Weed Science: Principles and Practices, 4Th Edition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. -
TB970 Forest Herbicide Effects on Pacific Northwest Ecosystems
ncasi NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT FOREST HERBICIDE EFFECTS ON PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECOSYSTEMS: A LITERATURE REVIEW TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 970 DECEMBER 2009 by Laurie A. Clark NCASI Western Wildlife Program Tenmile, Oregon Gary J. Roloff, Ph.D. Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Vickie L. Tatum, Ph.D. NCASI Southern Regional Center Newberry, Florida Larry L. Irwin, Ph.D. NCASI Western Wildlife Program Stevensville, Montana Acknowledgments We wish to extend special thanks to Dr. Mike Newton for critically reviewing an early draft of this document and providing valuable advice on content, context, and formatting. We also extend our appreciation to Dr. Thomas Sullivan, Dr. A.J. Kroll, Tony Melchiors, Dr. Darren Miller, Dr. John Cook, Dr. George Ice, Dr. Alan Lucier, Stu Farber, Jeff Light, Matt Higgins, Steve Wickham, Jerry Breland, Conner Fristoe, and Marshall Jacobson for providing critical manuscript reviews. All of your comments and edits greatly improved this manuscript, and for this we are grateful. We express our gratitude to Judith Adamski for assistance with literature acquisition. Funding for this project was provided by NCASI, and member companies of the Washington Forest Protection Association, Oregon Forest Industries Council, and the American Forest Resource Council. For more information about this research, contact: Larry L. Irwin, Ph.D. Alan A. Lucier, Ph.D. Principal Research Scientist Senior Vice President NCASI Western Wildlife NCASI P.O. Box 68 P.O. Box 13318 Stevensville, MT 59870 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318 (406) 777-7215 (919) 941-6403 [email protected] [email protected] For information about NCASI publications, contact: Publications Coordinator NCASI P.O. -
Glufosinate-Tolerant Cotton: Tolerance and Weed
GLUFOSINATE-TOLERANT COTTON: TOLERANCE AND WEED MANAGEMENT by LESLI KRISTEN BLAIR, B.S. A THESIS IN CROP SCIENCE Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Accepted Deamof the Graduate School December, 1991 ^^•ft:;^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1i would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the members that served on 7 '^ '^* my advisory committee for their time, effort, and assistance. I would like to thank Dr. Dotray for his guidance and direction in the preparation of this thesis; Dr. Keeling for his instruction and support in monitoring these experiments; Dr. Gannaway for his knowledge and assistance in the biotechnology and breeding associated with this project; and Dr. Thompson for her friendship and support in making career decisions. Without all of their guidance, I could never have achieved the goals that we set. I wish to thank all of my fellow graduate students in Weed Science for their help in completing this project. I would especially like to thank Alan Helm for his endless help collecting all of the first year data, Ginger Light for her help in clarifying concepts, and LeAnna Lyon for her help with the last year's project. Their support, friendship, and help on this project have been immeasurable. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to AgrEvo and TxCot for their funding of this research. My thanks also go to the people at the USDA-ARS in Lubbock for all of their help before and after I became involved with this research. -
WO 2013/037955 Al 21 March 2013 (21.03.2013) P O P C T
(12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization I International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2013/037955 Al 21 March 2013 (21.03.2013) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every A01N 25/00 (2006.01) A OIN 43/653 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, A0 41/06 (2006.01) A01N 37/50 (2006.01) AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, (21) Number: International Application DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, PCT/EP2012/068096 HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, (22) International Filing Date: KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, 14 September 2012 (14.09.2012) ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, (25) Filing Language: English RW, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, (26) Publication Language: English TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (30) Priority Data: 1118 1702.9 16 September 201 1 (16.09.201 1) EP (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US): BAYER GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, SZ, TZ, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH [DE/DE]; Al- UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, TJ, fred-Nobel-Str. -
WO 2013/020985 Al 14 February 2013 (14.02.2013) P O P C T
(12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization I International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2013/020985 Al 14 February 2013 (14.02.2013) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agent: BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY A 47/06 (2006.01) A01P 7/02 (2006.01) GMBH; Alfred-Nobel-Str. 10, 40789 Monheim (DE). A01N 57/20 (2006.01) A01P 7/04 (2006.01) (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every A01P 5/00 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, (21) International Application Number: AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, PCT/EP2012/065469 BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, (22) International Filing Date: HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, 7 August 2012 (07.08.2012) KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, (25) Filing Language: English ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, (26) Publication Language: English SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, (30) Priority Data: TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, 61/521,827 10 August 201 1 (10.08.201 1) US ZW. (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US): BAYER (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH [DE/DE]; Al- kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, fred-Nobel-Str. -
Cleantraxx™ Herbicide
Solutions for the Growing World TECHNICAL BULLETIN FOR CONIFER FOREST AND TREE PLANTATIONS USE Cleantraxx™ herbicide controls broadleaf, annual grass weeds and some woody brush seedlings when applied as a pre-emergence or early post-emergence application for conifer site preparation, conifer release and forest roadsides. It is labeled for use in CA, OR, and WA forestry as a Special Local Needs (SLN) label. It has excellent conifer tolerance especially on those species that are not tolerant to hexazinone. Cleantraxx is also labeled for non-cropland uses such as roadsides, railroads, and utility rights-of-way. Cleantraxx™ herbicide is an SC formulation containing: • Penoxsulam: 0.083 lb/gallon, an ALS herbicide with broad spectrum weed control • Oxyfluorfen: 3.96 lb/gallon, a PPO inhibitor herbicide, a long GENERAL GUIDELINES: time standard for broad spectrum weed control • Best results are obtained using Cleantraxx™ ™ Benefits of Cleantraxx herbicide at 3 pints/acre in the early spring for conifer site • Broad Spectrum Weed Control: over 50 broadleaf preparation or conifer release with a rain event and grass species, including glyphosate resistant species like within 21 days after application marestail and fleabane (see main label for complete list of weeds controlled) • Excellent conifer tolerance has been shown for • Burndown and Residual Control: up to 6 months after the Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, western larch, white fir, application at the 3 pint/acre rate sugar pine, redwoods, and incense cedar. New trials • Conifer Safety: excellent -
Herbicides for Weed Control in Turfgrass James Mcafee, Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Dallas, Texas and Paul A
EXHIBIT THREE EVALUATION OF NOVEMBER 2013 DETECTION OF NEW PARAMETERS CLOSED COLLINSVILLE LANDFILL COLLINSVILLE, ILLINOIS Closed Collinsville Landfill Petition for Adjusted Standards EXHIBIT 3-1 Groundwater Assessment of 31 Additional Parameters under 35 IAC 620.410 and 4th Quarter 2013 Monitoring Results Submitted to IEPA in February 2014 NOTE: This copy excludes the electronic data submitted to the IEPA as Appendix B, Appendix C Field Notes, Appendix D Chain of Custodies and Analytical Results of the above report, and the Analytical Results for Appendix E Historical Leachate Sampling Results that is provided in the data summary tables of this report and the historical letter reports for the leachate sampling. Closed Collinsville Landfill Petition for Adjusted Standards GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT OF 31 ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS UNDER 35 IAC 620.410 AND 4TH QUARTER 2013 MONITORING RESULTS CLOSED COLLINSVILLE LANDFILL COLLINSVILLE, ILLINOIS FEBRUARY 2014 Prepared for: CITY OF COLLINSVILLE COLLINSVILLE, ILLINOIS 62234 PROJECT NUMBER: 31891 PREPARED BY: TETRA TECH, INC. 1634 Eastport Plaza Collinsville, Illinois 62234 Closed Collinsville Landfill Petition for Adjusted Standards Groundwater Assessment of 31 Additional Parameters under 35 IAC 620.410 Closed Collinsville Landfill, Collinsville, Illinois City of Collinsville February 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ -
Universal Chloroplast Integration and Expression Vectors, Transformed
(19) TZZ ¥_¥¥_T (11) EP 2 319 933 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: C12N 15/82 (2006.01) A01H 5/00 (2006.01) 15.10.2014 Bulletin 2014/42 (21) Application number: 10181990.2 (22) Date of filing: 05.08.1998 (54) Universal chloroplast integration and expression vectors, transformed plants and products thereof Universeller Integrations- und Expressionsvektor für Chloroplasten; transformierte Pflanzen und daraus abkömmliche Produkte Vecteurs universels d’intégration et d’expression de chloroplastes, plantes transformées et produits obtenus (84) Designated Contracting States: • SVAB Z ET AL: "HIGH-FREQUENCY PLASTID AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LI LU TRANSFORMATION IN TOBACCO BY MC NL PT SE SELECTION FOR ACHIMERIC AADA GENE", PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY (30) Priority: 07.08.1997 US 55314 P OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES (PNAS), 23.03.1998 US 79042 P NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, US, vol. 90, 15.05.1998 US 79640 no. 3, 1 February 1993 (1993-02-01), pages 913-917, XP002942726, ISSN: 0027-8424, DOI: (43) Date of publication of application: DOI:10.1073/PNAS.90.3.913 11.05.2011 Bulletin 2011/19 • GADANI F ET AL: "Tobacco: a tool for plant genetic engineering research and molecular (62) Document number(s) of the earlier application(s) in farming", AGRO FOOD INDUSTRY HI-TECH, accordance with Art. 76 EPC: TEKNOSZIENZE, MILAN, IT, vol. 6, 1 March 1995 05011140.0 / 1 571 220 (1995-03-01), pages 3-6, XP002134757, 98935230.7 / 1 002 115 • STAUB, J.M. -
Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other -
Pesticide and Veterinary Drug Standard Item List
Pesticide and Veterinary Drug Standard Item List 2021.7.1 edition The grade listed in this list are subject to change without notice. * Please check the https://labchem-wako.fujifilm.com/us/index.html for the latest information. TraceSure® and Traceable Reference Material (TRM) have a purity guarantee by an * external organization in addition to our grade. Component Compound CASNo. Code No. Product Name Glade Volume Molecular Formula MW Purity Abamectin 71751-41-2 016-20361 Abamectin Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 200mg 95.0+% (HPLC)(アベルメクチンB1a+アベルメクチンB1b) Abamectin 8,9-Z-Avermectin B1a 113665-89-7 018-24961 8,9-Z-Avermectin B1a Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 10mg C48H72O14 873.08 95.0+% (HPLC) Acephate Acephate 30560-19-1 015-08954 Acephate Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 100mg C4H10NO3PS 183.17 98.0+% (cGC)※ Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 018-18591 Acequinocyl Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 200mg C24H32O4 384.51 98.5+% (HPLC), 97.0+% (qNMR) Acequinocyl Acequinocyl-hydroxy 57960-31-3 011-18601 Acequinocyl-hydroxy Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 200mg C22H30O3 342.47 99.0+% (HPLC), 99.0+% (qNMR) Acetaminophen Acetaminophen 103-90-2 015-22651 Acetaminophen Standard for HPLC 100mg CH3CONHC6H4OH 151.16 98.0+% (HPLC), 97.0+% (qNMR) Acetamiprid 160430-64-8 010-16493 Acetamiprid Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 100mg C10H11ClN4 222.67 98.0+% (cGC) ※ Acetamiprid Acetamiprid Metabolite IM-2-1 - 019-25851 Acetamiprid Metabolite IM-2-1 Standard for Pesticide Residue Analysis 100mg C9H9ClN4 208.65 98.0+% -
By USDA APHIS BRS Document Control Officer at 2:18 Pm, Dec 11
CBI Deleted EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture (USDA) has responsibility under the Plant Protection Act (Title IV Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. § 7701-7772) to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests into the U.S. APHIS regulation 7 CFR § 340.6 provides that an applicant may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data to determine that a particular regulated article does not present a plant pest risk and no longer should be regulated. If APHIS determines that the regulated article does not present a plant pest risk, the petition is granted, thereby allowing unrestricted introduction of the article. Monsanto Company is submitting this request to APHIS for a determination of nonregulated status for the new biotechnology-derived maize product, MON 87429, any progeny derived from crosses between MON 87429 and conventional maize, and any progeny derived from crosses of MON 87429 with biotechnology-derived maize that have previously been granted nonregulated status under 7 CFR Part 340. Product Description Monsanto Company has developed herbicide tolerant MON 87429 maize, which is tolerant to the herbicides dicamba, glufosinate, aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (so called “FOPs” herbicides such as quizalofop) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). In addition, it provides tissue-specific glyphosate tolerance to facilitate the production of hybrid maize seeds. MON 87429 contains -
(Faqs) on the Use of Herbicides in Canadian Forestry D.G
Canadian Forest Service - Sault Ste. Marie Technical Note No. 112 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) On the Use of Herbicides in Canadian Forestry D.G. Thompson, D.G. Pitt Introduction Forest herbicide application is an important silvicultural tool in the day or a smaller amount and frequency of occurrence such as an regeneration of Canada’s forests. Currently in Ontario, herbicides occasional glass of wine with dinner); are applied to approximately 70,000 ha annually, about one third of 3. in simple terms, if there is no exposure, there can be no dose, and the area regenerated each year. The Canadian forest industry relies on therefore no effect. the use of herbicides as an effective plantation management technique to ensure forest renewal and to remain competitive. However, In a manner similar to the human consumption of alcohol noted the concerned public has questioned the safety of herbicide use, above, the potential effects of a herbicide on either humans or any prompting Canadian Forest Service (CFS) scientists to use their in- wildlife species depends on the magnitude, duration, frequency and depth knowledge to answer to a number of key questions posed by route of exposure. Just as there are levels of alcohol or caffeine that members of the public. may be consumed without any noticeable or measurable effect, there are levels of exposure for wildlife or humans to herbicides for which The focus of this FAQ document is on the use of herbicides and the we cannot observe or measure a direct or indirect deleterious effect. potential risks, particularly to wildlife, that may be associated with their use.