Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

112 The data tr01lIthe leyby trialQOnductod on the Research Farm are given in Table 2. .... Table 2. Results from laybY' treatments on Early HameR ·onions. Applied. June 29; weed control rated August 10 iJlIIIediately prior to hanee:1l.. ' " <strong>Weed</strong> l Yield Average Treatment' tlohtrol 'BulA Bulb wt. 1. ClPU . 6 lbs/A liq~ ..2.':F' 616 0.68 ' " 2. CIPC + Vegadex 4+1 lbs. 11q. "l~8,;t 56i .63 3. CIPC + Vegadex 4+4 n II 2.5 579 .66 4. CIPC + ~c:bx 4+4 ,II It 2.7 602 .67 5. Vegadex +Randt!x . 4+4 It 11 3.5",. 589 .64 6.~Vegadex 6' It ft 2.8 :' 588 .65 7. Randox 6 Ii II 3.0 " 598 .61 8. Eptam 4 lbs. @:mn. incorp., 405 493 .56 9.:Eptam 4 ,It ,11 surface 3.5 535 .60 10.; 'EPtam 4 It liq. incorp. 4.0 512 .62 11. Eptam 4 It' II surface 3.2 599 .65 12~, ''l'111am 4 II pan. in corp. 4.5 588 .64 13.'l'illam 4· It 11 surface 3.4 600 .68 14. "l'illam 4 It liq. incorp. 3.2 ' 540 .67 15. Dacthal 16 11 liq. 3.0 628 .68 16.U ..4513 4 ,II liq. 2.8: 568 .63 17. ZWtron 5 11 11q. 3.0 585 .64 18. ,ZWtron 100 II .liq. 3.2 521 .62 19. Amiben 4 It liq. 4.0 557 .63 20. Check 1.0 616 .67 L.S.D. 5% 60 .05 1 1 - no control 5 ~ excellent control , " '. ." ..The grass po~tion in. the. ar~ ot.this experiment was consi,derably h~r than that of the preVious o~, hence control rat~s for similar treatments were some.t lower. None ot.the treatments, involv.. ing CIpe, Vegadex,. anina~~cm, proVided satisfae't.-" ory oontroll1ll~ll harves1i t1me.·Ep~",m, incozwrated.1nto, the soU, gave very good control but~e granuJ,aZ:formulaticm d~in1tely reduoed 7101d and the liqUid, althoughthe,~f.t:erence was not s1gnit1oant~ -probably had a similar tendency. On t~basis of previous experience the effect of the granular was not unexpeoted but .ttl-is was the firstti!n11l ,the liqUid had appeared to haVI1latlY'detrimental effect when used at layby.' Tillam, granularineo"porated. also gave very good control li\nd had no adverse effect on the orop. On OUX' lighter SassafX'as8 10aJlllil: it 'WOuldbe safer either to use Tillam or reduce theX'ate of Eptam .to .perbaps three pounds , peraoX'e --'on Ear4rHarvest at le~st.Amiben wasltf'eq:l;ive against grail. but its efieot on yield X'equiree further testing..D4ctbal, u-4513, and Zytroil; as used under the conlti.t1ons ot this experiMl'l1;, were not satisfactory. "
CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or in combination as layby sprays, wet-e unsatisfactory.' Both Eptam and Tillam gave excellent control when mcorporat.cd into the soil. Eptam reduced yields of Early Harvest onions on light Sassatrass loam but not on lie dium heavy Sassafrass silt loam. Amiben looked promising, Zytron was variable, and u-4513and Dacthal were only fair at the rates used. The Sweet Spanish variety was considerably more tolerant to several herbicides than was Early Harvest. Interestingly enough, .no treatment had any eff'eet oil Sweet Spanish indicating, as in the seasonal experiment, that this variety is considerably mor€) tolerant of herbicides than is Early·Harvest. The mst rigorClustesting oonc:tlt1ons for the herbicides occurred in the experiment sunrnar1zed in Table. 3. Table 3. Treatment 1. CIPe 2. CIn + Vegadex 3. CI'Pe +,Randox 4. Vegadex olo'Randox 5. Eptam' 6. Eptam 7. Eptam 8. Dacthal 9. Dacthal 10. Zytron 11. Amiben 12. Check Results from layby treatments applied 1'.6Early Harvest I'nions ~ a commercial field. Treatments 5, 6 and?' applied to dry soil surface June 28; rest applied July 6 and irrigated. <strong>Weed</strong> control rated July 25, 7. de.ys prior to onion maturity. 1 1 - no control 5 - excellent control .'6 lbs. lil1. 4+2 liq. 4+2 l1q. 3+3 liq. 4 gran., incorp. 4 " surface 4 liq., incorp. 8 liq. 16 liq. 10 liq. 4 liq. Yield B5G~ 625 574 584 614 542 592 555 546 588 646 603 N.S. The results on weed control were in fairly. close agr~~ment with those from the work on the Research Farm.. Eptam, four pounds incorporated, Zytron, ten pounds, and Wben, four pounds, gave very good,. . colllllerdial conttol. None of the other treatments were considered satisfactory. '!here were no effects on yield, probably because of the soil type -- a me~llm heavy Sassatrass silt loam. SUITD'IIary: An increasing grass problem has _de growers dissatisfied with the performance of CIPC during the period June 20-25 through harvest. Seasonal and layby experiments were conducted to study possibilities for improvement of current recommendations. CIPC, Vegadex,. and Randox combinations throughout thll growing season did not,provide satisfactory grass control. Zytron andDDacthal looked promising. 113
Page 1 and 2:
PRESENTANDFUTtJU OF AQUATIC'. WIlD
Page 3 and 4:
Complete reports from 12 Nor~heaste
Page 5 and 6:
The reawakening in aquatic weed con
Page 7 and 8:
,10.1ng -2,4.,;iD (19), 2,4~5.T (4)
Page 9 and 10:
9 The Role of the State in Res idue
Page 11 and 12:
,., 1'4 keep developmental work in
Page 13 and 14:
In addition to a review of field an
Page 15 and 16:
State workers have to consider resi
Page 17 and 18:
The vigorous regrowth of quackgrass
Page 19 and 20:
during t,he sUllllller.is l,ower ll
Page 21 and 22:
5. llslapon and other chlorine,ted
Page 23 and 24:
23 • ·i INTRODUCTION: !!'he Bear
Page 25 and 26:
Some damage to runners rssul ted fr
Page 27 and 28:
27 CELLSTRUCTUREANDPLANTGROWTHCRMON
Page 29 and 30:
pel'fQ.,..d,-.ear17M1932. that the
Page 31 and 32:
a copious precipitate deposits afte
Page 33 and 34:
B) A general review of the subject
Page 35 and 36:
This narrative of ineptitude must b
Page 37 and 38:
does Jo run a recreational facility
Page 39 and 40:
Another pote1U:ialuse for chemicals
Page 41 and 42:
Newapproaches in the use of herbici
Page 43 and 44:
43 sentence would bear this out". T
Page 45 and 46:
More and more each year since the a
Page 47 and 48:
11. Rice, E. J. The effects of cUlt
Page 49 and 50:
PFSI'ICIDESUSED - - - - - - - - - -
Page 51 and 52:
__..:I whether or not these apparen
Page 53 and 54:
Dosage. Ib./acre Dimethyl tetrachlo
Page 55 and 56:
~ ~_~ __ L L Table 2. Weed Susceoti
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 and 108: 107 Literature Cited 1. Althaus. R.
Page 109 and 110: Table 1. Weed control: stand of pla
Page 111: Results and Discussion. The data, p
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
Page 159 and 160: PRE-E~mRGENCE WEEDCONTROLTEST IN RE
Page 161 and 162: 161 Table 2. Tolerance of Beets and
Page 163 and 164:
163 Results generally were good wee
Page 165 and 166:
USE OF GRANULAR CHl!H[CALAPPLICATOR
Page 167 and 168:
u.s. #1 potatoes and weed control e
Page 169 and 170:
0' ~ Table 2. Pre-emergent weed con
Page 171 and 172:
Table 3. Post-hilling weed control
Page 173 and 174:
~/Pe.nt>:r lITn. h.7(L T1o:oTl.,:r+
Page 175 and 176:
In table 2 are presettted weed a*1'
Page 177 and 178:
Since rec1root is only one of the I
Page 179 and 180:
w.l.th 3 and 4 Ibs. ot Randox per a
Page 181 and 182:
181 CONTROLOF ANNUALWEEDSIN pOTATOE
Page 183 and 184:
The following comments on the vario
Page 185 and 186:
185 S\:U!U!1fryand ConclWtlon No he
Page 187 and 188:
187 Table 2. Potato YIelds Followin
Page 189 and 190:
Residue analysis of potatoes treate
Page 191 and 192:
soil temperatures at the time the m
Page 193 and 194:
( ( ~able 2. Effect of Several Che~
Page 195 and 196:
195 PROBLEMSIN THEAPPLICATIONOF HER
Page 197 and 198:
197 scale tests on 2 cOlJllllercial
Page 199 and 200:
l!!!! Experiment A factorial experi
Page 201 and 202:
frOlll plot. at .horter i*nalt (~ t
Page 203 and 204:
6.50 Table 1. Effe,ct of p"e- an
Page 205 and 206:
205 EVALUATION0It' DACTHAL * HERBIC
Page 207 and 208:
The 1959 and 1960 replicated field
Page 209 and 210:
209 TABLEII Average Weed Cont~l Exh
Page 211 and 212:
Where the weed eompleJl;conststs of
Page 213 and 214:
...... 1.67, 213 Table 1. Effect of
Page 215 and 216:
215 Table 2. Bffect of pre-plant he
Page 217 and 218:
.217 Pive pre-plant herbicide. were
Page 219 and 220:
219 Table 1. Effect of pre-p1anthel
Page 221 and 222:
Table 2. tilat' of pre-plantbftb.tc
Page 223 and 224:
l EVALUATIONOF THREEHERBICIDESONPnE
Page 225 and 226:
TABLE2. TIll HIGHESTlATEOFHERBICIDE
Page 227 and 228:
Because of the lush growth of quack
Page 229 and 230:
Table 2. Effects of Herbicides on Q
Page 231 and 232:
Table 3. Effects of Herbicides on A
Page 233 and 234:
233 The inhibitory activity was ass
Page 235 and 236:
non-polar solvents. Table 5 shows t
Page 237 and 238:
237 Figure I Bioassay of cbrOlll4to
Page 239 and 240:
239 Weed Control and Residual Effec
Page 241 and 242:
Rototilling was done in June·' SO
Page 243 and 244:
243 in the spring of 1961 preceedin
Page 245 and 246:
WEEDCONTROL.AR
Page 247 and 248:
Li£erature Cited 1. Chappell. W. E
Page 249 and 250:
Tl'eatments ghing un.811~!8facto%'y
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1. Designa t ion Am1l:)en .\
Page 253 and 254:
Table 3. Percent Broadleat Weed Con
Page 255 and 256:
,255 CONTROLOF ANNUALWlmDSIN swDT C
Page 257 and 258:
of Casoron per acre was statistical
Page 259 and 260:
~.-! _ 1.37 ~ Table 2. Sweet Corn Y
Page 261 and 262:
Table 4. Peroent Control ot Ann.ual
Page 263 and 264:
EVALUATIONOF FIVE _~p>I!:S FOR KILL
Page 265 and 266:
265 STRAWBERRY HERBICIDEINVESTIGATI
Page 267 and 268:
267 Table 2. Eftect Of'herbicidet~e
Page 269 and 270:
'h ", 4. Tillam lOG at 5 lb/A a.i.
Page 271 and 272:
Asparagus The results of weed contr
Page 273 and 274:
273 TABLEII. ~1EED CONTROLANDYIELD
Page 275 and 276:
~ C'l TABLE tv. lIEE» OON1T..OLAND
Page 277 and 278:
WEEDCONTROLIN TRANSPLANT TOMATOES (
Page 279 and 280:
279 ·QUACKGRASSCONTROL S.M. Raleig
Page 281 and 282:
281 table II. The control of:'4oaek
Page 283 and 284:
no cultivation during the growing s
Page 285 and 286:
SummaryandConclu.1Qp' 1. A quackgra
Page 287 and 288:
If or where farmer acceptance of a
Page 289 and 290:
,~, ~ Tab1.e II. Chemical. Treatmen
Page 291 and 292:
so11 per plot at each sampling date
Page 293 and 294:
418' 293 Table III Main Eff,ects of
Page 295 and 296:
Table V, }nt ...... e..• ,fa~, I;
Page 297 and 298:
plots showed smaller decreases with
Page 299 and 300:
FURTHEREVALUmONor HERBICIDESFal· W
Page 301 and 302:
301 In the SUIIIIIlf)1' seeding, th
Page 303 and 304:
The results were similar to those o
Page 305 and 306:
In another experiment, loam soil wa
Page 307 and 308:
apparently due to severe competitio
Page 309 and 310:
ab1e 2. Average dry weight of corn
Page 311 and 312:
311 The most strllt~Mrr~ct. ~fiIIJI
Page 313 and 314:
313 RE9lfm'$~lfI)DI3CtlSSION '1.",
Page 315 and 316:
315 LrrERATURECITED 1. Fertig, Stan
Page 317 and 318:
.~ pattern following applications o
Page 319 and 320:
Ratings at the time of'gJ;Vllst; al
Page 321 and 322:
THERESPONSEOF NUTGRASS TO HERBIC~I)
Page 323 and 324:
'\.......- TABLE2. Ratings of Nutgr
Page 325 and 326:
All treatments produced si~1f~c~tly
Page 327 and 328:
A 327 WEBDe
Page 329 and 330:
. Eli'FECTSali' WEEDSON YIELD AND"G
Page 331 and 332:
Pollen Maturity: ",l. ,. Broadleaf
Page 333 and 334:
'--' The applicators were tested un
Page 335 and 336:
335 Figure 1. The effeetof partic1e
Page 337 and 338:
337 SRFeader 1 On this spreader onl
Page 339 and 340:
Table 4. The effect of speed, p~~cl
Page 341 and 342:
Table 1: Herbicidal treatments used
Page 343 and 344:
·000 .000, I II ! WEEDCONTROLRATIN
Page 345 and 346:
2.5000 CORNINJURY EXPRESSEDAS SQUAR
Page 347 and 348:
347 1. 2. Danielson. l , ;4. L. Ef~
Page 349 and 350:
',-- 34~ 3-(3 ..4-Dichlorophenyl)-1
Page 351 and 352:
weed control with adequate safety t
Page 353 and 354:
Untreated Table 2. Directed Post-E"
Page 355 and 356:
.s .... __ Table 7. Pre-Emel'ae~eWe
Page 357 and 358:
experiment is reported herE!. Trifl
Page 359 and 360:
Results are given. in Table 4~J'Rot
Page 361 and 362:
In Princeton fine sand, tritlupalin
Page 363 and 364:
Included in the lima. bean test wer
Page 365 and 366:
Table 1. The Effects ofS8veral form
Page 367 and 368:
Table 3. The effects of several for
Page 369 and 370:
369 Table 5. The effects of sev~ral
Page 371 and 372:
• ~ : .• \ • ' -' ..,,:- ',-"
Page 373 and 374:
Heights of barley were significantl
Page 375 and 376:
Table 2. The effe,cts of s~\I'~ral
Page 377 and 378:
Table 4. 377 The effects of aevel8.
Page 379 and 380:
,:' A PROGRESSREPORTONCOMIo!ERCIAL
Page 381 and 382:
4. Undesirable dead stem.,lio not r
Page 383 and 384:
areas under service conditionsa~ va
Page 385 and 386:
We ,prpbablyhave no speeie of g~owt
Page 387 and 388:
control. At the end of the third ye
Page 389 and 390:
initial defoliation was evident lat
Page 391 and 392:
OBJECTIVE In 1958 an experiment was
Page 393 and 394:
Replicates DlO 810 I 2.0 0.5 II 1.5
Page 395 and 396:
DISCUSSION One Year After Applicati
Page 397 and 398:
1. Button, E.F. Bndwrfg'h~';J .L. ,
Page 399 and 400:
399 The treatment consisted of appl
Page 401 and 402:
401 FIELD PROCEDURES Although. the
Page 403 and 404:
403 In the light of these data it a
Page 405 and 406:
405 ...·1!MLE I SAMPLECHARACTERIST
Page 407 and 408:
407 , '.". '.·',',~'l~rL,i;'. "\"
Page 409 and 410:
dltterent l"atespacaoreand"~"at thr
Page 411 and 412:
411 RESULTS ireatmentettect was det
Page 413 and 414:
, 413 ;. ' "1 ' "':j " • made wit
Page 415 and 416:
( ( . Table 3. Effectiveness on Spe
Page 417 and 418:
417 FENURQlt,A PROMISINGNEWTOOL FOR
Page 419 and 420:
There are a number of reaso~ for un
Page 421 and 422:
.n_ots, "'hhin a few months after:
Page 423 and 424:
sater method ot tree-killing close
Page 425 and 426:
Material ~izone is a,mixedf~g.. t w
Page 427 and 428:
427 On November 16, 1961, at the en
Page 429 and 430:
CHBMI-THINNINGWITH,AIrlINES IN THED
Page 431 and 432:
These tests show once aaaiJithe nee
Page 433 and 434:
Th:Ls ch!~ca1. tx'eatme:n1!_1IhClJ.
Page 435 and 436:
: if.. . ' A Comparative Study of t
Page 437 and 438:
'j 437 petioles, now elongated,f'or
Page 439 and 440:
Helisoma, Menetus, fhYSa andValvata
Page 441 and 442:
i s. The benth1c populat1Q~ W¥", O
Page 443 and 444:
443 Eurasian. wa~lfoil a W8t.f~~ ap
Page 445 and 446:
Empb4sis was on testing DOD-volatil
Page 447 and 448:
447 . , , -. I':'V'est~a.ti
Page 449 and 450:
FIELDOBSERVATIONS UPONESTUARINE ANI
Page 451 and 452:
more than 2 feet. ExceptionalUdes s
Page 453 and 454:
TABLE1. Responseof oysters t~ diffe
Page 455 and 456:
In the'Dundee Creek series. ,one of
Page 457 and 458:
workers. springer (1961) cite8& num
Page 459 and 460:
OBSERVATIONSONTHE OCCURRENCE' ANDPE
Page 461 and 462:
461 TABLE! Chemical Water QuaU1?::r
Page 463 and 464:
TABLEIII Threshold Taste and Odor C
Page 465 and 466:
(1.1-) Burttschell, R.H. , et al.,
Page 467 and 468:
Code A - seeded June 29 B - seeded
Page 469 and 470:
SUIIIIJ~, ~ Conclusions 5' 469 The
Page 472 and 473:
III. Average turf scores l' of thre
Page 474 and 475:
474 PIft'J'OTOXICBlFBQTS'QJe'CBRTAI
Page 476 and 477:
476 MERIONBLUEGBASS• T!BATANDsgD
Page 478 and 479:
478 In general. the treatments appl
Page 480 and 481:
4BJ days follow:lng the ohemical tr
Page 482 and 483:
') ') ' :_B!.ue~s•. Fescue au:l~"
Page 484 and 485:
:". ',J P~E~ C!',. O~.C~G~S 'F.~HEM
Page 486 and 487:
Lima and ferd'1izer applications sh
Page 488 and 489:
4es 1'.o~~1ty, ", .ewf!r''''rsenc.
Page 490 and 491:
} ) Table 1. Besu):ta.Qf 1961 pre-e
Page 492 and 493:
492 corresponding plots on este.bl1
Page 494 and 495:
494 ae.u!s,'I!IIDi,cua.:Lon leUllll
Page 496 and 497:
496 D±!3pa,~n~ Resul te)I? .,l-ta,
Page 498 and 499:
498 1 . 1 J. E. Gallagher and n. J.
Page 500 and 501:
500 Da1;ejJ01 e~uations ~,a.;t'ollC
Page 502 and 503:
502 TADLEIt Comparison of "severalc
Page 504 and 505:
504 TADLE3: Pre-oemergence and poet
Page 506 and 507:
506 Table 1. Re8eeding Resulte:afit
Page 508 and 509:
5"8 d1propalin ortrifluralin 'at ':
Page 510 and 511:
510 aUlIPIl iri '-1: ' D" "" Diphen
Page 512 and 513:
Fall ve. spriif ~nts .. 'Ibe",obl1.
Page 514 and 515:
514 ~ Tab1e2. Cr&bgraS$'Contr01 in
Page 516 and 517:
516 ,';1:".i'"'f'!r": :~,j i: .. r
Page 518 and 519:
. ~lS residual cemtrol of crabgrssi
Page 520 and 521:
520 - . \.. ; ."," ,
Page 522 and 523:
5~2 'rab4t13.· ~gtnc. ·QGabtiol:o
Page 524 and 525:
524 PRE.._RGENCE AMU' POsT-EHERGENC
Page 526 and 527:
526 Table 1. 'l'a):lsra,. ContrO.k1
Page 528 and 529:
528 Pre- andpost ..emergejljCec:rab
Page 530 and 531:
530 Prior to each chemical applicat
Page 532 and 533:
u 532 3) Those trea.t,mellts which
Page 534 and 535:
Table I (Coot'd) 27. JSc.F,~iOe t$~
Page 536 and 537:
536 EXPERIMENTS ONTHECHOOCALCOIm'l)
Page 538 and 539:
~______ , 53S Table 1: Control of c
Page 540 and 541:
54' In a similar po st-ell1~rgence
Page 542:
542 da~hal and diphenatrile) at ear
Page 545 and 546:
.. ";' -:' il; JT!.: .'\ i~'J" ; ~J
Page 547 and 548:
541 Distr:tbution of radioacti~tl t
Page 549 and 550:
549 •RESULTS The distribution of
Page 551 and 552:
GRAPHII: Comparison of the~.tl;'i~u
Page 553:
"-...-.. J.4 The distribution of r~
show all

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society