## REGISTRATION REVIEW

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSE SSMENT AND EFFECTS
DETERMINATION

Trinexapac

- Ethyl

CAS Number 95266

- 40

- 3

USEPA PC CODE 1 1 2 602

ethyl ( RS )

- 4

- cyclopropyl(hydroxyl)methylene

- 3,5

- dioxocyclohexanecarboxylate

Prepared by:

Meghan Radtke, Ph.D., Biologist Christopher Koper, M.S., Chemist
Environmental Risk Branch I

Reviewed by: Michael Lowitt, Ph.D., Biologist Faruque Khan, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Environmental Risk Branch I
Environmental Fate and Effects Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Environmental Risk Branch I 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460ii 

## Executive Summary

E.1 Nature of Stressor Trinexapac

- ethyl is a growth regulator /herbicide in the cyclohexane carboxylic acid class of chemicals. It is currently registered for the management of turf growth in warm and cool

season grasses , lodging prevention in cereals and grasses grown for seed, and internode shortening and harvest extension in sugarcane . Trinexapac

- ethyl reduces the growth of numerous types of turf grasses including bahiagrass, bermuda grass, bluegrass, red and tall fescue, and annual and perennial ryegrass for up to 8 weeks. It is taken up through the foliage and inhibits the biosynthesis of gibberellin

– a plant growth hormone. The free acid of trinexapac

- ethyl inhibits the hydroxylation of gibberellin 20 

### to gibberellin 1 

### by competitively inhibiting the regulatory enzyme 3

- hydroxylase, leading to a reduction in th e size of leaves
and stems.



## E.2 Assessment of Risk

E.2.1 Physico

- Chemical and Environmental Fate Properties Based on the results of a laboratory soil volatility study, trinexapac

- ethyl appears not to volatilize. This is supported by its low vapor pressu re (1.62 x 10 - 5 

### mm Hg at 25 o 

### C) (MRID 41604203) and Henry’s Law ( 5.27 x 10 - 10 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol)

.

Biodegradation is the major dissipation pathway for trinexapac

- ethyl, specifically aerobic
biotransformation in terrestrial environments and aerobic and anaerobic biotransformation in aquatic environments. Half

- lives ranged from 2.8 hours in a loam soil to 4.3 days in a loamy sand soil in an aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 46809303). Half

- lives ranged from 2.8 days in a river water

- sand sediment system to 4.0 days in a pond water

- sandy clay loam sediment system in an aerobic aquatic metabolism study (MRID 46809304). Total system
h alf

- lives averaged 3.5 days in a pond water

- sandy clay loam sediment system and 3.5 days
in a lake water

- loamy sand sediment system in an anaerobic aquatic metabolism study (MRID 48043712). Biodegradation was slower under anaerobic soil conditions. The
estimated half

- life is about 25 days in a sandy loam soil (MRID 41563933).

Trinexapac

- ethyl is stable to hydrolysis in acidic and ne utral conditions and hydrolyzes under basic conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 8.1 days; MRID 41563930). Photodegradation does not appear to be a major degradation pathway in aqueous and soil environments. The aqueous photolysis study shows an environmental phototransform ation half

- life of about 18 days (MRID 46809302). The compound was considered stable in the soil photolysis study since the extrapolated half

life was well beyond the duration of the study (MRID 42081406).

The major environmental degradates of trinexap ac

- ethyl include its free acid CGA

- 179500,
CGA

- 313458, an open chain cyclohexane ring, CO 2 

### and an unidentified hydroproduct M3. Trinexapac acid ’s (CGA

- 179500) maximum formation percentages of applied radioactivity occurred during hydrolysis at 91%, soil p hotolysis (52%), aerobic soil metabolism (44%), aerobic aquatic metabolism (71%) and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (88%). CGA

- 313458 maximum formation was 22% occurring in a hydrolysis study. The unidentified hydroproduct M3 maximum formation was 35% occu rring during a hydrolysis study. Theiii 

### open chain cyclohexane ring maximum formation was 12% occurring during a soil photolysis study. In addition, significant CO 2 

### formation (mineralization) occurred during the aqueous photolysis (20%), aerobic soil metabo lism (71%), aerobic aquatic metabolism (73%), and aerobic aquatic metabolism (85%) studies. Structures and MRID references can be found in Appendix C

.

The parent ester (including its free acid CGA

- 179500), CGA

- 313458, an open chain cyclohexane ring, an d an unidentified hydroproduct

– M3

– ) was included in a Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach as an upper bound estimate of risk ( i.e., i t was assumed that the degradates have similar toxicity as their parent

– trinexapac

- ethyl ) (Table s 4 and 5 )

.

Based on t he batch equilibrium data, adsorption of trinexapac

- ethyl (Koc = 60 to 635 ml/g
oc 

### ; MRID 41563936 and 41663937) is characterized as being mobile to moderately mobile in
the test soils 1 

### (FAO Classification). In addition, adsorption data for trinexapac acid (Koc = 144 to 609 mL/g
oc 

### ) is characterized as being moderately mobile in test soils. Terrestrial field dissipation data indicated that under typical use, the vast majority of the compound and its major metabolite, trinexapac acid, dissipate in the grass a nd thatch and sod layer by study termination. Following the final application, dissipation half

- lives were less than 3 days for trinexapac

- ethyl and ranged from 5.1 to 36.5 days for trinexapac

- acid (MRID 48043710, 48043711). It is important to note that this 36.5 day (dissipation) half

- life for the acid is longer than the 5.2 day 90 th 

### percentile TTR (degradation) half

- life modeled as the aerobic soil input parameter in this assessment. This may be from differences between laboratory (degradation) studies and field (dissipation) studies.

For trinexapac

- ethyl, the range of bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for edible tissue, non

edible tissue, and whole fish (from 2.5 to 11) indicate a low potential for bioconcentration in fish (MRID 41604207).

E.2.2 Ecolo gical Risk Conclusions

The specific taxa that may be at risk from trinexapac

- ethyl are dependent on the specific registered use. In general, registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl may affect and are likely to directly adversely affect birds, reptiles, and l and

- phase amphibians ( acute and chronic)

, terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial plants

. There were no risks identified for the cereals uses; however, direct effects were identified for the sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and
turf uses. Direct eff ects are not expected for other taxonomic groups.

Given that there are possible direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians

, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants, indirect effects to other organisms could occur. Indirect
effects could include changes to food, shelter, seed dispersal/pollination, or other alterations
of habitat.

1 USEPA. 2006. Standardized Soil Mobility Classification Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum. April 21, 2006.iv 

### A spray drift analysis indicated that risks to terrestrial invertebrates and birds, reptiles, and
land

- phase amphibians from ground and aerial applications o f trinexapac

- ethyl could be eliminated through the implementation of buffers ( 3 to 20 ft ) around their habitat for the sugarcane and grasses grown for seed uses

. Protective b uffers for the turf use range from 7
to 20 ft. The risk to plants is primarily d riven by runoff, hence spray drift buffers were not calculated for terrestrial plants. G enerally speaking, plant s farther from the use site will be exposed to less pesticide than those clos er, thus buffers may be a useful mitigation option for plants affe cted by runoff

.

Tables E.1

– E.2 list the potential direct and indirect effects to listed and non

- listed species, based on risk quotients exceeding the level of concern, as well as the organism group and size classes potentially at risk from the highest a pplication rate for each use of trinexapac

ethyl.

Table E.1. Potential direct effects to listed and non

- listed terrestrial organisms from exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl 1

Trinexapac

ethyl Listed Terrestrial Species Non

- Listed Terrestrial Species

Birds 2 Ma mmals Terr.
inverts Plants Birds 2 Mammals Terr.
inverts Plants

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Cereals (oat, wheat, barley, triticale) N N N N N N N N N N N N

Sugarcane Y (S) N N N Y Y N N N N N N

Grasses grown for
seed Y ( S) N N N Y Y N N N N N Y

Turf (0.34 lb ai/A) Y (S, M) N N N Y Y N N N N N N

Turf (0.68 lb ai/A) Y (S, M) Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y

Turf (1.36 lb ai/A) Y (S, M) Y N N Y Y Y (S) Y N N N Y

Turf ( 0.35 lb ai/A) granular Y (S) NC N N NC NC N NC N N NC NC

Turf ( 0.44 lb ai/A) granular Y (S) NC N N NC NC N NC N N NC NC

Turf ( 0.88 lb ai/A) granular Y (S ) NC N N NC NC Y (S) NC N N NC NCv 1 Y= Potential direct effects (RQ ≥ LOC); N = Potential direct effects not expected (RQ < LOC); S, M or L indicate which size class is potentially affected; S = small bird (20 g) or mammal (15 g); M = medium bird (100 g) or mammal (35 g); L = large bird (1000 g) or mammal (1000 g). For ma mmals, chronic size classes are for
dose

- based exposure only. Dietary

- based acute and chronic exposure for birds and mammals is not evaluated using body weights. RQ values were determined for these specific weights only, therefore, it is expected that

po tential direct effects may exist between two size classes in which the lower size class exceeded the LOC but the next size class did not. Therefore, for example, if small birds (20 g) exceeded the LOC but medium birds (100 g) did not, then potential direc t effects may exist for all birds less than 100 g at any life stage until can be
shown otherwise.

2 Birds are surrogates for terrestrial reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians. NC = RQs on an LD 50 /ft 2 basis were only calculated for birds and mammals for the granular applications because the exposure pathway is via consumption of individual granules.



### Table E.2. Potential direct effects to listed and non

- listed aquatic organisms from exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl 1

Trinexapac

- ethyl Listed and Non

- Listed Sp ecies

Freshwater Fish Estuarine/Marine
Fish Vascular Aquatic
Plants Freshwater
Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Cereals (oat, wheat, barley, triticale) N N N N N N N N N

Sugarcane N N N N N N N N N Grasses grown for seed N N N N N N N N N Turf (0.34 lb ai/A) N N N N N N N N N Turf (0.68 lb ai/A) N N N N N N N N N Turf (1.36 lb ai/A) N N N N N N N N N

1 Y= Potential direct effects; N = Potential direct effects not expected



## E.3 Uncertainties

Some data and other supporting information were not available to the Agency as it conducted the preliminary risk assessment for trinexapac

- ethyl. As such, certain assumptions were
made and conclusions were based on the information that was a vailable. For some taxa, this may have resulted in the use of overly conservative approaches for evaluating risk. EFED
has identified information it believes may help best resolve these uncertainties. Additional information may allow EFED to refine its risk conclusions for certain species. Below is a summary of the uncertainties associated with the risk assessment of trinexapac

- ethyl.

E.3.1 Ecotoxicity Data Gaps and Uncertainties There were several ecotoxicity endpoints fo r which data were not availab le

.

• Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1350. Data were not available for chronic effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates. In the absence of data, a n acute

to

- chronic ratio will be used in the registratio n review risk assessment

.

• Estua rine/Marine Fish (Chronic) OPPTS 850.140 0. Chronic data are not available for
the sheepshead minnow. A comparison of acute endpoints shows that freshwater fish are more sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl than estuarine/marine fish. Therefore, the
freshwater fish chronic toxicity value will be used as a protective surrogate for the estuarine/marine chronic toxicity value.vi 

### • Honeybee Oral Toxicity (Acute) OECD 213. Acute oral toxicity data are not available for the honeybee. As outlined in the Pollinator White Paper, this study is necessary to conduct a complete risk assessment on honeybees, which currently act as surrogates for terrestrial invertebrates. In the absence of these data, the results from the acute contact toxicity analysis were extrapolated to ac ute oral toxicity.

• Honeybee Larvae Toxicity Non

- Guideline. Larval toxicity information is not available for the honeybee. As outlined in the Pollinator White Paper, this study is necessary to conduct a complete risk assessment on honeybees, which current ly act as surrogates for terrestrial invertebrates. In the absence of these data, risk was assumed for terrestrial invertebrate larvae, based on the results of the acute contact toxicity analysis.

E.3.2 Mixture Toxicity There are several trinexapac

- e th yl products that contain paclo butrazol and/or flurprimidol as active ingredients. Both of these are also plant growth regulators and it is uncertain if there could be additional adverse effects on terrestrial plants from their use.

E.3.3 Fate Data Gaps Currently, there are no outstanding data requirements for trinexapac ethyl. However, aside from a hydrolysis and an adsorption/desorption study for trinexapac acid (CGA

- 179500)
there are no data available for the degradates of concern. A total toxic resi due (TTR) approach was employed for this assessment, including parent and major environmental degradates ( CGA

- 179500, CGA

- 313458, the open chain cyclohexane ring, and the unidentified hydroproduct M3 )

. This approach is expected to provide protective expos ure estimation for aquatic organisms exposed to the major degradates of trinexapac

- ethyl. It assumes that the degradates have equivalent fate and ecotoxicity properties as the parent

– a conservative assumption.

E.3.4 Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species Currently, a n incomplete database of life histories for each of the listed animals and pla nts is available for use by EFED. These life histories would include information such as body size at each life stage, food sources, relationships with othe r taxa, habitat, and reproductive habits. As such, conservative (protective) assumptions were made concerning the potential relationships between species in that each species was assumed to have a relationship with
the other taxa. This is assumed to be a n overestimation of the actual species that have a species dependant relationship.

E.3.5 Locations of Listed Species

T he specific occurrences of listed species are not known in most cases beyond the county

level. If the location of a species was not k nown in greater detail than the county level, the species was assumed to occur anywhere within that county at any time. Likewise, crop location data are also uncertain. Crops may rotate every year and some spatial datasets combine several crop types, mak ing it impossible to distinguish one crop from another. Data layers for turf are not available and could not be incorporated into the assessment. Further, timing may play a role in the location of species and whether it overlaps with the time that a
part icular crop is in a field. These assumptions may lead to an overestimation of co

-vii 

### occurrence with trinexapac

- ethyl exposure and overestimation of the number of species potentially at risk.viii 

## Table of Contents

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Purpose of Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12
Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13
Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ............................. 14
Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ..................... 14
Mechanism of Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 14 Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage

................................ ................................ .................... 14 Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ .................. 18 Summary of Enviro nmental Fate

................................ ................................ ............................ 18 Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 20 Effects to Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20
Incident Da tabase Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21 Data Gaps Identified

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 22 Risk Hypothesis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 24 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypothesis and Conceptual Model

................................ ....... 24
Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 24 Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ ....................... 25 Analysis of Co

- occurance of Federally Listed Species with Trinexapac

- ethyl

...................... 25 Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 27 Aquatic Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ............................ 27 Monitoring Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Aquatic Exposure Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ 27
TIER II PRZM/EXAMS Model

................................ ................................ .............................. 28 Aquatic Exposure Modeling Results

................................ ................................ ................... 33 Dietary

- Ba sed Trinexapac

- Ethyl Residue Levels

................................ ............................ 35
Off

- Field Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plant Trinexapac

- Ethyl Exposure

.............. 40
Effects Cha racterization

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 43 Terrestrial Vertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ ....................... 43
Effects on Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 43
Effects on Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 44 Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ .................... 45 Aquatic Vertebrate (Fish) Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................ 46 Effects to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians

................................ ........... 46
Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Fish

................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ ........................ 48
Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................. 48
Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Invertebrate s

................................ ................................ ....... 48 Terrestrial Plant Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................................ 50 Aquatic Plant Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 51
Results: Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ 53
Risk Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 53
Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Vertebrates

................................ ...................... 53ix 

### Direct Effects to Birds, Reptiles, and (land

- phase) Amphibians

................................ ..... 53
Direct Effects to Mammals

................................ ................................ ............................ 57 6
Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ .................... 57 Direct Effects to Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plants

................................ .............. 57 Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish (Amphibians), Invertebrates and Estuarine

- Marine Fish (Amphibians) and Invertebrates, and Aquatic Plants

................................ .............. 59 Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values a nd Acute RQ Values

......................... 66 Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 67 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians

................................ ............... 67
Direct Effects to Terrestrial Mammals

................................ ................................ ................... 70
Direct Effects to Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ............... 71
Direct Effects to Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ .......................... 72 Direct Effects to Aquatic Fish, Invertebrates, and Plants

................................ ....................... 74 Listed Species Effects A nalysis

................................ ................................ ....................... 76
Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 81
Effects Area Determination

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 81
Uncertai nties

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 85
Effects and Risk Assessment Uncertainties

................................ ................................ ........ 85 Ecotoxicity Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 85 Mixture Toxicity......

.............................................................................. 85 Fate Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 85 Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species

................................ ................................ .... 86 Locations of Listed Species

................................ ................................ ............................. 86 Other Routes of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ 86 Foliar Dissipation Half

- life

................................ ................................ .............................. 86 Species Sensitivity

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 87 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

................................ ........................... 87 Spatial Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 87
References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 89 Appendix A

– Bibliography of MRIDs

................................ ................................ .................. 95 Appendix B

– Total Toxic Residue (TTR) Calculations

................................ ........................ 95 Appendix C

– Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Its Major and Minor Degradates

................................ 106 Appendix D

– ECOTOX Literature Search

................................ ................................ .......... 109 Appendix E

– SIP and STIR Model Output

................................ ................................ .......... 13 5 Appendix F

– Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern

................................ .............. 138 Appendix G

– Surface Water Model Results and Sample Input and Outputs

...................... 140 Appendix H

– TerrPlant Output

................................ ................................ ............................ 141 Appendix I

– T

- REX Output

................................ ................................ ................................ . 143 Appendix J

– Listed Species Analysis

................................ ................................ .................. 143x 

## List of Abbreviated T erms and Symbols

@ symbol for “at”

% symbol for “percent”

> symbol for “greater than”

< symbol for “less than” μg/L symbol for “micrograms per liter”
oC symbol for “degrees Celsius”
ai active ingredient
Acc# accession number

BEAD Biological and Eco nomical Analysis Division
bw body weight
CI confidence interval
CL confidence limit

DP# data package
EC emulsifiable concentrate
EC 25 

### 25% effect concentration
EC 50 

### 50% (or median) effect concentration
ECOTOX EPA managed database
EEC estimated environmental concentration

EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division

e.g

. Latin exempli gratia (“for example”)
et al. Latin et alii (“and others”)

etc. Latin et cetera (“and the rest” or “and so forth”)
FESTF FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force

FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
ft feet

g gram GENEEC Generic Estimated Exposure Concentration model
IC 50 

### 50% (or median) inhibition concentration

i.e

. Latin for id est (“that is”)
IMS info rmation management system Kg kilogram(s)

Km kilometer(s)

K
oc 

### symbol for the organic carbon partitioning coefficient

LAA likely to adversely affect
Lbs pounds
lb ai/A pound(s) of active ingredient per acre
LC 50 

### 50% (or median) lethal concentration

LD 50 

### 50% (or median) lethal dose
LOAEC lowest observable adverse effect concentration
LOAEL lowest observable adverse effect level
LOC level of concern
LOD level of detection
LOEC lowest observable effect concentration

K ow 

### symbol for the octan ol water partitioning coefficientxi 

### LOQ level of quantitation
LUIS label use information system

m meter(s)
MA may affect

mg milligram(s) mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (equivalent to ppm, except in the case of discussing dose such as mg/kg

- bw) mg/L mi lligrams per liter (equivalent to ppm)
mi mile(s)

MM may modify primary constituent element
MM/NSF may modify primary constituent element/no shapefile mmHg millimeter of mercury

MRID master record identification number

MW molecular weight
NASS Nat ional Agricultural Statistics Service NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NE no effect
NLAA not likely to adversely affect
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEC no observable adverse effect concentration
NOAEL no observable adverse effect level
NOEC no observable effect concentration
OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Subst ances pH symbol for the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, dimensionless pKa symbol for the negative logarithm of the acid dissociation constant, dimensionless ppb parts per billion (equivalent to μg/L or μg/kg)

ppm parts per million (equivalent to mg/L or mg/kg)
SLUA screening level usage analysis
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geol ogical Survey

Wt weight12 

# Introduction

Purpose of Assessment The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of trinexapac

- ethyl ’s registered uses on federally listed endangered and threatened (“listed”) species and all other

non

- targe t plant and animal (“non

- listed”) species. This risk assessment incorporates the available effects data, modeling, and risk methodologies, some of which may not have been available at the time when previous trinexapac

- ethyl registration actions occurred. Risks
from direct and indirect effects are derived and evaluated in accordance with the risk assessment methodology described in the Agency’s Overview Document (USEPA, 2004). These risk findings are then used as part of an “effects determination” for lis ted species. The Agency will reach one of the following three conclusions regarding the potential for the registered trinexapac

- ethyl use on food crops and turf to affect federally listed species:

• “No effect”

• “May affect, but not likely to adversely aff ect”

• “May affect, and likely to adversely affect”

If the results of the risk assessment show no indirect effects and the levels of concern (LOC) are not exceeded for direct effects for a given listed species taxonomic grouping ( e.g ., freshwater fish, sma ll herbivorous mammal), a “no effect” determination is made, based on trinexapac

- ethyl ’ s use within the action area for a “species” with in the given taxonomic group. If, however, there is a potential for indirect effects and/or exposure exceeds the listed species LOC values for direct effects for a given group, the Agency conc ludes a preliminary “may affect species” within the taxonomic group. The Agency then considers additional lines of evidence such as the geographical nature of the exposure, as well a s more in

- depth evaluations of the toxicological and ecological requirements to determine a rationale for a “not likely to adversely affect” or “likely to adversely affect” determination.

Similarly

, the Agency will reach one of the following conclusions r egarding the potential for trinexapac

- ethyl uses to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat:

• “No effect”

• “ May Modify Primary Constituent Elements”

The Agency uses the risk assessment analysis for direct effects to categories o f biological resource requirements to draw conclusions about effects to principle constituent elements of critical habitat. The Agency is limited in a practical sense to those principle constituent elements of critical habitat that are of a biological nat ure. If the results of the risk assessment
show that no LOC is exceeded for all taxo nomic groups a “no effect” determination for
habitat modification is made. If a n LOC is exceeded for one or more taxonomic groupings the Agency then considers additional lines of evidence such as direct effects to the species, the type and degree of effect on the taxonomic groupings, expected resultant effects on biologically mediated environmental processes ( e.g ., increased sedimentation from loss of vegetation) as compar ed to baseline environmental conditions, co

- occurrence of the action13 

### area with critical habitat, the type of principle constituent elements associated with critical habitat for listed species in a taxonomic grouping to determine a rationale for a “may modi f y primary constituent elements.”



## Problem Formulation

The problem formulation for this assessment and effects determination was provided in the USEPA Registration Review

– EFED Problem Formulation for Trinexapac

- Ethyl Registration Review May 20 , 200 8 doc ument (D351403) . Data were requested for two

s tudies; classifications after EFED evaluation are listed in parentheses:

• 835.6100

– Terrestrial field dissipation (“ supplemental ” classification)

• 850. 2100

– Avian acute oral study with a passerine species (“a cceptable” classification)

All submitted studies for trinexapac

- ethyl are listed in the MRID bibliography in Appendix
A.

There were two modifications to the risk assessment process originally proposed in the problem formulation.

• Registrations for wheat, oats, barley, and sugarcane were added to the trinexapac

ethyl

. In addition, the grasses grown for seed local registrations were expanded to the
national level. These were added to the uses assessed in this risk assessment.

• A Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach was ad o pted for the parent ester, including its
free acid CGA

- 179500, CGA

- 313458, an open chain cyclohexane ring, and an unidentified hydroproduct

– M3

– based on recommendations from the Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee (ROCKS) of EPA’s Health Effects Division (HED) (D390121). This decision document was based on EFED’s ROCKS memorandum (D389767) submitted to HED for review. Given that toxicity data (EPA holdings) were not available for the degradates and ECOSAR was not a reliable predictor of endpoints for the parent , the TTR approach was adopted to provide a high end estimate of the risks to aquatic organisms. A more refined approach could then be adopted if aquatic risks were identified.

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide , and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). To determine whether a pesticide can be registered, the USEPA evaluates its s afety to non

- target species based on a wide range of environmental and health effects studies. In 1996, FIFRA was amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and EPA was mandated to implement a new program for the periodic review of pesticides, i.e ., registration review 2 

### . The registration review program is intended to ensure that as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable

2 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1 /registration_review/14 

### adverse ef fects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs, pr oducts in the marketplace can be used safely.

Previous Risk Assessments
The most recent completed screening level risk assessment for use on cereals, sugarcane, and grasses grown for seed (USEPA 2011a, DP Barcode 377923 sub 387340) identified direct
risks to terrestrial plants (monocots and dicots) . Indirect risks were assumed for all listed taxa because of their potential dependence on terrestrial plants for survival. These
conclusions are different than those identified in this risk assessment because turf is considered in this risk assessment and the risk assessment process for terrestrial inver tebrates has changed (USEPA 2012 ). In addition, the Agency received acute data for passerine birds with a lower endpoint than the data that were available for the last risk assessment.

Stressor Source and Distribution

M ECHANISM OF A CTION 

### Trinexapac

- ethyl is a systemic plant growth regulator that is used to slow the growth of turfgrasses by 40 to 60 percent over a 4 to 8 week period. It is a cyclohexadione pl ant growth regulator that inhibits gibberellic acid biosynthesis and is absorbed by plant foliage. Gibberellic acid is necessary for cellular elongation during a plant’s growth period. The free acid of trinexapac

- ethyl inhibits the hydroxylation of gibbe rellin 20 

### to gibberellin 1 

### by competitively inhibiting the regulatory enzyme 3

- hydroxylase. The lack of gibberellic acid causes plants to have shortened internode lengths and shorter cell lengths, thereby reducing the overall length of leaves and stolons. The slower plant growth induced by the application trinexapac

- ethyl is temporary and at normal application rates, plants usually resume regular growth approximately 8 weeks after application.

O VERVIEW OF P ESTICIDE U SE AND U SAGE 

### Trinexapac

- ethyl is a plant growth regulator that is currently registered for application to turf, wheat, barley, oats, triticale, sugarcane, and grasses grown for seed. For turf, it alters growth habit to form more compact plants. For the other uses, it reduces lodging (cereal gr ains and grasses grown for seed )

, promotes ripening, shortens the internode for seed piece production

, and increases/maintains the sugar content in sugarcane. Registered application methods for trinexapac

- ethyl are chemigation and broadcast (aerial and gr ound) . Thirteen different companies currently have registered products with trinexapac

- ethyl product concentrations ranging from 0 .15 to 25.5 percent . Forms include emulsifiable concentrate, granular, liquid,
micro

- encapsulated, and wettable powder (Tabl es 1 and 2).

Trinexapac

- ethyl was first registered in 1993 for the management of warm and cool season turfgrasses. Specific usage data are not available for trinexapac

- ethyl. Most of registrations
are for turf ( e.g ., lawns, golf courses, edging along sidewalks, flowerbeds) . Wheat, barley, oats, triticale, and sugarcane were added to the label in 2012 as the first food use. At the same time, the grasses grown for seed registration, which was formerly only for Wisconsin, Minnesota, Idaho, and Oregon, w as expanded to include the entire United States.15 

### Table 1 . C urrent r egistrations for trinexapac

- e thyl

Product Name Registrant EPA Registration #

(latest label date) Active Ingredient

(% w/w) Form Use(s)

Trinexapac

- Ethyl

T echnic al Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 727 (2/17/12) 97 Technical
chemical Cool and warm season turfgrasses, seed, wheat, barley, oats, sugarcane

Primo L iquid Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 729 (11/27/09) 12 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Primo WSB Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 752 (10/20/03) 25 Wettable powder Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Lawn Primo G Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 930 (9/3/10) 1 Granular Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Lawn Primo F Syngenta Crop

P rotection 100

- 931 (9/7/10) 1 Granular Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Primo Maxx Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 937 (11/21/09) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Palisade EC Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 949 (1/28/13) 12 Emulsif iable

concentrate Grasses grown for seed, wheat, oat

sugarcane

Palisade 2EC Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 1241 (1/28/13) 25.5 Emulsifiable

concentrate Grasses grown for seed, wheat, oat

sugarcane Trinexapac

- Ethyl 1

ME Syngenta Crop
Protection 100

- 1401 (3/18/11) 11.3 Micro

encapsulated Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Nufarm T

- PAC SPC
MEC Plant Growth Regulator Nufarm Americas 228

- 635 (12/18/09) 11.3 Emusifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

T

- PAC E

- P RO EC
Plant Growth

Regulator Nufarm Americas 228

- 648 (1/4/07) 12 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

The Anderson s 0.15% Trinexapac

Ethyl + Fertilizer The Andersons
Lawn Fertilizer
Division 9198

- 245 (5/8/09) 0.15 Granular Cool and wa rm season turfgrass es

The Andersons 0.39% Trinexapac

Ethyl + Fertilizer The Andersons
Lawn Fertilizer
Division 9198

- 246 (3/16/09) 0.39 Granular Cool and warm season turfgrass es

LPI T

- Pack MEC

Plant Growth

Regulator Loveland
Products 34704

- 1005 (7/22/10) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrass es

Trinexapac

- Ethyl
Technical Nufarm Limited 35935

- 66 (11/25/09) 98 Technical
chemical Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Quali

- Pro T

- NEX 1 AQ Makhteshim Agan
of North America 66222

- 212 (1/6/11) 1 1.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

SP5075 Turf Growth Regulator Sepro Corporation 67690

- 46 (9/1/11) 5
13.26 (flurprimidol) Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

SP5114 Sepro Corporation 67690

- 56 (1/5/12) 3.5

7 (paclobutrazol) Soluble

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

SP5411 Sepro Corporation 67690

- 57 (11/2/11) 1.4
5.6 (paclobutrazol)
5.6 (flurprimidol) Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

GoldWing United Phosphorus 70506

- 259 (10/14/10) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Provair PGR Prokoz 72112

- 11 (4/6/10) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses16 Product Name Registrant EPA Registration #

(latest label date) Active Ingredient

(% w/w) Form Use(s)

Groom PGR Advan 83070

- 4 (9/22/09) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm se ason turfgrasses

Trinexapac

- Ethyl
Technical Celsius Property B. V., Amsterdam 83558

- 31 (7/17/09) 97 Technical
chemical Cool and warm season turfgrasses

Armor Tech PGR 113
MC United Turf
Alliance 86064

- 3 (6/24/09) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and wa rm season turfgrasses

Trin

- Pac Select Prime Source 89442

- 7 (1/4/13) 11.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cool and warm season turfgrasses17 

### Table 2. Use and application rate i nformation for trinexapac

- e thyl

Crop Maximum Application
Rate Application
Method Maxi mum Number of Applications
and Shortest Application

Interval (weeks ) Reg. # 1

Cool and warm season turfgrasses Single max =
0.34 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
2.72 lb ai/A Ground
broadcast

Chemigation 8

4 weeks 100

- 727, 100

- 729,
100

- 752, 100

- 930,
100

- 931, 100

- 93 7,
100

- 1401, 228

- 635,
228

- 648, 9198

- 245,
9198

- 246, 34704

- 1005, 35935

- 66,
66222

- 212, 67690

- 46,
67690

- 56, 67690

- 57,
70506

- 259, 72112

- 11,

83070

- 4, 83558

- 31,
86064

- 3, 89442

- 7 Single max =
0.68 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
2.72 lb ai/A 4

8 weeks

Single max =
1.36 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
2.72 lb ai/A 2

8 weeks

Single max =
0.35 lb ai/A

Yearly max = 2.4
lb ai/A Granular
broadcast 8

4 weeks 2 100

- 937

Single max =
0.44 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
2.72 lb ai/A 2 8

4 weeks 9198

- 245, 9198

- 246

Single max =
0.88 lb ai/A

Yearly max = 2.5
lb ai/A 8

4 weeks 100

- 930

Grasses grown for seed Single max = 0.5
lb ai/A

Yearly max = 0.5
lb ai/A Ground or
aerial broadcast 1

N/A 100

- 949, 100

- 1241

Wheat, barley, oats, triticale Single max =
0.11 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
0.11 lb ai/A Ground or
aerial broadcast

Chemigation 1

N/A 100

- 949, 100

- 1241

Sugarcane Single max =
0.31 lb ai/A

Yearly max =
0.31 lb ai/A Ground or
aerial broadcast

Chemigation 1

N/A 100

- 949, 100

- 124118 Crop Maximum Application
Rate Application
Method Maxi mum Number of Applications
and Shortest Application

Interval (weeks ) Reg. # 1

N/A

- not applicable

1 Application rates represent ma ximum application rate for a least one of the EPA Reg. # listed. Other labels may have slightly different application rates.

2 Assumed based on similar labels



### Environmental Fate and Transport
S UMMARY OF E NVIRONMENTAL F ATE



### Based on the results of a labor atory soil volatility study, trinexapac

- ethyl appears not to volatilize. This is supported by its low vapor pressure (1.62 x 10 - 5 

### mm Hg at 25 o 

### C) (MRID 41604203) and Henry’s Law ( 5.27 x 10 - 10 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol) constants (calculated from water solubility, vapor p ressure and molecular weight) (Table 3).

Based on the batch equilibrium data, adsorption of trinexapac

- ethyl (Koc = 60 to 635 ml/g
oc 

### ; MRID 41563936 and 41663937) is characterized as being mobile to moderately mobile in
the test soils 3 

### (FAO Classification) . In addition, adsorption data for trinexapac acid (Koc = 144 to 609 mL/g
oc 

### ) is characterized as being moderately mobile in test soils. Terrestrial field dissipation data indicated that under typical use, the vast majority of the compound and its major m etabolite, trinexapac acid, dissipate in the grass and thatch and sod layer by study termination. Following the final application, dissipation half

- lives were less than 3 days for trinexapac

- ethyl and ranged from 5.1 to 36.5 days for trinexapac

- acid (MRID 48043710, 48043711). It is important to note that this 36.5 day (dissipation) half

- life for the acid is longer than the 5.2 day 90 th 

### percentile TTR (degradation) half

- life modeled as the aerobic soil input parameter in this assessment. This may be from differences between laboratory (degradation) studies and field (dissipation) studies.

Trinexapac

- ethyl is stable to hydrolysis in acidic and neutral conditions and hydrolyzes under basic conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 8.1 days; MRID 41563930). After further review, t he neutral pHs of environmental compartments in the soil and aquatic metabolism studies suggest microbial

mediated hydrolysis. Photodegradation does not appear to be a major degradation pathway in aqueous and soil environments. The aqueous photolysis stu dy shows an environmental phototransformation half

- life of about 18 days (MRID 46809302). The compound was considered stable in the soil photolysis study since the extrapolated half

- life was well beyond the duration of the study (MRID 42081406).

Biodeg radation appears to be the major dissipation pathway for trinexapac

- ethyl, specifically
aerobic biotransformation in terrestrial environments and aerobic and anaerobic

3 USEPA. 2006. Standardized Soil Mobility Classification Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum. April 21, 2006.19 

### biotransformation in aquatic environments. Half

- lives ranged from 2.8 hours in a loam s oil to 4.3 days in a loamy sand soil in an aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 46809303).
Half

- lives ranged from 2.8 days in a river water

- sand sediment system to 4.0 days in a pond

water

- sandy clay loam sediment system in an aerobic aquatic metabolism st udy (MRID 46809304). Half

- lives averaged 3.5 days in pond water and lake water

- sediment systems in an anaerobic aquatic metabolism study (MRID 48043712).

Biodegradation was slower under anaerobic soil conditions. The estimated half

- life is about
25 da ys in a sandy loam soil (MRID 41563933).

For trinexapac ethyl, the range of bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for edible tissue, non

edible tissue, and whole fish (from 2.5 to 11) indicate a low potential for bioconcentration in fish (MRID 41604207).

The m ajor environmental degradates of trinexapac

- ethyl include its free acid CGA

- 179500,
CGA

- 313458, an open chain cyclohexane ring, CO 2 

### and an unidentified hydroproduct M3. Trinexapac acid’s (CGA

- 179500) maximum formation percentages occurred during hydrolysi s at 91%, soil photolysis (52%), aerobic soil metabolism (44%), aerobic aquatic metabolism (71%) and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (88%). CGA

- 313458 maximum formation was 22% occurring in a hydrolysis study. The unidentified hydroproduct M3
maximum format ion was 35% occurring during a hydrolysis study. The open chain cyclohexane ring maximum formation was 12% occurring during a soil photolysis study. In addition, significant CO 2 

### formation (mineralization) occurred during the aqueous photolysis (20%), aer obic soil metabolism (71%), aerobic aquatic metabolism (73%), and aerobic aquatic metabolism (85%) studies. Structures and MRID refere nces can be found in Appendix C

.

The parent ester (including its free acid CGA

- 179500), CGA

- 313458, an open chain cycl ohexane ring, and an u nidentified hydroproduct

– M3) was included in a Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach (Table 4) for this risk assessment. It is important to note that the TTR approach is used to estimate aquatic exposure. EECs were not calculated for any of the major degradates for trinexapac

- ethyl because toxicity data were not available. It was assumed that the degradates have similar toxicity as their parent

– trinexapac

- ethyl.

Table 3

. Physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties for t rinexapa c
- e thyl

Property Value Comment Source
Molecular Mass (g/mol) 252.3

-- MRID 41604201

Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 1.62 x 10 - 5



### -- MRID 41604203

Henry’s Law Constant (atm

- m 3 

### /mol) 5.27 x 10 - 10 

### calculated K H 

### = (vapor pressure * molecular weight ) / (760* water solubility)


### Solubility in Water (mg/L at 25o) 2800
10200
21100 at pH 4.9 at pH 5.5 at pH 8.2 MRID 4160420320 

### Property Value Comment Source
Organic Carbon
Partition Coefficient (K OC 

### ) (L/kg OC 

### ) 60 to 635 (ethyl) 144 to 609 (acid) range of values MRID 41663936
MRID 41663937

Aerobic Soil
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 2.8 hours
9.6 hours 4.3 days individual values MRID 46809303

Anaerobic Soil
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 25 sandy loam soil MRID 41563933

Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 2.8
4.0 individual values MRID 46809304

Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 3.5 average value in pond
water and lake water

sediment systems MRID 48043712

Hydrolysis Half

- lives (days) Stable
8.1 pH 7 pH 9 (alkaline

- based) MRID 41563930
MRID 46809301

Aqueous Photolys is
Half

- life (days) 18 environmental phototransformation
half

- life MRID 46809302

Soil Photolysis
Half

- life (days) stable extrapolated half

- life is well beyond the duration of the study MRID 42081406

Terrestrial Field Dissipation (days) < 3 (ethyl)
5.1 to 36.5 (acid) ethyl and acid values MRID 48043710
MRID 48043711

Receptors
E FFECTS TO O RGANISMS



### Registrant Submitted Studies for Trinexapac

- Ethyl The registrant(s) have submitted a number of studies in support of trinexapac

- ethyl new use registrations a nd registration review that are considered scientifically soun d for use in risk assessments. Studies are available for freshwater fish (acute and chronic), estuarine/marine fish (acute), freshwater invertebrates (acute and chronic), estuarine/marine inver tebrates (acute), non

- vascular aquatic plants, vascular aquatic plants, birds (acute and chronic), mammals (acute and chronic), honeybee (acute contact ), and terrestrial plants (monocots and dicots).

Open Literature Studies Open literature studies from th e ECOTOX database were reviewed for inclusion in the risk assessment. Studies were screened to determine if they provided information about species for which EFED does not usually receive information, or lower toxicity endpoints than21 

### registrant

- submitted studies. Several studies on fungi (a taxon for which information is not available) and several studies on grass (lower monocot toxicity endpoints) were identified
and reviewed

. All of the ECOTOX papers that were not used and rationales for exclusion are listed in Appendix D

.

Some aquatic toxicity data for the degradates were available in the European Footprint Database ( http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm ). These data we re not used in the risk assessment because the TTR analysis yielded high end EECs that did not exceed the LOC for aquatic species. Consequently, there was no reason to further refine the assessment
with these data.

I NCIDENT D ATABASE R EVIEW 

### Incident datab ases were searched on May 16, 2013. A review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1.1), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, the Aggregate Summary Module of OPP’s Incident Database, and the
Avian Moni toring Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, was conducted for trinexapac

- ethyl

.

Neither the EIIS nor the AIMS database identified any adverse ecological incidents involving trinexapac

- ethyl. Although incident r eporting is required under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2), the absence of reports in EIIS does not indicate that the chemical has no effects on wildlife; rather, it is possible that incidents have gone unreported. T wo incidents were documented in the Ag gregate Inc ident Report . One incident was reported as a minor fish and wildlife incident and involved Primo Liquid between 7/1/00 and 9/30/00. The other was reported as a minor plant incident and involved Palisade EC between 11/1/03 and 10/31/04. No other
informat ion was available.

D ATA G APS I DENTIFIED 

### The following toxicity data gaps have been identified:

• OPPTS 850.1350

- Chronic Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Toxicity Test

• OPPTS 850.1400

- Chronic Estuarine/Marine Fish Toxicity Test

• OECD 213

- Acute Oral Honeybee T oxicity Test

• Non

- Guideline

- Honeybee Larvae Toxicity Test

These data were not identified as gaps in the trinexapac

- ethyl problem formulation. At that
time the terrestrial invertebrate assessment for pesticides was conducted only using the acute

contact L D 50 

### ; acute oral data for adult honeybees and toxicity data for larval bees are a result of the Pollinator White Paper (USEPA 2012). For the chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate gap, the problem formulation proposed using an acute

- to

- chronic ratio to fill in the gap. However, th e freshwater acute daphnid data is non

- definitive; acute

- to

- chronic ratio s are generally not calculated with non

- definitive endpoints

. T his assessment also explores
ECO SAR toxicity estimates and surrogate chemicals to represent th is endpoint. For the chronic estuarine/marine fish data gap, the problem formulation proposed that estuarine/marine fish were less sensitive on an acute basis than freshwater fish. Therefore,
the freshwater fish acute data could be adopted as an appropri ate surrogate.22 E COSYSTEMS P OTENTIALLY AT R ISK 

### The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope, and as a result it may not be possible to be specific at the screening level. Trinexapac

- ethyl is registered on food item s (wheat, oat, barley, and sugarca ne) and non

- food items (grasses grown for seed and turf )

. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the areas next to treated fields, plantations, roadsides, fencerows, equipment storage areas, paved areas , golf courses, a nd
lawns

. Affected eco systems could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats and other uncultivated

areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacen t to or downstream from the treated area and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems and estuaries.

A ll of the agricultural uses apply trinexapac

- ethyl as a foliar spray (ground or aerial) to vegetation. The turf use can be applied as a spray or broadcast treatment. Given the widespread distribution of golf courses, lawns, and other turf

- covered areas, it is expected
that trinexapac

- ethyl applications could occur in most areas of the United States.

Conceptual Model For a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pat hway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of

exposure.

The conceptual model (Figures 1 and 2) depicts the potential pathways for ecological risk
associated with trinexapac

- ethyl (including its four major degradates) use. The conceptual model provide s an overview of the expected exposure routes for organisms within the trinexapac

- ethyl action area. For terrestrial organisms, the major route of exposure considered is the dietary route; consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that
hav e trinexapac

- ethyl residues as a result of spraying and drift . Exposure through inhalation is unlikely given trinexapac

- ethyl’s low vapor pressure and the results of EFED’s Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v. 1.0). EFED’s Sc reening Imbibition Pro gram (SIP v. 1.0) indicated that drinking water exposure alone is a potential concern for birds or mammals (acute and chronic exposures) (Appendix E).

For aquatic animal species, the major routes of exposure are considered to be via the respiratory surf ace (gills) or the integument.

Direct contact and/or root uptake is the major route of exposure for terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants, while aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption. Estimated exposure concentrations for all organisms are obtained through the use of several Agency exposure models.23 ** Route of exposure includes only ingestion of fish and aquatic invertebrates Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Trinexapac

- Ethyl ( and Degradates) Applications for All Registered Uses

Spray drift

Aquatic animals
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
**Piscivorous mammals
and birds

Individual organisms
Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in algae and

vascular plants Reduction in prey
Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover Community change
Modification of PCEs related to

habitat Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals
Invertebrates
Vertebrates Exposure
Media

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Atmospheric transport

Wet/dry deposition Soil Leaching to
Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic Plants
Non

- vascular
Vascular Uptake/cell, roots, leaves Riparian plants
terrestrial

exposure pathways see

Figure 2



### Figure 1. Conceptual model for the aquatic effects of trinexapac

- ethyl applications. Dotted lines indicate the pathway is not expected to be signi ficant.

Stressor

Source

Attribute Change Trinexapac

- Ethyl (and Degradates) Applications for All Registered Uses

Direct application Spray drift

Terrestrial
vertebrates Terrestrial

Inverts

Individual organisms
Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey and food
Modification of PCEs related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover Community change
Modification of PCEs related

to habitat Terrestrial plants grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds (trees, shrubs) Runoff

Terrestrial
vertebrates Exposure Media & Receptors Soil

Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion Atmospheric transport

Root uptake/contact

Wet/dry deposition

Ingestion Leaching to
Groundwater Irrigation

water



### Figure 2. Conceptual model for the terrestrial effects of trinexapac

- ethyl applications.

Risk Hypothesis

For trinexapac

- ethyl and its degradates, the following ecological risk hypotheses are being
tested in this baseline risk assessment:24 

### Terrestrial Environment

• Exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl and degradate residues on insects, seeds, foliage, and other plant parts from direct deposition or spray drift from the labeled use of the pesticide has the potential to cau se reduced survival, growth and reproduction to terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial

- phase amphibians) and
terrestrial invertebrates.

• 

### Exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl and degradate residues on foliage, roots, or other plant parts fro m spray drift alone or from runoff from labeled use of the pesticide has the potential to result in reduced survival and biomass to upland plants and riparian/wetland plants in areas adjacent to a treated area.

Aquatic Environment

• Exposure to trinexapa c

- ethyl and degradate residues in water from spray drift or runoff from the labeled uses of the herbicide has the potential to cause reduced survival, growth and reproduction to aquatic invertebrates, fish, and plants (vascular
and non

- vascular) in surface waters adjacent to a treated area.

Analysis Plan In registration review, pesticide ecological risk assessments will follow the Agency’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment and will be in compliance with the paper entitled “Overview of the Ecologica l Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency” (USEPA 2004).

The focus of an ecological risk assessment is on both the toxic effects of a pesticide to non

target organisms and the potential routes of t he pesticide’s exposure to non

- target organisms. In addition to addressing a pesticide’s toxic effects and potential routes of exposure, an ecological risk assessment addresses the uncertainties associated with a pesticide’s risk to

non

- target organisms.

M EASURES TO E VALUATE THE R ISK H YPOTHESIS AND C ONCEPTUAL M ODEL 

### Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that predict estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of trinexapac

- ethyl using maximum labeled application
rates and metho ds of application. The model used to predict aquatic EECs is the PRZM [ P esticide R oot Z one M odel (PRZM v3.12.2)] and EXAMS [ EX posure A nalysis M odeling
S ystem (v2.98.4.6)] . The model used to predict terrestrial EECs on food items is T

- REX [Terrestrial Res idue Exposure Model version 1.5 .1 (August 20 , 2012)]. The model used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants is TerrPlant [Version 1.2.2 (10/29/09)]

.

M EASURES OF E FFECT 

### Data identified in the Effects Characterization Section are used as measures of effect for
direct and indirect effects to non

- target organisms. Data were obtained from registrant submitted studies or from open literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) was searched to provide more ecolo gical effects data25 

### and to bridge existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA Off ice of Research and Development an d the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Mid

- Continent Ecology Division.

The acute measures of effect used for animals in this screening level assessment are the LD 50 

### , LC 50 

### , and EC 50 

### . LD stands for “Lethal Dose”, and LD 50 

### is the amount of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands for
“Lethal Concentration” and LC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kill 50% of the test organisms. EC stand s for “Effective Concentration” and the EC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non

- listed animals are
the NOAEL/NOAEC a nd NOEC. NOAEL stands for “No Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

- Level” and refers to the highest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOAEC ( i.e. , “No

- Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

Concentration”) is the highest test concentration at which none of the observed effects were statistically different from the control. The NOEC is the No

- Observed

- Effects

Concentration. For non

- listed plants, only acute exposures are assessed ( i.e. , EC 25 

### for
terrestrial plants and EC 50 

### for aquatic plants).

I NTEGRATION OF E XPOSURE AND E FFECTS 

### Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects characterization to determine the potential ecological risk from agricultural and non

- agricultural uses of trinexapac

- ethyl, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to non

- target organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non

- target sp ecies. For the assessment of trinexapac

- ethyl risks, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency ’s level s of concern (LOCs) (USEPA 2004).

There is no established acute listed or non

- listed LOC for terrestrial invertebrates ; however, an interim LOC of 0.4 has been established for honeybees and an interim LOC of 0.05 has been adopted for listed terrestrial invertebrates . The LOCs currently in use for birds,
mammals

, and aquatic species are based on 1975 regulations for the enforcement of FIFRA (40 CFR Part 154: 49005; 49007; 49016). Refer to Appendix F for addition information on
the LOCs.

A NALYSIS OF C O

- OCCURANCE OF F EDERALLY L ISTED S PECIES WITH T RINEXAPAC

- ETHYL 

### Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally

- listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) species from registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl. This assessment will be conducted i n accordance
wit h the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (U.S. FWS/NMFS, 1998).

In the case of a nation

- wide risk assessment conducted under Registration Review, the action area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defining the action
area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration26 

### encompa sses all areas where the pesticide may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off

- site transport via spray drift and downstream dilution. Additionally, the concept of a nationwide action area takes into account the potential for direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based on ecological effect measures associated with reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction, as well as the full suite of
sub

- lethal effects available in the effects literatur e.

It is important to note that the nation

- wide action area does not imply that direct and/or indirect effects and critical habitat modification are expected to or are likely to occur over the full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all li sted species and critical habitat that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis including consideration of available land cover data, toxicity data, exposure information , and species biology to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.27 

# Exposure Assessment

Aquatic Exposure Assessment

Monitoring Data

Trinexapac

- ethyl and trinexapac acid were not included in the list of the analytes monitored in the U.S. surface and groundwater under the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. There were no available monitoring data at the time of this assessment.

Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Tier II screening

- level surface water exposures for aquatic risk assessment were conducted for all registered uses. Modeled application rates represent the maximum use pattern of the proposed label for all uses. The aquatic exposure es timates presented in this assessment wer e based on the use of models

. Several major environmental degradates, ( free acid CGA

179500, CGA

- 313458, an open chain cyclohexane ring, and an unidentified hydroproduct M3) were identified in the environmental fate and terrestrial field dissipation studies (see Appendix C for more information on the percent formation of the degrad at es) . There are no Agency

- reviewed toxicity data related to aquatic species for these major degradates that can be used to exclude any o f the degradates listed above

. Also, very limited environmental fate
data are av a i l able for these degradates. Therefore, a total toxic residue (parent plus degradates of concern) approach is used and expected to provide protective exposure
estimation for aquatic organisms exposed to the major degradates of trinexapac

- ethyl. Essentially, this method simply extends the duration of the predicted EECs to account for the time it would take for both the parent and degradates of concern to dissipate in the
envi ronment. It assumes that the degradates have equivalent fate and ecotoxicity properties as the parent

.

Table 4 . Total toxic residue (TTR) expression for trinexapac

- e thyl 1



### Matrix Residues of Concern Structure
Drinking

Water Trinexapac

- Ethyl (parent)

CGA

- 179500 (acid) O O

O H O

O

C H 3 *

* *

O

O

O O H O H28 

### Matrix Residues of Concern Structure

CGA

- 313458

Open chain cyclohexane ring

Hydroproduct M3 Unidentified

1 

### Based on ROCKS decision memorandum (D390121)

Table 5 shows the half

- life comparison of trinexa pac

- ethyl (parent ) and total toxic residue

appr oach . The half lives differ from those in Table 3 because of the total toxic residue approach recommended by the ROCKS memorandum ( USEPA 2011b

, D390121). This is
evid ent by the longer half

- life values of the combined residues.

Table 5 . Half

- life c o mpar ison for the t r inexapac

- ethyl (parent) versus total toxic
residue a pproach Study Parent (Ethyl)

t 1/2 

### (days) Acid

t 1/2 

### (days) TTR Approach

t 1/2 

### (days)

Aqueous Photolysis 18 N o data 22.8
Aerobic Soil Metabolism 2.8 hrs to 4.3 N o data 3.0 to 5.2
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 2.8 to 4.0 N o data 12.3 to 14.8 Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism 3.5 N o data 56 to 290

Terrestrial Field Dissipation < 3 5 to 36.5 NA NA = Not Applicable

TIER II PRZM/EXAMS Model

The Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.1 2.2) linked with EXposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6) via the model shell PRZM/EXAMS (PE v5.0, Nov. 15, 2006) was used to estimate baseline

- level exposures for representative crop
scenarios. The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement and t ransformation on and across the agricultural field resulting from crop applications. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a “standard” 1

- ha pond, 2

- m deep (20,000 m 3 

### ) with no outlet that borders a 10

- ha treated field. Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years, and the Agency estimates peak and running mean values that are expected once every ten years based on the daily values generated during the simulation. O H O O O O H O29 

### The coupled PE models and users m anuals are available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency Water Models Web

- page http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.

Exposure estimates generated using this “standard” pond are intende d to represent a wide variety of vulnerable water bodies that occur in the upper reaches of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man

- made and natural ponds, and
intermittent and first

- order streams. As a group, ther e are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide

- treated drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the st andard pond. These water bodies will be either smaller in size or have large drainage areas. Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As wa tershed size increases, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a non

- major single crop that is all treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of time and are then carried and dissipated
downstream.

An ecological risk assessment was performed using PRZM/EXAMS modeling under the PE5 shell with approved standard scenarios. The North Dakota whe at scenario was modeled to represent the cereals. The Florida and Louisiana sugarcane scenarios were modeled to represent sugarcane. A Pennsylvania and Florida turf scenario were modeled to represent grasses grown for seed. Application rates and methods were obtained from the proposed labels. The following maximum application rates were used: for cereals

– 1 application at 0.11 lb ai/A, for sugarcane

– 1 application at 0.31 lb ai/A , and for grasses grown for seed

– 1 application at 0.5 lb ai/A. For tu rf, the following three application rates were modeled
because of different rates on the label s : 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A, 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A, and 2 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A. Foliar (aerial and ground) spray applications and chemigation methods (except for turf) were modeled for these maximum use rates.

For cereals, the initial application date for each scenario was 45 days before harvest based on the pre

- h arvest interval of 45 days and one application. For sugarcane, the initial application
date for ea ch scenario was 28 days before harvest based on the pre

- h arvest interval of 28 days and one application. Since the pre

- harvest interval can range from 28 to 60 days, multiple application dates were selected for the Louisiana sugarcane (aerial) scenario to assess the effects of application timing. Turf scenarios were chosen to represent grasses grown for seed and application dates were based on a pre

- harvest interval of 30 days and the emergence dates of the crop. To represent turf, the date of initial ap plication was based on the maturation date from selected crop scenarios. In addition, chemical property input values were chosen in accordance with the current input parameter guidance 4



### .

4 USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009.30 

### Although modeling chemigation is not standard policy, an attempt was made by modeling spray drift at 0% with 100% application efficiency. However, irrigation was not accounted
for which would reduce runoff. This m ay underestimate the exposure concentrations. This is an uncertainty in the modeling of chemigation.

Inp ut parameters for the PRZM/EXA MS models are listed in Table 6 . Explanations of various model input parameters are discussed below.

Table 6 . PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for t rin exapac
- ethyl following the TTR

a pproach

Input Parameter Value Comment Source

Scenario(s): Cereals : ND Wheat

Sugarcane : FL Sugarcane LA Sugarcane

Grasses Grown for Seed
FL Turf
PA Turf

Turf:
FL Turf
PA Turf representative scenarios
for each use PE5 Model website http://www.epa.gov/ oppefed1/models/wat er/#przmexamsshell

Maximu m Single Application Rate lbs ai/acre (kg ai/ha) Cereals : 0.11 (0.124)

Sugarcane : 0.31 (0.348)

Grasses Grown for Seed
0.5

Turf: a.) 0.340 (0.382) b.) 0.680 (0.764) c.) 1.360 (1.530) proposed rates Palisade ® 

### EC label
Palisade ® 

### 2EC label31 

### Input Parameter Value Comment Source
Appl ications per

Year Cereals: 1

Sugarcane: 1

Grasses grown for seed: 1

Turf: a.) 8 b.) 4 c.) 2 L abel directions. Label specifies rates per
season. If there are multiple growing seasons per year, yearly rates may be higher. Palisade ® 

### EC label
Pali sade ® 

### 2EC label

Application Interval (days) Cereals: NA

Sugarcane: NA

Grasses grown for seed: NA

Turf: a.) 28 (4 weeks) b.) 56 (8 weeks) c.) 56 (8 weeks) For cereals, sugarcane, and grasses grown for seed, modeled single application rate for conservative exposure. For turf, modeled
various intervals as
labels directed application timing to actively growing turf. Palisade ® 

### EC EPA Reg. No. 100

- 949
Palisade ® 

### 2EC EPA Reg. No. 100

- 1241

Date of Initial Application (scenario: day

month) Cereals : ND Wheat: 21

- 06

Sugarcane : FL Sugarcane: 03

- 12 LA Sugarcane: 03

- 12

Grasses Grown for Seed:
FL Turf: 02

- 15
PA Turf: 04

- 15

Turf:
FL Turf: 01

- 02
PA Turf: 01

- 04 Date of initial application was
calculated from the Pre

Harvest Interval (PHI)
of 45 d ays for cereals, 28 days for sugarcane, and 30 days for grasses grown for seed. For turf, the crop emergence date was
selected as the date of initial application. Crop Scenarios and proposed labels32 

### Input Parameter Value Comment Source
Application Method Cereals : Foliar: aerial and ground Chemigation

Sugarcane : Foliar: aerial and ground Chemigation

Grasses Grown for Seed:
Foliar: a e rial and ground Chemigation

Turf: Foliar: ground (boom sprayer) Chemigation label directions Palisade ® 

### EC EPA Reg. No. 100

- 949
Palisade ® 

### 2EC EPA Reg. N o. 100

- 1241

CAM Input 2 (foliar) 1 (chemigation) 1) soil applied, default incorporation depth, linearly decreasing with depth; 2) linear foliar based on crop canopy US EPA, 2005

IPSCND Input 2 (all uses) remaining pesticide on foliage is completely

r emoved after harvest US EPA, 2005

Spray Drift Fraction 0.05 (aerial) 0.01 (ground) 0 (chemigation) 1 

### See footnote 1 for chemigation reference Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009)

Application Efficiency 0.95 (aerial) 0.99 (ground) 1.0 (chemigation ) -- Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009)

Molecular Mass (g/mol) 252.3

-- MRID 41604201

Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 1.62 x 10 - 5



### -- MRID 41604203

Henry’s Law
Constant (atm

- m 3 

### /mol) 5.27 x 10 - 10



### -- Calculated from water solubility,

vapor pressure an d molecular weight

Solubility in Water (mg/L) 10200 at pH 5.5 MRID 4160420333 

### Input Parameter Value Comment Source
Organic Carbon
Partition Coefficient (K OC 

### ) (L/kg OC 

### ) 416 2 

### represents the average

K OC 

### from 4 values for the acid (CGA

- 163935) MRID 41663937

Aerobic Soil
Metabolism Half

- life (da ys) 5.2 3 

### represents the 90 th


### percentile confidence
bound on the mean
half

- life of 3 values MRID 46809303 Appendix B.2

Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 17.4 4 

### represents the 90 th


### percentile confidence
bound on the mean
half

- life of 2 values MR ID 46809304 Appendix B.3

Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 533 5 

### represents the 90 th


### percentile confidence
bound on the mean
half

- life of 2 values MRID 48043712 Appendix B.4

Hydrolysis Half

- lives (days) 0 (stable) pH 7 MRID 41563930
MRID 468 09301
Aqueous Photolysis
Half

- life (days) 22.8 6 

### recalculated
environmental phototransformation
half

- life MRID 46809302 Appendix B.1

NA = Not Applicable

1 

### = Chemigation (< 1% spray drift as described in http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Chem.pdf

- mode led as 0%)

2 

### = The average K
oc 

### obtained from four values (144, 328, 581 and 609) for the acid (CGA

- 163935). This value
was modeled because of conversion of the ester to the acid in the environment.

3 

### = Following the Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach , this value represents the 90 th 

### percentile confidence
bound on the mean half

- life of 3 values (3.0, 3.6 and 5.2). See Appendix B.2

4 

### = Following the Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach, this value represents the 90 th 

### percentile confidence
bound on the me an half

- life of 2 values (12.3 and 14.8). See Appendix B.3

5 

### = Following the Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach, this value represents the 90 th 

### percentile confidence
bound on the mean half

- life of 2 values (290 and 56). See Appendix B.4

6 

### = Following t he Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach, this value represents the recalculated environmental phototransformation half

- life. See Appendix B.1

Aquatic Exposure Modeling Results

The aquatic EECs for the various scenarios and application methods are listed i n Table 7

. The PA turf scenario (application rate of 1.36 lb ai/A) yielded the highest peak EEC (6.78 μ g ai/L) and 60

- day EEC (2.81 μ g ai/L). The LA sugarcane scenario had the highest 21

- day EEC (5.18 μ g ai/L).34 

### Table 7

. Estimated environmental concentr ations (EECs) for surface water based on selected crop scenarios following the TTR a pproach

Proposed
Label Use PRZM/EXAMS
Scenario 1 

### (first app date) Method 2 

### Maximum Application Rate (interval between applications) Peak
EEC ( μg/L ) 21

- day
EEC ( μg/L) 60

- day
EEC ( μg/L )

Palisade ® 

### EC and Palisade ® 

### 2EC Plant Growth Regulator Registered Turf Labels

Cereals

(Wheat, Barley, Oats, Triticale) ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.11 lb ai/A 0.41 0.31 0.22

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) G 1 app @ 0.11 lb ai/A 0. 25 0.18 0.12

ND Wheat (June 21

– chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.11 lb ai/A 0.21 0.16 0.10

Sugarcane FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 3.31 2.56 1.14

FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 2.98 2.42 0.97

FL Su garcane (December 03

– chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 2.90 2.34 0.94

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 6.63 5.18 2.24

LA Sugarcane (November 26

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 4.67 3.84 2.10

LA Sugarcane (November 19

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 4.36 3.49 2.33

LA Sugarcane (November 12

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 3.70 3.14 2.14

LA Sugarcane (November 05

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 4.09 3.41 2.58

LA Sugarcane (November 01

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 3.36 2.68 1.92

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 6.24 4.88 2.10

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– chemigation) C 1 app @ 0.31 lb ai/A 6.14 4.81 2.06

Grasses
Grown for
Seed FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) A 1 app @ 0.5 lb a i/A 1.41 1.12 0.76

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) G 1 app @ 0.5 lb ai/A 0.31 0.26 0.19

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) C 1 app @ 0.5 lb ai/A 0.13 0.10 0.06

PA Turf A 1 app @ 0.5 lb ai/A 1.45 1.22 0.9135 

### Proposed
Label Use PRZM/EXAMS
Scenario 1 

### (first app date) Method 2 

### Maximum Application Rate (interval between applications) Peak
EEC ( μg/L ) 21

- day
EEC ( μg/L) 60

- day
EEC ( μg/L )

(April 15

– foliar)

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) G 1 app @ 0.5 lb ai/A 0.55 0.44 0.31

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) C 1 app @ 0.5 lb ai/A 0.37 0.30 0.19

Turf

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.34 lb ai / Q (28 days) 1.58 1.03 0.78

4 app @ 0.68 lb ai / A (56 days) 2.14 1.49 0.94

2 app @ 1.36 lb ai / A (56 days) 4.28 2.98 1.77

C 8 app @ 0.34 lb ai / Q (28 days) 0.63 0.44 0.25

4 app @ 0.68 lb ai / A (56 days) 0.91 0.60 0.38

2 app @ 1.36 lb ai / A (56 days) 1.55 1.16 0.76

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.34 lb a i/ A (28 days) 2.80 2.1 4 1.57

4 app @ 0.68 lb ai/ A (56 days) 4.45 3.49 2.24

2 app @ 1.36 lb ai/ A (56 days) 6.78 4.79 2.81

C 8 app @ 0.34 lb a i/ A (28 days) 1.22 0.87 0.54

4 app @ 0.68 lb ai/ A (56 days) 2.37 1.71 1.04

2 app @ 1.36 lb ai/ A (56 days) 3.86 2.75 1.7 2

1 

### Bold numbers denote maximum EEC values.

2 

### A = aerial application, G = ground application, C = chemigation

Terrestrial Exposure

Dietary

- Based Trinexapac

- Ethyl Residue Levels The Agency uses the 

### T

- REX model (v

. 1.5 .1, USEPA, August 2 0 , 2012) to est imate the terrestrial animal exposure values resulting from possible dietary ingestion of trinexapac

ethyl residues on vegetative matter and insects present on non

- food and food crops from
exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl. It is assumed that the degradates fr om trinexapac

- ethyl are equi valent in their toxicity to the parent and are accounted for in the conservative 35 day half
life. In all screening

- level assessments, the organisms are assumed to consume 100% of their diet as one food type. This model incorp orates the Kenaga nomograph, as modified by36 

### Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper
limit value s from the nomograph represent the 95th percentile of residue values from actual field measurements (Hoerg er and Kenaga, 1972). T

- REX was employed to estimate (1)
EECs for different food items for birds and mammals

, (2) dose/diet based risk to birds as well as dose based risk to mammals, and (3) EECs for arthropods to estimate risk to
terrestrial invertebrate s from direct contact. The tall grass EECs were used to evaluate risk from acute oral exposure for te r restrial invertebrates

.

Results of the T

- REX modeling of trinexapac

- ethyl residue levels on those dietary food items which potentially occur on some t reated fields, for terrestrial invertebrates, mammals

, and
birds 5 

### are provided in Tables 8 through 10 . Residue levels for dietary items were calculated for all foliage spray applications. Granular formulations are assessed based on the exposure expected in a square foot (LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### ).

Results include dietary

- based values [ i.e ., milligrams of trinexapac

- et hyl pe r kilogram of diet (mg/kg

- diet)] , and both an upper

- bound and mean estimate of these exposure levels. The

upper

- bound values are derived using the upper

- bound Kenaga nomogram which used the highest of the highest normalized residue values from a number of studies, as a tolerance limit approach.

As birds are also used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians within this

assessmen t, it is assumed that dose

- based exposure levels for these animals are the same as birds ( i.e ., food ingestion rate per body weight for a bird is the same as for an amphibian and reptile). However, reptiles and amphibians have a lower ingestion rate for a g iven body weight than birds (USEPA 1993). Therefore, the dose

- based EECs presented here represent an overestimate of exposure for reptiles and amphibians of a given body size (see sample output in Appendix I).

Table 8 . T

- REX modeling scenarios

Use Max imum Application Rate (lb ai/A) Number of Applications ( Application Interval) Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 0.11 1

N/A Sugarcane 0.31 1

N/A Grasses grown for seed 0.5 1

N/A

Turf 0.34 8

5 B irds are also used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians

.37 

### 4 weeks

Turf 0.68 4

8 weeks

Turf 1.36 2

8 weeks

Granu lar Applications

Turf 0.35 7

4 weeks

Turf 0.44 6

4 weeks

Turf 0.88 3

4 weeks

Parameters used in T

- REX Model: Foliar half life = 35 days; Avian LD 50



### – 813 mg ai/kg

bw; Avian NOAEC

– 200 mg ai/kg

- diet (mallard duck); Mammal LD 50 

### = 4212 mg ai/kg

- bw (r at); Mammal NO A EL = 5 94 mg ai/kg

- bw (rat)

Table 9 . Avian trinexapac

- ethyl upper bound EEC values

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g)

Wheat, barley, oat, and tri ticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A Short grass 26.40 30.07 17.15 7.68 Tall grass 12.10 13.78 7.86 3.52 Broadleaf plants 14.85 16.91 9.64 4.32 Fruits/pods 1.65 1.88 1.07 0.48 Arthropods 10.34 11.78 6.72 3.01
Seeds 1.65 0.42 0.24 0.11 Sugarcane 1 app at 0.3 1 lb ai/A Short grass 74.40 84.73 48.32 21.63 Tall grass 34.10 38.84 22.15 9.92 Broadleaf plants 41.85 47.66 27.18 12.17 Fruits/pods 4.65 5.30 3.02 1.35 Arthropods 29.14 33.19 18.92 8.47
Seeds 4.65 1.18 0.67 0.30 Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A38 

### Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g)

Short grass 120.00 136.67 77.93 34.89 Tall grass 55.00 62.64 35.72 15.99 Broadleaf plants 67.50 76.88 43.84 19.63 Fruits/pods 7.50 8.54 4.87 2.18 Arthropods 47.00 53.53 30.52 13.67
Seeds 7.50 1.90 1.08 0.48 Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 wee ks) Short grass 189.44 215.75 123.03 55.08 Tall grass 86.82 98.88 56.39 25.25 Broadleaf plants 106.56 121.36 69.20 30.98 Fruits/pods 11.84 13.48 7.69 3.44 Arthropods 74.20 84.50 48.19 21.57

Seeds 11.84 3.00 1.71 0.77 Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (8 w eeks) Short grass 240.65 274.08 156.29 69.97 Tall grass 110.30 125.62 71.63 32.07 Broadleaf plants 135.37 154.17 87.91 39.36 Fruits/pods 15.04 17.13 9.77 4.37 Arthropods 94.26 107.35 61.21 27.41
Seeds 15.04 3.81 2.17 0.97 Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 weeks) Short grass 481.31 548.16 312.58 139.95 Tall grass 220.60 251.24 143.27 64.14 Broadleaf plants 270.74 308.34 175.83 78.72 Fruits/pods 30.08 34.26 19.54 8.75 Arthropods 188.51 214.70 122.43 54.81
Seeds 30.08 7.61 4.34 1.94

Table 10 . Mamm alian trinexapac

- ethyl upper bound EEC values

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium (135 g) Large (1000 g)

Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A Short grass 26.40 25.17 1 7.40 4.03 Tall grass 12.10 11.54 7.97 1.8539 

### Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium (135 g) Large (1000 g)

Broadleaf plants 14.85 14.16 9.79 2.27 Fruits/pods 1.65 1.57 1.09 0.25 Arthropods 10.34 9.86 6.81 1.58
Seeds 1.65 0.35 0.24 0.06 Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A Short grass 74.40 70.93 49.03 11.37 Tall gra ss 34.10 32.51 22.47 5.21 Broadleaf plants 41.85 39.90 27.58 6.39 Fruits/pods 4.65 4.43 3.06 0.71 Arthropods 29.14 27.78 19.20 4.45
Seeds 4.65 0.99 0.68 0.16 Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A Short grass 120.00 114.41 79.07 18.33 Tall gras s 55.00 52.44 36.24 8.40 Broadleaf plants 67.50 64.36 44.48 10.31 Fruits/pods 7.50 7.15 4.94 1.15 Arthropods 47.00 44.81 30.97 7.18
Seeds 7.50 1.59 1.10 0.25 Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 weeks) Short grass 189.44 180.61 124.83 28.94 Tall grass 86. 82 82.78 57.21 13.26 Broadleaf plants 106.56 101.59 70.22 16.28 Fruits/pods 11.84 11.29 7.80 1.81 Arthropods 74.20 70.74 48.89 11.34
Seeds 11.84 2.51 1.73 0.40 Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (8 weeks) Short grass 240.65 274.08 156.29 69.97 Tall grass 1 10.30 125.62 71.63 32.07 Broadleaf plants 135.37 154.17 87.91 39.36 Fruits/pods 15.04 17.13 9.77 4.37 Arthropods 94.26 107.35 61.21 27.41
Seeds 15.04 3.81 2.17 0.97 Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 weeks) Short grass 481.31 458.89 317.15 73.53 Tall gr ass 220.60 210.32 145.36 33.7040 

### Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium (135 g) Large (1000 g)

Broadleaf plants 270.74 258.13 178.40 41.36 Fruits/pods 30.08 28.68 19.82 4.60 Arthropods 188.51 179.73 124.22 28.80
Seeds 30.08 6.37 4.40 1.02

For insects, only two EECs are calculated. The tall grass EEC represents t he exposure through dietary intake whereas the arthropod EEC represents exposure through contact (Tabl e 11 ) (USEPA 2012). Given that honeybee larval toxicity data were not available, only trinexapac

- ethyl doses for adult bees are considered.

Table 11

. A dult insect foliar spray upper

- bound EEC v alues

Use EEC (based on tall grass) (mg/kg

- diet) (dose in μg ai/bee*) EEC (based on arthropod) (mg/kg

- diet) (dose in μg ai/bee**) 1



### Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A 12.10 (3.53) 10.34 (1.32)

Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A 34.10 (9.96) 29.14 (3.73)

Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A 55.00 (16.06) 47.00 (6.02)

Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 weeks) 86.82 ( 25.35) 31.96 (4.09)

Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (8 weeks) 110.30 (32.20) 63.9 2 (8.18)

Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 weeks) 220.60 (64.42) 127.84 (16.36)

*Conversion made by multiplying EEC by food consumption rate of adult bee (0.292 g/day) **Conversion made by multiplying EEC by body weight of adult bee (0.128 g)

1 

### Based on sing le app at the highest single application rate if application interval is >5 days

Off

- Field Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plant Trinexapac

- Ethyl Exposure TerrPlant 1.2.2 (10/29/09) i s used as a Tier 1 model for screening level assessments. The
model provides estimates of exposure to terrestrial plants from single pesticide applications; the model does not consider exposures to plants from multiple pesticide applications. TerrPlant derives pesticide EECs in runoff and in spray drift, and develops ris k quotients for

non

- listed and listed species of monocots and dicots inhabiting dry and semi

- aquatic areas.41 

### The estimated e xposure concentrations of trinexapac

- ethyl for terrestrial pla nts are presented below (Table 12 ). The most protective ground and aerial application scenarios for each use were selected, based on information from the label (see Appendix H for sample output).

Table 12 . Terrestrial plant exposure concentration estimates for trinexapac

- ethyl

Description Equation EEC (lb ai/A)

Gro und Aerial / Chemigation Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.0055 0.0055
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.055 0.055 Spray drift A*D 0.0011 0.0055 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0066 0.01 1
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.0561 0.0605
Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.0155 0.0155

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.155 0.155 Spray drift A*D 0.0031 0.0155 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+ (A*D) 0.0186 0.031
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.1581 0.1705 Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.025 0.025
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.25 0.25 Spray drift A*D 0.005 0.025
Total f or dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.03 0.05
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.255 0.275 Turf 1 app at 0.34 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.017 0.017
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.17 0.17 Spray drift A*D 0.0034 0.017
Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0204 0.034
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.1734 0.187 Turf 1 app at 0.68 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.034 0.034
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.34 0.34 Spray drift A*D 0.0068 0.034 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0408 0.068
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.3468 0.374 Turf42 

### Description Equation EEC (lb ai/A)

Gro und Aerial / Chemigation 1 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.068 0.068

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.68 0.68 Spray drift A*D 0.013 6 0.068 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0816 0.136
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.6936 0.748 A = application rate I = incorporation
R = runoff fraction
D = drift fractionChapter 3 Effects Characterization

43 

# Effects Characterization

The toxicity profile for trin exapac

- ethyl is relatively complete. The DCI included an acute oral toxicity test conducted with a passerine species. The study was submitted and classified as “acceptable,” thus meeting the guideline requirements. Most notably, it provides the most

sen sitive endpoint for acute oral toxicity to birds.

Some additional information was available from the open literature. Several studies examined the effects of trinexapac

- ethyl on fungi. Fungi endpoints are not normally required by the Agency and currentl y there are no endangered species of fungi. These studies are not included in this analysis, but they are listed in Appendix D. Several studies on grasses (monocots) with lower endpoints than those within Agency holdings were also available ; however, two of these were non

- definitive (greater than) values and the other one was related to root weight, which is not considered a reliable risk assessment endpoint because of the difficulty in maintaining consistency when measuring it

. Consequently, none of the open literature studies were incorporated into the assessment. A list of the trinexapac

- ethyl open literature studies that were screened as part of this assessment is provided in Appendix D

.

There are several data gap s for trinexapac

- ethyl. Estuarine/m arine fish and invertebrate data are not available for chronic exposures to trinexapac

- ethyl. The chronic value for freshwater
fish was considered an appropriate surrogate for the chronic estuarine/marine data because
freshwater fish were more sensitive o n an acute basis. Estuarine/marine invertebrates were more sensitive on an acute basis than their freshwater counterparts, thus an acute

- to

- chronic ratio was used to predict a toxicity value. Data also are not available for the acute oral toxicity of tri nexapac

- ethyl to adult honeybees and its toxicity to larvae . These studies are recommended by the Pol linator White Paper (USEPA 2012 ) and are thus more recent requirements than the DCI . In the absence of these data, assumptions were drawn from the
result s of the analysis using the honeybee acute contact toxicity data

.


## Terrestrial Vertebrate Toxicology

Effects on Birds The zebra finch study (MRID 48894501) yielded the most sensitive acute oral endpoint (LD 50 

### = 813 mg ai/kg

- bw) and the only acute definitiv e endpoint available for birds (Table 13) . The study produced an irregular dose response curve with mortalities at the top two treatment levels (2000 and 2500 mg ai/kg

- bw) being lower than mortalities at the second and third treatment levels (500 and 1000 mg ai/kg

- bw). Consequently, a conservative LD 50 

### was calculated using just the first three treatment levels (500, 1000, and 1500 mg ai/kg

- bw). A clear decrease in food consumption was observed in all of the treatment levels during the first
48 hours afte r dosing; by 72 hours after the dosing, food consumption levels were approaching control levels. Other sub

- lethal effects included piloerection, lethargy, and labored breathing, all of which occurred within 30 minutes of receiving the dose. The study
ind icates that trinexapac

- ethyl is slightly toxic to passerine birds.

Two dietary studies were available, one with the bobwhite quail and the other with the
mallard duck (Table 13 ) . B oth yielded LC 50 

### s of >5200 mg ai/kg

- diet (MRIDs 41563902, 41563903). N o sub

- lethal effects were reported in either study.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

44 

### A bobwhite quail study yielded the most sensitive chronic toxicity value (Tab le 13 )

. The most sensitive endpoint was the number of eggs set (25% reduction). No adverse effects on
behavior or food consu mption were observed.

Effects on Mammals The acute toxicity of trinexapac

- ethyl was assessed in male and female rats. Female rats
were found to be more sensitive than males. A number of sub

- lethal effects were observed that included decreased activity , piloerection, and ataxia (see table for more detail).

T rinexapac

- ethyl is classified as “ practically non

- toxic ” on an acute oral expos ure basis to mammals (Table 13 ).

A two

- generation rat study (MRID 43128604) was submitted by the registrant to ascerta in the chronic exposure effects of trinexapac

- ethyl ( Table 13 ). Adults experienced reduced pre

mating and gestation body weight as well as reduced body weight gain and food consumption. Decreased survival and body weight, and decreased body weight gain d uring lactation were observed in offspring. No adverse effects on reproductive performance were noted for either generation.

Table 13 . Summary of the measurement endpoint s selected to evaluate risk for birds
and mammal s

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity and Effect(s) Chemical /
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and Reproduction of Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians Mortality: acute oral
avian LD 50 Zebra finch ( Taenio pygia
guttata ) LD 50 = 813 mg ai/kg

- bw

Mortality and decrease in food consumption Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
95.8 % ai

MRID 48894501

Acceptable
Mortality: subacute
avian LC 50 Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) LC 50 > 52 00 mg ai/kg

- diet

N o effects Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
96.6 % ai

MRID 41563902,

Acceptable
Mortality: subacute
avian LC 50 Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 > 5200 mg ai/kg

- diet

No effects Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
96.6% ai

MRID 41563903

Accep tableChapter 3 Effects Characterization

45 Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity and Effect(s) Chemical /
Source / Study
Classification
Reproduction:
chronic reproduction
NOAEC Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) NOAEC = 2 00 mg ai/kg

- diet
LOAEC = 600 mg ai/kg

- diet

The most sensitive parameter was a reduction in the proportion of eggs set. Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
9 6.6 % a i

MRID 41869505

Acceptable

Survival and Reproduction of
Mammals Mortality: acute oral

LD 50 Rat ( Rattus norvegicus) Female LD 50 = 4212 mg ai/kg

- bw
Male LD 50 = 4613 mg ai/kg

- bw Combined = 4458 mg ai/kg

- bw

Decreased activity, ataxia, dia rrhea, dilated

pu pils, epistaxis, hematuria, lacrimation, nasal discharge, piloerection, polyuria, ptosis, and
salivation Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
96.9% ai

MRID 41563908

Acceptable

Reproduction:
chronic reproduction
NOAEC Rat ( Rattus norvegicus) Male NOAEL = 594 mg ai /kg

- diet Male LOAEL = 1212 mg ai/kg

- diet Female NOAEL = 751 mg ai/kg

- diet Female LOAEL = 1485 mg ai/kg

- diet ( toxicity to parents and offspring )

Male NOAEL = 1212 mg ai/kg

- diet Female NOAEL = 1485 mg ai/kg

- diet (reproductive toxicity) Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
9 6

. 2 % ai

MRID 43128604

Acceptable



## Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicology

There was one acute contact toxicity study for worker honeybees that resulted in an LD 50 

### of 47 μg ai /bee. No sub

- lethal effects were reported and the toxicit y value indicates that
trinex a pac

- ethyl is pr actically non

- toxic to honeybees (Table 1 4 ). Neither acute oral toxicity data nor larval toxicity data were available.

Table 14 . Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate ris k
for h oney bees

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity, and Effect(s) (μg ai/bee) Chemical /
Source /

Acute Contact Toxicity Mortality: acute

contact LD 50 Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 = 47

Mortality Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
9 6.2 % ai

MRID 41563928

AcceptableChapter 3 Effects Characterization

46 

## Aquatic Vertebrate (Fish) Toxicology Effects to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians Acute data from four fish species are available for trinexapac

- ethy l (Table 15 ) . The studies classify t rinexapac

- ethyl as practically non

- toxic to slightly toxic for freshwater fish. The
catfish (MRID 41869507) was the most sensitive warm water species that was tested with an
LC 50 

### of 35 mg ai/L. Sub

- lethal observations included erratic swimming and loss of equilibrium. Sub

- lethal effects were seen in carp (changes in pigmentation) (MRID 41869506), and bluegill sunfish (immobilization and sluggish reaction) as well (MRID 41563904)

– the least sensitive of the warm water fish that were tested. The carp study was classified as supplemental because it was considered an unacceptable species for testing at the time the study evaluation occurred. For registration review risk assessments, the Agency accepts information from s tudies that are considered scientifically valid. Therefore, carp will
be considered in this risk assessment.

The rainbow trout was the only cold water species that was tested and resulted in a 96

- hour
EC 50 

### of 68 mg ai/L (MRID 41563905). Sub

- lethal effec ts included immobilization, erratic swimming, and sluggish reaction to stimuli.

Chronic data wer e available for the fathead minnow (Table 15 ). Chronic effects (based on growth) were seen at 0.41 mg ai/L

.

Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Fish
The estuarin e/marine fish (sheepshead minnow) study suggests that estuarine/marine fish are less sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl than freshwater fish (MRID 41869510). The study
established a 96

- hour LC 50 

### of 180 mg ai/L. All fish exhibited erratic swimming behavior

an d many also had darkened pigmentation, loss of equilibrium, and lethargy (Table 15 ).

Chronic data were not available for estuarine/marine fish. In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish, a toxicity value could normally be estimate d based on the assumption that the acute

- to

- chronic ratio for freshwater fish (species X) applies to estuarine/marine fish (species Y) also. The acute

- to

- chronic ratio is typically calculated as
follows:

Acute species X 

### = Acute species Y 

### Chroni c speciesX 

### Chronic speciesY



### Given that a complete set of acute

- chronic data is not available for any freshwater fish species, a chronic value for the estuarine/marine sheepshead minnow was not estimated. Using toxicity data from two species woul d have introduced additional uncertainty into the estimated estuarine/marine chronic toxicity value.

As an alternative to the acute

- to

- chronic ratio, toxicity data from freshwater fish was considered as a surrogate. T he acute toxicity of the sheepshead minnow was 2.5 to 5 times less sensitive than the definitive acute toxicity values for freshwater fish (since the bluegill study is non

- definitive, it is unknown if this species is similar or less sensitive than the sheepshead minnow)

, thus, the freshwate r fish chronic NOAEC is considered a protectiveChapter 3 Effects Characterization

47 

### surrogate in lieu of the estuarine/marine fish NOAEC. Furthermore, the sub

- lethal effects observed in the acute estuarine/marine fish study were similar to those observ ed in
freshwater fish studies.

Table 1 5 . Summary of endpoint s selected to evaluate risk for fish and amphibian s

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity, and Effect(s) (mg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classificatio n

Survival and reproduction of
freshwater fish Acute mortality:
most sensitive acute
freshwater fish 96

- hour LC 50 Catfish ( Ictalurus

punctatus ) LC 50 = 35

Mortality, erratic swimming, loss of equilibrium Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade, 92.2% ai

MRID 41 869507

Acceptable

Carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) LC 50 = 57

Mortality, darkened pigmentation Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade, 92.2% ai

MRID 41869506

Supplemental

Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis
macrochirus ) EC 50 > 130

Immobil i zation and sluggish
reaction to s timuli Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade, 96.6% ai

MRID 41563904

Acceptable

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 96

- hour EC 50 = 68

Mortality, immobilization, erratic swimming, sluggish
reaction to stimuli Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade, 96.6% ai

MR ID 41563905

Acceptable
Chronic Early Life Stage:
most sensitive
NOAEC Fathead minnow ( Pimphales promelas ) NOAEC = 0.41
LOAEC = 0.80

Growth reduction Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade, 92.2% ai

MRID 42081401

Acceptable

Survival and reproduction of

e stuarine/marine
fish Acute mortality:
most sensitive acute
estuarine/marine
fish 96

- hour LC 50 Sheepshead
minnow ( Cyprinodon variegates ) 96

- hour LC 50 = 180

Erratic swimming, loss of equilibrium, darkened pigmentation, lethargy Trinexapac

- ethyl technical

g rade, 92.2% ai

MRID 41869510

Acceptable
Chronic Early Life Stage: most
sensitive NOAEC N/A

Fathead minnow ( Pimphales promelas ) data used
instead NOAEC = 0.41 Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade, 92.2% ai

MRID 42081401

AcceptableChapter 3 Effects Characterization

48 

## Aquatic Invertebr ate Toxicology

Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates One acute study with freshwater invertebrates is availabl e for trinexa pac

- ethyl (Table 17 ).
The water flea study yielded a non

- definitive EC 50 

### value of >142.5 mg ai/L, indicating that trinexapac

- ethyl is practically non

- toxic to freshwater invertebrates (MRID 41563906). Immobilization occurred, but not at levels high enough to calculate an EC 50. 

### In addition, erratic swimming and floating on the surface of the water were observed.

A chronic water flea st udy was conducted with trinexapac

- ethyl and yielded a NOAEC of 2.4 mg ai/L and a LOAEC of 5.1 mg ai/L, based on reductions in the leng th of adult water fleas. Reproduction was also affected (decreased number of offspring per female), but at the highest dos e level (43 mg ai/L).

Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Invertebrates Acute exposure studies on estuarine/marine invertebrates indicated that trinexapac

- ethyl is slightly toxic to the eastern oyster (EC 50 

### > 89 mg ai/L) (MRID 41869509). A definitive EC 50 

### could not be determined because none of the treatment levels produced a 50 percent reduction in oyster shell growth; however, a 48 percent reduction in shell growth was observed at the highest treatment level (89 mg ai/L). No mortality was observed. Trinexapac

- ethyl is moderately toxic to mysid shrimp (LC 50 

### = 6.5 mg ai/L) (MRID 41869508). T oxic effects were observed at all treatment levels (e.g., erratic swimming, darkened pigmentation, lethargy) (Table 1 7 ).

In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuar ine/marine invertebrates, the ECOSAR approach was explored as a method to predict the chronic toxicity for the mysid shrimp (ECOSAR predictive software is available publically though the Epi SuiteTM v 4.0

program 6 

### ). To determine if ECOSAR was accurately pr edicting toxicity values, the predicted toxicity values were compared with the endpoints for whi ch the Agency had data (Table 16 ). As shown in the table, ECOSAR did not perform particularly well for the endpoints with known data. Most notable is that the ECOSAR ester estuarin e/marine
invertebrate chronic value was much higher than the ECOSAR acute value; chronic toxicity should always be lower than acute toxicity. This may be an indication that the ECOSAR ester prediction is not reliable and that the vin yl/allyl ketone estimates are more appropriate. Taking a closer look at these, the predicted values are generally 19 to 39 times higher than the actual values (excluding the freshwater acute value because it is non

- definitive). Consequently, the ECOSAR p redictions are not considered reliable in this situation.

Table 16. Comparison of Actual Toxicity Data and ECOSAR Values

Actual (mg ai/L) ECOSAR Ester (mg ai/L) ECOSAR Vinyl/Allyl Ketone (mg ai/L)

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Freshwater
invertebrates >145.5 2.4 108 81 317 46

Estuarine/
marine 6.5 N/A 89 12096 256 39

6 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htmChapter 3 Effects Characterization

49 invertebrates



### A toxicity value also can be estimated based on the assumption that the acute

- to

- chronic ratio for freshwater invertebrates applies to est uarine/marine inver tebrates . However, only non

definitive acute data were available for the water flea EC 50 

### (>142.5 mg ai/L) . Usually the uncertainty of a non

- definitive value is considered too great to calculate an ACR; howev er this was the approach adopted because trinexa pac

- ethyl does not have any surrogates for which toxicity data could be taken and the ECOSAR estimate did not appear to be reliable

.

Acute daphnid 

### = Acute mysid 

### Chronic daphnid 

### Chronic mysid



### 142.5 = 6.5
2.4 Chronic
m ysid



### Mysid NOAEC = 0.11 mg ai/L

Given that a non

- definitive value was used, the estimated NOAEC represents an upper

- bound
value and is not conservative.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

50 

### Table 1 7 . Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for aquatic inve rtebrate assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity, and Effect(s) (mg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and reproduction of
freshwater
in vertebrates Acute mortality:
most sensitive acute
freshwater
invertebrate 48

- hour
EC 50 W ater flea ( D.

magna ) 48

- hour EC 50 >145.5

Mortality, immobilization, floating at water surface, erratic swimming Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade,
96.6 % ai

MRID 474084 10

Supplemental

Chronic effects:
most sensitive
NOAEC Water flea ( D.

magna ) NOAEC = 2.4
LOAEC = 5.1

Reductions in adult daphnid length Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade,
93.8%

MRID 43128602

Acceptable

Survival and reproduction of
estuarine/marine
in vertebrates Acute mortality:
most sensitive
estuari ne/marine
invertebrate 96

- hour

E C 50 Mysid shrimp ( Americamysis
bahia ) EC 50 = 6.5
NOAEC < 3.4

Mortality , erratic swimming, darkened pigmentation, lethargy Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade,
9 2

. 2 %

MRID 41 869508

Acceptable
Acute growth: most
sensitive
estuarine/marine
invertebrate 96

- hour
EC 50 Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginianus ) EC 50 >89

Shell growth Trinexapac

- ethyl, technical grade,
92.2 %

MRID 41869509

Acceptable

Chronic effects:
most sensi tive
NOAEC Mysid shrimp ( Americamysis
bahia ) Acute

- to

- Chronic Ratio
NOAEC = 0. 11 Trinexapac

- ethyl

, technical grade, 5.07

- > 92.2% ai

MRIDs 41869508, 43128602, 47408410

Supplemental



## Terrestrial Plant Toxicology

P lant toxicity data were available for trin exapac

- ethyl (Table 1 8 ). The seedling emergence
data showed that monocots (oat EC 25 

### = 0.301 lb ai/A) were less sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl than dicots (carrot EC 25 

### = 0.22 lb ai/A). The NOAEC for both species was the same (0.094 lb ai/A), but was based on plant height for monocots (oat and ryegrass) and dry weight for dicots (lettuce). The vegetative vigor study (MRID 41869531) indicated that monocots (oat
EC 25 

### = 0.294 lb ai/A; NOAEC 0.0425 lb ai/A, based on plant height) had similar sensitivity
to trin exapac

- ethyl as dicots (carrot EC 25 

### = 0.267 lb ai/A; NOAEC 0.085 lb ai/A, based on dry weight).Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

51 

### Table 1 8 . Summary of endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for terres trial plants

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint V alue and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity, and Effect(s) (lb ai/A) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Effects to terrestrial plants Vegetative vigor:
dicot EC 25 and
NOAEC Carrot ( Daucus

carota ) EC 25 = 0.267
NOAEC = 0.085

Dry weight. Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
93.7%

MRID 41869531

Acceptable
Vegetative vigor:
monocot EC 25 and
NOAEC Oat ( Avena sativa ) EC 25 = 0.294
NOAEC = 0.0425

Plant height Trinexapac

- ethyl

t echnical grade,
93.7 %

MRID 41869531

Acceptable

Effects to terrestrial plan ts Seedling emergence: dicot
EC 25 and NOAEC Lettuce ( Lactuca
sativa ) EC 25 = 0.22
NOAEC = 0.094

Plant dry weight Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
93. 7% ai

MRID 41869529

Supplemental
Seedling

emergence: monocot EC 25 and
NOAEC Oat ( Avena

sativa ), ryegra ss ( Lolium mlutiflorum ) EC 25 = 0.301
NOAEC = 0.094

Plant height Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
93.7% ai

MRID 41869529

Supplemental



## Aquatic Plant Toxicology

Among the non

- vascular plants, freshwater blue

- green algae ( Anabaena flos

- aquae ) was the

mo st sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl with an EC 50 

### of 0.35 mg ai/L and a NOAEC of 0.1 1 mg ai/L (based on cell density ) (MRID 41869535). Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) (MRID 48043713) was the second most sensitive non

- vascular plant (EC 50 

### = 14

mg ai/L; NOAEC = 7.8 mg ai/L), based on a reduction in cell density and yield. Biomass and growth rate were also reduced compared to the control. The marine diatom ( Skeletonema constatum ) (MRID 41869533) was similar in its toxicity to green algae (EC 50 

### = 1 6 mg ai/L; NOAEC = 3.7 mg ai/L) , based on cell growth

. The freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa) (MRID 41869534) was the least sensitive with an EC 50 

### of 42 mg ai/L and a NOAEC of 6.2 mg ai/L, based on cell density (Table 1 9 )

.

For aquatic vascular pla nt s , a duckweed study resulted in an EC 50 

### of 0.19 mg ai/L. The NOAEC and LOAEC (0.018 and 0.035 mg ai/L, respectively) were based on growth (Table
1 9 ).Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

52 

### Table 1 9

. Summary of endpoint s selected to evaluate risk for aquatic plant s

Assessment Endpoint Me asurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint, Toxicity, and Effect(s) (μg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and
biomass of aquatic vascular
and non

- vascular plants Non

- vascular species:
the mos t sensitive productivity EC 50 Blue

- green algae ( Anabaena flos

aquae ) 120

- hour EC 50 = 350
NOAEC = 110

Cell density Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
92.2 % ai

MRID 41869535

Acceptable

Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) 96

- hour EC 50 = 1400 0
NOAEC = 7800

Cell density Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
95.8 % ai

MRID 48043713

Acceptable

Marine diatom ( Skeletonema

costatum ) 120 hour EC 50 = 16000
NOAEC = 3700

Cell density Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
92.2%

MRID 41869533

Acceptable

Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) 120

- hour EC 50 = 42000
NOAEC = 6200

Cell density Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
92.2% ai

MRID 41869534

Acceptable
Vascular species: the
most sensitive productivity EC 50 Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) EC 50 = 190
NOAEC = 18

Frond density Trinexapac

- ethyl technical grade,
96.6% ai

MRID 42595303

Acceptable53 

# Results: Risk Characterization

Risk Estimation

As described in the Trinexapac

- Ethyl Work Plan, estimates of exposure and ecotoxicity of trinexapac

- ethyl are integrated using standard risk quotient (RQ) methods to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects to non

- target species. Risk quotient results for non

target terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants are described in this section. Risk quoti ent s represent expected direct effects to organisms ( i.e . effects from direct toxicity to trinexapac

ethyl exposure) in contrast to indirect effects to an organism resulting from a modification of a resource such as loss of their prey or habitat.

Direct E ffects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Vertebrates

D IRECT E FFECTS TO B IRDS , R EPTILES , AND ( LAND

- PHASE ) A MPHIBIANS 

### Acute Effects For spray applications d ose

- based r isk quotients ranged from <0.01 to 0.62 and some of the uses exceeded the LOC of 0.1 for listed spe cies. Specifically, 20 g birds consuming short grass diets had RQs above the LOC for sugarcane and grasses grown for seed uses. Turf uses yielded RQs above the LOC for small and medium

- sized birds on several food items (short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, arthropods). In addition

, at the highest turf application rate (1.36 lb ai/A), small birds consuming short grass yielded RQs that exceeded the non

- listed species LOC of 0.5.

For granular applications to turf, RQs ranged from <0.01 to 0.52. All of the uses exceeded
the LO C of 0.1 for small (20 g) birds (Table 22 ).

Chronic dietary risk quotients ranged from 0.01 to 2.41 and exceeded the LOC of 1. More specifically, the two highest turf rates (0.68 and 1.36 lb ai/A) produced RQs that were above

t he LOC for short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf plants (Table 20 ).

Table 20 . Upper bound risk quotients for birds derived from T

- REX Risk Quotients
Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 20 g 100 g 1000 g

Acute Acute Acute

Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A Short grass 0.03 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.13 Tall grass 0.02 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.06 Broadleaf plants 0.02 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.07 Fruits/pods 0.00 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.01 Arthropods 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.05
Seeds <0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A54 

### Risk Quotients
Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 20 g 100 g 1000 g

Acute Acute Acute

Short grass 0.10 * 0.04 0.01 0.37 Tall grass 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.17 Broadleaf plants 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.21 Fruits/pods 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.02 Arthropods 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.15
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.02

Gr asses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A Short grass 0.15 * 0.07 0.02 0.60 Tall grass 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.28 Broadleaf plants 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.34 Fruits/pods 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.04 Arthropods 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.24
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.04 Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 weeks) Short grass 0.24 * 0.11 * 0.03 0.95 Tall grass 0.11 * 0.05 0.02 0.43 Broadleaf plants 0.14 * 0.06 0.02 0.53 Fruits/pods 0.02 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.06 Arthropods 0.10 * 0.04 0.01 0.37
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.06 Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai /A (8 weeks) Short grass 0.31 * 0.14 * 0.04 1.20 *** Tall grass 0.14 * 0.06 0.02 0.55 Broadleaf plants 0.17 * 0.08 0.02 0.68 Fruits/pods 0.02 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.08 Arthropods 0.12 * 0.05 0.02 0.47
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.08 Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 week s) Short grass 0.62 ** 0.28 * 0.09 2.41 *** Tall grass 0.28 * 0.13 * 0.04 1.10 *** Broadleaf plants 0.35 * 0.16 * 0.05 1.35 *** Fruits/pods 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.15 Arthropods 0.24 * 0.11 * 0.03 0.94
Seeds 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.15

Bold text indicates an LOC was exceed ed. * Exceeds the acute listed species LOC of 0.155 

### Risk Quotients
Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 20 g 100 g 1000 g

Acute Acute Acute

**Exceeds or meets the acute non

- listed species LOC of 0.5
***Exceeds the chronic LOC of 1

Direct Effects to Mammals Acute Effects
Acute dose

- based risk quotients were calculated for the maximum applicat ion rates for all trinexapac

- ethyl uses . Risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0.05 for spray applications and <0.01 to 0.07 for granular applications ( Tables 21 and 22 ). N one of the uses produced risk quotients that exceeded the acute listed species LOC o f 0.1.

Chronic Effects
Chronic dose

- based risk quotients ranged from <0.01 to 0.35 and dietary

- based risk quotients ranged from <0.0 to 0.01 (Table 21 ). None of the risk quotients exceeded the LOC of 1.

Table 21 . Dietary upper bound risk quotients for mammals Risk Quotients
Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A Short grass < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0 .0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 Tall grass < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Broadleaf plants < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Arthropods < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A Short grass 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 < 0.0 1 0.02 0.01 Tall grass < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 Broadleaf plants < 0.0 1 0.03 < 0.0 1 0.03 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Arthropods < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A Short grass 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 Tall grass 0.01 0.04 < 0.0 1 0.03 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 < 0.0 1 0.02 0.0156 

### Risk Quotients
Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Arthropods < 0.0 1 0.03 < 0.0 1 0.03 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 weeks) Short g rass 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.02 Tall grass 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 < 0.0 1 0.03 0.01 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 Arthropods 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 < 0.0 1 0.02 0.01
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (8 weeks) Short grass 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.08 0.02 Tall grass 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.01 Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 Arthropods 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.06 < 0.0 1 0.03 0.01
Seeds < 0.0 1 <0.01 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 weeks) Short grass 0.05 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.02 0.16 0.04 Tall grass 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.02
Broadl eaf plants 0.03 0.20 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.09 0.02 Fruits/pods < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.02 < 0.0 1 0.01 < 0.0 1 Arthropods 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.02
Seeds < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Table 22

. Acute LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### RQs for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians for granular a pplications Use, Formulation, Type of Application RQs for Birds RQs for Mammals

20g 100g 1000g 15g 35g 1000g

Turf 7 apps at 0.35 lb ai/A (4 weeks) 0.21* 0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.01 <0.01

Turf 6 apps at 0.44 lb ai/A (4 weeks) 0 .26* 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.02 <0.01

Turf 3 apps at 0.88 lb ai/A (4 weeks) 0.52** 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 <0.0157 

### Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

Acute contact RQs for the honeybee ranged from 0.03 to 0.35 ; none of the uses exceeded the
h oneybee LOC of 0.4 ( USEPA 2012 ) (Table 23 ). However, all but the cereals uses exceeded the listed species interim LOC of 0.05. Acute dietary contact RQs could not be calculated because the acute contact toxicity data were non

- definitive. See the Risk De scription section
for further characterization.

Table 23. Adult insect foliar spray risk quotient values

Use RQ

Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A 0.03

Sugarcane 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A 0.08 *

Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A 0.13 *

Turf 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (4 weeks) 0.09 *

Turf 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (8 weeks) 0.17 *

Turf 4 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (8 weeks) 0.35 *

*Exceeds the listed species interim LOC of 0.05

Direct Effects to Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plants

T errPlant was used to model potential runoff and spray drift effects from the different trinexapac

- ethyl uses (Table 24 ). The maximum application rate for each crop was used to calculate risk quotients for semi

- aquatic and upland terrestrial plants , as wel l as risks from spray drift

.

The wheat, barley, oat, and triticale scenario (1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A) was the only one that did not yield risk quotients that exceeded the LOC of 1. The sugarcane and lowest turf application rate (0.34 lb ai/A) produced RQ s above the LOC for semi

- aquatic listed and non

listed monocots and dicots. The turf scenario at 0.68 lb ai/A had RQs above the LOC for all
semi

- aquatic plants (listed and non

- listed) for both chemigation and ground applications. Finally, the highest tur f application rate (1.36 lb ai/A) identified RQs above the LOC for all
semi

- aquatic plants and chemigation app lications to listed plants. At this rate, the spray drift RQ also exceeded the LOC for chemigation applications to listed monocots.

Table 24

. Summary of risk quotient values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to trinexapac

- ethyl through runoff and spray drift

Plant Listed Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift58 

### Type Status Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Wheat, barley, oat, and triticale 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 0.19 0.20 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed <0.1 0.12 0.60 0.64 <0.1 0.13
Dicot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 0.26 0.28 <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 0.12 0.60 0.64 <0.1 <0.1 Sugarcane 1 app a t 0.31 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.10 0.53 0.57 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed 0.20 0.33 1.68 * 1.81 * <0.1 0.36

Dicot non

- listed <0.1 0.14 0.72 0.78 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed 0.20 0.33 1.68 * 1.81 * <0.1 0.16 Grasses grown for seed 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A

Mon ocot non

- listed <0.1 0.17 0.85 0.91 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed 0.32 0.53 2.71 * 2.93 * 0.12 0.59
Dicot non

- listed 0.14 0.23 1.16 * 1.25 * <0.1 0.11
Dicot listed 0.32 0.53 2.71 * 2.93 * <0.1 0.27 Turf 1 app at 0.34 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.11 0.58 0.6 2 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed 0.22 0.36 1.84 * 1.99 * <0.1 0.40
Dicot non

- listed <0.1 0.15 0.79 0.85 <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed 0.22 0.36 1.84 * 1.99 * <0.1 0.18 Turf 1 app at 0.68 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed 0.14 0.23 1.15 * 1.24 * <0.1 0.12

Monocot listed 0.43 0 .72 3.69 * 3.98 * 0.16 0.80
Dicot non

- listed 0.19 0.31 1.58 * 1.70 * <0.1 0.15
Dicot listed 0.43 0.72 3.69 * 3.98 * <0.1 0.36 Turf 1 app at 1.36 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed 0.27 0.45 2.30 * 2.49 * <0.1 0.23

Monocot listed 0.87 1.45 * 7.38 * 7.96 * 0.32 1.60 *
Dic ot non

- listed 0.37 0.62 3.15 * 3.40 * <0.1 0.31
Dicot listed 0.87 1.45 * 7.38 * 7.96 * 0.14 0.72

*Exceeds LOC of 1.59 

### Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish (Amphibians), Invertebrates and Estuarine

Marine Fish (Amphibians) and Invertebrates, and Aquatic Plants

R isk quotients for aquatic organisms are calculated using aquatic EECs derived as described in the exposure analysis using PRZM/EXAMS in conjunction with selected acute and chronic fish, aquatic invertebrate, and aquatic plant toxicity values. The calculat ed risk quotients are based on total toxic residue exposure from the parent trinexapac

- ethyl and its major degradates for the aquatic environment

.

Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians

– Acute Risk For freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase a mphibians), acute risk quotients were all

< 0.01 and did not exceed the listed species acute LOC of 0.05 for any registered trinexapac

ethyl uses (Table 25 ).

Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians

– Chronic Risk For freshwater fish (surrogate for aq uatic

- phase amphibians), chronic risk quotients were all

< 0.01 and did not exceed the chronic LOC of 1 (Table 25 ).

Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Acute Risk For estuarine/marine fish, acute risk quotients were all below 0.01 and did not exceed the listed species acute LOC of 0.05 for any registered trinexapac

- ethyl uses (Table 25 ).

Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Chronic Risk For estuarine/marine fish, chronic risk quotients were < 0.01 and did not exce e d the chronic LOC of 1 (Table 25 ).

Table 25 . Acute and chronic risks from trinexapac

- ethyl to freshwat er fish and
estuarine/marine fish

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chemigation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 35000 μg ai/L Freshwater Fish
Chronic R Q (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 4 10 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 180000 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC =
410 μg ai/L


### Cereals

– 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) A <0 .01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ND Wheat (June 21

- chemigation) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sugarcane

– 1 a pp at 0.31 lb ai/A FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Sugarcane (Decemb er 03

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0160 

### Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chemigation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 35000 μg ai/L Freshwater Fish
Chronic R Q (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 4 10 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 180000 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC =
410 μg ai/L 

### FL Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (November 26

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (November 19

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (November 12

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (November 5

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (November 1

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– fol iar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Grasses grown for seed

– 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf

– 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (28 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0161 

### Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chemigation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 35000 μg ai/L Freshwater Fish
Chronic R Q (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 4 10 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 180000 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC =
410 μg ai/L


### PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf

– 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai /A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf

– 2 apps at 1.3 6 lb ai/A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Freshwater I nvertebrates

– Acute Risk Risk quotients could not be cal c u l ated f or freshwater invertebrates because the toxicity value

was non

- definitive. See the risk characterization for a description of the expected risks.

Freshwater Invertebrates

– Chronic Risk

F or freshwater invertebrates, the chron ic risk quotients were all < 0. 01. None of them exceeded the chronic LOC (1) for any registered use of trinexapac

- ethyl (Table 2 6 ).

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

– Acute Risk For estuarine/marine invertebrates, the a cute risk quotients were all below 0.01. None of the
uses exceeded the acute LOC of 0.05 ( Table 2 6 ).

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

– Chronic Risk For estuarine/marine invertebrates, the chronic risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0.0 4

. None of them exc eeded the chronic LOC (1) for any registered use of trinexapac

- ethyl (Table
26 ).62 

### T able 2 6 . Acute and chronic risks from trinexapac

- ethyl to freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chemigation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- y ear Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Freshwater
Invert Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 2400 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Invert Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 6500 μg
ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Invert Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 110 μg ai/L


### Cereals

– 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.01

ND Wheat (June 21

- chemigation) C <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Sugarcane

– 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A <0.01 <0 .01 0.02

FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.02

FL Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 0.02

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.05

LA Sugarcane (November 26

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.03

LA Sugarcane (November 19

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.03

LA Sugarcane (November 12

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.03

LA Sugarcane (November 5

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.03

LA Sugarcane (November 1

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.02

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.04

L A Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 0.04

Grasses grown for seed

– 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.01

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.0163 

### Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chemigation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- y ear Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Freshwater
Invert Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 2400 μg ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Invert Acute RQ (Peak
EEC/LC 50 )
LC 50 = 6500 μg
ai/L Estuarine /
Marine Invert Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 110 μg ai/L


### FL Turf (February 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

P A Turf (April 15

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf

– 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (28 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.02

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf

– 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.01

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0 .01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.03

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Turf

– 2 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.03

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 0.01

PA Turf (A pril 01

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 0.04

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 0.03

Aquatic Vascular and Non

- vascular Plants64 

### Aquatic vascular plant risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0. 3 8. Aquatic non

- vascular plant risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0.06 . None of the aquatic plant risk quotients exceeded the LOC of 1 for any registered use of trinexapac

- ethyl (Table 2 7 ).

Table 27 . Risks from trinexapac

- ethyl to aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chem igation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Non

- Listed
Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/EC 50 )
LC 50 = 350 μg
ai/L Listed Non

vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 110 μg ai/L Non

- Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/E C 50 )
LC 50 = 19 0 μg
ai/L Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ ( Peak
EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 1 8 μg ai/L


### Cereals

– 1 app at 0.11 lb ai/A

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

ND Wheat (June 21

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

ND Wheat (June 21

- chemig ation) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Sugarcane

– 1 app at 0.31 lb ai/A FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) A <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.18

FL Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.17

FL Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.16

LA Sugarc ane (December 03

– foliar) A 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.37

LA Sugarcane (November 26

– foliar) A 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.26

LA Sugarcane (November 19

– foliar) A 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.24

LA Sugarcane (November 12

– foliar) A 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.21

LA Sugarcane (November 5

– fo liar) A 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.23

LA Sugarcane (November 1

– foliar) A <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.19

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– foliar) G 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.35

LA Sugarcane (December 03

– chem.) C 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.34

Grasses grown for seed

– 1 app at 0.5 lb ai/A65 

### Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chem igation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Non

- Listed
Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/EC 50 )
LC 50 = 350 μg
ai/L Listed Non

vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 110 μg ai/L Non

- Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/E C 50 )
LC 50 = 19 0 μg
ai/L Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ ( Peak
EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 1 8 μg ai/L



### FL T urf (February 15

– foliar) A <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.08

FL Turf (February 15

– foliar) G <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

FL Turf (February 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) A <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.08

PA Turf (April 15

– foliar) G <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 0.03

PA Turf (April 15

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Turf

– 8 apps at 0.34 lb ai/A (28 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.09

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.16

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.07

Turf

– 4 apps at 0.68 lb ai/A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.24

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G 0.01 0. 04 0.02 0.25

PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.13

Turf

– 2 apps at 1.36 lb ai/A (56 days)

FL Turf (February 1

– foliar) G 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.24

FL Turf (February 1

– chem.) C <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.09

PA Turf (April 01

– foliar) G 0.02 0.06 0.0 4 0.3866 

### Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G)

or Chem igation (C) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/L)

Non

- Listed
Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/EC 50 )
LC 50 = 350 μg
ai/L Listed Non

vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 110 μg ai/L Non

- Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ (Peak
EEC/E C 50 )
LC 50 = 19 0 μg
ai/L Listed
Vascular Aquatic Plant RQ ( Peak
EEC/ NOAEC)
NOAEC = 1 8 μg ai/L


### PA Turf (April 01

– chem.) C 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.21

Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values As part of the risk estimation, the probability of mortality associated with the listed acute LOC values is estimated along with the probability of acute mortality occurring if exposure at the EEC actually occurs. The probability of mortality calculations are based on the probit slope dose

- response relationship. The probability of mortality for an exposed individual is
calculated usi ng an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by EFED of the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004).

The model provides the option of inserting taxa

- specific probit slopes and co nfidence intervals. If specific information is not available, the model uses a default value of 4.5 for the probit slope and 2 and 9 for the upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds. For trinexapac

- ethyl, taxa

- specific data were only available for terrestrial invertebrates ; default values were used for other taxonomic groups.

Probabilities of mortality were only calculated for scenarios where the risk quotient exceeded the acute listed species LOC. For trinexapac

- ethyl, there were only two group s that met this
criterion

– birds and terrestrial invertebrates

. The highest RQ from each scenario w as modeled (Table 28 ).

Table 2 8 . Odds of mortality for a bird or terrestrial invertebrate for trinexapac

- ethyl RQ Slope 95% Confidence
Interval Odds (1 in...)

Birds (sugarcane) 0.10 4.5 2, 9 294,000

Birds (grasses grown for seed) 0.15 4.5 2, 9 9560

Birds (turf at 0.34 lb ai/A) 0.24 4.5 2, 9 378

Birds (turf at 0.68 lb ai/A) 0.31 4.5 2, 9 90

Birds (turf at 1.36 lb ai/A) 0.62 4.5 2, 9 6

Terrestrial inv ertebrates (sugarcane) 0.08 2.43 1.77, 3.09 26067 

### RQ Slope 95% Confidence
Interval Odds (1 in...)

Terrestrial invertebrates (grasses grown for seed) 0.13 2.43 1.77, 3.09 64

Terrestrial invertebrates (turf at 0.34 lb ai/A) 0.09 2.43 1.77, 3.09 181

Terrestrial invertebrates (turf 0.68 lb ai/A) 0.17 2.43 1.77, 3.09 33

Terrestrial invertebrates (turf at 1.36 lb ai/A) 0.35 2.43 1.77, 3.09 7



## Risk Description The following risk description explains the overall direct effect conclusions regarding the potential ecological risk from the various uses of trinexa pac

- ethyl. The risk conclusions take into consideration all lines of evidence, such as the risk estimates (risk quotient results); information on the odds of mortality for the acute risk quotient values; comparisons of non

definitive endpoints ( i.e ., limi t tests) to EECs; information such as monitoring data, field studies, and incident data that may provide additional insights into the likelihood of exposure; and other factors that modify the likelihood of exposure such as timing of application, overlap o f area affected and the degree of effect with the presence/absence of taxa, species sensitivity distribution, and presence/absence of dietary items.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL B IRDS , R EPTILES , AND A MPHIBIANS 

### Acute Risk
Acute dose

- based RQs indicated the potential for direct effects to listed species of birds (surrogate for reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians) for the foliar sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses (Table 30 )

. There is a 1 in 294,000 (sugarcane), 1 in 9560 (grasses grown for s eed), 1 in 378 (turf at 0.34 lb ai/A), 1 in 90 (turf at 0.68 lb ai/A), and 1 in 6 (tur f at 1.36 lb ai/A) chance of individual mortality by these uses. More specifically, small (20 g birds) consuming diets of short grass were at risk for all of these uses. Turf scenarios at rates of 0.68 lb ai/A and higher triggered concerns for small and medium (100 g birds) on additional food items (tall grass, broadleaf plants, and arthropods). Finally, at the highest turf application rate (1.36 lb ai/A), small non

- lis ted species of birds consuming short grass diets
were also affected. Granular applications to turf also were flagged to cause adverse direct
effects to birds. Thus, the re is a potential for direct risk concerns for acute exposure of listed
and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians from trinexapac

- ethyl for the sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses.

Buffers may be used to mitigate risk concerns that are the result of spray drift. To determine
terrestrial habitats of concern f rom trinexapac

- ethyl exposures through spray drift, it is necessary to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift from the treated area and still be present at concentrations that exceed levels of concern. Ground applications of trinexapac

- et hyl granular formulations are expected to result in negligible drift. For the flowable uses, a quantitative analysis of spray dri ft distances was completed with AgDRIFT (v. 2.11) using default inputs for ground applications ( i.e ., high boom, ASAE droplet size distribution = Very Fine to Fine, 90 th 

### data percentile) and aerial applications ( i.e ., ASAE68 

### Very Fine to Fine).

The results indicate that buffers for the sugarcane and grasses grown for seed uses would
need to be a maximum of 3.28 ft around listed species habitat to mitigate acute effects to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians. The turf uses would require larger buffers

– 6.56 to 19.68 ft, depending on the application rate (Table 29)

.

Table 29

. Avian, reptile, and terrestrial

- phase amphibian Buffers for trinexapac

- ethyl Calculated with AgDRIFT

Use Single A pplication Rate (lb ai/A) Fraction of Applied Buffer Distance (ft)

Sugarcane (ground) 0.31 1 3.28 Sugarcane (aerial) 0.31 1 0 Grasses grown for seed (ground) 0.5 0.67 3.28

Gras ses grown for seed (aerial) 0.5 0.67 0

Turf (ground) 0.34 0.42 6.56 Turf (ground) 0.68 0.32 9.84 Turf (ground) 1.36 0.16 19.6869 

### Table 30 Trinexapac

- ethyl uses that exceeded the acute dose

- based LOC ( 0. 1) for birds

Use Dose

- based RQs Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Arthropods

20 g 100 g 1000 g 20 g 100 g 1000 g 20 g 100 g 1000 g 20 g 100 g 1000 g
Sugarcane Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Grasses grown for seed Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Turf (0.34 lb ai/A) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Turf (0.68 lb ai/A) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Turf (1.36 lb ai/A) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No70 

### Chronic Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary

- based chronic risks and several exceeded the L OC of 1. Specifically, the two highest turf rates (0.68 and 1.36 lb ai/A) yielded RQs above the LOC for short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf plants. Consequently, direct effects to listed
and non

- listed avian, reptile, and terrestrial

- phase amphibian s pecies are possible.

The SIP model identified drinking water as a potential exposure pathway for both acute and
chronic risks for birds. Before the registration review risk assessment is finalized, the input for the expected concentration in water will be re

- visited. Currently, it is based on the conservative assumption that the concentration in drinking water is equal to the solubility limit of trinexapac

- ethyl. This is likely an overestimation and the true concentration would
be much lower.

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute and chronic risks to birds (surrogates for reptiles and
land

- phase amphibians) is listed below:

• There is a potential for acute risk concerns to listed and non

- listed birds (surrogates
for reptiles and land

- phase amphibians) for sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and
turf uses , based on RQs exceeding the LOC.

• There is a potential for chronic risk concerns to listed and non

- listed birds (reptiles
and land

- phase amphibians) for some turf uses

, based on RQs exceeding the LOC (1).

• There is a potential for acute and chronic risk concerns to birds, based on the drinking water exposure pathway.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL M AMMALS 

### Acute Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary and dose

- ba sed acute exposures. None of the trinexapac

- ethyl uses exceeded the LOC of 0.1, for listed species. Therefore, acute direct
effects to listed and non

- listed mammals are not expected.

Chronic Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary and dose

- based chronic exposures. None of the trinexapac

- ethyl uses yielded RQs that exceeded the LOC (1). Therefore, chronic direct
effects to listed and non

- listed mammals are not expected.

The SIP model identified drinking water as a potential exposure pathway for both acute and chronic risks for mammals. Before the registration review risk assessment is finalized, the input for the expected concentration in water will be re

- visited. Currently, it is based on the conservative assumption that the concentration in drinking water is equal to the solubility limit of trinexapac

- ethyl. This is likely an overestimation and the true concentration would
be much lower.

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute and chronic risks to mammals i s listed below:71 

### • The potential for acute risk to mammals is low for all trinexapac

- ethyl uses, based on RQs not exceeding the listed species LOC s (0.1).

• The potential for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed mammals for all trinexapa c

ethyl uses is low b ased on the RQs not exceeding the listed species LOC (1).

• There is a potential acute and chronic concern for mammals, based on the drinking water exposure pathway.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL I NVERTEBRATES 

### T he Pollinator White Paper (USEPA 2012 ) has ide ntified an LOC of 0.4 for honeybees

. T he level of direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates necessary to indirectly affect other taxa that rely on terrestrial invertebrates as a food source or for pollination has not been established on
a national level , and the use of the interim LOC of 0.05 will apply to all terrestrial
invertebrates without the demarcation of non

- listed and listed , except for honeybees, for
which an LOC of 0.4 will be used

.

RQs were calculated for acute contact risks to terrestrial i nvertebrates and honeybees. Sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses exceeded the terrestrial invertebrate LOC of
0.05. There is a 1 in 260 (sugarcane), 1 in 64 (grasses grown for seed), 1 in 181 (turf at 0.34 lb ai/A), 1 in 33 (turf at 0.68 lb a i/A)

, and 1 in 7 (tur f at 1.36 lb ai/A) chance of individual mortality by these uses.

None of the uses exceeded the honeybee LOC of 0.4. Acute oral toxicity data or larval toxicity data were not available for honeybees; these were recently identified by the Pollinator White Paper (USEPA 2012) as being useful endpoints for assessing risks to terrestrial invertebrates. When available, the acute oral toxicity value in honeybees is usually lower (more toxic ) than the acute contact toxicity value. Thus, it i s assumed that terrestrial invertebrates would also be at risk via dietary exposures. Given that the honeybee acute contact RQs did not indicate concerns for honeybees, it is uncertain if there would be risk concerns for the oral exposure pathway for hone ybees. Similarly, for both terrestrial invertebrates and honeybees, the risk concerns to larvae are unknown.

Buffers around habitat may offer one mitigation strategy for acute contact risks to terrestrial
invertebrates. See the acute avian section above for further description on the AgDrift program and the parameters used in the model. The results indicate that buffers of up to 3.28
f t would be protective of applications of sugarcane (ground and aerial) and grasses grown for
seed (ground) while buffers up to 19.68 ft would be protective of aerial application of grasses grown for seed and turf

. T hese results are only relevant to acute contact toxicity because data are not available for acute oral toxicity in terrestrial invertebrates (Table 31)

. Buffer s could provide protection for off

- site exposures, but terrestrial invertebrates on the treated areas may still be at risk.

Table 31

. Terrestrial invertebrate b uffers for trinexapac

- ethyl c alculated with AgDRIFT

Use Single A pplication Rate (lb ai/A) Frac tion of Applied Buffer Distance (ft)

Sugarcane (ground) 0.31 0.625 3.28 Sugarcane (aerial) 0.31 0.625 072 Use Single A pplication Rate (lb ai/A) Frac tion of Applied Buffer Distance (ft)

Grasses grown for seed (ground) 0.5 0.385 3.28

Grasses grown for seed (aerial) 0.5 0.385 19.68

Turf (ground) 0.34 0.56 6.56 Turf (ground) 0.68 0. 29 9.84 Turf (ground) 1.36 0.14 19.68



### Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute risks to terrestrial invertebrates is listed below:

• The re is the potential for acute contact and dietary risk to terrestrial invertebrates f or the sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses

, based on RQs

.

• The potential for direct acute contact risks to honeybees is unlikely, based on RQs

.

• The potential for direct acute dietary risks to honeybees is unknown because oral toxicity data are not available.

• Risk concerns for larvae of terrestrial invertebrates and honeybees are unknown
because data are not available.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL P LANTS 

### Risk quotients were calculated for listed and non

- listed terrestrial plants

. None of the RQs exceeded the LOC for the cereals uses (barley, wheat, oats, and triticale). Direct risk concerns were identified for the other uses (Table s 32

- 3 3 ). Listed and non

- listed semi

aquatic monocots and dicots had RQs above the LOC for all of the remaining uses. At rates of 0.5 lb ai/A and higher, non

- listed semi

- aquatic monocots and dicots were also affected. In addition, at the highest turf application rate (1.36 lb ai/A), listed dry monocots and dicots exceeded the LOC; the spray drift RQ for listed mo nocots also exceeded the LOC for this scenario. Therefore, the RQ analysis indicates direct risk concerns for terrestrial plants for the sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses.73 

### Table 3 2

. Trinexapac

- ethyl application scenarios that exceeded th e LOC for listed and non

- listed monocots

Use Non

- listed monocot Listed monocot Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift
Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem Ground Aerial /
Chem

Sugarcane No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Grasses grown for seed No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (0.34 lb ai/A0 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (0.68 lb ai/A) No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (1.36 lb ai/A) No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes



### Table 3 3 . Trinexapac

- ethyl application scenarios that exceeded the LOC for listed and non

- listed dicots

Use Non

- listed dicot Listed dicot Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift
Ground Aer ial/
Chem Ground Aerial/
Chem Ground Aerial/
Chem Ground Aerial/
Chem Ground Aerial/
Chem Ground Aerial/
Chem

Sugarcane No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Grasses grown for seed No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (0.34 lb ai/A0 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (0.68 lb ai/A) No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Turf (1.36 lb ai/A) No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No74 

### Buffers around habitat may offer a potential mitigation strategy to reduce the concentration
of trinexapa c

- ethyl that reaches non

- target terrestrial plants

. The TerrPlant analysis indicated that most of the risk was a result of runoff, not spray drift. When the spray drift input was set to “0,” the semi

- aquatic and dry plant RQs dropped slightly, but not en ough to lower the RQ
below the LOC of 1 . Consequently, mitigation options should focus on runoff . In general, pesticide exposure will be less for plants farther from the use site, thus buffers may be a useful mitigation option for plants affected by runo ff.

One uncertainty is that for the turf uses, there are several products that are mixed with flurprimidol and paclobutrazol. These chemicals are also plant growth regulators and may subject non

- target plants to additional stress. It is unknow n if the e ffects of these chemicals would be additive, synergistic, or cause inference in the mechanism of action.

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for risks to terrestrial plants is listed below:

• The re is a potential for direct effe cts to listed monocots and dicots from the sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses, based on the RQ analysis.

• There is a potential for direct effects to non

- listed semi

- aquatic monocots and dicots from grasses grown for seed and two highest turf a pplication uses, based on the RQ analysis.

• Runoff is the main driver of the risk concerns.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO A QUATIC F ISH , I NVERTEBRATES , AND P LANTS 

### Freshwater Fish and Amphibians (Aquatic

- Phase), and Estuarine

- Marine Fish
Acute Risk
Acute RQs for freshwa ter fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians) and estuarine/marine
fish were all less than 0.01 and did not exceed the acu te listed species LOC of 0.05. Therefore, direct adverse effects to freshwater fish, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and
estuarine/mari ne fish on an acute exposure basis are not expected from the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl

.

Chronic Risk Chronic RQs for freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians) were all less than
0.01 and did not exceed the chronic LOC of 1. Conse quently, direct chronic risk concerns to freshwater fish from the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl are not expected.

Chronic estuarine/marine fish data were not available for risk analysis. Chronic data from freshwater fish were considered a protectiv e and conservative surrogate because freshwater
fish were five times more sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl on an acute basis than
estuarine/marine fish. All of the r isk quotients were below 0.01 and did not exceed the LOC
of 1

. Therefore, direct adverse chr onic effects to estuarine/marine fish are not expected from the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl.

Freshwater and Estuarine

- Marine Invertebrates
Acute Risk75 

### Acute RQs for freshwater invertebrates could not be calculated because the acute toxicity
value was non

- definitive. In lieu of this, the LC 50 

### (> 145,500 μg ai/L) was compared directly to the highest peak EEC (6.78 μg ai/L). The LC 50 

### is much higher than the peak EEC indicating that direct risk concerns from acute exposures are not expected for all o f the registered trinexapac

- ethyl uses.

Acute RQs for estuarine/marine invertebrates were all below 0.01 and did not exceed the acute listed species LOC of 0.05. Thus, direct risk concerns from acute exposures to
estuarine/marine invertebrates are not expected.

Chronic Risk The chronic RQs for freshwater invertebrates were less than 0.01 and did not exceed the LOC of 1. Therefore, no direct risk concerns for freshwater invertebrates were identified for the registered trinexapac

- ethyl uses.

Chronic to xicity data were not available for estuarine/marine invertebrates. The acute data for estuarine/marine invertebrates showed them to be more sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl than their freshwater counterparts. Consequently, the chronic data from freshwater i nvertebrates could not be used as a surrogate, as was done for estuarine/marine fish. Chronic toxicity
values were calculated for the parent using EpiSuite; however, the predicted toxicity values were poor matches when compared with acute and chronic endp oints that were available. Using an acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) was explored as well. One drawback to this method is that the freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity value is non

- definitive. Taking the absolute value of this number and using it in the A CR approach may underestimate chronic toxicity

. However, given that the calculated NOAEC by this method yielded RQs from < 0.01 to 0.04, the actual toxicity value would need to be 21 times more sensitive to result in an RQ of 1. Considering all of these a pproaches, it was decided to rely on the ACR toxicity estimate. Therefore, no direct chronic risk concerns are expected for the registered uses of trinexapac

ethyl for estuarine/marine invertebrates.

Aquatic Plants

– Vascular and Non

- vascular RQs for vas cul ar aquatic plants ranged from < 0.01 to 0.38. RQs for no n

- vascular plants ranged from < 0.01 to 0.06. None of the RQs exceeded the LOC of 1; consequently, direct risk concerns are not expected for listed or non

- listed vascular and non

- vascular aquatic

p lants for the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl

Summary of Risk from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for risks to aquatic organisms is listed below:

• Direct acute and chronic r isk concerns were not identified for freshwater fish, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and estuarine/marine fish for the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl.

• Direct acute and chronic risk concerns were not identified for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates for the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl

.

• Direct risk concer ns to aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants were not identified for the registered uses of trinexapac

- ethyl76 

### Listed Species Effects Analysis The direct and indirect effects analysis for general taxa of listed species is summ arized in
Table 34 , for tri nexapac

- ethyl uses. The analysis is based on the direct and indirect effects concluded from the analysis of risk estimates.77 

### Table 3 4 . Summary of indirect and direct effects to listed species and preliminary effects determination for trinexapac

- ethyl

u ses
Listed species

group Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect
Effects Effects Determination

Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary productivity No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed t errestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments.
It could affect non

- vascular plant habitat by changing the wate r temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc.

C urrently, there are no listed non

- vascular aquatic plant species, therefore
adverse effects to listed non

- vascular plants are not expected. No Effect

Vascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary p roductivity
assessed from effects on main stem length, total stem length (main + laterals), and fresh weight No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or r unoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect vascular plant habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. Direct ef fects were also identified for terrestrial invertebrates. They may provide pollination services to vascular aquatic and the reproductive cycle of vascular plants may be disrupted if terrestrial invertebrates are affected by trinexapac

- ethyl uses. Birds ( surrogate for reptiles and land

- phase amphibians) were also directly affected by trinexapac

- ethyl. They may provide seed dispersal services or modify local environments via nesting, foraging, or other activities.

Effects uncertain based on indirect eff ects from direct effects on terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians. Uncertain *

Freshwater
Fish and Amphibians Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC. Direct effects to terrestrial inv ertebrates are expected. They may be a primary food source for freshwater fish and amphibians

.

Direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians are expected. These organisms may prey upon fish and amphibians and play an important role in p opulation control. Furthermore, they may modify the environment (i.e., burrows or indentations that fill with water and act as habitat for Uncertain *78 Listed species

group Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect
Effects Effects Determination

Chronic survival, growth and reproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC

. aquatic

- phase amphibians or ephemeral fish) in ways that are important for
fi sh and aquatic

- phase amphibians

.

Dir ect effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments.
It could affect freshwate r fish and amphibian habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. It may also modify food sources as other aquatic organisms could be affected.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects to terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians.

Freshwater
Invertebrates Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC

. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. It could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments.
This could affect fresh water invertebrate habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. It may also modify food sources as other aquatic organisms could be affected.

Direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians are ex pected. These organisms may prey upon freshwater invertebrates and play an important role in population control. Furthermore, they may modify the environment (i.e., burrows or indentations that fill with water and act as habitat) in ways that are importa nt for aquatic invertebrates.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians, and terrestrial plants

. Uncertain *

Chronic survival and reproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC.

Estuarine/
Marine F ish Acute mortality No Ef fect

– risk quotients below
LOC

. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the struc tural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect estuarine/marine fish habitat by changing the water Uncertain *79 Listed species

group Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect
Effects Effects Determination

Assessment of chronic growth and survival No Effect

– risk quotients below LOC (based on surrogate data)

. temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc.

Direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates are expected. They may be a primary food source for estuarine/marine fish.

Direct effects to birds are expected. They may prey upon fish and play an important role in population control.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects to terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and birds

. Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below
LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed ter restrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect estuarine/marine invertebrate habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc.

Direct effects to birds are expected. These organisms may prey upon estuarine/marine invertebrates and play an important role in population control. Furthermore, they may modify the environment (i.e., burrows or indentations that fill with water and act as habitat) in ways that are important for aquatic invertebrates.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects on terrestrial plants and birds. Uncertain *

Assessment of chronic

grow th and reproductive
effects No Effect

– risk quotients below LOC (based on acute

- to

chronic ratio).

Non

- target plants in
terrestrial and
semi

- aquatic

areas Primary productivity
assessed from effects on
biomass as measured using survival and dry weight; incident data. Risk quotients above
LOC Direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians may adversely affect plants because some of these species act as seed dispersers and pollinators. Direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates may also af fect pollination services. A reduction in these services could affect plant reproduction and establishment.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians, and terrestrial invertebrates

. Uncertain *

Birds, Rept iles, and
Land

- Phase Acute mortality Risk quotients above
LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and mo dify the structural habitat. Resources for nests, food, Uncertain *80 Listed species

group Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect
Effects Effects Determination

Amphibians Chronic reproduction R isk quotients above
LOC. or camouflage may be diminished.

Direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates may reduce prey availability for birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians.

Effects uncertain based on direct effec ts to terrestrial plants and terrestrial
invertebrates

. Mammals Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below LOC (based on dietary exposure)

. Direct effects to non

- listed and liste d terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat. Resources for nests, food, or camouflage may be diminished.

Direct effects to terre strial invertebrates may reduce prey availability for mammal. It may also reduce the amount of fruit/seeds that are available if pollinator services are affected for key plants.

Direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians may reduce pr ey availability for carnivorous or omnivorous mammals.

Effects uncertain based on direct effects to terrestrial plants

, terrestrial
invertebrates , and birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians

. Uncertain *

Chronic Reproduction No Effect

– Risk quotient s below LOC (based on dietary exposure)

.

Terrestrial

In vertebrates Acute mortality based on

contact Risk quotients above
LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial plants may occur from trinexapac

- ethyl spray drift and runoff exposure; therefore, indirect effects could occur from an alteration in habitat in which a species relies on for forage, shelter, and/or reproduction needs.

Effects uncertain based on indirect effects from direct effects to terrestrial plants

. Uncertain *

* Althou gh this preliminary assessment has, on a coarse biological geographical data set basis, identified potential concerns for eff ects on individuals of a listed species within the taxonomic group, it is possible that additional information and further analysis will lead to species

- specific determinations of no effect, may affect not likely to adversely affect, or may a ffect likely to adversely affect. Sections of the document describing additional information sources, coupled with considerat ions of uncertaintie s, are likely to figure prominently in species

- specific determinations.81 A CTION A REA 

### In the case of a nation

- wide risk assessment conducted under registration review, the action area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defi ning the action
area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration encompasses all areas where the pesticide may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off

- site transport via spray drift and downstream dilution. Additionally, the concept of a nation

- wide action area takes into account the potential for direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based on ecological effect measures
associated with reduction i n survival, growth, and reproduction, as well as the full suite of
sub

- lethal effects available in the effects literature.

It is important to note that the nationwide action area does not imply that direct and/or
indirect effects and critical habitat mod ification are expected to or are likely to occur over the full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habitat that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis including c onsideration of available land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure information to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or rep roduction.

E FFECTS A REA D ETERMINATION 

### The potential for direct and/or indirect effects is possible to listed species from exposure to trinexapac

- ethyl

.

Direct Effects There are potential direct effects to listed species for the following taxa:

• Bir ds, Reptiles, and Land

- Phase Amphibians (based on acute and chronic risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

• Terrestrial Plants (based on risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

• Terrestrial Invertebrates (based on acute contact risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

Indire ct Effects As there are potential direct effects to birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians , terrestrial plants

, and terrestrial invertebrates , indirect effects could occur to other taxa.

• Indirect effects to listed fish, aquatic invertebrates, amphibia ns, reptiles, and other terrestrial organisms ( e.g . birds, mammals and other invertebrates) that are dependent

on terrestrial invertebrates, birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians, and plants for
food.

• Indirect effects to terrestrial plants for which t errestrial animals ( e.g . birds , reptiles,
land

- phase amphibians, and terrestrial invertebrates ) are needed for reproduction ( e.g

. pollination, seed dispersal) as there may be a potential change in pollinator/seed disperser communities/populations.

• Indire ct effects to a listed species that is dependent on a bird, reptile, land

- phase amphibian, or terrestrial invertebrate

.82 

### • Indirect effects to listed species that are dependent on a plant in terrestrial or semi

aquatic areas during some phase of their life

- cy cle for things such as food, shelter, and reproductive habitats.

The following table shows the potential taxa indirectly affected by direct effects (Table 3 5 )

Table 3 5 . Organism groups that are potentially indirectly affected by direct effects to
oth er organisms (specific to trinexapac

- ethyl uses)

Taxon Directly Affected Taxon Indirectly Affected Reason for Indirect Effect Birds, Reptiles, Land

- Phase

A mphibians Reptiles, Birds, Plants, Amphibians , Mammals , Fish Change in prey population (food source) ; Reduction in potential pollinators/seed dispersers ; Reduction in habitats ( e.g., burrows, nests)

Terrestrial Invertebrates Fish, Invertebrates, Reptiles, Amphibians, Plants, Mammals

, Birds Change in prey population (food source) ; Reduction in pollinator services (plants only)

Terrestrial Plants All taxa (birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates) Change in food sources; change in
habitats



### Based on this screening

- level assessment, there are potential risks of dir ect effects to listed
and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians

, terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial plants from the use of trinexapac

- ethyl on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of all taxa may also be affected throug h indirect effects because of the potential direct
effects on listed and non

- listed species. Potential direct effects on listed and non

- listed birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial plants from the
use of tr inexapac

- ethyl may be associated with modification of primary constituent elements of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. Howe ver, a t this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further refinements are conducted. To make effects determinations for individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more detailed, species

- specific ecological and biological data; 2) more detaile d and accurate
information on trinexapac

- ethyl use patterns; and 3) sub

- county level spatial proximity data
for the co

- occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. The
information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration Information SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will consist of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat , diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa,83 

### the biologic al information relevant to risk quotient (RQ) calculations ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates to derive species

- specific RQs using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements may also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and their use patterns that result in LOC exceed ing the EEC for federally listed species in the screening

level assessment. The analyses may include more information on where, whe n, and how trinexapac

- ethyl is used on all use sites

. Actual usage data (when available) and national
land

- cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [ e.g ., national land cover datase t (NLCD), crop data layer (CDL)] may be used to support a more ref ined analysis of where trinexapac

ethyl is reasonably expected to be used. The majority of trinexapac

- ethyl uses are for turf; layers that depict golf course, park, residential, or other turf locations would refine the

assessment. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and how trinexapac

- ethyl is used may be based on the analysis of additional usage data, beyond what were available at the time of the screening

- level assessment, and a more in

- depth exploration of agronomic practices.

The U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), have announced the availability of a report developed by the National
Aca demy of Sciences’ National Research Council outlining recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of endangered and threatened species risk assessments for pesticides that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA, USDA, FWS and NMFS asked the NRC to consider a range of scientific and technical issues including:

• identifying best available scientific data and informat ion;

• considering sub

- lethal, indirect and cumulative effects;

• assessing the effects of chemical mixtures and inert ingredients;

• analyzing the effects of pesticide use through the use of models;

• incorporat ing uncertainties into the evaluations; and

• using geospatial information and datasets that can be employed by the agencies in the
course of these assessments.

After reviewing the NRC’s recommendations on these scientific and technical issues, the EPA and its federal partners will determine how these recommendations can be implemented and incorporated into the scientific approaches for developing listed species risk assessments. It is anticipated that any draft guidance and/or science policies developed by EPA and its federal partners as a result of the NAS recommendations would be released for public comment prior to implementation.84 

### The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when available; and fu rther recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats. For example, if trinexapa c

- ethyl is used when a particular species of concern is not present ( e.g ., it is migratory) or is not co

- located in space, then risk of potential direct effects to the species may often be precluded. If LOCs are still exceeded for monocots, mammals, fresh water invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and freshwater fish after conducting the refined analyses, further analyses of the potential spatial and temporal co

- occurrence of listed species of concern (and any designated critical habitat) may be c onducted. The extent of possible refinement in the analyses of spatial/temporal co

- occurrence will largely depend on the scale and quality of the available sub

- county level use site ( e.g ., NLCD, CDL) and species location
data

.

The Agency has made several refinements to the list of endangered and threatened species that may be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl sugarcane, grasses grown for seed, and turf uses . To date, there are 14 21 listed species identified in the LOCATES database (v. 2.2. 7 , derived
from USFWS and NMFS)

. The following refinement does not apply to the turf uses, as
LOCATES does not contain information on turf

- use locations. For sugarcane and grasses grown for seed, a “no effect” call for 342 o f the species for direct and indirect effects can b e made based on a lack of geographical overlap

, based on a county level of resolution, between the species and trinexapac

- ethyl uses (Appendix J, Table J

- 1 ). A further 46 species can be
eliminated from consideration of direct effects (i.e., “no effects”) based on species specific ecological and bio logical information from listed species trustee agencies (Appendix J, Table

J

- 2). There are 794 species that will need to be considered in more depth before direct
effects calls are made (Appendix J, Table J

- 3) for the sugarcane and grasses grown for seed

uses . The biological, geographical, and use pattern information outlined above will be necessary to refine the assessment.85 

# Uncertainties

A description of assumptions, uncertainties, strengths, and limitations of the basic risk assessment performed is described in Chapter 6 of the Agency’s Overview Document (EPA, 2004) and includes those related to exposure for all taxa, those related to exposure for aquatic species, those related to exposure for terrestrial an imals, those related to the effects assessment, and those associated with the acute LOC values. This Chapter discusses
additional uncertainties associated with refinements made to the basic risk assessment.



## Effects and Risk Assessment Uncertainties

Ecot oxicity Data Gaps There were several ecotoxicity endpoints for which data were not available.

• Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1350. Data were not available
for chronic effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates. In the absence of data , an acute

to

- chronic ratio will be used in the registration review risk assessment.

• Estuarine/Marine Fish (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1400. Chronic data are not available for the sheepshead minnow. A comparison of acute endpoints shows that freshwater fish

are more sensitive to trinexapac

- ethyl than estuarine/marine fish. Therefore, the freshwater fish chronic toxicity value will be used as a surrogate for the estuarine/marine chronic toxicity value.

• Honeybee Oral Toxicity (Acute) OECD 213. Acute oral toxici ty data are not available for the honeybee. As outlined in the Pollinator White Paper, this study is necessary to conduct a complete risk assessment on honeybees, which currently act as surrogates for terrestrial invertebrates. In the absence of these da ta, the results from the acute contact toxicity analysis were extrapolated to acute oral toxicity.

• Honeybee Larvae Toxicity Non

- Guideline. Larval toxicity information is not available for the honeybee. As outlined in the Pollinator White Paper, this stud y is necessary to conduct a complete risk assessment on honeybees, which currently act as surrogates for terrestrial invertebrates. In the absence of these data, risk was assumed for terrestrial invertebrate larvae, based on the results of the acute conta ct toxicity analysis.

Mixture Toxicity There are several trinexapac

- ethyl products that contain pacl o butrazol and/or flurprimidol as active ingredients. Both of these are also plant growth regulators and it is uncertain if there
could be additional adve rse effects on terrestrial plants from their use. Tank mixing is another source of uncertainty.

Fate Data Gaps Currently, there are no outstanding data requirements for trinexapac ethyl. However, aside from a hydrolysis and an adsorption/desorption study for trinexapac acid (CGA

- 179500) there are no other data are available for the degradates of concern. A total toxic residue (TTR) approach was employed for this assessment, including parent and major environmental degradates including CGA

- 179500, CGA

- 313 458, the open chain86 

### cyclohexane ring, and the unidentified hydroproduct M3. This approach is expected to provide protective exposure estimation for aquatic organisms exposed to the major degradates of trinexapac

- ethyl. It assumes that the degradates have equivalent fate and ecotoxicity properties as the parent

– a conservative assumption.

Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species Currently, a database of life histories for each of the listed animals and plants is not available for use by EFED. These li fe histories would include information such as body size at each life stage, food sources, relationships with other taxa, habitat, and reproductive habits. As such, conservative (protective) assumptions were made concerning the potential relationships
bet ween species in that each species was assumed to have a relationship with the other taxa. This is assumed to be an overestimation of the actual species that have a species dependant relationship.

Locations of Listed Species In addition, the specific oc currences of listed species are not known in some cases beyond the
county

- level. If the location of a species was not known in greater detail than the county level, the species was assumed to occur anywhere within that county at any time. Likewise,

crop location data are also uncertain. Crops may rotate every year and some spatial datasets combine several crop types, making it impossible to distinguish one crop from another. Further, timing may play a role in the location of species and whether it overl aps with the time that a particular crop is in a field. These assumptions may lead to an overestimation of

co

- occurrence with trinexapac

- ethyl exposure and overestimation of the number of species potentially at risk.

Other Routes of Exposure Screening

- le vel risk assessments for 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 suggest that up to 15% of the diet can consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. , 1994). This route of exposure may be important for applications of trinexapac

- ethyl f or spray applications

.

Dermal Exposure

- The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure, except as it is indirectly included in calculations of risk quotient’s based on lethal doses per unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may occu r 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. As foliar ap plications are primary application routes on the registered labels for trinexapac

- ethyl, dermal contact with trinexapac

- ethyl to non

- target animals may occur.

Foliar Dissipation Half

- life An additional source of uncertainty is the foliar dissipation half

- life, which is useful for spray applications to foliage. No half

- life data were provided, thus a default of 35 days was used.
It is not known if this half

- life over or under

- estimates the true half

- life for trinexapac

- ethyl

.87 

### Species Sensitivity Althoug h the screening

- level 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 the 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 rega rding 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 dat a on non

- standard test species when available.

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including eff ects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cycling, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies t hat assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its recent registration on
cereals (USEPA 2011a)

, EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints
for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), trinexapac

- ethyl is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain sub stances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a t wo

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the av ailable data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse
endocrine

- related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose

- response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

- ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Trinexapac

- ethyl is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list88 

### to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue
future EDSP orders/data call

- ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for trinexapac

- ethyl

. For f urther information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

Spatial Analysis

Data are not ava ilable for turf uses, which represent the bulk of the labels and a large geographical area. Data are not available for the percent of cropped areas and changes in crops (e.g., crop rotation or permanent shifts) over time. This remains an uncertainty,

par ticularly for the proximity analysis for listed species. Additionally, future expansions in
the use of trinexapac

- ethyl are not considered. As labels change and uses are expanded, the result may be a larger geographical area in which trinexapac

- ethyl can be used.89 

# References

Beyer, W.N., E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management , 58:375

- 382.

E 159652. Atkinson, J.L., L.B., McCarty, H. Liu, J. Faust, and J.E. Toler. 2012. Diamond zoysi agrass golf green response to reduced light environments with the use of trinexapac

ethyl. Agronomy Journal , 104 (4): 847

- 852.

E159795. Baldwin, C.M., H. Liu, L.B. McCarty, H. Luo, and J.E. Toler. 2009. Nitrogen and plant growth regulator influence o n ‘Champion’ bermudagrass putting green under reduced sunlight. Agronomy Journal , 101 (1): 75

- 81.

E159833. McCullough, P.E., L. Haibo, L.B. McCarty, and J.E. Toler. 2006. Ethephon and trinexapac

- ethyl influence creeping bentgrass growth, quality, and putting green performance. Applied Turfgrass Science , 7 p.

Fletcher, J., Nellessen, J., & Pfleeger, T. (1994). Literature review and evaluation of the
EPA Food

- Chain (Kenaga) Nomogram, an Instrument for Estimating Pesticide Residues
on Plants. Enviro n. Tox. Chem ., 13, 1383

- 1391.

Hoerger, F., & Kenaga, E.E.. (1972). Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds

., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology . Stuttgart, West Germany: Georg Thieme Publ, pp. 9

- 28.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Handbook, Volume I of II. Office of Research and Development, Washing ton, DC.
EPA/600/R

- 93/187a.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered and Threatened Species Effec ts Determination. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C., January 23, 2004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. EFED environmental risk assessment of proposed label for Palisade EC and Palisade 2 EC (trinexapac

- ethyl), new

uses on cereals, sugarcane and grasses grown for seed

– revised. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

United State s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011 b . The Drinking Water Degradates Identification Memorandum for Trinexapac Ethyl. DP 389767. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agenc y, May 24, 201190 

### USEPA. 2012. White paper in support of the proposed risk assessment process for bees. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada, and California Department of Pesticide Regulation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Final Draft. March 1998.91 

## Appendix A

– Bibliography of MRIDs

Ecological Effects Studies
MRID 41563901. Hakin, B., and M. Rogers. 1989. Acute oral toxicity (LD 50 ) of CGA

- 163935 to the mallard duck. Laboratory Report No. CBG 479/89145. Conducted by Huntingdon Research Centre, LKtd., Ciba

Geigy Corporation, Gree nsboro, NC. MRID 41563902. Hakin, B., A.J. Norman, A. Anderson, and I.S. Dawe. 1989. The dietary toxicity (LC 50 ) of
CGA

- 163935 to the bobwhite quail. Laboratory Report No. CBG 478/89284, Conducted by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd., England. For Cib a

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41563903. Hakin, B., M. Rogers, A.J. Norman, A. Anderson, and I.S. Dawe. 1989. The dietary toxicity (LC 50 ) of CGA

- 163935 to the mallard duck. Laboratory Report No. CBG 477/891195, Conducted by Huntingdon Resear ch Centre, Ltd., England. For Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41563904. Smith, G.J., M.F. Yancey, H.O. Pate, D.L. Martin. 1990. Static renewal actue 96

- hour toxicity of CGA

- 163935 to bluegill sunfish. Conducted by Battelle Columbus Divisi on, Columbus, OH. Laboratory Report No. SC900020. Agricultural Division, Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41563905. Smith, G.J., M.F., Yancy, H.O. Pate, and D.L. Martin. 1990. Static renewal acute 96

- hour toxicity of CGA

- 163935 to rainbow trout. Conducted by Battelle Columbus Division, Columbus, OH. Laboratory Report No. SC900019. Agricultural Division, Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41563906. Smith, G.J., M.F. Yancy, M.V. Johnson, and DD.L. Martin. 1990. Static renewa l acute 48

- hour toxicity of CGA

- 163935 to Daphnia magna . Conducted by Battelle Colombus Division, Colombus, OH, Laboratory Report No. SC900018. Agricultural Division, Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC.
MRID 41563908. Kuhn, J. (1988) Acute Oral Tox icity Study in Rats: CGA

- 163935 Tech

- nical: Lab Project
Number: 5645

- 88. Unpublished study prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc. 23 p.
MRID 41563909. Kuhn, J. (1990) Acute Oral Toxicity in Rats: CGA

- 163935 2E

- A FL 900351: Lab Project
Number: 6937

- 90. Unpublis hed study prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc. 20 p. MRID 41563928. Hoxter, K. 1990. CGA

- 163935: an acute contact toxicity study with the honeybee. Wildlife International Ltd. Project No. 108

- 307. Submitted by Ciba Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC.
MRID 41869 504. Hakin, B. 1991. The effects of dietary inclusion of CGA 163935 on reproduction in the mallard duck. Study performed by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd., Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, UK. HRC Report No. CBG 457/90108. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corpor ation. MRID 41869505. Hakin, B. 1991. The effects of dietary inclusion of CGA 163935 on reproduction in the bobwhite quail. Study performed by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd., Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, UK. HRC Report No. CBG 475/9085. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869506. Sousa, J. 1990. 96

- hour acute toxicity to European carp Cyprinus carpio under flow through conditions. SLI Study #1781.0690.6255.171. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. Sponsored by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation. MRID 41869507. Sousa, J.V. 1991. (CGA

- 163935 technical)

– acute toxicity to channel catfish ( Ictalurus

punctatus ) under flow

- through conditions. SLI Report No. 90

- 11

- 3579. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869508. Sousa, J.V. 1991. (CGA

- 163935 technical)

– Acute toxicity to mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis
bahia ) under flow

- through conditions. SLI Report No. 91

- 1

- 3603. Performed by Springborn
Laborato ries, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by CIBA

- GEIGY Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869509. Dionne, E. 1991. CGA

- 163935 technical

– Acute toxicity to eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ). SLI Report No. 91

- 03

- 3701. Prepared by Springborn Laborat ories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869510. Sousa, J.V. 1991. (CGA

- 163935 technical)

– acute toxicity to sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) under flow

- through conditions. SLI Report No. 91

- 1

- 36 22. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869511. Sousa, J.V. 1991. (CGA

- 163935 technical)

– actue toxicity to fathead minnow ( Pimphales promelas ) embryos and larvae. SLI Report No. 91

- 3

- 3693. Study conducted by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC.
MRID 418695 12. Putt, A.E. 1991. 21

- day chronic toxicity test with Daphnia magna under flow

- through
conditions. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Wareham, MA. Report No. 91

- 3

- 3708. Submitted by Ciba Geigy Corporation.92 MRID 41869514. Kuhn, J. (1991) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Num ber: 7674

- 90. Unpublished study prepared by Stillmeadow, In c. 21 p. MRID 41869529. White, T.L. 1991. Tier 2 seedling emergence nontarget phytotoxicity study using CGA 163935. Laboratory Report No. LR90

- 435. Conducted by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc., Madera, CA. Submitted by Ciba

- Giegy Corporation, Gr eensboro, NC. MRID 41869531. White, T.L. 1991. Tier 2 vegetative vigor nontarget phytotoxicity study using CGA 163935. Laboratory Project No. LR90

- 433. Conducted by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc., Madera, CA. Submitted by Ciba

- Giegy Corporation , Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869532. Hoberg, J.R. 1991. CGA

- 163935 technical

– toxicity to the duckweed Lemna gibba G3. SLI Report No. 91

- 3

- 3688. Conducted by Springborn Laboratoris, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by
Ciba

- Giegy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 41869533. Hoberg, J.R. 1991. CGA

- 163935 Technical

– toxicity to the marine diatom Skeletonema

costatum . Report No. 91

- 2

- 3676. Conducted by Sprinborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Giegy Corporation, Greensboro, NC.
MRID 41869 534. Hoberg, J.R. 1991. CGA

- 163935 technical

– toxicity to the freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa . Report No. 91

- 3

- 3683. Conducted by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Giegy Corporation, Greensboro, NC.
MRID 41869535. Hoberg, J.R. 1991. CGA

- 163935 technical toxicity to the freshwater blue green alga Anabaena flos

- aquae . SLI Report No. 91

- 3

- 3704. Prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Agricultural Division, Ciba

- Geigy Corporation, Gree nsboro, North Carolina. MRID 42081401. Sousa, J. 1991. Early life stage, 35

- day toxicity to fathead minnow larvae under flow

through conditions. SLI Study #1781.0491.6279. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham MA. Submitted by Ciba

- Geig y Corporation. MRID 42595302. Chetram, R.S. 1992. Tier 2 seedling emergence nontarget phytotoxicity study using CGA

163935 technical. Laboratory Study No. LR90

- 435. Conducted by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc., Madera, CA. Submitted by Ciba

- Gieg y Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 42595303. Hoberg, J.R. 1992. CGA

- 163935 Technical

– toxicity to the duckweed Lemna gibba G3. SLI Report No. 92

- 11

- 4513. Conducted by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by Agricultural Division, C iba

- Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, NC. MRID 43128602. Putt, A. E. 1993. 21

- day chronic toxicity study using Daphnia magna under flowthrough conditions. Laboratory Report No. 1781.0393.6361.130. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Wareham, MA. Subm itted by Ciba

- Geigy Corporation.
MRID 43128604. Singh, A.; Hazelette, J.; Yau, E. (1991) CGA

- 163935 Technical: A Two

- Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: 892017. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

Geigy Corp. 1165 p.

MRID 48043713. Cartee, T.L., T.Z. Kendall, and H.O. Krueger. 2009. Trinexapac

- ethyl

– a 96

- hour toxicity test with the freshwater alga ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ). Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, MD. Laboratory Re port No.: 528A

- 183. Study sponsored by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC.
MRID 48894501. Redmond, C. 2010. Trinexapac

- ethyl

– Acute oral toxicity test (LD 50 ) with zebra finch ( Taeniopygia guttata ). Unpuglished study performed by Springbo rn Smithers Laboratories, Snow Camp, NC. Laboratory study number 1781.4113. Study sponsored by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC.



## Environmental Fate Studies
MRID 41563930. Spare, W. (1990) Hydrolysis of ?Carbon 14|

- CGA

- 163935: Lab Projec t Number: 12152: 65

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 101 p. MRID 46809301. Mamouni, A. (2002) [Hydroxymethylene

- (Carbon 14)]

- CGA 179500 (Trinexapac Acid): Hydrolysis at Four Different pH Values (Including Final Report Amendment 1). Proje ct Number: 770670, T001423/06. Unpublished study prepared b: RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 61 p. MRID 41563931. Spare, W. (1990) Aqueous Photolysis of ?Carbon 14|

- CGA

- 163935: Lab Project Number:
12164: 178

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 163 p. MRID 42081403. Merritt, A. (1991) Photodegradation of Carbon 14

- CGA

- 163935 in pH 7 Buffered Solution Under Artificial Sunlight: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91026. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 189 p.93 MRID 42095402. Burnett, D. (1991) The Response to the EPA Review of the Primo/ Vision (CGA

- 163935) EUP Environmental Fate Studies: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91061. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

Geigy Corp. 48 p. MRID 46809302. Millais, A. (2001) [Hydroxymethylene

- (Carbon 14)] CGA 163935 A queous Photolysis: Final Report. Project Number: NVR/059/012189, T001446/06. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 96 p. Relates to L0001034. MRID 41563932. Spare, W. (1990) Soil Photolysis of CGA

- 163935 by Artificial Light: Lab Proj ect Number:
12165: 179

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 94 p. MRID 42081406. Merritt, A. (1991) Photodegradation of Carbon 14

- CGA

- 163935 in Soil Under Artificial Sunlight: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91027. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 231 p. MRID 42095402. Burnett, D. (1991) The Response to the EPA Review of the Primo/ Vision (CGA

- 163935) EUP Environmental Fate Studies: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91061. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

Geigy Corp. 48 p. MRID 41563933. Spa re, W. (1990) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of CGA

- 163935: Lab Project
Number: 12155: 71

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 183 p. MRID 46809303. Mamouni, A. (2001) Degradation of [Hydroxymethylene

- (Carbon 14)] CGA 163935 (Trinexa pac

- Ethyl) and CGA 179500 (Trinexapac Acid) in Soils Under Aerobic Conditions (Including Final Report Amendment 1). Project Number: 770668, T001422/06. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 89 p. MRID 41563933. Spare, W. (1990) Aerobic and An aerobic Soil Metabolism of CGA

- 163935: Lab Project
Number: 12155: 71

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 183 p.
MRID 46809304. Muller

- Kallert, H. (1993) [(Carbon 14)]CGA 163935: Degradation and Metabolism in Aquatic Systems: Final Report. P roject Number: 315426, T001447/06. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 87 p. Relates to L0001034. MRID 41563934. Spare, W. (1990) Leaching Characteristics of CGA

- 163935: Lab Pro

- ject Number: 12156:
72

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agri

- search Inc. 47 p. MRID 41563935. Spare, W. (1990) Leaching Characteristics of Aged CGA

- 163935: Lab Project Number:
12157: 73

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agriearch, Inc. 68 p. MRID 41563936. Spare, W. (1990) Adsorption/Desorption of ?Carbon 14|

- CGA

- 163935: Lab Project Number:
12158: 74

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 52 p. MRID 41563937. Spare, W. (1990) Adsorption/Desorption of ?Carbon 14|

- CGA

- 163935 Acid: Lab Project
Number: 12179: 262

- 89. Unpublished study pre

- pared by Agr isearch Inc. 72 p. MRID 41563938. Spare, W. (1990) Laboratory Soil Volatility of CGA

- 163935: Lab Pro

- ject Number: 12193:
88

- 90. Unpublished study prepared by Agri

- search Inc. 59 p. MRID 41869541. Spare, W. (1991) The Volatilization of CGA

- 163935 From Bermuda Turf (A Laboratory Study): Lab Project Number: 12181: 158

- 90. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 92 p. MRID 42095402. Burnett, D. (1991) The Response to the EPA Review of the Primo/ Vision (CGA

- 163935)
EUP Environmental Fate Studies: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91061. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

Geigy Corp. 48 p. MRID 41869539. Braxton, S.; Bird, R.; Wiepke, T. (1991) CGA

- 163935 2E

-- Field Diss

- ipation

- Turf

- North Carolina: Lab Project Number: ETI 71TF01: ETI FDS

- 71

- TF

- 01: MVTL 01

- 9004. Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Technologies Institute, Inc. & Minnesota Valley Testing Labs. 424 p. MRID 41869540. Rice, F.; Guyton, B.; Hallberg, C. (1991) Terrestrial Field Dissip

- ation for CGA

- 163935 2E on Turf and Bare Ground, Il linois Site: Lab Project Number: 38641: 69

- 90: 38641

- 45. Unpublished study prepared by Agri

- Growth Research, Inc. ABC Laboratories, Inc. 475 p. MRID 47101601. Gresham, M. (1992) Freezer Stability of CGA

- 163935 and CGA

- 179500 in Grass and Thatch
+ Sod: Tri nexapac

- ethyl: Final Report. Project Number: 39487, T000073/91. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Labs Inc. 44 p. MRID 45898909. Krauss, J. (1992) Outdoor Confined Accumulation Study on Rotational Crops After Bareground Soil Applicat ion of ((Carbon 14)

- Cyclohexyl)

- CGA

- 163935: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 23/92: MR 23/92: 89JK03. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Limited. 44 p. MRID 41604207. Fackler, P. (1990) Bioconcentration and Elimination of (carbon 14)

- Residues by B luegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Exposed to CGA

- 163935: Lab Project Number: 90

- 2

- 3236; 144

- 89; 145

- 89. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 59 p.94 MRID 41869542. Fackler, P. (1991) Bioconcentration and Elimination of ?Carbon 14|

- R esidues by Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Exposed to CGA

- 163935 : Lab Project Number: 90

- 2

- 3236: 144 145

- 89. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 63 p. MRID 41869543. Fackler, P. (1991) CGA

- 163935

- Flow

- Through Bioconcentration Stu dy with Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) for Metabolites Cha

- racterization and Identification: Lab Project Number:
91

- 2

- 3654: 184

- 90. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. & Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 99

p. MRID 42095402. Burnett, D. ( 1991) The Response to the EPA Review of the Primo/ Vision (CGA

- 163935) EUP Environmental Fate Studies: Lab Project Number: ABR

- 91061. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

Geigy Corp. 48 p.95 

### Appendix B

. Total Toxic Residue (TT R) Calculations
1. Aqueous Photolysis: MRID 46809302

Aqueous Photolysis: MRID 46809302 Total Residues: Phototransformation of Trinexapac-Ethyl in pH 7 Buffer

Days % Applied ln % Applied

incubation Trinexapac-ethyl CGA 179500 (acid) CGA 313458 Total Residues Total Residues

1 89.8 1.7 n.d. 91.5 4.5

1 88.8 1.2 0.4 90.4 4.5

2 84.2 1.8 0.6 86.6 4.5

2 79.6 1.7 0.8 82.1 4.4

3 70.0 2.8 1.1 73.9 4.3

3 66.8 3.5 1.9 72.2 4.3

5 60.4 4.6 2.0 67.0 4.2

5 59.9 3.7 2.8 66.4 4.2

7 42.5 5.3 3.8 51.6 3.9

7 43.7 4.1 4.1 51.9 3.9

10 30.0 5.3 4.1 39.4 3.7

10 33.2 4.8 5.8 43.8 3.8

15 15.9 1.0 6.5 23.4 3.2

15 10.0 1.8 6.1 17.9 2.9

Calculated Half-Life = 6.7 days

Correction Factor = 3.4 days of summer sunlight at 40 degrees North (pg. 26 and Table 2, pg. 32)

Environmental

Phototransformation Half-Life = 22.8 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.984904931 R Square 0.970037724 Adjusted R Squ 0.967540868
Standard Error 0.090325471
Observations 14

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 3.169680874 3.169680874 388.5036185 1.65353E-10

Residual 12 0.097904289 0.008158691

Total 13 3.267585163

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.652133857 0.040210216 115.6953217 1.16531E-19 4.564523323 4.739744 4.564523 4.739744

X Variable 1 -0.103182948 0.005234924 -19.71049514 1.65353E-10 -0.114588868 -0.09178 -0.11459 -0.09178 Irradiated Samples (Identified Compounds) % applied radioactivity

Data obtained from Table 7, p. 37 of the study report.

y =

- 0.1032x + 4.6521
R2 = 0.97

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues96 

### 2. Aerobic Soil Metabolism: MRID 46809303

90 th Percentile Calculation

Soil Type: Half Life (days)

Swiss Loam 3.0 Swiss Sandy Loam 3.6 Column1 German Loamy Sand 5.2

Mean 3.933333333

n = 3 Standard Error 0.66

Median 3.6

Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 1.137248141 Sample Variance 1.293333333

Kurtosis #DIV/0!

Skewness 1.205659497

s = sample deviation 1.14 Range 2.2 sq.rt. n = 1.73 Minimum 3
0.66 Maximum 5.2

Sum 11.8
Count 3 Confidence Level(80.0%) 1.238078958

5.2 days Represents the 90th percentile confidence bound on the mean half-life.97 Total Residues: Aerobic Soil Metabolism of Trinexapac-ethyl in two Swiss soils and one German soil.

Swiss loam (Gartenacker)

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Unidentified M3 Total Residues Total Residues

0 93.9 n.d. n.d. 93.9 4.5

0 97.2 n.d. n.d. 97.2 4.6

0.08 16.8 15.0 1.0 32.8 3.5

0.25 2.4 23.9 0.6 26.9 3.3

0.5 1.4 29.0 1.5 31.9 3.5

1 0.2 23.0 1.1 24.3 3.2

3 n.d. 13.8 n.d. 13.8 2.6

7 n.d. 10.4 n.d. 10.4 2.3

7 n.d. 12.1 n.d. 12.1 2.5

15 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.4 0.3

21 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.0 #NUM!

21 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.0 #NUM!

28 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

80 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM! 0 0 Results from Table 7, p. 47 of the study report. n.d. = not detected or below LOQ (Table 7, page 47). n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 15. Intervals thereafter were non detects or not analyzed.

Calculated Half Life = 3.0 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.922752113 R Square 0.851471462 Adjusted R Square 0.832905394
Standard Error 0.497923845
Observations 10

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 11.37040739 11.37040739 45.86170285 0.000141803

Residual 8 1.983425243 0.247928155

Total 9 13.35383263

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 3.806150972 0.194311177 19.58791583 4.79781E-08 3.358068595 4.254233 3.358069 4.254233

X Variable 1 -0.227925491 0.033656412 -6.772126908 0.000141803 -0.305537316 -0.15031 -0.30554 -0.15031 % Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.2279x + 3.8062 R2 = 0.8515

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues98 Total Residues: Aerobic Soil Metabolism of Trinexapac-ethyl in two Swiss soils and one German soil.

Swiss Sandy loam (Weide)

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Unidentified M3 Total Residues Total Residues

0 93.1 n.d. n.d. 93.1 4.5

0 93.5 n.d. n.d. 93.5 4.5

0.08 34.3 9.5 n.d. 43.8 3.8

0.25 4.8 19.0 0.6 24.4 3.2

0.5 1.4 23.5 2.3 27.2 3.3

1 0.6 23.7 1.9 26.2 3.3

3 0.3 12.8 1.2 14.3 2.7

7 n.d. 15.4 n.d. 15.4 2.7

7 n.d. 15.5 n.d. 15.5 2.7

15 n.d. 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.8

21 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.0 #NUM!

21 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.0 #NUM!

28 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.0 #NUM!

80 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM! 0 0 Results from Table 8, p. 48 of the study report. n.d. = not detected or below LOQ (Table 8, page 48). n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 15. Intervals thereafter were non detects or not analyzed.

Calculated Half Life = 3.6 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.888401016 R Square 0.789256365 Adjusted R Square 0.762913411
Standard Error 0.51898366
Observations 10

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 8.069766762 8.069766762 29.96081438 0.000591888

Residual 8 2.154752313 0.269344039

Total 9 10.22451908

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 3.807907591 0.202529617 18.80173206 6.6167E-08 3.340873458 4.274942 3.340873 4.274942

X Variable 1 -0.192015098 0.035079918 -5.473647265 0.000591888 -0.272909534 -0.11112 -0.27291 -0.11112 % Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.192x + 3.8079 R2 = 0.7893

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues99 Total Residues: Aerobic Soil Metabolism of Trinexapac-ethyl in two Swiss soils and one German soil.

German Loamy Sand (Borstel)

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Unidentified M3 Total Residues Total Residues

0 99.3 n.d. n.d. 99.3 4.6

0 100.2 n.d. n.d. 100.2 4.6

0.08 58.1 18.2 n.d. 76.3 4.3

0.25 38.2 19.8 n.d. 58.0 4.1

0.5 14.1 42.1 0.2 56.4 4.0

1 10.0 43.5 n.d. 53.5 4.0

3 2.4 33.5 n.d. 35.9 3.6

7 1.2 27.8 0.5 29.5 3.4

7 1.7 30.5 0.7 32.9 3.5

15 0.3 5.6 n.d. 5.9 1.8

21 0.8 1.7 n.d. 2.5 0.9

21 1.0 1.8 n.d. 2.8 1.0

28 0.9 3.0 n.d. 3.9 1.4

80 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM! 0 0 Results from Table 9, p. 49 of the study report. n.d. = not detected or below LOQ (Table 9, page 49). n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 28. Interval thereafter were non detects or not analyzed.

Calculated Half Life = 5.2 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.959199422 R Square 0.920063531 Adjusted R Square 0.912796579
Standard Error 0.407510449
Observations 13

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 21.02534039 21.02534039 126.6092799 2.24757E-07

Residual 11 1.826712422 0.166064766

Total 12 22.85205281

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.236276177 0.147743496 28.67318226 1.0902E-11 3.911094936 4.561457 3.911095 4.561457

X Variable 1 -0.134051531 0.01191349 -11.25207891 2.24757E-07 -0.160272947 -0.10783 -0.16027 -0.10783 % Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.1341x + 4.2363 R2 = 0.9201

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues100 

### 3. Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism: MRID 46809304

90 th 

### Percentile Calculation

Aquatic System: Half Life (days)

Swiss River Water-Sand Sediment 12.3 Pond Water-Sandy Clay Loam Sediment 14.8 Column1

Mean 13.55

n = 2 Standard Error 1.25

Median 13.55

Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 1.767766953 Sample Variance 3.125

Kurtosis #DIV/0!

Skewness #DIV/0!

s = sample deviation 1.77 Range 2.5 sq.rt. n = 1.41 Minimum 12.3
1.25 Maximum 14.8

Sum 27.1
Count 2 Confidence Level(80.0%) 3.847104421

17.4 days Represents the 90th percentile confidence bound on the mean half-life.101 Total Residues: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of Trinexapac-Ethyl

Swiss River Water-Sand Sediment

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Total Residues Total Residues

0 100.4 n.a. 100.4 4.6

0.25 99.3 n.a. 99.3 4.6

1 84.7 13.6 98.3 4.6

2 67.6 23.7 91.3 4.5

3 62.1 32.0 94.1 4.5

7 30.9 56.6 87.5 4.5

14 3.0 70.9 73.9 4.3

20 <0.01 47.2 47.2 3.9

27 <0.01 28.2 28.2 3.3

55 <0.01 4.2 4.2 1.4

83 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

111 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

Data obtained from Tables 10-13, pages 58-61 of the study report. n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 55. Intervals thereafter were not analyzed.

Calculated Half Life = 12.3 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.982655838 R Square 0.965612496 Adjusted R Square 0.961314059
Standard Error 0.196460743
Observations 10

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 8.670492767 8.670492767 224.6426513 3.87725E-07

Residual 8 0.308774588 0.038596824

Total 9 8.979267356

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.752438537 0.078808309 60.30377514 6.35369E-12 4.570706251 4.934171 4.570706 4.934171

X Variable 1 -0.05622741 0.003751474 -14.98808364 3.87725E-07 -0.06487832 -0.04758 -0.06488 -0.04758 % Applied Radioactivity Total System Analysis

y =

- 0.0562x + 4.7524 R2 = 0.9656

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues102 Total Residues: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of Trinexapac-Ethyl

Pond Water-Sandy Clay Loam Sediment

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Total Residues Total Residues

0 99.0 n.a. 99.0 4.6

0.25 101.1 n.a. 101.1 4.6

1 88.1 4.8 92.9 4.5

2 75.6 10.6 86.2 4.5

3 78.6 17.0 95.6 4.6

7 41.6 36.5 78.1 4.4

14 10.7 51.6 62.3 4.1

20 2.9 44.4 47.3 3.9

27 n.a. 36.1 36.1 3.6

55 n.a. 6.8 6.8 1.9

83 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

111 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

Data obtained from Tables 10-13, pages 58-61 of the study report. n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 55. Intervals thereafter were not analyzed.

Calculated Half Life = 14.8 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.98989692 R Square 0.979895913 Adjusted R Square 0.977382902
Standard Error 0.124601104
Observations 10

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 6.053817994 6.053817994 389.9290412 4.50317E-08

Residual 8 0.12420348 0.015525435

Total 9 6.178021474

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.668182834 0.049982516 93.39631519 1.92818E-13 4.552922945 4.783443 4.552923 4.783443

X Variable 1 -0.046983013 0.002379294 -19.74662101 4.50317E-08 -0.05246967 -0.0415 -0.05247 -0.0415 Total System Analysis
% Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.047x + 4.6682 R2 = 0.9799

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) 

### Total Residues103 

### 4. Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism: MRID 48043712

90 th 

### Percentile Calculation

Anaerobic Aquatic System: Half Life (days) ND System 290 FL System 56 Column1

Mean 173

n = 2 Standard Error 117

Median 173

Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 165.4629868 Sample Variance 27378

Kurtosis #DIV/0!

s = sample deviation 165.46 Skewness #DIV/0!
sq.rt. n = 1.41 Range 234
117 Minimum 56

Maximum 290
Sum 346
Count 2 Confidence Level(80.0%) 360.0889738

533 days Represents the 90th percentile confidence bound on the mean half-life.104 Total Residues: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of Trinexapac-Ethyl

Pond Water-Sandy Clay Loam Sediment (ND) System

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Total Residues Total Residues

0 101.0 n.d. 101.0 4.6

0 100.3 n.d. 100.3 4.6

0.125 96.6 1.2 97.8 4.6

0.125 104.9 0.0 104.9 4.7

0.25 100.5 1.1 101.6 4.6

0.25 104.0 2.2 106.2 4.7

0.50 98.5 2.7 101.2 4.6

0.50 89.6 2.1 91.7 4.5

1 88.5 6.6 95.1 4.6

1 75.9 9.4 85.3 4.4

2 75.2 19.8 95.0 4.6

2 71.6 20.2 91.8 4.5

3 59.2 23.4 82.6 4.4

3 61.2 36.7 97.9 4.6

4 50.9 31.8 82.7 4.4

4 30.7 45.9 76.6 4.3

7 26.7 60.5 87.2 4.5

7 2.4 61.4 63.8 4.2

18 3.2 88.0 91.2 4.5

18 n.d. 87.6 87.6 4.5

39 n.d. 77.8 77.8 4.4

39 n.d. 86.2 86.2 4.5

59 n.d. 79.7 79.7 4.4

59 n.d. 76.6 76.6 4.3

91 n.d. 86.2 86.2 4.5

91 n.d. 75.0 75.0 4.3

121 n.d. 58.4 58.4 4.1

121 n.d. 70.2 70.2 4.3

182 n.d. 58.6 58.6 4.1

182 n.d. 64.6 64.6 4.2

273 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

273 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

360 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

360 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

Data obtained from Tables 7-8, pages 49-52 of the study report.

n.d. = not detected n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 182. Intervals thereafter were not included.

Calculated Half Life = 290 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.772863799 R Square 0.597318451 Adjusted R Square 0.582936967
Standard Error 0.108620691
Observations 30

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 0.490035286 0.490035286 41.53385396 5.57892E-07

Residual 28 0.330356726 0.011798455

Total 29 0.820392013

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.523354863 0.023742033 190.5209599 3.90632E-45 4.474721514 4.571988 4.474722 4.571988

X Variable 1 -0.002390556 0.000370935 -6.444676405 5.57892E-07 -0.00315038 -0.00163 -0.00315 -0.00163 Total System Analysis
% Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.0024x + 4.5234 R2 = 0.5973

4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

0 50 100 150 200ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) Total Residues105 Total Residues: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of Trinexapac-Ethyl

Lake Water-Loamy Sand Sediment (FL) System

Days % Applied ln % Applied

Incubation Trinexapac-Ethyl CGA-179500 (acid) Total Residues Total Residues

0 107.4 0.0 107.4 4.7

0 101.0 1.0 102.0 4.6

0.125 85.6 2.3 87.9 4.5

0.125 84.2 2.0 86.2 4.5

0.25 76.5 4.8 81.3 4.4

0.25 75.1 4.8 79.9 4.4

0.50 81.3 4.1 85.4 4.4

0.50 72.1 7.6 79.7 4.4

1 62.7 16.2 78.9 4.4

1 62.4 20.2 82.6 4.4

2 53.1 25.7 78.8 4.4

2 38.0 43.2 81.2 4.4

3 33.5 34.2 67.7 4.2

3 28.6 42.7 71.3 4.3

4 25.1 35.9 61.0 4.1

4 29.0 37.9 66.9 4.2

7 9.0 48.5 57.5 4.1

7 11.3 45.2 56.5 4.0

18 0.7 56.3 57.0 4.0

18 1.6 49.0 50.6 3.9

39 n.d. 43.0 43.0 3.8

39 n.d. 46.9 46.9 3.8

59 n.d. 45.2 45.2 3.8

59 n.d. 41.5 41.5 3.7

91 n.d. 26.6 26.6 3.3

91 n.d. 27.5 27.5 3.3

121 n.d. 15.8 15.8 2.8

121 n.d. 17.5 17.5 2.9

182 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

182 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

273 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

273 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

360 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

360 n.a. n.a. 0.0 #NUM!

Data obtained from Tables 10-11, pages 55-58 of the study report.

n.d. = not detected n.a. = not analyzed

Note: Chart includes data throughout Day 121. Intervals thereafter were not includeded.

Calculated Half Life = 56 days

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.960214158 R Square 0.922011229 Adjusted R Square 0.919011661
Standard Error 0.141038458
Observations 28

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 6.114382256 6.114382256 307.381329 6.35367E-16

Residual 26 0.517188013 0.019891847

Total 27 6.631570269

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 4.364172279 0.031894975 136.8294637 1.08819E-38 4.29861122 4.429733 4.298611 4.429733

X Variable 1 -0.012431462 0.000709061 -17.53229389 6.35367E-16 -0.01388896 -0.01097 -0.01389 -0.01097 Total System Analysis
% Applied Radioactivity

y =

- 0.0124x + 4.3642 R2 = 0.922

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140ln (% Applied Radioactivity)

Time (days) Total Residues106 

## Appendix C

– Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Its Major and Minor Degradates

Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID Maximum %AR (day) Final %AR (study length)

PARENT
Trinexapac

Ethyl

CGA

- 1 63935

CSAA15220 IUPAC Name : Ethyl (RS)

- 4

- cyclopropyl(hydroxy)methylene

3,5

- dioxocyclohexanecarboxylate

CAS Name : [4(Cyclopropyl

- α

hydroxy

- methylene)

- 3,5

- dioxo

cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethylester]

CAS Number: 95266

- 40

- 3
Formula: C 13 H 16 O 5 MW: 252.26 g/mo l
SMILES: C(O)(C2CC2)=C1C(=O)CC(C(= O)OCC)CC1=O Hydrolysis pH 5

41563930 stable Hydrolysis pH 7 stable Hydrolysis pH 9 8.6 (30 days) Aqueous P hotolysis 46809302 13.0 (15 days)

Soil P hotolysis 42081406 2.4 (30 days)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 46809303 NA (80 days)

41563933 NA (90 days)

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 41563933 NA (90 days)

Aerobic A quatic Metabolism 46809304 NA (111 days)

Anaerobic A quatic Metabolism 48043712 NA (360 days)

Terrestria l Field Dissipation 48043710 < LOQ (330 days)

48043711 < LOQ (252 days)



### MAJOR (>10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS
Trinexapac

- Acid

CGA

- 179500 IUPAC Name : 4

- [Cyclopropyl(hydroxyl)methylene ]

- 3,5

- dioxocyclohexanecarboxylic
acid

CAS Name : 4

- (Cyclopropyl

- α

hydroxy

- methylene)

- 3,5

- d ioxo

cyclohexanecarboxylic acid

SMILES: C(O)(C2CC2)=C1C(=O)CC(C(= O)O)CC1=O Hydrolysis (Ester study) pH 9 41563930 90.69 (30 days) 90.69 (30 days) O H

O O
O

O C H 2 C H 3

O H

O O
O

O H107 

### Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID Maximum %AR (day) Final %AR (study length)

Hydrolysis (Acid study) pH 5

46809301 -- 43.5 (91 days) Hydrolysis (Acid study) pH 7

-- stable Hydrolysis (Acid study) pH 9

-- stable Aqueous P hotolysis 46809302 5.1 (10 days) 1.4 (15 days)

Soil P hotolysis 42081406 52.2 (7 days)

-- Aerobic Soil Metabolism 46809303 43.5 (1 day) LD (28 days) NA (80 days )

Aerobic A quatic Metabolism 46809304 70.9 (14 days) LD (20 days) NA (111 days)

Anaerobic A quatic Metabolism 48043712 87.8 (18 days) LD (182 days) NA (360 days)

Terrestrial Field Dissipation 48043710 192 ppm (265 d) < LOQ (330 days)

480437 11 40 ppm (0 d) < LOQ (252 days) CGA

- 313458 IUPAC Name : 2

- (4

- Cyclopropyl

2,4

- dioxo

- butyl)

- succinic acid Hydrolysis (Acid study) pH 5 46809301 21.5 (90 days) 21.5 (90 days)
Aqueous P hotolysis 46809302 6.3 (15 days) 6.3 (15 days)

Unidentified

M3 Hydrolysis (Acid study) pH 5 46809301 34.6 (90 days) 34.6 (90 days)

Open Chain Cyclohexane Ring (Cimectacarb) Soil P hotolysis 42081406 11.5 (7 days)

--

Carbon

Dioxide CAS Number : 124

- 38

- 9
Formula: CO 2 MW: 44.1 g/mol Aqueous P hotolysis 468 09302 19.9 (15 days) 19.9 (15 days)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 46809303 71.0 (80 days) 71.0 (80 days)

41563933 56.0 (90 days) 56.0 (90 days)

Aerobic A quatic Metabolism 46809304 72.8 (83 days) 69.0 (111 days)

Anaerobic A quatic Metabolism 48043712 84.5 (30 days) 84.5 (30 days) Unextractable
Residues Aerobic Soil Metabolism 46809303 69.0 (0.25 days) 27.7 (80 days)

Aerobic A quatic Metabolism 46809304 38.9 (55 days) 26.8 (111 days)

Anaerobic A quatic Metabolism 48043712 63.5 (91 d ays) 15.1 (360 days) O H O O O O H O



## C O O108 

### Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type MRID Maximum %AR (day) Final %AR (study length)

MINOR (< 10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS

Unidentified
Unknowns Aqueous P hotolysis 46809302 9.7 (15 days) 9.7 (15 days) 1

Soil P hotolysis 42081406

-- < 4 (30 days) 2

Aerobic A quatic Metabolism 46809304 4.5 (20 days) LD (20 d ays) NA (111 days)

NA = Not Analyzed
LD = Last Detected LOQ = Limit of Quantitation

1 Unidentif ied unknowns consists of five components ranging from 0.5

– 9.7% of the applied radioactivity at study termination.

2 Unidentif ied unknowns consisted of two c omponent s consisting of < 4% of the applied radioactivity at study termination.109 

## Appendix D

– ECOTOX Literature Search

Papers That Were Accepted

1. Alvarez, R. C. F.; Crusciol, C. A. C.; Nascente, A. S.; Rodrigues, J. D., and Habermann, G. Gas

E xchange Rates, Plant Height, Yield Components, and Productivity of Upland Rice as Affected by Plant Regulators. GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2012; 47, (10): 1455

- 1461.
Rec #: 480 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159810
Ch emical of Concern: MQC,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk

assessments

2. Arghavani, M.; Kafi, M.; Babalar, M.; Naderi, R.; Hoque, M. A., and Murata, Y. Improvement of Salt Tolerance in Kentucky Bluegrass by Trinexapac

- Ethyl. BCM,GRO, PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2012; 47, (8): 1163

- 1170.
Rec #: 490 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (1Major ions,Halides,NaCl)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159794 Chemical of Concern: 1Major ions,Halides,NaCl,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in
risk as sessments

3. Atkinson, J. L. Response of Warm Season Turfgrasses to Reduced Light Environments. BCM,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2010: 94 p. (UMI# 1488281) (Publ in part as Ecoref 159652).
Rec #: 420 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159822
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint was non

- definitive.

4. Atkinson, J. L.; McCarty, L. B.; Liu, H.; Faust, J., and Toler, J. E. Diamond Zoysiagrass Golf Green Response to Reduced Light Environments with the Use of Trinexapac

- Ethyl

. BCM,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2012; 104, (4): 847

- 852.
Rec #: 240 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159652
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint was non

- definitive.

5. Baldwin, C. M.; Liu, H.; McCarty, L. B.; Luo, H., a nd Toler, J. E. 'L

- 93' Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Responses to Various Winter Light Intensities in the Southern Transition Zone. BCM,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 44, (6): 1751

- 1756.
Rec #: 500 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 1 59811
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

6.

--- . Nitrogen and Plant Growth Regulator Influence on 'Champion' Bermudagrass Putting Green Under Reduced Sunlight. BCM,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 101, (1) : 75

- 81.
Rec #: 430 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159795 Chemical of Concern: TXE,Urea ; rejected because endpoint is non

- definitive.110 7. Beasley, J. S. and Branham, B. E. Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Paclobutrazol Affect Kentucky Bl uegrass Single

- Leaf Carbon Exchange Rates and Plant Growth. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 47, (1):
132

- 138.
Rec #: 10 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159777 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not use d in risk assessments.

8. Beasley, J. S.; Branham, B. E., and Arthur Spomer, L. Plant Growth Regulators Alter Kentucky Bluegrass Canopy Leaf Area and Carbon Exchange. ACC,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 47, (2): 757

- 766.
Rec #: 20
Call Number: LITE EVAL COD ED (TXE), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159778 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity
data.

9. Bell, G. E.; Odorizzi, E., and Danneberger, T. K. Reducing Populations of Annual Bluegrass and Roughst alk Bluegrass in Creeping Bentgrass Fairways: A Nutritional Approach. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (4): 829

- 834.
Rec #: 30 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (BS,TXE), OK (FeRS)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152008 Chemical of Concern: 1Major ions,BS,EFS,FeR S,MgSO4,MgSO4s,TXE ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity data.

10. Bian, X.; Merewitz, E., and Huang, B. Effects of Trinexapac

- Ethyl on Drought Responses in Creeping Bentgrass Associated with Water Use and Osmotic Adjustment. BC M,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 134, (5): 505

- 510.
Rec #: 440 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159812
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

11. Burpee, L. L.; Green, D. E., and Stephens, S. L. Interactive Effects of Plant Growth Regulators and Fungicides on Epidemics of Dollar Spot in Creeping Bentgrass. GRO,POPENV; 1996; 80, (11): 1245

- 1250.
Rec #: 190 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (FPD,PBZ,TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 95309
Chemical o f Concern: FPD,PBZ,TXE ; not used because fungi are not assessed.

12. Caldas, L. S.; Machado, L. L.; Caldas, S. C.; Campos, M. L.; Caldas, J. A.; Pharis, R. P., and Pereira

Netto, A. B. Growth

- Active Gibberellins Overcome the Very Slow Shoot Growth of Han cornia speciosa, an Important Fruit Tree from the Brazilian "Cerrado". GRO. [Pereira

- Netto, AB] Univ Fed Parana, Dept Bot SCB, Ctr Politecn, BR

- 81531970 Curitiba, Parana, Brazil//: SOIL,TOP; 2009; 23, (6): 1229

- 1235.
Rec #: 450
Call Number: LITE EVAL COD ED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159813 Chemical of Concern: ACM,GIB,TXE ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity data.

13. Chen, C. M. The Geographic Distribution, Genetic Structure and Cultural Management of Waitea
circinata Var. Circinata, the Causal Agent of Brown Ring Patch Isolated from Turf Grass in the U.S. BCM,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011: 123 p. (UMI# 3477392).111 Rec #: 410 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (AZX)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159820 Chemical of Concern: AZX,N HSO4,TXE,Urea ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity data.

14. Ciba

- Geigy Ltd. Initial: Submission: Pilot 7

- Week Oral Feeding Study with Cimectacarb in Dogs with Attachments and Cover Letter Dated 073192. BCM,BEH,CEL,GRO,MORORAL ; 1992: 389 p. (NTIS/OTS0543163).
Rec #: 180 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 100765
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity data.

15. Ervin, E. H. and Koski, A. J. Trinexapac

- E thyl Increases Kentucky Bluegrass Leaf Cell Density and Chlorophyll Concentration. BCM,CEL. Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture,Colorado State University,Fort Collins,CO//: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 36, (4): 787

- 789.
Rec #: 590
Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159848
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

16. Ervin, E. H. and Ok, C. Influence of Plant Growth Regulators on Suppression and Quality of 'Meyer' Zoysiagrass. PHY ,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 19, (2): 57

- 60.
Rec #: 300 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (EPH)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159814 Chemical of Concern: EPH,TXE ; rejected because endpoints were higher than existing toxicity
data.

17. Ervin, E. H. and Zhang, X. Influence of Sequential Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applications on Cytokinin Content in Creeping Bentgrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, and Hybrid Bermudagrass. BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 47, (5): 2145

- 2151.
Rec #: 560 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReferenc e No.: 159896
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessment.

18. Fagerness, M. J. and Penner, D. Evaluation of V

- 10029 and Trinexapac

- Ethyl for Annual Bluegrass Seedhead Suppression and Growth Regulation of Five Coo l

- Season Turfgrass Species. POP,REP. M.J. Fagerness, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

- 1325////: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 12, (3): 436

- 440.
Rec #: 40 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159849
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

19.

--- . Spray Application Parameters that Influence the Growth Inhibiting Effects of Trinexapac

- Ethyl. POP. salemka@pilot.msu.edu//D. Penner, Michigan State Univ., Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824

- 1325////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 38, (4): 1028

- 1035.
Rec #: 210 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO MIXTURE (CaAC), OK (SXD)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 66135 Chemical of Concern: CaAC,NHSO4,S XD,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk

assessments.112 20. Fagerness, M. J. and Yelverton, F. H. Plant Growth Regulator and Mowing Height Effects on Seasonal Root Growth of Penncross Creeping Bentgrass. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 41, (6):
1901

- 1905.
Rec #: 200 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (PBZ,TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 111282 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are higher than existing toxicity
data.

21. Fan, G.; Bian, X.; Li, H.; Meng, Z., and Liu, S. Growth Res ponses of Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) to Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applied in Spring and Autumn. BCM,GRO,POP. Springer Science & Business Media//: SOIL,ENV; 2009; 3, (2): 186

- 189.
Rec #: 400 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 15 9815
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

22. Han, S.; Fermanian, T. W.; Juvik, J. A., and Spomer, L. A. Total Nonstructural Carbohydrate Storage in Creeping Bentgrass Treated with Trinexapac

- Ethyl. BCM,PH Y. Gyeonggido Agricultural Research and Extension Services,Taean

- eup, Hwasung City, Gyeonggido,S. Korea//: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 39, (6): 1461

- 1464.
Rec #: 540 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159857
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

23. Han, S. W.; Fermanian, T. W.; Juvik, J. A., and Spomer, L. A. Growth Retardant Effects on Visual Quality and Nonstructural Carbohydrates of Creeping Bentgrass. BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1998; 33, (7): 1197

- 1199.
Rec #: 50 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO EFFECT (FSTAL), OK (FPD,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159876 Chemical of Concern: FPD,FSTAL,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk

assessments.

24. Hare, M. D.; Lunpha, A., and Ph engphet, S. Effect of Foliar Applications of Trinexapac

- Ethyl Plant Growth Regulator on Seed Yield in Brachiaria Hybrid cv. Mulato II and Paspalum atratum. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2008; 42, (3): 181

- 187.
Rec #: 460 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)

Notes: EcoReference No.: 159816
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint not used in risk assessments.

25. Heckman, N. L.; Horst, G. L.; Gaussoin, R. E., and Tavener, B. T. Trinexapac

- Ethyl Influence on Cell Membrane Thermostability of Kentucky Blueg rass Leaf Tissue. PHY. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture,University of Nebraska,Lincoln,NE//: SOIL,ENV; 2002; 92, (2):
183

- 186.
Rec #: 580 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159878
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessment.

26. Heckman, N. L.; Horst, G. L.; Gaussoin, R. E., and Young, L. J. Heat Tolerance of Kentucky Bluegrass as Affected by Trinexapac

- Ethyl. PHY. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture,University
of Nebraska

- Lin coln,Lincoln,NE//: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 36, (2): 365

- 367.
Rec #: 600113 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159847
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint not used in risk assessments.

27. Inguagiato, J. C.; Murphy, J. A., an d Clarke, B. B. Anthracnose Severity on Annual Bluegrass Influenced by Nitrogen Fertilization, Growth Regulators, and Verticutting. PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 48, 1595

- 1607.
Rec #: 150 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO EFFECT (BFT,CPY,CTN,F TL,VCZ), OK (MFD)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 118057 Chemical of Concern: BDC,BFT,BSC,CPY,CTN,FTL,MFD,TXE,VCZ ; rejected because endpoints are higher than existing toxicity data.

28. Isgrigg III, J. Ecological Adaptations of Annual Bluegrass to Plant Growth Regulators and Herbicides. BCM,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999: 162 p. (UMI #9960156).
Rec #: 160
Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (ATZ,DQT,FPD,FRM,GYP,OYZ,PBZ,PDM,PRM,PZM,SFZ,SZ,TXE), NO MIXTURE (NONA,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 121125
Che mical of Concern: ATZ,BFL,CPZ,DQT,DTP,FPD,FRM,GYP,MBZ,NONA,ODZ,OYZ,PBZ,PCZ,PDM,PPCP,PPC P2011,PRM,PZM,SFZ,SZ,TXE ; rejected because rejected because endpoint not used in risk

assessments.

29. Jiang, H. and Fry, J. Drought Responses of Perennial Ryegrass Tr eated with Plant Growth Regulators. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1998; 33, (2): 270

- 273.
Rec #: 60 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (EPH,MFD,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 156115 Chemical of Concern: EPH,MFD,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than exi sting toxicity data.

30. Johnson, B. J. Response of Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) to Plant Growth Regulators. GRO,PHY,POP. Univ. Ga., Ga. Stn., Griffin, Ga. 30223

- 1797////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1990; 4, (4): 895

- 899.
Rec #: 70
Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (GYPI,GYPS,TXE), NO MIXTURE (24D,24DXY,FPD,PBZ), OK (MFD)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 156191 Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,FPD,GYPI,GYPS,IZT,MFD,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

31.

--- . Response of Centipedegrass (Eremo chloa ophiuroides) to Plant Growth Regulators. GRO,PHY,POP. Univ. Ga., Georgia Stn., Griffin, Calif. 30223

- 1797////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1992; 6, (1):
113

- 118.
Rec #: 80 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO MIXTURE (MFD), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No. : 159875 Chemical of Concern: MFD,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk

assessments.

32. Keever, G. J. and Olive, J. W. Effects of Primo Rate and Application Volume on Selected Herbaceous and Woody Landscape Plants. GRO,PHY. Dep. Hortic ., Ala. Agric. Experiment Station, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849//: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 16, (2): 114

- 117.114 Rec #: 510 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159897
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not in the correct units.

33. Kreuser, W. C. and Soldat, D. J. A Growing Degree Day Model to Schedule Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applications on Agrostis stolonifera Golf Putting Greens. POP. American Society of Agronomy//: SOIL,ENV; 2011; 51, (5): 2228

- 2236.
Rec #: 370
Call Numbe r: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO EFFECT (CTN)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159855 Chemical of Concern: CTN,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

34. Lowe, D. B. and Whitwell, T. Plant Growth Regulators Alter the Growth of 'Tifway' Bermu dagrass (Cynodon transvaalensis x C. dactylon) and Selected Turfgrass Weeds. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 1999; 13, (1): 132

- 138.
Rec #: 90 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (FPD,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159874 Chemical of Concern: FPD,PBZ,TXE ; rejected be cause endpoint is higher than existing toxicity
data.

35. McCann, S. E. and Huang, B. Drought Responses of Kentucky Bluegrass and Creeping Bentgrass as Affected by Abscisic Acid and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2008; 133, (1):
20

- 26.
Rec #: 4 70 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (ASA)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159838 Chemical of Concern: ASA,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than existing toxicity
data.

36. McCarty, L. B.; Weinbrecht, J. S.; Toler, J. E., and Miller, G. L. St. Augu stinegrass Response to Plant Growth Retardants. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 44, (4): 1323

- 1329.
Rec #: 310 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (FPD,MFD,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159859 Chemical of Concern: FPD,IAZ,MFD,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endp oints are higher than existing toxicity data.

37. McCullough, P. E.; Hart, S. E., and Lycan, D. W. Plant Growth Regulator Regimens Reduce Poa annua Populations in Creeping Bentgrass. PHY,POP. mccullough@aesop.rutgers.edu//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005: 6 p. (doi.org/10.1094/ATS

- 2005

- 0304

- 01

- RS).
Rec #: 320 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159832 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are higher than existing toxicity
data.

38. McCullough, P. E.; Liu, H ., and McCarty, L. B. Ethephon and Gibberellic Acid Inhibitors Influence Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Quality and Ball Roll Distances. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 40, (4): 1902

- 1903.
Rec #: 170 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (EPH,FPD,PBZ)

Notes: EcoRe ference No.: 116859 Chemical of Concern: EPH,FPD,PBZ,TXE ; Not used because endpoint was non

- definitive.115 39.

--- . Mowing Operations Influence Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Ball Roll Following Plant Growth Regulator Applications. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 40, (2): 471

- 474.
Rec #: 100 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (EPH,FPD,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159831 Chemical of Concern: EPH,FPD,PBZ,TXE ; Rejected because the endpoint is the same as existing toxicity data.

40. McCullough, P. E.; Liu, H.; Mc Carty, L. B., and Toler, J. E. Ethephon and Trinexapac

- Ethyl Influence Creeping Bentgrass Growth, Quality, and Putting Green Performance. PHY,POP. mccullough@aesop.rutgers.edu//: SOIL,ENV; 2006: 7 p. (doi.org/10.1094/ATS

- 2006

- 0324

- 01

- RS).
Rec #: 330
Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (EPH)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159833 Chemical of Concern: EPH,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than existing toxicity data.

41. McCullough, P. E.; McCarty, L. B.; Liu, H., and Whitwell, T. Response of 'TifEagle ' Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon x Cynodon transvaalensis) to Ethephon and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (2): 251

- 254.
Rec #: 110 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), WEEDS (EPH)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159582
Chemical of Conce rn: EPH,TXE ; rejected because the endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

42. Na, C. I.; Hamayun, M.; Khan, A. L.; Kim, Y. H.; Choi, K. I.; Kang, S. M.; Kim, S. I.; Kim, J. T.; Won, J. G., and Lee, I. J. Influence of Prohexadione

- Calcium, Trinexapac

- Et hyl and Hexaconazole on Lodging Characteristic and Gibberellin Biosynthesis of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). BCM,GRO,PHY. School of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 701

- 702, South Korea,//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011; 10, (61): 13097

- 13106.
Rec #: 360 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159839 Chemical of Concern: HCZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

43. Nangle, E. J.; Gardner, D. S.; Metzger, J. D.; Street, J. R., and Danneberger, T. K. Impact of Nitrogen Source and Trinexapac

- Ethyl Application on Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Physiology Under Neutral Shade, Deciduous Tree Shade, and Full Sunlit Conditions. BCM,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2012; 47, (7): 936

- 942.

Rec #: 250 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO EFFECT (AZX,CTN,IMC,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159809 Chemical of Concern: AZX,CTN,IMC,NHSO4,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE,Urea ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

44. Pessarakl i, M.; Marcum, K. B., and Kopec, D. M. Interactive Effects of Salinity and Primo on the Growth of Kentucky Bluegrass. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 4, (1): 325

- 327.
Rec #: 570 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159879
Chemical of Concer n: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than existing toxicity data.

45. Putman, A. I. and Kaminski, J. E. Mowing Frequency and Plant Growth Regulator Effects on Dollar Spot Severity and on Duration of Dollar Spot Control by Fungicides. POP. Departm ent of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802, USA, American116 Phytopathological Society//: ENV,MIXTURE; 2011; 95, (11): 1433

- 1442.
Rec #: 350 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (PBZ), TARGET2012 (CTN,IPD,PCZ,PP CP,PPCP2011)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159841 Chemical of Concern: BSC,CTN,IPD,PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

46. Rajala, A.; Peltonen

- Sainio, P.; Onnela, M., and Jackson, M. Effects of Applying Stem

- Shortening Plant Growth Regulators to Leaves on Root Elongation by Seedlings of Wheat, Oat and Barley: Mediation by Ethylene. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2002; 38, (1): 51

- 59.
Rec #: 120 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO ENDPOINT (CQTC,ETL), OK (EPH)

Notes: Ec oReference No.: 159854 Chemical of Concern: CQTC,EPH,ETL,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than existing toxicity data.

47. Ramoutar, D.; Cowles, R. S.; Requintina, E. Jr., and Alm, S. R. Synergism Between Demethylation Inhibitor Fungicides or Gib berellin Inhibitor Plant Growth Regulators and Bifenthrin in a Pyrethroid

- Resistant Population of Listronotus maculicollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). MORENV,MIXTURE,TOP; 2010; 103, (5): 1810

- 1814.
Rec #: 230 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (BFT,FPD,FRM,PC Z,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE), NO MIXTURE (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152401 Chemical of Concern: BFT,FPD,FRM,PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE ; rejected because units
are not useful.

48. Rolston, M. P.; Archie, W. J., and Rumball, W. Branched Inflorescence Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)

- Seed Yield Evaluated in Field Trials and Response to Nitrogen and Trinexapac

Ethyl Plant Growth Regulator. GRO,POP. AgResearch Ltd,Lincoln,N. Z//: SOIL,ENV; 2005; 48, (1): 87

- 92.
Rec #: 530 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159850
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used for risk assessments.

49. Rolston, P.; Trethewey, J.; Chynoweth, R., and McCloy, B. Trinexapac

- Ethyl Delays Lodging and Increases Seed Yield in Perennial Ry egrass Seed Crops. GRO,POP. Taylor & Francis Ltd.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 53, (4): 403

- 406.
Rec #: 380 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO CONC (CQTC), NO MIXTURE (CQTC)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159781 Chemical of Concern: CQTC,TXE ; rejected becaus e toxicity data are higher than existing data.

50. Roohollahi, I. and Kafi, M. Salinity and Trinexapac

- Ethyl Effects on Seed Reserve Utilization and Seedling Growth of Two Lolium perenne Cultivars. BCM,GRO,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 51, (2): 78

- 82.

Rec #: 260 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (1Major ions,Halides,NaCl)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159856 Chemical of Concern: 1Major ions,Halides,NaCl,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is higher than existing toxicity data.

51. Roohollahi, I.; Kafi, M., an d Naderi, R. Drought Reaction and Rooting Characteristics in Response to Plant Growth Regulators on Poa pratensis cv. Barimpala. PHY,POP. World Food, RD Ltd.,117 Meri

- Rastilantie 3 C Helsinki FIN

- 00980 Finland, [mailto:Publisher@world

- food.net], [URL:http:// www.world

- food.net]//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 8, (1): 285

- 288.
Rec #: 390 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159843 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are higher than existing toxicity
data.

52. Severmut lu, S.; Mutlu, N.; Gurbuz, E.; Shearman, R. C., and Riordan, T. P. Effects of Seasonal Trinexapac

- Ethyl Application on Warm

- Season Turfgrass Species Growth Under Mediterranean Environment. GRO,POP. [Severmutlu, S] Akdeniz Univ, Dept Landscape Architecture , TR

07058 Antalya, Turkey [Mutlu, N] Akdeniz Univ, Dept Agr Biotechnol, TR

- 07058 Antalya, Turkey [Gurbuz, E] Bati Akdeniz Agr Res Inst, Antalya, Turkey//: SOIL,ENV; 2012; 77, (6):
279

- 287.
Rec #: 270 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159782
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessment.

53. Spinelli, F.; Costa, G.; Vanneste, J. L.; Cornish, D. A., and Yu, J. Growth

- Regulating Acylcyclohexanediones, Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Prohexadione

- Calcium Decrease Blossom Blight Incidence in Pome Fruits. PHY. Dipartimento di Colture Arboree,Universita di Bologna,Bologna,Italy//: SOIL,ENV; 2006; 704, 245

- 248.
Rec #: 520 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159881
Chemical of Concer n: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessment.

54. Spinelli, F.; Rademacher, W.; Sabatini, E., and Costa, G. Reduction of Scab Incidence (Venturia inaequalis) in Apple with Prohexadione

- Ca and Trinexapac

- Ethyl, Two Growth Regulating Acylcyclohexanediones. BCM,GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 29, (7): 691

- 698.
Rec #: 220 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), OK (CQTC,MEM,PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 152402 Chemical of Concern: CQTC,KRSM,MEM,PBZ,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are hi gher than exisiting toxicity data.

55. Tan, Z. G. and Qian, Y. L. Light Intensity Affects Gibberellic Acid Content in Kentucky Bluegrass. BCM,GRO,POP. Dept. of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture,Colorado State Univ.,Fort Collins,CO//: SOIL,ENV; 200 3; 38, (1): 113

- 116.
Rec #: 550 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159858
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

56. Teuton, T. C. Management of Hybrid Bluegrass (Poa arachnifera Tor r. x Poa pratensis L.) in the Transition Zone. BCM,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006: 159 p. (UMI#3214429).
Rec #: 130 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (CLT,QNC,TXE), NO PUBL AS (MTSM,SXD), OK (EPH,OYZ,PBZ,PDM,PRM,TFN)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 154952
Chemical of Con cern: BP,CLT,CSF,DFPM,DTP,EPH,HSF,IAZ,IMQ,MTSM,ODZ,OYZ,PBZ,PDM,PRM,QNC,RIM, SFS,SXD,TFN,TXE ; rejected because endpoint is not used in risk assessments.

57. Wang, X. Y.; Hu, T. M.; Wang, Q. Z.; Tian, L. M.; Zhang, X. L., and Tian, K. Growth of Kentucky118 Blu egrass as Influenced by Nitrogen and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. BCM,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 8, (12): 1498

- 1502.
Rec #: 280 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE), NO NUTRIENT (LQN)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159793 Chemical of Concern: LQN,TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

58. Wherley, B. and Sinclair, T. R. Growth and Evapotranspiration Response of Two Turfgrass Species to Nitrogen and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 44, (7): 2053

- 2057.
Rec #: 290
Call Number: LITE EV AL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159844
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

59. Xu, C. and Huang, B. Proteins and Metabolites Regulated by Trinexapac

- Ethyl in Relation to Drought
Tolerance in Kent ucky Bluegrass. BCM,PHY. Department of Plant Biology and Pathology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA, Springer Science+Business Media, Van Godewijckstraat 30 Dordrecht 3311 GX Netherlands//: SOIL,ENV; 2012; 31, (1): 25

- 37.
Rec #: 340
Cal l Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159853
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoints are not used in risk assessments.

60. Zapiola, M. L.; Chastain, T. G.; Garbacik, C. J.; Silberstein, T. B., and Young III, W. C. Trinexap ac

Ethyl and Open

- Field Burning Maximize Seed Yield in Creeping Red Fescue. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 98, (6): 1427

- 1434.
Rec #: 140 Call Number: LITE EVAL CODED (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159860
Chemical of Concern: TXE ; rejected because endpoint is hi gher than existing toxicity data.



## Papers That Were Not Accepted Accepted for EcoTox but not OPP

1. Blundell, C.; Evans, L. T.; King, R. W.; Mander, L. N., and Wood, J. T. Modified Gibberellins Retard
Growth of Cool

- Season Turfgrasses. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1 997; 37, (6): 1878

- 1883.
Rec #: 60 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159808 Chemical of Concern: GIB,TXE

2. Fagerness, M. J. and Penner, D. 14C

- Trinexapac

- Ethyl Absorption and Translocation in Kentucky Bluegrass. ACCSOIL,ENV,MIXTU RE; 1998; 38, (4): 1023

- 1027.
Rec #: 210 Call Number: NO CONTROL (TXE), NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159769
Chemical of Concern: TXE

3. Fagerness, M. J.; Yelverton, F. H.; Isgrigg III, J., and Cooper, R. J. Plant Growth Regulators and
Mowi ng Height Affect Ball Roll and Quality of Creeping Bentgrass Putting Greens. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 35, (4): 755

- 759.
Rec #: 10 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (CTN,PBZ,TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159877 Chemical of Concern: CTN,PBZ,TXE119 4. Ferrell, J. A.; M urphy, T. R.; Duncan, R. R., and Vencill, W. K. Seashore Paspalum Response to Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Paclobutrazol. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 38, (4): 605

- 606.
Rec #: 20 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (PBZ,TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 156109
Chemical of Concern: P BZ,TXE

5. Honma, T. An Approach for the Conquest of the Sugi pollinosis Using Plant Growth Regulation. BCM,GRO,REP. Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, Soraku

- gun, Kyoto, Japan. tamhonma@rite.or.jp//: SOIL,ENV; 2003; 17, (1): 48

- 5 0.
Rec #: 110 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159818
Chemical of Concern: TXE

6. Inguagiato, J. C.; Murphy, J. A., and Clarke, B. B. Anthracnose of Annual Bluegrass Putting Green Turf Influenced by Trinexapac

- Ethyl Application In terval and Rate. PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 11, 207

- 218.
Rec #: 30 Call Number: NO EFFECT (BFT,CTN,FTL,MZB,TCF,VCZ), NO ENDPOINT (BFT,CTN,FTL,MZB,TCF,TXE,VCZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 117176 Chemical of Concern: BDC,BFT,BSC,CTN,FTL,MZB,TCF,TXE,VCZ

7. Keever, G. J. and Olive, J. W. Effects of Primo on Selected Bedding and Woody Landscape Plants. CEL,GRO,PHY. Dep. Hortic., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849//: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 16, (1): 11

- 14.
Rec #: 220 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159852
Chemical of Concern: TXE

8. Klein, J. D.; Mufradi, I.; Cohen, S.; Hebbe, Y.; Asido, S.; Dolgin, B., and Bonfil, D. J. Establishment of Wheat Seedlings After Early Sowing and Germination in an Arid Mediterranean Environment

. GROSOIL,ENV; 2002; 94, (3): 585

- 593.
Rec #: 40 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE), TARGET2012 (PBZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 97355 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TXE

9. Kreuser, W. C. and Soldat, D. J. Frequent Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applications Reduce Nitrogen Req uirements of Creeping Bentgrass Golf Putting Greens. BCM,PHY,POP. American Society of Agronomy//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2012; 52, (3): 1348

- 1357.
Rec #: 100 Call Number: NO CONTROL (CTN,TXE), NO EFFECT (CTN), NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159780 Chemical of Concern: CTN,TXE,Urea

10. McCullough, P. E. and Hart, S. E. Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) Putting Green Tolerance to Bispyribac

- Sodium. PHY,POP. [McCullough, PE] Univ Georgia, Dept Crop & Soil Sci, Griffin, GA 30223 USA [Hart, S E] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Plant Biol & Pathol, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (3): 425

- 430.
Rec #: 180 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159834 Chemical of Concern: BP,TXE120 11.

--- . Trinexapac

- Ethyl Inf luences Bispyribac

- Sodium Absorption and Efficacy for Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua) Control in Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera). ACC,PHY,POP. [McCullough, PE] Univ Georgia, Dept Crop & Soil Sci, Griffin, GA 30223 USA [Hart, SE] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Plant Biol & Pathol, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 24, (3): 326

- 331.
Rec #: 190 Call Number: NO MIXTURE (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159835 Chemical of Concern: BP,TXE

12. McCullough, P. E.; Nutt, W.; Murphy, T. R., and Raymer, P. Seashore Paspalum Seedhead Control and Growth Regulation with Flazasulfuron and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011; 25, (1): 64

- 69.
Rec #: 200 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE), OK (FZS)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159837
Chemic al of Concern: FZS,ODZ,TXE

13. Ok, C. H.; Popko, J. T. Jr.; Campbell

- Nelson, K., and Jung, G. In Vitro Assessment of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Resistance to Fungicides and Plant Growth Regulators. POPENV; 2011; 95, (1):
51

- 56.
Rec #: 70
Call Number: NO C ONTROL (FPD,IPD,MCZ,MYC,PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TDF,TXE,VCZ), TARGET2012 (IPD,MCZ,MYC,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TDF,VCZ)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159840
Chemical of Concern: BSC,FPD,IPD,MCZ,MYC,PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TDF,TEZ,TPM,TXE,VCZ

14. Padhye, S. R. and Gronin ger, J. K. Influence of Benzyladenine, Trinexapac

- Ethyl, or Uniconazole Applications on Height and Tillering of Six Ornamental Grasses. GROSOIL,ENV; 2009; 19, (4): 737

- 742.
Rec #: 50 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (BAD,TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 150932
Chem ical of Concern: BAD,TXE

15. Qian, Y. L. and Engelke, M. C. Zoysiagrass in Shade: Influence of Trinexapac

- Ethyl. BCM,CEL,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1999; .8, (1): 12

- 14.
Rec #: 90 Call Number: NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159842
Chemical of Concern : TXE

16. Syhre, M.; Hanschmann, G., and Heber, R. Problems in Analyzing Trinexapac

- Ethyl

- a New Plant Growth Regulator. ACC. Department of Agricultural Analysis (LUFA Leipzig),Agricultural Research Centre of Saxonia,Leipzig,Germany//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (1): 178

- 179.
Rec #: 230 Call Number: NO CONTROL (TXE), NO ENDPOINT (TXE)
Notes: EcoReference No.: 159880
Chemical of Concern: TXE

17. Xu, Y. and Huang, B. Responses of Creeping Bentgrass to Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Biostimulants Under
Summer Stress. P HY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2010; 45, (1): 125

- 131.
Rec #: 80 Call Number: NO EFFECT (CTN,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE)121 Notes: EcoReference No.: 159846 Chemical of Concern: CTN,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE



### Excluded

1. Abram, Mike. Pgr Can Make More of Water. 2007 Mar 10: 12.

Rec #: 4490 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: The results showed water use in the Moddus plots was less than for chlormequat or the untreated control, Mr [Jason Tatnell] says. Effectively, that was because the
Moddus

- short ened plants had less foliar growth and needed less water/nutrients to run the plant, he explains. "It makes the plant more efficient." Keywords: 9175:Western Europe Keywords: 8640:Chemical industry Keywords: United Kingdom

-- UK Keywords: Agriculture

-- Crop P roduction And Soil Keywords: 5400:Research & development Copyright

- Copyright Reed Business Information UK Mar 10, 2007 Language of summary

- English
Location

- United Kingdom

-- UK Pages

- 12 ProQuest ID

- 209021572
Document feature

- Photographs; Graphs
S ubjectsTermNotLitGenreText

- United Kingdom

-- UK Last updated

- 2010

- 06

- 08 Place of publication

- Sutton Corporate institution author

- Abram, Mike
DOI

- 1242095001; 35367891; 52754; CROS; INODCROS0003730534 English

2. Anonymous. Chlormequat Alternatives. 2008 Jun 21: 12.
Rec #: 4370 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: The firm demonstrated some alternative programmes in its demonstration area at Cereals, but while initial shortening of wheat crops resulted, alternative products Moddus and Canopy, when used without chlormequat, resulted in significant "bounce

- back" of the crop,
he noted. Keywords: Norman, Keith Keywords: Agriculture

-- Crop Production And Soil Copyright

- Copyright Reed Business Information UK Jun 21, 2008 Language of summary

- English Pages

- 12 ProQuest ID

- 208962493 SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText

- Norman, Keith People

- Norman, Keith Last updated

- 2010

- 06

- 08 Place of publication

- Sutton Corporate institution author

- Anonymous
DOI

- 1507708031; 39695221; 52754; CROS; INODCROS0004912261 English

3. Baldwin, C. M.; Liu, H. B.; McCarty, L. B.; Luo, H.; Toler, J., and Long, S. H. Winter foot and equipment traffic impacts on a 'L93' creeping bentgrass putting green. 2008; 43, (3): 922

- 926.
Rec #: 2450 Keywor ds: NO TOXICANT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera var. palustris Huds.) is desirable as122 a putting green turfgrass in the transition zone as a result of year

- round green color, ball roll, and playab ility. However, management challenges exist for bentgrass greens, including winter temperature fluctuations. Frosts often cause cancellations or delays of tee time resulting in lost revenue. In response to this winter golf course management issue, a resear ch project was initiated at Clemson University from 1 Dec. 2005 and 2006 to 1 Aug. 2006 and 2007 on a 'L93' creeping bentgrass putting green to determine the impacts of foot traffic or mower traffic and time of traffic application on bentgrass winter perfo rmance. Treatments consisted of no traffic (control), foot traffic, and walk

- behind mower traffic (rolling) at 0700 and 0900 HR when canopy temperatures were at or below 0 T. Foot traffic included approximate to 75 steps within each plot using size 10 SP

- 4 Saddle Nike golf shoes (soft

- spiked sole) administered by a researcher weighing approximate to 75 kg. A Toro Greens

- master 800 walk

- behind greens mower weighing 92 kg with a 45.77

- cm roller was used for rolling traffic. Data collected included canopy and soil temperatures (7.6 cm depth), visual turfgrass quality (TQ), clipping yield (g.m(

- 2)), shoot chlorophyll concentration (mg.g(

- 1)) root total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) (mg.g(

- 1)), soil bulk density (g.cm(

- 3)), and water infiltration rates (cm.h(

- 1)). Time and type of traffic significantly influenced bentgrass winter performance. On all TQ rating dates, 0700 HR rolling traffic decreased TQ by approximate to 1.1 units compared with foot traffic at 0700 HR. In December, regardless of traffic applica tion time, rolling traffic reduced bentgrass shoot growth approximate to 17%. However, in February, chlorophyll, soil bulk density, and water infiltration differences were not detected. By the end of March, all treatments had acceptable TQ. Root TNC was un affected in May, whereas shoot chlorophyll concentrations were unaffected in May and August. This study indicates bentgrass damage resulting from winter traffic is limited to winter and early spring months and full recovery should be expected by summer.

Ke ywords: SUBSURFACE AIR MOVEMENT, FREEZING RESISTANCE, PERENNIAL RYEGRASS, ISI Document Delivery No.: 306KC

4. Blake, Andrew . Getting the Best From Invicta. 2010 Jul 24: 22.
Rec #: 4160 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE
Abstract: Abstra ct: Provided any temptation to apply N too eany has been avoided, a "cheap and cheerful" plant growth regulator programme of chlormequat/ Moddus (trinexapac

- ethyl) at twothirds rate at the glume primordial stage (GS30) followed by a third at first node (GS 31) should suffice. Although Invicta's straw length is much the same as [Claire]'s, it is much stiffen
he notes. Keywords: 9175:Western Europe Keywords: 8400:Agriculture industry Keywords: United Kingdom

-- UK Keywords: Agriculture

-- Crop Production And Soil

Name

- Limagrain UK Ltd Copyright

- Copyright Reed Business Information UK Jul 24, 2010 Language of summary

- English
Location

- United Kingdom

-- UK Pages

- 22 ProQuest ID

- 744088243
Document feature

- Photographs; Tables SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText

- Unit ed Kingdom

-- UK Last updated

- 2010

- 08

- 16 Place of publication

- Sutton Corporate institution author

- Blake, Andrew
DOI

- 2111536381; 53900821; 52754; CROS; INODCROS0006682009 English

5. Borger, J. A. Managing Poa annua Seedheads on Putting Greens. SOIL; 2008; 46, (4): 7

- 8.
Rec #: 5030123 Keywords: REFS CHECKED,REVIEW Call Number: NO REFS CHECKED (EPH,MFD,TXE), NO REVIEW (EPH,MFD,TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: EPH,MFD,TXE

6. Burpee, L. L. Interactions Among Plant Growth Regulators and Fungicides on Dol lar Spot of Creeping Bentgrass. 1996; 86, (11 suppl.): S104.
Rec #: 4610 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE
Abstract: ABSTRACT: BIOSIS COPYRIGHT: BIOL ABS. RRM MEETING ABSTRACT
CREEPING BENTGRASS

- CULTIVAR

- PENNCROSS FUNGUS HOST PATHOGEN

P ATHOLOGY CROP INDUSTRY PEST MANAGEMENT DOLLAR SPOT
FLURPRIMIDOL PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR PACLOBUTRAZOL TRINEXAPAC

ETHYL CHLOROTHALONIL FUNGICIDE IPRODIONE PROPICONAZOLE PLANT
FUNGAL DISEASE
MESH HEADINGS: CONGRESSES
MESH HEADINGS: BIOLOGY
MESH HEADINGS: BIOP HYSICS
MESH HEADINGS: PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS/PHARMACOLOGY
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/PHYSIOLOGY
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/METABOLISM
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/DRUG EFFECTS
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
MESH HEADI NGS: FUNGI
MESH HEADINGS: PLANT DISEASES
MESH HEADINGS: PLANT DISEASES
MESH HEADINGS: PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
MESH HEADINGS: HERBICIDES
MESH HEADINGS: PEST CONTROL
MESH HEADINGS: PESTICIDES
MESH HEADINGS: FUNGI
MESH HEADINGS: GRASSES KEYWORDS: General Biology

- Symposia KEYWORDS: Plant Physiology
KEYWORDS: Horticulture

- Flowers and Ornamentals KEYWORDS: Phytopathology

- Diseases Caused by Fungi KEYWORDS: Phytopathology

- Disease Control
KEYWORDS: Pest Control KEYWORDS: Fungi

- Unspecified KEYWORDS: Gramineae eng

7. Ch en, Chi

- Min; Stowell, Larry; Wong, Frank, and Chen, Chi

- Min. The Effects of Nitrogen and Trinexapac

- Ethyl on the Severity of Brown Ring Patch on Annual Bluegrass Golf Course Putting Greens. 2009 Nov 1.
Rec #: 4240 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Conc ern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Langua ge of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42145735 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Chen, Chi

- Min; Stowell, Larry; Wong, Frank124 DOI

- CPI

- 5551197; 5551197 English

8. Cropper, Kenneth; Williams, David; Burrus, Paul, and Cropper, Kenneth . Traffic Tolerance of Bermudagrass as Affected by Cultivars and Trinexapac

- Ethyl. 2008 Oct 5.
Rec #: 4350 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 2000:Biological Sciences
Conference title

- 2008 Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA), Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies with the Gulf Coast Section of SEPM (GCAGS)

Dat e revised

- 2009

- 05

- 05 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42070496 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Cropper, Kenneth; Williams, David; Burrus, Paul
DOI

- CPI

- 4972581; 4972581 English

9. Deaton, Michael; Williams, David, a nd Deaton, Michael. Trinexapac

- Ethyl and Overseeding Effects on Tolerance to Simulated Traffic of Four Bermudagrass Cultivars Grown on a Sand

- Based System. 2009 Nov 1.
Rec #: 4210 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 430 0:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest I D

- 42168829 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Deaton, Michael; Williams, David
DOI

- CPI

- 5553460; 5553460 English

10. Dillon, K; Walker, T; Tarpley, L; Bond, J, and Dillon, K. Trinexapac

- Ethyl as a Potential Tool to Improve Harves table Yield Potential for Hybrid Rice. 2010 Feb 22.
Rec #: 4180 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 7000:Multidisciplinary
Conference title

- 33rd Rice Technical Working Group Meeting (RTWG 2010)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42365985 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Dillon, K; Walker, T; Tarpley, L; Bond, J
DOI

- CPI

- 5667627; 5667627 English

11. Dillon, Kevin; Walker, Timothy; Koger, Clifford; Varco, Jac, and Dillon, Kevin. Evaluation of Trinexapac

- Ethyl to Reduce Lodging for Hybrid Rice. 2010 Feb 7.
Rec #: 4190 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2010 Annual Meeting of the Southern Regional Branch of the American125 Society for Agronomy
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42357956 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Dillon, Kevin; Walker, Timothy; Koger, Clifford; Varco, Ja c DOI

- CPI

- 5658001; 5658001 English

12. Fagerness, M. J. and Yelverton, F. H. Regulation of 'Tifway' bermudagrass growth and development with trinexapac

- ethyl and paclobutrazol. 1999. v. 52, 68

- 69.
Rec #: 3280 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Co ncern: TXE Abstract: Paper presented at the "A Glance to the Past, A Vision for the Future" 52nd Annual Meeting, January 25

- 27, 1999, Greensboro, North Carolina.

13. Fidanza, M. A.; Wetzel III, H. C.; Agnew, M. L., and Kaminski, J. E. Evaluation of Fungi cide and Plant Growth Regulator Tank

- Mix Programmes on Dollar Spot Severity of Creeping Bentgrass. 2006; 25, (9): 1032

- 1038.
Rec #: 5080 Keywords: MIXTURE Call Number: NO MIXTURE (AZX,CTN,PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: AZX,CTN,FDX, PBZ,PCZ,PPCP,PPCP2011,TXE

14. Gardner, David; Nangle, Edward; Street, John; Danneberger, Karl T; Metzger, James, and Gardner, David. The Effect of Trinexapac Ethyl and Three Nitrogen Sources on Creeping Bentgrass Agrostis Stolonifera L. Grown Under Three Light Environments. 2008 Oct 5.
Rec #: 4340 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 2000:Biological Sciences
Conference title

- 2008 Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA), Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies with the Gulf Coast Section of SEPM (GCAGS)
Date revised

- 2009

- 05

- 05 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42061697 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Gardner, David; Nangle, Edward; Street, John; Danneberger, Karl T; Metzger, James
DOI

- CPI

- 4972594; 4972594 English

15. Haselbauer, William; Sorochan, John; Brosnan, James; Samples, Thomas, and Haselbauer, William. Effects of Trinexapac

- Ethyl on the Traffic Tolerance of Four Bermudagrass Cultivars. 2009
Nov 1.
Rec #: 4260 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference tit le

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42144266 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03126 Corporate institution author

- Haselbauer, William; Sorochan, John; Brosnan, James; Samples,
Thomas
DOI

- CPI

- 5551209; 5551209 English

16. Heckman, N. L.; Horst, G. L.; Gaussoin, R. E., and Frank, K. W. Storage and Handling Characteristics of Trinexapac

- Ethyl Treated Kentucky Bluegrass Sod. N.L. Heckman, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska

- Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583

- 0724//: 2001; 36, (6): 1127

- 1130.
Rec #: 5020 Keywords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT Call Number: NO BENEFICIAL EFFECT (TXE)
Notes: Chemic al of Concern: TXE

17. Impey, Louise. Variable Application Trials Surprising. 2009 Mar 28: 10.
Rec #: 4280 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: "It's important to bear in mind this was just one trial," he says. But it c ould be explained by Moddus' ability to promote tillering and root growth in struggling crops, he suggests. "That's very relevant to this season. There are a number of backwards crops out there, which can be given a kick

- start with the right dose of PGR Fo r the majority, the helping

- hand approach is needed." Keywords: 9175:Western Europe Keywords: 8400:Agriculture industry Keywords: United Kingdom

-- UK Keywords: Agriculture

-- Crop Production And Soil Copyright

- Copyright Reed Business Information UK Mar 28, 2009 Language of summary

- English
Location

- United Kingdom

-- UK Pages

- 10 ProQuest ID

- 208960619
Document feature

- Photographs SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText

- United Kingdom

-- UK Last updated

- 2010

- 06

- 08 Place of publication

- Sutton Corporate institutio n author

- Impey, Louise
DOI

- 1681821831; 42579661; 52754; CROS; INODCROS0005618258 English

18. Inguagiato, J. C. Anthracnose Severity Influenced by Cultural Management of Annual Bluegrass Putting Green Turf. 2009: 253 p. (UMI# 3350124).
Rec #: 4990

Ke ywords: PUBL AS Call Number: NO PUBL AS (EPH,MFD,TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: EPH,MFD,TXE

19. Klein, Joshua and Klein, Joshua. Trinexapac

- Ethyl Promotes Drought Resistance by Changing Epicuticular Wax Synthesis, Structure and Composition. 2010 Jun 28

. Rec #: 4170 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 7000:Multidisciplinary
Conference title

- 20th International Conference on Plant Growth Substances (IPGSA 2010)
Date revised

- 2011

- 01

- 11 Language of summary

- English

P roQuest ID

- 839708548 Last updated

- 2011

- 01

- 14 Corporate institution author

- Klein, Joshua127 DOI

- CPI

- 5948546; 5948546 English

20. Kreuser, W; Soldat, D, and Kreuser, W. Use of a Growing Degree Model to Schedule Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applications to Creepi ng Bentgrass Golf Putting Greens. 2009 Nov 1.
Rec #: 4250 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42138537 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Kreuser, W; Soldat, D
DOI

- CPI

- 5551975; 5551975 Eng lish

21. Li, Qiang and Li, Xue Feng. Substitution of Highly

- Toxic Pesticides Screening and Mixture on Bradysia Odoriphaga. 2007.
Rec #: 4880 Keywords: NON

- ENGLISH
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: Bradysia odoriphaga Yang et Zhang, whos e larva is called Bradysia spp, causes great damage to china chives, garlic, spring onion, green Chinese onion and etc. The highly

- toxic pesticides were used to control it and made a potential threat on security of china chives. The objectives of this pape r is to determine the toxicity of substitute chemicals with different mechanism and screen the substitutions, providing data for the further field tests. Meanwhile, methods of toxicity and standard of death were discussed primarily. The study of
mixtures o f several pesticides was also carried out. Single concentration toxicity to 3

- instar larvae was measured using lambda

- cyhalothrin and beta

- cypermethrin with two chosen concentrations.The percentage change of judgement of two standards of death which wer e the insects could not naturally creep and immobility of body, it indicated that the influence of the two methods on LC50 from formulation to insects was significant. Variation of LC50 measured by four methods was much. The general trends in ranking of LC50 measured was almost same. The result indicated the ranking was contact&stomach method<filter paper< dipping leaf or dipping insects. Toxicity of 16 pesticides was measured on the 3

- instar larva using the contact&stomach method.The resul t showed that chlorpyrifos showed higher toxicity to the insects with LD50 up to 0.384mg/L. Toxicity of 16 pesticides to the larva of Bradysia odoriphaga was declining in the order as following: Chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, phoxim,
lambda

- cyhalothrin, aceta miprid, beta

- cypermethrin, carbaryl, malathion, ethoprophos, diazinon, endosulfan, cyfluthrin, carbosulfan, chloramine phosphorus, xiaochongliulin. Cyromazine belonged to insect growth regulator had no significant effect on the insect within 72
hours. The result demonstrated that the mixtures of chlorpyrifos and lambda

- cyhalothrin had the most synergistic effect, the CTC, at the ration of 1:5,was 356. The mixture of chlorpyrifos and acetamiprid had insignificant synergistic effect, the CTC, at the rati on of 1:9 and 1:19, were
180 and 173. Keywords: 0285:Agronomy Keywords: Biological sciences Keywords: (UMI)AAIH219836 0285: Agronomy
2712565341
2007
Chinese
1026555212 Copyright ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing 2007
n/a128 (UMI)AAIH219836 Li, Qiang
1690 31 Biological sciences
H219836
2012

- 07

- 17
70523942 ZH

22. Lopez

- Bellido, R. J.; Lal, R.; Danneberger, T. K., and Street, J. R. Plant Growth Regulator and Nitrogen Fertilizer Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Creeping Bentgrass Fairway Turf. [Lopez

- Bellido, RJ] Univ Cordoba, Dept Ciencias & Recursos Agr & Forestales, Cordoba 14071, Spain [Lal, R] Ohio State Univ, Carbon Management & Sequestrat Ctr, Columbus, OH 43210 USA//: SOIL; 2010; 332, (1/2): 247

- 255.
Rec #: 5000 Keywords: FATE
Call Nu mber: NO FATE (LQN,PBZ,TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: LQN,PBZ,TXE

23. McCann, S. E. Water Use and Summer Stress Tolerance Mechanisms for Creeping Bentgrass and Kentucky Bluegrass. 2008: 207 p. (UMI# 3349586 ).
Rec #: 4860 Keywords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT

N otes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stoloniferia ) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa Pratensis L.) are two widely

- used cool

- season grasses grown extensively in northern regions of the United States. Creeping bentgrass is primarily used on golf courses, while Kentucky bluegrass has extensive uses in both home lawns and sports fields. Each of these areas of use are coming under increased scrutiny in regards to water management and conservation. Communities are increasing ly putting greater restrictions on both the amount and type of water that can be used for irrigating golf courses, sports fields, and home lawns. The focus of our project was to develop a greater understanding of these grasses' water use, as a way to estab lish ideal water management practices. The field portion of the project focused on irrigation frequency as applied to three bentgrass species maintained as golf course fairways. Results suggested that reducing frequency and watering one or two times per we ek, while still replacing 100% of evapotranspiration (ET), produced equivalent, if not improved turf quality, and actually held water deeper in the soil profile, reducing evaporation losses to the atmosphere. In addition to the field portion of the project , experiments were conducted in growth chambers evaluating both creeping bentgrass and Kentucky bluegrass physiological responses to drought and summer stress. Specific findings suggested that exfoliar application of abscisic acid (ABA) or trinexapac

- ethyl , a giberrelin inhibitor, significantly improved plant drought tolerance

. Further research evaluated genotypic variation between varieties of these species, suggesting that both tolerance and avoidance traits are employed to protect plant physiological fun ction
under water deficit. Start Page: 207
ISSN/ISBN: 9781109055887 Keywords: 0309:Plant biology Keywords: Water use Keywords: Kentucky bluegrass Keywords: 0817:Plant biology Keywords: Stress tolerance Keywords: 0471:Horticulture Keywords: Biological scien ces Keywords: Creeping bentgrass
2008
0471: Horticulture Kentucky bluegrass129 1683354491
3349586
41273611
2012

- 07

- 19
Stress tolerance 0817: Plant biology
66569
9781109055887
n/a Copyright ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing 2008 English

Water use
30451172 2 McCann, Stephen E. Biological sciences 0309: Plant biology Creeping bentgrass English

24. McCann, S. E. Water Use and Summer Stress Tolerance Mechanisms for Creeping Bentgrass and Kentucky Bluegrass. SOIL; 2008: 207 p. (UMI# 3349586).
Rec #: 5050 Keyw ords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE

25. Mccullough, P; Hart, S, and McCullough, P. Trinexapac

- Ethyl Influences Efficacy and Foliar Absorption of Bispyribac

- Sodium. 2007 Jan 2.
Rec #: 4540 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 2000:Biological Sciences
Conference title

- 61st Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society
Date revised

- 2007

- 09

- 05 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 39401911 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate instituti on author

- McCullough, P; Hart, S
DOI

- CPI

- 4509771; 4509771 English

26. Moss, Justin; Su, Kemin; Poudel, Bishow, and Moss, Justin. Evaluation of Combinations of Bispyribac

Sodium or Amicarbazone With Trinexapac

- Ethyl or Paclobutrazol for Annual Bluegra ss Control on Creeping Bentgrass Greens. 2009 Nov 1.
Rec #: 4220 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
S ociety of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42137150 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Moss, Justin; Su, Kemin; Poudel, Bishow
DOI

- CPI

- 5552012; 5552012 English

27. Nolte, Kurt and Nolte, Kurt. The Pgr, Trinexapac

- Ethyl Reduces Lodging in Desert Durum Wheat. 2007
Jul 16.130 Rec #: 4480 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 7000:Multidisciplinary
Confe rence title

- 2007 Annual Conference of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS 2007)
Date revised

- 2007

- 12

- 18 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 39404329 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Nolte, Kurt
DOI

- CPI

- 4613491; 4613491 English

28. Porpiglia, P.; Towne, O., and Houseworth, D. Overview of the Turf Weed Control Market in the Usa. 1996; 47, (4): 387

- 388.
Rec #: 4960 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE
Abstract: ABSTRACT: BIOSIS COPYRIGHT : BIOL ABS. RRM MEETING PAPER
LOLIUM

- SPP FESTUCA

- SPP AGROSTIS

- STOLINIFERA POA

- PRATENSIS POA

- ANNUA
CYNODON

- SPP EREMOCHLOA

- OPHIUROIDES STENOTAPHRUM

- SECUNDATUM
PENNISETUM

- CLANDESTINUM KIKUYUGRASS ZOYSIA

- SPP GRASS WEEDS
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CEN TIPEDEGRASS ST
AUGUSTINEGRASS ZOYSIAGRASS PERENNIAL RYEGRASSES ANNUAL
RYEGRASSES RED FESCUE CREEPING DWARF FESCUE TALL FESCUE SEMI

DWARF FESCUE TURF PLANT WEED HORTICULTURE BIOBUSINESS TURF WEED
CONTROL MARKET MAINTENANCE LEVEL PESTICIDES APPLICATION RATE
PESTICIDE TURF CLIMATES PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR SELECTIVITY
HERBICIDE COST SAFETY PEST MANAGEMENT TRINEXAPAC

- ETHYL CIBA
PACLOBUTRAZOL FLURPRIMIDOL USA NORTH AMERICA
MESH HEADINGS: CLIMATE
MESH HEADINGS: ECOLOGY
MESH HEADINGS: METEOROLOGICAL FACTORS
MESH HEA DINGS: ECOLOGY
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS
MESH HEADINGS: BIOCHEMISTRY
MESH HEADINGS: GRASSES/GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
MESH HEADINGS: SOIL
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS/GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
MESH HEADINGS: HERBICIDES
MESH HEADINGS: PEST CONTROL
MESH HEADINGS: PESTICIDES
MESH HEADINGS: PLANTS
MESH HEADINGS: GRASSES KEYWORDS: Ecology KEYWORDS: Ecology
KEYWORDS: Biochemical Studies

- General KEYWORDS: Agronomy

- Weed Control
KEYWORDS: Horticulture

- Flowers and Ornamentals
KEYWORDS: Pest Control KEYWORDS: Tracheophyta
KEYWORDS: Gramin eae eng

29. Raeppel, C.; Nief, M.; Fabritius, M.; Racault, L.; Appenzeller, B. M., and Millet, M. Simultaneous Analysis of Pesticides From Different Chemical Classes by Using a Derivatisation Step and Gas Chromatography

- Mass Spectrometry.131 Rec #: 4980

Ke ywords: CHEM METHODS
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: ABSTRACT: This work presents a new method to analyse simultaneously by GC

- MS 31 pesticides from different chemical classes (2,4 D, 2,4 MCPA, alphacypermethrin, bifenthrin, bromoxynil, buprofez in, carbaryl, carbofuran, clopyralid, cyprodinil, deltamethrin dicamba, dichlobenil, dichlorprop, diflufenican, diuron, fenoxaprop, flazasulfuron, fluroxypyr, ioxynil, isoxaben, mecoprop

- P, myclobutanil, oryzalin, oxadiazon, picloram, tau

- fluvalinate
tebuc onazole, triclopyr, trifluralin and trinexapac

- p

- ethyl). This GC

- MS method will be applied to the analysis of passive samplers (Tenax(®) tubes and SPME fiber) used for the evaluation of the indoor and outdoor atmospheric contamination by non

- agricultur al pesticides. The method involves a derivatisation step for thermo

- labile or polar pesticides. Different agents were tested and MtBSTFA (N

- (t

- butyldimethylsilyl)

- N

- methyltrifluoroacetamide), a sylilation agent producing very specific fragments [M

- 57], was retained. However, diuron could not be derivatised and the isocyanate product was used for identification and quantification. Pesticides which did not need a derivatisation step were not affected by the presence of the derivatisation agent and they could easily be analysed in mixture with derivatised pesticides. The method can be coupled to a thermal

- desorption unit or to SPME extraction for a multiresidue analysis of various pesticides in atmospheric samples.
MESH HEADINGS: Acetamides MESH HEADINGS: Acyla tion MESH HEADINGS: Amides/chemistry
MESH HEADINGS: Fluoroacetates MESH HEADINGS: Gas Chromatography

- Mass Spectrometry/*methods MESH HEADINGS: Organosilicon Compounds/chemistry MESH HEADINGS: Pesticides/*analysis/chemistry/classification
MESH HEADINGS: Sen sitivity and Specificity MESH HEADINGS: Trifluoroacetic Acid/chemistry MESH HEADINGS: Trimethylsilyl Compounds/chemistry eng

30. Rajala, A. and Peltonen

- Sainio, P. Plant Growth Regulator Effects on Spring Cereal Root and Shoot Growth. SOIL; 2001; 93, (4) : 936

- 943.
Rec #: 5010 Keywords: NO CONC Call Number: NO CONC (CQTC,EPH,TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: CQTC,EPH,TXE

31. Ramoutar, D. Pyrethroid Resistance in the Annual Bluegrass Weevil, Listronotus maculicollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), from South ern New England Golf Courses. 2009: 161 p. (UMI# 3415505)(Publ As 155217, 156577, 152401).
Rec #: 5070 Keywords: PUBL AS
Call Number: NO PUBL AS (BFT,FPD,FRM,LCYT,PBZ,PCZ,PPB,PPCP,PPCP2011,TBF,TXE)
Notes: Chemical of Concern: BFT,CTD,FPD,FRM,LCYT,PBZ,PCZ, PPB,PPCP,PPCP2011,SS,TBF,TXE

32. Sladek, B. S.; Henry, G. M., and Auld, D. L. Evaluation of Zoysiagrass Genotypes for Shade Tolerance. 2009; 44, (5): 1447

- 1451.
Rec #: 2860 Keywords: NO TOXICANT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE
Abstract: Abstract: Establ ishing turfgrass in shaded environments can create a unique maintenance challenge. Shading reduces zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.) photosynthesis and results in reduced turfgrass aesthetic quality. Zoysiagrass is a warm

- season, perennial turfgrass that forms
a d ense, uniform turf through the production of rhizomes and stolons. It has demonstrated good132 tolerance to growth in reduced light intensity environments. Greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the relative difference in growth re sponse to three light intensities (0%, 50%, and 90% shade) among six zoysiagrass genotypes under artificial shade conditions. Percent change in zoysiagrass plug diameter decreased as shade level increased 6 and 12 weeks after planting (WAP) regardless of y ear or genotype. 'Diamond' and 'Shadow Turf' exhibited the greatest percent change in plug diameter 12 WAP (60% to 69%) followed by the remaining zoysiagrass genotypes (21% to 56%) when grown under 50% shade, regardless of year. In 2006, no zoysiagrass gen otype maintained acceptable turfgrass quality (6 or greater) 12 WAP when grown under 54% shade. However, 'Diamond' and 'Shadow Turf' exhibited acceptable turfgrass quality ratings (7.0 and 6.3) 12 WAP in 2007, whereas all other genotypes exhibited unaccept able turfgrass quality ratings (5.0 to 5.7). In 2006, 'Shadow Turf' zoysiagrass exhibited the greatest percent increase in plug diameter (21%) followed by 'DALZ 0501' (15%) and 'Diamond' (5%) 12 WAP when grown under 90% shade. All other zoysiagrass genotyp es exhibited decreases in plug diameter (31% to 87%). In 2 007, 'Shadow Turf and 'Diamond' exhibited the greatest percent change in plug diameter (11%) followed by 'DALZ 0501' (7%) 12 WAP when grown under 90% shade. All other zoysiagrass genotypes exhibite d decreases in plug diameter (17% to 38%). Turfgrass quality declined as shade level increased 6 and 12 WAP regardless of year or genotype. 'Shadow Turf' and 'Diamond' exhibited the highest turfgrass quality ratings (4.7 and 3.7, respectively, in 2006 and 5.3 in 2007) 12 WAP when grown under 90% shade. Proper zoysiagrass cultivar selection may improve turfgrass growth and quality under low light intensity while increasing turfgrass options for shaded environments. Keywords: Zoysia japonica, Zoysia matrella, light intensity ISI Document Delivery No.: 487KS

33. Spinelli, F. ; Vanneste, J. L., and Costa, G. Acylcyclohexanediones and biological control agents: combining complementary modes of action to control fire blight. 2012; 26, (1): 247

- 257.
Rec #: 2890 Keywords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: Acylcyclohexanediones and antagonistic bacteria sprayed alone or in
combination have been shown to suppress fire blight of apple and pear. Acylcyclohexanediones, such as prohex adione

- calcium and trinexapacethyl, increase plant
resistance a nd are effective against the shoot blight phase of the disease. Antagonistic bacteria, such as Pantoea agglomerans, compete with the pathogen (Erwinia amylovora) for space and
nutrients on sti gmas, which prevents blossom blight. Potential synergistic effects of acylcyclohexanediones with P. agglomerans for fire blight suppression were investigated on leaves and flowers of apple and pear. Acylcyclohexanediones modified the composition of apple

n ectar and stigmatic secretions, which resulted in moderately higher epiphytic populations of P. agglomerans strain P10c. In experiments in apple orchards, the combination of acylcyclohexanediones and P. agglomerans gave the greatest protection against blos som blight and shoot blight. In pear orchards, under natural infection conditions, a similar result was obtained for the 3 of the 4 years of the experiment. Keywords: Pantoea agglomerans, Prohexadionecalcium, Trinexapac

- ethyl, Malus ISI Document Delivery N o.: 912FB

34. Steinke, K. and Stier, J. C. Nitrogen Selection and Growth Regulator Applications for Improving Shaded Turf Performance. jstier@facstaff.wisc.edu//J.C. Stier, Dep. of Horticulture, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706////: SOIL; 2003; 43, (4): 1399

- 1406.
Rec #: 5040 Keywords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT Call Number: NO BENEFICIAL EFFECT (TXE) Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE,Urea

35. Stiglbauer, J. B. Establishment and Management Practices of Two New Warm

- Season Turfgrasses in the
Southern Transit ion Zone. SOIL; 2010: 107 p. (UMI# 1475581).
Rec #: 5060133 Keywords: BENEFICIAL EFFECT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE

36. Studzinska, A. K.; Gardner, D. S.; Metzger, J. D.; Shetlar, D.; Harriman, R., and Danneberger, T. K. The Effect of PcGA2ox Overexpre ssion on Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.): Performance under Various Light Environments. 2012; 47, (2): 280

- 284.
Rec #: 2910 Keywords: NO TOXICANT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Abstract: Turf grown in shade exhibits increased stem elongation. Dwarfism could improve turfgrass quality by reducing elongation. The purpose of this study was to examine the
effect of GA2

- oxidase (GA2ox) overexpression on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) performance under restricted light condit ions and low mowing heights. Greenhouse studies were conducted at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, from 1 Sept. to 31 Oct. in both 2008 and 2009. Two experimental lines, Ax6548 and Ax6549, transformed with CP4 EPSPS and PcGA2ox gene; and a nontrans formed control (NTC) was subjected to four light environments: full sun, reduced red to far red light ratio (R:FR), neutral shade [reduced photosynthetic photon flux (PPF)], and canopy shade (reduced PPF and R:FR). Turf was evaluated every 10 days for
colo r and percent coverage. GA2ox overexpression resulted in darker green color in both transgenic lines under all light treatments as compared with NTC plants. No differences in overall turfgrass coverage were noted in full sun conditions among the lines. A s ignificant decrease in turf coverage occurred for all shade treatments regardless of line. However, Ax6549 decreased the least. Overall data indicated that GA2ox overexpression can improve quality of turfgrass under reduced light conditions. Keywords: TRIN EXAPAC

- ETHYL, GIBBERELLIN BIOSYNTHESIS, KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS, TALL ISI Document Delivery No.: 900VP

37. Thoms, Adam; Sorochan, John; Brosnan, James; Breeden, Greg; Samples, Thomas, and Thoms, Adam. Effects of Grooming and Trinexapac

- Ethyl Applications on Z oysiagrass Fairways in the
Transition Zone. 2009 Nov 1.
Rec #: 4230 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Keywords: U 4300:Environmental Science
Conference title

- 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Scienc e Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA

- CSSA

- SSSA 2009)
Date revised

- 2010

- 04

- 06 Language of summary

- English ProQuest ID

- 42137571 Last updated

- 2010

- 05

- 03 Corporate institution author

- Thoms, Adam; Sorochan, John; Brosnan, Jame s; Breeden, Greg; Samples, Thomas
DOI

- CPI

- 5551985; 5551985 English

38. Villa

- Ruano, N.; Betancourt

- Jimenez, M. G., and Lozoya

- Gloria, E. Biosynthesis of Uterotonic Diterpenes From Montanoa Tomentosa (Zoapatle). 2009 Dec 15; 166, (18): 1961

- 7.
Rec #: 4 680 Keywords: HUMAN HEALTH
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: ABSTRACT: Montanoa tomentosa (zoapatle) is a Central American plant used in
Mexico in traditional herbal medicine to ease childbirth labor and to cure certain female
disorders . Recently, crude extracts of M. tomentosa have been reported to have an aphrodisiacal effect on male rats. The bioactive molecules are the uterotonic diterpenes kaurenoic acid (KA), grandiflorenic acid (GF), and monoginoic acid (MO). Roots of M.
tomentosa contain all three diterpenes, whereas in leaves only kaurenoic and GF are present.134 However, despite the pharmacological importance of these compounds, specific information about their biosynthesis and localization in the plant is not available. In this investigatio n, we followed the metabolic transformation of a tritium

- labeled diterpene

- precursor via geranylgeranyl diphosphate into each of the three diterpenes. Inhibitors of gibberellin biosynthesis were used to elucidate the sequence of conversion of the intermedi ates. Our results suggest the biosynthetic conversion of KA into GF by a putative cytochrome P450

- like desaturase. Partial characterization of the enzyme revealed that it requires NADPH and O2 but is inhibited by 50 microM paclobutrazol, suggesting a cyto chrome P450 desaturase like enzyme (EC 1.14.14.

- ) . Optimal reaction conditions are 32 degrees C and a pH of 7.6, respectively. Ap parent kinetics parameters for KA gave a K(m,app) of 36.31 microM, and a V(max, app) of 13.6 nmol KA mg(1)protein h(

- 1). Based on the data presented, a putative biosynthetic pathway is proposed for the uterotonic diterpenes of M. tomentosa. MESH HEADINGS: Chlormequat MESH HEADINGS: Cyclopropanes MESH HEADINGS: Diterpenes/*metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Gibberellins/antagonists & inhibi tors MESH HEADINGS: Microsomes/metabolism
MESH HEADINGS: Montanoa/*metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Oxidoreductases Acting on CH

- CH Group Donors/metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Plant Growth Regulators
MESH HEADINGS: Plant Leaves/metabolism
MESH HEADINGS: Plant Proteins /metabolism
MESH HEADINGS: Plant Roots/metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Plants, Medicinal/metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Polyisoprenyl Phosphates/metabolism MESH HEADINGS: Quinones
MESH HEADINGS: Triazoles MESH HEADINGS: Tritium eng

39. Yelverton, F. H. Effects of t rinexapac

- ethyl and paclobutrazol on ball roll and summer stress of creeping bentgrass. 1998. v. 51, 68.
Rec #: 3960 Keywords: ABSTRACT
Notes: Chemical of Concern: TXE Abstract: Paper presented at the "Preparing for the New Millenium" 51st Annual Meetin g, January 26

- 28, 1998, Birmingham, Alabama.135 

## Appendix E

– SIP and STIR Model Output

STIR

The most sensitive bird data was from the zebra finch.



## Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Trinexapac

- ethyl

Enter Chemic al Use Growth regulator Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) air Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 252.3 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 1.62E

- 05 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./ac re) 1.36

Toxicity Properties

**Bird**

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 813 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.0115

**Mammal**

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 4212

Enter Lowest Rat Inhal ation LC 50 (mg/L) 2.51 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35



## Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 2.20E

- 01

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.76E

- 02

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.07E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 6.79E

- 03 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.31E

- 01 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjust ed Inhalation
LD 50 3.21E

- 02 Exposure not Likely Significant



### Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 2.20E

- 01

Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.48E

- 02

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.49E+02136 Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 2.33E

- 04 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.64E

- 01 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation
LD 50 1.10E

- 03 Exposure not Like ly Significant



### SIP

Two items should be noted in the inputs. First, the solubility value is reported for a pH of 5.5. A solubility value was also reported at a pH of 8 .2 (21100). Using the higher value does not change the overall conclusion of the mod el. Secondly, the zebra finch provided the most
sensitive LD 50 

### , when compared with the mallard duck and bobwhite quail. The body weight was taken from the DER (MRID 48894501) and the lowest number in the body weigh range was used (11.5 to 15.8 g). Using the higher body weight does not change the overall
conclusion of the model.

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Trinexapac

- ethyl
Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 10200

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 4212 Mammalian test spe cies laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 594 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 813 Avian test spec ies other Body weight (g) of "other" avian species 11.5 Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 600 Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 200 NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for other bird species Body weight (g) of other avian spec ies NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for 2nd other bird species Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 1754.4000 1754.4000 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 3239.7043 456.8814 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.5415 3.8399137 Conclusion* Exposure through drinking water alone is a

potential concern for
mammals Exposure through drinking water alone is a

potential concern for
mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 8262.0000 8262.0000 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 883.3654 21.2597 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 9.3529 388.6233

Conclusion* Exposure through drinking water alone is a

pot ential concern for
birds Exposure through drinking water alone is a

potential concern for
birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., di et, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non

- target animals.138 

## Appendix F

– Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern

The Risk Quotient Method is the means b y which the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. In this method, both acute and chronic risk quotients are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by the most sensitive ecotoxicity value s derived from the studies. Calculated risk quotients are then compared to OPP's levels of concern. The levels of concern are the criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non

- target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action.
EFED has defined levels of concern for acute risk, potential restricted use, and for listed species. Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding risk quotients and levels of concern
are summarized in the table below.



## Levels of Concern for Assessed Taxa

Risk P resumption Risk Quotient Level of
Concern

Birds

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day (or LD 50 

### < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day 0.1

Chronic Ris k EEC/NOAEC 1

Mammals

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day (or LD 50 

### < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /sqft or LD 50 

### /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Aquatic Ani mals

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.1

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.05

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 25 

### 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 

### or NO AEC 1139 

### Risk P resumption Risk Quotient Level of
Concern

Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 50 

### 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 

### or NOAEC 1140 

## Appendix G

– Surface Water Model Results and Sample Input and Outputs
Representative PRZM/E XAM Output: Pennsylvania Turf

– Ground Application

stored as PATurfGeco3.out
Chemical: Trinexapac

PRZM environment: PAturfSTD.txt modified Thuday, 23 February 2006 at 18:55:08
EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:07

Metfile: w14751.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:59 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.04 0.98 0.76 0.55 0.55 0.20

1962 0.98 0.93 0.71 0.50 0.52 0.18

1963 0.98 0.93 0.71 0.48 0.50 0.17

1964 0.98 0.92 0.82 0.54 0.56 0.20

1965 0.98 0.92 0.70 0.50 0.51 0.17

1966 1.00 0.94 0.71 0.51 0.51 0.21

1967 1.04 0.99 0.76 0.53 0.54 0.22

1968 7.35 6.97 5.28 3.07 2.24 0.73

1969 1.03 0.97 0.75 0.57 0.57 0.27

1970 4.01 3.84 3.22 2.26 1.86 0.58

1971 1.03 0.98 0.74 0.54 0.54 0.20

1972 4.13 3.85 2.89 1.64 1.31 0.48

1973 5.01 4.76 3.57 2.07 1.55 0.58

1974 1.03 0.97 0.75 0.56 0.57 0.22

1975 1.02 0.96 0.84 0.57 0.58 0.21

1976 1.21 1.12 0.91 0.56 0.57 0.21

1977 0.99 0.94 0.72 0.53 0.54 0.19

1978 1.00 0.94 0.72 0.55 0.52 0.21

1979 1.00 0.94 0.73 0.50 0.52 0.20

1980 0.98 0.92 0.71 0.50 0.51 0.18

1981 0.98 0.92 0.70 0.48 0.49 0.17

1982 8.98 8.43 7.08 4.50 3.36 1.08

1983 1.28 1.22 0.97 0.86 0.82 0.34

1984 4.20 3.97 3.03 1.85 1.45 0.53

1985 1.05 1.00 0.79 0.56 0.58 0.23

1986 1.06 1.00 0.76 0.60 0.58 0.21

1987 1.71 1.58 1.15 0.80 0.65 0.27

1988 1.01 0.95 0.73 0.52 0.53 0.21

1989 1.05 1.00 0.81 0.62 0.61 0.23

1990 6.98 6.59 4.93 2.87 2.12 0.70

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 8.98 8.43 7.08 4.50 3.36 1.08

0.06 7.35 6.97 5.28 3.07 2.24 0.73

0.10 6.98 6.59 4.93 2.87 2.12 0.70

0.13 5.01 4.76 3.57 2.26 1.86 0.58

0.16 4.20 3.97 3.22 2.07 1.55 0.58

0.19 4.13 3.85 3.03 1.85 1.45 0.53

0.23 4.01 3.84 2.89 1.64 1.31 0.48

0.26 1.71 1.58 1.15 0.86 0.82 0.34

0.29 1.28 1.22 0.97 0.80 0.65 0.27

0.32 1.21 1.12 0.91 0.62 0.61 0.27

0.35 1.06 1.00 0.84 0.60 0.58 0.23

0.39 1.05 1.00 0.82 0.57 0.58 0.23

0.42 1.05 1.00 0.81 0.57 0.58 0.22

0.45 1.04 0.99 0.79 0.56 0.57 0.22

0.48 1.04 0.98 0.76 0.56 0.57 0.21

0.52 1.03 0.98 0.76 0.56 0.57 0.21

0.55 1.03 0.97 0.76 0.55 0.56 0.21

0.58 1.03 0.97 0.75 0.55 0.55 0.21

0.61 1.02 0.96 0.75 0.54 0.54 0.21

0.65 1.01 0.95 0.74 0.54 0.54 0.21

0.68 1.00 0.94 0.73 0.53 0.54 0.20

0.71 1.00 0.94 0.73 0.53 0.53 0.20

0.74 1.00 0.94 0.72 0.52 0.52 0.20

0.77 0.99 0.94 0.72 0.51 0.52 0.20

0.81 0.98 0.93 0.71 0.50 0.52 0.19

0.84 0.98 0.93 0.71 0.50 0.51 0.18

0.87 0.98 0.92 0.71 0.50 0.51 0.18

0.90 0.98 0.92 0.71 0.50 0.51 0.17

0.94 0.98 0.92 0.70 0.48 0.50 0.17

0.97 0.98 0.92 0.70 0.48 0.49 0.17

0.10 6.78 6.41 4.79 2.81 2.10 0.69 Average of y 0.32

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:
Output File: PATurfGeco3

Metfile: w14751.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAturfSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Trinexapac
Description Variable Na Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 252.3 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 5.27E-10 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.62E-05 torr Solubility sol 10200 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 416 mg/L
Photolysis half-life kdp 22.8 days Half-life
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 17.4 days Halfife
Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 533 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 5.2 days Halfife
Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual
Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 1.53 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction
Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond
Application Date Date 4-Jan dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 56 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app
app. rate 1 apprate 1.53 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 2

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)141 

## Appendix H

– TerrPl ant Output
Sugarcane

– 1 ground app at 0.31 lb ai/A

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Parameter User Inputs

Chemical Name Trinexapac

- ethyl

PC code 112602

Use Herbicide for grasses Application Method Spray

Application Form Liquid
S olubility in Water (ppm) 10200

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value (user inputs) Units

Application Rate A 0.31

Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 n one

Table 3. EECs for Trinexapac

- ethyl. Units in .

Description Equation EEC
Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.0155

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.155 Spray drift A*D 0.0031 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0186

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.1581

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in . All values are user inputs
Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monoc ot 0.301 0.094 0.294 0.0425

Dicot 0.22 0.094 0.267 0.085

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to Trinexapac

- ethyl through runoff and/or spray drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Monoc ot non

- listed <0.1 0.53 <0.1

Monocot listed 0.20 1.68 <0.1

Dicot non

- listed <0.1 0.72 <0.1

Dicot listed 0.20 1.68 <0.1142 *If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.143 

## Appendix I

– T

- REX Output

Cereals

– 1 ap p at 0.11 lb ai/A

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size
Class (grams) Adjusted
LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods
/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EE C RQ

20 883.37 30.07 0.03 13.78 0.02 16.91 0.02 1.88 0.00 11.78 0.01 0.42 0.00

100 1124.57 17.15 0.02 7.86 0.01 9.64 0.01 1.07 0.00 6.72 0.01 0.24 0.00

1000 1588.50 7.68 0.00 3.52 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.48 0.00 3.01 0.00 0.11 0.00

Table X. Upper Bound Kena ga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 26.40 N/A 12.10 N/A 14.85 N/A 1.65 N/A 10.34 N/A

Size class not used for diet ary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

200 26.40 0.1 3 12.10 0.06 14.85 0.07 1.65 0.01 10.34 0.05

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Adjusted EECs and RQs144 Class (grams) LD50

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf

Pl ants Fruits/Pods/S
eeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 9257.26 25.17 0.00 11.54 0.00 14.16 0.00 1.57 0.00 9.8 6 0.0011 0.3 5 4E

- 05

35 7490.11 17.40 0.00 7.97 0.00 9.79 0.00 1.09 0.00 6.81 0.0009 0.24 3E

- 05

1000 3239.70 4.03 0.00 1.85 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.5 8 0.0005 0.0 6 2E

- 05

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 26.40 N/A 12.10 N/A 14.85 N/A 1.65 N/A 10.34 N/A

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAE C (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds/ Large Insects Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

11880 26.40 0.00 12.10 0.00 14.85 0.00 1.65 0.00 10.34 0.00 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenag a, Chronic Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size
Class (grams) Adjusted
NOAEL EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods/See
ds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 1305.51 25.17 0.02 11.54 0.01 14.16 0.01 1.57 0.00 9.86 0.01 0.35 0.00

35 1056.30 17.40 0.02 7.97 0.01 9.79 0.01 1.09 0.00 6.81 0.01 0.24 0.00

1000 456.88 4.03 0.01 1.85 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.06 0.00145 

## APPENDIX J

– Listed Species Analysis

Table J

- 1. “No Effects” (Di rect and Indirect Effects) Determination for Listed Species Outside the Geographical Range of Trinexapac

- Ethyl Uses

Common Name Scientific Name Status Taxon

Toad, Wyoming Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys) E Amphibian

Guajon Eleutherodactylus

cooki T Amphibian

Coqui, Golden Eleutherodactylus jasperi T Amphibian

Llanero coqui Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi E Amphibian

Toad, Puerto Rican

Crested Peltophryne lemur T Amphibian

Salamander, Cheat

Mountain Plethodon nettingi T Amphibian

Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp

shi nned Accipiter striatus

venator E Bird

Warbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) Acrocephalus luscinia E Bird

Blackbird, Yellow

shouldered Agelaius xanthomus E Bird

Parrot, Puerto Rican Amazona vittata E Bird

Sparrow, San Clemente Sage Amphispiza b elli

clementeae T Bird

Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad

winged Buteo platypterus

brunnescens E Bird

Nightjar, Puerto Rico Caprimulgus

noctitherus E Bird

Bobwhite, Masked Colinus virginianus ridgwayi E Bird

Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain Columba inornata

wetmorei E Bird

Crow, Mariana Corvus kubaryi E Bird

Moorhen, Mariana

Common Gallinula chloropus guami E Bird

Kingfisher, Guam

Micronesian Halcyon cinnamomina

cinnamomina E Bird

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus

mearnsi E Bird146 Megapode, Microne sian (La Perouse's) Megapodius laperouse E Bird

Towhee, Inyo Brown Pipilo crissalis eremophilus T Bird
Eider, Steller's Polysticta stelleri T Bird

Rail, Light

- footed Clapper Rallus longirostris levipes E Bird
Rail, Guam Rallus owstoni E Bird

White

- eye , Bridled (Nossa) Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus E Bird

White

- eye, Rota Bridled Zosterops rotensis E Bird

Elktoe, Appalachian Alasmidonta

raveneliana E Bivalve

Rock

- pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) Arkansia wheeleri E Bivalve

Combshell, So uthern (=Penitent mussel) Epioblasma penita E Bivalve
Fatmucket, Arkansas Lampsilis powelli T Bivalve

Alabama pearlshell Margaritifera

marrianae E Bivalve

Mussel, Southern

Clubshell Pleurobema decisum E Bivalve

Mussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's Mussel) Pleurobema marshalli E Bivalve
Stirrupshell Quadrula stapes E Bivalve

Cypress, Santa Cruz Cupressus abramsiana E Conf/cycds

Fairy Shrimp, San Diego Branchinecta sandiegonensis E Crustacean

Isopod, Socorro Thermosphaeroma thermophilus E Crustacean

Thor nmint, San Diego Acanthomintha

ilicifolia T Dicot

Thornmint, San Mateo Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii E Dicot

Monkshood, Northern

Wild Aconitum
noveboracense T Dicot

Blue

- star, Kearney's Amsonia kearneyana E Dicot

Rock

- cress, Hoffmann's Arabis hof fmannii E Dicot

Rock

- cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata

Fernald E Dicot147 Rock

- cress, Shale Barren Arabis serotina E Dicot

San Francisco manzanita Arctostaphylos

franciscana E Dicot

Manzanita, Del Mar Arctostaphylos glandulosa s sp. crassifolia E Dicot

Manzanita, Presidio (=Raven's) Arctostaphylos

hookeri var. ravenii E Dicot

Manzanita, Morro Arctostaphylos

morroensis T Dicot

Manzanita, Ione Arctostaphylos myrtifolia T Dicot
Manzanita, Pallid Arctostaphylos pallida T Dicot

Sa ndwort, Cumberland Arenaria

cumberlandensis E Dicot
Sandwort, Bear Valley Arenaria ursina T Dicot

Poppy, Sacramento Prickly Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta E Dicot
Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii T Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Cushenbury Astragalus alb ens E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Applegate's Astragalus applegatei E Dicot

Ground

- plum, Guthrie's Astragalus bibullatus E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Braunton's Astragalus brauntonii E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Sentry Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax E Dicot

Milk

- vetch , Lane

Mountain Astragalus jaegerianus E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Fish Slough Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis T Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Osterhout Astragalus osterhoutii E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Ash Meadows Astragalus phoenix T Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Ventura Marsh As tragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus E Dicot

Milk

- vetch, Jesup's Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi E Dicot

Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) Auerodendron pauciflorum E Dicot
Baccharis, Encinitas Baccharis vanessae T Dicot

Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbil tii E Dicot148 Rattleweed, Hairy Baptisia arachnifera E Dicot

Barberry, Island Berberis pinnata ssp.

insularis E Dicot

Capa Rosa Callicarpa ampla E Dicot

Poppy

- mallow, Texas Callirhoe scabriuscula E Dicot

Calyptranthes Thomasiana (ncn) Calyptranthes

thom asiana E Dicot
Morning

- glory, Stebbins Calystegia stebbinsii E Dicot

Paintbrush, Ash

- grey Indian Castilleja cinerea T Dicot

Paintbrush, San Clemente

Island Indian Castilleja grisea E Dicot
Paintbrush, Soft

- leaved Castilleja mollis E Dicot
Ceanothus, C oyote Ceanothus ferrisae E Dicot
Ceanothus, Pine Hill Ceanothus roderickii E Dicot

Centaury, Spring

- loving Centaurium namophilum T Dicot

Mountain

- mahogany,

Catalina Island Cercocarpus traskiae E Dicot

Prickly

- apple, Fragrant Cereus eriophorus var. frag rans E Dicot

Chamaecrista glandulosa (ncn) Chamaecrista glandulosa var.

mirabilis E Dicot
Spineflower, Howell's Chorizanthe howellii E Dicot

Spineflower, Orcutt's Chorizanthe

orcuttiana E Dicot

Spineflower, Ben Lomond Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegia na E Dicot

Spineflower, Scotts Valley Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii E Dicot

Thistle, Fountain Cirsium fontinale var.

fontinale E Dicot

Thistle, Sacramento

Mountains Cirsium vinaceum T Dicot
Clarkia, Presidio Clarkia franciscana E Dicot
Clarkia, S pringville Clarkia springvillensis T Dicot
Rosemary, Etonia Conradina etonia E Dicot
Rosemary, Apalachicola Conradina glabra E Dicot
Cordia bellonis (ncn) Cordia bellonis E Dicot
Palo de Nigua Cornutia obovata E Dicot
Cactus, Nellie Cory Coryphantha m inima E Dicot149 Cactus, Bunched Cory Coryphantha ramillosa T Dicot

Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina E Dicot

Higuero De Sierra Crescentia portoricensis E Dicot

Cat's

- eye, Terlingua Creek Cryptantha crassipes E Dicot

Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) Daphnopsis hellerana E Dicot

Pawpaw, Beautiful Deeringothamnus pulchellus E Dicot

Pawpaw, Rugel's Deeringothamnus rugelii E Dicot

Tarplant, Otay Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens T Dicot

Tarplant, Gaviota Deinandra increscens ssp. villo sa E Dicot

Larkspur, San Clemente

Island Delphinium variegatum ssp.

kinkiense E Dicot

Mint, Garrett's Dicerandra

christmanii E Dicot

Dudleya, Conejo Dudleya abramsii ssp.

parva T Dicot

Dudleya, Marcescent Dudleya cymosa ssp.

marcescens T Dicot

Dudleya , Santa Monica

Mountains Dudleya cymosa ssp.

ovatifolia T Dicot
Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island Dudleya nesiotica T Dicot

Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley Dudleya setchellii E Dicot
Liveforever, Laguna Beach Dudleya stolonifera T Dicot

Liveforever, Santa Barbara

Island Dudleya traskiae E Dicot
Dudleya, Verity's Dudleya verityi T Dicot

Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog Echinocereus

chisoensis var.

chisoensis T Dicot

Pitaya, Davis' Green Echinocereus

viridiflorus var. davisii E Dicot

Sunray, Ash Meadows Enceliop sis nudicaulis
var. corrugata T Dicot150 Yerba Santa, Lompoc Eriodictyon capitatum E Dicot

Buckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostratum) E Dicot

Buckwheat, Southern

Mountain Wild Eriogonum kennedyi

var. austromontanum T Dicot

Buckwheat, Cushenbury Eriogonum
ovalifolium var.

vineum E Dicot

Buckwheat, Steamboat Eriogonum
ovalifolium var.

williamsiae E Dicot

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly Eriophyllum latilobum E Dicot

Snakeroot Eryngium cuneifolium E Dicot

Wallflower, Contra Co sta Erysimum capitatum
var. angustatum E Dicot
Wallflower, Ben Lomond Erysimum teretifolium E Dicot

Uvillo Eugenia haematocarpa E Dicot
Eugenia Woodburyana Eugenia woodburyana E Dicot

Mustard, Penland Alpine

Fen Eutrema penlandii T Dicot

Flannelbush, Pine Hill Fremontodendron californicum ssp.

decumbens E Dicot

Flannelbush, Mexican Fremontodendron

mexicanum E Dicot
Bedstraw, Island Galium buxifolium E Dicot

Bedstraw, El Dorado Galium californicum ssp. sierrae E Dicot
Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) Gesne ria pauciflora T Dicot

Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender

flowered Gilia tenuiflora ssp.

hoffmannii E Dicot

Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) Goetzea elegans E Dicot

Gumplant, Ash Meadows Grindelia fraxino

pratensis T Dicot
Stickseed, Showy Hackelia venusta E Dicot
Chumbo, Higo Harrisia portoricensis T Dicot
Pennyroyal, Todsen's Hedeoma todsenii E Dicot

Rush

- rose, Island Helianthemum greenei T Dicot151 Rush

- pea, Slender Hoffmannseggia

tenella E Dicot Heather, Mountain

Golden Hudsonia montana T Dicot
Daisy, Lakesi de Hymenoxys herbacea T Dicot
Holly, Cook's Ilex cookii E Dicot
Ilex sintenisii (ncn) Ilex sintenisii E Dicot
Mallow, Peter's Mountain Iliamna corei E Dicot
Pagosa Skyrocket Ipomopsis polyantha E Dicot

Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost Ipomopsis sancti

spiritus E Dicot

Ivesia, Ash Meadows Ivesia kingii var.

eremica T Dicot

Leptocereus grantianus (ncn) Leptocereus grantianus E Dicot

Bladderpod, San

Bernardino Mountains Lesquerella kingii ssp.

bernardina E Dicot
Bladderpod, White Lesquerella pallida E Dicot

Bla dderpod, Spring Creek Lesquerella perforata E Dicot
Bladderpod, Kodachrome Lesquerella tumulosa E Dicot

Lessingia, San Francisco Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorum) E Dicot

Meadowfoam, Butte County Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica E Dicot

Woodland

- star, San
Clemente Island Lithophragma

maximum E Dicot

Broom, San Clemente

Island Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae E Dicot

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn) Lyonia truncata var. proctorii E Dicot

Bush

- mallow, San

Clemente Island Malacothamnus

clementinus E Dicot

Bush

- mallow, Santa Cruz

Island Malacothamnus

fasciculatus var.

nesioticus E Dicot

Malacothrix, Santa Cruz

Island Malacothrix indecora E Dicot
Malacothrix, Island Malacothrix squalida E Dicot
Blazing Star, Ash Meadows Mentzelia leuc ophylla T Dicot

Mitracarpus Maxwelliae Mitracarpus

maxwelliae E Dicot152 Mitracarpus Polycladus Mitracarpus polycladus E Dicot

Monardella, Willowy Monardella linoides ssp. viminea E Dicot
Myrcia Paganii Myrcia paganii E Dicot
Niterwort, Amargosa Nitrophi la mohavensis E Dicot

Evening

- primrose, Eureka Valley Oenothera avita ssp.

eurekensis E Dicot

Palo de Rosa Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon E Dicot

Oxytheca, Cushenbury Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana E Dicot

Stonecrop, Lake County Parvisedum leiocarpum E Di cot Cactus, Brady Pincushion Pediocactus bradyi E Dicot
Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii E Dicot
Cactus, Winkler Pediocactus winkleri T Dicot
Parachute Beardtongue Penstemon debilis T Dicot
Beardtongue, Penland Penstemon penlandii E Dicot

Pen tachaeta, White

- rayed Pentachaeta

bellidiflora E Dicot
Pentachaeta, Lyon's Pentachaeta lyonii E Dicot
Peperomia, Wheeler's Peperomia wheeleri E Dicot

Phacelia, Island Phacelia insularis ssp.

insularis E Dicot
Phlox, Yreka Phlox hirsuta E Dicot

Cactus, Key Tree Pilosocereus robinii E Dicot
Aster, Ruth's Golden Pityopsis ruthii E Dicot

Chupacallos Pleodendron

macranthum E Dicot
Mint, San Diego Mesa Pogogyne abramsii E Dicot
Mint, Otay Mesa Pogogyne nudiuscula E Dicot
Polygonum, Scott's Valley Polygo num hickmanii E Dicot

Buttercup, Autumn Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis) E Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Alabama

Canebrake Sarracenia rubra

alabamensis E Dicot
Schoepfia arenaria (ncn) Schoepfia arenaria T Dicot

Groundsel, San Francisco

Peaks Senecio francis canus T Dicot

Hayun Lagu (Tronkon Guafi) Serianthes nelsonii E Dicot153 Rock

- cress, Santa Cruz
Island Sibara filifolia E Dicot

Checker

- mallow,

Wenatchee Mountains Sidalcea oregana var.

calva E Dicot

Checker

- mallow, Pedate Sidalcea pedata E Dicot

Erubia S olanum drymophilum E Dicot
Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea T Dicot
Cobana Negra Stahlia monosperma T Dicot

Jewelflower, Metcalf
Canyon Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus E Dicot

Palo de Jazmin Styrax portoricensis E Dicot

Taraxacum, Californi a Taraxacum
californicum E Dicot

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) Ternstroemia luquillensis E Dicot

Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) Ternstroemia

subsessilis E Dicot

Mustard, Slender

- petaled Thelypodium stenopetalum E Dicot

Fringepod, Santa Cruz

Island Thysanocarpus

conchuliferus E Dicot

Bariaco Trichilia triacantha E Dicot
Vervain, California Verbena californica T Dicot
Crownbeard, Big

- leaved Verbesina dissita T Dicot
Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) Vernonia proctorii E Dicot

Prickly

- ash, St. Thom as Zanthoxylum

thomasianum E Dicot
Fern, Adiantum vivesii Adiantum vivesii E Ferns

Tree Fern, Elfin Cyathea dryopteroides E Ferns

Fern, Elaphoglossum

serpens Elaphoglossum

serpens E Ferns
Quillwort, Mat

- forming Isoetes tegetiformans E Ferns

Polystichu m calderonense (ncn) Polystichum

calderonense E Ferns

Tectaria Estremerana Tectaria estremerana E Ferns

Fern, Thelypteris

inabonensis Thelypteris

inabonensis E Ferns

Fern, Alabama Streak

sorus Thelypteris pilosa var.

alabamensis T Ferns154 Fern, Thelypter is

verecunda Thelypteris verecunda E Ferns

Fern, Thelypteris yaucoensis Thelypteris yaucoensis E Ferns

Sucker, Shortnose Chasmistes

brevirostris E Fish

Cui

- ui Chasmistes cujus E Fish

Laurel dace Chrosomus aylori E Fish

Sculpin, Pygmy Cottus paulus (=p ygmaeus) T Fish
Springfish, Railroad Valley Crenichthys nevadae T Fish
Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus E Fish
Pupfish, Devils Hole Cyprinodon diabolis E Fish

Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans E Fish

Pupfish, Ash Meadows
Amargosa Cy prinodon

nevadensis mionectes E Fish

Pupfish, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis E Fish
Pupfish, Owens Cyprinodon radiosus E Fish

Darter, Vermilion Etheostoma

chermocki E Fish

Darter, Relict Etheostoma

chienense E Fish

Darter, Watercress Et heostoma nuchale E Fish
Darter, Maryland Etheostoma sellare E Fish
Darter, Boulder Etheostoma wapiti E Fish
Gambusia, Big Bend Gambusia gaigei E Fish
Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia heterochir E Fish

Stickleback, Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus
acule atus williamsoni E Fish

Chub, Mohave Tui Gila bicolor

mohavensis E Fish
Chub, Owens Tui Gila bicolor snyderi E Fish
Chub, Hutton Tui Gila bicolor ssp. T Fish
Chub, Sonora Gila ditaenia T Fish
Chub, Chihuahua Gila nigrescens T Fish
Silverside, Waccama w Menidia extensa T Fish

Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea E Fish
Shiner, Palezone Notropis albizonatus E Fish
Madtom, Smoky Noturus baileyi E Fish
Chucky Madtom Noturus crypticus E Fish155 Madtom, Pygmy Noturus stanauli E Fish

Trout, Little Kern Golden Oncorh ynchus aguabonita whitei T Fish
Trout, Gila Oncorhynchus gilae E Fish
Logperch, Roanoke Percina rex E Fish

Dace, Independence Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus E Fish

Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled Rhinichthys osculus

nevadensis E Fish

Dace, Clover Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus E Fish

Dace, Foskett Speckled Rhinichthys osculus

ssp. T Fish

Dace, Kendall Warm Springs Rhinichthys osculus

thermalis E Fish

Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar E Fish

Cavefish, Alabama Speoplatyrhinus

po ulsoni E Fish

Snail, Painted Snake Coiled

Forest Anguispira picta T Gastropod
Riversnail, Anthony's Athearnia anthonyi E Gastropod
Elimia, Lacy Elimia crenatella T Gastropod
Snail, Newcomb's Erinna newcombi T Gastropod

Rocksnail, Plicate Leptoxis plic ata E Gastropod

Snail, Noonday Mesodon clarki

nantahala T Gastropod

Shagreen, Magazine

Mountain Mesodon magazinensis T Gastropod

Snail, Stock Island Tree Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas) T Gastropod

Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni

kanabensis E Gastropod

Snail, Virginia Fringed

Mountain Polygyriscus virginianus E Gastropod

Snail, Armored Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta E Gastropod

Springsnail, Chupadera Pyrgulopsis chupaderae E Gastropod

Springsnail, Socorro Pyrgulopsis

neomexicana E Gastrop od

Marstonia, Royal (=Royal Snail) Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe E Gastropod156 Snail, Chittenango Ovate

Amber Succinea chittenangoensis T Gastropod

Snail, Flat

- spired Three

toothed Triodopsis platysayoides T Gastropod
Springsnail, Alamosa Tryonia alamosae E Gas tropod

Naucorid, Ash Meadows Ambrysus amargosus T Insect

Butterfly, Lange's

Metalmark Apodemia mormo langei E Insect
Beetle, Coffin Cave Mold Batrisodes texanus E Insect

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Cicindela dorsalis

dorsalis T Insect
Beetle, Ohl one Tiger Cicindela ohlone E Insect
Beetle, Puritan Tiger Cicindela puritana T Insect

Butterfly, El Segundo Blue Euphilotes battoides allyni E Insect

Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas) Euphydryas editha bayensis T Insect

Butterfly, Palos Verdes

Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis E Insect

Butterfly, Schaus

Swallowtail Heraclides

aristodemus

ponceanus E Insect

Skipper, Pawnee Montane Hesperia leonardus

montana T Insect

Butterfly, Lotis Blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis E Insect

Butterfly, Saint Francis'
Satyr Neonympha mitchellii

francisci E Insect

Beetle, Mount Hermon

June Polyphylla barbata E Insect
Skipper, Laguna Mountain Pyrgus ruralis lagunae E Insect

Grasshopper, Zayante

Band

- winged Trimerotropis
infantilis E Insect

Mo untain Beaver, Point

Arena Aplodontia rufa nigra E Mammal
Whale, Bowhead Balaena mysticetus E Mammal

Whale, Blue Balaenoptera

musculus E Mammal
Otter, Northern Sea Enhydra lutris kenyoni T Mammal
Whale, North Pacific right Eubalaena japonica E Mammal157 Vole, Amargosa Microtus californicus scirpensis E Mammal

Woodrat, Key Largo Neotoma floridana

smalli E Mammal

Deer, Key Odocoileus virginianus

clavium E Mammal

Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) Oryzomys palustris

natator E Mammal

Mouse, Pacific Pocket Perogn athus longimembris pacificus E Mammal

Mouse, Key Largo Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola E Mammal

Mouse, Anastasia Island

Beach Peromyscus polionotus phasma E Mammal

Bat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox) Pteropus mariannus

mariannus T Mammal
Bat, Little Mariana Fruit Pteropus tokudae E Mammal

Squirrel, Delmarva

Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus E Mammal

Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh Sylvilagus palustris

hefneri E Mammal

Fox, Santa Catalina Island Urocyon littoralis

catalinae E Mammal

Fox, S an Miguel Island Urocyon littoralis

littoralis E Mammal

Fox, Santa Cruz Island Urocyon littoralis

santacruzae E Mammal

Fox, Santa Rosa Island Urocyon littoralis

santarosae E Mammal
Aristida chaseae (ncn) Aristida chaseae E Monocot

Pelos del Diablo Aris tida portoricensis E Monocot
Brodiaea, Chinese Camp Brodiaea pallida T Monocot
Manaca, palma de Calyptronoma rivalis T Monocot
Sedge, Golden Carex lutea E Monocot

Cranichis Ricartii Cranichis ricartii E Monocot
Walnut, Nogal Juglans jamaicensis E Mono cot Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) Lepanthes eltoroensis E Monocot
Bluegrass, San Bernardino Poa atropurpurea E Monocot

Pondweed, Little Aguja

Creek Potamogeton clystocarpus E Monocot158 Beaked

- rush, Knieskern's Rhynchospora

knieskernii T Monocot

Grass, Eure ka Dune Swallenia alexandrae E Monocot

Anole, Culebra Island

Giant Anolis roosevelti E Reptile
Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta E/T Reptile
Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas E/T Reptile
Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E Reptile

Boa, Puerto Rican Epicrates inornatus E Reptile

Boa, Virgin Islands Tree Epicrates monensis granti E Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys

imbricata E Reptile
Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii E Reptile
Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea T Reptile

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh Nerodia clarkii

taeniata T Reptile

Turtle, Plymouth Red

bellied Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi E Reptile

Snake, San Francisco

Garter Thamnophis sirtalis

tetrataenia E Reptile
Lizard, Island Night Xantusia r iversiana T Reptile



### Table J

- 2. “No Effects” (Direct Effects Only) Determination for Listed Species Within Geographical Range of Trinexapac

- Ethyl Uses, Based on Species Ecology and Biology

Common Name Scientific Name Status Taxon Exclusion Rationale Refe rence

Common Name Scientific Name Status Taxon Exclusion Rationale Reference

Salamander,
Texas Blind Typhlomolge
rathbuni E Amphibian Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1996. San Marcos and Comal
S prings and Associated Aquatic ecosystems recovery plan. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spider, Kauai
Cave Wolf Adelocosa

anops E Arachnid Lives in caves and lava tubes, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2006. Final recovery plan for the Kaua'I cave arthropods. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Meshweaver,
Robber Baron
Cave Cicurina baronia E Arachnid Entire life is spent underground and is unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Meshweaver,
Madla's Cave Cicurina madla E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Be xar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.159 Meshweaver,
Braken Bat
Cave Cicurina venii E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Kar st Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. Meshweaver,
Government Canyon Bat
Cave Cicurina vespera E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Kars t Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spider, Tooth
Cave Leptoneta myopica E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst i nvertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spider,
Government Canyon Bat
Cave Neoleptoneta microps E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2 011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Pseudoscorpion,
Tooth Cave Tartarocreagris

texana E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Harvestman, Cokendolpher
Cave Texella cokendolpheri E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by
trinex apac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Harvestman,
Bee Creek Cave Texella reddelli E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl

ap plications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Harvestman,
Bone Cave Texella reyesi E Arachnid Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affecte d by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Condor,
California Gymnogyps
californianus E Bird Eats carcasses of dead mammals, which is not
one of the affected dietary items. USFWS. 1996. Recovery plan for the
California condor. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Stork, Wood Mycteria
americana E Bird Eats fish, which is not
one of the affected dietary items USF WS. 1986. Wood stork recovery plan. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. Tern, Interior (population)

Least Sterna
antillarum E Bird Eats fish, which is not
one of the affected dietary items USFWS. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior popluation o f least tern. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Tern, California

Least Sterna
antillarum
browni E Bird Eats fish, which is not
one of the affected dietary items USFWS. 1980. Revised California least tern recovery plan. United States Fish and
Wi ldlife Service.

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii E/T Bird Eats fish, which is not
one of the affected dietary items USFWS. 1993. Recovery plan for the
roseate tern. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Cavesnail, Tumbling Creek Antrobia cu lveri E Gastropod Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2003. Approved recovery plan for the tumbling creek cavesnail. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Snail, Pecos
Assiminea Assiminea pecos E Gastropod Aquatic and lives in

caves USFWS. 2010. 5

- year review summary
and evaluation. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Snail,
Newcomb's Erinna
newcombi T Gastropod Aquatic and not
terrestrial USFWS. 2006. Recovery plan for the
newcomb's sna il. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.160 Abalone, Black Haliotis
cracherodii E Gastropod Aquatic marine species

- not found on land FR Notice. 2011. 76 FR 20558 20567

Abalone, White Haliotis
sorenseni E Gastropod Aquatic marine species

- not found on land USFWS. 2009. Final white abalone recovery plan. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Springsnail,
Koster's Juturnia kosteri E Gastropod Aquatic and lives in

caves USFWS. 2010. 5

- year review summary
and evaluation. United States Fish and

W ildlife Service.

Limpet, Banbury Springs Lanx sp. E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 1995. Snake river aquatic species recovery plan. United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.

Rocksnail,
Round Leptoxis ampla T Gastropod Aquatic spec ies

- not found on land USFWS. 2005. Final recovery plan for Six Mobile Basin Aquatic Snails. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Rocksnail, interrupted Leptoxis
foremani E Gastropod Aquatic and not
terrestrial Federal Register Notice. 2010. Vo l 75 (211): 67511

- 67550.

Rocksnail,
Plicate Leptoxis plicata E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 2005. Final recovery plan for Six Mobile Basin Aquatic Snails. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Rocksnail,
Painted Leptoxis

t aeniata T Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 2005. Final recovery plan for Six Mobile Basin Aquatic Snails. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Pebblesnail, Flat Lepyrium
showalteri E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on lan d USFWS. 2005. Final recovery plan for Six Mobile Basin Aquatic Snails. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical Lioplax cyclostomaformi

s E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 2005. Final recovery plan for Six Mobile Basin Aquatic Snails. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Snail, Snake River Physa Physa natricina E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 1995. Snake river aquatic species recovery plan. United States Fish
and Wildlif e Service.

Hornsnail, rough Pleurocera
foremani E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land FR Notice. 2010. 75 FR 67512 67550

Springsnail, San
Bernardino Pyrgulopsis
bernardina E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land FR Notice. 2012. 77 FR 23060 23092

Springsnail,

Bruneau Hot Pyrgulopsis
bruneauensis E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 2002. Recovery for the bruneau hot springsnail. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Springsnail,
Roswell Pyrgulopsis
roswellen sis E Gastropod Cave and aquatic habitats that are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

ethyl applications USFWS. 2010. Four bitter lake
invertebrates 5

- year reviews. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Springsnail,
Three Forks Pyrgulopsis
trivia lis E Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land FR Notice. 2012. 77 FR 23060 23092

Snail, Bliss Rapids Taylorconcha serpenticola T Gastropod Aquatic species

- not found on land USFWS. 1995. Snake river aquatic species recovery plan. United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.

Snail, Tulotoma Tulotoma magnifica T Gastropod Aquatic and not
terrestrial USFWS. 2000. Recovery plan for Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem. United
States Fish and Wildlife Services.

Beetle, Helotes
Mold Batrisodes venyi vi E Insect Lives in a cave. USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.161 Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water Brychius hungerfordi E Insect Aquatic, not terrestrial USFWS. 2006. Hungerford's cra wling water beetle recovery plan. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle Heterelmis
comalensis E Insect Aquatic, not terrestrial USFWS. 1996. San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic ecosystems recovery plan. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Rhadine exilis (ncn) Rhadine exilis E Insect Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Rhadine infernalis (ncn) Rhadine
infernalis E Insect Lives in a cave. USFWS. 2011. Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Beetle, Tooth
Cave Ground Rhadine persephone E Insect Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid St ygoparnus comalensis E Insect Aquatic, not terrestrial USFWS. 1996. San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic ecosystems recovery plan. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Beetle,
Kretschmarr
Cave Mold Texamaurops
reddelli E Insect Lives in caves, which are unlikely to be affected by trinexapac

- ethyl applications USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.



### Table J

- 3. Listed Species Within Geographical Range of Trinexapac

- Ethyl Uses that Require Additional Information for Direct Effects Calls

Common Name Scientific Name Taxon STATE NAME

Salamander,

Reticulated

flatwoods Ambystoma bishopi Amphibian Florida

Salamander, California Tige r Ambystoma

californiense Amphibian California

Salamander,

Frosted Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Amphibian Alabama, Florida, Georgia

Salamander, Santa
Cruz Long

- toed Ambystoma macrodactylum

croceum Amphibian California

Salamander, Sonora Tiger Ambystom a tigrinum

stebbinsi Amphibian Arizona

Salamander, Desert

Slender Batrachoseps aridus Amphibian California

Toad, Arroyo

Southwestern Bufo californicus (=microscaphus) Amphibian California

Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis Amphibian Texas162 Ozark Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi Amphibian Arkansas, Missouri

Salamander, San

Marcos Eurycea nana Amphibian Texas

Salamander, Barton Springs Eurycea sosorum Amphibian Texas

Salamander, Red

Hills Phaeognathus hubrichti Amphibian Alabama

Salamander,

Shenandoah Plethodon shenandoah Amphibian Virginia

Frog, California

Red

- legged Rana aurora draytonii Amphibian California

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) Rana capito sevosa Amphibian Mississippi

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis Amphibi an Arizona

Frog, Mountain
Yellow

- legged Rana muscosa Amphibian California

Spider, Spruce

- fir

Moss Microhexura montivaga Arachnid Virginia

Swiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro) Aerodramus

vanikorensis bartschi Bird Hawaii

Sparrow, Cape
Sable Seaside Ammodr amus maritimus mirabilis Bird Florida

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper Ammodramus

savannarum floridanus Bird Florida

Sparrow, San Clemente Sage Amphispiza belli

clementeae Bird California

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) Anas wyvilliana Bird Hawaii

Scrub

- Jay, Florid a Aphelocoma

coerulescens Bird Florida

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus

marmoratus Bird California, Oregon, Washington

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) Branta (=Nesochen)

sandvicensis Bird Hawaii Hawk, Hawaiian (Io) Buteo solitarius Bird Hawaii163 Woodpecker, Ivory

billed Campephilus principalis Bird Florida, Kentucky

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus Bird California, Oregon

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Bird Alabama, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan,

Min nesota, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming

Elepaio, Oahu Chasiempis

sandwichensis ibidis Bird Hawaii

Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) Corvus hawaiiensis Bird Hawaii

Warbler (=Wood),

Golden

- cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia Bird Texas

Warbler (=Wood),

Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Bird Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, South Carolina, Wisconsin

Flycatcher,

Southwestern

Willow Empidonax traillii

extimus Bird Arizona, Califo rnia, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Texas,

Utah

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis Bird Arizona, New Mexico, Texas

Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) Fulica americana alai Bird Hawaii

Moorhen, Hawaiian

Common Gallinula chloropus

sandv icensis Bird Hawaii164 Crane, Whooping Grus americana Bird Colorado, Florida,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming

Crane, Mississippi

Sandhill Grus canadensis pulla Bird Mississippi, Texas

Nukupu`u (honeycreeper) Hemignathus lucidus Bird Hawaii

'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) Hemignathus munroi Bird Hawaii

'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) Hemignathus procerus Bird Hawaii

Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) Himantopus mexicanus

knudseni Bird Hawaii

Palila Loxioide s bailleui Bird Hawaii

Akekee Loxops caeruleirostris Bird Hawaii

'Akepa, Hawaii Loxops coccineus

coccineus Bird Hawaii

'Akepa, Maui Loxops coccineus

ochraceus Bird Hawaii

Po'ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma Bird Hawaii
'O'o, Kauai (='A'a) Moho braccatus Bi rd Hawaii

Thrush, Large Kauai Myadestes myadestinus Bird Hawaii

Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Myadestes palmeri Bird Hawaii

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Bird Nebraska, Oklahoma, South

Dakota

Kauai creeper Oreomystis bairdi Bird Hawaii

Creeper, Haw aii Oreomystis mana Bird Hawaii

Honeycreeper,
Crested ('Akohekohe) Palmeria dolei Bird Hawaii165 Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) Paroreomyza maculata Bird Hawaii

Albatross, Short

tailed Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus Bird California, Oregon, Washington

Woodpe cker, Red

cockaded Picoides borealis Bird Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas

Gnatcatcher,

Coastal California Polioptila californica

californica Bird California

Caracara,
Audubon's Crested Polyborus plancus

audubonii Bird Florida

Parrotbill, Maui Pseudonestor xanthophrys Bird Hawaii

'O'u (Honeycreeper) Psittirostra psittacea Bird Hawaii

Petrel, Hawaiian

Dark

- rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia

sandwichensis Bird Hawaii

Shearw ater,
Newell's

Townsend's Puffinus auricularis

newelli Bird Hawaii

Rail, California Clapper Rallus longirostris

obsoletus Bird California

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Bird Arizona, California

Kite, Everglades

Snail Rostrhamus sociab ilis plumbeus Bird Florida

Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis

caurina Bird California, Oregon, Washington

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Bird Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, Texas,

Utah

Prairie

- chicken,

Attwater's Greater Tympanuchu s cupido

attwateri Bird Texas166 Warbler,

Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Bird Florida, Kentucky
Vireo, Black

- capped Vireo atricapilla Bird Oklahoma, Texas
Vireo, Least Bell's Vireo bellii pusillus Bird California

Cypress, Santa Cruz Cupressus abramsiana Co nf/cycds California

Cypress, Gowen Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Conf/cycds California
Torreya, Florida Torreya taxifolia Conf/cycds Florida, Georgia

Sand

- verbena,
Large

- fruited Abronia macrocarpa Dicot Texas

Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) Abuti lon menziesii Dicot Hawaii

Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) Abutilon sandwicense Dicot Hawaii

Liliwai (Acaena exigua) Acaena exigua Dicot Hawaii

Achyranthes mutica (ncn) Achyranthes mutica Dicot Hawaii

Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn) Achyranthes s plendens

var. rotundata Dicot Hawaii

Joint

- vetch,

Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Dicot Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia
Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Dicot New York

Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) Alectryon macrococcus Dicot Hawaii

K uawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) Alsinidendron lychnoides Dicot Hawaii

Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) Alsinidendron

obovatum Dicot Hawaii

Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) Alsinidendron trinerve Dicot Hawaii

Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) Alsinidendron vis cosum Dicot Hawaii

Amaranth,

Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Dicot New York, North Carolina, South

Carolina167 Ambrosia, South

Texas Ambrosia

cheiranthifolia Dicot Texas

Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila Dicot California

Lead

- plant,

Crenulate Amorpha crenu lata Dicot Florida

Amphianthus, Little Amphianthus pusillus Dicot Alabama, Georgia,

South Carolina

Fiddleneck, Large

flowered Amsinckia grandiflora Dicot California

Cactus, Tobusch

Fishhook Ancistrocactus

tobuschii Dicot Texas

Potato

- bean,

Price's Apio s priceana Dicot Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,

Tennessee

Rock

- cress, McDonald's Arabis mcdonaldiana Dicot California, Oregon

Rock

- cress, Shale

Barren Arabis serotina Dicot Virginia, West Virginia

Bearclaw poppy,

Dwarf Arctomecon humilis Dicot Utah

Ma nzanita, Morro Arctostaphylos

morroensis Dicot California

Sandwort, Marsh Arenaria paludicola Dicot California, Washington

Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) Argyroxiphium kauense Dicot Hawaii

Silversword,

Haleakala ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium

san dwicense ssp. macrocephalum Dicot Hawaii

Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.

sandwicense Dicot Hawaii
Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Dicot Kansas, Missouri
Pawpaw, Four

petal Asimina tetramera Dicot Florida

Milk

- vetch,

Shivwits Astragalus ampullarioides Dicot Utah

Milk

- vetch, Clara

Hunt's Astragalus clarianus Dicot California168 Milk

- vetch, Deseret Astragalus desereticus Dicot Utah

Milk

- vetch, Holmgren Astragalus holmgreniorum Dicot Arizona, Utah

Milk

- vetch, Mancos Ast ragalus humillimus Dicot Colorado, New

Mexico

Milk

- vetch, Coachella Valley Astragalus lentiginosus

var. coachellae Dicot California

Milk

- vetch,

Pierson's Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii Dicot California

Milk

- vetch, Heliotrope Astragalus montii Dico t Utah

Milk

- vetch, Coastal

Dunes Astragalus tener var. titi Dicot California

Milk

- vetch, Triple

ribbed Astragalus tricarinatus Dicot California

Cactus, Star Astrophytum asterias Dicot Texas

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley Atriplex coronata var.

notatior Dicot California

Ayenia, Texas Ayenia limitaris Dicot Texas
Barberry, Nevin's Berberis nevinii Dicot California

Birch, Virginia

Round

- leaf Betula uber Dicot Virginia

ko`oko`olau Bidens amplectens Dicot Hawaii

ko`oko`olau Bidens campylotheca
ssp. Pent amera Dicot Hawaii

ko`oko`olau Bidens campylotheca ssp. Waihoiensis Dicot Hawaii

ko`oko`olau Bidens conjuncta Dicot Hawaii

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha) Bidens micrantha ssp.

kalealaha Dicot Hawaii

Stickyseed, Baker's Blennosperma baker i Dicot California

Aster, Decurrent
False Boltonia decurrens Dicot Illinois, Missouri169 Bonamia, Florida Bonamia grandiflora Dicot Florida

Bonamia menziesii (ncn) Bonamia menziesii Dicot Hawaii

'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) Brighamia insignis Dicot Hawaii

Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) Brighamia rockii Dicot Hawaii
Boxwood, Vahl's Buxus vahlii Dicot Virgin Islands

Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) Caesalpinia kavaiense Dicot Hawaii

Pussypaws, Mariposa Calyptridium pulchellum Dicot California

Evening

- primrose

, San Benito Camissonia benitensis Dicot California

Bellflower,

Brooksville Campanula robinsiae Dicot Florida

awikiwiki Canavalia napaliensis Dicot Hawaii

Bittercress, Small

anthered Cardamine micranthera Dicot North Carolina, Virginia

Paintbrush, Tibu ron Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Dicot California

Clover, Fleshy Owl's Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Dicot California

Paintbrush, Golden Castilleja levisecta Dicot Oregon, Washington

Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) Catesbaea melanocarpa Dicot Vi rgin Islands

Jewelflower,

California Caulanthus californicus Dicot California

Ceanothus, Vail

Lake Ceanothus ophiochilus Dicot California

'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) Centaurium sebaeoides Dicot Hawaii

'Akoko (Chamaesyce

celastroides var. kaenana) Ch amaesyce celastroides var.

kaenana Dicot Hawaii170 Spurge, Deltoid Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Dicot Florida

'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) Chamaesyce deppeana Dicot Hawaii

'akoko Chamaesyce eleanoriae Dicot Hawaii
Spurge, Garber's Chamaesyce garber i Dicot Florida

Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) Chamaesyce halemanui Dicot Hawaii

'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) Chamaesyce herbstii Dicot Hawaii

Spurge, Hoover's Chamaesyce hooveri Dicot California

'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) Chamaesyce kuwaleana Dicot Haw aii

Akoko Chamaesyce remyi var.

kauaiensis Dicot Hawaii

'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) Chamaesyce rockii Dicot Hawaii

'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var.

skottsbe Chamaesyce skottsbergii var.

kalaeloana Dicot Hawaii

Papala Charpentiera densiflora Dicot Ha waii

Fringe Tree, Pygmy Chionanthus pygmaeus Dicot Florida

Spineflower,
Monterey Chorizanthe pungens

var. pungens Dicot California

Spineflower,

Robust Chorizanthe robusta va

r. robusta Dicot California

Spineflower,

Sonoma Chorizanthe valida Dicot Calif ornia

Aster, Florida

Golden Chrysopsis floridana Dicot Florida171 Thistle, Chorro creek Bog Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Dicot California

Thistle, Suisun Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Dicot California
Thistle, La Graciosa Cirsium loncholepis D icot California

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri Dicot Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Wisconsin
Clarkia, Vine Hill Clarkia imbricata Dicot California

Clarkia, Pismo Clarkia speciosa ssp.

immaculata Dicot California

Clarkia, Springville Clarkia springv illensis Dicot California

Leather

- flower,

Morefield's Clematis morefieldii Dicot Alabama

Leather

- flower,

Alabama Clematis socialis Dicot Alabama, Georgia

'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) Clermontia drepanomorpha Dicot Hawaii

'Oha Wai (Clermontia

lin dseyana) Clermontia lindseyana Dicot Hawaii

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis Dicot Hawaii

'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) Clermontia peleana Dicot Hawaii

'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) Clermontia py rularia Dicot Hawaii

'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) Clermontia samuelii Dicot Hawaii
Wings, Pigeon Clitoria fragrans Dicot Florida

Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) Colubrina oppositifolia Dicot Hawaii

Rosemary, Short

leaved Conradina brevifolia Dicot F lorida172 Rosemary,
Cumberland Conradina verticillata Dicot Tennessee

Bird's

- beak, salt

marsh Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Dicot California

Bird's

- beak, Soft Cordylanthus mollis ssp.

mollis Dicot California

Bird's

- beak,

Palmate

- bracted Cordylanth us palmatus Dicot California

Bird's

- beak,

Pennell's Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Dicot California

Cactus, Cochise

Pincushion Coryphantha

robbinsorum Dicot Arizona

Cactus, Lee
Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii

var. leei Dicot New Mexico

Cactus, Snee d

Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii

var. sneedii Dicot New Mexico, Texas

Harebells, Avon

Park Crotalaria avonensis Dicot Florida

Gourd,

Okeechobee Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp.

okeechobeensis Dicot Florida

Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) Cyanea (= Rollandia) crispa Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea acuminata) Cyanea acuminata Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) Cyanea asarifolia Dicot Hawaii

haha (Cyanea asplenifolia) Cyanea asplenifolia Dicot Hawaii

Haha Cyanea calycina Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea

cop elandii ssp. copelandii) Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) Cyanea copelandii ssp.

haleakalaensis Dicot Hawaii

Haha Cyanea dolichopoda Dicot Hawaii173 haha (Cyanea duvalliorum) Cyanea duvalliorum Dic ot Hawaii

haha Cyanea eleeleensis Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea glabra) Cyanea glabra Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) Cyanea grimesiana ssp.

obatae Di cot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.

Carlsonii Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.

hamatiflora Dicot Hawaii

nui haha (Cyanea horrida) Cyanea horrida Dicot Hawaii

Haha (C yanea humboldtiana) Cyanea humboldtiana Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Cyanea kolekoleensis Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) Cyanea koolauensis Dicot Hawaii

Haha Cyanea kuhihewa Dicot Hawaii

haha (Cyanea kunthiana) Cyanea kunthiana Dicot Hawaii

Haha Cyanea lanceolata Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea lobata) Cyanea lobata Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea longiflora) Cyanea longiflora Dicot Hawaii

haha (Cyanea magnicalyx) Cyanea magnicalyx Dicot Hawaii

haha (Cyanea maritae) Cyanea maritae Dicot Hawaii

haha (Cyanea

maui ensis) Cyanea mauiensis Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) Cyanea mceldowneyi Dicot Hawaii174 haha (Cyanea obtusa) Cyanea obtusa Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) Cyanea pinnatifida Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea platyphylla) Cyanea platyphylla Dicot Hawaii

haha Cyanea purpurellifolia Dicot Hawaii Haha (Cyanea recta) Cyanea recta Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea remyi) Cyanea remyi Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) Cyanea shipmannii Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) Cyanea stictophylla Dicot Haw aii

Haha (Cyanea St

Johnii) (=Rollandia

St

- Johnii) Cyanea st

- johnii Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea superba) Cyanea superba Dicot Hawaii

Haha (Cyanea truncata) Cyanea truncata Dicot Hawaii

Cyanea undulata (ncn) Cyanea undulata Dicot Hawaii

Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) Dicot Arizona

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) Cyrtandra crenata Dicot Hawaii

Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) Cyrtandra cyaneoides Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata) Cyrtandra dentata Dicot Hawaii

haiwale Cyrtandra ferri pilosa Dicot Hawaii

ha`iwale (Cyrtandra filipes) Cyrtandra filipes Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) Cyrtandra giffardii Dicot Hawaii

haiwale Cyrtandra gracilis Dicot Hawaii

ha`iwale Cyrtandra kaulantha Dicot Hawaii175 Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra

limah uliensis) Cyrtandra limahuliensis Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi) Cyrtandra munroi Dicot Hawaii

Ha'iwale (Cyrtandra oenobarba) Cyrtandra oenobarba Dicot Hawaii

ha`iwale (Cyrtandra oxybapha) Cyrtandra oxybapha Dicot Hawaii

haiwale Cyrtandra pal iku Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) Cyrtandra polyantha Dicot Hawaii

ha`iwale Cyrtandra sessilis Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) Cyrtandra subumbellata Dicot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) Cyrtandra tintinnabula Dic ot Hawaii

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) Cyrtandra viridiflora Dicot Hawaii

haiwale Cyrtandra waiolani Dicot Hawaii

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Dicot Alabama,

Tennessee

Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) Delissea rhytidosperma Dicot Hawaii

'Oha (D elissea rivularis) Delissea rivularis Dicot Hawaii

'Oha (Delissea subcordata) Delissea subcordata Dicot Hawaii

'Oha (Delissea undulata) Delissea undulata Dicot Hawaii
Larkspur, Baker's Delphinium bakeri Dicot California
Larkspur, Yellow Delphinium lute um Dicot California

Mint, Longspurred Dicerandra

cornutissima Dicot Florida

Mint, Scrub Dicerandra frutescens Dicot Florida

Mint, Lakela's Dicerandra immaculata Dicot Florida

Spineflower,

Slender

- horned Dodecahema leptoceras Dicot California

Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) Dubautia herbstobatae Dicot Hawaii176 na`ena`e Dubautia imbricata

imbricata Dicot Hawaii

Naenae Dubautia kalalauensis Dicot Hawaii

Naenae Dubautia kenwoodii Dicot Hawaii

Dubautia latifolia (ncn) Dubautia latifolia Dicot Hawaii

Dub autia pauciflorula (ncn) Dubautia pauciflorula Dicot Hawaii

na`ena`e Dubautia plantaginea magnifolia Dicot Hawaii

Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis Dicot Hawaii

Na`ena`e Dubautia waialealae Dicot Hawaii

Cone flower,

Smooth Echinacea laevigata Dicot South Carolina, Virginia

Cactus, Nichol's

Turk's Head Echinocactus

horizonthalonius var.

nicholii Dicot Arizona

Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog Echinocereus fendleri

var. kuenzleri Dicot New Mexico

Cactus, Black Lace E chinocereus

reichenbachii var.

albertii Dicot Texas

Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereus triglochidiatus var.

arizonicus Dicot Arizona

Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa Echinomastus mariposensis Dicot Texas

Poolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump Killifish) Empetrichthys latos Dicot Nevada

Mallow, Kern Eremalche kernensis Dicot California

Woolly

- star, Santa

Ana River Eriastrum densifolium

ssp. sanctorum Dicot California177 Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens

var. decumbens Dicot Oregon
Daisy, Parish's Erigeron parishii D icot California

Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizomatus Dicot Arizona, New

Mexico

Mountainbalm,

Indian Knob Eriodictyon altissimum Dicot California

Wild

- buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum Dicot New Mexico

Buckwheat,

Southern Mountain

Wild Eriogonum ken nedyi

var. austromontanum Dicot California

Buckwheat, Scrub Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Dicot Florida

Wild

- buckwheat, Clay

- loving Eriogonum pelinophilum Dicot Colorado

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly Eriophyllum latilobum Dicot California

But ton

- celery, San Diego Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Dicot California

Coyote

- thistle, Loch

Lomond Eryngium constancei Dicot California

Wallflower,

Menzie's Erysimum menziesii Dicot California

Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) Eugenia koolauensis Dicot Hawa ii

'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) Euphorbia haeleeleana Dicot Hawaii

Spurge, Telephus Euphorbia telephioides Dicot Florida

Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) Exocarpos luteolus Dicot Hawaii

Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) Flueggea neowawraea Dicot Hawaii

Fran kenia,

Johnston's Frankenia johnstonii Dicot Texas
Milkpea, Small's Galactia smallii Dicot Florida178 Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) Gardenia brighamii Dicot Hawaii

Nanu (Gardenia mannii) Gardenia mannii Dicot Hawaii

Butterfly Plant,

Colorado Gaura neomexicana
var. coloradensis Dicot Colorado, Nebraska

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum Dicot Missouri, Texas

Geranium,

Hawaiian Red

flowered Geranium arboreum Dicot Hawaii

nohoanu (Geranium hanaense) Geranium hanaense Dicot Hawaii

nohoanu (Geranium

hi llebrandii) Geranium hillebrandii Dicot Hawaii

nohoanu Geranium kauaiense Dicot Hawaii

Nohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) Geranium multiflorum Dicot Hawaii
Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum Dicot North Carolina

Gilia, Monterey Gilia tenuiflora ssp.

arenaria D icot California

Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) Gouania hillebrandii Dicot Hawaii

Gouania meyenii (ncn) Gouania meyenii Dicot Hawaii

Gouania vitifolia (ncn) Gouania vitifolia Dicot Hawaii

Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) Haplostachys haplostachya Dicot Hawai i

'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) Hedyotis cookiana Dicot Hawaii

Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) Hedyotis coriacea Dicot Hawaii

Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) Hedyotis degeneri Dicot Hawaii

Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) Hedyotis mannii Dicot Hawaii

Hedyotis parvula (ncn) He dyotis parvula Dicot Hawaii179 Bluet, Roan

Mountain Hedyotis purpurea var.

montana Dicot North Carolina

Hedyotis St.

- Johnii (ncn) Hedyotis st.

- johnii Dicot Hawaii

Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum Dicot Missouri, Virginia

Rush

- rose, Island Helianth emum greenei Dicot California

Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus Dicot New Mexico

Sunflower,

Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Dicot North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia

Dwarf

- flax, Marin Hesperolinon

congestum Dicot California

Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) Hesperomannia

arborescens Dicot Hawaii

Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) Hesperomannia
arbuscula Dicot Hawaii

Hesperomannia lydgatei (ncn) Hesperomannia lydgatei Dicot Hawaii

Heartleaf, Dwarf

flowered Hexastylis naniflora Dicot North Carol ina,

South Carolina

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) Hibiscadelphus distans Dicot Hawaii

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus) Hibiscadelphus giffardianus Dicot Hawaii

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis) Hibiscadelphus

hualalaiensis Dicot Hawaii

Hau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) Hibiscadelphus woodii Dicot Hawaii

Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei) Hibiscus brackenridgei Dicot Hawaii
Hibiscus, Clay's Hibiscus clayi Dicot Hawaii

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae) Hibis cus waimeae ssp.

hannerae Dicot Hawaii180 Tarplant, Santa

Cruz Holocarpha macradenia Dicot California

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Dicot Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington

Dawn

- flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) Hymenoxys texana Dicot Texas

H ypericum, Highlands Scrub Hypericum cumulicola Dicot Florida

Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) Isodendrion hosakae Dicot Hawaii

Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) Isodendrion laurifolium Dicot Hawaii

Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) Isodendrion longifolium Dic ot Hawaii

Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) Isodendrion pyrifolium Dicot Hawaii

Water

- willow, Cooley's Justicia cooleyi Dicot Florida

(ncn) Keysseria (=Lagenifera)

erici Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Keysseria (=Lagenifera)

helenae Dicot Hawaii

Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) Kokia drynarioides Dicot Hawaii

Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) Kokia kauaiensis Dicot Hawaii

Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) Labordia cyrtandrae Dicot Hawaii

kamakahala Labordia helleri Dicot Hawaii

Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) Labor dia lydgatei Dicot Hawaii

kamakahala Labordia pumila Dicot Hawaii181 Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaen) Labordia tinifolia var.

wahiawaensis Dicot Hawaii
Goldfields, Burke's Lasthenia burkei Dicot California

Goldfields, Contra

Costa Lasthenia conjugens Dicot California
Layia, Beach Layia carnosa Dicot California

'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) Lepidium arbuscula Dicot Hawaii

Ridge

- cress (=Pepper

- cress), Barneby Lepidium barnebyanum Dicot Utah

Peppergrass, Slick Spot Lepidium papilliferum Dico t Idaho

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Dicot Illinois, Iowa,

Minnesota

Bladderpod, Dudley

Bluffs Lesquerella congesta Dicot Colorado

Bladderpod,

Missouri Lesquerella filiformis Dicot Arkansas, Missouri
Bladderpod, Lyrate Lesquerella lyrata Dicot Alabama

Bladderpod, Zapata Lesquerella thamnophila Dicot Texas

Blazing Star,

Heller's Liatris helleri Dicot North Carolina
Blazing Star, Scrub Liatris ohlingerae Dicot Florida

Umbel, Huachuca

Water Lilaeopsis schaffneriana

var. recurva Dicot Ari zona

Meadowfoam,
Large

- flowered Woolly Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Grandiflora Dicot Oregon

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol Limnanthes vinculans Dicot California

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Dicot Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, South

Carolina

Nehe (Lip ochaeta fauriei) Lipochaeta fauriei Dicot Hawaii182 Nehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) Lipochaeta kamolensis Dicot Hawaii

Nehe (Lipochaeta

lobata var. leptophylla) Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla Dicot Hawaii

Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) Lipochaeta micrantha D icot Hawaii

Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) Lipochaeta tenuifolia Dicot Hawaii

Lipochaeta venosa (ncn) Lipochaeta venosa Dicot Hawaii

Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Lipochaeta

waimeaensis Dicot Hawaii

'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) Lobelia gaudich audii ssp. koolauensis Dicot Hawaii

Lobelia monostachya (ncn) Lobelia monostachya Dicot Hawaii

Lobelia niihauensis (ncn) Lobelia niihauensis Dicot Hawaii

Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) Lobelia oahuensis Dicot Hawaii

Lomatium,
Bradshaw's Lomatium bradshawii Di cot Oregon, Washington
Lomatium, Cook's Lomatium cookii Dicot Oregon
Lupine, Scrub Lupinus aridorum Dicot Florida

Lupine, Nipomo

Mesa Lupinus nipomensis Dicot California

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Dicot Oregon
Lupine, Clover Lupinus tidestromii Dicot California

Loosestrife, Rough

leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Dicot South Carolina

lehua makanoe Lysimachia daphnoides Dicot Hawaii

Lysimachia filifolia (ncn) Lysimachia filifolia Dicot Hawaii
(nc n) Lysimachia iniki Dicot Hawaii

Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) Lysimachia lydgatei Dicot Hawaii183 (ncn) Lysimachia pendens Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Lysimachia scopulensis Dicot Hawaii
(ncn) Lysimachia venosa Dicot Hawaii

Birds

- in

- a

- nest,
White Macbridea alba Dico t Florida
Manioc, Walker's Manihot walkerae Dicot Texas

Barbara Buttons,

Mohr's Marshallia mohrii Dicot Alabama, Georgia

Alani (Melicope adscendens) Melicope adscendens Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope balloui) Melicope balloui Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope christophersenii Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope degeneri Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope haupuensis) Melicope haupuensis Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope hiiakae Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope knudsenii) Melicope knudsenii Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope lydgatei) M elicope lydgatei Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope makahae Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope mucronulata) Melicope mucronulata Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope ovalis) Melicope ovalis Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope pallida) Melicope pallida Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope paniculata Dicot Hawaii

alani Melicope puberula Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) Melicope quadrangularis Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope

saint

- johnii) Melicope saint

- johnii Dicot Hawaii

Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) Melicope zahlbruckneri Di cot Hawaii

Monkey

- flower, Michigan Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Dicot Michigan184 Four

- o'clock,

Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei Dicot Idaho, Oregon

Woolly

- threads, San Joaquin Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii Dicot California

sea bean Mucuna sl oanei var. persericea Dicot Hawaii

Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) Munroidendron

racemosum Dicot Hawaii

Kolea (Myrsine juddii) Myrsine juddii Dicot Hawaii

Kolea Myrsine knudsenii Dicot Hawaii

Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) Myrsine linearifolia Dicot Hawaii

kolea Myrsine mezii Dicot Hawaii

kolea Myrsine vaccinioides Dicot Hawaii

Navarretia, Spreading Navarretia fossalis Dicot California

Navarretia, Few

flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

Pauciflora Dicot California

Navarretia, Many

flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Dicot California

Neraudia angulata (ncn) Neraudia angulata Dicot Hawaii

Neraudia ovata (ncn) Neraudia ovata Dicot Hawaii

Neraudia sericea (ncn) Neraudia sericea Dicot Hawaii

Niterwort, Amargosa Nitrophila mohavensis Dicot N evada

'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) Nothocestrum

breviflorum Dicot Hawaii

'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) Nothocestrum peltatum Dicot Hawaii

Kulu'I (Nototrichium humile) Nototrichium humile Dicot Hawaii185 Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) Ochrosia kilaueaen sis Dicot Hawaii

Evening

- primrose,

Antioch Dunes Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Dicot California
Cactus, Bakersfield Opuntia treleasei Dicot California

Grass, Hairy Orcutt Orcuttia pilosa Dicot California

Grass, Slender

Orcutt Orcuttia tenuis Dicot California

Grass, Sacramento

Orcutt Orcuttia viscida Dicot California

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Dicot Georgia, South

Carolina

Locoweed, Fassett's Oxytropis campestris

var. chartacea Dicot Wisconsin

Whitlow

- wort, Papery Paronychia chartacea Dico t Florida

Lousewort, Furbish Pedicularis furbishiae Dicot Maine

Cactus, Siler

Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia)

sileri Dicot Arizona, Utah

Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii Dicot New Mexico

Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactus peeblesi anus peeblesianus Dicot Arizona

Penstemon,
Blowout Penstemon haydenii Dicot Nebraska, Wyoming

alaala wai nui Peperomia subpetiolata Dicot Hawaii

Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) Peucedanum

sandwicense Dicot Hawaii
Phacelia, Clay Phacelia argillacea Dicot Utah

Phacelia, North

Park Phacelia formosula Dicot Colorado
DeBeque phacelia Phacelia submutica Dicot Colorado

Phlox, Texas Trailing Phlox nivalis ssp.

texensis Dicot Texas186 ncn (Phyllostegia bracteata) Phyllostegia bracteata Dicot Hawaii

ncn (Phyllos tegia haliakalae) Phyllostegia haliakalae Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) Phyllostegia hirsuta Dicot Hawaii
(ncn) Phyllostegia hispida Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) Phyllostegia kaalaensis Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) Phyllostegia knudsenii Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) Phyllostegia mannii Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) Phyllostegia mollis Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) Phyllostegia parviflora Dicot Hawaii

ncn (Phyllostegia pilosa) Phyll ostegia pilosa Dicot Hawaii

Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) Phyllostegia racemosa Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Phyllostegia renovans Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) Phyllostegia velutina Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia waimeae (ncn) Phyllostegia waimeae Di cot Hawaii

Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) Phyllostegia warshaueri Dicot Hawaii

Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) Phyllostegia wawrana Dicot Hawaii

Twinpod, Dudley

Bluffs Physaria obcordata Dicot Colorado

Butterwort, Godfrey's Pinguicula ionantha Dicot Florida

ho'awa Pittosporum napaliense Dicot Hawaii

Popcornflower, Rough Plagiobothrys hirtus Dicot Oregon

Allocarya, Calistoga Plagiobothrys strictus Dicot California187 Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis) Plantago hawaiensis Dicot Hawaii

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plan tago princeps) Plantago princeps Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Platydesma cornuta

var. cornuta Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Platydesma cornuta

var. decurrens Dicot Hawaii
pilo kea lau li`i Platydesma rostrata Dicot Hawaii
Polygala, Lewton's Polygala lewtonii Dicot Florida
Polygala, Tiny Polygala smallii Dicot Florida

Wireweed Polygonella basiramia Dicot Florida

Sandlace Polygonella myriophylla Dicot Florida

Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) Portulaca sclerocarpa Dicot Hawaii

Potentilla,

Hickman's Potentilla hickmanii Dicot California

Primrose, Maguire Primula maguirei Dicot Utah
Plum, Scrub Prunus geniculata Dicot Florida

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's Pseudobahia bahiifolia Dicot California

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Pseudobahia peirsonii Dicot California

kopiko Psychotri a grandiflora Dicot Hawaii

Oahu wild coffee Psychotria hexandra ssp. Oahuensis Dicot Hawaii
kopiko Psychotria hobdyi Dicot Hawaii

Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) Pteralyxia kauaiensis Dicot Hawaii

kaulu Pteralyxia macrocarpa Dicot Hawaii

Harperella Ptil imnium nodosum Dicot Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,

Cliffrose, Arizona Purshia (=cowania) subintegra Dicot Arizona
Oak, Hinckley Quercus hinckleyi Dicot Texas188 Remya kauaiensis (ncn) Remya kauaiensis Dicot Hawaii
Remya, Maui Remya m auiensis Dicot Hawaii

Remya montgomeryi (ncn) Remya montgomeryi Dicot Hawaii

Rhododendron, Chapman Rhododendron chapmanii Dicot Florida

Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Dicot North Carolina, Virginia

Gooseberry,

Miccosukee Ribes echinellum Dicot Florida , South

Carolina

Watercress,
Gambel's Rorippa gambellii Dicot California

Sanicula mariversa (ncn) Sanicula mariversa Dicot Hawaii

Sanicula purpurea (ncn) Sanicula purpurea Dicot Hawaii

Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) Santalum haleakalae

var. lanaiense Dic ot Hawaii

Pitcher

- plant,

Green Sarracenia oreophila Dicot Alabama, Georgia

Pitcher

- plant,

Mountain Sweet Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Dicot South Carolina

Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) Scaevola coriacea Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schied ea adamantis) Schiedea adamantis Dicot Hawaii

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) Schiedea apokremnos Dicot Hawaii
(ncn) Schiedea attenuata Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) Schiedea haleakalensis Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea helleri (ncn) Schiedea helle ri Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea hookeri (ncn) Schiedea hookeri Dicot Hawaii

ncn (Schiedea jacobii) Schiedea jacobii Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea kaalae (ncn) Schiedea kaalae Dicot Hawaii189 Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) Schiedea kauaiensis Dicot Hawaii

Ma'oli'oli (Schiede a kealiae) Schiedea kealiae Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea

membranacea (ncn) Schiedea membranacea Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) Schiedea nuttallii Dicot Hawaii

ncn (Schiedea salicaria) Schiedea salicaria Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (n cn) Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda Dicot Hawaii

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Dicot Hawaii

Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) Schiedea stellarioides Dicot Hawaii

Reed

- mustard, Clay Schoenocrambe argil lacea Dicot Utah

Reed

- mustard, Barneby Schoenocrambe barnebyi Dicot Utah

Reed

- mustard, Shrubby Schoenocrambe

suffrutescens Dicot Utah

Chaffseed,

American Schwalbea americana Dicot Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South

Carolina

Cactus, Pariet te Sclerocactus brevispinus Dicot Utah

Cactus, Colorado

hookless Sclerocactus glaucus Dicot Colorado, Utah

Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae

verdae Dicot Colorado, New

Mexico

Cactus, Uinta Basin

hookless Sclerocactus

wetlandicus Dicot Utah

Cactus, Wright

Fishhook Sclerocactus wrightiae Dicot Utah
Skullcap, Florida Scutellaria floridana Dicot Florida

Skullcap, Large

flowered Scutellaria montana Dicot Georgia, Tennessee190 Roseroot, Leedy's Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Dicot Minnesota, New

York

Bu tterweed, Layne's Senecio layneae Dicot California

'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) Sesbania tomentosa Dicot Hawaii 'Anunu (Sicyos alba) Sicyos alba Dicot Hawaii

Checker

- mallow,

Keck's Sidalcea keckii Dicot California, Oregon, Washington

Checker

- mallow,

Kenw ood Marsh Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida Dicot California

Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) Silene hawaiiensis Dicot Hawaii

Silene lanceolata (ncn) Silene lanceolata Dicot Hawaii

Silene perlmanii (ncn) Silene perlmanii Dicot Hawaii
Campion, Fringed Silene polypet ala Dicot Florida, Georgia

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Dicot Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington

Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) Solanum incompletum Dicot Hawaii

Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense) Solanum sandwicense Dicot Hawaii

Gol denrod, White

haired Solidago albopilosa Dicot Kentucky

Goldenrod, Houghton's Solidago houghtonii Dicot Michigan
Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shortii Dicot Kentucky

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) Spermolepis

hawaiiensis Dicot Hawaii

Pinkroot, Gentian Spi gelia gentianoides Dicot Florida

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Dicot Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia,191 Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia Dicot Hawaii

Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) Ste nogyne campanulata Dicot Hawaii

Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) Stenogyne kanehoana Dicot Hawaii

ncn (Stenogyne kauaulaensis) Stenogyne kauaulaensis Dicot Hawaii
(ncn) Stenogyne kealiae Dicot Hawaii

Wire

- lettuce,

Malheur Stephanomeria

malheurensis Dicot Oreg on
Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Dicot California
Snowbells, Texas Styrax texanus Dicot Texas

Sea

- blite, California Suaeda californica Dicot California

Tetramolopium arenarium (ncn) Tetramolopium

arenarium Dicot Hawaii

Tetramolopium capillare (ncn) Tetramolopium capillare Dicot Hawaii

Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) Tetramolopium

filiforme Dicot Hawaii

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (ncn) Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum Dicot Hawaii

Tetramolopium remyi (n cn) Tetramolopium remyi Dicot Hawaii

Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) Tetramolopium rockii Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Tetraplasandra

bisattenuata Dicot Hawaii

(ncn) Tetraplasandra flynnii Dicot Hawaii

'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) Tetraplasandra

gymnocarpa Di cot Hawaii

(ncn) Tetraplasandra lydgatei Dicot Hawaii

Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Dicot Florida

Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Dicot Georgia192 Thelypody,

Howell's Spectacular Thelypodium howellii spectabilis Dicot Oregon

Mustard, Slen der

petaled Thelypodium stenopetalum Dicot California

Penny

- cress, Kneeland Prairie Thlaspi californicum Dicot California

Dogweed, Ashy Thymophylla tephroleuca Dicot Texas

Townsendia, Last

Chance Townsendia aprica Dicot Utah

Trematolobelia singularis ( ncn) Trematolobelia singularis Dicot Hawaii

Bluecurls, Hidden

Lake Trichostema

austromontanum ssp.
compactum Dicot California

Clover, Showy

Indian Trifolium amoenum Dicot California

Clover, Running

Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Dicot Kentucky, Missouri

,

Clover, Monterey Trifolium trichocalyx Dicot California
Tuctoria, Green's Tuctoria greenei Dicot California

Opuhe (Urera kaalae) Urera kaalae Dicot Hawaii

Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) Vicia menziesii Dicot Hawaii

Vigna o

- wahuensis (ncn) Vigna o

- wahuensis Dicot Hawaii

Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana) Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana Dicot Hawaii
Viola helenae (ncn) Viola helenae Dicot Hawaii

Nani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. wahiawaensis) Viola kauaiensis var.

wahi awaensis Dicot Hawaii

Viola oahuensis (ncn) Viola oahuensis Dicot Hawaii
Warea, Wide

- leaf Warea amplexifolia Dicot Florida
Mustard, Carter's Warea carteri Dicot Florida

akia Wikstroemia villosa Dicot Hawaii193 Iliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) Wilkesia hobdyi Dico t Hawaii

Xylosma crenatum (ncn) Xylosma crenatum Dicot Hawaii

Yellowhead, Desert Yermo xanthocephalus Dicot Wyoming

A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum) Zanthoxylum dipetalum

var. tomentosum Dicot Hawaii

A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) Zanthoxylum

hawaiiense Dicot Hawaii

a'e Zanthoxylum oahuense Dicot Hawaii
Ziziphus, Florida Ziziphus celata Dicot Florida

Fern, Pendant Kihi (Adenophorus periens) Adenophorus periens Ferns Hawaii

Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) Asplenium fragile var.

insular e Ferns Hawaii

Fern, American
hart's

- tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var.

americanum Ferns Michigan,

Tennessee

Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) Ctenitis squamigera Ferns Hawaii
Diellia erecta (ncn) Diellia erecta Ferns Hawaii
Diellia falcata (ncn) Diellia fa lcata Ferns Hawaii
(ncn) Diellia mannii Ferns Hawaii
Diellia pallida (ncn) Diellia pallida Ferns Hawaii
Diellia unisora (ncn) Diellia unisora Ferns Hawaii

Diplazium molokaiense (ncn) Diplazium molokaiense Ferns Hawaii

(ncn) Doryopteris angelica Ferns Hawaii

(ncn) Doryopteris takeuchii Ferns Hawaii

aumakua, Palapalai Dryopteris crinalis podosorus Ferns Hawaii

Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia) mannii) Huperzia mannii Ferns Hawaii

Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis Ferns Alabama, Mississip pi194 Quillwort, Black

spored Isoetes melanospora Ferns South Carolina

Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Lycopodium) nutans) Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus)

nutans Ferns Hawaii

'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa) Marsilea villosa Ferns Hawaii
Pteris lidgatei (ncn) Pteris l idgatei Ferns Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella abbreviata) Achatinella abbreviata Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella apexfulva) Achatinella apexfulva Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bellula) Achatinella bellula Gastropo d Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella buddii) Achatinella buddii Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bulimoides) Achatinella bulimoides Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella byronii) Achatinella byronii Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O 'ahu Tree (Achatinella caesia) Achatinella caesia Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella casta) Achatinella casta Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella cestus) Achatinella cestus Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella

concavo spira) Achatinella concavospira Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella curta) Achatinella curta Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decipiens) Achatinella decipiens Gastropod Hawaii195 Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decora) Achatinella decora Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella dimorpha) Achatinella dimorpha Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella elegans) Achatinella elegans Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fulgens) Achatinella fulgens Gastropod Ha waii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fuscobasis) Achatinella fuscobasis Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juddii) Achatinella juddii Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juncea) Achatinella juncea Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu T ree (Achatinella lehuiensis) Achatinella lehuiensis Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella leucorraphe) Achatinella leucorraphe Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lila) Achatinella lila Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinel la livida) Achatinella livida Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lorata) Achatinella lorata Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella mustelina) Achatinella mustelina Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella papyracea) Achatine lla papyracea Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella phaeozona) Achatinella phaeozona Gastropod Hawaii1 96 Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pulcherrima) Achatinella pulcherrima Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pupukanioe) Achatinella p upukanioe Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella rosea) Achatinella rosea Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella sowerbyana) Achatinella sowerbyana Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella spaldingi) Achatinella spaldingi Gastro pod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella stewartii) Achatinella stewartii Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella swiftii) Achatinella swiftii Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella taeniolata) Achatinella taeniolata Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella thaanumi) Achatinella thaahumi Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella turgida) Achatinella turgida Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella valida) Achatinella valida Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Ach atinella viridans) Achatinella viridans Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vittata) Achatinella vittata Gastropod Hawaii

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vulpina) Achatinella vulpina Gastropod Hawaii

Campeloma,

Slender Campeloma decampi Gastr opod Alabama

Snail, Morro

Shoulderband Helminthoglypta

walkeriana Gastropod California197 Newcomb’s tree

snail Newcombia cumingi Gastropod Hawaii

Butterfly, Uncompahgre Fritillary Boloria acrocnema Insect Colorado

Butterfly, San

Bruno Elfin Callophrys mos sii bayensis Insect California

Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger Cicindela nevadica

lincolniana Insect Nebraska

Butterfly, Miami

Blue Cyclargus thomasi

bethunebakeri Insect Florida

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Insect Calif ornia

Beetle, Casey's

June Dinacoma caseyi Insect California

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila aglaia Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila hemipeza Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila heteroneura Insect Hawaii

Fly, H awaiian picture

- wing Drosophila montgomeryi Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila mulli Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila musaphilia Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila

neoclavisetae Insect Hawaii

Fly, Ha waiian picture

- wing Drosophila obatai Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila ochrobasis Insect Hawaii

Hawaiian picture

wing Fly Drosophila sharpi Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila substenoptera Insect Hawaii

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila tarphytrichia Insect Hawaii

Beetle, Delta Green

Ground Elaphrus viridis Insect California198 Butterfly, Smith's

Blue Euphilotes enoptes

smithi Insect California

Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti) Insect California

Moth, Kern Primrose Sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe Insect California

Butterfly, Fender's

Blue Icaricia icarioides

fenderi Insect Oregon

Butterfly, Mission

Blue Icaricia icarioides

missionensis Insect California

Butterfly, Karner

Blue Ly caeides melissa

samuelis Insect Michigan, New York, Wisconsin

Moth, Blackburn's Sphinx Manduca blackburni Insect Hawaii

Crimson Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion leptodemas Insect Hawaii

Damselfly, Flying Earwig Hawaiian Megalagrion nesiotes Insect Hawaii

blackline Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum Insect Hawaii

Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion oceanicum Insect Hawaii

Damselfly, Pacific

Hawaiian Megalagrion pacificum Insect Hawaii

Butterfly, Mitchell's
Satyr Neonympha mitch ellii

mitchellii Insect Michigan, Virginia

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus

americanus Insect Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas

Skipper, Carson Wandering Pseudocopaeodes

eunus obscurus Insect California

Skipper, Laguna

Mountain Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Insect California

Fly, Delhi Sands

Flower

- loving Rhaphiomidas

terminatus abdominalis Insect California

Dragonfly, Hine's

Emerald Somatochlora hineana Insect Missouri

Butterfly, Callippe Silverspot Speyeria callippe callippe Insect Calif ornia199 Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot Speyeria zerene

behrensii Insect California

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Insect Oregon, Washington

Butterfly, Myrtle's Silverspot Speyeria zerene myrtleae Insect California

Cladonia, Florid a Perforate Cladonia perforata Lichen Florida

Lichen, Rock

Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Lichen North Carolina,

South Carolina

Lichen, Rock

Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Lichen Tennessee
Onion, Munz's Allium munzii Monocot California

Alopecurus,

Sonoma Alopecuru s aequalis

var. sonomensis Monocot California

Pa'iniu Astelia waialealae Monocot Hawaii

Brodiaea, Thread

leaved Brodiaea filifolia Monocot California

Hillegrands reedgrass Calamagrostis

hillebrandii Monocot Hawaii

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa Calochortus

tib uronensis Monocot California
Sedge, White Carex albida Monocot California
Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola Monocot Arizona

Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides) Cenchrus agrimonioides Monocot Hawaii

Amole, Purple Chlorogalum

purpureum var.

purpureum Monoco t California

Amole, Cammatta
Canyon Chlorogalum

purpureum var. reductum Monocot California

Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) Cyperus trachysanthos Monocot Hawaii

Grass, Fosberg's

Love Eragrostis fosbergii Monocot Hawaii

Lily, Minnesota

Trout Erythronium propullans Monocot Minnesota
Fritillary, Gentner's Fritillaria gentneri Monocot Oregon
Seagrass, Johnson's Halophila johnsonii Monocot Florida200 Beauty, Harper's Harperocallis flava Monocot Florida

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Monocot North Carolina,

So uth Carolina, Virginia
Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris Monocot Michigan

Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone) Ischaemum byrone Monocot Hawaii

Pogonia, Small

Whorled Isotria medeoloides Monocot Georgia, Illinois, Michigan,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
Lily, Western Lilium occidentale Monocot California

Lily, Pitkin Marsh Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Monocot California

Mariscus fauriei (ncn) Mariscus fauriei Monocot Hawaii

Mariscus pennatiformis (ncn) Mariscus pennatiformis Monocot Hawaii

Grass, Colusa Neostapfia colusana Monocot California
Beargrass, Britton's Nolina brittoniana Monocot Florida

Grass, California

Orcutt Orcuttia californica Monocot California

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Orcuttia inaequ alis Monocot California

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri) Panicum fauriei var.

carteri Monocot Hawaii

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) Panicum niihauense Monocot Hawaii
Piperia, Yadon's Piperia yadonii Monocot California

Platanthera

holoch ila (ncn) Platanthera holochila Monocot Hawaii

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Monocot Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Virginia,201 Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Monocot Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, N ebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming
hala pepe Pleomele forbesii Monocot Hawaii

Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) Pleomele hawaiiensis Monocot Hawaii

Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) Poa mannii Monocot Hawaii
Bluegrass, Napa Poa napensis Monocot California

Blu egrass,
Hawaiian Poa sandvicensis Monocot Hawaii

Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) Poa siphonoglossa Monocot Hawaii

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia affinis) Pritchardia affinis Monocot Hawaii

lo`ulu Pritchardia hardyi Monocot Hawaii

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) Pritchardia k aalae Monocot Hawaii

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) Pritchardia napaliensis Monocot Hawaii

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) Pritchardia schattaueri Monocot Hawaii

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) Pritchardia viscosa Monocot Hawaii

Arrowhead,

Bunched Sagi ttaria fasciculata Monocot South Carolina

Water

- plantain,

Kral's Sagittaria secundifolia Monocot Alabama

Bulrush,

Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Monocot Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia,

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium

dichotomum Mo nocot South Carolina

Ladies'

- tresses,
Canelo Hills Spiranthes delitescens Monocot Arizona

Ladies'

- tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis Monocot Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington, Wyoming202 Ladies'

- tresses,

Navasota Spiranthes parksii Monocot Texas
Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Monocot South Carolina

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum Monocot Alabama, Georgia,

South Carolina

Grass, Solano Tuctoria mucronata Monocot California

Grass, Tennessee
Yellow

- eyed Xyris tennesseensis Mono cot Alabama, Georgia

Wild

- rice, Texas Zizania texana Monocot Texas

Lizard, St. Croix

Ground Ameiva polops Reptile Virgin Islands

Crocodile,

American Crocodylus acutus Reptile Florida

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge

nosed Crotalus willardi

obscurus Repti le Arizona

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Reptile Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi

Skink, Blue

- tailed

Mole Eumeces egregius

lividus Reptile Florida

Lizard, Blunt

- nosed Leopard Gambelia silus Reptile California

Tortoise, Gopher Go pherus polyphemus Reptile Mississippi

Turtle, Yellow

blotched Map Graptemys
flavimaculata Reptile Mississippi

Turtle, Ringed Map Graptemys oculifera Reptile Mississippi

Whipsnake (=Striped Racer),

Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Reptile Califo rnia
Skink, Sand Neoseps reynoldsi Reptile Florida

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Reptile Michigan, Ohio

Turtle, Alabama

Red

- bellied Pseudemys

alabamensis Reptile Alabama, Mississippi

Turtle, Flattened

Musk Sternotheru s depressus Reptile Alabama
Snake, Giant Garter Thamnophis gigas Reptile California

Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe

- toed Uma inornata Reptile California203