DOCSLIB.ORG

USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ........................................................ 2-1 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS ........ 2-1 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS ............................................ 2-2 2.4. USES AND APPLICATION RATES ..................................... 2-3 2.5. USE STATISTICS .................................................... 2-4 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................... 3-1 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ........................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Overview ................................................... 3-1 3.1.2. Mechanisms of Action ......................................... 3-1 3.1.3. Kinetics and Metabolism ....................................... 3-1 3.1.4. Acute Systemic Toxicity ....................................... 3-3 3.1.5. Subchronic and Chronic Systemic Toxicity ........................ 3-3 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System ..................................... 3-5 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ..................................... 3-5 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine Function ................................... 3-6 3.1.9. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects ............................. 3-6 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity ................................ 3-8 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization ..................................... 3-10 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure .................... 3-10 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure .......................................... 3-11 3.1.14. Adjuvants .................................................. 3-11 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites ..................................... 3-13 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ........................................... 3-14 3.2.1. Overview ................................................... 3-14 3.2.2. Workers .................................................... 3-14 3.2.3. General Public ............................................... 3-17 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .................................... 3-24 3.3.1. Overview ................................................... 3-24 3.3.2. Triclopyr ................................................... 3-24 3.3.3 TCP ....................................................... 3-26 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ........................................ 3-26 3.4.1. Overview ................................................... 3-26 3.4.2. Workers .................................................... 3-26 3.4.3. General Public ............................................... 3-28 3.4.4. TCP ....................................................... 3-30 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 4.1.2.1. Mammals ............................................ 4-1 4.1.2.2. Birds ................................................ 4-1 4.1.2.3. Invertebrates .......................................... 4-2 4.1.2.4. Soil Microorganisms ................................... 4-2 4.1.2.5. Terrestrial Plants ....................................... 4-2 4.1.2.6. Field Studies ......................................... 4-3 4.1.3. Aquatic Organisms ............................................ 4-4 4.1.3.1. Fish ................................................. 4-4 4.1.3.2. Amphibians .......................................... 4-5 4.1.3.3. Aquatic Invertebrates ................................... 4-6 4.1.3.5. Aquatic Plants ......................................... 4-6 4.1.3.6. TCP ................................................. 4-7 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................... 4-7 4.2.1. Overview .................................................... 4-7 4.2.2. Terrestrial Animals ............................................ 4-7 4.2.3. Terrestrial Plants ............................................. 4-12 4.2.4. Aquatic Organisms ........................................... 4-15 4.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .................................... 4-16 4.3.1. Overview ................................................... 4-16 4.3.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms ................................ 4-16 4.3.3. Aquatic Organisms ........................................... 4-19 4.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ........................................ 4-22 4.4.1. Overview ................................................... 4-22 4.4.2. Terrestrial Organisms ......................................... 4-22 4.4.3. Aquatic Organism ............................................ 4-24 5. REFERENCES .......................................................... 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Triclopyr Formulations with Forestry Applications (C&P Press 2002) Appendix 2: Forest Service Use of Triclopyr in 2001 (sorted by region) Appendix 3: Forest Service Use of Triclopyr in 2001 (sorted by use) Appendix 4: Acute toxicity of triclopyr and triclopyr formulations to experimental mammals Appendix 5: Systemic toxicity of triclopyr after repeated oral administrations Appendix 6: Developmental and Reproductive Effects Appendix 7: Mutagenicity studies on triclopyr Appendix 8: Repeated dermal dosing studies with triclopyr Appendix 9: Toxicity of triclopyr to birds Appendix 10: Toxicity of triclopyr to terrestrial plants Appendix 11: Field or field simulation studies Appendix 12: Toxicity of triclopyr to fish Appendix 13: Toxicity of triclopyr to aquatic invertebrates Appendix 14: Toxicity of triclopyr to aquatic plants Appendix 15: Toxicity of TCP to freshwater fish iv WORKSHEETS Supplement 1: Triclopyr Acid (Garlon 3A) - Worksheets for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, SERA WPWS 01-43-15-01c (WordPerfect) and SERA EXWS 01-43-15-01c (EXCEL) dated February 18, 2003 Supplement 2: Triclopyr BEE (Garlon 4) -Worksheets for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, SERA WPWS 01-43-15-02c (WordPerfect) and SERA EXWS 01-43-15-02c (EXCEL) dated February 18, 2003. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Bibliography of Citations Encountered. Attachment 2: Documentation for Worksheets Version 2.04 - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, SERA WSD 01-2.04 dated February 25, 2003. Attachment 3: Documentation for the Use of GLEAMS and Auxiliary Programs, SERA AT 2000-01d, dated October 12, 2001. LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Selected physical and chemical properties of triclopyr ..................... 2-9 Table 2-2: Selected physical and chemical properties of triclopyr BEE ................ 2-10 Table2-3: Use of triclopyr by USDA Forest Service in 2001 by Type of Use ........... 2-11 Table 2-4: Use of triclopyr by USDA Forest Service in 2001 by Region ............... 2-12 Table 3-1: Summary of studies on the reproductive effects of triclopyr acid, triclopyr TEA, and triclopyr BEE ................................................ 3-34 Table 3-2: Summary of worker exposure assessments .............................. 3-35 Table 3-3: Occupational exposure rates used in risk assessments ...................... 3-36 Table 3-4: Estimated absorption rates for workers involved in backpack applications of triclopyr BEE as Garlon 4 from the study by Middendorf (1992) ..... 3-37 Table 3-5: Estimated absorption rates for workers involved in backpack applications of triclopyr BEE as Garlon 4 from the study by Spencer et al. (2000) .... 3-38 Table 3-6: Summary of exposure assessments for the general public ................... 3-39 Table 3-7: Chemical specific parameters used in GLEAMS modeling and estimation of concentrations in ambient water ...................... 3-40 v LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 3-8: Estimated concentrations of triclopyr in a small stream (4,420 m3/day) adjacent to a 10 acre plot based on GLEAMS modeling with different soil types and annual rainfall rates and using a normalized application rate of 1 lb/acre ....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
    [Show full text]
  • Species Dossier: Hagenella Clathrata
    Species dossier: Hagenella clathrata Window winged sedge July 2011 Mating adult pair Hagenella clathata Contact details Ian Wallace, Curator of Conchology & Aquatic Biology World Museum William Brown Street, Liverpool, L3 8EN Tel: 0151 478 4385 Email: [email protected] Species dossier: Hagenella clathrata Contents Introduction ................................................................................... 3 Summary....................................................................................... 3 Ecology ......................................................................................... 3 History in Britain ............................................................................ 6 European distribution .................................................................... 9 Recent Survey Work ..................................................................... 9 Survey methods ............................................................................ 9 Identification.................................................................................. 9 Threats........................................................................................ 10 Action plan for the Window Winged Sedge ( Hagenella clathrata ) 11 List of references......................................................................... 12 Appendix 2 Records of ( Hagenella clathrata ) from the UK ......... 15 Cover image © Matthew Wallace (2009) Hagenella clathrata (Kolenati, 1848) Window winged sedge (Trichoptera: Phryganeidae) Genus
    [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]
  • Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Corrected Final Report
    SERA TR-052-25-03c Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Corrected Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-09-0034 SERA Internal Task No. 52-25 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 24, 2011 October 20, 2011 (Minor Correction) July 9, 2016 (Corrections) Error Notes October 20, 2011 In the original release of the final report (SERA TR-052-25-03a dated May 24, 2011), Tables 2 and 22 incorrectly listed the water solubility of TCP as 100 mg/L. As indicated in Table 1, the correct value, from Knuteson (1999), is 49,000 mg/L. This error was noted by Dr. K. King (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The error has been corrected. While the Gleams-Driver runs were made using the 100 mg/L water solubility, re-runs using the water solubility of 49,000 mg/L yielded results that are indistinguishable from the original runs. Thus, the appendices have not been change. Water solubility is not a sensitive parameter in GLEAMS unless the soil water is saturated. This did not occur in the Gleams-Driver modeling. July 9, 2016 During an audit of WorksheetMaker (Version 6.00.15), it was noted that the chronic toxicity values of TCP to aquatic invertebrates had been entered incorrectly into the WorksheetMaker database and the aquatic toxicity values of TCP for algae had been omitted.
    [Show full text]
  • MC(' Potential Exposure of Humans to 2
    (MC( FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY 1:3 3 9-3 4 6 (1981) Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in the Oregon Coast Ranges MICHAEL NEWTON" and LOGAN A. NORRISB "Professor of Forest Ecology, Oregon State University, Corvallis; BChief Research Chemist, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon ABSTRACT Potential Exposure of Humans to 2,4,5-T and TCDD in Humans may be exposed to herbicides through drift; inges- the Oregon Coast Ranges. Newton, M. and Norris, L.A. tion of wild and domestic meat, vegetables, and fruit; con- (1981). F.undam. AppL Toxicol. 1:339-346. Research on the sumption of water; and dermal contact while handling the use of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) contami- chemicals, equipment, and treated vegetation. The range of -8 nated with 2.5 X 10 parts 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- potential exposure extends from zero, if there is no encounter dioxin (TCDD) in forests of the Oregon Coast Ranges per- with the herbicide, to the worst situation where the person has mits estimates of human exposures for both compounds. encountered the highest levels of water contamination, drift Estimated total exposure of nearby ( ^ 1/8 mile distant) resi- exposure, meat contamination, and dermal exposure simul- dents during the first week after application is 0.0039 mg/kg taneously. We have brought estimates of all sources together of 2,4,5-T for a 70-kg adult. Exposure to TCDD in the same to determine the possible range of total exposure from episode would be 1.9 X 10 b ° mg/kg.
    [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]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [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]
  • Biodiversity of Minnesota Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera)
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources BIODIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CADDISFLIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY DAVID CHARLES HOUGHTON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ralph W. Holzenthal, Advisor August 2002 1 © David Charles Houghton 2002 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As is often the case, the research that appears here under my name only could not have possibly been accomplished without the assistance of numerous individuals. First and foremost, I sincerely appreciate the assistance of my graduate advisor, Dr. Ralph. W. Holzenthal. His enthusiasm, guidance, and support of this project made it a reality. I also extend my gratitude to my graduate committee, Drs. Leonard C. Ferrington, Jr., Roger D. Moon, and Bruce Vondracek, for their helpful ideas and advice. I appreciate the efforts of all who have collected Minnesota caddisflies and accessioned them into the University of Minnesota Insect Museum, particularly Roger J. Blahnik, Donald G. Denning, David A. Etnier, Ralph W. Holzenthal, Jolanda Huisman, David B. MacLean, Margot P. Monson, and Phil A. Nasby. I also thank David A. Etnier (University of Tennessee), Colin Favret (Illinois Natural History Survey), and Oliver S. Flint, Jr. (National Museum of Natural History) for making caddisfly collections available for my examination. The laboratory assistance of the following individuals-my undergraduate "army"-was critical to the processing of the approximately one half million caddisfly specimens examined during this study and I extend my thanks: Geoffery D. Archibald, Anne M.
    [Show full text]
  • Dna Barcodes, Partitioned Phylogenetic Models, And
    LARGE DATASETS AND TRICHOPTERA PHYLOGENETICS: DNA BARCODES, PARTITIONED PHYLOGENETIC MODELS, AND THE EVOLUTION OF PHRYGANEIDAE By PAUL BRYAN FRANDSEN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Entomology Written under the direction of Karl M. Kjer And approved by _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey OCTOBER 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Large datasets and Trichoptera phylogenetics: DNA barcodes, partitioned phylogenetic models, and the evolution of Phryganeidae By PAUL BRYAN FRANDSEN Dissertation Director: Karl M. Kjer Large datasets in phylogenetics—those with a large number of taxa, e.g. DNA barcode data sets, and those with a large amount of sequence data per taxon, e.g. data sets generated from high throughput sequencing—pose both exciting possibilities and interesting analytical problems. The analysis of both types of large datasets is explored in this dissertation. First, the use of DNA barcodes in phylogenetics is investigated via the generation of phylogenetic trees for known monophyletic clades. Barcodes are found to be useful in shallow scale phylogenetic analyses when given a well-supported scaffold on which to place them. One of the analytical challenges posed by large phylogenetic datasets is the selection of appropriate partitioned models of molecular evolution. The most commonly used model partitioning strategies can fail to characterize the true variation of the evolutionary process and this effect can be exacerbated when applied to large datasets. A new, scalable algorithm for the automatic selection ! ii! of partitioned models of molecular evolution is proposed with an eye toward reducing systematic error in phylogenomics.
    [Show full text]