Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:12:19.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Sensitivity of Five Aquatic Plants to a Novel Arylpicolinate Herbicide Utilizing an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael D. Netherland  and
Robert J. Richardson
Michael D. Netherland*
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Michael.D.Netherland@usace.army.mil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New arylpicolinate herbicide chemistry under development for rice, aquatic weed management, and other uses was evaluated using five aquatic plants. The herbicide 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)-5-fluoro-pyridine-2-benzyl ester—also identified as XDE-848 BE or SX-1552 (proposed International Organization for Standardization common name in review; active tradename RinskorTM)—and its acid form (XDE-848 acid or SX-1552A) were evaluated on three dicots: (1) Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM), (2) megalodonta, and (3) crested floating heart (CFH), and two monocots: (1) hydrilla and (2) elodea. A small-scale Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) protocol developed using EWM for registration studies was utilized. EWM and megalodonta were also evaluated in larger-scale mesocosms for comparison. In-water concentrations between 0.01 and 243 μg ai L−1 as SX-1552 or SX-1552A were applied under static conditions for 14 (growth chamber) or 28 d (mesocosm). EWM was susceptible to both SX-1552 and SX-1552A, with dry-weight 50% effective concentration (EC50) values of 0.11 and 0.23 μg ai L−1 under growth chamber conditions. Megalodonta had EC50 values of 11.3 and 14.5 μg ai L−1 for the SX-1552 and SX-1552A. CFH was more sensitive to SX-1552 (EC50 = 5.6 μg ai L−1) than to SX-1552A (EC50 = 23.9 μg ai L−1). Hydrilla had EC50 values of 1.4 and 2.5 μg ai L−1, whereas elodea was more tolerant, with EC50 values of 6.9 and 13.1 μg ai L−1 for SX-1552 and SX-1552A, respectively. For EWM mesocosm trials, EC50 values for SX-1552 and 1552A were 0.12 μg ai L−1 and 0.58 μg ai L−1, whereas the megalodonta EC50 was 6.1 μg ai L−1. Activity of SX-1552 on EWM, hydrilla, and CFH merits continued investigation for selective aquatic weed control properties. Results suggest that the OECD protocol can be used to screen activity of herbicides for multiple aquatic plant species.

Keywords

4-Amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)-5-fluoro-pyridine-2-benzyl estercrested floating heart, Nymphoides cristata (Roxb.) Kuntzeelodea, Elodea canadensis Michx.Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum L.hydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata L.f. Roylemegalodonta, Bidens beckii Torr. Ex SprengAquatic herbicideaquatic plant bioassayaquatic plant toxicityBeck's water-marigoldherbicide screeninginvasive aquatic plants
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 181 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Steven Seefeldt, University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

References

Literature Cited

[APMS] Aquatic Plant Management Society (2014) Herbicide Resistance Stewardship in Aquatic Plant Management. http://apms.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Herbicide-Resistance-Stewardship-in-Aquatic-Plant-Management.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015Google Scholar
Belgers, JDM, Van Lieverloo, RJ, Van der Pas, LJ, Van den Brink, PJ (2007) Effects of the herbicide 2, 4-D on the growth of nine aquatic macrophytes. Aquat Bot 86:260–268 Google Scholar
Bell, JL, Schmitzer, R, Weimer, MR, Napier, RM, Prusinska, JM (2015) Mode-of-action analysis of a new arylpicolinate herbicide [Abstract]. 2015 Annual Meeting Lexington, KY Weed Science Society of America. http://wssaabstracts.com/public/30/abstract-290.html. Accessed May 15, 2015Google Scholar
Berger, ST, Netherland, MD, MacDonald, GE (2015) Laboratory documentation of multiple-herbicide tolerance to fluridone, norflurazon, and topramazone in a hybrid watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum × M. sibiricum) population. Weed Sci 63:235–241 Google Scholar
Getsinger, KD, Netherland, MD, Grue, CE, Koschnick, TJ (2008) Improvements in the use of herbicides and establishment of future research directions. J Aquat Plant Manage 46:32–41 Google Scholar
Glomski, LM, Netherland, MD (2010) Response of Eurasian and hybrid watermilfoil to low use rates and extended exposures of 2,4-D and triclopyr. J Aquat Plant Manage 48:12–16 Google Scholar
Glomski, LM, Netherland, MD (2011) Small-scale screening of submersed aquatic plants to the herbicide topramezone. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN APCRP-CC-16) Vicksburg, MS U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. http://ed.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/. Accessed March 15, 2015Google Scholar
Glomski, LM, Netherland, MD (2013) Use of a small-scale primary screening method to predict effects of flumioxazin and carfentrazone-ethyl on native and invasive, submersed plants. J Aquat Plant Manage 51:45–48 Google Scholar
Green, WR, Westerdahl, HE (1990) Response of Eurasian watermilfoil to 2,4-D concentrations and exposure times. J Aquat Plant Manage 28:27–30 Google Scholar
Hofstra, DE, Clayton, JS (2001). Evaluation of selected herbicides for the control of exotic submerged weeds in New Zealand: I. The use of endothall, triclopyr and dichlobenil. J Aquat Plant Manage 39:20–24 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose–response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840–848 Google Scholar
Koschnick, TJ, Haller, WT, Glasgow, L (2006) Documentation of landoltia (Landoltia punctata) resistance to diquat. Weed Sci 54:615–619 Google Scholar
Lee, S, Sundaram, S, Armitage, L, Evans, JP, Hawkes, T, Kepinski, S, Ferro, N, Napier, RM (2013) Defining binding efficiency and specificity of auxins for SCFTIR1/AFB-Aux/IAA co-receptor complex formation. ACS Chem Biol 9:673–682 Google Scholar
MacDonald, GE, Shilling, DG, Bewick, TA. 1993. Effects of endothall and other aquatic herbicides on chlorophyll fluorescence, respiration, and cellular integrity. J Aquat Plant Manage 31:50–54 Google Scholar
Maltby, L, Arnold, D, Arts, G, Davies, J, Heimbach, F, Pickl, C, Poulsen, V, eds (2010) Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides. New York, NY: CRC Press. 162 p Google Scholar
Mohr, S, Schott, J, Maletzki, D, Hunken, A (2013) Effects of toxicants with different modes of action on Myriophyllum spicatum in test sytems with varying complexity. Ecotox Environ Safe 97:32–39 Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Haller, WT (2006) Effect of pH on submersed aquatic plant response to flumioxazin. J Aquat Plant Manage 48:30–34 Google Scholar
Nault, ME, Netherland, MD, Mikulyuk, A, Skogerboe, JG, Asplund, T, Hauxwell, J, Toshner, P (2014) Efficacy, selectivity, and herbicide concentrations following a whole-lake 2,4-D application targeting Eurasian watermilfoil in two adjacent northern Wisconsin lakes. Lake Res Manage 30:1–10 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD (2011) Comparative susceptibility of fluridone resistant and susceptible hydrilla to four ALS inhibiting herbicides under laboratory and greenhouse conditions. J Aquat Plant Manage 49:100–106 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD (2015) Laboratory and greenhouse response of monoecious hydrilla to fluridone. J Aquat Plant Manage 53:178–184 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD, Getsinger, KD (1992) Efficacy of triclopyr on Eurasian watermilfoil: concentration and exposure time effects. J Aquat Plant Manage 30:1–5 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD, Getsinger, KD, Turner, EG (1993) Fluridone concentration and exposure time requirements for control of hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil. J Aquat Plant Manage 32:189–194 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD, Glomski, LM (2014) Mesocosm evaluation of triclopyr on Eurasian watermilfoil and three native submersed species: the role of treatment timing and herbicide exposure. J Aquat Plant Manage. 52:57–64 Google Scholar
[NPIRS] National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (2015) http://npirs.ceris.purdue.edu/. Accessed April 9, 2015Google Scholar
[OECD] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006) Test No. 221: Lemna sp. Growth Inhibition Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2. Paris OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264016194-en Google Scholar
OECD (2014) Test No. 239: Water–Sediment Myriophyllum spicatum Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2. Paris OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264224155-en Google Scholar
Parsons, JK, Hamel, KS, Madsen, JD, Getsinger, KD (2001) The use of 2, 4-D for selective control of an early infestation of Eurasian watermilfoil in Loon Lake, Washington. J Aquat Plant Manage 39:117–125 Google Scholar
Poovey, AG, Getsinger, KD (2002) Impacts of inorganic turbidity on diquat efficacy against Egeria densa . J Aquat Plant Manage 40:6–10 Google Scholar
Poovey, AG, Getsinger, KD, Skogerboe, JG, Koschnick, TJ, Madsen, JD, Stewart, RM (2004) Small-plot, low-dose treatments of triclopyr for selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil. Lake Res Manage 20:322–332 Google Scholar
R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed August 1, 2015Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Softw 12:1–22 Google Scholar
Sprecher, SL, Getsinger, KD, Stewart, AB (1998) Selective effects of aquatic herbicides on sago pondweed. J Aquat Plant Manage 36: 64–68 Google Scholar
Smart, RM, Barko, JW (1985) Laboratory of culture of submersed freshwater microphytes on natural sediments. Aquat Bot 21:251–263 Google Scholar
Sprecher, SL, Stewart, AB (1995) Triclopyr effects on peroxidase activity in target and non-target aquatic plants. J Aquat Plant Manage 33:43–48 Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test using Lemna spp. Ecological Effects Test Guideline OCSPP 850.4400. Washington, DC: USEPA Google Scholar
Villalobos, LI, Lee, AC, De Oliveira, S, Ivetac, C, Brandt, A, Armitage Sheard, WL, Tan, LB, Parry, X, Mao, G, Zheng, H, Napier, N, Kepinski, RM, Estelle, M (2012) A combinatorial TIR1/AFB–Aux/IAA co-receptor system for differential sensing of auxin. Nature Chem Biol 8:477–485 Google Scholar
Walsh, TA, Neal, R, Merlo, AO, Honma, M, Hicks, GR, Wolff, K, Matsumura, W, Davies, JP (2006) Mutations in an auxin receptor homolog AFB5 and in SGT1b confer resistance to synthetic picolinate auxins and not to 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or indole-3-acetic acid in Arabidopsis . Plant Physiol 142:542–552 Google Scholar
Wersal, RM, Madsen, JD, Woolf, TE, Eckberg, N (2010) Assessment of herbicide efficacy on Eurasian watermilfoil and impacts to the native submersed plant community in Hayden Lake, Idaho, USA. J Aquat Plant Manag 48:5–11 Google Scholar