ir-4 ornamental horticulture programlieth.ucdavis.edu/pub/replim/replim277_snapshot protocol...ir-4...

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Form

Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis PRNumber(s): 24780, 25789, 24798

1

Project Title: Phytotoxicity of Snapshot 2.5TG (Trifluralin + Isoxaben) applied over the top to Asclepias, Hibiscus and Oenothera Protocol #: 09-011 Narrative Summary (Results/Discussion) Asclepias currisavica Phytotoxicity. There was slight phytotoxicity damage on Asclepias currisavica due to Snapshot during the 10-week trial (Tables 1 and 6a, Figures 1 and 2a). By week 4, the phyto ratings for all Snapshot-treated plants were significantly higher than those for the control plants but the overall levels were still below 2. Symptoms included chlorosis and distortion of leaves. Differences were not significant by week 6 and ratings were at 2 or below for all plants (see Table 5 for an explanation of the phytotoxicity ratings). After the second application, plants in the 2X Snapshot treatment group showed significantly greater damage that persisted from week 7 to week 8. By the end of the trial there were no significant differences in phytotoxicity ratings among the plants in all groups. Plant Growth. No significant treatment effect of Snapshot on Asclepias was noted for height or width increase (Tables 2 and 6a, Figure 2a). At the proposed label rate, Snapshot can be considered safe for over the top application on Asclepias but caution should be used to avoid going beyond the label rate. Hibiscus syriacus ‘Minerva’ Phytotoxicity. There was slight phytotoxicity damage on Hibiscus syriacus ‘Minerva’ due to Snapshot during the 10-week trial (Tables 1 and 6b, Figures 1 and 2b). By week 4, the phyto ratings for Snapshot-treated plants at the 2X and 4X rates were significantly higher than those for the control plants. Symptoms included chlorosis and bleaching of leaves. Differences were not significant by week 6 and ratings were at 2 or below for the majority of plants (see Table 5 for an explanation of the phytotoxicity ratings). After the second application, plants in the 2X Snapshot treatment group showed significantly greater damage at week 7. By the end of the trial there were no significant differences in phytotoxicity ratings among the plants in all groups. Plant Growth. No significant treatment effect of Snapshot on Hibiscus was noted for height or width increase (Tables 2 and 6b, Figure 2b). At the proposed label rate, Snapshot can be considered safe for over the top application on Hibiscus but caution should be used to avoid going beyond the label rate. Oenothera speciosa ‘Rosea’ Phytotoxicity. There was a treatment effect from Snapshot on Oenothera speciosa ‘Rosea’. After the first and second weeks, the effect was minor with phytotoxicity ratings below 2 (Tables 1 and 6c, Figures 1 and 2c). Phytotoxicity symptoms included red leaf coloration and some branch



2

dieback. By the end of the trial, plants in the 4X treatment group exhibited significantly greater phytotoxicity with an average rating of 3 that signifies borderline marketability (Table 5). Plant Growth. No significant treatment effect of Snapshot on Oenothera was noted for height or width increase (Tables 2 and 6c, Figure 2c). Snapshot can be used at the label rate for over the top application on Oenothera but caution should be used to avoid going beyond the label rate. Materials & Methods Plant Material and Culture. The plants for these trials were grown as indicated in Table 3. The experiment ran from July 14, 2009 to September 22, 2009 in an outdoor nursery with full sun exposure. The plants were irrigated daily during the 10-week experiment using an automatic drip irrigation system delivering 2L per hour. Environmental conditions during the trial are summarized in Table 4. Experimental Procedure. Thirty-six plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with 0 (Control), 1X, 2X or 4X rates of the herbicide with 9 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 09-011 (Appendix A). The material was applied on July 14, 2009 (week 0) and again on August 25, 2009 (week 6). Data Collection. Phytotoxicity ratings were taken at week 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10. The dates for those observations were July 14, 21 and 28, August 11 and 25, September 1, 8 and 22, 2009. Visual phytotoxicity evaluations were based on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no injury) to 10 (complete kill) (Table 5). Plant height and width were measured at week 0 (July 14, 2009) and week 10 (September 22, 2009). Plant height (cm) was measured from the container soil surface to the top of the canopy. Plant width (cm) was measured twice along perpendicular lines at the widest part of the plant, resulting in W1 and W2. For each observation a canopy volume index was calculated so as to be able to determine if canopy volume was affected by the application of herbicide. The calculation was made as H*W1*W2, where H is the height and W1 and W2 are two width measurements. The usefulness of this index is based on the fact that many of the models for such a volume calculation are of the form a*H*W1*W2. The constant “a” depends on the assumption of the shape of the canopy. Since analyses of variance are scale-independent, the conclusion will thus be for the volume of the plant canopy. Statistical Analysis. The data were analyzed using Proc GLM of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The phytotoxicity and change in mean value from the starting plant height, width and volume index were analyzed for significant differences using t-tests. Acknowledgements The research was supported through funding from the USDA IR-4 Program, Western Region based at UC Davis, Davis, CA.



3

Personnel involved in this project included Linda Dodge (trial coordination, data collection, report compilation), Ron Lane (pesticide application, pest management), David La, Maria Contador and Ho-Yun Kim (plant culture, data collection). The materials being tested were supplied by the manufacturer/distributor. The Hibiscus plants were supplied by Hines Nurseries, Winters CA. The Oenothera plants were grown from seed (Lake Valley Seed, Boulder CO). The Asclepias plants were supplied by the UC Davis Environmental Horticulture Club, Davis CA.



4

Table 1. Phytotoxicity changes over 10 weeks for plants treated with 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6. Differing letters a, b, c… designate significant differences among the four means; "Yes" or "no" indicates whether there was an overall significant treatment effect at the 5% level (NA means no variation in data; "yes at 10%" means treatment effect was significant at 10% but not at the 5% level). Means ± SE (n=9) Phytotoxicity Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Asclepias Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week (NA) 2 weeks yes 4 weeks yes 6 weeks no 0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.33 ± 0.17 c 0.22 ± 0.22 b 1.11 ± 0.20 a 1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.89 ± 0.31 bc 1.56 ± 0.18 a 1.44 ± 0.18 a 2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 1.44 ± 0.29 ab 1.56 ± 0.18 a 1.33 ± 0.24 a 4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 1.78 ± 0.15 a 1.89 ± 0.11 a 1.56 ± 0.18 a Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 7 weeks yes 8 weeks yes 10 week no 0X 1.22 ± 0.22 b 1.11 ± 0.11 c 1.00 ± 0.00 b 1X 1.11 ± 0.11 b 1.22 ± 0.15 bc 1.22 ± 0.15 ab 2X 2.00 ± 0.00 a 1.78 ± 0.15 a 1.44 ± 0.18 a 4X 1.56 ± 0.18 ab 1.56 ± 0.18 ab 1.56 ± 0.18 a Phytotoxicity Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Hibiscus Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week (NA) 2 weeks no 4 weeks yes 6 weeks no 0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.22 ± 0.15 a 0.44 ± 0.18 c 0.22 ± 0.15 a 1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.67 ± 0.17 a 1.00 ± 0.29 bc 0.56 ± 0.24 a 2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.67 ± 0.24 a 1.78 ± 0.15 a 0.67 ± 0.33 a 4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.78 ± 0.22 a 1.22 ± 0.28 ab 0.78 ± 0.28 a Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 7 weeks yes 8 weeks no 10 week yes at 10% 0X 0.33 ± 0.17 b 0.56 ± 0.29 a 0.44 ± 0.24 a 1X 0.78 ± 0.28 ab 0.78 ± 0.32 a 0.33 ± 0.17 a 2X 1.44 ± 0.38 a 1.22 ± 0.32 a 0.11 ± 0.11 a 4X 0.78 ± 0.22 ab 1.00 ± 0.29 a 0.33 ± 0.24 a Phytotoxicity Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Oenothera Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week yes 2 weeks yes at 10% 4 weeks no 6 weeks no0X 0.56 ± 0.18 b 0.67 ± 0.24 b 1.11 ± 0.31 a 0.56 ± 0.24 a 1X 1.00 ± 0.00 a 1.00 ± 0.00 ab 1.44 ± 0.18 a 1.33 ± 0.17 a 2X 1.00 ± 0.00 a 1.33 ± 0.17 ab 1.89 ± 0.20 a 1.89 ± 0.42 a 4X 0.78 ± 0.15 ab 1.44 ± 0.41 a 2.11 ± 0.90 a 1.89 ± 0.92 a Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 7 weeks no 8 weeks no 10 week yes 0X 1.11 ± 0.20 b 1.44 ± 0.18 a 1.33 ± 0.17 b 1X 1.33 ± 0.17 ab 1.44 ± 0.18 a 1.22 ± 0.15 b 2X 2.44 ± 0.41 ab 2.44 ± 0.29 a 2.33 ± 0.24 ab 4X 2.56 ± 0.85 a 2.67 ± 0.82 a 3.00 ± 0.80 a



5

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex

0 20 40 60Day of trial

Control1X2X4X

Species: AsclepiasMaterial: Snapshot 2.5TG

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex


Control1X2X4X

Species: HibiscusMaterial: Snapshot 2.5TG

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex


Control1X2X4X

Species: OenotheraMaterial: Snapshot 2.5TG

Figure 1. Phytotoxicity ratings for plants exposed to 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6. See Table 5 for explanation of ratings.



6

Table 2. Growth changes over 10 weeks for plants treated with 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6. Differing letters a, b, c… designate significant differences among the four means; "Yes" or "no" indicates whether there was an overall significant treatment effect at the 5% level (NA means no variation in data; "yes at 10%" means treatment effect was significant at 10% but not at the 5% level). Means ± SE (n=9) Growth Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Asclepias Increase by week 10 of: Treatment Height (cm) no Average Width (cm) no Volume Index no 0X 60.94 ± 4.91 a 14.44 ± 1.70 a 111361 ±13313.6 a 1X 50.61 ± 6.00 ab 14.69 ± 2.07 a 93570.8 ±12930.7 a 2X 58.83 ± 3.63 ab 14.06 ± 2.44 a 95419.9 ±7893.58 a 4X 45.33 ± 6.71 b 14.94 ± 2.91 a 93507.8 ±14475.4 a Growth Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Hibiscus Increase by week 10 of: Treatment Height (cm) no Average Width (cm) no Volume Index no 0X 13.33 ± 4.87 a 0.58 ± 1.63 a 8090.94 ±4369.99 ab 1X 11.50 ± 2.92 a -1.39 ± 1.27 a 5978.42 ±4782.63 b 2X 11.50 ± 3.20 a 2.69 ± 1.21 a 9800.82 ±2872.00 ab 4X 24.78 ± 6.78 a 2.22 ± 1.92 a 19700.8 ±6937.95 a Growth Effect of Snapshot 2.5TG on Oenothera Increase by week 10 of: Treatment Height (cm) no Average Width (cm) no Volume Index no 0X 15.50 ± 4.00 a 39.36 ± 3.00 a 129994 ±20847.1 a 1X 7.39 ± 3.20 a 38.17 ± 3.25 a 104557 ±27074.4 a 2X 8.83 ± 3.53 a 37.28 ± 3.48 a 96618.1 ±20328.2 a 4X 9.89 ± 3.68 a 32.50 ± 5.73 a 101143 ±22409.3 a



7

Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 2a. Representative Asclepias plants 10 weeks after 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6.



8

Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 2b. Hibiscus plants 10 weeks after 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6.



9

Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 2c. Representative Oenothera plants 10 weeks after 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Snapshot 2.5TG at weeks 0 and 6.



10

Table 3. Materials & Methods/Recordkeeping Protocol number

09-011 09-011 09-011

Product Short Name

Snapshot 2.5TG (Trifluralin + Isoxaben)



Production Site Description

Field Container

Field Container

Field Container

PR Number 24780 25789 24798 Crop Latin Name

Asclepias currisavica Hibiscus syriacus Oenothera speciosa

Crop Common Name

Butterfly Flower Shrub Althea, Rose of Sharon

Mexican Evening Primrose

Crop Cultivar ‘Minerva’ ‘Rosea’ Plant Source Liners received from

UCD Env. Hort. Club 2009_04_08

Liners received from Hines Nurseries 2009_06_10

Grown from seed (Lake Valley Seed) Sown 2009_04_07

Transplant Date

2009_04_10 2009_06_22 2009_06_17

Potting Mix UC Mix UC Mix UC Mix Pot Size 1-gallon 1-gallon 1-gallon Spacing Pot-to-pot Pot-to-pot Pot-to-pot Expt. Design RCB RCB RCB Number of Reps

3 blocks with 3 reps per block = 9



Fertilizer Type Osmocote 15-9-12

Osmocote 15-9-12

Osmocote 15-9-12

Fertilizer Application Date

2009_05_11 2009_06_22 2009_06_17

Other Actions Transferred to outdoor nursery 2009_04_27 Cut back 2009_06_28

Cut back 2009_07_01

Irrigation type and frequency

automatic drip irrigation daily



First Application and Measurements Date

2009_07_14 2009_07_14 2009_07_14

Second Application

2009_08_25 2009_08_25 2009_08_25

Final Measurements Date

2009_09_22 2009_09_22 2009_09_22



11

Table 4. Environmental conditions during the experiment from 2009_07_14 to 2009_09_22

Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp

(°F)

Min Air Temp

(°F)

Avg Vap

(mBars)

Avg wSpd

(MPH)Precip

(in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel

Hum (%)

7/14/2009 737 100.5 58 11.2 5.7 0 0.33 30 7/15/2009 733 98.4 58.3 12.3 5.1 0 0.3 39 7/16/2009 733 97.8 54.9 13.3 4.1 0 0.29 43 7/17/2009 717 102.6 55.9 12 4.2 0 0.29 35 7/18/2009 717 100.1 58.1 13.2 4.7 0 0.28 41 7/19/2009 703 101.6 57.6 13.9 4.6 0 0.29 40 7/20/2009 719 91.7 57.6 13.6 6.3 0 0.29 49 7/21/2009 707 89.5 53.9 12.9 6.3 0 0.27 53 7/22/2009 700 89.1 53.7 13.6 5.3 0 0.26 56 7/23/2009 709 88.4 52.7 13.7 5.4 0 0.26 58 7/24/2009 712 84.2 51.9 13 6.1 0 0.25 61 7/25/2009 713 91.3 48.6 13.1 4 0 0.25 55 7/26/2009 712 97.2 51.3 13.2 4 0 0.27 46 7/27/2009 697 99.3 55.4 13.7 4.5 0 0.27 45 7/28/2009 669 91.3 56.4 14.3 6.5 0 0.27 56 7/29/2009 662 85.3 57.3 14.9 6.4 0 0.25 61 7/30/2009 675 85.3 55.9 15 5.8 0 0.24 64 7/31/2009 679 87.5 53.8 14.5 5 0 0.24 61 8/1/2009 659 87.6 53.6 13.5 5.7 0 0.26 55 8/2/2009 672 86.9 53.6 12.7 6.7 0 0.26 54 8/3/2009 673 84.1 52.8 12.3 6.3 0 0.25 54 8/4/2009 674 86 53.6 11.9 6.1 0 0.26 49 8/5/2009 667 84.5 53.9 12.5 7.5 0 0.27 53 8/6/2009 654 76.6 56.7 12.6 8.3 0 0.25 59 8/7/2009 640 81.6 51.6 13.1 3.7 0 0.22 59 8/8/2009 635 89.8 57.7 12.6 4.9 0 0.26 43 8/9/2009 623 94.9 56.7 11.7 4 0 0.27 37

8/10/2009 625 99.4 61.5 11.9 4.9 0 0.29 34 8/11/2009 558 89 58.8 14.5 5 0 0.22 56 8/12/2009 636 98.6 54.4 12.6 4.5 0 0.27 40 8/13/2009 635 94.7 59.3 12.8 5.7 0 0.29 40 8/14/2009 645 84.7 53.6 10.8 5.3 0 0.25 44 8/15/2009 638 92.8 52.8 10.8 5.3 0 0.27 40 8/16/2009 637 95.2 52.6 10.9 4.3 0 0.25 39 8/17/2009 617 93.3 54.2 12.4 4.5 0 0.24 46 8/18/2009 605 92.6 53.7 13.1 4.3 0 0.23 50 8/19/2009 610 90.2 54.5 14.2 5.1 0 0.24 55 8/20/2009 603 84.6 55.1 14 5.2 0 0.22 59 8/21/2009 610 96.7 53.6 14.3 3.8 0 0.24 49 8/22/2009 593 90 56.7 13.4 8.7 0 0.27 51



12

Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp

(°F)

Min Air Temp

(°F)

Avg Vap

(mBars)

Avg wSpd

(MPH)Precip

(in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel

Hum (%)

8/23/2009 595 81.4 54.1 12.1 8.5 0 0.24 55 8/24/2009 625 85 47.4 10.8 4.8 0 0.22 52 8/25/2009 618 88.4 45.5 10.1 4.3 0 0.22 45 8/26/2009 614 91.2 49.7 10.2 4.6 0 0.24 40 8/27/2009 597 96.4 48 10.8 3.8 0 0.22 42 8/28/2009 505 96.3 54.6 10 4.2 0 0.23 33 8/29/2009 580 101.2 63.2 12.1 5 0 0.28 31 8/30/2009 605 88.2 58.1 12.2 9.1 0 0.27 47 8/31/2009 580 83.6 55.3 12.9 7.4 0 0.23 57 9/1/2009 580 91.7 55.5 12.3 4.1 0 0.22 45 9/2/2009 502 100.1 56.9 12 3.5 0 0.21 37 9/3/2009 569 100 58.8 10.4 4.7 0 0.26 31 9/4/2009 588 87.7 53.4 11.3 6.5 0 0.24 47 9/5/2009 551 87.8 50.3 12.2 6.1 0 0.22 51 9/6/2009 560 82.4 53.1 11.6 5.2 0 0.21 50 9/7/2009 558 87.1 51.9 10.4 4.6 0 0.22 44 9/8/2009 554 88.8 49.2 9.7 3.6 0 0.2 40 9/9/2009 546 91.7 49.6 10.7 3.6 0 0.21 42

9/10/2009 525 96.3 53.3 11.2 3.3 0 0.2 39 9/11/2009 522 98.7 54.5 11.4 4.5 0 0.23 36 9/12/2009 317 87.4 59.5 13.3 7.5 0 0.15 52 9/13/2009 382 74.5 56.1 13.3 8.6 0 0.15 65 9/14/2009 523 77.5 55.8 14.5 4.3 0 0.16 67 9/15/2009 520 84.3 52.6 13.9 3.6 0 0.18 59 9/16/2009 516 87.5 53.1 14.4 4.2 0 0.18 58 9/17/2009 498 90.6 54.4 14 4 0 0.19 52 9/18/2009 511 95.5 56.8 12.8 3.3 0 0.2 42 9/19/2009 474 89 62.4 13.1 6.8 0 0.22 47 9/20/2009 488 94.4 56.6 12.7 5.5 0 0.21 44 9/21/2009 499 97 59.9 8.3 4.8 0 0.23 27 9/22/2009 487 100.6 55.9 7.4 4.3 0 0.23 23



13

Table 5. Numerical plant damage rating scale used for phytotoxicity determinations.

Rating Description of plant damage 0 No damage 1 No visible damage but unintended (non-permanent) impact 2 Slight leaf/tissue damage (curling leaves, necrosis, etc.) 3 Marginal chlorosis on some leaves (damage on up to 10% of plant) 4 10% – 20% of plant damaged 5 Significant damage to much of plant (30% - 40%) 6 40% – 60% of plant damaged 7 Chlorosis or necrosis on most of plant (60% - 70%) 8 Abscised leaves, branch dieback 9 Tissue severely damaged (80% - 100% of plant) 10 Complete kill



14

Table 6a Raw Data for Asclepias Phytotoxicity Report Form

Asclepias IR4 Trial Snapshot Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 10

Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2

Treatment Block Rep 0 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Control A 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 22.5 25.5 22.5 94 45 34

Control A 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 28.5 27 22.5 87 50 33

Control A 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 27 30.5 21 100 41 34

Control B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 32.5 32 21.5 94.5 40 30

Control B 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 18.5 28 24.5 95 43 38

Control B 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 34 23.5 17 88 50 43

Control C 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 22.5 23.5 14.5 93.5 33 32

Control C 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 24.5 24 21.5 77.5 36 35

Control C 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 32.5 18 15 61.5 28 27

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 26.9 25.8 20.0 87.9 40.7 34.0

1X A 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 26.5 26 20 73 46 33

1X A 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 33 29 21.5 91 43 30

1X A 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 25.5 20 14.5 79.5 43 41

1X B 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 21.5 26.5 22.5 102 45 40

1X B 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 21.5 25 16 71.5 41 30

1X B 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 30 31 19.5 92.5 33 24

1X C 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 21 33.5 24 77 51 29

1X C 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 21 36.5 19.5 41 45 35

1X C 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 18 20.5 17 46 40 38

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 24.2 27.6 19.4 74.8 43.0 33.3

2X A 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 16 23 12 83.5 41 35

2X A 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 18.5 26 15 59.5 43 34

2X A 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 18 18.5 16 77 46 41

2X B 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 25 29 26.5 96 45 24

2X B 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 29 22 19.5 91 45 31

2X B 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 36 33 20.5 103 36 30

2X C 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 33.5 32.5 18 96 30 29

2X C 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 24.5 24.5 24 83 43 31

2X C 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 27 20 64 44 32

Mean 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.4 24.8 26.2 19.1 83.7 41.4 31.9

4X A 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 27.5 21.5 18 57 46 43

4X A 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 24.5 28.5 23.5 70.5 43 31

4X A 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 29 22.5 40 39 28

4X B 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 28.5 35.5 28.5 76.5 45 45

4X B 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 28 39.5 32 90 43 32

4X B 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 27 22.5 15 57.5 30 27

4X C 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 24.5 27.5 25.5 99 50 35

4X C 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 21 14 12 91 55 29

4X C 3 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 25.5 25 13 56 41 40

Mean 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 25.5 27.0 21.1 70.8 43.6 34.4



15

Table 6b Raw Data for Hibiscus Phytotoxicity Report Form

Hibiscus IR4 Trial Snapshot Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 10



Control A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 44.5 25 54 47 22

Control A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 32 19.5 57 33 24

Control A 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 42.5 32 19 47 24 14

Control B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 47 22 19.5 73.5 16 15

Control B 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 34 32.5 21 24.5 46.5 18

Control B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 27.5 17.5 47.5 21 17

Control C 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 27 26.5 21 30 28 21

Control C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 23.5 16.5 70 30 19

Control C 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 33 31.5 19 33 34 31

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 35.2 30.2 19.8 48.5 31.1 20.1

1X A 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 32 27.5 12 42.5 25.5 12

1X A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 30 21.5 41.5 27 26

1X A 3 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 43 42 26 73.5 44 27

1X B 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 31 23.5 17.5 46 23.5 19.5

1X B 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 25.5 27 20 39 26 18

1X B 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 30 28 18 35 31 19

1X C 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 36.5 31 17.5 49 25 15.5

1X C 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 35.5 20 19.5 33.5 21 16.5

1X C 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 38 29 19 48 16 11.5

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 33.8 28.7 19.0 45.3 26.6 18.3

2X A 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 37.5 36 16 40.5 29 22

2X A 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 34.5 38.5 17.5 46 37 23.5

2X A 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 0 32.5 47 30 33 40 29

2X B 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 40 23 20 73.5 34 14

2X B 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 24 24 24 38 33 26

2X B 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 27 15.5 13.5 34 24 23

2X C 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 25 22.5 16 33 23 20.5

2X C 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 28 14.5 13.5 38 23 11

2X C 3 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 48 19 18 64 25 20

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.1 32.9 26.7 18.7 44.4 29.8 21.0

4X A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 43 17 57 42 22

4X A 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 36 17.5 17.5 100 36 14

4X A 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 46 24.5 23 68 37 35

4X B 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 42 22.5 18 83 21 18

4X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 24 24 23.5 24.5 31 30.5

4X B 3 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 35 31 19.5 74 31.5 18

4X C 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 48.5 25 23.5 70 26 25

4X C 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 37.5 26.5 22 59 25 19

4X C 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 38 39 25 40.5 29 22

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.3 39.2 28.1 21.0 64.0 30.9 22.6



16

Table 6c Raw Data for Oenothera Phytotoxicity Report Form

Oenothera IR4 Trial Snapshot Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 10



Control A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 21 28 16 13 63 55

Control A 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 24 24.5 20 35 81 64

Control A 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 17 20 19 53 75 59

Control B 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 22.5 28 16 39 67 43

Control B 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 21 28 26.5 37 53 50

Control B 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 19 22.5 21.5 39 76 72

Control C 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 17 20 20 28 61 56

Control C 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 16.5 28 21.5 42 64 60

Control C 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 21.5 27 26 33 64 58

Mean 0.0 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.3 19.9 25.1 20.7 35.4 67.1 57.4

1X A 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 20.5 29 24.5 13 66 59

1X A 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 21 24.5 19 38 80 73

1X A 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 21.5 17.5 26.5 60 59

1X B 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 20 30 18.5 25 59 47

1X B 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24.5 28 24 37 58 53

1X B 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 21.5 20 17 52 42

1X C 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 17 20.5 15.5 21 64 54

1X C 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19.5 20.5 17 31 59 52

1X C 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 29.5 24.5 20 53 74 72

Mean 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2 21.7 24.4 19.6 29.1 63.6 56.8

2X A 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 21.5 16 15 25 63 60

2X A 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 21 19 17 23 62 46

2X A 3 0 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 17 25 22.5 36 53 32

2X B 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 18.5 24 21 33 69 60

2X B 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 30 24 22 20 65 64

2X B 3 0 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 21 21 18 22 56 47

2X C 1 0 1 1 2 5 5 4 3 18.5 30.5 24 27 68 64

2X C 2 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 17 24 17.5 38 54 41

2X C 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 27 24 17.5 47 85 64

Mean 0.0 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.3 21.3 23.1 19.4 30.1 63.9 53.1

4X A 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 20.5 27 22 41 80 58

4X A 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 21.5 26 21.5 32 70 62

4X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 19 28 20.5 19 60 36

4X B 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 22 22 17.5 22 60 38

4X B 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 16.5 19 19 32 69 59

4X B 3 0 1 4 9 9 9 9 9 20.5 34 24 10 22 18

4X C 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 25 25 23.5 39 68 68

4X C 2 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 19.5 32.5 21 42 64 64

4X C 3 0 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 15.5 24.5 19 32 63 52

Mean 0.0 0.8 1.4 2.1 1.9 2.6 2.7 3.0 20.0 26.4 20.9 29.9 61.8 50.6



17

Appendix A 2009 Crop Safety with Over-the-top Applications of Select Herbicide Materials Ornamental Protocol Number: 09-011 Objective: Determine phytotoxicity of Broadstar 0.25G VC1604, Freehand, Snapshot, sulfosulfuron, Tower EC, and V-10142 G and to ornamental horticulture plants. Experimental Design:

Plot Size: Must be adequate to reflect actual use conditions. Replicates: Minimum of 3 replications (preferably 4) with 3 plants per replicate Application Instructions: Depending upon research site and plant materials, various experiments can be

established. Two applications are to be made approximately 6 weeks apart, with the first application within 7 days after potting, preferable between 24 and 48 hours. However, plant materials must have broken dormancy prior to first application. See notes below for Broadstar 0.25G VC1604. For liquid applications, use a minimum of 20 gal per acre. Applications should be made over the top of the plants using application equipment consistent with conventional commercial equipment. For all materials, target dry foliage. If dew is present at the time of application, note it. Irrigate with ½ inch water between 1 and 4 hours after application. Note: Liquid materials need at least 1 hour drying time prior to irrigation.

Plant Materials: Contact your Regional Coordinator for an up-to-date list. Plants grown in field containers

are preferred to in-ground. Treatments: See table on next page. Evaluations: Record plant height & width at initial and final evaluations only. At 1, 2, and 4 weeks after

each application, record phytotoxicity on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No phytotoxicity; 10 = Complete kill). If appropriate, also include ratings for chlorosis, defoliation, stunting or other growth effects on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No effect; 10 = Complete plant affected). If any phytotoxicity is observed in treated plants, take pictures comparing treated and untreated plant material.

Recordkeeping: Keep detailed records of weather conditions including temperature and precipitation, soil-

type or soil-less media, application equipment, irrigation, liner size, plant height & width, and plant growth stage at application and data collection dates.

Reports:

Reports submitted electronically on the standard IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Report Form are preferred.

A report submitted electronically is preferred but not required. If the report is provided electronically, the

basic report can be sent in MS Word or WordPerfect, the recordkeeping information as pdf or other electronic documents, and the raw data in MS Excel or other suitable program such as ARM.

Please direct questions to: Cristi Palmer, IR-4 HQ, Rutgers University, 681 US Hwy 1 S, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, Phone 732-932-9575 x4629, [email protected] OR Ely Vea, 308 Aston Forest Lane, Crownsville, MD 21032, Phone & FAX#: 410-923-4880, E-mail: [email protected]. Draft Date: 3/23/09 Revised By: CLP

mailto:[email protected]�



18

Treatments: Product Priority Rate

Product (ai) per acre

Special Instructions Contact Information to obtain materials

Broadstar 0.25G VC1604 (flumioxazin)

A/B 150 lb (0.375 lb ai)

_ 300 lb (0.75 lb ai)

_ 600 lb (1.5 lb ai)

Test only on woody ornamentals. If root ball of liner is less than 4” in diameter, only apply at second application timing. If root ball is 4” or greater in diameter, apply at both application timings.

Valent, Joe Chamberlin, 770-985-0303, [email protected]

Freehand 1.75G (dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin)

A/B 150 lb (2.65 lb ai)

_ 300 lb (5.3 lb ai)

_ 600 lb (10.6 lb ai)

BASF, Kathie Kalmowitz, 919-270-4592, [email protected]

Mesotrione SC C 6 oz (0.187 lb ai)

_ 8 oz (0.25 lb ai) _ 12 oz (0.37 lb

ai)

Certain woody ornamentals and ornamental grasses only

Syngenta, Nancy Rechsigl, 941-708-9338, [email protected]

Snapshot (trifluralin + isoxaben)

B/C 100 lb (2.5 lb ai)

_ 200 lb (5.0 lb ai)

_ 400 lb (10.0 lb ai)

Dow Agrosciences, Raymond Miller, (817) 570-7169, [email protected]

Sulfosulfuron C 1.25 oz

_ 2.5 oz _ 5.0 oz

Monsanto, James Cole, 314-694-4322, [email protected]

Tower 63.9%EC (dimethenamid-p)

A/B 21 fl oz (0.97 lb ai)

_ 42 fl oz (1.94 lb ai)

_ 84 fl oz (3.88 lb ai)

BASF, Kathie Kalmowitz, 919-270-4592, [email protected]

V-10142 0.5G (imazosulfuron)

A/B 150 lb (0.75 lb ai)

_ 300 lb (1.5 lb ai)

_ 600 lb (3.0 lb ai)

Test only on Conifers and finish ongoing woody ornamentals species trials.

Valent, Joe Chamberlin, 770-985-0303, [email protected]

Untreated -- --








ir-4 ornamental horticulture programlieth.ucdavis.edu/pub/replim/replim277_snapshot protocol...ir-4...

Documents