1 / 29

Comparison of Sulfometuron Products for Herbaceous Weed Control on Forestry Sites

Comparison of Sulfometuron Products for Herbaceous Weed Control on Forestry Sites. Background. HWC remains an integral component of pine plantation establishment in the South Any new product requires extensive testing to ensure efficacy, crop tolerance, and/or crop growth response.

thuy
Download Presentation

Comparison of Sulfometuron Products for Herbaceous Weed Control on Forestry Sites

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Sulfometuron Products for Herbaceous Weed Control on Forestry Sites

  2. Background • HWC remains an integral component of pine plantation establishment in the South • Any new product requires extensive testing to ensure efficacy, crop tolerance, and/or crop growth response

  3. Objective • To compare the product now known as Sulfometuron Max to either Oust or Oust XP in operational field settings

  4. Study Sites 2002 • MS • Plum Creek Timber • Oktibbeha Co. • Falkner silt loam, pH = 4.8 • Previous stand = natural pine-hardwood • Harvested 2001, chemical site prep 2001 • Planted January 2002 • TX • Nacogdoches Co. • Deep moderately well drained sandy soil, pH = 5.0 • Previous stand - natural pine-hardwood • Harvested 2001, chemical site prep 2001 • Sheared January, 2002 • Planted February 2002

  5. Application (2002) • MS • April 4, 2002 • CO2 sprayer,T-Boom with twin 110-02 nozzles, 10 gpa • TX • April 2, 2002 • CO2 sprayer, T-Boom with twin 110-02 nozzles, 10 gpa • All applications were "over-the-top" of seedlings • Plots were 5 ft X 100 ft except 2003 MS plots which were 30 ft x 100 ft

  6. Study Sites 2003 • MS • Plum Creek Timber • Oktibbeha Co. • Ruston fine sandy loam, pH =5.2 • Previous stand = natural pine-hardwood • Harvested 2001, chemical site prep 2002 • Planted January 2003 • TX • Angelina Co. • Shallow loam overlying clay loam, pH = 5.1 • Previous stand - pine plantation with hardwood component • Harvested 2002, chemical site prep 2002 • Burned, plowed • Planted November, 2002 (containerized) • Replanted February, 2003 (bareroot)

  7. Application (2003) • MS • April 13, 2003 • CO2, sprayer with pole extension and KLC-9 nozzle, 10 gpa broadcast • TX • April 17, 2003 • CO2 sprayer, T-Boom with 4, 110-1.5 nozzles, 10 gpa

  8. Table 1. List of treatments in sulfometuron comparison study Trmt. No. Product (Ounces/Acre) ______________________________________________________ 1 Sulf. Max(2) 2 Oust/Oust XP(2) 3 Sulf. Max(8) 4 Oust/Oust XP(8) 5 Sulf. Max(2) + Velpar DF (10.67) 6 Oust/Oust XP (2) + Velpar DF (10.67) 7 Sulf. Max(2) + Arsenal AC(4) 8 Oust/Oust XP(2) + Arsenal AC(4) 9 Sulf. Max(2) + Arsenal AC(6) 10 Oust/Oust XP(2) + Arsenal AC(6) 11 Untreated Check

  9. Experimental Design • 11 Treatments • 4 replications • RCB

  10. Evaluations • Ground cover by vegetation group at 30, 60, 90,120, and 150 DAT • Crop tolerance at same timings • Pine height and GLD - Initial &1 GSAT

  11. Results

  12. Grass Control • 2002 (MS & TX) • Panicium, Dicanthelium, Cyperus • No notable differences between comparison treatments

  13. Table 2. Average grass cover in 2002 Sulfometuroncomparison study Days After Treatment Trt. 30 60 90 120 150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2) 2/01 4/0 6/1 2/1 4/ -2 O(2) 1/0 2/2 7/2 4/3 4/ - Sm(8) 1/0 1/1 6/0 4/1 5/ - O(8) 1/0 2/0 6/1 4/4 6/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67) 1/0 2/0 6/0 6/1 7/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 1/0 3/0 7/0 9/1 9/ - Sm(2) + A(4) 1/0 3/1 6/1 7/1 8/ - O(2) + A(4) 1/0 1/0 5/1 5/1 6/ - Sm(2) + A(6) 1/0 1/0 8/0 6/1 7/ - O(2) +A(6) 1/0 1/1 8/0 3/1 6/ - Check 10/10 18/14 34/18 21/20 20- • For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) • 2 No observations for TX at 150 DAT

  14. Broadleaf Control (2002) • MS - horseweed, late boneset, common ragweed, horse nettle, blue vervain, Helianthus, goldenrod, dog fennel, and wooly croton • TX - purple cudweed, American burnweed, wooly croton, tropic croton, three-seeded mercury, common ragweed • No notable differences between comparison treatments

  15. Table 3. Average broadleaf cover in 2002 sulfometuron comparison study Days After Treatment Trt. 30 60 90 120 150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2) 5/2 1 8/12 29/8 18/10 13/ - 2 O(2) 6/0 8/3 33/6 19/10 14/ - Sm(8) 280 3/3 21/3 11/5 10/ - O(8) 3/0 582 23/3 15/5 11/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67) 2/0 4/2 19/1 25/2 13/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 1/0 2/1 18/0 21/1 11/ - Sm(2) + A(4) 3/0 5/3 11/4 10/5 11/ - O(2) + A(4) 1/1 1/10 13/7 11/12 11/ - Sm(2) + A(6) 1/0 2/6 11/1 13/1 10/ - O(2) +A(6) 2/0 2/1 9/1 4/3 3/ - Check 43/20 53/13 73/35 74/57 75/ - • For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) • 2 No TX observations

  16. Field slides 1-9

  17. Grass Control (2003) • MS - Andropogon • TX - Dicantheluim, Panicium, Cyperus • Only differences caused by differing amounts of Andropogon in 8 oz. plots in MS (120 & 150 DAT)

  18. Table 4. Average percent grass cover in 2003 sulfometuron comparison study Days After Treatment Trt. 30 60 90 120 150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2) 12/2 1 3/2 5/5 19/3 33/- 2 O(2) 4/3 3/2 7/5 9/13 30/ - Sm(8) 4/2 1/3 5/4 18/8 17/ - O(8) 7/3 5/2 15/3 40/11 63/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67) 3/4 2/3 8/3 10/12 12/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 7/4 4/4 9/5 10/13 16/ - Sm(2) + A(4) 4/2 2/1 7/3 11/9 7/ - O(2) + A(4) 4/3 3/2 6/3 10/12 10/ - Sm(2) + A(6) 4/2 1/2 7/5 12/6 22/ - O(2) +A(6) 2/3 1/2 6/3 10/7 22/ - Check 20/10 10/11 10/28 9/39 8/ - • For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) • 2 No TX observations

  19. Broadleaf Control • MS - late boneset, horseweed, chickweed, Virginia buttonweed, common ragweed, Oxalis, lambsquarters, and wooly croton • TX - purple cudweed, dog fennel, late boneset, horseweed • No notable difference between comparison treatments

  20. Table 5. Average percent broadleaf cover in 2003 sulfometuron comparison study Days After Treatment Trt. 30 60 90 120 150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2) 10/3 1 10/2 50/3 48/3 50/ - 2 O(2) 8/1 12/1 42/3 52/3 63/ - Sm(8) 5/8 3/5 9/5 10/5 12/ - O(8) 5/1 7/3 12/3 6/3 9/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67) 6/4 6/3 25/5 50/5 53/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 15/4 12/4 33/4 50/4 43/ - Sm(2) + A(4) 7/6 5/3 18/4 37/4 43/ - O(2) + A(4) 7/3 10/2 27/2 50/2 63/ - Sm(2) + A(6) 9/5 6/4 30/5 53/5 45/ - O(2) +A(6) 11/1 6/2 28/3 57/3 60/ - Check 40/8 57/9 83/6 90/6 87/ - • For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) • 2 No TX observations

  21. Field slides 11-18

  22. Crop Tolerance • No Problems in any treatments

  23. Pine Response • Survival - No consistent trends between comparison treatments. Some differences due to site drainage (MS) or planting (TX)

  24. Table 6. Average pine survival IGSAT 2002 2003 Trmt. MS TX MS TX Overall ________________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2) 63 85 80 88 79 O(2) 72 90 80 90 83 Sm(8) 52 92 97 94 84 O(8) 76 83 97 92 87 Sm(2) + V(10.67) 50 77 90 81 75 O(2) + V(10.67) 79 88 83 75 81 Sm(2) + A(4) 70 92 93 94 87 O(2) + A(4) 75 79 93 83 82 Sm(2) + A(6) 74 77 97 94 86 O(2) +A(6) 65 85 87 92 82 Check 58 88 83 94 81

  25. Height Growth • No consistent trends between comparison treatments

  26. Table 7. Average pine height IGSAT 2002 2003 Trmt. MS TX MS TX Overall ________________________________________________________________________ feet Sm(2) 1.34 1.91 1.67 1.85 1.70 O(2) 1.34 1.81 1.51 1.95 1.65 Sm(8) 1.31 1.73 1.80 1.91 1.69 O(8) 1.43 1.99 1.74 1.82 1.75 Sm(2) + V(10.67) 1.31 1.51 1.71 2.20 1.68 O(2) + V(10.67) 1.26 1.41 1.56 2.04 1.57 Sm(2) + A(4) 1.41 2.13 1.77 2.27 1.90 O(2) + A(4) 1.47 1.71 1.78 2.21 1.79 Sm(2) + A(6) 1.35 1.76 1.79 1.82 1.68 O(2) +A(6) 1.42 1.76 1.59 1.92 1.67 Check 1.24 1.61 1.52 2.00 1.59

  27. Groundline Diameter • All treatments enhanced growth • No trends between comparison treatments

  28. Table 8. Average pine GLD IGSAT 2002 2003 Trmt. MS TX MS TX Overall ________________________________________________________________________ feet Sm(2) 0.34 0.47 0.38 0.57 0.45 O(2) 0.35 0.44 .034 0.59 0.43 Sm(8) 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.60 0.48 O(8) 0.41 0.48 0.49 0.58 0.49 Sm(2) + V(10.67) 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.68 0.46 O(2) + V(10.67) 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.66 0.44 Sm(2) + A(4) 0.37 0.48 0.42 0.73 0.50 O(2) + A(4) 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.72 0.49 Sm(2) + A(6) 0.32 0.58 0.47 0.60 0.50 O(2) +A(6) 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.58 0.45 Check 0.24 0.36 0.31 0.58 0.37

  29. Summary • Both products performed equally well in competition control, crop tolerance, and pine growth • Either product should work well in operational applications

More Related