Jump to content

Talk:Dicamba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does it kill weeds?

[edit]

...For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid#Mechanism_of_herbicide_action

Is it a systemic, or contact defoliant? etc...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.254.173 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dicamba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What - no history?

[edit]

I've noticed that many of the pesticidal compounds listed on Wikipedia have a history section. It seems strange to me that a compound like dicamba, which is nearly 60 years old, would have no such section. I know it was invented by BASF in 1958, but that's all. Adv4Ag (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you link me some sources I will add a section when I get some spare time. AIRcorn (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are "rose weeds"?

[edit]

The first sentence under "Use as an Herbicide" currently reads "Dicamba controls annual and perennial rose weeds in grain crops and highlands, and it is used to control brush and bracken in pastures, as well as legumes and cacti."

There are invasive species in genus Rosa (e.g., Rosa multiflora), but I can't find much evidence from searching the web or Google Books that "rose weeds" is a term that's actually used. Not only is it something of a linguistic oddity, but it also isn't clear whether the term is intended to mean "weeds within the rose family" or "weeds that grow among roses" (or perhaps something else entirely).

Dicamba and rose horticulture references seem vague on this question as well. Apparently rose horticulture is a common use of dicamba, but multiple sources also mention that roses are sensitive to dicamba themselves.

The term that consistently seems to show up in dicamba references is "broadleaf weeds", so I'm replacing the "rose weeds" part with this. But the "rose weeds" text has been around since 2011, so I want to be sure I'm not just blundering around and screwing up text that is generally accepted.

Parenthetically, this sentence in its current form seems eerily specific for a statement that has no sourcing.

NillaGoon (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your change seems to be the better way to go. I'm not sure what was meant at first glance either if they meant Rosaceae or something else. Broadleaf is indeed the more plain language though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dicamba and bees

[edit]

I just removed this edit claiming a link with dicamba and colony collapse disorder. Such newspaper sources aren't appropriate for that kind of content (see WP:SCIRS for some background). There doesn't appear to be much in the scientific literature either right now when I did a quick search on the two terms. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of it back and removed the wikilink. The source does appear to be an RS and the source also cites further scientific studies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the sourcing for this is insufficient per WP:SCIRS. Looking for potential sources, I found this though which mentions a draft EPA document which would seemingly support along these lines. Judging by the EPA site though, the final version has still not been published, so unless there are other suitable sources, we should wait until that is published. SmartSE (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with the removal for that source, especially since it had been out of the article for 5 years. It's come up over at RSP before. The gist is that it's biased, but technically reliable in the general news sense, and needs to be evaluated for WP:DUE before inclusion. For science content like this, it wouldn't be due. Thanks for some of the other recent edits too. I've had the article on my watchlist for awhile, but hadn't got around to a full review of it. There's very little on dicamba drift (the key problem with this herbicide) compared to what's been discussed in sources, so I'll see if I can get to that at a later date.
The often complicating factor here is that herbicides often are not as toxic like insecticides to bees or other insects (often very low toxicity), though not always. Sometimes the only way you get toxicity from the overall product is direct contact where soap in the mixture can effectively drown insects rather than the active ingredient. Sometimes it's only narrow uses, like when flowering plants are present. I see some of that being walked through in the report, especially on chronic exposure, so it'll be good to add the final report when it's ready, especially if they have easier summary points for us to use.
Looking at the EPA source, I'm pulling out a few quotes:
Acute
  • Overall, the weight of evidence suggests no acute oral risk concern for honey bee adults or larvae.
  • DCSA exposure could occur in pollen and nectar residues of DT-plants. Nonetheless, EFED considers there to be low risk potential for acute exposure to DCSA.
Chronic
  • Among those uses (i.e., anticipated to potentially elicit effects observed in the toxicity studies), the most likely to be of concern are non-agricultural areas such as rights of way, fences, hedgerows, pasture, and rangeland to the extent that blooming nectar-attractive plants (target or non-target) are present.
  • Nonetheless, there is a potential risk concern on the treatment field for all uses with single application rates ≥ 0.44 lb ae/A if target plants (i.e., weeds) are blooming and nectar attractive.
The key thing I'm seeing though is that potential concern seems to be basically couched as there's not enough data, but it warrants a look (and maybe a label change restricting those uses). That's especially when the report frequently refers back to There are two reported incidents with bees; however, one is considered unlikely to have been caused by dicamba exposure and the other was attributed to alleged dicamba-caused loss of habitat. Definitely something to craft content on when it's done though. KoA (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The EPA has an official profile on Dicamba: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/dicamba
I quote (emphasis mine):
In addition, the draft ecological risk assessment identified potential adverse effects to birds, mammals, bees (larvae), aquatic plants and non-target terrestrial plants for all dicamba uses but did not include an Endangered Species Act (ESA) assessment of risk to listed species. The primary ecological risk of concern is for non-target terrestrial plants from exposure through spray drift and volatilization. Numerous non-target plant incidents associated with the use of dicamba have been reported. Since the initial registration of OTT uses in 2016, there has been a substantial increase in the overall number of reported non-target plant incidents which appear to be linked to the OTT uses. EPA continues to monitor the incidents information for dicamba.
I think we need to be careful with WP:OR when citing those sources. Whenever possible, we should stick to the WP:SECONDARY summaries that those regulators produce instead of interpreting the primary sources they produce. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just quote this "In addition, the draft ecological risk assessment identified potential adverse effects to birds, mammals, bees (larvae), aquatic plants and non-target terrestrial plants for all dicamba uses but did not include an Endangered Species Act (ESA) assessment of risk to listed species. " ? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The last bit about the ESA assessment seems avoidable as it is more of a "bureaucratic" item. I would also mention that The primary ecological risk of concern is for non-target terrestrial plants from exposure through spray drift and volatilization {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dicamba does not present unusual handling hazards."

[edit]

This is WP:weazel if ever I saw it, but not only does this vague statement seem to incorrectly summarise the cited information which follows, but the statement itself fails a citation test because the link 404s.

I vote we delete this, uncited material that may well constitute corporate astroturfing could get someone killed. 2001:8004:CC1:143:E52E:D7D0:5A67:8CD5 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "corporate astroturfing" is. You deleted a source you had not even read if all you got was a 404 error. I have found the original source at the Wayback machine and will revert your deletion before supplying the archive URL. The source is Cornell University, not a company, and refers to handling the material. The same source has considerable detail on the toxicology, including data relevant to human toxicology. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows what astroturfing is, its when trillion dollar companies pay shills to babysit their wikipedia pages, posting misleading content.
The studdies in this page clearly identify dicamba as a carcinogen, to start the paragraph with the unqualified claim that seems to imply the product is safe is totally bogus.
And the give-away that a shill did this is that the bogus claim was inserted right at the top of the section, as if it was a summary. 1.145.188.117 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where the shill and astroturfing accusations from the IP are coming from, but just noting this recent Melbourne IP and the original OP at the top of this have been blocked for WP:BLOCKEVASION. Since it's now the second time this happened, just something to be mindful of on this page if it happens again. KoA (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we shouldnt be making such a statement in wikivoice. Good you removed it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, that phrasing was added to the article in 2007. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it looked to be copyvio too from the Cornell source. Not that there was anything incorrect about it since it doesn't have out of the ordinary handling instructions, but the source was from 40 years ago. It was a bit WP:NOTHOWTO as included, but an updated source would be needed if handling precautions warranted some mention here anyways. KoA (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dicamba&oldid=1211976926"