DOCSLIB.ORG

Risks of Linuron Use to Federally Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Properties...............................................................................19 2.4.2 Environmental Transport Mechanisms..................................................................21 2.4.3 Mechanism of Action.............................................................................................21 2.4.4 Use Characterization..............................................................................................22 2.5 Assessed Species............................................................................................................27 2.5.1 Distribution ............................................................................................................27 2.5.2 Reproduction..........................................................................................................32 2.5.3 Diet.........................................................................................................................32 2.5.4 Habitat....................................................................................................................33 2.6 Designated Critical Habitat............................................................................................34 2.7 Action Area....................................................................................................................36 2.8 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect ...........................................40 2.8.1. Assessment Endpoints for the CRLF.....................................................................40 2.8.2 Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat.........................................42 2.9 Conceptual Model..........................................................................................................44 2.9.1 Risk Hypotheses.....................................................................................................44 2.9.2 Diagram..................................................................................................................44 2.10 Analysis Plan .................................................................................................................48 2.10.1 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypothesis and Conceptual Model ......................48 2.10.1.1 Measures of Exposure............................................................................ 48 2.10.1.2 Measures of Effect ................................................................................. 50 2.10.1.3 Integration of Exposure and Effects ...................................................... 51 2.10.2 Data Gaps...............................................................................................................52 3. Exposure Assessment.............................................................................................52 3.1 Label Application Rates and Intervals...........................................................................52 3.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment.......................................................................................53 3.2.1 Modeling Approach ...............................................................................................53 3.2.2 Model Inputs ..........................................................................................................53 3.2.3 Results....................................................................................................................54 3.2.4 Existing Monitoring Data ......................................................................................55 3.2.5 Spray Drift Buffer Analysis...................................................................................56 3.2.6 Downstream Dilution Analysis..............................................................................58 3.3 Terrestrial Animal Exposure Assessment......................................................................58 3.4 Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment..........................................................................60 4. Effects Assessment ................................................................................................60 4.1 Toxicity of Linuron to Aquatic Organisms....................................................................63 4.1.1 Toxicity to Freshwater Fish ...................................................................................64 4.1.1.1 Freshwater Fish: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies......................................... 64 3 4.1.1.2 Freshwater Fish: Chronic Exposure (Growth/Reproduction) Studies ................. 64 4.1.1.3 Freshwater Fish: Sublethal Effects and Additional Open Literature Information ........................................................................................................... 66 4.1.2 Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates .....................................................................66 4.1.2.1 Freshwater Invertebrates: Acute Exposure Studies ............................................. 66 4.1.2.2 Freshwater Invertebrates: Chronic Exposure Studies.......................................... 67 4.1.2.3 Freshwater Invertebrates: Open Literature Data.................................................. 69 4.1.3 Toxicity to Aquatic Plants .....................................................................................69 4.1.3.1 Aquatic Plants: Laboratory Data........................................................................... 69 4.1.3.1 Aquatic Plants: Open Literature Data................................................................... 69 4.2 Toxicity of Linuron to Terrestrial Organisms................................................................70 4.2.1 Toxicity to Birds ....................................................................................................71 4.2.1.1 Birds: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies........................................................... 71 4.2.1.2 Birds: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies ................................. 71 4.2.2 Toxicity to Mammals.............................................................................................72 4.2.2.1 Mammals: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies ................................................... 72 4.2.2.2 Mammals: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies........................... 72 4.2.3 Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates ......................................................................72 4.2.4 Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants .................................................................................72 4.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered Species Levels of Concern.........................................................................................................74 4.4 Incident Database Review..............................................................................................74 4.4.1 Terrestrial Incidents ...............................................................................................75 4.4.2 Plant Incidents........................................................................................................75 5.1 Risk Estimation..............................................................................................................77 5.1.1 Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat ..........................................................................77 5.1.1.1 Direct Effects to Aquatic-Phase CRLF................................................................. 77 5.1.1.2 Indirect Effects to Aquatic-Phase CRLF via Reduction in Prey (non-vascular aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and frogs)........................................... 79 5.1.1.3 Indirect Effects to CRLF via Reduction in Habitat and/or Primary Productivity (Freshwater Aquatic Plants).................................................................................. 80 5.1.2 Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat ......................................................................81
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VIEW from the HELM May 2012 Time Flies When You’Re Busy at the Club
    Private Ear NEWSLETTER OF PRIVATEER YACHT CLUB Lake Chickamauga Chattanooga, TN May 2012 www.privateeryachtclub.org Peter Snyder, Editor [email protected] VIEW FROM THE HELM May 2012 Time flies when you’re busy at the club. Well, goes on. Come join in on the largest sail camp yet. Yes, a month has passed, and believe it or not my boat is this year we have potentially nine weeks of sail camp. launched! Yes, Whatta Ride is no longer on the hard, and my “view” is no longer myopically limited to the June also brings three days of racing each week, kayak- bottom of Whatta Ride’s hull. ing, and socials. The “Chicks On the Pond Sailing” are having a stake your date party! Sorry, dates and steaks Your club is buzzing with activity. We have had a hive party. Also, the club social will be a “Spanish Nights” of activities and more to come. This month saw a very themed affair. Margaritas? Cerveza? Holy Guacamole! successful Scowabunga, MC Scow regatta with 28 par- Don’t miss this one. See you there, bring your sombre- ticipants, some from as far as New Jersey. Also, a well ros. Maybe our Blue Grass players will play mariachi attended, get-to-know the MC Scow Friday night sail music. and burgers party. And, don’t forget the “Dock Party” which was a “jammin” good time avec “pickin and grin- nin’”. If you missed the story about the comforts of a kilt, just ask Rhonda Seeber to ribbon the details for you. It was truly a first place story.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [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]
  • Petition to List the Relict Leopard Frog (Rana Onca) As an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE RELICT LEOPARD FROG (RANA ONCA) AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE PETITIONERS May 8, 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The relict leopard frog (Rana onca) has the dubious distinction of being one of the first North American amphibians thought to have become extinct. Although known to have inhabited at least 64 separate locations, the last historical collections of the species were in the 1950s and this frog was only recently rediscovered at 8 (of the original 64) locations in the early 1990s. This extremely endangered amphibian is now restricted to only 6 localities (a 91% reduction from the original 64 locations) in two disjunct areas within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada. The relict leopard frog historically occurred in springs, seeps, and wetlands within the Virgin, Muddy, and Colorado River drainages, in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The Vegas Valley leopard frog, which once inhabited springs in the Las Vegas, Nevada area (and is probably now extinct), may eventually prove to be synonymous with R. onca. Relict leopard frogs were recently discovered in eight springs in the early 1990s near Lake Mead and along the Virgin River. The species has subsequently disappeared from two of these localities. Only about 500 to 1,000 adult frogs remain in the population and none of the extant locations are secure from anthropomorphic events, thus putting the species at an almost guaranteed risk of extinction. The relict leopard frog has likely been extirpated from Utah, Arizona, and from the Muddy River drainage in Nevada, and persists in only 9% of its known historical range.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Father, Daughter Team Wins Mayor's
    The Wayfarer SKIMMER United State Wayfarer Asssociation – www.uswayfarer.org Winter 2020 Father, daughter team wins Mayor’s Cup Cooks enjoy sailing beloved Black Skimmer By Jim Cook W10873 The 43rd Mayor’s Cup regatta was hosted by Lake Townsend YC on Sept. 26-27, 2020. Lake Townsend is a small reservoir just outside of Greensboro, N.C. The lake has very little Jim Cook and his daughter Nora development along the shoreline, with a golf Cook in W10873 followed by Jim and Linda Heffernan in W1066 course on one side and trees on the other, which (above) fly their spinnakers in makes it a gorgeous place to sail. It also helps keep light winds during the Mayor’s the boat traffic down, so sailing in lighter winds is Cup on Lake Townsend. Jim and Nora (left) at the mark. The duo actually possible. went on to win the Sept. 26-27 Entries for the regatta were restricted by the regatta. This was Jim’s second rules of the public boat ramp, but we still had regatta in Black Skimmer, a Mark IV previously owned by North three good fleets of boats with seven Wayfarers, Carolina’s Richard Johnson and nine Flying Scots and a number of youth in 420s. Michele Parish. Photos by JC Over the summer, I purchased a beautiful Mark Adler IV named Black Skimmer (W10873) from Richard Johnson and Michele Parish. I have received so many compliments on the boat, one of them even before I drove away from the parking lot where we did the hand-off.
    [Show full text]
  • California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus Transpacificus)
    Potential Risks of Atrazine Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) Pesticide Effects Determinations Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 February 19, 2009 Primary Authors: Mark Corbin, Senior Scientist Brian Anderson, Biologist Secondary Review: Paige Doelling, Ph.D., Acting Risk Assessment Process Leader James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Branch 3: Dana Spatz 2 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary..............................................................................................................7 1.1. Purpose of Assessment ..................................................................................................7 1.2. Assessed Chemicals.......................................................................................................7 1.3. Assessment Procedures..................................................................................................7 1.4. Atrazine Uses Assessed .................................................................................................9 1.5. Summary of Conclusions.............................................................................................10 2. Problem Formulation .........................................................................................................13 2.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Melaleuca Seedlings and Trees by Herbicides RANDALL K
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 35: 55-59 Control of Melaleuca Seedlings and Trees by Herbicides RANDALL K. STOCKER1 AND D. R. SANDERS, SR.2 ABSTRACT starting in 1940 to prevent storm generated waves from erod- ing the levee system (Herbert Hoover Dike). From the tree Field tests of several herbicides at Lake Okeechobee, Flor- islands, melaleuca has spread into shallow wetland areas of ida, demonstrated effective control of melaleuca seedlings the lake. Because of the invasive nature of melaleuca (Craig- and mature trees. The lowest tested rates (4.5, 2.2, and 4.5 kg head 1971), and subsequent impacts to native plant (Myers ai/ha) of bromacil, hexazinone, and tebuthiuron (respec- 1984) and animal (Deuver et al. 1979, Maffei 1994, Mmazzot- tively) produced complete mortality of melaleuca seedings tii et al. 1981, Ostrenko et al 1979, Sowder and Woodall within six weeks of treatment. The highest tested rate (13.4 1985) communities, and because the USAE has determined kg ai/ha) of glyphosate also produced 100 percent mortality that the trees are no longer essential for bank stabilization, of seedlings, but 44 weeks were required to achieve these efforts have been underway since 1993 to control the trees results. At lower rates, tebuthiuron pellets were not as effec- and prevent further spread into adjacent wetlands. tive as the wettable powder formulation on seedlings. Only Melaleuca has been reported to be controlled by several dicamba + 2,4-D produced less than 100 percent mortality of herbicides. Imazapyr caused melaleuca mortality 12 months seedlings at the highest tested rate (87%). After 15 months, after treatment (Standish and Burns 1994).
    [Show full text]