Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
2. Graduate Fellow and Assoc. Prof. of Horticulture. University of Delaware. 116 WEEDCONTROLIN FIELD-SEEDEDAND TRANSPLANTED ~PERS AND!jQMATOEsl'. , 2 R. B. Seely.and E.M. Rahn, Field-seed1ns. peppers and tomatoes is a possible,.ElIAns of reducing the cost of high p1liJttpopuiations wh19t ~eem necesilal:7 r'ir maximumyields. High plant popul,atiOfl8 appear to be especially nece;: :; for high yields where tomatoes:are,to.be' mechanically harvesW. ' er,oneof the maii'i obstlacles.in r~ld-seed1ng is to prevent weed growth-in the pepper and toIlI&to seedlings. CheMicals a;-e needed to control these weeds until the plants are large enoUgh to cultivate. An effective her~icide is also needed to contrOl weeds in tr.nsplanted tomatoea and peppers. Wteds become a problein in the row soon after transplanting and between, as wetlas in, rows atter l&1~ by'until the eJ;ldofharvest. Reported herein are several experiments con" duCted in 1960 and 1961 in an attempt to solve these problems. "' Procedure and Results: S1milareXperimentS Field-Seeded Experiments were conducted with both peppers and tomatoes on a Norfolk loamy sand at the Georgetown Substation of the University of Dela-'" ware,' The principal, wee~,s on this soil were crabgrass (Digitaria )an~:,;, alis), goose-gra's8 (Eleusine indica), nutgrass (Cyperus esculentus, a 'squarters (Cheno odi mum), pigweed (Amaranthus retro .xus, ragweed " " (Ambrosia a lw,-and smart-weed (PO~gO 0 er). Morning glory (Iiomoea e racea) and carpetweed (MOluBO . c ata appeared occasional y. , .\ ;In 1960, 12~rbicides or herbicidal combinatiofta were tested on Cali':', fornia Wohder peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes. Plot *!ze was a single row 7, feet long. Pepper rowe were 4 feet apart while tCllll&torows wet'e, feet apat't. 'lberewere two replicates in randomized :t'l~k8. , PCP (pentaohlor~ phenol), KOCN(p~8sium cyanate) plus TCA(sodium triChloroacetate) and " Tillam (proPl1 ethyl-n-butyl thtolcarbamate) proved io be outstanding. ,', PCP, applied Ju~ibefore crop emergeme, and Tillam, lincorporated just before s.eedin ĖI . by ,t.,wo,'diSCingS" were applied with a losarithmi, csprayer. " KOCN,161b/A, plus 'l'CA,.3Ib/A,.was applied in a baD:! over the row with a single-nozzle hand sprayer. Results showed that the ainimum rate of PCP required to control weedsws.s 3.61b/A, while the ~ rate tolerated bY'the crop was 6.1 Ib/A. Comparable figures for TUlam were 3.5 Ib/A and 4.91b/A,respectively.Other herbicides tested weN: Sun Spirits (Stoddard solvent),TCA plus PCP, TCA,Dalapon (2,2-ct1chloropropionic acid), CIPC (isopropy1 N (3-11hloropheny1) carbamate) plus Pqr" Vegadex (2-ohloro- , ally1 diethyldith:Lolcarbamate) plus PCP, Solan (N-(3-chloro-4-methy1phentL) 2-methl1pentanamide)" and Zytron (0-2-4 dichlorophe~ o-methyl isopropyl- . phosPhoro amidothioate). . ___ ,.,' I 1. Published as Hiscellaneous Paper No. 411 with' the" approval of the Director of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. Contribution No. 75 of the Department of Horticulture, November1961.
'Ihree experiments were conducted in 1961. In1;he first experiment, the above three outstanding herbicic1es, or combinations of herbicides, were tested on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes. Spray applications were " made with a single-nozzle hand sprayer • Tillam gran\llar applications were made with a small hand duster. Plot. size was 2 row:e, 20 feet long. Treatments were replicated three tiDIes in randomized bl~s. Tillam granular and spray at 4 lb!A, incorporated just before see41ng by discing, raking, or by irrigation, caused severe injury, particularly of peppers. PCP, 5 lb!A, and KOCN,16 lb!A, plus TCA, 3 lb!A, applied just before emergence, gave good weed control with no significant crop injury. In the second experiment in 1961, the following herbicides were tested on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes, using a logarithmic sprayer: Diphenamid N, N-dimethyl- 0(, ~ -diphenylaoetamide), from 10 to 1.5 lb!A; Dacthal (dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalic acid), from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; Stauffer 1870 (ethyl di-n-butyl-thiolcarbamate), from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; Tillam, from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; Zytron, from 20 to 3 lb!A; and Geigy Prometryne (2,4-bis(isopropylamino-6-methyl mercapto.s·triazine), from 10 to 1.5 lb!A. Plot size was a single row 15 feet long. Treatments were replicated three times in randomized blocks. Rows of peppers were 3t feet apart and rows of tomatoes were 5 feet apart. Tillam and Sta,uffer-1810 were incorporated just before seeding, while the remaining herbicides were applied just after seeding. Diphenamid was the only outstand,1ng herbicide in this experiment. The minimum rate required for weed contz'ol was 2.6 lb!A, while the maXimumrate tolerated by peppers was 4.1 lb!A, and the maXimumrate tolerated by tomatoes was 1.1 lb/A, . In the third experiment in 1961, Diphenamid, PCP, and KOCNplus TCA were evaluated on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes again. Treatments were applied and replicated as described above for the first experiment. No crop injury was produced by any of these treatments (Table 1). All three treatments gave perfect control of broadleaf weeds. Diphenamid gave perfect control of annual grasses, while PCP, and KOCNplus TCA, gave near perfect control of annual grasses. The following two treatments were super-imposed on the PCP, and KOCi'l plus TeA plots in the third experiment, to extend the duration of weed cori:. troll Tillam granular, 4 lb!A, raked in, or Diphenamid, 5 lb!A, applied as an over-all spray. Both chemicals were very effective for extending the duration of control of both broadleaf weeds and annual grasses. However, Tillam caused considerable stunting of both peppers,arxl tanatoes. Diphenamid, on the other hand, had no adverse effect, Transplantsd Peppers and Tcmatoes 117 Procedure and Results: These experiments were located adjacent to the field-seeded experiments. Therefore, thfl soil and principal weeds were silnilar. Plot size for both
- 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 and 112: Results and Discussion. The data, p
- Page 113 and 114: CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or
- Page 115: Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of p
- 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
2. Graduate Fellow and Assoc. Prof. of Horticulture. University of Delaware.<br />
116<br />
WEEDCONTROLIN FIELD-SEEDEDAND TRANSPLANTED ~PERS AND!jQMATOEsl'.<br />
, 2<br />
R. B. Seely.and E.M. Rahn,<br />
Field-seed1ns. peppers and tomatoes is a possible,.ElIAns of reducing the<br />
cost of high p1liJttpopuiations wh19t ~eem necesilal:7 r'ir maximumyields.<br />
High plant popul,atiOfl8 appear to be especially nece;: :; for high yields<br />
where tomatoes:are,to.be' mechanically harvesW. ' er,oneof the maii'i<br />
obstlacles.in r~ld-seed1ng is to prevent weed growth-in the pepper and toIlI&to<br />
seedlings. CheMicals a;-e needed to control these weeds until the plants are<br />
large enoUgh to cultivate. An effective her~icide is also needed to contrOl<br />
weeds in tr.nsplanted tomatoea and peppers. Wteds become a problein in<br />
the row soon after transplanting and between, as wetlas in, rows atter l&1~<br />
by'until the eJ;ldofharvest. Reported herein are several experiments con"<br />
duCted in 1960 and 1961 in an attempt to solve these problems. "'<br />
Procedure<br />
and Results:<br />
S1milareXperimentS<br />
Field-Seeded<br />
Experiments<br />
were conducted with both peppers and tomatoes on a<br />
Norfolk loamy sand at the Georgetown Substation of the University of Dela-'"<br />
ware,' The principal, wee~,s on this soil were crabgrass (Digitaria )an~:,;,<br />
alis), goose-gra's8 (Eleusine indica), nutgrass (Cyperus esculentus, a 'squarters<br />
(Cheno odi mum), pigweed (Amaranthus retro .xus, ragweed " "<br />
(Ambrosia a lw,-and smart-weed (PO~gO 0 er). Morning<br />
glory (Iiomoea e racea) and carpetweed (MOluBO . c ata appeared occasional<br />
y. , .\<br />
;In 1960, 12~rbicides or herbicidal combinatiofta were tested on Cali':',<br />
fornia Wohder peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes. Plot *!ze was a single row<br />
7, feet long. Pepper rowe were 4 feet apart while tCllll&torows wet'e, feet<br />
apat't. 'lberewere two replicates in randomized :t'l~k8. , PCP (pentaohlor~<br />
phenol), KOCN(p~8sium cyanate) plus TCA(sodium triChloroacetate) and "<br />
Tillam (proPl1 ethyl-n-butyl thtolcarbamate) proved io be outstanding. ,',<br />
PCP, applied Ju~ibefore crop emergeme, and Tillam, lincorporated just before<br />
s.eedin ĖI . by ,t.,wo,'diSCingS" were applied with a losarithmi, csprayer. "<br />
KOCN,161b/A, plus 'l'CA,.3Ib/A,.was applied in a baD:! over the row with a<br />
single-nozzle hand sprayer. Results showed that the ainimum rate of PCP<br />
required to control weedsws.s 3.61b/A, while the ~ rate tolerated<br />
bY'the crop was 6.1 Ib/A. Comparable figures for TUlam were 3.5 Ib/A and<br />
4.91b/A,respectively.Other herbicides tested weN: Sun Spirits<br />
(Stoddard solvent),TCA plus PCP, TCA,Dalapon (2,2-ct1chloropropionic acid),<br />
CIPC (isopropy1 N (3-11hloropheny1) carbamate) plus Pqr" Vegadex (2-ohloro- ,<br />
ally1 diethyldith:Lolcarbamate) plus PCP, Solan (N-(3-chloro-4-methy1phentL)<br />
2-methl1pentanamide)" and Zytron (0-2-4 dichlorophe~ o-methyl isopropyl- .<br />
phosPhoro amidothioate). .<br />
___ ,.,' I<br />
1. Published as Hiscellaneous Paper No. 411 with' the" approval of the Director<br />
of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. Contribution No. 75<br />
of the Department of Horticulture, November1961.
Change language