DOCSLIB.ORG

Response of Grapes to 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Glyphosate Simulated Drift

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response of Grapes to 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Glyphosate Simulated Drift Response of Grapes to 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Glyphosate Simulated Drift Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Scott James Wolfe, B.A. Graduate Program in Horticulture and Crop Science The Ohio State University 2013 Thesis Committee: Douglas Doohan, Advisor Joshua Blakselee Mark Loux Copyright by Scott James Wolfe 2013 Abstract In the USA, herbicides are widely used as an integral tool for weed management. With genetically modified crops such as Roundup Ready® (glyphosate-resistant) corn and soybean, herbicides that normally would have killed a crop can be used for weed control. Over years of use, some weed species have developed resistance to glyphosate and require novel approaches to management. New technologies, including 2,4-D and dicamba resistant crops, are one approach for corn and soybean farmers to better manage weeds; however, vapor or particle drift of these herbicides can damage sensitive crops such as grapes, tomatoes, and peppers. Research over the last 30 or more years has shown some of the effects of these herbicides on sensitive crops. With the impending introduction of new resistance traits in agronomic crops, the use of 2,4-D and dicamba will likely increase both in number of applications and in total volume applied per year per given area. Therefore, the severity and frequency of damage observed on sensitive crops may also increase. Grapes are an important crop in Ohio as fresh fruit and for wine production. The wine industry attracts millions of tourists each year with a measureable positive economic effect. With the predicted increase in use of 2,4-D and dicamba, grape growers are concerned about the potential for damage to their vineyards. This research was conducted to better understand the risk associated with this increased use. Grapes were extremely sensitive to 2,4-D and dicamba, to rates as low as 0.0028 kg ae/ha. A greenhouse study with varieties of grapes likely to be planted in Ohio over the next 10 years indicated that V. vinifera varieties were slightly more sensitive ii than hybrid varieties, showing greater injury symptoms, including leaf cupping (dicamba), chlorosis (glyphosate) and parallel venation, and fan shaped leaves (2,4-D). In a field study, the effects of timing (pre bloom, full bloom, and post bloom) and of rate (0.028, 0.0084, and 0.0028 kg ae/ha) of simulated 2,4-D and glyphosate drift were evaluated on ‘Riesling’ vinifera grape. Fruit yield and quality were measured in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, 2,4-D + glyphosate at 0.0084 kg ae/ha + 0.028 kg ae/ha caused effects on shoot length and visually observable injury symptoms, regardless of application timing. Symptoms of injury included parallel venation, fan shaped leaves, and, in more severely injured vines, death of new shoot growth. However, only 2,4-D + glyphosate at 0.028 kg ae/ha + 0.028 kg ae/ha applied pre and post bloom and 0.0084 kg ae/ha + 0.0084 kg ae/ha applied post bloom affected yield. Post bloom application of 2,4-D + glyphosate at 0.028 kg ae/ha + 0.028 kg ae/ha and 0.0084 kg ae/ha + 0.0084 kg ae/ha also resulted in a loss of yield in the year following the herbicide treatments. One year after application, some vines had died that were treated with post bloom 2,4-D + glyphosate at 0.028 kg ae/ha + 0.028 kg ae/ha and 0.0084 kg ae/ha + 0.0084 kg ae/ha. The application of the pre and full bloom 0.028 kg ae/ha + 0.028 kg ae/ha in 2012 caused much greater injury (96-100% injury) and loss of yield (100%) than in 2011. In conclusion, 2,4-D and dicamba drift may result in severe injury to grapevines; and the rate and timing of the drift can affect the severity of damage observed. The damage caused by the combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate was almost always more severe than either herbicide applied alone in the field. iii Dedication Dedicated to my wife, Danae. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank the members of the Weed Lab in Wooster who helped with research, ratings, potting, watering, etc., Linjian Jiang, Steven “Vinny” Font, AJ Kropp, Tim Koch, Roger Downer, Jason Parker, Andy Glaser, Erick Mvati, Connie Echaíz, Andrea Sosa, Marlon AC Pangan, Heather McDonough, Ben Morphew, and Ashley Kulhanek. Thanks to The Enology and Viticulture program members including David Scurlock, Todd Steiner, and Patrick Pierquet for providing their vast knowledge on vineyard management and fruit quality. Thank you especially to Greg Johns and his crew at the Ashtabula Agricultural Research Station for managing the vineyard research plot (including pruning, hilling, harvesting assistance, pesticide applications, etc.). Thank you to Mike Davault and Kesia Hartzler and their crew for assisting in greenhouse maintenance and supplies in Wooster. Thank you to Bert Bishop for invaluable SAS lessons and programming assistance. And finally, thank you to Danae (my wife) and to my parents for their advice, help, and support throughout my career. Funding was provided by The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development SEEDS Grant Program, The Ohio Grapes Industries Committee, and Dow AgroSciences. v Vita 2002 Western Reserve Academy (HS) 2006 B.A. Biology, Hiram College 2010 to present Research Assistant, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University Peer Reviewed Publications N. Gray, K. Kainec, S. Madar, L. Tomko, and S. Wolfe. “Sink or Swim? Bone Density as a Mechanism for Buoyancy Control in Early Cetaceans,” The Anatomical Record, Volume 290, Issue 6 (June 2007), Pages 638-653. Conference Proceedings S. Wolfe. Response of grapes to simulated 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate drift. 2013 Weed Science Society of America Annual Meeting. S. Wolfe. Response of grapes to simulated 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate drift. 2013 Ohio Grape and Wine Conference Proceedings. Doohan, D., S. Weller, G. Kruger, S. Wolfe, L. Jiang, R. Downer, M. Gardner, R. Johnson, W. Johnson. 2012. 2,4-D and dicamba tolerant crop systems threaten fruit and vegetable production, and agroecosystem services. 6th International Weed Science Congress Proceedings. P. 53. vi S. Wolfe. New Herbicides in 2012 for Grapes in Ohio. 2012 Ohio Grape and Wine Conference Proceedings. S. Wolfe. Response of grapes to simulated 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate drift. 2012 Ohio Grape and Wine Conference Proceedings. S. Wolfe, L. Jiang, D. Scurlock, I. Dami, D. Doohan. 2011. Response of Grapes to Simulated 2,4- D, dicamba, and glyphosate Drift. North Central Weed Science Society 2011 Proceedings. G. Szulgit, N. Abraham, A. Brenneman, J. Collins, M. Crum, K. Davidson, G. Dottle, E. Khalil, S. Latosky, J. Moore, K. Ottey, B. Shelton, K. Wardell, S. Wolfe. “Agents extracted from the body wall of the sea cucumber, Cucumaria frondosa, affect mutability in the tissues of other echinoderms as well,” 12th International Echinoderm Conference, August 2006. Newsletters/Webpages S. Wolfe. DriftWatch: An Overview. Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association TODAY. Winter Issue 2012. S. Wolfe. 2011. Introduction to MapMaker and Creating a Linkage Map. eXtension, http://www.extension.org/article/32510 (last confirmed on 1/27/2012). Fields of Study Major Field: Horticulture and Crop Science vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ v Vita.................................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: Introduction to Herbicides and Drift .............................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Response of Five Wine Grape Varieties to 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Glyphosate Simulated Drift ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 3: Response of ‘Riesling’ Grape to Simulated Drift of 2,4-D and Glyphosate ................ 58 References ...................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix A: Weather Data for Ashtabula Agricultural Research Station, Kingsville, Ohio ........ 94 viii List of Tables Table 2.1: Herbicide treatments applied to five varieties (‘Riesling,’ ‘Chardonnay,’ ‘Chardonel,’ ‘Vidal blanc,’ and ‘Traminette’) of vinifera and hybrid grapes grown in pots. Combination treatments were applied to ‘Riesling’ only. ................................................................................... 46 Table 2.2: The effect of low doses of 2,4-D, dicamba, or glyphosate on the visual injury of five grape varieties (‘Riesling,’ ‘Chardonnay,’ ‘Chardonel,’ ‘Vidal blanc,’ and ‘Traminette’). LSD, p ≤ 0.05. ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Table
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 % +
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
    [Show full text]
  • Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate
    GLYPHOSATE: UNSAFE ON ANY PLATE ALARMING LEVELS OF MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE FOUND IN POPULAR AMERICAN FOODS “For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals from the moment of conception until death…These chemicals are now stored in the bodies of the vast majority of human beings, regardless of age. They occur in the mother’s milk, and probably in the tissues of the unborn child.”1 —RACHEL CARSON, SILENT SPRING “Glyphosate was significantly higher in humans [fed] conventional [food] compared with predominantly organic [fed] humans. Also the glyphosate residues in urine were grouped according to the human health status. Chronically ill humans had significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than healthy humans”2 —MONIKA KRUGER, ENVIRONMENTAL & ANALYTICAL TOXICOLOGY “Analysis of individual tissues demonstrated that bone contained the highest concentration of [14C] glyphosate equivalents (0.3–31ppm). The remaining tissues contained glyphosate equivalents at a concentration of between 0.0003 and 11 ppm. In the bone and some highly perfused tissues, levels were statistically higher in males than in females.”3 —PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOOD, JOINT FAO/WHO MEETING 2004 1 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, (Houghton Mifflin, 1961), Elixirs of Death, 15-16. 2 Krüger M, Schledorn P, Schrödl W, Hoppe HW, Lutz W, et al. (2014) Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol 4: 210 3 Residues in Food, 2004, Evaluations Part II, Toxicological, Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. http://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/43624/1/9241665203_eng.pdf Contents What Is in This Report? Findings: The first ever independent, FDA-registered laboratory food testing results for glyphosate residues in iconic American food brands finds alarming levels of glyphosate contamination and reveal the inadequacy of current food safety regulations relating to allowable pesticide residues.
    [Show full text]
  • Cascade Range
    United States bepartment of Agriculture Herbicide Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range and Conifer Experiment Station Research Paper PNW-292 Options for Reforesting October, 1981 Upper Slopes in the Cascade Range Edward J. Dimock II ROCKY Mof 'NTATN STATION This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable Author plants, and fish or other wildlife -- if they I~ m w ~llmml are not handled or applied properly. Use EDWARD J. DIMOCK II is principal all pesticides selectively and carefully. silviculturist, Forestry Sciences Follow recommended practices for the Laboratory, 3200 Jefferson Way, disposal of surplus pesticides and Corvallis, Oregon 97331. pesticide containers. Abstract Summary Dimock, Edward J. I1. Herbicide and Nine herbicides (asulam, atrazine, Similar survival increases were also conifer options for reforesting upper bromacil, cyanazine, dalapon, consistently achieved with atrazine + slopes in the Cascade Range. Res. glyphosate, hexazinone, pronamide, and dalapon mixtures. Most successful Pap. PNW-292. Portland, OR: U.S. terbacil) were evaluated for control of applications of mixture produced 3-year Department of Agriculture, Forest sedge (Carex spp.) and beargrass survival of 62, 77, and 14 percent for white Service, Pacific Northwest Forest (Xerophyllum tenax [Pursh] Nutt.) to aid pine at the same three localities above. and Range Experiment Station; establishment of newly planted seedlings Survival of other conifers resulting from 1981.14 p.
    [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]
  • US EPA-Pesticides; Pyrasulfotole
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 JUL 0 5 2007 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Evaluation of Public Interest Documentation for the Conditional Registration of Pyrasulfotole on Wheat, Barley, Oats, and Triticale (D340011; D340014) FROM: Nicole Zinn, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) TO: Tracy White Joanne Miller Registration Division (7505P) PEER REVIEW PANEL: June 27,2007 SUMMARY Pyrasulfotole is a 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor, which is a new mode of action for small grains. HPPD-inhibitors are currently available for use in other crops but not in small grains. BEAD has reviewed the efficacy information which indicates that pyrasulfotole will provide control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, wild buckwheat and volunteer canola. To control a broader spectrum of weeds, a combination product with bromoxynil is proposed for use in the United States. BEAD reviewed the documentation submitted by the registrant to determine whether one of two criteria have been met: there is a need for the new pesticide that is not being met by currently registered pesticides or the benefits from the new pesticide are greater than those from currently registered pesticides or non-chemical control measures. Although the information submitted focused on the pyrasulfotole + bromoxynil product, BEAD focused its review on the benefits of pyrasulfotole since bromoxynil is currently registered. BEAD believes that by providing a new mode of action for control of certain weeds, pyrasulfotole meets a need that is not being met by currently registered pesticides.
    [Show full text]
  • Postemergent Herbicides for Broadleaf Weed Control in Residential Lawns by James A
    Postemergent Herbicides for Broadleaf Weed Control In Residential Lawns by James A. McAfee, Ph.D. Extension Turfgrass Specialist Dallas, Texas Company Trade Name Common Name Ambrands Image imazaquin Ace Spot Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Ace Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Bayer Advanced Lawns Southern Weed 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Bayer Advanced Lawns All-in-One Weed Killer MSMA, 2,4-D, Mecroprop-p, dicamba Ferti-lome Weed Free Zone MCPA, MCPP, dicamba + carfentrazone Ferti-lome Weed Out Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Ferti-lome Weed Out Plus Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba + MSMA Ferti-lome Triple Action Plus RTU 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba + carfentrazone Green Light Wipe Out Broadleaf Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Hi-Yield 2,4-D Amine No. 4 2,4-D Hi-Yield Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D, MCPP, 2,4-DP Hi-Yield Atrazine Weed Killer atrazine Ortho Weed-B-Gon Chickweed, Clover and Oxalis Killer triclopyr Ortho Weed-B-Gon MCPP, 2,4-D, dicamba Ortho Weed-B-Gon Weed Killer for Lawns RTU 2,4-D, MCPP Ortho Weed-B-Gon Weed Killer for Lawns “concentrate” MCPP, 2,4-D, dicamba Ortho Weed-B-Gon Max 2,4-D, mecroprop-p, dicamba Ortho Weed –B-Gon Poison Ivy Control triclopyr Ortho Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D, mecroprop-p, Dichlorprop-p Spectracide Weed Stop for Lawns 2,4-D, MCPP, dicamba Scotts Lawn Weed Control 2,4-D, dicamba Southern Ag Lawn Weed Killer MCPP, 2,4-D, dicamba Southern Ag Sedge Hammer bentazon While this is not a complete list for postemergent broadleaf weed control in residential lawns, it does contain the herbicides I most commonly found in retail and garden stores.
    [Show full text]