HWC remains an integral component of pine plantation establishment in the South Any new product...

• 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

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

• 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


– Sheared January, 2002

– Planted February 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

• MS– Plum Creek Timber

– Oktibbeha Co.

– Ruston fine sandy loam, pH =5.2

– Previous stand = natural pine-hardwood


– Planted January 2003

• TX– Angelina Co.

– Shallow loam overlying clay loam, pH = 5.1

– Previous stand - pine plantation with hardwood component


– Burned, plowed

– Planted November, 2002 (containerized)

– Replanted February, 2003 (bareroot)

• 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

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

• 11 Treatments• 4 replications• RCB

• 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

• 2002 (MS & TX)– Panicium, Dicanthelium, Cyperus– No notable differences between comparison

treatments

Table 2. Average grass cover in 2002 Sulfometuron

comparison study

Days After TreatmentTrt. 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-

1 For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps)

2 No observations for TX at 150 DAT

• 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

Table 3. Average broadleaf cover in 2002 sulfometuron comparison study


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/ -


2 No TX observations

Field slides 1-9

• MS - Andropogon

• TX - Dicantheluim, Panicium, Cyperus

• Only differences caused by differing amounts of Andropogon in 8 oz. plots in MS (120 & 150 DAT)

Table 4. Average percent grass cover in 2003 sulfometuron comparison study


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/ -



• 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

Table 5. Average percent broadleaf cover in 2003 sulfometuron comparison study


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/ -



• Field slides 11-18

• No Problems in any treatments

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

Table 6. Average pine survival IGSAT

2002 2003Trmt. MS TX MS TX Overall________________________________________________________________________

Percent

Sm(2) 63 85 80 88 79O(2) 72 90 80 90 83

Sm(8) 52 92 97 94 84O(8) 76 83 97 92 87

Sm(2) + V(10.67) 50 77 90 81 75O(2) + V(10.67) 79 88 83 75 81

Sm(2) + A(4) 70 92 93 94 87O(2) + A(4) 75 79 93 83 82

Sm(2) + A(6) 74 77 97 94 86O(2) +A(6) 65 85 87 92 82

Check 58 88 83 94 81

•No consistent trends between comparison treatments

Table 7. Average pine height IGSAT


feet

Sm(2) 1.34 1.91 1.67 1.85 1.70O(2) 1.34 1.81 1.51 1.95 1.65

Sm(8) 1.31 1.73 1.80 1.91 1.69O(8) 1.43 1.99 1.74 1.82 1.75

Sm(2) + V(10.67) 1.31 1.51 1.71 2.20 1.68O(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 1.90O(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 1.68O(2) +A(6) 1.42 1.76 1.59 1.92 1.67

Check 1.24 1.61 1.52 2.00 1.59

• All treatments enhanced growth• No trends between comparison

treatments

Table 8. Average pine GLD IGSAT


feet

Sm(2) 0.34 0.47 0.38 0.57 0.45O(2) 0.35 0.44 .034 0.59 0.43

Sm(8) 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.60 0.48O(8) 0.41 0.48 0.49 0.58 0.49

Sm(2) + V(10.67) 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.68 0.46O(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 0.50O(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 0.50O(2) +A(6) 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.58 0.45

Check 0.24 0.36 0.31 0.58 0.37

• Both products performed equally well in competition control, crop tolerance, and pine growth

• Either product should work well in operational applications

HWC remains an integral component of pine plantation establishment in the South Any new product...

Documents

Transcript of HWC remains an integral component of pine plantation establishment in the South Any new product...