Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
AAES Research Series 519
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002T
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
AAES Research Series 519
SPECIFIC METHODS AND RESULTS,2001
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
AAES Research Series 519
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
AAES Research Series 519
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
AAES Research Series 519T
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519
SPECIFIC METHODS AND RESULTS,2002
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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
AAES Research Series 519T
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002Ta
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
AAES Research Series 519T
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
Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Vegetable, Small Fruit, and Ornamentals, 2000, 2001, and 2002T
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
AAES Research Series 519Ta
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