Evaluation of Weed Management Practices in White Lupin (Lupinus albus L.) 
 
by 
 
Anika Folgart 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
December 18, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Copyright 2009 by Anika Folgart 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Andrew J. Price, Chair, Affiliate Assistant Professor, Auburn University, 
Weed Scientist, USDA-ARS NSDL 
Edzard van Santen, Professor Agronomy and Soils 
Glenn R. Wehtje, Professor Agronomy and Soils 
Michael G. Patterson, Extension Specialist and Professor Agronomy and Soils 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 Worldwide, 450 lupin species can be found with 4 species currently grown. The 
cultivated species consist of three old world species white lupin (Lupinus albus L.), 
yellow lupin (L. luteus L.) and blue lupin (L. angustifolius L.) and the new world species 
Andean lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet). Between 1930 and 1950 lupins were grown on 1 
million ha in the Southeastern United States. The US lupin production declined after the 
1950s for various reasons including: 1). discontinued government support for green-
manure, 2) N-fertilizers became affordable and 3) early freezes during two consecutive 
years that severely reduced seed stock. White lupin is of major interest in the 
southeastern USA because winter hardy cultivars are available. White lupin grows best 
on well drained sandy loams, loamy soils and sands and tolerates a pH range of 5.5 to 
6.8. Except for the Black Belt, most soils in Alabama fulfill these requirements. White 
lupin is a poor weed competitor during its early establishment which makes effective 
weed control necessary. Therefore, the objectives of this experiment are to investigate 
various weed management practices and evaluate their effect on weed control and white 
lupin performance (plant density, crop injury, yield, height and yield components). A 
two-year experiment was established at the Field Crops Unit as well as the Plant 
Breeding Unit, E. V. Smith Research and Extension Center of the Alabama Agricultural 
iii 
 
Experiment Station near Shorter, AL. Our treatments included ten PRE-applied 
herbicides, nine POST-applied herbicides well as organic treatments (2 cover crop living 
mulch, 2 mechanical weed control practices). Response variables measured were weed 
control, crop injury, plant density, grain yield, seed mass, plant height, number of yield 
components and seed yield per plant. Over the course of the experiment 14 weed species 
were encountered. Best control (>80%) of the most troublesome weed species, i.e. henbit 
(Lamium amplexicaule L.), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.), wild radish 
(Raphanus raphanistrum L.) and corn spurry (Spergula avensis L.) was achieved with 
PRE applied diclosulam, metribuzin, pendimethalin, imazethapyr, S-metolachlor, and a 
mixture of S-metolachlor/linuron. Good control (>90%) of annual ryegrass (Lolium 
multiflorum Lam.) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) by POST-applied herbicides was 
achieved by sethoxydim and fluazifop. More than 80% non-selective weed control was 
achieved by the POST-applied glyphosate. PRE-applied diclosulam and flumioxazin 
resulted in unacceptable crop injury and subsequent yield loss in both years. POST-
applied thifensulfuron and chlorimuron caused complete crop injury (death) of all three 
cultivars which resulted in crop density reduction and severe yield loss in 2007. Hence 
these herbicides were excluded in study year 2008. The application of glyphosate lead to 
inacceptable crop injury and significant yield reduction, but did not significantly reduce 
crop density. Diclosulam, fomesafen and glyphosate significantly reduced lupin height, 
number of fruiting branches and seed yield. Summing up, it can be stated that the 
chemical treatments [S-metolachlor/linuron mixture, pendimethalin, imazethapyr (PRE 
and POST), 2,4-DB, sethoxydim and fluazifop] and all organic treatments offered good 
 iv 
weed control without causing inacceptable crop injury and yield loss. However, our data 
showed that the lupin cultivars yielded well even without the use of weed control 
practices.
v 
 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude for Dr. Andrew 
Price for his patient guidance and advice over the past few years. I would especially like 
to thank Dr. Edzard van Santen for his constant help and advice and for helping me feel 
at home away from home. Thanks also to my committee members, Dr. Glenn Wehtje and 
Dr. Michael Patterson, for their assistance during the research process. I am also very 
grateful for the support and friendship offered to me by Jessica Kelton, Monika Saini, 
Amandeep Dhaliwal and Jatinder Aulakh, who made attending Auburn University a fun 
and rewarding experience. I sincerely appreciate all the help I received from the staff and 
student workers at EV Smith Research and Extension Center, the USDA Soil Dynamics 
Lab and at the Agronomy and Soils Department. Thanks are due to Tyson Raper and 
Cynda Brantly for their help during the data collection process. Last but not least, I would 
like to thank my parents for their love and support throughout my life. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vi 
Table of Contents 
 
Abstract ??????????????????????????????. ii 
Acknowledgments ??????????????????????????. v 
List of Tables ??...?..???????????????????????.   viii 
I. Literature Review  
               Botanical Description?????????????????????.. 1 
               Soil and Climate Requirements?????????????????.. 2 
               Economic Importance?????????????????????. 3 
               Weed Control????????????????????????.. 7 
               Experimental Objectives????????????????????. 25 
               References?????????????????????????.. 26 
II. Evaluation of Weed Management Practices on Weed Control of White Lupin 
(Lupinus albus L.) 
 
               Abstract??????????????????????????... 34 
               Introduction????????????????????????? 35 
               Materials and Methods????????????????????? 39 
               Results???????????????????????????. 41 
               Discussion?????????????????????????... 61 
vii 
 
               References?????????????????????????... 66 
III. Effects of Weed Management Practices on Crop Injury and Yield in White 
Lupin (Lupinus albus L.) 
 
               Abstract??????????????????????????... 89 
               Introduction?????????????????????????. 90 
               Materials and Methods????????????????????? 94 
               Results and Discussion????????????????????... 98 
               References?????????????????????????.. 112 
IV. Effects of Weed Management Practices on Yield Components of White Lupin 
(Lupinus albus L.) 
 
               Abstract??????????????????????????.. 134 
               Introduction????????????????????????.... 135 
               Materials and Methods????????????????????? 138 
               Results and Discussion????????????????????... 141 
               References?????????????????????????.. 149 
 viii 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 1.01  Soil and Climate requirements of Lupinus ssp. (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung 
der Lupine, 2007) ...........................................................................................31 
Table 1.02  Protein, oil, energy content and typical yield of field beans, peas and lupins 
(dry grain) (Putnam et al., 1989).  ..................................................................32 
Table 1.03  Alphabetical order of Mode of Action used in this study based on the order 
by the Herbicides Resistance Action Committee 
(www.plantprotection.org/hrac).  ...................................................................33 
Table 2.01  Herbicide program used to evaluate weed control in white lupin (L. albus L.) 
in 2007 and 2008 at Field Crops Unit (Shorter) and Plant Breeding Unit 
(Tallassee) of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Because of total 
crop loss to treatments 12 and 16, alternative compounds were substituted in 
2008.  ..............................................................................................................71 
Table 2.02  Weed species frequency in percent of all observed in plots with L. albus 
cultivars AU Alpha, AU Homer and ABL 1082 at Field Crops Unit (Shorter) 
and Plant Breeding Unit (Tallassee) of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment 
Station 6 weeks after PRE application in 2007 and 2008.   ...........................72 
 
 
 ix 
Table 2.03  Weed species frequency in percent of all observed in plots with L. albus 
cultivars AU Alpha, AU Homer and ABL 1082 at Field Crops Unit (Shorter) 
and Plant Breeding Unit (Tallassee) of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment 
Station 9 and 6 weeks after POST application in 2007 and 2008, 
  respectively. ...................................................................................................73 
Table 2.04  Black medic (Medicago lupulina L.) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 
2008. ...............................................................................................................74 
Table 2.05  Lesser swinecress [Coronopus dydimus (L.) Sm.] control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatment by rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, 
AL in 2008. .....................................................................................................75 
Table 2.06  Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatment by rating at  
 Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2008. ...............................................76 
Table 2.07  Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at Plant Breeding Unit in 
Tallassee, AL in 2007. ....................................................................................77 
Table 2.08  Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) control as influenced by herbicide 
and organic treatment at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007. .......78 
Table 2.09  Henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatment at PRE rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 
2007 and 2008. ...............................................................................................79 
 x 
Table 2.10  Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) control as influenced by herbicide 
and organic treatments at the POST rating at Field Crops Unite in Shorter, 
AL in 2007. .....................................................................................................80 
Table 2.11  Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) control as influenced by herbicide 
and organic treatment at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL and 
Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2008??.?????? ...???81 
Table 2.12  Shepherd?s purse [Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.] control as influenced 
by herbicide and organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in 
Shorter, AL in 2007 and at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 
2008. ...............................................................................................................82 
Table 2.13  Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in 
Shorter, AL and Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007. ....................83 
Table 2.14  Cutleaf-evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in 
Shorter, AL and Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 2008. ....84 
Table 2.15  Winter vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 2007 
and 2008, and at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007. ...................85 
Table 2.16  Heartwing sorrel (Rumex hastatulus Baldw.) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in 
Shorter, AL in 2007 and 2008, and at PRE rating at Plant Breeding Unit in 
Tallassee, AL in 2008. ....................................................................................86 
 xi 
Table 2.17  Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis L.) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatment at POST rating at  
 Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 2008. .......................................................87 
Table 2.18  Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis L.) control as influenced by herbicide and 
organic treatment by rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 
and 2008. ........................................................................................................88 
Table 3.01  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks 
after PRE at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. .......................117 
Table 3.02  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the second rating (12 weeks after 
PRE) at FCU and PBU in 2008 only. ...........................................................118 
Table 3.03  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after 
POST) at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008. .................................................119 
Table 3.04  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks 
after PRE at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. .......................120 
Table 3.05  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the second rating (12 weeks after 
PRE) at FCU and PBU in 2008 only.. ..........................................................121 
 xii 
Table 3.06  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after 
POST) at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008. .................................................122 
Table 3.07  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks 
after PRE at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. .......................123 
Table 3.08  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the second rating (12 weeks after 
PRE) at FCU and PBU 2008 only.. ..............................................................124 
Table 3.09  Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no 
injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after 
POST) at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008. .................................................125 
Table 3.10  Plant density of L. albus as influenced by treatment 6 and 4 weeks after PRE 
in 2007 and 2008, respectively. ....................................................................126 
Table 3.11  Plant density of L. albus as influenced by treatment 6 and 4 weeks after PRE 
in 2007 and 2008, respectively.. ...................................................................127 
Table 3.12  Plant density in plants m
-2
Table 3.13  Plant density in plants m
 of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 as influenced by 
treatment 3 weeks after POST in 2007 only. Due to heavy rains after POST 
application in study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. ...............................128 
-2
 of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha as influenced by 
treatment 3 weeks after POST in 2007 only. Due to heavy rains after POST 
application in study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. ...............................129 
 xiii 
Table 3.14  Plant density in plants m
-2
Table 3.15  Mean grain yield in kg ha
 of L. albus cultivar AU Homer as influenced by 
treatments in 2007 and 2008. Due to heavy rains after POST application in 
study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. ......................................................130 
-1
Table 3.16  Mean test weight in kg 100L
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by treatment 3 
weeks after POST in 2007 only. P-values in treatments 12 and 16 in 2007 
were obtained by comparison of the non-treated control vs. zero. ...............131 
-1
Table 3.17  Mean seed mass in mg seed
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by 
treatments in 2007 and 2008. Only the data in which the plot yield was >0.3 
kg is included in this table. ...........................................................................132 
-1
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by treatments 
in 2007 and 2008. Only data in which seed mass was >160mg seed
-1
Table 4.01  P-values from the analysis of variance for individual plant height (cm plant
 is 
included in this table. ....................................................................................133 
-1
Table 4.02 Total plant height in cm of L. albus L cultivars ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU 
Homer as influenced by treatment in 2007 and 2008. ???????? ..152 
) 
and height to lowest pod (WP-Pod).  ...........................................................153 
Table 4.03  Height to the lowest pod in cm of L. albus L. cultivars ABL 1082, AU Alpha 
and AU Homer as influenced by treatment in 2007 and 2008.   ???? ...153 
Table 4.04  P-values from the analysis of variance for number of fruiting branches per 
plant and yield per plant expressed as a fraction of whole plant branch 
number: Mainstem-Mainstem (MS-MS), Mainstem-Primary Branches (MS-
PB), Mainstem-Secondary Branches (MS-SB), Basal-Mainstem (BL-MS) and 
Basal branch (BL-Branch) .............................................................................154 
 xiv 
Table 4.05  Individual plant fruiting branch number as affected by treatment over the 
cultivars, both locations and years. Treatments 12 and 16 were excluded.  ..157 
Table 4.06  Fraction of plant fruiting branch number of main stem and basal yield 
components [Main stem (MS-MS), Primary- (MS-PB) and Secondary 
branches (MS-SB), Basal-Main stem (BL-MS) and Basal-Branch (BL-
Branch)] as influenced by treatment over cultivars, locations and years. 
Branch number of individual plant is given in Table 4.05.  ..........................158 
Table 4.07  P-values from the analysis of variance for whole plant seed yield ( g plant-1) 
and yield components expressed as a fraction of whole plant yield: Mainstem-
Mainstem (MS-MS), Mainstem-Primary Branches (MS-PB), Mainstem-
Secondary Branches (MS-SB), Basal-Mainstem (BL-MS) and Basal branch 
(BL-Branch).  .................................................................................................159 
Table 4.08  Individual plant seed yield in g as affected by treatment over the cultivars, 
both locations and years. Treatments 12 and 16 were excluded.  ..................160 
Table 4.09  Fraction of individual plant seed yield (expressed as fraction) of main stem 
and basal yield components [Main stem (MS-MS), Primary- (MS-PB) and 
Secondary branches (MS-SB), Basal-Main stem (BL-MS) and Basal-Branch 
(BL-Branch)] as influenced by treatment over cultivars, locations and years. 
Actual plant seed yield in g is in Table 4.08.  ................................................161 
 
 
  
1 
?
I. LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
Botanical Description 
Around 450 Lupinus species can be found world wide (Dierauer et al., 2004), 
most of them in North America (Wilbur, 1963). North America, South America and the 
Mediterranean region are the three primary centers of origin (Wilbur, 1963; Wink et al., 
1999, Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Based on these centers of origin Lupin species 
are grouped into old world and new world species. Lupins belong to the botanical family 
Fabaceae (third largest family), also referred to as Leguminosae (Castner, 2004). The 
four major species in use today are three old world species; white lupin (Lupinus albus 
L.), yellow lupin (L. luteus L.), narrowleaf or blue lupin (L. angustifolius L.) and one new 
world species Andean lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet). Other members of the Fabaceae include 
Trifolium L. and Medicago L. Lupins are annual, biennial and perennial herbs (Radford et 
al., 1968), which grow to a height of 80 to 120 cm (Duke, 1981). Their alternating, 
palmately compound leaves, with 5 to 15 leaflets, can move by pulvini on the base of 
their petioles and petiolules. These pulvini enable the movement of leaves towards the 
sun, a mechanism called heliotropism. At night the leaflets will fold down (Castner, 
2004). Papilionaceous flowers can be found on the inflorescence, the raceme, which is 5 
to 10 cm long (Duke, 1981). The fruit type is referred to as a legume, which can contain 
between three to six seeds (Duke, 1981). 
2 
?
Soil and Climate Requirements 
Duke (1981) stated lupins to be cold tolerant, but that this tolerance is subject to variation 
within species and cultivars. L. angustifolius tolerates frost to -8? C after planting while 
L. luteus and L. albus tolerate frost to -4? C after emerging (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung 
der Lupine, 2007). This tolerance led to the good adaptation of white lupin as a winter 
annual crop in the southern United States. Table 1.01 (2007) by the Society for the 
Promotion of Lupins (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine) was translated from 
German into English and compares the basic soil and climate requirements of each 
species. 
All lupin species are very sensitive to water logged and poorly drained clayey 
soils (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007).  Lupins are generally considered to 
be relatively drought tolerant due to a deep taproot and subsequent efficient water uptake 
ability. This may be important during droughts common in the Southeast. 
Most Alabama soils are suitable for this crop. The Piedmont Plateau has red 
clayey subsoils with sandy loam or clay loam on the upper surface. The Coastal Plains 
have characteristic loamy subsoils, but the surface is loamy sand or sandy loam. The 
Black Belt which is the area of central and western Alabama is named for its black 
surface in which alkaline and acetic soils are mixed. Some of these blackland prairie soils 
i.e. the clayey Vaiden and Wilcox are acid (Alabama Cooperative Extension System, 
2008). However soils in the black belt are poorly drained and not suitable for lupin. 
Faluyi et al. (2000) found that an early planting date and the choice of cultivar had 
3 
?
major influence on the oil and protein concentration in the grain whereas the 
concentration was not affected by row width. Experiments conducted by Payne et al. 
(2004) in the Pacific Northwest showed a maximum white lupin yield of 2128 kg ha
-1
 
, 
but yield was not stable. They also found that yield could be maximized with earlier 
planting dates. It was found that the optimal planting date for white lupin in mid-Atlantic 
region is early October with an optimum row spacing of 0.3 m. Oil content of L. albus 
was affected positively by planting date and row spacing (Bhardwaj et al., 2004). 
Economic Importance 
Utilization of Lupinus albus L. during the past 3000 years included its use as a 
cover crop, livestock and food crop (Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). 2000 years ago 
Roman philosopher Virgil noticed its positive effects in a lupin-wheat rotation (Payne et 
al., 2004). Domestication of white lupin began in Germany during World War I due to 
the need for a high-protein legume adapted to temperate environments (Payne et al., 
2004). Reinold von Sengbusch was a major contributor to the breeding of lupin cultivars 
with low alkaloid content. Von Sengbusch was successful in breeding these cultivars 
between 1927 and 1931 (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007).  A lupin that 
contains less than 0.05% alkaloids per grain is called ?Sweet Lupin? (Dierauer et al., 
2004; Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). 
Australia is the largest lupin producing and exporting country in the world, 
accounting for 85% of the world wide lupin production in the last 10 years, averaging 1.2 
million tons a year. Approximately, 430,000 tons yearly (value ~ $100 million per year) 
4 
?
were exported and about 90% had their final destination in the European Union, Japan 
and the Republic of Korea (Lawrance, 2007). Germany is the major lupin producing 
country within the European Union, growing lupin on 33,100 ha annually (Gesellschaft 
zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). The interest in lupin in Europe has been increasing 
within the last few years. Some reasons for this development are the EU-wide ban on the 
feeding of animal protein and fish meal and the concerns over genetically modified 
imported protein sources such as soybean, especially in organic production (George, 
2005). 
In the 1930?s white lupin was first introduced into the southeastern United States. 
Between the 1930 and 1950 lupins were grown on 1 million ha in the Southeastern US 
(van Santen and Reeves, 2003). Until the 1950?s the production grew continuously, then 
declined for various reasons including:  
! Government support for green manuring was discontinued 
! N-fertilizers became affordable when the economy shifted from war to peacetime 
! Early hard freezes during two consecutive years killed all lupins as far south as 
Valdosta, GA 
! Seed stock reductions (Payne, et al., 2004, Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). 
This development also took place in Alabama?s ?lupin belt?. Bitter lupins were 
grown exclusively in this belt as a cover crop and for the fixation of nitrogen (Roberson, 
1991). Recently, there is renewed interest in this crop in the United States and Canada as 
an alternative legume crop and for its yield potential. Recent research has been conducted 
to improve seed quality, genetic improvement for cold, disease and pest tolerance, and 
5 
?
determine best management cultural practices (Faluyi, et al., 2000; Payne et al., 2004; 
Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). 
Lupinus spp. have a diverse spectrum of use. Literature varies in giving the 
protein content of sweet white lupin. Putnem et al. (1989) reported a protein content of 
32-38% whereas Poetsch (2006) gives a content of 35-40%, 9 to 10% oil and no trypsin 
inhibitors (Putnam et al., 1989, Poetsch, 2006). The amino acid ratio suggests that lupins 
contain the most ?ideal protein? in comparison to other legumes such as beans and peas 
(Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). See table 1.02 for comparison of lupin 
protein, oil, and energy with other legumes. 
For more than 2000 years lupin has been known as a human food source in the 
Mediterranean regions and Andean regions in South America. Hill (2005) mentioned that 
the protein availability in soybean and lupin is very high and similar to each other. Lupin 
can be added to various human foods such as bread, pasta, soups and yogurt-like products 
without changing their flavor (Hill, 2005). Some health advantages of lupin in human 
foods are, among others the lack of gluten, which is especially important for people with 
gluten-intolerance, and the slow availability of carbohydrates which reduces the blood 
insulin level. But some disadvantages may be the potential development of allergenicity 
to lupin proteins (Hill, 2005). The alkaloid level in lupins used as/in human food should 
not exceed 0.02% (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). 
Lupins can also be used in monogastric (pigs, poultry) and ruminant (dairy and 
beef cattle, sheep, goats) feeding and fish in aquaculture. Hill (1990) mentioned that the 
feeding of lupin seeds to pigs is still questionable, because methionine availablity is 
6 
?
limited. However this amino acid is required in monogastric rations (Putnam et al., 1989). 
Both Hill (1990) and Putnam et al. (1989) mentioned the sensitivity of pigs to higher 
alkaloid levels in lupins, which reduces appetite. A level of 0.04% or more in the dry 
matter will result in this loss of appetite and therefore decrease the weight gain (Putnam 
et al., 1989). But Hill (1990) also mentioned other results where the soybean meal was 
replaced by L. albus and Vicia faba flour (10% each) and piglets with a starting weight of 
10 kg gained 19.8 kg during a five week feeding trial. It is recommended, however, that 
the L. albus should not make up more than 10% in the pig ration and the alkaloid level 
should not exceed 0.02% (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). 
Supplementation of methionine is necessary (Putnam et al., 1989). 
In poultry production lupins can make up to 15-25% of the ration (Putnam et al., 
1989; Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). Higher levels will have negative 
influence on the consistence of droppings and therefore influence litter hygiene. With 
rations up to that level the production is the same as in soybean meal diets, but 
methionine has to be supplemented (Putnam et al., 1989). 
Lupins have great potential in ruminant feeding. Hill (2005) stated that raw or 
roasted L. albus as a supplement to grass silage led to the same growth rate as grass silage 
with soybean meal as supplement. Beef cattle rations can contain up to 30% of lupin 
(Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). The feeding of lupin to dairy cattle 
influences the fat content of milk. In rations where lupin replaced soy to 75%, cows 
produced about one kg d
-1
 of fat compared to cows fed with 100% soy (0.97 kg d
-1
). The 
milk yield from cows fed 100% lupins or 100% soya showed no difference (Hill, 2005). 
7 
?
The whole feeding ration of dairy cows can contain up to 20% of lupin (Gesellschaft zur 
F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). 
The feeding of lupin containing rations to ewes enhances their ovulation rate. It 
also led to increased conception as well as lambing. The survival was enhanced due to 
higher colostrum and milk yield. Another advantage of feeding lupins to sheep is better 
wool growth and quality (Hill, G. D., 2005). Up to 30% of lupin in a ration can be fed to 
sheep (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 2007). 
There is an increased research interest in feeding lupins in aquaculture. Up to 30% 
of a ration containing lupin can be fed to trout (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 
2007). Hill (2005) mentioned that most research shows high protein and energy 
digestibility of lupin seeds in trout. He also mentioned positive effects of lupin fed to 
other fish species as well as mollusks and crustaceans.  
 
Weed Control 
Weed control practices can be grouped into five categories (Anderson, 1996): 
1 Preventive 
2 Cultural 
3 Mechanical 
4 Biological 
5 Chemical. 
Lupinus spp. are very poor weed competitors during early establishment, since 
canopy development is slow, resulting in weed seed germination and yield loss due to 
8 
?
competition. The maximum vegetative growth is reached during flowering (Putnam et al., 
1989). At this stage lupins can successfully compete with newly emerging weeds. Weeds 
are competing with the crop for water, nutrients and light; therefore effective weed 
control, especially during Lupinus albus L. early establishment, is necessary for the 
crop?s success (Putnam et al, 1989; Poetsch, 2006). 
Cultural weed control 
Cultural weed control methods are practices used to improve the germination, 
growth and establishment of the crop, all advantages that favor the crop and not the weed 
(Pallut, 2000). Some practices are crop rotation, choosing the proper cultivar, optimum 
seeding date and seeding rate, crop fertilization, cover crop mulch etc. (Anderson, 1996). 
Crop rotations help to maintain a diverse microbial population in the soil, healthy soil 
conditions and they break pest cycles as well as reduce weed pressure (Martens and 
Martens, 2000). Some weeds thrive in particular crops and can be reduced by rotating 
with a non-favorable crop. Hence crop rotation should be diverse. In crop rotations 
dominated by small grain crops such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rye (Secale 
cereale L.) annual grassy weeds will thrive. Pallut (2000) found that in rotations with 
only 50% small grains only 5 grassy weed plants m
-2
 were found, whereas in rotation 
with 100% small grains 92 weed grasses m
-2
Lupins are successful preceding small grain crops because grain crops have can 
utilize the nitrogen produced by the lupins (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine, 
2007). Lupins should not follow lupins in a crop rotation for at least 4 years; narrow 
rotations with lupins will result in yield loss by fungal diseases (i.e., anthracnose caused 
 were found. 
9 
?
by fungus Colletotrichum lupini) (Dierauer et al., 2004; Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der 
Lupine, 2007). 
Cover crops play a major role and are beneficial in many farming systems. Some 
benefits are lower fertilizer costs, reduction of soil erosion and cuts in pesticide use 
(herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides), improved soil moisture and enhanced organic 
matter (Bowman et al., 1998). As a weed management tool, cover crops are used to out-
compete weeds when planted as a companion. Cover crops used this way are also called 
smother crops and compete for light, nutrients and moisture (Anderson, 1996). Cover 
crops also exhibit allelopathy, which is the production of a chemical substance to inhibit 
the growth of other plants (Martens and Martens, 2000). In simple terms, the cover crop 
produces its own herbicide (Bowman et al., 1998). 
Black oat (Avena strigosa L.), a cool-season annual cereal, is a promising new 
cover crop in the southern USA. Black oat was used successfully as a cover crop for 
soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in Brazil. The reason for this success is that Black oat 
is resistant to rust. Furthermore, Black oat can produce large biomass which helps to 
shade weeds and prevents soil erosion. Additionally, Black oat can control some weeds 
by allelopathy and break disease cycles for wheat and soybean. (Bowman et al., 1998).  
Lupin can be used as a cover crop, and as a legume it provides nitrogen.  Lupin 
cover crops are usually bitter types, which are lupin types that have an alkaloid content 
above 0.05%. Bitter lupins tend to be resistant to diseases and pests caused by insects and 
nematodes (Bowman et al., 1998). 
10 
?
Mechanical weed control 
Mechanical weed control, also known as physical control, includes all practices 
that disrupt weed establishment and growth. Besides cultural weed control, mechanical 
weed control is the oldest weed management tool. Some practices include hand-pulling, 
hoeing, mowing, flooding, burning, machine tillage etc. (Anderson, 1996).  
Hand-pulling and hoeing are costly in human labor and hence are usually used in 
high value crops or as supplement to other weed control practices. Weeds found in 
vegetable crops are sometimes hand-pulled and hoed. Both methods are particularly 
successful on weed seedlings and annual/biennial weeds (Anderson, 1996). On fields 
with medium or high weed pressure harrowing lupin at 10 cm high was successful. This 
has to be done carefully since larger plants can be damaged (George, 2005). 
Mowing helps to reduce weed seed population and weed growth, but it is not very 
important in crop production. Flooding is used in rice production to control weeds. The 
weeds are basically suffocated as water displaces air from the soil (Anderson, 1996). 
Manure, hay, clippings, plastic covering and other materials can be used to 
control weeds by excluding light from the weed plants, hence weeds cannot 
photosynthesize and die. Because this is an expensive weed control method it is mostly 
used in high value agronomic and horticultural crops (Anderson, 1996). 
Burning/flaming can be divided into non-selective and selective burning. Non-
selective burning is commonly used in non-crop areas, railroad right-of-ways, forestry. A 
directed flame near the base of the crop is selective burning. The heat of the flame 
11 
?
inactivates enzymes and disrupts cell walls. This method requires that the crop is (much) 
taller than the weeds. The weed plants should not be taller than 2.5 ? 5 cm. Additional 
control methods are usually necessary (Anderson, 1996). 
Machine tillage can be divided into ?primary? and ?secondary? tillage. ?Primary? 
tillage is used to prepare the seedbed. It loosens the soil 15 ? 90 cm deep using various 
plows (i. e. moldboard and disk plow). Weed control is not a major objective of 
?primary? tillage, but it can bury weed seeds while inverting the soil and keep them from 
germinating (Anderson, 1996). 
?Secondary? tillage, also called cultivation, works the soil only to a depth of 15 
cm maximum, shortly before or after the planting of the crop to prepare a seedbed. 
Control is achieved by burial of small weeds/seedlings and up-rooting of the weed plant. 
Equipment used includes harrows, shovels, and rotary hoes. This method?s advantages 
are rapid and economical weeding of large areas with a diversity of equipment. However, 
there are also disadvantages and difficulties controlling weeds growing close to or 
between crop plants (Anderson, 1996). 
Pallut (2000) found that stubble cultivation was very successful in controlling 
perennial weeds such as Agropyron repens (L.) P. Beauv. and Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. 
(> 50%). But annual weed species were only controlled to 20% by the same procedure. 
 
 
 
12 
?
Chemical weed control 
Herbicides can be grouped based on different characteristics: 
1 Similarity in structure (chemical families) 
2 Mode of action (Table 1.03) 
3 Timing of application (pre-plant incorporated, pre-emergence, post-
emergence directed or broadcast etc.) 
4 Location of application (soil applied, foliar applied, over the top applied)  
5 Weed species controlled 
6 Crop selectivity 
7 Contact or systemic herbicide (apoplastically or symplastically 
translocation) (Anderson, 1996). 
Modes of action are grouped in alphabetical order by the Herbicide Resistance Action 
Committee (HRAC) (Table 1.03). Herbicides that share the same mode of action are 
classified in groups with one letter. There are also subclasses i.e. F
1
, K
2
Only a few herbicides are registered for use in Lupinus spp.: Aim EC (FCM) and 
Shark EW (FCM) with the active ingredient carfentrazone-ethyl; Cinch (DuPont) with 
the active ingredient S-metolachlor; Durango (Dow), Glyfos (Cheminova), Glyfos X-
TRA (Cheminova), Glyphomax XRT (Dow) and Roundup Original MAX (Monsanto) 
with glyphosate as active ingredient (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
, which indicate 
the different binding behavior of the herbicides on the target protein. The table also 
contains the numerical system of the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) used to 
group herbicides. 
13 
?
Acetyl CoA carboxylase is important in lipid metabolism. According to HRAC 
(2008) two herbicide families share this mode of action, the aryloxyphenoxy-propionates 
(also called FOPs) and the cyclohexanediones (also called DIMs).  Both herbicide 
families are postemergence (POST) applied, grass-active herbicides (both annual and 
perennial). These herbicides are considered to be ?rain-fast?, which means they are 
rapidly absorbed into the foliage of the plant. Symptoms are growth inhibition and 
reddening of foliage up to leaf burn (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). Another 
characteristic both families have in common is their rapid microbial degradation once 
they enter the soil. Their water solubility is between 2 ppm (FOPs) and 25 ppm (DIMs) 
(Wehtje, 2007). 
Group A: Inhibition of Acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) 
Fluazifop-P-butyl. Fusilade DX
? 
is a product of Syngenta Crop Protection that is 
registered in most of the states in the US including Alabama. This herbicide is not 
registered for use in lupins, but for crops as soybean and nonbearing peanut (EPA 
approved label). In 1989, Mitich et al. conducted a study to evaluate herbicides at three 
application times in grain lupin. Phytotoxicity, measured by lupin vigor, and weed 
control were evaluated. Weed species to be controlled were shepherds purse (Capsella 
bursa-pastoris L.), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.), miner?s lettuce (Claytonia 
perfoliata Donn ex Willd.) and desert rockpurslane [Calandrinia ciliata (Ruiz & Pav.) 
DC.]. Fluazifop-butyl was applied POST at 0.67 kg ha
-1
 and offered very poor weed 
control (0-53%), but the lupin vigor was only reduced moderately by the herbicide (17% 
vigor reduction). Fluazifop was used in a greenhouse study to evaluate its effect on white 
14 
?
lupin (Hagemann Wiedenhoeft and Ciha, 1987). Results showed that fluazifop applied at 
0.3 kg a.i. ha
 -1
Sethoxydim. Sethoxydim (Poast Plus
 POST did not reduce the shoot dry weight of white lupin. Herbicide injury 
on white lupin was 1%.
 
?
) is a member of the DIMs. Poast Plus
?
 is a product 
of Micro Flo and is registered for use in a variety of crops such as sweet corn, cotton, 
soybean and leguminous forage crops (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). Mitich et al. 
(1989) also applied sethoxydim (plus oil) at 0.45 ha ha
-1
 POST. This herbicide also led to 
a lupin vigor reduction of only 17%, but weed control was very poor as well (0 to 23%). 
This is not surprising because weed control was only measured on broadleaf species, but 
fluazifop and sethoxydim offer only selective grass control.  
Acetolactate synthase (ASL), also called acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), is 
the initial pathway enzyme for the production of the branched-chain amino acids valine, 
leucine and isoleucine. If this regulatory enzyme is blocked the synthesis of the branched-
chain amino acids is inhibited. Herbicides that inhibit the synthesis of these amino acids 
bind to one of the four receptor sites of the ALS enzyme (Wehtje, 2007). These 
herbicides are therefore called ALS-inhibitors. These herbicides are grouped into four 
families depending on which receptor site the herbicides use. The four groups are: 
Group B: Inhibition of acetolactate synthase ALS (acetohydroxyacid synthase AHAS) 
! Sulfonylurea 
! Imidazolinone 
! Triazolopyrimidine 
15 
?
! Pyrimidinyl(thio)benzoate (HRAC, 2008). 
ALS-inhibitors have soil as well as foliar activity with foliar acitivity being 
greater. These herbicides are not volatile and their water solubility varies. The use rates 
are very low (</= 0.22 kg ha
-1
Chlorimuron. Classic
). Even though the herbicides show great species selectivity 
their symptoms are generally the same, ranging from slowing down growth to growth 
stoppage as well as yellowing and stunting of growth terminals (Wehtje, 2007). 
?
 with the active ingredient chlorimuron is a product of DuPont 
Crop Protection and is sprayed POST to selective control broadleaf weeds such as 
common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), morningglories (Ipomoea spp.), 
pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) in soybean, 
peanut and non-crop areas. In Alabama as well as other southeastern states of the USA 
Classic
?
Thifensulfuron. Harmony
 is recommended to control Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) 
DC.] and bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum DC.) in peanuts (Crop Protection 
Reference, 2007).
 
?
 GT XP with the active ingredient thifensulfuron is also a 
product of DuPont Crop Protection for selective POST control of certain broadleaf 
weeds. It is registered in a wide variety of agronomic crops: wheat, barley, oat, triticale, 
corn and soybean (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). Some weeds controlled by 
Harmony
?
 GT XP are common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), Carolina 
geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.). 
Knott (1996) found that other members of the sulfonylurea-family for example 
triasulfuron, primisulfuron and metsulfuron showed variable crop injury from no crop 
16 
?
damage to injury above the acceptable level when applied at the normal field rate and 
twice the normal field rate. The visible assessment of crop injury was done on a scale 
from 0 (= complete kill) to 10 (= no damage), where a score of 7 was still acceptable. 
This scale is opposite of what is normally used, where 0 would indicate no injury. 
Imazethapyr. Pursuit
?
 with the active ingredient imazethapyr is a product of BASF 
Corporation and is registered for use in alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, peanuts and soybean 
as well as Clearfield
?
 corn (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). It can be applied either 
preemergence (PRE) or POST because Pursuit
?
 shows root and foliar uptake. After 
absorption the active ingredient imazethapyr is rapidly translocated to the growing points 
of the weeds and there inhibits the weed's acetolactate synthase. Adequate soil moisture 
is required. Pursuit
?
 has a broad spectrum of control. Broadleaf species controlled 
include: nightshades (Solanum spp.), ragweed species (Ambrosia spp.) and pigweed 
species (Amaranthus spp.). Grass weeds including johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) 
Pers.] and crabgrasses (Digitaria spp.) are also controlled. Additionally, Pursuit? 
provides nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control. In a study conducted by Ivany and McCully 
(1994) to evaluate various herbicides for use in sweet white lupin showed that 
imazethapyr applied POST at 50 g a.i. ha
-1
 and 75 g a.i. ha
-1
Diclosulam. Strongarm
 provided very good weed 
control (80 to 91%), but it also resulted in crop injury of 15 to 24% and subsequently 
caused yield loss. It was also mentioned by the authors that imazethapyr applied PRE 
resulted in good weed control and is safe to the lupin crop. 
?
 is a product of Dow AgroSciences LLC. This herbicide is soil-
applied and registered to control broadleaf weeds in peanuts in all areas of the USA 
17 
?
except New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Some broadleaf weed species controlled are 
tropic croton (Croton glandulosus L.), spurge species (Chamaesyce spp.) and common 
lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.) etc. (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
Group C1 consists of following chemical families: triazines, triazinone, 
triazolinone, uracil, pyridazinone and phenyl-carbamate (HRAC, 2008). Group C2 
includes the chemical families: urea and amide. Herbicides in theses groups inhibit 
photosynthesis at photosystem II by blocking the electron transport. The herbicides bind 
to the proteins of the thylakoid membranes and terminate the electron transport in which 
electrons are removed from water and oxygen is produced.  
Herbicide Group C1and C2: Inhibition of photosynthesis at photosystem II 
Metribuzin. Sencor
?
 contains the active ingredient metribuzin from Group C1. HRAC 
places metribuzin into the chemical family triazinone whereas Wehtje (2007) put it more 
generally into the triazine-family. Triazines are soil-applied and are absorbed by the 
roots. The chemical is translocated into the foliage where it accumulates. Sencor
?
 is a 
product of Bayer CropScience and is used to control a broad range of broadleaf and grass 
weeds that cause problems in soybeans, potatoes, alfalfa and other crops. Some weeds 
successfully controlled by Sencor
?
Linuron. Linuron is an active ingredient in the urea-family and therefore belongs into 
group C2. Lorox
 are yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.), 
nightshade species (Solanum spp.) etc. (Bayer CropScience Product Information, 2008). 
?
 DF is a product of Griffin LLC. Lorox
?
 DF is registered in a variety of 
crops: celery, hybrid poplar, parsley, potato, sorghum and soybean; but it also can be 
18 
?
used in non-crop areas. This product can be applied PRE or POST for the control of 
broadleaf weeds and weed grasses. Some broadleaf weed species controlled by Lorox
?
 
DF are common ragweed (Ambrosia artimisiifolia L.), Florida pusley (Richardia scabra 
L.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) etc; some weed grasses controlled by 
Lorox
?
 DF are fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.), goosegrass (Eleusine 
indica L.) etc (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). Code and Reeves (1981) found that 
wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) control in lupin with metribuzin and linuron was 
the most effective. They found that metribuzin applied to the soil at 0.7 to 1.05 kg ha
-1 
led 
to a wild radish reduction of 95 to 99.5%. At the lowest rate metribuzin even reduced the 
weed seed production by 95 to 98%. The yield of grain lupin did not increase with the 
application of metribuzin. Linuron applied PRE at 3.5 kg ha
-1 
and POST at 0.3 to 0.6 kg 
ha
-1 
In a study done by Mitich et al. (1987) to evaluate PRE herbicides in their control 
of winter annual weeds in lupin it was observed that linuron applied at 2.2 kg ha
reduced the wild radish density and seed production more than 90%. 
-1
 gave 
good control of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L. spp.  arvensis), shepherd?s purse 
(Capsella bursa-pastoris L.) and common chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Vill.]. A 
linuron rate of 1.12 kg ha
-1
 gave between 30 to 75% weed control. In the same study 
metribuzin was applied at rates 0.28 kg ha
-1
 and 0.56 kg ha
-1
 and both rates offered 85 to 
100% weed control, but the high rate also had a phytotoxicity of 79% on lupin and 
therefore resulted in yield loss.  In a greenhouse study conducted by Hagemann 
Wiedenhoeft and Ciha in 1987, it was observed that metribuzin applied at 0.4 kg a.i. ha
-1
 
and 1.3 kg a.i. ha
-1
 PRE visibly injured white lupin (98 to 100% injury).  Ivany and 
McCully (1994) evaluated herbicides applied to sweet white lupin and found that 
19 
?
metribuzin applied at a rate of 500 g a.i. ha
-1
 slightly injured the lupin plants but did not 
reduce the yield or the thousand seed weight. Higher rates reduced lupin yield and the 
thousand seed weight.
 
The inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) is the inhibition of the 
production of chlorophyll (Wehtje, 2007). PPO stands for protoporphyrinogen oxidase 
which is an enzyme that is necessary for porphyrin biosynthesis, a pathway that can be 
found in plants as well as animals. The porphyrin biosynthesis leads to the production of 
hemoglobin in animals and chlorophyll in plants. With the inhibition of this pathway a 
substrate of the enzyme called protoporphyrinogen IX will accumulate in the chloroplasts 
and later move into the cytoplasm of the cell where protoporphyrinogen IX autooxidizes 
to Protox IX. Protox is very photo-active. Exposed to light this pigment leads to the 
formation of oxygen singlets which further leads to membrane oxidation. Herbicides with 
this mode of action show a contact behavior due to limited translocation of the herbicide 
in the plant (Wehtje, 2007). According to HRAC (2008) chemical families with this 
Mode of Action are: diphenylethers, phenylpyrazole, N-phenylphthalimide, thiadiazole, 
oxidiazole, triazolinone, oxazolidinedione, pyrimidindione and other. These herbicides 
are used POST. 
Herbicide Group E: Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) 
Fomesafen. Fomesafen is member of the Diphenylethers. Reflex
?
 is only registered for 
use in soybean and cotton to control a variety of broadleaf weed species.  Fomesafen was 
used in a study by Knott (1996) in which the tolerance of spring-sown lupins to various 
herbicides was evaluated. Crop damage was assessed by comparing treated plots with an 
20 
?
untreated control. Lupin plants treated with a mixture of fomesafen/terbutryn at a rate of 
80/200 g a.i. litre
-1
 Flumioxazin. Flumioxazin is in the chemical family N-phenylphthalimide. It is the active 
ingredient of Valor
 showed no damage.
 
TM
 SX, a product of Valent U.S.A. Corporation and is registered to 
control weeds in cotton, peanut, soybean, sugarcane, sweet potato, fallow and non-crop 
areas (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). According to the Valor
TM
 SX label, the 
herbicide can be applied to the soil as well as the foliage. PRE Valor
TM
 SX applications 
in peanut and soybean must be made prior to crop emergence. Valor
TM
 SX controls a 
wide variety of weed species including pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia 
spp.), nightshades (Solanum spp.); crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) and panicum (Panicum 
spp.) (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
The enzyme that catalyzes the transfer of the enolpyrivyl from phosenolpyruvate 
to shikimate 3-phosphate (shikimic acid pathway) is 5-enolpyruvyshikimate-3-phosphate, 
(EPSP). EPSP synthase is a key enzyme in the production of aromatic amino acids such 
as phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophane (HRAC, 2008). There is only one herbicide 
that inhibits this enzyme: glyphosate (Wehtje, 2007). Glyphosate is a non-selective 
herbicide that is applied POST. Foliar absorption and translocation is rapid.  
Herbicide Group G: Inhibition of EPSP synthase 
Microtubule assembly inhibition is the inhibition of tuberin production. Tuberin is 
a protein that produces spindle fibers that are necessary to separate doubled chromosomes 
Herbicide Group K1: Microtubule assembly inhibition 
21 
?
in the metaphase. This means mitosis is incomplete and cells with multiple nuclei are 
common (Wehtje, 2007). Symptoms are commonly observed on the root system: roots 
are swollen and distorted. Chemical families that inhibit this Mode of Action are: 
dinitroaniline, phosphoroamidate, pyridine, benzamide and benzoic acid (HRAC, 2008). 
These herbicides are applied PRE. 
Pendimethalin. Pendimethalin is an active ingredient in the Dinitroaniline-family and is 
contained in Prowl
?
 H
2
O, a product of BASF Corporation. Prowl
?
 H
2
O is registered for 
use in a variety of crops: corn, cotton, edible beans, lentils, peas, peanuts, potatoes, 
soybeans etc. (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). Prowl
?
 H
2
O is a selective herbicide 
that controls annual weed grasses and small-seeded broadleaf weeds. Examples of weed 
grasses controlled are crowfootgrass [Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd.], panicum 
species (Panicum spp.) and johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.]. Some of the 
broadleaf weeds controlled are common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.), pigweed 
species (Amaranthus spp.) and Florida pusley (Richardia scabra L.) (Crop Protection 
Reference, 2007). In a study for the evaluation of PRE herbicides for the control of 
winter annual weeds in lupin pendimethalin was applied at 1.5 lb a
-1
 and provided 85 to 
100% control of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L. ssp. arvensis), shepherd?s purse 
(Capsella bursa-pastoris L.) and common chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Vill.], but 
only moderate control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.). Minor phytotoxicity of lupin 
was noted. Pendimethalin (0.84 kg ha
-1
) was also applied in a combination with 
metolachlor (2.2 kg ha
-1
) which provided 90 to 98% control of annual bluegrass (Poa 
annua L.), shepherd?s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris L.) and common chickweed 
[Stellaria media (L.) Vill.], but wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L. ssp. arvensis) control 
22 
?
was weak (Mitich et al., 1987). In 1989 Mitich et al. found that pendimethalin applied 
either preplant incorporated or PRE at 1.68 kg ha
-1 
and 2.8 kg ha
-1 
provided very good 
weed control (90 to 100%) and lupin tolerance was good (80 to 90% crop vigor). 
VCLFA stands for Very Long Chain Fatty Acid. This Mode of Action is an 
inhibition of lipid synthesis. Lipids are necessary as structural components of 
membranes, as part of metabolism, as coating on surfaces of organisms (cuticle) etc 
(Wehtje, 2007). Chemical families with this mode of action are: chloroacetamide, 
acetamide, oxyacetamide, tetrazolinone and other (HRAC, 2008). These herbicides are 
applied PRE. 
Herbicide Group K3: Inhibition of VLCFAs 
S-metolachlor. Dual II Magnum
?
, a product of Syngenta has the active ingredient S-
metolachlor (belongs to Chloroacetamide family). This herbicide is registered for a wide 
variety of crops such as corn, cotton, peanuts, pod crops and soybeans. Dual II Magnum
?
 
is used to control of annual grasses and small seeded broadleaf weeds. Some weed 
grasses controlled are green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv.], yellow foxtail 
[Setaria glauca (L.) P. Beauv.] and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.). 
Examples of broadleaf species controlled are pigweed species (Amaranthus spp.) and 
carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata L.) etc (Dual II Magnum? product label, 2008).  Mitich 
et al. (1987) found that metolachlor applied at four lb a
-1
 provided very good control (90 
to 98%) of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.), shepherd?s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris 
L.) and common chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), but control of wild mustard 
(Sinapis arvensis L. ssp. arvensis) was insufficient.  In 1989 Mitich et al. observed that 
23 
?
metolachlor applied at 2.2 kg ha
-1
 provided only poor weed control. This study also 
evaluated the lupin vigor and metolachlor applied at this rate reduced the crop vigor by 
27%. It was found by Ivany and McCully (1994) that metolachlor applied PRE at 1680 g 
a.i. ha
-1 
and 2640 g a.i. ha
-1
 did not cause crop injury (0 to 5% crop injury), but the yield 
was reduced.  
Herbicides that interfere with the plant's growth regulation do so by mimicing 
indole-3-acetic acid. Indole-3-acetic acid is an auxin, a plant growth hormone. Hence 
these herbicides are called action-like indole acetic acid or synthetic auxins. Since these 
auxins are synthetic the plant cannot regulate the herbicide induced growth, which 
usually is a cancer-like growth habit (Wehtje, 2007). Families with that mode of action 
are: phenoxy-carboxylic-acid, benzoic acid, pyridine carboxylic acid, quinoline 
carboxylic acid and other (HRAC, 2008). Phenoxy-carboxylic-acids selectively control 
broadleaf weeds in grasses and are applied POST. Another member of this chemical 
familyis 2,4-DB, which offers broadleaf weed control in legume crops such as alfalfa, 
clover, soybean and peanut.  
Herbicide Group O: Action-like indole acetic acid (synthetic auxins) 
Herbicide options in lupin 
Hagemann Wiedenhoeft and Ciha (1987) found that the POST applied 2,4-DB ester at 
two rates (0.8 kg ha
-1
 and 2.4 kg ha
-1
) at the 1-2 leaf stage and 4-5 leaf stage showed 
different results. Both rates applied at the 1-2 leaf stage injured white lupin to 99 to 
100%, whereas the rates applied at the 3-4 leaf stage only injured white lupin to 59 to 
24 
?
73%. Knott (1996) also investigated the tolerance of fall-sown determinate lupins to 
herbicides. He observed that lupins are sensitive to many POST herbicides. The most 
promising treatments found by Knott (1996) were a combination of isoxaben and 
trifluralin PRE, a mixture of isoxaben and terbuthylazine as well as the treatment with 
simazine early POST. He also found that spring applications of primisulfuron or 
triasulfuron are promising. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
?
Experimental Objectives 
The purpose of this experiment was to explore the effects of weed management 
practices on white lupin performance and weeds. We wanted to explore if herbicides that 
are currently registered in other leguminous crops could be used successfully in white 
lupin. Additionally this experiment was investigating non-chemical weed control 
practices: 
! Two mechanical practices: between or between and within row hoeing 
! Cultural practices: two black oat cultivars as a companion crop. 
The main objectives were: 
1.  To investigate the use of various herbicides and weed management practices in 
white lupin and evaluate their effect on weed control. 
2. To investigate the use of various weed management practices and evaluate their 
effect on white lupin injury, plant density and yield. 
3. To investigate the use of various weed management practices and evaluate their 
effect on white lupin yield components. 
 
 
 
 
 
26 
?
References 
Alabama Cooperative Extension System: Soils of Alabama. Downloaded from 
http://www.aces.edu (01-16-2008). 
Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed; West 
Publishing Company.  
Bhardwaj, H. L., Hamama, A. A., and van Santen, E. 2004. Alternative Crops. White 
Lupin Performance and Nutritional Value as Affected by Planting Date and Row 
Spacing. Agronomy Journal 96: 580-583. 
Bowman, G., C. Shirley and C. Cramer. 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd ed, 
Sustainable Agriculture   Network handbook series bk.3. Sustainable Agriculture 
Network. National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD. 
Castner, J. L. 2004. Photographic Atlas of Botany and Guide to Plant Identification. 
Feline Press, Inc.  
Code, G. R. and T. G. O. Reeves, T. 1981. Control of Wild Radish with Herbicides in 
Lupins. Pp. 227-228. In: Proceedings of the 6
th
Crop Protection Reference. 2007. 23
 Australian Weeds Conference. 
Weed Science Society of Queensland. 
rd
Dierauer, H., D.B?hler, A. Kranzler and W. Zollitsch. 2004. Merkblatt Lupinen 2004. 
Ausgabe ?sterreich ? BIO ERNTE AUSTRIA & FiBL. 
 edition of Greenbook?s Crop Protection Reference. 
Vance Publishing Corporation. Lenexa, KS. 
Duke, J. A. 1981. Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance. Plenum Press. 
New York and London. 
27 
?
Faluyi, M. A., X. M. Zhou, F. Zhang, S. Leibovitch, P. Migner and D. L. Smith. 2000. 
Seed Quality of sweet white lupin (Lupinus albus) and management practice in 
eastern Cananda. European Journal of Agronomy 13: 27-37. 
George, R. 2005. Organic lupin production. Briefing paper December 2005. Soil 
Association Food and Farming Department, Bistol. 
Gesellschaft zur F?rderung der Lupine. 2007. Lupinen ? Verwertung und Anbau.5
th
 ed. 
Raststatt (Germany). www.lupinenverein.de
Hagemann Wiedenhoeft, M. and A. J. Ciha. 1987. Herbicide Tolerance of White Lupin, 
Agronomy  Journal 79: 999-1002. 
 (08/31/2007). 
Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC). 2008. Classification of Herbicides 
According to Mode of Action.  
http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ClassificationofHerbicideModeofAction/
tabid/222/Default.aspx (01-17-2008). 
Hill, G. D. 1990. Proceedings 11
th
 International Lupin Conference ? The Utilization of 
Lupins in Animal Nutrition. pp. 68-91. In: D. von Baer (ed.) Proceedings 6
th
Hill, G. 2005. The Use of Lupin Seed in Human and Animal Diets ? Revisited. Pp. 252-
266. In: E. van Santen and G.D. Hill (eds) Mexico, Where Old and New World 
Lupins Meet.  Proceedings of the 11
 
International Lupin Conference, Temuco ? Pucon, Chile, 25-30 November 1990.  
th
Ivany, J. A. and K. V. McCully. 1994. Evaluation of Herbicides for Sweet White Lupin 
(Lupinus albus).?Weed Technology 8:819-823. 
 International Lupin Conference, 
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. May 4-5, 2005. International Lupin Association, 
Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0- 86476-165-1. 
28 
?
Knott, C. M. 1996. Tolerance of Autumn-sown determinate Lupins (Lupinus albus) to 
herbicides. Test of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 17. Ann. Appl. Biol. 128 
(Supplement). 
Knott, C. M. 1996. Tolerance of Spring-sown Lupins (Lupinus albus) to Herbicides. Test 
of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 17, Ann. Appl. Biol. 128 (Supplement). 
Lawrance, L. 2007. Lupins Australia?s Role in World Markets. Australian Commodities 
14 No. 2.  
Martens, M-H and K. Martens. 2000. Cultural Weed Control Methods ? Controlling 
Weed Populations Before They Become a Problem.ACRES 30 No. 6: 13. 
http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/culturalweedcontrol_jun00.pdf 
(08/17/2009). 
Mitich, L. W., K. G. Cassman, K. J. Larson and N. L. Smith. 1987. Evaluation of 
preemergence herbicides for control of winter annual weeds in "Minnesota Ultra" 
lupins. Research Progress Report, pp. 222-223.  
Mitich, L. W., K. Cassman and N. L. Smith. 1989. Evaluation of herbicides at three times 
of application in grain lupine. Research Progress Report pp. 313-314. 
Noffsinger, S. L. and E. van Santen. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for 
the Southeastern USA.?Crop Sci 45:1941-1950. 
Pallut, B. 1999. Unkrautunterdr?ckung und ?bek?mpfung durch Fruchtfolgegestaltung, 
Bodenbearbeitung, Aussaatzeit, Saatmenge und Stickstoffversorgung. Published 
in Pallut, B. Pflanzenschutz im ?kologischen Landbau-Probleme und 
L?sungsans?tze. Drittes Fachgespr?ch: ??Unkrautregulierung im ?kologischen 
Landbau?. http://orgprints.org/00002529/ (10/20/2007). 
29 
?
Payne, W. A., C. Chen and D. A. Ball. 2004. Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of 
Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of Narrow-Leafed and White Lupins in 
the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy Journal 96:1501-1508. 
Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum oekologischen Anbau von 
Koernerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Suedwestdeutschlands, 
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Gruenland der Universitaet Hohenheim, Salzgitter. 
hhtp://opus.ub.uni-
hohenheim.de/volltexte/2007/193/pdf/Dissertation_Poetsch_online.pdf 
Putnam, D.H., E. S. Oplinger, L. L. Hardman and J. D. Doll. 2007. Lupine.Alternative 
Field Crops Manual University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension; 
University of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and 
the Minnesota Extension Service. Downloaded from 
(11/05/2009). 
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the 
Carolinas.The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill p. 586. 
(11/9/2007)?
Roberson, R. 1991. Sweet Lupins Promising For Alabama Farmers. Alabama 
Agricultural Experiment Station. Office of Communications April 1
st
 1991. 
Downloaded from http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/webpress/1991/lupins.htm
 
 
(11/30/2007). 
 
 
 
30 
?
Santen, E. van and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-
cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In: E. van Santen and G. D. Hill (eds). 
Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the 10
th
Wehtje, G. 2007. Lecture notes AGRN 7140:  Chemistry and Use of Herbicdes in Crop 
Production, Auburn University, 2007 
 
International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002. 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. ISBN 0-86476-153-8. 
Wilbur, R. L. 1963. The Leguminous Plants of North Carolina. Tech. Bul. No 151: 69, 
The North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 
Wink, M., Merino, F. and E. Kaess.1999. Molecular evolution of lupins (Leguminosae: 
genus Lupinus). Pp. 278-286.  In: Lupin, an Ancient Crop for the New Millenium. 
Proc. of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/ M?ritz, Germany, 20-24 
June, 1999 (E. van Santen, M. Wink, S. Weissmann, and P. Roemer eds). 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31 
?
Table 1.01: Soil and Climate requirements of Lupinus ssp. (Gesellschaft zur F?rderung 
der Lupine, 2007) 
Species Soil Climate
L. luteus          
(Yellow Lupin)
Sands and weak loamy sands with low pH (4.6 
? 6.0); higher pH-values lead to lime induced 
chlorosis (chlorosis of the youngest leaves), 
Yield potential: 15 to 20 dt ha-1
Moderate temperatures during vegetative 
development, dry weather during maturity; 
vegetation days: 135 to 150 days (depends on 
cultivar)
L. angustifolius 
(Narrow-leaf Lupin)
Sands, sandy loams; more lime tolerant than 
Yellow Lupin; optimum pH-values: 5.0 to 6.8; 
no moor- or heath land (Yellow Lupin better 
adapted), Yield potential: 20 to 45 dt ha-1
Suitable for areas with short vegetation period; 
foothills, coastal areas; vegetation days: 120 to 
150 days (depends on cultivar)
L. albus            
(White Lupin)
Highest yield on better soils (sandy loam 
minimum, better loamy loessic soils, topsoils); 
also sands with pH 5.5 to 6.8; no pH-values 
above 7, Yield potential: 20 to 60 dt ha-1
Warm, moist spring; high yields require cool 
temperatures until begin of length growth as 
well as good water service until blooming
 
 
 
 
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
32 
?
Table 1.02: Protein, oil, energy and typical yield of field beans, peas and lupins (dry 
grain) (Putnam, D. H. et al 1989). 
Field beans Spring 
beans
White lupin Blue lupin Yellow 
lupin
Protein                 
(%) 22.5 25 36 ? 40 31 ? 35 34 ? 42
Oil content                 
(%) 1.9 1.8 10 6 4
Energy                 
ME (MJ/kg DM) 13.5 12 ? 13.5 15.5 13.5 13
Yield                    
Mg ha
-1
3.5 2.8 3.5 2.5 ? 3 2.5 ? 3
pH tolerance 5.9 ? 6.5 6.5 ? 7.5 5.0 ? 7.9 5.0 - 7 4.8 - 7
 ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
33 
?
Table 1.03: Alphabetical order of Mode of Action used in this study based on the order 
by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (www.plantprotection.org/hrac).  
HRAC WSSA Group Mode of Action
A 1 Lipid synth. Inh. (inh. of ACCase)
B 2 Inhibition of ALS (branched chain amino acid synth.)
C 5,6,7 Inhibition of photosynthesis PS II
E 14 Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidas
G 9 Inhibiton of EPSP syhnthase
K1 3 Inhibition of microtubule assembly
K3 15 Inhibition of cell division
O 4 Synthetic auxins
 
 
 
 
  
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
 
 
 
 
 
 
34 
?
II. EVALUATION OF WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON WEED 
CONTROL IN WHITE LUPIN (LUPINUS ALBUS L.) 
 
Abstract 
 Worldwide, 450 lupin species can be found with four agronomical important 
species currently grown. The major species consist of the three old world species white 
lupin (Lupinus albus L.), yellow lupin (L. luteus L.) and narrowleafed or blue lupin (L. 
angustifolius L.) and the new world species Andean lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet). White 
lupin is of major interest in the southeastern USA because winter-hardy varieties are 
available. Winter-type Lupinus albus L. cultivars can be used in winter grain rotations 
and as mid-winter forage for ruminants. White lupins are poor weed competitors during 
early establishment, which makes effective weed control necessary. A study experiment 
was conducted at two sites at E.V. Smith Research Center of the Alabama Agricultural 
Experiment Station in 2007 and 2008. The weed management schemes evaluated 
included ten pre-emergence (PRE) and nine post-emergence (POST) herbicide treatments 
as well as cultural treatments (two mechanical and two companion crop living mulch 
weed control measures). Fourteen weed species were encountered. Of the PREs, the three 
application rates of pendimethalin (0.5x, 1x, 2x) controlled shepherd?s purse (Capsella 
bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.) more than 80%. S-metolachlor gave overall >80% weed 
35 
?
control, but yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) was only controlled to 73%. Wild 
radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) was controlled to 98% by a S-metolachlor/linuron 
mixture. Metribuzin gave more than 90% wild radish control. The PRE and POST 
applied imazethpyr gave a mean weed control of more than 80%. Glyphosate was one of 
the best POST applications with a non-selective weed control of more than 80%. Annual 
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) was controlled to more than 95% by sethoxydim and 
fluazifop (POST each). Black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.) provided more than 90% 
control of annual ryegrass, shepherd?s purse and yellow nutsedge. The mechanical weed 
control measures, hoeing, provided more than 80% control of annual bluegrass (Poa 
annua L.), shepherd?s purse and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.). 
 
Introduction 
Lupin (Lupinus ssp L.) belongs to the botanical family of Fabaceae and 
originated in three primary centers; North America, South America, and the 
Mediterranean region (Wilbur, 1963; Wink et al., 1999, Noffsinger and van Santen, 
2005). Worldwide, 450 lupin species can be found of which four major species are used 
agronomically (Dierauer et al., 2004). The major economically important species consist 
of the three old world species white lupin (Lupinus albus L.), yellow lupin (L. luteus L.) 
and narrowleafed or blue lupin (L. angustifolius L.), and the new world species Andean 
lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet). 
White lupin was first introduced into the southeastern United States in the 1930s 
and the production eclipsed 1 million ha in the early 1950s, then declined due to loss of 
36 
?
government support for green manuring, damage to seed nurseries due to mid-autumn 
freezes in two consecutive years and the increased availability of inorganic nitrogen 
fertilizers (Payne et al., 2004; van Santen and Reeves, 2003; Noffsinger and van Santen, 
2005). Lupinus albus L. is of major interest in the southeastern USA because accessions 
and cultivar exhibit differential vernalization requirements similar to what is common in 
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Winter-type cultivars offer a commercial opportunity for 
farmers. It was shown that white lupin used in a winter grain rotation increased lint yield 
in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as compared to traditional rotations (Noffsinger and 
van Santen, 2005). Furthermore, L. albus L. is attractive as mid-winter forage for 
ruminants due to a forage quality similar to that of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) 
(Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Additional benefits of white lupin winter-type 
cultivars may be better disease resistance. Historically and today, white lupin is used as 
livestock feed and human food as well as winter cover crop in conservation agriculture 
(Hill, 1990; Hill, 2005; Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). 
Lupinus spp. are poor weed competitors during early establishment, since canopy 
development is slow, facilitating light penetration and subsequent weed seed germination 
and yield loss due to competition. Lupins reach their maximum vegetative growth during 
flowering (Putnam et al., 1989). At flowering, lupins can successfully compete with 
newly emerging weeds. Weeds are competing with the crop for water, nutrients and light; 
therefore effective weed control, especially during Lupinus albus L. early establishment, 
is necessary for the crop?s success (Putnam et al., 1989; Poetsch, 2006).  
37 
?
Research has been conducted to compare the herbicide efficacy in lupin. 
Chambers et al. (1995) investigated the effectiveness of aryloxyphenoxypropionate (fop) 
and cyclohexanedione (dim) herbicides on controlling annual ryegrass (Lolium 
multiflorum Lam.) and volunteer cereals such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley 
(Hordeum vulgare L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) in Lupinus angustifolius L. Results 
showed that fluazifop and sethoxydim of the previously mentioned herbicide families 
gave >98% control of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (x Triticosecale Wittm ex A. 
Camus) and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). The dinitroaniline family 
preemergence (PRE) herbicide pendimethalin, registered for control of annual grass and 
broadleaf weeds, controls Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.) and prostrate knotweed 
(Polygonum aviculare L.) 100% in white lupin (Ball, 1992). Wild mustard (Sinapis 
arvensis L.), shepherds purse [Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.] and common 
chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Cyrillo] were controlled 85 to 100% in spring-type white 
lupin (Mitich et al., 1987). Chloroacetamides such as metolachlor and alachlor which are 
applied PRE usually in mixes with other herbicides successfully controlled annual 
grasses and some broadleaf weed species >90% in spring-type white lupin (Mitch et al., 
1987; Penner et al., 1993). Imazethpyr when applied PRE and postemergence (POST) 
provided good broadleaf weed control (> 80%) in sweet white lupin (Ivany and McCully, 
1994). Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) is difficult to control in lupin production 
but Code and Reeves (1981) found that triazines such as metribuzin controlled this weed 
by 95 to 99.5% when applied PRE.  
Hoeing is prohibitive due to labor cost and hence is only used in high value crops 
or as supplement to other weed control practices and is successful on weed seedlings and 
38 
?
annual/biennial weeds (Anderson, 1996). This mechanical weed control practice is 
important in organic production which is an increasing sector in US agriculture. To be 
certified as organic a farm has to follow the guidelines of the National Organic Program 
(NOP) from the seeds used to grow the crops to the final product. The NOP is a program 
developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and limits the use of synthetic 
herbicides; therefore other weed control practices such as hoeing are necessary (Cornell 
Cooperative Extension Publication, 2009).  
Cover crops play a major role and are beneficial in any farming system such as 
conservation agriculture and organic farming. Some benefits are lower fertilizer costs, 
reduction of soil erosion, cuts in pesticide use (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides), 
improved soil moisture, enhanced organic matter and breaking of pest cycles (Bowman et 
al., 1998). As a weed management tool, cover crops are used to out-compete (smother) 
weeds or by allelopathy (Anderson, 1996). Black oats (Avena strigosa Schreb.), a cool-
season annual cereal, is a promising new cover crop in the southern USA and has been 
used successfully for many years as a cover crop for soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in 
Brazil (Bowman et al., 1998). Reasons for the success of this cover crop are its large 
biomass production and its exceptional allelopathic activity (Price et al., 2008). Both are 
very important for non-chemical weed control. 
Only three active ingredients are currently registered for the use in lupins; 
carfentrazone-ethyl, S-metolachlor and glyphosate (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
Therefore, the objective of this experiment is to investigate the use of various herbicides 
and weed management practices in white lupin and evaluate their effect on weed control. 
39 
?
Materials and Methods 
A two year experiment to investigate the effect of weed management practices on 
weed control in L. albus L. was established at two test sites on the E.V. Smith Research 
Center of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station in October 2007 and 2008 
respectively.  
Treatment and experiment design 
The experiment had a 2 (year) x 2 (location) x 3 (cultivar) x 4 (block) x 24 (weed control) 
factorial arrangementof treatment and design factors. The two locations of the experiment 
were the Field Crops Unit (FCU), near Shorter, AL (32.42 N, 85.88 W) and the Plant 
Breeding Unit (PBU), Tallassee, AL (32.49 N, 85.89 W). At FCU the experiment was 
established on a Compass loamy sand (a coarse-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic 
Plinthic Paleudults with a loamy sand surface structure). At PBU the experiment was 
conducted on a Wickham sandy loam (a fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic 
Hapludults with a sandy loam surface structure). The three cultivars used in the 
experiment were AU Homer (a high-alkaloid, indeterminate cover crop type), AU Alpha 
(a low-alkaloid, indeterminate forage type), and ABL 1082 (low-alkaloid, determinate 
grain type experimental cultivar). The experimental design was a randomized complete 
block design (r = 4) nested within each year x location x cultivar combination. The weed 
control factor had 24 levels: one non-treated control, 10 PRE-applied herbicides, nine 
POST-applied herbicides, two mechanical (hand hoed) weed control treatments as well as 
two cultural (living mulch) weed control treatments (Table 2.01). 
40 
?
Crop management 
Inoculated lupin was seeded in 4 row plots with a John Deer
?
 1700 four row 
vacuum planter with a row spacing of 90 cm at a depth of 1.25 cm in October 2007 and 
October 2008. Seeding density was 19 seeds m
-1
Ratings 
. A smooth seedbed was prepared one to 
two weeks prior to planting in 2007. In 2008, the cultivars were planted in raised beds 
prepared by a KMC 4 row ripper/bedder due to concerns about water logging at both 
locations. The plot length was 7.5 m at PBU, and 7.5 m and 6 m at FCU in 2007 and 
2008, respectively. The PRE herbicide treatments were applied one day after planting in 
both years. Application of POST herbicides followed 13 (2007) to 16 (2008 due to heavy 
rainfall) weeks after planting. The cultural control treatments, cv. SoilSaver and As_033 
(a selection from PI 436103) black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), were sown one (2007) to 
seven days (2008) after seeding of the lupin crop. The mechanical weed control 
treatments, between row only cultivation and between and within row cultivation, were 
used twice four (2007) to six (2008) weeks after planting and 18 to 20 (2 blocks at the 
PBU test site due to heavy rains) weeks after planting.  
Weed control ratings were taken at both locations on a scale from 0% to 100%, 
where 0% is equivalent to no control and 100% is equivalent to complete weed control. 
Three weed control ratings per treatment/plot were taken in each year of the study. Each 
treatment was rated based on the present weed infestation in the non-treated control of the 
first block at each location. The non-treated control was considered to have 0% weed 
control. In study year 2007/2008 the first rating was taken after only the PRE herbicide 
41 
?
treatments were applied (6 weeks after PRE application), the second and third rating were 
taken 6 and 9 weeks after the POST treatments were applied. The following study year 
(2008/2009) the first two ratings were taken 6 and 10 weeks after the PRE herbicide 
treatments were applied, and one rating was taken 5 weeks after the POST treatments 
were applied.  
Statistical analysis 
Generalized linear mixed models procedures as implemented in SAS
"
 
 PROC 
GLIMMIX were used to analyze weed control data. This tool is flexible in the analysis of 
data with non-normal distribution and unbalanced designs. Violations of normality and 
homogeneity of variance issues are often encountered when including a non-treated 
control treatment or percent control data with a large range. Weed control data were 
modeled using a binary distribution function or arcsine transformed data. All treatment 
factors and their interactions were considered fixed effects except the block factor and its 
interaction with the various treatment factors. Whenever a given species occurred in more 
than one environment, a combined analysis was used. Statistical significance was 
declared at Dunnett?s P < 0.1. 
Results 
 
Observed weed species 
Over the course of the two-year study 14 weed species were observed. Not all 
species were present in all environments, thus Tables 2.02 and 2.03 give the percent of 
42 
?
plots at a given rating that contained the weed species in question. In 2007 and 2008, 
henbit, a winter annual species, was present at PBU (100%) when rated after the PRE 
application, but was absent at the POST rating. Corn spurry, an annual broadleaf species, 
was encountered at both locations and in both years at the POST rating. At PBU in 2008 
however, it was also present at the PRE rating, but its presence was less than 75% in all 
three cultivars at each rating. Corn spurry presence was 100% in lupin cultivars AU 
Alpha and AU Homer and 75% in cultivar ABL 1082 in each rating at this location in 
2007. Winter vetch (75-100%) and wild radish (75-100%) were primarily encountered in 
the POST rating at FCU and PBU in 2007. In 2008, winter vetch was present in 75 to 
100% of the FCU plots when rated after the POST application. Cutleaf-evening primrose 
was present in 100% of the plots during the POST rating at both locations in 2007. In 
study year 2008 this weed was again only present at the POST application rating in 75% 
of the plots at FCU in which lupin cultivar AU Alpha was grown, but was present to 
100% in the remaining FCU and PBU plots. Heartwing sorrel was present in 100% of the 
plots at FCU at the POST rating in 2007 and 2008, but was not present at the PRE rating 
at this location in either year. In 2008, this weed species was encountered in 100% of the 
plots at PBU when rated after the PRE application. Shepherd?s purse was present in 
100% of the plots at both locations at the POST rating in 2007. In 2008 when rated after 
POST application, this weed species was absent in all FCU plots and in PBU plots in 
which lupin cultivar ABL 1082 was grown. But shepherd?s purse was present in 50% and 
100% of the plots containing cultivars AU Alpha and AU Homer respectively. Annual 
ryegrass was only present in 50% to 100% of the plots at both locations at the POST 
rating in study year 2007. Yellow nutsedge was present in study year 2007 only. At PBU 
43 
?
it was observed in 100% of the plots at the POST rating. Black medic was present in 50 
to 83% (POST rating) of the FCU plots in 2008 only. Annual bluegrass and lesser 
swinecress were observed in 100% of the plots at PBU at both ratings in 2008. Carolina 
geranium was only present in 100% of the PBU plots at the rating after POST application 
in 2007. Similarly, Crimson clover was only observed at the POST rating in 2007. This 
clover species was present in 100% of the PBU plots and in 100% of the FCU plots in 
which cultivars AU Alpha and AU Homer were grown. Only 75% of the FCU plots with 
cultivar ABL 1082 had crimson clover present.  
Species present in only a single environment 
Black medic. Black medic (Medicago lupulina L.) was present at FCU at the POST rating 
in study year 2008 only. Only the treatment main effect was significant (p<0.1). Results 
varied from 27% to 99% mean weed control by the PRE herbicides, from 38% to 98% 
control by the POST herbicides and from 42% to 92% by organic weed control methods. 
As can be seen in Table 2.04 the mean control of all treatments was significantly better 
than the non-treated control, with the exception of the PRE applied imazethapyr 
treatment (27% control). In general the PRE herbicide treatments, providing 66-99% 
control (imazethapyr excluded), were more successful in control than the POST 
treatments. The most successful PRE treatments were flumioxazin (99%), the S-
metolachlor/linuron mixture (98%), diclosulam (97%) and the highest rate of 
pendimethlin (96%). The POST directed applied glyphosate provided best mean control 
(98%) of all POST treatments, followed by 2,4-DB with 86%. Mean weed control of the 
organic treatments varied greatly (42-92%). Between and within row cultivation provided 
92% control as compared to 82% control with between row cultivation only. At this 
44 
?
rating SoilSaver black oat provided only 42% as compared to 54% control by As_033 
black oat. 
Lesser swinecress. In 2008, lesser swinecress [Corononpus didymus (L.)Sm.], the second 
single environment species, was present at both ratings at PBU. Treatment effects were 
significant. At the first rating after PRE application 17 to 99% of lesser swinecress 
control was achieved (Table 2.05). All PRE herbicide treatments provided control of this 
species that was significantly better from the non-treated control group. Flumioxzin and 
diclosulam provided best control of this species of all the PRE applied herbicide 
treatments with 99% and 98% control respectively, followed by metribuzin (96%) and 
imazethapyr (95%). Of all the PRE treatments the three rates of pendimethalin provided 
the least control. The lowest pendimethalin rate controlled this species to 45%, the field 
rate to 41% and the highest rate to 78%. Best mechanical weed control was achieved by 
between and within row cultivation with 84%, followed by between row cultivation 
(73%). At the PRE rating both black oat cultivars provided poor control, SoilSaver with 
17% and As_033 with 18%. Their mean control was non-significant when compared to 
the non-treated control group. At the POST rating all PRE herbicide treatments provided 
successful lesser swinecress control that was significantly better from the non-treated 
control. Best control of this species was achieved by the PRE-applied flumioxazin (95%), 
diclosulam (94%), S-metolachlor/linuron (94%) and linuron alone (93%). The three 
pendimethalin treatments again provided the least control with 39%, 46% and 71% 
respectively. The POST-applied herbicide treatments were not as uniformly successful in 
control as the PRE-applied. Best control was achieved by glyphosate with 92%.  The 
POST-applied imazethapyr provided a mean control of 85%. Least control was achieved 
45 
?
with fluazifop (5%), plant oil (7%) and the POST-applied flumioxazin (10%). These 
treatments provided control that was non-significant when compared to the non-treated 
control. All organic treatments provided significantly higher mean control than the 
control group. Nonetheless control of lesser swinecress by both black oat cultivars was 
poor, SoilSaver with 47% and As_033 with 27%. Between and within row cultivation is 
the most successful mechanical weed control method for this weed with 95% mean 
control, followed by between row cultivation with 76% mean control. 
Annual bluegrass. In 2008, annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) was present at both ratings 
at PBU. All PRE treatments as well as the organic treatments provided significantly 
higher mean bluegrass control (32-98%) than the non-treated control group (4%) at the 
PRE rating (Table 2.06). Best control was achieved with linuron (98%), flumioxazin and 
diclosulam (both 97%) and metribuzin (96%). Of all the PRE herbicide treatments the 
lowest rate of pendimethalin provided the least control with 86% at the first rating. Black 
oat cultivar As_033 controlled annual bluegrass to only 32%, whereas SoilSaver 
controlled to 56%. This is nonetheless significantly improved from the non-treated 
control. Between and within row cultivation provided slightly better control (74%) than 
between row cultivation (68%) at the first rating. Control was not as good at the POST 
rating. All PRE herbicide treatments provided control of 13 to 93% which is significantly 
different from the non-treated group at this rating. Best control by PRE herbicides was 
achieved by S-metolachlor with 93%, S-metolachlor/linuron with 92% and the field rate 
of pendimethalin with 82%. Diclosulam and PRE-applied imazethpyr provided the 
poorest control at the POST rating with 13% and 4% control, respectively. The POST 
applied herbicides achieved control that varied greatly (0% to 81%). All POST herbicide 
46 
?
treatments showed significantly better mean control in comparison to the non-treated 
control, with the exception of the POST -applied imazethapyr. Best species control was 
achieved by glyphosate with 81% and the grass active herbicides fluazifop and 
sethoxydim, both with 66%. At the POST rating, both black oat cultivars controlled 
annual bluegrass successfully to 87% (As_033) and 88% (SoilSaver). Between and 
within row cultivation control (87%) was better than between row cultivation only (61%). 
Carolina geranium. Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) was present only at 
the POST rating at PBU in 2007. The two-way interaction (treatment*cultivar) was non-
significant, but treatment main effect was significant. All herbicide treatments as well as 
the organic treatments used in this experiment provided mean control that was 
significantly better from the non-treated (Table 2.07). Mean weed species control ranged 
from 89% to 99% by the PRE herbicides, from 80% to 97% for the POST herbicides and 
from 93% to 98% for the organic treatments. Best control by a PRE herbicide treatment 
was provided by the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture with 99% control, followed by 
metribuzin with 98%, S-metolachlor with 96%, flumioxazin with 96% and imazethapyr 
with 95%. With 89% control the field rate of pendimethalin performed the worst of all 
PRE treatments. Best control by a POST herbicide treatment was achieved by 
thifensulfuron with 97% control, followed by 2,4-DB with 94% and imazethapyr with 
91% control. Chlorimuron controlled Carolina geranium to 67% and therefore performed 
worse than any other POST. Both black oat cultivars, controlled to 98%. The mechanical 
control treatment, between and within row cultivation, with 97% control was slightly 
more efficient than between row cultivation (93%) only. 
47 
?
Yellow nutsedge. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) was present at the POST 
rating at PBU in 2007 only. Treatment effect was significant. All chemical and organic 
weed control treatments provided significantly higher weed control than the control 
(Table 2.08). Mean control achieved by all PRE herbicide treatments varied from 67% to 
97%. All POST herbicides controlled 80% to 97%. The organic treatments provided 78% 
to 99% control. Best control by a PRE herbicide was shown by all three pendimethalin 
application rates with 97%, 95% and 90% (from low to high rate) respectively. S-
metolachlor (97%) and flumioxazin (91%) are equally successful. Diclosulam only 
provided 67% control and was therefore the least successful PRE herbicide to control this 
weed. In the POST herbicide group, best control was provided by the grass active 
herbicides sethodxydim (97%) and fluazifop (94%), followed by 2,4-DB (93%) and 
imazethapyr (91%). With 80% and 82% weed control, chlorimuron treatment and 
thifensulfuron were the least successful POST treatments. Yellow nutsedge was 
successfully controlled by all four organic treatments. Both black oat cultivars provided 
99% control. Between and within-row cultivation with 86% performed slightly better 
than between row cultivation (78%). 
Henbit. In 2007 and 2008 henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.) was present only at the PRE 
rating at PBU. Treatment effect was significant in both years. The two-way interaction 
(treatment*cultivar) was significant in 2007. All PRE herbicide treatments were 
significantly better in controlling this species than the non-treated control in both years 
(Table 2.09). In 2007, mean weed control by PRE herbicides varied from 90% to 99%. 
Best control was provided by the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture (99%) and diclosulam 
(99%). All three pendimethalin application rates controlled henbit 97% (low rate) and 
48 
?
99% (field rate and highest rate). With 90% mean control S-metolachlor alone was the 
least successful PRE herbicide that year. None of the organic weed control options 
provided significantly better control than the non-treated control in 2007. Between-within 
row cultivation and between row cultivation provided 5% control. SoilSaver was the 
better performing black oat cultivar with provided 49% control, followed by As_033 with 
26% control.  
In 2008, the results were similar. All PRE herbicide applications significantly 
reduced henbit infestation as compared to the non-treated control. Henbit was controlled 
best by the PRE-applied flumioxazin and imazethapyr (both 99%), followed by 
diclosulam (98%), the highest rate of pendimethalin (98%), the field rate of 
pendimethalin (97%) and S-metolachlor (97%). Linuron, with 86% mean control, was the 
least successful PRE herbicide that year. In 2008, both mechanical weed control methods 
provided significantly better control than the non-treated control. Between and within 
row cultivation controlled this weed species to 73%, followed by between row cultivation 
with 49%. With 3% and 7% control, black oat cultivars As_033 and SoilSaver did not 
reduce the henbit population at PBU significantly. 
Species present in multiple environments 
Crimson clover. Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) was present at FCU and PBU 
at the POST rating in 2007 only. Two-way interaction treatment*cultivar was only 
significant at FCU. Treatment effect was significant at both locations. At both locations 
all chemical and organic treatments provided significantly higher control than the non-
treated control (Table 2.10). At FCU mean control of PRE herbicides varied from 47% to 
49 
?
99%. Best control was achieved by the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture (99%), metribuzin 
(99%), linuron (98%), diclosulam (98%) and flumioxazin (98%). With 47% mean control 
imazethapyr was the least successful PRE herbicide to control this species, followed by 
the field rate of pendimethalin (78%). The mean control by POST herbicides varied from 
48% to 98% at FCU. With 98% control the chlorimuron treatment provided best control, 
followed by glyphosate with 92% control and flumioxazin with 89% control. 2,4-DB, 
sethodxydim and imazethapyr were the least successful POST herbicide treatments with 
48%, 50% and 64% control, respectively. Between and within row cultivation as well as 
between row cultivation were equally successful to control crimson clover (>90%). The 
black oat cultivar As_033 with 85% control was slightly more successful than SoilSaver 
(73%). 
At PBU, all chemical and organic treatments controlled crimson clover 
significantly better than the non-treated control (Table 2.10). All PRE herbicides 
uniformly provided 99% control. Similarly all POST herbicides controlled to 99%, with 
the exception of fluazifop and 2,4-DB with 98% control each. 98% to 99% control was 
also achieved by the four organic treatments.  
Wild radish. Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) was present at FCU and PBU at 
the POST rating in 2007. Two-way interaction treatment*cultivar was only significant at 
FCU. Treatment effect was significant at both locations. At both locations all chemical 
and organic treatments provided significantly better control than the non-treated control 
(Table 2.11). At FCU, mean control by PRE herbicides varied between treatments (63% 
to 98%). Best control was achieved by diclosulam and the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture 
(both 98%), followed by flumioxazin and highest rate of pendimethalin (96%). With 63% 
50 
?
control the lowest rate of pendimethalin was the least successful of all PRE herbicides at 
FCU. The POST herbicides controlled this species 43% to 99%. Best control by a POST 
herbicide was provided by chlorimuron and fomesafen with 99% control each. With 43% 
and 57% control respectively, fluazifop and glyphosate were the least successful POST 
herbicides at this location. Between and within row cultivation and between row 
cultivation with >90% control were the better organic weed control treatments than both 
black oat cultivars with less than 80% weed control.  
Similar results were observed at PBU. At this location wild radish was controlled 
>94% by PRE herbicides, >90% by POST herbicides and >95% by organic weed control 
methods. Best control by a PRE herbicide was provided by the S-metolachlor/linuron 
mixture, linuron, diclosulam, imazethapyr and the highest application rate of 
pendimethalin (all 99%). Of all the POST herbicides fomesafen, chlorimuron and 
imazethapyr reduced wild radish at PBU better than other POST herbicides. Between and 
within row cultivation and the black oat cultivar As_033 (with <96%) were slightly better 
in controlling this species than the other organic weed control methods. 
Shepherd?s purse. In 2007, shepherd?s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris L.) was present at 
the POST rating in FCU and PBU, but was only present at the POST rating at PBU in 
2008. In 2007, all chemical and organic weed control treatments were significantly better 
at both locations than the non-treated control (Table 2.12). At FCU the PRE herbicides 
provided 89% to 99% control. With 89% control imazethapyr is the least successful PRE 
herbicide. The POST herbicides provided 97% to 99% control. Chlorimuron and 2,4-DB 
(both 99%) controlled shepherd?s purse the best at FCU. Of the organic treatments, both 
51 
?
black oat cultivars provided 99% control followed by between-within row cultivation and 
between row cultivation at this location. 
At PBU 2007, the PRE herbicides controlled shepherd?s purse < 90%. The lowest 
rate of pendimethalin with 90% control was the least successful PRE herbicide. The 
POST herbicides provided also >90% control. Best control was achieved by 
thifensulfuron, chlorimuron and glyphosate each with 99% control. The least successful 
POST herbicide was 2,4-DB (90%), followed by sethoxydim and flumioxazin (both 
91%). All organic weed control methods provided 99% control, with the exception of 
between and within row cultivation (98%).  
In 2008, control of shepherd?s purse varied greatly between treatments. The PRE 
herbicides controlled this weed 3% to 99%. With 99% control diclosulam provided best 
control followed by flumioxazin. The lowest application rate of pendimethalin only 
controlled to 3% and was therefore the least successful PRE herbicide. The half rate and 
the field rate of pendimethalin as well as S-metolachlor provided no significantly better 
control than the non-treated control. The POST herbicide treatments controlled 21% to 
96%. With 96% control glyphosate was the best POST herbicide at PBU in 2008, 
followed by fomesafen (94%). 2,4-DB, plant oil, fluazifop and sethoxydim (<36%) 
provided no significantly better control than the non-treated control. Both black oat 
cultivars show significantly better control than the non-treated control group. Both 
cultivation treatments control shepherd?s purse to >93%. 
Annual ryegrass. Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) was present at the POST 
rating at FCU and PBU in 2007. Treatment effect was significant. All chemical and 
organic treatments provided significantly better control than the non-treated control 
52 
?
(Table 2.13). At FCU, the PRE treatments provided >95% control. Best control was 
achieved by the highest rate of pendimethalin (99%), followed by the S-
metolachlor/linuron mixture, linuron and S-metolachlor (all 98%). The POST herbicides 
provided >93% control at FCU. Best control by a POST herbicide was provided by 
glyphosate and sethoxydim (both 99%), followed by fluazifop (98%). The organic 
treatments controlled annual ryegrass to >95%.  
At PBU, the PRE treatments provided 58% to 97% control. Best control was 
achieved by the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture (97%), followed by S-metolachlor (93%) 
and linuron (90%). The low rate of pendimethalin controlled this weed species to 58% 
and was therefore the least successful PRE herbicide. The POST herbicides controlled 
annual ryegrass 64% to 99%. Best control was achieved by the grass active herbicides 
fluazifop and sethoxydim with 99% and 96% control, respectively. Thifensulfuron (64%) 
and chlorimuron (65%) provided least control of all the POST herbicides at PBU. 
Organic weed control methods provided 79% to 93% control. Between-within row 
cultivation (93%) was more successful to control this species than between row 
cultivation (79%). Black oat cultivar SoilSaver (88%) controlled annual ryegrass slightly 
better than As_033 (81%). 
Cutleaf-evening primrose. Cutleaf-evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) was 
present in at the POST rating at FCU and PBU in 2007 and 2008 (Table 2.14). Treatment 
effect was significant. Treatment*cultivar interactions was only significant at PBU 2007. 
At FCU in 2007, control of cutleaf-evening primrose by PRE herbicide varied from 23% 
to 97%. Best control was provided by flumioxazin (97%), followed by diclosulam (96%) 
and metribuzin (94%) which is significantly better than the non-treated control. The field 
53 
?
application rate of pendimethalin (23%) provided no significantly higher control than the 
non-treated control. The POST herbicides provided 15% to 98% control at FCU in 2007. 
Best control was achieved by 2,4-DB and chlorimuron (both 98%), followed by 
flumioxazin (93%), which is significantly better compared to the non-treated control. 
With 15% control thifensulfuron was the least successful POST treatment at FCU in 
2007. This herbicide showed no significant improvement to the non-treated control. With 
95% and 96% black oat cultivars As_033 and SoilSaver successfully controlled cutleaf-
evening primrose. Between-within row cultivation with 80% control performed better 
than between row cultivation (58%). All of the organic treatments significantly improved 
mean control as compared to the non-treated control at FCU in 2007. 
At PBU in 2007 all chemical and organic weed control methods, with the 
exception of the PRE-applied field rate of pendimethalin (14% control), showed 
significantly better control than the non-treated control. PRE herbicides controlled this 
species 14% to 95%. Best control by a PRE was provided by flumixoazin and S-
metolachlor/linuron (both 95%), followed by diclosulam (94%) and imazethapyr (92%). 
POST herbicides controlled cutleaf-evening primrose 31% to 99%. Best control was 
provided by 2,4-DB (99%), followed by chlorimuron (98%) and flumioxazin (88%). 
With 31% weed control thifensulfuron was the least successful POST herbicide treatment 
at PBU in 2007. The organic treatments controlled this species 74% to 98%. Both black 
oat cultivars provided 98% control. Between and within row cultivation (88%) provided 
88% control as compared to between row cultivation alone (74%). 
At FCU in 2008, mean control by PRE herbicide treatments ranged from 10% to 
94% (Table 2.14). All PRE herbicide treatments, with the exception of all three 
54 
?
application rates of pendimethalin (30%, 10%, 23% from low to high rate), significantly 
reduced cutleaf-evening primrose infestation as compared to the non-treated control. Best 
control by a PRE was provided by flumioxazin with 94% control, followed by diclosulam 
and linuron (both 85%). The POST herbicide treatments controlled this species 39% to 
95% at FCU in 2008. All POST herbicide treatments provided significantly better control 
than the non-treated control. With 95% control glyphosate performed best of these POST 
herbicides, followed by 2,4-DB, imazethapyr and flumioxazin (>80%). Fomesafen (41%) 
and sethoxydim (39%) were the least successful POST herbicides. The organic weed 
control treatments controlled this species 43% to 92% at FCU in 2008. Both black oat 
cultivars, SoilSaver and As_033 with <60%, were less successful in controlling this 
species than the cultivation treatments (>80%).  
Similar results were observed at PBU in 2008. PRE herbicides controlled cutleaf-
evening primrose 6% to 96%. Best control by a PRE herbicide was provided with 
imazethapyr with 96% control, followed by flumioxazin (95%) and diclosulam (91%). 
All three application rates of pendimethalin with less than 12% control as well as S-
metolachlor alone (12%) did not control this species significantly better than the non-
treated control. Weed control by POST herbicide application ranged from 14% to 96%. 
All POST herbicide treatments significantly improved control as compared to the non-
treated control. With 96% control each, 2,4-DB and imazethapyr provided best control by 
POST herbicides, followed by glyphosate with 91% control. The plant oil treatment 
(14%), sethoxydim (25%) and fluazifop (28%) were the least successful POST herbicides 
at PBU in 2008. Again the organic weed control methods provided cutleaf-evening 
primrose control that was significantly better than the non-treated control. As_033 with 
55 
?
63% control performed better than SoilSaver with 35% control. Between and within row 
cultivation (92%) was the better cultivation treatment at PBU in 2008. 
Winter vetch. Winter vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) was present at the POST rating at both 
locations in 2007 and at FCU in 2008. Treatment effect was significant in both years. All 
treatments significantly reduced winter vetch infestation as compared the non-treated 
control at all locations in both years (Table 2.15). At FCU 2007, control by PRE 
herbicides ranged from 79% to 99%. With 99% control diclosulam provided best control, 
followed by the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture with 97% control. All three pendimethalin 
applications rates with 95% to 98% control performed well. Imazethpyr (79%) was the 
least successful PRE herbicide at FCU. The POST herbicides controlled winter vetch 
>90%. Best weed control by POST herbicides was provided by chlorimuron with 99%, 
followed by thifensulfuron (98%) and 2,4-DB (96%). Both cultivation treatments 
performed equally well in controlling this species; between-within row cultivation with 
95% and between row cultivation with 96%. Both black oat cultivars successfully 
reduced winter vetch infestation in the FCU plots >95%.  
At PBU in 2007, winter vetch control by PRE herbicides ranged from 60% to 
97%. Best control was provided by diclosulam and the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture 
both with 97% control, followed by the lowest application rate of pendimethalin with 
86%. With only 60% control imazethpyr was the least successful, followed by the field 
application rate of pendimethalin. The POST herbicide treatments controlled winter vetch 
53% to 98%. Best control results were achieved by chlorimuron with 98% and 
thifensulfuron with 89%. The grass active herbicides sethoxydim and fluazifop with 53% 
and 57% control respectively were the least successful at PBU in 2007. The organic weed 
56 
?
control methods provided > 80% control, but the black oat cultivars with 76% to 81% 
control were less successful than the cultivation treatments with 91% to 94% control.  
At FCU in 2008, control by PRE herbicides ranged from 46% to 98%. With 98% 
control diclosulam performed best of the PRE herbicides, followed by the S-
metolachlor/linuron mixture with 96%. Imazethapyr (49%) and the lowest application 
rate of pendimethalin (46%) provided the least control at FCU that year. The POST 
herbicides controlled winter vetch 51% to 94%. Best control by POST herbicides was 
achieved by glyphosate with 94% control. The plant oil treatment with 51% and 
sethoxydim with 54% control were the least successful POST herbicides. Both cultivation 
treatments provided 94% control of this species. SoilSaver and As_033 controlled winter 
vetch only to 54% and 55% respectively at FCU in 2008. 
Heartwing sorrel. At FCU heartwing sorrel (Rumex hastatulus Baldw.) was present at the 
POST rating in 2007 and 2008, whereas at PBU it was only present at the PRE rating in 
2008. Treatment main effect was significant in both years. In FCU 2007 all chemical and 
organic treatments significantly reduced infestation as compared to the non-treated 
control (Table 2.16). All PRE treatments, with the exception of linuron (96%) and S-
metolachlor (92%), controlled this weed species to 99%. The POST herbicides provided 
93% to 99% control. Best control was achieved by glyphosate with 99% control, 
followed by fluazifop and flumioxazin with 98% each. With 93% control 2,4-DB was the 
least successful POST herbicide. The organic treatments were equally successful at FCU 
in 2007. Both black oat cultivars controlled heartwing sorrel to 98%. Between-within row 
cultivation with 99% control performed slightly better than between row cultivation alone 
(97%). 
57 
?
In 2008 at the same location again all chemical and organic weed control 
methods, with the exception of the POST herbicide fomesafen, controlled heartwing 
sorrel significantly better than the non-treated control. The PRE herbicides controlled this 
species 37% to 99%. Best control was provided by diclosulam and the field application 
rate of pendimethalin with 99% each, followed by flumioxazin and the highest rate of 
pendimethalin with 94% each. The least successful PRE herbicide treatments were S-
metolachlor (37%) and imazethapyr (44%).  POST herbicide control ranged from 14% to 
93%. Glyphosate was the most successful POST herbicide with 93% mean control, 
followed by imazethapyr with 80% control. Fomesafen (14%) did not provide 
significantly better control than the non-treated control and was therefore the least 
successful POST herbicide treatment. It was followed by 2,4-DB and fluazifop (both 20% 
control), plant oil (24%) and sethoxydim (27%). At FCU in 2008, both black oat cultivars 
provided less than 30% control. Between and within row cultivation with 96% control 
performed slightly better than between row cultivation alone (86%).  
At the PRE rating at PBU in 2008, all treatments with the exception of black oat 
cultivar As_033 controlled heartwing sorrel significantly better than the non-treated 
control. Weed control by PRE herbicides ranged from 48% to 99%. With 99% control 
flumioxazin was the best PRE herbicide, followed by diclosulam and metribuzin with 
98% each. Pendimethalin, all three rates, controlled heartwing sorrel less successfully 
than other PREs with mean percent control of 48%, 46% and 79% with increasing rate. 
The organic treatments controlled this species 20% to 84%. Both black oat cultivars 
performed poorly; SoilSaver with 29% and As_033 with 20% control only. Between and 
58 
?
within row cultivation provided 84% control as compared to 73% by between row 
cultivation alone. 
Corn spurry. Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis L.) was present at the POST rating at FCU 
as well as both ratings at PBU in 2007 and 2008. In both years treatment effect was 
significant. At FCU in 2007, all chemical and organic weed control methods provided 
significantly better control than the non-treated control (Table 2.17). PRE herbicides 
provided 88% to 99% control. Diclosulam and imazethapyr both controlled this species 
to 88% and were therefore the least successful PRE treatments. Best control was provided 
when S-metolachlor, flumioxazin and all three rates of pendimethalin were applied (99% 
control each). The POST herbicides controlled corn spurry 22% to 98%. With 98% 
control flumioxazin achieved the best results of the POSTs in 2007, followed by 
chlorimuron with 93%. Fomesafen (22%) and 2,4-DB (39%) were the least successful 
POST herbicides. Both black oat cultivars (SoilSaver 94% and As_033 93%) provided 
better control than the cultivation treatments (between-within row cultivation 87% and 
between row cultivation 75%).  
In 2008 at FCU, all PRE herbicides provided significantly better control than the 
non-treated control (Table 2.17). Control by PREs ranged from 42% to 98%. With 98% 
control the field rate of pendimethalin was the best PRE herbicide, followed by 
flumioxazin and the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture (both 94%). Imazethapyr with 42% 
control only was the least successful PRE treatment. POST herbicides controlled corn 
spurry 7% to 94%. Glyphosate provided 94% control and was therefore the best POST 
herbicide at FCU in 2008. It was followed by flumioxazin. 2,4-DB (6%), sethoxydim 
(7%) and fluazifop (7%) did not reduce the weed population significantly as compared to 
59 
?
the non-treated control. Of the organic treatments, between-within (85%) and between 
row cultivation (81%) were more successful to control this species than both black oat 
cultivars. SoilSaver (8%) and As_033 (17%) did not perform significantly better than the 
non-treated control.  
At the PRE rating at PBU in 2007, all PRE herbicide treatments controlled corn 
spurry significantly better than the non-treated control (Table 2.18). Corn spurry was 
controlled <90% by PRE herbicides. With 94% mean control the field application rate of 
pendimethalin was the least successful PRE treatment. Organic weed control varied 
greatly among treatments. Both cultivation treatments (<10%) controlled corn spurry 
significantly less than the non-treated control. The black oat cultivars SoilSaver and 
As_033 controlled corn spurry to 59% and 45% respectively, but this was not 
significantly better than the non-treated control. 
At the POST rating at PBU at 2007 all chemical and organic weed control 
methods provided significantly better control than the non-treated control. The PRE 
herbicides provided 86% to 99% control. Metribuzin controlled this species to 86% and 
was the least successful PRE herbicide. All other PRE herbicides provided weed control 
of >95%. Weed control by POST herbicides ranged from 37% to 98%. Thifensulfuron 
and chlorimuron with 98% mean control each were the most successful POST herbicides 
that year, followed by flumioxazin with 93%. With 37% control fomesafen was the least 
successful POST herbicide treatment. At the POST rating both black oat cultivars 
controlled corn spurry to 99%. Between-within (93%) and between row cultivation (88%) 
provided also good control. 
60 
?
In 2008, all chemical and organic weed control methods, with the exception of 
both black oat cultivars, significantly reduced the weed infestation at the PRE rating at 
PBU (Table 2.18). The PRE herbicides controlled this species 76% to 99%. With 99% 
mean control each flumioxazin, linuron and the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture provided 
best control. S-metolachlor applied alone, achieved only 76% control and was therefore 
the least successful PRE herbicide at that rating. Of the organic weed control methods, 
only the cultivation treatments provided successful control, but between and within 
cultivation with 86% provided better control than between row cultivation (55%).  
At the POST rating in 2008, all PRE herbicide treatments controlled corn spurry 
significantly better than the non-treated control. The PRE herbicides achieved 63% to 
98% control. With 98% mean control flumioxazin provided the best control of all PRE 
herbicides, followed by imazethapyr and the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture (both 97%). 
S-metolachlor (63%) again provided the least control at PBU that year. The POST 
herbicides provided 5% to 98%control. Best control was achieved by glyphosate with 
98% mean control, followed by the POST applied imazethapyr with 96% control. 2,4-DB 
(5%), fluazifop (6%) and fomesafen (19%) were the only POST herbicides that did not 
control significantly better than the non-treated control. The organic treatments with the 
exception of SoilSaver black oat (7% control) significantly reduced the corn spurry 
population as compared to the non-treated control. Between and within row cultivation 
was the better cultivation treatment with 95% control. 
 
 
 
61 
?
Discussion 
Chemical weed control 
 A broad weed spectrum with grass and broadleaf weed species was observed 
during the two-year experiment. This diverse spectrum makes it difficult to find 
herbicides to control all weed species equally successful. Annual ryegrass (Lolium 
multiflorum Lam.) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) were successfully controlled by 
the POST applied grass active herbicides sethoxydim and fluazifop. In 2007 ryegrass was 
controlled more than 95% by these grass active herbicides. In Australia Chambers at al 
(1995) who investigated annual ryegrass cereal and volunteer cereal control by selective 
post-herbicides found similar results. In their study annual ryegrass was controlled more 
than 98% by sethoxydim as well as fluazifop. In a study in Australia conducted already in 
1979, other herbicides (diclofop) were found to control annual ryegrass successfully in 
direct-drilled lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) (Fua, 1981). Annual bluegrass was 
controlled to more than 65% by sethoxydim and fluazifop. We discovered that this grass 
was better controlled by the PRE applied herbicides. One of these PRE herbicides was S-
metolachlor (which is one of the three active ingredients currently registered for the use 
in lupin in the USA), a chloroacetamide, which controlled annual bluegrass to more than 
90% in 2008. Mitich et al. (1987) evaluated the same herbicide in their 1985 study to find 
PRE herbicides to control winter annual weeds in lupin and found that S-metolachlor 
gave 90% to 98% control of annual bluegrass. In the same study S-metolachlor controlled 
shepherd?s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris L.) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum 
L.) to more than 90% (Mitich et al., 1987). Our experiment showed variable mean control 
of shepherd?s purse by this herbicide, with more than 95% control in 2007 and less than 
62 
?
50% in 2008. But S-metolachlor gave good wild radish control (>80%) in our experiment 
in 2007. We also found that wild radish was successfully controlled to more than 90% in 
our study by metibuzin, a triazine. Similar results were observed by Code and Reeves 
(1981) who evaluated herbicides that control wild radish successfully in grain lupin 
production in Australia. It was found that metibuzin gave more than 95% wild radish 
control.  
 In our two year field experiment the three rates of pendimethalin (0.5x, 1x, 2x) 
overall provided good weed control. Shepherd?s purse was controlled to more than 90% 
in 2007. Mean control increased with increasing rate. Mitich et al. (1989) used the same 
application rates in their experiment and found the same trend; control of shepherd?s 
purse improved from 70% to 100% with increasing rate. Other weed species successfully 
controlled by pendimethalin in our experiment were corn spurry (Spergula avensis L.), 
black medic (Medicago lupulina L.), winter vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), henbit (Lamium 
amplexicaule L.), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) and yellow nutsedge 
(Cyperus esculentus L.). 
Ivany and McCully (1994) showed that imazethapyr applied PRE and POST in 
lupin provided good broadleaf weed control (80 to 91%). Similarly, we also found that 
imazethapyr controlled almost all broadleaf weed species to more than 80% when applied 
PRE or POST, with the exception of black medic and crimson clover (less than 70%). 
 In 2007 we used chlorimuron and thifensulfuron, both sulfonyl urea herbicides 
that are POST applied. Almost all weed species encountered in our experiment were 
controlled to more than 90% in 2007. Nonetheless because of total crop loss due to these 
two herbicides in 2007, alternative compounds were substituted in 2008. 
63 
?
 Glyphosate, which is registered as a POST directed spray for the use in lupins in 
the USA, provided successful weed control (> 80% in general) of almost all weed species 
encountered. This is not surprising since glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide.  
 Carfentrazone, which is also a registered as a POST directed treatment for lupin in 
the USA, did not provide uniformly good weed control. It is a selective broadleaf 
herbicide. Carfentrazone was only applied in 2008. It controlled black medic and 
shepherd?s purse successfully to about 70%. Control of other weed species was less than 
70% in this experiment. 
 Even though S-metolachlor/linuron mixture is not registered for use in white lupin 
in the Southeastern USA it has been used over a decade as the standard weed control 
program by Noffsinger et al. (1998, 2000). It has been included in this study as an 
additional control. It was one of the best chemical weed control options, since it 
controlled almost all of the species encountered to more than 80%. The only exceptions 
were cutleaf-evening primrose and yellow nutsedge which at certain locations were 
controlled to 72% and 73% respectively. 
Organic weed control 
 As legumes, lupins play an important role in organic farming for the fixation of 
nitrogen. The use of synthetic herbicides is prohibited in organic farming, so non-
chemical weed control methods need to be investigated. Our field experiment showed 
that between and within row cultivation by hoeing successfully reduced most weed 
species present to more than 80%, including shepherd?s purse, annual bluegrass, crimson 
clover, black medic, winter vetch, cutleaf-evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) 
and heartwing sorrel (Rumex hastatulus Baldw.). George (2005) mentioned that 
64 
?
harrowing in lupin plants up to a 10 cm height aids in the control of weed pressure, but he 
also said that taller crop plants will likely be injured using this method. Hand-hoeing is 
more selective than harrowing and may not injure the crop, but it is labor intense and 
therefore expensive. It can be a good option for organic farming since it is usually done 
on a smaller scale and the value of organic products is generally higher.  
 The two black oat cultivars used in our experiment provided very good 
control of annual ryegrass, shepherd?s purse, Carolina geranium and yellow nutsedge 
(>90%), but were not successful in the control of other weed species especially corn 
spurry (Spergula arvensis L.). Black oat is commonly used as pasture, green manure, 
cover crop and for erosion control (CTAHR, 11-07-2008). A.strigosa Schreb. used to be a 
minor cereal of poor soils, but is now commonly grown as winter forage, cover crop and 
for grain production in South America, especially in Brazil (Anthony, 2007). In lupin 
seed production it is not used as a cover crop but as a companion crop. Due to seed size 
differences it can be harvested/combined with the main crop or it may be terminated by a 
selective grass herbicide (fops and dims) once its purpose is fulfilled. According to 
Bowman et al. (1998) black oat, especially SoilSaver, outcompete weeds by shading due 
to a large biomass production. Black oat produces allelopathic compounds which inhibit 
weed growth (Bowman et al., 1998). This study was not designed to assess successful 
weed control by black oat cultivars due to allelopathy or shading or maybe a combination 
of both. Since lupins develop a full canopy slowly they cannot shade the weeds during 
their early establishment. By using black oat cultivars as a companion for lupin this 
problem was solved.  
65 
?
 The results of our experiment show that good weed control can be achieved by 
using a broad spectrum of herbicides that are currently not registered for use in lupin 
production in the US as well as organic treatments. Some of these promising herbicides 
are imazethapyr, fluazifop, sethoxydim, diclosulam and metribuzin. Nonetheless 
additional research will be necessary to evaluate the effect of these herbicides on injury 
and the yield potential of lupin (see Chapter III). With glyphosate and S-metolachlor, 
which are registered for use in lupin in the US, good weed control in lupin is possible, but 
this list only allows for narrow active ingredient rotation, which is aiding in potential 
resistance development in weed species. Therefore it is necessary to expand the list of 
weed control methods in US lupin production. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
66 
?
References 
Anderson, W. P. 1996.Weed Science: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed; West 
Publishing Company.  
Anthony, T. 2007. Evaluation of black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.) germplasm. MS 
thesis. Auburn University. 
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed Control in white lupine. Research Progress Report. 
Bowman, G., C. Shirley and C. Cramer. 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd ed, 
Sustainable Agriculture Network handbook series bk.3. Sustainable Agriculture 
Network. National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD. 
Chambers, A., G. Code and G. Scammell. 1995. Annual ryegrass and volunteer cereal 
control in lupins using selective post-emergence herbicides. Australian Journal of 
Experimental Agriculture 35: 1141-1149. 
Code, G. R. and T. G. O. Reeves, T. 1981. Control of Wild Radish with Herbicides in 
Lupins. Pp. 227-228. In: Proceedings of the 6
th
Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication. 2009. Integrated Crop and Pest Management 
Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production 2009. Downloaded from 
 Australian Weeds Conference. 
Weed Science Society of Queensland. 
http://www.nysaes.Cornell.edu/recommends/11frameset.html (07/16/2009) 
Crop Protection Reference. 2007. 23
rd
 
 edition of Greenbook?s Crop Protection Reference. 
Vance Publishing Corporation. Lenexa, KS. 
67 
?
CTAHR - College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. University of Hawai?i. 
Sustainable Agriculture in Hawai?i. 2002. Green Manures: non-legumes. Black 
oat (Avena strigosa). [Online]. Available at 
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/sustainag/GreenManures/black_oat.asp (verified 7. 
Nov. 2008). 
Dierauer, H., D.B?hler, A. Kranzler and W. Zollitsch. 2004. Merkblatt Lupinen 2004. 
Ausgabe ?sterreich ? BIO ERNTE AUSTRIA & FiBL 
Fua, J. M. 1981. Weed control in direct-drilled lupins using simazine and post-emergence 
herbicides in Lupinus angustifolius. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australian Weeds 
Conference. September 13-18 1981. City of Gold Coast, Queensland. 
George, R. 2005. Organic lupin production. Briefing paper December 2005. Soil 
Association food and farming department, Bristol. 
Hill, G. D. 1990. Proceedings 11
th 
International Lupin Conference ? The Utilitzation of 
Lupins in Animal Nutrition. Originally published as pp. 68-91. In: D. von Baer 
(ed.) Proceedings 6
th
Hill, G. D. 2005. The Use of Lupin Seed in Human and Animal Diets ? Revisited. Pp. 
252-266. In: E. van Santen and G.D. Hill (eds) Mexico, Where Old and New 
World Lupins Meet. Proceedings of the 11
 International Lupin Conference, Temuco ? Pucon, Chile, 25-
30 November 1990. 
th
Ivany, J. A. and K. V. McCully. 1994. Evaluation of Herbicides for Sweet White Lupin 
(Lupinus albus).?Weed Technology 8: 819-823. 
 International Lupin Conference, 
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. May 4-5, 2005. International Lupin Association, 
Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0- 86476-165-1. 
68 
?
Mitich, L. W., K. G. Cassman, K. J. Larson and N. L. Smith. 1987. Evaluation of 
preemergence herbicides for control of winter annual weeds in "Minnesota Ultra" 
lupins. Research Progress Report, pp 222-223.  
Mitich, L. W., K. Cassman and N. L. Smith. 1989. Evaluation of herbicides at three times 
of application in grain lupine. Research Progress Report pp. 313-314. 
Noffsinger, S.L. 1998. Physiology and management of winter-type white lupin (Lupinus 
albus L.). Auburn, AL: PhD. Diss. Auburn University. 
Noffsinger, S. L., C. Huyghe and E. van Santen. 2000. Analysis of Grain-Yield 
Components and Inflorescence Levels in Winter-type White Lupin. Agronomy 
Journal 92: 1195-1202. 
Noffsinger, S. L. and E. van Santen. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for 
the Southeastern USA. Crop Sci 45: 1941-1950. 
Payne, W. A., C. Chen and D. A. Ball. 2004. Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of 
Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of Narrow-Leafed and White Lupins in 
the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy Journal 96: 1501-1508. 
Penner, D., R. H. Leep, F. C. Roggenbuck and J. R. Lempke. 1993. Herbicide Efficacy 
and Tolerance in Sweet White Lupin. Weed Technology 7: 42-46. 
Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum oekologischen Anbau von 
Koernerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Suedwestdeutschlands, 
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Gruenland der Universitaet Hohenheim, Salzgitter. 
hhtp://opus.ub.uni-
hohenheim.de/volltexte/2007/193/pdf/Dissertation_Poetsch_online.pdf 
 
(11/05/2009). 
 
69 
?
Price, A.J., M. E. Stoll, J. S. Bergtold, F. J. Arriaga, K. S. Balkcom, T. S. Kornecki and 
R. L. Raper. 2008. Effect of Cover Crop Extracts on Cotton and Radish Radicle 
Elongation. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science. 3: 60-6. 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=207
514 (11/05/2009). 
Putnam, D.H., Oplinger, E.S., Hardman, L.L., Doll, J.D.: Lupine, Alternative Field Crops 
Manual, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension; University 
of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and the 
Minnesota Extension Service. downloaded from 
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 
Roberson, R. 1991. Sweet Lupins Promising For Alabama Farmers. Alabama 
Agricultural Experiment Station. Office of Communications April 1
(11/9/2007) 
st
 1991. 
Downloaded from http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/webpress/1991/lupins.htm
Santen, E. van and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-
cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In: E. van Santen and G. D. Hill (eds). 
Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the 10
 
(11/30/2007) 
th
Wilbur, R. L. 1963. The Leguminous Plants of North Carolina. p. 69, Tech. Bul. No 151, 
The North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 
 
International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002. 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealnd. ISBN 0-86476-153-8. 
 
70 
?
Wink, M., Merino, F. and E. Kaess.1999. Molecular evolution of lupins (Leguminosae: 
genus Lupinus). Pp. 278-286. In: Lupin, an Ancient Crop for the New Millenium. 
Proc. of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/ M?ritz, Germany, 20-24 
June, 1999 (E. van Santen, M. Wink, S. Weissmann, and P. Roemer eds). 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. 
 
 
71 
?
Table 2.01: Herbicide program used to evaluate weed control in white lupin (L. albus L.) 
in 2007 and 2008 at Field Crops Unit (Shorter) and Plant Breeding Unit (Tallassee) of the 
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Because of total crop loss due to treatments 12 
and 16 in 2007, alternative compounds were substituted in 2008. 
No Trade Name Active Ingredient Rate Unit Treatment class
1 Nontreated ? ? ? ?
2 Dual and S-metolachlor 1.12 kg ai/ha PRE
Lorox Linuron 1.12 kg ai/ha PRE
3 Sencor Metribuzin 0.42 kg ai/ha PRE
4 Lorox Linuron 1.12 kg ai/ha PRE
5 Dual S-metolachlor 1.12 kg ai/ha PRE
6 Prowl H2O Pendimethalin (0.5x) 0.84 kg ai/ha PRE
7 Prowl H2O Pendimethalin (1x) 1.68 kg ai/ha PRE
8 Prowl H2O Pendimethalin (2x) 3.36 kg ai/ha PRE
9 Strongarm Diclosulam 0.03 kg ai/ha PRE
10 Valor Flumioxazin 0.07 kg ai/ha PRE
11 Pursuit Imazethapyr 0.07 kg ai/ha PRE
12 Hamony (2007) Thifensulfuron 0.07 kg ai/ha POST
Aim (2008) Carfentrazone 0.03 kg ai/ha PDS
13 Fusilade Fluazifop 0.84 kg ai/ha POST
14 Reflex Fomesafen 0.28 kg ai/ha POST
15 2,4-DB 2,4-DB 0.28 kg ai/ha POST
16 Classic (2007) Chlorimuron 0.05 kg ai/ha POST
Weedzap (2008) Plant oil 190 mL/gal PDS
17 Honcho Plus Glyphosate 1.12 kg ai/ha PDS
18 Poast Plus Sethoxydim 0.28 kg ai/ha POST
19 Valor Flumioxazin 0.07 kg ai/ha PDS
20 Pursuit Imazethapyr 0.07 kg ai/ha POST
21 between row cultivation Organic
22 between and within-row Organic
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic
24 As_033 BO Organic
Treatment Rate
 ?
?
?
?
?
72 
?
Table 2.02: Weed species frequency in percent of all observed in plots with L. albus cultivars AU Alpha, AU Homer and ABL 1082 at 
Field Crops Unit (Shorter) and Plant Breeding Unit (Tallassee) of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station 6 weeks after PRE 
application in 2007 and 2008. 
Code
Bayer 
Code Latin binomial
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
GECA5 GERCA Geranium carolinianum  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRIN3 TRFIN Trifolium incarnatum  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
CABU2 CARBR
Capsella bursa-pastoris  (L.) 
Medik.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
RARA2 RAPRA Raphanus raphanistrum  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
LOMU LOLMU Lolium multiflorum  Lam. - - - - - - - - - - - -
CYES CYPES Cyperus esculentus  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
OELA OEOLA Oenothera laciniata  Hill - - - - - - - - - - - -
VIVI VICVI Vicia villosa  Roth - - - - - - - - - - - -
MELU MEDLU Medicago lupulina  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
CODI6 COPDI Coronopus didymus  (L.) Sm. - - - - - - - - - 100 100 100
POAN POANN Poa annua  L. - - - - - - - - - 100 100 100
RUHA2 RUMHA Rumex hastatulus  Baldw. - - - - - - - - - 100 100 100
LAAM LAMAM Lamium amplexicaule  L. - - - 100 100 100 - - - 100 100 100
SPAR SPRAR Spergula arvensis  L. - - - 100 100 75 - - - 50 75 50
Rated  6 wks after PRE in 2007 Rated  6 wks after PRE in 2008
FCU PBU FCU PBUWeed species
 
73 
?
Table 2.03: Weed species frequency in percent of all observed in plots with L. albus cultivars AU Alpha, AU Homer and ABL 1082 at 
Field Crops Unit (Shorter) and Plant Breeding Unit (Tallassee) of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station 9 and 5 weeks after 
POST application in 2007 and 2008, respectively.  
Code
Bayer 
Code Latin binomial
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
AU 
Alpha
AU 
Homer
ABL 
1082
LAAM LAMAM Lamium amplexicaule  L. - - - - - - - - - - - -
CODI6 COPDI Coronopus didymus  (L.) Sm. - - - - - - - - - 100 100 100
POAN POANN Poa annua  L. - - - - - - - - - 100 100 100
MELU MEDLU Medicago lupulina  L. - - - - - - 50 75 83 - - -
GECA5 GERCA Geranium carolinianum  L. - - - 100 100 100 - - - - - -
CYES CYPES Cyperus esculentus  L. - - - 100 100 100 - - - - - -
TRIN3 TRFIN Trifolium incarnatum  L. 100 100 75 100 100 100 - - - - - -
RARA2 RAPRA Raphanus raphanistrum  L. 100 100 75 100 100 100 - - - - - -
LOMU LOLMU Lolium multiflorum  Lam. 100 100 100 75 50 100 - - - - - -
VIVI VICVI Vicia villosa  Roth 75 75 100 100 100 100 75 100 100 - - -
RUHA2 RUMHA Rumex hastatulus  Baldw. 100 100 100 - - - 100 100 100 - - -
CABU2 CAPBP
Capsella bursa-pastoris  (L.) 
Medik.
100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - 50 100 -
OELA OEOLA Oenothera laciniata  Hill 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 100 100 100 100
SPAR SPRAR Spergula arvensis  L. 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 100 100 50 75 50
Weed species
Rated 9 wk after POST treatment in 2007 Rated 5 wk after POST treatment in 2008
FCU PBU FCU PBU
 
74 
?
Table 2.04: Black medic (Medicago lupulina L.) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in 
Shorter, AL in 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 (0 , 14)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 98 (82 , 98) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 78 (51 , 96) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 94 (73 , 100) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 86 (62 , 99) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 66 (37 , 89) 0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 92 (71 , 100) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 96 (78 , 99) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 97 (79 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (86 , 97) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 27 (6 , 55) 0.0723
12 Carfentrazone POST 73 (44 , 94) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 61 (32 , 87) 0.0002
14 Fomesafen POST 54 (25 , 81) 0.0009
15 2,4-DB POST 86 (61 , 99) <0.0001
16 Plant oil POST 46 (19 , 74) 0.0039
17 Glyphosate POST 98 (83 , 98) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 38 (13 , 67) 0.0145
19 Flumioxazin POST 83 (57 , 99) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 45 (18 , 74) 0.0044
21 Between row cultivation Organic 82 (55 , 98) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 92 (69 , 100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 42 (16 , 71) 0.0078
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 54 (25 , 81) 0.0009
Treatment
?????? % ??????
POST
 
75 
?
Table 2.05: Lesser swinecress [Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm.] control as influenced by herbicide and organic 
treatment by rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 3 ( 1 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  6)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 93 (80 , 99) <0.0001 94 (80 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 96 (86 ,100) <0.0001 87 (70 , 98) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001 93 (79 ,100) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 86 (71 , 97) <0.0001 75 (55 , 91) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 45 (26 , 65) <0.0001 39 (20 , 61) 0.0004
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 41 (23 , 60) <0.0001 46 (25 , 67) 0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 78 (60 , 92) <0.0001 71 (49 , 88) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 94 (80 ,100) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (91 , 99) <0.0001 95 (82 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 95 (83 ,100) <0.0001 91 (75 , 99) <0.0001
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A 14 ( 3 , 32) 0.1671
13 Fluazifop POST N/A 5 ( 0 , 19) 0.7847
14 Fomesafen POST N/A 42 (22 , 64) 0.0002
15 2,4-DB POST N/A 68 (46 , 86) <0.0001
16 Plant oil POST N/A 7 ( 0 , 21) 0.6714
17 Glyphosate POST N/A 92 (76 , 99) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A 27 (11 , 48) 0.0081
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A 10 ( 1 , 27) 0.3597
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A 85 (67 , 97) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 73 (54 , 88) <0.0001 76 (56 , 92) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 84 (68 , 96) <0.0001 95 (81 ,100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 17 ( 5 , 34) 0.2111 47 (26 , 68) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 18 ( 6 , 36) 0.1432 27 (11 , 48) 0.0081
PRE POST
??????????? % ???????????
Treatment
 
76 
?
Table 2.06: Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatment by rating 
at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 4 ( 2 ,  8) 0 ( 0 ,  4)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 94 (82 ,100) <0.0001 92 (81 , 99) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 96 (85 ,100) <0.0001 77 (62 , 89) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 98 (89 ,100) <0.0001 78 (63 , 90) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 95 (83 ,100) <0.0001 93 (83 , 99) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 86 (69 , 97) <0.0001 76 (60 , 88) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 89 (74 , 98) <0.0001 82 (68 , 93) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 93 (79 ,100) <0.0001 75 (59 , 88) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 97 (86 ,100) <0.0001 13 ( 4 , 25) 0.0616
10 Flumioxazin PRE 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 81 (66 , 92) 0.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 90 (75 , 99) <0.0001 4 ( 0 , 13) 0.6698
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A 34 (19 , 50) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST N/A 66 (50 , 81) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST N/A 40 (24 , 56) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST N/A 50 (34 , 66) <0.0001
16 Plant oil POST N/A 61 (45 , 77) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST N/A 81 (67 , 92) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A 66 (50 , 81) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A 58 (41 , 73) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A 0 ( 3 ,  3) 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 68 (48 , 85) <0.0001 61 (45 , 76) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 74 (55 , 89) <0.0001 87 (74 , 96) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 56 (36 , 75) <0.0001 88 (75 , 96) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 32 (15 , 52) 0.0031 87 (74 , 96) <0.0001
Treatment PRE POST
??????????? % ???????????
 
77 
?
Table 2.07: Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) control as 
influenced by herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at Plant 
Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 ( 0 ,  2)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 94 (85 , 99) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 96 (88 ,100) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 93 (84 , 99) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 89 (78 , 97) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 94 (85 , 99) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 93 (83 , 98) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 96 (89 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 95 (86 , 99) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron POST 97 (91 ,100) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 94 (85 , 99) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 83 (70 , 92) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 94 (85 , 99) <0.0001
16 Chlorimuron POST 67 (52 , 80) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 86 (74 , 94) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 84 (71 , 93) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 80 (67 , 91) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 91 (81 , 98) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 93 (84 , 99) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001
Treatment POST
????? % ?????
 
78 
?
Table 2.08: Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) control as influenced by 
herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at Plant Breeding Unit in 
Tallassee, AL in 2007. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 ( 0 ,  3)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 73 (60 , 84) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 76 (63 , 87) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 84 (72 , 93) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 97 (91 ,100) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 95 (87 , 99) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 90 (80 , 97) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 67 (53 , 80) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 91 (81 , 97) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 86 (75 , 94) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron POST 82 (70 , 91) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 94 (86 , 99) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 91 (81 , 97) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 93 (84 , 99) <0.0001
16 Chlorimuron POST 80 (67 , 90) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 85 (73 , 93) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 97 (91 ,100) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 89 (78 , 96) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 91 (81 , 97) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 78 (65 , 88) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 86 (75 , 94) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001
Treatment POST
????? % ?????
 
79 
?
Table 2.09: Henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatment at 
PRE rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 22 (17 , 28) 1 ( 0 ,  3)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 92 (82 , 98) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 97 (88 ,100) <0.0001 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 95 (84 ,100) <0.0001 86 (74 , 95) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 90 (77 , 98) <0.0001 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 88 (77 , 96) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 99 (91 , 99) <0.0001 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 99 (91 , 99) <0.0001 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 93 (81 , 99) <0.0001 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST N/A N/A
12 Carfentrazone (2008) POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chlorimuron (2007) POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 5 ( 0 , 15) 0.0671 49 (34 , 64) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 5 ( 0 , 16) 0.0960 73 (58 , 85) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 49 (31 , 67) 0.0528 7 ( 1 , 17) 0.5615
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 26 (12 , 44) 1.0000 3 ( 0 , 11) 0.9972
Treatment 2007 2008
??????????? % ???????????
 
80 
?
Table 2.10: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic 
treatments at the POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL and Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 
2007. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 ( 0 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  0)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 99 (98 , 99) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 89 (75 , 98) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 93 (80 , 99) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 78 (62 , 91) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 97 (88 ,100) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 47 (29 , 65) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
12 Carfentrazone POST 87 (73 , 97) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 74 (57 , 88) <0.0001 98 (98 , 99) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 61 (43 , 78) <0.0001 99 (98 , 99) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 48 (31 , 66) <0.0001 98 (97 , 98) <0.0001
16 Plant oil POST 98 (89 ,100) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 92 (80 , 99) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 50 (32 , 68) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 89 (75 , 98) <0.0001 99 (98 , 99) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 64 (46 , 80) <0.0001 99 (98 , 99) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 91 (77 , 98) <0.0001 99 (98 , 99) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 92 (79 , 99) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 73 (56 , 88) <0.0001 99 (99 , 99) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 85 (70 , 96) <0.0001 98 (98 , 99) <0.0001
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? % ???????????
 
81 
?
Table 2.11: Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic 
treatment at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL and Plant breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 
2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 2 ( 0 , 13) 0 ( 0 ,  2)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 91 (77 , 99) <0.0001 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 93 (81 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 80 (63 , 93) <0.0001 94 (88 , 98) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 63 (43 , 80) <0.0001 97 (91 , 99) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 93 (79 , 99) <0.0001 96 (91 , 99) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 96 (86 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 98 (89 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 96 (85 ,100) <0.0001 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 95 (83 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
12 Carfentrazone POST 74 (55 , 89) <0.0001 96 (90 , 99) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 43 (25 , 62) 0.0008 90 (82 , 95) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 99 (91 , 99) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 63 (44 , 80) <0.0001 98 (93 ,100) <0.0001
16 Plant oil POST 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 57 (38 , 76) <0.0001 97 (92 ,100) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 83 (66 , 95) <0.0001 95 (90 , 99) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 72 (53 , 87) <0.0001 97 (92 ,100) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 71 (53 , 87) <0.0001 99 (95 ,100) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 92 (78 , 99) <0.0001 95 (89 , 99) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 99 (95 ,100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 77 (59 , 91) <0.0001 95 (90 , 99) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 69 (51 , 85) <0.0001 96 (90 , 99) <0.0001
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? % ???????????
 
82 
?
Table 2.12: Shepherd?s purse [Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.] control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatments at 
POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 2007 and at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 3 ( 0 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  2) 0 (0 , 15)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 92 (70 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 93 (72 ,100) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 98 (81 , 98) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 97 (94 ,100) <0.0001 95 (90 , 99) <0.0001 42 (15 , 71) 0.0651
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 97 (93 , 99) <0.0001 90 (82 , 95) <0.0001 3 ( 2 , 20) 0.9999
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 96 (91 , 99) <0.0001 21 ( 3 , 49) 0.3890
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 64 (35 , 89) 0.0051
9 Diclosulam PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (85 , 96) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 98 (81 , 98) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 89 (82 , 94) <0.0001 97 (92 ,100) <0.0001 85 (59 , 99) 0.0002
12 Thifensulfuron POST 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 99 (95 ,100) <0.0001 N/A
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A 69 (39 , 91) 0.0028
13 Fluazifop POST 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 95 (89 , 99) <0.0001 32 ( 9 , 61) 0.1578
14 Fomesafen POST 97 (92 , 99) <0.0001 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 94 (73 ,100) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 90 (83 , 95) <0.0001 21 ( 3 , 49) 0.3932
16 Chlorimuron POST 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A 29 ( 7 , 58) 0.2074
17 Glyphosate POST 97 (93 , 99) <0.0001 99 (95 ,100) <0.0001 96 (76 , 99) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 97 (93 , 99) <0.0001 91 (84 , 96) <0.0001 36 (12 , 66) 0.1083
19 Flumioxazin POST 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 91 (83 , 96) <0.0001 60 (31 , 86) 0.0082
20 Imazethapyr POST 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 96 (91 , 99) <0.0001 97 (79 , 99) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 97 (93 , 99) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 93 (72 ,100) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 98 (83 , 97) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 68 (38 , 91) 0.0032
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 83 (56 , 98) 0.0003
PBU
?????????????????????? % ??????????????????????
2008
Treatment FCU PBU
2007
 
83 
?
Table 2.13: Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic 
treatment at POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL and Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 
2007. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 ( 0 ,  1) 0 ( 0 ,  2)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 98 (96 ,100) <0.0001 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 98 (96 , 99) <0.0001 78 (66 , 88) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 96 (94 , 98) <0.0001 90 (81 , 97) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 98 (95 , 99) <0.0001 93 (85 , 98) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 98 (96 ,100) <0.0001 58 (44 , 70) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 98 (96 , 99) <0.0001 92 (83 , 98) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 99 (97 ,100) <0.0001 82 (70 , 91) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 95 (92 , 98) <0.0001 68 (55 , 79) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 98 (96 , 99) <0.0001 80 (69 , 90) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 95 (92 , 98) <0.0001 87 (77 , 95) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron POST 97 (95 , 99) <0.0001 64 (51 , 76) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 98 (96 , 99) <0.0001 99 (95 ,100) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 97 (95 , 99) <0.0001 67 (54 , 79) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 94 (91 , 97) <0.0001 76 (64 , 87) <0.0001
16 Chlorimuron POST 93 (90 , 96) <0.0001 65 (52 , 77) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 99 (97 ,100) <0.0001 89 (79 , 96) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 98 (96 ,100) <0.0001 96 (89 ,100) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 97 (94 , 99) <0.0001 80 (68 , 89) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 95 (92 , 97) <0.0001 77 (65 , 87) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 97 (94 , 99) <0.0001 79 (67 , 89) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 98 (95 , 99) <0.0001 93 (85 , 98) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 98 (96 ,100) <0.0001 88 (78 , 95) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 99 (97 ,100) <0.0001 81 (70 , 90) <0.0001
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? % ???????????
 
84 
?
Table 2.14: Cutleaf-evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatments at POST 
rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL and Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 2 ( 1 , 13) 0 ( 0 ,  3) 0 ( 0 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  5)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 92 (78 , 99) <0.0001 95 (88 , 99) <0.0001 77 (54 , 93) <0.0001 72 (53 , 88) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001 91 (82 , 97) <0.0001 73 (51 , 91) <0.0001 81 (64 , 94) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 70 (50 , 86) <0.0001 83 (72 , 92) <0.0001 85 (65 , 98) <0.0001 75 (57 , 90) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 45 (26 , 65) 0.0015 36 (23 , 50) <0.0001 30 (11 , 53) 0.0182 12 ( 2 , 27) 0.1984
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 42 (23 , 62) 0.0031 14 ( 6 , 25) 0.0054 10 ( 1 , 27) 0.5673 12 ( 3 , 28) 0.1746
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 23 ( 9 , 42) 0.1595 28 (16 , 41) <0.0001 23 ( 7 , 45) 0.0681 6 ( 0 , 19) 0.6044
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 39 (21 , 59) 0.0065 48 (34 , 62) <0.0001 18 ( 4 , 40) 0.1434 8 ( 1 , 21) 0.4548
9 Diclosulam PRE 96 (84 ,100) <0.0001 94 (86 , 99) <0.0001 85 (64 , 97) <0.0001 91 (77 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 95 (87 , 99) <0.0001 94 (79 ,100) <0.0001 95 (83 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 85 (69 , 96) <0.0001 92 (83 , 98) <0.0001 48 (26 , 71) 0.0003 96 (84 ,100) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST 15 ( 4 , 32) 0.5624 31 (18 , 44) <0.0001 N/A N/A
12 Carfentrazone (2008) POST N/A N/A 62 (39 , 83) <0.0001 35 (18 , 54) 0.0007
13 Fluazifop POST 57 (37 , 76) 0.0001 50 (36 , 64) <0.0001 66 (43 , 86) <0.0001 28 (13 , 47) 0.0041
14 Fomesafen POST 59 (39 , 77) <0.0001 70 (56 , 82) <0.0001 41 (19 , 64) 0.0018 75 (56 , 89) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 98 (89 , 99) <0.0001 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 82 (61 , 96) <0.0001 96 (85 ,100) <0.0001
16 Chlorimuron (2007) POST 98 (89 ,100) <0.0001 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001 N/A N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A N/A 58 (34 , 79) <0.0001 14 ( 3 , 29) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 69 (50 , 86) <0.0001 83 (71 , 92) <0.0001 95 (79 ,100) <0.0001 91 (76 , 99) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 45 (26 , 65) 0.0014 45 (32 , 59) <0.0001 39 (18 , 62) 0.0028 25 (11 , 44) 0.0091
19 Flumioxazin POST 93 (79 ,100) <0.0001 88 (77 , 95) <0.0001 81 (60 , 96) <0.0001 68 (48 , 84) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 81 (63 , 94) <0.0001 85 (74 , 94) <0.0001 82 (61 , 96) <0.0001 96 (85 ,100) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 58 (38 , 77) <0.0001 74 (61 , 86) <0.0001 84 (64 , 97) <0.0001 75 (57 , 90) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 80 (61 , 93) <0.0001 88 (77 , 95) <0.0001 92 (75 ,100) <0.0001 92 (79 , 99) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 96 (84 ,100) <0.0001 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001 61 (37 , 82) <0.0001 35 (18 , 54) 0.0007
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 95 (83 ,100) <0.0001 98 (91 ,100) <0.0001 43 (21 , 67) 0.0010 63 (44 , 81) <0.0001
?????????????????????? % ??????????????????????
PBUFCU
2007 2008
Treatment FCU PBU
 
85 
?
Table 2.15: Winter vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatments at POST rating at Field Crops 
Unit in Shorter, AL in 2007 and 2008, and at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 6 ( 0 , 20) 0 ( 0,  5) 0 (0 ,  6)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 97 (89 ,100) <0.0001 97 (86 ,100) <0.0001 96 (82 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 89 (76 , 97) <0.0001 81 (63 , 94) <0.0001 67 (43 , 87) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 94 (84 , 99) <0.0001 72 (52 , 88) <0.0001 76 (53 , 93) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 96 (86 ,100) <0.0001 66 (46 , 83) <0.0001 85 (64 , 98) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 95 (85 ,100) <0.0001 86 (69 , 97) <0.0001 46 (23 , 70) 0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 95 (85 ,100) <0.0001 61 (40 , 79) <0.0001 92 (75 ,100) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 73 (53 , 88) <0.0001 83 (61 , 97) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 98 (85 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 83 (69 , 94) <0.0001 74 (54 , 89) <0.0001 90 (72 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 79 (64 , 91) <0.0001 60 (40 , 79) <0.0001 49 (26 , 73) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 89 (73 , 98) <0.0001 N/A
12 Carfentrazone (2008) POST N/A N/A 70 (46 , 90) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 94 (84 ,100) <0.0001 57 (37 , 76) <0.0001 82 (60 , 96) <0.0001
14 Fomesafen POST 93 (82 , 99) <0.0001 63 (43 , 81) <0.0001 77 (54 , 94) <0.0001
15 2,4-DB POST 96 (87 ,100) <0.0001 76 (57 , 91) <0.0001 73 (49 , 91) <0.0001
16 Chlorimuron (2007) POST 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 98 (88 ,100) <0.0001 N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A N/A 51 (28 , 75) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 92 (81 , 99) <0.0001 71 (51 , 87) <0.0001 94 (78 ,100) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 93 (83 , 99) <0.0001 53 (33 , 72) <0.0001 54 (30 , 77) <0.0001
19 Flumioxazin POST 95 (84 ,100) <0.0001 79 (61 , 93) <0.0001 80 (57 , 95) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 91 (80 , 98) <0.0001 65 (45 , 83) <0.0001 68 (43 , 88) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 96 (87 ,100) <0.0001 91 (76 , 99) <0.0001 94 (77 ,100) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 95 (84 ,100) <0.0001 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001 94 (78 ,100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 98 (90 ,100) <0.0001 76 (57 , 91) <0.0001 54 (30 , 78) <0.0001
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 95 (85 ,100) <0.0001 81 (63 , 94) <0.0001 55 (31 , 78) <0.0001
?????????????????????? % ??????????????????????
2007 2008
Treatment FCU PBU FCU
 
86 
?
Table 2.16: Heartwing sorrel (Rumex hastatulus Baldw.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatment at POST rating at 
Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 2007 and 2008, and at PRE rating at Plant Breeding Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 3 ( 0 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  5) 4 ( 2 ,  8)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 75 (58 , 89) <0.0001 94 (79 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 86 (71 , 96) <0.0001 98 (87 ,100) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 96 (92 , 99) <0.0001 75 (57 , 89) <0.0001 92 (77 , 99) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 92 (86 , 97) <0.0001 37 (20 , 55) 0.0002 88 (71 , 98) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 93 (81 , 99) <0.0001 48 (27 , 69) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 46 (26 , 68) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 94 (82 ,100) <0.0001 79 (60 , 94) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 99 (92 , 99) <0.0001 98 (89 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 94 (82 ,100) <0.0001 99 (90 , 99) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 44 (27 , 63) <0.0001 97 (86 ,100) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST 96 (92 , 99) <0.0001 N/A N/A
12 Carfentrazone (2008) POST N/A 33 (17 , 51) 0.0006 N/A
13 Fluazifop POST 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 20 ( 7 , 36) 0.0241 N/A
14 Fomesafen POST 95 (90 , 98) <0.0001 14 ( 4 , 29) 0.1101 N/A
15 2,4-DB POST 93 (87 , 97) <0.0001 20 ( 8 , 37) 0.0205 N/A
16 Chlorimuron (2007) POST 96 (91 , 99) <0.0001 N/A N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A 24 (11 , 42) 0.0070 N/A
17 Glyphosate POST 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 93 (80 , 99) <0.0001 N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST 97 (93 , 99) <0.0001 27 (13 , 45) 0.0033 N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 46 (28 , 64) <0.0001 N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST 97 (94 ,100) <0.0001 80 (63 , 92) <0.0001 N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 97 (92 , 99) <0.0001 89 (75 , 98) <0.0001 73 (53 , 90) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 99 (96 ,100) <0.0001 96 (87 ,100) <0.0001 84 (65 , 96) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 98 (94 ,100) <0.0001 29 (14 , 47) 0.0017 29 (12 , 50) 0.0234
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 98 (95 ,100) <0.0001 23 (10 , 40) 0.0100 20 ( 6 , 39) 0.3202
?????????????????????? % ??????????????????????
FCU PBU
Treatment 2007 2008 2008
 
87 
?
Table 2.17: Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatment at the 
POST rating at Field Crops Unit in Shorter, AL in 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0 ( 0 ,  6) 0 ( 0 ,  6)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 98 (89 , 99) <0.0001 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 96 (85 ,100) <0.0001 74 (55 , 90) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 97 (87 ,100) <0.0001 83 (65 , 95) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 99 (91 , 99) <0.0001 57 (37 , 77) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 99 (90 , 99) <0.0001 78 (59 , 93) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 99 (90 , 99) <0.0001 98 (88 ,100) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 99 (90 , 99) <0.0001 91 (76 , 99) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 88 (72 , 98) <0.0001 79 (61 , 93) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (90 , 99) <0.0001 94 (80 ,100) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 88 (72 , 98) <0.0001 42 (23 , 63) 0.0003
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST 43 (23 , 64) 0.0003 N/A
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A 23 ( 8 , 42) 0.0292
13 Fluazifop POST 80 (61 , 94) <0.0001 7 ( 0 , 21) 0.6489
14 Fomesafen POST 22 ( 7 , 41) 0.0396 14 ( 3 , 31) 0.1718
15 2,4-DB POST 39 (20 , 59) 0.0008 6 ( 0 , 19) 0.7628
16 Chlorimuron (2007) POST 93 (78 ,100) <0.0001 N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A 26 (10 , 45) 0.0160
17 Glyphosate POST 88 (72 , 98) <0.0001 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 71 (50 , 87) <0.0001 7 ( 0 , 20) 0.6549
19 Flumioxazin POST 98 (87 ,100) <0.0001 80 (62 , 94) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST 86 (68 , 97) <0.0001 34 (17 , 55) 0.0021
21 Between row cultivation Organic 87 (70 , 98) <0.0001 81 (63 , 94) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 75 (55 , 90) <0.0001 85 (67 , 96) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 94 (81 ,100) <0.0001 8 ( 0 , 22) 0.5735
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 93 (80 ,100) <0.0001 17 ( 5 , 35) 0.1036
Treatment 2007 2008
??????????? % ???????????
 
88 
?
Table 2.18: Corn spurry (Spergula arvensis L.) control as influenced by herbicide and organic treatment by rating at Plant Breeding 
Unit in Tallassee, AL in 2007 and 2008. 
No Name Class Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean 95% CI
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 35 (27 , 44) 0 ( 0 ,  3) 4 ( 2 ,  7) 0 ( 0 ,  6)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 99 (90 , 98) <0.0001 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 99 (89 , 98) <0.0001 97 (84 ,100) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 99 (89 , 98) <0.0001 86 (74 , 95) <0.0001 96 (83 ,100) <0.0001 85 (65 , 98) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 99 (90 , 98) <0.0001 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 99 (88 , 99) <0.0001 93 (77 ,100) <0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 98 (87 , 99) <0.0001 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 76 (54 , 93) <0.0001 63 (40 , 84) <0.0001
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 98 (87 , 99) <0.0001 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 97 (84 ,100) <0.0001 96 (82 ,100) <0.0001
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 94 (80 ,100) <0.0001 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 94 (79 ,100) <0.0001 92 (74 ,100) <0.0001
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 98 (87 , 99) <0.0001 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 98 (88 , 99) <0.0001 96 (81 ,100) <0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 99 (89 , 98) <0.0001 97 (90 ,100) <0.0001 95 (81 ,100) <0.0001 91 (73 , 99) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 99 (90 , 98) <0.0001 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 99 (89 , 98) <0.0001 98 (86 , 99) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 98 (86 , 99) <0.0001 97 (89 ,100) <0.0001 90 (73 , 99) <0.0001 97 (83 ,100) <0.0001
12 Thifensulfuron (2007) POST N/A 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001 N/A N/A
12 Carfentrazone (2008) POST N/A N/A N/A 55 (32 , 77) 0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST N/A 65 (49 , 78) <0.0001 N/A 6 ( 0 , 22) 0.8047
14 Fomesafen POST N/A 37 (23 , 52) <0.0001 N/A 19 ( 5 , 41) 0.1242
15 2,4-DB POST N/A 60 (44 , 74) <0.0001 N/A 5 ( 0 , 19) 0.9214
16 Chloriumron (2007) POST N/A 98 (92 ,100) <0.0001 N/A N/A
16 Plant oil (2008) POST N/A N/A N/A 32 (13 , 56) 0.0124
17 Glyphosate POST N/A 92 (82 , 99) <0.0001 N/A 98 (85 , 99) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A 84 (71 , 94) <0.0001 N/A 45 (23 , 68) 0.0010
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A 93 (83 , 99) <0.0001 N/A 81 (60 , 96) <0.0001
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A 88 (76 , 96) <0.0001 N/A 96 (81 ,100) <0.0001
21 Between row cultivation Organic 5 ( 0 , 19) 0.0088 88 (76 , 96) <0.0001 55 (32 , 77) <0.0001 83 (62 , 96) <0.0001
22 Between-within row Organic 6 ( 0 , 20) 0.0149 93 (82 , 99) <0.0001 86 (67 , 98) <0.0001 95 (80 ,100) <0.0001
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 59 (36 , 80) 0.4856 99 (94 ,100) <0.0001 2 ( 1 , 13) 1.0000 7 ( 0 , 24) 0.7208
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 45 (23 , 67) 0.9993 99 (93 ,100) <0.0001 0 ( 5 ,  5) 0.7686 44 (22 , 68) 0.0012
POST
PBU 2008
?????????????????????? % ??????????????????????
PBU 2007
Treatment PRE POST PRE
 
89 
?
III. EFFECTS OF WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON CROP INJURY 
AND YIELD IN WHITE LUPIN (LUPINUS ALBUS L.) 
 
Abstract 
 White lupin (Lupinus albus L.) is one of four agronomically important lupin 
species world wide. Today white lupin is used as human food, animal feed and as cover a 
crop in conservation agriculture. The availability of winter-type cultivars are reasons for 
the major interest in white lupin in the southeastern United States. Winter-type Lupinus 
albus L. cultivars can be used in winter grain rotations and as mid-winter forage for 
ruminants. White lupins are poor weed competitors during early establishment, which 
makes effective weed control necessary. A two-year experiment was established at two 
sites at E.V. Smith Research Center of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station in 
2007 and 2008. The weed management schemes evaluated included ten pre-emergence 
(PRE) and nine post-emergence (POST) herbicide treatments as well as cultural 
treatments (two mechanical and two companion crop living mulch weed control 
measures). The objective of this experiment was to investigate the use of weed 
management practices and their effect on white lupin injury, plant density and yield. It 
was found that the PRE herbicides diclosulam and flumioxazin resulted in unacceptable 
crop injury and subsequent yield loss in 2007 and 2008. The POST herbicides 
90 
?
thifensulfuron and chlorimuron caused complete crop injury (death) of all three cultivars 
in 2007. Hence these herbicides were excluded in study year 2008. Application of 
glyphosate lead to inacceptable crop injury and significant yield reduction, but did not 
significantly reduce crop density. 
 
Introduction 
Lupinus albus L., a species of the botanical family of Fabaceae, is one of the four 
major economical important large-seeded lupin species currently grown worldwide. The 
other three species are yellow lupin (L. luteus L.), narrowleafed or blue lupin (L. 
angustifolius L.), and Andean lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet) (Bhardwaj, 2002). 
Due to the availability of winter-type cultivars white lupin is of particular interest 
in the southeastern USA. This species was grown successfully in the southeastern United 
States from the 1930s to the 1950s as a cover crop and for the fixation of nitrogen 
(Roberson, 1991). After the 1950s white lupin production declined due to loss of 
government support, freeze damage in two consecutive years and the increased 
availability of inorganic fertilizers (Payne et al., 2004; van Santen and Reeves, 2003; 
Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Recently, there has been renewed interest in this crop 
in the United States and Canada as an alternative legume crop and for its yield potential. 
Research has been conducted to improve seed quality, genetic improvement for cold, 
disease and pest tolerance, and to determine best management cultural practices (Faluyi, 
et al., 2000; Payne et al., 2004; Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Winter-type L. albus 
91 
?
L. cultivars increased lint yield in cotton (Gosssypium hirsutum L.) when used in a winter 
grain rotation (Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Traditionally, white lupin has been 
used as livestock feed especially as mid-winter forage for ruminants due to a forage 
quality similar to that of alfalfa (Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Additionally, L. albus 
L. is used as human food and winter cover crop in conservation agriculture (Hill, 1990; 
Hill, 2005; Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005).  
Due to a slow canopy development white lupin is a poor weed competitor during 
early establishment. Effective weed control is necessary to reduce the competition for 
water, nutrients and lights among L. albus L. and weed species (Putnam et al., 1989; 
Poetsch, 2006). 
Research has been conducted to evaluate weed control treatments in white lupin 
that successfully control local weeds and would not cause crop injury and subsequent 
yield loss. Yield reduction was found to be related to crop injury and stand reductions in 
soybean (Taylor-Lovell et al., 2001). Knott (1996) found that lupins are especially 
sensitive to post-emergence herbicides (POST). In a study to evaluate the tolerance of 
autumn-sown determinate white lupin to herbicides Knott (1996) found that the POST 
aryloxyphenoxypropionate (fop) fluazifop did not damage white lupin, but that 
Sulfonlyurea herbicides such as metsulfuron did. Successful pre-emergence (PRE) 
herbicide treatments that resulted in no crop damage were the dinitroaniline herbicide 
pendimethalin (Mitich et al., 1989; Knott, 1996). Pendimethalin in combination with the 
triazine herbicide metribuzin did not cause crop damage (Knott, 1996). Metribuzin at 
twice the normal application rate resulted in unacceptable yield loss (Knott, 1996). 
92 
?
Similar results were observed by Ivany and McCully in 1994. It was found that 
increasing application rates of metribuzin resulted in increased sweet white lupin injury 
(1-29% crop injury). Metolachlor, a chloroacetamide herbicide, was also evaluated and it 
did not damage lupin (Ivany and McCully, 1994). A mixture of metolachlor with linuron 
(a substituted Urea herbicide) also was safe on sweet white lupin (0% crop injury). 
Additionally, it was found that the herbicide imazethpyr provided successful weed 
control and was safe on white lupin when applied PRE. POST application of imazethapyr 
resulted in 15% to 24% crop injury and yield reduction while giving good weed control 
(Ivany and McCully, 1994). Penner et al (1993) found that imazethapyr caused crop 
damage of 35% to 60% when applied either POST or PRE. 
Hagemann Wiedenhoeft and Ciha (1987) reported that 2,4-DB, a carboxy acid, 
applied at the 1-2 leaf stage injured white lupin to 99 to 100%, whereas the rates applied 
at the 3-4 leaf stage only injured white lupin to 59 to 73%. Furthermore it was found that 
pendimethalin (PRE) did not injure white lupin, but that metribuzin caused of 98% to 
100% injury. The POST-applied herbicides fluazifop and sethoxydim (a 
cyclohexanedione herbicide) were safe on white lupin and only caused 1% to 20% injury 
(Hagemann Wiedenhoeft and Ciha, 1987).  
Penner et al. (1993) also found that the PRE-applied pendimethalin, metolachlor 
and linuron as well as the POST-applied fluazifop and sethoxydim caused 0% crop 
damage. The PRE metribuzin injured sweet white lupin to 61% and the POST 2,4-DB 
caused 17% crop injury in the greenhouse study conducted by Penner et al. (1993). 
93 
?
 Due to the high costs of hand hoeing as a weed management tool, it is used 
primarily in high value crops or as supplement to other weed control practices. It is 
successful on weed seedlings and annual/biennial weeds (Anderson, 1996). Organic 
production, an important sector in US agriculture, requires the use of mechanical weed 
control practices. To be certified as an organic farm the producer has to follow the 
guidelines of the National Organic Program (NOP) from the seeds used to grow the crops 
to the final product. The NOP is a program developed by the United States Department of 
Agriculture and limits the use of synthetic herbicides and therefore other weed control 
practices such as hoeing are necessary (Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication, 
2009). It was found that lentil yield was higher in hand-hoed plots than in plots in which 
herbicides such as linuron and metribuzin were used (Sandhu et al., 1991). 
Cover crops, also an important weed management tool in organic farming and 
conservation agriculture, have the benefits to lower fertilizer costs, reduce soil erosion, 
improve soil moisture, enhance organic matter, break pest cycles and reduce the use of 
pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) (Bowman et al., 1998). Cover crops 
out-compete weeds or reduce weed pressure by allelopathy (Anderson, 1996). A 
relatively new cover crop for the Southeastern USA is black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), 
a cool-season annual cereal that has been used successfully for many years as a cover 
crop for soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in Brazil (Bowman et al., 1998). Black oat is 
promising due to its exceptional allelopathic activity and large biomass production (Price 
et al., 2008). Even though black oat is successfully used as a weed management tool in 
soybean, cotton shows sensitivity to its allelopathic activity (CTAHR, 11-07-2008). 
94 
?
Only three herbicides are currently registered for the use in Lupinus ssp: 
carfentrazone-ethyl, S-metolachlor and glyphosate (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
The objective of this experiment is to investigate the use of various weed management 
practices and their effect on white lupin injury, plant density and yield. 
 
Materials and Methods 
A two year experiment to investigate the effect of weed management practices on 
crop injury in L. albus L. was established at two test sites at E.V. Smith Research Center 
of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station in October 2007 and 2008 respectively.  
Treatment and experiment design 
The experiment had a 2 (year) x 2 (location) x 3 (cultivar) x 4 (block) x 24 (weed 
control) factorial arrangement of treatment and design factors. The two locations of the 
experiment were the Field Crops Unit (FCU), near Shorter, AL (32.42 N, 85.88 W) and 
the Plant Breeding Unit (PBU), Tallassee, AL (32.49 N, 85.89 W). At FCU the field 
experiment was established on a Compass loamy sand (a coarse-loamy, siliceous, 
subactive, thermic Plinthic Paleudults with a loamy sand surface structure). At PBU the 
experiment was conducted on a Wickham sandy loam (a fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, 
thermic Typic Hapludults with a sandy loam surface structure). The three lupin cultivars 
used in the experiment were AU Homer (a high-alkaloid, indeterminate cover crop type), 
AU Alpha (a low-alkaloid, indeterminate forage type), and ABL 1082 (a low-alkaloid, 
determinate grain type experimental cultivar). The experimental design was a randomized 
95 
?
complete block design (r = 4) nested within each year x location x cultivar combination. 
The weed control factor had 24 levels: one non-treated control, 10 PRE-applied herbicids, 
nine POST-applied herbicides, two mechanical (hand hoed) weed control treatments, as 
well as two cultural (living mulch) weed control treatments (Table 2.01).  
Crop management 
Inoculated lupin was seeded in 4 row plots with a John Deer
?
 1700 four-row 
vacuum planter with a row spacing of 90 cm at a depth of 1.25 cm in October 2007 and 
October 2008. The seeding density was 19 seeds m
-1
 
. A smooth seedbed was prepared 
one to two weeks prior to planting in 2007. In 2008, the cultivars were planted on raised 
beds prepared with a KMC 4 row ripper/bedder due to concerns about water logging at 
both locations. The plot length was 7.5 m at PBU, and 7.5 m and 6 m at FCU in 2007 and 
2008, respectively. The PRE herbicide treatments were applied one day after planting in 
both years. Application of POST herbicides followed 13 (2007) to 16 (2008 due to heavy 
rainfall) weeks after planting. The cultural control treatments, cv. SoilSaver and As_033 
(a selection from PI 436103) black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), were sown one (2007) to 
seven days (2008) after seeding of the lupin crop. The mechanical weed control 
treatments, between row only cultivation and between and within row cultivation, were 
used twice four (2007) to six (2008) weeks after planting and 18 to 20 (2 blocks at the 
PBU test site due to heavy rains) weeks after planting.  
 
96 
?
Crop Injury Ratings 
 Crop injury ratings were taken on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is equivalent to no 
injury/alive, and 10 is equivalent to complete crop injury/dead. Two crop injury ratings 
per treatment/plot were taken at both locations in 2007. Three crop injury ratings per 
treatment/plot were taken at both locations in 2008. Each treatment was rated based on 
the injury in the non-treated control in block one of every year* location*cultivar 
combination. The non-treated control was considered to have 0 crop injury. In study year 
2007 the first injury rating was taken after only the PRE treatments were applied (3 
weeks after PRE application). The second rating was taken 2 weeks after the POST 
treatments were applied. In study year 2008 the first two ratings were taken after only the 
PRE treatments were applied (4 and 12 weeks after PRE application). The third rating 
was taken 2 weeks after the POST treatments were applied. 
Stand Count 
 Stand counts were taken to determine the plant density. Plants in the two center 
rows of each four row plot were counted along a three meter PVC pole. Three stand 
counts were taken in year 2007. The first count was taken 6 weeks after PRE and the 
second count 11 weeks after PRE. The third and final stand count was taken 3 weeks 
after POST treatments were applied. In 2008 two stand counts were taken 4 weeks and 8 
weeks after PRE treatments were applied. Due to heavy rains after POST application in 
study year 2008 the plots were inaccessible for stand counts.  
 
97 
?
Yield 
 In study year 2007/2008 plots at PBU and FCU were harvested on June 17, 2008. 
In study year 2008/2009 plots at FCU were harvested on June 16, 2009 and at PBU on 
June 29, 2009 due to differences in reaching maturity at both locations. To determine the 
plot yield as influenced by weed management practice the two center rows of each plot 
were harvested with a 2 row/10 ft Massey Ferguson plot combine. The seed of each plot 
was bagged separately. The seeds of each bag were weighed and the weight in kg was 
noted. Once the plot yield was noted a test weight (subsample) of each bag was taken in g 
per volume (352ml cup). Each subsample was individually bagged and with a seed 
counter (Hoffman Manufacturing Inc.) 500 seeds were counted and the thousand seed 
mass determined. 
Statistical analysis 
 Generalized linear mixed models procedures as implemented in SAS
"
 PROC 
GLIMMIX were used to analyze crop injury, stand count and yield data. Treatments and 
location were considered fixed effects. Replicates were considered random. Statistical 
significance was declared at Dunnett?s P < 0.1. Crop injury data were modeled using 
arcsine transformed data and then analyzed with a normal distribution function. Stand 
density (plants m
-2
), grain yield (kg ha
-1
), test weight (kg 100L
-1
 
) and seed mass (mg per 
seed) were analyzed as normally distributed. 
 
98 
?
Results and Discussion 
Crop injury 
ABL 1082. The three-way interaction (Location*Treatment*cultivar) was non-significant 
!"#$%&?. However the two-way interactions (Treatment*Cultivar and 
Location*Treatment) were significant. In the first rating (3 weeks after PRE herbicide 
application) in 2007 none of the PRE herbicides, cultivation treatments and black oat 
cultivars injured the cultivar when compared to the non-treated control in FCU and PBU 
(Table 3.01). At the same rating (4 weeks after PRE herbicide application) in 2008 the 
PRE applied S-metolachlor/linuron mixture and metribuzin lead to crop injury rating of 1 
at FCU and PBU. This was significantly higher injury than the non-treated control. At 
FCU diclosulam resulted in crop injury of 1, which was significant in comparison to the 
control group. Additionally, at PBU the highest application rate of pendimethalin and 
flumioxazin resulted in crop injury of 1 and 2.5, respectively. Lowest crop injury of 0 
was observed at FCU and PBU in 2008 with between row cultivation. At PBU all organic 
treatments resulted in no injury at all that year (Table 3.01). 
In 2008 only, a second crop injury rating was taken and showed that metribuzin and 
diclosulam injured 1.7 and 5, respectively at FCU. This is significantly higher than the 
non-treated control (Table 3.02). At PBU the PRE herbicides diclosulam (1.35), the S-
metolachlor/linuron mixture (1.46), imazethapyr (1.68) and flumioxazin (2.62) resulted in 
significantly higher crop injury when compared to the non-treated control. No crop injury 
was observed when between-within row cultivation as well as both black oat cultivars 
were used (Table 3.02). 
99 
?
Final crop injury rating was conducted 2 weeks after POST application at both 
locations and years. Over the course of the study injury caused by PRE applied herbicides 
became more apparent. On the injury scale from 0 to 10, diclosulam injured to 9.0 and 
6.0 at FCU and PBU, respectively in 2007 (Table 3.03). In 2008 this herbicides caused 
crop injury of 8.8 and 5.3. Flumioxazin (PRE applied) injury can be found at 6.3 at PBU 
in 2008. In general, the POST herbicides injured ABL 1082 more severely than the PRE 
herbicides (Table 3.03). In 2007, plant death was caused by POST herbicides 
thifensulfuron (10) and chlorimuron (9.94) at both locations. Due to these severe crop 
losses both of these herbicides were substituted by carfentrazone and plant oil in 2008. In 
2007, a mean injury of 8 was caused by fomesafen. Glyphosate caused injury of 6 at FCU 
in 2007, and at both locations in 2008 (Table 3.03). A mean crop injury of 0 was 
observed when between row cultivation was used at FCU in 2008.  
AU Alpha. The three-way interaction (location*treatment*cultivar) was non-significant. 
However the two-way interactions (treatment*cultivar and location*treatment) were 
significant. At the first injury rating (3 weeks after PRE application) in 2007, no 
significant crop injury was observed at either FCU or PBU (Table 3.04). In 2008 the first 
rating was done 4 weeks after PRE application. Crop injury of 1.5 at both locations was 
caused by diclosulam. Flumioxazin resulted in 2.2 injury. Between row and between-
within row cultivation did not injure the cultivar at both locations (Table 3.04). 
A second rating after PRE application (12 weeks) in 2008 only, showed that all 
three application rates of pendimethalin caused no or negligible injury at FCU and PBU 
(Table 3.05). The same was observed for both cultivation and black oat treatments. Mean 
100 
?
injury of 3.7 and 2.7 was caused by diclosulam at FCU and PBU, respectively. The PRE 
applied flumioxazin and imazethapyr resulted in 1.7 injury (Table 3.05). 
The final crop injury rating after POST herbicide application showed that injury 
of the PRE applied herbicide diclosulam became more significant over the course of the 
study. In 2007 diclosulam caused 9.9 injury at FCU, but was not significantly higher than 
the non-treated control at PBU (Table 3.06). The highest application rate of 
pendimethalin caused significant injury (4.0) at FCU only that year. Complete crop injury 
was caused by POST applied thifensulfuron (9.5 and 9.9) and chlorimuron (10.0 and 9.6) 
at FCU and PBU. Based on the injury scale high injury was observed at FCU when the 
POST applied flumioxazin (7.8), fomesafen (6.8) and glyphosate (5.9) were used (Table 
3.06). In study year 2008, diclosulam was the only PRE applied herbicide that caused 
severe crop injury (9.00) at both locations at the final rating (Table 3.06). Injury of 4.5 
and 5.3 was caused by glyphosate at FCU and PBU, respectively. Fomesafen resulted in 
3.2 injury at FCU that year. The POST applied imazethapyr and black oat cultivars 
SoilSaver and As_033 caused either no or negligible injury of this cultivar at FCU in 
2008 (Table 3.06). 
AU Homer. The three-way interaction (location*treatment*cultivar) was non-significant. 
However the two-way interactions (treatment*cultivar and location*treatment) were 
significant. At the first crop injury rating in 2007, all PRE applied herbicides, cultivation 
and black oat treatments resulted in significantly injury equivalent to the non-treated 
control (Table 3.07). Similar results were observed at the same rating in 2008 with the 
exception of the PRE applied flumioxazin and imazethapyr. At PBU both of these 
101 
?
herbicides caused mean crop injury of 1.7 and 1, respectively. This is not severe, but 
nonetheless significantly higher than the non-treated (3.07). At FCU however, 
imazethapyr did not injure this cultivar. The organic treatments caused no crop injury at 
PBU at the first rating at PBU. 
In 2008, at the second crop injury rating, it was found that linuron and all organic 
treatments caused either no or negligible injury (Table 3.08). With mean crop injury of 
4.8 diclosulam severely injured AU Homer at FCU.  At PBU mean crop injury by this 
herbicide was 1.7, which however is significantly higher than the injury observed in the 
non-treated control. Both PRE applied flumioxazin (1.2) and S-metolachlor (1.2) caused 
significantly higher crop injury than the non-treated control (Table 3.08). 
Final crop injury ratings are shown in Table 3.09. In 2007, the PRE applied 
diclosulam caused severe injury of 8.5 and 6.8 at FCU and PBU, respectively. Again it 
can be seen that the POST applied herbicides resulted in more injury in 2007. Total white 
lupin injury was caused by thifensulfuron (10.0 and 9.4) and chlorimuron (10.0 and 9.7) 
at FCU and PBU. Mean crop injury of 6 was caused by the POST applied flumioxazin at 
both locations which is significant in comparison to the non-treated control. Fomesafen 
only caused severe crop injury (7.4) at FCU that year. Metribuzin, linuron, the S-
metolachlor/linuron mixture as well as the organic treatments were safe for use in cultivar 
AU Homer in 2007. In 2008, diclosulam and glyphosate were the only herbicides that 
caused crop injury that was significantly higher than the injury observed in the non-
treated control (Table 3.09). Diclosulam caused mean crop injury of 7.6 and 7.3 at FCU 
and PBU, respectively. Glyphosate only caused significant crop injury (7.8) at PBU. No 
102 
?
or negligible AU Homer injury was caused by the lowest application rate of 
pendimethalin and 2,4-DB at FCU.  
Diclosulam which is applied either preplant incorporated (PPI) or PRE is 
registered in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), was 
found to cause severe injury of more than 80% in non-imidazolinone resistant corn (Zea 
mays L.) by Bailey and Wilcut (2003). Injury ratings shortly after PRE application 
detected marginal injury. However later ratings the following spring revealed higher 
injury of all three white lupin cultivars (>7). The lack of early injury may be due to the 
slow acting nature of AHAS inhibitors and/or reduced growth of lupin after PRE 
application. Based on our results it is suggested to avoid the application of this herbicide 
in white lupin production. The good weed control results observed (Chapter II) with this 
herbicide are misleading if crop injury is not also taken into consideration. 
PRE applied flumioxazin behaved similarly to diclosulam in that highest injury 
was observed at the final rating across all three cultivars. Taylor-Lovell et al. (2001) 
observed that phytotoxicity of flumioxazin to soybean increases with higher soil 
moisture. This may be an explanation why crop injury by this herbicide was higher at 
FCU in 2007. Due to the proximity of the study site to woody areas, half of the plots had 
good moisture throughout the year. Study year 2008 was a wet year and hence soil 
moisture was high throughout the year. Therefore flumioxazin application in white lupin 
should be done carefully in years with low soil moisture or should be avoided all 
together. 
103 
?
Metribuzin only injured AU Alpha significantly at one location at the final rating 
(<5). The results of this study suggest that metribuzin causes minimal white lupin injury. 
Knott (1996) found simimlar results. In his study to investigate the tolerance of 
determinate lupins sown in fall to herbicides, metribuzin had crop injury ratings ranging 
from no injury to severe injury. Based on our observations it should be avoided to use 
this herbicide in cultivar AU Alpha. Our results indicate that white lupin cultivars have 
variable tolerance to metribuzin similar to those observed in soybean by Hardcastle 
(1979). 
Glyphosate is registered POST directed application in lupin in the USA (Crop 
Protection Reference, 2007). Even though this herbicides was applied accordingly crop 
injury in all cultivars ranged from 4 to 7. This may be caused by drift. Since the herbicide 
were applied with a backpack sprayer it is possible that spray height was not uniform. 
With increased care during the application process (no wind) this herbicides may be used 
in white lupin production. 
Thifensulfuron caused complete kill of all three cultivars at FCU and PBU in 
2007.  Hence it was not included again in study year 2008. Thifensulfuron is registered 
for use in soybean, but it was found that phytotoxicity varied in soybean cultivars 
(Nelson et al., 2002).  
Chlorimuron behaved very similar to thifensulfuron. When applied POST caused 
complete kill of all three cultivars in 2007. Therefore it was not included in study year 
2008. Research done by Knott (1996) suggests that sulfonylurea herbicides such 
metsulfuron cause variable crop injury in white lupin ranging from no to injury above 
104 
?
acceptable when applied at the normal field rate and twice the normal field rate. Our 
results suggest that thifensulfuron and chlorimuron should not be used in white lupin. 
The fact that none of the cultivation treatments (between row and between-within 
row) resulted in crop injury level above 1 indicates that hand hoeing is very selective and 
careful. However it is labor-intense and therefore hard to accomplish on a larger scale. 
Both black oat cultivars did not cause crop injury above score 1 either. This may indicate 
that white lupin is not sensitive to the allelopathic activity of black oat as compared to 
cotton (CTAHR, 11-07-2008). 
In general it can be said that unless a weed control treatment caused severe crop 
injury of 4 or more its use in the tested white lupin cultivars is safe. With the exception of 
imazethapyr, all of the ALS inhibitors caused severe crop injury and should not be used 
in white lupin production. It can be concluded that the PRE-applied herbicides, excluding 
for the above mentioned exceptions, were generally safer than the POSTs, which 
confirms observations made by Dittman (1999). 
Plant density 
 In 2008, the two-way interaction location*treatment was significant for both stand 
counts. Plant density (plants m
-2
) was first determined 6 and 4 weeks after PRE 
application in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Results show that the non-treated control 
groups in 2007 had a plant density of 11 and 8 plants m
-2
 at FCU and PBU, respectively. 
The non-treated control groups in 2008 had a plant density of 10 plants per m
-2
 at FCU 
and 11 plants m
-2
 at PBU (Table 3.10). It was found that none of the PRE herbicides and 
105 
?
organic weed control treatments significantly reduced plant density as compared to the 
non-treated control at FCU and PBU in 2007. With the exception of flumioxazin (7.4 
plants m
-2
 Based on the second stand count 11 and 8 weeks after PRE application in 2007 
and 2008 respectively, plant density results for the non-treated control groups were 10.6 
plants m
 at PBU), the same results were obtained in 2008 (Table 3.10).  
-2
 at FCU and 8.1 m
-2
 at PBU in 2007, and 9.6 m
-2
 at FCU and 9.3 m
-2
 at PBU in 
2008 (Table 3.11). This is a slight plant density reduction in study year 2008 as compared 
to the first stand count. In 2007, none of the PRE herbicide and cultivation and black oat 
treatments caused significant plant density reduction as compared to the non-treated 
control. However, at PBU the black oat cultivar SoilSaver with a density of 7.4 m
-2
 had 
the lowest density as compared to the control (Table 3.11). In 2008, with the exception of 
diclosulam and flumioxazin, none of the PRE herbicides and the organic treatments 
reduced plant density. Diclosulam had with 7.2 plants
 
m
-2
 the lowest plant density at FCU 
that year. At PBU, flumioxazin had a plant density of 4.7 plants m
-2
 Taylor-Lovell et al. (2001) reported that soybean density decreased with an 
increasing rate of flumioxazin and that even the field rate of flumioxazin reduced crop 
density 20 to 50%. The PRE applied flumioxazin reduced white lupin density up to 50% 
as well. It was interesting to note that the reduction in lupin density was observed 
primarily in study year 2008. This coincides again with a statement made by Taylor-
Lovell et al. (2001) that phytotoxicity potential of flumioxazin increases with higher soil 
moisture. Diclosulam only reduced stand counts significantly at FCU in 2008. Stand 
 which was a 
significantly lower than that of the non-treated control (Table 3.11). 
106 
?
count reductions by diclosulam seem to be not as closely related to crop injury as for 
instance by flumioxazin. 
Due to heavy rains after POST herbicide application in study year 2008 the plots 
were inaccessible for additional stand counts. However in 2007 it was possible to obtain 
this data. Due to the fact that the three-way interaction of location*treatment*cultivar was 
significant, plant density for each cultivar is presented separately. The plant density of the 
non-treated control groups of cultivar ABL 1082 was 8.8 plants m
-2
 at FCU and 9.2 m
-2
 at 
PBU (Table 3.12). None of the PRE herbicides, with the exception of diclosulam at FCU 
(5.6 m
-2
) reduced plant density of ABL 1082 significantly. The density reduction of ABL 
1082 by diclosulam can be a subsequent effect of the crop injury induced by this 
herbicide. POST applied thifensulfuron and chlorimuron were the only POST herbicides 
that caused significant density reduction of this cultivar at both locations. Both herbicides 
had a density of 0.0 plants m
-2
 (Table 3.12). None of the cultivation and black oat 
treatments caused plant density reductions that were significant. However, at FCU 
between row cultivation had a higher density (10.0 plants m
-2
Very similar results were obtained for cultivar AU Alpha. As can be seen in Table 
3.13 plant, density of the non-treated control was 11.1 plants m
) than the control.  
-2
 at FCU and 5.6 m
-2
 at 
PBU.
 
With the exception of diclosulam at FCU, none of the PRE herbicides caused 
significant reduction of AU Alpha density. Diclosulam had a density of 4.9 m
-2
. This 
coincides with the crop injury results mentioned previously. In case of AU Alpha crop 
injury by diclosulam seems to cause crop density reduction. The only POST applied 
herbicides that reduced plant density of this cultivar significantly were thifensulfuron and 
107 
?
chlorimuron. Thifensulfuron had a density of 2.5 plants m
-2
 at FCU and 0.2 m
-2
 at PBU. 
At both locations chlorimuron caused a density of 0 plants m
-2
Plant density of the non-treated control of AU Homer was 9.9 plants m
. Neither the cultivation 
treatments nor the both black oat cultivars caused significant AU Alpha plant density 
reduction (Table 3.13). Plant density of this cultivar was generally low at PBU.  
-2
 at FCU 
and 8.5 m
-2
 at PBU. None of the PRE herbicides and organic weed control treatments 
caused significant density reductions (Table 3.14). All POST herbicides, with the 
exception of thifensulfuron and chlorimuron, did not reduce or increase density of AU 
Homer significantly. Both herbicides reduced plant density to <0.1 plants m
-2
 at both 
locations. At FCU the POST applied imazethapyr (11.2 m
-2
Based on the results that were obtained at the POST stand count in 2007, it is 
obvious that thifensulfuron and chlorimuron caused severe plant density reduction and 
should not be used in these Lupinus albus L. cultivars. These stand count reductions 
caused by thifensulfuron and chlorimuron are a subsequent effect of the crop injuries 
observed in the previous section.  
) had a higher density than the 
non-treated control. 
Grain yield 
Mean grain yields (kg ha
-1
) were much higher for all three cultivars in 2008 as 
compared to 2007 (Table 3.15). The grain type cultivar ABL 1082 yielded highest of the 
three cultivars in both years. The interaction of treatment and cultivar was statistically 
significant. 
108 
?
ABL 1082. The non-treated control had a mean yield of 1337 kg ha
-1
 in 2007 and of 2074 
kg ha
-1
 in 2008. In both years none of the PRE herbicides, with the exception of 
diclosulam, reduced yield. Diclosulam caused yield losses of nearly 950 kg ha
-1
 in 2007 
and 1430 kg ha
-1
 in 2008 (Table 3.15). Due to the fact that thifensulfuron and 
chlorimuron had yields of 0 kg ha
-1
 in 2007, these two POST applied herbicides were 
replaced by carfentrazone and plant oil in 2008. Plots in which plant oil was applied 
yielded higher (2195 kg ha
-1
) than the non-treated control. This increase was non-
significant. In 2008 glyphosate was the only POST applied herbicide that caused 
significant yield losses of 1700 kg ha
-1
. Plots in which between row cultivation was used 
yielded nearly 220 kg ha
-1
AU Alpha. Mean grain yields of 702 kg ha
 higher than the non-treated control that same year. None of the 
organic treatments significantly reduced mean grain yield of cultivar ABL 1082. 
-1
 in 2007 and 1957 kg ha
-1
 were obtained in 
the non-treated control (Table 3.15). In 2007, none of the PRE and POST applied 
herbicides as well as the organic treatments reduced yield. However the POST herbicides 
thifensulfuron and chlorimuron yielded 218 kg ha
-1
 and 0 kg ha
-1
, respectively. In 2008, 
diclosulam with a mean grain yield of 210 kg ha
1
 was the only PRE herbicide that 
reduced mean yield of this cultivar significantly. Similarly glyphosate (mean grain yield 
735 kg ha
-1
) was the only POST herbicide that caused significant yield reduction. Of the 
organic weed control treatments, between row cultivation (1722 kg ha
-1
AU Homer. The non-treated control had mean grain yields of 555 kg ha
) affected mean 
grain yield the least as compared to the non-treated control. 
-1
 in 2007 and 
1219 kg ha
-1
 in 2008 (Table 3.15). None of the PRE and POST herbicide, and organic 
109 
?
treatments significantly reduced or increased yield as compared to the control in 2007. 
However yield obtained from plots treated with diclosulam was 341 kg ha
-1
 less than that 
of the non-treated control group. Both cultivation treatments and both black oat 
companion crops yielded higher (>140 kg ha
-1
) than the control. 2,4-DB had a mean grain 
yield of 783 kg ha
-1
, which is almost 230 kg ha
-1
 more than that of the non-treated 
control. In 2008, none of the PRE, with the exception of diclosulam, and POST 
herbicides and the organic treatments yielded significantly higher than the non-treated 
control. With a mean grain yield of 548 kg ha
-1
 plots in which diclosulam yielded lowest. 
Highest yields were obtained in plots treated with 2,4-DB (1580 kg ha
-1
), fluazifop (1573 
kg ha
-1
) and the lowest rate of pendimethalin (1522 kg ha
-1
 Experiments conducted by Payne et al. (2004) in the Pacific Northwest showed a 
maximum white lupin yield of 2128 kg ha
). 
-1
, but this yield is not stable. Yield within each 
cultivar varied greatly between years and depending on the treatment. It is obvious that 
the grain-type cultivar ABL 1082 had the highest mean grain yield followed by the 
forage-type cultivar AU Alpha, which is followed by the cover crop-type cultivar AU 
Homer. Based on the results of this experiment diclosulam, thifensulfuron, chlorimuron 
and glyphosate caused major grain yield losses. Taylor-Lovell et al. (2001) reported that 
stand count reductions were more closely related to yield loss than other parameters such 
as crop injury. However this experiment in white lupin suggests that crop injury was 
predominately responsible for these yield reductions. Glyphosate did not reduce crop 
density significantly, but was responsible for severe crop injury and subsequent yield 
reduction in ABL 1082 and AU Alpha. AU Homer appears to be the least sensitive to 
herbicide-induced yield reductions, since neither thifensulfuron nor chlorimuron reduced 
110 
?
grain yield significantly. Ivany and McCully (1994) stated that POST applications of 
imazethapyr caused severe crop injury and yield loss in sweet white lupin. Our results did 
not confirm their findings. Neither the PRE nor the POST imazethpyr applications caused 
significant crop injury or subsequent yield reduction. Maybe this is due to the use of 
different cultivars in this study than those used by Ivany and McCully (1994) or the 
climate and soil differences. The cultivation treatments, between row and between-within 
row (hoeing) yielded as high as or higher than the non-treated control. Mean grain yield 
of cultivars in which these treatments were used was slightly higher than that of plots 
treated with linuron or metribuzin. This coincides with observations made by Sandhu et 
al. (1991) in lentil. This may be a result of the reduced crop injury by these treatments. 
 It is essential to continue the further investigation of the most promising weed 
control practices of this experiment, i.e. imazethapyr, pendimethalin, 2,4-DB, the grass 
active herbicides and organic treatments to ensure the consistency of low crop injury 
levels and high yields in white lupin production. Only an ongoing investigation of the 
promising herbicides can lead to registration of some of these active ingredients for use in 
white lupin. 
Mean test weight 
The mean test weight in the non-treated controls of ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU 
Homer were 80, 77 and 76 kg 100L
-1
, respectively. Mean test weight was not influenced 
significantly by any treatment at the significanc()*(+(*),-)")#)$%& (Table 3.16). In 2008, 
the only exception was diclosulam, which had a significantly lower test weight (77.94 kg 
100L
-1
) than the non-treated control of white lupin cultivar ABL 1082.  
111 
?
Seed mass 
 Mean seed mass (mg seed
-1
) of the three cultivars was lower in 2007 than in 2008. 
In 2007, the non-treated controls had a mean seed mass of 199.94 mg seed
-1
 (ABL 1082), 
212 mg seed 
-1
 (AU Alpha) and 217.98 mg seed
-1
. In 2008, the non-treated controls of 
ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer had a mean seed mass of 230 mg seed
-1
, 255 mg 
seed
-1
 and 254 mg seed
-1
, respectively. Mean seed mass was not influenced significantly 
by the treatments over the course of this study at th()./01/-/2312()*(+(*),-)")#)$%& (Table 
3.17). The only exception was diclosulam in cultivar AU Homer in 2007, which had a 
significantly lower mean seed mass (177 mg seed
-1
 The test weights and seed mass within each cultivar varied little. Even among the 
cultivars theses values were similar to each other. This indicates in my opinion that grain 
yield is primarily influence by the amount of seed produced than by seed size. 
) than the non-treated control. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
112 
?
References 
Anderson, W. P. 1996.Weed Science: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed; West 
Publishing Company.  
Bailey, W. A. and J. W. Wilcut. 2003. Tolerance of Imidazolinone-Resistant Corn (Zea 
mays) to Diclosulam. Weed Technology 17: 60-64. 
Bhardwaj, H. L. 2002. Evaluation of lupin as a new food/feed crop in the US Mid-
Atlantic region. Trends in new crops and uses. ASHS Press. 115-119. 
Bowman, G., C. Shirley and C. Cramer. 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd ed, 
Sustainable Agriculture Network handbook series bk.3. Sustainable Agriculture 
Network. National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD. 
Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication. 2009. Integrated Crop and Pest Management 
Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production 2009. Downloaded from 
http://www.nysaes.Cornell.edu/recommends/11frameset.html (07/16/2009) 
Crop Protection Reference. 2007. 23
rd
CTAHR - College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. University of Hawai?i. 
Sustainable Agriculture in Hawai?i. 2002. Green Manures: non-legumes. Black 
oat (Avena strigosa). [Online]. Available at 
 edition of Greenbook?s Crop Protection Reference. 
Vance Publishing Corporation. Lenexa, KS. 
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/sustainag/GreenManures/black_oat.asp (verified 7. 
Nov. 2008). 
113 
?
Dittman, B. 1999. Chemcial Weed Control in Lupinus Luteus and Lupinus Albus 
Production. pp: 70-73. In: E. van Santen, M. Wink, S. Weissmann, and P. Roemer 
(eds.). Lupin, an Ancient Crop for the New Millenium. Proceedings of the 9
th
Faluyi, M. A., X. M. Zhou, F. Zhang, S. Leibovitch, P. Migner and D. L. Smith. 2000. 
Seed Quality of Sweet white lupin (Lupinus albus) and management practice in 
eastern Cananda. European Journal of Agronomy 13: 27-37. 
 
International Lupin Conference, Klink/M?ritz, 20-24 June, 1999. International 
Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. ISBN 0-86476-123-6. 
Hagemann Wiedenhoeft, M. and A. J. Ciha. 1987. Herbicide Tolerance of White Lupin, 
Agronomy  Journal 79: 999-1002. 
Hardcastle, W. S. 1979. Soybean cultivar response to metribuzin in solution culture. 
Weed Sci. 27: 278-279. 
Hill, G. D. 1990. Proceedings 11
th 
International Lupin Conference ? The Utilitzation of 
Lupins in Animal Nutrition. pp. 68-91. In: D. von Baer (ed.) Proceedings 6
th
Hill, G. D. 2005. The Use of Lupin Seed in Human and Animal Diets ? Revisited. pp. 
252-266. In: E. van Santen and G.D. Hill (eds) Mexico, Where Old and New 
World Lupins Meet. Proceedings of the 11
 
International Lupin Conference, Temuco ? Pucon, Chile, 25-30 November 1990. 
International Lupin Association. 
th
 International Lupin Conference, 
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. May 4-5, 2005. International Lupin Association, 
Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0- 86476-165-1. 
114 
?
Ivany, J. A. and K. V. McCully. 1994. Evaluation of Herbicides for Sweet White Lupin 
(Lupinus albus). Weed Technology 8: 819-823. 
Knott, C. M. 1996. Tolerance of Autumn-Sown Determinate Lupins (Lupinus albus) to 
Herbicides. Test of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 17. Ann. Appl. Biol. 128 
(Supplement). 
Mitich, L. W., K. Cassman and N. L. Smith. 1989. Evaluation of herbicides at three times 
of application in grain lupine. Research Progress Report pp. 313-314. 
Nelson, K. A., K. A. Renner and R. Hammerschmidt. 2002. Cultivar and Herbicide 
Selection Affects Soybean Development and the Incidence of Sclerotinia. 
Agronomy Journal 94: 1270-1281. 
Noffsinger, S. L. and E. van Santen. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for 
the Southeastern USA. Crop Sci 45: 1941-1950. 
Payne, W. A., C. Chen and D. A. Ball. 2004. Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of 
Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of Narrow-Leafed and White Lupins in 
the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy Journal 96: 1501-1508. 
Penner, D., R. H. Leep, F. C. Roggenbuck and J. R. Lempke. 1993. Herbicide Efficacy 
and Tolerance in Sweet White Lupin. Weed Technology 7: 42-46. 
 
 
 
 
115 
?
Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum oekologischen Anbau von 
Koernerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Suedwestdeutschlands, 
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Gruenland der Universitaet Hohenheim, Salzgitter. 
hhtp://opus.ub.uni-
hohenheim.de/volltexte/2007/193/pdf/Dissertation_Poetsch_online.pdf 
Price, A.J., M. E. Stoll, J. S. Bergtold, F. J. Arriaga, K. S. Balkcom, T. S. Kornecki and 
R. L. Raper. 2008. Effect of Cover Crop Extracts on Cotton and Radish Radicle 
Elongation. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science. 3:60-66.?
(11/05/2009). 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=207
514 (11/05/2009). 
Putnam, D.H., Oplinger, E.S., Hardman, L.L., Doll, J.D.: Lupine, Alternative Field Crops 
Manual, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension; University 
of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and the 
Minnesota Extension Service. 
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html (11/9/2007) 
Roberson, R. 1991. Sweet Lupins Promising For Alabama Farmers. Alabama 
Agricultural Experiment Station. Office of Communications April 1
st
 1991. 
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/webpress/1991/lupins.htm (11/30/2007). 
Sandhu, P. S., K. K. Dhingra, S. C. Bhandari and R. P. Gupta. 1991. Effect of hand-
hoeing and application of herbicides on nodulation, nodule activity and grain 
yield of Lens culinaris. Med. Plant and Soil 135: 293-296. 
 
 
116 
?
Santen, E. van and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-
cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In: E. van Santen and G. D. Hill (eds). 
Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the 10
th
Taylor-Lovell, S., L. M. Wax and R. Nelson. 2001. Phytotoxic Response and Yield of 
soybean (Glycine max) Varieties Treated with Sulfentrazone or Flumioxazin. 
Weed Technology 15: 95-102. 
 
International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002. 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealnd. ISBN 0-86476-153-8. 
117 
?
Table 3.01: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks after PRE at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 0.69 (0.34, 1.15) 0.22 (0.05, 0.52)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 1.0000 1.29 (0.35, 2.71) 0.2063
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.4390 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9088
4 Linuron PRE 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.9934 2.76 (1.33, 4.48) 0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 1.0000 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 0.9940
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.50 (0.02, 1.55) 1.0000 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9088
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.4390 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.2684
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 1.68 (0.57, 3.20) 0.6956 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 0.9940
9 Diclosulam PRE 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 0.91 (0.16, 2.18) 0.7044
10 Flumioxazin PRE 1.72 (0.60, 3.26) 0.6372 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.2684
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.9934 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.2684
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chloriumron POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 0.26 (0.00, 1.12) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.26 (0.00, 1.12) 0.9793 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9996
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 0.9997 0.13 (0.04, 0.85) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 1.0000
2008 1 None Control 0.19 (0.09, 0.32) 0.00 (0.01, 0.03)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.22 (0.51, 2.18) 0.0174 1.22 (0.51, 2.18) <0.0001
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0889 1.22 (0.51, 2.18) <0.0001
4 Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.8336 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0001
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.8336 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.2918
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.8336 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 0.9898
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 1.0000 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0091
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.75 (0.22, 1.55) 0.4245 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0001
9 Diclosulam PRE 1.22 (0.51, 2.18) 0.0174 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0091
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 1.0000 2.48 (1.47, 3.66) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.8336 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0091
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.4627 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 0.9992 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 0.9992 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.8336 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
Treatment FCU PBU
 
118 
?
Table 3.02: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the second rating (12 weeks after PRE) at FCU and 
PBU in 2008 only. 
No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 0.16 (0.06, 0.31) 0.08 (0.02, 0.20)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.00 (0.30, 2.05) 0.1683 1.46 (0.58, 2.65) 0.0019
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.72 (0.76, 2.97) 0.0020 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 0.5428
4 Linuron PRE 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9983
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.12 (0.37, 2.21) 0.0864 0.13 (0.01, 0.68) 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 1.0000 1.00 (0.30, 2.05) 0.0468
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.75 (0.16, 1.70) 0.5454 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9983
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.38 (0.02, 1.14) 0.9983 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9983
9 Diclosulam PRE 5.00 (3.54, 6.46) <0.0001 1.35 (0.51, 2.51) 0.0042
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.75 (0.16, 1.70) 0.5454 2.62 (1.44, 4.01) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.94 (0.27, 1.98) 0.2257 1.68 (0.73, 2.91) 0.0004
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.7820 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9983
22 Between-within row Organic 0.21 (0.00, 0.84) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9781
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.38 (0.02, 1.14) 0.9983 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9781
Treatment FCU PBU
 
119 
?
Table 3.03: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after POST) at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 1.49 (0.31, 3.34) 0.91 (0.07, 2.52)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.38 (0.01, 1.64) 0.8758 2.16 (0.68, 4.19) 0.9490
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.85 (0.49, 3.80) 1.0000 1.95 (0.55, 3.93) 0.9891
4 Linuron PRE 0.88 (0.07, 2.49) 1.0000 2.40 (0.83, 4.47) 0.8482
5 S-metolachlor PRE 2.05 (0.61, 4.05) 1.0000 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 2.32 (0.77, 4.37) 0.9999 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 1.99 (0.58, 3.98) 1.0000 0.53 (0.00, 1.91) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 2.88 (1.15, 5.01) 0.9652 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 9.06 (7.42, 9.92) <0.0001 6.05 (3.86, 8.03) 0.0011
10 Flumioxazin PRE 1.56 (0.34, 3.43) 1.0000 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 0.9934
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1.65 (0.39, 3.55) 1.0000 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST 10.00 (9.52, 9.52) <0.0001 10.00 (9.52, 9.52) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 3.81 (1.86, 6.00) 0.5138 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 0.9997
14 Fomesafen POST 8.00 (6.01, 9.42) <0.0001 2.40 (0.83, 4.47) 0.8482
15 2,4-DB POST 0.50 (0.00, 1.86) 0.9631 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000
16 Chloriumron POST 9.94 (9.12, 9.81) <0.0001 9.94 (9.12, 9.81) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 6.30 (4.12, 8.24) 0.0060 2.71 (1.04, 4.83) 0.6636
18 Sethoxydim POST 2.28 (0.75, 4.33) 1.0000 3.81 (1.86, 6.00) 0.1551
19 Flumioxazin POST 7.29 (5.17, 8.96) 0.0003 4.50 (2.43, 6.67) 0.0452
20 Imazethapyr POST 4.45 (2.38, 6.62) 0.2304 0.94 (0.08, 2.58) 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.62 (0.01, 2.07) 0.9934 0.94 (0.08, 2.58) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 3.33 (1.48, 5.50) 0.7900 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 3.70 (1.76, 5.88) 0.5802 0.50 (0.00, 1.86) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.62 (0.01, 2.07) 0.9934 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 0.9934
2008 1 None Control 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 1.72 (0.75, 3.00)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000 3.09 (1.80, 4.55) 0.8164
3 Metribuzin PRE 2.40 (1.25, 3.80) 0.3071 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.9871 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.88 (0.85, 3.18) 0.7463 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.53 (0.06, 1.40) 1.0000 0.94 (0.26, 2.00) 0.9871
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.53 (0.06, 1.40) 1.0000 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.91 (0.24, 1.95) 1.0000 2.11 (1.02, 3.46) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 8.78 (7.63, 9.58) <0.0001 5.26 (3.76, 6.74) 0.0080
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 1.0000 6.28 (4.78, 7,66) 0.0002
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 2.51 (1.33, 3.92) 0.9986
12 Carfentrazone POST 0.94 (0.26, 2.00) 1.0000 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 0.8730 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 2.66 (1.45, 4.08) 0.1776 3.22 (1.91, 4.69) 0.7188
15 2,4-DB POST 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000 2.40 (1.25, 3.80) 0.9998
16 Plant oil POST 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 2.40 (1.25, 3.80) 0.9998
17 Glyphosate POST 6.01 (4.50, 7.43) <0.0001 6.26 (4.75, 7.64) 0.0002
18 Sethoxydim POST 1.42 (0.54, 2.62) 0.9932 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.8730
19 Flumioxazin POST 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 0.9999 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 0.9999 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.8730
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.23, 0.23) 0.1377 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 0.9951
22 Between-within row Organic 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.9871 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.1682
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.8730
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 1.0000 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.1682
Treatment FCU PBU
 
120 
?
Table 3.04: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks after PRE at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 0.45 (0.18, 0.85) 0.24 (0.06, 0.55)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 2.46 (1.11, 4.14) 0.0010
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.39 (0.41, 2.84) 0.5972 1.61 (0.53, 3.12) 0.0630
4 Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 1.00 (0.20, 2.31) 0.6064
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9999 1.95 (0.75, 3.54) 0.0128
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.26 (0.00, 1.12) 1.0000 1.68 (0.57, 3.20) 0.0463
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9999 1.68 (0.57, 3.20) 0.0463
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.53 (0.03, 1.60) 1.0000 1.46 (0.45, 2.93) 0.1173
9 Diclosulam PRE 1.00 (0.20, 2.31) 0.9749 1.46 (0.45, 2.93) 0.1173
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.91 (0.16, 2.18) 0.9942 2.40 (1.07, 4.07) 0.0013
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 0.94 (0.17, 2.23) 0.6926
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chloriumron POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 1.0000 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 1.12 (0.26, 2.48) 0.9101 1.00 (0.20, 2.31) 0.6064
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 1.0000 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9992
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9999 0.91 (0.16, 2.18) 0.7483
2008 1 None Control 0.15 (0.06, .28) 0.02 (0.00, 0.07)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0517 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0441
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0517 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0006
4 Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.7007 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 1.0000 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0441
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.57 (0,13, 1.31) 0.7007 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.6153 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.6153 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.6585
9 Diclosulam PRE 1.46 (0.68, 2.48) 0.0013 1.46 (0.68, 2.48) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 1.0000 2.24 (1.27, 3.39) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.75 (0.22, 1.55) 0.2941 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0006
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.6153 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.6153 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 1.0000 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 1.0000 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 1.0000
Treatment FCU PBU
 
121 
?
Table 3.05: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the second rating (12 weeks after PRE) at FCU and 
PBU in 2008 only. 
No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 0.02 (0.00, 0.08) 0.04 (0.00, 0.13)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 0.1376 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9646
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.8343 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 0.2880
4 Linuron PRE 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 1.0000 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 0.1376 0.57 (0.99, 1.44) 0.2880
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 1.0000 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 3.73 (2.37, 5.20) <0.0001 2.74 (1.53, 4.14) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.8343 1.72 (0.76, 2.97) 0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.8343 1.72 (0.76, 2.97) 0.0001
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
22 Between-within row Organic 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
Treatment FCU PBU
 
122 
?
Table 3.06: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after POST) at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 0.21 (0.06, 1.27) 1.68 (0.40, 3.58)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 0.4758 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 4.45 (2.38, 6.62) 0.0011 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 0.9980 0.91 (0.07, 2.52) 0.9997
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.04 (0.12, 2.72) 0.9355 1.95 (0.55, 3.93) 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.38 (0.01, 1.64) 1.0000 1.72 (0.43, 3.65) 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.57 (0.00, 1.98) 1.0000 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 3.95 (1.97, 6.14) 0.0042 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 9.94 (9.12, 9.81) <0.0001 4.74 (2.63, 6.89) 0.2180
10 Flumioxazin PRE 2.86 (1.14, 4.99) 0.0555 1.00 (0.10, 2.66) 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 2.08 (0.63, 4.08) 0.2500 1.35 (0.24, 3.16) 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST 9.52 (8.17, 10.00) <0.0001 9.87 (8.91, 9.89) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 0.50 (0.00, 1.86) 1.0000 2.62 (0.97, 4.72) 0.9997
14 Fomesafen POST 6.78 (4.62, 8.60) <0.0001 3.36 (1.50, 5.53) 0.8909
15 2,4-DB POST 0.57 (0.00, 1.98) 1.0000 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 0.9934
16 Chloriumron POST 9.99 (9.53, 9.23) <0.0001 9.62 (8.36, 9.99) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 5.89 (3.71, 7.90) <0.0001 1.42 (0.27, 3.25) 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 7.84 (5.81, 9.32) <0.0001 3.70 (1.76, 5.88) 0.7209
20 Imazethapyr POST 1.06 (0.12, 2.75) 0.9242 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.29 (0.02, 1.45) 1.0000 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 1.58 (0.35, 3.46) 0.5455 1.72 (0.43, 3.65) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 1.35 (0.24, 3.16) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 0.9980 0.88 (0.07, 2.49) 0.9995
2008 1 None Control 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.00 (0.29, 2.08)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.9999 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
4 Linuron PRE 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.8164 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 0.9871 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.2778
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 1.0000 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 1.06 (0.32, 2,16) 0.9994 0.38 (0,02, 1.16) 0.9716
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 9.00 (7.92, 9.71) <0.0001 9.00 (7.92, 9.71) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 2.51 (1.33, 3.92) 0.5138
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.9999 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
12 Carfentrazone POST 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 0.8730 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
13 Fluazifop POST 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 0.8730 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 3.22 (1.91, 4.69) 0.0155 3.48 (2.13, 4.97) 0.0648
15 2,4-DB POST 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 1.0000 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.8164
16 Plant oil POST 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.8164 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 4.49 (3.03, 5.99) 0.0001 5.25 (3.75, 6.73) 0.0002
18 Sethoxydim POST 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 0.9999 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 1.0000 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.8164 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 0.9716
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 1.0000 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.9999
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.05. 0.53) 0.8164 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.00 (0.23, 0.23) 0.2778 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
Treatment FCU PBU
 
123 
?
Table 3.07: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the first rating 3 and 4 weeks after PRE at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 0.21 (0.04, 0.49) 0.25 (0.06, 0.56)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.26 (0.00, 1.12) 1.0000 1.46 (0.45, 2.93) 0.1317
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.8739 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.3324
4 Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 0.9887 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.9464
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.94 (0.17, 2.23) 0.5870 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 0.9979
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.2282 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9986
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 1.22 (0.31, 2.62) 0.2282 1.00 (0.20, 2.31) 0.6425
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.75 (0.09, 1.94) 0.8739 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 0.91 (0.16, 2.18) 0.6466 1.00 (0.20, 2.31) 0.6425
10 Flumioxazin PRE 2.48 (1.12, 4.16) 0.0005 1.46 (0.45, 2.93) 0.1317
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.38 (0.00, 1.35) 1.0000 0.62 (0.05, 1.75) 0.9932
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chloriumron POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.06 (010, 0.66) 0.9999 0.91 (0.16, 2.18) 0.7802
22 Between-within row Organic 0.00 (0.32, 0.32) 0.8001 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9986
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9999 0.26 (0.00, 1.12) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.04, 1.67) 0.9887 0.06 (0.10, 0.66) 0.9986
2008 1 None Control 0.55 (0.37, 0.77) 0.02 (0,00, 007)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 1.0000 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.6585
3 Metribuzin PRE 1.68 (0.84, 2.73) 0.0894 0.75 (0.22, 1.55) 0.0076
4 Linuron PRE 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 1.0000 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.6585
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.42 (0.65, 2.42) 0.3246 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0006
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 0.2602 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0441
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.9842 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.53 (0.11, 1.24) 1.0000 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.6585
9 Diclosulam PRE 1.22 (0.51, 2.18) 0.6615 0.57 (0.13, 1.31) 0.0441
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.75 (0.22, 1.55) 1.0000 1.72 (0.87, 2.79) <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.0075 1.00 (0.37, 1.89) 0.0006
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.13 (0.00, 0.59) 0.6555 0.00 (0.16, 0,16) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.06 (0.02, 0.43) 0.2602 0.00 (0.16, 0,16) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.26 (0.01, 0.81) 0.9842 0.00 (0.16, 0,16) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.00 (0.16, 0.16) 0.0075 0.00 (0.16, 0,16) 1.0000
Treatment FCU PBU
 
124 
?
Table 3.08: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury) at the second rating (12 weeks after PRE) at FCU and PBU 
in 2008 only. 
No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 0.43 (0.25, 0.66) 0.04 (0.00, 0.13)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.12 (0.37, 2.21) 0.7323 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9646
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.91 (0.25, 1.92) 0.9644 0.75 (0.16, 1.70) 0.0929
4 Linuron PRE 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 0.7641 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.42 (0.55, 2.60) 0.2875 1.22 (0.43, 2.35) 0.0030
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 1.0000 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 0.9646
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.93) 1.0000 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 1.0000 0.57 (0.09, 1.44) 0.2880
9 Diclosulam PRE 4.75 (3.30, 6.22) <0.0001 1.72 (0.76, 2.97) 0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.38 (0.02, 1.14) 1.0000 1.22 (0.43, 2.35) 0.0030
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1.22 (0.43, 2.35) 0.5662 1.00 (0.30, 2.05) 0.0155
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.00 (0.22, 0,22) 0.1042 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
22 Between-within row Organic 0.06 (0.05. 0.51) 0.7641 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.06 (0.05. 0.51) 0.7641 0.06 (0.05, 0.51) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.13 (0.01, 0.68) 0.9733 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) 0.9993
Treatment FCU PBU
 
125 
?
Table 3.09: Mean crop injury of L. albus cultivar AU Homer on a scale from 0 (no injury/ 
alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead) at the third rating (2 weeks after POST) at FCU and 
PBU in 2007 and 2008. 
Year No Name Class
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean crop 
injury 95% CI
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 0.57 (0.00, 1.98) 1.06 (0.12, 2.75)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 0.57 (0.00, 1.98) 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.06 (0.19, 0.88) 0.9795 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 1.00 (0.10, 2.66) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 0.9422 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 0.9997 0.38 (0.01, 1.64) 0.9970
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 1.46 (0.29, 3.31) 0.9891 2.00 (0.58, 3.99) 0.9980
9 Diclosulam PRE 8.54 (6.69, 9.71) <0.0001 6.79 (4.63, 8.61) 0.0002
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.13 (0.11, 1.09) 0.9989 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.38 (0.01, 1.64) 1.0000 1.68 (0.04, 3.58) 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST 10.00 (9.52, 9.52) <0.0001 9.43 (8.02, 10.00) <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 2.71 (1.04, 4.83) 0.3323 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 7.37 (5.27, 9.02) <0.0001 2.71 (1.04, 4.83) 0.8047
15 2,4-DB POST 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000 0.06 (0.19, 0.88) 0.6103
16 Chloriumron POST 10.00 (9.52, 9.52) <0.0001 9.74 (8.62, 9.96) <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 2.91 (1.17, 5.04) 0.2497 2.18 (0.69, 4.21) 0.9868
18 Sethoxydim POST 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 0.9997 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 6.01 (3.83, 8.00) 0.0002 6.02 (3.84, 8.01) 0.0024
20 Imazethapyr POST 1.12 (0.15, 2.83) 1.0000 1.00 (0.10, 2.66) 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 1.22 (0.19, 2.98) 0.9997 0.94 (0.08, 2.58) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.26 (0.04, 1.38) 1.0000 1.68 (0.40, 3.58) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.57 (0.00, 1.98) 1.0000 1.00 (0.10, 2.66) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000 0.75 (0.03, 2.27) 1.0000
2008 1 None Control 1.90 (0.87, 3.21) 1.46 (0.57, 2.68)
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1.95 (0.91, 3.27) 1.0000 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.53 (0.06, 1.40) 0.4054 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1.95 (0.91, 3.27) 1.0000 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.8730
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.0120 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.1031 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 0.2178 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 7.60 (6.20, 8.75) <0.0001 7.26 (5.83, 8.49) <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.38 (0.02, 1.16) 0.2178 1.68 (0.71, 2.94) 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 1.0000 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
12 Carfentrazone POST 1.12 (0.36, 2.24) 0.9932 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 2.11 (1.02, 3.46) 1.0000 4.00 (2.58, 5.51) 0.0981
15 2,4-DB POST 0.06 (0.05, 0.53) 0.0120 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
16 Plant oil POST 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.22 (0.42, 2.37) 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 3.09 (1.80, 4.55) 0.9334 7.76 (6.39, 8.88) <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 1.0000 1.72 (0.75, 3.00) 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 0.94 (0.26, 2.00) 0.9331 1.46 (0.57, 2.68) 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.57 (0.08, 1.46) 0.4680 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.75 (0.16, 1.72) 0.7267 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.26 (0.00, 0.94) 0.1031 1.00 (0.29, 2.08) 1.0000
Treatment FCU PBU
 
126 
?
Table 3.10: Plant density of L. albus as influenced by treatment 6 and 4 weeks after PRE 
in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 
Year No Name Class
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 11.16 0.14 8.88 0.14
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 11.18 0.34 1.0000 8.54 0.34 0.9933
3 Metribuzin PRE 11.12 0.34 1.0000 8.82 0.34 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 11.51 0.34 0.9919 8.76 0.34 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 10.99 0.34 1.0000 9.36 0.34 0.9015
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 11.02 0.34 1.0000 8.79 0.34 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 11.02 0.34 1.0000 8.81 0.34 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 11.17 0.34 1.0000 9.06 0.34 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 11.00 0.34 1.0000 8.55 0.34 0.9957
10 Flumioxazin PRE 11.62 0.34 0.9295 9.30 0.34 0.9627
11 Imazethapyr PRE 11.29 0.34 1.0000 8.72 0.34 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chlorimuron POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 11.05 0.34 1.0000 8.52 0.34 0.9901
22 Between-within row Organic 10.99 0.34 1.0000 8.82 0.34 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 10.93 0.34 0.9999 8.31 0.34 0.7360
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 11.56 0.34 0.9764 8.43 0.34 0.9371
2008 1 None Control 10.35 0.15 10.97 0.15
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 10.36 0.36 1.0000 10.76 0.36 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 10.41 0.36 1.0000 10.88 0.36 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 10.23 0.36 1.0000 10.52 0.36 0.9779
5 S-metolachlor PRE 10.73 0.36 0.9948 10.60 0.36 0.9959
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 10.60 0.36 1.0000 10.82 0.36 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 10.09 0.36 0.9999 11.33 0.36 0.9968
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 10.45 0.36 1.0000 11.20 0.36 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 10.23 0.36 1.0000 11.29 0.36 0.9992
10 Flumioxazin PRE 10.26 0.36 1.0000 7.40 0.36 <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 10.44 0.36 1.0000 11.39 0.36 0.9863
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 10.64 0.36 0.9997 11.12 0.36 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 10.26 0.36 1.0000 11.56 0.36 0.8437
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 10.49 0.36 1.0000 11.15 0.36 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 9.97 0.36 0.9944 11.45 0.36 0.9588
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? plants m-2 ???????????
 
127 
?
Table 3.11: Plant density of L. albus as influenced by treatment 11 and 8 weeks after PRE 
in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 
Year No Name Class
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 10.60 0.34 8.10 0.34
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 10.36 0.34 1.0000 8.04 0.34 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 10.44 0.34 1.0000 8.03 0.34 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 10.48 0.34 1.0000 8.49 0.34 0.9993
5 S-metolachlor PRE 10.29 0.34 1.0000 8.43 0.34 0.9999
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 10.41 0.34 1.0000 8.21 0.34 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 10.05 0.34 0.9607 8.19 0.34 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 10.21 0.34 0.9994 8.55 0.34 0.9956
9 Diclosulam PRE 10.08 0.34 0.9766 7.79 0.34 1.0000
10 Flumioxazin PRE 10.35 0.34 1.0000 8.31 0.34 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 10.23 0.34 0.9996 8.21 0.34 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Chlorimuron POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 10.38 0.34 1.0000 7.86 0.34 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 10.23 0.34 0.9996 8.13 0.34 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 10.21 0.34 0.9994 7.42 0.34 0.8112
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 10.57 0.34 1.0000 7.92 0.34 1.0000
2008 1 None Control 9.61 0.36 9.25 0.36
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 9.58 0.36 1.0000 8.58 0.36 0.9107
3 Metribuzin PRE 8.64 0.36 0.4791 8.58 0.36 0.9107
4 Linuron PRE 9.24 0.36 0.9999 9.36 0.36 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 9.60 0.36 1.0000 9.72 0.36 0.9980
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 9.39 0.36 1.0000 9.09 0.36 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 9.33 0.36 1.0000 9.75 0.36 0.9956
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 8.98 0.36 0.9479 9.45 0.36 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 7.22 0.36 0.0001 10.17 0.36 0.5707
10 Flumioxazin PRE 9.01 0.36 0.9660 4.71 0.36 <0.0001
11 Imazethapyr PRE 9.22 0.36 0.9998 9.90 0.36 0.9368
12 Carfentrazone POST N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST N/A N/A
14 Fomesafen POST N/A N/A
15 2,4-DB POST N/A N/A
16 Plant oil POST N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST N/A N/A
18 Sethoxydim POST N/A N/A
19 Flumioxazin POST N/A N/A
20 Imazethapyr POST N/A N/A
21 Between row cultivation Organic 9.84 0.36 1.0000 10.00 0.36 0.8232
22 Between-within row Organic 9.54 0.36 1.0000 9.85 0.36 0.9660
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 9.52 0.36 1.0000 9.52 0.36 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 9.18 0.36 0.9992 9.91 0.36 0.9244
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? plants m-2 ???????????
 
128 
?
Table 3.12: Plant density in plants m
-2
 of L. albus cultivar ABL 1082 as influenced by 
treatment 3 weeks after POST in 2007 only. Due to heavy rains after POST application in 
study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. 
No Name Class
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 8.84 0.69 9.24 0.69
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 9.60 0.69 0.9997 8.30 0.69 0.9945
3 Metribuzin PRE 8.93 0.69 1.0000 8.70 0.69 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 9.69 0.69 0.9985 7.67 0.69 0.6874
5 S-metolachlor PRE 8.79 0.69 1.0000 9.46 0.69 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 9.82 0.69 0.9906 8.43 0.69 0.9993
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 9.28 0.69 1.0000 8.25 0.69 0.9906
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 9.64 0.69 0.9993 8.48 0.69 0.9997
9 Diclosulam PRE 5.61 0.69 0.0122 8.16 0.69 0.9767
10 Flumioxazin PRE 7.98 0.69 0.9985 9.06 0.69 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 9.01 0.69 1.0000 8.84 0.69 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST 0.00 0.76 <0.0001 0.04 0.76 <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 8.12 0.69 0.9999 8.61 0.69 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 8.61 0.69 1.0000 7.58 0.69 0.6109
15 2,4-DB POST 9.42 0.69 1.0000 8.25 0.69 0.9906
16 Chlorimuron POST 0.00 0.76 <0.0001 0.00 0.76 <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 7.89 0.69 0.9945 8.79 0.69 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 7.89 0.69 0.9945 8.88 0.69 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 8.57 0.69 1.0000 8.48 0.69 0.9997
20 Imazethapyr POST 7.67 0.69 0.9515 8.39 0.69 0.9985
21 Between row cultivation Organic 10.09 0.69 0.9129 8.66 0.69 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 8.43 0.69 1.0000 8.88 0.69 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 9.10 0.69 1.0000 7.13 0.69 0.2793
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 9.60 0.69 0.9997 7.76 0.69 0.7618
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? plants m-2 ???????????
 
129 
?
Table 3.13: Plant density in plants m
-2
 of L. albus cultivar AU Alpha as influenced by 
treatment 3 weeks after POST in 2007 only. Due to heavy rains after POST application in 
study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. 
No Name Class
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 11.12 0.69 5.56 0.69
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 8.57 0.69 0.0975 5.52 0.69 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 7.22 0.69 0.0009 6.68 0.69 0.9657
4 Linuron PRE 9.69 0.69 0.7993 5.88 0.69 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 9.87 0.69 0.9144 5.70 0.69 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 9.82 0.69 0.8901 5.11 0.69 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 10.18 0.69 0.9947 6.46 0.69 0.9970
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 8.97 0.69 0.2556 5.88 0.69 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 4.93 0.69 <0.0001 4.84 0.69 0.9999
10 Flumioxazin PRE 9.64 0.69 0.7643 6.01 0.69 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 10.49 0.69 1.0000 6.59 0.69 0.9848
12 Thifensulfuron POST 2.47 0.76 <0.0001 0.22 0.76 <0.001
13 Fluazifop POST 10.94 0.69 1.0000 6.50 0.69 0.9945
14 Fomesafen POST 9.24 0.69 0.4308 5.52 0.69 1.0000
15 2,4-DB POST 10.49 0.69 1.0000 5.20 0.69 1.0000
16 Chlorimuron POST 0.00 0.88 <0.001 0.00 0.76 <0.001
17 Glyphosate POST 9.46 0.69 0.6136 5.79 0.69 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 9.87 0.69 0.9144 6.28 0.69 0.9999
19 Flumioxazin POST 10.18 0.69 0.9947 6.32 0.69 0.9997
20 Imazethapyr POST 9.96 0.69 0.9525 5.52 0.69 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 9.33 0.69 0.5010 5.56 0.69 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 9.42 0.69 0.5754 5.83 0.69 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 8.61 0.69 0.1096 5.38 0.69 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 10.67 0.69 1.0000 4.48 0.69 0.9767
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? plants m-2 ???????????
 
130 
?
Table 3.14: Plant density in plants m
2
 of L. albus cultivar AU Homer as influenced by 
treatment 3 weeks after POST in 2007 only. Due to heavy rains after POST application in 
study year 2008 plots were inaccessible. 
No Name Class
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Plant 
Density StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 9.91 0.69 8.48 0.69
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 10.85 0.69 0.9945 8.07 0.69 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 10.90 0.69 0.9906 7.67 0.69 0.9993
4 Linuron PRE 9.96 0.69 1.0000 8.84 0.69 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 9.55 0.69 1.0000 8.21 0.69 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 10.27 0.69 1.0000 9.15 0.69 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 9.78 0.69 1.0000 8.48 0.69 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 9.96 0.69 1.0000 7.27 0.69 0.9340
9 Diclosulam PRE 8.88 0.69 0.9848 6.23 0.69 0.2091
10 Flumioxazin PRE 10.27 0.69 1.0000 8.66 0.69 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 10.54 0.69 1.0000 7.89 0.69 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST 0.13 0.76 <0.0001 0.00 0.76 <0.0001
13 Fluazifop POST 9.78 0.69 1.0000 8.16 0.69 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 9.87 0.69 1.0000 7.94 0.69 1.0000
15 2,4-DB POST 9.87 0.69 1.0000 9.64 0.69 0.9515
16 Chlorimuron POST 0.00 0.76 <0.0001 0.13 0.76 <0.0001
17 Glyphosate POST 9.37 0.69 1.0000 7.62 0.69 0.9985
18 Sethoxydim POST 10.63 0.69 0.9999 8.84 0.69 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 9.82 0.69 1.0000 8.43 0.69 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 11.17 0.69 0.9129 8.34 0.69 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 9.73 0.69 1.0000 7.98 0.69 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 11.21 0.69 0.8884 8.25 0.69 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 10.45 0.69 1.0000 8.25 0.69 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 10.00 0.69 1.0000 9.60 0.69 0.9657
Treatment FCU PBU
??????????? plants m-2 ???????????
 
131 
?
Table 3.15: Mean grain yield in kg ha
-1
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by treatments in 2007 and 2008. P-values in 
treatments 12 and 16 in 2007 were obtained by comparison of the non-treated control vs. zero. 
Year No Name Class Mean Yield StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value Mean Yield StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value Mean Yield StdErr
Dunnett  
valu
2007 1 None Control 1337 117.9 702 117.9 555 117.9
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1331 117.9 1.0000 734 117.9 1.0000 877 117.9 0.2
3 Metribuzin PRE 1174 117.9 0.9831 778 125.4 1.0000 551 117.9 1.0
4 Linuron PRE 1370 117.9 1.0000 700 117.9 1.0000 729 117.9 0.9
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1176 117.9 0.9855 825 117.9 0.9995 671 117.9 0.9
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 1353 117.9 1.0000 664 117.9 1.0000 740 117.9 0.9
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 1256 117.9 1.0000 767 117.9 1.0000 617 117.9 1.0
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 1294 117.9 1.0000 719 117.9 1.0000 585 117.9 1.0
9 Diclosulam PRE 391 117.9 <0.0001 383 117.9 0.3082 214 117.9 0.2
10 Flumioxazin PRE 1305 117.9 1.0000 594 117.9 0.9999 674 117.9 0.9
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1323 117.9 1.0000 632 117.9 1.0000 630 117.9 1.0
12 Thifensulfuron POST 0 117.9 <0.0001 218 179.0 0.1867 177 132.4 0.1
13 Fluazifop POST 1094 117.9 0.6993 893 117.9 0.9306 536 117.9 1.0
14 Fomesafen POST 1167 117.9 0.9744 666 117.9 1.0000 666 117.9 0.9
15 2,4-DB POST 1216 117.9 0.9996 892 117.9 0.9315 783 117.9 0.7
16 Chlorimuron POST 0 117.9 <0.0001 0 117.9 0.9315 143 188.8 0.4
17 Glyphosate POST 971 117.9 0.1563 673 117.9 1.0000 634 117.9 1.0
18 Sethoxydim POST 1261 117.9 1.0000 706 117.9 1.0000 525 117.9 1.0
19 Flumioxazin POST 1229 117.9 0.9999 597 117.9 0.9999 652 117.9 1.0
20 Imazethapyr POST 1317 117.9 1.0000 557 117.9 0.9954 695 117.9 0.9
21 Between row cultivation Organic 1516 117.9 0.9574 706 117.9 1.0000 812 117.9 0.6
22 Between-within row Organic 1379 117.9 1.0000 793 117.9 1.0000 791 117.9 0.7
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 1101 117.9 0.7366 550 117.9 0.9917 694 117.9 0.9
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 1000 117.9 0.2424 473 117.9 0.7716 860 117.9 0.3
2008 1 None Control 2074 162.6 1957 162.6 1219 162.6
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 1936 162.6 1.0000 1108 162.6 0.0011 1262 162.6 1.0
3 Metribuzin PRE 1612 162.6 0.2811 1410 162.6 0.1150 1368 162.6 0.9
4 Linuron PRE 2126 162.6 1.0000 1484 162.6 0.2526 1359 162.6 1.0
5 S-metolachlor PRE 1910 162.6 0.9998 1426 162.6 0.1384 1027 162.6 0.9
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 1937 162.6 1.0000 1567 162.6 0.5104 1522 162.6 0.8
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 2025 162.6 1.0000 1504 162.6 0.3048 1233 162.6 1.0
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 1907 162.6 0.9997 1619 162.6 0.7094 1442 162.6 0.9
9 Diclosulam PRE 648 162.6 <0.0001 210 162.6 <0.0001 548 162.6 0.0
10 Flumioxazin PRE 1470 162.6 0.0565 1264 162.6 0.0159 1217 162.6 1.0
11 Imazethapyr PRE 1742 162.6 0.7320 1460 162.6 0.1984 1309 162.6 1.0
12 Carfentrazone POST 2081 162.6 1.0000 1877 162.6 1.0000 1203 162.6 1.0
13 Fluazifop POST 1889 162.6 0.9987 1827 162.6 1.0000 1573 162.6 0.6
14 Fomesafen POST 1738 162.6 0.7189 1511 162.6 0.3234 1372 162.6 0.9
15 2,4-DB POST 2180 162.6 1.0000 1321 162.6 0.0364 1580 162.6 0.6
16 Plant oil POST 2195 162.6 1.0000 1618 162.6 0.7065 1347 162.6 1.0
17 Glyphosate POST 364 162.6 <0.0001 735 162.6 <0.0001 839 162.6 0.5
18 Sethoxydim POST 1941 162.6 1.0000 1309 162.6 0.0309 1313 162.6 1.0
19 Flumioxazin POST 1938 162.6 1.0000 1350 162.6 0.0545 1153 162.6 1.0
20 Imazethapyr POST 2020 162.6 1.0000 1226 162.6 0.0087 1433 162.6 0.9
21 Between row cultivation Organic 2291 162.6 0.9902 1722 162.6 0.9771 1228 162.6 1.0
22 Between-within row Organic 1977 162.6 1.0000 1510 162.6 0.3205 1246 162.6 1.0
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 1747 162.6 0.7520 1329 162.6 0.0408 1173 162.6 1.0
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 1581 162.6 0.2076 1366 162.6 0.0667 1274 162.6 1.0
Treatment ABL 1082 AU Alpha AU Homer
?????????????????? kg ha-1 ??????????????????
 
132 
?
Table 3.16: Mean test weight in kg 100L
-1
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by treatments in 2007 and 2008. Only the data in which 
the plot yield was >0.3 kg is included in this table. 
Year No Name Class
Mean test 
weight StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean test 
weight StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean test 
weight StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 80.15 0.46 78.70 0.49 76.29 0.46
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 81.16 0.46 0.6788 78.83 0.53 1.0000 77.15 0.49 0.9020
3 Metribuzin PRE 80.58 0.49 1.0000 78.91 0.49 1.0000 77.00 0.57 0.9931
4 Linuron PRE 79.96 0.46 1.0000 79.05 0.49 1.0000 77.48 0.49 0.5309
5 S-metolachlor PRE 80.01 0.46 1.0000 78.30 0.49 1.0000 76.83 0.49 0.9992
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 80.11 0.46 1.0000 78.45 0.49 1.0000 76.48 0.46 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 80.61 0.46 0.9998 77.51 0.49 0.5702 76.94 0.49 0.9926
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 80.79 0.49 0.9920 78.75 0.53 1.0000 76.07 0.46 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 0.9920 1.0000 1.0000
10 Flumioxazin PRE 79.91 0.46 1.0000 79.18 0.60 1.0000 77.30 0.49 0.7529
11 Imazethapyr PRE 80.68 0.46 0.9987 78.45 0.57 1.0000 76.98 0.53 0.9919
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST 81.28 0.52 0.6387 78.40 0.46 1.0000 76.70 0.49 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 80.49 0.49 1.0000 80.03 0.60 0.5919 76.83 0.53 0.9997
15 2,4-DB POST 79.93 0.46 1.0000 78.31 0.46 1.0000 77.03 0.46 0.9581
16 Chlorimuron POST N/A N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST 79.53 0.46 0.9931 78.62 0.49 1.0000 77.96 0.49 0.1192
18 Sethoxydim POST 80.31 0.49 1.0000 78.08 0.46 0.9952 75.94 0.49 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 80.81 0.49 0.9879 78.75 0.60 1.0000 76.51 0.53 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 80.70 0.49 0.9985 78.86 0.53 1.0000 77.27 0.49 0.7851
21 Between row cultivation Organic 80.24 0.46 1.0000 77.97 0.46 0.9722 77.05 0.46 0.9510
22 Between-within row Organic 80.49 0.46 1.0000 78.56 0.46 1.0000 76.66 0.49 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 79.50 0.46 0.9881 76.60 0.52 0.0365 76.41 0.49 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 78.38 0.46 0.0596 76.11 0.49 0.0018 77.59 0.46 0.3530
2008 1 None Control 80.08 0.40 76.63 0.40 76.37 0.42
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 78.49 0.42 0.0393 76.25 0.40 0.9999 76.97 0.42 0.9771
3 Metribuzin PRE 79.31 0.40 0.8033 76.43 0.40 1.0000 76.04 0.40 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 78.94 0.40 0.2671 76.91 0.40 1.0000 75.69 0.40 0.9088
5 S-metolachlor PRE 79.23 0.40 0.6782 76.62 0.40 1.0000 75.82 0.42 0.9909
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 79.33 0.40 0.8231 77.19 0.40 0.9821 76.15 0.40 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 79.44 0.40 0.9412 76.65 0.40 1.0000 76.00 0.40 0.9999
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 79.49 0.40 0.9728 76.84 0.40 1.0000 75.70 0.40 0.9248
9 Diclosulam PRE 77.94 0.52 0.0080 76.28 1.08 1.0000 75.43 0.40 0.5584
10 Flumioxazin PRE 79.44 0.42 0.9575 76.54 0.40 1.0000 76.35 0.40 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 79.17 0.40 0.5752 76.40 0.40 1.0000 75.84 0.42 0.9933
12 Carfentrazone POST 79.90 0.40 1.0000 75.97 0.40 0.9236 75.80 0.40 0.9795
13 Fluazifop POST 79.41 0.40 0.9207 76.80 0.40 1.0000 76.36 0.42 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 79.40 0.40 0.9107 76.80 0.40 1.0000 76.10 0.40 1.0000
15 2,4-DB POST 79.60 0.40 0.9971 76.76 0.40 1.0000 76.42 0.40 1.0000
16 Plant oil POST 80.04 0.40 1.0000 76.69 0.40 1.0000 75.88 0.42 0.9974
17 Glyphosate POST 78.77 0.55 0.3860 75.84 0.40 0.7673 76.12 0.54 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 78.68 0.40 0.0790 76.07 0.40 0.9832 75.94 0.40 0.9994
19 Flumioxazin POST 79.58 0.40 0.9950 76.90 0.40 1.0000 75.17 0.42 0.2665
20 Imazethapyr POST 79.74 0.40 1.0000 76.28 0.40 1.0000 75.81 0.40 0.9851
21 Between row cultivation Organic 79.87 0.40 1.0000 77.38 0.40 0.8231 75.91 0.42 0.9991
22 Between-within row Organic 79.87 0.40 1.0000 76.53 0.40 1.0000 75.76 0.40 0.9658
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 79.42 0.40 0.9300 75.84 0.40 0.7620 75.95 0.42 0.9997
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 78.78 0.40 0.1320 76.58 0.40 1.0000 76.23 0.42 1.0000
Treatment ABL 1082 AU Alpha AU Homer
?????????????????? kg 100L-1 ??????????????????
 
133 
?
Table 3.17: Mean seed mass in mg seed
-1
 of L. albus cultivars as influenced by treatments in 2007 and 2008. Only data in which seed 
mass was >160 mg seed
-1
 is included in this table. 
Year No Name Class
Mean seed 
mass StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean seed 
mass StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
Mean seed 
mass StdErr
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 199.94 5.98 211.61 5.98 217.98 5.98
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 211.70 5.98 0.7591 213.69 5.98 1.0000 214.52 5.98 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 201.31 5.98 1.0000 209.28 6.35 1.0000 208.41 5.98 0.9317
4 Linuron PRE 203.30 5.98 1.0000 211.89 5.98 1.0000 205.84 5.98 0.7192
5 S-metolachlor PRE 191.20 5.98 0.9683 207.14 5.98 1.0000 200.17 5.98 0.2148
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 203.25 5.98 1.0000 206.24 5.98 0.9999 216.33 5.98 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 200.01 5.98 1.0000 200.99 5.98 0.8643 212.80 5.98 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 201.54 5.98 1.0000 202.08 6.35 0.9525 203.11 5.98 0.4403
9 Diclosulam PRE 178.73 6.35 0.0986 183.43 5.98 0.0044 176.82 5.98 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 208.41 6.35 0.9834 200.69 5.98 0.8396 207.91 5.98 0.9014
11 Imazethapyr PRE 200.99 5.98 1.0000 208.10 6.35 1.0000 222.38 5.98 1.0000
12 Thifensulfuron POST N/A N/A N/A
13 Fluazifop POST 192.85 5.98 0.9964 209.74 5.98 1.0000 207.71 5.98 0.8875
14 Fomesafen POST 189.49 5.98 0.8754 203.96 5.98 0.9917 208.89 5.98 0.9547
15 2,4-DB POST 187.19 5.98 0.6575 213.56 5.98 1.0000 217.68 5.98 1.0000
16 Chlorimuron POST N/A N/A N/A
17 Glyphosate POST 188.74 5.98 0.8127 196.51 6.35 0.4761 213.23 5.98 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 194.93 5.98 1.0000 213.59 5.98 1.0000 207.25 5.98 0.8516
19 Flumioxazin POST 188.75 5.98 0.8140 203.97 5.98 0.9919 215.67 5.98 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 189.75 5.98 0.8946 206.96 5.98 1.0000 212.86 5.98 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 203.21 5.98 1.0000 213.28 5.98 1.0000 219.78 5.98 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 200.70 5.98 1.0000 214.80 5.98 1.0000 217.67 5.98 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 179.09 5.98 0.0856 208.41 5.98 1.0000 215.96 5.98 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 199.89 5.98 1.0000 209.20 5.98 1.0000 204.90 5.98 0.6204
2008 1 None Control 229.90 5.54 254.68 5.54 254.42 5.54
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 225.92 5.54 1.0000 245.33 5.54 0.7749 249.10 5.54 0.9989
3 Metribuzin PRE 225.75 5.54 1.0000 249.23 5.54 0.9984 255.77 5.54 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 224.60 5.54 0.9989 252.94 5.54 1.0000 251.60 5.54 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 228.34 5.54 1.0000 247.20 5.54 0.9501 244.25 5.54 0.6681
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 230.77 5.54 1.0000 255.55 5.54 1.0000 256.12 5.54 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 225.27 5.54 0.9999 251.50 5.54 1.0000 250.20 5.54 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 230.00 5.54 1.0000 251.93 5.54 1.0000 255.20 5.54 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 214.00 5.54 0.1168 242.33 5.79 0.4463 252.92 5.54 1.0000
10 Flumioxazin PRE 222.69 5.54 0.9640 249.73 5.54 0.9996 247.77 5.54 0.9833
11 Imazethapyr PRE 222.37 5.54 0.9479 249.78 5.54 0.9997 242.32 5.54 0.4214
12 Carfentrazone POST 224.67 5.54 0.9991 255.73 5.54 1.0000 252.72 5.54 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 232.32 5.54 1.0000 255.80 5.54 1.0000 247.91 5.54 0.9866
14 Fomesafen POST 231.07 5.54 1.0000 259.28 5.54 0.9999 257.30 5.54 1.0000
15 2,4-DB POST 235.02 5.54 0.9993 254.15 5.54 1.0000 256.10 5.54 1.0000
16 Plant oil POST 228.17 5.54 1.0000 259.28 5.54 0.9999 263.62 5.54 0.7932
17 Glyphosate POST 211.78 6.15 0.0888 230.40 5.54 0.0014 242.54 5.79 0.5009
18 Sethoxydim POST 230.40 5.54 1.0000 251.88 5.54 1.0000 261.50 5.54 0.9694
19 Flumioxazin POST 225.15 5.54 0.9998 252.83 5.54 1.0000 242.02 5.54 0.3874
20 Imazethapyr POST 224.32 5.54 0.9979 247.20 5.54 0.9501 249.95 5.54 0.9999
21 Between row cultivation Organic 231.62 5.54 1.0000 249.33 5.54 0.9988 242.92 5.54 0.4941
22 Between-within row Organic 227.27 5.54 1.0000 250.78 5.54 1.0000 253.52 5.54 1.0000
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 225.72 5.54 1.0000 252.58 5.54 1.0000 253.50 5.54 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 226.10 5.54 1.0000 256.05 5.54 1.0000 258.50 5.54 1.0000
Treatment ABL 1082 AU Alpha AU Homer
?????????????????? mg seed-1 ??????????????????
 
134 
?
IV. EFFECTS OF WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON YIELD 
COMPONENTS OF WHITE LUPIN (LUPINUS ALBUS L.) 
 
Abstract 
 White lupin (Lupinus albus L.) is of renewed interest in North America as an 
alternative legume crop with good yield potential and diverse use spectrum. Lupinus 
albus L. can be used as livestock feed, human food and cover crop in conservation 
agriculture. Because of its slow developing canopy white lupin is very susceptible to 
weed competition. Therefore effective weed control is necessary. A two-year experiment 
was established at two sites at E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center of the Alabama 
Experiment Station to investigate various weed management practices and their effect on 
plant height and yield components. The weed management schemes evaluated included 
ten pre-emergence (PRE) and nine post-emergence (POST) herbicide treatments as well 
as cultural (organic) treatments (two mechanical and two companion crop living mulch 
weed control measures). All PRE and POST herbicides, with the exceptions of 
diclosulam, fomesafen and glyphosate, did not affect lupin height, height to the lowest 
pod, number of fruiting branches and seed yield significantly. Diclosulam induced lupin 
height reductions about 50%, followed by glyphosate with 30%, which subsequent seed 
135 
?
yield losses. No significant differences were observed between the non-treated control 
and the organic treatments.  
 
Introduction 
Lupinus ssp, belong to the botanical family Fabaceae, and originated in three 
primary centers: North America, South America and the Mediterranean region (Wilbur, 
1963; Wink et al., 1999, Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005). Of the 450 species grown 
worldwide, only four are of major economical importance: white lupin (Lupinus albus 
L.), yellow lupin (L. luteus L.), narrowleafed or blue lupin (L. angustifolius L.) and 
Andean lupin (L. mutabilis Sweet) (Bhardwaj, 2002). 
White lupin is of interest in the southeastern USA because winter-type cultivars 
are available. This species was grown successfully in the southeastern United States from 
the 1930s to the 1950s as a cover crop and for the fixation of nitrogen (Roberson, 1991). 
After the 1950s white lupin production declined due to loss of government support, 
freeze damage in two consecutive years and the increased availability of inorganic 
fertilizers (Payne et al., 2004; van Santen and Reeves, 2003; Noffsinger and van Santen, 
2005). Recently, there is renewed interest in this crop in the United States and Canada as 
an alternative legume crop and for its yield potential. Recent research has been conducted 
to improve seed quality, genetic improvement for cold, disease and pest tolerance, and 
determine best management practices (Faluyi, et al., 2000; Payne et al., 2004; Noffsinger 
and van Santen, 2005). Lupinus albus L. is used as livestock feed especially as mid-
136 
?
winter forage for ruminants, as human food and winter cover crop in conservation 
agriculture (Hill, 1990; Hill, 2005; Noffsinger and van Santen, 2005).  
White lupin is a poor weed competitor during early establishment due to a slow 
canopy development. Effective weed control is necessary to reduce the competition for 
water, nutrients and lights among L. albus L. and weed species (Putnam et al., 1989; 
Poetsch, 2006). 
Yield and yield component development are influenced significantly by the main 
stem and primary-branch inflorescences, where the main stem is more important in 
determinate types and the primary-branches in indeterminate types (Noffsinger et al., 
2000). Yield components considered are generally pod number m
-2
, seed number m
-2
, 
seed weight, pod weight, seeds per pod and pod yield m
-2
It was found in Pakistan that yield component development of corn (Zea mays L.) 
was affected by weed control methods (Riaz et al., 2007). The authors did not specify the 
herbicides used in this experiment, but found that all weed control methods significantly 
affected plant height. Maximum plant height was reached by two combination treatments; 
mechanical (hoeing) and hand weeding as well as chemical and hand weeding. 
. It was found that the pod 
number was the limiting factor in grain yield and that basal branches are of importance 
for higher yield in the southeastern USA (Noffsinger et al., 2000). 
Roshdy et al. (2008) found that seed yield increased in canola varieties (Brassica 
napus L.) when weed control methods (hand-hoeing once or twice, pendimethalin) were 
applied. Pendimethalin, applied PRE, and hand-hoeing twice provided best results: 
137 
?
increase in seed yield, number of pods and 1000 seed weight. It was found that lentil 
yield was higher in hand-hoed plots than in plots in which herbicides such as linuron and 
metribuzin were used (Sandhu et al., 1991). 
Hoeing is a costly weed management tool and is therefore used primarily in high 
value crops or as supplement to other weed control practices. It is successful on weed 
seedlings (Anderson, 1996). With the increasing importance of organic production in US 
agriculture, the use of alternative, non-chemical weed control practices is required. To be 
certified as an organic farm a producer has to follow the guidelines of the National 
Organic Program (NOP) from the seeds used to grow the crops to the final product. The 
NOP is a program developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and limits 
the use of synthetic herbicides and therefore other weed control practices such as hoeing 
are necessary (Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication, 2009). 
Cover crops, another non-chemical alternative weed control practice in organic 
farming and conservation agriculture, have the benefits to lower fertilizer costs, reduce 
soil erosion, improve soil moisture, enhance organic matter, break pest cycles and cut the 
use of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) (Bowman et al., 1998). Cover 
crops out-compete weeds or potentially reduce weed pressure by allelopathy (Anderson, 
1996). Black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), a cool-season annual cereal, has been used 
successfully for many years as a cover crop for soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in 
Brazil (Bowman et al., 1998). Black oat is promising cover crop in the southeastern USA 
due to its exceptional allelopathic activity and large biomass production (Price et al., 
2008). 
138 
?
Only three active ingredients are currently registered for the use in Lupinus spp: 
carfentrazone-ethyl, S-metolachlor and glyphosate (Crop Protection Reference, 2007). 
The objective of this experiment is to investigate the use of various weed management 
practices and their effect on white lupin height and yield components. 
 
Materials and Methods 
A two year experiment to investigate the effect of weed management practices on 
height and yield components of L. albus L. was established at two test sites on the E.V. 
Smith Research and Extension Center of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station in 
October 2007 and 2008 respectively. 
Treatment and experiment design 
The experiment was a 2 (year) x 2 (location) x 3 (cultivar) x 4 (block) x 24 (weed 
control) factorial treatment arrangement. The two locations of the experiment were the 
Field Crops Unit (FCU), near Shorter, AL (32.42 N, 85.88 W) and the Plant Breeding 
Unit (PBU), Tallassee, AL (32.49 N, 85.89 W). At FCU the experiment was established 
on a Compass loamy sand (a coarse-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Plinthic 
Paleudults with a loamy sand surface structure). At PBU the experiment was conducted 
on a Wickham sandy loam (a fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults 
with a sandy loam surface structure). The three cultivars used in the experiment were AU 
Homer (a new high-alkaloid, indeterminate cover crop type), AU Alpha (a new low-
alkaloid, indeterminate forage type), and ABL 1082 (low-alkaloid, determinate grain type 
139 
?
experimental cultivar). The experimental design was a randomized complete block design 
(r = 4) nested within each year x location x cultivar combination. The weed control factor 
had 24 levels: one non-treated control, ten PRE-applied herbicides, nine POST-applied 
herbicides, two mechanical (hand hoed) weed control treatments as well as two cultural 
(living mulch) weed control treatments (Table 2.01). 
Crop management 
Inoculated lupin was seeded in 4 row plots with a John Deer
?
 1700 four row 
vacuum planter with a row spacing of 90 cm at a depth of 1.25 cm in October 2007 and 
October 2008. Seeding density was 17 seeds/m. Smooth seedbeds were prepared one to 
two weeks prior to planting in 2007. In 2008, the cultivars were planted in raised beds 
prepared by a KMC 4 row ripper/bedder due to concerns about water logging at both 
locations. The plot length was 7.5 m at PBU, and 7.5 m and 6 m at FCU in 2007 and 
2008, respectively. The PRE herbicide treatments were applied one day after planting in 
both years. Application of POST herbicides followed 13 (2007) to 16 (2008 due to heavy 
rainfall) weeks after planting. The cultural control treatments, cv. SoilSaver and As_033 
(a selection from PI 436103) black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.), were sown one (2007) to 
seven days (2008) after seeding of the lupin crop. The mechanical weed control 
treatments, between row only cultivation and between and within row cultivation, were 
used twice four (2007) to six (2008) weeks after planting and 18 to 20 (2 blocks at the 
PBU test site due to heavy rains) weeks after planting. In study year 2007/2008 plots at 
PBU and FCU were harvested on June 17, 2008. In study year 2008/2009 plots at FCU 
140 
?
were harvested on June 16, 2009 and at PBU on June 29, 2009 due to differences in 
reaching maturity at both locations. 
Data collection 
 At harvest, a random sample of 10 plants per plot (5 from each of the two center 
rows) were taken to determine yield components attributes such as plant height, number 
of yield components (main stem, primary and secondary branches, basal branches) and 
mean yield of each yield component. 
Statistical analysis 
 Generalized linear mixed models procedures as implemented in SAS
"
 PROC 
GLIMMIX were used to analyze total plant height, height to the lowest pod and yield 
components. Treatments and location were considered fixed effects. Replicates were 
considered random. Statistical significance was declared at Dunnett?s P < 0.1. Total plant 
height (cm), height to lowest pod (cm), total number of pods per plant and percent of seed 
number by each yield component, total individual plant seed yield (g plant
-1
 
) and percent 
of individual plant seed yield of the yield components were analyzed as normally 
distributed with R-side modeling of residuals. Treatments 12 and 16 of 2007 and 2008 
were excluded from analysis, since these herbicides differed in both years. 
 
 
141 
?
Results and Discussion 
Plant height 
 Two-way interactions (year*location and location*cultivar) and three-way 
interaction (location*treatment*cultivar) for total plant height were not significant. 
Three-way interactions (year*location*cultivar and location*treatment*cultivar) and 
four-way interaction (year*location*treatment*cultivar) were not significant for in total 
height to the lowest pod. 45()63/1)(--(27.)8(9()./01/-/2317)!")#)$%$:?)-,9)75()7,73*);*317)
height and the height to the lowest pod (Table 4.01). Results are presented for the 
year*treatment*cultivar interaction means. 
 Total plant height varied between among cultivars and years. In 2007 total plant 
height of the non-treated controls of ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer were 87, 102 
and 107 cm plant
-1
, respectively (Table 4.02). None of the PRE-applied herbicides, 
diclosulam excluded, significantly reduced total plant height of either cultivar. 
Diclosulam reduced the total height of ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer by over 
50% each. Fomesafen was the only POST-applied herbicide that reduced total plant 
height in 2007, but only the total height of ABL 1082 and AU Alpha was affected. None 
of the organic herbicide treatments resulted in significant height reduction. Plants of each 
cultivar treated with between row cultivation were marginally taller than the non-treated 
control. Sandhu et al. (1991) concluded that hoeing increased space, nutrient and water 
availability for lentil as compared to a weedy control. Between row cultivation in lupin 
production may have the same effect. With an increase in space by hoeing the lupin plant 
can grow taller without having to suffer from significant injury. In 2008 similar results 
142 
?
were obtained. Total plant height of the non-treated controls of ABL 1082, AU Alpha and 
AU Homer was 87, 125 and 117 cm plant
-1
, respectively. AU Alpha and AU Homer grew 
18 and 9 cm taller, respectively as compared to 2007. This may be due to the abundant 
water supply during the growing period. Again with the exception of diclosulam, none of 
the PRE-applied herbicides resulted in significant height reduction. Diclosulam reduced 
total plant height of each cultivar more than 40% as compared to the non-treated control. 
The POST-applied herbicide treatments, glyphosate excluded, did not significantly 
reduce the total plant of the cultivars. Unlike in 2007 fomesafen did not cause height 
reduction. Glyphosate reduced the total plant height of the three cultivars by more than 
30% as compared to the non-treated control. Marginally taller ABL 1082 plants were 
found in plots treated with between row cultivation and SoilSaver black oat in 2008. AU 
Homer grown with As_033 black oat as a companion crop was up to 8 cm taller than the 
non-treated control. The height of corn was found to be affected positively by 
combination treatments of either a chemical plus hand weeding or a mechanical treatment 
plus hand weeding (Riaz et al., 2007). The problem with the interpretation of these results 
is that the researchers did not specify which herbicides were used. However, since both of 
these treatments incorporated the use of hand weeding, it is possible to conclude hand 
weeding was the most important factor in these treatments. The height of these plants 
may have been affected by the additional space created by reducing weed density and 
without causing injury to the plant. This may be the reason why lupin plants, grown in 
plots in which between row cultivation was applied, grew taller. The significant height 
reduction by diclosulam is related to the severe injury (Chapter III) this herbicide caused 
143 
?
in all three lupin culitvars. The same explanation holds true for the height reduction 
induced by the application of glyphosate and fomesafen. 
 The height to the lowest pod of the non-treated controls of ABL 1082 and AU 
Homer in 2008 was reduced by 10 and 22 cm plant
-1
, respectively, as compared to 2007 
(Table 4.03), whereas the height to the lowest pod of AU Alpha increased by 5.5 cm. 
Since study year 2008 experienced an abundant water supply all lupin cultivars yielded 
higher. Grain yield was found to be directly linked to the pod number lupin produces 
(Noffsinger et al., 2000). The setting of pods may be influenced by water supply, space 
and nutrients. In 2007 and 2008, diclosulam was the only PRE applied that significantly 
reduced the height to the lowest pod (>50% in 2007, >30% in 2008). None of the POST-
applied herbicides caused significant reduction of the height to the lowest pod in ABL 
1082 in 2007. Fomesafen resulted in heights to the lowest pod of AU Alpha and AU 
Homer of 36 and 60 cm, respectively. This was significantly reduced from the lowest pod 
height of their non-treated controls (52 cm AU Alpha, 75 cm AU Homer). Glyphosate 
and fluazifop caused reductions of 20% in lowest pod height in AU Homer in 2007 as 
compared to the non-treated control. In 2008, glyphosate was the only POST-applied 
herbicide treatment that reduced lowest pod height. The height of the lowest pod was 
reduced by 38% (ABL 1082) and 28% (AU Alpha and AU Homer) as compared to their 
non-treated control with 47,  58 and 53 cm lowest pod, respectively. The reduction in 
height to the lowest pod induced by fomesafen, glyphosate and diclosulam seems to be 
direct result of the injuries these herbicides created in the cultivars (Chapter III). None of 
the organic treatments caused lowest pod height reductions in the cultivars in 2007 and 
2008. 
144 
?
Number of fruiting branches 
 Two-way interactions (year*location and year*treatment) were not significant for 
the individual number of fruiting branches for the whole plant.  and the mainstem and . 
Three-way interactions were not significant for any of the response variables Main effects 
for the total fruiting branch number per plant and the percent of individual fruiting branch 
number by each yield compon(17)8(9()./01/-/2317)!")#)$%$:? (Table 4.04). Results are 
presented for the treatment main effect means. 
 Total number of fruiting branches on an individual non-treated control plant was 
8.9 (Table 4.05). None of the POST herbicides caused lupin plants to grow significantly 
higher or lower fruiting branch numbers. With the exception of diclosulam (5.2 branches 
plant
-1
), none of the PRE-applied herbicides reduced fruiting branch numbers per plant 
significantly. The highest rate of pendimethalin (9.9 branches plant
-1
 The main stem yield component (MS-MS) makes up 11 percent of the total 
individual fruiting branch number in the non-treated control (Table 4.06). All PRE-
applied herbicide treatments, diclosulam excluded, had marginally higher and lower 
percentage. In plants treated with diclosulam MS-MS contributed 20 percent of the 
individual fruiting branch number. None of the POST-applied herbicides caused the main 
stem to produce significantly more fruiting branches than the non-treated control. Even 
though the organic treatments (12-14%) favored a higher percentage of total individual 
) produced higher 
fruiting branch numbers than the non-treated control. This increase was marginally 
significant. SoilSaver black oat was the only organic weed control treatment that resulted 
in reduced fruiting branch numbers per plant (7.9). 
145 
?
fruiting branch number to be accounted for by MS_MS this was not significant in 
comparison to the non-treated control. 
 The primary fruiting branches of the main stem (MS-PB) are the yield 
components that account for most of the total fruiting branch number of an individual 
plant (49%) (Table 4.06). This confirms the observation that main stem (in determinate 
types) and primary fruiting branches (in indeterminate types) are most important for yield 
and seed number (Noffsinger et al., 2000). Together main stem and primary fruiting 
branches account for about 60% of the total fruiting branch number of an individual 
plant. Again diclosulam (56%) is the only PRE-applied herbicide treatments resulted in a 
higher percentage of fruiting branch numbers produced by MS-PB than the non-treated 
control. None of the POST-applied herbicides and organic treatments caused a significant 
reduction or increase of percentage of fruiting branch numbers produced by MS-PB, but 
all organic treatments marginally increased (50-52%) this fruiting branch number. 
 The secondary fruiting branches of the main stem (MS-SB) of the non-treated 
control produced 31 percent of the total individual plant fruiting branch number (Table 
4.06). All herbicide treatments (PRE and POST) did not significantly influence the 
fruiting branch number of MS-SB. The only exception was diclosulam which caused MS-
SB to produce significantly lower fruiting branch numbers than on the non-treated 
control. Only 16 percent of the individual fruiting branch number was produced by MS-
SB when treated with this herbicide. Between and within row cultivation was the only 
organic treatment that caused MS-SB to produce significantly lower fruiting branch 
146 
?
numbers than the non-treated control (26%). The main stem yield components account 
for 90 percent of the total fruiting branch number per plant. 
 The basal lateral main stem (BL-MS) and fruiting branches (BL-Branch) account 
for 3 and 4 percent of the individual fruiting branch number of the non-treated control, 
respectively (Table 4.06). Neither the herbicides nor the organic treatments significantly 
influenced the fruiting branch numbers of BL-MS and BL-Branch. However, the basal 
yield components produced marginally higher fruiting branch numbers when the plants 
were treated with PRE herbicides. 
 No reasonable explanation for the observations made in plants treated with 
diclosulam can be found momentarily. AHAS inhibitors such as diclosulam target the 
main stem and therefore the importance and contribution of MS-MS to the total plant 
fruiting branch number should have been lower, similarly maybe even on the MS-PB. 
Seed yield 
 The main effects for the total seed yield per plant (g plant
-1
 Individual seed yield of the non-treated control was 24.7 g plant
) and the percent of 
individual seed yield by each yield compo1(17) 8(9() ./01/-/2317) !") #) $%$:?%) 48,-way 
interactions were not uniformly significant for the whole plant and yield components. 
Other interactions were not significant for any of the response variables (Table 4.07). 
Results are presented for the treatment main effect means. 
-1
. The highest 
rate of pendimethalin is the only PRE-applied herbicides that caused Lupinus albus L. 
plants to produce higher seed yield (27 g plant
-1
) (Table 4.08). Pendimethalin was found 
147 
?
to induce higher pod numbers in canola varieties (Roshdy et al., 2008). It is possible that 
with an increase in fruiting branches the number of pods per plant will also be higher. 
This in turn generated higher yield. This is marginally significant and higher than the 
non-treated control. Diclosulam reduced individual seed yield by more than 50% (11 g). 
With 21.71 and 22.02 g plant
-1
, respectively, fomesafen and glyphosate are the only 
POST herbicides that resulted in significantly lower seed yield per plant than the non-
treated control. Of all the organic treatments, SoilSaver black oat caused significant lower 
seed yield per plant (20 g plant
-1
 The main stem (MS-MS) accounts for 26 percent of the individual plant seed 
yield in the non-treated control. None of the herbicides and organic treatments 
significantly influenced the seed yield produced by MS-MS. The only exception was 
diclosulam which caused plants to produce 36 percent of the total seed yield by MS-MS. 
This conforms to the observed fruiting branch numbers in the MS-MS.  
). 
 The percentage of individual plant seed yield of primary fruiting branches of the 
main stem (MS-PB) were not significantly increased or reduced by any treatment 
compared to the non-treated control (52%) (Table 4.09). The secondary fruiting branches 
of the main stem (MS-SB) accounted for 15 percent of the total plant seed yield of the 
non-treated control. With the exception of diclosulam, none of the herbicides and organic 
treatments significantly reduced the seed yield of MS-SB. Only 6 percent of the total seed 
yield of a plant treated with diclosulam was produced by MS-SB.  However 7 percent of 
the individual seed yield of plants treated with diclosulam was produced by the basal 
main stem (BL-MS). This is significantly higher than what BL-MS contributes to the 
148 
?
individual yield in the non-treated control (4%).  The higher yield contribution of BL-MS 
in diclosulam plants is particularly interesting to note, since the percentage of individual 
fruiting branch number of BL-MS (Table 4.06) was not significantly higher. None of the 
other treatments influenced BL-MS yield significantly. The basal fruiting branches (BL-
Branch) produced 3 percent of the individual plant seed yield. Neither the herbicides nor 
the organic treatments significantly altered the yield contribution of BL-Branch. 
Pod number was found to be the limiting factor for grain yield in white lupin 
(Noffsinger et al., 2000). The total number of fruiting branches and maybe subsequently 
pod numbers in plants treated with diclosulam were low which induced seed yield loss 
per individual plant (Table 4.08) and grain yield in kg ha
-1
In general, future research is needed to investigate the specific effects of weed 
control treatments that are particularly successful in this study, i.e. the highest rate of 
pendimethalin, the S-metolachlor/linuron mixture, imazethapyr (PRE and POST), 2,4-
DB, sethoxydim, fluazifop and organic herbicide treatments, on yield component 
development and yield. Additional companion crops may be included, i.e. rye. 
Diclosulam, fomesafen and glyphosate should be excluded from future experiments in 
white lupin, because these herbicides caused significant height and yiel reductions. 
 (Table 3.15). Hand-hoeing did 
not significantly increase fruiting branch number and seed yield. Therefore, it can be 
concluded that the influence, hand-hoeing has on lupin cultivars to increase yield and 
number of yield components, is not as strong as it is on some canola varieties (Roshdy et 
al., 2008). 
 
149 
?
References 
Anderson, W. P. 1996.Weed Science: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed; West 
Publishing Company.  
Bhardwaj, H. L. and Hamama, A. A. and van Santen, E. 2004. Alternative Crops. White 
Lupin Performance and Nutritional Value as Affected by Planting Date and Row 
Spacing. Agronomy Journal 96:580-583. 
Bowman, G., C. Shirley and C. Cramer. 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd ed, 
Sustainable Agriculture Network handbook series bk.3. Sustainable Agriculture 
Network. National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD. 
Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication. 2009. Integrated Crop and Pest Management 
Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production 2009. Downloaded from 
http://www.nysaes.Cornell.edu/recommends/11frameset.html (07/16/2009) 
Crop Protection Reference. 2007. 23
rd
Faluyi, M. A., X. M. Zhou, F. Zhang, S. Leibovitch, P. Migner and D. L. Smith. 2000. 
Seed quality of sweet white lupin (Lupinus albus) and management practice in 
eastern Cananda. European Journal of Agronomy 13:27-37. 
 edition of Greenbook?s Crop Protection Reference. 
Vance Publishing Corporation. Lenexa, KS. 
Hill, G. D. 1990. Proceedings 11
th 
International Lupin Conference ? The Utilitzation of 
Lupins in Animal Nutrition. Originally published as pp. 68-91. In: D. von Baer 
(ed.) Proceedings 6
th
 
 International Lupin Conference, Temuco ? Pucon, Chile, 25-
30 November 1990. 
150 
?
Hill, G. D. 2005. The Use of Lupin Seed in Human and Animal Diets ? Revisited. In: E. 
van Santen and G.D. Hill (eds) Mexico, Where Old and New World Lupins Meet. 
Proceedings of the 11
th
Noffsinger, S. L., C. Huyghe and E. van Santen. 2000. Analysis of Grain-Yield 
Components and Inflorescence Levels in Winter-type White Lupin. Agronomy 
Journal 92:1195-1202. 
 International Lupin Conference, Guadalajara, Jalisco, 
Mexico. May 4-5, 2005. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New 
Zealand, ISBN 0- 86476-165-1. 
Noffsinger, S. L. and E. van Santen. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for 
the Southeastern USA.?Crop Sci 45:1941-1950. 
Payne, W. A., C. Chen and D. A. Ball. 2004. Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of 
Alternative Crops Agronomic Potential of Narrow-Leafed and White Lupins in 
the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy Journal 96:1501-1508. 
Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum oekologischen Anbau von 
Koernerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Suedwestdeutschlands, 
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Gruenland der Universitaet Hohenheim, Salzgitter. 
hhtp://opus.ub.uni-
hohenheim.de/volltexte/2007/193/pdf/Dissertation_Poetsch_online.pdf 
Price, A.J., M. E. Stoll, J. S. Bergtold, F. J. Arriaga, K. S. Balkcom, T. S. Kornecki and 
R. L. Raper. 2008. Effect of Cover Crop Extracts on Cotton and Radish Radicle 
Elongation. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science. 3:60-66.?
(11/05/2009). 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=207
514 (11/05/2009). 
 
 
151 
?
Putnam, D.H., E. S. Oplinger, L. L. Hardman and J. D. Doll. 2007. Lupine, Alternative 
Field Crops Manual. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension. 
University of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and 
the Minnesota Extension Service. 
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 
Riaz, M., M. Jamil and T. Z. Mahmood. 2007. Yield and Yield Components of Maize as 
Affected by Various Weed Control Methods Under Rain-fed Conditions of 
Pakistan. International Journal of Agricultrure & Biology 9: 152-155. 
(11/05/2009) 
http://www.fspublishers.org/ijab/past-issues/IJABVOL_9_NO_1/35.pdf 
(11/05/2009). 
Roberson, R. 1991. Sweet Lupins Promising For Alabama Farmers. Alabama 
Agricultural Experiment Station. Office of Communications April 1
st
 1991. 
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/webpress/1991/lupins.htm
Roshdy A., G. M. Shams El-din, B. B. Mekki and T. A. A. Elewa. 2008. Effect of Weed 
Control on Yield and Yield Components of Some Canola Varieties (Brassica 
napus L.). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 
4: 23-29. 
 (11/05/2009). 
Sandhu, P. S., K. K. Dhingra, S. C. Bhandari and R. P. Gupta. 1991. Effect of hand-
hoeing and application of herbicides on nodulation, nodule activity and grain 
yield of Lens culinaris Med. Plant and Soil 135: 293-296. 
Santen, E.van and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-
cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In: E. van Santen and G. D. Hill (eds). 
Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the 10
th
 
 
International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002. 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealnd. ISBN 0-86476-153-8. 
152 
?
Wilbur, R. L. 1963. The Leguminous Plants of North Carolina. Tech. Bul. No 151: 69, 
The North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 
Wink, M., Merino, F. and E. Kaess.1999. Molecular evolution of lupins (Leguminosae: 
genus Lupinus). 278-286. In: Lupin, an Ancient Crop for the New Millenium. 
Proc. of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/ M?ritz, Germany, 20-24 
June, 1999 (E. van Santen, M. Wink, S. Weissmann, and P. Roemer eds). 
International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. 
153 
?
Table 4.01: P-values from the analysis of variance for individual plant 
height (cm plant
-1
) and height to lowest pod.  
Effect DF Plant height
Height to 
lowest pod
Loc 1 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year 1 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year*Loc 1 0.0076 0.0001
Cultivar 2 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Cultivar 2 0.5821 0.0082
Year*Cultivar 2 <0.0001 0.0000
Year*Loc*Cultivar 2 <0.0001 0.0665
Trt_N 21 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Trt_N 21 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year*Trt_N 21 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year*Loc*Trt_N 21 0.0003 0.0178
Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.0000 0.0011
Loc*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.0970 0.4082
Year*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 <0.0001 0.0053
Year*Loc*Trt_N*Culti 42 0.0033 0.5757
Response variables
 
154 
?
Table 4.02: Total plant height in cm of L. albus L cultivars ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer as influenced by treatment in 2007 
and 2008. 
Year No Name Class Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value
2007 1 None Control 87 3.44 102 3.79 107 4.25
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 89 3.44 1.0000 99 3.79 1.0000 113 4.25 0.9617
3 Metribuzin PRE 80 3.27 0.5581 98 3.94 0.9989 111 4.25 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 88 3.27 1.0000 106 3.79 0.9991 116 4.53 0.6759
5 S-metolachlor PRE 84 3.27 0.9997 95 3.79 0.7427 106 4.25 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 90 3.27 0.9980 98 3.79 0.9958 114 4.25 0.9556
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 83 3.27 0.9860 102 3.94 1.0000 112 4.25 0.9988
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 85 3.27 1.0000 97 3.79 0.9731 111 4.25 0.9997
9 Diclosulam PRE 45 3.27 <0.0001 58 3.79 <0.0001 55 4.25 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 84 3.44 0.9996 98 3.79 0.9964 114 4.25 0.8758
11 Imazethapyr PRE 85 3.27 1.0000 99 3.79 1.0000 111 4.25 0.9998
13 Fluazifop POST 77 3.27 0.1178 99 3.79 1.0000 101 4.53 0.9871
14 Fomesafen POST 73 3.27 0.0037 80 3.79 <0.0001 97 4.25 0.5530
15 2,4-DB POST 88 3.27 1.0000 100 4.10 1.0000 108 4.25 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 79 3.27 0.2906 92 3.79 0.2809 103 4.25 0.9999
18 Sethoxydim POST 84 3.27 0.9972 105 4.67 1.0000 107 4.25 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 75 3.27 0.0325 93 3.94 0.5335 101 4.25 0.9574
20 Imazethapyr POST 79 3.27 0.3138 95 3.79 0.7507 106 4.25 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 89 3.27 1.0000 104 3.79 1.0000 115 4.53 0.8650
22 Between-within row Organic 81 3.27 0.7345 100 3.79 1.0000 114 4.53 0.9092
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 81 3.27 0.6760 101 4.10 1.0000 103 4.53 0.9998
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 88 3.27 1.0000 89 3.79 0.0838 109 4.25 1.0000
2008 1 None Control 87 3.79 125 3.27 117 3.79
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 77 3.79 0.2703 125 3.27 1.0000 116 3.79 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 80 3.79 0.7660 120 3.27 0.8407 117 3.79 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 88 3.79 1.0000 124 3.27 1.0000 119 3.79 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 84 3.79 0.9998 124 3.27 1.0000 108 3.79 0.3958
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 85 3.79 1.0000 127 3.27 1.0000 122 3.79 0.9675
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 86 3.79 1.0000 126 3.27 1.0000 120 3.79 1.0000
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 86 3.79 1.0000 122 3.27 0.9985 119 3.79 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 55 3.79 <0.0001 49 3.27 <0.0001 64 3.79 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 75 3.79 0.1168 119 3.27 0.6644 112 3.79 0.9937
11 Imazethapyr PRE 84 3.79 0.9989 121 3.27 0.9407 112 3.79 0.9947
13 Fluazifop POST 85 3.79 1.0000 126 3.27 1.0000 116 3.79 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 78 3.79 0.3916 120 3.27 0.7559 112 3.79 0.9860
15 2,4-DB POST 86 3.79 1.0000 131 3.27 0.6596 121 3.79 0.9979
17 Glyphosate POST 56 3.79 <0.0001 88 3.27 <0.0001 79 3.79 <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 86 3.79 1.0000 128 3.27 0.9997 116 3.79 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 83 3.79 0.9982 123 3.27 1.0000 109 3.79 0.5790
20 Imazethapyr POST 80 3.79 0.7625 121 3.27 0.9256 116 3.79 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 88 3.79 1.0000 124 3.27 1.0000 111 3.79 0.9201
22 Between-within row Organic 82 3.79 0.9184 124 3.27 1.0000 110 3.79 0.8031
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 88 3.79 1.0000 123 3.27 0.9999 115 3.79 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 88 3.79 1.0000 122 3.27 0.9887 125 3.79 0.6370
Treatment ABL 1082 AU Alpha AU Homer
?????????????????? cm plant
-1
??????????????????
 
155 
?
Table 4.03: Height to the lowest pod in cm of L. albus L. cultivars ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer as influenced by treatment in 
2007 and 2008. 
Year No Name Class Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value Mean SE
Dunnett's P
value
2007 1 None Control 57 3.56 52 2.84 75 3.32
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 56 3.56 1.0000 50 2.84 1.0000 76 3.32 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 49 3.32 0.6086 48 2.94 0.9868 76 3.32 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 55 3.32 1.0000 59 2.84 0.6288 70 3.56 0.9407
5 S-metolachlor PRE 54 3.32 1.0000 47 2.84 0.7377 67 3.32 0.5888
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 58 3.32 1.0000 51 2.84 1.0000 75 3.32 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 51 3.32 0.8875 54 2.94 1.0000 65 3.32 0.2247
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 52 3.32 0.9931 48 2.84 0.9513 73 3.32 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 27 3.32 <0.0001 29 2.84 <0.0001 33 3.32 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 52 3.56 0.9901 49 2.84 0.9911 74 3.32 1.0000
11 Imazethapyr PRE 52 3.32 0.9947 52 2.84 1.0000 72 3.32 0.9999
13 Fluazifop POST 49 3.32 0.6731 49 2.84 0.9988 61 3.56 0.0268
14 Fomesafen POST 45 3.32 0.1012 36 2.84 0.0002 60 3.32 0.0083
15 2,4-DB POST 57 3.32 1.0000 53 3.11 1.0000 66 3.32 0.4069
17 Glyphosate POST 49 3.32 0.6619 49 2.84 0.9988 60 3.32 0.0063
18 Sethoxydim POST 54 3.32 0.9999 55 3.60 0.9999 76 3.32 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 48 3.32 0.3997 50 2.94 1.0000 66 3.32 0.2924
20 Imazethapyr POST 50 3.32 0.7037 49 2.84 0.9969 70 3.32 0.9367
21 Between row cultivation Organic 55 3.32 1.0000 51 2.84 1.0000 69 3.56 0.8899
22 Between-within row Organic 52 3.32 0.9627 50 2.84 0.9998 69 3.56 0.9380
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 54 3.32 1.0000 57 3.11 0.9524 67 3.56 0.5892
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 58 3.32 1.0000 49 2.84 0.9934 67 3.32 0.4171
2008 1 None Control 47 2.25 58 2.25 53 2.25
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 40 2.25 0.1471 54 2.25 0.8900 53 2.25 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 44 2.25 0.9992 54 2.25 0.6883 54 2.25 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 45 2.25 1.0000 60 2.25 0.9986 55 2.25 1.0000
5 S-metolachlor PRE 47 2.25 1.0000 57 2.25 1.0000 50 2.25 0.8765
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 46 2.25 1.0000 60 2.25 0.9991 57 2.25 0.9354
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 43 2.25 0.8695 61 2.25 0.9636 56 2.25 0.9962
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 44 2.25 0.9963 58 2.25 1.0000 54 2.25 1.0000
9 Diclosulam PRE 31 2.25 <0.0001 25 2.25 <0.0001 29 2.25 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 37 2.25 0.0032 53 2.25 0.4653 50 2.25 0.9006
11 Imazethapyr PRE 43 2.25 0.8900 53 2.25 0.6349 53 2.25 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 45 2.25 1.0000 56 2.25 1.0000 55 2.25 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 42 2.25 0.6413 53 2.25 0.3717 49 2.25 0.5729
15 2,4-DB POST 46 2.25 1.0000 59 2.25 1.0000 55 2.25 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 30 2.25 <0.0001 42 2.25 <0.0001 38 2.25 <0.0001
18 Sethoxydim POST 48 2.25 1.0000 60 2.25 0.9947 53 2.25 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 46 2.25 1.0000 56 2.25 0.9998 51 2.25 0.9986
20 Imazethapyr POST 44 2.25 0.9837 57 2.25 1.0000 53 2.25 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 48 2.25 1.0000 58 2.25 1.0000 54 2.25 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 43 2.25 0.8834 60 2.25 0.9999 50 2.25 0.9697
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 47 2.25 1.0000 61 2.25 0.9800 54 2.25 1.0000
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 48 2.25 1.0000 57 2.25 1.0000 57 2.25 0.7631
Treatment ABL 1082 AU Alpha AU Homer
?????????????????? cm plant
-1
??????????????????
 
156 
?
Table 4.04: P-values from the analysis of variance for number of fruiting branches per plant and yield per plant expressed as a fraction 
of whole plant branch number: Mainstem-Mainstem (MS-MS), Mainstem-Primary Branches (MS-PB), Mainstem-Secondary 
Branches (MS-SB), Basal-Mainstem (BL-MS) and Basal branch (BL-Branch).  
Effect DF Whole Plant MS-MS MS-PB MS-SB BL-MS BL-Branch
Loc 1 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year 1 <0.0001 0.0018 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0385 <0.0001
Year*Loc 1 0.7086 0.1870 <0.0001 0.0058 <0.0001 <0.0001
Cultivar 2 <0.0001 0.0133 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Cultivar 2 0.0253 0.0014 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Year*Cultivar 2 0.0034 0.0002 0.4572 0.0531 0.0265 0.0465
Year*Loc*Cultivar 2 0.0071 0.7064 <0.0001 0.0001 0.0539 0.0195
Trt_N 21 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Trt_N 21 0.0103 0.0047 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.6367 0.0003
Year*Trt_N 21 0.1509 0.0596 0.0732 0.0040 0.0252 <0.0001
Year*Loc*Trt_N 21 0.2757 0.0768 0.1113 0.2348 0.8584 0.6133
Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.1929 0.0009 0.3408 0.5751 0.9613 0.1318
Loc*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.0487 0.0332 0.0866 0.0001 0.0009 0.0647
Year*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.2294 0.0818 0.2439 0.0571 0.0305 0.2872
Year*Loc*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.4185 0.7219 0.3459 0.3558 0.3899 0.8601
Response variables
 
157 
?
Table 4.05: Individual plant fruiting branch number as affected by treatment over the 
cultivars, both locations and years. Treatments 12 and 16 were excluded.  
No Name Class Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value
number plant
-1
1 None Control 8.91 0.3254
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 9.00 0.3254 1.0000
3 Metribuzin PRE 8.98 0.3254 1.0000
4 Linuron PRE 9.39 0.3212 0.9746
5 S-metolachlor PRE 8.58 0.3212 0.9998
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 9.07 0.3212 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 9.45 0.3212 0.9329
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 9.97 0.3212 0.1754
9 Diclosulam PRE 5.25 0.3212 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 9.37 0.3212 0.9845
11 Imazethapyr PRE 8.91 0.3212 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 8.95 0.3254 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 8.87 0.3212 1.0000
15 2,4-DB POST 9.06 0.3254 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 9.06 0.3212 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 8.80 0.3254 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 8.54 0.3212 0.9989
20 Imazethapyr POST 8.70 0.3212 1.0000
21 Between row cultivation Organic 9.00 0.3254 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 8.57 0.3212 0.9997
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 7.89 0.3254 0.2310
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 8.61 0.3212 1.0000
Treatment Whole Plant
 
158 
?
Table 4.06: Fraction of plant fruiting branch number of main stem and basal yield components [Main stem (MS-MS), Primary- (MS-
PB) and Secondary branches (MS-SB), Basal-Main stem (BL-MS) and Basal-Branch (BL-Branch)] as influenced by treatment over 
cultivars, locations and years. Branch number of individual plant is given in Table 4.05. 
No Name Class Mean
Dunnett's P-
value Mean
Dunnett's P-
value Mean
Dunnett's P-
value Mean
Dunnett's P-
value Mean
Dunnett's P-
value
1 None Control 0.11 0.49 0.31 0.03 0.05
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.49 1.0000 0.27 0.1502 0.05 0.0036 0.08 0.4178
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.49 1.0000 0.29 0.1184 0.04 0.7250 0.07 0.8190
4 Linuron PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.47 0.7844 0.28 0.3595 0.05 0.0046 0.10 0.0010
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.12 0.9580 0.50 1.0000 0.29 0.1756 0.04 0.9446 0.05 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.47 0.9031 0.31 0.7354 0.04 0.8692 0.07 0.8720
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.10 0.9959 0.48 1.0000 0.30 0.4077 0.04 0.7152 0.08 0.2423
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.10 0.9436 0.46 0.5509 0.31 0.7355 0.05 0.0392 0.08 0.0704
9 Diclosulam PRE 0.20 <0.0001 0.56 0.0017 0.16 <0.0001 0.04 0.9688 0.05 0.9995
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.48 0.9999 0.27 0.1150 0.05 0.0210 0.10 0.0025
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.11 1.0000 0.49 1.0000 0.30 0.3600 0.04 0.9809 0.06 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 0.13 0.2752 0.49 1.0000 0.30 0.4385 0.03 1.0000 0.05 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 0.12 0.9893 0.49 1.0000 0.29 0.1621 0.04 0.9768 0.07 0.9662
15 2,4-DB POST 0.11 1.0000 0.46 0.4615 0.34 0.1400 0.03 1.0000 0.05 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 0.09 0.6223 0.51 0.9917 0.31 0.7551 0.03 0.9999 0.06 1.0000
18 Sethoxydim POST 0.12 0.9776 0.49 1.0000 0.31 0.9086 0.03 1.0000 0.05 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 0.11 1.0000 0.49 1.0000 0.31 0.9945 0.03 1.0000 0.05 1.0000
20 Imazethapyr POST 0.11 1.0000 0.48 1.0000 0.29 0.1978 0.04 0.3666 0.07 0.8066
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.12 0.9999 0.50 1.0000 0.30 0.4405 0.03 1.0000 0.05 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.12 1.0000 0.51 0.9362 0.26 0.0187 0.04 0.0858 0.06 0.9945
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.14 0.0766 0.52 0.5973 0.30 0.4725 0.02 0.1704 0.02 0.0808
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.12 0.9892 0.50 1.0000 0.32 0.7143 0.02 0.9191 0.04 0.6381
SE
Treatment MS-MS MS-PB MS-SB BL-MS BL-Branch
????????????????? fraction of  individual branch number?????????????????
0.01 0.01 0.011 0.004 0.01
 
159 
?
Table 4.07: P-values from the analysis of variance for whole plant seed yield ( g plant-1) and yield components expressed as a fraction 
of whole plant yield: Mainstem-Mainstem (MS-MS), Mainstem-Primary Branches (MS-PB), Mainstem-Secondary Branches (MS-
SB), Basal-Mainstem (BL-MS) and Basal branch (BL-Branch).  
Effect DF Whole Plant MS-MS MS-PB MS-SB BL-MS BL-Branch
Loc 1 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0356 <0.0001
Year 1 0.0013 0.2068 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0011 0.0310
Year*Loc 1 <0.0001 0.6033 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Cultivar 2 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Cultivar 2 0.0001 0.0307 0.0009 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0004
Year*Cultivar 2 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0038 0.3270 0.0033
Year*Loc*Cultivar 2 0.0003 0.2407 0.2043 0.1334 0.0198 0.0008
Trt_N 21 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0012 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Loc*Trt_N 21 0.0020 0.0114 0.0004 <0.0001 0.1092 0.0252
Year*Trt_N 21 0.1566 0.0001 0.0442 0.0001 0.0287 0.0006
Year*Loc*Trt_N 21 0.0741 0.0023 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0979 0.5325
Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.1810 0.0059 0.0354 0.0154 0.3929 0.7484
Loc*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.1836 0.3193 0.4318 0.0022 <0.0001 0.7023
Year*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.1585 0.0897 0.1067 0.0791 0.0099 0.8575
Year*Loc*Trt_N*Cultivar 42 0.5152 0.0790 0.1345 0.1818 0.1715 0.4066
Response variables
 
160 
?
Table 4.08: Individual plant seed yield in g as affected by treatment. Treatments 12 and 
16 were excluded. 
No Name Class Mean SE
Dunnett's P-
value
g plant
-1
1 None Control 24.7 0.52
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 24.0 0.60 0.6563
3 Metribuzin PRE 23.9 0.53 0.6251
4 Linuron PRE 23.0 0.54 0.2776
5 S-metolachlor PRE 23.4 0.55 0.4014
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 24.0 0.55 0.6800
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 25.6 0.58 0.5541
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 27.1 0.51 0.1061
9 Diclosulam PRE 11.2 0.52 <0.0001
10 Flumioxazin PRE 26.0 0.56 0.3910
11 Imazethapyr PRE 23.9 0.55 0.6367
13 Fluazifop POST 24.6 0.54 0.9831
14 Fomesafen POST 21.7 0.58 0.0558
15 2,4-DB POST 25.2 0.58 0.7505
17 Glyphosate POST 22.0 0.53 0.0876
18 Sethoxydim POST 24.0 0.59 0.6752
19 Flumioxazin POST 22.6 0.54 0.1754
20 Imazethapyr POST 23.0 0.54 0.2769
21 Between row cultivation Organic 25.8 0.54 0.4532
22 Between-within row Organic 24.0 0.52 0.6782
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 20.2 0.58 0.0550
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 22.7 0.54 0.1978
Treatment Whole Plant
 
161 
?
Table 4.09: Fraction of individual plant seed yield (expressed as fraction) of main stem and basal yield components [Main stem (MS-
MS), Primary- (MS-PB) and Secondary branches (MS-SB), Basal-Main stem (BL-MS) and Basal-Branch (BL-Branch)] as influenced 
by treatment over cultivars, locations and years. Actual plant seed yield in g is in Table 4.08. 
No Name Class Mean
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean
Dunnett's 
P-value Mean
Dunnett's 
P-value
1 None Control 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.04 0.03
2 S-metolachlor/Linuron PRE 0.24 0.9987 0.51 0.9999 0.14 0.9980 0.08 0.0764 0.04 0.7385
3 Metribuzin PRE 0.27 0.9999 0.49 0.9238 0.13 0.8461 0.06 0.8428 0.04 0.3796
4 Linuron PRE 0.24 0.9973 0.47 0.2767 0.14 0.9838 0.08 0.0403 0.05 0.0320
5 S-metolachlor PRE 0.28 0.9728 0.50 0.9987 0.13 0.9202 0.06 0.9628 0.03 1.0000
6 Pendimethalin (0.5x) PRE 0.27 1.0000 0.50 0.9990 0.14 0.9755 0.06 0.8758 0.03 1.0000
7 Pendimethalin (1x) PRE 0.23 0.7699 0.52 1.0000 0.15 1.0000 0.07 0.2137 0.04 0.8482
8 Pendimethalin (2x) PRE 0.22 0.3419 0.52 1.0000 0.15 1.0000 0.08 0.0581 0.04 0.6585
9 Diclosulam PRE 0.36 <0.0001 0.47 0.1298 0.06 <0.0001 0.07 0.0822 0.02 0.9890
10 Flumioxazin PRE 0.23 0.9265 0.51 1.0000 0.12 0.2931 0.08 0.0077 0.05 0.0637
11 Imazethapyr PRE 0.26 1.0000 0.53 1.0000 0.12 0.2978 0.06 0.9474 0.03 1.0000
13 Fluazifop POST 0.27 1.0000 0.50 0.9831 0.16 1.0000 0.05 1.0000 0.02 1.0000
14 Fomesafen POST 0.28 0.9557 0.48 0.3987 0.15 1.0000 0.05 0.9983 0.03 0.9916
15 2,4-DB POST 0.24 0.9988 0.53 1.0000 0.15 1.0000 0.05 0.9989 0.02 1.0000
17 Glyphosate POST 0.21 0.2942 0.57 0.2114 0.13 0.8015 0.05 1.0000 0.03 0.9800
18 Sethoxydim POST 0.26 1.0000 0.50 0.9842 0.17 0.8981 0.04 1.0000 0.03 1.0000
19 Flumioxazin POST 0.26 1.0000 0.51 1.0000 0.14 0.9997 0.05 0.9960 0.04 0.7027
20 Imazethapyr POST 0.25 1.0000 0.50 0.9971 0.15 1.0000 0.06 0.8389 0.04 0.9086
21 Between row cultivation Organic 0.27 1.0000 0.53 1.0000 0.13 0.7758 0.05 1.0000 0.02 1.0000
22 Between-within row Organic 0.28 0.9936 0.49 0.8316 0.12 0.3792 0.07 0.1197 0.03 0.9673
23 SoilSaver Black Oat Organic 0.31 0.0825 0.50 0.9664 0.16 1.0000 0.02 0.4653 0.01 0.6112
24 As_033 Black Oat Organic 0.29 0.7135 0.50 0.9981 0.16 1.0000 0.03 0.9929 0.02 0.9890
SE
Treatment MS-MS MS-PB MS-SB BL-MS BL-Branch
????????????????? fraction of total plant seed yield?????????????????
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01