EFED's
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Chapter
for
Sethoxydim
Michael
Davy,
Agronomist
William
Eckel,
Ph.
D.,
Agronomist
Shannon
Borges,
Biologist
Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Effects
Division
(
7507C)
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Protection
Agency
June
22,
2005
Secondary
Review:
Dana
Spatz,
Risk
Assessment
Process
Leader
Donna
Randall,
Senior
Scientist
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Branch
Chief
Approval:
Tom
Bailey,
Ph.
D.,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)
­
2­
I.
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
A.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
7­
C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
7­
D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
8­
E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­

II.
Problem
Formulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
1.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
2.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Formulation
and
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
B.
Receptors
and
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
1.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
a.
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
Acute
Toxicity
to
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
Acute
Toxicity
to
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
Toxicity
to
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
b.
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
Acute
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
c.
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
2.
Measures
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
Aquatic
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
20­
Terrestrial
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­
C.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­
2.
Diagram
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
22­
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
b.
Terrestrial
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
25­
E.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
26­
1.
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
26­
(
a)
Fate
and
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
26­
(
b)
Toxicity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
26­
(
c)
Risk
Quotient
and
Levels
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­

III.
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
29­
A.
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
29­
­
3­
Characterization
of
Production
Areas
and
Soils
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
Soybeans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
Cotton
and
Peanuts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
Other
Cotton
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
Other
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
Degradation
Scheme
for
Sethoxydim
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
35­
2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
37­
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
37­
Spray
Drift
Exposure
from
Formulated
Sethoxydim
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
39­
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
and
Field
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
40­
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
42­
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
42­
Residues
on
Avian
Food
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
43­
Residues
on
Mammalian
Food
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
44­
Terrestrial
Plant
EEC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
44­
C.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
46­
1.
Aquatic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
46­
a.
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
46­
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
46­
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
47­
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
47­
b.
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
47­
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­
b.
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
49­
3.
ECOTOX
Database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
49­

IV.
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
50­
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
50­
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
50­
Runoff
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
50­
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
51­
3.
Non­
target
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
53­
Terrestrial
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
53­
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
54­
B.
Risk
Description
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
54­
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
54­
Summary
of
Major
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
54­
­
4­
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
55­
Aquatic
animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
55­
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
57­
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
57­
Summary
of
Major
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
57­
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
58­
Terrestrial
animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
58­
3.
Review
of
Incident
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
61­
4.
Endocrine
Disrupter
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
61­
C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
62­
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
62­
2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
65­
3.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
67­
4.
Critical
Habitats
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
68­
D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
­
69­
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
all
Taxa
.
.
.
.
.
­
69­
2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
70­
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
70­
b.
Routes
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
70­
c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
71­
d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Differences
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
71­
e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
to
Non­
Target
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
72­
f.
Data
gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
72­
3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Aquatic
Effects
Assessment
.
­
72­
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
72­
b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
73­
c.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
73­
d.
Aquatic
Environment
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
73­
e.
Aquatic
Environment
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
74­
Appendix
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
75­
Appendix
B
Summary
of
Public
Literature
from
ECOTOX
database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
83­
Appendix
C
Summary
of
Public
Literature
that
were
excluded
from
ECOTOX
database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
90­
Appendix
D
List
of
Exclusion
Terms
Utilized
under
the
ECOTOX
Database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
128­
Appendix
E
Ecological
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
130­
Appendix
F.
Input
Parameters
For
GENEEC2
Runs
for
Sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
140­
Appendix
G
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
142­
Appendix
H
Use
Closure
Memorandum
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
144­
­
5­
Appendix
I
Ecological
Data
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
146­
Appendix
J
Structures
of
Degradates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
148­
Appendix
K
Sethoxydim
MRID
Bibliography
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
156­
Appendix
L
Listed
Species
by
State
and
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
166­
Appendix
M
Full
list
of
listed
species
in
states
in
which
sethoxydim
is
applied.
.
.
­
187­
Appendix
N
AgDrift
Aquatic
Model
Runs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
205­
Appendix
O
AgDrift
Model
Runs
for
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
211­
Appendix
P
TerrPlant
Model
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
219­
­
6­
I.
Executive
Summary
A.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
There
are
two
chemical
stressors
in
this
risk
assessment.
The
first
is
the
active
ingredient,
sethoxydim
(
PC
code
121001)
and
its
degradates,
and
the
second
is
the
petroleum
solvent
(
CAS
Registry
Number
64742­
94­
5)
that
is
used
in
the
end­
use
formulations
POAST
®
and
POAST
®
Plus.
The
solvent
is
known
to
contain
several
percent
by
weight
of
Naphthalene,
which
is
also
a
registered
active
ingredient
(
PC
code
055801).
Sethoxydim
is
responsible
for
all
presumed
risks
to
plants
and
birds,
and
the
petroleum
solvent
is
responsible
for
presumed
risks
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
(
fresh­
and
salt­
water).

Sethoxydim.
The
first
chemical
stressor
in
this
assessment
is
the
cyclohexenone­
class
herbicide
sethoxydim
and
its
eight
degradates.
The
eight
degradates
are
grouped
into
three
sets.
These
are
(
1)
the
sulfoxide
(
M­
SO)
and
sulfone
(
M­
SO2)
of
the
parent
chemical,
(
2)
the
hydrolysis
product
M1­
S,
its
sulfoxide
(
M1­
SO),
and
sulfone
(
M1­
SO2),
and
(
3)
the
hydrolysis/
ring
closure
product
(
M2­
S),
and
its
sulfoxide
(
M2­
SO)
and
sulfone
(
M2­
SO2).

Structures
of
all
the
degradates
are
given
in
Appendix
J,
and
the
degradation
scheme
showing
the
relationship
of
the
parent
to
the
degradates
is
given
in
section
B.
1.

The
major
degradates
present
in
soil
are
the
parent
sulfoxide
and
sulfone
(
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2).
These
compounds
may
revert
to
parent
sethoxydim
by
chemical
reduction
(
loss
of
the
added
oxygen
atoms)
under
anaerobic
conditions.
Each
of
these
compounds
is
mobile
in
soil­
water
systems.

The
major
degradates
formed
in
water
are
the
hydrolysis
product
(
M1­
S)
and
the
resulting
ringclosure
product
M2­
S.
As
noted,
each
of
these
has
a
sulfoxide
and
a
sulfone.
The
M1
series
of
degradates
are
mobile
in
soil­
water
systems,
as
is
parent
sethoxydim
and
its
sulfoxide
and
sulfone.
The
M2
series,
being
a
fused
two­
ring
system
(
tetrahydrobenzoxazole)
is
less
mobile.

For
this
assessment,
all
of
the
degradates
are
assumed
to
be
equally
as
toxic
as
parent
sethoxydim.
Therefore,
a
Total
Toxic
Residue
approach
is
used
for
the
assessment
of
risks
to
aquatic
organisms
and
plants
from
sethoxydim
per
se.

Petroleum
Solvent.
This
solvent
(
CAS
Registry
Number
64742­
94­
5)
is
used
to
stabilize
the
manufacturing
use
product
(
MUP)
and
is
present
in
the
end­
use
products
POAST
®
and
POAST
®
Plus.
It
contains
Naphthalene,
a
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbon,
which
is
known
to
be
toxic
to
fish
and
invertebrates.
The
toxicity
of
POAST
®
(
18%
active
ingredient
by
weight)
is
similar
to
the
toxicity
of
Naphthalene,
rather
than
that
of
pure
sethoxydim.

For
this
reason,
the
presumed
risks
to
aquatic
animals
in
this
assessment
are
attributable
to
the
petroleum
solvent,
rather
than
sethoxydim
itself.
­
7­
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
Risk
from
sethoxydim:

°
Chronic
risk
to
birds
from
sethoxydim
is
expected.

°
It
is
expected
that
risk
to
non­
target
aquatic
plants
is
limited
to
aquatic
grasses,
due
to
the
mode
of
action
of
sethoxydim
and
terrestrial
plant
data.
The
risk
cannot
be
quantified,
because
there
are
no
toxicity
testing
data
for
aquatic
grasses
(
family
Poaceae).

°
The
terrestrial
listed
plant
LOC
(
family
Poaceae)
is
exceeded
from
spray
drift
from
ground
and
aerial
application
and
from
runoff
to
low
semi­
aquatic
areas.

No
LOC
Exceeded
°
LOC
for
acute
risk
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
from
run­
off
or
spray
drift
to
the
pond
is
not
exceeded.

°
There
are
no
LOC
exceedances
to
algae
or
diatoms.

°
LOC
for
chronic
risk
for
aquatic
estuarine
animals
from
runoff
to
the
standard
farm
pond
is
not
exceeded.

°
Avian
or
mammalian
acute
LOC
is
not
exceeded.

°
The
chronic
LOC
is
not
exceeded
for
mammals.

°
LOC
for
non­
grass
plant
species
are
not
exceeded.

C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
Terrestrial.
The
exposure
of
terrestrial
animals
and
plants
was
assessed
by
standard
methods
(
Hoerger­
Kenaga
nomogram
for
dietary
exposure
to
animals,
1%
or
5%
spray
drift
for
plants
in
adjacent
fields
and
wetlands,
and
AgDrift
for
spray
drift
exposure
of
plants).

For
animals,
exposure
on
food
items
at
maximum
labeled
rates,
with
minimum
application
intervals,
triggered
only
chronic
(
reproductive)
risk
to
birds
via
dietary
intake.
This
was
true
with
the
assumption
of
either
the
35­
day
default
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
on
food
items,
or
a
refined
assumption
of
a
one­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
for
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
analysis
(
T­
REX
­
8­
model).
The
exposure
that
would
not
trigger
this
risk
is
not
known,
since
a
no­
effect
concentration
was
not
established.

For
plants,
the
runoff
exposure
from
spray
drift
was
estimated
as
1%
or
5%
of
the
application
rate
for
ground
and
aerial
applications,
respectively.
Exposure
to
non­
target
plants
from
runoff
was
estimated
with
5%
runoff
factor
that
took
into
consideration
the
solubility
of
sethoxydim.
Spray
drift
exposure
of
1­
5%
and
runoff
exposure
was
sufficient
to
trigger
risk
concern
for
terrestrial
grasses.

Aquatic.
The
exposure
of
aquatic
animals
and
plants
was
estimated
by
standard
Tier
1
methods
(
GENEEC
model,
version
2.0).
Screening­
level
(
Tier
1)
exposure
analysis
was
done
because
it
was
not
anticipated
that
sethoxydim
would
reach
concentrations
sufficient
to
trigger
either
acute
or
chronic
risk
in
animals.
The
Tier
1
EECs
were
below
100
ppb,
which
was
indeed
insufficient
to
trigger
acute
or
chronic
risk
to
animals
from
sethoxydim
alone.

Screening­
level
estimates
of
exposure
to
the
petroleum
solvent
from
aerial
spray
drift
to
a
6­
inch
wetland
were
up
to
350
ppb.
This
was
sufficient
to
trigger
acute
risk
concerns
in
fish
and
invertebrates.
The
exposure
analysis
was
done
with
non­
guideline
fate
data,
however,
and
so
is
more
uncertain
than
a
standard
Tier
1
assessment.

It
is
not
known
whether
the
estimated
exposure
in
the
standard
6­
foot
deep
farm
pond
(
about
100
ppb)
is
sufficient
to
affect
sensitive
aquatic
plants,
since
there
are
no
toxicity
data
for
aquatic
grasses.

D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
°
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
on
an
acute
basis.

°
The
petroleum
solvent
that
contains
Naphthalene
is
moderately
toxic
to
aquatic
animals
on
an
acute
basis.
The
toxicity
of
POAST
®
is
slightly
less
toxic
than
that
of
Naphthalene
to
aquatic
animals.

°
The
sheepshead
minnow
early
life
stage
study
found
no
chronic
effects
(
NOAEC
>
98
ppm
ai)
and
the
mysid
shrimp
life
cycle
study
found
reproductive
effects
at
13
ppm
ai
(
NOAEC
=
6.5
ppm
a.
i.).

°
Sethoxydim
technical
and
TEP
appear
to
be
phytotoxic
to
grass
species
only.

°
Birds
may
experience
a
decrease
in
normal
hatchlings
when
dietary
exposure
is
as
low
as
100
ppm
ai.
Mammals
may
show
tail
abnormalcies
at
dietary
concentrations
as
low
as
3000
ppm
(
NOAEL
=
600
ppm).
­
9­
E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
°
Risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
from
spray
drift
is
underestimated
because
the
vegetative
vigor
study
was
conducted
on
the
technical
sethoxydim
and
not
on
the
TEP
(
POAST
®
)
.

°
Risk
to
non­
target
aquatic
grass
species
can
not
be
certain
or
quantified
due
to
lack
of
data.

°
The
avian
chronic
reproduction
study
in
the
mallard
duck
did
not
achieve
a
NOAEL.
Chronic
avian
toxicity
is
underestimated.

°
The
estuarine
Fish
Early
Life
Stage
and
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Life
Cycle
tests
were
conducted
with
40
and
43%
active
ingredient
formulations
respectively,
and
it
is
unclear
whether
the
petroleum
solvent
was
present
in
these
test
substances.
It
is
uncertain
as
to
what
the
results
of
the
studies
represent.

°
The
submitted
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
studies
(
164­
1)
were
judged
to
be
unacceptable
because
total
sethoxydim
residues
were
analyzed,
rather
than
the
parent
compound
and
its
eight
degradates.
However,
due
to
the
large
uncertainty
that
exists
for
the
degradates
of
sethoxydim,
additional
data
need
to
be
generated
to
lower
the
level
of
uncertainty
on
the
fate
of
sethoxydim.
If
the
assumption
that
the
degradates
are
equally
as
toxic
as
the
parent
is
adequate
for
risk
assessment,
then
the
studies
do
not
need
to
be
repeated.

°
Additional
information
is
needed
to
determine
if
the
submitted
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
study
(
162­
3)
is
acceptable.
There
is
uncertainty
in
this
study
that
needs
to
be
clarified.

°
EEC
for
6­
inch
shallow
pond
scenario
was
not
attempted.
Many
species
of
fish
and
invertebrates
breed
in
shallow
waters.
There
is
uncertainty
as
to
whether
there
may
be
risk
to
aquatic
animals
that
spend
part
of
life
cycle
in
these
shallow
water
bodies.
­
10­
II.
Problem
Formulation
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
Sethoxydim
is
a
highly
soluble
compound
(
4700
mg/
L
in
pH
7
water)
with
a
low
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
K
ow
for
Sethoxydim
is
45.1).
Sethoxydim
is
labile
and
mobile
in
the
environment.
The
transformation
of
parent
Sethoxydim,
primarily
by
photodegradation,
aerobic
metabolism
in
water
and
soil,
and
acid­
catalyzed
hydrolysis,
is
rapid
(
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
hours
to
days).
Sethoxydim
total
residues
(
Sethoxydim
plus
Sethoxydim
transformation
products)
are
determined
using
a
common
moiety
method
that
cannot
distinguish
parent
Sethoxydim
from
its
transformation
products.
These
rearrangement
products
are
more
persistent
in
the
environment
than
Sethoxydim
(
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
weeks
to
months)
and
potentially
mobile.
Because
of
its
low
vapor
pressure
(
1.6x10­
7
mm
Hg)
and
Henry's
Law
Constant
(
1.47x10­
11
atm­
m3/
mol),
Sethoxydim
is
not
expected
to
be
highly
volatile.

For
the
aquatic
(
but
not
terrestrial)
ecological
assessment
of
sethoxydim,
we
have
assumed
that
the
stressor
is
sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues,
that
is,
the
sum
of
the
parent
and
its
eight
degradates.
This
assumption
is
justifiable
on
several
bases.

First,
in
aerobic
soil
metabolism
studies,
the
degradation
half­
life
of
parent
sethoxydim
is
less
than
one
day.
The
resulting
metabolites
are
the
sulfoxide
(
M­
SO)
and
the
sulfone
(
M­
SO2).
Because
the
re­
application
interval
is
14
days,
and
the
degradates
are
more
persistent,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2
are
the
forms
that
have
biological
activity.

Second,
the
oxidation
process
that
forms
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2
is
in
principle
reversible,
that
is,
under
chemically
reducing
(
anaerobic)
conditions,
the
degradates
could
be
re­
oxidized
to
the
parent
compound.
This
behavior
was
observed
in
the
unacceptable
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
study
(
MRID
42165603),
in
which
the
concentration
of
parent
sethoxydim
declined
to
16.5%
at
0.5
months,
and
then
rose
again
to
34.3%
at
1
month.
So,
in
a
sense,
parent
sethoxydim
is
not
irreversibly
lost
by
aerobic
soil
metabolism.

Third,
the
water
exposure
models
that
EFED
uses
do
not
account
for
reversible
(
or
equilibrium)
processes
such
as
reversible
sulfoxidation.
To
avoid
underestimation
of
exposure,
M­
SO
and
MSO2
were
considered
to
be
the
same
chemical
entity,
since
their
reversion
to
parent
could
not
be
modeled
with
the
computer.

Fourth,
the
submitted
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
studies
(
MRID
41510608,
41510609,
and
41510610)
used
a
common
moiety
analytical
method
that
reported
total
residues,
rather
than
the
parent
and
degradates
individually
(
the
studies
were
judged
to
be
unacceptable
for
this
reason).
This
is
an
indication
that
the
registrant
considers
soil
degradates
to
be
as
important
as
the
parent.

For
the
aquatic
assessment,
the
decision
to
use
parent­
only
or
total
toxic
residues
(
TTR)
does
not
­
11­
affect
the
outcome
of
the
assessment,
since
the
TTR
exposure
estimates
were
well
below
toxicity
endpoints
(
LC50s)
for
the
technical
compound.
However,
it
does
result
in
a
more
conservative
assessment.

For
the
terrestrial
assessment,
the
standard
assumption
of
a
35­
day
half­
life
on
food
items
was
used,
as
well
as
the
refined
assumption
of
a
one­
day
half­
life.
Under
either
assumption,
chronic
risk
concerns
in
birds
were
triggered.
Neither
of
these
assumptions
has
any
relationship
to
the
formation
of
the
eight
degradates
of
sethoxydim,
since
the
half­
lives
only
refer
to
the
rate
of
disappearance
of
the
parent.
However,
the
35­
day
half­
life
is
not
unreasonable
given
that
sethoxydim
TTR
has
a
half­
life
of
about
one
month
in
aerobic
soil.
­
12­
CH3
N
O
CH3
OH
CH3
S
H3C
O
Below
is
the
chemical
structure
of
Sethoxydim
(
Figure
1)
and
Table
1
showing
the
Physical­
Chemical
Properties
of
Sethoxydim
Figure
1:
Structure
of
Sethoxydim.
CAS
Reg.
No.
74051­
80­
2,
Formula
C
17
H
29
NO
3
S
­
13­
Table
1:
Physical­
Chemical
Properties
of
Sethoxydim
Property
Value
Reference
Solubility
in
Water
257
mg/
L
at
pH
5
and
25

C
4700
mg/
L
at
pH
7
and
25

C
16,200
mg/
L
at
pH
9
and
25

C
25
mg/
L
at
pH
4
and
20

C
EFED
one­
liner
database
9/
14/
1993
EFGWB
update
memo
on
Reregistration
package
12/
26/
1990
Tomlin,
C
(
1997)
cited
in
EPI­
Suite
v3.12
Log
K
ow
3.51
at
pH
5
1.65
at
pH
7
­
0.032
at
pH
9
EFED
one­
liner
database
9/
14/
1993
EFGWB
update
memo
on
Reregistration
package
12/
26/
1990
Vapor
Pressure
1.6x10­
7
mm
Hg
EFED
one­
liner
database
9/
14/
1993
Henry's
Law
Constant
1.47x10­
11
atm­
m3/
mol
Molecular
Weight
Molecular
Formula
327.48
g/
mol
C
17
H
29
NO
3
S
pKa
(
acid
dissociation
constant)
4.62
SMILES
code
CCCC(=
NOCC)
C1=
C(
O)
CC
(
CC(
C)
SCC)
CC1=
O
EPI­
Suite
v3.12
Physical
State
amber
oily
liquid
EFED
one­
liner
database
9/
14/
1993
CAS
Registry
number
71441­
80­
0
74051­
80­
2
EPI­
Suite
v3.12
EFED
one­
liner
database
9/
14/
1993;
Merck
Index
10th
Ed.
­
14­
2.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
Sethoxydim
is
a
member
of
the
Cyclohexanedione
class
of
chemicals.
The
mode
of
action
for
this
herbicide
is
Lipid
Biosynthesis
Inhibition.
Selectivity
is
shown
to
be
due
to
the
greater
susceptibility
at
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
of
grassy
species.
Susceptible
grassy
species
are
killed
by
inhibition
of
the
ACCase
which
is
a
key
enzyme
in
the
lipid
biosynthetic
pathway.

3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Formulation
and
Usage
Sethoxydim
is
a
systemic
herbicide
which
is
registered
for
selective
postemergence
control
of
a
wide
spectrum
of
annual
and
perennial
grasses.
It
is
applied
either
by
aerial
or
ground
methods
and
is
registered
for
many
different
agricultural
and
residential
uses
throughout
the
United
States.

Sethoxydim
is
formulated
with
Naphthalene­
containing
solvents.
Material
Safety
Data
Sheets
for
POAST
®
(
Reg.
No.
7969­
58­
51036)
http://
www.
cdms.
net/
ldat/
mp5KM007.
pdf
and
POAST
®
Plus
(
Reg.
No.
7969­
88­
51036)
http://
www.
cdms.
net/
ldat/
mp5KN001.
pdf
indicate
that
POAST
®
contains
74%
petroleum
solvent
including
7%
Naphthalene,
and
that
POAST
®
Plus
contains
87%
inerts
including
1.3%
Naphthalene.

Due
to
its
high
content
of
Naphthalene,
toxicity
data
for
Naphthalene
will
be
used
as
surrogate
toxicity
data
for
the
solvent.
It
is
likely
that
the
other
constituents
of
Naphthalene­
containing
solvents
(
petroleum
distillates)
have
toxicity
similar
to
that
of
Naphthalene,
especially
if
the
toxic
effect
is
simple
narcosis.

B.
Receptors
and
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected."
Two
criteria
are
used
to
select
the
appropriate
ecological
assessment
endpoints:
1)
identification
of
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
the
operational
definition
of
assessment
endpoints
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
the
selection
of
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.

1.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effect
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
receptors.
A
set
of
surrogate
species
is
used
to
provide
an
estimation
of
ecological
risk.
Ecological
relevance
and
sensitivity
­
15­
are
essential
for
selecting
receptors
and
assessment
endpoints
that
are
scientifically
defensible.
Surrogate
species
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
In
the
absence
of
toxicity
data
on
amphibians,
it
is
assumed
that
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
fish
to
the
potential
effects
of
a
pesticide.
Terrestrial
animals
used
as
test
species
include
birds
and
small
mammals.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
to
pesticide­
induced
effects
as
are
birds
in
the
absence
of
toxicity
data.
Potential
effects
to
benthic
organisms
may
also
be
evaluated
if
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
the
assessed
chemical
may
partition
to
the
sediment
or
if
sediment
organisms
are
particularly
sensitive
species.
For
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
receptors,
direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
effects
are
considered.
Although
these
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
they
provide
insight
about
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
i.
e.,
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
have
important
implications
for
both
population­
level
effects
as
well
as
habitat
carrying
capacity.
Indirect
effects
on
critical
habitat
are
only
considered
in
the
risk
characterization
for
the
potential
effects
on
endangered
species,
provided
that
the
risk
quotient
demonstrates
probable
risk.

For
plants
in
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
environments,
the
screening
assessment
endpoint
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
both
crop
and
non­
crop
species).
Endpoints
assessed
include
height
measurement
and
plant
weight
from
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
studies.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
endpoints
may
not
address
all
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
during
active
growth
may
impact
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.
Data
on
the
formulated
product
(
as
opposed
to
the
active
ingredient)
are
used
to
characterize
plant
exposure
effects.
If
the
maximum
exposure
rate
results
in
an
effect
level
that
is
less
than
25%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
low
risk
is
presumed
and
a
Tier
II
study
is
not
required.
However,
if
the
effect
level
is
less
than
25%
but
greater
than
5%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
potential
risk
may
still
occur
to
listed
species
that
cannot
be
quantified.

a.
Terrestrial
Organisms
Acute
Toxicity
to
Birds
Technical
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
the
mallard
duck
on
an
acute
oral
basis,
and
practically
non­
toxic
to
the
mallard
duck
and
the
bobwhite
quail
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.

The
surrogate
chemical
(
Naphthalene)
for
the
Petroleum
solvent
is
also
non­
toxic
to
the
bobwhite
quail
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(
LD50
is
2690
mg/
kg)
and
subacute
dietary
basis
(
LC50
is
>
5620
ppm).
Therefore,
no
adverse
effects
to
birds
are
expected
from
acute
exposure
to
either
Sethoxydim
or
Petroleum
solvent,
and
no
acute
risk
assessment
for
birds
will
be
done.
­
16­
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Birds
A
reproduction
study
in
bobwhite
quail
resulted
in
no
treatment­
related
effects,
with
a
NOAEC
of
>
1000
ppm.
However,
the
number
of
normal
hatchlings
was
affected
in
the
mallard
duck,
with
a
LOAEC
of
100
ppm,
and
no
NOAEC
established.
Both
tests
were
performed
using
the
technical
active
ingredient
(
96.8%).
Therefore,
a
chronic
risk
assessment
based
on
the
reproductive
risk
to
birds,
as
represented
by
the
mallard
duck,
will
be
performed.

A
single
application
of
0.47
lb/
A
assuming
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
1
day
gives
chronic
RQ
of
>
1.13
for
birds
consuming
short
grass
food
items.
EFED
will
conclude
that
there
is
a
presumption
of
chronic
(
reproductive)
risk
to
birds.

Acute
Toxicity
to
Mammals
The
acute
toxicity
of
technical
(
94­
99%)
Sethoxydim,
and
of
the
18.0%
formulated
product
(
POAST
®
)
was
tested
on
laboratory
rats.
The
LD50
of
the
technical
ingredient
was
3125
mg/
kg
in
male
rats,
and
2676
mg/
kg
in
females.
The
LD50
of
the
18%
formulation
was
5000
mg/
kg
in
male
rats,
and
4385
mg/
kg
in
female
rats.
These
results
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
and
its
18%
formulation
are
practically
non­
toxic
to
rats.

Therefore,
an
acute
risk
assessment
for
mammals
will
not
be
done.

Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
A
two­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats
was
performed
with
technical
(
94­
99%)
Sethoxydim.
The
reproductive
toxicity
NOAEC
value
(
3000
ppm)
indicates
that
Sethoxydim
does
not
cause
reproductive
effects
at
expected
exposure
levels
in
rats
(
as
a
surrogate
for
all
mammals);
however,
developmental
effects
were
observed
in
offspring
and
the
developmental
toxicity
NOAEC
was
600
ppm.

Toxicity
to
Plants
Phytotoxicity
data
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
is
practically
nontoxic
to
dicots
and
a
non­
grass
monocot
(
onion).
It
is,
however,
toxic
to
grasses.
The
phytotoxicity
data
that
can
be
used
is
from
vegetative
vigor
and
seedling
emergence
studies
which
is
used
to
determine
risk
to
nontarget
plants
from
spray
drift
and
runoff,
respectively.
However,
vegetative
vigor
study
was
done
with
the
technical
grade
Sethoxydim.
The
Agency's
guidelines
call
for
the
vegetative
vigor
study
to
be
conducted
with
the
TEP
because
of
enhanced
penetration
of
the
herbicide
with
adjuvants
to
penetrate
the
plant
epidermis.
The
plant
risk
assessment
will
focus
on
risks
to
non­
target
grassy
plants
(
including
listed
grass
species)
from
spray
drift
and
runoff,
and
possibly
indirect
risks
to
listed
animal
and
non­
grass
species
that
may
depend
on
them.
There
is
added
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
from
spray
drift
(
due
to
no
phytotoxic
data
using
the
TEP).
Risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
from
spray
drift
may
be
underestimated
from
lack
of
TEP
phytotoxic
data.
­
17­
b.
Aquatic
Organisms
Acute
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Organisms
The
acute
toxicity
data
for
technical
Sethoxydim
show
that
it
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
the
rainbow
trout,
bluegill
sunfish,
sheepshead
minnow,
eastern
oyster,
and
mysid
shrimp,
and
only
slightly
toxic
to
the
waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna).

In
contrast,
acute
toxicity
data
for
18.0,
19.3
and
20.4%
formulated
products
indicate
moderate
toxicity
to
the
rainbow
trout,
bluegill
sunfish,
waterflea,
and
sheepshead
minnow,
and
high
toxicity
to
the
eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp.

EFED
concludes
that
the
observed
acute
toxicity
of
formulated
Sethoxydim
is
due
to
the
action
of
the
petroleum
solvent.
The
acute
hazard
to
aquatic
and
estuarine
organisms
is
therefore
due
to
the
solvent,
and
not
the
active
ingredient,
Sethoxydim.

Chronic
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Organisms
No
chronic
studies
were
submitted
for
freshwater
invertebrates
or
fish.

The
only
available
chronic
toxicity
data
for
aquatic
organisms
are
for
an
estuarine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnows)
and
an
estuarine
invertebrate
(
mysid
shrimp).
Both
studies
were
rated
as
"
supplemental"
because
they
were
conducted
using
40
and
43%
sethoxydim
formulations
respectively.

No
adverse
effects
were
observed
in
the
sheepshead
minnow
at
the
highest
tested
concentration
of
98
ppm
(
the
solubility
of
Sethoxydim
is
4700
ppm).
For
the
mysid
shrimp,
both
survival
and
length
were
affected.
The
NOAEC
(
no
observed
effect
concentration)
was
6.5
ppm
ai,
and
the
LOAEC
(
lowest
observed
effect
concentration)
was
13
ppm
ai.

c.
Discussion
For
aquatic
plants,
the
assessment
endpoint
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measures
of
effect
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

The
ecological
relevance
of
selecting
the
above­
mentioned
assessment
endpoints
is
three­
fold:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
the
receptors;
2)
the
receptors
are
potentially
sensitive
to
pesticides
in
the
affected
media
and
from
residues
on
plants,
seeds,
insects,
and
other
food
sources;
and
3)
the
receptors
could
inhabit
areas
where
pesticides
are
applied
or
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
could
impact
sites
containing
available
suitable
habitat.
­
18­
Each
assessment
endpoint
requires
one
or
more
"
measures
of
ecological
effect,"
which
are
defined
as
changes
in
the
attributes
of
an
assessment
endpoint
itself
or
changes
in
a
surrogate
entity
or
attribute
in
response
to
pesticide
exposure.
Ecological
measures
of
effectfor
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
in
the
following
broad
groupings:

°
Birds
(
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail)
used
as
surrogate
species
for
terrestrialphase
amphibians
and
reptiles
°
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat)
°
Freshwater
fish
(
bluegill
sunfish
and
rainbow
trout)
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians
°
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
water
flea
­
Daphnia
magna)
°
Estuarine/
marine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnow)
°
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp)
°
Terrestrial
plants
(
various
crop
species)
°
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
(
algae,
diatoms,
and
duckweed)

A
discussion
of
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measures
of
effect
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
included
in
Section
III
C
of
this
document.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measures
of
effect
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risk
associated
with
Sethoxydim
exposure
is
provided
in
Table
2.

Table
2.
Summary
of
Assessment
and
Measurement
Endpoints
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
1.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
1a.
Mallard
duck
oral
LD50
1b.
1b.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
subacute
dietary
LC50
1c.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
(
one
acceptable
study
and
one
supplemental
study)

2.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
2a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50
2b.
Laboratory
rat
chronic
NOAEC
(
2­
generation
rat
reproductive
study)

3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Rainbow
trout
acute
LC50
3b.
Fathead
minnow
or
rainbow
trout
chronic
early
life
stage
NOAEC
(
weight
&
length)
NO
STUDY
SUBMITTED
3c.
Water
flea
acute
LC50
3d.
Water
flea
life
cycle
chronic
NOAEC
(
offspring)
­
NO
STUDY
SUBMITTED
­
19­
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
4b.
Estuarine/
marine
fish
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
4c.
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp
acute
LC50
4d.
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
(
mysid
shrimp)
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
5.
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species)
5a.
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence
EC25
5b.
Monocot
and
dicot
vegetative
vigor
EC25
­
STUDY
NEEDED
WITH
TEP
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
7.
Maintenance
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass
7a.
Algae
and
duckweed
acute
EC50
LD50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LOAEC
­
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LC50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population
EC50/
EC25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population
2.
Measures
of
Exposure
Methods
used
to
determine
exposure
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
are
dependent
on
its
environmental
fate
and
physicochemical
properties,
the
application
method,
and
the
presence
of
reliable
monitoring
data
that
are
considered
representative
of
the
proposed
use
sites.
Initial
factors
considered
for
the
exposure
assessment
are
provided
in
Table
3
below.

Table
3.
Factors
that
may
affect
the
exposure
to
Sethoxydim
Consideration
Sethoxydim­
specific
data
Conclusion
Monitoring
data
No
appropriate
or
targeted
monitoring
data
are
currently
available
to
EFED
EECs
will
be
determined
using
EFED's
exposure
models
Degradation
degradation:
Sethoxydim
is
very
rapidly
metabolized
in
soil
to
sulfoxide
and
sulfone
degradates
as
well
as
hydrolysis
products
(
M1
and
M2
series)
EECs
will
be
calculated
for
Total
Residues
including
M­
SO,
M­
SO2,
M1­
S,
M1­
SO,
M1­
SO2,
M2­
S,
M2­
SO,
and
M2­
SO2
Mobility
Sethoxydim
and
its
degradates
are
highly
mobile
in
soil­
water
systems
Runoff
will
need
to
be
considered
Bioconcentration
BCF
values
for
Sethoxydim
are
low:
21x
in
whole
fish
Bioconcentration
will
not
be
modeled
Application
method
Ground
or
air
spray
Spray
drift
and
runoff
need
to
be
considered
in
this
assessment
­
20­
Formulation
Naphthalene­
containing
solvent
is
demonstrably
more
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms
than
Sethoxydim
Toxicity
of
solvent
will
be
considered
when
exposure
to
active
ingredient
and
solvent
is
simultaneous
(
spray
drift)

Aquatic
Systems
For
aquatic
organisms,
such
as
plants,
fish,
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
and
invertebrates,
OPP
generally
uses
computer
simulation
models
to
estimate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient.
These
models
calculate
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
surface
water
using
laboratory
data
that
describe
the
rate
at
which
the
pesticide
breaks
down
and
how
it
moves
into
the
environment.
Monitoring
data,
if
available,
may
also
be
used
to
determine
EECs
or
to
support
the
model's
calculations.
EECs
for
aquatic
organisms
were
generated
with
the
Tier
1
model
GENEEC2.0
for
this
assessment.

No
EECs
are
generated
in
instances
where
no
toxicity
was
observed
at
concentrations
above
the
active
ingredient's
water
solubility
or
at
or
above
the
recommended
limit
concentration
for
a
particular
type
of
study.
Due
to
the
presence
of
multiple
Sethoxydim
transformation
products,
it
is
necessary
to
examine
exposure
to
both
the
parent
and
the
products.
Although
fate
data
indicate
that
parent
Sethoxydim
degrades
rapidly
in
soil
(<
1
day)
the
application
intervals
(
14
days)
indicate
that
herbicidal
activity
lasts
longer
than
one
day.
Thus,
some
of
the
degradates
seen
in
soil
metabolism
studies
(
especially
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2)
must
retain
some
herbicidal
activity.
In
addition,
the
sulfoxidation
process
is
in
principle
reversible,
so
the
parent
could
be
regenerated
from
the
M­
SO
degradate
under
reducing
conditions.
Because
we
have
no
separate
data
on
the
activity
of
the
degradates,
we
will
assume
that
the
activity
of
the
degradates
is
equal
to
that
of
the
parent.

It
is
assumed
that
the
active
ingredient
and
the
Naphthalene­
containing
solvent
will
become
separated
by
fate
processes
before
run­
off
into
the
pond.
Therefore,
run­
off
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
will
consider
only
the
active
ingredient,
and
toxicity
data
on
the
technical­
grade
active
ingredient
will
be
used
to
calculate
RQs.
A
separate
screening­
level
assessment
of
possible
exposure
to
the
Naphthalene­
containing
solvent
will
also
be
conducted,
to
indicate
if
further
study
is
warranted.

In
the
case
of
spray
drift,
parent
Sethoxydim
and
its
Naphthalene­
containing
solvent
should
reach
water
bodies
before
any
degradation
occurs.
Thus,
exposure
will
be
to
the
Typical
End
Use
Product
(
TEP).
Therefore,
toxicity
data
on
the
TEP
will
be
used.
­
21­
Terrestrial
Systems
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
exposures
are
considered
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
For
terrestrial
organism
exposure,
OPP
primarily
looks
at
the
residues
of
pesticides
on
food
items
and
assumes
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
For
spray
applications,
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
of
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rates
(
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994).
The
first
tier
of
the
nomogram
uses
the
maximum
predicted
residues.
Subsequent
refinements
may
consider
mean
residues.
However,
maximum
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
doses
based
on
fractions
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
from
mammalian
allometric
relationships
in
EPA's
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
In
all
screening­
level
assessments,
the
organisms
are
assumed
to
consume
100%
of
their
diet
as
one
food
type.

C.
Conceptual
Model
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
Ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
sethoxydim,
its
degradates,
and
the
various
products
that
make
up
the
Typical
End
Use
product
(
TEP)
include
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
wildlife
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
and
reptiles),
plants,
and
soil
invertebrates.
In
addition
to
terrestrial
ecological
receptors,
aquatic
receptors
(
e.
g.,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians,
and
obligate
aquatic
plants)
may
also
be
exposed
to
potential
migration
of
pesticides
from
the
site
of
application
to
various
watersheds
and
other
aquatic
environments
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.
­
22­
Stressor
Sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues
AND/
OR
Petroleum
Solvent
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Direct
Deposition
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Food
Items
Upland
Soil
Riparian/
Wetland
Soil
Receiving
Water
Body/
Sediment
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Direct
contact/
Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/
Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,
Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Wetland/
Riparian
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Aquatic
Plants
Uptake/
Adsorption
Figure
2:
Conceptual
Model
for
Sethoxydim
And
Petroleum
Solvent
Spray
Drift
2.
Diagram
­
23­

S
t
r
e
s
s
o
r
S
e
t
h
o
x
y
d
i
m
T
o
t
a
l
T
o
x
i
c
R
e
s
i
d
u
e
s
A
N
D
/
O
R
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
S
o
l
v
e
n
t
o
u
r
c
e
/

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
R
u
n
o
f
f
/

E
r
o
s
i
o
n
L
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
(
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
e
r
c
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
u
r
c
e
/
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
M
e
d
i
a
F
o
o
d
I
t
e
m
s
U
p
l
a
n
d
S
o
i
l
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
/
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
S
o
i
l
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
B
o
d
y
/
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
o
u
t
e
I
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
D
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
/
R
o
o
t
U
p
t
a
k
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
/
R
o
o
t
U
p
t
a
k
e
G
i
l
l
/
I
n
t
e
g
u
m
e
n
t
U
p
t
a
k
e
/
A
d
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
S
p
r
a
y
D
r
i
f
t
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
For
aquatic
exposure,
ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
Sethoxydim
include
wildlife
living
in
semiaquatic
areas
(
mammals,
birds,
and
reptiles),
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
and
aquatic
areas,
and
other
aquatic
receptors
(
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians).
Aquatic
receptors
(
e.
g.,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians)
may
also
be
exposed
to
potential
migration
of
pesticides
from
the
site
of
application
to
various
watersheds
and
other
aquatic
environments
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.

(
a)
Potentially
Complete
and
Quantitatively
Evaluated
Pathways
As
shown
in
Figure
2,
quantifiable
Sethoxydim
or
petroleum
solvent
exposure
pathways
and
risks
to
aquatic
ecological
receptors
include:
°
Aquatic
life
(
fish,
invertebrates,
amphibians)
exposed
through
contact
and
uptake
of
Naphthalene­
containing
solvent
in
surface
water
from
spray
drift
or
runoff.

(
b)
Potentially
Complete
But
Not
Quantitatively
Evaluated
Pathways
The
following
pathways
were
not
quantitatively
evaluated
in
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
because
exposure
was
identified
as
negligible
and
would
not
contribute
measurably
to
risk
or
exposure
estimates:
°
Aquatic
life
exposed
through
contact
and
uptake
of
Sethoxydim
in
groundwater
°
Aquatic
life
exposed
through
contact,
uptake,
and
ingestion
of
Sethoxydim
due
to
sediment
partitioning,
as
well
as
through
off­
target
surface
water
and
sediment
°
Terrestrial
animals
(
birds,
mammals,
reptiles)
that
live
in
aquatic
environments
exposed
through
contact,
uptake,
and
ingestion
of
Sethoxydim
from
target
surface
water,
sediment,
and
off­
target
water
and
sediment
b.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Pesticides
simultaneously
reach
several
environmental
compartments
when
applied.
Sethoxydim
is
applied
to
terrestrial
fields
as
an
herbicide.
As
a
result,
much
of
the
applied
compound
may
be
intercepted
by
foliage
instead
of
reaching
soil
directly.
For
terrestrial
exposure,
ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
Sethoxydim
include
wildlife
living
in
terrestrial
and
semiaquatic
areas
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
land­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles),
plants
in
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
areas,
and
soil
invertebrates.
The
source
and
mechanism
of
release
of
Sethoxydim
are
ground
or
aerial
application
to
agricultural
crops
(
alfalfa,
cotton,
soybeans,
dry
beans,
corn,
potato,
peanut,
sunflower
)
and
ground
only
for
turf,
trees,
fruits
(
including
citrus),
vegetables,
berries,
grapes,
nuts
and
other
registered
uses.
Surface
water
runoff
from
the
areas
of
application
is
assumed
to
follow
topography.
Additional
release
mechanisms
include
spray
drift,
and
wind
erosion,
which
may
potentially
transport
site­
related
contaminants
to
the
surrounding
air
and
later
to
off­
site
terrestrial
or
aquatic
sites.
Potential
emission
of
volatile
compounds
is
not
considered
as
a
viable
release
mechanism
for
Sethoxydim,
since
volatilization
is
not
expected
to
­
24­
be
a
significant
route
of
dissipation
for
this
chemical.

(
a)
Potentially
Complete
and
Quantitatively
Evaluated
Pathways
As
shown
in
Figure
2,
quantifiable
Sethoxydim
exposure
pathways
and
risks
to
ecological
receptors
from
terrestrial
application
include:

1.
On­
site
exposure
of
animals
(
mammals,
birds,
reptiles)
exposed
by
contact
with
or
ingestion
of
vegetation
or
insects
contaminated
by
direct
spraying.

2.
On­
site
exposure
of
beneficial
insects
exposed
by
contact
with
residues
on
plants
contaminated
by
direct
spraying.

3.
Off­
site
exposure
of
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
(
wetland
or
upland
grasses
only)
by
spray
drift
or
runoff.

(
b)
Potentially
Complete
But
Not
Quantitatively
Evaluated
Pathways
The
following
pathways
were
not
quantitatively
evaluated
in
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
because
exposure
was
identified
as
negligible
and
would
not
contribute
measurably
to
risk
or
exposure
estimates:

°
All
off­
site
exposure
of
terrestrial
animals,
since
on­
site
exposure
is
greater,
and
screening
level
analysis
indicates
only
chronic
risk
to
birds
and
reptiles.
The
chronic
risk
cannot
be
quantitatively
evaluated
because
a
NOAEC
was
not
found
for
the
mallard
duck.

°
On­
site
exposure
of
plants,
since
on­
site
grasses
are
target
organisms.

°
On­
site
exposure
of
animals,
including
insects,
directly
to
residues
in
the
soil,
or
in
rainwater
puddles,
or
to
residues
taken
up
from
the
soil
by
plants,
since
direct
spraying
exposures
are
expected
to
be
greater.

°
On­
site
exposure
of
terrestrial
invertebrates,
since
we
have
no
toxicity
data
for
such
organisms
­
25­
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
The
following
uncertainties
and
information
gaps
were
identified
as
part
of
the
problem
formulation:

°
The
avian
chronic
(
reproductive)
toxicity
study
used
in
this
assessment
did
not
find
a
noobserved
adverse­
effect­
concentration
(
NOAEC).
Adverse
effects
on
the
number
of
normal
mallard
duck
hatchlings
were
found
the
lowest
dietary
level
tested
(
100
ppm
in
feed).
Thus
the
risk
quotients
for
chronic
risks
to
birds
(
and
as
a
surrogate,
to
reptiles)
are
minimums
("
greater
than"
values).
The
chronic
level
of
concern
(
RQ
=
1)
was
exceeded
even
if
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
one
day,
rather
than
the
default
of
35
days,
was
used
in
the
T­
REX
model.
In
order
to
come
to
a
firm
conclusion
on
the
possible
chronic
risk
to
birds
and
reptiles,
a
NOAEC
in
the
mallard
duck
needs
to
be
established.

°
It
is
uncertain
what
the
foliar
dissipation
half­
lives
are
on
terrestrial
food
items.
Magnitude­
of­
the­
residue
studies
(
guideline
171­
4C)
need
to
be
examined
to
establish
Sethoxydim­
specific
foliar
dissipation
half­
lives.
Due
to
time
constraints,
and
the
fact
that
a
refined
assumption
of
a
one­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
results
in
chronic
risk
to
birds
above
the
LOC,
this
has
not
been
done.

°
The
eight
degradates
of
Sethoxydim
are
assumed
to
be
as
toxic
as
the
parent
in
the
assessment
of
risk
to
aquatic
freshwater
and
estuarine
organisms.
Thus,
a
total
toxic
residue
approach
is
used
in
the
water
exposure
modeling.
Data
on
the
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
of
the
degradates
would
help
to
refine
this
assessment.

°
Submitted
aquatic
vascular
plant
phytotoxicity
data
were
on
a
dicot,
Lemna
gibba.
There
are
no
current
guidelines
for
the
testing
of
aquatic
grasses.
Sethoxydim
only
adversely
affects
grasses.
There
is
much
uncertainty
of
the
effects
of
POAST
®
to
non­
target
aquatic
grasses.

°
The
mode
of
herbicidal
action
to
plants
indicates
adverse
effects
to
grasses.
Vegetative
vigor
studies
(
Tier
II)
and
seedling
emergence
(
Tier
I)
also
confirms
this.
Available
vegetative
vigor
phytotoxicity
data
were
only
done
for
Sethoxydim
technical
grade
and
not
POAST
®
.
Therefore,
toxicity
to
grasses
from
spray
drift
may
be
underestimated.
­
26­
E.
Analysis
Plan
Ecological
risk
assessment
is
a
process
that
evaluates
the
likelihood
that
adverse
ecological
effects
may
occur
or
are
occurring
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
one
or
more
stressors
(
US
EPA,
1998).
This
risk
assessment
examines
the
ecological
risk
of
Sethoxydim
herbicide
use,
and
attempts
to
determine
at
what
level
Sethoxydim
herbicides
can
be
used
to
minimize
deleterious
effects
on
the
environment.
These
negative
effects
on
include
structural
and/
or
functional
characteristics
or
components
of
ecosystems.
In
order
to
estimate
the
ecological
risk
associated
with
Sethoxydim
use,
use
information,
chemical
and
physical
properties,
fate/
transport
data,
and
toxicity
data
were
examined
for
Sethoxydim,
application
methods,
and
chemical
formulations.

1.
Assessment
(
a)
Fate
and
Exposure
Parent
Sethoxydim
degrades
rapidly
(<
1
day)
in
soil
to
produce
its
sulfoxide
(
M­
SO)
and
sulfone
(
M­
SO2).
It
is
possible,
under
reducing
conditions,
that
these
could
revert
to
the
parent
compound.
The
hydrolysis
products
M1­
S
and
M2­
S
are
also
formed
in
major
amounts.
Because
these
degradates
are
believed
to
retain
their
toxicity,
a
Total
Toxic
Residue
approach
will
be
used
for
the
assessment
of
risks
to
aquatic
freshwater
and
estuarine
organisms.

Sethoxydim
and
its
degradates
have
very
low
Kd
values,
and
will
therefore
be
mobile
in
soil­
water
systems.
Transport
to
surface
water
bodies
is
expected
to
be
in
the
dissolved
phase,
rather
than
by
sorption
onto
soil
particles.
The
sulfoxide
(
M­
SO)
and
sulfone
(
M­
SO2)
may
pose
a
ground
water
contamination
problem,
given
their
high
mobility
and
longer
persistence
than
the
parent.

Because
of
the
low
vapor
pressure
and
high
solubility
of
Sethoxydim,
it
is
not
expected
to
partition
from
water
bodies
to
the
atmosphere.
Off­
site
transport
via
air
will
be
due
to
spray
drift
only.

Photolysis
data
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
total
residues
decline
with
half­
lives
of
20
hours
on
soil
and
19.8
days
in
water.
Sethoxydim's
high
solubility
(
4700
ppm)
and
low
Kd
values
indicate
high
mobility,
and
also
suggest
that
it
may
be
removed
easily
from
plant
surfaces
by
rainfall.
Thus,
an
assumption
of
a
quicker
dissipation
from
leaf
surfaces
than
the
default
value
(
35­
day
half­
life)
is
justified.

Sethoxydim's
low
Kd
values
indicate
little
tendency
to
partition
to
bottom
sediments
in
water
bodies.
Thus,
exposure
of
bottom­
dwelling
organisms
is
expected
to
be
via
degradates
dissolved
in
the
water
column.
This
exposure
is
adequately
described
by
GENEEC2
modeling
of
total
toxic
residues.

(
b)
Toxicity
Aquatic
and
terrestrial
non­
target
toxicity
endpoints
(
animals
and
plants)
are
provided
by
the
­
27­
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
data.
These
toxicity
endpoints
are
compared
with
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
Sethoxydim,
which
are
based
on
fate
properties,
chemical
type,
exposure
method,
etc.
For
this
assessment,
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
for
each
surrogate
taxa
(
ie.
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
aquatic
plants,
terrestrial
plants,
birds,
and
mammals)
will
be
used
in
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
calculation
with
various
exposure
values
(
see
above).

Listed
species
analysis
will
be
performed
using
the
EFED
LOCATES
Listed
Species
Database
to
determine
presence
of
listed
or
threatened
species
in
counties
where
specific
crops
are
grown.
A
species
profile
analysis
will
be
performed
to
determine
whether
there
are
any
potential
risk
scenarios
to
listed
species
in
those
identified
areas.

In
addition
to
the
data
submitted
in
support
of
registration
and
the
information
compiled
through
the
Agency
pesticide
review
process
the
ECOTOX
database
was
used
to
identify
additional
toxicity
data
from
the
open
literature.
The
ECOTOX
database
is
a
user­
friendly,
publiclyavailable
quality­
assured,
comprehensive
tool
for
locating
toxicity
data
from
the
open
literature
and
is
maintained
by
EPA
Mid­
Atlantic
Ecology
Division.
More
information
on
ECOTOX
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox.
Research
papers
are
thoroughly
screened
using
standard
procedures
before
being
accepted
into
ECOTOX
thereby
ensuring
consistent,
high
quality
information.
Appendices
B
lists
references
related
to
Sethoxydim
toxicity
that
were
accepted
by
ECOTOX.
Appendix
C
lists
Sethoxydim
references
that
were
not
accepted
by
ECOTOX
lists
the
criteria
for
rejection;
the
criteria
codes
are
also
defined
in
Appendix
D.

In
some
cases,
a
risk
assessment
may
benefit
from
information
in
a
reference
that
was
rejected
by
ECOTOX.
Rejection
by
ECOTOX
does
not
necessarily
infer
a
lack
of
study
quality
but
can
be
due
to
a
number
of
reasons
including
the
lack
of
toxicity
data
or
the
lack
of
a
sensitive
endpoint.

(
c)
Risk
Quotient
and
Levels
of
Concern
Risk
characterization
integrates
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects.
For
ecological
effects,
the
Agency
accomplishes
this
integration
using
the
risk
quotient
method.
Risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
acute
and
chronic
ecotoxicity
values.

RQ
=
EXPOSURE
/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Program's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
to
assess
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Calculation
of
an
RQ
that
exceeds
the
LOC
indicates
that
a
particular
pesticide
use
poses
a
presumed
risk
to
non­
target
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
categories
of
presumed
risk:
°
acute
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
beyond
restricted
use
classification
may
be
warranted
°
acute
restricted
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
­
28­
°
acute
listed
species
­
threatened
and
listed
species
may
be
adversely
affected
°
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
The
ecotoxicity
values
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
endpoints
derived
from
required
laboratory
toxicity
studies.
Ecotoxicity
endpoints
derived
from
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:
°
LC50
­
fish
and
birds
°
LD50
­
birds
and
mammals
°
EC50
­
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates
°
EC25
­
terrestrial
plants
The
NOAEC
(
No
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration)
is
the
endpoint
used
to
assess
chronic
effects.
Table
5
gives
formulas
for
calculating
RQs
and
LOCs
for
various
risk
presumptions.

Table
5.
Formulas
for
RQ
calculations
and
LOC
used
for
risk
assessment
of
Sethoxydim
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Terrestrial
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
0.2
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
LC50
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC/
LC50
or
EEC/
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
0.1
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
LC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Terrestrial
plants
and
plants
inhabiting
semi­
aquatic
habitats
Acute
Risk
EEC/
EC25
1.0
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
NOAEC
or
EC05
1.0
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC/
EC50
1.0
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
NOAEC
or
EC05
1.0
1
abbreviation
for
estimated
environmental
concentration
­
29­
III.
Analysis
There
are
two
chemical
stressors
in
this
risk
assessment.
The
first
is
the
active
ingredient,
sethoxydim
(
PC
code
121001)
and
its
degradates,
and
the
second
is
the
petroleum
solvent
(
CAS
Registry
Number
64742­
94­
5)
that
is
used
in
the
end­
use
formulations
POAST
®
and
POAST
®
Plus.
The
solvent
is
known
to
contain
several
percent
by
weight
of
Naphthalene,
which
is
also
a
registered
active
ingredient
(
PC
code
055801).
Sethoxydim
is
responsible
for
all
presumed
risks
to
plants
and
birds,
and
the
petroleum
solvent
is
responsible
for
presumed
risks
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
(
fresh­
and
salt­
water).

A.
Use
Characterization
Sethoxydim
is
a
systemic
herbicide
which
is
registered
for
selective
postemergence
control
of
a
wide
spectrum
of
annual
and
perennial
grasses.
It
is
formulated
with
a
naphthalene­
containing
petroleum
solvent.
Single
active
ingredient
formulations
include
emulsifiable
concentrates
(
13­
43.3%
ai)
which
are
applied
by
aerial
or
ground
(
banding,
broadcast,
spot)
methods
at
an
application
rate
of
0.28
­
0.47
lbs.
ai/
acre/
application
up
to
four
times
per
season.

According
to
the
BEAD
usage
report
(
Halvorson
2004),
Sethoxydim
is
used
on
at
least
86
different
crops.
The
principal
uses
are
on
Soybeans
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Sunflowers
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Alfalfa
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Dry
Peas/
Beans
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Sugar
beets
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Peanuts
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Corn
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Oranges
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
Potatoes
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant),
and
Cotton
(
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant).
CBI
material
deleted
here
by
request
of
the
registrant.

The
crops
with
the
highest
estimated
percent
crop
treated
are
Sunflowers
and
Dry
Peas/
Beans
(
15­
20%),
Watermelons
(
10­
15%),
Sugar
Beets
(
10%),
Cantaloupes
and
Celery
(
5­
15%),
Green
Beans,
Onions,
Cucumbers,
Cabbage,
Peppers,
Pumpkins,
Squash,
Strawberries
(
5­
10%).

According
to
USEPA
(
1996a),
approximately
960,000
lbs
of
Sethoxydim
a.
i.
are
applied
each
year
in
the
U.
S.,
with
about
97%
of
this
applied
to
agricultural
sites.
The
largest
agricultural
use
of
Sethoxydim
(
45­
60%)
is
on
soybeans.
Approximately
3.1
million
acres
are
treated
annually,
representing
about
5%
of
the
soybeans
acreage
in
the
U.
S.
Cotton,
sugar
beets,
peanuts
and
alfalfa
each
account
for
4­
8%
of
total
Sethoxydim
use.
Approximately
2%
of
the
total
Sethoxydim
use
is
used
on
turf,
which
accounts
for
13­
22%
of
the
annual
turf
crop.
Nurseries,
lawn
care
and
cemetery
use
account
for
the
remaining
non­
agricultural
uses.
­
30­
­
31­
Characterization
of
Production
Areas
and
Soils
Soybeans
The
largest
agricultural
use
of
Sethoxydim
(
45­
60%)
is
on
soybeans.
Soybean
production
is
widespread
in
the
U.
S.,
ranging
from
the
western
Plains
States
through
the
eastern
and
southern
U.
S.
(
Kellogg,
et
al.,
1992,
USDA,
1997,
USGS,
ND).

Cotton
and
Peanuts
Cotton
production
occurs
principally
in
the
southeastern
U.
S.,
along
the
Mississippi
River
in
eastern
Arkansas,
western
Tennessee,
and
Mississippi,
Texas,
southern
Arizona,
southern
California
and
in
the
Central
Valley
of
California.
(
Kellogg,
et
al.,
1992,
USDA,
1997,
USGS,
ND).

Peanut
production
occurs
in
the
southeastern
U.
S.
from
northern
Florida
to
Virginia
and
west
to
northern
Texas
and
southern
Oklahoma.
(
Kellogg,
et
al.,
1992,
USDA,
1997,
USGS,
ND).

Sethoxydim
is
used
on
cotton
and
peanuts
in
the
southeastern
U.
S.
The
southeastern
U.
S.
is
characterized
by
two
major
land
resource
areas:
1)
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Coast
Lowland
Forest
and
Truck
Crop
Region
and
2)
South
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Slope
Cash
Crop,
Forest
and
Livestock
Region
(
Austin,
1972).

The
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Coast
Lowland
area
consists
of
nearly
level
areas
of
the
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Coastal
Plains
crossed
by
many
broad
valleys.
Precipitation
ranges
from
40­
50
inches
annually
and
is
highest
in
the
summer.
Most
of
the
soils
are
too
wet
to
be
used
for
crops
without
drainage;
however,
peanuts
are
grown
on
the
better
drained
soils.
The
predominant
soils
are
Aquults
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981).

The
South
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Slope
region
consists
of
gently
sloping
to
rolling
Piedmont
and
upper
Coastal
Plain.
Average
annual
precipitation
ranges
from
40­
60
inches.
Cotton
is
the
main
crop
in
this
area
with
some
peanuts.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981).

Other
Cotton
Areas
The
Mississippi
Delta
region
also
has
significant
cotton
production.
This
area
is
principally
flood
plain
and
terraces
of
the
Mississippi
River
with
annual
precipitation
ranging
from
45­
65
inches.
The
soils
are
poorly
drained
but
can
be
highly
productive
if
drained.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981,
USGS,
ND).

Cotton
production
in
Texas
is
focused
in
the
north
central
and
"
Panhandle"
areas.
The
area
is
characterized
by
smooth
high
plains
with
gentle
slopes,
ranging
in
elevation
from
1,500­
5,000
feet.
Precipitation
fluctuates
widely
from
year
to
year
with
an
annual
average
rainfall
ranges
from
15­
30
inches.
The
highest
precipitation
occurs
in
the
late
spring
through
autumn.
There
are
few
­
32­
perennial
streams
in
these
areas,
and
cotton
is
extensively
grown
under
irrigation
from
wells.
Water
tables
are
declining
in
these
areas
from
withdrawals
for
irrigation.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981,
USGS,
ND).

Irrigated
cotton
is
grown
in
southern
Arizona
and
southeastern
California.
This
area
consists
of
broad
basins,
valleys
and
old
lake
beds,
ranging
in
elevation
from
­
280
to
4,000
feet.
This
area
is
semi­
desert
to
desert
with
2­
20
inches
of
precipitation
annually,
which
is
evenly
distributed
throughout
the
year.
Water
is
scarce
and
irrigation
comes
principally
from
the
major
rivers,
such
as
the
Colorado,
Gila
and
Salt
Rivers.
Deep
irrigation
wells
are
also
used
in
south­
central
and
southeast
Arizona.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981,
USGS,
ND).

The
southern
part
of
the
Central
Valley
of
California
also
produces
cotton.
The
southern
Central
Valley
is
broad,
smooth
and
nearly
level.
It
ranges
in
elevation
from
sea
level
to
500
feet.
Precipitation
ranges
from
5­
25
inches
annually.
The
region
has
a
long
growing
season
with
a
long
dry
period
in
the
summer.
Low
rainfall
and
small
streams
result
in
a
shortage
of
water.
Irrigation
is
from
the
mountains
and
from
wells.
There
is
a
diminishing
supply
of
well
water
due
to
dropping
water
tables.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981,
USGS,
ND).

Other
Crops
Sugar
beet
production
is
focused
in
southern
Idaho,
the
Red
River
Valley
(
MN­
ND),
and
along
the
Wyoming­
Nebraska­
Kansas­
Colorado
borders.
Lesser
production
occurs
along
the
Montana­
Wyoming
borders,
in
southern
Michigan,
northern
Texas,
southeast
Oregon,
eastern
Washington,
and
the
Yuma
and
Imperial
Valleys
of
Arizona
and
California.

Alfalfa
production
is
widespread
in
the
U.
S.
Areas
of
high
production
include
southern
California,
eastern
Texas
and
Oklahoma,
southern
Illinois,
central
Wisconsin,
western
Dakota,
western
Nebraska,
and
numerous
individual
counties
scattered
throughout
the
U.
S.
Alfalfa
production
in
the
western
U.
S.
is
often
irrigated.
(
Kellogg,
et
al.,
1992,
USGS,
ND).

The
use
of
Sethoxydim
on
citrus
is
very
limited
in
the
U.
S.
Significant
citrus
production
occurs
on
the
vulnerable,
sandy
soils
of
central
Florida
where
Sethoxydim
could
be
used.
Rainfall
and
ground
water
are
abundant
in
this
area
and
annual
precipitation
ranges
from
50­
57
inches.
Precipitation
is
highest
in
the
summer
and
early
autumn.
The
elevation
of
the
region
ranges
from
50­
150
feet.
(
Austin,
1972
and
1981,
Kellogg,
et
al.,
1992,
USGS,
ND).

B.
Exposure
Characterization
22.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
In
terrestrial
environments,
photodegradation,
aerobic
metabolism,
and
acid­
catalyzed
hydrolysis
appear
to
be
the
primary
routes
of
dissipation
for
Sethoxydim
and
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues.
The
calculated
soil
photolytic
half­
lifes
are
1
hour
for
Sethoxydim
and
20
hours
for
Sethoxydim
­
33­
residues
(
parent
+
transformation
products),
indicating
rapid
transformation
of
Sethoxydim
and
its
residues
after
application.
Other
potential
routes
of
dissipation
are
microbial­
mediated
degradation
and
surface
water
runoff.
Under
aerobic
conditions,
Sethoxydim
degrades
in
less
than
1
day,
while
Sethoxydim
residues
have
half­
lives
which
range
from
7
to
30
days.
Under
anaerobic
conditions,
Sethoxydim
and
its
residues
are
more
persistent
with
half­
lives
greater
than
60
days.
Unacceptable
field
dissipation
studies
(
two
locations
in
California,
one
cotton
and
one
forage),
indicated
a
moderately
rapid
rate
of
dissipation
of
Sethoxydim
residues
with
half­
lives
measuring
32
days
in
the
0­
to
6­
inch
soil
layer.

In
aquatic
environments,
the
major
route
of
dissipation
for
total
Sethoxydim
residues
is
aqueous
photolysis
(
t1/
2=
19.8
days),
followed
by
microbial­
mediated
degradation.
In
aerobic
aqueous
studies,
half­
lives
are
on
the
order
of
about
one
month
(
32.9­
38.1
days),
while
under
anaerobic
aqueous
conditions,
Sethoxydim
and
its
residues
are
more
persistent
(
half­
lives
range
from
132­
187
days).
Aquatic
field
dissipation
studies
(
four
rice
paddies
in
different
states)
showed
that
Sethoxydim
residues
degraded
faster
in
the
field
than
in
the
laboratory
with
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
1­
9
days.
In
the
field,
many
processes
may
occur
simultaneously
and
many
variables
may
effect
these
processes.
For
example,
the
presence
of
significant
microbial
populations
in
the
floodwater,
the
presence
of
natural
photosensitizers
that
may
accelerate
photolysis,
intensity
of
sunlight,
cloud
cover,
and
temperature
can
affect
the
dissipation
rate
in
the
field.

Sethoxydim
is
a
highly
soluble
compound
(
4700
mg/
L
in
pH
7
water)
with
a
low
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
K
ow
for
Sethoxydim
is
45.1).
Despite
its
high
solubility
and
mobility,
parent
Sethoxydim
is
unlikely
to
pose
a
threat
to
surface
and
ground
waters
because
it
does
not
persist
under
most
conditions.
Sethoxydim
transformation
products,
however,
may
be
persistent
and
mobile
enough
to
pose
a
potential
threat
to
water
resources.
The
extent
of
this
impact
on
water
resources,
though,
cannot
be
determined
until
EFED
receives
additional
data
on
the
fate
of
these
transformation
products.

Acceptable
and
supplemental
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
is
labile
and
mobile
in
the
environment.
The
transformation
of
parent
Sethoxydim,
primarily
by
photodegradation,
aerobic
metabolism
in
water
and
soil,
and
acid­
catalyzed
hydrolysis,
is
rapid
(
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
hours
to
days).
Sethoxydim
transformation
products,
though,
result
from
modifications
to
functional
groups
rather
than
the
main
structure
and
are
of
potential
biological
concern.
Sethoxydim
total
residues
(
Sethoxydim
plus
Sethoxydim
transformation
products)
are
determined
using
a
common
moiety
method
that
cannot
distinguish
parent
Sethoxydim
from
its
transformation
products.
These
rearrangement
products
are
more
persistent
in
the
environment
than
Sethoxydim
(
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
weeks
to
months)
and
potentially
mobile.

Laboratory
studies
show
that
Sethoxydim
is
a
highly
soluble
compound
(
4700
mg/
L
in
water)
and
that
it
hydrolyzes
at
moderately
rapid
rates
at
low
pH's,
but
is
more
stable
at
high
pH's.
The
calculated
half­
lives
are
8.7,
155,
and
284
days
in
pH
5,
7,
and
9
solutions,
respectively.
The
major
observed
hydrolysis
transformation
product
is
M2­
S
or
6­(
2­(
ethylthio)
propyl)­
4­
oxo­
2­
propyl­
4,5,6,7­
tetrahydrobenzoxazole.
In
contrast,
evaluation
of
the
data
of
Sethoxydim
total
­
34­
residues
shows
that
they
remain
stable
at
all
three
pHs
tested.

Sethoxydim
and
Sethoxydim
total
residues
degrade
photolytically
in
both
water
and
soil.
In
pH
buffered
water,
the
calculated
half­
life
of
Sethoxydim
is
5.23
days,
and
the
major
transformation
product
is
M1­
S
or
2­(
1­
aminobutylidene)­
5­(
2­(
ethylthio)­
propyl)­
cyclohex­
1,3­
dione.
In
sandy
loam
soil
irradiated
with
a
xenon
light
source,
the
half­
life
of
Sethoxydim
is
approximately
1
hour,
and
the
major
transformation
product
is
M­
SO
or
2­(
1­
ethoxyiminobutyl)­
5­(
2­
(
ethylsulfinyl)
propyl)­
3­
hydroxycyclohex­
2­
enone.
Sethoxydim
total
residues
photodegrade
slower
than
parent
Sethoxydim
in
soil
and
water.
Using
a
linear
regression
analysis,
EFED
calculated
a
half­
life
of
19.8
days
for
the
photolysis
in
water
of
Sethoxydim
total
residues
and
a
half­
life
of
20
hours
in
soil.

Under
aerobic
conditions,
parent
Sethoxydim
transformed
with
short
half­
lives
(<
1
day)
both
in
soil
and
aquatic
environments.
It
degraded
with
a
half
life
of
less
than
one
day
in
sandy
loam
and
sandy
clay
loam
soils.
The
major
transformation
product
at
2
months
was
M­
SO,
and
after
12
months
the
major
product
was
CO2.
Using
aerobic
clay
loam
soil:
water
and
aerobic
clay
soil:
water
systems,
it
was
determined
that,
under
aerobic
aquatic
conditions,
Sethoxydim
transformed
with
a
half­
life
of
<
1
day.
After
28
days,
the
major
transformation
products
were
CO2,
M­
SO,
M2­
S,
and
M­
SO2
or
2­(
1­
ethoxyiminobutyl)­
5(
2­(
ethylsulfonyl)
propyl)­
3­
hydroxycyclohex­
2­
enone.
In
contrast
to
parent
Sethoxydim,
Sethoxydim
total
residues
were
more
persistent.
The
observed
half­
life
was
1
month
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
in
the
aerobic
sandy
loam
study,
and
7
days
in
the
aerobic
sandy
clay
loam
study.
In
an
aerobic
clay
loam
soil:
water
system,
the
calculated
half­
life
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
was
38.1
days,
while
in
an
aerobic
clay
soil:
water
system
the
half­
life
was
32.9
days.

Under
anaerobic
conditions,
parent
Sethoxydim
is
even
more
persistent
than
under
aerobic
conditions.
It
transformed
with
half­
lives
of
11
to
>
60
days
under
anaerobic
soil
conditions
and
25­
39
days
in
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies.
M­
SO
was
the
major
transformation
product
in
both
studies.
It
was
observed
that
M2­
S,
which
was
a
major
transformation
product
in
the
hydrolysis
study,
was
only
a
minor
transformation
product
in
the
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.
Anaerobic
studies
with
Sethoxydim
total
residues
showed
that
they
were
more
persistent
than
parent
Sethoxydim.
A
half­
life
of
91.6
days
was
observed
in
the
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
study,
while
half­
lives
of
132­
187
days
were
observed
in
the
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.

Based
on
batch
equilibrium
experiments,
Sethoxydim
and
its
transformation
products,
M2­
SO2,
M­
SO,
M­
SO2,
and
M2­
SO,
were
determined
to
be
mobile
to
very
mobile
in
sterile
(
autoclaved)
sand,
sandy
loam,
sandy
clay
loam,
silt
loam,
and
clay
loam
soils.
Freundlich
Kads
values
were
<
1.00
for
Sethoxydim
and
its
transformation
products
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2.
The
Freundlich
Kads
values
for
M2­
SO
and
M2­
SO2
ranged
from
0.06
to
9.12.

Information
from
two
unacceptable
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
indicated
that
total
(
uncharacterized)
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
with
half­
lives
of
about
32
days
in
two
California
soils
with
cotton
and
forage
crops.
This
study
showed
two
detections
of
Sethoxydim
near
the
quantitation
level
below
the
0­
to
6­
inch
depth.
­
35­
In
aquatic
field
studies,
total
(
uncharacterized)
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
fairly
rapidly,
with
half­
lives
of
1­
9
days
in
the
floodwater
of
rice
paddies
in
California,
Mississippi,
and
Louisiana,
and
10­
13
days
in
the
soils
of
nonflooded
rice
paddies
in
Mississippi
and
Louisiana
that
were
subsequently
flooded
4­
5
days
after
application.
Residues
were
detected
in
the
0­
to
6­
inch
soil
layer
in
both
paddies.
When
Sethoxydim
was
applied
to
flooded
paddies,
most
of
the
residues
remained
in
the
floodwater.
When
applied
to
the
soil
prior
to
flooding,
there
were
no
detectable
residues
in
the
water
samples.

The
low
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
K
ow
=
45.1)
for
Sethoxydim
suggests
that
Sethoxydim
has
a
low
tendency
to
bioaccumulate
or
bioconcentrate.
The
calculated
BCF's
for
Sethoxydim
and
total
residues
were
7X,
25X,
and
21X
for
edible,
nonedible,
and
whole
fish,
respectively.
Depuration
was
fast,
with
a
half­
life
of
3.6
days.
Based
on
the
information
provided,
bioaccumulation
is
not
likely
to
occur.

Because
of
its
low
vapor
pressure
(
1.6x10­
7
mm
Hg)
and
Henry's
Law
Constant
(
1.47x1011
atmm3
mol),
Sethoxydim
is
not
expected
to
be
highly
and
the
Agency
is
waiving
the
volatility
studies.

Degradation
Scheme
for
Sethoxydim
Scheme
I
represents
the
relationship
between
parent
Sethoxydim
(
M)
and
its
eight
identified
degradates.
There
are
three
groups
of
degradates:
a
group
formed
from
the
parent
by
oxidation
of
the
sulfur
atom
(
M
group),
the
"
amines"
or
M1
group,
and
the
tetrahydrobenzoxazoles,
or
M2
group.
The
first
M1
group
daughter
(
M1­
S)
is
formed
by
cleavage
of
the
ethoxyimino
group
to
an
amino
group,
either
by
hydrolysis
or
aqueous
photolysis.
The
first
member
of
the
M2
group
(
M2­
S)
is
then
formed
from
M1­
S
by
ring
closure
to
produce
a
tetrahydrobenzoxazole
ring.

Each
of
the
three
groups
of
degradates
also
has
a
sulfoxide
(­
SO)
and
a
sulfone
(­
SO2),
to
round
out
the
total
of
eight
degradates.
This
reaction
dominates
in
aerobic
soil
metabolism
and
soil
photolysis
experiments,
especially
to
form
the
M­
SO
and
M­
SO2
degradates.

Scheme
I
M

M1­
S

M2­
S



M­
SO

M1­
SO

M2­
SO



M­
SO2

M1­
SO2

M2­
SO2
The
eight
degradates
include
2
daughter
products,
which
are
formed
from
the
parent
by
a
single
reaction
(
M1­
S
and
M­
SO),
3
granddaughter
products
that
are
two
reactions
removed
from
the
parent
(
M­
SO2,
M2­
S,
and
M1­
SO),
2
great­
granddaughters
that
are
three
reactions
removed
(
M1­
SO2
and
M2­
SO),
and
one
great­
great­
granddaughter
that
is
four
reactions
removed
(
M2­
SO2).
­
36­
It
is
important
to
note
that
M1­
SO,
M2­
SO,
M1­
SO2,
and
M2­
SO2
may
be
formed
by
more
than
one
pathway,
and
that
the
sulfur
oxidation
may
be
reversible
under
reducing
conditions,
so
that
the
kinetics
of
the
formation
is
very
complicated,
and
probably
cannot
be
elucidated
with
any
confidence
from
the
current
fate
data.

Because
parent
Sethoxydim
is
very
rapidly
(
half­
life
<
1
day)
degraded
to
its
sulfoxide
(
M­
SO)
in
soil,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
some
of
the
degradates
retain
some
herbicidal
activity.
There
are
no
data
on
the
toxicity
of
the
separate
degradates.
However,
the
Sethoxydim
used
in
the
toxicity
tests
was
subject
to
the
same
degradation
mechanisms,
so
the
actual
exposure
was
to
a
mixture
of
Sethoxydim
and
its
degradation
products.
For
this
reason,
we
decided
to
use
a
"
total
toxic
residues"
approach
to
modeling
the
decay.
In
other
words,
the
calculated
half­
lives
will
include
the
concentrations
of
the
parent
plus
the
major
degradates.

For
purposes
of
modeling
the
decay
of
total
Sethoxydim
residues,
it
is
therefore
most
important
to
include
the
two
daughter
products,
M­
SO
and
M1­
S.
The
next
group
to
be
included
in
the
total
residues
would
be
the
3
granddaughters
(
M2­
S,
M1­
SO,
and
M­
SO2).
We
will
neglect
degradates
that
are
present
in
only
minor
amounts
(
generally
<
10%
of
the
applied
radiation
of
the
parent),
or
that
are
kinetically
far­
removed
from
the
parent,
as
long
as
the
calculated
half­
life
is
not
greatly
changed.

Table
6
and
7
below
describes
the
environmental
fate
properties
of
Sethoxydim
and
it's
residues
and
the
mobility
of
Sethoxydim
and
transformation
products.

Table
6:
Environmental
Fate
Properties
of
Sethoxydim
and
its
Residues
Sethoxydim
Residues
Hydrolysis
pH
5.0
t1/
2=
8.7
days
pH
7.0
t1/
2=
155
days
pH
8.6
t1/
2=
284
days
stable
at
all
pH's
Photodegradation
in
water
t1/
2=
5.23
days
t1/
2=
19.8
days
Photodegradation
on
soil
t1/
2=
1
hour
t1/
2=
20
hours
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
t1/
2<
1
day
t1/
2=
7­
30
days
Anaerobic
soil
metabolism
t1/
2>
60
days
t1/
2=
78­
91.6
days
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
t1/
2=
0.7­
1.0
days
t1/
2=
32.9­
38.1
days
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
t1/
2=
39.9
days
t1/
2=
132­
187
days
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
N/
A
32
days
in
two
locations
in
CA
(
cotton
and
forage)

Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
N/
A
1­
9
days
in
four
rice
paddies
in
various
states.

Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation:
detection
limit
0.01
ppm
­
37­
application
rate
0.5
lb
ai/
A
x
3,
during
a
3
week
period
two
detections
near
the
quantification
level
were
found
below
the
0­
6
inch
soil
level
during
the
study
Table
7:
Mobility
of
Sethoxydim
and
transformation
products:

Kads
ml/
g
Parent
Sethoxydim
0.03­
0.94
M­
SO
0.02­
0.17
M­
SO2
0.02­
0.13
M2­
SO
0.06­
9.12
M2­
SO2
sterile
0.12­
8.43
nonsterile
0.14­
9.03
2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
EFED
uses
GENeric
Expected
Environmental
Concentration
Program
(
GENEEC)
as
described
in
the
surface
water
section
on
page
21
to
calculate
EECs
that
are
used
for
assessing
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
organisms.
Acute
risk
quotients
are
calculated
using
peak
EEC
values
for
single
and
multiple
applications,
while
chronic
risk
quotients
are
calculated
using
the
21­
day
EECs
for
invertebrates
and
56­
day
EECs
for
fish.

The
GENEEC
program
uses
basic
environmental
fate
data
and
pesticide
label
application
information
to
estimate
EECs
following
treatment
of
a
10­
hectare
field.
The
model
calculates
the
concentration
(
i.
e.,
EEC)
of
a
pesticide
in
a
1­
hectare,
2­
meter
deep
pond,
taking
into
account
the
following
factors:
(
1)
adsorption
to
soil
or
sediment
(
2)
soil
incorporation
(
3)
degradation
in
soil
before
washoff
to
a
water
body
and
(
4)
degradation
within
the
water
body.
The
model
also
accounts
for
direct
deposition
of
spray
drift
into
the
water
body
(
the
GENEEC
v.
2.0
model
determines
spray
drift
percentage
based
on
the
other
model
inputs).
GENEEC
v.
2.0
was
used
to
estimate
sethoxydim
total
residues
concentrations
in
the
standard
pond.
The
environmental
fate
parameters
used
in
the
model
for
this
pesticide
are:
soil
Kd
=
0.03
ml/
g
(
MRID
41475212),
solubility
=
4700
ppm,
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
=
30
days
(
MRID
41475210),
water
photolysis
half­
life
=
19.8
days
(
MRID
41475208),
aquatic
metabolism
half­
life
=
38.1
days
(
MRID
42165604).

The
calculated
peak
GENEEC
EECs
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
were
87
and
110
ug/
l.
The
maximum
"
peak"
occurred
when
the
modeling
was
based
on
a
total
of
four
applications
per
season
at
0.47
lb
ai/
A.
­
38­
Table
8
Input
Parameters
For
GENEEC2
Runs
for
Sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues
Parameter
Value
Source
Maximum
Application
Rate
0.47
lb
a.
i./
acre
at
4x
@
14
days)
Use
Closure
Memorandum
Aerobic
Soil
Half­
life
54
days
(
90th
upper
%
ile
of
2
values)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475210
Aerobic
Aquatic
Half­
life
44
days
(
90th
upper
%
ile
of
2
values)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
42165604
Distribution
Coefficient,
Kd
0.03
(
minimum
value
for
parent)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475212
Solubility
4700
ppm
(
parent
at
pH7)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
19.8
days
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475208
Application
type
Aerial,
no
incorporation
label
Droplet
Size
(
Spray
Drift)
Fine
to
Medium
(
13%)
GENEEC
default
Wet­
in?
No
label
Distance
to
Pond
Zero
feet
Default
assumption
Table
9
RUN
No.
1
FOR
Sethoxydim
ON
four
apps
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Kd
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
ZONE(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
.470(
1.465)
4
14
.0
4700.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
54.00
2
N/
A
19.80­
2455.20
44.00
43.23
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
Aug
1,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­
39­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
87.07
86.00
79.90
67.94
60.37
Spray
Drift
Exposure
from
Formulated
Sethoxydim
and
Sethoxydim.

Formulated
Sethoxydim
may
reach
water
bodies
directly
as
a
result
of
spray
drift
from
aerial
or
ground
applications.
Ecotoxicity
studies
done
with
the
TEP
were
provided
to
the
Agency.
Therefore,
a
spray
drift
EEC
needs
to
take
into
account
the
TEP
concentrations.

Ecotoxicity
studies
done
with
TEP
usually
are
measuring
the
active
ingredient
(
ai)
concentration.
That
measured
active
ingredient
concentration
is
back­
calculated
to
the
toxicity
measured
effect
in
terms
of
ppm
product
using
the
percentage
active
ingredient
in
the
TEP.
There
are
three
different
percentages
of
the
active
ingredient
sethoxydim
in
the
ecotoxicity
studies.
There
are
19.3%
ai
(
trout
and
Daphnia),
18.0%
ai
(
sheepshead
minnow
and
mysid
shrimp),
and
20.4%
ai
(
oyster).

A
single
application
of
POAST
®
was
modeled
using
0.47
lb
ai/
A
of
sethoxydim.
For
the
input
of
application
rate
into
the
model,
the
0.47
lb
ai/
A
was
divided
by
each
of
the
different
sethoxydim
ai
percentage
used
in
the
studies
to
produce
the
amount
of
POAST
®
in
the
spray
drift
that
would
go
into
the
6
foot
farm
pond.

The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
estimate
concentrations
of
sethoxydim
(
a.
i.)
and
POAST
®
in
the
standard
6­
foot
deep
farm
pond.
Tier
1
aquatic
assessments
were
performed,
assuming
either
aerial
or
ground
application.

The
ground
spray
assessment
assumed
a
high
boom
applicator,
ASAE
very
fine
to
fine
spray
droplet
size,
and
90th
percentile
exposure.
The
aerial
spray
assessment
assumed
ASAE
very
fine
to
fine
spray
droplet
size.

Tables
10A
and
10B
give
the
EECs
in
the
pond
for
aerial
and
ground
spraying
of
sethoxydim
a.
i.
and
the
TEP,
respectively.

Table
10A.
Aerial
and
Ground
Spray
Drift
EEC
of
Sethoxydim
a.
i.
Applied
at
0.47
lb/
acre
Application
Method
EEC
in
Standard
Pond
(
ppb)

ground
1.6
aerial
6.4
­
40­
Table
10B.
Aerial
and
Ground
Spray
Drift
EEC
of
TEP
Applied
at
0.47
lb
ai/
acre
rate.

Application
Method
Percentage
of
active
ingredient
in
POAST
Input
of
Application
Rate
(
0.47
lb
ai
/
%
ai
in
POAST)
EEC
of
TEP
in
Standard
Pond
(
ppb)

ground
19.3
2.4
8.3
aerial
19.3
2.4
32.6
ground
18.0
2.6
9.0
aerial
18.0
2.6
35.3
ground
20.4
2.3
7.9
aerial
20.4
2.3
31.3
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
and
Field
Data
Ground
and
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Data
The
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database
report
(
EPA
734­
12­
92­
001,
Sept.
1992)
states
that
Sethoxydim
was
analyzed
in
65
Missouri
wells
in
1986,
and
was
not
detected.
Sethoxydim
was
not
detected
(
LOD
of
<
0.2
ug/
L)
in
40
domestic
wells
in
agricultural
areas
of
SE
Missouri.
The
agency
has
high
confidence
in
the
sampling
of
the
40
domestic
wells,
which
appear
to
be
representative
of
rural
drinking
water
wells
in
the
agricultural
areas
of
SE
Missouri.
However,
EFED
has
low
confidence
in
the
samples
from
the
public
water
supply
wells
and
the
five
surface
water
samples
because
of
the
high
limits
of
detection
(
LOD's
of
2
and
5
ug/
L,
respectively).
Since
Sethoxydim
appears
to
degrade
rapidly
in
the
environment
and
since
the
public
drinking
water
supply
wells
are
significantly
deeper
than
the
domestic
wells,
the
Agency
would
not
expect
to
find
parent
Sethoxydim
residues
in
the
public
drinking
water
wells
in
this
area.
The
lack
of
detections
supports
the
environmental
fate
laboratory
studies
which
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
degrades
rapidly
in
the
terrestrial
environment.

Sethoxydim
was
detected
in
both
surface
and
ground
water
in
the
Nomini
Creek
Watershed
in
Westmoreland
County,
Virginia
from
1986­
1990
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMP's).
Three
detections
of
2.1,
4.07,
and
41.89
ug/
L
were
reported
in
monitoring
wells.
However,
it
is
not
known
if
the
monitoring
wells
were
representative
of
drinking
water
sources
in
this
area.
There
was
also
one
detection
of
0.87
ug/
L
in
surface
water.

There
were
no
monitoring
data
in
STORET
for
Sethoxydim.

The
USGS
Pesticide
National
Synthesis
Project
(
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
)
did
not
include
­
41­
Sethoxydim
(
nor
any
of
its
degradates)
in
its
list
of
pesticides
for
laboratory
analysis
of
ground
water
and
surface
water
samples.
­
42­
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1973),
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994),
empirically
derived
residue
concentrations
on
avian
and
mammalian
dietary
food
items
immediately
following
application
of
any
pesticide
at
1
pound
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
(
lb
ai/
A).
Due
to
the
lack
of
a
measured
foliage
residue
half­
life,
EFED
assumes
35­
day
half
life
for
the
residues
on
the
food
items.
These
EECs
are
given
in
Table
11.

Table
11.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
on
Avian
and
Mammalian
Food
Items
for
a
1
lb
ai/
A
Application.

Food
Item
EEC
(
ppm)
Predicted
Maximum
Residue
EEC
(
ppm)
Predicted
Mean
Residue
Short
grass
240
85
Tall
grass
110
36
Broad­
leaved/
forage
plants,
and
small
insects
135
45
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
15
7
Terrestrial
exposure
was
modeled
with
the
T­
REX
v.
1.1
model,
which
automates
Hoerger­
Kenaga
nomogram
exposure
and
RQ
calculations.
One,
2,
3,
or
4
applications
at
14­
day
intervals
were
modeled
at
the
maximum
application
rate
of
0.47
lb
ai/
A,
and
3
applications
were
modeled
at
an
application
rate
of
0.28
lb
ai/
A.
The
default
assumption
for
the
decay
rate
on
foliage
(
35­
day
half­
life)
was
used.
Tables
12,
13,
and
14
give
the
predicted
maximum
residues
of
Sethoxydim
that
are
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
dietary
food
items.

For
chronic
risk,
Sethoxydim
transformation
products
are
assumed
to
be
as
toxic
as
the
parent.
The
environmental
fate
data
indicates
that
the
transformation
products
are
more
persistent;
how
persistent
is
not
known,
therefore
predicted
maximum
residues
will
be
used
in
the
chronic
risk
assessment
for
birds
and
mammals.
­
43­
Residues
on
Avian
Food
Items
Table
12
Maximum
Residues
on
terrestrial
food
items
for
wildlife
Body
Weight
and
Size
1
(
EEC
in
mg/
kg­
bw)

Site
(
not
inclusive)
No.
of
Apps.
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Food
Items
Maximum
EEC
(
ppm)
Mean
EEC
(
ppm)
Small
20
g
Medium
100
g
Large
1000
g
Citrus,
tree
nuts
4
0.47
Short
grass
312
111
356
203
91
Tall
grass
143
47
163
93
41
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
176
59
200
114
51
Seeds
20
9
22
13
6
Alfalfa,
birdfoot
trefoil,
sainfoin,
clover,
cotton,

3
0.47
Short
grass
263
93
300
171
76
Tall
grass
121
40
137
78
35
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
148
49
169
96
43
Seeds
16
8
19
11
5
Soybeans,
grape,
berries,
peanut,
Head
&
petiole
vegetable
crop
subgroup,
mint,
pea,
potato,
safflower,
sugar
beets,
Christmas
tree
farms,
ornamentals,
rights
of
way,
roadsides,
turf
2
0.47
Short
grass
198
70
80
46
20
Tall
grass
91
30
34
19
9
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
112
37
42
24
11
Seeds
12
6
7
4
2
Fruiting
and
leafy
vegetable
crop
group
3
0.28
Short
grass
156
56
Tall
grass
72
24
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
88
30
Seeds
10
5
Orchard
floor
middles,
strawberry,
sunflower
1
0.47
Short
grass
113
40
46
26
12
Tall
grass
52
17
19
11
5
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
63
21
24
14
6
Seeds
7
3
4
2
1
1
20­
gram
body
weight
=
114%
of
body
weight
consumed;
100­
gram
body
weight
=
65%
of
body
weight
consumed;
1000­
gram
body
weight
=
29%
of
body
weight
consumed.
­
44­
Residues
on
Mammalian
Food
Items
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
on
Mammalian
Food
Items
for
Sethoxydim
Application
at
the
Maximum
Use
Rate
and
Frequency
(
T­
REX
v.
1.1
)
using
Kenaga
maximum
residues
(
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)).

Table
13
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4X
@
0.47
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
15
g
35
1000
g
Short
Grass
297
206
47
Tall
Grass
136
94
21
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
167
116
26
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
19
13
3
Granivores
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
4
3
1
Table
14
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
3X
@
0.47
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
15
g
35
1000
g
Short
Grass
250
174
39
Tall
Grass
115
80
18
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
141
98
22
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
16
11
2
Granivores
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
3
2
0
Terrestrial
Plant
EEC
Spray
Drift
EFED
estimates
risk
quotients
to
non­
target
plants
from
runoff
with
seedling
emergence
(
Tier
II)
data.
The
TerrPlant
model
is
used
for
runoff.
The
AgDrift
model
will
be
used
to
determine
the
terrestrial
non­
target
plant
EEC
from
spray
drift.

A
single
application
of
Sethoxydim
was
modeled
using
0.47
lb
ai/
A
of
sethoxydim
since
there
are
no
phytotoxicity
data
using
TEP.
The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
estimate
concentrations
of
sethoxydim
(
a.
i.)
residues
on
non­
target
plants
over
an
area
of
one
acre.
Tier
1
terrestrial
assessments
were
performed,
assuming
either
aerial
or
ground
application.
The
ground
spray
assessment
assumed
a
low
boom
applicator,
ASAE
medium
to
coarse
droplet
size,
and
90th
­
45­
percentile
exposure.
The
aerial
spray
assessment
assumed
ASAE
medium
to
coarse
droplet
size.
The
model
runs
are
located
in
Appendix
O.

The
summary
of
EEC
results
from
the
AgDrift
model
are
below:

Table
15a
No.
of
application
(
0.47
lb
ai/
A)
distance
from
edge
of
field
%
of
application
rate
EEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
method
1
0
feet
50
0.235
Aerial
1
50
feet
11.1
0.052
Aerial
1
100
feet
5.6
0.026
Aerial
1
200
feet
2.5
0.012
Aerial
1
300
feet
1.5
0.007
Aerial
1
10
feet
2.8
0.013
Ground
1
50
feet
0.7
0.004
Ground
Runoff
The
standard
runoff
assumption
in
the
EEC
are
5%
since
solubility
is
greater
than
100
ppm
(
Appendix
P).
The
LOC
for
non­
target
plants
is
1.

Below
is
Table
15b
which
shows
the
EEC
for
runoff
to
non­
targeted
plants
as
per
the
TerrPlant
model.
Details
for
the
TerrPlant
model
run
(
see
Appendix
P)
are
as
follows:

­
Application
rate
are
0.47
and
0.28
lb
ai/
A
­
Runoff
factor
from
solubility
is
5%
­
Toxicity
endpoints
used
are
mentioned
above.
­
The
aerial
spray
drift
uses
an
assumption
of
1%
for
ground
spray
and
5%
for
aerial
spray.
­
46­
Table
15b
Non­
listed
Species
Method
Application
Rate
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Areas
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
ground
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
aerial
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
ground
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
aerial
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
Listed
Species
ground
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
aerial
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
ground
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
aerial
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
C.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
In
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessments,
the
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
Section
describes
the
types
of
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
organism
or
plant.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrant­
submitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
In
addition,
other
sources
of
information,
including
reviews
of
the
open
literature
and
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS),
are
conducted
to
further
refine
the
characterization
of
potential
ecological
effects.

Appendix
E
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
Mammalian
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
Rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

23.
Aquatic
Effects
a.
Aquatic
Animals
(
1).
Acute
Effects
­
47­
Freshwater
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
(
LC
50
=
170
ppm
ai
for
rainbow
trout)
on
an
acute
basis.
Sethoxydim
technical
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrate
(
LC
50
=
78.1
ppm
ai
for
Daphnia
magna)
on
an
acute
basis.

The
formulated
product
is
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
(
LC
50
=
6.2
ppm
product
for
rainbow
trout)
and
to
freshwater
invertebrates
(
LC
50
=
13.5
ppm
product
for
Daphnia
magna)
on
an
acute
basis.
The
dose
response
slope
for
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim
tested
on
Daphnia
magna
is
4.73723.

Naphthalene
as
part
of
the
formulation
of
the
TEP
for
Sethoxydim
(
POAST
®
)
will
be
considered
in
this
risk
assessment
as
a
surrogate
for
solvent
containing
Naphthalene.
Naphthalene
is
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
(
rainbow
trout
LC
50
=
2.0
ppm)
and
freshwater
invertebrates
(
LC
50
=
1.6
ppm
for
Daphnia
magna)
on
an
acute
basis.

Estuarine
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
estuarine
fish
(
LC
50
>
145.8
ppm
a.
i.
for
sheepshead
minnow)
and
estuarine
invertebrate
(
LC
50
>
141.8
ppm
a.
i.
for
eastern
oyster
and
141,8
ppm
for
mysid
shrimp)
on
an
acute
basis.

The
formulated
product
is
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine
fish
(
LC
50
=
19.4
ppm
product
for
sheepshead
minnow)
and
estuarine
invertebrates
(
LC
50
=
4.4
ppm
product
for
mysid
shrimp
and
4.4
ppm
product
for
eastern
oyster
(
embryo­
larvae))
on
an
acute
basis.
The
dose
response
slope
for
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim
tested
on
eastern
oyster
is
4.83123.

(
2).
Chronic
Effects
Currently
there
are
no
chronic
toxicity
data
available
to
evaluate
the
chronic
toxic
effects
of
Sethoxydim
technical
on
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrates.
There
is
a
high
value
in
submitting
the
data
in
order
to
determine
chronic
toxicity
to
freshwater
organisms.

The
supplemental
chronic
toxicity
study
on
the
formulated
product
indicated
that
no
significant
effect
on
marine/
estuarine
fish
occurred
in
the
study
(
NOAEC
=
98
ppm).
The
formulated
product
chronic
toxicity
study
on
a
marine/
estuarine
invertebrate
(
mysid
shrimp)
indicated
NOAEC
of
6.5
ppm
a.
i.
and
a
LOAEC
=
13
ppm
a.
i.
for
effects
on
length
and
survival.

(
3).
Field
Studies
Currently,
there
are
no
field
studies
available
for
Sethoxydim.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
Sethoxydim
technical
is
of
low
toxicity
to
a
vascular
dicot,
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba),
with
an
EC
50
>
0.281
ppm
ai.
However,
this
herbicide
is
considered
to
be
toxic
to
grass
species,
which
­
48­
are
monocots.
There
are
no
available
phytotoxicity
data
on
aquatic
grasses.
It
is
very
uncertain
what
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
is
to
aquatic
grasses
without
data.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
(
1).
Acute
Effects
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis
(
LC50
>
5620
ppm
a.
i.)
and
practically
nontoxic
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(
LD
50
>
2510
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
in
mallard
duck).
No
mortalities
were
observed
at
the
highest
dose.
Currently,
there
are
no
avian
acute
toxicity
data
on
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim.

Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
nontoxic
to
rats
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(
LD
50
=
2676
mg/
kg­
bw
for
females,
3125
mg/
kg­
bw
for
males).
The
available
mammalian
acute
toxicity
data
on
the
formulated
product
indicate
that
formulated
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
basis
(
LD
50
=
4385
mg/
kg­
bw
for
females,
5000
mg/
kg­
bw
for
males).

(
2).
Chronic
Effects
Avian
reproductive
studies
on
bobwhite
quail
showed
no
effects
at
concentrations
up
to
1000
ppm
a.
i.
from
Sethoxydim
technical,
but
significant
effects
were
noted
to
the
mallard
duck
for
the
number
of
normal
hatchlings
at
the
100
and
500
ppm
levels.
The
NOAEC
was
not
determined
in
this
study.
The
LOAEC
is
100
ppm
a.
i..
No
avian
reproductive
study
was
done
with
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim.
There
is
an
uncertainty
in
the
mallard
duck
study
since
the
NOAEC
was
not
determined.
Data
from
another
mallard
reproductive
study
using
the
technical
Sethoxydim
would
be
very
useful
in
lowering
the
uncertainties
that
exist
for
chronic
risk
to
birds.

Mammalian
reproductive
study
(
2­
generation
rat
reproduction)
showed
a
reproductive
NOAEC
of
3000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg­
bw/
day)
and
a
developmental
NOAEC
of
600
ppm
(
30
mg/
kg­
bw/
day).
The
rat
2­
generation
reproduction
study
(
1983,
MRID
41510606,
43366401)
demonstrated
both
a
systemic
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
of

150
mg/
kg/
day.
There
were
no
adverse
effects
on
the
reproductive
performance
in
either
sex.
In
addition,
the
study
demonstrated
a
developmental
toxicity
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
of
30
and
150
mg/
kg/
day,
respectively,
for
the
offspring
based
on
tail
abnormalities
seen
in
F
1a
and
F
1b
offspring.
Malformations
were
only
observed
in
one
F
1b
and
two
F
2b
pups.
The
malformations
were
described
as
thread­
like
tail,
no
anal
opening,
malformed
hindlimb,
malpositioned
kidneys,
cleft
lip,
cleft
palate
and
microphthalmia.
There
were
no
doserelated
gross
or
microscopic
lesions,
or
developmental
variations
(
cannibalism
complicated
the
evaluation).

(
3).
Field
Studies
No
terrestrial
field
studies
were
found
using
Sethoxydim.
­
49­
b.
Terrestrial
Plants
Sethoxydim
is
a
herbicide
that
is
part
of
the
Cyclohexanediones
class
of
chemicals.
The
mode
of
action
for
this
herbicide
is
Lipid
Biosynthesis
Inhibition.
Selectivity
is
shown
to
be
due
to
susceptibility
at
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase).
Susceptible
grass
species
are
killed
by
inhibiting
the
ACCase
which
is
a
key
enzyme
in
the
lipid
biosynthetic
pathway.
This
herbicide
is
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
dicot
plant
families
or
monocot
non­
grass
families
of
plants.
A
submitted
vegetative
vigor
toxicity
study
confirms
this
expectation.
None
of
the
dicots
showed
any
significant
adverse
effects
from
Sethoxydim
up
to
0.5
lb
ai/
a.
Also,
the
onion
(
a
non­
grass
monocot)
did
not
show
any
adverse
effects
from
Sethoxydim
exposure.

The
most
sensitive
grass
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
was
the
ryegrass
with
an
EC
25
of
0.029
lb
ai/
A
(
C.
I.
=
0.023
­
0.037),
EC
50
=
0.038
lb
ai/
A
(
C.
I.
=
0.033­
0.044)
and
a
NOAEC
of
0.025
lb
ai/
A.
The
slope
of
the
dose
response
curve
is
5.75.
This
study
is
classified
as
supplemental
since
it
was
tested
with
the
technical
grade
Sethoxydim
and
not
the
typical
end
product
(
TEP).
It
is
important
that
terrestrial
plants
be
tested
with
the
TEP
which
also
contains
adjuvants
that
help
the
active
ingredient
to
penetrate
the
leaf
surface.

A
seedling
emergence
study
was
submitted.
The
seedling
emergence
study
on
three
grass
species
(
ryegrass,
corn
and
oat)
using
the
TEP
found
that
the
most
sensitive
seedling
emergence
EC
25
=
0.078
lb
ai/
A
and
the
NOAEC
=
0.0587
lb
ai/
A
for
ryegrass.
The
slope
is
2.21.
The
study
also
reveals
that
the
percentage
of
emergence
was
significantly
reduced
at
0.1175
lb.
The
EC
25
value
is
used
to
assess
risk
to
non­
target
non­
listed
plant
species.
The
NOAEC
value
will
be
the
toxicity
endpoint
used
to
assess
risk
to
listed
species.

3.
ECOTOX
Database
No
toxicity
endpoints
or
literature
sources
were
used
from
the
ECOTOX
database.
The
reasons
for
not
using
the
endpoints
or
the
literatures
are
found
in
Appendix
B
and
Appendix
C.
Of
the
excluded
data
from
the
ECOTOX
database,
non
were
found
to
be
pertinent
to
the
risk
assessment.
­
50­
IV.
Risk
Characterization
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
Sethoxydim
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
is
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
The
resulting
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
assess
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
directed
label
use
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.
In
section
2.
E.
1.
c.
of
this
document,
the
Levels
of
Concern
are
described
and
presented
in
tabular
form.

2.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
Runoff
The
most
sensitive
aquatic
fish
species
(
freshwater
and
estuarine)
for
acute
toxicity
is
rainbow
trout
with
an
LC
50
=
170
ppm
ai
for
the
technical
grade
Sethoxydim.
The
maximum
EEC
(
0.47
lb
ai/
A
applied
4X)
generated
by
the
GENEEC
aquatic
exposure
model
is
87
ppb
for
technical
sethoxydim.
The
RQ
=
0.0005
for
the
technical
Sethoxydim
(
87/
170,000).
The
technical
Sethoxydim
RQ
are
below
all
LOCs
including
listed
species
from
runoff
exposure.

The
most
sensitive
aquatic
invertebrates
species
(
freshwater
and
estuarine)
for
acute
toxicity
is
the
daphnid
(
EC
50
=
78.1
ppm
ai)
for
the
technical
Sethoxydim.
The
maximum
EEC
(
0.47
lb
ai/
A
applied
4X)
generated
by
the
GENEEC
aquatic
exposure
model
is
87
ppb
for
Sethoxydim
technical.
The
RQ
=
0.001
for
the
technical
Sethoxydim
(
87/
78,100).
The
technical
Sethoxydim
RQ
is
below
all
LOCs
including
listed
species.

The
Sethoxydim
chronic
LOC
for
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates
has
not
been
exceeded
for
listed
species
(
NOAEC
=
6.5
ppm
a.
i.
for
mysid
shrimp
and
98
ppm
a.
i.
for
sheepshead
minnow)
since
the
EEC
(
0.087
ppm)
is
less
than
the
toxicity
value.

Spray
Drift
The
maximum
Sethoxydim
TEP
EEC
modeled
from
AgDrift
is
35.3
ppb
of
TEP
in
6
feet
farm
pond
model.
The
TEP
LC
50
for
freshwater
fish
is
6.2
ppm
product
and
the
EC
50
for
freshwater
invertebrates
(
Daphnia
magna)
is
13.5
ppm
product.
The
RQs
are
0.006
for
freshwater
fish
and
0.003
for
freshwater
invertebrates,
respectively.
These
are
below
all
LOCs.

The
estuarine
fish
LC
50
is
19.4
ppm
product
and
the
estuarine
invertebrate
EC
50
is
4.4
ppm
product.
The
RQs
are
0.002
for
the
estuarine
fish
and
0.008
for
the
estuarine
invertebrates,
­
51­
respectively.
These
are
below
all
LOCs.

The
most
sensitive
aquatic
plant's
EC
50
is
250
ppb
ai
which
is
well
below
all
LOCs.

3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animal
There
are
no
avian
acute
levels
of
concern
since
the
data
provided
indicate
that
sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
and
no
mortalities
were
observed
at
the
highest
dose
tested.

All
of
the
uses
of
Sethoxydim
potentially
exceeds
the
chronic
level
of
concern
since
the
avian
chronic
NOAEL
was
not
determined.
The
lowest
dose
tested
was
used
as
the
toxic
measure
of
effect
until
additional
avian
reproduction
studies
provide
additional
data.

Below
are
the
Chronic
RQ
tables
for
birds
exposed
to
Sethoxydim
at
different
applications.

Table
16
Avian
Organism
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
(
Chronic
Level
of
Concern
=
1)
with
NOAEC
<
100ppm
Site
(
not
inclusive)
No.
of
Apps.
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Food
Items
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
based
on
Max.
EEC
and
NOAEC
<
100
ppm
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
based
on
Mean
EEC
and
NOAEC
<
100
ppm
Citrus,
tree
nuts
4
0.47
Short
grass
>
3.12
>
1.11
Tall
grass
>
1.43
>
0.47
Broadleaf
plants/
Insect
>
1.76
>
0.59
Seeds
>
0.20
>
0.09
Alfalfa,
birdfoot
trefoil,
sainfoin,
clover,
cotton,

3
0.47
Short
grass
>
2.63
>
0.93
Tall
grass
>
1.21
>
0.39
Broadleaf
plants/
Insect
>
1.48
>
0.49
Seeds
>
0.16
>
0.08
Fruiting
and
leafy
vegetable
crop
group
3
0.28
Short
grass
>
1.57
>
0.56
Tall
grass
>
0.72
>
0.24
Broadleaf
plants/
Insect
>
0.88
>
0.29
Seeds
>
0.10
>
0.05
Soybeans,
grape,
berries,
peanut,
Head
&
petiole
vegetable
crop
subgroup,
mint,
pea,
potato,
safflower,
sugar
beets,
Christmas
tree
farms,
ornamentals,
rights
of
way,
roadsides,
turf
2
0.47
Short
grass
>
1.98
>
0.70
Tall
grass
>
0.91
>
0.30
Broadleaf
plants/
Insect
>
1.12
>
0.37
Seeds
>
0.12
>
0.06
Table
16
Avian
Organism
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
(
Chronic
Level
of
Concern
=
1)
with
NOAEC
<
100ppm
Site
(
not
inclusive)
No.
of
Apps.
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Food
Items
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
based
on
Max.
EEC
and
NOAEC
<
100
ppm
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
based
on
Mean
EEC
and
NOAEC
<
100
ppm
­
52­
Orchard
floor
middles,
strawberry,
sunflower
1
0.47
Short
grass
>
1.13
>
0.40
Tall
grass
>
0.52
>
0.17
Broadleaf
plants/
Insect
>
0.63
>
0.21
Seeds
>
0.07
>
0.03
There
are
no
avian
or
mammalian
acute
LOC
exceedances
from
the
use
of
Sethoxydim.
Avian
and
acute
toxicity
studies
show
Sethoxydim
to
be
practically
non­
toxic
with
no
mortalities
observed
at
the
highest
dose
concentrations.
The
mammalian
RQ
<
0.1
(
LOC
for
listed
species)
at
the
highest
potential
labeled
exposure.

Since
no
definitive
chronic
avian
NOAEC
value
was
established
in
the
available
chronic
avian
toxicity
studies,
all
chronic
avian
RQ
values
are
"
greater
than"
values
and
therefore
all
potentially
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
of
1.0.
The
chronic
avian
RQ
values
are
described
below.

When
Sethoxydim
is
applied
4
or
3
times
a
season
at
the
maximum
application
rate
of
0.47
lb
ai/
A
with
14­
day
intervals,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
birds
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
the
chronic
LOC
is
potentially
exceeded
(
RQ>
0.2
based
on
maximum
EEC)
for
birds
feeding
only
on
seeds.

When
Sethoxydim
is
applied
3
times
a
season
at
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.28
lb
ai/
A
with
14­
day
intervals,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
birds
that
feed
exclusively
on
short
grass,
and
is
potentially
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
seeds.

When
sethoxydim
is
applied
2
times
a
season
at
the
maximum
application
rate
of
0.47
lbs
a.
i./
A
with
14­
day
intervals,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
short
grass
and
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
the
chronic
LOC
is
potentially
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
tall
grass
and
seeds.

When
sethoxydim
is
applied
once
at
the
maximum
application
rate
of
0.47
lbs
a.
i./
A,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
short
grass,
and
potentially
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
seeds.

There
are
no
chronic
LOC
exceedances
for
mammals
because
the
chronic
RQ
is
<
1
for
mammals
at
the
highest
exposure
(
297
ppm/
600
ppm
=
0.5
RQ).
­
53­
4.
Non­
target
Plants
Terrestrial
The
vegetative
vigor
(
Tier
II)
EC
25
=
0.029
lb
ai/
A.
The
NOAEC
value
will
be
the
toxicity
endpoint
used
to
assess
risk
to
listed
species
and
it
is
0.025
lb
ai/
A
for
ryegrass.
The
RQs
may
be
underestimated
because
the
phytotoxicity
endpoint
was
determined
using
the
technical
grade
Sethoxydim
instead
of
the
TEP.

A
seedling
emergence
study
was
submitted.
The
seedling
emergence
study
on
three
grass
species
(
ryegrass,
corn
and
oat)
using
the
TEP
found
that
the
most
sensitive
seedling
emergence
EC
25
=
0.078
lb
ai/
A
and
the
NOAEC
=
0.0587
lb
ai/
A
for
ryegrass.
The
slope
is
2.21.
The
study
also
reveals
that
the
percentage
of
emergence
was
significantly
reduced
at
0.1175
lb
ai/
A.
The
seedling
emergence
EC
25
is
available
to
use
in
this
risk
assessment
for
non­
target
plants
exposed
to
sethoxydim
from
runoff.
The
EC
25
value
is
used
to
assess
risk
to
non­
target
non­
listed
plant
species.
The
NOAEC
value
will
be
the
toxicity
endpoint
used
to
assess
risk
to
listed
species.

Spray
Drift
A
single
application
of
Sethoxydim
was
modeled
using
0.47
lb
ai/
A
of
sethoxydim
since
there
are
no
phytotoxicity
data
using
TEP.
The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
estimate
concentrations
of
sethoxydim
(
a.
i.)
residues
on
non­
target
plants
over
an
area
of
one
acre.
AgDrift
Tier
1
terrestrial
assessments
were
performed,
assuming
either
aerial
or
ground
application.
The
ground
spray
assessment
assumed
a
high
boom
applicator,
ASAE
medium
to
coarse
spray
droplet
size,
and
90th
percentile
exposure.
The
aerial
spray
assessment
assumed
ASAE
medium
to
coarse
spray
droplet
size.
The
toxicity
measurement
of
effect
(
EC
25)
is
0.029
lb
ai/
A
for
non­
listed
species
and
0.025
lb
ai/
A
(
NOAEC)
for
listed
species.
The
model
runs
are
located
in
Appendix
O.

The
RQ
results
based
on
the
AgDrift
model
are
below:

Table
17a
Listed
and
Non­
listed
Plant
Species
No.
of
application
(
0.47
lb
ai/
A)
distance
from
edge
of
field
%
of
application
rate
EEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
Non­
listed
RQ
Listed
RQ
method
1
0
feet
50
0.235
8.1
9.4
Aerial
1
50
feet
11.1
0.052
1.8
2.1
Aerial
1
100
feet
5.6
0.026
0.9
1.0
Aerial
1
200
feet
2.5
0.012
0.4
0.5
Aerial
1
300
feet
1.5
0.007
0.2
0.3
Aerial
1
10
feet
2.8
0.013
0.4
0.5
Ground
1
50
feet
0.7
0.004
0.1
0.2
Ground
Non­
listed
and
listed
plant
species
LOCs
(
RQ
=
1)
are
exceeded
from
edge
of
field
up
to
50
feet
for
nonlisted
species
and
up
to
100
feet
for
listed
species
with
aerial
application.
There
are
no
LOC
exceedances
from
ground
applied
spray
drift.
­
54­
Runoff
Below
is
Table
17b
which
shows
the
EEC
and
Risk
Quotients
for
runoff
to
non­
targeted
plants.
The
inputs
for
the
TerrPlant
model
(
Appendix
P).
The
model
uses
spray
drift
assumption
of
1%
for
ground
spray
and
5%
for
aerial
spray.

Table
17b
Non­
listed
Species
Method
Application
Rate
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Areas
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
RQ
for
Adjacent
Areas
RQ
for
Semiaquatic
Areas
Spray
Drift
RQ
1
ground
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
<
1
3.1
<
1
aerial
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
<
1
2.1
<
1
ground
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
<
1
1.8
<
1
aerial
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
<
1
1.3
<
1
Listed
Species
ground
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
<
1
4.1
<
1
aerial
0.47
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
<
1
2.8
<
1
ground
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0282
0.2397
<
1
2.4
<
1
aerial
0.28
lb
ai/
A
0.0376
0.1645
<
1
1.7
<
1
1
Spray
drift
assumptions
of
1%
for
ground
application
and
5%
for
aerial
application
were
used.

Non­
listed
and
listed
plant
species
LOCs
(
RQ
=
1)
are
exceeded
for
runoff
to
low
semi­
aquatic
areas
only
with
RQs
ranging
from
1.3
to
4.1.

Aquatic
Plants
Sethoxydim
technical
is
of
low
toxicity
to
a
vascular
dicot,
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
where
EC
50
>
0.281
ppm
ai
(
highest
dose
tested).
The
maximum
EEC
(
based
on
4
applications
of
0.47
lb
ai/
A)
generated
from
the
GENEEC
model
is
111
ppb.
The
aquatic
plant
LOC
(
including
listed
species)
is
not
exceeded.
However,
this
herbicide
is
considered
to
be
toxic
to
grass
species,
a
monocot.
There
are
no
available
phytotoxic
data
on
aquatic
grasses
(
obligate
aquatic
Poaceae
family).
It
is
very
uncertain
what
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
is
to
aquatic
grasses
without
data.

B.
Risk
Description
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Summary
of
Major
Conclusions
°
There
is
no
exceeded
acute
risk
LOC
for
aquatic
animals
from
the
Sethoxydim
per
se.
­
55­
Sethoxydim
itself
(
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient)
is
not
acutely
toxic
to
aquatic
animals
at
the
expected
exposures.
There
is
a
possibility
of
acute
risk
to
aquatic
animals
from
exposure
to
the
petroleum
solvent
(
CAS
Reg.
No.
64742­
94­
5)
used
in
POAST
®
,
which
contains
Naphthalene.

°
No
chronic
risk
is
expected
for
aquatic
estuarine
animals
from
runoff
to
the
standard
farm
pond.

°
The
risk
to
aquatic
plants
is
limited
to
aquatic
grasses,
due
to
the
mode
of
action
of
Sethoxydim.
The
risk
cannot
be
quantified,
because
there
are
no
toxicity
testing
data
for
aquatic
grasses.
These
data
are
being
requested.

°
The
LOC
is
not
exceeded
for
algae
or
diatoms.

Discussion
Aquatic
animals.

Toxicity.
Technical
sethoxydim
is
not
toxic
to
aquatic
animals
at
estimated
concentrations.
However,
the
TEP
is
more
toxic
than
the
technical
at
two
orders
of
magnitude.
The
greater
toxicity
of
the
formulated
product
to
aquatic
organisms
may
be
attributed
to
the
petroleum
solvent
(
CAS
Registry
No.
64742­
94­
5).
This
solvent
is
known
to
contain
seven
percent
of
Naphthalene
by
weight.
It
is
likely
that
the
other
constituents
of
the
petroleum
solvent
have
toxicity
similar
to
that
of
Naphthalene,
especially
if
the
toxic
effect
is
simple
narcosis.

A
comparison
of
Subdivision
N
Guideline
acute
toxicity
data
for
Naphthalene
(
PC
code
055801)
to
the
data
for
formulated
(
18.0
­
20.4%)
and
technical
Sethoxydim
shows
that
the
median
lethal
concentrations
for
Naphthalene
and
formulated
sethoxydim
are
similar
for
the
trout,
bluegill,
and
waterflea
(
see
table
4).
Also,
the
toxicity
of
formulated
Sethoxydim
to
estuarine
organisms
is
in
the
same
low
ppm
range
as
the
toxicity
of
Naphthalene
to
coho
salmon.

Formulated
product
(
POAST
®
)
was
tested
on
aquatic
freshwater
animals
(
see
Appendix
E).
See
below
showing
the
LC
50/
EC
50
(
in
ppb)
comparison
among
the
Sethoxydim,
POAST
®
,
and
Naphthalene
(
MRID
45030801,
44302702,
44302701,
ACC249909):
­
56­
Table
18
organism
Sethoxydim
POAST
®
1
Naphthalene
Rainbow
trout
170,000
6,200
2,000
bluegill
265,000
8,300
3,200
Daphnia
magna
78,100
13,500
1,600
Coho
salmon
na
na
2,100
Sheepshead
minnow
145,800
19,400
na
Eastern
oyster
>
109,000
4,400
na
Mysid
shrimp
141,800
4,400
na
1)
POAST
®
values
are
in
ppb
product.
na
=
not
available
Toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
is
under
estimated
and
thereby
the
risk
is
also
underestimated
if
the
petroleum
solvents
that
also
contain
Naphthalene
are
not
taken
into
consideration.

Runoff
Uncertainty
for
Petroleum
Solvent.
There
is
much
uncertainty
as
to
the
amounts
of
the
petroleum
solvent
to
which
aquatic
organisms
are
exposed,
since
the
exposure
modeling
was
done
only
on
the
Sethoxydim
technical
and
not
on
the
Naphthalene
component
nor
on
POAST
®
.
It
is
difficult
to
model
POAST
®
without
chemical,
physical
and
fate
data
on
POAST
®
as
a
whole.
The
fate
properties
of
Naphthalene
are
very
different
from
the
properties
of
Sethoxydim.
These
differences
in
properties
will
cause
the
two
chemicals
to
separate
from
each
other
during
a
runoff
scenario,
thereby
creating
different
load
or
exposure
time
lines
to
aquatic
organisms.
Below
is
a
table
of
some
of
the
Fate
properties
of
Naphthalene:

Table
19:
Fate
Data
on
Naphthalene
organic
carbon
partitioning
coefficient
(
Koc)
1837
mL/
g
EPISuite
estimate
Soil
metabolism
half­
life
48
days
Howard
et
al.,
1991
Water
metabolism
Half­
life
20
days
Howard
et
al.,
1991
Aqueous
Photolysis
half­
life
71
days
Howard
et
al.,
1991
Volatility
of
Petroleum
Solvent.
According
to
Merck
Index
(
tenth
edition,
paragraph
6220),
Naphthalene
has
moderate
volatility
which
may
cause
it
to
evaporate
from
where
it
is
sprayed,
and
be
transported
in
the
atmosphere.
Spray
drift
exposure
could
be
augmented
by
later
volatilization
and
transport
of
petroleum
solvent
vapors
to
ponds
or
wetlands.
The
exposure
of
the
TEP
to
non­
target
plants
and
water
bodies
could
be
underestimated.

Potential
for
Risk
from
Spray
Drift
of
TEP
to
Wetlands.
Aerial
spraying
of
the
TEP
in
a
6­
inch
deep
wetland
scenario
may
pose
a
potential
risk
to
aquatic
animal
species
including
listed
species.
­
57­
Chemical
concentrations
in
a
6­
inch
scenario
are
usually
about
13X
higher
than
in
a
6
foot
farm
pond
scenario.
Aerial
spray
drift
can
transport
the
TEP
to
nearby
wetlands
that
contain
6
inch
deep
shallow
pools.
Many
aquatic
fish
and
invertebrate
species
spend
part
of
their
reproductive
life
cycle
in
these
shallow
water
bodies.
The
timing
of
application
of
POAST
®
may
intersect
with
the
time
period
that
the
aquatic
species
inhabit
these
water
bodies.
Since
the
TEP
is
much
more
toxic
than
the
technical
sethoxydim,
potential
risk
cannot
be
discounted
from
these
species.

Chronic
Risk.
Estuarine
chronic
risk
quotients
were
calculated
for
the
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates
since
chronic
toxicity
data
are
available.
There
are
no
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrate
chronic
toxicity
data
available.

The
chronic
toxicity
endpoint
(
NOAEC)
that
was
used
to
calculate
RQ's
was
derived
from
testing
of
a
formulation
containing
40%
Sethoxydim.
Because
of
the
lack
of
acute
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
aquatic
organisms,
we
are
presuming
that
the
chronic
toxicity
of
technical
Sethoxydim
would
be
less
sensitive
than
that
of
a
TEP
containing
petroleum
solvent.

Chronic
toxicity
data
are
still
needed
to
assess
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
using
technical
Sethoxydim
and
the
TEP.

Aquatic
Plants
Sethoxydim
technical
is
of
low
toxicity
to
a
vascular
aquatic
dicot,
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
where
EC
50
>
281
ppb
ai.
An
assumption
is
made
that
only
aquatic
grasses
(
obligate
aquatic
Poaceae
family)
are
potentially
at
risk,
since
available
data
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
is
only
toxic
to
terrestrial
grass
species.
In
addition,
the
herbicidal
mode
of
action
of
sethoxydim
is
Lipid
Biosynthesis
Inhibition.
Selectivity
is
shown
to
be
due
to
the
greater
susceptibility
at
acetylcoenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
of
grassy
species.
Susceptible
grassy
species
are
killed
by
inhibition
of
the
ACCase
which
is
a
key
enzyme
in
the
lipid
biosynthetic
pathway.
The
risk
cannot
be
quantified
because
we
do
not
have
toxicity
data
for
aquatic
grass.

However,
there
is
some
uncertainty
in
this
assumption.
The
exposure
route
for
an
aquatic
grass
would
likely
be
different
that
for
a
terrestrial
grass
(
foliar
rather
than
by
foliar
and
root
uptake).
Another
uncertainty
is
the
differences
in
aquatic
plant
physiology
as
compared
to
terrestrial
plants
such
as
many
terrestrial
plants
tend
to
need
oxygen
for
their
root
zones
whereas
the
obligate
aquatic
plant
does
not
have
much
oxygen
in
their
root
zones
thereby
rely
on
other
means
to
get
the
oxygen
down
to
the
roots.

Unicellular
aquatic
plants
(
algae)
appear
to
have
no
adverse
effect
from
the
exposure
of
Sethoxydim.

2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Summary
of
Major
Conclusions
­
58­
!
Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds.

!
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
listed
and
non­
listed
grass
species
(
Poaceae
family)
from
spray
drift
from
aerial
and
spray­
drift
from
irrigated
applications.
There
are
no
LOC
exceedances
for
non­
target
listed
grass
species
from
ground
applied
spray
drift.

!
No
avian
or
mammalian
acute
LOC
are
exceeded.

!
No
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals.

!
There
appear
to
be
no
LOC
exceedances
for
non­
target
plants
that
are
not
members
of
the
Poaceae
family.

!
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
terrestrial
non­
target
grasses
from
runoff
to
low
semi­
aquatic
areas.

Discussion
Terrestrial
animals
Acute
risk
to
birds
and
mammals.
No
acute
RQ
calculations
were
made
for
birds
because
avian
acute
and
subacute
dietary
studies
suggest
that
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
At
the
highest
dose,
no
mortalities
were
observed.
Thus,
no
listed
species
concern
was
triggered.

Rat
acute
oral
toxicity
studies
suggest
that
Sethoxydim
technical
and
POAST
®
are
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammals.
Since
there
were
some
mortalities
observed
in
the
studies,
RQ
calculations
were
done
at
the
maximum
exposure
to
mammals
and
no
LOC
was
exceeded.
No
listed
species
LOC
was
triggered.

Chronic
risk
to
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
reproduction
studies
were
conducted
with
the
technical
active
ingredient
of
Sethoxydim.
In
these
studies,
the
bobwhite
quail
showed
no
treatment
related
effects
up
to
1000
ppm
of
Sethoxydim
exposure.
The
mallard
duck
showed
the
number
of
normal
hatchlings
was
significantly
less
than
the
control
at
the
lowest
dose
tested,
which
was
100
ppm.
Thereby,
the
NOAEC
was
not
determined.
There
is
uncertainty
in
this
study
as
to
what
the
no
adverse
observed
concentration
thresholds
really
are.
Another
mallard
reproduction
study
is
needed
to
lower
the
amount
of
uncertainty
for
chronic
reproductive
risk
to
avian
populations.

All
of
the
chronic
avian
RQs
are
"
greater
than"
values
because
the
NOAEC
used
to
calculate
the
RQs
was
a
"
less
than"
value.
Therefore,
all
chronic
avian
RQ
values
potentially
exceed
the
chronic
LOC.
­
59­
The
rat
2­
generation
reproduction
study
indicates
no
adverse
effects
in
the
study
at
3000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg/
day).
However,
the
offspring/
developmental
toxicity
NOAEC
was
600
ppm
(
30
mg/
kg/
day)
and
the
LOAEC
was
150
mg/
kg/
day
for
the
offspring
based
on
tail
abnormalities
seen
in
F1a
and
F1b
offspring.
The
600
ppm
NOAEC
measure
of
effect
is
determined
on
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion
of
20
X
30
mg/
kg­
diet
=
ppm­
diet.
Malformations
were
only
observed
in
one
F
1b
and
two
F
2b
pups.
The
malformations
were
described
as
thread­
like
tail,
no
anal
opening,
malformed
hindlimb,
malpositioned
kidneys,
cleft
lip,
cleft
palate
and
microphthalmia.
There
were
no
dose­
related
gross
or
microscopic
lesions,
or
developmental
variations
(
cannibalism
complicated
the
evaluation).
There
are
no
chronic
LOC
exceedances
for
mammals
because
the
most
sensitive
chronic
endpoint
(
600
ppm)
is
much
greater
than
the
highest
exposure
concentration
(
297
ppm).

Terrestrial
Plants
Risk
to
Non­
Target
Grass.
Phytotoxicity
data
were
submitted
for
vegetative
vigor
study
on
10
species
of
crops.
All
of
the
dicot
species
showed
no
effects
at
the
highest
concentration.
Onion,
a
monocot,
also
showed
no
effects
at
the
highest
rate
tested.
Onion
is
a
monocot
specie
that
is
not
a
member
of
the
grass
family.
The
herbicidal
mode
of
action
for
Sethoxydim
is
lipid
biosynthesis
inhibition.
Selectivity
is
shown
to
be
due
to
susceptibility
at
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase).
Susceptible
grass
species
are
killed
by
inhibiting
the
ACCase
which
is
a
key
enzyme
in
the
lipid
biosynthetic
pathway.
This
herbicide
is
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
dicot
plant
families
or
monocot
non­
grass
families
of
plants.
A
submitted
vegetative
vigor
toxicity
study
confirms
this
expectation.
Therefore,
it
appears
that
only
non­
target
grass
species
are
expected
to
be
adversely
impacted
from
off­
site
movement
of
Sethoxydim.

Vegetative
vigor
tests.
Results
from
vegetative
vigor
studies
are
used
to
assess
risk
to
non­
target
plants
from
spray
drift.
A
vegetative
vigor
study
(
MRID
41885906)
with
EC
25
=
0.029
lb
ai/
A
and
NOAEC
=
0.038
lb
ai/
A
showed
the
ryegrass
to
be
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
(
four
monocots
of
which
three
are
grasses
and
six
dicots).
This
study
was
conducted
with
Sethoxydim
technical
instead
of
the
required
POAST
®
.
This
creates
uncertainty
in
the
estimates
of
risk
since
it
is
generally
recognized
that
formulated
herbicides
are
more
potent
toward
susceptible
plant
species
than
the
technical
active
ingredients.
Therefore,
the
risk
to
non­
target
plants
is
underestimated.
Non­
listed
and
listed
plant
species
LOCs
(
RQ
=
1)
are
exceeded
from
edge
of
field
up
to
50
feet
for
nonlisted
species
and
up
to100
feet
for
listed
species
with
aerial
application.
There
are
no
non­
target
plant
LOC
exceedances
from
ground
applied
spray
drift.

The
estimated
risk
to
non­
target
plants
is
underestimated
due
to
lack
of
valid
vegetative
vigor
studies
conducted
with
the
TEP.
Using
the
TEP
in
terrestrial
plant
studies
is
important
because
most
herbicides
use
adjuvants
to
penetrate
the
plant
cuticle
and
other
plant
defenses
in
order
to
get
the
active
ingredient
into
the
plant
to
adversely
affect
the
plant.
Another
tier
II
vegetative
vigor
study
conducted
with
POAST
®
on
at
least
three
grass
species
including
corn
should
be
conducted
to
assess
risk
to
non­
target
grass
species.
There
are
currently
no
information
on
estimating
definitely
how
much
more
toxic
the
TEP
is
as
compared
to
the
technical
sethoxydim.
­
60­
Seedling
Emergence
tests.
Seedling
emergence
studies
are
used
to
assess
risk
to
non­
target
plant
species
from
the
exposure
to
runoff.
One
seedling
emergence
study
on
three
grass
species
(
ryegrass,
corn
and
oat)
using
the
TEP
found
that
the
most
sensitive
plant
EC
25
=
0.078
lb
ai/
A
and
the
NOAEC
=
0.0587
lb
ai/
A
for
ryegrass.
The
slope
is
2.21.
The
study
also
reveals
that
the
percentage
of
emergence
was
significantly
reduced
at
0.1175
lb
ai/
A.

Using
TerrPlant
model
the
LOC
is
exceeded
for
non­
target
grass
species
(
including
listed
species)
only
to
low
semi­
aquatic
areas
from
runoff.
The
range
of
RQ
is
1.3
to
3.1
for
non­
listed
grasses
and
1.7
to
4.1
for
listed
species.
Since
an
assumption
of
1%
and
5%
for
spray
drift
was
built
into
the
TerrPlant
model
and
the
AgDrift
model
has
much
higher
percentage
of
spray
drift
(
50%
at
edge
of
field
to
10
%
at
300
feet
from
edge
of
field)
movement
off­
site
than
TerrPlant,
EFED
can
assume
that
the
risk
may
be
underestimated.

3.
Uncertainty
in
Fate
Data
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation.
The
submitted
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
studies
(
164­
1)
were
judged
to
be
unacceptable
because
total
Sethoxydim
residues,
rather
than
the
parent
compound
and
its
eight
degradates
were
analyzed.
However,
due
to
the
large
uncertainty
that
exists
for
the
degradates
of
Sethoxydim,
additional
data
need
to
be
generated
to
lower
the
amount
of
uncertainties
on
the
fate
of
Sethoxydim.
If
the
assumption
that
the
degradates
are
equally
as
toxic
as
the
parent
is
adequate
for
risk
assessment,
then
the
studies
do
not
need
to
be
repeated.

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism.
Additional
information
is
needed
to
determine
if
the
submitted
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
study
(
162­
3)
is
acceptable.
There
is
uncertainty
in
this
study
that
needs
to
be
clarified.

4.
Review
of
Incident
Data
There
have
been
two
incidents
related
to
Sethoxydim
reported
to
the
Environmental
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS)
database.
One
incident
occurred
in
1992
at
an
unrecorded
location.
POAST­
Plus
Herbicide
®
(
Sethoxydim)
and
Lorsban
15G
®
Granular
Insecticide
(
chlorpyrifos)
were
applied
to
peanuts
that
were
approximately
60
yards
away
from
a
farm
pond.
Pix
®
(
mepiquat
chloride)
was
also
applied
to
cotton,
which
was
about
40
yards
away
from
the
pond.
Two
inches
of
rain
fell
after
the
application,
and
about
300
fish
(
Lepomis
and
Centrarchidae
spp.)
were
observed
dead
in
the
pond
8
­
10
days
later.
The
EIIS
report
states
that
chlorpyrifos
is
believed
to
be
the
primary
cause
of
this
kill,
but
that
sethoxydim
and
mepiquat
chloride
could
have
also
contributed
to
the
toxicity
observed
in
this
incident.
Chlorpyrifos
is
very
highly
toxic
to
several
freshwater
fish
species
on
an
acute
basis,
and
all
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
for
all
uses
of
chlorpyrifos.
Mepiquat
chloride
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
species
on
an
acute
basis,
and
the
analysis
for
this
chemical
indicated
that
no
acute
LOC
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
(
see
links
to
chlorpyrifos
IRED
and
mepiquat
chloride
RED
at
URL:
http://
cfpub.
epa.
gov/
oppref/
rereg/
status.
cfm?
show=
rereg
Analysis
also
concludes
that,
despite
moderate
acute
toxicity
of
sethoxydim
formulated
product,
no
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
non­
listed
freshwater
fish
in
a
standard
pond.
Therefore,
it
appears
unlikely
that
sethoxydim
contributed
to
­
61­
the
toxicity
leading
to
this
fish
kill.

A
second
incident
occurred
in
2001,
in
which
Checkmate
®
(
Sethoxydim)
and
endosulfan
were
misdirected
during
accidental
misuse.
Dozens
of
white
Amur
grass
carp
(
Ctenopharyngondon
idella)
were
killed.
The
EIIS
report
states
that
endosulfan
was
likely
the
primary
cause
of
mortality,
but
that
Sethoxydim
was
believed
to
contribute
to
the
mortality
of
the
fish.
Given
that
endosulfan
is
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis
and
all
acute
aquatic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
endosulfan
(
see
endosulfan
RED
at
URL:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppsrrd1/
REDs/
endosulfan_
red.
pdf),
it
appears
unlikely
that
sethoxydim
contributed
to
the
toxicity
leading
to
this
incident.

5.
Endocrine
Disrupter
EPA
is
required
under
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
bases
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).
When
the
appropriate
screening
and/
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
EDSP
have
been
developed,
Sethoxydim
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
The
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
listed
birds,
terrestrial
plants,
and
possibly
aquatic
grasses
are
exceeded
for
uses
of
Sethoxydim.
By
extension,
endangered
and
threatened
amphibians
and
reptiles
may
also
be
affected.
Appendix
L
provides
a
list
of
listed
species
for
each
crop
in
which
Sethoxydim
is
used
terrestrially
in
each
state.
A
full
list
of
listed
species
and
the
crops
with
which
they
are
associated
is
in
Appendix
M.

The
registrant
must
provide
information
on
the
proximity
of
Federally
listed
endangered
species
to
the
Sethoxydim
usage
sites.
This
requirement
may
be
satisfied
in
one
of
three
ways:
1)
having
membership
in
the
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
(
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
2000­
2);
2)
citing
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
data;
or
3)
independently
producing
these
­
62­
data,
provided
the
information
is
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
FIFRA
requirements.
The
information
will
be
used
by
the
OPP
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
develop
recommendations
to
avoid
adverse
effects
to
listed
species.

The
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
endangered
species
indicates
that
Sethoxydim
exceeds
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
the
following
combinations
of
analyzed
uses
and
species
groups:

°
Birds
(
chronic):
°
Chronic
RQs
indicate
that
the
following
groups
of
listed
birds
are
at
risk
under
the
uses
and
application
scenarios
indicated:

N
Birds
consuming
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
small
insects:
Citrus,
tree
nuts
(
4
applications
at
maximum
rate
of
0.47
lbs
ai/
A);
alfalfa,
legume
seeds,
cotton
(
3
applications
at
maximum
rate).

N
Birds
consuming
short
grass:
fruiting
and
leafy
vegetable
crops
(
3
applications
at
maximum
rate);
soybeans,
grapes,
caneberries,
peanuts,
potatoes
(
excluding
sweet
potatoes),
mint,
turf,
nursery
crops,
sugar
beets,
vegetable
and
flower
seed
(
2
applications
at
maximum
rate);
orchards,
strawberries,
sunflower
(
1
application
at
maximum
rate).

°
All
other
listed
birds
are
possibly
at
risk
on
a
chronic
basis.
RQs
cannot
be
estimated
for
birds
associated
with
other
crops
and/
or
food
types,
so
the
assumption
of
risk
must
be
extended
to
all
birds
until
sufficient
data
are
provided.

°
Plants:
Alfalfa,
berries,
citrus,
cotton,
nursery
crops,
grapes,
melons,
orchards,
tree
nuts,
turf,
strawberries,
sugar
beets,
vegetable
and
flower
seeds,
fruiting
and
leafy
vegetables,
potatoes
(
excluding
sweet
potatoes),
peanuts,
soybeans,
legume
seeds,
sunflower
seed,
mint,
vegetable
and
flower
seed
(
2
to
4
aerial
applications
at
maximum
rate).

Applications
of
Sethoxydim
pose
risk
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
listed
species:

Amphibians
Nineteen
listed
species
inhabit
12
states
in
which
Sethoxydim
is
used.
Of
the
major
crops
on
which
Sethoxydim
is
used,
15
species
are
associated
with
uses
on
alfalfa,
13
species
are
associated
with
uses
in
cotton,
6
with
uses
on
soybeans,
and
12
are
associated
with
uses
on
vegetable
crops.
In
addition,
10
species
are
associated
with
nursery
crops,
17
species
are
associated
with
uses
on
orchard
crops.
Many
of
these
species
occur
in
only
one
state.

Birds
Fifty­
seven
listed
species
of
birds
live
in
48
states
in
which
Sethoxydim
is
used.
Of
the
major
crops
on
which
Sethoxydim
is
used,
19
species
are
associated
with
uses
on
soybeans,
14
species
are
associated
with
uses
in
peanuts,
25
species
are
associated
with
cotton,
14
species
are
­
63­
associated
with
uses
on
sugar
beets,
and
36
species
are
associated
with
alfalfa
crops.
In
other
crops,
39
are
associated
with
uses
in
citrus,
54
with
nursery
crops,
28
with
turf
(
harvested
sod),
and
55
are
associated
with
vegetable
crops.

Reptiles
Twenty­
eight
listed
species
of
reptiles
live
in
19
states
in
which
Sethoxydim
is
used.
Of
the
major
crops
on
which
Sethoxydim
is
used,
21
species
are
associated
with
uses
in
alfalfa,
14
with
uses
in
cotton,
13
with
uses
in
soybeans,
6
with
uses
in
peanuts.
In
addition,
16
species
are
associated
with
uses
in
citrus,
23
with
nursery
crops,
26
with
orchard
crops,
17
with
turf,
5
with
sugar
beets,
and
25
are
associated
with
uses
in
vegetable
crops.

Plants
The
LOCATES
database
does
not
delineate
between
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants
or
between
grasses
and
other
non­
grass
plants,
so
none
are
listed
here.
However,
over
500
listed
species
of
plants
are
associated
with
crops
on
which
Sethoxydim
is
used.

°
Direct
Effects
Guideline
studies
used
in
this
ecological
risk
assessment
indicate
the
possible
effects
that
may
occur
to
listed
taxa
if
directly
exposed
to
Sethoxydim.

Acute
effects
to
birds
are
not
expected;
however,
reproductive
effects
were
observed
in
the
avian
chronic
test
with
the
mallard
and
bobwhite.
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
eggs
laid
was
observed
in
quail
at
the
500
ppm
level;
however,
this
effect
was
not
considered
to
be
treatment
related.
In
tests
with
the
mallard,
reduced
number
of
normal
hatchlings
was
observed
in
all
concentrations
(
100,
500,
and
1000
ppm).
Other
effects
that
were
observed
were
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
eggs
set
the
number
of
live
embryos
(
observed
at
the
500
ppm
concentration).

Acute
effects
to
fish
from
exposure
to
sethoxydim
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
not
expected.
Acute
tests
with
TGAI
in
rainbow
trout
showed
mortality
(
60%)
occurring
at
only
the
highest
concentration
tested
(
180
mg/
l).
Effects
were
not
observed
at
the
other
four
concentrations
ranging
from
18
­
100
mg/
l.
However,
higher
mortality
was
observed
when
sethoxydim
TEP
was
tested
in
the
same
species,
(
100%
at
the
two
highest
concentrations
of
2.7
and
1.7
mg/
l,
10%
at
the
mid­
range
concentration
of
1.0
mg/
l).
Mortality
was
not
observed
at
the
three
lower
concentrations
of
0.21,
0.37,
and
0.59
mg/
l.
No
other
effects
(
e.
g.,
behavioral
changes)
were
noted
in
these
studies.

Acute
effects
to
aquatic
invertebrates
from
exposure
to
sethoxydim
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
not
expected.
Immobility
was
observed
in
Daphnia
when
tested
with
both
sethoxydim
TGAI
and
TEP.
The
acute
test
with
TGAI
describes
cumulative
effects
with
TGAI
of
0%,
15%,
85%,
95%,
and
100%
at
concentrations
of
32,
51,
100,
180,
and
320
mg/
l,
respectively.
With
TEP,
100%
effects
were
observed
in
the
two
highest
concentrations
of
4.6
and
­
64­
8.9
mg/
l,
5%
and
20%
were
observed
at
0.57
and
2.4
mg/
l
respectively,
and
no
effects
were
observed
at
the
second
highest
concentration
(
1.1
mg/
l).
Other
direct
effects
among
the
test
organisms
were
not
noted.

Acute
effects
to
marine/
estuarine
fish
from
exposure
to
sethoxydim
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
not
expected.
Mortality
was
not
observed
in
the
sheepshead
minnow
in
acute
tests
with
TGAI,
but
was
observed
when
tested
with
the
TEP
(
100%
mortality
at
the
four
highest
concentrations
of
4.5,
7.2,
10.8,
and
18
mg/
l.
Behavioral
effects
of
loss
of
equilibrium
and
surfacing
and
gasping
were
observed
at
all
but
the
4.5
mg/
l
concentration,
even
the
lowest
(
2.7
mg/
l).
These
sublethal
effects
could
have
indirect
consequences
leading
to
mortality;
for
example,
they
may
lead
to
increased
vulnerability
to
predators.
The
sheepshead
minnow
early
life
stage
test
did
not
result
in
any
apparent
direct
effects.
For
this
test,
it
is
unclear
whether
TGAI
or
TEP
was
used,
but
percentage
of
active
ingredient
was
40.7%.
Concentrations
tested
ranged
from
6.6
to
98
mg/
l.

Acute
effects
to
marine/
estuarine
invertebrates
from
exposure
to
sethoxydim
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
not
expected.
Mortality
and
other
effects
were
observed
in
acute
toxicity
tests
with
marine/
estuarine
invertebrates.
Mortality
was
observed
in
an
acute
test
with
the
mysid
using
Sethoxydim
TGAI
(
30%
at
141.8
mg/
l).
With
the
TEP,
100%
mortality
was
observed
at
the
three
highest
concentrations
tested
(
1.1,
1.8,
and
3.0
mg/
l),
10%
was
observed
at
the
second
highest
concentration
(
0.7
mg/
l),
and
no
mortality
was
observed
at
the
lowest
concentration
of
0.5
mg/
l.
Effects
were
observed
in
the
mysid
life
cycle
test.
It
is
unclear
whether
the
test
was
performed
with
TGAI
or
TEP
(
43.1%
a.
i.
is
noted
for
the
test
material),
but
the
magnitude
of
effects
with
this
test
are
more
consistent
with
acute
tests
using
TEP.
At
the
two
highest
concentrations
of
59
and
120
mg/
l,
100%
effects
were
observed.
At
the
other
concentrations
of
7.6,
14,
and
29
mg/
l,
effects
were
observed
at
17%,
26%
and
70%.

Mortality
and
the
presence
of
abnormal
individuals
are
potential
direct
effects
in
marine/
estuarine
invertebrates.
Tests
with
the
Eastern
oyster
demonstrated
direct
effects.
For
acute
tests
with
TGAI
on
oyster
larvae,
mortality
was
not
observed.
However,
abnormal
individuals
were
observed
in
the
control
(
7%)
and
at
the
concentration
tested
(
109
mg/
l).
Sethoxydim
was
measured
in
the
control,
but
this
did
not
affect
the
classification
of
the
study.
Mortality
was
observed
in
all
concentrations
tested
on
Eastern
oyster
using
the
TEP
in
acute
tests.
Concentrations
were
0.4,
0.6,
1.0,
1.5,
and
2.5
mg/
l,
and
effects
were
observed
at
2%,
12%,
62%,
95%
and
89%,
respectively.
No
other
direct
effects
were
reported,
but
the
number
of
abnormal
individuals
was
measured
during
the
test.

Direct
effects
are
expected
for
plants
exposed
to
sethoxydim,
and
especially
for
grasses.
Among
the
species
tested,
ryegrass
was
the
most
sensitive
species
based
on
EC
values
for
percent
change
in
weight
compared
to
controls.
The
rates
tested
ranged
from
0.0031
­
0.05
lb
a.
i./
A,
and
percent
changes
in
weight
ranged
from
1.97
x
10­
8
to
75.5.
As
a
result,
we
expect
that
listed
species
of
grasses
might
be
directly
affected
by
exposure
to
sethoxydim.

2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
­
65­
The
probit
slope
response
relationship
is
evaluated
to
calculate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
If
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope
for
a
particular
study,
a
default
slope
assumption
of
4.5
is
used
as
per
original
Agency
assumptions
of
typical
slope
cited
in
Urban
and
Cook
(
1986).

It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
can
be
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
However,
the
95%
confidence
intervals
for
the
slopes
are
unavailable
in
cases
where
slope
is
based
on
a
default
assumption
of
4.5.

Our
analysis
using
the
exposure
scenario
of
a
6­
foot
pond
indicates
that
listed
freshwater
invertebrate
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
when
EECs
are
calculated
for
formulated
petroleum
solvents.
RQs
calculated
using
EECs
for
formulated
petroleum
solvents
in
a
6­
inch
wetland
exceeded
listed
and
non­
listed
species
LOCs
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
Therefore,
mortality
and
other
direct
effects
may
be
observed
in
freshwater
animals
inhabiting
ponds
or
flowing
waters,
as
well
as
those
inhabiting
wetland
environments.
Since
both
listed
and
non­
listed
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
the
wetland
scenario,
and
more
taxa
are
at
risk,
it
is
possible
that
effects
are
more
likely
to
occur
in
those
environments
compared
to
pond
and
other
non­
wetland
habitats.
For
this
reason,
the
6­
inch
wetland
scenario
is
included
in
the
discussion
of
the
probability
of
individual
direct
effects,
as
well
as
the
discussion
of
indirect
effects
below.

Freshwater
Fish
Raw
data
are
not
available
from
the
two
rainbow
trout
studies
with
technical
Sethoxydim
(
MRID
42815)
and
the
formulated
product
(
MRID
41885902)
to
calculate
a
slope.
Therefore,
the
default
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
event
probability
for
freshwater
fish
LOC.
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
4.5,
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.05
is
1
in
417,000,000
for
technical.

Freshwater
Invertebrates
A
slope
of
5.84
(
95%
CI:
3.84
­
7.86)
was
estimated
using
data
from
the
study
with
technical
Sethoxydim
in
Daphnia
magna
(
MRID
42816).
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
using
this
slope,
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.05
is
1
in
6.57
x
1013.
The
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
are,
respectively,
1
in
3,410,000
and

1
in
1
x
1016
(
this
value
is
the
limit
of
probability
for
the
program
used
to
estimate
the
probability
of
mortality).
Individual
mortality
associated
with
the
calculated
RQ
value
for
Daphnia
magna
exposed
to
technical
Sethoxydim
(
0.001)
is
estimated
to
be

1
in
1
x
1016.
The
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exposed
to
technical
Sethoxydim
fell
below
the
LOC
of
0.05,
resulting
in
estimated
probability
of
individual
mortality
of

1
in
2.8
x
109.
­
66­
Marine/
Estuarine
Fish
Raw
data
are
not
available
from
the
sheepshead
minnow
studies
with
Sethoxydim
technical
to
calculate
a
slope.
Therefore,
the
default
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
event
probability
for
marine/
estuarine
fish
LOC.
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
4.5,
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.05
is
1
in
417,000,000
for
technical
Sethoxydim.
The
RQs
calculated
using
EECs
from
the
GENEEC
model
for
marine/
estuarine
fish
exposed
to
technical
Sethoxydim
fell
below
the
LOC
of
0.05,
resulting
in
estimated
probability
of
individual
mortality
of

1
in
2.8
x
109.

Marine/
Estuarine
Invertebrates
Raw
data
are
not
provided
in
the
Eastern
oyster
study
(
MRID
42537401)
using
technical
Sethoxydim
to
calculate
a
slope,
or
in
the
study
with
mysid
shrimp.
Therefore,
the
default
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
event
probability
for
marine/
estuarine
invertebrate
LOC.
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
4.5,
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.05
is
1
in
417,000,000
for
technical
Sethoxydim
in
these
species.

With
EECs
calculated
using
the
GENEEC
model,
the
RQs
for
marine/
estuarine
fish
exposed
to
technical
Sethoxydim
fell
below
the
LOC
of
0.05,
resulting
in
estimated
probability
of
individual
mortality
of

1
in
2.8
x
109.

Birds
Because
there
were
no
demonstrable
effects
in
acute
toxicity
tests
with
birds,
a
slope
cannot
be
calculated
to
use
in
estimating
the
probability
of
individual
effects
on
birds.

Mammals
Because
mortality
occurred
at
higher
doses
in
the
toxicity
test
with
mammals,
a
probit­
slope
analysis
must
be
performed
for
this
taxon.
Raw
data
are
not
provided
in
toxicity
studies
involving
laboratory
rats
and
technical
Sethoxydim
(
MRID
00045847)
or
its
formulated
product
(
MRID
00046326)
in
order
to
calculate
a
slope.
Therefore,
the
default
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
event
probability
for
mammal
LOC.
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
4.5,
the
corresponding
estimated
probability
of
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.1
is
1
in
294,038.

3.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
the
listed
organisms
by,
for
example,
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability,
altering
the
extent
of
­
67­
nesting
habitat,
creating
gaps
in
the
food
chain,
etc.

In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
used
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
listed
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.

Because
screening­
level
acute
RQs
have
been
exceeded
for
certain
taxa,
the
Agency
uses
the
dose
response
relationship
from
the
toxicity
study
used
for
calculating
the
RQ
to
estimate
the
probability
of
acute
effects
on
these
taxa
associated
with
an
exposure
equivalent
to
the
EEC.
This
information
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analysis
that
may
be
performed
using
Services­
provided
"
species
profiles"
as
well
as
evaluations
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
to
ascertain
if
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
affect"
determination
can
be
made.
The
degree
to
which
additional
analyses
are
performed
is
commensurate
with
the
predicted
probability
of
adverse
effects
from
the
comparison
of
the
dose
response
information
with
the
EECs.
The
greater
the
probability
that
exposure
will
produce
effects
on
a
taxon,
the
greater
the
concern
for
potential
indirect
effects
for
listed
species
dependent
on
that
taxon,
and
therefore,
the
more
intensive
the
analysis
on
the
potential
listed
species
of
concern,
their
locations
relative
to
the
use
site,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).

RQs
calculated
from
GENEEC­
generated
EECs
in
a
standard
pond
did
not
exceed
listed
LOC
for
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrates,
so
indirect
effects
resulting
from
losses
of
fish
in
these
environments
are
not
expected.

Chronic
LOCs
are
potentially
exceeded
for
all
birds
on
all
food
items
at
all
use
sites
until
additional
avian
chronic
data
is
made
available.
At
present,
we
have
insufficient
data
to
determine
whether
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
with
use
of
sethoxydim
on
other
crops
and/
or
in
other
avian
groups.
Therefore,
we
must
assume
a
direct
chronic
risk
to
all
listed
and
non­
listed
avian
species
where
sethoxydim
is
used.
As
a
consequence,
there
is
concern
for
indirect
effects
to
generalist
and
obligate
listed
species
dependent
on
birds,
including
mammals
and
other
birds.

LOCs
are
exceeded
for
listed
and
non­
listed
terrestrial
grass
species
(
family
Poaceae)
from
Sethoxydim
applied
by
aerial
or
irrigated
systems
and
from
runoff
to
low
semi­
aquatic
areas.
Therefore,
listed
species
in
all
taxa
depending
on
plants
that
are
exposed
in
these
scenarios
may
be
indirectly
affected.
Because
sethoxydim
is
considered
to
be
toxic
to
grasses,
listed
species
obligate
on
grasses
may
have
a
higher
likelihood
of
being
indirectly
affected
than
listed
species
that
do
not
consume
grass
or
are
plant
generalists.
Information
is
lacking
about
effects
to
aquatic
grasses,
but
additional
data
may
indicate
effects
to
aquatic
grasses,
which
will
also
have
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
depending
on
these
plants.
Further
analysis
will
be
necessary
to
confirm
this
possibility
once
these
data
are
obtained,
and
will
need
to
be
conducted
for
all
listed
taxa,
since
loss
of
plants
could
result
in
loss
of
food
resources
or
other
important
habitat
elements
or
functions
(
e.
g.,
cover
from
predators,
loss
of
breeding
and/
or
nesting
sites,
provision
of
shade
to
water
bodies,
etc.).
­
68­
Because
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds,
amphibians
and
reptiles
may
also
be
affected
by
exposure
to
Sethoxydim.
Therefore,
listed
species
that
are
dependent
on
these
taxa
may
be
indirectly
affected
by
their
loss.

The
above
are
only
general
descriptions
of
the
listed
species
that
may
be
indirectly
affected
by
applications
of
Sethoxydim.
Further
analysis
using
geographic
information
of
use
sites
and
species
occurrence
(
available
in
the
LOCATES
database),
"
species
profiles"
provided
by
the
Services
and
other
sources,
and
information
regarding
the
temporal
nature
of
Sethoxydim
applications
is
necessary
to
determine
the
true
indirect
effects
to
listed
species.

4.
Critical
Habitats
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
birds
and
terrestrial
plants.
In
light
of
the
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
falls
into,
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
the
following:
birds
and
terrestrial
plants.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary.
­
69­
D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
all
Taxa
Sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues
are
expected
to
persist
in
treated
terrestrial
and
aquatic
areas
with
half­
lives
of
about
30
days,
based
on
laboratory
studies.
There
were
eight
degradates
observed
in
the
laboratory
studies.
Two
of
these
(
the
sulfoxide
and
sulfone
of
the
parent)
were
observed
in
soil.
At
environmentally
relevant
pH
values,
the
Sethoxydim
and
degradates
will
all
be
present
to
some
degree.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
For
screening
terrestrial
risk
assessments
for
listed
species,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
is
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
pesticide
at
a
rate
commensurate
with
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
Spray
drift
model
predictions
suggest
that
this
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
filed.
For
screening
risk
assessment
purposes,
the
actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
are
not
considered,
and
it
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
treated
area
being
modeled.
This
assumption
leads
to
a
maximum
level
of
exposure
in
the
risk
characterization.

Terrestrial
EEC
are
based
on
peak
value
of
the
Kenaga
nomogram
as
modified
by
Fletcher.
The
residues
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram
are
measured
immediately
after
application.
The
peak
maximum
value
is
the
upper
limit
value
and
may
be
conservative.
Sethoxydim
is
applied
to
plants
after
crops
are
up
and
the
grasses
appear
up
to
about
30
days
or
more
prior
to
harvest.
A
variety
of
avian
populations
are
nested
in
cotton,
potato,
alfalfa,
orchards,
and
clover
fields.
The
LOC
for
avian
reproductive
impairment
is
exceeded
for
Sethoxydim
application,
and
based
on
this
timing
information,
it
is
apparent
that
wildlife
will
be
present
in
the
fields
during
the
period
of
application.

b.
Routes
of
Exposure
Screening­
level
risk
assessments
for
spray
applications
of
pesticides
consider
dietary
exposure
alone.
Other
routes
of
exposure,
not
considered
in
this
assessment,
are
discussed
below:

°
Incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure
­
This
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
incidental
soil
ingestion.
Available
data
suggests
that
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
can
consist
of
incidentally
ingested
soil
depending
on
the
species
and
feeding
strategy
(
Beyer
et
al.,
1994).

°
Inhalation
exposure
­
The
screening
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
inhalation
­
70­
exposure.
Such
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
spray
material
in
droplet
form
at
the
time
of
application
(
2)
vapor
phase
pesticide
volatilizing
from
treated
surfaces,
and
(
3)
airborne
particulate
(
soil,
vegetative
material,
and
pesticide
dusts).

°
Dermal
Exposure
­
The
screening
assessment
does
not
consider
dermal
exposure,
except
as
it
is
indirectly
included
in
calculations
of
RQs
based
on
lethal
doses
per
unit
of
pesticide
treated
area.
Dermal
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
direct
application
of
spray
to
terrestrial
wildlife
in
the
treated
area
or
within
the
drift
footprint,
(
2)
incidental
contact
with
contaminated
vegetation,
or
(
3)
contact
with
contaminated
water
or
soil.

°
Drinking
Water
Exposure
­
Drinking
water
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient
may
be
the
result
of
consumption
of
surface
water
or
consumption
of
the
pesticide
in
dew
or
other
water
on
the
surfaces
of
treated
vegetation.
For
pesticide
active
ingredients
with
a
potential
to
dissolve
in
runoff,
puddles
on
the
treated
field
may
contain
the
chemical.

c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
As
discussed
earlier
in
the
exposure
section
of
this
document,
the
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
items.
The
Agency
believes
that
these
residue
assumptions
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entire
above
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
aboveground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.

d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Differences
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
The
acute
and
chronic
characterization
of
risk
rely
on
comparisons
of
wildlife
dietary
residues
with
LC
50
or
NOAEC
values
expressed
in
concentrations
of
pesticides
in
laboratory
feed.
These
comparisons
assume
that
ingestion
of
food
items
in
the
field
occurs
at
rates
commensurate
with
those
in
the
laboratory.
Although
the
screening
assessment
process
adjusts
dry­
weight
estimates
of
food
intake
to
reflect
the
increased
mass
in
fresh­
weight
wildlife
food
intake
estimates,
it
does
not
allow
for
gross
energy
and
assimilative
efficiency
differences
between
wildlife
food
items
and
laboratory
feed.

On
gross
energy
content
alone,
direct
comparison
of
a
laboratory
dietary
concentration­
based
effects
threshold
to
a
fresh­
weight
pesticide
residue
estimate
would
result
in
an
underestimation
of
field
exposure
by
food
consumption
by
a
factor
of
1.25
­
2.5
for
most
food
items.
Only
for
seeds
would
the
direct
comparison
of
dietary
threshold
to
residue
estimate
lead
to
an
overestimate
of
­
71­
exposure.

Differences
in
assimilative
efficiency
between
laboratory
and
wild
diets
suggest
that
current
screening
assessment
methods
do
not
account
for
a
potentially
important
aspect
of
food
requirements.
Depending
upon
species
and
dietary
matrix,
bird
assimilation
of
wild
diet
energy
ranges
from
23
­
80%,
and
mammal's
assimilation
ranges
from
41
­
85%
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1993).
If
it
is
assumed
that
laboratory
chow
is
formulated
to
maximize
assimilative
efficiency
(
e.
g.,
a
value
of
85%),
a
potential
for
underestimation
of
exposure
may
exist
by
assuming
that
consumption
of
food
in
the
wild
is
comparable
with
consumption
during
laboratory
testing.
In
the
screening
process,
exposure
may
be
underestimated
because
metabolic
rates
are
not
related
to
food
consumption.

Finally,
the
screening
procedure
does
not
account
for
situations
where
the
feeding
rate
may
be
above
or
below
requirements
to
meet
free
living
metabolic
requirements.
Gorging
behavior
is
a
possibility
under
some
specific
wildlife
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
bird
migration)
where
the
food
intake
rate
may
be
greatly
increased.
Kirkwood
(
1983)
has
suggested
that
an
upper­
bound
limit
to
this
behavior
might
be
the
typical
intake
rate
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
5.

e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
to
Non­
Target
Plants
Currently
the
model
(
TerrPlant)
for
predicting
the
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
adjacent
to
application
sites
and
also
to
low­
lying
wetlands
are
based
on
the
application
rate,
method
of
application
(
aerial
or
ground),
and
the
solubility
of
the
pesticide.
Several
transport
factors
are
not
incorporated
into
the
model.
The
exposure
prediction
may
be
underestimated
or
overestimated.
The
model
also
assumes
5%
aerial
spray
drift
when
aerially
applied.
AgDrift
usually
predicts
about
10%
and
up
to
15%
spray
drift
at
the
edge
of
the
field.
The
aerial
application
EEC
in
this
risk
assessment
may
be
underestimated
if
use
based
on
5%.

f.
Data
gaps
°
The
submitted
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
studies
(
164­
1)
were
judged
to
be
unacceptable
because
total
Sethoxydim
residues,
rather
than
the
parent
compound
and
its
eight
degradates
were
analyzed.
However,
due
to
the
large
uncertainty
that
exists
for
the
degradates
of
Sethoxydim,
additional
data
needs
to
be
generated
to
lower
the
amount
of
uncertainties
on
the
fate
of
Sethoxydim.
If
the
assumption
that
the
degradates
are
equally
as
toxic
as
the
parent
is
adequate
for
risk
assessment,
then
the
studies
do
not
need
to
be
repeated.

°
Additional
information
is
needed
to
determine
if
the
submitted
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
study
(
162­
3)
is
acceptable.
There
is
uncertainty
in
this
study
that
needs
to
be
clarified.

3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Aquatic
Effects
Assessment
­
72­
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
It
is
generally
recognized
that
test
organism
age
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
observed
sensitivity
to
a
toxicant.
The
screening
risk
assessment
acute
toxicity
data
for
fish
are
collected
on
juvenile
fish
between
0.1
and
5
grams.
Aquatic
invertebrate
acute
testing
is
performed
on
recommended
immature
age
classes
(
e.
g.,
first
instar
for
daphnids,
second
instar
for
amphipods,
stoneflies
and
mayflies,
and
third
instar
for
midges).
Similarly,
acute
dietary
testing
with
birds
is
also
performed
on
juveniles,
with
mallard
being
5­
10
days
old
and
quail
10­
14
days
old.

Testing
of
juveniles
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients,
such
as
Sethoxydim,
that
act
directly
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
The
screening
risk
assessment
has
no
current
provisions
for
a
generally
applied
method
that
accounts
for
this
uncertainty.
In
so
far
as
the
available
toxicity
data
may
provide
ranges
of
sensitivity
information
with
respect
to
age
class,
the
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
conservative
screening
endpoint.

b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
Although
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested,
it
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
selected
toxicity
endpoints
reflect
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
existing
in
a
given
environment.
The
relative
position
of
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
in
the
distribution
of
all
possible
species
is
a
function
of
the
overall
variability
among
species
to
a
particular
chemical.
In
the
case
of
listed
species,
there
is
uncertainty
regarding
the
relationship
of
the
listed
species'
sensitivity
and
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.

The
Agency
is
not
limited
to
a
base
set
of
surrogate
toxicity
information
in
establishing
risk
assessment
conclusions.
The
Agency
also
considers
toxicity
data
on
non­
standard
test
species
when
available.

c.
Data
Gaps
The
following
data
gaps
were
identified
with
respect
to
the
submitted
ecotoxicity
effects
data:

°
Risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
from
spray
drift
is
underestimated
because
the
vegetative
vigor
study
was
conducted
on
the
technical
Sethoxydim
and
not
on
the
TEP
(
POAST
®
)
.

°
Risk
to
non­
target
aquatic
grass
species
can
not
be
certain
or
quantified
due
to
lack
of
data.

°
Avian
chronic
reproduction
study
did
not
achieve
a
NOAEC.
Chronic
avian
toxicity
is
underestimated.
­
73­
d.
Aquatic
Environment
Effects
Aquatic
toxicity
data
demonstrate
that
the
Sethoxydim
technical
is
less
toxic
than
the
TEP.
Comparison
of
the
TEP
toxicity
data
to
Naphthalene
toxicity
data
strongly
suggest
that
the
observed
toxicity
of
the
TEP
is
due
to
the
petroleum
solvent
alone.

The
petroleum
solvent
(
Naphthalene
log
K
ow
=
3.3)
is
more
likely
to
bioaccumulate
than
Sethoxydim
(
logK
ow
=
1.38).
This
property
is
likely
to
increase
the
petroleum
solvent's
potential
adverse
effects.

e.
Aquatic
Environment
Exposure
Exposure
to
Sethoxydim
from
terrestrial
use
can
occur
from
both
spray
drift
and
runoff.
Detailed
modeling
to
determine
which
of
these
two
routes
is
predominant
has
not
been
done;
however
Sethoxydim
is
prone
to
runoff
due
to
its
high
solubility
(
4700
ppm),
low
Kd
values,
and
low
Henry's
Law
constant
(
i.
e.,
it
tends
to
remain
in
water
rather
than
sorb
to
soil
or
evapoarate).

The
petroleum
solvent's
fate
properties
(
as
exemplified
by
Naphthalene)
differ
from
Sethoxydim
enough
that
they
are
expected
to
separate
after
application
to
a
field.
Naphthalene's
lower
solubility
(
31
ppm)
and
higher
vapor
pressure
(
0.085
mmHg)
promote
evaporation,
while
its
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
K
ow
=
3.3)
indicates
a
greater
tendency
to
sorb
to
soil.
The
higher
logK
ow
also
indicates
a
greater
tendency
to
bioaccumulate.
Thus,
we
expect
that
runoff
will
carry
Sethoxydim
to
a
greater
extent
than
it
will
carry
the
petroleum
solvent
(
i.
e.,
the
mixture
in
the
runoff
will
contain
proportionately
less
solvent
than
the
spray
mixture).

VI.
Appendices
Appendix
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
­
74­
1.
Abiotic
Processes:

161­
1
Hydrolysis
(
MRID#
41475207)

This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Hydrolysis
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
hydrolyzed
with
half­
lives
of
8.7
days
at
pH
5,
155
days
at
pH
7,
and
284
days
at
pH
8.6
in
sterile
aqueous
buffered
solutions
that
were
incubated
at
25oC
in
the
dark
for
28
days.
The
major
transformation
product
in
all
three
solutions
was,
6­[
2­(
Ethylthio)
propyl]­
4­
oxo­
2­
propyl­
4,5,6,7­
tetrahydrobenzoxazole
(
M2­
S),
which
was
a
maximum
of
81.5%
of
the
applied
at
pH
5,
9.7%
at
pH
7,
and
2.3%
at
pH
8.6
after
28
days.

Two
minor
transformation
products
observed
in
all
three
solutions
were,

!
2­(
1­
Ethoxyiminobutyl)­
5­[
2­(
ethylsulfinyl)
propyl]­
3­
hydroxycyclohex­
2­
enone
(
M­
SO),
and
!
6­[
2­(
ethylsulfinyl)
propyl]­
4­
oxo­
2­
propyl­
4,5,6,7­
tetrahydrobenzoxazole
(
M2­
SO).
Both
minor
transformation
products
were

1.3%
of
the
applied
at
all
test
intervals.

Evaluation
of
the
data
of
Sethoxydim
total
residues
shows
that
they
remain
stable
at
all
three
pH's
tested.

161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
(
MRID#
41475208)

This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Photolysis
in
Water
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
photodegraded
with
a
half
life
of
5.23
days
in
sterile
aqueous
buffered
solutions
(
pH
8.7)
at
25oC.
The
solutions
were
irradiated
with
a
xenon
light
source,
using
a
12
hour
photoperiod.
The
Sethoxydim
dark
control
did
not
degrade
significantly
during
10
days
of
incubation
in
a
similar
solution.
The
major
photolytic
transformation
product
was
2­(
1­
aminobutylidene)­
5­[
2­(
ethylthio)­
propyl]­
cyclohex­
1,3­
dione
(
M1­
S),
which
comprised
29.1%
of
the
applied
at
10
days
posttreatment.
The
parent
Sethoxydim
comprised
25.4%
of
the
applied
at
10
days.

Five
other
transformation
products
were
identified.
They
comprised
<
5.7%
of
the
applied
at
10
days
posttreatment.

Using
a
regression
analysis,
a
half­
life
of
19.8
days
was
calculated
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues.

161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
(
MRID#
41475209)
­
75­
This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Photodegradation
on
Soil
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
photodegraded
rapidly
with
an
observed
halflife
of
approximately
1
hour
on
a
sandy
loam
soil.
The
soil
was
continuously
irradiated
with
a
xenon
light
source
for
up
to
16
hours
at
25oC.
Sethoxydim
degraded
in
the
dark
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
57
hours.
The
major
transformation
product
was
(
M­
SO),
which
was
a
maximum
of
58.8%
of
the
applied
at
4
hours.

Approximately
16
other
transformation
products,
each
<
7.4%
were
also
detected
in
both
the
test
samples
and
the
dark
controls.
The
major
transformation
product
in
the
Photodegradation
in
Water
study
(
M1­
S)
was
only
a
minor
transformation
product
in
this
study
(<
3.2%).

Using
a
regression
analysis,
a
half­
life
of
20
hours
was
calculated
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues.
In
contrast,
total
residues
in
the
dark
control
remained
approximately
constant
during
the
16
hour
period,
with
total
applied
radioactivity

95.10%.

2.
Degradation:

162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
MRID#
41475210)

This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
transformed
with
a
calculated
half
life
of
less
than
one
day
in
a
sandy
loam
and
sandy
clay
loam
soils
incubated
at
25oC
and
at
75%
of
1/
3
bar
moisture
in
the
dark.

The
major
nonvolatile
transformation
product
was
(
M­
SO),
with
a
maximum
of
66.1%
and
46.6%
of
the
applied
at
2
months
in
the
sandy
loam,
and
the
sandy
clay
loam,
respectively.

Other
nonvolatile
transformation
products
observed
were:

!
6­[
2­(
Ethylsulfonyl)­
propyl]­
4­
oxo­
2­
propyl­
4,5,6,7­
tetrahydro­
benzoxazole
(
M2­
SO
2),
which
was
present
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
14.2­
15.2%
of
the
applied
at
2­
4
months
posttreatment.

!
2­(
1­
Ethoxyiminobutyl)­
5­[
2­(
ethylsulfonyl)
propyl]­
3­
hydroxycyclohex­
2­
enone
(
M­
SO
2),
which
was
present
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
8.5­
11.2%
of
the
applied
at
7
days­
1
months.

!
(
M2­
SO),
which
was
present
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
8.9­
9.9%
of
the
applied
at
1
day.

Four
other
metabolites
were
identified,
with
<
4.1%
of
the
applied.
After
12
months,
the
­
76­
major
degradate
was
14CO
2,
which
accounted
for
48.4­
58.6%
of
the
applied.

An
observed
half­
life
of
1
month
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
in
the
sandy
loam,
and
7
days
in
sandy
clay
loam
contrasts
with
the
half­
life
of
<
1
day
for
parent
Sethoxydim
under
similar
conditions.

162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
MRID#
41475211)

This
portion
of
the
study
(
Experiment
A)
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
transformed
with
half­
lives
of
11.2
days
in
sandy
loam
soil
and
>
60
days
in
sandy
clay
loam
soil
incubated
anaerobically
at
25oC
in
the
dark
for
60
days,
following
1
day
of
aerobic
incubation.
The
following
two
major
transformation
products
were
present:

!
M­
SO,
which
was
a
maximum
of
60.3%
of
the
applied
after
30
days
of
anaerobic
incubation
in
the
sandy
loam
soil,
and
58.3%
after
13
days
of
anaerobic
incubation
in
the
sandy
clay
loam
soil;
and
!
M­
SO
2,
which
comprised
5.8­
14.0%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.

Six
other
transformation
products
were
identified
at
concentrations
<
3.5%
of
the
applied.

Using
a
regression
analysis,
EFED
calculated
a
half­
life
of
91.6
days
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
in
sandy
loam
soil,
and
78
days
in
sandy
clay
loam.
Under
anaerobic
soil
conditions,
total
Sethoxydim
residues
appear
to
remain
constant.

162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
MRID#
41475211)

This
portion
of
the
study
(
Experiment
B)
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
data
requirement.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexanone­
4­
labeled)
transformed
with
half­
lives
of
25.4
and
39.9
days
in
anaerobic
sandy
loam
and
sandy
clay
loam
soils,
respectively,
that
were
incubated
in
the
dark
at
25

C
for
up
to
62
days,
following
2
months
of
anaerobic
incubation.
Two
major
transformation
products
observed
were:

!
M­
SO,
which
was
a
maximum
of
47.2%
of
the
applied
in
the
sandy
loam
soil
at
61
days
posttreatment
and
was
8.5%
at
the
same
test
interval
in
the
sandy
clay
loam
soil;
and
!
M1­
S,
which
was
a
maximum
of
21.6%
of
the
applied
at
61
days
in
the
sandy
clay
loam
soil
and
was
only

5.3%
in
the
sandy
loam
soil.

Six
other
transformation
products
were
identified
at
concentrations
<
7.0
of
the
applied.

Using
a
regression
analysis,
half­
lives
of
132­
187
days
were
calculated
for
Sethoxydim
­
77­
total
residues
in
sandy
loam
and
sandy
clay
loam
soils.
Anaerobic
aquatic
conditions
do
not
appear
to
favor
degradation
of
Sethoxydim
and
its
residues.

162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
MRID#
42165603)

This
study
is
invalid
and
cannot
be
used
to
satisfy
the
data
requirement
because
of
the
large
variation
in
the
data
points.
The
problems
associated
with
this
study
cannot
be
resolved
with
the
submission
of
additional
data;
however,
the
registrant
submitted
another
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
study,
which
was
found
to
be
acceptable
(
MRID#
41475211).
No
additional
data
are
required.

The
pattern
of
decline
of
Sethoxydim
was
variable.
In
the
clay
loam
soil:
water
system,
Sethoxydim
was
an
average
of
79.6%
immediately
posttreatment,
16.5%
at
0.5
months,
34.2%
at
1
month,
and
then
showed
a
regular
pattern
of
decline.
There
was
also
a
high
variability
between
replicates;
for
example,
the
Sethoxydim
concentrations
in
the
clay
loam
soil
replicates
were
1.8%
and
31.2%
at
0.5
months,
and
28.4%
and
40.1%
at
1
month.
In
the
clay
soil,
Sethoxydim
was
an
average
of
76.1%
immediately
posttreatment,
24.3%
at
0.5
months,
13.2%
at
1
month,
24.6%
at
2
months,
26.0%
at
3
months,
and
then
showed
a
regular
pattern
of
decline.
The
Sethoxydim
concentrations
in
the
replicates
of
this
soil
were
0.9%
and
47.6%
at
0.5
months.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone
ring
labeled)
transformed
with
registrant­
calculated
half­
lives
of
2.5
­
2.6
months
in
clay
loam
soil:
water
and
clay
soil:
water
systems
(
20:
40)
that
were
incubated
anaerobically
at
25oC
in
the
dark.

162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
MRID#
42165604)

This
study
cannot
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
data
requirement
at
this
time
because
the
floodwater
was
incompletely
characterized.
The
only
properties
of
the
floodwater
that
were
provided
include
the
pH
and
approximate
site
of
origin.
This
study
may
be
upgraded
by
the
submission
of
additional
data.
In
order
to
meet
the
Subdivision
N
Guidelines,
and
fulfill
the
data
requirement,
the
registrant
should
provide
the
exact
site
of
origin
of
the
floodwater
and
additional
characteristics,
such
as
dissolved
oxygen,
total
hardness,
temperature,
and
alkalinity.

[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
transformed
rapidly
with
registrantcalculated
half­
lives
of
0.7­
1.0
days
in
clay
loam:
water
and
clay
soil:
water
systems
that
were
incubated
aerobically
at
25+
1oC
in
the
dark
for
up
to
28
days.
The
major
part
of
the
radioactivity
was
found
in
the
floodwater.
The
major
observed
transformation
products
were:

!
M­
SO,
which
was
a
maximum
at
4
days
in
both
soils,
with
58.5­
63.3%
of
the
applied
radioactivity;
and
!
M­
SO
2,
which
was
a
maximum
at
28
days
in
both
soils,
with
16.9­
23.4%
of
the
applied.

Six
other
minor
transformation
products
were
identified,
with

5.1%
of
the
applied
­
78­
radioactivity.
14CO
2
accounted
for
>
15.4%
of
the
applied
at
the
end
of
the
study
(
28
days).

Using
a
regression
analysis,
a
half­
life
of
38.1
days
was
calculated
for
Sethoxydim
total
residues
in
clay
loam
soil
and
32.9
days
in
the
clay
soil.
These
values
contrast
with
the
corresponding
half­
lives
of
0.7­
1.0
days
for
parent
Sethoxydim.

3.
Mobility:

163­
1
Mobility
­
Leaching
and
Adsorption/
Desorption
(
MRID#
41475212)

This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
satisfy
the
Mobility
­
Leaching
and
Adsorption/
Desorption
data
requirement.
However,
EFED
has
concerns
about
the
sterilization
method
(
autoclaving)
used
for
some
of
the
soils.
Physical
or
chemical
sterilization
of
the
soils
(
such
as
autoclaving
or
use
of
sodium
azide)
may
alter
the
soil
characteristics,
complicating
the
interpretation
of
the
results
obtained.
In
this
case,
though,
the
study
results
support
the
K
ads
values
which
show
that
Sethoxydim
is
mobile.

Based
on
a
review
of
batch
equilibrium
studies,
the
following
conclusions
were
made:

!
[
14C]­
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexenone­
4­
labeled)
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
sandy
clay
loam,
silt
loam,
and
clay
loam
sterile
(
autoclaved)
soils.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.03­
0.94,
while
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
1.52­
4.21.

!
The
transformation
product
M­
SO
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
sandy
clay
loam,
and
silt
loam
sterile
(
autoclaved)
soils.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.02­
0.17,
while
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
0.20­
12.80.

!
The
transformation
product
M­
SO
2
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
sandy
clay
loam,
and
silt
loam
sterile
(
autoclaved)
soils.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.02­
0.13,
while
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
1.67­
9.54.

!
The
transformation
product
M
2­
SO
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
and
sandy
clay
loam,
and
mobile
in
silt
loam
and
clay
loam
sterile
(
autoclaved)
soils.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.06­
9.12,
while
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
0.80­
16.78.

!
The
transformation
product
M
2­
SO
2
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
and
sandy
clay
loam,
and
mobile
in
silt
loam
and
clay
loam
sterile
(
autoclaved)
soils.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.12­
8.43.
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
0.27­
14.54.
M
2­
SO
2
was
determined
to
be
very
mobile
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
sandy
clay
loam,
and
silt
loam
soil,
and
mobile
in
clay
loam
nonsterile
soil.
Freundlich
K
ads
values
were
0.14­
9.03.
Freundlich
K
des
values
were
0.22­
21.61.
­
79­
4.
Field
Dissipation:

164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID#'
s
41510608
and
41510609,
and
41510610)

These
studies
cannot
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
data
requirement
(
164­
1)
because
the
registrant
analyzed
total
residues
instead
of
analyzing
the
parent
and
the
individual
transformation
products
formed
in
the
field.
In
addition,
the
analytical
method
was
not
completely
described;
the
samples
were
air
dried
for
7­
12
days
prior
to
homogenization,
which
may
have
allowed
for
additional
degradation
of
the
residues;
and
freezer
storage
stability
data
were
not
provided
for
the
entire
storage
period.

According
to
the
Environmental
Fate
Pesticide
Rejection
Rate
Analysis
(
September
1993),
a
"
common
moiety"
method
of
analysis
may
be
acceptable
in
some
cases
­­­
for
those
pesticides
and
their
transformation
products
that
have
been
shown
in
the
laboratory
to
be
of
little
or
no
toxicological/
ecotoxicological
concern,
relatively
immobile,
and
not
persistent.
Even
though
parent
Sethoxydim
does
not
appear
to
be
very
persistent,
its
transformation
products
appear
to
be
more
persistent
and
very
mobile
under
laboratory
conditions.
In
the
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies,
Sethoxydim
transformation
products
were
found
to
be
persistent
but
their
mobility
was
not
evident.

Another
aspect
of
the
total
residue
method
used
is
that
the
exposure
assessment
must
be
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
greatest
exposure
is
to
the
most
toxic
residue.
The
transformation
products
identified
for
Sethoxydim
constitute
rearrangements
of
the
same
basic
backbone
rather
than
true
transformation
products.

According
to
the
Hydrolysis
(
MRID#
41475207),
the
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
MRID#
41475210),
the
Soil
Photolysis
(
MRID#
41475209),
and
other
available
laboratory
studies,
Sethoxydim
transforms
to
major
products,
such
as
M2­
S
and
M­
SO,
which
appear
to
persist
over
a
long
period
of
time.
Those
transformation
products,
that
are
found
at
higher
than
10%
of
the
applied
in
the
laboratory
studies,
should
be
identified
in
field
studies.
The
total
residue
method
as
a
primary
method
is
not
acceptable
since
it
does
not
provide
an
accurate
calculation
of
the
halflives
or
an
identification
of
the
transformation
products
under
field
conditions.

Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
with
a
half­
life
of
approximately
32
days
in
a
loamy
sand
soil
planted
with
cotton
in
California
after
three
applications
of
Sethoxydim
at
0.5
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
0­
to
6­
inch
soil
layer,
Sethoxydim
residues
decreased
from
an
average
of
0.097
ppm
immediately
after
the
third
treatment
to
0.051­
0.066
ppm
between
1
and
14
days
posttreatment
and
0.018­
0.036
ppm
between
61
and
98
days.

In
another
study,
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
with
a
half­
life
of
about
32
days
in
a
soil
with
a
forage
crop
in
California
after
two
applications
of
Sethoxydim
at
0.5
lb
ai/
A
plus
one
application
at
0.3
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
0­
to
6­
inch
soil
layer,
an
average
of
0.096
ppm
was
detected
at
1
day
post­
treatment,
0.052­
0.060
ppm
was
detected
between
3
and
14
days,
and
0.013­
0.026
ppm
was
detected
at
60­
181
days
post­
treatment.
In
both
studies,
Sethoxydim
residues
did
not
­
80­
appear
to
leach
into
soil
below
the
0
to
6­
inch
depth.
However,
it
is
quite
possible
that
the
residues
were
present
but
were
not
detected.

164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID#
42165605)

This
study
is
supplemental
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
data
requirement
(
164­
2)
if
the
registrant
submits
additional
details
about
the
analytical
methodology
(
refer
to
DER).

In
this
study,
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
with
registrant­
calculated
half­
lives
of
1
­
9
days
in
the
floodwater
of
rice
paddies,
following
a
postemergence
application
of
Sethoxydim
at
0.1875
lb
ai/
A
in
California,
Mississippi,
and
Louisiana.
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipated
with
registrant­
calculated
half­
lives
of
10
­
13
days
in
the
soil
of
rice
paddies,
following
a
postemergence
application
of
Sethoxydim
at
0.1875
lb
ai/
A
to
nonflooded
rice
paddies
in
Mississippi
and
Louisiana
that
were
subsequently
flooded
4­
5
days
after
application.
Sethoxydim
residues
were
detected
in
the
0­
to
6­
inch
soil
layer
in
both
the
flooded
and
the
nonflooded
paddies.
When
applied
to
flooded
paddies,
most
of
the
Sethoxydim
residues
remained
in
the
floodwater.
When
applied
to
the
soil
prior
to
flooding,
there
were
no
detectable
Sethoxydim
residues
in
the
water
samples.

5.
Accumulation:

165­
4
Bioaccumulation
in
Fish
(
MRID#
42118001)

This
study
is
acceptable
and
can
be
used
to
fulfill
the
Bioaccumulation
in
Fish
data
requirement.

Sethoxydim
has
a
low
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
K
ow=
45.1),
which
would
predict
relatively
little
bioaccumulation.
[
14C]
Sethoxydim
(
cyclohexane­
4­
labeled)
residues
accumulated
in
bluegill
sunfish
exposed
to
2.33
mg/
L
of
[
14C]
Sethoxydim,
with
mean
bioconcentration
factors
of
7X,
25X,
and
21X
for
edible,
nonedible,
and
whole
fish
tissues,
respectively.
Depuration
was
rapid
with
a
registrant­
calculated
half­
life
of
3.6
days.
By
day
7
of
the
depuration
period,
>
86%
of
the
accumulated
[
14C]
residues
were
eliminated.
Edible
and
nonedible
fish
tissues
were
found
to
contain
the
major
rearrangement
product
M­
SO.

165­
3
Request
for
a
Waiver
of
the
Accumulation
in
Irrigated
Crops
Data
Requirement
The
registrant
requested
a
waiver
of
the
Accumulation
in
Irrigated
Crops
(
165­
3)
data
requirement.
EFED
concurs
with
the
waiver
request,
based
on
the
following
facts:

!
The
proposed
label
prohibits
use
of
water
from
rice
cultivation
to
irrigate
crops
used
for
food
or
feed
unless
the
product
is
registered
for
use
on
those
crops.
­
81­
!
Based
on
laboratory
studies,
Sethoxydim
shows
low
to
moderate
persistence
in
aquatic
media
(
half­
lives:
9­
284
days
for
hydrolysis,
5
days
for
photodegradation
in
water,
<
1.0
day
for
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism,
and
25­
40
days
for
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism).

!
Results
of
the
aquatic
field
dissipation
studies
indicate
that
total
(
uncharacterized)
Sethoxydim
residues
dissipate
with
half­
lives
of
1­
13
days.

201­
1
and
2
Spray
Drift
No
specific
spray
drift
studies
for
Sethoxydim
were
reviewed.
Droplet
size
spectrum
(
201­
1)
and
drift
field
evaluation
(
202­
1)
studies
were
required
since
the
different
products
may
be
applied
by
aircraft
and
because
of
a
concern
for
potential
risk
to
nontarget
aquatic
organisms.
However,
to
satisfy
these
requirements
the
registrant
in
conjunction
with
other
registrants
of
other
pesticide
active
ingredients
formed
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
(
SDTF).
The
SDTF
has
completed
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
its
series
of
studies
which
are
intended
to
characterize
spray
droplet
drift
potential
due
to
various
factors,
including
application
methods,
application
equipment,
meteorological
conditions,
crop
geometry,
and
droplet
characteristics.
During
1997,
EPA
plans
to
evaluate
these
studies.
In
the
interim
and
for
this
assessment
of
Sethoxydim,
the
Agency
is
relying
on
previously
submitted
spray
drift
data
and
the
open
literature
for
off­
target
drift
rates.
The
rates
are
1%
of
the
applied
spray
volume
from
ground
applications
and
5%
from
aerial
applications
at
100
feet
downwind.
After
its
review
of
the
new
studies
the
Agency
will
determine
whether
a
reassessment
is
warranted
of
the
potential
risks
from
the
application
of
Sethoxydim
to
nontarget
organisms.
­
82­
Appendix
B
Summary
of
Public
Literature
from
ECOTOX
database
A
search
of
the
open
literature
for
effects
of
Sethoxydim
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
was
performed
using
the
ECOTOX
(
2004)
database.
ECOTOX
is
a
compilation
of
single
chemical
toxicity
effects
data
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
from
three
Agency
databases
(
AQUIRE,
TERRTOX,
and
PHYTOTOX).
This
was
searched
for
records
of
Sethoxydim.
The
results
of
the
search
is
found
below.

SETHOXIDIM
Papers
that
Were
Accepted
for
ECOTOX
from
initial
EFED
screening
but
rejected
by
reviewer
Reasons
for
not
using
study
­
effects
not
relevant
for
ecological
risk
assessment.

1.
Agnello,
A.
M.,
Bradley,
J.
R.
Jr.,
and
Van
Duyn,
J.
W.
(
1986).
Plant­
Mediated
Effects
of
Postemergence
Herbicides
on
Epilachna
varivestis
(
Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae).
Environ.
Entomol.
15:
216­
220;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
REP,
GRO,
BEH.

3.
BASF
Corp
(
1992).
Initial
Submission:
Teratology
Study
of
2­(
N­
Ethoxybutrmidoyl)­
5­(
2­
ethoxythiopropyl)­
3­
hydroxy­
2­
cyclohexen­
1­
one
in
Rabbits
with
Cover
Letter
Dated
052692.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
88­
920003069
51
p.;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
MOR,
REP.

4.
Bing,
A.
and
Macksel,
M.
(
1984).
Postemergence
Applications
of
Fluazifop­
Butyl
and
Sethoxydim
on
Azaleas.
Proc.
Northeast.
Weed
Sci.
Soc.
38:
251­
252;
Habitat:
T
23.
Fedtke,
C.
(
1991).
Mode
of
Action
Studies
with
Mefenacet.
Pestic.
Sci.
33:
421­
426;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
GRO.

24.
Fedtke,
C.
(
1987).
Physiological
Activity
Spectra
of
Existing
Graminicides
and
the
New
Herbicide
2­(
2­
Benzothiazolyl­
oxy)­
N­
Methyl­
N­
Phenylactamide
(
Mefenacet).
Weed
Res.
27:
221­
228;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
GRO.

27.
Gealy,
D.
R.
and
Slife,
F.
W.
(
1983).
BAS
9052
Effects
on
Leaf
Photosynthesis
and
Growth.
Weed
Sci.
31:
457­
461;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
CEL,
GRO.

48.
NISSO
Institute
for
Life
Science
(
1992).
Supplement:
Teratogenicity
Study
of
2­(
N­
Ethoxybutyrimidoyl)­
5­(
2­
Ethylthiopropyl)­
3­
Hydroxy­
2­
Cyclohexen­
1­
One
in
Rats
with
Attachment.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
89­
920000261
29
p.;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
REP,
GRO.

60.
Singh,
K.
(
1971).
Effect
of
2,4­
D
and
Simazine
on
Total
Bacteria,
Fungi,
Azotobacter,
Ammonification
and
Nitrification
Under
Field
Conditions.
Pesticides
(
Bombay)
6:
14­
17;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
BCM.

68.
Waldrop,
D.
D.
and
Banks,
P.
A.
(
1983).
Interactions
of
Herbicides
with
Insecticides
in
Soybeans.
Weed
Sci.
31:
730­
734;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
PHY,
POP.

73.
Yueh,
L.
Y.
and
Hensley,
D.
L.
(
1993).
Pesticide
Effect
on
Acetylene
Reduction
and
Nodulation
by
Soybean
and
Lima
Bean.
J.
Am.
Soc.
Hortic.
Sci.
118:
73­
76;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
BCM,
PHY.

7.
Forschler,
B.
T.,
All,
J.
N.,
and
Gardner,
W.
A.
(
1990).
Steinernema
feltiae
Activity
and
Infectivity
in
Response
to
Herbicide
Exposure
in
Aqueous
and
Soil
Environments.
J.
Invertebr.
Pathol.
55:
375­
379;
Habitat:
AT;
Effect
Codes:
MOR.
­
83­
Reasons
for
not
using
study
­
efficacy
study.

2.
Banks,
P.
A.
and
Tripp,
T.
N.
(
1983).
Control
of
Johnsongrass
(
Sorghum
halepense)
in
Soybeans
(
Glycine
max)
with
Foliar­
Applied
Herbicides.
Weed
Sci.
31:
628­
633;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
MOR,
POP,
GRO.

6.
Bonanno,
A.
R.,
Monaco,
T.
J.,
and
Hammett,
L.
K.
(
1986).
Sweet
Potato
Transplant
Production
As
Influenced
by
Herbicide
Applications
the
Previous
Season.
Hortscience
21:
1351­
1353;
Habitat:
T
7.
Buhler,
D.
D.
and
Burnside,
O.
C.
(
1984).
Herbicidal
Activity
of
Fluazifop­
Butyl,
Haloxyfop­
Methyl,
and
Sethoxydim
in
Soil.
Weed
Sci.
32:
824­
831;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP,
GRO,
MOR.

10.
Byrd,
J.
D.
Jr.
and
York,
A.
C.
(
1988).
Interactions
of
Carbaryl
and
Dimethoate
with
Sethoxydim.
Weed
Technol.
2:
433­
436;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

11.
Calkins,
J.
B.,
Swanson,
B.
T.,
and
Newman,
D.
L.
(
1996).
Weed
Control
Strategies
for
Field
Grown
Herbaceous
Perennials.
J.
Environ.
Hortic.
14:
221­
227;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
MOR.

12.
Campbell,
J.
R.
and
Penner,
D.
(
1982).
Compatibility
of
Diclofop
and
BAS
9052
with
Bentazon.
Weed
Sci.
30:
458­
462;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
PHY,
POP.

13.
Coffman,
C.
B.,
Frank,
J.
R.,
and
Gentner,
W.
A.
(
1984).
Sethoxydim
(
Poast)
and
Oxyfluorfen
(
Goal)
Efficacy
and
Tolerance
by
Landscape
Plants.
J
Envir
Hor
2:
120­
122;
Habitat:
T
14.
Conte,
E.,
Leandri,
A.,
Imbroglini,
G.,
and
Galli,
M.
(
1989).
Residues
of
Herbicides
Applied
to
Broad
Bean.
Meded.
Fac.
Landbouwwet.
Rijksuniv.
Gent
54:
171­
180;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
ACC.

15.
Corkern,
C.
B.,
Jordan,
D.
L.,
Griffin,
J.
L.,
Vidrine,
P.
R.,
Williams,
B.
J.,
and
Reynolds,
D.
B.
(
1999).
Influence
of
Adjuvants
on
Interactions
of
Sethoxydim
with
Selected
Broadleaf
Herbicides
Used
in
Corn
(
Zea
mays).
Weed
Technol.
13:
821­
824;
Habitat:
T
16.
Davidson,
C.
G.,
Wyse,
D.
L.,
and
McGraw,
R.
L.
(
1985).
Quackgrass
(
Agropyron
repens)
Control
and
Establishment
of
Three
Forage
Legumes
with
Three
Selective
Herbicides.
Weed
Sci.
33:
376­
380;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

17.
Dekker,
J.
H.
and
Chandler,
K.
(
1985).
Herbicide
Effect
on
the
Viability
of
Quackgrass
(
Agropyron
repens)
Rhizome
Buds.
Can.
J.
Plant
Sci.
65:
1057­
1064;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
POP.

18.
Derr,
J.
F.,
Monaco,
T.
J.,
and
Sheets,
T.
J.
(
1985).
Response
of
Three
Annual
Grasses
to
Fluazifop.
Weed
Sci.
33:
693­
697;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR.

19.
Dickens,
R.,
Sharpe,
S.
S.,
and
Turner,
D.
L.
(
1989).
Herbicide
Effects
on
Tensile
Strength
and
Rooting
of
Zoysiagrass
Sod.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
2:
369­
373;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
PHY.

20.
Donald,
W.
W.
(
1998).
Estimating
Relative
Crop
Yield
Loss
Resulting
from
Herbicide
Damage
Using
Crop
Ground
Cover
or
Rated
Stunting,
with
Maize
and
Sethoxydim
as
a
Case
Study.
Weed
Res.
38:
425­
431;
Habitat:
T
21.
Ennis,
B.
G.
and
Ashley,
R.
A.
(
1984).
Effect
of
Nitrogen
Fertility
Levels
on
Crabgrass
Control
by
Several
Postemergence
Herbicides.
Proc.
Northeast.
Weed
Sci.
Soc.
38:
133­
135;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

25.
Frans,
R.,
Mcclelland,
M.,
Jordan,
D.,
and
Carey,
F.
(
1991).
Herbicide
Trials
on
Field
Crops
1990.
­
84­
Ark.
Agric.
Exp.
Stn.
Res.
Ser.
1­
88;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
PHY.

26.
Friesen,
G.
H.
and
Wall,
D.
A.
(
1986).
Tolerance
of
Lentil
(
Lens
culinaris
Medik.)
to
Herbicides.
Can.
J.
Plant
Sci.
66:
131­
140;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
POP.

29.
Glaze,
N.
C.
(
1988).
Weed
Control
in
Direct­
Seeded
Tomato,
Lycopersicon
esculentum
for
Transplants.
Weed
Technol.
2:
333­
337;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
PHY.

30.
Glaze,
N.
C.
and
Hall,
M.
R.
(
1990).
Cultivation
and
Herbicides
for
Weed
Control
in
Sweet
Potato
(
Ipomoea
batatas).
Weed
Technol.
4:
518­
523;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

31.
Grichar,
W.
J.,
Colburn,
A.
E.,
and
Kearney,
N.
S.
(
1994).
Herbicides
for
Reduced
Tillage
Production
in
Peanut
(
Arachis
hypogaea)
in
the
Southwest.
Weed
Technol.
8:
212­
216;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

32.
Griffin,
J.
L.
and
Harger,
T.
J.
(
1990).
Red
Rice
(
Oryza
sativa)
Control
Options
in
Soybeans
(
Glycine
max).
Weed
Technol.
4:
35­
38;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

33.
Griffin,
J.
L.
and
Harger,
T.
R.
(
1986).
Red
Rice
(
Oryza
sativa)
and
Jungle
Rice
(
Echinochloa
colonum)
Control
in
Solid­
Seeded
Soybeans
(
Glycine
max).
Weed
Sci.
34:
582­
586;
Habitat:
T
34.
Harker,
K.
N.
and
Vanden
Born,
W.
H.
(
1997).
Glyphosate
or
Sethoxydim
for
Quackgrass
(
Elytrigia
repens)
Control
in
Two
Tillage
Regimes.
Weed
Sci.
45:
812­
823;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

35.
Hartzler,
R.
G.
and
Foy,
C.
L.
(
1983).
Compatibility
of
BAS
9052
OH
with
Acifluorfen
and
Bentazon.
Weed
Sci.
31:
597­
599;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

36.
Hartzler,
R.
G.
and
Foy,
C.
L.
(
1983).
Efficacy
of
3
Postemergence
Grass
Herbicides
for
Soybeans.
Weed
Sci.
31:
557­
561;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

37.
Hicks,
C.
P.
and
Jordan,
T.
N.
(
1984).
Response
of
Bermudagrass
(
Cynodon
dactylon),
Quackgrass
(
Agropyron
repens),
and
Wirestem
Muhly
(
Muhlenbergia
frondosa)
to
Postemergence
Grass
Herbicides.
Weed
Sci.
32:
835­
841;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
GRO.

38.
Hosaka,
H.,
Inaba,
H.,
and
Ishikawa,
H.
(
1984).
Response
of
Monocotyledons
to
BAS
9052.
Weed
Sci.
32:
28­
32;
Habitat:
T
39.
Kim,
D.
G.
and
Riggs,
R.
D.
(
1998).
Effects
of
Some
Pesticides
on
the
Growth
of
ARF18
and
Its
Pathogenicity
to
Heterodera
glycines.
J.
Nematol.
30:
201­
205;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
GRO.

40.
Kleppe,
C.
D.
and
Harvey,
R.
G.
(
1991).
Postemergence­
Directed
Herbicides
Control
Wild­
Proso
Millet
(
Panicum
miliaceum)
in
Sweet
Corn
(
Zea
mays).
Weed
Technol.
5:
746­
752;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

41.
Krausz,
R.
F.,
Kapusta,
G.,
and
Matthews,
J.
L.
(
1995).
Evaluation
of
Band
vs.
Broadcast
Herbicide
Applications
in
Corn
and
Soybean.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
8:
380­
384;
Habitat:
T
42.
Kucey,
R.
M.
N.,
Chaiwanakupt,
P.,
Arayangkool,
T.,
Snitwongse,
P.,
Siripaibool,
C.,
Wadisirisuk,
P.,
and
Boonkerd,
N.
(
1988).
Nitrogen
Fixation
(
15N
Dilution)
with
Soybeans
Under
Thai
Field
Conditions.
II.
Effect
of
Herbicides
and
Water
Application
Schedule.
Plant
Soil
108:
87­
92;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

43.
Kwon,
S.
L.,
Smith,
R.
J.
Jr.,
and
Talbert,
R.
E.
(
1991).
Red
Rice
(
Oryza
sativa)
Control
and
Suppression
in
Rice
(
O.
sativa).
Weed
Technol.
5:
811­
816;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
PHY.
­
85­
44.
Malik,
N.
and
Waddington,
J.
(
1990).
Alfalfa
(
Medicago
sativa)
Seed
Yield
Response
to
Herbicides.
Weed
Technol
4:
63­
67;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
REP,
PHY,
POP.

45.
Matysiak,
R.
and
Nalewaja,
J.
D.
(
1999).
Salt
and
Temperature
Effects
on
Sethoxydim
Spray
Deposit
and
Efficacy.
Weed
Technol.
13:
334­
340;
Habitat:
T
46.
Matysiak,
R.
and
Nalewaja,
J.
D.
(
1999).
Temperature,
Adjuvants,
and
UV
Light
Affect
Sethoxydim
Phytotoxicity.
Weed
Technol.
13:
94­
99;
Habitat:
T
47.
Mt.
Pleasant,
J.,
McCollum,
R.
E.,
and
Coble,
H.
D.
(
1990).
Weed
Population
Dynamics
and
Weed
Control
in
the
Peruvian
Amazon.
Agron.
J.
82:
102­
112;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

49.
Noldin,
J.
A.,
Chandler,
J.
M.,
Ketchersid,
M.
L.,
and
McCauley,
G.
N.
(
1999).
Red
Rice
(
Oryza
sativa)
Biology.
II.
Ecotype
Sensitivity
to
Herbicides.
Weed
Technol.
13:
19­
24;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

50.
Parker,
W.
B.,
Thompson,
L.
Jr.,
and
Godley,
F.
M.
(
1985).
Integrating
Sethoxydim
into
Soybean
(
Glycine
max)
Weed
Management
Systems.
Weed
Sci.
33:
100­
108;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

51.
Penner,
D.,
Leep,
R.
H.,
Roggenbuck,
F.
C.,
and
Lempke,
J.
R.
(
1993).
Herbicide
Efficacy
and
Tolerance
in
Sweet
White
Lupin.
7:
42­
46;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

53.
Rice,
R.
P.
J.,
Lewis,
G.,
and
Harrell,
K.
(
1985).
Potential
of
Fusilade,
POAST
®
and
CGA
82725
for
Control
of
Weedy
Grasses
in
Woody
Nursery
Crops
and
Ground
Covers.
J.
Environ.
Hortic.
3:
28­
32;
Habitat:
T
56.
Scott,
R.
C.,
Shaw,
D.
R.,
O'Neal,
W.
B.,
and
Klingaman,
T.
D.
(
1998).
Spray
Adjuvant,
Formulation
and
Environmental
Effects
on
Synergism
from
Post­
Applied
Tank
Mixtures
of
SAN
582H
with
Fluazifop­
P,
Imazethapyr,
and
Sethoxydim.
Weed
Technol.
12:
463­
469;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

57.
Scott,
R.
C.,
Shaw,
D.
R.,
and
Ratliff,
R.
L.
(
1998).
Effect
of
SAN
582
on
Sethoxydim
Efficacy
in
Johnsongrass
(
Sorghum
halepense)
and
Soybean
(
Glycine
max).
Weed
Sci.
46:
2­
7;
Habitat:
T
58.
Scott,
R.
C.,
Shaw,
D.
R.,
Ratliff,
R.
L.,
and
Newsom,
L.
J.
(
1998).
Synergism
of
Grass
Weed
Control
with
Postemergence
Combinations
of
SAN
582
and
Fluazifop­
P,
Imazethapyr,
or
Sethoxydim.
Weed
Technol.
12:
268­
274;
Habitat:
T
59.
Singh,
H.,
Kolar,
J.
S.,
and
Gupta,
R.
P.
(
1995).
The
Effect
of
Pre­
emergence
Applied
Herbicides
on
the
Symbiotic
Parameters
and
Seed
Yield
of
Soybean
(
Glycine
max
(
L.)
Merrill).
Int.
J.
Trop.
Agric.
13:
143­
150;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
BCM,
PHY.

61.
Singh,
M.
and
Chandel,
A.
S.
(
1995).
Effect
of
Weed­
Control
Method
on
Soybean
(
Glycine
max).
Indian
J.
Agron.
40:
55­
58;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

62.
Smith,
A.
E.
(
1989).
Herbicides
for
Killing
Tall
Fescue
(
Festuca
arundinacea)
Infected
with
Fescue
Endophyte
(
Acremonium
coenophialum).
Weed
Technol.
3:
485­
489;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

63.
Stoltenberg,
D.
E.
and
Wyse,
D.
L.
(
1986).
Regrowth
of
Quackgrass
(
Agropyron
repens)
Following
Postemergence
Applications
of
Haloxyfop
and
Sethoxydim.
Weed
Sci.
34:
664­
668;
Habitat:
T
64.
Stout,
W.
L.,
Byers,
R.
A.,
Leath,
K.
T.,
Bahler,
C.
C.,
and
Hoffman,
L.
D.
(
1992).
Effects
of
Weed
and
Invertebrate
Control
on
Alfalfa
Establishment
in
Oat
Stubble.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
5:
349­
352;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
BEH,
POP,
GRO.
­
86­
65.
Talbert,
R.
E.,
Tierney,
M.
J.,
Burgos,
N.
R.,
Strebe,
T.
A.,
Curless,
J.
K.,
and
Miesner,
J.
(
1996).
Field
Evaluations
of
Herbicides
on
Small
Fruit
Vegetable
and
Ornamental
Crops
1995.
Ark.
Agric.
Exp.
Stn.
Res.
Ser.
1­
38;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

66.
Turner,
D.
L.,
Sharpe,
S.
S.,
and
Dickens,
R.
(
1990).
Herbicide
Effects
of
Tensile
Strength
and
Rooting
of
Centipedegrass
Sod.
Hortscience
25:
541­
544;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

67.
Waldecker,
M.
A.
and
Wyse,
D.
L.
(
1984).
Quackgrass
(
Agropyron
repens)
Control
in
Soybeans
(
Glycine
max)
with
BAS
9052
OH,
KK­
80,
and
Ro­
13­
8895.
Weed
Sci.
32:
67­
75;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
GRO.

70.
Westra,
P.,
Wilson,
R.
G.,
and
Zimdahl,
R.
L.
(
1990).
Wild­
Proso
Millet
(
Panicum
miliaceum)
Control
in
Central
Great
Plains
Irrigated
Corn
(
Zea
mays).
Weed
Technol.
4:
409­
414;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

71.
Young,
B.
G.
and
Hart,
S.
E.
(
1997).
Giant
Foxtail
(
Setaria
faberi)
Control
in
Sethoxydim­
Resistant
Corn
(
Zea
mays).
Weed
Sci.
45:
771­
776;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

72.
Young,
B.
G.
and
Hart,
S.
E.
(
1999).
Woolly
Cupgrass
Management
in
Sethoxydim­
Resistant
Corn.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
12:
225­
228;
Habitat:
T
1.
Agnello,
A.
M.,
Van
Duyn,
J.
W.,
and
Bradley,
J.
R.
Jr.
(
1986).
Influence
of
Postemergence
Herbicides
on
Populations
of
Bean
Leaf
Beetle,
Cerotoma
trifurcata
(
Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae)
and
Corn
Earworm,
Heliothis
zea
(
Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae),
in
Soybeans.
J.
Econ.
Entomol.
79:
261­
265;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

2.
Almeida,
F.
S.,
Oliveira,
V.
F.,
and
Filho,
J.
M.
(
1983).
Selective
Control
of
Grass
Weeds
in
Soybeans
with
Some
Recently
Developed
Postemergence
Herbicides.
Trop.
Pest
Manag.
29:
261­
266;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes
:
POP,
PHY,
GRO.

3.
Cisar,
J.
L.
and
Jagschitz,
J.
A.
(
1984).
Postemergence
Control
of
Smooth
Crabgrass
in
Lawn
Turf.
Proc.
Northeast.
Weed
Sci.
Soc.
38:
276­
280;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
POP.

8.
Hawton,
D.,
Johnson,
I.
D.
G.,
Loch,
D.
S.,
Harvey,
G.
L.,
Marley,
J.,
Hazard,
W.
H.
L.,
Bibo,
J.,
and
Walker,
S.
R.
(
1990).
A
Guide
to
the
Susceptibility
of
Some
Tropical
Crop
and
Pasture
Weeds
and
the
Tolerance
of
Some
Crop
Legumes
to
Several
Herbicides.
Trop.
Pest
Manag.
36:
147­
150;
Habitat:
T
9.
Hawton,
D.,
Johnson,
I.
D.
G.,
Loch,
D.
S.,
Harvey,
G.
L.,
Marley,
J.
M.
T.,
Hazard,
W.
H.
L.,
Bibo,
J.,
and
Walker,
S.
R.
(
1990).
A
Guide
to
the
Susceptibility
of
Some
Tropical
Crop
and
Pasture
Weeds
and
the
Tolerance
of
Some
Crop
Legumes
to
Several
Herbicides.
Trop.
Pest
Manag.
36:
147­
150;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

10.
Levene,
B.
C.,
Owen,
M.
D.
K.,
and
Tylka,
G.
L.
(
1998).
Response
of
Soybean
Cyst
Nematodes
and
Soybeans
(
Glycine
max)
to
Herbicides.
Weed
Sci.
46:
264­
270;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
REP,
BCM.

11.
Murphy,
H.
J.
and
Morrow,
L.
S.
(
1984).
Effect
of
Fluazifop­
Butyl
and
Sethoxydim
for
Grass
Control
in
Maine
Potatoes.
Proc.
Northeast.
Weed
Sci.
Soc.
38:
139­
142;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
MOR,
PHY,
POP.

14.
Oloumi­
Sadeghi,
H.,
Zavaleta,
L.
R.,
Lamp,
W.
O.,
Armbrust,
E.
J.,
and
Kapusta,
G.
(
1987).
Interactions
of
the
Potato
Leafhopper
Homoptera
Cicadellida
with
Weeds
in
an
Alfalfa
Ecosystem.
Environ.
Entomol.
16:
1175­
1180;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

15.
Talbert,
R.
E.,
Johnson,
D.
H.,
Wichert,
R.
A.,
and
Kendig,
J.
A.
(
1987).
Field
Evaluations
of
Herbicides
on
­
87­
Small
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Crops,
1987.
Ark.
Agric.
Exp.
Stn.
Res.
Ser.
1­
25;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP.

16.
Talbert,
R.
E.,
Tierney,
M.
J.,
Burgos,
N.
R.,
Strebe,
T.
A.,
and
Kitt,
M.
J.
(
1995).
Field
Evaluation
of
Herbicides
on
Small
Fruit,
Vegetable
and
Ornamental
Crops,
1994.
Ark.
Agric.
Exp.
Stn.
Res.
Ser.
447:
1­
38;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
PHY.

17.
Talbert,
R.
E.,
Tierney,
M.
J.,
Carey
III,
V.
F.,
and
Kitt,
M.
J.
(
1994).
Field
Evaluations
of
Herbicides
on
Small
Fruit,
Vegetable
and
Ornamental
Crops,
1993.
Ark.
Agric.
Exp.
Stn.
Res.
Ser.
440:
1­
60;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
POP,
PHY.

18.
Weisshaar,
H.,
Retzlaff,
G.,
and
Boger,
P.
(
1988).
Chloroacetamide
Inhibition
of
Fatty
Acid
Synthesis.
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
32:
212­
216;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
PHY.

Reason
for
not
using
study
­
submitted
study
was
more
sensitive.

5.
Bio­
Medical
Research
Laboratories
Co.,
Ltd.
(
1992).
Initial
Submission:
Acute
Toxicity
Study
with
2­(
NEthoxybutrimidyl
5­(
2­
Ethylthiopropyhl)­
3­
Hydroxy­
2­
Cyclohexen­
1­
One
in
Mice
with
Cover
Letter
Dated
052692.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
88­
920002976
53
p.;
Habitat
:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
PHY,
GRO.

22.
EPA/
OTS
(
1992).
Initial
Submission:
Acute
Toxicity
of
2­(
N­
Ethoxybutrimidoyl)­
5­(
2­
Ethylthiopropyl)­
3­
Hydroxy­
2­
Cyclohexen­
1­
One
in
Rats
with
Cover
Letter
Dated
052692.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
88­
920003022
126
p.;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
PHY,
BEH
55.
Schrader,
K.
K.,
De
Regt,
M.
Q.,
Tidwell,
P.
D.,
Tucker,
C.
S.,
and
Duke,
S.
O.
(
1998).
Compounds
with
Selective
Toxicity
Towards
the
Off­
Flavor
Metabolite­
Producing
Cyanobacterium
Oscillatoria
cf.
chalybea.
Aquaculture
163:
85­
99;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
POP
4.
EPA/
OTS
(
1992).
Initial
Submission:
Report
on
the
Study
of
the
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
in
the
Rat
with
Cover
Letter
Dated
052692.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
88­
920003089;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
BEH,
MOR.
5.
EPA/
OTS
(
1992).
Supplement:
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
2­(
N­
Ethoxybutyrimidoyl)­
5­(
2­
Ethylthiopropyl)­
2­
Hydroxy­
2­
Cyclohexen­
1­
One
in
Rats
with
Attachment.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
89­
920000254
51
p.;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
BEH,
MOR,
PHY.

6.
Felix,
H.
R.,
Chollet,
R.,
and
Harr,
J.
(
1988).
Use
of
the
Cell
Wall­
Less
Alga
Dunaliella
bioculata
in
Herbicide
Screening
Tests.
Ann.
Appl.
Biol.
113:
55­
60;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
POP.

Reason
for
not
using
study
­
weed
resistance
not
relevant
for
ecological
risk
assessment.
8.
Burnet,
M.
W.
M.,
Hart,
Q.,
Holtum,
J.
A.
M.,
and
Powles,
S.
B.
(
1994).
Resistance
to
Nine
Herbicide
Classes
in
a
Population
of
Rigid
Ryegrass
(
Lolium
rigidum).
Weed
Sci.
42:
369­
377;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
GRO,
PHY.

9.
Burnet,
M.
W.
M.,
Hildebrand,
O.
B.,
Holtum,
J.
A.
M.,
and
Powles,
S.
B.
(
1991).
Amitrole,
Triazine,
Substituted
Urea,
and
Metribuzin
Resistance
in
a
Biotype
of
Rigid
Ryegrass
(
Lolium
rigidum).
Weed
Sci.
39:
317­
323;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
PHY.

28.
Gengenbach,
B.
G.,
VanDee,
K.
L.,
Egli,
M.
A.,
Hildebrandt,
K.
M.,
Yun,
S.
J.,
Lutz,
S.
M.,
Marshall,
L.
C.,
Wyse,
D.
L.,
and
Somers,
D.
A.
(
1999).
Genetic
Relationships
of
Alleles
for
Tolerance
to
Sethoxydim
Herbicide
in
Maize.
Crop
Sci.
39:
812­
818;
Habitat:
T
­
88­
52.
Preston,
C.,
Tardif,
F.
J.,
Christopher,
J.
T.,
and
Powles,
S.
B.
(
1996).
Multiple
Resistance
to
Dissimilar
Herbicide
Chemistries
in
a
Biotype
of
Lolium
rigidum
due
to
Enhanced
Activity
of
Several
Herbicide
Degrading
Enzymes.
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
54:
123­
134;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
BCM,
PHY.

54.
Roseberg,
R.
J.
(
1997).
Herbicide
Tolerance
by
Vernonia
Grown
in
the
Temperate
Zone.
Ind.
Crops
Prod.
6:
89­
96;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY.

69.
Wang,
T.
and
Darmency,
H.
(
1997).
Inheritance
of
Sethoxydim
Resistance
in
Foxtail
Millet,
Setaria
italica
(
L.)
Beauv.
Euphytica
94:
69­
73;
Habitat:
T
Reason
for
not
using
study
­
abstract
and
non­
English
12.
Nishiuchi,
Y.,
Iwamura,
H.,
and
Asano,
K.
(
1986).
Toxicity
of
Pesticides
to
Some
Aquatic
Animals.
VI.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Latest
Registered
Pesticides
to
Some
Aquatic
Animals.
Aquat.
Ecol.
Chem./
Seitai
Kagaku
8(
1):
13­
15
(
1985)
(
JPN)
/
C.
A.
Sel.­
Environ.
Pollut.
3:
104­
30076N;
Habitat:
A;
Effect
Codes:
MOR.

Reason
for
not
using
study
­
this
is
database
of
submitted
studies
that
are
in
the
risk
assessment.

13.
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
2000).
Pesticide
Ecotoxicity
Database
(
Formerly:
Environmental
Effects
Database
(
EEDB)).
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
U.
S.
EPA,
Washington,
D.
C.;
Habitat:
AT;
Effect
Codes:
MOR,
POP,
PHY,
GRO,
REP.
­
89­
Appendix
C
Summary
of
Public
Literature
that
were
excluded
from
ECOTOX
database
SETHOXYDIM
Papers
that
Were
Excluded
from
ECOTOX
1.
ANON
(
1989).
AND
A
SEARCH
FOR
SUBSTITUTES.
CITROGRAPH;
74:
230.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
CITRUS
FRUITS
WEED
CONTROL
AGRICULTURE
CROP
INDUSTRY
HERBICIDE
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plant
Growth
Regulators/
Pharmacology/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Plants/
Drug
Effects/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fruit/
Nuts/
Tropical
Climate/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
2.
Baker,
F.
(
1991).
Herbicide
Resistance.
In:
F.
W.
G.
Baker
and
P.
J.
Terry
(
Eds.),
Tropical
Grassy
Weeds,
Chapter
6,
CAB
International,
Wallingford,
England
96­
105.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70471
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

3.
Bell,
C.
E.,
Guerrero,
J.
N.,
and
Granados,
E.
Y.
(
1996).
A
Comparison
of
Sheep
Grazing
with
Herbicides
for
Weed
Control
in
Seedling
Alfalfa
in
the
Irrigated
Sonoran
Desert.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
9:
123­
129.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
75129
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD,
EPTC,
24DB;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

4.
BJELK
LA,
MONACO
TJ,
and
ZORNER,
P.
(
1989).
BASIS
FOR
SELECTIVITY
OF
POSTEMERGENCE
GRASS
HERBICIDES
IN
RICE.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS
HELD
JOINTLY
WITH
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
3,
1989.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
89
(
4
SUPPL.).
1989.
53.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
FENOXAPROP­
ETHYL
HALOXYFOP­
METHYL
SETHOXYDIM
UPTAKE
PHOTODEGRADATION
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Darkness/
Light/
Lighting/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
5.
BJELK
LA,
MONACO
TJ,
and
ZORNER
PS
(
1991).
Effect
of
fenoxaprop,
haloxyfop
and
sethoxydim
on
acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
from
rice,
barnyardgrass
and
sprangletop.
PLANT
SCI
(
LIMERICK);
73:
129­
136.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase),
the
target
site
inhibited
by
two
groups
of
herbicides,
the
aryloxyphenoxypropionates
and
cyclohexanediones,
was
extracted
and
partially
purified
from
rice
(
Oryza
sativa
LeMont
L.),
barnyardgrass
(
Echinochloa
crusgalli
(
L.)
Beauv.)
and
sprangletop
(
Leptochloa
fascicularis
(
Lam.)
Gray).
This
was
to
determine
whether
the
lack
of
inhibition
of
rice
to
three
grass
toxic
herbicides,
haloxyfop,
fenoxaprop
and
sethoxydim
is
due
to
a
differential
selectivity
at
the
enzyme
level.
Incorporation
rates
of
NaH14CO3,
into
malonyl
coenzyme
A
(
CoA)
were
linear
up
to
8
min
and
maximum
specific
activity
was
obtained
at
0.1
­
0.2
mg
protein.
Inhibition
of
ACCase
from
rice
and
the
two
weed
species
by
haloxyfop
­
90­
and
fenoxaprop
showed
differences
that
disappeared
with
higher
concentrations
of
herbicide.
I50
values
for
haloxyfop
inhibition
of
ACCase
from
rice,
barnyardgrass
and
sprangletop
were
3.50,
2.50
and
2.40
muM,
respectively.
I50
values
for
fenoxapro
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
6.
BOEGER,
P.
and
SANDMANN,
G.
(
1998).
ACTION
OF
MODERN
HERBICIDES.
RAGHAVENDRA,
A.
S.
(
ED.).
PHOTOSYNTHESIS:
A
COMPREHENSIVE
TREATISE.
XVIII+
376P.
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY
PRESS:
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
USA;
CAMBRIDGE,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ISBN
337­
351.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
PHMD,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
BOOK
CHAPTER
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
PEST
MANAGEMENT
HERBICIDES
MODES
OF
ACTION
PHOTOSYNTHETIC
ELECTRON
TRANSPORT
CAROTENOID
BIOSYNTHESIS
AMINO
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
TETRAPYRROLE
BIOSYNTHESIS
Biophysics/
Electron
Transport/
Energy
Metabolism/
Oxidative
Phosphorylation/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
7.
Bordelon,
B.
P.
and
Weller,
S.
C.
(
1997).
Preplant
cover
crops
affect
weed
and
vine
growth
in
first­
year
vineyards.
HortScience
32:
1040­
1043.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
Allelopathy/
Avena
sativa/
Grape/
Hairy
vetch/
NO
TOXICANT/
Oats/
Rye/
Secale
cereal/
Triticum
aestivum/
Vicia
villosa/
Vitis
spp./
Wheat.
0018­
5345.
Use
of
in­
row
cover
crops
for
weed
management
in
first­
year
vineyards
was
investigated
in
two
studies.
In
the
first
study,
rye
(
Secale
cereal
L.
'
Wheeler')
was
fall­
planted,
overwintered,
then
managed
by
three
methods
before
vine
planting.
Rye
was
either
herbicide­
desiccated
with
glyphosate
and
left
on
the
surface
as
a
mulch,
mowed,
or
incorporated
into
the
soil
(
cultivated).
Weed
density
and
growth
of
grapevines
(
Vitis
spp.)
were
evaluated.
Herbicide
desiccation
was
superior
to
the
other
methods
for
weed
suppression,
with
weed
densities
3
to
8
times
lower
than
for
mowed
or
cultivated
plots.
Vine
growth
was
similar
among
treatments,
but
the
trend
was
for
more
shoot
growth
with
lower
weed
density.
In
a
second
study,
four
cover
crops,
rye,
wheat
(
Triticum
aestivum
L.
'
Cardinal'),
oats
(
Avena
sativa
L.
'
Ogle'),
and
hairy
vetch
(
Vicia
villosa
Roth),
were
compared.
Wheat
and
rye
were
fall­
and
spring­
planted,
and
oats
and
vetch
were
spring­
planted,
then
desiccated
with
herbicides
(
glyphosate
or
sethoxydim)
after
vine
planting
and
compared
to
weed­
free
and
weedy
control
plots
for
weed
suppression
and
grapevine
growth.
Cover
crops
provided
27
%
to
95
%
reduction
in
weed
biomass
compared
to
weedy
control
plots.
Total
vine
dry
mass
was
highest
in
weed­
free
control
plots,
was
reduced
54%
to
77%
in
the
cover
crop
plots,
and
was
reduced
81%
in
the
weedy
control.
Fall­
planted
wheat
and
rye
and
spring­
planted
rye
plots
produced
the
highest
vine
dry
mass
among
cover
crop
treatments.
Spring­
planted
rye
provided
the
best
combination
of
weed
suppression
and
vine
growth.
Chemical
names
used:
N­(
phosphonomethyl)
glycine
(
glyphosate
isopropylamine
salt);
2­[
1­(
ethoxyimino)
butyl]
5­[
2­(
ethylthio)
propyl]­
3­
hydroxy­
2­
cycloh
exen­
1­
one
(
sethoxydim)

8.
Botsford,
J.
L.
(
1997).
Determining
the
toxicity
of
herbicides
using
a
novel
method.
NEW
MEXICO
WATER
RESOURCES
RESEARCH
INSTITUTE,
NEW
MEXICO
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
BOX
30001,
DEPT.
3167,
LAS
CRUCES,
NM
88003
(
USA),
Jan
1997,
16
pp.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.
A
simple
method
to
measure
toxic
chemicals
has
been
used.
This
assay
uses
the
bacterium
Rhizobium
meliloti
as
the
indicator
organism.
This
assay
was
used
to
measure
the
toxicity
of
30
herbicides
used
on
the
New
Mexico
State
University
farms.
One
of
the
herbicides,
POAST
®
(
sethoxydim),
was
found
to
be
toxic
at
less
than
10
ppm
(
mg
l
super(­
1)).
Nine
were
found
to
be
toxic
at
less
than
100
ppm,
13
to
be
toxic
at
100
to
1000
ppm
and
7
were
found
to
be
toxic
at
concentrations
greater
than
1000
ppm.
The
toxicity
using
this
test
was
compared
with
values
from
the
manufacturers
using
animal
tests
and
Daphnia
tests.
Three
herbicides
were
tested
for
their
stability
when
mixed
­
91­
with
three
soil
types.
Soil
was
taken
from
a
cotton
field,
from
an
alfalfa
field
and
from
an
uncultivated
desert
soil.
Sethomydim
was
found
to
have
a
half
life
(
that
is
the
toxicity
decreased
by
50%)
of
8.8
to
21.1
hours
in
the
three
soils.
Glyphosate
was
found
to
have
a
half
life
of
2.4
to
7.8
days.
Bromxylnil
was
found
to
be
stable
for
at
least
15
days,
the
toxicity
decreased
less
than
50%
in
this
interval.
The
assay
can
be
used
to
determine
the
toxicity
of
herbicides
and
to
follow
the
fate
of
herbicides
in
the
soil.
SXD
analytical
methods/
toxicity/
herbicides/
assay/
bioindicators/
bacteria/
toxicity
tests/
indicator
species/
bacteria/
Rhizobium
meliloti
9.
Botsford,
J.
L.
(
1997).
Determining
the
toxicity
of
herbicides
using
a
novel
method.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
Bacteria.
NEW
MEXICO
WATER
RE
UNIVERSITY,
BOX
30001,
DEPT.
3167,
LAS
CRUCES,
NM
88003
(
USA),
Jan
1997,
16
pp.
A
simple
method
to
measure
toxic
chemicals
has
been
used.
This
assay
uses
the
bacterium
Rhizobium
meliloti
as
the
indicator
organism.
This
assay
was
used
to
measure
the
toxicity
of
30
herbicides
used
on
the
New
Mexico
State
University
farms.
One
of
the
herbicides,
POAST
®
(
sethoxydim),
was
found
to
be
toxic
at
less
than
10
ppm
(
mg
l
super(­
1)).
Nine
were
found
to
be
toxic
at
less
than
100
ppm,
13
to
be
toxic
at
100
to
1000
ppm
and
7
were
found
to
be
toxic
at
concentrations
greater
than
1000
ppm.
The
toxicity
using
this
test
was
compared
with
values
from
the
manufacturers
using
animal
tests
and
Daphnia
tests.
Three
herbicides
were
tested
for
their
stability
when
mixed
with
three
soil
types.
Soil
was
taken
from
a
cotton
field,
from
an
alfalfa
field
and
from
an
uncultivated
desert
soil.
Sethomydim
was
found
to
have
a
half
life
(
that
is
the
toxicity
decreased
by
50%)
of
8.8
to
21.1
hours
in
the
three
soils.
Glyphosate
was
found
to
have
a
half
life
of
2.4
to
7.8
days.
Bromxylnil
was
found
to
be
stable
for
at
least
15
days,
the
toxicity
decreased
less
than
50%
in
this
interval.
The
assay
can
be
used
to
determine
the
toxicity
of
herbicides
and
to
follow
the
fate
of
herbicides
in
the
soil
10.
Bourgeois,
L.
and
Morrison,
I.
N.
(
1997).
A
survey
of
ACCase
inhibitor
resistant
wild
oat
in
a
high
risk
township
in
Manitoba.
Canadian
Journal
of
Plant
Science
77:
703­
708.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ACCase
inhibitors/
NO
TOXICANT/
Resistance
assessment/
Weed
survey/
Wild
oat.
0008­
4220.
A
survey
was
conducted
in
a
township
near
Treherne,
Manitoba
to
determine
the
frequency
of
Group
1
resistant
wild
oat
in
30
randomly
selected
cereal
fields.
On
average,
61%
of
the
30
fields
were
sprayed
annually
with
ACCase
inhibitor
(
Group
1)
herbicides
from
1983
to
1993.
Wild
oat
were
sampled
at
80­
m
intervals
on
a
predefined
grid
pattern
across
whole
fields.
Wild
oat
densities
were
recorded
and
seeds
were
collected
from
0.25
m
superior
­
superior
2
quadrats.
Seeds
were
also
collected
from
conspicuous
wild
oat
patches
occurring
outside
the
spaced
quadrats.
Plants
were
determined
to
be
susceptible
or
resistant
to
fenoxaprop­
P
and
/
or
sethoxydim
using
a
seed
bioassay
procedure.
Results
from
the
structured
survey
indicated
that
resistant
wild
oat
occurred
in
nine
fields.
Densities
in
quadrats
containing
resistant
wild
oat
were
generally
higher
than
in
quadrats
with
susceptible
wild
oat.
By
combining
the
results
of
the
structured
survey
with
the
patch
collection,
resistance
was
detected
in
20
out
of
the
30
fields.
While
resistant
weeds
generally
occurred
in
small
patches,
in
two
of
the
fields,
resistant
plants
occurred
over
much
larger
areas.
The
evidence
suggests
that
as
many
as
two
fields
in
three
may
harbour
Group
I
resistant
wild
oat
in
high
risk
townships
in
Manitoba
11.
Bourgeois,
L.,
Morrison,
I.
N.,
and
Kelner,
D.
(
1997).
Field
and
producer
survey
of
ACCase
resistant
wild
oat
in
Manitoba.
Canadian
Journal
of
Plant
Science
77:
709­
715.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ACCase
inhibitors/
NO
TOXICANT/
Resistance
assessment/
Weed
survey/
Wild
oat.
0008­
4220.
In
a
previous
study,
729
townships
in
Manitoba
were
differentiated
as
being
at
low,
medium,
or
high
risk
of
evolving
wild
oat
resistant
to
Group
1
herbicides
based
on
herbicide
use
histories
from
1981
to
1993.
In
the
present
study,
16
townships
representing
the
three
risk
categories
were
surveyed
in
1994
in
order
to
determine
the
percentage
of
resistant
wild
oat
patches.
As
well,
a
questionnaire
was
mailed
to
farmers
in
these
townships
requesting
information
on
practices
and
attitudes
relating
to
herbicide
resistance.
The
wild
oat
survey
consisted
of
sampling
seed
from
conspicuous
wild
oat
patches
visible
from
north­
south
roads
in
each
township.
A
total
of
533
­
92­
samples
were
collected
and
screened
with
fenoxaprop­
P
and
sethoxydim
using
a
bioassay.
An
average
of
eight
resistant
wild
oat
patches
was
found
in
the
high
risk
townships.
This
was
significantly
higher
than
in
low
and
medium
risk
townships
where
an
average
of
less
than
one
resistant
wild
oat
patch
per
township
was
detected.
The
attitude
of
producers
towards
herbicide
resistance
was
similar
in
all
risk
categories.
However,
the
number
of
respondents
suspecting
Group
1
resistance
on
their
farms
was
related
to
risk
categories
with
producers
in
high
risk
areas
suspecting
the
most
cases
of
resistance
12.
BOURGEOIS,
L.
and
MORRISON
IN
(
1997).
Mapping
risk
areas
for
resistance
to
ACCase
inhibitor
herbicides
in
Manitoba.
CANADIAN
JOURNAL
OF
PLANT
SCIENCE;
77:
173­
179.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Since
1976,
seven
acetyl
coenzyme­
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
inhibitors
(
referred
to
as
Group
1
herbicides)
have
been
registered
in
western
Canada
for
wild
oat
(
Avena
fatua
L.)
and
green
foxtail
(
Setaria
viridis
L.)
control.
In
1990,
Group
1
resistant
wild
oat
populations
were
identified
from
fields
in
Manitoba
which
had
been
repeatedly
sprayed
with
these
products
during
the
previous
10
yr.
Since
the
occurrence
of
resistance
is
directly
related
to
the
frequency
of
herbicide
use,
the
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
compile
herbicide
use
histories
on
a
province­
wide
basis
using
data
included
in
the
Manitoba
Crop
Insurance
Corporation
(
MCIC)
database.
The
database
was
used
to
determine
the
relative
importance
of
Group
1
herbicide
use
in
major
crops
compared
with
other
products,
and
to
identify
individual
townships
at
low,
medium
and
high
risk
for
developing
Group
1
resistance.
Low,
medium
and
high
risk
townships
were
arbitrarily
defined
as
those
in
which
Group
1
products
were
use
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
13.
Bravin,
F.,
Zanin,
G.,
and
Preston,
C.
(
2001).
Resistance
to
diclofop­
methyl
in
two
Lolium
spp.
populations
from
Italy:
Studies
on
the
mechanism
of
resistance.
Weed
Research,
41
(
5)
pp.
461­
473.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
The
mechanisms
of
herbicide
resistance
were
investigated
in
two
diclofop­
methyl­
resistant
Lolium
spp.
populations
from
central
Italy,
Roma
'
94
and
Tuscania
'
97.
These
two
populations
were
compared
with
two
susceptible
Italian
populations
(
Vetralla
'
94,
Tarquinia
'
97)
and
a
resistant
and
a
susceptible
population
from
Australia,
SLR31
and
VLR1.
The
activity
of
acetyl
Co­
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
extracted
from
susceptible
(
S)
or
resistant
(
R)
individuals
from
the
Italian
populations
was
inhibited
by
both
aryloxyphenoxypropanoate
(
diclofop
acid
and
fluazifop
acid)
and
cyclohexanedione
(
sethoxydim)
herbicides.
Diclofop­
methyl
was
rapidly
de­
esterified
to
diclofop
acid
at
a
similar
rate
in
both
R
and
S
populations.
In
all
populations,
diclofop
acid
was
subsequently
degraded
to
other
metabolites.
The
rate
of
degradation
of
diclofop
acid
was
not
significantly
faster
in
R
than
in
S
populations;
however,
diclofop
acid
was
degraded
more
completely
in
Roma
'
94
and
Tuscania
'
97
compared
with
the
S
populations.
Application
of
the
mixed­
function
oxidase
inhibitor
1­
aminobenzotriazole
(
ABT)
significantly
enhanced
diclofop­
methyl
toxicity
towards
both
R
populations,
but
not
in
S
populations.
However,
enhanced
herbicide
metabolism
does
not
completely
account
for
the
measured
resistance
level.
A
mechanism
other
than
an
altered
ACCase
and
enhanced
herbicide
metabolism
appears
to
be
responsible
for
resistance
to
diclofop­
methyl
in
Roma
'
94
and
Tuscania
'
97.
SXD
Lolium
spp./
Herbicide
resistance/
Diclofop­
methyl/
ACCase/
Aminobenzotriazole/
Lolium
14.
Bromilow,
R.
H.
and
Chamberlain,
K.
(
1991).
Pathways
and
Mechanisms
of
Transport
of
Herbicides
in
Plants.
In:
R.
C.
Kirkwood
(
Ed.),
Topics
in
Applied
Chemistry:
Target
Sites
for
Herbicide
Action,
Plenum
Press,
NY
245­
284.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70598
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
EDT,
SZ,
MLT,
PHMD,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

15.
Bromilow,
R.
H.,
Chamberlain,
K.,
and
Evans,
A.
A.
(
1990).
Physicochemical
Aspects
of
Phloem
Translocation
of
Herbicides.
Weed
Sci.
38:
305­
314.
­
93­
Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70320
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
EDT,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

16.
BROOKS
GT
(
1990).
SEVENTH
INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS
OF
PESTICIDE
CHEMISTRY
HAMBURG
GERMANY
AUGUST
1990.
PESTIC
SCI;
30:
367­
498.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
17.
Brown,
Amanda
C.,
Moss,
Stephen
R.,
Wilson,
Zoe
A.,
and
Field,
Linda
M.
(
2002).
An
isoleucine
to
leucine
substitution
in
the
ACCase
of
Alopecurus
myosuroides
(
black­
grass)
is
associated
with
resistance
to
the
herbicide
sethoxydim.
Pesticide
Biochemistry
and
Physiology
72:
160­
168.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

18.
BURTON
JD,
GRONWALD
JW,
KEITH,
R.,
SOMERS
DA,
GENGENBACH
BG,
and
WYSE
DL
(
1989).
KINETICS
OF
INHIBITION
OF
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
BY
SETHOXYDIM
AND
HALOXYFOP.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS
HELD
JOINTLY
WITH
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
3,
1989.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
89
(
4
SUPPL.).
1989.
54.
54.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CORN
HERBICIDES
BINDING
SITE
MICHAELIS
CONSTANTS
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
19.
BURTON
JD,
GRONWALD
JW,
KEITH
RA,
SOMERS
DA,
GENGENBACH
BG,
and
WYSE
DL
(
1991).
Kinetics
of
inhibition
of
acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
by
sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop.
PESTIC
BIOCHEM
PHYSIOL;
39:
100­
109.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
mechanism
of
inhibition
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
by
sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop
was
examined
using
a
semipurified
enzyme
preparation
extracted
from
Black
Mexican
Sweet
Maize
(
Zea
mays
L.)
suspension­
culture
cells.
As
determined
by
SDS­
PAGE
and
Western
blotting,
the
enzyme
preparation
contained
a
major
biotin­
containing
polypeptide
(
Mr
222,000)
and
a
minor
biotin­
containing
polypeptide
(
Mr
73,400).
The
kinetics
of
enzyme
inhibition
by
sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop
were
determined
for
the
substrates
MgATP,
HCO3­,
and
acetyl­
CoA.
Sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop
were
linear,
noncompetitive
inhibitors
for
the
three
substrates,
and
the
pattern
of
inhibition
was
similar
for
both
herbicides.
The
Kis
values
for
sethoxydim
were
1.9,
5.6,
and
13.3
muM
for
acetyl­
CoA,
HCO3­,
and
MgATP,
respectively.
The
Kis
values
for
haloxyfop
were
0.36,
0.87,
and
2,89
muM
for
acetyl­
CoA,
HCO3­
and
MgATP,
respectively.
For
both
herbicides,
Kis
<
Kii
for
acetyl­
CoA,
whereas
Kii
<
Kis
for
MgATP
and
HCO3.
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Biophysics/
Methods/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Amino
Acids/
Metabolism/
Peptides/
Metabolism/
Proteins/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
20.
BURTON
JD,
GRONWALD
JW,
SOMERS
DA,
CONNELLY
JA,
GENGENBACH
BG,
and
WYSE
DL
(
1987).
INHIBITION
OF
PLANT
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
BY
THE
HERBICIDES
SETHOXYDIM
AND
HALOXYFOP.
BIOCHEM
BIOPHYS
RES
COMMUN;
148:
1039­
1044.
­
94­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
CORN
CHLOROPLASTS
FATTY
ACIDS
CARBON­
14
ACETATE
CARBON­
14
PYRUVATE
TISSUE
CULTURE
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Culture
Media/
Tissue
Culture/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
21.
Bush,
E.
W.,
Porter,
W.
C.,
Shepard,
D.
P.,
and
McCrimmon,
J.
N.
(
1998).
Controlling
growth
of
common
carpetgrass
using
selected
plant
growth
regulators.
HortScience
33:
704­
706.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
Axonopus
affinis/
BIOLOGICAL
TOXICANT/
Clipping
yield/
Fl
uazasulfuron/
Growth
retardants/
Mefluidide/
Phytotoxicity/
S
eedhead
height/
Sethoxydim/
Sulfometuron/
Trinexapac­
ethyl.
0018­
5345.
Field
studies
were
performed
on
established
carpetgrass
(
Axonopus
affinis
Chase)
in
1994
and
1995
to
evaluate
plant
growth
regulators
(
PGRs)
and
application
rates.
Trinexapac­
ethyl
(
0.48
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
improved
turf
quality
and
reduced
cumulative
vegetative
growth
(
CVG)
of
unmowed
and
mowed
plots
by
38%
and
46%,
respectively,
in
1995,
and
suppressed
seedhead
height
in
unmowed
turf
by
greater
than
31%
6
weeks
after
treatment
(
WAT)
both
years.
Mefluidide
(
0.14
and
0.28
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
had
little
effect
on
carpetgrass.
Sulfometuron
resulted
in
unacceptable
phytotoxicity
(
greater
than
20%)
2
WAT
in
1994
and
18%
phytotoxicity
in
1995.
In
1995,
sulfometuron
reduced
mowed
carpetgrass
CVG
21%,
seedhead
number
47%,
seedhead
height
36%,
clipping
yield
24%,
and
reduced
the
number
of
mowings
required.
It
also
improved
unmowed
carpetgrass
quality
at
6
WAT.
Sethoxydim
(
0.11
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
suppressed
seedhead
formation
by
60%
and
seedhead
height
by
20%,
and
caused
moderate
phytotoxicity
(
13%)
in
1995.
Sethoxydim
(
0.22
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
was
unacceptably
phytotoxic
(
38%)
in
1994,
but
only
slightly
phytotoxic
(
7%)
in
1995,
reduced
clipping
yields
(
greater
than
24%),
and
increased
quality
of
mowed
carpetgrass
both
years.
Fluazasulfuron
(
0.027
and
0.054
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
phytotoxicity
ratings
were
unacceptable
at
2
WAT
in
1994,
but
not
in
1995.
Fluazasulfuron
(
0.054
kg
midline
dot
ha
superior
­
superior
1)
reduced
seedhead
height
by
23%
to
26%
in
both
years.
Early
seedhead
formation
was
suppressed
greater
than
70%
when
applied
2
WAT
in
1994,
and
43%
when
applied
6
WAT
in
1995.
The
effects
of
the
chemicals
varied
with
mowing
treatment
and
evaluation
year.
Chemical
names
used:
4­(
cyclopropyl­
x­
hydroxymethyl
ene)­
3,5
dioxo­
cyclohexane­
carboxylic
acid
ethyl
ester
(
trinexapac­
ethyl);
N­
2,4­
dimethyl­
5­[[(
trifluoromethyl
sulfon
yl]
amino]
pheny
l]
acetamide]
(
mefluidide);
[
methyl
2­[[[[(
4,6­
dimethyl­
2­
pyrimidinyl)
amino]
carbonyl]
amino]
sulfonyl]
benzoate)]
(
sulfometuron);
(
2­[
1:(
ethoxyimino)
butyl­
5­[(
2­
ethylthio)
propyl]­
3­
hydroxy­
2­
c
yclohexen­
1­
on
e)
(
sethoxydim);
1­(
4,6­
dimethoxypyrimidin­
2yl)­
3­[(
3­
trifluoromethyl­
pyridin
2­
yl)
sulphonyl]
urea
(
fluazasulfuron)

22.
CATANZARO
CJ
,
BURTON
JD,
and
SKROCH
WA
(
1991).
CORRELATION
OF
IN­
VIVO
AND
INVITRO
HERBICIDE
TOLERANCE
OF
ORNAMENTAL
GRASSES.
88TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
UNIVERSITY
PARK,
PENNSYLVANIA,
USA,
JULY
19­
24,
1991.
HORTSCIENCE;
26:
782.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ASBTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
ERIANTHUS
PANICUM
PENNISETUM
BLUE
FESCUE
PLANT
CYCLOHEXANEDIONE
SETHOXYDIM
ARYLOXYPHENOXYPROPIONATE
FENOXAPROP
FLUAZIFOP
QUINAZOFOP
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
CROP
INDUSTRY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Comparative
Study/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
23.
CATANZARO
CJ
,
BURTON
JD,
and
SKROCH
WA
(
1993).
Graminicide
resistance
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
from
ornamental
grasses.
PESTIC
BIOCHEM
PHYSIOL;
45:
147­
153.
­
95­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Blue
fescues
(
Festuca
ovina
var.
glauca
(
Lam.)
Koch.
and
F.
amethystina
L.)
are
resistant
to
graminicides,
whereas
fountain
grass
(
Pennisetum
alopecuroides
(
L.)
Spreng.)
and
most
other
grasses
are
sensitive.
Evidence
suggests
that
selective
control
of
grasses
by
the
graminicides
fluazifop
(
an
aryloxyphenoxypropionate)
and
sethoxydim
(
a
cyclohexanedione)
is
often
due
to
differential
resistance
at
the
primary
site
of
action,
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACCase).
ACCase
activity
was
obtained
from
fountain
grass
and
four
cultivars
of
blue
fescue
to
determine
whether
resistance
at
the
whole
plant
level
correlated
with
ACCase
resistance
in
vitro.
ACCase
activity
was
represented
by
in
vitro
incorporation
of
radioactive
bicarbonate
into
an
acid­
and
heat­
stable
product.
Enzyme
activity
was
dependent
on
acetyl­
CoA
and
ATP
and
was
inhibited
in
the
presence
of
avidin,
suggesting
that
activity
was
due
to
ACCase.
Compared
to
ACCase
from
fountain
grass,
ACCase
from
fescues
was
70
to
88
tim
Biochemistry/
Comparative
Study/
Biochemistry/
Nucleic
Acids/
Purines/
Pyrimidines/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
24.
CHAMBERLAIN,
K.,
EVANS
AA,
and
BROMILOW
RH
(
1996).
1­
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
Kow)
and
pKa
for
ionisable
pesticides
measured
by
a
pH­
metric
method.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE;
47:
265­
271.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
pKa
values
for
a
wide
range
of
commonly
used
ionisable
pesticides,
together
with
the
log
Kow
values
of
the
most
lipophilic
form
of
each,
have
been
measured
using
pH­
metric
techniques.
Examples
of
acids,
bases
and
multiprotic
compounds
from
the
major
classes
of
herbicides,
and
a
number
of
insecticides
and
fungicides
that
contain
ionisable
groups,
are
included.
The
pKa
and
log
Kow
values
so
obtained
were
generally
in
good
agreement
with
values
taken
from
the
literature
that
were
measured
by
other
methods.
The
lower
limit
of
log
Kow
that
could
be
measured
by
the
pH­
metric
method
lay
below
the
­
0.97
obtained
for
amitrole,
but
the
method
could
not
be
applied
to
glyphosate
for
which
shake­
flask
measurements
indicated
log
Kow
below
­
3.
The
highest
log
Kow
obtained
in
this
study
was
5.12
for
pentachlorophenol.
The
pH­
metric
technique
offers
a
rapid
and
convenient
method
to
determine
pKa
and
log
Kow
for
ionisable
compounds,
especially
when
utilising
an
automatic
titration
system
Biochemistry/
Methods/
Biophysics/
Macromolecular
Systems/
Molecular
Biology/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
25.
Chelidze,
P.
G.,
Von
Fircks
Ha,
and
Chogoshyili,
A.
G.
(
1990).
EFFECTS
OF
HERBICIDES
TO
THYLAKOID
MEMBRANES
OF
SPINACIA­
OLERACEA
L.
7th
Congress
of
the
Federation
of
European
Societies
of
Plant
Physiology,
Umea,
Sweden,
August
5­
10,
1990.
Physiol
Plant
79
:
A49.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
ABSTRACT:
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CYCLIC
PHOSPHORYLATION
CRYOTOXIC
CRYOPROTECTIVE
BASTA
DUAL
ROUND­
UP
NABU
MALORAN
BAZAGRAN
KEYWORDS:
General
Biology­
Symposia
KEYWORDS:
Biochemical
Studies­
General
KEYWORDS:
Biophysics­
Bioenergetics:
Electron
Transport
and
Oxidative
Phosphorylation
Kw
­
External
Effects­
Temperature
as
a
Primary
Variable­
Cold
(
1971­
)
KEYWORDS:
Metabolism­
Energy
and
Respiratory
Metabolism
KEYWORDS:
Temperature:
Its
Measurement
KEYWORDS:
Plant
Physiology
KEYWORDS:
Plant
Physiology
KEYWORDS:
Agronomy­
Weed
Control
KEYWORDS:
Horticulture­
Vegetables
KEYWORDS:
Pest
Control
KEYWORDS:
Chenopodiaceae
­
96­
26.
Cobb,
A.
(
1992).
Herbicides
that
Inhibit
Photosynthesis.
In:
A.
Cobb
(
Ed.),
Herbicides
and
Plant
Physiology,
Chapter
3,
Chapman
&
Hall,
London,
England
36,
79­
81.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70717
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
MTL,
PHMD,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

27.
COMM
PESTIC
FORMULATION
DISINFECT
USA
(
1991).
GENERAL
REFEREE
REPORTS
COMMITTEE
ON
PESTICIDE
FORMULATIONS
AND
DISINFECTANTS
104TH
AOAC
ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL
MEETING
NEW
ORLEANS
LOUISIANA
USA
SEPTEMBER
9­
13
1990.
J
ASSOC
OFF
ANAL
CHEM;
74:
107­
110.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD,
DMT;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
REPORT
HERBICIDE
ORGANOTHIOPHOSPHORUS
INSECTICIDE
ORGANOHALOGEN
INSECTICIDE
AGRICHEMICAL
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Methods/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Arachnida/
Entomology/
Economics/
Insecticides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
28.
Darmency,
H.
(
1994).
Genetics
of
Herbicide
Resistance
in
Weeds
and
Crops.
In:
S.
B.
Powles
and
J.
A.
M.
Holtum
(
Eds.),
Herbicide
Resistance
in
Plants:
Biology
and
Biochemistry,
CRC
Press
Inc.,
Boca
Raton,
FL
263­
297.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
75530
Chemical
of
Concern:
MCPA,
GYP,
MBZ,
DFQ,
SZ,
PPN,
PAQT,
DFP,
CMZ,
BSF,
SXD,
PHMD;
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

29.
Delye,
Christophe,
Wang,
Tianyu,
and
Darmency,
Henri
(
2002).
An
isoleucine­
leucine
substitution
in
chloroplastic
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
from
green
foxtail
(
Setaria
viridis
L.
Beauv.)
is
responsible
for
resistance
to
the
cyclohexanedione
herbicide
sethoxydim.
Planta
214:
421­
427.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
The
cDNAs
encoding
chloroplastic
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACCase,
EC
6.4.1.2)
from
three
lines
of
Setaria
viridis
(
L.
Beauv.)
resistant
or
sensitive
to
sethoxydim,
and
from
one
sethoxydim­
sensitive
line
of
Setaria
italica
(
L.
Beauv.)
were
cloned
and
sequenced.
Sequence
comparison
revealed
that
a
single
isoleucine­
leucine
substitution
discriminated
ACCases
from
sensitive
and
resistant
lines.
Using
near­
isogenic
lines
of
S.
italica
derived
from
interspecific
hybridisation,
we
demonstrated
that
the
transfer
of
the
S.
viridis
mutant
ACCase
allele
into
a
sethoxydim­
sensitive
S.
italica
line
conferred
resistance
to
this
herbicide.
We
confirmed
this
result
using
allelespecific
polymerase
chain
reaction
and
showed
that
a
single
copy
of
the
mutant
allele
is
sufficient
to
confer
resistance
to
sethoxydim.
We
conclude
that
a
mutant
allele
of
chloroplastic
ACCase
encoding
a
leucine
residue
instead
of
an
isoleucine
residue
at
position
1780
is
a
major
gene
of
resistance
to
sethoxydim.
[
Journal
Article;
In
English;
Germany]

30.
Devine,
M.
D.
(
1997).
Mechanisms
of
resistance
to
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
inhibitors:
A
review.
Pesticide
Science,
51
(
3)
pp.
259­
264,
1997.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.
Resistance
to
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
inhibitors
has
developed
in
at
least
10
grass
weed
species
in
recent
years.
In
most
instances,
resistance
is
conferred
by
an
ACCase
alteration
in
the
resistant
biotypes
that
reduces
sensitivity
to
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
(
AOPP)
and
cyclohexanedione
(
CHD)
herbicides.
Analysis
of
ACCase
from
many
of
these
resistant
weed
biotypes
suggests
the
presence
of
different
mutations,
each
conferring
a
different
pattern
and
level
of
resistance
to
various
AOPP
and
CHD
herbicides.
In
all
cases
analyzed
to
date,
resistance
is
controlled
by
a
single
dominant
or
semidominant
nuclear
gene.
In
several
weed
biotypes,
resistance
is
­
97­
conferred
by
enhanced
herbicide
detoxification,
primarily
through
elevated
expression
or
activity
of
cytochrome
P450
monooxygenase(
s).
This
mechanism
can
confer
cross­
resistance
to
herbicides
from
other
chemical
classes
with
different
modes
of
action.
Finally,
multiple
herbicide
resistance,
i.
e.
the
acquisition
of
several
different
resistance
mechanisms,
has
been
reported
in
some
weed
biotypes.
SXD
Herbicide
resistance/
ACCase
inhibitors/
Diclofop/
Fenoxaprop/
Sethoxydim/
Clethodim
31.
DEVINE
MD
and
SHIMABUKURO
RH
(
1994).
RESISTANCE
TO
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
INHIBITING
HERBICIDES.
POWLES,
S.
B.
AND
J.
A.
M.
HOLTUM
(
ED.).
HERBICIDE
RESISTANCE
IN
PLANTS:
BIOLOGY
AND
BIOCHEMISTRY.
XI+
353P.
CRC
PRESS,
INC.:
BOCA
RATON,
FLORIDA,
USA;
LONDON,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ISBN
0­
87371­
713­
9
141­
169.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
BOOK
CHAPTER
LITERATURE
REVIEW
CROPS
GRASS
WEEDS
WEEDS
ARYLOXYPHENOXYPROPANOATE
CYCLOHEXANEDIONE
AGRICULTURE
MODE
OF
ACTION
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
INHIBITION
SELECTIVITY
EVOLUTION
MUTATION
TRANSLOCATION
ABSORPTION
METABOLISM
DETOXIFICATION
TARGET
SITE
SELECTIVITY
GENETICS
Evolution/
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Metabolism/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Grasses
32.
Donald,
W.
W.
and
Ogg,
A.
G.
Jr.
(
1991).
Biology
and
Control
of
Jointed
Goat
Grass
(
Aegilops
cylindrica),
a
Review.
Weed
Technol.
5:
3­
17.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
72738
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

33.
DOTRAY
PA,
DITOMASO
JM,
GRONWALD
JW,
WYSE
DL,
and
KOCHIAN
LV
(
1993).
Effects
of
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
inhibitors
on
root
cell
transmembrane
electric
potentials
in
graminicidetolerant
and
­
susceptible
corn
(
Zea
mays
L.).
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGY
(
ROCKVILLE);
103:
919­
924.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Herbicidal
activity
of
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
and
cyclohexanedione
herbicides
(
graminicides)
has
been
proposed
to
involve
two
mechanisms:
inhibition
of
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
and
depolarization
of
cell
membrane
potential.
We
examined
the
effect
of
aryloxyphenoxypropionates
(
diclofop
and
haloxyfop)
and
cyclohexanediones
(
sethoxydim
and
clethodim)
on
root
cortical
cell
membrane
potential
of
graminicide­
susceptible
and
­
tolerant
corn
(
Zea
mays
L.)
lines.
The
graminicide­
tolerant
corn
line
contained
a
herbicide­
insensitive
form
of
ACCase.
The
effect
of
the
herbicides
on
membrane
potential
was
similar
in
both
corn
lines.
At
a
concentration
of
50
muM,
the
cyclohexanediones
had
little
or
no
effect
on
the
membrane
potential
of
root
cells.
At
pH
6,
50
muM
diclofop,
but
not
haloxyfop,
depolarized
membrane
potential,
whereas
both
herbicides
(
50
muM)
dramatically
depolarized
membrane
potential
at
pH
5.
Repolarization
of
membrane
potential
after
removal
of
haloxyf
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Electricity/
Gravitation/
Magnetics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Immunity,
Natural/
Plant
Diseases/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
34.
Dourson,
M.
L.,
Knauf,
L.
A.,
and
Swartout,
J.
C.
(
1992).
On
Reference
Dose
(
RfD)
and
Its
Underlying
Toxicity
Data
Base.
Toxicol.
Ind.
Health
8:
171­
189.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70546
­
98­
User
Define
2:
REPS,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
EDT,
MTL,
MOM,
ADC,
CBF,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS.

35.
EDWARDS
GR,
CRAWLEY
MJ,
and
HEARD
MS
(
1999).
Factors
influencing
molehill
distribution
in
grassland:
Implications
for
controlling
the
damage
caused
by
molehills.
JOURNAL
OF
APPLIED
ECOLOGY;
36:
434­
442.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
DMT,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
1.
Moles
are
perceived
as
pests
of
farms,
gardens,
sports
fields
and
nature
reserves,
mainly
because
they
form
molehills.
The
danger
and
inhumaneness
of
current
methods
of
mole
control
(
e.
g.
poisoning
with
strychnine
or
the
use
of
mole
traps)
means
that
non­
lethal
methods
are
sought.
We
examined
the
possibility
of
controlling
molehill
distribution
by
using
management
procedures
that
alter
the
availability
of
earthworms,
the
principal
food
of
moles.
2.
The
abundance
of
molehills
and
earthworms
wa
with
an
average
area
of
0.14
m2;
a
disturbance
rate
equivalent
to
3.2%
of
the
soil
surface
over
2years.
Peak
molehill
production
occurred
in
spring
and
autumn,
with
few
molehills
formed
at
other
times
of
the
year.
4.
Molehill
production
in
grazed
areas
was
one­
third
that
of
hay
meadows.
Half
as
many
molehills
formed
in
unlimed
as
limed
plots.
Significantly
fewer
molehills
formed
in
areas
where
grass
species
were
removed
(
herb­
rich)
than
areas
where
no
species
were
removed.
Insect
Ecology/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Mammals/
Anatomy,
Comparative/
Animal/
Annelida/
Physiology/
Physiology,
Comparative/
Pathology/
Oligochaeta/
Insectivora
36.
ELMORE
CE,
DONALDSON
DR,
and
RONCORONI
JA
(
1992).
VEGETATION
MANIPULATION
WITH
SELECTIVE
HERBICIDES
IN
VINEYARDS.
89TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
HONOLULU,
HAWAII,
USA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
6,
1992.
HORTSCIENCE;
27:
628.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ASBTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
FESTUCA­
MEGALURA
POA­
ANNUA
CENTAUREASP
ERODIUM­
SPP
DESIRABLE
COVER
PLANTS
PLANT
HORTICULTURE
CROP
INDUSTRY
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOP­
BUTYL
2
4­
D
HERBICIDE
WEED
CONTROL
Congresses/
Biology/
Ecology/
Plants/
Biochemistry/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fruit/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Grasses/
Plants
37.
EPA/
OTS
(
1992).
Initial
Submission:
Study
of
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
LC50
of
BAS
9052
O
H
Liquid
Aerosol
After
4
Hour
Exposure
in
Sprague­
Dawley
Rats
with
Cover
Letter
Dated
052692.
EPA/
OTS
Doc.#
88­
920003087.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
75715
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
INHALE.

38.
FACTEAU,
T.
and
MIELKE,
E.
(
1987).
ORCHARD
CHEMICAL
MOWING.
84TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
AND
THE
34TH
ANNUAL
CONGRESS
OF
THE
INTERAMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
TROPICAL
HORTICULTURE,
ORLANDO,
FLORIDA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
6­
12,
1987.
HORTSCIENCE;
22:
1127.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
BIOMASS
REDUCTION
HERBICIDES
ROUNDUP
2
4­
D
EMBARK
POAST
®
FUSILADE
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
39.
FOCKE,
M.
and
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1987).
Inhibition
of
the
acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
of
barley
chloroplasts
by
cycloxydim
and
sethoxydim.
Z
NATURFORSCH
SECT
C
BIOSCI;
42:
1361­
1363.
­
99­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
effect
of
the
three
cyclohexane­
1,3­
dione
derivatives
cycloxydim,
sethoxydim
and
clethodim
on
the
incorporation
of
14C­
labelled
acetate,
malonate,
acetyl­
CoA
or
malonyl­
CoA
into
fatty
acids
was
studied
in
an
enzyme
preparation
isolated
from
barley
chloroplasts
(
Hordeum
vulgare
L.
var.
"
Alexis").
The
herbicides
cycloxydim,
clethodim
and
sethoxydim
block
the
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
from
(
2­
14C)
acetate
and
(
1­
14C)
acetyl­
CoA,
whereas
that
of
(
2­
14C)
acetate
and
(
1­
14C)
acetyl­
CoA,
whereas
that
of
(
2­
14C)
malonate
and
(
2­
14C)
malonyl­
CoA
is
not
affected.
The
data
indicate
that
the
mode
of
action
of
the
cyclohexane­
1,3­
dione
derivatives
in
the
sensitive
barley
plant
consists
in
the
inhibition
of
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
by
blocking
the
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
EC
6.4.1.2.).
Isotopes/
Radiation/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
40.
Ford,
G.
T.
and
Mt.
Pleasant,
J.
(
1994).
Competitive
Abilities
of
Six
Corn
(
Zea
mays
L.)
Hybrids
with
Four
Weed
Control
Practices.
Weed
Technol.
8:
124­
128.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
74038
User
Define
2:
WASH
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
ATZ,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

41.
GEALY
DR,
BOYDSTON
RA,
KLEIN
RR,
and
KOEPPE
DE
(
1987).
EFFECT
OF
DIFENOPENTENETHYL
ON
ISOLATED
CORN
ZEA­
MAYS
L.
AND
SOYBEAN
GLYCINE­
MAX
L.
MITOCHONDRIAL
MEMBRANE
INTEGRITY
AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL
ACTIVITIES.
PESTIC
BIOCHEM
PHYSIOL;
27:
106­
113.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
RESPIRATION
PHYTOTOXICITY
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Fermentation/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Respiration/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
42.
George,
R.
Y.
(
2002).
Ben
Franklin
temperate
reef
and
deep
sea
 
Agassiz
Coral
Hills'
in
the
Blake
Plateau
off
North
Carolina.
Hydrobiologia
471:
71­
81.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.
0018­
8158
43.
GILBERTZ
DA
and
JOHNSON
BJ
(
1987).
EFFECT
OF
SELECTED
HERBICIDES
FOR
CONTROLLING
WEEDS
IN
FLOWERING
ANNUALS.
84TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
AND
THE
34TH
ANNUAL
CONGRESS
OF
THE
INTERAMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
TROPICAL
HORTICULTURE,
ORLANDO,
FLORIDA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
6­
12,
1987.
HORTSCIENCE;
22:
1058.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
DIGITARIA­
SANGUINALIS
AMARANTHUSBLITOIDES
AGERATUM
MARIGOLD
PETUNIA
ZINNIA
SALVIA
GERANIUM
METSULFURON
SULFOMETURON
OXADIAZON
ORYZALIN
SETHOXYDIN
PHYTOTOXICITY
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Herbs/
Plants/
Plants/
Plants/
Plants
­
100­
44.
GOLZ,
A.,
FOCKE,
M.,
and
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1994).
Inhibitors
of
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
in
higher
plants.
JOURNAL
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGY;
143:
426­
433.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
present
knowledge
of
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
in
plastids
of
higher
plants
is
reviewed
with
respect
to
its
inhibition
by
various
synthetic
and
natural
xenobiotics.
Certain
enzymatic
steps
In
the
biosynthetic
sequence,
the
acetyl­
CoA
synthetase
(
ACS),
the
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACC),
the
betaketoacyl
ACP
synthases
(
KAS
I
and
III)
and
the
plastidic
pyruvate
dehydrogenase
complex
(
pPDHC),
are
specifically
inhibited
by
different
synthetic
compounds
(
ACS
by
alkyl­
adenylates;
ACC
by
herbicides,
pPDHC
by
acetylmethyl­
phosphinate)
or
by
naturally
occurring
antibiotics
(
KAS
enzymes
by
cerulenin
and
thiolactomycin).
These
xenobiotics
can
be
used
in
a
better
understanding
of
the
regulation
of
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
and
the
enzymes
involved.
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Antibiotics/
Administration
&
Dosage/
Antibiotics/
Analysis/
Antibiotics/
Chemical
Synthesis/
Antibiotics/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
45.
GRAPH,
S.,
KLEIFELD,
Y.,
BUCSBAUM,
H.,
BLUMENFELD,
T.,
BARGUTTI,
A.,
and
GOGENHEIM,
Y.
(
1985).
IMPROVEMENT
OF
WEED
CONTROL
IN
ALFALFA.
PHYTOPARASITICA;
13
(
3­
4).
1985
(
RECD.
1986).
263­
264.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ASBTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
PYRIDATE
CARBETAMIDE
NAPROPAMIDE
ORYZALIN
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOP­
BUTYL
NEBURON
PROPYZAMIDE
METRIBUZIN
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Animal
Feed/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Legumes
46.
GREEN
JM
and
AMUTI
KS
(
1993).
Maximizing
the
performance
of
antagonistic
mixtures.
ACTA
PHYTOPATHOLOGICA
ET
ENTOMOLOGICA
HUNGARICA;
28:
469­
480.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Herbicide
antagonism
is
beneficial
when
it
reduces
crop
injury
and
detrimental
when
it
reduces
weed
control.
Commercial
successes
where
antagonism
safens
crops
are
far
outnumbered
by
failures
where
it
reduces
weed
control.
Because
mixtures
are
becoming
more
complex
and
more
common,
antagonism
is
more
important
to
understand
than
ever
before.
Factors
that
affect
antagonism
usually
can
be
identified
and
managed
to
maximize
performance.
These
factors
include
herbicide
selection,
differential
species
sensitivity,
differential
species
joint
action,
rate
adjustment,
formulation,
adjuvants,
mode
of
action,
timing,
placement,
stage
of
growth,
and
environmental
factors.
The
degree
of
antagonism,
not
whether
it
occurs,
usually
determines
whether
the
mixture
is
agronomically
useful.
In
the
major
herbicide
markets,
the
potential
number
of
herbicide
combinations
is
so
large
that
comprehensive
empirical
testing
is
impractical.
Field
tests
with
new
herbicide
candidates
only
determine
Mathematics/
Statistics/
Biology/
Biophysics/
Cybernetics/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
47.
GRIFFITHS,
W.
(
1994).
Evolution
of
herbicide
programs
in
sugarbeet.
WEED
TECHNOLOGY;
8:
338­
343.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
PHMD,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
During
the
early
years
of
herbicide
use,
the
total
amount
of
ai
applied
per
ha
increased
in
attempts
to
obtain
season­
long
weed
control,
peaking
in
the
decade
of
the
mid­
1970'
s
to
mid­
1980'
s.
Since
then,
the
chemical
load
applied
for
broadleaf
weed
control
has
shown
a
consistent,
if
not
dramatic,
decline.
A
much
more
significant
reduction
has
occurred
in
crass
weed
control.
Main
reasons
for
the
reduction
are
a
move
from
PPI
and
PRE
treatments
to
POST,
the
development
of
repeat
low­
dose
herbicide
techniques,
and
the
introduction
of
more
active
postemergence
grass
herbicides.
In
general,
this
change
has
been
achieved
with
a
­
101­
concomitant
improvement
in
crop
safety.
These
developments
occurred
as
a
coincident
benefit
in
pursuing
the
target
objective
of
giving
growers
more
convenient
and
flexible
weed
control
and
not
as
a
specific
attempt
to
reduce
chemical
use.
This
paper
discusses
the
evolution
of
weed
control
programs
in
the
U.
K.,
France,
Germany,
and
the
U.
S.
A.
All
show
a
Biochemistry/
Carbohydrates/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
48.
GRONWALD
JW,
BURTON
JD,
STOLTENBERG
DE,
PARKER
WB,
SOMERS
DA,
WYSE
DL,
and
GENGENBACH
BG
(
1988).
THE
SITE
OF
ACTION
OF
THE
HERBICIDES
SETHOXYDIM
AND
HALOXYFOP.
THIRD
CHEMICAL
CONGRESS
OF
NORTH
AMERICA
HELD
AT
THE
195TH
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
MEETING,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JUNE
5­
10,
1988.
ABSTR
PAP
CHEM
CONGR
NORTH
AM;
3:
BTEC
68.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CORN
PEA
FESCUE
ENZYME
INHIBITOR
FATTY
ACID
SYNTHETASE
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Legumes
49.
GRONWALD
JW,
EBERLEIN
CV,
BETTS
KJ,
ROSOW
KM,
EHLKE
NJ,
and
WYSE
DL
(
1989).
DICLOFOP
RESISTANCE
IN
A
BIOTYPE
OF
ITALIAN
RYEGRASS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS
HELD
JOINTLY
WITH
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
3,
1989.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
89
(
4
SUPPL.).
1989.
115.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
LOLIUM­
MULTIFLORUM
QUIZALOFOP
HALOXYFOP
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
50.
GRONWALD
JW,
PARKER
WB,
SOMERS
DA,
WYSE
DL,
and
GENGENBACH
BG
(
1989).
SELECTION
FOR
TOLERANCE
TO
GRAMINICIDE
HERBICIDES
IN
MAIZE
TISSUE
CULTURE.
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL.
BRIGHTON
CROP
PROTECTION
CONFERENCE:
WEEDS,
VOLS.
1,
2
AND
3;
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE,
BRIGHTON,
ENGLAND,
UK,
NOVEMBER
20­
23,
1989.
XXII+
408P.(
VOL.
1);
XXI+
394P.(
VOL.
2);
XXII+
435P.(
VOL.
3)
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL:
SURREY,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ILLUS.
PAPER.
ISBN
0­
948404­
36­
1(
VOL.
1);
ISBN
0­
948404­
37­
X(
VOL.
2);
ISBN
0­
948404­
38­
8(
VOL.
3);
ISBN
0­
948404­
35­
3(
SET).;
0
1217­
1224.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ZEA­
MAYS
SETHOXYDIM
HALOXYFOP
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
51.
GUPTON
CL
(
1997).
LIVING
MULCH
FOR
STRAWBERRY
PRODUCTION
FIELDS.
94TH
ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
SALT
LAKE
CITY,
UTAH,
USA,
JULY
23­
26,
1997.
HORTSCIENCE;
32:
428.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
MEETING
POSTER
LOLIUMMULTIFLORUM
ANNUAL
RYEGRASS
STRAWBERRY
LIVING
MULCH
CROP
INDUSTRY
EMBARK
­
102­
PLANT
GROWTH
REGULATOR
GROWTH
RETARDATION
STRAWBERRY
PRODUCTION
FIELDS
POAST
®
HERBICIDE
RELY
HORTICULTURE
SOIL
SCIENCE
GULF
SOUTH
USA
Congresses/
Biology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Fruit/
Grasses/
Plants,
Medicinal
52.
Hart,
S.
E.
and
Wax,
L.
M.
(
1999).
Review
and
future
prospectus
on
the
impacts
of
herbicide
resistant
maize
on
weed
management.
Maydica,
44
(
1)
pp.
25­
36.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.
Advances
in
plant
biotechnology
have
allowed
the
development
of
a
number
of
herbicide
resistant
crops
(
HRCs).
These
developments
have
provided
one
of
the
most
exciting
and
challenging
aspects
of
weed
management
in
crops
for
many
years,
and
offer
new
approaches
to
managing
weeds
effectively
in
a
number
of
cropping
systems.
Several
types
of
herbicide­
resistant
systems
have
been
evaluated
and
commercialized
in
maize.
Imidazolinone­
resistant
maize
(
IMI­
maize)
offers
the
option
of
using
this
class
of
herbicide
to
provide
broad
spectrum
control
of
weeds
in
maize
production.
However,
the
rapid
development
of
weed
biotypes
resistant
to
this
class
of
herbicides
may
limit
the
long­
term
utility
of
this
weed
management
system
in
maize.
Sethoxydim
resistant
maize
(
SR
maize)
allows
for
the
use
of
sethoxydim
as
a
safe
and
effective
postemergence
(
POST)
treatment
for
grass
control.
Sethoxydim
can
provide
excellent
control
of
a
variety
of
annual
and
some
perennial
grasses
and
is
more
environmentally
benign
than
some
of
the
standard
soil­
applied
herbicides.
This
system
has
some
limitations
in
that
sethoxydim
has
no
soil
residual,
and
repeat
applications
are
sometimes
needed
for
later
emerging
weeds.
Also,
this
herbicide
system
does
not
provide
control
of
dicotyledonous
weeds,
and
when
herbicides
for
this
purpose
are
added
to
the
mixture,
antagonism
of
grass
control
may
occur.
SR
maize
may
become
a
problem
weed
as
volunteer
maize
in
subsequent
crops.
Glufosinate
resistant
maize
(
GR
maize)
systems
allow
the
opportunity
to
use
POST
applications
of
glufosinate
for
selective
control
of
a
broad
spectrum
of
annual
weeds.
This
herbicide
brings
a
unique
mode
of
action
that
could
be
helpful
in
managing
resistant
weed
biotypes.
However,
it
is
a
relatively
costly
herbicide,
and
control
may
be
inconsistent
if
not
applied
in
a
timely
manner
to
small
weeds
in
good
growing
conditions.
Using
this
system
in
conjunction
with
other
herbicides
and/
or
with
sequential
cultivation
has
been
the
most
effective.
Glyphosate
resistant
maize
(
GLR)
systems
allow
for
the
selective
use
of
glyphosate
to
control
a
wide
spectrum
of
annual
and
perennial
weeds.
However,
glyphosate
does
not
have
soil
residual.
Therefore,
a
single
application
may
not
be
effective
in
all
cropping
situations.
This
system
is
advantageous
over
the
sethoxydim
and
glufosinate
systems
in
terms
of
spectrum
of
weeds
controlled,
wider
application
window­,
and
treatment
costs.
At
this
time,
it
has
not
been
determined
if
any
of
these
herbicide
resistant
systems
in
maize
will
have
the
same
impact
on
weed
management
as
the
GLR­
soybean
systems.
These
herbicide
resistant
systems
must
demonstrate
crop
safety,
good
agronomic
hybrid
performance,
and
be
economically
competitive
with
standard
weed
management
practices.
The
ultimate
impact
of
these
systems
in
weed
management
is
uncertain,
but
likely
will
depend
on
the
willingness
of
the
producers
to
adopt
this
technology
after
some
years
of
experience
in
their
own
cropping
systems.
SXD
Herbicide
resistant
maize/
Weed
management/
Imidazolinone
resistant
maize/
Glufosinate
resistant
maize
53.
HARWOOD
JL
(
1991).
LIPID
SYNTHESIS.
KIRKWOOD,
R.
C.
(
ED.).
TOPICS
IN
APPLIED
CHEMISTRY:
TARGET
SITES
FOR
HERBICIDE
ACTION.
XV+
339P.
PLENUM
PRESS:
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
USA;
LONDON,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
306­
43846­
1.;
0:
57­
94.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
SPINACH
BARLEY
PEA
WHEAT
POTATO
THYLAKOID
MEMBRANES
MITOCHONDRIA
HERBICIDE
EFFECTS
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
PYRAZON
NORFLURAZON
THIOCARBAMATES
ARYLOXYPHENOXYPROPIONATES
CYCLOHEXANEDIONES
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Fermentation/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Respiration/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants/
Legumes/
Plants
­
103­
54.
HERBERT,
D.,
WALKER
KA,
PRICE
LJ,
COLE
DJ,
PALLETT
KE,
RIDLEY
SM,
and
HARWOOD
JL
(
1997).
Acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase.
A
graminicide
target
site.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE;
50:
67­
71.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
catalyses
the
first
committed
step
in
fatty
acid
(
and
acyl
lipid)
formation.
The
enzyme
has
been
shown
to
exert
a
high
degree
of
flux
control
for
lipid
biosynthesis
in
leaves
and,
therefore,
it
is
not
surprising
that
chemicals
which
can
inhibit
it
effectively
are
successful
herbicides.
These
chemicals
belong
mainly
to
the
cyclohexanedione
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
classes
and
are
graminicides.
The
reason
for
the
selectivity
of
these
herbicides
towards
grasses
lies
in
the
nature
of
the
target
site,
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase.
Recent
advances
in
our
knowledge
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylases
from
sensitive
and
resistant
plants
has
revealed
some
important
facts.
Dicotyledons,
which
are
resistant,
have
a
multi­
enzyme
complex
type
of
carboxylase
in
their
chloroplasts
while
grasses
have
a
multifunctional
protein.
Both
divisions
of
plants
have
two
isoforms
of
the
enzyme,
the
second
being
in
the
cytosol.
Detailed
study
of
multifunctional
forms
of
acetyl­
CoA
carb
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Immunity,
Natural/
Plant
Diseases/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
55.
HUBBARD,
J.
and
WHITWELL,
T.
(
1990).
TOLERANCE
OF
ORNAMENTAL
GRASSES
TO
POSTEMERGENCE
GRASS
HERBICIDES.
87TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
TUCSON,
ARIZONA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
4­
8,
1990.
HORTSCIENCE;
25
(
9).
1990.
1104.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
AB
­
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CALAMAGROSTIS
CORTADERIA
ERAGROSTIS
ERIANTHUS
MISCANTHUS
SORGHASTRUM
SPARTINA
PANICUM
PENNISETUM
PLANT
FENOXAPROP­
ETHYL
FLUAZIFOP­
P
SETHOXYDIM
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURECongresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
56.
HULL
MR
and
COBB
AH
(
1997).
THE
EFFECT
OF
GRAMINICIDES
ON
PLANT
PLASMA
MEMBRANE
H­+­
ATPASE
ACTIVITY
IN
VITRO.
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL.
THE
1997
BRIGHTON
CROP
PROTECTION
CONFERENCE:
WEEDS,
VOLS.
1­
3;
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE,
BRIGHTON,
ENGLAND,
UK,
NOVEMBER
17­
20,
1997.
XXIV+
442P.(
VOL.
1);
XXIV+
451P.(
VOL.
2);
XXIV+
307P.(
VOL.
3)
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL
(
BCPC):
FARNHAM,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ISBN
1­
901396­
45­
2(
SET);
ISBN
1­
901396­
46­
0(
VOL.
1);
ISBN
1­
901396­
47­
9(
VOL.
2);
ISBN
1­
901396­
48­
7(
VOL.
3)
819­
824.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
BOOK
CHAPTER
MEETING
PAPER
BETA­
VULGARIS
ALOPECURUS­
MYOSUROIDES
SUGAR
BEET
BLACK­
GRASS
WEED
ENZYMOLOGY
PESTICIDES
PLASMA
MEMBRANE
DIALLATE
GRAMINICIDE
THIOCARBAMATE
HERBICIDE
TRIALLATE
EPTC
DICLOFOP­
METHYL
ARYLOXYPHENOXYPROPIONATE
ATPASE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
57.
INCLEDON
BJ
and
HALL
JC
(
1999).
Inhibition
of
ACCase220
and
ACCase240
isozymes
from
sethoxydim­
resistant
and
­
susceptible
maize
hybrids.
JOURNAL
OF
AGRICULTURAL
AND
FOOD
CHEMISTRY;
47:
299­
304.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
isozymes
were
separated
from
cyclohexanedione­
resistant
and
­
susceptible
maize.
ACCase240
from
resistant
maize
was
3.7­,
>
77­,
and
12.8­
fold
more
resistant
to
inhibition
by
clethodim,
sethoxydim,
and
tralkoxydim,
respectively,
than
ACCase240
from
­
104­
susceptible
maize.
The
resistant
ACCase240
preparation
had
3.0­
fold
more
protein
and
14.5­
fold
lower
specific
activity
than
susceptible
ACCase240.
Resistant
ACCase240
has
a
Vmax
5.5­
fold
lower
than
that
of
susceptible
ACCase240,
whereas
apparent
Km
values
were
similar.
ACCase220
from
resistant
maize
was
>
25­
and
7.2­
fold
more
resistant
to
inhibition
by
sethoxydim
and
tralkoxydim,
respectively,
than
susceptible
ACCase220
but
was
inhibited
to
the
same
extent
by
clethodim.
In
summary,
sethoxydim­
resistant
corn
has
an
altered
herbicide­
resistant
ACCase220
isozyme
and
increased
expression
of
a
less
efficient,
herbicide­
resistant
ACCase240
isozyme.
However,
to
what
extent
alteration
of
bo
Biochemistry/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
58.
ITO,
N.,
HAGIWARA,
A.,
TAMANO,
S.,
FUTACUCHI,
M.,
IMAIDA,
K.,
and
SHIRAI,
T.
(
1996).
Effects
of
pesticide
mixtures
at
the
acceptable
daily
intake
levels
on
rat
carcinogenesis.
FOOD
AND
CHEMICAL
TOXICOLOGY;
34:
1091­
1096.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
DMT,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Possible
modifying
effects
of
pesticide
mixtures
on
tumorigenesis
were
investigated
with
medium­
term
carcinogenesis
protocols
for
rapid
detection
of
carcinogenic
agents
using
male
F344
rats.
In
the
8­
wk
liver
model,
administration
of
20
pesticides
(
19
organophosphorus
compounds
and
one
organochlorine),
added
to
the
diet
each
at
acceptable
daily
intake
(
ADI)
levels,
did
not
enhance
rat
liver
preneoplastic
lesion
development
initiated
by
diethyltyrosamine.
In
contrast,
a
mixture
of
these
20
pesticides
at
100
times
the
ADI
significantly
increased
the
number
and
area
of
liver
lesions.
In
the
second
experiment
using
a
multi­
organ
carcinogenicity
protocol
of
28
wk,
mixtures
of
40
pesticides
(
high
production
examples)
or
20
pesticides
(
suspected
carcinogens)
added
to
the
diet
at
their
respective
ADI
levels
did
not
modulate
carcinogenesis
in
any
organ
initiated
by
five
known
potent
carcinogens
in
combination.
These
results
thus
provide
direct
support
for
the
safety
factor
(
usua
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Carcinogens/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Muridae
59.
JOACHIMIAK,
M.,
TEVZADZE,
G.,
PODKOWINSKI,
J.,
HASELKORN,
R.,
and
GORNICKI,
P.
(
1997).
Wheat
cytosolic
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
complements
an
ACC1
null
mutation
in
yeast.
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
NATIONAL
ACADEMY
OF
SCIENCES
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA;
94:
9990­
9995.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
YEAST.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Spores
harboring
an
ACC1
deletion
derived
from
a
diploid
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
strain,
in
which
one
copy
of
the
entire
ACC1
gene
is
replaced
with
a
LEU2
cassette,
fail
to
grow.
A
chimeric
gene
consisting
of
the
yeast
GAL10
promoter,
yeast
ACC1
leader,
wheat
cytosolic
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
cDNA,
and
yeast
ACC1
3'
tail
was
used
to
complement
a
yeast
ACC1
mutation.
The
complementation
demonstrates
that
active
wheat
ACCase
can
be
produced
in
yeast.
At
low
concentrations
of
galactose,
the
activity
of
the
"
wheat
gene"
driven
by
the
GAL10
promoter
is
low
and
ACCase
becomes
limiting
for
growth,
a
condition
expected
to
enhance
transgenic
yeast
sensitivity
to
wheat
ACCase­
specific
inhibitors.
An
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
and
two
cyclohexanediones
do
not
inhibit
growth
of
haploid
yeast
strains
containing
the
yeast
ACC1
gene,
but
one
cyclohexanedione
inhibits
growth
of
the
gene­
replacement
strains
at
concentrations
below
0.2
mM.
In
vitro,
the
activity
of
wheat
cytosolic
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/*
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Ascomycota/
Grasses
60.
Kienhuis,
Paul
G.
M.
(
1993).
Radiofrequency­
only
daughter
scan
mode
to
provide
more
spectral
information
in
liquid
chromatography­­
thermospray
tandem
mass
spectrometry.
Journal
of
Chromatography
A
647:
39­
50.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
MTL
,
DMT;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.
A
method
is
presented
for
increasing
the
number
of
specific
ions
in
LC­
thermospray
mass
spectra
by
means
of
a
quadrupole
tandem
mass
spectrometer
(
Finnigan
TSQ­
70)
in
the
radiofrequency­
only
daughter
(
RFD)
scan
mode.
The
method
can
be
used
for
screening
a
large
number
of
compounds
eluted
from
an
HPLC
system.
MS­
MS
in
the
­
105­
usual
daughter,
parent
or
neutral
loss
scan
mode
(
on
retention
time
altered
for
each
eluted
compound)
in
this
particular
instance
is
very
laborious
or
even
impossible.
In
the
RFD
scan
mode
the
first
quadrupole
is
operating
as
a
high­
pass
mass
filter.
Only
ions
with
masses
equal
to
or
above
the
arbitrary
selected
cut­
off
mass
will
enter
the
collision
cell.
With
a
low
collision
offset
voltage
mainly
molecular
ions
will
be
present
in
the
third
quadrupole,
which
is
acting
as
a
mass
analyser
in
the
full­
scan
mode.
With
medium
and
high
collision
offset
voltages,
daughter
ions
are
generated
in
the
collision
cell.
By
using
two
or
three
different
alternating
collision
offset
voltages
during
one
analysis,
both
molecular
and
daughter
ions
can
be
acquired,
increasing
the
specificity
of
the
mass
spectrum.
First,
data
on
optimization
of
the
low
collision
offset
voltage
and
the
collision
gas
(
argon)
pressure
with
a
mixture
of
alachlor,
atrazine,
aldicarb
and
barban
are
presented.
Next,
spectral
information
and
data
about
the
sensitivity
of
twenty
compounds
(
alachlor,
aldicarb,
aniline,
atrazine,
benzothiazole,
carbendazim,
chloridazon,
diazinon,
dimethoate,
diuron,
ethylenethiourea,
isocarbamide,
isoproturon,
metamitron,
metolachlor,
monolinuron,
propachlor,
sethoxydim,
simazine
and
warfarin)
in
the
RFD
scan
mode
at
three
collision
offset
voltages
(­
6,
­
20
and
­
40
V)
are
presented
and
compared
with
the
single­
stage
Q3MS
scan
mode.
The
sensitivity
proved
to
be
the
same
or
better
at
collision
offset
voltages
of
­
6
and
­
20
V,
partly
because
adducts
and
eluent
clusters
were
decreased
significantly
or
even
disappeared.
At
a
collision
offset
of
­
40
V
the
sensitivity
decreased
for
many
compounds
and
the
more
intense
ions
mainly
had
low
m/
z
values,
which
are
less
specific.
The
RFD
scan
mode,
using
a
­
6
and
­
20
V
collision
offset
voltage
alternating
in
each
scan,
is
demonstrated
by
screening
a
surface
water
sample
(
river
Rhine)
spiked
with
ten
compounds
at
a
level
of
1
[
mu]
g/
1.
It
resulted
in
chromatograms
with
increased
spectral
information,
the
same
or
better
signal­
to­
noise
ratios,
less
eluent
clusters
and
no
adducts.
http://
www.
sciencedirect.
com/
science/
article/
B6TG8­
44CPVPV­
CC/
2/
0bb68fc0b900c19c15a245d479a6fbc5
61.
Kienhuis,
Paul
G.
M.
(
1993).
Radiofrequency­
only
daughter
scan
mode
to
provide
more
spectral
information
in
liquid
chromatography­­
thermospray
tandem
mass
spectrometry.
Journal
of
Chromatography
A
647:
39­
50.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
MTL,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHOD.
A
method
is
presented
for
increasing
the
number
of
specific
ions
in
LC­
thermospray
mass
spectra
by
means
of
a
quadrupole
tandem
mass
spectrometer
(
Finnigan
TSQ­
70)
in
the
radiofrequency­
only
daughter
(
RFD)
scan
mode.
The
method
can
be
used
for
screening
a
large
number
of
compounds
eluted
from
an
HPLC
system.
MS­
MS
in
the
usual
daughter,
parent
or
neutral
loss
scan
mode
(
on
retention
time
altered
for
each
eluted
compound)
in
this
particular
instance
is
very
laborious
or
even
impossible.
In
the
RFD
scan
mode
the
first
quadrupole
is
operating
as
a
high­
pass
mass
filter.
Only
ions
with
masses
equal
to
or
above
the
arbitrary
selected
cut­
off
mass
will
enter
the
collision
cell.
With
a
low
collision
offset
voltage
mainly
molecular
ions
will
be
present
in
the
third
quadrupole,
which
is
acting
as
a
mass
analyser
in
the
full­
scan
mode.
With
medium
and
high
collision
offset
voltages,
daughter
ions
are
generated
in
the
collision
cell.
By
using
two
or
three
different
alternating
collision
offset
voltages
during
one
analysis,
both
molecular
and
daughter
ions
can
be
acquired,
increasing
the
specificity
of
the
mass
spectrum.
First,
data
on
optimization
of
the
low
collision
offset
voltage
and
the
collision
gas
(
argon)
pressure
with
a
mixture
of
alachlor,
atrazine,
aldicarb
and
barban
are
presented.
Next,
spectral
information
and
data
about
the
sensitivity
of
twenty
compounds
(
alachlor,
aldicarb,
aniline,
atrazine,
benzothiazole,
carbendazim,
chloridazon,
diazinon,
dimethoate,
diuron,
ethylenethiourea,
isocarbamide,
isoproturon,
metamitron,
metolachlor,
monolinuron,
propachlor,
sethoxydim,
simazine
and
warfarin)
in
the
RFD
scan
mode
at
three
collision
offset
voltages
(­
6,
­
20
and
­
40
V)
are
presented
and
compared
with
the
single­
stage
Q3MS
scan
mode.
The
sensitivity
proved
to
be
the
same
or
better
at
collision
offset
voltages
of
­
6
and
­
20
V,
partly
because
adducts
and
eluent
clusters
were
decreased
significantly
or
even
disappeared.
At
a
collision
offset
of
­
40
V
the
sensitivity
decreased
for
many
compounds
and
the
more
intense
ions
mainly
had
low
m/
z
values,
which
are
less
specific.
The
RFD
scan
mode,
using
a
­
6
and
­
20
V
collision
offset
voltage
alternating
in
each
scan,
is
demonstrated
by
screening
a
surface
water
sample
(
river
Rhine)
spiked
with
ten
compounds
at
a
level
of
1
[
mu]
g/
1.
It
resulted
in
chromatograms
with
increased
spectral
information,
the
same
or
better
signal­
to­
noise
ratios,
less
eluent
clusters
and
no
adducts.
http://
www.
sciencedirect.
com/
science/
article/
B6TG8­
44CPVPV­
CC/
2/
0bb68fc0b900c19c15a245d479a6fbc5
62.
Kienhuis,
Paul
G.
M.
(
1993).
Radiofrequency­
only
daughter
scan
mode
to
provide
more
spectral
information
in
liquid
chromatography­­
thermospray
tandem
mass
spectrometry.
Journal
of
Chromatography
­
106­
A
647:
39­
50.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
WFN;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHOD.
A
method
is
presented
for
increasing
the
number
of
specific
ions
in
LC­
thermospray
mass
spectra
by
means
of
a
quadrupole
tandem
mass
spectrometer
(
Finnigan
TSQ­
70)
in
the
radiofrequency­
only
daughter
(
RFD)
scan
mode.
The
method
can
be
used
for
screening
a
large
number
of
compounds
eluted
from
an
HPLC
system.
MS­
MS
in
the
usual
daughter,
parent
or
neutral
loss
scan
mode
(
on
retention
time
altered
for
each
eluted
compound)
in
this
particular
instance
is
very
laborious
or
even
impossible.
In
the
RFD
scan
mode
the
first
quadrupole
is
operating
as
a
high­
pass
mass
filter.
Only
ions
with
masses
equal
to
or
above
the
arbitrary
selected
cut­
off
mass
will
enter
the
collision
cell.
With
a
low
collision
offset
voltage
mainly
molecular
ions
will
be
present
in
the
third
quadrupole,
which
is
acting
as
a
mass
analyser
in
the
full­
scan
mode.
With
medium
and
high
collision
offset
voltages,
daughter
ions
are
generated
in
the
collision
cell.
By
using
two
or
three
different
alternating
collision
offset
voltages
during
one
analysis,
both
molecular
and
daughter
ions
can
be
acquired,
increasing
the
specificity
of
the
mass
spectrum.
First,
data
on
optimization
of
the
low
collision
offset
voltage
and
the
collision
gas
(
argon)
pressure
with
a
mixture
of
alachlor,
atrazine,
aldicarb
and
barban
are
presented.
Next,
spectral
information
and
data
about
the
sensitivity
of
twenty
compounds
(
alachlor,
aldicarb,
aniline,
atrazine,
benzothiazole,
carbendazim,
chloridazon,
diazinon,
dimethoate,
diuron,
ethylenethiourea,
isocarbamide,
isoproturon,
metamitron,
metolachlor,
monolinuron,
propachlor,
sethoxydim,
simazine
and
warfarin)
in
the
RFD
scan
mode
at
three
collision
offset
voltages
(­
6,
­
20
and
­
40
V)
are
presented
and
compared
with
the
single­
stage
Q3MS
scan
mode.
The
sensitivity
proved
to
be
the
same
or
better
at
collision
offset
voltages
of
­
6
and
­
20
V,
partly
because
adducts
and
eluent
clusters
were
decreased
significantly
or
even
disappeared.
At
a
collision
offset
of
­
40
V
the
sensitivity
decreased
for
many
compounds
and
the
more
intense
ions
mainly
had
low
m/
z
values,
which
are
less
specific.
The
RFD
scan
mode,
using
a
­
6
and
­
20
V
collision
offset
voltage
alternating
in
each
scan,
is
demonstrated
by
screening
a
surface
water
sample
(
river
Rhine)
spiked
with
ten
compounds
at
a
level
of
1
[
mu]
g/
1.
It
resulted
in
chromatograms
with
increased
spectral
information,
the
same
or
better
signal­
to­
noise
ratios,
less
eluent
clusters
and
no
adducts.
http://
www.
sciencedirect.
com/
science/
article/
B6TG8­
44CPVPV­
CC/
2/
0bb68fc0b900c19c15a245d479a6fbc5
63.
KIRKWOOD
RC
(
1993).
USE
AND
MODE
OF
ACTION
OF
ADJUVANTS
FOR
HERBICIDES
A
REVIEW
OF
SOME
CURRENT
WORK.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE
38:
93­
102.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
PAPER
PLANT
INTERACTIONS
SURFACTANTS
WAX
DISSOLUTION
UPTAKE
MEMBRANE
PERMEABILITY
PESTICIDE
AGRICHEMICAL
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/*
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
64.
KOBEK,
K.,
FOCKE,
M.,
and
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1988).
INHIBITION
OF
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
OF
ISOLATED
CHLOROPLASTS
BY
NEWER
INGREDIENTS.
6TH
WORKSHOP
ON
PLANT
LIPIDS
HELD
AT
THE
64TH
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
GESELLSCHAFT
FUER
BIOLOGISCHE
CHEMIE
(
SOCIETY
FOR
BIOLOGICAL
CHEMISTRY),
HANNOVER,
WEST
GERMANY,
SEPTEMBER
24­
26,
1987.
BIOL
CHEM
HOPPE­
SEYLER;
369
(
1).
1988.
5­
6.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
AVENA­
SATIVA
SPINACIA­
OLERACEA
PISUMSATIVUM
DICLOFOP
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
65.
KOBEK,
K.,
FOCKE,
M.,
LICHTENTHALER
HK,
RETZLAFF,
G.,
and
WUERZER,
B.
(
1988).
INHIBITION
OF
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
IN
ISOLATED
CHLOROPLASTS
BY
CYCLOXYDIM
AND
OTHER
CYCLOHEXANE­
1
3­
DIONES.
PHYSIOL
PLANT;
72:
492­
498.
­
107­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
AVENA­
SATIVA
CULTIVAR
FLAMINGNOVA
PISUM­
SATIVUM
CULTIVAR
KLEINE
RHEINLAENDERIN
SPINACIA­
OLERACEA
CULTIVAR
MATADOR
NICOTIANATABACUM
POA­
ANNUA
CARBON­
14
ACETATE
Isotopes/
Radiation/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants/
Legumes/
Plants
66.
KOBEK,
K.
and
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1990).
Effect
of
different
cyclohexane­
1,3­
dione
derivatives
on
the
de
novo
fatty
acid
biosynthesis
in
isolated
oat
chloroplasts.
Z
NATURFORSCH
SECT
C
BIOSCI;
45:
84­
88.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
In
the
test
sytem
of
isolated
oat
chloroplasts
various
structurally
different
cyclohexane­
1,3­
dione
derivatives
were
investigated
for
their
inhibitory
effect
on
de
novo
fatty­
acid
biosynthesis.
Cycloxydim
proved
to
be
the
most
efficient
inhibitor
in
the
group
of
the
tested
cyclohexane­
1,3­
diones.
The
alkoxyimino
side­
chain
appears
to
be
essential
for
the
herbicidal
activity.
Compounds
with
variations
in
other
substituents
of
the
cyclohexanedione
structure
were
less
inhibitory.
The
I50­
values
of
most
of
the
applied
substances
for
a
50%
inhibition
of
de
novo
fatty­
acid
biosynthesis
were
in
the
range
of
0.15
muM
to
100
muM.
Some
compounds,
however,
showed
no
inhibitory
effect.
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Biophysics/
Macromolecular
Systems/
Molecular
Biology/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
67.
KOBEK,
K.
and
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1989).
INHIBITION
OF
DE
NOVO
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
IN
ISOLATED
ETIOPLASTS
BY
HERBICIDES.
Z
NATURFORSCH
SECT
C
BIOSCI;
44:
669­
672.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
PISUM­
SATIVUM
AVENA­
SATIVA
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
CYCLOXYDIM
SETHOXYDIM
DICLOFOP
Lipids/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Legumes
68.
Konnai,
M.
(
1993).
Development
of
Herbicides
and
Changes
in
Their
Potencies.
Agrochem.
Jpn.
18­
19.

Chem
Codes:
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
SENT,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

69.
Koskinen,
W.
C.,
Reynolds,
K.
M.,
Buhler,
D.
D.,
Wyse,
D.
L.,
Barber,
B.
L.,
and
Jarvis,
L.
J.
(
1993).
Persistence
and
movement
of
sethoxydim
residues
in
three
Minnesota
soils.
Weed
Science,
41
(
4)
pp.
634­
640.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

70.
KUDSK,
P.,
THONKE
KE,
and
STREIBIG
JC
(
1987).
METHOD
FOR
ASSESSING
THE
INFLUENCE
OF
ADDITIVES
ON
THE
EFFECT
OF
FOLIAR­
APPLIED
HERBICIDES.
WEED
RES;
27:
425­
430.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
HORDEUM­
VULGARE
CULTIVAR
IGRI
ALLOXYDIM­
SODIUM
FLUAZIFOP­
BUTYL
SETHOXYDIM
DOSE
RESPONSE
WEED
CONTROL
AGRICULTURE
Biochemistry/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
71.
LICHTENTHALER
HK
(
1988).
EFFECT
OF
NEW
HERBICIDES
ON
LIPID
METABOLISM
­
108­
BIOGENESIS
AND
PIGMENT
ACCUMULATION
OF
CHLOROPLASTS.
BIOL
CHEM
HOPPE­
SEYLER;
369
(
1).
1988.
5.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
SETHOXYDIM
CHLOROPHYLL
CAROTENOID
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
72.
LICHTENTHALER
HK,
FOCKE,
M.,
and
KOBEK,
K.
(
1988).
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
AS
TARGET
FOR
HERBICIDES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
RENO,
NEVADA,
USA,
JULY
10­
14,
1988.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
86
(
4
SUPPL.).
1988.
147.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
GRASSES
ACETATE
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
INCORPORATION
SETHOXYDIM
FATTY
ACID
SYNTHESIS
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
73.
LICHTENTHALER
HK
and
GOLZ,
A.
(
1994).
INTERACTION
OF
HERBICIDES
AND
NEW
INHIBITORS
WITH
DE
NOVO
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
IN
CHLOROPLASTS.
9TH
CONGRESS
OF
THE
FEDERATION
OF
EUROPEAN
SOCIETIES
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGY,
BRNO,
CZECH
REPUBLIC,
JULY
3­
8,
1994.
BIOLOGIA
PLANTARUM
(
PRAGUE);
36
(
SUPPL.).
1994.
S345.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
ACETYLMETHYLPHOSPHINATE
DICLOFOP
SETHOXYDIM
CYCLOXYDIM
THIOLACTOMYCIN
CERULENIN
ACETYLCOENZYME
A
SYNTHETASE
PYRUVATE
DEHYDROGENASE
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Photosynthesis/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
74.
LICHTENTHALER
HK,
KLOBEK,
K.,
and
RETZLAFF,
G.
(
1990).
EFFECT
OF
CYCLOHEXANE­
1
3­
DIONES
ON
DE­
NOVO
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS
IN
DIFFERENT
FORMS
OF
ISOLATED
PLASTIDS.
PESTIC
SCI
30:
427­
430.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
OATS
MAIZE
SETHOXYDIM
CYCLOXYDIM
CLETHODIM
HERBICIDE
PLANT
PESTICIDE
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
75.
LICHTENTHALER
HK
and
KOBEK,
K.
(
1989).
ISOLATED
ETIOPLASTS
AS
TEST
SYSTEM
FOR
INHIBITORS
OF
FATTY
ACID
BIOSYNTHESIS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS
HELD
JOINTLY
WITH
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
3,
1989.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
89
(
4
SUPPL.).
1989.
196.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
OAT
PEA
CYCLOXYDIM
SETHOXYDIM
DICLOFOP
­
109­
HERBICIDES
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/*
Metabolism/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Legumes
76.
Linker,
H.
M.
and
Coble,
H.
D.
(
1990).
Effect
of
Weed
Management
Strategy
and
Planting
Date
on
Herbicide
Use
in
Peanuts
(
Arachis
hypogaea).
Weed
Technol.
4:
20­
25.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
74034
User
Define
2:
WASH
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
BT,
PQT,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

77.
Ludwig­
Mu(
dieresis)
ller,
J.
(
2000).
Indole­
3­
butyric
acid
in
plant
growth
and
development.
Plant
Growth
Regulation,
32
(
2­
3)
pp.
219­
230.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
Within
the
last
ten
years
it
has
been
established
by
GC­
MS
that
indole­
3­
butyric
acid
(
IBA)
is
an
endogenous
compound
in
a
variety
of
plant
species.
When
applied
exogenously,
IBA
has
a
variety
of
different
effects
on
plant
growth
and
development,
but
the
compound
is
still
mainly
used
for
the
induction
of
adventitious
roots.
Using
molecular
techniques,
several
genes
have
been
isolated
that
are
induced
during
adventitious
root
formation
by
IBA.
The
biosynthesis
of
IBA
in
maize
(
Zea
mays
L.)
involves
IAA
as
the
direct
precursor.
Microsomal
membranes
from
maize
are
able
to
convert
IAA
to
IBA
using
ATP
and
acetyl­
CoA
as
cofactors.
The
enzyme
catalyzing
this
reaction
was
characterized
from
maize
seedlings
and
partially
purified.
The
in
vitro
biosynthesis
of
IBA
seems
to
be
regulated
by
several
external
and
internal
factors:
i)
Microsomal
membranes
from
light­
grown
maize
seedlings
directly
synthesize
IBA,
whereas
microsomal
membranes
from
dark­
grown
maize
plants
release
an
as
yet
unknown
reaction
product,
which
is
converted
to
IBA
in
a
second
step.
ii)
Drought
and
osmotic
stress
increase
the
biosynthesis
of
IBA
maybe
via
the
increase
of
endogenous
ABA,
because
application
of
ABA
also
results
in
elevated
levels
of
IBA.
iii)
IBA
synthesis
is
specifically
increased
by
herbicides
of
the
sethoxydim
group.
iv)
IBA
and
IBA
synthesizing
activity
are
enhanced
during
the
colonization
of
maize
roots
with
the
mycorrhizal
fungus
Glomus
intraradices.
The
role
of
IBA
for
certain
developmental
processes
in
plants
is
discussed
and
some
arguments
presented
that
IBA
is
per
se
an
auxin
and
does
not
act
via
the
conversion
to
IAA.
SXD
Arabidopsis
thaliana/
Arbuscular
mycorrhiza/
Biosynthesis/
Indole­
3­
acetic
acid/
Indole­
3­
butyric
acid/
Regulation/
Zea
mays/
Zea
mays/
Glomus
intraradices
78.
Maiorano,
P.
and
Monechi,
S.
(
1998­).
Revised
correlations
of
Early
and
Middle
Miocene
calcareous
nannofossil
events
and
magnetostratigraphy
from
DSDP
Site
563
(
North
Atlantic
Ocean).
Marine
Micropaleontology
35:
235­
255.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.
0377­
8398.
Deep
Sea
Drilling
Project
Site
563,
located
on
the
west
flank
of
the
northern
Mid­
Atlantic
Ridge,
recovered
a
long
Miocene
section
from
which
magnetostratigraphic
and
isotopic
stratigraphy
are
available.
Quantitative
analyses
of
calcareous
nannofossil
assemblages
have
been
performed
in
the
Lower
and
Middle
Miocene
sediments
from
Site
563.
The
abundance
patterns
of
the
identified
species
allow
us
to
determine
several
bioevents
for
this
time
interval.
The
recognized
biohorizons,
related
to
the
available
magnetostratigraphy,
provide
new
data
on
the
biostratigraphic
value
of
many
species
and
on
the
synchroneity
of
the
events
over
a
wide
geographic
area.
Relations
with
the
oxygen
isotope
stratigraphy
are
also
reported.
Sphenolith
distribution
is
examined
in
particular
detail
due
to
their
biostratigraphic
importance
in
the
Early
Miocene.
In
particular
the
recently
described
species
Sphenolithus
procerus,
Sphenolithus
tintinnabulum
and
Sphenolithus
multispinatus
can
be
useful
to
subdivide
the
Lower
Miocene
zones
NN2
and
NN3.
A
large
variety
of
Reticulofenestra
pseudoumbilicus
has
been
identified
within
zones
NN6
and
NN7
79.
MALIK,
N.
(
1987).
HERBICIDE
TOLERANCE
OF
SEEDLING
FORAGE
GRASSES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
OF
AGRONOMY,
SASKATOON,
SASKATCHEWAN,
CANADA,
JULY
7­
8,
1986.
CAN
J
PLANT
SCI;
67:
283.
­
110­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
AGROPYRON­
CRISTATUM
BROMUS­
INERMIS
BROMUS­
BIEBERSTEINII
ELYMUS­
ANGUSTUS
PHLEUM­
PRATENSE
CHLORSULFURON
METSULFURON
METHYL
DICLOFOP­
METHYL
BROMOXYNIL
MECOPROP
DICAMBA
SETHOXYDIM
2
METHYL­
4­
CHLOROPHENOXYACETIC
ACID
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Animal
Feed/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
80.
MANTHEY
FA,
NALEWAJA
JD,
and
SZELEZNIAK
EF
(
1989).
HERBICIDE­
OIL­
WATER
EMULSIONS.
WEED
TECHNOL;
3:
13­
19.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
SETHOXYDIM
ADJUVANT
SEED
OIL
STABILITY
CONCENTRATION
WEED
MANAGEMENT
Biochemistry/
Methods/
Biochemistry/
Lipids/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
81.
MARSHALL
LC,
SOMERS
DA,
DOTRAY
PD,
GENGENBACH
BG,
WYSE
DL,
and
GRONWALD
JW
(
1992).
Allelic
mutations
in
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
confer
herbicide
tolerance
in
maize.
THEOR
APPL
GENET;
83:
435­
442.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
genetic
relationship
between
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase;
EC
6.4.1.2.)
activity
and
herbicide
tolerance
was
determined
for
five
maize
(
Zea
mays
L.)
mutants
regenerated
from
tissue
cultures
selected
for
tolerance
to
the
ACCase­
inhibiting
herbicides,
sethoxydim
and
haloxfop.
Herbicide
tolerance
in
each
mutant
was
inherited
as
a
partially
dominant,
nuclear
mutation.
Allelism
tests
indicated
that
the
five
mutations
were
allelic.
Three
distinguishable
herbicide
tolerance
phenotypes
were
differentiated
among
the
five
mutants.
Seedling
tolerance
to
herbicide
treatments
cosegregated
with
reduced
inhibition
of
seedling
leaf
ACCase
activity
by
sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop
demonstrating
that
alterations
of
ACCase
conferred
herbicide
tolerance.
Therefore,
we
propose
that
at
least
three,
and
possible
five,
new
alleles
of
the
maize
ACCase
structural
gene
(
Acc1)
were
identified
based
on
their
differential
response
to
sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop.
The
group
represented
by
Acc1­
S1
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
82.
Mccraw,
D.
and
Bostian,
B.
(
1993).
EFFECT
OF
HERBICIDES
AND
WEEDS
ON
YIELD
OF
EXCEL
SWEETPOTATO.
53rd
Annual
Meeting
of
the
Ashs
(
American
Society
for
Horticultural
Science)
Southern
Region,
Tulsa,
Oklahoma,
Usa,
January
30­
February
2,
1993.
Hortscience
28
:
261.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
ABSTRACT:
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
PLANT
CROP
INDUSTRY
PHYTOTOXICITY
HERBICIDE
SETHOXYDIM
CLOMAZONE
METOLACHLOR
IMAZETHAPYR
WEED
CONTROL
COMPETITION
KEYWORDS:
General
Biology­
Symposia
KEYWORDS:
Ecology
KEYWORDS:
Biochemical
Studies­
General
KEYWORDS:
Plant
Physiology
KEYWORDS:
Agronomy­
Weed
Control
KEYWORDS:
Horticulture­
Vegetables
KEYWORDS:
Pest
Control
KEYWORDS:
Convolvulaceae
­
111­
83.
McKinley,
T.
L.,
Roberts,
R.
K.,
Hayes,
R.
M.,
and
English,
B.
C.
(
Economic
comparison
of
herbicides
for
johnsongrass
(
Sorghum
halepense)
control
in
glyphosate­
tolerant
soybean
(
Glycine
max).
Weed
Technology,
13
(
1)
pp.
30­
36,
1999.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
Returns
to
land,
management,
and
risk
were
compared
where
glyphosate
and
four
graminicides
(
quizalofop­
P,
fluazifop­
P,
sethoxydim,
and
clethodim)
were
used
for
johnsongrass
control
in
glyphosate­
tolerant
soybean.
In
1994
and
1995,
returns
to
land,
management,
and
risk
for
glyphosate­
tolerant
soybean
were
highest
using
glyphosate
and
lowest
using
sethoxydim.
Break­
even
analysis
showed
that
yields
needed
for
equivalent
returns
with
any
nontransgenic
soybean
cultivar
treated
with
any
of
the
graminicides
could
range
from
67
kg/
ha
less
to
202
kg/
ha
more
than
the
yields
achieved
with
glyphosate.
Based
on
this
methodology,
farmers
would
increase
their
return
to
land,
management,
and
risk
by
planting
glyphosate­
tolerant
soybean
if
expected
yield
from
a
standard
cultivar
treated
with
a
standard
herbicide
program
were
less
than
the
break­
even
yield.
SXD
Break­
even
analysis/
Clethodim/
Cost/
Fluazifop­
P/
Glyphosate/
Quizalofop­
P/
Sethoxydim/
SORHA/
Sorghum
bicolor/
Glycine
max
84.
Menges,
R.
M.
and
Heilman,
M.
D.
(
1986).
WEED
CONTROL
IN
SEEDED
CABBAGE
MUSTARD
GREENS
SPINACH
AND
IN
TRANSPLANTED
BROCCOLI
GROWN
UNDER
CONSERVATION
TILLAGE
PRACTICES.
J
Rio
Grande
Val
Hortic
Soc
39
:
83­
90.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.
ABSTRACT:
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ETHALFLURALIN
PROPACHLOR
METOLACHLOR
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOP­
BUTYL
GLYPHOSATE
BENSULIDE
METOLACHLOR
HERBICIDES
KEYWORDS:
Biochemical
Studies­
General
KEYWORDS:
Agronomy­
Weed
Control
KEYWORDS:
Soil
Science­
Fertility
and
Applied
Studies
(
1970­
)
KEYWORDS:
Horticulture­
Vegetables
KEYWORDS:
Pest
Control
KEYWORDS:
Chenopodiaceae
KEYWORDS:
Cruciferae
85.
MENTAG,
R.,
DUCHESNE,
I.,
and
RIOUX
J­
A
(
1994).
POTENTIAL
USE
OF
OXADIAZON
AND
SETHOXYDIM
FOR
THE
PRODUCTION
OF
FOUR
WOODY
ORNAMENTAL
PLANTS
GROWN
IN
CONTAINERS.
91ST
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
CORVALLIS,
OREGON,
USA,
AUGUST
7­
10,
1994.
HORTSCIENCE;
29
(
5).
1994.
555.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
AB
­
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
MEETING
POSTER
CORNUS­
ALBA
WEIGELA­
FLORIDA
PRUNUS­
CISTENA
THUJA­
OCCIDENTALIS
PLANT
CROP
INDUSTRY
HORTICULTURE
WEED
CONTROL
GROWTH
PHYTOTOXICITY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Plants/
Plants/
Plants,
Medicinal
86.
MINOGUE
PJ,
CANTRELL
RL,
and
GRISWOLD
HC
(
1991).
VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT
AFTER
PLANTATION
ESTABLISHMENT.
DURYEA,
M.
L.
AND
P.
M.
DOUGHERTY
(
ED.).
FOREST
REGENERATION
MANUAL.
XI+
433P.
KLUWER
ACADEMIC
PUBLISHERS:
DORDRECHT,
NETHERLANDS;
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS,
USA.
ILLUS.
MAPS.
ISBN
0­
7923­
0959­
6.
335­
358.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
PINUS­
TAEDA
PINUS­
PALUSTRIS
HARDWOODS
VINES
HERBACEOUS
WEEDS
CULTIVATION
MOWING
HERBICIDES
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Trees/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Plants
­
112­
87.
Moreland,
D.
E.
(
1999).
Biochemical
Mechanisms
of
Action
of
Herbicides
and
the
Impact
of
Biotechnology
on
the
Development
of
Herbicides.
J.
Pestic.
Sci.
24:
299­
307.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70107
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
HCCH,
ATZ,
PL,
DDT,
PCP,
CBL,
24DXY,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

88.
Nalewaja,
J.
D.,
Matysiak,
R.,
and
Szelezniak,
E.
(
1994).
Sethoxydim
response
to
spray
carrier
chemical
properties
and
environment.
Weed
Technology,
8
(
3)
pp.
591­
597.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

89.
NASTASI,
P.,
FRANS,
R.,
and
MCCLELLAND,
M.
(
1986).
ECONOMICS
AND
NEW
ALTERNATIVES
IN
COTTON
GOSSYPIUM­
HIRSUTUM
WEED
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.
WEED
SCI;
34:
634­
638.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
GRASSES
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOP
FLUOMETURON
TRIFLURALIN
NET
RETURNS
Biochemistry/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Textiles/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
90.
NEAL
JC,
SENESAC,
A.,
and
BING,
A.
(
1986).
VARIETAL
DIFFERENCES
IN
JUNIPER
TOLERANCE
OF
POST­
EMERGENCE
GRAMINICIDES.
XXII
INTERNATIONAL
HORTICULTURAL
CONGRESS
HELD
AT
THE
83RD
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
DAVIS,
CALIF.,
USA,
AUG.
10­
18,
1986.
HORTSCIENCE;
21:
833.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CULTIVARS
BLUE
RUG
BAR
HARBOR
ANDORRA
SHORE
PFITZER
PARSONS
INJURY
FLUAZIFOP­
P­
BUTYL
SETHOXYDIM
HALOXYFOP
DPX­
Y6202
BAS­
517
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
CROP
INDUSTRY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Grasses
91.
NILSSON,
G.,
JOHANSSON,
I.,
STENLID,
G.,
and
WALLIN,
A.
(
1985).
STUDIES
ON
GRASS
HERBICIDES
2.
EFFECTS
ON
LEAF
GROWTH
OF
WHEAT
AND
OAT
SEEDLINGS.
14TH
CONGRESS
OF
THE
SCANDINAVIAN
SOCIETY
FOR
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGY,
LJUNGSKILE,
SWEDEN,
AUG.
12­
17,
1985.
PHYSIOL
PLANT;
64:
20A.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
ALLOXYDIM
SODIUM
SETHOXYDIM
HALOXYFOPETHOXYETHYL
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Comparative
Study/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
92.
Ott,
Karl­
Heinz,
Aranibar,
Nelly,
Singh,
Bijay,
and
Stockton,
Gerald
W.
(
2003).
Metabonomics
classifies
pathways
affected
by
bioactive
compounds.
Artificial
neural
network
classification
of
NMR
spectra
of
plant
extracts.
Phytochemistry
62:
971­
985.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
The
biochemical
mode­
of­
action
(
MOA)
for
herbicides
and
other
bioactive
compounds
can
be
rapidly
and
simultaneously
classified
by
automated
pattern
recognition
of
the
metabonome
that
is
embodied
in
the
1H
NMR
­
113­
spectrum
of
a
crude
plant
extract.
The
ca.
300
herbicides
that
are
used
in
agriculture
today
affect
less
than
30
different
biochemical
pathways.
In
this
report,
19
of
the
most
interesting
MOAs
were
automatically
classified.
Corn
(
Zea
mays)
plants
were
treated
with
various
herbicides
such
as
imazethapyr,
glyphosate,
sethoxydim,
and
diuron,
which
represent
various
biochemical
modes­
of­
action
such
as
inhibition
of
specific
enzymes
(
acetohydroxy
acid
synthase
[
AHAS],
protoporphyrin
IX
oxidase
[
PROTOX],
5­
enolpyruvylshikimate­
3­
phosphate
synthase
[
EPSPS],
acetyl
CoA
carboxylase
[
ACC­
ase],
etc.),
or
protein
complexes
(
photosystems
I
and
II),
or
major
biological
process
such
as
oxidative
phosphorylation,
auxin
transport,
microtubule
growth,
and
mitosis.
Crude
isolates
from
the
treated
plants
were
subjected
to
1H
NMR
spectroscopy,
and
the
spectra
were
classified
by
artificial
neural
network
analysis
to
discriminate
the
herbicide
modes­
of­
action.
We
demonstrate
the
use
and
refinement
of
the
method,
and
present
cross­
validated
assignments
for
the
metabolite
NMR
profiles
of
over
400
plant
isolates.
The
MOA
screen
also
recognizes
when
a
new
mode­
of­
action
is
present,
which
is
considered
extremely
important
for
the
herbicide
discovery
process,
and
can
be
used
to
study
deviations
in
the
metabolism
of
compounds
from
a
chemical
synthesis
program.
The
combination
of
NMR
metabolite
profiling
and
neural
network
classification
is
expected
to
be
similarly
relevant
to
other
metabonomic
profiling
applications,
such
as
in
drug
discovery.

93.
PAGE
RA,
OKADA,
S.,
and
HARWOOD
JL
(
1994).
Acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
exerts
strong
flux
control
over
lipid
synthesis
in
plants.
BIOCHIMICA
ET
BIOPHYSICA
ACTA;
1210:
369­
372.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
importance
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
in
regulation
of
lipid
synthesis
for
barley
and
maize
leaves
has
been
quantitatively
assessed
using,
as
specific
inhibitors,
the
herbicides
fluazifop
and
sethoxydim.
Apparent
flux
control
coefficients
of
about
0.58
and
0.52
were
determined
for
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
in
barley
and
maize
leaves,
respectively.
These
results
show
that
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
is
the
major
flux
controlling
enzyme
for
light­
stimulated
lipid
synthesis
in
these
tissues.
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Darkness/
Light/
Lighting/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plant
Growth
Regulators/
Pharmacology/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Plants/
Drug
Effects/
Biophysics/
Light/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Radiation
Effects/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses
94.
PALOSAARI
NR
,
GRONWALD
JW,
SOMERS
DA,
GENGENBACH
BG,
and
WYSE
DL
(
1992).
COMPARISON
OF
ACETYL­
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
FROM
GRAMINICIDE­
TOLERANT
AND
SUSCEPTIBLE
MAIZE
LINES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA,
USA,
AUGUST
1­
5,
1992.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
99
(
1
SUPPL.).
1992.
59.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
DICLOFOP
HALOXYFOP
SETHOXYDIM
CLETHODIM
PALMITOYL
COENZYME
A
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
95.
PARKER
WB,
MARSHALL
LC,
BURTON
JD,
SOMERS
DA,
WYSE
DL,
GRONWALD
JW,
and
GENGENBACH
BG
(
1990).
Dominant
mutations
causing
alterations
in
acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
confer
tolerance
to
cyclohexanedione
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
herbicides
in
maize.
PROC
NATL
ACAD
SCI
U
S
A;
87:
7175­
7179.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
A
partially
dominant
mutation
exhibiting
increased
tolerance
to
cyclohexanedione
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
herbicides
was
isolated
by
exposing
susceptible
maize
(
Zea
mays)
tissue
cultures
to
increasingly
inhibitory
concentrations
of
sethoxydim
(
a
cyclohexanedione).
The
selected
tissue
culture
(
S2)
was
>
40­
fold
more
tolerant
to
sethoxydim
and
20­
fold
more
tolerant
to
haloxyfop
(
an
­
114­
aryloxyphenoxypropionate)
than
the
nonselected
wild­
type
tissue
culture.
Regenerated
S2
plants
were
heterozygous
for
the
mutant
allele
and
exhibited
a
high­
level,
but
not
complete,
tolerance
to
both
herbicides.
Homozygous
mutant
families
derived
by
self­
pollinating
the
regenerated
S2
plant
exhibited
no
injury
after
treatment
with
0.8
kg
of
sethoxydim
per
ha,
which
was
>
16­
fold
the
rate
lethal
to
wild­
type
plants.
Acetylcoenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase;
EC
6.4.1.2)
is
the
target
enzyme
of
cyclohexanedione
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
herbicides.
ACCase
activities
of
the
nonselected
wild
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/*
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Nucleic
Acids/
Purines/
Pyrimidines/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Dna
Replication/
Transcription,
Genetic/
Translation,
Genetic/
Biophysics/
Macromolecular
Systems/
Molecular
Biology/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Metabolism/
Amino
Acids/
Metabolism/
Peptides/
Metabolism/
Proteins/
Metabolism/
Nucleic
Acids/
Metabolism/
Purines/
Metabolism/
Pyrimidines/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Culture
Media/
Tissue
Culture/
In
Vitro/
Tissue
Culture/
Plants/
Anatomy
&
Histology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Plant
Diseases/
Preventive
Medicine/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
96.
PARKER
WB,
MARSHALL
LC,
DOTRAY,
P.,
WYSE
DL,
GRONWALD
JW,
and
GENGENBACH
BG
(
1990).
ALTERED
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
CONFERS
HERBICIDE
TOLERANCE
IN
MAIZE
AU
­
SOMERS
DA.
J
CELL
BIOCHEM
SUPPL;
0
(
14
PART
E).
1990.
325.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
SETHOXYDIM
HALOXYFOP
BREEDING
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Plants/*
Genetics/
Biochemistry/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
97.
PARKER
WB,
SOMERS
DA,
WYSE
DL,
KEITH
RA,
BURTON
JD,
GRONWALD
JW,
and
GENGENBACH
BG
(
1990).
Selection
and
characterization
of
sethoxydim­
tolerant
maize
tissue
cultures.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
92:
1220­
1225.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
'
Black
Mexican
Sweet'
(
BMS)
maize
(
Zea
mays
L.)
tissue
cultures
were
selected
for
tolerance
of
sethoxydim.
Dethoxydim,
a
cyclohexanedione,
and
haloxyfop,
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate,
exert
herbicidal
activity
on
most
monocots
including
maize
by
inhibiting
acetylcoenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase).
Selected
line
B10S
grew
on
medium
containing
10
micromolar
sethoxydim.
Lines
B50S
and
B100S
were
subsequent
selections
from
B10S
that
grew
on
medium
containing
50
and
100
micromolar
sethoxydim,
respectively.
Growth
rates
of
BMS,
B10S,
B50S,
and
B100S
were
similar
in
the
absence
of
herbicide.
Herbicide
concentrations
reducing
growth
by
50%
were
0.6,
4.5,
35,
and
26
micromolar
sethoxydim
and
0.06,
0.5,
5.4,
and
1.8
micromolar
haloxyfop
for
BMS,
B10S,
B50S,
and
B100S,
respectively.
Sethoxydim
and
haloxyfop
concentrations
that
inhibited
ACCase
by
50%
were
similar
for
BMS,
B10S,
B50S,
and
B100S.
However,
ACCase
activities
were
6.1,
10.7,
16.1,
and
11.4
nmol
HCO3­
incorporated
per
mil
MH
­
AMINO
ACIDS
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Culture
Media/
Tissue
Culture/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
98.
POOL
RM,
DUNST
RM,
KAMAS
JS,
and
FENDINGER
AG
(
1997).
VINEYARD
WEED
MANAGEMENT
USING
NON­
PERSISTENT
HERBICIDES.
4TH
INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
ON
COOL
CLIMATE
VITICULTURE
AND
ENOLOGY
AND
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
ENOLOGY
AND
VITICULTURE,
EASTERN
SECTION,
ROCHESTER,
NEW
YORK,
USA,
JULY
1997.
AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF
ENOLOGY
AND
VITICULTURE;
48:
250
.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
GRAPEVINE
CROP
HORTICULTURE
­
115­
VINEYARD
WEED
MANAGEMENT
NON­
PERSISTENT
HERBICIDE
PEST
MANAGEMENT
PARAQUAT
HERBICIDE
GLYPHOSATE
GLUFOSINATE
SETHOXYDIM
LIQUID
PROPANE
WEED
BURNER
PEST
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
NEW
YORK
USA
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fruit/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
99.
PORTER
WC
(
1987).
CONTROL
OF
GRASSES
IN
SWEET
POTATOES
WITH
POSTEMERGENCE
HERBICIDES.
47TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
SOUTHERN
REGION),
NASHVILLE,
TENNESSEE,
USA,
FEBRUARY
1­
3,
1987.
HORTSCIENCE;
22:
726­
727.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
BRACHIARIA­
PLATYPHYLLA
DIGITARIASANGUINALIS
SORGHUM­
HALEPENSE
WEEDS
FLUAZIFOP­
P­
BUTYL
SETHOXYDIM
QUIZALOFOP
HALOXYFOP­
METHYL
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
100.
PORTER
WC
(
1988).
EFFECT
OF
HERBICIDES
ON
STORAGE
AND
PLANT
PRODUCTION
OF
SWEET
POTATOES.
48TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
SOUTHERN
REGION),
NEW
ORLEANS,
LOUISIANA,
USA,
JANUARY
31­
FEBRUARY
2,
1988.
HORTSCIENCE;
23
:
826.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ASBTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
WEIGHT
LOSS
CHLORAMBEN
ALACHLOR
DIETHATYL
CLOMAZONE
ETHIOZIN
CINMETHYLIN
FLUAZIFOP­
P
HALOXYFOP
SETHOXYDIM
QUIZALOFOP
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
101.
PORTER
WC,
GREEN
BB,
and
JOHNSON
CE
(
1988).
RESPONSE
OF
WARM­
SEASON
GRASSES
TO
SUBLETHAL
RATES
OF
POSTEMERGENCE
HERBICIDES.
48TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
SOUTHERN
REGION),
NEW
ORLEANS,
LOUISIANA,
USA,
JANUARY
31­
FEBRUARY
2,
1988.
HORTSCIENCE;
23:
820.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CYNODON­
DACTYLON
PASPALUM­
NOTATUM
SULFOMETURON
GLYPHOSATE
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOP
MEFLUIDIDE
TURF
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
102.
Powles,
S.
B.,
Lorraine­
Colwill,
D.
F.,
Dellow,
J.
J.,
and
Preston,
C.
(
1998).
Evolved
resistance
to
glyphosate
in
rigid
ryegrass
(
Lolium
rigidum)
in
Australia.
Weed
Science
46:
604­
607.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.
C.
Preston,
Department
of
Crop
Protection,
CRC
for
Weed
Management
Systems,
University
of
Adelaide,
PMB
1,
Glen
Osmond,
SA
5064,
Australia.
Email:
cpreston@
waite.
adelaide.
edu.
au
Following
15
yr
of
successful
use,
glyphosate
failed
to
control
a
population
of
the
widespread
grass
weed
rigid
ryegrass
in
Australia.
This
population
proved
to
be
resistant
to
glyphosate
in
pot
dose­
response
experiments
conducted
outdoors,
exhibiting
7­
to
11­
fold
resistance
when
compared
to
a
susceptible
population.
Some
crossresistance
to
diclofop­
methyl
(
about
2.5­
fold)
was
also
observed.
Similar
levels
of
control
of
the
resistant
and
susceptible
populations
were
obtained
following
application
of
amitrole,
chlorsulfuron,
fluazifop­
P­
butyl,
paraquat,
sethoxydim,
simazine,
or
tralkoxydim.
The
presence
of
glyphosate
resistance
in
a
major
weed
species
indicates
a
need
for
changes
in
glyphosate
use
patterns
­
116­
English
103.
Price,
Lindsey
J,
Herbert,
Derek,
Cole,
David
J,
and
Harwood,
John
L
(
2003).
Use
of
plant
cell
cultures
to
study
graminicide
effects
on
lipid
metabolism.
Phytochemistry
63:
533­
541.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
Graminicides
belonging
to
the
cyclohexanedione
and
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
classes
are
well
established
to
act
by
disrupting
acyl
lipid
biosynthesis
via
specific
inhibition
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase.
Species
of
grass
inherently
resistant
to
such
herbicides,
or
biotypes
of
grassy
weed
species
which
display
acquired
resistance
to
recommended
rates
of
graminicide
application,
are
known
to
possess
an
altered
plastidic
multifunctional
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
showing
reduced
sensitivity
to
these
herbicides
in
vitro.
Studies
reported
here
demonstrate
that
cell
suspension
cultures
of
maize,
a
graminicide­
sensitive
species
and
Poa
annua,
a
graminicide­
insensitive
species,
display
a
similar
differential
sensitivity
of
acyl
lipid
biosynthesis
as
tissue
from
corresponding
intact
plants.
Acyl
lipid
biosynthesis
in
P.
annua
can
be
inhibited
if
sufficiently
high
concentrations
of
graminicide
are
used.
The
major
plastidic
form
and
the
minor
cytosolic
forms
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
were
successfully
purified
from
maize
cell
suspensions,
were
compared
to
those
from
leaf
tissue
and
were
shown
to
be
differentially
inhibited
by
graminicides
in
a
similar
manner
to
their
counterparts
from
leaf
tissue.
These
studies
demonstrate
that
cell
suspensions
are
useful
for
studying
the
mode
of
action
of
graminicides,
especially
in
view
of
the
limited
amount
of
material
obtainable
from
many
grassy
species
which
are
very
fine­
growing.
[
Journal
Article;
In
English;
United
States]

104.
Quintana,
J.
M.,
Harrison,
H.
C.,
Nienhuis,
J.,
Palta,
J.
P.,
and
Kmiecik,
K.
(
1999).
Differences
in
pod
calcium
concentration
for
eight
snap
bean
and
dry
bean
cultivars.
HortScience
34:
932­
934.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
Ca
uptake/
Field
beans/
NO
TOXICANT/
Nutritional
quality/
Phaseolus
vulgaris/
Pulses.
0018­
5345.
This
study
was
designed
to
compare
snap
and
dry
beans
(
Phaseolus
vulgaris
L.)
for
pod
Ca
concentration,
and
to
identify
genetic
resources
that
might
be
useful
in
breeding
programs
directed
to
increase
Ca
concentration
in
bean
pods.
Pods
from
eight
snap
bean
and
eight
dry
bean
cultivars
were
evaluated
for
Ca
concentration
during
1995
and
1996
at
Hancock,
Wis.
A
randomized
complete­
block
design
was
utilized
with
three
replications
in
1995
and
six
in
1996.
Beans
were
planted
in
June
and
hand­
harvested
in
August
for
both
experiments.
Soil
Ca
at
planting
time
was
580
mg
midline
dot
kg
superior
­
superior
1
in
1995
and
500
mg
midline
dot
kg
superior
­
superior
1
in
1996.
No
additional
Ca
was
added.
Plots
consisted
of
10
plants
each.
At
harvest,
a
pooled
sample
of
10
to
15
size
no.
4
pods
was
collected
from
each
plot.
Atomic
absorption
spectrophotometry
was
used
to
determine
Ca
content.
Significant
differences
(
P
less
than
or
equal
0.01)
were
detected
among
and
within
bean
types
(
dry
and
snap).
Although
bean
type
x
year
interaction
was
nonsignificant,
a
strong
year
effect
was
observed
(
P
less
than
or
equal
0.01).
Snap
beans
(
4.6
plus­
or­
minus
0.7
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight)
had
significantly
higher
pod
Ca
concentration
than
did
dry
beans
(
4.2
plus­
orminus
0.6
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight).
Within
snap
beans,
'
Checkmate'
had
the
highest
pod
Ca
concentration
(
5.5
plus­
or­
minus
0.3
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight)
and
'
Nelson'
the
lowest
(
3.8
plus­
or­
minus
0.3
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight).
Within
dry
beans,
'
GO122'
had
the
highest
(
5.1
plus­
or­
minus
0.4
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight)
and
'
Porrillo
70'
the
lowest
pod
Ca
concentration
(
3.6
plus­
or­
minus
0.3
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight).
Six
cultivars
had
pod
Ca
concentrations
significantly
(
P
less
than
or
equal
0.01)
higher
than
the
overall
mean
(
4.4
plus­
or­
minus
0.3
mg
midline
dot
g
superior
­
superior
1
dry
weight)

105.
RENAULT,
S.
,
SHUKLA,
A.,
GIBLIN
EM,
MACKENZIE
SL,
and
DEVINE
MD
(
1997).
Plasma
membrane
lipid
composition
and
herbicide
effects
on
lipoxygenase
activity
do
not
contribute
to
differential
membrane
responses
in
herbicide­
resistant
and
­
susceptible
wild
oat
(
Avena
fatua
L.)
biotypes.
JOURNAL
OF
AGRICULTURAL
AND
FOOD
CHEMISTRY;
45:
3269­
3275.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Plasma
membrane
lipid
composition
of
herbicide­
resistant
(
R)
and
­
­
117­
susceptible
(
S)
wild
oat
biotypes
was
analyzed
to
determine
the
basis
for
the
differential
effect
of
diclofop
on
the
transmembrane
electrogenic
potential
between
the
two
biotypes
and
reduced
herbicide
uptake
into
protoplasts
of
the
R
biotype.
In
addition,
lipoxygenase
(
LOX)
activity
was
examined
in
herbicide­
treated
and
untreated
R
and
S
plants
to
determine
its
involvement
in
herbicide
action
and
resistance.
Overall,
no
significant
differences
in
lipid
composition
were
found
between
the
two
biotypes.
Glycolipids
represented
41
and
36%,
phospholipids
29
and
37%,
and
free
sterols
30
and
27%
of
the
total
plasma
membrane
lipid
in
the
R
and
S
biotypes,
respectively.
No
differences
in
LOX
activity
were
observed
between
the
herbicide­
treated
and
untreated
wild
oat
biotypes.
It
was
concluded
that
differences
in
membrane
transport
of
diclofop
and
its
effect
on
plasma
membrane
potential
in
the
R
and
S
biotypes
are
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Biophysics/
Macromolecular
Systems/
Molecular
Biology/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
106.
RENDINA
AR,
BEAUDOIN
JD,
CRAIG­
KENNARD
AC,
and
FELTS
JM
(
1988).
SELECTIVE
AND
POTENT
INHIBITION
OF
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
FROM
SUSCEPTIBLE
PLANTS
BY
CYCLOHEXANEDIONE
GRASS
HERBICIDES.
72ND
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
FEDERATION
OF
AMERICAN
SOCIETIES
FOR
EXPERIMENTAL
BIOLOGY,
LAS
VEGAS,
NEVADA,
USA,
MAY
1­
5,
1988.
FASEB
(
FED
AM
SOC
EXP
BIOL)
J;
2
(
5).
1988.
ABSTRACT
4774.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
BIOTIN
ALLOXYDIM
SETHOXYDIM
CLETHODIM
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
107.
RENDINA
AR,
CRAIG­
KENNARD
AC,
BEAUDOIN
JD,
and
BREEN
MK
(
1990).
Inhibition
of
acetyl
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
by
two
classes
of
grass­
selective
herbicides.
J
AGRIC
FOOD
CHEM;
38:
1282­
1287.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
The
selective
grass
herbicides
diclofop,
haloxyfop,
and
trifop
(((
aryloxy)
phenoxy)
propionic
acids)
and
alloxydim,
sethoxydim,
and
clethodim
(
cyclohexanediones)
are
potent,
reversible
inhibitors
of
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACC)
partially
purified
from
barley,
corn,
and
wheat.
Although
inhibition
of
the
wheat
enzyme
by
clethodim
and
diclofop
is
noncompetitive
versus
each
of
the
substrates
adenosine
triphosphate
(
ATP),
HCO3­,
and
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
(
acetyl­
CoA),
diclofop
and
clethodim
are
nearly
competitive
versus
acetyl­
CoA
since
the
level
of
inhibition
is
most
sensitive
to
the
concentration
of
acetyl­
CoA
(
Kis
<
Kii).
To
conclusively
show
whether
the
herbicides
interact
at
the
biotin
carboxylation
site
or
the
carboxyl
transfer
site,
the
inhibition
of
isotope
exchange
and
partial
reactions
catalyzed
at
each
site
was
studied
with
the
wheat
enzyme.
Only
the
(
14C)
acetyl­
CoA­
malonyl­
CoA
exchange
and
decarboxylation
of
(
14C)
malonyl­
CoA
reactions
are
strongly
inhibited
by
Biochemistry/
Methods/
Biochemistry/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
108.
Renner,
K.
A.
(
1992).
Timing
of
Herbicide
Application
and
Potato
Hilling.
Am.
Potato
J.
69:
167­
177.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
73892
User
Define
2:
WASH
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
EPTC,
MBZ,
LNR,
SXD,
LCF;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

109.
RETZLAFF,
G.
(
1991).
The
role
of
the
plasma
membrane
ATPase
in
bentazone­
sethoxydim
antagonism.
AU
­
COUDERCHET
M.
PESTIC
SCI;
32:
295­
306.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
­
118­
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
This
study
was
carried
out
to
gain
more
information
concerning
the
mechanism
by
which
bentazone
reduces
the
herbicidal
activity
of
sethoxydim.
The
possible
roles
of
ATP
and
of
the
plasma
membrane
ATPase
activity
in
the
mechanism
of
antagonism
were
investigated.
The
first
part
of
the
study
investigated
the
effect
of
exogenous
ATP
on
the
uptake
of
(
14C)
sethoxydim
by
wheat
leaf
segments.
Uptake
increased
with
ATP
concentration,
the
magnitude
of
the
increase
depending
on
the
time
of
day
when
the
incubations
were
started.
In
the
second
part
of
the
study
plasma
membranes
from
wheat
leaves
were
isolated
using
two
immiscible
polymers,
polyethylene
glygol
and
dextran,
and
the
activities
of
their
ATPases
were
measured
by
monitoring
the
amount
of
inorganic
phosphate
produced.
ATPase
activity
was
lower
in
the
presence
of
500
muM
bentazone
and
the
magnitude
of
the
decrease
increased
with
the
concentration
of
bentazone.
Bentazone
derivatives
that
reduce
the
uptake
of
sethoxydim
but
hv
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Biophysics/
Methods/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Enzymes/
Chemistry/
Plants/
Anatomy
&
Histology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
110.
RIGGS,
D.
IM,
BELLINDER
RR,
and
WALLACE
RW
(
1991).
THE
EFFECT
OF
ONE
TWO
AND
THREE
MONTH
WEED­
FREE
PERIODS
ON
YIELD
OF
LATE
SEASON
TOMATOES.
88TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
UNIVERSITY
PARK,
PENNSYLVANIA,
USA,
JULY
19­
24,
1991.
HORTSCIENCE;
26:
768.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
METRIBUZIN
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
WEED
CONTROL
PLANT
PESTICIDE
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Ecology/
Plants/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
111.
ROBERTS,
W.
,
ROE,
N.,
DUTHIE,
J.,
EDELSON,
J.,
SHREFLER,
J.,
CORNFORTH,
G.,
ENIS,
J.,
and
SMITH,
S.
(
1997).
INTEGRATING
WATERMELON
AND
FORAGE
CROPS.
94TH
ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
SALT
LAKE
CITY,
UTAH,
USA,
JULY
23­
26,
1997.
HORTSCIENCE;
32:
539­
540.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
WATERMELON
BERMUDAGRASS
VEGETABLE
CROP
FORAGE
CROP
HORTICULTURE
CROP
INDUSTRY
STRIP­
TILLAGE
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
TILLAGE
METHOD
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
USA
Congresses/
Biology/
Animal
Feed/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
112.
ROBERTS,
W.
,
SHREFLER,
J.,
DUTHIE,
J.,
and
EDELSON,
J.
(
1996).
MECHANICAL
AND
CHEMICAL
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
WEED
CONTROL
IN
WATERMELON.
56TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
SOUTHERN
REGION,
GREENSBORO,
NORTH
CAROLINA,
USA,
FEBRUARY
3­
5,
1996.
HORTSCIENCE;
31:
758.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
MEETING
POSTER
WATERMELONCULTIVAR
ALLSWEET
WEED
HORTICULTURE
PLANT
CROP
INDUSTRY
WEED
CONTROL
NAPTALAM
HERBICIDE
NAPROPAMIDE
CLOMAZONE
+
NAPTALAM
BENSULIDE
NAPTALAM
+
BENSULIDE
TRIFLURALIN
DCPA
ETHALFLURALIN
SETHOXYDIM
PARAQUAT
GLYPHOSATE
CULTIVATION
HOEING
PEST
MANAGEMENT
Congresses/
Biology/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Plants
113.
ROGERS
RB
(
1989).
THE
APPLICATION
OF
HERBICIDES
WITH
ULTRA­
SMALL
DROPS.
CHOW,
P.
N.
P.
(
ED.).
ADJUVANTS
AND
AGROCHEMICALS,
VOL.
II.
RECENT
DEVELOPMENT,
­
119­
APPLICATION,
AND
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF
AGRO­
ADJUVANTS;
FIRST
INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM,
BRANDON,
MANITOBA,
CANADA,
AUGUST
5­
7,
1986.
XIII+
222P.
CRC
PRESS,
INC.:
BOCA
RATON,
FLORIDA,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
8493­
6532­
5;
ISBN
0­
8493­
6533­
3.;
0
93­
102.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS
.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
GLYPHOSATE
DICLOFOP­
METHYL
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOPBUTYL
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
114.
ROSENBERG,
U.
(
1985).
A
NEW
ADJUVANT
IMPROVES
THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
SETHOXYDIM.
9TH
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
WEED
SCIENCE
SOCIETY
OF
ISRAEL,
REHOVOT,
ISRAEL,
DEC.
24­
25,
1984.
PHYTOPARASITICA;
13
(
3­
4).
1985
(
RECD.
1986).
241.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
GRASS
WEED
CONTROL
OIL
SURFACTANT
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
115.
Rosenberger,
A.
E.
and
Chapman,
L.
J.
(
1999).
Hypoxic
wetland
tributaries
as
faunal
refugia
from
an
introduced
predator.
Ecology
of
Freshwater
Fish
[
ECOL.
FRESHWAT.
FISH]
8:
22­
34.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.
0906­
6691.
The
introduction
of
Nile
perch
(
Lates
niloticus)
into
the
Lake
Victoria
basin
of
East
Africa
has
coincided
with
the
decline
or
disappearance
of
hundreds
of
indigenous
species.
To
mitigate
additional
biodiversity
loss,
we
must
learn
what
limits
the
spread
of
Nile
perch
and
what
habitats
serve
as
refugia
for
prey
species.
Heavily
vegetated
wetlands
may
protect
fishes
from
Nile
perch
predation
by
providing
both
structural
and
low­
oxygen
refugia
for
prey
species
tolerant
of
hypoxia.
To
examine
the
potential
of
wetlands
as
refugia
we
quantified
the
composition,
persistence,
and
stability
of
fish
assemblages
in
a
wetland
tributary
of
Lake
Nabugabo,
a
satellite
lake
of
Lake
Victoria
in
which
Nile
perch
have
been
introduced.
Nile
perch
were
extremely
rare
in
the
wetland,
and
nine
of
the
18
species
that
have
disappeared
from
the
open
waters
of
the
satellite
lake
were
captured
in
the
tributary
in
this
study.
Dissolved
oxygen
was
chronically
low
in
the
river
and
may
be
important
in
shaping
fish
community
characteristics.
Faunal
attenuation
occurred
as
the
dry
season
progressed
and
oxygen
levels
dropped;
however,
the
most
common
species
remained
through
seasonal
changes.
The
chronically
low
oxygen
conditions
in
the
wetland
tributary
may
permit
persistence
of
only
hypoxia­
tolerant
species.
However,
wetland
conditions
seem
to
limit
exploitation
by
Nile
perch
providing
critical
refugia
for
a
subset
of
the
basin
fauna
116.
Roslycky,
E.
B.
(
1986).
Microbial
response
to
sethoxydim
and
its
degradation
in
soil.
Canadian
Journal
of
Soil
Science
[
CAN.
J.
SOIL
SCI.]
66:
411­
419.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
FATE.
This
inquiry
concerned
microbial
response
to
sethoxydim,
a
newly
registered
postemergence
herbicide,
and
its
persistence
in
soil.
Recommended
and
lower
sethoxydim
concentrations
had
little
effect
on
soil
microflora
in
a
sandy
loam,
while
1000
mu
g
g
super(­
1)
a.
i.
caused
approximately
a
tenfold
increase
in
the
actinomycete
and
bacterial
populations
and
only
slight
suppression
in
that
of
fungi.
None
of
the
359
actinomycete
and
only
30
of
455
bacterial
soil
isolates
tested
for
sensitivity
by
replica
plating
were
inhibited
by
2000
mu
g
a.
i.
of
sethoxydim
mL
super(­
1).
Similarly,
of
the
239
pure
cultures
of
44
species
tested,
only
38
were
inhibited
by
up
to
2000
and
108
by
5000
mu
g
a.
i.
of
sethoxydim
mL
super(­
1).
Inhibition
of
respiration
was
generally
dose­
related
and
increasing
as
follows:
actinomycetes
<
fungi
<
total
microbiota
<
bacteria.
Low
doses
produced
inconsistent
stimulation
and
retardation
of
O
sub(
2)
uptake.
Differences
in
the
response
to
the
herbicide
indicated
physiological
heterogeneity
within
the
groups
studied.
SXD
sethoxydim/
herbicides/
bacteria/
fungi/
respiration/
actinomycetes/
soils/
effects
on/
growth
­
120­
117.
SHANER
DL
(
1994).
EFFECT
OF
ENVIRONMENT
ON
PERSISTENCE
AND
MOVEMENT
OF
HERBICIDES
IN
PLANTS.
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL
(
BCPC):
FARNHAM,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ISBN
0­
948404­
76­
0.;
0
(
0).
1994.
129­
138.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
BOOK
CHAPTER
MEETING
PAPER
PESTICIDE
PHYTOTOXICITY
TEMPERATURE
MOISTURE
LIGHT
INTENSITY
EDAPHIC
FACTORS
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Ecology/
Plants/
Body
Water/
Biochemistry/
Darkness/
Light/
Lighting/
Temperature/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Physiology/
Water/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Temperature/
Biophysics/
Light/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Radiation
Effects/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Soil/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Plant
Diseases/
Preventive
Medicine/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
118.
SHARMA,
J.
(
1999).
Response
of
forbs
to
grass
herbicides,
fire,
and
mowing
in
mid­
successional
tallgrass
prairies
of
Central
Missouri.
96TH
ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA,
USA,
JULY
27­
31,
1999.
YHORTSCIENCE;
34:
491.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
RESPONSE
OF
FORBS
TO
GRASS
HERBICIDES,
FIRE,
AND
MOWING
IN
MID­
SUCCESSIONAL
TALLGRASS
PRAIRIES
OF
CENTRAL
MISSOURIYMEETING
ABSTRACT
MEETING
POSTER
SOLIDAGO
CANADENSIS
CIRSIUM
DISCOLOR
RUDBECKIA
HIRTA
TALL
GOLDENROD
PASTURE
THISTLE
BLACK­
EYED
SUSAN
FORBS
HORTICULTURE
MIDSUCCESSIONAL
TALLGRASS
PRAIRIE
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
POASTTM
FLUAZIFOP
ORNAMEC­
170TM
BURNING
MOWING
CONSERVATION
BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECT
ROADSIDES
NATURE
CENTERS
LARGE
BACKYARDS
MISSOURI
USA
Conservation
of
Natural
Resources/
Congresses/
Biology/
Ecology/
Plants/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Plants/
Plants
119.
Sherrod,
D.
W.
and
Wilson,
H.
P.
(
1989).
Incidence
and
Control
of
Pest
Insects
in
Conventional
and
No­
Tillage
Snap
Beans.
J.
Entomol.
Sci.
24:
161­
167.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
73523
User
Define
2:
WASH,
CALF,
CORE
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
GYP,
MOM,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

120.
SHIBAYA,
T.
(
1985).
HERBICIDES
FRUIT
TREES.
JPN
PESTIC
INF;
0
(
47).
1985
(
RECD.
1986).
28­
30.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
PINEAPPLE
MUME
PERSIMMON
CITRUS
APPLE
PEAR
GRAPE
CHERRY
JAPAN
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Climate/
Fruit/
Nuts/
Fruit/
Nuts/
Tropical
Climate/
Fruit/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants/
Plants/
Plants,
Medicinal/
Plants/
Plants
121.
SHOAF
AR
and
CARLSON
WC
(
1992).
Stability
of
sethoxydim
and
its
degradation
products
in
solution,
in
soil,
and
on
surfaces.
WEED
SCI;
40:
384­
389.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
FATE.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
Sethoxydim
reacts
spontaneously
with
water
resulting
in
immediate
structural
changes.
Simulation
of
field
conditions
of
light,
moisture,
oxygen,
pH,
and
soil
and
evaporation
on
siliceous
surfaces
duplicated
this
lability.
Sethoxydim
degradation
was
enhanced
by
alkaline
conditions,
ultraviolet
and
incandescent
light,
and
adsorption
on
solid
surfaces.
No
sethoxydim
was
detected
immediately
after
application
to
­
121­
moist
soil.
Less
than
2%
extractable
sethoxydim
was
present
in
dry
soil
after
24
h.
Radiation
Effects/
Radiation
Protection/
Biochemistry/
Darkness/
Light/
Lighting/
Humidity/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Soil/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
122.
Shukla,
A.,
Dupont,
S.,
and
Devine,
M.
D.
(
1997).
Resistance
to
ACCase­
inhibitor
herbicides
in
wild
oat:
Evidence
for
target
site­
based
resistance
in
two
biotypes
from
Canada.
Pesticide
Biochemistry
and
Physiology,
57:
147­
155.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
in
vitro.
Previous
results
indicated
that
resistance
to
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase­
inhibiting
herbicides
in
the
wild
oat
biotype
UM1
was
not
due
to
an
insensitive
form
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACCuse).
However,
reanalysis
of
ACCuse
extracted
under
a
variety
of
different
buffer
conditions
indicated
that
resistance
in
this
biotype
is
due
to
an
altered
form
of
the
enzyme
with
reduced
herbicide
sensitivity.
Under
optimal
conditions,
ACCuse
from
UM1
was
very
resistant
to
sethoxydim
(
I
inferior
5
inferior
0
=
398
mu
M;
R/
S
I
inferior
5
inferior
0
ratio
=
105)
and
resistant,
although
to
a
lesser
extent,
to
fenoxaprop,
diclofop,
and
tralkoxydim
(
R/
S
I
inferior
5
inferior
0
ratios
ca.
10).
Use
of
the
optimum
extraction
buffer
for
this
biotype
did
not
indicate
an
ACCuse­
based
resistance
mechanism
for
a
second
resistant
wild
oat
biotype,
UM33.
Fenoxaprop
and
diclofop
were
metabolized
at
equal
rates
in
UM33
and
a
susceptible
biotype,
indicating
that
enhanced
herbicide
metabolism
was
not
responsible
for
resistance
in
this
biotype.
Further
modification
of
the
ACCuse
extraction
buffer
revealed
that
resistance
in
UM33
was
also
conferred
by
a
target
site
alteration.
These
results
suggest
that
certain
ingredients
in
the
ACCuse
extraction
buffers
can
result
in
the
apparent
loss
of
resistance
to
herbicides
and
that
the
optimum
buffer
may
vary
for
biotypes
within
a
given
species.
The
results
also
suggest
that
careful
analysis
of
the
sensitivity
of
ACCuse
to
herbicides
is
required
before
concluding
that
resistance
is
not
based
on
a
target
site
alteration.
SXD
123.
SMEDA
RJ
and
VAUGHN
KC
(
1994).
RESISTANCE
TO
DINITROANILINE
HERBICIDES.
POWLES,
S.
B.
AND
J.
A.
M.
HOLTUM
(
ED.).
HERBICIDE
RESISTANCE
IN
PLANTS:
BIOLOGY
AND
BIOCHEMISTRY.
XI+
353P.
CRC
PRESS,
INC.:
BOCA
RATON,
FLORIDA,
USA;
LONDON,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ISBN0­
87371­
713­
9.
215­
228.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
BOOK
CHAPTER
LITERATURE
REVIEW
SELECTIVITY
MODE
OF
ACTION
TARGET
SITE
CROSS
RESISTANCE
RESISTANCE
DEVELOPMENT
FITNESS
UPTAKE
TRANSLOCATION
METABOLISM
CALCIUM
EFFECTS
Ecology/
Plants/
Biochemistry/
Metabolism/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Chemistry/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Plants
124.
SMEDA
RJ
and
WELLER
SC
(
1991).
PLANT
CELL
AND
TISSUE
CULTURE
TECHNIQUES
FOR
WEED
SCIENCE
RESEARCH.
WEED
SCI;
39:
497­
504.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
REVIEW
METABOLISM
UPTAKE
AMITROLE
ATRAZINE
BENTAZON
BROMOXYNIL
CHLORSULFURON
CHLORTOLURON
GLYPHOSATE
HALOXYFOPMETHYL
METRIBUZIN
PARAQUAT
PROPANIL
SETHOXYDIM
AGRICULTURE
Biochemistry/
Metabolism/
Culture
Media/
Tissue
Culture/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
125.
SOUZA
MACHADO
V
and
ALI,
A.
(
1988).
GRASS
WEED
CONTROL
AND
GINSENG
PANAXQUINQUEFOLIUM
L.
RESPONSE
TO
GRAMINICIDES.
32ND
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
LONDON,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
AUGUST
23­
27,
1987.
CAN
J
PLANT
SCI;
68:
572.
­
122­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
FLUAZIFOP­
BUTYL
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
CROP
INDUSTRY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
126.
STRUVE,
I.,
GOLLE,
B.,
and
LUETTGE,
U.
(
1987).
SETHOXYDIM
UPTAKE
BY
LEAF
SLICES
OF
SETHOXYDIM
RESISTANT
AND
SENSITIVE
GRASSES.
Z
NATURFORSCH
SECT
C
BIOSCI;
42:
279­
282.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
FESTUCA­
OVINA
FESTUCA­
RUBRA
POA­
ANNUA
POAPRATENSIS
HERBICIDE
LIPID
DIFFUSION
Lipids/
Darkness/
Light/
Lighting/
Temperature/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Thermography/
Methods/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Temperature/
Biophysics/
Light/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Radiation
Effects/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
127.
Szelezniak,
E.
(
1996).
Influence
of
Mineral
Salts
on
Sethoxydim
Phytotoxicity
(
Wplyw
soli
Mineralnych
na
Skutecznosc
Chwastobojcza
Setoksydimu).
Pamiet.
Pulawski
108:
59­
69
(
POL)
(
ENG
ABS).

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
69493
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NON­
ENGLISH.

128.
TALBERT
RE,
OLIVER
LR,
FRANS
RE,
JOHNSON
DH,
WICHERT
RA,
KENDIG
JA,
RUFF
DF,
and
MCCARTHY
JT
(
1990).
FIELD
SCREENING
OF
NEW
CHEMICALS
FOR
HERBICIDAL
ACTIVITY
1989.
ARKANSAS
AGRIC
EXP
STN
RES
SER;
0:
1­
22.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
HUMAN
HEALTH.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
AGRONOMY
HORTICULTURE
ARKANSAS
USA
Chemistry,
Clinical/
Biochemistry/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
129.
TAYLOR
WS,
HIXON,
M.,
CHI,
H.,
MARSILII,
E.,
and
RENDINA
AR
(
1995).
INHIBITION
OF
ACETYL­
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
BY
COENZYME
A
CONJUGATES
OF
GRASSSELECTIVE
HERBICIDES.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE;
43:
177­
180.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
RESEARCH
ARTICLE
EC
6.4.1.2
PLANT
WEED
CONTROL
LIPID
BIOSYNTHESIS
TARGET
QUIZALOFOP
SETHOXYDIM
AGRICULTURE
Biochemistry/
Amino
Acids/
Peptides/
Proteins/
Lipids/
Enzymes/
Physiology/
Lipids/
Metabolism/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Enzymology/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
130.
Thelen,
K.
D.,
Jackson,
E.
P.,
and
Penner,
D.
(
Characterizing
the
sethoxydim­
bentazon
interaction
with
proton
nuclear
magnetic
resonance
spectrometry.
Weed
Science,
43
(
3)
pp.
337­
341,
1995.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.

131.
Volenberg,
D.
and
Stoltenberg,
D.
(
Altered
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
confers
resistance
to
clethodim,
fluazifop
and
sethoxydim
in
Setaria
faberi
and
Digitaria
sanguinalis.
Weed
Research,
42
(
5)
pp.
342­
350,
2002.
­
123­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
Populations
of
Setaria
faberi
and
Digitaria
sanguinalis
cross­
resistant
to
sethoxydim
and
fluazifop­
P­
butyl
were
identified
in
a
vegetable
cropping
system
in
Wisconsin,
USA,
in
1991
and
1992
respectively.
Experiments
were
conducted
with
partially
purified
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
to
determine
whether
resistance
to
sethoxydim
and
other
ACCase
inhibitors
in
S.
faberi
and
D.
sanguinalis
resulted
from
altered
enzyme
activity.
Based
on
I<
inf>
50</
inf>
values
(
the
herbicide
dose
that
inhibited
ACCase
activity
by
50%
compared
with
untreated
ACCase),
ACCase
of
the
resistant
accession
of
S.
faberi
was
4.8­,
10.6­
and
319­
fold
resistant
to
clethodim,
fluazifop­
P
acid
and
sethoxydim,
respectively,
compared
with
that
of
the
susceptible
accession.
Similarly,
ACCase
of
the
resistant
accession
of
D.
sanguinalis
was
5.8­,
10.3­
and
66­
fold
resistant
to
clethodim,
fluazifop­
P
acid
and
sethoxydim
respectively.
These
results
indicated
that
resistance
to
ACCase
inhibitors
in
these
accessions
of
S.
faberi
and
D.
sanguinalis
resulted
from
an
altered
ACCase
enzyme
that
confers
a
very
high
level
of
resistance
to
sethoxydim.
SXD
ACCase/
Aryloxyphenoxypropionate
herbicides/
Cyclohexanedione
herbicides/
Dose­
response/
Setaria
faberi/
Digitaria
sanguinalis
132.
WATSCHKE
TL
,
PRINSTER
MG,
and
BREUNINGER
JM
(
1992).
PLANT
GROWTH
REGULATORS
AND
TURFGRASS
MANAGEMENT.
WADDINGTON,
D.
V.,
R.
N.
CARROW
AND
R.
C.
SHEARMAN
(
ED.).
AGRONOMY
(
MADISON),
NO.
32.
TURFGRASS.
XXI+
805P.
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
AGRONOMY,
INC.;
CROP
SCIENCE
SOCIETY
OF
AMERICA,
INC.;
SOIL
SCIENCE
SOCIETY
OF
AMERICA,
INC.
PUBLISHERS:
MADISON,
WISCONSIN,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
89118­
108­
3.
557­
588.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
INHIBITORS
SUPPRESSORS
HERBICIDES
PHYTOTOXICITY
REDUCED
MAINTENANCE
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Biophysics/
Plant
Growth
Regulators/
Pharmacology/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Plants/
Drug
Effects/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Grasses
133.
Watson,
J.
E.
(
1996).
Pesticides
as
a
Source
of
Pollution.
Pollut.
Sci.
3:
253­
266.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
70435
User
Define
2:
REPS,
WASH,
CALF,
CORE,
NA
Chemical
of
Concern:
SZ,
PNB,
MOM,
CBF,
ADC,
DMT,
24DXY,
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
METHODS.

134.
WEBER,
A.
and
LUETTGE,
U.
(
1987).
THE
EFFECTS
OF
THE
HERBICIDE
SETHOXYDIM
ON
MEMBRANE­
BOUND
REDOX
SYSTEMS
IN
SENSITIVE
AND
NONSENSITIVE
GRASS
SPECIES.
XIVTH
INTERNATIONAL
BOTANICAL
CONGRESS,
BERLIN,
WEST
GERMANY,
JULY
24­
AUGUST
1,
1987.
INT
BOT
CONGR
ABSTR;
17:
72.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
POA­
PRATENSIS
FESTUCA
ZEA­
MAYS
SOLANUMTUBEROSUM
FERRICYANIDE
REDUCTION
MITOCHONDRIA
Congresses/
Biology/
Plants/
Cytology/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Membranes/
Physiology/
Biophysics/
Electron
Transport/
Energy
Metabolism/
Oxidative
Phosphorylation/
Energy
Metabolism/
Respiration/
Biophysics/
Fermentation/
Plants/
Physiology/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Respiration/
Biophysics/
Plants/
Metabolism/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
135.
WELLS
DW
and
CONSTANTIN
RJ
(
1988).
TOLERANCE
OF
ORNAMENTAL
GROUND
COVERS
TO
POST­
APPLIED
GRAMINICIDES.
48TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
SOUTHERN
REGION),
NEW
ORLEANS,
LOUISIANA,
USA,
JANUARY
31­
FEBRUARY
2,
1988.
HORTSCIENCE;
23:
820.
­
124­
Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
CLETHODIM
CYCLOXYDIM
DPX­
46202­
31
FENOXAPROP
FLUAZIFOP­
P­
BUTYL
QUIZALOFOP
SETHOXYDIM
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
136.
WELLS
DW,
CONSTANTIN
RJ,
and
FONTENOT
JF
(
1986).
GRASS
CONTROL
IN
CONTAINERGROWN
ORNAMENTALS
WITH
POSTEMERGENT
HERBICIDES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
SOUTHERN
REGION),
ORLANDO,
FLA.,
USA,
FEB.
2­
4,
1986.
HORTSCIENCE;
21:
934.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
PHYTOTOXICITY
SETHOXYDIM
FLUAZIFOPBUTYL
DICLOFOP
CHLORSULFURON
SULFOMETURON­
METHYL
CGA­
82725
XYLAFOP­
ETHYL
HALOXYFOP
CROP
INDUSTRY
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Poisoning/
Animals,
Laboratory/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Environmental
Pollution/
Plant
Diseases/
Weather/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
137.
WIEN
HC
(
1990).
COLLOQUIUM
ON
SUSTAINABLE
COMMERCIAL
VEGETABLE
PRODUCTION
WITH
MINIMAL
USE
OF
SYNTHETIC
FERTILIZERS
AND
PESTICIDES
HELD
AT
THE
85TH
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
ANNUAL
MEETING
EAST
LANSING
MICHIGAN
USA
AUGUST
9
1988.
HORTSCIENCE;
25:
154­
171.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides
138.
Wilcut,
J.
W.,
Wehtje,
G.
R.,
Colvin,
D.
L.,
and
Patterson,
M.
G.
(
1987).
Economic
Assessment
of
Herbicide
Systems
for
Minimum­
Tillage
Peanuts.
Peanut
Sci.
14:
83­
86.

Chem
Codes:
EcoReference
No.:
73773
User
Define
2:
WASH,
CALF,
CORE
Chemical
of
Concern:
MTL,
EFL,
PDM,
PAQT,
OYZ,
GYP,
ACR,
CZE,
SXD,
ACO,
VRN;
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

139.
WILCUT
JW,
WEHTJE
GR,
and
PATTERSON
MG
(
1987).
ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT
OF
WEED
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
FOR
PEANUTS
ARACHIS­
HYPOGAEA.
WEED
SCI;
35:
433­
437.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
PANICUM­
TEXANUM
BENEFIN
ALACHLOR
DINOSEB
SETHOXYDIM
Biochemistry/
Oils/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Legumes
140.
WINKLER
DA,
LIEPA
AJ,
ANDERSON­
MCKAY
JE,
and
HART
NK
(
1989).
A
MOLECULAR
GRAPHICS
STUDY
OF
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
HERBICIDAL
ACTIVITY
OF
OXIMES
OF
3
ACYLTETRAHYDRO­
2H­
PYRAN­
2
4­
DIONES.
PESTIC
SCI;
27:
45­
64.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
GRASS­
KILLERS
COMPUTERS
MOLAR
REFRACTIVITY
SETHOXYDIN
AGRICULTURE
PYRANDIONES
ACETYL
COENZYME
A
CARBOXYLASE
GRAMINICIDAL
ACTIVITY
Computer
Systems/
Biology/
Documentation/
Information
Systems/
Biochemistry/
Biophysics/
Macromolecular
Systems/
Molecular
Biology/
Coenzymes/
Comparative
Study/
Enzymes/
­
125­
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses
141.
WRIGHT
GC,
MCCLOSKEY
WB,
and
TAYLOR
KC
(
1996).
A
COMPARISON
OF
FOUR
ORCHARD
FLOOR
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
FOR
LEMONS
IN
SOUTHWESTERN
ARIZONA.
93RD
ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY,
USA,
OCTOBER
6­
10,
1996.
HORTSCIENCE;
31:
578.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
LEMON
BERMUDAGRASS
SOUTHERN
SANDBURR
FRUITS
PLANT
WEED
HORTICULTURE
CROP
INDUSTRY
ORCHARD
FLOOR
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
PEST
MANAGEMENT
SETHOXYDIM
HERBICIDE
SOLICAM
SURFLAN
CROP
YIELD
MOWING
CHEMICAL
MOWING
FIELD
METHOD
CLEAN
CULTURE
DISKING
ARIZONA
USA
Congresses/
Biology/
Biology/
Methods/
Fruit/
Nuts/
Tropical
Climate/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
142.
YARBOROUGH
DE
(
1988).
EFFECT
OF
SETHOXYDIM
ON
LITTLE
BLUESTEM
IN
LOWBUSH
BLUEBERRY
FIELDS.
1988
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
(
NORTHEAST
REGION),
ORONO,
MAINE,
USA,
JANUARY
8­
9,
1988.
HORTSCIENCE;
23:
677.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
ABSTRACT
ANDROPOGON­
SCOPARIUS
HERBICIDE
WEED
CONTROL
CROP
INDUSTRY
AGRICULTURE
Congresses/
Biology/
Biochemistry/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fruit/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
143.
Yu,
Qin,
Shane
Friesen,
L.
J.,
Zhang,
Xiao
Qi,
and
Powles,
Stephen
B.
(
2004).
Tolerance
to
acetolactate
synthase
and
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
inhibiting
herbicides
in
Vulpia
bromoides
is
conferred
by
two
co­
existing
resistance
mechanisms.
Pesticide
Biochemistry
and
Physiology
78:
21­
30.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.
Vulpia
bromoides
is
a
grass
species
naturally
tolerant
to
acetolactate
synthase
(
ALS)
and
acetyl­
coenzyme
A
carboxylase
(
ACCase)
inhibiting
herbicides.
The
mechanism
of
tolerance
to
ALS
herbicides
was
determined
as
cytochrome
P450­
monooxygenase
mediated
metabolic
detoxification.
The
ALS
enzyme
extract
partially
purified
from
V.
bromoides
shoot
tissue
was
found
to
be
as
sensitive
as
that
of
herbicide
susceptible
Lolium
rigidum
to
ALS­
inhibiting
sulfonylurea
(
SU),
triazolopyrimidine
(
TP),
and
imidazolinone
(
IM)
herbicides.
Furthermore,
phytotoxicity
of
the
wheat­
selective
SU
herbicide
chlorsulfuron
was
significantly
enhanced
in
vivo
in
the
presence
of
the
known
P450
inhibitor
malathion.
In
contract,
the
biochemical
basis
of
tolerance
to
ACCase
inhibiting
herbicides
was
established
as
an
insensitive
ACCase.
In
vitro
ACCase
inhibition
assays
showed
that,
compared
to
a
herbicide
susceptible
L.
rigidum,
the
V.
bromoides
ACCase
was
moderately
(
4.5­
to
9.5­
fold)
insensitive
to
the
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
(
APP)
herbicides
diclofop,
fluazifop,
and
haloxyfop
and
highly
insensitive
(
20­
to
>
71­
fold)
to
the
cyclohexanedione
(
CHD)
herbicides
sethoxydim
and
tralkoxydim.
No
differential
absorption
or
deesterification
of
fluazifop­
P­
butyl
was
observed
between
the
two
species
at
48&
nbsp;
h
after
herbicide
application,
and
furthermore
V.
bromoides
did
not
detoxify
fluazifop
acid
as
rapidly
as
susceptible
L.
rigidum.
It
is
concluded
that
two
co­
existing
resistance
mechanisms,
i.
e.,
an
enhanced
metabolism
of
ALS
herbicides
and
an
insensitive
target
ACCase,
endow
natural
tolerance
to
ALS
and
ACCase
inhibiting
herbicides
in
V.
bromoides.

144.
Zagnitko,
O
,
Jelenska,
J,
Tevzadze,
G,
Haselkorn,
R,
and
Gornicki,
P
(
2001).
An
isoleucine/
leucine
residue
in
the
carboxyltransferase
domain
of
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
is
critical
for
interaction
with
aryloxyphenoxypropionate
and
cyclohexanedione
inhibitors.
Proceedings
Of
The
National
Academy
Of
Sciences
Of
The
United
States
Of
America
98
:
6617­
6622.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
YEAST.
cDNA
fragments
encoding
the
carboxyltransferase
domain
of
the
multidomain
plastid
acetyl­
CoA
carboxylase
­
126­
(
ACCase)
from
herbicide­
resistant
maize
and
from
herbicide­
sensitive
and
herbicide­
resistant
Lolium
rigidum
were
cloned
and
sequenced.
A
Leu
residue
was
found
in
ACCases
from
herbicide­
resistant
plants
at
a
position
occupied
by
Ile
in
all
ACCases
from
sensitive
grasses
studied
so
far.
Leu
is
present
at
the
equivalent
position
in
herbicide­
resistant
ACCases
from
other
eukaryotes.
Chimeric
ACCases
containing
a
1000­
aa
fragment
of
two
ACCase
isozymes
found
in
a
herbicide­
resistant
maize
were
expressed
in
a
yeast
ACC1
null
mutant
to
test
herbicide
sensitivity
of
the
enzyme
in
vivo
and
in
vitro.
One
of
the
enzymes
was
resistant/
tolerant,
and
one
was
sensitive
to
haloxyfop
and
sethoxydim,
rendering
the
gene­
replacement
yeast
strains
resistant
and
sensitive
to
these
compounds,
respectively.
The
sensitive
enzyme
has
an
Ile
residue,
and
the
resistant
one
has
a
Leu
residue
at
the
putative
herbicide­
binding
site.
Additionally,
a
single
Ile
to
Leu
replacement
at
an
equivalent
position
changes
the
wheat
plastid
ACCase
from
sensitive
to
resistant.
The
effect
of
the
opposite
substitution,
Leu
to
Ile,
makes
Toxoplasma
gondii
apicoplast
ACCase
resistant
to
haloxyfop
and
clodinafop.
In
this
case,
inhibition
of
the
carboxyltransferase
activity
of
ACCase
(
second
half­
reaction)
of
a
large
fragment
of
the
Toxoplasma
enzyme
expressed
in
Escherichia
coli
was
tested.
The
critical
amino
acid
residue
is
located
close
to
a
highly
conserved
motif
of
the
carboxyltransferase
domain,
which
is
probably
a
part
of
the
enzyme
active
site,
providing
the
basis
for
the
activity
of
fop
and
dim
herbicides.
[
Journal
Article;
In
English;
United
States]

145.
ZANDSTRA
BH
and
CHASE
WR
(
1995).
INTERPLANTED
SMALL
GRAIN
MANAGEMENT
IN
CUCUMBERS.
92ND
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE
AND
THE
40TH
ANNUAL
CONGRESS
OF
THE
CANADIAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
MONTREAL,
QUEBEC,
CANADA,
JULY
30­
AUGUST
3,
1995.
HORTSCIENCE;
30:
754.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.
BIOSIS
COPYRIGHT:
BIOL
ABS.
RRM
MEETING
ABSTRACT
BARLEY
OATS
RYE
WHEAT
PLANT
CROP
INDUSTRY
HORTICULTURE
WIND
PROTECTION
EROSION
PROTECTION
GRAMINICIDE
SETHOXYDIM
ESTABLISHMENT
Congresses/
Biology/
Climate/
Ecology/
Meteorological
Factors/
Biochemistry/
Cereals/
Plants/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Grasses/
Growth
&
Development/
Soil/
Fertilizers/
Soil/
Vegetables/
Herbicides/
Pest
Control/
Pesticides/
Grasses/
Plants
146.
Zhang,
Hailong,
Tweel,
Benjamin,
and
Tong,
Liang
(
2004).
Molecular
basis
for
the
inhibition
of
the
carboxyltransferase
domain
of
acetyl­
coenzyme­
A
carboxylase
by
haloxyfop
and
diclofop.
Proceedings
Of
The
National
Academy
Of
Sciences
Of
The
United
States
Of
America
101:
5910­
5915.

Chem
Codes:
Chemical
of
Concern:
SXD;
Rejection
Code:
HUMAN
HEALTH.
Acetyl­
CoA
carboxylases
(
ACCs)
are
crucial
for
the
metabolism
of
fatty
acids,
making
these
enzymes
important
targets
for
the
development
of
therapeutics
against
obesity,
diabetes,
and
other
diseases.
The
carboxyltransferase
(
CT)
domain
of
ACC
is
the
site
of
action
of
commercial
herbicides,
such
as
haloxyfop,
diclofop,
and
sethoxydim.
We
have
determined
the
crystal
structures
at
up
to
2.5­
A
resolution
of
the
CT
domain
of
yeast
ACC
in
complex
with
the
herbicide
haloxyfop
or
diclofop.
The
inhibitors
are
bound
in
the
active
site,
at
the
interface
of
the
dimer
of
the
CT
domain.
Unexpectedly,
inhibitor
binding
requires
large
conformational
changes
for
several
residues
in
this
interface,
which
create
a
highly
conserved
hydrophobic
pocket
that
extends
deeply
into
the
core
of
the
dimer.
Two
residues
that
affect
herbicide
sensitivity
are
located
in
this
binding
site,
and
mutation
of
these
residues
disrupts
the
structure
of
the
domain.
Other
residues
in
the
binding
site
are
strictly
conserved
among
the
CT
domains.
[
Journal
Article;
In
English;
United
States]
­
127­
Appendix
D
List
of
Exclusion
Terms
Utilized
under
the
ECOTOX
Database
(
See
ECOTOX
Literature
Search
Standard
Operating
Procedures:
Appendix
G)

Note:
ECOTOX
exclusion
terms
highlighted
in
appear
as
exclusion
terms
in
OW/
ESA
Literature
Search
Strategy
(
See
Appendix
D:
Literature
Search
Strategy
for
the
Office
of
Water
/
Services
Biological
Evaluation
of
ESA)

Note:
ECOTOX
exclusion
terms
highlighted
in
did
not
appear
as
exclusion
terms
in
the
OW/
ESA
Literature
Search
Strategy,
but
were
used
to
eliminate
studies
that
were
not
acceptable
for
use
in
the
toxicity
component
of
the
biological
evaluation.

NOTE:
In
addition
to
the
highlighted
exclusion
categories
listed
below,
the
ESA
SOP
also
excludes
biomarker
studies
and
studies
unrelated
to
contaminants
and
species
of
concern
under
the
ESA
efforts.

Other
ambient
conditions­­
effects
on
organisms
from
changes
in
conditions
other
than
addition
of
chemicals,
including
radioactivity,
ultraviolet
light
(
UV),
temperature,
pH,
salinity,
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO),
or
other
water,
air,
or
soil
parameters.

Drug­­
testing
for
drug
effects
and
side­
effects
(
see
"
Applicable
publications").

Oil
and
petroleum
products
­
128­
Incident
papers­­
reports
of
animal
deaths
by
poison,
etc.
Lacks
usable
concentration
or
duration
or
both.
­
129­
Appendix
E
Ecological
Effects
Data
The
ecological
toxicity
testing
that
is
required
by
the
agency
does
not
test
all
species
of
birds
or
fish.
Four
surrogate
species
for
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
and
birds
in
the
United
States
and
are
used
to
determine
the
ecological
toxicity
of
a
pesticide.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
limited
to
crustaceans,
mollusks,
and
fish,
while
mammalian
studies
are
limited
to
the
rat.
Reptiles
and
amphibians
are
not
tested.
An
assumption
is
made
that
the
toxicity
of
a
pesticide
to
birds
is
the
same
as
in
reptiles.
The
same
assumption
is
made
for
amphibians
and
fish.
The
aquatic
stage
of
the
amphibian
life­
cycle
is
assumed
to
be
the
same
as
that
of
a
fish.
The
conclusions
for
the
surrogate
species
apply
to
reptiles
and
amphibians
as
well
as
other
birds
and
fish.

a.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
I.
Birds,
Acute
and
Subacute
An
acute
oral
toxicity
study
using
the
technical
grade
of
the
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
is
either
mallard
duck
(
a
waterfowl)
or
bobwhite
quail
(
an
upland
gamebird).
The
results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below:

Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
LD
50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification1
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.3
>
2510
practically
non­
toxic
42813
Fink/
1979
acceptable
1
Acceptable
(
study
satisfies
guideline).

Since
the
LD
50
is
>
2000
mg/
kg,
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
No
mortalities
were
observed
at
the
highest
dose.

Two
subacute
dietary
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
5­
Day
LC
50
(
ppm)
1
Toxicity
Category
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97.3
>
5620
practically
non­
toxic
42814
Fink/
1979
acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.3
>
5620
practically
non­
toxic
72862
Fink/
1979
acceptable
1
Test
organisms
observed
an
additional
three
days
while
on
untreated
feed.

Since
the
LC
50
is
>
5000
ppm,
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
No
mortalities
were
observed
at
the
highest
dose
for
both
studies.
­
130­
It
should
be
noted
that
acute
aquatic
studies
show
a
significant
difference
in
toxicity
between
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(>
90%
active
ingredient)
and
the
typical
end­
use
product
(
between
18%
and
20%
active
ingredient).
For
this
reason,
EFED
needs
to
know
if
there
is
a
similar
difference
in
avian
species.
EFED
is
requesting
that
acute
avian
dietary
studies
using
the
bobwhite
quail
and
the
mallard
duck
be
conducted
with
the
typical
end­
use
product
(
TEP
­
POAST
®
Herbicide
with
18
to
20%
a.
i.)
and
that
an
inert
control
be
administered
concurrently
with
these
studies.
Consequently
avian
toxicity
data
are
needed
on
the
formulated
product.

ii.
Birds,
Chronic
Avian
reproduction
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
for
Sethoxydim
because
birds
may
be
subject
to
repeated
or
continuous
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
especially
preceding
or
during
the
breeding
season.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.
Avian
reproduction
studies
may
be
required
pending
the
results
from
the
acute
dietary
studies
with
the
typical
end­
use
product.
Results
of
these
studies
are
tabulated
below.

Avian
Reproduction
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
Endpoint
Toxicity
Category
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
96.8
1000
ppm
(
NOAEC)
No
treatment
related
effects
44003401
Munk/
1996
acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
96.8
100
ppm
1
(
LOAEC)
number
of
normal
hatchling
44003402
Beavers/
1996
supplemental
1
No
NOAEL
was
observed.

The
avian
reproduction
study
with
the
bobwhite
quail
showed
no
effects
up
to
1000
ppm.
The
most
sensitive
endpoint
of
the
avian
reproduction
study
with
the
mallard
duck
was
the
number
of
normal
hatchlings
at
the
100
and
500
ppm
levels.
The
NOAEC
was
not
determined
in
this
study.
Additional
avian
reproduction
data
may
be
required
pending
the
results
of
the
avian
acute
dietary
studies
with
the
TEP.

iii.
Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
pattern
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
most
cases,
rat
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
These
toxicity
values
are
reported
below.

Mammalian
Toxicity
Species/
Study
Duration
%
ai
Test
Type
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.

laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
94.0­
99%
Acute
Oral
LD
50
3125
mg/
kg
(
males)
2676
mg/
kg
(
females)
mortality
00045847
laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
94.0­
99%
2­
Gen.
Rat
Repro.
(
NOAEL)
3000
ppm
150
mg/
kg­
bw/
day
reproduction
1
41510606
43366401
laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
POAST
®
(
18.0%)
Acute
Oral
LD
50
5000
mg/
kg
(
males)
4385
mg/
kg
(
females)
mortality
00046326
­
131­
1
The
rat
2­
generation
reproduction
study
(
1983,
MRID
41510606,
43366401)
demonstrated
both
a
systemic
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
of

150
mg/
kg/
day.
There
were
no
adverse
effects
on
the
reproductive
performance
in
either
sex.
In
addition,
the
study
demonstrated
a
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
of
30
and
150
mg/
kg/
day,
respectively,
for
the
offspring
based
on
tail
abnormalities
seen
in
F1a
and
F1b
offspring.
Malformations
were
only
observed
in
one
F1b
and
two
F2b
pups.
The
malformations
were
described
as
thread­
like
tail,
no
anal
opening,
malformed
hindlimb,
malpositioned
kidneys,
cleft
lip,
cleft
palate
and
microphthalmia.
There
were
no
doserelated
gross
or
microscopic
lesions,
or
developmental
variations
(
cannibalism
complicated
the
evaluation).

The
results
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
technical
and
the
formulated
product
POAST
®
Herbicide
are
practically
nontoxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
The
Agency
does
not
have
chronic
toxicity
data
on
the
formulated
product,
POAST
®
Herbicide.

iv.
Insects
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
shows
that
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
bees.
Results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below.

Nontarget
Insect
Acute
Contact
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
LD
50
(

g/
bee)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
98.9
10
practically
non­
toxic
41510607
Nippon
Soda
Co.
/
1981
acceptable
The
results
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
bees
on
an
acute
contact
basis.

b.
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
I.
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
fish.
The
preferred
test
species
are
rainbow
trout
(
a
coldwater
fish)
and
bluegill
sunfish
(
a
warm
water
fish).
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Species/
(
Flow­
through
or
Static)
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
(
measured/
nominal)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
type
of
study
is
unknown
97.3
170
ai
(
nominal)
practically
non­
toxic
42815
Vilkas,
1979
acceptable
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
97.3
265
ai
(
nominal)
practically
non­
toxic
72863
Vilkas,
1979
acceptable
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
static
19.3
6.2
product
(
measured)
moderately
toxic
41885902
Bowman/
1991
acceptable
(
for
formulated
product)
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
static
19.3
8.3
product
(
measured)
moderately
toxic
41885901
Bowman/
1991
acceptable
(
for
formulated
product)
­
132­
The
above
data
shows
that
the
LC
50'
s
for
Sethoxydim
technical
are
greater
than
100
ppm,
indicating
that
Sethoxydim
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
LC
50'
s
for
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim,
POAST
®
(
19.3%
a.
i.),
however,
are
6.2
ppm
product
and
8.3
ppm
product
for
the
rainbow
trout
and
bluegill
sunfish,
respectively.
These
studies
show
that
the
formulated
product
is
more
toxic
than
the
technical
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.

ii.
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
There
are
no
chronic
data
for
fish.
Freshwater
fish
early
life­
stage
test
is
required
if
the
following
criteria
(
40
CFR
Part
158)
have
been
met:

1)
the
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
from
the
intended
use
site
to
water;
2)
the
LC
50
and
EC
50
values
are
less
than
1
mg/
l
3)
the
EEC
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.01
of
any
EC
50
or
LC
50
determined
in
acute
toxicity
testing
(
0.01
X
6.2
ppm
(
lowest
acute
toxicity
endpoint)
=
0.06;
EEC's
range
from
0.11
ppm
to
0.08
ppm);
4)
environmental
fate
studies
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
residues
are
persistent
for
greater
than
four
days
(
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies
indicated
half­
lives
of
33­
38
days).

EFED
is
requesting
that
the
registrant
conduct
freshwater
fish
early
life­
stage
studies
with
parent
Sethoxydim
greater
than
90%
a.
i.
and
with
the
formulated
product
­
POAST
®
Herbicide
18%
to
20%
ai,
along
with
an
inert
control
using
the
formulation
"
Naphthalene­
containing
solvents".

iii.
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test,
using
the
TGAI,
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
Species/(
Static
or
Flowthrough
%
ai
48­
hour
LC
50/
EC
50
(
ppm)
(
measured/
nominal)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
97.3
78.1
ai
(
nominal)
slightly
toxic
42816
Vilkas,
1979
acceptable
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
static
19.3
13.5
product
(
measured)
1
moderately
toxic
41885903
Blasberg/
1991
acceptable
(
for
formulated
product)

1
Dose
response
slope
is
4.73725
These
studies
show
that
Sethoxydim
technical
has
an
LC
50
of
78.1
ppm
ai
and
is
classified
as
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
The
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim
has
an
LC
50
of
13.5
ppm
product
and
is
classified
as
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.

iv.
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
­
133­
There
are
no
chronic
data
for
invertebrates.
Aquatic
invertebrate
life
cycle
test
is
required
if
the
following
criteria
(
40
CFR
Part
158)
have
been
met:

1)
the
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
from
the
intended
use
site
to
water;
2)
the
LC
50
and
EC
50
values
are
less
than
1
mg/
l.
3)
the
EEC
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.01
of
any
EC
50
or
LC
50
determined
in
acute
toxicity
testing
(
0.01
X
6.2
ppm
(
lowest
acute
toxicity
endpoint)
=
0.06;
EEC's
range
from
0.11
ppm
to
0.08
ppm);
4)
environmental
fate
studies
indicate
that
Sethoxydim
residues
are
persistent
for
greater
than
four
days
(
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies
indicated
half­
lives
of
33­
38
days).

c.
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Animals
I.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
fish,
using
the
TGAI,
is
required
for
Sethoxydim
because
the
active
ingredient
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment.
The
preferred
test
species
is
sheepshead
minnow.
The
results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below:

Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Species/(
Static
or
Flow­
through)
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
(
measured/
nominal)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
static
97.8
>
145.8
ai
(
measured)
practically
non­
toxic
42315101
Ward/
1992
acceptable
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
static
18.0
19.4
product
(
nominal)
moderately
toxic
41510602
Ward/
1989
acceptable
The
LC
50
for
Sethoxydim
technical
is
greater
than
145.8
mg
ai/
L
and
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
However,
the
LC
50
for
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim,
POAST
®
(
18.0%
a.
i.),
is
19.4
ppm
product
and
is
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
on
an
acute
basis.

ii.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Chronic
An
estuarine
fish
Early­
Life
Stage
study
was
submitted.
The
results
are
below:
­
134­
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
Under
Flow­
through
Conditions
Species
%
ai
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
40
NOAEC
=
98
ai
LOAEC
>
98
ai
No
significant
effect
at
all
doses
43614601
Graves/
1995
supplemental
This
study
indicated
a
no
effect
concentration
(
NOAEC)
greater
than
the
highest
test
concentration
of
98
ppm
a.
i.,
and
therefore
no
low
effect
concentration
(
LOAEC).
The
formulation
utilized,
POAST
3.5
EC
(
Registration
number
7679­
129),
does
contain
naphthalene
via
the
petroleum
solvent
known
as
Aromatic
150.

iii.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
using
the
TGAI,
is
required
for
Sethoxydim
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oyster.
The
results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below:

Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
Species/
Static
or
Flow­
through
%
ai.
96­
hour
LC
50/
EC
50
(
ppm)
(
measured/
nominal)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Eastern
oyster
(
embryo­
larvae)
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
static
94.5
=
109
ai
(
measured)
practically
nontoxic
42537401
Linott/
1992
acceptable
Eastern
oyster
(
embryo­
larvae)
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
static
20.4
4.4
product
(
nominal)
1
moderately
toxic
41607207
Ward/
1990
acceptable
Mysid
(
Americamysis
bahia)
static
97.8
>
141.8
ai
(
measured)
practically
nontoxic
42315102
Ward/
1992
acceptable
Mysid
(
Americamysis
bahia)
static
18.0
4.4
product
(
nominal)
moderately
toxic
41510604
Ward/
1989
acceptable
1
Dose
response
slope
is
4.8331
These
studies
show
that
the
LC
50'
s
for
Sethoxydim
technical
are
greater
than
100
ppm,
and
that
the
technical
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
However,
the
formulated
product
of
Sethoxydim,
POAST
®
(
20.4%
and
18.0%
a.
i.)
is
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis
with
LC
50'
s
of
4.4
ppm
product
for
the
eastern
oyster
and
4.4
ppm
product
for
the
mysid
shrimp.

iv.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrate,
Chronic
An
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
study
was
submitted.
The
results
are
below:
­
135­
Results
of
a
supplemental
test
are
tabulated
below.

Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
Toxicity
Species/(
Static
Renewal
or
Flow­
through)
%
ai
21­
day
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Mysid
(
flow­
thru)
(
Americamysis
bahia)
43.1
NOAEC
=
15.1
product
NOAEC
=
6.5
ppm
ai
survival
&
length
43614602
Boeri/
1995
supplemental
This
study
was
classified
as
supplemental
because
it
was
conducted
with
43%
a.
i.
rather
than
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
as
required
by
CFR
158.490.
The
TEP
(
18%
to
20.4%
a.
i.
­
POAST
®
Herbicide)
is
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
while
the
TGAI
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
The
acute
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
toxicity
endpoints
with
the
TEP
are
less
than
1
ppm.
The
formulation
utilized,
POAST
3.5
EC
(
Registration
number
7679­
129),
does
contain
naphthalene
via
the
petroleum
solvent
known
as
Aromatic
150.

EFED
is
requesting
that
the
registrant
conduct
marine/
estuarine
fish
early
life­
stage
studies
with
parent
Sethoxydim
greater
than
90%
a.
i.
and
with
the
formulated
product
­
POAST
®
Herbicide.
In
addition,
an
inert
control
using
the
formulation
"
Naphthalene­
containing
solvents"
may
need
to
be
tested
depending
on
questions
regarding
the
test
material.

d.
Toxicity
to
Plants
I.
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
plant
testing
(
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor)
is
required
for
herbicides.

For
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
testing
the
following
plant
species
and
groups
should
be
tested:
(
1)
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicotyledonous
families,
one
species
of
which
is
soybean
(
Glycine
max),
and
the
second
of
which
is
a
root
crop,
and
(
2)
four
species
of
at
least
two
monocotyledonous
families,
one
of
which
is
corn
(
Zea
mays).
The
test
should
be
done
on
the
TEP.

Tier
I
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
at
a
test
level
that
is
equal
to
the
highest
use
rate
(
expressed
as
lbs
ai/
A).
Results
of
Tier
1
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical/
TEP
material
are
tabulated
below.

Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Seedling
Emergence
Toxicity
(
Tier
I)

Species
%
ai
Dose
(
lbs
ai/
A)
%
Response
and
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
Corn
50.5
0.47
15
(
phytotoxicity)
44204801
Maggi,
1993
supplemental
Monocot­
Ryegrass
50.5
0.47
44
(
emergence)
62.5
(
phytotoxicity)
Monocot­
Onion
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)
Monocot­
Oat
50.5
0.47
15
(
phytotoxicity)
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Seedling
Emergence
Toxicity
(
Tier
I)

Species
%
ai
Dose
(
lbs
ai/
A)
%
Response
and
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
­
136­
Dicot­
Root
Crop­
Radish
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)
Dicot­
Soybean
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)
Dicot­
Cabbage
50.5
0.47
15(
phytotoxicity)
Dicot­
Tomato
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)
Dicot­
Cucumber
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)
Dicot­
Lettuce
50.5
0.47
0
(
no
effect)

The
Tier
I
seedling
emergence
study
indicated
that
Sethoxydim
has
a
greater
than
25%
effect
versus
the
control
for
ryegrass
(
44%
effect
for
seedling
emergence
and
62.5%
for
phytotoxicity).

Tier
II
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
at
several
dose
concentrations
(
expressed
as
lbs
ai/
A).
Results
of
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical/
TEP
material
are
tabulated
below.

Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Seed
Germination
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC25/
NOAEL
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
Corn
50.5
0.418/
0.235
dry
weight
43614603
Maggi/
1994
supplemental
Monocot­
Oat
50.5
0.197/
0.059
dry
weight
Monocot­
Ryegrass
50.5
0.065/
0.059
phytotoxicity
For
Tier
II
seed
germination,
ryegrass
is
the
most
sensitive
monocot
species
tested.
Dicot
species
were
not
tested.
Seed
Germination
study
is
not
currently
used
in
risk
assessment
due
to
high
uncertainty
of
the
results
due
to
the
methodology
of
the
test.

Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Seedling
Emergence
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
Percent
emergence
EC25/
NOAEL
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
Corn
50.5
dry
weight
43614603
Maggi/
1994
supplemental
Monocot­
Oat
50.5
dry
weight
Monocot­
Ryegrass
50.5
0.065
/
0.059
dry
weight
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Vegetative
Vigor
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC25/
NOAEC
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
ryegrass
95.4
0.029/
0.038
1
weight
41885906
Chetram/
1991
supplemental
Monocot­
Onion
NOAEC
=
0.5
Dicot­
Root
Crop­
Carrot
NOAEC
=
0.5
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Vegetative
Vigor
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC25/
NOAEC
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
­
137­
Dicot­
Soybean
NOAEC
=
0.5
Dicot­
Lettuce
NOAEC
=
0.5
Dicot­
Tomato
NOAEC
=
0.5
Dicot­
Cabbage
NOAEC
=
0.5
Dicot­
Cucumber
NOAEC
=
0.5
1
EC25
=
0.029
lb
ai/
A
(
0.023
­
0.037);
EC50
=
0.038
lb
ai/
A
(
0.033
­
0.044);
NOAEC
=
0.025
based
on
Williams
test;
Slope
=
5.75,
std.
err.
=
1.21
For
the
Tier
II
vegetative
vigor
studies,
all
dicot
species
had
EC
25'
s
and
NOAEC's
greater
than
the
maximum
concentration
tested
(
0.47
lbs
ai/
A).
The
most
sensitive
EC
25,
from
a
acceptable
study,
was
0.029
lbs
ai/
A
for
ryegrass.

Guidelines
call
for
vegetative
vigor
and
seedling
emergence
studies
to
be
tested
with
the
TEP.
The
vegetative
vigor
study
is
supplemental
since
it
was
not
tested
with
TEP.

No
valid
Tier
II
seedling
emergence
plant
study
was
submitted.
Seedling
emergence
data
are
needed
to
assess
nontarget
plants
to
Sethoxydim
runoff
exposure.

ii.
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
is
required
for
any
herbicide
that
has
outdoor
non­
residential
terrestrial
uses
that
may
move
off­
site
by
runoff
(
solubility
>
10
ppm
in
water),
by
drift
(
aerial
or
irrigation),
or
that
is
applied
directly
to
aquatic
use
sites
(
except
residential).
Sethoxydim
is
applied
aerially
and
may
affect
non­
target
plants
through
drift.
Additional
Tier
II
studies
are
required
for
all
low
dose
herbicides
(
those
with
the
maximum
use
rate
of
0.5
lbs
ai/
A
or
less).
Sethoxydim's
highest
use
rate
is
less
than
0.5
lbs
ai/
A.
The
following
species
are
tested
in
Tier
II:
Kirchneria
subcapitata,
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom.
Results
of
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
Sethoxydim
technical
are
tabulated
below:

Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC
50/
EC
05
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
Lemna
gibba
99.8
EC
50
>
0.281
43614605
Thompson/
1994
supplemental
Nonvascular
Plants
Green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
99.8
EC
50
>
0.302
43614607
Thompson/
1994
supplemental
Marine
diatom
Skeletonema
costatum
99.8
EC
50
>
0.250
43626101
Thompson/
1994
supplemental
Freshwater
diatom
Navicula
pelliculosa
99.8
EC
50
>
0.266
43614606
Thompson/
1994
supplemental
Blue­
green
algae
Anabaena
flos­
aquae
99.8
EC
50
>
0.303
43614608
Thompson/
1994
supplemental
The
Tier
II
results
indicate
that
EC
50
is
greater
than
0.250
ppm
ai
for
all
aquatic
plant
species.
These
studies
do
not
need
to
be
repeated
because
the
toxicity
endpoints
are
greater
than
the
EECs
­
138­
that
were
derived
from
GENEEC.
If
the
use
rates
are
increased,
further
algal
testing
may
be
required.
­
139­
Appendix
F.
Input
Parameters
For
GENEEC2
Runs
for
Sethoxydim
Total
Toxic
Residues
Parameter
Value
Source
Maximum
Application
Rate
1.88
lb
a.
i./
acre
(
lumped)
OR
0.47
lb
a.
i./
acre
(
4x
@
14
days)
Use
Closure
Memorandum
Aerobic
Soil
Half­
life
54
days
(
90th
upper
%
ile
of
2
values)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475210
Aerobic
Aquatic
Half­
life
44
days
(
90th
upper
%
ile
of
2
values)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
42165604
Distribution
Coefficient,
Kd
0.03
(
minimum
value
for
parent)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475212
Solubility
4700
ppm
(
parent
at
pH7)
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
19.8
days
EFGWB
Environmental
Fate
Chapter,
March
1997
MRID
41475208
Application
type
Aerial,
no
incorporation
label
Spray
Drift
Fine
to
Medium
(
13%)
GENEEC
default
Wet­
in?
No
label
Distance
to
Pond
Zero
feet
Default
assumption
RUN
No.
1
FOR
Sethoxydim
ON
maxrate
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Kd
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
ZONE(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1.880(
1.880)
1
1
.0
4700.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­
140­
54.00
2
N/
A
19.80­
2455.20
44.00
43.23
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
Aug
1,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
110.72
109.35
101.59
86.39
76.77
RUN
No.
2
FOR
Sethoxydim
ON
fourapps
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Kd
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
ZONE(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
.470(
1.465)
4
14
.0
4700.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
54.00
2
N/
A
19.80­
2455.20
44.00
43.23
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
Aug
1,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
87.07
86.00
79.90
67.94
60.37
­
141­
Appendix
G
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Sethoxydim
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classification
161­
1
835.2120
Hydrolysis
yes
42820
42821
47649
130712
414752­
07
acceptable
161­
2
835.2240
Photodegradation
in
Water
yes
414752­
08
acceptable
161­
3
835.2410
Photodegradation
on
Soil
yes
100540
414752­
09
acceptable
161­
4
835.2370
Photodegradation
in
Air
162­
1
835.4100
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
100541
414752­
10
438016­
01
438016­
07
438016­
09
acceptable
162­
2
835.4200
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
414752­
11
acceptable
162­
3
835.4400
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
yes
421656­
03
414752­
11
unacceptable
acceptable
162­
4
835.4300
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
no
421656­
04
supplemental,
upgradeable
163­
1
835.1240
835.1230
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
yes
42823
100542
414752­
12
acceptable
163­
2
835.1410
Laboratory
Volatility
reserved
163­
3
835.8100
Field
Volatility
reserved
­
142­
164­
1
835.6100
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
no
415106­
08
415106­
09
415106­
11
443110­
01
443524­
01
unacceptable
unacceptable
unacceptable
164­
2
835.6200
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
yes
421656­
05
acceptable
164­
3
835.6300
Forestry
Dissipation
reserved
164­
4
835.6400
Combination
Products
and
Tank
Mixes
Dissipation
reserved
165­
4
850.1730
Accumulation
in
Fish
yes
421180­
01
acceptable
165­
5
850.1950
Accumulation­
aquatic
nontarget
reserved
166­
1
835.7100
Ground
Water­
small
prospective
reserved
201­
1
840.1100
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
fulfilled
by
membership
in
SDTF
414752­
13
supplemental
202­
1
840.1200
Drift
Field
Evaluation
fulfilled
by
membership
in
SDTF
414752­
13
supplemental
­
143­
Appendix
H
Use
Closure
Memorandum
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
Memorandum
SUBJECT:
Use
Closure
Memorandum
for
Sethoxydim
(
121001)

FROM:
Amaris
Johnson,
Chemical
Review
Manager
RB1
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
TO:
Sethoxydim
Team
DATE:
September
16,
2004
The
purpose
of
this
memo
is
to
provide
use
information
that
will
be
incorporated
into
the
preliminary
risk
assessments
for
Sethoxydim.
This
memorandum
and
its
attachment
act
as
a
guide
as
the
Agency
prepares
for
the
reregistration
of
Sethoxydim.
This
information
was
compiled
as
a
result
of
review
of
product
labels,
and
the
August
10,
2004
SMART
Meeting.
Should
additional
use
information
become
available
during
the
development
of
the
Preliminary
Risk
Assessments,
the
Chemical
Review
Manager
will
inform
the
entire
team.

Sethoxydim
is
a
post­
emergence
herbicide
for
the
control
of
annual
and
perennial
grasses.
The
principal
use
of
Sethoxydim
is
for
soybean
and
sunflower
crops.
In
addition,
there
are
several
Special
Local
Needs
registrations,
and
IR­
4
plans
to
support
its
use
on
a
variety
of
other
crops.
The
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
96%
pure,
it
is
formulated
as
a
50%
manufacturing
use
product
(
MUP),
and
there
are
turf
and
residential
uses.

The
risk
assessments
for
Sethoxydim
will
be
based
on
the
use
sites
listed
in
the
attached
Sethoxydim
Use
Patterns
Table.
Additional
information
can
be
found
in
BEAD's
A2
Table,
as
well
as
on
use
and
usage
data
contained
in
the
products'
labels,
and
in
the
report
distributed
by
BASF
at
the
aforementioned
SMART
Meeting.

Supported
Uses
BASF
intends
to
cancel
all
Special
Local
Needs
registrations
except
one,
CA­
92­
0005.

Supported
Registrations
­
144­
There
are
28
active
Sethoxydim
registrations.
Nisso
BASF
Agro
Co.
Ltd
(
BASF),
a
joint
venture
company,
produces
the
Sethoxydim
TGAI
and
MUP.
One
end­
use
registration
is
held
by
Gro­
Pro
LLC.
BASF,
as
the
sole
technical
registrant,
intends
to
support
all
9
section
3(
c)
registrations.
There
are
19
Special
Local
Needs
(
24(
c))
registrations,
yet
BASF
has
indicated
that
they
are
interested
in
supporting
only
CA­
92­
0005
(
grasses
grown
for
seed).
In
the
past,
there
were
4
Experimental
Use
Permits
(
EUP),
and
71
Emergency
Exemptions
(
Section
18),
that
have
expired.

This
memo
includes
an
attachment:
the
Sethoxydim
Use
Patterns
table
(
prepared
by
BASF).
The
risk
assessments
for
Sethoxydim
are
scheduled
for
completion
in
April
of
2005
with
a
projected
RED
signature
date
of
January
2006.
­
145­
Appendix
I
Ecological
Data
Requirements
I
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
Chemical
No:
121001
Sethoxydim
Data
Requirement
Use
Pattern1
Does
EPA
Have
Data
To
Satisfy
This
Requirement?
(
Yes,
No,
or
Partially)
Bibliographic
Citation
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted
Under
FIFRA
3(
c)(
2)(
B)?

§
158.490
WILDLIFE
AND
AQUATIC
ORGANISMS
71­
1(
a)
Acute
Avian
Oral,
Quail/
Duck
Y
42813
N
71­
2(
a)
Acute
Avian
Diet,
Quail
Y
42814
N
71­
2(
b)
Acute
Avian
Diet,
Duck
Y
72862
N
71­
3
Wild
Mammal
Toxicity
71­
4(
a)
Avian
Reproduction
Quail
Y
44003401
N
71­
4(
b)
Avian
Reproduction
Duck
N
44003402
Y
71­
5(
a)
Simulated
Terrestrial
Field
Study
71­
5(
b)
Actual
Terrestrial
Field
Study
72­
1(
a)
Acute
Fish
Toxicity
Bluegill
Y
72863
N
72­
1(
b)
Acute
Fish
Toxicity
(
TEP)
Y
41885901
N
72­
1(
c)
Acute
Fish
Toxicity
Rainbow
Trout
Y
42863
N
72­
1(
d)
Acute
Fish
Toxicity
Rainbow
Trout
(
TEP)
Y
41885902
N
72­
2(
a)
Acute
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Y
42816
N
72­
2(
b)
Acute
Aquatic
Invertebrate
(
TEP)
Y
41885903
N
72­
3(
a)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Fish
Y
42315101
N
72­
3(
b)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Mollusk
Y
42537401
N
72­
3(
c)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Shrimp
Y
42315102
N
72­
3(
d)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Fish
(
TEP)
Y
41510602
N
72­
3(
e)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Mollusk
(
TEP)
Y
41607207
N
72­
3(
f)
Acute
Est/
Mar
Toxicity
Shrimp
(
TEP)
Y
41510604
N
72­
4(
a)
Early
Life
Stage
Fish
N
43614601
Y
72­
4(
b)
Life
Cycle
Aquatic
Invertebrate
N
436114602
Y
72­
5
Life
Cycle
Fish
72­
6
Aquatic
Organism
Accumulation
72­
7(
1)
Simulated
Aquatic
Field
Study
72­
7(
b)
Actual
Aquatic
Field
Study
§
158.540
PLANT
PROTECTION
122­
1(
a)
Seedling
Emergence
Y
44204801
N
122­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
122­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
Data
Requirement
Use
Pattern1
Does
EPA
Have
Data
To
Satisfy
This
Requirement?
(
Yes,
No,
or
Partially)
Bibliographic
Citation
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted
Under
FIFRA
3(
c)(
2)(
B)?

­
146­
123­
1(
a)
Seedling
Emergence
N
Y
123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
PARTIALLY
41885906
Y
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
Y
43614605,
4361407,
43626101,
43614606,
43614608
N
124­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Study
124­
2
Aquatic
Field
Study
§
158.490
NONTARGET
INSECT
TESTING
141­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
Y
41510607
N
141­
2
Honey
Bee
Residue
on
Foliage
141­
5
Field
Test
for
Pollinators
FOOTNOTES:

1.
1=
Terrestrial
Food;
2=
Terrestrial
Feed;
3=
Terrestrial
Non­
Food;
4=
Aquatic
Food;
5=
Aquatic
Non­
Food(
Outdoor);
6=
Aquatic
Non­
Food
(
Industrial);
7=
Aquatic
Non­
Food
(
Residential);
8=
Greenhouse
Food;
9=
Greenhouse
Non­
Food;
10=
Forestry;
11=
Residential
Outdoor;
12=
Indoor
Food;
13=
Indoor
Non­
Food
d;
14=
Indoor
Medical;
15=
Indoor
Residential.
­
147­
CH3
NH2
O
CH3
S
H3C
O
M1­
S
Degradate
of
Sethxydim
Appendix
J
Structures
of
Degradates
­
148­
CH
3
NH
2
O
CH
3
S
O
H
3
C
O
Structure
of
M1­
SO
Degradate
of
Sethoxydim
­
149­
CH
3
NH2
O
CH
3
S
O
O
H
3
C
O
Structure
of
M1­
SO2
Degradate
of
Sethoxydim
­
150­
CH3
N
O
CH3
S
H3C
O
Structure
of
M2­
S
Degradate
of
Sethoxydim
­
151­
CH3
N
O
CH3
S
H3C
O
Structure
of
M2­
S
Degradate
of
Sethoxydim
­
152­
CH3
N
O
CH3
S
O
O
H3C
O
Structure
of
M2­
SO2
Degradate
of
Sethoxydim
­
153­
CH3
N
O
CH3
OH
CH3
S
O
O
H3C
O
Structure
of
Sethoxydim
Sulfone
M­
SO2
­
154­
CH3
N
O
CH3
OH
CH3
S
O
H3C
O
Structure
of
Sethoxydim
Sulfoxide
M­
SO
­
155­
Appendix
K
Sethoxydim
MRID
Bibliography
Bibliography
71­
1
Avian
Single
Dose
Oral
Toxicity
MRID
Citation
Reference
42813
Fink,
R.;
Beavers,
J.
B.;
Grimes,
J.;
et
al.
(
1979)
Final
Report:
Acute
Oral
LD50­­
Mallard
Duck:
Project
No.
147­
120.
(
Unpub­
lished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Wildlife
International,
Ltd.
and
Washington
College,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
D)
92166002
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00042813.
Sethoxydim
­
Avian
Acute
LD
50
Test
­
Mallard
Duck:
Project
147­
120.
Prepared
by
WILDLIFE
INTERNATIONAL
LTD.
16
p.

71­
2
Avian
Dietary
Toxicity
MRID
Citation
Reference
42814
Fink,
R.;
Beavers,
J.
B.;
Grimes,
J.;
et
al.
(
1979)
Final
Report:
Eight­
Day
Dietary
LC50­­
Bobwhite
Quail:
Project
No.
147­
118.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Wildlife
International,
Ltd.
and
Washington
College,
submit­
ted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
E)
72862
Fink,
R.;
Beavers,
J.
B.;
Grimes,
J.;
et
al.
(
1979)
Final
Report:
Eight­
Day
Dietary
LC50­­
Mallard
Duck:
Project
No.
147­
119.
(
Un­
published
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Wildlife
International,
Ltd.
and
Washington
College,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
F)
92166003
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00042814
and
Related
MRIDs
00072862.
Sethoxydim
­
Avian
Acute
Dietary
LC50
Test
Mallard
Duck
and
Bobwhite
Quail:
Project
147­
118
and
Project
147­
119;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6002.
Prepared
by
WILDLIFE
INTERNATIONAL
LTD.
16
p.

71­
4
Avian
Reproduction
MRID
Citation
Reference
162823
Beavers,
J.
(
1986)
Pyridate
Technical:
A
Pilot
Reproduction
Study
with
the
Bobwhite
(
Colinus
virginianus):
Final
Report:
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
Project
No.
217­
105.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
27
p.
44003401
Munk,
R.
(
1996)
Sethoxydim:
One­
Generation
Reproduction
Study
on
the
Bobwhite
Quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
by
Administration
in
the
Diet:
Lab
Project
Number:
96/
10152:
08B0155/
926020:
PCP03583.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Aktiengesellschaft.
382
p.
44003402
Beavers,
J.;
Chafey,
K.;
Mitchell,
L.
et
al.
(
1996)
Sethoxydim:
A
Reproduction
Study
with
the
Mallard:
Lab
Project
Number:
96/
10105:
147­
168:
72W0155/
929040.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
Int'l.
Ltd.
153
p.

72­
1
Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Fish
MRID
Citation
Reference
41885901
Bowman,
J.;
Howell,
R.
(
1991)
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbicide
(
BAS
9052
06
H)
to
­
156­
Blugeill
(
Lepomis
macrochirus):
Lab
Project
Number:
90/
5135.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laborato­
ries,
Inc.
28
p.
41885902
Bowman,
J.;
Howell,
R.
(
1991)
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbicide
(
BAS
9052
06
H)
to
Rainbow
Trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss):
Lab
Project
Number:
90/
5136.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
28
p.
92166004
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00072863.
Sethoxydim
­
Acute
Toxicity
Test
for
Freshwater
Fish
­
Bluegill
Sunfish:
UCCES
Project
No.
11506­
17­
24;
REG
DOC
BASF
90/
6003.
Prepared
by
UNION
CARBIDE
CORP.
11
p.
92166005
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00042815.
Sethoxydim
­
Acute
Toxicity
for
Freshwater
Fish
­
Rainbow
Trout
UCCES
Project
No.
11506­
17­
25;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6004.
Prepared
by
UNION
CARBIDE
CORP.
12
p.

72­
2
Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
MRID
Citation
Reference
41885903
Blasberg,
J.;
Hicks,
S.;
Howell,
R.
(
1991)
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbicide
to
Daphnia
magna:
Lab
Project
Number:
90/
5137.
Unpub­
lished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
29
p.
92166006
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00042816.
Sethoxydim
­
Acute
Toxicity
Test
for
Freshwater
Invertebrates
­
Water
Flea:
UCCES
Project
No.
11506­
17­
23;
BASF
DOC
#
90/
6005.
Prepared
by
UNION
CARBIDE
CORP.
11
p.

72­
3
Acute
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Organisms
MRID
Citation
Reference
41510602
Ward,
T.
;
Boeri,
R.
(
1989)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbi­
cide
to
the
Sheepshead
Minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus:
Lab
Pro­
ject
Number:
8902­
B:
BASF
89­
5162.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EnviroSystems.
28
p.
41510603
Ward,
T.;
Boeri,
R.
(
1989)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbi­
cide
to
the
Blue
Crab,
Callinectes
sapidus:
Lab
Project
Number:
8903­
B:
BASF
89­
5163.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Systems.
28
p.
41510604
Ward,
T.;
Boeri,
R.
(
1989)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbi­
cide
to
the
Mysid,
Mysidopsis
bahia:
Lab
Project
Number:
8901­
B:
BASF
89­
5164.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EnviroSystems.
28
p.
41607207
Ward,
T.;
Boeri,
R.
(
1990)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
POAST
Herbicide
(...)
to
Bivalve
Mollusc
Embryos
and
Larvae:
Lab
Project
Number
:
90/
5045.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EnviroSystem
Div.,
Resource
Analysts,
Inc.
22
p.
42315101
Ward,
T.;
Boeri,
R.
(
1992)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
(
BAS
9052
H)
to
the
Sheepshead
Minnow,
Cyprinodon
variegatus:
Lab
Project
Number:
91129­
B:
39624.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Resource
Analysts,
Inc.
and
ABC
Laboratories.
43
p.
42315102
Ward,
T.;
Boeri,
R.
(
1992)
Static
Acute
Toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
(
BAS
9052
H)
to
the
Mysid,
Mysidopsis
bahia:
Lab
Project
Number:
91127­
B:
39623.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Resource
Analysts,
Inc.
and
ABC
Laboratories.
43
p.
42537401
Lintott,
D.
(
1992)
Sethoxydim­
Technical
(
BAS
562
H):
Acute
Toxicity
to
Embryos
and
Larvae
of
the
Eastern
Oyster,
Crassostrea
virginica
under
Static
Test
Conditions:
Lab
Project
Number:
92/
5157:
92079:
J9203014.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences
and
BASF.
45
p.
92166007
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41510602.
POAST
®
Herbicide
­
Acute
Toxicity
Test
for
Estuarine
Fish
­
Sheepshead
Minnow:
Project
No.
8902­
B;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6006.
Prepared
by
ENVIROSYSTEMS
DIV.,
RESOURCE
ANALYSTS
INC.
13
p.
­
157­
92166008
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41510603.
POAST
Herbicide
­
Acute
Toxicity
Test
for
Estuarine
Species
­
Blue
Crab:
Project
No.
8903­
B;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6007.
Prepared
by
ENVIROSYSTEMS
DIV.
RESOURCE
ANALYSTS.
13
p.
92166009
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41510604.
POAST
®
Herbicide
­
Acute
Toxicity
Test
for
Shrimp
­
Mysid:
Project
No.
8901­
B;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6008.
Prepared
by
ENVIROSYSTEMS
DIV.
RESOURCES
ANALYSTS,
INC.
13
p.

72­
4
Fish
Early
Life
Stage/
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Life
Cycle
Study
MRID
Citation
Reference
42815
Vilkas,
A.
G.;
Seminara,
J.
(
1979)
The
Acute
Toxicity
of
Bas
9052
H
Technical
(
97.3%)
to
the
Rainbow
Trout,
Salmo
gairdneri
Richardson:
UCES
Project
No.
11507­
17­
25.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
H)
72863
Vilkas,
A.
G.;
Seminara,
J.
(
1980)
The
Acute
Toxicity
of
Tech
BAS
9052
Lot
PN­
10­
1
to
the
Bluegill
Sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus
Rafinesque:
UCES
Project
No.
11506­
17­
24.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
G)
43614601
Graves,
W.;
Mank,
M.;
Swigert,
J.;
et
al.
(
1995)
Sethoxydim:
An
Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus):
Lab
Project
Number:
95/
5014:
147A­
123:
A008.068.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
107
p.
43614602
Boeri,
R.;
Kowalski,
P.;
Ward,
T.;
et
al.
(
1995)
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Sethoxydim
to
the
Mysid,
Mysidopsis
bahia:
Lab
Project
Number:
95/
5030:
A008.059:
485­
BA.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
T.
R.
Wilbury
Labs,
Inc.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
95
p.

81­
1
Acute
oral
toxicity
in
rats
MRID
Citation
Reference
45847
Nishibe,
T.;
Souma,
S.
(
1979)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
NP­
55
in
Rats.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Japan,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099536­
C)
45853
Gelbke,
?;
Jackh,
R.;
Freisburg,
?
(
1980)
Prufung
der
Akuten
Oralen
Toxizitat
von
Bas
9052
O
H
an
der
Ratte.
(
Unpublished
study
re­
ceived
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396,
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099536­
I)
46326
Gelbke,
?;
Jackh,
?;
Freisberg,
?
(
1980)
Report
on
the
Study
of
the
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
Bas
9052
O
H
in
the
Rat.
(
Transla­
tion
from
German;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
18,
1980
under
7969­
EX­
14;
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
243319­
A)
96493
Souma,
S.;
Nishibe,
T.;
Kosaka,
S.;
et
al.
(
1981)
Acute
Oral
Tox­
icity
of
NP­
55
50%
Solution
in
Rats:
RD­
8157.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
23,
1982
under
7969­
56;
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Japan,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
246930­
D)
124804
Nishibe,
T.;
Souma,
S.;
Kosaka,
S.
(
1980)
Acute
Oral
Toxicities
of
Main
Metabolites
of
NP­
55
in
Rats
(
Part
II):
Toxicology
Report
No.
0028.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
12,
1983
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Japan,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Chemical
Corp.,
Parsippany,
NJ;
CDL:
249241­
A)
­
158­
124805
Nishibe,
T.;
Souma,
S.;
Kosaka,
S.
(
1981)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
of
MU­
1
(
5­
OH­
MS02
in
Rats):
Toxicology
Report
No.
0039.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
12,
1983
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Chemical
Corp.,
Parsippany,
NJ;
CDL:
249241­
B)
150182
Kirsch,
P.;
Kieczka,
H.
(
1984)
Report
on
the
Study
of
the
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
BAS
528
00
H
in
the
Rat
Based
on
OECD:
RZ­
Re­
port­
No.
84/
254.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Aktienge­
sellschaft.
12
p.
153603
Nishibe,
T.;
Kosaka,
S.;
Saika,
O.;
et
al.
(
1984)
Acute
Oral
Toxi­
city
Study
of
Me­
MSO
in
Rats:
RD­
8488.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Nisso
Institute
for
Life
Science.
16
p.
40840007
Kirsch,
P.
(
1988)
Study
of
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
BAS
562
16H
on
the
Rat:
Registration
Document
No.
BASF:
88/
0379.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Aktiengesellschaft.
13
p.
43801605
Gargus,
J.
(
1986)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats:
(
inert
ingredient):
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
2106­
131.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Labs
America,
Inc.
10
p.
92166010
Takaori,
H.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00045847.
Sethoxydim
­
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
in
the
Rat:
Project
Tox­
001;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6010.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
7
p.
92166011
Takaori,
H.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00124804
and
Related
MRIDs
00124805.
Sethoxydim
­
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
Metabolites
in
the
Rat:
Project
Tox­
028,
Tox­
039,
Tox­
027;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6011.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
13
p.

83­
4
2­
generation
repro.­
rat
MRID
Citation
Reference
45867
Rodwell,
D.
E.;
Laveglia,
J.
(
1980)
Two
Generation
Reproduction
Study
in
Rats
(
23­
Weed
Interim):
IRDC
No.
449­
001.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
Interna­
tional
Research
and
Development
Corp.,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyan­
dotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099537­
G)
100518
Spicer,
E.
J.
F.;
Slezak,
S.
E.;
Thorstenson,
J.
H.
(
1981)
Two
Gen­
eration
Reproduction
Study
in
Rats:
?
NP­
55
Weeding
Agent|:
449­
001.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
15,
1982
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.,
sub­
mitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
070814­
A)
41510606
Marroquin,
F.
(
1983)
Two
Generation
Reproduction
Study
of
NP­
55
in
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
449­
009:
BASF
84­
0068.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.
377
p.
43366401
Grossi,
I.
(
1994)
Determination
of
Homogenity
and
Stability
of
NP­
55
(
Sethoxydim)
in
Dietary
Mixtures:
Lab
Project
Number:
449/
021:
94/
5111.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.
75
p.
92166096
Gotoh,
K.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41510606.
Sethoxydim
­
Reproduction
in
Rats:
Project
449­
009;
BASF
90/
6031.
Prepared
by
INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH
AND
DEV.
CORP.
10
p.

122­
1
Seed
Germination/
Seedline
Emergence
and
Vegetable
Vigor
MRID
Citation
Reference
44204801
Maggi,
V.;
Jackson,
S.
(
1994)
Tier
I:
Determination
of
the
Phytotoxic
Effects
of
POAST
on
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence
of
Nontarget
Plants:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
ER93043:
94/
5191:
CAR
166­
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
California
­
159­
Agricultural
Research,
Inc.
122
p.

122­
2
Aquatic
plant
growth
MRID
Citation
Reference
41400103
Hughes,
J.
(
1980)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Duckweed:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5052.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp
Environmental
Services.
33
p.
41400104
Hughes,
J.
(
1981)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Algae
and
Duckweed:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5051.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.,
Environmental
Services.
10
p.
41400105
Hughes,
J.
(
1981)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Skeletonema
costatum:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5054.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.
Environmental
Services.
26
p
41400106
Hughes,
J.
(
1980)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Selenastrum
capricornutum:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5056.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.
Environmental
Services.
26
p.
41400107
Hughes,
J.
(
1981)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Navicula
seminulum
Grun:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5053.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.
Environmental
Services.
27
p.
41400108
Hughes,
J.
(
1981)
Toxicity
of
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST)
to
Anabaena
flos­
aquae:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5055.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.
Environmental
Services.
27
p.

123­
1
Seed
germination/
seedling
emergence
and
vegitative
vigor
MRID
Citation
Reference
41400101
Krieg,
K.
(
1980)
Seed
Germination
Tests
for
BAS
9052
O
H
(
POAST):
Tier
2:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5049.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Aktiengesellschaft,
Agricultural
Research
Station.
18
p.
41400102
Ludwig,
J.
(
1980)
POAST
Phytotoxicity
Studies:
Lab
Project
Number:
85/
5047.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Agricultural
Research
Farm.
23
p.
41885906
Chetram,
R.
(
1991)
Tier
2
Vegetative
Vigor
Nontarget
Phytotoxicity
Study
Using
Sethoxydim
(
BAS
9052
H
Tech.
a.
i):
Lab
Project
Number
:
90/
5138.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
150
p.
43614603
Maggi,
V.;
Jackson,
S.
(
1994)
Determination
of
the
Phytotoxic
Effects
of
POAST
on
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence
of
Nontarget
Gramineae
Plants:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
94/
5190:
CAR
168­
93:
93095.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
California
Agricultural
Research,
Inc.
118
p.
43614604
Jackson,
S.;
Maggi,
V.
(
1994)
Determination
of
the
Phytotoxic
Effects
of
POAST
on
Vegetative
Vigor
of
Nontarget
Gramineae
Plants:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
95/
5029:
CAR
175­
94:
ER95003.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
California
Agricultural
Research,
Inc.
131
p.
92166030
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41400101.
Sethoxydim
­
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence
Nontarget
Phytotoxicity
Study:
Project
85/
5049;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6037.
Prepared
by
BASF
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT.
14
p.

123­
2
Aquatic
plant
growth
MRID
Citation
Reference
­
160­
43614605
Thompson,
S.;
Swigert,
J.;
Jackson,
S.
(
1994)
Sethoxydim
99.8%
Tech:
A
Tier
II
14­
Day
Toxicity
Test
with
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba):
Lab
Project
Number:
94/
5067:
147A­
109A:
A008.047.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
63
p.
43614606
Thompson,
S.;
Swigert,
J.;
Jackson,
S.
(
1994)
Sethoxydim
99.8%
Tech:
A
Tier
II
5­
Day
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Freshwater
Diatom
(
Navicula
pelliculosa):
Lab
Project
Number:
94/
5068:
147A­
110:
ER94015.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
60
p.
43614607
Thompson,
S.;
Roberts,
C.;
Swigert,
J.;
et
al.
(
1994)
Sethoxydim
99.8%
Tech:
A
Tier
II
5­
Day
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Freshwater
Alga
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum):
Lab
Project
Number:
94/
5069:
147A­
112:
A008.049.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
59
p.
43614608
Thompson,
S.;
Swigert,
J.;
Jackson,
S.
(
1994)
Sethoxydim
99.8%
Tech:
A
Tier
II
5­
Day
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Freshwater
Alga
(
Anabaena
flos­
aquae):
Lab
Project
Number:
94/
5071:
147A­
111B:
A008.050.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
60
p.
43626101
Thompson,
S.;
Swigert,
J.
(
1994)
Sethoxydim
99.8%
Tech:
A
Tier
II
5­
Day
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Marine
Diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum):
Lab
Project
Number:
147A­
108:
93129:
ER
94016.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
and
Huntingdon
Analytical
Services.
59
p.
92166031
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41400103
and
Related
MRIDs
41400104,
41400105,
41400106,
41400107,
41400108.
POAST
®
Herbicide
­
Growth
and
Reproduction
of
Aquatic
Plants
­
Duckweed,
Green
Alga,
Blue­
green
Alga,
Marine
Diatom
and
Freshwater
Diatom:
Projects
11507­
83­
01,
11507­
83­
02,
11507­
83­
03,
11507­
83­
04
11507­
83­
05;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6038.
Prepared
by
UNION
CARBIDE
CORP.
16
p.

141­
1
Honey
bee
acute
contact
MRID
Citation
Reference
41510607
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
(
1981)
Effects
of
NP­
55
on
Honey
Bees:
Lab
Project
Number:
BASF
81/
9013.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
9
p.
92166032
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41510607.
Sethoxydim
­
Effects
on
Honey
Bees:
Project
RD­
8164;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6039.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
11
p.

161­
1
Hydrolysis
MRID
Citation
Reference
42820
Nippon
Soda
Company,
Limited
(
1980)
Photolysis
of
NP­
55
under
An­
aerobic
and
Aerobic
Conditions.
(
Unpublished
study
including
published
data,
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
M)
42821
Nippon
Soda
Company,
Limited
(
1980)
Photodegradation
of
NP­
55
by
Sunlight.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
N)
47649
Nippon
Soda,
Limited
(
1979)
Photodegradation
of
NP­
55:
RD­
7930.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099535­
F)
­
161­
130712
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.
(
1983)
The
Significance
of
Hydroxylated
Resi­
dues
of
POAST
Herbicide.
Interim
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
re­
ceived
Jul
22,
1983
under
7969­
58;
CDL:
251045­
A)
41475207
Soeda,
Y.;
Shiotani,
H.
(
1988)
Sethoxydim­­
Hydrolysis:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
121/
BASF
88/
5040.
Unpub­
lished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Lab.
29
p.
92166033
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475207.
Sethoxydim
­
Hydrolysis:
Project
EC­
121;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6040.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SOAD
CO.
LTD.
11
p.

161­
2
Photodegradation­
water
MRID
Citation
Reference
41475208
Soeda,
Y.
;
Shiotani,
H.
(
1988)
Sethoxydim:
Photodegradation
in
Water:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
125:
BASF
88/
5047.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Lab.
35
p.
92166034
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475208.
Sethoxydim
­
Photodegradation
in
Water:
Project
EC­
125;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6041.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
13
p.

161­
3
Photodegradation­
soil
MRID
Citation
Reference
100540
Huber,
R.
(
1981)
Investigations
on
the
Photolytic
Degradation
of
BAS
9052
H
(
NP
55)
on
Soil:
Lab.
Communication
No.
903.
(
Un­
published
study
received
Apr
15,
1982
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
070822­
E)
41475209
Soeda,
Y.
;
Shiotani,
H.
(
1988)
Sethoxydim:
Photodegradation
on
Soil:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
142:
BASF
88/
51
06.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Laboratory.
37
p.
92166035
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475209.
Sethoxydim
­
Photodegradation
on
Soil:
Project
EC­
142;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6042.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
14
p.

162­
1
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
MRID
Citation
Reference
100541
Redeker,
J.;
Hamm,
R.
(
1981)
Degradation
of
BAS
9052
H
(
NP
55)
in
a
Loamy
Sand
under
Aerobic,
Anaerobic
and
Sterile­
aerobic
Conditions:
Report
No.
1804.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
15,
1982
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
070822­
F)
41475210
Shiotani,
H.
(
1989)
Sethoxydim:
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
175:
BASF
89/
5135.
Unpub­
lished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Lab.
57
p.
43801601
Lebertz,
H.
(
1993)
Study
on
the
Inherent
Biodegradability
of
(
inert
ingredient):
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
IF­
93/
06291­
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Institut
Fresenius,
Chemische
und
Biologische
Laboratorien
GmbH.
20
p.
43801607
Lebertz,
H.
(
1993)
Study
on
the
Inherent
Biodegradability
of
(
inert
ingredient):
(
Final
­
162­
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
IF­
93/
06294­
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Institut
Fresenius,
Chemische
und
Biologische
Laboratorien
GmbH.
20
p.
43801609
Lebertz,
H.
(
1993)
Study
on
the
Inherent
Biodegradability
of
(
inert
ingredient):
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
IF­
93/
06293­
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Institut
Fresenius,
Chemische
und
Biologische
Laboratorien
GmbH.
20
p.
92166036
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475210.
Sethoxydim
­
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism:
Project
EC­
175;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6043.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
13
p.

162­
2
Anaerobic
soil
metabolism
MRID
Citation
Reference
41475211
Soeda,
Y.
;
Shiotani,
H.
(
1989)
Sethoxydim:
Anaerobic
Soil
Meta­
bolism:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
158:
BASF
89/
5000.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Lab.
45
p.
92166037
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475211.
Sethoxydim
­
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism:
Project
EC­
158;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6044.
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
14
p.

162­
3
Anaerobic
aquatic
metab.
MRID
Citation
Reference
42165603
Shiotani,
H.
(
1991)
Sethoxydim:
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism:
Lab
Project
Number:
91/
5113.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
78
p.

162­
4
Aerobic
aquatic
metab.
MRID
Citation
Reference
42165604
Shiotani,
H.
(
1991)
Sethoxydim:
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism:
Lab
Project
Number:
89/
5194.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
74
p.

163­
1
Leach/
adsorp/
desorption
MRID
Citation
Reference
42823
Huber,
R.
(
1980)
Investigations
into
the
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
of
Bas
9052
H/
NP
55:
Laboratory
Report
No.
1692.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
4,
1980
under
0G2396;
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
West
Germany,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
099539­
P)
100542
Dams,
W.
(
1981)
Adsorption
Behaviour
of
Active
Ingredients
of
Plant
Protection
Products
in
the
System
Soil
/
Water.
(
Un­
published
study
received
Apr
15,
1982
under
7969­
58;
prepared
by
BASF,
AG,
submitted
by
BASF
Wyandotte
Corp.,
Parsippany,
N.
J.;
CDL:
070822­
G)
41475212
Soeda,
Y.
;
Shiotani,
H.
(
1988)
Sethoxydim:
Batch
Equilibrium
(
Adsorption/
Desorption):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
NISSO
EC­
149:
BASF
88/
5120.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.,
Environmental
Toxicology
Lab.
64
p.
92166038
Soeda,
Y.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475212.
Sethoxydim
­
Batch
Equilibrium
(
Adsorption/
Desorption):
Project
EC­
149;
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6045.
­
163­
Prepared
by
NIPPON
SODA
CO.
LTD.
13
p.

164­
1
Terrestrial
field
dissipation
MRID
Citation
Reference
41510608
Single,
Y.
;
Burkey,
J.
(
1989)
POAST
Herbicide
Field
Soil
Dissipa­
tion
Study
for
Forage
Crop
Use
in
California­­
Soil
Analyses:
Lab
Project
Number:
A8944:
BASF
89­
5145.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
in
cooperation
with
BASF.
55
p.
41510609
Single,
Y.
;
Burkey,
J.
(
1989)
POAST
Herbicide
Field
Soil
Dissipa
tion
Study
for
Row
Crop
Use
in
California­­
Soil
Analyses:
Lab
Project
Number:
A8943:
BASF
89­
5156.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Nippon
Soda
Co.,
Ltd.
in
cooperation
with
BASF.
57
p.
41510610
Rotondaro,
A.
(
1989)
Sethoxydim
Row
Crop
Use:
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation:
Lab
Project
Number:
RCN
NO.
88063:
PROTOCOL
NO.
M8714:
BASF
89­
5147.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricul­
tural
Labs.,
Inc.
232
p.
41510611
Rotondaro,
A.
(
1989)
Sethoxydim
Forage
Crop
Use:
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation:
Lab
Project
Number:
RCN
NO.
88064:
M8713:
EF­
88­
28:
89­
5160.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs.,
Inc.
186
p.
44311001
Burkey,
J.
(
1997)
Freezer
Storage
Stability
of
Sethoxydim
Residues
in
Soil:
Amendment
to
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97/
5287:
A892141:
A8921.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Corp.
42
p.
44352401
Beutel,
P.;
Huber,
R.
(
1982)
Investigation
of
Freezer
Storage
Stability
of
BAS
9052H
and
Metabolites
in
Soil
Comparing
(
carbon
14)­
Results
Obtained
with
BASF
Total
Method
No.
181:
Lab
Project
Number:
82/
10029:
1823.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Aktiengesellschaft.
28
p.
92166039
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00100543
and
Related
MRIDs
41510608,
41510609,
41510610.
POAST
Herbicide
­
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Studies
in:
California,
Minnesota,
Illinois
and
Mississippi:
REG
DOC
#
BASF
90/
6046.
Prepared
by
BASF
RESEARCH
STATION.
23
p.

164­
2
Aquatic
field
dissipation
MRID
Citation
Reference
42165605
Eubanks,
M.
(
1991)
POAST
Herbicide
(
Sethoxydim)
Aquatic
Dissi­
pation
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
91/
5153.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Corp.
Chemicals
Division
and
Others.
535
p.

165­
4
Bioaccumulation
in
fish
MRID
Citation
Reference
42118001
McKenna,
E.
(
1991)
Bioaccumulation
and
Metabolism
of
?
carbon
14|­
Sethoxydim
in
Bluegill
Sunfish:
Lab
Project
No:
M9018:
M9121.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Corp.
112
p.

201­
1
Droplet
size
spectrum
­
164­
MRID
Citation
Reference
41475213
Akesson,
N.
(
1982)
POAST
Simulated
Field
Drift
Trials:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
UC
DAVIS
RPT.
NO.
1:
BASF
85/
5046.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Univ.
of
California,
Davis,
Dept.
of
Agric.
Engineering.
59
p.

202­
1
Drift
field
evaluation
MRID
Citation
Reference
41475213
Akesson,
N.
(
1982)
POAST
Simulated
Field
Drift
Trials:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
UC
DAVIS
RPT.
NO.
1:
BASF
85/
5046.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Univ.
of
California,
Davis,
Dept.
of
Agric.
Engineering.
59
p.
92166050
Eubanks,
M.
(
1990)
BASF
Corporation
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
41475213.
Sethoxydim
­
Simulated
Field
Trials
in
California:
BASF
DOC
No.
85/
5046,
BASF
90/
6048.
Prepared
by
UNIV.
OF
CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.
OF
AGR.
ENGINEERING.
17
p.
­
165­
Appendix
L
Listed
Species
by
State
and
Crops
Crops
associated
with
threatened
and
endangered
species,
organized
by
state.

Alfalfa,
all
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
3
17
63
1
16
29
12
Arizona
8
39
45
22
2
Arkansas
50
21
2
3
7
California
31
129
57
116
266
35
Colorado
58
19
15
Connecticut
10
1
2
3
Delaware
4
2
4
Florida
33
6
5
28
13
Georgia
21
4
5
2
Idaho
39
50
6
Illinois
65
28
2
7
47
Indiana
58
76
3
2
Iowa
32
12
13
224
Kansas
211
47
28
Kentucky
33
100
3
8
29
Louisiana
6
3
1
2
Maine
7
4
4
Maryland
18
5
3
9
Massachusetts
13
5
5
1
Michigan
76
4
60
4
Minnesota
49
8
28
Missouri
24
30
64
55
Montana
67
26
6
1
Nebraska
177
1
16
11
Nevada
13
35
9
4
New
Hampshire
4
1
5
New
Jersey
14
7
18
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
166­
New
Mexico
6
70
1
23
19
1
New
York
18
1
8
11
North
Carolina
10
11
2
48
North
Dakota
87
8
2
Ohio
17
4
16
3
Oklahoma
193
31
3
Oregon
52
1
1
146
29
Pennsylvania
14
10
Rhode
Island
2
3
2
South
Carolina
1
6
13
South
Dakota
136
19
16
Tennessee
30
2
2
43
39
Texas
11
183
6
30
8
Utah
37
37
47
2
Vermont
11
1
Virginia
3
15
4
4
20
45
1
Washington
69
141
14
West
Virginia
4
3
15
Wisconsin
52
25
Wyoming
1
22
2
2
Affected
States
9
47
617
9
38
47
15
Affected
Species
68
2294
25
73
993
1314
92
Wild
Blueberries
STATE
NAME
Bird
Fish
Plant
Maine
10
7
2
Massachusetts
1
1
1
New
Hampshire
1
Affected
States
2
2
3
Affected
Species
11
8
4
­
167­
Caneberries,
all
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
California
7
18
7
10
43
6
Michigan
1
2
Oregon
19
44
14
Wisconsin
14
29
2
Affected
States
1
4
1
3
4
1
Affected
Species
7
52
7
83
61
6
Citrus,
all
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Arizona
11
8
4
California
24
90
35
65
198
24
Florida
162
10
90
85
Hawaii
13
60
2
Louisiana
3
1
1
Texas
5
3
2
Affected
States
1
6
1
4
5
5
Affected
Species
24
284
35
84
355
114
Cotton
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
9
29
85
1
26
26
15
Arizona
5
31
32
16
2
Arkansas
33
22
6
4
California
14
29
18
34
79
16
Florida
7
31
11
1
14
6
25
Georgia
3
231
66
18
30
69
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
168­
Kansas
12
3
Louisiana
16
2
20
Mississippi
30
8
17
6
15
Missouri
5
3
3
8
New
Mexico
2
23
6
5
1
North
Carolina
50
11
17
33
13
Oklahoma
60
6
South
Carolina
2
48
2
12
40
4
Tennessee
11
10
7
4
Texas
10
167
1
7
33
20
Virginia
12
4
4
3
Affected
States
8
17
10
4
17
14
11
Affected
Species
52
818
220
21
232
294
183
Tree
Nuts
(
Filberts,
Hazelnuts,
Pecans,
Macadamia
Nuts,
English
Walnuts)

STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
10
21
17
12
12
12
Arizona
2
13
12
7
1
Arkansas
16
5
2
California
29
108
78
105
267
33
Florida
6
56
21
1
15
22
40
Georgia
3
197
58
13
25
53
Hawaii
13
60
2
Kansas
8
4
2
Kentucky
2
1
Louisiana
11
2
17
1
3
Mississippi
1
21
2
14
3
24
Missouri
1
2
3
4
New
Mexico
2
22
6
10
North
Carolina
3
1
2
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
169­
Oklahoma
116
2
16
3
Oregon
33
56
25
South
Carolina
1
24
4
18
2
Texas
15
218
2
8
32
17
Utah
2
2
4
1
Washington
3
2
Affected
States
9
20
8
3
20
17
11
Affected
Species
69
888
109
81
293
497
188
Floriculture
Crops
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
2
1
1
1
4
Arizona
4
2
3
California
28
106
28
73
222
20
Connecticut
1
1
1
Florida
54
6
33
41
Hawaii
26
1
144
6
Illinois
1
Louisiana
1
1
1
Massachusetts
1
1
1
Michigan
2
4
1
Minnesota
1
New
Jersey
7
4
11
New
York
3
1
1
2
North
Carolina
3
2
1
Ohio
1
Oregon
6
16
5
Pennsylvania
1
South
Carolina
1
Tennessee
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
170­
Virginia
2
2
1
Washington
7
12
Affected
States
3
18
4
2
11
13
7
Affected
Species
31
227
4
29
118
431
74
Nursery
Crops
(
Foliage
Crops
and
Crops
in
the
Open)

STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
3
7
19
1
9
9
9
Arizona
1
9
4
7
California
33
124
48
92
283
31
Colorado
8
5
4
Connecticut
5
1
1
Florida
220
1
20
123
131
Georgia
3
7
6
1
3
1
Hawaii
26
2
120
6
Idaho
4
4
1
Illinois
10
1
1
2
10
Indiana
4
1
Iowa
3
3
Kansas
5
2
2
Kentucky
2
2
1
3
Louisiana
6
1
4
1
3
Maryland
7
2
2
2
Massachusetts
8
4
4
Michigan
9
3
12
Minnesota
4
4
2
Mississippi
1
1
3
Missouri
2
5
9
5
Montana
1
1
1
Nebraska
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
171­
New
Hampshire
1
1
New
Jersey
11
6
14
New
Mexico
6
1
2
New
York
6
4
6
North
Carolina
10
6
2
33
1
North
Dakota
3
Ohio
7
7
2
8
Oklahoma
10
2
Oregon
22
45
15
Pennsylvania
8
4
5
Rhode
Island
2
2
2
South
Carolina
1
6
1
1
15
Tennessee
4
10
2
3
Texas
2
28
2
5
Virginia
6
1
1
3
2
Washington
25
38
5
Wisconsin
3
3
7
Affected
States
6
39
19
4
28
36
10
Affected
Species
43
630
79
51
267
718
192
Grapes
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
1
Arizona
2
13
9
7
Arkansas
5
2
1
1
2
California
36
125
50
111
294
31
Colorado
2
6
3
Idaho
1
1
Massachusetts
3
1
Michigan
5
7
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
172­
Missouri
2
2
1
1
New
Mexico
2
1
1
New
York
5
3
5
North
Carolina
1
Ohio
4
1
2
1
Oregon
28
1
55
20
Pennsylvania
2
2
South
Carolina
1
1
Texas
3
Virginia
1
2
Washington
7
29
Affected
States
4
17
5
3
11
11
3
Affected
Species
40
207
9
52
218
343
33
Melons
(
Honeydew,
Watermelon)

STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
4
14
20
11
14
12
Arizona
2
18
15
7
1
Arkansas
3
4
1
1
California
20
47
30
46
114
25
Colorado
3
Delaware
2
1
Florida
6
119
16
1
19
63
66
Georgia
81
15
5
4
27
Illinois
2
2
Indiana
6
15
Iowa
1
1
3
Louisiana
4
1
1
Maryland
4
2
2
Mississippi
4
4
12
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
173­
Missouri
1
5
1
5
New
Jersey
2
1
5
New
Mexico
1
2
1
North
Carolina
13
1
5
2
3
Oklahoma
25
1
4
Oregon
1
8
Pennsylvania
1
South
Carolina
1
25
1
6
22
4
South
Dakota
1
Texas
3
57
2
20
7
Utah
3
2
4
1
Virginia
5
1
1
1
1
Washington
2
4
Affected
States
7
27
12
2
19
17
12
Affected
Species
37
446
82
31
137
270
160
Mint,
for
Oil
STATE
NAME
Bird
Clam
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Idaho
5
4
Indiana
5
4
1
1
Montana
2
2
1
Oregon
19
30
15
Washington
8
18
Wisconsin
2
1
4
Affected
States
6
2
1
4
1
Affected
Species
41
5
54
21
1
Peanuts
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
7
8
1
7
2
5
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
174­
Arkansas
4
3
1
1
Florida
8
44
18
1
17
14
27
Georgia
4
196
51
14
16
63
Mississippi
2
North
Carolina
24
7
6
14
6
New
Mexico
3
Oklahoma
74
10
South
Carolina
1
12
3
12
1
Texas
4
76
1
2
Virginia
8
4
3
1
Affected
States
5
11
5
1
8
8
7
Affected
Species
24
451
80
1
62
63
105
Potatoes
(
Excluding
Sweet
Potatoes)

STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
2
4
11
4
7
4
Arizona
8
7
5
California
3
17
3
15
15
5
Colorado
12
3
Connecticut
1
1
1
Delaware
1
1
1
Florida
38
5
11
30
Idaho
23
17
1
Indiana
1
5
1
Iowa
1
1
5
Kentucky
1
Maine
5
1
3
Maryland
1
1
Massachusetts
2
2
2
Michigan
14
2
14
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
175­
Minnesota
16
1
5
Missouri
2
2
2
Montana
9
2
3
Nebraska
10
2
New
Jersey
3
2
7
New
Mexico
1
New
York
8
1
1
4
North
Carolina
14
1
7
4
6
North
Dakota
6
1
Ohio
1
2
Oregon
11
41
3
Pennsylvania
6
2
1
Rhode
Island
1
1
South
Carolina
1
2
1
1
South
Dakota
2
Tennessee
5
2
Texas
6
3
1
Utah
3
1
Virginia
4
12
1
1
1
2
Washington
17
39
1
West
Virginia
1
Wisconsin
8
3
Affected
States
3
34
13
2
20
28
9
Affected
Species
6
258
44
4
152
111
51
­
176­
Sod
(
Harvested)

STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
3
9
22
6
3
8
Arizona
4
5
2
Arkansas
2
1
1
California
8
22
11
17
52
7
Colorado
7
1
2
Florida
1
74
10
1
3
41
37
Georgia
14
4
1
2
4
Idaho
1
Illinois
2
1
3
Iowa
2
1
9
Kansas
2
1
3
Kentucky
1
Maryland
2
1
Michigan
1
1
2
Minnesota
4
3
Mississippi
1
2
Missouri
1
2
2
3
Nebraska
1
1
1
New
Jersey
3
1
6
New
York
3
1
1
2
North
Carolina
4
1
4
1
Ohio
2
3
2
3
Oklahoma
14
2
Oregon
2
4
3
South
Carolina
2
5
2
2
2
South
Dakota
3
Tennessee
1
1
1
3
Texas
1
17
5
3
Utah
5
3
8
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
177­
Virginia
1
1
Wisconsin
1
1
4
Affected
States
5
28
11
3
22
25
9
Affected
Species
15
208
49
13
58
166
65
Soybeans
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
9
39
114
1
33
337
20
Arkansas
64
36
2
7
7
Delaware
4
2
4
Florida
8
38
18
1
15
14
28
Georgia
5
266
100
35
53
73
Illinois
65
28
2
7
47
Indiana
58
76
3
2
Iowa
32
12
13
224
Kansas
192
45
28
Kentucky
33
94
3
9
25
Louisiana
32
3
29
1
2
Maine
1
2
Maryland
18
5
3
8
Massachusetts
1
1
1
Michigan
34
4
30
4
Minnesota
41
8
28
Mississippi
30
8
21
6
19
Missouri
26
30
63
48
Nebraska
154
1
16
5
New
Jersey
11
7
17
New
York
11
2
6
North
Carolina
78
17
26
68
18
North
Dakota
28
2
2
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
178­
Ohio
17
25
4
16
3
Oklahoma
153
3
23
3
Pennsylvania
11
9
9
South
Carolina
67
4
15
62
8
South
Dakota
105
18
14
Tennessee
33
102
1
38
31
Texas
6
97
10
10
Vermont
2
Virginia
2
35
10
2
9
39
9
West
Virginia
2
1
2
5
Wisconsin
39
12
25
Affected
States
7
34
24
7
25
33
12
Affected
Species
35
1816
721
12
443
878
196
Strawberries
STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
1
California
16
68
17
32
144
15
Florida
23
4
18
12
Louisiana
2
1
1
Michigan
1
2
New
York
3
4
North
Carolina
1
Oregon
9
32
6
Pennsylvania
3
2
South
Carolina
1
Washington
11
18
1
Affected
States
3
9
1
1
5
6
3
Affected
Species
18
121
2
17
87
175
28
­
179­
Sugar
Beets
(
for
Sugar
and
Seed)

STATE
NAME
Amphibia
n
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
California
15
41
29
48
91
18
Colorado
9
2
4
Idaho
12
5
Michigan
9
2
7
Minnesota
10
7
Montana
17
7
Nebraska
14
4
North
Dakota
2
1
Ohio
3
3
1
Oregon
23
43
18
Washington
3
10
Wyoming
6
1
Affected
States
1
12
1
1
6
9
2
Affected
Species
15
149
2
29
115
136
19
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seed
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Arizona
3
1
California
15
49
29
58
107
19
Colorado
12
3
Idaho
7
5
1
Illinois
4
1
2
2
Kansas
135
22
5
Michigan
2
Minnesota
13
6
Missouri
1
2
2
Nebraska
62
1
3
6
North
Carolina
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
180­
North
Dakota
81
7
2
Oregon
22
49
16
South
Carolina
1
South
Dakota
108
12
7
Texas
9
4
Washington
15
38
Wisconsin
3
2
Affected
States
2
17
1
2
11
13
1
Affected
Species
16
527
1
30
199
163
19
Vegetable
Land,
all
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
8
22
51
1
24
26
18
Arizona
6
31
34
16
1
Arkansas
25
12
1
3
6
California
36
137
50
123
291
36
Colorado
20
9
11
Connecticut
12
1
2
3
Delaware
4
2
4
Florida
7
182
16
1
23
88
109
Georgia
1
177
35
20
24
52
Hawaii
26
1
144
6
Idaho
12
10
1
Illinois
28
14
2
4
25
Indiana
26
27
2
2
Iowa
9
3
1
40
Kansas
20
9
10
Kentucky
5
14
1
4
Louisiana
11
2
8
1
3
Maine
11
5
6
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
181­
Maryland
17
5
2
8
Massachusetts
15
5
6
1
Michigan
29
3
33
3
Minnesota
26
5
21
Missouri
8
11
25
Montana
3
7
9
12
Nebraska
2
1
Nevada
1
New
Hampshire
6
2
7
New
Jersey
16
7
20
New
Mexico
4
42
1
12
9
1
New
York
20
1
10
13
North
Carolina
56
17
18
55
12
Ohio
15
19
3
15
3
Oklahoma
64
1
10
Oregon
38
1
89
24
Pennsylvania
12
9
9
Rhode
Island
2
2
2
South
Carolina
2
57
2
13
50
8
South
Dakota
1
Tennessee
12
33
1
22
13
Texas
7
118
2
31
10
Utah
9
8
10
1
Vermont
8
2
2
Virginia
19
1
2
5
25
4
Washington
49
90
9
West
Virginia
1
1
Wisconsin
30
9
22
Affected
States
8
46
26
10
36
41
18
Affected
Species
71
1448
292
61
600
1099
295
­
182­
Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
STATE
NAME
Bird
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Florida
12
1
9
7
Hawaii
26
1
144
4
Texas
1
3
Affected
States
3
1
1
3
2
Affected
Species
39
1
1
156
11
Berries,
Other
STATE
NAME
Bird
Fish
Plant
Oregon
2
4
3
Fruits,
Other
Non­
Citrus
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
California
6
24
8
11
65
8
Florida
7
1
7
6
Hawaii
13
60
2
Affected
States
1
3
1
2
3
3
Affected
Species
6
44
8
12
132
16
Legume
Seeds,
All
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Alabama
1
Idaho
3
2
Illinois
8
2
1
3
6
Kansas
9
4
8
Michigan
3
3
Minnesota
9
1
1
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
­
183­
Missouri
8
9
33
22
New
York
4
2
Ohio
Oregon
13
29
12
Pennsylvania
1
South
Carolina
1
Washington
3
20
1
Wisconsin
3
Affected
States
2
10
4
1
6
9
Affected
Species
2
63
14
1
91
56
Orchards,
All
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
Alabama
10
31
58
1
21
24
17
Arizona
7
35
37
22
2
Arkansas
33
15
1
5
2
California
40
164
69
146
342
37
Colorado
9
9
8
Connecticut
12
1
2
3
Delaware
2
1
Florida
8
229
22
1
29
102
134
Georgia
3
246
64
18
38
62
Hawaii
26
1
144
6
Idaho
5
2
Illinois
12
4
1
4
9
Indiana
6
8
Iowa
3
2
1
14
Kansas
22
8
6
Kentucky
4
15
2
1
Louisiana
23
3
26
1
4
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
184­
Maine
12
6
4
Maryland
6
3
5
Massachusetts
10
5
5
Michigan
21
4
26
4
Minnesota
7
6
6
Mississippi
1
25
5
17
3
28
Missouri
7
7
27
19
Montana
2
2
2
Nebraska
1
1
Nevada
3
15
7
2
New
Hampshire
5
2
5
New
Jersey
10
6
16
New
Mexico
4
46
18
15
1
New
York
12
1
8
9
North
Carolina
13
4
3
28
1
Ohio
14
6
11
2
Oklahoma
125
3
18
3
Oregon
38
1
98
24
Pennsylvania
10
6
5
Rhode
Island
1
South
Carolina
1
33
2
6
39
3
Tennessee
5
12
11
5
Texas
16
242
2
10
37
19
Utah
7
4
9
1
Vermont
5
1
2
Virginia
2
2
5
2
4
9
Washington
36
86
5
West
Virginia
1
1
3
Wisconsin
11
6
17
Affected
States
10
45
26
9
34
43
16
STATE
NAME
Amphibian
Bird
Clam
Crustacean
Fish
Plant
Reptile
­
185­
Affected
Species
92
1571
263
79
658
1037
323
­
186­
Appendix
M
Full
list
of
listed
species
in
states
in
which
sethoxydim
is
applied.

Amphibians
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits,
Other
Noncirtrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seed
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Ambystoma
californiense
California
Tiger
Salamander
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Flatwoods
Salamander
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ambystoma
macrodactylum
croceum
Santa
Cruz
Long­
Toed
Salamander
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ambystoma
tigrinum
stebbinsi
Sonora
Tiger
Salamander
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Batrachoseps
aridus
Desert
Slender
Salamander
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bufo
baxteri
(=
hemiophrys)
Wyoming
Toad
x
Bufo
californicus
microscaphus
Arroyo
Southwestern
Toad
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bufo
houstonensis
Houston
Toad
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eurycea
nana
San
Marcos
Salamander
x
xx
Eurycea
sosorum
Barton
Springs
Salamander
x
xx
Hyla
andersonii
Pine
Barrens
Treefrog
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Phaeognathus
hubrichti
Red
Hills
Salamander
x
x
xxx
x
x
Plethodon
nettingi
Cheat
Mountain
Salamander
x
x
Plethodon
shenandoah
Shenandoah
Salamander
x
x
x
Rana
aurora
draytonii
California
Red­
Legged
Frog
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rana
capito
sevosaDusky
Gopher
Frog
x
x
Rana
chiricahuensis
Chiricahua
Leopard
Frog
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
Rana
muscosa
Mountain
Yellow­
Legged
Frog
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Typhlomolge
rathbuni
Texas
Blind
Salamander
x
xx
Amphibian
Total
15
4
6
13
8
1
2
9
4
1
1
10
17
4
11
4
7
6
6
4
5
12
4
9
Birds
­
187­
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
Wild
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
(
For
Oil)

Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Ammodramus
maritimus
mirabilis
Cape
Sable
seaside
sparrow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ammodramus
savannarum
floridanus
Florida
grasshopper
sparrow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Amphispiza
belli
clementeae
San
Clemente
sage
sparrow
x
x
x
x
xx
x
Anas
wyvilliana
Hawaiian
duck
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aphelocoma
coerulescens
Florida
scrub
jay
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Marbled
murrelet
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Branta
(=
Nesochen)
sandvicensis
Hawaiian
(
Nene)
goose
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Buteo
solitarius
Hawaiian
(
Io)
hawk
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western
snowy
plover
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Charadrius
melodus
Piping
plover
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Colinus
virginianus
ridgwayi
Masked
Bobwhite
x
x
x
Corvus
hawaiiensis
Hawaiian
crow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dendroica
chrysoparia
Golden­
cheecked
warbler
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dendroica
kirtlandii
Kirtland's
warbler
x
x
x
Empidonax
traillii
extimus
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis
Northern
aplomado
falcon
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fulica
americana
alai
Hawaiian
coot
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gallinula
chloropus
sandvicensis
Hawaiian
common
moorhen
x
x
x
Glaucidium
brasilianum
cactorum
Cactus
ferruginous
pygmy
owl
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grus
americana
Whooping
crane
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Grus
canadensis
pulla
Mississippi
sandhill
crane
x
xxx
Gymnogyps
californianus
California
condor
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald
eagle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hemignathus
lucidus
Nuku
Pu'u
x
x
x
Hemignathus
munroi
Pola'au
`
akia
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
Wild
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
(
For
Oil)

Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
­
188­
Hemignathus
procerus
Kauai
`
akia
loa
x
x
x
Himantopus
mexicanus
knudseni
Hawaiian
stilt
(=
AE'O)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lanius
ludovicianus
mearnsi
San
Clemente
shrike
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Loxioides
bailleui
Palila
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Loxops
coccineus
coccineus
Hawaii
`
akeepa
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Moho
braccatus
Kauai
`
O
`
O
x
x
x
Myadestes
myadestinus
Large
Kauai
thrush
x
x
x
Myadestes
palmeri
Small
Kauai
thrush
(
Puaiohi)
x
x
x
Mycteria
americana
Wood
stork
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Numenius
borealis
Eskimo
curlew
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oreomystis
mana
Hawaii
creeper
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Brown
pelican
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Picoides
borealis
Red­
cockaded
woodpecker
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pipilo
crissalis
eremophilus
Inyo
brown
towhee
x
Polioptila
californica
californica
Coastal
California
gnatcatcher
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Polyborus
plancus
audubonii
Audubon's
crested
caracara
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Psittirostra
psittacea
`
O
`
U
(
Honeycreeper)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pterodroma
cahow
Cahow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pterodroma
phaeopygia
sandwichensis
Hawaiian
darkrumped
petrel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Puffinus
auricularis
newelli
Newell's
Townsend's
shearwater
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rallus
longirostris
levipes
Light­
footed
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rallus
longirostris
obsoletus
California
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
xx
x
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis
Yuma
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rostrhamus
sociabilis
plumbeus
Everglades
snail
kite
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sterna
antillarum
Interior
least
tern
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
Wild
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
(
For
Oil)

Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
­
189­
Sterna
antillarum
browni
California
least
tern
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii
Roseate
tern
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Northern
spotted
owl
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Strix
occidentalis
lucida
Mexican
spotted
owl
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tympanuchus
cupido
attwateri
Attwater's
greater
prairie
chicken
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vireo
atricapilla
Black­
capped
vireo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vireo
bellii
pusillus
Least
Bell's
Vireo
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bird
Totals
36
2
3
11
39
25
5
46
31
29
29
23
7
5
22
5
48
54
14
23
25
28
19
23
Birds
(
Continued)

Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seed
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Ammodramus
maritimus
mirabilis
Cape
Sable
seaside
sparrow
x
x
Ammodramus
savannarum
floridanus
Florida
grasshopper
sparrow
x
x
Anas
wyvilliana
Hawaiian
duck
x
Amphispiza
belli
clementeae
San
Clemente
sage
sparrow
x
Aphelocoma
coerulescens
Florida
scrub
jay
x
x
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Marbled
murrelet
x
x
x
x
x
Branta
(=
Nesochen)
sandvicensis
Hawaiian
(
Nene)
goose
x
Buteo
solitarius
Hawaiian
(
Io)
hawk
x
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western
snowy
plover
x
x
x
x
x
Charadrius
melodus
Piping
plover
x
x
x
x
Colinus
virginianus
ridgwayi
Masked
Bobwhite
x
Corvus
hawaiiensis
Hawaiian
crow
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seed
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
190­
Dendroica
chrysoparia
Golden­
cheecked
warbler
x
x
Dendroica
kirtlandii
Kirtland's
warbler
x
x
Empidonax
traillii
extimus
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
x
x
x
x
x
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis
Northern
aplomado
falcon
x
x
x
Fulica
americana
alai
Hawaiian
coot
x
Gallinula
chloropus
sandvicensis
Hawaiian
common
moorhen
x
Glaucidium
brasilianum
cactorum
Cactus
ferruginous
pygmy
owl
x
x
Grus
americana
Whooping
crane
x
x
x
x
Grus
canadensis
pulla
Mississippi
sandhill
crane
x
Gymnogyps
californianus
California
condor
x
x
x
x
x
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald
eagle
x
x
x
x
x
Hemignathus
munroi
Pola'au
`
akia
x
Hemignathus
lucidus
Nuku
Pu'u
x
Hemignathus
procerus
Kauai
`
akia
loa
x
Himantopus
mexicanus
knudseni
Hawaiian
stilt
(=
AE'O)
x
Lanius
ludovicianus
mearnsi
San
Clemente
shrike
x
Loxioides
bailleui
Palila
x
Loxops
coccineus
coccineus
Hawaii
`
akeepa
x
Moho
braccatus
Kauai
`
O
`
O
x
Myadestes
myadestinus
Large
Kauai
thrush
x
Myadestes
palmeri
Small
Kauai
thrush
(
Puaiohi)
x
Mycteria
americana
Wood
stork
x
x
Numenius
borealis
Eskimo
curlew
x
x
Oreomystis
mana
Hawaii
creeper
x
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Brown
pelican
x
x
x
x
x
Picoides
borealis
Red­
cockaded
woodpecker
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seed
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
191­
Pipilo
crissalis
eremophilus
Inyo
brown
towhee
Polioptila
californica
californica
Coastal
California
gnatcatcher
x
x
Polyborus
plancus
audubonii
Audubon's
crested
caracara
x
x
Psittirostra
psittacea
`
O
`
U
(
Honeycreeper)
x
Pterodroma
cahow
Cahow
x
x
x
Pterodroma
phaeopygia
sandwichensis
Hawaiian
darkrumped
petrel
x
Puffinus
auricularis
newelli
Newell's
Townsend's
shearwater
x
Rallus
longirostris
levipes
Light­
footed
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
Rallus
longirostris
obsoletus
California
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis
Yuma
clapper
rail
x
x
x
x
Rostrhamus
sociabilis
plumbeus
Everglades
snail
kite
x
x
Sterna
antillarum
Interior
least
tern
x
x
x
x
Sterna
antillarum
browni
California
least
tern
x
x
x
x
x
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii
Roseate
tern
x
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Northern
spotted
owl
x
x
x
x
x
Strix
occidentalis
lucida
Mexican
spotted
owl
x
x
Tympanuchus
cupido
attwateri
Attwater's
greater
prairie
chicken
x
x
Vireo
atricapilla
Black­
capped
vireo
x
x
Vireo
bellii
pusillus
Least
Bell's
Vireo
x
x
x
x
x
Bird
Totals
14
19
55
11
29
Clams
and
Crustaceans
­
192­
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery
Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Clams
Epioblasma
othcaloogensis
Southern
acornshell
x
x
x
x
x
Elliptoideus
sloatianus
Purple
bankclimber
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Villosa
perpurpurea
Purple
bean
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
clava
Clubshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
curtum
Black
clubshell
x
x
x
Pleurobema
perovatum
Ovate
clubshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
decisum
Sourhern
clubshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
brevidens
Cumberland
combshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
penita
Southern
combshell
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
metastriata
Upland
combshell
x
x
x
x
x
Alasmidonta
raveneliana
Appalachian
elktoe
x
x
x
Alasmidonta
atropurpurea
Cumberland
elktoe
x
x
x
Cyprogenia
stegaria
Fanshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
powelli
Arkansas
fatmucket
x
x
x
Lasmigona
decorata
Carolina
heelsplitter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Potamilus
inflatus
Inflated
heelsplitter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ptychobranchus
greeni
Triangular
kidneyshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Medionidus
acutissimus
Alabama
moccasinshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
Medionidus
parvulus
Coosa
moccasinshell
x
x
x
x
Medionidus
penicillatus
Gulf
moccasinshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Medionidus
simpsonianus
Ochlockonee
moccasinshell
x
xxxxxx
xx
Lampsilis
perovalis
Orange­
Nacre
mucket
x
x
x
x
x
x
Alasmidonta
heterodon
Dwarf
wedge
mussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
capsaeformis
Oyster
mussel
x
x
x
x
x
Obovaria
retusa
Ring
pink
mussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Leptodea
leptodon
Scaleshell
mussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Quadrula
fragosa
Winged
mapleleaf
mussel
x
x
xx
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery
Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
193­
Margaritifera
hembeli
Lousiana
pearlshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
virescens
Alabama
lamp
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Quadrula
sparsa
Appalachian
monkeyface
pearlymussel
x
xxx
x
Conradilla
caelata
Birdwing
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hemistena
lata
Cracking
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
Villosa
trabalis
Cumberland
bean
pearlymussel
x
xx
x
x
Quadrula
intermedia
Cumberland
monkeyface
pearlymussel
x
x
xx
x
x
x
Epioblasma
florentina
curtisii
Curtis'
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dromus
dromas
Dromedary
pearlymussel
x
xxx
Epioblasma
torulosa
gubernaculum
Green­
blossom
pearlymussel
x
xx
Lampsilis
higginsii
Higgins'
eye
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pegias
fabula
Little­
wing
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
Plethobasus
cooperianus
Orange­
footed
pearlymussel
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
Toxolasma
cylindrellus
Pale
lilliput
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
abrupta
Pink
mucket
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
obliquata
obliquata
Purple
cat's
paw
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
torulosa
torulosa
Tubercled­
blossom
pearlymussel
x
xxxx
xx
Epioblasma
turgidula
Turgid­
blossom
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
obliquata
perobliqua
White
cat's
paw
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
Plethobasus
cicatricosus
White
wartyback
pearlymussel
x
x
xx
x
Epioblasma
florentina
florentina
Yellow­
blossom
pearlymussel
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
gibberum
Cumberland
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
furvum
Dark
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
Fusconaia
cuneolus
Fine­
rayed
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
marshalli
Flat
pigtoe
x
Pleurobema
taitianum
Heavy
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Oval
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery
Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
194­
Pleurobema
plenum
Rough
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fusconaia
cor
Shiny
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
georgianum
Southern
pigtoe
x
x
x
x
Potamilus
capax
Fat
pocketbook
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
altilis
Fine­
lined
pocketbook
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
subangulata
Shiny­
rayed
pocketbook
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lampsilis
streckeri
Speckled
pocketbook
x
x
Quadrula
cylindrica
strigillata
Rough
rabbitsfoot
x
x
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana
Northern
riffleshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri
(=
E.
walkeri)
Tan
riffleshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
Arkansia
wheeleri
Ouachita
rockpocketbook
x
xxxx
xx
Elliptio
chipolaensis
Chipola
slabshell
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pleurobema
collina
James
River
spinymussel
x
x
x
x
Elliptio
steinstansana
Tar
River
spinymussel
x
x
x
x
x
x
Quadrula
stapes
Stirrup
shell
x
x
x
x
Amblema
neislerii
Fat
threeridge
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Crustaceans
Gammarus
acherondytes
Illinois
cave
amphipod
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Spelaeorchestia
koloana
Kauai
cave
amphipod
x
x
x
x
Stygobromus
(=
Stygonectes)
pecki
Peck's
cave
amphipod
x
x
x
Cambarus
aculabrum
Cave
crayfish
x
x
x
x
x
Cambarus
zophonastes
Cave
crayfish
x
x
Orconectes
shoupi
Nashville
crayfish
x
x
x
x
Pacifastacus
fortis
Shasta
crayfish
x
x
x
x
Lirceus
usdagalun
Lee
County
cave
isopod
x
x
Antrolana
lira
Madison
cave
isopod
x
x
x
x
Thermosphaeroma
thermophilus
Socorro
isopod
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery
Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
195­
Palaemonias
alabamae
Alabama
cave
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
Syncaris
pacifica
California
freshwater
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
Branchinecta
conservatio
Conservancy
fairy
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Palaemonias
ganteri
Kentucky
cave
shrimp
x
x
Branchinecta
longiantenna
Longhorn
fairy
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside
fairy
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San
Diego
fairy
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Palaemonetes
cummingi
Squirrel
chimney
cave
shrimp
x
xxxxxx
xx
Branchinecta
lynchi
Vernal
pool
fairy
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lepidurus
packardi
Vernal
pool
tadpole
shrimp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Clam
and
Crustacean
Total
79
5
6
52
12
4
1
5
15
5
7
2
3
43
68
13
25
33
35
76
8
5
9
75
7
37
Fish
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Ictalurus
pricei
Yaqui
catfish
x
x
x
x
x
x
Speoplatyrhinus
poulsoni
Alabama
cavefish
x
x
x
Amblyopsis
rosae
Ozark
cavefish
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
elegans
Bonytail
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
boraxobius
Borax
Lake
chub
x
Gila
nigrescens
Chihuahua
chub
x
x
Gila
cypha
Humpback
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
bicolor
ssp.
Hutton
Tui
chub
x
Gila
bicolor
mohavensis
Mohave
tui
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
196­
Oregonichthys
crameri
Oregon
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
bicolor
snyderi
Owens
tui
chub
x
x
Gila
robusta
jordani
Pahranagat
roundtail
chub
x
Erimystax
cahni
Slender
chub
x
x
Gila
ditaenia
Sonora
chub
x
Cyprinella
monacha
Spotfin
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
seminuda
(=
robusta)
Virgin
River
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gila
purpurea
Yaqui
chub
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chasmistes
cujus
Chu­
ui
x
x
Rhinichthys
osculus
nevadensis
Ash
Meadows
speckled
dace
x
Phoxinus
cumberlandensis
Blackside
dace
x
x
x
x
x
Rhinichthys
osculus
oligoporus
Clover
Valley
speckled
dace
x
x
Eremichthys
acros
Desert
dace
x
Rhinichthys
osculus
ssp.
Foskett
speckled
dace
x
Rhinichthys
osculus
lethoporus
Independence
Valley
speckled
dace
x
Rhinichthys
osculus
thermalis
Kendall
Warm
Springs
dace
x
Moapa
coriacea
Moapa
dace
x
x
Percina
antesella
Amber
darter
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
rubrum
Bayou
darter
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
sp.
Bluemask
darter
x
Etheostoma
wapiti
Boulder
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
scotti
Cherokee
darter
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
percnurum
Duskytail
darter
x
x
Etheostoma
etowahae
Etowah
darter
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
fonticola
Fountain
darter
x
x
x
Percina
aurolineata
Goldline
darter
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
197­
Percina
pantherina
Leopard
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
sellare
Maryland
darter
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
nianguae
Niangua
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
okaloosae
Okaloosa
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
chienense
Relict
darter
x
x
Etheostoma
boschungi
Slackwater
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Percina
tanasi
Snail
darter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Etheostoma
chermocki
Vermillion
darter
x
Etheostoma
nuchale
Watercress
darter
x
Gambusia
heterochir
Clear
Creek
gambusia
x
x
Gambusia
nobilis
Pecos
gambusia
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gambusia
georgei
San
Marcos
gambusia
x
xx
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater
goby
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Percina
jenkinsi
Conasauga
logperch
x
x
xx
Percina
rex
Roanoke
logperch
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Noturus
placidus
Neosho
madtom
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Noturus
stanauli
Pygmy
madtom
x
x
Noturus
trautmani
Scioto
madtom
x
x
x
x
x
Noturus
baileyi
Smoky
madtom
x
x
x
Noturus
flavipinnis
Yellowfin
madtom
x
x
x
Dionda
diaboli
Devils
River
minnow
x
xx
Tiaroga
cobitis
Loach
minnow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hybognathus
amarus
Rio
Grande
silvery
minnow
x
x
xx
x
Empetrichthys
latos
Pahrump
poolfish
x
x
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
mionectes
Ash
Meadows
amargosa
pupfish
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
198­
Cyprinodon
elegans
Comanche
springs
pupfish
x
x
x
x
Cyprinodon
macularius
Desert
pupfish
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cyprinodon
diabolis
Devils
Hole
pupfish
x
x
Cyprinodon
bovinus
Leon
Springs
pupfish
x
x
x
x
x
Cyprinodon
radiosus
Owens
pupfish
x
x
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
pectoralis
Warm
Springs
pupfish
x
x
Salmo
salar
Atlantic
salmon
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
CA
Coastal
ESU)
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Central
Valley
Spring
Run)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Lower
Columbia
River)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Puget
Sound)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Sacramento
River
Winter
Run)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Snake
River
Fall
Run)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Chinook
salmon
(
Upper
Willamette
River)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Chum
salmon
(
Columbia
River
Population)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Chum
salmon
(
Hood
Canal
Summer
Population)
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Coho
salmon
(
Central
CA
Coast
Pop.)
X
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
199­
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Coho
salmon
(
Oregon
Coast
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Coho
salmon
(
Southern
OR/
NE
CA
Coast)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Sockeye
salmon
(
Ozette
Lake
Population)
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Sockeye
salmon
(
Snake
River
Population)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pristis
pectinata
Smalltooth
sawfish
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cottus
paulus
(=
pygmaeus)
Pygmy
sculpin
x
Notropis
girardi
Arkansas
River
Shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cyprinella
formosa
Beautiful
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cyprinella
caerulea
Blue
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Notropis
cahabae
Cahaba
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Notropis
mekistocholas
Cape
Fear
Shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Notropis
albizonatus
Palezone
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
Notropis
simus
pecosensis
Pecos
bluntnose
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis)
Topeka
shiner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Menidia
extensa
Waccamaw
silverside
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Delta
smelt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Meda
fulgida
Spikedace
x
xx
x
x
xxx
x
x
Lepidomeda
mollispinis
pratensis
Big
Spring
spikedace
x
Lepidomeda
vittata
Little
Colorado
spikedace
x
x
x
Lepidomeda
albivallis
White
River
spikedace
x
x
Crenichthys
baileyi
grandis
Hiko
White
River
springfish
x
Crenichthys
nevadae
Railroad
Valley
springfish
x
x
Crenichthys
baileyi
baileyi
White
River
springfish
x
Ptychocheilus
lucius
Colorado
squawfish
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
200­
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
CA
Central
Valley
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Central
CA
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Lower
Columbia
River
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Middle
Columbia
River
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Northern
CA
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Snake
River
Basin
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
South­
Central
CA
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
So.
CA
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Upper
Columbia
River
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Steelhead
(
Upper
Willamette
River
Pop.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
williamsoni
Unarmored
threespine
stickleback
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scaphirhynchus
suttkusi
Alabama
sturgeon
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Gulf
sturgeon
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scaphirhynchus
albus
Pallid
sturgeon
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Shortnose
sturgeon
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acipenser
transmontanus
White
sturgeon
x
x
Chasmistes
liorus
June
sucker
x
x
x
x
Deltistes
luxatus
Lost
River
sucker
x
x
x
x
x
Catostomus
microps
Modoc
sucker
x
x
x
x
Xyrauchen
texanus
Razorback
sucker
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa
Ana
sucker
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chasmistes
brevirostris
Shortnose
sucker
x
x
x
x
Catostomus
warnerensis
Warner
sucker
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Berries,
Other
Blueberries,
wild
Caneberries
Citrus,
all
Cotton
Filberts
and
Hazelnuts
Floriculture
crops
Foliage
Plants
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Legume
Seeds,
All
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
Beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
201­
Poeciliopsis
occidentalis
Gila
(
Yaqui)
topminnow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
apache
Apache
trout
x
x
x
x
Salvelinus
confluentus
Bull
trout
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
gilae
Gila
trout
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
clarki
stomias
Greenback
cutthroat
trout
x
x
xxx
Oncorhynchus
clarki
henshawi
Lahontan
cutthroat
trout
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
aguabonita
whitei
Little
kern
golden
trout
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Oncorhynchus
clarki
seleniris
Paiute
cutthroat
trout
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Plagopterus
argentissimus
Woundfin
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fish
Totals
123
4
2
23
26
52
9
40
8
1
8
46
10
21
5
13
61
99
7
38
41
35
39
30
35
36
97
24
48
Reptiles
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
FoliagePlants,
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Crocodylus
acutus
American
crocodile
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gambelia
silus
Blunt­
nosed
leopard
lizard
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Uma
inornata
Coachella
valley
fringe­
toed
lizard
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Xantusia
riversiana
Island
night
lizard
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Crotalus
willardi
obscurus
New
Mexican
ridgenosed
rattlesnake
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eumeces
egregius
lividus
Blue­
tailed
mole
skink
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Neoseps
reynoldsi
Sand
skink
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nerodia
clarkii
taeniata
Atlantic
salt
marsh
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nerodia
paucimaculata
Concho
water
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Eastern
indigo
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
FoliagePlants,
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Macadamia
Nuts
Mint
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Peanuts
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
­
202­
Thamnophis
gigas
Giant
garter
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nerodia
sipedon
insularum
Lake
Erie
water
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nerodia
erythrogaster
neglecta
Northern
copperbelly
water
snake
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Thamnophis
sirtalis
tetrataenia
San
Francisco
garter
snake
x
x
x
xx
x
x
Gopherus
agassizii
Desert
tortoise
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gopherus
polyphemus
Gopher
tortoise
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pseudemys
alabamensis
Alabama
red­
bellied
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sternotherus
depressus
Glattened
musk
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chelonia
mydas
Green
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eretmochelys
imbricata
Hawksbill
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lepidochelys
kempii
Kemp's
(
Atlantic)
Ridley
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dermochelys
coriacea
Leatherback
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Caretta
caretta
Loggerhead
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lepidochelys
olivacea
Olive
(
Pacific)
Ridley
sea
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pseudemys
rubriventris
bangsi
Plymouth
red­
bellied
turtle
x
x
Graptemys
oculifera
Ringed
sawback
turtle
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Graptemys
flavimaculata
Yellow­
blotched
map
turtle
x
xxx
x
xx
Masticophis
lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda
whipsnake
x
x
x
xx
xx
Reptile
Totals
23
5
16
16
20
12
6
11
10
4
3
1
23
27
6
15
14
17
13
13
5
5
28
6
21
Plants
(
Grasses)
­
203­
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Alfalfa,
All
Caneberries,
All
Citrus,
All
Cotton
Floriculture
Crops
FoliagePlants,
(
Nursery)

Fruits
and
Nuts,
Other
Fruits,
Other
Noncitrus
Grapes
Honeydew
Melons
Macadamia
Nuts
Nursery
Crops
(
In
the
Open)

Orchards,
All
Pecans
Potatoes
Sod
(
Harvested)
Soybeans
Strawberries
Sugar
beets
Vegetable
and
Flower
Seeds
Vegetable
Land,
All
English
Walnuts
Watermelons
Nolina
brittoniana
Britton's
beargrass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Poa
sandvicensis
Hawaiian
bluegrass
x
x
x
x
Poa
mannii
Mann's
bluegrass
x
x
x
x
Poa
napensis
Napa
bluegrass
x
x
x
Poa
atropurpurea
San
Bernardino
bluegrass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Orcuttia
californica
California
orcutt
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Neostapfia
colusana
Colusa
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Swallenia
alexandrae
Eureka
dune
grass
x
Orcuttia
pilosa
Hairy
orcutt
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Orcuttia
viscida
Sacramento
orcutt
grass
x
x
xx
x
x
xx
Orcuttia
inaequalis
San
Joaquin
Valley
orcutt
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Orcuttia
tenuis
Slender
orcutt
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tuctoria
mucronata
Solano
grass
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Xyris
tennesseensis
Tennessee
yelloweyed
grass
x
x
x
Poa
siphonoglossa
Poa
siphonoglossa
(
NCN)
x
x
x
x
Zizania
texana
Texas
wild­
rice
x
x
x
Plant
totals
11
2
8
8
9
3
3
3
9
4
2
9
14
5
1
8
1
6
6
5
12
8
7
­
204­
Appendix
N
AgDrift
Aquatic
Model
Runs
Aerial
Aquatic
Assessment
­
205­
­
206­
­
207­
Ground
Aquatic
Assessment
­
208­
­
209­
­
210­
Appendix
M
AgDrift
Model
Runs
for
Plants
­
211­
­
212­
­
213­
­
214­
­
215­
ground
spray
­
216­
­
217­
­
218­
Appendix
N
TerrPlant
Model
Results
Exposure
to
Terrestrial
Plants
including
Wetlands
(
August
8,
2001;
version
1.0)

Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
(
wetland)
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift.
Semi­
aquatic
areas
are
low­
lying
wet
areas
that
may
dry
up
at
times
throughout
the
year.

EFED's
runoff
scenario
is
(
1)
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
ot
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
and
its
top
one
inch,
(
2)
characterized
as
"
sheet
runoff"
(
one
treated
acre
to
an
adjacent
acre)
for
dry
areas,
(
3)
characterized
as
"
channel
runoff"
(
10
acres
to
a
distant
low­
lying
acre)
for
semi­
aquatic
or
wetland
areas,
and
(
4)
based
on
percent
runoff
values
of
0.01,
0.02,
and
0.05
for
water
solubilities
of
<
10,
10­
100,
and
<
100
ppm,
respectively.

EFED's
Spray
Drift
scenario
is
assumed
as
(
1)
1%
for
ground
application,
and
(
2)
5%
for
aerial,
airblast,
forced
air,
and
spray
chemigation
applications.
The
spray
drift
ratio
used
here
is
in
agreement
with
the
policy
procedures
at
the
time
the
worksheet
was
designed.

Currently,
1)
this
worksheet
is
designed
to
derive
the
plant
exposure
concentrations
from
a
single,
maximum
application
rate
only.
2)
For
pesticide
applications
with
incorporation
of
depth
of
less
than
1
inch,
the
total
loading
EECs
derived
for
the
incorporation
method
will
be
same
as
the
unincorporated
method.

To
calculate
RQ
values
for
Non­
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants:

Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
To
calculate
RQ
values
for
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants:

Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Semiaquatic
Areas
Near
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Semiaquatic
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
­
219­
Formulas
used
to
calculate
EEC
values
(
8/
08/
01;
version
1.0)

To
calculate
EECs
for
terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
in
areas
adjacent
to
treatment
sites
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Non­
granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Incorporated
Ground
Application
with
Drift
(
Non­
granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorporation
Depth
(
inch)]
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Incorporated
Ground
Application
without
Drift
(
Granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorportion
Depth
(
inch)]
x
Runoff
Value
Aerial/
Airblast/
Spray
Chemigation
Applications:

Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
x
Application
Efficiency
of
0.6
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.05
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Runoff
Value
=
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
when
the
solubility
of
the
chemical
is
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively
Incorporation
Depth:
Use
the
minimum
incorporation
depth
reported
on
the
label.
­
220­
Non­
target
Plant
Exposure
(
0.47
lb
ai/
A)

Input
Values
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.47
Runoff
Value
(
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
if
chemical
solubility
<
10,
10­
100,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively)
0.05
Ground
Unincorp.
0.0282
0.2397
0.0047
Seed
Emerg
Monocot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.078
Ground
Incorp
0.0282
0.2397
0.0047
Seed
Emerg
Dicot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.0376
0.1645
0.0235
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.029
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
for
NONGRANULAR
formulation
applications
(
lbs
a.
i./
acre)

Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Areas
(
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift)
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
(
EEC
=
Channelized
Runoff
+
Drift)
DRIFT
EEC
(
for
ground:
application
rate
x
0.01)
(
for
aerial:
application
rate
x
0.05)
Application
Method
Terrestrial
Plant
EECs
and
Acute
Non
Endangered
RQs
(
8/
8/
01;
version
1.0))

Minimum
Incorporation
Depth
(
cm)
0
­
221­
Non­
Listed
Non­
target
Plant
Risk
Quotients
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
0.36
#
DIV/
0!
3.07
#
DIV/
0!
0.16
#
DIV/
0!

0.36
#
DIV/
0!
3.07
#
DIV/
0!
0.16
#
DIV/
0!

0.48
#
DIV/
0!
2.11
#
DIV/
0!
0.81
#
DIV/
0!
Emergence
RQs,
Adjacent
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Emergence
RQs,
Semiaquatic
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Chemical:
Sethoxydim
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
NON­
GRANULAR
formulation
applications
Drift
RQs
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
­
222­
Listed
Plant
Inputs
Input
Values
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.47
Runoff
Value
(
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
if
chemical
solubility
<
10,
10­
100,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively)
0.05
Seed
Emerg
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.059
Seed
Emerg
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lbs
a.
i./
acre)
0.025
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
Minimum
Incorporation
Depth
(
inches)
­
223­
Listed
Plant
Risk
Quotients
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
0.48
#
DIV/
0!
4.06
#
DIV/
0!
0.19
#
DIV/
0!

0.48
#
DIV/
0!
4.06
#
DIV/
0!
0.19
#
DIV/
0!

0.64
#
DIV/
0!
2.79
#
DIV/
0!
0.94
#
DIV/
0!
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
NON­
GRANULAR
formulation
applications
Emergence
RQs,
Semiaquatic
areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Emergence
RQs,
Adjacent
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQs
RQ
=
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
­
224­
Non­
target
Plant
Exposure
(
0.28
lb
ai/
A)

Input
Values
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.28
Runoff
Value
(
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
if
chemical
solubility
<
10,
10­
100,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively)
0.05
Ground
Unincorp.
0.0168
0.1428
0.0028
Seed
Emerg
Monocot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.078
Ground
Incorp
0.0168
0.1428
0.0028
Seed
Emerg
Dicot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.0280
0.1540
0.0140
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
EC25
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.029
Terrestrial
Plant
EECs
and
Acute
Non
Endangered
RQs
(
8/
8/
01;
version
1.0))

Minimum
Incorporation
Depth
(
cm)
0
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
for
NONGRANULAR
formulation
applications
(
lbs
a.
i./
acre)

Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Areas
(
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift)
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
(
EEC
=
Channelized
Runoff
+
Drift)
DRIFT
EEC
(
for
ground:
application
rate
x
0.01)
(
for
aerial:
application
rate
x
0.05)
Application
Method
­
225­
Non­
Listed
Non­
target
Plant
Risk
Quotients
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
0.22
#
DIV/
0!
1.83
#
DIV/
0!
0.10
#
DIV/
0!

0.22
#
DIV/
0!
1.83
#
DIV/
0!
0.10
#
DIV/
0!

0.36
#
DIV/
0!
1.97
#
DIV/
0!
0.48
#
DIV/
0!
Chemical:
Sethoxydim
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
NON­
GRANULAR
formulation
applications
Drift
RQs
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
Emergence
RQs,
Adjacent
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Emergence
RQs,
Semiaquatic
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
­
226­
Listed
Plant
Risk
Quotients
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
0.28
#
DIV/
0!
2.42
#
DIV/
0!
0.11
#
DIV/
0!

0.28
#
DIV/
0!
2.42
#
DIV/
0!
0.11
#
DIV/
0!

0.38
#
DIV/
0!
1.66
#
DIV/
0!
0.56
#
DIV/
0!
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
NON­
GRANULAR
formulation
applications
Emergence
RQs,
Semiaquatic
areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Emergence
RQs,
Adjacent
Areas
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQs
RQ
=
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
