Dodder Control in Alfalfa

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Dodder Control in Alfalfa DODDER CONTROL IN ALFALFA Jean H. Dawson* Introduction The common name "dodder" is applied to any species of the genus Cuscuta. All species of the genus Cuscuta are obgligate parasites. They are flower­ ing plants that usually behave as annuals. A high percentage of the seed is hard. Consequently, seeds tend to be long-lived in soil. After seedlings emerge, they remain in contact with the soil for only a short period before they become attached to a host plant and the connection with the soil is severed. Dodder is very efficient in diverting the photosynthetic production of the host plant to itself. Consequently, crop plants parasitized by dodder can be severely suppressed or killed, and crop yields can be reduced severely or completely eliminated. Some species of dodder parasitize only non-economic plants, and are thus simply interesting botanical curiosities. Others, like field dodder (Cuscuta campestris) and largeseed dodder (Cuscuta indecora), parasitize numerous important crop plants such as alfalfa, tomatoes, potatoes, sugar­ beets, carrots, onions, safflower, and others. In such crops, dodder must be controlled or prevented, or yield losses can be severe. In this paper we shall review the control of dodder in alfalfa grown for both forage and seed production. Established alfalfa parasitized by dodder for 1 year will be severely suppressed, but usually not killed. If the same plants are parasitized a second year, many will die. Alfalfa seedlings frequently are killed during the season of emergence if parasitized by dodder. Parasitism by dodder greatly reduces the production of forage. Dodder is especially troublesome in alfalfa grown for seed production. In addition to the general suppression of vigor, alfalfa tends to drop its blossoms if parasitized by dodder. In addition to severe losses in yield, the quality of alfalfa seed is reduced if contaminated by dodder seed. Dodder requires both high temperature and full sunlight to grow well. The shade from a vigorous cover of alfalfa prevents twining of alfalfa seedlings, and thus prevents attachment to the host plant. Shade also greatly suppresses the growth of dodder that does become attached to the host. Management of the crop to take advantage of the benefit of shading can form an important part of an integrated weed management system for dodder control in alfalfa. *Research Agronomist, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, Washington. 149 In areas with cool climate and short growing season, where alfalfa produces 2 to 4 cuttings of hay per year, the potential problem from dodder is considerably less than it is in areas where alfalfa is cut more than four times per year. The cool temperature when the first and last cuttings are produced favor alfalfa much more than dodder. During the heat of summer, especially in warmer regions, the high temperatures favor dodder over alfalfa, and dodder can be a severe problem during the summer cuttings. In cooler climates, mowing the hay tends to remove the dodder before it has a chance to produce seed. However, in warmer climates, such as the San Joaquin Valley, there is adequate opportunity for seed production during the summer cuttings. Dodder is especially favored by the culture of alfalfa seed production. The parasite has time to grow large and produce abundant seed before the alfalfa seed crop is harvested. The harvesting operation can then very ea~ily disseminate the seed. Considerable research has been conducted to de'elop methods for controlling dodder in alfalfa grown for seed production. So e of these methods also apply to alfalfa for forage. Pr vention and Early Destruction In any situation, prevention is the most effective and most economical method of controlling dodder in alfalfa. Great care should be taken to plant only alfalfa seed that is free of contamination by dodder. Of equal importance is constant vigilance to find and destroy any individual dodder patches before they have a chance to produce seed. Scattered patches of dodder can be controlled by any method that destroys the parasite along with the alfalfa foliage to which it is attached. Cutting the alfalfa below the point of dodder attachment, burning the foliage completely, or applying a contact herbicide that destroys all above ground vegetation are effective methods for destroying individual patches of dodder. Resistant Varieties and Biological Control Because dodder is an obligate parasite, and cannot live except when supported by a host plant, it would seem logical that alfalfa varieties resistant to attack by dodder might eliminate the dodder problem. Research to date on developing resistant varieties of alfalfa has been very limited, and has not yielded promising results. Considering that several different species of dodder will attack many different host species, the possibility of finding resistance to dodder within alfalfa seems rather unlikely. There has been considerable interest in biological control of dodder especially in countries other than the USA. Several organisms have been reported to attack dodder selectively. Unfortunately, their destructive action tends to be slow and incomplete. Consequently, they have not been able to protect alfalfa from the severe and rapid damage that results from parasitism by dodder. Cultural Control Methods There are various cultural methods for controlling dodder that can form an important part of integrated weed management systems. 150 Dodder is one of the few weeds that can be controlled completely by crop rotation. Dodder will not parasitize grasses, and is therefore no problem in corn, small grains, or pasture grasses. Dodder can parasitize numerous broadleaf weed species, and can complete its life cycle and produce seed on such hosts. Thus, in a scheme of crop rotation, complete control of broadleaf weeds is necessary to prevent re-seeding of the dodder in the grass crop. Although dodder does not depend upon its own photosynthesis to live, it cannot develop normally without full sunlight. Shade from dense alfalfa foliage suppresses dodder almost completely. Such shade can extend the period of control initiated by other control methods applied during the period before shade was complete. Tilling the surface soil will kill dodder seedlings before they become attached to a host plant. Shallow tillage with implements such as a skew treader, a tine tooth harrow, or rotary hoe can control dodder effectively during the early spring before alfalfa becomes large. Such tillage will tend to reduce the growth of alfalfa foliage, and may be undesirable in hay production. Such suppression may not be a problem in seed production, and may even be desirable as a means of delaying the alfalfa to control the time of blossom for maximum pollination. Dodder seedlings mostly emerge from the surface half inch of soil. If the surface soil is dry, seeds cannot germinate. Under irrigated condi­ tions, dodder can be controlled for a period simply by delaying irrigation to maintain a dry soil surface. Prevention of germination by delaying irrigation and suppression of dodder by shade are very inexpensive ways to extend the period of control from a soil-applied herbicide of rather short duration. Alfalfa normally should not be seeded in fields known to be infested with dodder. However, if alfalfa is to be seeded in soil infested with dodder, simply seeding the alfalfa in late summer or fall rather than in the spring will allow the alfalfa to escape devastation by dodder. In Washington, alfalfa seeded in late August or early September in soil heavily infested with dodder was not injured. Although dodder emerged with the alfalfa and parasitized it, the onset of cool weather of autumn inhibited the development of the dodder, while the alfalfa seedlings continue to grow into the late fall. Freezing weather eventually killed the topgrowth of alfalfa and all of the attached dodder. The alfalfa grew normally the following spring, and was then large enough to tolerate treatments for control of dodder in established alfalfa. Soil-applied Herbicides for Dodder Control Most chemical control of dodder is based on soil-applied herbicides that kill dodder seedlings before they become attached to the alfalfa. Chlorpro­ pham (isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate) was the first soil-applied herbicide developed for the control of dodder. Whether applied as a liquid or granular formulation, the standard rate of 6 lb/A usually controls dodder 151 for only about 1 month. Because control is needed for at least 4 months each season, a program of dodder control based on chlorpropham requires two applications per season in conjunction with other cultural control methods. DCPA (dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate) at 10 lb/A is also used for dodder control in alfalfa grown for seed. Control from DCPA usually persists somewhat longer than that from chlorpropham, but other methods still must be applied in conjunction with the application of DCPA for full-season dodder control. Dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) and pronamide [3,5-dichloro (N-1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide] are also sometimes applied to the soil to control dodder selectively in alfalfa. Chlorpropham does not persist long in soil because it is lost as a vapor, and soil microorganisms decompose it. Research has demonstrated that PCMC (p-chlorophenyl N-methylcarbamate) applied with chlorpropham significantly prolongs the period of dodder control from the herbicide. PCMC has not become commercially available for this use. The insecticide carbaryl (1-napthyl N-methylcarbamate)
Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, TIDE USA HEXAZINONE 2SL,03/06
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION March 6, 2019 Ms. Katy DeGroot Regulatory Consultant Tide International, USA, Inc. c/o Pyxis Regulatory Consulting Inc. 4110 136th St. Ct. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Subject: Notification per PRN 98-10 – Add optional referral statements. Product Name: Tide USA Hexazinone 2SL EPA Registration Number: 84229-35 Application Date: February 1, 2019 Decision Number: 548309 Dear Ms. DeGroot: The Agency is in receipt of your Application for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 for the above referenced product. The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request for its applicability under PRN 98-10 and finds that the action requested falls within the scope of PRN 98-10. The label submitted with the application has been stamped “Notification” and will be placed in our records. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency. If the website is false or misleading, the product would be misbranded and unlawful to sell or distribute under FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E). 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5) list examples of statements EPA may consider false or misleading. In addition, regardless of whether a website is referenced on your product’s label, claims made on the website may not substantially differ from those claims approved through the registration process. Therefore, should the Agency find or if it is brought to our attention that a website contains false or misleading statements or claims substantially differing from the EPA approved registration, the website will be referred to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure to Herbicides in House Dust and Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2013) 23, 363–370 & 2013 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/13 www.nature.com/jes ORIGINAL ARTICLE Exposure to herbicides in house dust and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia Catherine Metayer1, Joanne S. Colt2, Patricia A. Buffler1, Helen D. Reed3, Steve Selvin1, Vonda Crouse4 and Mary H. Ward2 We examine the association between exposure to herbicides and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dust samples were collected from homes of 269 ALL cases and 333 healthy controls (o8 years of age at diagnosis/reference date and residing in same home since diagnosis/reference date) in California, using a high-volume surface sampler or household vacuum bags. Amounts of agricultural or professional herbicides (alachlor, metolachlor, bromoxynil, bromoxynil octanoate, pebulate, butylate, prometryn, simazine, ethalfluralin, and pendimethalin) and residential herbicides (cyanazine, trifluralin, 2-methyl-4- chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), mecoprop, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), chlorthal, and dicamba) were measured. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by logistic regression. Models included the herbicide of interest, age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, year and season of dust sampling, neighborhood type, and residence type. The risk of childhood ALL was associated with dust levels of chlorthal; compared to homes with no detections, ORs for the first, second, and third tertiles were 1.49 (95% CI: 0.82–2.72), 1.49 (95% CI: 0.83–2.67), and 1.57 (95% CI: 0.90–2.73), respectively (P-value for linear trend ¼ 0.05). The magnitude of this association appeared to be higher in the presence of alachlor.
    [Show full text]
  • MC(' Potential Exposure of Humans to 2
    (MC( FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY 1:3 3 9-3 4 6 (1981) Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in the Oregon Coast Ranges MICHAEL NEWTON" and LOGAN A. NORRISB "Professor of Forest Ecology, Oregon State University, Corvallis; BChief Research Chemist, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon ABSTRACT Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in Humans may be exposed to herbicides through drift; inges- the Oregon Coast Ranges. Newton, M. and Norris, L.A. tion of wild and domestic meat, vegetables, and fruit; con- (1981). F.undam. AppL Toxicol. 1:339-346. Research on the sumption of water; and dermal contact while handling the use of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) contami- chemicals, equipment, and treated vegetation. The range of -8 nated with 2.5 X 10 parts 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- potential exposure extends from zero, if there is no encounter dioxin (TCDD) in forests of the Oregon Coast Ranges per- with the herbicide, to the worst situation where the person has mits estimates of human exposures for both compounds. encountered the highest levels of water contamination, drift Estimated total exposure of nearby ( ^ 1/8 mile distant) resi- exposure, meat contamination, and dermal exposure simul- dents during the first week after application is 0.0039 mg/kg taneously. We have brought estimates of all sources together of 2,4,5-T for a 70-kg adult. Exposure to TCDD in the same to determine the possible range of total exposure from episode would be 1.9 X 10 b ° mg/kg.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicology and Potential Health Risk of Chemicals That May Be Encountered by Workers Using Forest Vegetation Management Options
    Toxicology and Potential Health Risk of Chemicals that May Be Encountered by Workers Using Forest Vegetation Management Options PART V: RISKS TO WORKERS USING HEXAZINONE FORMULATIONS (PRONONE® AND VELPAR®) Title Number Forest Practices Branch BC Ministry of Forests 7 Abstract Hexazinone is a broad-spectrum soil active herbicide used for site preparation, conifer release and in nurseries. The acute toxicity of hexazinone is low. Dermal toxicity is also very low, indicating poor absorption across the skin. It is irritant to the eyes, but does not produce skin sensitization. In a standard 90-day subchronic assay, rats consuming a diet containing 5000 ppm hexazinone (about 250 mg/kg/day) were unaffected except for slightly decreased weight gain. There was no effect at 1000 ppm. Dogs given 200 mg hexazinone/kg/day were unaffected except for modest weight loss. Two-year cancer studies of rats and mice indicated no detectable carcinogenic response, and there were no pathological changes other than benign adenomas (harmless tumours) found in the livers of mice maintained on a diet containing 10,000 ppm hexazinone. Lifetime systemic no-effect levels were 10 mg/kg/day for rats and 35 mg/kg/day for mice. Some liver effects were detectable at higher dose rates. Hexazinone was found to have no effect on reproduction and did not cause birth defects at doses that can be tolerated by the dams. It was shown to have limited mutagenic potential. Risks associated with use of hexazinone in forestry are slight, limited to eye and skin irritation. If daily intake is on the order of 0.03 mg/kg, which is to be expected of a worker who is moderately careful, the safety factor based on the no-observable-effect level (NOEL) of 10 mg/kg/day will be over 300.
    [Show full text]
  • Risks of Linuron Use to Federally Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii)
    Risks of Linuron Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Pesticide Effects Determination Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 June 19, 2008 Primary Authors: Michael Davy, Agronomist Wm. J. Shaughnessy, Ph.D, Environmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C) Secondary Review: Donna Randall, Senior Effects Scientist Nelson Thurman, Senior Fate Scientist Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Assessment Branch #: Arthur-Jean B. Williams, Acting Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 2 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................8 2. Problem Formulation .............................................................................................14 2.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................14 2.2 Scope..............................................................................................................................16 2.3 Previous Assessments ....................................................................................................18 2.4 Stressor Source and Distribution ...................................................................................19 2.4.1 Environmental Fate
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Movement of Diuron and Hexazinone in Clay Soil and Infiltrated Pond Water
    Movement of Diuron and Hexazinone in Clay Soil and Infiltrated Pond Water Terry Prichard,* John Troiano, Joe Marade, Fengmao Guo, and Mick Canevari ABSTRACT result in runoff of residues so improved incorporation Pre-emergence herbicide residues were detected in domestic wells of pre-emergence herbicides into the soil is recom- sampled near Tracy, CA. This study sought to determine the source mended to reduce concentrations in runoff water. -of contamination by comparing soil distribution of diruon [N؅-(3,4- These two scenarios are not inclusive of all geographi dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea] and hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl- cal settings where residues have been detected in Cali- 6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] in an fornia’s ground water (Troiano et al., 2000). Pre-emer- agricultural field where the soil was a cracking clay to infiltration of gence herbicide residues were detected in seven wells residues in water captured by an adjacent holding pond. Diuron and sampled within a 1554-ha area located near the town hexazinone were applied in December to a 3-yr-old alfalfa (Medicago of Tracy, CA: atrazine was detected in five wells at 0.16 sativa L.) crop. Water content of soil taken after major rainfall but to 2.8 ␮gLϪ1, diuron in one well at 0.06 ␮gLϪ1, hexazi- before irrigation at 106 d after application was elevated at the lowest none in three wells at 0.051 to 0.11 ␮gLϪ1, and simazine depth sampled centered at 953 mm, indicating water was available Ј for percolation. Herbicide residues (reporting limit 8 ␮gkgϪ1) were (6-chloro-N,N -diethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) in one ␮ Ϫ1 confined above the 152 mm soil depth, even after subsequent applica- well at 0.098 gL .
    [Show full text]
  • Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Glyphosate
    GLYPHOSATE RED September 1993 GLYPHOSATE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY TEAM Office of Pesticide Programs: Special Review and Reregistration Division Eric Feris .................................................. Reregistration Branch Health Effects Division Jane Smith ........................................ Chemical Coordination Branch Krystyna Locke .............................................. Toxicology Branch I Jeff Evans ........................... Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch Randolph Perfetti ......................... Chemistry Branch - Reregistration Support Biological and Economic Analysis Division James G. Saulmon .....................................Biological Analysis Branch Eric Maurer ........................................... Economic Analysis Branch Environmental Fate and Effects Division Candace Brassard ..................................... Ecological Effects Branch Kevin Poff ............................. Environmental Fate and Groundwater Branch Bernice Slutsky ............................ Science Analysis and Coordination Staff Registration Division Mark Perry .......................................... Registration Support Branch Karen P. Hicks ....................................... Fungicide-Herbicide Branch Policy and Special Projects Staff Jean Frane ............................. Food Safety & Regulation Tracking Section Office of General Counsel: Pesticides and Toxic Substances Division Debra Burton ................................................. Pesticides Branch Office of Compliance Monitoring:
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate Were
    A f Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate August 2020 GLYPHOSATE II DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. GLYPHOSATE III FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies. The profile is not intended to be an exhaustive document; however, more comprehensive sources of specialty information are referenced. The focus of the profiles is on health and toxicologic information; therefore, each toxicological profile begins with a relevance to public health discussion which would allow a public health professional to make a real-time determination of whether the presence of a particular substance in the environment poses a potential threat to human health. The adequacy of information to determine a substance's
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, SHARDA GLYPHOSATE 20.5 % +
    86(19,5210(17$/3527(&7,21$*(1&< (3$5HJ1XPEHU 'DWHRI,VVXDQFH 2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV 5HJLVWUDWLRQ'LYLVLRQ 3 3HQQV\OYDQLD$YH1: :DVKLQJWRQ'& 127,&(2)3(67,&,'( 7HUPRI,VVXDQFH ;5HJLVWUDWLRQ 5HUHJLVWUDWLRQ &RQGLWLRQDO XQGHU),)5$DVDPHQGHG 1DPHRI3HVWLFLGH3URGXFW 6KDUGD*O\SKRVDWH 0HWRODFKORU0HVRWULRQH =& 1DPHDQG$GGUHVVRI5HJLVWUDQW LQFOXGH=,3&RGH $QQD$UPVWURQJ 6KDUGD86$//& 32%R[ +RFNHVVLQ'( 1RWH&KDQJHVLQODEHOLQJGLIIHULQJLQVXEVWDQFHIURPWKDWDFFHSWHGLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKLVUHJLVWUDWLRQPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGWRDQGDFFHSWHGE\WKH 5HJLVWUDWLRQ'LYLVLRQSULRUWRXVHRIWKHODEHOLQFRPPHUFH,QDQ\FRUUHVSRQGHQFHRQWKLVSURGXFWDOZD\VUHIHUWRWKHDERYH(3$UHJLVWUDWLRQQXPEHU 2QWKHEDVLVRILQIRUPDWLRQIXUQLVKHGE\WKHUHJLVWUDQWWKHDERYHQDPHGSHVWLFLGHLVKHUHE\UHJLVWHUHG XQGHUWKH)HGHUDO,QVHFWLFLGH)XQJLFLGHDQG5RGHQWLFLGH$FW 5HJLVWUDWLRQLVLQQRZD\WREHFRQVWUXHGDVDQHQGRUVHPHQWRUUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRIWKLVSURGXFWE\WKH $JHQF\,QRUGHUWRSURWHFWKHDOWKDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQWWKH$GPLQLVWUDWRURQKLVPRWLRQPD\DWDQ\ WLPHVXVSHQGRUFDQFHOWKHUHJLVWUDWLRQRIDSHVWLFLGHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH$FW7KHDFFHSWDQFHRIDQ\ QDPHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHUHJLVWUDWLRQRIDSURGXFWXQGHUWKLV$FWLVQRWWREHFRQVWUXHGDVJLYLQJWKH UHJLVWUDQWDULJKWWRH[FOXVLYHXVHRIWKHQDPHRUWRLWVXVHLILWKDVEHHQFRYHUHGE\RWKHUV 7KLVSURGXFWLVFRQGLWLRQDOO\UHJLVWHUHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK),)5$VHFWLRQ F $ <RXPXVWFRPSO\ ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQV 6XEPLWDQGRUFLWHDOOGDWDUHTXLUHGIRUUHJLVWUDWLRQUHUHJLVWUDWLRQUHJLVWUDWLRQUHYLHZRI\RXU SURGXFWXQGHU),)5$ZKHQWKH$JHQF\UHTXLUHVDOOUHJLVWUDQWVRIVLPLODUSURGXFWVWRVXEPLWVXFK GDWD 6LJQDWXUHRI$SSURYLQJ2IILFLDO 'DWH (PLO\6FKPLG$FWLQJ3URGXFW0DQDJHU
    [Show full text]