Herbicide

Weeds controlled with herbicide

Herbicide(s), also commonly known as weedkillers, are chemical substances used to control unwanted plants.[1] Selective herbicides control specific weed species, while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed, while non-selective herbicides (sometimes called "total weedkillers" in commercial products) can be used to clear waste ground, industrial and construction sites, railways and railway embankments as they kill all plant material with which they come into contact. Apart from selective/non-selective, other important distinctions include persistence (also known as residual action: how long the product stays in place and remains active), means of uptake (whether it is absorbed by above-ground foliage only, through the roots, or by other means), and mechanism of action (how it works). Historically, products such as common salt and other metal salts were used as herbicides, however these have gradually fallen out of favor and in some countries a number of these are banned due to their persistence in soil, and toxicity and groundwater contamination concerns. Herbicides have also been used in warfare and conflict.

Modern herbicides are often synthetic mimics of natural plant hormones which interfere with growth of the target plants. The term organic herbicide has come to mean herbicides intended for organic farming; these are often less efficient and more costly than synthetic herbicides and are based upon natural materials. Some plants also produce their own natural herbicides, such as the genus Juglans (walnuts), or the tree of heaven; such action of natural herbicides, and other related chemical interactions, is called allelopathy. Due to herbicide resistance - a major concern in agriculture - a number of products also combine herbicides with different means of action.

In the US in 2007, about 83% of all herbicide usage, determined by weight applied, was in agriculture.[1]:12 In 2007, world pesticide expenditures totaled about $39.4 billion; herbicides were about 40% of those sales and constituted the biggest portion, followed by insecticides, fungicides, and other types.[1]:4 Smaller quantities are used in forestry, pasture systems, and management of areas set aside as wildlife habitat.

History

Prior to the widespread use of chemical herbicides, cultural controls, such as altering soil pH, salinity, or fertility levels, were used to control weeds. Mechanical control (including tillage) was also (and still is) used to control weeds.

First herbicides

2,4-D, the first chemical herbicide, was discovered during the Second World War.

Although research into chemical herbicides began in the early 20th century, the first major breakthrough was the result of research conducted in both the UK and the US during the Second World War into the potential use of agents as biological weapons.[2] The first modern herbicide, 2,4-D, was first discovered and synthesized by W. G. Templeman at Imperial Chemical Industries. In 1940, he showed that "Growth substances applied appropriately would kill certain broad-leaved weeds in cereals without harming the crops." By 1941, his team succeeded in synthesizing the chemical. In the same year, Pokorny in the US achieved this as well.[3]

Independently, a team under Juda Hirsch Quastel, working at the Rothamsted Experimental Station made the same discovery. Quastel was tasked by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) to discover methods for improving crop yield. By analyzing soil as a dynamic system, rather than an inert substance, he was able to apply techniques such as perfusion. Quastel was able to quantify the influence of various plant hormones, inhibitors and other chemicals on the activity of microorganisms in the soil and assess their direct impact on plant growth. While the full work of the unit remained secret, certain discoveries were developed for commercial use after the war, including the 2,4-D compound.[4]

When it was commercially released in 1946, it triggered a worldwide revolution in agricultural output and became the first successful selective herbicide. It allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crops, because it kills dicots (broadleaf plants), but not most monocots (grasses). The low cost of 2,4-D has led to continued usage today, and it remains one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. Like other acid herbicides, current formulations use either an amine salt (often trimethylamine) or one of many esters of the parent compound. These are easier to handle than the acid.

Further discoveries

The triazine family of herbicides, which includes atrazine, were introduced in the 1950s; they have the current distinction of being the herbicide family of greatest concern regarding groundwater contamination. Atrazine does not break down readily (within a few weeks) after being applied to soils of above neutral pH. Under alkaline soil conditions, atrazine may be carried into the soil profile as far as the water table by soil water following rainfall causing the aforementioned contamination. Atrazine is thus said to have "carryover", a generally undesirable property for herbicides.

Glyphosate (Roundup) was introduced in 1974 for nonselective weed control. Following the development of glyphosate-resistant crop plants, it is now used very extensively for selective weed control in growing crops. The pairing of the herbicide with the resistant seed contributed to the consolidation of the seed and chemistry industry in the late 1990s.

Many modern chemical herbicides used in agriculture and gardening are specifically formulated to decompose within a short period after application. This is desirable, as it allows crops and plants to be planted afterwards, which could otherwise be affected by the herbicide. However, herbicides with low residual activity (i.e., that decompose quickly) often do not provide season-long weed control and do not ensure that weed roots are killed beneath construction and paving (and cannot emerge destructively in years to come), therefore there remains a role for weedkiller with high levels of persistence in the soil.

Terminology

Herbicides are classified/grouped in various ways e.g. according to the activity, timing of application, method of application, mechanism of action, chemical family. This gives rise to a considerable level of terminology related to herbicides and their use.

Intended outcome

Selectivity (all plants or specific plants)

Timing of application

Method of application

Persistence

Mechanism of action

Herbicides are often classified according to their site of action, because as a general rule, herbicides within the same site of action class will produce similar symptoms on susceptible plants. Classification based on site of action of herbicide is comparatively better as herbicide resistance management can be handled more properly and effectively.[5] Classification by mechanism of action (MOA) indicates the first enzyme, protein, or biochemical step affected in the plant following application.

List of mechanisms found in modern herbicides

Herbicide group (labeling)

One of the most important methods for preventing, delaying, or managing resistance is to reduce the reliance on a single herbicide mode of action. To do this, farmers must know which herbicides share the same mode of action, but the relatively complex nature of plant biochemistry makes this difficult to determine. Attempts were made to simplify the understanding of herbicide mode of action by developing a classification system that grouped herbicides by mode of action.[11] Eventually the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC)[12] and the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA)[13] developed a classification system.[14][15] The WSSA and HRAC systems differ in the group designation. Groups in the WSSA and the HRAC systems are designated by numbers and letters, respectively.[14] The goal for adding the “Group” classification and mode of action to the herbicide product label is to provide a simple and practical approach to deliver the information to users. This information will make it easier to develop educational material that is consistent and effective.[11] It should increase user’s awareness of herbicide mode of action and provide more accurate recommendations for resistance management.[16] Another goal is to make it easier for users to keep records on which herbicide mode of actions are being used on a particular field from year to year.[11]

Chemical family

Detailed investigations on chemical structure of the active ingredients of the registered herbicides showed that some moieties (moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or parts of functional groups as substructures; a functional group has similar chemical properties whenever it occurs in different compounds) have the same mechanisms of action.[17] According to Forouzesh et al. 2015,[17] these moieties have been assigned to the names of chemical families and active ingredients are then classified within the chemical families accordingly. Knowing about herbicide chemical family grouping could serve as a short-term strategy for managing resistance to site of action.[18]

Use and application

Herbicides being sprayed from the spray arms of a tractor in North Dakota.

Most herbicides are applied as water-based sprays using ground equipment. Ground equipment varies in design, but large areas can be sprayed using self-propelled sprayers equipped with long booms, of 60 to 120 feet (18 to 37 m) with spray nozzles spaced every 20–30 inches (510–760 mm) apart. Towed, handheld, and even horse-drawn sprayers are also used. On large areas, herbicides may also at times be applied aerially using helicopters or airplanes, or through irrigation systems (known as chemigation).

A further method of herbicide application developed around 2010, involves ridding the soil of its active weed seed bank rather than just killing the weed. This can successfully treat annual plants but not perennials. Researchers at the Agricultural Research Service found that the application of herbicides to fields late in the weeds' growing season greatly reduces their seed production, and therefore fewer weeds will return the following season. Because most weeds are annuals, their seeds will only survive in soil for a year or two, so this method will be able to destroy such weeds after a few years of herbicide application.[19]

Weed-wiping may also be used, where a wick wetted with herbicide is suspended from a boom and dragged or rolled across the tops of the taller weed plants. This allows treatment of taller grassland weeds by direct contact without affecting related but desirable shorter plants in the grassland sward beneath. The method has the benefit of avoiding spray drift. In Wales, a scheme offering free weed-wiper hire was launched in 2015 in an effort to reduce the levels of MCPA in water courses.[20]

Misuse and misapplication

Herbicide volatilisation or spray drift may result in herbicide affecting neighboring fields or plants, particularly in windy conditions. Sometimes, the wrong field or plants may be sprayed due to error.

Use politically, militarily, and in conflict

Health and environmental effects

Herbicides have widely variable toxicity in addition to acute toxicity from occupational exposure levels.

Some herbicides cause a range of health effects ranging from skin rashes to death. The pathway of attack can arise from intentional or unintentional direct consumption, improper application resulting in the herbicide coming into direct contact with people or wildlife, inhalation of aerial sprays, or food consumption prior to the labeled preharvest interval. Under some conditions, certain herbicides can be transported via leaching or surface runoff to contaminate groundwater or distant surface water sources. Generally, the conditions that promote herbicide transport include intense storm events (particularly shortly after application) and soils with limited capacity to adsorb or retain the herbicides. Herbicide properties that increase likelihood of transport include persistence (resistance to degradation) and high water solubility.[21]

Phenoxy herbicides are often contaminated with dioxins such as TCDD; research has suggested such contamination results in a small rise in cancer risk after occupational exposure to these herbicides.[22] Triazine exposure has been implicated in a likely relationship to increased risk of breast cancer, although a causal relationship remains unclear.[23]

Herbicide manufacturers have at times made false or misleading claims about the safety of their products. Chemical manufacturer Monsanto Company agreed to change its advertising after pressure from New York attorney general Dennis Vacco; Vacco complained about misleading claims that its spray-on glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and "practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish (though proof that this was ever said is hard to find).[24] Roundup is toxic and has resulted in death after being ingested in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[25] The manufacturer of Tordon 101 (Dow AgroSciences, owned by the Dow Chemical Company) has claimed Tordon 101 has no effects on animals and insects,[26] in spite of evidence of strong carcinogenic activity of the active ingredient[27] Picloram in studies on rats.[28]

The risk of Parkinson's disease has been shown to increase with occupational exposure to herbicides and pesticides.[29] The herbicide paraquat is suspected to be one such factor.[30]

All commercially sold, organic and nonorganic herbicides must be extensively tested prior to approval for sale and labeling by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, because of the large number of herbicides in use, concern regarding health effects is significant. In addition to health effects caused by herbicides themselves, commercial herbicide mixtures often contain other chemicals, including inactive ingredients, which have negative impacts on human health.

Ecological effects

Commercial herbicide use generally has negative impacts on bird populations, although the impacts are highly variable and often require field studies to predict accurately. Laboratory studies have at times overestimated negative impacts on birds due to toxicity, predicting serious problems that were not observed in the field.[31] Most observed effects are due not to toxicity, but to habitat changes and the decreases in abundance of species on which birds rely for food or shelter. Herbicide use in silviculture, used to favor certain types of growth following clearcutting, can cause significant drops in bird populations. Even when herbicides which have low toxicity to birds are used, they decrease the abundance of many types of vegetation on which the birds rely.[32] Herbicide use in agriculture in Britain has been linked to a decline in seed-eating bird species which rely on the weeds killed by the herbicides.[33] Heavy use of herbicides in neotropical agricultural areas has been one of many factors implicated in limiting the usefulness of such agricultural land for wintering migratory birds.[34]

Frog populations may be affected negatively by the use of herbicides as well. While some studies have shown that atrazine may be a teratogen, causing demasculinization in male frogs,[35] the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on this topic and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."[36]

Scientific uncertainty of full extent of herbicide effects

The health and environmental effects of many herbicides is unknown, and even the scientific community often disagrees on the risk. For example, a 1995 panel of 13 scientists reviewing studies on the carcinogenicity of 2,4-D had divided opinions on the likelihood 2,4-D causes cancer in humans.[37] As of 1992, studies on phenoxy herbicides were too few to accurately assess the risk of many types of cancer from these herbicides, even though evidence was stronger that exposure to these herbicides is associated with increased risk of soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[38] Furthermore, there is some suggestion that herbicides can play a role in sex reversal of certain organisms that experience temperature-dependent sex determination, which could theoretically alter sex ratios.[39]

Resistance

Weed resistance to herbicides has become a major concern in crop production worldwide.[17] Resistance to herbicides is often attributed to lack of rotational programmes of herbicides and to continuous applications of herbicides with the same sites of action.[18] Thus, a true understanding of the sites of action of herbicides is essential for strategic planning of herbicide-based weed control.[17]

Plants have developed resistance to atrazine and to ALS-inhibitors, and more recently, to glyphosate herbicides. Marestail is one weed that has developed glyphosate resistance.[40] Glyphosate-resistant weeds are present in the vast majority of soybean, cotton and corn farms in some U.S. states. Weeds that can resist multiple other herbicides are spreading. Few new herbicides are near commercialization, and none with a molecular mode of action for which there is no resistance. Because most herbicides could not kill all weeds, farmers rotated crops and herbicides to stop resistant weeds. During its initial years, glyphosate was not subject to resistance and allowed farmers to reduce the use of rotation.[41]

A family of weeds that includes waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) is the largest concern. A 2008-9 survey of 144 populations of waterhemp in 41 Missouri counties revealed glyphosate resistance in 69%. Weeds from some 500 sites throughout Iowa in 2011 and 2012 revealed glyphosate resistance in approximately 64% of waterhemp samples. The use of other killers to target "residual" weeds has become common, and may be sufficient to have stopped the spread of resistance From 2005 through 2010 researchers discovered 13 different weed species that had developed resistance to glyphosate. But since then only two more have been discovered. Weeds resistant to multiple herbicides with completely different biological action modes are on the rise. In Missouri, 43% of samples were resistant to two different herbicides; 6% resisted three; and 0.5% resisted four. In Iowa 89% of waterhemp samples resist two or more herbicides, 25% resist three, and 10% resist five.[41]

For southern cotton, herbicide costs has climbed from between $50 and $75 per hectare a few years ago to about $370 per hectare in 2013. Resistance is contributing to a massive shift away from growing cotton; over the past few years, the area planted with cotton has declined by 70% in Arkansas and by 60% in Tennessee. For soybeans in Illinois, costs have risen from about $25 to $160 per hectare.[41]

Dow, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and Monsanto are all developing seed varieties resistant to herbicides other than glyphosate, which will make it easier for farmers to use alternative weed killers. Even though weeds have already evolved some resistance to those herbicides, Powles says the new seed-and-herbicide combos should work well if used with proper rotation.[41]

Biochemistry of resistance

Resistance to herbicides can be based on one of the following biochemical mechanisms:[42][43]

Resistance management

Worldwide experience has been that farmers tend to do little to prevent herbicide resistance developing, and only take action when it is a problem on their own farm or neighbor’s. Careful observation is important so that any reduction in herbicide efficacy can be detected. This may indicate evolving resistance. It is vital that resistance is detected at an early stage as if it becomes an acute, whole-farm problem, options are more limited and greater expense is almost inevitable. Table 1 lists factors which enable the risk of resistance to be assessed. An essential pre-requisite for confirmation of resistance is a good diagnostic test. Ideally this should be rapid, accurate, cheap and accessible. Many diagnostic tests have been developed, including glasshouse pot assays, petri dish assays and chlorophyll fluorescence. A key component of such tests is that the response of the suspect population to a herbicide can be compared with that of known susceptible and resistant standards under controlled conditions. Most cases of herbicide resistance are a consequence of the repeated use of herbicides, often in association with crop monoculture and reduced cultivation practices. It is necessary, therefore, to modify these practices in order to prevent or delay the onset of resistance or to control existing resistant populations. A key objective should be the reduction in selection pressure. An integrated weed management (IWM) approach is required, in which as many tactics as possible are used to combat weeds. In this way, less reliance is placed on herbicides and so selection pressure should be reduced.[44]

Optimising herbicide input to the economic threshold level should avoid the unnecessary use of herbicides and reduce selection pressure. Herbicides should be used to their greatest potential by ensuring that the timing, dose, application method, soil and climatic conditions are optimal for good activity. In the UK, partially resistant grass weeds such as Alopecurus myosuroides (blackgrass) and Avena spp. (wild oat) can often be controlled adequately when herbicides are applied at the 2-3 leaf stage, whereas later applications at the 2-3 tiller stage can fail badly. Patch spraying, or applying herbicide to only the badly infested areas of fields, is another means of reducing total herbicide use.[44]

Table 1. Agronomic factors influencing the risk of herbicide resistance development

Factor Low risk High risk
Cropping system Good rotation Crop monoculture
Cultivation system Annual ploughing Continuous minimum tillage
Weed control Cultural only Herbicide only
Herbicide use Many modes of action Single modes of action
Control in previous years Excellent Poor
Weed infestation Low High
Resistance in vicinity Unknown Common

Approaches to treating resistant weeds

Alternative herbicides

When resistance is first suspected or confirmed, the efficacy of alternatives is likely to be the first consideration. The use of alternative herbicides which remain effective on resistant populations can be a successful strategy, at least in the short term. The effectiveness of alternative herbicides will be highly dependent on the extent of cross-resistance. If there is resistance to a single group of herbicides, then the use of herbicides from other groups may provide a simple and effective solution, at least in the short term. For example, many triazine-resistant weeds have been readily controlled by the use of alternative herbicides such as dicamba or glyphosate. If resistance extends to more than one herbicide group, then choices are more limited. It should not be assumed that resistance will automatically extend to all herbicides with the same mode of action, although it is wise to assume this until proved otherwise. In many weeds the degree of cross-resistance between the five groups of ALS inhibitors varies considerably. Much will depend on the resistance mechanisms present, and it should not be assumed that these will necessarily be the same in different populations of the same species. These differences are due, at least in part, to the existence of different mutations conferring target site resistance. Consequently, selection for different mutations may result in different patterns of cross-resistance. Enhanced metabolism can affect even closely related herbicides to differing degrees. For example, populations of Alopecurus myosuroides (blackgrass) with an enhanced metabolism mechanism show resistance to pendimethalin but not to trifluralin, despite both being dinitroanilines. This is due to differences in the vulnerability of these two herbicides to oxidative metabolism. Consequently, care is needed when trying to predict the efficacy of alternative herbicides.[44]

Mixtures and sequences

The use of two or more herbicides which have differing modes of action can reduce the selection for resistant genotypes. Ideally, each component in a mixture should:

No mixture is likely to have all these attributes, but the first two listed are the most important. There is a risk that mixtures will select for resistance to both components in the longer term. One practical advantage of sequences of two herbicides compared with mixtures is that a better appraisal of the efficacy of each herbicide component is possible, provided that sufficient time elapses between each application. A disadvantage with sequences is that two separate applications have to be made and it is possible that the later application will be less effective on weeds surviving the first application. If these are resistant, then the second herbicide in the sequence may increase selection for resistant individuals by killing the susceptible plants which were damaged but not killed by the first application, but allowing the larger, less affected, resistant plants to survive. This has been cited as one reason why ALS-resistant Stellaria media has evolved in Scotland recently (2000), despite the regular use of a sequence incorporating mecoprop, a herbicide with a different mode of action.[44]

Herbicide rotations

Rotation of herbicides from different chemical groups in successive years should reduce selection for resistance. This is a key element in most resistance prevention programmes. The value of this approach depends on the extent of cross-resistance, and whether multiple resistance occurs owing to the presence of several different resistance mechanisms. A practical problem can be the lack of awareness by farmers of the different groups of herbicides that exist. In Australia a scheme has been introduced in which identifying letters are included on the product label as a means of enabling farmers to distinguish products with different modes of action.[44]

Farming practices and resistance: a case study

Herbicide resistance became a critical problem in Australian agriculture, after many Australian sheep farmers began to exclusively grow wheat in their pastures in the 1970s. Introduced varieties of ryegrass, while good for grazing sheep, compete intensely with wheat. Ryegrasses produce so many seeds that, if left unchecked, they can completely choke a field. Herbicides provided excellent control, while reducing soil disrupting because of less need to plough. Within little more than a decade, ryegrass and other weeds began to develop resistance. In response Australian farmers changed methods.[45] By 1983, patches of ryegrass had become immune to Hoegrass, a family of herbicides that inhibit an enzyme called acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase.[45]

Ryegrass populations were large, and had substantial genetic diversity, because farmers had planted many varieties. Ryegrass is cross-pollinated by wind, so genes shuffle frequently. To control its distribution farmers sprayed inexpensive Hoegrass, creating selection pressure. In addition, farmers sometimes diluted the herbicide in order to save money, which allowed some plants to survive application. When resistance appeared farmers turned to a group of herbicides that block acetolactate synthase. Once again, ryegrass in Australia evolved a kind of "cross-resistance" that allowed it to rapidly break down a variety of herbicides. Four classes of herbicides become ineffective within a few years. In 2013 only two herbicide classes, called Photosystem II and long-chain fatty acid inhibitors, were effective against ryegrass.[45]

List of common herbicides

Synthetic herbicides

Organic herbicides

Recently, the term "organic" has come to imply products used in organic farming. Under this definition, an organic herbicide is one that can be used in a farming enterprise that has been classified as organic. Commercially sold organic herbicides are expensive and may not be affordable for commercial farming. Depending on the application, they may be less effective than synthetic herbicides and are generally used along with cultural and mechanical weed control practices.

Homemade organic herbicides include:

Of historical interest and other

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 EPA. February 2011 Pesticides Industry. Sales and Usage 2006 and 2007: Market Estimates. Summary in press release here Main page for EPA reports on pesticide use is here.
  2. ↑ Andrew H. Cobb, John P. H. Reade (2011). "7.1". Herbicides and Plant Physiology. John Wiley & Sons.
  3. ↑ Robert L Zimdahl (2007). A History of Weed Science in the United States. Elsevier.
  4. ↑ Quastel, J. H. (1950). "2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) as a Selective Herbicide". Agricultural Control Chemicals. Advances in Chemistry 1. p. 244. doi:10.1021/ba-1950-0001.ch045. ISBN 0-8412-2442-0.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vats, S. (2015). "Herbicides: history, classification and genetic manipulation of plants for herbicide resistance". In Lichtfouse, E. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 15. Springer International Publishing. pp. 153–192.
  6. 1 2 Stryer, Lubert (1995). Biochemistry, 4th Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 670. ISBN 0-7167-2009-4.
  7. ↑ Moran GR (Jan 2005). "4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase" (PDF). Arch Biochem Biophys 433 (1): 117–28. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2004.08.015. PMID 15581571.
  8. ↑ Kramer, Wolfgang and Schirmer, Ulrich (2012) Modern Crop Protection Compounds. Wiley pp. 197-276. ISBN 978-3-527-32965-6
  9. ↑ Van Almsick, A. (2009). "New HPPD-Inhibitors – A Proven Mode of Action as a New Hope to Solve Current Weed Problems". Outlooks on Pest Management 20: 27–30. doi:10.1564/20feb09.
  10. ↑ Lock, E. A.; Ellis, M. K.; Gaskin, P; Robinson, M; Auton, T. R.; Provan, W. M.; Smith, L. L.; Prisbylla, M. P.; Mutter, L. C.; Lee, D. L. (1998). "From toxicological problem to therapeutic use: The discovery of the mode of action of 2-(2-nitro-4-trifluoromethylbenzoyl)-1,3-cyclohexanedione (NTBC), its toxicology and development as a drug". Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 21 (5): 498–506. doi:10.1023/A:1005458703363. PMID 9728330.
  11. 1 2 3 Shaner, D. L.; Leonard, P. (2001). "Regulatory aspects of resistance management for herbicides and other crop protection products". In Powles, S. B.; Shaner, D. L. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 279–294. ISBN 9781420039085.
  12. ↑ http://www.hracglobal.com/
  13. ↑ http://wssa.net/
  14. 1 2 Retzinger Jr, E. J.; Mallory-Smith, C. (1997). "Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies". Weed Technology 11: 384–393.
  15. ↑ Schmidt, R. R. (1997). "HRAC classification of herbicides according to mode of action". 1997 Brighton crop protection conference: weeds. Proceedings of an international conference, Brighton, UK, 17–20 November 1997, British Crop Protection Council. pp. 1133–1140.
  16. ↑ Mallory-Smith, C. (1999). "Impact of labeling herbicides by site of action: A University view". Weed Technology 13: 662.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Forouzesh, Abed; Zand, Eskandar; Soufizadeh, Saeid; Samadi Foroushani, Sadegh (2015). "Classification of herbicides according to chemical family for weed resistance management strategies–an update.". Weed Research 55: 334–358. doi:10.1111/wre.12153.
  18. 1 2 Beckie, H. J.; Harker, L. M.; Hall, S. I.; et al. (2006). "A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada". Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86: 1243–1264. doi:10.4141/P05-193.
  19. ↑ "A New Way to Use Herbicides: To Sterilize, Not Kill Weeds". USDA Agricultural Research Service. May 5, 2010.
  20. ↑ "Campaign launched to halt Welsh river pesticide rise". BBC. 16 April 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
  21. ↑ PL Havens, GK Sims, S Erhardt-Zabik. 1995. Fate of herbicides in the environment. Handbook of weed management systems. M. Dekker, 245-278
  22. ↑ Kogevinas, M; Becher, H; Benn, T; et al. (1997). "Cancer mortality in workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides, chlorophenols, and dioxins. An expanded and updated international cohort study". American Journal of Epidemiology 145 (12): 1061–75. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009069. PMID 9199536.
  23. ↑ Kettles, MK; Browning, SR; Prince, TS; Horstman, SW (1997). "Triazine herbicide exposure and breast cancer incidence: An ecologic study of Kentucky counties". Environmental Health Perspectives 105 (11): 1222–7. doi:10.1289/ehp.971051222. PMC 1470339. PMID 9370519.
  24. ↑ "Monsanto Pulls Roundup Advertising in New York". Wichita Eagle. Nov 27, 1996.
  25. ↑ Talbot, AR; Shiaw, MH; Huang, JS; Yang, SF; Goo, TS; Wang, SH; Chen, CL; Sanford, TR (1991). "Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): A review of 93 cases". Human & Experimental Toxicology 10 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1177/096032719101000101. PMID 1673618.
  26. ↑ "Complaints halt herbicide spraying in Eastern Shore". CBC News. June 16, 2009.
  27. ↑ "Tordon 101: picloram/2,4-D", Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs
  28. ↑ Reuber, MD (1981). "Carcinogenicity of Picloram". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 7 (2): 207–222. doi:10.1080/15287398109529973. PMID 7014921.
  29. ↑ Gorell, JM; Johnson, CC; Rybicki, BA; Peterson, EL; Richardson, RJ (1998). "The risk of Parkinson's disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living". Neurology 50 (5): 1346–50. doi:10.1212/WNL.50.5.1346. PMID 9595985.
  30. ↑ Dinis-Oliveira, R.J.; Remião, F.; Carmo, H.; Duarte, J.A.; Navarro, A. Sánchez; Bastos, M.L.; Carvalho, F. (2006). "Paraquat exposure as an etiological factor of Parkinson's disease". NeuroToxicology 27 (6): 1110–22. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2006.05.012. PMID 16815551.
  31. ↑ Blus, Lawrence J.; Henny, Charles J. (1997). "Field Studies on Pesticides and Birds: Unexpected and Unique Relations". Ecological Applications 7 (4): 1125–1132. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[1125:FSOPAB]2.0.CO;2.
  32. ↑ MacKinnon, D. S. and Freedman, B. (1993). "Effects of Silvicultural Use of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Breeding Birds of Regenerating Clearcuts in Nova Scotia, Canada". Journal of Applied Ecology 30 (3): 395–406. doi:10.2307/2404181. JSTOR 2404181.
  33. ↑ Newton, Ian (2004). "The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: An appraisal of causal factors and conservation actions". Ibis 146 (4): 579–600. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00375.x.
  34. ↑ Robbins, C.S.; Dowell, B.A.; Dawson, D.K.; Colon, J.A.; Estrada, R.; Sutton, A.; Sutton, R.; Weyer, D. (1992). "Comparison of neotropical migrant landbird populations wintering in tropical forest, isolated forest fragments, and agricultural habitats". In Hagan, John M. and Johnston, David W. Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. pp. 207–220. ISBN 156098113X.
  35. ↑ Hayes, T. B.; Collins, A.; Lee, M.; Mendoza, M.; Noriega, N.; Stuart, A. A.; Vonk, A. (2002). "Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (8): 5476–80. Bibcode:2002PNAS...99.5476H. doi:10.1073/pnas.082121499. PMC 122794. PMID 11960004.
  36. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency: Atrazine Updates. Current as of January 2013. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
  37. ↑ Ibrahim MA, Bond GG, Burke TA, Cole P, Dost FN, Enterline PE, Gough M, Greenberg RS, Halperin WE, McConnell E; et al. (1991). "Weight of the evidence on the human carcinogenicity of 2,4-D". Environ Health Perspect 96: 213–222. doi:10.1289/ehp.9196213. PMC 1568222. PMID 1820267.
  38. ↑ Howard I. Morrison, Kathryn Wilkins, Robert Semenciw, Yang Mao, Don Wigle (1992). "Herbicides and Cancer". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 84 (24): 1866–1874. doi:10.1093/jnci/84.24.1866. PMID 1460670.
  39. ↑ Gilbert, Scott F (2010). Developmental Biology (9th ed.). Sinauer Associates. p. . ISBN 978-0-87893-384-6.
  40. ↑ Marking, Syl (January 1, 2002) "Marestail Jumps Glyphosate Fence", Corn and Soybean Digest.
  41. 1 2 3 4 Service, R. F. (2013). "What Happens when Weed Killers Stop Killing?". Science 341 (6152): 1329. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1329.
  42. ↑ Powles, S. B.; Shaner, D. L., eds. (2001). Herbicide Resistance and World Grains. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 328. ISBN 9781420039085.
  43. ↑ Powles, S.B.; Yu, Q. (2010). "Evolution in action: plants resistant to herbicides". Annual Review of Plant Biology 61: 317–347. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112119. PMID 20192743.
  44. 1 2 3 4 5 Moss, S. R. (2002). "Herbicide-Resistant Weeds". In Naylor,, R. E. L. Weed management handbook (9th ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd. pp. 225–252. ISBN 0-632-05732-7.
  45. 1 2 3 Stokstad, E. (2013). "The War Against Weeds Down Under". Science 341 (6147): 734–736. doi:10.1126/science.341.6147.734.
  46. ↑ Fluazifop. Herbiguide.com.au. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  47. ↑ IMAZAMOX | Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Pnwhandbooks.org. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  48. ↑ McDade, Melissa C.; Christians, Nick E. (2009). "Corn gluten meal—a natural preemergence herbicide: Effect on vegetable seedling survival and weed cover". American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15 (4): 189. doi:10.1017/S0889189300008778.
  49. ↑ Spray Weeds With Vinegar?. Ars.usda.gov. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  50. ↑ Weed Management in Landscapes. Ipm.ucdavis.edu. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  51. ↑ Lanini, W. Thomas Organic Weed Management in Vineyards. University of California, Davis
  52. ↑ Kolberg, Robert L., and Lori J. Wiles (2002). "Effect of Steam Application on Cropland Weeds1". Weed Technology 16: 43–49. doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0043:EOSAOC]2.0.CO;2.
  53. ↑ Flame weeding for vegetable crops. Attra.ncat.org (2011-10-12). Retrieved 2013-03-05.

Further reading

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Herbicides.
General Information
Regulatory policy
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, May 01, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.