Conference presentation. 2010. Expanding herbicide product choices for weed management in natural...

EXPANDING HERBICIDE PRODUCT CHOICES FOR WEED MANAGEMENT

IN NATURAL AREAS

John Vickery [email protected]

2010 Natural Areas Conference Natural Areas Association October 26-29 Lake of the Ozarks, MO

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I’m John Vickery from Denver, CO, and most of my work concerns weed management, often with herbicides

Outline Starting point Search criteria and ‘screens’ IR4 Project overview IR4 process Data requirements, field studies Identified prospect products for IR4

investigation EPA OPP Conventional Reduced Risk

Pesticide Program Considerations, issues, perspectives Next steps, challenges, and closing

Presenter

Presentation Notes

First, the Outline I’ll begin with some background on how I got started on this effort. Part of that effort involves different approaches to searching for products we’d like to use in natural areas OR alternatively, ‘screens’ to help eliminate some from further consideration or to lower their priority. Much of this talk is about the IR4 Project—the best solution I’ve found for the situation—that is, the relatively few herbicides that we can use. Very briefly, we’ll look at the reduced risk pesticide program. And then, some review and closing topics as listed.

Starting point Most noncrop and rangeland a.i.s are either growth

regulators or amino acid synthesis inhibitors. There are a few products in other modes of action

categories. AND Most products and a.i.s are registered for one or a

very limited number of settings or crops Thus, there should be some (additional) a.i.s that

have a combination of characteristics that would make them valuable in rangeland and noncrop areas.

Awareness of IR4 Project

Presenter

Presentation Notes

~ I come at this from a weed mgmt. perspective; I use herbicides. ~ I’ve some prior experience w major row crops and thus, an awareness of the many products not available to us ~ I’ve also been aware of the IR4 project that is designed to serve growers of minor or specialty uses. ~ Then, the logic: it is likely that some of the a.i.s not available to us should be useful to us ~ Generally, we are most interested in products that will either improve control or reduce nontarget effects or environmental impacts, compared to products currently used. ~ Since there’s a public benefit, maybe the USDA-funded IR4 program could help us or perhaps something similar but dedicated to our interests could be created ~ Now, most of the products NA managers use are labeled for noncrop areas and rangeland. ~ Other potentially compatible use contexts one might find on the label include: pastures, wildlife management areas, wildlife openings, CRP land, etc., even ‘natural areas’ in a couple cases ~ Noncrop areas as a description is a little problematic because it is overly broad, including sites that are nothing like native vegetation areas. Thus, some of the products that are labeled for noncrop areas are not suitable for our interests---particularly bareground applications

Overview of modes of action I Lipid Synthesis Inhibition II Amino Acid Synthesis Inhibition III Seedling Growth Inhibition IV Growth Regulators V Photosynthesis Inhibition (PS II) VI Cell Membrane Disruption VII Carotenoid Biosynthesis Inhibition VIII Nitrogen Metabolism Inhibition IX Unclassified or Unknown

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This is the WSSA group classification system for modes of action. Categories II and IV comprise the bulk of the herbicide products registered for use in noncrop areas. Nevertheless they are still of interest to us for new uses In yellow: VII is one for which we’ll look at an example of an a.i. of interest not yet registered for use in noncrop areas I is one we’ll use as an example w/r to search approaches and screens ______ (http://hracglobal.com/Publications/ClassificationofHerbicideModeofAction/tabid/222/Default.aspx)

Search approach: survey the MOAs Graminicides for winter annuals, annuals I. Lipid synthesis inhibitors, A. ACCase

inhibitors – 1. Aryloxyphenoxypropionates (‘FOPs’, ‘APPs’) 7 active ingredients, including fluazifop & quizalo-fop Fusilade DX labeled for noncrop areas Fusilade II labeled for ‘parks’ Assure II: labeled for ‘noncrop areas’

– 2. Cyclohexanediones (‘DIMs’, ‘CHDs’) 3 active ingredients

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Group 1 comprises the grass-specific herbicides There are two chemistries here—the FOPS & the DIMS Preliminary review reveals a couple of them that we can use in natural areas. Winter annual and annual grasses like cheatgrass(es) are a serious problem in the arid west, but I don’t see much investigation of this group as a possible solution. Typically, glyphosate, imazapic (Plateau), and sufonylureas (e.g., Matrix) get the attention—and all of these are active on broadleaves and of course, glyphosate is, of course, non-selective. I suspect this group deserves a closer look with natural areas in mind. However, this group has two undesirable characteristics that we will look at next from the perspective of ‘screens’ ___________ FOPS clodinafop-propargyl, Discover (Herbicide or NG): For POST grass control in spring wheat. Syngenta diclofop, Hoelon: Used PPPI or POST for certain annual grasses on wheat. Bayer. fenoxaprop-ethyl , Acclaim Extra: For selective POST grass in turfgrass and ornamentals. Bayer fluazifop-P, Fusilade DX: pinoxaden, Axial & Axial XP: For POST control of grass weeds in wheat and barley. Syngenta. quizalo-fop, Assure II: A POST grass herbicide for use in canola, dry bean, snapbean, soybean and sugarbeets. Dupont >> http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld742026.pdf, see inside front cover (unnumbered), ‘Highlights’, specifies ‘noncrop areas’ quizalo-fop p-ethyl, Matador: A burndown herbicide for annual grasses before or after planting soybean DIMS >>See Griffin.WeedCourse.Chapter19 p.3 includes noncrop areas: “quizalofop used POST in soybeans and noncrop areas (may provide some control of grasses germinating after POST application, but would be related to rate, soil type, and soil moisture)” clethodim, Select: Used POST for annual and perennial grasses in alfalfa, canola, potato, soybean, sunflower, sugarbeets and others. Valent Clethodim, Select Max. Used POST for volunteer corn plus annual and perennial grasses in soybeans only. BASF sethoxydim, Poast: A POST herbicide for control of volunteer corn and grass weeds in alfalfa, soybean and other broadleaf crops . BASF sethoxydim, Poast Plus: A POST herbicide for control of shattercane, volunteer corn and other grass weeds in alfalfa, soybean and other broadleaf crops. BASF tralkoxydim, Achieve 40 DG or SC: Used POST for control of grass weeds in wheat and barley. Syngenta

Searching approaches; screens cont

Stress sensitivity, ‘robustness’ – Relatively low sensitivity to drought

IV growth inhibitors (synthetic auxins) [2, 4-D, Milestone, etc] II A. ALS inhibitors [Telar] VI A. Cell membrane disruptors, PPO/Protox inhibitors

– Relatively high sensitivity I A. Lipid Synthesis inhibitors, ACCase inhibitors

(‘graminicides’) II B. EPSP synthetase inhibition (glyphosate)

Steep dose-response curve I A. Lipid Synthesis inhibitors, ACCase inhibitors

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I haven’t discovered a fuller accounting or list, but some active ingredients are more robust with respect to drought stress. In the arid west, this is an important consideration. Turns out that the two categories we use most—growth inhibitors, IV, and ALS inhibitors, II, are relatively drought tolerant. The graminicides, group I, are very sensitive to drought stress. They also show a steep dose-response curve. This means that if your rate is a little bit too low, you might not get any control and it is relatively easy to apply more than you need.

Searching approaches Start with a target weed—a problem you already

have - Leafy spurge: spring to early summer applied very effective, good environmental profile

SOLVED?!: saflufenacil-imazapic synergism – BASF: ‘Sharpen’ approved for noncrop areas, natural areas – VI Cell membrane disruptor Group 14 Herbicide

A PPO inhibitor 6 trifluoromethyl uracil – EPA conventional reduced risk designation (but, does not

apply to noncrop areas

Look ahead to prospective problems—do you have the tools needed to deal with invasives that are on their way?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

A very natural way to search for new uses for a herbicide is to start with a control problem you have. Imazapic or Plateau is very good as a fall treatment for leafy spurge; but not so good in the spring. A couple of the more effective products for spring use have issues which I won’t elaborate on. By chance, I discovered a potential solution involving saflufenacil the active in Sharpen, a product labeled for noncrop areas and natural areas. It gives good control in combination with imazapic. The lesson is that sometimes there may already be solutions that just are not very well known. ______

Searching approaches; screens

Start with a desired characteristic Like glyphosate, but selective for broad-leaf

plants: – excellent environmental profile; – broad species spectrum of effective control; – no residual and/or binds readily to soil

particles—no pre-plant interval

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Another search approach is to look for a desired characteristic or combination of characteristics. How about a product that is broadleaf specific, but has no residual activity? Such could be useful in a restoration setting—you could spray and plant the same day—no preplant interval.

Searching approaches; screens cont. Possible examples:* Aim, cafentrazone-ethyl

VI Cell membrane disruption A PPO (‘Protox’) inhibition 3 triazolinones

Cobra, lactofen VI Cell membrane disruption A PPO inhibition 1 diphenylethers

Ultra Blazer, acifluorfen VI Cell membrane disruption A PPO inhibition 1 Diphenylethers

Basagran, bentazon V Photosynthesis inhibition (PSII) C C3 class 1 benzothiadiazinones

‘EC’ & ‘EW’ versions. Pre-, Post-, and harvest aid in various

crops; EPost control of broadleaf weeds in corn, small grains

Pre- and Post- , selective, in soybeans and cotton

Post- for broadleaf weed control in soybean Post- control of velvetleaf, cocklebur, and

other broadleaf weeds under 6” in beans, corn, sorghum soybean

T/O version: broadleaf control in turf

*2009 Nebraska Extension Guide for Weed Management, Replant Options and Rotation Restrictions (Cereal and broadleaf crops), pp. 138-145.

All contact herbicides Potentially useful for annuals and winter annuals, notably various mustard family members: blue mustard, pennycress, (hoary allyssum).

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Searching through a listing of PPIs, I found some possibilities, including four active ingredients and two modes of action. However, all are contact herbicides, which means their usefulness is largely limited to annuals and winter annuals. Perhaps there are settings where this would be adequate. Mustards come to mind as among the likely targets.

Searching, 2; screens, 1

Search Ask weed scientists and industry representatives whose expertise or portfolio/purview includes both noncrop areas/rangeland as well as other sectors such as turf, row crops, vegetables, etc. Search Need more products that can be

applied up to the water’s edge Screen Which FQPA ‘risk cups’ are already

full or nearly so?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Three more Of course, we should ask the experts, particularly those who expertise include both noncrop areas and some other broad category of use. I’ve collected some recommendations and we’ll look at one in some detail later In the arid west, many of our serious noxious weed problems occur in the vicinity of water, for example in riparian areas. However, there are few products that can be applied up to the water’s edge. Milestone is the only one that I know of other than those also approved for aquatic use. [In 2011, Perspective became available . . . ] With the chemistries we’ve got, we don’t get good control with some species, plus we have to deal with determining what ‘near water’ means. [this last has become clearer with NPDES implementation w’r to pesticides] Lastly here, there’s the Food Quality Protection Act ‘risk cup’ which we’ll look at in more detail

Full risk cups or ‘otherwise problematic’ V. Photosynthesis inhibition (photosystem II) A. C1 class 1. Triazines [full risk cup] atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, others C. C3 class 2. Nitriles bromoxynil III. Seedling Growth Inhibition A. Microtubule assembly inhibition 1. Dinitroanilines pendimethalin [pending action for grasses, rangeland excluded] B. Long-chain fatty acid inhibition 1. chloracetimides acetochlor, alachlor, metalochlor [But, s-metolachlor possible] C. Lipid synthesis inhibition (not ACCase) 3. thiocarbamates EPTC Listed by: Mode of Action (Roman numeral), Site of Action (capital letter), Chemical family (number)

www.cias.wisc.edu/ecological-systems/ pesticide-options-in-field-crops-helping-farmers-with-fqpa/

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Taking all sources of human exposure into account, the risks posed by some chemistries is already at or near the limit of what is deemed acceptable. The only way that we could use one of these in natural areas is if the registrant was willing to give up some current uses—an unlikely scenario. Thus, we might as well eliminate such chemistries from consideration. There is no official EPA—nor apparently, any other—summary of the risk cup status for all the actives. You’d have to look up the last FQPA assessment in Fed Reg OR ask the registrant—a time-consuming activity. Better to consult experts—shown here is what I’ve been able to compile from two sources. I won’t go over these—it’s the concept that I’m trying to convey—a valuable—in fact, necessary—screen. Sources: ~ FQPA list one herbicides, http://www.cias.wisc.edu/ecological-systems/pesticide-options-in-field-crops-helping-farmers-with-fqpa/ ~ Feb ‘10 email from Barbara Madden, Minor Use Officer, USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division (7505P) , �Risk Integration, Minor Use, Emergency Response Branch ��

Overview of IR4 Interregional Research Project No. 4 Administered by the IR4 Project Office at Rutgers Univ. USDA 5-year renewable grant “For over forty-five years, the IR-4 Project

has been the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crop growers by developing research data to support new EPA tolerances and labeled product uses.

Develops data for submission to US EPA to support the regulatory clearance of new herbicide uses

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Now, on to IR4. It’s a USDA-funded effort based at Rutgers University. It’s function is to vet products that would be useful in minor crop settings and then generate data for review by EPA.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here’s part of their website. You can look up information or make requests via two tracks. Noncrop areas products would go under Ornamentals Rangeland products are reviewed by the Food Crops side ________ Using the search tools, I got 4 hits for rangeland products.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here’s the ornamentals database. Without elaboration, if you search this database, you’ll find very little involving herbicides and the settings of interest to us. ________additional If you do a search for Utility Right-of-Way, you don’t get any hits’ For ‘forestry’ there was one relevant hit, but for a product that was already registered for noncrop areas If you peruse the pull down for Research Target, you’ll find that most are insects and fungal pathogens. Under ‘Crop Common Name’, one choice is ‘none’ for which you’ll get dozens of hits, but a quick perusal did not identify any relevant to natural areas. (mostly weeds in greenhouse and container ornamental settings)

IR4 process Interested party submits a request—makes a case

for a particular product and use – Or, interested party can approach registrant directly

May support the effort, but direct party to IR4 OR May decide to proceed w/o assistance OR May not support the effort for a use change

IR4 review [details, next] Collect data (IR4) & analyze data (registrant) Submit petition to EPA for a new use

– Food use: IR4 – Ornamentals: Registrant

EPA review

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Any interested party can submit a request. The request is reviewed. If selected, IR4 collects data and that data is provided to a cooperating registrant. The information and analysis is then submitted to EPA to secure a new use. Note: I have not submitted a request—that’s not the approach I’m taking. Rather, I’m trying to build an infrastructure or create a process to facilitate more registrations for use in natural areas.

IR4 review (Western Region) Clearance Review Request Form submitted

online, IR4 Hdqtrs. Received by Regional Coordinator (4 regions) Email notification to regional ‘interested parties’;

feedback requested and tracked online Two confcalls a year to review submissions Assigned to Level A, B, C priorities Level As are reviewed at annual, national meeting

(separate meetings for food and ornamental) Might have 100 proposals but funding for only 30

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Requests are submitted online, then received by the appropriate region. Interested parties—many of them Extension weed scientists and other academic partners—review them individually and then via conference calls. The submissions are prioritized. The highest priority group is then considered at an annual, national meeting. Note that EPA participates in the workshop, has reviewed proposals in advance, and provides cautionary statements as appropriate—for example, the risk cup is nearly full (non target effects, toxicological concerns . . .) _______additional 3rd item: is this important?; needed next year?, worth talking about Some lower priority products may get bumped up if no additional data requirements because of the lower costs involved.; sometimes a product can be approved based on ‘paper arguments’. Some of the ‘slots’ are reserved for each region.

Data requirements, studies

Sometimes, no addtl. studies (field, lab.) will be needed to add noncrop areas as an approved use for existing products

For turf and ornamental products, residue studies are not required – For utility and road ROW applications, the concern is

exposure by routes other than consumption – Sometimes trials are needed to estimate exposure to

people walking through a treated area—IR4 does not do this kind of study

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Sometimes, no additional studies are needed for noncrop areas After all, if it is approved for use on a food crop, it may have probably already undergone any needed testing. The main issue is whether the new use poses any significant routes of exposure.

Data requirements, studies cont. A rangeland use might not trigger additional

studies, if for example, the product can already be used on a forage crop (hay) or in a foraging context (corn, wheat stubble) – ‘paper argument approach’

If noncrop and esp., rangeland application rates are higher than those included in the core registration package . . . COST PROHIBITIVE

Higher investments more likely for more modern compounds still under patent . . .

Presenter

Presentation Notes

If an existing use is fairly similar to a proposed use in terms of the types of exposure, then a paper argument approach may be adequate. No new info is required, just logical argument. However, in the arid west, the target weeds are often not in good condition—they are under stress. However, many products are first registered in major row crops or in turf, settings where there is often irrigation. Higher rates are needed to be effective when plants are in poor condition. What if those higher rates were not included in the toxicological and environmental fate studies for the original application? In such cases, we’re probably out of luck—it would be probably be too expensive to go back and do those studies and include the higher rates. ________additional EX re cost prohibitive: product for controlling cheatgrass w fall applications, Matrix, Dupont, rimsulfuron. It was related at a meeting I recently attended that the registrant does not plan to apply for a rangeland use as it would cost $2M.

Data requirements, studies cont. Example, residue studies needed for rangeland

use – 12 field trials on grasses $100K – Analysis $100K – Report writing, preparing $ 25K

petition for EPA – TOTAL $200-300K

This is the kind of work IR4 does If the project was prioritized, interested parties

might not have to contribute funding Best scenario:

– Rates no higher than on crops for which registered – No toxicological, environmental fate, carcinogenicity,

etc., issues

Presenter

Presentation Notes

What kind of costs are we looking at for rangeland? Residue studies is one of IR4’s fortes. The cost for a ‘grass-dominant setting’ is on the order of $2-300 thousand. For prioritized projects, IR4 might well fund the project. But for us, such prioritization is probably not likely—not yet, anyway.

Small sampling, PRELIMINARY prospect products for IR4 investigation

Graminicides for winter annual grasses, I Mesotrione for broad leaves and

annual/winter annual grasses, VII Sulfentrazone for broad leaves, IV Sulfonylureas for winter annual grasses, II

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In consulting experts, a number of products have been suggested to me as good prospects for IR4 treatment. Let’s look at one, mesotrione

Preliminary IR4 for noncrop areas prospects

Mesotrione VII. Carotenoid Biosynthesis Inhibition

– B. 4-HPPD inhibition 1. Callistemones

Callisto (Syngenta) – PRE & POST for broadleaf control in field, seed, sweet,

silage, & pop- corn Tenacity (Syngenta)

– Selective weed control in turf, lawns, golf courses

Suggested by Richard Roehme, Helena Chemical

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Mesotrione is an active ingredient in Syngenta products. It’s currently registered for use in corn and turf for broadleaves.

IR4 prospects cont., mesotrione Pros

– New MOA for noncrop areas, rangeland: resistance management

– Selectively active on winter annual/annual grasses such as Poa annum, crabgrass, foxtail, cheatgrass as well as some perennial monocots

– Active on 46 dicot and monocot species, including Solanaceae, Asteraceae . . .

– EPA conventional reduced-risk status Cons

– Expensive, Tenacity ca $98/acre; Callisto ca $16/a (3 oz rate)

– Rates are very precise—a difficulty for noncrop & rangeland settings

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Mesotrione would apparently be a new mode of action for us in noncrop areas—category seven. It’s also active on some grasses, especially annuals. It has reduced risk status from EPA—we’ll look at that status in more detail later. The cost of the product varies considerably by market, but the Callisto version is reasonably affordable, especially in spot-spray situations The rates are precise—that means the dose-response curve is steep—so, one disadvantage identified _______ See http://www.greencastonline.com/HebicideTenacity/faq.html

IR4 proposals: review of issues IR4’s mandate is broad enough to include noncrop

areas—noncrop areas is a minor use Registrant must agree to support Demonstrated effectiveness Review and characterize potential for nontarget

effects, e.g., endangered species, food crops . . . Define the use pattern as well as is practicable Review and characterize the possibility that

products registered for use in noncrop areas will ‘end up’ being applied where there is livestock grazing

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Can IR4 serve the natural areas community? Yes, it can. Noncrop or natural areas is a minor use. In all cases, a registrant must agree to support any addition to the registered use categories The rest is just logic or common sense: it must be useful or effective, potential nontarget affects must be characterized and acceptable, which means the use pattern needs to be defined, and since in our sector, noncrop areas are also sometimes rangeland where livestock could graze, that possibility has to be addressed.

The main issue: Is it a good fit? Plus_

Public benefit – Management of public lands, tools for control of

invasives – Substitution of products with better

environmental profile – Resistance management

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Overall it comes down to—is it a good fit? And one way to approach this in terms of public benefit, since IR4 and EPA are public entities.

Industry considerations, perspectives

Assessment of market size; potential acreage Liability issues

– Nontarget effects – Will it be used according to the label? – What is the likelihood that use according to the label

result in unanticipated nontarget effects? Level of support, interest from user groups Might not want to sell something for use in

rangeland or noncrop areas for less than it is sold in cropland or ornamentals [?]

Presenter

Presentation Notes

From industry’s perspective, things like: market size, liability issues, user group interest, and selling price are critical decision factors. Estimating the potential for nontarget effects and the liabilities associated with labeled use and misuse can be more difficult in noncrop areas because of the diversity of settings and targets compared to say a vegetable crop. ______additional Re selling price, of course, less of an issue, once an ai is off-patent

EPA considerations, perspective

Have to know the use pattern Known and/or potentially problematic

environmental or human health issues Just because a label says “Do not graze”,

does not mean it will not be grazed. Have to build convincing case based on how it will be used Significant public interest in controlling

invasives

Presenter

Presentation Notes

EPA has similar concerns, though perhaps coming from a public interest perspective, rather than concerns about liability. Again, the possibility of livestock grazing—EPA knows that cattle don’t read labels. Yet, EPA wants to support the effort in controlling invasives.

IR4 process and ‘next steps’ Noncrop areas is a minor use and would fall

under IR4’s Ornamental Program – For some products, there may be some

advantage for ornamental and noncrop stakeholders to partner to procure resources

– IR4 is willing to consider noncrop proposals without additional funding

– Standard approach: a written request outlining the problem and the solution

– Alternative: form a working group

Presenter

Presentation Notes

We’ve noted that noncrop areas comes under IR4s ornamental program. In considering products, we might consider reaching out to folks outside the natural areas sector—for example, folks who do vegetation management in other noncrop areas such as various types of rights of way from transportation to powerline and pipeline routes. We don’t necessarily have to bring money to the table, although such would make it more feasible. IR4 can provide limited staff time to the effort—they have other priorities We can approach this in the standard way—a request submitted online. Or, we can form a working group—something that was suggested by IR4 They’ve been involved with such recently

Working group: it’s been done before

Aquatic Herbicide Working Group & IR4 Participants included

– Army Corp of Engineers University of Florida – UC-Davis IR-4 – National Institute for Food & Agriculture, USDA

Time frame: ~2005-09 Some external funding, plus limited IR4 staff

time Results: endothall

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This was the Aquatic Herbicide Working Group I’m told by the NIFA (that’s the former CSREES) representative that they envisioned a natural areas herbicide effort. So, that’s a good news.

Aquatic Herbicide Working Group Results

Endothall – Reduced/eliminated post-application waiting

period after treatment of irrigation water before use on crops

– EPA OPP approval, Dec 2009 – ?Catalyst for registrants’ new interest in the

aquatic weed market; which has eliminated most of the need for current IR-4 involvement in aquatic weed research?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I’ve only been able to identify one new use coming out of that effort, endothall. However, the participants note the IR4-working group collaboration seems to have generated enough interest among registrants to pursue new aquatic uses that further IR4 involvement was unnecessary ________ Endothall A trade name for the dipotassium salt of endothall is Aquathol®. Endothall is a fast-acting non-selective contact herbicide which destroys the vegetative part of the plant but generally does not kill the roots. Endothall may be applied in a granular or liquid form. Typically endothall compounds are used primarily for short term (one season) control of a variety of aquatic plants. However, there has been some recent research that indicates that when used in low concentrations, endothall can be used to selectively remove exotic weeds; leaving some native species unaffected. Because it is fast acting, endothall can be used to treat smaller areas effectively. Endothall is not effective in controlling Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis) or Brazilian elodea. (Read Ecology’s risk assessment for endothall) http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua028.html

US EPA Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program

No standard to meet: relative and use-specific Not a good fit for stakeholder involvement—

designed to serve registrants Diminishing returns: as older pesticides are

replaced or not re-registered, there is less environmental advantage to be gained More burdensome application package High stakes decision making process

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Let’s look briefly at the Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program. The CRRPP is part of FQPA. It was designed to facilitate the introduction of replacements of higher risk chemicals. It has been successful. A lot of emphasis has been given to insecticides and fumigants and the like. Only one herbicide product for noncrop areas has come out of it though—Milestone, which specifies ‘natural areas’ and can be applied up to the water’s edge. Again, we could certainly use more products with that quality. The CRRPP offers a number of advantages to registrants, such as shortened review and decision time frame, but I won’t go into them further. Rather, the point to be made here is that this Program is not to suitable for us to use as a vehicle for additional noncrop uses. Note that there are no environmental or human health standards for reduced risk status; rather it is a relative designation—relative to the products that are currently used. If a new product provides environmental benefits compared to the other products it might replace, it is a reasonable candidate for rr designation. Unlike IR4 however, there isn’t a way for user or interest groups to get involved. We can’t make a request to EPA.

Challenges, IR4 Products coming from food use, turf, and ornamental

sectors will often be relatively expensive . . . Effective application rates in noncrop areas and

rangeland will often be higher than in crop settings . . .

Diffuse, less well-defined market Diffuse, less focused, less well-organized user

groups ‘Noncrop areas’ encompasses much variety;

complex – Use pattern and associated liabilities harder to define and

estimate, relative to agricultural uses

Presenter

Presentation Notes

To summarize our challenge: The products that we are going to be looking at will be newer than average, perhaps still under patent, and often relatively expensive. But, we are already using some expensive products. We’ve mentioned the issue about higher rates. I’ll also note here that our concerns are often with perennials, whereas if a product is coming from a row crop setting where annuals are the concern, then again the studies included in the original registration package might not have included rates that are high enough. Noncrop and natural areas weed and vegetation management folks aren’t organized to get a registration like a regionally-defined fruit or nut crop grower association, nor do we have the economic imperative. And again, the natural areas and noncrop areas use patterns are quite complex

Challenge: terminology & market recognition

Natural areas At least a couple of examples: Milestone, Sharpen Wildlands Local government: open space parks, greenways, natural areas State: parks, natural areas, wildlife (management) areas, ‘school

board’ and other leased lands Federal: Department of Interior-administered lands

– national parks monuments – seashores recreation areas preserves – BLM lands – wildlife refuges

Federal: USDA-administered lands – national forests – grasslands

Other – Bureau of Reclamation Army Corps of Engineers, – Dept. of Defense Dept. of Energy

‘Noncrop areas’ and ‘rangeland’ use designations often do not resonate well

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Finally, how many labels say ‘natural areas’—maybe two. We represent a lot of different user entities and land use designations. We’re a complex market. We are often using products for which we were not the target market. Noncrop areas, indeed!

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I’ll end with: Public land managers and our public lands deserve more attention from industry, EPA, and IR4 Public land managers and others responsible for vegetation management of rangeland and native plant communities need to become better organized and focused on securing herbicide products with the best combination of effectiveness, environmental profile, and selectivity.

Acknowledgements Rebecca Sisco, IR4 Western Regional Coordinator Rick Roehme, Helena Chemical Sandra McDonald, (formerly) CSU Extension Jim Crosby, BASF Jerry Baron, IR4 National Headquarters Scott Nissen, Colorado State University John Jachetta, DOW Agrosciences Dale Shaner, USDA ARS Barbara Madden, US EPA OPP Joe DiTomaso, UC Davis K. George Beck, CSU

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I’d like to thank these folks for information, ideas, and suggestions, as well support and interest!

John Vickery jvickery_(at)_mcg.net

Presenter

Presentation Notes

And , thank you for your attention.

Conference presentation. 2010. Expanding herbicide product choices for weed management in natural...

Documents

Transcript of Conference presentation. 2010. Expanding herbicide product choices for weed management in natural...