Herbicide

Herbicides (US: /ˈɜːrbɪsaɪdz/, UK: /ˈhɜːr-/),

also commonly known as weedkillers,
are 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.

Weeds controlled with herbicide

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. 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
combine herbicides with different means
of action. Integrated pest management
may use herbicides alongside other pest
control methods.

In the United States in 2012, about 91%

of all herbicide usage, determined by
weight applied, was in agriculture.[2]:12 In
2012, world pesticide expenditures
totalled nearly $24.7 billion; herbicides
were about 44% of those sales and
constituted the biggest portion, followed
by insecticides, fungicides, and
fumigants.[2]:5 Herbicide is also used in
forestry,[3] where certain formulations
have been found to suppress hardwood
varieties in favour of conifers after
clearcutting,[4] as well as pasture
systems, and management of areas set
aside as wildlife habitat.

History
Prior to the widespread use of herbicides,
cultural controls, such as altering soil pH,
salinity, or fertility levels, were used to
control weeds.[5] 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 herbicides began

in the early 20th century, the first major
breakthrough was the result of research
conducted in both the United Kingdom
and the United States during the Second
World War into the potential use of
herbicides in war.[6] 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, R. Pokorny in the US achieved this
as well.[7]

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.[8]

When 2,4-D 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 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; for example, 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 …

Control is the destruction of unwanted

weeds, or the damage of them to the
point where they are no longer
competitive with the crop.
Suppression is incomplete control still
providing some economic benefit, such
as reduced competition with the crop.
Crop safety, for selective herbicides, is
the relative absence of damage or
stress to the crop. Most selective
herbicides cause some visible stress
to crop plants.
Defoliant, similar to herbicides, but
designed to remove foliage (leaves)
rather than kill the plant.
Selectivity (all plants or specific
plants)
…

Selective herbicides control or

suppress certain plants without
affecting the growth of other plants
species. Selectivity may be due to
translocation, differential absorption,
or physical (morphological) or
physiological differences between
plant species. 2,4-D, mecoprop, and
dicamba control many broadleaf
weeds but remain ineffective against
turfgrasses.[9]
Non-selective herbicides are not
specific in acting against certain plant
species and control all plant material
 with which they come into contact.
They are used to clear industrial sites,
waste ground, railways, and railway
embankments. Paraquat, glufosinate,
and glyphosate are non-selective
herbicides.[9]

Timing of application …

Preplant: Preplant herbicides are

nonselective herbicides applied to soil
before planting. Some preplant
herbicides may be mechanically
incorporated into the soil. The
objective for incorporation is to prevent
dissipation through
photodecomposition and/or volatility.
The herbicides kill weeds as they grow
through the herbicide treated zone.
Volatile herbicides have to be
incorporated into the soil before
planting the pasture. Agricultural crops
grown in soil treated with a preplant
herbicide include tomatoes, corn,
soybeans, and strawberries. Soil
fumigants like metam-sodium and
dazomet are in use as preplant
herbicides.[9]
Preemergence: Preemergence
herbicides are applied before the weed
seedlings emerge through the soil
surface. Herbicides do not prevent
weeds from germinating but they kill
weeds as they grow through the
herbicide treated zone by affecting the
cell division in the emerging seedling.
Dithiopyr and pendimethalin are
preemergence herbicides. Weeds that
have already emerged before
application or activation are not
affected by pre-herbicides as their
primary growing point escapes the
treatment.[9]
Postemergence: These herbicides are
applied after weed seedlings have
emerged through the soil surface. They
can be foliar or root absorbed,
selective or nonselective, and contact
or systemic. Application of these
herbicides is avoided during rain since
being washed off the soil makes it
ineffective. 2,4-D is a selective,
 systemic, foliar absorbed
postemergence herbicide.[9]

Method of application …

Soil applied: Herbicides applied to the

soil are usually taken up by the root or
shoot of the emerging seedlings and
are used as preplant or preemergence
treatment. Several factors influence
the effectiveness of soil-applied
herbicides. Weeds absorb herbicides
by both passive and active
mechanisms. Herbicide adsorption to
soil colloids or organic matter often
reduces its amount available for weed
absorption. Positioning of the
herbicide in the correct layer of soil is
very important, which can be achieved
mechanically and by rainfall.
Herbicides on the soil surface are
subjected to several processes that
reduce their availability. Volatility and
photolysis are two common processes
that reduce the availability of
herbicides. Many soil applied
herbicides are absorbed through plant
shoots while they are still underground
leading to their death or injury. EPTC
and trifluralin are soil applied
herbicides.[9]
Foliar applied: These are applied to
portion of the plant above the ground
and are absorbed by exposed tissues.
These are generally postemergence
 herbicides and can either be
translocated (systemic) throughout the
plant or remain at specific site
(contact). External barriers of plants
like cuticle, waxes, cell wall etc. affect
herbicide absorption and action.
Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba are
foliar applied herbicide.[9]

Persistence …

Residual activity: An herbicide is

described as having low residual
activity if it is neutralized within a short
time of application (within a few weeks
or months) – typically this is due to
rainfall, or by reactions in the soil. An
herbicide described as having high
 residual activity will remain potent for
a long term in the soil. For some
compounds, the residual activity can
leave the ground almost permanently
barren.

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.[9]
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
…

ACCase inhibitors: Acetyl coenzyme A

carboxylase (ACCase) is part of the
first step of lipid synthesis. Thus,
ACCase inhibitors affect cell
membrane production in the
meristems of the grass plant. The
ACCases of grasses are sensitive to
these herbicides, whereas the
ACCases of dicot plants are not.
ALS inhibitors: Acetolactate synthase
(ALS; also known as acetohydroxyacid
synthase, or AHAS) is part of the first
step in the synthesis of the branched-
chain amino acids (valine, leucine, and
isoleucine). These herbicides slowly
starve affected plants of these amino
acids, which eventually leads to
inhibition of DNA synthesis. They
affect grasses and dicots alike. The
ALS inhibitor family includes various
sulfonylureas (SUs) (such as
flazasulfuron and metsulfuron-methyl),
imidazolinones (IMIs),
triazolopyrimidines (TPs), pyrimidinyl
oxybenzoates (POBs), and
sulfonylamino carbonyl triazolinones
(SCTs). The ALS biological pathway
exists only in plants and not animals,
thus making the ALS-inhibitors among
the safest herbicides.[10]
EPSPS inhibitors: Enolpyruvylshikimate
3-phosphate synthase enzyme
(EPSPS) is used in the synthesis of the
amino acids tryptophan, phenylalanine
and tyrosine. They affect grasses and
dicots alike. Glyphosate (Roundup) is a
systemic EPSPS inhibitor inactivated
by soil contact.
The discovery of synthetic auxins
inaugurated the era of organic
herbicides. They were discovered in
the 1940s after a long study of the
plant growth regulator auxin. Synthetic
auxins mimic this plant hormone in
some way. They have several points of
action on the cell membrane, and are
effective in the control of dicot plants.
2,4-D and 2,4,5-T are synthetic auxin
herbicides.
Photosystem II inhibitors reduce
electron flow from water to NADP+ at
the photochemical step in
photosynthesis. They bind to the Qb
site on the D1 protein, and prevent
quinone from binding to this site.
Therefore, this group of compounds
causes electrons to accumulate on
chlorophyll molecules. As a
consequence, oxidation reactions in
excess of those normally tolerated by
the cell occur, and the plant dies. The
triazine herbicides (including atrazine)
and urea derivatives (diuron) are
photosystem II inhibitors.[11]
Photosystem I inhibitors steal
electrons from ferredoxins, specifically
the normal pathway through FeS to Fdx
to NADP+, leading to direct discharge
of electrons on oxygen. As a result,
reactive oxygen species are produced
and oxidation reactions in excess of
those normally tolerated by the cell
occur, leading to plant death.
Bipyridinium herbicides (such as
diquat and paraquat) inhibit the FeS to
Fdx step of that chain, while diphenyl
ether herbicides (such as nitrofen,
nitrofluorfen, and acifluorfen) inhibit
the Fdx to NADP+ step.[11]
HPPD inhibitors inhibit 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase,
which are involved in tyrosine
breakdown.[12] Tyrosine breakdown
products are used by plants to make
carotenoids, which protect chlorophyll
in plants from being destroyed by
sunlight. If this happens, the plants
turn white due to complete loss of
chlorophyll, and the plants die.[13][14]
Mesotrione and sulcotrione are
herbicides in this class; a drug,
nitisinone, was discovered in the
 course of developing this class of
herbicides.[15]

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 the mode of
action for the herbicides they intend to
use, 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.[16]
Eventually the Herbicide Resistance
Action Committee (HRAC)[17] and the
Weed Science Society of America
(WSSA)[18] developed a classification
system.[19][20] 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.[19] 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.[16] It
should increase user's awareness of
herbicide mode of action and provide
more accurate recommendations for
resistance management.[21] 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.[16]

Chemical family …

Detailed investigations on the chemical

structure of 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.[22]
According to Forouzesh et al. 2015,[22]
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.[23]

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.[24]
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.[25]

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
…

Handicapped children in Vietnam, most of them

victims of Agent Orange, 2004
Although herbicidal warfare use chemical
substances, its main purpose is to
disrupt agricultural food production
and/or to destroy plants which provide
cover or concealment to the enemy.

During the Malayan Emergency, Britain

was the first nation to employ herbicides
and defoliants in order to deprive the
communist insurgents of cover and
targeting food crops as part of the
starvation campaign in the early
1950s.[26] The use of herbicides as a
chemical weapon by the U.S. military
during the Vietnam War has left tangible,
long-term impacts upon the Vietnamese
people that live in Vietnam.[27][28] For
instance, it led to 3 million Vietnamese
people suffering health problems, one
million birth defects caused directly by
exposure to Agent Orange, and 24% of
the area of Vietnam being defoliated.[29]

Health and environmental

effects
Herbicides have widely variable toxicity in
addition to acute toxicity arising from
ingestion of a significant quantity rapidly,
and chronic toxicity arising from
environmental and occupational
exposure over long periods. Much public
suspicion of herbicides revolves around a
confusion between valid statements of
acute toxicity as opposed to equally valid
statements of lack of chronic toxicity at
the recommended levels of usage. For
instance, while glyphosate formulations
with tallowamine adjuvants are acutely
toxic, their use was found to be
uncorrelated with any health issues like
cancer in a massive US Department of
Health study on 90,000 members of
farmer families for over a period of 23
years.[30] That is, the study shows lack of
chronic toxicity, but cannot question the
herbicide's acute toxicity.

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 labelled
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.[31]

Phenoxy herbicides are often

contaminated with dioxins such as
TCDD;[32] research has suggested such
contamination results in a small rise in
cancer risk after occupational exposure
to these herbicides.[33] Triazine exposure
has been implicated in a likely
relationship to increased risk of breast
cancer, although a causal relationship
remains unclear.[34]

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).[35] 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.[36]
The manufacturer of Tordon 101 (Dow
AgroSciences, owned by the Dow
Chemical Company) has claimed Tordon
101 has no effects on animals and
insects,[37] in spite of evidence of strong
carcinogenic activity of the active
ingredient,[38] picloram, in studies on
rats.[39]

The risk of Parkinson's disease has been

shown to increase with occupational
exposure to herbicides and pesticides.[40]
The herbicide paraquat is suspected to
be one such factor.[41]

All commercially sold, organic and non-

organic 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.[42] 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.[43] Herbicide use in agriculture in the
UK has been linked to a decline in seed-
eating bird species which rely on the
weeds killed by the herbicides.[44] 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.[45]

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,[46] the
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."[47]

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.[48] 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.[49] Furthermore, there is
some suggestion that herbicides, as
atrazine,[50] can play a role in sex reversal
of certain organisms that experience
temperature-dependent sex
determination, which could theoretically
alter sex ratios.[51]

Resistance
Weed resistance to herbicides has
become a major concern in crop
production worldwide.[22] 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.[23] Thus, a
true understanding of the sites of action
of herbicides is essential for strategic
planning of herbicide-based weed
control.[22]

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.[52] 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 rotate crops and herbicides to
stop the development of resistant weeds.
During its initial years, glyphosate was
not subject to resistance and allowed
farmers to reduce the use of rotation.[53]

A family of weeds that includes

waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) is the
largest concern. A 2008–2009 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.[53]

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.[53]
As of 2013, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer
CropScience, Syngenta, and Monsanto
were 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.[53]

Biochemistry of resistance …

Resistance to herbicides can be based

on one of the following biochemical
mechanisms:[54][55][56]
Target-site resistance: This is due to a
reduced (or even lost) ability of the
herbicide to bind to its target protein.
The effect usually relates to an enzyme
with a crucial function in a metabolic
pathway, or to a component of an
electron-transport system. Target-site
resistance may also be caused by an
over-expression of the target enzyme
(via gene amplification or changes in a
gene promoter).
Non-target-site resistance: This is
caused by mechanisms that reduce
the amount of herbicidal active
compound reaching the target site.
One important mechanism is an
enhanced metabolic detoxification of
the herbicide in the weed, which leads
to insufficient amounts of the active
substance reaching the target site. A
reduced uptake and translocation, or
sequestration of the herbicide, may
also result in an insufficient herbicide
transport to the target site.
Cross-resistance: In this case, a single
resistance mechanism causes
resistance to several herbicides. The
term target-site cross-resistance is
used when the herbicides bind to the
same target site, whereas non-target-
site cross-resistance is due to a single
non-target-site mechanism (e.g.,
enhanced metabolic detoxification)
that entails resistance across
 herbicides with different sites of
action.
Multiple resistance: In this situation,
two or more resistance mechanisms
are present within individual plants, or
within a plant population.

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.[57]
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 genus (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.[57]

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.[57]

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:

Be active at different target sites

Have a high level of efficacy
Be detoxified by different biochemical
pathways
Have similar persistence in the soil (if
it is a residual herbicide)
Exert negative cross-resistance
Synergise the activity of the other
component

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.[57]

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.[57]

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.[58]
By 1983, patches of ryegrass had
become immune to Hoegrass, a family of
herbicides that inhibit an enzyme called
acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase.[58]

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.[58]

List of common herbicides

Chemical herbicides …

2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic

acid)is a broadleaf herbicide in the
phenoxy group used in turf and no-till
field crop production. Now, it is mainly
used in a blend with other herbicides to
allow lower rates of herbicides to be
used; it is the most widely used
herbicide in the world, and third most
commonly used in the United States. It
is an example of synthetic auxin (plant
hormone).
Aminopyralid is a broadleaf herbicide
in the pyridine group, used to control
weeds on grassland, such as docks,
thistles and nettles. It is notorious for
its ability to persist in compost.
Atrazine, a triazine herbicide, is used in
corn and sorghum for control of
broadleaf weeds and grasses. Still
used because of its low cost and
because it works well on a broad
spectrum of weeds common in the US
corn belt, atrazine is commonly used
with other herbicides to reduce the
overall rate of atrazine and to lower the
potential for groundwater
contamination; it is a photosystem II
inhibitor.
Clopyralid is a broadleaf herbicide in
the pyridine group, used mainly in turf,
rangeland, and for control of noxious
thistles. Notorious for its ability to
persist in compost, it is another
example of synthetic auxin.
Dicamba, a postemergent broadleaf
herbicide with some soil activity, is
used on turf and field corn. It is
another example of a synthetic auxin.
Glufosinate ammonium, a broad-
spectrum contact herbicide, is used to
control weeds after the crop emerges
or for total vegetation control on land
not used for cultivation.
Fluazifop (Fuselade Forte), a post
emergence, foliar absorbed,
translocated grass-selective herbicide
with little residual action. It is used on
a very wide range of broad leaved
crops for control of annual and
perennial grasses.[59]
Fluroxypyr, a systemic, selective
herbicide, is used for the control of
broad-leaved weeds in small grain
cereals, maize, pastures, rangeland
and turf. It is a synthetic auxin. In
cereal growing, fluroxypyr's key
importance is control of cleavers,
Galium aparine. Other key broadleaf
weeds are also controlled.
Glyphosate, a systemic nonselective
herbicide, is used in no-till burndown
and for weed control in crops
genetically modified to resist its
effects. It is an example of an EPSPs
inhibitor.
Imazapyr a nonselective herbicide, is
used for the control of a broad range
of weeds, including terrestrial annual
and perennial grasses and broadleaf
herbs, woody species, and riparian and
emergent aquatic species.
Imazapic, a selective herbicide for both
the pre- and postemergent control of
some annual and perennial grasses
and some broadleaf weeds, kills plants
by inhibiting the production of
branched chain amino acids (valine,
leucine, and isoleucine), which are
necessary for protein synthesis and
cell growth.
Imazamox, an imidazolinone
manufactured by BASF for
postemergence application that is an
acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor.
Sold under trade names Raptor,
Beyond, and Clearcast.[60]
Linuron is a nonselective herbicide
used in the control of grasses and
broadleaf weeds. It works by inhibiting
photosynthesis.
MCPA (2-methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid) is a
phenoxy herbicide selective for
broadleaf plants and widely used in
cereals and pasture.
Metolachlor is a pre-emergent
herbicide widely used for control of
annual grasses in corn and sorghum; it
has displaced some of the atrazine in
these uses.
Paraquat is a nonselective contact
herbicide used for no-till burndown and
in aerial destruction of marijuana and
coca plantings. It is more acutely toxic
to people than any other herbicide in
widespread commercial use.
Pendimethalin, a pre-emergent
herbicide, is widely used to control
annual grasses and some broad-leaf
weeds in a wide range of crops,
including corn, soybeans, wheat,
cotton, many tree and vine crops, and
many turfgrass species.
Picloram, a pyridine herbicide, mainly
is used to control unwanted trees in
pastures and edges of fields. It is
another synthetic auxin.
Sodium chlorate (disused/banned in
some countries), a nonselective
herbicide, is considered phytotoxic to
all green plant parts. It can also kill
through root absorption.
Triclopyr, a systemic, foliar herbicide in
the pyridine group, is used to control
broadleaf weeds while leaving grasses
and conifers unaffected.
Several sulfonylureas, including
Flazasulfuron and Metsulfuron-methyl,
which act as ALS inhibitors and in
some cases are taken up from the soil
via the roots.
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. Depending on the application,
they may be less effective than synthetic
herbicides[61] and are generally used
along with cultural and mechanical weed
control practices.

Homemade organic herbicides include:

Corn gluten meal (CGM) is a natural

pre-emergence weed control used in
turfgrass, which reduces germination
of many broadleaf and grass weeds.[62]
Vinegar[63] is effective for 5–20%
solutions of acetic acid, with higher
concentrations most effective, but it
mainly destroys surface growth, so
respraying to treat regrowth is needed.
Resistant plants generally succumb
when weakened by respraying.
Steam has been applied commercially,
but is now considered uneconomical
and inadequate.[64][65][66] It controls
surface growth but not underground
growth and so respraying to treat
regrowth of perennials is needed.
 Flame is considered more effective
than steam, but suffers from the same
difficulties.[67]
D-limonene (citrus oil) is a natural
degreasing agent that strips the waxy
skin or cuticle from weeds, causing
dehydration and ultimately death.
Saltwater or salt applied in appropriate
strengths to the rootzone will kill most
plants.[68]

Of historical interest and other …

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4,5-T) was a widely used broadleaf
herbicide until being phased out
starting in the late 1970s. While 2,4,5-T
itself is of only moderate toxicity, the
manufacturing process for 2,4,5-T
contaminates this chemical with trace
amounts of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD is extremely
toxic to humans. With proper
temperature control during production
of 2,4,5-T, TCDD levels can be held to
about .005 ppm. Before the TCDD risk
was well understood, early production
facilities lacked proper temperature
controls. Individual batches tested
later were found to have as much as
60 ppm of TCDD. 2,4,5-T was
withdrawn from use in the US in 1983,
at a time of heightened public
sensitivity about chemical hazards in
the environment. Public concern about
dioxins was high, and production and
use of other (non-herbicide) chemicals
potentially containing TCDD
contamination was also withdrawn.
These included pentachlorophenol (a
wood preservative) and PCBs (mainly
used as stabilizing agents in
transformer oil). 2,4,5-T has since
largely been replaced by dicamba and
triclopyr.
Agent Orange was a herbicide blend
used by the British military during the
Malayan Emergency and the U.S.
military during the Vietnam War
between January 1965 and April 1970
as a defoliant. It was a 50/50 mixture
of the n-butyl esters of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-
 D. Because of TCDD contamination in
the 2,4,5-T component, it has been
blamed for serious illnesses in many
people who were exposed to it.
Diesel, and other heavy oil derivatives,
are known to be informally used at
times, but are usually banned for this
purpose.

See also
Bioherbicide
Index of pesticide articles
Integrated pest management
List of environmental health hazards
Rainbow herbicides and Herbicidal
warfare
 Soil contamination
Surface runoff
Weed
Weed control
Defoliant

References
1. EPA. February 2011 Pesticides
Industry. Sales and Usage 2006 and
2007: Market Estimates Archived
2015-03-18 at the Wayback Machine.
Summary in press release here
Main page for EPA reports on
pesticide use is here .
2. Atwood, Donald; Paisley-Jones,
Claire (2017). "Pesticides Industry
 Sales and Usage: 2008 – 2012
Market Estimates" (PDF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
3. "Governments say glyphosate is
safe, but some say 'poison' is being
sprayed on northern forests" . CBC
News. 2 July 2019.
4. "GLYPHOSATE AND THE POLITICS
OF SAFETY" . Halifax Examiner. 7
October 2016.
5. Robbins, Paul (2007-08-27).
Encyclopedia of environment and
society. Robbins, Paul, 1967-, Sage
Publications. Thousand Oaks.
p. 862. ISBN 9781452265582.
OCLC 228071686 .
6. Andrew H. Cobb; John P. H. Reade
(2011). "7.1". Herbicides and Plant
Physiology . John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 9781444322491.
7. Robert L Zimdahl (2007). A History
of Weed Science in the United
States . Elsevier.
ISBN 9780123815026.
8. Quastel, J. H. (1950). "2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D)
as a Selective Herbicide".
Agricultural Control Chemicals.
Advances in Chemistry. 1. pp. 244–
249. doi:10.1021/ba-1950-
0001.ch045 . ISBN 978-0-8412-
2442-1.
 9. Vats, S. (2015). "Herbicides: history,
classification and genetic
manipulation of plants for herbicide
resistance". In Lichtfouse, E. (ed.).
Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 15.
Springer International Publishing.
pp. 153–192.
10. Zhou Q, Liu W, Zhang Y, Liu KK (Oct
2007). "Action mechanisms of
acetolactate synthase-inhibiting
herbicides". Pesticide Biochemistry
and Physiology. 89 (2): 89–96.
doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2007.04.004 .
11. Stryer, Lubert (1995). Biochemistry,
4th Edition. W.H. Freeman and
 Company. p. 670. ISBN 978-0-7167-
2009-6.
12. 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 . Archived from the
original (PDF) on 2014-03-03.
13. Krämer, Wolfgang, ed. (2012).
Modern crop protection compounds
(2nd, rev. and enl. ed.). Weinheim:
Wiley-VCH-Verl. pp. 197–276.
ISBN 978-3-527-32965-6.
14. 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 .
15. 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 . S2CID 6717818 .
16. 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. (eds.).
Herbicide Resistance and World
Grains. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
pp. 279–294. ISBN 9781420039085.
17. "PROTECTING CROP YIELDS AND
QUALITY WORLDWIDE" .
18. "Weed Science Society of America" .
19. Retzinger Jr, E. J.; Mallory-Smith, C.
(1997). "Classification of herbicides
by site of action for weed resistance
 management strategies". Weed
Technology. 11 (2): 384–393.
doi:10.1017/S0890037X00043116 .
20. 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.
21. Mallory-Smith, C. (1999). "Impact of
labeling herbicides by site of action:
A University view". Weed
 Technology. 13 (3): 662.
doi:10.1017/S0890037X00046376 .
22. 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 (4): 334–358.
doi:10.1111/wre.12153 .
23. 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 (4): 1243–1264.
doi:10.4141/P05-193 .
24. "A New Way to Use Herbicides: To
Sterilize, Not Kill Weeds" . USDA
Agricultural Research Service. May 5,
2010.
25. "Campaign launched to halt Welsh
river pesticide rise" . BBC. 16 April
2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
26. Bruce Cumings (1998). The Global
Politics of Pesticides: Forging
Consensus from Conflicting
Interests. Earthscan. p. 61.
27. "The legacy of Agent Orange" . BBC
News. 29 April 2005.
28. "Agent Orange's Long Legacy, for
Vietnam and Veterans" .
nytimes.com.
29. Gustafson, Mai L. (1978). War and
Shadows: The Haunting of Vietnam.
Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press. p. 125.
30. Andreotti, Gabriella; Koutros, Stella;
Hofmann, Jonathan N; Sandler, Dale
P; Lubin, Jay H; Lynch, Charles F;
Lerro, Catherine C; De Roos,
Anneclaire J; Parks, Christine G;
Alavanja, Michael C; Silverman,
Debra T; Beane Freeman, Laura E
(2018). "Glyphosate Use and Cancer
Incidence in the Agricultural Health
 Study" . JNCI Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. 110 (5): 509–516.
doi:10.1093/jnci/djx233 .
PMC 6279255 . PMID 29136183 .
31. Smith (18 July 1995). "8: Fate of
herbicides in the environment" .
Handbook of Weed Management
Systems. CRC Press. pp. 245–278.
ISBN 978-0-8247-9547-4.
32. "Facts About Herbicide - Department
Of Veterans Affairs" . Retrieved
September 1, 2016.
33. 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.a00
9069 . PMID 9199536 .
34. 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 .
35. "Monsanto Pulls Roundup
Advertising in New York". Wichita
Eagle. Nov 27, 1996.
36. 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 . S2CID 8028945 .
37. "Complaints halt herbicide spraying
in Eastern Shore" . CBC News. June
16, 2009.
38. "Tordon 101: picloram/2,4-D" ,
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food
& Rural Affairs
39. Reuber, MD (1981). "Carcinogenicity
of Picloram". Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health. 7 (2):
207–222.
doi:10.1080/15287398109529973 .
PMID 7014921 .
40. 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 . S2CID 27954760 .
41. 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 .
42. 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.C
O;2 .
43. MacKinnon, D. S.; 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 .
44. 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 .
45. 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.; Johnston, David
W. (eds.). Ecology and Conservation
of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington and London. pp. 207–
220. ISBN 978-1560981138.
46. 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 .
47. Environmental Protection Agency:
Atrazine Updates. Current as of
January 2013. Retrieved August 24,
2013.
48. 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 .
49. 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 .
50. Willingham, Emily (2005-08-01). "The
Effects of Atrazine and Temperature
on Turtle Hatchling Size and Sex
Ratios". Frontiers in Ecology and The
Environment - FRONT ECOL
ENVIRON. 3: 309–313.
doi:10.1890/1540-
9295(2005)003[0309:TEOAAT]2.0.C
O;2 .
51. Gilbert, Scott F (2010).
Developmental Biology (9th ed.).
Sinauer Associates. p. . ISBN 978-0-
87893-384-6.
52. Marking, Syl (January 1, 2002)
"Marestail Jumps Glyphosate
Fence" Archived 2009-07-10 at the
 Wayback Machine, Corn and
Soybean Digest.
53. Service, R. F. (2013). "What Happens
when Weed Killers Stop Killing?".
Science. 341 (6152): 1329.
doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1329
. PMID 24052282 .
54. Powles, S. B.; Shaner, D. L., eds.
(2001). Herbicide Resistance and
World Grains. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. p. 328.
ISBN 9781420039085.
55. 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 .
56. Alberto, Diana; Serra, Anne-Antonella;
Sulmon, Cécile; Gouesbet, Gwenola;
Couée, Ivan (2016). "Herbicide-
related signaling in plants reveals
novel insights for herbicide use
strategies, environmental risk
assessment and global change
assessment challenges". Science of
the Total Environment. 569–570:
1618–1628.
Bibcode:2016ScTEn.569.1618A .
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.064
. PMID 27318518 .
57. Moss, S. R. (2002). "Herbicide-
Resistant Weeds". In Naylor, R. E. L.
(ed.). Weed management handbook
(9th ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd.
pp. 225–252. ISBN 978-0-632-
05732-0.
58. Stokstad, E. (2013). "The War
Against Weeds Down Under".
Science. 341 (6147): 734–736.
Bibcode:2013Sci...341..734S .
doi:10.1126/science.341.6147.734 .
PMID 23950526 .
59. Fluazifop . Herbiguide.com.au.
Retrieved 2013-03-05.
60. IMAZAMOX | Pacific Northwest
Weed Management Handbook
 Archived 2012-06-25 at the
Wayback Machine.
Pnwhandbooks.org. Retrieved 2013-
03-05.
61. "Evaluating Interceptor – an organic
herbicide" . Dalhousie University.
Retrieved 2020-03-17.
62. 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 .
63. Spray Weeds With Vinegar? .
Ars.usda.gov. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
64. Weed Management in Landscapes .
Ipm.ucdavis.edu. Retrieved 2013-03-
05.
65. Lanini, W. Thomas Organic Weed
Management in Vineyards .
University of California, Davis
66. Kolberg, Robert L.; 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 .
67. Flame weeding for vegetable crops .
Attra.ncat.org (2011-10-12).
Retrieved 2013-03-05.
68. LEARN HOW TO BEGIN A
SUCCESSFUL ORGANIC PEST
CONTROL OPERATION IN GARDENS,
GROVES, FIELDS AND ORCHARDS.
p. 1880.

Further reading
A Brief History of On-track Weed
Control in the N.S.W. SRA during the
Steam Era Longworth, Jim Australian
Railway Historical Society Bulletin,
April, 1996 pp99–116

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media
related to Herbicides.

General Information
National Pesticide Information Center ,
Information about pesticide-related
topics
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Regulatory policy
US EPA
UK Pesticides Safety Directorate
European Commission pesticide
information
pmra Pest Management Regulatory
Agency of Canada
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Herbicide&oldid=1010327353"

Last edited 1 day ago by Dialectric

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.