ground cover versus Roundup

Page 1 of 2  
Are there any ground covers that are compatible with (not killed by) Roundup?
We have some bare areas, (idiot) gardner has always just sprayed Roundup there. I didn't even realize that's what he was doing, until recently.
So, maybe I can try some ground covers, creeping thyme, red clover, seedum, maybe some mosses. Are any of these more or less compatible with Roundup in between or nearby, or even right on top?
Thanx.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My brother used to plant plots of clover before deer season. He would till the area and spray with Roundup about a month and a half - two months before he planted. The white clover always done just fine :)
Rich
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 3:43 PM, JRStern wrote:

What kinds of weeds are the problem? If they are grasses, there are herbicides that kill only grass and leave most broad-leaf plants alone.
As for plants that are resistent to RoundUp, you will have to ask Monsanto. They are constantly developing RoundUp-resistent crops through genetic engineering.
--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not if the gardener is going to keep spraying Roundup there. However, if you are asking if you can plant where Roundup was sprayed in the past, then yes, you can plant in that spot. Roundup is considered to be a non-residual herbicide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not really necessary...

There are no ground covers which will survive a glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) application. If Roundup is sprayed near plants and applied properly, it will not drift and your plants should be fine. As far as planting in soil which has been sprayed with glyphosate, it can be done almost immediately as there are no residual effects.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, thanks.
I should probably have the gardener put in the ground cover, he'll maybe be more responsible about it that way.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
Toxicity Glyphosate is rated least dangerous in comparison to other herbicides and pesticides, such as those from the organochlorine family.[33] Roundup has a United States Environmental Protection Agency? (EPA) Toxicity Class of III for oral and inhalation exposure.[34] It has been rated as class I (Severe) for eye irritation.
A recent study, on the other hand, has shown that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. The effects are not proportional to Glyphosate concentrations but dependent on the nature of the adjuvants used in the formulation.[35] [edit]
Humans Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency? Toxicity Class of III in 1993,[34] . It has been rated as class I (Severe) for eye irritation. Glyphosate is being evaluated for effects to unborn fetuses and their development. It is currently on the USEPA Endocrine Disrupter Screening list, published in 2007.[36][37]
Outside its intended use, glyphosate can be lethal. For example, with intentional poisonings there is approximately a 10% mortality for those ingesting glyphosate, compared to 70% for those ingesting paraquat.[38] Laboratory toxicology studies suggest that other ingredients combined with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone. For example, a study comparing glyphosate and Roundup found that Roundup had a greater effect on aromatase than glyphosate alone.[9]
Statistics from the California Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program indicate that glyphosate-related incidents are one of the highest reported of all pesticides.[39][40] However, incident count does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms associated with each incident.[40] For example, if hospitalization were used as a measure of the severity of pesticide related incidents, then glyphosate would be considered relatively safe, since, over a 13 year period in California, none of the 515 pesticide-related hospitalizations recorded were attributed to glyphosate.[40]
Greenpeace states that the acute human toxicity of glyphosate is very low, but note that, as mentioned above, other added chemicals (particularly surfactants, e.g. polyoxy-ethyleneamine, POEA), can be more toxic than glyphosate itself.[17] Over-application, or application directly to the soil may impact earthworms.
A review of the toxicological data on Roundup shows that there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms.[41] This review concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms". It also concluded that there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow water. More recent research suggests glyphosate induces a variety of functional abnormalities in fetuses and pregnant rats.[42] Also in recent mammalian research, glyphosate has been found to interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture[43] and to interfere with an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme in cultures of human placental cells.[44] There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of

toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent, and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[45] [edit]
Other species The direct toxicity of pure glyphosate to mammals and birds is low.[46][unreliable source?] The acute oral toxicity of Roundup is > 5,000mg/kg in the rat.[47] It showed no toxic effects when fed to animals for 2 years, and only produced rare cases of reproductive effects when fed in extremely large doses to rodents and dogs. It has not demonstrated any increase in cancer rates in animal studies and is poorly absorbed in the digestive tract. Glyphosate has no significant potential to accumulate in animal tissue.[48][49]
An in vitro study indicates that glyphosate formulations could harm earthworms[50] and beneficial insects.[51] However, the reported effect of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized.[41] The results conflict with results from field studies where no effects were noted for the number of nematodes, mites, or springtails after treatment with Roundup at 2 kilograms active ingredient per hectare.[52] Glyphosate can negatively affect nitrogen-fixing bacteria,[53] and increase the susceptibility of plants to disease.[54] A 2005 study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from glyphosate use.[55]
Certain surfactants used in some glyphosate formulations have higher toxicity to fish and invertebrates, resulting in some formulations of glyphosate not being registered for use in aquatic applications.[56] Monsanto produces glyphosate products with alternative surfactants that are specifically formulated for aquatic use, for example "Biactive" and "AquaMaster".[57] According to Monsanto, "Conservation groups have chosen glyphosate formulations because of their effectiveness against most weeds as glyphosate has very low toxicity to wildlife".[58] Glyphosate is used with five different salts, but commercial formulations of it contain surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. As a result, human poisoning with this herbicide is not with the active ingredient alone, but with complex and variable mixtures.[45]
Glyphosate's effect on soil life may be limited, because when glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it rapidly binds to soil particles and is inactivated.[59][60] Unbound glyphosate is degraded by bacteria. Low activity because of binding to soil particles suggests that glyphosate's effects on soil flora are limited. Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in U.S. and Europe.[citation needed] The United States Environmental Protection Agency,[59] the EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate, and the UN World Health Organization have all concluded that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Opponents of glyphosate claim that Roundup has been found to cause genetic damage, citing Peluso et al.[61] The authors concluded that the damage was "not related to the active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide mixture".
Mammal research indicates oral intake of 1% glyphosate induces changes in liver enzyme activities in pregnant rats and their fetuses.[62] [edit]
Aquatic effects Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to Roundup than terrestrial organisms.[41] Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[34]
The EU classifies Roundup as R51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.[63] Roundup is not registered for aquatic uses[64] and studies of its effects on amphibians indicate it is toxic to them.[65] Other glyphosate formulations that are registered for aquatic use have been found to have negligible adverse effects on sensitive amphibians.[66] [edit]
Endocrine disruptor debate In vitro studies have shown glyphosate affects progesterone production in mammalian cells[67] and can increase the mortality of placental cells.[9] Whether these studies classify glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor is debated.
Some[who?] feel that in vitro studies are insufficient, and are waiting to see if animal studies show a change in endocrine activity, since a change in a single cell line may or may not impact an entire organism. Additionally, current in vitro studies expose cell lines to concentrations orders of magnitude greater than would be found in expected exposures, and through pathways that would not be typically experienced in real organisms.
Others[who?] feel that in vitro studies, particularly ones identifying not only an effect, but a chemical pathway, are sufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor, on the basis that even small changes in endocrine activity can have lasting effects on an entire organism that may be difficult to detect through whole organism studies alone. Further research on the endocrine effects of glyphosate is ongoing, including through the EPA endocrine screening program on 73 chemicals, published in 2007. [edit]
Environmental degradation When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[34] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[68] However, glyphosate has been shown to increase the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight in fields that have been treated with glyphosate.[69]
In soils, half-lives vary from as little as 3 days at a site in Texas to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[70] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid has been shown to persist up to 2 years in Swedish forest soils.[71] Glyphosate adsorption varies depending on the kind of soil.[72] [edit]
Resistance in weeds and microorganisms The first documented cases of weed resistance to glyphosate were found in Australia, involving rigid ryegrass near Orange, New South Wales.[73] Some farmers in the United States have expressed concern that weeds are now developing with glyphosate resistance, with 13 states now reporting resistance, and this poses a problem to many farmers, including cotton farmers, that are now heavily dependent on glyphosate to control weeds.[74][75] Farmers associations are now reporting 103 biotypes of weeds within 63 weed species with herbicide resistance[74][75]. This problem is likely to be exacerbated by the use of roundup-ready crops [76]. [edit]
Legal cases [edit]
False advertising In 1996 Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general.[77]
On Fri Jan 20, 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising of Roundup for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the European Union. Monsanto France planned to appeal the verdict at the time.[78] [edit]
Scientific fraud On two occasions the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[79][80][81] In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".[82][83][84] In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 50,000 dollars, the lab was fined 15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay 3.7 million in restitution.[85][86] Craven laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies, including Monsanto.
Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also claims that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities.[87]
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The main concept of ground cover is to behave as an invasive living mulch that smothers other plant growth... simply till and plant ground cover... there is no beneficial reason to spray the area with defolient prior to planting. Any "weed" seeds already in the ground and/or new arrivals will not be affected by defolient anyway and once you plant ground cover you can't use a defolient on newly emerging weeds without killing your new ground cover plants. Regardless what you do there will always be weeds to deal with, the trick is to reduce the probability of weed growth without negatively affecting your new plantings. I would cover the newly tilled area with a layer of straw and then put in my ground cover plants... the straw will act as a short term mulch that will significantly inhibit weed growth until the ground cover gets a good start. Straw is cheap, needs no tools to apply other than your hands and becomes composted quickly which amends the soil, much better than costly, dangerous, and pervasive chemicals. Even if your ground cover is a newly seeded lawn covering the seed with straw will encourage faster germination by retaining moisture and will deter the birds from eating your seed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
... the straw will act as a

Make sure you get clean straw (straw can be full of weeds & seeds), and don't work it in to the soil - lay it on top. Straw worked in to the soil will rob nitrogen for a time as it decays.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

How about some bark chips? unlikely to include seeds.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Up to you & depends. If the area will remain exposed, bark mulch will certainly look nice (if a fresh layer is 'top-dressed' yearly). And if applied thickly it will hold back weeds fairly well (you will still have some weeds regardless - Mother Nature is tenacious).
If it's all going to be buried under your ground cover eventually anyway, clean straw is probably better. DEFINITELY don't till in wood chips unless you want to be adding N fertilizer for the rest of your life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are seeds in the ground naturally, with new seeds added to the mix constantly, naturally, from many sources, by many means, by wind, bird excrement, etc. What one needs to grasp is that the straw will deter germination/propagation of most seeds, even its own seeds, while giving the ground cover plants time to take hold. Once ground cover begins to propogate it takes care of whatever few weeds escape... certain plants are called ground cover for a reason, thier growth habit surpasses competition. A secondary purpose of ground cover could be to deter erosion but primarily to ensure that no other plants compete, which is why it's important to choose the correct ground cover for the locale... often folks indescriminately choose a ground cover because they think it's handsome but if it can't compete with native plants it would not become a sucessful ground cover.

That's what I said, why would someone work straw into the soil when it's purpose is a mulch? The concept of using straw as a mulch as averse to a more sturdy mulching material, is that it will decompose at about the same rate a ground cover grows. Didn't you read and undertand what I wrote?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It will only deter germination on seeds which are at the bottom of the pile, most of which will be. However, trust me, I have seen people increase their weed issues with dirty straw.

Yes, quite correct.

I understood it perfectly - no need to be snotty about it. We're having a reasonable discussion here.
I wrote that as a caution, because *I've seen people do it* (and stunt their plants in the process). They do it because they think if they work a load of straw in next to their plants it will deter weeds and provide nutrients in the process - not realizing the high C:N ratio will tie up nitrogen for awhile. My reply was a caution to the person who who was asking the original question in the thread. Chill out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're being snotty, and rude. If your reply was meant for the OP then that's to whom you should have replied, and in a timely fashion. Actually you added nothing, you attempted to credit yourself by hijacking my suggestions, you are also smarmy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow.
Suit yourself. Have a nice day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 6:43 PM, JRStern wrote:

After many attempts at eradicating it I've determined that the English Ivy (which is attempting to swallow the wooded area in front of my house and acting like kudzu) is pretty much immune to Roundup, even when mixed to the "brush killer" strength. The waxy cuticle on the leaves seems to prevent them from taking up the glyphosate and even adding a wetting agent to the spray doesn't seem to make it work much better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, Roundup is known to be relatively weak on vines (such as wild morningglories). One thing you can do is add a couple ounces of ammonium sulfate (if it's available to you) to the water & dissolve before adding in the Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) is very polar and will attach to minerals such as calcium in the water, 'tying it up' and not letting it be available to enter the plant cells. If added first, ammonium sulfate will attach to the ions in the water and leave the glyphosate free to do its job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 10:34 AM, John McGaw wrote:

I've had luck mowing (string trimmer works quick) the ivy first, then applying the roundup to the new growth. The new leaves seem to be less "waxy", and are easier to attack.
Of course, this is a process I have to repeat 3 or 4 times before the ivy will actually give up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david wrote:

I've found that Roundup works much better on a hot sunny day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.