![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
...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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
...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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)