Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
108 Ch.. ical Weeding of On1"n. GrownaD Hinera1 SoUa. , 1 Charlea J • Noll A1thClughmoltt onion. in' tha,..-"th.'at 'are grown "o~lIUCk .0Ua, a conaiderable acre ... i. grown on mineral aoi1s. The'co.t of hand we.dinS hlab' thaltlh.re ,used it l1111it. the ~.... ,Proeluct:l.on colt. ,c could be reduc.d and _cr.ege incr ... ecllf adequat."c_iAla1 weediq were developed. '!'bi. y.ar. experiment il a continuation of work ltarted a nUlllber of ye.n .10. onions 1. .0. The onion ~ad.ty Sweet Spanilh... a.ecl.d tbill ayth •••• db.d was pUpared. The pr.· ... rl.nce treatment. were applied 1 'day after'a.eding, the emergence treatment. 14 dayl aft.r ••• ding and the po.t-emergence treatm.nt. 17, 21 or 22 dayl after seeding. Individual plot. were 28 feet long and 2 feet wide. Treatmenta were randomized in each of 8 block •• The chemical I were appli'dwith a ~all .prayer ov.r the row for a width of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weedl between the rows. An e.tt.8te of weed control was made July 24 on a ba.il of 1 to 10, 1 being moat deairab1e and 10 leaat delirable. Onions were harvested September 25. USULTS Th. relu1ts 1"1- prelll11ted in table 1. All chemieah except Exp. R I:I.gnifi~"nt1y iocreaaed weed control as compared to the untreated check. The belt weeded plotl were treated with Prometryne, Diph.namid and Dactha1 and Ipazine at their higbest rate. Manytreabuents wignificantly reduced the stand of plants. Only two treatmenta had a stand sizn:l.ficantly greater than the untreated ch.ck plot. Th.a. treatments were Dacthal and CIPC. A a1S· nificant increa.e in yi.1d was obtained where Dactha1 and eIPC had been appUed a. compared to all other treatlllents. CQHCLUSION Taking into con.ideration weed control, stand of plants and yield the be.t treatlllenta in this exper1lllent for weeding onion. were Dacthal appUed in a pre·emergence application and eIPe applied at t1llle of onion emergence. lAssociate Profeasor of 01ericulture, Deparbuent of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and Bxper1lllent Station, Pennsylvania State Univeraity, Univeraity Park, Pennay1vania.
Table 1. Weed control: stand of plants and weight of onions under chemical herbicide treatments. AVERAGE PERPLOT Active Rate '*'Weed Wt. of Per Acre AppU.c4tion Days control Stand of OOione Cheaical lb •• ·f. SeedinlZ ~11.10) Plants lb •• '.. Nothing -- -- 9.4 61 1.8 Dacthal W-50R 8 Pre- .... rgence 1 4.0 112 9.4 It It '. 16 1 2..3 104 11.9 It 24 . It 1 1.8 120 11.0 It Exp R 8 1 9.5 37 1.5 It " 16 1 11).0 51 1.4 " 24 It 1 9.6 45 1.5 Zytron 10 11 1 ~~3 83 5.S " 15 It 1 5.3 55 4.8 Diphenamid 6 It 1 1.3 10 1.0 It 9 It 1 1.1 2 .1 U-4S13 2 " 1 3.5 I 67 3.9 " 3 It 1 3.3 58 ~.S Atratone 2 It 1 4.4 27 :~8 CIPC 4 Emergence 14 4'.4 116 7.7 " 6 " 14 3.1 141 11.2 Randox T 6 It 14 5.4 81 4.6 It 9 It 14 5.9 71 4.8 I KOCN· 12 " 14 7..0 68 2.3 It 18 It 14 7.•1 45 2.•1 Atratone 2 POlt-emergence 22 J.9 50 S~8 Prometryne 2 " 21 2.•0 8 .9 It 3 " 21 1.1 3 .3 It 4 It 21 1.3 6 . ~.s lpadne 2 " 21 4.3 22 1.7 It 3 It 21 2.6 25 1.8 It " 4 21 2.0 5 .9 It Casoron 17 B.S 37 1.7 It 17 1~0 33 1.7 " ~ Least significant difference 5% 1% *Weed Control 1-10: 1 Perfect WeedControl 10 Full WeedGrowth 1~3 1.7 31 40 2~3 3~0
- Page 57 and 58: - - - - - - - - ~, - - - - --- - -
- Page 59 and 60: Table 7.. Weed Control in :l:!c,Ql1
- Page 61 and 62: Table '1. Rat.1lISstI 'Of carrot an
- Page 63 and 64: H , 'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.
- Page 65 and 66: 65 plant press and dried in a f~ced
- Page 67 and 68: 67 Tablet. 'lIi! EFFECT'or AN'INO'l
- Page 69 and 70: 69 THE INFLUENCE JIt P.I!ll'ROLEUM
- Page 71 and 72: 71 1 CDEC(Ee) 2 " " 3 4 " 5 " " 6 7
- Page 73 and 74: !a~l~ 1._ ~!:.c!: :!!1~hJl!:e.::m~d
- Page 75 and 76: 75 EFFECT;OFCOMPOSITIONANDVOLUMEOF
- Page 77 and 78: A LOGARITHMICSPRAlERFORSMALLPLCflSY
- Page 79 and 80: 79 Do~ Calculations The actual init
- Page 81 and 82: Selective Herbicides for Several Cr
- Page 83 and 84: 83 Susceptible weeds Tolerant weeds
- Page 85 and 86: 85 Marion Market 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Da
- Page 87 and 88: Table 5. Bai
- Page 89 and 90: weeding of Lima Bean. With Chemical
- Page 91 and 92: EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONQUALITYANDYIEL
- Page 93 and 94: Results Date treated: 9/6/61 Soil m
- Page 95 and 96: 95 Date planted: 915/61 Date treate
- Page 97 and 98: Table 3. Yield Data on Hanover and
- Page 99 and 100: Weeding of Carrots With 'pre-lilanU
- Page 101 and 102: 101 WEEDCONTROLSTUDIESIN SEElED ONI
- Page 103 and 104: Weather conditions at the two locat
- Page 105 and 106: In contrast to the damage noted in
- Page 107: 107 Literature Cited 1. Althaus. R.
- Page 111 and 112: Results and Discussion. The data, p
- Page 113 and 114: CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or
- Page 115 and 116: Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of p
- Page 117 and 118: 'Ihree experiments were conducted i
- Page 119 and 120: a- Table 2_"COIIlpartsonof' Several
- Page 121 and 122: fJ Table 3. CcBparison of Several.
- Page 123 and 124: c
- Page 125 and 126: Table 1. Seeding and Weed Counts on
- Page 127 and 128: WEEDCONTROLANDTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SE
- Page 129 and 130: Following emergence of the tomato s
- Page 131 and 132: indicates that several of the treat
- Page 133 and 134: DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Transplant Tom
- Page 135 and 136: harvest was covered with weeds, and
- Page 137 and 138: An additional 2 years of tests on f
- Page 139 and 140: ~ Table 2 .--l Average Number and P
- Page 141 and 142: ~ Table 4 Total Yields in Number an
- Page 143 and 144: "" ~ Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto
- Page 145 and 146: of weed eoneee I without inj ury 't
- Page 147 and 148: 1. Associate Research Specialist in
- Page 149 and 150: Stulllll&ry A study was lh1tlatedto
- Page 151 and 152: Table 2. The residual effects of se
- Page 153 and 154: FURTHEROBSERVATIONS ONCONTROL OF TH
- Page 155 and 156: Table 3 - Mean per cent brake contr
- Page 157 and 158: lAssociate Research Spec1alist in W
108<br />
Ch.. ical <strong>Weed</strong>ing of On1"n. GrownaD Hinera1 SoUa.<br />
, 1<br />
Charlea J • Noll<br />
A1thClughmoltt onion. in' tha,..-"th.'at 'are grown "o~lIUCk .0Ua, a<br />
conaiderable acre ... i. grown on mineral aoi1s. The'co.t of hand we.dinS<br />
hlab' thaltlh.re ,used it l1111it. the ~.... ,Proeluct:l.on colt. ,c<br />
could be reduc.d and _cr.ege incr ... ecllf adequat."c_iAla1 weediq were<br />
developed. '!'bi. y.ar. experiment il a continuation of work ltarted a<br />
nUlllber of ye.n .10.<br />
onions 1. .0.<br />
The onion ~ad.ty Sweet Spanilh... a.ecl.d tbill ayth •••• db.d was pUpared.<br />
The pr.· ... rl.nce treatment. were applied 1 'day after'a.eding, the<br />
emergence treatment. 14 dayl aft.r ••• ding and the po.t-emergence treatm.nt.<br />
17, 21 or 22 dayl after seeding. Individual plot. were 28 feet long and 2<br />
feet wide. Treatmenta were randomized in each of 8 block ••<br />
The chemical I were appli'dwith a ~all .prayer ov.r the row for a width<br />
of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weedl between the rows. An e.tt.8te<br />
of weed control was made July 24 on a ba.il of 1 to 10, 1 being moat deairab1e<br />
and 10 leaat delirable. Onions were harvested September 25.<br />
USULTS<br />
Th. relu1ts 1"1- prelll11ted in table 1. All chemieah except Exp. R I:I.gnifi~"nt1y<br />
iocreaaed weed control as compared to the untreated check. The<br />
belt weeded plotl were treated with Prometryne, Diph.namid and Dactha1 and<br />
Ipazine at their higbest rate. Manytreabuents wignificantly reduced the<br />
stand of plants. Only two treatmenta had a stand sizn:l.ficantly greater than<br />
the untreated ch.ck plot. Th.a. treatments were Dacthal and CIPC. A a1S·<br />
nificant increa.e in yi.1d was obtained where Dactha1 and eIPC had been<br />
appUed a. compared to all other treatlllents.<br />
CQHCLUSION<br />
Taking into con.ideration weed control, stand of plants and yield the<br />
be.t treatlllenta in this exper1lllent for weeding onion. were Dacthal appUed in<br />
a pre·emergence application and eIPe applied at t1llle of onion emergence.<br />
lAssociate Profeasor of 01ericulture, Deparbuent of Horticulture, College of<br />
Agriculture and Bxper1lllent Station, Pennsylvania State Univeraity, Univeraity<br />
Park, Pennay1vania.
Change language