagetes patula L. or T. erecta provided economic control of P. penetrans on
tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) for two successive years (Reynolds et al., 2000).
Recent research by Ploeg (1999; 2000) concluded that marigolds consistently
suppressed Pratylenchus spp., Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica than M. hapla and M.
arenaria. Examination of nine cultivars of three Tagetes species indicated that the four major
Meloidogyne species reproduced on T. signata Bartl., but not on some varieties of T. erecta
and T. patula. The most conspicuous differences among the four nematode species was in
their reproduction on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.), transplanted into soil containing
marigolds that had had their shoots removed. A few cultivars suppressed all four species; one
suppressed only M. hapla and another suppressed all four species except M. hapla. Control
provided by growing T. patula for eight weeks before transplanting tomatoes was more
effective than control achieved by amending soil with incorporated roots or shoots. The
general conclusions from Ploeg’s studies are that the nematicidal effects of marigold may be
not as strong, or as specific, as has been claimed in the past. Incorporating marigold plants
into the soil may not have a substantial effect on M. incognita infestation of a subsequent
crop, but may give non-specific growth benefits to the crop. Ploeg (2000) pointed out that
marigolds may be used as a component of an integrated nematode management strategy, and
this would be useful, particularly when cropping is conducted under sub-optimal conditions.
Along similar lines, Anver and Alam (2000) described the application of oilseed cakes
containing extracts of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss), Castor (Ricinus communis L.),
Mustard (Brassica campestris L.) and Rocket salad (Eruca sativa Mill.) to amend soil under
controlled conditions. This application reduced the multiplication of two species of
nematodes, producing effects similar to those of commercial nematicides. Practical
applications may be in protecting several leguminous crops in the Indian sub-continent. With
the increasing costs of commercial nematicides, the development and implementation of
such strategies are becoming ever more urgent, particularly in developing countries.
In another example, Tsuzuki and Dong (2003) reported that pellets of Buckwheat
(Fagopyrum spp.), containing allelochemicals (ferulic and caffeic acids), were inhibitory to
several plant species under controlled conditions. Most importantly, in the field, these pellets
inhibited weeds in rice fields, without adverse effects on the crop. Weed suppression activity
of Buckwheat has been long known to farmers. Recently, Fuji et al. (2005) confirmed strong
weed suppression activity in Common Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench), and
Tartary Buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum Gaertner). Their field studies showed that up to
75% weed suppression could be obtained by using Buckwheat as a cover crop, compared
with Buckwheat free plots. Gallic acid, rutin, and fagomine have been identified as the most
important allelochemicals from Buckwheats.
The possible utilization of allelopathic weeds for control of rice weeds in Vietnam
was demonstrated recently by Xuan et al. (2005). These researchers established that nineteen
species of common weeds, applied at 1-2 tons ha-1, caused a 70% reduction in rice weeds and
20% increase in rice yield. Among the most effective residues, which caused >80% reduction
of rice weeds and simultaneously increased rice yields by ≈20-80%, were shoots of Alfalfa
(Medicago sativa L.), Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosum L.), Oleander (Nerium
oleander L.), Billy Goat Weed (Ageratum conyzoides L.) and Leucaena leucocephala. (Syn
Leucaena glauca Benth.).
Leucaena is considered undesirable in Australia. As a fast growing nitrogen-fixing
legume tree that produces cheap fuel wood and fodder, it has been a species of considerable
interest to sustainable cropping and agroforestry systems for at least three decades.
Budelman (1988) reported that Leucaena mulch broke down too quickly and did not provide
effective weed suppression in fields. In the same studies, leaf residues of two other fast-
growing legumes, Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud (Syn Gliricidia maculata H.B.K.) and
Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Merr., provided effective weed suppression. Chandrasena et
al. (1989) also reported on the allelopathic weed suppression by Gliricidia mulch. Multi-
purpose trees legumes like Leucaena, Gliricidia and Flemingia are sometimes branded as
‘invasives’ that could damage ecosystems. Yet, they are highly valued taxa in many tropical
and subtropical regions of the world.
These studies, and many others, indicate that colonising plants would be important in
the search for sustainable and low input agricultural systems. Continuing to explore
allelopathic phenomena for practical weed suppression in fields, as well as to identify novel
bioactive compounds is clearly a worthwhile activity.

Colonising Aquatic species and their potential uses

Compiling the world’s worst weeds, Holm et al. (1977) listed only ten aquatic species as
posing serious problems. These included Water Hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.)
Solms], Salvinia (Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell), Alligator Weed, and Water Lettuce
(Pistia stratiotes L.). The number of species of concern has now grown to about three dozen
(Charudattan 2001), and includes Phragmites australis and Typha spp. Despite the
challenges posed by many aquatic weeds, the question arises as to whether they have only
negative effects. Usually, aquatic weeds are the symptoms of degradation of the quality of
water bodies and waterways that has been caused by human activities.
The beneficial effects of aquatic species, and opportunities for their utilization has
been recognised in many parts of the world (Mitchell 1974; Gaudet 1974; Soerjani 1977;
Charudattan 2001). Most people would agree that excessive growth of aquatic weeds is
unacceptable, but there is enough evidence to indicate that because of the crucial roles they
play, some level of aquatic macrophyte presence is necessary for the health of water bodies.
While emergent, submerged, and floating macrophytes may be the main primary producers
in shallow or clear aquatic ecosystems, phytoplankton serve that role in deeper or more
turned water bodies. Aquatic plants contribute to maintaining ecological stability in the water
environment by not only being primary producers, but also by their important roles in
nutrient recycling. They are also food for consumers, and their organic matter feed detrital
food chains. Submerged and emergent macrophytes trap, consolidate, and stabilize
sediments, reducing water turbidity. Through photosynthesis, they increase dissolved oxygen
in the water column. A variety of invertebrates, including snails and crustaceans, and
vertebrates- small fish and fingerlings, and amphibians, depend on the shelter, cover and
food associated with aquatic plants and their roots. The relationship of maintaining healthy
food chains is reflected in increased abundance of aquatic birds associated with water bodies
that have a diverse aquatic macrophyte component.
However, the aquatic species, which provide the afore-mentioned benefits, can also be
a nuisance. Prevalence of aquatic weeds with colonising abilities is associated, in most cases,
with disturbance of natural ecosystems by human activities, such as creation of large
reservoirs or irrigation canal networks. Adverse human impacts on creek systems, rivers,
wetlands, and water bodies occur largely through direct sewage effluent pollution, or indirect
nutrient enrichment because of intensive farming and development-related activities.
Increased urbanization has caused pollution of waterways, particularly in major population
centres. In human-modified environments, it is common to find one kind of aquatic species,
or another, beginning to dominate over other biotic control factors in that system. In
developed countries, vast resources are expended by authorities to fix this symptom,
although the cause is commonly human disturbance. Developing countries often lack the
resources necessary for such action.
Most specialists would agree that the management of aquatic species anywhere in the
world has not been very successful, even with the integration of preventative control
programmes with mechanical, chemical, biological, and other control methods. This leads to
the question, can the utilization of aquatic weeds be integrated into management, so that the
overall process of integrated control becomes environmentally, socially, and economically,
more responsible? In the following sections, three well-known colonising taxa are discussed,
to explore possibilities of utilization, instead of control alone.
Water Hyacinth- Beautiful Blue Devil?
Although Water Hyacinth is now widely distributed, it is outlawed in Australia because it
can interfere with navigation and with water use in dams and irrigation schemes. Most
Australians would reject any suggestion for the utilization of Water Hyacinth, despite
evidence of the potential of this extraordinary plant, which has been known for decades.
In many parts of the world, Water Hyacinth infestations have caused significant
economic costs, by reducing access to water and navigation (Vietmeyer 1975, Holm et al.
1977; Charudattan 2001). Nevertheless, uses of Water Hyacinth around the world are
substantial. For instance, Vietmeyer (1975) reported its use to create floating vegetable
gardens by peasant farmers in Bangladesh and Burma. Heaping fertile bottom sediments and
organic muck on top of densely packed stands of Water Hyacinth and reeds, allows crops
like Eggplant, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Cucumber and Beans to be grown in the presence of
ample nutrients and moisture. Its other uses- as forage, silage, compost, green manure and in
commercial potting mixes, as well as raw material for paper, handicrafts and various other
chemicals, are also well known (Vietmeyer, 1975).
Water Hyacinth has been long used to remove pollutants from water. In some early
studies, under Indonesian conditions, Soerjani (1977) reported that the potential for annual
removal of N and P by Water Hyacinth from water was 313-777 kg N/ha and 96-238 kg P/ha
with a population equivalent of 78-190 and 70-175 persons, respectively. More recently,
Ingole and Bhole (2003) and Tiwari et al. (2007) have discussed the potential of using Water
Hyacinth as a biofiltration method to remove heavy metals- lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), zinc
(Zn), manganese (Mn) and copper (Cu) from polluted water bodies in India. Other studies
(Giraldo and Garzo´n, 2002; Misbahuddin and Fariduddin, 2002; Trivedy and Pattanshetty,
2002; Williams, 2002; Singhal and Rai, 2003; Jayaweera and Kasturiarachchi, 2004) also
demonstrate its potential for use in wastewater treatment ponds to remove organic and
inorganic pollutants from agricultural and domestic wastes, and industry effluents.
The study from Bangladesh (Misbahuddin and Fariduddin, 2002) indicates how Water
Hyacinth can be used as a natural and cheap means of removing arsenic from contaminated
drinking water at the household level. The effectiveness of removal depended on factors,
including the amount of Water Hyacinth available for uptake, amount of arsenic present in
the water, duration of exposure, and presence of sunlight and air. Ebel et al. (2007) also
identified an important practical application for Water Hyacinth, to clean up cyanide (CN)
from effluents produced in small-scale gold mining in South America- an industry where the
use of CN is poorly regulated and waste treatment is insufficient. The authors demonstrated
that Water Hyacinth could be used to remove CN, because of its high biomass production,
and tolerance to cyanide and metals. They argued that, despite the species causing major
problems in some parts of the world, the risk of using it in closed and controlled treatment
ponds in areas where the plant is already present should be acceptable (Ebel et al., 2007).
Once called the ‘Beautiful Blue Devil’ (Vietmeyer, 1975), possibilities with Water
Hyacinth seem endless. The plant’s remarkable capacities to convert solar energy to plant
biomass efficiently, propagate itself, and maintain populations are the reason why it is so
successful. They are the same reasons that make it amenable to easy manipulation. The
luxuriant growth of Water Hyacinth in polluted water bodies is often an indication of
eutrophication and unbalanced ecosystem processes. Ghabbour et al. (2004) isolated humic
acids from leaves, stems and roots of Water Hyacinth growing in the Nile Delta in Egypt,
and suggested that these acids confer the strong metal and organic solute binding capacity to
the species. They reported that higher concentrations of the acids in the plant tissues are
directly correlated with its metal-binding functions.
However, in putting Water Hyacinth to practical uses, it is probably necessary to think
beyond the traditional way, and design engineering systems that can contain, as well as use
the power of the plants to absorb and retain urban and industrial pollutants. Instead of
focusing only on control, a changed emphasis like utilization is likely to lead to effective
management of the species, where its extensive populations are undesirable.
Common Reed- Phragmites australis
The cosmopolitan Common Reed- Phragmites australis is sometimes regarded as a weed,
but at other times, recognized as a highly beneficial plant. In a recent ethnobotanical study,
Kiviat and Hamilton (2001) established the importance of Phragmites to a large number of
Native American Indian tribes. The technological importance of the species in non-industrial
settings is related to the characteristics of the plant, especially the culms, which are strong,
hollow, lightweight, buoyant, rapidly growing, and slow-decomposing. Some of
Phragimites’ uses (i.e. matting, basketry, young shoots as food, boat construction) are similar
to uses of Scirpus spp. and Typha spp., whereas other uses (arrowshaft, fire drill shaft, splint)
are related to its special qualities, which are rarely found in other robust marsh graminoids
(Kiviat and Hamilton, 2001). The multiple uses of the species to Indigenous Australians are
also well recognised.
Following European settlement of the North American continent, factors related to
human disturbances appear to have contributed to the expansion of Phragmites (Kiviat and
Hamilton, 2001), bringing the species into conflict with humans. Among the factors, which
may have caused spread are intensive agriculture, introduced livestock, diminished numbers
of free-ranging animals, hydrological disruption of rivers, increased salinity in tidal
wetlands, and general pollution of freshwater marshes by de-icing salts, fertilizers, sewage,
and sediments. Reduced competition from other wetland species and woody plants, which
are less abundant due to land clearing, may have also contributed to greater invasiveness.
Recent introductions of more invasive genotypes from other continents may have also played
a role (Marks et al., 1994). These themes are common in many parts of the world, including
Australia, although discussions on the ‘human factor’ in causing disturbances that create
conditions favourable to colonising species, such as Phragmites are often muted.
 In Australia, Phragmites is abundant everywhere- in marshes and swamps, along
streams, lakes, ponds, and ditches. There is significant interest in using it to control shore
erosion due to wave action, and to stabilise river and canal banks that have been degraded by
past land-use practices. In addition, Phragmites is also a favoured species for use in
Constructed Wetlands, which have been gaining in popularity as a reduced cost and low
maintenance technology for treating wastewater from urbanised areas. Macrophytes, such as
Phragmites, are an essential component of these systems for removing polluting wastes at
sources in a catchment, particularly in cases where total elimination of the problem is not
possible. Phragmites’ colonising attributes- i.e. fast growth, profuse seed set, vegetative
reproduction from rhizomes that could reach up to 10 m in length, and wide ecological
amplitude, i.e. tolerance of heavy metals, moderate salinity, water level fluctuations from 15
cm below soil surface to 15 cm above; and burning) are the reasons why it is favoured. Many
wildlife enthusiasts also appreciate the habitat and food value provided by Common Reed,
particularly for birds and other animals. The importance of Phragmites reed beds for roosting
and breeding of many of the world’s threatened and endangered birds, is also well
documented within ornithology literature.
Cattails or Cumbungi- Typha spp.- Weed Problem or Useful Plant?
In 1975, Morton, writing in Economic Botany, posed the above question. He suggested that
Typha spp., subject to costly control measures in many parts of the world, deserve study in
relational to potential for industrial utilization, as an alternative to destruction (Morton,
1975). Various uses of Typha spp. reported from around the world have been recently
reviewed by Mitich (2000). The following is a brief summary.
Cattail stands provide food and cover for wildlife, and several species have been
grown as ornamental plants in water landscapes, and to control erosion and stabilise banks.
As construction material, Cattail stems and leaves have been used to make various objects
ranging from sandals to sailboats; the dried and flattened stem has been used for weaving.
Fibres from leaves and stems have been used in papermaking to produce a strong paper.
Cattail floss has a wide array of uses including stuffing for cushions and use as an insulating
and sound proofing material. Young plants, rootstocks, flower spikes, pollen and seeds have
been used as human and animal foods, and various parts of the plant have been used for
medicinal purposes. Cattail seeds yield a drying oil. On the negative side, Cattails have been
reported as toxic to humans and animals on some occasions, and to offer breeding ground for
mosquitoes. They have also been implicated in causing increased silting, obstruction of
fishing and recreation, and increased water loss from reservoirs (Holm et al., 1977).
That Cattails accumulate heavy metals has been known for a long time (Taylor and
Crowder, 1983), and their applications in wastewater treatments have been widely reported
(Lan et al., 1992). Using Typha orientalis in wastewater treatment experiments in Australia,
Cary and Weerts (1984) reported uptake values of about 60 g nitrogen (N), 8 g phosphorus
(P), 73 g potassium (K), 12 g calcium (Ca), 6 g magnesium (Mg), and 1 g sodium (Na) per
m2 of Typha. However, because of the ‘weedy’ nature of the species, the authors avoided
recommending the species for Constructed Wetlands in Australia.
The capacity of Typha spp. to withstand changes in water level and produce extensive
biomass is well known (Grace, 1989). There are also indications of different ecotypes based
on latitudinal differences. For instance, under Australian conditions, Typha orientalis grew
up to 3 m and produced 33.4 shoots m-2, (Roberts and Ganf, 1986), while a study in Japan
(Inoue and Tsuchya, 2006) reported that it grew up to 2 m and produced 328 shoots m-2.
Research in growth strategies of Typha spp., biomass and resource allocation, under different
water depths (Grace 1989) or under hypoxic conditions (Matsui and Tsuchiya, 2006),
continue to be of interest, because of the potential to use the species in diverse applications.
 Freshwater biodiversity represents the most highly threatened global ecosystem, with
over one-half the wetlands already lost to agriculture or urban conversion, and reductions in
flows from irrigation diversions or hydropower. The colonising abilities of both Phragmites
and Typha spp. are much needed attributes in restoring wetlands globally, and for creating
sustainable freshwater ecosystems, to redress the imbalance.
As pollutant removal from wastewater occurs, great quantities of macrophyte biomass
are produced. In general, the consensus is that plants must be harvested for the most effective
removal of pollutants. This leads to large amount of biomass being available for different
uses like conversion to compost or feed supplements for animals. Recent research (Ciria et
al., 2005) has highlighted the potential for using the biomass produced by Phragmites and
Typha spp. as bio-fuel, and this may provide a good example of utilization of aquatic species
on a scale that is large enough to be sustained.
All three species, discussed in this Section epitomize the dilemma we have. In both
developing and developed countries, there are many situations where Phragmites and Typha
spp. will come into conflict with human interests; but their utilitarian values cannot be
doubted. In well-managed and sustainable landscapes, they would be invaluable; and
societies, which value plants, will recognize and use their potential.

Use of ‘weedy’ species in Phytoremediation

Soils frequently receive a wide range of contaminants from industrial activities, sewage
sludge disposal, metal processing, and energy production and, in many cases, remediation by
chemical or physical means can be both expensive and intrusive to ecosystems.
Phytoremediation (the use of plants and plant processes to remove, degrade, or render
harmless hazardous materials, such as nonvolatile hydrocarbons and immobile inorganic
matter, including heavy metals, present in the soil or groundwater) offers the possibility of
alternative treatments. Many plant species, including trees, crops, grasses, and weeds,
accumulate a wide range of heavy metals, and this makes them suitable for in situ cleanup of
large volumes of low to moderately contaminated soils (Baker and Walker, 1990;
Cunningham et al., 1995; Khan et al., 2000; Kumar et al., 1995). The attributes of
‘pioneering’ species- i.e. fast growth and biomass production, wide tolerance of
environmental stresses, and capacity to maintain high population densities, make them
particularly attractive for use in phytoremediation.
There are many examples of phytoremediation to eliminate pollutants and restore
polluted soil or degraded land (Migliore et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2003), and there are
potential applications both in developed countries, and in rapidly industrializing countries,
such as China, where increasing heavy metal contamination of soil is common due to the
rapid urbanization, mining, and industrialization. The use of weedy species to eliminate
heavy metals from contaminated sites has received significant attention (Guo and Huang,
2002; Huang et al., 2001). For instance, the aggressive weed Reynoutria japonica Houtt was
shown to have considerable ability to accumulate the heavy metals copper (Cu), zinc (Zn),
lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd) (Hulina and Dumija, 1999). Wang and Liu (2002) also reported
that species like Water Hyacinth, Redroot Amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and
Maiden’s Tears [Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke] had a strong tendency for uptake and
accumulation of Cu, Zn, and chromium (Cr) in heavy-metal polluted environments. In a
similar study, Wei and Zhou (2004) showed that Dandelion (Taraxacum mongolicum Hand-
Mazz.), Nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.) and Canadian horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq.] strongly tolerated pollution by cadmium, either alone or together with lead, copper
and zinc and exhibited characteristics of hyper-accumulators.
 Wu et al. (2005) recently demonstrated the ability of 17 individual weed species and
five species combinations to accumulate lead from soil. Lead concentrations in soil did not
affect the biomass production of any weed species under the two different growth
environments. The implication was that this tolerance of lead by weed species could be used
for cleanup of lead-polluted soil. The study also recorded differences between species in
their ability to accumulate lead. For instance, Japanese Clover [Kummerowia striata (Tunb.)
Schindl.], Chinese ixeris (Ixeris chinensis Thunb.), Rye grass (Lolium perenne L.), Wild Oat
(Avena fatua L.), and Plantain (Plantago virginica L.) accumulated more lead than others,
demonstrating that it would be possible to select weed species, and use species mixes and
combinations to remediate Pb-polluted soil. These studies are an indication that weedy taxa
differ in their efficiency in acquisition of heavy metal elements (Guo and Huang, 2002;
Huang et al., 2001). The way forward may be to use species combinations of weedy species,
with their non-weedy relatives, but phytoremediation certainly shows promise for wider
exploitation of weedy characteristics in programmes for restoring ecosystems.

Weeds and Biodiversity

The term ‘biodiversity’ was coined in U.S.A. to bring political attention to the goal of
protecting species (Sagoff, 2005). It is now widely used in biology and ecology to stress that
nature is a complex matrix of species-interactions between all living forms. However, the
tendency of some authors to exclude non-native or ‘alien’ species in a given area, including
cultivated or engineered ones, from ‘biodiversity’, has led to confusion (Sagoff, 2005). Are
weeds not part of the same biodiversity?
Biotic interactions between weeds and their environment, particularly the dependence
of animals on weeds, have been of interest for several decades (Altieri, 1999). Fifty years
ago, John Harper used the example of Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L.) to conceptualise the
biotic relationships a weed has in food chains, and expressed the view that Ragwort control
in agricultural fields ‘might affect all the organisms in the food chain’ (Harper, 1957). Of
late, in Britain and other European countries, interest in weeds as important components of
the biodiversity of farmlands and the landscape has been heightened. This is due to
recognition that, by focusing only on reducing weeds in arable farms, irreparable damage is
being done to the biological diversity in vast areas of agricultural and semi-rural landscapes.
Robinson and Sutherland (2002) reported that most arable weeds in British farms have
declined since the 19th century, and losses have accelerated towards the end of the 20th
century with intensification of agriculture. A number of farmland birds have declined
(Siriwardena et al., 1998), and invertebrate animals have shown similar declines. Changes in
agriculture, such as the intensity of farming, drainage, introduction of new crops and
monocultures, changes in the sowing season, and increased use of agrochemicals (fertilizers,
herbicides and insecticides) have all been implicated (Krebs et al., 1999). The development
of more ecologically sustainable production systems, maintaining some weed species within
crops is seen as a new challenge (Marshall, 2001; 2002; Marshall et al., 2003; Storkey, 2006;
Storkey and Westbury, 2007).
In the present discourse, weeds are recognised as not just a part of biological diversity
of nature, but as critical components of ecosystems, as suggested by Harper (1957).
Managing weeds within crops to support biodiversity inevitably involves the risk of reducing
crop yields and the long-term build-up of problem weed communities. However, a pragmatic
approach to reconciling biodiversity with crop production is to manage low populations of
‘beneficial’ weed species 17 . Marshall et al. (2003) recently identified a range of such plant
species on the basis three attributes: (a) the number of insect species associated with
particular weeds; (b) the number of and the importance of weed seeds in the diet of farmland
birds; and (c) a competitive ability index. As an example, their evaluation of several weeds
resulted in some species, such as Poa annua L. and Polygonum aviculare L., as being more
important for biodiversity in arable systems than others like Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.
and Veronica persica Poiret. The challenge will be to apply such methods to select species
and populations that may be tolerated, in order to achieve a sustainable ecological balance
(Marshall et al., 2003).
Storkey (2006) extended this approach to identify groups of weeds that are similar in
terms of the balance between their competitive ability and biodiversity value. This ‘trait-
based analysis’ identified two beneficial groups that could potentially be managed to
reconcile biodiversity with crop production. To illustrate, these were: (a) spring germinating
species, including Chenopodium album L., Persicaria maculosa Gray and Polygonum
aviculare L., and (b) autumn germinating species including Poa annua L., Senecio vulgaris
L. and Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Species in this latter group have a growth form that is
complementary to the crop. That is, they generally grow below the crop canopy, forming an
understorey, and mature early, avoiding crop competition late in the season. As a result, they
utilize, in part, resources that the crop is unable to capture, and the total productivity of the
system is increased. Storkey suggested this as a possible ‘win–win’ situation, where a certain
amount of weed biomass is maintained, and is associated with a minimal yield loss.
Recognizing beneficial impacts of weeds, and tolerating some weed biomass is not
new to traditional farming systems, including ‘slash and burn’ agriculture, which is still
common in many parts of rural South and South-East Asia, Africa and Central America. In
many situations, rural farmers do not see the need to clear vast areas of vegetation for
farming. This may reflect, in most cases, avoidance of spending energy, which they can ill
afford. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence from many countries that rural farming
systems place significant values on plant as resources, although these cases are poorly
documented at present. Of those that are recorded (Chacon and Gleissman, 1982, quoted by
Altieri, 1988), corn farmers in lowland tropics of Mexico are known to leave some areas of
weeds unattended in their farmlands. The basis of this intentional ‘relaxed’ weeding is a
classification of non-crop plants according to their use potential and effects on soil and crops.
The Mexican farmers recognized 21 plants as ‘bad weeds’ and 20 as ‘good weeds’ that serve
as food, medicines, ceremonial materials, teas, and soil improvers, etc.
In Britain, the impact of declining populations of arable weeds on farmland
biodiversity is being widely acknowledged. Government-sponsored schemes encourage the
provision of plant communities as a resource for higher trophic groups (Storkey and
Westbury, 2007). The aim is to strike a balance between adequate weed control, including
the prevention of weed seed build-up, and the requirement for some plants to support
biological diversity. The challenges are related to managing problem weeds (mostly
perennials), while sustaining beneficial species (mostly annuals) at economically acceptable
levels within a functionally diverse farming landscape. Integrated weed management,
including the use of selective herbicides, such as foliar-acting graminicides, are important
tools in meeting this challenge as they control many perennial grasses, while leaving most
broadleaf species (Marshall, 2001).

17
As opposed to ‘invasive’ weeds, beneficial weeds are defined as species that provide low
levels of competition with an arable crop and have potential values as resources for higher
trophic consumer groups.
 Positive impacts of colonising species on biodiversity in Australia are not well
researched, at least for the time being. However, there are some significant studies (Date et
al., 1996; Buckley et al., 2006; Gosper and Vivian-Smith, 2006), which indicate the benefits
of introduced and ‘invasive’ species to birds. For instance, Date et al. (1996) reported that in
Northern New South Wales, several indigenous fruigivores rely heavily on the fruits of
Camphor laurel [Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Nees], one of the plants introduced by
European settlers. Similarly, Gosper and Vivian-Smith (2006) established the dependence of
fruigivorous birds on Lantana (Lantana camara L.), a widespread, aggressive scrub, well
known in the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world 18 . The general view is that ‘alien’
species may have helped buffer some fauna populations from the broad-scale destruction of
their natural habitats. Studies, like those of Gosper and Vivian-Smith (2006) have focused on
examining Australian native fruit-bearing species, which might be promoted as replacements
for Lantana in management programmes.
Whilst future research and discussions on weeds and their role in biodiversity will
continue, introduced species, including ‘invasive’ species, stimulate new species and
community interactions through antagonistic or mutualistic relationships with soil biota all
the time Reinhart and Callaway (2006). The potential enriching effect of colonising species
on biotic communities should also be recognised, just as much as negative impacts, as some
of the interactions and impacts of ‘new immigrants’ are bound to be beneficial.

Role of Weeds in Agro-ecology and Permaculture

Apart from the potential to utilize weeds in ways discussed previously, there are other
perspectives, which need recognition. For instance, most farmers recognize the value of
perennials weeds, with their extensive tap roots and rhizome systems that penetrate deep into
the subsoil, breaking it up and enabling the less vigorous roots of other plants, particularly
annuals to penetrate further into the soil. Breaking up of the subsoil also improves drainage
and creates microsites for other biota. Many weeds protect topsoil from the eroding forces of
rain, wind, and sun, especially when the vegetation cover is poor, and this is widely
recognised in landscapes. After disturbances caused by flooding or bushfire, colonising
species are the first to grow, providing the first cover of vegetation, which enables biological
activity and renewal processes to continue.
Colonising species play an integral part in establishing biological diversity, the
keystone in the field of agro-ecology. In this field, the fundamental principle is to reduce
monoculture cropping, and to encourage the development of self-sustaining systems based
on the understanding that biodiversity regulates the functioning of agro-ecosystems. Plant
and animal interactions provide essential ecological services, such as recycling of nutrients,
and breakdown of organic matter. These are important in securing soil fertility. Plants also
regulate the microclimate of agro-ecosystems, and their complex interactions lead to
suppression of undesirable organisms, and detoxification of noxious chemicals.
Altieri (1999) recently reviewed various options of agro-ecosystem design to enhance
functional biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Essential features include incorporating
windbreaks, shelterbelts, and living fences in crop/field boundaries to improve habitat for
wildlife and beneficial insects. Such areas also provide sources of wood, organic matter,
resources for pollinating bees, and, in addition, modify wind speed and the microclimate.
Establishing such ‘biological corridors’ allows for the circulation of biodiversity across
large-scale agricultural landscapes. Colonising species are very much a part of the biological
integrity and stability sought within such systems.

18
Lantana is also a Weed of National Significance in Australia.
 Altieri (999) also suggested that, in order to improve biodiversity within annual or
perennial cropping systems, there should be better utilisation of crop diversification options
that have been known since the early days of agriculture. Rotation of crops and multiple
cropping systems are effective management strategies for annual monocultures. For
perennial cropping systems, much research suggests that cover crops transform orchards and
vineyards into agro-ecosystems of increasing ecological diversity and stability by influencing
key processes and system components. Many cover crops are fast growing colonising
species. They provide habitat for beneficial insects, activate soil biology, add organic matter
continually to soil, modify microclimate within cropping systems and some can fix
atmospheric nitrogen. In such agro-ecological approaches, no species is regarded as
particularly undesirable. Species with colonising attributes are essential, because of their
capacity for nutrient recycling, biomass production and accumulation, and soil amendment
through both physical breaking up and the chemical changes in soil they sponsor.
The above concepts are reflected in the Permaculture movement, which originated out
of Landcare movements in the 1970's. The permaculture strategy, accepts a greater role for
trees, perennial plants and fast growing species in the stabilisation of degraded, human-
modified landscapes. In that sense, it is the equivalent of a large-scale revegetation strategy.
As in agro-ecology, the primary agenda of the permaculture movement is to assist people to
become more self reliant through the design and development of productive and sustainable
gardens and farms. This agenda includes mimicking what nature does, producing food
locally with minimal outside inputs, creating healthy ecosystems, building soil, constructing
housing based on local, renewable resources, ending pollution, erosion and degradation of
landscapes. Colonising plants are generally not condemned within this framework; instead,
the permaculturist’s view is that every plant has its uses and weeds are no exception. An
often-used slogan in the movement is ‘one person's weed is another's medicine or building
material’. Although the number of people committed to the austere lifestyle promoted by the
permaculture movement is still minuscule, its attitudes, favouring sustainable land use
thinking, resonate with the view that plant resources should not be devalued.
Agro-ecological or permaculture designs are intended to reach noble goals, namely,
improved living systems, which are both economically and ecological sustainable, and are
‘in tune’ with the locally available biodiversity. However, to be sustainable in developed
countries, such as Australia, these approaches need primarily to meet the aspirations of
landholders and farmers and, secondly, to contribute to meeting the broader environmental
and socio-economic and political agendas of governments.

Weeds as Fertilizing material, Compost and Fodder

Charles Frederick Milspaugh (1892) highlighted the long-known potential of weeds as
fertilizing material. He examined the potential for composting 49 common weeds as
fertilizers by analysing the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents (NKP ratios) of the
species and converting those figures to money values, ‘according to the commercial value of
the minerals at the time’ and showed that properly composted weeds (dry matter only) were
worth on average, $ 9.60 per ton. He encouraged proper composting and argued that farmers
would profit by utilizing weeds, without wasting them.
In general, conversion of green waste- leaves, branches and grass-clippings from
parks, gardens, roadsides and homes, is common in Australia, and colonising species make
up a substantial part of this material. Although composting is a sustainable practice,
ineffective commercial composting has been implicated in spread of certain weeds through
seeds and propagules, which are not dead.
Aquatic weeds harvested from water bodies have also proven useful as compost. In
one recent example from Australia, a large Salvinia infestation in the Hawkesbury-Nepean
River in the Sydney basin, NSW, was mechanically harvested over several months prior to
December 2004. Approximately 70,000 m3 of Salvinia was removed. Composting was an
option to utilize this large biomass. Dorahy et al. (2007) reported that applying the
composted material as a soil conditioner, at a depth of 20 mm, supplied an equivalent of 700
and 95 kg of nitrogen and phosphorus per ha, and suggested that the material could be used
in establishment of pasture. Whilst promoting the benefits, Dorahy et al. (2007) also
identified the potential risk of spreading Alligator Weed onto land with the composted
Salvinia, and recommended ways by which this threat could be managed.
Pasture non-availability or poor pasture are serious problems in many parts of
Australia, especially during winter and in drought periods. This is common in other parts of
the world as well. In such situations, colonising plants will continue to provide fodder for
herbivorous animals. Farmers in Western Australia, surveyed by the Agricultural Bureau,
reported that several colonising taxa are important food for grazing animals, and in non-
cropping situations, they are actually beneficial (Williams et al., 1987).

Discussion

‘Weediness’ is in the eye of the beholder’

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - W. Shakespeare 19 ; a
famous quote, which resonates with the current dilemma regarding weeds. Most people,
growers, farmers, biologists, and even politicians will agree that weeds are useful resources,
as demonstrated by the examples discussed above. This word ‘weed’, an epithet of human
invention and a dubious ‘cultural construct’, has caused so much confusion within the field
of Weed Science. In the world of plants, it simply does not exist.
After much debate in the 1980s, the Weed Science Society of America adopted the
definition of a weed as: ‘a plant growing where it is not desired’. The European Weed
Science Society extended this idea to include: ‘any plant or vegetation, excluding fungi,
interfering with the objectives or requirements of people’. The Australian definitions have a
strong slant towards the European version, i.e. ‘a weed is a species that adversely affects
biodiversity, the economy or society’ (Groves et al 2005) or ‘a weed as a plant, which has, or
has the potential to have, a detrimental effect on economic, conservation, or social values in
Australia’ (ARMCANZ 1999). These definitions have effectively removed the accepted
view that weeds are generally a symptom of a man-made crisis, but not the cause of it.
As discussed in this essay, even plants with strong colonising attributes may be of
value in various situations, at different times, or to different people. It may be worthwhile to
broaden the common definition that ‘a weed is a plant growing where it is not desired’, to
capture the idea that weeds present problems to some people, and certainly not at all times or
at all places. In that regard, Kloot’s definition from Australia (Kloot 1987) that a weed, ‘is a
plant that may interfere with human activity in one way or another and, thus, has come to be
regarded negatively by at least part of the society’ is a reasonable one to consider.
Bunting (1960) pointed out that that ‘weeds are pioneers of secondary succession, of
which the weedy arable field is a special case’ Baker (1965) defined a weed as ‘a plant …if,
in any specified geographical area, its populations grow entirely or predominantly in
situations markedly disturbed by man, (without, of course, being a deliberately cultivated
plant)’. Zimdahl (1999) favoured the view that weeds are: ‘those plants that are successful in
disturbed environments, are fast growing, and, are often, but not always herbaceous’.

19
This famous quote, spoken by Hamlet in a conversation with a friend, Rosencrantz, is
from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Act II, Scene 2).
 Definitions of a similar nature are common within the Weed Science ‘body of
knowledge’. Part of the negative attitude towards weeds, is due to the lack of clarity on
man’s own role in creating disturbed habitats. As Bunting said, ‘an essential feature of all of
man’s activities, in agriculture or otherwise, is the production of open, or at least disturbed,
habitats’. Downplaying man’s part in creating much of the disturbance to which ‘colonising
plants’ naturally respond, has led to misconceptions, and, over time, to the hardened attitude
towards ‘weedy’ taxa.
Until about the 1970s, weed issues were discussed only from the perspective that they
were problems to crop production. In subsequent decades, attention turned to weeds as
environmental problems affecting landscapes. Weeds are now projected as a major problem
affecting all aspects of our daily lives, and much energy and resources are spent fighting
them. However, given the evidence, is the problem really weeds or is it our perception of
them? As Auld (2004) states, weed occurrence is inevitable. This is because man’s activities
will continue to disturb environments, and movement of people across continents will
exacerbate introductions into new areas. There is no simple remedy for the weed problem in
its many manifestations. Therefore, whilst continuing to study the reasons why colonising
species come to dominate landscapes, the best management strategy would be to use several
control tactics in an integrated manner. Management approaches need to be designed to
prevent new introductions to disturbed areas, and to minimise the undesirable impacts where
the conflict exists between man and the colonising species. However, this must be done with
a proper ecological understanding, and with a balanced view of economic implications, but
without dramatising weed issues, and certainly avoiding messages that create a visceral
dislike for some plant taxa.
Conservation of biodiversity
In essence, biodiversity is a term to describe the assemblages of organisms that have evolved
together to exploit the resources of particular areas or environments in ways that maximise
the cycling of energy and nutrients within a certain area- an ecosystem. Plants are key
components of such systems, with different species filling a variety of roles. By their nature,
ecosystems are dynamic, and change in response both to environmental changes and to the
adaptive evolution of their constituent species.
We also need to realise that the aim of mechanized, large-scale, modern agriculture, as
opposed to subsistence agriculture, is to export nutrients and energy from an area. Therefore,
there is a natural antithesis between agriculture and conservation of biodiversity- we can
never completely reconcile the two, but can we minimise the conflict? Humans clearly
present the greatest threat to nature, wilderness and biodiversity, of which both people and
colonising species are constituent parts. This message needs to be given much more intense
publicity, to achieve a better balance between human greed, genuine development aspirations
of nations, and global biological diversity. There are strong moral, aesthetic, social and
economic reasons for protecting biodiversity. Marshall, (2001), points out that, “a culture,
which encourages respect for nature and wildlife is preferable to one that does not”.
Nowadays Australians value the preservation of what remains of the continent’s
native landscapes. They recognise that much damage has been done to native vegetation
since European settlement in the 18th century and that farming practices of the past,
particularly large-scale land clearing for pastoralism, have caused enormous losses of native
vegetation communities, and native animals.
It has been argued strongly in numerous publications that colonising species threaten
biodiversity. However, it should be evident that they also provide benefits that are not yet
fully understood. A key message from agro-ecology is that, if correctly assembled in time
and space, biological diversity is capable of repairing landscapes, sponsoring soil fertility,
protecting crops, and increasing productivity. Given the opportunity, colonising species will
be at the forefront of remediation of land that had once supported large forests. Australian
studies on such possibilities are almost non-existent, whereas much has been written about
the negative impacts of ‘invasives’. To redress the imbalance, we need to reappraise our
approach to the discipline of Weed Science.
The search for self-sustaining, low-input, diversified, and energy-efficient agricultural
systems is now a major worldwide concern. A key strategy in sustainable agriculture is to
restore both the structural heterogeneity at the different spatial scales of field, farm, and
landscape (Krebs et al., 1999) and the functional biodiversity of the landscapes (Altieri, 1999).
This can be achieved in time through age-old practices like crop rotations and sequences, and
in space in the form of cover crops, intercropping, agroforestry, and crop/livestock mixtures.
Plants with colonising abilities are very much a part of biodiversity in arable fields, or in
non-cropped areas; they add much to biotic interactions by way of their highly developed
chemical defences, and they perform a variety of ecosystem services. Creation of appropriate
biologically diverse cropping and non-cropping landscapes is likely to result in increased
pest regulation through restoration of natural control of insect pests, nematodes and diseases
caused by fungi, bacteria and viruses, and to produce optimal nutrient recycling and soil
conservation by activating soil biota. All of these factors should lead to more sustainable
yields, better energy conservation, and less dependence on external inputs. However,
adoption of such approaches will depend on demonstration of the synergies of biodiversity
conservation and the economic profitability of farming.
Weeds will always present a stimulating challenge
Without any doubt, weeds have contributed enormously to the development of the
‘innovative thinkers’ amongst humans. From the earliest development of subsistence
agriculture to the modern agricultural revolutions, they have challenged our way of living.
This has led to inventions from the earliest digging sticks to sophisticated machinery and to
the development of agronomy, irrigation, and surveying and of the agrochemical industry.
The development of genetically modified crops by multi-national biotechnology
companies during the last two decades also falls into this category. The advances in
biotechnology that have created modified organisms that can be grown and harvested on a
large scale to feed growing populations must rate high in the continuum of human
innovation. The stimulus that profits can be made from such innovations came from the
challenge offered by weeds.
Colonising species will always be the ultimate survivors in the conflict with man.
Rather than a zero tolerance towards particular taxa, it would seem reasonable to propose
‘ecological management’ of problematic populations, with an eye on their potential benefits,
on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. This requires synecological 20 models that capture all of the key
factors that govern the dynamics of populations in a given location. These differ from
autecological, ‘species-led’ approaches that are more concerned with the reactions of single
species. The agro-ecology approaches, extensively covered by Altieri (1999), are invaluable
ecological risk management models, in the sense that the practices promoted have long-
proven benefits in ecosystems. They also encourage positive thinking, linking people with
nature, and stimulate people to closely integrate with all components of biological diversity,
including ‘colonising species.

20
Synecology is the branch of ecology that deals with the structure and development of
entire ecological communities, their interactions with the chemical and physical
environment, and the complex interrelationships between all plants and animals within
them.
Will there be a change in attitude?
The hardened attitude towards colonising plants in Australia, and perhaps in other affluent
countries, is related to the profits that can be made by individual landholders through
farming. Despite the fact that agricultural production represents only a declining 3% of the
nation’s GDP, Australian farmers form a powerful lobby, whose concerns receive the
attention of many politicians. Many farmers resist change because of personal learning
experiences, property-related factors, and economic factors. Shifting the emphasis of weeds
from ‘foe’ to friend’ will require strong campaigning, both from governmental and non-
governmental initiatives. Relaxing the attitude towards colonising species may come with
time, and this can be hastened by economic incentives to manage biodiversity within
farmlands, and landscapes, as has been done in European countries.
Given that colonisation of the continent is only two centuries old, there may also be a
lack of collective ‘traditional wisdom’ upon which sustainable societies and cultures are
usually based. For early Australians of European origins, much of their ‘traditional
knowledge’ of wild plants, herbs and weeds came from European farming. Many growers
and farmers, with deeply entrenched perceptions, often mistrust alternatives. The collective
wisdom of all weed scientists and weed managers in Australia may be required to bring
about a change in farmers’ mind-set, as well as an attitude change amongst landholders.
Pratley (1995) noted that the discipline of Weed Science in Australia is poorly
developed in terms of educational programmes, and that there has been limited support by
government agencies and funding bodies for weed research. He was enthusiastic about the
establishment of the government-sponsored Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), for Weed
Management, the first of its kind that came into being around that time. The CRC has
improved the status of knowledge about invasive species. It has also increased public
awareness in Australia of potential undesirable effects on ecosystems of unmanaged
population explosions. However, perhaps because it was focused on the waging a war against
weeds, the CRC has not investigated the potential value of investment in their utilization.
This probably reflects the prevailing lack of discussion on possibilities, and the commonly
held view that most weeds are ‘alien’ species of no value. There is also a general view that
utilization of weeds, such as harvested aquatic weeds, is costly and, therefore, not
economically worthwhile (Howard and Harley, 1998). Nevertheless, not everyone will agree
that human endeavour should always be measured in monetary terms. Investment in
utilization of weeds is one area, which is justified not just because it is a good management
practice, but also because provides a positive message for the public.
An Ethno-biological perspective- Link between Plants and Humans
In discussing the relative variety and intensity of uses of Phragmites by human groups,
Kiviat and Hamilton (2001) suggested that the utility of a plant to humans is related to: (1)
abundance and distribution of the plant; (2) length of time the plant and a human group have
been in contact; (3) invention or transmission of traditional ecological knowledge of the
plant; (4) ease of managing, acquiring, and processing the plant; (5) physical and chemical
qualities of the plant (e.g. pharmaceutical or toxicological properties, fiber characteristics,
nutritional composition); and (6) availability and quality of alternate taxa. These ideas reveal
why some taxa are much valued, and others much disliked. Discussion of such ethno-
biological perspectives is important in building better relationships of plants by humans,
particularly in developed countries where the conflicts between the two are more profound.
The importance of traditional cultures, their wisdom and sustainable interactions with
plants and animals is a routine subject in Anthropology, and Social Science. Interactions
between the humanities and a discipline like Weed Science are not strong and hence both
sides may gain from a closer exchange of views. Journals dedicated to Ethnobotany and
Economic Botany often carry articles relating to human uses of colonising plants. Increased
appreciation of plant resources can be achieved by studying these ethno-biological
appraisals, as well as by exercising more common sense. Improved understanding of plants
of value to humanity may assist those who consider ‘weed risk assessments’ when deciding
whether or not to list particularly resourceful taxa as ‘invasives’ that should be controlled at
any cost. The presumption here is that ‘branding’ of taxa tends to stick in the minds of the
public. Applying ‘a guilty until proven innocent’ approach to taxa with colonising abilities,
as has been widely practiced in Australia, belies common sense, is disrespectful to nature,
and may not be tenable for long.
The Way Forward
Making the case for utilization of weeds is not difficult. The compilation of existing
knowledge from different cultures should assist this task and, in that sense, there is much to
learn from the existing Economic Botany and Ethnobotany ‘body of knowledge’. Ishizuka
(2001) stated that the biodiversity of weeds should be investigated in terms of both constant
and changeable species-specific adaptive traits. For this reason, Weed Science should pay
attention to the development of new aspects of research. His view was that disciplines such
as agronomy, horticulture, agroforestry, ecology, biology, genetics, physiology,
biochemistry, gene technology, and even economics may be useful for the clarification of
biodiversity of weeds and should be integrated into Weed Science. It is hard to argue against
these views, given the evidence presented. Harada (2001) pointed out that humans have for
long used colonising species as foods, medicinal plants, animal feeds, housing materials, raw
materials for handicrafts, ornaments, and so on. He considered that, before they are
forgotten, priority should be given to the investigation and recording of the ways in which
traditional cultures in the Asia-Pacific region have used weeds. He strongly argued for more
cooperative research on utilization of weeds in the future.
This essay highlights the indifferent attitude in countries like Australia, towards the
use of colonising plant species as resources. This may be a sign of the times we live in. On
the other hand, traditional societies, including indigenous Australians, have used plants
wisely and have ‘co-existed’ with them. Are there not lessons from previous generations, that
plant resources should be respected rather than maligned? In the attempt to maximise
agricultural production in developed countries, anything other than the crop plant whose
yield brings profit, is regarded as undesirable. This view is seriously flawed and is not
sustainable under the commonly accepted principles of Ecologically Sustainable
Development, to which many affluent nations have committed.
Perhaps the ‘paradigm shift’ required in the field of Weed Science in the 21st Century
is to recognise the potential of colonising plants and to find ways to integrate them into our
lifestyle. The vast amount of literature on Ethnobotany and Economic Botany, some of
which is referenced in this essay, seems to point to possibilities that cannot be ignored.
Rather than over-dramatising the negative aspects of plants regarded as weeds, the Weed
Science community, in Australia and elsewhere, needs to bring about a balance and to
emphasize the utilitarian value of colonising plants, with their tenacity and vitality, and to
reconsider the advantages of putting these into practical use. Utilization, instead of attempts
to eradicate, these maligned taxa will lead to their effective management in most situations,
where the potential undesirable effects of a large population are untenable.
By 2025 AD the global population is expected to reach 8.5 billion, of which 83% will
be living in developing countries. Most would agree that one of the greatest challenges
facing mankind is to increase food production in landscapes where productivity has been
generally declining. The challenge is to increase food and fibre production in a sustainable
manner, while maintaining systems and landscapes for future generations. Therefore,
particularly in the less affluent countries, a negative attitude towards any group of plants,
including those that sometimes interfere with human affairs is unwarranted, and making such
a mistake is not affordable. The examples discussed show why this is so.
In order to alleviate socio-economic hardships, and to conserve biological and cultural
diversities, it is necessary to build on existing links between people and biological resources.
The level of success of this, however, is dependent on accommodating local knowledge,
aspirations and priorities of communities, including indigenous people and farmers, with
some trade-offs between development and conservation initiatives. The ultimate goal must
be for the present generation to be ‘custodians of landscape’, as indigenous Australians see
themselves to be, instead of being exploiters, and this task requires positive messages and a
proper appreciation of plant resources.

Conclusions
Weeds are ‘colonising plants’ or ‘pioneers of secondary succession’ and need to be
understood in this way. Wherever or whenever man disturbs a habitat, they will be among
the first to make use of the opportunity of space. This ecological emphasis has been
downplayed in a large number of publications, perhaps inadvertently, because the focus has
been on weed control. Weeds are not the culprits; they are just a symptom of the real cause,
which is ecologically destructive land-use practices by humans, including land clearing,
overgrazing, and introductions of species for short-term profit. In natural or man-made
ecosystems, many weeds serve valuable ecological functions that need more recognition.
Examples of their complex biological interrelationships, such as providing resources for
wildlife, slowing erosion, building soil, and generally enriching biological diversity need to
be studied and given wider publicity.
Many species of plants are currently considered as invasive weeds. Much of the time
publicity in developed countries is a blitz against weeds, often over-emphasizing the conflict
man has with some species. The fact that so many colonising species grow and coexist in the
same environments with native species and crops tends to be overlooked. Because of their
adaptability, weeds will always compete with other plants, like crop plants, or slow-growing
perennials. Whilst the economic consequences of this interference with crops have been
clarified, the ecological consequences of colonising species are not well understood. Some
generalities have been made, such as that weeds reduce biodiversity and the regeneration of
native species, but these views overlook the fact that weeds themselves are part of biological
diversity, enriching nature and stimulating biotic interactions all the time. Given that most
weed invasions can never be reversed, they can only be controlled by reducing their
populations to a below a level that might be construed as unacceptable, the challenge is to
better understand the negative impacts of weeds on the environment.
In a strategic approach to managing weeds, the utility of these plant resources needs to
be highlighted, and people should be encouraged to look at different ways of using them. The
summary condemnation of plant taxa because we may not like to have them in particular
situations or enterprises is not a sensible way to approach a s complex man-made problem. A
much broader appreciation of the useful attributes of plants and their applications in
improving the human condition is a high priority. Weeds are clearly highly successful plants,
largely due to characteristics that confer superior colonising ability and competitiveness. As
demonstrated in this essay, these attributes can be very useful, not just in repairing damaged
ecosystems, but also in providing food and fibre for all animals, including humans.
As human enterprises expand, population increases and pursuit of material wealth
continues, the mode of existence of some colonising plant taxa will increasingly clash with
our existence. It is through no intrinsic fault of the plants themselves. The same attributes
that make a plant ‘invasive’ will be sought after under a different set of circumstances. The
examples discussed demonstrate the two sides of the argument. The way forward is to
broaden our understanding of plant resources, and their crucial role as integral parts of
biological communities. In the case of taxa with strong colonising abilities, their resilience,
tenacity, and capacity to adapt to environmental disturbances need to be recognised. Perhaps
this understanding would help modify our attitudes, or allow us to avoid creating conflicts
with plant taxa, and getting into situations from which we cannot win.
As in many other fields, it is necessary from time to time, to realign the focus of a
scientific discipline, and Weed Science may have reached that stage. Whilst there is a vast
amount of disparate literature, some of which has been reviewed in this essay, the future
requires a ‘body of knowledge’ of utilization of colonising species to be established, so that
present and future generations could benefit from that knowledge.

Acknowledgements

I thank Professor K. U. Kim for the invitation to write this essay. Dr. Peter Michael and
David Eccles critically reviewed the document and provided valuable comments. Dilsiri
Chandrasena is acknowledged for assisting with the review of literature.

References
AGROW. 2006. No. 490, Global agrochemical market flat in 2005, pp. 15.
[www.agrow.com].
Altieri, M. A. 1988. The Impact, Uses and Ecological Role of Weeds in Agro-ecosystems.
In: M. A. Altieri and M. Liebman (Eds.), Weed Management in Agroecosystems:
Ecological Approaches, Volume 1, pp. 1-6. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida,
U.S.
Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment, 74: 19–31.
Anver, S. and M. M. Alam. 2000. Organic management of concomitant Meloidogyne
incognita and Rotylenchus reniformis on chickpea. Allelopathy Journal, 7 (1): 79-
84.
Arcioni, E. 2003. Out Damned Weeds! Weed Management in Australia- Keeping them at
bay. The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 8 (1): 75-122.
ARMCANZ. 1999. Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New
Zealand (ARMCANZ). National Weeds Strategy: A strategic approach to weed
problems of national significance. Commonwealth Government of Australia,
Canberra.
Auld, B. A. 2004. The persistence of weeds and their social impact. International Journal of
Social Economics, 31 (9/10): 879-886.
Auld, B. and R. Medd. 1992. Weeds: An Illustrated Botanical Guide to the Weeds of
Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
Australian National Botanic Gardens. 1998. Aboriginal use of native plants. Department of
the Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government
http://osprey.erin.gov.au/anbg/aboriginal-trail.html
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007. Yearbook Australia 2007, accessed via:
www.abs.gov.au.
Baker, H. G. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: H. G. Baker & G. L.
Stebbins (Eds.), The Genetics of Colonizing Species. pp. 147–172, Academic Press,
New York.
Baker, A. J. M. and P. L. Walker. 1990. Ecophysiology of Metal Uptake by Tolerant Plants.
In: A. J. Shaw (Ed.), Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects, CRC
Press: Boca Raton, Florida, 156–177.
Brinkley, T. R. and M. Bomford. 2002. Agricultural Sleeper Weeds in Australia: What is the
potential threat? Bureau of Rural Sciences, Commonwealth Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia (AFFA). pp. 35.
Buckley, Y. M., Anderson, S., Caterall, C. P., Corlett, R. T., Engel, T., Gosper, C. R.,
Nathan, R., Richardson, D. M., Setter, M., Speigel, O, Voigt, F. A.. Weir, J. E. S.,
and D. A. Westcott. 2006. Management of plant invasions mediated by frugivore
interactions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43: 848-857.
Budelman, A. 1988. The performance of leaf mulches of Leucaena leucocephala, Flemingia
macrophylla and Gliricidia sepium in weed control. Agroforestry Systems, 6: 137-
145.
Bunting, A. H. 1960. Some reflections on the Ecology of Weeds. In: J.L. Harper (Ed.), The
Biology of Weeds. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. pp. 11-25.
Callaway, R. M., Bias, H. P., Weir, T. L., Perry, L., Ridenour, W. M. and J. M. Vivanco.
2004. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: from genes to communities: synopsis,
updates, and implications. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Allelopathy,
August 2005, pp. 33-38, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Cary, P. R. and K. H. Bowmer. 1991. Aquatic Plants- Friend or Foe? Proceedings of
Symposium on ‘Aquatic Plant Management’, 15-17 May 1990, pp. 7-23, BIOTROP
Special Publication No: 40 (1991), Bogor, Indonesia.
Cary, P. R. and P. G. J. Weerts. 1984. Growth and nutrient composition of Typha orientalis
as affected by water temperature and nitrogen and phosphorus supply. Aquatic
Botany, 19: 105-118.
Chandrasena, J. P. N. R., Hemalal, K. D. P. and L. M. V. Tillekeratne. 1989. Allelopathic
Effects of Gliricidia maculata H.B.K. on selected Crop and Weed Species.
Proceedings of 12th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, 21-26 August,
1989, pp. 425–431, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Charudattan, R. 2001. Are we on top of aquatic weeds? Weed problems, control options and
challenges. Proceedings of Symposium No. 77, ‘The World’s Worst Weeds’, British
Crop Protection Council, pp. 41-68.
Chen, X., Tang, J. J., Zhao, H. M., and K. Shimizu. 2003. Sustainable Utilization of Weed
Diversity Resources in Agroecosystem. Journal of Natural Resources, 18: 340–346.
Chitwood, D. J. 2002. Phytochemical based Strategies for Nematode Control. Annual
Review of Phytopathology, 40: 221–49.
Ciria, M. P., Solano, M. L. and P. Soriano. 2005. Role of macrophyte Typha latifolia in a
constructed wetland for wastewater treatment and assessment of its potential as a
biomass fuel. Biosystems Engineering, 92 (4): 535-544.
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. and F. S. Chapin. 1985. Resource availability and plant anti
herbivore defense. Science, 230: 895–899.
Colautti, R. I. and H. J. MacIssac. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species.
Diversity and Distribution, 10: 135-141.
Coutts-Smith, A. J. and P. O. Downey. 2006. Impact of weeds on threatened biodiversity in
New South Wales. Technical Series No. 11, CRC for Australian Weed
Management, Adelaide. pp. 107.
CRC. 2000. St John’s Wort Hypericum perforatum. Best Practice Management Guide.
Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems. pp. 6.
CRC. 2003a. Prickly Acacia- Acacia nilotica. Weeds of National Significance, Weed
Management Guide. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems.
pp. 8.
CRC. 2003b. Mesquite- Prosopsis spp. Weeds of National Significance, Weed Management
Guide. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems. pp. 8.
CRC. 2003c. Parkinsonia- Parkinsonia aculeata. Weeds of National Significance, Weed
Management Guide. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems.
pp. 8.
Crossman N. D. 2002. The impact of the European Olive (Olea europaea L. subsp.
europaea) on grey box (Eucalyptus microcarpa Maiden) woodland in South
Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly, 17(4): 140-146.
Cribb, A. B. and J. W. Cribb. 1981. Wild Medicine in Australia. Collins Publishers Australia,
Sydney. Pp. 269.
Cribb, A. B. and J. W. Cribb. 1982. Useful Wild Plants in Australia. Collins Publishers
Australia, Sydney. Pp. 228.
Cunningham, S. D., Gerti, W. R., and J. W. Huang. 1995. Phytoremediation of Contaminated
Soils. Trends in Biotechnology, 13: 325–333.
Date, E. M., Recher, H. F., Ford, H. A. and D. A. Stewart. 1996. The conservation and
ecology of rainforest pigeons in north-eastern New South Wales. Pacific
Conservation Biology, 2: 299–308.
Dilday, R. H., Yan, W. G., Moldenhaue, K. A. K. and K. A. Gravois. 1998. Allelopathic
activity in rice for controlling major aquatic weeds. In: M. Olofsdotter (Ed.),
Allelopathy in Rice. pp. 7-26. International Rice Research Institute, Manila,
Philippines.
Dellow, J. J., Sergeant, M. and S. Rose. 1987. Control of Olea spp. In: D. Lemerle and A. R.
Leys (Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 8th Australian Weeds Conference, 21–25
September 1987, Sydney, NSW, pp. 461-463. Weed Society of NSW Inc., Sydney,
NSW.
Dwyer, J. 2006. Medicinal herbs and weeds in colonial Victoria. In: C. Preston, J. H. Watts
and N. D. Crossman (Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 15th Australian Weeds
Conference, 24–28 September 2006, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 25-278. Weed
Management Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Dorahy, C. G., McMaster, I., Pirie, A. D., Muirhead, L. M., Pengelly, P., Chan, K. Y. and M.
Jackson. 2007. Risks and benefits of using aquatic weed compost for improving
land condition in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment. Proceedings of OzWater ’07,
March 2007, Sydney, NSW, Australian Water Association. Paper 07290 [CD
ROM].
Ebel, M., Evangelou, M. W. H. and A. Schaeffer. 2007. Cyanide phytoremediation by water
hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes) Chemosphere, 66: 816–823.
Fay, P. K. and W. O. Duke. 1977. An assessment of allelopathic potential in Avena
germplasm. Weed Science, 25: 224-228.
Feeny, P. P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: J. W. Wallace and R. L.
Mansell (Eds.), Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, Vol. 10, pp. 1–40, Plenum,
New York.
Fuiji, Y., Golisz, A., Furubayashi, A., Iqbal, Z. and H. Nasir. 2005. Allelochemicals from
buckwheat and tartary buckwheat and practical weed control in the field.
Proceedings of the 20th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, 7-11
November 2005, pp. 227-233, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Gaudet, J. J. 1974. The normal use of vegetation. In: D. S. Mitchell (Ed.) Aquatic Vegetation
and Its Use and Control, pp. 24-37, UNESCO, Paris.
Ghabbour, E. A., Davies, G., Lam, Y. Y. and M. E. Vozzella. 2004. Metal binding by humic
acids isolated from water hyacinth plants [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solm-
Laubach: Pontederiaceae] in the Nile Delta, Egypt. Environmental Pollution,
131(3): 445–451.
Giraldo, E. and A. Garzo´n. 2002. The potential for water hyacinth to improve the quality of
Bogota River water in the Mun˜a Reservoir: comparison with the performance of
waste stabilization ponds. Water Science and. Technology, 45 (1): 103–110.
Glaznig, A. 2005. Closing the Quarantine Loophole to New Weeds. WWF-Australia. Issues
Paper. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Glaznig, A., McLachlan, K. and O. Kessal. 2004a. Garden Plants that are Invasive Plants of
National Importance: an Overview of their Legal Status, Commercial Availability
and Risk Status. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Glaznig, A., McLachlan, K. and O. Kessal. 2004b. Commercial Availability of ‘Garden
Thug’ Plants. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Godden, L., Nelson, R. and J. Peel. 2006. Controlling Invasive Species: Managing Risks to
Australia’s Agricultural Sustainability and Biodiversity Protection. Australian
Journal of Environmental Management, 13: 166-181.
Gomez-Beloz, A. and T. Rivero. 2006. Ure (Colocasia esculenta- Araceaea): An Edible
Aroid of the Warao. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 4: 103-111.
Gosper, C. R. and G.Vivian-Smith. 2006. Selecting replacements for invasive plants to
support frugivores in highly modified sites: a case study focusing on Lantana
camara. Ecological Management & Restoration, 7(3): 197-203.
Grace, J. B. 1989. Effects of water depth on Typha latifolia and Typha domingensis.
American Journal of Botany, 76: 762-768.
Grice, A. C. and J. R. Brown. 1996. An overview of the current status of weed management
in Australian rangelands. In: R. C. H. Sheppard (Ed.), Papers and Proceedings 11th
Australian Weeds Conference, 30-September- 3October 1996, Melbourne, Victoria,
pp. 195-204. Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc., Frankston, Victoria.
Grice, A. C. and N. Ainsworth. 2003. Sleeper Weeds- A useful concept? Plant Protection
Quarterly, 18: 35-39.
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley & Sons, New
York. pp. 222.
Groves, R. H. 1999. Sleeper weeds. In: A. C. Bishop, M. Boersma and C. D. Barnes (Eds.),
Papers and Proceedings 12th Australian Weeds Conference, 12–16 September 1999,
Hobart, Tasmania, pp. 632–636. Tasmanian Weed Society Inc., Hobart.
Groves, R. H. 2006. Are some weeds sleeping? Some concepts and reasons. Euphytica, 148:
111-120.
Groves, R. H. and A. J. Willis. 1999. Environmental weeds and loss of native plant
biodiversity: some Australian examples. Australian Journal of Environmental
Management, 6: 164-171.
Groves, R. H., Boden, R. and W. M. Lonsdale. 2005. Jumping the Garden Fence: Invasive
Garden Plants in Australia and their environmental and agricultural impacts. CSIRO
report for WWF-Australia, WWF-Australia, Sydney. pp. 173.
Gunasekera, L. and J. Bonila. 1999. Alligator Weed: Tasty vegetable in Australian
Backyards ? Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 39: 17-20.
Guo, S. L. and C. B. Huang. 2002. On Absorption and Accumulation of Six Heavy Metal
Elements of Weed in Jinhua Suburb (II)-PCA on Relationship Between Weeds and
 Soil in Metal Element Content. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 20: 137–
139.
Gurib-Fakim, A. 2006. Medicinal plants: traditions of yesterday and drugs of tomorrow.
Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 27: 1–93.
Harada, J. 2001. Research in the 21st century for weed scientists in the Asia-Pacific region
and roles of the new journal Weed Biology and Management: a message from the
President. Weed Biology and Management, 1: 1-4.
Harper, J. L. 1957. Ecological aspects of weed control. Outlook on Agriculture. 1(5): 197-
205.
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press Inc., London. pp. 892.
Holm, L. G., Pacho, J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L. Plucknett. 1977. The World’s Worst
Weeds. Distribution and Biology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Holtenkamp, R., Edwards, P. B. and R. J. Adair. 1999. Biological control of bitou bush: just
around the turn of the millennium? In: A. C. Bishop, M. Boersma and C. D. Barnes
(Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 12th Australian Weeds Conference, 12–16
September 1999, Hobart, Tasmania, pp. 667-669. Tasmanian Weed Society Inc.,
Hobart.
Horton, D. 2000. The pure state of nature: sacred cows, destructive myths and the
environment. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW. pp. 192.
Howard, G. W. and K. L. S. Harley. 1998. How do floating aquatic weeds affect wetland
conservation and development? How can these effects be minimised? Wetlands
Ecology and Management, 5: 25-225.
Huang, C. B., Guo, S. L., and X. M. Chen. 2001. Absorption and Accumulation of Four
Heavy Metals by Eleven Weeds in Jinhua, Zhejiang. Agro-Environmental
Protection, 20: 225–228.
Hulina, N. and L. Dumija. 1999. Ability of Reynoutria japonica Houtt (Polygonaceae) to
Accumulate Heavy Metals. Periodicum Biologorum, 101: 233–235.
Humphries, S. E., Groves, R. H. and D. S. Mitchell. 1991. Plant Invasions of Australian
Ecosystems: A status review and management directions. Kowari, 2:1-134.
Ingole, N. W. and A. G. Bhole. 2003. Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution by
Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Journal of Water Supply Research and
Technology:AQUA, 52 (2): 119–128.
Inoue, T. M. and T. Tsuchiya. 2006. Growth Strategy of an emergent macrophyte, Typha
orientalis Presl, in comparison with Typha latifolia L. and Typha angustifolia L.
Limnology, 7: 171-174.
Ishizuka, K. 2001. The Role of a New Journal. Weed Biology and Management, 1: 15-19.
James, C. D., Landsberg, J. and S. R. Morton. 1999. Provision of watering points in the
Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. Journal of Arid Environments, 41:
87-121.
Jayaweera, M. W. and J. C. Kasturiarachchi. 2004. Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus
from industrial wastewaters by phytoremediation using water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes (Mart.) Solms). Water Science and Technology, 50 (6): 217–225.
Khan, A. G., Kuek, C., Chaudhry, T. M., Khoo, C. S., and W. J. Hayes. 2000. Role of Plants,
Mycorrhizae and Phytochelators in Heavy Metal Contaminated Land Remediation.
Chemosphere, 41: 197–207.
Kim, K. U. 2001. Trends and expectations for research and technology in the Asia-Pacific
region. Weed Biology and Management, 1: 20-24.
Kim, K. U. and D. H. Shin. 2005. Allelopathic research and development- a world view on
breeding of allelopathic rice. Proceedings of the 20th Asian-Pacific Weed Science
 Society Conference, 7-11 November 2005, pp. 234-239, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam.
Kiviat, E. and E. Hamilton. 2001. Phragmites use by Native North Americans. Aquatic
Botany, 69: 341–357.
Kloot, P. M. 1987. The changing Weed Flora of Australia. In: D. Lemerle and A. R. Leys
(Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 8th Australian Weeds Conference, 21–25 September
1987, Sydney, NSW, pp. 134-147. Weed Society of NSW Inc., Sydney, NSW.
Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B. and G. M. Siriwardena. 1999. The Second Silent
Spring? Nature, 400: 611-612.
Kumar, P. B. A. N., Dusbenkov, V., Motto, H., and I. Raskin. 1995. Phytoextraction: The
Use of Plants to Remove Heavy Metals from Soil. Environmental Science and
Technology, 29: 1232–1238.
Ladson, A. R. and G. Gerrish. 1996. Managing Willows along Victorian waterways. In:
R.C.H. Sheppard (Ed.), Papers and Proceedings 11th Australian Weeds Conference,
30-September- 3October 1996, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 379-382. Weed Science
Society of Victoria Inc., Frankston, Victoria.
Lan, C., Chen, G., Li, L. and M. H. Wong. 1992. Use of Cattails in treating wastewater from
Pb/Zn mine. Environmental Management, 16: 75-80.
Leather, G. R. 1983. Sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) are allelopathic to weeds. Weed
Science, 31: 37:42.
Lonsdale, W. M. 1994. Inviting trouble: Introduced pasture species in Northern Australia.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 19: 345-354.
Lovett, J. V. 1989. Allelopathy research in Australia: an update. In: C.H. Chou and G.R.
Waller (Eds.), ‘Phytochemical Ecology: Allelochemicals, Mycotoxins and Insect
Pheromones and Allomones’. Academia Sinica Monograph Series, No. 9, 49-67.
Lovett, J. V. and A. C. H. Hoult. 1995. Allelopathy and self-defense in barley. American
Chemical Society Symposium Series, 582: 170-183.
Lovett, J. V. and S. E. Knights. 1996. Where in the world is weed science going? In: R.C.H.
Sheppard (Ed.), Papers and Proceedings 11th Australian Weeds Conference, 30-
September- 3 October 1996, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 3-13. Weed Science Society
of Victoria Inc., Frankston, Victoria.
Low, T. 1999. Feral Future. Viking Publishers, Victoria, pp. 380.
Mack, M. C. and C. M. D’Antonio. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance
regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13: 195-198.
Marks, M., Lapin, B. and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats,
management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal, 14: 285–294.
Marshall, E. J. P. 2001. Biodiversity, herbicides and non-target plants. Proceedings of BCPC
Conference Weeds 2001, 12-15 November, 2001, Brighton, U.K., pp. 855-862,
Volume 2, British Crop Protection Council, U.K.
Marshall, E. J. P. 2002. Weeds and Biodiversity. In: Robert E. L. Naylor (Ed.), Weed
Management Handbook 9th Edition British Crop Protection Council. pp. 75-93.
Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Marshall, E. J. P., Brown, V. K., Boatman, N. D., Lutman, P. J.W., Squire, G. R. and L. K.
Ward. 2003. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields.
Weed Research, 43:77–89.
Matsui, T. and T. Tsuchiya. 2006. Root aerobic respiration and growth characteristics of
three Typha species in response to hypoxia. Ecological Research, 21: 470-475.
Matthews, P. J. 2004. Genetic Diversity in Taro, and Preservation of Culinary Knowledge.
Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 2: 55-71.
Migliore, L., Cozzolino, S., and M. Fiori. 2000. Phytotoxicity to and Uptake of Flumequine
used in Intensive Aquaculture on the Aquatic Weed, Lythrum salicaria L.
Chemosphere, 40: 741–750.
Miller, P. M. and J. F. Ahrens. 1969. Influence of growing marigolds, weeds, two cover
crops and fumigation on subsequent populations of parasitic nematodes and plant
growth. Plant Disease Reporter, 53: 642-646.
Millspaugh, C. F. (1892). Weeds as Fertilizing Material. Science, 19 (490). 356-357.
Misbahuddin, M. and A. Fariduddin. 2002. Water hyacinth removes arsenic from arsenic-
contaminated drinking water. Archives of Environmental Health, 57: 516–518.
Mitchell, D. S. (Ed.) 1974. Aquatic Vegetation and Its Use and Control, UNESCO, Paris, pp.
135.
Mitich, L. (2000). Common Cattail, Typha latifolia L. Weed Technology. 14: 446–450.
Morton, J. F. 1975. Cattails (Typha Spp.)-Weed Problem or Potential Crop? Economic
Botany, 29 (1): 7-29.
National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Underexploited Tropical Plants with Promising
Economic Value. Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on
Technology Innovation, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, pp. 189.
Naylor, R. E. L. and P. J. Lutman. 2002. What is a Weed? In: Robert E. L. Naylor (Ed.),
Weed Management Handbook 9th Edition, British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 1-
15. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Nimbal, C. I., Yerkes, C. N., Weston, L. A. and S. C. Weller. 1996. Herbicidal activity and
site of action of the natural product sorgoleone. Pesticides, Biochemistry and
Physiology, 54: 73-83.
Olofsdotter, M., Navarez, D., Rebulanan, M. and J. C. Streibig. 1999. Weed suppressing rice
cultivars- does allelopathy play a role? Weed Research, 39: 441-454.
Ploeg, A. T. 1999. Greenhouse studies on the effect of marigolds (Tagetes spp.) on four
Meloidogyne species. Journal of Nematology, 31: 62–69.
Ploeg, A. T. 2000. Effects of amending soil with Tagetes patula cv. Single Gold on
Meloidogyne incognita infestation of tomato. Nematology, 2: 489–493.
Pratley, J. E. 1995. Weed Management research in crop production- A Review. In: R. C. H.
Sheppard (Ed.), Papers and Proceedings 11th Australian Weeds Conference, 30-
September- 3October 1996, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 17-22. Weed Science Society
of Victoria Inc., Frankston, Victoria.
Putnam, A. R. 1986. Can it be managed to benefit horticulture? HortScience, 21: 411–413.
Putnam, A. R. 1988a. Allelochemicals from plants as herbicides. Weed Technology, 2: 510–
518.
Putnam, A. R. 1988b. Allelopathy: Problems and Opportunities in Weed Management, In:
M. A. Altieri and M. Liebman (Eds.), Weed Management in Agroecosystems:
Ecological Approaches, Volume 1, pp. 77-88. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
Putnam, A. R. 1994. Weed allelopathy. In: S. O. Duke (Ed.), Weed Physiology, Vol. I.
Reproduction and Ecophysiology. pp. 131–155, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Putnam, A. R. and W. O. Duke. 1974. Biological suppression of weeds: Evidence for
allelopathy in accessions of cucumber. Science 185, 370–372.
Putnam, A. R. and W. O. Duke. 1978. Allelopathy in agroecosystems. Annual Review of
Phytopathology, 16: 431–451.
Putnam, A. R. and L. A. Weston. 1986. Adverse impacts of allelopathy in agricultural
systems. In: A. R. Putnam and C. S. Tang (Eds.), The Science of Allelopathy, pp
43–56, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Qasem, J. R. and C. L. Foy. 2001. Weed allelopathy, its ecological impacts and future
prospects: a review. In: R. K. Kohli, H. P. Singh, and D. R. Batish (Eds.),
Allelopathy in Agroecosystems; pp. 43–119, Haworth Press, New York.
Randall, R. P. 2001. Garden thugs, a national list of invasive and potentially invasive garden
plants. Plant Protection Quarterly, 16: 138-171.
Randall, R. P. and O. Kessal. O. 2004. National List of Invasive and Potentially Invasive
Garden Plants. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Reinhart, K. O. and R. M. Callaway. 2006. Soil Biota and Invasive Plants. New Phytologist,
170: 445-457.
Reynolds, L. B., Potter, J. W. and B. R. Ball-Coelho. 2000. Crop rotation with Tagetes sp. is
an alternative to chemical fumigation for control of root-lesion nematodes.
Agronomy Journal, 92: 957–66.
Rice, E. L. 1984. Allelopathy. Second Edition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 422.
Richardson, D. M., Pysek, P. Rejmanek, M, Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D. and C. J. West.
2000. Naturalization and Invasion of Alien Plants: Concepts and Definitions.
Diversity and Distributions, 6, 93- 107.
Rizvi, S. J., Haque, H, Singh, V. K. and V. Rizvi. 1992. A discipline called allelopathy. In:
S. J. H. Rizvi and V. Rizvi (Eds.), ‘Allelopathy: basic and applied aspects’, pp. 1-
10, Chapman and Hall, London.
Roberts, J. and G. G. Ganf. 1986. Annual production of Typha orientalis Presl. in Inland
Australia. Australian Journal of Freshwater and Marine Research, 37: 659-668.
Robinson, R. A. and W. J. Sutherland. 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and
biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39: 157–176.
Sagoff, M. 2005. Do non-native species threaten the natural environment? Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18: 215-236.
Schütz, K., Carle, R and A. Schieber. 2006. Taraxacum—A review on its phytochemical and
pharmacological profile. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 107: 313–323.
Siriwardena, G., Baillee, S. R., Buckland, S. T., Fewster, R. M., Marchant, J. H. and J. D.
Wilson. 1998. Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison
of smoothed Common Birds Census indices. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35: 24-43.
Sinden, J., Jones, R., Hester, S., Odom., D., Kalisch, C., James, R., and O. Cacho. 2004. The
Economic Impact of Weeds in Australia. CRC for Australian Weed Management.
Technical Series No. 8, Adelaide, pp. 39.
Singhal, V. and J. P. N. Rai. 2003. Biogas production from water hyacinth and channel grass
used for phytoremediation of industrial effluents. Bioresources and Technology, 86:
221–225.
Slootweg, A. F. G. 1956. Rootrot of bulbs caused by Pratylenchus and Hoplolaimus sp.
Nematologica, 1: 192–201.
Soerjani, M. 1977. Integrated Control of Weeds in Aquatic Areas. In: J. D.Fryer and S.
Matsunaka (Eds.) Integrated Control of Weeds, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo,
pp. 121-151.
Spafford-Jacob, H., Randall, R. and S. Lloyd. 2004. Front door wide open to weeds: an
examination of the weed species permitted for import without risk assessment.
WWF Australia. pp. 128.
Stepp, J. R. 2004. The role of weeds as sources of pharmaceuticals. Journal of
Ethnopharmacology, 92: 163-166.
Stepp, J. R. and D. E. Moerman. 2001. The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 75: 25–31.
Storkey, J. (2006). A functional group approach to the management of UK arable weeds to
support biological diversity. Weed Research, 46:513–522.
Storkey, J. and D. B. Westbury. 2007. Managing arable weeds for biodiversity. Pest
Management Science, 63: 517–523.
Taylor, G. J. and A. A. Crowder. 1983. Uptake and accumulation of heavy metals by Typha
latifolia L. in wetlands of the Sudbury, Ontario region. Canadian Journal of Botany,
61: 63-73.
Thorp, J. and R. Lynch. 1999. The Impact of the National Weeds Strategy on Weed
Management within Australia. In: A. C. Bishop, M. Boersma & C. D. Barnes (Eds.),
Papers and Proceedings 12th Australian Weeds Conference, 12-16 September 1999,
Hobart, Tasmania, pp. 490-495. Tasmanian Weed Society Inc., Hobart.
Tiwari, S., Dixit, S. and N. Verma. 2007. An effective means of Biofiltration of Heavy Metal
contaminated water bodies using Aquatic Weed Eichhornia crassipes.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129: 253-256.
Tsuzuki E. and Y. Dong. 2003. Buckwheat allelopathy: use in weed management.
Allelopathy Journal, 12 (1): 1-11.
Trivedy, R. K. and S. M. Pattanshetty. 2002. Treatment of dairy waste by using water
hyacinth. Water Science and Technology. 45 (12): 329–334.
Vietmeyer, N. D. 1975. The Beautiful Blue Devil. Natural History Magazine, November
1975. The American Museum of Natural History.
Virtue, J. G., Groves, R. H. and F. D. Panetta. 2001. Towards a system to determine the
National Significance of Weeds in Australia. In: R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta and J.
G. Virtue (Eds.), ‘Weed Risk Assessment’, pp. 124-150. CSIRO Publishing,
Victoria, Australia.
Virtue, J. G., Bennett, S. J. and R. P. Randall. 2004. Plant introductions in Australia: How
can we resolve ‘weedy’ conflicts of interest? In: B. M. Sindel and S. B Johnson
(Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 14th Australian Weeds Conference, 6-9 September
2004, Hobart, Tasmania, pp. 42-48. Weed Society of New South Wales, Sydney.
Voeks, R.A. 1996. Tropical forest healers and habitat preference. Economic Botany, 50:
381–400.
Wang, Q. R. and X. M. Liu. 2002. Contamination and Characters of Vegetation Polluted by
Heavy Metals in Typical Industrial Region Subjected to Sewages as Irrigation.
Agro-Environmental Protection, 21: 115–118.
Wei, S. H. and Q. X. Zhou. 2004. Identification of Weed Species with Hyper-Accumulative
Characteristics of Heavy Metals. Progress in Natural Science, 14: 495–503.
Weston, L. A. and S. O. Duke. 2003. Weed and Crop Allelopathy. Critical Reviews in Plant
Science, 22(3&4): 367-389.
Whittaker, R. H. 1970. The biochemical ecology of higher plants. In: E. Sondheimer and J.
B. Simeone (Eds.), ‘Chemical Ecology’, pp. 43-70, Academic Press, New York.
Williams, J. B. 2002. Phytoremediation in wetland ecosystems: progress, problems, and
potential. Critical Review of Plant Sciences, 21: 607–635.
Williams, J. A. and C. J. West. 2000. Environmental weeds in Australia and New Zealand:
issues and approaches to management. Austral Ecology, 25: 425-444.
Williams, K., Syme, G., Crackle, L. J. and E. J. Roberts. 1987. Farmer attitudes to weeds and
weed control in Western Australia- A Preliminary Study. In: D. Lemerle and A. R.
Leys (Eds.), Papers and Proceedings 8th Australian Weeds Conference, 21–25
September 1987, Sydney, NSW, pp. 270-273. Weed Society of NSW Inc., Sydney,
NSW.
Wu, C., Chen, X and J. Tang. 2005. Lead Accumulation in Weed Communities with Various
Species. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 36: 1891–1902.
Wu, H., Pratley, J. E., Lemerle, D. and T. Haig. 1999. Crop cultivars with allelopathic
capability. Weed Research, 39: 171-180.
Xuan, T. D., Tawata, S. Hong, N. H. and T. D. Khanh. 2005. Utilization of plant allelopathy
for paddy weed control in Vietnam: An overview. Proceedings of the 20th Asian-
Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, 7-11 November 2005, pp. 234-239, Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Zimdahl, R. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 556.