• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Foreword
 Abbreviations used in this...
 List of herbicide trade and common...
 Weather data
 Description of methods
 Weed control in corn
 Weed control in cotton
 Pix growth regulator test...
 Weed control in grain sorghum
 Grain sorghum safener test
 Weed control in peanuts
 Weed control in soybeans
 Weed control in winter wheat
 Weed control in bahiagrass...














Group Title: WFREC research report
Title: Weed science annual research report
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091345/00003
 Material Information
Title: Weed science annual research report
Series Title: WFREC research report
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Agricultural Research Center, Jay
Agricultural Research and Education Center, Jay
West Florida Research and Education Center
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1978
Copyright Date: 1976
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Weeds -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Weeds -- Control -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Herbicides -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: Began in 1976?
Issuing Body: Issued by the center as Agricultural Research Center, Jay (ARC, Jay) beginning in 1977; as Agricultural Research and Education Center, Jay (AREC, Jay) beginning in 1985, and as West Florida Research and Education Center (WFREC) beginning in 1995.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: 1998.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091345
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 61661582
lccn - 2005229256

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Front Matter
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Foreword
        Page 4
    Abbreviations used in this report
        Page 5
    List of herbicide trade and common names
        Page 6
    Weather data
        Page 7
    Description of methods
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Weed control in corn
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Weed control in cotton
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Pix growth regulator test in cotton
        Page 20
    Weed control in grain sorghum
        Page 21
    Grain sorghum safener test
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Weed control in peanuts
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 29A
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Weed control in soybeans
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Weed control in winter wheat
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Weed control in bahiagrass pasture
        Page 69
Full Text



















ARC, Jay Research Report 79-2


WEED SCIENCE

ANNUAL RESEARCH REPORT 1978














Barry J. Brecke
Agricultural Research Center
Jay, Florida

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida






Page 1 of 2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword 4

Abbreviations used in this report 5

List of herbicide trade and common names 6

Weather data 7

Description of methods 8

Weed Control in Corn

a. Preplant Incorporated 12

b. Preemergence 13

c. Postemergence Over-the-Top 14

d. Directed Postemergence 15

e. No-till 17

Weed Control in Cotton

a. New Compounds 18

b. Herbicide Combinations 19

Pix Growth Regulator Test in Cotton 20

Weed Control in Grain Sorghum 21

Grain Sorghum Safener Test 22

Weed Control in Peanuts

a. New Compounds 24

b. Herbicide Combinations I 27

c. Herbicide Combinations II 30

d. Postemergence Granules for Florida Beggarweed Control 33

e. Programs for Florida Beggarweed Control 35

f. Extend Study 37

g. Nutsedge Control 38

h. Bristly Starbur Competition 39

Continued ---


- 2-





Page 2 of 2


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



Weed Control in Soybeans

a. New Compounds I 40

b. New Compounds II 42

c. Herbicide Programs I 44

d. Herbicide Programs II 46

e. Metribuzin Rate of Application Study 48

f. Metribuzin Time of Application Study 50

g. Directed Postemergence 52

h. No-till 53

i. Sicklepod Control Programs 55

j. Atrazine Carryover Study 61

k. Effect of Tillage and Mulch on Herbicide Performance 63

Weed Control in Winter Wheat 66

Weed Control in Bahiagrass Pasture 69


-3-









WEED CONTROL RESEARCH


Agricultural Research Center
Jay, Florida

FOREWORD

Field investigations of herbicide efficacy in corn, cotton, grain sorghum,
peanuts, soybeans, wheat, and pastures, herbicide carryover in soybeans and weed
competition, reported herein,were conducted at the Agricultural Research Center
near Jay, Florida during 1978. Single herbicide treatments as well as herbicide
combinations of both new and presently recommended materials were evaluated and
compared for crop tolerance and activity against selected weed species.

The experiments reported herein were supported by state appropriation and
by grants-in-aid and gifts from the following commercial agencies:

American Cyanamid
American Hoechst Corporation
BASF Wyandotte Corporation
Ciba-Geigy
Dow Chemical Company
E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
Eli Lilly and Company
FMC Corporation
Gulf Oil Chemicals Company
Hercules, Incorporated
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Monsanto Agricultural Products Company
Rohm and Haas Company
Stauffer Chemical Company
Velsicol Chemical Company

The support of the ARC, Jay Weed Science Program by these companies is
greatly appreciated. Acknowledgement is also made for the materials that were
supplied by various companies for inclusion in the field research program.

The report would not have been possible without the assistance of Mr.
Vernon Tedder, Agricultural Technician I; Mr. Keith Bertrand, Summer Field
Assistant; Mr. Louis Dykes, Summer Intern, and Mr. Ronald Campblel, Student
Assistant, in conducting the experiments and tabulation of the data.

SEVERAL OF THE MATERIALS OR COMBINATIONS OF MATERIALS USED IN THE TRIALS
REPORTED HERE ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR USE AS APPLIED. THEREFORE, THIS REPORT
SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.


Prepared by Dr. B. J. Brecke, Assistant Professor (Weed Science), Agricultural
Research Center, Jay, Florida 32565.


-4-









ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT


Abbreviation
AS
BEG
BL
BROOM
BS
CARP
CB
CEP
CF
CRAB
CVM
DF
FP
GOOSE


Weed
annual sedge
Florida beggarweed
broadleaves
broomsedge
bristly starbur
carpetgrass
cocklebur
cutleaf evening primrose
crowfoot grass
large crabgrass
cypressvine morningglory
dogfennel
Florida pusley
goosegrass


Abbreviation
JR
P
PIG
RED
RG
SICK
SFM
SMUT
SW
TM
VASE
VP
NUT


Weed
jungle ricegrass
peppergrass
pigweed
redweed
annual ryegrass
sicklepod
smallflower morningglory
smutgrass
Pennsylvania smartweed
tall morningglory
vaseygrass
volunteer peanuts
mixture of purple and
yellow nutsedge


Abbreviation
BAHIA
COT
SOR
SOY
PEA
WH





Abbreviation
PPI
PRE
AC
POST
BPI
EP
LP
DP
LB
WAP
WAC


Crop
bahiagrass
cotton
sorghum
soybean
peanut
wheat





How Applied (How App) Term
Preplant Incorporated
Preemergence
At Cracking
Postemergence Over-the-Top
Broadcast Post Incorporated
Early Postemergence Over-the-Top
Late Poastemergence Over-the-Top
Directed Postemergence
Lay-By
Weeks After Planting
Weeks After Cracking


-5-









LIST OF HERBICIDE TRADE AND COMMON NAMES


Trade Name Common Name

Aatrex atrazine

Amiben chloramben

Antor diethatyl

Balan benefit

Banvel dicamba

Basagran bentazon

Basalin fluchloralin

Bexton propachlor

Bladex cyanazine

Blazer acifluorfen

Butam ---

Bueno 6 MSMA + surfactant

Graslan prosulfalin

CGA24705 metolachlor

Caparol prometryn

Cotoran fluometuron

Dowco 295----

Dual metolachlor

Dyanap naptalam + dinoseb


Trade Name Common Name

EL171 fluridone

Embark mefluidide

Eradicane EPTC

Evik ametryn

Goal oxyfluorfen

Herc26910 ----

Hoelon dichlofop

HOE23408 dichlofop

Igran terbutryn

Karmex diuron

Lanex fluometuron

Lasso alachlor

Lexone metribuzin

Lorox linuron

Milogard propazine

Modown bifenox

Norex chloroxuron

Paraquat paraquat

Premerge dinoseb


Trade Name Common Name

Princep simazine

Probe methazole

Prowl pendimethalin

Ramrod propachlor

Roundup glyphosate

SD50224 ---

Sencor metribuzin

SN533 ---

Sonalan ethalfluralin

Stam propanil

Surflan oryaalin

Sutan butylate

Tenoran chloroxuron

Treflan trifluralin

Tolban profluralin

Velpar hexazihone

Vernam vernolate

2,4-D 2,4-D

2,4-DB 2,4-DB


-6-























TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL DATA FOR ARC, JAY, FLORIDA 19781/


March April __June Jul_ Au__ ust Septeaber October
Day Max. Min. Precip. Max. Min. Precip. Max. Min. Precip. Max. Min. PreeLp. Max. Min. Precip. Max. Min. Precip. Max. Mln. Precipi. Max. Mli. Preclp.
1 69 55 0.53 88 56 81 69 0.01 91 67 0.18 94 75 89 70 92 69 76 68
2 64 44 84 55 81 61 0.70 90 69 0.10 94 75 94 70 0.02 92 67 85 58
3 67 49 1.62 84 49 81 67 0.28 84 71 0.65 94 76 94 74 92 67 83 56
4 58 33 81 57 0.02 71 62 4.87 83 70 0.20 93 77 94 70 0.01 87 67 85 60
5 50 27 81 58 0.02 73 53 88 68 88 70 1.33 92 70 93 64 88 62
6 56 33 82 54 82 60 90 72 93 75 93 71 94 69 0.15 88 62
7 63 45 82 61 72 67 0.82 88 70 0.73 92 72 2.87 90 71 0.02 91 68 79 48
8 61 50 3.43 87 60 78 70 88 72 3.08 93 74 89 70 0.63 93 69 75 46
9 68 50 0.23 89 58 83 70 0.91 80 68 3.93 93 72 0.35 82 70 0.25 93 74 73 47
10 52 38 0.01 86 56 85 58 0.25 91 71 0.10 94 72 0.31 83 70 1.00 93 71 78 51
11 63 37 81 66 0.02 85 57 91 72 93 72 0.64 77 70 2.25 91 68 85 59
12 64 57 81 58 0.13 85 61 91 72 0.07 88 72 0.14 87 71 0.01 92 70 86 58
13 75 55 68 60 2.31 82 68 0.35 90 67 1.16 92 71 0.02 91 69 91 69 1.96 86 64
14 75 60 0.22 73 49 0.01 84 55 90 65 91 72 0.30 91 69 0.25 91 71 0.01 85 60
15 82 50 87 56 84 57 88 70 93 74 90 70 87 71 72 39
16 81 53 85 54 86 59 0.19 88 71 91 70 0.25 89 70 0.56 88 69 71 40
17 59 36 84 62 78 62 90 70 91 71 92 73 91 71 81 42
18 64 37 81 69 83 63 0.44 88 69 0.29 93 74 94 72 91 71 73 46
19 68 46 76 59 3.26 87 65 87 67 95 73 0.01 91 72 92 71 0.34 76 43
20 70 41 82 45 88 67 89 68 93 71 0.02 95 68 1.48 92 67 78 48
21 71 49 72 46 91 64 91 69 91 71 0.89 94 74 94 70 81 44
22 75 53 77 47 91 66 92 70 85 74 1.30 96 73 0.23 92 72 83 49
23 77 45 78 53 91 64 94 77 89 72 0.30 93 73 90 69 84 54
24 80 51 74 58 90 64 96 73 90 70 1.06 91 68 0.01 94 70 86 55
25 73 51 86 62 0.37 90 66 96 74 87 70 0.03 92 68 91 69 0.34 84 58
26 77 42 81 48 92 71 97 75 86 73 91 68 88 70 0.30 84 57
27 61 35 73 52 92 70 0.20 94 73 0.09 81 70 1.55 93 71 86 68 1.03 84 58
28 64 36 77 47 93 68 0.60 95 76 85 72 0.02 90 70 0.04 .81 66 85 59
29 72 44 84 54 92 67 98 76 88 74 0.15 91 74 82 66 0.01 84 61
30 80 48 81 62 90 68 0.01 99 71 0.70 90 74 90 73 72 65 0.02 85 65
31 86 54 90 66 81 69 0.54 92 70 79 59
Total monthly
precip. 6.04 6.14 9.63 11.28 12.08 6.76 4.16 0.00
30-year average 5.85 4.96 4.25 7.13 7.80 6.41 6.56 3.41

I/Temperature in F and precipitation in Inches.


-7--









METHODS USED IN 1978 WEED CONTROL TRIALS AT ARC, JAY, FLORIDA


Studies were conducted at the Agricultural Research Center near Jay,
Florida on Orangeburg-Faceville-Tifton-Dothan-Troup fine sandy loam soils with
an organic matter content of approximately 2% and a pH of 5.5 to 6.0. Further
details on the methods used in the trials are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3
below.

The efficacy of herbicide treatments was evaluated by rating the treated
area for both crop injury and weed control. A scale of 0 to 10 was used with 0
indicating no reduction in crop growth or no weed control and 10 equal to complete
weed control or crop death. The ratings were tabulated and the means computed
for each weed species having sufficient density and a uniform distribution in
the experimental areas. A statistical analysis was made and least significant
difference value at the 5% level of probability was calculated for each species
rated and crop yield to aid with data interpretation.

Corn and peanut yields were determined by harvesting the two center rows
of each plot and converting the yield per plot to bushels per acre and pounds
per acre, respectively. The entire plot ingrain sorghum and soybean tests was
harvested and the plot weights were converted to bushels per acre while wheat
yields were measured by harvesting the center 5-feet from each plot.

Several experiments conducted during 1978 were affected by adverse
weather conditions. Moisture following application of preemergence corn
herbicides was not adequate to activate the chemicals resulting in poor weed
control. Rainfall following establishment of all cotton tests and several of
the soybean trials was several inches above normal. This resulted in loss of
activity through leaching of the herbicides from the zone of weed seed
germination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Discussion of the results for each experiment can be found with the data
tables.


-8-

























Table 1. General experimental information for weed control trials at the Agricultural Research Center, Jay 1978.


Experiment
Soybean Soybean

Experimental No-Till Grain Nutsedge Soybean Soybean Met4 Sick. Soybean
conditions Corn Corn Cotton sorghum Peats pean utss other NCI3 li.ir program -..P
Variety Coker 16 McCurdy Coker Funks Florunner Florunner Cen- Cen- Cen- Cen- Cen-
84A 310 G522DR tennial tennial tennial tennial tennial
Date planted 3-20 3-29 4-28 4-5 5-12 5-28 6-5 6-21 6-15 6-16 6-21
Seeding rate 19,000/A 19,000/A 20#/A 10/A 801/A 80#/A 608/A 60#/A 60#/A 60#/A 600/A
Planter type 4RC 2RNS 4RC 4RC 2RC 2RC 4RC 4RC 4RC 4RC 4RC
Row width 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36
Plot width 4 rows 4 rows 4 rows 4 rows 4 rows 2 rows 4 rows 4 row 2 row 4 row 4 row
Plot length 25' 25' 20' 25' 25' 20' 25' 20' 25' 25' 25'
Exp. design2 RCB RCB RCB RCB CB RC B RCB RCB RCB RCBF RCBF RCR
No. of reps 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4


Date treated:
PPI
PRE
AC
SPIKE
BPI
EP
LP
DP
LP
POST
4 WAP
6 WAP
8 WAP
2 WAC
4 WAC
6 WAC


3-17
3-20

3-29

4-3
4-28
5-11


4-28









5-27


6-1
6-7
6-12


6-23

7-7


4-29
5-16
5-22


5-27
6-19

7-6

6-9
6-23
7-6
6-7
6-20
7-5


6-21



7-7


See 6-15
results 6-16



7-1

7-18


7-19


Soybean


Soybean
Nio-'1 liI

Cen-
tennial
6-16
60#/A
2RNS
36"
4 rows
25'
RCBI
----
4


6-19






7-19


row
spacing Wheat
Cobb Ho ley


7-17
60I/A
8 FD
Various
9'
25'
SP
4

7-16
7-17



8-14


11-8-77

8FI)
7"
6'
25'
RCB
4


11-8-77



12-19-77
3-15-78


14RC = 4 row conventional; 2RC = 2 row conventional; 4RN = 4 row no-till; 2RNS = 2 row no-till with in-row subsoiling; 8FDU 8 foot drill.
2"RCB = Randomized complete block; RCBF = Randomized complete block with factorial set of treatments; SP = Split-plot.
3,NCI = New Compounds I.
4-Met = Metribuzin.


-9-


Permanent
. pasture
Pensaco la
batlagrass




6'
30'
RCB
4









Table 2. Crop and weed stage of growth at time of postemergence applications at ARC,
Jay 1978.


Type of
application
EP
LP
DP


Inches
3-4
18
36-40


Crop
Number


leaves
3
7-8
---


Grass Weeds


Inches
--m--
1-2
1-6


Number
leaves
Cotyl
3
2-8


Broadleaf Weeds
Number
Inches leaves
--- Cotyl
1-2 1-4
2-10 2-10


Corn No-Till

Cotton

Grain Sor


Peanuts














Pea Nut

Soybeans


POST

DP


AC
EP
LP
2nd PREMERGE
EP + 10
4 WAP
6 WAP
AC + 6 WAP
8 WAP
AC + 8 WAP
2 WAC
4 WAC
6 WAC

EP


Soy NCI


Soy DP

Soy No-Till

Soy Sick Prog


EP
EP + 10

DP

DP


6-8 2nd trif.
16-18 ---

12-18 5th trif.

16-18 5th trif.


5-6
15


1-2
2-6


1-2


4-12


2nd trif.


2-3 2-3
3-12 ---


Wheat


10-12 tillered 8-10


- 10 -


Crop
Corn


3-6

4-6

6-8


1-2
2-4
5-7
7-9
4-6
6-8
7-10
7-10
14
14
6
7-9
15


5-8
27
13-17


1-2
4-6


6-8
6-8




4-5


2nd trif.

5th trif.


0.5-2
2-6
2-3
1-8
1-3
2-10
1-3
16
3-8
3-4
1-2
13-15


Cotyl
Cotyl 4
2-6
2-4
4-6
2-6
3-10
2-4


4-6
2-4


Cotyl
1-3


----


1-5


0.5-1.5













4-6

1-4
10-20
5-18


1-3
20-30
10-18


Plant Stage of Growth










Table 3. Spray equipment used for weed control trials 1978.

Crop Soy and Wheat
Corn, Cotton, Sorghum, Corn and
Crop Peanuts and Soybeans SOY No-Till Pasture
Type of application PPI PRE POST DP AC PRE All
Sprayer type1 TMB TMB TMB TMS BP TMB BP

Nozzle type 11004 11004 11005 9504 11004 11006 11005

Nozzle spacing (in) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Pressure (psi) 25 25 25 30 25 35 25

Spray volume (gpa) 20 20 30 30 20 40 30

1TMB = tractor mounted boom sprayer using air as propellent.
TMS = tractor mounted sprayer with nozzles mounted on skids with CO2 as
propellent.
BP = CO2 back pack type sprayer with hand held boom.


- 11 -











TRT
NO.


CHEMICAL


1 Sutan+
Aatrex


2 R40244

3 R40244

4 R40244
Sutan+

5 R40244
Sutan+


RATE
FORM LBS/A
a.i.
6.7E 3.0
4L 1.0


WEED CONTROL IN CORN
Preplant Incorporated


RATED 4-12-78
CORN SICK TM FP

0.8 4.3 9.5 10.0


2E 0.5 0.3 3.5 6.3 7.3


RATED 6-12-78


CORN CRAB SICK CB


BS TM


0 9.0 8.0 8.5 9.3 8.3


0.8 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.8 7.0


2E 0.75 1.0 6.5 7.0 9.5 1.5 5.0 6.0 6.8 6.3 7.3


2E 0.125
6.7E 3.0

2E 0.25
6.7E 3.0


0.3 5.5 8.0 9.5


1.0 8.8 8.3 7.3 8.0 9.3


0.5 7.0 8.0 10.0 1.0 8.0 9.0 8.3 8.3 9.3


YIELD @ 15%
BU/A 8-1-78

102.4


83.0

76.2

76.7


86.2


6 R40244
Eradicane

7 R40244
Eradicane

8 Eradicane
Aatrex

9 Dual

10 Check

11 Dual
Aatrex

12 Dual
Aatrex

13 Dual
Aatrex


14 Dual
Bladex

15 Lasso
Aatrex


0.125
3.0

0.25
3.0

3.0
1.0


0.5 7.5 8.3 9.8 0.8 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.5

0.3 6.0 8.0 9.3 0 9.5 8.5 6.0 7.5 6.0


0.5 5.8 8.3 9.8 0.5 7.3 8.0 9.0 8.8 8.5


8E 2.0 0.5 5.0 5.5 8.5 0 8.5 6.5 9.3 5.5 8.8


0 0 0 0


1.5
1.2

1.5
1.5

1.5
2.0


8E 1.5
80W 1.5


1.75
1.2


2.0 0 0 0 0 0


1.0 5.3 7.0 10.0 0.5 8.8 6.0 8.5 8.8 7.0


0.8 3.0 6.0 9.8 0.5 9.0 8.0 8.5 9.3 8.3


1.0 6.3 6;0 10.0 0.3 9.3 8.0 7.8 9.0 9.0


0.8 7.3 7.0 10.0 0.3 8.8 5.8 7.3 9.0 5.8


0.3 6.8 4.8 7.5 0 9.3 8.8 7.8 6.5 6.5


LSD @ 5% N.S. N.S. 4.1 2.9 N.S.

Summary: Preplant incorporated applications of Sutan+
and Dual plus Aatrex provided the best broad


3.2 4.1 4.4 3.9 4.6


97.6

93.7


99.1


102.2

91.2

109.2


91.6


99.2


87.7


93.6


17.9


plus Aatrex; Eradicane plus Aatrex,
spectrum weed control and highest


yields. Weed pressure was less than desired due to dry weather following plant-
ing.


- 12 -











WEED CONTROL IN COMR
Preemergence


RATED 4-21-78
CORN SICK TI F?

1.3 9.0 9.5 10.0

0.3 8.3 7.8 10.0


8.3 7.0 9.8

5.0 7.8 10.0


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

f Aatrex

2 Aatrex
Nine-0

3 Dual

4 Dual
Aatrex

5 Dual
Aatrex

6 Dual
Aatrex

7 Dual
Bladex

8 Lasso
Aatrex

9 Lasso
Aatrex

10 Prowl

11 Prowl
Aatrex

12 Prowl
Bladex

13 Check

14 Antor

15 Antor
Aatrex

16 Antor
Bladex

17 Lasso
Bladex

18 R40244

19 R40244

20 R40244
Lasso

21 R40244
Lasso

22 Blazer

23 Blazer
Lasso

24 Sencor
Lasso

25 Check


FORM

80W

90W


8E

8E
4L

8E
4L

8E
4L

8E
80W

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E

4E
4L

4E
80W



4E

4E
4L

4E
80W

4E
80W

2E

2E

2E
4E

2E
4E

2E

2E
4E

4L
4E



LSD


RATE
LBS/A
a.i.
2.4

2.4


2.0

1.5
1.2

1.5
1.5

1.5
2.0

1.5
1.5

1.75
1.2

2.0
1.5

1.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0



2.0

2.0
1.0

2.0
1.5

2.0
1.5

0.5

0.75

0.125
2.0

0.25
2.0

1.0

1.0
2.0

0.5
2.0



@ 5%


0.8 8.5 7.5 10.0


0.3 9.5 9.5 10.0


WEED CONTROL IN CO {
Preemer ence


4.8 4.3

5.0 4.0


0.3 6.8 4.8 2.5 3.0


0 0

5.0 1.5

2.8 4.5


0 9.0 6.3 5.3 5.3


7.5 8.3 5.3 4.5


9.0 10.0

8.3 9.8

7.3 10.0


1.8 8.5 9.0 9.8


4.3 5.8 10.0

5.0 7.8 10.0


0.5 7.5 9.5 10.0


1.3 0 0 0

1.2 4.8 4.2 2.6


0.5 8.3 4.5


6.0 7.3

4.3 4.3

3.5 2.0


4.5 5.3


3.0 4.0 2.3

2.0 3.8 4.0


0.3 7.5 6.3 4.0 6.5


0.5 0 0 7.3 0

N.S. 2.0 4.9 N.S.5.4


Summary: Due to the lack of rainfall required for herbicide activation, none of the
treatments applied preemergence provided adequate broadleaf weed control.
Weed pressure was also variable and less than desired because of the early-
season dry weather.
13 -


1.0 6.0 7.5 10.0


0 5.3 7.8 10.0


1.5 6.0 6.0 10.0


0.8 6.3 6.5 10.0


0.5 7.0 8.3 10.0


6.0 6.8

4.8 9.8


1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0


RATED 6-12-78
CORN CRAB SICK CB TM

0.5 6.5 7.3 6.3 9.3

0 7.5 7.3 6.5 8.3


0.3 9.0 4.0 2.3 2.3

2.0 8.5 3.3 6.5 5.5


0.5 8.5 3.5 5.3 8.5


0 8.0 2.0 2.8 7.5


0.8 8.3 3.5 5.5 5.8


0.3 8.0 4.8 3.5 5.5


0.3 8.3 2.5 3.0 2.8


YIELD 3 15%
BU/A 8-1-78

95.8

105.2


96.5

108.7


95.1


99.8


88.2


96.4


113.3


87.8

94.8


106.8


85.4

80.5

100.1


88.8


105.2


96.7

100.1

90.8


86.8


77.8

95.6


91.2


84.5

N.S.


0 0

3.5 9.5

7.3 10.0












TRT RATE
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A WHEN
______a.i. APP.
T Aatrex 4L 2.0 EP


Oil -


1 gpa EP


'EED CONTROL IN CORN
Postemergence Over-che-Too


RATED 4-21-73 RATED 6-12-78 YIELD D 15%
CORN SICK T'! FP CORN: CRAB SICK 3S Tl C3 3U/A 8-1-78

1.0 3.3 9.3 9.8 1.0 6.0 7.8 9.3 9.3 8. 95.1


2 Dual SE 1.5 EP
Aatrex 4L 1.2 EP

3 Dual 8E 2.0 EP
Aatrex 4L 1.6 EP

4 Bicepl ..5L 2.7 EP


1.3 8.3 9.0 10.0 1.0


1.5 8.0 9.3 10.0 0.3


1.3 8.0 9.5 10.0 0


5 Bicep 4.5L 3.6 EP 1.8 6.8 9.0 10.0 0.8


6 Dual 8E 1.5 EP
Bladex 80W 1.5 EP

7 Check -


1.8 7.5 9.8 10.0 1.3


0.5 0 0 0 1.3


8 Antor 4E 2.0 EP 0.5 9.0 7.8 10.0 0.3


9 Antor 4E 2.0 EP
Aatrex 80W 1.0 EP

10 Antor 4E 2.0 EP
Bladex 80W 1.0 EP


1.0 8.8 9.0 10.0 0


2.5 8.8 8.8 10.0 0


8.0 7.5 8.3 8.5 6.8


9.0 7.3 8.8 9.0 7.0


9.0 6.8 8.3 8.8 6.3

9.0 6.8 8.3 8.3 8.3

9.0 8.5 7.8 7.8 5.5


0 0 0 0 0

7.5 6.5 5.8 4.0 6.0

7.8 8.8 6.0 7.8 7.5


8.5 8.0 6.5 8.8 4.3


11 Prowl 4E 1.0 SPIKE 0.5 8.0 7.8 9.8 0.3 9.0 6.0 8.5 4.8 4.5


12 Prowl 4E 1.0 SPIKE
Aatrex 4L 1.0 SPIKE

13 Prowl 4E 1.0 SPIKE
Bladex 80W 1.0 SPIKE


14 Aatrex
Basagran
Oil

15 Lasso
2,4-D


1.0 EP
0.75 EP
1 gpa EP


1.0 8.5 8.0 9.5 0.5


1.8 8.3 9.0 9.5 0.5


0.5 9.0 9.3 9.8 1.3


9.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 8.5


8.8 7.5 8.0 7.8 5.5


1.8 8.8 8.5 8.8 8.0


4E 2.. PRE 0.8 3.3 2.8 9.5 0.5 8.3 7.5 8.3 8.3 6.8


4E


0.5 LP


16 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
Brominal 2E 0.5 LP

17 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
Banvel 4E 0.25 LP

18 Lasso 4E 2.0 EP
Aatrex 4L 1.5 EP

LSD @ 5%


0 1.5 0 9.3 1.0 7.5 6.8 9.0 8.8 8.3


0 1.5 0.5 9.5 0.3 7.5 6.8 9.0 8.0 8.0


0.8 9.0 9.0 10.0 0.3 7.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 6.5


N.S. 3.9 2.1 0.8 N.S. 3.4 N.S. N.S.2.7 N.S.


91.2


95.3


94.6

86.3


85.5

S96.3

100.3


97.7


107.6

103.7


101.1


95.3



81.3


94.9


95.3


102.3


N.S


lPre-package mixture of the active ingredients in Aatrex and Dual at 2 + 2.5 lbs/gal.
Summary: Postemergence treatments which exhibited the best broad spectrum weed control
included Dual plus Aatrex (and the pre-packaged mixture of these materials -
Bicep); Antor plus Aatrex and Lasso plus Aatrex applied to corn in the 3-leaf
stage and Prowl plus Aatrex applied to corn in the spike stage. Aatrex plus
oil and Aatrex plus Basagran plus oil provided adequate broadleaf control but
were weak on crabgrass. Due to the lack of moisture, few weeds had emerged
when the corn was at the growth stage for spike or early postemergence
applications resulting in less than expected control from several of the
treatments.


- 14 -






Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN CORN
Directed Postemergence


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

1 Hoelon


RATE WHEN
FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.
3E 0.75 DP


RATED 6-12-78


CORN CRAB GOOSE SICK CB


RATED 7-19-78 YIELD @
TM FP CORN TM CB SICK BU/A 8-2


1.5 10.0 10.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 0 0 3.3 2.8 3.8 76.6


2 Hoe234081 2.36E 0.75


0.3 9.0 9.8


3 Hoelon 3E 1.0 DP 0.3 9.8 10.0


4 Hoe23408 2.36E 1.0 DP


5 Hoelon 3E
Blazer 2E


6 Hoe23408 2.36E 1.0
Blazer 2E 0.5


7 Lasso
Goal
AG98

8 Lasso
Goal
AG98


2.0 PRE
0.5 DP
.25% DP


2.0
0.75
.25%


PRE
DP
DP


1.5 8.3 9.8


1.0 DP 0.5 9.8 9.0
0.5


4.5 4.3 4.3 3.0 0

2.0 2.3 2.3 0 0.5

2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0

7.8 8.8 9.3 10.0 0


0.5 9.3 9.8 5.0 6.8 6.8 6.3


0 10.0 10.0


9.8 9.8 10.0 10.0


0 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.3 10.0 10.0


4.0 5.5 5.0

3.3 4.0 6.3

2.0 2.5 6.5

8.0 4.0 8.3


7.3 6.0 6.3


9.3 8.8 10.0


9.5 8.5 9.8


9 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
Sencor 50W 0.5 DP


10 Lasso
Lorox
2,4-D
X77

11 Check

12 Lasso
Goal
2,4-D
AG98

13 Lasso
Stam
2,4-D
AG98

14 Aatrex
Paraquat
Aatrex
X77

15 Paraquat
Aatrex
X77

Continued ---


4E
75DF
4E


2.0
1.5
0.5
.25%


PRE
DP
DP
DP


0 10.0 10.0


0 10.0 10.0


9.8 8.8 8.5 10.0 0


9.8 8.8 9.5 10.0 0


5.8 6.3 9.5


9.0 8.3 10.0


- -- -- 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.2


2.0
0.5
0.5
.25%


PRE
DP
DP
DP


2.0 PRE
1.5 DP
0.5 DP
.25% DP

1.5 PRE
0.25 DP
1.0 DP
.25% DP


0.5
1.0
.25%


0 10.0 10.0


9.8 9.5 10.010.0 0 9.88.8 9.5


0 9.8 9.8 9.5 8.8 10.010.0 0 10.07.010.0


0 9.8 10.0 9.5 8.5 10.010.0 0


0 10.0 10.0


9.8 9.3 9.810.0 0


9,06.8 9.5


9.3 6.0 9.5


- 15 -


90.2

89.0

71.4

100.4


91.9


94.1


111.5


100.3


99.8


102.2


112.5


106.9


101.1






Page 2 of 2


JEED CONTROL IN CORN-Directed
'RT RATE WHEN
10. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.
.6 Evik 80W 1.5 DP


2,4-D
X77


Postmergence (continued):
RATED 6-12-78 RATED 7-19-78 YIELD @ 15%
CORN CRAB GOOSE SICK CB TM FP CORN TM CB SICK BU/A 8-2-78

0 9.5 10.0 9.8 9.3 10.0 10.0 0 9.8 7.8 10.0 103.6


0.5 DP
.25% DP


L7 Lorox
2,4-D
X77

L8 Evik
2,4-D
X77

L9 Lasso
Evik
2,4-D
X77

10 Aatrex
Lorox
2,4-D
X77


50W 1.5
4E 0.5
-.25%

80W 1.5
4E 0.5
-.25%


4E
80W
4E
--

4L
50W
4E


2.0
1.5
0.5
.25%

1.5
1.5
0.5
.25%


PRE
DP
DP
DP

PRE
DP
DP
DP


0 9.5 10.0 9.5 9.3 10.0 10.0



0 9.5 9.8 10.0 8.3 9.8 9.0


0 10.0 10.0




0 10.0 10.0


9.5 9.3 10.0 10.0




9.5 9.3 10.0 10.0


0 9.8 7.3 9.5



0 9.5 7.0 10.0


0 10.0 7.8 9.8




0 10.0 9.5 10.0


11 Lasso 4E
Sencor 4L


!2 Lasso
Sencor
2,4-D


2.0 PRE
0.5 DP

2.0 PRE
0.5 DP
0.5 DP


LSD @ 5%


Pre-packaged mixt
summary: Directed
in 1978.
DP gave
2,4-D +
results,
directed
rainfall


:1


0 10.0 10.0


9.5 9.0 9.8 10.0


9.5 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0


0.9 1.5 0.4


ure of Hoe23408 plus surfactant.
Postemergence herbicide applications


0 8.8 7.3 9.8


0 10.0 7.3 10.0


3.3 3.1 3.1 2.0 N.S. 3.9 3.8 3.8


provided the best corn weed control


Treatment combinations which included Goal + AG98 or Lorox + 2,4-D + X77


very good to excellent broad spectrum weed control. Sencor + 2,4-D, Evik +
X77 and Paraquat + Aatrex + X77 also provided adequate weed control. These
when compared with those of the other 1978 corn trials, show the value of
Spostemergence treatments during a growing season with less than adequate
Sfor activation of preemergence herbicides.


- 16 -


96.9



99.8


104.4




101.7


105.7


95.9


22.1










WEED CONTROL IN NO-TILL CORN
TRT RATE WHEN RATED 6-6-78 RATED 7-25-73 YIELD ? 13,
NO. CH'IICAL FORM LBS/A APP. CORN GOOSE SICK CS PEP CEP TM CORN CS TM SICK BU/A 8-3-78

i Paraquat 27 0.5 PRE 1.3 9.3 6.0 .3 10.0 10.0 7.0 0 4.3 6.8 5.0 98.3
Lasso 4E' 2.0 PRE


Aatrex 4L

2 Paraquat 2E
Dual 8E
Aatrex 4L

3 Paraquat 2E
Bicep 4.5L

4 Paraquat 2E
Dual 8E
Bladex 8OW

5 Paraquat 2E
Aatrex 4L
Prowl 4E

6 Pa:aquat 2E
Bladex 80W
Prowl 4E

7 Paraquat 2E
Antor 4E
Aatrex 4L

8 Check

9 Paraquat 2E
Antor 4E
Bladex 80W

10 .40244 2E

11 R40244 2E

12 R40244 2E

13 R40244 2E

14 Paraquat 2E
Lasso 4E
Evik 80W
2,4-D 4E
X77 -

15 Paraquat 2E
Lasso 4E
Goal 2E
2,4-0 4E
AG98 -

16 Paraquat 2E
Lasso 4E
Lorox 50W
2,4-D 4E
X77

LSD


9.3 3.0 6.0



8.8 5.8 5.8


9.3 3.5 4.8



9.5 4.8 3.8


9.8 9.8 7.0



9.8 10.0 8.5


9.8 9.8 7.5



9.5 9.5 7.5


9.3 4.8 6.5 9.8 9.8 9.3


0 0

9.0 4.0


3-.5 9.3 9.0 8.0



0 0 0 0

1.3 8.8 8.5 5.0


8.0 4.8

9.5 3.8

9.8 7.3

9.5 7.3

9.8 9.5


9.8 9.5 9.8 8.5 9.5 9.3





9.8 9.8 9.5 10.0 10.0 9.5


N.S. 1.2 6.0 4.7


0 6.3 7.0 2.5



0 2.0 5.0 4.5


0 5.3 7.5 3.8



0 3.5 6.3 4.8



0 2.8 8.8 2.5



0 1.8 5.0 7.0


0 0

0 4.0



3.5 4.8

6.0 3.3

7.5 5.0

5,3 2.8

8.8 9.5


0 8.8 7.0 8.0





0 8.0 8.5 10.0


2.3 1.4 5.8 N.S. 5.2 6.2 5.7


36.1



116.3



105.5



124.4

99.6



104.6

101.4

104.1

100.1

121.7





100.9





96.5





8.9


Summary: The best weed control in no-till corn was obtained with Directed Postemergence
applications of either Evik + 2,4-D + X77, Goal + 2,4-D + AG98 or Lorox + 2,4-D
+ X77. As in the case of the conventional tillage experiments, the lack of early
season moisture resulted in poor performance of the preemergence treatments and
variable weed pressure.


- 17 -


0.5 PRE
2.0 PRE
1.5 PRE

0.5 DP

1.0 DP

2.0 DP

3.0 DP

0.5 PRE
2.0 PRE
1.5 DP
0.5 DP
.25% DP

0.5 PRE
2.0 PRE
0.5 DP
0.5 DP
.25% DP

0.5 PRE
2.0 PRE
1.5 DP
0.5 DP
.25% DP

@ 5%


1.0 10.0 6.5'














NO. CHEMICAL

i Antor
Cotoran

2 EL171

3 1171

4 EL171

5 EL171

6 EL171

7 EL171

8 Treflan
EL171

9 Treflan
EL171

10 Treflan
EL171

11 Treflan
EL171

12 Treflan
EL171

13 Treflan
EL171

14 R40244

15 R40244

16 R40244

17 Treflan
R40244

18 Treflan
R40244

19 Treflan
R40244

20 Treflan
SN58132
Citowett

21 RE19698

22 RE19698

23 Treflan
Cotoran

24 Check

25 Check


Summary:


RATE
FORM LBS/A
a. i.
4E 2.0
4L 1.5

4L 0.4

4L 0.6

4L 0.8

4L 0.4

4L 0.6

4L 0.8

4E 0.5
4L 0.4

4E 0.5
4L 0.6

4E 0.5
4L 0.8

4E 0.5
4L 0.4

4E 0.5
4L 0.6

4E 0.5
4L 0.8

2E 0.25

2E 0.5

2E 1.0

4E 0.5
2E 0.125

4E 0.5
2E 0.25

4E 0.5
2E 0.5

4E 0.5
1.18E 1.0
--- 0.2%

3E 0.5

3E 1.0

4E 0.5
4L 1.5


T'ED CONTROL IN COTTON
New Comoounds


HOW
APP.

PRE
PRE

PPI

PPI

PPI

PRE

PRE

RE

PPI
PPI

PPI
PPI

PPI
PPI

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PRE

PRE

PRE

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PPI
POST
POST

PRE

PRE

PPI
PRE


RATED 6-8-78
COT C.A3 GOOSE SICK PIG T!

2.5 9.5 9.5 3.3 5.3 6.3


1.3 9.5 9.8 5.8 8.8 9.0


1.5 10.0 9.8 5.8


8.3 9.0


2.3 9.8 9.8 7.5 9.3 8.8


2.3 9.5 9.5 6.0 9.5 7.8


1.5 9.8 10.0 6.3


3.0 9.5 9.5 3.3


1.0 9.0 8.8 4.5


1.8 9.3 9.3 6.3


9.0 8.8


4.5 2.5

5.8 5.0

9.3 6.5

6.8 5.8


8.3 4.5


9.3 6.5


9.8 9.8


-- 2.8 0

.-- --- 72.8 0

LSD @ 5% N.S. 2.8


EL171 at 0.8 lbs/A, either PPI or PRE, and SN58132 plus Citowett Post
controlled all weeds present except sicklepod. None of the other treat-
ments provided adequate control; possibly because the high amount of
rainfall (5.8 inches) during the first week after planting leached
the herbicides from the zone of weed seed germination. Yields were not
measured because of severe late season weed infestation.

18 -












TRT
NO.


CHEMICAL FORM


1 Prowl 4E
Cotoran 4L

2 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L

3 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L

4 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L

5 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L

6 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L

7 GCP6305 4E
Cotoran 4L


8 Treflan
Cotoran
X77

9 Check


RATE
LBS/A
a.i.
0.75
1.5


WEED CONTROL IN COTTON
Herbicide Combinations


WHEN
APP.

PPI
PRE


1.0 PPI
1.5 PRE

2.0 PPI
1.5 PRE

4.0 PPI
1.5 PRE

1.0 PRE
1.5 PRE

2.0 PRE
1.5 PRE

4.0 PRE
1.5 PRE


0.5
1.5
.25%


PPI
POST
POST


RATED 6-18-78
COT CRAB GOOSE SICK PIG TM SW AS

3.0 10.0 10.0 5.5 6.3 9.5 9.3 9.0


3.0 10.0 10.0


4.3 10.0 10.0


3.5 10.0 10.0


3.0 10.0 9.5


3.0 10.0 10.0


3.5 10.0 10.0


4.0 10.0 10.0


5.0 0.5 9.0 10.0 10.0


6.8 0.5 9.5 9.5 10.0


5.5 1.5 8.8 10.0 10.0


6.0 2.0 8.5 9.5 10.0


6.3 4.3 7.8 9.8 10.0


6.0 6.5 6.5 10.0 10.0


8.5 9.8 10.0 10.0 8.3


-- 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LSD @ 5%


N.S. 0.8 1.3


2.4 2.5 3.6 2.6 3.9


Treflan PPI plus Cotoran + X77 Post resulted in the best broad
spectrum weed control but caused severe crop injury. Due to the
high amount of rainfall (5.8 inches) within one week after
planting several treatments provided less than expected weed
control. Above average moisture conditions continued through the
early part of the growing season and prevented timely application
of scheduled Directed Post treatments.


- 19 -


Summary:











COTTON

Phytotoxicity
(%)





Color3






Height4
(inches)


Height Uniformity5
(%)





Width6
(inches)


PIX GROWTH REGULATOR
PIX RATE1
LTE 0 IX


7-19
7-26
8-2
8-11
8-22
8-28

7-19
7-26
8-2
8-11
8-22
8-28

7-19
7-26
8-2
8-11
8-22
8-28

7-19
7-26
8-2
8-11
8-22
8-28

7-19
7-26
8-2
8-11,
8-22
8-28


0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

43
54.1
56.3
65.5
68.2
65.0


0
0
0
0
0
0

0
15
10
10
10
10

41.5
42.6
46.2
62.7
63.2
68.0


TEST IN COTTON


DA


IX + 1X2

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
15
10
20
20
20

41.5
42.6
46.2
49.7
58.6
48.0


Yield7
(Ibs. seed
COT/A)


12-7 943 1006


11X rate = 1 pint/A (0.22 Ibs./A a.i.) applied 7-13-78.
2Split application, second application 8-1-78.
35% = color of control; 100% = extremely dark green.
4Average of 6 measurements per treated area.
50 = highly variable; 100% = table top level.
6Distance between rows at most narrow point.
7Area harvested = 1/3 A per treatment.


Comments:


No differences in boll rot or insect damage were observed between controls
and treated cotton. Large differences in maturity were not apparent; how-
ever, the cotton which received the split application did appear to be
somewhat slower in reaching maturity. The split application treatment also
retained more leaves following chemical defoliation than did the other
treatments.


- 20 -


1213


2X

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
20
15
30
30
30

39.5
45.9
49.1
51.7
52.8
49.0










WEED CONTROL IN GRAIN SORGHUM
TRT RATE WHEN RATED 6-15-78 YIELD
:0. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. S.R :< ..A3 BU/A

S________ a.i.0 PE 7 77 72
1 Prowl 4E 1.0 PRE 0.7 7.2 6.7 72.8


2 Prowl


4E 1.0 SPIKE 0.7 6.7 5.7


3 Prowl 4E 0.5

4 Prowl 4E 1.0

5 Treflan 4E 0.5

5 Prowl 4E 1.0
Aatrex 4L 1.0

7 Prowl 4E 1.0
Aatrex 4L 1.1


8 Ramrod

9 Ramrod

10 Igran


BPI 0.7 9.2 8.2

BPI 1.7 9.2 6.7

BPI 0.7 8.5 8.0

PRE 1.2 8.2 7.7
PRE

SPIKE 1.2 5.2 6.0
SPIKE


65W 4.0 PRE 0.2 6.0 3.5


65W 6.0

80W 2.0


11 Igran 80W 1.0 PRE
Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE

12 Aatrex 4L 2.0 PRE

13 Aatrex 4L 1.5 EP
Oil -- gpa EP

14 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Ramrod 65W 4.0 PRE

15 Aatrex 4L 5.5 PRE
Ramrod (1.4 +
(Pkg. mix) 4.1)

16 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Paraquat 2E 0.25 DP
Aatrex 4L 1.0 DP
X77 -- .25% DP

17 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Lorox 4L 1.5 DP
2,4-D 4E 0.5 DP
X77 .25% DP

18 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Bladex 80W 1.0 DP
2,4-D 4E 0.5 DP
X77 -- .25 DP

19 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Evik 80W 1.5 DP
2,4-D 4E 0.5 DP
X77 -- .25% DP

20 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Sencor 4L 0.5 DP
2,4-D 4E 0.5 DP

21 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Goal 2E 0.5 DP
2 4-0 4E 0.5 DP
X77 .25% DP

22 Aatrex 4L 1.0 PRE
Goal 2E. 0.75 DP
2,4-D 4E 0.5 DP
X77 .25% DP


23 Check


LSD @ 5%


PRE 0.5 4.5 5.5

PRE 1.7 7.5 5.5


0.7 6.2 4.5


1.7 8.7 7.2

0.5 9.2 9.2


0.7 9.3 9.8


3.0 9.5 9.2



0.7 9.7 8.7




0.5 8.7 7.5


63.2

63.5

61.0

65.4

69.0


56.6


70.9

70.9

53.8


61.5 Summary: Treatments in this
studyproviding good to ex-
cellent control of crabgrass
57.4 and sicklepod included Aatrex
plus Oil EP, Aatrex plus
64.8 Ramrod PRE, Aatrex PRE plus
Paraquat + Aatrex + X77 DP
and Aatrex PRE + Evik +
53,2 2,4-D + X77 DP. Some of the
BPI treatments appeared to
give good broadleaf control;
53.8 however, this was primarily
a result of the cultivation
involved with incorporation
of the herbicide. Dry weather
62.9 following application adver-
sely affected several of the
preemergence treatments.


70.1


0 9,7 7.5 82.8


0.7 9.7 9.0




0.2 9.7 7.2



1.5 10.0 7.0




1.0 9.7 7.5




0 0 0
1.4 3.7 2.8
21 -









Page 1 of 2


;0. CHEMICAL FORM

1 Dual 8E
-Safener
+Safener

2 Dual + SE
Milogard 80W
-Safener
+Safener

3 Dual + 8E
Milogard 80W
-Safener
+Safener

4 Bicep1 4.5L
-Safener
+Safener


5 Bicep
-Safener
+Safener

6 Dual +
Aatrex
-Safener
+Safaner

7 Dual +
Aatrex
-Safener
+Safener

8 Aatrex +
Ramrod
-Safener
+Safener

9 Dual +
Igran
-Safener
+Safener

10 Lasso +
Aatrex
-Safener
+Safener

11 Check
-Safener
+Safener

12 Check
-Safener
+Safener


GRAIN SORGHLUM SAFENER TEST


RATE 'NHEN
LBS/A APP.
a.i.
2.0 PRE


RATED 6-15-78
SOR TM SICK CRAB


1.0 8.4 5.0 10.0
0 9.7 8.7 9.7


0.7 8.0 8.7
0.4 10.0 9.0



0.4 9.7 9.0
0.0 10.0 10.0


2.7


4.5L 3.15 PRE



8E 1.5 PRE
4L 1.2 PRE



8E 1.75 PRE
4L 1.4 PRE


1.0 PRE
4.0 PRE



1.5 PRE
1.5 PRE



2.0 PRE
1.0 PRE


1.0 8.0 7.0 10.0
0.7 10.0 9.0 9.7


0.4 10.0 6.7 9.M
0.4 9.7 9.0 10.0



0.4 10.0 9.0 9.0
0.4 10.0 8.4 10.0



0.7 10.0 8.7 8.7
0.7 10.0 9.7 9.7


0.4 10.0 9.0
0.4 10.0 9.3


0.4 10.0 8.0 9.4
1.0 8.7 10.0 8.7



0.7 10.0 9.0 8.4
0 10.0 10.0 9.4


1.0 6.7 6.5 6.3
0 5.5 6.0 6.8


0.7 6.7 6.5 5.7
0.7 6.2 7.0 2.0


IBicep is a mixture of the active ingredients in Aatrex and Dual at 2 + 2.5 lbs/gal.


- 22 -


YIELD
BU/A


61.0
73.0



7-.2
72.0



85.0
71.7


71.5
85.0







Page 2 of 2


CHEMICAL

Dual

Dual
Milogard


3 Dual
Milogard

4 Bicep

5 Bicep

6 Dual
Aatrex

7 Dual
Aatrex

8 Aatrex
Ramrod

9 Dual
Igran

10 Lasso
Aatrex

11 Check

12 Check


FORM


8E
8E
80W

8E
80W

4.5L



8E
4L

8E
4L

4L
65W


GRAIN SORGHiC SAFENER TEST
Herbicide Comoarison


RATE WHEN
LBS/A APP.
a.i.
2.0 PRE

1.5 PRE
1.2 PRE

1.5 PRE
1.2 PRE

2.7 PRE

3.15 PRE

1.5 PRE
1.2 PRE

1.75 PRE
1.4 PRE

1.0 PRE
4.0 PRE


8E 1.5
80W 1.5

4E 2.0
4L 1.0


--- 0.5 6.1

0.7 6.5


N.S.N.S. 2.3 2.2


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

1 -Safener

2 +Safener

LSD @ 5%


GRAIN SORGHUM SAFENER TEST
Safener Comparison
YIELD
SOR TM SICK CRAB BU/A
@ 12%
0.7 8.9 8.3 8.9 69.7


0.4 9.8 9.2 8.6

N.S.N.S. N.S. N.S.


Summary: The acetanilide herbicides Dual and Lasso did not cause the anticipated
injury to grain sorghum even when the safener was not present. Rainfall
did not occur soon enough after application for maximum herbicide activity.
Dual plus Aatrex (and the pre-packaged mixture of these herbicides Bicep),
Dual + Milogard and Lasso + Aatrex provided the best weed control and
sorghum yields. Weed pressure was less than desired.


- 23 -


LSD @ 5%


6.3


RATED 6-15-78
SOR TM SICK CRB

0.5 9.1 6.9 9.9

0.6 9.0 8.9 9.5


0.2 9.9 9.5 9.0


0.9 9.0 8.0 9.9

0.4 9.9 7.9 9.9

0.4 10.0 8.7 9.5


0.7 10.0 9.2 9.2


0.4 10.0 9.2 8.0


0.7 9.4 9.0 9.1


0.4 10.0 9.5 8.9


YIELD
3U/A

67.0

73.1


78.4


78.3

68.9

76.0


71.2


72.0


67.5


78.4


56.7

58.8




Page 1 of 3


TRT RATE HOW
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.
1 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
WEJ0787 70W .5 PRE

2 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
WEJ0787 70W .75 PRE

3 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
WEJ0787 70W 1.0 PRE

4 Hoelon 3E 1.0 AC
Premerge 3E 1.5 AC

5 Hoelon 3E 1 AC
Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC

6 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
Vernam 3E 2.5 PPI
Hoelon 3E 1.0 AC
Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC
Basagran 4E 1.0 LP

7 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
Vernam 3E 2.5 PPI
Lasso 4E 2.0 AC
Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC
Basagran 4E 1.0 LP

8 Lasso 4E 3 AC
Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC

9 Hoelon 3E 1 EP
Basagran 4E 1 EP

10 Hoelon 3E 1 EP
Basagran 4E 1 EP +
101
Continued ---


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
New Compounds
RATED 6-17-78 RATED 6-25-78
PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG RED PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK RED PIG BEG

0.3 9.0 9.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 0.8 9.5 10.0 3.5 7.5 6.5 5.8


0.5 9.5 9.8 4.8 6.3 8.0 0.8 9.8 10.0 5.5 9.3 6.8 7.5


0.3 9.0 9.5 5.3 3.5 8.0 1.0 9.3 9.0 4.5 8.3 5.0 9.0


0.5 8.3 8.8 6.5 5.8 7.8 1.0 9.0 8.8 7.3 8.3 6.0 9.0


0.8 7.8 8.0 8.0 9.5 9.5 0.5 9.0 6.5 7.8 9.0 7.3 9.5


0.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0 10.0 0.8 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 9.8


RATED 8-25-78
PEA CRAB CF SICK BEG

2.8 9.0 10.0 0 2.5


2.0 9.0 9.0 0.3 2.5


3.3 7.0 7.5 0.3 4.3


4.5 3.8 5.3 2.3 4.5


3.3 8.5 6.3 6.0 6.5


1.3 10.0 10.0 9.3 8.8


YIELD
LBS/A
10-3-78
769


1632


1170


1724


1939


3478


1.3 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 1.5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.5 0.8 10.0 10.0 9.3 7.0 3602


1.3


0.8


1.0


9.8 9.5


9.5 2.3


9.5 2.8


10.0


6.0


0.5


10.0 2.0


6.0 1.8


7.8 2.3


9.3


3.8


1.8


10.0 9.8 10.0 1.3 9.8 9.5 9.0 9.3


7.0 6.0 7.5 5.0 10.0 10.0 0 0


5.8 1.5 5.5 4.0 9.3 9.8 2.5 2.5


3263


677


1108


- 24 -





Page 2 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
TRT RATE
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A
a.i.
11 Hoelon 3E 1.0
Blazer 2LCS 0.5


- New Compounds (continued)
-------A_ .1A! -7 O DAiPTk Q_'9 -7Sa VTVTTn


HOW RATED 6-17-78


APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB


EP 2.8
EP


SICK PIG RED


PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK RED PIG BEG PEA CRAB CF


9.3 9.8 4.5 9.5 6.3 3.0 9.5 9.3 5.3 7.5


9.8 9.5 3.0 7.0 8.3


SICK BEG LBS/A
10-3-78
1.8 1.5 800


12 Hoelon 3E 1.0 EP
Blazer 2LCS 0.5 EP +
10


13 Hoelon 3E
Basagran 4E

14 Check --


1.0 9.0 9.5 4.8


2.0 EP 0.8 10.0
.1.0 EP +

--- -- 1.0 0


9.3 9.0 1.0


10.0 3.3 3.0 8.0 1.5


8.5 9.5 4.8


9.5 9.3 2.5


9.0 9.0 9.8 2.3 7.5 7.5 0


7.5 3.0 8.0 3.5 8.0 9.5 0


0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 0


0 1170


0 770


0 0 0 862


15 Blazer 2LCS 2.0 AC 2.0 9.3 10.0 7.3 10.0 10.0 2.8


16 Blazer 2LCS 0.5

17 Blazer 2LCS 1.0


18 Balan
Blazer
Dyanap

19 Balan
Blazer
Dyanap

20 Balan
Blazer
Blazer


1.5E 1.5
2LCS 0.5
3E 4.5

1.5E 1.5
2LCS 1.0
3E 4.5

1.5E 1.5
2LCS 0.5
2LCS 0.5


21 Balan 1.5E 1.5
EL171 4L p.2


EP 2.3 6.5 7.5 5.5 9.5 9.8 2.3

EP 4.0 8.8 8.8 5.5 10.0 9.8 3.8


PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
EP
LP

PPI
AC


22 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI
EL171 4L 0.3 AC


0 9.3 10.0 8.5 10.0 10.0 0.5


8.5 9.3 6.5

6.5 6.3 5.3

8.0 9.5 5.8

9.5 9.5 7.8


0.3 9.8 10.0 8.8 10.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0


1.8 10.0 10.0 5.8 9.3 9.0 2.0 10.0 10.0



3.0 10.0 10.0 6.5 9.5 9.8 2.8 10.0 10.0


4.3 10.0 10.0 6.5 10.0 9.3 3.3 10.0 10.0


8.8 10.0 9.5 1.5 9.5 4.5 4.0

8.3 9.3 9.3 4.8 6.3 4.5 0

8.3 0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0

9.0 9.8 9.3 1.5 10.0 10.0 6.3


8.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 1.0 10.0 10.0 4.8


7.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 9.8 0



6.5 8.8 9.8 10.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 0


6.5 8.3 9.8 9.5 2.8 10.0 10.0 0


4.3


Continued ---


- 25 -


1909


0 1077

0 831


2494


3078


0 1201



0 1724


0 1508


rRATED V- 5-~_


Jt.\C\ S UJ -L I V


L~YYU




Page 3 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS New Compounds (continued)
TRT RATE HOW RATED 6-17-78 RATED 6-25-78 RATED 8-25-78 YIELD
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG RED PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK RED PIG BEG PEA CRAB CF SICK BED LBS/A


23 Balan
EL171


a.i. 10-3-78
1.5E 1.5 PPI 6.8 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.3 10.0 10.0 7.3 9.3 10.0 10.0 2.0 10.0 9.5 1.5 2.3 1939
4E 0.4 AC


0 0 0 0


0 0 3.0 0


0 0 0 0 0 5.0 0 0


0 0 493


LSD @ 5%


1.0 1.2 1.2 2.3 2.7 2,5 0.9 1.3 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.1 3.9 2.3 3.6 4.8


829


IEP + 10 = Early Post plus 10 days.

Summary: Lasso + Dyanap AC, Balan + Vernam PPI + Lasso + Dyanap AC + Basagram LP and Balan + Vernam PPI + Hoelon + Dyanap
AC + Basagran LP provided good to excellent full season weed control and the highest yields in this test. Balan
PPI + Blazer + Dyanap AC gave good early season control but allowed sicklepod and beggarweed to become late season
problems. EL171 caused severe peanut injury and neither it nor WEJ0787 adequately controlled sicklepod or beggar-
weed.


- 26 -


24 Check





Page 1 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
Herbicide Combinations I


TRT RATE -


TRT RATE WHE RATED 6-15-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG BEG


PEA CRAB GOO0


1.0 9.5 9.5 9.0 10.0 9.8 0.8 9.5 10.0 9.0


RATED 6-25-78 RATED 8-25-78 YIELD
E SICK RED PIG SFM BEG PEA CRAB SICK BEG LBS/A
10-2-78


9.8 9.5 9.3 10.0 4.5 7.0 6.5 6.8


2 Antor 4E 2
Premerge 3E 1.5


3 Balan
Sonalan
Dyanap

4 Balan
Sonalan
Dyanap

5 Balan
Sonalan
Dyanap

6 Sonalan
Sonalan
Dyanap

7 Sonalan
Lasso
Dyanap

8 Balan
Sonalan
Premerge


1.5E
4E
3E

1.5E
4E
3E


1.5
1
4.5


AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC


1.5 PPI
1.5 AC
4.5 AC


1.5E 1.5 PPI
4E 2 AC
3E 9 AC


4E
4E
3E


.75
1
4.5


PPI
AC
AC


.75 PPI
2 AC
4.5 AC


1.5E
4E
3E


1.5
1
1.5


PPI
AC
AC


2.0 9.8 9.8 8.3


1.0 9.5 9.5 6.8


1.0 10.0 10.0 8.0


9.8 9.8 1.8


9.8 9.5 0.5



9.8 10.0 0.8


0,5 10.0 10.0 8.0 9.8 9.8 0.3


9.5 10.0 7.5


9.8 9.8 7.8


9.3 9.5 7.5


8.8 9.0 7.3


0.3 10.0 10.0 7.3 10.0 9.3 0.5 8.8 8.8 6.5


1.5 10.0 10.0 9.3 10.0 10.0 0.5 10.0 10.0


1.3 9.8


9.8 7.5 9.0 9.3 1.0 9.5 9.5


8.8


9.8 9.8 8.8 10.0 3.0 8.0 6.0


8.8 9.8 9.8 10.0 5.8 9.0 2.5


9.3 8.5 9.8 10.0 4.8 9.8 3.5


9.8


8.3


9.0 8.8 9.3 8.8 3.8 10.0 6.0


9.3 8.8 7.5 9.0 4.8 9.8 3.3 7.3


10.0 9.8 9.3 9.3 2.5 7.5 7.3


7.0 9.8 8.5 7.3


2617


3171


2093


2432


2647


2647


3663


9.5 4.3 9.8 3.3 7.5 3755


9 Butam 6E
Premerge 3E


2 AC
1.5 AC


10 Butam 6E 2 AC
Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC


1.8 9.0 9.0 8.8 9.0 9.5 0 7.8 8.3


1.0 8.3 9.0 7.8 9.0 9.5 1.3


Continued ---


7.0 9.3 7.8 8.8


9.5 4.3 5.8 4.8


8.8 10.0 6.8 9.8 9.3 9.0 9.8 5.0 4.5 3.3


8.0


8.5


1785


1385


- 27 -


1 Antor
Dyanap


a.i.
4E 2
3E 4.5




Page 2 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS Hei
TRT RATE WHEN
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.


11 Balan
Amiben
Premerge

12 Check

13 Balan
Amiben
Dyanap


Balan
Amiben
Premerge
Premerge
Premerge

Balan
Amiben
Dyanap
Premerge
Premerge

Balan
Lasso
Premerge


17 Balan
Lasso
Dyanap

18 Balan
Lasso
Dyanap
2,4-DB


a.i,
1.5E 1.5
2E 2
3E 1.5


PPI
AC
AC


rbicide Combinations I (continued)


RATED 6-15-78


PEA GOOSE CRAB


RATED 6-25-78


SICK PIG BEG


PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK RED


1.0 9.5 9.5 8.8 9.5 9.5 0.5 8.5 8.8 7.8


PIG SFM


RATED 8-25-78 YIELD
BEG PEA CRAB SICK BEG LBS/A
10-2-78


9.3 9.3 7.3 9.5 3.5 5.0 5.5 8.0


- --- 0.5 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.8 0 0


1.5E 1.5
2E 2
3E 4.5


1.5E
2E
3E
3E
3E

1.5E
2E
3E
3E
3E

1.5E
4E
3E

1.5E
4E
3E


1.5
2
1.5
.75
.75

1.5
2
4.5
.75
.75

1.5
2
1.5

1.5
2
4.5


1.5E 1.5
4E 2
3E 4.5
2E .25


PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC
EP
LP

PPI
AC
AC
EP
LP

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC
EP


0.8 9.8 10.0 8.3 9.8 9.8 .3 9.5 9.3



1.3 10.0 10.0 8.5 10.0 9.8 1.3 9.8 9.8






1.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0 10.0 1.5 10.0 10.0


1.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.3 10.0 10.0


0.8 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.8 9.8 0 9.3 9.3


0.8 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 9.8 0.5 10.0 10.0


9.3 9.0 8.0 9.5 3.8 9.8 5.5



9.8 9.5 10.0 9.8 3.3 9.8 6.3


8.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.3 10.0 7.3


9.3 .9.8 9.8 9.5 8.8 1.5 9.8 9.0


8.6 9.8 9.5 9.0 8.5 3.5 10.0 5.5


9.6 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.3 1.5 10.0 9.0


Continued ---


- 28 -


2.3


2924


1047

3201



3509






3879


4002


3540


7.3


3879




Page 3 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS Herbicide Combinations I (continued)


TRT RATE WHEN RATED 6-15-78 RATED 6-25-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG BEG PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK RED PIG SFM BEG


a.i.
1.5
2
4.5
.75
.75


PPI 1.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.3 10.0 10.0 8.9
AC
AC
EP
LP


10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0


RATED 8-25-78 YIELD
PEA CRAB SICK BEG LBS/A
10-2-78
0.8 10.0 8.0 9.8


20 Balan
Lasso
Alanap
2,4-DB

21 Prowl
Lasso
Dyanap

22 Prowl
Lasso
Dyanap

23 Prowl
Prowl
Dyanap

24 Prowl
Vernam
Lasso
Dyanap


1.5 PPI
2 AC
1 EP
.25 EP

.75 PPI
2 AC
4.5 AC


1
2
4.5

.75
.75
4.5

.75
2.5
2
4.5


25 Prowl 4E 1
Dyanap 3E 4.5

26 Prowl 4E 1
Premerge 3E 4.5


27 Check


PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
PPI
AC
AC

AC
AC

AC
AC


1.5 9.8 10.0


6.5 9.8 9.5 0.8 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 3.3 9.8 5.8 7.0


1.5 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0


2.3 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0 9.8 1.0 9.8 10.0



.5 9.8 10.0 8.3 10.0 9.5 0.5 10.0 10.0



1.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0




1.3 8.8 9.3 9.0 9.8 9.5 0.5 9.3 9.8


1.8 9.0 9.3 8.5 9.8 9.0 1.3 8.5 9.5


9.1 10.0 10.0


8.9 9.8 10.0



7.5 10.0 9.8



9.1 10.0 10.0




8.3 9.5 9.8


8.0 9.5 8.5


9.8 9.3 2.5 10.0 7.8


9.5 9.5 3.0 10.0 6.3



8.5 8.3 5.3 10.0 3.8



9.8 10.0 1.0 9.5 9.0




9.3 9.5 3.3 9.5 6.0


8.5 7.0 4.5 7.5 6.3


- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 0 0


kSD @ 5% 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3
EP = 6-12-78 and LP = 6-23-78 for this test, only.


1.5


1.0 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.9 3.0 2.1


- 90 -


Balan
Lasso
Dyanap
Premerge
Premerge


1.5E
4E
3E
3E
3E


3417


3540


3571



2463



4125




3263


2186


585

1340


6.8


7.3



1.8



8.3




7.8


2.8


0

4.7





Page 3 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS Herbicide Combinations I (continued):


Summary:


Balan PPI + Lasso + Dyanap AC + two Post applications of Premerge
resulted in very good to excellent broad spectrum, full season weed
control and the highest yield of any of the 1978 peanut herbicide
treatments. Similar results were observed in 1977. Other treatments
which provided good weed control and high yields included Lasso +
Dyanap AC with either Balan, Sonalan or Prowl + Vernam PPI, Balan
PPI plus Amiben + Dyanap AC plus two Post applications of Premerge
and Balan PPI plus Lasso + Dyanap AC plus 2,4-DB EP.


- 29A -





Page 1 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
Herbicide Combinations II


TRT RATE HOW RATED 6-17-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG RED PEA


a.i. ___ _
1 Balan 1.5E 1.5 PPI 4.0 8.5 8.3 5.5 8.3 7.8 3.0 8.0
GCP4417 25W 0.25 EP


2 Balan
GCP4417

3 Balan
GCP4417

4 Balan
GCP4417

5 RE19698
Dyanap

6 RE19698
Dyanap

7 Lasso
Paraquat
X77

8 Lasso
Paraquat
X77

9 Lasso
Paraquat
X77

10 Lasso
Paraquat
X77

11 Dual


1.5E
25W

1.5E
25W

1.5E
25W

3E
3E

3E
3E

4E
2E


4E
2E


4E
2E


4E
2E


1.5
0.5

1.5
1.0

1.5
0.5

0.5
4.5

1.0
4.5

2.0
.125
.06%

2.0
0.25
.06%

2.0
.125
.06%

2.0
.25


PPI
EP

PPI
EP

PPI
EP

AC
AC

AC
AC

AC
AC
AC

AC
AC
AC

EP
EP
EP

EP
EP


6.8


9.3


7.0


0


1.0


1.5


9.5


10.0


9.5


7.5


8.8


9.3


9.8


10.0


9'. 5


6.8


8.8


9.5


10.0


10.0


10.0


9.3


9.8


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


9.8


10.0


5.8


8.8


5.5


0.3


1.3


1.5


RATED 8-28-78


JR GOOSE SICK PIG BEG


8.0 4.3 4.5 9.8 5.3


8.5 7.0 8.8 10.0 4.5


9.5 8.8 9.5 10.0 7.3


9.0 6.3 8.0 10.0 4.5


7.5 7.5 8.3 9.0 4.8


8.8 7.5 8.5 10.0 4.5


9.5 8.8 9.0 9.3 3.8


9.3


9.5


8.3


7.3


9.0


9.0


3.3 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 2.8 9.8



4.5 9.0 9.5 9.3 9.8 9.8 3.3 8.3



6.5 9.3 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 5.3 8.8


PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK BEG


8.8 9.0


7.3


3.8


7.8


6.8


7.0


9.5


9.0


5.8


9.0


8.3


8.0


8.3


10.0 9.3 9.3 10.0 2.8 8.5 7.0



10.0 9.0 9.8 10.0 2.5 9.3 9.3


I JL.Ll
JR LBS/A


10-2-78
0.3 8.5 9.0 1200


3.8


4.8


1.8


4.0


4.5


7.0


10.0


8.3


10.0


7.3


10.0


7.0


8.0


5.8


7.5


8.8


7.8


7.3


7.3 8.5 9.5


7.0 8.3 8.3 .3325


10.0 8.8 9.5 9.3 4.0 9.5 9.0 5.8 5.8 6.8


.06% EP


8E 2.0 PPI 1.0 10.0 10.0 4.8 8.5 9.3 0.8 9.5


Continued ---


9.5 2.3 5.5


8.5 6.0 8.8 9.3 0.3 8.8 9.3 1539


- 30 -


2000


646


1508


2001


3078


3048



3786


1724


WEE CONRO IN PEANUTS ""


RATED 6-25-78




Page 2 of 3


WEED CONTROL. IN PEANUTS


TRT
NO.


- Herbicide Combinations II (continued)


RATE HOW


CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE


12 Dual 8E

13 Dual 8E
Dyanap 3E

14 Dual 8E
Dyanap 3E


15 Dual
Dual
Dyanap

16 Dual
Dual
Dyanap
Dual

17 Dual
Dual
Dyanap

18 Check

19 Check

20 Balan
Lasso
Dyanap


a.i.
2.0


2.0 AC
4.5 AC

3.0 AC
4.5 AC

2.0 PRE
2.0 AC
4.5 AC


2.0
2.0
4.5
2.0


PRE
AC
AC
LB


2.0 PPI
2.0 AC
4.5 AC


0.5 9.3


RATED 6-17-78


CRAB SICK PIG RED PEA JR


RATED 6-25-78


GOOSE SICK


9.5 4.8 7.0 9.0 0.5 9.3 9.0


0.8 9.8 9.8 9.0 10.0 10.0 1.0 9.5 9.8


0.5 10.0 10.0 9.3 10.0 10.0 0.6 9.8 10.0


0.8 9.8 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 0.3 9.8 10.0


0.5 10.0 10.0 8.8 10.0 10.0 0.3 10.0 10.0


0.8 10.0 10.0 8.3 10.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0


S -- 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


1.5E 1.5
4E 2.0
3E 4.5


21 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E


22 Dual
Dual
Dyanap
Dual


PPI
AC
AC


2 AC
4.5 AC


2.0
2.0
4.5
2.0


PPI
AC
AC
LB


PIG BEG


4.8 5.3 9.3 5.0

8.0 9.3 9.8 3.3


9.3 9.5 9.8 2.3


8.5 10.0 10.0 2.3


8.5 9.8 10.0 1.5


8.5 10.0 9.5 3.8


RATED 8-28-78
PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK BEG


YIELD
JR LBS/A
10-2-78


9.5 9.8 1.0 9.8 9.3 1816


8.8 10.0


10.0 10.0


10.0 10.0


10.0 10.0


9.5 9.8


5.8 8.5


9.5 3509


6.5 8.8 10.0


6.0 9.5 9.8


6.8 9.5 10.0


4.5 8.8 10.0


3817


3632


4217


3355


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 1047

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 862


0.8 9.8 10.0 8.3 10.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0



0.8 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.8 10.0 0.8 10.0 10.0


0.5 10.0 10.0 8.8 10.0 10.0 0.5 10.0 10.0


8.3 10.0 9.8 2.8


8.8 10.0 9.8 1.5


9.0 10.0 10.0 2.3


9.8 10.0 5.8 8.8 10.0 3663


10.0 10.0


10.0 10.0


7.0 8.5 10.0


6.5 9.0 10.0


3970


3755


Continued ---


- 31 -


WEED CNTROL N PEANTS Hrbicid CombiationsII continued





Page 3 of 3


~ih'PTn ('TanVPA TUT P~~~T


- 4prhjcjdp Combinaltions II (continued)


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL FORM

23 Basalin 4E
Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E
Basagran 4E


24 Basalin
Dual
Dyanap
Basagran

25 Basalin
Amiben
Dyanap
Basagran


II- --------- --.


.75 PPI 0.3 9.8 10.0 9.0 9.8 10.0 0.8 9.8 9.8 8.5 10.0
2 AC
4.5 AC
.75 LP


10.0 2.5 9.3 9.3 6.0 9.5 9.5


3232


LSD @ 5%


1.4 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.5


Summary: Several treatments in this test exhibited good broad spectrum weed control and good peanut yields; however, most
of these allowed sicklepod to become a late season problem. Among the best treatments were combinations including
Dual plus Dyanap AC and Lasso + Dyanap AC. Lasso (2 Ibs/A) plus Paraquat at 0.25 Ib/A AC and Lasso plus Paraquat
at 0.125 lbs/A EP also provided good weed control and high peanut yields even though the Paraquat caused early
season crop injury. GCP4417 was weak on sicklepod and caused severe crop injury.


- Herbicide Combinaions II (continued


RATE HOW RATED 6-17-78 RATED 6-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD
LBS/A APP. PEA GOOSE CRAB SICK PIG RED PEA JR GOOSE SICK PIG BEG PEA CRAB GOOSE SICK BEG JR LBS/A
a.i. __10-2-78
.75 PPI 2.0 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.8 9.5 1.5 10.0 10.0 9.3 10.0 10.0 1.3 10.0 10.0 7.3 9.0 10.0 3755
2 AC
4.5 AC
.75 LP

.75 PPI 1.0 9.8 9.8 8.8. 10.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 8.3 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 5.3 9.8 9.8 3509
2 AC
4.5 AC
.75 LP






Page 1 of 2


-RT


rRT
1O. CHEMICAL FORM

1 Dyanap 3E


2 Lasso

3 Lasso
Dyanap

4 Lasso
Dyanap
Lasso I3

5 Lasso
Dyanap
Lasso II

6 Lasso
Dyanap
Lasso II

7 Lasso II

8 Lasso II

9 Lasso II

LO Check
(Balan 4

L1 Bladex2

L2 Bladex

L3 Bladex

L4 Lasso
Dyanap
3ladex2,

L5 Lasso
Dyanap
Bladex

16 Lasso
Dyanap
Bladex

L7 Amiben

L8 Amiben
Dyanap


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
Postemergence Granules for Florida BeRgarweed Control


RATE WHEN
LBS/A APP.
a.i.
4.5 AC


3.0

3.0
4.5

3.0
4.5
3.0

3.0
4.5
3.0

3.0
4.5
3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0


Vernam)

15G 3.0

5G 1.0

5G 1.0

4E 3.0
3E 4.5
315G 3.0

4E 3.0
3E 4.5
5G 1.0

4E 3.0
3E 4.5
5G 1.0

2E 2.0

2E 2.0
3E 4.5


RATED 6-19-78
PEA BEG CVM


0.3


AC 1.0

AC 1.5
AC

AC 1.8
AC
4WAP

AC 1.8
AC
6WAP

AC 1.3
AC
8WAP

4WAP 0.3

6WAP 0

8WAP 0

---- 0.5


4WAP 3.0

6WAP 0.3

8WAP 0

AC 6.3
AC
4WAP

AC 1.3
AC
6WAC

AC 2.0
AC
8WAP

AC 0

AC 1.3
AC


8.8

7.5

9.0


RATED 7-14-78
PEA BEG


0.8

2.3

2.0


5.5

4.5

6.3


9.8 9.5 2.0



8.3 7.5 1.8



8.3 9.8 1.0


2.8

1.8

0

0.5


9.3

0

1.0

10.0


4.8

4.3

3.5

2.8


9.3

5.0

2.3

7.5


RATED 8-25-78 BEG YIELD
PEA BEG Counts1 LBS/A


4.5

4.8

3.0


8.8 1.5



8.5 1.5



7.5 2.8


3.0

2.8

3.0

4.0


5.3

5.3

5.8

6.0


8.5

3.0

1.3

10.0


7.8 9.5 1.5



8.8 8.5 1.3



8.8 8.5 1.3

9.0 9.3 1.5


8.3 2.8



7.5 2.3



6.5 3.3

7.0 3.3


7-21-78 10-1-78
4.8 9.3 2789


3.5 11.3

5.9 8.0


1578

2624


7.5 0.3 3878



7.6 3.8 3586



6.3 1.5 3410


2.0

2.5

2.5

0


9.1

3.5

1.8

8.8


16.5

15.5

16.3

24.3


0.5

9.3

18.0

0


766

885

874

1004


3456

1709

839

1671


6.4 2.0 3548



7.0 3.8 4054



6.0 4.3 3219

6.0 4.3 3093


continuedd ---


- 33 -






Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS Postemergence Granules for Florida Beggarweed Control (continued)


TRT
NO.


CHEMICAL FORM


19 Amiben 2E


RATE WHEN RATED 6-19-78 RATED 7-14-78 RATED 8-25-78
LBS/A APP. PEA BEG CVM PEA BEG PEA BEG


a.i.
2.0 AC 1.3


Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC
Amiben 10G 2.0 4WAP


9.5 9.5 1.5


10.0 0


9.7


20 Amiben
Dyanap
Amiben

21 Amiben
Dyanap
Amiben


2E 2.0 AC 1.0
3E 4.5 AC
10G 2.0 6WAP

2E 2.0 AC 1.5
3E 4.5 AC
10G 2.0 8WAP


9.0 8.3 0.8



9.0 8.3 1.3


22 Amiben 10G 2.0 4WAP 0 2.5 6.8 3.3


23 Amiben


10G 2.0 6WAP 0


0 6.3 2.8


24 Amiben 10G 2.0 8WAP 0 1.0 5.5 2.3

25 Bladex 4L 1.0 AC 4.0 7.3 8.8 2.5


1.5 5.3

3.5 5.3

3.8 5.3

6.5 4.0


2.3 13.3

3.5 12.0


4.5 11.5


LSD @ 5%

lAverage of counts from
2Treatment was intended i


0.9 2.0 4.5 1.5 1

six 2 ft2 areas per plot.
:o be 5G at 1 Ib/A: however


.9 1.4


, was actually 15G at 3 Ibs/A.


3Error in application tended to concentrate herbicide directly over the peanut rows
resulting in much more severe crop injury than was observed in Treatment 11. The
added injury was not due to any interaction with the Lasso + Dyanap AC treatment.

Summary: This study was initiated to determine the effect of postemergence granular
herbicide applications on Florida beggarweed and was conducted in cooperation
with W. L. Currey and D. H. Teem. Application of Lasso granules following
Lasso + Dyanap AC or Amiben granules following Amiben + Dyanap AC provided
a significant increase in beggarweed control over the AC treatments alone.
The 4 Week After Planting treatments gave the best results while the granular
application without the AC treatment did not provide adequate control. This
occurred because both the Lasso and Amiben granules have no postemergence
activity and therefore, must be present before beggarweed emergence. Bladex
granules also gave good control of beggarweed and good peanut yields. Reduction
in yield from crop injury was not observed even at 3 Ibs/A when the granules
were properly applied.


- 34 -


BEG
Counts
7-21-78
0


YIELD
LBS/A
10-1-78
4131


9.3 1.8



9.3 1.0


1.5



0.5


3947



3694


1487

1901

2015

915


---~-





Page 1 of 2


CRT RATE
~0. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A


1 Bladex 80W
Bladex 5G


WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
Programs for Florida Beggarweed Control
WHEN RATED 6-21-78 RATED 7-14-78 RATED 8-25-78
APP. PEA BEG CVM SFM PEA BEG PEA BEG


a.i.
1.0 PRE
1.0 6WAP


2 Bladex 80W 1.0 PRE
Bladex 5G 1.5 6WAP

3 Bladex 80W 1.0 PRE
Bladex 5G 2.0 6WAP

4 Bladex 80W 1.0 PRE
Bladex 5G 2.5 6WAP

5 Bladex 80W 1.0 PRE
Bladex 5G 3.0 6WAP


6 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

7 Amiben 2E
Dyanap 3E


2.0 AC
1.5 AC

2.0 AC
4.5 AC


0.5 8.3 7.8 8.0 0.8


0.8 8.0 9.3 8.0 1.5


0.3 8.8 9.5 8.8 2.0


0.3 8.3 9.0 7.5 1.3


1.0 8.3 7.8 7.3 2.5


1.8 8.3 5.3 6.0 2.5


1.0 9.0 7.8 8.3 0.8


8 Check -- --- -- 0 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.8


9 Vegiben 2E
Premerge 3E

10 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

11 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

12 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Amiben G

13 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Amiben G

14 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Amiben G

15 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Amiben G

Continued ---


2.0
1.5


AC 1.0 7.8 8.3 8.3 2.3
AC


1.5 AC
.75 AC

2.0 2WAC
.75 2WAC


2.0
.75
2.0


2WAC
2WAC
4WAC


2.0 AC
1.5 AC
2.0 2WAC


2.0
1.5
2.0


AC
AC
4WAC


2.0 AC
1.5 AC
2.0 6WAC


0.5 8.3 7.5 6.8 1.5


2.3 9.0 9.8 9.8 1.5


2.5 9.3 9.5 9.5 2.3


1.8 9.0 5.5 8.0 1.3


1.0 8.3 6.8 6.8 1.3


1.0 7.0 6.5 6.8 0.8


8.0 2.5


6.8 3.8


9.8 1.0


9.5 1.5


9.8 0


6.0 4.8


7.8 3.3


1.0 6.8

5.5 5.3


5.8 4.8


8.3 3.0


8.8 1.8


8.0 3.3


6.8 4.5


7.0 4.5


6.8


BEG
Counts1
7-21-78
2.8


5.4 5.0


YIELD
LBS/A
10-1-78
3161


2900


9.3 0 3639


8.5 0 3386


9.5 0 3725


4.0 6.5


5.8 4.5


0 22.0

3.8 9.5


4.3 9.0


6.5 1.5


7.5 1.0


6.4 3.8


4.4 6.8


4.0 4.5


1869


3654


462

2339


3131


3977


4279


3423


2792


3084


- 35 -






Page 2 of 2


t.EEI) CONTROLL TN PEANUTS


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL FORM

16 Lasso 4E
Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

17 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Lasso G
Amiben G

18 Lasso 4E
Premerge 3E


19 Lasso
Amiben
Premerge
Lasso II


4E
2E
3E
15G


- Programs for Florida Beggarweed Control (continued)


RATE WHEN RATED 6-21-78 RATED 7-14-78 RATED 8-25-78
LBS/A APP. PEA BEG CVM SFM PEA BEG PEA BEG


a.i.
2.0 AC
2.0 AC
.75 AC


AC
AC
6WAC
6WAC


2.0 AC
1.5 AC


AC
AC
AC
LB


2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0


20 Check


LSD @ 5%


1.8 8.8 6.8 9.0 1.5


2.3 8.8 4.5 8.3 1.8


1.5 6.0 7.0 9.0 3.3


2.0 9.0 6.8 8.5 1.8


0.3 1.8 5.0 4.5 3.5

1.0 2.2 4.2 3.0 1.3


4.3


6.0 4.8


8.8 3.3


4.3 5.8


7.5 4.3


0 6.8

1.6 1.6


BEG
Counts
7-21-78
8.0


6.4 2.5


2.5 13.3


4.5 7.0


0 12.0

1.9 5.0


YIELD
LBS/A
10-1-78
3186


3632


1832


2694


1191


1Average of four 2 ft2 areas per plot.

Summary: A split application of Bladex 80W PRE at 1 Ib/A followed by Bladex 5G 6 weeks later
at 2 to 3 lbs/A gave very good Florida beggarweed control. While some crop injury
was observed after the postemergence application, the peanuts rapidly recovered.
Amiben + Premerge 2WAC plus Amiben 4WAC also exhibited good beggarweed control
and was the highest yielding treatment. Other treatments which provided good
early season beggarweed control but allowed some late season weed growth to
occur included Amiben + Premerge 2WAC, Amiben + Dyanap AC, Amiben + Premerge
AC plus Amiben 2WAC and Amiben + Premerge AC plus Lasso + Amiben 6WAC.


- 36 -


WEE COTRL I PF T









WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS
Extend Study


IRT RATE WHEN RATED 6-25-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA BEG SFM


1 Lasso 4E


a.i.
1.0 AC 2.3


Dyanap 3E 4.5 AC


2 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E

3 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E

4 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E
Extend2 -

5 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E
Extend --

6 Lasso 4E
Dyanap 3E
Extend --

7 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

8 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E

9 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Extend --

10 Amiben 2E
Premerge 3E
Extend --


LSD
iMean of four
2Extend mixed


2.0 AC
4.5 AC

3.0 AC
4.5 AC

1.0 AC
4.5 AC


2.0 AC
4.5 AC


3.0 AC
4.5 AC


1.0 AC
1.5 AC

2.0 AC
1.5 AC

1.0 AC
1.5 AC


2.0 AC
1.5 AC


0 s%


RATED 7-14-78
PEA BEG


5.3 8.5 2.0


2.5 6.5 9.0 2.0


2.8 6.8 9.3 2.3


2.0 6.3 9.0 1.8



2.5 5.8 9.0 1.8



3.3 7.3 9.3 2.3



1.8 4.3 8.3 2.3


2.5 5.8 8.0 1.8


2.2 5.8 8.3 2.8



2.3 6.0 8.3 2.0


0 0 0 4.3

0.8 1 5 0.9 1 0


- 2-ft2 areas per plot.
with commercial formulation at


herbicide ingredient.


RATED 8-25-78 BEG
PEA BEG Counts1


6.3 5.3


6.3 6.0


6.8 4.8


6.0 5.3



7.0 5.5



7.5 5.3



4.5 6.3


6.8 5.5


4.8 6.3



6.8 5.3


0 6.8

1.5 1.1


7-20-78 10-1-78
3.3 7.8 1616


2.5 6.8


4.3 7.5


3.0 7.0



3.0 8.3



3.8 2.8



1.0 9.5


3.5 4.8


1.8 12.3



2.5 6.5


0 15.0

1.8 4.2


a ratio of 1 gal. Extend to 20 Ibs. active


Summary: This study was conducted to determine whether Extend, a material used to slow
applied nitrogen loss from the soil through encapsulation, could lengthen the
period of beggarweed control obtained with Lasso and Amiben. No differences in
beggarweed control between plots treated with Extend and those treated with the
herbicides alone were observed. However, the moisture conditions that prevailed
during the 1978 growing season were conducive to rapid herbicide leaching and
may have masked any effect of the Extend.


- 37 -


YIELD
LBS/A


1939


2093


2086



1755



2501



1693


1955


1208



1755


11 Check












NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN PEANUTS
TRT RATE ,WHEN RATED 6-25-78 YIELD
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. PEA NUT CRAB FM LBS/A
a.i.
I Dowco 295 6E 1.5 PPI 0.5 6.5 9.0 1.5 923


2 Dowco 295 6E 2.0

3 Dowco 295 6E 3.0

4 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Dowco 295 6E 1.5

5 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Dowco 295 6E 2.0

6 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Dowco 295 6E 3.0

7 Dowco 295 6E 1.5
Lasso 4E 2.0
Premerge 3E 1.5

8 Dowco 295 6E 2.0
Lasso 4E 2.0
Premerge 3E 1.5

9 Dowco 295 6E 3.0
Lasso 4E 2.0
Premerge 3E 1.5

10 Vernam 7E 2.5

11 Herc26910 4E 3.0

12 Herc26910 4E 6.0

13 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Lasso 4E 2.0
Dyanap 3E 4.5
Basagran 4E 1.5

14 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Lasso 4E 2.0
Dyanap 3E 4.5
Basagran 4E .75

15 Balan 7E 2.5
Vernam 1.5E 1.5

16 Balan 1.5E 1.5
Vernam 7E 2.5
Lasso 4E 2.0
Premerge 3E 1.5

17 Blazer 2LCS 3.0
Balan 1.5E 1.5
Blazer 2LCS 1.0

18 Blazer 2LCS 3.0
Balan 1.5E 1.5
Blazer 2LCS .5
Blazer 2LCS .5

19 Check ---

20 Check --- --

LSD @ 5%


Summary:


PPI 0.5 7.5 8.3 6.0

PPI 0.8 8.8 8.5 3.8

PPI 0.3 7.3 9.8 9.8
PPI

PPI 0.3 8.5 10.0 9.5
PPI

PPI 0.5 8.3 10.0 9.8
PPI

PPI 1.0 7.8 9.8 9.8
AC
AC

PPI 1.3 7.3 9.8 10.0
AC
AC

PPI 1.0 9.5 9.5 10.0
AC
AC

PPI 0.3 8.0 9.5 9.3

PPI 0.8 8.8 6.5 9.3

PPI 1.0 8.5 9.5 10.0

PPI 0.5 7.5 10.0 10.0
AC
AC
EP

PPI 0.8 7.8 10.0 10.0
AC
AC
EP

PPI 0.3 9.3 9.8 9.5
PPI

PPI 1.5 8.5 10.0 10.0
PPI
AC
AC

PPI 2.5 6.3 10.0 10.0
PPI
EP

PPI 2.5 6.0 10.0 10.0
PPI
EP
LP

-- 0 0 0


962

731

1000


1347


1655


1347



1462



1616



924

1616

1154

2578




2039




1462


2540




2463



2501


693


0 0 0 0 616

1.0 2.7 1.6 2.3 1104


Dowco 295 and Herc26910 were comparable with Vernam for nutsedge
control. Yield differences were due to competition from weeds other
than nutsedge in most cases.


- 38 -










NO. WEEDS
PER 10' ROW

0

1

2

4

6

8

10

12


PEANUT
YIELD
(LBS/A)
2956

2715

2758

2425

2240

2139

1979


BRISTLY STARBUR COMPETITION IN PEANUTS
YIELD % REDUCTION
LOSS COMPARED TO
(LBS/A) CONTROL
-- ....


241


1737 1219


LSD @ 5% 391

1With value of peanuts at $420/ton.

Summary: Bristly starbur is a weed which is becoming a serious problem
in northwest Florida. A competition study was conducted to
determine the effect of this weed on peanut yields. A significant
reduction in yield (18%) occurs with 4 plants per 10 feet of
peanut row. These results indicate that bristly starbur can
cause serious peanut yield losses with a relatively light
infestation.


- 39 -


INCOME
LOST PER
ACRE1


$ 51.

$ 42.

$112.

$150.

$172.

$205.

$256.






Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS


TRT RATE
NO. CHEMICAL, FORM LBS/A
a.i.
1 Lasso 4E 2.0
WEJ 0787 70W 0.5


2 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
WEJ 0787 70W 1.0 PRE

3 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
WEJ 0787 70W 1.5 PRE

4 Lasso 4E 2.0 PRE
WEJ 0787 70W 2.0 PRE


5 Lasso 4E
Sencor 4L

6 Sencor 4L
Hoelon 3E


2.0 PRE
0.5 PRE

0.38 PRE
1.0 EP


7 Lorox 50W 1.5 PRE
Hoelon 3E 1.0 EP


8 Goal 2E
Hoelon 3E

9 Goal 2E
Hoelon 3E


0.25 PRE
1.0 EP

0.5 PRE
1.0 EP


10 Hoelon 3E 1.0
Blazer 2LCS 0.25


EP 0.7
EP + 101


11 Check

12 Check


13 Hoelon 3E 1.0 EP
Blazer 2LCS 0.5 EP + 10

14 Hoelon 3E 1.0 EP
Blazer 2LCS 1.0 EP + 10


15 Hoelon 3E
Basagran 4E


1.0 EP
1.0 EP + 10


16 Sencor 4L 0.38
HOE234082 2.36E0.63


17 Sencor 4L
Hoelon 3E

Continued ---


PRE
EP


0.38 PRE
0.63 EP


New Compounds I
WHEN RATED 7-27-78
APP. SOY PIG GOOSE

PRE 0 10.0 10.0
PRE


0 10.0 10.0


0.7 9.7 10.0


RATED 8-28-78
SOY CF GOOSE

0.2 10.0 9.7


0.7 10.0,10.0


0.2 10.0 10.0


2.0 9.2 9.7 1.2 9.3 9.3


0.7 10.0 9.7


0.2 10.0 9.7


1.0 10.0 9.3


0.2 10.0 10.0


0.2 9.7 9.3


1.0 9.3 9.3


1.2 8.7 8.7


0.7 10.0 10.0


1.7 9.7 10.0 0 9.3 8.7


9.7 9./


0 5.4 5.7

0.2 7.0 5.7


0.2 10.0 10.0


2.3 5.5 5.0

2.3 5.8 6.0


0 9.7 10.0 0 9.7 10.0


0.7 10.0 10.0


0.3 9.3 10.0


0.7 10.0 9.7


1.3 10.0 9.0


0 10.0 10.0


0.3 10.0 10.0


0.3 9.3 9.3


0.3 8.0 8.7


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-18-78
46.6


48.2


47.2


40.4


46.0


48.8


45.4


46.6


44.8


48.2


49.4

47.4

47.2


42.3


44.4


44.1


46.0


- 40 -






Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS New Compounds I (continued)


TRT RATE
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A


18 Sencor
HOE23408

19 Sencor
Hoelon

20 Sencor
Hoelon

21 Antor
Sencor

22 Antor
Lorox


a.i.
4L 0.38
2.36E0.75


4L 0.38 PRE
3E 0.75 EP

4L 0.38 PRE
3E 1.0 EP

4E 2.0 PRE
4L 0.5 PRE

4E 2.0 PRE
50W 1.5 PRE


23 Surflan 4AS 1.0 PRE
Basagran 4E 1.0 EP + 10

24 Surflan 4AS 1.0 PRE
Sencor 4L 0.5 PRE

LSD @ 5%

1EP + 10 = Early Post plus 10
2Pre-packaged mixture of HOE2:


WHEN RATED 7-27-78 RATED 8-28-78
APP. SOY PIG GOOSE SOY CF GOOSE

PRE 1.0 10.0 10.0 0.3 9.3 9.0
EP


0.3 10.0 9.7


0 9.3 10.0


0.3 0 10.0


0.3 10.0 10.0


0.3 9.0 3.3


0.3 7.0 4.0


1.3 1.4 2.0


days.
3408 plus


0 9.7 9.3


1.0 10.0 10.0


0 10.0 9.7


0.7 9.7 9.7


1.7 5.7 6.0


1.3 6.0 6.7


1.0 0.8 1.1


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-18-78
45.4


46.3


47.9


44.8


46.9


44.4


47.9


5.1


surfactant.


Application of Lasso + WEJ 0787 PRE, Goal PRE plus Hoelon EP,
Hoelon plus Blazer EP, Sencor PRE plus Hoelon EP, Hoelon plus
Basagran EP and Antor plus Sencor PRE as well as the standard
treatment of Lasso plus Sencor PRE provided excellent control
of those weeds present. The date of planting for this test was
later than for the other soybean experiments because the
original experimental area was flooded from extremely high
rainfall necessitating a replanting of the study in a different
location.


- 41 -


Summary:




Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
New Compounds II


RATED 7-7-78


NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG SICK


a. i.
1.0 PPI
0.5 PPI


GCP 6305
Sencor

GCP 6305
Sencor

GCP 6305
Sencor

GCP 6305
Sencor

GCP 6305
Sencor

GCP 6305
Sencor

Treflan
GCP 4417

Treflan
GCP 4417

Treflan
GCP 4417

Treflan
GCP 4417

Treflan
Blazer

Treflan
Blazer

Treflan


4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
25W

4E
25W

4E
25W

4E
25W

4E
2LCS

4E
2LCS


4E 0.5


0.3 10.0 9.8 8.8 10.0 10.0


2.0
0.5

4.0
0.5

1.0
0.5

2.0
0.5

4.0
0.5

0.5
0.25

0.5
0.5

0.5
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.5
0.38

0.5
0.5


PPI
PPI

PPI
PPI

PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE

PPI
EP

PPI
EP

PPI
EP

PPI
EP

PPI
EP

PPI
EP


0


1.0


0.8


0.5


0.5


0


1.0


2.5


0.3


0.5


0.5


PPI 1.3 10.0 10.0


9.8


10.0


8.0


9.3


9.3


9.8


9.8


10.0


9.8


9.5


9.8


RATED 7-27-78 RATED 8-28-78
AS SOY PIG SICK CRAB SOY CRAB SICK RED


9.8


10.0


8.3


8.9


9.0


9.6


9.3


9.8


9.8


9.5


9.8


8.5 10.0 10.0


9.4 10.0 10.0


9.0 10.0 8.0


7.5 9.5 10.0


8.8 9.8 10.0


7.5 9.8 9.8


9.3 7.8 5.8


9.3 8.5 8.0


9.8 9.8 7.3


10.0 8.3 6.5


9.3 7.3 9.0


9.3 7.5 8.5


9.5 7.0 9.5


0


0


1.0


0.5


1.0


0.8


0


1.5


1.3


0.8


0


0.3


0


9.3


8.8


7.3


7.8


7.5


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0


10.0 9.8 10.0


10.0


9.8


9.8


9.8


10.0


8.8


8.3


9.8


8.5


8.5


8.8


8.8


Blazer 2LCS0.75 EP


10.0


10.0


8.5


8.5


8.8


8.8


8.8


7.0


8.5


9.5


9.5


9.8


TRT


en !i1n-prid ---


RATE WHEN


10.0 9.8


9.8 10.0


10.0 9.8


10.0 9.5


10.0 9.5


10.0 8.3


10.0 8.5


10.0 9.3


10.0 8.8


10.0 8.0


10.0 8.5


10.0 9.3


10.0


10.0


9.8


10.0


10.0


9.8


9.5


10.0


10.0


10.0


9.8


9.8


---^


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-19-78
51.3


50.6


48.2


47.2


46.0


46.7


48.6


45.7


46.0


48.9


54.7


49.4


47.0


- A9 -




Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS New Compounds II (continued)


TRT RATE WHEN
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.


14 Treflan 4E 0.5
Goal 2E 0.3


PPI
8 PPI


RATED 7
SOY CRAB GOOSE


-7-78 RATED 7-27-78
PIG SICK AS SOY PIG SICK CRAB


0 9.5 9.5 6.8 7.0 9.0 0.5 8.3 8.0 0.5


RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
SOY CRAB SICK RED BU/A
10-19-78
0.3 10.0 8.5 8.5 47.0


15 Treflan 4E
Goal 2E

16 Check --

17 Lasso 4E
Premerge 3E
Goal 2E
AG98

18 Lasso 4E
Premerge 3E
Goal 2E
AG98

19 Lasso 4E
Premerge 3E
Goal 2E
2,4-DB 2E
AG98

20 Treflan 4E
Sencor 4L

21 Antor 4E
Premerge 3E

22 Antor 4E
Dyanap 3E


0.5 PPI
0.35 PRE


1.0
1.5
0.25
.5%

1.0
1.5
0.5
.5%

1.0
1.5
0.25
0.25
.5%


PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
DP
DP
DP


0.5 PPI
0.5 PPI

2.0 AC
1.0 AC

2.0 AC
3.0 AC


0.5 9.5 9.8 9.3 9.8


9.8 1.0 8.5 10.0 9.5


0 10.0 10.0 10.0


0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0.3 6.5 5.5 0 5.5 6.5 6.3

0.5 8.8 8.3 5.0 8.3 10.0 0.5 9.3 9.0 9.5 0 10.0 8.3 9.8


0.3 8.5 8.3 5.0 7.0 10.0 0.8


0.5 7.8 7.5 4.3 6.3


9.5 9.0 9.8 0 10.0


10.0 3.3 7.8 9.0 7.8


8.8 10.0


1.5 8.5 8.3 10.0


1.0 9.5 9.3 6.8 5.8 4.0 0.8 6.0 6.8 8.3 0 9.8 4.5 4.5


4.3 9.5 9.5 8.5 9.0 10.0 2.8 6.3 9.0 9.0 0 9.8 8.5 8.0


3.3 9.3 9.5 9.0 8.8 10.0 0.5 8.5 9.3 9.0 0 9.5 9.0 9.0


47.2


43.6

48.9


49.1


45.3


43.6


43.1


48.9


1.3 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.1 N.S. 0.6


1.0 1.6 1.6


Summary: Several
Some of


treatments in this study
the best treatments were


provided very good broad spectrum weed control and high soybean
GCP 6305 plus Sencor either PPI or PRE, Treflan PPI plus either


yields.
Goal PRE,


GCP 4417 EP or Blazer EP, Antor plus Dyanap AC and Lasso + Premerge PRE plus Goal + AG98 DP. While perusing
the data from this and the following three tests, the moisture conditions in7rediately following applica ton
of the pre-emergence treatments (7 inches within 24 hours and a total of 8.3 inches within 1 week) should be
considered. 43 -


LSD @ 5%





Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Herbicide Proarams I


RATE WHEN


RATED 7-5-78


CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG SICK TM


a.i.
1 Dual 8E 2.0


2 Dual
Lexone

3 Dual
Lexone

4 Dual
Dyanap

5 Dual
Dyanap

6 Dual

7 Dual
Lexone

8 Dual
Lexone

9 Dual
Dyanap

10 Dual
Dyanap

11 Lasso
Dyanap

12 Vegiben

13 Vegiben
Lasso


PPI 0.3 10.0 10.0


8.0


8E 1.5 PPI 0.8 9.8 10.0 8,8 9.5
4L 0.38 PPI

8E 2.0 PPI 0.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 9.8
4L 0.5 PPI

8E 1.5 PPI 1.5 10.0 10.0 9,8 9.3
3E 4.0 AC

8E 2.0 PPI 1.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.5
3E 4.0 AC

8E 2.0 PRE 0.3 10.0 10.0 7.8 6.3

8E 1.5 PRE 0.5 10.0 10.0 9,8 10.0
4L 0.38 PRE

8E 2.0 PRE 0.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
4L 0.5 PRE

8E 1.5 AC 1.8 10.0 10.0 9,3 9.0
4L 4.0 AC

8E 2.0 AC 1.8 10.0 10.0 9,8 10.0
4L 4.0 AC

4E 2.0 AC 2.0 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0
3E 4.0 AC

2E 3.0 PRE 1.0 9.5 9.5 5.8 7.0

2E 2.0 PRE 0.5 10.0 10.0 9.8 8.3
4E 2.0 PRE


RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28
SOY PIG SICK TM SOY SICK


8-78
TM


TRT
NO.


Continued ---


- 44


_ _----


7.8 0.8 8.0 8.3 9.3 0.3 8.0 7.5

8.8 0.5 8.3 9.5 9.3 1.5 9.8 6.8


9.8 0.8 9.3 9.8 9.5 0.3 9.8 8.5


9.8 1.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 0.3 10.0 8.0


9.8 1.0 9.5 9.5 10.0 0 9.0 9.3


7.0 1.0 6.3 6.0 8.3 2.0 7.0 5.0

9.8 0.3 9.8 10.0 9.8 0.3 10.0 8.8


9.8 0.5 10.0 10.0 9.3 0.3 10.0 9.0


9.5 1.3 8.8 8.5 9.5 0.5 9.3 8.0


10.0 0.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 0 10.0 8.8


9.5 0 10.0 9.8 10.0 0 9.8 9.8


8.5 0 6.0 7.8 8.8 0.3 7.5 6.5

8.5 0.5 9.5 8.8 9.5 0.5 8.3 7.3


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-18-78
45.4

51.7


47.8


45.1


46.6


42.4

50.5


51.1


48.1


47.8


49.0


49.9

43.9




Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS Herbicide Programs I (continued)


TRT RATE WHEN RATED 7-5-78 RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG SICK TM SOY PIG SICK TM SOY SICK TM


14 Vegiben
Lasso
Sencor


15 Vegiben 2E
Sencor 4L

16 Amiben 2E
Lasso 4E

17 Amiben 2E
Sencor 4L


18 Treflan
Amiben
Sencor


19 Treflan 4E
Sencor 4L


20 Check


a.i.
2E 1.5


PRE 0.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.5 0.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 0.3 10.0


1.5 PRE
0.5 PRE

2.0 PRE
0.5 PRE

2.0 PRE
2.0 PRE

2.0 PRE
0.5 PRE

0.5 PPI
2.0 PRE
0.5 PRE

0.5 PPI
0.5 PPI


1.0 10.0 10.0


0.8 10.0 9.8


1.5 9.8 9.3


1.3 10.0 10.0



0.5 9.0 8.8


10.0 10.0 9.8 0.3 10.0 10.0 9.3 0 10.0


9.3 7.8 8.5 0 9.8 7.8 9.5 0.3 7.8


9.5 10.0 9.8 0.5 8.8 10.G 10.0 0.3 10.0


10.0 10.0 10.0 0.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 10.0



8.3 9.8 9.8 0.5 7.5 10.0 10.0 0.5 10.0


-- --- --- 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 2.5 5.0


LSD @ 5%


1.2 0.5 0.6


1.6 1.7 1.6 N.S. 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.2


8.5


8.8


7.5


9.3


9.5



9.0


6.3

2.5


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-18-78
49.6


49.0


46.0


48.7


47.8



52.6


42.4


5.9


Several herbicides, including Dual, Vegiben, Amiben,
Lexone or Sencor provided excellent weed control and
and Lasso plus Dyanap also gave good results.


and Treflan, in combination with either
good soybean yields. Dual plus Dyanap


- 45 -


Summary:





Page 1 of 2


RATE WHEN


NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS
a.i.
1 Treflan 4E 0.5
Bladex 5G 1.0


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Herbicide Programs II
RATED 7-7-78


/A APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG RED SICK SW AS


PPI 0.8 9.0
Lp1


RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
SOY PIG SICK CRAB SOY CRAB SICK BU/A


9.25 8.0 6.5 6.3 3.8 5.3 0.3 8.8 7.5 8.0 0


9.8 5.8


10-19-78
43.6


2 Treflan
Bladex

3 Treflan
2,4-DB
Alanap

4 Treflan
2,4-DB
Alanap

5 Prowl
Sencor

6 Prowl
Sencor

7 Prowl
Sencor

8 Lasso
Lorox

9 Alachlor
Linuron
(Pkg. mix)

0 Embark
X77


4E
5G

4E
2E
2E

4E
2E
2E

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
50W

4E


2S


0.5
2.0

0.5
0.03
0.5

0.5
0.06
1.0

0.75
0.5

0.75
0.5

0.75
0.5

2.0
0.75

2.75
(2 + .75)


0.25
.5%


PPI
LP

PPI
EP
EP

PPI
EP
EP

PPI
PPI

PRE
PRE

PPI
PRE

PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE


EP
EP


9.5


9.3


4.8 8.5 8.8


0.5


1.3


0.3


0.5


0.5


9.5


7.5


10.0


9.5


8.5


9.8


7.8


9.5


9.5


8.5


7.8


9.3


9.3 9.3 7.8 9.8


9.5


9.0


9.8


7.8


6.0


10.0


9.8


10.0


9.0


8.0


2.0 6.5 6.8 4.0 7.3


11 Embark 2S 0.5 EP 3.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 8.0


X77
Continued --


10.0


9.8


9.9


6.5


6.8


10.0


10.0


10.0


9.3


9.0


4.5


6.3


9.0


9.8


7.8


6.0


1.3


1.0


9.5


7.3


6.0


5.5


6.0 1.0 9.8 6.8 6.5 1.5 8.3 6.0


9.5


9.8


9.8


9.8


9.8


1.3


0.3


0


0.5


0.5


9.5


8.8


10.0


7.0


6.5


10.0


10.0


10.0


7.3


7.5


9.3


6.5


10.0


9.0


7.5


10.0


9.5


10.0


10.0


8.5


10.0


10.0


9.8


7.3


7.0


8.0 9.5 10.0 1.0 4.8 7.5 1.5 1.3 7.0 7.5


6.5 9.8 8.8 0.5 4.0 7.8 2.5 1.3 7.0 7.5


-.5% EP


- 46 -


TRT


1


48.9


47.2



45.3



51.1


54.2


51.6


50.1


51.1



50.3


45.7




Page 2 of 2


WEED COCNTROL'I TN SOYBEANS-


Herbicide Proerams II (continued')


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

12 Embark
Norex
X77


RATE
FORM LBS/A
a.i.
2S 0.25


50W


WHEN RATED 7-7-78 RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG RED SICK SW AS SOY PIG SICK CRAB SOY CRAB SICK BU/A


EP 3.3 2.0 7.0


10.0 10.0 9.0


10.0 10.0 1.5 10.0 8.8 3.0 2.5 4.3 9.0


10-19-78
38.7


1.5 EP
.5% EP


S --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.8 6.8 1.8


7.5 7.8 0.3 3.0 4.8 7.3


14 Vernam 7E 2.0


PPI 0 9.0 9.5 5.3 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 0


5.5 8.5


9.3 0 9.8 7.8


15 Vernam 7E
Basalin 4E

16 Vernam 7E
Tolban 4E

17 Vernam 7E
Prowl 4E

18 Basalin 4E


2.0
0.38


PPI
PPI


2.0 PPI
0.38 PPI

2.0 PPI
0.38 PPI


1.3 9.3 9.5


0.8 9.3 9.3


1.0 9.8 9.8


7.5 7.5 7.8 7.8 10.0 1.0


7.3 8.0 8.3 9.8 10.0 0


7.0 7.5 9.0 7.8 10.0 1.3


0.38 PPI 0.5 8.8 8.8 6.3 6.3 4.5 7.3 4.0 1.3


19 Tolban 4E 0.38 PPI 1.3 9.0 8.8


20 Prowl

21 Check


6.3 5.8 4.5 6.5 4.5 2.8


4E 0.38 PPI 0 8.5 8.8 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.8 5.3 0.8


--- -- 0 0 0


LSD @ 5%


0 0 0 7.0 9.5 1.0


4.5 8.5 9.3 0.3 9.5 7.5


7.8 8.8


8.8 0 9.0 7.0


6.3 9.3 10.0 0.3 10.0 8.5


5.5 6.5 8.0 0.8 8.3 5.8

3.5 5.8 6.3 0.3 9.0 5.3

6.5 7.3 8.3 0 9.3 6.0


4.5 6.3


1.4 1.9 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.9 3.5 N.S. 3.5 2.0


3.3 2.0 5.0 7.0

3.4 N.S. 2.3 1.5


1LP = 7-20-78 for this test, only.

Prowl PPI plus Sencor PPI or PRE provided the best weed control of the treatments used in this test.
The Post application of Bladex was too late to provide sicklepod control; however, no soybean injury
was observed from the use of the granular formulation of this herbicide. The Embark plus Norex com-
bination exhibited good broadleaf control but was weak on the grass weeds and caused some soybean
injury.


- 47 -


13 Check


46.2

47.7

47.4


51.6


46.2


38.2

37.5

36.3

35.8


Summary:


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS-- Herbicide Programs II (continued)-






Page 1 of 2


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

1 Treflan
Lexone

2 Treflan
Lexone

3 Treflan
Lexone

4 Treflan
Lexone

5 Treflan
Lexone

6 Treflan
Lexone

7 Treflan
Lexone

8 Treflan
Lexone

9 Lexone

10 Lexone

11 Lexone

12 Lasso
Lexone

13 Lasso
Lexone

14 Check

15 Treflan
Sencor

16 Treflan
Sencor
Sencor

17 Treflan
Sencor
Sencor

Continued ---


FORM

4E


RATE
LBS/A
a.i.
0.5


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Metribuzin Rate of Application Study


WHEN RATED 7-7-78 RATED 7-27-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD
APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG SOY PIG SICK GOOSE SOY SICK RED 12% B


10-19
0 9.8 10.0 49.


PPI 0.5 9.8 9.8 9.5 0 9.5 10.0 10.0


4L 0.5


4E
4DF

4E
4L

4E
DF

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4E
4L

4L

4L

4L

4E
4L

4E
DF


0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5

0.5
0.75

0.5
1.0

0.5
0.75

0.5
1.0

0.5

0.75

1.0

2.0
0.5

2.0
0.5


0.5
0.5

0.5
0.25
0.25

0.5
0.75
0.38


PPI
PPI

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PPI
PPI

PPI
PPI

PPI
PRE

PPI
PRE

PRE

PRE

PRE

PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE


0.3 9.5 9.5


0.3 9.8 9.8


0.8 9.3 9.3


0.5 10.0 10.0


0.8 10.0 10.0


1.5 10.0 9.8


2.3 10.0 10.0


0.3

1.0

2.0

1.0


9.3

10.0

10.0

9.8


9.3 0.3 9.8 9.8 9.8


8.5 0.5 9.3 10.0 10.0


9.3 0.5 9.3 9.8 10.0


10.0 0.5 9.8 10.0 10.0


9.8 0 9.8 10.0 10.0


10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 10.0


10.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 10.0


9.3

10.0

9.8

9.8


0.8 10.0 9.8


-- 0 0

PPI 0.5 10.0


PRE

PPI
PPI
PRE

PPI
PPI
PRE


0

10.0


0.5 10.0 9.8



1.0 10.0 9.8


10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0


9.8 0 9.8 10.0 1


0 0.3

10.0 0.5


0 6.3

9.5 10.0


1


9.8 0.3 9.5 10.0



10.0 0.3 10.0 10.0


9.0

10.0

10.0

9.8


0.3 9.8 10.0


0 9.8 9.5


0 9.8 10.0


10.0 10.0


0 10.0 10.0


0.3 9.8 10.0


1.0 10.0 10.0


10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0


10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0


.0.0 0 10.0 10.0


5.0 1.8 6.5 7.0

.0.0 0 9.5 10.0


9.8 0.3 9.8 10.0



9.8 0.5 10.0 10.0


47.,


46..


49.(


50.1


48.1


44.1


48.

46.3

45.1

46.5


49.5


47.3

50.C


53.7



51.2


- 48 -


-----------~~
~~~~


------






Page 2 of 2


iED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS Metribuzin Rate of Application Study (continued)


3. CHEMICAL FORM

3 Alachlor 3.8E
Metribuzin
(Pkg. mix)

9 Surflan 4AS
Sencor 4L


0 Treflan
Lasso
Sencor

1 Treflan
Lasso
Dyanap

2 Treflan
Sencor
Lorox
2,4-DB
WK

;3 Treflan
Sencor
Sencor
2,4-DB


4E
4E
4L

4E
4E
3E

4E
4L
50W
2E
--

4E
4L
4L
2E


RATE WHEN RATED 7-7-78 RATED 7-27-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @
LBS/A APP. SOY CRAB GOOSE PIG SOY PIG SICK GOOSE SOY SICK RED 12% BU/A


a.i.
2.85
(2.4 + .45)


1.0
0.5

0.5
2.0
0.5

0.5
2.0
4.5

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
.5%

0.5
0.38
0.38
0.25


PRE 1.8 10.0 10.0


PRE
PRE

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
AC
AC

PPI
PPI
DP
DP
DP

PPI
PPI
DP
DP


LSD @ 5%


0.5 10.0 9.5


4.3 10.0 10.0



0.3 10.0 10.0



0 9.5 9.3





0.3 9.8 9.8




2.4 0.5 0.7


9.3 0.8 9.8 10.0 10.0 0


9.5 1.0 9.5 10.0 9.8


10.0 1.5 10.0 9.8 10.0



9.8 0.3 10.0 9.3 10.0



10.0 0 10.0 10.0 10.0





9.8 1.5 10.0 10.0 10.0




0.9 N.S. 1.2 0.7 1.4


10-19-78
9.8 10.0 50.7


47.3


46.0



49.0



48.5





48.8




N.S.


1.0 10.0 10.0


1.5 10.0 9.3



0 9.5 10.0



0 10.0 10.0





1.5 10.0 10.0




N.S. 1.0 0.9


Summary: This study was initiated to determine the threshold level of soybean tolerance to
metribuzin when the crop was grown on northwest Florida soils. A range of metribuzin
rates was chosen for this purpose. However, due to the extremely high moisture levels
during the first week after application, only minimal soybean injury was observed
even at the 1 lb./A a.i. metribuzin rate.


- 49 -










METRIBUZIN TIME OF APPLICATION STUDY.


TRT METRIBUZIN
NO. RATE
(LBS/A)
1 .38
2 .5


WHEN APPLIED SOY INJURY
(DAYS AFTER RATED
PLANTING) 7-18-78
0 0.3
0 0.5


0.3
0

0
0.8

0.3
0.3

0
0

0
0.3

0.8
2.5

3.5
4.3

3.2
5.0

0.3


SOY INJURY
RATED
7-28-78
0
0

0
0.3

0
1.0

0
0

0
0

0.8
0.5

1.5
1.8

2.8
3.3

1.8
3.3

0


1Total plants per plot.


- 50 -


SOY
STAND1

399
288

360
395


SOY
YIELD
(BU/A)
41.6
39.9

42.9
41.9


SOY
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
33.3
34.8

34.0
32.5

32.8
32.8

30.5
32.8

33.8
32.8

31.0
28.5

28.3
28.8

24.8
28.5

27.3
26.5

30.8


386
355

355
397

441
306


42.2
40.3

40.0
41.1

39.6
41.5

41.9
37.8

38.2
36.4

31.8
30.8

33.6
26.9

39.9









RESPONSE OF SOYBEANS TO METRIBUZIN TIMING


Table A. Effect of intervalbetween planting and metribuzin
apulic6tfion on soybean growth.*
NO. OF DAYS SOY INJURY SOY INJURY SOY SOY SOY
AFTER PLANTING RATED RATED HEIGHT PLANTS PER YIELD
7-18-78 7-28-78 (INCHES) PLOT (BU/A)
0 0.3 0.0 34.1 34 4 40.8a,b


0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.7

3.1

2.6

0.9


LSD @ 5%


33.3

32.8

31.7

33.3

29.8

28.6

26.7

26.9

2.7


42.4a


37A8

38/ 0

37<1

37 6

37)4

37)(5

32.4

31.4

N.S.


41.3a,b

40.6a,b

40.6a,b

39.9a,b

37.3b

31.3c

30.3c

4.06


METRIBUZIN
RATE (LBS/A)
0.38

0.50

LSD @ 5%

Summary:


Table B, Effect of metribuzin rate on soybean growth.


0.9

1.5

0.4


0.8

1.1

N.S.


30.6

30.9

N.S.


37.4

34.4

N.S.


39.1

37.4

1.93


This study was conducted to determine the response of soybeans to
timing of metribuzin application. The results indicate that metri-
buzin can be applied 5 days after planting without causing a yield
reduction (Table A). Applications occurring later than this may re-
sult in a significant loss in soybean production. The results also
show that the 0.5 lbs./A treatment was more injurious than the 0.38
lbs./A application (Table B).


- 51 -










WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Directed Postemergence
IKAL~aJJ ~ iI%


CHEMICAL FORM


1 Lexone
2,4-DB
WK


2 Lexone
2,4-DB
WK

3 Lexone
2,4-DB
WK

4 Lexone
2,4-DB
WK


4L
2E
--


RATE
LBS/A
a.i.
0.38
0.25
0.5%


0.38
0.25
0.5%

0.5
0.25
0.5%

0.5
0.25
0.5%


WHEN
APP.

DP
DP
DP


KAIUD 0-41-780 _
SOY JR GOOSE TM PIG RED

0.8 9.5 9.5 9.8 10.0 10.0


0.8 7.5 9.0 9.8 10.0 10.0


0.5 10.0 10.0


10.0 10.0 10.0


0.8 8.8 7.8 10.0 10.0 10.0


BU/A
10-20-78
39.7


37.5


36.3


39.0


5 Sencor 50W 0.25 DP


0.8 7.0 6.3


7.3 7.5 7.5


6 Sencor 4L 0.25 DP 0.8 9.3 8.0 9.3 10.0 10.0


7 Sencor 4L
Premerge 3E

8 Sencor 4L
2,4-DB 2E


9 Paraquat
Sencor
X77

10 Lorox
2,4-DB
WK

11 Lorox
2,4-DB
WK

12 Check


0.38 DP
1.5 DP

0.25 DP
0.25 DP


0.25
0.5
0.25


50W 0.5
2E 0.25
0.5%


0.5
0.25
0.5%


2.5 9.5 8.8 9.8 10.0 10.0


1.0 8.5 8.0 9.8 10.0 10.0


0.8 10.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.5


0.8 9.8 9.5 8.5 10.0 10.0


1.3 9.5 9.3 8.5 9.8 10.0


---- -- 1.0 7.3 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.5


N.S.N.S. N.S.


N.S. N.S. N.S.


Lorox plus 2,4-DB plus WK and Lexone plus 2,4-DB plus WK appeared to
provide the best weed control and highest soybean yields. The comparison
of the DF with the L formulation of Lexone indicated that the L may pro-
vide somewhat better postemergence weed control. Similar results were
observed when Sencor 50W was compared with Sencor 4L. However, none of
the differences were statistically significant.


- 52 -


TRT
NO.


37.5

39.2

36.0


37.5


33.8


38.0


38.0



33.3


Summary:






Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL1

1 Paraquat
Lasso
Lexone

2 Paraquat
Lasso
Lexone

3 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor


RATE WHEN
FORM LBS/A APP.


a.i.
2E .25
4E 2.0
4L .5


.25
2.0
.5

.25
2.0
.5


PRE
PRE
PRE


PRE
PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE
PRE


No-Till Soybeans
RATED 7-20-78
SOY CRAB SICK SFM FP

0 8.8 9.3 9.8 9.8


RATED 8-28-78


RATED 8-28-78
SOY CRAB SICK SFM

1.0 9.0 9.8 8.5


0.5 8.0 9.0 8.3 8.8 0.5 9.8 9.8 9.5



0.3 8.8 9.8 9.5 9.5 0.3 9.3 10.0 9.5


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-23-78
47.0


51.1



50.8


4 Paraquat 2E
Goal 2E


5 Paraquat
Lasso
Goal


6 Check


7 Paraquat
Surflan
Goal
2,4-DB

8 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor
Lorox
2,4-DB

9 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor

10 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor
Sencor
2,4-DB

11 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor
Lorox
2,4-DB

Continued ---


.25 PRE
.5 PRE


.25
2.0
.25


.25
1.0
.5
.25

.25
1.0
.5
.5
.25


2E .25
4AS 1.0
4L .5


2E
4AS
4L
4L
2E

2E
4E
4L
50W
2E


.25
1.0
.5
.5
.25

.25
2.0
.5
.5
.25


PRE
PRE
PRE


PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
PRE

PRE
PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
PRE
DP
DP


1.0 9.0 8.3


8.3 9.0 0 9.3 10.0 9.0


0.8 9.3 8.8 6.0 9.3 0.3 9.5 9.5 8.5


--- 0.5 0 2.0 2.0 0 0.3 6.5 6.3 6.5


0.8 8.5 8.0 8.3 8.0 0.5 8.5 9.8 9.5


0.8 9.3 8.8 8.0 9.3 0 10.0 9.8 9.3


0.8 6.3 6.5 5.8 6.3 0.3 10.0 9.5 8.5


0.3 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.8 0 9.3 10.0





1.3 7.3 8.5 7.3 9.0 0.3 9.0 10.0


- 53 -


48.9


47.9



48.6

44.8


50.8


51.6


49.6





49.4






Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS No-Till Soybeans (continued)


TRT RATE WHEN RATED 7-20-78
NO. CHEMICAL1 FORM LBS/A APP. SOY CRAB SICK SFM FP


12 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor
Paraquat
Sencor

13 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor
Sencor
2,4-DB

14 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor
Paraquat
Sencor

15 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor


a.i.
2E .25


4AS
4L
2E
4L


16 Paraquat 2E
Sencor 4E


17 Paraquat
Sencor
Lorox
2,4-DB

18 Paraquat
Sencor
Sencor
2,4-DB

19 Paraquat
Sencor
Paraquat
Sencor

20 Paraquat
Lorox
2,4-DB


2E
4L
50W
2E

2E
4L
4L
2E

2E
4L
2E
4L


1.0
.5
.25
.5

.25
2.0
.5
.5
.25

.25
2.0
.5
.25
.5

.25
2.0
.5


RATED 8-28-78
SOY CRAB SICK SFM


PRE 0.5 9.0 9.0 9.3 8.3 1.3 9.5 10.0 10.0
PRE
PRE
DP
DP


PRE
PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
PRE


.25 DP
.5 DP


.25
.5
.5
.25

.25
.5
.5
.25

.25
.5
.25
.5


PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
DP
DP

PRE
PRE
DP
DP


2E .25 PRE
50W .5 DP
2E .25 DP


0.3 8.8 9.3 8.5 9.5 0.5 10.0 9.5 10.0


0.3 9.3 9.8 10.0


9.8 0.8 10.0 10.0 9.3


0 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.5 0.3 9.5 10.0


9.3


0 0 0 0 0 0.8 9.0 10.0 9.0


0 9.0 8.3 8.3 7.8 0.5 10.0 9.8 10.0




0 8.3 9.0 9.0 7.0 1.3 10.0 10.0 10.0




0 8.8 8.0 8.5 7.3 0.3 10.0 9.8 9.8


0 6.8 8.3 8.0 6.0 1.0 10.0 9.8 9.5


LSD @ 5% N.S. 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.2 N.S. 1.5 N.S. N.S. 4.6
1A11 treatments, both PRE and DP, included X77 at 0.25% (v/v) except treatments
4 and 5 and the DP application of treatment 7 which included AG98 at 0.5% (v/v).

Summary: Most of the treatments in this study resulted in very good weed control.
A heavy wheat straw mulch present in the experimental area aided in
surpressing weed growth.


- 54 -


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A
10-23-78
47.2


46:0


42.4


52.0



52.8


49.1




42.8




52.8


47.7


-- --






Page 1 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Sicklepod Control Programs
RATED -10-7


TRT RATE WHEN
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.
1 SD 50224 2E .75 EP


2 SD 50224 2E
B

3 SD 50224 2E
A

4 SD 50224 2E
B

5 SD 50224 2E
X77
A

6 SD 50224 2E
X77
B

7 SC 50224 2E
X77
A

8 SD 50224 2E
X77
B

9 Check
A

10 Check
B

11 Norex 50W
Oil ---
A

12 Norex 50W
Oil ---
B

13 Norex 50W
Oil
A

14 Norex 50W
Oil ---
B

15 Toxaphene 6E
A

Continued ---


.75


1.5


1.5


.75
.25%


.75
.25%


1.5
.25%


1.5
.25%


RATED 7-10-78
SOY SICK TM

1.8 7.3 8.3


1.8


3.3


3.0


2.5


4.8


8.0


5.5


6.8


RATED 7-20-78
SOY SICK


2.3


2.3


3.3


2.8


2.3


3.3 5.5 8.5 3.0



3.0 7.8 9.5 2.8



3.8 4.5 7.5 2.8


0.5


0


1 EP
Igpa EP


1 EP
Igpa EP


1.5 EP
.5gpaEP


1.5 EP
.5gpaEP


2 EP


3.0


3.8


1.3


7.0


RATED 8-28-78
SOY SICK


7.8 1.0


5.3 0.5


8.0 1.3


5.8 1.8


6.8 1.5


YIELD
BU/A


7.3 39.9


5.5


7.5


6.3


7.3


6.3 1.0



7.8 0



5.0 1.0


0.8


1.0


2.8


2.8 5.8 6.5 2.3



3.0 7.3 8.8 3.0



3.0 3.8 8.5 2.8



0 7.0 8.3 0.5


0


1.5


2.5


6.3 2.0



7.3 0.3



5.5 2.3



8.0 1.3


38.2


39.2


34.6


41.6


5.8 30.3



8.5 39.5



6.0 33.9


7.8


3.0


7.5


43.1


33.6


36.1


6.8 30.5



8.3 38.0



.3.0 26.4



8.3 42.8


- 55 -






Page 2 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS Sicklepod Control Programs (continued)


TRT


RATE WHEN


NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.


16 Toxaphene 6E
B


17 Toxaphene
A

18 Toxaphene
B

19 Norex
X77
A

20 Norex
X77
B

21 Blazer
A

22 Blazer
B

23 Blazer
A

24 Blazer
B

25 Blazer
A

26 Blazer
B

27 Norex
Oil
A

28 Norex
Oil
B

29 Norex
Primeoil
A

30 Norex
Primeoil
B


a.i.
2.0


6E 3.0 EP


6E 3.0 EP


50W 1.5 EP
--- .25% EP


50W 1.5 EP
--- .25% EP


2LCS .5 EP


2LCS .5 EP


2LCS 1.0 EP


2LCS 1.0 EP


2LCS 1.5 EP


2LCS 1.5 EP


50W 1.5 EP
--- Igpa EP


50W 1.5 EP
--- lgpa EP


50W 1.5 EP
--- .5gpaEP


50W 1.5 EP
--- .5gpaEP


RATED 7-10-78
SOY SICK TM


RATED 7-20-78
SOY SICK


EP 0.3 3.5 4.8 0.5


1.3


0.5


2.8


6.5


2.5


6.8


3.0 5.5 8.5 2.3


2.5


2.3


3.5


3.8


5.5


5.0


3.5


6.3


4.8


6.8


6.3


8.5


6.5


8.0


9.0


8.3


9.5


9.5


9.0


9.8


10.0


2.3


1.8


3.5


3.0


6.0


4.5


3.8


4.0 5.5 9.3 3.5



3.3 7.5 9.0 3.5



2.8 6.5 8.8 2.5


RATED 8-28-78
SOY SICK


5.8 32.4


8.3 42.6


3.5 32.7


7.0 38.5


4.3 30.3


4.8 2.3


6.5 1.0


3.5 1.3


6.0 1.3


6.0 3.0


7.0


6.0


6.5


6.5


9.0


7.3


8.3


7.3


6.8


8.0


8.3


9.5


6.5


8.3


6.0 1.5



7.0 1.5



6.5 0.3


3.0 26.4



8.0 37.3



7.3 39.5


Continued ---


- 56 -


YIELD
BU/A


37.5


34.4


35.3


37.0


29.0


31.5


36.3


:1






Page 3 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS Sicklepod Control Progi
TRT RATE WHEN RATED 7-10-78 RATIO
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. SOY SICK TM SOY
a.i.
31 Toxaphene 6E 2.0 EP 2.0 8.5 9.8 2.5
Norex 50W 1.5 EP
X77 --- .25% EP
A

32 Toxaphene 6E 2.0 EP 2.5 6.0 6.8 1.8
Norex 50W 1.5 EP
X77 --- .25% EP
B

33 Toxaphene 6E 3.0 EP 2.0 8.5 8.5 1.3
Norex 50W 1.5 EP
X77 .25% EP
A

34 Toxaphene 6E 3.0 EP 3.0 6.3 8.8 2.8
Norex 50W 1.5 EP
X77 --- .25% EP
B

35 Lexone 4F .5 DP 0.8 6.8 7.8 1.5
2,4-DB 2E .25 DP
WK -- .5% DP
A

36 Lexone 4F .5 DP 0 2.0 1.5 1.3
2,4-DB 2E .25 DP
WK -- .5% DP
B

37 GCP 4417 25W .5 EP 1.3 8.3 8.8 2.0
A

38 GCP 4417 25W .5 EP 1.8 6.0 8.8 2.3
B

39 GCP 4417 25W 1.0 EP 3.3 8.8 8.5 3.5
A

40 GCP 4417 25W 1.0 EP 2.5 8.3 9.3 2.8
B

41 WEJ 0787 70W .5 PRE 0.8 6.5 8.3 1.0
A.

42 WEJ 0787 70W .5 PRE 0.8 2.8 3.0 1,0
B

43 WEJ 0787 70W 1.0 PRE 1.5 7.3 9.5 2.3
A

Continued ---


rams (continued)
ED 7-20-78 RATED 8-28-78
SICK SOY SICK

8.5 0 9.5


6.0 0.5




8.5 0.3




7.0 1.8




8.8 0.5




7.0 0.3


8.3


6.8


8.0


7.5


6.8


6,0


7.8


4.5 36.3




8.3 42.4




7.5 34.1




8.5 40.7




7.5 38.7


5.8


5.5


8,8


7.5


8.3


5,8


8.3


- 57 -


YIELD
BU/A

39.5


37.8


36.8


40,9


39.5


37,8


33,9


41,1






Page 4 of 4


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
TRT RATE
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A


- Sicklepod Control Programs (continued)
WHEN RATED 7-10-78 RATED 7-20-78 RATED 8-28-78
APP. SOY SICK TM SOY SICK SOY SICK


a.i.
44 WEJ 0787 70W 1.0 PRE 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.0
B


45 Lorox
2,4-DB
WK
A

46 Lorox
2,4-DB
WK


.75 DP
.25 DP
.5% DP


.75 DP
.25 DP
.5% DP


A = Treflan + Lexone (.5
B = No PPI herbicide.


0 6.5 7.3 0.5




0 0 0 0.5


4.5 1.0


8.8 0.5




6.8 0.3


+ .5 Ibs/A) PPI.


- 58 -


YIELD
BU/A


3.8 37.5


9.3 43.3




7.0 39.9






Page 1 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS
Sicklepod Control Programs
Table A. Effect of postemergence treatments


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

1 SD50224

2 SD50224

3 SD50224
X77

4 SD50224
X77

5 Check

6 Norex
Oil

7 Norex
Oil

8 Toxaphene

9 Toxaphene

10 Norex
X77

11 Blazer

12 Blazer

13 Blazer

14 Norex
Oil

15 Norex
Primeoil

16 Toxaphene
Norex
X77

17 Toxaphene
Norex
X77

18 Lexone
2,4-DB
WK

19 GCP 4417

Continued ---


RATE WHEN


FORM LBS/A APP.
a.i.
2E 0.75 EP

2E 1.5 EP

2E 0.75 EP
-- 0.25% EP

2E 1.5 EP
0.25% EP

--- EP

50W 1 EP
--- Igpa EP

50W 1.5 EP
--- 0.5gpaEP

6E 2 EP

6E 3 EP

50W 1.5 EP
--- 0.25% EP

2LCS 0.5 EP

2LCS 1.0 EP

2LCS 1.5 EP

50W 1.5 EP
--- Igpa EP

50W 1.5 EP
--- 0.5gpaEP

6E 2.0 EP
50W 1.5 EP
--- 0.25% EP

6E 3.0 EP
50W 1.5 EP
--- 0.25% EP

4E 0.5 DP
2E 0.25 DP
-- 0.5% DP

25W 0.5 EP


RATED 7-10-78
SOY SICK TM


RATED 7-20-78
SOY SICK


1.8 6.1 7.4 2.1

3.2 6.1 9.1 2.5

2.9 6.2 8.9 2.6


3.4 6.1 8.5 2.8


0.3 2.5 3.4 0.9

2.9 6.4 7.9 2.6


3.0 5.5 8.7 2.9


6.6

5.8

8.1


8.7

9.5

9.4

9.7


3.1 7.0 8.9 3.0


2.1 7.1 8.3 2.2



2.5 7.4 8.7 2.1



0.4 4.4 4.7 1.4



1.5 7.2 8.8 2.2


6.1

6.3

6.5


RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
SOY SICK BU/A


6.4

6.9

6.5


6.4 0.5


4.6 0.8

6.8 2.1


6.4 1.3


6.4 1.8

5.0 1.2

6.0 2.2


6.5 1.1

6.5 1.4

8.2 3.3

7.2 1.4


6.8 1.0


7.1 0.1



7.1 1.1



7.9 0.4



7.1 0.5


- 59


39.1

36.9

35.9


36.7


38.4

33.3


32.2


37.6

37.6

34.4


35.9

36.2

30.2

31.3


38.4


37.4



38.3



39.7



37.3





Page 2 of 2


WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEANS Sicklepod Control Programs
Table A. Effect of postemergence treatments (continued)
TRT RATE WHEN RATED 7-10-78 RATED 7-20-78
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP. SOY SICK TM SOY SICK


20 GCP 4417

21 WEJ 0787

22 WEJ 0787

23 Lorox
2,4-DB
WK


a.i.
25W 1.0 EP 2.9 8.1 8.1 3.2

70W 0.5 PRE 0.8 4.1 5.1 1.0

70W 1.0 PRE 1.1 4.1 6.1 1.1


0.75
0.25
0.5%


0 3.1 3.1 0.5


RATED 8-28-78
SOY SICK


7.1 1.0

6.4 0.4

6.1 0.1

7.1 0.4


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A


8.2 40.2


7.1

6.1

8.2


35.1

39.3

41.6


LSD @ 5% 5.0


1 Treflan 4E
Lexone 4L


2 Check


Table
0.5
0.5


B. Effect
PPI 2.2
PPI


of preplant incorporated treatments.
7.2 8.7 2.4 7.6 1.1 8.1


2.2 4.6 6.6 2.2


5.9 1.1


LSD @ 5%


Summary: Several postemergence treatments provided good sicklepod control (Table A).
These included Blazer at 1#/A or GCP 4417 at 1#/A and Lexone + 2,4-DB or
Lorox + 2,4-DB DP. Plots treated with Treflan + Lexone PPI yielded better
than those with no PPI treatment (Table B).


- 60 -


39.1


34.2




Page 1 of 3


Description:


ATRAZINE CARRYOVER IN A CORN-SOYBEAN DOUBLE CROPPING SYSTEM
Atrazine was applied to corn preemergence at 0, 1, 2, and 4 lbs/A. Four, 8, 14, and 19 weeks after
atrazine treatment the corn was either destroyed or harvested and soybeans were planted. The soybeans
were then treated with 0, 0.38, or 0.5 lbs/A metribuzin. The planting intervals were main plots of a
split-plot experimental design while the corn herbicides and soybean herbicides were arranged as a
factorial set of treatments over the sub-plots.


ATRAZINE CARRYOVER IN A CORN-SOYBEAN DOUBLE CROPPING SYSTEM
SOYBEAN PLANTING
Weeks After Atrazine Application


Atrazine Metribuzin


rate rate SOY INJ SOY
(Ibs/A) (lbs/A) RATING STAND1
6-22-78
0 0 0.3 215
0 .38 0.0 183
0 .5 0.6 176


SOY
YIELD
(BU/A)
22.2
26.5
23.0


1.0 150 18.5
4.0 125 16.9
2.0 151 14.2


SOY INJ
RATING
6-22-78
.25
.75
.50

.5
.5
.5


116 10.9
50 4.8
73 5.9


0.7 2.5
0.2 4.3
0 3.8


SOY SOY
STAND1 YIELD
(BU/A)
284 43.6
295 45.4
225 43.4

199 43.0
243 43.7
219 42.7


198 40.6
215 44.3
230 45.3

190 33.2
160 35.4
176 34.9


SOY INJ SOY SOY
RATING STAND1 YIELD
(BU/A)
0 249 43.2
0 266 40.8
0 222 41.2


227 38.0
241 41.0
216 43.8

256 42.0
253 41.3
269 42.9

237 41.0
241 39.8
233 44.3


19
SOY INJ SOY
RATING STAND1


0
0
0

0
0
0


261
261
271


SOY
YIELD
(BU/A)
18.5
21.0
22.4


296 23.0
280 21.3
248 22.5

288 21.1
277 23.6
261 20.9

295 21.7
285 22.5
286 20.8


1Total plants per plot.
Table A. Effect of interval
WEEKS AFTER
ATRAZINE
APPLICATION
4
8
14


between atrazine
SOY INJ
RATING

4.2
1.4


application


and soybean
SOY
STAND

104
220
242
276


planting


on soybean growth.
SOY YIELD
BU/A % OF CONTROL

12.0 54
41.3 95
41.6 96
21.6 100


LSD @ 5%


Continued ---


- 61 -





Page 2 of 2


ATRAZINE CARRYO


VER IN A
Toah1 R


CORN-SOYBEAN DOUBLE CROPPING SYSTEM (continued)
Effect of atrazine rate on soybean growth.


Atrazine Soy Inj Soy Soy Yield
Ibs/A Rating Stand BU/A % of Check
0 0.2 242 32.6 100
1 0.7 216 30.7 94
2 1.7 207 28.6 88
4 3.1 175 24.5 75

LSD @ 5% 1.4 4


Table C. Effect on soybean yield [bu/A and (% of control)] of interaction
between atrazine rate and interval between application and soybean planting.
Atrazine Soybean Planting
rate Weeks After Atrazine Applied
(Ibs/A) 4 8 14 19
0 23.9(100) 44.1(100) 41.7(100) 20.6(100)
1 16.5( 69) 43.1( 98) 40.9( 98) 22.3(108)
2 7.2(0.30) 43.4( 98) 42.1(101) 21.9(106)
4 0.3(0.01) 34.5( 78) 41.7(100) 21.7(105)

Table D. Rainfall data for atrazine carryover test.
Interval after 1978 30-Yr Mean
Atrazine application Total Total
(weeks) Rainfall accumulation Rainfall accumulation
(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
0 to 4 2.5 2.5 5.4 5.4
4 to 8 11.8 14.3 4.6 10.0
8 to 14 11.6 25.9 8.5 18.5
14 to 19 13.1 39.0 8.5 27.0

Summary: This study was initiated to determine the minimum interval between atrazine
application and soybean planting required to prevent a reduction in soybean
yield. The data indicate that, overall, yield was not significantly reduced
if soybeans are planted 8 weeks or later after atrazine treatment when percent
of control values are compared (Table A). These values should be used rather the
bushels per acre since yields were affected by planting date regardless of
herbicide treatment. In addition, all atrazine treatments caused significant
yield reductions compared to the check,with each rate resulting in a sig-
nificantly greater yield loss than the next lower rate. However, because there
is a significant interaction between soybean planting interval and atrazine
rate it is necessary to consider both factors together. Comparing percent of
control values in Table C it appears that all atrazine treatments for the 4
week interval and the 4 Ib/A rate for soybeans planted 8 weeks after atrazine
treatment caused a reduction in soybean yield. The remainder of the planting
interval and atrazine rate combinations had no effect on soybean production.
Metribuzin rate also had no effect on soybean growth regardless of rate or time
of soybean planting. The rainfall data (Table D) should be considered during
interpretation of this data. The above average moisture following the 4 week
soybean planting probably caused somewhat more rapid than normal atrazine
dissipation.


- 62 -




Page 1 of 2


Description:


EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MULCH ON HERBICIDE PERFORMANCE IN SOYBEANS
Six herbicide treatments were applied over tillage variables. These variables included main plots
of (1) conventional tillage, (2) removal of wheat straw residue by burning followed by no-till plant-
ing and (3) no-till planting directly into straw mulch. Each of these main plots was split with 1/2
receiving in-row subsoiling and the remaining 1/2 left without further tillage. A no-till planter with
in-row subsoiling capabilities was used in this experiment. The subsoil shank was removed for those
areas where subsoiling was not desired.


SOYBEAN TILLAGE TRIAL


TRT RATE CULTURAL
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A CONDITIONS1 SOY VP


RATED 7-10-78
CRAB GOOSE FP SICK


RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
TM SOY TM JR RED SOY CRAB SFM BU/A


1 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor


2E
4F
4L


2 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor




3 Paraquat
Surflan
Sencor




4 Paraquat
Lasso
Sencor





Continued --


a.i.
.5 C
.75 C
.5 B
B
M
M


.5
1.0
.5




.5
1.0
.75




.5
2.0
.5


0.5
0.5
2.0
5.5
1.8
4.5

0.5
0.5
1.0
6.0
0.8
1.8

1.3
1.0
2.5
2.8
2.0
3.3

0.3
1.5
1.8
5.8
0.8
4.3


9.8
9.8
10.0
9.5
9.8
9.8

9.5
9.8
10.0
9.5
10.0
9.5

9.5
9.5
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.5

9.8
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.8


8.5
9.8
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0

9.3
9.8
10.0
9.5
10.0
9.8

10.0
10.0
9.5
9.8
9.5
9.5

9.8
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0


9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0

9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0

10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0


9.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.8

8.3
9.8
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0

8.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.5
10.0

9.0
9.5
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.8


6.5 0
8.3 0
9.0 1.5
9.5 4.8
9.3 2.0
9.8 4.0


7.3
7.3
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.8

8.8
7.5
9.0
9.3
9.5
10.0

8.3
8.3
9.3
9.5
8.8
9.8


0
0.3
0.5
5.3
0.8
2.5

0.5
0.5
1.8
2.5
1.8
3.0

0
0.3
0.8
3.3
1.0
3.5


4.0 8.8 6.3
6.3 9.5 9.3
7.3 10.0 9.5
9.5 9.3 9.8
8.5 9.8 10.0
9.8 9.0 10.0


6.3
6.5
8.5
9.0
8.5
9.8

8.5
6.3
7.0
8.5
8.3
10.0

8.0
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.3
9.3


8.5
9.8
9.8
8.8
9.8
10.0

10.0
9.8
9.0
8.8
8.5
9.0

8.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.3
10.0


8.0
8.8
8.8
9.5
10.0
10.0

7.5
10.0
9.3
10.0
9.5
10.0

8.8
8.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.5


- 63 -


0.3 10.0
0 10.0
0 10.0
5.8 9.3
0.5 9.8
2.0 8.3


10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0

10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.0

10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.8
9.0


9.5
8.8
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.3

9.8
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

9.8
9.5
9.8
9.8
10.0
9.8

9.8
9.5
9.8
9.8
10.0
9.3


41.4
43.3
43.6
19.4
46.7
29.8


47.2
45.0
42.1
27.1
45.7
39.2

44.5
40.4
42.6
37.5
45.0
30.7

47.2
46.0
44.8
27.8
46.7
36.8





Page 2 of 2



EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MULCH ON HERBICIDE PERFORMANCE IN SOYBEANS Soybean Tillage Trial (continued)
TRT RATE CULTURAL RATED 7-10-78 RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD @ 12%
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A CONDITIONS2 SOY VP CRAB GOOSE FP SICK TM SOY TM JR RED SOY CRAB SFM BU/A


a.i.
5 Paraquat 2E .5
Lasso 4E 3.0
Sencor 4L .5


6 Check


C + 0.3
C 0.8
B + 2.3
B 4.3
M + 1.5
M 3.8

C + 0.3
C 0.8
B + 2.3
B 3.0
M + 1.5
M 2.3


9.5 9.8 10.0
9.8 10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0 10.0


6.0
7.8
6.3
9.3
5.8
9.5


6.8
9.5
6.3
8.8
7.5
9.3


2.5
6.0
9.3
9.5
9.0
10.0


9.5 8.8
9.8 9.3
10.0 8.8
10.0 10.0
10.0 9.0
10.0 10.0


7.8
9.5
9.8
9.3
10.0
10.0


6.0
8.5
7.5
8.8
8.5
9.5


8.0
8.3
7.3
7.8
8.0
8.8

8,3
8.8
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.5


8.8 7.5
9.8 9.3
10.0 9.8
10.0 10.0
9.8 9.3
10.0 10.0


6.0
6,0
7.8
5.5
5.5
6.5


1.0
2,8
1.0
2.5
6.0
8.0


0
0.5
0
2.5
0
1.8

0.5
0.3
0
1.3
0
1.5


10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.8

9.8
10.0
7.3
6.8
8.8
7,8


9.8 39.7
9.3 42.6
10.0 42.8
10.0 36.5
10.0 45.5
10.0 30.0


10.0
9.8
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.0


39.7
40.9
42.8
38.7
45.0
33.2


IC = conventional tillage; B = wheat straw burned before
in-row subsoiling; = without in-row subsoiling.


planting; M = straw mulch left undisturbed; + = with


- 64 -










SOYBEAN TILLAGE TRIAL
Table A. Effect of herbicide :reacments on weed control
TRT RATE RATED 7-10-78 RATED 7-25-78 RATED S-23-73 YIEL3
NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A SOY 7? CRAB GOOSE ?P SICK TM SOY iM JR RED SOY CRA3 SFM 3U A


a.i.
1 Paraquat 2E .5
Surflan 4F .75
Sencor 4L .5


2 Paraquat 2E
Surflan 4F
Sencor 4L

3 Paraquat 2E
Surflan 4F
Sencor -L

4 Paraquat 2E
Lasso 4E
Sencor 4L

5 Paraquat 2E
Lasso 4E
Sencor 4L


2.4 3.9 9.7 9.6 8.3 9.7 3.7 2.1 7. 9.4 9.1 1.4 9.5 9.5 37.-


.5 1.8 8.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.6 8.8 1.6 8.1 9.5 9.2 0.9 10.0 9.9
1.0
.5

.5 2.2 8.7 9.6 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.0 1.7 8.1 9.2 9.4 0.3 9.8 9.3
1.0
.75

.5 2.4 8.4 9.9 9.9 10.0 9.7 9.0 1.5 7.9 9.6 9.4 0.9 9.8 9.7
2.0
.3

.5 2.2 8.8 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.3 1.6 8.0 9.7 9.3 0.8 9.9 9.9


41.1


6 Check -- ---


1.7 8.3 7.5 8.0 7.7 9.4 8.1 1.3 8.9 6.2 3.6 0.6 8.4 9.8


Table B. Effect of cultural treatments co herbicide performance.
CULTURAL RATED 7-10-78 RATED 7-25-78 RATED 8-28-78 YIELD 3 12%
CONDITIONS SOY VP CRAB GOOSE FP SICK TM SOY TM JR RED SOY CRAB SFM BU/A

C+ 0.5 8.4 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.7 7.6 0.1 7.2 8.4 6.5 0.4 10.0 9.8 43.3
C- 0.9 8.2 9.5 9.8 9.3 9.8 8.2 0.2 7.3 9.2 8.1 0.4 10.0 9.4 43.0


B+ 2.0 8.0 9.4 9.3
B- 4.6 7.2 9.7 9.6


1.4 8.7 9.2 9.5
3.3 9.2 9.7 9.8


9.9 9.9 8.8 1.3 7.7 9.4 8.1 0.1 9.5 9.9
9.9 9.9 7.9 3.7 8.6 8.7 8.6 2.5 9.3 9.9

9.8 9-.9 9.1 1.4 8.3 8.8 9.1 0.1 9.7 10.0
10.0 9.9 9.8 3.1 9.5 9.1 9.6 1.9 8.9 9.6


45.8
33.3


TILLAGE
CONDITIONS
C 0.7 8.3 9.3 9.4 9.0 9.3 7.9 0.2 7.3 8.8 7.3 0.4 10.0 9.6 43.1

B 3.3 7.6 9.5 9.5 9.9 9.9 8 4 2.5 8.2 9.1 8.4 1.3 9.4 9.9 37.1

M 2.4 9.0 9.5 9.7 9.0 9.9 9.5 2.3 8.9 9.0 9.4 1.0 9.3 9.8 39.5
SUBSOILING
CONDITIONS
+ 1.3 8.4 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 8.5 0.9 7.7 8.9 7.9 0.2 9.7 9.9 44.1

2.9 8.2 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.9 8.6 2.3 8.5 9.0 8.8 1.6 9.4 9.6 35.8
Summary: There was little difference between the various herbicide treatments used in
this test (Table A). Weed pressure was less than desired and therefore, the
check yielded equal to the treated plots. Cultural conditions did appear to
affect soybean yields (Table B). Those plots which were subsoiled yielded better
than those not receiving this treatment. However, this difference was not due to
disrupting a plow pan and better root penetration but rather to better seedbed
preparation, planter penetration and seed placement when the subsoil shank was in
place on the no-till planter. Crop stand was substantially decreased in no-till plots
where subsoiling was not used. The differences between the various tillage condition
are also due to the better seedbed preparation obtained with subsoiling under
no-till conditions. Penetration and seed placement were not affected by subsoiling
when conventional tillage was utilized.


- 65 -


~H
M-





Page 1 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN WINTER WHEAT


TRT


RATE WHEN


NO. CHEMICAL FORM LBS/A APP.
S_____ __ a. i.
1 Lasso 4E .5 PRE


2 Lasso

3 Lasso

4 Lorox

5 Hoelon

6 Hoelon

7 Hoelon

8 Hoelon +
Adj. A

9 Hoelon +
Adj. B

10 Hoelon +
Adj. C

11 Check

12 Sencor

13 Sencor

14 Sencor 4
Hoelon

15 Sencor 4
Hoelon

16 Sencor -
Hoelon

17 Sencor
Hoelon

18 Hoelon
Mowdown

19 Hoelon
Igran

20 Mowdown

21 Igran


4E

4E

50W

3E

3E

3E

S3E


3E


-3E
--


1.0

1.5

1.5

.5

.75

1.0

.5
.5%

.75
.5%

1.0
.5%


PRE

PRE

PRE

EP

EP

EP

EP
EP

EP
EP

EP
EP


-- --- -- 0

50W .38 EP 7.8

50W .5 EP 8.5

50W .38 EP 8.3


3E

-50W
3E

- 50W
3E

50W
3E

3E
80W

3E
80W

80W

80W


.5

.38
.75

.5
.5

.5
.75

.5
.75

.5
2.0

.75

2.0


RATED 2-9-78
WH RG BL


8.5

8.8

9.0

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.8

2.0


7.0

9.8

10.0

9.5

7.8

7.8

8.0

7.0


6.0

8.3

10.0

10.0

4.5

4.0

7.8

2.0


RATED 5-31-78
WH P CEP RG


4.5 8.3

3.8 8.8

6.0 8.0

1.5 9.3

1.8 8.5

0.8 9.3

1.0 8.5

1.0 9.0


9.0

7.8

8.8

9.8

9.3

10.0

10.0


2.5 7.3 0.8 1.5 9.5 4.3 10.0


2.5 8.5 5.8 0.8 9.3 3.8 10.0


1.8

10.0

9.8

9.3


3.0

10.0

9.8

9.5


7.8 9.3 9.3


9.0 10.0 10.0


9.5 10.0 10.0


9.8

9.8

10.0

10.0


9.8

9.5

10.0

10.0


2.5

7.8

7.8

10.0


0.8 10.0 10.0 10.0


2.8 10.0 10.0 10.0


1.8 10.0 10.0 10.0


4.3 8.5 9.5 1.0 9.3 9.5 9.0


4.5 6.5 7.0 2.5 9.5 9.5 8.0


0.3 6.5 3.3 7.0 10.0

0.2 6.0 9.8 4.5 10.0


10.0

10.0


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A

13.9


19.6

18.5

23.8

24.1

27.0

27.3

24.0


23.5


29.1


13.6

21.4

22.6

21.8


21.9


19.9


22.4


22.8


25.5


14.8

17.0


Continued ---


- 66 -






Page 2 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN WINTER WHEAT (continued)


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL FORM

22 Hoelon 3E
2,4-D 4E

23 Check

24 MSMA 6E
Surf.

25 MCPA 4E

26 Brominal 2E

27 Premerge 3E

28 2,4-D 4E

29 Banvel 4E

30 Check

31 Hoelon 3E

32 Hoelon 3E
Adj. A --

33 Hoelon 3E

34 Hoelon + 3E
Adj. A --

35 Hoelon 3E

36 Hoelon 3E
Adj. A

37 Sencor 50W

38 Sencor 50W

39 Sencor 50W
Hoelon 3E

40 Sencor 50W
Hoelon 3E
Adj. A --

41 Sencor 50W
Hoelon 3E

42 Sencor 50W
Hoelon 3E
Adj. A --


RATE WHEN
LBS/A APP.
a.i.
.5 EP


RATED 2-9-78
WH RG BL

2.3 9.0 5.8


RATED 5-31-78
WH P CEP RG

1.5 10.0 10.0 7.5


-- 3.0 4.8 3.8 6.5 9.5

3.0 EP 0 0 1.2 6.0 10.0


.5 EP 1.0 4.3 5,5

.5 EP 1.0 3.0 0.8

1.5 EP 0.8 0 0.8

.5 LP 0.3 2.5 0.3

.125 LP 0.3 2.5 3,3

1.5 2.0 2.0


--NOT

--NOT


--NOT

--NOT


--NOT

--NOT


--NOT

--NOT

--NOT


.5

.5
.5%

.75

.75
.5%

1.0

1.0
.5%

.38

.5

.38
.75

.38
.75
.5%

.5
1.0

.5
1.0
.5%


RATED--

RATED--


RATED--

RATED--


RATED--

RATED--


RATED--

RATED--

RATED--


--NOT RATED--



--NOT RATED--


--NOT RATED--


10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0


9.3

10.0


10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0


4.5 9.8 8.5 5.3

5.0 9.8 9.0 6.5


3.5 9.8 9.5 6.0

4.8 9.8 9.5 6.8


10.0

9.8

9.8


6.0

1.8

4.3


5.0 7.3 7.3 2.3



7.5 9.8 9.8 2.0


7.5 10.0 10.0


YIELD @ 12%
BU/A

26.4


18.7

15.8


14.1

12.8

8.5

9.0

12.4

10.0

15.0

16.3


14.6

15.6


15.5

15.8


17.7

11.2

11.4


7.5



4.3


5.1


LSD @ 5%
Continued ---


3.7 5.4 5.5


3.9 1.6 3.1


- 67 -




Page 3 of 3


WEED CONTROL IN WINTER WHEAT (continued)



Summary: Hoelon exhibited good control of ryegrass when applied alone EP while
the combination of Sencor + Hoelon EP provided excellent control of both
grass and broadleaf weeds. The wheat appeared to recover from the initial
injury caused by the Sencor. Other combinations that resulted in excellent
weed control included Hoelon + Mowdown and Hoelon + Igran.


- 68 -










WEED CONTROL IN BAHIAGRASS PASTURES


TRT
NO. CHEMICAL

1 Graslan

2 Graslan

3 Graslan

4 Dowpon
Graslan

5 Dowpon
Graslan

6 Velpar

7 Velpar

8 Velpar

9 Velpar

10 Check

11 Dowpon

12 Dowpon

13 Dowpon

14 Dowpon

15 Dowpon

16 Check


Sumn


RATE
FORM LBS/A
a.i.
80W 1.0


80W

80W

80SP
80SP

80SP
80W

90SP

90SP

90SP

90SP



80SP

80SP

80SP

80SP

80SP


2.0

3.0

2.0
1.0

3.0
2.0

.75

1.0

1.5

2.0


2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6,0


TIME
APP.1

FAF

FAF

FAF

FBF
FAF

FBF
FAF

FBF

FBF

FBF

FBF


FBF

FBF

FBF

FBF

FBF


T.3T (a 1 1/


11-7-77-


SMUT
CLUMPS3
20.8

17.5

24.3

24.3


% GROUND COVER
BAHIA SMUT
68.8 31.3


77.5

62.5

67.5


21.8 67.5


29.5

28.5

35.0

31.0

23.0

21.0

22.3

18.8

22.8

24.3

23.5

Q 3


52.5

60.0

42.5

50.0

62.5

67.5

65.0

83.8

68.8

67.5

66.3

MN


22.5

37.5

32.5


8-30-78
NO.
SMUT
CLUMPS
7.8

6.8

1.5

5.8


9-6-78

% GROUND COVER
BAHIA SMUT BARE
63.3 17.5 1.3


83.8

95.0

93.8


16.3

5.0

6.3


12-14-78


RATING
BAHIA SMUT
0.0 5.8

0.0 8.0

0.0 9.0

0.0 9.0


32.5 4.8 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 9.8


47.5

40.0

57.5

50.0

37.5

32.5

35.0

16.3

31.3

32.5

33.8

N S


2.3 88.8 11.3 0.0 0.3 8.0

2.0 95.0 5.0 0.0 0.3 8.8

4.3 95.0 1.3 3.8 0.8 9.3

2.5 96.3 0.0 3.8 1.5 9.3

21.8 47.5 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.3 92.5 5.0 2.5 2.8 9.0

4.8 95.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 9.0

2.5 92.5 2.5 5.0 4.3 9.0

8.3 92.5 2.5 6.3 3.8 9.0

0.0 88.8 2.5 8.8 3.8 9.0

21.8 55.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A 9 1 I A A q 1in n 7


1FBF = fall before freeze, treated 11-7-77; FAF = fall after freeze, treated 12-19-77.
2Data taken at time of first herbicide application.
3Two strings were stretched diagonally across a plot forming an "X". Each string was marked
at 6-inch intervals and the smutgrass clumps intersecting with these marks were counted.

lary: Both Graslan and Velpar provided good to excellent smutgrass control with
minimal bahiagrass injury. Dowpon also gave good smutgrass control but caused
injury to the pasture grass. Dogfennel control was significantly better with
either Graslan or Velpar than with Dowpon.


- 69 -


DF
9.0

9.5

9.5

9.3




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs