UNIVERSITY OF

Digitized byntas lHW$Rhet Archive

in 2(^¥M|pir1ffrom

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

http://www.archive.org/details/universityofilli1989wuniv

NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for
each Lost Book is $50.00.

The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn
on or before the Latest Date stamped below.

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli-
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University.
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT UR8ANA-CHAMPAIGN

LI61— O-1096

ACESLtf RY

MAY 1 9 2005 I

UNIN^RSIIVOfJti^i^li-

I

31. $1

Ukr
W

1989

Illinois
Weed Science
Research and Extension
Demonstration Report

Department of Agronomy

Agricultural Experiment Station

College of Agriculture

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

M The Universit y_of

ILLINOIS

at Urbana-Champaign

MAY 3 1 1990

UNIVERSITY OF HJJNOfc

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution.

INDEX

PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1

NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB

Multi-species evaluation of preplant and preemergence

soil-applied herbicides 4

Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides 13

Herbicides for stale-seedbed soybeans 23

Time and method of herbicide application for a reduced tillage

cropping sequence 26

Herbicides for alfalfa establishment 31

Interaction of soil-applied insecticides and postemergence

herbicides for corn 33

Evaluation of postemergence herbicides for soybeans 36

No-Till soybeans following corn 40

Crop screening for V-53482 43

Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for

broadleaf control 47

Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim

combinations 52

Effect of herbicide residues on follow crop injury 57

Herbicide safener and variety interaction 58a

ORR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER - PERRY

No-Till corn in alfalfa sod 59

No-Till corn in red clover sod 61

Herbicides for alfalfa establishment 63

\

PAGE

Alfalfa renovation 65

Soybeans No-Till after corn 67

Corn in tall fescue sod 69

Soybeans in tall fescue sod 71

Controlling tall fescue for

seeding alfalfa 73

Herbicide and cultivation alternatives

for soybeans 75

NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - MONMOUTH

Effect of fall tillage on rotation crop injury from herbicide residues ... 77

Effect of cover crops and herbicides on weed control in

corn and soybean 78

AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - URBANA

Effect of herbicide combinations on rotational corn 81

Multi Site

The effects of reduced weed control inputs

on corn and soybean yields 83

APPENDIX

Weather data 86

DeKalb 87

Monmouth 90

Perry 93

Urbana 96

Herbicide trade and common names 99

Weed species abbreviations, scientific and common names 103

Summary 105

Map of research centers 114

(

INTRODUCTION

This is one of two reports for 1989 research by the weed science and agronomy staff at
the University of Illinois. Many individuals have been involved with this research:

State Weed Science Staff
Ellery L. Knake
C. Diane Anderson
William S. Curran
David R. Pike

Area IPM Specialists
Robert W. Koethe
Ann M. Carrick

County Extension Advisers
William J. Million
David M. Dimmick
William F. Whiteside

Community College
Ronald W. Heisner

Secretaries
Jean M. Creswell
Linda D. Ingram
Sharon E. Malloch

Area Agronomists

Lyle E. Paul (DeKalb)

Michael J. Mainz (Monmouth)

Glenn A. Raines (Orr)

M. Gene Oldham (Urbana)

Les V. Boone - Coordinator

Farm Foremen
David Lindgren
Mike Vose
Mike Plotner
Sam Medhurst

Students

Dale Baird (Graduate)

Robert C. Bellm (Graduate)

Ronald F. Krausz (Graduate)

Barbara Demjanec (Graduate)

Larry D. Wesley

Sue Gray

Merril Zumallen

Lisa McCartney

Scott Stein

In addition, inputs have been made by state weed science staff, including Rex Liebl, Loyd
Wax, Ed Stoller, Marshal McGlamery, and George Kapusta.

Appreciation is expressed to the administration of the Department of Agronomy, the
Agricultural Experiment Station and others at the College of Agriculture, particularly for land,
facilities, equipment and personnel at the research centers.

A special thanks is also extended to Ron Heisner for his involvement in the research
program at DeKalb, to Rob Koethe for his initiative at the Orr Center, to Barbara Demjanec for
coordinating and developing this report, and to David Pike for his computer program and data
processing expertise.

Special recognition is also extended to the area agronomists and farm foremen for their
professional and dedicated efforts in helping complete our studies.

We are also very grateful to the many industry representatives who have provided valuable
suggestions and encouragement. We especially acknowledge:

T. Don Taylor - CIBA-Geigy Corp.

Rod Dorich - Dow Chemical U.S.A.

Barbara Hook - ICI Americas

Keith Sheriff and Howard Shepherd - Valent

Luke Bozeman - Sandoz Crop Protection

R. S. Perry - FMC Corporation

Bill Bertges - Hoechst Roussel

Dan Schroeder - Monsanto

Randy Myers - Mobay Corporation

Brian Freed - BASF

William Striegel - Rhone-Poulenc

Matt Reinhart - DuPont

Bryan Gentsch and Fred Arnold - American Cyanamid

Richared K. Mann - Elanco

Steven J. Barwick - Growmark

James R. Bone Jr., - Griffin

Luis Figuerola - Agrolinz, Inc.

Mike Grimes - Terra International

Loralee Miller - Dairyland Research International

Thomas Wadzinski - Cargill Hybrid Seeds

Stephen L. Pearson - Spraying Systems Co.

More than two dozen experiments were conducted at four different locations in the state
with a variety of soil and climatic conditions. Land area used is estimated at about 50 acres.
Emphasis is placed on research that will help farmers operate more efficiently and help assure
safety for their crops, and themselves, while conserving their land and energy resources.
Although a variety of weed control practices are considered, significant effort is devoted to
herbicides. An estimated $350,000,000 worth of herbicides are used in Illinois by about 86,000
farmers and over 10,000 commercial applicators on about 20 million acres.

We have attempted to place emphasis on research that will help farmers obtain broad-
spectrum weed control at a reasonable cost. When we visualize new needs and opportunities,
we attempt to design systems to fit changing production practices. However, we also continue
what might be considered "standard" research to delineate optimum rates of herbicides for each
major weed species. We also evaluate crop tolerance of these herbicides and their potential to
affect crops in subsequent years.

As research results are moved into the technology transfer system, this information will be
helpful to farmers, dealers, applicators and others facing the increased complexity for making
decisions to design weed control programs. It is also our goal that the results presented here,
will be helpful to industry when planning their development strategy for Illinois.

■

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

Multi-species evaluation of preplant and preemergence soil-applied herbicides. Knake, Ellery
L., Robert C. Bellm, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate tolerance and susceptibility for many of the crops, annual grass and broadleaf weed
species common to Illinois cropland. Both current and experimental herbicides were included
with half of the treatments being preplant incorporated and half surface-applied. Plots were
established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on
Drummer silty clay loam soil, with 5 to 6% organic matter, a pH of 6.3 and 1 to 2% slope.
Plots were 10 by 150 ft. The site was moldboard plowed on August 25, 1988, and disked once
on September 28, 1988. On April 19, 1989, a field cultivator was used once. Preplant
herbicide applications were applied on April 24 from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. These were
immediately incorporated with a tandem disk operated four inches deep followed by a harrow.
Two passes were made in the same east to west direction in which all the herbicides were
applied. Preemergence herbicides were applied on April 24, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Herbicides
were broadcast using 8004 flat fan nozzle tips 20 inches in height. A tractor mounted
compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa.
Crops and weeds were planted on the same day as follows: corn, soybeans, and sorghum were
planted with a conventional four row planter, small grains were seeded with a drill, and
cocklebur was planted with a hand planter. The remainder of the weeds, canola, alfalfa, and
red clover were seeded with a Brillion seeder. Seeds were planted in a north to south direction.
Following herbicide application, there was 0.05 inch of rain on April 26 and 0.55 inch of rain
on April 28. The total rainfall was 0.91 inch and 3.34 inches for the months of April and May
respectively. Visual ratings were begun on June 1 and completed on June 4. Conditions on
the day of spraying were as follows:

Treatment

PPI

PRE

Date

April 24

Temperature (F)

Soil (bare at 4 inch)

48-60

48-60

Air

43-81

43-81

Wind (mph)

10E

5E

Sky (% overcast)

20

10

Relative humidity (%)

55

55

Rainfall previous week (inch)

0.21

0.21

Rainfall following week (inch)

0.66

0.66

Results are summarized in the tables. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

c_ co

u

Is

c co

o
oo

ej

c

o

00

1

^.

co

r *

u

CJ

CJ

10

c

o

CO

re

c
re

CO

o- CO

U 4.
CJ

Is

0- CO ii.

CJ

c ^

.— CO

C- CO

O O

o o o o o o

•s—^

CS CO

CO CO ^" CO ^" CO

•■5

0s

o o

o o o o o o

s_^

<S CO

co co ^r co v co

o o

o o o o o o

s_/

CS CO

CO CO TT CO V CO

t

3

JO

CJ
J*

r:

c

CJ

■a

■a

CJ

CJ

J Q

u
CJ
N

r> w — -

5 s ~

o o

O CO

H +

o
o

c _*

*s

o oo
to CO

c
re

to u.

5

0s*

c

re

>
v

v.

'C

v

a

V.

"5

0s

<

•3

CJ

0

&

O
u

c

c

CJ

oo oooooo
cs co co co v co v co

-5

O O

OOOOOO

w

CS CO

co co ^r co ^r co

o o

CS CO

O O
CM CO

O O
CS CO

OOOOOO
CO CO V CO V CO

OOOOOO
CO CO V CO V CO

OOOOOO
CO CO ^- CO V CO

o o

o o

o o o

o

O i-h O

O O O O r-i o

+

in in
6 6

eg eg

in in

CS <S

O

6
>*■

CS

O

+

O O O

00 M

CO co ^o

z +

CO

O

+

O
eg

O O O

rH |-H i— 1 © Q Q

in © o o oooooo
i-H^Tr-icoomcscov'^-m

oooo oooooo
cMTj-r-iTrovocoTj-mmm

mooo oooooo
riTTr-'COOincscocoinTr

oooo oooooo
cSTrcor^ovocoTTrvObo

mooo oooooo
'-'^rco^ro^rcocoiniOLO

oooo oooooo
cs^covocoinvinvoin

mooo oooooo

HtHtONNfOni/)lO

oooo oooooo
cS'crcovoocoTrco^'m^r

^ o Q o o o o

OrHOOOOOOOCOOOOOO

^ O O O O o o

OH03COONOOCOOOO

s

o
eg

s

o
eg

Tf

cs

t

o
+

m
o

oo

CO

o

00

t

o

i— i rf

eg

+ +

CS

"*■ m o

• • •

o o .-<

m m

m m

r-i M "\

+ +

m co
cs vo

ri o

• •

o o o

o

o

CO*

s

o
eg

<s

fl

o

+

o

o

o

eg

cs

O

+
if

o

+

— 3

eg !=

u *-

— eg

<-» c»

cs re

■= a

c
eg

N

3
JO

"C

CJ

E

££ p*+ gl E

M CJ *-"

JO E +
CJ TO

CJ

c
o

re o

3^0

r —- cj

C eg u g

c

N C C C -3

re 5 IS c jo

u +

w ■

u

CJ

E

G

re

C re re

ra re

fe E a G j2 °

g ; eg j2 « eg

2 c

fa CJ

ra to re ^o

eg

+ +

U

+ +

c a

E

G

E o

E

eg
u
CJ

E

<< Cr-Hr-£uJp- fcU2u0u££uU

J

eg

u
*— '

CJ

E

re

JO

w

LU

■a

CJ

3

c
o
(J

S3 +

.2 £ °9

1 Cl 'i

5 en

.ii r^

£- CO

>- +

cj

2 IT.

£S- ro

CJ

Is

c- co

cc

C

C
re

CJ

ea

H

CI

CJ

—

-a
cj

+

CO

CO

o

CO

I— >

CJ

c ^

.2 m

CL CO

Q cu

o o

O 00
H +

o

u O

JJ _■

Q a.

1.2

o to
to a

c

N

>< s.

O .IT

to Ci.

£4

-
>
CJ

1/1

'C
a

c

a

-5

c o

LO cm o o o o

o o

SO CM O C © O

o ©

vO i-i c o o o

o o

t^ CM C O O O

o o

O CM o o o o

o o

r^ co o o o o

o o

r^ CN O O © O

o o

LO CO o o o o

o o

O O O O O CO

o

o o

O O O O i-h o

ooooooooooooooooooooooo^o

ccocccoo

ooooccocc

o o o

OCCtOOOOOOOOOOr-iCNi— i

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOO-"-!^"—

LO

~ 6 "> 9

< O CN

jo + vO 00 +

— m vo oo

cn cc q q ©

cn — '< d © *r

CN

I— I

ea

00

e3

€ *

re re

u
CO

- s oa

o

E 2 ■

u

-5

, , CN CN v — CJ
+ t B CO* O *2

E E co co Pf -5,

r: _re lo lo r ;= §

u

CJ

o

c

CJ

&c

CJ

E

CJ

CJ

> > — *"" CC d.

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOLOCO

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOLOri

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOLOCO

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTLOr-.

o o o

©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlovOi-i

o o o o o o

CN^-cCNr-iOOOOOOOOOOOOricNOOOOOOO

o o o o o o

CN.^CNrHOOOOOOOOOOOO.-'CNOOOOOO©

LO LO O O

rl r4 CN CN

ea ea ea +

LO LO LO LO

o o o

CNCNCNCNCOCNCMCN

LO
CO

o

LO

CO

o

d

d

LO

0.88
.047

LO
CO T

o o

S S ^ 9

ea

LO

CO

c3

LO

CO

d

ea o

.35 & 1
24 & (
.5 + 1
0 + 2
0625

d

d

e3 ^
vO

lo q

CO CO +
00 vo
O O LO

LO

CN

■c

+

CN

CN

+
■<r cn

CN d

odd

d

O O O .-i o

d

d

d

d

d d

re

-

re
ea

re

_

re
o2

re _re
< <

CJ

G

'n

re

c

re

>>

u

ea +

CO CO

o o

o o

cc co

< <

co u

U U

Q

re

2

—

re

u
e3

<J

ea

CO
CM

00

Ui

•So

'C

CN

CN

c

CJ

c

I—
CJ

E

6

CJ

c
re

atra
>360

D.
v°

.—

CJ

E

E

u
CJ

E

e>

^

ea

oo

co

ea

+

LO

CO

ea

ea

.2"

+ £

&

+

o

+

z

o
2

w LO
CJ JL

<

CO
LO

>

co

LO

>

—
CJ

U

X

u

CM

vO

CJ

2

Ui

CJ

2

■5

"C
H

T3 ><

h- Q

_o
re

re

CJ

U

—

CJ

U

S

u

CJ

a "a

"o n

C v>

re re
U U

O
CN

T CO

c -=,

o

W LO
U LO
O

<

uwuu

J o

U LO

U co O

c
're

e

3
X

o

b >C co e

(1 O T J=
O N t C-

3

re
a. —

R CN

u s

o

00

T3

C

re

e
X

CO

cj

(0

CJ

JO
u
ej

■a

CN

<3

, +

5I§

Ll

Q cn
o

3

+

2? t^ §

« oo °?

U r>» u-

It r^
re oo

c

c
c

R

>
CJ

(A

'0

CJ
I/)

3

CN

CJ

o
o o

CO r-i

3

#

sS

0s

e>

o o

o o

00 CO

o o

CN CO

o o

CN CO

o o

CN CO

re

<

v.

J3

CJ

*-^

re
O

c
M

"a.

CJ

o o

CN CO

o o

CN CO

o o

L0 LO L0
CN CN O

o
o

oooo oo oo
oooo ooooooo

hhhhOhh^OmihOi

o o o o o o
co co co r^ oo oo

o o o o o o

CN CN CN CO CN CN

o o o o o o
co co ^r co ^r co

o o o o o o

CO CO 'Cf CO V CO

O O O © © ©
CO CO V CO V" CO

o o

CN CO

o o o o o o

CO CO ^f CO ^ CO

oooo

r-t TT r-i CN

o o

CN CO

o o o o o o

CO CO V CO V CO

oooo

CN TT CO VO

o o ©o © o

CO CO V" CO ^" CO

o o o o o o

CO CO ^ CO 'tf* CO

oooo ooooooo

NCOvOvOOinONSNCOH

oooo ooooooo

COOvNCOOvONNNNCOn

oooo ooooooo

riTj-CNCOOCOr-tCNCOvOrvr^

oooo ooooooo

OOOO ooooooo
co^riocoococo^tvfxr^co

ooooooo

O^Ti-iCNCO^-LnvO

OOOOOOO

O OO O OOOOOOO

i-H^rCO^rOCOr-<CNCNCOVOLO

OOOO OOOOOOO

00
* CO

+

LO LO

6 ©

eg eg

LO LO
CN CN

o
©

eg
CN

, 00 CO
CO CO vo

o

o
d

+

o

s

o

eg

O

o

eg

*f
CN

O

eg°

eg eg

+ CO ^ w

VO *■ rr
OOOOCNCNsJu*>

i-li— • r-l O O O O

CN

O

+

o
+

OO

o

I— I I— I

t**

+ LO O

■ II

O O rH

LO LO

LO LO

M rl ^

+ +

LO CO

CN VO

ri O

• t

o o

o
d

o

CO

o

•

o

eg
CM

d

+
o

o
d

eg
CN

d

+

LO

d

+

^f LO
Os CN

O CN

& te "re

o

u

S eg

o

2

u
re

3

MB

eg

CJ

E

V- w u_

•c

re

CJ

E

H H H

5B-1 J

H W U

TO
CJ

3

c
o
v

CJ

3

c

c
o
(J

3

re

a.

C
re

cj

c

"5
I

o
CO

cj'

re

3

cj
J3
°C

15

u
CJ

CJ

D
C
re

c
re

_3

n

>
u

'C
u
5

3

CN

JO

re

r-

re re
U U

LT)

o
+ £2

CO

E

- x. o -r

re u lo rs
U o ' u

OWOU

E
| g>£

+

+

u On

re o
U rC

re o

_ +

u CN

re o

3
3

X
O

—

-

o

CO

o

CO

UvOtt.

u CN

re o
U vo

So ^ o

re co °?

UMi

re co
U r^

-

re

#

£

0s

O O

o o o o o

CN N X h ~

o o

o o o

o
o

o
o

o o o o
r^ «-c cn o

o
o o o o

f^ rH CN <-l

o

r-e O O O

o

ii. o o o

o

CO o o o

o

CN O O O

o

CN O O O

o

CN O O O

o

LO o o o

o

CN

o

CN

I/} o

CN

1

> — <

O CN

rH

+ vO 00 +
vO CO

coqqo

o3
CO

r-< O O ^

^

E
^o

+

E
re

U

T3

O

CN CN o ^

CO CO « o

u ±

CO CO ,

m m C* •=

> > LJ ^

re

l-c

re
&

3

a

CJ

u
3

CJ
CJ

E

CJ
CJ

-

oooooooooooo 22 ° 5 S2 r> ,

OOMflONXl/lONi- 'i— iOr"lr",r"'r^a->T^00'— ' O O <— "

o o o

oooo oooooooooooo

oooooooo<— i i- 1 i/i t oH r ' *~ 'i— |corHi— i n n h h r i

~ ~ o o o

o oooo oooooooooooo

Ot-iOOOOOOi— i i— i CO i/l O H r i i-h r- iCOi— 'i— iCOCOrHi-Hi— i

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOfCNi-i

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHCN<-"

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOvOCN

O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr-icNrH

o o o
oooooooooooooooooooooorrr^co

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHCNCN

o o o
ooooooooooooooooooooooiocorv

© *T

in m o o in ^ ©

h HN N © ^ ©

e3 e8 e3 + e« £ CO ~ +

vO CO CO

ifli/jioi/iqqqiooocoi/i

CNCNCNCNCOCNCNCNOddd

CJ
S vJ

re

m in

CO CO

o o

d d

l/>

e8 c3

ss „

m m

do1^^

CO CO

rH CN

d d

08 «a , , wj

+ + CN

+ +

in in rf vo

o co cn \n o o

CN

«*

CN CN ^f CN

OOOOriOOOOOOO

re

re

u

*—
re

c3

u

re

re
u

*->

re

<a +

co

o o

00 00

< <

_j -j O O

< ^ u u

Z

o

vO —
vO 80

in

CN

3
CJ
3,

a.

CJ

E

re

CJ

<j u

CN .

cococS+^Lnee'cc'

w.i-w^lrtJiOTvOUU

re

u

— re

'•3 -a
•C "C

O
vO
CO
O
>

3,
O

><-3-^

ex re re
Q X X

u

u

CJ

E E
+ o

<j
eg

U
^-

c
E

CJ CJ

U U

8

a
u

LO

■v
CJ

3

c

c
o

o

CO

be
u

3
TO
C

•o
c
a

CJ

c

Vi

CJ

«

cj

a

."2
15

u
CJ

•a

CJ

"E
re

o

c
,o

TO

J3

TO

>
CJ

#CJ

*u

CJ

c

3

co

-a

TO

r-

CJ

O

CJ

cj Js
ei <j

c
o

CJ

(/> CJ

TO bO

O O

TO CJ
CJ CJ

js to

CJ

«—
TO

TO
CJ

u.

^

o^

0s

^

©*

0s

^5

^
&*

I

T3

s

o

o
u

c

c

^TO
CJ

O O
On O

LO LO
On On

O
CO O

C\ i— i

CO LO

co oo

On O

CO LO
On On

O O

r^ co

o o

LO VO

o o

LO VO

o o

CnI CO

+

LO LO

6 d

eg c£

LO LO
CN CN

O O LO O LO o
Cn On On On On On

CO LO O LO o o
On On On CO On On

O O O O O

O O O O O O

r- « i— l r-< On r-i r- 1

CO LO O LO O LO
On On On CO On CO

OOLOLO OOOOLOCOOLO

ONONvor^orocoNOONONONONCo

OOOOn OOOOOLOLOLO

ONONONONOr>»COt^COONONONON

o o o o

LOCOOlO OOOOnOOOO

^CM>aON\OtaHHHH

o

LO LO LO O
CO On On »h

o o

OOOOnLOCOOO

o o o

O O O CO

r- < i-h r-i On

o o
o o

o o o o o o

OOOCO LOCOOCOCOOOO

i-'t-(r-lONOONONCOONONr-lr-lr-t

o o o o o o
o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

OOOO LOCOOCOLOOOO

»-«i-«r-ir-<00\0\OAO\ONi-«i-<i~l

o o o o o o

o o o o o o

CN CN CO CO CO CO

o o o o o o
r^ cn. co r^« co LO

o o o o o o

V ^J" LO ^" VO VO

OOOO o O OO

OOOO oooooooo

r-lrHr-lr-lOr-lONONONr-lONrHr-l

SSS9^900ooooo

COCOOvONOONCOCOONtvcOONON

r5r?£?°.~2000oo©o

NN(M>OC0C0NNNNc0\O

£)rt>£2~000ooooo
r>» r^ On On.o r^rN.r^rocovO'srvo

o
d

CN

k CO CO 4.

CO CO VO T

+ « + *

^ ~ ^ ^ "*■ *■

O O O O O ON

rH rH i-l O O O

s

o
c3

CN

o

o
o

c3

CN

o

+

LO

o

co

CO

o

CO

o

CN

o

LO LO

LO LO

r-l rH ^

-• + +

+ +

LO O

• •

O rH

LO CO
CN VO
rH O

odd

+

o

o

CO

o
d

c3

■vt

CNJ

o

+
o

<cf

o

d

CN

d

+

LO

t

o

+

"<f LO

LO

d

+

On CN CO

O CN rH

H3

CJ

3

I— I

c
o

r:

53

-

T3

C

c

3

re

CJ
E

CJ

re

c

V5

CJ
T3

#CJ

"c

c

-
>

</>
'C

CJ

c

3

cn
jj
3

re

>•

U

O

CJ

■o o

CJ JS
g U

.re

re bo
O O

0s

On C

O O O O

<

J2

O O 00
CO CO On

o
o o o
r^ r^ r->

©

coo
r- tv <-

c
c o c
co co (—i

o

coo

X CC i— i

o
coo

o
coo

CN CO i-i

co
o

o

On

10

CO

On

10

On

o o
o o o c

CO CO H r-t

o

On

C

co

o o o o
h cn co in

o

CN

CN

f— <

o

VO

o

CO
CO

o

+

©

eg
CO

d

©

^r

■<r

CJ

(J

c

CJ

to

u
CJ

c J2 £

CJ
CJ

-

o o c

ooooooo oooooooooooo

ooooocncncNrocnocoomONONCNCNCNOO\0\i-i^-i^H

o o o
oooomooooooo oooooooooooo
cococococooNONvocnc,ocooNOr>.vor^coov'<rcooNco^-i^ii-i

o o
mmmoooooocoo

cocococoOr-irHcocococoo

o
ooooooomoooo
omor^ r^cococNONr-cocNON

ininincoioinoooino ooooooocooom
cooocor^OvONONCOcocor^\Oom^rLnvor^Lnr^cocoo\CNCO

o o
oooooooooomo ooo ooooo in ininin

Ci^OvcooHHCocococoNOOfO r^comcococoCNONCO

o o
oooinoooinooino oooooooo mm mm

OvO»iMO^HHCOB3cococoosinvo r^coNOcococooNONCO

ooo oooo oo

oooooooooooo ooooo o o

i— ii— ii-H0NC00NC0r^C000tssOOU*)i-Hr- 1 i— lr-*©OOr-«©OrH

OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO o o

NOONOvOrHrHr-icNoocotvcoomcocococ>ooocoooco

oooooooo ooo ooooo oooooo

T^nHtwi/iNOHirtuiofttifl^onnnNcos

oooooooo o-o o ooooo oooooo

fOCOMHrrcOCONOnirtiOOCOTTt^On«C1SCON

in in © q

eg eg eg +

in m m m © p ©

CNCNCNCNcnCNCNCN

=0 ^

m

•

oo p»»

o q

0.03
0.04

o

eg d

eg eg

eg vo

oo cn +

W vO

CO vO

m ^

m o

o o m

m

cn cn

CN d

odd

d

d d

m

in
d

q
cn

+
o

m

CN

NO

O CN t}-

d c> d

m
cn

o

o

eg

in
cn

•

o

+

CN CN

d d

m
cn
o

d

eg

in

cn

d

+

CN

d

re

re

-

re

eg

f-
2

re

eg

re

Q(j 2 H H

re

33

NN^

T3

—

CJ

\- 18093
\- 18093
N-9828

tochlor
5676
c & trif

CN

CO

cn

CN
CO

cn

C
CJ

—

eg

+

o u o
u u 2

w — re
<^3

m

i

>

m

i

>

CJ

E

o

U

.5 .£

CJ

C
re

re o

"u "u

re cn

u

m

CO
CN

eg eg

— —

+ 5

I

vO

CJ CJ

•c

'C cu

u

—

2 5

i-

H Q

eg

—
a

B

+

eg

i

**J rS rS ^^ ^^ ^^

"«3 "re "re « « JJ

I I X u u u

g

'•3
o

CJ

E

10

a

3
C

c
o

u

.2

y

o
U

c

01

O

U

re

Q.
"O

c
re

u

CJ

c
'5

CJ

CO

a

re

O

si

66

E

u
S

5

CJ

15

u

.C

T3
^CJ

"5

o

1

c
re

CJ

CJ

• —

u

CJ

a

<A

i

~-

"5

_CJ

.2

O

U

CJ

re

re

CJ

u

0s

0s

0s

<

T3
CJ

O
U

c

c

-2
a.
a

u

_ o o o o o

O 00 O ONN^ON

o o o o o

o © ©ooo

r-i rl O O i— I H H Ifl

o o o

o © io o ©

<-• O O r-< CO O r-l

oo oooooo

Pi If) CO CO v£> \£> VO O

COCO oooooco

O O LO LO O O O O

op oooooo

•"■« CN LO LO LO LO LO VO

OO On O O CO

CO O OOOvrHCNo;

LOO © © LO O LO O

COO ^TTCOOCOCN

^ ^ oooo

COCO COCOOOOO

op oooooo
oo oooooo

+

to lo

6 6

CO LO
CN CN

o
o

CN

o o

CO CO

9 ° ©

O c#

+

+ CO T

+
o

oooo
»-< o d d

c3

+

re

u

3

•c

•3 *

u

re

u
re

^3

E

•■H

ca

3 U

■fi™

CJ lU4

E *c

re

a

o

CO

*c

CJ
N

re
E

•c

QJ

E

'■3

c

CJ

E

+

c

CJ

c
o

N

re

E

2 °

cj 2 ^
£ UJ H

O
O

CN

C

3

E
*c
o

2

u

QJ

~ ^ ° o

OpOOLOOOOOOOO
COCOr-trHOOCOOLOUOt^^-LO

opp poo oo
^200~0°oo © © ©

Or-irlrHOr-lr-l^-cCNOLOr-irH

« . go ooo
p p o o ooo

OOr-lr-lOi-HrHf-lO

o o
o o

°. £ 29 £ oolocooocoo

OOOOOOOOOOCOOCO

ooo
co o o o

O r-l i-H r-l

o o o

OOOOrHQNOrHr-1

OOOO OOOOOOuir^i

UOLOOOOvOCO^SSgKg

oooo
oooo

op ooo

OOCOOCOOOO
Or-<r-(OOOr-lr-lrH

o

COOOO OLOLOCOOOOvrK

§§§§oR§8§8§§§

22220288§§§§8

o
d

c3

,^-

cs

•

o

+

to

d

CO
CO

o

+

CO

d

cs

o

LO LO

LO LO

r-; w

* o

^" CN

rH + +

CN

+

LO

o

+
o

LO CO

CN \Q rf

r-t O O
^* * *

OOO

LO
O

+

^ LO

LO

d

+

O O O CN CO

co r-i d cn r-5

E e

a E

U 0

fa +

i -

c O w

-0 2

CJ

c

* —

2 2

E.S
~ 73

re

+

E
o

re

+

E
o

u

CJ u u

2

re

+

c
cr

re

u

4-1

re

+

2

w

re

+

c

CJ

E

re

u

c^

u

*^
CJ

E

+

CJ

E

+

re

* & E .
p E a 2 'c t

4_ U

E E

0 u

T3
CJ

3
C

C

o

u

11

v

D

V5

u

O

0

UJ

o

"o
bo

J

QJ

"qj
>

a*

"o
U

8

QJ

co

O O O LO
i— i t— i On On

O

LO LO O
On On t— i

O

O

O O .-h

<

o

o

o

00

a*

V -

O
On

LO
On

o

1— 1

O
On

O

o

LO

o
o

1— 1

O

o

I— 1

/— V

o
lo

o

LO

On
On

On
On

o
o

o
o

T— 1

O
O

i— i

O
O

t-H

•->

o

vO

LO

On
On

o

On

- — ' '

O
On

o

On

00
On

O
O

rH

O
O

o
o

O
O

o
o

o

CM

CM

i— i

NO

NO

o

oo

CO

o

+
o

eg
oo

o

o

*-

t

CM CM

CO 00

^- ^

CO CO

LO LO

I I

> >

oooooooooooo ooooo o o

CNrHCOCMCMCOCOr-iCOLOLOlOOT-HTrTrNOvOOOOCMOOiO

OOOOOOOOOOOO O QO

oooooooooooo o oo

f— If— li— li— (i-Hi— (i-Hi-Hi-HrHi— Ir-tOi— tOO"- ^'-'OOOOOOO

o o o

ooooooo oooo oooooo o o

OnOnOni— iOni— IrHOCOCOrHONOLOONONONrHLOOOONOOON

o

OOOOOOOOOO00C0 OnOnCOLOOnO On O

OnOnOnOnOnOnOnCMOnOnOnOnOOnOnOnOnOnLOOOOnOOt-"

o o o

OOOLOOOOLOOOOO LOOOOO o o

ONONONOOONONONtvONONONrHOONON?— iOnOnOOOOnOOi— I

OnOOOOOOOOOlOLO looolooo o o

0n0n00L0L0C0C0CML0nO00C0O0nL00000OnC0OO'«3-OO'^-

oooo oo o ooooo
oooooooooooo ooooo

t— It— It— It— I On On On On t— It— lONt— I O i— ' r-H t— 1«— It— i O

o o

O O On O O On

OOOLOOOOOOLOCOO LOQOOO o o

OOCOCOt^COOOCOt^ONONONt-iOCO^-vOCOCOOOOCOOOOO

oo oo oooo
oooooooooooo

i— it— iOnOnOni— It— I 00 r It— It— It— lO

ooooo
ooooo

o o

O O O On O O On

oooooooooooo ooo o

OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOLOOO o o

1-lt-lt-Ht-ll-Ht-Ht-lt-lt-Hl-lt-lt-lOt-lt-lt-tONt-lOOOOONOOON

LO

LO

CO

CO

o

o

d

d

CO

LO

eg

og

CO

r>.

co ^-

^

o o

LO

LO

L0
t— 1

LO

t— i

q

CM

©
CM

LO

•

o

o

eg

O

d

d d

eg og

LO

i— 1

q

CM

LO
CM

CO

d

CO

d

eg

eg

eg

+

eg

NO

co

CO

+

+

+

+

+

nO

00

vO

LO Tf

NO

LO

L0

LO

LO o o

o

LO

o

o

o

LO

to

CO CM

LO

q

o

CM

*t-

CM

CM

•<*-

CM

CM

CM*

CM

izine 2,

G) 3.

2

CM

CM

d

d

d

d

d

d d

d

t— i

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

qj

S

CO

u

4->

CO

eg

CO

a,

QJ

+

e

co

+

B

eg

og

u

c

o

bo

u

qj

£

CO

■4—

CO

eg

CO

eg

H
2

CO
On

O
CO
t— 1

CGA-180937
MON-9828 (
Acetochlor

NO
NO

%

eg

CM

CO

482
& pend

LO
00

& clim
8c clim

QJ
§

a,

CO

E

CO

+

o

CO
On

>

ex

1

—

QJ

E

+

E

O

<— >
QJ

0

QJ

E

+

QJ
01

u

cu

Alac
Alac

<

O

u

LO

1

u

— t

co
3

co

LO
1

>

CO

LO
1

>

a,

s

E
o

u

X

u

CM

1

u-

Metr
Metr
Tridi

-a

•c

><

Cu

Q

o

X

•3

X

"co

X

4-J

QJ

u

QJ

u

12

Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides. Knake, Ellery L., Larry D. Wesley,
and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate various postemergence herbicide
combinations and rates with adjuvants on many crops and weed species common to Illinois
cropland. Plots were established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center
near DeKalb, Illinois on site SW800 with Drummer silty clay loam soil, with 5 to 6% organic
matter, a pH of 6.3 and 1 to 2% slope. The site was in a high state of fertility and no fertilizer
was applied. Plots were 10 by 150 ft. The site was moldboard plowed on August 25, 1988,
and disked once on September 28, 1988. On April 19, 1989, a field cultivator was used once.
Crops and weeds were planted April 24 as follows: corn, soybeans, and sorghum were planted
with a conventional four row planter, small grains were seeded with a drill and cocklebur was
planted with a hand planter. The remainder of the weeds, canola, alfalfa, and red clover were
seeded in 3 foot strips with a Brillion seeder. Seeds were planted north to south and herbicides
were applied in an east to west direction. Prior to spraying, plant heights were measured using
the following guidelines: all plant heights were free standing, main culm leaves were counted
for grasses, true leaves were counted for broadleafs, and trifoliolates were counted for legumes.
Postemergence herbicides were applied on June 5, from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. Herbicides were
broadcast using 8004 flat fan nozzle tips with the boom set at 20 inches. A tractor mounted
compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. Prior
to herbicide application there was 0.58 inch rain on June 1, and 0.45 inch on June 3. Although
most broadleaf weeds were at an appropriate stage of growth, some of the grass weeds were
a little advanced for most effective control. Following herbicide application there was no
significant rain until 0.62 inch fell on June 12. Visual ratings were made on June 13 and 14.
Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date

June !

Temperature (F)

Air

53-78

Soil (bare at 4 inch)

65-77

Wind (mph)

calm

Sky (% overcast)

10

Relative humidity (%)

76

Rainfall previous week (inch) 2.62

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.62

Corn

leaf no.

7

height (inch)

10

Sorghum

leaf no.

6

height (inch)

4

Soybeans

leaf no. (trifoliolates)

2

height (inch)

5.5

vv ileal

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

7

Canola

leaf no.

7

height (inch)

6

Alfalfa

leaf no. (trifoliolates)

8

height (inch)

4

Red clover

leaf no. (trifoliolates)

2

height (inch)

2

Giant foxtail

leaf no.

4

height (inch)

5

Yellow foxtail

leaf no.

4

height (inch)

4.5

Green foxtail

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

3

Barnyardgrass

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

5

13

Oats

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

12

Shattercane

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

2

Redroot pigweed

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

0.75

Lambsquarters

leaf no.

8

height (inch)

1

Velvetleaf

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

1.5

Large crabgrass

leaf no.

2

height (inch)

0.5

Ivyleaf morningglory

leaf no.

2

height (inch)

2

Common ragweed

leaf no.

4

height (inch)

0.75

Giant ragweed

leaf no.

4

height (inch)

3

Common cocklebur

leaf no.

5

height (inch)

4

Results are reported in the tables. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana),

14

15

Q. CO U,

CJ
CJ

c
O

CN
CO

CO

CJ ^

.2 £ °?

ant

CJ

c

in
.2$

Cu CO

CJ ^

a. co a- -—

u

cj C

flJ f. o

g fi u

.2 co

o- co

5 w

o

o

3
CO
CU

C
CO

>1

QJ

CJ*
CO

JO

"co

CJ

Q

u

CJ
N

a.

o

00

H +

o
o

CJ

."2
?

CJ

J=

CJ
o

c

CJ

6f

CJ

E

CJ

—

o

D

c
O

a

3

u

CJ

'0

CJ

O

3
2

_CJ

•O
CO

r-

O CO

CO CQ

c

CO

•O >■*

o J^

CO Ci.

^

^

CJ

CO

CO

<

"S.

.3

ooooooooo o
vooocoLOr-icNLOr-ico ^r

ooooooooo o

ooooooooo o

vOCO'rvOriNlONT LO

ooooooooo o

vOOO^^HCNUlCNTr LO

ooooooooo o
vooo^-vOricNincom vo

ooooooooo o
vooo^vo>-HCsmcom vo

ooooooooo o
voco^vo.-hcnlocolo vo

ooooooooo o
voco^rvOi-iCNiLocoLo vo

o o o

o o

O i-> i-i o o o

C C c*

CO CO

bo to

+ + + rH

o o m o

CO Cn 00 VO

O O LO o

CO O CO vO

O O LO o
CO On CO vO

o o in o

CO O 00 vO

O O LO o

CO On CO vO

O O LO o
CO On 00 VO

O O LO o
CO On 00 VO

O O LO o
CO On 00 VO

o o o o o o

00©0.-<<--'000 O CMCNCNi-'

o o o o

Cn) CN CNJ i-h

LO LO

CN CN

d d

+ +

CO LO

NO CN

o .-<

d d

LO

CN

d

+

+

+ L0

o

CT

+

cB

CO CO

NO NO LO

O O tv

odd

CN

0s

+

LO
CN

LO
CN

LO

CN

d

d

+

d

+

c8

LO

CN

t— i
O

o
o

+ — +

CO

° _. °

o ^ o

d + d

+ £ +

00 lo CN

8 n S

9 d ^
o w ©

CO

bo

:; +

T CO
LO 00 NO

« cn co q

^o 1 d

^ + ° +
.+co*oo

f\i LO 00 LO 00

CM H CM rH

+

oN

LO

CN

d

oo

CN

IM
"S

00
CN

£^X

•S x £•

3 CO

CT+-5
CO _, OJ
N C N

co cr co
E E E

0s

00
CN

oo v?

CM °^

™ 00

4- CN

00
CN

+ +

o o o o

u
o

CJ

oo

CN

CO

+ +

CO

o3 08

2 c

C CJ
£ CD

I

+

c
o

3

E
*c

O

2

NO

CO
NO

CO CJ

><
+ £

NO ><

•S ft

co Q
vo

2 +

s

u

x

a.

a

CO
CN

+

vO

CO
vO

I

X

a.

a
+
E

o o

t; c u u

><a

O

u

v2

+

+

^

o^

+

+

Cu

1

D.
CJ

CO
CN

c

Cu

I

a-

e

+

CO

v2

dH

+

r^

V5

CJ

N

CJ

a.

t^

E

co

E

t

ex

><

o

3

o

v_

LU

E

u-

U-

CJ

—

a

E

3

• — H

c
o

E

E

CO

CO
CJ

c °°
a cn

H^

O C

vb .2

CO O

C M

a .a

U C

■?.-2

C 3

o cr
Z U3

CJ

c

• —

c
co

c

CO

o

3

NO

o
E

3

,2
o

CJ
CU

CJ

V)

CO

.a

CO

—

cu

CO
CO

CO

<

CO

E

o

CJ

w

CO

1-

3
CJ
CJ

c
o

c :3

CO O

>

3 CU

:3? o

< u

•" «NI Kl <*

T3
CJ
3
C

C

o

CJ

H +

is

CU co

& +

o

CO

£ co

D +

m

co

co tfa -=?

u

c
■p o

S'fi

c
•c
c
o
u

3
TO

co

CO

1

c
o
u

fa 2
cu H

o
co

I

tu
+

C
cs

H

cu

• —

U

1

U

C
o

1 s

Q Cu

11

oo co

in

o
o

8

g

•c

re
u

S

o

i

3

^

(^

#

#

£

#

S

(5^

S

*

tf~

u

—

re

2

OLOLOOOOO oooooooooooo

co co co in csmcsooooooooooo ooomr*cNcor^xxr^r^xxxx

o m to

to ci n

o in in

CO CO CO

o in in

CO CO CO

o in in

CO CO CO

o in m

CO CO CO

moo
cs co co

in o o

CS CO CO

"3

60

O

in

o
in

o
m

o
m

ooo oooooooooooo

csmcsooooooooooo OOOini-icscor^xxr^t-vxxxx

ooo
cs in cs

ooo

oooooooooooo

ooooooooooo ooomi-icscof^cocorvr^cocceoco

oooooooooooo
csincsooooooooooo oooinrnrscor^xxrvr^xxxx

ooo oooooooooooo

csmcsooooooooooo oooinrHcscor^«xrvr-*.xxxx

oininoooo oooooooooooo

cococo m csincsooooooooooooooinricscor^cooor>.r»coa»eo

ominoooo oooooooooooo

cococo in csmcsoooooooooooooomi-'cscorvoocor^r^cocoeoeo

o
m

o

CO

ooo oooooooooooo

csincsooooooooooo oooint-icscor^cocor^r^cocccoco

ooooooooooooom omomoino
^rinincocovovincoinr^vococs coco^rcoT^rmooooooooo

o oooooooooooooinoinomoino

co TTininoocovO^rincoinr^-vooocNcocoTcoT^rinooooooooo

in

CS

6

+

r^

in

s

CS

6

d

+

+

in

m

c^

CM

CO

o o

u 2
O N

cj +

_

+

TO

+

socr

\D

in

r—l

O

6

+

d

+

0s

+

in

in

in

rv

cs

r-v

CO

d

CO

d

d

C" C" i- w Li

. cr cr _;

rH i— ( O

+ + + + +

o co in co co

tv oo m o o vo vo

o o cs o o o o

d d d d d d d

o vo

d

cs cs in

cs ^

d O

rH i— i r- '

!! I + + +

co in

rH *? o o in

d d d d d

in

d

° in

in cs

N. d

o

* m
in cs

« d

+ +

co o

o o

d o

+

X

I— I

o
d

o
+

o

in
o

in
cs

d

+

in
cs

c c cr

cr ~ cr

rn + -
+

o o o o

+ + +

co co f + m +

oo co 5 t^

rH I— l O rH O r- 1

<5 <6 ci c> <5 <5

cr cr ~

cr

r^ r^
+ +

CO CO

r^ r^ o

ooo

odd

5

" co

CJ U

o o

U
O

u

E

o

o

3

<

^ <

cs

co co

CO

in

o

i

>

il«f

sax

D a

■ rv '

^J- u J7tt

H <— CS

C + c3
O

u

c

■ —

s

g

+ s

8

+

^ x x

u

B

•a

TO

c

TO f

+ -5

X X

+ +

8 -

x p..

"O w — ^

CO

- o
5->

"C -o -a

XO£*.co?£tt.c

>QUUtuHouH

cs

O 00

co \o
o co

X <

cu o
Q U

cs

X
vO
CO

I

<

CJ
CJ

XXX

+ + +

CJ

rv O
rs. U

>< +

+ c

in

cs
X

2

in in

cs cs

X X

2 2

-a
o
u

CO

CJ

O
U

u +

U a

Cu "to

a -a

08

CJ

o

CJ

a o
o vO

x T

e U

g S

y

° u

+ £J

.o .E

O

cj u

o o

u u

+ +

CJ CJ

o ■£

to id ^ ^i

X CJ

u u

i-

£

c
o

_ o.

5 Q

0

-

z.

TO
X

O

c

Its

til

cj o 5

En o

< Q <

16

CJ

•a
to
u

n

CJ U

5

in

o

CN

+ £

TO

. O

60 no

O

CO
I— I

I

<

CJ

3
c

• #■*

c
o

(J

3

to
ft.

•a

c

TO

CJ CO CJ u

6

•i be

CJ co cj

X

J. °

-. + CO

Bb«2 o t|

c

O

TO O

U N t

oo c

_ +

TO O

0 t^

TO O

_ +

u. CN

TO O

U VO

o

00

1

17

>

CJ

CJ
TO

CJ

IS

CJ

u

c

CJ

fc4

L.

CJ

to

o

c

ra

js

c
>
a

.Si

CJ

3

CN

TO
f-

O

co

i

a.

uT CN
TO O

U vo

_ +

1-1 c**

TO 00

U rv

'&£

TO 00

U r^

o
oo

i

ft.

c
o
u

^

o*

5

<

.3

OOOOOinOOO

vor^oor^oocor^ovo

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

ooooooooo
voco^rvorHCNincoin

ooooooooo
voco^-vorHCSioMin

ooooooooo
voco^rvo»-HCSLocom

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

rrinfOirtHNflHfO

cr cr cr cr

o o o
o o o

+ + +

£ # £

in in in

CN CN CN

d d

+ +

o

+

en m co

vO CN vO

9 *""! °
odd

o

9 «

rH cr

+ «

~ +
cr

S ^

O o

l-H '-1

+ d

CO*

vo m
O r-s

d d

TO TO

bo to

cr

. vP vP

CN ^ ^

+ in in

CN CN

m o o

CN

o

m

in

o

vO

O

in

o

o

o o o o
co co co rv

o m m o
en o o co

o m m o
co o o co

o o m o
co o co vo

o

vO

o

CO

o

00

o

o

vO

o

CO

o
o

in
oo

o

vO

O

m

o

CO

o
o

in

00

O
vO

o o in o
co o co vo

o o m o
co o oo vo

o o in o
co co oo vo

+ — +

TO
^ Mr*
O

O + + + £

°3 N X

rH O

moo

o o o

o
d

+

00 u-) CN

O CN

O

d

oo

CN

rsi

00
CN

+ £ r-
r^ X

* + +,

.£ x S"

2 TO

§•+■£

to _. ej

N C N
TO cr TO

EEE

oo

CN

00
CN

co

CN

+ +

CO

in co ^o

~ CN CO O

^d ■-; d

; + ° +

+ C0*Oj

cm' in co in co

CN <-> CN i-h

d d d d

U

O

u

TO

+
m

00
CN

•C +
to It:

£ co

CO

i

vO

1— 1

X

X

CO
vO

CN

+

+

s

+
<—

'u

TO

c
o

3

CO

X
ft.

Q

o3

E
•c

so
2

+

c

o

i

X

E

CJ

2

c-

a

u

Q

u

+

vO

r-J i-H "(j

CO
vO

2

00
CN

+

O

u

I +

oo

CN C

+

+

CJ

E

+

ft.

U cj

o o

U 0

+ +

ft. c

•S- E

c —

•*B

I

X

D.

£ c3

+
ft.

i

.a

Ej- cZ

CJ

E

N
TO

2 i

CJ

■k— '

TO

E

_3

'5
o

E

E

TO

TO
CJ

C °°

TO -C

> .ts

E *

o c

«£ .2

c 1

TO O

u "■

ig b

n "3

cj C
•EvS

.2^3

C 3

o cr

Z J

CJ

c

8s

T3
C
TO

c

TO
O

3

vO

E

3
JJ

O

u.

CJ

c

CJ

VI

TO

TO
u
TO
Ci.

«5^

CO
00

ft.

CvO
<

E

o

CJ

*--

c

CJ
CJ

c
o

o

C "3

TO O

3 D.

< u

r N Kl

-a

CJ
3
C

c
o

CJ

n -3

— .-

0 u

O
(N

£ + cn

= n

c ^ o *r

r. l? li ."=•
L o . O

OwUU

-J o

•= W m u

U # o =

x

o

Ze. f

u O
CS O
fs.

o a

CO =

C3 S^L HI

r O =?
O rs li.

u O

U rC

§ Si®

O o ii-

u CS

c
U

- u (

■« +

i<3s2

ft

i

c

B

3£

§

£

s

*

#

*

u -s.

ft —

C O LI

X 2 N

S2S2iniflSS3?§8R8S?8§Roooo

o o o o o

o o o
r> v v

o o o
n v t

O LI Li

n n n

o li li
n cn cn

cn cn cn

o

o o o

O T CI

ooooooooinomommmLiLiooo
ooooooocNcofNt^cor^ascocof^oco^f^oovOvf^oo

o ooo oooooooowowowwtnwwooo

cc oTcoooooooofNncsr^oor^cococooocooo^oc^c^oot^

oooo oooooooooooo

LI cSLOCSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLIr-iCScnt'sCOCOr^r^COCOCOCO

oooo oooooooooooo

m NWNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl/lHNnMOCONNOOCOO

oooo oooooooooooo

LI NUINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlflHlSPlNOOCONNOCOCOeO

OLomoooo oooooooooooo

cn cn cn LI MlflNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlflHNP)Se0BNM0C0C0fl3

O m m O O O O OOOOOQOOOOQO

MiflNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIAHNtONCDONNCOtOacO

s^ n n n id

O Ifl Ul

cn cn cn

o in w
cn cn cn

ft

u

- +

+ £

t"s LI
T CM

9 6

o .

+ T

LI

in fs.
cs cn
d 6

oooo oooooooooooo

V N^NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmHNnN03C0NC0C00903a

oooo oooooooooooo

V NlANOOOOOOOOOOOOOOinHNnMOIOSCOaOIOQ

+
in

CS

- +

ft

+ »cn

in "^ o

6 + 6

+ £ +

m li m

6 ° 6

C C u w Li

- ~ * 0*0

+

it*'*

fs. co in o
O O CS o

6 6 6 6

m en en

ooo
d d d

cs o
6 o

e3 +

cs cs in

^> o» 3* 3* ^» 3* eF

iQLnp)cQinr)^r?o'o-o«o'o*o-«

2<iOOCiOiQOi-li-lr^^-i-C^.i-lr-l v

O O O 1 r*

. ++.+0 + + + + ^H + rH + + .

£

u
o

=3
CS

+

u

+

rs.

T

rs.

T"

ts.

— ^

rs.
><

e-

><

U

U

5

5

+

O

O

+

rs

s?

U

u

<r

CO

c

..

o

N

~

u

cs

T

T

+

0

.3

+

•-

cn

cs

3

U

T

is.

+

vO

o

T

c

—

rs

1

c-

n

cn

■■

• ••

• ••

■ —

CO

cs

L")

0

<

u

<

><

(J

<

CS

>

>

rcnm + + +
o r-j v o\ ov m o

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

8

+ + + + +

CO O

cn vo «-i cn in

o
+

o o
o 6 6

« + »§§

O <— I r-i l— i-H

6 6 6 6

C

•a
S

+

u

: G ^

I**

S + +
n .i O

fs t^.

+ +
cs

O tN.

•o v- S. fc! •

+ S CS £ k? - N

eg C> C + ag

ft
•a

- f^ e o o oo
" ti ^ n cn o
■ _e P* P* w

R +

^2 o
t cs

(j 2

fs fs. ts.

>^ X X

+ + +

2665
2665
2665

2 2 2

m + co co "

t>. ts.ts.CS

f O rH O O O

dddddddd

V

O
u

m + u y

+ £i+ +

.0 .3

u u

Lt O L. Li.

V ^- ^^ *-f

« £ iJ ii

I u u u

c
o

w

3

•*- o

J3 Ci-
ft 3

w a

8 B
"g 2

1§

■S E
w o
E.S

c

o

-
c
n
x
o
c
.o

u

u

S

o

1^1

18

re
o

oo

bO

CQ

bO

u

^

O

qj

c

c
o

u

3

re
a.

C

QJ
TO

QJ

.O.

u

a;

c

a;

QJ

*— <

o
ex1

c

re

_3

re
>

.Si

'u
QJ

a

V5

QJ

O
u

*-i

C

o
U

O

QJ
QJ is

ctf u

is

.re

V5 QJ

re "bo
O O

re qj

QJ QJ

0s

""5

"5

*5

^5

w

re

<

co

re

c

QJ

OlOCOOOOOloOO

O O O LO o o
ror^aocor-ir- <ooo

o

o

LO

o o

o

CO o

CO

r^ t-i

i— <

CN VO

o o o o o

h Q\ C\ lO n

ooocooo ooooo

PO N CO O^ r I rH O C O O rl C^ d ^ H

oooooo ooooo

M N CO (> H r- lOOO O H On OM/1 r I

oooooo
ror^coosi-tr-iooo

oooooo

MNMCNhhOOO

ooooooooo

i^NTririNcoocooo

OO OOLOOOO

TTVOLOr-IVOVOhsCOLO

OOLOOOOO o
CO^-LOvOr-tCSvOLOvO

o o o O O O LO
rHCOCNCNLOrHCOOCN

ooooo

t— I ON On LO i— i

ooooo

i— I ON ON LO i— »

o

On

o
co

o

CO

o
oo

LO
CN

o

O

o

o

o

O

rH

o

nO

LO

o

CO

o

ON

o

On

O

CO

O
CO

O
CO

o

cn

o

On

O
On

O

O
CN

CT O* O"

re re
bo bo

+ + +

LO LO
CN CN

6 d

+ +

CO LO
vO CN

O rH

6 6

fNI

o"*

CO
CN

+ £

>< +
§■ +

N C

re cr
B B

LO
CN

•

O

+

^cn

J:

CN £

+

<-> <_, cr1 4_.
cr o-_ cr

LO
CN

LO
CN

+ --+-.

O

<a

CO CO
VO NO LO
© O t^

• • •

o o o

LO
CN

O

d +

c8 CN

LO

o

o
d

o
o

d d
+ +

«*- CO

o o
o o

d d

re
bo

re
bo *■

i-4 g rH

+ d +

LO

^d

£ + £

LO CN LO

«i S

°d

CN LO CO
CN r-l

" +

CO
CO ^§
CO o

1 o

° +

^00
LO CO LO

CN rH CN

+
<*-

O

d

+

ooooo

00
CN

CN fsj

+

^ CN *

+ +

>-. re

re

00
CN

+

U

o

+ +

+ +

•5 +

u

re

19

Q, *

re qj c
.5 iS CQ

o

re

c3

+

c
o

u

3

e
•c

o

2

CQ U

i

X

+

NO
rH

CO
NO

i

X

o-

Q

NO

rH

co

NO

+

NO

»-H

CO

NO

x

CU

Q

+

B
u

u

o
u

# +

oo
CN c

+

QJ

B

+

u
o

o-

I

i

X

re

QJ

£
o

ex

ou
u +

T CQ

a, Q
w J.

E ^

■- CN

re

QJ

E

£ o

+
CL

+
QJ

£ o

LL, U,

re

QJ ^

"re jC

QJ

c

• #■*
r-t

c
re

c
re

—>
u

is

8s

vO

QJ — "

O

6

p

QJ

O

u>
*—>
QJ
Q-

QJ

re

C
re

u.

re
ex

c
o

O c

.> O

C ^ 00

re o <*
re >-<

U_, QJ p

ii ts: 5

3 13 O

trt r3 ,1-1

"2^ c

.2t3 5

o cr^1

2 j <

•- (M Kl

co^H

CO 3

•r .O

S re

re w

h gj

c c

QJ »rj

y c
It

O ¥

O.J

O "O
u

U <

a

3

c

c

O
u

CJ

re

c

re
u

v.
>>

fee
u

CJ

O

=5

D
U

u

CJ

■si

a u

CJ

u

■■ -
c

c

3
c

c
es

r:

>

'C

H CJ

re to
O O

eg cj
cj v

en

<

CN CN

Cn

o c o

CC Li -*

o o o

o o o

LT Li rt (S (N

c o

o o

c
m

o

LO

c c

o o

Cn CN

O LO

o o
m v

o o

M CN

re

to

c

o

o

CO

o

L0
CN

in

CS in

re
to

en
vo
o

o o + o

+ +

in in u-s

^ ^ es
con 2

6 6°

CO
CM

°^cooooo^^3^^S^^^^S^

888oooooo888?8R?888R8888888888

^^oooooo^^S^^^oooooooooooo

°^oooooo^^S^^S^§^S^^^

^^oooooo^S?S^^^§^^^^S

888 888888?88S88R8883gooooooooo

8S88i32283S88888?8?oSg000000000

S 8?8oooooo888??88??$8B?£888R888

o o

•""•CSOOOOO©

10

««NWP)HNHrtMNNN\Oinu)\0«JovO

cr c-

cr crc5

o
6

+ + +

m "re CN co

f* m rv oo

M O O

o ^ d d

+ +

IT) CN

CS O

d d

+

M

in CO .
CN *0 vO

o o o
odd

vo
cs

d

c3

en m

d d

d
+

cs cs m

+ +

CN CN

d d

in in

cs cs

d d

+ +

en vo

o o

d d

m

CM

d
+

co vo

r-« en

o o

d d

in
cs

d

+

m
o

m
es

d

+

m
r^

o

in
cs

d

+

in
es

d

+

in
cs

cr cr cr

cr cr

4— I — ~ ^^

+ + +.-. + rH + +

CO CO

CO CO

o o o o d d

m
o

+

CO

o

CO
o

+

CN

o

o o o o o o

x !

o

re ^

a co

cs

—

o

3
<

CJ

+

V

<

i

X

+

ex
u

^ "*- K

i •— CO
X ^ CN

u u

o o

u u

+ +

rl es

en co

O T

en m

es in

> >

U

O

u

Q

i

"8T

+ :s cs

re

V

.5

G

Q re

a ^ +

5- 5" r» >- Tj x
.s JO CX 3 .= o

OuuEhShcx

CJ

B

'F3
re
c
re
s^
u

U

8

+
G

—

re
+

e^

-A X X

X

+

X X

+ +

re

CJ

a

re

+ -5

•p

o
en

CN

T3 X

"C a.
H Q

es

o e^
vo co
en o
cn en

cs

o
. en

> 1—1 l-H

<

U

<

o

u

i

X

+

m
vo
vo
es

i

X

2

X X

+ +

m m

vO vO

vO VO

es es

— —

2 2

u

o
u

+

vO

es

o

X

2

CJ

u

o
u

u +

U o.

,v2

°

o. "re

U

o
u

+

ex o

O vO

a

CJ

— -.

u

O
U

+ U U

u u u
PI + +

u

t

u u

o .5

o -c

" — — —

rt JJ JJ «

luuu

ex
o

-

ex

re

x

o

c

,o

B
O

ex

3

a

E

o

— o

.§1

20

u

O

U

o
u

CJ

3
c

w

c
o

u

3
co

CX

-o
c
co

O

U o

cj

21

J1J

CJ

CJ

«/5

CJ
"3

*0
u
<v

CJ

3

CJ

to

o
o4

c
o

• ~-

TO

TO
>
CJ

"o
cj

3
CO

CJ

I

cr

"o
U

0s

^

o^

^5

0s

0s

0s

"5

CJ

*->
CO

<

OOLOLOOOOOO o

coocoooooaDTrN oo

o o o o
ococoooooooo o

NO^O^O^O^O^HHH i— I

o o o

OOOOCOCOOOO o

looooocooooolooo o

OnOnOnOnOnOnCOCOOn On

©OOOLOLO©©© o

htJ-NNOOCONLOCO On

oooololoooo o

HTj-NNOOCONlOOO On

OOOOLOlOOOO o

CN^*OO0O00C000C^CO On

OOlOLOOOOOOOO O

(SlOSNOvO\HOvO\ On

o o o o o

OOOOOOOOLOCO 00

On«— I rH i— I i— (t— < On On On On

o o o o o

LO LO CO On On

O O O O O

CO CO ro yD N

o

OO O O 00 On
On i— i On On On

O
LO LO 00 CO o
On On On On rH

O LO LO O CO
On On On f^ On

O LO LO O 00
On On On t^ On

O O O O O
^- r}- tT vO LO

o o o o o

f^ On On t}- Q\

O O O O O
O O O O O

U* CT cr cr

CO CO

oo bo

+ + +

# £ #

LO LO LO

CN CN CN

do©

+ + +

CO LO CO

O CN VO

O r-t O

i-H <T

+ «

w +

cr

s ^

O \o

+ °

vO LO

O t"*

&+

*-l 4_, O" <->

cr cr _ cr

CN

+

LO LO
CN CN

LO
CN

©

d +

c3 CN

o o o o o

LO

6

(M

00
CN

+ d"
- QC

0s

00
CN

+

O

o

00
CN

O

+

O

o
o

CO
CN

+ — +

CO

° ^ °

© M o

c> + d

+ g +

CO

bo

00 lo CN
8 «

6°

o
©

. 7 +

+ + ^

CO
. LO oo ^o
ti.cN oo o

+ °o «-; o
>e + +

LO 00 CO

CNj LO 00 LO CO LO

\$ CN i-i CN rn CN

o

© O O O O

©
d

+

u

o
u

co r^

* + +.
§•+•5

CO _ CJ

N C N

ca cr co

GEE

CN ^

, CO

+ CN

A +
CO .3

CO

+ +

00
CN

+

o

CO

+ & eg

u c

C CJ

5 CQ

C
QJ

+

c
o

u

P

E
•c
o

2

co U

r^

+

VO
i—i
CO
VO

■

X

Cu

a

NO

r— <
CO

X

o-

Q

+

e

u

+

vO

1-H

CO
vO

*=?
« u

CJ
O

u

l +

oo

CN C
t^ CJ

^ e

X O

CJ

B

+

U

o
u

+

I

CX

CJ

E

.2 o

CO

Lu U-, Ll,

U
u °

ou

u +

+ ^

T ca

ex Q

CJ •

E *.

•- CN

+ +

CX QJ

la o

LL, LL,

CO

CJ

C

C
co

c

co
—
u

3
to

vO

CJ -T

§ CN

"co JS

E ?

O 3

vfc 2

c -a w

n o <-

E

3

"o

u
CJ

ex

CJ

CO

3

S3

CO

Uc

CO

ex

CJ

3 ii£

w r3

u t:

.2 -3

o cr-o
2 j <

»■ N Kl

CO

3

o

00 3

^ "3

w CO
CO W

w CJ

3 3

cj -p

u b

3 co

o §

p..S

O "3
u

U <

-3
CJ

3

c

4— '

3
O
u

C>
3
C

c
o
u

7
CO

o.

-a

c
re

>

V)

v

.3
<->

o
U

O

u

u

o .J.
(J O

u
«—

c

bo O

CJ

5

5

v

TO

O

u

V)

V

12
jC

'JE

■—

V

V
u

c

Si

a

E

V

•—

1/5

o

D

c
re

_3

re

>

o

c

3

^9
3

r-

?S

Cj

re

<

o o o o

oo o ooooooooooooooooo
lo>-< o coocNcO'-ir^cNooavLOrH'-'CNrovomoLOLrj^Loooooooooo

o

LO O

CO r*

o o
o o

o o

o o

o

o

o

CO CO o

o o
o o

o
o

re
bo

? +

LO

CS LO

6 6

+ +

to lo

CO CO

d d

LO

CS

d

re +

WcO

o

d

+

OLOoooooomoooooooooooo

(>conirtocoinmfflcoaaHMaNO>OMO^ooooooooo

o o o o o

w u i u « <«j w <_>

OCOOOOLOOLOO©OOOOOOOOLO©LO

n^NO^OOCOrlHHr (i-HTrvOC^rHOOCOOO

ooooooooo

o

O C0L0OOOOOOOOOOO oo o

i-h 0\OCSCOOCSrHCNOvOfvCO\OOLO\OCOO©LOi-H©©©©00000

lo olooooo©©lololololooooooo©©

o ocoLOLooLOLocoocococooTr\OLOLOLOLOLOLooooooooo©

LO OLOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOO

o oaoLOLoovLOLocoocococooTj-vOLOLOLOLOLOLoooooooooo

o
oco o ooooolooooooolooooooloolo

©LOO OOOCOOCOCOOOOOLOOLOO

UO O O LO o

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

o o o o o

ooooooooooooooooo©©© o

HHHnnNN(SCOCOO\HHOvOiOvO*OvOvO*OiOOOOOOOOO

© ^: •_l

t-H i-H

I-H

re on co

bO t^ CO LO

OON

LO

©

+

o
d

CO

o o ©

LO CO .

o o o o
d d

©

do©

cs vq

d o

c3 +

CO LO

r-> If

© d

CS CS LO

+ +
d ©

LO LO

cs cs

© d

+ +

CO O

© o

d

a*

LO

cs
d

CO O
i-i CO LO

o o o
©odd

LO LO

cs cs

d d

+ +

LO

cs
©

+

LO

o

LO

cs
d

+

c\j cr" o* a*
d i— i i-i i— i

+ + + +

m oo co t

N 00 CO T

i— i i— i i— i O

c> d> c> d> d> d>

a*

rH + rH
+ LO +
i— I © i— I

odd

+ +

CO co

o o

d d

o
d

< <

>QUUEhti.r-D7oVoV

■a x

r- Q

vO CO
CO O
ON CO

^2

X <

Q U

<

u

LO LO LO
VO \£> O
vO O vO

cs cs cs

I * I

XXX

222

—

C

c

O

o

u

c

c

3

re

Q

X

o

u u

r-

c

o o

C
0

vis

—

£

u u

+ +

o

CJ

u

u u

E

l-H 1— 1

o

ut

o

t/5

oo [l. O

JJ CJ

U U

^

22

Herbicides for stale-seedbed soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Lyle E. Paul, Ronald W. Heisner.
The primary purpose of this study was to compare herbicide treatments for soybeans planted
in a stale seedbed. An attempt was made to determine to what degree certain herbicides might
provide both "burndown" and residual control. This information would be useful in designing
combination treatments to minimize the number of herbicides, the number of applications, and
the cost to reduce inputs for stale seedbed and Lo-Till systems. The stale seedbed system for
the purpose of this study included preparation of the seedbed, allowing weeds to emerge and
then applying herbicides and planting a month later with no tillage at that time.

The plots were established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center
near DeKalb, Illinois on tract SW900(N). The soil was Drummer silty clay loam with 5 to 6%
organic matter, a pH of 6.5 to 7.5, and a 1 to 2% slope. A randomized complete block with
three replications was used with individual plots 10 x 40 ft. The field was in a high state of
fertility and no fertilizer was applied in 1989. The field had been in corn in 1988 and a
moldboard plow used in the fall of 1988. The field was disked twice April 13, and a field
cultivator and harrow used once on April 21. Weeds were then allowed to germinate and grow
for 26 days. A dense stand of giant foxtail and velvetleaf resulted. At 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. on
May 1 7, herbicides were broadcast with a tractor mounted compressed air spray unit using flat
fan nozzle tips, 30 psi pressure, traveling at 3 mph to give 25 gpa. At the time of spraying,
giant foxtail was 1 inch with 2 leaves and velvetleaf was 0.5 inch in the cotyledon to the one
leaf stage. On May 23, 'Hack' soybeans were planted in 30 inch rows at 60 lb/A to give 8
plants/ft. At 7:30 a.m. on June 23, bentazon plus 28% UAN was applied for treatments 1 and
2 and on June 26 at 3:30 p.m. sethoxydim plus Dash was applied for these two treatments.
Spraying was done in a similar manner as for the earlier treatments. Visual ratings were made
June 1, and July 6. The plots were cultivated once on July 14. Conditions on the days of
spraying were:

Date
Temperature (F)

Soil (bare @ 4 inch)

Air

Relative humidity daily mean
Wind (mph)
Sky (% overcast)
Rainfall previous week (inch)
Rainfall following week (inch)

May 17

June 23

June 26

55-69

71-84

73-83

45-83

85

83

56

83

89

5-7 SE

9

8

5

0

30

0

0.03

0.03

1.27

0.23

0.17

The treatments with bentazon, 2,4-D and sethoxydim gave relatively good early control
of giant foxtail and velvetleaf, however, with little residual activity, later treatment was also
needed. To avoid antagonistic effect of bentazon on sethoxydim, the sethoxydim was applied
three days after the bentazon to give a total of three times of application for the first two
treatments of the study. Since earlier studies indicated that haloxyfop and clethodim have some
soil residual as well as postemergence activity, emphasis was placed on determimng if this might
be useful to reduce the number of herbicides and applications needed for Lo-Till systems.
Haloxyfop gave excellent early control and relatively good residual control at the rate used.
Clethodim also gave good early control and fairly good residual control but not quite as much

23

as haloxyfop. Rates might be delineated further and cost would be a consideration.

Bentazon provided good control of broadleaf weeds. The 2,4-D gave good early control
of broadleaf weeds, but with 2,4-D applied at a relatively high rate near time of planting, some
soybean injury was evident. Soybean injury was also noted where cyanazine was used.
Metribuzin plus chlorimuron provided both good "burndown" and residual control of broadleaf
weeds with all rates for both the 10:1 and 6:1 ratios of metribuzin to chlorimuron. This study
suggests the possibility of one herbicide application with two or three products to give both
burndown and residual activity for control of both grass and broadleaf weeds in stale seedbed
or Lo-Till systems. This could reduce number of trips and costs. With very good "burndown"
from metribuzin and chlorimuron, this could make the controversial use of 2,4-D for soybeans
rather academic. The feasibility of using haloxyfop and clethodim for both "burndown" and
residual control of grass weeds will depend on registration, rates, and price. The stale seedbed
system used for this study would have implications for use when a seedbed has been prepared
but rain or other factors delay herbicide application and planting. Results of this study suggest
that additional tillage near time of planting would not be essential, thus saving time and
expense. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

24

cu

c

£

c

03

P

to

CU
TO

1/5

C

CO

<u
>.

O

t/i

CU

X

<U

a;
to

I

"to
l/i

00

CU

T3

X

J-

cu

TO

cu *a
o£

CO

>

vO

<U Xl

> So

o

a

vO

vO

o c
co •? ^h
\

vO

c

i

4-»

TO
<U
Vi

H

X

0s

vO
CO

O
O

'it-

CO

CO
On

CO

VO

lo

o

o

CO LO H O CO tv CO

CO rf ^T LO Tf rf *<t-

t^ o r^ t^ o hs co

00 CO On 00 ^t On CO

tJ- NO LO
CO CO CN LO

O O O
nO NO -tf-

O
On

O

CN
On

nO CO

On On

O O
O O

O CO CO ^" rf CO

00 On On On On On

O

o r^ co o co o
oo r^ co vo co

§ VO CO 00 g g

2 on on on 2 2

O CO o o o

o o o o o

o

On
On

O O O
VO v£> VO

if LO

o o

On On ~

o o o

CN CN CN

o o o o

LO

L0

CN

CN

LO

+

L0

d

+

L0

d

+

L0

o

CN

d

+

LO
CN

d

+

c8

LO

LO
CN

CO

LO

LO

o

o

d

o

CN

^

O

LO

NO LO

LO

CN

•

CN

d

d

d

d

d

+

d

q cN

CN

O

CO

d

00

€#

d d

d

<

+

o

00

i— t

+

o

00

t— i

C*J

LO

08

L0

08

+

+

LO

+

+

+ +

+

<v

\

L0

CN

L0

CN

CO

LO

LO

o

LO

TO
Of,

X

©

fH

d

q

T— 1

d

*"

Tf

CO

^

CN

CN

q

q q

q

w-

rA

V.

v.

r— i

\

s

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

t— i

CN

CN CN

CN

K>

1 *

& c Q

+ S +

TO

rj- cq co

CN ^ ^

1j

n£> X
0s

C X ^

° "3 J£

c

in

00
CN

V5 w
TO OQ

+ +

+ ~

c

CQ

c-5

<v cu
CQ CO

N

•c

4-1

u

E + +
*c

o 6 6

o-2 xl a

^O <j u u

Q t-i >-i >-i

•^ *-« 4-1 4^

TO CD <u CU

E

+

•i—i

6

4- +

TO

JL>

+

2-:3 ^ «

+

u

cu

4—1

TO

o

o
J3

X

"o

■u- 1

cu

B

o

NO

CO
On

>

I

X

ex

a

+ * t3

C

N +

TO

C C

TO TO

u u

o S

TO
CU

+ p

TO CU

U CJ

CN

o »

CN

LO

LO

d

LO

o
d

Q

co

NO

-4—*

3

"o

J-.

4—1
<U

cu

TO

G

TO
TO

^
&*

CO

00

c

TO

OJ

— '

TO
V-i

4—1

c

<U

o
C
O
o

CO
CN
\

NO

c

O

cu
u

d

<u

60

u

cu

cu

4—1
Vi

^CN

"^ >

QJ VO

a ©

M cu

s s

c S

cu E
X <u

4— i

< 2

bo qj

•'2^

TO

O C 4-j OJ m
4- CO <U u w

O nP X!

P 00 TO
CQ CN Q
n n <<

25

Time and method of herbicide application for a reduced tillage cropping sequence. Knake,
Ellery L., Lyle E. Paul, and Ronald W. Heisner. The major purpose of this study was to compare
preplant incorporated(PPI), preemergence and postemergence applications for weed control in
corn, soybeans, and alfalfa with various tillage systems. This long term study is located on area
1400S at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on Drummer silty
clay loam with 5 to 6% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and 0 to 1% slope. The study has a corn,
soybean, corn, soybean, alfalfa/clover rotation. For soybeans following corn, chisel plowing plus
two diskings is compared with only two diskings. The areas with corn following soybeans are
disked twice and this is compared with corn no-till following red clover from 1988. The alfalfa
seeded in 1989 followed soybeans with the soybean stubble disked twice. Chisel plowing was
done in the fall of 1988, and all disking was done April 25, 1989. Fertilizer for corn consisted
of 120 lb/A IC,0 applied November 1, 1988, 120 lb/A P205 applied November 3, 1988 and 240
lb/A nitrogen applied as ammonium nitrate on April 27, 1989. No fertilizer was applied for
soybeans and alfalfa. All planting was done on April 25, 1989. 'Pioneer 3475' corn was planted
in 30 inch rows for a population of 28,300 plants/A. 'Hack' soybeans were planted in 30 inch
rows with 60 lb/A to give 8 plants/ft. 'FS 2-99' brand alfalfa was seeded at 15 lb/A with a
Brillion seeder. Herbicides were applied using 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. A tractor mounted
compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. PPI
treatments were incorporated immediately with the two diskings indicated for tillage.
Sethoxydim was applied postemergence for soybeans and quizalofop postemergence for alfalfa
on May 18, at 9:00 a.m. The bentazon plus 2,4-DB for soybeans and the bromoxynil,
imazethapyr and 2,4-DB for alfalfa were applied May 31, at 11:30 a.m. The DPX-V9360 plus
atrazine and tridiphane plus atrazine for corn and the fluazifop-P plus bentazon for soybeans
were applied postemergence on June 6, at 4:00 p.m. Visual ratings were made on June 14.
Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date
Temperature (F)

April 25 May 18

May 31

June 6

Soil (bare sod @ 4 inch)

53-67

58-64

67-74

66-76

Air

57-87

55-78

63-82

64-85

Wind (mph)

3 E

5 SE

12 W

calm

Sky (% overcast)

5

100

90

20

Relative humidity daily mean

(%)

11

75

94

64

Rainfall previous week (inch)

0.13

0.0

1.05

2.56

Rainfall following week (inch]

)

0.76

1.27

2.56

0.62

Stage of growth at herbicide ,

application:
May 18

May 31

Species

height

true

leaves

height

true leaves

(inch)

(no.)

(inch)

(no.)

Corn

4

3

6

5

Soybeans

2

1 trifoliolate

3

2 trif.

Alfalfa

2.5

3

3.5

4 trif.

Giant foxtail

1.5

2 to 3

3

4

Pensylvania smartweed

1.5

2

1.5

3

Velvetleaf

1.0

1

1.5

3

Redroot pigweed

0.5

1

1

2

26

For corn following soybeans, EPTC plus dichlormid and dietholate with atrazine as a PPI
treatment gave excellent weed control. Alachlor plus atrazine as a preemergence treatment gave
poor control of giant foxtail and only fair control of velvetleaf; follow up with a postemergence
treatment of DPX-V9360 plus atrazine improved control considerably, although the early June
14 rating does not fully reflect this. For corn in red clover sod, dicamba and atrazine plus
metolachlor gave very good control of both clover and weeds. The 2,4-D plus metolachlor and
atrazine gave good control of clover and most broadleaf weeds, but was only fair on giant
foxtail and velvetleaf. Cyanazine plus atrazine gave good control of clover and broadleaf weeds
but was only fair on giant foxtail, which was subsequently controlled with tridiphane plus
atrazine. While the triazines, 2,4-D, or dicamba can control red clover, additional herbicide may
be needed to improve control of grass weeds especially. No significant corn injury was noted
from any of the treatments. For soybeans, the PPI treatment with pendimethalin plus
imazethapyr gave excellent broad spectrum weed control and the PPI treatment with trifluralin
plus clomazone and imazethapyr also gave very good control. The preemergence surface applied
treatments gave only fair control, particularly of giant foxtail. Using only postemergence
treatments provided poor control of giant foxtail but fairly good control of broadleaf weeds.
Some soybean inury was noted for the metribuzin plus chlorimuron treatment. For establishing
alfalfa, quizalofop gave excellent grass control that was better than with the PPI treatments.
Bromoxynil gave excellent control of broadleaf weeds and imazethapyr showed significant
promise, with both being a little better than 2,4-DB. No significant injury to alfalfa was noted.
Results are presented in the tables. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

27

u
<u

3
w

X

3
co

3
CO

Oh

(L)

M

CO

o
o

18

3

o

CO

o

"E,

Cu

CO

CJ

-a

43

CJ

.3

T3

O

X!
4—1

cu

£

3

CO

eu

6

co
E-

0

2

CJ

£

C/l

3

X2

U2

cr

0

CJ

£

(A

CU

a.

'

jy

0

V-i

'oj

■«—l

>

3
0

<J

CJ

e

o

CJ

3
o

4—1

CO

■ H

"Eh

cu

<

cu

4-1

CO

cd

3

cu

i

co
a;

1-

E-

3
CQ

0s-

-5

0s

a"

(3s

0s

CU

4-1

co

a

cu
E-

<

.0

CN

ON
O
CN

o
o

o
o

LO
CN

Cu
Cu

CO
ON

o
o

o
o

o

LO

+

LO

t\

hs.

1— 1

ON
CN
1— I

VO

i— 1

<3-

1— 1

0

1— 1

O

O

1— 1

0
0
1— 1

0
0
1— i

0
0
t— 1

O
O

0

0

0
0

0

O
O
t— 1

O

00

0
0

i-H

0
0

1— 1

0
0

T— 1

CO

CN

O
O

t— 1

CO

O
CO

0
0

1— 1

CN

ON

CN

O
O

0
0

0
0

0
0

O
O

LO

ON

CN
ON

CO

lo
on

c3

10 £

+ +

08

T3

.3
u

*^j 4—1

CO

<# "0

cj-S
H cu
Cu 13
W ^

co
u«

4—1

CO

+

CU

CO

<u £2

3 CO

"8 +

cS^
Z? \ X

cu

3

N

co
3

CO

o

+ r.
9 *>

s> co

Cu

Q

C3

U

o

CJ

+

CO

43 +

CO

co

-4- H

1 4—1

-. co

co cu

t Cc8

ro 2 .,

,3 CO

08 .cu,o
5 r en

CO J-J y
^> \ 'J?

U ^ Q

LO

4/25
6/6

00
1— 1
\
10

4/25

6/6

4/25

LO
CN
\

PRE
POST

E-

00

O

Cu

PRE

POST

PRE

w

cd

Cu

vo

, LO LO CN c#
'-■ _i LO CN -ON

1-1 o + ° + N

+ ^OLOLO+.-LO^ +

O • CN ^ LO . r»« q

0;lfiOJOmNOt-LO

"*■ CN O O CO O O

CO

u

4-1

co
O

4-1

U< CU

3 +

2q

£ ^

CN

CO

CO

co

LO

o
6

Q

CO

O

u,
4—1

c
o

a

*co

• t— i

(U

u-

c

co

O

3

CU

0

CU

T3
CU

&

cu "

C co
3 O

cu

« >

«4_( O

O u
^ 3

CU .3

4—1

3 O
O w

2
W5

«2 '-3 3
t- ' cu

0 73

e co

cu

S S3 g

u

4-1 *^

cu j2 4^

« c c

3 cu co

.■i-l (— 4—1

*"* E u

4-> 3 .fO

to « *f|

C <u 3

V4-1 4-" CO

Ji CJ u

.0

Z,
cu
3

^

CS^

"3

3
CO

4-1
3
co

4—1

o

t3

3

vO

e
3

"o

4-1

<u
Cu

cu

to

co

JO

3

CO
Ih

CO

CU

"5

CO
00 .

jC jo

■P 3

CJ

CO

CO

CU
^—>

3

co

•3 "H,

3
O

« a

a £

3

CU

6

CO

3

o

3

bo -^
JS cu

E- E- X

t^
t^

co

5- u

*- CU CJ

C — i-i

flj (fl u

U cu

ii on

3 — h *a

O >s^

— 1 +■• l-l

•3 CJ o

o >><£

cu 0 j2

Wi 3 .is

CJ CQ Cu

(M K)

28

u
qj
G

•fH

G

G

03

G

03
QJ
XI
>>

O

to

»-■

c

o

• I— I

*->
03
(J

a,

Oh

03

QJ

T3

• ^*

u

Xl

QJ
X

*g
o

x;

■i— <

QJ

£

OJ

CN

X
03

H
29

a; ^3
O V-1

co

x

o

u

£ J,

to

a,

qj

o

4-1

G
O
u

03 f^

X 3

o -G

CO

G

o

4-1

03
o

a,
a,
<

QJ

4-1

03

cd

c

QJ

£

4-1

03
QJ

t-,

H

CQ «tf-

£ O

r- s O

£ o

^ O

# o

£ o

^

(->■

co

CO

QJ LO

Jtf ©N

O o

CO

o
o

+

d

CO
00

co

co

LO

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

LO

CO

LO
CN

in

CO

co

o

o

o

On

CO
On

O

O
On

vO vO

vO

H
co

O

(X

CO H

rH CO

\ \

LO LO

CO CO

O O

CX CL,

LO

o
d

LO lo

N

+

^ o«lo

+ r- +
LO +

o

• 1—1

-< d

CN

d

CO

00

CN
O

o3

LO

d

CN

CN

o
o

1— 1

o
o

1—1

CO
CO

o
o

1—1

o
o

1— I

CO
CO

o
o

1—1

00

CO
On

o
o

rH

00

CO
On

o
o

00
On

CO
On

LO O t^
On 00 LO

o o o

LO LO CO rH

CN CN i-h CO

^ ^ \ "s^

^f <t LO LO

n-i [x3 *■* ^

S S CO CO

£ £ O O

"" a- cl,

co
vo
o

o

a' co

00

q

co

+

^ d
+ +

CO .

q

CN

CN

VO

On

co

a

03

X

+-«

QJ

N

03

£

c3

G

I

CG

•c

5 E

C rn S

rt 3 03

e x 7;

+

03 O

+ Qm G

^ + O *G

ftcU «

& 8 + <*

Q m 4-»

03 2 Cu c X

H ^ a «

4-1 ttj -?z H

u

QJ

3 C A o «

LO

o

Q

CO

QJ
U

bo

c

•— 1

rn' ^3

G
QJ

X

4-1

-a

G

03

u

bo
G qj

^O
"qj C

"G <x3
4^^

.52 to

o

V5

G
O
o

Si c

QJ QJ

§ 6

tz 4-1

LL,

- CO

fc g CQ

S « 6

*^ 4-1

*-• 4-> G

52 S §

iG J2 >

QJ QJ X?

x x T2

*3 *3 03

u i-i C

v2 £ ro

QJ QJ .^3

W 60 -

JH xl -S

H H Q

QJ

G

"G

C
03

4-1
G
03

4->

u

G

:£

6

G
JJ

"o

H

4—1

QJ

a,

QJ

03
X

G

f§

u-i

03

03
CX,

CO 'C

CO 03 "q,

x 3 a

c
o

CO

03

-a

QJ

c

03

> o C

C5 QJ

QJ G

4-> 4-> C

CO "G G

«-( 03 03

G w QJ

C ., u

QJ QJ 4--

y s to

c '3 *G
OCX

U 03 *->

^ ^ O

& c £

S S o

U Q cu

rvi to

'

00

C3

/ — V

O

o

JQ

^5
0s

O

o

o

O

W

>« /

i— I

1—1

u

i

/ — >>

o

o

!— 1

o
o

I— (

o

£

V5

t — \

o

<

P

(U

a.

1

■4 CS^

J ^

o

1— 1

o

On

CO
LO

rv

>

a4

• ^H

v

H

X

cu

4-
C

c

J
■4

3

<— i

4—1

T3

ID

c

t^.

LO

LO

00

03

P
03

>

O

C\

VjQ

l-H

3

£

•l-H

a,

s

/ — >>

* /

O
O
i— i

o
o

1—1

O

LO
CM

l-H

<u

M

T3

05

C

5

• <— 1

a

(5s

CO
00

o

On

o
o

1-4

tV

03

4-4

a

03

03

4—1

<+h

03

O

<4-4
13

"c

\ ^

13

C5
3

<

O

O

o

o

P
CO

«s

^

P

c
c

i CJ

L0

«— i

LO

1— 1

00

l-H

T-H

O

1 4-J

1 03

! Q

CN

CO

CN

CO

r- 1

CO

4-4

\

\

\

\

V.

\

aT

o3
u

4—

^-

L0

^~

LO

LO

LO

03

— -

JC3

'Hh

"c

H

H

H

E-

,^

Cm

03

<

Cm

L0

O

cu

C-

00

O

oo
O

00

O

O

QJ

-a

Cm

Cm

Cm

Cm

P

•^H

Q-j

a

03

Sm
03
CL .

X

CO

»5 s

O

"P

O

X!

4—1

0)

4—1

03

p2

q

CO

CN

d

q

i— i

O

d

o
d

L0

d

4-4

CJ

o

Cm

CO \C
00 03

•=! 2

4—1 c

^ o

£

p

0) ^

*P

p

03

u

Q

4— 1 4—1

Ui 03

o

£

4-4 C/3
P -

u

o

S QJ

QJ

g

p

Cm
03

-P

+

♦M

a P

ci *P
O P

H

c

To

/■•-^

«u

U 03

p

*

-P

4—1

"Cm

o ro-

L0

£

^3 "S

CO

QJ

o

aj

M

<*H

CQ

o

o

O *&

£

£

£

qj

N

JD

Q

d

to

W 4-1
^ P

s £

U Q

03

4—1

03
QJ

4-i

U
E-

D-

W

o

-3

g

Cm

OJ

£

■»M

*c3

N

P

a

i

<*-

CN

a

00

mJ

Q

30

Herbicides for alfalfa establishment. Bellm, Robert C, Ellery L. Knake, Ronald W.
Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicides to control
annual grass and broadleaf weeds while establishing alfalfa. Plots were established in 1989, at
the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on Drummer silty clay
loam soil with 5 to 6% organic matter, a pH of 6.3 and 0 to 1% slope. Treatments were
replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by 50 ft. On
November 2 and 3, 1988, 120 lbs each of 1^0 and P205 was broadcast applied and the site
was moldboard plowed on November 11, 1988. On April 19, 1989, the site was field cultivated
once and on April 21, the site was field cultivated twice with the second pass having a drag
harrow attached. On April 25 the field was rolled twice to firm the seedbed and 'FS 2-99' brand
alfalfa was planted to a depth of 0.25 inch using a Brillion seeder with a rate of 30 lb/A.
Herbicide treatments were applied on May 31, at 9:00 a.m. Herbicides were broadcast using
8004 flat fan nozzle tips with a boom height of 20 inches. A tractor mounted compressed air
sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. Bare soil
temperature at 4 inches was 67 to 74 F and air temperature was 63 to 82 F. Wind speed was
12 mph from the southwest. The sky was 15% overcast, and relative humidity was 94%. At
the time of application giant foxtail was 3.5 inches with 4 leaves, common lambsquarters was
1.5 inches with 9 leaves, velvetleaf was 2.0 inches with 4 leaves, redroot pigweed was 0.5 inch
with 4 leaves, Pennsylvania smartweed was 1.0 inch with 3 leaves and alfalfa was 3 inches with
4 trifoliolate leaves. Rainfall the previous week and following week was 1.05 inches and 2.56
inches respectively. Following application on May 31, there was 1.52 inches of rain the same
day, 0.58 inch on June 1, and 0.45 inch on June 3. The total rainfall was 3.34 inches and 1.92
inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual ratings were made on June 7, and
June 23.

Sethoxydim gave good control of giant foxtail while control with imazethapyr was only
fair. The addition of Dash to bromoxynil plus sethoxydim enhanced the activity of sethoxydim
but increased injury to alfalfa from bromoxynil significantly. However the alfalfa recovered
fairly well. Bromoxynil appeared to have an antagonistic effect on controlling giant foxtail with
imazethapyr. Adding X-771 to bromoxynil plus imazethapyr enhanced giant foxtail control but
increased the degree of alfalfa injury. The addition of imazethapyr to bromoxynil may enhance
velvetleaf and redroot pigweed control, while bromoxynil appears to improve control of common
lambsquarters. Imazethapyr and bromoxynil tend to control Pensylvania smartweed better than
2,4-DB. While 2,4-DB helped provide control for broadleaf weeds in alfalfa, bromoxynil can
provide additional control of weeds such as Pennsylvania smartweed. Alfalfa has good tolerance
to imazethapyr which can be effective on several broadleaf weeds such as pigweed. A
combination of sethoxydim and bromoxynil could broaden the weed control spectrum, but care
should be taken to avoid excessive crop injury from addition of some adjuvants. Related studies
suggest that imazethapyr may have an antagonistic effect on some herbicides for postemergence
control of grass weeds. Results are presented in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of
Illinois, Urbana).

1 A nonionic surfactant from Valent.

31

Table 1. Herbicides for alfalfa establishment (Bellm, Knake, Heisner, and Paul).

Alfalfa

iniurv

Gift control

Vele control

Treatment

Rate

6/7

6/23

6/7

6/23

6/7

6/23

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Bromoxynil + seth

0.25 + 0.2

30

10

90

87

53

37

Brox + sethoxydim +

0.25 + 0.2 +

80

20

95

87

92

53

Dash1

1 qt

Brox + imazethapyr

0.25 + 0.063

15

3

60

60

60

47

Brox + imep + X-772

0.25 + 0.063

30

10

70

70

70

47

Imep + X-77

0.063

12

0

83

75

75

43

2,4-DBs

1.0

0

0

0

0

45

35

Check

0

0

0

0

0

0

LSD (0.05)

7

4

0

9

14

8

1 Dash is an adjuvant from BASF.

2 X-77 applied @ 0.25% of spray volume unless otherwise stated.

3

Dimethylamine salt formulation.

Table 2. Herbicides for alfalfa establishment (Bellm, Knake, Heisner, and Paul), continued.

Treatment

Rate

Colq control Rrpw control Pesw control
6/7 6/23 6/7 6/23 6/7 6/23

(lb/A)

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Bromoxynil + seth

0.25 + 0.2

88

70

43

87

90

90

Brox + sethoxydim +

0.25 + 0.2 +

98

100

83

77

90

73

Dash1

lqt

Brox + imazethapyr

0.25 + 0.063

90

87

95

87

97

100

Brox + imep + X-772

0.25 + 0.063

93

83

93

87

100

100

Imep + X-77

0.063

47

20

93

90

57

80

2,4-DBs

1.0

80

60

80

90

20

80

Check

0

0

0

0

0

0

LSD (0.05)

9

9

11

16

11

14

1 Dash is an adjuvant from BASF.

2 X-77 applied @ 0.25% of spray volume unless otherwise stated.

Dimethylamine salt formulation.

32

Interaction of soil-applied insecticides and postemergence herbicides for corn. Demjanec,
Barbara, Ellery L. Knake, Kevin L. Steffey, Karl E. Kinney, and Lyle E. Paul. The objective of
this study was to evaluate the potential interaction effect from soil-applied insecticides followed
by postemergence application of sulfonylurea herbicides to corn. Plots were established in 1989
at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on a plot area with
Drummer silty clay loam and Flanagan silt loam soils having 5 to 6% organic matter, a pH of
6.3 and 0 to 1% slope. The field was in soybeans the previous year. Treatments were
replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by 50 ft. On April
20, 1989, 180 lb/A nitrogen was applied as anhydrous ammonia. On May 8, 1989, the site was
field cultivated and harrowed once to prepare a seedbed. On May 9, 'Pioneer 3475' corn was
planted in 30 inch rows to give a plant population of 26,100 plants per acre. Insecticides as
granular formulations were surface applied in 7 inch bands over the row at the time of planting.
A preemergence application of 3 lb/A alachlor plus 2 lb/A atrazine was applied May 10, to the
entire plot area after planting. The entire plot area was rotary hoed May 31, and a little hand
hoeing was done primarily for a few perennial weeds. Excellent weed control precluded the
need for row cultivation. Thus all plots were maintained weed free. DPX-V9360 and CGA-
136872 were applied postemergence on June 5, from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. Herbicides were
broadcast using 8004 flat fan nozzle tips with a boom height of 20 inches. A tractor mounted
compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. At
time of postemergence application, corn had five leaves and was 7.5 inches free standing and
10 inches with leaf extended. Prior to the postemergence applications, 0.45 inch of rain fell on
June 3. Following the postemergence applications, 0.62 inch of rain fell on June 12. The total
rainfall was 3.34 inches and 1.92 inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual
ratings were made on June 13, for corn injury, and July 21, for silking and tasseling.
Conditions on the day of postemergence spraying were as follows:

Date June 5
Temperature (F)

Soil (bare @ 4 inch) 65 - 77

Air 53-78

Wind (mph) 0-5 WSW

Sky (% overcast) 10

Relative humidity (%) 76

Rainfall previous week (inch) 2.62

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.62

The effect on corn appeared primarily as leaves not unfolding properly, some crinkling of
leaves and some stunting. While stunting was somewhat general throughout a plot, the other
symptoms appeared in a more random manner. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois,
Urbana).

33

Table 1. Soil-applied insecticide and postemergence DPX-V9360 for corn ( Demjanec,
Knake, Steffey, Kinney, and Paul).

corn

tassel

silk

corn

injury

—emergence—

yield

Treatment1

Rate

6/13

7/21

7/21

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(bu/A)

DPX-V9360 + tefluthrin

0.06 + 0.1

13

81

0

159

DPX-V9360 + terbufos

0.06 + 1.0

26

78

6

152

DPX-V9360 + chlorpyrifos

0.06 + 1.0

11

85

9

154

DPX-V9360 + fonofos

0.06 + 1.0

10

83

10

156

DPX-V9360 + phorate

0.06 + 1.0

20

85

4

155

DPX-V9360 + DPX-43898

0.06 + 0.5

5

85

1

154

DPX-V9360 alone

0.06

5

93

35

154

Check untreated

0

95

20

163

LSD (0.05)

3

15

27

7

1 Insecticide Terminolgy:

Common ("generic") name Trade name

Fo

rmulation

Tefluthrin

Force

1.5 G

Terbufos

Counter

15 G

Chlorpyrifos

Lorsban

15 G

Fonofos

Dyfonate II

20 G

Phorate

Thimet

20 G

DPX-43898

Fortress

10 G

Carbofuran

Furadan

15 G

34

Table 2. Soil-applied insecticide and postemergence CGA-1 36872 for corn ( Demjanec,
Knake, Steffey, Kinney, and Paul).

corn

tassel

silk

corn

injury

— emergence-

yield

Treatments Rate 6/13

7/21

7/21

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(bu/A)

CGA-1 36872 + tefluthrin

0.036 + 0.1

18

91

8

152

CGA-1 36872 + terbufos

0.036 + 1.0

40

91

11

146

CGA-1 36872 + chlorpyrifos

0.036 + 1.0

15

93

9

154

CGA-1 36872 + fonofos

0.036 + 1.0

25

88

6

151

CGA-1 36872 + phorate

0.036 + 1.0

25

89

9

152

CGA-1 36872 + carbofuran

0.036 + 1.0

10

96

15

156

CGA-1 36872 alone

0.036

10

85

13

152

Check - untreated

0

91

10

152

LSD (0.05) 3 13 18

35

Evaluation of postemergence herbicides for soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W.
Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate herbicide
combinations, rates and adjuvants for controlling broadleaf weeds in soybeans. Plots were
established in 1989, at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on
Drummer silty clay loam soil, with 5 to 6% organic matter, a pH of 6.3 and 0 to 1% slope.
Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by
40 ft. On November 2 and 3, 1988, 120 lbs each of 1^0 and P205 was broadcast applied and
the site was moldboard plowed on November 11, 1988. On April 19, 1989, the site was field
cultivated and harrowed once to prepare a seedbed. On May 4, 'Hack' soybeans were planted
in 30 inch rows at a rate of 60 lb/A to give 8 plants per foot. Herbicide applications were first
applied on May 31, from 10:00 to 11:15 a.m. On June 5, from 7:00 to 7:30 a.m., additional
applications of clethodim plus crop oil concentrate were applied for the first seven treatments.
Herbicides were broadcast using 8004 flat fan nozzzle tips with a boom height of 20 inches.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to
apply 25 gpa. On May 31, giant foxtail was 2.5 inches with 4 leaves, common lambsquarters
was 1.5 inches with 9 leaves, and soybeans were 3.5 inches in the first trifoliolate. Following
application on May 31, it began raining at 2:20 p.m. and 1.52 inches of rain fell for the day.
There was 0.58 inch of rain on June 1, and 0.45 inch on June 3. Following application on June
5, there was no significant rainfall until 0.62 inch on June 12. The total rainfall was 3.34
inches and 1.92 inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual ratings were made
on June 7, June 13, June 23, and June 28. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date May 31 June 5
Temperature (F)

Soil (Bare @ 4 inch) 67 - 74 65 - 77

Air 63-82 53 - 78

Wind (mph) 5 W calm

Sky (% overcast) 75 10

Relative humidity (%) 94 76

Rainfall previous week (inch) 1.05 2.62

Rainfall following week (inch) 2.56 0.62

Results are presented in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

36

Table 1. Postemergence herbicides for soybeans (Knake, Heisner, and Paul).

Soybean injury

Soybean

Treatment

Rate

6/7

6/13

6/23

6/28

yield

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

bu/A

Lactofen + COC1

0.2 + 1 pt

48

30

17

10

16

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + V-64502

0.2 + 1 pt

40

20

10

10

15

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + Frigate3

0.2 + 0.25%

32

7

2

10

13

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + bentazon4

0.15 + 0.5

40

10

2

0

38

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + chlorimuron4

0.15 + 0.012

40

17

2

2

30

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + DPX-M63164

0.15 + 0.004

40

10

2

0

49

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact -1- imazethapyr4

0.15 + 0.063

37

15

2

5

46

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Clethodim + COC

0.078

14

0

0

0

17

Clet + bent + COC

0.078 + 0.75

10

0

0

0

23

Clet + clim + COC

0.078 + 0.012

7

0

0

0

21

Clet + imep + COC

0.078 + 0.063

6

0

0

0

32

Lact + sethoxydim + COC

0.2 + 0.188

39

25

20

10

19

Lact + fluazifop-P + COC

0.2 + 0.188

40

27

17

10

22

Lact + quizalofop + COC

0.2 + 0.083

40

30

20

10

15

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.078

28

22

20

10

23

Lact + clet +

0.2 + 0.078 +

37

20

10

10

14

V-6450

lpt

LSD (0.05)

7

5

4

3

9

^rop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and

1% inert used @ 1.0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.
2V-6450 is an adjuvant from Valent.
3Frigate is an adjuvant from Fermenta.
428 % UAN @ 1 gallon per acre and X-77 surfactant (from Valent) @ 0.25% v/v applied

with first herbicide application only.

continued.

37

Table 2. Postemergence herbicides for soybeans (Knake, Heisner, and Paul), continued.

Gift control

Treatment

Rate

6/7

6/13

6/23

6/28

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Lactofen + COC1

0.2 + 1 pt

60

67

90

90

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + V-64502

0.2 + 1 pt

79

82

92

95

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + Frigate3

0.2 + 0.25%

49

55

69

62

/Qet + COC

/0.09

Lact + bentazon4

0.15 + 0.5

70

75

92

90

/Qet + COC

/0.09

Lact + chlorimuron4

0.15 + 0.012

71

77

100

90

/Qet + COC

/0.09

Lact + DPX-M63164

0.15 + 0.004

77

82

92

87

/Qet + COC

/0.09

Lact + imazethapyr4

0.15 + 0.063

95

90

87

77

/Qet + COC

/0.09

Qethodim + COC

0.078

94

90

90

92

Qet + bent + COC

0.078 + 0.75

82

84

80

80

Qet + dim + COC

0.078 + 0.012

65

62

82

82

Qet + imep + COC

0.078 + 0.063

52

62

62

57

Lact + sethoxydim + COC

0.2 + 0.188

85

85

62

42

Lact + fluazifop-P + COC

0.2 + 0.188

92

94

67

80

Lact + quizalofop + COC

0.2 + 0.083

89

91

77

75

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.078

90

87

65

57

Lact + clet +

0.2 + 0.078 +

90

86

57

42

V-6450

lpt

LSD (0.05)

13

14

18

21

1Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and

1% inert used @ 1J0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.
^-6450 is an adjuvant from Valent.
'Frigate is an adjuvant from Fermenta.
428% UAN @ 1 gal/A and X-77 surfactant from Valent @ 0.25% v/v applied with first

herbicide application only.

continued.

38

Table 3. Postemergence herbicides for soybeans (Knake, Heisner, and Paul), continued.

Colq

control

Treatment

Rate

6/7

6/13

6/23

6/28

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Lactofen + COC1

0.2 + 1 pt

67

63

47

27

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact 4- V-165062

0.2 + 1 pt

80

67

40

20

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + Frigate3

0.2 + 0.25%

65

47

40

20

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + bentazon4

0.15 + 0.5

92

90

75

75

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + chlorimuron4

0.15 + 0.012

77

80

67

47

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + DPX-M63164

0.15 + 0.004

87

90

90

80

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Lact + imazethapyr4

0.15 + 0.063

90

87

77

75

/Clet + COC

/0.09

Clethodim + COC

0.078

35

0

0

5

Clet + bent + COC

0.078 + 0.75

60

50

22

20

Clet + dim + COC

0.078 + 0.012

40

42

22

20

Clet + imep + COC

0.078 + 0.063

45

55

52

32

Lact + sethoxydim + COC

0.2 + 0.188

82

77

55

37

Lact + fluazifop-P + COC

0.2 + 0.188

84

75

55

42

Lact + quizalofop + COC

0.2 + 0.083

79

72

52

42

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.078

85

79

52

45

Lact + clet +

0.2 + 0.078 +

77

74

52

37

V-6450

lpt

LSD (0.05)

20

13

7

12

^rop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and

1% inert used @ 1.0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.
2V-6450 is an adjuvant from Valent.
3Frigate is an adjuvant from Fermenta.
428% UAN @ 1 gal/A and X-77 surfactant from jValent @ 0.25% v/v applied with first

herbicide application only.

39

No-till soybeans following corn. Heisner, Ronald W., Ellery L. Knake, and Lyle E. Paul.
The objective of this study was to evaluate V-53482 for weed control with no-till soybeans.
Plots were established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb,
Illinois on Drummer silty clay loam with 5% organic matter, a pH of 5.9% and a 0 to 1% slope.
The field had been in corn the previous year and no tillage or cultivation was used in 1989.
Corn stalks were chopped and left an estimated 60% residue. No fertilizer was applied prior
to planting soybeans. Treatments were replicated three times in a randomized complete block
design. Plots were 10 by 35 ft. On May 31, 'Hack' soybeans were no-tilled in 30 inch rows
at 60 lbs/acre to give 8 plants per foot of row. There was little early growth of weeds under
these no-till conditions.

All herbicide treatments were broadcast May 31 from 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. using 8004 flat
fan nozzle tips 20 inches in height. A tractor mounted compressed air spray unit was used
traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. Following application, it began raining
at 2:20 p.m. A total of 1.52 inches fell that afternoon, and another 0.58 inches fell the next
day, June 1. Total rainfall for May and June was 3.34 and 1.92 inches respectfully. Soybean
injury ratings were taken 13, 28, and 55 days after treatment. Weed control ratings were taken
on 7, 13, 28, and 55 days after treatment. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date

May 31

Giant foxtail

Temperature (F)

Height (inch)

3.5

Soil (bare @ 4 inch)

67-74

No. leaves

4

Air

63-82

Redroot pigweed

Wind

3-5 SW

Height (inch)

1.0

Sky (% overcast)

30

No. leaves

6

Relative humidity range (%)

94

Common lambsquarters

Soil Moisture

Moist

Height (inch)

3.0

Rainfall previous week (inch)

1.05

No. leaves

13

Rainfall following week (inch)

1.04

Pennsylvania smartweed

Height (inch)

1.0

No. leaves

2

The infestation of annual weeds was very light and there were only a few Canada thistles
and dandelions. Results are presented in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois,
Urbana).

40

Table 1. No-till soybeans following corn (Heisner, Knake and Paul).

Treatment

Rate

Colq

Soybean Injury Gift

Days after treatment

13 28 55 7 13 28 55 7 13 28 55

Control

(lb/A) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

V-53482 + Clet +

Metolachlor + COC1

V-53482 + Meto +

Clethodim + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

Meto + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

Meto + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Meto +

Glyphosate

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

Paraquat + Meto +

Metribuzin + X-772

Clethodim + COC

Glyphosate

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

Check untreated

LSD (0.05)

0.044 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.055 + 2.0

+ 0.1
0.066 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.088 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.044 + 0.1

0.055 + 0.1

0.066 + 0.1

0.088 + 0.1

0.044 + 2.0

+ 1.0
0.055 + 1.0

+ 2.0
0.066 + 1.0

+ 2.0
0.088 + 1.0

+ 2.0

0.5 + 2.0

+ 0.5

0.1

1.0

0.044

0.055

0.066

0.088

0 0 0 100 100 97 90 100 100 67 60

0 0 3 100 100 100 93 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 100 100 100 87 100 100 100 97

0 10 10 93 93 93 73 97 97 90 87

0 0 3 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 93

0 0 0 100 100 97 77

98 97 93 87

0 0 0 93 100 97 97 100 73 100 100

0 13 10 100 100 100 93 93 100 100 100

0 10 7 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100

0 7 3 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 100

0 3 3 100 100 93 97 100 100 100 97

0 17 13 100 100 100 97 100 100 97 97

0 7 10 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100

0 3 3

0 7 7

0 10 7

0 0 3

0 30 27

0 7 3

0 0 0

0 16 18

97 100 100 11

100 70 67 50

80 11 53 53

97 100 53 63

83 83 37 37

100 67 50 43

0 0 0 0

16 33 31 32

13 3 3 0

67 20 50 27

100 100 100 93

100 100 100 93

100 100 93 93

97 93 80 63

0 0 0 0

7 18 29 32

^OC - crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1%

inert used @ 1.0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.

2X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v.

continued.

41

Table 2. No-till soybeans following corn (Heisner, Knake and Paul), continued.

Treatment

Rate

Rrpw Pesw Soybean

Days after treatment

13 28 55 7 13 28 55
Control Yield

V-53482 + Clet +

Metolachlor + COC1

V-53482 + Meto +

Clethodim + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

Meto + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

Meto + COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Clet +

COC

V-53482 + Meto +

Glyphosate

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

V-53482 + Glyt +

Metolachlor

Paraquat + Meto +

Metribuzin + X-772

Clethodim + COC

Glyphosate

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

V-53482 + COC

Check untreated

(lb/A)

0.044 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.055 + 2.0

+ 0.1
0.066 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.088 + 0.1

+ 2.0
0.044 + 0.1

0.055 + 0.1

0.066 + 0.1

0.088 + 0.1

0.044 + 2.0

+ 1.0
0.055 + 1.0

+ 2.0
0.066 + 1.0

+ 2.0
0.088 + 1.0
.+ 2.0
0.5 + 2.0

+ 0.5
0.1
1.0
0.044
0.055
0.066
0.088

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (bu/A)

100 100 87 73

83 97 93 87

100 100 97 77 100 100 100 100

100 100 97 83 100 100 93 93

100 97 100 83 100 100 93 93

100 100 87 70

100 100 80 67

100 100 93 83

100 100 93 90

93 70 77 80

73 93 83 67

93 100 93 93

83 70 83 90

100 100 93 90 100 100 100 100

100 100 93 87

100 100 100 83

100 100 100 90

100 100 97 83

40 40 67 33

87 83 33 7

100 100 97 77

100 100 90 77

100 100 100 93

100 100 100 87

0 0 0 0

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 97

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

37 40 77 43

100 100 100 100

100 70 93 87

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0

36

34

36

31

36

40

42

32

36

39

37

39

38

29
26
33
35
19
30
9

LSD C0.05)

21 13 14 29

32 40 20 23

12

^OC - crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16%
surfactant and 1% inert used @ 1.0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.
2X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v.

42

Crop screening for V-53482. Heisner, Ronald W., Ellery L. Knake, and Lyle E. Paul. The
objective of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and weed control with V-53482 for
preplant incorporated, preemergence, and postemergence applications. Plots were established
in 1989, at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb, Illinois on Flanagan
silt loam with 5% organic matter, a pH of 5.9, and a 0% to 1% slope. The field was in
soybeans the previous year. Tillage consisted of using a tandem disk with harrow twice on April
25, immediately after the PPI treatments were applied from 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. Corn, soybeans
and sorghum were planted with an IHC 4-row planter in 30 inch rows. Wheat, barley and oats
were seeded with a grain drill. Alfalfa and red clover were seeded with a Brillion seeder. All
plantings were completed between 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. on April 25, after incorporating the PPI
herbicide treatments. Preemergence treatments were applied between 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. on April
25. Herbicide treatments were replicated three times in a randomized complete block design.
Each herbicide treatment plot was 10 by 40 ft for all crops. Postemergence treatments were
applied May 31, between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. A 1.52 inch rain fell that day beginning at 2:20
p.m.

All treatments were broadcast applied with a tractor mounted compressed air sprayer, using
8004 flat fan nozzles, traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. During the last
five days of April, there was 0.6 of an inch of rain. The total rainfall for May and June was
3.34 and 1.92 inches respectively. Visual crop injury ratings on all crops were made on May
9, May 23, June 13, and June 28. Weed control ratings on giant foxtail, redroot pigweed, and
common lambsquarters were taken on June 16 and June 28. Conditions on the day of spraying
were as follows:

Date April 25 May 31
Temperature (F)

Soil at 4 inch depth 53-67 67-74

Air 57-87 63-82

Wind 3 E 5-12 SW

Sky (% overcast) 10 30

Relative humidity (%) 77 94

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.13 1.05

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.76 2.56

Results are presented in the tables. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

43

a; co

> CN

sP

o o ° m

O CO CO o

00

o s

u ^

t N^O^O

T—i

T3 O
QJ \

cd lo

o o o o

o o o o

LO n£> t^ 00

o

CO
CN

5

Q Q O CO

° ° CN i-h

MONO

00

Tf t\ \£> VD

1-H

CO

t3 ^
< >

o o o o

o o o o

l/l vO N CO

o

CO

/— N

CN

^

©^

^ «-i I-H CO
1 H r-i t— i

h o o o

LO

CD LO

V — *

4—1

o ^

o o o o

o o o o

o

LO

V /

CO

/ — \

CN

O i— I LO i— I

o o o o

CO

QJ LO

\*— '

U

CO Q\

f~\

CQ \

■*5

0s

o o o o

o o o o

o

LO

CO

/— s

QJ LO

O H CO i-H

o o o o

CO

> o

r-^

•

f — \

> \

LO

"5

©^

o o o o

o o o o

o

3

co

a,

2

co

6 CN

O ^t H Tf

h CO O O

vO

3 N

XJ LO

T— 1 1— 1

QJ

bo .

u ON

r- N

CO

O \

^

o o o o

o o o o

o

&

00 LO

LO

W%

CN

u

qj

G

(0

CO
<fi CN

co lo

o o o o

o o o o

o

ex

"53

\s

< .A

X

QJ

LO

•£ o

r-\

C CN

0s

o o o o

o o o o

o

o ^

-a "5

CN

QJ CX

00
*f

co
lo

>

CO
CN

0s

H CN ^ t

«— i O O i-h

**

orporat
ce on A

»-i

o

G C

CD

U o

'■4-(

\

o o o o

o o o o

o

bo

bo

LO

Vw>

tJ •h

C QJ

•a

/■■^

• •

JS g
ex qj

qj

<

X

T3

*- LO vO 00

t±- L0 v£> 00
Tj- LO v£> 00

QJ QJ

qj
u

(A

CX

O

QJ

5" LO \£) 00

lied pr
lied pr

QJ

4-1
CO

cd

CO
Ih
O

e

o

(J

o o o o
<5 d> <6 <6

o o o o
dodo

QJ

ex ex

u

QJ

ex

/•">

ex ex

4-)

G

LO

q

CO CO
CN CN

•

QJ

4-J

CN CN CN CN E

CN CN CN CN

o

00 CO

i— i

i

*->

c

00 00 00 00 QJ

00 00 00 CO

w

C0 CO

QJ

CO

Ifr ^- «fr <«- g

*- M" ^f "St"

CO

"H

CO CO CO CO qj

CO CO CO CO

Q

L0 LO

X

QJ

QJ

LO LO LO LO QJ

LO LO LO LO

1 1

03

CL,

1 1 1 1 S_|

> > > > CL,

> > > >

00

> >

44

3

03

a.

cu

CO

CU

CN

00

co
lo

bo

c

cu
<u

1-1
o

a.
o

i~.

U

CN

CU

ca

H

> CN

CO

a; \
cd vo

t03

U-H

00
CN
\

vO

CO

vO

00
CN

\

«2 *°

C3 CO

NO

00
CN

ffl <

vO

00
5 CO

vO

d °0
§ M

bo
Er co

O l-H

CO V

v£)

co °o

5 N

S vO

o r*

o

00
CN

vO

CO

«— t

\

vO

a;
ca

cd

c

6
*—>

ca
<u

^

©^

0s

-5

"5

0s

"5

0s

0s

0s

0s

©^

0s*

©^

<

CO
vO

vO

o

00

o

00

00

o
o

CO

o

o

I— 1

o
o

t-H

o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

CN

CN

fx tv. t^ tv. n

I-H t-H .— I I— I W

r^ tN. t^ r^ ,-.

i-H i— I r— I «— I w

LO

LO

VO

in

o
lo

vO

CO

in

o

o

vO

CO

O
vO

CO

O t^ t\

CO

t^ t^ t^ ™ o

CO CO

O O O CO ~

« — I r— I i — t i — I * — '

00

vO

LO

CU

c
<u
b4

i-H

<u

6

<u

4—1

to

O
Cu

o

LO
LO

o

vO
vO
O

d

00

00

o
d

CN rj CN rj CN rj

co g <

co (J CO v_? CO ^
LO , LO , LO ,

> > > +

-a
<v

4->

ca
cu

*■ H ■*

co U o
> U

LO

o

Q

CO

<u

r£3

on
oo

CU

3

q
i— i

<§>

<U
oo

3

t:

CU

C

0s

T3

C
CO

■«— '

C

ca

4->

3

CO

vO

6

3
JU

*o

U

*->
CU

a,

CU

00

ca

• .o
t— i

CO 3

ca ca
2 ca

c a

O >P
d^

CU CO

U CXD

a

WJ ca

M

CU 00

£ 5

CU £

CU

4-1

ca

00

O

Oh ca

-Si S

"S. g

ca o

S-5 ■

^- -a

CO ex <u

5 2 g

45

Table 3. Crop screening for V-53482 (Heisner, Knake and Paul).

Treatment

Rate

Gift

Rrp

w

Colq

6/16

6/28

6/16

6/28

6/16

6/28

-Control-

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Preplant incorporated:1

V-53482

0.044

0

0

0

0

0

0

V-53482

0.055

60

10

30

0

20

0

V-53482

0.066

73

40

60

0

43

0

V-53482

0.088

60

40

30

0

23

0

Preemergence:2

V-53482

0.044

30

7

37

7

23

0

V-53482

0.055

40

10

50

0

33

0

V-53482

0.066

70

40

60

27

43

0

V-53482

0.088

67

57

70

40

40

33

Postemergence:3

V-53482 + COC4

0.044

50

17

100

100

100

90

V-53482 + COC

0.055

73

20

100

97

100

100

V-53482 + COC

0.066

53

20

100

100

100

100

V-53482 + COC

0.088

70

30

100

100

100

100

Check untreated

0

0

0

0

0

0

LSD (0.05)

■

29

30

21

31

26

27

^-53482 applied preplant incorporated on April 25.
*V-53482 applied preemergence on April 25.
sV-53482 applied postemergence on May 31.

4Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1%
inert used @ 1.0 qt/A unless otherwise stated.

46

Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for broadleaf control. Heisner,
Ronald W., Ellery L. Knake, and Lyle E. Paul. The objective of this study was to evaluate
broadleaf weed control using adjuvants and combinations of different herbicides with various
rates of V-23031. Plots were established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research
Center near DeKalb, Illinois on tract SW600S. The soil was Drumer silty clay loam with 5 to
6% organic matter, 6.2 pH and 0 to 1% slope. Treatments were replicated three times in a
randomizeed complete block design. Plots were 10 by 33 ft. The field had been in corn the
previous year. It was moldboard plowed November 17, 1988. A field cultivator with a harrow
was used once on April 19, and again on May 2. Fertilizer consisted of 120 lb/A of P205
applied on November 14, and KjO applied on November 15, in 1988. 'Hack' soybeans were
planted in an east-west direction in 30 inch rows on May 5, at 60 lb/A to give eight plants per
foot of row. On May 11, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, and ivyleaf
morningglory were seeded in a north to south direction through all plots. Giant foxtail was
from a natural infestation. All herbicide treatments were applied between 10:30 and 12:15 p.m.
on June 5, except clethodim. Clethodim was applied to all plots except the check plots between
7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on June 6. A tractor mounted compressed air spray unit was used with flat
fan nozzle tips at a height of 20 inches, 30 psi pressure, and 3 mph to give 25 gpa. Visual
ratings were made 3, 10 and 31 days after main herbicide treatments. Conditions on the day
of spraying were as follows:

Date June 5 June 6

Temperature (F)

Air

Soil (bare @ 4 inch)
Wind (mph)
Sky (% overcast)
Soil moisture
Relative humidity (%)
Rainfall previous week (inch)
Rainfall following week (inch)

Plant stage on June 5:
Soybean
Giant foxtail
Redroot pigweed
Common lambsquarters
Velvetleaf

Pennsylvania smartweed
Ivyleaf morningglory

Results are presented in the tables (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana),

53-78

64-85

65-77

66-76

5 SW

13 SW

10

clear

moist

moist

76

64

2.62

2.56

0.62

0.62

Leaf no.

Height (inch)

2 trif.

4.0

8(2 tiller)

3.5

4

0.5

8

1.5

2

1.0

6

2.0

2

1.0

47

Table 1. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for broadleaf control (Heisner, Knake,
and Paul).

Soybean

innirv

Gift

Treatment1

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/6

6/8

6/15

7/6

lb/A

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Check-untreated

0

0

0

0

0

0

V-23031

+ COC2

0.026 4- 1 qt

10

0

0

60

77

80

V-23031

+ COC

0.04 4- 1 qt

10

0

0

63

77

87

V-23031

+ COC

0.053 4- 1 qt

10

3

0

53

83

83

V-23031

+ X-773

0.026 4- 0.25%

5

0

0

47

77

83

V-23031

+ X-77

0.04 4- 0.25%

7

0

0

57

77

80

V-23031

+ X-77

0.053 4- 0.25%

8

0

0

60

77

80

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.026 4- 0.03 +

7

0

0

63

77

87

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.053 4- 0.03 +

7

10

0

70

80

90

COC

iqt

V-23031

+ lactofen +

0.026 4- 0.1 +

20

20

10

70

90

80

COC

lpt

V-23031

+ lact + COC

0.053 4- 0.1 4- 1 pt

23

20

10

77

83

87

V-23031

+

0.026 +

5

0

0

70

77

90

chlorimuron + X-77

0.0063 + 0.25%

V-23031

+ clim +

0.053 + 0.0063 +

10

0

0

70

77

87

X-77

0.25%

V-23031

+ bentazon +

0.026 4- 0.5 +

12

3

3

83

83

90

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ bent + COC

0.053 + 0.5 + 1 qt

15

10

0

80

80

90

V-23031

+ fomesafen +

0.026 + 0.15 +

13

0

0

73

80

83

COC

1 qt

V-23031

4- fome + COC

0.053 + 0.15 + 1 qt

20

3

0

83

90

80

V-23031

+

0.026 +

15

0

0

77

77

80

acifluorfen + X-77

0.25 + 0.25%

V-23031

4- acif +

0.053 + 0.25 +

17

3

0

80

77

80

X-77

0.25%

2,4-DB

0.03

0

0

0

0

70

83

2,4-DB 4

- COC

0.03 + 1 qt

0

0

0

0

80

80

Lact + COC

0.2 + 1 pt

30

17

10

80

90

77

Clim + X-77

0.013 + 0.25%

8

0

0

33

70

80

Bent + COC

1.0 + 1 qt

0

0

0

30

80

80

Fome +

COC

0.3 + 1 qt

15

0

0

57

87

77

Acif + X-77

0.5 + 0.25%

15

3

0

53

80

70

LSD ro.05)

4

5

2

18

6

7

1 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + 1 qt/A COC applied to all plots June 6.

2 COC-crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and a 1% inert.

3 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

continued.

48

Table 2. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for broadleaf control (Heisner, Knake,

CIA 1\-1 L CJ ^J 1

i' *-*-"*'-***>-'>-'-"

Pesw
— control-

Ilmg
-control—

Treatment1

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/6

6/8

6/15

7/6

lb/A

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Check-untreated

0

0

0

0

0

0

V-23031

+ COC2

0.26 + 1 qt

40

10

20

100

70

43

V-23031

+ COC

0.04 + 1 qt

57

20

33

100

77

43

V-23031

+ COC

0.053 + 1 qt

47

33

37

100

77

50

V-23031

+ X-773

0.026 + 0.25%

17

13

23

97

60

43

V-23031

+ X-77

0.04 + 0.25%

53

20

33

100

73

50

V-23031

+ X-77

0.053 + 0.25%

57

23

33

100

80

57

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.026 + 0.03 +

57

47

43

100

60

43

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.053 + 0.03 +

67

47

53

100

83

53

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ lactofen +

0.026 + 0.1 +

70

77

63

100

90

57

COC

lpt

V-23031

+ lact + COC

0.053 + 0.1 + 1 pt

77

90

63

100

70

53

V-23031

+

0.026 +

83

80

83

88

83

57

chlorimuron + X-77

0.0063 + 0.25%

V-23031

+ clim +

0.053 + 0.0063 +

67

80

73

100

80

53

X-77

0.25%

V-23031

+ bentazon +

0.026 + 0.5 +

93

80

70

100

83

57

COC

lqt

V-23031

+ bent + COC

0.053 + 0.5 + 1 qt

77

80

73

100

73

57

V-23031

+ fomesafen +

0.026 + 0.15 +

70

70

57

100

73

60

COC

lqt

V-23031

+ fome + COC

0.053 + 0.15 + 1 qt

60

77

67

100

83

50

V-23031

+

0.026 +

90

70

70

100

77

57

acifluorfen + X-77

0.25 + 0.25%

V-23031

+ acif +

0.053 + 0.25 +

63

77

70

100

80

53

X-77

0.25%

2,4-DB

0.03

17

3

40

7

3

43

2,4-DB + COC

0.03 + 1 qt

33

0

77

40

10

40

Lact + COC

0.2 + 1 pt

93

90

87

98

77

53

Clim + X-77

0.013 + 0.25%

93

80

87

10

63

93

Bent + COC

1.0 + 1 qt

77

100

90

77

70

43

Fome +

COC

0.3 + 1 qt

80

70

70

83

73

53

Acif + X-77

0.5 + 0.25%

93

73

70

78

73

43

LSD C0.05)

39

13

13

18

19

15

1 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + 1 qt/A COC applied to all plots June 6.

2 COC-crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
s

X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

continued.

49

Table 3. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for broadleaf control (Heisner, Knake
and Paul), continued.

Vele

Colq

— control-

— control-

Treatment1

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/6

6/8

6/15

7/6

lb/A

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Check-untreated

0

0

0

0

0

0

V-23031

+ COC2

0.026 + 1 qt

97

97

47

97

70

53

V-23031

+ COC

0.04 + 1 qt

100

100

57

95

73

60

V-23031

+ COC

0.053 + 1 qt

70

100

57

97

80

60

V-23031

+ X-773

0.026 + 0.25%

93

80

43

93

67

53

V-23031

+ X-77

0.04 + 0.25%

97

90

53

100

80

63

V-23031

+ X-77

0.053 + 0.25%

100

90

57

97

77

63

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.026 + 0.03 +

83

77

50

93

80

60

coc

1 qt

V-23031

+ 2,4-DB +

0.053 + 0.03 +

97

83

60

90

90

77

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ lactofen +

0.026 + 0.1 +

93

87

57

97

90

60

COC

lpt

V-23031

+ lact + COC

0.053 + 0.1 + 1 pt

100

93

67

93

87

63

V-23031

+

0.026 +

87

90

67

87

73

60

chlorimuron + X-77

0.0063 + 0.25%

V-23031

+ clim +

0.053 + 0.0063 +

100

93

87

97

77

67

X-77

0.25%

V-23031

+ bentazon +

0.026 + 0.5 +

100

90

73

97

77

63

COC

1 qt

V-23031

+ bent + COC

0.053 + 0.5 + 1 qt

97

90

87

100

77

63

V-23031

+ fomesafen +

0.026 + 0.15 +

100

87

77

97

77

67

COC

lqt

V-23031

+ fome + COC

0.053 + 0.15 + 1 qt

100

100

83

98

87

67

V-23031

+

0.026 +

97

77

63

93

83

70

acifluorfen + X-77

0.25 + 0.25%

V-23031

+ acif +

0.053 + 0.25 +

100

93

77

98

80

70

X-77

0.25%

2,4-DB

0.03

23

13

53

0

10

40

2,4-DB 4

COC

0.03 + 1 qt

23

17

57

10

20

33

Lact + COC

0.2 + 1 pt

80

83

63

87

73

50

Clim + X-77

0.013 + 0.25%

10

70

67

10

70

47

Bent + COC

1.0 + 1 qt

90

77

73

57

83

83

Fome +

COC

0.3 + 1 qt

67

70

40

78

70

50

Acif + X-77

0.5 + 0.25%

80

70

27

77

90

80

LSD C0.05)

19

7

10

15

12

11

1 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + 1 qt/A COC applied to all plots June 6.

2 COC-crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.

X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

continued.

50

Table 4. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 combinations for broadleaf control (Heisner, Knake,

and Paul), continued. .

Rrpw Soybean

control yield

Treatment1 Rate 6/8 6/15 7/6

lb/A (%) (%) (%) (bu/A)

Check-untreated 0 0 0 18

V-23031 + COC2 0.026 + 1 qt 92 57 17 20

V-23031 + COC 0.04 + 1 qt 93 63 20 21

V-23031 + COC 0.053 + 1 qt 97 70 43 18

V-23031 + X-773 0.26 + 0.25% 90 60 10 14

V-23031 + X-77 0.04 + 0.25% 87 70 13 22

V-23031 + X-77 0.053 + 0.25% 100 80 30 24

V-23031 + 2,4-DB + 0.026 + 0.03 + 100 90 33 21

COC 1 qt

V-23031 + 2,4-DB + 0.053 + 0.03 + 100 83 53 25

COC 1 qt

V-23031 + lactofen + 0.026 + 0.1 + 97 90 90 30

COC 1 pt

V-23031 + lact + COC 0.053 + 0.1 + 1 pt 100 97 100 32

V-23031 + 0.026 + 97 100 87 44

chlorimuron + X-77 0.0063 + 0.25%

V-23031 + dim + 0.053 + 0.0063 + 100 90 87 40

X-77 0.25%

V-23031 + bentazon + 0.026 + 0.5 + 100 100 67 40

COC 1 qt

V-23031 + bent + COC 0.053 + 0.5 + 1 qt 100 97 70 37

V-23031 + fomesafen + 0.026 + 0.15 + 100 100 63 29

COC 1 qt

V-23031 + fome + COC 0.053 + 0.15 + 1 qt 100 93 80 34

V-23031 + 0.026 + 100 87 67 34

acifluorfen + X-77 0.25 + 0.25%

V-23031 + acif + 0.053 + 0.25 + 100 97 63 35

X-77 0.25%

2,4-DB 0.03 7 10 30 22

2,4-DB + COC 0.03 + 1 qt 13 7 20 26

Lact + COC 0.2 + 1 pt 100 90 90 37

Clim + X-77 0.013 + 0.25% 13 90 73 43

Bent + COC 1.0 + 1 qt 73 73 57 44

Fome + COC 0.3 + 1 qt 75 70 37 38

Acif + X-77 0.5 + 0.25% 83 87 57 34

LSD (0.05) 2 8 12 12

Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + 1 qt/A COC applied to all plots June 6.

COC-crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.

3 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
51

Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim combinations. Heisner, Ronald
W., Ellery L. Knake and Lyle E. Paul. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate V-
23031 at different rates with various adjuvants in tank mix combinations and with sequential
applications for weed control in soybeans. The study was established at the Northern Illinois
Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb in 1989 on tract SW 600N. The field had been in corn
the previous year. It was moldboard plowed November 17, 1988. A field cultivator with
harrow was used once on April 19, and again on May 2. Fertilizer consisted of 120 lb/A of
P205 and 1^0 applied November 14 and 15 respectively in 1988. Two randomized complete
block designs were used for this study with herbicide treatments replicated three times.
Individual plots were 10 by 35 ft. 'Hack' soybeans were planted in an east to west direction
in 30 inch rows on May 5, at 60 lb/A to give eight plants per foot of row. Redroot pigweed,
common lambsquarters, ivyleaf morningglory and velvetleaf were seeded in a north to south
direction across the plots on May 11. Giant foxtail, Pennsylvania smartweed and yellow
nutsedge were from natural infestations. Herbicide treatments 2 thru 16 were applied 1:30 to
3:00 p.m. June 5. Treatments 17 thru 26 were applied 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. on June 6.
Clethodim was sequentially applied to plots 2 thru 11 and 17 thru 21 at 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. on
June 8. Wet conditions, with 2.62 inches of rain from May 29 thru June 4, prevented earlier
application of the first set of treatments as intended; and by June 6, the stage of weed growth
suggested that the second set of treatments should not be further delayed. For all applications,
a tractor mounted compressed air spray unit was used with flat fan nozzle tips at a height of
20 inches, 30 psi pressure, traveling at 3 mph to apply 25 gpa. Visual ratings were made on
the dates indicated in the tables. Conditions on the day of spraying were:

Date
Temperature (F)

Soil (bare @ 4 inch)

Air

Wind (mph)
Sky (% overcast)
Soil moisture
Relative Humidity (%)
Rainfall previous week (inch)
Rainfall following week (inch)

Plant growth on June 5:
Soybean
Giant foxtail
Redroot pigweed
Common lambsquarters
Ivyleaf Morningglory
Velvetleaf

Pennsylvania smartweed
Yellow nutsedge

June 5

June 6

June 8

65-77

66-76

67-76

53-78

64-85

59-84

5 SW

13 SW

10 W

10

clear

50

moist

moist

moist

76

64

75

2.62

2.56

1.04

0.62

0.62

0.62

Leaf Number

Height (inch)

2 trif.

4.0

8

3.5

4

0.5

8

1.5

2

1.0

2

1.0

6

2.0

3

3.0

Results are reported in the tables. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana),

52

Table 1. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim combinations

Soyb

ean Injury

Soybean

Gift control

Treatment1

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/6

yield

6/8

6/15

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(bu/A)

(%)

(%)

Check untreated

0

0

0

13

0

0

V-23031 + COC2,3

0.026

+ 1 qt

13

7

0

31

60

80

V-23031 + COC3

0.04 + 1 qt

15

10

7

23

60

93

V-23031 + COC3

0.053

+ 1 qt

17

10

7

32

67

90

V-23031 + COC3

0.066

+ 1 qt

23

13

0

34

70

63

V-23031 + COC3

0.079

+ 1 qt

23

20

3

30

67

70

V-23031 + X-773A

0.026

+ 0.25% v/v

10

0

7

21

53

83

V-23031 + X-773

0.053

+ 0.25% v/v

13

0

0

28

53

77

V-23031 + X-773

0.079

+ 0.25%

v/v

20

10

0

31

60

80

Lactofen + COC3

0.2 +

1 pt

40

40

10

23

73

70

Bentazon + COC3

1.0 +

1 qt

7

0

0

34

63

90

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.026

+ 0.1 +

1 qt

20

10

23

12

80

93

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.053

+ 0.1 +

1 qt

20

20

27

10

60

100

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.079

+ 0.1 +

1 qt

37

20

33

10

83

87

Clethodim + COC

0.1 +

1 qt

—

—

—

10

67

83

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 +

0.1 + 1

Pt

50

40

40

6

70

100

LSD (0.05)

8

3

12

13

13

21

Treatment5

Rate

Soybean
6/11 6/18 7/6 yield 6/11

6/18 7/6

(lb/A)

(%) (%) (%) (bu/A) (%) (%) (%)

V-23031 + COC3

0.026 + 1 qt

20

10

20

11

43

77

90

V-23031 + COC3

0.053 + 1 qt

20

10

13

10

33

63

60

V-23031 + COC3

0.079 + 1 qt

30

13

17

12

40

80

90

Lactofen + COC3

0.2 + 1 pt

30

20

20

13

50

50

50

Bentazon + COC3

1.0 + 1 qt

10

3

7

16

20

50

60

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.026 + 0.1 + 1 qt

20

10

15

14

30

80

90

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.053 + 0.1 + 1 qt

20

15

15

21

30

80

85

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.079 + 0.1 + 1 qt

30

10

15

15

30

90

80

Clethodim + COC

0.1 + lqt

—

—

—

9

10

80

70

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.1 + 1 pt

30

10

10

14

80

90

80

LSD (0.05)

0

7

11

10

19

38

53

1 These treatments applied June 5.

2 Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert.

3 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + lqt/A COC applied on June 8.

4 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

5 These treatments applied June 6.

S3

Table 2. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim combinations
fHeisner, Knake and Paul), continued.

Rrpw control

Colq

control

Treatment1

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/3

6/8

6/15

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Check untreated

0

0

0

0

0

V-23031 + COC2,3

0.026 + 1 qt

100

90

47

100

90

V-23031 + COC3

0.04 + 1 qt

80

80

47

100

90

V-23031 + COC3

0.053 + 1 qt

100

87

70

63

87

V-23031 + COC3

0.066 + 1 qt

100

97

70

100

90

V-23031 + COC3

0.079 + 1 qt

100

93

63

100

100

V-23031 + X-773A

0.026 + 0.25% v/v

73

73

57

100

87

V-23031 + X-773

0.053 + 0.25% v/v

77

67

40

100

100

V-23031 + X-77s

0.079 + 0.25% v/v

97

83

40

100

100

Lactofen + COC3

0.2 + 1 pt

97

100

90

100

90

Bentazon + COC3

1.0 + 1 qt

80

70

40

67

80

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.026 + 0.1 +

1

qt

70

77

43

23

67

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.053 + 0.1 +

1

qt

73

77

57

70

80

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.079 + 0.1 +

1

qt

80

90

83

83

63

Clethodim + COC

0.1 + 1 qt

—

—

—

—

--

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.1 + 1

Pt

40

100

90

40

73

LSD (0.05)

13

12

30

17

31

Treatment5

Rate

6/8

6/15

7/3

6/8

6/15

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

V-23031 + COC3

0.026 + 1 qt

57

80

53

53

93

V-23031 + COC3

0.053 + 1 qt

87

90

80

27

87

V-23031 + COC3

0.079 + 1 qt

100

97

83

67

83

Lactofen + COC3

0.2 + 1 pt

100

100

80

55

75

Bentazon + COC3

1.0 + 1 qt

33

83

53

43

90

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.026 + 0.1 +

1

qt

75

95

75

60

90

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.053 + 0.1 +

1

qt

95

95

50

95

50

V-23031 + clet +

COC

0.079 + 0.1 +

1

qt

95

100

90

55

95

Clethodim + COC

0.1 + lqt

—

—

—

—

—

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.1 + 1

Pt

90

100

50

10

80

LSD C0.05)

11

8

19

38

23

1 These treatments applied June 5.

2 Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert.

3 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + lqt/A COC applied on June 8.

4 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
1 These treatments applied June 6.

54

Table 3. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim combinations

fHeisner. Knake and Paul), continued.

Ilmg control Vele control

Treatment1 Rate 6/8 6/15 7/3 6/8 6/15 7/3

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.026 + 1 qt

83

77

47

83

90

53

0.04 + 1 qt

90

77

63

87

63

70

0.053 + 1 qt

90

87

77

90

90

67

0.066 + 1 qt

90

90

60

100

100

83

0.079 + 1 qt

97

83

63

97

93

77

0.026 + 0.25% v/v

80

77

50

80

73

77

0.053 + 0.25% v/v

77

67

30

77

70

53

0.079 + 0.25% v/v

100

100

43

90

93

70

0.2 + 1 pt

100

77

40

87

87

70

1.0 + 1 qt

70

73

57

80

83

80

0.026 + 0.1 + 1 qt

70

70

77

70

83

63

0.053 + 0.1 + 1 qt

100

77

57

80

83

87

0.079 + 0.1 + 1 qt

100

83

77

93

83

90

0.1 + 1 qt

—

—

--

—

—

—

0.2 + 0.1 + 1 pt

43

57

63

40

70

40

9

13

32

13

21

22

Check untreated
V-23031 + COC2-3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + X-77*'4
V-23031 + X-773
V-23031 + X-773
Lactofen + COC3
Bentazon + COC3
V-23031 + clet + COC
V-23031 + clet + COC
V-23031 + clet + COC
Clethodim + COC
Lact + clet + COC

LSD (0.05)

Treatment5 Rate 6/8 6/15 7/3 6/8 6/15 7/3

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

V-23031 + COC3

0.026 + 1 qt

77

63

90

90

87

87

V-23031 + COC3

0.053 + 1 qt

97

87

90

97

90

83

V-23031 + COC3

0.079 + 1 qt

100

100

83

97

97

90

Lactofen + COC3

0.2 + 1 pt

100

100

90

85

100

85

Bentazon + COC3

1.0 + 1 qt

37

83

70

77

90

70

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.026 + 0.1 +

1

qt

95

90

90

95

90

90

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.053 + 0.1 +

1

qt

100

90

70

95

95

80

V-23031 + clet + COC

0.079 + 0.1 +

1

qt

100

100

90

100

100

75

Clethodim + COC

0.1 + lqt

—

—

—

—

—

—

Lact + clet + COC

0.2 + 0.1 + 1

Pt

100

10

70

80

70

50

LSD C0.05)

6

15

17

11

5

13

1 These treatments applied June 5.

2 Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert.

3 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + lqt/A COC applied on June 8.

4 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

5 These treatments applied June 6.

55

Table 4. Postemergence soybean trials with V-23031 and clethodim combinations

CHeisner. Knake and Paul), continued.

Pesw control Yens control

Treatment1 Rate 6/8 7/3 6/8 7/3

(lb/A) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Check untreated
V-23031 + COC2'3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + COC3
V-23031 + X-773'4
V-23031 + X-773
V-23031 + X-773
Lactofen + COC3
Bentazon + COC3
V-23031 + clet + COC
V-23031 + clet + COC
V-23031 + clet + COC
Clethodim + COC
Lact + clet + COC

LSD (0.05)

0

0

0.026 + 1 qt

10

43

0.04 + 1 qt

10

47

0.053 + 1 qt

20

50

0.066 + 1 qt

17

50

0.079 + 1 qt

20

43

0.026 + 0.25% v/v

10

47

0.053 + 0.25% v/v

10

47

0.079 + 0.25% v/v

17

40

0.2 + 1 pt

50

70

1.0 + 1 qt

73

73

0.026 + 0.1 + 1 qt

10

43

0.053 + 0.1 + 1 qt

10

40

0.079 + 0.1 + 1 qt

10

43

0.1 + 1 qt

—

—

0.2 + 0.1 + 1 pt

17

50

22

18

0

0

40

57

43

20

3

27

40

57

10

47

3

33

37

33

13

63

10

27

37

37

10

0

17

0

13

0

13

0

44

53

Treatment5 Rate 6/11 6/18 7/6 6/11 6/18 7/6

(lb/A) (%) (%) (%)

V-23031 + COC3 0.026 + 1 qt 13 37 40

V-23031 + COC3 0.053 + 1 qt 13 30 27

V-23031 + COC3 0.079 + 1 qt 23 33 43

Lactofen + COC3 0.2 + 1 pt 40 70 50

Bentazon + COC3 1.0 + 1 qt 80 93 90

V-23031 + clet + COC 0.026 + 0.1 + 1 qt 20 35 25

V-23031 + clet + COC 0.053 + 0.1 + 1 qt 20 45 30

V-23031 + clet + COC 0.079 + 0.1 + 1 qt 20 50 20

Clethodim + COC 0.1 + lqt

Lact + clet + COC 0.2 + 0.1 + 1 pt 40 50 50

LSD (0.05) 9 8 22 8 13 23

1 These treatments applied June 5.

2 Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert.

3 Clethodim @ 0.1 lb/A + lqt/A COC applied on June 8.

4 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.

5 These treatments applied June 6.

56

(%)

(%)

(%)

13

20

7

23

30

7

23

27

10

35

30

10

30

57

33

20

20

5

25

35

55

20

30

55

20

20

0

Effect of herbicide residues on follow crop injury. Curran, William S., Lyle E. Paul, Ann
M. Carrick, and Ellery L. Knake. The objective of this study was to determine the potential
for five spring applied soybean herbicides to persist and injure crops planted the following fall
and spring. The fall injury data was reported in NCWCC Research Report 45:144-146, so only
the spring results will be included here. The study was established in 1988 as a randomized
complete block design with four replications on a Drummer silty clay loam with 6.0 % organic
matter and a soil pH of 6.0 near Dekalb, Illinois. Soil incorporated herbicides were applied at
three different rates for soybeans on May 3, 1988. Fomesafen was applied at three rates
postemergence to soybeans on June 3. Chloramben was soil applied at 3.0 lb/A as a check
treatment. Fluazifop was broadcast at 0.1875 lb/A over the entire plot area for additional grass
control. All herbicides were applied with a tractor mounted compressed air sprayer. Rainfall
during the season was approximately 65 percent of normal. Following soybean harvest, follow
crops were planted on September 13, 1988 and again on May 3, 1989. Spring follow crops
included Pioneer 3377 corn, sunflower, grain sorghum, "Caldwell" winter wheat, winter rye,
oats, rapeseed, alfalfa and mamouth red clover. Follow crops were evaluated for injury on June
13, 1989. Growth stages of the follow crops at the time of the evaluation are given below.

Date

May 3 (1988)

June 3 (1988)

Treatment

PPI

Post

Sprayer

gpa

25

25

psi

30

30

Temperature (C)

air

18

25

soil (4 inch)

16

23

Soil moisture

moist

dry

Wind (mph)

5-8

8-10

Sky

clear

clear

Relative

humidity (%)

60

80

Evaluation on June 13 (1989)

Wheat

Sunflower

tiller no.

5-6

leaf no.

4-5

height (inch)

6

height (inch)

6

Oats

Rapeseed

tiller no.

5-7

leaf no.

3-4

height (inch)

8

height (inch)

4

Rye

Alfalfa

tiller no.

5-6

leaf no.

4-5

height (inch)

6

height (inch)

2

Corn

Clover

leaf no.

3-4

leaf no.

4-5

height (inch)

6

height (inch)

2

Sorghum

leaf no.

3-4

height (inch)

4

57

Follow crops indicated that significant levels of some herbicides were still present over
12 months following application. Injury levels were similar to fall observations with clomazone
causing the greatest injury to small grains and forage legumes and imazaquin causing the most
damage to corn, sunflower, and rapeseed. Imazethapyr injury was greatest on rapeseed with
sorghum being the second most susceptible. Significant injury from chlorimuron plus metribuzin
was only detected at the highest rate on clover and rapeseed. Fomesafen injury was not
detected on any crop so those results are not included in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy,
University of Illinois, Urbana.)

Table. Effect of herbicide residues on follow crops (Curran, Paul, Carrick, and Knake).

Herbicide

Rate

Wheat Oats

Rye

Corn

Sorghum

Sunfla

Rape

Alfalfa

Clover

(lb/A)

Clomazone

0.5

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

5

6

Clomazone

1.0

20

22

22

4

0

17

5

15

19

Clomazone

2.0

60

66

65

20

14

34

14

44

40

Imazaquin

0.063

0

0

0

0

0

9

11

0

0

Imazaquin

0.125

1

9

11

15

4

46

75

7

21

Imazaquin

0.25

9

26

15

35

21

66

94

22

45

Imazethapyr

0.063

5

10

5

1

27

10

59

0

0

Imazethapyr

0.094

7

11

16

1

34

17

76

0

0

Imazethapyr

0.188

17

46

26

19

51

34

96

2

7

Chlorimuron +

0.022

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Metribuzin

0.22

Chlorimuron +

0.045

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Metribuzin

0.45

Chlorimuron+

0.086

0

2

5

0

0

0

21

0

12

Metribuzin

0.91

Chloramben

3.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

LSD (0.05)

8.6

10.1

9.4

5.0

7.6

20.0

12.2

7.6

10.5

lSunfl = sunflower

58

HERBICIDE SAFENER AND VARIETY INTERACTION. Paul, Lyle E. and Ellery
L. Knake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the corn safener, 1,8-
naphthalic anhydride, for reducing injury resulting from clomazone application and to
determine whether there were any differences in response of hybrids to clomazone or 1,8-
naphthalic anhydride. This study was conducted at the University of Illinois Northern
Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb on Flanagan silt loam with 5% organic
matter.

The study area was planted to corn in 1988 and was moldboard plowed on
November 18, 1988. Spring tillage consisted of one field cultivation on May 8, 1989, and
one field cultivation following herbicide application on May 22, 1989. The herbicide
treatments were applied on May 22, with a tractor mounted compressed air spray unit
with flat fan nozzle tips, 30 psi and 3 mph to give 25 gallon per acre. Each area was
sprayed with the selected active ingredient (a.i.) of clomazone, cyanazine at 3.6# a.i. per
acre, and alachlor at 3# a.i. per acre. The herbicides for each treatment were tank
mixed. The area treated with each herbicide treatment was 30' x 120' in each of four
replications. A field cultivation followed herbicide application in the same direction as
the chemical application for incorporation.

Six corn hybrids were used with a safener versus no safener treatment for each
of the six to give 12 treatments. Individual plots for each treatment were four rows
wide. Corn was planted on May 23 in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the
chemical application. The corn planter setting was at a rate of 28,300 kernels. One-half
of the plots were planted with safened seed treated at the rate of .5% by weight or 4oz
of product per 50# seed and one-half were planted with untreated seed. The corn
planter used was an International Harvester plate type Early Riser. Some of the seed
was not of uniform size. To assure that there would be no stand reductions due to the
planter plates jamming, plates were used that would allow overplanting rather than a
stand reduction. Therefore, some of the planted populations were higher than was
desired.

Visual injury ratings were made on June 13, 20 days after planting. These ratings
were based on white plants, stunted plants, and dead plants. Stand counts were made
at harvest by counting all plants in each plot. Harvest yields were taken and converted
to 15.5% moisture for yield tabulation.

Yield results indicated that almost all of the early season visual injury ratings were
too high when related to final yield reductions. The harvest moisture was affected by
the safener and clomazone interaction for three hybrids and by the clomazone rate for
three hybrids in both the safened and untreated seed.

The safener resulted in improved final stand for all hybrids, but only one safened
hybrid had the same population for all rates of clomazone. The seed safener helped to
improve yield of all hybrids with the clomazone rate up to 1# active ingredient per acre.
At the high rate of clomazone, the safener helped to improve the yield of two hybrids.
Where no clomazone was used, the safener appeared to have a negative effect on only
one hybrid.

58 a

The seed safener helped to alleviate the effect of clomazone, but the degree
varied with hybrid used and the rate of clomazone used.

TABLE 1: PERCENT INJURY 6/13: 20 DAYS AFTER PLANTING

VARIETY fBRAND^

CARGILL 6927 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 6927

CARGILL 7993 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7993

CARGILL 7877 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7877

DeKALB P. G. T-1100 (SAFENED)

DeKALB P. G. T-1100

PIONEER 3475 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3475

PIONEER 3377 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3377

LSD .05 12.8%

CV 24.8%

CHEMICAL RATE-CLOMAZONE A.I./ACRE

0 l/2# 1# 2#

0

8

14

33

0

43

69

78

0

15

26

46

0

49

70

78

0

12

28

34

0

50

78

82

0

16

36

54

0

70

81

85

0

11

20

46

0

44

73

79

0

26

34

51

0

56

75

80

TABLE 2: PERCENT HARVEST MOISTURE

VARIETY(BRAND) CHEMICAL RATE CLOMAZONE A.I./ACRE

0 l/2# 1# 2#

CARGILL 6927 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 6927

CARGILL 7993 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7993

CARGILL 7877 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7877

DeKALB P.G.T-1100 (SAFENED)

DeKALB P.G. T-1100

PIONEER 3475 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3475

PIONEER 3377 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3377

LSD .05 1.2%

CV 3.7%

23.7

23.3

23.5

23.2

23.9

23.7

22.8

23.0

25.3

26.2

26.0

25.8

24.7

24.9

25.1

24.5

25.6

25.0

25.6

24.7

25.3

26.1

26.4

26.2

21.2

22.6

24.0

22.7

21.4

22.6

23.9

23.2

18.7

19.2

18.3

19.8

18.5

20.1

19.1

19.1

23.1

22.8

24.0

23.0

20.9

21.5

23.4

22.9

58 b

TABLE 3: POPULATIONS

VARIETY (BRAND)

CARGILL 6927 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 6927

CARGILL 7993 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7993

CARGILL 7877 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7877

DeKALB P.G.T-1100 (SAFENED)

DeKALB P.G.T-1100

PIONEER 3475 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3475

PIONEER 3377 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3377

LSD .05 3250

CV 9.9%

CHEMICAL RATE CLOMAZONEA.I./ACRE

0

l/2#

1#

2#

34,600

36,600

34,900

30,300

36,000

31,100

23,800

17,900

28,500

30,100

27,900

21,200

28,500

22,400

14,200

10,200

36,000

36,800

34,800

29,900

35,800

27,800

16,300

15,800

21,300

21,300

19,400

14,400

24,400

16,000

11,600

8,500

23,400

23,400

23,700

23,400

25,000

20,000

15,100

11,200

25,800

26,200

24,000

17,100

25,800

16,200

10,600

8,500

TABLE 4: CORN YIELD Bushels/Acre

VARIETY (BRAND)
A.I./ACRE

CHEMICAL RATE CLOMAZONE

0 l/2# 1# 2#

CARGILL 6927 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 6927

CARGILL 7993 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7993

CARGILL 7877 (SAFENED)

CARGILL 7877

DeKALB P.G.T-1100 (SAFENED)

DeKALB P.G.T-1100

PIONEER 3475 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3475

PIONEER 3377 (SAFENED)

PIONEER 3377

LSD .05 15.8

CV 9.5%

143

151

154

143

143

126

118

91

123

128

126

106

139

113

73

67

135

142

139

137

141

127

97

97

129

120

115

96

131

90

74

60

145

139

143

119

139

111

101

78

132

134

124

107

133

95

67

58

58c

No-till corn in alfalfa sod. Koethe, Robert W., David M. Dimmick, Ellery L. Knake, and
Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments when planting
no-till corn into alfalfa. Plots were established in 1989, at the Orr Agricultural Research and
Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt loam soil having 1.5 % organic matter,
a pH of 6.0 and 2 to 7% slope. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized
complete block design. Plots were 10 by 55 ft. Alfalfa was seeded in 1988. On April 14,
1989, 200 lb/A nitrogen as anhydrous ammonia was injected. Herbicides were broadcast using
flat fan nozzle tips on May 3, between 10:00 to 12:00 a.m. A tractor mounted compressed air
sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. No tillage was used
prior to planting 'Pioneer 3343' corn in 30 inch rows for a population of 27,700 plants per acre
on May 5. Alfalfa was 8 to 10 inches tall at the time of herbicide application. Following
herbicide application there was 0.11 inch of rain on May 5. The total rainfall was 4.38 inches
and 2.57 inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual ratings were made on
June 27. Conditions on day of spraying were as follows:

Date May 3
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 52-58

Air 39-59

Wind (mph) 4 to 5 NW

Sky (% overcast) clear

Relative humidity range (%) 38-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.34

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.15

All treatments with 2,4-D controlled alfalfa, including treatments using clopyralid or
triclopyr with 2,4-D. Control of alfalfa with dicamba plus atrazine with no 2,4-D was
significantly less than for treatments with 2,4-D. The untreated check plots showed substantial
weed control due to the vigor and competetiveness of established alfalfa plants. Based on this
study, 1.0 lb/A of 2,4-D LVE or a combination of 0.25 lb/A of dicamba plus 0.5 lb/A of
2,4-D LVE can control alfalfa sod for a no-till corn planting operation. Preemergence herbicides
can be added to improve control of annual weeds. Results are summarized in the table. (Dept.
of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

59

Table. No-till corn in alfalfa sod (Koethe, Dimmick, Knake, and Raines).

Alfalfa

Gift

Rrpw

Corw

Pesw

Corn

Treatment

Rate

-control

Yield

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(Bu/A)

2,4-D1 + meto +

1.0 + 2.0 +

96

98

100

100

100

161.6

atrazine

2.0

Dicamba + 2,4-D +

0.25 -1- 0.5 +

90

86

99

100

100

138.6

metolachlor + atra

2.0 + 2.0

Dica + 2,4-D +

0.25 + 0.5 +

99

100

100

100

100

167.9

cyanazine -I- atra

2.0 + 2.0

Dica & atra + meto

0.47 & 0.92 + 2.0

80

90

100

100

100

135.5

Clopyralid & 2,4-D +

0.125 & 0.66 +

97

96

100

100

100

167.3

meto + atra

2.0 + 2.0

Triclopyr & 2,4-D +

0.25 & 0.5 +

97

100

100

100

100

163.3

meto -1- atra

2.0 + 2.0

Check-untreated

0

100

100

100

100

40.7

LSD (0.05)

5

8

0.6

0

0

30.1

1 Butoxyethyl ester

60

No-till corn in red clover sod. Koethe, Robert W., David M. Dimmick, Ellery L. Knake,
and Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments when
planting no-till corn into red clover. Plots were established in 1989 at the Orr Agricultural
Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt-loam soils having 1.5 %
organic matter, a pH of 6.0, and 2 to 7% slope. Treatments were replicated four times in a
randomized complete block design. Plots measured 10 by 50 ft. Red clover was seeded in
1988. On April 14, 1989, 200 lb/A of nitrogen as anhydrous ammonia was injected. Herbicides
were broadcast on May 3 between 10:00 and 12:00 a.m. A tractor mounted compressed air
sprayer with flat fan nozzle tips was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25
gpa. No tillage was performed prior to planting 'Pioneer 3343' corn in 30 inch rows on May
5, for a population of 27,700 plants per acre. Red clover was 6 to 12 inches tall at the time
of herbicide application. Following herbicide application there was no rainfall until 0.11 inch
on May 5. The total rainfall was 4.38 inches and 2.57 inches for the months of May and June
respectively. Visual ratings were made on June 27. Conditions on day of spraying were as
follows:

Date May 3
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 52-58

Air 39-59

Wind (mph) 4 to 5 NW

Sky (% overcast) clear

Relative humidity range (%) 38-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.34

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.15

All herbicide treatments controlled red clover. It also appeared that red clover mulch
provided some weed control. This was evident in the untreated check where red clover
controlled most weeds, except prickly lettuce, and suppressed corn growth. The stand of corn
in the red clover sod was not as good as in a similar study with corn in alfalfa sod. This may
have been attributed to the matted growth form of red clover as compared to the erect growth
form of alfalfa. The planter did not penetrate as well in the clover sod as in the alfalfa sod.
Results are summarized in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

61

Table. No-till corn into red clover (Koethe, Dimmick, Knake, and Raines).

Treatment

Rate

Red

Clover Gift Vele Prle Howe Corn

control Yield

(lb/A)

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (Bu/A)

2,4-D1 + meto +

atrazine
Dicamba + 2,4-D -f

metolachlor + atra
Dica + 2,4-D +

atra + cyanazine
Dica & atra + meto
Clopyralid & 2,4-D +

meto + atra
Triclopyr & 2,4-D +

meto + atra
Check untreated

1.0 4- 2.0 +

95

90

100

87

100

127.2

2.0

0.25 + 0.5 +

98

79

95

100

100

123.1

2.0 + 2.0

0.25 + 0.5 +

100

94

98

100

100

129.8

2.0 + 2.0

0.47 & 0.92 + 2.0

97

70

94

100

100

109.1

0.125 & 0.66 +

95

73

90

100

95

121.6

2.0 + 2.0

0.25 & 0.5 +

100

98

98

84

100

136.4

2.0 + 2.0

0

100

100

50

100

19.2

LSD (0.05)

5.9 25.0 9.4 28.4 5.6

20.3

1 Butoxyethyl ester

62

Herbicides for alfalfa establishment. Koethe, Robert W., William J. Million, Ellery L.
Knake and Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicides for control
of giant foxtail and various broadleaf weed species while establishing alfalfa. Plots were
established in 1989 at the Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry,
Illinois on Downs silt loam with 1.5% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and a 2 to 7% slope.
Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10
by 60 ft. This site was in no-till soybeans in 1988. No fall tillage was used following harvest
of the soybeans. On May 3, 1989, the plots were worked twice with a Dyno-drive to prepare
a seedbed and 'Jubilee' alfalfa was seeded at the rate of 18 lb/A. Herbicides were broadcast
using flat fan nozzle tips on June 13, starting at 9:30 a.m. A tractor mounted compressed air
sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. On June 12, 0.46
inches of rain fell. Following herbicide application there was no significant rainfall until 1.32
inches fell on June 27. The total precipitation for the month of June was 2.57 inches. At the
time of spraying, giant foxtail was 2 to 8 inches, common ragweed was 3 to 6 inches,
horsenettle was 12 inches, Pennsylvania smartweed was 4 to 6 inches, common milkweed was
18 inches, eastern blacknightshade was 12 inches, and velvetleaf was 4 to 6 inches tall. Visual
ratings were made June 26. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date June 13
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 67-73

Air 59-80

Wind (mph) 13 NW

Sky (% overcast) 20

Relative humidity range (%) 76-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.50

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.02

All treatments controlled giant foxtail and improved alfalfa establishment. Broadleaf weed
control for 2,4-DB was: velvetleaf 50%, Pennsylvania smartweed 70%, common ragweed 50%,
common lambsquarters 90%, eastern black nightshade 10%, smooth groundcherry 30%,
dandelion 50%, prickly lettuce 50%, and horsenettle 40%. There was no significant alfalfa
injury from any of the herbicide treatments. In this study no significant antagonism was
observed from the adddition of 2,4-DB to the other herbicides. There was no significant
difference in the control of giant foxtail between replications. Results for giant foxtail are
summarized in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)

63

Table. Herbicides for alfalfa establishment (Koethe, Million, Knake, and Raines),

Gift

Treatment1

Rate

control

(lb/A)

(%)

Sethoxydim

0.1875

90

Fluazifop-P

0.1875

85

Quizalofop2

0.05

95

Fenoxaprop

0.1

98

Clethodim

0.1

93

LSD(0.05)

0.0

1 The dimethylamine salt formulation of 2,4-DB at 0.5 lb/A and crop oil concentrate
with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert was added to
each treatment at the rate of 1 qt/A in a tank mix.

2 D+ isomer from DuPont.

64

Alfalfa renovation. Koethe, Robert W., David M. Dimmick, Ellery L. Knake, and Glenn
A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments for weed control
to improve an established stand of alfalfa. Plots were established in 1988, at the On-
Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt loam with
1.5% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and a 2% slope. Stand establishment in 1988, was minimal
due to the very dry weather conditions, so in the spring of 1989, postemergence herbicide
applications were applied two times to improve the stand. Treatments were replicated four times
in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 25 by 30 ft. No fertilizer was applied prior
to planting 'Pioneer 5010' alfalfa at the rate of 8 lb/A in the spring of 1988. Both herbicide
applications were broadcast using flat fan nozzle tips on May 3 and June 13, each beginning
at 2:00 p.m. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30
psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. There was a light infestation of tall fescue which measured 9
inches, and giant foxtail measured 2 inches in height at the time of the first herbicide
application. Residue on the soil surface was 100%. Other broadleaf weeds were present and
their heights were as follows: common ragweed was 1 to 2 ft, common lambsquarters was 1
ft, common milkweed was 6 inches, and horseweed was 2 to 3 ft. A total of 4.38 inches and
2.57 inches of rain fell for the months of May and June respectively. Visual ratings were made
on June 26. Conditions on the days of spraying were as follows:

Date May 3 June 13

Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch)

Air

Wind (mph)
Sky (% overcast)
Realtive humidity range (%)
Rainfall previous week (inch)
Rainfall following week (inch)

The alfalfa did not appear to be very well established in 1988. Since no alfalfa was
harvested from the area in 1988, some alfalfa seed may have been produced to allow additional
alfalfa to become established for an improved stand. The stand was more vigorous in 1989, and
provided good control of giant foxtail so there was no advantage for the herbicides in
controlling giant foxtail. Tall fescue was suppressed by the early treatments with sethoxydim;
the later treatment was ineffective in controlling tall fescue. Except for some common ragweed
and horseweed, there were relatively few broadleaf weeds present. Results are summarized in
the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

52-58

67-73

39-59

59-80

4-5 NW

13 NW

clear

—

38-100

76-100

0.34

0.50

0.15

0.03

65

Table. Alfalfa renovation (Koethe, Dimmick, Knake and Raines),

i

Giant foxtail

Tall fescue

Treatment

Rate

-control

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

Sethoxydim + 2,4-DB1 + COC2
Seth + 2,4-DB + COC3
Seth + COC / 2,4-DB4
Sethoxydim + bromoxynil
Check

0.25 + 0.5 + 1 qt
0.25 + 0.5 + 1 qt
0.25 + 1 qt/0.5
0.25 + 0.25

98
98
98
98
0

60
20
60
60
0

LSD (0.05)

0.0

0.0

1 Dimethylamine salt formulation.

2 Crop oil concentrate is an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16%
surfactant and 1% inert.

3 This treatment was a late postemergence applied on June 13.

4 Sethoxydim was applied May 3 and 2,4-DB was applied June 13.

66

Soybeans no-till after corn. Koethe, Robert W., David M. Dimmick, Ellery L. Knake, and
Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to design herbicide treatments for no-till
soybeans that would provide burndown and residual activity for broad-spectrum weed control
with one application of two or three products. Plots were established in 1989, at the Orr
Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt loam with
1.5% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and a 2 to 7% slope. Treatments were replicated four times
in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by 70 ft. This site was planted to no-
till corn in 1988, following alfalfa sod in 1987. No tillage was used prior to planting 'Pioneer
9391' soybeans in 30 inch rows on May 18, at 50 lb/A to give 8 to 10 plants/foot. Herbicides
were broadcast using flat fan nozzle tips on May 3, between 1 to 2 p.m. A tractor mounted
compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. The
total rainfall was 2.50 and 4.38 inches for the months of April and May respectively. Visual
ratings were made June 26. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date May 3
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 52-58

Air 39-59

Wind (mph) 4-5 NW

Sky (% overcast) clear

Relative humidity range (%) 38-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.34

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.15

All herbicide treatments gave good control of broadleaf weeds. No significant soybean
injury was noted for any of the herbicide treatments. There was no significant difference
between the 6:1 and the 10:1 ratios of metribuzin plus chlorimuron for weed control. This
study reconfirms the potential for metribuzin plus chlorimuron to provide burndown and residual
activity for broad-spectrum weed control in a no-till system. Although metribuzin and
chlorimuron plus clethodim was less effective in controlling large crabgrass than any of the other
treatments, there appears to be good potential to provide burndown and residual control of most
broadleaf and grass weeds. Broad-spectrum weed control for no-till soybeans may be achieved
with one application of two or three products such as clethodim or haloxyfop plus metribuzin
and chlorimuron. Results are summarized in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of
Illinois, Urbana).

67

Table. Soybeans no-till after corn (Koethe, Dimmick, Knake, and Raines).

Lacg Colq Howe Dali Soybean
Treatment1 Rate control Yield

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (Bu/A)

Metr & chlorimuron2+ 0.45 & 0.045 + 85 100 100 100 38.0

haloxyfop 0.25

Metribuzin & clim3+ 0.326 & 0.054 + 88 100 100 100 39.1

halx 0.25

Metr & dim2 + 0.45 & 0.045 + 53 100 100 100 40.6

clethodim 0.25

Metr & dim2 + 0.45 & 0.045 + 89 100 100 100 46.0

metolachlor + 2.0 +

quizalofop4 0.045

LSD (0.05) 4 0 0 0 5.6

1 Crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1%
inert was tank mixed with each herbicide treatment at the rate of 1 qt/A.

2 Metribuzin and chlorimuron applied at the ratio of 10:1.

3 Metribuzin and chlorimuron applied at the ratio of 6:1.

4 D+ isomer from Du Pont.

68

Corn in tall fescue sod. Koethe, Robert W., William J. Million, Ellery L. Knake, and
Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatments for controlling tall
fescue sod for no-till planting of corn. Plots were established in 1989, at the On* Agricultural
Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt-loam soil with 1.5%
organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and a 2 to 7% slope. Treatments were replicated three times in a
randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by 50 ft. Tall fescue sod was a niinimum
of 10 years old. On April 25, 1989, 200 lb/A of nitrogen as anhydrous ammonia was injected.
Herbicides were broadcast using flat fan nozzle tips on May 3, beginning at 3 p.m. A tractor
mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25
gpa. On May 5 'Pioneer 3343' corn was planted with a conventional planter in 30 inch rows
for a population of 27,700 plants per acre. Tall fescue was 12 inches in height at the time of
herbicide application. The total rainfall was 4.38 inches and 2.57 inches for the months of May
and June respectively. Visual ratings were made on June 26. Conditions on the day of spraying
were as follows:

Date May 3
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 52-58

Air 39-59

Wind (mph) 4-5 NW

Sky (% overcast) clear

Realtive humidity range (%) 38-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.34

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.15

No significant corn injury was noted with any of the herbicide treatments. There was
good control of annual broadleaf and grass weeds in all plots. This may have been due to the
tall fescue mulch suppressing weed growth in addition to the effect of the herbicides. Most
herbicide treatments controlled tall fescue sod well. Although there was no direct comparison,
it appears that tall fescue sod control is significantly less with the lower rate of 1.4 lb/A of
glyphosate than with the higher rate of 2.0 lb/A. Results are summarized in the table. (Dept.
of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

69

Table. Corn in tall fescue sod (Koethe, Million, Knake and Raines).

Treatment

Rate

Corn
injury

Tall fescue
control

Corn
Yield

(lb/A)

2.0 + 2.0 +
2.0

2.0 + 2.0 + 2.0
2.0 + 3.0 & 1.0
0.5 + 2.0 + 2.0

Glyphosate + atrazine +
metolachlor

Glyt + cyanazine + atra
Glyt 4- cyan & atra
Paraquat + atra + meto
HOE-39866 + atra + meto 0.75 + 2.0 + 2.0
Sulphosate + atra + meto 2.0 + 2.0 + 2.0
Alachlor & glyt + atra 2.6 & 1.4 + 2.0

LSD (0.05)

(%)
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0

(%)

94

97
87
96
83
98
76

15.9

(Bu/A)

122.8

145.2
135.1
154.3
123.9
151.4
123.7

17.8

70

Soybeans in tall fescue sod. Koethe, Robert W., William J. Million, Ellery L. Knake, and
Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatments for controlling tall
fescue sod for no-till planting of soybeans. Plots were established in 1989, at the On-
Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois on Rozetta silt loam soil
with 1.5% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and 2 to 7% slope. Treatments were replicated three
times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10 by 50 ft. Tall fescue sod was
approximately 10 years old. Herbicides were broadcast using flat fan nozzle tips on May 12
beginning at 10:30 a.m. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling at 3 mph
with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. No tillage was used prior to planting "Pioneer 9391"
soybeans on May 18, in 30 inch rows at 50 lb/A to give 8 to 10 plants per foot. Tall fescue
was 12 inches in height and residue on the soil surface was 100% at the time of herbicide
application. Following herbicide application there was 0.37 inch of rain on May 20. The total
rainfall was 4.38 inches and 2.57 inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual
ratings were made on June 26. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date May 12
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 54-64

Air 32-70

Wind (mph) 1 E

Sky (% overcast) clear

Realtive humidity range (%) 26-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.15

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.06

The most effective treatment for controlling tall fescue was with glyphosate applied at 2
lb/ A. Paraquat with metribuzin and chlorimuron was not as effective in controlling tall fescue
as in a nearby study on corn, where paraquat was combined with atrazine. Results are
summarized in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

71

Table. Soybeans in tall fescue sod (Koethe, Million, Knake and Raines).

Soybean

Tall fescue

Treatment1

Rate

injury

control

(lb/A)

(%)

(%)

Sethoxydim + metribuzin &

0.4 + 0.45 &

0

40

chlorimuron

0.05

Fluazifop-P + metr & clim

0.4 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

23

Quizalofop2+ metr & clim

0.2 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

32

Haloxyfop + metr & clim

0.4 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

23

Clethodim + metr & clim

0.4 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

40

Glyphosate + metr & clim

2.0 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

92

Paraquat + metr & clim

0.5 + 0.45 & 0.05

0

47

LSD (0.05)

0

5

1 Crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1%
inert was added to each treatment in a tank mix.

2 D+ isomer from Du Pont.

72

Controlling tall fescue for seeding alfalfa. Koethe, Robert W., William J. Million, Ellery L.
Knake, Clarence J. Kaiser, and Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to evaluate
herbicide treatments for controlling tall fescue sod for no-till seeding of alfalfa. Plots were
established in 1989, at the Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry,
Illinois on Rozetta silt loam soil with 1.5% organic matter, a pH of 6.0 and a 2 to 7% slope.
Treatments were replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. Plots were 10
by 50 ft. Tall fescue sod was approximately 10 years old. Herbicides were broadcast using flat
fan nozzle tips on May 12, beginning at 11:30 a.m. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer
was used traveling at 3 mph with 30 psi pressure to apply 25 gpa. Tall fescue was 12 inches
in height at the time of herbicide application. The total rainfall was 4.38 inches and 2.57
inches for the months of May and June respectively. Visual ratings were made on June 26.
Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date May 12
Temperature range (F)

Soil (under sod @ 4 inch) 54-64

Air 32-70

Wind (mph) 1 E

Sky (% overcast) clear

Realtive humidity range (%) 26-100

Rainfall previous week (inch) 0.15

Rainfall following week (inch) 0.06

On August 13, 1989, 2.5 ton/A of limestone, 180 lb/A P206 and 300 lb/A Kfi were
broadcast applied to the site. No tillage was used to incorporate the limestone or fertilizer. On
August 23, 'FS-299' alfalfa was seeded at a rate of 18 lb/A with a Tye drill. The original plots
were split to compare two methods of seeding: tall fescue flailed and alfalfa seeded with a drill,
and tall fescue not flailed and alfalfa seeded with a drill. Observations on the success of alfalfa
establishment are to be made at a later date. Glyphosate applied at 2 lb/A gave good control
of tall fescue. Control from the other herbicides, from most to least effective, were quizalofop,
haloxyfop, clethodim, sethoxydim and fluazifop-P with a rate response for all of them. Since
some of the rates used were relatively high, a question of economic feasibility would still need
to be addressed. Results are summarized in the table. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois,
Urbana).

73

Table. Controlling tall fescue for seeding alfalfa (Koethe, Million, Knake, Kaiser and
Raines).

Tall fescue

Treatment

Rate

control

(lb/A)

(%)

Sethoxydim 4- COC1

0.2 -1- 1

qt

70

Sethoxydim + COC

0.3 + 1

qt

75

Sethoxydim + COC

0.4 + 1

qt

80

Fluazifop-P + COC

0.2 + 1

qt

60

Fluazifop-P + COC

0.3 + 1

qt

70

Fluazifop-P + COC

0.4 + 1

qt

75

Quizalofop2 -I- COC

0.2 -1- 1

qt

90

Quizalofop + COC

0.3 + 1

qt

93

Quizalofop + COC

0.4 + 1

qt

98

Haloxyfop + COC

0.2 + 1

qt

85

Haloxyfop + COC

0.3 + 1

qt

90

Haloxyfop + COC

0.4 + 1

qt

93

Clethodim + COC

0.2 + 1

qt

80

Clethodim + COC

0.3 + 1

qt

85

Clethodim + COC

0.4 + 1

qt

90

Glyphosate

2.0

99

Check untreated

0

LSD (0.05)

4.0

1 Crop oil concentrate was an 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and
1% inert.

2 D+ isomer from DuPont.

74

Herbicide and cultivation alternatives for soybeans. Koethe, Robert W., Ellery L. Knake,
David M. Dimmick, and Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to compare
preemergence herbicide, postemergence herbicide and cultivation treatments each alone and in
various combinations. The study was established at the University of Illinois Agronomy Research
and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois, on Rozetta silty clay loam with 1.0 to 1.5%
organic matter and 1 to 2% slope. A randomized complete block design was used with three
replications. Individual plots were 10 by 50 ft. The field was in wheat the previous two years.
The field was chisel plowed in the fall of 1988 and the seedbed prepared by disking in the
spring of 1989. No fertilizer was applied. 'Pioneer 9391' soybeans were planted in 30 inch
rows at 50 lb/A to give 8 to 10 plants per foot. Preemergence herbicides were applied at 1:00
to 2:00 p.m., May 5, using a tractor mounted compressed air spray unit with flat fan nozzle tips,
30 psi pressure and 3 mph to give 25 gpa. Postemergence treatments were applied in a similiar
manner on June 13. The preemergence treatments consisted of 0.45 lb/A metribuzin and 0.045
lb/A chlorimuron plus 2.0 lb/A metolachlor. The postemergence treatments were 0.188 lb/A
sethoxydim plus 1 .0 lb/A bentazon plus 1 .0 qt/A crop oil concentrate containing 83% paraffin
base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1.0% inert. The plots for which cultivation was
designated were cultivated once. Conditions on the day of spraying were as follows:

Date
Temperature (F)

Soil ( @ 4 inch)

Air

Wind (mph)

Relative humidity % range
Rainfall previous week (inch)
Rainfall following week (inch)

May 5

June 13

53-59

67-73

48-69

59-80

15 NW

13 NW

62-100

76-100

0.12

0.5

0.04

0.02

There was only 0.21 inch of rain during the first 19 days of May but 4.17 inches for the
remainder of the month. With the relatively dry conditions, preemergence did not give good
control of giant foxtail. Control of giant foxtail with postemergence alone was only fair but was
improved with addition of preemergence and/or cultivation. For control of common
lambsquarters, treatments which included preemergence gave good control but postemergence
alone did not. Cultivation in addition to postemergence improved control of common
lambsquarters. However, where cultivation alone was used, the control of common
lambsquarters may have been due partly to suppression by the dense stand of giant foxtail not
controlled well by cultivation alone. Giant foxtail was the predominant weed species with only
a modest amount of common lambsquarters. There was some large crabgrass present,
particularly in plots not treated preemergence. The best control was achieved with a
combination of preemergence, postemergence and cultivation. Using two methods of control
generally gave fair control and only one method did not give satisfactory control. (Dept. of
Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

75

Table. Herbicide and cultivation alternatives for soybeans (Koethe, Knake, Dimmick, and
Raines).

Gift

Colq

Soybean

Treatment

- Control

Yield

(%)

(%)

(bu/A)

Pre/Post/Cult

93

100

19.2

Pre/Cult

57

100

16.9

Pre/Post

80

95

25.2

Pre

20

95

13.0

Post/Cult

87

83

13.7

Post

63

23

16.0

Cult

10

85

6.7

Check untreated

0

0

8.1

LSD (0.05)

9

10

7.0

76

Effect of fall tillage on rotation crop injury from herbicide residues. Curran, William
S. and Michael J. Mainz. The objective of this study was to determine the effect fall tillage
would have on reducing follow crop injury from herbicide residues. The study was established
in 1988 as a randomized complete block design with four replications on a mixed soil type
consisting of Muscatine silt loam and Sable silty clay loam with 4.5 to 5.5% organic matter and
a soil pH of 6.8. The study was located at the Northwestern Illinois Agronomy Research and
Demonstration Center near Monmouth. Herbicides were applied August 30 with a tractor
mounted compressed air sprayer and incorporated immediately following application.
Approximately five weeks following application, plots received one of four tillage treatments.
On May 8, 1989, all plots were disked twice and Pioneer 3377 corn and grain sorghum were
planted as bioassay species. Follow crops were evaluated for injury in the 3-leaf stage on June
2 and again at the 5 to 6 leaf stage on June 16. Results for the two evaluation times were
similar so only the evaluations made on June 2 are reported.

Date

Treatment

Sprayer

gpa
psi

Temperature (C)
air
soil

Aug 30

Soil moisture

dry

PPI

Wind (mph)
Relative

3-5

25

humidity (%)

70

30

25

23

Both corn and sorghum showed varying levels of herbicide injury depending on tillage
treatment. The moldboard plow treatment showed the least amount of injury, while chisel plow,
disk, and no-till treatments displayed similar levels of injury. These results indicate that
different tillage methods can have a profound effect on how a follow crop responds to remaining
herbicide residues.

Table. Effect of tillage on carryover injury to corn and sorghum (Curran and Mainz).

Herbicide Rate

Corn

Sorghum

(lb/A)

Clomazone 0.75

Imazaquin 0.125

Trifluralin 2.0

Check 0.0

Tillage*

NT MB CH DK LSD

(% injury)-— (0.05)

11 4 10 10 7.2

39 6 44 47 10.4

11 1 12 16 6.0
0 0 0 0

NT

MB

CH

DK

LSD

-r% i

Injury) --

(0.05)

12

2

2

13

10.3

20

0

10

12

3.0

47

2

61

72

17.2

0

0

0

0

LSD (0.05)

12.8 12.1 7.4 7.7

10.7 3.4 12.6 15.4

NT = No-till, MB = Moldboard plow, CH = Chisel plow, DK = Disk.

77

Effect of cover crops and herbicides on weed control in corn and soybean.
Gray, Susan G., William S. Curran , and Michael J. Mainz. Wheat, oat, and rye
cover crops were evaluated for weed suppression properties in corn and soybean at
the Northwestern Illinois Agronomy Research Center. The study was established
on a Muscatine silt loam with a 4.5% organic matter. The field was planted half
to corn and half to soybean in 1988 and was planted back to the same respective
crops in 1989. Samples taken at the end of the 1988 season indicated a pH of 7.0
for the soybean portion of the field and 6.5 for the corn portion. No phosphorus
or potassium was applied as soils were above recommended levels. Two hundred
lb/A nitrogen in a 32% UAN solution were sidedressed into the corn four weeks
after planting. The field was divided into the three different cover crops for
both corn and soybean, with the wheat and rye established in the fall of 1988
and the oat cover established in the spring of 1989. Each of these thirds was
further divided into ten different treatments with three replications each, ar-
ranged in a randomized split block design.

The preemergence and knockdown treatments were applied and the corn and soy-
bean were planted on May 8, 1989. The heights of the oat, wheat, and rye at
treatment time were 6, 15, and 20 inches, respectively. Herbicides were broad-
cast in 20 gal/A water with a tractor mounted sprayer running at 3 mph with 25
p.s.i. Appropriate plots were disked or mowed on the same day, prior to planting
Corn plots were planted to Pioneer 3732 at 26,000 kernels/A and soybean plots
were planted to 140,000 seeds/A of Elgin 87 seed. Both crops were planted in 30
inch rows. Terbufos insecticide was applied at planting to corn for corn root-
worm control. There was no precipitation for at least 12 hours following the
application of herbicides. The soil was moist on the day of the treatments and
received 0.64 inches the day following. May rainfall totaled 2.68 inches; June's
total was 4.69 inches. Chlorpyrifos was broadcast over both corn and soybean
plots on July 2 for grasshopper control.

Late mowing treatments were completed eleven days following planting. Post-
emergence treatments were applied on June 2, 1989, 25 days after planting, with a
CO2 backpack sprayer. A 0.08 inch rainfall was received two days following the
postemergence application. Treatments and rates for the ten mulch-management
methods used for corn and soybean are included in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Visual estimates were made for percent control of the cover crop on June 2
and again on June 22. Weed control was evaluated on June 22 for both the corn
and soybean plots with additional ratings made for weed control in wheat and rye
covers for corn on August 14, 1989. Corn plots were harvested on September 19,
and the soybean plots were harvested on October 15, 1989. Results of visual es-
timates and yields are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

In both corn and soybean, treatments that controlled the mulch well generally
controlled the weeds also. The treatments providing best season-long control in
corn included atrazine or metolachlor, or both. In soybean, similar results were
achieved with metolachlor + metribuzin & chlorimuron and glyphosate followed by
postemergence treatments of bentazon + sethoxydim. Highest corn yields were
achieved in treatments where both early cover control and late weed control were
successful. Where the oat cover was controlled in corn, yields were higher than
in wheat or rye covers, probably due to the shorter height of the oat mulch.
While soybean yields were highest where both cover and weeds were successfully
controlled, successful cover control by glyphosate alone or disking also produced
good yields. There were fewer differences in yield results across the three
covers with the soybean than the corn, with the soybean appearing to compete
more successfully with the cover. (Dept . of Agronomy, University of Illinois,
Urbana. )

78

N

C

TJ

C

m

c
ro
L

L

ro
u
O

8

c

o
u

c

8
?

TJ

c
ro

a
o

Li

cj

u

c
o

en

c

4->

ro
u

4->

CD
TJ

X)

(1)
o

u

TJ

iH

0

o
>.

ex

re

o

3

o
u

c

8

TJ

I

CO

CN

-o

cn

ro

\

O

<D

u

>

8

14-1

o

o

Li
4J

c
o
u

o

ex

3

~H. CD

q,tj
a o
< u

0)

4-)

ro
ex

L C

«

cni

CO

lo
r^

m

fe °

O

r-

m

CO

in

CO

r-

in

CO

0

o
u

m

in

(Nl

o

(Nl

ro

in
r-»

o
o

OJ

CO

e'-
en

o
r-

o
o

CO

cn

o
cn

ro
cn

r>

cn

o
cn

o

CO

o

cn

CO

in

Cn

<d
cn

in

O O

t •

(N CN

cn

c

• .-4

M
ro
Li

4_>
<

Li

o
o

ro
<-t
O

O

in

O
in

CO

00
CN

O
O

0 <u

0)

Li L,

Li

Cu Cu

a.

in

o
cn

ro

cn
cn

ro

50

ID
CO

S

o
in

CM
ID

ro

cn

o

ro

CO

<D

XT

O

CN

(0

r-

o

vo

CN

o
in

cn

ro
iD

O
cn

ro
iD

O

o

*"*

ro
iD

o
o

CO

r-

in
cn

ro
in

o

cn

ro
CO

CO

cn

CO

CO

cn

CO

cn

CO

cn

CN

r-

o

cn

ro

CN

4-> 4J JJ

o w w w

u o o o

cu cu Cl Cu

in in

c
o

N
CO

c

CD

C
• — i

Li

rj

o
u

o

CN

ro
ro

o
o

CN

CO

in

ro

(D

O

o

r-t

CO

in

(N

ro
ro

O
O

•— 1

in

CO

ID

ro
ro

o
o

o

CO

CN

CO

cn

r>

o

CN

o

o
o

•— i

r>

O

CO

CN

CO

cn

CO

o

ID

CN

CO

cn

CO
ID

ro

ro
ro

<N

ro

CO

CO
CO

co

CN
CO

r>

CN
ID

Li

a.

in

CD

4->

ro
W
O

o

m

ro

ro
ro

CN

CN

in

r>
ro

CN

vD

CD CD
u u

Cu Cu

in in

■ t

o o

ro

ro r-

Lt r-

n i

Cu x

vO

CN

cn

CN

cn

o
cn

ro

CO

cn

in
cn

o

CO

CO

Li l,
Cw CU

in

r- o

t •

O (N

ro (1)

w c

o •- 1

•S N

O <

CN

ro

CO

in

CN

cn

VD

cn

in

CO

in
cn

CO

in

Li CO

CU rH

in

t

o

ai

ro
W

&r,
00

O

o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

cn

in
cn

o
o

<N

cn

o

CO

in

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

5

CO

. cn

O
O

O

o

ro

cn

ro
cn

in
cn

CO

8

ID

cn

o

cn

CM

cn

id w w

L| O O

Cu Cu CU

in

r» in in

• • •

o -t o

OJ CU QJ
Li Li U
Cu Cu CU

in

r- o o

• • •

O CN CN

0)

4->

ro
W
O

CN

c
•a

N

ro 'O

0)
jj
ro
to
O

Li

&2

•H 4-)
O <

Li
O

•H

■6

ro
0

4J

CN

cn

CM

CO

ro

CN

O
CN

in

XT
CM

cn

CO

CO

CM
CM

O

CO

cn

CM

in
o

a

J3

4->

ro

o

in

ro
1

a
ro

C

ro

-L>

U
ro

(0

c
o

•H

c
o

c

ro

w

r*

4J

ro
"8

a

a

ro

5

•

rd

c

Li

•H

-0

JJ

C

c

8

ro

r-4

c

a

8

Li

a)

rH

■p

•H

lM

o

ro

a

w

o

>n

Li

ro

0

•o

TJ

t-H

ro

t-t

Li

TJ

A

0)

4->

5"

OJ

u,

f-i

in

i

•H

o

0

ro

79

M

C

73
C
(0

c
to
u
u

>1
n
u
O

c
ro

&

>,
o

O

u

c

8

•o

o

a
o

u

Li
>

8

c
o

w

Jj
c

i

fl
ai

Ul

ij

0)

w

o

8

(M

o

T3

•—(

O
• *-<

CM

cm

id

CD

o

U/

c
o
o

I

3
XI

8

U-l

O

o

u

c
O

u

a o
< u

o
ro

n:
O

Ui

E-

aJ •

u, O
H c

**

^

o

(Nl

(—1

o

CNI

in
in

CO

r-

m

in

o

co

in
<D

(Nl
CO

ID

n

o
o

cn

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

CO

CO

cm

CM
CO

CO
CO

<N)
C7>

o

V —

ro

CO

t-4

en

m

in

in
n

—1
1— i

in

ro

CO

m

(N

CM

•—1

.— i

o
n

ro

en

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

in

o

in

ro

CO
(Nl

a o

Ui u

0. CU CU

<r ro

o m o

(Nl o o

o
u

cu

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

CO

CO
CM

CM

m

(Nl

o

JJ 4-> 4J

o w w to

Ui o o o

I—. "— i ■ Um U— 4

in
m cm

d d

r^
in

o
o

ID

CO

en

CM
CO

CO

en

X

Ui

c

8

o

c

0

r-i

-*4

Ul

r™

C

M

3

ti

V

3

E

^--

CO

.a

•^H

-H

-■H

Ul

^

.*

o

u

0

w

w

Jj

iJ

—i

c
o

M

a
o

li-l

_1

c

03

0 .C

3 W

q^c 2 z&za 3

en

CO

ro

in

o

Ul

cu

in

o
■p

rcJ

V)
O

I

O

co

en

en

en

O
O

csj
en

en

(Nl
(NJ

IT)

en

CM

in

en

o

i— i

— • (Nl

CO

in

co

in

CM

o

in

u ui

a. a.

m
o

cu x

ID

in

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

en

n

co

CM

ID

co

Ui

a.

in

Ul

Cu

NT

n
o

o o o

c
0) c o

fl fJ 3
W 3 E

o ,a •-<

JT -rH Ul

a ui o

326

en

co
en

en

o
O

O
o

co
en

in

co

en

o
co

en
co

m
in

0)
Ui ro

a. h

in
o

o
o

1°,

3S

CO

r-
cn

o

O

o
o

CO

en

co
en

en

CM

en

en
en

in
co

CM

co

co
id

J 4J J

0) w w w

Ui o o o

Cu cu Cu Cu

in in co

• • •

o o o

o
o

o
o

o
o

CO

en

o
o

o
o

CO
CO

CM
CO

CM

in

co

in
co

a o o o

Ui Ul Ui U|

CU Cu CU CU

in vt m

r** O n o

■ • • •

O CM O O

a

a

f0

4-J

CM

§

m

*j

0

ro

*u

nT

y

W

0

1-1

c

CM

0

m

•H
1

1

c

o

n

c

rO

CO

t4

in ■.

r*

vi'

'.*

ID

NT
CM

CO

CO

CM

CJ E

ui c
cu o c o

„_^

■P -m

4J —( -rH Ul

m

(OCX)

(Ofi N 3

o

w o >,
O M X

W U 3 E

•

O fl ^ -H

o

£ (3 O

£ H-h U

a jj x: x:

a o ui o

a

h u g a

3226

3

en

in

4->

ro

"8

4J

ro

•p Di
V C

^« 4J

SS

rO •-!

a
§u

■H CD

ro u-i
Ui ro

Ui

8

w

u >,

ro

•O

03 -O
CD

&••¥

^3 CD
£§<

58

3
ro

•H u

x:

« >

80

Effect of herbicide combinations on rotational corn. Curran, William S. and Ellery L.
Knake. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of soybean herbicides applied
alone and in combination with other herbicides on corn planted in rotation. The study was
established in 1988 as a randomized complete block design with four replications. The study
was initiated near Urbana on a Drummer silty clay loam with 6.0% organic matter and soil pH
of 6.3. Soybean herbicides were applied on May 6, 1988 using a tractor mounted compressed
air sprayer and all treatments were incorporated with a combination tool immediately following
application. Herbicides were applied at 2 to 3 times the average use rate in order to promote
a carryover situation. Soybeans were grown in 1988 and maintained weed-free. Rainfall was
approximately 40 percent of normal precipitation for the 1988 growing season. In 1989,
Pioneer 3377 corn was planted no-till in the soybean stubble. Fertility levels prior to corn
planting were P2 = 63, K test = 352, and N was applied at 189 lb/A. A combination of
alachlor at 3.0 lb/A plus 2.0 lb/A atrazine was broadcast over the entire plot areas for annual
weed control and plots were maintained weed-free for the duration of the season. Corn was
evaluated on June 7 at the 4 leaf stage and again on July 28 just following tassel emergence.
Plant populations were taken on June 30 and corn was harvested for grain on October 12.

Date May 6

Treatment PPI
Sprayer

gpa 25

psi 30
Temperature (C)

air 25

soil 23

Soil moisture dry

Wind (mph) , 3-5

Relative

humidity (%) 70

The levels of corn injury were greater than anticipated because of decreased degradation
rates due to the unusually dry summer the year of herbicide application. In most instances,
injury levels were greater when two products were combined in comparison to either herbicide
component alone. Both clomazone and imazaquin carryover were severe and the combination
of the two herbicides caused the greatest amount of injury and largest yield reduction. Corn
injury from imazethapyr was irtinimal although a slight reduction in yield was observed.
Chlorimuron plus metribuzin and trifluralin along with combinations of trifluralin plus
chlorimuron plus metribuzin caused the least amount of corn injury. These data suggest that
greater caution should be used when selecting two or more herbicides that can carry over and
injure a sensitive follow crop. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).

81

Table. Effect of herbicide combinations on corn grown in rotation
(Curran and Knake) .

Treatment

Rate

% Inji

jry

Pop1

Grain

(lb/A)

early

late

pl/lOft

(bu/A)

Trifluralin

2.0

6

0

15

182.7

Imazaquin

0.25

22

12

15

159.2

Imazethapyr

0.188

4

1

15

176.7

Chlorimuron +

0.086

4

0

14

205.7

Metribuzin

0.91

Clomazone

2.0

32

5

12

159.0

Trifluralin +

2.0

30

15

15

152.0

Imazaquin

0.25

Trifluralin +

2.0

16

1

14

186.5

Imazethapyr

0.188

Trifluralin +

2.0

4

0

15

193.7

Chlorimuron +

0.086

Metribuzin

0.91

Triflural in +

2.0

31

2

11

165.7

Clomazone

2.0

Clomazone +

2.0

40

15

11

147.0

Imazaquin

0.25

Clomazone +

2.0

37

10

11

167.0

Imazethapyr

0.188

Clomazone +

2.0

36

10

13

167.0

Chlorimuron +

0.086

Metribuzin

0.91

Alachlor +

2.5

0

0

14

198.7

Metribuzin

0.38

LSD (0.05)

11.3

9.7

3

26.1

'pop = population

82

The effects of reduced weed control inputs on corn and soybean yields. Pike, David R., Michael
Mainz, and Lyle E. Paul. The objective of this experiment is to evaluate the impact of reduced weed
control inputs, such as primary tillage, row cultivation, and herbicides, on the yields of corn and
soybeans. The experiment was designed to determine the impact of implementation of these practices
over a number of years in a conventional crop rotation. The results of the first year of this study are
reported here.

The study was established in 1989 at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb
and at the Northwest Illinois Agronomy Research Center near Monmouth. The soil at DeKalb is a
Flannagan silt loam with 4.5 percent organic matter. The soil at Monmouth is a Tama silt loam with
3 percent organic matter. A split plot design with four replications was used with the main plots
being tillage and subplot factors being herbicide applications and row cultivation. Tillage treatments
were no-tillage, a single pass with disk (minimum till), and a two pass treatment with a disk
(conventional till). Herbicide treatments consisted of conventional preemergence, and two total
postemergence treatments, the components of one of which was selected for marginal effect on the
weeds and low cost. Herbicide and tillage plots were further subdivided with one-half of the area
being cultivated.

Plot size was 15 x 50 ft at the DeKalb location and 10 x 50 ft at the Monmouth location. Both
fields were in a high state of fertility at the beginning of the test. Approximately five weeks after
the corn was planted 180 lbs. /A of nitrogen was injected in the form of anhydrous ammonia. Plots
were cultivated on 10 June at the DeKalb location and on 13 June at the Monmouth location. Giant
foxtail was very dense in the corn and soybean test areas at the DeKalb location, however, at the
Monmouth location giant foxtail was sparse in the corn test area and moderate in the soybean test
area. Broadleaf weeds were moderate to sparse in all test areas.

DeKalb

Monmouth

Planted

4 May 89

1 1 May 89

Pre applied

10 May 89

16 May 89

Time

11 a.m.

1 p.m.

Temperature (F)

62

75

Wind direction

N

E

Wind speed

15 mph

0-5 mph

Spray pressure

30 PSI

30 PSI

Spray volume

25 GPA

25 GPA

Post applied

7 Jun 89

2 Jun 89

Time

11 a.m.

2 p.m.

Temperature (F)

74

75

Wind direction

S

NW

Wind speed

10-12 mph

5 mph

Spray pressure

30 PSI

30 PSI

Spray volume

25 GPA

25 GPA

Weeds

Gift 3-6 inches

Gift 2-2.5 inches

Vele 2-3 inches

Vele 1-1.5 inches

Rrpw 2-3 inches

Rrpw 1-1.5 inches

Treatments

Corn

Soybeans

Preemergence

atrazine 1 .0 lb/ A

metribuzin

0.45 lb/A

cyanazine 3.0 lb/A

chlorimuron

0.045 lb/A

metolachlor 2.5 lb/A

Postemergence

s atrazine 1 .5 lb/A

bentazon

1.0 lb/ A

tridiphane 0.5 lb/A

sethoxydim

0.19 lb/A

COC

2 pts

acifluorfen
Dash

0.5 lb/A
2 pts

Postemergence

i atrazine 1.0 lb/A

bentazon

1.0 lb/ A

(minimal)

COC

2 pts

sethoxydim
acifluorfen
Dash

0.19 lb/ A
0.25 lb/A
2 pts

S3

Dry weather and soils at the Monmouth location significantly reduced corn yields compared to
those from the DeKalb location. Late season rains at the Monmouth location, however, did result
in adequate soybean yields overall. Dry weather from the 1988 season caused some fluctuation in
indigenous weed populations in adjacent plots at the DeKalb location due to carryover from
herbicides. Weed control ratings were recorded 7 weeks after planting with 0 to 8 plants per square
foot noted (mostly giant foxtail, velvetleaf).

Tillage had little effect on corn yields at either location, whereas no-till at the Monmouth location
resulted in an increase in soybean yield. The minimum till treatment at DeKalb also resulted in
greater yields than either the conventional or no-till treatments. The preemergence herbicide
treatment on corn at the DeKalb location and on soybeans at the Monmouth location resulted in
greater yields than those of the postemergence treatments. Cultivation improved yields of corn at the
DeKalb location and of soybeans at both locations.

Interactions were not significant in the analysis of crop yields. Because all areas were treated the
percent control data were based on percent of population reduction from the maximum population
density found within the experimental area.

Table The effects of reduced weed control inputs on corn and soybean yields (Pike, Mainz, and
Paul).

Corn Soybeans

DeKalb

Monmouth

DeKalb

Monmouth

(bu/A)-

Tillage

Conventional

150.2

108.8

35.7

43.5

Minimum

155.9

103.6

40.3

43.7

No-till

147.0

108.8

33.9

48.7

LSD (0.05)

ns

ns

4.5

2.9

Herbicide

Preemergence

158.6

104.4

38.6

47.2

Postemergence

149.1

108.8

35.2

45.1

Minimal Post

145.4

108.0

36.2

43.6

LSD (0.05)

12.6

ns

ns

2.4

Cultivation

Cultivated

158.7

108.7

41.1

46.6

Not cultivated

143.3

105.4

32.2

44.0

LSD (0.05)

10.3

ns

3.7

2.4

84

Table The effects of reduced weed control inputs on weed control in corn and soybeans (Pike,
Mainz, and Paul).

Corn

Sovbeans

DeKalb

Monmouth

DeKalb

Monmouth

GIFT

VELE

GIFT

VELE

GIFT

VELE

GIFT

VELE

-(% COl

itrnl^

Tillage

Conventional

47

60

99

99

45

48

66

67

Minimum

63

72

99

99

93

58

97

86

No-till

52

91

99

99

64

52

99

99

LSD (0.05)

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

38

13

Herbicide

Preemergence

92

80

99

99

49

32

99

99

Postemergence

49

94

99

99

71

50

75

83

Minimal Post

30

50

99

99

82

76

87

69

LSD (0.05)

30

30

ns

ns

ns

11

ns

13

Cultivation

Cultivated

69

92

99

99

78

70

92

86

Not cultivated

38

67

99

99

56

35

82

82

LSD (0.05)

24

ns

ns

ns

ns

31

ns

ns

85

APPENDIX

WEATHER CONDITIONS - 1989

86

NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB

APRIL - 1989

Soil

Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Average

Inches

1

22

42

36

44

95

0.01

2

38

46

41

47

99

0.02

3

32

50

42

48

100

0.01

4

32

54

42

50

95

0.0

5

29

46

41

47

90

0.0

6

29

54

38

51

79

0.02

7

27

45

40

48

87

T

8

24

44

40

48

82

T

9

18

32

37

44

76

0.0

10

15

37

35

43

75

0.0

11

22

49

36

44

71

0.0

12

25

49

39

51

65

0.0

13

21

56

37

52

59

0.0

14

41

62

42

51

56

0.0

15

32

62

41

56

50

0.0

16

30

72

43

52

71

0.04

17

30

56

45

53

94

0.08

18

30

51

43

51

95

0.13

19

31

62

41

57

64

0.0

20

36

70

44

55

63

0.0

21

42

73

48

59

76

0.0

22

42

58

48

54

11

0.0

23

44

69

47

58

51

0.0

24

43

81

48

60

55

0.0

25

57

87

53

67

11

0.0

26

48

83

55

68

82

0.05

27

46

76

55

65

85

0.0

28

44

54

53

60

98

0.55

29

42

62

52

61

94

0.0

30

34

60

49

62

78

0.0

87

NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB

MAY - 1989

Soil

Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Average

Inches

1

36

56

50

57

87

0.06

2

37

53

48

57

92

0.10

3

35

65

47

62

71

0.02

4

41

66

50

55

86

0.12

5

33

56

50

59

70

0.01

6

25

38

46

52

79

T

7

25

58

43

59

76

0.0

8

35

64

47

56

76

0.05

9

41

65

48

58

60

0.04

10

36

68

47

60

42

0.0

11

31

67

47

61

45

0.0

12

31

70

48

62

47

0.0

13

42

65

53

62

73

0.0

14

38

66

52

60

80

0.0

15

45

73

52

65

73

0.0

16

43

80

54

69

66

0.0

17

45

83

55

69

56

0.0

18

55

78

58

64

75

0.05

19

58

68

59

65

97

0.32

20

52

74

59

69

63

0.0

21

48

80

56

71

54

0.0

22

47

76

57

68

70

0.0

23

50

83

58

74

64

0.0

24

60

91

62

74

78

0.90

25

60

72

64

72

97

0.07

26

65

65

62

74

76

0.02

27

39

67

60

74

65

0.0

28

69

69

59

69

63

0.0

29

52

86

61

74

89

0.06

30

64

89

65

75

81

0.0

31

63

82

67

74

94

1.52

88

NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB

JUNE - 1989

Soil '

remp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Average

Inches '

1

60

69

66

72

99

0.58

2

53

77

64

77

84

0.0

3

53

66

65

72

98

0.45

4

44

74

62

75

76

0.01

5

53

78

65

77

76

0.0

6

64

85

66

76

64

0.0

7

59

85

66

76

61

0.0

8

59

84

67

76

75

0.0

9

52

57

64

71

89

T

10

51

75

62

75

70

0.0

11

44

74

63

71

69

0.0

12

58

70

65

69

99

0.62

13

58

72

65

73

88

0.0

14

54

70

65

74

84

0.0

15

48

53

61

68

97

T

16

49

67

60

69

82

0.0

17

52

80

61

72

67

0.0

18

60

81

64

75

81

T

19

61

86

66

78

80

T

20

57

82

67

80

80

0.02

21

60

86

68

80

78

0.01

22

68

89

70

81

73

0.0

23

66

86

71

84

83

0.0

24

61

87

71

84

75

0.0

25

59

88

71

84

74

0.0

26

68

91

73

83

89

0.21

27

65

80

73

81

95

0.02

28

50

81

70

83

77

0.0

29

45

78

66

81

80

0.0

30

49

82

66

83

77

0.0

89

NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER

APRIL - 1989

MONMOUTH

Soil'

Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

Inches

1

25

44

39

45

56

96

0.0

2

35

55

39

43

58

97

O.01

3

44

50

43

45

78

98

0.14

4

41

53

45

46

84

100

0.30

5

34

47

42

45

69

93

0.01

6

32

53

42

46

48

92

0.0

7

29

56

40

48

48

92

0.01

8

32

50

41

47

45

100

0.61

9

23

43

38

42

55

94

T

10

25

40

38

41

53

90

0.0

11

26

42

37

42

51

86

0.0

12

32

53

37

46

47

88

0.0

13

24

51

37

46

45

84

0.0

14

37

59

38

47

46

74

0.0

15

37

65

43

48

39

74

T

16

40

61

42

51

39

74

0.0

17

51

78

44

51

46

89

T

18

40

56

48

51

67

100

0.03

19

32

54

44

49

63

100

0.14

20

39

63

44

54

43

81

0.0

21

49

69

47

51

43

76

0.0

22

43

79

49

57

49

97

0.0

23

49

59

51

52

78

100

1.29

24

51

68

52

56

69

94

0.01

25

56

77

53

60

61

94

0.0

26

58

85

59

66

57

94

0.0

27

55

80

61

66

56

96

0.49

28

52

81

60

67

61

99

0.40

29

51

70

60

65

70

94

0.0

30

35

59

54

61

56

96

0.0

90

NORTHEWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - MONMOUTH

MAY - 1989

Soil Temp F

Date Air Temp F

Min. Max.

4" bare soil

Min.

Max.

54

62

50

55

50

56

50

59

52

54

49

56

47

49

46

57

50

55

51

57

51

59

52

59

51

62

62

55

54

64

57

64

58

66

59

65

60

63

60

66

60

67

60

65

58

62

57

66

63

68

61

71

60

68

59

70

60

61

68

59

64

72

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Inches

52

80

0.0

76

95

0.33

48

93

0.0

47

79

0.0

66

95

0.04

44

87

0.03

58

92

0.02

53

86

0.0

48

95

0.64

45

92

0.0

40

70

0.0

43

87

0.0

39

89

0.0

54

95

0.0

46

85

0.0

49

92

0.0

43

87

0.0

47

98

0.25

63

89

0.06

72

96

0.30

35

86

0.0

39

88

0.02

66

93

T

47

92

0.14

56

95

0.24

71

95

0.29

47

87

0.0

39

87

0.0

79

94

0.31

60

86

0.01

54

86

0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

43

60

34

46

36

57

48

63

47

63

31

57

30

42

37

60

46

69

38

63

39

67

38

67

42

69

43

69

50

70

51

76

56

80

57

80

59

78

59

71

64

76

57

78

46

68

60

79

60

85

54

68

44

69

47

70

49

65

59

87

71

90

91

NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - MONMOUTH

JUNE - 1989

Date Air Temp F

Min. Max.

Soil Temp F

4" bare soil

Min.

Max.

68

71

65

71

65

73

65

71

65

72

66

74

66

73

66

72

64

71

62

69

62

72

64

67

65

70

65

73

65

71

60

65

60

70

63

70

66

71

67

75

68

77

69

76

70

77

71

78

71

80

71

80

72

78

72

78

70

80

70

79

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Inches

77

96

1.56

63

92

0.02

47

91

0.09

62

90

0.08

48

70

0.0

43

89

0.0

44

90

0.0

46

91

0.0

57

96

0.03

57

94

0.01

52

79

0.0

69

93

2.25

69

92

0.53

53

91

0.01

58

92

0.0

62

94

0.0

43

88

0.0

44

90

T

69

70

T

47

91

0.0

47

91

0.0

53

92

0.0

52

93

0.0

60

91

0.0

46

85

0.0

56

93

0.0

56

93

0.11

62

91

T

43

89

0.0

48

93

0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

65

80

54

73

62

80

54

75

58

74

58

79

55

83

59

84

50

70

44

66

58

74

61

70

56

78

57

74

53

68

43

61

52

73

63

80

59

70

58

85

64

85

65

87

64

90

59

81

61

86

68

90

62

89

64

81

52

85

56

79

92

ORR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER - PERRY

APRIL - 1989

Date Air Temp F

Min. Max.

Soil Temp F

4" bare soil

Min.

Max.

43

46

42

47

47

48

47

48

45

47

43

48

44

49

44

49

42

46

40

43

38

45

39

46

42

48

42

51

45

51

47

54

48

55

52

57

49

54

47

57

50

54

51

60

54

58

55

61

56

64

60

66

62

69

63

71

64

70

58

66

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Inches

33

100

0.0

28

100

0.03

100

100

0.91

86

100

0.57

54

98

0.0

25

100

0.0

26

100

0.0

26

100

0.12

44

98

0.01

31

94

0.01

26

74

0.0

20

72

0.0

24

100

0.0

22

62

0.0

34

100

0.07

18

92

0.0

28

70

0.0

58

100

0.14

74

100

0.12

26

100

0.0

33

74

0.0

38

100

0.0

46

100

0.18

66

100

0.0

48

100

0.0

52

100

0.0

50

100

0.33

72

100

0.0

80

100

0.01

56

100

0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

24

50

41

63

45

50

41

51

36

51

34

54

33

58

33

52

21

43

23

43

24

45

34

55

23

53

29

62

39

70

38

64

38

80

44

69

35

56

35

65

50

68

44

80

56

74

55

73

57

87

63

88

58

89

57

83

50

77

35

63

93

ORR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER - PERRY

MAY - 1989

Date Air Temp F

Min. Max.

Soil Temp F

4" bare soil

Min.

Max.

58

65

53

59

52

58

53

62

55

59

53

60

51

53

50

60

53

55

53

60

52

63

54

64

54

65

55

63

58

65

56

65

58

67

60

65

61

65

63

66

62

70

61

65

58

62

58

70

64

68

62

66

60

65

59

67

60

62

59

69

66

72

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Inches

44

100

0.0

68

100

0.0

38

100

0.0

38

96

0.0

62

100

0.11

36

100

0.01

52

100

0.0

34

100

0.0

62

100

0.03

46

98

0.0

28

76

0.0

26

100

0.0

22

100

0.0

30

100

0.0

38

100

0.0

36

100

0.0

46

100

0.0

62

100

0.01

100

100

0.05

24

100

0.37

28

100

0.0

28

100

0.02

100

100

0.95

56

100

0.0

70

100

0.23

100

100

1.80

48

100

0.0

38

100

0.0

72

100

0.80

58

100

0.0

56

100

0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

39

66

35

55

39

59

47

67

48

69

33

61

28

43

29

64

46

64

36

62

35

70

32

70

38

73

45

74

39

71

45

76

48

82

60

78

61

82

60

72

44

78

50

79

45

64

57

79

61

83

51

66

43

71

43

71

52

67

66

89

72

88

94

ORR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER - PERRY

JUNE - 1989

Date Air Temp F

Min. Max.

Soil Temp F

4" bare soil

Min.

Max.

68

74

67

71

66

75

65

75

67

72

68

75

68

75

68

74

68

74

66

70

66

72

68

70

67

73

68

73

67

71

63

67

62

70

64

80

67

73

68

76

69

77

70

76

71

78

72

79

72

80

74

81

74

81

74

78

72

81

72

80

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Inches

76

100

0.0

84

100

0.01

44

100

0.69

44

100

0.02

64

100

0.0

40

100

0.0

42

100

0.0

44

100

0.0

48

100

0.0

64

100

0.0

56

100

0.04

72

100

0.46

76

100

0.01

42

100

0.0

54

100

0.0

76

100

0.01

40

100

0.0

48

100

0.01

62

100

0.0

50

100

0.0

44

100

0.0

56

100

0.0

48

100

0.0

62

100

0.0

54

100

0.0

56

100

0.0

62

100

1.32

62

100

0.0

54

100

0.0

44

100

0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

68

87

56

75

62

81

55

76

56

74

58

79

52

82

55

82

50

82

46

68

57

76

64

75

59

80

55

75

72

50

42

62

52

75

60

79

59

81

65

86

57

87

65

88

64

91

60

86

62

90

68

92

63

92

63

81

55

86

55

80

95

AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER

- URBANA

APRIL -

1989

Soil Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Average

Min.

Max.

Inches

1

24

46

42

66

100

0.0

2

45

52

45

66

100

0.19

3

45

52

45

62

100

1.45

4

41

52

47

100

100

0.34

5

34

58

47

60

100

0.01

6

27

49

44

68

100

0.12

7

33

55

47

70

100

0.06

8

29

50

45

40

100

0.54

9

25

48

41

60

100

0.03

10

22

42

39

52

100

0.0

11

25

41

40

48

100

0.0

12

29

50

41

44

100

0.0

13

29

54

45

44

100

0.0

14

33

55

49

40

100

0.0

15

43

68

50

40

100

0.26

16

36

66

53

34

100

0.0

17

56

72

56

44

80

0.0

18

39

71

54

60

100

0.01

19

31

48

47

90

100

0.20

20

37

62

52

46

100

0.0

21

40

68

55

40

100

0.0

22

50

74

60

44

100

0.0

23

43

73

59

48

100

0.13

24

47

71

59

62

86

0.0

25

54

81

64

64

100

0.0

26

56

83

67

74

100

0.0

27

44

84

71

50

100

0.29

28

58

83

71

56

100

1.08

29

54

76

65

66

100

0.92

30

39

69

62

58

100

0.0

96

AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER

- URBANA

MAY-

1989

Soil Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humidity %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Average

Min.

Max.

Inches

1

46

63

57

56

100

0.0

2

41

64

58

56

100

0.0

3

38

56

54

48

100

0.0

4

43

65

59

34

88

0.0

5

49

58

55

58

100

0.23

6

23

62

55

88

100

0.05

7

17

62

48

60

100

0.0

8

38

54

53

44

100

0.0

9

49

66

55

42

100

0.99

10

40

57

51

52

100

0.04

11

39

63

50

40

82

0.0

12

41

64

54

30

56

0.0

13

40

68

57

32

100

0.01

14

43

65

59

58

100

0.0

15

45

64

58

48

100

0.0

16

48

66

58

52

100

0.0

17

52

78

64

34

90

0.0

18

54

78

67

42

100

0.01

19

63

78

64

60

100

0.26

20

59

72

63

34

100

1.24

21

48

76

64

34

100

0.0

22

57

78

65

40

92

0.08

23

51

78

60

76

100

0.41

24

58

78

64

42

100

0.0

25

61

85

67

74

100

0.32

26

59

74

66

82

100

2.04

27

50

75

67

46

80

0.0

28

41

69

67

40

100

0.0

29

54

50

67

52

100

0.0

30

69

41

70

70

100

0.0

31

71

54

75

54

100

0.0

97

AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER

- URBANA

JUNE -

1989

Soil Temp F

Date

Air Temp F

4" bare soil

Humiditv %

Precipitation

Min.

Max.

Average

Min.

Max.

Inches

1

76

88

77

46

100

0.0

2

60

84

75

40

100

0.09

3

62

83

77

38

100

0.0

4

53

84

72

62

100

0.81

5

59

73

70

50

100

0.05

6

59

78

71

42

100

0.0

7

59

84

74

36

100

0.0

8

62

86

77

40

100

0.0

9

59

84

78

38

100

0.0

10

50

72

76

54

84

0.0

11

59

78

77

46

78

0.0

12

64

80

76

50

100

0.09

13

65

83

74

62

100

0.0

14

61

78

77

40

100

0.0

15

57

79

76

48

100

0.0

16

52

69

71

66

100

0.0

17

—

—

70

~

™

—

18

—

—

70

—

.__

_._

19

60

84

70

56

100

0.24

20

65

87

76

48

100

0.0

21

65

86

79

46

100

0.0

22

66

90

80

38

100

0.0

23

69

94

82

40

100

0.0

24

68

91

80

64

100

1.50

25

66

90

79

50

100

0.0

26

71

92

84

50

100

0.0

27

66

91

83

54

100

1.80

28

65

84

81

66

100

0.0

29

52

84

78

42

100

0.0

30

54

80

77

46

100

0.0

98

\

HERBICIDE TERMINOLOGY FOR 1989

Common Name or

Code Name

Trade Name

Company

Acetochlor & safener

ICI-5676

ICI

Acifluorfen

Blazer, Tackle

BASF, Rhone-Poulenc

Acifluorfen & bentazon

Galaxy, Storm

BASF

Alachlor

Lasso

Monsanto

Alachlor & atrazine

Lariat

Monsnato

Alachlor & trifluralin

Cannon

Monsanto

Alachlor MT & atrazine

Bullet

Monsanto

Atrazine

AAtrex

CIBA-Geigy

Bentazon

Basagran

BASF

Bentazon & atrazine

Laddok

BASF

Bromoxynil

Buctril

Rhone-Poulenc

Butylate & atrazine

Sutazine

ICI

Butylate & dichlormid

Sutan+

ICI

Chloramben

Amiben

Rhone-Poulenc

Chlorimuron

Classic

DuPont

CGA-180937

Metolachlor & CGA-1 54281

CIBA-Geigy

CGA-136872

Beacon

CIBA-Giegy

Clethodim

Select

Valent

Clomazone

Command

FMC

Clomazone & trifluralin

Commence

Elanco, FMC

Clopyralid(XRM-3972)

Stinger

Dow

Clopyralid & 2,4-D

Curtail

Dow

Cyanazine

Bladex

DuPont

Cyanazine & atrazine 3:1

Extrazine II

DuPont

2,4-D butoxyethyl ester

Weedone LV4

Rhone-Poulenc

2,4-DB

Butyrac 200

Rhone-Poulenc

Dicamba

Banvel

Sandoz

Dicamba & atrazine

Marksman

Sandoz

Diquat

Diquat

Valent

DPX-M6316

Pinnacle

DuPont

DPX-V9360

Accent

DuPont

DPX-Y6202-38 (D+ isomer)

Assure

DuPont

EPTC

Eptam

ICI

EPTC & dichlormid

Eradicane

ICI

EPTC & dichlormid & dietholate

Eradicane Extra

ICI

Ethalfluralin

Sonalan

Elanco

F-80(naphthalic anhydride)

Advantage

FMC

99

HERBICIDE TERMINOLOGY FOR 1989

Common Name or

Code Name

Trade Name

Company

F-6285

FMC

Fenoxaprop

Option

FMC

Fluazifop-P

Fusilade 2000

ICI

Fluazifop-P & fomesafen

Tornado

ICI

Fluroxypyr(EF-689)

Starane

Dow

FMC-46360 (fenoxaprop isomer)

Option

FMC

Fomesafen

Reflex

ICI

Glyphosate

Roundup

Monsanto

Glyphosate & alachlor

Bronco

Monsanto

Haloxyfop

Verdict

Dow

HOE-39866

Ignite

Hoechst

Imazaquin

Scepter

American Cyanamid

Imazethapyr

Pursuit

American Cyanamid

Imazethapyr + pendimethalin

Pursuit Plus

American Cyanamid

KIH-2665

Elanco

Lactofen

Cobra

Valent

Linuron & chlorimuron

Lorox Plus

DuPont

Metolachlor & atrazine

Bicep

CIBA-Geigy

Metolachlor & CGA-1 54281

Dual & safener

CIBA-Geigy

Metribuzin

Lexone, Sencor

DuPont, Mobay

Metribuzen & chlorimuron

Preview, Canopy

DuPont

Metribuzin & trifluralin

Salute

Mobay

Metribuzin & metolachlor

Turbo

Mobay

MON-9828(alachlor WDG)

Monsanto

Oryzalin

Surflan

Elanco

Paraquat

Gramoxone Super

ICI

Pendimethalin

Prowl

American Cyanamid

Pyridate

Tough

Agrolinz

Quizalofop (DPX-Y6202)

Assure

DuPont

Sethoxydim

Poast

BASF

Sulphosate

Touchdown

ICI

Trifluralin

Treflan

Elanco

Trifluralin 80DF

GX-217

Griffin

Trifluralin & clomazone

Commence

Elanco, FMC

Triclopyr

Garlon

Dow

Triclopyr & 2,4-D

Crossbow

Dow

Tridiphane

Tandem

Dow

V-23031

Valent

V-53482

Valent

100

TRADE NAMES OF HERBICIDES USED IN 1989

Trade Name

Common Name(s)

Company

AAtrex

Atrazine

CIBA-Geigy

Accent

DPX-V9360

DuPont

Amiben

Chloramben

Rhone-Poulenc

Assure

Quizalofop

DuPont

Banvel

Dicamba

Sandoz

Beacon

CGA-136872

CIBA-Geigy

Bladex

Cyanazine

DuPont

Blazer

Acifluorfen

BASF

Brominal

Bromoxynil

Rhone-Poulenc

Bronco

Glyphosate & alachlor

Monsanto

Buctril

Bromoxynil

Rhone-Poulenc

Bullet

Alachlor MT & atrazine

Monsanto

Butyrac 200

2,4-DB

Rhone-Poulenc

Canopy

Metribuzin & chlorimuron 6:1

DuPont

Classic

Chlorimuron

DuPont

Cobra

Lactofen

Valent

Command

Clomazone

FMC

Commence

Clomazone & trifluralin

FMC,Elanco

Crossbow

Triclopyr & 2,4-D

Dow

Curtail

Clopyralid & 2,4-D

Dow

Dual

Metolalchlor

CIBA-Geigy

Eptam

EPTC

ICI

Eradicane

EPTC & dichlormid

ICI

Eradicane Extra

EPTC & dichlormid & dietholate

ICI

Extrazine II

Cyanazine & atrazine 3:1

DuPont

Fusilade 2000

Fluazifop-P

ICI

Galaxy

Bentazon & acifluorfen

BASF

Gramoxone Super

Paraquat

ICI

Harmony

DPX-M6316

DuPont

Ignite

HOE-39866

Hoechst-Roussel

Laddok

Bentazon & atrazine

BASF

Lariat

Alachlor & atrazine

Monsanto

Lasso

Alachlor

Monsanto

Lexone

Metribuzin

DuPont

Linex

Linuron

Griffin

Lontrel

Clopyralid

Dow

Lorox

Linuron

DuPont

Marksman

Dicamba & atrazine

DuPont

101

TRADE NAMES OF HERBICIDES USED IN 1989

Trade Name

Common Name(s)

Company

Option

Fenoxaprop

FMC

Pinnacle

DPX-M6316

DuPont

Poast

Sethoxydim

BASF

Preview

Metribuzin & chlorimuron 10:1

DuPont

Prowl

Pendimethalin

American Cyanamid

Prozine

Pendimethalin & atrazine

American Cyanamid

Pursuit

Imazethapyr

American Cyanamid

Pursuit Plus

Pendimethalin & imazethapyr

American Cyanamid

Reflex

Fomesafen

ICI

Roundup

Glyphosate

Monsanto

Salute

Metribuzin & trifluralin

Mobay

Scepter

Imazaquin

American Cyanamid

Select

Clethodim

Valent

Sencor

Metribuzin

Mobay

Sonalan

Ethalfluralin

Elanco

Stinger

Clopyralid

Dow

Storm

Bentazon & acifluorfen

BASF

Sutan+

Butylate & dichlormid

ICI

Tackle

Acifluorfen

Rhone-Poulenc

Tandem

Tridiphane

Dow

Tornado

Fluazifop-P & fomesafen

ICI

Touchdown

Sulphosate

ICI

Tough

Pyridate

Agrolinz

Treflan

Trifluralin

Elanco

Turbo

Metribuzin & alachlor

Mobay

Verdict

Haloxyfop

Dow

Whip

Fenoxaprop

Hoechst-Roussel

Note: Package mix products (consisting of 2 or more active ingredients blended by the
manufacturer into one product) are identified with an "&" symbol between the common names
of the active ingredients.

102

WEED NAMES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation

Common Name

Scientific Name

Bucu

Bygr

Cath

Cocb

Coch

Colq

Corw

Cosf

Dali

Dafl

Ebns

Fapa

Gift

Girw

Gift

Howe

Ilmg

Jiwe

Lacg

Pesw

Prle

Prsi

Rrpw

Shea

Shpu

Smgc

Smpw

Tamg

Vele

Vema

Yeft

Burcucumber

Barnyardgrass

Canada thistle

Common cocklebur

Common chickweed

Common lambsquarters

Common ragweed

Common sunflower

Dandelion

daisy fleabane

Eastern black nightshade

Fall panicum

Giant foxtail

Giant ragweed

Green foxtail

Horseweed

Ivyleaf morningglory

Jimsonweed

Large crabgrass

Pennsylvania smartweed

Prickly lettuce

Prickly sida

Redroot pigweed

Shattercane

Shepherdspurse

Smooth groundcherry

Smooth pigweed

Tall morningglory

Velvetleaf

Venice mallow

Yellow foxtail

Sicyos angulatus
Echinochloa crus-galli
Cirsium arvense
Xanthium strumarium
Stellaria media
Chenopodium album
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Helianthus annuus
Taraxacum officinale
Erigeron sp.
Solanum ptveanthum
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Setaria faberi
Ambrosia trifida
Setaria viridis
Convza canadensis
Ipomoea hederacea
Datura stramonium
Digitaria sanguinalis
Polygonum pensvlvanicum
Lactuca serriola
Sida spinosa
Amaranthus retroflexus
Sorghum bicolor
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Phvsalis subglabrata
Amaranthus hvbridus
Ipomoea purpurea
Abutilon theophrasti
Hibiscus trionum
Setaria glauca

103

104

SUMMARY

Preplant Incorporated Screening

Eradicane Extra plus atrazine provided excellent broad spectrum control of both
grass and broadleaf weeds. Control was slightly less with Sutazine except for shattercane
for which control was only fair.

Cannon gave good control of grass weeds, pigweed, lambsquarters, common
ragweed and nightshade and gave some control of jimsonweed and velvetleaf. Addition
of Canopy improved control particularly of cocklebur and common sunflower.

The 80DF formulation of trifluralin was almost identical to trifluralin 4EC in
performance.

Trifluralin plus Pursuit (Passport) had a fairly broad spectrum of control but gave
only partial control of cocklebur, giant ragweed and morningglory. This combination
indicated good promise for control of shattercane. Sonalan plus Pursuit performed in
a similar manner with slightly less soybean tolerance. Weed control from Pursuit Plus
was slightly less than for Pursuit combined with trifluralin or Sonalan.

Commence plus Canopy gave good broad spectrum control except for a little
weakness on nightshade, morningglory and cocklebur. Results with a reduced rate of
Command plus Canopy were similar.

Salute plus a minimal rate of Command performed quite well except for
morningglory and slight effect on soybeans.

Modest rates of Command plus atrazine gave excellent weed control except for
shattercane, but techniques would be needed to achieve crop tolerance. Observations
were somewhat similar for Scepter and Pursuit with atrazine, but weed control was not
quite as good. Chlorimuron plus atrazine gave good broad spectrum control of broadleaf
weeds but was weaker on grass weeds.

Amiben gave good broad spectrum control of both grass and broadleaf weeds
except for morningglory, cocklebur and common sunflower.

Trifluralin or Sonalan with Canopy gave good control of grass and broadleaf
weeds except for nightshade and some weakness on morningglory and cocklebur.

Reduced rates of Amiben plus trifluralin or Command at reduced rates gave
excellent control of grass weeds and also of broadleaves except morningglory and
cocklebur.

105

Both corn and soybeans displayed good tolerance to V-53482. Control of grass
weeds was fair. Main strength for broadleaf weeds was with pigweed, lambsquarters,
jimsonweed, giant ragweed and nightshade.

In general, most PPI treatments gave relatively good weed control with
morningglory and cocklebur remaining as the major challenges.

Preemergence (Surface-applied') Screening

Lariat provided fair to good control of grass and broadleaf weeds except
cocklebur. Bullet performed in a similar manner. Control was slightly less when Bladex
was substituted for atrazine at the same rate.

The WDG formulation of Lasso was fair on grass weeds and provided some
control of certain broadleaf weeds. Acetochlor and ICI-5676 performed in a similar
manner with good control of grass weeds except shattercane and good control of certain
broadleaf weeds. Cannon surface-applied gave fair control of grass weeds and some
control of certain broadleaf weeds. Although little or no effect on corn was noted in this
study where Cannon was surface-applied, Cannon is not recommended for use on corn.

V-53482 surface applied gave fair control of grass weeds and good control of most
broadleaf weeds except morningglory, cocklebur, and common sunflower.

Pursuit Plus gave fair control of grass weeds and good control of most broadleaf
weeds except cocklebur. Command plus Pursuit, each at reduced rate, gave fair grass
control but good control of most broadleaves except cocklebur.

F-6285 from FMC was weak on grass but appeared to have activity on a fairly
wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds including morningglory but not cocklebur.

Canopy at the 6 oz/A rate of product compared to the 8 oz/A rate of Preview
product was similar in performance, but both needed help on control of grass weeds and
particularly nightshade. A little higher rate of Canopy might further improve control of
velvetleaf, morningglory, and possibly cocklebur.

Although Tandem plus atrazine preemergence even at increased rates did not give
good control of grass weeds, some soil activity was indicated for grass weeds and
relatively good control of several broadleaf weeds was observed even with relatively low
rates of atrazine.

Accent soil-applied had some activity on grass weeds and on a few broadleaf
weeds.

Verdict at relatively high rates soil-applied displayed significant activity on grass
weeds. Select at the same rates also displayed significant soil activity on grass species
and effect on sorghum species was quite dramatic under the relatively moist conditions
of this study. Depending on registration and cost, Verdict or Select, plus herbicides such

106

as Preview or Canopy might merit attention for both burndown and residual activity with
some no-till systems.

Postemergence Screening Trials

Scepter gave fair control of "volunteer" corn and most grass weeds at the 0.125
rate with surfactant and nitrogen solution. At this higher rate, it also gave control of
pigweed, ragweeds, sunflower and cocklebur.

For Pursuit, Dash enhanced postemergence activity significantly, allowing relatively
good control of grass weeds (including shattercane), pigweed, ragweeds, and sunflower
and fair control of lambsquarters, velvetleaf, jimsonweed and morningglory. Control of
cocklebur was only slightly better with the full rate of Scepter than with Pursuit. Pursuit
postemergence gave only slight injury to seedling alfalfa but clover was less tolerant.

Tornado performed in a very similar manner as a tank mix of Reflex and Fusilade.
Both gave good control of grass weeds and of a fairly broad spectrum of broadleaves.

Pursuit in a tank mix with Fusilade appeared to have a very significant
antagonistic effect. Addition of 2,4-DB to Reflex effectively improved control of several
broadleaf weeds.

Storm and Galaxy provided very similar control. Classic gave fair to good control
of most broadleaf weeds but was weak on lambsquarters. Pinnacle provided good control
of lambsquarters but was not quite as effective on most other broadleaf weeds as Classic.
A combination of the two broadened the spectrum of control significantly.

Addition of Basagran to acifluorfen significantly improved control of velvetleaf,
cocklebur, and common sunflower to give a combination with broad spectrum broadleaf
control. The Pursuit plus acifluorfen combination also provided broad spectrum
broadleaf control but only about 50% control of most grasses except shattercane (95%).
It appeared that acifluorfen may have an antagonistic effect on grass control with Pursuit.

V-23031 gave relatively good broad spectrum control of broadleaf weeds; however,
crop tolerance appeared to be limited except for canola. V-23031 also provided realtively
good broad spectrum control of broadleaf weeds, but under the conditions of this study,
crop tolerance was also limited (including canola).

Clopyralid, fluroxypyr, and triclopyr had activity on broadleaf species. Addition
of 2,4-D to clopyralid or triclopyr enhanced control significantly. Canola appeared to
have some tolerance to the three above compounds alone.

Tough (pyridate) in combination with triazines demonstrated fair to good control
of broadleaf weeds with good corn tolerance.

Although Tandem plus triazine is often considered to be primarily for control of
grass weeds, Tandem plus atrazine gave good control of most broadleaf weeds. Control

107

of broadleaves such as velvetleaf was much better than would be anticipated from the
relatively low rate of atrazine alone.

With the postemergence treatments applied June 5, 1989, ratings of June 13 and
14 helped to delineate speed of action but were a little early to indicate the full degree
of control. Supplementary observations on June 21 were particularly meaningful for
Accent, Beacon, and KIH-2665. For Accent, the later observations indicated very good
control of annual grass weeds with little difference for 0.5 and 1.0 oz/A rates. Beacon
did not control annual grass or small grain as well as Accent. Both gave excellent
control of shattercane and grain sorghum. Soybeans, alfalfa, clover, and canola did not
have adequate tolerance to Accent or Beacon and were more sensitive to Beacon than
to Accent. For the broadleaf weeds, Accent had fairly good activity on redroot pigweed,
jimsonweed and morningglory but gave no control of nightshade. Most of the other
broadleaf weeds had only modest response. Beacon was not as effective as Accent on
foxtail and was less effective on morningglory. However, Beacon was more effective
than Accent on several broadleaf weeds, being relatively good on velvetleaf, the ragweeds,
and cocklebur as well as being about equal to Accent on redroot pigweed. Corn
tolerance appeared good with both compounds but may have been slightly less with
Beacon than with Accent on some hybrids.

KIH-2665 trials indicated less corn tolerance than with Accent or Beacon with a
rate response. Soybeans, small grain, alfalfa, clover, and canola exhibited little tolerance
to KIH-2665. At the higher rates, KIH-2665 gave fairly good control of annual grass but
was not considered as effective as Accent. KIH-2665 gave relatively good control of
some broadleaf weeds including redroot pigweed, lambsquarters, velvetleaf, common
sunflower, and smartweed. It was less effective on jimsonweed, morningglory, the
ragweeds, and had little effect on cocklebur. Thus, there are significant differences in
species response to Accent, Beacon, and KIH-2665.

The relatively late application and dense weed infestation in the plot area where
postemergence herbicides for grass control in soybeans were used, precluded good
delineation of differences in response of annual grass weeds. And the early ratings are
not indicative of the relatively good control usually achieved with Poast, Fusilade, Assure,
Option, Verdict and Select.

No-till and LO-TILL for soybeans

Studies at both the DeKalb and Orr centers indicated the feasibility of Preview
or Canopy for both burndown and residual control of broadleaf weeds. Potential for
Verdict or Select to provide both burndown and residual control of grass weeds was
indicated. However, registration progress, rate and cost relationship pose questions yet
to be answered for Verdict and Select. One alternative would be use of Preview or
Canopy followed by Poast, Fusilade, Assure or Option. Lasso or Dual might also be
considered for residual control. Although Bladex might be an alternative for both
burndown and residual control of broadleaf weeds, some soybean injury is possible and
registration for soybeans does not appear likely.

108

Roundup, Gramoxone, or possibly Diquat also offer potential for early burndown.
A treatment such as Poast with 2,4-D also offers burndown but 2,4-D rate should not
be excessive and it should be applied sufficiently early to avoid soybean injury.
Herbicides such as Poast and Basagran can also offer burndown.

Safening Agents for Treating Corn Seed

Research with Advantage (naphthalic anhydride) as a seed treatment indicated that
it could help to alleviate effects on corn from herbicides such as Command, Scepter,
Pursuit, and chlorimuron. Significant differences in tolerance of corn hybrids was also
demonstrated. Using a more tolerant hybrid and treating the seed did help to alleviate
effects on corn but generally did not negate the effect of the herbicides completely.
Little or no safening effect was noted for postemergence treatments.

Herbicide-Insecticide Interaction

In the study with Accent and Beacon applied postemergence following surface
application of seven different insecticides, some effect on corn was noted with some
treatments. Effects were expressed as stunting, onion leafing, distortion, and furling or
leaf wrinkling (seersuckering). The early effects appeared to be more evident with
Beacon than with Accent and were most evident with Counter and secondly with Thimet.
However, effect on yield was not very pronounced. Studies at other locations indicated
more significant effects from in furrow applications with T-banding giving results between
surface and in-furrow.

Postemergence for Soybeans

Studies with Cobra indicated early effect on soybeans but relatively good recovery
of soybeans. In an area predominantly infested with lambsquarters, DPX-M6316 provided
good control and performed well in combination with Cobra. Basagran applied very
early with Cobra also improved control of lambsquarters. Pursuit tank mixed with Select
postemergence had a significant antagonistic effect on control of giant foxtail. Other
observations also suggested caution for mixing Pursuit with postemergence grass killers.
While control of giant foxtail with Select sequentially after Cobra gradually improved with
time, the opposite was true with a tank mix of the two.

Screening for V-53482 and V-23031

Corn and soybeans had relatively good tolerance to soil-applied treatments of V-
53482 but less tolerance to post applications. Sorghum is less tolerant than corn. Wheat
appears more tolerant than oats and barley. Canola, alfalfa and red clover have little
tolerance. Although V-53482 can have some effect on grass weeds, the main activity is
for broadleaves, and it demonstrated both pre and post activity. The broadleaf weed
spectrum was relatively broad with postemergence. Applied preemergence, it did well
on pigweed, lambsquarters, velvetleaf, jimsonweed, nightshade and ragweeds. It was weak
on sunflower and morningglory. It was more effective pre than PPI on velvetleaf and
common ragweed and similarly caused more injury to clover and alfalfa pre than PPI.

109

V-53482 appeared to have some potential for burndown of broadleaf weeds in a
no-till system and along with Select may have potential for both burndown and residual
control of some species. V-53482 may also have activity on some perennial broadleaves.

V-23031 is considered primarily for postemergence control of broadleaf weeds in
soybeans. The spectrum of broadleaf control was relatively broad with good activity on
pigweed, lambsquarters, sunflower, ragweeds, very good activity on velvetleaf, and notable
control of morningglory. Tolerance of canola appeared unique and soybean tolerance
may merit further investigation.

Weed Control for Small-seeded Legumes

A sequential program with Eptam PPI followed by Buctril provided excellent weed
control in alfalfa with the two herbicides complementing each other extremely well to
broaden the spectrum of control to include foxtail, pigweed, velvetleaf, smartweed,
lambsquarters and nightshade. Buctril was a definite improvement over 2,4-DB for
broadleaf control, and alfalfa tolerance appeared quite adequate.

Prowl PPI followed in sequence by Pursuit postemergence also gave good broad
spectrum control of grass and broadleaf weeds. Alfalfa had relatively good tolerance to
Pursuit and it provided relatively good control of some broadleaf weeds and some
control of grass weeds. However, additonal strength would be helpful on grass and
weeds such as lambsquarters and velvetleaf. Prowl PPI might help to add such strength
quite well and has been cleared for use on set-aside but not on alfalfa for forage.
Earlier studies indicated that Prowl should be incorporated since the more concentrated
layer from a surface application can give excessive injury to alfalfa.

Further research with Buctril indicated the feasibility of using it in combination
with Poast, but care should be taken in adding adjuvants since addition of Dash
increased initial effect on alfalfa dramatically. A combination of Buctril plus Pursuit
appeared to have some potential for broadening control spectrum, but some antagonism
of Buctril on grass control with Pursuit was suggested, and cost would be a factor.

Poast, Fusilade, Assure, Option, Select, and Verdict continued to give very
impressive control of grass weeds for establishing alfalfa with little of no antagonistic
effect from adding 2,4-DB.

No-till corn in sod

For controlling alfalfa for no-till planting of corn, 2,4-D at about one quart per
acre or a half-pint of Banvel plus one pint of 2,4-D (3.8 lb/gal) have given good control
with the combination broadening weed control spectrum. Herbicides such as Dual plus
atrazine are added for residual control. While 2,4-D is better on dandelion than Banvel,
the latter can help on smartweed, or atrazine can provide control. Marksman also
performed fairly well. Curtail (clopyralid plus 2,4-D) and Crossbow (triclopyr plus 2,4-
D) each performed quite well.

110

The above treatments also gave good control for no-till corn in red clover sod.
However, triazines alone can give good control of shallow rooted clover without
increasing amount of herbicide or cost. Marksman plus Dual performed well at DeKalb
but not as well at the Orr Center. The 2,4-D plus Bicep treatment resulted in good
yields.

Good yields can be achieved with no-till corn in legume sod, but it may be
difficult generally to achieve higher yields than where some tillage is used.

For no-till corn in fescue sod, Gramoxone plus atrazine has been a relatively
standard treatment. Roundup is an alternative to Gramoxone but about 2 lb/A of
Roundup may someimes be needed as indicated by less control from Bronco with only
1.4 lb/A of Roundup. Substituting Bladex for atrazine appears to decrease fescue
control. Residual control may not be critical with the sod mulch but can be provided
with a herbicide such as Dual in addition to atrazine.

Herbicide Persistence Studies

Monitoring of herbicide persistence indicated continuing concern especially with
Command and Scepter used on soybeans prior to corn. Field bioassay information from
both the fall of 1988 and spring of 1989 coincided relatively well with effects that farmers
noted in some fields in 1989.

The studies indicate the need for some reconsideration of geographic zones of
adaptation as well as very uniform and accurate applications. For Command, reduced
rates in combinations, use of more tolerant hybrids, and safening agents are
considerations. Potential for injury to small grain and small-seeded legumes should also
be considered.

Results with Scepter indicate that it is not well adapted to the northern portion
of Illinois. However, with higher temperatures, more rainfall, different soils, and
cocklebur a significant problem in the southern portion of Illinois, use of Scepter in a
very judicious manner may still be feasible if risks are recognized. Pursuit has generally
performed well, especialy in the northern portion of Illinois. Although persistence of
Scepter and Pursuit may not be greatly different, Pursuit is used at a lower rate and
corn is more tolerant of Pursuit. However, precautions are still in order, risks should
be considered, and Pursuit should not be used ahead of sorghum.

Studies suggest relatively good dissipation of chlorimuron except with a relatively
high soil pH. Although based on earlier studies, some residual of Reflex was anticipated,
this did not appear to materialize.

Studies to determine the effect of tillage to alleviate residual problems suggested
that use of the moldboard plow can apparently aid in dilution. Results with chisel
plowing, disking, and no-till were similar to each other and less effective for reducing
residual effects. However, returning to the moldboard plow may not be a viable option
in many areas.

Ill

Increased attention was given to the potential for herbicide combinations
contributing to carryover problems. Research results suggested that major considerations
were Command and Scepter as well as combinations containing either one or both.
Early injury was generally reflected in final yields. A relatively dry season, incorporation
of the herbicides and 2x to 3x rates likely contributed to the degree of injury and
significant yield reductions. However, weather cannot be controlled. Incorporation is
necessary or desired for many of the treatments used, and excessive rates sometimes
occur when applications are not accurate and uniform. Since the soil pH was not
excessive, Preview had little carryover effect, and the highest yield was from that
treatment. The next highest yield was from plots where Lasso plus metribuzin had been
used. Although yields from plots where 3x rates of Pursuit had been used were not
among the highest, observed effects on corn were much less than with Command or
Scepter. This study reconfirms the need for significant precautions to avoid carryover
effects from Command and Scepter. Additional studies with surface versus incorporated
treatments indicated greater potential for carryover with incorporated treatments.

Reduced Inputs for Corn and Soybean Production

Studies to explore opportunities for reducing production inputs for corn and
soybeans generally indicated that tillage could be reduced without sacrificing yield.
Attempts to reduce weed control costs were successful to a certain degree by considering
various options. Modest advantages for row cultivation were attributed primarily to
improved weed control.

Herbicide and Cultivation Alternatives

Studies with various combinations of cultivation and pre and post herbicides
indicated good weed control and highest yield where both pre and post herbicides were
used. Preemergence treatment gave better control of lambsquarters but post treatment
gave better control of grass and a combination of the two gave better control than either
one alone. Adding cultivation improved weed control but not yield. Cultivation alone
did not give satisfactory weed control and resulted in lowest yield. A different weed
spectrum and other methods or time of cultivation may give different results.

Cover Crops

Treatments were designed with oat, wheat, and rye cover crops to control the
cover crops and weeds with various combinations of tillage, mowing, and herbicides for
both corn and soybean production.

With corn, disking alone gave fair control of the cover crops, but weeds were not
adequately controlled and yields were only fair. Mowing alone did not give adequate
control of cover crops or weeds and yields were very poor. Use of a low rate of a
burndown herbicide plus mowing provided fair control of the cover crop but weeds were
not adequately controlled and yields were only fair. Use of a burndown herbicide alone
gave poor to fair control of cover crop and weeds and poor to fair yields. Mowing plus

112

certain postemergence herbicides gave good weed control but control of cover crops was
generally not adequate.

Use of modest rates of burndown and residual herbicides gave relatively good
control of cover crop and weeds and fair to good yields. Relatively good control of
cover crop and weeds and best yields were obtained with disking plus modest
preemergence herbicide rates.

For soybeans, mowing alone did not give good control of cover crops. Although
the cover crops gave good weed control, they precluded good soybean yields. Modest
rate of burndown herbicides alone gave fair to good control of cover crop and weeds and
fair to good yields. A low rate of a burndown herbicide plus mowing and no additional
herbicide appeared to show some promise. The best weed control and highest soybean
yields were generally achieved with either disking or modest rates of a burndown
herbicide followed by modest to normal rates of pre or post herbicides.

This exploratory research gives several leads on how weed control systems might
be designed to take advantage of the competitive and allelopathic effects of cover crops
for weed control while reducing inputs. The cover crops can help to conserve soil and
judicious herbicide selection and use can reduce both production costs and risk of
herbicides entering water supplies. Future studies should be designed with attention to
some of these factors. The potential for additional cover crop species should also be
explored with special attention to species that might mature relatively early or be
sensitive to low herbicide rates.

Although development of production systems with emphasis on non-chemical and
biological control measures should not be precluded, successful control of cover crops
and weeds for the near future will likely include at least modest use of herbicides for
the majority of farmers. There is considerable opportunity to select herbicides and rates
that can significantly reduce risk of herbicides entering water supplies while reducing cost
inputs.

113

114

252 °^5 C7
43194 « t

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA

Sn5o8!SAeeosc,eNceSWhanoexten

1989

3 01 12 020037278