Glyphosate and trees

[18 stoner]

I attended a lecture a couple of years back about veteran trees and the comment was made that "if you drive a quad bike through a woodland the damage to the soil will still be evident some 50 years later". The comment was off topic and it wasn't until after that I started thinking about this and my own mulching practices. So it was with this comment in mind and the thoughts of the transfer of disease through wood chip that I cut back on mulching. I still mulch some trees if access is suitable and I am not suggesting anybody should stop rather its just another thing to keep in mind.

From my own very small scale trials newly planted trees will benefit greatly the bigger the weed free area around them, a tree in a border will always establish better/faster than a tree in a lawn with a little circle of mulch. But to try and replicate this in a woodland takes a lot of chip and thats allot of wheel barrows.

 

Very good points, soil compaction is a big issue, but a standard wheel barrow has a relatively high ground pressure compared to a quad on floatation tyres.

 

A very interesting debate.

[David oakman]

I really can not see a quad bike causing soil compaction. Iknow more about this than most as i have veteran trees everywhere and it took me three long years of fighting to get the car park moved. The cars used to all park around my 400-6oo year old veterans. The new carpark is on grass with no trees and my veterans can be in pease but i only got it moved on the danger of the old trees not on soil compaction.

[Dave.G.]

I wasn't really thinking about the direct result of soil compaction but more about the resultant damage to mychorrizae and other soil organisms as a result of soil compaction. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. If these organisms are so easily unbalanced (damaged) then it seems to me that carrying a couple of ton of mulch over ground certainly isn't going to do any good. 1 trip in a tractor and trailer or 5 trips in a quad or 20 trips with a barrow, surely it amounts to the same compaction.

I'm not trying to make a point just airing my thoughts

[D Mc]

I break down soil in my mind into two different categories. The mineral aspects which range from clay to course sand and everything in between. This is dirt. This is what the large corporate farmers like to plant their corn in. It is fairly static and requires constant tillage and nutrient additives to produce growth.

 

Soil, on the other hand, is created, it is grown. It has horizons. These horizons vary in depth by the volume of the decomposing matter above, and the volume of microbial life below. When there is life within the soil, even microscopic, things are constantly changing and correcting. They can be disturbed but as long as there is life corrections will be made.

 

It is easy to be concerned to the point of inactivity when worrying about soil compaction. But things have to be done. If you are actually working in or on soil, the life will carry on. Compacted dirt, on the other hand, will remain so for an indefinite time until something else comes along to alter it. We are fortunate that we deal with trees, large woody plants that thrive in a heavy forest litter layer. When the litter layer is down, many of the nondecomposed portions will redistribute the weight and reduce compaction.

 

There are no easy answers in our quest to be kind to our environment. They are multifaceted and complex.

 

Dave

[Albedo]

As Quickthorn says its hard to get access to the articles referenced in Nomads link as often you have to pay subscriptions and at best you get an abstract.

The link no longer works but if you google ‘pesticide profile glyphosate’ you get one of the articles with the URL starting – abc birds. If you Google ‘the glyphosate threat’ you get the other article with URL that starts – rag.org

 

Heres a few things I’ve found: Only freely available extracts posted for copyright reasons,

1) A piece of independant research.

2) A review article.

3) A statement from Monsanto.

4) More food for thought.

 

All 4 are available in full at the links provided here.

 

1) THE LETHAL IMPACT OF ROUNDUP ON AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL AMPHIBIANS. RICK A. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 USA

 

Abstract.

The global decline in amphibian diversity has become an international environmental problem with a multitude of possible causes. There is evidence that pesticides may play a role, yet few pesticides have been tested on amphibians. For example, Roundup is a globally common herbicide that is conventionally thought to be nonlethal to amphibians.

However, Roundup has been tested on few amphibian species, with existing tests conducted mostly under laboratory conditions and on larval amphibians. Recent laboratory studies have indicated that Roundup may be highly lethal to North American tadpoles, but we need to determine whether this effect occurs under more natural conditions and in post-metamorphic amphibians.

I assembled communities of three species of North American tadpoles in outdoor pond mesocosms that contained different types of soil (which can absorb the pesticide) and applied Roundup as a direct overspray. After three weeks, Roundup killed 96–100% of larval amphibians (regardless of soil presence). I then exposed three species of juvenile (post-metamorphic) anurans to a direct overspray of Roundup in laboratory containers. After one day, Roundup killed 68–86% of juvenile amphibians. These results suggest that Roundup, a compound designed to kill plants, can cause extremely high rates of mortality to amphibians that could lead to population declines.

 

Full article available at: http://www.pitt.edu/~biohome/Dept/pdf/1703.pdf

 

Ecological Applications, 15(4), 2005, pp. 1118–1124 q 2005 by the Ecological Society of America

 

2) Also found this:

Glyphosate A review of its health and environmental effects By Andre Leu

 

Conclusion

Glyphosate is widely used in the mistaken belief that it is harmless, safe and readily breaks down leaving no residues. Consequently, it is sprayed in public areas while people are present and by operators without protective clothing. These people are exposed to the drift of this herbicide. The facts show that Glyphosate causes a range of health problems to humans, plants and animals, it causes environmental problems and that it is highly persistent. It is time that the widespread use of this toxic chemical on roadsides, footpaths, parks, gardens, schools, farms, forestry, national parks etc was stopped or highly restricted.

 

Full article available at : http://www.geocities.com/opaq2001/glyphosate.htm

 

3) Monsanto’s version of events is available at:

 

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/gly_efate_bkg.pdf

 

In relation to effects on aquatic systems Monsanto says. “In situations where a glyphosate herbicide is applied to weeds growing in water, the exposure of non-target aquatic species is expected to be reduced due to interception by target vegetation and dissipation over time via binding to sediment and microbial degradation”

4) More Food For Thought: Health and Environmental Impacts of Glyphosate is a report by the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] produced for Friends of the Earth. Topsy Jewell is an independent environmental researcher and a member of the Pesticides Trust Board. [This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 41, September 1998, page 5]

Article available in full at: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn41/PN41p5.htm

[shabz1978]

hi lads, i've read this thread with great interest since i've used glyphosate based products regularly for the last 15 years, mainly on large scale forestry and roadside contracts, spraying hundreds of hectares per year. i'm confused though, what economically viable alternatives are there? there cannot possibly be enough money in timber to afford squads of men spreading mulch over the millions of trees that the FC plant every season which is surely the biggest use of herbicides? and, as has been said, weed control is paramount to the growth of timber. surely it is a necessary evil? it's a small amount of people looking after a very large number of trees.

[Bundle 2]

hi lads, i've read this thread with great interest since i've used glyphosate based products regularly for the last 15 years, mainly on large scale forestry and roadside contracts, spraying hundreds of hectares per year. i'm confused though,

 

 

Dont be confused mate.....apart from the enlightening information and view points being expressed in this thread ( aswell as some downright rude outbursts ) Rest assured nothing that is expressed or unearthed in the course of this thread will really impact the actions or policies of huge corporate business.

If as you say, so much is applied by so few...the thread is by no means a waste of space or indeed that confusing...

Take your time and assimilate the info .... It simply isnt all its been cracked up to be.

The F.C is far from a viable concern as far as forestry production is concerned...Ifail to see the urgency where they are concerned...but as was expressed above...I also have no wish to undermine the commission for any reason....

The roadside /verge issues may be more persistent however....I feel absolutely certain that I am not telling anyone anything new...They are essential corridors , used by wildlife in this country as both habitat aswell as migratory routes....

Add to this the figure/precentage of roadside plantings that are "expected" to fail post planting ( this is a failure to become established ) It was as high as 80% last time I was reading this material...so then...it is no great leap of logic to see that continued and repeated use of a pesticide whose real nature " may" well be unreliable and misunderstood is a justified cause for concern!

[shabz1978]

that's a good point, about the failiure rate of roadside trees, they're certainly always a heavier beat-up, but surely there are greater environmental concerns in these areas than how the bankings are maintained? anything that can help the trees to NOT fail surely must be a good idea?

the way i see it is that all pesticides are subject to testing before being licensed, there are guidelines regarding ppe to be used, buffer zones, accidental spill measures etc. you need trained operatives to apply the stuff, so what is the problem with using it in forestry? the sites i have treated were usually done 2 or 3 times after planting, then not touched for forty years, surely any detrimental effect should be greatly reduced by the time it may be treated again?

i remember, you used to be able to eat eggs, then, one day you couldn't, they were full of salmonella!! you used to be able to eat T-bone steaks untill we found out they were all infected with BSE!! i remember seeing a PETA leaflet handed out at schools explaining the dangers of drinking that evil milk stuff.

[Bundle 2]

shabz1978...to some extent I sympathize with your view with regards the fickle nature of best practice for want of a better expression...but feel very strongly that there can be no room for complacency in this respect when the possible damage resulting from the use of chemical controls may well be irreversible in terms of the environmental impacts.

I am not also condemning the use of this herbicide perse, although my personal view is that there may be little to recommend it in the final analysis; nor I hasten to add am I trying to suggest that you are using it without referring in the proper manner, to the guidelines provided for this "herbicide". I too have used it as posted previously in the belief that all was well ( within reason...instinct says chemical control can never be without consequence somehow..)

It is also my view that it may be all too easy to seek to apportion blame to large conglomerate corporations.

There may well be legitimate concerns regarding the nature of this herbicides' use however as it relates to fragile and or volatile, credit ridden economies. Such issues are likely to detract from the real business of the subject, muddying the waters and putting us all in a weak position as we go unheard and powerless to change anything about our practices because of the constraints of commerce. Catch 22.

Enough....I actually only meant that with a failure rate as high as 80%, glyphosate seems barely to help...so why use it atall, question mark(?)

In all seriousness, I find the issues of the effects on aquatic and amphibian lfe cycles quite clearly cannot pass unnoticed....Great thread...sorry for waffling people.

[shabz1978]

it is a shame that economic restraints prohibit the use of alternative methods of weed control. i'd love to go back to hooking weeds, you could make a fortune from 15 or 20 lads with sickles!! fos com do some good research work with nemetodes and net tree guards to tackle the problems the beetle brings, i wonder if they do much with the weed control? personally i think the ground preparation seems to have a lot to do with the amount of weeds on sites. the different methods tend to have different results.

 

quality discussion by the way.