DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Saflufenacil on Glyphosate-Resistant And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Saflufenacil on Glyphosate-Resistant And ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF SAFLUFENACIL ON GLYPHOSATE- RESISTANT AND GLYPHOSATE-PARAQUAT RESISTANT HAIRY FLEABANE (Conyza bonariensis) Hairy fleabane [Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq.] is a problematic weed in crop and non-crop areas of California. This problem has been further aggravated by the discovery of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Three experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy of saflufenacil (TreevixTM), a fairly new herbicide, on glyphosate-susceptible (GS), glyphosate-resistant (GR), and glyphosate-paraquat-resistant (GPR) hairy fleabane plants. The studies evaluated the efficacy of saflufenacil when applied alone or in combination with glyphosate at: a) three growth stages (5- to 8-leaf seedling, rosette, and bolting); b) three temperature regimes (15/10ºC, 25/20ºC, 35/30ºC at day/night); and c) three light regimes (100%, 50%, 30%, 0% of full sun). Results differed between experiments conducted in the spring and fall. Saflufenacil-alone was more effective in the fall than in spring. All the GS, GR and GPR plants were controlled by saflufenacil- alone at the 5-to 8-leaf seedling and rosette stage but level of control declined at the bolting stage. Better control was obtained at the 15/10ºC and 25/20ºC than at the 35/30ºC temperature regime. Light regime had no effect on the efficacy of saflufenacil. Efficacy of saflufenacil-alone was inconsistent in spring and varied between the biotypes. Therefore, saflufenacil-alone can provide excellent control of hairy fleabane plants prior to the bolting stage in the fall; but in spring, it will be more effective when applied with glyphosate. Michelle Dennis May 2015 EVALUATION OF SAFLUFENACIL ON GLYPHOSATE- RESISTANT AND GLYPHOSATE-PARAQUAT RESISTANT HAIRY FLEABANE (Conyza bonariensis) by Michelle Dennis A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Plant Science in the Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology California State University, Fresno May 2015 © 2015 Michelle Dennis APPROVED For the Department of Plant Science: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree. Michelle Dennis Thesis Author Anil Shrestha (Chair) Plant Science John Bushoven Plant Science Kurt Hembree University of California, Cooperative Extension For the University Graduate Committee: Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship. Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me. Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to dedicate this thesis to my two children, Rio Renee and Ty “Ox” Dennis. If fate ever leads you to read this when you are grown, realize that it is not the printed words providing clarity to well thought-out studies that created this document. It is all of the mistakes that were made, the trials that were thrown out, and the pages of gibberish that needed to be rewritten that brought me to the completion of this document and the true discoveries. To my husband, Scott, thank you for supporting my journey. For the first time in our 15 years of marriage, I truly can’t find the words. To my parents, thank you for having faith in me every step of the way. To my committee, especially my advisor, Anil Shrestha, thank you for not accepting anything less than 100%. Your insights, questions and critiques during this process have given me more confidence in my own abilities going forward. The world of research was foreign to me and now I have a roadmap to follow. To my fellow graduate student, Sonia Rios, I couldn’t have finished this project without the help and constant motivation that you provided to everyone in the weed science program. I wish you nothing but success in your future. I would also like to thank all of the students, faculty and staff of the Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology at California State University, Fresno that contributed to this study and the California State University Agricultural Research Institute for funding this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 2 Hairy Fleabane Biology and Dispersal ............................................................. 2 Evolution of Herbicide Resistant Hairy Fleabane in the Central Valley .......... 3 Need for Immediate Alternative Herbicides ..................................................... 5 PPO Inhibitors ................................................................................................... 6 Interaction of Herbicides with Plant Physiology and Environmental Factors .................................................................................................... 9 Objectives ........................................................................................................ 11 EXPERIMENT 1 – EFFECT OF GROWTH STAGE OF HAIRY FLEABANE ON THE EFFICACY OF ALTERNATIVE HERBICIDES ............................................................................................. 13 Methods and Materials .................................................................................... 13 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 16 EXPERIMENT 2 – TEMPERATURE ................................................................... 27 Methods and Materials .................................................................................... 27 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 31 EXPERIMENT 3 – LIGHT INTENSITY .............................................................. 40 Methods and Materials .................................................................................... 40 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 43 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 51 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 54 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Transplanting and herbicide application dates of the different targeted growth stages of glyphosate-susceptible, glyphosate+paraquat resistant, and glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane plants in 2012 and 2013. ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 2. Mortality of glyphosate-susceptible (GS), glyphosate+paraquat resistant (GPR), glyphosate-resistant (GS), and aboveground biomass (mean of all three biotypes) of hairy fleabane plants treated with herbicides at the 5- to 8-leaf stage in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. .......... 18 Table 3. Mortality and aboveground biomass of glyphosate-susceptible (GS), glyphosate+paraquat resistant (GPR), glyphosate-resistant (GS) of hairy fleabane plants treated with herbicides at the rosette stage. ........... 21 Table 4. Mortality of glyphosate-susceptible (GS), glyphosate+paraquat resistant (GPR), glyphosate-resistant (GS) in fall 2012 and spring 2013, and aboveground biomass (mean of all three biotypes) in fall 2012 and each biotype in spring 2013 of hairy fleabane plants treated with herbicides at the bolting stage. ......................................................... 23 Table 5. Transplanting and herbicide application dates of glyphosate- susceptible, glyphosate-resistant, and glyphosate+paraquat resistant hairy fleabane plants in 2012 and 2013. .................................................. 28 Table 6. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table showing the main effects and interactions for plant mortality and aboveground plant biomass of the glyphosate-susceptible, glyphosate-resistant, and glyphosate-paraquat resistant populations of hairy fleabane exposed to three different temperature regimes and treated with various herbicides in 2012 and 2013. ......................................................................................................... 32 Table 7. Plant mortality and aboveground biomass of hairy fleabane plants (averaged for glyphosate-susceptible, glyphosate-resistant, and glyphosate+paraquat resistant biotypes) after treatment and exposure to 15/10˚C temperature. ........................................................................... 34 Table 8. Plant mortality and aboveground biomass of hairy fleabane plants (averaged for glyphosate-susceptible, glyphosate-resistant, and glyphosate+paraquat resistant biotypes) after treatment and exposure to 25/20˚C temperature. ........................................................................... 35 viii viii Page Table 9. Plant mortality of glyphosate-susceptible (GS), glyphosate-resistant (GR), and glyphosate+paraquat resistant (GPR) hairy fleabane plants in 2012 and 2013 (averaged for the three biotypes)
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]
  • 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]
  • Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil
    TEXT SEARCHABLE DCOUMENT 2011 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PC Code: 118203 DP Barcode: 380638 and 381293 Thursday, April 07, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil Section 3 New Chemical Uses as a harvest aid on dry edible beans, dry peas, soybean, oilseeds "sunflower subgroup 20B", oilseeds "cotton subgroup 20C", and oilseeds canola "subgroup 20A". TO: Kathryn Montague, M.S., Product Manager 23 Herbicide Branch Registration Division (RD) (7505P) FROM: ~ Mohammed Ruhman, Ph.D., Agronomist 2 :4- . ""=- ........ 04!tJt! (I neith Sappington, Senior Biologist/Science Adviso~.... Vd- Environmental Risk Branch V O'f/ .../ II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) THROUGH: Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch VI Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) This ecological risk assessment for saflufenacil new uses is relying on the attached previous assessment (Attachment 1). As shown in the usage summary (Table 1), the single and seasonal rate, for all the crops range from 0.045 to 0.089 lbs a.i/A are within the range application rates used in exposure modeling for the 2009 Section 3 New Chemical Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment (DP Barcode 349855). Therefore, risk findings determined for the 2009 assessment may be used in the assessment for this submittal. Specifically, the 2009 assessment found no chronic risks to avian and mammalian species at an agricultural use rate 0 0.134 lb a.i.lA. Acute risks were not determined for birds and mammals since saflufenacil was not acutely toxic at the highest doses tested.
    [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]
  • Post-Emergence Weed Control Options in Tree Nut Orchards
    Post-emergence Weed Control Options in Tree Nut Orchards Marcelo L. Moretti1, Rolando Mejorado1, Seth Watkins1, David Doll2, and Bradley D. Hanson1 1University of California, Davis, Dept. of Plant Sciences,2Cooperative Extension Merced County [email protected] Herbicides are the primary means of vegetation management in tree nut orchards in California. Among registered herbicides, post-emergence (POST) materials, like glyphosate, are the most widely used in tree crops because of low cost and broad weed control spectrum. However, herbicide resistance has compromised the efficacy of POST only herbicide programs in many parts of the state. Most cases of resistance in orchards are glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane, horseweed, ryegrass, and junglerice. To manage resistant weed species, pre-emergence (PRE) herbicides can be applied during winter before weeds emerge; however, PRE herbicide use can be limited by cost and the need for rainfall to incorporate them. Even when PRE herbicides are used, most orchards will need a POST treatment to control weed escapes and to prepare the orchard for harvest operations. One approach to optimize control of late emerging or glyphosate-resistant weeds is to use alternate herbicides, mixtures, rates, or more appropriate application timing. The objective of this project was to evaluate POST control of hairy fleabane and yellow nutsedge with different herbicides combinations. Methods Field experiments were conducted in a three year-old almond orchard infested with hairy fleabane and yellow nutsedge. The orchard was located in a sandy soil area in Merced County, and irrigated with solid set sprinklers. The area is known to be infested with glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane.
    [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]
  • Glyphosate Poisoning
    Toxicol Rev 2004; 23 (3): 159-167 REVIEW ARTICLE 1176-2551/04/0003-0159/$31.00/0 © 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Glyphosate Poisoning Sally M. Bradberry, Alex T. Proudfoot and J. Allister Vale National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham Centre) and West Midlands Poisons Unit, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK Contents Abstract ...............................................................................................................159 1. Epidemiology .......................................................................................................160 2. Mode of Action .....................................................................................................161 3. Mechanisms of Toxicity ..............................................................................................161 3.1 Glyphosate ....................................................................................................161 3.1.1 Acute Toxicity ............................................................................................161 3.1.2 Chronic Toxicity ...........................................................................................161 3.2 Surfactants .....................................................................................................161 3.2.1 Polyoxyethyleneamine ....................................................................................162 3.2.2 Surfactants Derived from Plant Fats .........................................................................162 3.2.3 Other Surfactants
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Metabolic Inhibitors on the Translocation of Auxins
    EFFECTS OF METABOLIC INHIBITORS ON THE TRANSLOCATION OF AUXINS By DAMELIS DIAZ DE CEQUEA q Licenciado in Biology Universidad of Oriente Cumana, Venezuela 1976 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 1986 -rkto~~~ I 1:{ (; 0 5'/Je Cop " EFFECTS OF METABOLIC INHIBITORS ON THE TRANSLOCATION OF AUXINS Thesis Approved: 1251232 ~ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my most sincere gratitude to Dr. Eddie Basler for his guidance, time and training during the course of this research. I wish to thank Dr. Glenn W. Todd and Dr. Becky Johnson for being members of my graduate committee. I also want to thank Jean Pittman Winters, Trina Wheless, and Roberto Machado for their valuable help received during experiment preparations, and Bobby Winters for his time dedicated to preparing some of the computer programs. Special acknowledgement is due to my husband Hernan, my son Hernan Alejandro, and my family for their constant love and support during my graduate career, without them I would not have been able to achieve this goal. I want to express my gratitude to Dr. John Vitek, Assistant Dean of the Graduate Collage, and Dr. Glenn Todd, Botany Department Head, for giving me the opportunity to study in this University. Finally, I want to recognize the financial support received from Universidad de Oriente Cumana, Venezuela during my time in the U.S.A. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION. • . • • . • 1 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS....................................... 8 III. RESULTS ..•....•.................................•..........• 11 Comparison of the Effect of DCCD and1RIDS on the Tray~location of 2,4,5-T-1- C and IAA -1- C.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Control Guide for Ohio, Indiana and Illinois
    Pub# WS16 / Bulletin 789 / IL15 OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION Tables Table 1. Weed Response to “Burndown” Herbicides .............................................................................................19 Table 2. Application Intervals for Early Preplant Herbicides ............................................................................... 20 Table 3. Weed Response to Preplant/Preemergence Herbicides in Corn—Grasses ....................................30 WEED Table 4. Weed Response to Preplant/Preemergence Herbicides in Corn—Broadleaf Weeds ....................31 Table 5. Weed Response to Postemergence Herbicides in Corn—Grasses ...................................................32 Table 6. Weed Response to Postemergence Herbicides in Corn—Broadleaf Weeds ..................................33 2015 CONTROL Table 7. Grazing and Forage (Silage, Hay, etc.) Intervals for Herbicide-Treated Corn ................................. 66 OHIO, INDIANA Table 8. Rainfast Intervals, Spray Additives, and Maximum Crop Size for Postemergence Corn Herbicides .........................................................................................................................................................68 AND ILLINOIS Table 9. Herbicides Labeled for Use on Field Corn, Seed Corn, Popcorn, and Sweet Corn ..................... 69 GUIDE Table 10. Herbicide and Soil Insecticide Use Precautions ......................................................................................71 Table 11. Weed Response to Herbicides in Popcorn and Sweet Corn—Grasses
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]