I have a large area of turf in a rural area that alwys will get some weed infestation. Usually I spot treated with 2,4 or a similar product. But this Spring did tried a new product6 and it was fantastic! It is SpeedZone. It works very well in cold weather. I used just less than 1 oz. per gallon in a hose-end sprayer over the entire turf area. It is rain-fast in 3 hours. After 1 week the chickweed, henbit, etc., that was starting to take over was completely destroyed. I then fertilized in mid-March and with the warm April weather the density of the new turf and lack of competition has filled in completely. After the first application, there was some yellowing of the ends of the blades of the fine fescue in the lawn. But after 1 mowing it was back to normal. Also I advise not use use a surfactant or adjuvant with this product which may reduce it selectivity on broadleaf weeds only. Also, I would not get it near shrubs as the product can be absorbed from the roots and damage the plant. In mid-April I inspected the lawn again and spot treated with the same product for late germinating weeds. I used less than half of the amount of liquid I would normally use to spot treat at this time of year. With spot treatment I noticed no yellowing of the grass blades.

It was probably a window of ~ 24 hours between the application of the weed killer and when I watered them. I did try to water both the foliage and the soil beneath the plant. We've also gotten some sporadic rain during the nights during that time as well. I didn't spray the perennials directly; There must have been some drift that day - it was pretty breezy out. I've noticed that the hostas have developed a slight mottling of the leaves. They have specks that remind me of touching notebook paper with greasy fingers - an off-color, translucent look. But the Annabelle just curled up a bit. In fact, some of the hydrangea's leaves and stems appear unaffected at all. Maybe I dodged a bullet...?

Yowza!!! The only statement that approaches any degree of accuracy in the above post is the one that suggests you do the research. Which the above poster has obviously not done. "Ask yourself basic logical questions like, how in the world can a toxic chemical intuitively know not to poison your tomato or your dog, but to target that bad dandelion only (for example)." The answer to that is simple and is the same principle behind the development of beneficial pharmaceuticals that target disease organisms. It's called 'mode of action' - glyphosate's mode of action is to disrupt a metabolic pathway that allows for the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. This metabolic pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals explains the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms. "It is extremely hazardous, and it is toxic to all life" Again, a completely erroneous statement. After some 40 years of the most extensive scientific testing any pesticide has ever undergone, glyphosate is considered to be of very low toxicity and therefore is NOT considered to be "extremely hazardous". And it is obviously not "toxic to all life" - it just simply does not work that way (see above re: mode of action) and if it did, it would not be on the market. And the declaration that it is a causation for cancer is still under debate by world health authorities. First, it has never been documented that gylphosate is carcinogenic with humans - that's probably the major bone of contention with this assessment. The association was made based on very limited epidemiological studies which have been disputed by non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. The bulk of the determination was based on studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. And these findings were considered by various other agencies involved in this assessment (IMPR, FAO/WHO) who concluded that “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting (IMPR) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (does glyphosate cause cancer?) Finally, had the above poster done her research, she would be aware that glyphosate is a non-specific herbicide. It does not just target weeds nor was it intended to just target weeds. This is a basic premise of any understanding of herbicides and to bother to post without knowing this elementary fact gives no credence to the rest of her rant. Junk science will always be junk science and simply spewing back sensationalized conclusions plucked from the online press without knowledge or understanding is merely ignorant fear mongering.

Really that will all depend on what he used. If it's not a systemic weed killer and it did not get onto the leaves of the plum, the fruit will probably be fine. If he used systemic weed killer then the plum tree may be damaged. You should really find out specifically what he used. The brand name too.