2. There was not any statistical difference between treatments

Transcription

1 Sweet Potato Data Summary Results from MRS 2012 trial 1. Treatments a. Pyroxasulfone at 0.08, 0.106, 0.133, and lbai/a b. Dual Magnum at 0.64, 1.27, and 2.53 lbai/a c. Command at 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 lbai/a d. UTC 2. NOTE: The basic trial objective was to evaluate crop response. All rates are shown in pound active ingredient per acre and all treatments were applied 1 day post transplant, prior to weed emergence. Adequate moisture was provided either by rain or irrigation. The soil was a silt loam. 3. Phytotoxicity as % Biomass Reduction (BR) a. Variety Georgia Jet i. 7 DAT 1. Pyroxasulfone (Pyrox) at.08,.106 and.133 did not cause any phytotoxicity, whereas.160 and.266 resulted in 5% BR 2. All rates of Dual resulted in 1.5% BR and Command did not cause any BR 3. There was not any statistical difference between treatments ii. 22 DAT 1. All Pyrox rates caused minor BR ranging from 2.5 to 10% 2. Dual at 2.53 caused minor BR (5%) 3. Command at 1.0 caused minor BR (2.5%) 4. There was not any statistical difference between treatments iii. 36 DAT 1. Pyrox at.08,.106,.133, and.160 resulted in 7.5 to 10% BR. The.266 rate caused significant BR at this point (27.5%) 2. All 3 rates of Dual resulted in BR ranging from 2.5 to 6.5% 3. All 3 rates of Command resulted in BR ranging from 5 to 15% 4. There was not any statistical difference between treatments iv. 48 DAT 1. All treatments had essentially grown out of the BR with the exception of Pyrox at.266 which had statistically greater BR (12.5%) than all the other treatments except Pyrox at.160 (1.5%) and Command at 1.0 (1.5%) b. Variety Beauregard i. 7 DAT none of the treatments resulted in any BR ii. 22 DAT 1. The only treatments that resulted in any BR were Pyrox at.106 (5%),.266 (10%) and Command at 1.0 (5%) 2. There was not any statistical difference between treatments iii. 36 DAT 1. For all intent and purposes, none of the treatments showed BR and were all statistically equal iv. 48 DAT 1. Pyrox at.266 had statistically more BR (12.5%) than the other treatments with the exception of Pyrox at.160 (1.5%) and Command at 1.0 (2.5%) 4. Weed control a. Bracharia

2 i. Control ratings were difficult to interpret for the first 3 ratings, but were relatively clear at the 48 DAT rating 1. All Pyrox treatments were statistically equal ranging from 75 to 100% in a direct rate response pattern 2. Dual treatments were statistically equal (when looking at rates)to Pyrox with the.64 Dual rate trending much lower 3. Command provided the same type of rate response as Pyrox with control ratings ranging from 82 to 100% b. Amaranthus species i. 7 DAT all treatments provided essentially 100% control ii. 22 DAT 1. All treatments were holding with the exception of Command at.5 iii. 48 DAT 1. Pyrox at all rates was providing 100% control. 2. Although statistically equal the.64 and 2.23 rates of Dual trended to be slightly less effective 3. Command at.5 and 1.0 were not providing acceptable control (30 and 65% respectively). The 2.0 lb rate was statistically equal to Pyrox and Dual c. Horse purslane i. All treatments provided 100% control for 36 days which was the last rating for this weed. Sweet Potato Data Summary conclusions 1. This is a 2 rep trial and thus this should be considered when evaluating multiple trials 2. The phytotoxicity ratings indicate that Pyroxasulfone can be applied after transplanting but prior to weed emergence 3. There was a varietal response to Pyrox with Georgia Jet being more sensitive than Beauregard, however these data indicate there is good crop tolerance to Pyrox up to the.226 lbai/a rate and even this rate may be acceptable since vine ratings are not a reliable indicator of phytotoxicity 4. Pyrox provided 100% control of Amarathus species at all rates which is a definite advantage 5. Dual at.64 and 2.23 lb ai/a tended to be slightly less effective against Amaranthus at 48 DAT 6. Command at.5 and 1.0 did not provide acceptable control of Amaranthus 7. Pyrox, Dual and Command at all rates provided 100% control of horse purslane 8. Although at 48 DAT all treatments were providing statistically equal control of Bracharia, except Dual at.64 lbai/a which was not acceptable. Treatments which provided 95% or better control of Bracharia were Pyrox at.133,.160 and.266 lbai/a; Dual at 1.27 lbai/a and Command at 1.0 and 2.0 lbai/a. This is a ubiquitous weed and lack of control would have a negative effect.

3 K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. Mississippi Research Station Date: Trial Number: Title: 2012MRSH013 Crop injury and weed control with KIH-485(pyroxasulfone) on sweet potato Objective: To evaluate sweet potato injury and weed control at various rates of KIH-485 Materials & Methods: See treatment list below Planting Date(s): Location: Field # 11 Application Date(s): Crop(s): Sweet potato (Beauregard & Soil Texture: Silt loam Georgia Jet) Key Weeds: AMASS, BRAPP Rating Dates: 5-31, 6-15, 6-29, 7-11 Special Comments: Treatments were postemergence to potato and preemergence to weeds. Only 2 replications were made. Injury ratings were made to potato vines only. Sweet potato expert, Dr. Mark Shankle, Miss. State Univ., told me that you really can t determine much from vine injury symptoms. We noticed reddening of the apical growing points and recorded these symptoms but were later told that this is normal for sweet potato. Trt Treatment Form Form Form Rate Grow Appl Amt Product Plot No. By Rep No. Name Conc Unit Type Rate Unit Stg Code to Measure KIH % WG 1.5 oz wt/a Pre A g/mx KIH % WG 2 oz wt/a Pre A g/mx KIH % WG 2.5 oz wt/a Pre A g/mx KIH % WG 3 oz wt/a Pre A g/mx KIH % WG 5 oz wt/a Pre A g/mx Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal EC 0.67 pt/a Pre A 2.35 ml/mx Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal EC 1.33 pt/a Pre A ml/mx Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal EC 2.66 pt/a Pre A 9.33 ml/mx Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal ME 1.33 pt/a Pre A ml/mx Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal ME 2.66 pt/a Pre A 9.33 ml/mx Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal ME 5.32 pt/a Pre A ml/mx Untreated CROP AND WEED DESCRIPTION Weed Code Common Name Scientific Name 1. AMASS Amaranth Amaranthus sp. 2. BRAPP Broadleaf signalgrass Urichloa platyphylla Crop 1: IPOBA POTATO, SWEET Variety: McCloud Planting Date: 5/23/12 Planting Method: Transplant Rate: 1 P/ROW-FT Row Spacing: 38 in Spacing Within Row: 1 ft Seed Bed: CLODDY SITE AND DESIGN Plot Width, Unit: 6.33 FT Plot Length, Unit: 10 FT Reps: 2 Study Design: RANDOMIZED COMPLETE BLOCK SOIL DESCRIPTION % Sand: 25.4 % OM: Texture: silt loam % Silt: 61.1 ph: 6.36 % Clay: 13.4 CEC: 10.8 MOISTURE CONDITIONS Date Amount Unit Type Interval Unit 1. 5/23/ in irr 1 d 2. 5/24/ in irr 1 d 3. 5/30/ in Rain 1 d 4. 6/4/ in Rain 1 d 5. 6/11/ in Rain 1 d

4 6. 6/12/ in Rain 1 d 7. 6/20/12 1 in irr 1 d 8. 7/3/12 1 in irr 1 d 9. 7/6/12 1 in irr 1 d 10. 7/8/ in Rain 1 d APPLICATION DESCRIPTION A Application Date: 5/24/12 Time of Day: 7:00 am Application Method: backpack Application Timing: Pre Applic. Placement: broadcast Air Temp., Unit: 70 F % Relative Humidity: 89 Wind Velocity, Unit: 3.5 mph Dew Presence (Y/N): n Water Hardness: soft Soil Temp., Unit: 70 F Soil Moisture: optimum % Cloud Cover: 0 CROP STAGE AT EACH APPLICATION A Crop 1 Code, Stage: IPOBA WEED STAGE AT EACH APPLICATION A Weed 1 Code, Stage: AMASS Weed 2 Code, Stage: BRAPP APPLICATION EQUIPMENT A Appl. Equipment: backpack Operating Pressure: 40psi Nozzle Type: AI Nozzle Size: Nozzle Spacing, Unit: 20 in Boom Height, Unit: 18 in Ground Speed, Unit: 2.5 mph Carrier: water Spray Volume, Unit: 200 l/ha Propellant: CO2 Tank Mix (Y/N): n

5 Crop injury and weed control with KIH-485 on sweet potato Trial ID: 2012MRSH013 Study Dir.: M. Kobayashi Location: Field #11 S Investigator: Mark Kurtz Weed Code AMASS BRAPP TRTPO Crop Code Sweet Po Sweet Po Part Rated plant plant Rating Data Type BIORED BIORED Control Control Control Rating Unit % % % % % Rating Date 5/31/12 5/31/12 5/31/12 5/31/12 5/31/12 Crop Stage Scale Geo Jet Beaurega Assessed By mk,as,cm,dt mk,as,cm,dt mk,as,cm,dt mk,as,cm,dt mk,as,cm,dt Trt-Eval Interval 7 DA-A 7 DA-A 7 DA-A 7 DA-A 7 DA-A Trt Treatment Form Form Rate Grow No. Name Conc Unit Rate Unit Stg KIH % 1.5 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a 99.5 b 99.5 ab a 2 KIH % 2 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a 99.0 bc a 3 KIH % 2.5 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a 99.5 ab a 4 KIH % 3 oz wt/a Pre 5.0 a 0.0 a a a a 5 KIH % 5 oz wt/a Pre 5.0 a 5.0 a a a a 6 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 0.67 pt/a Pre 1.5 a 0.0 a a 98.5 c a 7 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 1.5 a 0.0 a a 99.5 ab a 8 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 1.5 a 0.0 a a a a 9 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a 99.5 ab a 10 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a a a 11 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 5.32 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a a a 12 Untreated 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.0 d 0.0 b LSD (P=.05) Standard Deviation CV Bartlett's X P(Bartlett's X2) Replicate F Replicate Prob(F) Treatment F Treatment Prob(F) Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD) Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL.

6 ( Weed Code AMASS BRAPP Crop Code Sweet Po Sweet Po Sweet Po Sweet Po Sweet Po Part Rated plant plant plant plant plant Rating Data Type BIORED BIORED Control Control Redening Redening BIORED Rating Unit % % % % % % % Rating Date 6/15/12 6/15/12 6/15/12 6/15/12 6/15/12 6/15/12 6/29/12 Crop Stage Scale Geo Jet Beaurega Geo Jet Beaurega Geo Jet Assessed By cm,dt cm,dt cm,dt cm,dt cm,dt cm,dt Trt-Eval Interval 22 DA-A 22 DA-A 22 DA-A 22 DA-A 22 DA-A 22 DA-A 36 DA-A Trt Treatment Form Form Rate Grow No. Name Conc Unit Rate Unit Stg KIH % 1.5 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a 50.0 a 5.0 a 7.5 a 0.0 a 2 KIH % 2 oz wt/a Pre 10.0 a 5.0 a a 82.5 a 7.5 a 12.5 a 20.0 a 3 KIH % 2.5 oz wt/a Pre 2.5 a 0.0 a a 94.5 a 1.5 a 11.5 a 5.0 a 4 KIH % 3 oz wt/a Pre 5.0 a 0.0 a a a 5.0 a 12.5 a 10.0 a 5 KIH % 5 oz wt/a Pre 7.5 a 10.0 a a a 7.5 a 10.0 a 22.5 a 6 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 0.67 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a 45.0 a 2.5 a 9.0 a 2.5 a 7 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a a 1.5 a 5.0 a 2.5 a 8 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 5.0 a 0.0 a a 55.0 a 1.5 a 7.5 a 7.5 a 9 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a 91.5 b 57.5 a 1.5 a 7.5 a 1.5 a 10 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 2.5 a 5.0 a 99.0 a a 1.5 a 5.0 a 7.5 a 11 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 5.32 pt/a Pre 0.0 a 0.0 a a a 0.0 a 5.0 a 2.5 a 12 Untreated 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a LSD (P=.05) Standard Deviation CV Bartlett's X P(Bartlett's X2) Replicate F Replicate Prob(F) Treatment F Treatment Prob(F) Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD) Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL. Weed Code AMASS BRAPP TRTPO

7 Crop Code Sweet Po Sweet Po Sweet Po Sweet Po Part Rated plant plant plant plant Rating Data Type Redening BIORED Redening Control Control Control BIORED Rating Unit % % % % % % % Rating Date 6/29/12 6/29/12 6/29/12 6/29/12 6/29/12 6/29/12 7/11/12 Crop Stage Scale Geo Jet Beaurega Beaurega Geo Jet Assessed By MK MK MK MK MK mk Trt-Eval Interval 36 DA-A 36 DA-A 36 DA-A 36 DA-A 36 DA-A 36 DA-A 48 DA-A Trt Treatment Form Form Rate Grow No. Name Conc Unit Rate Unit Stg KIH % 1.5 oz wt/a Pre 7.5 a 0.0 a 1.5 a a 50.0 a a 0.0 c 2 KIH % 2 oz wt/a Pre 10.0 a 0.0 a 1.5 a a 80.0 a a 0.0 c 3 KIH % 2.5 oz wt/a Pre 7.5 a 0.0 a 1.5 a a 99.0 a a 0.0 c 4 KIH % 3 oz wt/a Pre 10.0 a 1.5 a 3.0 a a a a 1.5 bc 5 KIH % 5 oz wt/a Pre 27.5 a 0.0 a 3.0 a a a a 12.5 b 6 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 0.67 pt/a Pre 6.5 a 0.0 a 1.5 a a 47.5 a a 0.0 c 7 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 2.5 a 0.0 a 3.0 a a a a 0.0 c 8 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 5.0 a 0.0 a 2.5 a a 55.0 a a 0.0 c 9 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 15.0 a 0.0 a 3.0 a 82.5 b 57.5 a a 0.0 c 10 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 12.5 a 0.0 a 3.0 a 91.5 ab a a 1.5 bc 11 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 5.32 pt/a Pre 5.0 a 0.0 a 4.0 a 95.5 a a a 0.0 c 12 Untreated 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 b 60.0 a LSD (P=.05) Standard Deviation CV Bartlett's X P(Bartlett's X2) Replicate F Replicate Prob(F) Treatment F Treatment Prob(F) Weed Code AMASS BRAPP Crop Code Sweet Po

8 Part Rated plant Rating Data Type BIORED Control Control Rating Unit % % % Rating Date 7/11/12 7/11/12 7/11/12 Crop Stage Scale Beaurega Assessed By mk mk mk Trt-Eval Interval 48 DA-A 48 DA-A 48 DA-A Trt Treatment Form Form Rate Grow No. Name Conc Unit Rate Unit Stg KIH % 1.5 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 c 99.5 a 75.0 ab 2 KIH % 2 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 c a 85.0 ab 3 KIH % 2.5 oz wt/a Pre 0.0 c a 95.0 a 4 KIH % 3 oz wt/a Pre 1.5 bc a a 5 KIH % 5 oz wt/a Pre 12.5 b a a 6 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 0.67 pt/a Pre 0.0 c 89.0 a 61.5 b 7 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 0.0 c 99.0 a 99.0 a 8 Dual Magnum 7.62 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 0.0 c 90.0 a 92.5 ab 9 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 1.33 pt/a Pre 0.0 c 30.0 c 82.5 ab 10 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 2.66 pt/a Pre 2.5 bc 65.0 b 95.0 a 11 Command 3 ME 3 lba/gal 5.32 pt/a Pre 0.0 c 85.0 a a 12 Untreated 60.0 a 0.0 d 0.0 c LSD (P=.05) Standard Deviation CV Bartlett's X P(Bartlett's X2) Replicate F Replicate Prob(F) Treatment F Treatment Prob(F) Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD) Mean comparisons performed only when AOV Treatment P(F) is significant at mean comparison OSL.