At least I'm wise enough to post this here instead of on Organic Gardening.

True. We might avoid the war of citations and abstracts. I've held back on the urge to post three abstracts. What a struggle of practicalities over principles!

Yes, what a conundrum. It's a situation worse than self-censoring material that might be construed as political or religious.

Post those abstracts on this thread Marshall. I promise not to post innumerable cites, abstracts or secondary materials attempting to refute them.

I wont promise anything, but I would alos appreciate seeing those abstracts.

Here is another study showing negative effects on frog, brought to you via Prof. joe cummins.

-------------------------------------------------------
The current work comes on the heals of French work showing strong
effects of the herbicide on animal reproduction after exposure to levels
of herbicide on tenth the level recommended for spraying. Glyphosate
should be re-evaluated by EPA at this time. However, the response from
the regulators will likely be a pr campaign defending the pesticide
rather than the frogs.

Can the planet live after the frogs are all wiped out? We may be shocked
at the impact of the end of frogs may have on the framework of life on
the planet.

Ecological Applications, 15(2), 2005, pp. 618Â627
THE IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ON THE
BIODIVERSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

RICK A. RELYEA1
Department of Biological Sciences, 101 Clapp Hall, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 USA

Abstract. Pesticides constitute a major anthropogenic addition to
natural communities.
In aquatic communities, a great majority of pesticide impacts are
determined from singlespecies
experiments conducted under laboratory conditions. Although this is an
essential
protocol to rapidly identify the direct impacts of pesticides on
organisms, it prevents an
assessment of direct and indirect pesticide effects on organisms
embedded in their natural
ecological contexts. In this study, I examined the impact of four
globally common pesticides
(two insecticides, carbaryl [Sevin] and malathion; two herbicides,
glyphosate [Roundup]
and 2,4-D) on the biodiversity of aquatic communities containing algae
and 25 species of
animals.
Species richness was reduced by 15% with Sevin, 30% with malathion, and
22% with
Roundup, whereas 2,4-D had no effect. Both insecticides reduced
zooplankton diversity
by eliminating cladocerans but not copepods (the latter increased in
abundance). The insecticides
also reduced the diversity and biomass of predatory insects and had an
apparent
indirect positive effect on several species of tadpoles, but had no
effect on snails. The two
herbicides had no effects on zooplankton, insect predators, or snails.
Moreover, the herbicide
2,4-D had no effect on tadpoles. However, Roundup completely eliminated
two species of
tadpoles and nearly exterminated a third species, resulting in a 70%
decline in the species
richness of tadpoles. This study represents one of the most extensive
experimental investigations
of pesticide effects on aquatic communities and offers a comprehensive
perspective
on the impacts of pesticides when nontarget organisms are examined under
ecologically
relevant conditions.

This press release states 07/03/05. Does this mean that we are able to look into the future or is there more than one convention (i.e. is it another way of stating 03/07/05?

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I think there is already a warning on RoundUp saying it shouldn't be used in or around water. This latest study is confirmation of its danger to aquatic life. For some reason, some people have interpreted this to mean that there is no similar impact on land based communities.

Henry, Europeans write dates in that order, for example, today is, 5 April 2005 (Marshall's Birthday). I read & posted that study on Organic Conversations. Good to see it posted here too.

Henry- common alternative convention in both US and Britain: day-month-year; probably more commonly used than the shuffled month-day-year. But the confusion caused is probably why the International convention uses year-month-day.

Here is a link that might be useful: International standards (date)

the reason round up shouldnt be used near water is because it contains surfactants to help it adhere to the plant surface. the surfactants are bad for fish and particularly insects that cling to surface tension of water.... there is a glyphosphate product that is approved for use in and around water, its called Rodeo, commonly used to control overgrowth of underwater vegetation...

not that i am a round-up fan, i just thought i would clarify why its bad for water.

now there is a new round-up being advertised that includes weed suppression as well - advertised for up to 3 to 4 month control...i havent had a chance to look into that one... anyone know what the new ingredients are?...i am guessing similar to preen maybe?

Well I'm an organic gardener, but I couldn't survive without Roundup. My understand was that it turned itself into nontoxic chemicals after 24 hours or so. All I know is that here in South Carolina there is no way I could garden without using it. It's tropical down here.

No, Roundup (at least the formulations I have used) is neither so benign nor so short-lived although perhaps the active ingredient, glyphosate, is less impactful that the synergists and other ingredients. In years past I ran "field trials" with different ground-covers where Roundup was used to kill out bermuda grass and other noxious weeds before re-seeding or re-plugging. There was a good 6-month residual effect on most ground-covers. Revegetated spots took that long before appearing similar to the main cover. The spots untreated but revegetated at the same time took less than two months to fill in.

I live, landscape, landscape manage, and organic farm in S.Cal., a lot more tropical than S.C. We learned to live without widespread use of Roundup and other pre- and post-emergent weeds through management practices. I admit to using Roundup on weeds coming up through paving and other difficult situations. We might even spray out a bermuda lawn (but none of the others) if clients insist because of costs. OTOH, the kill never gets all the stolons and does nothing about the vast store of bermuda grass seed in the soil profile.

In light of the opening article, and the article Henry posted, I'm assuming since aquatic life has an endocrine system which can be damaged by glyphosate, it isn't just the surfacant that is probelmatic. Endocrine damage isn't as immediatley dramatic to an observer as the sudden death of tadpoles noted in the study Marshall posted.

I've never used RU, or any herbicide. I had no idea so many people did before I joined GWeb.

Roundup has been one of the most popular herbicides in the world as a general post-germination herbicide. Formulations of 2-4-DT are widely used as post-emergent herbicides for controlling broadleaf plants (dicots) in lawns and in maize.

Marshall,

2-4-D and simular are widely used for "burndown" before sowing soybeans. While 2-4-D is probably more benign than most herbicides, I haven't forgotten the time the field adjacent to me was sprayed late in the day with almost no wind. This would seem good. However that night it vilotated [vaporized in part] and caused me some damage.