Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Pesticide Degradation

J.M. Vargas, Jr.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1975, 1 (12) 232-233; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1975.058
J.M. Vargas Jr.
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Pesticide degradation is the breaking down of toxic pesticides into a nontoxic compounds and, in some cases, down to the original elements from which they were derived. The most common type of degradation is carried out in the soil by microorganisms, especially the fungi and bacteria. Pesticides which are rapidly degraded are called non-persistent while those which resist degradation are termed persistent. The degradation of methyl-bromide and dalapon along with the degradation and resynthesis of chloroneb is explained. The advantages and disadvantages of persistent pesticides are discussed.

Degradation of pesticides is the breaking down of toxic chemicals into nontoxic compounds and, in some cases, back into their original elements. The degradation or breakdown of pesticides can occur in plants, animals, and in the soil and water; or it can take place upon exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation. There are some strictly chemical reactions which take place in soil that aid in degradation, however, the most common type of degradation there occurs through the activity of microorganisms, especially the fungi and bacteria. There is nothing mysterious about microbial degradation of pesticides. Microorganisms simply supply a medium and an energy source for rather simple chemical reactions to take place. They, in return, obtain food, essential elements, or energy to carry on their life functions.

The soil fumigant methyl bromide, the herbicide dalapon, and the fungicide chloroneb are examples of pesticides which are degraded by microorganisms. The degradation of CH Br (methyl bromide) is a simple process involving the liberation of methane gas (CH4) leaving the bromine behind to be bound to soil particles or to become part of some new compound.

A second example, dalapon, is a more complicated compound, but it’s detoxification still involves simple chemical reactions. Dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) can be detoxified by the removal of the chlorine molecules to leave pyruvate or pyruvic acid. Pyruvate can be 1) aminated into amino acid, which in turn can be converted into protein, 2) it can be decarboxylated and be utilized in the formation of lipids or 3) it can enter the Kreb Cycle and become part of this energy producing cycle. Another possiblility is the complete degradation of dalapon into CO2 and CH4, two gases which occur naturally in the environment.

The third reaction involves a fungicide chloroneb, which is less well known, but it’s the only pesticide for which both degradation and resynthesis by microorganisms has been shown. It should be pointed out that chloroneb is structurally similar to two more popular pesticides; the herbicide dicamba and the insecticide methoxychlor. Chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5-di-methoxybenzene) is broken down (demethylated) by microrganisms to 2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (DCMP). Other microorganisms, including some of the same ones responsible for degradation, are able to resynthesize chloroneb by remethylating DCMP. Fortunately, less than 20% of the DCMP is converted back to chloroneb. It does illustrate that degradation can be a simple chemical reaction (demethylation) and that the reverse process (methylation) can also take place.

Pesticides which are readily degradated in the environment are called non-persistent in comparison with those which are not readily degradated, which are called persistent. It is these two general categories to which I would now like to direct my remarks.

Below is a list of persistent and non-persistent pesticides:

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

The advantage of persistent pesticides is their long term effectiveness in pest control. It could be season-long weed control with simazine, weeks of disease control with mercury fungicide, or seasons of insect control with chlordane. However, the persistent pesticides have an obvious draw back; they contaminate the environment for long periods of time. There are also other disadvantages to persistent pesticides. Resistance to persistent insecticides has occurred much more frequently than to non-persistent insecticides. The housefly’s resistance to DDT and the Japanese beetle grub’s resistance to chlordane are two examples. Persistent herbicides have caused problems where overdoses have been applied because immediate re-establishment of desirable species is not possible; or where sensitive non-pest species have been introduced into an area once treated with a persistent herbicide. Where non-persistent herbicides have been used, replanting or crop rotation after an overdose is not a serious problem.

Persistent fungicides like the mercuries appear to have the least serious side effects, from a practical point of view, of any of the persistent pesticides. But what effect does building up a layer of mercury in the soil from continual use of mercury have on plant growth? Or more important, since mercury is not readily removed from the human body, what effect is continual exposure having on you?

My personal philosophy is that we are in the business of maintaining healthy plants, and if it takes a persistent pesticide to accomplish this, then that is what should be used. On the other hand, if a non-persistent pesticide is available which will do the same job, even if more applications are required, then I think we ought to be using it. For it is not only the responsibility of the “other guy” to protect and improve the environment around him, it is everyones duty, and it is especially the duty of those of us who are involved in making this a more enjoyable world to live in by protecting the plants we grow. For as Will Rogers once said about the land we live on, “They don’t make that stuff any more”!

Footnotes

Listen
  • ↵1. Presented at the International Shade Tree Conference in Detroit, Michigan in August, 1975.

  • © 1975, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 1, Issue 12
December 1975
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pesticide Degradation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Pesticide Degradation
J.M. Vargas
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1975, 1 (12) 232-233; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1975.058

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pesticide Degradation
J.M. Vargas
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1975, 1 (12) 232-233; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1975.058
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Correction
  • Efficacy of Bacillus Thuringiensis and Diflubenzuron on Douglas-Fir and Oak for Gypsy Moth Control in Oregon
  • Effects Of Special Right-Of-Way Maintenance On An Avian Population
Show more Article

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire