1.4.1
...ah§..s.§%

A . J.
$er
. . . u.
. . . s c
..

. .m‘ .
RAWE...
3?, 4.. ..u~fi

 

~ .‘ v.‘ ,
rm». n ..Y ‘ .‘
T .v..:,11fn
.. . van «age,
git. a!" 4m. u L
fiamfi... ..

. .

.32... a
243...... ..

H...

\
y.“

. , ha... h
a. Run»... 5 m .
i v}: ,
:fl... ilk. xv

 

 

masts
l

«)01-

5%)9 Hm?

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS AND
INTERACTIONS APPLIED PREEMERGENCE

presented by
SCOTT LEE BOLLMAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Crga and Soil Sciences

0mg. My

Majorfirofessor’ 5 Signature
Mag 10% 9005/

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

-.— v T-r—‘~.~—______.-__—_.J

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIHC/Dat90ue.p65-p.15

 

MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS AND
INTERACTIONS APPLIED PREEMERGENCE

By

Scott Lee Bollman

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

2004

ABSTRACT

MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS AND
INTERACTIONS APPLIED PREEMERGENCE

By

Scott Lee Bollman

Field studies were conducted to determine the optimum rates of
mesotrione (2-(4-mesyl-2-nitrobenzoyl)—3-hydroxycyclohex-2-enone) and atrazine
(6-chloro-N-ethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)—1 ,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) applied
preemergence for control of broadleaf weeds. All rates of mesotrione controlled
common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti
Medicus), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum L.). Control
of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) required combinations of high
rates of both mesotrione and atrazine. Combinations of mesotrione and atrazine
did not effectively control, giant ragweed (Ambrosia triflda L.), common cocklebur
(Xanthium struman'um L.), and ivyleaf momingglory (Xanthium strumarium L.).

Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the response of three
broadleaf weeds to mesotrione and atrazine applied preemergence and to
determine the interaction of mesotrione and atrazine for velvetleaf and ivyleaf
momingglory control. Sensitivity to mesotrione was as follows: velvetleaf >
common cocklebur > ivyleaf momingglory. Sensitivity to atrazine was as follows:
ivyleaf momingglory > common cocklebur > velvetleaf. Synergistic interactions
between mesotrione and atrazine occurred frequently with velvetleaf and once

with ivyleaf momingglory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. James J. Kells for allowing me the opportunity to
come to Michigan State University and purse a Master's degree. I am extremely
appreciative of Dr. Kells for all of his guidance and new ideas when assisting me
with my research goals. Special thanks to Dr. Donald Penner for assisting me
with greenhouse research and to Dr. Chris Difonzo for serving on my committee
and for offering her technical advice.

Thank you to Andy Chomas for all of his hard work preparing, spraying,
and harvesting field studies, and for all of his advice on many questions. I would
like to extend a special thank you to all present and past graduate students and
student workers who all played an integral part in assisting me with conducting
this research: Aaron Franssen, Corey Guza, Caleb Dalley, Kathrin Schirmacher,
Ann McCordick, Trevor Dale, Adrienne Rich, Amy Guza, Dana Harder, Eric
Nelson, Marulak Simarmata, Mark Bemards, Brad Fronning, Crystal Schulz, Dan
Armbruster, Kyle Thelen, Matt Oesterle, Terry Schulz, Ryan Robinson, and T.J.
Ross.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for all of their help and
support, because without them, I would not be where I am today. Special thank
you’s go to my parents Dave and Carol, my brother Phil and his wife Marie, and

my brother Joe.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1

MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE IN CORN (Zea mays L.) IN FIVE MIDWEST STATES.

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................. 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 1O
Crop Response ............................................................................ 1O
Weed Control ............................................................................... 1O
Corn Yield ..................................................................................... 16
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 2

WEED RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS.

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. 38
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 40
MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................ 43
General Experimental Procedures ................................................ 43
Control of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied Alone ....................... 44
Interaction of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied in Combination ...45
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 47
Control of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied Alone ....................... 47
Interaction of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied in Combination ...48
Possible Basis of Interaction ........................................................ 48
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................. 51
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 59

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1
MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE IN CORN (Zea mays L.) IN FIVE MIDWEST STATES.

Table 1. Soil description and s-metolachlor rate applied at each location in

2002 and 2003. ........................................................................................ 23
Table 2. Rainfall distribution over 7-d intervals up to 28 d after

application. .............................................................................................. 24
Table 3. Planting date, herbicide application, and corn hybrid at each
location in 2002 and 2003. ....................................................................... 25
Table 4. Weeds present ( X ) by location and years ................................ 26

Table 5. Corn yield reported as a percentage of the weed free yield. ...... 27

Table 6. Weeds controlled with preemergence application of mesotrione,
atrazine or the combination. ..................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 2
WEED RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS.

Table 1. Mesotrione and atrazine rates used to evaluate weed

sensitivity ................................................................................................. 53
Table 2. Mesotrione and atrazine rates associated with each growth
reduction value. ....................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX A

Table A1 . Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Clarksville, MI. 2002. ......................................................... 59

Table A2. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Dekalb, IL. 2002 ................................................................. 60

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table A3. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Dekalb, IL. 2003. ............................................................... 61

Table A4. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. East Lansing, MI. 2002. ..................................................... 62

Table A5. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. East Lansing-1, MI. 2003 ................................................... 63

Table A6. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. East Lansing-2, MI. 2003 ................................................... 64

Table A7. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Lexington, KY. 2002. ......................................................... .65

Table A8. Weed control, weed density, and corn yield with mesotrione and
atrazine. Lexington, KY. 2003. ................................................................ 66

Table A9. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. South Charleston, OH. 2002 .............................................. 67

Table A10. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. South Charleston, OH. 2003 .............................................. 68

Table A11. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. West Lafayette, IN. 2002. .................................................. 69

Table A12. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. West Lafayette, IN. 2003. .................................................. 70

Table A13. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Urbana, IL. 2002. ............................................................... 71

Table A14. Weed control, weed densities, and corn yield with mesotrione
and atrazine. Urbana, IL. 2003. ............................................................... 73

Table A15. Triazine-susceptible common lambsquarters control with
mesotrione and atrazine in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio in 2002 and
2003. ....................................................................................................... 74

Table A 16. Triazine-resistant common lambsquarters control with
mesotrione and atrazine in Michigan in 2002 and 2003. .......................... 75

vi

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table A17. Velvetleaf control with mesotrione and atrazine in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio in 2002 ......................................................... 76

Table A18. Velvetleaf control with mesotrione and atrazine in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio in 2003 ......................................................... 77

Table A19. Common ragweed control with mesotrione and atrazine in
Illinois, Michigan and Ohio in 2002 and 2003 ........................................... 78

Table A20. Giant ragweed control with mesotrione and atrazine in Illinois,
Kentucky and Ohio in 2002 and 2003 ...................................................... 79

Table A21. Ivyleaf momingglory control with mesotrione and atrazine in
Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky in 2002 and 2003 ..................................... 80

Table A22. Common cocklebur control with mesotrione and atrazine in
Illinois and Kentucky in 2002 and 2003 .................................................... 81

Table A23. Pennsylvania smartweed control with mesotrione and atrazine
in Illinois in 2002 and 2003 ....................................................................... 82

Table A24. Venice mallow and prickly sida control with mesotrione and
atrazine in Illinois and Ohio in 2002 ......................................................... 83

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1
MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE IN CORN (Zea mays L.) IN FIVE MIDWEST STATES.

Figure 1. Boxplot figures represent control and density of triazine-
susceptible common Iambsquarters. Data summarized from 2002 and
2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.

Means of each treatment are indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. ..29

Figure 2. Boxplot figures represent control and density of triazine-
resistant common lambsquarters. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003.
Data collected from studies in Michigan. Means of each treatment are
indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. ................................................ 30

Figure 3. Boxplot figures represent control and density of velvetleaf.

Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are
indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. ................................................ 31

Figure 4. Boxplot figures represent control and density of common
ragweed. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are
indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. ................................................ 32

Figure 5. Boxplot figures represent control and density of giant ragweed.
Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are
indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. ................................................ 33

Figure 6. Boxplot figures represent control and density of ivyleaf
momingglory. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected
from studies in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. Means of each treatment
are indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. .......................................... 34

Figure 7. Boxplot figures represent control and density of common
cocklebur. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois and Kentucky. Means of each treatment are indicated

by (-) inside of each boxplot. ............................................................... 35

viii

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 8. Boxplot figures represent control and density of Pennsylvania
smartweed. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-) inside

of each boxplot. ....................................................................................... 36

Figure 9. Boxplot figures represent corn yield as a percentage of the
weed free. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each
treatment are indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot. .......................... 37

CHAPTER 2
WEED RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS.

Figure 1. Growth response of velvetleaf, ivyleaf momingglory, and
common cocklebur to mesotrione and atrazine (Vertical lines indicate
GRso rates). ............................................................................................. 55

Figure 2. Expected and observed control of velvetleaf from mesotrione
and atrazine combinations. Asterisks (19:) indicate when observed
responses are significantly greater than expected (P=0.1). .................... 56

Figure 3. Expected and observed control of ivyleaf momingglory from
mesotrione and atrazine combinations. Asterisks (10:) indicate when
observed responses are significantly greater than expected (P=0.1) ...... 57

CHAPTER 1

MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE COMBINATIONS APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE IN CORN (Zea mays L.) IN FIVE MIDWEST STATES.
Abstract: Field trials were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at seven sites to
determine the optimum rates of mesotrione and atrazine applied preemergence
for control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, common ragweed, giant
ragweed, ivyleaf momingglory, common cocklebur, and Pennsylvania
smartweed. All rates of each herbicide controlled triazine-susceptible common
lambsquarters greater than 95 percent. Triazine-resistant common
lambsquarters was controlled by mesotrione, but was not controlled by atrazine
at any rate tested. Control of common ragweed was 90 percent or greater from
mesotrione at 158 9 ha'1 in combination with atrazine at 280 9 ha’1 or higher. In
addition, mesotrione at 210 g ha'1 combined with any rate of atrazine provided at
least 92 percent control of common ragweed. The only effective treatments for
controlling giant ragweed were mesotrione at 210 9 ha'1 in combination with
atrazine at 1120 9 ha"1 or higher. Treatments that resulted in the most consistent
control of ivyleaf momingglory were treatments that included mesotrione at 210
9 ha‘1 in combination with any rate of atrazine, but still did not provide excellent
control. Treatments that provided greatest control of common cocklebur were
mesotrione at 158 9 ha'1 or greater in combination with any rate of atrazine, but

most observations were still below 90 percent control. Combinations of

mesotrione and atrazine only suppressed, and did not effectively control, giant
ragweed, common cocklebur and ivyleaf momingglory. Mesotrione at 105 9 ha'1
in combination with any rate of atrazine resulted in at least 99 percent control of
Pennsylvania smartweed. Treatments that included mesotrione applied at least
158 g ha’1, regardless of atrazine rate, increased corn yields at all sites except
two.

Nomenclature: atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diamine; mesotrione, 2-(4-mesyl-2-nitrobenzoyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-2-enone;
s-metolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyI-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)
acetamide; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #1 CHEAL;
velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTH; common ragweed, Ambrosia
artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL; giant ragweed, Ambrosia tn'fida L. # AMBTR; ivyleaf
momingglory, lpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHE; common cocklebur,
Xanthium strumarium L. # XANST; Pennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum
pensylvanicum L. # POLPY; corn, Zea mays L.

Additional index words: herbicide combination, preemergence

Abbrevations: PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; HPPD, 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; DAT, days after treatment; TR, triazine-

resistant.

 

1 Letters following this symbol are WSSA-approved computer code from
Composite List of Weeds, Revised 1989. Available only on computer disk from
WSSA, 810 East 10th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897

INTRODUCTION

Over 31 million hectares of corn (Zea mays L.) are planted in the United
States, more than any other crop (Anonymous 2001). Herbicides are applied to
98 percent of these hectares. Atrazine (6-chloro-N-ethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) is the most commonly used herbicide in those
applications, applied to 75 percent of the corn hectares in 2001 (Anonymous
2001). Currently 65 weed species are resistant to triazine herbicides (Heap
2004). Atrazine is typically excellent at controlling common lambsquarters
(Chenopodium album L.) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.)
(Sprague et al. 2004), but resistant populations of both species are reported in
Michigan (Heap 2004). Menbrene and Ritter (2001) reported that mesotrione (2-
(4-mesyl-2-nitrobenzoyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-2-enone) effectively controlled
populations of triazine-resistant common lambsquarters. First confirmed in
Michigan in 1975, triazine-resistant lambsquarters may now infest 40,000
hectares (Heap 2004). With atrazine becoming less effective, alternative modes
of action are needed to control of these species.

Mesotrione is a new selective herbicide used for preemergence (PRE) and
postemergence (POST) control of annual broadleaf weeds in field corn (Black et
al. 1999). A member of the triketone family, mesotrione inhibits the enzyme 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). HPPD is involved in plastiquinone
biosynthesis, which indirectly blocks carotenoid synthesis, resulting in bleaching

of new growth followed by plant death (Lee 1997; Vencill 2002; Black et al.

1999). Corn exhibits excellent tolerance to mesotrione by rapidly metabolizing it
into inactive metabolites (Vencill 2002). Along with excellent crop safety,
mesotrione is also very environmentally safe.

When mesotrione was first released, it was primarily a POST broadleaf
product applied at 100-150 g ai ha“. Previous research showed that mesotrione
effectively controls velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus), lpomoea spp.,
common ragweed, giant ragweed (Ambrosia tn'fida L.), common lambsquarters,
and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) (Armel et al. 2003; Getting et
al. 2002; Johnson et al. 1999; Johnson et al. 2002; Ohmes et al. 2000; Smith and
Beckett 1999; Waltz et al. 1999).

The potential of mesotrione may be greater as a PRE rather than a POST
herbicide. Although it is applied at relatively low rates (200 9 ha“), it provides
season long residual activity with very little carryover (O’Sullivan et al. 2002).
According to Rouchaud et al. (2000), mesotrione dissipates before the next
growing season which allows for greater freedom in crop rotation strategies. This
is particularly important in Michigan where growers may include sugarbeet, dry
beans, or other vegetable crops into their rotations.

The introduction of mesotrione provides a new option for preemergence
weed control in conventional and no-till corn. As with other selective herbicides,
mesotrione may not provide complete weed control when used alone. Previous
research showed that mesotrione applied PRE results in variable control of
common ragweed, common cocklebur, and lpomoea spp. (Armel et al. 2003;

Johnson et al. 1999; Young et al. 1999). The use of a tank-mix partner, such as

atrazine, could increase weed control and broaden the spectrum of weed species
controlled.

Previous research showed the addition of atrazine at 253 9 ha'1 to
mesotrione POST increases broadleaf weed control (Johnson et al. 1999).
Similar trends have been observed with other POST com herbicides. Bradley et
al. (2000) reported increased control of common cocklebur and lpomoea spp.
when atrazine was combined with other com herbicides also applied POST.
The current recommendations for mesotrione POST is to tank-mix mesotrione
with atrazine at 280-560 9 ha‘1 for increased broadleaf control (Anonymous 2003,
Sprague et al. 2004). Armel et al. (2003) showed that the addition of atrazine at
560 9 ha'1 to mesotrione PRE increased control of common ragweed, common
lambsquarters and lpomoea spp.

Along with increased control, using tank-mixtures with multiple modes of
action may reduce the selection for herbicide-resistant weeds (Shaner et al.
1997). Sutton et al. (2002) reported excellent control of triazine-resistant
populations of common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus
L.), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.) and acetolactase synthase (ALS)-
resistant common cocklebur with combinations of mesotrione and atrazine. The
blend of mesotrione and atrazine, as a potential alternative to current tank-mix
combinations, may assist growers with present weed problems.

Currently, there is little understanding as to the amount of mesotrione and
atrazine needed in a tank-mixture to control specific broadleaf weed species.

The objective of this research was to determine the optimum rates of mesotrione

and atrazine applied preemergence for consistent control of common
lambsquarters, velvetleaf, common ragweed, giant ragweed, ivyleaf momingglory
(lpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.), common cocklebur, and Pennsylvania

smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum L.).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field studies were conducted at seven sites in 2002 and 2003. The
locations included the experimental farms of Michigan State University (East
Lansing, Clarksville), University of Illinois (Dekalb, Urbana), University of
Kentucky (Lexington), Purdue University (West Lafayette), and The Ohio State
University (South Charleston). Soil characteristics (Table 1) and rainfall (Table 2)
varied among locations. Site preparation and corn hybrid selection were
conducted according to traditional agronomic practices of each region (Table 3).
Seeding population ranged from 69,000 to 74,100 depending upon location.
Row number for all locations was four with 76-cm row spacing and plot length
varied from 8.2 to 12.5 m among locations. All herbicides were applied in a
spray volume of 140 to 224 L ha'1 and at a pressure of 207 to 345 kPa. To
accommodate different plot sizes, sprayer type, nozzle type, and nozzle spacing
varied to ensure uniform herbicide application.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block arranged in a
5 x 5 factorial including a weed free plot (hand weeded). Factor A, mesotrione,
was applied at rates of 0, 53, 105, 158, and 210 9 ha". Factor B, atrazine, Was
applied at rates of 0, 280, 560, 1120, and 1780 g ha". The typical use rate is
210 9 ha'1 and 1120 g ha'1 for mesotrione and atrazine, respectively. Since
broadleaf weed control was the focus of the study, a PRE application of s-
metolachlor was made at the typical use rate for the soil type and region at each

site to control annual grasses (Table 1). Treatments were replicated three or four

times. Corn injury and weed control were evaluated visually 30, 45, and 60 days
after treatment (DAT) using the rating scale of 0 (no injury) to 100 (completely
killed). Weed density by species was determined 30, 45, and 60 DAT from three
randomly placed 76 x 76-cm quadrats between the center two rows of each plot.
The 30 DAT ratings and counts will be reported here because they best
represent the weed control effects. The center two corn rows were mechanically
harvested and weighed, and grain yields were corrected to 15.5 percent

moisture.

Statistical Analysis

Weed species varied across location and year (Table 4). Weeds
evaluated included triazine-susceptible common lambsquarters, present at five
locations; triazine-resistant common lambsquarters, present at three locations;
velvetleaf, present at ten locations; common ragweed, present at five locations;
giant ragweed, present at six locations; ivyleaf momingglory, present at four
locations; common cocklebur, present at two locations; and Pennsylvania
smartweed, present at three locations. Weed control, weed densities, and corn
yield at each site were subjected to analysis of variance. Means were separated
using Fisher’s Protected LSD test at the alpha=0.05 significance level and is
reported in Tables A1 -A14.

Treatment-by-Iocation and treatment-by—year interactions were significant
for all weed species, corn yields, and weed densities; thus the data from each

location and year were considered separate sites. To illustrate weed control and

weed densities, data are presented using boxplots to indicate the overall level
and consistency of control for each weed species (Ott and Longnecker 2001). In
each boxplot, the boxes represent 50 percent of the observations and the lines
outside the boxes represent 90 percent of the observations. Shorter boxes and
lines indicate greater consistency among the observations. Horizontal black bars
across each boxplot indicate the mean of the observations. Corn yields are
reported as a percentage of the weed free yield with an asterisk indicating

treatments not significantly different from weed free plots.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crop Response.

No crop injury was observed from any treatments at all locations (data not
reported). Therefore, corn yield loss was attributed to weed competition, not crop
injury.

Weed Control.
Triazine-susceptible common lambsquarters control.

All treatments were consistently effective for control of common
lambsquarters (Figure 1). Treatments including atrazine resulted in at least 83
percent control, regardless of rate. Only atrazine at 280 9 ha'1 had an average
density of greater than five plants rn'2 while all other atrazine treatments reduced
populations to one or two plant m'z. When mesotrione was applied alone, at
least 90 percent control of common lambsquarters was observed, regardless of
rate, across all locations. Treatments that included mesotrione, regardless of
atrazine rate, reduced populations to zero or one plant m'2. Therefore, common

lambsquarters is easily controlled by mesotrione or atrazine.

Triazine-resistant (TR) common lambsquarters control.

TR-common lambsquarters control from treatments containing only
atrazine were lower and more variable than treatments which included any rate
of mesotrione (Figure 2). Treatments including only atrazine resulted in control

ranging from 30 to 90 percent. In these treatments, average weed densities

1O

were greater than 25 plants m'2. Control of TR-common lambsquarters
increased as mesotrione rate was increased. Mesotrione applied alone at 158 9
ha’1 or greater resulted in at least 90 percent control. When any rate of
mesotrione was applied, average weed density dropped below 10 plants rn'2 and
in many cases was zero. Combinations of mesotrione and atrazine did not
increase control of TR-common lambsquarters as compared to mesotrione alone.
Treatments receiving 158 9 ha'1 or greater of mesotrione resulted in the greatest
control. Average control of these treatments was above 95 percent, regardless
of atrazine application, at all locations. Mesotrione applied at 158 9 ha'1 or
greater, regardless of atrazine application, removed all TR-common
lambsquarters plants. Thus, TR-common lambsquarters is easily controlled by

mesotrione and atrazine was not effective.

Velvetleaf control.

Control of velvetleaf from treatments that included only atrazine was
inconsistent, ranging from 42 to 78 percent control (Figure 3). Velvetleaf control
increased with increasing rates of atrazine, but average control was less than 80
percent. These results agree with Wax and Maxwell (1998), Waltz et al. (1999),
and Hasty et al. (2003) who reported poor control of velvetleaf with atrazine.
Reduction of velvetleaf density was also inconsistent from treatments receiving
only atrazine. As atrazine rate increased from 0 to 1780 9 ha", velvetleaf density
decreased from about eight plants to four plants m'z. When mesotrione was

applied alone at 105 9 ha'1 or greater, control was 90 percent or greater.

11

Treatments containing any rate of mesotrione resulted in velvetleaf densities at
or below five plants rn'2 and in many treatments average densities were below
one plant m'2. When mesotrione was applied at 53 9 ha'1 in combination with
increasing rates of atrazine, velvetleaf control increased. When mesotrione was
applied at 105 9 ha'1 or greater, no increase in control was observed when
atrazine was applied, regardless of rate. This high level of velvetleaf control with
mesotrione applied PRE agrees with reports by Ohmes et al. (2000), Johnson et
al. (1999), Sprague et al. (1999), and Waltz et al. (1999). Treatments which
included any rate of mesotrione were more consistent for velvetleaf control and

reducing plant populations of velvetleaf as compared to atrazine treatments.

Common Ragweed.

Control of common ragweed increased as atrazine rate increased (Figure
4). Average control increased from about 50 percent to 90 percent as atrazine
rate increased from 280 9 ha'1 to 1780 9 ha". Common ragweed densities
followed the same trend. As atrazine rate increased, density decreased from 30
to 5 plants m’2. Control of common ragweed increased from about 62 percent to
over 90 percent when mesotrione rate increased from 53 to 210 g ha",
respectively. When mesotrione and atrazine were applied in combination, an
increase in control and reduction in weed density were observed as atrazine rate
increased. As increasing rates of atrazine were applied in combination with 53 or
105 9 ha'1 of mesotrione, control increased with the greatest control always

occurring at the highest rate of atrazine. The most consistent control of common

12

ragweed occurred with treatments of mesotrione at 158 9 ha‘1 in combination
with atrazine at 560 9 ha'1 or greater or mesotrione at 210 9 ha'1 in combination
with atrazine at any rate. These treatments controlled common ragweed above
90 percent in nearly all observations. These results agree with those of Armel et
al. (2003) who reported increased control of common ragweed with mesotrione
when applied in combination with 560 9 ha'1 of atrazine. Densities were reduced
the most when 105 9 ha'1 or greater of mesotrione was applied in combination
with 560 g ha'1 or greater of atrazine. Therefore, the combinations of the two
herbicides were most effective at reducing common ragweed populations

resulting in greatest control.

Giant Ragweed.

Control of giant ragweed was inconsistent, but average control increased
from 28 percent to 77 percent and plant density was reduced from 20 to 10
plants m'2, when atrazine rate was increased from 280 to 1780 9 ha‘1 (Figure 5).
An increase in control from mesotrione was only observed when the rate
increased from 53 to 105 9 ha"; no further increase in control was observed from
158 or 210 9 ha". Similar to atrazine, when mesotrione rate increased from 53
to 210 9 ha", giant ragweed population dropped from 20 to 8 plant m'z. When
any rate of mesotrione was applied, the greatest control was always observed
when applied in combination with the highest rate of atrazine. Combinations of
these two herbicides were more effective and consistent than either herbicide

alone, but none of the treatments completely controlled giant ragweed. Unlike

13

the weed species discussed above, an increase in observed control did not
always result in a reduction in plant population. Giant ragweed plants may have
only been suppressed and not killed, as compared to plant death with the weeds

discussed previously.

Ivyleaf Morningglory.

Control of ivyleaf momingglory ranged from 17 to 63 percent when
atrazine was applied alone. (Figure 6). As atrazine rate increased, control
increased, but atrazine was consistently ineffective in controlling ivyleaf
momingglory alone. Treatments that included only mesotrione were generally
more effective than atrazine, but control was variable and averaged only about
82 percent with mesotrione at 210 9 ha". Although control increased, treatments
with either atrazine or mesotrione alone did not effectively reduce ivyleaf
momingglory density. Treatments including mesotrione at 210 9 ha“, regardless
of atrazine rate, resulted in the most consistent control of ivyleaf momingglory,
but in many cases did not provide greater than 90 percent control. The greatest
control was obtained when the combination of the highest rates of both
mesotrione and atrazine were applied. However, control was still inconsistent
and ranged from 80 to 100 percent. The combination of the two herbicides
reduced populations, only slightly. As with giant ragweed, the greater control of
ivyleaf momingglory, evaluated visually, is likely due the suppression of plants,

not a reduction in plant population.

14

Common Cocklebur.

As atrazine rate increased from 280 to 1780 9 ha“, control of common
cocklebur control increases from 12 to 70 percent, but was inconsistent across all
sites (Figure 7). Treatments that included atrazine alone did not effectively
reduce common cocklebur density. Control with mesotrione was also
inconsistent, but was more effective as compared to atrazine. When mesotrione
was applied alone at 158 or 210 9 ha“, common cocklebur densities were
reduced, but mesotrione did not effectively remove all plants. When the
combination of mesotrione and atrazine were applied, control of common
cocklebur was more consistent, but the tank mixture did not provide greater than
90 percent control. When mesotrione was applied at 53 g ha'1 in combination
with increasing rates of atrazine, control increased from 42 to 70 percent.
However, data suggests that at high rates of mesotrione, the addition of atrazine
did not increase control. The treatments that provided the greatest control were
treatments that included mesotrione at 158 or 210 9 ha'1 in combination with any
rate of atrazine. Although these treatments resulted in the greatest control, most
observations were still below 90 percent. Therefore, these data suggest that the
combination of mesotrione and atrazine resulted in only partial control of
common cocklebur PRE. For complete control, a POST application may be

necessary.

15

Pennsylvania Smartweed.

Control of Pennsylvania smartweed increased on average from 39 percent
to 98 percent when atrazine rate increased from 280 to 1780 9 ha'1 (Figure 8).
When mesotrione was applied alone at 105 9 ha‘1 or greater, control was 97
percent or greater, regardless of rate. Mesotrione at 105 9 ha'1 or greater in
combination with any rate of atrazine resulted in at least 99 percent control in all
observations.

Pennsylvania smartweed densities were reduced as atrazine rate
increased. Treatments that included any rate of mesotrione, with or without
atrazine, effectively reduced weed populations below 1 plant m'2. Thus,

Pennsylvania smartweed is easily controlled by both mesotrione and atrazine.

Corn Yield.

Corn yields are expressed as percent of weed free yield to show variation
of particular treatments across all sites (Figure 9). In treatments that included
only atrazine, yields increased as rates increased, but on average, yields did not
exceed 75 percent of the weed free yield. Corn yields increased with increasing
rates of both mesotrione and atrazine. However, a greater increase in yield was
observed from mesotrione as compared to atrazine, but yields were still below 85
percent of the weed free. Highest corn yields were often observed in treatments
that included mesotrione at 158 g ha'1 or greater, regardless of atrazine

treatment.

16

At 13 out of 14 sites, when no herbicide application was made, yield was
significantly reduced as compared to the weed free control (Table 4). As atrazine
rate increased, the instances of reduced yield decreased, but weed competition
still reduced yield at six sites with the highest two rates of atrazine. When
mesotrione was applied alone, the number of instances of reduced yield was 9
and 2 from application rates of 53 and 210 9 ha", respectively. Treatments that
consistently reduced weed competition across all but two sites were: atrazine at
1780 g ha'1 in combination with mesotrione, regardless of rate, and all treatments
that included mesotrione at 158 9 ha'1 or higher, regardless of atrazine
application. Mesotrione at 158 g ha“1 in combination with 1780 9 ha'1 allowed
weeds to reduce yields only once. Corn yields in 2003 at Dekalb and Lexington
were very low because of high giant ragweed pressure (Tables A3, A8).
Because of these high giant ragweed populations, nearly all of the corn yields
from these two sites were significantly lower than the weed free control. Low
corn yields in 2002 at Lexington were due to severe drought late in the growing
season (data not shown).

The combination of mesotrione and atrazine can be an effective strategy
for controlling several broadleaf weed species PRE. Control of triazine-
susceptible common lambsquarters can be obtained from treatments that include
atrazine or mesotrione or the combination of the two herbicides (Table 6).
Atrazine and mesotrione are both very effective for control of triazine-susceptible
common lambsquarters. Control of TR—common lambsquarters was only

obtained from treatments that included mesotrione. When mesotrione was

17

applied at low rates, data was inconsistent between common lambsquarters
populations (Figures 1 and 2). Differences in control of common lambsquarters
populations with low rates of mesotrione could be attributed to very little rainfall in
East Lansing in 2003, which resulted in reduced control of TR-common
lambsquarters (Table 2). Similar results were observed by Armel et al. (2003)
who reported mesotrione PRE did not control common lambsquarters under low
rainfall conditions. Previous research showed that weed control with mesotrione
varied with rainfall pattern after herbicide application (Simmons et al. 2000). As
with TR-common lambsquarters, velvetleaf was easily controlled by treatments
that included mesotrione (Table 6). All treatments that included at least 105 9
ha'1 of mesotrione resulted in excellent velvetleaf control. However, for control of
common ragweed, a combination of high rates of mesotrione and atrazine was
needed. Only partial control of giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and ivyleaf
momingglory occurred when the highest rates of the two herbicides were applied
in combination.

Yields from treatments that included mesotrione at 158 9 ha'1 or greater,
regardless of atrazine application, were not significantly different from the yield of
the weed free at all sites, except for two (Table 5). The yields from the 1780 g
ha'1 of atrazine required at least the lowest rate of mesotrione in order to reduce
weed competition to where only two sites were significantly different from the
weed free. Yield data suggest that the reduction in weed competition may be
more responsive to mesotrione rate as compared atrazine rate. Mesotrione

applied alone at 158 9 ha'1 or greater was just as effective at reducing weed

18

competition as atrazine at 1780 g ha'1 in combination with the lowest rate of
mesotrione.

The combination of mesotrione and atrazine that is needed for most
effective, consistent weed control is species specific. All rates of each herbicide
controlled triazine-susceptible common lambsquarters greater than 95 percent.
Velvetleaf was easily controlled by all rates of mesotrione. Control of common
ragweed was obtained by the combinations of high rates of both mesotrione and
atrazine. Combinations of mesotrione and atrazine suppressed, but did not
effectively control, giant ragweed, common cocklebur and ivyleaf momingglory.
As a result, suppressed weeds could recover and compete with corn for moisture
and nutrients, thus reducing yield. A sequential POST program may be best
suited for control of these broadleaf weeds. A combination of mesotrione and
atrazine PRE followed by another herbicide application POST might be the most
effective strategy. The PRE treatment would provide early-season suppression
while possibly providing for more herbicide options and a wider window for POST

application.

19

LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous. 2001. Crop production and chemical usage in field crops.
Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS and USDA: Web page:
http://www.usda.gov/nass/. Accessed: February 14, 2004.

Anonymous. 2003. CallistoTM herbicide label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta
Crop Protection.

Armel, G. R., H. P. Wilson, R. J. Richardson, and T. E. Himes. 2003.
Mesotrione, acetochlor, and atrazine for weed management in corn (Zea
mays). Weed Technol. 17:284-290.

Black, D. B., R. A. Wichert, J. K. Townson, D.W. Bartlett, D. C. Drost. 1999.
Technical overview of ZA 1296, a new corn herbicide from Zeneca. Proc.
South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:188.

Bradley, P. R., W. G. Johnson. S. E. Hart, M. B. Buesinger, and R. E. Massey.
2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea
mays L.). Weed Technol. 14:495-501.

Getting, J. K. and B. D. Potter. 2002. Weed control with mesotrione in corn at
Lamberton, MN in 2002. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 59:113-
114.

Hasty, R. F., C. L. Sprague, D. E. Nordby. 2003. Preemergence herbicide
programs for weed control in corn. Dekalb, Illinois, 2003. North Cent.
Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 60:79-80.

Heap, l. 2004. Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science Society of America:
Web page: http/lwww.weedscience.org/. Accessed: February 14, 2004.

Johnson, B. C., B. G. Young, and J. L. Matthews. 2002. Effect of postemergence
application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response
and weed control. Weed Technol. 16:414—420.

Johnson, W. G., and J. D. Wait, C. S. Holman. 1999. ZA 1296 programs. North
Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 56:225-227.

Lee, D. L., M. P. Prisbylla, T. H. Cromartie, D. P. Dagarin, S. W. Howard, W. M.
Provan, M. K. Ellis, T. Fraser, and L. C. Mutter. 1997. The discovery and
structural requirements of inhibitors of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate
dioxygenase. Weed Sci. 45:601-609.

20

Menbere, H and R. L. Ritter. 2001. Preemergence and postemergence control of
trazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till
corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:19.

Ohmes, G. A., J. A. Kendig, R. L. Barham, and P. M. Ezell. 2000. Efficacy of ZA
1296 in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:225.

O’Sullivan, J., J. Zandstra, and P. Sikkema. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays)
cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol. 16:421-425.

Ott, R. L., and M. Longnecker. 2001. An introduction to statistical methods and
data analysis , Fifth Ed., Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA. pp. 99.

Rouchaud, J., O. Neus, K. Cool, and R. Bulcke. 2000. Dissipation of the triketone
mesotrione herbicide in the soil of corn crops grown on different soil types.
Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 77:31-40.

Shaner, D. L., D. A. Feist, and E J. Retzinger. 1997. SAMOA: one company’s
approach to herbicide-resistant weed management. Pesticide Sci. 51 :367-
370.

Simmons, F. W., D. C. Parker, and L. M. Wax. 2000. Mesotrione efficacy
response to rainfall and soil water. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc.
55:103.

Smith, J. D., and T. H. Beckett. 1999. ZA 1296: a versatile preemergence and
postemergence broadleaf herbicide for com. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc.
52:188.

Sprague, C. L., J. J. Kells, and K. Schirmacher. 2004. Weed Control Guide for
Field Crops. Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-434. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. pp. 160.

Sprague, C. L., D. J. Maxwell and J. M. Wax. 1999. Comparisons of ZA 1296
and RPA 201772 for weed control in corn. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc.,
Res. Rep. 56:223-224.

Sutton, P., C. Richards, L. Buren, and L. Glasgow. 2002. Activity of mesotrione
on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 58:981-984.

Vencill, W. K., ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8"” ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed
Science Society of America. pp 27-30, 267, 288-289.

21

Waltz, A. L., A. R. Martin, and J. J. Spotanski. 1999. Weed control with ZA 1296
in field corn at Lincoln, NE in 1999. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep.
56:228-231.

Wax, L. M. and D. J. Maxwell. 1998. Weed control with ZA 1296 in corn. North
Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 55:260-261.

Young, B. G., B. C. Johnson, and J. L. Matthews. 1999. Preemergence and
sequential weed control with mesotrione in conventional corn. North
Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 56:226-227.

22

Table 1 . Soil description and s-metolachlor rate applied at each location in 2002 and 2003.

 

S-metolachlor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organic Matter Rate
Location Soil Texture (°/o) Soil pH (9 ai ha")
2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 and 2003
Illinois silt loam silt 4.7 4.8 6.3 6.4 1780
University of Illinois loam
Agronomy Research Farm
Urbana, IL
Illinois silty clay silty 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.2 1780
University of Illinois loam clay
Agronomy Research Farm loam
Dekalb, IL
Indiana silty clay silty 3.5 2.3 6.6 6.2 1780
Purdue University loam clay
Agronomy Research Center loam
West Lafayette, IN
Kentucky silt loam silt 2.6 2.6 6.4 6.4 1430
University of Kentucky loam
Spindletop Farm
Lexington, KY
Michigan sandy 2.4 2.4 7.0 6.8 1430
Michigan State University clay
Agronomy Research Farm loam
East Lansing, MI
Michigan loam 3.9 6.2 1430a
Michigan State University
Plant Biology Farm
East LansiniMl
Michigan loam 2.1 6.4 1430b
Michigan State University
Clarksville Hort. Exp. Station
Clarksville, MI
Ohio silty clay silt 4 4 6.2 6.3 1780
The Ohio State University loam loam

Western Branch OARDC
South Charleston, Ohio
8 only in 2003

b only in 2002

23

.cozmeaem cmtm 980 .<<n_ ”co_fi_>ofie< ..

 

Fwd News and m.o_. wfi: vw.m_. mmdw Nod afim and Ne mmNF PW: no.0 .30...
Rom eve mod and vwé mvw me 5% _..o we... wmé 2.0 té mu; wwiww
new Ewe QNK wmé wed me oh wwé wvé 56 mod Fwd wmé wwd Fwimw

 

 

 

ee we; Ke e: ewe wee wee e eeé eeé end we.“ we; e_..w 3e
R: we; eve vmé meta we; Ce 9w me we end was vow ewe we
Eo ..<<o
eeew weew meew weew meew weew meew weew meew meew weew meew weew weew
meme: ozo>$3 :23:sz :99:me w-e:_m:m4 7965.. £960 3:39:30 __mE_mm
“we; £30m 6mm 6mm.

 

.coemgaam 5cm c ew 9 a: m_m>coE_ e-» 55 8:32:66 =mE_mm .w 03mg

24

Table 3. Planting date, herbicide application, and corn hybrid at each location in 2002 and 2003.

 

Planting Preemergence

 

 

Location Date Application Corn Hybrid
2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
Illinois 5/24 4/14 5/24 4/14 Asgrow 738 RRal Dekalb 6017 RR”

University of Illinois

Agronomy Research Farm
Urbana, IL

Illinois 5/5
University of Illinois

Agronomy Research Farm
Dekalb, IL

Indiana 5/30
Purdue University

Agronomy Research Center
West Lafayette, IN

Kentucky 4/24
University of Kentucky
Spindletop Farm

Lexington, KY

Michigan 5/21
Michigan State University
Agronomy Research Farm

East Lansing, MI

Michigan ---
Michigan State University

Plant Biology Farm

East Lansing, MI

Michigan 5/22
Michigan State University
Clarksville Hort. Exp. Station
Clarksville, Ml

Ohio 5/20
The Ohio State University
Western Branch OARDC

South Charleston, Ohio

4/29

5/27

4/30

5/18

5/19

5/14

5/7

5/30

5/16

5/21

5/22

5/20

4/29

5/27

4/30

5/18

5/19

5/14

a Asgrow, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167
b Dekalb, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167

‘ Garst Seed Company, Slater, IA 50244

Dekalb 53-34 RR/YG” Asgrow 718 RR/YGa

Asgrow RX738 RR“I Asgrow RX738 RRa

Garst 8362 lTc Dekalb DKC 64-11 RRa

Dekalb 44-46 RRb Dekalb 44—46 RR”

---- Pioneer 38A25d

Dekalb 44-46 RRb

Pioneer 34M94d Dekalb 60-09 RRb

d Pioneer Hi-Bred lntemational, lnc., Des Moines, IA 50306

25

.eoozfimEm m.cm>.>wccon. .>n...On. uaemiooo :oEEoo ....mz<x

.bo.eec.EoE .832 .wIOn: 606268 :86 Him—2.4 ”noozem. :oEEoo ...wms.< cmo=o>.o> .Ihnmd. ”BotmscmeEm.
coEEoo E9m_mo.-mc_NmE ....<m....0-m.... ”wcotmecweES coEEoo misnoomemocfiflb .i.<m...o-w 6:25.359?

 

 

 

x x x 3.5..

x x x 52.3“

x x x x mzoe

x x x x x x meme/2

x x x x x Ems?

x x x x x x x X x x X 15m<

x x x 3510-5

x x x x x .2556

meew weew meew weew meew weew meew weew meow meow weew meew weew weew memo;
meme: BEBE; :23:ch :29..on w-e:_m:m. TeEmcm. £8.60 2.38.6.0

amm>> £30m “mew “mam

 

Ewe.» new .5280. .3 A X V “comma mnoo>> . v 33m...

26

xomco 8E new; .85 288.26 20:85:98 .0: 29> 986:. 8.886...
xooco 09. com; 05 cm... 826. 3.2.8288 mm; 2888: 9: Fm... 8888:. _o ..onEec .98....

 

 

 

 

8F 8F 2: 8 NF: FNF NF 8 2: 88 8F 88 8F 8 .28.. 82 22> 8: 883

N .8 . 2: I- 2: F .2: .2: E .8 .8 .8 .8 NF. .2: .F F F 8: 08
N .88 ..8F .2: .2: F .8 .8 8 .2: .2: .8 .8 FF .2: .8 8F F 08
N .8 .8 .8 .eNF .8 .8 E .8 .2: .8 .8 N .8 .2: 888 08
N .8 .2: .8 8F: .2: .8 8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .: .8F .8 8N oFN
N .8 .8 .2: .mNF .8 .2: EN .8 8: .8 .8 8 .2: .8 o oFN
F .8 .8 .2: F: .8 .8 .2: .8 .8 .8 .8 F. .8 .2: 83 8:
N .2: .8 .2: 2: F .. 2: .8 8 .E .8 .8 .2: N .8 .8 8F F 8F
N .8 .8 .8 .FNF .8 .8 8 .8 .8 .8 .8 NF .8 .2: 88 8:
N .8 .8 .8 F: .2: .8 8 .8 .8 .8 .8 N .2: .8 8N 8:
N .2: I- .8 .8 F .8 .8 8 .8 .2: .8 .8 o 82 .8 o 8F
N .8 .8 .8F .8: .2: .8 8 .8 .8 .8 .8 8F .2: .2: 8t 2:
8 .8 .2: 88 8F F .2: .8 NE .88 .8F .8 .8 m .8 .2: eNF F 2:
F. .8 8 8 8.: .8 .8 8 .E .2: .8 .8 N .2: .2: 08 8F
F. .8 .8 .8 .NF F .2: 8 8 .8 .2: 8 .8 F F .8 .8 .8 2:
8 N8 8 .8 .eNF .8 .8 8 .8 .2: E 8 NN .8F .8 o 2:
N .8 .8 .8 8: .8 .8 E .8 .2: .8 .8 o 8.: .8 8: 8
F. .8 8 .8 .3 F .8 .8 8 8 .8 .8 . 8 8 .8F .2: 8F F 8
8 .8 8 .8 .48 .8 .8 «F .8 .2: .8 .8 N .8 .2: o8 8
8 E 8 E .2: 8 N8 o 2. .2: 8 .8 FF .2: .2: 08 8
8 E 8 8 .F F F .8 .8 o 8 .2: 8 8 E 8 .8 o 8
8 .8 .8 R LNF .8 .8 8 8 8 8 .8 N NE .8 8: o

8 .8 8 8 .8NF .8 .8 8 .8 .8 N8 .8 8 8 .88 8F F o

E 8 E 8 .8 .8 .8 o 8 .8 8 8 o 8 8 08 o

2 Q. 8 NN .8 8 8 o 8 8 FF. E o 8N 8 08 o

2.: N8 8 8 .8 8 8 , o 8 E 8 8 o F 8 o o

.8532 88 . N8N _ 88 . 88 88 . No8 _ 88 _ 88 88 88. 88 _ 88 . 88 88
«Be; 989: $8.8m... 580.820 :99..me w-e:_mcm._ 79:98.. £880 2.39.8.0 .79. .m e. .79. .m e.
803.com. 83> 5300 8mm. 83 3.8;? 32:80.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

683 me: new; 9: n6 oemEoEma m mm 8208: “0.83 500 .m 83.8.:

27

Table 6. Weeds controlled with preemergence application of
mesotrione, atrazine or the combination.

 

 

 

Herbicide
Weed Species atrazine mesotrione combination

S-CHEALa C C C

TR-CHEAL C C
ABUTH C C
AMBEL C
AMBTR PC
IPOHE PC
XANST PC
POLPY C C C

 

aAbbreviations: S-CHEAL, triazine-susceptible common
lambsquarters; TR-CHEAL, triazine-resistant common
lambsquarters; ABUTH, velvetleaf; AMBEL, common ragweed;
AMBTR, giant ragweed; IPOHE, ivyleaf momingglory; XANST,
common cocklebur; POLPY, Pennsylvania smartweed;

C = control; PC = partial control

28

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9%
80
§ 60
§
25.
o 40
- Atrazine-0 g ai l'ia'1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1
20 WW Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
:2 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha"
0 = , . , . .
0 53 105 158 210
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
25
- Atrazine-O g ai ha'1
.— Atrazine-280 g ai ha”1
20 Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1 —
m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha’1
[:3 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
9’1" 15
8 E
8 :2 _
a) c: j
o E
9, 10
5
0 53 1 05 1 58 21 0
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

Figure 1. Boxplot figures represent control and density of triazine-susceptible
common lambsquarters. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data
collected from studies in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each treatment
are indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot.

29

Density
(plants m'2)
3
O

100 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2\°’ _-

T:

:.-.

C

o

O
_ Atrazine-0 g ai ha'1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1

20 rm Atrazine-560 g ai ha’1
571‘“ Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
:3 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha-1
0 . . . . .
0 53 1 05 1 58 21 O
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
200

 

 

- Atrazine-O g ai ha"1

Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1
@712 Atrazine-560 g ai ha‘1
l 583 Atrazine-1120 g aiha'1 -
l :3 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1

    

 

150

 

 

50-

 

 

 

1 O5
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

Figure 2. Boxplot figures represent control and density of triazine-resistant
common lambsquarters. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data
collected from studies in Michigan. Means of each treatment are indicated by
(-) inside of each boxplot.

30

Density
(plants m'2)

Control (%)

100 -

80

60‘

40

20

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l gm .
gm
1% l
— W l
‘54 ‘
‘- 1% l k
4?
* l? L - Atrazine-09 aiha'1
, 1% 9173 Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1
~ / . . . _1 ~
l % Atrazme-SSOg aI ha
% m Atrazine-1 120 g ai ha'1
/ I: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha"1
0 53 105 158 210
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
- Atrazine-0 g ai ha“1
“‘8‘“ Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1
m Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha‘1 2
F: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

 

Figure 3. Boxplot figures represent control and density of velvetleaf. Data
summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-)
inside of each boxplot.

31

Density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 1 q .. l -. ZE: *@ ———‘j
80 ‘ 1 i I i. J—
§ 60 - i
E l
E
8 40 - i
— Atrazine—0 g ai ha'1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha-1
20 Atrazine-560 g ai ha“1
ii i m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha‘1
2 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
0 . . . . .
0 53 1 05 1 58 21 O
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
140
_ Atrazine-O g ai ha“I
120 Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1 -
Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
100 Z Atrazine—1780 g ai ha'1
A ’17 .-
,, l
g l
40 i. T
20 l 7 T u T .1—
:2: .l.
0 -
0 53 1 05 1 58 21 0
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

Figure 4. Boxplot figures represent control and density of common ragweed.
Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois,
Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are indicated by (I) inside of

each boxplot.

32

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80
g 60 -
V
.9.
C
8 4o -
— Atrazine-O g ai ha‘1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1
20 ' .--. Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1 _
J; EB Atrazine-1120 g ai ha‘1
2?; F: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
0 53 105 158 210
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
80
- Atrazine-0 g ai hxa‘1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1
I Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
60 __ 533‘ Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1 ~—
53 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha‘1

 

 

 

 

 

Density

 

 

 

 

 

   

105
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

Figure 5. Boxplot figures represent control and density of giant ragweed. Data
summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois,

Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-)
inside of each boxplot.

33

 

 

 

 

100 . 7
%%| ték!
T_ ¢§ {fiVfil
¢L 7': ¢i
_ ¢igll 33/2
E n I

13?;

_-
WW: "

 

 

    
 

I Iii

 

Control (%)

 

 

- Atrazine-0 g ai ha'1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1
Atrazine-560 g ai ha-1
in): Atrazine-1120 g ai ha‘1
3:: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 165 158 210

 

     
 
  

Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
40
_ Atrazine-0 g ai I'ia‘1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1
Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
30 m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1

 

 

:3 Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
t—___—

 

Densrty
(plants m‘2)
N
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t) 53 21 0
Mesotrione

(g ai ha“)

Figure 6. Boxplot figures represent control and density of ivyleaf momingglory.
Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois,

Indiana, and Kentucky. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-) inside
of each boxplot.

34

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

393 I
80 I ‘ TT\
II E' r
g 60 “ H _1_ J. i
ii3 I
E
i -'. — Atrazine-O g ai ha'1
Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1
20 ‘ E3- Atrazine-560 g ai ha‘1
— 53:1 Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
a : Atrazine-17809 ai ha'1
0 - I a . . .
0 53 105 158 210
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
30
fl _ — Atrazine-0 g ai ha"I
“” ‘7 _ Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1 3
25 Atrazine-560 g ai ha'1
533 Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
20 f 3:; Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
<5? _
E E " I _
2 :2 15 3*
o c
D E
3 7‘ *3 TT _3_
10 m? l I I T V
l J. a
\
, l l l \—
5 -*—' E 3 5% T
o ‘ I r '

Figure 7. Boxplot figures represent control and density of common cocklebur.
Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from studies in Illinois
and Kentucky. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-) inside of each

boxplot.

 

1 05
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

35

158 210

 

 

 

 

Control (%)

 

 

- Atrazine-0 g ai ha‘1
—"-'~‘3 Atrazine-280 g ai ha'1

 

 

 

 

WM Atrazine-560 g ai ha‘1 W
m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
I E Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1

 

 

 

 

 

105

158 210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mesotrione
(g ai ha")
10 _ ___é__
— Atrazine-0 g ai ha'1
_ Atrazine-280 g ai ha“I
3 I m Atrazine-560 g ai ha‘1 ~
KS Atrazine-1120 g ai ha‘1
: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1
(31‘ 6
E E
2 e
0 C
D E
8
105 158 210
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

 

Figure 8. Boxplot figures represent control and density of Pennsylvania
smartweed. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois. Means of each treatment are indicated by (-) inside of each

boxplot.

36

 

Percent of Weed Free

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Atrazine-0 g ai ha"l

z- ‘ Atrazine-280 g ai ha‘1
_L “‘ Atrazine-560 g ai ha‘1
L m Atrazine-1120 g ai ha'1
i. I: Atrazine-1780 g ai ha'1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 105 158 21 o
Mesotrione
(g ai ha")

Figure 9. Boxplot figures represent corn yield as a percentage of the
weed free. Data summarized from 2002 and 2003. Data collected from
studies in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio. Means of each
treatment are indicated by (-) inside of each boxplot.

37

CHAPTER 2

WEED RESPONSE TO MESOTRIONE AND ATRAZINE APPLIED
PREEMERGENCE UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS

Abstract: Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the control of
velvetleaf, common cocklebur, and ivyleaf momingglory from mesotrione and
atrazine applied preemergence and to determine the interaction of mesotrione
and atrazine for velvetleaf and ivyleaf momingglory control. Sensitivity to
mesotrione was as follows: velvetleaf > common cocklebur > ivyleaf
momingglory. Sensitivity to atrazine was as follows: ivyleaf momingglory >
common cocklebur > velvetleaf. Combinations of mesotrione and atrazine
resulted in at least an additive interaction. Synergistic interactions between
mesotrione and atrazine occurred frequently with velvetleaf and once with ivyleaf
momingglory.

Nomenclature: atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyI-N-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5—triazine-2,4-
diamine; mesotrione, 2-(4-mesyl-2-nitrobenzoyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-Z-enone;
velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus #1 ABUTH; ivyleaf momingglory,
lpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHE; common cocklebur, Xanthium
strumarium L. # XANST; corn, Zea mays L.

Additional index words: synergism, additive, herbicide interaction

38

Abbreviations: PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; HPPD, 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; DAT, days after treatment; GRso, rate

causing 50% growth reduction.

 

1 Letters following this symbol are WSSA-approved computer code from
Composite List of Weeds, Revised 1989. Available only on computer disk from
WSSA, 810 East 10th Street, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897

39

INTRODUCTION

Mesotrione (2-(4-mesyI-2-nitrobenzoyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-Z-enone) is a
new selective herbicide used for preemergence (PRE) and postemergence
(POST) control of annual broadleaf weeds in field corn (Zea mays L.) (Black et
al. 1999). A member of the triketone family, mesotrione inhibits the enzyme 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). HPPD is involved in plastiquinone
biosynthesis, which indirectly blocks carotenoid synthesis, resulting in bleaching
of new growth followed by plant death (Lee 1997; Vencill 2002; Black et al.
1999). Corn exhibits excellent tolerance to mesotrione as a result of rapid
metabolism into inactive metabolites (Vencill 2002).

Previous research showed that mesotrione applied PRE was effective for
control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) (Anonymous 2003; Sprague
et al. 2004). Other studies reported variable control of common cocklebur
(Xanthium strumarium L.) and lpomoea spp. (Armel et al. 2003; Johnson et al.
1999; Young et al. 1999). The use of a tank-mix partner, such as atrazine (6-
chloro-N-ethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)—1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine), could enhance
weed control and broaden the spectrum of weed species controlled.

Atrazine has been in use since 1958 and was applied to 75 percent of the
corn hectares in 2001 (Anonymous 2001). Because of its low cost and wide
spectrum of control, atrazine is a popular PRE herbicide. Although atrazine is
effective at controlling several broadleaf weed species, it is inconsistent for

control of velvetleaf, common cocklebur, and lpomoea spp. (Sprague et al. 2004;

40

Wax and Maxwell 1998). Since most growers have a wide spectrum of broadleaf
weed species in their fields, a combination of mesotrione and atrazine might be
desirable to broaden the spectrum of weeds controlled by having both herbicides
in tank-mix combination.

A tank-mix combination of two herbicides often provides more consistent
and a broader spectrum of control, prevents weed resistance to certain
herbicides, and reduces costs while applying less total active ingredient (Harker
and O’Sullivan 1991, Sprague et al. 2004, Zhang et al. 1995). The basic
assumption of a herbicide mixture is that each acts independently when applied
in combination (Zhang et al. 1995). However, it has been observed that control
from a combination may be greater than, less than, or equal to the summed
effect of the herbicides applied alone. Thus, an interaction may occur between
the herbicides causing a synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effect (Colby 1967,
Green 1989, Hatzios and Penner 1985).

The increased activity of the combination of mesotrione and atrazine
POST provides evidence for a synergistic interaction. Abendroth et al. (2004)
reported synergistic interaction between mesotrione and photosynthetic
inhibitors POST for the control of velvetleaf, sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.),
and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmen' S.Wats). Armel et al. (2003) showed
that the addition of atrazine at 560 g ai ha'1 to mesotrione PRE increased control
of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters

(Chenopodium album L.) and lpomoea spp.

41

While previous research has been conducted on the interaction between
mesotrione and atrazine applied POST, few studies have, examined this
interaction PRE. The objectives of this research were (1) to characterize the
response of velvetleaf, ivyleaf momingglory (lpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.), and
common cocklebur to mesotrione and atrazine applied PRE and (2) to
characterize the interaction between mesotrione and atrazine for control of

velvetleaf and ivyleaf momingglory.

42

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General Experimental Procedures.

Ten velvetleaf seeds, ten ivyleaf momingglory seeds, and four common
cocklebur pods were planted in plastic pots (10-cm by 10-cm) filled with a Spinks
loamy sand soil (sand, mixed, mesic Psammentic Hapludalfs) with 2.4 percent
organic matter and a pH of 6.8. Velvetleaf and ivyleaf momingglory seeds were
planted 0.75 cm deep while common cocklebur pods were planted to a depth of
1.5 cm. Immediately after planting, the soil surface was treated with either
mesotrione or atrazine. Herbicide treatments were applied with a single tip track-
sprayer with a Teejet1 8003E flat-fan nozzle calibrated to deliver 187 L ha‘1 at
207 kPa. Herbicide treatments were incorporated with surface irrigation (0.64
cm) each of the first five days and then pots were watered equally as needed. At
14 days after planting, 50 ml of a fertilizer solution containing 70 mg L'1 of 20%
nitrogen, 20% P205, and 20% K20 was applied to each pot. Weeds were grown
in the greenhouse and sunlight was supplemented with sodium vapor lighting to
provide a total midday light intensity of 1000 pmol/m/s photosynthetic photon flux
at plant height in a 16 h day. Greenhouse temperature was maintained at 25 :I:
2° C. Once plants emerged, germination percentage was determined and pots

were then thinned to two plants per pot. Weed control was determined 28 DAT

 

1Spraying Systems Co., North Avenue, Wheaton, IL 60189

43

by visually evaluating plants for bleaching, necrosis, and stunting. Weed injury
was rated from 0 (no effect) to 100 (plant death). All aboveground plant tissue
was then harvested, dried, and weighed to determine reduction of plant biomass.
Data were then converted to percent control for data presentation. All studies
were designed as randomized complete blocks with four replications and were
repeated. All data were subjected to ANOVA and since no interactions between
repeated experiments were observed, data were combined and reported as the

means of the repeated experiments.

Control of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied Alone.

An experiment was designed to evaluate the control of velvetleaf, ivyleaf
momingglory, and common cocklebur to mesotrione and atrazine applied
preemergence. Using results from a preliminary experiment (data not shown),
varying rates of mesotrione and atrazine were selected and applied to the three
weed species to determine sensitivity to each herbicide. Following the same
general experimental procedures as stated above, velvetleaf, common cocklebur
and ivyleaf momingglory were planted and treated with different rates of
mesotrione and atrazine alone (Table 1). At 28 DAT, weeds were visually
evaluated and plant biomass was determined and then was converted to percent
control. Using dry weights the GR50 was calculated using Logistic Dose
Response (LDR) equation Y=A+Bl [1 +(X/C)D], where Y is the herbicide activity as
a percent control, X is rate of application, A is the upper limit, B is the lower limit,

C is the dose that causes GRso, and D is the slope of the curve around the GRso.

44

TableCurve 2D2 software was used to calculate regression curves and
equations. Deviations from regressions were assessed by r2 values. From the
GRso value, GR25 and GR75 were estimated for interaction experiments by

multiplying the GRso by 0.5 and 1.5, respectively.

Interaction of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied in Combination.

An experiment was designed to determine the type of interaction between
mesotrione and atrazine once weed sensitivity was established. Following the
same general experimental procedures as stated above, velvetleaf, and ivyleaf
momingglory seeds were planted and treated with all possible rate combinations
of mesotrione and atrazine from growth reduction values (25%, 50%, and 75%)
from the weed response experiment (Table 2). At 28 DAT, weeds were visually
evaluated and plant biomass was determined and then was converted to percent
control. Since mesotrione and atrazine have different sites of action, the
multiplicative method, E=X+Y-XY/100, developed by Colby (1967) was used to
calculate “expected” plant responses to herbicide combinations. In this equation,
X is the percent inhibition of growth by herbicide A, Y is the percent inhibition of
growth by herbicide B, and E is the expected percent inhibition by herbicides
A + B.

 

2 TableCurve 2D v. 5.01. Jandel Scientific, 2591 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael,
CA 94901.

45

 

Means were separated by Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD)
method. The LSD (P = 0.1) for the observed responses was used to determine
significant differences between observed and expected responses (Hamill and
Penner 1973). When the observed response of the herbicide combination was
greater than, equal to, or less than the calculated expected, the interaction was

deemed synergistic, additive, or antagonistic, respectively.

46

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Control of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied Alone.

Sensitivity to mesotrione was as follows: velvetleaf > common cocklebur >
ivyleaf momingglory (Figure 1). Growth response curves indicate that only 5.25
g ha"1 of mesotrione was required to reduce velvetleaf growth by 50 percent
(Table 2). However, common cocklebur required about twice as much
mesotrione compared to velvetleaf to reduce plant growth by 50 percent. Ivyleaf
momingglory was the least sensitive weed to mesotrione, requiring 17.5 9 ha'1 to
inhibit growth by 50 percent, more than three times as much active ingredient as
compared to velvetleaf. Field studies showed similar trends in mesotrione
efficacy. Research by Sprague et al. (1999) and Wax and Maxwell (1998)
showed the efficacy of mesotrione on velvetleaf was greater than common
cocklebur. In addition, Dewell et al. (2003) reported mesotrione was more
effective on velvetleaf compared to ivyleaf momingglory.

Sensitivity of the three weed species to atrazine was opposite of that of
mesotrione (Figure 1). Sensitivity to atrazine was as follows: ivyleaf
momingglory > common cocklebur > velvetleaf. Unlike mesotrione, the GRso
rates did not vary greatly. The GRso rates for ivyleaf momingglory, common
cocklebur and velvetleaf were 336, 420, and 448 9 ha", respectively (Table 2).
These results agree with Wax and Maxwell (1998), Waltz et al. (1999), and Hasty

et al. (2003) who reported poor control of velvetleaf with atrazine. In addition,

47

previous research reported poor control of common cocklebur with atrazine (Wax

and Maxwell 1998).

Interaction of Mesotrione and Atrazine Applied in Combination.
Velvetleaf.

All rate combinations of mesotrione and atrazine resulted in at least an
additive interaction for velvetleaf control (Figure 2). The combination that
contained atrazine at the GR25 rate resulted in a synergistic interaction when
mesotrione was applied at the GRso rate. When the GR50 rate of atrazine was
applied in combination with any rate of mesotrione, a synergistic interaction
occurred. When the GR75 rate of mesotrione was applied in combination with the
GR75 atrazine rate a synergistic interaction also occurred. Out of the nine

combinations applied to velvetleaf, five resulted in a synergistic interactions.

Ivyleaf momingglory.

No antagonism was observed between mesotrione and atrazine when
applied to ivyleaf momingglory (Figure 3). A synergistic interaction was observed
only when atrazine at the GR50 rate was applied in combination with mesotrione

at the Gst rate. All other combinations resulted in an additive response.
Possible Basis of Interaction.

The site of action of mesotrione is to inhibit HPPD, an enzyme involved in

plastiquinone biosynthesis, which indirectly blocks carotenoid synthesis (Lee

48

1997; Vencill 2002; Black et al. 1999). Although the inhibition of plastiquinone
production is an indirect effect of mesotrione activity, it may actually increase the
activity of atrazine. The site of action for atrazine is to bind to the D1 protein of
photosystem II (PS II), which inhibits photosynthetic electron transport, resulting
in free radicals which leads to lipid peroxidation, loss of membrane integrity, and
then plant death (Anderson 1996; Vencill 2002). Both atrazine and
plastoquinone compete for the same D1 protein binding site in PS II (Malkin and
Niyogi 2000; Vencill 2002). Inhibition of plastoquinone biosynthesis by
mesotrione, resulting in an increase in binding of atrazine to the D1 protein, may
contribute to the synergistic interaction between mesotrione and atrazine.

Further explanation of this interaction can be attributed to the relationship
between HPPD inhibitors, PS II, and the antioxidant a-tocopherol. In addition to
biosynthesis of plastiquinone, the enzyme HPPD is a co-factor involved in the
production of a-tocopherol (Hess 1993; Mitchell et al. 2001; Pallet et al. 1998).
The role of a-tocopherol in the plant is as a scavenger of damaging singlet
oxygen and hydroxyl ions along with continual maintenance of the D1 protein in
PS ll (Bray et al. 2000; Hess 1993; Trebst et al. 2002). The production of d-
tocopherol is also affected by PS II. In the presence of high light, enzymes are
activated by PS II for the production of q-tocopherol (Trebst et al. 2002). When
mesotrione and atrazine are applied in combination, the mesotrione may prevent
the production of o-tocopherol while the atrazine inhibits electron transport,
resulting in free singlet oxygen and hydroxyl ions (Anderson 1996; Mitchell et al.

2001; Pallet et al. 1998; Vencill 2002). As a result, the inhibition a-tocopherol by

49

mesotrione may increase the activity of the free singlet oxygen and hydroxyl ions
produced by the inhibition of electron transport.

Tank mixtures of mesotrione and atrazine are at least additive, and in
several cases synergistic, for the control of velvetleaf and ivyleaf momingglory.
Combinations of the two herbicides complement each other very well since they
have different sites of action and vary in effectiveness on the species. For
example, mesotrione was more effective on velvetleaf, but less effective on
ivyleaf momingglory; however, the opposite response was observed with
atrazine. A tank mixture of mesotrione and atrazine provides several benefits to
the grower. The combination uses less active ingredient of each herbicide, while
broadening the spectrum control. In addition, the use of more than one site of

action reduces the potential for weed resistance (Shaner et al. 1997).

50

LITERATURE CITED

Abendroth, J. A., and A. R. Martin, and F. W. Roeth. 2004. Synergism of
mesotrione with photosynthetic inhibitors. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am.
44:14.

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed science: principles and applications, Third Ed.,
West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. pp. 102-103.

Armel, G. R., H. P. Wilson, R. J. Richardson, and T. E. Himes. 2003.
Mesotrione, acetochlor, and atrazine for weed management in corn (Zea
mays). Weed Technol. 17:284-290.

Black, D. B., R. A. Wichert, J. K. Townson, D.W. Bartlett, D. C. Drost. 1999.
Technical overview of ZA 1296, a new corn herbicide from Zeneca. Proc.
South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:188.

Bray, E. A., J. Bailey-Serres, and E. Weretilnyk. 2000. Chapter 22: Responses to
abiotic stresses. In: B. B. Buchanan, W. Gruissem, and R. L. Jones.
(Eds.) Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants. American Society of
Plant Biologists, Rockville, MD. pp. 1189-1196.

Colby, SR. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide
combinations. Weeds 15:20-22.

Green, J. M. 1989. Herbicide antagonism at the whole plant level. Weed Technol.
3:217-226.

Hamill, AS, and D. Penner. 1973. Interaction of alachlor and carbofuran.
Weed Sci. 21 :330-335.

Harker, K. N. and P. A. O’Sullivan. 1991. Synergistic mixtures of sethoxydim and
fluazifop on annual grass weeds. Weed Technol. 5:310-316.

Hatzios, K. K. and D. Penner. 1985. Interaction of herbicides with other
agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1-63.

Hess, J. L. 1993. Vitamin E, a-tocopherol. In: R. G. Alscher and J. L. Hess (Eds)

Antioxidants in higher plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Rotan, FL.
pp. 111-134.

Lee, D. L., M. P. Prisbylla, T. H. Cromartie, D. P. Dagarin, S. W. Howard, W. M.
Provan, M. K. Ellis, T. Fraser, and L. C. Mutter. 1997. The discovery and
structural requirements of inhibitors of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate
dioxygenase. Weed Sci. 45:601-609.

51

Malkin, R. and K. Niyogi. 2000. Chapter 12: Photosynthesis. In: B. B. Buchanan,
W. Gruissem, and R. L. Jones. (Eds.) Biochemistry and molecular biology
of plants. American Society of Plant Biologists, Rockville, MD. pp. 594-
595.

Mitchell, G., D. W. Bartlett, T. E. M. Fraser, T. R. Hawkes, D. C. Holt, J. K.
Townson, and R. A. Wichert. 2001. Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide
for use in maize. Pest. Manag. Sci. 57:120-128.

Pallet, K. E., J. P. Little, M. Sheekey, and P. Veerasekaran. 1998. The mode of
action of isoxaflutole. l. Physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62:113-124.

Shaner, D. L., D. A. Feist, and E J. Retzinger. 1997. SAMOA: one company’s
approach to herbicide-resistant weed management. Pesticide Sci. 51 :367-
370.

Sprague, C. L., D. J. Maxwell and J. M. Wax. 1999. Comparisons of ZA 1296
and RPA 201772 for weed control in corn. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc.,
Res. Rep. 56:223-224.

Sprague, C. L., J. J. Kells, and K. Schirmacher. 2004. Weed Control Guide for
Field Crops. Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-434. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. pp. 160.

Trebst, A., B. Depka, and H. Hollander-Czytko. 2002. A specific role for
tocopherol and of chemical singlet oxygen quenchers in the maintenance
of photosystem II structure and function in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.
FEBS Letters. 516 (1-3):156-160.

Vencill, W. K., ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed
Science Society of America. pp 27-30, 267, 288-289.

Wax, L. M. and D. J. Maxwell. 1998. Weed control with ZA 1296 in corn. North
Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 55:260-261.

Zhang, J., A. S. Hamill, and S. E. Weaver. Antagonism and synergism between
herbicides: trends from previous studies. Weed Technol. 9:86-90.

52

Table 1 . Mesotrione and atrazine rates used to evaluate weed sensitivity.

 

 

 

 

 

ABUTHa IPOHE XANST
Mesotrione Atrazine Mesotrione Atrazine Mesotrione Atrazine
g ai ha'1

0 0 0 0 0 0
4.4 140 6.6 140 4.4 70
8.8 280 13 280 8.8 140
17.5 560 26 560 17.5 280

35 1 120 53 1120 35 420

70 2240 105 2240 70 560

- - 1 120

 

a‘Abbreviations: ABUTH, velvetleaf; lPHOE, ivyleaf momingglory; XANST,
common cocklebur

53

Table 2. Mesotrione and atrazine rates associated with each growth reduction
value.

 

 

 

 

 

ABUTHa IPOHE XANST
Growth
Reduction Mesotrione Atrazine Mesotrione Atrazine Mesotrione Atrazine
--...(%) ..... g ai ha'1
25 2.63 224 8.75 168 5.5 210
50 5.25 448 17.5 336 11 420
75 7.88 672 26.25 504 16.5 630

 

aAbbreviations: ABUTH, velvetleaf; lPHOE, ivyleaf momingglory; XANST,
common cocklebur

54

Growth Reduction

Growth Reduction

(%)

100 .

(%)
(h (D ‘4 00 “D
C) C3 C) CD CD

:5
CD

30
20

10

100
90
80
70
60
50
4O
30
20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#
. ' z — Velvetleaf (3:050) —
. . y=107+0/[1+(x/5.4)'1'23
:— ----- Common Cocklebur (r2=0.77)
%_ y=113+0/[1-l-(x/13.59)4196
. no 0 o Ivyleaf Morningglory (r2=0.90)
1.— y=102+0/[1+(x/18.07)’2'1° “
r . f I r r
15 2o 25 30 35

Mesotrione rate

( g ai ha")

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

poo...
Q

h
Q
\)
III.

— Velvetleaf (r2=0.76)
y=96+0l[1 +(x/446)’3'°

 

\4

----- Common Cocklebur (r2=0.87)

 

 

y=1oo+o/[1 +(x/336f"61
p 0 0 Ivyleaf Morningglory (r2=0-84)

 

 

O O 0 O O

III-duallfilnlul

 

y=100+0/[1 +(x/409)4'91

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

‘4

400

T T

600 800

Atrazine Rate
(9 ai ha")

Figure 1. Growth response of velvetleaf, ivyleaf momingglory, and
common cocklebur to mesotrione and atrazine (Vertical lines indicate

GRso rates).

55

1 000

      

 

 

..-

/////////

-.//////////

  

Atrazine (GR25)
Atrazine (GR75)

 

 

 

000000000000
0000000000

 

Figure 2. Expected and observed control of velvetleaf from mesotrione and
56

atrazine combinations. Asterisks (*) indicate when observed responses are

significantly greater than expected (P=0.1).

 

 

2 AtrazinalQst)-..-

 

000000
00000

 

Figure 3. Expected and observed control of ivyleaf momingglory from

mesotrione and atrazine combinations. Asterisks (*) indicate when observed

responses are significantly greater than expected (P=0.1).

57

APPENDIX A

58

do: new; .H_>> ”.6282? .IthZ ”mLmtmzcmnES coEEoo
mfizaoomzm5cfim5 .._<m_._o-m ucmEDmmb .mtm 98 Had ”mco=m_>o._nn< m

 

 

2 t P S N 8009

FFF o 0 mm mm own? cam
em 0 0 mm mm our? saw
no? 0 o mm am can cam
mm o o mm mm emu ovm
mm o o mm mm o orm
4o? o o mm mm owes mm?
em o o mm mm our? am?
Now o 0 mm 55 com mm?
mm o o mm mm omm mmr
em m o mm mm o mm?
«or o 0 am am omhr mo.
«or o o mm mm our? mow
For a 0 mm mm own nor
mm o o mm am can mo?
um o o mm mm o mo?
Km F 0 mm am one? mm
Nor o 0 mm mm Omar mm
Foe V 0 mm am can mm
For o o mm mm emu mm
mm o F Fm mm o mm
mm m o mm mm owe? o

mm NF c mm mm ONFF 0

ea NF c we mm omm o

mm om o em mm omm o

om mm m o o o o

ENE co o\o--- ......... «.5 mama ........ .3... ........... .-2 a. m ..........

 

29> Eoo IHDm< 4<m10-w IHDm< ._<MIO-m «SENSE 9.05822
.55 on bacon. omm>> Law/«D on 63:00 umm>>

.Noom .=>_ .m___>mvtm_0 .mEwam
ocm mcoEommE 53> Ema 58 new .835ch new; ._o._Eoo nmo>> .34 $th

 

59

do: new; .m>> ”cmthmEm m_cm>_>mccod .>n:On_ ”ummgmfl Ema fem—>3 ”mezng .Ihnmxx
”mcmtmscmnEm. coEEoo o_n_Faoom:m-mc_NmE .._<m_Io-m ucoEme: 5cm 9% .._.<0 65.53anan a

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 m mF m F m NF m N 308..
9: F F F 0 mm 8 mm mm 8: oFN
9: F F F 0 mm mm 3 mm ONFF oFN
Nm F F F o 8 mm mm mm omm oFN
moF F F F 0 mm m 3 mm omN oFN
NoF F N F 0 mm m mm mm 0 EN
3 F N F 0 mm E mm mm mm: mm:
mm N S N o 8 mF em 8 ONF F mmF
3 F 2 F 0 mm 2 mm mm omm mmF
moF F N F 0 mm Fm F5 mm omN mmF
2: N mF N 0 mm mm mm mm o mmF
02 F F F 0 mm mm mm 8 St 9:
mm F F F o 8 mm mm mo. ONFF SF
SF F N F o 8 mm mm mm omm moF
mm m N m o 8 2 mm mm omN SF
SF F m F o 8 FF mm mm o m2
2: F F F 0 mm mm mm mm mm: mm
moF F N F o mm m mm mm ONFF mm
8 m m m o 8 E Fm mm omm mm
2: F F F F mm 2 E 8 omN mm
2 F F F 0 mm m4 mF mm 0 mm
NF F. m F. F mm mm mm mm om: 0
mm N m N o 3 mm Fm mm ONFF o
E m m m o 3 mm mm mm omm o
N m 8 m F om mF mm Fm omN o

F F mN F N o o o o o 0

ENE, so as--- l.............~-E mama ....... .. .5 .-m; a 5-...
22> 58 >305 Ems? 15m< iwxom >305 Ems? ISm< ._<m_..o-m 5552 58558.2
:5 mm £28 582, .55 mm .280 5.82,
.Noom

3: .memo .mENSFm Ucm 8050me FE; 22> Eco ncm .moEmcmu new; ._obcoo nom>> N< $ka

60

.00: 0002, .u>> ”000269
ch5 .mhmsz um0=o>_0> .I._.Dm< ”chEme: Eta mama .._.<o ”mcozmSmBOO. m

 

 

mN N N mF N 869
NF. O F mm 8 St O FN
VF O O OO OO ONFF O FN
N o O mm mm 00m OFN
OF 0 O mm mm 0mm OFN
ON FF F F OO O O FN
v OF F Fm mm OONF mmF
N F O OO mm ONFF mmF
NF O O mm 8 OOO mmF
N ON F 00 mm 0mm mmF
O FF O mm OO O mmF
OF mF F ON 00 OONF mOF
m FF F ON 8 ONFF mOF
N F O mm 8 OOO mOF
FF mF O FF 8 omN mOF
NN ON 0 mm 00 O mOF
O F O OF OO omNF mm
O NF O on 00 ONFF mm
N F O Fm 8 OOO mm
FF mm F 9. OO omN mm
N ON F mm OO O mm
N ON m OF. mm om: O
m mF F. mm mm ONFF O
O F O O O OOO O
O E m O O omN O
O OF. 2 O O O O
id; .6 <0--- ......... N.E 953 ON :2 6 O ............

 

22> Eco Ems? 159.. Ems? Esme. 8592 585822
20 OO 37.50 825 Led om .280 82s

.88 ..= .55me .2595.

new 0:050me 53> 20$ Eco 0:0 62:88 0003 65:00 O00>> .m< 03$.

61

.0ch 0003 ..._>> 600sz ccEEcc :me5? ”50:02? .I-5m< ”EctmacmnEE
ccEEco 50569-0555 .._<mIo-m._. €058: 20:0 900 ..EO ”05.530593. 5

 

 

 

 

 

2 N m N FF OF FF 808..
8 F O O OO O OO 8: OFN
OO O O O OO mO OO ONFF OFN
8 F N O NO OO OO 9% OFN
O F F O 8 O OO omN OFN
8 F F O 8 8 OO O OFN
OO O N O OO OO OO 8: mmF
OOF O F O NO O OO ONFF mmF
8 F O O OO O OO OOO mmF
OO O F O OO O OO OmN mmF
8 F N O OO O OO O mmF
O O N O OO OO OO 8: OOF
OO O F O OO O OO ONFF OOF
NO O N O OO .O 8 OOO mOF
O N N O OO OO OO omN OOF
vm F F F mm OO 8 O mOF
8 N O O 8 NO OO 8: mm
O F F O OO 8 OO ONFF mm
8 F O F 8 8 OO Omm mm
O N N O OO OO 8 OON mm
Nm O F F ON 8 OO O mm
FO F OF F 8 mm om omNF O
Fm F VF m Nm OF NO ONFF O
mm m FF mm mm OF. mm Omm O
E m F F OF Fm O.- OmN O
mm mm m mm O O O O O
in; .6 2°--- ............ N.E 2:25 ............ 2. ..2 a O------
22> :50 .2224. 25m< 2310-5 ..mm_2< ISm< Euro-E 52ch2 2.22822
in om 228 O8; .20 om .5280 825

 

.NOON ..2 .2223 28m
.mENEFm 0cm 0:05000E 52> 22> Eco 0cm 605300 0002, 55:00 ccc>> .v< 03m:-

62

.om: n82, .m>> 683mm. coEEoo rims? ”OOmtmauwnEfl :oEEoo
EOFO_O2-m:_.N-OE ..._<mIO-m._. ”E958: Eta $86 5.5 ”Ocoumsmfinxx O

 

 

NN 8 OO NF OF 8003

OO F O OO OO OONF OFN
OO F O FO NO ONFF OFN
OO N F OO OO OOO OFN
OO O O FO NO OON OFN
NO NN O FO OO O OFN
OO O O OO OO OONF OOF
OO O F OO 3 ONFF OOF
OO O O OO O OOO OOF
OO O O NN «O OON OOF
OO FN O NO NO O OOF
OO O F- ON NO OONF OOF
OO N O O NO ONFF OOF
OO O O 3 OO OOO OOF
ON VF O NO NO OON OOF
FN OF- N O OO O OOF
NO F. v FO NO OONF OO
NO OF N ON FO ONFF OO
FO OF O OO OO OOO OO
OO OO O O ON OON OO
O OO O OO OO O OO
OO FN OO ON OO OONF O
NO NF OO OO FO ONFF O
OO NO Fv OO O OOO O
FO OO NN ON Ow OON O
OO NFF O O O O O

..... “:5 6 <0-..- --..-----~-E mama-:5-- ..O -------.-OO _O O--------

 

29> ECO 4mm§< ._<mI0-m-_- 4mm§< ._<wIO-m._. mENmOZ 0:050me

...(Q on 36:00 cmm>> Ok<o om .OOEOO U0m>>
.OOON ._s_ .F-Osmcfi mam. .OENOOO

96 22:89: 53> EOE £8 96 .Om_F_Ocmc 895 .6350 omm>> .m< Qua-N

63

.mm: 895 .n.>> ”me_Fm>_m> .I._.3m< ”mOwtmacOnEE :oEEoo
chFOfimO-OENOE ...<on-~:- ”Em—5mm: 5cm. ONOU .._-<n_ ”Oco_Fm_>m._nn< m

 

 

ON O NOF O NN OoOomO

OO F o OO OO OONF OFN
NoF o F OO OO ONFF OFN
voF o o OO OO OOO OFN
OO F o OO OO OON OFN
OFF 0 o OO OO o OFN
NO F o OO OO OONF OOF
OO o o OO OO ONFF OOF
OO F o OO OO OOO OOF
OO F o OO OO OON OOF
OOF o o OO OO o OOF
OO F o OO OO OONF OOF
voF F o NO OO ONFF OOF
FoF F o OO OO OOO OOF
OOF F F OO OO OON OOF
NoF F o OO OO o OOF
OOF F o OO OO OONF OO
Ow F F OO OO ONFF OO
OOF o o OO OO OOO OO
FoF F o OO OO OON OO
OOF o F OO NN o OO
NO F OFF OO NO OONF o

OO N OO OO OO ONFF o

NO v ON OO ON OOO 0

ON oF VO FO OO OON o

VN O OOF o o o o

..-n_>> Oo 0O--- ........ N-E OEma ........ axe ............. 79. E O ..........

 

29> :50 ISO? -_<mIo-E :52 Ema-E Mug-N92 955082
:5 OO NFF-OOO OOO; EB OO .OOFcoo OOO;

.OOON ._s_ .N-OEOOS mem .2596

ccm mcoEommE 53> 22> Eco USO .Om_F_Ocmn 8m? .6550 umm>> OFN mEm-N

 

 

64

.8: OOO; .u_>> usnmzoco ccEEco sz<x ”>._c_OO:_EcE
Om2>>_ MICE ”cOOBOmO E2O MOO-ms? ucoEme: EEO O>mc .._-<n_ ”Occ_F2>mfin< O

 

 

FO N OF O OF ON OF 3.0ch
NO F. O FF OO O O OONF OFN
OOF F N O OO OO OO ONFF OFN
NO O N O FO FO OO OOO OFN
OO N O O OO O OO OON OFN
OO F O O O OO OO O OFN
NO N O O OO ON OO OONF OOF
ON O FF N FO ON FO ONFF OOF
FO N O O OO ON FO OOO OOF
OO F O O OO OO OO OON OOF
OO O FF O O OO OO O OOF
OO N FF F OO ON OO OONF OOF
OO O O O FO FO FO ONFF OOF
ON O O O OO ON OO OOO OOF
O F O O ON OO ON OON OOF
OO F FF O OF. OF OO O OOF
OO O OF OF OO ON OO OONF OO
OF. O OF O OO ON FO ONFF OO
OO O ON O ON Ow ON OOO OO
Fe O FN v ON OO ON OON OO
OO O ON O O OF FO O OO
NO O FN N OO ON OO OONF O
OO N ON OF OO ON «O ONFF O
OO O OF FF OO Ow Ov OOO O
OO N NF O OO OO O OON O
OO O OF O O O O O O
---Es OO 2.... ----------- ~-E mama ............ ..N. -------F-OO _O O ...........

 

22> Eoo Nmz<x mica: Ems? .552 $52 EO2< 8222 22:08.2
.53 OO >223 OOO; m55 OO .928 825

.NOON .5. 69968.. .OENSFO

cam OccEcOoE 52> 22> Eco can 522ch com; ._c=cco com>> . N< 228-

 

 

65

.00: 803
.n_>> ”20033: F:2O MOOSE ”EOE—O0: EEO O>2o Food ”O:c_F2>0:nn< m

 

 

 

NF NN OF 869

ON v OO OONF OFN
FO O NO ONFF OFN
VN O FO OOO OFN
NO OF FO OON OFN
NN OF FN o OFN
FoF O OO OONF OOF
FO N OO ONFF OOF
NO FF VO OOO OOF
VO OF vN OON OOF
0O ON ON 0 OOF
FO O NO OONF OOF
NN O OO ONFF OoF
Nv ¢F FO OOO OOF
ON vF ON OON OOF
O OO OO o OOF
VN N OO OONF OO
Ov FF ON ONFF OO
OF OF OO OOO OO
o OO OO OON OO
o NO ON 0 OO
cv OF ON OONF o
ON OF ON ONFF o
o ON ov OOO o
o OO ON OON o
o ON c o o

---m>> Oc o\o--- ...... N-E 2:2: ........ ONO .......... rm: 5 O .........
22> Eco EOE/N mhm2< 02282 05:88.2

 

 

...(D on 36:00 U00>> m-_-<D on 65:00 U00>>
.MOON .>¥ 605$me— .mENmbm

ccm occEcmcE :23 22> Eco ncm .>F_O:0c 2003 ..cbcco 80>) .O< 03$.

66

.00: 0003 .n.>> ”26:0E 0o_:0> .m._-O_I ”000260: F:0_O .m:-m__>_<
”0002,50: :cEEco ram—>2. c00_F0>_0> .Ihnmd‘ ”E0EF00E 0:0 O>0c .._.<o ”O:0_F0_>0Bn< O

 

 

 

 

 

ON F N N N F F NF OF NF 8002
NOF O O O F OO O OO OO OONF OFN
FO O F O F OO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO O F O F OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO O O O F OO OO OO OO OON OFN
OOF F O O F OO OO OO OO O OFN
OO O O F N OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO O O O O OO NO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO O N O O NO O OO OO OOO OOF
OO F F O O NO OO OO NO OON OOF
OO F F O F NO NO OO OO O OOF
OO O F F O OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
NO O F O O OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO O O F F NO OO OO OO OOO OOF
NO F F F O OO OO OO OO OON OOF
NO F F O F NO OO OO OO O OOF
OO F O O O OO FO OO OO OONF OO
OO O F O F O OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO O F F O OO NN OO OO OOO OO
FO F O O O OO OO OO NO OON OO
NO F . O O OO OO OO «O O OO
NO O O F OO O OO «O OONF O
NO O O O OO «O OO NN ONFF O
OO F O F NO OO OO OO OOO O
FO F O O F NO ON FO ON OON O
OO N . N F. O O O O O O
...25 OO 20... ................ ~-E OEOa ................ ...N. .......... :2 0 O .........
22> Eoo EOE Ems? 20052 :52 «:2: Ems? ..mOsZ ISO< 0:092 82:805.
20 OO NOV-coo O82, EB OO .228 O8;

 

.Noom .10 60602050
:Scm .0:_N0:F0 0:0 0:0EcO0E :22, 22> Eco 0:0 022200 0002, ._c-_F:co c00>> .O< 0E0N

67

.00: 0003 .n.>> u00=0>_0> .IHDOO. ”OO00000O0E2 :cEEco
223053-0205 J<mIO-m uc0EF00: .000 O>00 .-_-<o ”8000305“? O

 

N N O O F. 3.0ch
NOF F F OO OO OONF OFN
OO O O OO OO ONFF OFN
OO O F OO OO OOO OFN
NOF O O OO OO OON OFN
OO O O OO OO O OFN
OO O F OO OO OONF OOF
FOF F O OO OO ONFF OOF
OO O O OO OO OOO OOF
NOF O F OO OO OON OOF
OO O O NO NO O OOF
FOF F O OO OO OONF OOF
NOF F O OO OO ONF F OOF
OO O O OO OO OOO OOF
OOF O O OO OO OON OOF
OO F O OO OO O OOF
OO O O OO OO OONF OO
OO F O OO OO ONF F OO
OO O O OO OO OOO OO
NO N O OO OO OON OO
OO O F OO OO O OO
OO F F OO OO OONF O
OO F O .O OO ONF F O
OO F N NO OO OOO O
OO N OF FO NO OON O
FO F O O O O O
...25 Oo 0O--- ......... as. 2.00-- ...... OO ----..--F.OO _O O .........

 

 

22> Eoo ISO< 2010-0 ISO/O. .2050 0:005 08280.2
N<0 OO 2200 0003 EB OO .9080 0003

.OOON .Ic gov-2.20 £20 .2090

0:0 0:cEcO0E 52> 22> Eco 0:0 600650 0002, ._c=:co 0002, .0F< 030-N

68

.00: 0003 .n.>> ”>Oc_OO:_EcE
O00_>>_ .MIOn: ”002F029 .I._.Dm< 5:0:000: 0:0 O>00 ..Eo H20003050030.

 

 

OO O O ON NN 8003

OFF F O OO OO OONF OFN
OFF F F OO OO ONFF OFN
ONF F O OO OO OOO OFN
OOF F F OO OO OON OFN
ONF O O OO OO O OFN
FFF F O OO OO OONF OOF
OFF F F NO OO ONFF OOF
FNF O O OO OO OOO OOF
FFF F O OO OO OON OOF
OFF O O OO OO O OOF
OFF F F NO OO OONF OOF
OFF F O . OO ONFF OOF
OOF O O OO NO OOO OOF
NFF O O OO OO OON OOF
ONF O O FO NO O OOF
OFF F O NO OO OONF OO
OFF N O NO OO ONFF OO
ONF O O FO OO OOO OO
OOF N F OO NO OON OO
FFF O O OO OO O OO
NNF F O OO ON OONF O
ONF O N OO OO ONFF O
OO O O OF OO OOO O
OO O O ON OO OON O
NO O OF O O O O

---03 B 0N.--- ........ O-E 2:00 ........ 0O ------------- OOO _O O------:--

 

20_> 50o 0:02 :53 0:02 :52 0:092 08580.2
20 OO 2200 0003 O20 OO .9080 0003

NOON .z_4000>0F0._ 003 0:0-0:0

0:0 mccEcOmE .23 22> Eco 0:0 0222.00 0003 ._c._F:co 000>> .FF< 030N

 

 

69

.00: 0003 .u_>> ”>Oc_OO:_EcE :00_>>_ .MIOn: :00_F0>_0>
.IO-Dmxx ”0003O0: E2O MOE—>2 3:0EO00: 0:0 O>00 .:-<o ”300030590. O

 

 

 

 

 

OF N F N ON OF OF 2009
OO F O O OO . OO OONF OFN
NOF F O O OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO O O O OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO O O O OO OO NO OON OFN
OOF F F O OO OO FO O OFN
OOF O O O OO OO NO OONF OOF
NOF F O O NO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO F O O OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO O O O OO OO OO OON OOF
OO F O O OO OO OO O OOF
OOF F O O NO OO OO OONF OOF
. . . . . . . ONFF OOF
OOO OOF
NO F O F OO OO OO OON OOF
OO F O F FO OO OO O OOF
OO F O N NO OO O OONF OO
NO F O F NO OO NO ONFF OO
OO N F F FO OO ON OOO OO
FN F O O OO OO ON OON OO
OO O O N OO OO OO O OO
NN O F O OO OO OO OONF O
OO O F F OO OO OO ONFF O
FO N F F OF N OO OOO O
NN O N F ON OF OO OON O
OO N O N O O O O O
---03 .6 0O--- ........ N.E OEOa ......... ...O ........... OOO _O O ..........
20_> Soc 0102 ISO/O Ems? 0:02 :53 Ems? 0:005 08280.2
20 OO 2200 0003 EB OO 02:8 0003

 

.OOON .z_ 0:000:02 FO0>> .0:_N0:0
0:0 0:c_:cO0E :23 22> Eco 0:0 .O2F_O:00 0003 ._c::co 000>> .NF< 030N

7O

02.0 2022.5 .awnzm ”0003:00E:

POO-<0 ”0003:0EO 0_:0>_>O::0n. .>njOn_ ”5000000 :cEEcosz/Ox ”>Oc_OO:_EcE
0032 £19: :00_F0>_0> .IHDOOO ”0003O0: :cEEco Jmm_2< ”0:000:0O0E2
:cEEco 2238000020.: .._<mIo-w ”EOEF00: 00:0 O>00 .-_.<o ”32030594 O

 

 

O O O N OF FF O O 3000..
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO OO FO OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OO O OO OO OO OON OOF
. . . . . . . . O OOF
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OON OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO NO OO O OO NO OO ONFF OO
OO OO NO OO OO OO OO OO OOO OO
OO OO NO NO OO OO OO NO OON OO
NO OO OO OO ON NO NO NO O OO
OO OO OO OO OO NN OO OO OONF O
OO OO ON OO ON OO OO OO ONFF O
ON OO OO OO OO OO OO NO OOO O
ON NO O OO O OO OO OO OON O
O O O O O O O O O O
OO --------.-.OOO _O O .........

 

QOQO 5.30 >50: NOz<x 0:02 ISO/O 20052 ._<m_._o-w 02.0.0.2 08280.2
0.55 0O _c::co 000>>

.NOON ..__ 0:005 .0:_N0:0

0:0 0:2:0O0E :23 22> Eco 0:0 .O2F_O:00 0003 ._c::co 000>> .OF< 030.:-

71

.00: 0003 .ES ”020 20225 .QOQO ”0003:093— .._-Oh<n_ ”0003:0EO 0_:0>.>O::0n_
.>n_._Ca :0002oco :cEEcoFOzsA ”>Oc_OO:_EcE :00_>>_ MICE :00_F0>_0> .IO-Dm/O ”0003O0: :cEEco
.._Mm_>_< ”O00000000E2 :cEEco 22503000205 .._<MIC-O 3:02:00: 00:0 O>00 .._.<o ”2000305000 O

 

 

 

NF F F F F O F F F 8000-.

FOF O F O O N O O O OONF OFN
OOF F F O F O O O O ONFF OFN
OO O O O F O O O O OOO OFN
OOF F O O F F O O O OON OFN
OO O F F F N O O F O OFN
NO O O O F N O O O OONF OOF
OO F F O O F O O O ONFF OOF
NO O F O F F O O O OOO OOF
OO O O O F F O O O OON OOF
-:- . . . . . . . . O OOF
NO O O O F O O O O OONF OOF
OOF F O O O O O O O ONFF OOF
OO O O O O N O O O OOO OOF
OO F F O F F O F O OON OOF
OO O O O F F F O F O OOF
OO O O O F N O F O OONF OO
OO F O F F F O O O ONFF OO
OO F O O F N O F F OOO OO
NO F F O F F O F O OON OO
NO F F F F O O F F O OO
FO F F F O F F O O OONF O

OO F F O F F F O O ONFF O

ON F O F F O F F O OOO O

OO F N O F O F F F OON O

OO N F O F N F F O O O

---ES :c 2...- N-E 9:20 iii-:70: _0 O .............

 

20_> 58 0.020 520 >500 523“ 0:00. :53 .0052 20:00 0252 08280.2
L<c OO 2200 8.3

.2228: . OF < OBON

72

0003 M>> ”0003:0EO 0_:0>_>O::0Q $0.50 E50068 :cEEco sz<x :00_F0>_0> .I._.Dm< ”000300: :cEEco
IMO—>2 ”2000000052 :cEEco 223083-0205 .._<MIC-m ”F:0EF00: 00:0 O>00 .._-<C ”m:c:0_>050< O

 

 

 

 

 

 

OF F FN F N F ON OO OF OF N 80004

OO O OF O O O OO OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO O OF O O O OO OO OO OO OO ONF F O FN
OO O F O O O OO OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO O O O O O OO OO OO OO OO OON OFN
OO F N F O O OO NO OO OO OO O OFN
OO O NF O O O OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OOF O F O O O OO OO OO OO OO ONF F OOF
NO O N O O O OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
FO O NF O O O OO OO OO OO OO OON OOF
OOF O F O O O . OO OO OO OO O OOF
OO O N O O O OO ON OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO O N O O O OO FN OO NN OO ONF F OOF
NO O O O O O OO OO O0 O0 OO OOO OOF
OO O N O F O OO FO NO OO NO OON OOF
NO F OO O F O OO OO NO OO NO O OOF
NO O OF O N O OO OO OO OO OO OONF OO
OO O O O F F OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO F NF F F O NO OO ON ON OO OOO OO
ON F O O O O OO O OO OO OO OON OO
ON F OF O N O OO OF OO OF NO O OO
OO F F F O O OO OO FO OO OO OONF O
NO O F F F O NN OO FN OO OO ONFF O
OO F OF F F O OO O O OF OO OOO O
ON F O N F O OO O O OF OO OON O
NO F OF O N O O O O O O O O

---03 :0 ON.--- OE 2:20 2. ............ :0: _O O ......... .-
20_> Eoo >500 NOz<x ISO< 400.30. Euro-O >500 523A 150.4 400.24. Euro-O 0200.2 08280.2
20 OO 00:00 0003 EB OO .928 0003

 

.OOON 3: 0:005 .0:_N0:0 0:0 22:80.: :23 22> Eco 0:0 000050 0003 ._c::co 000>> .OF< 030.:-

73

 

N O O N N 8.50..

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OON OOF
OO NO OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
NO OO OO OO OO OON OOF
NO OO OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OO
OO OO NO OO OO OON OO
NO OO NO OO OO O OO
OO OO OO OO OO OONF O
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF O
OO OO NO OO OO OOO O
OO NO OO FO OO OON O
O O O O O O O

Om --------- P.OFzOO ----------

0:005 :9000000 .m 0:005 0.0200 2.39020 0:_N0:< 0:2:805.

OOON NOON

 

60:00 0:000:000E00 :cEEcC 20000850205

.OOON 0:0 NOON :_ 2:0 0:0 :09022 .2055 :_ 0:_N0-_F0 0:0 0:0:F000E
0:3 .928 000:0:OO0E2 :cEEco 0_0_FO_0oO:O-0:_N0:._- .O F < 030.:-

74

 

 

NN OF F F 3000..

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO NO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO NO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO «O OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OON OOF
OO NO OO O OOF
OO NO OO OONF OOF
OO NO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO NO OO OON OOF
OO OO OO O OOF
OO NO OO OONF OO
OO FO OO ONFF OO
OO OO OO OOO OO
OO ON OO OON OO
NN OO OO O OO
NO OO OO OONF O
OO FO NO ONFF O
ON OO OO OOO O
OO OO OO OON O
O O O O O
OO F.0:_0O ............
N-O:_O:0.. M F-m:_mc0._ M 92200 M 0:_N0:< 0:20.822
OOON NOON

 

_c::cC 000:0:OO0E00 :cEEcC F:0FO_O.0m.-0:_N0E-

.OOON 0:0 NOON :_ c0202.). :_ 0:_N0:0 0:0 0:c_:cO0E
:23 .928 20:0:OO0E2 :cEEco F:0F2O0:-0:_N0:._- . OF < 030.:-

75

 

NN FF NF OF O FF 8°09

 

 

'76

 

 

 

OO OO OO NO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO OO NO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO NO NO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO NO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO NO NO OO OO OON OOF
OO . OO NO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO NO OO OO ONFF OOF
NO OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OO OON OOF
NO OO OO OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO NO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO OO OO OO FO OO OOO OO
NO OO NO OO ON OO OON OO
OO NO OO OO ON FO O OO
ON NN OO OO OO OO OONF O
OO OO NN ON OO OO ONFF O
OO OO OO OO OO OO OOO O
OO OO ON OO OO ON OON O
O O O O O O O O
OO ...... ..OOO_O.O ............
000>0OF00 .>> 0:005 :cFO0_:0:C .m m:_O:0._ M 200.00 0:39:20 0:..N0:< 0:c_:cO0S.
NOON
_ob:00 :00=0>_0>

 

.NOON :_ 200 0:0 c0902.). 0:205 .202... :. 0:.N0:0 0:0 0:c_:cO0E 5.3 .928 F00_F0>_0> . N FOO 0B0N

 

OF OF O O N 8002

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO . OOO OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OON OOF
OO OO NO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
. OO OO NO OO ONFF OOF

OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO NO OO OO OO OON OOF
OO NO OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO ON OO OO OO OOO OO
OO OO OO OO OO OON OO
OO OO OO OO OO O OO
OO FO OO OO OO OONF O
OO FN OO OO OO ONFF O
N O NO OO O OOO O
OF O FO FO O OON O
O O O O O O O

OO F.0F._0O ............
0FF0>0O00 .>> 0:005 028.0000 .m N-m:_O:0._ M 0.0200 0:.N0:< 002.600.).
OOON
.czcco :00_.0>_0>

 

.OOON :_ 2:0 0:0
:0O_:o_.>_ 0:202 202.: :_ 0:.N0:0 0:0 0:c_:cO0E 5.3 .c::co :00_F0>_0> .OF< 030.:-

77

 

OF NF O OF FF 808..

 

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO FO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OO NO OOO OFN
OO FO OO OO OO OON OFN
OO FO OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO OO NO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO NN OO OO OO OON OOF
OO NO OO OO OO O OOF
OO ON OO OO OO OONF OOF
NN OO OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO NO OO OO OO OON OOF
OO FO OO OO OO O OOF
OO FO OO OO OO OONF OO
OO ON NO OO OO ONFF OO
ON OO OO OO OO OOO OO
OO OO OO OO OO OON OO
OF OO NO OO ON O OO
OO ON OO OO OO OONF O
OO OO OO OO NO ONFF O
OF OO OO OO OO OOO O
OF ON OO FO ON OON O
O O O O O O O

OO OOOOOO ...........

0:005 F-m:_O:0.. M 0:005 862.20 .0 m:_O:0._ M 0:20:04 0:c_:cO0_2

OOON NOON

 

_c::cC 0003m0m :cEEcC

.OOON 0:0 NOON :_ 2:0
0:0 c0902.). .2c:____ :_ 0:.N0:0 0:0 08580:: 5.3 _c::co 0003O0: :cEEcC ONO. 030.:-

78

 

 

OF OF NF OF NF 8003

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OO OO OONF OFN
NO OO OO OO OO ONFF OFN
FO OO OO OO OO OOO OFN
FO OO OO OO NO OON OFN
FN FN OO OO NO O OFN
OO FO OO OO ON OONF OOF
OO OO NO FO ON ONFF OOF
OO OO 0O FO ON OOO OOF
ON OO OO OO FO OON OOF
ON OO NO OO OO O OOF
NO ON OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO ON OO FO OO ONFF OOF
FO OO OO OO OO OOO OOF
ON FN OO ON ON OON OOF
OO OO OO OO FN O OOF
OO ON FO OO OO OONF OO
ON ON OO OO NO ONFF OO
OO OO NN ON ON OOO OO
OO OO OO ON ON OON OO
ON OO OO FO OO O OO
ON OO 0O OO OO OONF O
ON OO OO vO OO ONFF O
OO O OO OO OO OOO O
ON O ON OO OF OON O
O O O O O O O
2. F.0...0O ...........
029.08.. 0.0200 0902.000 .O 0230.. 0.0200 02.004. 05580.2
OOON NOON

 

.c::co 0003m0m E20

.OOON 0:0 NOON :. 0.:0
0:0 >2o3:0v. .202... :. 0:.N0:0 0:0 0:c.:cO0E 5.3 _c::co 0003O0. F:0.C .ON< 0.00...

79

 

 

ON OF ON ON 8009

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO 0O OO vw OONF OON
OO OO PO mm ONF? OFN
OO NO mm PO OOO OFN
0O NO wO NO OON OFN
OO OO mm 00 O OON
OO 0O OO ON OONF OOF
NO OO ON ON ONNF OOF
OO NO ON ON OOO OOF
OO PO mm mm OON Om?
mO . VN ov O OOF
NO NO OO ON OON? mow
. NO ON Fm ONO? OOO
OO mm v0 ON OOO OOF
0O NO ON on OON OOF
«O OO ON ON O mow
NO NO VO ON OONF mm
NO vw NO ON ONO? mm
NO OO mm Ov OOO mm
mm O OO Om OON mm
mm ON on Or O mm
mv OO OO ON OON? O
O? mN Om ON ONFF O
mw mm ON mv OOO O
ON O ON mm OON O
O O O O O O
2. PO: .0 O ..........
0:0>0.0-. .>> 0:005 0F.0>0.0.. .>> :c.m:.x0.. 0:.N0:< 0:2:822
OOON NOON
.c::cC 00:32:00.). h.00_>>_

 

.OOON 0:0 NOON :. 303:3. 0:0 0520:. .202...
:. 0:.N0:0 0:0 0:050O0E 5.3 .228 >..c.OO:.EcE :00_>>_ . FN< 0.00N

80

 

OO N OF no.50..

 

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO FO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OON OFN
NO OO . OO O OFN
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO FO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OON OOF
OO OO OO O OOF
ON OO OO OONF OOF
FN OO FO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
FO OO ON OON OOF
OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO OO ON OOO OO
O NO ON OON OO
OF OO OO O OO
OO OO OO OONF O
OO OO OO ONFF O
O OO OO OOO O
O OO OO OON O
O O O O O
OO F.0F..0O ............
0:005 0:005 099.080 0:.N0:< 00200002
OOON NOON

 

.c::cC 5020.80 :cEEcC

.OOON 0:0 NOON :. 5.03:3. 0:0 20:.___ :. 0:.N050
0:0 0:c.:cO0E 5.3 _c::co 500.0.oco :cEEcC .NN< 0.00N

81

 

ON O O 8084

 

 

 

 

OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OON OOF
. . OO O OOF
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO OO OO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OON OOF
OO OO OO O OOF
OO OO OO OONF OO
OO NO OO ONFF OO
NO NO OO OOO OO
OO NO OO OON OO
OO OO OO O OO
OO OO OO OONF O
NN ON NO ONFF O
OO OO NO OOO O
OO O OO OON O
O O O O O

O FOOOO: --------

0:005 0:005 0.00.00 02.0.0.3. 08580.2

OOON NOON

 

.c::cC 0003:0Ew 0.:0>_>O::00
.OOON 0:0 NOON :. 2c:.___ :. 0:.N0:0 0:0
0:0580E 5.3 .0008 0003:0EO 0.:0>_>O::0n. .ON< 0.00N

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

O FF FF OosumO

OO OO OO OONF OFN
OO OO OO ONFF OFN
OO OO OO OOO OFN
OO OO OO OON OFN
OO OO OO O OFN
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO NO NO OOO OOF
OO NO NO OON OOF
. NO NO O OOF
OO OO OO OONF OOF
OO OO OO ONFF OOF
OO NO NO OOO OOF
OO OO OO OON OOF
OO NO NO O OOF
OO OO OO OONF OO
OO OO OO ONFF OO
OO OO OO OOO OO
OO OO OO OON OO
NO OO OO O OO
OO OO OO OONF O
OO OO OO ONFF O
ON NO NO OOO O
ON NO NO OON O
O O O O O

OO -. ------- OOO.O.O ..........
0:005 0.0200 882.000 .0 0:.N0..< 0:0580E
NOON NOON
5.5000 005 NEE-.0. 55:00 26:05. 00.:0>

 

.NOON :. 0.00 0:0 20:.___ :. 0:.N050
0:0 000580.: 5.3 65:8 020 >225 0:0 32.0.: 0o.:0> ONO. 0.00N

83

 

*IFEWITJI‘METIEEIJEEUWI