DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dicamba and Glufosinate-Tolerant Cotton MON 88701

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dicamba and Glufosinate-Tolerant Cotton MON 88701 Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dicamba and Glufosinate-Tolerant Cotton MON 88701 The undersigned submits this petition under 7 CFR § 340.6 to request that the Administrator make a determination that the article should not be regulated under 7 CFR Part 340. July 2, 2012 (Revised September 10, 2012) OECD Unique Identifier: MON-887Ø1-3 Monsanto Petition Number: 12-CT-244U Submitted by: Marianne Malven, M.S. Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 Phone: (314) 694-2225 Fax: (314) 694-8414 E-mail: [email protected] Prepared by: S.M. Arackal, M.S., B.A. Comstock, B.S., D. Chandu, Ph.D., A.E. Deffenbaugh, B.S., S.R. Eskelsen, Ph.D., D. Howard, B.S., M. Malven, M.S., J.K. Soteres, Ph.D. Contributors and/or Principal Investigators: E. Bell, Ph.D., S.L. Bollman, Ph.D., P.L. Bommireddy, Ph.D., L. Burzio, Ph.D., B. Chen, Ph.D., K.S. Crowley, Ph.D., R. Frazier, M.S., A. Galadima, Ph.D., C.W. Garnaat, M.S., Xin Gu, Ph.D., J.M. Harrison, M.Sc., M.A., J.L. Hart, M.S., R.A. Hernan, Ph.D., R. Heeren, B.S., T. Kaempfe, B.S., H.T. Kang, M.S., M. Koch, Ph.D., K.R. Lawry, M.S., T.C. Lee, Ph.D., S.L. Lemke, Ph.D., K.J. Mathis, K.E. Niemeyer, M.S., L.F. Ralston, Ph.D., A. Silvanovich, Ph.D., M.B. Spaur, B.S., Q. Tian, M.D., Ph.D., R. Wang, M.S. Monsanto Company 12-CT-244U 1 of 620 RELEASE OF INFORMATION Monsanto is submitting the information in this petition for review by the USDA as part of the regulatory process. By submitting this information, Monsanto does not authorize its release to any third party. In the event the USDA receives a Freedom of Information Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C., § 552, and 7 CFR Part 1, covering all or some of this information, Monsanto expects that, in advance of the release of the document(s), USDA will provide Monsanto with a copy of the material proposed to be released and the opportunity to object to the release of any information based on appropriate legal grounds, e.g., responsiveness, confidentiality, and/or competitive concerns. Monsanto understands that a copy of this information may be made available to the public in a reading room and upon individual request as part of a public comment period. Except in accordance with the foregoing, Monsanto does not authorize the release, publication or other distribution of this information (including website posting) without Monsanto's prior notice and consent. ©2012 Monsanto Company. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under copyright law. This document is for use only by the regulatory authority to which it has been submitted by Monsanto Company and only in support of actions requested by Monsanto Company. Any other use of this material, without prior written consent of Monsanto, is strictly prohibited. By submitting this document, Monsanto does not grant any party or entity any right to use or license the information or intellectual property described in this document. Monsanto Company 12-CT-244U 2 of 620 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that, to the best knowledge and belief of the undersigned, this petition includes all information and views on which to base a determination, and that it includes all relevant data and information known to the petitioner that are unfavorable to the petition. Marianne Malven, M.S. Regulatory Affairs Manager Address: Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., C3SD St. Louis, MO 63167 Tel: (314) 694-2225 Fax: (314) 694-8414 Monsanto Company 12-CT-244U 30f620 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States 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 cotton product, MON 88701, any progeny derived from crosses between MON 88701 and conventional cotton, and any progeny derived from crosses of MON 88701 with biotechnology-derived cotton that have previously been granted nonregulated status under 7 CFR Part 340. Product Description Monsanto Company has developed dicamba and glufosinate-tolerant cotton, MON 88701, which will allow in-crop applications of dicamba herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds from preemergence to seven days preharvest and glufosinate herbicide for broad spectrum weed control from emergence through early bloom growth stage. MON 88701 provides a wider dicamba window of application beyond the current preplant cotton uses and glufosinate application rates and timings that are equivalent to current commercial glufosinate-tolerant cotton. The combination of these two unique herbicide modes-of-action provides an effective weed management system for cotton production. Dicamba provides effective control of over 95 annual and biennial weed species, and suppression of over 100 perennial broadleaf and woody plant species. Glufosinate, a broad-spectrum contact herbicide, provides nonselective control of approximately 120 broadleaf and grass weeds. Additionally, dicamba and glufosinate provide control of herbicide-resistant weeds, including glyphosate-resistant biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), marestail (Conyza canadensis), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). MON 88701 contains a demethylase gene from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia that expresses a dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) protein to confer tolerance to dicamba herbicide. DMO protein rapidly demethylates dicamba to the herbicidally inactive metabolite 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA). DCSA has been previously identified as a metabolite of dicamba in cotton, soybean, livestock, and soil. Monsanto will request a registration from U.S. EPA for the expanded use of dicamba on MON 88701, an increase in the dicamba residue tolerance for cottonseed, the establishment of a tolerance for cotton gin by-products, and the inclusion of DCSA in the residue definitions for both cottonseed and gin by-products. No other revisions to the dicamba pesticide residue tolerances are necessary including animal products such as meat, eggs, and milk. Monsanto Company 12-CT-244U 4 of 620 Furthermore, the use of dicamba on MON 88701 does not present any new environmental exposure scenarios not previously evaluated and deemed acceptable by U.S. EPA. MON 88701 also contains a bialaphos resistance (bar) gene from Streptomyces hygroscopicus that expresses the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) protein to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide. PAT (bar)1 protein acetylates the free amino group of glufosinate to produce non-herbicidal N-acetyl glufosinate, a well known metabolite in glufosinate-tolerant plants. The use pattern and rate of glufosinate on MON 88701 will follow the existing glufosinate-tolerant cotton uses outlined on the glufosinate herbicide label. The glufosinate residues in MON 88701 treated with commercial glufosinate rates are below the established pesticide residue tolerances for both cottonseed and gin by-products. Therefore, Monsanto will not seek any changes in the glufosinate label or the established tolerances for its use on MON 88701 cotton. MON 88701 will be combined, through traditional breeding methods, with other deregulated herbicide-tolerant (e.g., glyphosate-tolerant) events. The in-crop use of dicamba and glufosinate herbicides, in addition to glyphosate herbicide, provides improved weed management options in cotton to control a broad spectrum of grass and broadleaf weed species and effective control of weeds resistant to several herbicide families. Successful integration of MON 88701 into glyphosate-tolerant cotton systems will provide: 1) an opportunity for an efficient, effective weed management system for hard-to-control and herbicide-resistant weeds; 2) a flexible system for two additional herbicide modes-of-action for in-crop application in current cotton production systems as recommended by weed science experts to manage future weed resistance development; 3) an option to delay or prevent further resistance to glyphosate and other critically important cotton herbicides; in particular, herbicides in the acetolactate synthase inhibitor (ALS) and protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor (PPO) class of chemistry; 4) crop safety to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate; and 5) additional weed management tools to enhance weed management systems necessary to maintain yield and quality to meet the growing needs of the food, feed, and industrial markets. Data and Information Presented Confirms the Lack of Plant Pest Potential and the Food and Feed Safety of MON 88701 Compared to Conventional Cotton The data and information presented in this petition demonstrate MON 88701 is agronomically, phenotypically, and compositionally comparable to commercially cultivated cotton, with the exception of its tolerances to both dicamba and glufosinate. Moreover, the data presented demonstrate MON 88701 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk, including weediness, or adverse environmental impact, compared to commercially cultivated cotton. The food, feed, and environmental safety of MON 88701 was confirmed based on multiple, well-established lines of evidence: 1 PAT (bar) indicates the PAT protein encoded by the bar gene isolated from S. hygroscopicus. The pat gene from S. viridochromogenes also encodes a PAT protein that confers glufosinate tolerance. Monsanto Company 12-CT-244U 5 of 620 Cotton is a familiar crop that does not possess any of the attributes commonly associated with weeds, and has a history of safe usage and consumption.
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]
  • View Science Comments I
    March 11, 2014 Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road, Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737- 1238 RE: Docket No. APHIS-2013-0042 Comments to USDA APHIS on Dow AgroSciences LLC; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide Resistant Corn and Soybeans Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I By: Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst Introduction These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of two sets of science comments from our organization. Legal comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end. These comments supplement and incorporate by reference our earlier two rounds of comments on the draft Environmental Assessments for event DAS-68416-4 (Enlist soybeans) and event DAS-40278-9 (Enlist corn), as well as all the references submitted previously. The previous CFS science comments on the draft EAs have been resubmitted as Appendix B, and will be cited in the text as “CFS Science Soy”, “CFS Science Corn I”, and “CFS Science Corn II.” References to the Appendix of the EIS cite the Appendix number followed by a hyphen then the page number (e.g. 4-29). Only references that are new to these draft EIS comments are listed in the References section at the end. Executive Summary The growing unsustainability of U.S. agriculture U.S. agriculture is becoming progressively less sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Glufosinate (Ignite): a New Promising Postemergence Herbicide for Citrus
    Glirus Section Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100:58-61. 1987. GLUFOSINATE (IGNITE): A NEW PROMISING POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR CITRUS Megh Singh and D. P. H. Tucker ported that the pattern of plant responses to glufosinate University of Florida, IFAS and glyphosate was distinctly different. Glufosinate has li Citrus Research and Education Center mited translocation to rootstocks and rhizomes, etc. of per 700 Experiment Station Road ennial weeds as compared to glyphosate. Therefore, even Lake Alfred, FL 33850 tual regrowth from these plant parts will occur. Glufosinate may be a useful herbicide for weed control Additional index words. Basta, Buster, Conquest, Finale, in no-tillage systems, for orchards and vineyards, and for HOE-00661, HOE-39866, glufosinate-ammonium. general weed control in rangeland and non-cropland situ ations. Kapusta (6) reported effective control of several weed species using glufosinate in no-till fields. Glufosinate Abstract. Glufosinate [ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl) at 1.0 to 2.0 kg/ha provided effective control of several methyl phosphinate] is a non-selective postemergence her annual and perennial weeds in vineyards, citrus, and other bicide for the control of a broad spectrum of grasses and fruit orchards as well as in uncultivated areas (3). Lawson broad leaf weed species. It is known worldwide by various names such as Basta, Buster, Conquest, and Finale. Glufosi and Wiseman (9) reported satisfactory runner control in nate controls both annual and perennial weeds. The activity strawberries without the adverse effect on the growth and of glufosinate is somewhat slower than paraquat but dis yield of the crop.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of 2,4-D Or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia Trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea Mays L.)
    fpls-08-01207 July 6, 2017 Time: 18:18 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 10 July 2017 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01207 Interaction of 2,4-D or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea mays L.) Zahoor A. Ganie and Amit J. Jhala* Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States Glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed is a problematic broadleaf weed in crops including maize and soybean in the Midwestern United States. Commercialization of crops with 2,4-D or dicamba and glufosinate resistance will allow post-emergence (POST) applications of these herbicides. Therefore, information is needed on how Edited by: 2,4-D/dicamba will interact with glufosinate in various rate combinations. The objectives Ilias Travlos, Agricultural University of Athens, of this study were to evaluate the interaction of glufosinate plus 2,4-D and/or dicamba for Greece control of GR giant ragweed, and to determine their effect on GR giant ragweed density, Reviewed by: biomass, maize injury, and yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 Milena S. Simic, Maize Research Institute Zemun Polje, in a field infested with GR giant ragweed in Nebraska, United States. The treatments − Serbia included POST applications of glufosinate (450 or 590 g ai ha 1), 2,4-D, or dicamba Yosra Menchari, at 280 or 560 g ae ha−1 applied alone and in tank-mixtures in glufosinate-resistant University of Jendouba, Tunisia maize. The results showed that dicamba applied alone resulted in 56 to 62% and *Correspondence: Amit J.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus Rudis)In Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology 2017 31:32–45 © Weed Science Society of America, 2017 Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis)in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean Amit J. Jhala, Lowell D. Sandell, Debalin Sarangi, Greg R. Kruger, and Steven Z. Knezevic* Glyphosate-resistant (GR) common waterhemp has become a significant problem weed in Nebraska and several Midwestern states. Several populations of GR common waterhemp are also resistant to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides, making them difficult to control with POST herbicides in GR soybean. Glufosinate-resistant (GFR) soybean is an alternate system for controlling GR common waterhemp, justifying the need for evaluating glufosinate-based herbicide programs. The objectives of this study were to compare POST-only herbicide programs (including one-pass and two-pass POST programs) with PRE followed by (fb) POST herbicide programs for control of GR common waterhemp in GFR soybean and their effect on common waterhemp density, biomass, and soybean yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 near Fremont, NE in a grower’s field infested with GR common waterhemp. Glufosinate applied early- and late-POST provided 76% control of GR common waterhemp at 14 d after late-POST (DALPOST) compared with 93% control with a PRE fb POST program when averaged across treatments. The PRE application of chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron plus flumioxazin, S-metolachlor plus fomesafen or metribuzin, saflufenacil plus dimethenamid-P fb glufosinate provided ≥95% control of common waterhemp throughout the ≤ −2 ≥ growing season, reduced common waterhemp− density to 2.0 plants m ,caused 94% biomass reduction, and led to 1,984 to 2,210 kg ha 1 soybean yield.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • CFS Science Comments I
    April 27, 2012 Docket No. APHIS–2010–0103 Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 Comments to USDA APHIS on Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide-Tolerant DAS-40278-9 Corn, Zea mays, Event DAS- 40278-9 Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I – By Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of three sets of comments from our organization. Legal comments and a second set of science comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end of each section. THE IMPACT OF DAS-40278-9 ON CORN HERBICIDE USE Summary of herbicide use Dow’s DAS-402787-9 corn is genetically engineered for resistance to 2,4-D and quizalofop, and if deregulated would be marketed with additional resistance to glyphosate and likely glufosinate – fostering greater use of three to four herbicide classes. APHIS must assess DAS-42078-9 as Dow intends it to be used, as a weed control system. DAS-40278-9 eliminates the risk of crop injury that currently limits 2,4-D use on corn, and is thus reasonably projected to trigger an up to 30-fold increase in the use of this toxic herbicide on corn, equivalent to a four-fold increase in overall agricultural use of 2,4-D, by the end of the decade.
    [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]