Crop production is a constant battle with weeds, in which weeds, generally, are victorious. Therefore, rather than channeling our efforts into the development of a “silver bullet” to control weeds, the focus should be on sustainable weed management in both natural- and agro-ecosystems. However, sustainable weed management can be a challenge in the context of global climate change. Over the past few decades, global climate change, mostly indicated by phenomena such as increased atmospheric temperature and elevated CO₂ levels, is evident due to human activities and natural events. These phenomena also affect regional/local climate, resulting in significant influences on the agricultural systems of a particular region. Rising CO₂ levels may give comparative advantages to C₃ plants through increased photosynthesis, biomass production and yield, compared to C₄ plants. Plants with C₄ photosynthetic pathways, on the other hand, are likely to benefit more from rising global temperatures than C₃ plants. Thus, the differential responses of C₃ and C₄ plants to climate change may alter crop–weed interactions and competition outcomes, most likely at the expense of the crop. Climate change will likely cause shifts in weed community compositions, their population dynamics, life cycle, phenology, and infestation pressure. Some weed species may go extinct, while some others may become more aggressive invaders. Weeds are, generally, colonizers and have some unique biological traits and ecological amplitudes that enable them to successfully dominate crops in a habitat with changed environmental conditions. Moreover, climate shifts, especially erratic rainfall and drought, may affect herbicide selectivity and efficacy or the success of bio-control agents resulting in an establishment of a mixed and complex population of C₃ and C₄ weed species adding to the complexity of weed management. Although elevated CO₂ levels will stimulate the productivity of major C₃ crops, most troublesome agricultural weeds will likely be more responsive to a rise in CO₂ than crops, and thus may dominate the agro-ecosystem. It is predicted that, as temperature rises, the majority of the C₄ weeds will flourish and will pose serious crop yield losses. Understanding and assessment of the impact of simultaneous changes in multiple climate factors and their complex interactions on crops and weeds are therefore necessary to formulate an adaptive weed management approach and build resilience. Moreover, strategic policies and strong actions need to be taken to reduce the root causes of CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the impact of climate change on weed biology and management.

Cover crops are an important component of integrated weed management programs in annual and perennial cropping systems because of their weed suppressive abilities. They influence weed populations using different mechanisms of plant interaction which can be facilitative or suppressive. However, the question often arises if cover crops can be solely relied upon for weed management or not. In this review we have tried to provide examples to answer this question. The most common methods of weed suppression by an actively growing cover crop include competition for limited plant growth resources that result in reduced weed biomass, seed production, and hence reductions in the addition of seeds to the soil seedbank. Cover crop mulches suppress weeds by reducing weed seedling emergence through allelopathic effects or physical effects of shading. However, there is a great degree of variability in the success or failure of cover crops in suppressing weeds that are influenced by the cover crop species, time of planting, cover crop densities and biomass, time of cover crop termination, the cash crop following in the rotation, and the season associated with several climatic variables. Several studies demonstrated that planting date was important to achieve maximum cover crop biomass, and a mixture of cover crop species was better than single cover crop species to achieve good weed suppression. Most of the studies that have demonstrated success in weed suppression have only shown partial success and not total success in weed suppression. Therefore, cover crops as a sole tool may not be sufficient to reduce weeds and need to be supplemented with other weed management tools. Nevertheless, cover crops are an important component of the toolbox for integrated weed management.

The goal of a mechanistic model is to determine the outcome of weed–crop interference. An understanding of weed phenology is essential for construction of such models because phenological development is a major factor determining the outcome of weed–crop competition. Growth cabinet studies were conducted to determine the influence of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters. Common lambsquarters is a short-day species adapted to a temperature range of 6.5 to 44.5 C. Phenological development of common lambsquarters grown under a constant temperature of 20 C and an 8-h photoperiod was described in terms of biological days (Bd: chronological days at the optimum photoperiod and temperature). Three development phases of common lambsquarters were described as (1) a juvenile phase of 6.3 Bd, (2) a photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase of 8.2 Bd, and (3) a photoperiod-sensitive postinductive phase of 34.4 Bd. The photoperiod sensitivity of rate of development did not differ among phases of development across the life cycle. Interpretation of constant sensitivity to photoperiod will simplify simulation of weed phenology in mechanistic models.

Much of the agricultural area in California’s southwestern San Joaquin Valley (SJV) is prone to moisture stress and high soil-salinity conditions. Increased prevalence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes of junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] in these environments and their ecological implications need to be further explored. Studies were conducted on GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotypes of E. colona to compare the effects of moisture and salinity stress on seed germination and salinity stress alone on growth and seed production. Intraspecific competition between the GR and GS plants was also assessed in a replacement series design experiment. With respect to germination, both biotypes were tolerant to moisture and salinity stress at germination; however, the GR biotype was more tolerant than the GS biotype. Water potential and electrical conductivity (EC) levels that reduced germination by 50% were estimated as −1.5 and −2.3 MPa and 8.5 and 12 dS m⁻¹ for the GS and GR biotypes, respectively. The EC levels that reduced aboveground biomass by 50% were estimated as 9 and 11.5 dS m⁻¹ for the GS and GR biotypes, respectively. Seed production was generally greater in the GR than the GS plants below 10 dS m⁻¹. All plants produced up to 140 seeds plant⁻¹, even at 20 dS m⁻¹. The GR plants were more competitive and produced more aboveground dry biomass and seeds than the GS plants when grown together or alone. In conclusion, differences between these particular GR and GS biotypes to environmental stresses and intraspecific competition were noted that could have ecological implications for their prevalence in the southwestern SJV. The results also suggested that there could be high genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity in E. colona populations in the SJV and further population shifts could occur due to selection pressure from glyphosate.