Posted on

how to smoke weed seeds and stems

What to Do With Weed Stems

Ew, weed stems. those small (or sometimes rather large) sticks at the end of the cannabis flower.

Sometimes when you buy cannabis flowers or buds from a dispensary or online at a cannabis provider like CannaSaver.com, there may be extensive stem—depending on the quality of the product.

Weed stems contain little to no THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.

Why Are Weed Stems Not Used?

Because they contain little THC, weed stems have often been discarded as worthless. However, these parts of the cannabis plant can be used for several products.

Why Not Smoke Weed Stems?

Although it may be tempting to use every bit of the cannabis you’ve paid for or grown, avoid smoking weed stems.

Low in THC, weed stems will not get you high.

There are also negative side effects. Healthline.com outlines some of them.

Smoke inhalation damages your lungs.

Toxins and carcinogens are released through smoking. These can cause cancer.

Breathing toxins can also increase the risk of heart disease.

Smoking stems can cause severe headaches.

Stem smoking may result in a sore throat.

Smoking stems may trigger uncontrollable and/or persistent coughing.

The smoke from stems is not pleasant. It tastes like charred wood chips.

Some stem smokers reported uncomfortable gas.

Uses of Weed Stems

Even though smoking weed stems is not recommended, there are some products that can be made using the stems.

“CannaTea”

Grind a gram of weed stems

A tablespoon of unsalted butter or coconut oil

Teabag in the flavor of your choice

Four cups of water

Flavor ingredients like honey, lemon, mint, milk, sugar, or cinnamon

Cheesecloth, coffee filter, or a fine strainer

Boil water in a medium-sized pot. Add butter or coconut oil to boiling water. Allow to dissolve completely.

Add ground cannabis. Turn the temperature to simmer.

Simmer for fifteen minutes.

Use a cheesecloth or coffee filter to strain the mixture into an empty teapot.

Add the teabag and extras. Steep for three minutes.

Remove the teabag. Stir well. Pour and enjoy.

Decarboxylation

Decarboxylation is the removal of the carboxyl group from cannabis stems. The process toasts the stems converting THC into a psychoactive form called Delta 9-THC. This increases the consistency and the potency of the weed. The heat acts as a catalyst. You can use your oven.

Pre-heat oven to 215° F.

Put weed stems on a cookie sheet.

Toast for 15 minutes.

Raise oven setting to 240° F.

Toast for 45 minutes more.

Remove from oven.

Fine grind toasted stems.

Use immediately or store in a light-tight/air-tight container.

Break off weed stems. Place in Ziploc plastic bags. Put bags in the freezer. Let sit. Add additional stems as they become available. Give the bag a thorough shake each time you add stems. A pile will build at the bottom of the bag. The frozen resin crystals will detach from the stems. Sift the stems out of the residue and discard them. What’s left at the bottom of the bag is kief. You can smoke this or you can cook with it.

Separating the trichomes from the cannabis plant produces hashish. Trichomes are hair-like structures on the surface of the buds. Hash can also be made from kief.

Using solvents like butane, propane, or CO₂ extract the cannabinoids and terpenes from the trichomes or kief.

Before using, it is vital to purge the solvent. Whip it into a wax form, over a hot plate, or use a vacuum desiccation chamber. Be careful. The substance is highly flammable!

The Shoe Method is much safer.

Start with five grams of kief. You will also need a small piece of tape, parchment paper, and a pin.

Wrap kief tightly in parchment paper. Tape closed.

With the pin, punch a small hole through the package. This lets trapped air out.

Place package inside the heel of a hard-soled, closed-toed shoe.

As you walk, your weight will press the hash into a slab. This takes between fifteen and sixty minutes.

Cannabutter

As the name suggests, cannabutter is a product created by infusing butter with cannabis.

Preheat oven to 200 F. Grind stems. Lay ground-up stems on a cookie sheet. Bake for 40 minutes.

Melt butter at medium temperature. Add ten ounces of water and simmer. Add ground, toasted stems. Soak for three or four hours stirring every fifteen minutes. Add a half cup of water every hour.

Set cheesecloth or a coffee filter over a heatproof container. Secure with string or elastic. Pour liquid slowly through the strainer. Bundle the edges of the strainer and squeeze tightly to extract all the cannabutter.

Place the container in the fridge. Let set. Collect the butter. Store in an airtight container in the fridge or freezer.

There are many ways to use cannabutter in the kitchen. This is an easy recipe from Emily Kyle. You can use kief or weed stems to create cannabutter.

This cannabutter won’t be as potent as cannabutter made from bud or leaf. But, cannabutter made from stems is less likely to cause an overdose.

When it comes to making edibles with cannabutter, you are limited only by your imagination.

Infused Liquor

Start with a bottle of strong clear vodka. For every ounce of liquid, grind one and a half grams of stems. Place the stems or kief in the bottle and leave it in a dark room for three weeks. Stir contents occasionally.

Strain the stems from the liquid. Serve the infused liquor as you would regular vodka. Blend with your favorite mix or fruit juice. This makes an awesome bloody mary, martini, or margarita.

Marijuana / Cannabis / Dagga

What is Cannabis?
Cannabis is the most commonly abused illicit drug in South Africa. It is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active chemical in cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; THC for short.

How is Cannabis abused?
Cannabis is usually smoked as a cigarette (joint) or in a pipe. It is also smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with cannabis. Since the blunt retains the tobacco leaf used to wrap the cigar, this mode of delivery combines cannabis’s active ingredients with nicotine and other harmful chemicals. Cannabis can also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form it is called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid, hash oil.* Cannabis smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odour.

Addictive potential
Long-term cannabis abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term cannabis abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2–3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.

How does Cannabis affect the brain?
Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes cannabis, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body.

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the “high” that users experience when they smoke cannabis. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

Not surprisingly, Cannabis intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that Cannabis’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off. As a result, someone who smokes cannabis every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Research on the long-term effects of cannabis abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

Cannabis and mental health
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic cannabis use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be a factor, where early use is a marker of vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it not clear whether cannabis use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence. Chronic cannabis use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses, including addiction, stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. At the present time, the strongest evidence links cannabis use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders. High doses of cannabis can produce an acute psychotic reaction, and research suggests that in vulnerable individuals, cannabis use may be a factor that increases risk for the disease.

What other adverse effect does Cannibas have on health?

Effects on the heart
One study found that an abuser’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking cannabis.7 The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from cannabis’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the lungs
Numerous studies have shown cannabis smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, cannabis smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Cannabis users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke.

Cannabis smokers show dysregular growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between cannabis use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between cannabis smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time. Nonetheless, cannabis smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways.

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke cannabis frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than non-smokers. Many of the extra sick days among the cannabis smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Effects on daily life
Research clearly demonstrates that cannabis has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy cannabis abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status. Several studies associate workers’ cannabis smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover.

Treatment for Marijuana
The question is what can be done to help people become and remain abstinent. For those who cannot remain abstinent, an initial goal is measurable improvement. The first step for clinicians is to help the patient become motivated to change his relationship to drugs.

Treatment programs focus on counselling and group support systems. Another model for treatment involves one-on-one intervention, followed by an assessment session that provides an overview to the patient, an in-depth discussion about the patient’s use of marijuana and reasons for favouring or opposing quitting and answers to questions the client has about quitting or modifying use.

The materials on this website may be copied for non-commercial use as long as our copyright notice and website address are included.
Copyright � KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, 2001

Toadflax stem miners and gallers: The original weed whackers

However, ask rangeland managers and researchers throughout the Intermountain West, and they will tell you that there is nothing beautiful about a field of toadflax. Significant problems lurk below the superficial beauty. Sharlene E. Sing, a USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) research entomologist located in Bozeman, Montana, where much of RMRS’s biocontrol research is located, concurs: “Dalmatian and yellow toadflax number among the most challenging invasive weeds to manage in the Intermountain West.” Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) and Dalmatian toadflax (L. dalmatica) originate from Eurasia. It is thought that both species were intentionally introduced to the United States predominantly for ornamental purposes. Yellow toadflax appeared in colonial North America sometime before 1670, but Dalmatian toadflax waited until the mid-1800s for its trek across the Atlantic.

Yellow and Dalmatian toadflax species are short-lived, perennial forbs that are reproductively self-incompatible. This means that toadflax requires the service of bumble bees and other large bee species to transfer pollen from flower to flower of unrelated plants. Toadflaxes were formerly classified as figworts (Scrophulariaceae), primarily based on morphological characters. Results of more recent molecular analyses indicate that toadflaxes and snapdragons are more appropriately assigned to the plantain family (Plantaginaceae)—not to be confused with the completely unrelated banana-like plantain.

Dalmatian and yellow toadflax are similar in appearance, but have obvious distinguishing characteristics if you know what to look for. Dalmatian toadflax has dark green, broad, somewhat waxy or fleshy heart-shaped leaves. In contrast, the leaves of yellow toadflax are narrower and often have a light-green tinge. Dalmatian toadflax is usually taller than yellow toadflax, with stem heights ranging from 2-5 ft., compared to 1-3 ft. for yellow toadflax. Morphological differences are illustrated and described in the helpful guide, Biology and Biological Control of Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax, published by the USDA Forest Service (Wilson and others 2005).

Populations of yellow and Dalmatian toadflax can stay at low, background levels until released by favorable environmental conditions, such as those created through disturbance. Both species can readily invade and rapidly dominate rangelands following grazing, tillage, erosion, prescribed burning, or wildfire. Dalmatian toadflax has invaded a minimum of 400,000 acres in the western United States, with a minor presence in some eastern states; Yellow toadflax has spread to all 49 continental states. These flowering forbs have successfully established in sensitive and rare classified ecosystems, including sagebrush steppe. Yellow and Dalmatian toadflax are such troublesome invaders that 13 western states and 4 Canadian provinces have listed one or both as noxious weeds.

Toadflax can suppress native and other desirable plants, reducing floral diversity. Researchers have noted substantial reductions in the abundance of desirable plants, such as Flagstaff pennyroyal (Hedeoma diffusum), following fire and subsequent invasion by toadflax. Soil tillage can release toadflax populations, to the detriment of crops. Invaded fields have experienced 20-70% reductions in yields of barley, canola, and wheat due to competition from yellow toadflax. Even though toadflax is not toxic to cattle, forage quality and quantity are significantly reduced in infested rangelands. Grazing allotments invaded by toadflax put additional strain on Western cattle producers, many of whom already struggle with low rangeland productivity from chronic drought and wildfire risk.

Stubborn toadflaxes are here to stay

Making matters worse, these super-invaders are incredibly stubborn. Hand pulling is ineffective since toadflax can vigorously re-sprout from roots and root fragments. Several herbicides dramatically reduce above-ground cover of Dalmatian and yellow toadflax, but effectiveness largely depends on the precise timing of application, rate of application, and the proper combination of chemicals. Toadflax control with herbicide also comes with undesirable side-effects. Researchers have noted declines in species richness and biomass of native forbs following application of herbicides targeted at toadflax.

Wildfire and prescribed burning are useless for evicting toadflax from rangelands. In fact, fires facilitate the expansion and dominance of toadflax infestations. Mature yellow and Dalmatian toadflax plants grow deep root systems that can survive fires. Surviving root tissues often re-sprout, which positions toadflax to take advantage of reduced competition from other vegetation, especially following high intensity burns. Seed production of Dalmatian toadflax is also stimulated post-fire, potentially due to reduced competition and increased nutrient availability. In fact, researchers observed 100-5000% greater seed production following fire in sagebrush ecosystems near Boulder, Montana.

If a manager’s toolbox for controlling toadflax should not include prescribed fire, and given the vast scale of infestations (therefore high cost of management), and limited success of mechanical or chemical control methods, what tactics are left for managers to use against toadflax? Weed-whacking weevils to the rescue! Plants and insects have dueled for thousands of years. Herbivorous insects must co-evolve with their host plant species in order to exploit them for food or reproductive purposes. Plants have a number of natural defenses for fending off insect species and other herbivores. Many plant species deter insects by producing toxic or foul-tasting chemicals in their leaves, stems, or roots. In turn, insect species experience selective pressure to develop a tolerance to these natural chemicals, or they are forced to find different host plants.

Some plants find significant relief from herbivory when they travel beyond their native range. Intercontinental dispersal due to intentional or accidental introductions by humans or incidental transport by animals, wind, or water, frees non-native plants from their natural enemies. Some non-native plants celebrate this new found freedom by thriving and spreading across new territories.

Humans insert themselves into the saga of complex plant-insect interactions through the implementation of biological control. This approach involves intentionally deploying arthropods (insects or mites) or pathogens (fungi, bacteria, or viruses) that co-evolved with the target weed and selectively utilize it as a host plant. Over the long term, biological control can be more cost-effective, sustainable, and ecologically safe than mechanical or chemical control; however, it occasionally fails to meet control expectations. For example, insects might die out after a release, and biocontrol agents that establish sizable populations can still be wiped out by pathogens, parasitic wasps, grazing livestock and wildlife, adverse weather events, or human intervention, such as construction or herbicide treatments.

North America currently hosts eight non-native insect species that primarily feed or breed on toadflaxes. These tiny weed-whackers include:

  • two flower or seed feeding beetle species accidentally introduced to North America, probably as stowaways on European plant material;
  • a defoliating moth rigorously tested for host specificity before being approved for its first North American release in 1968;
  • four approved, intentionally released insects that made their U.S. debut in 1996, including one root galling weevil, two root-feeding moths, and a stem mining weevil; and
  • a recently discovered second species of stem mining weevil.

Mecinus stem mining weevils utilize their host toadflax in multiple ways. Entomologists categorize them as both miners and gallers; they spend part of their life cycle “mining” (boring) through toadflax stems, and their activities can create galls, mostly limited to abnormal stem swellings, on host plants. From early April to early July, large groups of adult weevils voraciously munch on succulent shoots and leaves, stunting stem height and substantially reducing mature toadflax flower and seed production. Female weevils chew shallow holes in toadflax stems before inserting a single white egg. Females are busy during their first and only reproductive (oviposition) period, producing an average of 45 eggs each. Larvae hatch 6-7 days later and begin ravaging their toadflax host, tunneling and chomping away inside the host stem for 4-5 weeks. Weevils complete metamorphosis into adulthood by late August or early September, but remain in the natal stem until the following spring, when they emerge by chewing their way out.

Sing and her collaborators have spent the last decade closely monitoring the impact of Mecinus weevils on toadflax infestations. They observed up to 70% reduction in average stem height of Dalmatian toadflax following the deployment of Mecinus weevils into invaded fields. Infested stems of Dalmatian toadflax also have less energy available to invest in producing flowers and seeds, which could significantly slow the spread of Dalmatian toadflax. A welcomed finding indeed!

Managers have released Mecinus weevils in Washington, Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta. The weevil is doing substantial damage to Dalmatian toadflax populations, but it rarely eliminates the weed. Unfortunately, the weevil is making less headway with yellow toadflax. Why the mixed and occasionally underwhelming results?

Ever-evolving soap opera of toadflax biocontrol

For more than two decades, researchers assumed that the toadflax-weevil story involved two target weed species, yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, and one biological control agent, (Mecinus janthinus). Following anomalous field observations and molecular diagnostics, researchers recently determined that this story has two additional ‘stealth’ players: fertile hybrids of Dalmatian and yellow toadflax, and a cryptic weevil species. These discoveries have added an unexpected twist to the toadflax drama.

In 2005, Sing and her collaborator, Colorado State University plant geneticist Sarah Ward, first observed and collected putative Dalmatian-yellow toadflax hybrids. “Yellow toadflax and Dalmatian toadflax are not reported to hybridize within their native European ranges,” reports Ward, “however, invasive populations of these species in the Rocky Mountains are growing in sufficient proximity at some locations to allow cross-pollination between them.” The researchers were visiting two such locations within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Helena National Forests in Montana when they noticed something unusual: several toadflax plants had leaves and flowers that looked sort of like yellow toadflax, but also a bit like Dalmatian.

Further research by Sing, Ward, and Colorado State University graduate students Marie Turner and Andrew Boswell confirmed that Dalmatian and yellow toadflax are spontaneously hybridizing on multiple sites in the western United States. But that’s not all!

Around the time that Ward and Sing found their toadflax hybrids, another toadflax-weevil mystery started to unfold. A rancher in Powell County, Montana, noticed small black bugs feeding on yellow toadflax in his pasture. He asked researchers at Montana State University to investigate. Three entomologists, Sharlene Sing (Rocky Mountain Research Station), David Weaver (Montana State University), and Dr. Patrice Bouchard (Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes) worked together to confirm the identity of the small weevil as Mecinus janthinus.

The researchers were surprised by their finding. The stem mining weevil was thought to prefer Dalmatian toadflax, but here it was, camped in a field of yellow toadflax. As Weaver explained to reporters for the Montana State University News Service, “They [the weevils] have been established on the related weed, but this is one of the first discoveries of a sustained population on yellow toadflax in the United States and North America.”

The toadflax-weevil story was becoming more complicated. In search of answers, the researchers contacted Dr. Ivo Toševski and Dr. Andre Gassmann, entomologists with CABI-Switzerland, who study Mecinus janthinus across its native range in Eurasia. These Serbian and Swiss collaborators compared the genetic makeup of Mecinus janthinus found on yellow toadflax in Europe to the specimens collected from yellow toadflax in Powell County, Montana. Toševski and Gassmann determined that the Montana and European weevils on yellow toadflax were the same species. They were also able to conclude that weevils collected from Dalmatian toadflax in Europe and in Missoula, Montana, were an entirely different species, Mecinus janthiniformis. Further research confirms that each weevil species has a very strong and consistent preference for one of the two toadflaxes: Mecinus janthinus for yellow toadflax and Mecinus janthiniformis for Dalmatian toadflax.

So how do these discoveries change the outlook for toadflax biocontrol? Sing explains that “hybridization between Dalmatian and yellow toadflax undoubtedly played a role in biocontrol shortfalls. Strategic implementation of biological control for forests and rangelands affected by widespread, trenchant infestations of both toadflax species now seems less straight-forward.”

In other words, managers could be inadvertently releasing less-effective insects onto less-susceptible plants. This might explain why stem mining weevils leave toadflax unfazed in some areas but totally devastated in others. Sing and her colleagues stress that matching the correct weevil to the target toadflax species is crucial. The general rule is that Mecinus janthinus does more damage to yellow toadflax and Mecinus janthiniformis to Dalmatian toadflax.

Sing and her collaborators, including entomologist Carl Jorgensen (USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection), research entomologist Robert Progar (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station), and weed biocontrol specialist Joseph Milan (Bureau of Land Management / Idaho State Department of Agriculture), are conducting additional research with implications for managers by using Mecinus weevils for biocontrol. Recent field-based research indicates that managers can counteract high overwintering mortality of Mecinus by making “rescue” releases, especially in post-burn areas. They suggest serial releases (2 years in a row) at multiple locations within the same drainage. These releases should deploy more weevils—about 800 adult weevils—instead of the typical release of 500 adults.

Solid strides have been made, but the journey is far from over

Researchers made substantial headway in understanding toadflax biocontrol by discovering yellow x Dalmatian hybrids and the additional stem mining weevil, Mecinus janthiniformis. However, their work is not done. Collaborators in Switzerland are assessing the potential of several additional insects for toadflax biocontrol. North American researchers and managers alike are anxious to begin releasing one of the most promising candidate species, a yellow toadflax stem galling weevil, Rhinusa pilosa.

Researchers also continue to develop, implement, and teach methods for evaluate the impact of biocontrol treatments. Long-term monitoring is especially important. Substantial damage to toadflax might not materialize until 3-5 years after the release of weevils or other toadflax-targeting agents. Tips for monitoring are provided in the guide Biology and Biological Control of Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax.

Researchers and managers need to work together to identify success stories and to detect negative outcomes, such as treatment failures and damage to species other than the target weed. According to Sing, “post-release monitoring is critical to ensuring accountable management of public lands and resources. Monitoring is truly the only way to document the full range of beneficial and detrimental ecological responses that may result from the release of weed biocontrol agents, to demonstrate if stakeholder needs are being met, and to ultimately increase biocontrol implementation.” Cooperation between researchers and managers might also lead to insights about rangeland restoration and other ways to improve the resilience of ecosystems to toadflax and other weed invasions.

Further reading

Krick, N.J. 2011. Examining the unpredictable nature of yellow toadflax. M.S. Thesis. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

Nowierski, R.N. 2004. Toadflax. Pg 379-395 in E.M. Coombs, J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Confrancesco, Jr. (eds). Biological control of invasive plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Wilson, L. M., S. E. Sing, G. L. Piper, R. W. Hansen, R. De Clerck- Floate, D. K. MacKinnon, and C. Randall. 2005. Biology and biological control of Dalmatian and yellow toadflax. FHTET-05-13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Zouhar, K. 2003. Linaria spp. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fire Effects Information System. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/linspp/all.html.

Scientist profiles

Sharlene E. Sing

SHARLENE E. SING is a Research Entomologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bozeman, MT. Her research investigates ways to assess and improve the efficacy and safety of classical weed biological control, with a focus on yellow, Dalmatian, and hybrid toadflax; Tamarisk; Russian olive; and oxeye daisy. Sharlene received an MS degree in Natural Resource Sciences (entomology) from McGill University and a PhD in Land Resources and Environmental Sciences (agroecology) from Montana State University.

Sarah Ward

SARAH WARD is an associate professor of plant genetics at Colorado State University, where she assesses how genetic processes drive rapid evolutionary change in weedy and invasive plants. Sarah is investigating the molecular and population genetics of herbicide-resistant weeds, as well as the invasive potential of yellow-Dalmatian hybrids. She received her PhD in plant breeding from Colorado State University.

Marie F.S. Turner

MARIE F. S. TURNER is a recent graduate of Colorado State University, where she is currently serving as a plant genetics postdoctoral fellow. Her doctoral research compared the invasive potential and fitness of hybrid toadflax to parental species. She also developed a model to predict Intermountain West locations where hybrid toadflax is likely to occur, based on known Dalmatian and yellow toadflax distributions. Marie’s current research includes influences of drought stress on bioenergy crops.

David Weaver

DAVID WEAVER is a professor of entomology at Montana State University. He uses insect chemical ecology and behavioral responses to develop solutions for the bio-rational management of storage and cropland pests and to optimize biological control of insect and weed pests. David holds a PhD in entomology from McGill University.

Ivo Toševski

IVO TOSEVSKI is a research scientist affiliated with CABI-Switzerland who specializes in classical biological control of weeds. His primary research interests are in integrated pest management (IPM) of insects and weeds; weed control, including biological control of toadflaxes; taxonomy of insect pests; and interactions among vectors, pathogens, and plants. Ivo’s home base is the Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, Department of Plant Pests in Zemun, Serbia.

André Gassmann

ANDRE GASSMANN is CABI-Switzerland’s Assistant Centre Director and Principal Research Scientist. He specializes in research on non-native invasive plants and evaluating candidate biological control agents of weeds. André’s recent projects include biological control of toadflaxes, European buckthorns, common tansy, and swallow-worts.

Patrice Bouchard

PATRICE BOUCHARD is a research scientist and curator for the Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids, and Nematodes. He researches interactions among non-native invasive plants, agricultural practices, and insect biodiversity, and is helping develop a national arthropod information system for pests, beneficial insects, and environmentally sensitive insects. Patrice earned his PhD in entomology from the University of Queensland.