DOCSLIB.ORG

WEED CONTROL Research Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WEED CONTROL Research Report ,, \ . ,,.--.... University 1of California . WEED CONTROL Research Report WOODY PLANT CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA WIL.DLANDS 1973 1 Division of Agricu~ltural Sciences Co•OperOtlve htension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agric.u11u_re, Univeriily of California, ond United Stoles OepartmE!nt of Agriculture co-operating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congrea of May 8, and June ~p., ]9J.4. George B. Alcorn, Director, California Agricultural Extension Service. {NOT FOR PUBLl·CATION} MA-77 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Woocly Plant Control in California Wildlands 1973 This report contains results of woody plant control experiments conducted throughout California. Contributing Authors: w. Brooks w. Mason c. Elmore w. McHenry R. Glenn R. Mullen w. Hamilton s. Radosevich w. Harvey A. Scarlett w. Johnson N. Smith o. Leonard w. Spivey Compiled by: Steven R. Radosevich, Extension Weed Scientist, University of California, Davts, California The results presented in this report are part of ongoing research projects and should not in any way be interpreted as recommendations of the University of C~lifornia. The University of California's Cooperative Extension programs ore a"voiloble to all, without regard to race, color, or notional origin. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Herbicide List 1 Weed Species Present in Herbicide Tests 2 1. Control of snowbrush ceanothus and greenleaf 4 manzanita in a stand of young conifers 2. Control of brush in a young stand of white fir 6 3. Comparison of six herbicides for the control of 6 California scrub oak 4. Control of mature brush with soil and foliar 10 applied herbicides 5. Applications of tebuthiuron for control of four 12 woody species 6. Effect ot dicamba in combination with 2,4-D and 12 2,4,5-T on the control of sprouting manzanita and interior live oak 7. Kill of poison oak with glyphosate 13 8. Control of sprouting eucalyptus stumps 14 9. Frill application of glyphosate and 2,4-D ester 15 for the control of California black oak 10. Response of squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa) 15 on rangeland to picloram and 2,4-D 11. Himalaya blackberry response to five foliage applied 16 herbicides 12. Bracken fern control using several foliage applied 17 herbicides 13. Residues of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and silvex in range 18 forage Summary of several years studies for brush control 23 1. Chamise 23 2. Interior live oak 23 3. Canyon live oak and tan oak 24 4. Mountain misery (bear-mat) 24 5. Ponderosa pine and incense cedar selectivity 25 6. Poison oak · 25 1. In , HERBICIDE LIST Herbicides Appearing in This Report Common or Manufacturer or Code Name Trade Name Marketin~ Agency amitrole various various ammonium sulf'amate various various "\ asulam Asulox® Rhodia Inc. , Chipman Div borax various various broax + monuron Ureabor® u. s. Borax bromacil Hyvar-x® duPont 2,4-D various various 2,4-DP various various 0 dicamba Banvel® Velsicol f'enuron Dybar® duPont glyphosate Roundup© Monsanto karbutilate Tandex® Niagara picloram Tordon® Dow ,, silvex various various 2,4,5-T various various ' tebuthiuron Spike® Elanco ,,r'\ ' I 2. ~. WEED SPECIES PRESENT IN HERBICIDE TESTS I Coim!lon Name Latin Name blue gum Eucalyptus globulus bracken fern pteridium aquilinum broadleaf filaree Erodium botrys bur clover Medicago hispida California black oak Quercus kelloggii California scrub oak Quercus dumosa caeyon live oak Quercus chrysolepis chamise Adenostoma fasciculatum chinquapin Castanea sp. clover Trifolium microcephalum clover Trifolium microdon clover Trifolium gracilentum coast fiddleneck Amsinckia intermedia fescue Festuca dertonensis foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum greenleaf manzanita Arctostaphylo~ patula Himalaya blackberry Rubus procerus hoary manzani ta Arctostaphylos canescens incense cedar Libocedrus decurrens interior live oak Quercus wislizeni lupine Lupinus sp. mountain misery Chamaebatia foliolosa pine Pinus sp. I 3. Common Name Latin Name poison oak mi.us toxicodendron ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa rattail fescue Festuca myuros redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium ripgut brome Bromus rigidus slender oat Avena barbata snowbrush ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus soft chess Bromus mollis sprouting manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa squarrose knapweed Centaurea squarrosa tan oak Lithocarpus densiflora white fir Abies concolor wild barley Hordeum leporinum willow Salix sp. 4. Control of snowbrush ceanothus and greenleaf manzanita in a stand of young conifers. Radosevich, s. R. and A. L. Scarlett. Undesirable brush species can severely reduce growth of young coniferous trees attempting to re-establish on many clear-cut or burned-over areas of California's potential timberland. A study was initiated on September 28, 1972 near Sattley, Sierra County to compare the effectiveness of 2,4-D ester, 2,4,5-T, and glyphosate for the control of greenleaf manzanita (Arctostap los patula Greene.) and snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus Dougl. growing in a stand of young ponderosa pine and white fir. Treatments were applied in / 3.7 GPA using a backpack mistblower. Plot size was 880 ft2 and 3 replications were employed. Diesel oil was used at l gal/A in the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T treatments. At the time of application foliage was wet from rainfall the previous two days. Manzanita was 4 to 5 feet tall with numerous fir and pine growing above and below the tops of the brush. Care was taken to avoid direct spraying of conifers protruding above the brush. Response of manzanita was acceptable with either rate of 2,~-D and 4 lbs. of 2,4,5-T. However both exhibited some phytotoxicity to white fir. Control of snowbrush ceanothus was marginal one year after application. Glyphosate was somewhat the opposite, giving acceptable control of ceanothus at the 4 and 8 lb. level, but only slight response was noted on manzanita after one year. Injury to white fir was substantially less with glyphosate than with either phenoxy herbicide. Limited data on injury to pines was due to lack of stand uniformity. It is important to note that at the time of application only 20 trees were above the brushline in the experimental area and trees in the understory were observed with difficulty. One year after treatment 40 trees existed above the brushline and an additional 110 trees could be easily seen. Trees present in the control plots were observed with difficulty. While this trial is continuing to evaluate the full effectiveness of each herbicide treatment these initial results indicate that significant competition release of conifers from brush may be possible by applications of 2,4-D ester, 2,4,5-T, or glyphosate. ,/ ) ) J Table 1. Response of greenleaf manzanita, snowbrush ceanothus am two coniferous tree species to three foliage applied- - herbicide ::, . Rate Control 0 = none. 10 = complete Injury 0 = none. 10 = dead Herbicide lb/A (ai) greenleaf manzanita ceanothus white fir pine o/5/73 10/2/73 6/5/73 10/2/73 6/5/73 10/2/73 6/5/73 10/2/73 2,4-D ester+ oil 2 5.7 7.3 5.7 2 2 2.3 1 0 2,4-D ester+ oil 4 7.0 8.3 8.3 5 2 5 o.8 0 2,4,5-T ester+ oil 2 8.o 5.3 9.3 4.3 o.8 1.3 1 - 2,4,5-T ester+ oil 4 8.3 8.3 9.6 7 2.2 3.8 - - glyphosate 2 3.7 1.7 7.0 2 0.3 0.2 - - glyphosate 4 6.3 2.3 6.5 7.3 0.7 0.5 0 - glyphosate 8 6.5 3 9.5 7.8 1 0.7 - - control - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2. Number of coniferous trees above and below the brush treated with three foliage active herbicides ,_, ' I White fir Pine Herbicide Rate (lb/A) Above brushline Below brushline Above brushline-- Below brushline 2,4-D (ester) 2 1 15 3 4 2,4-D (ester) 4 3 12 2 2 2,4,5-T 2 1 8 0 l 2,4,5-T 4 0 16 2 l glyphosate 2 3 20 1 l glyphosate 4 11 11 2 2 glyphosate 8 3 7 2 0 control - 6 15 0 0 Total 28 104 12 11 \J1 • 6. Control of brush in a young stand of white fir. Radosevich, s. R. and A. L. Scarlett. On September 28, 1972 near Sattley, Sierra County, California, a trial was established to determine the effectiveness of 2,4-D for the control of ceanothus and greenleaf manzanita growing on a site believed to contain a population of white fir. Eight replications were employed using a plot size of 2200 ft 2 • Applications were made from a crawler tractor which carried a portable engine driven piston sprayer connected to a single off-center nozzle. Spray volume was 80 GPA using a pressure of 40 psi. The only treatment consisted of 4 lb (ae)/A 2,4-D plus 1 GPA diesel oil. Rain had fallen for two consecutive days before treatment, however foliage was dry at application. Weed species present included greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphvlos patulj), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), and some chinquapin (Castanea sp •• / All species were approximately 4-5 ft. tall. White fir consisted of varying sizes up to 6 ft. Tall fir standing above the brushline were not sprayed. Response of white fir and two brush species to 2,4-D b-5-73 10-2-73 Herbicide Rate/Acre Formulation manzanita white fir manzanita ceanothus white fir 2,4-D 4 lb 4 lb ae/gal 3.3 0.9 8.3 2.4 2.2 + diesel + 1 gal control - - 0 0 0 0 0 .0 O = no control or injury, 10 = complete control Control of greenleaf manzanita was acceptable, however ceanothus appeared to be more resistant to 2,4-D.
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]
  • USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No
    SERA TR 02-43-13-03b Triclopyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 USDA Purchase Order No.: 43-1387-2-0245 Task No. 13 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 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 March 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................... iv LIST OF WORKSHEETS ...................................................... v LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... viii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .............................. ix COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................... xi CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .................................... xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xiii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program
    U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program Stream water-quality analytes Major ions and trace elements­schedule 998 (20 constituents) Pesticides ­­schedule 2437 (229 compounds) Alkalinity 1H­1,2,4­Triazole Arsenic 2,3,3­Trichloro­2­propene­1­sulfonic acid (TCPSA) Boron 2,4­D Calcium 2­(1­Hydroxyethyl)­6­methylaniline Chloride 2­[(2­Ethyl­6­methylphenyl)amino]­1­propanol Fluoride 2­Amino­N­isopropylbenzamide Iron 2­Aminobenzimidazole Lithium 2­Chloro­2',6'­diethylacetanilide 2­Chloro­4,6­diamino­s­triazine {CAAT} Magnesium (Didealkylatrazine) pH 2­Chloro­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine Potassium 2­Chloro­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine {CEAT} Total dissolved solids 2­Chloro­N­(2­ethyl­6­methylphenyl)acetamide Selenium 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­ethylamino­s­triazin Silica e {OIET} Sodium 2­Hydroxy­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine Specific conductance 2­Isopropyl­6­methyl­4­pyrimidinol Strontium 3,4­Dichlorophenylurea Sulfate 3­Hydroxycarbofuran Turbidity 3­Phenoxybenzoic acid Vanadium 4­(Hydroxymethyl)pendimethalin 4­Chlorobenzylmethyl sulfoxide Suspended sediment 4­Hydroxy molinate 4­Hydroxychlorothalonil Nutrients­schedule 2430 (18 constituents) 4­Hydroxyhexazinone A Inorganic carbon, suspended Acephate Dissolved inorganic carbon Acetochlor ammonia + organic nitrogen (unfiltered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor oxanilic acid ammonia + organic nitrogen (filtered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor sulfonic acid Ammonia as N, filtered Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid nitrite, filtered Alachlor
    [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]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, RANGE STAR,01/30/2020
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION January 30, 2020 Nathan Ehresman Registrations Manager Albaugh, LLC P.O. Box 2127 Valdosta, GA 31604-2127 Subject: Label Amendment – Add Pre-plant directions Product Name: Range Star EPA Registration Number: 42750-55 Application Date: August 17, 2017 Decision Number: 533635 Dear Mr. Ehresman: The amended label referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended, is acceptable. This approval does not affect any conditions that were previously imposed on this registration. You continue to be subject to existing conditions on your registration and any deadlines connected with them. A stamped copy of your labeling is enclosed for your records. This labeling supersedes all previously accepted labeling. You must submit one copy of the final printed labeling before you release the product for shipment with the new labeling. In accordance with 40 CFR 152.130(c), you may distribute or sell this product under the previously approved labeling for 18 months from the date of this letter. After 18 months, you may only distribute or sell this product if it bears this new revised labeling or subsequently approved labeling. “To distribute or sell” is defined under FIFRA section 2(gg) and its implementing regulation at 40 CFR 152.3. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Melaleuca Seedlings and Trees by Herbicides RANDALL K
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 35: 55-59 Control of Melaleuca Seedlings and Trees by Herbicides RANDALL K. STOCKER1 AND D. R. SANDERS, SR.2 ABSTRACT starting in 1940 to prevent storm generated waves from erod- ing the levee system (Herbert Hoover Dike). From the tree Field tests of several herbicides at Lake Okeechobee, Flor- islands, melaleuca has spread into shallow wetland areas of ida, demonstrated effective control of melaleuca seedlings the lake. Because of the invasive nature of melaleuca (Craig- and mature trees. The lowest tested rates (4.5, 2.2, and 4.5 kg head 1971), and subsequent impacts to native plant (Myers ai/ha) of bromacil, hexazinone, and tebuthiuron (respec- 1984) and animal (Deuver et al. 1979, Maffei 1994, Mmazzot- tively) produced complete mortality of melaleuca seedings tii et al. 1981, Ostrenko et al 1979, Sowder and Woodall within six weeks of treatment. The highest tested rate (13.4 1985) communities, and because the USAE has determined kg ai/ha) of glyphosate also produced 100 percent mortality that the trees are no longer essential for bank stabilization, of seedlings, but 44 weeks were required to achieve these efforts have been underway since 1993 to control the trees results. At lower rates, tebuthiuron pellets were not as effec- and prevent further spread into adjacent wetlands. tive as the wettable powder formulation on seedlings. Only Melaleuca has been reported to be controlled by several dicamba + 2,4-D produced less than 100 percent mortality of herbicides. Imazapyr caused melaleuca mortality 12 months seedlings at the highest tested rate (87%). After 15 months, after treatment (Standish and Burns 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Biochemical and Genotoxic Effects of a Commercial Formulation of the Herbicide Tebuthiuron in Oreochromis Niloticus of Different Sizes
    Ecotoxicol. Environ. Contam., v. 9, n. 1, 2014, 59-67 doi: 10.5132/eec.2014.01.008 Biochemical and genotoxic effects of a commercial formulation of the herbicide tebuthiuron in Oreochromis niloticus of different sizes M.F. FRANCO-BERNARDES; L.R. MASCHIO; M.T.V. DE AZEREDO-OLIVEIRA & E.A. DE ALMEIDA Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. Rua Cristóvão Colombo, 2265. 15054-000. São José do Rio Preto, SP. Brazil. (Received April 16, 2014; Accept June 17, 2014) Abstract Pesticides are serious contaminants because they are designed to eliminate pests, but they also affect non-target species. The present study aimed to evaluate the biochemical and genetic effects of the herbicide tebuthiuron in Oreochromis niloticus of different sizes. Thus, we analyzed biomarkers in small and large O. niloticus specimens exposed to 62.5, 125 and 250 mg L-1 of tebuthiuron for 72 hours. Fish exposed to 250 mg L-1 had high mortality rates; therefore, the data could not be used. The results showed an increase in EROD activity in fish exposed to 125 mg L-1, but no GST alteration. Antioxidant enzymes GPx and CAT were altered only in the liver of treated fish compared to the control group: CAT decreased in large fish, and GPx increased in small fish. The MDA analysis did not evidence lipid peroxidation. High DNA damage in exposed small fish (not in large fish) was observed using comet assay, but a micronucleus test did not show mutagenicity. Moreover, a comparison between control groups with specimens of different sizes revealed that small fish are more susceptible than large fish to the tebuthiuron effects, since increased comet scores was observed only for smaller fish.
    [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]