FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE ...FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE, SMALL...

FIELD EVALUATIONSOF HERBICIDES ON

VEGETABLE, SMALL FRUIT,AND ORNAMENTAL CROPS,

2000, 2001, & 2002

Ron E. Talbert, Mike L. Lovelace,Eric F. Scherder, and Mayank S. Malik

A R K A N S A S A G R I C U LT U R A L E X P E R I M E N T S TAT I O NDivision of Agriculture University of Arkansas SystemOctober 2004 Research Series 519

NOTE: Research Series 519 is available only as an electronic publication on the World Wide Web siteof the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Communication Services Unit, at:

http://www.uark.edu/depts/agripub/Publications

Layout and editing by Marci Milus; technical editing and cover design by Cam Romund

Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas System’s Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville. Milo J. Shult, Vice President for Agriculture; Gregory J. Weidemann, Dean, Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences and Associate Vice President for Agriculture–Research, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture.QX6.1. The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture follows a nondiscriminatory policy in programs and employment. ISSN:1051-3140 CODEN:AKAMA6

This publication is available only on the Internet at www.uark.edu/depts/agripub/publications

Arkansas Agricultural Experiment StationFayetteville, Arkansas 72701

(a unit of the University of Arkansas System’s statewide Division of Agriculture)

FIELD EVALUATIONSOF HERBICIDES ON

VEGETABLE, SMALL FRUIT,AND ORNAMENTAL CROPS,

2000, 2001, AND 2002

Ron E. TalbertUniversity Professor

Mike L. LovelaceResearch Specialist

Eric F. ScherderResearch Specialist

Mayank S. MalikGraduate Assistant

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible in part by financial support through the IR-4 program in the Southernregion and Allen Canning Company. The following companies supplied herbicides used in theseexperiments: Aventis, BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC, Gowen, Monsanto, PlatteChemical, Syngenta, and Valent. Seed was supplied by Dr. Teddy Morelock, Allen Canning Company,and Alma Farm Supply. The financial and technical support received from these companies is alsoappreciated. Appreciation for assistance in these studies is extended to Dr. Teddy Morelock, Profes-sor, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; Dennis Motes, Resident Director, Steve Eaton and LarryMartin, Research Assistants, and the technicians of the Vegetable Substation, Kibler; and SteveBrown, William Russell, and Matt Kirkpatrick of Allen Canning Company.

CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 5General Materials and Methods............................................................................................................... 5Specific Methods and Results, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 6

Evaluation of Ornamental Plant Responses to Various Herbicides, Fayetteville ............................. 6Preemergence Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans, Fairview, Mo. ............................................... 6Postemergence Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans, Fairview, Mo. ............................................. 6Herbicide Evaluation in Southern Peas, Fayetteville ...................................................................... 7Herbicide Evaluation in Over-wintered Spinach, Kibler ................................................................ 7Herbicide Evaluation in Tomato, Fayetteville ................................................................................. 8Tables, 2000.................................................................................................................................... 9

Specific Methods and Results, 2001 ....................................................................................................... 22Evaluation of Clomazone Drift on Newly Established Native Pecans, Fayetteville ...................... 22Herbicide Evaluation in Watermelons and Effects of Herbicide Carryover to

Overwinter Spinach and Mustard Greens, Kibler ................................................................... 22Preemergence Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans, Lowell ........................................................ 23Postemergence Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans, Newtonia, Mo. .......................................... 23Herbicide Evaluation in Southern Peas and Effects of Herbicide Carryover to

Overwinter Spinach and Mustard Greens, Kibler ................................................................... 24Herbicide Evaluation in Over-wintered Spinach, Kibler .............................................................. 25Herbicide Evaluation in Winter Squash, Fayetteville .................................................................... 25Herbicide Evaluation in Sweet Potatoes, Newtonia, Mo. ............................................................. 25Evaluation of Metolachlor and Dimethenamid in Table Beets, Fayetteville .................................. 26Tables, 2001.................................................................................................................................. 28

Specific Methods and Results, 2002 ....................................................................................................... 44Evaluation of Ornamental Gourds, Fayetteville ............................................................................ 44Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans, Fayetteville ........................................................................ 44Evaluation of Herbicide Programs in Southern Peas, Kibler ........................................................ 44Herbicide Evaluation in Fall Greens, Kibler ................................................................................ 45Evaluation of S-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Table Beets, Fayetteville ........................... 45Herbicide Evaluation in Grapes, Fayetteville ............................................................................... 45Tables, 2002.................................................................................................................................. 46

FIELD EVALUATIONOF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE,

SMALL FRUIT, AND ORNAMENTAL CROPS,2000, 2001, AND 2002

R.E. Talbert, M.L. Lovelace, E.F. Scherder, and M.S. Malik1

INTRODUCTIONField evaluations of herbicides provide the chemi-

cal industry, governmental agencies, such as IR-4, andthe Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station with anevaluation of herbicide performance on small fruit, veg-etable, and ornamental crops grown under Arkansasconditions. This report provides a means for dissemi-nating information to interested private and public ser-vice weed scientists.

GENERAL MATERIALS ANDMETHODS

Experiments at the Arkansas Agricultural Researchand Extension Center (AAREC) in Fayetteville were con-ducted on southern pea, tomatoes, and ornamental spe-cies in 2000; table beets, winter squash, pecans, andornamentals in 2001; and table beets, ornamental gourds,snapbeans, and grapes in 2002. At the Vegetable Sub-station near Kibler, experiments were conducted on 2000-2001 over-wintered spinach. Experiments were also con-ducted on southern peas and watermelon in 2001, over-winter spinach in 2001-2002 and watermelon, southernpeas, southern greens, and overwinter spinach in 2002.Snap bean trials were conducted on a private farm nearFairview, Mo., in 2000, and near Lowell, Ark., andNewtonia, Mo. in 2001.

Trials at AAREC were conducted on a Captina siltloam with 1% organic matter and pH of 6.2. At the Veg-etable Substation at Kibler, trials were conducted on a

Roxana silt loam with 1% organic matter and pH of 6.9.Soil at the location near Lowell, Ark., was a Perridge siltloam with 0.5% organic matter and pH of 5.3. Tests atthe cooperator site near Fairview, MO, were conductedon a Gerald silt loam with 1% organic matter, and testsat Newtonia, MO, were conducted on a Newtonia siltloam with 1% organic matter and pH of 5.9.

The experimental design for all experiments was arandomized complete block with four replications, un-less stated otherwise. All liquid treatments were appliedin 187 L/ha (20 gal/A) of water. Liquid herbicides wereapplied with a hand-held, carbon-dioxide pressurizedsprayer. Granular herbicides were mixed with sand andapplied using a granular applicator to ensure proper cov-erage. Preemergence (PRE) treatments were applied tothe soil surface soon after planting and postemergence(POST) treatments were applied at various stages ofcrop growth after emergence. Environmental conditions ofair temperature (C); soil temperature (C) at 8 cm deep; soilsurface moisture as wet, moist, or dry; and percent relativehumidity (RH) were recorded at each application.

Percentage of weed control by species was visu-ally estimated: 0 represents no effect, and 100 repre-sents complete control. Ranges for weed control are asfollows: 70 to 79%, fair; 80 to 89%, good; and 90 to100%, excellent. Weed control less than 70% is consid-ered to be poor. Crop injury was assessed by visualestimation of percent injury: 0 represents no effect, and100 represents complete plant kill. Crop injury ratingsof less than 30% indicate crop tolerance. Crop yieldsare reported in metric tons per hectare unless stated oth-

1 All authors are affiliated with the Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Department.

6

AAES Research Series 519

erwise. Least Significant Difference (LSD) values at the0.05 level of significance were calculated for each set oftreatment means.

Pertinent experimental details and a summary ofresults of each experiment follows and tabulated resultsare shown in accompanying tables. Additional abbrevia-tions used in the tables are: cm, centimeter; COC, cropoil concentrate; cv, cultivar; fb, followed by; kg/ha, kilo-grams active ingredient per hectare; NS, not significant;pl, plants; TM, tank mix; V2, first trifoliolate stage oflegume; v/v, volume per volume; WA, wetting agent; wk,week(s); MT/ha, metric tons per hectare.

SPECIFIC METHODS AND RESULTS,2000

Evaluation of Ornamental Plant Responses toVarious Herbicides, Fayetteville, 2000 (Table 1,Field-Grown Ornamentals and Table 2, PottedField-Grown Ornamentals).

Flumioxazin (Valor) applied at 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 kg/ha was evaluated in established and potted liriope andEnglish ivy. Clopyralid (Stinger) was assessed on estab-lished liriope and euonymous at rates of 0.28, 0.56, and1.1 kg/ha. Napropamide (Devrinol) applied at 4.5, 9,and 18 kg/ha was evaluated on established cannas.Oxyfluorfen/pendimethalin (Rout 3G) applied at 3.4, 6.8,and 13.6 kg/ha were evaluated on potted cannas.Oxadiazon/pendimethalin (Kansel Plus) was assessed onpotted euonymous plants at 3.6, 7.3, and 11 kg/ha.

RESULTS: Some yellowing and leaf tip burn wasobserved on liriope plants treated with flumioxazin at0.8 kg/ha, but no injury was observed on English ivy atany herbicide rate. With clopyralid, some stunting andyellowing was observed on liriope plants and very littlediscoloration was observed on the euonymous plants.Napropamide at 18 kg/ha slightly stunted the cannas,and no noticeable injury was observed at 4.5 and 9 kg/ha. Oxyfluorfen/pendimethalin was slightly injurious atthe 13.6 kg/ha rate, only causing some minimal leaf burnto cannas and euonymous.

Preemergence Herbicide Evaluation in SnapBeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Fairview, Mo.,2000 (Table 3).

Snap beans (cv. Bush Blue Lake 156) were planted15 May 2000, in plots measuring 3 by 5.5 m with four

rows spaced 75 cm apart. PRE treatments were appliedtwo days after planting (air 26ºC; soil 27ºC, moist; RH78%). Weed control and crop injury evaluations weremade at 2, 4, and 7 wk after planting and yield datawere taken approximately 8 wk after planting. Weedspresent at this location included common lambsquarters(CHEAL), common ragweed (AMBEL), giant foxtail(SETFA), and Palmer amaranth (AMAPA).

RESULTS: PRE applications of lactofen orfomesafen at 0.22 kg/ha alone or TM with S-metolachlorat 0.75 kg/ha provided excellent season-long control ofthe weeds, while showing excellent snap bean safety(Table 1). Yields from these plots were also among thebest yielding treatments. PRE applications of flufenacetat 0.34 and 0.67 kg/ha also controlled the weeds presentand showed little snap bean injury. Flufenacet at 0.67kg/ha was the highest yielding treatment, while flufenacetat 0.34 was among the highest yielding treatments.Flumetsulam at 71 g/ha and diclosulam at 35 g/ha ap-plied PRE provided acceptable weed control, but causedsome injury to the snap beans. Injury from the diclosulamwas too excessive for the snap beans to recover, thusadversely affecting yield. Dimethenamid at 1.12 kg/haPRE provided excellent weed control, which resultedgood yields. PRE applications of clomazone at 0.56 kg/ha provided excellent control of SETFA, but poor con-trol of AMAPA and CHEAL. Lack of weed control fromclomazone resulted in poor yields.

Postemergence Herbicide Evaluation in SnapBeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Fairview, Mo.,2000 (Table 4).

Snap beans (cv. Bush Blue Lake 156) were planted15 May 2000, in plots measuring 3 by 5.5 m with fourrows spaced 75 cm apart. POST treatments were ap-plied 31 May when the snap beans were in the first trifo-liate stage (air 28ºC; soil 26ºC, moist; RH 65%). Weedcontrol and crop injury evaluations were made at 2 and4 wk after application. Yield data were taken approxi-mately 8 wk after planting. Weeds present at this loca-tion included common lambsquarters (CHEAL), com-mon ragweed (AMBEL), giant foxtail (SETFA), andPalmer amaranth (AMAPA).

RESULTS: Imazamox applied at 0.027 and 0.036kg/ha provided greater than 90% control of AMAPA,AMBEL, and SETFA, but only provided 60 to 75%control of CHEAL. Snap bean yield ranged from 10.3

7

Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002

to 11.3 MT/ha, and were among the highest yielding treat-ments. Imazamox may need to be tank-mixed with otherherbicides to control CHEAL. Halosulfuron applied at0.052 and 0.071 kg/ha provided 100% control ofAMAPA and AMBEL, but control of CHEAL andSETFA was very poor. Tank mixing bentazon at 0.84kg/ha with halosulfuron at 0.036 kg/ha improved controlof CHEAL from 25 to 98%, but still did not adequatelycontrol SETFA. Imazethapyr at 0.036 tank-mixed withhalosulfuron at 0.036 kg/ha provided greater than 98%control of AMAPA and AMBEL, while SETFA controlwas 85%. Control of CHEAL with this combinationwas inadequate. Fomesafen at 0.22 kg/ha tank-mixedwith halosulfuron at 0.036 kg/ha did not greatly improvethe spectrum of weed control over halosulfuron appliedalone. This tank-mix combination was effective for con-trol of AMAPA and AMBEL, but did not effectivelycontrol CHEAL and SETFA. Snap bean yields (7.4 to7.7 MT/ha) when halosulfuron was applied were lessbecause of inadequate weed control. Mixing halosulfuronwith other herbicides improved snap bean yield due toimproved weed control. AMAPA control was excellentwith imazethapyr applied at 0.036 kg/ha, but control ofAMBEL and SETFA only ranged from 81 to 88% con-trol. Imazethapyr did not provide any suppression ofCHEAL. Tank-mixing bentazon at 0.84 kg/ha andimazethapyr greatly enhanced the spectrum of weed con-trol. Bentazon + imazethapyr provided greater than 93%control of all species by 5 WAT. Snapbean yields re-flected weed control, with imazethapyr applied aloneyielding 9.2 MT/ha and bentazon + imazethapyr yielding11.8 MT/ha, which was among the highest yielding treat-ments in the trial. Snap bean yellowing and stunting wasdetected when chloransulam was applied at 0.18 kg/ha.Chloransulam gave greater than 90% control of AMAPAand AMBEL, but did not control CHEAL and SETFA.Chloransulam at 0.016 kg/ha + flumetsulam at 0.007 kg/ha also stunted and yellowed the snap beans. The addi-tion of flumetsulam to chloransulam improved CHEALand SETFA control over chloransulam applied alone,but control was still inadequate. Chloransulam does notappear to be a promising compound in snap beans dueto injury potential and a limited weed spectrum.Flumiclorac applied at 0.03 kg/ha provided excellent pig-weed control, but AMBEL and SETFA control waspoor. Flumiclorac did provide some suppression ofCHEAL, but overall, control was inadequate. A standardprogram of fomesafen at 0.22 kg/ha + bentazon at 0.84 kg/

ha provided excellent control of all species except SETFA,and provided excellent snap bean yield (10 MT/ha).

Herbicide Evaluation in Southern Peas (Vignaunguiculata L.), Fayetteville, 2000 (Table 5).

Southern peas (cv. Encore) were planted 25 July2000 in plots 2 by 6 m, with two rows spaced 1 m apart.PRE treatments were applied the same day as planting(air 23ºC; soil 25ºC, dry; RH 85%). POST treatmentswere applied 9 August (air 35ºC; soil 40ºC, moist; RH56%). Crop injury and weed control was rated at 3 and6 WAE. Weeds present included Palmer amaranth(AMAPA), goosegrass (ELEIN), and carpetweed(MOLVE). An early freeze killed plants before yieldscould be collected.

RESULTS: S-metolachlor applied at 1.12 kg/hashowed excellent crop safety and controlled AMAPAand ELEIN, but did not effectively control MOLVE (Table5). Flufenacet applied at 0.28 kg/ha PRE provided ex-cellent control of the weeds present, but did cause someearly southern pea stunting. Halosulfuron applied at 0.029kg/ha PRE showed moderate crop safety, but was muchmore injurious when applied POST. Furthermore, weedcontrol seemed to be more consistent when applied PRE.Fomesafen applied PRE at 0.28 kg/ha alone or in com-bination with clomazone provided excellent weed con-trol, but did not show acceptable crop safety. Imazapicapplied at 0.07 kg/ha POST and imazamox applied at0.039 kg/ha POST provided adequate control ofAMAPA, ELEIN, and MOLVE, while causing little in-jury to the southern peas. Cloransulam applied at 0.02kg/ha did not cause much southern pea injury, but didnot effectively control the weeds present. The spectrumof cloransulam appears to be very minimal. Althoughcrop injury and weed control was noted throughout theseason, the observations are still somewhat inconclu-sive due the lack of yield data.

Herbicide Evaluation in Over-WinteredSpinach (Spinachia oleracea L.), Kibler, 2000-2001 (Table 6).

Spinach (cv. F-380) was planted 25 October 2000in plots measuring 1.3 by 5 m, with each plot containingsix rows spaced 23 cm apart. PRE treatments were ap-plied 27 October 2000 (air 22ºC, soil 17ºC, moist; RH90%). POST treatments were applied 21 November 2000(air 16ºC, soil 14ºC, moist; RH 63%). Plots were har-

8


vested on 20 April 2001. Weed species present at Kiblerincluded henbit (LAMAM), sibara (SIBVI), annual blue-grass (POANN), pineappleweed (MATMT), andshepherdspurse (CAPBP). Weed control ratings weretaken at various intervals throughout the growing seasonand yield was determined in the spring of 2001.

RESULTS: Environmental conditions were verycool and wet after PRE treatments were applied. Theseenvironmental conditions seemed to be conducive formore excessive injury than had been seen in previousyears. S-metolachlor applied at 0.56 kg/ha was the onlytreatment that had less than 10% injury. Weed controlwas greater than 90% for all species except MATMT,which was 85% by the end of the growing season. Spin-ach yield from S-metolachlor at 0.56 kg/ha was amongthe highest yielding treatments (9.1 MT/ha) in the trial.Increasing the rate of S-metolachlor did improve con-trol of MATMT, but increased spinach injury whichcaused yields to decline. Linuron was also evaluated at0.12, 0.24, and 0.36 kg/ha. At harvest, weed controlwas greater than 95% for all species but henbit (85%control), but injury ranged from 55 to 94% and greatlyreduced yield, which ranged from 1.1 to 2.8 MT/ha. S-metolachlor + linuron provided greater than 98% con-trol of all weed species, but injury at the end of thegrowing season ranged from 61 to 86% and decreasedspinach yield. S-metolachlor applied at 0.56 kg/ha fbclopyralid provided excellent control of all weed spe-cies, but was very injurious to the spinach and causedsubstantial yield loss. S-metolachlor fb phenmediphamat 0.44 kg/ha also provided excellent control of all weedspecies, but caused 25% stunting. The excellent weedcontrol coupled with little injury allowed for high spin-ach yields (10.7 MT/ha).

Various other herbicides not currently labeled inspinach were also evaluated. A new formulation ofdimethenamid, dimethenamid-P, has shown promise foruse in spinach although higher rates of each herbicidecaused excessive injury. Excellent weed control wasobserved when dimethenamid-P was applied at 0.28 to0.56 kg/ha, but injury potential at all rates was still veryhigh. Injury ranged from 56 to 88% by the end of theseason, which corresponded to low yields ranging from6.5 to 2.4 MT/ha. Flufenacet applied at 0.33 and 0.67kg/ha, quinclorac applied at 0.14 and 0.28 kg/ha, andclomazone applied at 0.11, 0.22, and 0.33 kg/ha werealso evaluated. All showed promise by providing excel-lent weed control, but injury was excessive from all treat-ments.

Herbicide Evaluation in Tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill), Fayetteville, 2000 (Table 7).

Tomatoes (cv. Mt. Supreme) were transplanted 7July 2000 into 1- by 4-m plots at a spacing of 46 cmapart. There were four replications. PRE treatments wereapplied prior to transplanting (air 30ºC; soil 29ºC, moist;RH 65%) and POST treatments were applied on 3 Au-gust 2000 (air 28ºC; soil 29ºC, moist; RH 77%). Cropinjury and yellow nutsedge (CYPES) control ratings weretaken 3 and 6 wk after the initial herbicide applications.

RESULTS: Halosulfuron applied at 0.035 kg/haPRE provided 79% control of CYPES, which was similarto control observed when halosulfuron was applied at0.035 kg/ha POST. The greatest control of CYPES oc-curred with sequential applications of halosulfuron at0.035 kg/ha, which was 93% at 6 WAT. Tomatoesshowed excellent tolerance to all applications ofhalosulfuron.

9

Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002T

able

1. R

espo

nse

of F

ield

-Gro

wn

Orn

amen

tals

to V

ario

us H

erbi

cide

s, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

001.

Gro

wth

Lir

iope

inj

ury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.2

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

2L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.4

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

4L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.8

EPO

ST2

01

05

01

55

5F

lum

ioxa

zin

+ N

IS*

51 W

DG

0.8

LPO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

22

NS

22

2

Gro

wth

Eng

lish

ivy

inju

ry

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.2

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

2L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.4

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

4L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.8

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

8L

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Gro

wth

Can

na in

jury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e +

NIS

* fb

50 D

F4.

5E

POST

00

00

00

0N

apro

pam

ide

+ N

IS*

50 D

F4.

5L

POST

Nap

ropa

mid

e +

NIS

* fb

50 D

F9

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e +

NIS

*50

DF

9L

POST

Nap

ropa

mid

e +

NIS

* fb

50 D

F1

8E

POST

53

10

31

0N

apro

pam

ide

+ N

IS*

50 D

F1

8L

POST

cont

inue

d

10

AAES Research Series 519Ta

ble

1. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Can

na in

jury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e fb

2 G

4.5

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e2

G4.

5L

POST

Nap

ropa

mid

e fb

2 G

9E

POST

00

00

00

0N

apro

pam

ide

2 G

9L

POST

Nap

ropa

mid

e fb

2 G

18

EPO

ST5

30

03

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e2

G1

8L

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

21

NS

NS

11

NS

Gro

wth

Lir

iope

inj

ury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

---

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C0.

28E

POST

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C0.

56E

POST

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C1.

12E

POST

13

42

0L

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

11

NS

Gro

wth

Euo

nym

ous

inju

ry

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

---

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C0.

28E

POST

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C0.

56E

POST

00

00

Clo

pyra

lid

+ N

IS*

3 E

C1.

12E

POST

30

00

LS

D (

P=

.05)

1N

SN

SN

S

* N

IS w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 0.2

5% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

11

Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta

ble

2. R

espo

nse

of P

otte

d F

ield

-Gro

wn

Orn

amen

tals

to V

ario

us H

erbi

cide

s, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

001.

Gro

wth

Lir

iope

inj

ury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.2

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

2L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.4

EPO

ST6

00

05

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

4L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.8

EPO

ST2

01

05

01

55

5F

lum

ioxa

zin

+ N

IS*

51 W

DG

0.8

LPO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)4

31

NS

31

1

Gro

wth

Eng

lish

ivy

inju

ry

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.2

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

2L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.4

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

4L

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

* fb

51 W

DG

0.8

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Flu

mio

xazi

n +

NIS

*51

WD

G0.

8L

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Gro

wth

Can

na in

jury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3 G

R3.

4E

POST

00

00

00

0O

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

3 G

R3.

4L

POST

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3 G

R6.

8E

POST

00

00

00

0O

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

3 G

R6.

8L

POST

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3 G

R13

.6E

POST

13

40

011

30

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n3

GR

13.6

LPO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

1N

SN

S3

1N

S

cont

inue

d

12


ble

2. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Euo

nym

ous

inju

ry

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

14 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n fb

1.62

GR

3.6

EPO

ST0

00

00

00

Oxy

fluo

rfen

+ P

endi

met

hali

n1.

62

GR

3.6

LPO

STO

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb1.

62 G

R7.

2E

POST

00

00

00

0O

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

1.62

GR

7.2

LPO

STO

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb1.

62 G

R14

.4E

POST

93

00

51

0O

xyfl

uorf

en +

Pen

dim

etha

lin

1.62

GR

14.4

LPO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)2

1N

SN

S1

1N

S

13


able

3. P

reem

erge

nce

Her

bici

de E

valu

atio

n in

Sna

p B

eans

, Fai

rvie

w, M

O, 2

000.

Gro

wth

Sna

p be

an in

jury

Pal

mer

am

aran

th c

ontr

olG

iant

fox

tail

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

0H

and-

wee

ded

chec

k0

00

10

01

00

94

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.56

PR

E3

53

56

35

24

10

01

00

10

0D

iclo

sula

m84

WG

0.03

6P

RE

30

64

64

10

01

00

10

08

67

96

4S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.75

PR

E3

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

99

99

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

8 E

C1.

12P

RE

54

01

00

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

33P

RE

58

89

89

89

28

89

59

6F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.67

PR

E3

30

99

10

01

00

93

99

10

0L

acto

fen

2 E

0.22

PR

E4

84

99

99

90

61

54

38

Fom

esaf

en2

L0.

22P

RE

00

09

99

69

39

29

18

4F

lum

etsu

lam

80 W

DG

0.07

1P

RE

10

22

28

98

10

09

88

88

46

8S

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

75P

RE

53

01

00

10

01

00

99

10

09

9L

acto

fen

2 E

0.22

PR

EC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

50

01

00

10

09

61

00

10

01

00

Lac

tofe

n2

E0.

22L

SD

(P

=.0

5)6

10

10

47

88

81

2

cont

inue

d

14


ble

3. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Com

mon

rag

wee

d co

ntro

lC

omm

on l

ambs

quar

ters

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

6 W

AT

Sna

p be

an y

ield

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

5.1

Han

d-w

eede

d ch

eck

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

010

.3C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.56

PR

E8

47

13

36

96

06.

9D

iclo

sula

m84

WG

0.03

6P

RE

93

10

01

00

90

79

4.7

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

75P

RE

85

56

34

93

93

6.6

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

8 E

C1.

12P

RE

91

86

61

95

93

11.3

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

33P

RE

85

80

58

93

84

11.1

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

67P

RE

93

90

79

10

09

614

.1L

acto

fen

2 E

0.22

PR

E9

08

57

17

46

69.

0F

omes

afen

2 L

0.22

PR

E9

58

97

05

32

911

.4F

lum

etsu

lam

80 W

DG

0.07

1P

RE

90

97

90

10

09

49.

7S

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

75P

RE

97

94

91

99

96

11.2

Lac

tofe

n2

E0.

22P

RE

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

09

31

00

98

12.2

Lac

tofe

n2

E0.

22L

SD

(P

=.0

5)6

111

51

51

62.

6

15


ble

4. P

oste

mer

genc

e H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in S

nap

Bea

ns, F

airv

iew

, MO

, 200

0.G

row

thS

nap

bean

inju

ryP

alm

er a

mar

anth

con

trol

Gia

nt f

oxta

il c

ontr

ol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

1 A

S0.

027

V2

01

94

10

06

76

0Im

azam

ox +

NIS

1 A

S0.

038

VS

45

93

10

08

47

5H

alos

ulfu

ron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.05

3V

20

09

31

00

02

6H

alos

ulfu

ron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.07

2V

20

09

51

00

02

5H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

6V

24

39

41

00

Ben

tazo

n +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.05

3V

26

59

71

00

93

98

Ben

tazo

n +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

6V

20

09

19

86

86

1Im

azet

hapy

r + N

IS70

DF

0.03

6H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

6V

211

09

71

00

81

75

Fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

Imaz

etha

pyr +

NIS

70 D

F0.

036

V2

00

93

10

02

10

Fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

V2

110

79

80

91

91

Imaz

etha

pyr +

70 D

G0.

036

V2

30

93

96

94

98

Ben

tazo

n +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84C

lora

nsul

am +

CO

C2

84 W

G0.

018

V2

10

68

49

01

80

Clo

rans

ulam

+84

WG

0.01

8V

21

41

67

87

34

34

0F

lum

etsu

lam

+ C

OC

80 W

DG

0.06

3F

lum

iclo

rac

+ C

OC

0.86

EC

0.03

V2

00

93

10

07

87

4B

enta

zon

+4

SL

0.84

V2

13

39

59

69

39

9F

omes

afen

+ N

IS2

L0.

22L

SD

(P

=.0

5)4

65

87

8

cont

inue

d

16


ble

4. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Com

mon

rag

wee

d co

ntro

lC

omm

on l

ambs

quar

ters

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

Sna

p be

an y

ield

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

7.1

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

1 A

S0.

027

V2

87

95

88

94

10.3

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

AS

0.03

8V

S9

19

39

09

411

.3H

alos

ulfu

ron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.05

3V

29

61

00

21

23

7.7

Hal

osul

furo

n +

NIS

75 D

F0.

072

V2

97

10

02

82

87.

4H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

6V

29

51

00

64

63

10.8

Ben

tazo

n +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.05

3V

29

71

00

68

45

9.4

Ben

tazo

n +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

6V

29

41

00

84

85

9.7

Imaz

etha

pyr +

NIS

70 D

F0.

036

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

036

V2

95

96

49

25

8.9

Fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

Imaz

etha

pyr +

NIS

70 D

F0.

036

V2

81

81

85

88

9.2

Fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

V2

84

71

18

08.

3Im

azet

hapy

r +70

DG

0.03

6V

29

39

78

89

311

.8B

enta

zon

+ N

IS4

SL

0.84

Clo

rans

ulam

+ C

OC

284

WG

0.01

8V

29

61

00

28

35

5.0

Clo

rans

ulam

+84

WG

0.01

8V

29

61

00

48

50

4.4

Flu

met

sula

m +

CO

C80

WD

G0.

063

Flu

mic

lora

c +

CO

C0.

86 E

C0.

03V

21

40

15

19

7.3

Ben

tazo

n +

4 S

L0.

84V

29

61

00

77

67

10.0

Fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

LS

D (

P=

.05)

58

10

80.

71

NIS

was

app

lied

at 0

.25%

vol

ume

per

volu

me

of w

ater

.2

CO

C w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 1%

vol

ume

per

volu

me

of w

ater

.

17


ble

5. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in S

outh

ern

Pea

s, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

000.

Gro

wth

Sou

ther

n pe

a in

jury

Pal

mer

am

aran

th c

ontr

olG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

lC

arpe

twee

d co

ntro

l

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

3 W

AT

6 W

AT

3 W

AT

6 W

AT

3 W

AT

6 W

AT

3 W

AT

6 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

12P

RE

50

95

81

10

01

00

51

48

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

1.12

PR

E1

91

41

00

98

10

01

00

89

85

Flu

met

sula

m80

EG

0.07

Dic

losu

lam

84 D

G0.

04P

RE

58

25

10

01

00

10

09

89

89

5F

lufe

nace

t60

DF

0.28

PR

E1

65

98

90

10

09

89

49

3H

alos

ulfu

ron

75 D

F0.

029

PR

E11

39

48

57

04

37

34

9F

omes

afen

2 L

0.28

PR

E4

51

51

00

10

01

00

97

10

09

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E1.

12P

RE

30

16

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

Fom

esaf

en2

L0.

28C

lom

azon

e fb

3 M

E1.

12P

RE

24

25

50

88

10

01

00

49

43

Hal

osul

furo

n +

NIS

175

DF

0.02

9PO

STIm

azap

ic +

NIS

70 D

F0.

07PO

ST6

09

30

86

08

9C

lora

nsul

am +

CO

C2

84 D

F0.

02PO

ST5

02

10

25

02

5Im

azam

ox +

NIS

1 A

S0.

04PO

ST5

08

30

88

08

8H

alos

ulfu

ron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.02

9PO

ST1

50

53

03

00

39

LS

D (

P=

.05)

10

55

114

611

13

1N

IS w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 0.2

5% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

2C

OC

was

app

lied

at 1

% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

18


ble

6. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in O

ver-

Win

tere

d Sp

inac

h, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

000.

Gro

wth

Spi

nach

inju

ryH

enbi

t co

ntro

l

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

11/2

7/00

2/10

/01

3/9/

014/

10/0

12/

10/0

13/

9/01

4/10

/01

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

0L

inur

on50

DF

0.11

PR

E5

48

88

55

38

69

58

5L

inur

on50

DF

0.22

PR

E6

19

08

06

51

00

10

09

3L

inur

on50

DF

0.33

PR

E9

01

00

99

94

10

01

00

98

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

51

48

69

99

59

8S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.8

PR

E2

12

92

02

91

00

10

01

00

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

12P

RE

29

51

45

55

10

01

00

10

0D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.28

PR

E3

44

95

65

61

00

10

01

00

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

4P

RE

51

64

70

63

10

01

00

10

0D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E4

97

48

88

01

00

10

01

00

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

13

18

25

14

10

01

00

10

0P

henm

edip

ham

1.3

EC

0.45

EPO

STS

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

44

61

79

61

10

01

00

10

0li

nuro

n50

DF

0.11

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E8

49

09

38

61

00

10

01

00

linu

ron

50 D

F0.

22S

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E5

07

38

08

81

00

10

01

00

Clo

pyra

lid

3 E

C0.

09E

POST

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

33P

RE

51

66

70

78

10

01

00

10

0F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.67

PR

E7

19

19

38

61

00

10

01

00

Qui

nclo

rac

75 D

F0.

14P

RE

35

50

64

45

93

91

10

0Q

uinc

lora

c75

EF

0.28

PR

E4

46

88

57

49

99

81

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

11P

RE

66

88

99

91

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.22

PR

E9

49

99

89

31

00

10

01

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

33P

RE

95

99

99

96

10

01

00

10

0L

SD

(P

=.0

5)1

31

01

21

33

44

cont

inue

d.

19


ble

6. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Pin

eapp

lew

eed

cont

rol

She

pher

dspu

rse

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2/10

/01

3/9/

014/

10/0

12/

10/0

13/

9/01

4/10

/01

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---(

%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

0L

inur

on50

DF

0.11

PR

E1

00

10

09

89

89

69

5L

inur

on50

DF

0.22

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

95

Lin

uron

50 D

F0.

33P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

90

89

85

98

98

95

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

8P

RE

10

01

00

93

10

01

00

98

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

12P

RE

10

01

00

96

10

01

00

94

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

28P

RE

10

01

00

93

10

01

00

90

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

4P

RE

10

01

00

98

10

01

00

10

0D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

09

51

00

10

09

8S

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0P

henm

edip

ham

1.3

EC

0.45

EPO

STS

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

10

01

00

98

10

01

00

10

0li

nuro

n50

DF

0.11

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

09

91

00

10

09

8li

nuro

n50

DF

0.22

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

09

1C

lopy

rali

d3

EC

0.09

EPO

STF

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.33

PR

E1

00

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

67P

RE

10

01

00

99

10

01

00

10

0Q

uinc

lora

c75

DF

0.14

PR

E5

15

47

59

09

06

6Q

uinc

lora

c75

EF

0.28

PR

E6

47

18

39

48

95

3C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.11

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.22

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.33

PR

E1

00

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

LS

D (

P=

.05)

47

72

39

cont

inue

d

20


ble

6. C

onti

nued

.

Gro

wth

Ann

ual

blue

gras

s co

ntro

lS

ibar

a co

ntro

lS

pina

ch

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2/10

/01

3/9/

014/

10/0

12/

10/0

13/

9/01

4/10

/01

yiel

d

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(MT

/ha)

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

4.7

Lin

uron

50 D

F0.

11P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

2.8

Lin

uron

50 D

F0.

22P

RE

10

01

00

98

10

01

00

10

01.

3L

inur

on50

DF

0.33

PR

E1

00

10

09

81

00

10

01

00

1.1

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

98

98

96

10

09

99

59.

1S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.8

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

06.

7S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

1.12

PR

E9

99

91

00

10

01

00

10

05.

5D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.28

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

06.

5D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.4

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

04.

3D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

2.4

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10.7

Phe

nmed

ipha

m1.

3 E

C0.

45E

POST

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

06.

1li

nuro

n50

DF

0.11

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

03.

6li

nuro

n50

DF

0.22

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

09

93.

1C

lopy

rali

d3

EC

0.09

EPO

STF

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.33

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

04.

9F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.67

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01.

6Q

uinc

lora

c75

DF

0.14

PR

E6

87

58

91

92

33

08.

9Q

uinc

lora

c75

EF

0.28

PR

E6

87

38

62

94

55

46.

8C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.11

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

99

99

91

1.7

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

22P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

09

61.

1C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.33

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

1.1

LS

D (

P=

.05)

22

44

35

1.2

21


Table 7. Evaluation of Halosulfuron for Yellow Nutsedge Control in Tomatoes, Fayetteville, 2000.Growth Tomato injury Yellow nutsedge control

Treatment Form. Rate stage 3 WAT 6 WAT 3 WAT 6 WAT

(kg ai/ha) ---------------------------- (%) --------------------------Untreated check 0 0 0 0Halosulrufon 75 DF 0.035 PRE 0 0 76 79Halosulfuron + NIS1 75 DF 0.035 POST 0 0 0 75Halosulfuron fb 75 DF 0.035 PRE 0 0 73 93

Halosulfuron + NIS1 75 DF 0.035 POSTLSD (P=.05) NS NS 5 51 NIS was applied at 0.25% volume per volume of water in POST treatments.

22



Evaluation of Clomazone Drift on Newly-Established Native Pecans, Fayetteville, 2001(Table 8) and 2002 (Table 9).

An experiment was conducted in Fayetteville, Ark.,in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate the potential hazard fromdrift to pecans using various formulations of clomazone.Command 3 ME, Command 4 EC, and propanil (StamM4) + Command 3 ME were compared by direct appli-cation to seedling pecans. The standard rate of clomazonefor this soil type was 0.45 kg/ha, which is the 1X rate.Command was also used at 0.1X and 0.01X rates.Propanil was applied at a 3.3 kg/ha rate. Two seedlingpecan trees, 0.75- to 1-m tall, were utilized in each plot.Seedling pecans were transplanted on 2 April 2001. Pe-can trees with 5 to 9 leaves were sprayed on 18 July2001. The experiment was repeated on the same plantsand spraying was done on 7 June 2002 on 6- to 12-leafpecans. One plant was covered and the other plant wassprayed in order to differentiate foliar from soil uptakeof clomazone. Plants were observed after the first weekand every two weeks thereafter in 2001 and every weekin 2002 to evaluate bleaching and overall phytotoxicity.

RESULTS: Slight bleaching (whitening of leafveins) and some leaf necrosis were observed (maximumof 8%) from 1X rate of each clomazone formulation in2001. In 2002 with more rainfall following treatment,bleaching symptoms from both formulations ofclomazone were initially higher (25% from 3 ME formu-lation and 30% from 4 EC formulation) 1 week follow-ing treatment. Plants recovered later in the season. Inboth years both formulations caused similar injury symp-toms. When sprayed with the tank mix of propanil andclomazone at a 1X rate, necrosis of leaves (maximum of62%) was observed. Minor bleaching occurred with littleor no injury at the 0.1X and 0.01X rates of both formu-lations applied alone or in a tank-mix with propanil. Theuntreated plots as well as the protected plants had novisual symptoms of clomazone injury from uptake, soilvolatility, or drift. New leaf development was not af-fected by any treatment.

Herbicide Evaluation in Watermelon (Citrulluslinatus) and Effects of Herbicide Carryover toOverwinter Spinach and Mustard Greens,Kibler, 2001 (Table 10).

Watermelons (cv. Crimson Sweet) were planted on25 April 2001 in plots measuring 3.6 by 9.1 m, with eachplot containing one row of watermelon plants spaced 1-m apart. PRE treatments were applied 26 April (air 31ºC;soil 32ºC, moist; RH 45%) and sprinkler irrigated on 27April to activate the PRE herbicides. POST treatmentswere applied on 1 June (air 28ºC; soil 27ºC, moist, RH60%) to 2- to 3-leaf watermelon plants. Crop injury andweed control were rated 2, 3, and 4 weeks after theinitial treatment and plots were harvested weekly for threeweeks beginning on 10 July. Weeds present includedPalmer amaranth (AMAPA), goosegrass (ELEIN), andeclipta (ECLAL).

In the fall of 2001, overwinter spinach and mus-tard greens were planted into the preexisting watermelonplots to determine the carryover potential of clomazone,ethalfluralin, and halosulfuron. Spinach (cv. F-380) andmustard (cv. All Top) were planted 30 October 2001 inplots measuring 1.5 by 3.0 m for each species, witheach plot containing six rows of both spinach and greensspaced 23-cm apart. Ratings were taken throughout thegrowing season to evaluate injury of spinach and mustard.

RESULTS: Clomazone applied PRE at 0.17 or0.34 kg/ha was very safe for use in watermelons andprovided excellent ELEIN and ECLAL control, but didnot effectively control AMAPA (Table 10). Ethalfluralinapplied PRE at 1.26 kg/ha provided excellent early sea-son control of AMAPA, but control greatly declined to69% by 4 WAT. Ethalfluralin was not effective for con-trol of ELEIN or ECLAL. Clomazone at 0.17 kg/ha +ethalfluralin at 0.63 kg/ha did cause some early stunting.Control of ELEIN and ECLAL was excellent through-out the season, but AMAPA control declined to 65% bythe end of the growing season. Adding halosulfuron at0.018 kg/ha PRE to the clomazone + ethalfluralin com-bination provided excellent weed control of all speciesthroughout the growing season, but also increased stunt-ing to 11% by the end of the growing season. Increasingthe rate of halosulfuron to 0.027 kg/ha applied PRE withclomazone + ethalfluralin did not increase weed control,but did result in increased injury (21% at 4 WAT).Halosulfuron applied at 0.036 kg/ha PRE in combina-tion with clomazone + ethalfluralin again added no ben-efit of increased weed control, but did result in 18%

23


planting. Weeds present at this location included com-mon lambsquarters (CHEAL) and Italian ryegrass(LOLMU) which was present prior to seedbed prepara-tion and continued to grow in the snapbean crop.

RESULTS: Flumiclorac PRE caused serious standlosses and stunting of the snapbeans. Both dimethenamid-P and clomazone alone and in mixtures with fomesafenand lactofen caused noticeable early stunting, but thecrop recovered and final yields were good. S-metolachlormixed with lactofen also caused this noticeable earlystunting, but with good recovery in crop yield. S-metolachlor alone or with fomesafen, and flufenacet alonegave outstanding control of the weeds and caused nocrop injury. Fomesafen and lactofen alone did not con-trol the Italian ryegrass and were not as effective oncommon lambsquarters as other treatments.

Postemergence Herbicide Evaluation in SnapBeans, Newtonia, Mo., 2001 (Table 12).

Snap beans (cv. Hercules) were planted 16 August2001 in plots measuring 1.5 by 5 m with two rows spaced75 cm apart. POST treatments were applied 4 Septem-ber 2001 when the snap beans were in the two trifoliatestage (air 38ºC; soil 31ºC, moist; RH 80%). Weed con-trol and crop injury evaluations were made at 1 and 4 wkafter treatment (3 and 6 wk after emergence). Yield datawere taken at 8 wk after planting. Weeds present includedcommon lambsquarters (CHEAL, 8 cm tall at application)and giant foxtail (SETFA, 10 cm at application).

RESULTS: Flufenpyr was the only treatment caus-ing serious snap bean injury. A number of treatmentsincluding fomesafen, fluazifop, acifluorfen, imazethapyr+ fomesafen, imazamox + fomesafen, and halosulfuron+ fomesafen caused some mild foliar burn symptomsfrom which the snap beans quickly recovered. The 0.56kg/ha rate of acifluorfen cause more persistent stunting,but yield was not reduced. Broad spectrum weed con-trol was obtained from the fomesafen + fluazifop mix-ture, as well as imazethapyr or imazamox alone or incombination with bentazon and fomesafen. Yield differ-ences between treatments were not significant, but wereimproved as compared to the untreated check.

injury at 4 WAT. Halosulfuron applied POST at 0.018kg/ha following a PRE treatment of clomazone at 0.17kg/ha + ethalfluralin at 0.63 kg/ha caused 8% stuntingby 4 weeks after initial treatment, which was less thaninjury from the PRE application of halosulfuron at thesame rate, but provided less control of AMAPA (85% at4 weeks after initial treatment). Increasing the rate ofhalosulfuron to 0.027 kg/ha POST following clomazone+ ethalfluralin provided similar results as observed fromhalosulfuron applied at 0.018 kg/ha. Increasing the rateof halosulfuron POST to 0.036 kg/ha following the PREtreatment of clomazone + ethalfluralin caused 14% stunt-ing, and slightly increased AMAPA control to 92%.

Greatest yields were observed from combinationsof halosulfuron applied PRE in combination withclomazone + ethalfluralin. As halosulfuron rate increasedfrom 0.018 to 0.036 kg/ha, yield increased from 14.1 to16.3 MT/ha. Although some injury was observed fromthese treatments, yields were greater due to the increasedAMAPA control. POST applications of halosulfuronfollowing clomazone + ethalfluralin resulted in less yieldsthan PRE applications due to lower pigweed controlcoupled with late season injury. As rate of halosulfuronincreased from 0.018 to 0.036 kg/ha, yield decreasedfrom 11.2 to 9.0 MT/ha. Ethalfluralin alone yielded 7.0MT/ha and clomazone + ethalfluralin yielded 7.9 MT/ha, which was greater than the clomazone alone due toincreased AMAPA control.

Spinach and greens are often planted followingwatermelon crops, thus there has been concern ofcarryover from herbicides used in watermelons into fallor overwinter spinach and greens. Spinach injury wasnot significant following any of the watermelon treatments.More injury was observed on greens, up to 23%, than spin-ach early, but most of the greens had recovered by the endof the growing season, with injury ranging up to 8%. Over-all, injury was minimal and did not seem to greatly affecteither the spinach or mustard greens.

Preemergence Herbicide Evaluation in SnapBeans, Lowell, 2001 (Table 11).

Snap beans (cv. KSI 960) were planted 9 May 2001in plots measuring 3 by 5 m with four rows spaced 75cm apart. PRE treatments were applied on 10 May 2001(air 21ºC; soil 26ºC, moist; RH 100%). Weed controland crop injury evaluations were made 2, 4, and 6 wkafter planting and yield data were taken at 8 wk after

24


Herbicide Evaluation in Southern Peas (Vignaunguiculata L.) and Effects of HerbicideCarryover to Overwinter Spinach and Mustard,Kibler, 2001 (Table 13).

Southern peas (cv. Early Scarlet) were planted 15June 2001 in plots 1.6 by 5.5 m. Plots consisted of tworows spaced 0.75-m apart. PRE treatments were ap-plied the same day as planting (air 33ºC; soil 33ºC, moist;RH 45%). POST treatments were applied 10 July 2001(air 27ºC; soil 26ºC, moist; RH 65%) to V3 southernpea plants. Crop injury and weed control was ratedthroughout the growing season and plots were harvestedon 5 September 2001. Weeds present includedgoosegrass (ELEIN), Palmer amaranth (AMAPA), redsprangletop (LEFFI), and hophornbeam copperleaf(ACCOS).

In the fall of 2001, overwinter spinach and mus-tard greens were planted into the preexisting southernpea plots to determine the carryover potential of theseherbicides. Spinach (cv. F-380) and mustard (cv. AllTop) were planted 30 October 2001 in plots measuring1.5 by 3.0 m for each species, with each plot containingsix rows of both spinach and greens spaced 23-cm apart.Ratings were taken throughout the growing season toevaluate injury to spinach and mustard.

RESULTS: Little southern pea response was seenfrom the various herbicides (Table 13). Sulfentrazoneapplied PRE at 0.45 kg/ha, caused up to 19% injury;acifluorfen applied at 0.56 kg/ha POST, caused up to14% injury; and flufenpyr applied at 0.39 kg/ha POST,caused 10% injury. Overall, good control of ELEIN andLEFFI was observed from the PRE treatments.Halosulfuron applied PRE alone at 0.029 and 0.036 kg/ha and sulfentrazone applied at 0.22 kg/ha PRE alonedid not effectively control ELEIN (59 to 61% control)and LEFFI (53 to 74% control). POST treatments thatdid not follow a PRE were overall less effective control-ling ELEIN and LEFFI than the PRE treatments.Imazamox applied at 0.039 kg/ha was the most effectivePOST treatment for control of ELEIN, 89%, and LEFFI,83%. Addition of bentazon at 0.84 kg/ha to imazamoxreduced control of both ELEIN and LEFFI, which indi-cates some antagonism may be occurring. Flufenpyr ap-plied POST did not effectively control ELEIN or LEFFI.Clomazone applied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plus flumioxazinapplied PRE at 0.036 kg/ha, sulfentrazone applied PREat 0.45 kg/ha, clomazone applied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plus

sulfentrazone applied PRE at 0.28 kg/ha, pendimethalinapplied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plus imazethapyr applied PREat 0.07 kg/ha, and pendimethalin applied PRE at 0.56kg/ha followed by acifluorfen POST at 0.56 kg/ha weretreatments that provided adequate season long controlof AMAPA. All other treatments resulted in control lessthan 90% by the end of the growing season. Clomazoneapplied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plus flumioxazin applied PREat 0.036 kg/ha, sulfentrazone applied PRE at 0.22 and0.45 kg/ha, clomazone applied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plussulfentrazone applied PRE at 0.28 kg/ha, pendimethalinapplied PRE at 0.56 kg/ha plus imazethapyr applied PREat 0.07 kg/ha, and pendimethalin applied PRE at 0.56kg/ha followed by acifluorfen POST at 0.28 and 0.56kg/ha were treatments that provided adequate seasonlong control of ACCOS. All other treatments resulted incontrol less than 90% by the end of the growing season.

Although weed control differences were observed,few differences existed in yields between treatments. S-metolachlor applied at 1.12 kg/ha PRE, halosulfuronapplied at 0.029 kg/ha PRE, imazamox applied at 0.04kg/ha POST, and imazamox applied at 0.04 kg/ha plusbentazon applied at 0.84 kg/ha POST gave yields sig-nificantly lower than the best yielding treatment. Fur-thermore, these treatments did not yield higher than theuntreated check. No injury was detected in these plots,therefore, low yields are attributed to lack of weed control.

Spinach and mustard greens are often planted fol-lowing southern pea, and there have been concerns ofcarryover from herbicides used in southern peas. A fewherbicides showed potential to carryover and damagespinach and greens crops. Flufenacet applied at 0.33and 0.67 kg/ha PRE to southern peas caused 21 to 24%injury early to spinach but was reduced to 9 to 11% bythe end of the growing season. Sulfentrazone applied at0.22 and 0.45 kg/ha PRE and sulfentrazone applied at0.28 kg/ha plus clomazone applied at 0.56 kg/ha PREcaused 61 to 74% injury to spinach early, but declinedto 29 to 35% by the end of the growing season.Pendimethalin at 0.56 kg/ha plus imazethapyr at 0.07 kg/ha PRE caused 70% injury to the spinach early and 39%by the end of the growing season. The southern peaherbicides seemed to have less of an effect on greens.By the end of the growing season, pendimethalin at 0.56kg/ha plus imazethapyr PRE at 0.07 kg/ha was the onlytreatment that caused substantial injury (28%) to greens.

25


Herbicide Evaluation in Over-Wintered Spinach,Kibler, 2001-2002 (Table 14).

Spinach (cv. F-380) was planted on 18 October2001 in plots measuring 1.3 by 5 m with each plot con-taining six rows spaced 23 cm apart. PRE treatmentswere applied 18 October 2001 (air 18ºC, soil 17ºC, moist;RH 95%). POST treatments were applied 23 November2001 (air 9ºC; soil 7ºC, moist). There was significantspinach stand loss due to soil-borne diseases causingvariability, poor stands, and no yields were taken. Weedspresent at time of POST application at Kibler includedhenbit (LAMAM, 5 cm), pineappleweed (MATMT, 2cm), and cutleaf eveningprimrose (OEOLA, 2 cm). Spin-ach injury based on reduced growth and stands and weedcontrol ratings were taken once in the fall on 23 Novem-ber 2001, and twice the following spring on 1 February2002 and 21 March 2002.

RESULTS: Due to seedling disease problems itwas difficult to evaluate damage to the spinach from theherbicide treatments. However, there was no observabledamage from S-metolachlor, fluroxypyr, clopyralid, orclethodim. Dimethenamid-P, thiobencarb, flufenacet,quinclorac, and low rates of linuron or clomazone allmay have caused some early stunting, but by spring, thespinach had recovered and injury rating dropped below30%. Severe injury was observed from the high rate oflinuron, CGA-362622, and napropamide.

Herbicide Evaluation in Winter Squash(Cucurbita maxima Duch.), Fayetteville, 2001(Table 15).

Winter squash (var. Super Butternut) was plantedon 10 May 2001, into plots measuring 3 by 9.1 m, witheach plot containing one row of winter squash spaced0.3-m apart. PRE treatments were applied immediatelyafter planting (air 25ºC; soil 27ºC, moist; RH 80%).POST treatments were applied to 2- to 3-leaf plants on8 June 2001 (air 32ºC; soil 34ºC, moist; RH 58%). Cropinjury and weed control was rated 2, 4, 6, and 10 weeksafter emergence and plots were harvested 12 August2001. Weed present included Palmer amaranth (AMAPA),fall panicum (PANDI), Venice mallow (HIBTR), andyellow nutsedge (CYPES).

RESULTS: No injury was noted with clomazoneapplied PRE at 0.33 kg/ha, ethalfluralin applied PRE at1.26 kg/ha, or the combination of clomazone appliedPRE at 0.17 kg/ha + ethalfluralin applied PRE at 0.63

kg/ha (Table 12). Clomazone provided excellent controlof PANDI, but did not provide sufficient control of theother weed species. Ethalfluralin provided greater than90% control of PANDI and AMAPA, but control ofHIBTR and CYPES was poor. Halosulfuron appliedPRE in combination with clomazone + ethalfluralincaused some injury but increased weed control.Halosulfuron applied PRE at 0.018 to 0.036 withclomazone + ethalfluralin caused early injury ranging from26 to 53%, but plants recovered by the end of the sea-son with injury ranging from 5 to 15%. Control of PANDIand AMAPA was 100% with all rates of halosulfuron incombination with clomazone + ethalfluralin. Control ofHIBTR ranged from 88 to 93% and control of CYPESranged from 80 to 86% with halosulfuron applied PREin combination with clomazone + ethalfluralin. POSTapplications of halosulfuron caused much less injury thanPRE applications and resulted in greater weed control.All weed control ratings were greater than 90% whenhalosulfuron was applied POST following PRE appli-cations of clomazone + ethalfluralin with the exceptionof halosulfuron applied POST at 0.018 kg/ha followingclomazone + ethalfluralin, which provided 80% controlof CYPES by the end of the growing season.

Yield ranged from 4.0 to 4.6 MT/ha when plotswere treated with clomazone at 0.33 kg/ha PRE,ethalfluralin at 1.26 kg/ha PRE, and the combination ofclomazone at 0.17 kg/ha + ethalfluralin at 0.63 PRE.Halosulfuron applied PRE in combination withclomazone + ethalfluralin at 1.26 kg/ha reduced yield,ranging from 1.6 to 2.4 MT/ha, which was probably dueto extensive injury caused early in the growing season.Although plants seemed to recover from PRE applica-tions of halosulfuron, plant growth was delayed. POSTtreatments of halosulfuron following the PRE applica-tion of clomazone + ethalfluralin were among the high-est yielding treatments. Halosulfuron applied at 0.036kg/ha POST following clomazone + ethalfluralin tendedto reduce yields compared to lower rates of halosulfuronPOST. Halosulfuron appears to complement the exist-ing weed control options, but must be used carefullydue to squash sensitivity.

Herbicide Evaluation in Sweet Potatoes(Ipomoea batatas L.), Newtonia, Mo., 2001(Table 16)

Sweet potato slips (cv. Beauregard) were trans-planted on 16 May 2001 into plots 2 by 4 m. Each plot

26


contained two bedded rows spaced 1-m apart and plantspacing within each row was 0.3 m. POST-transplant(PRE to weeds) treatments were applied 18 May (air27º; soil 29º, wet; RH 95%). LATE POST-transplanttreatments were applied on 20 June (25º; soil 27º, moist;RH 68%) to sweet potato plants with 0.25-m runners.Crop injury and weed control were rated 2, 4, 6, 8, and12 weeks after the initial treatments and plots were har-vested on 20 September 2001. Weeds present includedcommon lambsquarters (CHEAL), goosegrass (ELEIN),and velvetleaf (ABUTH).

RESULTS: Clomazone applied POST-transplantat 0.56 kg/ha did not cause injury to sweet potatoes, butincreasing the rate of clomazone to 1.12 POST trans-plant resulted in early season stunting (Table 10).Clomazone provided similar control of ELEIN andABUTH regardless of rate, but increasing the rate ofclomazone from 0.56 kg/ha to 1.12 kg/ha increased con-trol of CHEAL from 59 to 89% by 12 WAT. Flufenacetis a new herbicide marketed by Bayer for use in corn,soybeans and wheat, but also has potential in many veg-etable crops. Flufenacet was slightly injurious to sweetpotatoes when applied POST transplant, but causedslightly more injury throughout the growing season whenapplied at 0.9 kg/ha compared to 0.45 kg/ha. Flufenacetapplied at 0.45 kg/ha provided 85% control of ELEIN,74% control of CHEAL, and 88% control of ABUTH,but increasing the rate of flufenacet resulted in increasedcontrol. The prepackaged combination of flufenacet/metribuzin applied 0.56 POST-transplant caused similarinjury to that observed from flufenacet alone, and theaddition of metribuzin appeared to improve control ofCHEAL and ABUTH. Tank-mix combinations ofclomazone + flufenacet and clomazone + flufenacet/metribuzin did not increase injury over flufenacet orflufenacet/metribuzin alone, but the addition of theclomazone improved control of all species to 100%. S-metolachlor applied at 0.75 and 1.5 kg/ha POST-trans-plant caused some early stunting, but no injury was notedby 12 WAT. Dimethenamid-P applied at 0.56 POSTtransplant caused some minor injury early, but increas-ing the rate to 1.12 kg/ha increased the level of injury to20% by 2 WAT and declined to 8% by 12 WAT. S-metolachlor also provided better control of CHEAL andABUTH than dimethenamid-P. Halosulfuron was alsoevaluated in programs with clomazone due to the lackof grass control provided by halosulfuron. Halosulfuronapplied POST transplant at 0.036 kg/ha caused up to

28% injury 3 WAT but declined to 8% 12 WAT.Halosulfuron applied LATE POST transplant caused upto 40% injury and declined to 15% by 12 WAT. Al-though sweet potato injury was observed, weed controlwas excellent. Napropamide applied at 2.24 kg/ha POSTtransplant appeared to be safe, but ABUTH was theonly weed effectively controlled. The standard programof clomazone applied at 0.56 kg/ha POST transplantfollow by sethoxydim applied at 0.42 kg/ha LATE POSTwas similar to control from clomazone applied alone at0.56 kg/ha.

Flufenacet applied alone or in combination withclomazone POST transplant resulted in the highest sweetpotato yields, ranging from 40 to 47 MT/ha. Treatmentscontaining flufenacet/metribuzin yielded less, probablydue to injury observed from the addition of metribuzin.The excellent weed control and good sweet potato tol-erance to S-metolachlor also resulted in very good yields,ranging from 39 MT/ha when S-metolachlor was ap-plied at 0.75 kg/ha to 41 MT/ha when applied at 1.5 kg/ha. Yields from dimethenamid-P treatments were lessthan S-metolachlor due to less weed control and lesscrop safety. Clomazone alone or followed by sethoxydimresulted in low yields ranging from 31 to 37 kg/ha due toreduced weed control. The addition of halosulfuronPOST transplant or LATE POST transplant to clomazoneprograms did improve weed control, but yields werereduced due to injury.

Evaluation of S-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Table Beets (Beta vulgaris L.), Fayetteville,2001 (Table 17).

Table beets (cv. Detroit Dark Red) were plantedon 2 April 2001 into plots measuring 2 by 4 m. Eachplot contained two bedded rows spaced 1-m apart andtwo rows of table beets were planted on each row at arate of 40 seed per m row. Treatments were applied atthe 2- to 3-leaf stage on 25 April 2001 (air 18ºC; soil19ºC, moist; RH 70%). Due to the presence of manyweeds at application and the lack of postemergence con-trol from the herbicides sprayed, row 1 was not weededand row 2 was hand-weeded before application. Cropinjury and weed control was rated 4, 6, and 8 weeksafter treatments (WAT) and plots were harvested on 22June 2001. Weeds present included commonlambsquarters (CHEAL), cutleaf eveningprimrose(OEOLA), and henbit (LAMAM).

27


RESULTS: Control of all weed species in row 1(unweeded) was poor when treated with dimethenamid-P at 0.74 kg/ha, but control of all species was greatlyimproved in row 2 (hand weeded before spraying )(Table11). Control of OEOLA was still inadequate in row 2.Dimethenamid-P applied at 0.74 kg/ha at the 2- to 3- leafstage did not cause injury to either row of the table beets.Increasing the rate of dimethenamid-P to 1.48 kg/hacaused some slight injury, 7% by 6 WAT. The increasedrate improved weed control. Control of CHEAL was87% in the non-weeded when treated with 1.48 kg/hacompared to 65% control when treated with 0.74 kg/ha.Control of OEOLA and LAMAM was also improvedwhen rate of dimethenamid was increased, but overall,control was still inadequate in row 1. Control of all spe-cies in the weeded row was excellent when treated withdimethenamid-P at 1.48 kg/ha. Similar trends were ob-served when table beets were treated with S-metolachlor.Overall, S-metolachlor was slightly more injurious to table

beets and provided lower weed control thandimethenamid-P. Pyrazon, a herbicide currently labeledin table beets, was the best overall treatment. No injurywas observed and weed control was excellent in bothrows when applied at 4.1 kg/ha. Some injury was noted(10%) when cycloate was applied at 4.5 kg/ha. Controlin the weeded row was excellent for all species but verypoor in the unweeded row.

Pyrazon applied at 4.1 kg/ha, and cycloate appliedat 4.5 kg/ha were superior treatments. Results indicatethat dimethenamid-P and S-metolachlor do not have anadequate ability to control weeds that have emerged.Yields were much improved in the weeded row due tothe lack of competition from emerged weeds. No differ-ences were detected in yield between dimethenamid-Por S-metolachlor at any rate. Dimethenamid-P and S-metolachlor show potential for use in table beets, but itis important to apply these materials before weeds haveemerged.

28

AAES Research Series 519T

able

8. E

valu

atio

n of

Clo

maz

one

Dri

ft o

n N

ewly

Est

ablis

hed

Nat

ive

Pec

ans,

Fay

ette

ville

, 200

1.G

row

thP

ecan

chl

oros

is

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

1 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

10 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

455-

to

9-lf

34

55

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf1

22

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

11

11

00

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

455-

to

9-lf

35

86

00

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf1

34

40

0C

lom

azon

e4

EC

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

01

10

00

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.45

5- t

o 9-

lf2

57

12

20

prop

anil

4 E

C3.

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf2

44

40

0pr

opan

il4

EC

0.33

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

33

32

00

prop

anil

4 E

C0.

033

LS

D (

P=

.05)

NS

34

61

NS

cont

inue

d

Tabl

e 8.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Pec

an i

njur

y

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

1 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

10 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

455-

to

9-lf

20

00

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf2

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

455-

to

9-lf

30

00

00

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf0

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e4

EC

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.45

5- t

o 9-

lf3

96

23

92

41

03

prop

anil

4 E

C3.

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

045

5- t

o 9-

lf2

45

30

0pr

opan

il4

EC

0.33

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.00

455-

to

9-lf

23

20

0pr

opan

il4

EC

0.03

3L

SD

(P

=.0

5)5

56

41

1

29


Tabl

e 9.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Pec

an i

njur

y

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

1 W

AT

2 W

AT

3 W

AT

4 W

AT

5 W

AT

6 W

AT

7 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.45

6- t

o 12

-lf

66

55

43

3C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.04

56-

to

12-l

f3

22

23

33

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

0045

6- t

o 12

-lf

31

11

00

0C

lom

azon

e4

EC

0.45

6- t

o 12

-lf

48

66

64

4C

lom

azon

e4

EC

0.04

56-

to

12-l

f1

34

43

33

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

0045

6- t

o 12

-lf

22

12

11

1C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

456-

to

12-l

f2

52

83

32

82

51

59

prop

anil

4 E

C3.

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

045

6- t

o 12

-lf

81

01

08

13

88

prop

anil

4 E

C0.

33C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

0045

6- t

o 12

-lf

53

33

33

4pr

opan

il4

EC

0.03

3L

SD

(P

=.0

5)7

56

59

45

Tabl

e 9.

Eva

luat

ion

of C

lom

azon

e D

rift

on

2-Y

ear-

Old

Nat

ive

Pec

ans,

Fay

ette

ville

, 200

2.G

row

thP

ecan

chl

oros

is

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

1 W

AT

2 W

AT

3 W

AT

4 W

AT

5 W

AT

6 W

AT

7 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.45

6- t

o 12

-lf

25

18

18

10

111

01

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.04

56-

to

12-l

f11

86

85

55

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

0045

6- t

o 12

-lf

01

01

00

0C

lom

azon

e4

EC

0.45

6- t

o 12

-lf

30

20

15

15

14

14

13

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

045

6- t

o 12

-lf

14

111

41

08

88

Clo

maz

one

4 E

C0.

0045

6- t

o 12

-lf

64

33

43

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

456-

to

12-l

f2

01

51

31

08

99

prop

anil

4 E

C3.

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

045

6- t

o 12

-lf

10

12

116

65

5pr

opan

il4

EC

0.33

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.00

456-

to

12-l

f5

96

66

44

prop

anil

4 E

C0.

033

LS

D (

P=

.05)

118

76

76

6

cont

inue

d

30


able

10.

Her

bici

de E

valu

atio

n in

Wat

erm

elon

s an

d C

arry

over

Eff

ect t

o F

all G

reen

s, K

ible

r, 2

001.

Gro

wth

Wat

erm

elon

inj

ury

Pal

mer

am

aran

th c

ontr

olG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

l

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

3 W

AT

4 W

AT

2 W

AT

3 W

AT

4 W

AT

2 W

AT

3 W

AT

4 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.17

PR

E2

00

49

13

10

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.34

PR

E6

10

84

44

15

10

01

00

10

0E

thal

flur

alin

3 E

C1.

26P

RE

00

01

00

84

69

50

29

0C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

43

98

80

65

10

01

00

10

0et

half

lura

lin

3 E

C0.

63C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

21

19

111

00

97

93

10

01

00

99

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

EF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

34

26

21

10

09

89

61

00

10

09

9et

half

lura

lin

+3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

75 D

F0.

027

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E5

03

41

81

00

10

09

81

00

10

09

9et

half

lura

lin

+3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

75 D

F0.

036

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E3

07

99

88

85

10

01

00

10

0et

half

lura

lin

fb3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS1

75 D

F0.

016

POST

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E5

01

21

00

88

86

10

01

00

99

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.02

4PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

50

15

10

08

99

21

00

10

09

9et

half

lura

lin

fb3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS1

75 D

F0.

032

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

76

55

86

33

4

cont

inue

d

31


ble

10.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Ecl

ipta

con

trol

Wat

erm

elon

Spi

nach

inju

ryM

usta

rd2

inju

ry

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

yiel

d11

/15/

013/

21/0

211

/15/

013/

21/0

2

(kg

ai/h

a)(%

)(M

T/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00.

25

25

2C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.17

PR

E1

00

0.2

00

50

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

34P

RE

10

00.

77

32

38

Eth

alfl

ural

in3

EC

1.26

PR

E0

7.0

23

60

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E1

00

7.9

10

48

2et

half

lura

lin

3 E

C0.

63C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

99

14.1

00

00

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

EF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

015

.95

21

34

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

016

.35

21

55

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.03

6C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

011

.20

01

55

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.01

6PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

09.

47

21

74

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.02

4PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

09.

05

21

65

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.03

2PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

4.2

63

95

1N

IS w

as a

pplie

d at

0.2

5% v

olum

e to

vol

ume

of w

ater

.2

Fall-

plan

ted

follo

w c

rop.

32


ble

11. P

reem

erge

nce

Her

bici

de E

valu

atio

n in

Sna

p B

eans

, Low

ell,

Ark

., 20

01.

Com

mon

Ital

ian

ryeg

rass

Snap

bea

n

Gro

wth

Sna

p be

an in

jury

lam

bsqu

arte

rs c

ontr

ol c

ontr

olyi

eld

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---(

%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

9.5

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

4P

RE

96

59

18

41

00

10

012

.4D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E1

81

35

91

89

10

01

00

12.4

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

12P

RE

14

10

89

89

61

00

10

014

.2C

lom

azon

e3

ME

1.12

PR

E1

41

37

99

99

99

10

014

.1F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.33

PR

E6

55

92

84

99

93

14.3

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

67P

RE

33

39

89

01

00

10

015

.1F

omes

afen

2 L

0.22

PR

E5

42

85

80

30

814

.3L

acto

fen

2 E

0.22

PR

E5

42

89

69

28

014

.0S

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

75P

RE

55

39

69

51

00

10

017

.2fo

mes

afen

2 L

0.22

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.75

PR

E1

89

89

89

61

00

10

013

.5la

ctof

en2

E0.

22D

imet

hena

mid

-P +

6 E

C0.

56P

RE

20

15

10

98

98

10

01

00

14.7

fom

esaf

en2

L0.

22D

imet

hena

mid

-P +

6 E

C0.

56P

RE

30

16

61

00

95

10

01

00

14.2

lact

ofen

2 E

0.22

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E1

38

59

69

69

89

814

.0fo

mes

afen

2 L

0.22

Clo

mao

ne +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

15

116

10

09

91

00

99

13.4

lact

ofen

2 E

0.22

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E7

45

04

19

99

81

00

10

08.

4fl

umic

lora

c51

WD

G0.

036

LS

D (

P=

.05)

10

76

89

54

2.6

33


ble

12. P

oste

mer

genc

e H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in S

nap

Bea

ns, N

ewto

nia,

MO

, 200

1.C

omm

onG

iant

fox

tail

Snap

bea

n

Gro

wth

Sna

p be

an in

jury

lam

bsqu

arte

rs c

ontr

ol c

ontr

olyi

eld

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

3 W

AE

6 W

AE

3 W

AE

6 W

AE

3 W

AE

6 W

AE

8 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---(

%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

04.

2F

omes

afen

2 L

0.22

V3

00

91

90

29

18

9.4

Fom

esaf

en +

2 L

0.22

V3

00

94

95

70

64

7.3

bent

azon

4 E

C0.

84F

omes

afen

: fl

uazi

fop

1.41

WC

0.39

V3

93

94

93

96

94

6.2

Aci

fluo

rfen

2 A

S0.

28V

39

49

49

32

15

5.1

Aci

fluo

rfen

2 A

S0.

56V

31

91

39

79

54

12

06.

4A

cifl

uorf

en +

saf

ener

2 A

S0.

28V

38

39

08

82

11

05.

0A

cifl

uorf

en +

saf

ener

2 A

S0.

56V

31

61

09

59

53

51

96.

7Im

azet

hapy

r + N

IS1

2 A

S0.

07V

30

08

17

49

49

56.

1Im

azet

hapy

r +2

AS

0.07

V3

00

89

88

91

89

8.7

bent

azon

+ N

IS4

EC

0.84

Imaz

etha

pyr +

2 A

S0.

07V

311

69

49

37

97

05.

3fo

mes

afen

+ N

IS2

L0.

22Im

azam

ox +

NIS

1 A

S0.

04V

30

08

17

89

39

47.

5Im

azam

ox +

1 A

S0.

04V

30

09

18

89

08

66.

8be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 E

C0.

84Im

azam

ox +

1 A

S0.

04V

38

19

49

39

08

96.

2fo

mes

afen

+ N

IS2

L0.

22H

alos

ulfu

ron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.04

V3

00

29

35

00

6.6

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

04V

30

07

47

32

34

5.1

bent

azon

+ N

IS4

EC

0.84

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

04V

38

38

98

81

94

7.1

fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.22

Clo

rans

ulam

+ C

OC

284

DF

0.01

8V

36

32

06

19

56.

1F

lufe

npyr

+ C

OC

57.6

WD

G0.

2V

34

93

19

19

36

96

06.

4F

lufe

npyr

+ C

OC

57.6

WD

G0.

4V

35

84

49

59

48

58

65.

2F

lum

iclo

rac

+ N

IS0.

86 E

C0.

03V

35

37

67

09

06.

3L

SD

(P

=.0

5)5

46

66

61.

01

NIS

was

app

lied

at 0

.25%

vol

ume

to v

olum

e of

wat

er.

2C

OC

was

app

lied

at 1

% v

olum

e to

vol

ume

of w

ater

.

34


ble

13. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in S

outh

ern

Pea

s, K

ible

r, 2

001.

Gro

wth

Sou

ther

n pe

a in

jury

Goo

segr

ass

cont

rol

Red

spr

angl

etop

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

7 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

7 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

7 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

0S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

1.12

PR

E0

00

10

09

99

31

00

99

96

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.02

9P

RE

00

05

06

06

07

16

55

3H

alos

ulfu

ron

75 D

F0.

036

PR

E0

00

85

70

59

85

84

74

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

00

01

00

10

09

51

00

10

09

6C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

00

01

00

10

09

81

00

10

09

8ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

9C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

00

01

00

10

09

91

00

10

09

9fl

umio

xazi

n51

WD

G0.

036

PR

ED

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E0

00

95

95

95

98

98

96

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

33P

RE

00

09

99

89

61

00

99

96

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

67P

RE

00

09

69

69

31

00

10

09

5S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

22P

RE

00

08

48

46

18

98

06

0S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

45P

RE

13

19

14

98

96

93

95

95

91

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E0

00

10

01

00

99

10

01

00

99

sulf

entr

azon

e75

DF

0.28

Pen

dim

etha

lin

+3.

3 E

C0.

84P

RE

00

09

99

89

41

00

10

09

4im

azet

hapy

r2

AS

0.07

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

56P

RE

05

01

00

99

95

10

09

99

5ac

iflu

orfe

n2

L0.

28PO

STP

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.56

PR

E0

14

69

59

59

41

00

10

09

8ac

iflu

orfe

n2L

0.56

POST

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

1 A

S0.

04PO

ST0

00

09

18

90

93

83

Imaz

amox

+1

AS

0.04

POST

00

00

85

79

08

56

3be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84F

lufe

npyr

+ N

IS58

WD

G0.

18PO

ST0

50

07

57

00

75

40

Flu

fenp

yr +

NIS

58 W

DG

0.36

POST

01

05

06

36

80

76

26

LS

D (

P=

.05)

12

24

65

45

6

cont

inue

d

35


ble

13.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Pal

mer

am

aran

th c

ontr

olH

opho

rnbe

am c

oppe

rlea

f co

ntro

l

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

7 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

7 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

12P

RE

85

79

73

61

56

53

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.02

9P

RE

89

83

79

88

88

83

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.03

6P

RE

85

79

74

64

73

78

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

81

76

68

74

65

50

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E9

49

08

66

15

14

6ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

9C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

10

01

00

10

09

91

00

10

0fl

umio

xazi

n51

WD

G0.

036

PR

ED

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E9

08

88

86

16

95

9F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.33

PR

E9

48

47

97

87

98

3F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.67

PR

E8

16

04

57

58

58

9S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

22P

RE

88

84

84

98

94

93

Sul

fent

razo

ne75

DF

0.45

PR

E1

00

10

09

91

00

10

09

9C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

10

09

99

91

00

10

09

9su

lfen

traz

one

75 D

F0.

28P

endi

met

hali

n +

3.3

EC

0.84

PR

E1

00

96

94

70

60

53

imaz

etha

pyr

2 A

S0.

07P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.56

PR

E8

68

48

35

99

09

1ac

iflu

orfe

n2

L0.

28PO

STP

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.56

PR

E9

39

09

45

98

89

6ac

iflu

orfe

n2L

0.56

POST

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

1 A

S0.

04PO

ST0

54

40

07

57

6Im

azam

ox +

1 A

S0.

04PO

ST0

66

79

06

17

4be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 S

L0.

84F

lufe

npyr

+ N

IS58

WD

G0.

18PO

ST0

86

89

09

59

0F

lufe

npyr

+ N

IS58

WD

G0.

36PO

ST0

81

85

09

89

1L

SD

(P

=.0

5)5

77

67

7

cont

inue

d

36


ble

13.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Sou

ther

n pe

aS

pina

ch in

jury

Mus

tard

2 in

jury

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

yiel

d11

/15/

013/

21/0

211

/15/

013/

21/0

2

(kg

ai/h

a)(M

T/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

1.2

00

00

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

12P

RE

1.5

00

31

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.02

9P

RE

1.4

61

15

5H

alos

ulfu

ron

75 D

F0.

036

PR

E1.

81

03

10

5C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.56

PR

E1.

95

13

0C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

2.1

10

31

0ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

9C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

RE

2.1

13

61

03

flum

ioxa

zin

51 W

DG

0.03

6D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.56

PR

E1.

811

43

0F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.33

PR

E2.

12

411

14

5F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.67

PR

E1.

62

19

93

Sul

fent

razo

ne75

DF

0.22

PR

E2.

26

42

91

33

Sul

fent

razo

ne75

DF

0.45

PR

E2.

07

43

51

86

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PR

E1.

96

13

31

56

sulf

entr

azon

e75

DF

0.28

Pen

dim

etha

lin

+3.

3 E

C0.

84P

RE

2.2

70

39

53

28

imaz

etha

pyr

2 A

S0.

07P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.56

PR

E2.

01

34

10

acif

luor

fen

2 L

0.28

POST

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

56P

RE

2.3

83

91

acif

luor

fen

2L0.

56PO

STIm

azam

ox +

NIS

11

AS

0.04

POST

1.6

13

41

66

Imaz

amox

+1

AS

0.04

POST

1.5

10

31

01

bent

azon

+ N

IS4

SL

0.84

Flu

fenp

yr +

NIS

58 W

DG

0.18

POST

2.0

81

61

Flu

fenp

yr +

NIS

58 W

DG

0.36

POST

1.8

41

41

LS

D (

P=

.05)

0.5

14

71

06

1N

IS w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 0.2

5% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

2F

all-

plan

ted

foll

ow c

rop.

37


ble

14. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in O

ver-

Win

tere

d Sp

inac

h, K

ible

r, 2

001-

2002

.C

utle

afH

enbi

tP

inea

pple

wee

dev

enin

gpri

mro

seG

row

thS

pina

ch in

jury

con

trol

cont

rol

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

112

32

32

32

3

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

0L

inur

on50

DF

0.07

5P

RE

59

46

31

00

78

58

55

39

Lin

uron

50 D

F0.

15P

RE

80

63

51

00

93

85

55

44

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

16

84

94

90

71

59

68

38

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

25P

RE

40

28

15

96

95

81

74

90

83

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

5P

RE

55

44

31

98

99

98

91

89

89

Thi

oben

carb

8 E

C1.

5P

RE

31

24

10

75

50

00

33

8T

hiob

enca

rb8

EC

3.0

PR

E5

34

32

67

35

40

04

42

5F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.3

PR

E5

53

41

49

69

39

89

11

00

98

Qui

nclo

rac

75 D

F0.

125

PR

E5

53

62

55

32

31

99

53

39

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

05P

RE

46

35

23

10

09

58

17

05

43

5C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.1

PR

E8

37

55

31

00

95

10

09

49

08

5C

GA

-362

622

75 D

F0.

0046

PR

E1

00

91

83

10

09

49

08

51

00

98

CG

A-3

6262

275

DF

0.00

7P

RE

10

09

38

81

00

99

94

89

10

01

00

Nap

ropa

mid

e75

WP

4.0

PR

E9

89

48

99

48

81

64

74

55

Nap

ropa

mid

e75

WP

8.0

PR

E1

00

96

93

99

91

15

42

14

Flu

roxy

pyr

1.5

EC

0.02

4PO

ST2

31

68

26

01

30

18

5F

luro

xypy

r1.

5 E

C0.

048

POST

33

20

10

53

35

18

05

63

8S

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E11

94

10

09

99

59

09

99

6ph

enm

edip

ham

1.3

EC

0.4

POST

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E5

44

32

81

00

99

93

85

91

86

linu

ron

50 D

F0.

075

S-m

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E8

17

36

01

00

96

96

91

95

89

linu

ron

50 D

F0.

15S

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E1

39

31

00

96

99

95

98

93

clop

yral

id3

EC

0.08

POST

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

56P

RE

13

81

10

09

89

69

19

58

6cl

etho

dim

2 E

C0.

03PO

STS

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.56

PR

E11

83

10

09

69

89

39

58

8cl

etho

dim

2 E

C0.

06PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)7

91

08

96

71

01

0

38


ble

15. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in W

inte

r Sq

uash

, Fay

ette

ville

, 200

1.G

row

thS

quas

h in

jury

Yel

low

nut

sedg

e co

ntro

l

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

10 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

10 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)---

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

34P

RE

00

00

00

00

Eth

alfl

ural

in3

EC

1.25

PR

E0

00

02

31

91

51

0C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

00

00

26

20

15

13

etha

lflu

rali

n3

EC

0.63

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E2

61

41

05

91

89

85

80

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.01

8P

RE

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E4

42

81

611

95

93

88

84

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

53

16

26

15

97

94

91

86

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.03

6C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

08

53

23

88

83

80

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.01

6PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

09

63

26

91

96

96

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

75 D

F0.

024

POST

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E0

19

15

92

48

69

59

5et

half

lura

lin

fb3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.03

2PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)7

66

44

55

4

cont

inue

d

39


ble

15.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Fal

l pa

nicu

m c

ontr

olP

alm

er a

mar

anth

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

10 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

10 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)---

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

Clo

maz

one

3 M

E0.

34P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

33

36

34

34

Eth

alfl

ural

in3

EC

1.25

PR

E1

00

90

90

90

10

09

19

39

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

etha

lflu

rali

n3

EC

0.63

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0et

half

lura

lin

+3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

75 D

F0.

018

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.03

6C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

175

DF

0.01

6PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

75 D

F0.

024

POST

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0et

half

lura

lin

fb3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.03

2PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

33

32

42

2

cont

inue

d

40


ble

15.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Ven

ice

mal

low

con

trol

Squ

ash

yiel

d

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

10 W

AE

12 W

AE

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

-(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

01.

4C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.34

PR

E9

08

07

56

94.

6E

thal

flur

alin

3 E

C1.

25P

RE

74

60

46

38

4.0

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E8

88

58

07

33.

6et

half

lura

lin

3 E

C0.

63C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

99

99

94

89

1.6

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.01

8C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

01

00

98

93

1.9

etha

lflu

rali

n +

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

7C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

10

09

99

58

82.

4et

half

lura

lin

+3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

75 D

F0.

036

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E9

59

89

69

06.

4et

half

lura

lin

fb 3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS1

75 D

F0.

016

POST

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.17

PR

E9

99

91

00

10

08.

7et

half

lura

lin

fb3

EC

0.63

halo

sulf

uron

+ N

IS75

DF

0.02

4PO

STC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

17P

RE

98

99

10

01

00

4.7

etha

lflu

rali

n fb

3 E

C0.

63ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

75 D

F0.

032

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

66

54

0.8

1N

IS w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 0.2

5% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

41


ble

16. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in S

wee

t Pot

atoe

s, N

ewto

nia,

MO

, 200

1.G

row

thS

wee

t po

tato

inj

ury

Goo

segr

ass

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

12 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

12 W

AT

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

00

0C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.1

44

00

01

00

10

09

89

89

0C

lom

azon

e3.

ME

1.12

PO

ST

tr.

111

05

10

10

01

00

10

09

49

0S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.75

PO

ST

tr.

85

00

01

00

10

01

00

96

93

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

5P

OS

T tr

.1

38

01

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

56P

OS

T tr

.6

63

00

10

01

00

10

09

99

8D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

1.12

PO

ST

tr.

16

20

15

88

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.45

PO

ST

tr.

10

10

83

01

00

99

10

09

38

5F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.9

PO

ST

tr.

14

13

13

85

10

01

00

10

09

99

4F

lufe

nace

t +

met

ribu

zin

68 W

G0.

56P

OS

T tr

.1

31

31

31

08

10

01

00

10

09

58

8N

apro

pam

ide

50 D

F2.

24P

OS

T tr

.6

30

00

93

88

83

79

78

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.

111

06

51

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0fl

ufen

acet

60 W

G0.

45C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

OS

T tr

.2

32

32

62

01

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

fluf

enac

et +

met

ribu

zin

68 W

G0.

56C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

OS

T tr

.2

32

52

81

88

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0ha

llos

ulfu

ron

75 D

F0.

036

Clo

maz

one

fb3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.

54

40

23

15

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0ha

losu

lfur

on +

NIS

275

DF

0.03

6L

AT

E P

OST

tr.

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

LA

TE

PO

ST tr

.0

00

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

0se

thox

ydim

+ C

OC

31.

5 E

C0.

42L

SD

(P

=.0

5)4

43

33

12

25

4

cont

inue

d

42


ble

16.

Con

tinu

ed.

Sw

eet

Gro

wth

Com

mon

lam

bsqu

arte

rs c

ontr

olV

elve

tlea

f co

ntro

lpo

tato

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

12 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

12 W

AT

yiel

d

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

00

025

.9C

lom

azon

e3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.1

10

09

88

87

55

91

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

31.0

Clo

maz

one

3.M

E1.

12P

OS

T tr

.1

00

10

09

99

48

91

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

37.4

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

75P

OS

T tr

.9

99

93

88

84

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

039

.2S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

1.5

PO

ST

tr.

10

01

00

95

90

88

10

01

00

99

99

98

41.1

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

56P

OS

T tr

.1

00

93

85

79

75

99

98

93

85

75

34.4

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

12P

OS

T tr

.9

99

59

08

58

19

89

89

08

88

037

.5F

lufe

nace

t60

WG

0.45

PO

ST

tr.

99

93

86

78

74

10

01

00

95

91

88

46.6

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

9P

OS

T tr

.1

00

94

90

83

76

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

040

.4F

lufe

nace

t +

68 W

G0.

56P

OS

T tr

.1

00

10

01

00

99

99

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

038

.0m

etri

buzi

nN

apro

pam

ide

50 D

F2.

24P

OS

T tr

.1

00

95

91

86

85

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

36.6

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

41.4

fluf

enac

et60

WG

0.45

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

PO

ST

tr.

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

98

35.1

fluf

enac

et +

68 W

G0.

56m

etri

buzi

nC

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

56P

OS

T tr

.1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

035

.5ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.03

6C

lom

azon

e fb

3 M

E0.

56P

OS

T tr

.1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

035

.8ha

losu

lfur

on +

75 D

F0.

036

LP

OS

T tr

.N

IS2

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.56

LP

OS

T tr

.9

58

51

00

70

60

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

032

.9se

thox

ydim

+1.

5 E

C0.

42C

OC

3

LS

D (

P=

.05)

24

56

62

33

34

6.8

1P

OS

T tr

. = P

OS

T tr

ansp

lant

, app

lied

2 d

ays

afte

r tr

ansp

lant

ing

swee

t pot

ato;

LP

OS

T tr

. = la

te P

OS

T tr

ansp

lant

, app

lied

35

days

aft

er tr

ansp

lant

ing

swee

t pot

ato.

2N

IS w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 0.2

5% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

3C

OC

was

app

lied

at 1

% v

olum

e pe

r vo

lum

e of

wat

er.

43


ble

17. E

valu

atio

n of

S-m

etoa

lchl

or a

nd D

imet

hena

mid

-P in

Tab

le B

eet,

Fay

ette

ville

, 200

1.C

omm

on l

ambs

quar

ters

Cut

leaf

eve

ning

prim

rose

Hen

bit

Tabl

eG

row

thTa

ble

beet

s in

jury

cont

rol

cont

rol

cont

rol

beet

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

2 W

AT

yiel

d

(kg

ai/h

a)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(M

T/h

a)R

OW

1 -

wee

ds p

rese

nt a

t app

licat

ion

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

00

3.1

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

742-

lf5

50

85

77

65

53

23

10

42

4.1

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

482-

lf1

31

07

90

87

87

47

18

17

58

5.6

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

752-

lf8

85

95

75

57

27

10

10

27

4.5

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

52-

lf1

31

21

28

05

74

25

32

21

24

75.

2P

yraz

on67

.7 D

F4.

12-

lf0

00

97

95

93

95

95

10

09

310

.7C

yclo

ate

6 E

C4.

52-

lf1

21

01

08

85

72

56

82

71

05

05.

6L

SD

(P

=.0

5)6

43

10

111

51

26

81

22.

5

RO

W 2

- ha

nd-w

eede

d pr

ior

to a

pplic

atio

nU

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

95

90

88

93

93

90

95

8.0

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

742-

lf5

50

97

95

93

83

77

73

93

11.3

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

482-

lf1

31

07

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

97

97

12.2

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

752-

lf8

85

98

97

98

97

77

67

92

10.5

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C1.

52-

lf1

31

21

21

00

98

98

98

82

67

97

10.9

Pyr

azon

67.7

DF

4.1

2-lf

00

09

71

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

016

.7C

yclo

ate

6 E

C4.

52-

lf1

21

01

01

00

10

09

89

39

08

79

514

.1L

SD

(P

=.0

5)8

43

45

67

111

55

3.6

44



Evaluation of Herbicides for Ornamental Gourd,Fayetteville, 2002 (Table 18).

Ornamental gourd (var. Apple Gourd) were hand-planted 1 ft apart in a single row spaced 6.7 ft apart foreach plot on 16 July 2002. PRE treatments were appliedimmediately after planting (air 83ºF; soil 85ºF, moistureadequate; RH 58%). POST treatments were applied to2- to 3-leaf gourd plants on 12 August 2002 (air 76ºF;soil 73ºF, moisture adequate; RH 78%). Weeds presentincluded: yellow nutsedge - 4 to 5 in, 10/sq ft; goosegrass- 2 to 3 in, 5/sq ft; and johnsongrass - 5 to 6 in, 10/sq ft.

RESULTS: Gourd was tolerant to the 2.5 pt/acreof Strategy PRE, but the 2 X rate caused slight (21%)early injury, from which they rapidly recovered. Sandeaat 0.33 oz/acre PRE caused 21 to 30% early stunting ofgourd with recovery to 11% at 8 wk after planting and0.67 oz/acre PRE caused 41 to 45% stunting with re-covery to 20% stunting at 8 wk after planting. The se-quential treatment with Sandea at 0.33 oz/acre early POSTmaintained the stunting at 30% throughout the 8 wk pe-riod after planting. The higher rate of Sandea appliedsequentially PRE followed by POST severely stuntedthe gourd (65%). Basagran applied POST caused someslight symptoms (11% at 1 pt/acre and 14% at 1 qt/acre). Strategy at 2.5 pt/acre was very effective ingoosegrass control. Sandea was very effective in yellownutsedge control with the low rate PRE giving 76% con-trol after 8 wk and the high rate applied sequentially PREfollowed by POST giving 100% control. Select con-trolled the johnsongrass early, but a repeat treatmentwould have been needed to maintain control. The ex-periment was eventually lost to the heavy johnsongrassinfestation and was not harvested.

Herbicide Evaluation in Snap Beans,Fayetteville, 2002 (Table 19).

Snap beans (cv. Hercules) were planted 25 April2002, in conventionally tilled plots measuring 6.67 by 17ft with two rows spaced 40 in apart. PRE treatmentswere applied the same day following planting (air 48ºF;soil 46ºF, moist; RH 52%). Weed control and crop in-jury evaluations were made at 3, 5, and 7 wk after plant-ing, and yields were taken approximately 8 wk after plant-

ing. Weeds present at this location included commonlambsquarters (CHEAL), yellow nutsedge (CYPES),carpetweed (MOLVE), Palmer amaranth (AMAPA),eclipta (ECLAL), and goosegrass (ELEIN).

RESULTS: There seemed to be good toleranceof snap beans to several of the experimental herbicides:dimethenamid-P, PRE; fomesafen, PRE; imazethapyr,PRE; halosulfuron, PRE and POST; acifluorfen (UltraBlazer), POST; imazamox POST; imazamox + bentazon,POST; imazamox + fomesafen, POST; halosulfuron +bentazon, POST; halosulfuron + fomesafen, POST;fluicloric, POST; and chloransulam, POST. Acifluorfen(Blazer), POST; flufenpyr, POST; and carfentrazonecaused excessive injury. Halosulfuron was outstandingon yellow nutsedge, but dimethenamid-P, imazethapyr,bentazon, imazamox, chloransulam, flufenpyr, and S-metolachlor were also good. Dimethenamid-P treatments,clomazone + pendimethalin, and chloransulam gave loweryields than standard treatments. Good yields resulted,where injury was low, and weed control was excellentwith S-metolachlor, PRE; imazethapyr, PRE; S-metolachlor + halosulfuron, PRE; imazamox +fomesafen, POST; halosulfuron, POST; halosulfuron +bentazon, POST; halosulfuron + fomesafen, POST; andS-metolachlor, PRE fb imazamox, halosulfuron, orfomesafen POST.

Evaluation of Herbicide Programs in SouthernPeas, Kibler, 2002 (Table 20).

Southern peas (cv. Early Scarlet) were planted 16June 2002 in plots 1.6 by 5.5 m. Plots consisted of tworows spaced 0.75-m apart. PRE treatments were ap-plied 19 July (air 75ºF; soil 72ºF, moist; RH 68%). POSTtreatments were applied 10 June 2002 (air 83ºF; soil 81ºF,moist; RH 56%) to V4 southern pea plants. Crop injuryand weed control was rated throughout the growing sea-son and plots were harvested on 29 August 2002. Weedspresent included goosegrass (ELEIN), Palmer amaranth(AMAPA), and carpetweed (MOLVE).

RESULTS: Some herbicides caused serious in-jury to the southernpea (Table 16). Sulfentrazone ap-plied PRE at 0.2 lb/acre caused up to 36%, sulfentrazoneat 0.4 lb/acre caused up to 76% injury. Mild symptoms,5 to 11% injury were noticed from halosulfuron PRE,metolachlor PRE, First Rate POST, and flufenpyr POST.All treatments, except imazamox alone POST (63 to65%), imazamox mixed with bentazon POST (79%),

45


and flufenpyr POST (81%) gave excellent control ofPalmer amaranth (96 to 100% control). All treatmentsexcept halosulfuron, imazamox, and flufenpyr gave >90%control of goosegrass. High yielding treatments includedmetolachlor PRE, Outlook PRE, clomazone +flumioxazin PRE, flufenacet PRE, and pendimethalinPRE fb acifluorfen (Ultra Blazer) POST.

Herbicide Evaluation in Fall Greens, Kibler, 2002(Table 21).

Collard (cv. Champion), kale (cv. Premier), mus-tard (cv. Southern Giant Curled), and turnip (cv. All Top)greens were planted 3 September 2002 in four rows on5 ft beds, spaced 7 in apart, each row with one of thefour crops. Plots were 20 ft long. PRE treatments wereapplied 4 September (air 86ºF; soil 84ºF, moist; RH 48%)and POST treatments were applied 25 September (air82ºF; soil 81ºF, moist; RH 56%) when the greens wereall 2 to 6 in. tall.

RESULTS: The major interest in this test was todetermine the tolerances of the southern greens to thevarious herbicide treatments. Trifluralin and DCPA arethe current standard herbicides for all of these cropsand these treatments were used to compare the cropinjury ratings and crop yield from the experimental treat-ments. Trifluralin fb DCPA was also well tolerated bythe various greens. All four greens crops were generallytolerant to sulfentrazone at 0.075 lb/acre PRE,thiobencarb at 1.5 to 3 lb/acre PRE, S-metolachor at0.5 lb/acre PRE, and pendimethalin at 0.25 PRE fbclopyralid at 0.1 to 0.2 lb/acre POST. There was insuf-ficient tolerance by the various greens to sulfentrazoneat 0.15 lb/acre PRE, pendimethalin at 0.5 and 1 lb/acrePRE, S-metolachlor at 1 lb/acre PRE, and dimethenamid-P at 0.5 and 1 lb/acre PRE. The crops treated withpendimethalin at 0.25 lb/acre were not injured early, butthe addition of oxyfluorfen at 0.125 and 0.25 lb/acrePOST caused some mild injury to collard, mustard andturnip, but kale seemed more tolerant.

Evaluation of S-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Table Beets, Fayetteville, 2002 (Table 22).

Table beets (cv. Detroit Dark Red) were plantedon 1 April 2002 into plots measuring 2 by 4 m. Each

plot contained three rows spaced 30-cm apart at arate of 40 seed per m row. Treatments were appliedat the 2- to 3-leaf stage on 30 April 2002 (air 17ºC;soil 17ºC, moist; RH 70%). Crop injury and weedcontrol was rated 2, 3, and 6 weeks after treatments(WAT) and plots were harvested on 1 July 2002.Weeds present included common lambsquarters(CHEAL), cutleaf eveningprimrose (OEOLA), andyellow nutsedge (CYPES).

RESULTS: Pyrazon, the industry standard, gaveexcellent control of all weeds and beet yields werethe highest. There was slight retardation in beetgrowth from the higher rate of dimethenamid-P andS-metolachlor, but beet yields were not reduced com-pared to lower rates. Dimethenamid-P and S-metolachlor gave fair control of commonlambsquarters, especially at the higher rate, but verypoor control of cutleaf eveningprimrose.

Herbicide Evaluation in Grapes, Fayetteville,2002 (Table 23).

Three-year-old Concord grapes were used toevaluate promising herbicides. Plots were 30 ft longwith a 4 ft treated swath of the 12 ft row spacing.There were 3 grape plants per plot with 4 replica-tions. All treatments were initially applied in a mix-ture of paraquat at 0.9 lb/acre on 29 April. The re-peat POST treatments were applied 15 May.

RESULTS: There were no observable re-sponses of the grape vines to any treatment indicat-ing excellent tolerance. Crabgrass control was ex-cellent from all treatments through 5 wk, then sometreatments began to break lose efficiency. Azafenidinat 0.5 to 1 lb/acre applied in April, and azafenidin at0.375 lb/acre repeated in April and May were themost persistent treatments. The 1 lb/acre treatmentwas also very effective on bermudagrass throughoutthe growing season. The untreated check and the lowrate of flumioxazin, 0.5 lb/acre, were the only treat-ments with significantly lower yields than the othertreated plots. Inexplicably, flumioxazin at 0.375 lb/acre repeated, gave significantly greater yields thanany other treatments.

46


able

18.

Her

bici

de E

valu

atio

n in

Orn

amen

tal G

ourd

s, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

002.

Gro

wth

Gou

rd i

njur

yY

ello

w n

utse

dge

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

Str

ateg

y12.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

81

00

00

Str

ateg

y2.

1 E

C5

pt/a

cre

PR

E2

16

10

00

Str

ateg

y fb

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E6

00

00

0S

elec

t +

CO

C2

2 E

C1

qt/a

cre

POST

Str

ateg

y +

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E3

01

911

89

80

76

Sand

ea75

DF

0.33

oz/

acre

Str

ateg

y +

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E4

52

92

09

59

18

9Sa

ndea

75 D

F0.

67 o

z/ac

reS

trat

egy

+2.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

21

33

28

91

96

94

San

dea

fb75

DF

0.33

oz/

acre

San

dea

+ N

IS3

75 D

F0.

33 o

z/ac

rePO

STS

trat

egy

+2.

1 E

C.2

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

41

68

65

96

10

01

00

San

dea

fb75

DF

0.67

oz/

acre

San

dea

+ N

IS75

DF

0.67

oz/

acre

POST

Str

ateg

y fb

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E6

113

06

45

1B

asag

ran

+ C

OC

4 S

L1

pt/a

cre

POST

Str

ateg

y fb

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E6

14

80

80

61

Bas

agra

n +

CO

C4

SL

1 qt

/acr

ePO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)5

44

24

4

cont

inue

d

47


ble

18.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Goo

segr

ass

cont

rol

John

song

rass

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

2 W

AE

4 W

AE

6 W

AE

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

Str

ateg

y2.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

94

84

80

94

66

20

Str

ateg

y2.

1 E

C5

pt/a

cre

PR

E9

69

38

49

46

62

1S

trat

egy

fb2.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

93

96

93

96

91

76

Sel

ect

+ C

OC

22

EC

1 qt

/acr

ePO

STS

trat

egy

+2.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

94

83

71

95

59

16

Sand

ea75

DF

0.33

oz/

acre

Str

ateg

y +

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E9

48

37

09

66

91

3Sa

ndea

75 D

F0.

67 o

z/ac

reS

trat

egy

+2.

1 E

C2.

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

93

84

73

96

66

20

San

dea

fb75

DF

0.33

oz/

acre

San

dea

+ N

IS3

75 D

F0.

33 o

z/ac

rePO

STS

trat

egy

+2.

1 E

C.2

5 pt

/acr

eP

RE

94

85

70

95

61

15

San

dea

fb75

DF

0.67

oz/

acre

San

dea

+ N

IS75

DF

0.67

oz/

acre

POST

Str

ateg

y fb

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E9

38

37

19

86

11

5B

asag

ran

+ C

OC

4 S

L1

pt/a

cre

POST

Str

ateg

y fb

2.1

EC

2.5

pt/a

cre

PR

E9

58

47

39

36

41

9B

asag

ran

+ C

OC

4 S

L1

qt/a

cre

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

45

54

12

91

Str

ateg

y co

ntai

ns e

thyl

flur

alin

1.6

lb/g

al +

clo

maz

one

0.5

lb/g

al; S

ande

a co

ntai

ns h

alos

ulfu

ron,

75%

; and

Bas

agra

n co

ntai

ns b

enta

zon,

4 lb

/gal

.2

CO

C w

as a

ppli

ed a

t 1%

vol

ume

per

volu

me

of w

ater

.3

NIS

was

app

lied

at 0

.25%

vol

ume

per

volu

me

of w

ater

.

48


ble

19. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

ins

Snap

Bea

ns, F

ayet

tevi

lle, 2

002.

Com

mon

lam

bsqu

arte

rsG

row

thS

nap

bean

inju

ryY

ello

w n

utse

dge

cont

rol

cont

rol

Car

petw

eed

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

00

00

0S

-Met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

00

90

84

81

95

93

95

83

78

78

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

5P

RE

00

08

67

67

31

00

10

09

66

85

95

4D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

1.0

PR

E0

00

95

86

81

10

09

99

87

97

16

3C

lom

azon

e +

3 M

E0.

25P

RE

00

04

63

63

11

00

10

09

96

56

56

1pe

ndim

etha

lin

3.3

EC

0.5

Fom

esaf

en2

L0.

25P

RE

00

07

06

15

51

00

98

96

98

95

94

Imaz

etha

pyr

70 D

F0.

036

PR

E0

00

96

95

91

10

01

00

99

10

01

00

98

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.03

2P

RE

00

01

00

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

98

91

93

S-M

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

halo

sulf

uron

75 D

F0.

032

Fom

esaf

en +

2 L

0.2

POST

00

00

74

66

07

15

90

99

95

NIS

1 +

AG

-98

Fom

esaf

en +

2 L

0.2

POST

00

00

93

89

09

61

00

01

00

99

bent

azon

+ C

OC

24

EC

0.75

Aci

fluo

rfen

+ N

IS2

EC

0.25

POST

10

64

04

53

60

95

95

09

19

4A

cifl

uorf

en +

NIS

2 E

C0.

5PO

ST2

51

61

30

43

26

09

59

40

94

95

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

L0.

036

POST

00

00

90

81

09

59

30

61

50

Imaz

amox

+1

L0.

036

POST

00

00

94

93

09

59

50

64

56

bent

azon

+ N

IS4

EC

0.75

Imaz

amox

+1

L0.

035

POST

00

00

91

88

09

79

50

95

99

fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.2

Hal

osul

furo

n +

NIS

75 D

F0.

032

POST

00

00

95

99

08

68

50

30

24

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

032

POST

00

00

95

98

09

39

30

46

36

bent

azon

+ N

IS4

EC

0.75

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

032

POST

00

00

93

93

09

38

90

95

99

fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.2

Chl

oran

sula

m +

84 D

F0.

016

POST

05

30

88

81

04

13

10

71

74

CO

CF

lufe

npyr

+57

.6 W

DG

0.18

POST

04

63

30

93

94

01

00

10

00

10

01

00

CO

CF

lufe

npyr

+57

.6 W

DG

0.36

POST

07

86

10

95

97

01

00

10

00

10

01

00

CO

Cco

ntin

ued

49


ble

19.

Con

tinu

ed.

Com

mon

lam

bsqu

arte

rsG

row

thS

nap

bean

inju

ryY

ello

w n

utse

dge

cont

rol

cont

rol

Car

petw

eed

cont

rol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--F

lum

iclo

rac

+0.

86 E

C0.

027

POST

06

40

40

30

09

38

80

29

28

CO

CS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

73

56

91

94

90

10

01

00

99

98

99

95

carf

entr

azon

e +

2 E

C0.

025

POST

NIS

S-M

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

5P

RE

00

09

31

00

99

10

01

00

98

98

98

95

halo

sulf

uron

+75

DF

0.03

2PO

STN

ISS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

00

91

97

96

10

01

00

99

10

01

00

10

0im

azam

ox +

NIS

1 L

0.03

6PO

STS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

00

91

98

95

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.2

POST

LS

D (

P=

.05)

14

34

69

05

84

81

0

cont

inue

d

Tabl

e 19

. C

onti

nued

.

Pal

mer

am

aran

thSn

apG

row

thco

ntro

lE

clip

ta c

ontr

olG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

lbe

an

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

yiel

d

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(MT

/ha)

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

05.

3S

-Met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E9

99

69

59

59

39

01

00

10

01

00

9.5

Dim

ethn

aam

id-P

6 E

C0.

5P

RE

10

09

49

41

00

98

95

10

01

00

10

07.

6D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

1.0

PR

E9

99

69

51

00

10

09

91

00

10

01

00

7.9

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.25

PR

E1

00

94

94

10

09

89

51

00

10

01

00

7.5

pend

imet

hali

n3.

3 E

C0.

5F

omes

afen

2 L

0.25

PR

E1

00

99

96

94

89

86

98

94

91

8.9

Imaz

etha

pyr

70 D

F0.

036

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

98

98

93

93

9.7

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.03

2P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

23

18

16

8.5

S-M

etol

achl

or +

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

93

86

81

10

01

00

10

09.

0ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.03

2F

omes

afen

+2

L0.

2PO

ST0

97

98

01

00

99

07

97

37.

8N

IS1

cont

inue

d

50


ble

19.

Con

tinu

ed.

Pal

mer

am

aran

thSn

apG

row

thco

ntro

lE

clip

ta c

ontr

olG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

lbe

an

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

5-14

5-29

6-13

yiel

d

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(MT

/ha)

Fom

esaf

en +

2 L

0.2

POST

09

91

00

09

69

40

83

74

8.6

bent

azon

+ C

OC

24

EC

0.75

Aci

fluo

rfen

+ N

IS2

EC

0.25

POST

09

79

60

59

50

02

62

08.

2A

cifl

uorf

en +

NIS

2 E

C0.

5PO

ST0

91

95

07

16

10

53

43

6.8

Imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

L0.

036

POST

09

69

80

70

70

08

99

48.

9Im

azam

ox +

1 L

0.03

6PO

ST0

10

01

00

08

37

60

98

10

08.

4be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 E

C0.

75Im

azam

ox +

1 L

0.03

5PO

ST0

10

01

00

09

59

10

90

90

10.0

fom

esaf

en +

NIS

2 L

0.2

Hal

osul

furo

n +

NIS

75 D

F0.

032

POST

09

59

40

10

09

80

65

9.6

Hal

osul

furo

n +

75 D

F0.

032

POST

09

69

60

10

09

60

81

09.

0be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 E

C0.

75H

alos

ulfu

ron

+75

DF

0.03

2PO

ST0

10

01

00

01

00

99

08

18

49.

4fo

mes

afen

+ N

IS2

L0.

2C

hlor

ansu

lam

+84

DF

0.01

6PO

ST0

86

83

09

19

10

41

39

6.5

CO

CF

lufe

npyr

+57

.6 W

DG

0.18

POST

01

00

10

00

10

01

00

08

37

51.

1C

OC

Flu

fenp

yr +

57.6

WD

G0.

36PO

ST0

10

01

00

01

00

10

00

90

85

0.8

CO

CF

lum

iclo

rac

+0.

86 E

C0.

027

POST

03

12

30

33

31

01

86

5.6

CO

CS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

99

10

01

00

10

00.

3ca

rfen

traz

one

+2

EC

0.02

5PO

STN

ISS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

9.4

halo

sulf

uron

+75

DF

0.03

2PO

STN

ISS

-Met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E1

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

9.1

imaz

amox

+ N

IS1

L0.

036

POST

S-M

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

5P

RE

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

09.

0fo

mes

afen

+ N

IS2

L0.

2PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)1

45

25

73

81

01.

1

51


ble

20. E

valu

atio

n of

Her

bici

de P

rogr

ams i

n So

uthe

rn P

eas,

Kib

ler,

Ark

., 20

02.

Sou

ther

n pe

aP

alm

er a

mar

anth

Gro

wth

inju

ryco

ntro

lG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

lS

outh

ern

pea

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

7-10

8-2

8-28

7-10

8-2

8-28

7-10

8-2

8-28

yiel

d

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(MT

/ha)

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

00

00

00

00

02.

3S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

3.2

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C0.

5P

RE

00

09

99

99

81

00

10

01

00

2.3

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

0P

RE

40

31

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

09

92.

5H

alos

ulfu

ron

75 D

F0.

024

PR

E0

00

99

99

98

79

70

61

2.5

Hal

osul

furo

n75

DF

0.04

7P

RE

53

19

99

89

88

37

86

91.

9S

-met

olac

hlor

+7.

62 E

C0.

5P

RE

53

11

00

99

99

10

01

00

10

02.

6ha

losu

lfur

on75

DF

0.02

6S

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E11

10

91

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

00.

8ha

losu

lfur

on +

75 D

F0.

026

POST

NIS

1

Clo

maz

one

+3

ME

0.5

PR

E0

00

99

98

96

10

01

00

10

02.

7fl

umio

xazi

n51

WD

G0.

032

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

3P

RE

00

09

99

89

81

00

10

01

00

2.8

Flu

fena

cet

60 W

G0.

6P

RE

00

01

00

99

99

10

01

00

10

03.

0S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

2P

RE

36

31

21

10

01

00

10

09

89

89

51.

9S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

4P

RE

76

66

61

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

0.2

Clo

maz

one

+3

EC

0.5

PR

E4

84

03

41

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01.

0su

lfen

traz

one

75 D

F0.

25P

endi

met

hali

n +

3.3

EC

0.75

PR

E0

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

2.9

imaz

etha

pyr

2 E

C0.

063

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

5P

RE

00

09

99

99

89

39

08

62.

6ac

iflu

orfe

n2

EC

0.25

POST

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

5P

RE

00

01

00

10

01

00

91

90

85

2.3

acif

luor

fen

2 E

C0.

5PO

STS

-met

olac

hlor

fb

7.62

EC

0.5

PR

E0

10

91

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

99

2.0

chlo

rans

ulam

+84

DF

0.01

6PO

STC

OC

2

S-m

etol

achl

or f

b7.

62 E

C0.

5P

RE

08

81

00

10

01

00

10

01

00

10

02.

3ch

lora

nsul

am +

84 D

F0.

032

POST

CO

CIm

azam

ox +

1 E

C0.

036

POST

00

00

63

51

09

08

31.

7N

ISco

ntin

ued

52


ble

20.

Con

tinu

ed.

Sou

ther

n pe

aP

alm

er a

mar

anth

Gro

wth

inju

ryco

ntro

lG

oose

gras

s co

ntro

lS

outh

ern

pea

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

7-10

8-2

8-28

7-10

8-2

8-28

7-10

8-2

8-28

yiel

d

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(MT

/ha)

Imaz

amox

+1

EC

0.07

2PO

ST0

00

06

45

50

93

90

1.5

NIS

Imaz

amox

+1

EC

0.03

6PO

ST0

00

07

97

12

18

98

32.

0be

ntaz

on +

NIS

4 E

C0.

75F

lufe

npyr

+ N

IS58

WD

G0.

18PO

ST0

50

07

96

80

80

66

1.9

Flu

fenp

yr +

NIS

58 W

DG

0.36

POST

01

05

08

16

52

08

17

11.

7L

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

33

21

011

17

68

0.7

53


ble

21. H

erbi

cide

Eva

luat

ion

in F

all G

reen

s, K

ible

r, 2

002.

Col

lard

Kal

eM

usta

rdTu

rnip

Gro

wth

Inju

ryY

ield

Inju

ryY

ield

Inju

ryY

ield

Inju

ryY

ield

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AE

8 W

AE

8 W

AE

2 W

AE

8 W

AE

8 W

AE

2 W

AE

8 W

AE

8 W

AE

2 W

AE

8 W

AE

8 W

AE

(lb/

acre

)--

--(%

)--

--(M

T/h

a)--

--(%

)---

-(M

T/h

a)--

--(%

)---

-(M

T/h

a)--

--(%

)--

--(M

T/h

a)T

rifl

ural

in4

EC

0.5

PP

I5

35.

83

15

5.6

60

8.1

14

517

.1U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

04.

70

04.

90

08.

10

016

.3D

CPA

75 D

F8.

0P

RE

28

18

3.2

12

12

6.3

22

88.

63

81

215

.7S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

075

PR

E3

32

53.

61

09

6.7

19

010

.24

32

613

.6S

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

F0.

15P

RE

70

65

1.8

50

14

5.5

48

510

.76

33

512

.0P

endi

met

hali

n3.

3 E

C0.

5P

RE

33

40

3.8

38

21

6.3

48

19

6.9

45

24

14.5

Pen

dim

etha

lin

3.3

EC

1.0

PR

E9

88

60.

28

36

81.

98

89

10.

95

42

613

.0P

endi

met

hali

n +

3.3

EC

0.5

PR

E5

84

52.

87

45

92.

58

59

60.

37

16

08.

0D

CPA

75 D

F3.

0T

hiob

enca

rb8

EC

1.5

PR

E3

53

04.

011

37.

12

36

8.2

21

23

15.4

Thi

oben

carb

8 E

C3.

0P

RE

21

26

4.5

16

08.

12

71

07.

73

36

27.

4T

rifl

ural

in f

b4

EC

0.5

PP

I2

65

4.8

04

5.9

114

04.

78

517

.5D

CPA

75 D

F4.

0P

RE

S-m

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

5P

RE

18

15

4.7

81

37.

82

41

07.

72

42

813

.1S

-met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

1.0

PR

E5

45

02.

52

50

8.5

65

35

5.1

68

34

16.4

Dim

ethe

nam

id6

EC

0.5

PR

E4

64

43.

12

83

8.3

73

41

4.9

73

41

11.1

Dim

ethe

nam

id6

EC

1.0

PR

E7

48

81.

08

01

45.

19

06

43.

48

05

48.

4D

imet

hena

mid

6 E

C0.

5PO

ST7

90

1.3

06

42.

00

94

0.4

06

57.

0P

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.25

PR

E6

15

5.8

99

6.0

115

8.5

68

18.2

clop

yral

id3

EC

0.1

POST

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

25P

RE

20

15

5.4

10

15

5.3

90

10.0

113

012

.5cl

opyr

alid

3 E

C0.

2PO

STP

endi

met

hali

n fb

3.3

EC

0.25

PR

E4

02

83.

59

19

4.8

34

56

3.9

31

41

11.4

oxyf

luor

fen

2 E

C0.

125

POST

Pen

dim

etha

lin

fb3.

3 E

C0.

25P

RE

36

73.

16

28

4.3

75

23.

48

52

8.8

oxyf

luor

fen

2 E

C0.

25PO

STL

SD

(P

=.0

5)2

31

61.

81

22

62.

51

61

82.

42

12

65.

0

54


able

22.

Eva

luat

ion

of S

-met

olac

hlor

and

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

on

Tab

le B

eets

, Fay

ette

ville

, 200

2.Y

ello

wTa

ble

Com

mon

lam

bsqu

arte

rsC

utle

af e

veni

ngpr

imro

senu

tsed

gebe

etG

row

thTa

ble

beet

inju

ryco

ntro

lco

ntro

lco

ntro

lyi

eld

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

2 W

AT

5 W

AT

7 W

AT

2 W

AT

5 W

AT

7 W

AT

2 W

AT

5 W

AT

7 W

AT

8 W

AT

9 W

AT

9 W

AT

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-(%

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

(no.

)(M

T/h

a)U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

00

01

63.

3D

imet

hena

mid

-P6

EC

0.66

2-lf

00

08

17

16

43

82

31

011

42

17.3

Dim

ethe

nam

id-P

6 E

C1.

322-

lf1

31

06

91

86

83

49

33

23

19

40

21.4

S-M

etol

achl

or7.

62 E

C0.

672-

lf5

30

81

59

43

26

10

92

34

816

.0S

-Met

olac

hlor

7.62

EC

1.34

2-lf

14

1111

95

78

64

45

23

13

38

42

17.4

Pyr

azon

67.6

DF

3.65

2-lf

00

09

69

59

39

59

59

98

66

934

.0C

yclo

ate

6 E

C4.

02-

lf11

10

97

15

52

64

52

61

01

64

416

.2L

SD

(P

=.0

5)3

32

78

86

33

31

03.

6

55


able

23.

Her

bici

de E

valu

atio

n in

Gra

pes,

Fay

ette

ville

, 200

2.G

row

thG

rape

inju

ryB

erm

udag

rass

con

trol

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-15

6-4

6-18

7-1

8-2

5-15

6-4

6-18

7-1

8-2

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

00

00

0F

lum

ioxa

zin

50 W

P0.

5P

RE

00

00

03

83

42

62

11

8F

lum

ioxa

zin

50 W

P1.

0P

RE

00

00

07

97

36

66

15

8F

lum

ioxa

zin

fb50

WP

0.25

PR

E0

00

00

31

35

30

19

10

flum

ioxa

zin

50 W

P0.

25PO

STF

lum

ioxa

zin

fb50

WP

0.37

5P

RE

00

00

06

46

96

04

62

8fl

umio

xazi

n50

WP

0.37

5PO

STA

zafe

nidi

n80

DF

0.5

PR

E0

00

00

93

94

80

71

53

Aza

feni

din

80 D

F1.

0P

RE

00

00

09

11

00

10

09

79

6A

zafe

mid

in fb

80 D

F0.

25P

RE

00

00

05

05

84

63

52

5az

afen

idin

80 D

F0.

25PO

STA

zafe

nidi

n fb

80 D

F0.

375

PR

E0

00

00

66

71

61

55

40

azaf

enid

in80

DF

0.37

5PO

STS

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

G0.

25P

RE

00

00

02

31

33

00

Sul

fent

razo

ne75

DF

0.37

5P

RE

00

00

03

82

31

31

0S

imaz

ine

+90

DF

2.0

PR

E0

00

00

20

110

00

oryz

alin

4 E

C3.

0P

RE

Clo

pyra

lid

3 E

C0.

3PO

ST0

00

00

01

81

00

0L

SD

(P

=.0

5)0

00

00

56

77

7

cont

inue

d

56


ble

23.

Con

tinu

ed.

Gro

wth

Lar

ge c

rabg

rass

con

trol

Gra

pe

Tre

atm

ent

For

m.

Rat

est

age

5-15

6-4

6-18

7-1

8-2

yiel

d

(lb/

acre

)--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

(%)

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--U

ntre

ated

che

ck0

00

00

9.1

Flu

mio

xazi

n50

WP

0.5

PR

E1

00

88

70

60

56

9.3

Flu

mio

xazi

n50

WP

1.0

PR

E1

00

93

88

83

81

14.6

Flu

mio

xazi

n fb

50 W

P0.

25P

RE

10

09

37

86

86

313

.2fl

umio

xazi

n50

WP

0.25

POST

Flu

mio

xazi

n fb

50 W

P0.

375

PR

E1

00

88

81

73

65

18.3

flum

ioxa

zin

50 W

P0.

375

POST

Aza

feni

din

80 D

F0.

5P

RE

10

01

00

98

97

91

12.1

Aza

feni

din

80 D

F1.

0P

RE

10

01

00

10

09

89

713

.1A

zafe

mid

in fb

80 D

F0.

25P

RE

98

96

91

91

86

13.2

azaf

enid

in80

DF

0.25

POST

Aza

feni

din

fb80

DF

0.37

5P

RE

98

96

95

91

91

14.9

azaf

enid

in80

DF

0.37

5PO

STS

ulfe

ntra

zone

75 D

G0.

25P

RE

97

95

88

78

69

14.5

Sul

fent

razo

ne75

DF

0.37

5P

RE

98

95

94

89

83

16.8

Sim

azin

e +

90 D

F2.

0P

RE

97

95

91

84

73

14.2

oryz

alin

4 E

C3.

0P

RE

Clo

pyra

lid

3 E

C0.

3PO

ST0

95

83

79

60

11.1

LS

D (

P=

.05)

12

34

52.

5

FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE ...FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE, SMALL...

Documents

Transcript of FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE ...FIELD EVALUATIONS OF HERBICIDES ON VEGETABLE, SMALL...