Research Center Isagro S.p.A. Via Fauser 28, 28100 Novara (NO) (Italy) FINAL REPORT E01-16 Evaluation of the efficacy of two different formulations (BB and BC4) of Glyphosate in post- emergence application in greenhouse in comparison to standard (GLIFO) 10 th May 2016
20
Embed
Final Report - E01-16 eng - SoitemResearch Center Isagro S.p.A. Via Fauser 28, 28100 Novara (NO) (Italy) FINAL REPORT E01-16 Evaluation of the efficacy of two different formulations
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Research Center Isagro S.p.A. Via Fauser 28,
28100 Novara (NO) (Italy)
FINAL REPORT
E01-16 Evaluation of the efficacy of two different formulations (BB and BC4) of Glyphosate in post-emergence application in greenhouse in comparison to standard (GLIFO) 10th May 2016
E01-16 Final report
Page 1 of 20
Data Requirements
UNI EN ISO 9001:2008
Date
10th May 2016
Research Center Isagro S.p.A. Via Fauser, 28
28100 Novara (NO) Italy
Test Facility Sponsor Research Center SOITEM S.r.L ISAGRO S.p.A. Via Roberto Cozzi, 34 Via Fauser, 28 20125 Milano (MI) 28100 Novara (NO) Italy Italy
E01-16 Final report
Page 2 of 20
1. Compliance Statement The present study was carried out in compliance with:
Via Roberto Cozzi, 34 – 20125 – Milano (MI) - ITALY tel.: +39-02-64741824 /e-mail: [email protected]
E01-16 Final report
Page 3 of 20
2. Statement of Confidentiality This report contains proprietary information of the sponsor, which must be kept strictly secret and not be disclosed to anyone, except the employees of the testing facility for experimental purposes only. No information related to the study or to the test substance(s) may be revealed or released to any third part without prior notification and authorization of the sponsor.
5. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................... 5
5.1 Trial treatments .............................................................................................. 5 5.2 Trial and Site information .............................................................................. 6
5.3 Application information ................................................................................. 7
7.1 Meteorological data ..................................................................................... 19
E01-16 Final report
Page 5 of 20
4. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of two different formulations of Glyphosate (BB and BC4 signed) in comparison to reference standard (GLIFO signed) on 3 different weeds in post emergence application (BBCH 13-14).
5. Materials and methods
5.1 Trial treatments
Trt Treatment Form Form Form Rate No. Type Name Conc Unit Type Density Rate Unit 1 CHK Untreated Check 2 HERB GLIPHO REF 360 g/L SL 1 45 g ai/ha 3 HERB GLIPHO REF 360 g/L SL 1 90 g ai/ha 4 HERB GLIPHO REF 360 g/L SL 1 180 g ai/ha 5 HERB GLIPHO REF 360 g/L SL 1 360 g ai/ha 6 HERB GLIPHO REF 360 g/L SL 1 720 g ai/ha 7 HERB GLIPHO BB 360 g/L SL 1 45 g ai/ha 8 HERB GLIPHO BB 360 g/L SL 1 90 g ai/ha 9 HERB GLIPHO BB 360 g/L SL 1 180 g ai/ha
10 HERB GLIPHO BB 360 g/L SL 1 360 g ai/ha 11 HERB GLIPHO BB 360 g/L SL 1 720 g ai/ha 12 HERB GLIPHO BC4 360 g/L SL 1 45 g ai/ha 13 HERB GLIPHO BC4 360 g/L SL 1 90 g ai/ha 14 HERB GLIPHO BC4 360 g/L SL 1 180 g ai/ha 15 HERB GLIPHO BC4 360 g/L SL 1 360 g ai/ha 16 HERB GLIPHO BC4 360 g/L SL 1 720 g ai/ha
Additional Treatment Information Type CHK = Check or Untreated HERB = Herbicide Treatment Name Untreated Check, , , = Not treated| Form Unit g/L = grams active ingredient per litre formulated product (same as ga/l) Form Type SL = soluble concentrate|Liquid|||A clear to opalescent liquid to be applied as a solution of the active ingredient after dilution in water. Rate Unit g AI/ha = Grams Active Ingredient per Hectare (US=g AI/A)|D Replications: 4, Untreated treatments: 1, Conduct under GLP/GEP: Yes (GEP with no protection), Design: NON Randomised, Treatment units: Treated 'Plot' experimental unit size, Dry Form. Unit: %, Treated 'Plot' experimental unit size Width: 1 meters, Treated 'Plot' experimental unit size Length: 1 meters, Application volume: 200 L/ha, Mix size: 40 mL, Format definitions: G-All7.def, G-All7.frm
Applications: 1 applications were carried out starting from BBCH 13-14. For details see the Application Description section in the present report.
Photo 1: GLIPHO REF dilution (3.6 g a.i/l) in comparison to BB and BC4 (same concentration)
GLIPHO BB
3,6 g a.i/l of water
GLIPHO BC4
3,6 g a.i/l of water
GLIPHO REF
3,6 g a.i/l of water
E01-16 Final report
Page 8 of 20
5.4 Assessment method The efficacy of the herbicide action on each weed species was estimated, using a rating scale from 0 to 100%, as follows:
- The % damaged plant surface was assessed (death, necrosis, size reduction, thinning etc.);
- Each treated plot was compared with the relative plant/weed population assessed in the untreated pot.
5.5 Statistical analysis Data from the assessments were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with software ARM 9.0 from Gylling Data Management. If consistent with the statistical distribution of data, data were automatically transformed as reported in the result tables. When Analysis of Variance (AOV) treatment was significant [P(F)≤0.05], differences between means were determined by the Duncan’s New MRT test at the Observed Significant Level (OSL) (P≤ 0.05).
E01-16 Final report
Page 9 of 20
6. Results and Conclusions 6.1 Efficacy on AMARE Table 1: Evaluation of efficacy on AMARE 3,7,14 and 21 DAT
Pest Type W Weed W Weed W Weed W WeedPest Code AMARE AMARE AMARE AMAREPest Scientific Name Amaranthus ret> Amaranthus ret> Amaranthus ret> Amaranthus ret>Pest Name Common amaranth Common amaranth Common amaranth Common amaranthPart Assessed PLANT C PLANT C PLANT C PLANT CAssessment Date Mar-11-2016 Mar-15-2016 Mar-22-2016 Mar-29-2016Assessment Type CONTRO CONTRO CONTRO CONTROAssessment Unit % % % %Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1SE Group No. 30 33 36 36Days After First/Last Applic. 3 3 7 7 14 14 21 21Trt-Eval Interval 3 7 14 21ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate No. Name Rate Unit 3 6 9 12
Pest Type W, Weed, G-BYRW7, G-WedStg = Weed or volunteer crop Pest Code AMARE, Amaranthus retroflexus, = IE Part Assessed PLANT = plant C = Crop is Part Rated Assessment Type CONTRO = control / burndown or knockdown Assessment Unit % = percent Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL.
E01-16 Final report
Page 10 of 20
Graph 1: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on AMARE at 3 days after treatment
Graph 2: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on AMARE at 21 days after treatment (at the end of the test).
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
RATE g a.i./ga
Efficacy on AMARE - 3 DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
Rate g a.i./ha
Efficacy on AMARE - 21 DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
E01-16 Final report
Page 11 of 20
Photo 2: Efficacy on AMARE (Amaranthus retroflexus) – 21DAA
UTC GLIPHO REF 360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO REF 720 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BB
360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BC4 360 g a.i/ha
E01-16 Final report
Page 12 of 20
6.2 Efficacy on ALOMY Table 2: Evaluation of efficacy on ALOMY 3,7,14 and 21 DAT
Pest Type W Weed W Weed W Weed W WeedPest Code ALOMY ALOMY ALOMY ALOMYPest Scientific Name Alopecurus myo> Alopecurus myo> Alopecurus myo> Alopecurus myo>Pest Name Blackgrass Blackgrass Blackgrass BlackgrassPart Assessed PLANT C PLANT C PLANT C PLANT CAssessment Date Mar-11-2016 Mar-15-2016 Mar-22-2016 Mar-29-2016Assessment Type CONTRO CONTRO CONTRO CONTROAssessment Unit % % % %Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1SE Group No. 25 31 34 34Days After First/Last Applic. 3 3 7 7 14 14 21 21Trt-Eval Interval 3 7 14 21ARM Action Codes AS Trt Treatment Rate No. Name Rate Unit 1 4 7 10
1Untreated Check 2GLIPHO REF 45g ai/ha 0.0 d 0.0g 0.0g 0.0f 3GLIPHO REF 90g ai/ha 0.0 d 0.0g 5.0fg 5.0ef 4GLIPHO REF 180g ai/ha 0.0 d 7.5fg 10.0ef 10.0de 5GLIPHO REF 360g ai/ha 1.3 cd 12.5f 15.0e 15.0d 6GLIPHO REF 720g ai/ha 6.3 bc 37.5d 47.5d 57.5b 7GLIPHO BB 45g ai/ha 3.4 cd 7.5fg 12.5ef 12.5de 8GLIPHO BB 90g ai/ha 6.3 bc 7.5fg 12.5ef 15.0d 9GLIPHO BB 180g ai/ha 12.2 ab 42.5cd 55.0c 57.5b
10GLIPHO BB 360g ai/ha 14.6 ab 72.5b 93.8a 97.5a 11GLIPHO BB 720g ai/ha 14.6 ab 80.0a 97.5a 100.0a 12GLIPHO BC4 45g ai/ha 0.0 d 10.0f 10.0ef 17.5d 13GLIPHO BC4 90g ai/ha 3.4 cd 12.5f 12.5ef 17.5d 14GLIPHO BC4 180g ai/ha 3.4 cd 25.0e 42.5d 47.5c 15GLIPHO BC4 360g ai/ha 14.6 ab 45.0c 80.0b 92.5a 16GLIPHO BC4 720g ai/ha 17.2 a 75.0ab 97.5a 98.8a
Pest Type W, Weed, G-BYRW7, G-WedStg = Weed or volunteer crop Pest Code ALOMY, Alopecurus myosuroides, = IE Part Assessed PLANT = plant C = Crop is Part Rated Assessment Type CONTRO = control / burndown or knockdown Assessment Unit % = percent ARM Action Codes AS = Automatic square root transformation of X+0.5 Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) t=Mean descriptions are reported in transformed data units, and are not de-transformed. Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL.
E01-16 Final report
Page 13 of 20
Graph 3: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on ALOMY at 3 days after treatment
Graph 4: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on ALOMY at 21 days after treatment (at the end of the test)
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
Rate g a.i./ha
Efficacy on ALOMY - 3 DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
Rate g a.i./ha
Efficacy on ALOMY - 21DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
E01-16 Final report
Page 14 of 20
Photo 3: Efficacy on ALOMY (Alopecurus myosuroides )– 21DAA
UTC GLIPHO REF 360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO REF 720 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BB
360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BC4 360 g a.i/ha
E01-16 Final report
Page 15 of 20
6.3 Efficacy on ECHCG
Table 3: Evaluation of efficacy on ECHCG 3,7,14 and 21 DAT
Pest Type W Weed W Weed W Weed W WeedPest Code ECHCG ECHCG ECHCG ECHCGPest Scientific Name Echinochloa c> Echinochloa c> Echinochloa c> Echinochloa c>Pest Name Junglerice Junglerice Junglerice JunglericePart Assessed PLANT C PLANT C PLANT C PLANT CAssessment Date Mar-11-2016 Mar-15-2016 Mar-22-2016 Mar-29-2016Assessment Type CONTRO CONTRO CONTRO CONTROAssessment Unit % % % %Number of Subsamples 1 1 1 1SE Group No. 26 32 35 35Days After First/Last Applic. 3 3 7 7 14 14 21 21Trt-Eval Interval 3 7 14 21ARM Action Codes Trt Treatment Rate No. Name Rate Unit 2 5 8 11
Pest Type W, Weed, G-BYRW7, G-WedStg = Weed or volunteer crop Pest Code ECHCG, Echinochloa crus-galli, = IE Part Assessed PLANT = plant C = Crop is Part Rated Assessment Type CONTRO = control / burndown or knockdown Assessment Unit % = percent Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL.
E01-16 Final report
Page 16 of 20
Graph 5: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on ECHCG at 3 days after treatment
Graph 6: Evaluation of efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to BB and BC4 on ECHCG at 21 days after treatment (at the end of the test)
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
Rate g a.i./ha
Efficacy on ECHCG - 3 DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
0
20
40
60
80
100
45 90 180 360 720
% E
ffic
acy
Rate g a.i./ha
Efficacy on ECHCG - 21 DAT
GLIPHO REF
GLIPHO BB
GLIPHO BC4
E01-16 Final report
Page 17 of 20
Photo 3: Efficacy on ECHCG (Echinochloa crus-galli)– 21DAA
UTC GLIPHO REF 360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO REF 720 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BB
360 g a.i/ha
GLIPHO BC4 360 g a.i/ha
E01-16 Final report
Page 18 of 20
6.4 Conclusions The trial was carried out in greenhouse to evaluate the efficacy of GLIPHO REF in comparison to two new formulations of same active ingredient, signed GLIPHO BB and GLIPHO BC4. For each product were tested 5 rate (45,90,180,360 and 720 g a.i./ha) and 4 replicates per thesis. These products were applied on three different weeds:
• one dicotyledonous plant: AMARE (Amaranthus retroflexus) • two monocotyledonous plants: ECHCG (Echinochloa crus-galli) and ALOMY
(Alopecurus myosuroides) The application was performed when the pants were at growth stage (BBCH13-14: 3-4 leaves unfolded). At 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after application the plants were observed in order to monitor their conditions and assess the efficacy. After 3 days there no differences in terms of speed of action and efficacy between GLIPHO REF and the other product on AMARE but the action of REF on monocots (ALOMY and ECHCH) seems to be less noticeable than BB and BC4. After 21 days were clear the dose response of tested product on the different weeds:
• AMARE: GLIPHO REF seems to be better than BB and BC4 only at lowest rate (45 and 90 g a.i./ha), instead at highest rate there no difference in terms of efficacy.
• ALOMY: the efficacy profile of BB and BC4 was the same for each thesis. The performance of BB and BC4 was higher than REF at all rate tested.
• ECHCG: the efficacy profile of BB and BC4 was the same for each thesis. The performance of BB and BC4 was higher than REF at all rate tested.
In conclusion, the efficacy profile of BB and BC4 is slightly better than the GLIPHO REF.