Talk:Herbicide

Archived discussions

Talk:Herbicide/Archive2022

First herbicide was not 2,4-D

"The first widely used herbicide was 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, often abbreviated 2,4-D. It was developed by a British team during World War II and first saw widespread production and use in the late 1940s. ..."

No. First herbicides used were probably salts (rock salt, sea salt, potassium salts) more than 2000 years ago (just think about the biblical mentioning of rendering fields sterile by salting the soil, or the same that Romans did around Cartago after its defeat). First technical chemicals, used as herbicides were copper and iron sulfates, sulfuric acid and most importantly, chlorates (sodium, potassium, magnesium chlorates). These were used from the mid 19th century onwards. In early 20th century, petroleum- and tar-derived herbicides, such as creosote oil, the inorganic potassium cyanate (still used in some regions mainly as a defoliant) and first synthetic organic compounds (notably 2,4-dinitrophenol and 2,4-dinitrocresole) went in use. 2,4-D and related compounds were first synthetic selective herbicides.--84.163.98.9 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have taken 16 years, but hopefully this is better dealt with now. The literature does seem to make a distinction between generally toxic compounds (which kill everything) and those which specifically affect plants. SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Undue tag - benefits of herbicides

This article has been tagged since 2015 with the reason: This article does not discuss the benefits of herbicides and focuses on risks. Herbicides have been universally used in agriculture because of their enormous benefits to society but you wouldn't know that by reading this article. I am inclined to agree with this since the article still does not discuss any of the benefits of herbicides in terms of increased yield, food security, decreased costs etc. To fix this, we first need to find some suitable sources though. This is one possibility, but it is US-centric and the authors are pesticide industry advocates, which some may object to. Ideally we'd find a source which is itself more balanced and covers a worldwide viewpoint. SmartSE (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Another related but important omission is describing the problems that weeds cause. Herbicides and Plant Physiology has data showing yield losses > 90 %: Available via WP:TWL. SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree on the negative slant in the article; there's certainly room to talk about the benefits conferred by the development of herbicides, but the article isn't overly negative. I removed the templates reflecting that the viewpoint was skewed towards risk, did a pass over a lot of the prose, and added some references; if you think it's still lacking then feel free to add the template again, but it seems neutral to me. Reconrabbit 20:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal

Much of this article is about herbicide resistance. The intended topic of this article is herbicides, not resistance to them. Herbicide resistance is a large topic, so it deserves its own article.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Resistance generally is pretty integrated into pesticide articles and their use (e.g., avoiding/slowing down resistance), and I don't know if the ideal underlying material is really that large needing split. It probably does need a prune to be more generalized though about resistance rather than listing off specific examples though. Specific cases of resistance would instead go to the species or active ingredient article. Related to the talk section below, it might be best to work on the article rewrite over time and then reassess the resistance section. KoA (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the split since herbicide resistance is such an important problem with countless sources pertaining to herbicide resistance specifically. Given the sheer number of sources specifically focusing on herbicide resistance, it makes sense to have a page specifically about herbicide resistance.

Herbicide resistance has also provided insights into evolution, and is also a major area of research in crop science with attempts to produce herbicide resistant crops. Overall it is its own subject with many reasons it is important and a wealth of references to draw from. PerytonMango (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Pesticide resistance already exists to cover those broader subjects. If there's truly something that's more at the overview level that doesn't really belong here, that would be the best article to work on. KoA (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave things alone. Thank everyone for the input. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworking terminology section

I have started to rewrite the terminology section here: User:Smartse/hcide. The current version is muddled, omits contact/systemic and large chunks of it are a copyright violation of the Vats source. My intention is to define contact/systemic, pre-em/post-em, selective/unselective and residual and include some examples of each. Just dropping a note here since I noticed Smokefoot has already made some of the same changes I was planning! SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to work in the Mechanism of Action section as part of Classification (as a header, rather than a section on its own). Seems like some, but not all, of the bullet point headers are paraphrased from Table 1 in the Vats source, but the descriptors of such are unique (though I haven't checked every one of the sources in that section - the terminology in this area is harder to grasp than the rest of the article). Reconrabbit 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking about that but was thinking not to given the extensive section, but I guess that there is no harm in having a sentence saying that the MoA is another way that they are classified which is then explained further on in more detail. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Go for it! Comments:

• One small suggestion is to minimizing sustainability since that consideration is probably secondary to the users. We will have a separate section on sustainability and all that jazz. Of course, a key aspect of sustainability is selectivity.
• It would also be nice to find sources on the benefits of herbicides: increases in crop yields (from 2,4-D and its successors) and decreases in disease (from DDT etc).
• Another interest is in finding ways that herbicides are classified according to mode of action, which is the basis of their selectivity (vs other plants, vs animals).
• I am wondering about the semi-long table of individual herbicides. It is incomplete and possibly haphazard. Possibly a list of herbicides should or could be a self-standing article.
• If you have some access to beyond paywalls, these two articles are powerful: Ullmann's Encyclopedia entries on "Weed Control" (DOI: 10.1002/14356007.a28_165) and "Individual Herbicides" (DOI: 10.1002/14356007.o28_o01).

Finally, you can see that I have proposed to split out most of the "pesticide resistance" into its own article. That topic is big.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A bit short on time for awhile otherwise I'd be helping more, but removing the long list of herbicides makes sense. There's already a list article linked where all that could go instead.

What would make more sense though is to only go as far down as site of action/herbicide group.[1] in place of that.

There's probably a bit I could dig up later on benefits, especially when it comes to newer herbicides from the human health perspective, improved soil management, etc. associated with herbicide resistant crops.[2] KoA (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)