DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Methiozolin Rates and Nitrogen Fertility Strategies for Annual Bluegrass Control and Creeping Bentgrass Safety on Golf Greens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Methiozolin Rates and Nitrogen Fertility Strategies for Annual Bluegrass Control and Creeping Bentgrass Safety on Golf Greens THE EFFECTS OF METHIOZOLIN RATES AND NITROGEN FERTILITY STRATEGIES FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AND CREEPING BENTGRASS SAFETY ON GOLF GREENS THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chen Fang, B.S. Graduate Program in Horticulture and Crop Science The Ohio State University 2015 Master's Examination Committee: Dr. David S. Gardner, Advisor Dr. John R. Street, Co-advisor Dr. T. Karl Danneberger Dr. David J. Barker Copyrighted by Chen Fang 2015 Abstract Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) is considered the most problematic weed on golf greens because of its fecund characteristic, low heat and disease tolerance in the summer, massive seed head reproduction, and bright green color. Methiozolin was initially an herbicide for weed control in crop fields and now is being developed for annual bluegrass control on golf greens. It has shown effectiveness and safety on multiple grass species, including creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). As a systemic herbicide, methiozolin is mainly taken up by root absorption and shows limited acropetal movement in the plant. It is recommended that methiozolin be watered in immediately after application. Nitrogen, as one of the essential elements of plants, plays an important role in the lateral growth and chlorophyll formation of creeping bentgrass, which can greatly influence the recovery rate, color, and other quality characteristics of the turfgrass surface. Digital Image Analysis (DIA) is a new method for turfgrass surface quality evaluation. DIA has shown efficiency in data analysis with an equal accuracy as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and better consistency than visual evaluation method (NTEP). Two experiments were conducted on the Ohio State University Golf Club practice green and one on a USGA green at the Ohio Turfgrass Foundation Research and Education Facility. The first project on the OSU Golf Club putting green was designed to study the interaction of methiozolin, nitrogen rate and fertilizing frequency on creeping ii bentgrass recovery and annual bluegrass suppression/control in the spring with fall only methiozolin treatments and fall/spring methiozolin treatments. The second project consisted of three methiozolin rates and four rates to determine the best combination of spring methiozolin rate and spring nitrogen application strategies that shows best control over annual bluegrass while benefiting creeping bentgrass recovery and safety. The third project at the OSU Research and Education Facility was to study the effects of five nitrogen rates on the lateral growth/recovery and quality of creeping bentgrass with/without methiozolin treatments. The first project found that there was no significant interaction between methiozolin, nitrogen rates and fertilizing frequency in the spring. Spring methiozolin applications had a negative effect on creeping bentgrass color and recovering rate, but also a subsequent control on annual bluegrass after methiozolin fall treatments. Among all nitrogen strategies, the 24.4 kg N ha-1 every two weeks and the 12.2 kg N ha-1 every week were the best for creeping bentgrass green-up and recovery in the spring of 2014. The second experiment project found that methiozolin rates higher than the protocol rate (0.53 kg a.i. ha-1) had significant negative effects on annual bluegrass color and significantly more decrease on annual bluegrass population. Both creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass color increased significantly with higher nitrogen rates and 24.4 kg N ha-1 had significantly more decrease on annual bluegrass population, which means higher nitrogen rates benefits creeping bentgrass more than annual bluegrass under methiozolin iii treatments. The third study found that there was no significant negative effects of methiozolin on creeping bentgrass color or lateral growth. According to the regression, there was a quadratic relation between creeping bentgrass color and time. The lateral growth rate of creeping bentgrass was constant through time and was only influenced by the nitrogen rate. iv Dedicated to my boss, Dr. Street v Acknowledgments I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my advisor, Dr. John Street, you have been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank you for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a research scientist. Your advice on both research as well as on my career have been priceless. I would also like to thank my co-advisor Dr. David Gardner and also Dr. Karl Danneberger for serving as my committee members and offering advice constantly without any hesitation. I would especially like to thank the Moghu Research Center and Moghu USA, namely Dr. Suk-jin Koo and Mr. Kyung-min Han. Without your endless support with funding, information, and product, the whole project would not have occurred. A special thanks to my family. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my mother and father for all of the sacrifices that you’ve made for me. I would also like to thank all of my friends who supported me during difficulties, and incented me to strive towards my goal. At the end I would like express appreciation to my beloved one Jing Tseh, who was always my support and provided a home where I could always take a rest when I was struck by life. vi Vita June 1989 .......................................................Born – Xining, China 2013................................................................B.A. Turfgrass Management, Beijing Forestry University, China 2013................................................................B.S. Turfgrass Science, Michigan State University, MI 2013 to present ..............................................Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, OH Fields of Study Major Field: Horticulture and Crop Science vii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………....v Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………….………….vi Vita………………………………………………………………………………………vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………….…………….xi List of Figures………………………………………………………………….………..xvi Introduction………………………………………………………………………..............1 Chapter 1: Literature Review……………………………………………….………….….4 Annual bluegrass as a problematic weed………...…………………………….….4 Chemical control of annual bluegrass……………………………………………..6 Methiozolin as a newly developed selective herbicide…………………………..10 Nitrogen as an essential plant nutrient…………………….…..………………....14 Chapter 2: Spring Application of Nitrogen and Methiozolin on Annual Bluegrass Control on Golf Greens after Fall Treatments…………………….18 Introduction………………………………………………………………………18 viii Material and methods…………………………………………………………….19 Results…………………………………………………………………….……...25 Creeping bentgrass color/quality……………………………….…….…25 Coverage of voids………………………………………………….…….35 Annual bluegrass population…………………………………….………46 Conclusions………………………………………………...……………….……54 Chapter 3: The Effects of Methiozolin and Nitrogen Rates for Spring Annual Bluegrass Control on Creeping Bentgrass Greens…………………………………………………116 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..116 Material and methods…………………………………………………………,,.117 Results…………………………………………………………………………..123 Creeping bentgrass color/quality…………..….……………………….123 Annual bluegrass color……………………………………………...….131 Annual bluegrass population………………………………………...…141 Conclusions………………………………………………………………..……148 ix Chapter 4: The Effects of Nitrogen Rates and Methiozolin on Creeping Bentgrass Lateral Growth…………………………………………….………….………….………….….195 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..195 Material and methods………………………………………………….......…....196 Results…………………………………………………………………………..201 Creeping bentgrass color/quality………………………………………201 Creeping bentgrass lateral growth……………………………………..206 Regression of the effects of nitrogen rates……………………………...209 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..213 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………240 References………………………………………………………………………….…...245 Appendix A: Annual Bluegrass Declining after Fall Methiozolin Applications ………253 Appendix B: Light Box Photos…………………………………………………………256 x List of Tables Table Page 2.1. All treatments of spring application of nitrogen and methiozolin on annual bluegrass control on golf greens after fall treatment…………………………………………..56 2.2. Application dates and rates of methiozolin fall treatments to the experimental area on a practice putting green in the field preparation stage in 2013 and 2014………………………………………………………………………………....57 2.3. Application dates and rates of methiozolin and nitrogen treatments on annual bluegrass control on golf greens after fall methiozolin treatments, 2014 and 2015...............………………….……………………………………………………58 2.4. NDVI of creeping bentgrass influenced by methiozolin, nitrogen rates and fertilizing frequency on annual bluegrass control on golf greens after fall treatment, 2014…………...……………………………………………….59 2.5. NDVI of creeping bentgrass influenced by methiozolin, nitrogen rates and fertilizing frequency on annual bluegrass control on golf greens after fall treatment, 2015…………………………………………………………….60 2.6. Green Index of creeping bentgrass influenced by methiozolin, nitrogen rates and fertilizing frequency on annual bluegrass control on golf greens after fall treatment, 2014…………………………………………………………….61 2.7. Green Index of creeping bentgrass influenced by methiozolin,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,586,504 B2 Wright Et Al
    USOO85865.04B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,586,504 B2 Wright et al. (45) Date of Patent: Nov. 19, 2013 (54) HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS GLYPHOSATE AND A PYRONE ANALOG AU 100.73/92 B 10, 1992 CA 2340240 A1 2, 2000 (75) Inventors: Daniel R. Wright, St. Louis, MO (US); EP O 808 569 A1 11, 1997 Joseph J. Sandbrink, Chesterfield, MO GB 2267 825 A 12/1993 (US); Paul G. Ratliff, Olivette, MO WO 99/00013 1, 1999 WO OO,30452 6, 2000 (US) WO OO,642.57 11, 2000 WO OO/67571 11, 2000 (73) Assignee: Monsanto Technology LLC, St. Louis, WO O1/35740 A2 5, 2001 MO (US) WO 02/21924 A2 3, 2002 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this OTHER PUBLICATIONS patent is extended or adjusted under 35 Exhibit PMH-17 Supplemental Labeling regarding Roundup Pro U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. Herbicide by Monsanto, EPA Reg. No. 524-475 (Nov. 1995), 11 pageS. (21) Appl. No.: 13/404,861 Exhibit PMH-18 Notice of Pesticide Registration issued on Oct. 5, 2000, 35 pages. Exhibit PMH-19 EPA Application for Pesticide, ID No. 200405 (22) Filed: Feb. 24, 2012 (Sep. 1995), 33 pages. Exhibit PMH-20-Documentation regarding Starmas Racun/ (65) Prior Publication Data Rumpai Herbicide (bears the year 2003), 10 pages. Exhibit PMH-21—Documentation regarding Starmix Racun/ US 2012/O157309 A1 Jun. 21, 2012 Rumpai Herbicide (Date Unknown), 3 pages. Exhibit PMH-22—article entitled Control of Eucalyptus grandis cut stumps by Keith Little et al., ICFR Bulletin Series, No.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders
    Susquehanna University Scholarly Commons Senior Scholars Day Apr 28th, 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders Maya Khanna Susquehanna University Joseph Evans Susquehanna University Matthew Persons Susquehanna University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/ssd Khanna, Maya; Evans, Joseph; and Persons, Matthew, "Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders" (2020). Senior Scholars Day. 34. https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/ssd/2020/posters/34 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Scholars Day by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione on Spiders Maya Khanna, Joseph Evans, and Matthew Persons Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, PA 17870 Tigrosa helluo Trochosa ruricola Mecaphesa asperata Frontinella pyramitela Tetragnatha laboriosa Hogna lenta Pisaurina mira Abstract Methods All spiders were collected on Table 1. The predicted lethality of mesotrione on each spider species based upon soil association levels and species size. Toxicity is predicted to increase with smaller size and Mesotrione is a widely used agricultural herbicide and is frequently used alone or as an adjuvant for the Susquehanna University’s campus. Each spider was housed in a 473 ml (16oz) greater soil contact. Sample sizes for each species are indicated to the left. A total of 615 herbicides glyphosate and atrazine. The effects of mesotrione are largely untested on beneficial non-target spiders were used in this study. species such as spiders.
    [Show full text]
  • (Aminomethyl)Phosphonic Acid, and Glyphosate-Based Formulations for Genotoxicity and Oxidative Stress Using in Vitro Approaches
    Evaluation of Glyphosate, (Aminomethyl)phosphonic Acid, and Glyphosate-Based Formulations for Genotoxicity and Oxidative Stress Using In Vitro Approaches Stephanie L. Smith-Roe, Ph.D. Genetic Toxicology Group Biomolecular Screening Branch National Toxicology Program National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences EMGS 50th Annual Meeting September 23, 2019 Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the presenter and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or conclusions of NTP or any other U.S. Federal agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. NTP studies of glyphosate Toxicity Report No. 16: 13-week study with glyphosate in feed (1992) • Nominated by California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region (1981) – Glyphosate being found in water runoff in areas of use • NTP selected glyphosate for toxicity evaluation because of: – Expanding use – Potential for human exposure – The lack of published reports concerning comprehensive toxicity or carcinogenicity evaluations NTP studies of glyphosate Toxicity Report No. 16: 13-week study with glyphosate in feed (1992) Top dose for rats ∼3,400 mg/kg/day (males & females) Top dose for mice ∼10,800 and ~12,000 mg/kg/day (males & females, respectively) • No gross lesions at necropsy (rats or mice) • Micronucleus assay was negative in male and female mice (also 13-week exposure via feed) • Bacterial mutagenicity tests were negative • ADME studies indicated low absorption
    [Show full text]