Sethoxydim [Poast]­ Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Sethoxydim [Poast]­ Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report SERA TR 01-43-01-01c Sethoxydim [Poast]­ Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 Requisition No.: 43-3187-1-0035 Task No. 1 Submitted to: Leslie Rubin, COTR Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Environmental Analysis and Documentation United States Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road Riverdale, MD 20737 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com October 31, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... v ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................. vi COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................... viii CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ................................... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................x 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............................................. 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW ...................................................... 2-1 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS ........ 2-1 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS .......................................... 2-2 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES ................................. 2-2 2.5. USE STATISTICS .................................................. 2-2 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ................................... 3-1 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ......................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Overview .................................................. 3-1 3.1.2. Acute Oral Toxicity .......................................... 3-1 3.1.3. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects ...................... 3-2 3.1.4. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects ............................ 3-2 3.1.5. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity ................................ 3-2 3.1.6. Effects on the Skin and Eyes ................................... 3-2 3.1.7. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ...................... 3-2 3.1.8. Inhalation Exposure .......................................... 3-3 3.1.9. Impurities, Adjuvants, and Metabolites ............................ 3-3 3.1.10. Toxicological Interactions ..................................... 3-4 ii 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................... 3-4 3.2.1. Overview .................................................. 3-4 3.2.2. Workers ................................................... 3-5 3.2.3. General Public .............................................. 3-6 3.2.4. Inhalation Exposures ......................................... 3-7 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................... 3-8 3.3.1. Overview .................................................. 3-8 3.3.2. Existing Guidelines ........................................... 3-8 3.3.3 Dose-Response and Dose-Severity Relationships .................... 3-8 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ....................................... 3-8 3.4.1. Overview .................................................. 3-8 3.4.2. Workers ................................................... 3-9 3.4.3. General Public .............................................. 3-9 3.4.4. Sensitive Subgroups ......................................... 3-10 3.4.5. Connected Actions .......................................... 3-10 3.4.6. Cumulative Effects .......................................... 3-10 3.4.7. Inhalation Exposures ........................................ 3-10 4. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................... 4-1 4.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ....................................... 4-1 4.1.1. Overview .................................................. 4-1 4.1.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms ................................ 4-1 4.1.3. Aquatic Organisms ........................................... 4-2 4.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ........................................ 4-3 4.2.1. Overview .................................................. 4-3 4.2.2. Consumption by Terrestrial Animals .............................. 4-3 4.2.3. Inhalation Exposures ......................................... 4-4 4.2.4. Aquatic Organisms ........................................... 4-4 4.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................... 4-4 4.3.1. Overview .................................................. 4-4 4.3.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms ................................ 4-5 4.3.3. Aquatic Organisms ........................................... 4-6 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ....................................... 4-6 4.4.1. Overview .................................................. 4-6 4.4.2. Terrestrial Organisms ......................................... 4-7 4.4.3. Aquatic Organism ........................................... 4-8 5. REFERENCES ........................................................ 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Toxicity of Sethoxydim and Poast to experimental mammals. Appendix 2: Toxicity of Sethoxydim and Poast to birds. Appendix 3: Toxicity of Sethoxydim and Poast to aquatic organisms. WORKSHEETS ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Documentation for Worksheets Version 2.02 - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments. Attachment 2: Documentation for the Use of GLEAMS and Auxiliary Programs, SERA AT 2000-01b, dated September 24, 2000. iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Selected Physical and Chemical properties ............................. 2-4 Table 3-1 Summary of Exposure Assessments for Workers ........................ 3-23 Table 3-2 Summary of Exposure Assessments for the General Public ................ 3-24 Table 3-3 Specific Parameters Used in GLEAMS Modeling ....................... 3-25 Table 3-4 Estimated concentrations of sethoxydim in a small stream based on GLEAMS modeling with different soil types and annual rainfall rates and using a normalized application rate of 1 lb/acre. ....................................... 3-26 Table 3-5 Estimated concentrations of sethoxydim in a small pond based on GLEAMS modeling with different soil types and annual rainfall rates and using a normalized application rate of 1 lb/acre. ....................................... 3-27 Table 3-6 Summary of risk characterization for workers .......................... 3-28 Table 3-7 Summary of risk characterization for the general public ................... 3-29 Table 4-1 Summary of Exposure Scenarios for Terrestrial Animals .................. 4-21 Table 4-2 Summary of toxicity values used in ecological risk assessment .............. 4-22 Table 4-3 Summary of quantitative risk characterization for terrestrial animals ......... 4-23 Table 4-4 Quantitative Risk Characterization for Aquatic Species ................... 4-24 v ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS a.e. acid equivalents a.i. active ingredient AEL adverse-effect level APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ARS Agricultural Research Station ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BCF bioconcentration factor bw body weight cm centimeter DG dispersible granules EC50 concentration causing 50% inhibition of a process EC100 concentration causing complete inhibition of a process EIS environmental impact statement F female F1 first filial generation FH Forest Health FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FS Forest Service g gram GC gas chromatography GRAS generally recognized as safe HQ hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer IRIS Integrated Risk Information System i.p. intraperitoneal kg kilogram Ko/c organic carbon partition coefficient Kow octanol-water partition coefficient Kp skin permeability coefficient L liter lb pound LC50 lethal concentration, 50% mortality LD50 lethal dose, 50% mortality LD95 lethal dose, 95% mortality LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level m meter M male mg milligram mg/kg/day milligrams of agent per kilogram of body weight per day mL milliliter MSDS material safety data sheet MW molecular weight NCI National Cancer Institute NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS (continued) NOEC no-observed-effect concentration NOEL no-observed-effect level NRC National Research Council OPP Office of Pesticide Programs ORD Office of Research and Development OTS Office of Toxic Substances ppm parts per million RBC red blood cells RfD reference dose UF uncertainty factor U.S. United States U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USDA United States Department of Agriculture > greater than $ greater than or equal to < less than # less than or equal to = equal to • approximately equal to vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS To convert ... Into ... Multiply by ... acres hectares (ha) 0.4047 acres square meters (m2) 4,047 atmospheres millimeters of mercury 760 centigrade Fahrenheit 1.8C°+32 centimeters inches 0.3937 cubic meters (m3) liters (L) 1,000 Fahrenheit centigrade 0.556F°-17.8 feet per second (ft/sec) miles/hour (mi/hr) 0.6818 gallons (gal) liters (L) 3.785 gallons per acre (gal/acre) liters per hectare (L/ha) 9.34 grams (g) ounces, (oz) 0.03527 grams (g) pounds, (oz) 0.002205 hectares (ha) acres 2.471 hectares (ha) square meters 10,000 inches (in) centimeters (cm) 2.540 kilograms (kg) ounces, (oz) 35.274 kilograms
Recommended publications
  • Weed Control in Direct-Seeded Field Pea Gregory J
    Weed Control in Direct-seeded Field Pea Gregory J. Endres and Blaine G. Schatz Weed control and field pea response to selected soil- and POST-applied herbicides were evaluated in a randomized complete-block design with three replicates. The experiment was conducted on a Heimdahl loam soil with 6.7 pH and 2.9% organic matter at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center. Herbicide treatments were applied to 5- by 25-ft plots with a pressurized hand-held plot sprayer at 17 gal/A and 30 psi through 8002 flat-fan nozzles. Fall sulfentrazone treatments were applied October 25, 2004 to a moist soil surface with 47 F, 71% RH, 15% clear sky, and 11 mph wind. On April 28, 2005, inoculated 'Integra' field pea was seeded into standing wheat stubble in 7-inch rows at a rate of 300,000 pure live seeds/A. PRE treatments were applied to a dry soil surface on April 30 with 31 F, 64% RH, 30% clear sky, and 10 mph wind. Rainfall totaled 1.22 inches 8 d following PRE application. The trial area was treated on May 6 with a PRE burn-down application of glyphosate at 0.75 lb ae/A plus ammonium sulfate at 1% v/v. The early POST (EPOST) treatment was applied on May 23 with 73 F, 35% RH, 100% cloudy sky, and 6 mph wind to 2-inch tall field pea, 1- to 2-leaf green and yellow foxtail, 0.5-inch tall common lambsquarters, 0.5-inch tall prostrate and redroot pigweed, and 0.5-inch tall wild buckwheat.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C - Wildlife 9/8/2008
    INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests Appendix C - Wildlife 9/8/2008 APPENDIX C - WILDLIFE C-1 INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests Appendix C - Wildlife 9/8/2008 C-2 INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests Appendix C - Wildlife 9/8/2008 Appendix C ......................................................................................................................... 1 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 1 Exposure Groups for Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife ................................................. 6 Effects of the Alternatives on Sensitive Wildlife ........................................................... 7 Tables C-5 – C-13 Herbicides ................................................................................... 11 Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Herbicide Spray Buffers ................ 12 Aquatics............................................................................................................. 15 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 15 Worker Health: Based on backpack spray applications. ................................. 15 Public Health: ................................................................................................... 16 Summary of Herbicide Effects to Wildlife
    [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]
  • Weed Management—Major Crops
    Weed Technology 2010 24:1–5 Weed Management—Major Crops Annual Grass Control in Strip-Tillage Peanut Production with Delayed Applications of Pendimethalin W. Carroll Johnson, III, Eric P. Prostko, and Benjamin G. Mullinix, Jr.* In strip-tillage peanut production, situations occur when dinitroaniline herbicides are not applied in a timely manner. In these cases, dinitroaniline herbicides would be applied days or weeks after seeding. However, there is no information that documents the effects of delayed applications on weed control. Trials were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2007 in Georgia to determine the weed control efficacy of delayed applications of pendimethalin in strip-tillage peanut production. Treatments included seven timings of pendimethalin application and three pendimethalin-containing herbicide combinations. Timings of application were immediately after seeding (PRE), vegetative emergence of peanut (VE), 1 wk after VE (VE+1wk), VE+2wk, VE+3wk, VE+4wk, and a nontreated control. Pendimethalin containing herbicide programs included pendimethalin plus paraquat, pendimethalin plus imazapic, and pendimethalin alone. Among the possible treatment combinations was a current producer standard timing for nonpendimethalin weed control programs in peanut, which was either imazapic or paraquat alone applied VE+3wk. Pendimethalin alone did not effectively control Texas millet regardless of time of application (69 to 77%), whereas southern crabgrass was controlled by pendimethalin alone PRE (87%). Delayed applications of pendimethalin controlled Texas millet and southern crabgrass when combined with either paraquat or imazapic, with imazapic being the preferred combination due to better efficacy on southern crabgrass than paraquat at most delayed applications. Peanut yield was improved when any of the herbicide combinations were applied PRE compared to later applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Resistance to Glyphosate, Paraquat and Accase
    Research Article Received: 5 September 2017 Revised: 16 October 2017 Accepted article published: 26 October 2017 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 8 December 2017 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/ps.4774 Multiple resistance to glyphosate, paraquat and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in Italian ryegrass populations from California: confirmation and mechanisms of resistance Parsa Tehranchian,a* Vijay Nandula,b Mithila Jugulam,c Karthik Puttac and Marie Jasieniuka Abstract BACKGROUND: Glyphosate, paraquat and acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase)-inhibiting herbicides are widely used in California annual and perennial cropping systems. Recently, glyphosate, paraquat, and ACCase- and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibitor resistance was confirmed in several Italian ryegrass populations from the Central Valley of California. This research characterized the possible mechanisms of resistance. RESULTS: Multiple-resistant populations (MR1, MR2) are resistant to several herbicides from at least three modes of action. Dose–response experiments revealed that the MR1 population was 45.9-, 122.7- and 20.5-fold, and the MR2 population was 24.8-, 93.9- and 4.0-fold less susceptible to glyphosate, sethoxydim and paraquat, respectively, than the susceptible (Sus) population. Accumulation of shikimate in Sus plants was significantly greater than in MR plants 32 h after light pretreatments. Glyphosate resistance in MR plants was at least partially due to Pro106-to-Ala and Pro106-to-Thr substitutions at site 106 of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS). EPSPS gene copy number and expression level were similar in plants from the Sus and MR populations. An Ile1781-to-Leu substitution in ACCase gene of MR plants conferred a high level of resistance to sethoxydim and cross-resistance to other ACCase-inhibitors.
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42, CH 9.2.2: Pesticide Application
    9.2.2PesticideApplication 9.2.2.1General1-2 Pesticidesaresubstancesormixturesusedtocontrolplantandanimallifeforthepurposesof increasingandimprovingagriculturalproduction,protectingpublichealthfrompest-bornediseaseand discomfort,reducingpropertydamagecausedbypests,andimprovingtheaestheticqualityofoutdoor orindoorsurroundings.Pesticidesareusedwidelyinagriculture,byhomeowners,byindustry,andby governmentagencies.Thelargestusageofchemicalswithpesticidalactivity,byweightof"active ingredient"(AI),isinagriculture.Agriculturalpesticidesareusedforcost-effectivecontrolofweeds, insects,mites,fungi,nematodes,andotherthreatstotheyield,quality,orsafetyoffood.Theannual U.S.usageofpesticideAIs(i.e.,insecticides,herbicides,andfungicides)isover800millionpounds. AiremissionsfrompesticideusearisebecauseofthevolatilenatureofmanyAIs,solvents, andotheradditivesusedinformulations,andofthedustynatureofsomeformulations.Mostmodern pesticidesareorganiccompounds.EmissionscanresultdirectlyduringapplicationorastheAIor solventvolatilizesovertimefromsoilandvegetation.Thisdiscussionwillfocusonemissionfactors forvolatilization.Thereareinsufficientdataavailableonparticulateemissionstopermitemission factordevelopment. 9.2.2.2ProcessDescription3-6 ApplicationMethods- Pesticideapplicationmethodsvaryaccordingtothetargetpestandtothecroporothervalue tobeprotected.Insomecases,thepesticideisapplieddirectlytothepest,andinotherstothehost plant.Instillothers,itisusedonthesoilorinanenclosedairspace.Pesticidemanufacturershave developedvariousformulationsofAIstomeetboththepestcontrolneedsandthepreferred
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Mesotrione for Annual Bluegrass (Poa Annua L.) at Cool
    USE OF MESOTRIONE FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA L.) AT COOL- SEASON TURFGRASS ESTABLISHMENT by KATELYN A. VENNER A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Program in Plant Biology written under the direction of Stephen E. Hart Ph.D. and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey October, 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS USE OF MESOTRIONE AT COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS ESTABLISMENT By Katelyn Anne Venner Thesis director: Stephen E. Hart Annual bluegrass is a problematic weed in highly maintained turfgrass environments, and is difficult to control due to its adaptability to highly maintained turfgrass environments and lack of highly effective chemical control options. Mesotrione is a relatively new herbicide which has been found to show some level of control of annual bluegrass, and is safe to use at cool season turfgrass establishment. Thus, mesotrione has potential to be utilized for weed control in cultivated sod production. The objectives of this research were to evaluate mesotrione to determine: 1) tolerance of selected tall fescue cultivars, an important turfgrass species cultivated for sod, to applications of mesotrione; 2) the length of residual of mesotrione versus prodiamine, bensulide and dithiopyr for control of annual bluegrass; and 3) potential of mesotrione to control winter annual broadleaf weeds at Kentucky bluegrass establishment. Tall fescue cultivars were found to be tolerant to mesotrione applications made preemergence and preemergence plus 4 weeks after emergence at higher rates than required for weed control.
    [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]
  • Herbicide Resistance Traits in Maize and Soybean: Current Status and Future Outlook
    plants Review Herbicide Resistance Traits in Maize and Soybean: Current Status and Future Outlook Vijay K. Nandula Crop Production Systems Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA; [email protected] Received: 16 August 2019; Accepted: 6 September 2019; Published: 9 September 2019 Abstract: This article reviews, focusing on maize and soybean, previous efforts to develop nontransgenic herbicide-resistant crops (HRCs), currently available transgenic HRC traits and technologies, as well as future chemical weed management options over the horizon. Since the mid twentieth century, herbicides rapidly replaced all other means of weed management. Overreliance on ‘herbicide-only’ weed control strategies hastened evolution of HR weed species. Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crop technology revolutionized weed management in agronomic crops, but GR weeds, led by Palmer amaranth, severely reduced returns from various cropping systems and affected the bottom line of growers across the world. An additional problem was the lack of commercialization of a new herbicide mode of action since the 1990s. Auxinic HRCs offer a short-term alternative for management of GR Palmer amaranth and other weed species. New HRCs stacked with multiple herbicide resistance traits and at least two new herbicide modes of action expected to be available in the mid-2020s provide new chemical options for weed management in row crops in the next decade. Keywords: corn; herbicide resistance trait; maize; soybean 1. Introduction Weeds cause extensive losses amounting to billions of US$ [1] through increased production costs, decreased quality and quantity of produce, reduced aesthetic value of landscapes that they thrive in, health effects on humans and pets, and other undesirable effects such as fuel for forest fires, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Groups
    CropLife Australia Herbicide Resistance Management Review Group Herbicide Mode of Action Groups (valid as at 10 June 2016) List of approved active constituents in each “Group” and, for ease of identification, at the discretion of the Herbicide Resistance Management Review Group the trade name of the first registered product or successor. Refer to the APVMA website (www.apvma.gov.au) to obtain a complete list of registered products from the PUBCRIS database. High Resistance Risk CHEMICAL FAMILY ACTIVE CONSTITUENT (FIRST REGISTERED TRADE NAME) GROUP A Inhibitors of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (Inhibitors of fat synthesis/ACC’ase inhibitors) ® ® ® * Aryloxyphenoxypropionates: clodinafop (Topik ), cyhalofop (Barnstorm ), diclofop (Cheetah Gold , ® ® ® * ® (Fops): Decision *, Hoegrass ), fenoxaprop (Cheetah Gold , Wildcat ), fluazifop (Fusilade®, Fusion®*), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones: butroxydim (Falcon®, Fusion®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), ® * ® ® (Dims): sethoxydim (Cheetah Gold , Decision *), tralkoxydim (Achieve ) Phenylpyrazoles: pinoxaden (Axial®) (Dens): GROUP B Inhibitors of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones: imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®,), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, ®* ®* ®* ®* ®* (Imis): OnDuty ), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress , Intervix , Lightning , Midas , OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinylthiobenzoates: bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) Sulfonylureas:
    [Show full text]
  • A Corn and Soybean Herbicide Chart
    By Premix This chart lists premix herbicides alphabetically by their trade names Corn and Soybean so you can identify the premix’s component herbicides and their respective site of action groups. Refer to the Mode of Action chart on the left for more information. Herbicide Chart Component Premix Site of Action Trade Name ® Trade Name ® Active Ingredient Group Repeated use of herbicides with the same Anthem Zidua pyroxasulfone 15 Cadet fluthiacet-ethyl 14 site of action can result in the development of Autority Assist Spartan sulfentrazone 14 Pursuit imazethapyr 2 herbicide-resistant weed populations. Authority First Spartan sulfentrazone 14 FirstRate cloransulam 2 Autority MTZ Spartan sulfentrazone 14 Sencor metribuzin 5 By Mode of Action (effect on plant growth) Authority XL Spartan sulfentrazone 14 Classic chlorimuron 2 This chart groups herbicides by their modes of action to assist you in Autumn Super Autumn iodosulfuron 2 selecting herbicides 1) to maintain greater diversity in herbicide use and ------- thiencarbazone 2 Basis Blend Resolve rimsulfuron 2 2) to rotate among herbicides with different sites of action to delay the Harmony thifensulfuron 2 development of herbicide resistance. Bicep II Magnum Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 (Bicep Lite II Mag) AAtrex atrazine 5 The Site of Action Group is a classification system developed by the Weed Science Society of America. Boundary Dual Magnum s-metolachlor 15 Sencor metribuzin 5 Breakfree ATZ Breakfree acetochlor 15 (Breakfree ATZ Lite) AAtrex atrazine 5 Number of resistant Bullet
    [Show full text]