DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation Molecular Genetics of Herbicide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation Molecular Genetics of Herbicide DISSERTATION MOLECULAR GENETICS OF HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN PALMER AMARANTH (AMARANTHUS PALMERI): METABOLIC TEMBOTRIONE RESISTANCE AND GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF GLYPHOSATE RESISTANCE Submitted by Anita Küpper Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2018 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Todd A. Gaines Franck E. Dayan Scott J. Nissen Anireddy S. N. Reddy Copyright by Anita Küpper 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT MOLECULAR GENETICS OF HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN PALMER AMARANTH (AMARANTHUS PALMERI): METABOLIC TEMBOTRIONE RESISTANCE AND GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF GLYPHOSATE RESISTANCE Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) is a major weed in U.S. cotton and soybean production systems, partly because it evolved resistance to five different herbicide modes of action. Resistance to the 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibitor tembotrione in a population from Nebraska (NER) is due to enhanced metabolism. This type of non-target-site resistance is especially troublesome because of its potential for cross-resistance. Tembotrione-susceptible (NES) and NER formed the same tembotrione metabolites but NER exhibited faster 4-hydroxylation followed by glycosylation. The T50 value (time for 50% production of the maximum 4-hydroxylation product) was 4.9 and 11.9 h for NER and NES, respectively. Hydroxylation is typically catalyzed by cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (CYPs). Metabolism differences between NER and NES were most prominent under 28°C conditions and herbicide application at the four-leaf stage. An RNA-Seq transcriptome analysis was conducted with Pseudo-F2 tembotrione-resistant and -susceptible individuals originating from three separate NER x NES crosses that were sampled before, six, and twelve h after treatment (HAT). Differential gene expression analysis identified CYP72A219 and CYP81E8 as strong candidates for metabolic resistance. The contigs were constitutively expressed in resistant plants, as were the contigs for several glycosyltransferases (GTs), oxidase, and glutathione-S-transferase (GST). Exposure to tembotrione further increased their expression in both resistant and susceptible plants. Originally native to the Southwest, A. palmeri has spread throughout the country. In 2004 a population was identified with resistance to glyphosate, a herbicide heavily relied on in modern no-tillage and transgenic glyphosate-resistant crop systems. Glyphosate resistance in the species is now highly ii prevalent in USA and was also discovered in Brazil in 2015. This was confirmed by species identification with a genetic marker, dose-response studies, shikimate accumulation assay, and EPSPS copy number assay. The Brazilian population was also resistant to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone ALS inhibitor herbicides conferred by two different alleles for target-site mutations in the ALS gene (W574L and S653N). The degree of genetic relatedness among eight different populations of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and – susceptible (GS) A. palmeri from various geographic regions in USA was investigated by analyzing patterns of phylogeography and diversity to ascertain whether resistance evolved independently or spread from outside to an Arizona locality (AZ-R). Shikimate accumulation and EPSPS genomic copy assays confirmed resistance or susceptibility. With a set of 1,351 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), discovered by genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), UPGMA phylogenetic analysis, principal component analysis, Bayesian model-based clustering, and pairwise comparisons of genetic distances were conducted. A GR population from Tennessee and two GS populations from Georgia and Arizona were identified as genetically distinct while the remaining GS populations from Kansas, Arizona, and Nebraska clustered together with two GR populations from Arizona and Georgia. Within the latter group, AZ-R was most closely related to the GS populations from Kansas and Arizona followed by the GR population from Georgia. GR populations from Georgia and Tennessee were genetically distinct from each other. The data suggest the following two possible scenarios: either glyphosate resistance was introduced to the Arizona locality from the east, or resistance evolved independently in Arizona. Glyphosate resistance in the Georgia and Tennessee localities most likely evolved separately. Thus, modern farmers need to continue to diversify weed management practices and prevent seed dispersal to mitigate herbicide resistance evolution in A. palmeri. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank Stephen Duke who encouraged me to apply for a PhD in the weed research laboratory of Colorado State University. I would also like to thank my committee, Franck Dayan, Scott Nissen, and Anireddy Reddy. I am deeply indebted to Todd Gaines who has been a phenomenal advisor. He provided an educational, safe, and supportive environment with continuous guidance and allowed me to explore any scientific area I wanted to pursue. I also learned a tremendous amount about herbicide resistance from Roland Beffa who has taken on a role equivalent to a co-advisor. He has been a dedicated and excellent brainstorming partner and mentor over the years. I would also like to thank Patrick Tranel, Christopher Preston, Philip Westra, Harish Manmathan, Paul Neve and his lab, Dale Shaner, and William McCloskey for their advice. I am grateful to have studied alongside many great graduate students in the weed lab of which many have helped me along the way: Darci Giacomini, Eric Westra, Dean Pettinga, Olivia Todd, John Coyle, Tom Getts, Kallie Kessler, Christopher van Horn, Mirella Ortiz, Neeta Soni, Derek Sebastian, Raven Bough, Rachel Seedorf, Kristen Tanz, Shannon Clark, Adrien Quicke, Abigail Barker, and Hudson Takano. I especially want to thank Karl Ravet and Eric Patterson for teaching me lab techniques and bioinformatic tools, as well as Marcelo Figueiredo for many discussions on resistance, help in the radioactivity lab and shouting out “Courage!” whenever I needed to hear it. Also, I would like to thank the people from other labs, John Long, Graham Tuttle, Jessica Warren, Stacy Endriss, Taylor Person, Craig Beil, Paul Tanger, Federico Martin, Michael Friedman, Stephen Cohen, Becky Gullberg, Margret Fleming, Justin Lee, and Tammy Brenner for their support. Many hourly workers have helped me with labor-intensive planting, harvest and seed cleaning of Palmer amaranth over the years, I want to especially acknowledge Tyler Hicks, Tyler Todd, Dillon Thompson, Jessica Scarpin, Colton Hankins, Hailey Meiners, Nicholas McKenna, Mitch Hoffman, Henrique Scatena, Bryna Burns, Beatrice Bachur, Rachel Chayer, and Crystal Sparks. I would also like to thank Susana Gonzales, Veronika Brabetz, Julia iv Unger, Thomas Schubel, Rebecka Dücker, Johannes Hermann, Ragnhild Paul, Bodo Peters, Harry Strek and especially Falco Peter from Bayer’s Herbicide Resistance Competence Center for all their advice and help during my visit. Furthermore, I want to thank Janet Dill for always having a smile on her face and guiding me through the bureaucracy of a PhD program as well as Elden Pemberton for his friendly reminders. Funding was generously provided by Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch fund. I am grateful to my “American parents” Billie and David Novy for their visits and support from Minnesota as well as my actual parents Luzie and Anton Küpper for supporting my decision to go to graduate school on the other side of the globe, visiting me in the U.S. three times, regularly sending big packages with German candy and skyping with me almost every Saturday morning for the past four years. I want to especially thank my father for showing an interest in my research and for having read about the devices I use and science I do to be able to have challenging discussions with me. Finally, I want to thank Curtis Hildebrandt who, no matter the circumstances, has been my rock throughout the entire PhD program. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ 16 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 19 2. TEMBOTRIONE DETOXIFICATION IN HPPD-INHIBITOR RESISTANT PALMER AMARANTH (AMARANTHUS PALMERI S. WATS) .............................................................................. 24 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 24 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................................ 26 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 30 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................
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]
  • Growth Regulation and Other Secondary Effects of Herbicides Edivaldo D
    Weed Science 2010 58:351–354 Growth Regulation and Other Secondary Effects of Herbicides Edivaldo D. Velini, Maria L. B. Trindade, Luis Rodrigo M. Barberis, and Stephen O. Duke* As all herbicides act on pathways or processes crucial to plants, in an inhibitory or stimulatory way, low doses of any herbicide might be used to beneficially modulate plant growth, development, or composition. Glyphosate, the most used herbicide in the world, is widely applied at low rates to ripen sugarcane. Low rates of glyphosate also can stimulate plant growth (this effect is called hormesis). When applied at recommended rates for weed control, glyphosate can inhibit rust diseases in glyphosate-resistant wheat and soybean. Fluridone blocks carotenoid biosynthesis by inhibition of phytoene desaturase and is effective in reducing the production of abscisic acid in drought-stressed plants. Among the acetolactate synthase inhibitors, sulfometuron-methyl is widely used to ripen sugarcane and imidazolinones can be used to suppress turf species growth. The application of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors can trigger plant defenses against pathogens. Glufosinate, a glutamine synthetase inhibitor, is also known to improve the control of plant diseases. Auxin agonists (i.e., dicamba and 2,4-D) are effective, low-cost plant growth regulators. Currently, auxin agonists are still used in tissue cultures to induce somatic embryogenesis and to control fruit ripening, to reduce drop of fruits, to enlarge fruit size, or to extend the harvest period in citrus orchards. At low doses, triazine herbicides stimulate growth through beneficial effects on nitrogen metabolism and through auxin-like effects. Thus, sublethal doses of several herbicides have applications other than weed control.
    [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]
  • Exposure to Herbicides in House Dust and Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2013) 23, 363–370 & 2013 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/13 www.nature.com/jes ORIGINAL ARTICLE Exposure to herbicides in house dust and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia Catherine Metayer1, Joanne S. Colt2, Patricia A. Buffler1, Helen D. Reed3, Steve Selvin1, Vonda Crouse4 and Mary H. Ward2 We examine the association between exposure to herbicides and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dust samples were collected from homes of 269 ALL cases and 333 healthy controls (o8 years of age at diagnosis/reference date and residing in same home since diagnosis/reference date) in California, using a high-volume surface sampler or household vacuum bags. Amounts of agricultural or professional herbicides (alachlor, metolachlor, bromoxynil, bromoxynil octanoate, pebulate, butylate, prometryn, simazine, ethalfluralin, and pendimethalin) and residential herbicides (cyanazine, trifluralin, 2-methyl-4- chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), mecoprop, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), chlorthal, and dicamba) were measured. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by logistic regression. Models included the herbicide of interest, age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, year and season of dust sampling, neighborhood type, and residence type. The risk of childhood ALL was associated with dust levels of chlorthal; compared to homes with no detections, ORs for the first, second, and third tertiles were 1.49 (95% CI: 0.82–2.72), 1.49 (95% CI: 0.83–2.67), and 1.57 (95% CI: 0.90–2.73), respectively (P-value for linear trend ¼ 0.05). The magnitude of this association appeared to be higher in the presence of alachlor.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Target-Site Mutations Conferring Herbicide Resistance
    plants Review Target-Site Mutations Conferring Herbicide Resistance Brent P. Murphy and Patrick J. Tranel * Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-217-333-1531 Received: 4 September 2019; Accepted: 26 September 2019; Published: 28 September 2019 Abstract: Mutations conferring evolved herbicide resistance in weeds are known in nine different herbicide sites of action. This review summarizes recently reported resistance-conferring mutations for each of these nine target sites. One emerging trend is an increase in reports of multiple mutations, including multiple amino acid changes at the glyphosate target site, as well as mutations involving two nucleotide changes at a single amino acid codon. Standard reference sequences are suggested for target sites for which standards do not already exist. We also discuss experimental approaches for investigating cross-resistance patterns and for investigating fitness costs of specific target-site mutations. Keywords: D1 protein; acetolactate synthase; tubulin; ACCase; EPSPS; phytoene desaturase; PPO; glutamine synthetase; auxin 1. Introduction Herbicide-resistance mechanisms broadly fall under two categories: target-site mechanisms and non-target-site mechanisms [1,2]. The former involves a change to the molecular target of the herbicide (usually an enzyme) that decreases its affinity for the herbicide. Although much less common, target-site resistance can also occur via increased expression of the target, which results in more herbicide required to achieve a lethal effect [3,4]. Non-target-site resistance encompasses any mechanism that reduces the amount of herbicide that reaches the target site, or that ameliorates the effect of the herbicide despite its inhibition of the target site.
    [Show full text]
  • South Umpqua Pilot Study 2014-19 Findings and Recommendations | Oregon Water Quality Management Team
    South Umpqua Pilot Study 2014-19 Findings and Recommendations | Oregon Water Quality Management Team Background waters resulting from various types of land uses. The monitoring locations were chosen to represent the A pesticide water quality pilot study of the South predominant land use types existing within the various Umpqua subbasin (USGS 8-digit HUC 17100302)1 was watersheds as noted in the United States Geological initiated in the fall of 2014. The South Umpqua was Survey’s (USGS) 2016 National Land Cover Dataset. selected by the Water Quality Pesticide Management Initially, five monitoring locations were chosen. At Team (WQPMT) as one of four potential pilot projects the end of the spring 2015 sampling season two sites after the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program (Cow Creek at Mouth and Myrtle Creek at Mouth) received its first funding allocation from the Oregon were discontinued due to both the limited number of Legislature in 2013. The watersheds were selected pesticides detected and the low concentrations of those because of the multiple types of land uses in areas detections during the 2015 sampling period. In 2017 that use pesticides, the presence of municipal drinking two additional sites were added (Lookingglass Creek at water intakes, as well as existing water quality data the Happy Valley Bridge and the North of Myrtle Creek collected by DEQ and other entities. Within the South downstream of the Bilger Creek confluence) at the Umpqua subbasin, prospective local partners were suggestion of local partners (Table 1). contacted and expressed interest in participating in the pilot effort. Initial reconnaissance monitoring sites Based on the initial sampling results, the WQPMT were selected by a group comprised of state agencies approached the local stakeholder group about on the WQPMT, Partners for Umpqua Rivers (PUR), conducting a second phase of pilot monitoring in the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District, Oregon South Umpqua 2017 which extended through the State University Extension, and the Cow Creek Band of spring of 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, DREXEL DUPLICATOR DUO,05/08
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 19713-699 5/8/18 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: Term of Issuance: X Registration Reregistration Unconditional (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: Drexel Duplicator Duo Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Luz Chan Registration Manager Drexel Chemical Company P.O. Box Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Registration Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the above EPA registration number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is unconditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) provided that you: 1. Submit and/or cite all data required for registration/reregistration/registration review of your product when the Agency requires all registrants of similar products to submit such data.
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • Nursery Weed Control in the Usa - Practice and Problems
    Weed Control in US NURSERY WEED CONTROL IN THE USA - PRACTICE AND PROBLEMS DAVID B. SOUTH Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative School of Forestry and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5418, USA ABSTRACT In southern pine seedbeds, weed control relies on the use of diphenylether herbicides (oxyfluorfen, lactofen) and selective grass herbicides (sethoxydim and fluzifop-p-butyl). A number of nurseries use a polymer to stabilize the soil after sowing. This helps keep the herbicide barrier intact and extends the preemergence activity. Weekly postemergence applications of low rates are common and have proven more effective on weeds than monthly applications at higher rates. A few nurseries tank-mix liquid nutrients along with postemergence applications of oxyfluorfen. This eliminates the need for extra tractor trips to apply granular fertilisers and, in some areas, reduces the cost of fertilisation. The median handweeding time for southern pine nurseries is now 25 hours/ha/yr. INTRODUCTION In 1991, more than 1.6 billion seedlings were produced in tree nurseries in the United States (US) (Mangold et al. 1992). Of this number, 69% were produced in 13 southern states. In comparison, approximately 14% were produced in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon). Pine seedlings produced in the southern states are almost exclusively 1+0 stock while both container and bare-root stock (2+0, 1+1 and 2+1) are used in the Pacific Northwest. Weed management practices discussed in this paper pertain mainly to 1+0 seedlings of Pinus taeda L. and Pinus elliottii Engelm. Herbicides for hardwood seedbeds are discussed elsewhere (South 1984; South 1992a).
    [Show full text]
  • Sorption of Atrazine, Alachlor and Trifluralin from Water Onto Different Geosorbents
    RSC Advances Sorption of atrazine, alachlor and trifluralin from water onto different geosorbents Journal: RSC Advances Manuscript ID: RA-ART-04-2014-003886.R1 Article Type: Paper Date Submitted by the Author: 04-Dec-2014 Complete List of Authors: Leovac, Anita; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Vasyukova, Ekaterina; Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Urban Water Management Ivančev-Tumbas, Ivana; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Uhl, Wolfgang; Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Urban Water Management Kragulj, Marijana; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Trickovic, Jelena; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Kerkez, Đurña; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Dalmacija, Bozo; University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department for Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection Page 1 of 21 RSC Advances 1 Sorption of atrazine, alachlor and trifluralin from water onto different geosorbents 2 Anita S. Leovac 1, Ekaterina Vasyukova 2, Ivana I. Ivan čev-Tumbas 1, Wolfgang Uhl 2, 3 Marijana M. Kragulj 1, Jelena S. Tri čkovi ć1, Đur đa V. Kerkez 1, Božo D. Dalmacija 1
    [Show full text]
  • Trifluralin Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT
    SERA TR-052-26-03a Trifluralin Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 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-10-0010 SERA Internal Task No. 52-26 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com September 20, 2011 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. viii LIST OF ATTACHEMENTS ...................................................................................................... viii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ................................................................ ix COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................. xii CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ......................................................................... xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... xiv 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]