DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper and Lower Case Letters to Be Used

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper and Lower Case Letters to Be Used Field and Greenhouse Bioassays to Determine Rotational Crop Response to Mesotrione Residues by Rachel Nicole Riddle A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Crop Science Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Rachel N. Riddle, January, 2012 ABSTRACT FIELD AND GREENHOUSE BIOASSAYS TO DETERMINE ROTATIONAL CROP RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE RESIDUES Rachel N. Riddle Advisors: University of Guelph, 2012 Dr. J. O’Sullivan Dr. C.J. Swanton Field and greenhouse bioassay experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of mesotrione soil residues on injury and yield of soybean, green bean, pea, cucumber, sugar beet and lettuce. There was a significant difference of mesotrione carryover between studies which can be explained by differences in soil pH and moisture. The conventional and the simulated field residue carryover studies successfully measured mesotrione persistence and rotational crop sensitivity. The simulated residue carryover study provided a more rigorous test of rotational crop sensitivity to mesotrione residues than the conventional residue carryover study, especially at higher doses for the more sensitive crops. The greenhouse bioassay was a simple and sensitive tool in detecting small amounts of herbicides present in the soil. Dose-response curves developed for sugar beet and green bean indicate similarities between results from the greenhouse and from the field mesotrione residue carryover study. Under similar environmental and soil conditions to those observed in these studies and using similar dose applications, sugar beet, green bean and cucumber injury and yield reductions are likely when these crops are grown in soils containing mesotrione residues. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. John O’Sullivan and Dr. Clarence Swanton for taking me on as a graduate student and providing me with a wonderful learning opportunity. Dr. John O’Sullivan, thank you for your constant support and encouragement throughout this process. I could always count on your sense of humour to ease the stress of a frustrating moment. Dr. Clarence Swanton, thank you for your advice and efforts to include me as a member of the Weeds Lab on campus. I would also like to thank Dr. Chris Hall, Dr. Darren Robinson and Harold Wright for your assistance with everything from data collection, to statistics, and to support with residue analysis and soil spiking. This research would not have been possible without Robert Grohs. I cannot express how much I appreciated your technical guidance and assistance with everything from the field trials to the greenhouse to the write-up, and for your patience and understanding throughout this entire process. Many thanks to the farm crew, Ernie Andrews, Larry Frost, Paul Splinter and Bill Genery and manager, Wally Andres, at the Simcoe Research Station, for providing support in the field and in the greenhouse. I am also so grateful for all the hard work and great care that summer students took while working with me on my research. Thank you to Syngenta Crop Protection Canada for providing funding for this research as well as providing materials and method guidance for the greenhouse bioassays. Lastly I would like to thank my family and friends who have made sacrifices in order to see that this research be finished and defended. A special thank you to my husband Greg, my daughter Ella and my parents, Bonnie and Howard, whose encouragement, and understanding has made this long process just a little easier. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Mesotrione ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Classification ..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Mode of action .................................................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Use patterns ...................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Factors influencing residue persistence .................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Soil characteristics ............................................................................................ 9 2.2.2 Environmental conditions ................................................................................ 11 2.2.1 Herbicide use patterns .................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Herbicide properties ........................................................................................ 12 2.3 Mesotrione in the soil ............................................................................................. 12 2.4 Phytotoxicity and rotational crops .......................................................................... 15 2.5 Methods of detecting herbicide residues ............................................................... 17 2.6 Dose-response curves ........................................................................................... 19 2.7 Simulated carryover of herbicides ......................................................................... 20 2.8 Research hypothesis ............................................................................................. 22 3.0 CROP RESPONSE TO CARRYOVER OF MESOTRIONE RESIDUES IN THE FIELD (CONVENTIONAL AND SIMULATED RESIDUE CARRYOVER) ....................... 25 3.1 Abstract.................................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 26 3.3 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Conventional residue carryover study ............................................................. 28 3.3.2 Simulated residue carryover study .................................................................. 31 3.3.3 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................... 31 3.4 Results and discussion .......................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Sugar beet ...................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2 Cucumber ....................................................................................................... 34 3.4.3 Green bean ..................................................................................................... 35 iv 3.4.4 Pea .................................................................................................................. 36 3.4.5 Soybean .......................................................................................................... 37 3.4.6 Chemical analysis of mesotrione carryover .................................................... 38 3.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 39 4.0 GREENHOUSE BIOASSAY TO DETERMINE CROP RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE RESIDUES ............................................................................................. 53 4.1 Abstract.................................................................................................................. 53 4.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 54 4.3 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 55 4.4 Results and discussion .......................................................................................... 60 4.4.1 Greenhouse bioassay (using field samples of mesotrione treated soil) .......... 60 4.4.2 Greenhouse bioassay (soil spiked with mesotrione of known concentrations)62 4.4.3 Greenhouse bioassay related to field residue carryover study ....................... 63 4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 64 5.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 74 5.1 Research contributions .......................................................................................... 74 5.2 Research limitations .............................................................................................. 78 5.3 Future research ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manuka Oil As a Potential Natural Herbicide
    Manuka Oil as a Potential Natural Herbicide Franck E. Dayan and Daniel K. Owens USDA-ARS Natural Products Utilization Research Unit P.O. Box 8048, University, MS 38677 [email protected] In 1977, Gray observed that bottlebrush plant (Callistemon citrinus) repressed the growth of plants in its surroundings. Crude extracts from this plant caused the bleaching of grass weeds. He identified the active component as leptospermone, a natural triketone structure with no known biological activity that had been reported in a number of Australasian shrubs. Leptospermone was moderately active in greenhouse tests, controlling mostly small-seeded grass weeds. This natural product and a small number of synthetic structural analogs were patented as herbicides in 1980. A few years later, a separate group at the Western Research Center was generating analogs of the cyclohexanedione herbicide sethoxydim, an inhibitor or acetyl- coenzyme-A carboxylase. Some of the second generation herbicidal derivatives with a dimedone backbone caused bleaching symptoms similar to leptospermone. Combination of the syncarpic acid of leptospermone to this chemistry ultimately served as the basis for the development of the triketone synthetic herbicides (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Struct ure s of the n a tural trik et o n e leptosperm one a nd t w o s y nthetic analogues that are sold as commer ci a l he r bic ides. Natural β-triketones are common in many Australasian woody plants (e.g., Leptospermum, Eucalyptus, Melaceuca, etc...). Steam distilled manuka oil account for 0.3% of the dried weight of L. scoparium. However, the amount of β-triketone present in these oils varies wildly across New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesdanieljonesiiithesis.Doc-After Defense
    The Evaluation of HPPD-Inhibitors for Full-Season Control of Morningglory (Ipomoea) Species in Corn (Zea mays L.) by James Daniel Jones III A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2018 Keywords: Ipomoea, corn, HPPD, postemergence Approved by Dr. Dennis Delaney, Chair, Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Andrew Price, Affiliate Associate Professor, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Audrey Gamble, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences i Abstract Due to late-season morningglory harvest interference concerns in corn, field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at the Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, Alabama and at the Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center in Crossville, Alabama to evaluate late season control of morningglory species using HPPD- inhibitors postemergence (POST) applied alone, following atrazine preemergence (PRE), or in combination with atrazine. Additionally, Amaranthus spp. and Senna spp. were evaluated for control. An incomplete randomized design with a split-plot treatment arrangement with four replications was utilized. The trial was divided into two sections: one with a PRE application of atrazine and a second without a preemergence application of atrazine. Eleven herbicides were applied POST without atrazine including: tembotrione; mesotrione; topramezone+dimethenamid; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+glyphosate; tembotrione+thiencarbazone; topramezone; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+atrazine; mesotrione+S-metolachlor+atrazine+bicyclopyrone; mesotrione+nicosulfuron; isoxaflutole; isoxaflutole+thiencarbazone-methyl; non-treated with atrazine applied PRE, and a true non-treated check. The same herbicides, excluding the two treatments that contain atrazine in the premixture, were also applied with atrazine.
    [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]
  • Discovery & Development of Natural Products for Controlling Weeds
    Governor’s Environmental and 2008 Cleantech Innovator Award Economic Leadership Award 2008 Investors’ Circle Top 20 Discovery & Development of Natural Products for Controlling Weeds Pam Marrone, CEO & Founder Fewer New Chemicals – # of Chemicals Higher Cost ,150 Screened to Find # of New Chemical One Product 140 Leads vs. Product ,100 (‘000) 120 Launches 100 ,50 80 60 ,0 40 1990 1995 2000 2009 20 Cost to Discover 0 & Develop a 256 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Synthetic 185 Launches New Leads Chemical ($Mil) 105 Source: Ag Chem New Compound Review (Vol 25) 2007 45 85 20 Increasing resistance to 1.2 4.1 glyphosate; few new herbicidal 1956 1964 1969 1977 1984 1998 2000 2003 2007 2010 modes of action since RR crops (Source: CropLife) Herbicides from Microorganisms Basta ‐ Glufosinate ammonium • Phosphinothricin (a breakdown product of bialaphos) discovered from Streptomyces viridochromogenes and S. hygroscopicus • Inhibits the activity of the glutamine synthetase enzyme, which causes ammonia build‐up in the cell. 0 0 H3C -P -CH2-CH2 -C -C - NH4 0 OH NH2 H Herbicides from Microorganisms Methoxyhygromycin • Produced by Streptomyces sp. 8E‐12 (Korea) • Bleaches and kills plants • Has some selectivity to cucumber, rice, wheat and soybean Herbicides from Plants Leptospermone • From the bottlebrush tree Callistemon citrinus • Developed into Callisto® herbicide (mesotrione) by Syngenta • Mesotrione inhibits an essential plant enzyme, HPPD (p‐hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase) that is found primarily in the cytoplasm of the chloroplasts What We Do We discover, develop, and market effective and environmentally responsible natural products (biopesticides) that fill unmet needs for weed, pest & plant disease management.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    413 Index NOTE: Weeds are listed under their latin names, crops under their common names. Individual herbicides are listed under ‘herbicide’ and biocontrol agents under ‘weed biocontrol agents’. For a full list of weed control methods mentioned see under ‘weed control methods’. a Alliaria petiolata 284 herbicide resistance 183, Abutilon theophrasti 77 Allium spp. 390 184, 209 in horticultural crops 362 Alopecurus spp. 7 in horticultual crops 362 in Italy & Spain 71, 362 Alopecurus aequalis 76 in maize 71 seed germination 89 Alopecurus japonicus 76 Amaranthus albus 358 in Switzerland 297 Alopecurus myosuroides 5, Amaranthus blitoides 358 Acacia dealbata 220, 295 75, 121 Amaranthus deflexus 358 Acacia longifolia 228 ACCase resistance 63, 65 Amaranthus hybridus 77 Adonis annua 19 biology 16 in horticultural crops 362 Aethusa cynapium 360 in cereals 11, 67, 68 seed germination 89 agri‐chemical industry 17 climate change 52–5 in tomato 358 Agricultural Development competitive interactions 15, Amaranthus lividus 358 Advisory Service 52–5 Amaranthus palmeri 65, (ADAS) 15, 16, 17 eradication 20 77, 191 agri‐environmental herbicide effects 7, 156, Amaranthus retroflexus 77, 364 schemes 23, 135, 137 157, 166 biocontrol 223–4 Agrostemma githago 1, 3, 123 herbicide resistance 8, 52, in European cereals 69 Agrostis gigantea 15 184, 185, 191, 193, 196–7, in horticultural crops 367 Agrostis stolonifera 19, 393 198, 205–9 in maize 71 Ailanthus altissima 220, 295 in herbicide‐tolerant in tomato crops 358 Aizoaceae 296 crops 10 Amaranthus rudis 65 Albania
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACTS of the III International Weed Science Congress
    ABSTRACTS of the III International Weed Science Congress Foz do Iguassu, Brazil 6 ±11 June 2000 Published by the International Weed Science Society 107 Crop Science Building, Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-3002, U.S.A. ISBN 1-891276-16-6 The production of this program has been sponsored by Novartis. International Weed Science Society Ricardo Labrada President Jonathan Gressel Past President Stephen Duke Vice-President Carol Mallory-Smith Secretary-Treasurer Brazilian Weed Science Society Robinson A. Pitelli President Joao Baptista da Silva Vice-President Dionisio Gazziero Secretary Benedito N. Rodrigues Treasurer III International Weed Science Congress Organizing Committee JoaÄo Baptista da Silva Chairman Ricardo Labrada IWSS President Robinson A. Pitelli SBCPD President Jonathan Gressel International Scienti®c Committee Chairman James D. Riggleman International Finance Committee Chairman Geraldo N. Vilela Host Finance Committee Chairman Maria H. T. Mascarenhas Secretary Steve Duke USA Liaison D. L. P. Gazziero Social Programs Carol Mallory-Smith IWSS Secretary-Treasurer Anne LeÂgeÁre Abstract Editor Daniel Cloutier CD-ROM Producer E. Velini, L.L. Foloni, Jens Streibig Members III International Weed Science Congress SPONSORS* ACP American Cyanamid Aventis BASF Corporation Burch CNPq Dow AgroSciences DuPont Agricultural Products European Weed Research Society FAO FINEP FMC Grif®n Ihara Hokko Kumiai Milenia Monsanto Novartis SEPRO United Agri Products USDA-APHIS USDA-ARS Zeneca * List current as of 28 April 2000 III International Weed Science Congress FOREWORD The abstracts herein are those that were reviewed and accepted by April 5, 2000. It is likely that a few poster contributions were submitted after this date, and thus are not included in this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Postemergence Control of Annual Bluegrass with Mesotrione in Kentucky Bluegrass
    POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS WITH MESOTRIONE IN KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BY JOSHUA JAMES SKELTON THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Crop Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Advisor: Professor Bruce E. Branham ii ABSTRACT Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L. var Hausskn Timm) is a common grass weed species in turf. A lack of environmental stress tolerance, combined with prolific seed production and a highly competitive growth habit makes annual bluegrass difficult to maintain, but also difficult to get rid of from an established area by a turf manager. Cultural control options rely on increasing the competiveness and health of the desired turf species, such as Kentucky bluegrass, but the management demands for turf areas such as golf course fairways, tees, and greens, favor annual bluegrass. Under these conditions chemical control of the weed is currently the only viable option. The postemergence control of annual bluegrass with an herbicide is difficult. The number of herbicides available for use in cool-season turf is limited, and the ones that are available, selectively control annual bluegrass in a few turfgrass species and lack adequate selectivity. Mesotrione is an herbicide with postemergence control of many broadleaf and grass weed species. An HPPD-inhibiting herbicide, mesotrione causes the destruction of plant tissues by increasing free radicals and reactive oxygen species through the inhibition of carotenoids and other radical scavenging compounds. Herbicide sensitivity is based upon rates of metabolism. Annual bluegrass shows sensitivity to mesotrione and may be able to be controlled by postemergence applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Novel Universal Proxy to Assess the Environmental Fate and Impact of Complex (Bio)Pesticides by Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Hikmat Ghosson
    Development of a novel universal proxy to assess the environmental fate and impact of complex (bio)pesticides by Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics Hikmat Ghosson To cite this version: Hikmat Ghosson. Development of a novel universal proxy to assess the environmental fate and im- pact of complex (bio)pesticides by Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics. Analytical chemistry. Université de Perpignan, 2020. English. NNT : 2020PERP0029. tel-03155733 HAL Id: tel-03155733 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03155733 Submitted on 2 Mar 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Délivré par UNIVERSITE DE PERPIGNAN VIA DOMITIA Préparée au sein de l’école doctorale ED 305 Energie et Environnement Et de l’unité de recherche USR 3278 – CRIOBE – EPHE-CNRS-UPVD Spécialité : Chimie Analytique Présentée par Hikmat GHOSSON TITRE DE LA THESE Développement d’un nouveau proxy universel pour évaluer le devenir et l’impact environnemental de (bio)pesticides complexes par Métabolomique basée sur la Spectrométrie de Masse Soutenue le 04/12/2020 devant le jury composé de Mme. Carole CALAS-BLANCHARD, Professeur des Universités Président Université de Perpignan Via Domitia Mme. Emmanuelle VULLIET, Directeur de recherche, H.D.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Leptospermone, a Natural -Triketone Herbicide, on the Fungal
    Impact of Leptospermone, a Natural β-Triketone Herbicide, on the Fungal Composition and Diversity of Two Arable Soils Clarisse Mallet, Sana Romdhane, Camille Loiseau, Jérémie Béguet, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, Christophe Calvayrac, Lise Barthelmebs To cite this version: Clarisse Mallet, Sana Romdhane, Camille Loiseau, Jérémie Béguet, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, et al.. Impact of Leptospermone, a Natural β-Triketone Herbicide, on the Fungal Composition and Diversity of Two Arable Soils. Frontiers in Microbiology, Frontiers Media, 2019, 10, 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01024. hal-02143873 HAL Id: hal-02143873 https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02143873 Submitted on 29 May 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License fmicb-10-01024 May 9, 2019 Time: 14:44 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 10 May 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01024 Impact of Leptospermone, a Natural b-Triketone Herbicide, on the Fungal Composition and Diversity of Two Arable Soils Clarisse Mallet1*, Sana Romdhane2,3,
    [Show full text]
  • Postemergence Control of Annual Bluegrass with Mesotrione In
    HORTSCIENCE 47(4):522–526. 2012. mesotrione (Anonymous, 2009). Mesotrione has been shown to provide postemergence control of ABG under agricultural settings, so Postemergence Control of Annual there is potential to use mesotrione in turf to control ABG (Armel et al., 2009). Previous Bluegrass with Mesotrione in research in turf has shown that mesotrione can control ABG with pre-emergence appli- Kentucky Bluegrass cations, but control with postemergence ap- plications occurs only in the fall (Hoiberg and Joshua J. Skelton1, William Sharp2, and Bruce E. Branham3,4 Minner, 2010; Reicher et al., 2011). Further- University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, Department of Crop Sciences, more, Reicher et al. (2011) described post- Landscape Horticulture Research Center, 2308 South Lincoln Avenue, emergence control of ABG as inconsistent. The objective of this study was to determine Urbana, IL 61801 the rate and application interval of meso- Additional index words. Poa annua, Poa pratensis, HPPD-inhibitior, herbicide rate, trione that will yield the greatest postemer- application interval gence control of ABG. Finding a rate and application interval that can be used through- Abstract. Six field trials were conducted in 2009 and 2010 to study postemergence control out the year could allow mesotrione to be an of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L. var. Hausskn Timm) in kentucky bluegrass (Poa effective option for postemergence ABG con- pratensis L.) with mesotrione. Mesotrione was applied at 11 different rate and application trol in cool-season turf. intervals to an area of kentucky bluegrass that was naturally infested with annual –1 bluegrass. Mesotrione rates of 56 gÁha applied two or three times per week for a total Materials and Methods of 10 applications or 84 gÁha–1 applied two times per week for a total of seven applications provided consistent control of annual bluegrass but required significant application labor Plant culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed Control Options And
    April 2019 Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed control options and future opportunities for UK crops Authors: Sarah K. Cook, Laura R. Davies, Frances Pickering, Lynn V. Tatnell, Angela Huckle, Sonia Newman, Chloe Whiteside, Charlotte White, David Talbot, Helen Holmes (ADAS), Patricia E. Turnbull (Independent agronomist), Denis C. Buckley (Independent agronomist), Jim Scrimshaw (PGRO) and Pamela Chambers (UPL) Editors: James H Clarke, Steve Ellis and Sarah Clarke (ADAS Boxworth, Boxworth, Cambs CB23 4NN) This review was produced as the final report of a four month project (CP 182 / 1807258) that started in September 2018. The work was funded under a contract of £26,000 from AHDB and £10,000 from BBRO, with additional funding from BASF, Bayer CropScience, Belchim, Corteva Agriscience, FMC Agro Ltd, Syngenta and UPL Europe Ltd. Additional in-kind funders and contributors: Frontier, Garford Farm Machinery, Hutchinsons, Maize Growers Association, PGRO, Procam and Rootwave. While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. Reference herein to trade names and proprietary products without stating that they are protected does not imply that they may be regarded as unprotected and thus free for general use. No endorsement of named products is intended, nor is any criticism implied of other alternative, but unnamed, products.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecotoxicological Impact of the Bioherbicide Leptospermone on The
    Ecotoxicological Impact of the Bioherbicide Leptospermone on the Microbial Community of Two Arable Soils Sana Romdhane, Marion Devers-Lamrani, Lise Barthelmebs, Christophe Calvayrac, Cédric Bertrand, Jean-François Cooper, Franck E. Dayan, Fabrice Martin-Laurent To cite this version: Sana Romdhane, Marion Devers-Lamrani, Lise Barthelmebs, Christophe Calvayrac, Cédric Bertrand, et al.. Ecotoxicological Impact of the Bioherbicide Leptospermone on the Microbial Community of Two Arable Soils. Frontiers in Microbiology, Frontiers Media, 2016, 7, pp.775. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00775. hal-01340479 HAL Id: hal-01340479 https://hal-univ-perp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01340479 Submitted on 1 Jul 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 24 May 2016 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00775 Ecotoxicological Impact of the Bioherbicide Leptospermone on the Microbial Community of Two Arable Soils Sana Romdhane 1, 2, 3, Marion Devers-Lamrani 3, Lise Barthelmebs 1*,
    [Show full text]