OECD/OCDE 208

Adopted:
19 July 2006

OECD GUIDELINES FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS

Terrestrial Plant Test: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test

INTRODUCTION

1. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are periodically reviewed in the light of scientific
progress and applicability to regulatory use. This updated Guideline is designed to assess potential effects
of substances on seedling emergence and growth. As such it does not cover chronic effects or effects on
reproduction (i.e. seed set, flower formation, fruit maturation). Conditions of exposure and properties of
the substance to be tested must be considered to ensure that appropriate test methods are used (e.g. when
testing metals/metal compounds the effects of pH and associated counter ions should be considered) (1).
This Guideline does not address plants exposed to vapours of chemicals. The Guideline is applicable to
the testing of general chemicals, biocides and crop protection products (also known as plant protection
products or pesticides). It has been developed on the basis of existing methods (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7).
Other references pertinent to plant testing were also considered (8) (9) (10). Definitions used are given in
Annex 1.

PRINCIPLE OF THE TEST

2. The test assesses effects on seedling emergence and early growth of higher plants following
exposure to the test substance in the soil (or other suitable soil matrix). Seeds are placed in contact with
soil treated with the test substance and evaluated for effects following usually 14 to 21 days after 50 %
emergence of the seedlings in the control group. Endpoints measured are visual assessment of seedling
emergence, dry shoot weight (alternatively fresh shoot weight) and in certain cases shoot height, as well as
an assessment of visible detrimental effects on different parts of the plant. These measurements and
observations are compared to those of untreated control plants.

3. Depending on the expected route of exposure, the test substance is either incorporated into the
soil (or possibly into artificial soil matrix) or applied to the soil surface, which properly represents the
potential route of exposure to the chemical. Soil incorporation is done by treating bulk soil. After the
application the soil is transferred into pots, and then seeds of the given plant species are planted in the soil.
Surface applications are made to potted soil in which the seeds have already been planted. The test units
(controls and treated soils plus seeds) are then placed under appropriate conditions to support
germination/growth of plants.

4. The test can be conducted in order to determine the dose-response curve, or at a single
concentration/rate as a limit test according to the aim of the study. If results from the single
concentration/rate test exceed a certain toxicity level (e.g. whether effects greater than x% are observed), a
range-finding test is carried out to determine upper and lower limits for toxicity followed by a multiple
concentration/rate test to generate a dose-response curve. An appropriate statistical analysis is used to
obtain effective concentration ECx or effective application rate ERx (e.g. EC25, ER25, EC50, ER50) for the
most sensitive parameter(s) of interest. Also, the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) and lowest
observed effect concentration (LOEC) can be calculated in this test.

1/21
208 OECD/OCDE

INFORMATION ON THE TEST SUBSTANCE

5. The following information is useful for the identification of the expected route of exposure to the
substance and in designing the test: structural formula, purity, water solubility, solubility in organic
solvents, 1-octanol/water partition coefficient, soil sorption behaviour, vapour pressure, chemical stability
in water and light, and biodegradability.

VALIDITY OF THE TEST

6. In order for the test to be considered valid, the following performance criteria must be met in the
controls:

• the seedling emergence is at least 70%;

• the seedlings do not exhibit visible phytotoxic effects (e.g. chlorosis, necrosis, wilting, leaf and
stem deformations) and the plants exhibit only normal variation in growth and morphology for that
particular species;
• the mean survival of emerged control seedlings is at least 90% for the duration of the study;
• environmental conditions for a particular species are identical and growing media contain the same
amount of soil matrix, support media, or substrate from the same source.

REFERENCE SUBSTANCE

7. A reference substance may be tested at regular intervals, to verify that performance of the test
and the response of the particular test plants and the test conditions have not changed significantly over
time. Alternatively, historical biomass or growth measurement of controls could be used to evaluate the
performance of the test system in particular laboratories, and can serve as an intra-laboratory quality
control measure.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD

Natural soil - Artificial substrate

8. Plants may be grown in pots using a sandy loam, loamy sand, or sandy clay loam that contains up
to 1.5 percent organic carbon (approx. 3 percent organic matter). Commercial potting soil or synthetic soil
mix that contains up to 1.5 percent organic carbon may also be used. Clay soils should not be used if the
test substance is known to have a high affinity for clays. Field soil should be sieved to 2 mm particle size
in order to homogenize it and remove coarse particles. The type and texture, % organic carbon, pH and
salt content as electronic conductivity of the final prepared soil should be reported. The soil should be
classified according to a standard classification scheme (11). The soil could be pasteurized or heat treated
in order to reduce the effect of soil pathogens.

9. Natural soil may complicate interpretation of results and increase variability due to varying
physical/chemical properties and microbial populations. These variables in turn alter moisture-holding
capacity, chemical-binding capacity, aeration, and nutrient and trace element content. In addition to the
variations in these physical factors, there will also be variation in chemical properties such as pH and redox
potential, which may affect the bioavailability of the test substance (12) (13) (14).

10. Artificial substrates are typically not used for testing of crop protection products, but they may be
of use for the testing of general chemicals or where it is desired to minimize the variability of the natural

2/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
soils and increase the comparability of the test results. Substrates used should be composed of inert
materials that minimize interaction with the test substance, the solvent carrier, or both. Acid washed quartz
sand, mineral wool and glass beads (e.g. 0.35 to 0.85 mm in diameter) have been found to be suitable inert
materials that minimally absorb the test substance (15), ensuring that the substance will be maximally
available to the seedling via root uptake. Unsuitable substrates would include vermiculite, perlite or other
highly absorptive materials. Nutrients for plant growth should be provided to ensure that plants are not
stressed through nutrient deficiencies, and where possible this should be assessed via chemical analysis or
by visual assessment of control plants.

Criteria for selection of test species

11. The species selected should be reasonably broad, e.g., considering their taxonomic diversity in
the plant kingdom, their distribution, abundance, species specific life-cycle characteristics and region of
natural occurrence, to develop a range of responses (8) (10) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20). The following
characteristics of the possible test species should be considered in the selection:

• the species have uniform seeds that are readily available from reliable standard seed source(s) and
that produce consistent, reliable and even germination, as well as uniform seedling growth;
• plant is amenable to testing in the laboratory, and can give reliable and reproducible results within
and across testing facilities;
• the sensitivity of the species tested should be consistent with the responses of plants found in the
environment exposed to the substance;
• they have been used to some extent in previous toxicity tests and their use in, for example,
herbicide bioassays, heavy metal screening, salinity or mineral stress tests or allelopathy studies
indicates sensitivity to a wide variety of stressors;
• they are compatible with the growth conditions of the test method;
• they meet the validity criteria of the test.

Some of the historically most used test species are listed in Annex 2 and potential non-crop species in
Annex 3.

12. The number of species to be tested is dependent on relevant regulatory requirements, therefore it
is not specified in this Guideline.

Application of the test substance

13. The substance should be applied in an appropriate carrier (e.g. water, acetone, ethanol,
polyethylene glycol, gum Arabic, sand). Formulated products or formulations containing active ingredients
and various adjuvants can be tested as well.

Incorporation into soil/artificial substrate

14. Substances which are water soluble or suspended in water can be added to water, and then the
solution is mixed with soil with an appropriate mixing device. This type of test may be appropriate if
exposure to the chemical is through soil or soil pore-water and that there is concern for root uptake. The
water-holding capacity of the soil should not be exceeded by the addition of the test substance. The
volume of water added should be the same for each test concentration, but should be limited to prevent soil
agglomerate clumping.

15. Substances with low water solubility should be dissolved in a suitable volatile solvent (e.g.
acetone, ethanol) and mixed with sand. The solvent can then be removed from the sand using a stream of

3/21
208 OECD/OCDE

air while continuously mixing the sand. The treated sand is mixed with the experimental soil. A second
control is established which receives only sand and solvent. Equal amounts of sand, with solvent mixed
and removed, are added to all treatment levels and the second control. For solid, insoluble test substances,
dry soil and the chemical are mixed in a suitable mixing device. Hereafter, the soil is added to the pots and
seeds are sown immediately.

16. When an artificial substrate is used instead of soil, chemicals that are soluble in water can be
dissolved in the nutrient solution just prior to the beginning of the test. Chemicals that are insoluble in
water, but which can be suspended in water by using a solvent carrier, should be added with the carrier, to
the nutrient solution. Water-insoluble chemicals, for which there is no non-toxic water-soluble carrier
available, should be dissolved in an appropriate volatile solvent. The solution is mixed with sand or glass
beads, placed in a rotary vacuum apparatus, and evaporated, leaving a uniform coating of chemical on sand
or beads. A weighed portion of beads should be extracted with the same organic solvent and the chemical
assayed before the potting containers are filled.

Surface application

17. For crop protection products, spraying the soil surface with the test solution is often used for
application of the test substance. All equipment used in conducting the tests, including equipment used to
prepare and administer the test substance, should be of such design and capacity that the tests involving this
equipment can be conducted in an accurate way and it will give a reproducible coverage. The coverage
should be uniform across the soil surfaces. Care should be taken to avoid the possibilities of chemicals
being adsorbed to or reacting with the equipment (e.g. plastic tubing and lipophilic chemicals or steel parts
and elements). The test substance is sprayed onto the soil surface simulating typical spray tank
applications. Generally, spray volumes should be in the range of normal agricultural practice and the
volumes (amount of water etc. should be reported). Nozzle type should be selected to provide uniform
coverage of the soil surface. If solvents and carriers are applied, a second group of control plants should be
established receiving only the solvent/carrier. This is not necessary for crop protection products tested as
formulations.

Verification of test substance concentration/rate

18. The concentrations/rates of application must be confirmed by an appropriate analytical

verification. For soluble substances, verification of all test concentrations/rates can be confirmed by
analysis of the highest concentration test solution used for the test with documentation on subsequent
dilution and use of calibrated application equipment (e.g., calibrated analytical glassware, calibration of
sprayer application equipment). For insoluble substances, verification of compound material must be
provided with weights of the test substance added to the soil. If demonstration of homogeneity is required,
analysis of the soil may be necessary.

PROCEDURE

Test design

19. Seeds of the same species are planted in pots. The number of seeds planted per pot will depend
upon the species, pot size and test duration. The number of plants per pot should provide adequate growth
conditions and avoid overcrowding for the duration of the test. The maximum plant density would be
around 3 - 10 seeds per 100 cm² depending to the size of the seeds. As an example, one to two corn,
soybean, tomato, cucumber, or sugar beet plants per 15cm container; three rape or pea plants per 15 cm
container; and 5 to 10 onion, wheat, or other small seeds per 15 cm container are recommended. The
number of seeds and replicate pots (the replicate is defined as a pot, therefore plants within the same pot do

4/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
not constitute a replicate) should be adequate for optimal statistical analysis (21). It should be noted that
variability will be greater for test species using fewer large seeds per pot (replicate), when compared to test
species where it is possible to use greater numbers of small seeds per pot. By planting equal seed numbers
in each pot this variability may be minimized.

20. Control groups are used to assure that effects observed are associated with or attributed only to
the test substance exposure. The appropriate control group should be identical in every respect to the test
group except for exposure to the test substance. Within a given test, all test plants including the controls
should be from the same source. To prevent bias, random assignment of test and control pots is required.

21. Seeds coated with an insecticide or fungicide (i.e. “dressed” seeds) should be avoided. However,
the use of certain non-systemic contact fungicides (e.g. captan, thiram) is permitted by some regulatory
authorities (22). If seed-borne pathogens are a concern, the seeds may be soaked briefly in a weak 5 %
hypochlorite solution, then rinsed extensively in running water and dried. No remedial treatment with
other crop protection product is allowed.

Test conditions

22. The test conditions should approximate those conditions necessary for normal growth for the
species and varieties tested (Annex 4 provides examples of test condition). The emerging plants should be
maintained under good horticultural practices in controlled environment chambers, phytotrons, or
greenhouses. When using growth facilities these practices usually include control and adequately frequent
(e.g. daily) recording of temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, light (intensity, wave length,
photosynthetically active radiation) and light period, means of watering, etc., to assure good plant growth
as judged by the control plants of the selected species. Greenhouse temperatures should be controlled
through venting, heating and/or cooling systems. The following conditions are generally recommended for
greenhouse testing:

• temperature: 22 oC ± 10 oC;

• humidity: 70 % ± 25 %;

• photoperiod: minimum 16 hour light;

• light intensity: 350 ± 50 µE/m2/s. Additional lighting may be necessary if intensity decreases
below 200 µE/m2/s, wavelength 400 - 700 nm except for certain species whose light requirements
are less.

Environmental conditions should be monitored and reported during the course of the study. The plants
should be grown in non-porous plastic or glazed pots with a tray or saucer under the pot. The pots may be
repositioned periodically to minimize variability in growth of the plants (due to differences in test
conditions within the growth facilities). The pots must be large enough to allow normal growth.

23. Soil nutrients may be supplemented as needed to maintain good plant vigour. The need and
timing of additional nutrients can be judged by observation of the control plants. Bottom watering of test
containers (e.g. by using glass fiber wicks) is recommended. However, initial top watering can be used to
stimulate seed germination and, for soil surface application it facilitates movement of the chemical into the
soil.

24. The specific growing conditions should be appropriate for the species tested and the test
substance under investigation. Control and treated plants must be kept under the same environmental

5/21
208 OECD/OCDE

conditions, however, adequate measures should be taken to prevent cross exposure (e.g. of volatile
substances) among different treatments and of the controls to the test substance.

Testing at a single concentration/rate

25. In order to determine the appropriate concentration/rate of a substance for conducting a single-
concentration or rate (challenge/limit) test, a number of factors must be considered. For general chemicals,
these include the physical/chemical properties of the substance. For crop protection products, the
physical/chemical properties and use pattern of the test substance, its maximum concentration or
application rate, the number of applications per season and/or the persistence of the test substance need to
be considered. To determine whether a general chemical possesses phytotoxic properties, it may be
appropriate to test at a maximum level of 1000 mg/kg dry soil.

Range-finding test

26. When necessary a range-finding test could be performed to provide guidance on

concentrations/rates to be tested in definitive dose-response study. For the range-finding test, the test
concentrations/rates should be widely spaced (e.g. 0.1, 1.0, 10, 100 and 1000 mg/kg dry soil). For crop
protection products concentrations/rates could be based on the recommended or maximum concentration or
application rate, e.g. 1/100, 1/10, 1/1 of the recommended/maximum concentration or application rate.

Testing at multiple concentrations/rates

27. The purpose of the multiple concentration/rate test is to establish a dose-response relationship
and to determine an ECx or ERx value for emergence, biomass and/or visual effects compared to un-
exposed controls, as required by regulatory authorities.

28. The number and spacing of the concentrations or rates should be sufficient to generate a reliable
dose-response relationship and regression equation and give an estimate of the ECx. or ERx.. The selected
concentrations/rates should encompass the ECx or ERx values that are to be determined. For example, if an
EC50 value is required it would be desirable to test at rates that produce a 20 to 80 % effect. The
recommended number of test concentrations/rates to achieve this is at least five in a geometric series plus
untreated control, and spaced by a factor not exceeding three. For each treatment and control group, the
number of replicates should be at least four and the total number of seeds should be at least 20. More
replicates of certain plants with low a germination rate or variable growth habits may be needed to increase
the statistical power of the test. If a larger number of test concentrations/rates are used, the number of
replicates may be reduced. If the NOEC is to be estimated, more replicates may be needed to obtain the
desired statistical power (23).

Observations

29. During the observation period, i.e. 14 to 21 days after 50 % of the control plants (also solvent
controls if applicable) have emerged, the plants are observed frequently (at least weekly and if possible
daily) for emergence and visual phytotoxicity and mortality. At the end of the test, measurement of
percent emergence and biomass of surviving plants should be recorded, as well as visible detrimental
effects on different parts of the plant. The latter include abnormalities in appearance of the emerged
seedlings, stunted growth, chloris, discoloration, mortality, and effects on plant development. The final
biomass can be measured using final average dry shoot weight of surviving plants, by harvesting the shoot
at the soil surface and drying them to constant weight at 60o C. Alternatively, the final biomass can be
measured using fresh shoot weight. The height of the shoot may be another endpoint, if required by
regulatory authorities. A uniform scoring system for visual injury should be used to evaluate the

6/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
observable toxic responses. Examples for performing qualitative and quantitative visual ratings are
provided in references (23) (24).

DATA AND REPORTING

Statistical analysis

Single concentration/rate test

30. Data for each plant species should be analyzed using an appropriate statistical method (21). The
level of effect at the test concentration/rate should be reported, or the lack of reaching a given effect at the
test concentration/rate (e.g., <x % effect observed at y concentration or rate).

Multiple concentration/rate test

31. A dose-response relationship is established in terms of a regression equation. Different models

can be used: for example, for estimating ECx or ERx (e.g. EC25, ER25, EC50, ER50) and its confidence limits
for emergence as quantal data, logit, probit, Weibull, Spearman-Karber, trimmed Spearman-Karber
methods, etc. could be appropriate. For the growth of the seedlings (weight and height) as continuous
endpoints ECx or ERx and its confidence limits can be estimated by using appropriate regression analysis
(e.g. Bruce-Versteeg non-linear regression analysis (25)). Wherever possible, the R2 should be 0.7 or
higher for the most sensitive species and the test concentrations/rates used encompass 20% to 80% effects.
If the NOEC is to be estimated, application of powerful statistical tests should be preferred and these
should be selected on the basis of data distribution (21) (26).

Test report

32. The test report should present results of the studies as well as a detailed description of test
conditions, a thorough discussion of results, analysis of the data, and the conclusions drawn from the
analysis. A tabular summary and abstract of results should be provided. The report must include the
following:

Test substance:

- chemical identification data, relevant properties of the substance tested (e.g. log Pow, water
solubility, vapour pressure and information on environmental fate and behaviour, if
available);
- details on preparation of the test solution and verification of test concentrations as specified
in paragraph 18.

Test species:

- details of the test organism: species/variety, plant families, scientific and common names,
source and history of the seed as detailed as possible (i.e. name of the supplier, percentage
germination, seed size class, batch or lot number, seed year or growing season collected,
date of germination rating), viability, etc.;
- number of mono- and di-cotyledon species tested;
- rationale for selecting the species;
- description of seed storage, treatment and maintenance.

7/21
208 OECD/OCDE

Test conditions:

- testing facility (e.g. growth chamber, phytotron and greenhouse);

- description of test system (e.g., pot dimensions, pot material and amounts of soil);
- soil characteristics (texture or type of soil: soil particle distribution and classification, physical
and chemical properties including % organic matter, % organic carbon and pH);
- soil/substrate (e.g. soil, artificial soil, sand and others) preparation prior to test;
- description of nutrient medium if used;
- application of the test substance: description of method of application, description of
equipment, exposure rates and volumes including chemical verification, description of
calibration method and description of environmental conditions during application;
- growth conditions: light intensity (e.g. PAR, photosynthetically active radiation), photoperiod,
max/min temperatures, watering schedule and method, fertilization;
- number of seeds per pot, number of plants per dose, number of replicates (pots) per exposure
rate;
- type and number of controls (negative and/or positive controls, solvent control if used);
- duration of the test.

Results:

- table of all endpoints for each replicate, test concentration/rate and species;
- the number and percent emergence as compared to controls;
- biomass measurements (shoot dry weight or fresh weight) of the plants as percentage of the
controls;
- shoot height of the plants as percentage of the controls, if measured;
- percent visual injury and qualitative and quantitative description of visual injury (chlorosis,
necrosis, wilting, leaf and stem deformation, as well as, any lack of effects) by the test
substance as compared to control plants;
- description of the rating scale used to judge visual injury, if visual rating is provided;
- for single rate studies, the percent injury should be reported;
- ECx or ERx (e.g. EC50, ER50, EC25, ER25) values and related confidence limits. Where
regression analysis is performed, provide the standard error for the regression equation, and
the standard error for individual parameter estimate (e.g. slope, intercept);
- NOEC (and LOEC) values if calculated;
- description of the statistical procedures and assumptions used;
- graphical display of these data and dose-response relationship of the species tested.

Deviations from the procedures described in this guideline and any unusual occurrences during
the test.

8/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
LITERATURE

(1) Schrader G., Metge K., and Bahadir M. (1998). Importance of salt ions in ecotoxicological tests
with soil arthropods. Applied Soil Ecology, 7, 189-193.

(2) International Organisation of Standards. (1993). ISO 11269-1. Soil Quality -- Determination of
the Effects of Pollutants on Soil Flora – Part 1: Method for the Measurement of Inhibition of
Root Growth.

(3) International Organisation of Standards. (1995). ISO 11269-2. Soil Quality -- Determination of
the Effects of Pollutants on Soil Flora – Part 2: Effects of Chemicals on the Emergence and
Growth of Higher Plants.

(4) American Standard for Testing Material (ASTM). (2002). E 1963-98. Standard Guide for
Conducting Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Tests.

(5) U.S. EPA. (1982). FIFRA, 40CFR, Part 158.540. Subdivision J, Parts 122-1 and 123-1.

(6) US EPA. (1996). OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines, Series 850. Ecological Effects Test
Guidelines:
- 850.4000: Background - Non-target Plant Testing;
- 850.4025: Target Area Phytotoxicity;
- 850.4100: Terrestrial Plant Toxicity, Tier I (Seedling Emergence);
- 850.4200: Seed Germination/Root Elongation Toxicity Test;
- 850.4225: Seedling Emergence, Tier II;
- 850.4230: Early Seedling Growth Toxicity Test.

(7) AFNOR, X31-201. (1982). Essai d’inhibition de la germination de semences par une substance.
AFNOR X31-203/ISO 11269-1. (1993) Determination des effets des polluants sur la flore du sol:
Méthode de mesurage de l’inhibition de la croissance des racines.

(8) Boutin, C., Freemark, K.E. and Keddy, C.J. (1993). Proposed guidelines for registration of
chemical pesticides: Non-target plant testing and evaluation. Technical Report Series No.145.
Canadian Wildlife Service (Headquarters), Environment Canada, Hull, Québec, Canada.

(9) Forster, R., Heimbach, U., Kula, C., and Zwerger, P. (1997). Effects of Plant Protection Products
on Non-Target Organisms - A contribution to the Discussion of Risk Assessment and Risk
Mitigation for Terrestrial Non-Target Organisms (Flora and Fauna). Nachrichtenbl. Deut.
Pflanzenschutzd. No 48.

(10) Hale, B., Hall, J.C., Solomon, K., and Stephenson, G. (1994). A Critical Review of the Proposed
Guidelines for Registration of Chemical Pesticides; Non-Target Plant Testing and Evaluation,
Centre for Toxicology, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada.

(11) Soil Texture Classification (US and FAO systems): Weed Science, 33, Suppl. 1 (1985) and Soil
Sc. Soc. Amer. Proc. 26:305 (1962).

(12) Audus, L.J. (1964). Herbicide behaviour in the soil. In: Audus, L.J. ed. The Physiology and
biochemistry of Herbicides, London, New York, Academic Press, NY, Chapter 5, pp. 163-206.

9/21
208 OECD/OCDE

(13) Beall, M.L., Jr. and Nash, R.G. (1969). Crop seedling uptake of DDT, dieldrin, endrin, and
heptachlor from soil, J. Agro. 61:571-575.

(14) Beetsman, G.D., Kenney, D.R. and Chesters, G. (1969). Dieldrin uptake by corn as affected by
soil properties, J. Agro. 61:247-250.

(15) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1987). Environmental Assessment Technical
Handbook. Environmental Assessment Technical Assistance Document 4.07, Seedling Growth,
14 pp., FDA, Washington, DC.

(16) McKelvey, R.A., Wright, J.P., Honegger, J.L. and Warren, L.W. (2002). A Comparison of Crop
and Non-crop Plants as Sensitive Indicator Species for Regulatory Testing. Pest Management
Science vol. 58:1161-1174

(17) Boutin, C.; Elmegaard, N. and Kjær, C. (2004). Toxicity testing of fifteen non-crop plant species
with six herbicides in a greenhouse experiment: Implications for risk assessment. Ecotoxicology
vol. 13(4): 349-369.

(18) Boutin, C., and Rogers, C.A. (2000). Patterns of sensitivity of plant species to various herbicides
– An analysis with two databases. Ecotoxicology vol.9(4):255-271.

(19) Boutin, C. and Harper, J.L. (1991). A comparative study of the population dynamics of five
species of Veronica in natural habitats. J. Ecol. 9:155-271.

(20) Boutin, C., Lee, H.-B., Peart, T.E., Batchelor, S.P. and Maguire, R.J. . (2000). Effects of the
sulfonylurea herbicide metsulfuron methyl on growth and reproduction of five wetland and
terrestrial plant species. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 19 (10): 2532-2541.

(21) OECD Series on Testing and Assessment. (2005 draft). Current Approaches in the Statistical
Analysis of Ecotoxicity Data: A Guidance to Application, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, Paris.

(22) Hatzios, K.K. and Penner, D. (1985). Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in
higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1-63.

(23) Hamill, P.B., Marriage, P.B. and G. Friesen. (1977). A method for assessing herbicide
performance in small plot experiments. Weed Science 25:386-389.

(24) Frans, R.E. and Talbert, R.E. (1992). Design of field experiments and the measurement and
analysis of plant response. In: B. Truelove (Ed.) Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd ed.
Southern weed Science Society, Auburn, 15-23.

(25) Bruce, R.D. and Versteeg, D. J.(1992). A Statistical Procedure for Modelling Continuous
Toxicity Data. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11, 1485-1492.

(26) OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals (2004). 222: Earthworm Reproduction Test
(Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Paris.

10/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
ANNEX 1

DEFINITIONS

Active ingredient (a.i.) (or active substance (a.s.)) is a material designed to provide a specific biological
effect (e.g., insect control, plant disease control, weed control in the treatment area), also known as
technical grade active ingredient, active substance.

Crop Protection Products (CPPs) or plant protection product (PPPs) or pesticides are materials with a
specific biological activity used intentionally to protect crops from pests (e.g., fungal diseases, insects and
competitive plants).

ECx. x% Effect Concentration or ERx. x% Effect Rate is the concentration or the rate that results in an
undesirable change or alteration of x% in the test endpoint being measured relative to the control (e.g., 25%
or 50% reduction in seedling emergence, shoot weight, final number of plants present, or increase in visual
injury would constitute an EC25/ER25 or EC50/ER50 respectively).

Emergence is the appearance of the coleoptile or cotyledon above the soil surface.

Formulation is the commercial formulated product containing the active substance (active ingredient),
also known as final preparation1 or typical end-use product (TEP).

LOEC (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration) is the lowest concentration of the test substance at
which effect was observed. In this test, the concentration corresponding to the LOEC, has a statistically
significant effect (p < 0.05) within a given exposure period when compared to the control, and is higher
than the NOEC value.

Non-target plants: Those plants that are outside the target plant area. For crop protection products, this
usually refers to plants outside the treatment area.

NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) is the highest concentration of the test substance at which no
effect was observed. In this test, the concentration corresponding to the NOEC, has no statistically significant
effect (p < 0.05) within a given exposure period when compared with the control.

Phytotoxicity: Detrimental deviations (by measured and visual assessments) from the normal pattern of
appearance and growth of plants in response to a given substance.

Replicate is the experimental unit which represents the control group and/or treatment group. In these
studies, the pot is defined as the replicate.

Visual assessment: Rating of visual damage based on observations of plant stand, vigour, malformation,
chlorosis, necrosis, and overall appearance compared with a control.

1
Final Preparation: The formulated product containing the active substance (active ingredient) sold in commerce.

11/21
208 OECD/OCDE

ANNEX 2

LIST OF SPECIES HISTORICALLY USED IN PLANT TESTING

Family Species Common names

DICOTYLEDONAE

Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) Daucus carota Carrot

Asteraceae (Compositae) Helianthus annuus Sunflower
Asteraceae (Compositae) Lactuca sativa Lettuce
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Sinapis alba White Mustard
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Brassica campestris var. chinensis Chinese cabbage
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Brassica napus Oilseed rape
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Brassica oleracea var. capitata Cabbage
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Brassica rapa Turnip
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Lepidium sativum Garden cress
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Raphanus sativus Radish
Chenopodiaceae Beta vulgaris Sugar beet
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis sativus Cucumber
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Glycine max (G. soja) Soybean
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Phaseolus aureus Mung bean
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Phaseolus vulgaris Dwarf bean, French bean, Garden
bean
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Pisum sativum Pea
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Trigonella foenum-graecum Fenugreek
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Trifolium pratense Red Clover
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Vicia sativa Vetch
Linaceae Linum usitatissimum Flax
Polygonaceae Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat
Solanaceae Solanum lycopersicon Tomato

MONOCOTYLEDONAE

Liliaceae (Amarylladaceae) Allium cepa Onion

Poaceae (Gramineae) Avena sativa Oats
Poaceae (Gramineae) Hordeum vulgare Barley
Poaceae (Gramineae) Lolium perenne Perennial ryegrass
Poaceae (Gramineae) Oryza sativa Rice
Poaceae (Gramineae) Secale cereale Rye
Poaceae (Gramineae) Sorghum bicolor Grain sorghum, Shattercane
Poaceae (Gramineae) Triticum aestivum Wheat
Poaceae (Gramineae) Zea mays Corn

12/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
ANNEX 3

LIST OF POTENATIAL NON_CROP SPECIES

13/21
208 OECD/OCDE
Annex 3. OECD Potential Species for Plant Toxicity Testing. NOTE: The following table provides information for 52 non-crop species (references are given in brackets for each entry). Emergence rates provided are from
published literature and are for general guidance only. Individual experience may vary depending upon seed source and other factors.
1
FAMILY Lifespan & Habitat Seed Photoperiod Planting Time to Special Toxicity Seed Other
5 6 7 8
Species Botanical Name Weight for germination Depth Germinate Treatments Test Suppliers References
2 3 4
(English Common Name) (mg) or growth (mm) (days)
APIACEAE
Torilis japonica A, B 1.7 - 1.9 L=D 0 5 (50%) cold stratification (7, 14, 18, 19) POST
(Japanese Hedge-parsley) disturbed areas, (14, 19) (14) (1, 19) (19) maturation may be necessary (19) (5)
hedgerows, pastures germination inhibited by darkness (1, 19)
(16, 19) no special treatments (5)
ASTERACEAE
Bellis perennis P 0.09 - 0.17 L=D 0 3 (50%) (19) germination not affected by irradiance (18, 19) POST A, D, F 7
(English Daisy) grassland, arable fields, (4, 19) (14) (4) 11 (100%) (18) no special treatments (4, 14) (4)
turf (16, 19)
Centaurea cyanus A 4.1 - 4.9 L=D 0-3 14 - 21 (100%) no special treatments (2, 4) POST A, D, E, F 7
(Cornflower) fields, roadsides, (4, 14) (14) (2, 4, 14) (14) (2, 4)
open habitats (16)
Centaurea nigra P 2.4 - 2.6 L=D 0 3 (50%) (19) maturation may be necessary (18, 19) POST A
(Black Knapweed) fields, roadsides, (14, 19) (14) (19) 4 (97%) (18) germination inhibited by darkness (19) (5, 22, 26)
open habitats (16, 19) no special treatments (5, 14, 26)
Inula helenium P 1 - 1.3 0 no special treatments (4) POST A, F
Elecampane moist, disturbed sites (4, 14, 29) (4, 29) (4)
(16)
Leontodon hispidus P 0.85 - 1.2 L=D 0 4 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (17, 18, 19) POST
(Big Hawkbit) fields, roadsides, (14, 19) (14) (19) 7 (80%) (18) no special treatments (5, 23) (5, 22, 23)
disturbed areas (16, 19)
Rudbeckia hirta B, P 0.3 L=D 0 < 10 (100%) no special treatments POST C, D, E, F
(Black-eyed Susan) disturbed (4, 14) (14) (4, 33) (33) (4, 14, 33) (4, 33)
(16)
Solidago canadensis P 0.06 - 0.08 L=D 0 14 - 21 mix with equal part sand and POST E, F
Canada Goldenrod pasture, open areas (4, 14) (11) (4) (11) soak in 500ppm GA for 24 hrs (11) (4)
(16) no special treatments (4)
Xanthium pensylvanicum A 25 - 61 0 (1) germination may be inhibited by darkness (1) PRE & POST A
(Common Cocklebur) fields, open habitats (14, 29) 5 (29) soak in warm water for 12 hrs (29) (31)
(16)
Xanthium spinosum A 200 L = D (14) 10 scarification (14) PRE & POST A
(Spiny Cocklebur) open habitats (14) L > D (6) (6) no special treatments (6) (6)
(16)
Xanthium strumarium A 67.4 L=D 10 - 20 no special treatments PRE & POST A
(Italian Cocklebur) fields, open habitats (14) (14) (6, 21) (6, 14, 21) (6, 21, 28, 31)
(16)
BRASSICACEAE
Cardamine pratensis P 0.6 L=D 0 5 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (18, 19) POST F
(Cuckoo Flower) fields, roadsides, turf (14, 19) (14) (19) 15 (98%) (18) no special treatments (5, 14, 22) (5, 22)
(16, 19)
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
Lychnis flos-cuculi P 0.21 L=D < 14 (100%) maturation may be necessary (18) POST F
(Ragged Robin) (16) (14) (14) (14, 25) no special treatments (5, 14, 15, 22-26) (5, 15, 22-26)
CHENOPODIACEAE
Chenopodium album A 0.7 - 1.5 L=D 0 2 (50%) treatment differs depending on seed colour (19) PRE & POST A 32
(Lamb's Quarters) field margins, (14, 19, 34) (14) (1, 19) (19) dry storage dormancy (19) (28, 31, 34)
disturbed areas (16, 19) germination inhibited by darkness (1, 18, 19)
cold stratification (18)
no special treatments (14, 34)

14/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
CLUSIACEAE
Hypericum perforatum P 0.1 - 0.23 L=D 0 3 (19) germination inhibited by darkness (1, 18, 19) POST A, E, F
(Common St. John's Wort) fields, arable land, (14, 19) (14) (1, 19) 11 (90%) (18) no special treatments (5, 14, 15, 25, 27) (5, 15, 25, 27)
open habitats (16, 19)
CONVOLVULACEAE
Ipomoea hederacea A 28.2 L>D 10 - 20 4 (100%) germination not affected by irradiance (1) PRE & POST A
(Purple Morning Glory) roadsides, open habitats, (14) (6, 10) (6, 10, 21) (10) no special treatments (6, 21) (6, 12, 21, 28)
corn fields (16)
CYPERACEAE
Cyperus rotundus P 0.2 L=D 0 (1) 12 (91%) germination inhibited by darkness (1) PRE & POST B 7
(Purple Nutsedge) arable land, pastures, (14) (14) 10-20 (6, 10) (10) no special treatments (6, 10, 14) (6, 28, 31)
roadsides (16, 30)
FABACEAE
Lotus corniculatus P 1 - 1.67 L=D 1 (50%) scarification (14, 19) POST A, D, E, F
(Bird's-foot Trefoil) grassy areas, roadsides, (14, 19) (14) (19) germination not affected by irradiance (18, 19) (5, 23, 25)
open habitats (16, 19) no special treatments (23, 25)
Senna obtusifolia A 23 - 28 L = D (14) 10 - 20 soak seeds in water for 24 hours (9) POST A
(Cassia , Sicklepod) moist woods (9) L > D (9) (6, 9) scarification (14) (6, 9)
(16) seed viability differs depending on colour (1)
no special treatments (6)
Sesbania exaltata A 11 - 13 L>D 10 - 20 soak seeds in water for 24 hours (9) PRE & POST A
(Hemp) alluvial soil (9, 14) (9) (9, 21) germination not affected by irradiance (1) (9, 21, 28, 31)
(16) no special treatments (21)
Trifolium pratense P 1.4 - 1.7 L=D 1 (50%) scarification (14, 18) POST A, E, F
(Red Clover) fields, roadsides, (14, 19) (14) (19) may need maturation (19) (5)
arable land (16, 19) germination not affected by irradiance (1, 19)
no special treatments (5)
LAMIACEAE
Leonurus cardiaca P 0.75 - 1.0 L=D 0 no special treatments POST F
(Motherwort) open areas (4, 14) (14) (4) (4, 14) (4)
(16)
Mentha spicata P 2.21 0 no special treatments POST F
(Spearmint) moist areas (4) (4) (4) (4)
(16)
Nepeta cataria P 0.54 L=D 0 no special treatments POST F
(Catnip) disturbed areas (4, 14) (14) (4) (2, 4, 14) (2, 4)
(16)
Prunella vulgaris P 0.58 - 1.2 L=D 0 5 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (18, 19) POST A, F
(Self-heal) arable fields, grassy areas, (4, 14, 19) (14) (4, 19) 7 (91%) (18) greater germination with larger seeds (1) (4, 22)
disturbed sites (16, 19) no special treatments (4, 14, 22)
Stachys officinalis P 14 - 18 L=D 7 (50%) no special treatments POST F
(Hedge-nettle) grasslands, field margins (14, 19) (14) (19) (5, 14, 22) (5, 22)
(19)
MALVACEAE
Abutilon theophrasti A 8.8 L=D 10 - 20 4 (84%) scarification (14) PRE & POST A, F
(Velvetleaf) fields, open habitats (14) (14) (6, 10, 21) (10) no special treatments (5, 10, 21) (6, 22, 28, 31)
(16)
Sida spinosa A 3.8 L=D 10 - 20 scarification (14) PRE & POST A, F
(Prickly Sida) fields, roadsides (14) (14) (6, 21) germination not affected by irradiance (1) (6, 21, 28, 31)
(16) no special treatments (6, 21)
PAPAVERACEAE
Papaver rhoeas A 0.1 - 0.3 L=D 0 4 (50%) cold stratification & scarification (1, 19, 32) POST A, D, E, F, G
(Poppy) fields, arable land, (4, 14, 19, 29) (14) (4, 29) (19) no special treatments (4, 14, 29) (4)
disturbed sites (16, 19)

15/21
208 OECD/OCDE
POACEAE
Agrostis tenuis lawns, pastures 0.07 L>D 20 10 (62%) germination inhibited by darkness (1, 17-19) POST A, E
(Common Bentgrass) (16) (14) (10) (10) (10) no special treatments (10) (10)
Alopecurus myosuroides A 0.9 - 1.6 L=D 2 < 24 (30%) scarification (14) PRE & POST A 32
(Foxtail) fields, open habitats (29, 34) (14) (29) (34) treat with 101 mg/L KNO3 (14) (28, 34)
(16) warm stratification (1)
germination inhibited by darkness (1)
no special treatments (34)
Avena fatua A 7 - 37.5 L = D (14) 10 - 20 3 (70%) scarification (7, 32) PRE & POST A
(Wild Oats) cultivated areas, (14, 30) L > D (6) (6, 10) (18) darkness inhibits germination (1) (6, 10, 28, 31)
open habitats (16) cold stratification (1, 18)
no special treatments (6, 10, 14)
Bromus tectorum A 0.45 - 2.28 L=D 3 maturation period (1, 7, 32) PRE & POST A
(Downy Brome) fields, roadsides, (14, 29) (14) (29) germination inhibited by light (1) (28, 31)
arable land (16) no special treatments (14)
Cynosurus cristatus P 0.5 - 0.7 L=D 0 3 (50%) germination not affected by irradiance (19) POST A
(Dog's-tail Grass) fields, roadsides, (14, 19, 29) (14) (29) (19) no special treatments (14, 29) (5)
open habitats (16, 19)
Digitaria sanguinalis A 0.52 - 0.6 L=D 10 - 20 7 (75%) scarification, cold stratification, & maturation (1, 7, 14, 32) PRE & POST A
(Crabgrass) fields, turf, (14, 30) (14) (21) 14 (94%) treat with 101 mg/L KNO3 (14) (18, 25, 31)
open habitats (16) (7) germination inhibited by darkness (1)
no special treatments (21)
Echinochloa crusgalli A 1.5 L = D (14) 10 - 20 scarification (7, 32) PRE & POST A
(Barnyard Grass) (16) (14) L > D (3) (7, 21) germination not affected by irradiance (1) (3, 21, 28, 31)
no special treatments (3, 14, 21)
Elymus canadensis P 4-5 L=D 1 14 - 28 no special treatments POST C, D, E
(Canada Wild Rye) riparian, disturbed sites (14, 30) (11) (11) (11) (2, 11) (2)
(16)
Festuca pratensis P 1.53 - 2.2 L = D (14) 20 9 (74%) (10) no special treatments POST A 7
(Fescue) fields, moist areas (16, 19) L > D (10) (10) 2 (50%) (19) (10, 19) (10)
(16, 19)
Hordeum pusillum A 3.28 warm stratification (1) PRE 7
(Little Barley) pastures, roadsides, (14) germination not affected by irradiance (1) (31)
open habitats (16)
Phleum pratense P 0.45 L>D 0 - 10 2 (74%) (10) germination inhibited by darkness (19) POST A, E
(Timothy) pastures, arable fields, (14, 19) (10, 14) (10, 19) 8 (50%) (19) germination not affected by irradiance (17) (10)
disturbed sites (16, 19) no special treatments (10, 14, 17, 19)
POLYGONACEAE
Polygonum convolvulus A 5-8 L=D 0-2 cold stratification for 4 - 8 weeks (1, 2, 4, 20, 29) PRE & POST A 32
(Black Bindweed) open habitats, (4, 14, 29) (20) (4, 29) germination not affected by irradiance (1) (1, 2, 20, 28, 31)
roadsides (16)
Polygonum lapathifolium A 1.8 - 2.5 L>D 5 (94%) germination not affected by irradiance (1) PRE & POST A, E
(Pale Persicaria) moist soil (14) (6) (18) germination inhibited by darkness (18) (6)
(16) cold stratification (1)
no special treatments (5)
Polygonum pennsylvanicum A 3.6 - 7 2 cold stratification for 4 wks at 0 - 5oC (1, 29) PRE A, E
(Pennsylvania Smartweed) fields, open habitats (14, 29) (29) germination inhibited by darkness (1) (31)
(16)
Polygonum periscaria A 2.1 - 2.3 L>D 0 < 14 (13) scarification, cold stratification, GA treatment (14) POST A 32
(Smartweed) disturbed areas, (14, 19) (13) (19) 2 (50%) (19) cold stratification, maturation (17-19) (13)
arable land (16, 19) germination inhibited by darkness (19)
no special treatments (13)
Rumex crispus P 1.3 - 1.5 L=D 0 3 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (18, 19) POST A, E 32
(Curly Dock) arable fields, roadsides (4, 14, 19) (14, 33) (4, 19, 33) 6 (100%) (33) maturation may be necessary (18) (4, 33)
open areas (16, 19) no special treatments (4, 14, 33)

16/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
PRIMULACEAE
Anagallis arvensis A 0.4 - 0.5 L=D 1 (50%) cold stratification, GA treatment (1,14, 18, 19, 32) POST A, F
(Scarlett Pimpernel) arable fields, open areas, (4, 14, 19) (14) (19) light required for germination (1) (2, 4)
disturbed sites (16, 19) no special treatments (2, 4)
RANUNCULACEAE
Ranunculus acris P 1.5 - 2 L=D 1 41 - 56 no special treatments POST 32
(Common Buttercup) arable fields, roadsides, (14, 19, 29) (14) (29) (19, 29) (5, 14, 22, 24 - 26) (5, 22, 24-26)
open areas (16, 19)
ROSACEAE
Geum urbanum P 0.8 - 1.5 L=D 0 5 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (18, 19) POST A
(Yellow Avens) hedgerows, moist areas (14, 19) (14) (19) 16 (79%) (18) warm stratification (1) (5, 22, 25, 26)
(16, 19) no special treatments (5, 14, 22, 25, 26)
RUBIACEAE
Galium aparine A 7-9 L=D 5 (50%) (19) cold stratification (1, 18, 19) PRE & POST A 32
(Cleavers) arable fields, moist areas, (14, 19) (14) 6 (100%) (18) germination not affected by irradiance (18, 19) (6, 28)
disturbed sites (16, 19) light inhibits germination (1)
no special treatments (6, 14)
Galium mollugo P 7 L=D 2 no special treatments POST A
(Hedge Bedstraw) hedgebanks, (29) (14) (29) (5, 14, 22, 24, 26, 29) (5, 22, 24, 26)
open areas (8)
SCROPHULARIACEAE
Digitalis purpurea B, P 0.1 - 0.6 L=D 0 6 (50%) (19) germination inhibited by darkness (1, 17-19) POST D, G, F
(Foxglove) hedgerows, (4, 14, 19) (14) (4, 19) 8 (99%) (18) no special treatments (4, 22-26) (4, 22 - 26)
open areas (16, 19)
Veronica persica A 0.5 - 0.6 L=D 0 3 (19) germination inhibited by darkness (18, 19) PRE & POST A 32
(Speedwell) arable fields, open areas, (14, 19) (14) (19) 5 (96%) (18) cold stratification (18) (28)
disturbed sites (16, 19) no special treatments (14)

1
A = Annuals, B = Biennials, P = Perennials.
2
References 11, 14 and 33 refer to proportion of light (L) and darkness (D) required to induce seed germination. References 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 20 refer to growing conditions in greenhouses.
3
0 mm indicates seeds were sown on the soil surface or that seeds need light to germinate.
4
The numbers provided represent the number of days in which a percent of seeds germinated according to provided reference, e.g., 3 days (50%) germination (reference 19).
5
Duration of maturation and or stratification not always available. Except for cold treatment requirements, temperature conditions are not specified since in greenhouse testing there is limited temperature control.
Most seeds will germinate under normal fluctuation of temperatures found in greenhouses.
6
Indicates species was utilized in either a pre-emergence (PRE) and/or post-emergence (POST) plant toxicity test involving herbicides.
7
Provides example(s) of commercial seed suppliers.
8
Provides two alternative reference(s) that were consulted.

17/21
208 OECD/OCDE

Seed Suppliers Cited

Supplier ID Supplier
Information

A Herbiseed
New Farm, Mire Lane, West End, Twyford RG10 0NJ ENGLAND
+44 (0) 1189 349 464
www.herbiseed.com

B Tropilab Inc.
8240 Ulmerton Road, Largo, FL 33771-3948 USA
(727) 344 - 4050
www.tropilab.com

C Pterophylla - Native Plants & Seeds

#316 Regional Road 60, RR#1, Walsingham, ON N0E 1X0 CANADA
(519) 586 - 3985

D Applewood Seed Co.

5380 Vivian St., Arvada, CO 80002 USA
(303) 431 - 7333
www.applewoodseed.com

E Ernst Conservation Seeds

9006 Mercer Pike, Meadville, PA 16335 USA
(800) 873 - 3321
www.ernstseed.com

F Chiltern Seeds
Bortree Stile, Ulverston, Cumbria LA12 7PB ENGLAND
+44 1229 581137
www.chilternseeds.co.uk

G Thompson & Morgan

P.O. Box 1051, Fort Erie, ON L2A 6C7 CANADA
(800) 274 - 7333
www.thompson-morgan.com

References Cited

1. Baskin, C.C. & Baskin, J.M. 1998. Seeds. Academic Press, Toronto

2. Blackburn, L.G. & Boutin, C. 2003. Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically
modified crops: a case study with glyphosate (Round-Up®). Ecotoxicology, 12:271-285.

3. Boutin, C., Lee, H-B., Peart, T., Batchelor, P.S., & Maguire, R.J. 2000. Effects of the
sulfonylurea herbicide metsulfuron methyl on growth and reproduction of five wetland and
terrestrial plant species. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 19(10):2532-2541.

4. Boutin, C., Elmegaard, N., & Kjaer, C. 2004. Toxicity testing of fifteen non-crop plant species
with six herbicides in a greenhouse experiment: implications for risk assessment. Ecotoxicology,
13:349-369.

18/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
5. Breeze, V., Thomas, G., & Butler, R. 1992. Use of a model and toxicity data to predict the risks
to some wild plant species from drift of four herbicides. Annals of Applied Biology, 121:669-677.

6. Brown, R.A., & Farmer, D. 1991. Track-sprayer and glasshouse techniques for terrestrial plant
bioassays with pesticides. In: Plants for toxicity assessment: 2nd volume. ASTM STP 1115, J.W.
Gorsuch, W.R. Lower, W.Wang, & M.A. Lewis, eds. American Society for Testing & Materials,
Philadelphia. pp 197 – 208.

7. Buhler, D.D. & Hoffman, M.L. 1999. Anderson’s guide to practical methods of propagating
weeds and other plants. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, K.

8. Clapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G., & Warburg, E.F. 1981. Excursion flora of the British Isles, 3rd ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

9. Clay, P.A. & Griffin, J.L. 2000. Weed seed production and seedling emergence response to late-
season glyphosate applications. Weed Science, 48:481-486.

10. Cole, J.F.H. & Canning, L. 1993. Rationale for the choice of species in the regulatory testing of
the effects of pesticides on terrestrial non-target plants. BCPC – Weeds. pp. 151 – 156.

11. Fiely, M. (Ernst Conservation Seeds). 2004. Personal communication.

(http://www.ernstseed.com)

12. Fletcher, J.S., Johnson, F.L., & McFarlane, J.C. 1990. Influence of greenhouse versus field
testing and taxonomic differences on plant sensitivity to chemical treatment. Environmental
Toxicology & Chemistry, 9:769-776.

13. Fletcher, J.S., Pfleeger, T.G., Ratsch, H.C., & Hayes, R. 1996. Potential impact of low levels of
chlorsulfuron and other herbicides on growth and yield of nontarget plants. Environmental
Toxicology & Chemistry, 15(7):1189-1196.

14. Flynn, S., Turner, R.M., and Dickie, J.B. 2004. Seed Information Database (release 6.0, Oct
2004) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/data/sid

15. Franzaring, J., Kempenaar, C., & van der Eerden, L.J.M. 2001. Effects of vapours of
chlorpropham and ethofumesate on wild plant species. Environmental Pollution, 114:21-28.

16. Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and
adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY

17. Grime, J.P. 1981. The role of seed dormancy in vegetation dynamics. Annals of Applied Biology,
98:555-558.

18. Grime, J.P., Mason, G., Curtis, A.V., Rodman, J., Band, S.R., Mowforth, M.A.G., Neal, A.M., &
Shaw, S. 1981. A comparative study of germination characteristics in a local flora. Journal of
Ecology, 69:1017-1059.

19. Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G., & Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach
to common British species. Unwin Hyman Ltd., London

19/21
208 OECD/OCDE

20. Kjaer, C. 1994. Sublethal effects of chlorsulfuron on black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus
L.). Weed Research, 34:453-459.

21. Klingaman, T.E., King, C.A., & Oliver, L.R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and
weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Science, 40:227-232.

22. Marrs, R.H., Williams, C.T., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A. 1989. Assessment of the effects of
herbicide spray drift on a range of plant species of conservation interest. Environmental Pollution,
59:71-86.

23. Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A. 1991. Effects of herbicide spray drift on selected species
of nature conservation interest: the effects of plant age and surrounding vegetation structure.
Environmental Pollution, 69:223-235.

24. Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A. 1991. Effects of mecoprop drift on some plant species of
conservation interest when grown in standardized mixtures in microcosms. Environmental
Pollution, 73:25-42.

25. Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., Plant, R.A., & Lunnis, P. 1993. Determination of buffer zones to protect
seedlings of non-target plants from the effects of glyphosate spray drift. Agriculture, Ecosystems,
& Environment, 45:283-293.

26. Marrs, R.H. & Frost, A.J. 1997. A microcosm approach to detection of the effects of herbicide
spray drift in plant communities. Journal of Environmental Management, 50:369-388.

27. Marshall, E.J.P. & Bernie, J.E. 1985. Herbicide effects on field margin flora. BCPC – Weeds.
pp. 1021-1028.

28. McKelvey, R.A., Wright, J.P., & Honegger, J.L. 2002. A comparison of crop and non-crop plants
as sensitive species for regulatory testing. Pest Management Science, 58:1161-1174.

29. Morton, S. (Herbiseed). 2004. Personal communication. (http://www.herbiseed.com)

30. USDA, NRCS. 2004. The Plants Database, version 3.5. (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant
Data Centre, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA

31. USEPA. 1999. One-Liner Database. [U.S. E.P.A./Office of Pesticide Programs/Environmental

Fate and Effects Division/Environmental Epidemiology Branch].

32. Webster, R.H. 1979. Technical Report No. 56: Growing weeds from seeds and other propagules
for experimental purposes. Agricultural Research Council Weed Research Organization, Oxford.

33. White, A. L. & Boutin, C. (National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment Canada). 2004.
Personal communication.

34. Zwerger, P. & Pestemer, W. 2000. Testing the phytotoxic effects of herbicides on higher
terrestrial non-target plants using a plant life-cycle test. Z. PflKrankh. PflSchutz, Sonderh.,
17:711-718.

20/21
 OECD/OCDE 208
ANNEX 4

EXAMPLES FOR APPROPRIATE GROWTH CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN CROP SPECIES

The following conditions have been found suitable for 10 crop species, and can be used as a guidance for
tests in growth chambers with certain other species as well:

• Carbon dioxide concentration: 350 ± 50 ppm;

• Relative humidity: 70 ± 5 % during light periods and 90 ± 5 % during dark periods;

• Temperature: 25 ± 3 °C during the day, 20 ± 3 °C during the night;

• Photoperiod: 16 hour light/8 hour darkness, assuming an average wavelength of 400

to 700 nm;

• Light: luminance of 350 ± 50 µE/m2/s, measured at the top of the canopy.

The crop species are:

• tomato (Solanum lycopersicon);

• cucumber (Cucumis sativus);
• lettuce (Lactuca sativa);
• soybean (Glycine max);
• cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata);
• carrot (Daucus carota);
• oats (Avena sativa);
• perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne);
• corn (Zea mays);
• onion (Allium cepa).

21/21