.·fitip~llwww~pioneer.·netJL..heapi.ant

• Weeds are naturally occurring, but normally at very lowpercentages of the population-natural genetic variation.

• Crops were altered by science-genetically manipulated.

• To date, [crops] little to no cross-resistance ormultip.le f

resistance with only one gene insertion.HR-1

,~

• Toleranc~·natYJal or HnQfOljll" variatlQ,Oto a herbtc.ide==-u§ually refers tominor or gradual differen~e.§~

• Site ot Action-=where herbicide acts tel kill the weed.• Moclf# ot Ac.tion -hQWherbicide kills the weed.• Resistance -...inheritable trait of some weeg bigtypes to survive a herblclde

treatment that WQuid effe.ctively control sJJ§ceptible blotypes .

.Mechanisms of Resistance: [These are the same tor crop selectivity.]

• Altered site-herbicide does not bind to its normal site of aetlon [structuralchange].

• Enhanced metabolism-herbicide is quickly metabolized [herbicide changedto non-phytotoxic compounds].

• Sequestered or compartmentalized~erbicide molecule moved to area of thecell where it will have no impact. Often multiple step process where herbicidebinds with another molecule [sugar]. . HR-2

• Triazine-smooth pigweed, common larnbsquarters, barnyard.grass

• ALS inhibitors- smooth pigweed, livid amaranth• ACC...ase~yegrass

• ALS•.resistant smooth pigweed

-resistant to SCEPTER® and PURSUIT®

~Iow-Ievel resistant to CLASSIC® anrl MATRIX®[BASIS® and BASIS GOLD®]

HR-3

[Homel[Summary Paper] [Herbicide Classification] .[Fig. ·1] IFig.21fFig.3] .[Pie.l]ulfie 2l{Table 1] [Table2]Lists of resistant weeds [by .SpeeieslJbvMOAlEbyCommonNallle]r~v

_.. -. " ..... -

Coun~£by¥e;ar ]

Figure l.'t'hechronological increase mthc.number of herbicide-resistantweedsworldwide. .

[f!omeJ [Summary Paper ].llierbicid~Olassific(ltiollJ..rnig.l1:[Fig.21IFig.3][Pie 11[pie .21'rFt:tblel1[Table~l·... '. . .' ..... '.''. .'Lisrs ofresista;nt;\Veecls,tbY ••·~l!~cie.$J·.JbvMQA:l~b¥·.•(Jom1llo~'Nam~j[b'y'CountryllbyYear] . . . ". ' .. " , . '." .' ..

Pie 2_ ·l'he;percentage of anherbieiqe~resi~t~ntiw~dsthat have evolvedr.esistal1Getovar1ouselasses ofherbiciaes<betw~!t;1984~and1997.,

':,",~j3ffJrifitfut$r:,~:r4i:,'

f,0th~t::i~~~.::fk.

"',.:~i~~sYtith~fiC:i;A.t~ii

, .:'6.%!:·;"','>"·'F:·:\; . -'~,'''':

~,~a.P;.:.;l'9,9~~:~~f@.~~(~~#~it;~s~~~~~%~~:t~~i~tWfl~=~~k4.#:·

;::'-f~:~~[:~4~S""'"

1[eap~1.M.1997.[ntemationalSurveyofHetbicide~R.esistant·Weeds_http://Www·l?1011eer;netl--heapianiP.D . Box 13.65;.CorvaIlis, OR, US~97339. ·heapiaI1@p@oneer.netF~~:{S41)929-3040.

-""\

[Home] [Summary Paper] [Herbicide Classification] [Fig. 1] [Fig.2] [Fig.3][Pie 1] [Pie 2] [Table 1] [Table 21Lists of resistant weeds [by Species]. [by M01\]: [by Comnaon Name] [121:..Country] [by Year]

TABLE 1

Occurrence of resistant weed biotypes to different herbicidegroups.

!: Resistant Weed, Biotypes

Herbicide Group WSSA HRAe Example Dicots Mono Total NumberCode" Code? cots of

Countrjc

I I

f

Triazines 5 Cl Atrazine 42 18 60 20ALS inhibitors 2 B Chlorsulfuron 29 9 38 11Bipyridiliums 22 D Paraquat 20 7 27 12Ureas/amides 7 C2 Chlorotoluron 5 11 16 13Synthetic Auxins 4 0 24-D 12 1 13 11,ACCase :1 A Diclofop-rnethyl 0 14 14 12

:

inhibitorsDinitroanilines 3 Kl Tri±luralin 1

,.. 6 4:)

Triazoles 11 F3 Amitrole 1 3 4 2Chloroacetamides 15 K3 Metalochlor 0 3 3 2Thiocarbamates 8 N Triallate 0 2 2 3Nitriles 6 C3 Bromoxynil 1 0 1 1

,

Glycines 9 G Glyphosate 0 1 1 1PPO inhibitors 14 E Oxyfluorfen 0 1 1 1Benzoflurans 16 N Ethofumesate 0 1 1 1Organoarsen icals 17 Z MSMA 1 0 1 1

,,

I I I lTotals 1112 176 1188 1aWeed Science Society of America herbicide classification. Available fromJames Retzinger, American Cyanamid Company, 4101 Vividel1 Circle,"Vest Des Moines" IA 50266 USA.

bHerbicide Resistance Action Committee herbicide classification. Availablefrom BRAC Publicity Office c/o David Nevin & Derek Comes, Ciba CropProtection Division, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.

CA country may be counted in more than one herbicide group thus thiscolumn adds up to greater than 42.

"'FABLE 2

The number of resistant weed biotypes in each of 42 countries., "

Country # Country # Country '# Country #I i :

USA 54 Malaysia '9 Italy 3 Fiji 1France 24 )apan 8 South Africa '3 Greece 1 ,

, :

Spain 23 Poland 8 'Austria :2 .Hungary 1Australia 22 Chile 6 Egypt 2 India 1[Canada 22 New Zealand 5 Indonesia 2 Philippines 1,

18I

Portugal 1Israel The 5 Kenya 2Netherlands ;

:

United 16 China :4 Mexico 2 Slovenia 1Kingdom , I

Germany 15 Costa Rica 4 Norway 2 Sweden 1Switzerland 13 Korea 4 Colombia 1 Taiwan 1

,Belzium 13 'Brazil 3 Denmark 1:;:,

Czech 9 'Bulgaria 3 Ecuador 1Republic

\

HerbicideMode Of Action Chart

Herbicide-resistant weeds can be avoided through good managementpractices. Knowing your herbicide's mode of action is the key.

Use this chart to determine if your weed control programs are puttingyou at risk for weed resistance development.

wAatrex® (atrazine)Bicep®*Bladex®Bullet®*Canop"®*Contour Thf*

. Exira~ne 1I@.=.,.-_--1Laddok® S-12*LexonewMarksman®*Princep@Salute®*Sencor®Turbo®*Basaoran®Buctril®Conclude TM*GalaxyTlA*Laddok® S-12 *Rezult TM*Storm®*Avenge®Cyclone®Gramoxone Extra®***Accent®Ally'"'Amber®Assert®Basis1M

Battalion®Beacon®Broadstrike 1M

Canopy®*Classic®Concert®Contour1M*Oetail™*Exceed"Express®Glean®Harmony Extra®Passport®*Permit®Pinnacle@Pursuit®Pursuit® Plus*Resolve™*Sceoter®Scepter® OT®*Squadron®*Synchrony'" STS'"Tri-Scept®*

MODEOF

ACTION.

BASFc s w

Roundup®***Blazer®Cobra®Conctude P' "

GalaxyTM*Reflex@Resource®Sce(ilter® OT®*Slo~m®*Assure® IIconCiUi!Je ™ *Fusilade® oxFusiom®Hoelon®Option® IIPoast®Poast Plus®RezultTlA*Select®Whip®2,4-0***Banvel®Butyrac® (2,4-08)Clarity€>

Marksman®*MCPPResolve™*Stinger®Tordon®Command®Passport®*Prowl®Pursuit® Plus*

, Salute®Sonalan®Squadron®*Treflan®Tri-Scept®*Bicen®*Bullet®*Oetail™*Dual®Eradicane®Far-GoQ;)Frontier®HamessQ;)Lasso®Micro-Tech®Ramrod®Surpass®Sutan®+Turbo®*

~

Mobile Photosynthesis Inhibitors-Non-Mobile Photosynthesis InhibitorsCell Membrane Photosynthesis InhibitorsAmino Acid Synthesis Inhibitors(ALS/AHAS Inhibitors)"

_ Amino Acid Synthesis Inhibitors (EPSP Inhibitors)

Cell Membrane DisruptersLipid Inhibitors"Growth RegulatorsPiHment InhibitorsCell Division InhibitorsProtein Synthesis Inhibitors

o1,1

oo;tJz

CJ)N

(j)

o-<OJm»z(j)

~III

~Im~

'Indicates prepackaged mixtures of herbicides with more than one mode of action., 'Indicates herbicide modes of action that have documented occurrences of weed resistance. Avoid selecting products from tiJis mode of action group for continuous use.

,. 'BurndolVn use only.

/Weed NlaBage:QteBt Studies,

,;lin!~o(luc.t(09l, '~Several studies were conductee in, GO;Il;l' (l[}Gb' s(!)))/,beansto, e~;alha,teecrnameJciaJ'j, a:vai1'ahLe'h~lil:)ici<;pesfosweed! control, crop phytotoxicity, and crop. yierdi. Various herbicide tJ1ea~il'leU1icOlllbinat{<)llsanck .aW'Ji>li(;ati{)·!t~n;J.ethodswereevaluated; .

,"~', iVlaterials and, MethodsThe studi:~$;wele established using a randomized complete block design: with tMee:reJi>:1i~ati0:ns.Jno;t sizewa£!]iQ;,~¥§;~;5 it. The Roundup Ready yiehl-experimeat CFaibte4,) used fo;ur Jep;rR!0,~1ll!0~si~ti~!,~W1l0!~size ef2Qt.ff'tiy 27 ft. Herbicides were applied' in 20 gallons of waten pes aere, Vlslltal€sU.ifun~mes();jfpeFcentRg~:weedcca:qt.rol and.crop injury data-were made throughout i'umt,€"aOOlIil July. Weed €:<ooillmiobservations are cQll1pai'~d:wiFhan untreated- control ana made an a zero to ] 00 fating, seale. widili zerepercent equaling.noweedtcontzol; 'Crop injury ratings are an a a to 100 rating scale, ,,\lith 0 representingno crop injury,Weed species abdilt"Q-plua,tioll&.,evaluatecl included: 100 to 500,fo>-."tajJi;and two to fivelambsquarters, waterhemp, and:velvefleai(dlf~~;> - .

·2';\'J.t~g,('om studies,i:~ ',:;, .,Tillage included a.fall, chisel.plowing- w;itll. se~cibed'pfteparatiQlli of spring diskiug followed by afieldcultiva~j§ijf~}:\m;,;x~dtlt~ on the soilsurface wa:s 30}percen1f.,'Fli~ ]J~9T cwp' was soybea~s. Cora wasf)ll'anred":oi~~a:Yf~Jt128~600seeds/A ffiiJO'-ufc}t'iTo,WS! lfeIitiliZat1ontinchl€~ecl;1152 ~b'siAa;c1t~l'aJ;N ap'lpJiiedas urea' ap,df'1i)O'ltsl;N of 18-46-0. Herbicide application/dates andrcrep stages are presented' in '.Ira-bEe1.

:.--". -- ,".- "

"-,

Sov bean stu diesTillage m91ttd~da:fa:ll chisel plowing of soybear; residue and, two disk passes iut the sp:rmg fti}.lllowed by. afield culii~a;~gfi,.i~eplant (PPL) treatments were applied prior to planting aiJ:'l'd incorporated with a singlepass a'fa::·,~~!~~.~,~.1tivaIoroperating 2 to!¢incliesdeep·. Crop.uesidue cethe soil surface at planting was 25percen~,<~q~~e'a:p.S(\i~~X~·p,Yanfeeil OBI Ma~H atH7S,QO(!)i se.e'dls/~irtt31@;'"n'lithrews Preemergenee (PRE)t'featITieri¥:~\Sere applie~ asplanting, Helt~icid:~'app;iica,ti:$'a!iDf(\);r~tio]] a11.ld crop stages em be found in'Eabtel.t· ; <

,,~'-

Resufts 3'11(1 IlJ~scusS'i'f)BCorn studies .' . - ~All treatments:l1elyir.!ig. s,<lltely011 IO'FeemeFg'en:celreF~icicles,pTovir~edl€ss: than 50% giaI..:t fox'1ail controldue, to.la-q,kof'rain f011'owing pYantifillS'; A tJ'ea~men1)con1!a'-imngS'lmrW6l;ss <l>1!l!dBalaace did no1 providebetter foxtail control than ather preemergence grass herbicides, thus there was tittle benefit from the'recharge' activity prometed f6rlf Baiaece. The lad: ofrecharge' lfukely is ooe to, the high foxtailp(9ptlrari~0ns and foxtails rela!trivePy~]gb t(i),lIeFatt'lice to: Balaaee. Alitlongb tie'Fe were no differences inbroaiUea:r control' araoag the Ji1{),steme:rg€llF~eIDvoa dle af treatments ,MarksRra'Ei', Buctril + Atrazine, ete.),trea1IDlents.inclhdfug:~1s:tin~t {dkamba + dfrillllt;dfenze.W'YF)-,rovroedimpn)'ved foxtail control thanthe (JtfreF'~p:rogI:~itrs;ltt'0:W€;V€F~the Di~tmcftli~'tlN1l'eli<lis'dit1! Fl!ot provide aceep.ta;Me:control and were lesseffl'ec:ci!ve ;tlfa'It;D;ib&'s~liliftlilioftb~sed treatments, (Ae'ee1111i,..,Ac:¢e:tiT't Go Id, et c. ),

\f

/', .Alill treatments provided, acceptable CO:t:ttF0,bofvelvetleati: Northstar (dica.tl1ba,:I-primisulfuroujwithswJactant was inferior to most treatments on waterhemp and srnartweed, Permit was ineffecnve onlalll1bsquarter.

Lightning and Roundup Ultra generally provided better foxtail control than Liberty in a comparison ofcontrol options in herbicide resistant COBl. Treatments including Balance provided better control thanother preemergence treatments, but were less effective than most postemergence treatments.

Soybean studiesSingle applications of pre emergence herbicides provided poor control off oA1:ail species. This was likelydue to lack of a significant rainfall event within the first ten days following application. Neither Concertnor Synchrony STS, prepackage mixtures of thifeusulfuron and chloriruuron, provided adequate controlof velvetleaf .

"Table 5 shows that applications of Liberty generally provided significantly lower foxtail control thanapplications of Roundup Ultra. Due to extremely high foxtail populations it was difficult to achieveadequate coverage.through.the plant canopy. There was no difference in control/when comparing two.rates of Roundup Ultra. Later applications of Roundup Ultra (five and-six weeks after planting)provided greater foxtailcontrol and-higher soybean yields than early posteinergence applications €24'days after planting) when combined witlia.preemergence herbicide (Table 4}.

AcknowledgmentsBayer Corporation, Novartis, BASF Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Zeneca Agricultural Productsprovided support for these studies. Thanks to Asgrow Seed Company and Cindy Greiman for providingsoybean seed: The '0 acknowledge Dave Ruebel' audTom Hartwig for thew assistance withthe. ies.

Table 1. Herbicide application dates and crop stages.,,\., -----= Corn;j· Soybeans

Treatn1eirt - Date Crop stage Date Crop stagePreemergence/Prepiahtincorporated May 1 n/a May 11 n/aEarly postemerqence May 26 2-3 in. June 5 2 in.Postemergence/mid posternerqence- June 10 5-6 in. June 17 5 in.Late postemergence/sequential postemergence June 17 10-14 in. June24 7 in.

Table 2. Weekly rainfalltotals following planting:

Weeks after planting:

Total rainfall (largest singlerainfall91Corn Soybeans

---- (inches) ---1234

0.11 (0.06)·0.26 (0.15)0.29 (0.27)1.26 (0.76)

0.42 (O.2?)0.92 (0.76}0.42 (0.36)0.70 (0.32)-

--..'~

"

-:

\.

k·

ii iJI;Ii~ .~: t

1)ab,l~* ~,,~lu~tian;Ofi'p,,~~,t~PJ~I;g~f].p:~~I[bi~~det'lientnJ.eQ,ts; inl sOylileans,~anawlia, cKS.Pfi>S10i;,~1:

.\ Tit, Apph Grap Fnjury,' . FoxtaiL Watsrhemp.' Velv~tleaf. Cambsq,i #;: . Treatment Rate Unit Time- Jul-17 Jul"3n' Jul-1'4 J(jI-3~; Jul-:14tJul-3'1' Jwl-1'4 ;Jul-3~' Jul-14' Jul-31·1 -(% injury),;-- --(%. weed control)'-,--I ~

POST.li 1 13eli~n<;:e,.STS(2!?,DF,) 0:5 o~ 3, 0 691 6~ 83, 86. 58):'" 75: ~ 85

n Assure-ll (0.88EC) 7. oZ'

"

SUrfactant'- Non-ionic 0.25, % vtv.:\. FertiliZl,'l~- 28%lJAN 4 pt·;

l;\ 2 COhcert'(25WG), 0.5 oz- POSJ 7. 3~ 78; 75. 9Q 9~' 62· 5$, 89, 80,;1.\ Assure II (0.88E~)· 7 oz

", Surfacti3pt, c flJqn~iQnic. 0,25, % v/v\ Fertilizer - 28%;lJAN; 4, pt," 3, Assure II (0,88EC). 10 oz POST 8, 3 82 62 95 97 88 87 91 88"i\ Copra;(;zEG) 4~ oz.:,\~\ Concert(25WG )' 0.5 %.v/v

;.1\ Adjuvant;- COC 05 % vlv;,\ .... Fertilizi!r;., 21 %AMS 2 Ib~~I h 4. .' AutFo6fY;,t}5QF) 85\\ 4 o.z PRE 7 3 89 86. 84 . 83' 8,1F 80. 86i.c;:! Cla~ic l25WG) 0.67 oz POST.

~':t A~~~f'~I!~(0.88Ee) 7 oz.

f.' . Surfa,crant - Non-ionic 0.25 % v/v "'''h! ~~1iljzeL- 28%UAN 4 pt

~:l ~; . 'AutHority (75QF) 4 oz PRE 0 0 SO, 33i 62 7fiY 9§i. 9:7- 00; 93'Command 3ME' 2 pt

":( 6 Flexstar (·1SL) 1:25 pt. POST 0 0 78 57 95 95 84 83' 84 83.Fusion (2.66EC)' 8, oz

:', Fertilizer - 28%UAN' 4 %.v/v.. Adjuvant. - cae 0.5 % v/v.', 7 Fusion (2.66EC).. 7 oc PO~nr-· 3 0 9+ 8a 92 861 80, 63 76 68.~\r.:

Adjuvant - COC 1 % v/v~. Flexstar (1SL) 1.25 pt LPOSif

Adjuvant". cae 1 % v/v8 Poast (1:5Eq 1.5 PI: PO&T 2 0 55. 4-7 95 97 9~ 9(,); 89 86' i

~.I r 1t Galaxy.(3!678L): 2. pt,~, Adj.Ll~ant"78(DC:':.: ," 1': qt:.~ terti!l~#r.: 28%QAN' 2. qtL'~.- . ·9· Selecti(2EGhc 6 oz POS"F 5· 5, 89 72' 92 94' 85 79' 82 7'3U Kdj:UV~'h~"'Cq~> 1 % V/V

Ci Stellar P:;1 qG,.r '" 5 oz LPOST," Adjuvan~ - eoe 0.5 % vlv

10 Seiser (2EC),' 6 oz pam 0 3 40 43, 98 98, 94 97 83 85'Cobra,(2ECh . 6 ozE!asagran (481.)'; . 1 pt ~SUrfactant -Nori-ionic 0.25 % v/v ,"".Fertilizer - 28%.tJAN . 2 qt .

11 . Fro ntl.~·r,6l>(~1(;! 20, oz PRE 0 0 48 40> 78\ 8;7' 00 93\ 72 8C:i'First; Rat~W9'G' ~} 0.3, QZ: POST~turf~sfa~t¥- Non-ionic 0.25. 0/0 vIM

t" ~ . Feitilizer- 28?~l)Ar-J, 2.5- %:viy,12' Dual'H Magnum' . Z Ilt PRE' 0; 0, 47 '37 95, 00 ~1 911 941 95.

. ' ..~~.

i'"Action 3i oz POSiF

.\ Expert'(75\1VP):. ,~ ,- 3:7 oz-iI Surfadanf- Ndri~i6nic 0::25', Old. vtV

" 13 Frontier·6L (EO)," Z).. oz PRE" Q. 0 W- 87 95 95 85 80 78 83>.1 Poast.~(f56C) . 245 ciz POST;'.~ 32f1·1 Gaiax'y;(3:6'7SLj, oz

1Aojuvanr- cce. 0.625 %vNFertilizer - 28%UAN, 1.25 % vlv

"

14 Froriti'er 6L (EC) 20 PRE 0 0 89 84 95 95 79 78 95 00.~ oz, Prestige 1EC 2.25 pt POST, Status 28 (SL) 1 pt'i Adjuvant - eoe 2: pt

15 Frontier 6L (EC): LQ" oz PRE 0 0 38 37 95 94 89 97 95 97! ,~ First Rate (OG84), 0.6: oz

16 Frontler 6L LEe). ~ 20 oz PRE 0 c 84 75 7& 00 88 90 77 80Poa~:Plu~'(~E.q~ 25.6' Oz' POST '""Basa~'~an:~_li)\ 1, Cjt;

.~

Retia/ice STS·(25DF}; 0~38 or -Fertitlier - 28%'ljAN- 2:5 %vlV

(Table 7 continued-on following page)

Table 7 (colitinped)- 'II',

:,,

Tit: Appl: Crop: Injury Foxtail Waterhemp, Yetvetleaf Lambsq:# Treatment, Rate Unit Time Jul-1C Jul-31 Jul-14 Jul·31 Jul~1,4 Jul-31, Jul-'\~ Jui-31 JUI-14 Jul-31

-(% injury)- --(%-weed control)--17 Pursuit (2Sl) 4 oz POST 5 7 72 63 98 98' 95: 98 94 94

Methylared-Seeo Oil (MSO) 2 ptFertilizer.,c28% UAN 2 qt

18 RaptDr (1SL) 5 oz. POST W 10. 85 64 98 98 92, 88 97 00Methylated Seed Oil (MSO) 1 qtFertilizer - 28%UAN 2 qt

19 Pursuit (2Sl) 4 oz POST 5 8 50 50 98 98 85 98: 94 91Pinnacle (2':NVG)' o.ia ozSurfactant -Ncn-ionic 0..25. % vtv.Fertilizer- 28%UAN' 1 qt.

20 Roundup Ultra (4SL) 24, oz =osr a a 72 62 98 ~;l8 79' 80 98 94Cobra (2Eq 6 oz LPOST

21 Roundup Ultra.(4SL) 24 oz POST' a a 78. 67 81 87 80.1 8:1 96 97Action 3

,oz

22 Command 3ME, 2 pt PRE 0. 0 95- 93 93 96 97 94 89 38Pursuit (2SL) .. 2.5 oz POSTFertilizer - 28%UAN .) qtAdjl,Jvaflt- COC 1 qt.

23- Untreated Check , 0. a 0 a a 0 a 0. a 0

LSD (0.05) 4 5 16 21 13 15 14~ 14 14 14.

;~.

'~.

::;

~.

Table 2. Evaluation of postemergence broadleaf herbicides in corn, Kanawha. (KC-PPC)"

Trt. Appl, Crop Inj. Velvetleaf Waterhemp .If~Smart Lam..ill;Q,It Treatment Rate Unit Time Jun-17 Jul-H

(% injury) --(% weed cqntrol)--Exceed 57 WDG 1 oz POST 0 00 82 : 93 99Adjuvant - COC 1 qtFertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 2.5 lb

2 Spirit 57WDG I oz POST 3 98 92 98 98Adjuvant - coc 2 ptFertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 2.5 Ib

3 Spirit 57WDG 1 oz POST 7 00 93 96 £9Clarity (4SL) 4 ozSurfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 % v/vFertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 2.5 Ib

4 Northstar (WG50) 0.38 oz POST 0 98 37 , 40 00Surfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 %v/vFertilizer-21% Ammonium Sulfate 2.5 Ib

5 Northstar (WG50) 0.5 oz POST 0 98 52 55 91Surfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 % v/vFertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 2.5 Ib

6 Northstar (WG50) 0.38 oz POST 0 99 93 88 98Adjuvant - COC 2 ptFertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 25 Ib

7 Northstar (WG50) 0.5 oz ',~ POST 0 98 78 83 Sl5Adjuvant - COC ? pt- ,•.~Fertilizer-21 % Ammonium Sulfate 25 Ib ..

8 Clanty (4Sl.) 4 oz POST 0 99 77 97 99Fertilizer - 28%UAN 2.5 % v/v

9 Marksman (3.2SC) '1.75 qt POST 5 99 98 98 99Fertilizer - 28%UAN 2.5 % v/v

10 Laddok 1.6 pt POST 0 98 9J 98 99Fertilizer - 28%UAN 25 % v/v

1'1 Accent (75WG) 0.66 oz POST 10 98 94 96 99SAN 845H (70WE) 6 ozSurfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 % v/vFertilizer - 28%UAN 25 % v/v

12 Scorpion III 84.3WG 4 oz POST 15 99 85 87 9913 Hornet (85.6DG) 1.6 oz POST 2 99 82 91 9914 Buctril (2EC) 1.5 pt POST 0 93 80 87 9915 Buctril + Atrazine (3SC) 1.5 pt POST 7 93 87 98 9916 Banvel (4SL) 8 oz POST 7 99 91 93 98

2,4-0 Amine (4SL) 4 oz17 Permit (75WG) 0.66 oz POST 0 99 73 82 76

.~ Surfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 % v/vFertilizer - 28%UAN 3 qt

18 Shotgun (3.25SE) 3 pt POST 3 99 94 98 9919 Distinct (70WG) 6 oz " POST 0 96 89 94 99

Surfactant - Non-Ionic (SL) 0.25 % v/v ,~

Fertilizer - 28%UAN 1.25 % v/v20 Untreated Check 0 0 0 0 0

LSD (0.05)9 __

4 20 20 11

r