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

4. 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. MS –April 4, 2002 –CO 2 sprayer, T-Boom with twin 110-02 nozzles, 10 gpa TX –April 2, 2002 –CO 2 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. 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. MS –April 13, 2003 –CO 2, sprayer with pole extension and KLC-9 nozzle, 10 gpa broadcast TX –April 17, 2003 –CO 2 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) ______________________________________________________ 1Sulf. Max(2) 2Oust/Oust XP(2) 3Sulf. Max(8) 4Oust/Oust XP(8) 5Sulf. Max(2) + Velpar DF (10.67) 6Oust/Oust XP (2) + Velpar DF (10.67) 7Sulf. Max(2) + Arsenal AC(4) 8Oust/Oust XP(2) + Arsenal AC(4) 9Sulf. Max(2) + Arsenal AC(6) 10Oust/Oust XP(2) + Arsenal AC(6) 11Untreated Check

9. 11 Treatments 4 replications RCB

10. 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

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

13. Table 2. Average grass cover in 2002 Sulfometuron comparison study Days After Treatment Trt.306090120150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2)2/0 1 4/06/12/14/ - 2 O(2)1/02/27/24/34/ - Sm(8)1/01/16/04/15/ - O(8)1/02/06/14/46/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67)1/02/06/06/17/ - O(2) + V(10.67)1/03/07/09/19/ - Sm(2) + A(4)1/03/16/17/18/ - O(2) + A(4)1/01/05/15/16/ - Sm(2) + A(6)1/01/08/06/17/ - O(2) +A(6)1/01/18/03/16/ - Check10/1018/1434/1821/2020- 1For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) 2 No observations for TX at 150 DAT

14. 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.306090120150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2)5/2 1 8/1229/818/1013/ - 2 O(2)6/08/333/619/1014/ - Sm(8)2803/321/311/510/ - O(8)3/058223/315/511/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67)2/04/219/125/213/ - O(2) + V(10.67)1/02/118/021/111/ - Sm(2) + A(4)3/05/311/410/511/ - O(2) + A(4)1/11/1013/711/1211/ - Sm(2) + A(6)1/02/611/113/110/ - O(2) +A(6)2/02/19/14/33/ - Check43/2053/1373/3574/5775/ - 1For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) 2 No TX observations

16. Field slides 1-9

17. 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.306090120150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2)12/2 1 3/25/519/333/- 2 O(2)4/33/27/59/1330/ - Sm(8)4/21/35/418/817/ - O(8)7/35/215/340/1163/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67)3/42/38/310/1212/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 7/44/49/510/1316/ - Sm(2) + A(4)4/22/17/311/97/ - O(2) + A(4)4/33/26/310/1210/ - Sm(2) + A(6)4/21/27/512/622/ - O(2) +A(6)2/31/26/310/722/ - Check20/1010/1110/289/398/ - 1For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) 2 No TX observations

19. 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.306090120150 _____________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2)10/3 1 10/250/348/350/ - 2 O(2)8/112/142/352/363/ - Sm(8)5/83/59/510/512/ - O(8)5/17/312/36/39/ - Sm(2) + V(10.67)6/46/325/550/553/ - O(2) + V(10.67) 15/412/433/450/443/ - Sm(2) + A(4)7/65/318/437/443/ - O(2) + A(4)7/310/227/250/263/ - Sm(2) + A(6)9/56/430/553/545/ - O(2) +A(6)11/16/228/357/360/ - Check40/857/983/690/687/ - 1For all observations, MS/TX (avg. all reps) 2 No TX observations

21. Field slides 11-18

22. No Problems in any treatments

23. 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.MSTXMSTXOverall ________________________________________________________________________ Percent Sm(2)6385808879 O(2)7290809083 Sm(8)5292979484 O(8)7683979287 Sm(2) + V(10.67)5077908175 O(2) + V(10.67) 7988837581 Sm(2) + A(4)7092939487 O(2) + A(4)7579938382 Sm(2) + A(6)7477979486 O(2) +A(6)6585879282 Check5888839481

25. No consistent trends between comparison treatments

26. Table 7. Average pine height IGSAT 2002 2003 Trmt.MSTXMSTXOverall ________________________________________________________________________ feet Sm(2)1.341.911.671.851.70 O(2)1.341.811.511.951.65 Sm(8)1.311.731.801.911.69 O(8)1.431.991.741.821.75 Sm(2) + V(10.67)1.311.511.712.201.68 O(2) + V(10.67) 1.261.411.562.041.57 Sm(2) + A(4)1.412.131.772.271.90 O(2) + A(4)1.471.711.782.211.79 Sm(2) + A(6)1.351.761.791.821.68 O(2) +A(6)1.421.761.591.921.67 Check1.241.611.522.001.59

27. All treatments enhanced growth No trends between comparison treatments

28. Table 8. Average pine GLD IGSAT 2002 2003 Trmt.MSTXMSTXOverall ________________________________________________________________________ feet Sm(2)0.340.470.380.570.45 O(2)0.350.44.0340.590.43 Sm(8)0.350.480.490.600.48 O(8)0.410.480.490.580.49 Sm(2) + V(10.67)0.320.390.430.680.46 O(2) + V(10.67) 0.340.360.380.660.44 Sm(2) + A(4)0.370.480.420.730.50 O(2) + A(4)0.370.430.430.720.49 Sm(2) + A(6)0.320.580.470.600.50 O(2) +A(6)0.400.420.400.580.45 Check0.240.360.310.580.37

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