Abstract
AbstractPesticide drift has been a concern since the introduction of pesticides. Historical incidences with off-target movement of 2,4-D and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) have increased our understanding of pesticide fate in the atmosphere following aerial application. More recent incidences with dicamba have brought to light gaps in our current understanding of aerial pesticide movement following ground application. In this paper, we review the current understanding of inversions and other weather and environmental factors that contribute to secondary pesticide movement and raise questions that need to be addressed. Factors that influence volatility and terminology associated with the atmosphere, such as cool air drainage, temperature inversions, and radiation cooling will be discussed. We also present literature that highlights the need to consider the role(s) of wind in secondary drift in addition to the role in physical drift. With increased awareness of pesticide movement and more herbicide-resistant traits available than ever before, it has become even more essential that we understand secondary movement of pesticides, recognize our gaps in understanding, and advance from what is currently unknown.
Highlights
Pesticide movement from intended targets onto unintended targets has been a concern as long as pesticides have been applied
In 1953, authors of a Stanford Law Review article summarized the conflict of pesticide drift well: “Science has created weapons which are of inestimable value to many farmers, but which threaten the economic existence of others.” (Stanford Law Review 1953)
It was common for crop dusters to apply pesticides in the early morning or after sundown to avoid physical drift associated with higher midday wind speeds (Stanford Law Review 1953)
Summary
Pesticide movement from intended targets onto unintended targets has been a concern as long as pesticides have been applied. It was common for crop dusters to apply pesticides in the early morning or after sundown to avoid physical drift associated with higher midday wind speeds (Stanford Law Review 1953). This practice likely resulted in pesticides being applied during inversion-like conditions. Air sampling research conducted in the Yakima Valley region in the early 1970s indicated that 2,4-D had traveled approximately 16 km from wheat fields to vineyards and in sufficient quantities to injure grapes (Reisenger and Robinson 1976) It was during these observations that the term “air mass” damage was derived (Robinson and Fox 1978). The state began banning highly volatile 2,4-D formulations and enforcing cutoff dates in specific counties in the early 1970s (Reisenger and Robinson 1976; Robinson and Fox 1978)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
