UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
ACES
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The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below.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 URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
L 1 6 1 — O- 1 096
ACES LIBRARY
MAY 1 9 2005
UNIVERSITY OF it HNOIR
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
http://www.archive.org/details/universityofilli1991wuniv
ft t?s
I
>is
d Science
earch and Extension
lonstration Report I
M The University of
ILLINOIS
at Urb ana-Champaign
Special Report 1991-10 it of Agronomy il Experiment Station
3VU8I1 S30V Agriculture
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
II i .*/*. uuuih Goodwin Ave. I Urbana, IL 61801
1991
Illinois
Weed Science Research and Extension Demonstration Report Final
M The University of
ILLINOIS
at Urbana-Champaign
Agronomy Special Report 1991-10
Department of Agronomy
Agricultural Experiment Station
College of Agriculture
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1102 South Goodwin Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution.
INDEX
Page l Introduction
3 Efficacy of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron on perennial grasses and legumes.
5 Single herbicide application for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn.
7 Sequential herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn.
10 Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides.
17 Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides.
24 Evaluation of V-53482 combinations for stale seedbed soybeans.
27 Evaluation of V-53482 and metolachlor for weed control under two soil moisture conditions.
30 Evaluation of soil -applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed control in soybeans.
32 Evaluation of lactofen soil-applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim.
35 Evaluation of lactofen combinations for weed control in soybeans.
37 Evaluation of clethodim postemergence combinations for weed control in soybeans.
39 Effect of imazethapyr on the performance of postemergence herbicides used for control of grass weeds.
41 Evaluation of quizalofop for early preplant of no-till soybeans.
43 Evaluation of clethodim with imazethapyr, lactofen, and chlorimuron plus metribuzin preplant for no-till soybeans.
45 Evaluation of herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans.
47 Weed control for no-till corn in soybean stubble.
49 Weed control for no-till soybeans after corn.
52 Evaluation of adjuvants for nicosulfuron.
54 Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in corn.
58 Effect of time of day for application of sethoxydim.
60 Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, and imazethapyr.
63 Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till.
67 Control of hemp dogbane with sponge applications of glyphosate.
69 Weed control for set-aside soybeans.
72 Field corn herbicide evaluation for no-till in clover sod.
75 Soybean herbicide evaluation for no-till soybeans after corn.
78 Evaluation of herbicides for clover establishment.
81 Interaction of soil-applied terbufos formulations and nicosulfuron for corn.
82 Interaction of soil-applied insecticides and postemergence herbicides for corn.
83 The use of banded herbicide applications and cultivation for weed control in corn.
86 The use of banded herbicides and cultivation for weed control in soybeans.
89 Evaluation of postemergence herbicides for control of weeds in soybeans.
91 Summary
INTRODUCTION
This report presents results from a portion of the weed science research of the University of Illinois. Emphasis is placed on research at the Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center near DeKalb. However, significant research is also conducted at the Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Perry in western Illinois, and at the Northwestern Agronomy Research and Demonstration Center near Monmouth as well as at Urbana. Many individuals have been involved with this year's research:
Area Agronomists IPM Specialists
Lyle E. Paul (DeKalb) Joseph D. Walsh
Glenn A. Raines (Perry-Orr) David C. Feltes Michael J. Mainz (Monmouth)
M. Gene Oldham (Urbana) Computer Programs
Les V. Boone - Coordinator David R. Pike
Farm Foremen County Extension Advisers
David Lindgren (DeKalb) Stan R. Eden
Mike Vose (Perry-Orr)
Roland Caul kins (Monmouth) Graduate Students
Mike Plotner (Urbana) Dale L. Baird
Robert C. Bellm
Community Colleges Craig A. Tomera
Ronald W. Heisner (Kishwaukee) Steven B. Mulrooney
Russell Higgins (Joliet) Russell A. Higgins
Entomol ogy Undergraduate Students
Kevin L. Steffey Dan Block
Hassan Oloumi-Sadeghi Michael Sleight
Don Gibson
Secretaries Jason Anderson Sharon E. Conatser Kris A. Ritter
In addition, inputs have been made by other weed science and agronomy staff of the University of Illinois.
Appreciation is expressed to the administration of the Department of Agronomy, the Agricultural Experiment Station and others of the College of Agriculture, particularly for land, facilities, equipment and personnel at the research centers. A special thanks is extended to Ron Heisner for his involvement at DeKalb, to Dave Pike for his initiative at the Orr and Monmouth centers, and to Joseph Walsh for his involvement at DeKalb and Urbana. Special recognition is also extended to the area agronomists and farm foremen for their very professional and dedicated efforts.
We are very grateful to the many industry representatives who have provided valuable suggestions and encouragement. We especially acknowledge: Luis Figuerola - Agrolinz Inc. Bryan Gentsch and Fred Arnold - American Cyanamid Brian Freed and Mike McKeague - BASF Charles Pearson - CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
Loralee Miller and Thomas Strachota - Dairyland Seed Co. Inc. Clarence Jentes - Dow-El anco Kevin Hahn and Lawrence S. Tapia - DuPont Robert S. Perry - FMC Corporation
Edwin Koldenhoven and James Bone - Griffin
Earl Kingman and Larry Weller - Growmark
Bill Bertges - Hoechst Roussel
Ronald Wolfe, Dale Chaney, and Gary Sexson - ICI Americas
David Nanda and Chan Sieben - Independent Professional Seedsmen Assoc.
Randy Myers - Mobay Corporation
Jerry Flint - Monsanto
John Schoper - Pioneer Hi-Bred
William Striegel - Rhone-Poulenc
Luke Bozeman and Gary Schmitz - Sandoz Crop Protection
James Bower and James Garvin - Terra International
Frank Fronek and John Pickle - United Agri Products
Stephen L. Pearson - Spraying Systems Co.
Keith Sheriff and Howard Shepherd - Valent
More than thirty experiments were conducted at six different locations in the state with a variety of soil and climatic conditions. Land area is estimated at about 50 acres. Emphasis is placed on research that will help farmers operate more efficiently and conserve their land and energy resources while also maintaining environmental quality.
An estimated 350 million dollars worth of herbicides are used in Illinois by about 85,000 farmers and over 10,000 commercial applicators on about 20 million acres. Thus, a significant research effort is devoted to herbicides. However, a variety of weed control practices are considered.
We have attempted to place emphasis on research that will help farmers obtain broad-spectrum control at a reasonable cost. When we visualize new needs and opportunities, we attempt to design systems to fit changing production practices. However, we continue "standard" research to delineate optimum rates of herbicides for most of the crops and individual weed species of the state. We also consider potential for effect on subsequent crops.
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 of designing weed control systems. It is also our goal that the results presented here will be helpful to industry in planning their development strategy for Illinois.
We sincerely appreciate the cooperation of those involved with our University of Illinois weed science research and demonstration program.
Ellery L. Knake
Efficacy of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron on perennial grasses and legumes. Mulrooney, Steven B., Ellery L. Knake, Lyle E. Paul, and Ronald W. Heisner. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential for using nicosulfuron or primisulfuron to control
established Kentucky bluegrass, smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall
observations were made on alfalfa and Organic matter: 6% Soil pH: 6.1 Soil type: Drummer silty clay loam applied November 17, 1990; 120 lb K
Reed canarygrass Location: Plot size: Drainage:
In addition, DeKalb SW500 10 X 160 ft fair
and
Fertility:
PA
,0
120 lb A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling
fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the grass.
fescue, timothy, red clover. Slope: 1 to 2% Exp. design: Randomized
complete block Replications: 3 applied November 15, 1990. 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat
Date: Time:
Treatment: Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inch: Bluegrass
height (inch) Brome
height (inch) Orchardgrass
height (inch)
April 26, 1991 8:00 to 8:30am Postemergence
54
49
9.5
13
Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast) : Relative humidity(%):
Tall fescue height (inch)
Timothy height (inch)
Reed canarygrass height (inch)
moist 8 ESE 3
73
8.5
8.5 9.5
Rainfall (inch) previous week: 0.14 following week: 0.57
Red clover
Height (inch) 3.5 Alfalfa
Height (inch) 7.5
Nicosulfuron did not give good control of established Kentucky bluegrass, smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall fescue or Reed canarygrass. However, nicosulfuron did control timothy relatively well. Control of these grasses with primisulfuron was less than with nicosulfuron except for smooth bromegrass. Except for the possibility of nicosulfuron on timothy, control was not considered commercially adequate. Results suggested the possibility of Kentucky bluegrass having adequate tolerance to allow selective use of primisulfuron. Tall fescue and orchardgrass may also be in this same category. For alfalfa and red clover, control with primisulfuron was relatively good and nicosulfuron gave partial control. This suggests that these compounds may be useful for additional control of alfalfa or clover, for example, in no-till corn where an earlier treatment did not give complete control. Control of alfalfa or red clover in soybeans, especially with primisulfuron, may also be a possibility if sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans were used. Glyphosate provided good control of Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and Reed canarygrass; relatively good control of orchardgrass, red clover and alfalfa; but had only modest effect on smooth bromegrass and tall fescue under the conditions of this study. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
Table. Efficacy of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron on perennial grasses and legumes (Mulrooney, Knake, Paul, and Heisner).
Kebg |
Kebg |
Smbr |
Smbr |
Orgr |
Orgr |
Tafe |
Tafe |
|||
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
-- Injury — |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
||
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.03125 |
30 |
17 |
17 |
10 |
30 |
13 |
30 |
30 |
|
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.0625 |
40 |
20 |
27 |
3 |
40 |
20 |
40 |
40 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 |
10 |
7 |
40 |
33 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
3 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.072 |
20 |
10 |
50 |
47 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
|
Glyphosate |
2.0 |
100 |
100 |
57 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
50 |
50 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
6 |
19 |
9 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
||
Timothy |
Timothy Recg |
Recg Clover |
Clover |
Alfalfa Alfalfa |
||||||
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
6/7 |
7/3 |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
] |
injury |
|||||||
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
|||
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.03125 |
90 |
90 |
60 |
40 |
70 |
30 |
40 |
40 |
|
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.0625 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
53 |
80 |
70 |
50 |
53 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 |
30 |
7 |
40 |
30 |
90 |
96 |
90 |
85 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.072 |
50 |
23 |
50 |
43 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
|
Glyphosate |
2.0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
92 |
90 |
95 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
8 |
COC @ 1.6 qt/A: crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant,
and 1% inert.
Kebg is Kentucky bluegrass.
Smbr is smooth bromegrass.
Orgr is orchardgrass.
Tafe is tall fescue.
Recg is Reed canarygrass.
Clover is red clover.
Single herbicide application for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn
Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Lyle E. Paul, Ronald W. Heisner, and David R. Pike. The this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments that give broad spectrum weed control conveniently and economically for soybeans no-till after corn with a single application
Tomera, purpose of
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb SW600S 10 X 29 ft. fair 5 to 6% 6.2
Soil type: Drummer silty
clay loam Slope: 0 to 1% Exp. design: Randomized
complete block
3
cultivated July 8, 1991. mph with 30
Repl ications: Tillage: Disked to chop stalks November 1, 1990; A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Soybeans Pioneer 9272 54.5 lb/A May 3, 1991 30 inch
psi and 8004 spaced 20 inches
flat fan apart
Date: Time:
Treatment: Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inch:
April 24, 1991 10:30am to noon Preemergence
54
47
Soil moisture: moist
Wind (mph): 8 SSW
Sky (% overcast): 25 Relative
humidity(%): 37
Rainfall (inch) previous week: 0.15 following week: 0.57
Giant foxtail leaf no. 2 height (inch) 0.25
Common lambsquarters leaf no. 2 cotyl height (inch) 0.5
Pennsylvania smartweed leaf no. 2 cotyl height (inch) 0.5
Metribuzin and chlorimuron in either a 6:1 or 10:1 ratio provided broad spectrum control of broadleaf weeds but only fair control of giant foxtail. Addition of pendimethalin, alachlor or metolachlor improved control of giant foxtail but control was not complete. Addition of clethodim or haloxyfop to metribuzin and chlorimuron was only partially successful in providing residual as well as burndown of grass weeds. Imazethapyr plus pendimethalin provided excellent control of the spectrum of broadleaf weeds present and good control of giant foxtail. Clomazone alone or in combination with metribuzin, metribuzin and chlorimuron, or pendimethalin provided excellent broad spectrum control of both broadleaf and grass weeds. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
J
Table 1. Single herbicide application for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn (Tomera, Knake, Paul, Heisner, and Pike).
Soybean Soybean G |
ift |
Gift |
Colq |
Col |
||||
i |
3/22 |
6/7 5/22 |
6/7 |
5/22 |
6/ |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
injury |
_ |
|
- cont |
|||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(* |
||
Metribuzin & chlorimuron |
0.28 & 0.047 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
63 |
100 |
1C |
|
Metr & cli |
m + pendimethal in |
0.28 & 0.047 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
88 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cli |
m + alachlor |
0.28 & 0.047 + 2.5 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
93 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cli |
m + metolalachlor |
0.28 & 0.047 + 2.0 |
0 |
0 |
88 |
93 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cli |
m |
0.35 & 0.035 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
70 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cli |
m + pend |
0.35 & 0.035 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
80 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cli |
m + alac |
0.35 & 0.035 + 2.5 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
85 |
100 |
1C |
Metr & cl im + meto |
0.35 & 0.035 + 2.5 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
83 |
100 |
1C |
|
Pend & imazethapyr |
0.875 & 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
91 |
98 |
1C |
|
Pend & imep + 2,4-D1 |
0.875 & 0.063 + 0.475 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
94 |
100 |
1C |
|
Pend & imep + metr |
0.875 & 0.063 + 0.38 |
1.6 |
0 |
88 |
95 |
100 |
1C |
|
Clomazone |
1.0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
1C |
|
Clom + metr |
0.75 + 0.38 |
5 |
0 |
98 |
99 |
100 |
1C |
|
Clom + metr & cl im |
0.5 + 0.14 & 0.024 |
0 |
0 |
98 |
99 |
100 |
1C |
|
Clom + metr & cl im |
0.75 + 0.21 & 0.035 |
5 |
0 |
98 |
99 |
100 |
1C |
|
Clom + pend |
0.75 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
96 |
100 |
1C |
|
Metr & clim + haloxyfop |
0.28 & 0.047 + 0.2 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
87 |
100 |
1C |
|
Metr & clim + clethodim |
0.28 & 0.047 + 0.094 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
73 |
100 |
1C |
|
Metr & clim + clet |
0.35 & 0.035 + 0.094 |
0 |
0 |
70 |
67 |
100 |
1C |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||
LSD(0.05) |
1 |
0 |
5 |
8 |
1 |
|||
Table 2. Single herbicide application for weed control in |
no-till |
soybeans |
after corn (Ton |
|||||
Knake. Paul. Heisner. and Pike). |
||||||||
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Soybec |
||||
5/22 |
6/7 |
5/22 |
6/7 |
yielc |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
control |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/c |
|||
Metribuzin & chlorimuron |
0.28 & 0.047 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
20.- |
||
Metr & cli |
m + pendimethal in |
0.28 & 0.047 + 1.0 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
29. < |
|
Metr & cli |
m + alachlor |
0.28 & 0.047 + 2.5 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
33.1 |
|
Metr & cli |
m + metolalachlor |
0.28 & 0.047 + 2.0 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
34.6 |
|
Metr & cli |
m |
0.35 & 0.035 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
28. y |
|
Metr & cli |
m + pend |
0.35 & 0.035 + 1.0 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
28. J |
|
Metr & cli |
m + alac |
0.35 & 0.035 + 2.5 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
35.5 |
|
Metr & clim + meto |
0.35 & 0.035 + 2.5 |
65 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
24. c |
||
Pend & imazethapyr |
0.875 & 0.063 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
31. S |
||
Pend & imep + 2,4-D1 |
0.875 & 0.063 + 0.475 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
34.7 |
||
Pend & imep + metr |
0.875 & 0.063 + 0.38 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
31J |
||
Clomazone |
1.0 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
34. i |
||
Clom + metr |
0.75 + 0.38 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
32.2 |
||
Clom + metr & clim |
0.5 + 0.14 & 0.024 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
33J |
||
Clom + metr & cl im |
0.75 + 0.21 & 0.035 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
32J |
||
Clom + pend |
0.75 + 1.0 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
36.2 |
||
Metr & clim + haloxyfop |
0.28 & 0.047 + 0.2 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
29. S |
||
Metr & clim + clethodim |
0.28 & 0.047 + 0.094 |
88 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
25.2 |
||
Metr & clim + clet |
0.35 & 0.035 + 0.094 |
83 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
22J |
||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9.S |
|||
LSD(0.05) |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6.2 |
:The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester.
Sequential Tomera, Craig A.,
herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn
Ellery L. Knake, Lyle E. Paul, Ronald W. Heisner, and David R. Pike,
The
Soil type:
purpose of this study was to evaluate sequential herbicide treatments for no-till soybeans after
corn.
Location:
Plot size:
Drainage:
Organic matter:
Soil pH:
DeKalb SW600N 10 X 29 ft.
fair 5 to 6.2
6%
Slope:
Exp. design:
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Soybeans Pioneer 9272 54.5 lb/A May 3, 1991 30 inch
Drummer silty
clay loam
0 to 1%
Randomized
complete block Replications: 3 Tillage: Disked to chop stalks November 1, 1990; cultivated July 8, 1991.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the soil surface for preemergence and 20 inches above the weeds for postemergence.
Date: |
April 24 |
May 23 |
May 30 |
||
Time: |
12:00 noon |
8:15am |
10:15am |
||
Treatment: |
Preemergence |
Postemergence |
Late postemergence |
||
Temperature (F) |
|||||
air: |
61 |
70 |
75 |
||
soil under sod |
|||||
4 inch: |
49 |
64 |
70 |
||
Soil moisture: |
moist |
moist |
moist |
||
Wind (mph): |
10 SSW |
13 NNE |
4 W |
||
Sky (% overcast): |
25 |
85 |
5 |
||
Relative |
|||||
humidity(%): |
22 |
95 |
75 |
||
Rainfall (inch) |
|||||
previous week: |
0.15 |
0.82 |
3.93 |
||
following week: |
0.57 |
3.93 |
1.23 |
||
Giant foxtail |
Soybeans |
Giant foxtail |
|||
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
uni foliate |
leaf no. 5 |
|
height (inch) |
0.25 |
height (inch) |
3 |
height (inch) 4 to |
|
Common lambsquarters |
Giant foxtail |
||||
leaf no. |
2 to 4 |
leaf no. |
1 |
to 2 |
|
height (inch) |
0.5 |
height (inch) |
2 |
to 4 |
|
Pennsylvania smartweed |
Yellow nutsedge |
||||
leaf no. |
2 cotyl |
leaf no. |
4 |
||
height (inch) |
0.5 |
height (inch) |
4 |
||
Common lambsquarters |
|||||
leaf no. |
10 |
to 12 |
|||
height (inch) |
4 |
to 5 |
|||
Velvetleaf |
|||||
leaf no. |
3 |
||||
height (inch) |
3 |
||||
Pennsylvania smartweed |
|||||
leaf no. |
3 |
||||
height (inch) |
3 |
||||
Barnyard grass |
|||||
leaf no. |
2 |
||||
height (inch) |
4 |
Paraquat plus metribuzin followed by fluazifop-P, metribuzin and chlorimuron followed by quizalofop or clethodim, and acifluorfen plus metribuzin followed by sethoxydim all provided very good broad spectrum weed control. Early application of 2,4-D or 2,4-DB plus sethoxydim performed well. And acifluorfen plus 2,4-D early followed by bentazon plus acifluorfen and then sethoxydim also performed very well. Glyphosate or sulphosate followed by fomesafen and fluazifop-P gave good control of giant foxtail but incomplete control of broadleaf weeds. Similarly, fomesafen followed by fluazifop-P gave good control of giant foxtail but not all of broadleaf weeds. Lactofen followed by clethodim plus lactofen performed well except on common lambsquarters. Substituting thifensulfuron for chlorimuron with metribuzin followed by quizalofop gave excellent broadleaf weed control and appeared to control the early emerging giant foxtail but not that which emerged after application of the quizalofop. (Dept of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
Table 1. Sequential herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn (Tomera, Knake, Paul, Heisner, and Pike).
Soybean |
Soybean |
Gift |
Gift |
Colq |
Colq |
||
5/22 |
6/7 |
5/22 |
6/7 |
5/22 |
6/7 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— ii |
njury — |
||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Paraquat + Metribuzin + |
0.625 + 0.38 |
3 |
7 |
57 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
X-77/fluazifop-P + COC1 |
0.25% / 0.188 |
||||||
Metr & chlorimuron + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 |
0 |
8 |
57 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
quizalofop + COC |
0.044 |
||||||
Metr & dim + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 |
0 |
7 |
57 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
clethodim + COC |
0.094 |
||||||
Acifluorfen + metr + COC/ |
0.125 + 0.38 |
5 |
8 |
50 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
sethoxydim + COC |
0.125 |
||||||
2,4-D2 + seth + COC/ |
0.475 + 0.0625/ 3 |
10 |
20 |
93 |
90 |
100 |
|
bentazon & acif+ |
0.75 & 0.17 + |
||||||
28%N/ seth + COC3 |
1 gal/ 0.125 |
||||||
2,4-DB + seth + COC/ |
0.2 + 0.0625/ |
0 |
8 |
10 |
92 |
93 |
100 |
bent & acif + seth + Dash4 |
0.92 + 0.125 4 |
■ 1% |
|||||
Glyphosate/ |
0.38/ |
0 |
8 |
10 |
100 |
80 |
93 |
fluazifop-P & fomesafen+COC |
0.188 & 0.25 |
||||||
Sulphosate/ |
0.38/ |
0 |
5 |
23 |
100 |
7 |
27 |
fluazifop-p & fomesafen+COC |
0.188 & 0.25 |
||||||
Fome + COC/ |
0.25/ |
0 |
5 |
53 |
100 |
67 |
47 |
flfp + COC |
0.188 |
||||||
Acif + 2,4-D + Dash/ |
0.125 + 0.48 |
5 |
8 |
47 |
99 |
97 |
100 |
bent & acif + 28%N + X-775/ |
0.92 + 2% + 1/8%/ |
||||||
seth + Dash |
0.125 + 1/2% |
||||||
Lactofen + COC/ |
0.2/ |
0 |
17 |
33 |
100 |
70 |
80 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.2 + 0.094 + |
1/2% |
|||||
Metribuzin + thifensulfuron + |
0.38 + 0.004 -f |
0 |
8 |
60 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
COC/ quizalofop + COC |
0.044 |
||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
2 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
12 |
18 |
COC @ 1.0 qt/A: Crop oil concentrate, 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
2 The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester.
3 Final sequential treatment applied 5/30/91 at 10:15 am.
4 Dash @ 1.0 pt/A: an adjuvant from BASF.
5 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
Table 2. Sequential herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn (Tomera, Knake, Paul, Heisner, and Pike).
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Soybean |
||
5/22 |
6/7 |
5/22 |
6/7 |
yield |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
control |
||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
Paraquat + Metribuzin + |
0.625 + 0.38 |
73 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
36.4 |
X-77/fluazifop-P + COC 0.25% |
0.188 |
|||||
Metr & chlorimuron + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 |
83 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
40.1 |
quizalofop + COC |
0.044 |
|||||
Metr & clim + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
40.7 |
clethodim + COC |
0.094 |
|||||
Acifluorfen + metr + COC/ |
0.125 + 0.38 |
88 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
40.2 |
sethoxydim + COC |
0.125 |
|||||
2,4-D2 + seth + COC/ |
0.475 + 0.0625/ |
77 |
100 |
70 |
100 |
36.0 |
bentazon & acif + |
0.75 & 0.17 + |
|||||
28%N/ seth + COC3 |
1 gal/ 0.125 |
|||||
2,4-DB + seth + COC/ |
0.2 + 0.0625/ |
77 |
98 |
47 |
100 |
38.4 |
bent & acif + seth + Dash4 |
0.92 + 0.125 + 1% |
|||||
Glyphosate/ |
0.38/ |
73 |
88 |
43 |
60 |
33.1 |
fluazifop-P & fomesafen+COC |
0.188 & 0.25 |
|||||
Sulphosate/ |
0.38/ |
23 |
57 |
13 |
83 |
28.2 |
fluazifop-P & fomesafen+COC |
0.188 & 0.25 |
|||||
Fome + COC/ |
0.25/ |
83 |
87 |
70 |
93 |
34.3 |
flfp + COC |
0.188 |
|||||
Acif + 2,4-D + Dash/ |
0.125 + 0.48 |
63 |
100 |
60 |
100 |
38.7 |
bent & acif + 28%N + X-775/ |
0.92 + 2% + 1/8% |
|||||
seth + Dash |
0.125 + 1/2% |
|||||
Lactofen + COC/ |
0.2/ |
73 |
100 |
93 |
99 |
35.1 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.2 + 0.094 + 1/2% |
|||||
Metribuzin + thifensulfuron + |
0.38 + 0.004 + |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
35.1 |
COC/ quizalofop + COC |
0.044 |
|||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.6 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
9 |
23 |
12 |
15 |
8.4 |
COC @ 1.0 qt/A: Crop oil concentrate, 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester.
Final sequential treatment applied 5/30/91 at 10:15 am. Dash @ 1.0 pt/A: an adjuvant from BASF. X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W. Heisner, Lyle E. Paul, and David C. Feltes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and degree of weed control for herbicides preplant incorporated, preplant incorporated followed by sequential postemergence applications, and surface-applied. Most crops and annual weed species of importance in Illinois were included.
DeKalb SW700 10 X 150 ft fair 5 to 6% 6.3 chopped once,
Soil type:
Drummer silty clay loam Slope: 1 to 2% Exp. design:Randomized
complete block part on August 6, 1990 and the
Planting date: Row spacing:
April 23 30 inch and 5 ft
Location:
Plot size:
Drainage:
Organic matter:
Soil pH:
Tillage: residue
August 30, 1990; field cultivated October 13; disked and harrowed twice
April 22, 1991.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat
rest on August 14; disked
to incorporate herbicide
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width 20 inches above the soil surface.
of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
fan and
Date: Time: Treatment:
(F)
sod
Temperature
air:
soil under
4 inch:
Soil moisture: Wind (mph & dir) Sky (% overcast) Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week:
No species present Species present on May
April 22, 1991 2:30 to 5pm Preplant incorporated
59
49
moist 10 W 20
28
0.57 0.26
23:
Corn
leaf no.
height (inch) Soybean
leaf no.
height (inch) Sunflower
leaf no.
height (inch) Sorghum
leaf no.
height (inch) Hairy vetch
leaf no.
height (inch) Cocklebur
leaf no.
height (inch) Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Yellow foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Green foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch)
2
4
1st 4
trif
to 8
cotyl 2
3 3
2
3
2 3
April 24
1:00 to 2:00pm
Preemergence
59
45
moist 11 SSW 25
25
0.15 0.57 No species
present
Large crabgrass
leaf no. 3
height (inch) 3
Barnyard grass
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 2
Redroot pigweed
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1
Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1
Velvetleaf
leaf no. 1
height (inch) 2
Jimsonweed
leaf no. cotyl
height (inch) 1
Tall morningglory
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1.5
Ivyleaf morningglory
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1.5
Eastern black nightshade
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1
May 23
7:45 to 8:15am
Postemergence sequential
70
64
moist 11 S 100
93
1.82 4.42
Common sunflower
leaf no. 4
height (inch) 6 to 8
Common ragweed
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 2
Giant ragweed
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1.5
Fall panicum
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 2
Shattercane
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 2
Canola
leaf no. 4
height (inch) 6
Oats
leaf no. 3
height (inch) 3
Wheat
leaf no. 4
height (inch) 4
Alfalfa
leaf no. 3 to 4
height (inch) 2 to 3
Red clover
leaf no. 2 trif
height (inch) 2
trif
10
Performance of dry flowable formulations of trifluralin was very similar to that of the EC formulation whether used alone or in various combinations. No problems were encountered in mixing or application of the dry flowables. The dry formulation of alachlor also performed well .
Of the various genetic lines of corn from the Independent Professional Seedsmen Association (IPSA) IPSA C1128 and IPSA C8004 appeared to be least vigorous; IPSA C1284, IPSA C4843, and IPSA C6114 moderate; and IPSA C6973 most vigorous. In general, the more vigorous lines appeared to be more tolerant of herbicides. There appeared to be little difference in the degree of tolerance for the soybean cultivars with the soil-applied herbicides. Canola exhibited good tolerance to trifluralin. Hairy vetch exhibited relatively good tolerance to trifluralin and to imazethapyr but was controlled with atrazine or a metribuzin and chlorimuron combination. Except for trifluralin and ethalflural in, tolerance of sunflower was generally not adequate. There was little indication of adequate tolerance with most treatments for use in sorghum, wheat, or oats. Alfalfa generally exhibited relatively good tolerance to trifluralin, pendimethalin, ethalflural in, imazethapyr and EPTC.
Control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters was excellent with nearly all treatments. Except for the dinitroanil ines, control of common ragweed was also quite good. Except for the dinitroanil ines and acetanil ides, most treatments gave good control of velvetleaf; however, metribuzin plus chlorimuron was better than chlorimuron or thifensulfuron alone.
For common cocklebur, some of the more effective treatments included metribuzin plus chlorimuron, atrazine, bentazon, chlorimuron, and lactofen. Most treatments controlled jimsonweed rather well except the dinitroanil ines and clomazone. Control of ivyleaf and tall morningglory was quite similar with the various treatments; treatments which included atrazine were generally most effective with many other treatments giving only partial control. While most sulfonylureas and dinitroanil ines provided little or no help for eastern black nightshade, imazethapyr, atrazine, the acetanil ides, lactofen and acifluorfen were effective. Most treatments gave relatively good control of most annual grass weeds. However, control of annual grass with metribuzin and chlorimuron was only fair. Observations suggested an antagonistic effect of imazethapyr on annual grass control with EPTC.
Of the relatively new compounds XRM 5313 indicated relatively good soybean tolerance, good control of most annual grass weeds; and compared to trifluralin alone, significant improvement in control of velvetleaf, jimsonweed, eastern black nightshade, and common ragweed as well as partial control of common cocklebur and common sunflower, but little additional help on annual morningglories. Lack of adequate tolerance would likely preclude use on sunflower and canola, but alfalfa and hairy vetch appeared to have moderate tolerance.
MON 13280 gave control of the foxtails with a rate response, was better on large crabgrass, poor on barnyardgrass, and had activity on shattercane. It gave good control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and eastern black nightshade and had some activity on velvetleaf, jimsonweed, annual morningglories and common ragweed. Combination with imazethapyr or metribuzin and chlorimuron significantly improved control of most broadleaf weeds and also of some grass weeds. Degree of crop tolerance would likely preclude use on the crops included in this study other than soybeans.
Acetachlor generally provided good control of grass weeds, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, eastern black nightshade, common ragweed, and jimsonweed. When incorporated it had activity on velvetleaf. Addition of atrazine further enhanced control. Crop tolerance could be of more concern than with alachlor, making the addition of a safening agent worthy of consideration. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
Table 1. Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Feltes).
— IPS/ |
i' Corn |
varie |
ties-- |
-Soybeans |
||||||
C1128 |
C1284 |
C4S43 |
C41K |
C6973 |
cbo<k |
Archer Bell |
Chapman |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
|||||||||
in. |
||||||||||
PREPLANT INCORPORATED: |
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(*) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(*) |
(%) |
Ethalfluralin + trif2 |
0.67 + 0.33 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in2 |
1.5 |
80 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
50 |
70 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in3 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in3 |
1.0 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in4 |
1.0 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in2 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Triflural in3 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Triflural in* + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Triflural in' + metr & |
1.0 + 0.35 & |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
chlorimuron |
0.035 |
|||||||||
Pendimethal in & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
65 |
55 |
45 |
45 |
35 |
55 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in2 |
1.0 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in* + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Triflural in & imep |
0.75 & 0.063 |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Triflural in & DE 498 |
0.85 & 0.062 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Triflural in & DE 498 |
0.96 & 0.07 |
75 |
65 |
55 |
65 |
45 |
65 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Triflural in* + clom |
0.75 + 0.75 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Clomazone & trif |
0.75 & 1.0 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Butyl ate + atrazine |
4.0 + 1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
dietholate + atra |
1.5 |
|||||||||
Hon 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
Hon 8421 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
ICIA 5676 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
dietholate + imep |
0.063 |
|||||||||
Trifluralin* / imep + |
1.0 / 0.063 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin* / bent & |
1.0 / 0.75 & |
60 |
60 |
60 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
acifluorfen + 28%N |
0.1675 + 4% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin* / clim + |
1.0 / 0.004 + |
80 |
70 |
50 |
60 |
50 |
80 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
|||||||||
X-77 + 28% N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||||||
Trif* / lactofen + |
1.0 / 0.2 + |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
COC5 |
1% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin* / clim + |
1.0 / 0.008 + |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
COC + 28%N |
1% + 2% |
|||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
dlat / nicosulfuron + |
0.031 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1% + 4% |
|||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
dlat / primisulfuron+ |
0.036 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1% + 4% |
|||||||||
Pend & imazethapyr / |
0.88 & 0.063 / |
50 |
60 |
60 |
40 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
lactofen + |
0.125 + |
|||||||||
X-77 + 28%N |
.25% + 4% |
|||||||||
Metolachlor & atra / |
2.0 & 1.0 / |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
primisulfuron + |
0.036 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1% + 4% |
|||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
PREEMERGENCE: |
||||||||||
Metribuzin & clim |
0.35 & 0.035 |
30 |
40 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 0 20 |
Metribuzin & cl im |
0.28 & 0.047 |
35 |
40 |
50 |
30 |
40 |
40 |
0 |
o |
|
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
|
HON 8421 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
ICIA 5676 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
MON 13280 |
0.2 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
MON 13280 |
0.3 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
MON 13280 + |
0.3 + |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
|||||||||
MON 13280 + imep |
0.3 + 0.063 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Alachlor(65WDG) |
3.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
40 |
30 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Pendimethal in & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
40 |
30 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Imazethapyr + atra |
0.063 + 1.5 |
40 |
30 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
V-53482 |
0.094 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
12
Table 2. Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Feltes).
-Soybe |
anr _ . |
Sun- |
Sorghum Hairy |
||||||
Jack |
Kunitz |
Williams |
Williams flower |
vetch |
|||||
82 |
82 ! |
>TS |
|||||||
Trpatmpnt |
Rate |
Injury |
|||||||
llCa LIIIC lib |
|||||||||
PREPLANT INCORPORATED |
: (lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Ethalfluralin + trif2 |
0.67 + 0.33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
98 |
30 |
|
Trifluralin2 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
60 |
|
Trifluralin3 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
98 |
40 |
|
Trifluralin3 |
1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
40 |
|
Trifluralin* |
1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
40 |
|
Trifluralin2 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
95 |
90 |
|
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin3 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
95 |
90 |
|
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
95 |
90 |
|
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.35 & |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
96 |
90 |
|
chlorimuron |
0.035 |
||||||||
Pendimethalin & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
95 |
10 |
|
Trifluralin2 |
1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
10 |
|
Trifluralin4 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
98 |
10 |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Trifluralin & imep |
0.75 & 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
98 |
10 |
|
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.85 & 0.062 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
80 |
97 |
20 |
|
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.96 & 0.07 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
85 |
98 |
30 |
|
Trifluralin4 + clom |
0.75 + 0.75 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
80 |
20 |
|
Clomazone & trif |
0.75 & 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
98 |
30 |
|
Butyl ate + atrazine |
4.0 + 1.5 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
20 |
95 |
|
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
40 |
95 |
|
dietholate + atra |
1.5 |
||||||||
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
50 |
80 |
|
HON 8421 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
60 |
95 |
|
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
50 |
80 |
|
ICIA 5676 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
60 |
95 |
|
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
80 |
85 |
50 |
|
dietholate + imep |
0.063 |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 / imep + |
1.0 / 0.063 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
50 |
100 |
40 |
|
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 2% |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 / bent & |
1.0 / 0.75 & |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
50 |
97 |
50 |
|
acifluorfen + 28%N |
0.1675 + 4% |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 / clim + |
1.0 / 0.004 + |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
50 |
97 |
90 |
|
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
||||||||
X-77 + 28% N |
0.25% + 2% |
||||||||
Tri f 1 ural i n4/l actof en |
+ 1.0 / 0.2 + |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
80 |
98 |
70 |
|
COC5 |
1.0% |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 / clim + |
1.0 / 0.008 + |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
40 |
99 |
80 |
|
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 2.0% |
||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
20 |
97 |
80 |
|
dlat / nicosulfuron ^ |
0.031 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
80 |
97 |
98 |
|
dlat / primisulfuron4 |
0.036 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
Pend & imazethapyr / |
0.88 & 0.063/ |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
90 |
98 |
80 |
|
lactofen + |
0.125 + |
||||||||
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 4.0% |
||||||||
Metolachlor & atra / |
2.0 & 1.0 / |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
90 |
98 |
|
primisulfuron + |
0.036 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
PREEMERGENCE: |
|||||||||
Metribuzin & clim |
0.35 & 0.035 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
50 |
20 |
|
Metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
40 |
60 |
40 90 |
|
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
||
MON 8421 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
70 |
30 |
100 |
|
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
90 |
|
ICIA 5676 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
90 |
20 |
100 |
|
MON 13280 |
0.2 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
20 |
40 |
80 |
|
MON 13280 |
0.3 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
40 |
50 |
90 |
|
MON 13280 + |
0.3 + |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
|
metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
||||||||
MON 13280 + imep |
0.3 + 0.063 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
|
Alachlor(65WDG) |
3.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
40 |
50 |
|
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
80 |
50 |
|
Pendimethalin & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
80 |
60 |
|
Imazethapyr + atra |
0.063 + 1.5 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
|
V-53482 |
0.094 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
13
Table 3. Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Feltes).
Gift |
Yeft |
Grft |
Lacg |
Bygr |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Vele |
Jiwe |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
ontrol |
||||||||
PREPLANT INCORPORATED: |
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
Ethalfluralin + trif2 |
0.67 + 0.33 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
0 |
Trifluralin2 |
1.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
20 |
10 |
Trifluralin3 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
99 |
Trifluralin3 |
1.0 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
0 |
Trifluralin4 |
1.0 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
0 |
Trifluralin2 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
98 |
98 |
98 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Trifluralin3 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
98 |
98 |
98 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
98 |
98 |
98 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.35 & |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
chlorimuron |
0.035 |
|||||||||
Pendimethalin + imep |
0.875 + 0.063 |
99 |
99 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
99 |
Trifluralin2 |
1.0 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
0 |
Trifluralin4 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
99 |
98 |
98 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
90 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Trifluralin & imep |
0.75 & 0.063 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
90 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.85 & 0.062 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
75 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
70 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.96 & 0.07 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
90 |
Trifluralin4 & clom |
0.75 & 0.75 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
85 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
Clomazone & trif |
0.75 & 1.0 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
Butyl ate + atrazine |
4.0 + 1.5 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
dietholate + atra |
1.5 |
|||||||||
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
96 |
96 |
96 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
98 |
MON 8421 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
93 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
96 |
96 |
96 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
98 |
ICIA 5676 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
93 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
99 |
EPTC 4 dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
80 |
80 |
80 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
dietholate + imep |
0.063 |
• |
||||||||
Trifluralin4 / imep + |
1.0 / 0.063 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
98 |
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 / bent & |
1.0 / 0.75 & |
70 |
70 |
70 |
95 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
98 |
acifluorfen + 28%N |
0.1675 + 4% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 / dim + |
1.0 / 0.004 + |
80 |
80 |
80 |
90 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
95 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
|||||||||
X-77 + 28% N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 / lact + |
1.0 / 0.2 + |
85 |
85 |
85 |
95 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
95 |
COC5 |
1.0% |
|||||||||
Trifluralin4 / dim + |
1.0 / 0.008 + |
80 |
80 |
80 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
70 |
95 |
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 2.0% |
|||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
dlat / nicosulfuron + |
0.031 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
|||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
dlat / primisulfuron+ |
0.036 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
|||||||||
Pend & imazethapyr / |
0.9 / |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
lactofen + |
0.125 + |
|||||||||
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 4.0% |
|||||||||
Metolachlor & atra / |
2.0 & 1.0 / |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
100 |
primisulfuron + |
0.036 + |
|||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
|||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
PREEMERGENCE: |
||||||||||
Metribuzin & dim |
0.35 + 0.035 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
95 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Metribuzin & dim |
0.28 + 0.047 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
95 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
99 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
MON 8421 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
30 |
100 |
ICIA 5676 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
100 |
MON 13280 |
0.2 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
100 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
80 |
MON 13280 |
0.3 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
90 |
MON 13280 + |
0.3 + |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metribuzin & dim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
|||||||||
MON 13280 + imep |
0.3 + 0.063 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
Alachlor(65WDG) |
3.0 |
99 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
90 |
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
Pendimethalin & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
Imazethapyr + atra |
0.063 + 1.5 |
96 |
96 |
96 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 |
0.094 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
50 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
14
Table 4. Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Feltes).
Tamg |
Ilmg |
Ebns |
Cosf |
Corw |
Cocb |
Fap |
i Shea |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Cor |
|||||||
PREPLANT INCORPORATED: |
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
Ethalfluralin + trif2 |
0.67 + 0.33 |
60 |
60 |
50 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
99 |
99 |
Trifluralin2 |
1.5 |
60 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
100 |
99 |
Trifluralin3 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
Trifluralin3 |
1.0 |
50 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
98 |
90 |
Trifluralin4 |
1.0 |
50 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
98 |
90 |
Trifluralin2 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
70 |
70 |
0 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin3 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
70 |
70 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin* + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
70 |
70 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
||||||||
Trifluralin* + metr & |
1.0 + 0.35 & |
70 |
70 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
chlorimuron |
0.035 |
||||||||
Pendimethal in & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
80 |
99 |
95 |
Trifluralin2 |
1.0 |
50 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
98 |
90 |
Trifluralin* + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Trifluralin & imep |
0.75 & 0.063 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
99 |
95 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.85 & 0.062 |
50 |
50 |
90 |
50 |
90 |
60 |
90 |
90 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.96 & 0.07 |
60 |
60 |
95 |
60 |
95 |
75 |
95 |
90 |
Trifluralin* + clom |
0.75 + 0.75 |
40 |
40 |
30 |
50 |
90 |
40 |
98 |
90 |
Clomazone & trif |
0.75 & 1.0 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
50 |
90 |
40 |
99 |
90 |
Butyl ate + atrazine |
4.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
99 |
40 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
50 |
dietholate + atra |
1.5 |
||||||||
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
10 |
95 |
40 |
98 |
70 |
MON 8421 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
99 |
80 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
60 |
60 |
100 |
10 |
95 |
40 |
98 |
70 |
ICIA 5676 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
85 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
99 |
80 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
50 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
80 |
90 |
95 |
dietholate + imep |
0.063 |
||||||||
Trifluralin* / imep + |
1.0 / 0.063 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 2% |
||||||||
Trifluralin* / bent & |
1.0 / 0.75 & |
80 |
90 |
100 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
95 |
acifluorfen + 28%N |
0.1675 + 4% |
||||||||
Trifluralin* / dim + |
1.0 / 0.004 + |
60 |
60 |
0 |
80 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
||||||||
X-77 + 28% N |
0.25% + 2% |
||||||||
Tri f 1 ural i n*/l actof en |
f 1.0 / 0.2 + |
70 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
93 |
COC5 |
1.0% |
||||||||
Trifluralin* / clim + |
1.0 / 0.008 + |
70 |
80 |
0 |
80 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
98 |
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 2.0% |
||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
70 |
80 |
95 |
0 |
85 |
80 |
100 |
99 |
dlat / nicosulfuron + |
0.031 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
dlat / primisulfuron+ |
0.036 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
Pend & imazethapyr / |
0.88 & 0.063 / |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
lactofen + |
0.125 + |
||||||||
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 4% |
||||||||
Metolachlor & atra / |
2.0 & 1.0 / |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
primisulfuron + |
0.036 + |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
PREEMERGENCE: |
|||||||||
Metribuzin & clim |
0.35 & 0.035 |
50 |
80 |
0 |
50 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
Metribuzin & clim |
0.28 + 0.047 |
90 |
90 |
0 |
50 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
30 |
10 |
100 |
10 |
100 |
30 |
100 |
70 |
MON 8421 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
80 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
30 |
10 |
100 |
10 |
100 |
30 |
100 |
70 |
ICIA 5676 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
80 |
MON 13280 |
0.2 |
60 |
60 |
100 |
0 |
85 |
20 |
90 |
90 |
MON 13280 |
0.3 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
0 |
90 |
30 |
90 |
95 |
MON 13280 + |
0.3 + |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
||||||||
MON 13280 + imep |
0.3 + 0.063 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
Alachlor(65WDG) |
3.0 |
40 |
40 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
50 |
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
20 |
95 |
98 |
Pendimethal in & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
99 |
Imazethapyr + atra |
0.063 + 1.5 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
V-53482 |
0.094 |
80 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
15
Table 5. Multi-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Feltes).
Oats |
Wheat |
Alfalfa |
Red Clover |
Canola |
||
Rate |
Ogle |
Caldwell Ir |
Magnum |
Ruby |
Cascade |
|
Treatment |
ijury |
|||||
PREPLANT INCORPORATED: |
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
Ethalfluralin + trif2 |
0.67 + 0.33 |
90 |
90 |
5 |
5 |
20 |
Triflural in2 |
1.5 |
90 |
90 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
Trifluralin3 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
95 |
75 |
10 |
50 |
100 |
Triflural in3 |
1.0 |
90 |
70 |
5 |
15 |
30 |
Trifluralin* |
1.0 |
90 |
70 |
5 |
15 |
40 |
Trifluralin2 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
99 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||
Trifluralin3 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
99 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.28 & |
99 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
|||||
Trifluralin4 + metr & |
1.0 + 0.35 & |
99 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
chlorimuron |
0.035 |
|||||
Pendimethalin + imep |
0.875 + 0.063 |
95 |
75 |
10 |
80 |
100 |
Trifluralin2 |
1.0 |
90 |
70 |
5 |
50 |
10 |
Trifluralin4 + imep |
1.0 + 0.063 |
95 |
75 |
10 |
40 |
100 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Trifluralin & imep |
0.75 & 0.063 |
90 |
80 |
10 |
40 |
100 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.85 & 0.062 |
80 |
70 |
10 |
40 |
100 |
Trifluralin & DE 498 |
0.96 & 0.07 |
80 |
70 |
20 |
70 |
100 |
Trifluralin4 + clom |
0.75 + 0.75 |
90 |
80 |
40 |
80 |
10 |
Clomazone & trif |
0.75 & 1.0 |
90 |
80 |
45 |
85 |
10 |
Butylate + atrazine |
4.0 + 1.5 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
dietholate + atra |
1.5 |
|||||
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
75 |
75 |
70 |
100 |
85 |
MON 8421 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
85 |
85 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
80 |
80 |
40 |
100 |
85 |
ICIA 5676 + atra |
2.0 + 1.5 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 + |
90 |
75 |
10 |
85 |
100 |
dietholate + imep |
0.063 |
|||||
Trifluralin4 / imep + |
1.0 / 0.063 |
85 |
80 |
5 |
40 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||
Trifluralin4 / bent & |
1.0 / 0.75 & |
80 |
65 |
75 |
90 |
40 |
acifluorfen + 28%N |
0.1675 + 4% |
|||||
Trifluralin4 / clim + |
1.0 / 0.004 + |
75 |
60 |
10 |
90 |
40 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
|||||
X-77 + 28% N |
0.25% + 2% |
|||||
Trifluralin4/lactofen |
+ 1.0 / 0.2 + |
80 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
COC5 |
1.0% |
|||||
Trifluralin4 / clim + |
1.0 / 0.008 + |
80 |
60 |
15 |
90 |
70 |
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 2% |
|||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
100 |
100 |
20 |
80 |
40 |
dlat / nicosulfuron |
f 0.031 + |
|||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4% |
|||||
EPTC & dichlormid & |
4.0 / |
100 |
100 |
50 |
90 |
50 |
dlat / primisulfuron+ 0.036 + |
||||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4% |
|||||
Pend & imazethapyr / |
0.88 & 0.063 / |
90 |
80 |
90 |
98 |
60 |
lactofen + |
0.125 + |
|||||
X-77 + 28%N |
0.25% + 4% |
|||||
Metolachlor & atra / |
2.0 & 1.0 / |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
primisulfuron + |
0.036 + |
|||||
COC + 28%N |
1.0% + 4.0% |
|||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
|
PREEMERGENCE: |
||||||
Metribuzin & clim |
0.35 & 0.035 |
75 |
65 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
Metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
80 |
70 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
MON 8421 (acet) |
2.0 |
70 |
60 |
75 |
100 |
90 |
MON 8421 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
80 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
ICIA 5676 |
2.0 |
70 |
60 |
75 |
100 |
80 |
ICIA 5676 + atrazine |
2.0 + 1.5 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
MON 13280 |
0.2 |
20 |
20 |
75 |
90 |
80 |
MON 13280 |
0.3 |
30 |
30 |
80 |
98 |
90 |
MON 13280 + |
0.3 + |
90 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
metribuzin & clim |
0.28 & 0.047 |
|||||
MON 13280 + imep |
0.3 + 0.063 |
70 |
60 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
Alachlor(65WDG0 |
3.0 |
50 |
40 |
60 |
100 |
50 |
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
80 |
70 |
10 |
90 |
100 |
Pendimethalin & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
90 |
80 |
60 |
90 |
100 |
Imazethapyr + atra |
0.063 + 1.5 |
95 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 |
0.094 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
'Independent Professional Seedsmen Association.
2Treflan 4EC from Dow-El anco.
3Trilin GRP 80 DF from Griffin.
4Trific 60DF from Terra International.
5C0C - crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
16
Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W. Heisner, Lyle E. Paul, and Joe D. Walsh. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree of crop tolerance and weed control for most crops and annual weed species common to Illinois with herbicides applied postemergence.
m
Location: Plot size: Drainage:
DeKalb SW800 10 X 150 ft fair
Organic matter: Soil pH: Soil type:
Slope: Planting date:
1 to 2% April 23, 1991 30 inch and 5 ft
5 to 6%
6.3
Drummer silty Row spacing:
clay loam
Tillage: residue chopped August 6, 1990; disked August 30, 1990; field cultivated October 13, 1990; disked and harrowed April 22, 1991. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Date: May 23, 1991 |
Temperature (F) |
Soil moisture: |
moist |
||
Treatment: Postemergence |
air: |
75 |
Wind (mph): |
12 NNE |
|
Time: 12:15 |
i pm |
soil under sod |
Sky (% overcast): |
60 |
|
Rainfall (inch) |
4 inch: |
65 |
Relative |
||
previous week: |
0.82 |
humidity (%): |
85 |
||
following week: |
4.42 |
||||
Corn |
Large crabgrass |
Common sunflower |
|||
leaf no. |
3 |
leaf no. |
1 |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
6 |
height (inch) |
1 |
height (inch) |
3 |
Soybean |
Barnyardgrass |
Common ragweed |
|||
leaf no. |
1st trif |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
4 |
height (inch) |
5 |
height (inch) |
3 |
height (inch) |
2 |
Sunflower |
Redroot pigweed |
Giant ragweed |
|||
leaf no. |
4 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
6 |
height (inch) |
1 |
height (inch) |
1.5 |
Sorghum |
Common lambsquart |
ers |
Fall panicum |
||
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
3 |
height (inch) |
1 |
height (inch) |
2 |
Hairy vetch |
Velvetleaf |
Shattercane |
|||
leaf no. |
4 |
leaf no. |
4 |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) |
2 |
Common cocklebur |
Jimsonweed |
Canola |
|||
leaf no. |
3 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
4 |
height (inch) |
2.5 |
height (inch) |
1.5 |
height (inch) |
4 |
Giant foxtail |
Tall morningglory |
Oats |
|||
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
4 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) |
1.5 |
height (inch) |
6 |
Yellow foxtail |
Ivyleaf morninggl |
ory |
Wheat |
||
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
4 |
height (inch) |
3 |
height (inch) |
1.5 |
height (inch) |
4 |
Green foxtail |
Eastern black nightshade |
Alfalfa |
|||
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. |
cotyl |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) |
1 |
height (inch) Red clover leaf no. height (inch) |
1 3 1.5 |
The dry water soluble crystals of the dimethyl amine salt of 2,4-D performed in a very similar manner as the liquid formulation of the dimethylamine salt at comparable rate. The dry formulation could offer some convenience. The combination of 2,4-D and atrazine provided weed control very similar to dicamba and atrazine. Although corn tolerance appeared to be relatively adequate in this trial, previous experience suggests some caution.
Corn exhibited good tolerance to pyridate and to CL 23601 except for slight effect when pyridate was mixed with cyanazine. Spectrum of control for pyridate combined with atrazine or cyanazine and for CL 23601 combined with atrazine was quite broad for both grass and broadleaf weeds. Pyridate or CL 23601 combined with nicosulfuron or primisulfuron provided good corn tolerance and fairly broad spectrum weed control with spectrum depending somewhat on the relative strength of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron with nicosulfuron more effective on most grass weeds and primisulfuron more effective on some broadleaf weeds. Although pyridate plus
17
sethoxydim provided good weed control, crop tolerance appeared too limited for this combination to be promising for newly established alfalfa or any other crop included in the study.
A low rate of metribuzin plus bentazon provided good control of broadleaf weeds with only slight effect noted on corn. Similarly, a low rate of metribuzin with 2,4-D dimethylamine or butoxyethyl ester provided excellent broadleaf weed control with little effect on corn.
Sethoxydim plus bentazon and acifluorfen gave excellent broad spectrum weed control with minimal effect on soybeans.
Comparison of various adjuvants with imazethapyr indicated Dash (an adjuvant from BASF) and Sunit II (a methylated seed oil) to be quite similar in performance and both slightly more effective than X-77 (an adjuvant from Valent).
Under the conditions of this study, 0.125 lb/A of fluazifop-P was nearly as effective as 0.188 lb/A. Fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop gave excellent control of all grasses, including "volunteer" corn. The same combination plus fomesafen provided excellent broad spectrum control of both grass and broadleaf weeds except common lambsquarters and control of it was improved by addition of a dimethylamine formulation of 2,4-DB. Flazifop-P plus fomesafen also provided excellent control of nearly all grass and broadleaf weeds.
With the exception of annual morningglories, combinations of imazethapyr plus nicosulfuron or primisulfuron provided excellent broad spectrum weed control but excessive corn injury indicated that an imazethapyr tolerant line would be needed. Except for weakness on large crabgrass, nicosulfuron gave very good control of grass weeds. Primisulfuron was less effective than nicosulfuron on most grass species and especially weak on large crabgrass and barnyardgrass. However, primisulfuron was more effective on several broadleaf weed species than nicosulfuron, including common cocklebur, velvetleaf, jimsonweed, eastern black nightshade, and common sunflower.
With these contrasting characteristics, various ratios of nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron were tried. Using a half rate of each provided excellent broad spectrum weed control except for only partial control of annual morningglories, moderate control of velvetleaf and poor control of large crabgrass. Other ratios appeared to have little or no advantage. One of the most dramatic observations was the tolerance of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans to both nicosulfuron and primisulfuron alone or in combination.
Reducing the rate of nicosulfuron from 0.031 lb/A to 0.024 lb/A and comparing X-77 with 28% UAN for nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil indicated little significant difference with all treatments being quite effective. Addition of bromoxynil to nicosulfuron or DPX-79406 significantly improved control of common cocklebur, velvetleaf, annual morningglories, common ragweed, common sunflower and eastern black nightshade. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
18
Table 1. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides Walsh).
(Knake, Heisner, Paul, and
TP<^ |
A1 Corr |
i vari |
eties - |
-Soyb |
|||||
eans- |
|||||||||
C1128 |
C1284 |
C4843 |
C6114 |
C6973 |
C8004 |
Archer Bell |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
njury |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
2,4-D2 |
0.47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
50 |
2,4-D3 |
0.22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
30 |
2,4-D3 |
0.44 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
50 |
2,4-D3 |
0.88 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
70 |
70 |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
0.56 & 0.25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
Atra & 2,4-D |
0.84 & 0.375 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
Atra & banvel |
0.47 & 0.92 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
Pyridate + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
CL 23601 + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
95 |
Pydt + cyanazine |
0.9 + 1.2 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
90 |
90 |
Pydt + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
75 |
75 |
Pydt + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
CL 23601 + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 +0.031 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
70 |
70 |
CL 23601 + primisulfuron' |
1 0.45 + 0.036 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
75 |
75 |
Pydt + sethoxydim + COC5 |
0.9 + 0.188 + 1% |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
60 |
60 |
Metribuzin + bentazon4 |
0.076 + 0.5 |
10 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
Metr + 2,4-D6 |
0.09 + 0.16 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
50 |
Metr + 2,4-D2 |
0.09 + 0.25 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
30 |
Quizalofop + clorimuron+ |
0.044 + 0.004 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
10 |
thifensulfuron + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0.17 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
10 |
10 |
acifluorfen + 28% N |
4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0.17 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
10 |
10 |
acif + thif + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + 28% N4 |
0.063 + 1% |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
Imep + |
0.063 + |
50 |
50 |
60 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
Dash7 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
40 |
40 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
Sun it8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Pendimethalin & imep + |
0.88 & 0.063 |
40 |
40 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
Sun it8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Seth + Flfp-P + |
0.125 + 0.016 + |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
2 |
2 |
bentazon + COC + 28% N |
1.0 + 1% + 4% |
||||||||
Fluazifop-P ■+ COC |
0.125 + 1% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P + COC |
0.188 + 1% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P & fenoxaprop + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2 |
2 |
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
5 |
5 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
5 |
5 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.125 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
bentazon + 28% N4 |
0.5 + 4% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2 |
2 |
fome + thif4 |
0.25 + 0.004 |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fome + COC |
0.25 & 0.188 + 1% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2 |
2 |
Imep + nicosulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.016 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
50 |
40 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
Imep + primisulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.018 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
50 |
40 |
40 |
50 |
50 |
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.031 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
50 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 + 1% |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
60 |
60 |
Nicosulfuron + |
0.016 + |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
5 |
60 |
60 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.018 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.008 + |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
10 |
60 |
60 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
50 |
50 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.09 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
10 |
20 |
10 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
70 |
70 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + nicosulfuron40.25 + 0.024 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
85 |
85 |
|
Brox + nicosulfuron4 |
0.25 + 0.031 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
Brox + nicosulfuron + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
28% N |
2% |
||||||||
Brox + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron4 |
0.031 |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + 28% N4 |
0.024 + 4% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
DPX-79406 + brox4 |
0.016 + 0.25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
19
lable 2. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul and Walsh)
Soybe; |
ins |
Sun- |
|||||||
Chapman |
Jack |
Kunitz |
Williams |
Uillians |
flower |
Sorghu* Sorgtuji |
|||
S2 |
82 STS |
CGA- 13205 |
|||||||
Trpatmpnt |
Rate |
- injury |
|||||||
I I \- a L u ic ML. |
|||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
w |
(%) |
(*) |
(*) |
(%) |
(%) |
(*) |
|
2,4-D2 |
0.47 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
80 |
2 |
2 |
2,4-D3 |
0.22 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
60 |
1 |
1 |
2,4-D3 |
0.44 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
70 |
2 |
2 |
2,4-D3 |
0.88 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
85 |
3 |
3 |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
0.56 & 0.25 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
10 |
10 |
Atra & 2,4-D |
0.84 & 0.375 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
20 |
20 |
Atra & banvel |
0.47 & 0.92 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
90 |
0 |
0 |
Pyridate + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
20 |
20 |
CL 23601 + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
30 |
30 |
Pydt + cyanazine |
0.9 + 1.2 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
Pydt + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
50 |
95 |
95 |
Pydt + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
60 |
80 |
95 |
95 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
CL 23601 + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 +0.031 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
50 |
95 |
95 |
CL 23601 + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
55 |
80 |
95 |
95 |
Pydt + sethoxydim + COC |
0.9 + 0.188 + 1% |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
40 |
90 |
90 |
Metribuzin + bentazon4 |
0.076 + 0.5 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
70 |
0 |
0 |
Metr + 2,4-D6 |
0.09 + 0.16 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
60 |
70 |
0 |
0 |
Metr + 2,4-D2 |
0.09 + 0.25 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
40 |
70 |
0 |
0 |
Quizalofop + chlorimuron |
0.044 + 0.004 + |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
thifensulfuron + 28* N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
60 |
96 |
96 |
acifluorfen + 28% N |
4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
90 |
96 |
96 |
acif + thif + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + 28% N4 |
0.063 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
97 |
97 |
Imep + |
0.063 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
85 |
99 |
99 |
Dash7 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Imep + |
0.063 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
85 |
99 |
99 |
Sunit8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Pendimethal in & imep + |
0.88 & 0.063 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
83 |
99 |
99 |
Sunit8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Seth + Flfp-P + |
0.125 + 0.016 + |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
60 |
98 |
98 |
bentazon + COC + 28% N |
1.0 + 1% + 4% |
||||||||
Fluazifop-P + COC |
0.125 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
Flfp-P + COC |
0.188 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
100 |
100 |
Flfp-P & fenoxaprop + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
60 |
99 |
99 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.125 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
bentazon + 28% N4 |
0.5 + 4% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
fome + thif4 |
0.25 + 0.004 |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fome + COC |
0.25 & 0.188 + 13 |
; 2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
Imep + nicosulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.016 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
90 |
99 |
99 |
Imep + primisulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.018 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
95 |
99 |
99 |
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.031 + 1% |
50 |
60 |
40 |
60 |
10 |
50 |
99 |
99 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.036 + 1% |
60 |
60 |
60 |
70 |
10 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
Nicosulfuron + |
0.016 + |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
20 |
95 |
99 |
99 |
primisul furon + COC |
0.C18 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.008 + |
70 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
20 |
97 |
99 |
99 |
primisul furon + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
10 |
85 |
99 |
99 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.09 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
30 |
98 |
99 |
99 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + nicosulfuron |
!40.25 + 0.024 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
98 |
99 |
99 |
Brox + nicosulfuron4 |
0.25 + 0.031 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
98 |
99 |
99 |
Brox + nicosul furon |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
28% N |
2% |
||||||||
Brox + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
nicosulfuron4 |
0.031 |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + 28% N4 |
0.024 + 4% |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
30 |
80 |
99 |
99 |
DPX-79406 + brox4 |
0.016 + 0.25 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
70 |
99 |
99 |
20
Table 3. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
C a no la |
Oats |
Wheat |
Alfalfa |
Red Clover Hairy |
|||||
Cascade |
Ogle |
Caldwell |
Magnum |
Ruby |
vetch Gift |
Yeft |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
ijury - |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
2,4-D2 |
0.47 |
80 |
10 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
2,4-D3 |
0.22 |
70 |
5 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
2,4-D3 |
0.44 |
80 |
10 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
2,4-D3 |
0.88 |
85 |
20 |
0 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
0.56 & 0.25 |
95 |
10 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
10 |
10 |
Atra & 2,4-D |
0.84 & 0.375 |
100 |
20 |
30 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
20 |
20 |
Atra & banvel |
0.47 & 0.92 |
50 |
10 |
30 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
30 |
30 |
Pyridate + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
80 |
12 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
97 |
CL 23601 + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
80 |
40 |
60 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
97 |
Pydt + cyanazine |
0.9 + 1.2 |
80 |
30 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
85 |
95 |
93 |
80 |
85 |
98 |
95 |
90 |
Pydt + primisulfuron* |
0.45 + 0.036 |
85 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
95 |
98 |
70 |
60 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
CL 23601 + nicosulfuron* |
0.7 + 0.031 |
90 |
100 |
93 |
70 |
85 |
95 |
99 |
90 |
CL 23601 + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
80 |
90 |
90 |
80 |
95 |
97 |
80 |
50 |
Pydt + sethoxydim + COC |
0.9 + 0.188 + 1% |
40 |
90 |
60 |
40 |
70 |
95 |
99 |
95 |
Metribuzin + bentazon4 |
0.076 + 0.5 |
100 |
0 |
40 |
50 |
100 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
Metr + 2,4-D6 |
0.09 + 0.16 |
85 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
Metr + 2,4-D2 |
0.09 + 0.25 |
75 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
Quizalofop + chlorimuron |
0.044 + 0.004 + |
80 |
95 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
50 |
thifensulfuron + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0.17 |
99 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
acifluorfen + 28% N |
4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0.17 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
acif + thif + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + 28% N4 |
0.063 + 1% |
79 |
90 |
80 |
10 |
45 |
10 |
93 |
93 |
Imep + |
0.063 + |
85 |
90 |
83 |
15 |
50 |
10 |
95 |
95 |
Dash7 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Imep + |
0,063 + |
80 |
90 |
85 |
20 |
45 |
10 |
95 |
95 |
Sun it8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Pendimethalin & imep + |
0.88 & 0.063 |
85 |
90 |
85 |
10 |
40 |
10 |
93 |
93 |
Sunit8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Seth + Flfp-P + |
0.125 + 0.016 + |
100 |
95 |
80 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
92 |
92 |
bentazon + COC + 28% N |
1.0 + 1% + 4% |
||||||||
Fluazifop-P + COC |
0.125 + 1% |
0 |
100 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
87 |
Flfp-P + COC |
0.188 + 1% |
0 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
Flfp-P & fenoxaprop + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
0 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
99 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.125 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
bentazon + 28% N4 |
0.5 + 4% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
90 |
100 |
99 |
85 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
fome + thif* |
0.25 + 0.004 |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fome + COC |
0.25 & 0.188 + 1% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
Imep + nicosulfuron* |
0.063 + 0.016 |
80 |
98 |
99 |
50 |
70 |
10 |
98 |
99 |
Imep + primisulfuron* |
0.063 + 0.018 |
80 |
98 |
99 |
60 |
80 |
80 |
95 |
98 |
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.031 + 1% |
75 |
98 |
99 |
50 |
80 |
60 |
99 |
99 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 + 1% |
75 |
98 |
99 |
60 |
95 |
90 |
98 |
98 |
Nicosulfuron + |
0.016 + |
80 |
98 |
99 |
60 |
80 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.018 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.008 + |
80 |
98 |
99 |
60 |
80 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
80 |
98 |
99 |
60 |
80 |
80 |
99 |
100 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.09 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
80 |
98 |
99 |
70 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + nicosulfuron |
*0.25 + 0.024 |
95 |
98 |
95 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nicosulfuron* |
0.25 + 0.031 |
90 |
98 |
95 |
75 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nicosulfuron |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
80 |
98 |
95 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
28% N |
2% |
||||||||
Brox + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
95 |
95 |
99 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
nicosulfuron* |
0.031 |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + 28% N* |
0.024 + 4% |
80 |
98 |
95 |
70 |
100 |
80 |
98 |
100 |
DPX-79406 + brox* |
0.016 + 0.25 |
90 |
98 |
95 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
21
Table 4. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Grft |
Lacg |
Bygr |
Fapa |
Shea |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Vele |
||
Trpatmpnt |
Rate |
||||||||
iica Line ml |
|||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
2,4-D2 |
0.47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
2,4-D3 |
0.22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
2,4-D3 |
0.44 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
2,4-D3 |
0.88 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
0.56 & 0.25 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
Atra & 2,4-D |
0.84 & 0.375 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Atra & banvel |
0.47 & 0.92 |
30 |
0 |
20 |
40 |
5 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
Pyridate + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
99 |
30 |
50 |
60 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
CL 23601 + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
95 |
30 |
80 |
60 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
Pydt + cyanazine |
0.9 + 1.2 |
97 |
100 |
70 |
99 |
30 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + nicosulfuron* |
0.7 + 0.031 |
95 |
70 |
95 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
Pydt + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
80 |
0 |
40 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
CL 23601 + nico4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
98 |
70 |
99 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
CL 23601 + prim4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
80 |
0 |
30 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
Pydt + sethoxydim + COC |
0.9 + 0.188 + 1% |
98 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
Metribuzin + bentazon4 |
0.076 + 0.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Metr + 2,4-D6 |
0.09 + 0.16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Metr + 2,4-D2 |
0.09 + 0.25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Quizalofop + chlorimuron |
0.044 + 0.004 + |
98 |
85 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
thifensulfuron + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
acifluorfen + 28% N |
4% |
||||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
acif + thif + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + 28% N4 |
0.063 + 1% |
93 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
Imep + |
0.063 + |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
96 |
Dash7 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Imep + |
0.063 + |
95 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
Sun it8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Pendimethalin & imep + |
0.88 & 0.063 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
Sun it8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Seth + Flfp-P + |
0.125 + 0.016 + |
92 |
99 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
80 |
100 |
99 |
bentazon + COC + 28% N |
1.0 + 1% + 4% |
||||||||
Fluazifop-P + COC |
0.125 + 1% |
87 |
98 |
100 |
98 |
98 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P + COC |
0.188 + 1% |
90 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P & fenoxaprop + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
97 |
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
98 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
COC |
1% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.125 + 0.031 + |
||||||||
bentazon + 28% N4 |
0.5 + 4% |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
fome + thif4 |
0.25 + 0.004 |
||||||||
Flfp-P & fome + COC |
0.25 & 0.188 + 151 |
; 99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
Imep + nicosulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.016 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
60 |
Imep + primisulfuron4 |
0.063 + 0.018 |
96 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
Nicosulfuron + COC |
0.031 + 1% |
96 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
30 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 + 1% |
90 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
Nicosulfuron + |
0.016 + |
100 |
30 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.018 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.008 + |
100 |
10 |
95 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
100 |
50 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
60 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.09 + 1% |
||||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
100 |
50 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + nico4 |
0.25 + 0.024 |
100 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nico4 |
0.25 + 0.031 |
100 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nicosulfuron |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
100 |
90 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
28% N |
2% |
||||||||
Brox + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron4 |
0.031 |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + 28% N4 |
0.024 + 4% |
100 |
95 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
DPX-79406 + brox4 |
0.016 + 0.25 |
98 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
22
Table 5. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides (Knake, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Jiwe |
Tamg |
Ilmg |
Corw |
Cosf |
Ebns |
Cocb |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
control |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
2,4-D2 |
0.47 |
90 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2,4-D3 |
0.22 |
50 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2,4-D3 |
0.44 |
90 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
2,4-D3 |
0.88 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
0.56 & 0.25 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Atra & 2,4-D |
0.84 & 0.375 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Atra & banvel |
0.47 & 0.92 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pyridate + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
CL 23601 + atra |
0.9 + 1.0 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + cyanazine |
0.9 + 1.2 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + nicosulfuron4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
95 |
93 |
93 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + primisulfuron4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
CL 23601 + nico4 |
0.7 + 0.031 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
CL 23601 + prim4 |
0.45 + 0.036 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Pydt + sethoxydim + COC |
0.9 + 0.188 + 1% |
10 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
98 |
COC |
1% |
|||||||
Metribuzin + bentazon4 |
0.076 + 0.5 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
Metr + 2,4-D6 |
0.09 + 0.16 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
Metr + 2,4-D2 |
0.09 + 0.25 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Quizalofop + chlorimuron |
0.044 + 0.004 + |
20 |
80 |
80 |
70 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
thifensulfuron + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
|||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 90 |
90 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
acifluorfen + 28% N |
4% |
|||||||
Seth + bent & |
0.188 + 0.75 & 0. |
17 90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
acif + thif + 28% N4 |
0.004 + 4% |
|||||||
Imazethapyr + 28% N4 |
0.063 + 1% |
100 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
99 |
Imep + |
0.063 + |
100 |
75 |
75 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Dash7 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
|||||||
Imep + |
0.063 + |
99 |
75 |
75 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
Sunit8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
|||||||
Pendimethalln & 1mep + |
0.88 & 0.063 |
99 |
75 |
75 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
Sunit8 + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
|||||||
Seth + Flfp-P + |
0.125 + 0.016 + |
60 |
85 |
85 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
bentazon + COC + 28% N |
1.0 + 1% + 4% |
|||||||
Fluazifop-P + COC |
0.125 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P + COC |
0.188 + 1% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Flfp-P & fenoxaprop + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
COC |
1% |
|||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
98 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
|||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
99 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
|||||||
COC |
1% |
|||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
99 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
fome + 2,4-DB2 + |
0.125 + 0.031 + |
|||||||
bentazon + 28% N4 |
0.5 + 4% |
|||||||
Flfp-P & fenx + |
0.125 & 0.035 + |
99 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
fome + thif4 |
0.25 + 0.004 |
|||||||
Flfp-P & fome + COC |
0.25 & 0.188 + 1* |
99 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Imep + nico4 |
0.063 + 0.016 |
99 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Imep + prim4 |
0.063 + 0.018 |
99 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + COC |
0.031 + 1% |
90 |
70 |
70 |
98 |
60 |
50 |
60 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Primisulfuron + COC |
0.036 + 1% |
99 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
Nicosulfuron + |
0.016 + |
99 |
73 |
73 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.018 + 1% |
|||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.008 + |
99 |
75 |
75 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
|||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
99 |
70 |
70 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.09 + 1% |
|||||||
Nicosulfuron + |
0.024 + |
100 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
primisulfuron + COC |
0.027 + 1% |
|||||||
Bromoxynil + nico4 |
0.25 + 0.024 |
99 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nico4 |
0.25 + 0.031 |
100 |
98 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Brox + nico |
0.25 + 0.031 + |
100 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
28% N |
2% |
|||||||
Brox + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron4 |
0.031 |
|||||||
DPX-79406 + 28% N4 |
0.024 + 4% |
99 |
70 |
70 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
10 |
DPX-79406 + brox4 |
0.016 + 0.25 |
99 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
'Independent Professional Seedsmen Association.
2Dimethyl amine salt.
'Water soluable crystals of dimethylamine salt.
4Plus X-77 nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v.
*COC- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
'Butoxyethyl ester.
'Adjuvant from BASF.
81% methylated seed oil.
23
Evaluation of V-53482 combinations for stale seedbed soybeans. Knake, Ellery I., Keith D. Sheriff, Joe D. Walsh, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate V-53482 used in combination with metribuzin, clethodim, alachlor, and imazethapyr for stale seedbed soybeans
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb SW900A 10 X 40 ft. fair 5 to 6% 5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Soybean Pioneer 9202 54.5 lb/A May 24, 1991 30 inch
Tillage: Moldboard plow November 3, 1990; disk and harrow April 24, 1991; used field cultivator
with leveling bar April 25; cultivated check plot June 14.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
and 20 inches above the soil surface for preemergence and 20 inches above the weeds for
postemergence.
June 12
10:00am
Postemergence
Date: Time: Treatment Temperature (F)
air: 82
soil under sod
4 inch: 62
Soil moisture: moist
Wind (mph): 14 SW
Sky (% overcast): 60 Relative
humidity(%): 48 Rainfall (inch)
previous week: 1.81
following week: 4.08
Species present:
Giant foxtail
leaf no. 3
height (inch) 2.5
Redroot pigweed
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 0.5
Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 0.5
Velvetleaf
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1
Pennsylvania smartweed
leaf no. 3
height (inch) 1
Ivyleaf morningglory
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 1.5
May 21, 1991 2 : 30pm PPI
76
70
moist 2 SE 10
69
0.47 0.08
to 7 to 8
to to
5
5
2 4
17
2 to 4
5 3
to to
4 2.5
All herbicide treatments in this study gave excellent weed control. Perhaps preparing the seedbed early and then applying herbicides later, closer to the time of weed emergence, contributed to the high degree of success. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
24
Table 1. Evaluation ( |
)f V-53482 combinations for |
stale |
seedbed |
(Knake, Sheriff, |
Walsh, |
Heisner, |
|||
and Paul). |
|||||||||
Soyb |
iean Soybean Soybean Soybear |
i Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
||||
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Inji |
jry |
— Control - |
|||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Paraquat + metribuzin |
+ 0.47 + 0.38 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
97 |
98 |
98 |
93 |
metolachlor + X-77 |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.063 + 2.5 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
80 |
92 |
89 |
83 |
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.094 + 2.5 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
90 |
95 |
94 |
88 |
V-53482 + metr + |
0.063 + 0.38 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
93 |
99 |
99 |
95 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + metr + |
0.094 + 0.38 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
95 |
99 |
99 |
93 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.063 + 0.1 + |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
94 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.094 + 0.1 + |
0 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
87 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + imazethapyr |
+ 0.063 + 0.032 + |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
98 |
99 |
97 |
96 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.063 + 2.5/ |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
90 |
94 |
94 |
91 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.094 + 2.5/ |
0 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
90 |
96 |
96 |
93 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
||||||||
V-53482 + imep + |
0.094 + 0.032 + |
0 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
93 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
10 |
|
Table 2. Evaluation of V-53482 combinations for |
stale |
seedbed |
(Knake, Sheriff, |
Walsh, |
Heisner, |
||||
and Paul). |
|||||||||
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
||
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control — |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Paraquat + metribuzin |
+ 0.47 + 0.38 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metolachlor + X-77 |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.063 + 2.5 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.094 + 2.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
V-53482 + metr + |
0.063 + 0.38 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + metr + |
0.094 + 0.38 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.063 + 0.1 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.094 + 0.1 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + imazethapyr |
+ 0.063 + 0.032 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.063 + 2.5/ |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.094 + 2.5/ |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
||||||||
V-53482 + imep + |
0.094 + 0.032 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.4 |
1.7 |
25
Table 3. Evaluation of V-53482 combinations for stale seedbed (Knake, Sheriff, Walsh, Heisner, and Paul).
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
|||
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
5/31 |
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
- Conti |
||||||||
■ 1 *■_. SJL VII IV— I 1 V |
||||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Paraquat + metribuzin |
+ 0.47 + 0.3! |
98 |
99 |
99 |
98 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
|
metolachlor + X-77 |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.063 + |
2.5 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.094 + |
2.5 |
98 |
99 |
96 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
V-53482 + metr + |
0.063 + |
0.38 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + metr + |
0.094 + |
0.38 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.063 + |
0.1 + |
100 |
99 |
98 |
93 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.094 + |
0.1 + |
100 |
99 |
99 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + imazethapyr |
+ 0.063 + |
0.032 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.063 + |
2.5/ |
100 |
99 |
97 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.094 + |
2.5/ |
100 |
99 |
99 |
93 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
99 |
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + imep + |
0.094 + |
0.032 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
LSD(0.05) |
2 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
14 |
1 |
5 |
||
Table 4. Evaluation of V-53482 |
combinat |
ions for stale |
seedbed (Knake, Sheriff, |
Walsh, |
, Heisner, |
|||||
and Paul). |
||||||||||
Tamg |
Tamg |
Tamg |
Pesw |
Soybean |
||||||
6/10 |
6/19 |
7/19 |
5/31 |
yield |
||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Control |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A |
|||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
.7 |
||||
Paraquat + metribuzin |
+ 0.47 + 0.38 H |
17 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
44 |
.5 |
|||
metolachlor + X-77 |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.063 + |
2.5 |
99 |
99 |
87 |
100 |
37 |
.0 |
||
V-53482 + meto + COC |
0.094 + |
2.5 |
99 |
99 |
95 |
100 |
44 |
.5 |
||
V-53482 + metr + |
0.063 + |
0.38 |
99 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
50 |
.8 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + metr + |
0.094 + |
0.38 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
44 |
.5 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.063 + |
0.1 + |
98 |
98 |
92 |
100 |
52 |
.0 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + clethodim + |
0.094 + |
0.1 + |
99 |
96 |
85 |
100 |
42 |
.9 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + imazethapyr |
+ 0.063 + |
0.032 + |
100 |
98 |
95 |
100 |
51 |
.6 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.063 + |
2.5/ |
100 |
99 |
99 |
100 |
51 |
.6 |
||
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + meto + COC/ |
0.094 + |
2.5/ |
99 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
48 |
.6 |
||
clethodim + COC |
0.1 |
|||||||||
V-53482 + imep + |
0.094 + |
0.032 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
54 |
.3 |
||
meto + COC |
2.5 |
|||||||||
LSD(0.05) |
14 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
11 |
.1 |
||||
X-77 @ 0.25% v/v: a nonionic surfactant |
from Valent. |
|||||||||
COC 0 1.0 qt/A.: Crop |
oil concentrate, 83% paraffin ba: |
se petroleum i |
Dil wi1 |
th 16% |
surfactant, and |
|||||
1% inert. |
26
Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture
conditions. Knake, Ellery L., Keith D. Sheriff, Ronald W. Heisner, Lyle E. Paul, Walsh. The purpose of this study was to evaluate efficacy of V53482 soil-applied with metolalchlor under two different soil conditions.
Location:
Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb SW900
B & G
10 X 40 ft
fair & poor
5 to 6%
5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date:
Row spacing:
and Joe D. alone and
Soybean Williams 82 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November 3, 1990; disked and harrowed April 24 1991; used field
cultivator with leveling bar April 25; check plots cultivated June 14.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Date:
Time:
Treatment:
Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod
4 inch: 54 No species present
V-53482 gave excellent control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and Pennsylvania smartweed. Control of velvetleaf, ivyleaf morningglory, and tall morningglory was improved on soils with higher moisture. Metolachlor significantly improved control of giant foxtail but complete control was not achieved. (Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
April 26, 1991 |
|||
3:30 to 4:00pm |
Soil moisture: |
moist |
Rainfall (inch) |
Preemergence |
Wind (mph): |
14 SE |
previous week: 4.08 |
Sky (% overcast): |
5 to 10 |
following week: 0.57 |
|
76 |
Relative |
||
humidity(%): |
30 |
27
Table 1. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture
conditions (fair drainage location) (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh)
Soybean Soybean Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Gift Gift 5/15/91 5/29 6/10 6/24 5/15 5/29 6/10 6/24 Treatment Rate Injury Control
V-53482 V-53482 + metolachlor V-53482
(lb/A) 0.0625 0.0625 + 2.5 0.094
V-53482 + meto 0.094 + 2.5 Check
(%) 0 0
0 0 0
(%)
10 5
10
7 0
(%)
1 1
2 2 0
(%) 0 0
0 0 0
(%)
13 63
7
67
0
(%) 47 90
52
90 0
(%) 20 83
40
87
0
(%) 10 68
20
73
0
LSD(0.05)
8
13
Table 2. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture conditions (fair drainage location) (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 3. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture conditions (fair drainage location) (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Pesv |
/ Pesw |
||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/1C |
) 6/24 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
10 |
77 |
60 |
53 |
3 |
83 |
100 |
93 |
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
17 |
80 |
69 |
60 |
93 |
95 |
97 |
97 |
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
23 |
82 |
84 |
82 |
83 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
37 |
92 |
94 |
93 |
87 |
93 |
100 |
97 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
13 |
8 |
14 |
7 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
6.7 |
|
Table 4. Evaluation of V-i |
53482 and |
metolalchl |
or for weed control under two soil moisture |
||||||
cond |
itions (fair |
drainage |
location) |
(Knake, |
, Sheriff |
, Heisner, Paul, |
and Walsh). |
||
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Tamg |
Tamg |
Soybean |
|||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
) |
neld |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
< |
;bu/A) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
3 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20.5 |
|
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
13 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
33.4 |
|
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
20 |
10 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
19.6 |
|
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
20 |
10 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33.0 |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22.8 |
LSD(0.05)
11.1
28
Table 5. Evaluation of V- conditions (poor |
53482 and drainage |
metolalchlor for weed control location) (Knake, Sheriff, |
under two soi Heisner, Paul |
1 moisture , and Walsh). |
||||
Treatment Rate |
Soybean 5/15/91 |
Soybean Soybean 5/29 6/10 Injury |
Soybean Gift 6/24 5/15 |
Gift Gift 5/29 6/10 Control |
Gift 6/24 |
|||
(lb/A) V-53482 0.0625 V-53482 + 0.0625 + metolachlor 2.5 V-53482 0.094 V-53482 + meto 0.094 + 2.5 Check |
(%) 0 0 0 0 0 |
(%) 10 10 10 7 0 |
(%) 1 1 2 2 0 |
(%) 0 0 1 1 0 |
(X) 13 70 10 67 0 |
(%) 43 90 57 90 0 |
(%) 37 85 57 90 0 |
(%) 17 75 28 83 0 |
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
Table 6. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture conditions (poor drainage location (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
(X) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 7. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed control under two soil moisture conditions (poor drainage location) (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Pesw |
||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(X) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
(%) |
(X) |
(X) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
7 |
72 |
85 |
82 |
3 |
75 |
96 |
85 |
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
17 |
82 |
92 |
82 |
83 |
78 |
99 |
88 |
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
23 |
87 |
99 |
99 |
80 |
87 |
99 |
92 |
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
33 |
93 |
100 |
98 |
80 |
92 |
100 |
97 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
16 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
Table 8. Evaluation of V-53482 and metolalchlor for weed ocntrol under two soil moisture conditions (poor drainage location) (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Paul, and Walsh).
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
1 1 mg 1 1 mg |
Tamg |
Tamg |
Soybean |
||
5/15 |
5/29 |
6/10 6/24 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
yield |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Injury |
|||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) (%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
V-53482 |
0.0625 |
3 |
7 |
30 30 |
30 |
30 |
11.3 |
V-53482 + |
0.0625 + |
13 |
12 |
40 33 |
40 |
33 |
17.8 |
metolachlor |
2.5 |
||||||
V-53482 |
0.094 |
10 |
10 |
50 33 |
50 |
33 |
12.4 |
V-53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
20 |
12 |
63 40 |
60 |
40 |
17.6 |
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 0 |
0 |
0 |
10.6 |
LSD(0.05)
6.0
29
Location: |
DeKalb SW900C |
Soil type: |
Plot size: |
10 X 40 ft |
|
Drainage: |
fair |
Slope: |
Organic matter: |
5 to 6% |
Exp. design |
Soil pH: |
5.9 |
Evaluation of soil-applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed control in soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Howard E. Shepherd, Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate various rates of lactofen soil-applied with alachlor for weed control in soybeans.
Drummer silty Crop: Soybean
clay loam Variety: Williams 82 0 to 1% Seeding rate: 54.5 lb/A Randomized Planting date: April 26, 1991 complete block Row spacing: 30 inch Replications: 3
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November 3, 1990; disked and harrowed April 24, 1991; used field cultivator with leveling bar April 25 1991; check plots cultivated June 14, 1991. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Date: April 26, 1991 Soil moisture: moist Rainfall (inch)
Time: 3:30 to 4:00pm Wind (mph): 14 SE previous week: 4.08
Treatment: Preemergence Sky (% overcast): 5 to 10 following week: 0.57
Temperature (F) Relative
air: 76 humidity(%): 30
soil under sod
4 inch: 54 No species present
Results of this study indicated activity for soil-applied lactofen with a rate response. All herbicide treatments provided excellent control of redroot pigweed and fair to good control of common lambsquarters with some contribution likely from alachlor. Control of Pennsylvania smartweed was good to excellent with a rate response. Control of velvetleaf was only fair but with some improvement as lactofen rate was increased. Although there was some rate response for lactofen on ivyleaf and tall morningglories, good control was not achieved. Control of giant foxtail was fair to good with a slight contribution attributed to lactofen. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana) .
30
Table 1.
Treatment
Evaluation of soil-applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed control in soybean
(Knake, Shepherd, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul ) .
Soybean Soybean Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Gift Gift 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/11 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/11 Injury Control
Rate
Lactofen + alachlor Lact + alac Lact + alac Check
(lb/A) 0.2 + 3.0 0.3 + 3.0 0.4 + 3.0
(%) 0 0 0 0
(%) 0 0 0 0
(%)
4 5 5 0
(%) 1 2 3 0
(%)
77
83
80
0
(%)
83
87
88
0
(%)
88
92
90
0
(%) 80 85 90 13
LSD(0.05) 0 0 10 7 |
5 4 22 |
Table 2. Evaluation of soil-applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed Shepherd. Heisner. Walsh, and Paul). |
control in soybean (Knake, |
Rrpw Rrpw Rrpw Colq Colq 5/15 5/22 6/11 5/15 5/22 Treatment Rate Control |
Colq Colq 5/29 6/11 |
Lactofen + alachlor Lact + alac Lact + alac Check
(lb/A) 0.2 + 3.0 0.3 + 3.0 0.4 + 3.0
(%) 100 100 100 0
(X) 100
100
100
0
(%)
100
100
100
0
w
100
100
100
0
(%)
100
100
100
0
w
100
100
100
0
(%)
83
90
97
0
LSD(0.05) 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
13 |
Table 3. Evaluation of soil-applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed control Shepherd. Heisner. Walsh, and Paul). |
in soybean (Knake, |
Vele Vele Vele Vele Ilmg Ilmg 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/11 5/15 5/22 Treatment Rate Control |
Ilmg Ilmg 5/29 6/11 |
Lactofen + alachlor Lact + alac Lact + alac Check
(lb/A) 0.2 + 3.0 0.3 + 3.0 0.4 + 3.0
(%)
53
60
62
0
(%)
40
45
50
0
(%)
50
58
60
0
(%)
60
70
80
0
(%) 7
10
10
0
(%)
10
13
27
0
(%)
7
8
10
0
(%)
10
20
30
0
LSD(0.05) 7 |
11 |
10 |
0 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
|||||
Table 4. |
Evaluatior Shepherd. |
i of woil Heisner. |
-qpplied lactofen Walsh, and Paul). |
Pi |
us alachlor for weed |
control |
in |
soybean |
(Kr |
ake, |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Pesw 5/15 |
Pesw 5/22 |
Pesw Pesw 5/29 6/11 — Control - |
Tamg 6/11 |
Soybean yield |
Lactofen + alachlor Lact + alac Lact + alac Check
(lb/A) 0.2 + 3.0 0.3 + 3.0 0.4 + 3.0
(%)
70
77
80
0
(%)
83
87
93
0
(%)
87
93
95
0
(%) 92 97
100 0
(%)
10
20
30
0
(bu/A) 34.1 32.9 36.1 23.9
LSD(0.05) 11
5.5
31
Evaluation of lactofen soil-applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim. Knake, Ellery L., Howard E. Shepherd, Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E, Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate soil-applied lactofen followed by postemergence application of lactofen plus clethodim.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb SW900D 10 X 40 ft fair 5 to 6% 5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date:
Row spacing:
Soybean Williams 82 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November 3, 1990; disked and harrowed April 24, 1991; used field
cultivator with leveling bar April 25; check plots cultivated June 14.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
and 20 inches above the soil surface for preemergence and 20 inches above the weeds for
postemergence.
Date: |
April |
26, |
1991 |
May 22 |
Giant foxtail |
|
Time: |
3:30 |
to 4: |
:00pm |
2:30pm |
leaf no. 2 |
|
Treatment: |
Preemergence |
Postemergence |
height (inch) 2 |
|||
Temperature (F) |
Redroot pigweed |
|||||
air: |
76 |
82 |
leaf no. cotyl |
|||
soil under sod |
height (inch) 1 |
|||||
4 inch: |
54 |
64 |
Common lambsquarters |
|||
Soil moisture: |
moist |
moist |
leaf no. 2 |
|||
Wind (mph): |
14 SE |
13 SW |
height (inch) 2 |
|||
Sky (% overcast): |
5 to |
10 |
60 |
Velvetleaf |
||
Relative |
leaf no. 2 |
|||||
humidity(%): |
30 |
60 |
height (inch) 1.5 |
|||
Rainfall (inch) |
Pennsylvania |
|||||
previous week: |
4.08 |
1.84 |
smartweed |
|||
following week: |
0.57 |
3.93 |
leaf no. 1 |
|||
No species present |
Species present |
on May 22: |
height (inch) 2 |
|||
Soybeans |
Ivyleaf morningglory |
|||||
leaf no. |
uni foliate |
leaf no. 2 |
||||
Height (inch) |
4 |
height (inch) 2 |
Giant foxtail control with clethodim applications of alachlor or metolachlor in
Barnyardgrass leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2 postemergence was excellent and superior to earlier other nearby studies. All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of redroot pigweed. Control of common lambsquarters and annual morningglories was poor to fair. Control of Pennsylvania smartweed was good and was best with the higher amount of lactofen applied postemergence. Velvetleaf control was very good and increased with the higher rates applied postemergence. In general, using the higher rates of lactofen postemergence rather than preemergence improved weed control and also caused more temporary effect on the soybeans. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana).
32
Table 1. Evaluation of lactofen soil -applied followed |
by sequential application of lactofen |
||||||
plus clethodim (Knake, |
Shepherd, |
Heisner, |
Walsh, and |
Paul) |
. |
||
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
||
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
||
Treatment Rate |
Injury -- |
Control |
|||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Lactofen + COC/ 0.2 +/ |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
|
lact + clethodim + COC 0.2 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Lact + COC/ 0.25 +/ |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
|
lact + clet + COC 0.15 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Lact + COC/ 0.3 +/ |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
99 |
|
lact + clet + COC 0.1 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
LSD(0.05)
52
Table 2. Evaluation of lactofen soil-applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim (Knake. Shepherd. Heisner. Walsh, and Paul)
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
||
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control — |
|||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Lactofen + COC/ |
0.2 +/ |
100 |
100 |
40 |
0 |
7 |
98 |
lact + clethodim + |
COC 0.2 + 0.094 |
||||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.25 +/ |
100 |
100 |
40 |
0 |
13.3 |
95 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.15 + 0.094 |
||||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.3 +/ |
100 |
100 |
33 |
3 |
23 |
90 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.1 + 0.094 |
||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
11 |
6 |
7 |
0 |
COC is crop oil concentrate used at 1 qt/A: 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactuant and 1% inert.
33
Table 3. Evaluation of lactofen soil-applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim (Knake, Shepherd, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul).
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Pesw |
|||
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
5/15 |
5/22 |
6/11 |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control - |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
||
Lactofen + COC/ |
0.2 +/ |
0 |
0 |
50 |
0 |
20 |
99 |
|
lact + clethodim + |
COC 0.2 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.25 +/ |
0 |
0 |
60 |
0 |
20 |
99 |
|
lact + clet + COC |
0.15 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.3 +/ |
0 |
0 |
46 |
0 |
23 |
90 |
|
lact + clet + COC |
0.1 + 0.094 |
|||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Table 4. Evaluation of lactofen soil-applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim (Knake, Shepherd, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul).
Tamg |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Soybean |
||
6/11 |
5/15 |
5/22 |
yield |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
Lactofen + COC/ |
0.2 +/ |
50 |
100 |
100 |
35.6 |
lact + clethodim + |
COC 0.2 + 0.094 |
||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.25 +/ |
60 |
100 |
100 |
35.5 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.15 + 0.094 |
||||
Lact + COC/ |
0.3 +/ |
46 |
100 |
100 |
30.1 |
lact + clet + COC |
0.1 + 0.094 |
||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18.3 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
7.6 |
COC is crop oil concentrate used at 1 qt/A: 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert.
34
Evaluation of lactofen combinations for weed control in soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Howard E. Shepard, Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate postemergence application of lactofen in combination with thifensulfuron,
imazethapyr, bentazon, and chlorimuron.
Location:
Plot size:
Drainage:
Organic matter:
Soil pH:
DeKalb SW900E 10 X 40 ft fair 5 to 6% 5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date:
Row spacing:
Soybean Williams 82 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November 3, 1990; disked and harrowed April 24, 1991; used field cultivator with leveling bar April 25; check plots cultivated June 14. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with and 20 inches above the weeds.
mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
Date: |
May 22, |
1991 |
|||
Time: |
3:00pm |
Species present: |
|||
Treatment: |
Postemergence |
Soybean |
Velvetleaf |
||
Temperature (F) |
leaf no. |
uni foliate |
leaf no. 2 |
||
air: |
82 |
height (inch) |
4 |
height (inch) 2 |
|
soil under sod |
Giant foxtail |
Pennsylvania smartweed |
|||
4 inch: |
64 |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. 1 |
|
Soil moisture: |
moist |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) 2 |
|
Wind (mph): |
13 SW |
Redroot pigweed |
Ivyleaf morningglory |
||
Sky (% overcast): |
60 |
leaf no. |
cotyledon |
leaf no. 2 |
|
Relative |
height (inch) |
1 |
height (inch) 2 |
||
humidity(%): |
60 |
Common lambsquarters |
Barnyardgrass |
||
Rainfall (inch) |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. 2 |
||
previous week: |
1.84 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) 2 |
|
following week: |
3.93 |
All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of redroot pigweed and Pennsylvania smartweed. Addition of thifensulfuron, imazethapyr, or bentazon to lactofen significantly improved control of common lambsquarters but chlorimuron gave little help. Lactofen plus bentazon or imazethapyr gave excellent control of velvetleaf with thifensulfuron a little less effective and chlorimuron least effective. All treatments gave only poor to fair control of the annual morningglories. In general, imazethapyr or bentazon performed best with lactofen and there was a slight rate response for lactofen. Imazethapyr had the advantage of providing control of grass weeds. Clethodim applied to the entire area on June 12 when giant foxtail was about 8 inches tall provided good control. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
35
Table 1. Evaluation of lactofen combinations for weed control in soybeans Heisner, Walsh, and Paul).
(Knake, Shepherd,
Soybean Soybean Gift |
Gift |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Pesw |
Pesw |
||||
5/29 |
6/11 |
5/29 |
6/11 |
5/29 |
6/11 |
5/29 |
6/11 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Inj |
ury - |
— Control |
|||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Lactofen + |
0.1 + |
5 |
5 |
12 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
thifensulfuron + X-771 |
0.004 |
||||||||
Lact + thif + X-771 |
0.125 + 0.004 |
10 |
7 |
12 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
Lact + imazethapyr + |
0.1 + 0.063 |
7 |
10 |
82 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + imep + |
0.125 + 0.063 |
10 |
12 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + bent + |
0.1 + 0.5 |
5 |
5 |
13 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + bentazon + |
0.125 + 0.5 |
10 |
7 |
13 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + dim + |
0.1 + 0.008 |
5 |
5 |
17 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + chlorimuron + |
0.125 + 0.008 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
Table 2. Evaluation of lactofen combinations for weed control in soybeans (Knake, Shepherd, Heisner. Walsh, and Paul).
Colq |
Colq |
Vele |
Vele |
Ilmg |
Ilmg |
Tamg |
Soybean |
||
5/29 |
6/11 |
5/29 |
6/11 |
5/29 |
6/11 |
6/11 |
yield |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— Control — |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(X) |
(%) |
(X) |
(X) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
Lactofen + |
0.1 + |
87 |
97 |
57 |
88 |
10 |
30 |
30 |
33.9 |
thifensulfuron + X-771 |
0.004 |
||||||||
Lact + thif + X-771 |
0.125 + 0.004 |
92 |
100 |
67 |
93 |
23 |
57 |
56 |
34.9 |
Lact + imazethapyr + |
0.1 + 0.063 |
92 |
95 |
98 |
99 |
87 |
67 |
66 |
40.9 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + imep + |
0.0125 + 0.063 |
92 |
93 |
97 |
100 |
80 |
77 |
76 |
41.9 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + bentazon + |
0.1 + 0.5 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
57 |
56 |
36.8 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + bent + |
0.125 + 0.5 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
90 |
70 |
70 |
39.5 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + chlorimuron + |
0.1 + 0.008 |
75 |
27 |
90 |
70 |
80 |
50 |
50 |
34.2 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Lact + clim + |
0.125 + 0.008 |
73 |
38 |
83 |
77 |
80 |
60 |
60 |
36.5 |
X-77 + 28%N |
|||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
28.7 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
7 |
10 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
10 |
6.3 |
1 X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.125% v/v for the first two trearments,
and at 0.25% v/v for the other treatments.
28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution used at 1 gal /A.
All plots were treated with clethodim @ 0.094 lb/A a.i. on June 12.
36
Evaluation of clethodim postemergence combinations for weed control in soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Howard E. Shepard, Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate postemergence combinations of clethodim with bentazon, chlorimuron, and lactofen for efficacy and possible antagonism.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb SW900F 10 X 40 ft fair 5 to 6% 5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November cultivator with leveling bar April A tractor mounted compressed nozzle tips to give 25 gpa.
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block Replications: 3
3 1990; disked and harrowed April 24, 25; check plots cultivated June 14. air sprayer was used traveling 3 Width of spray was ten feet with
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Soybean Williams 82 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
and 20 inches
Date:
Time:
Treatment:
Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inch: Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast): Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week:
above the weeds. May 22, 1991 3:30pm Postemergence
82
64
moist 13 SW 60
1991; used field
mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
60
1.84 3.93
Species present: Soybean
leaf no.
height (inch) Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Redroot pigweed
leaf no.
height (inch) Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 2
uni foliate 4
2 2
cotyledon 1
Velvetleaf leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2
Pennsylvania smartweed leaf no. 1 height (inch) 2
Ivyleaf morningglory leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2
Barnyardgrass leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2
Clethodim provided excellent control of giant foxtail with little or no antagonism from bentazon, chlorimuron or lactofen. Chlorimuron and lactofen provided excellent control of redroot pigweed but bentazon did not. Bentazon provided good control of common lambsquarters but chlorimuron and lactofen did not. Bentazon and lactofen provided better control of velvetleaf than chlorimuron. None of the treatments gave good control of annual morningglories but all gave very good control of Pennsylvania smartweed. One of the most significant observations was control of redroot pigweed by adding lactofen to bentazon. (Dept.of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
37
Table 1. Evaluation of clethodim postemergence combinations for weed control in soybeans (Knake, Shepherd, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul).
Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Rrpw Rrpw Colq Colq
5/31 6/12 5/31 6/12 5/31 6/12 5/31 6/12
Treatment Rate — Injury Control
(TB7A) ffl ffl ffl (%) (%) (%) (%) {%T
Clethodim + 0.094 + 5 0 82 97 0 0 97 98
bentazon + COC 0.075 + 1%
Clet + 0.094 + 5 5 80 100 100 100 8 10
chlorimuron + COC 0.008 + 1%
Clet + 0.094 + 15 10 88 97 100 99 9 10
lactofen + COC 0.2 + 0.5%
Clet + lact + 0.094 + 0.125 +15 7 93 99 100 97 98 95
bent + COC 0.5 + 0.5%
Check 00000000
LSD(0.05) 0 0 3 5 0 18 0
Table 2. Evaluation of clethodim postemergence combinations for weed control in soybeans
(Knake, Shepherd, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul.
Vele Vele II mg II mg Pesw Pesw Tamg Soybean
5/31 6/12 5/31 6/12 5/31 6/12 6/12 yield
Treatment Rate Control
(WA) (%] (%) (%) (%) (%] (%) (%) (WAT
Clethodim + 0.094 + 90 97 10 10 97 99 10 46.6
bentazon + COC 0.075 + 1%
Clet + 0.094 + 70 20 10 63 100 100 63 45.1
chlorimuron + COC 0.008 + 1%
Clet + 0.094 + 90 90 20 30 95 97 30 44.3
lactofen + COC 0.2 + 0.5%
Clet + lact + 0.094 + 0.125 + 95 97 20 40 97 97 40 41.4
bent + COC 0.5 + 0.5%
Check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.2
LSD(0.05) 0 3 0 10 6 5 10 10.1
COC is crop. oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
38
Effect of imazethapyr on the performance of postemerqence herbicides used for control of grass weeds. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible antagonistic effect of imazethapyr on sethoxydim, fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop, and quizalofop.
Location: DeKalb SW900H
Plot size: 5 X 40 ft
Drainage: fair
Organic matter: 5 to 6%
Soil pH: 5.9
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date:
Row spacing:
Soybean Williams 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
82
Tillage: Moldboard plowed November cultivator with leveling bar April A bicycle mounted OSU compressed a fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. W apart and 20 inches above the weed
3 1990; disked and harrowed April 24 1991; used field
25; check plots cultivated June 14. ir sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi idth of spray was five feet with nozzles spaced
and 8004 flat 20 inches
Date: |
May 23, |
1991 |
Species present: |
||
Time: |
6:45am |
Soybean |
Velvetleaf |
||
Treatment: |
Postemergence |
leaf no. |
1st trif |
leaf no. 2 |
|
Temperature (F) |
height (inch) |
4 |
height (inch) 2 |
||
air: |
69 |
Giant foxtail |
Pennsylvania smartweed |
||
soil under sod |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. 2 |
||
4 inch: |
64 |
height (inch) |
2.5 |
height (inch) 2 |
|
Soil moisture: |
moist |
Redroot pigweed |
Ivyleaf morningglory |
||
Wind (mph): |
9 SSW |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. cotyl |
|
Sky (% overcast): |
100 |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) 1 |
|
Relative |
Common lambsquarters |
Giant ragweed |
|||
humidity(%): |
93 |
leaf no. |
10 to 12 |
leaf no. 3 |
|
Rainfall (inch) |
height (inch) |
3.5 |
height (inch) 6 |
||
previous week: |
1.84 |
||||
following week: |
3.91 |
In a previous study an antagonistic effect was noted resulting in decreased grass control when imazethapyr was added to clethodim. In this study, the most antagonism to decrease control of giant foxtail was noted with imazethapyr added to sethoxydim. Fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop was intermediate and the least was with quizalofop. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
39
Table. Effect of imazethapyr on the performance of postemergence herbicides used for control of grass weeds (Knake, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul)
Soybean |
Soybean |
Gift |
Gift |
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Soybean |
|||
6/6 |
6/18 |
6/6 |
6/18 |
6/6 |
6/18 |
6/6 |
6/18 |
yield |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
- Cont |
rol -- |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(56) |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
||
Imazethapyr |
0.063 |
0 |
0 |
62 |
52 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
78 |
11.0 |
|
Sethoxydim |
0.14 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
93 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7.5 |
|
Imep + seth |
0.063 + 0.14 |
0 |
0 |
64 |
57 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
78 |
9.0 |
|
Fluazifop & |
0.125 & |
0 |
0 |
99 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9.6 |
|
fenoxaprop |
0.035 |
||||||||||
Imep + |
0.063 + |
0 |
0 |
82 |
75 |
50 |
50 |
100 |
82 |
12.7 |
|
flfp & fenx |
0.125 & 0.35 |
||||||||||
Quizalofop |
0.044 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9.6 |
|
Imep + qufp |
0.063 + 0.044 |
0 |
0 |
92 |
92 |
50 |
53 |
100 |
80 |
13.1 |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3.5 |
||
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
3.0 |
Crop oil concentrate of 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1% inert was used 0 1.0 qt/A with each treatment.
40
Evaluation of auizalofop for earlv preplant of no-till soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Joe D. Walsh, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate quizalofop alone and in combination with 2,4-D for control of vegetation prior to planting no-till
soybeans Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH: Tillage: stalks
The D+ isomer of quizalofop was used
DeKalb SW1700E 10 X 45 ft fair 5 to 6% 6.0 chopped April 24
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
A tractor mounted compressed air
1991. sprayer was
and the butoxyethyl low volatile ester of 2,4-D. Flanagan silt Replications: 3 loam Crop:
0 to 1% Seeding rate: Randomized Planting date: complete block Row spacing:
Soybean 54.5 lb/A May 29, 1991 30 inch
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. 20 inches above the weeds.
used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat
Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
fan and
Date: Time:
Treatment: Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod
4 inch: 63 Soil moisture: wet Wind (mph): 11 SW Sky (% overcast): 80 Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week: 1.81
following week: 3.95 Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Velvetleaf
leaf no.
height (inch) Yellow nutsedge
leaf no.
height (inch) Giant ragweed
leaf no.
height (inch) Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 17
height (inch) 4 Pennsylvania smartweed 3 2
May 22, 1991 11:30 am Knockdown
77
81
1 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
5 6
May 30, 1991 11:00 am Postemergence
78
71
moist 8 SSW 5
62
3.93
1.23
Giant
leaf
application
foxtail
no. 5 +
height (inch) 7
Velvetleaf
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 2.5
Yellow nutsedge
leaf no. 4
height (inch) 3.5
Common lambsquarters
3 tillers
leaf no.
height (inch) Redroot pigweed
leaf no.
height (inch) Horseweed
leaf no.
height (inch)
multiple 6.5
17 5.5
leaf no. 3 leaf no. multiple
height (inch) 2 height (inch) 10
Horseweed
leaf no. 8
height (inch) 6
Quizalofop at all rates provided excellent control of giant foxtail, equivalent to control with sethoxydim applied early preplant. Although chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron was applied postemergence to all but the check plots, 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester applied early preplant enhanced control of velvetleaf. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
41
Table 1. Evaluation of quizalofop for early preplant of no-till soybeans and Paul).
(Knake, Walsh, Heisner
Soybean Soybean |
Soybean |
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
||||
6/4 |
6/12 |
6/25 |
6/4 |
6/12 |
6/25 |
6/4 |
6/12 |
6/25 |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
Injury - |
— Control |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
||
Quizalofop + COC |
0.016 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
83 |
100 |
95 |
50 |
85 |
50 |
|
Qufp + COC |
0.022 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
85 |
100 |
95 |
57 |
85 |
57 |
|
Qufp + COC |
0.031 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
100 |
96 |
60 |
85 |
57 |
|
Qufp + COC |
0.044 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
96 |
63 |
83 |
57 |
|
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.016 + |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
88 |
100 |
95 |
73 |
99 |
92 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.022 + |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
78 |
100 |
95 |
73 |
98 |
88 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.031 + |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
100 |
95 |
73 |
98 |
90 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.044 + |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
80 |
99 |
92 |
Sethoxydim + COC |
0.094 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
100 |
94 |
60 |
85 |
38 |
|
Seth + 2,4-D + COC |
0.094 + |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
87 |
100 |
94 |
80 |
99 |
95 |
2,4-D |
0.24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
80 |
99 |
91 |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
LSD(0.05) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
Table 2. Evaluation of quizalofop for early preplant of no-till soybeans (Knake, Walsh, Heisner and Paul).
Colq |
Colq |
Voco2 |
Voco |
Yens |
Soybean |
||||
6/12 |
6/25 |
6/12 |
6/25 |
6/25 |
yield |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
[%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|||
Quizalofop + COC |
0.016 |
98 |
97 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
36.5 |
||
Qufp + COC |
0.022 |
100 |
93 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
33.9 |
||
Qufp + COC |
0.031 |
100 |
97 |
50 |
50 |
32 |
33.4 |
||
Qufp + COC |
0.044 |
98 |
97 |
50 |
50 |
33 |
32.0 |
||
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.016 + |
0. |
,24 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
42.2 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.022 + |
0. |
,24 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
33 |
43.4 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.031 + |
0. |
,24 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
62 |
41.7 |
Qufp + 2,4-D + COC |
0.044 + |
0. |
,24 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
63 |
43.2 |
Sethoxydim + COC |
0.094 |
100 |
97 |
50 |
50 |
73 |
32.4 |
||
Seth + 2,4-D- + COC |
0.094 + |
0, |
,24 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
50 |
70 |
45.5 |
2,4-D |
0.24 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
42.0 |
||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24.8 |
LSD(0.05)
7.0
1 1/16 oz/A a.i. of chlorimuron and 1/16 oz/A a.i. of thifensulfuron were applied to all plots except the check on May 30.
2 Volunteer corn.
COC 0 1.0 qt/A: crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1%
inert.
The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester.
42
Evaluation of clethodim with imazethapyr. lactofen. and chlorimuron plus metribuzin, preplant for no-till soybeans. Knake, Ellery L., Howard Shepherd, Joe D. Walsh, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clethodim in combination with chlorimuron plus metribuzin, imazethapyr, and lactofen for control of existing vegetation prior to planting no-till soybeans.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
Soil type:
silt
Slope:
Exp. design:
DeKalb SW1700C
10 X 45 ft
fair
5 to 6%
6.0 Tillage: stalks chopped April 24, 1991 A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Flanagan loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block
Repl ications: Crop:
Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Soybean 54.5 lb/A May 29, 1991 30 inch
mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
Date: |
May 22, |
1991 |
Rainfall (inch) |
Giant ragweed |
||
Time: |
12:00 noon |
previous week: |
1. |
81 |
leaf no. 5 |
|
Treatment: |
Preemerg |
ence |
following week: |
3. |
95 |
height (inch) 5 |
Temperature (F) |
Giant foxtail |
Common lambsquarters |
||||
air: |
77 |
leaf no. |
3 |
leaf no. 10 |
||
soil under sod |
height (inch) |
4 |
height (inch) 4 |
|||
(4 inch): |
63 |
Velvetleaf |
Common ragweed |
|||
Soil moisture: |
wet |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. 6 |
||
Wind (mph): |
11 SW |
height (inch) |
2 |
height (inch) 10 |
||
Sky (% overcast) : |
80 |
Yellow nutsedge |
Horseweed |
|||
Relative |
leaf no. |
2 |
leaf no. 10 |
|||
humidity(%): |
81 |
height (inch) |
4 |
height (inch) 6 |
to 12
Clethodim gave excellent control of giant foxtail at both 0.125 and 0.15 lb/A with no antagonism noted by adding metribuzin and chlorimuron, imazethapyr or lactofen. All treatments gave very good control of velvetleaf. Metribuzin and chlorimuron or imazethapyr gave yery good control of common lambsquarters but lactofen did not. This study suggests the feasibility of clethodim plus metribuzin and chlorimuron, imazethapyr or lactofen for early preplant for no- till soybeans. However the addition of a herbicide to improve common lambsquarters control with lactofen is suggested. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
43
Table 1. Evaluation of clethodim with imazethapyr, lactofen, and chlorimuron plus metribuzin, preplant for no-till soybeans (Knake, Shepherd, Walsh, Heisner, and Paul).
Treatment
Rate
Soybean Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Gift Gift Yens Yens Yens
6/12 6/26 7/24 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/24 5/29 6/26 7/24
Injury Control
Clethodim +
metribuzin &
chlorimuron Clet +
metr & clim Clet +
imazethapyr Clet +
imep + COC Clet +
lactofen + Clet +
lactofen + Check
(lb/A)
0.125 +
0.28 & + COC 0.047
0.15 + + COC 0.28 & 0.047
0.125 + + COC 0.063
0.15 +
0.063
0.125 + COC 0.4
0.15 + COC 0.4
LSD(0.05)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0 0 93 100 100 98 90 93 93
0 0 0 92 100 98 95 93 97 97
0 0 0 67 100 100 98 60 93 93
0 0 0 80 98 98 97 100 100 100
0 0 0 100 100 100 98 83 88 87
0 0 0 100 100 100 98 85 100 90
0 0 00000000
0 0 0 16 2 2 4 29 11 11
Table 2. Evaluation of clethodim with imazethapyr, lactofen, and chlorimuron plus metribuzin, preplant for no-till soybeans (Knake, Shepherd, Walsh, Heisner, and Paul).
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Soybean |
||
5/29 |
6/12 |
6/26 7/24 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/24 |
yield |
|||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control — |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(X) |
(X) |
(%) |
<*) |
<%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
Clethodim + |
0.125 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
44.4 |
metribuzin & |
0.28 & |
|||||||||
chlorimuron + COC |
0.047 |
|||||||||
Clet + |
0.15 + |
100 |
100 |
97 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
41.7 |
metr & clim + COC |
0.28 & 0.047 |
|||||||||
Clet + |
0.125 + |
60 |
97 |
93 |
88 |
20 |
96 |
93 |
88 |
39.4 |
imazethapyr + COC |
0.063 |
|||||||||
Clet + |
0.15 + |
90 |
99 |
99 |
97 |
85 |
97 |
94 |
89 |
39.4 |
imep + COC |
0.063 |
|||||||||
Clet + |
0.125 + |
90 |
95 |
91 |
83 |
70 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
36.5 |
lactofen + COC |
0.4 |
|||||||||
Clet + |
0.15 + |
100 |
98 |
97 |
88 |
95 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
37.6 |
lactofen + COC |
0.4 |
|||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15.6 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
9 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
26 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
6.5 |
COC 0 1.0 qt/A: crop oil concentrate is 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
44
Evaluation of herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans. Knake, Ellery Sheriff, Ronald W. Heisner, Joe D. Walsh, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans.
time
evaluate one
Location:
Plot size:
Drainage: fair
Organic matter: 5 to
Soil pH: 6.0
Tillage: stalks chopped
L., Keith study was
to
DeKalb SW1700W 10 X 45 ft
6%
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Flanagan silt loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block
A tractor mounted compressed nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. inches above the soil
and 20
Date:
Time:
Treatment:
Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod (4 inch): Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast) Relative
humidity(%):
april 24 1991.
air sprayer was used traveling 3 Width of spray was ten feet with surface.
Replications: Crop:
Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
3
Soybean 54.5 lb/A May 29, 1991 30 inch
May 22, 1991 12:15 pm Preemergence
77
63 wet 11 SW 80
81
Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week: Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Velvetleaf
leaf no.
height (inch) Yellow nutsedge
leaf no.
height (inch)
1.81 3.95
3 4
2 2
2
4
mph with 30 psi and 8004 nozzles spaced 20 inches
Giant ragweed leaf no. 5 height (inch) 5
Common lambsquarters
flat fan apart
leaf no. |
10 |
height (inch) Common ragweed leaf no. |
4 6 |
height (inch) Horseweed |
10 |
leaf no. |
10 |
height (inch) |
6 |
to 12
All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of giant foxtail, velvetleaf, Pennsylvania smartweed, and common lambsquarters with no significant effect on soybeans. Clethodim, glyphosate or glufosinate gave good burndown of giant foxtail and metolachlor provided residual control. For control of velvetleaf, V-53482 and metribuzin were effective although burndown with only glyphosate also appeared to be adequate. Control of common lambsquarters was very good with all herbicide treatments. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
45
Table 1. Evaluation of herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans Walsh, and Paul).
(Knake, Sheriff, Heisner,
Soybean Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Gift Gift Yens |
Pesw |
|||||||||||
6/12 |
6/26 |
7/24 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/24 5/29 5/29 |
||||||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Injury - |
— Control |
|||||||||
(lb/A) |
{%) |
(%) |
(X) |
(%) |
(X) |
(X) |
(X) |
(X) |
(%) |
|||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||
Clethodim + COC + |
0.094 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
||
V53482 + metolalchlor |
0.063 + 2.5 |
|||||||||||
Clet + COC + |
0.094 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
||
V53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
|||||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.063 + 2.5 |
+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
|
glyphosate |
1.0 |
|||||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.094 + 2.5 |
+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
|
glyt |
1.0 |
|||||||||||
Meto + glyt |
2.5 + 1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
98 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
80 |
100 |
||
Metribuzin + |
0.38 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
90 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
||
meto + glyt |
2.5 + 1.0 |
|||||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.063 + 2.5 |
+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
|
glufosinate |
0.75 |
|||||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.094 + 2.5 |
+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
|
glufosinate |
0.75 |
LSD(0.05)
20
Table 2. Evaluation of herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans (Knake, Sheriff, Heisner, Walsh, and Paul).
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Soybean |
||
5/29 |
6/12 |
6/26 7/24 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/24 |
yield |
|||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Control - |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
w |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
23.1 |
|
Clethodim + COC + |
0.094 + |
100 |
100 |
97 |
94 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
47.9 |
V53482 + metolalchlor |
0.063 + 2.5 |
|||||||||
Clet + COC + |
0.094 + |
100 |
100 |
98 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
51.3 |
V53482 + meto |
0.094 + 2.5 |
|||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.063 + 2.5 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
51.3 |
glyphosate |
1.0 |
|||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.094 + 2.5 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
52.3 |
glyt |
1.0 |
|||||||||
Meto + glyt |
2.5 + 1.0 |
97 |
93 |
93 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
51.4 |
Metribuzin + |
0.38 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
42.0 |
meto + glyt |
2.5 + 1.0 |
|||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.063 + 2.5 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
49.4 |
glufosinate |
0.75 |
|||||||||
V53482 + meto + |
0.094 + 2.5 + |
100 |
100 |
97 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
49.6 |
glufosinate |
0.75 |
|||||||||
LSD(0.05) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11.4 |
COC @ 1.0 qt/A: crop oil concentrate is 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant, and 1% inert.
46
Soil type: |
Drummer silty |
Crop: |
Corn |
clay loam |
Variety: |
DK 636 |
|
Slope: |
0 to 1% |
Seeding rate: |
28,300 |
Exp. design: |
Randomized |
Planting date: |
May 1, 1991 |
Replications: |
complete block 4 |
Row spacing: |
30 inch |
Weed control for no-till corn in soybean stubble. Tomera, Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Lyle E. Paul, Ronald W. Heisner, and David R. Pike. The purpose of this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments for no-till corn after soybeans. Location: DeKalb SW1900E Plot size: 50 X 10 Drainage: fair Organic matter- 5 to 6% Soil pH: 6.3
Fertility: 180 lb/A NH4N03 May 8, 1991.
A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan
nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
and 20 inches above the soil surface for preemergence and 20 inches above the weeds for
postemergence.
Date: April 24, 1991 May 30, 1991
Time: 2:00 pm 1:30 pm
Treatment: Burndown & Pre Postemergence
Temperature (F)
air: 72 84
soil under sod
4 inches: 49 73
Soil moisture: moist moist
Wind (mph): 10 N 15 SSW
Sky (% overcast): 25 5
Relative
humidity(%): 22 54
Rainfall (inch)
previous week: 0.15 3.93
following week: 0.57 1.59
Corn
leaf no. 6
height (inch) 12
Giant foxtail
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 3 to 5
Velvetleaf
leaf no. 2 cotyl 4
height (inch) 0.5 2.5
Redroot pigweed
leaf no. 9
height (inch) 3 to 4
Where corn and soybeans are the predominant crops, one of the most convenient approaches for no-till is to plant corn in soybean stubble. Previous studies have indicated a high degree of success without increasing amount or cost of herbicides. Combinations of atrazine and cyanazine in 1:1 or 1:3 ratios have provided both early burndown and good residual. The availability of nicosulfuron now provides the opportunity for a postemergence follow-up treatment if needed. A modest rate of glyphosate for early burndown combined with an acetanilide and atrazine has also performed well.
In this study, use of dicamba, bromoxynil or bentazon each in combination with atrazine and followed by nicosulfuron provided excellent control of grass weeds. For early application, dicamba with atrazine appeared to have some advantage over bromoxynil or bentazon for greater residual control of broadleaf weeds. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
47
Table 1. Weed control for no-till corn in soybean stubble (Tomera, Knake, Heisner, Pike, and Paul).
Corn |
Corn |
Corn |
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
Colq |
||
6/4 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
6/4 |
6/10 |
6/24 |
6/4 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
injury |
— |
— — — — - |
cor |
itrol -- |
||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(X) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
{%) |
|
Atrazine + |
2.0 + |
0 |
5 |
2 |
83 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
cyanazine + COC + 28%N |
2.0 |
|||||||
Glyphosate + |
0.38 + |
0 |
1 |
0 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
metolalchlor & atra |
2.0 & 1.6 |
|||||||
Glyt + ICIA 5676 + |
0.38 + 2.0 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
93 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
atra |
1.5 |
|||||||
Cyan & atra + COC/ |
3.0 & 1.0/ |
0 |
3 |
1 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.031 |
|||||||
Dicamba & atra + COC/ |
0.47 & 0.92 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.031 |
|||||||
Bromoxynil + atra/ |
0.25 -t 0.5/ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
98 |
96 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.031 |
|||||||
Bentazon & atra + COC/ |
0.75 & 0.75/ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
63 |
100 |
94 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.031 |
|||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
LSD(0.05) 0 5 2 22
Table 2. Weed control for no-till corn in soybean stubble (Tomera, Knake, Heisner, Pike, and Paul).
mi VttT 7EUE YENS RRPW KRTw" CoTS
6/4 6/10 6/24 6/4 6/10 6/24 yield Treatment Rate control
(TbTA) (%) (%) (%j (%) (%) (%) (buTA)
Atrazine + 2.0 + 78 97 90 95 100 100 133.5
cyanazine + COC + 28%N 2.0
Glyphosate + 0.38 + 60 95 89 93 100 100 120.5
metolalchlor & atra 2.0 & 1.6
Glyt + ICIA 5676 + 0.38+2.0+ 87 99 97 97 100 100 99.7
atra * 1.5
Cyan & atra + COC/ 3.0 & 1.0/ 91 99 98 95 100 100 115.5
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031
Dicamba & atra + COC/ 0.47 & 0.92/ 83 98 92 85 100 100 103.7
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031
Bromoxynil + atra/ 0.25 + 0.5/ 60 90 79 90 100 100 125.2
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031
Bentazon & atra + COC/ 0.75 & 0.75/ 58 76 63 95 100 95 81.2
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 Check 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.0
LSD 21 12 11 12 0 5 79.5
COC- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
used at 1 qt/A. 28%N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution used at 1.0 gal/A. X-77 nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v.
48
Weed control for no-till soybeans after corn. Tomera, Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Lyle E. Paul, Ronald W. Heisner, and David R. Pike. The purpose of this study was to evaluate herbicide treatments for no-till soybeans after corn.
Location: DeKalb SW1900W Soil type: Drummer silty Crop: Soybean
Plot size: 50 X 10 ft. clay loam Variety: Pioneer 9272
Drainage: fair Slope: 0 to 1% Seeding rate: 54.5 lb/A
Organic matter: 5 to 6% Exp. design: Randomized Planting date: May 24, 1991 Soil pH: 6.3 complete block Row spacing: 30 inch
Replications: 4 A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used for the first application traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the weeds. A bicycle mounted OSU compressed air sprayer was used for second and third sequential applications traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was five feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the weeds.
Date: |
May 21, 1991 |
June 18, 1991 |
June 24, 1991 |
Time: |
2:30pm |
1:30pm |
1:30pm |
Treatment: |
Burndown |
Postemergence |
Late postemergence |
Temperature (F) |
|||
air: |
81 |
81 |
78 |
soil under sod |
|||
4 inch: |
62 |
70 |
68 |
Soil moisture: |
moist |
dry |
dry |
Wind (mph): |
13 SSW |
3 WSW |
5 ESE |
Sky (% overcast): |
70 |
5 |
5 |
Relative |
|||
humidity(%): |
52 |
39 |
39 |
Rainfall (inch) |
|||
previous week: |
1.71 |
0.5 |
0.23 |
following week: |
4.08 |
0.23 |
1.6 |
Soybeans |
|||
leaf no. |
2nd tri folio! ate |
3rd trifoliolate |
|
height (inch) |
6.5 |
7.5 |
|
Giant foxtail |
|||
leaf no. |
3 |
4 & 1 tiller |
5 & 3 tillers |
height (inch) |
3 |
7.5 |
10 |
Redroot pigweed |
|||
leaf no. |
6 |
7 |
|
height (inch) |
2.5 |
3.5 |
|
Common lambsquart |
ers |
||
leaf no. |
17 |
||
height (inch) |
2 |
||
Velvetleaf |
|||
leaf no. |
cotyl |
6 |
7 |
height (inch) |
1 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
Common ragweed |
|||
leaf no. |
3 |
12 |
|
height (inch) |
2 |
5.5 |
|
Yellow nutsedge |
|||
leaf no. |
6 |
9 |
11 |
height (inch) |
3 |
8.5 |
10.5 |
The metribuzin and chlorimuron combination has generally given excellent control of a broad spectrum of broadleaf weeds, including weeds such as prickly lettuce and horseweed that are often associated with no-till. If pressure from grass weeds is not very great, the metribuzin and chlorimuron combination may be adequate as indicated in this study. However, herbicides such as pendimethalin or metolachlor might be added initially to strengthen grass control. Or metribuzin and chlorimuron can be applied initially and followed by a postemergence application of a herbicide such as quizalofop for control of grass weeds. Observations indicate that the postemergence grass killer should not be applied too early but
49
after most of the grass for the season has emerged. Clethodim has been of special interest since it has provided some residual activity, especially with favorable soil moisture conditions.
With chlorimuron, significant precaution is needed to avoid applying a relatively high rate on soils with pH above 6.8 to avoid carryover effects on crops such as corn the next season. Related studies have included treatments to reduce the chlorimuron rate. Replacing at least part of the chlorimuron with a shorter residual sulfonylurea herbicide such as thifensulfuron may be one possibility or a combination of clomazone with a reduced rate of metribuzin and chlorimuron appears promising.
Another possibility for no-till soybeans is a sequential approach with a herbicide such as glyphosate or sulphosate for early burndown followed by a later postemergence treatment of fluazifop-P and fomesafen.
One of the earliest programs introduced was use of 2,4-D plus sethoxydim for early "burndown" followed by bentazon and acifluorfen and then sethoxydim.
All of the treatments described for this study performed relatively well except in an area of the field with excessive flooding. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
Table 1. Weed control for no-till soybeans after corn (Tomera, Knake, Paul, Heisner, and Pike).
Soybean |
Soybean Soybean Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
||||||
6/4 |
6/17 |
7/3 |
6/4 |
6/17 |
7/3 |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
injury |
|
|
control |
|
|||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|||
Metribuzin & |
0.28 & |
0 |
2 |
0 |
55 |
100 |
97 |
||
chlorimuron + COC |
0.047 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
0 |
2 |
0 |
80 |
100 |
96 |
||
pendimethalin + COC |
1.0 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
0 |
2 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
||
metolalchlor + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
0 |
2 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
||
clethodim + COC |
0.094 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 / |
0 |
2 |
0 |
85 |
98 |
99 |
||
quizalofop+ COC |
0.044 |
||||||||
Sulphosate/ |
0.38/ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
||
fluazifop-P & |
0.25 & |
||||||||
fomesafen + COC |
0.188 |
||||||||
2,4-D + sethoxydim + |
0.5 + 0.0625 / |
0 |
3 |
3 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
||
Dash/ |
|||||||||
bentazon & |
0.75 & |
||||||||
acifluorfen + 28% N/ |
0.17/ |
||||||||
seth + COC |
0.14 |
||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||
LSD |
0 |
0 |
1 |
33 |
3 |
3 |
|||
Table 2. Weed control for no-ti' soybeans |
after corn (Tomera, Knake, Paul, He |
isner, and |
|||||||
Pikel. |
|||||||||
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Yens |
Soybean |
|||
6/17 |
7/3 |
6/4 |
6/17 |
7/3 |
6/4 |
yield |
|||
Treatment |
Rate |
-- control — |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
||
Metribuzin & |
0.28 & |
100 |
100 |
91 |
90 |
62 |
100 |
35.9 |
|
chlorimuron + COC |
0.047 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
100 |
100 |
93 |
90 |
74 |
100 |
34.0 |
|
pendimethalin + COC |
1.0 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
100 |
100 |
94 |
95 |
61 |
98 |
40.9 |
|
metolalchlor + COC |
2.5 |
||||||||
Metr & clim -+ |
0.28 & 0.047 + |
99 |
93 |
89 |
91 |
75 |
100 |
34.7 |
|
clethodim + COC |
0.094 |
||||||||
Metr & clim + COC/ |
0.28 & 0.047 / |
100 |
97 |
89 |
89 |
70 |
98 |
43.3 |
|
quizalofop+ COC |
0.044 |
||||||||
Sulphosate/ |
0.38/ |
100 |
96 |
83 |
62 |
56 |
65 |
44.7 |
|
fluazifop-P & |
0.25 & |
||||||||
fomesafen + COC |
0.188 |
||||||||
2,4-D + sethoxydim + |
0.5 + 0.0625 / |
100 |
98 |
94 |
84 |
93 |
63 |
36.2 |
|
Dash/ |
|||||||||
bentazon & |
0.75 & |
||||||||
acifluorfen + 28% N/ |
0.17/ |
||||||||
seth + COC |
0.14 |
||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30.7 |
||
LSD |
1 |
6 |
15 |
27 |
49 |
25 |
6.2 |
COC- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
used at 1 qt/A. 28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution used at 1.0 gal/A. X-77 nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v. Dash @ 1 qt/A: an adjuvant from BASF. The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
51
Evaluation of adjuvants for nicosulfuron. Mulrooney, Steven B., Ellery L.Knake, Kevin L. Hahn, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to compare X-77 (a nonionic surfactant) crop oil concentrate, spray grade ammonium sulfate, and Scoil (a
use as adjuvants with nicosulfuron.
SHOOS Soil type: Flanagan silt
ft
seed
methylated Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
oil) for DeKalb 5 X 50 fair 5% 5.9
Slope:
Exp. design:
Fertility Tillage: A bicycle
Replications: 120 lb/A K20 October 29, 1990; Disked and harrowed April 26, mounted OSU compressed air sprayer was
fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray apart and 20 inches above the giant foxtail.
loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
180 lb/A NH3NO3 1991
used traveling
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
3 mph with
was five feet with nozzles
30 psi spaced
Corn
Pioneer 3475 28,300/A May 2, 1991 30 inch
and 8004 flat 20 inches
Date: Time:
Treatment: Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inches: Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast): Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week:
May 30, 1991 7:30 am Postemergence
71
70
moist 5 W 30
88
3.93 1.23
Species present:
Corn
leaf no. 6
height (inch) 12
Giant foxtail
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 3 to 5
Redroot pigweed
leaf no. 9
height (inch) 3 to 4
Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 19
height (inch) 2.5
Velvetleaf leaf no. 4 height (inch) 2.5
Pennsylvania smartweed leaf no. 8 height (inch) 3
Eastern black nightshade leaf no. 6 height (inch) 2
Yellow nutsedge leaf no. 6 height (inch) 4
to 5
In general, ammonium sulfate and 28% urea ammonium nitrate solution each enhanced herbicide performance to about the same degree and appeared to be comparable. The methylated seed oil (Scoil) appeared to be most effective, with crop cil concentrate (an 83% parafin base petroleum oil) intermediate, and X-77 (a nonionic surfactant from Valent) slightly less effective for control of giant foxtail. For primisulfuron, the methylated seed oil appeared to be more effective than crop oil concentrate plus 28% UAN. For imazethapyr, X-77 plus 28% UAN and methylated seed oil were about equally effective for weed control but the methylated seed oil with imazethapyr appeared to have a little less effect on corn. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
52
Table. Evaluation of adjuvants for nicosulfuron (Mulrooney, Knake, Hahn, Heisner, and Paul)
Corn |
Corn |
Corn |
Gift |
Gift |
Colq |
Colq |
Vele |
Vele |
Corn |
||||
6/10 6/19 |
6/19 6/10 6/19 6/10 6/19 6/10 |
6/19 |
yield |
||||||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
-injury- |
Height |
- conl |
trol - |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(inch] |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
|||
Nicosulfuron + X- |
0.016 |
0 |
0 |
37 |
80 |
70 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
145.7 |
||
Nico + |
X-77 + AMS |
0.016 |
1 |
1 |
35 |
85 |
75 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
63 |
156.1 |
|
Nico + |
X-77 + 28% N |
0.016 |
1 |
1 |
37 |
85 |
75 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
60 |
170.9 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil |
0.016 |
2 |
2 |
35 |
95 |
90 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
60 |
147.0 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil + AMS |
0.016 |
2 |
2 |
35 |
99 |
98 |
80 |
70 |
80 |
70 |
152.1 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil + 28% N |
0.016 |
3 |
3 |
34 |
100 |
99 |
80 |
70 |
80 |
70 |
166.9 |
|
Nico + |
COC |
0.016 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
90 |
90 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
155.7 |
|
Nico + |
COC + AMS |
0.016 |
1 |
1 |
35 |
95 |
95 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
63 |
156.3 |
|
Nico + |
COC + 28% N |
0.016 |
1 |
1 |
37 |
95 |
95 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
60 |
147.7 |
|
Nico + |
X-77 |
0.031 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
90 |
90 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
151.1 |
|
Nico + |
X-77 + AMS |
0.031 |
2 |
2 |
35 |
95 |
95 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
165.5 |
|
Nico + |
X-77 + 28% N |
0.031 |
2 |
2 |
38 |
95 |
95 |
80 |
70 |
80 |
77 |
163.5 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil |
0.031 |
2 |
2 |
38 |
98 |
98 |
70 |
70 |
70 |
60 |
163.0 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil + AMS |
0.031 |
5 |
5 |
34 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
70 |
165.9 |
|
Nico + |
Scoil + 28% N |
0.031 |
5 |
5 |
35 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
73 |
166.7 |
|
Nico + |
COC |
0.031 |
0 |
0 |
37 |
95 |
95 |
70 |
60 |
70 |
60 |
128.1 |
|
Nico + |
COC + AMS |
0.031 |
2 |
2 |
36 |
98 |
98 |
75 |
70 |
75 |
70 |
161.1 |
|
Nico + |
COC + 28% N |
0.031 |
2 |
2 |
34 |
98 |
98 |
75 |
70 |
75 |
70 |
169.8 |
|
Prim + |
COC + 28% N |
0.036 |
2 |
2 |
35 |
80 |
70 |
80 |
73 |
95 |
95 |
141.5 |
|
Prim + |
Scoil |
0.036 |
5 |
5 |
35 |
90 |
70 |
90 |
77 |
95 |
95 |
143.2 |
|
Imep + |
X-77 + 28% N |
0.063 |
50 |
50 |
20 |
95 |
95 |
85 |
82 |
95 |
95 |
73.2 |
|
Imep + |
Scoil |
0.063 |
43 |
43 |
24 |
98 |
98 |
80 |
80 |
95 |
92 |
90.8 |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
113.0 |
|||
LSD(0.05) |
2 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
26.3 |
COC- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
used at 1 qt/A. 28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution used at 1.0 gal/A. X-77 nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 0.25% v/v. AMS is ammonium sulfate used at 2 lb/A. Scoil is methylated seed oil used at 1 qt/A.
53
Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in
corn. Mulrooney, Steven B., Ellery L.Knake, Kevin L. Hahn, Ronald Paul. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for on crop tolerance with nicosulfuron in combination with various control in corn.
W. Heisner, and Lyle E. antagonism and the effect herbicides for broadleaf weed
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
silt
DeKalb S1100N
10 X 50 ft
fair
5%
5.9
Replications: Fertility: 120 lb/A K20 October 29, 1990; Tillage: Disked and harrowed April 26, A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with and 20 inches above the giant foxtail (free standing).
Flanagan loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
180 lb/A NH3NO3. 1991.
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing:
Corn
Pioneer 3475 28,300/A May 2, 1991 30 inch
Date: Time:
Treatment: Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inch: Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast): Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week:
June 4, 1991 7:30 am Postemergence
62
69
moist 16 E 5
51
1
0
24 05
Species present: Corn
leaf no.
height (inch) Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Redroot pigweed
leaf no.
height (inch) Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 14
height (inch) 5
8 16
5 13
9 5
extnded
mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
Velvetleaf
leaf no. 5
height (inch) 5
Common ragweed
leaf no. 10
height (inch) 6
Yellow nutsedge
leaf no. 9
height (inch) 12
There was little evidence bromoxynil, thifensulfuron or V with cyanazine or bentazon had conclusive evidence of antagoni nicosulfuron. Most combination foxtail with DPX-79406 was good broadleaf weeds. A combination control and good corn tolerance
of corn injury when 2,4-D, dicamba, atrazine, pyridate, -23031 were combined with nicosulfuron. However, combinations significant effect on corn. There appeared to be little sm and decreased control due to mixing other herbicides with s improved spectrum of weed control. Although control of giant , it appeared to be less effective than nicosulfuron on some
of nicosulfuron and thifensulfuron showed promise for good weed . (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
54
Table 1. Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in corn (Mulrooney, Knake, Hahn, Heisner, and Paul).
Corn |
Corn |
Corn |
Corn |
Corn |
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
||
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
6/21 |
7/10 |
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
|
injury |
———«"■ |
height |
height |
contro |
___ |
|
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(inch)i |
[inch) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
53 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
0 |
0 |
3 |
23 |
72 |
80 |
95 |
73 |
2,4-D amine + |
0.5 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
73 |
80 |
93 |
80 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
2,4-D LV ester + |
0.25 + |
2 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
76 |
83 |
95 |
78 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Dicamba + |
0.25 + |
2 |
2 |
0 |
23 |
70 |
87 |
93 |
78 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Dica & atrazine + |
0.47 & 0.92 + |
3 |
2 |
2 |
24 |
72 |
87 |
95 |
77 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.45 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
82 |
87 |
95 |
80 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.90 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
81 |
87 |
95 |
85 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
74 |
85 |
95 |
85 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
78 |
90 |
95 |
83 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
40 |
35 |
15 |
19 |
68 |
92 |
92 |
60 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
60 |
53 |
27 |
16 |
67 |
93 |
93 |
60 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Atrazine + |
2.0 + |
3 |
2 |
0 |
24 |
74 |
83 |
90 |
68 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Cyanazine + |
2.0 + |
37 |
30 |
7 |
22 |
75 |
85 |
85 |
60 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bentazon + |
1.0 + |
37 |
32 |
23 |
20 |
74 |
90 |
95 |
82 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bent & atra + |
0.75 + 0.75 + |
30 |
30 |
17 |
19 |
75 |
90 |
92 |
83 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
2 |
2 |
5 |
29 |
77 |
90 |
90 |
85 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
DPX-M6316 + |
0.004 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
78 |
98 |
98 |
93 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
V23031 + |
0.0625 + |
3 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
76 |
95 |
95 |
88 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + X-77 |
0.031 + 0.25% |
5 |
2 |
0 |
25 |
75 |
93 |
93 |
90 |
DPX-79406 + COC |
0.031 + 1 qt |
3 |
3 |
7 |
24 |
74 |
95 |
95 |
90 |
LSD (0.05) |
9 |
9 |
6 |
6 |
13 |
5 |
3 |
10 |
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
DPX-79406 is a combination of nicosulfuron and DPX-E9636, 1:1 ratio.
COC is crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1
inert. /
The 2,4-D amine was a dimethylamine salt formulation.
The 2,4-D LV Ester was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
55
Table 2. Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in corn (Mulrooney, Knake, Hahn, Heisner, and Paul).
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Colq |
Colq |
Colq |
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
||
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
control |
1 |
|||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
50 |
33 |
20 |
73 |
77 |
67 |
2,4-D amine + |
0.5 + |
98 |
97 |
97 |
92 |
92 |
92 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
2,4-D LV ester + |
0.25 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
80 |
82 |
80 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Dicamba + |
0.25 + |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
95 |
87 |
87 |
83 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Dica & atrazine + |
0.47 & 0.92 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
98 |
96 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.45 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
60 |
80 |
80 |
63 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.90 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
87 |
70 |
90 |
90 |
87 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
95 |
95 |
87 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
95 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
100 |
100 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
97 |
92 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Atrazine + |
2.0 + |
97 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Cyanazine + |
2.0 + |
90 |
90 |
90 |
100 |
97 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Bentazon + |
1.0 + |
90 |
90 |
90 |
80 |
77 |
60 |
100 |
97 |
92 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Bent & atra + |
0.75 + 0.75 + |
97 |
97 |
97 |
100 |
93 |
85 |
100 |
90 |
90 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
Bromoxynil + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
95 |
95 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
97 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
DPX-M6316 + |
0.004 + |
95 |
95 |
95 |
92 |
88 |
78 |
90 |
88 |
90 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
V23031 + |
0.0625 + |
98 |
98 |
98 |
87 |
83 |
62 |
95 |
95 |
92 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
|||||||||
DPX-79406 + X-77 |
0.031 + 0.25% |
100 |
100 |
100 |
17 |
17 |
10 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
DPX-79406 + COC |
0.031 + 1 qt |
100 |
100 |
93 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
27 |
27 |
27 |
LSD (0.05) |
3 |
3 |
5 |
14 |
7 |
10 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
X-77 is a nonionic surfactuant from Valent.
DPX-79406 is a combination of nicosulfuron and DPX-E9636, 1:1 ratio.
COC is crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1%
inert.
The 2,4-D amine was a dimethyl amine salt formulation.
The 2,4-D LV Ester was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
56
Table 3. Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in corn (Mulrooney, Knake, Hahn, Heisner, and Paul).
Corw |
Corw |
Corw |
Yens |
Yens |
Yens |
Corn yield |
|||
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
6/17 |
6/24 |
7/10 |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
— con |
trol - |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/A) |
||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50.1 |
||
Nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
50 |
13 |
23 |
70 |
90 |
63 |
121.6 |
|
2,4-D amine + |
0.5 + |
97 |
98 |
97 |
70 |
82 |
62 |
137.7 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
2,4-D LV ester + |
0.25 + |
77 |
77 |
77 |
70 |
85 |
63 |
146.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Dicamba + |
0.25 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
78 |
60 |
138.8 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Dica & atrazine + |
0.47 & 0.92 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
77 |
67 |
140.1 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.45 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
87 |
70 |
166.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + |
0.90 + |
0 |
0 |
0 |
85 |
83 |
82 |
156.6 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
80 |
60 |
152.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pyridate + atra + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
77 |
60 |
163.0 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.45 + 0.6 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
70 |
58 |
107.6 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Pydt + cyanazine + |
0.90 + 1.2 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
70 |
63 |
110.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Atrazine + |
2.0 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
73 |
63 |
145.6 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Cyanazine + |
2.0 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
70 |
57 |
126.8 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bentazon + |
1.0 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
85 |
85 |
60 |
101.4 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bent & atra + |
0.75 + 0.75 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
82 |
80 |
60 |
120.4 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
Bromoxynil + atra + |
0.25 + 0.5 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
70 |
53 |
147.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
DPX-M6316 + |
0.004 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
80 |
67 |
160.4 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
V23031 + |
0.0625 + |
100 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
77 |
165.3 |
|
nicosulfuron + X-77 |
0.047 + 0.25% |
||||||||
DPX-79406 + X-77 |
0.031 + 0.25% |
100 |
97 |
100 |
57 |
65 |
53 |
139.3 |
|
DPX-79406 + COC |
0.031 + 1 qt |
100 |
100 |
100 |
57 |
60 |
57 |
145.3 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
15 |
16 |
17 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
36.0 |
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent.
DPX-79406 is a combination of nicosulfuron and DPX-E9636, 1:1 ratio.
COC is crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil with 16% surfactant and 1%
inert.
The 2,4-D amine was a dimethyl amine salt formulation.
The 2,4-D LV Ester was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
57
Effect of time of day for application of sethoxvdim. Knake, Ellery L., Joe D. Walsh, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to compare applications of sethoxydim made at 6 am, noon, 6 pm, and midnight.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb S1400NC
5 X 45 ft
fair
5 to 6%
6.3
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety: Seeding rate: Planting date:
Row spacing:
Soybeans Williams 82 54.5 lb/A April 26, 1991 30 inch
May 23, 1991 6:00 am Postemergence
Fertility:
Tillage:
A bicycle mounted
fan nozzle tips to
apart and 20 inche
Date:
Time:
Treatment:
Temperature (F)
air:
soil under sod 4 inch: Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast): Relative
humidity(%): 93 Rainfall (inch)
previous week: 0.82
following week: 4.42 Species present: Soybeans
leaf no. 1st trif
height (inch) 4 Giant foxtail
leaf no. 3
height (inch) 3
120 lb/A K20 October 29, 1990.
Disked and harrowed April 25, 1991.
OSU comressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat give 25 gpa. Width of spray was five feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches
s above the giant foxtail.
May 23 May 23
6:00 pm midnight
Postemergence Postemergence
May 23
noon
Postemergence
69
62
moist 9 SSW 100
75
63
moist 12 S 80
85
74
69
moist 17 SSW 60
46
Common lambsquarters leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2
Velvetleaf leaf no. 2 height (inch) 2
72
68
moist 6 S dark
93
Pennsylvania smartweed leaf no. 3 height (inch) 3
Bentazon at 1 lb/A plus 1 qt/A crop oil concentrate was applied to the entire plot area at 9:00 am May 24, for control of broadleaf weeds using a tractor mounted compressed air sprayer traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Spray width was 10 feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the weeds. Excellent control of all broadleaf weeds was achieved.
If photodegradation is important for sethoxydim, then theoretically applications near dusk or after dark may allow more opportunity for uptake by plants and perhaps improved control and the opportunity to use lower rates. A study the previous year tended to support this theory and the study was repeated in 1991. However, the very favorable conditions in 1991 with relatively high temperatures, high humidity, good moisture conditions and very active plant growth appeared to preclude much difference for rate or time of day for application. Sethoxydim gave excellent control of giant foxtail regardless of rate or time of day. Any differences were very minor and difficult to elucidate. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
58
Table. Effect of time of day for application of sethoxydim and Paul) .
(Knake, Walsh, Heisner,
Treatment
Time Rate (lb/A)
Gift 6/7
Soybean yield
(% |
control) |
(bu/A) |
||
Sethoxydim + |
COC 6 am |
0.094 + 1 qt/A |
96 |
54.3 |
Seth + COC |
6 am |
0.188 + 1 qt/A |
99 |
45.6 |
Seth + COC |
noon |
0.094 + 1 qt/A |
97 |
48.9 |
Seth + COC |
noon |
0.188 + 1 qt/A |
99 |
48.8 |
Seth + COC |
6 pm |
0.094 + 1 qt/A |
98 |
54.1 |
Seth + COC |
6 pm |
0.188 + 1 qt/A |
99 |
50.2 |
Seth + COC |
midnight |
0.094 + 1 qt/A |
99 |
47.6 |
Seth + COC |
midnight |
0.188 + 1 qt/A |
99 |
48.2 |
Check |
0 |
27.1 |
LSD(0.05)
0.7
7.9
COC - crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
59
Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron. thifensulfuron. and imazethapyr. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W. Heisner, Kevin L. Hahn, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of tolerance of Williams 82 STS soybeans with that of regular Williams 82 soybeans using various rates and combinations of chlorimuron and thifensulfuron.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
DeKalb S1400NE
10 X 45 ft
fair
5 to 6%
6.3
Soil type:
Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1% Randomized complete block Replications: 3
Slope:
Exp. design:
Crop: Variety:
Seeding rate:
Soybean Williams 82 & Williams 82 STS 54.5 lb/A
Planting date:April 26, 1991 Row spacing: 30 inch
Fertility: 120 lb/A Tillage: Disked and A tractor mounted compressed nozzle tips to give 25 gpa.
K20
above the soybeans, May 23, 1991 8:00am Postemergence
October 29, 1990. harrowed April 25, 1991. air sprayer was used traveling 3 Width of spray was ten feet with
and 20 inches
Date:
Time:
Treatment:
Temperature (F)
air: 70
soil under sod
4 inch: 64 Soil moisture: moist Wind (mph): 11 S Sky (% overcast): 90 Relative
humidity(%): 93 Rainfall (inch)
previous week: 1.84
following week: 3.93
mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart
Species present Soybean
leaf no.
height (inch) Giant foxtail
leaf no.
height (inch) Yellow nutsedge
leaf no.
height (inch) Velvetleaf
leaf no.
height (inch)
1st 6
2
4
4 4
2
4
trif
Redroot pigweed |
|
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
1 |
Jimsonweed |
|
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
2 |
Common lambsquarters |
|
leaf no. |
17 |
height (inch) |
3 |
Eastern black ni |
ghtshade |
leaf no. |
2 |
height (inch) |
1.5 |
The entire plot was treated with quizalofop (0.044 lb/A a.i.) plus crop oil concentrate (1 qt/A) on May 24 using the same sprayer and setting as indicated for May 23.
Although some rates of chlorimuron and thifensulfuron were considered relatively high, effect on soybeans was quite limited. Very little discoloration of soybeans was noted but slight differences in height and in canopy width were noted, with the sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans expressing more tolerance. Unexpectedly, imazethapyr appeared to have greater effect on the sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans than on the others. This suggests some caution in selecting herbicides for use on sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans.
Although the main objective was to compare soybean tolerance, observations on weed control indicated that the quizalofop applied to all plots gave excellent control of giant foxtail but was slightly less effective on yellow foxtail than on giant foxtail. Chlorimuron and imazethapyr were more effective on yellow nutsedge than thifensulfuron. All three herbicides gave excellent control of redroot pigweed and Pennsylvania smartweed. Thifensulfuron and imazethapyr were much more effective on common lambsquarters than chlorimuron. Only imazethapyr controlled eastern black nightshade. Although control of velvetleaf was generally not complete with any of the treatments, control did not fall below 90% for the June ratings. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
60
Table 1
Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, and imazethapyr (Knake, Heisner, Hahn, and Paul).
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
Soybean |
||||
non-STS |
STS |
non-STS |
STS |
non-STS |
STS |
non-STS |
STS |
||||
5/31 |
5/31 |
6/6 |
6/6 |
6/18 |
6/18 |
6/6 |
6/6 |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
injury |
injury |
injury |
injury |
injury |
injury |
height |
height |
||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
|||
Thifensulfuron |
0.004 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
||
Thif |
0.008 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
||
Thif + chlorimuron |
0.004 + |
0 |
004 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
0052 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
10 |
9 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
008 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
9 |
9 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
010 |
7 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
9 |
10 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
012 |
7 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
9 |
9 |
Thif + clim |
0.008 + |
0 |
008 |
7 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
9 |
9 |
Clim |
0.008 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
||
Clim |
0.012 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
||
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
8 |
10 |
8 |
||
Dash + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
9 |
|||
LSD(0.05) |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Table 2. Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, and imazethapyr (Knake, Heisner, Hahn, and Paul).
Soybean Soybean Soybean Soybean Soybean Soybean
non-STS STS non-STS STS non-STS STS 6/7 6/7 6/18 6/18 6/18 6/18
Treatment |
Rate |
width |
width |
height |
height |
width |
width |
||
(lb/A) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
(inch) |
|||
Thifensulfuron |
0.004 |
9 |
11 |
17 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
||
Thif |
0.008 |
9 |
10 |
17 |
17 |
19 |
20 |
||
Thif + chlorimuron |
0.004 + |
0 |
.004 |
8 |
11 |
17 |
16 |
18 |
19 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
.0052 |
9 |
10 |
17 |
17 |
19 |
20 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
008 |
8 |
9 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
18 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
.010 |
8 |
10 |
17 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + |
0 |
.012 |
9 |
10 |
17 |
17 |
18 |
20 |
Thif + clim - |
0.008 + |
0 |
008 |
8 |
10 |
17 |
17 |
18 |
20 |
Clim |
0.008 |
9 |
9 |
17 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
||
Clim |
0.012 |
10 |
10 |
18 |
17 |
19 |
21 |
||
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
9 |
8 |
17 |
16 |
19 |
18 |
||
Dash + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||
Check |
11 |
10 |
17 |
16 |
19 |
18 |
LSD(0.05)
1
1
C0C- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert used at 1% on all treatments except the imazethapyr treatment and the untreated check.
28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution.
Dash is an adjuvant from BASF.
Entire area was treated with quizalofop @ 0.044 a.i. lb/A and 1 qt/A of C0C Vi hour after primary treatments were applied.
Width refers to width of canopy of soybean rows.
61
Table 3. Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, and imazethapyr (Knake, Heisner, Hahn, and Paul).
Gift |
Gift |
Gift |
Yeft |
Rrpw |
Rrpw Rrpw Colq Colq Cola |
||||||
5/31 |
6/7 6/18 5/31 |
5/31 |
6/7 6/18 5/31 |
6/7 6/18 |
|||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
control - |
|||||||||
(lb/A) |
(ft) |
(ft) |
(X) |
(ft) |
(%) |
(ft) |
(X) |
(X) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Thifensulfuron |
0.004 |
82 |
100 |
100 |
82 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
Thif |
0.008 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
Thif + chlorimuron |
0.004 + 0.004 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
100 |
99 |
Thif + dim |
0.004 + 0.0052 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
100 |
99 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.008 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
97 |
100 |
98 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.010 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
99 |
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.012 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
Thif + clim |
0.008 + 0.008 |
88 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
Clim |
0.008 |
87 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
83 |
0 |
10 |
Clim |
0.012 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
90 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
87 |
10 |
20 |
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
98 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
97 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
98 |
Dash + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD(0.05) |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
2 |
|
Vele |
Vele |
Vele |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Ebns |
Ebns |
Ebns |
|||
5/31 |
6/7 6/18 5/31 |
6/7 6/18 |
5/31 |
6/7 6/18 |
|||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
— contro |
1 — |
||||||||
(lb/A) |
(ft) |
(ft) |
(%) |
(ft) |
(%) |
w |
(X) |
(%) |
(X) |
||
Thifensulfuron |
0.004 |
73 |
92 |
92 |
85 |
100 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif |
0.008 |
72 |
94 |
92 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + chlorimuron |
0.004 + 0.004 |
78 |
94 |
94 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + cl im |
0.004 + 0.0052 |
82 |
95 |
95 |
98 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.008 |
85 |
97 |
97 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.010 |
82 |
99 |
99 |
90 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + clim |
0.004 + 0.012 |
83 |
98 |
98 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thif + clim |
0.008 + 0.008 |
90 |
99 |
99 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Clim |
0.008 |
87 |
94 |
94 |
90 |
100 |
70 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Clim |
0.012 |
83 |
96 |
96 |
97 |
100 |
92 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
85 |
90 |
92 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
|
Dash + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
||||||||||
Check |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
LSD(0.05) |
9 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
COC- crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert
used at 1% on all treatments except the imazethapyr treatment and the untreated check. 28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution. Dash is an adjuvant from BASF.
62
Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till. Knake, Ellery L., Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. The purpose of this study was to compare preplant incorporated, surface applied preemergence, and postemergence herbicide treatments for no-till and lo-till crop production.
Exp. design:
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter Soil pH: Soil type:
Slope:
DeKalb SHOOS
10 X 120 ft
fair
5 to 6%
6.0 Drummer silty clay loam 0 to 1%
Seeding rate:
Replications: Crop:
Variety:
Planting date:
Row spacing: Insecticide:
54.5 lb/A 28,300 15 lb/A April 25, 1991 30 inch Lorsban on
alfalfa 2 pt/A June 18, 1991
Randomized
complete block
3
Soybean
Corn
Alfalfa
Hack
Pioneer 3475
Magnum
Fertility: 1601b/A NH4N03 on May 8, 1991 for corn following alfalfa; 2001b/A NH4N03 on May 8, 1991 for corn following soybeans.
Tillage: For lo-till corn and soybeans a tandem disk with harrow was used twice for herbicide incorporation. This same tillage was also used to prepare a seedbed for alfalfa. A tractor mounted compressed air sprayer was used traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the soil surface.
Date: April 25, 1991 May 21, 1991 May 30, 1991
Time: 7:00am to noon 4:30pm 10:00am
Treatment: PPI, PRE, & KN0 Postemergence Late postemergence
Temperature (F)
82 75
air:
soil under sod 4 inch: Soil moisture: Wind (mph): Sky (% overcast): Relative
humidity(%): Rainfall (inch)
previous week:
following week:
54
49
moist 7 SE 90
60
0.15 0.59
Giant foxtail
leaf no. 1
height (inch) 0.25 Common ragweed
leaf no. 2
height (inch) 0.75 Common lambsquarters
leaf no. 4
height (inch) 1.0 Pennsylvania smartweed
leaf no. 1
height (inch) 1.0 Alfalfa (established)
leaf no.
height (inch) 7 Hairy vetch (established)
leaf no.
height (inch) 10 Soybean
leaf no.
height (inch) Eastern black nightshade
leaf no.
height (inch)
63
moist 12 S 90
46
1.71 4.08
3 3.5
4 3.0
24
4
10
4
new seeding
3 trifoliolate
1.5
Corn
4
6
70
moist 4 W 10
75
3.93 1.23
to 5
2nd 4
4
1
trifoliolate
63
In this study, corn was planted lo-till after soybeans and no-till after alfalfa or hairy vetch. Soybeans were planted both lo-till and no-till after corn. Tillage was used to prepare a seedbed for alfalfa.
For no-till corn, dicamba with 2,4-D gave good control of alfalfa. Good control of annual weeds was achieved with a preemergence application of cyanazine and atrazine or with a postemergence application of nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil. Dicamba plus atrazine gave excellent control of hairy vetch as well as providing extended control of broadleaf weeds. A postemergence application of nicosulfuron gave good control of grass weeds, including giant foxtail and some quackgrass.
For lo-till corn using two diskings, incorporation of EPTC plus dichlormid and dietholate followed by dicamba and atrazine provided good weed control. Good control was also achieved with metolachlor and atrazine or cyanazine and atrazine followed by nicosulfuron.
For no-till soybeans, pendimethalin plus metribuzin and chlorimuron, glyphosate followed by fluazifop-P and fomesafen, and 2,4-D plus sethoxydim followed by bentazon and acifluorfen and then sethoxydim all performed relatively well.
For lo-till soybeans, incorporation of trifluralin followed by imazethapyr, pendimethalin and imazethapyr surface applied, and metribuzin and chlorimuron followed by quizalofop all performed quite well.
For establishing alfalfa, trifluralin followed by 2,4-DB dimethylamine, sethoxydim plus 2,4-DB, or imazethapyr all aided in establishing on excellent stand of alfalfa. However, imazethapyr had a definite advantage for controlling eastern black nightshade. Imazethapyr also had some advantage over 2,4-DB for control of Pennsylvania smartweed.
In summary, some excellent herbicides are available to provide considerable flexibility for tillage systems and time and method of application. Results suggest that greater acceptance of herbicides for weed control in small seeded legumes could be quite beneficial. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
64
Table 1. Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till (Knake, Heisner, and Paul).
Corn Corn Gift Gift Vele Vele Colq Colq 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 Treatment Rate — injury — control
(lb/A) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Corn no-till after alfalfa/vetch: Dicamba + 2,4-D Ive + 0.25 + 0.5 + 0 0 100 96 100 97 100 100
cyanazine & 3.75 &
atrazine 1.25
Dica + 2,4-D Ive/ 0.25 + 0.5/ 3 7 100 90 92 83 100 98
nicosulfuron + 0.031 +
bromoxynil + X-77 0.25 + 1/4% Dica & atra/ 0.47 & 0.92/ 0 0 92 82 96 88 100 100
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4% Corn lo-till after soybeans: EPTC & dichlormid & 4.0/ 0 0 94 90 100 100 100 100
dietholate/
dica & atra 0.47 & 0.92 Metolalchlor & atra/ 2.0+1.6/ 0 0 100 99 88 88 100 100
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4% Cyan & atra/ 3.75 & 1.25/ 0 0 100 99 95 93 100 100
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4%
LSD(0.05) 4 4 8 11 10 11 0 2
Table 2. Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till (Knake, Heisner,
and Paul).
Ebns Ebns Pesw Pesw Rrpw Rrpw Legume Legume Corn 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 6/12 yield Treatment Rate
(TbTA) Corn no-till after alfalfa/vetch: Dicamba + 2,4-D Ive + 0.25 + 0.5 +
cyanazine & 3.75 &
atrazine 1.25
Dica + 2,4-D Ive/ 0.25 + 0.5/
nicosulfuron + 0.031 +
bromoxynil + X-77 0.25 + 1/4% Dica & atra/ 0.47 & 0.92/
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4% Corn lo-till after soybeans: EPTC & dichlormid & 4.0/ 100 100 100 100 100 100 186.1
dietholate/
dica & atra 0.47 & 0.92 Metolalchlor & atra/ 2.0 + 1.6/ 100 83 100 100 100 100 185.3
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) (bu/A) |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
1001 |
981 165.4 |
50 |
48 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
98 |
1001 |
1001 135.9 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
87 |
1002 |
1002 167.1 |
100 |
83 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
83 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4%
Cyan & atra/ 3.75 & 1.25/ 100 83 100 100 100 100 187.4
nicosulfuron + X-77 0.031 + 1/4%
LSD(0.05) 37 44 0 0 6 5 25.5
'Alfalfa cover crop.
2Hairy vetch cover crop.
The 2,4-D Ive used was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
65
Table 3. Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till and Paul).
(Knake, Heisner,
Treatment
Rate
Soybean Soybean Gift Gift Vele Vele Colq Colq 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 — injury — control
(lb/A) |
(%) |
|
Soybeans no-till after |
||
Metribuzin & |
0.28 & |
6 |
chlorimuron + |
0.047 + |
|
pendimethalin + COC |
1.0 + 1% |
|
Glyphosate/ |
0.38/ |
8 |
fluazifop-P & |
0.188 & |
|
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
|
2,4-D + sethoxydim + |
0.5 + 0.063 + |
8 |
COC/ bentazon & |
1%/ 0.75 & |
|
acifluorfen + 28% N/ |
0.17 + 4%/ |
|
seth + COC |
0.14 + 1% |
|
Soybeans lo-till after corn: |
||
Trifluralin/ |
1.0/ |
0 |
imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
|
Sunit + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
|
Pend & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
0 |
Metr & dim/ |
0.35 & 0.035/ |
6 |
quizalofop + COC |
0.044 + 1% |
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
5 90 68 100 100 100 100
6 100 83 98 85 100 85 8 99 90 100 94 100 99
0 100 98 100 95 100 100
0 86 77 98 83 100 99 4 98 87 89 67 100 100
LSD(0.05)
12
10
Table 4. Time and method of herbici |
de appl |
ication |
for no |
-till |
and lo |
-till |
(Knake, Heisner, |
|
and Paul). |
||||||||
Ebns |
Ebns |
Pesw |
Pesw |
Rrpw |
Rrpw |
Soybean |
||
6/12 |
7/3 |
6/12 |
7/3 |
6/12 |
7/3 |
yield |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— control |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu/a) |
|
Soybeans no-till after |
||||||||
Metribuzin & |
0.28 & |
83 |
83 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
23.0 |
chlorimuron + |
0.047 + |
|||||||
pendimethalin + COC |
1.0 + 1% |
|||||||
Glyphosate/ - |
0.38/ |
100 |
67 |
99 |
82 |
100 |
90 |
20.1 |
fluazifop-P & |
0.188 & |
|||||||
fomesafen + COC |
0.25 + 1% |
|||||||
2,4-D + sethoxydim + |
0.5 + 0.063 + |
100 |
83 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
78 |
23.1 |
COC/ bentazon & |
1%/ 0.75 & |
|||||||
acifluorfen + 28% N/ |
0.17 + 4%/ |
|||||||
seth + COC |
0.14 + 1% |
|||||||
Soybeans lo-till after corn: |
||||||||
Trifluralin/ |
1.0/ |
100 |
100 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
100 |
35.7 |
imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
|||||||
Sunit + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
|||||||
Pend & imep |
0.875 & 0.063 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
100 |
38.3 |
Metr & clim/ |
0.35 & 0.035/ |
63 |
33 |
100 |
95 |
100 |
99 |
40.2 |
quizalofop + COC |
0.044 + 1% |
|||||||
LSD(0.05) |
47 |
39 |
1 |
10 |
1 |
10 |
11.0 |
COC is crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert. 28% N is urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution. Sunit is a methylated seed oil.
66
Control of hemp dogbane with sponge applications of qlyphosate. Walsh, Joseph D., Ellery L. Knake, Ronald W. Heisner, and Lyle E. Paul. Hemp dogbane is a perennial weed problem throughout Illinois. Only translocated herbicides have any degree of effectiveness on controlling the weed. Glyphosate, applied with selective application equipment, appears to offer promise for hemp dogbane control in soybeans. The sponge applicator is equipped with sponges that become saturated and seldom drip. This allows for maximum coverage of plant foliage which is contacted by the sponge.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the sponge applicator for control of hemp dogbane in soybeans with a 33% solution of glyphosate. The study was located in an area of natural infestation. One and two passes per application timing were made at three different stages of hemp dogbane development: vegetative, bud, and bloom of hemp dogbane.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
Fertility: Tillage:
DeKalb SW1700
5 X 60
fair
4.5%
6.2
Replications: 180 lb/K20, November 13, 1990 No-till
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Drummer silty clay loam 0-1%
Randomized complete block 4
Crop: Cultivar: Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing: Insecticide:
Soybeans
Hack
55 lb/A
May 30, 1991
30 inch
N/A
Roundup burndown treatments were applied with a tractor mounted compressed air sprayer traveling 3 mph with 30 psi and 8004 flat fan nozzle tips to give 25 gpa. Width of spray was ten feet with nozzles spaced 20 inches apart and 20 inches above the soil surface. All sponge applications were made with a Super Sponge1 mounted sponge applicator 5 feet wide. Tractor speed was 5 mph and the applicator was set approximately 6 inches above the soybeans.
Date: |
May 23, 1991 |
June 12, 1991 |
June 25, 1991 July 19, 1991 |
|
Time: |
3 : 00pm |
10:00am |
4:30pm |
1:30pm |
Timing: |
Burndown |
Post 1 |
Post 2 |
Post 3 |
Temperature (F): |
||||
Air (ambient): |
80 |
85 |
87 |
92 |
Soil 4 inch: |
78 |
81 |
85 |
85 |
Soil moisture: |
Moist |
Moist |
Dry |
Dry |
Wind (mph) : |
8 S |
5 SE |
7 SE |
2-4 SW |
Sky (% cloud) : |
70 |
20 |
40 |
10 |
Humidity (%): |
75 |
75 |
85 |
65 |
Rainfall (inch): |
||||
Prev. week: |
2.4 |
1.2 |
0 |
0 |
Following week: |
1.6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Hemp dogbane |
||||
Stage |
Vegetative |
Vegetative |
Bud |
Bloom |
Height (inch) |
20 |
28-32 |
35-40 |
40-50 |
Soybeans |
||||
Stage |
V2 |
V5 |
R3 |
|
Height (inch) |
8 |
15 |
30 |
All glyphosate treatments, regardless of timing or number of passes provided at least 75% control of hemp dogbane. There was a trend for 2 passes to increase efficacy over 1 pass but this trend was not significant. No difference was detected with regard to timing of herbicide application at various stages of hemp dogbane development.
Previous research indicates hemp dogbane is more susceptible to herbicides when the plant has reached the bloom stage. It is theorized that this facilitates translocation of the herbicide to the roots. In our research, no increase in efficacy was seen when hemp dogbane was treated in the bloom stage versus vegetative or bud. Control was equal at all three application stages. The first two applications were made when a 20 inch crop/weed height differential existed. This allowed for 14 inches of hemp dogbane foliage to be treated. When dogbane reached the bloom stage, the crop/weed height differential was only 10 inches. This left only 4 inches of hemp dogbane foliage to be treated. Therefore, the failure to detect differences between application timings may be a direct response to the amount of herbicide applied to the weed foliage at the time of application and not the stage of weed development.
The sponge applicator appears to have potential as a tool for delivering selective applications of glyphosate in soybeans for the control of hemp dogbane. It may be advantageous to treat dogbane when a 20 inch difference exist between the top of the soybean canopy and the top of the weed. This might allow for maximum coverage of the herbicide on the weed foliage. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana. )
'Smucker Manufacturing, Inc., 22919 N. Coburg Rd., Harrisburg, OR 97446.
67
Table. Control of hemp dogbane with sponge applications of glyphosate. (Walsh, Knake, Heisner, and Paul).
Treatment Rate Hedb
control
(% v/v) (%)
Glyphosate Burndown 2.0" 88
Glyphosate Post 1 33 78
1 pass
Glyphosate Post 1 33 83
2 passes
Glyphosate Post 2 33 85
1 pass
Glyphosate Post 2 33 85
2 passes
Glyphosate Post 3 33 75
1 pass
Glyphosate Post 3 33 83
2 passes
Untreated check 0
LSD=0.05 14
'Rate for burndown expressed in Lb ai/A
68
Weed control for set-aside soybeans. Walsh, Joseph D. , Gary E. Pepper, and Ellery L. Knake. The experimental objective was to evaluate various herbicides and herbicide combinations for low cost, effective weed control in soybeans planted on set-aside acres.
Proper crop selection and weed control are important aspects in management of set-aside acres. Commonly, producers plant oats on set-aside acres in Illinois. Many of these situations result in high weed densities and significant additions to the weed seed bank of the soil. In addition, oats offer little or no soil building advantage aside from vegetative cover. Planting late maturing soybeans with a modest weed control program, may be advantageous for set-aside acres. The soybeans can provide ground cover while making a significant nitrogen contribution. This would allow producers to reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer used for subsequent crops as well as providing an additional use for soybeans.
Location: Plot size: Drainage: Organic matter: Soil pH:
Fertility: Tillage:
Urbana M-3N
5 X 60 ft
fair
4%
6.4
Soil type:
Slope:
Exp. design:
Replications:
Drummer silty clay loam 2.5%
Randomized complete block 3
Crop: Variety:
Seeding rate: Planting date: Row spacing: Insecticide:
None- applied within 1 year of study establishment.
Fall, moldboard plow; Spring disc, field cultivated twice.
Soybeans Coker 488 Late group VIII 90 lb/A May 30, 1991 7 inch None
All treatments were applied using a C02 backpack sprayer calibrated at 32 PSI with 8002 flat fan nozzles traveling at 3 mph to deliver 14 gpa. Width of spray boom was 5 feet with 3 nozzles evenly spaced at 20 inches.
Date: |
May |
31, 1991 June 19, 1991 |
|
Time: |
3:00pm |
5 : 00pm |
|
Treatment : |
Pre |
Post |
|
Temperature (F) |
|||
air: |
85 |
88 |
|
soil under sod |
|||
4 inch: |
81 |
83 |
|
Soil moisture: |
Dry |
Dry |
|
Wind (mph) : |
5-7 |
NE |
7-9 NE |
Sky (% overcast): |
10 |
30 |
|
Humidity ( % ) : |
80 |
75 |
|
Rainfall (inch) |
|||
previous week: |
0.6 |
0 |
|
following week: |
0.0 |
0 |
|
Giant foxtail |
|||
leaf no. |
2 |
||
height (inch) |
2 |
||
Redroo^t pigweed |
|||
leaf no. |
3 |
||
height (inch) |
3-4 |
||
Velvetleaf |
|||
leaf no. |
2 |
||
height (inch) |
2 |
||
Soybean |
|||
stage |
V2 |
||
height (inch) |
5 |
The experiment was established May 30, 1991. Tillage immediately prior to planting reduced weed populations. Little rainfall was received after planting to promote further germination of weeds. Although the late tillage for planting assisted in the control of weeds, weed densities in the untreated plots disclosed the need for additional control. All treatments with the exception of bentazon plus acifluorfen at half the label rate of 0.37 + 0.08 lb/A provided good control of velvetleaf, giant foxtail, and redroot pigweed. The combination of 2,4-DB, sethoxydim, and crop oil concentrate resulted in 25% visible crop injury to soybeans which appeared as stunted plants. The 0.25 and 0.38 rates of glyphosate caused 37 and 47% visible crop injury respectively. Glyphosate injury was indicated by necrosis and reduced stand. Glyphosate caused significant injury in this study. Glyphosate tolerant soybeans of appropriate maturity could be advantageous for this purpose.
The combination of late tillage to control early germinating weeds and the use of certain low-cost herbicide treatments, appears to have some potential for weed control in soybeans planted on set-aside acres. Although soybeans are not currently permitted for set- aside, it may be feasible to allow doing so. Very late maturing soybean varieties, that will not produce seed but fix nitrogen for an extended period, could have potential for agronomic use. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.)
69
Table 5. Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till and Paul).
(Knake, Heisner,
Alfalfa |
Alfalfa |
Gift |
Gift |
Vele |
Vele |
Colq |
Colq |
||
6/12 |
7/3 |
6/12 |
7/3 |
6/12 |
7/3 |
6/12 |
7/3 |
||
Treatment |
Rate |
— injury — |
— control - |
||||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Trifluralin/ 2,4-DB |
1.0/ 0.5 |
0 |
0 |
91 |
91 |
76 |
76 |
100 |
100 |
Sethoxydim + |
0.14 + |
0 |
0 |
99 |
98 |
80 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
2,4-DB + COC |
0.5 + 1% |
||||||||
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
0 |
0 |
98 |
96 |
92 |
92 |
85 |
85 |
Sunit + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
LSD(0.05)
32 32
Table 6. Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till (Knake, Heisner, and Paul).
Ebns Ebns Pesw Pesw Rrpw Rrpw 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3 6/12 7/3
Treatment |
Rate |
- contr |
•ol — |
||||
(lb/A) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
Trifluralin/ 2,4-DB |
1.0/ 0.5 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
78 |
100 |
100 |
Sethoxydim + |
0.14 + |
10 |
10 |
73 |
73 |
100 |
100 |
2,4-DB + COC |
0.5 + 1% |
||||||
Imazethapyr + |
0.063 + |
100 |
100 |
99 |
96 |
100 |
100 |
Sunit + 28% N |
1% + 1% |
LSD(0.05)
30
22
COC is crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert, 28% N is^jrea ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution. X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent. Sunit is a methylated seed oil.
70
Table. Weed control for set-aside soybeans. (Walsh, Pepper, and Knake) .
Treatment |
Rate |
Crop injury |
Vele |
Gift |
Rrpw |
(lb/A) |
(%) |
||||
Cyanazine Pre |
2.0 |
5 |
85 |
88 |
90 |
Pendimethalin + 2,4-D LVE1 Pre |
1.0 + 0.5 |
0 |
92 |
87 |
95 |
Pendimethalin Pre/ 2,4-DB2 Post |
1.0 + 0.2 |
18 |
82 |
88 |
95 |
2,4-DB + Sethoxydim3 + COC4 Post |
0.2 + 0.125 |
25 |
87 |
87 |
92 |
Glyphosate Post |
0.25 |
37 |
86 |
82 |
90 |
Glyphosate Post |
0.38 |
47 |
85 |
80 |
93 |
Bentazon + aciflourfen + COC Post |
0.75 + 0.17 |
13 |
87 |
73 |
90 |
Bentazon + aciflourfen + COC Post |
0.37 + 0.08 |
0 |
63 |
50 |
60 |
Untreated |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
LSD=0.05 |
14 |
17 |
16 |
12 |
'Butoxyethyl ester
2Dimethyl amine salt formulation.
3Poast Plus formulation of sethoxydim.
4COC - crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant,
and 1% inert used at 1 quart/A.
71
Field corn herbicide evaluation for no-till in clover sod. Tomera, Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Gene M. Oldham. The objective of this study was to evaluate herbicide combinations for burndown of a clover cover crop, and to provide grass and broadleaf weed control in field corn. The area for this study was a Mammoth red clover crop that was established in 1990. The field corn was planted no-till. This information is useful for those using a cover crop, clover for livestock, clover for set-a-aside acres or for the long term CRP program.
This study took place in 1991 and is the second year of a study conducted at the University of Illinois Agronomy and Plant Pathology Research Farm, at Urbana, II. on field 261-68. The soil is a Flanagan silt loam with a 1 to 2% slope and 4.5% organic matter. A randomized complete block design was used with three replications, with each plot being 10 by 50 ft. The field is in a state of high fertility, so no phosphate or potash was applied. Three ton of calcific limestone per acre was applied in the fall of 1990. Nitrogen as ammonium nitrate was broadcast at a rate of 180 lb/acre on April 28, 1991. Initial burndown and pre emergence herbicide applications were made on April 17, 1991, except for the last treatment listed which was applied May 8,1991. On April 30, 1991, Pioneer 3362 field corn was planted at a population of 28,000 seeds per acre, in 30 inch rows. Postemergence spraying was done on May 8, 1991. Weed control ratings were made on June 30 and on August 2, 1991. Application rates, sprayer calibrations, environmental conditions and plant growth stages were:
Date
April 17
May 8
May 24
Time |
5:00pm |
4:00pm |
3:45pm |
Treatment |
KNO/PRE |
POST |
POST |
Sprayer |
C02 |
C02 |
C02 |
nozzle |
8002 flat fan |
8002 flat fan |
8002 flat fan |
gpa |
14 |
14 |
14 |
pressure (psi) |
24 |
24 |
24 |
speed |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Temperature |
|||
air |
60 F |
80 F |
87 F |
soil@4H |
57 F |
65 F |
68 F |
Soil moisture |
moist |
moist |
moist |
Wind (mph) |
NE5 |
SW 12 |
SW 12 |
Overcast |
clear |
10% |
3% |
Relative |
|||
humidity |
70% |
80% |
80% |
Surface residue |
100%o |
20% |
20% |
Cora |
|||
height (inch.) |
0 |
10 |
15 |
leaf no. |
0 |
6 |
10 |
Weeds |
|||
April 17 |
Mav8 |
Mav 24 |
|
number of leaves - |
|||
Clover |
many |
many |
slight |
Common lambsquarters |
4 |
8 |
8 |
Pennsylvania smartweed |
3 |
7 |
2 |
Dandelion |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Giant foxtail |
0 |
2 |
6 |
Yellow foxtail |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Field bindweed |
0 |
12 |
14 |
Common milkweed |
0 |
12 |
12 |
Velvetleaf |
0 |
4 |
1 |
Combinations of dicamba plus 2,4-D or atrazine appeared to give the best control of the clover. Applications of cyanazine and atrazine, also provided good burn down of the clover. Weed control remained very good throughout the growing season, except for a few areas of field bindweed and a few scattered areas of eastern black nightshade. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana)
72
Table 1. Field corn herbicide evaluation for no - till corn in clover sod. (Tomera, Knake, Oldham).
Treatment |
Rate |
Gift |
Gift |
Fapa |
Fapa |
Vele |
Vele |
Yield |
|
6/30 |
8/2 |
6/30 |
8/2 |
6/30 |
8/2 |
||||
- - - Control - |
|||||||||
lb/A |
(%) |
{%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(bu.) |
||
Glyphosate + |
038 + |
||||||||
metolachlor & |
2.0 & 1.6/ |
||||||||
atrazine/ |
0.031 |
||||||||
nicosulfuron + |
|||||||||
X-77 |
92 |
83 |
98 |
92 |
100 |
92 |
85 |
||
Atra + |
2.0 + |
||||||||
cyanazine + |
2.0 |
||||||||
COC + 28%N |
97 |
90 |
100 |
92 |
98 |
92 |
115 |
||
Cyan & atra + |
3.0 & |
||||||||
COC |
1.0 |
92 |
90 |
100 |
92 |
98 |
92 |
128 |
|
Dicamba & |
0.48 & |
||||||||
atra + COC |
0.92 |
92 |
90 |
85 |
96 |
95 |
92 |
124 |
|
Dica + 2,4-D/ |
025 +0.5/ |
||||||||
bromoxynil & |
0.25 & 0.5 |
||||||||
atra + nico + |
0.031 |
||||||||
X-77 |
83 |
97 |
90 |
97 |
93 |
90 |
129 |
||
Dica + 2,4-D/ |
0.25 + 0.5/ |
||||||||
bentazon & atra |
0.75 & 0.75 |
||||||||
+ nico + X-77 |
+ 0.031 |
83 |
63 |
90 |
95 |
92 |
83 |
116 |
|
Dica + 2,4-D + |
025 + 03 |
||||||||
alachlor MT + |
+ 23 + 13 |
||||||||
atra + COC |
77 |
62 |
73 |
65 |
77 |
65 |
86 |
||
LSD (0.05) |
5 |
31 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
19 |
COC - crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert used at a rate
of 1.0qL/a.
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from valent used at 025% v/v.
28%N is a urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer used at 1.0 gal/a.
The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
73
Table 2. Field corn herbicide evaluation for no - till corn in clover sod. (Tomera, Knake, Oldham)
Treatment Rate Rrpw Rrpw Colq Colq Ebns Ebns
6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2
Control
(lbs/a) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Glyphosate + |
038 + 2.0 |
metolochlor & |
+ 1.6/ |
atrazine/ |
0.031 |
nicosulfuron + |
|
X-77 |
|
Atra + cyanazine |
2.0 + |
+ COC + 28%N |
2.0 |
Cyan + atra + |
3.0 + |
COC |
1.0 |
Dicamba & atra |
0.48 & |
+ COC |
0.92 |
Dica + 2,4-D/ |
025 + 03/ |
bromoxinal & atra |
0.25 & 03 |
+ nico + X-77 |
+0.031 |
Dica + 2,4-D/ |
0.25 + 03/ |
bentazon & atra + |
0.75 & 0.75 |
nico + X-77 |
+0.031 |
Dica + 2,4-D + |
025 + 03 |
alachlor MT + |
+23 + 13 |
atra + COC |
|
LSD (0.05) |
92 83 95 90 93 85
92 80 95 85 93 85
92 85 98 92 95 85
92 88 90 82 100 85
93 82 90 82 95 83 93 75 93 85 92 75 80 68 73 62 82 73
COC - crop oil concentrate with 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant, and 1% inert used at a rate
of l.Oqt/a.
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from valent used at 025% v/v.
28%N is a urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer used at 1.0 gal/a.
The 2,4-D was a butoxyethyl ester formulation.
74
Soybean herbicide evaluation for no-till soybeans after corn. Tomera, Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Gene M. Oldham. In this study, the objective was to evaluate herbicides used alone or in combinations that might provide both burndown and residual control of weeds. Some herbicides have the potential for providing buradown of existing weeds and residual activity to provide season long control, precluding the need for a postemergence herbicide application and alleviating the need for tillage and cultivation.
The 1991 study is the second year for this experiment which was conducted on the University of Illinois Agronomy and Plant Pathology Farm at Urbana, II., field 261-68. The soil is a Catlin Silt Loam with a 1 to 2% slope and 3.5% organic matter. A randomized complete block design was used, with three replications and plots each 10 by 50 ft. No fertilizer was applied due to the high state of fertility, other than three ton per acre calcific limestone in the fall of 1990. This area was in corn in 1990. Plots were lightly disced in the fall of 1990. No spring tillage was done. Initial burndown and preemergence herbicide applications were made on May 8, 1991. On May 10, 1991, soybean cultivar Williams 82 was planted in 30 inch rows at a rate of 9 seeds per foot of row. No post plant cultivation was done, and on June 8, 1991 the postemergence herbicides were applied. Weed control ratings were made on June 30 and August 2, 1991. Application dates, sprayer calibrations, environmental conditions and plant growth stages were as follows:
Date
Treatment Time Sprayer nozzle
gpa
pressure (psi)
speed (mph) Temperature
air
soil@4H Soil moisture Wind (mph) % Overcast Relative
humidity Surface residue Soybean
height (inch.)
leaf no.
(trifoliates)
Weeds
Velvetleaf
Pennsylvania smartweed Prickly lettuce Canada thistle Dandelion Prostrate knotweed Common lambsquarters Common milkweed Giant foxtail Yellow foxtail Fall panicum Prickly sida Prostrate pigweed Field bindweed
May 8 |
June 8 |
KNO/PRE |
POST |
2:00pm |
9:00am |
C02 |
C02 |
8002 flat fan |
8002 flat fan |
14 |
14 |
24 |
24 |
3 |
3 |
80 F |
72 F |
65 F |
70 F |
moist |
moist |
NE5 |
calm |
10% |
clear |
80% |
73% |
95% |
80% |
0 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
Mav8 |
June 8 |
number of leaves - |
|
3 |
6 |
4 |
15 |
7 |
12 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
10 |
4 |
22 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
15 |
Most preplant and burndown herbicide combinations controlled weeds throughout the growing season quite well. Postemergence herbicides for controlof grass weeds performed well. The postemergence herbicides for broadleaf weeds generally performed well but there were a few escapes due to the height of the weeds. This was especially true of velvetleaf, lambsquarters and pigweed. Late season hot, dry weather did not allow for full soybean canopy closure. This allowed for the developement of certain annual grasses and broadleaf weeds, especially that of prickly sida, prostrate knotweed and eastern black nightshade. (Dept. of Agronomy , University of Illinois, Urbana)
75
Table 1. Soybean herbicide evaluation for no - till soybeans after corn. (Tomera, Knake, Oldham).
Treatment
Rate
Bygr Bygr Gift Gift Colq Colq
6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2
(lbs/a)
Control
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Metribuzin & |
028 & |
chlorimuron |
0.047 |
+ COC |
|
Metr & clim + |
028 & |
clethodim + |
0.047 + |
COC |
0.094 |
Pendimethalin |
0.875 & |
& imazethapyr |
0.063 |
+ Dash |
|
Metr & clim + |
028 & |
COC/ |
0.047/ |
quizalofop + |
0.044 |
X-77 |
|
Sulphosate + |
038/ |
COC/ |
0.188 & |
fluazifop & |
025 |
fomesafen + COC |
|
2,4-D + |
03 + |
Sethoxydim + |
0.063/ |
COC/seth + |
0.125/ |
COC/bentazon |
0.75 & |
& acifluorfen |
0.17 |
+ 28%N |
|
CHECK |
|
LSD (0.05) |
98 88 92 78 100 95
100 97 95 80 100 88
97 97 98 87 98 87
85 77 85 75 87 83
95 85 95 90 95 90
95 82 90 83 98 98
74 68 78 65 73 73
22 34 13 19 24 24
COC- crop oil concentrate was 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant and 1% inert used at a rate
of l.Oqt/a.
Dash is an adjuvant from BASF used at l.Oqt/a.
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 025% v/v.
The 2,4-D was butoxyethyi ester formulation.
76
Table 2. Soybean |
hebicide evaluation for |
no -till < |
soybeans after |
corn, i |
Tomera, |
Knake, |
Oldham). |
|
Treatment |
Rate |
Vele 6/30 |
Vele 8/2 |
Ebns 6/30 |
Ebns 8/2 |
Prsi 6/30 |
Prsi 8/2 |
Yield |
(lbs/a)
Control
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (bu.)
Metribuzin & |
028 & |
chlorimuron |
0.047 + |
+ COC |
|
Metr & clim |
028 & |
+ clethodim |
0.047 |
+ COC |
+ 0.094 |
Pendimethalin |
0.875 & |
& imazethapyr |
0.063 |
+ Dash |
|
Metr & clim + |
028 & |
COC/ |
0.047/ |
quizalofop + |
0.044 |
X-77 |
|
Sulphosate + |
0381/ |
COC/ |
0.188 |
fluazifop & |
&025 |
fomesafen + |
|
COC |
|
2,4-D + |
0.5 + |
sethoxydim + |
0.063/ |
COC/seth + |
0.125/ |
COC/bentazon |
0.75 + |
& acifluorfen |
0.17 |
+ 28%N |
|
CHECK |
|
LSD (0.05) |
97 95 93 83 95 87 32
100 92 98 88 100 97 35
100 93 93 88 100 92 25
90 85 88 73 93 78 40
97 90 93 77 90 70 25
98 75 88 77 95 70 30 85 75 88 77 95 70 15
16 21
17
15
15
31
8
COC- crop oil concentrate was 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant and 1% inert used at a rate
of l.Oqt/a.
Dash is an adjuvant from BASF used at l.Oqt/a.
The 2,4-D was butoxyethyl ester formulation.
X-77 is a nonionic surfactant from Valent used at 025% v/v.
77
Evaluation of herbicides for clover establishment. Tomera, Craig A., Ellery L. Knake, Gene M. Oldham. In this study, the objective was to evaluate herbicides for the control of grass and broadleaf weeds in seedling clover. This was done so that a vigorous clover stand could develop in the first year, allowing it to provide a good cover crop for the following year's corn crop, and also to help reduce weed competition in the clover as well as the following year's corn crop. This study, a continuation of the 1990 study, was conducted at the University of Illinois Agronomy and Plant Pathology Research Farm at Urbana, II. on field 261-68. The soil is a Flanagan silt loam with a 1 to 2% slope and 4 5% organic matter. A randomized complete block design was used with three replications, and individual plots of 10 by 50 ft The field was in a high state of fertility, so no fertilizer was applied other than 3.0 ton per acre calcitic limestone in the fall of 1990. Plots were fall disced and spring tillage consisted of one pass with a field cultivator and one pass with a soil finisher. Preplant incorporated treatments were applied and were followed by one pass with a soil finisher on April 17. Later that same afternoon, Mammoth red clover was seeded with a Brillion seeder at a rate of 12 pounds per acre. Weed control ratings were made on June 30 and August 2, 1991. Application dates, sprayer calibration, environmental conditions and plant growth stages were as follows:
Date |
April 17 |
May 3 |
Time |
8:00am |
3:30pm |
Treatment |
PPI |
POST |
Sprayer |
C02 |
C02 |
nozzle |
8002 flat fan |
8002 flat fan |
gpa |
14 |
14 |
pressure(psi) |
24 |
24 |
speed(mph) |
3 |
3 |
Temperature |
||
air |
55 F |
65 F |
soil@4 inch |
57 F |
80 F |
Soil moisture |
moist |
moist |
Wind (mph) |
NE5 |
SW10 |
Overcast % |
foggy |
10% |
Relative |
||
humidity |
80% |
70% |
Clover height |
0 |
3.0 inches |
Weeds |
April 17 |
May 6 |
Number of leaves — |
|
|
Yellow foxtail |
0 |
2 |
Giant foxtail |
0 |
3 |
Redroot pigweed |
0 |
3 |
Common lambsquarters |
0 |
6 |
Field bindweed |
0 |
6 |
Common milkweed |
0 |
8 |
Prickly lettuce |
0 |
6 |
Eastern black nightshade |
0 |
2 |
Common purslane |
0 |
8 |
Hairy Vetch |
many |
many |
In this study, the postemergence applications gave much better weed control than did the preplant incorporated herbicides. This was especially true for grass weed control. Moderate injury was noted on the clover as leaf crinkling due to the 2,4-DB application, which only gave moderate control of velvetleaf, redroot pigweed and eastern black nightshade. Clover establishment was slow due to crusting of the soil surface, and later on due to the hot, dry weather conditions that prevailed. (Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana)
78
Table 1. |
Herbicide evaluation for clover establishment |
(Tomera, |
Knake |
, Oldham). |
|||
Treatmenl |
Rate |
Gift 6/30 |
Gift 8/2 |
Yeft 6/30 |
Yeft 8/2 |
Rrpw 6/30 |
Rrpw 8/2 |
Sethoxydim +
COC +
Mowing EPTC/2,4-DB Trifluralin/
2,4-DB Pendimethalin/
2,4-DB Seth + 2,4-DB
+ COC Seth + 2,4-DB
+ COC Fenoxaprop &
fluazifop +
2,4-DB +
COC Quizalofop +
2,4-DB +
COC CHECK - Oats
(lbs/a) 0.125
3.0/0.5 0.75/ 0.5 0.75/ 0.5 0.125 + 0.5 1.88 + 0.5 0.125 & 0.035 + 0.5
0.044 + 0.5
Control
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
100 93 100 97 100 100 82 60 85 67 100 92
82 58
82 60
100 100
87
88
70 100
72 100
100 95 100 93 88
88
88
78
98 97 93 78
100 97 100 93 88 75
90 78 100 88 90 88 35 32 52 23 63 55
LSD (0.05)
12
20
21
13
COC - crop oil concentrate was 83% parafin base petroleum oil, 16% surfactant and 1% inert used at a rate
of 1.0qt/a.
2,4-DB was a Dimethylamine salt formulation
Sethoxydim was the Poast formulation.
79
85 |
67 |
83 |
62 |
80 |
80 |
97 |
85 |
90 |
70 |
97 |
97 |
Table 2. Herbicide evaluation for clover establishment (Tomera, Knake, Oldham).
Treatment Rate Vele Vele Ebns Ebns Colq Colq
6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2 6/30 8/2
Control
(lbs/a) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Sethoxydim + 0.125
COC +
Mowing
EPTC/ 2,4-DB 3.0/0.5
Trifluralin/ 0.75/
2,4-DB 0.5 97 87 90 70 97 97
Pendimethalin/ 0.75
2,4-DB 0.5 95 87 90 70 97 95
Seth + 2,4-DB 0.125 +
+ COC 0.5 93 82 92 77 97 97
Seth + 2,4-DB 1.88 +
+ COC 0.5B 100 87 83 72 95 92
Fenoxaprop & 0.125 &
fluazifop + 0.035 +
2,4-DB + 0.5
COC 95 87 88 70 93 92
Quizalofop + 0.044 +
2,4-DB + 0.5
COC 100 88 90 80 100 97
Checks -Oats 72 58 82 60 90 75
LSD (0.05) 7 10 7 19 8 11
COC - crop oil concentrate was 83% paraffin base petroleum oil, with 16% surfactant and 1% inert used at a
rate of l.OQt/A.
2,4-DB was the Dimethylamine salt formulation.
Sethoxydim was the Poast formulation.
80
Interaction of soil-applied terbufos formulations and nicosulfuron for corn. Pike, David R., Ellery L. Knake, and Kevin Steffey. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate two formulations of terbufos applied as an in-furrow application for interactions with postemergence nicosulfuron. The study was conducted in 1991 at the Orr Research Center near Perry Illinois. The soil was a Herrick silt loam and Clarksdale silt loam with 1.8% organic matter and a slope of 0 to 2%. The pH was determined in the fall of 1989 as 5.8, the Pt was 56 and the K was 278. Cora hybrid FS-6774 was planted June 26, 1991 at a population of 26,100 per acre. Cora preceded corn planted in 1991. All herbicide applications were made with a tractor mounted sprayer set to deliver 25 GPA at 30 PSI. The plot area was treated with cyanazine at 2.7 lb/A and atrazine at .9 lb/A. The entire plot area was also treated with glyphosate at 1 lb/A and paraquat at 1 lb/A for knockdown of existing vegetation prior to planting. Two hundred pounds per acre of anhydrous N was applied. No fall or spring tillage was done. Soil insecticides were applied in-furrow at planting. Nozzle types were 8004 FF. Post emergence treatments were applied 12 July 1991. The prevailing temperatures during spraying operations were between 72 and 82 degrees F. Two inches of rainfall was received within seven days prior to post emergence applications resulting in excellent growing conditions. All plots were hand weeded. The rate of nicosulfuron used conformed to the newly issued product label.
Results from the study indicate serious reductions in both plant height and grain yield from a resultant interaction between applications of terbufos (Counter 15G) and nicosulfuron (Accent) as well as a significant interaction between terbufos (Counter 20CR) and nicosulfuron. Reductions in plant height and yield up to 80% were noted for interactions between nicosulfuron and terbufos.
Table. Interaction of soil-applied terbufos formulations and nicosulfuron for corn (Pike, Knake, Steffey).
Treatment
Rate
Appl Time
Corn height 7/23/91
Cora Yield 1991
Lb/A |
|||
1 |
Terbufos 15G |
1.0 |
In furrow |
2 |
Terbufos 20CR |
1.0 |
In furrow |
3 |
Nicosulfuron |
0.031 + 1 |
Post |
X-77 |
0.25% |
||
4 |
Terbufos 15G |
1.0 |
In furrow |
nicosulfuron |
0.031 |
Post |
|
X-77 |
0.25% |
||
5 |
Terbufos 20CR |
1.0 |
In furrow |
nicosulfuron + |
0.031 |
Post |
|
X-77 |
0.25% |
||
6 |
Check |
Inches 37.5 37.7 34.7
18.4
15.6
37.3
Bu/A 137.6 117.6 112.2
23.7
23.6
135.0
LSD (0.05)
3.2
35.5
Interaction of soil-applied insecticides and postemergence herbicides for corn. Pike, David R., Ellery L. Knake, and Kevin Steffey. The objective of this research is to determine the nature and level of interference between applications of nicosulfuron and the insecticides terbufos and DPX-43898 (Fortress). The study was established at the Orr Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois. The soil was a Herrick silt loam and Clarksdale silt loam with 1.8% organic matter and a slope of 0 to 2%. The pH was determined in the fall of 1989 as 5.8, the Px was 56 and the K was 278. Corn hybrid FS-6774 was planted June 4, 1990 and June 26, 1991 at populations of 26,100 per acre. Soybeans preceded the corn planted in 1990 and corn preceded the corn planted in 1991. The plot area was treated with cyanazine at 2.7 lb/ A and atrazine at .9 lb/ A. In 1991 the plot area was treated with glyphosate at 1 lb/A and paraquat at 1 lb/A for knockdown of existing vegetation prior to planting. Two hundred pounds per acre of anhydrous N was applied. In 1990 the ground was disked followed by Dino-drive. No fall tillage or spring tillage was done in 1991. Plot size was 10 x 50 ft. Soil insecticides were applied at planting in a seven inch band over the row or applied in-furrow as indicated. Postemergence herbicides were applied with a tractor mounted sprayer delivering 25 gallons per acre at a pressure of 30 PSL Nozzle types were 8004 FF. Post emergence treatments were applied 26 June 1990 and 12 July 1991. The prevailing temperatures during spraying operations were between 72 and 82 degrees F both years. Upwards of 2 inches of rainfall were received within seven days prior to post emergence applications in both years resulting in excellent growing conditions. All plots were hand weeded. The rate of nicosulfuron used in 1991 was reduced from the rate used in 1990 to conform to the newly issued product label
Soil insecticide and postemergence herbicide applications were evaluated for interaction in a study conducted in 1990 and 1991. Results from the study indicate serious reductions in both plant height and grain yield from a resultant interaction between applications of terbufos (Counter) and nicosulfuron (Accent). Little interaction was noted between DPX-43898 (Fortress) and nicosulfuron in either year. Reductions in plant height and yield up to 87% were noted for interactions between nicosulfuron and in-furrow applications of terbufos.
Table 1. Soil insecticide - herbicide interaction (Pike, Knake, Steffey).
Cora height |
Cora Yield |
||||||
Treatment |
Rate |
7/16/90 |
7/23/91 |
1990 |
1991 |
||
Lb/A |
-inches |
Bu/A |
|||||
1 Terbufos |
1.0 |
Banded |
19 |
19 |
74.8 |
30.7 |
|
nicosulfuron |
QM1* |
Post |
|||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||||
2 Terbufos |
1.0 |
In-Funow |
13 |
17 |
773 |
14.9 |
|
nicosulfuron |
0.06 |
Post |
|||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||||
3 DPX-43898 |
0.5 |
Banded |
42 |
37 |
134.8 |
113.8 |
|
nicosulfuron |
0.06 |
Post |
|||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||||
4 DPX-43898 |
0.5 |
In-furrow |
43 |
38 |
138.4 |
129.2 |
|
nicosulfuron |
0.06 |
||||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||||
5 Nicosulfuron |
0.06 |
Post |
39 |
37 |
128.6 |
106.0 |
|
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||||
6 Check |
39 |
34 |
137.7 |
111.7 |
|||
LSD (0.05) |
8 |
4 |
19.9 |
26.3 |
1 The rate of nicosulfuron was reduced from 0.06 lb/A in 1990 to 0.03 lb\A in 1991.
82
The use of handed herbicide applications and cultivation for weed control in corn. Pike, David R., Michael J. Mainz, and Glenn A. Raines. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of banded herbicide treatments in combination with cultivation compared to conventional broadcast pre and postemergence applications. This study was established at the Northwestern Illinois Agronomy Research Station near Monmouth, Illinois and at the Orr Research and Demonstration Center near Perry, Illinois Cora (Sieben 43XS) was planted May 1, 1991 at Monmouth and April 30, 1991 at the Orr center (Pioneer 3241). All herbicide applications were made with a tractor mounted sprayer set to deliver 25 GPA at i 30 PSI. Preemergence banded treatments were applied with 4004 nozzles. Preemergence applications were applied on May 2, 1991 at both locations with 65 to 70 degree F air temperatures. Postemergence applications at the Monmouth location were applied on May 28, 1991 in 8 to 12 mph winds at 70 degrees F and a relative humidity of 70 percent When post applications were made at this location giant foxtail was 5 to 6 inches tall and velvetleaf was 4 to 5 inches tall. Postemergence treatments at the Orr location were applied June 4, 1991 with 75 degree F air temperatures in an 8 to 10 mph wind. On the date of post applications the giant foxtail at this location was 6 to 18 inches tall and pigweed, lambsquarters and Pennsylvania smartweed were 12 to 24 inches tall. No single broadleaf species at this location was distributed evenly enough for independent ratings. Regular rains at the Orr center prevented timely application of postemergence herbicides and appropriate cultivation.
At both locations the highest yielding treatment was atrazine + metolachlor applied as a broadcast application. The poorest weed control and lowest yields resulted from atrazine + COC, atrazine + bentazon + COC, atrazine + dicamba + COC and the treatment receiving only cultivation. Treatments containing nicosulfuron also yielded less than broadcast preemergence herbicide treatments suggesting that by the late date of application some yield reduction from weed competition had already occurred. Because postemergence applications at Monmouth (Table 1) were applied when weeds were much smaller yields from postemergence treatments were not as affected at this location compared with the Orr location (Table 2).
81
Table 1. The use of banded herbicide applications and cultivation for weed control in corn (Pike, Mainz, Raines)
Appl. |
Control |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Time |
Gift |
Vele |
Yield |
Lb/A |
% |
Bu/A |
|||
1 Atrazine + |
1.0+ |
Pre |
97 |
88 |
1722 |
metolachlor |
2.0 |
||||
2 Atrazine |
1.5 |
Pre Band |
78 |
97 |
132.1 |
cultivation |
|||||
3 Metolachlor |
2.0 |
Pre Band |
72 |
88 |
1393 |
cultivation |
|||||
4 Atrazine + |
1.5 + |
Band |
72 |
95 |
124.4 |
metolachlor |
2.0 |
||||
5 Bentazon + |
0.75+ |
Post |
10 |
97 |
43.7 |
atrazine + |
0.75+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
6 Dicamba + |
0.5+ |
Post |
12 |
98 |
48.7 |
atrazine + |
0.9+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
7 Atrazine + |
1.4+ |
Post |
20 |
94 |
85.4 |
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
8 Metolachlor |
2.0 |
Pre |
94 |
71 |
151.8 |
9 Cyanazine + |
2.25+ |
Pre |
85 |
89 |
170.4 |
atrazine |
0.75 |
||||
10 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
96 |
98 |
159.2 |
atrazine + |
1.0+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
11 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
95 |
99 |
150.8 |
bromoxynil + |
0.25+ |
||||
X-77 |
025% |
||||
12 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
96 |
98 |
156.8 |
atrazine + |
0.9+ |
||||
bentazon -+- |
0.5 + |
||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||
13 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
95 |
97 |
147.7 |
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||
cultivation |
|||||
14 Cultivation |
55 |
82 |
70.8 |
||
CV |
10 |
9 |
8.6 |
||
LSD (0.05) |
10 |
12 |
15.4 |
84
Table 2. The use of banded herbicide applications and cultivation for weed control in corn (Pike, Mainz, Raines).
AppL |
Control |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Time |
Gift |
Bdlv1 |
Yield |
Lb/A |
-96 |
Bu/A |
|||
1 Atrazine + |
1.0+ |
Pre |
94 |
97 |
164.9 |
metolachlor + |
2.0 |
||||
2 Atrazine + |
1.5 + |
Pre Band |
70 |
94 |
122 |
cultivation |
|||||
3 Metolachlor + |
2.0+ |
Pre Band |
76 |
71 |
1155 |
cultivation |
|||||
4 Atrazine + |
15+ |
Band |
77 |
76 |
126.1 |
metolachlor |
2.0 |
||||
5 Bentazon + |
0.75+ |
Post |
20 |
63 |
74.0 |
atrazine + |
0.75+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
6 Dicamba + |
05 + |
Post |
22 |
88 |
673 |
atrazine + |
0.9+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
7 Atrazine + |
1.4+ |
Post |
12 |
65 |
73.4 |
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
8 Metolachlor |
2.0 |
Pre |
63 |
13 |
104.9 |
9 Cyanazine + |
2.25+ |
Pre |
73 |
90 |
1332 |
atrazine |
0.75 |
||||
10 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
49 |
49 |
1365 |
atrazine + |
1.0+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
11 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
54 |
58 |
116.0 |
bromoxynil + |
0.25+ |
||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||
12 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
38 |
50 |
123.9 |
Atrazine •+-- |
0.9+ |
||||
Bentazon + |
0.5+ |
||||
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||
13 Nicosulfuron + |
0.04+ |
Post |
86 |
89 |
121.7 |
X-77 |
0.25% |
||||
Cultivation |
|||||
14 Cultivation |
61 |
73 |
1002 |
||
CV |
34 |
• 35 |
20.1 |
||
LSD (0.05) |
28 |
34 |
315 |
1 Species rated include redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and Pennsylvania smartweed.
85
The use of banded herbicides and cultivation for weed control in soybeans Pike, David R., Michael J. Mainz, and Glenn A- Raines. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of banded herbicides and cultivated treatments on weed control and grain yield of soybeans. This study was established at the Northwestern Illinois Agronomy Research Station at Monmouth Illinois and at the Orr Research Station near Perry Illinois. All herbicide applications were made with a tractor mounted sprayer set to deliver 25 GPA at 30 PSI. Preemergence banded applications were made with 4004 nozzles. Soybeans (variety Steine 3940) were planted at the Monmouth Center on May 1, 1991 with preemergence treatments applied on May 2, 1991. Postemergence treatments were applied May 28, 1991 with air temperatures of 85 degrees F and a relative humidity of 70 percent Time of spraying was 10 a.m. Giant foxtail was 4 to 6 inches tall and velvetleaf was 4 to 5 inches tall. At the Orr Research Center the soybeans (variety Pioneer 9301) were planted on April 30, 1991. Preemergence treatments were applied on May 2, 1991 under 70 degree F temperatures. Postemergence treatments were applied on June 4, 1991 with temperatures at 75 degrees F in 12 to 14 mph winds. Foxtails, the predominant grass, were 2 to 3 inches tall at postemergence application. At the Monmouth location the predominant broadleaf weed was velvetleaf whereas at the Orr location there were light infestations of lambsquarters, smartweed, and cocklebur. At the Orr location the broadleaf weeds were unevenly spread across the study area and could not be evaluated as individual species. Regularly occurring rains at the Orr Research Center prevented timely postemergence application and many of the weeds were 12 to 18 inches tall at the time of post treatments. After the postemergence applications were applied additional rains resulted in a flush of large crabgrass invading all plots at this location.
At the Monmouth location (Table 1) the cultivation treatment resulted in a 50 percent decrease in yield compared to highest yielding treatment of a broadcast application of imazethapyr and pendimethalux The use of pendimethalin in combination with cultivation also resulted in yields lower than all other treatments except the cultivation treatment. The chlorimuron plus metribuzin plus metolachlor treatment with and without cultivation yielded nearly as well as the broadcast preemergence treatment of imazethapyr plus pendimethalin. At the Orr location (Table 2) the treatment which received only cultivation yielded 79% of the highest yielding treatment of a preemergence broadcast application of chlorimuron + metribuzin + metolachlor. The late season weed pressure brought about by heavy rains at the Orr location reduced yields throughout the study.
86
Table 1. The use of banded herbicides and cultivation for weed control in soybeans (Pike, Mainz, Raines)
Appl. Control
Treatment Rate Time Gift Vele Yield
Lb/A % Bu/A
74 98 55.1
94 97 593
93 97 56.0
81 91 48.9
63 73 36.4
80 86 50.0
86 96 58.1
92 96 54.1
1 Chlorimuron + |
0.04+ |
Pre |
metribuzin + |
0.24 + |
|
pendimethalin |
1.0 |
|
2 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre |
metribuzin + |
0.24 + |
|
metolachlor |
2.0 |
|
3 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre |
metribuzin + |
0.24+ |
|
sethoxydim + |
0.0625 + |
Post |
Dash |
1.0% |
|
4 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre Band |
metribuzin |
0.24 |
|
cultivation |
||
5 Pendimethalin |
1.0 |
Pre Band |
cultivation |
||
6 Metolachlor |
2.0 |
Pre Band |
cultivation |
||
7 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre Band |
metribuzin + |
024 + |
|
metolachlor |
2.0 |
|
cultivation |
||
8 Sethoxydim + |
0.0625 + |
Post |
bentazon + |
0.75 + |
|
acifluorfen + |
0.17 + |
|
Dash |
1.0% |
|
9 Imazethapyr + |
0.06+ |
Pre |
pendimethalin |
0.84 |
|
10 Cultivation - |
||
CV |
||
LSD (0.05) |
96 |
98 |
633 |
62 |
80 |
323 |
11.1 |
10.9 |
11.1 |
13.2 |
14.4 |
83 |
Table 2. The use of banded herbicides and cultivation for weed control in soybeans (Pike, Mainz, Raines)
Appl. |
Control |
|||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Time |
Gift1 |
Bdlv2 |
Yield |
|
Lb/A |
-% |
Bu/A |
||||
1 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre |
70 |
83 |
27.5 |
|
metribuzin + |
0.24 + |
|||||
pendimethalin |
1.0 |
|||||
2 Chlorimuron + |
0.04+ |
Pre |
65 |
66 |
28.4 |
|
metribuzin + |
0.24 + |
|||||
metolachlor |
2.0 |
|||||
3 Chlorimuron + |
0.04+ |
Pre |
79 |
71 |
22.5 |
|
metribuzin + |
0.24+ |
|||||
sethoxydim + |
0.0625 + |
Post |
||||
Dash |
1.0% |
|||||
4 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre Band |
64 |
81 |
19.1 |
|
metribuzin |
0.24 |
|||||
cultivation |
||||||
5 Pendimethalin |
1.0 |
Pre Band |
60 |
63 |
20.0 |
|
cultivation |
||||||
6 Metolachlor |
2.0 |
Pre Band |
71 |
71 |
21.1 |
|
cultivation |
||||||
7 Chlorimuron + |
0.04 + |
Pre Band |
79 |
90 |
22.9 |
|
metribuzin + |
0.24 + |
|||||
metolachlor |
2.0 |
|||||
cultivation |
||||||
8 Sethoxydim + |
0.0625 + |
Post |
55 |
79 |
11.8 |
|
bentazon + |
0.75 + |
|||||
acifluorfen + |
0.17+ |
|||||
Dash |
1.0% |
|||||
9 Imazethapyr + |
0.06 + |
Pre |
90 |
70 |
24.4 |
|
pendimethalin |
0.84 |
|||||
10 Cultivation |
67 |
70 |
223 |
|||
CV |
31 |
31 |
24.8 |
|||
LSD (0.05) |
32 |
34 |
7.9 |
1 Large crabgrass overgrew the study area late in the season.
2 Species rated include common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed and Pennsylvania smartweed.
88
Evaluation of postemergence herbicides for control of weeds in soybeans. Monmouth. Illinois. Pike, David R. and Michael J. Mainz. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate several newly registered postemergence herbicides for weed control in soybeans. A preemergence herbicide and cultivation were used as control treatments. This study was established at the northwestern Illinois agronomy research station at Monmouth Illinois in 1991. The soybeans (variety Steine 3940) were planted May 1st into soil that was disked and field cultivated. All herbicide applications were made with a tractor mounted sprayer set to deliver 25 GPA at 30 PSI. The preemergence treatments were applied on May 2nd at 8 a.nL under calm conditions. Post emergence treatments were applied on the 28th of May at 10 a.m. in 8 to 12 m.p.h. winds. Prevailing temperatures were in the range of 80 to 85 degrees F with a relative humidity of 70 percent. Foxtails were 5 to 6 inches tall at the time of postemergence applications. Velvetleaf plants, the predominant broadleaf at that time, were 4 to 5 inches tall.
Results of the study indicate that imazethapyr, when applied alone either preemergence or postemergence resulted in 68% grass control compared to 90 to 95% grass control from other pre and postemergence treatments. Postemergence applications of imazethapyr also resulted in broadleaf weed control and yields about 20% lower than broadcast preemergence treatments. Yields from quizalofop + bentazon + acifluorfen and cultivated treatments also resulted in yields lower than either preemergence treatment. No differences in yield were noted between postemergence imazethapyr treatments based upon use of adjuvants. The treatment receiving only cultivation resulted in 24 percent less weed control and 38 percent lower yields than the preemergence treatments.
89
Table. Evaluation of postemergence herbicides for control of weeds in soybeans, Monmouth, Illinois (Pike, Mainz).
Appl. |
Control |
||||
Treatment |
Rate |
Time |
Gift |
Vele |
Yield |
Lb/A |
-% |
Bu/A |
|||
1 Imazethapyr |
0.06 |
Pre |
78 |
98 |
61.7 |
2 Imazethapyr + |
0.06+ |
Pre |
|||
pendimethalin |
0.84 |
92 |
98 |
62.0 |
|
3 Sethoxydim + |
0.063 + |
Post |
95 |
95 |
543 |
bentazon + |
0.75+ |
||||
acifluorfen + |
0.17+ |
||||
Dash |
1.0% |
||||
4 Quizalofop + |
0.08+ |
Post |
92 |
96 |
49.8 |
bentazon + |
0.75+ |
||||
acifluorfen + |
0.17+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
5 Fomesafen + |
037+ |
Post |
90 |
94 |
56.7 |
fluazifop + |
0.19+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
6 Imazethapyr + |
0.06+ |
Post |
67 |
72 |
453 |
Dash |
1.0% |
||||
7 Imazethapyr + |
0.06+ |
Post |
67 |
74 |
39.4 |
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
8 Imazethapyr + |
0.06+ |
Post |
70 |
75 |
43.5 |
Sunnit |
1.0% |
||||
9 Imazethapyr |
0.06 |
Post |
68 |
67 |
37.0 |
Prime oil II VOC |
1.0% |
||||
10 Chlorimuron + |
0.004+ |
Post |
92 |
87 |
55.5 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
||||
quizalofop + |
0.044+ |
||||
28%(UAN) + |
4.0%+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
11 Chlorimuron + |
0.004+ |
Post |
94 |
89 |
55.6 |
thifensulfuron + |
0.004 + |
||||
quizalofop + |
0.044 + |
||||
X-77 NIS + |
025%+ |
||||
Activator COC |
1.0% |
||||
12 Cultivated |
72 |
84 |
37.5 |
||
CV |
6 |
11 |
11.5 |
||
LSD (0.05) |
8 |
13 |
8.2 |
90
Summaries for 1991
Weed Science Research at the
Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center
Efficacy of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron on perennial grasses and legumes.
Nicosulfuron did not give good control of established Kentucky bluegrass, smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall fescue or Reed canarygrass. However, nicosulfuron did control timothy relatively well. Control of these grasses with primisulfuron was less than with nicosulfuron except for smooth bromegrass. Except for the possibility of nicosulfuron on timothy, control was not considered commercially adequate. Results suggested the possibility of Kentucky bluegrass having adequate tolerance to allow selective use of primisulfuron. Tall fescue and orchardgrass may also be in this same category. For alfalfa and red clover, control with primisulfuron was relatively good and nicosulfuron gave partial control. This suggests that these compounds may be useful for additional control of alfalfa or clover, for example, in no-till corn where an earlier treatment did not give complete control. Control of alfalfa or red clover in soybeans, especially with primisulfuron, may also be a possibil ity if sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans were used. Glyphosate provided good control of Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and Reed canarygrass; relatively good control of orchardgrass, red clover and alfalfa; but had only modest effect on smooth bromegrass and tall fescue under the conditions of this study.
Single herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn.
Metribuzin and chlorimuron in either a 6:1 or 10:1 ratio provided broad spectrum control of broadleaf weeds but only fair control of giant foxtail. Addition of pendimethal in, alachlor or metolachlor improved control of giant foxtail but control was not complete. Addition of clethodim or haloxyfop to metribuzin and chlorimuron was only partially successful in providing residual as well as burndown of grass weeds. Imazethapyr plus pendimethal in provided excellent control of the spectrum of broadleaf weeds present and good control of giant foxtail. Clomazone alone or in combination with metribuzin, metribuzin and chlorimuron, or pendimethal in provided excellent broad spectrum control of both broadleaf and grass weeds.
Sequential herbicide applications for weed control in no-till soybeans after corn.
Paraquat plus metribuzin followed by fluazifop-P, metribuzin and chlorimuron followed by quizalofop or clethodim, and acifluorfen plus metribuzin followed by sethoxydim all provided very good broad spectrum weed control. Early application of 2,4-D or 2,4-DB plus sethoxydim performed well. And acifluorfen plus 2,4-D early followed by bentazon plus acifluorfen and then sethoxydim also performed very well. Glyphosate or sulphosate followed by fomesafen and fluazifop-P gave good control of giant foxtail but incomplete control of broadleaf weeds. Similarly, fomesafen followed by fluazifop-P gave good control of giant foxtail but not all of broadleaf weeds. Lactofen followed by clethodim plus lactofen performed well except on common lambsquarters.
91
Substituting thifensulfuron for chlorimuron with metribuzin followed by quizalofop gave excellent broadleaf weed control and appeared to control the early emerging giant foxtail but not that which emerged after application of the quizalofop.
Hulti-species evaluation of soil-applied herbicides.
Performance of dry flowable formulations of trifluralin was very similar to that of the EC formulation whether used alone or in various combinations. No problems were encountered in mixing or application of the dry flowables. The dry formulation of alachlor also performed well.
Of the various genetic lines of corn from the Independent Professional Seedsmen Association (IPSA) IPSA C1128 and IPSA C8004 appeared to be least vigorous; IPSA C1284, IPSA C4843, and IPSA C6114 moderate; and IPSA C6973 most vigorous. In general, the more vigorous lines appeared to be more tolerant of herbicides. There appeared to be little difference in the degree of tolerance for the soybean cultivars with the soil-applied herbicides. Canola exhibited good tolerance to trifluralin. Hairy vetch exhibited relatively good tolerance to trifluralin and to imazethapyr but was controlled with atrazine or a metribuzin and chlorimuron combination. Except for trifluralin and ethalfluralin, tolerance of sunflower was generally not adequate. There was little indication of adequate tolerance with most treatments for use in sorghum, wheat, or oats. Alfalfa generally exhibited relatively good tolerance to trifluralin, pendimethalin, ethalfluralin, imazethapyr and EPTC.
Control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters was excellent with nearly all treatments. Except for the dinitroanilines, control of common ragweed was also quite good. Except for the dinitroanilines and acetanilides, most treatments gave good control of velvetleaf; however, metribuzin plus chlorimuron was better than chlorimuron or thifensulfuron alone.
For common cocklebur, some of the more effective treatments included metribuzin plus chlorimuron, atrazine, bentazon, chlorimuron, and lactofen. Most treatments controlled jimsonweed rather well except the dinitroanilines and clomazone. Control of ivyleaf and tall morningglory was quite similar with the various treatments; treatments which included atrazine were generally most effective with many other treatments giving only partial control. While most sulfonylureas and dinitroanilines provided little or no help for eastern black nightshade, imazethapyr, atrazine, the acetanilides, lactofen and acifluorfen were effective. Most treatments gave relatively good control of most annual grass weeds. However, control of annual grass with metribuzin and chlorimuron was only fair. Observations suggested an antagonistic effect of imazethapyr on annual grass control with EPTC.
Of the relatively new compounds XRM 5313 indicated relatively good soybean tolerance, good control of most annual grass weeds; and compared to trifluralin alone, significant improvement in control of velvetleaf, jimsonweed, eastern black nightshade, and common ragweed as well as partial control of common cocklebur and common sunflower, but little additional help on annual morningglories. Lack of adequate tolerance would likely preclude use on sunflower and canola, but alfalfa and hairy vetch appeared to have moderate tolerance.
92
MON 13280 gave control of the foxtails with a rate response, was better on large crabgrass, poor on barnyardgrass, and had activity on shattercane. It gave good control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and eastern black nightshade and had some activity on velvetleaf, jimsonweed, annual morningglories and common ragweed. Combination with imazethapyr or metribuzin and chlorimuron significantly improved control of most broadleaf weeds and also of some grass weeds. Degree of crop tolerance would likely preclude use on the crops included in this study other than soybeans.
Acetachlor generally provided good control of grass weeds, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, eastern black nightshade, common ragweed, and jimsonweed. When incorporated it had activity on velvetleaf. Addition of atrazine further enhanced control. Crop tolerance could be of more concern than with alachlor, making the addition of a safening agent worthy of consideration.
Hulti -species evaluation of postemergence herbicides.
The dry water soluble crystals of the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D performed in a very similar manner as the liquid formulation of the dimethylamine salt at comparable rate. The dry formulation could offer some convenience. The combination of 2,4-D and atrazine provided weed control very similar to dicamba and atrazine. Although corn tolerance appeared to be relatively adequate in this trial, previous experience suggests some caution.
Corn exhibited good tolerance to pyridate and to CL 23601 except for slight effect when pyridate was mixed with cyanazine. Spectrum of control for pyridate combined with atrazine or cyanazine and for CL 23601 combined with atrazine was quite broad for both grass and broadleaf weeds. Pyridate or CL 23601 combined with nicosulfuron or primisulfuron provided good corn tolerance and fairly broad spectrum weed control with spectrum depending somewhat on the relative strength of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron with nicosulfuron more effective on most grass weeds and primisulfuron more effective on some broadleaf weeds. Although pyridate plus sethoxydim provided good weed control, crop tolerance appeared too limited for this combination to be promising for newly established alfalfa or any other crop included in the study.
A low rate of metribuzin plus bentazon provided good control of broadleaf weeds with only slight effect noted on corn. Similarly, a low rate of metribuzin with 2,4-D dimethylamine or butoxyethyl ester provided excellent broadleaf weed control with little effect on corn.
Sethoxydim plus bentazon and acifluorfen gave excellent broad spectrum weed control with minimal effect on soybeans.
Comparison of various adjuvants with imazethapyr indicated Dash (an adjuvant from BASF) and Sunit II (a methylated seed soil) to be quite similar in performance and both slightly more effective than X-77 (an adjuvant from Valent).
Under the conditions of this study, 0.125 lb/A of fluazifop-P was nearly as effective as 0.188 lb/A. Fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop gave excellent control of all grasses, including "volunteer" corn. The same combination plus fomesafen provided excellent broad spectrum control of both grass and broadleaf weeds except common lambsquarters and control of it was improved by addition of a dimethylamine formulation of 2,4-DB. Flazifop-P plus fomesafen also provided excellent control of nearly all grass and broadleaf weeds.
With the exception of annual morningglories, combinations of imazethapyr plus nicosulfuron or primisulfuron provided excellent broad spectrum weed control but excessive corn injury indicated that an imazethapyr tolerant line would be
93
needed. Except for weakness on large crabgrass, nicosulfuron gave very good control of grass weeds. Primisulfuron was less effective than nicosulfuron on most grass species and especially weak on large crabgrass and barnyardgrass. However, primisulfuron was more effective on several broadleaf weed species than nicosulfuron, including common cocklebur, velvetleaf, jimsonweed, eastern black nightshade, and common sunflower.
With these contrasting characteristics, various ratios of nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron were tried. Using a half rate of each provided excellent broad spectrum weed control except for only partial control of annual morningglories, moderate control of velvetleaf and poor control of large crabgrass. Other ratios appeared to have little or no advantage. One of the most dramatic observations was the tolerance of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans to both nicosulfuron and primisulfuron alone or in combination.
Reducing the rate of nicosulfuron from 0.031 lb/A to 0.24 lb/A and comparing X-77 with 28% UAN for nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil indicated little significant difference with all treatments being quite effective. Addition of bromoxynil to nicosulfuron or DPX-79406 significantly improved control of common cocklebur, velvetleaf, annual morningglories, common ragweed, common sunflower and Eastern black nightshade.
Evaluation of V-53482 combinations for stale seedbed soybeans.
All herbicide treatments in this study gave excellent weed control. Perhaps preparing the seedbed early and then applying herbicides later, closer to the time of weed emergence, contributed to the high degree of success.
Evaluation of V-53482 and metolachlor for weed control in soybeans under two soil moisture conditions.
V-53482 gave excellent control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and Pennsylvania smartweed. Control of velvetleaf, ivyleaf morningglory, and tall morningglory was improved on soils with higher moisture. Metolachlor significantly improved control of giant foxtail but complete control was not achieved.
Evaluation of soil-applied lactofen plus alachlor for weed control in soybeans.
Results of this study indicated activity for soil-applied lactofen with a rate response. All herbicide treatments provided excellent control of redroot pigweed and fair to good control of common lambsquarters with some contribution likely from alachlor. Control of Pennsylvania smartweed was good to excellent with a rate response. Control of velvetleaf was only fair but with some improvement as lactofen rate was increased. Although there was some rate response for lactofen on ivyleaf and tall morningglories, good control was not achieved. Control of giant foxtail was fair to good with a slight contribution attributed to lactofen.
94
Evaluation of lactofen soil -applied followed by sequential application of lactofen plus clethodim.
Giant foxtail control with clethodim postemergence was excellent and superior to earlier applications of alachlor or metolachlor in other nearby studies. All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of redroot pigweed. Control of common lambsquarters and annual morningglories was poor to fair. Control of Pennsylvania smartweed was good and was best with the higher amount of lactofen applied postemergence. Velvetleaf control was very good and increased with the higher rates applied postemergence. In general, using the higher rates of lactofen postemergence rather than preemergence improved weed control and also caused more temporary effect on the soybeans.
Evaluation of lactofen combinations for weed control in soybeans.
All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of redroot pigweed and Pennsylvania smartweed. Addition of thifensulfuron, imazethapyr, or bentazon to lactofen significantly improved control of common lambsquarters but chlorimuron gave little help. Lactofen plus bentazon or imazethapyr gave excellent control of velvetleaf with thifensulfuron a little less effective and chlorimuron least effective. All treatments gave only poor to fair control of the annual morningglories. In general, imazethapyr or bentazon performed best with lactofen and there was a slight rate response for lactofen. Imazethapyr had the advantage of providing control of grass weeds. Clethodim applied to the entire area on June 12 when giant foxtail was about 8 inches tall provided good control.
Evaluation of clethodim postemergence combinations.
Clethodim provided excellent control of giant foxtail with little or no antagonism from bentazon, chlorimuron or lactofen. Chlorimuron and lactofen provided excellent control of redroot pigweed but bentazon did not. Bentazon provided good control of common lambsquarters but chlorimuron and lactofen did not. Bentazon and lactofen provided better control of velvetleaf than chlorimuron. None of the treatments gave good control of annual morningglories but all gave very good control of Pennsylvania smartweed. One of the most significant observations was control of redroot pigweed by adding lactofen to bentazon.
Effect of imazethapyr on performance of postemergence herbicides for control of grass weeds.
In a previous study an antagonistic effect was noted resulting in decreased grass control when imazethapyr was added to clethodim. In this study, the most antagonism to decrease control of giant foxtail was noted with imazethapyr added to sethoxydim. Fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop was intermediate and the least was with quizalofop.
Evaluation of quizalofop for early preplant for no-till soybeans.
Quizalofop at all rates provided excellent control of giant foxtail, equivalent to control with sethoxydim applied early preplant. Although
95
chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron was applied postemergence to all but the check plots, 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester applied early preplant enhanced control of velvetleaf .
Evaluation of clethodim with imazethapyr. lactofen. and chlorimuron plus metribuzin. preplant for no-till soybeans.
Clethodim gave excellent control of giant foxtail at both 0.125 and 0.15 lb/A with no antagonism noted by adding metribuzin and chlorimuron, imazethapyr or lactofen. All treatments gave very good control of velvetleaf. Metribuzin and chlorimuron or imazethapyr gave very good control of common lambsquarters but lactofen did not. This study suggests the feasibility of clethodim plus metribuzin and chlorimuron, imazethapyr or lactofen for early preplant for no- till soybeans. However the addition of a herbicide to improve common lambsquarters control with lactofen is suggested.
Evaluation of herbicide combinations for no-till soybeans.
All herbicide treatments gave excellent control of giant foxtail, velvetleaf and common lambsquarters with no significant effect on soybeans. Clethodim, glyphosate or HOE-39866 appeared to give good burndown of giant foxtail and metolachlor provided residual control. For control of velvetleaf, V53482 or metribuzin appeared to be effective although burndown with only glyphosate also appeared to be adequate. Similarly, control of common lambsquarters was very good.
Weed control for no-till soybeans after corn.
The metribuzin and chlorimuron combination has generally given excellent control of a broad spectrum of broadleaf weeds including weeds such as prickly lettuce and horseweed that are often associated with no-till. If pressure from grass weeds is not very great, the metribuzin and chlorimuron combination may be adequate as indicated in this study. However herbicides such as pendimethal in or metolachlor might be added initially to strengthen grass control. Or metribuzin and chlorimuron can be applied initially and followed by a postemergence application of a herbicide such as quizalofop for control of grass weeds. Observations indicate that the postemergence grass killer should not be applied too early but after most of the grass for the season has emerged. Clethodim has been of special interest since it has provided some residual activity, especially with favorable soil moisture conditions.
With chlorimuron, significant precaution is needed to avoid applying a relatively high rate on soils with pH above 6.8 to avoid carryover effects on crops such as corn the next season. Related studies have included treatments to reduce the chlorimuron rate. Replacing at least part of the chlorimuron with a shorter residual sulfonylurea herbicide such as thifensulfuron may be one possibility or a combination of clomazone with a reduced rate of metribuzin and chlorimuron appears promising.
Another possibility for no-till soybeans is a sequential approach with a herbicide such as glyphosate or sulphosate for early burndown followed by a later postemergence treatment of fluazifop-P and fomesafen.
96
One of the earliest programs introduced was use of 2,4-D plus sethoxydim for early "burndown" followed by bentazon and acifluorfen and then sethoxydim.
All of the treatments described for this study performed relatively well except in an area of the field with excessive flooding.
Weed control for no-tm corn in soybean stubble.
Where corn and soybeans are the predominant crops, one of the most convenient approaches for no-till is to plant corn in soybean stubble. Previous studies have indicated a high degree of success without increasing amount or cost of herbicides. Combinations of atrazine and cyanazine in 1:1 or 1:3 ratios have provided both early burndown and good residual. The availability of nicosulfuron now provides the opportunity for a postemergence follow-up treatment if needed.
A modest rate of glyphosate for early burndown combined with an acetanilide and atrazine has also performed well.
In this study, use of dicamba, bromoxynil or bentazon each in combination with atrazine and followed by nicosulfuron provided excellent control of grass weeds. For early application, dicamba with atrazine appeared to have some advantage over bromoxynil or bentazon for greater residual control of broadleaf weeds.
Time and method of herbicide application for no-till and lo-till.
In this study, corn was planted lo-till after soybeans and no-till after alfalfa or hairy vetch. Soybeans were planted both lo-till and no-till after corn. Tillage was used to prepare a seedbed for alfalfa.
For no-till corn, dicamba with 2,4-D gave good control of alfalfa. Good control of annual weeds was achieved with a preemergence application of cyanazine and atrazine or with a postemergence application of nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil. Dicamba plus atrazine gave excellent control of hairy vetch as well as providing extended control of broadleaf weeds. A postemergence application of nicosulfuron gave good control of grass weeds, including giant foxtail and some quackgrass.
For lo-till corn using two diskings, incorporation of EPTC plus dichlormid and dietholate followed by dicamba and atrazine provided good weed control. Good control was also achieved with metolachlor and atrazine or cyanazine and atrazine followed by nicosulfuron.
For no-till soybeans, pendimethal in plus metribuzin and chlorimuron, glyphosate followed by fluazifop-P and fomesafen, and 2,4-D plus sethoxydim followed by bentazon and acifluorfen and then sethoxydim all performed relatively well .
For lo-till soybeans, incorporation of triflural in followed by imazethapyr, pendimethal in and imazethapyr surface applied, and metribuzin and chlorimuron followed by quizalofop all performed quite well.
For establishing alfalfa, triflural in followed by 2,4-DB dimethylamine, sethoxydim plus 2,4-DB, or imazethapyr all aided in establishing on excellent stand of alfalfa. However, imazethapyr had a definite advantage for controlling eastern black nightshade. Imazethapyr also had some advantage over 2,4-DB for control of Pennsylvania smartweed.
In summary, some excellent herbicides are available to provide considerable flexibility for tillage systems and time and method of application. Results suggest that greater acceptance of herbicides for weed control in small seeded legumes could be quite beneficial.
97
Evaluation of sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans with chlorimuron. thifensulfuron. and imazethapyr.
Although some rates of chlorimuron and thifensulfuron were considered relatively high, effect on soybeans was quite limited. Very little discoloration of soybeans was noted but slight differences in height and in canopy width were noted, with the sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans expressing more tolerance. Unexpectedly, imazethapyr appeared to have greater effect on the sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans than on the others. This suggests some caution in selecting herbicides for use on sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans.
Although the main objective was to compare soybean tolerance, observations on weed control indicated that the quizalofop applied to all plots gave excellent control of giant foxtail but was slightly less effective on yellow foxtail than on giant foxtail. Chlorimuron and imazethapyr were more effective on yellow nutsedge than thifensulfuron. All three herbicides gave excellent control of redroot pigweed and Pennsylvania smartweed. Thifensulfuron and imazethapyr were much more effective on common lambsquarters than chlorimuron. Only imazethapyr controlled eastern black nightshade. Although control of velvetleaf was generally not complete with any of the treatments, control did not fall below 90%.
Effect of time of day for application of sethoxydim.
If photodegradation is important for sethoxydim, then theoretically applications near dusk or after dark may allow more opportunity for uptake by plants and perhaps improved control and the opportunity to use lower rates. A study the previous year tended to support this theory and the study was repeated in 1991. However, the very favorable conditions in 1991 with relatively high temperatures, high humidity, good moisture conditions and yery active plant growth appeared to preclude much difference for rate or time of day for application. Sethoxydim gave excellent control of giant foxtail regardless of rate or time of day. Any differences were very minor and difficult to elucidate.
Evaluation of adjuvants for nicosulfuron.
In general, ammonium sulfate and 28% urea ammonium nitrate solution each enhanced herbicide performance to about the same degree and appeared to be comparable. The methylated seed oil (Scoil) appeared to be most effective, with crop oil concentrate (an 83% parafin base petroleum oil) intermediate, and X-77 (a nonionic surfactant from Valent) slightly less effective for control of giant foxtail. For primisulfuron, the methylated seed oil appeared to be more effective than crop oil concentrate plus 28% UAN. For imazethapyr, X-77 plus 28% UAN and methylated seed oil were about equally effective for weed control but the methylated seed oil with imazethapyr appeared to have a little less effect on corn.
98
Evaluation of nicosulfuron in combination with herbicides for broadleaf weed control in corn.
There was little evidence of corn injury when 2,4-D, dicamba, atrazine, pyridate, bromoxynil, thifensulfuron or V-23031 were combined with nicosulfuron. However, combinations with cyanazine or bentazon had significant effect on corn. There appeared to be little conclusive evidence of antagonism and decreased control due to mixing other herbicides with nicosulfuron. Most combinations improved spectrum of weed control. Although control of giant foxtail with DPX- 79406 was good, it appeared to be less effective than nicosulfuron on some broadleaf weeds. A combination of nicosulfuron and thifensulfuron showed promise for good weed control and good corn tolerance.
99
APPENDIX
Page
Weather data - 1991 i DeKalb
v Perry-Orr
ix Monmouth
xiii Herbicide terminology
xv Trade names of herbicides
xvii Abbreviations for herbicide common names
xviii Weed names and abbreviations
NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB
APRIL, 1991
Date |
Mean |
Mean |
Air |
Temp |
F |
Max |
Min |
Total |
Soil |
Temp F |
Wind |
Wind |
Rel |
Rel |
Precip |
4" under sod |
|||||
Speed mph |
Direction degrees |
Max |
Min |
Mean |
Hum % |
Hum % |
inches |
|||
Max |
Min |
|||||||||
1 |
7 |
311 |
53 |
33 |
42 |
88 |
18 |
T |
46 |
39 |
2 |
12 |
126 |
56 |
31 |
44 |
85 |
19 |
45 |
38 |
|
3 |
14 |
126 |
67 |
39 |
53 |
63 |
23 |
47 |
40 |
|
4 |
8 |
166 |
58 |
47 |
53 |
.100 |
63 |
.15 |
48 |
44 |
5 |
7 |
214 |
75 |
45 |
61 |
100 |
35 |
53 |
44 |
|
6 |
14 |
210 |
82 |
53 |
67 |
91 |
19 |
56 |
49 |
|
7 |
11 |
201 |
79 |
54 |
67 |
87 |
41 |
58 |
51 |
|
8 |
10 |
192 |
77 |
61 |
67 |
96 |
45 |
.85 |
60 |
55 |
9 |
11 |
315 |
61 |
39 |
48 |
100 |
86 |
.34 |
58 |
50 |
10 |
11 |
325 |
55 |
35 |
44 |
93 |
23 |
.01 |
53 |
47 |
11 |
12 |
71 |
46 |
36 |
41 |
86 |
41 |
50 |
50 |
|
12 |
17 |
96 |
52 |
40 |
45 |
83 |
47 |
.10 |
46 |
43 |
13 |
14 |
77 |
51 |
43 |
47 |
95 |
68 |
T |
47 |
44 |
14 |
13 |
213 |
65 |
48 |
55 |
100 |
71 |
.89 |
52 |
45 |
15 |
15 |
278 |
64 |
45 |
52 |
94 |
41 |
.55 |
53 |
47 |
16 |
8 |
276 |
59 |
46 |
52 |
89 |
48 |
.01 |
54 |
48 |
17 |
10 |
51 |
62 |
41 |
51 |
87 |
30 |
55 |
48 |
|
18 |
14 |
75 |
60 |
40 |
50 |
88 |
43 |
.01 |
52 |
48 |
19 |
19 |
44 |
57 |
41 |
50 |
82 |
44 |
51 |
47 |
|
20 |
13 |
26 |
55 |
37 |
46 |
82 |
41 |
50 |
45 |
|
21 |
9 |
23 |
59 |
40 |
48 |
77 |
22 |
T |
52 |
46 |
22 |
8 |
250 |
61 |
36 |
51 |
78 |
22 |
53 |
45 |
|
23 |
11 |
261 |
57 |
40 |
48 |
90 |
35 |
.14 |
51 |
47 |
24 |
7 |
332 |
65 |
37 |
51 |
91 |
12 |
54 |
45 |
|
25 |
7 |
169 |
66 |
42 |
55 |
74 |
25 |
53 |
47 |
|
26 |
11 |
123 |
77 |
44 |
62 |
87 |
27 |
56 |
48 |
|
27 |
13 |
159 |
73 |
57 |
65 |
100 |
56 |
.12 |
58 |
53 |
28 |
10 |
107 |
76 |
49 |
65 |
100 |
37 |
60 |
53 |
|
29 |
18 |
174 |
74 |
51 |
64 |
95 |
49 |
.45 |
60 |
57 |
30 |
21 |
239 |
63 |
48 |
55 |
80 |
36 |
58 |
54 |
NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB
MAY, 1991
Date Mean Mean Air Temp F Max Min Total Soil Temp F
Wind Wind Rel Rel Precip 4" under sod
Speed Direction Hum Hum
mph |
degrees |
Max |
Min |
Mean |
% |
% |
inches |
Max |
Min |
|
1 |
14 |
266 |
58 |
43 |
52 |
84 |
34 |
.02 |
56 |
52 |
2 |
11 |
281 |
70 |
40 |
54 |
84 |
18 |
56 |
49 |
|
3 |
14 |
86 |
59 |
42 |
50 |
83 |
32 |
53 |
50 |
|
4 |
12 |
79 |
65 |
47 |
57 |
78 |
51 |
55 |
49 |
|
5 |
16 |
184 |
68 |
44 |
54 |
99 |
63 |
.81 |
55 |
51 |
6 |
18 |
251 |
50 |
43 |
46 |
87 |
57 |
54 |
49 |
|
7 |
10 |
258 |
65 |
41 |
54 |
88 |
24 |
T |
54 |
47 |
8 |
10 |
103 |
70 |
49 |
58 |
92 |
56 |
55 |
50 |
|
9 |
8 |
148 |
77 |
52 |
65 |
96 |
34 |
58 |
52 |
|
10 |
9 |
123 |
77 |
53 |
67 |
91 |
51 |
59 |
54 |
|
11 |
7 |
176 |
85 |
60 |
73 |
94 |
35 |
63 |
56 |
|
12 |
6 |
164 |
84 |
62 |
74 |
100 |
35 |
65 |
59 |
|
13 |
6 |
224 |
87 |
64 |
77 |
91 |
33 |
66 |
61 |
|
14 |
7 |
167 |
85 |
65 |
73 |
88 |
29 |
.03 |
66 |
62 |
15 |
7 |
163 |
84 |
61 |
73 |
93 |
41 |
66 |
61 |
|
16 |
4 |
231 |
73 |
65 |
69 |
96 |
66 |
1.02 |
65 |
62 |
17 |
15 |
62 |
73 |
50 |
60 |
99 |
79 |
.66 |
65 |
61 |
18 |
16 |
70 |
54 |
47 |
51 |
94 |
77 |
62 |
58 |
|
19 |
12 |
56 |
63 |
49 |
56 |
89 |
52 |
61 |
57 |
|
20 |
8 |
98 |
77 |
51 |
65 |
89 |
35 |
63 |
57 |
|
21 |
8 |
154 |
84 |
59 |
71 |
100 |
42 |
.13 |
64 |
60 |
22 |
8 |
188 |
83 |
68 |
74 |
100 |
52 |
.03 |
67 |
62 |
23 |
11 |
190 |
84 |
69 |
74 |
97 |
42 |
T |
70 |
64 |
24 |
10 |
228 |
85 |
68 |
75 |
100 |
36 |
.57 |
73 |
66 |
25 |
8 |
129 |
76 |
67 |
70 |
100 |
84 |
3.35 |
70 |
67 |
26 |
14 |
210 |
80 |
68 |
73 |
96 |
58 |
72 |
67 |
|
27 |
8 |
220 |
86 |
64 |
76 |
100 |
46 |
75 |
66 |
|
28 |
10 |
207 |
90 |
68 |
80 |
100 |
30 |
77 |
69 |
|
29 |
8 |
183 |
85 |
69 |
76 |
97 |
50 |
.01 |
75 |
70 |
30 |
12 |
218 |
89 |
67 |
76 |
94 |
43 |
.49 |
76 |
69 |
31 |
8 |
212 |
84 |
67 |
73 |
96 |
64 |
.51 |
75 |
69 |
11
NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB
JUNE, 1991
Date |
Mean |
Mean |
Air |
Temp |
F |
Max |
Min |
Total |
Soil |
Temp F |
Wind |
Wind |
Rel |
Rel |
Precip |
4" under sod |
|||||
Speed mph |
Direction degrees |
Max |
Min |
Mean |
Hum % |
Hum % |
inches |
|||
Max |
Min |
|||||||||
1 |
4 |
188 |
87 |
67 |
75 |
96 |
41- |
.23 |
77 |
69 |
2 |
62 |
8 |
84 |
67 |
75 |
95 |
50 |
77 |
71 |
|
3 |
9 |
56 |
81 |
62 |
71 |
95 |
41 |
76 |
71 |
|
4 |
15 |
78 |
71 |
57 |
64 |
74 |
28 |
72 |
67 |
|
5 |
11 |
73 |
73 |
53 |
64 |
90 |
29 |
71 |
65 |
|
6 |
7 |
71 |
76 |
53 |
66 |
85 |
20 |
71 |
63 |
|
7 |
4 |
114 |
80 |
54 |
69 |
78 |
21 |
71 |
63 |
|
8 |
4 |
165 |
82 |
57 |
71 |
86 |
23 |
74 |
64 |
|
9 |
8 |
195 |
83 |
60 |
73 |
81 |
25 |
73 |
66 |
|
10 |
11 |
230 |
83 |
68 |
75 |
94 |
30 |
.05 |
73 |
67 |
11 |
5 |
256 |
80 |
63 |
71 |
96 |
38 |
.42 |
75 |
68 |
12 |
6 |
126 |
84 |
64 |
72 |
93 |
48 |
.07 |
76 |
68 |
13 |
8 |
145 |
87 |
62 |
75 |
92 |
38 |
.01 |
76 |
68 |
14 |
13 |
190 |
89 |
69 |
80 |
94 |
48 |
T |
77 |
71 |
15 |
9 |
233 |
83 |
69 |
75 |
89 |
55 |
75 |
71 |
|
16 |
7 |
6 |
80 |
60 |
71 |
93 |
27 |
T |
75 |
70 |
17 |
4 |
103 |
83 |
57 |
70 |
92 |
25 |
75 |
67 |
|
18 |
3 |
65 |
85 |
56 |
73 |
90 |
27 |
75 |
66 |
|
19 |
5 |
54 |
86 |
60 |
75 |
93 |
35 |
T |
75 |
68 |
20 |
4 |
146 |
88 |
60 |
75 |
93 |
33 |
T |
76 |
67 |
21 |
5 |
106 |
88 |
63 |
76 |
94 |
30 |
.23 |
76 |
69 |
22 |
13 |
46 |
66 |
60 |
62 |
95 |
83 |
73 |
66 |
|
23 |
10 |
74 |
76 |
59 |
67 |
86 |
25 |
70 |
65 |
|
24 |
5 |
108 |
81 |
57 |
69 |
93 |
35 |
T |
72 |
65 |
25 |
4 |
131 |
85 |
57 |
72 |
89 |
33 |
T |
74 |
65 |
26 |
10 |
189 |
87 |
61 |
77 |
91 |
51 |
.01 |
75 |
67 |
27 |
10 |
198 |
87 |
67 |
78 |
93 |
51 |
T |
77 |
70 |
28 |
8 |
208 |
85 |
65 |
76 |
93 |
44 |
.01 |
76 |
70 |
29 |
7 |
213 |
89 |
68 |
79 |
94 |
45 |
.01 |
78 |
70 |
30 |
6 |
115 |
88 |
68 |
78 |
96 |
61 |
1.57 |
80 |
71 |
111
NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGRONOMY RESEARCH CENTER - DEKALB
JULY, 1991
Date |
Mean |
Mean |
Air |
Temp |
F |
Max |
Min |
Total |
Soil |
Temp F |
Wind |
Wind |
Rel |
Rel |
Precip |
4" under sod |
|||||
Speed mph |
Direction degrees |
Max |
Min |
Mean |
Hum % |
Hum % |
inches |
|||
Max |
Min |
|||||||||
1 |
6 |
215 |
88 |
68 |
78 |
97 |
59 |
79 |
73 |
|
2 |
6 |
243 |
87 |
69 |
78 |
94 |
34 |
T |
80 |
74 |
3 |
6 |
255 |
83 |
66 |
74 |
94 |
44 |
.59 |
78 |
73 |
4 |
7 |
244 |
79 |
63 |
70 |
94 |
48 |
T |
77 |
72 |
5 |
5 |
238 |
84 |
63 |
74 |
94 |
46 |
78 |
71 |
|
6 |
7 |
211 |
88 |
67 |
78 |
95 |
53 |
T |
78 |
72 |
7 |
7 |
223 |
88 |
70 |
77 |
96 |
57 |
.03 |
79 |
73 |
8 |
6 |
16 |
79 |
64 |
71 |
94 |
42 |
T |
78 |
73 |
9 |
6 |
161 |
75 |
60 |
68 |
95 |
50 |
76 |
72 |
|
10 |
4 |
86 |
83 |
57 |
70 |
96 |
40 |
T |
77 |
69 |
11 |
6 |
130 |
83 |
59 |
73 |
95 |
49 |
76 |
70 |
|
12 |
6 |
261 |
84 |
65 |
75 |
96 |
47 |
T |
76 |
72 |
13 |
6 |
12 |
77 |
61 |
68 |
96 |
52 |
.03 |
74 |
70 |
14 |
5 |
19 |
78 |
57 |
68 |
96 |
28 |
T |
75 |
68 |
15 |
3 |
185 |
82 |
52 |
69 |
94 |
29 |
75 |
67 |
|
16 |
6 |
205 |
84 |
56 |
72 |
94 |
38 |
T |
76 |
68 |
17 |
6 |
223 |
84 |
65 |
75 |
94 |
47 |
76 |
70 |
|
18 |
5 |
215 |
88 |
66 |
77 |
94 |
43 |
T |
78 |
71 |
19 |
7 |
209 |
92 |
65 |
79 |
94 |
38 |
79 |
71 |
|
20 |
8 |
190 |
89 |
70 |
80 |
94 |
45 |
79 |
73 |
|
21 |
6 |
172 |
87 |
72 |
79 |
94 |
62 |
.02 |
78 |
73 |
22 |
8 |
229 |
93 |
73 |
81 |
96 |
42 |
.08 |
80 |
73 |
23 |
7 |
335 |
82 |
61 |
74 |
95 |
28 |
79 |
73 |
|
24 |
5 |
251 |
79 |
57 |
69 |
93 |
36 |
76 |
70 |
|
25 |
6 |
15 |
75 |
54 |
65 |
93 |
34 |
75 |
68 |
|
26 |
4 |
17 |
76 |
51 |
65 |
95 |
31 |
75 |
66 |
|
27 |
5 |
66 |
77 |
49 |
65 |
94 |
30 |
74 |
65 |
|
28 |
5 |
118 |
80 |
58 |
69 |
93 |
37 |
.02 |
73 |
67 |
29 |
7 |
354 |
76 |
56 |
68 |
95 |
46 |
73 |
68 |
|
30 |
4 |
306 |
79 |
53 |
66 |
95 |
34 |
74 |
65 |
|
31 |
9 |
222 |
84 |
56 |
72 |
94 |
45 |
74 |
66 |
IV
PERRY ORR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER
APRIL 1991
Date |
Wind |
Wind |
Air |
Temp F |
Humidity % |
Soil |
Temp F |
Total |
|
Speed mph. |
Dir. |
Max. |
Min. |
4" bare Soil Max. Min. |
Precip |
||||
Max. |
Min. |
inches |
|||||||
1 |
2 |
NW |
61 |
33 |
100 |
26 |
49 |
44 |
— |
2 |
10 |
E |
67 |
37 |
85 |
24 |
54 |
45 |
— |
3 |
5 |
E |
63 |
44 |
78 |
44 |
52 |
47 |
— |
4 |
3 |
W |
73 |
50 |
100 |
40 |
53 |
48 |
.10 |
5 |
7 |
W |
66 |
41 |
100 |
78 |
55 |
51 |
— |
6 |
7 |
SW |
78 |
50 |
96 |
36 |
58 |
50 |
— |
7 |
8 |
S |
83 |
57 |
100 |
32 |
60 |
52 |
— |
8 |
3 |
SE |
79 |
57 |
100 |
64 |
61 |
56 |
.10 |
9 |
10 |
W |
80 |
45 |
100 |
56 |
64 |
57 |
.05 |
10 |
8 |
NW |
59 |
35 |
100 |
40 |
60 |
52 |
— |
11 |
12 |
SE |
57 |
35 |
96 |
28 |
58 |
51 |
— |
12 |
15 |
SE |
50 |
42 |
96 |
60 |
52 |
49 |
.05 |
13 |
4 |
E |
55 |
46 |
100 |
64 |
51 |
49 |
.40 |
14 |
5 |
S |
69 |
49 |
100 |
100 |
56 |
50 |
1.08 |
15 |
5 |
W |
65 |
43 |
100 |
81 |
60 |
55 |
1.00 |
16 |
1 |
NW |
68 |
39 |
100 |
40 |
60 |
54 |
— |
17 |
4 |
NE |
80 |
45 |
100 |
30 |
62 |
54 |
— |
18 |
12 |
E |
71 |
45 |
100 |
56 |
62 |
52 |
— |
19 |
3 |
N |
65 |
44 |
100 |
70 |
58 |
56 |
.19 |
20 |
5 |
N |
52 |
41 |
100 |
88 |
56 |
53 |
.33 |
21 |
1 |
NW |
52 |
34 |
100 |
72 |
54 |
50 |
.28 |
22 |
4 |
NW |
58 |
33 |
100 |
40 |
57 |
49 |
— |
23 |
6 |
SW |
62 |
43 |
100 |
34 |
57 |
51 |
— |
24 |
6 |
NW |
63 |
35 |
100 |
48 |
56 |
51 |
— |
25 |
0 |
S |
67 |
40 |
100 |
28 |
59 |
50 |
— |
26 |
4 |
SE |
60 |
36 |
100 |
60 |
56 |
52 |
— |
27 |
4 |
S |
78 |
46 |
100 |
66 |
60 |
52 |
.31 |
28 |
1 |
N |
74 |
48 |
100 |
100 |
68 |
58 |
.13 |
29 |
8 |
SE |
77 |
51 |
100 |
84 |
65 |
58 |
.01 |
30 |
8 |
SW |
78 |
46 |
100 |
38 |
66 |
59 |
— |
PERRY - ORR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER
MAY 1991
Date |
Wind |
Wind |
Air |
Temp F |
Humidity % |
Soil |
Temp F |
Total |
|
Speed mph. |
Dir. |
Max. |
Min. |
4" bare Soil Max. Min. |
Precip |
||||
Max. |
Min. |
inches |
|||||||
1 |
8 |
W |
70 |
42 |
100 |
42 |
62 |
57 |
.54 |
2 |
3 |
W |
64 |
47 |
82 |
34 |
62 |
56 |
— |
3 |
7 |
E |
78 |
46 |
100 |
30 |
65 |
55 |
— |
4 |
3 |
E |
57 |
45 |
100 |
88 |
59 |
57 |
1.58 |
5 |
2 |
SW |
66 |
50 |
100 |
100 |
61 |
56 |
3.73 |
6 |
7 |
W |
69 |
41 |
100 |
72 |
61 |
55 |
.01 |
7 |
3 |
SW |
56 |
35 |
100 |
56 |
55 |
52 |
.01 |
8 |
4 |
SE |
76 |
42 |
100 |
44 |
61 |
51 |
.01 |
9 |
2 |
E |
76 |
47 |
100 |
44 |
63 |
56 |
— |
10 |
2 |
E |
70 |
54 |
100 |
88 |
63 |
59 |
— |
11 |
1 |
SE |
75 |
60 |
100 |
100 |
65 |
60 |
— |
12 |
1 |
NE |
81 |
55 |
100 |
66 |
69 |
62 |
— |
13 |
4 |
SW |
84 |
62 |
100 |
54 |
72 |
64 |
— |
14 |
6 |
SW |
86 |
62 |
100 |
76 |
74 |
67 |
— |
15 |
4 |
NE |
85 |
62 |
100 |
44 |
74 |
69 |
.23 |
16 |
1 |
E |
85 |
62 |
100 |
70 |
73 |
69 |
.10 |
17 |
4 |
S |
76 |
58 |
100 |
80 |
71 |
69 |
.29 |
18 |
6 |
SE |
88 |
58 |
100 |
70 |
75 |
67 |
1.82 |
19 |
3 |
E |
79 |
55 |
100 |
92 |
73 |
68 |
1.07 |
20 |
1 |
NE |
63 |
52 |
100 |
100 |
70 |
66 |
— |
21 |
8 |
SE |
79 |
57 |
100 |
76 |
72 |
65 |
— |
22 |
2 |
E |
82 |
64 |
100 |
72 |
74 |
68 |
.01 |
23 |
5 |
S |
81 |
65 |
100 |
86 |
73 |
70 |
.25 |
24 |
2 |
SW |
84 |
66 |
100 |
60 |
76 |
69 |
.02 |
25 |
3 |
SW |
86 |
65 |
100 |
72 |
78 |
71 |
1.53 |
26 |
9 |
SW |
79 |
66 |
100 |
100 |
76 |
71 |
.45 |
27 |
12 |
SW |
85 |
63 |
100 |
84 |
78 |
71 |
.01 |
28 |
4 |
S |
87 |
64 |
100 |
76 |
80 |
72 |
— |
29 |
2 |
E |
91 |
67 |
100 |
70 |
82 |
74 |
— |
30 |
7 |
S |
84 |
62 |
100 |
100 |
79 |
74 |
2.48 |
31 |
7 |
SW |
87 |
65 |
100 |
88 |
80 |
73 |
.05 |
VI
■MirrrmiingTmi
PERRY - ORR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER
JUNE 1991
Date |
Wind |
Wind |
Air |
Temp F |
Humidity % |
Soil |
Temp F |
Total |
|
Speed mph. |
Dir. |
Max. |
Min. |
4" bare Soil Max. Min. |
Precip |
||||
Max. |
Min. |
inches |
|||||||
1 |
4 |
NW |
89 |
65 |
100 |
90 |
83 |
75 |
.22 |
2 |
5 |
W |
90 |
64 |
100 |
68 |
83 |
74 |
— |
3 |
5 |
W |
87 |
65 |
100 |
76 |
88 |
75 |
— |
4 |
7 |
E |
91 |
64 |
100 |
60 |
86 |
76 |
— |
5 |
7 |
NE |
80 |
58 |
100 |
64 |
79 |
72 |
— |
6 |
4 |
E |
78 |
50 |
100 |
50 |
78 |
71 |
— |
7 |
1 |
NW |
78 |
49 |
100 |
42 |
77 |
70 |
— |
8 |
1 |
SE |
80 |
51 |
100 |
46 |
78 |
69 |
— |
9 |
2 |
SE |
82 |
55 |
100 |
52 |
79 |
70 |
— |
10 |
3 |
SW |
88 |
64 |
100 |
56 |
80 |
71 |
— |
11 |
6 |
SW |
83 |
62 |
100 |
60 |
79 |
74 |
— |
12 |
4 |
SW |
85 |
63 |
100 |
76 |
80 |
72 |
— |
13 |
3 |
SE |
89 |
62 |
100 |
66 |
82 |
73 |
— |
14 |
6 |
SE |
90 |
67 |
100 |
72 |
81 |
75 |
— |
15 |
8 |
SW |
92 |
71 |
100 |
72 |
84 |
75 |
— |
16 |
6 |
N |
90 |
64 |
100 |
88 |
82 |
75 |
.48 |
17 |
3 |
SE |
83 |
54 |
100 |
64 |
82 |
74 |
— |
18 |
1 |
N |
85 |
53 |
100 |
50 |
84 |
73 |
— |
19 |
3 |
N |
86 |
58 |
100 |
54 |
84 |
73 |
— |
20 |
5 |
SE |
88 |
58 |
100 |
56 |
84 |
75 |
— |
21 |
3 |
SE |
90 |
66 |
100 |
54 |
85 |
75 |
— |
22 |
4 |
NW |
90 |
67 |
100 |
70 |
84 |
78 |
— |
23 |
2 |
NE |
79 |
59 |
100 |
96 |
80 |
75 |
.14 |
24 |
3 |
E |
77 |
60 |
100 |
96 |
78 |
74 |
— |
25 |
2 |
SE |
82 |
61 |
100 |
80 |
80 |
72 |
— |
26 |
4 |
S |
87 |
65 |
100 |
74 |
82 |
74 |
— |
27 |
10 |
S |
91 |
66 |
100 |
80 |
83 |
75 |
— |
28 |
5 |
SW |
89 |
61 |
100 |
66 |
85 |
76 |
— |
29 |
8 |
S |
89 |
66 |
100 |
64 |
84 |
75 |
— |
30 |
8 |
NW |
94 |
72 |
100 |
66 |
87 |
77 |
— |
Vll
PERRY - ORR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER
July 1991
Date |
Wind |
Wind |
Air |
Temp F |
Humic |
lity % |
Soil |
Temp F |
Total |
Speed mph. |
Dir. |
Max. |
Min. |
4" bare Soil Max. Min. |
Precip |
||||
Max. |
Min. |
inches |
|||||||
1 |
12 |
SW |
95 |
72 |
100 |
57 |
89 |
78 |
— |
2 |
3 |
SW |
94 |
68 |
82 |
68 |
88 |
80 |
.13 |
3 |
5 |
NW |
91 |
63 |
100 |
62 |
87 |
78 |
.04 |
4 |
1 |
W |
90 |
61 |
100 |
44 |
84 |
76 |
— |
5 |
5 |
SE |
86 |
63 |
100 |
52 |
84 |
76 |
— |
6 |
10 |
SW |
94 |
71 |
100 |
54 |
86 |
76 |
— |
7 |
15 |
SW |
97 |
75 |
100 |
50 |
88 |
78 |
— |
8 |
5 |
NW |
96 |
69 |
100 |
70 |
89 |
80 |
— |
9 |
5 |
NE |
88 |
62 |
100 |
56 |
88 |
79 |
.36 |
10 |
2 |
SW |
79 |
59 |
100 |
94 |
80 |
75 |
1.15 |
11 |
12 |
S |
78 |
66 |
100 |
100 |
80 |
74 |
1.27 |
12 |
12 |
NW |
80 |
66 |
100 |
100 |
79 |
74 |
.68 |
13 |
10 |
NW |
89 |
63 |
100 |
66 |
83 |
74 |
— |
14 |
3 |
E |
81 |
59 |
100 |
88 |
81 |
75 |
— |
15 |
2 |
SE |
83 |
56 |
100 |
70 |
82 |
75 |
— |
16 |
2 |
SE |
85 |
56 |
100 |
54 |
84 |
74 |
— |
17 |
2 |
SE |
87 |
57 |
100 |
54 |
84 |
74 |
— |
18 |
2 |
E |
90 |
58 |
100 |
58 |
85 |
75 |
— |
19 |
3 |
S |
92 |
66 |
100 |
50 |
96 |
76 |
— |
20 |
5 |
E |
91 |
66 |
100 |
80 |
96 |
78 |
— |
21 |
10 |
SW |
91 |
73 |
100 |
86 |
85 |
78 |
— |
22 |
10 |
S |
95 |
74 |
100 |
72 |
87 |
70 |
— |
23 |
8 |
N |
94 |
69 |
100 |
70 |
88 |
80 |
.01 |
24 |
2 |
NW |
84 |
59 |
100 |
58 |
86 |
78 |
.02 |
25 |
6 |
NW |
77 |
55 |
100 |
46 |
80 |
74 |
.01 |
26 |
3 |
NE |
81 |
49 |
100 |
50 |
83 |
73 |
— |
27 |
3 |
E |
80 |
49 |
100 |
54 |
82 |
73 |
— |
28 |
4 |
SE |
81 |
57 |
100 |
56 |
81 |
72 |
— |
29 |
14 |
NW |
85 |
63 |
100 |
58 |
82 |
73 |
— |
30 |
1 |
NW |
78 |
50 |
100 |
68 |
78 |
71 |
— |
31 |
8 |
SW |
84 |
54 |
100 |
54 |
83 |
71 |
— |
Vlll
btODMUf*
NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER - MONMOUTH
APRIL, 1991
Date Air Temperature °F Relative Soil Temper ature-4M Precipitation Growing Degree Days
Humdity % Bare Sod Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Inches
1 |
56 |
32 |
93 |
20 |
53 |
39 |
46 |
40 |
~ |
3.0 |
2 |
58 |
36 |
65 |
13 |
58 |
39 |
50 |
40 |
— |
4.0 |
3 |
60 |
40 |
65 |
26 |
56 |
42 |
47 |
43 |
— |
5.0 |
4 |
69 |
49 |
100 |
30 |
59 |
46 |
51 |
44 |
0.06 |
9.5 |
5 |
59 |
46 |
100 |
68 |
55 |
49 |
51 |
49 |
TR |
9.5 |
6 |
77 |
54 |
78 |
23 |
65 |
49 |
56 |
49 |
~ |
15.5 |
7 |
80 |
53 |
94 |
21 |
70 |
53 |
59 |
52 |
-- |
16.5 |
8 |
79 |
60 |
98 |
36 |
68 |
55 |
59 |
54 |
TR |
19.5 |
9 |
79 |
44 |
97 |
36 |
71 |
57 |
61 |
57 |
0.11 |
14.5 |
10 |
44 |
34 |
95 |
56 |
57 |
42 |
57 |
47 |
TR |
~ |
11 |
55 |
34 |
70 |
17 |
62 |
43 |
54 |
47 |
— |
2.5 |
12 |
48 |
41 |
65 |
30 |
47 |
44 |
48 |
45 |
0.01 |
~ |
13 |
57 |
42 |
94 |
36 |
50 |
44 |
47 |
45 |
TR |
3.5 |
14 |
56 |
48 |
100 |
85 |
51 |
48 |
50 |
47 |
1.16 |
3.0 |
15 |
59 |
43 |
100 |
57 |
60 |
48 |
54 |
50 |
0.62 |
4.5 |
16 |
65 |
41 |
95 |
33 |
59 |
47 |
54 |
49 |
~ |
7.5 |
17 |
71 |
45 |
99 |
37 |
66 |
47 |
57 |
49 |
0.05 |
10.5 |
18 |
65 |
44 |
77 |
37 |
65 |
49 |
57 |
51 |
— |
7.5 |
19 |
62 |
44 |
100 |
55 |
58 |
48 |
54 |
50 |
0.27 |
6.0 |
20 |
51 |
40 |
100 |
55 |
49 |
45 |
50 |
48 |
0.35 |
0.5 |
21 |
53 |
36 |
95 |
55 |
56 |
42 |
52 |
46 |
— |
1.5 |
22 |
57 |
36 |
100 |
32 |
59 |
42 |
59 |
46 |
— |
3.5 |
23 |
62 |
43 |
100 |
30 |
62 |
42 |
53 |
47 |
0.04 |
6.0 |
24 |
57 |
37 |
96 |
34 |
59 |
44 |
62 |
46 |
~ |
3.5 |
25 |
66 |
44 |
82 |
20 |
68 |
44 |
57 |
46 |
— |
8.0 |
26 |
62 |
45 |
98 |
37 |
58 |
48 |
52 |
50 |
— |
6.0 |
27 |
77 |
52 |
100 |
41 |
69 |
48 |
57 |
49 |
0.19 |
14.5 |
28 |
73 |
49 |
90 |
38 |
67 |
53 |
60 |
54 |
— |
11.5 |
29 |
75 |
58 |
99 |
46 |
66 |
53 |
59 |
54 |
0.01 |
16.5 |
30 |
78 |
48 |
92 |
21 |
72 |
53 |
61 |
54 |
— |
14.0 |
IX
NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER - MONMOUTH
MAY, 1991
Date Air Temperature °F Relative Soil Temperature-4" Precipitation Growing Degree Days
Humdity % Bare Sod
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Inches
1 |
67 |
47 |
73 |
28 |
69 |
53 |
57 |
54 |
~ |
8.5 |
2 |
61 |
40 |
92 |
26 |
67 |
49 |
56 |
51 |
— |
5.5 |
3 |
73 |
45 |
76 |
23 |
72 |
50 |
58 |
51 |
— |
11.5 |
4 |
55 |
45 |
98 |
57 |
53 |
52 |
53 |
52 |
0.31 |
2.5 |
5 |
66 |
51 |
100 |
63 |
62 |
52 |
56 |
52 |
0.94 |
8.5 |
6 |
67 |
42 |
100 |
65 |
62 |
47 |
57 |
51 |
TR |
8.5 |
7 |
49 |
39 |
97 |
46 |
49 |
43 |
56 |
49 |
— |
— |
8 |
68 |
45 |
98 |
42 |
66 |
43 |
57 |
48 |
~ |
9.0 |
9 |
71 |
51 |
99 |
43 |
62 |
54 |
57 |
48 |
« |
11.0 |
10 |
74 |
55 |
98 |
44 |
74 |
54 |
61 |
55 |
— |
14.5 |
11 |
77 |
62 |
97 |
58 |
71 |
58 |
62 |
57 |
— |
19.5 |
12 |
81 |
62 |
97 |
46 |
79 |
63 |
66 |
60 |
— |
21.5 |
13 |
83 |
66 |
97 |
60 |
79 |
65 |
67 |
62 |
~ |
24.5 |
14 |
87 |
64 |
95 |
45 |
84 |
67 |
70 |
64 |
~ |
25.0 |
15 |
87 |
66 |
98 |
29 |
86 |
68 |
71 |
65 |
0.17 |
26.0 |
16 |
82 |
65 |
98 |
48 |
79 |
68 |
71 |
65 |
0.02 |
23.5 |
17 |
72 |
61 |
99 |
79 |
72 |
64 |
68 |
65 |
0.20 |
16.5 |
18 |
83 |
58 |
100 |
57 |
79 |
64 |
71 |
65 |
0.62 |
20.5 |
19 |
69 |
51 |
100 |
86 |
64 |
57 |
65 |
61 |
— |
10.0 |
20 |
66 |
52 |
86 |
66 |
67 |
57 |
65 |
61 |
~ |
9.0 |
21 |
76 |
58 |
97 |
57 |
74 |
60 |
67 |
62 |
— |
17.0 |
22 |
80 |
67 |
98 |
62 |
76 |
66 |
69 |
65 |
0.09 |
23.5 |
23 |
83 |
69 |
98 |
50 |
81 |
68 |
72 |
67 |
— |
26.0 |
24 |
81 |
67 |
100 |
50 |
80 |
69 |
72 |
69 |
0.43 |
24.0 |
25 |
83 |
67 |
98 |
44 |
82 |
69 |
75 |
68 |
0.61 |
25.0 |
26 |
75 |
68 |
98 |
85 |
84 |
69 |
72 |
70 |
0.32 |
21.5 |
27 |
81 |
66 |
99 |
46 |
78 |
69 |
74 |
69 |
— |
23.5 |
28 |
87 |
71 |
97 |
42 |
87 |
70 |
76 |
69 |
— |
28.5 |
29 |
90 |
77 |
98 |
40 |
90 |
73 |
78 |
71 |
— |
31.5 |
30 |
84 |
66 |
100 |
48 |
84 |
71 |
75 |
72 |
0.25 |
25.0 |
31 |
87 |
67 |
98 |
54 |
82 |
71 |
76 |
71 |
— |
26.5 |
NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER - MONMOUTH
JUNE, 1991
Date Air Temperature °F Relative Soil Temperature-4" Precipitation Growing Degree Days
Humdity % Bare Sod Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Inches
1 |
89 |
66 |
100 |
47 |
89 |
71 |
78 |
72 |
26.0 |
2 |
87 |
70 |
98 |
36 |
85 |
71 |
83 |
72 |
~ |
3 |
87 |
70 |
99 |
42 |
87 |
73 |
81 |
74 |
— |
4 |
86 |
62 |
90 |
44 |
91 |
72 |
82 |
73 |
~ |
5 |
72 |
53 |
100 |
35 |
76 |
65 |
73 |
68 |
0.01 |
6 |
75 |
52 |
98 |
28 |
83 |
65 |
74 |
67 |
— |
7 |
77 |
57 |
73 |
28 |
83 |
65 |
73 |
66 |
— |
8 |
80 |
56 |
93 |
28 |
85 |
66 |
74 |
67 |
— |
9 |
82 |
60 |
94 |
26 |
86 |
67 |
74 |
67 |
— |
10 |
86 |
66 |
100 |
34 |
86 |
69 |
76 |
68 |
— |
11 |
83 |
67 |
99 |
35 |
82 |
71 |
73 |
70 |
0.15 |
12 |
84 |
65 |
98 |
34 |
86 |
72 |
78 |
70 |
~ |
13 |
89 |
66 |
97 |
28 |
91 |
72 |
81 |
72 |
— |
14 |
88 |
71 |
98 |
42 |
89 |
74 |
79 |
73 |
~ |
15 |
91 |
72 |
96 |
46 |
91 |
75 |
79 |
73 |
TR |
16 |
85 |
63 |
99 |
52 |
85 |
72 |
78 |
73 |
TR |
17 |
81 |
56 |
100 |
30 |
88 |
70 |
80 |
70 |
— |
18 |
83 |
57 |
96 |
28 |
89 |
70 |
80 |
70 |
— |
19 |
85 |
61 |
99 |
29 |
90 |
70 |
82 |
70 |
— |
20 |
88 |
60 |
100 |
31 |
89 |
72 |
81 |
71 |
— |
21 |
89 |
66 |
99 |
34 |
92 |
73 |
82 |
72 |
« |
22 |
82 |
63 |
98 |
42 |
89 |
73 |
83 |
71 |
0.24 |
23 |
67 |
60 |
98 |
83 |
73 |
67 |
73 |
68 |
TR |
24 |
76 |
62 |
94 |
53 |
76 |
66 |
73 |
68 |
— |
25 |
81 |
64 |
95 |
44 |
83 |
69 |
77 |
68 |
— |
26 |
84 |
68 |
96 |
39 |
88 |
70 |
80 |
70 |
« |
27 |
88 |
72 |
96 |
53 |
90 |
74 |
81 |
73 |
~ |
28 |
87 |
65 |
97 |
50 |
91 |
75 |
83 |
74 |
— |
29 |
86 |
69 |
96 |
35 |
92 |
75 |
83 |
74 |
— |
30 |
92 |
72 |
96 |
39 |
93 |
76 |
85 |
75 |
— |
28.0 28.0 24.0 12.5 13.5 17.0 18.0 21.0 26.0 25.0 24.5 26.0 28.5 29.0 24.0 18.5 20.0 23.0 23.0 26.0 24.5 13.5 19.0 12.5 26.0 29.0 25.5 27.5 29.0
XI
NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER - MONMOUTH
JULY, 1991
Date Air Temperature °F Relative Soil Temperature-4" Precipitation Growing Degree Days
Humdity % Bare Sod
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Inches
1 |
91 |
73 |
92 |
44 |
95 |
80 |
87 |
77 |
— |
29.5 |
2 |
93 |
66 |
98 |
34 |
95 |
79 |
88 |
78 |
— |
26.0 |
3 |
91 |
63 |
98 |
25 |
95 |
76 |
87 |
77 |
0.01 |
24.5 |
4 |
89 |
59 |
98 |
25 |
92 |
75 |
84 |
75 |
~ |
22.5 |
5 |
83 |
62 |
95 |
33 |
88 |
74 |
83 |
74 |
TR |
22.5 |
6 |
92 |
69 |
96 |
27 |
96 |
75 |
87 |
74 |
TR |
27.5 |
7 |
94 |
72 |
92 |
36 |
92 |
77 |
84 |
77 |
TR |
29.0 |
8 |
93 |
67 |
94 |
38 |
91 |
77 |
85 |
77 |
~ |
26.5 |
9 |
82 |
65 |
100 |
32 |
93 |
77 |
88 |
77 |
0.01 |
23.5 |
10 |
67 |
63 |
99 |
88 |
77 |
71 |
77 |
72 |
0.44 |
15.0 |
11 |
82 |
66 |
98 |
46 |
83 |
71 |
80 |
72 |
0.08 |
24.0 |
12 |
80 |
70 |
97 |
62 |
79 |
74 |
77 |
74 |
0.03 |
25.0 |
13 |
88 |
63 |
97 |
32 |
89 |
72 |
84 |
75 |
— |
24.5 |
14 |
81 |
58 |
98 |
40 |
87 |
71 |
83 |
73 |
— |
19.5 |
15 |
82 |
61 |
99 |
35 |
88 |
71 |
85 |
72 |
~ |
21.5 |
16 |
83 |
58 |
96 |
31 |
90 |
73 |
83 |
73 |
— |
20.5 |
17 |
85 |
64 |
91 |
31 |
92 |
73 |
85 |
73 |
~ |
24.5 |
18 |
90 |
64 |
98 |
34 |
94 |
74 |
86 |
74 |
— |
25.0 |
19 |
90 |
67 |
98 |
26 |
94 |
77 |
87 |
76 |
— |
26.5 |
20 |
92 |
69 |
98 |
26 |
95 |
78 |
87 |
77 |
~ |
27.5 |
21 |
91 |
75 |
92 |
45 |
94 |
79 |
88 |
77 |
— |
30.5 |
22 |
94 |
76 |
89 |
40 |
96 |
79 |
88 |
79 |
~ |
31.0 |
23 |
94 |
69 |
100 |
40 |
96 |
75 |
89 |
76 |
3.49 |
27.5 |
24 |
83 |
61 |
97 |
25 |
82 |
71 |
83 |
74 |
— |
22.0 |
25 |
78 |
57 |
98 |
28 |
80 |
68 |
79 |
72 |
— |
17.5 |
26 |
78 |
55 |
98 |
28 |
79 |
68 |
79 |
71 |
— |
16.5 |
27 |
77 |
56 |
98 |
30 |
82 |
69 |
79 |
71 |
— |
16.5 |
28 |
78 |
61 |
89 |
32 |
81 |
69 |
78 |
71 |
— |
19.5 |
29 |
81 |
64 |
99 |
45 |
81 |
71 |
77 |
72 |
0.13 |
22.5 |
30 |
74 |
53 |
97 |
40 |
75 |
66 |
76 |
69 |
~ |
13.5 |
31 |
81 |
61 |
98 |
35 |
82 |
66 |
78 |
69 |
— |
21.0 |
Xll
HERBICIDE TERMINOLOGY
Common Name or |
||
Code Name |
Trade Name |
Company |
Acetochlor & safener |
ICIA-5676 |
ICI |
Acifluorfen |
Blazer |
BASF |
Alachlor |
Lasso |
Monsanto |
Alachlor WDG |
Partner |
Monsanto |
Alachlor & atrazine |
Lariat |
Monsanto |
Alachlor & trifluralin |
Cannon |
Monsanto |
Alachlor MT & atrazine |
Bullet |
Monsanto |
Atrazine |
AAtrex |
CIBA-Geigy |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
Shotgun |
United Agri Products |
Bentazon |
Basagran |
BASF |
Bentazon & acifluorfen |
Galaxy, Storm |
BASF |
Bentazon & atrazine |
Laddok |
BASF |
Bromoxynil |
Buctril |
Rhone-Poulenc |
Butyl ate & atrazine |
Sutazine |
ICI |
Butyl ate & dichlormid |
Sutan+ |
ICI |
Chloramben |
Ami ben |
Rhone-Poulenc |
Chlorimuron |
Classic |
DuPont |
CGA-180937 |
Metolachlor & CGA-154281 |
CIBA-Geigy |
CGA-136872 |
Beacon |
CIBA-Geigy |
CL-23601 |
Agrolinz |
|
Clethodim |
Select |
Valent |
Clomazone |
Command |
FMC |
Clomazone & trifluralin |
Commence |
DowElanco,FMC |
Clopyralid(XRM-3972) |
Stinger |
DowElanco |
Clopyralid & 2,4-D |
Curtail |
DowEl anco |
Cyanazine |
Bladex |
DuPont |
Cyanazine & atrazine 3:1 |
Extrazine II |
DuPont |
2,4-D butoxyethyl ester |
Weedone LV4 |
Rhone-Poulenc |
2,4-D dimethylamine salt |
Savage |
United Agri Products |
2,4-DB dimethyl amine |
Butyrac 200 |
Rhone-Poulenc |
DE-498 |
DowElanco |
|
Dicamba |
Banvel |
Sandoz |
Dicamba & atrazine |
Marksman |
Sandoz |
Diquat |
Diquat |
Valent |
DPX-79406 |
nicosulfuron & DPXE9636 |
DuPont |
EPTC |
Eptam |
ICI |
EPTC & dichlormid |
Eradicane |
ICI |
EPTC & dichlormid & dietholate |
Eradicane Extra |
ICI |
Ethalfluralin |
Sonalan |
DowElanco |
F-80 (naphthalic anhydride) |
Advantage |
FMC |
Fenoxaprop |
Option |
Hoechst-Roussel |
Fluazifop-P |
Fusilade 2000 |
ICI |
Fluazifop-P & fomesafen |
Tornado |
ICI |
Fluazifop-P & fenoxaprop |
Fusion |
ICI |
Fluroxypyr(EF-689) |
Starane |
DowElanco |
Fomesafen |
Reflex |
ICI |
Glufosinate (HOE-39866) |
Ignite |
Hoechst-Roussel |
Glyphosate |
Roundup |
Monsanto |
Glyphosate & alachlor |
Bronco |
Monsanto |
Haloxyfop |
Verdict |
DowElanco |
Xlll
HERBICIDE TERMINOLOGY
Common Name or |
||
Code Name |
Trade Name |
Company |
HOE-39866 |
Ignite |
Hoechst-Roussel |
Imazaquin |
Scepter |
American Cyanamid |
Imazaquin & pendimethalin |
Squadron |
American Cyanamid |
Imazethapyr |
Pursuit |
American Cyanamid |
Imazethapyr & pendimethalin |
Pursuit Plus |
American Cyanamid |
Imazethapry & trifluralin |
Passport |
American Cyanamid |
Lactofen |
Cobra |
Valent |
Linuron & chlorimuron |
Lorox Plus |
DuPont |
Metolachlor & atrazine |
Bicep |
CIBA-Geigy |
Metolachlor & CGA-154281 |
Dual & safener |
CIBA-Geigy |
Metribuzin |
Lexone, Sencor |
DuPont, Mobay |
Metribuzin & chlorimuron |
Preview, Canopy |
DuPont |
Metribuzin & trifluralin |
Salute |
Mobay |
Metribuzin & metolachlor |
Turbo |
Mobay |
MON-8421 (Acetachlor) |
Monsanto |
|
MON-13280 |
Monsanto |
|
Nicosulfuron |
Accent |
DuPont |
Paraquat |
Gramoxone Super |
ICI |
Pendimethalin |
Prowl |
American Cyanamid |
Primisulfuron |
Beacon |
CIBA-Geigy |
Pyridate |
Tough |
Agrolinz |
Quizalofop |
Assure |
DuPont |
Quizalofop D+ isomer |
Assure II |
DuPont |
Sethoxydim |
Poast |
BASF |
Sethoxydim & adjuvant |
Poast Plus |
BASF |
Sulphosate |
Touchdown |
ICI |
Thifensulfuron methyl |
Pinnacle |
DuPont |
Trifluralin |
Treflan |
DowElanco |
Trifluralin 80DF (GX-217) |
Trilin GRP |
Griffin |
Trifluralin 60DF |
Trific |
Terra |
Trifluralin & clomazone |
Commence |
Elanco,FMC |
Triclopyr |
Garlon |
DowElanco |
Triclopyr & 2,4-D ester (XRM-4715) |
Crossbow |
DowElanco |
Tridiphane |
Tandem |
DowElanco |
UAP-112 |
United Agri Products |
|
UAP-105 |
United Agri Products |
|
V-23031 |
Valent |
|
V-53482 |
Valent |
Xllll
Trade Name
TRADE NAMES OF HERBICIDES Common Name(s)
Company
AAtrex
Accent
Ami ben
Assure
Assure II
Banvel
Beacon
Bl adex
Blazer
Brominal
Bronco
Buctril
Bullet
Butyrac 200
Canopy
Classic
Cobra
Command
Commence
Crossbow
Curtail
Dual
Eptam
Eradicane
Eradicane Extra
Extrazine II
Fusilade 2000
Fusion
Gal axy
Gramoxone Extra
Ignite
Laddok
Lariat
Lasso
Lexone
Linex
Lontrel
Lorox
Marksman
Option
Partner
Passport
Pinnacle
Poast
Poast Plus
Preview
Prowl
Atrazine
Nicosulfuron (DPX-V9360)
Chloramben
Quizalofop
Quizalofop D+ isomer
Dicamba
Primisulfuron (CGA-136872)
Cyanazine
Acifluorfen
Bromoxynil
Glyphosate & alachlor
Bromoxynil
Alachlor MT & atrazine
2,4-DB dimethyl amine
Metribuzin & chlorimuron 6:1
Chlorimuron
Lactofen
Clomazone
Clomazone & trifluralin
Triclopyr & 2,4-D
Clopyralid & 2,4-D
Metolachlor
EPTC
EPTC & dichlormid
EPTC & dichlormid & dietholate
Cyanazine & atrazine 3:1
Fluazifop-P
Fluazifop-P & fenoxaprop
Bentazon & acifluorfen
Paraquat
HOE-39866
Bentazon & atrazine
Alachlor & atrazine
Alachlor
Metribuzin
Linuron
Clopyralid
Linuron
Dicamba & atrazine
Fenoxaprop
Alachlor 65 WDG
Imazethapyr & trifluralin
Thifensulfuron methyl
Sethoxydim
Sethoxydim & adjuvant
Metribuzin & chlorimuron 10:1
Pendimethalin
CIBA-Geigy
DuPont
Rhone-Poulenc
DuPont
DuPont
Sandoz
CIBA-Geigy
DuPont
BASF
Rhone-Poulenc
Monsanto
Rhone-Poulenc
Monsanto
Rhone-Poulenc
DuPont
DuPont
Valent
FMC
FMC,DowElanco
DowElanco
DowElanco
CIBA-Geigy
ICI
ICI
ICI
DuPont
ICI
ICI
BASF
ICI
Hoechst-Roussel
BASF
Monsanto
Monsanto
DuPont
Griffin
DowElanco
DuPont
Sandoz
Hoechst-Roussel
Monsanto
American Cyanamid
DuPont
BASF
BASF
DuPont
American Cyanamid
XV
TRADE NAMES OF HERBICIDES
Trade Name |
Common Name(s) |
Company |
Pursuit |
Imazethapyr |
American Cyanamid |
Pursuit Plus |
Pendimethalin & imazethapyr |
American Cyanamid |
Ref 1 ex |
Fomesafen |
ICI |
Roundup |
Glyphosate |
Monsanto |
Salute |
Metribuzin & trifluralin |
Mo bay |
Savage |
2,4-D dimethylamine salt |
United Agri Products |
Scepter |
Imazaquin |
American Cyanamid |
Select |
Clethodim |
Valent |
Sencor |
Metribuzin |
Mobay |
Shotgun |
Atrazine & 2,4-D |
United Agri Products |
Sonalan |
Ethalfluralin |
DowElanco |
Squadron |
Imazaquin & pendimethalin |
American Cyanamid |
Stinger |
Clopyralid |
DowElanco |
Storm |
Bentazon & acifluorfen |
BASF |
Sutan+ |
Butylate & dichlormid |
ICI |
Tandem |
Tridiphane |
DowElanco |
Tornado |
Fluazifop-P & fomesafen |
ICI |
Touchdown |
Sulphosate |
ICI |
Tough |
Pyridate |
Agrolinz |
Trific |
Trifluralin 60DF |
Terra |
Tri-Scept |
Imazaquin & trifluralin |
American Cyanamid |
Treflan |
Trifluralin |
DowElanco |
Turbo |
Metribuzin & alachlor |
Mobay |
Verdict |
Haloxyfop |
DowElanco |
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.
XVI
■ »■!■■»»■
Abbreviations for Herbicide Common Names The abbreviations listed below have been established by the NCWCC for common names of herbicides, herbicide antidotes, and other herbicide-modifying chemicals for which common names have been assigned. Abbreviations only should be used in tables and figures to save space. Authors are encouraged to spell common names wherever possible and use the full name of each herbicide at least once in each table. When abbreviations are used, they must either conform to this NCWCC approved list or they must be footnoted.
Common Name |
Abbre- |
Common Name |
Abbre- |
Common Name |
Abbre- |
viation |
viation |
viation |
|||
Acetochlor |
Acet |
Dinoseb |
01 no |
Metsulfuron |
Mets |
Aclfluorfen |
Acif |
Diphenamld |
01 ph |
Mollnate |
Moli |
Alachlor |
Alac |
Dithiopyr |
01th |
MSMA |
MSMA |
Ametryn |
Amet |
Oiquat |
01 qu |
Naphthalic anhydride |
NA |
Amitrole |
Amit |
Diuron |
Diur |
Napropami de |
Napr |
Atrazine |
Atra |
DSMA |
DSMA |
Naptalam |
Napt |
Barban |
Barb |
Endothall |
Endo |
Nlcosulfuron |
Nico |
Benefin |
Bnfn |
EPTC |
EPTC |
Nitrofen |
Nifn |
Benazolin |
Bena |
Ethalfluralin |
Etha |
Norflurazon |
Norf |
Bentazon |
Bent |
Ethamesulfuron |
Emsu |
Oryzallne |
Oryz |
Benzofluor |
Befl |
Fenoxaprop |
Fenx |
Oxadlazon |
Oxad |
Benzol yprop |
Bepr |
Fl amprop |
Flam |
Oxyfluorfen |
Oxyf |
Blfenox |
Blfe |
Fluazlfop |
Flfp |
Paraquat |
Para |
Bromacil |
Brcl |
Fluazlfop-P |
Fl fp-P |
Pendimethalin |
Pend |
Bromoxynil |
Brox |
Fluorochlorldone |
Fled |
Perfluidone |
Perf |
Butyl ate |
Buty |
Flurazole |
Flzl |
Phenmedipham |
Phen |
Cacodylic acid |
Caco |
Flurtamone |
Flmn |
Picloram |
Picl |
Chi oramben |
Clam |
Fl uroxypyr |
Flox |
Primisulfuron |
Prim |
ChloHmuron |
Clim |
Fomesafen |
Fome |
Prometryn |
Prtr |
Chloroxuron |
Clxu |
Glufosinate |
Gluf |
Pronamid |
Pron |
Chlorsulfuron |
Clsu |
Glyphosate |
Glyt |
Propachlor |
Prcl |
Clnmethylln |
Cinm |
Kalosafen |
Halo |
Propanll |
Prnl |
Clethodlm |
Clet |
Hal oxyf op |
Halx |
Propazine |
Przn |
Clomazone |
Clom |
Hexazinone |
Heaz |
Pyrazon |
Pyzn |
Cloproxydim |
Clpx |
Imazamethabenz |
Immb |
Pyrldate |
Pydt |
Clopyralid |
Clpy |
Imazapyr |
Impr |
Quinclorac |
Quel |
Cyanazlne |
Cyan |
Imazaquln |
Imqn |
Quizalofop |
Qufp |
Cycl oate |
Cycl |
Imazethapyr |
Imep |
Sethoxydim |
Seth |
Cyometrinll |
Cyom |
Isouron |
Isur |
Siduron |
Sidu |
2.4-0 |
2.4-0 |
Isoxaben |
I sox |
Simazine |
Sima |
Dalapon |
Dal a |
Lactofen |
Lact |
Sulfometuron |
Sume |
2.4-0B |
2.4-DB |
Linuron |
Linu |
Tebuthiuron |
Tebu |
Oesmedipham |
Desm |
HAA |
MAA |
Terbadl |
Tecl |
Dial late |
Dial |
HAMA |
HAHA |
Thifensulfuron |
Thif |
Oicamba |
Oica |
MCPA |
HCPA |
Terbutryn |
Tert |
Dichlobenll |
Oibl |
MCPB |
MCPB |
Triallate |
Tr1a |
Dichlornrid |
Dcmd |
Hecoprop |
Meco |
Tribenuron |
Trib |
Diclofop |
Dcfp |
Mefluidide |
Mefl |
Triclopyr |
Trcp |
Oiethatyl |
Dtyl |
Methazole |
Mezl |
THdiphane |
Trid |
Oietholate |
Dlat |
Metolachlor |
Meto |
Trifluralln |
Trlf |
Oi fenzoquat |
Dife |
Metribuzin |
Metr |
Vernolate |
Vern |
ADDITIONAL RULES
New abbreviations will be assigned as new common names are assigned and will be added to the above 11st annually.
Package mix products (consisting of 2 or more active ingrdients blended by the manufacturer Into one product) shall be abbreviated by placing the "&" symbol between the abbreviations of the active ingredients. For example, the package mix of phenmedipham plus desmeipham shall be abbreviated " Phen&desnT .
The & symbol also shall be employed when desginating the inclusion within a package mix of substances other than the active ingredients (i.e. EPTC plus clhlormid becomes "EPTC&Dmd") . The & symbol shall be avoided for all other uses. Tank mix combinations shall use the + symbol .
The / symbol shall be used to indicate a time gap between different treatments applied ot the same plot. For examply: Trifluralin (PPI )/Bentazon(Po) .
XV 11
WEED NAMES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
Common Name
Scientific Name
Bucu
Bygr
Cath
Cocb
Coch
Colq
Corw
Cosf
DaH
Dafl
Ebns
Fapa
Gift
Girw
Gift
Howe
Omg
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 triflda Setaria viridis Conyza canadensis Ipomoea hederacea Datura stramonium Digitaria sanguinalis Polygonum pensvlvanicum Lactuca serriola Sida spinosa Amaranthus retroflexus Sorghum bicolor Capsella bursa-pastoris Physalis subglabrata Amaranthus hybridus Ipomoea purpurea Abutilon theophrasti Hibiscus trionum Setaria glauca
XVlll
252 °*05 58
- - — -~ - - - ■
UWVERSITYOFILUNO.S-URBANA
SN5o8!^ed8cIEnceS^ch,noexteN
1991