So the only way they evaluated Roundup was when they also used a hoe? Which they also proved was just as detrimental of a process to the underlying micro-organisms? Why not use roundup alone? I feel like this was written solely to argue “roundup is no more detrimental to soil health than conventional hoeing practices.”
I immediately thought the same thing when I read the study. Most of the glyphosate applications I see are not followed by tilling, discing or other forms of “hoeing.” The R plot is conspicuously absent and it doesn't explain why that choice was made (it explains many other decisions/choices) for the study.
A lack of difference in a W and R plot would have bolstered the findings and seems an obvious thing to test?
Is there anything wrong with arguing that, with evidence?
I don't know why the study was done the way it was, and a follow up should certainly look at roundup alone, I don't think that invalidates this study though.
