DOCSLIB.ORG

LD5655.V856 1989.V655.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LD5655.V856 1989.V655.Pdf EVALUATION OF PLANT GROW'I'H REGULATORS FOR MANAGING FESCUE TURF ALONG HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. bY Joseph Gerard Vollmer Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in EVALUATION OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS FOR MANAGING FESCUE TURF ALONG HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF—WAY by Joseph Gerard Vollmer Samuel Wayne Bingham, Chairman Weed Science (ABSTRACT) Plant growth regulators (PGR's) including metsulfuron plus mefluidide at 10 plus 140 g ha'l, chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide at 20 plus 140 g ha'1, imazethapyr plus imazapyr at 67.5 plus 2.5, 96.4 plus 3.6, and 115.7 plus 4.3 g ha'l, ACP 2100 at 60, 120, and 180 g ha'l, and DPX L5300 plus mefluidide at 10 plus 140, 20 plus 140, and 70 plus 140 g ‘KY ha'l were applied to 31' tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). All rates of imazethapyr plus p imazapyr, ACP 2100, and chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide afforded a significantly higher turf quality than metsulfuron plus mefluidide. ACP 2100 at 120 and 180 g ha' 1, imazethapyr plus imazapyr, DPX L5300 plus mefluidide at ha'l, 70 plus 140 g and metsulfuron plus mefluidide gave the most consistent seedhead suppression. When treating seven month old tall fescue, DPX L5300 plus mefluidide did not adequately suppress seedhead elongation. Metsulfuron plus mefluidide, regardless of timing, caused excessive injury. All rates of imazethapyr plus imazapyr and the upper rates of ACP 2100 afforded the best turf quality followed by chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide in 1988 to ‘Rebel' and both years to ‘KY 31'. Red fescue (Festuca rgbgg L.) quality was best with chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide and the high rate of DPX L5300 plus mefluidide. All other treatments resulted in a poorer quality turf. For all field studies on all turf types, in general, multiple applications were not practical and often caused excessive injury regardless of timing. Root studies conducted in the greenhouse revealed that with one application, imazethapyr plus imazapyr, ACP 2100, and DPX L5300 plus mefluidide provided root dry weights ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 g, which was greater than metsulfuron plus mefluidide, chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide, and the mowed check which afforded root dry weights of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively. With two applications ACP 2100 and DPX L5300 plus mefluidide afforded 350, 1100, 200 and 200% greater root volume than metsulfuron plus mefluidide and chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide and 200, 630, 600 and 600%” greater root dry weights. Three applications are not recommended. In laboratory studies using ‘KY 31' tall fescue, mefluidide enhanced the uptake of l4C—DPX L5300 after 48 hours by as much as 11% and the translocation of 14C by 8.4% to the young leaves, 9.3% to the old leaves and 6.1% to the culm. Radioactive material concentrated in the tips of leaves. No significant accumulation of 14C occurred in the crown or roots. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................iv LIST OF TABLES..........................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................xii CHAPTER I Literature Review........................... 1 Literature Cited............................13 CHAPTER II EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS OF SELECTED PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON ‘KY 31' TALL FESCUE.........................25 Abstract....................................25 Introduction................................28 Materials and Methods.......................32 Results and Discussion......................35 Literature Cited............................46 Tables......................................51 CHAPTER III EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON RED FESCUE ............. Abstract....................................56 Introduction................................58 Materials and Methods.......................61 iv Results and Dissussion.......................64 Literature Cited.............................72 Tables.......................................74 CHAPTER IV EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON NEWLY ESTABLISHED TALL FESCUE..................................77 Abstract.....................................77 Introduction.......;.........................80 Materials and Methods........................83 Results and Discussion.......................86 Literature Cited.............................98 Tables......................................103 CHAPTER V TALL FESCUE ROOT RESPONSES TO PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS...........................110 Abstract....................................110 Introduction................................113 ~ Materials and Methods.......................116 Results and Discussion......................119 Literature Cited............................123 Tables......................................126 CHAPTER VI UPTAKE AND TRANSLOCATION OF DPX L5300 BY TALL FESCUE AS EFFECTED BY MEFLUIDIDE.......128 Abstract....................................128 v Introduction................................130 Materials and Methods.......................132 Results and Discussion......................136 Literature Cited............................140 Tables......................................143 Figure......................................147 CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................152 APPENDIX TABLES.........................................159 VITA....................................................213 vi LIST OF TABLES Chapter Table Page II 1 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's ‘KY on height of 31' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1987................51 2 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on height of ‘KY 31' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1988................52 3 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on quality of ‘KY 31' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1987................53 4 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on quality of ‘KY 31' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial vii application in 1988................54 ‘Ky 5 3l' tall fescue seedhead suppression for 1987 and 1988. Data from combined means of all application schedules..............55 III 1 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on height of red fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application..........74 2 Evaluation of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's for phytotoxicity to red fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application..75 3 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on quality of red fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application..........76 IV 1 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on height of ‘Rebel' tall fescue four weeks after each application viii and 8 weeks after initial application in 1987................103 2 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on height of ‘Rebel' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1988................104 3 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on quality of ‘Rebel' tall fescue · four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1987................105 4 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on quality of ‘Rebel' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1988................106 5 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's on height of ‘KY 31' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1988................107 ix 6 Effects of one, two, and three annual applications of PGR's ‘KY on quality of 3l' tall fescue four weeks after each application and 8 weeks after initial application in 1988................108 7 ‘KY 3l' and ‘Rebel' tall fescue seedhead data for 1987 and 1988. Data from combined means of all ‘KY application schedules. 3l' data from combined years...........109 V 1 Class comparisons and means for shoot fresh and dry weights, and root volume and dry weights for 1 to 4 annual treatments of ACP 2100, ACP 1911X, and DPX L5300 plus mefluidide on tall fescue contrasted with metsulfuron plus mefluidide, chlorsulfuron plus mefluidide, mowed, and nonmowed treatments.........................126 2 Regression equations and R2 values for the relationship between tall fescue shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root volume, x or root dry weight and rate of ACP 191lX and ACP 2100.............127 ‘KY VI 1 Uptake of 14C DPX L5300 by 31' tall fescue at 2, 12, 48, and 120 hours after treatment alone and in combination with mefluidide........143 2 Distribution of absorbed 14C DPX L5300 by ‘KY 31' tall fescue at 2, 12, 48, and 120 hours after treatment alone and in combination 4 with mefluidide....................144 xi LIST OF FIGURES Chapter Figure Page VI 1 Left autoradiograph, right tall fescue plant at 2 (top) and 12 (bottom) hours after spot treatment with 0.1 uCi 14C-DPX L5300. Representative autoradiographs were used as no visible differences occurred between ratios of formulated mefluidide:DPX L5300 (0:1, 1:1, 2:1, and 4:1). Arrow indicates site of 14C—DPX L5300 application..147
Load more

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]
  • Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers
    Title Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers in Soil and Water Mohammadkazem Ramezani B.Sc. Agronomy, M.Sc. Weed Science This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy of the University of Adelaide School of Agriculture, Food & Wine The University of Adelaide Waite Campus, South Australia 2007 Declaration This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying. Mohammadkazem Ramezani ii Abstract Imidazolinones represent a new class of herbicides with low mammalian toxicity that can be used at low application rates, either pre- or post-emergence for the control of a wide range of weeds in broadleaf and cereal crops, and non-crop situations. All imidazolinone herbicides are chiral, containing two enantiomers that derive from the chiral centre of the imidazolinone ring. The inhibitory activity of the R(+) enantiomer is nearly eight times greater than that of the S(-) enantiomer. The use of imidazolinone herbicides has increased in recent years in Australia owing to increased popularity of pulses and the introduction of imidazolinone-tolerant canola and wheat. Concerns have been raised about the potential carry over damage to the subsequent crops grown in rotation with legumes and herbicide tolerant crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Imazapic/Imazapyr and Other Herbicides in Mixtures for The
    Efficacy of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mixtures for the control of Digitaria insularis prior to soybean sowing Efectividad de imazapic/imazapyr y otros herbicidas en mezclas para el control de Digitaria insularis en pre-siembra de soya Alfredo Junior Paiola Albrecht1, Leandro Paiola Albrecht1, André Felipe Moreira Silva²*, Romulo Augusto Ramos³, Everson Pedro Zeny³, Juliano Bortoluzzi Lorenzetti4, Maikon Tiago Yamada Danilussi4, and Arthur Arrobas Martins Barroso4 ABSTRACT RESUMEN Herbicide mixtures, use of multiple sites of action, and other Las mezclas entre herbicidas, el uso de múltiples sitios de acción weed management practices are necessary to avoid cases of y otras prácticas de manejo de malezas son necesarias para biotype resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evitar otros casos de resistencia de biotipos. El objetivo de este efficiency of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mix- estudio fue evaluar la eficiencia de imazapic/imazapyr y otros tures to control Digitaria insularis at burndown before soybean herbicidas en mezclas para controlar Digitaria insularis en la sowing. This field research was conducted in Umuarama, State desecación antes de la siembra de soya. Esta investigación de of Parana (PR), Brazil, in the 2018/19 soybean season. The ex- campo se realizó en Umuarama, Estado de Paraná (PR), Brasil, periment was conducted in a randomized block experimental en la cosecha de soya de 2018/19. El experimento se realizó en design with four replicates and 11 treatments composed of the un diseño experimental de bloques al azar, con cuatro repe- application of glyphosate, clethodim, haloxyfop, imazapic/ ticiones y 11 tratamientos, compuestos por la aplicación de imazapyr, glufosinate, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), glifosato, cletodim, haloxifop, imazapic/imazapir, glufosinato, dicamba, triclopyr, and saflufenacil, in mixtures.
    [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]
  • Comparison of Imazapyr and Imazamox for Control of Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum Aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.)
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 45: 132-136 Comparison of Imazapyr and Imazamox for Control of Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.) RYAN M. WERSAL1 AND JOHN D. MADSEN1,2 INTRODUCTION techniques (Moreira et al. 1999). To date, chemical control has been the most effective method for controlling infesta- Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell. Verdc) is an in- tions of M. aquaticum. Contact herbicides such as diquat vasive aquatic plant to the United States that is native to South (6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2’,1’-c) pyrazinedium dibro- America. Myriophyllum aquaticum is described as “stout, stems mide) and endothall (7-oxabicyclo (2.2.1) heptane-2,3-dicar- moderately elongate, partially submersed but with portions of boxylic acid) have been evaluated with mixed results leafy branches emersed (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Emer- (Moreira et al. 1999, Westerdahl and Getsinger 1988). Con- gent leaves are whorled, stiff, usually with 20 or more linear fil- tact herbicides are typically effective for short-term control, iform divisions, appearing feather-like and grayish green. but significant regrowth of M. aquaticum typically occurs and Submersed shoots are comprised of whorls of four to six fila- multiple applications are necessary (Moreira et al. 1999). mentous, pectinate, red or orange, leaves arising from each Therefore, the use of a systemic herbicide may be more ef- node. Flowers are all pistillate, borne in the axils of unreduced fective in controlling this species. leaves (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Myriophyllum aquaticum is Imazapyr (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)5-oxo- dioecious, however only pistillate plants are found outside of 1H-imazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) is a systemic herbi- its native range (Sutton 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Imazapyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT
    SERA TR-052-29-03a Imazapyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-11-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-29 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com December 16, 2011 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... vii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .............................................................. viii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ........................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Chemical Specific Information
    [Show full text]
  • List of Herbicide Groups
    List of herbicides Group Scientific name Trade name clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*, Hoegrass®), fenoxaprop (Cheetah® Gold* , Wildcat®), A Aryloxyphenoxypropionates fluazifop (Fusilade®, Fusion®*), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) butroxydim (Falcon®, Fusion®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim A Cyclohexanediones (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) A Phenylpyrazoles pinoxaden (Axial®) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, B Sulfonylureas Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron, (Logran®, Logran® B Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), trifloxysulfuron (Envoke®, Krismat®*) florasulam (Paradigm®*, Vortex®*, X-Pand®*), flumetsulam B Triazolopyrimidines (Broadstrike®), metosulam (Eclipse®), pyroxsulam (Crusader®Rexade®*) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®,), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, B Imidazolinones Lightning®*, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) B Pyrimidinylthiobenzoates bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) C Amides: propanil (Stam®) C Benzothiadiazinones: bentazone (Basagran®,
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Reference Values Comparison Study
    Is Protecting Aquatic Life from Pesticides Sufficient to Ensure Human Health Protection in Sources of Drinking Water? Kelly D. Moran, Ph.D., TDC Environmental, LLC Bonny Starr, P.E., Starr Consulting October 1, 2018 Abstract California water and pesticides regulators have long operated under the informal assumption that programs to protect aquatic life from currently used pesticides will also ensure the safety of surface water drinKing water sources. This paper examines the scientific validity of this assumption for the agricultural pesticides in California’s Central Valley by comparing water quality regulatory values and benchmarks (“reference values”) for human health with those for aquatic life. Because numeric water quality criteria and other numeric regulatory values established for water quality protection exist for only a handful of currently used pesticides, the comparison relies heavily on US EPA pesticides human health and aquatic life benchmarks. For acute endpoints, both human health and aquatic life reference values typically use a one-day exposure time frame, but chronic endpoint exposure periods differ, with aquatic life exposure periods (4 to 60 days) usually shorter than human health exposure periods (annual). The evaluation looKed in detail at 301 agricultural pesticides with human health reference values. Of these 301 pesticides, only 46% had aquatic life reference values that were equal to or lower than the human health reference value. For 54% of these pesticides, either no aquatic life reference value existed or the aquatic life reference value was higher than the human health reference value. In these cases, aquatic life protection actions would not suffice to protect human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Weed Control
    2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual The 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual is published by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C. These recommendations apply only to North Carolina. They may not be appropriate for conditions in other states and may not comply with laws and regulations outside North Carolina. These recommendations are current as of November 2013. Individuals who use agricultural chemicals are responsible for ensuring that the intended use complies with current regulations and conforms to the product label. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before applying any chemical. For assistance, contact your county Cooperative Extension agent. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services in this document does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service nor discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned. VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL Chemical Weed Control in Field Corn ...................................................................................................... 224 Weed Response to Preemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................... 231 Weed Response to Postemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PB1775 Common Commercial Pre-Packaged Herbicide Mixtures
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Field & Commercial Crops UT Extension Publications 3-2008 PB1775 Common Commercial Pre-packaged Herbicide Mixtures The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexcrop Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation "PB1775 Common Commercial Pre-packaged Herbicide Mixtures," The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, 08-0158 PB1775-2.5M-3/08 E12-5115-00-011-08, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexcrop/65 The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or ecommendations.r Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Production is brought to you for free and open access by the UT Extension Publications at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Field & Commercial Crops by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PB1775 Common Commercial Pre-packaged Herbicide Mixtures Photo courtesy of Larry Steckel Gregory Armel, Assistant Professor Weed Science — Horticulture Crops and Invasive Weeds G. Neil Rhodes, Professor Weed Science — Forage , Biofuel Crops, Tobacco and Aquatics William Klingeman, Associate Professor Nursery Production Lawrence Steckel,
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Herbicides Available for Homeowners in Lee County, Florida: October, 2010
    Stephen H. Brown, Horticulture Agent Dick Dutton, Master Gardener Lee County Extension Fort Myers, Florida 33916-3736 (239) 533-7513, [email protected] Survey of Herbicides Available for Homeowners in Lee County, Florida: October, 2010 Herbicides are listed by their active ingredient. This avoids the confusion that results from multiple brands that use the same active ingredient. The active ingredient is the compound that kills the weed. Be sure to carefully read labels to ensure that the product you wish to use is labeled for the target plant. Read and follow label directions. “The label is the law.” Active Ingredient Brand/Trade Name Weeds Controlled (Common name) 2, 4-D Sta-green, Ultra, Weed and Feed Lawn Fertilizer Dicamba Phosphorus-free Weed & Mecoprop-p Feed Weeds Controlled: Broadleaf weeds and annual grasses 2, 4-D Vigoro, Ultra Turf, Weed Weed and Feed Fertilizer for Bahiagrass, Bermu- Micoprop-p and Feed for Bahiagrass dagrass, Centipedegrass, St. Augustinegrass, Dicamba Zoysiagrass. Do not use on Floratam variety of St. Augustine grass Weeds Controlled: 200 weeds 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt; Bayer, Southern Weed Broadleaf Weeds in Lawns: Do not use on Mecoprop-p, dimethylamine Killer for Lawns Floratam variety of St. Augustinegrass salt, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt Weeds controlled: Kills over 200 broadleaf weeds including dollarweed, spurge, oxalis, clover and chickweed 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt; Bayer, Southern Season Broadleaf Weeds in Lawns: Do not use on Esoxaben: Long Weed Control for Floratam variety of St. Augustinegrass Mecoprop-p, potassium salt; Lawns Dicamba, potassium salt Weeds Controlled: Kills over 200 broadleaf weeds and clover and dandelion 2,4-D; Ortho, Weed-B-Gon Max Broadleaf Weed Killer for use only on Home MCPP-p: for Southern Lawns Lawns Dicamba; Carfentrazone Weeds Controlled: Common Bermudagrass; hybrid Bermudagrass; Bahiagrass; zoysiagrass; St.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Assessment: Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation
    Final Public Health Assessment Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation October 2014 Prepared by the Environmental Health Assessment Program Oregon Health Authority; Public Health Division i Funded under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (Grant no. 280603) ii Oregon Health Authority - Highway 36 Public Health Assessment October 2014 Foreword The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), in cooperation with state and federal partners, prepared this Public Health Assessment (PHA). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and its Oregon cooperative agreement partner, the Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP), conduct public health assessments to evaluate environmental data and community concerns. Contained within this PHA are the results of the Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation (EI). The EI was conducted in response to resident’s concerns about potential exposures from pesticide applications occurring on forestlands near their homes and schools. At an April 2011 Board of Forestry meeting, several residents announced the results of a community- led, urine sampling effort. The results showed elevated levels of atrazine and 2,4-D in their urine. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) notified the Pesticide Analytic and Response Center (PARC) of the results. As co-chair of PARC, OHA joined a multi-agency workgroup to develop the Highway 36 Corridor Exposure Investigation (EI) in order to determine if people are being exposed to pesticides in the Highway 36 corridor, and if so, the health implications of these exposures. For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply: Public Health Assessment (PHA): A PHA is an evaluation tool of choice when a site contains multiple contaminants and multiple, potential pathways of exposure.
    [Show full text]