Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
1]2 ADDITIONALFIELD STUDIES WITH SOLAN AS A HERBICIDE FOR TOMATOES ~nald H. Moorel Research and Development Department NIAGARACHEMICALDIVISION . FMC CORPORATION Middleport 1 New York Solan l N-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)-2-methyl-pentanamide has been tested by a number of investigators as a herbicide for tomatoes l over a period of four years. Sweet and Rubatzky (1) found Solan to give commercial weed control and to be outstanding in lack of crop damage to both transplant tomatoes and field seeded tomatoes. Saidak and Rutherford (2) in 1959 and 1960 trials l found Solan to be reliable and effective as a herbicide in tomatoes when applied as a post-emergence spray, one month after transplanting l to weeds less than 3 inches high. Schubert and Hardin (3) found Solan to give commercial control of broadleaf weeds in post-emergence treatments. Grass control was satisfactory only for about one month if the grass was not more than l~ inches high at time of spraying. Results of preliminary field studies of Solan as a poxt -emer-gence herbicide tlor tomatoes have been presented previously by Moore and Dor~chner (4). It is the purpose of this paper to summarize performance data which have been obtained over the past two years. METHODSANDMATERIALS Tests in 1960 were conducted on the varieties Fireball and Red Jacket. These included both field seeded and field transplant stock. Treatments were applied as broadcast sprays using a knapsack sprayer. Fifty gallons of total liquids per acre were applied. The experimental design was one of randomized complete block with three replications. In 1961 experimental procedures were similar l but with the follOWing exceptions: Sprays were applied at 40 psi and a volume of 30 1 rather than 50 gallons of total liquids per acre was utilized. In some instances rather large areas were sprayed With a given treatment. SUch plots were not replicated. The formulation of Solan used for all tests was a miscible formulation containing 4.0 pounds of active material ner ~allon.
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Transplant Tomatoes. Experiment No.1. 1960 The chemical tre.attnents in this trial were five in number. and consisted of the following: a. Solan at rate of 2.0 pounds/acre; 4 applications at two week intervals. b. Solan at rate of 4.0 pounds/acre; 2 applications one week apart. c. Solan at rates of 2.0. 4.0. and 6.0 pounds/acre; single applications. Both grasses and broadleaved weed species were less than one inch high when the first treatment was made on June 21. Weed species represented Were pi~weed (Amaranthus retroflexus). lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), and yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens). None of the plots was cultivated. 1.3.3 Data on weed control were taken at three intervals throughout the season. The final counts just prior to harvest are reported in Table 1. The most effective treatment was tw.o applications of Solan (4 pound/acre rate) made at 7 day intervals. There was an appreciable reduction in weed population following all single treatments, but in view of the size reached by the surviving weeds, these data may be misleading. Thus, in the case of the 2 pound rate, the escapes developed to such large size as to interfere with growth and yields of crop plants. At both the 4 and 6 pound rate the escape weeds were considerably reduced in s:'ze. The total number and pounds of tomatoes produced for the entire season for each treatment are reported in Table 2. No significant difference was noted in the number of tomatoes produced following any of the 5 control programs and the cultivated check. Although the untreated check was not included in the analyses of data, it 1s obvious that all treatments had significantly more fruit than the check. Considering the total number of pounds of tomatoes for the season, the treatment receiving a single application of 2 pounds of Solan per acre yielded significantly less than the cultivated check in the case of Fireball. This was interpreted to be the result of weed competition. Transplant Tomatoes, Experiment No.2, 1961 A test was implemented in 1961 with the purpose of -" ".3 __ L...! -.._Of "" L'I . .. _c _ _L ~ _
- 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 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: indicates that several of the treat
- 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
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS<br />
Transplant Tomatoes. Experiment No.1. 1960<br />
The chemical tre.attnents in this trial were five in<br />
number. and consisted of the following:<br />
a. Solan at rate of 2.0 pounds/acre;<br />
4 applications at two week intervals.<br />
b. Solan at rate of 4.0 pounds/acre;<br />
2 applications one week apart.<br />
c. Solan at rates of 2.0. 4.0. and 6.0 pounds/acre;<br />
single applications.<br />
Both grasses and broadleaved weed species were less<br />
than one inch high when the first treatment was made on June 21.<br />
<strong>Weed</strong> species represented Were pi~weed (Amaranthus retroflexus).<br />
lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), buckhorn plantain (Plantago<br />
lanceolata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), and yellow<br />
foxtail (Setaria lutescens). None of the plots was cultivated.<br />
1.3.3<br />
Data on weed control were taken at three intervals<br />
throughout the season. The final counts just prior to harvest<br />
are reported in Table 1. The most effective treatment was tw.o<br />
applications of Solan (4 pound/acre rate) made at 7 day intervals.<br />
There was an appreciable reduction in weed population following<br />
all single treatments, but in view of the size reached by the<br />
surviving weeds, these data may be misleading. Thus, in the case<br />
of the 2 pound rate, the escapes developed to such large size as<br />
to interfere with growth and yields of crop plants. At both the<br />
4 and 6 pound rate the escape weeds were considerably reduced in<br />
s:'ze.<br />
The total number and pounds of tomatoes produced for<br />
the entire season for each treatment are reported in Table 2. No<br />
significant difference was noted in the number of tomatoes<br />
produced following any of the 5 control programs and the cultivated<br />
check.<br />
Although the untreated check was not included in the<br />
analyses of data, it 1s obvious that all treatments had significantly<br />
more fruit than the check.<br />
Considering the total number of pounds of tomatoes for<br />
the season, the treatment receiving a single application of 2<br />
pounds of Solan per acre yielded significantly less than the<br />
cultivated check in the case of Fireball. This was interpreted<br />
to be the result of weed competition.<br />
Transplant Tomatoes, Experiment No.2, 1961<br />
A test was implemented in 1961 with the purpose of<br />
-" ".3 __ L...! -.._Of "" L'I . .. _c _ _L ~ _
Change language