Potential for Phytotoxicity of Mogeton 25 WP (Quinoclamine) on Coral Bells (Heuchera sanguinea Firefly )

Similar documents
Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberellic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of Periwinkle (Vinca Tall Rosea Mix )

Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberellic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of Catnip (Nepeta cataria)

Heiner Lieth, Director Linda Dodge Shannon Still Lea Ragaini Ron Lane Jackie Fortunko

Heiner Lieth, Director Linda Dodge Shannon Still Ron Lane Jackie Fortunko

Heiner Lieth, Director Linda Dodge Shannon Still Lea Ragaini Ron Lane Jackie Fortunko

Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberellic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of Gaura (Gaura lindheimeri Siskiyou Pink )

Heiner Lieth, Director Linda Dodge Shannon Still Ron Lane Jackie Fortunko

Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberellic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of English Ivy (Hedera helix)

Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberrelic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of Lady s Mantle (Alchemilla mollis Auslese )

Phytotoxicity and Efficacy of Fascination (6-Benzyl Adenine + Gibberellic Acid) for Enhanced Branching of Dead Nettle (Lamium maculatum Shell Pink )

Efficacy of Management Tools for Fusarium Root & Crown Rot Final Objective

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Cover Sheet

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Cover Sheet

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Cover Sheet

Acetamiprid, Dinotefuran, Thiomethoxam, Chenopodium, Buprofezin, and Flonicamid Efficacy and Phytotoxicity Trial: Citrus Mealybug (Planoccocus citri)

2015 Turfgrass Proceedings

CONTROL OF BLACK TURFGRASS ATAENIUS ADULTS AND GRUBS WITH ADULTICIDES AND LARVICIDES

CHEMICAL SAFETY IN THE GREENHOUSE

20 Turfgrass Proceedings

2014 Turfgrass Proceedings

2007 Powdery Mildew of Cantaloupe Fungicide Trial

2015 Turfgrass Proceedings

Objective: How it Was Done:

PROJECT TITLE: Evaluation of Preemergence Herbicides for Annual Weed Control in Young Blueberry Fields (Final Report Research).

Peanut Disease Control Field Trials 2013

2012 Final Report. Evaluation of Aminocyclopyrachlor for Saltcedar Control

2013 Turfgrass Proceedings

2008 Turfgrass Proceedings

2012 Turfgrass Proceedings

Progress Report. Evaluation of Aminocyclopyrachlor for Saltcedar Control

Objective: Procedures:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

What s new with micronutrients in our part of the world?

2014 Black Dot Foliar Fungicides (200 Series)

2013 Black Dot Foliar Fungicides (200 Series)

LYGUS BUG MANAGEMENT IN SEED ALFALFA. Eric T. Natwick and M. Lopez 1 ABSTRACT

EVALUATION OF THE BIOFUNGICIDE ECOGUARD (BACILLUS LICHENIFORMIS) ON DOLLAR SPOT CONTROL WHEN USED ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH FUNGICIDES, 2010

2008 Turfgrass Proceedings

Aphid Management on Head Lettuce Using Imidacloprid and Foliar Insecticides

OBJECTIVES METHODS. Site Characteristics

INSECTICIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOBACCO BEDS AND FIELDS Prepared by Lee Townsend, Extension Entomologist

IRON CHLOROSIS IN AVOCADOS

12. ZINC - The Major Minor

Knockdown and Residual Control of Bagrada Bug With Foliar Insecticides in Broccoli: 2013 Efficacy Report

2007 Turfgrass Proceedings

ORGANIC ROMAINE HEARTS LATE SUMMER 2017 SALINAS, CA

2011 Lygus Bug Management Trial in Blackeyes Kearney Research and Extension Center, Parlier, CA C.A. Frate 1, S.C. Mueller and P.B.

2016 Processing Onion Weed Control Trial

Management Program for Whiteflies on Propagated Ornamentals

2007 Evaluation of Fungicides and Fungicide Programs for the Control of Anthracnose on Annual Bluegrass Putting Greens

Treatments protocol # Sponsor Materials Timing/interval FP/ac Tol 1 lab non-treated Y 2 lab Thiram 65WSB 14d 3.0 lb Y

Using silicon, Stimplex and plant resistance in pumpkin production systems to reduce plant disease loss

Balance GT/Balance Bean/LL Systems in Soybeans at Rochester, MN Breitenbach, Fritz R., Lisa M. Behnken, Annette Kyllo and Matthew Bauer

Managing transplant size and advancing field maturity of fresh tomatoes and peppers

ZINC FERTILIZER GROUP / MISSTOF GROEP 2. Reg. No. B4255 Act/Wet No 36 of/van 1947

Final 2013 Delaware Soybean Board Report

Laboratory Pesticide Formulations, Labels, and Safety

INSECTICIDE TRIALS FOR ONION THRIPS (THRIPS TABACI) CONTROL 2002

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

2008 PMR REPORT #ESOYSMI4 SECTION E: CEREAL, FORAGE CROPS, and OILSEEDS Insect Pests

Evaluation of Phytotoxicity of Diazinon and Captan Formulations on Highbush Blueberries

WATERMELON RESPONSE TO COPPER AND A COMPLETE MICRONUTRIENT SOURCE1

EPA Reg. No (Except California) REVISED USE DIRECTIONS FOR CREEPING BENTGRASS, PERENNIAL RYEGRASS AND BERMUDAGRASS

Efficacy of Selected Acaricides on Spider Mites in Corn 2011

Efficacy of Amincocyclopyrachlor for Annual Broomweed Control

E. Lyons, K. Jordan, and K. Carey. Department of Plant Agriculture and the Guelph Turfgrass Institute, University of Guelph, Ontario.

2006- Foliar insecticide effects on soybean aphid and soybean yield. Summary Background Objective Site and application description

University of Idaho Pink Rot Fungicide Trial Powdery Scab Fungicide Trial

Final Trial Report. western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis - FRANOC

Feasibility of Reducing Slug Damage in Cabbage: Part II

Influence of Herbicides on the Spring Transition of Bermudagrass Greens Overseeded with Perennial Ryegrass

1999 RUTGERS Turfgrass Proceedings

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Sidewalk Crack Vegetation Control Trial

FIELD CASE STUDIES OF DICAMBA MOVEMENT TO SOYBEANS. Chris Boerboom 1

2015 Evaluation of In-Furrow and Foliar Fungicides for Disease Control in Peanut, Jay, FL

Research Abstract for the CALIFORNIA LEAFY GREENS RESEARCH PROGRAM April 1, 2012 March 31, 2013

Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable & Farm Market EXPO Michigan Greenhouse Growers EXPO. December 4-6, DeVos Place Convention Center, Grand Rapids, MI

Promoting Root Development on Bearded Iris

Cultivar Specific Nitrogen Management Profiles For Irrigated Process Varieties Inkster, ND 2009

2008 Turfgrass Proceedings

Weather conditions prior to POST I, II & III applications were favorable due to abundant moisture conditions and moderate temperatures.

2012 Johnsongrass Control Trials

Fungicide control of apple scab: 2005 trial results

Soil Nutrients and Fertilizers. Essential Standard Explain the role of nutrients and fertilizers.

Control of Codling Moth and Other Pear Arthropods with Novaluron Evaluation of Novaluron for Phytotoxicity to Pear and Apple 2004

PSB FIELD ASSAYS. 1 Trial No. 23 Ref no: IPL/KHA/SH/PPX/54 2 Product PS Bacteria 2 % A.S. 3 Crop Name Sorghum

Thermo-Therapy and Use of Biofungicides and Fungicides for Management of Internal Discoloration of Horseradish Roots

WALNUT BLIGHT CONTROL INVESTIGATIONS TEHAMA 2008

Nutrient Uptake Trial: Determination of Nutrient Uptake in Grapevines

GRAPEVINE DISEASES. Formulation Information & Adjuvants. Online Guide To. Virginia Tech

INSECTICIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOBACCO BEDS AND FIELDS Prepared by Lee Townsend, Extension Entomologist

USE OF OCEANGROWN PRODUCTS TO INCREASE CROP YIELD AND ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CONTENT. Dave Franzen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

2013 Turfgrass Proceedings

IR-4 Environmental Horticulture Program Leafminer Efficacy Summary & Literature Review. Authors: Ely Vea and Cristi Palmer Date: August 13, 2018

Peanut Disease Control Field Trials 2015

Lime Fertilizer Interactions Affecting Vegetable Crop Production' Delbert D. Hemphill, Jr., and T. L. ABSTRACT

Evaluation of Assail for the Control of Early Season Cotton Aphids in Upland Cotton COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT 2001

COLD TOLERANCE OF VETIVER GRASS

MRL application form (SANCO 4044/2008 rev. 10.2)

Transcription:

Potential for Phytotoxicity of Mogeton 25 WP (Quinoclamine) on Coral Bells (Heuchera sanguinea Firefly ) By Heiner Lieth, Director Linda Dodge Ron Lane Dylan Hodgkiss Project Interregional Research Project #4 Project Number A November 8, 25 Donors/Supporters Suncrest Nursery, Watsonville, CA UC Davis Environmental Horticulture IR4 Center Department of Plant Sciences University of California One Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 http//envhort.ucdavis.edu/ir4

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Investigator (Name, Address, Phone#, e- mail, etc) Dr. Heiner Lieth Department of Plant Sciences University of California One Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 Ph 53-752-7198 FAX 53-752-1819 Email jhlieth@ucdavis.edu Location of Trial TRIAL TYPE (field, container, greenhouse, etc) Chemical - Common Name UC Davis Greenhouse containers Quinoclamine - Formulation Wettable Powder 25% - Batch Number - Product Mogeton - EPA Registration Number CAS number 2797-51-5 - Manufacture Crompton USE INFORMATION - Plant Common Name Coral Bells - Plant Scientific Name Heuchera sanguinea Firefly - Pest (s) / Pathogen(s) / Weed(s) Liverworts Soil Type or Type of Potting Mix UC Mix % Sand % Silt % Clay % OM ph 35 65 6.5 Enter each DATE for Seeding Emergence Transplanting 8/11/25 Enter each SPACING for Plant or Pot 6 inches Row 6 inches Enter each SIZE for Pot 6-inch Plot 45 feet 2 Experimental Design Randomized Complete Block Number of Reps 3 blocks X 3reps/block = 9 replicates total for each treatment 2

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 APPLICATION PARAMETERS1 Type of Application (aerial, ground, foliar, drench, ppi, chemigation, broadcast, directed, etc) Number of Applications Application Type Nozzle Type/Size Foliar spray 2, four weeks apart Over the top Manual spray bottles Nozzle Pressure Delivery Rate Calibration Date(s) APPLICATION SUMMARY APPLICATION DATE RATES (a.i./1 gallons water) (Be sure to provide units) Brief Description of Growth Stage (Dormant, New Growth Present, Bud, etc) 8/16/25, 2, 4, 8 oz./gal Vegetative, 5 days post-transplant 9/13/25, 2, 4, 8 oz./gal Vegetative, 4 weeks post-transplant RAINFALL/IRRIGATION RECORDS INCLUDE RAINFALL/IRRIGATION INFORMATION (printouts, IR-4 forms, etc.) The plants were watered daily during the 12-week experiment with half-strength Hoagland s solution using a drip irrigation system delivering 1 gallon per hour. 3

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 OTHER PESTICIDES, FERTILIZER, LIME AND ADJUVANTS USED PRODUCT AMOUNT DATE Dursban 5W 2.5 g/1 gal 9/23/25 Pylon 1.5 ml/1 gal 9/23/25 Silwett.5 tsp/1 gal 9/23/25 Avid 7 ml/3 gal 1/7/25 Sevin 5W 6 tsp/3 gal 1/7/25 Tame 2.4EC.5 oz/3 gal 1/21/25 Heritage 18 g/3 gal 1/21/25 Silwett.25 oz/ 3 gal 1/21/25 Safari.32 oz/ 4 gal 1/24/25 Avid.32 oz/4 gal 1/24/25 NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS (Use more pages if needed) Materials and Methods Plant Material and Culture. Liners of Heuchera sanguinea Firefly were received from Suncrest Nursery July 26, 25. These were transplanted into 6-inch pots containing UC Mix on August 11, 25 and maintained in a greenhouse under natural day length for 5 days until the experiment began on August 16, 25. For the experiment, the plants were transferred to a greenhouse under natural day length with day/night temperatures of 75 /62 F (24 /16 C) (Figure 1). The plants were watered daily during the 12-week experiment with half-strength Hoagland s solution using a drip irrigation system delivering 1 gallon per hour. Applications of pesticides as part of a normal pest management program were made as needed (see above). Experimental Procedure. Thirty-six plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gal Mogeton with 9 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 5-4 dated 5/5 (Appendix A). The plants received the first foliar spray application on August 16, 25 and the second application 4 weeks later on September 13, 25. The plants were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 blocks and 3 treatment replicates per block. Phytotoxicity ratings and plant height and width measurements were taken at week, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12. Visual phytotoxicity evaluations were based on a numerical rating scale ranging from (no injury) to 1 (complete kill) (Table 1). Plant height (cm) was measured from the container soil surface to the top of the canopy. Plant width (cm) was measured twice along perpendicular lines at the widest part of the plant, resulting in W 1 and W 2. For each observation a canopy volume index was calculated so as to be able to determine if canopy volume was affected by the application of Mogeton. The calculation was made as H*W 1 *W 2, where H is the height and W 1 and W 2 are two width measurements. The usefulness of this index is based on the fact that many of the models for such a volume calculation are of the form a*h*w 1 *W 2. The constant a depends on the assumption of the shape of the canopy. Since analyses of variance are scale-independent, the conclusion will thus be for the volume of the plant canopy. Statistical Analysis. The data were analyzed using Proc GLM of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The phytotoxicity and change in mean value from the starting plant height, width and volume index were analyzed for significant differences using t-tests. 4

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Results The Heuchera plants in the control treatment had an average increase in phytotoxicity of less than 1 at any of the observation dates (Table 2, Figure 2, Appendix B). None of the treatments deviated from this same pattern at any time. All phytotoxicity levels were of a level representing no significant phytotoxicity on any of the plants. Where seen, the symptoms of damage were death of new growth and death of older basal leaves (Figure 3). The plants grew as expected during the 12 weeks of the trial, averaging 6.7 to 1 cm increase in height and 24.75 to 26.75 cm increase in width (Table 3, Figures 2 and 4, Appendix B). While the mean height increase of 6.7 cm in the 8 oz/gal (4X) treatment was significantly different from the 1 cm height increase in the 4 oz/gal (2X) treatment, the fact that the mean height increases in the control and 2 oz/gal (1X) treatment were between these two means suggests that the difference is not due to the application of Mogeton. The changes in width and volume index also showed no significant differences between treatments. Discussion Mogeton appears to be safe for Heuchera. None of the measured phytotoxicity index levels represent a significant level of phytotoxicity. There was also no growth suppression due to Mogeton. GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE STATEMENT I acknowledge that I have read and followed the IR-4 Research protocol and completed this trial following good agricultural practice, or reported any deviations (note any changes from authorized protocol in narrative). SIGNATURE (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR) Date Completed 5

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 1 Greenhouse Temperature (F) 95 9 85 8 75 7 65 6 55 5 8/8/25 8/18/25 8/28/25 9/7/25 9/17/25 9/27/25 1/7/25 1/17/25 1/27/25 11/6/25 11/16/25 Figure 1. Greenhouse air temperatures during the experiment to evaluate the phytotoxicity of Mogeton on Heuchera sanguinea Firefly. Table 1. Numerical plant damage rating scale used for phytotoxicity determinations. Rating Description of plant damage No damage 1 No visible damage but unintended (non-permanent) impact 2 Slight leaf/tissue damage (curling leaves, necrosis, etc.) 3 Marginal chlorosis on some leaves (damage on up to 1% of plant) 4 1% 2% of plant damaged 5 Significant damage to much of plant (3% - 4%) 6 4% 6% of plant damaged 7 Chlorosis or necrosis on most of plant (6% - 7%) 8 Abscised leaves, branch dieback 9 Tissue severely damaged (8% - 1% of plant) 1 Complete kill 6

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Table 2. Phytotoxicity ratings over 12 weeks for Heuchera sanguinea Firefly treated with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gallon Mogeton, applied at weeks and 4. Different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments (P <.5). Yes / No refer to significant treatment effects at the 5% level. Means ± SE (n = 9) Mogeton on Heuchera Phytotoxicity Increase at/after Treatment Week 1 no Week 2 no Week 4 no Week 8 no Week 12 no (oz/gal) (Control) -.22 ±.15 a -.22 ±.15 a -.78 ±.22 a -.89 ±.2 a.67 ±.33 a 2 (1X). ±. ab. ±.17 a -.89 ±.2 a -.89 ±.2 a 1.11 ±.26 a 4 (2X).11 ±.11 b -.11 ±.11 a -.78 ±.15 a -1.11 ±.11 a 1.22 ±.49 a 8 (4X).11 ±.11 b. ±.17 a -1.22 ±.15 a -1.22 ±.15 a.56 ±.44 a Table 3. Plant height, width and volume changes over 12 weeks for Heuchera sanguinea Firefly treated with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gallon Mogeton, applied at weeks and 4. Different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments (P <.5). Yes / No refer to significant treatment effects at the 5% level. Means ± SE (n = 9) Treatment Height Increase no Width Increase no Relative Volume Index no (oz/gal) after 12 weeks after 12 weeks Increase after 12 weeks (Control) 9.11 ±.75 ab 25.97 ± 1.3 a 3717.6 ±2241.59 a 2 (1X) 8.28 ±.7 ab 24.75 ± 1.27 a 28526.3 ±295.23 a 4 (2X) 1. ± 1.31 a 26.75 ± 1.86 a 3789.4 ±5666.15 a 8 (4X) 6.72 ±.76 b 24.83 ± 1.25 a 26911.5 ±355.37 a 7

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Species Heuchera -- Material Mogeton Height (cm) 25 2 15 1 5 15 1 5 Change (cm) Phytotoxicity Index 1 8 6 4 2 Control 1X 2X 4X Ctrl 1X 2X 4X 3 6 9 12 week of trial 3 6 9 12 week of trial 4 4 Width (cm) 3 2 1 3 2 1 Change (cm) Volume Index 3 2 1 3 2 1 Change Ctrl 1X 2X 4X 3 6 9 12 week of trial Ctrl 1X 2X 4X 3 6 9 12 week of trial Figure 2. Summary of results for Heuchera sanguinea Firefly treated with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gallon Mogeton, applied at weeks and 4. Both means and cumulative changes over time are plotted for phytotoxicity index, plant height, plant width and plant volume index. Histograms show changes over the 12-week trial period. SE bars shown. (n = 9) 8

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Figure 3. Phytotoxicity symptoms seen on Heuchera sanguinea Firefly 12 weeks after treatment with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gallon Mogeton, applied at weeks and 4. Symptoms included death of new growth and death of older basal leaves. 9

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 Block A Block B CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Block C Figure 4. Heuchera sanguinea Firefly plants 12 weeks after treatment with (Control), 2 (1X), 4 (2X), or 8 (4X) oz./gallon Mogeton, applied at weeks and 4. 1

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 APPENDIX A Phytotoxicity to herbaceous perennial plants with applications of Mogeton 25WP Ornamental Protocol Number 5-4 REVISED DATE 5/5 Objective Determine phytotoxicity of Mogeton 25WP to perennial plants commonly grown in greenhouse and/or nurseries. Experimental Design Plot Size Must be adequate to reflect actual use conditions. Replicates Minimum of 3 replications (preferably 4) with 3 pots per replicate Application Instructions Two applications made approximately 4 weeks apart. Plant materials must be established in containers and have broken dormancy prior to first application. Use 2 qts of final spray solution per 1 sq ft or about 218 gal per acre. Applications should be made over the top of the plants using application equipment consistent with conventional commercial equipment. Please see table below for instructions for post-application irrigation. Plant Materials See attached list of plant materials. Plants must be growing in containers and not field grown. Evaluations Record phytotoxicity on a scale of to 1 ( = No phytotoxicity; 1 = Complete kill) at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after initial application. If appropriate, also include ratings for chlorosis, defoliation, stunting or other growth effects on a scale of to 1 ( = No effect; 1 = Complete plant affected). If any phytotoxicity is observed in treated plants, take pictures comparing treated and untreated plant material. Recordkeeping Keep detailed records of weather conditions including temperature and precipitation, soil-type or soil-less media, application equipment, application volume per acre, irrigation, liner size, plant height & width, and plant growth stage at application and data collection dates. Treatments Product Rate Post-Application Irrigation Instructions Mogeton 25WP (quinoclamine) 2. oz/gal Do not overhead water for 24 h after application. 4. oz/gal 8. oz/gal Untreated -- -- For labels, materials, and any required adjuvants contact Mogetan - Crompton, Kevin Donovan, 23-393-2163 x 228, kevin.donovan@cromptoncorp.com Reports Report must include a brief summary paragraph of results, a summary table with appropriate statistical analyses, a section on experimental design and materials and methods, with raw data and recordkeeping information as listed above included as appendices. If pictures were taken, please include them. An electronic report is preferred but not required. If the report is provided electronically, the basic report can be sent in MS Word or WordPerfect, the recordkeeping information as pdf or other electronic documents, and the raw data in MS Excel or other suitable program such as ARM. Please direct questions to Cristi Palmer, IR-4 HQ, Rutgers University, 681 US Hwy 1 S, North Brunswick, NJ 892-339, Phone 732-932-9575 x629, palmer@aesop.rutgers.edu OR Ely Vea, 38 Aston Forest Lane, Crownsville, MD 2132, Phone & FAX# 41-923-488, E-mail evvea@comcast.net. 11

TRIAL 1 DATE 11/8/25 APPENDIX B Phytotoxicity Report Form Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week Plant Size at week 12 Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2 Treatment Block Rep 1 2 4 8 12 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) Control A 1 1 1 1 1 14 16 17 4 37 Control A 2 1 1 1 1 9.5 13.5 14.5 17 43 37 Control A 3 1 1 1 1 12 19.5 17 2 46 42 Control B 1 1 2 1.5 14.5 13 2 4 34.5 Control B 2 12.5 14.5 17.5 19 41 38 Control B 3 2 9.5 16 16 19 5 47 Control C 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 17 14 2 41.5 37 Control C 2 1 2 7 13.5 16 21 44 44 Control C 3 2 2 2 4 9.5 16 16 19.5 41 43 Mean.9.7.7.1. 1.6 1.1 15.4 15.6 19.2 42.9 39.9 1X A 1 1 1 1 12 16.5 15 21 49 45 1X A 2 1 1 1 1 11 15 13 2.5 46 4.5 1X A 3 1 2 1 16 15 16.5 37.5 36 1X B 1 1 1 1 2 9 14 14 21 38 33 1X B 2 1 1 1 2 9 14.5 15 16 38 36.5 1X B 3 2 11 16.5 12.5 21 43 4 1X C 1 1 1 1 2 11 18 16 19 44 4 1X C 2 1 1 1 2 1.5 21 18.5 18 43 46 1X C 3 2 2 2 4 11 17 12 16 36.5 33 Mean.9.9.9.. 2. 1.5 16.5 14.6 18.8 41.7 38.9 2X A 1 1 1 1 2 1.5 17 15.5 25.5 5 47 2X A 2 1 1 1 2 7 13.5 13 17.5 39 37 2X A 3 1 1 1 4 1 17.5 14 17 4 34 2X B 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 12 22 46 42 2X B 2 2 2 1 1 1 11 16.5 14 23 51 47 2X B 3 1 2 1 1 2 14 2.5 19 24 51 53 2X C 1 1 1 1 1 4 11 17.5 15 16 44.5 27 2X C 2 1 1 1 4 13 17 16.5 17 38 38 2X C 3 1 1 1 1 1.5 22 13.5 25 45 4 Mean 1.1 1.2 1..3. 2.3 1.8 17.3 14.7 2.8 44.9 4.6 4X A 1 1 1 1 12.5 14.5 15 2.5 4.5 4 4X A 2 2 2 1 1 12.5 18 15 23 45 42 4X A 3 1 1 1 1 11 14 12 18 4 37 4X B 1 1 1 1 3 11 13.5 11.5 17 36 37 4X B 2 1 2 2 1 13 15 13 17.5 39.5 34 4X B 3 1 1 1 2 11 14 14 17.5 38 37 4X C 1 1 1 1 4 11.5 2 15 16 36 38 4X C 2 2 2 2 2 12.5 15 15 22 49 47 4X C 3 1 1 1 2 1 13 13 14 34.5 37 Mean 1.2 1.3 1.2.. 1.8 11.7 15.2 13.7 18.4 39.8 38.8 12