DOCSLIB.ORG

Preemergence Activity of Chloroacetamide Herbicides on a Multiple Herbicide-Resistant Population of Waterhemp (Amaranthus Tuberculatus)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preemergence Activity of Chloroacetamide Herbicides on a Multiple Herbicide-Resistant Population of Waterhemp (Amaranthus Tuberculatus) PREEMERGENCE ACTIVITY OF CHLOROACETAMIDE HERBICIDES ON A MULTIPLE HERBICIDE-RESISTANT POPULATION OF WATERHEMP (AMARANTHUS TUBERCULATUS) BY SETH ARTHUR STROM 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 at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Master’s Committee: Associate Professor Aaron G. Hager, Chair Professor Dean E. Riechers, Co-Chair Professor Adam S. Davis ABSTRACT Chloroacetamide herbicides have been an integral part of preemergence (PRE) weed management programs in corn and soybean since their discovery in the 1950’s. Today they are applied either alone, or with other active ingredients in herbicide premixes. Known as ‘Old Chemistries’, their importance is due to the excellent control of annual grasses and small-seeded broadleaf weeds when applied PRE, and relatively high crop safety. Waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer] is a small-seeded, summer annual weed species native to the Midwest. Waterhemp is dioecious with an ability to evolve resistance to herbicides from various sites-of-action. This, paired with high reproductive output, prolonged emergence, genetic diversity, and seed dormancy, has allowed waterhemp to become one of the most problematic weeds in Midwestern agronomic cropping systems. Waterhemp has displayed resistance to herbicides from six different site-of-action groups including: acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSPS) inhibitors, protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors, synthetic auxins, Photosystem II inhibitors (PSII), and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitors. Chloroacetamide herbicides, however, have remained effective. During research on the first HPPD-resistant population of waterhemp from Mclean County, IL (MCR), significantly less- than-anticipated PRE control was reported with the chloroacetamide herbicide S-metolachlor. Similar observations were made on a separate waterhemp population from Champaign County, IL (CHR) with resistance to HPPD-, ALS-, PSII-, and PPO-inhibitors and 2,4-D. In both cases, another active ingredient from the same class, acetochlor, remained effective. With such similar observations on geographically separated waterhemp populations, field research began at the CHR location in 2016 to investigate this reoccurring anomaly. ii Chapter 1 of this thesis includes a literature review of chloroacetamide herbicides including their development, mode of action, selectivity, and the environmental interactions of a specific active ingredient, S-metolachlor. Additionally, a section reviewing waterhemp biology is included. Chapter 2 highlights field experiments conducted at the Champaign Co. site and greenhouse dose-response experiments with acetochlor and S-metolachlor. Results from field experiments demonstrated very poor control with each Group 15 herbicide except non- encapsulated acetochlor, alachlor, and pyroxasulfone, which provided 75, 67, and 56% control, respectively, 28 days after treatment (DAT). Greenhouse dose-response experiments with S- metolachlor revealed a large difference in herbicide effective dose values between populations with multiple herbicide-resistance, including resistance to HPPD-inhibitors and atrazine, and sensitive populations. A 17.9 fold difference was documented between progeny of CHR (M6) and a known sensitive population (WUS) in response to S-metolachlor 21 DAT. The difference was calculated based on the herbicide dose required to reduce the number of surviving seedlings by 50% (LD50), and S-metolachlor was not effective in controlling M6 at a field-use rate. Acetochlor, however, was effective at controlling all populations at, or below, a field-use rate. Chapter 3 describes growth chamber experiments to examine edaphic interactions as possible causes of the decreased effectiveness of Group 15 herbicides in the field, although results were inconclusive. Also included in Chapter 3 is a synopsis of experiments and their implications for future research. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Aaron Hager and Dr. Dean Riechers for the opportunity to conduct research and pursue my Master’s degree in their programs. Being co-advised has been a great experience and each has given me different insights to the field of weed science. Coming in as a new graduate student, my research has been full of trials and tribulations and their expertise has guided me through each scenario and has helped me develop myself as an aspiring young scientist. I would also like to thank my third committee member, Dr. Adam Davis, for his statistical advice and patience with me as I continue to learn data management and statistical analysis. This by far has been one of my greatest struggles, and Dr. Davis has always been willing to share his knowledge of R programming. I would also like to thank Dr. Carolyn Butts- Wilmsmeyer for assistance with SAS programming and the statistical analysis of my data generated in the field. I am grateful for the opportunity to be a teaching assistant for Dr. Pat Tranel. Thank you for having faith in me to run the classroom when you are away and allowing me to be a part in inspiring the next generation of weed scientists. I would like to acknowledge the herbicide evaluation group: Charlie Mitsdarfer, Lisa Gonzini, and Doug Maxwell. They keep me on track, and their expertise in conducting field research has been influential in the success of my experiments. It is truly a pleasure to work with a team that cares about my research and is always eager to help in any way possible. I would also like to thank the graduate students and lab members I have been fortunate to work alongside which include: Lanae Ringler, Sarah O’Brien, Loren Goodrich, Olivia Obenland, Dr. Yousoon Baek, and Dr. Rong Ma. Thank you for each of your contributions to my research and comic relief that has made this portion of my graduate education a great experience. In addition, I iv would like to thank Brendan Alexander for his help at the field location and R programming advice, along with the many undergraduate workers that have helped in the data collection process. I understand it is not the most glorious aspect of research, but your help is truly appreciated. I would like to express my gratitude to Syngenta for funding my project and affording me many opportunities throughout my education. The opportunity to visit the Vero Beach Research Center is an experience I will never forget. I would especially like to thank Dave Thomas for his continued interest in my project and the opportunity to conduct research at the Mclean County site. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Joe Wuerffel for his advice as I was struggling in the greenhouse, and the entire VBRC research team. It has been a pleasure to work with a company so interested in the science and producing quality products for growers around the world. Finally, I would like to thank my family. At the end of the day, family comes first and without them, I would not be here today. I would like to thank my parents Jeff and Victoria Strom for raising me to be the person I am today. Although my dad is unfortunately not here today, I know he has been watching over me the entire time and I strive to make him proud. Overall, the support and encouragement from everyone has been tremendous and as one chapter of my graduate education ends, I cannot wait for the new opportunities in the coming future. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................1 1.1 Group 15 Herbicides: Development Timeline of Select Compounds..........................1 1.2 Group 15 Herbicides: What they control, how they control, and where they inhibit...................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Group 15 Herbicides: Selectivity, Metabolism, and Implications for Resistance............................................................................................................................5 1.4 S-metolachlor and the Environment..............................................................................7 1.5 Waterhemp Biology, Distribution, and Agronomic Importance.................................10 1.6 Research Objectives.....................................................................................................12 1.7 Literature Cited............................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 2: DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE OF A MULTIPLE HERBICIDE- RESISTANT WATERHEMP (AMARANTHUS TUBERCULATUS) POPULATION TO CHLOROACETAMIDE HERBICIDES............................................................................25 2.1 Abstract........................................................................................................................25 2.2 Introduction..................................................................................................................26 2.3 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................29 2.4 Results and Discussion................................................................................................34 2.5 Source of Materials......................................................................................................43 2.6 Tables and Figures.......................................................................................................44
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MN2000 FSAC 006 Revised1978.Pdf
    -i .., ,,, (I-,~-- -' d ~-- C:::- ,, AG RIC UL TURAL EXTENSION SERVICE Afr{ ,<"·<,'>· , -> ',' "\, '. '' ~'¥) AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS FACT SHEET No. 6-1978 Chemicals for'Weed Cop: GERALD R. MILLER . \~:::sr" This fact sheet is intended only as a summary of suggested Herbicide names and formulations alternative chemicals for weed control in corn. Label informa­ Common Trade Concentration and tion should be read and followed exactly. For further informa­ name name commercial formulation 1 tion, see Extension Bulletin 400, Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops. Alachlor Lasso 4 lb/gal L Lasso 11 15% G Selection of an effective chemical or combination of chemicals Atrazine AAtrex, 80% WP, 4 lb/gal L should be based on consideration of the following factors: others 80%WP -Clearance status of the chemical Atrazine and propachlor AAtram 20% G -Use of the crop Bentazon Basagran 4 lb/gal L -Potential for soil residues that may affect following crops Butylate and protectant Sutan+ 6.7 lb/gal L -Kinds of weeds Cyanazine Bladex 80% WP, 15% G, 4 lb/gal L -Soil texture Dicamba Banvel 4 lb/gal L -pH of soil Dicamba and 2,4-D Banvel-K 1.25 lb/gal dicamba -Amount of organic matter in the soil 2.50 lb/gal 2,4-D -Formulation of the chemical EPTC and protectant Eradicane 6.7 lb/gal L -Application equipment available Linuron Lorox 50%WP -Potential for drift problems Metolachlor Dual 6 lb/gal L Propachlor Bexton, 65% WP, 20% G, 4 lb/gal L Ramrod 2,4-D Several Various 1 G = granular, L = liquid, WP= wettable powder Effectiveness of herbicides on
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Tolerance of Peanuts to Alachlor and Metolachlor' Materials
    Relative Tolerance of Peanuts to Alachlor and Metolachlor' Glenn Wehtje*, John W. Wilcut, T. Vint Hicks2. and John McGuire3 ABSTRACT vealed that peas were most sensitive across all the sub- Field studies were conducted during 1984, 1985, and 1987 to evaluate weed control and the relative tolerance of peanuts stituted amide herbicides when the application was (Arachis hypogaea) to alachlor and metolachlor when applied at made 2 days after planting. This time of application cor- rates from 2.2 to 13.4 kg adha. Both single and split responded to shoot emergence, which is considered to preemergence, and postemergence applications were in- be the most sensitive portion of the seedling, through cluded. In 1984 and 1985, neither herbicide adversely affected the surface of the treated soil. Later applications re- yields compared to a hand-weeded control. In 1987, metolachlor at a rate of 9.0 kgha and alachlor at 13.4 k&a re- sulted in progressively less injury, indicating that the duced yields. Across all years, at least a two-fold safety factor foliar portion of the developing pea was relatively toler- existed between the maximum registered rate and the rate ant once emerged. Field studies indicated injury was necessary for peanut injury. Occurrence of injury appears to be markedly influenced by rainfall soon after planting. related to rainfall. Metolachlor was slightly more mobile than alachlor in soil chromatography trials, which may be a factor in Putnam and Rice (7) evaluated the factors associated its slightly greater propensity to be injurious under certain with alachlor injury on snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris conditions of extensive leaching and/or slow peanut L.).
    [Show full text]
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Multiple Herbicide Resistant Strain of Diazotrophic Cyanobacterium, Anabaena Variabilis , Exposed to Atrazine and DCMU
    Indian Journal of Experimental Biology Vol. 49, April 2011, pp.298-303 Response of multiple herbicide resistant strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium, Anabaena variabilis , exposed to atrazine and DCMU Surendra Singh, Pallavi Datta * & Archna Tirkey Algal Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur 482 001, India Received 1 June 2010; revised 24 January 2011 Effect of two photosynthetic inhibitor herbicides, atrazine (both purified and formulated) and [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)- 1,1-dimethyl urea] (DCMU), on the growth, macromolecular contents, heterocyst frequency, photosynthetic O 2 evolution and dark O 2 uptake of wild type and multiple herbicide resistant (MHR) strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium A. variabilis was studied. Cyanobacterial strains showed gradual inhibition in growth with increasing dosage of herbicides. Both wild type and MHR strain tolerated < 6.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (purified), < 2.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) and < 0.4 mg L -1 of DCMU indicating similar level of herbicide tolerance. Atrazine (pure) (8.0 mg L -1) and 4.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) were growth inhibitory concentrations (lethal) for both wild type and MHR strain indicating formulated atrazine was more toxic than the purified form. Comparatively lower concentrations of DCMU were found to be lethal for wild type and MHR strain, respectively. Thus, between the two herbicides tested DCMU was more growth toxic than atrazine. At sublethal dosages of herbicides, photosynthetic O 2 evolution showed highest inhibition followed by chlorophyll a, phycobhiliproteins and heterocyst differentiation as compared to carotenoid, protein and respiratory O 2 uptake. Keyword s: Atrazine, Cyanobacteria, DCMU, Herbicides, Mutants, Photosynthesis In modern agriculture weed control by herbicides is a tolerate or resist toxic actions of various rice field common practice to increase in crop productivity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Corn and Soybean Mode of Action Herbicide Chart
    By Premix Corn and Soybean This chart lists premix herbicides alphabetically by their trade names so you can identify the premix’s component herbicides and their respective site of action groups. Refer Herbicide Chart to the Mode of Action chart for more information. Component Repeated use of herbicides with the same Site of Premix Trade Active Action site of action can result in the development of Trade Name ® Name ® Ingredient Group* herbicide-resistant weed populations. Authority First ............... Spartan sulfentrazone 14 FirstRate cloransulam 2 Axiom ........................... Define flufenacet 15 This publication was designed for commercial printing, color shifts may occur on other printers and on-screeen. Sencor metribuzin 5 Basis . ........................... Resolve rimsulfuron 2 Harmony GT thifensulfuron 2 By Mode of Action (effect on plant growth) Bicep II Magnum .......... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 This chart groups herbicides by their modes of action to assist Bicep Lite II Magnum .... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 you in selecting herbicides 1) to maintain greater diversity in Boundary ...................... Dual Magnum s-metolachlor 15 herbicide use and 2) to rotate among herbicides with different Sencor metribuzin 5 Breakfree ATZ ............... Breakfree acetochlor 15 sites of action to delay the development of herbicide resistance. atrazine atrazine 5 Breakfree ATZ Lite ........ Breakfree acetochlor 15 Number of atrazine atrazine 5 resistant weed Buctril + Atrazine ......... Buctril bromoxynil 6 atrazine atrazine 5 species in U.S. Bullet ............................ Micro-Tech alachlor 15 Site of Chemical Active atrazine atrazine 5 Action Product Examples Camix ........................... Callisto mesotrione 28 Group* Site of Action Family Ingredient (Trade Name ®) Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 Lipid Canopy DF ..................
    [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]
  • Greenhouse and Field Evaluation of Isoxaflutole for Weed Control In
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Greenhouse and field evaluation of isoxaflutole for weed control in maize in China Received: 27 June 2017 Ning Zhao, Lan Zuo, Wei Li, Wenlei Guo, Weitang Liu & Jinxin Wang Accepted: 18 September 2017 Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to provide a reference for pre-emergence (PRE) Published: xx xx xxxx application of isoxaflutole on maize in China. In greenhouse study, the isoxaflutole PRE application at 30 g active ingredient (a.i.) ha−1 could effectively control large numbers of weeds, especially some large-seeded broadleaves, tested in this study. The tolerance results indicated 21 maize hybrids showed different responses to isoxaflutole under greenhouse conditions. In 2015 and 2016, field experiments were conducted to determine and compare the weed control efficacy and safety to Zhengdan 958 maize with 6 herbicide treatments. In both years, isoxaflutole PRE at 100 to 250 g a.i. ha−1 was sufficient to provide satisfactory full-season control of the dominant common broadleaf and grass weeds in the field. Temporary injury to maize was observed with isoxaflutole treatments of 125, 150, and 250 g a.i. ha−1 in both years, but plants recovered within 4 to 6 wk. To maximize maize yield and provide satisfactory weed control, a range of 100 to 150 g a.i. ha−1 of isoxaflutole is recommended, depending on the soil characteristics, weather, and weed species present at the experimental site. Based on the results, isoxaflutole PRE has good potential for weed control in maize in China. Maize was planted on more hectares than any other crops in China from 2010 to 2014, with an average of 35 million ha planted per year and yield averaging 5,779 kg per ha per year1.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station
    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Shelia K
    Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Shelia K. Hoar, ScD; Aaron Blair, PhD; Frederick F. Holmes, MD; Cathy D. Boysen; Robert J. Robel, PhD; Robert Hoover, MD; Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr, MD A population-based case-control study of soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), Hodgkin's agents for leather and textiles, and disease (HD), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in Kansas found farm medications.1 For these reasons, a pop¬ herbicide use to be associated with NHL (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence ulation-based case-control study was interval [CI], 0.9, 2.6). Relative risk of NHL increased significantly with number conducted to clarify whether agricul¬ of of herbicide and Men to herbicides tural use of herbicides and insecticides days exposure per year latency. exposed and NHL in than 20 had sixfold increased risk of NHL 95% affects risk of STS, HD, more days per year a (OR, 6.0; the United States. CI, 1.9, 19.5) relative to nonfarmers. Frequent users who mixed or applied the herbicides themselves had an OR of 8.0 (95% CI, 2.3, 27.9) for NHL. Excesses METHODS were associated with use of phenoxyacetic acid herbicides, specifically Kansas, a major wheat-producing acid. Neither STS nor HD was associated with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic state, was chosen as the location for pesticide exposure. This study confirms the reports from Sweden and several the study, since herbicides have been US NHL states that is associated with farm herbicide use, especially used more frequently than other pesti¬ phenoxyacetic acids.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products)
    Multi-residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products) 1. Analytes See Table 2 or 3. 2. Instruments Liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) Liquid chromatograph-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) 3. Reagents Use the reagents listed in Section 3 of the General Rules except for the following. 0.5 mol/L Phosphate buffer (pH 7.0): Weigh 52.7 g of dipotassium hydrogenphosphate (K2HPO4) and 30.2 g of potassium dihydrogenphosphate (KH2PO4), dissolve in about 500 mL of water, adjust the pH to 7.0 with 1 mol/L sodium hydroxide or 1 mol/L hydrochloric acid, and add water to make a 1 L solution. Reference standards of agricultural chemicals: Reference standards of known purities for each agricultural chemical. 4. Procedure 1) Extraction i) Grains, beans, nuts and seeds Add 20 mL of water to 10.0 g of sample and let stand for 15 minutes. Add 50 mL of acetonitrile, homogenize, and filter with suction. Add 20 mL of acetonitrile to the residue on the filter paper, homogenize, and filter with suction. Combine the resulting filtrates, and add acetonitrile to make exactly 100 mL. Take a 20 mL aliquot of the extract, add 10 g of sodium chloride and 20 mL of 0.5 mol/L phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), and shake for 10 minutes. Let stand, and discard the separated aqueous layer. Add 10 mL of acetonitrile to an octadecylsilanized silica gel cartridge (1,000 mg) and discard the effluent. Transfer the acetonitrile layer to the cartridge, elute with 2 mL of acetonitrile, collect the total eluates, dehydrate with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and filter out the anhydrous sodium sulfate.
    [Show full text]