Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
144 All Jva1_Uoll of Cheaaicab U.ed Porthe WMdi. of Tomato.s. I ' I Char1•• J. Noll 1 W.ed c~tro1 i. the ~aateat limiting factor ~a ~uc~.afu1 8I'oving of dir.ct 8eed~d tomatoe.. Mechanical ~iD8 i. inacleql.1&taand hand weediDl too expeaei,e. :Ulltil good chemical we.dinS i. de"lo~.cl the growing of direct 8e~td. tCl\lllltoa.in PellD8ylvania will b. limited in acre.g •• The we, ding of trall.p1aated tomatoes by m.cbaaicei1 means is not ae difficult br..~e. ~fadequate c'bemi•. 1 ... ding could be delve10p.d it could ~ed\IC.prodrtiOD· co.t •• i PRQCBDURE In the! direct .eaded tomato exp.r~ent the se8ctbad wa. pr.pared May 24. soil iDcorp4n'.tlon treatIHllts vere applied and rotqti1!1.d into the sol1 May 25. 'l'h. tomM:o variety l'irebiLll, was leaded tliat :s.e day. Th. preem.rs.nce tt:atmeat8 were appli" 4 days after .eedins and late pra-emergence treatments re applied 11 day. after .eeding. O~ S~lall plot received aa additional ptlioatlon 41 day8 iIL.fter ... ding. Indtvietual plots "er.1:; f •• t 1001 and 3 ~.et Wide. Tr.... nts were randombed fon.ach of 6 blocks. The ch_call ".re applied with a 8ID&11sprayer over tbe ~ for a width of 12 iDehes. 'l'h~ plot. wore cultivated. An estimate of weed control wa. made August 14 o~ a ba.is of 1 to 10; 1 being mo.t de.irable and 10 being 1ea.t dea1rab1e. ,N9 barv .. t record. ware taken. In th.ltran.P1anted tOlll&toe. the 88111evarie.t y 'wa~ g::otm. The seedbed wee preparels June 5, the 1011 incorporation trea~•• maet. June 6 and the tOlllllto.. tr.~p1aat.d June 7. Po.t-p1anting treatlHnti. were mad. 5 and 22 day. aft.r~.r .... Planting. with th.. n08•• 1 of the. sP\'ay.r dir.ct1y over th. tomato p1a 8. Individual p10ta .... 20 feet 10111:ancl S feet wide and con .i.ted of 1, "lant •• ach. !reatil,eDta vere rand4'mi~ediD each of 6 blocks. The p1~ta were cultivated. An e.timate of WMd oontro1 vea made AUluat 14 on a baa~a of 1 to 10. Tometoe. vere harve.ted ,twtce, August 22 and september 1~.; 0Il1y marketable fruits were harvested • . . RESULTS i The w~ control re.u1ts in the direct .eeded :to.to experiment i8 pre- .eat.d iD tlible 1. Although the Triazine compound. g.-ve the b.at weed control, they grut1~ raduoed the atand of tomatoea. The Dl'Ph$amid plots had f_ weeela, tha lot • .receiVing 9 lb ••. p.r acre were reJ.aUYely free of weed. throughout he growing ... aon. '!'ba only other tre~t that gave any amouat 1 . . ' A•• oeiate trofe.sor of Olericultura, D.partment o~ HQrticu1ture, College of Agricultur and Bxperiment Station, Penn.yhaa!a ~atie Unlveralty, University Park, PallD y1vallJ.a. :
of weed eoneee I without inj ury 'to .t(llll8toes was in the TU1am treated plot •• Although no yield reoords were ta~.n it was thousht tha~ yields in the best plots would have been good. The results ln the transp1ant.a tomato exper~ ls presented in table 2. All chemicals B1gnificant1y increased weed control as compared to the untreated check. The best weed C0l1tro1 wes in plots treated with Diphen-, amid at 6 and 9 1bs. per acre, Stam P-34 at 6 1bl. per acre, Prometryne at 3 1bs. per acre, Casoron at 4%lb•• per acre and Tl11e. at 6 1bs. per acre. 145 Only two harvests were made and only ripe marketole fruit taken for record. Plots treated with Dlphenamid at 9 1bs. per acre and Tl11am at 4". 1bs. per acre had a significant l~rease in yield as compared to the untreated check,plot. The yleld from'the plots treated with the chemical Stam P-34 at 6 lbs • per aCre appro~hed B1gn1fiC8ftee. OONCL1!SION In the direct seeded tomato ezpertment, it 100ke at this ttme that chemicals .cou1d replace other mathods of weed control in the plant row. If this is 't~ue, direct seeding of Cpmatoes is a possibility in Pennly1 vania. The beltareatments wereDlpbenemid at 6 and 9 lbs. per acre in a pre-emergence application and Ti11am at 6 1bl. per acre in a pre-planting loi1 incorporation treatment. " I In the transplanted tomato experiment, the outstanding chemicals were Dipbenamid in the post-plantiPi treatment. Ti11~ ~n the pre-p1aneing soil incorporation treatment and Stam P-34 in the delayed post-planting treatment.
- 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 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: "" ~ Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto
- 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~
144<br />
All Jva1_Uoll of Cheaaicab U.ed Porthe WMdi. of Tomato.s.<br />
I '<br />
I Char1•• J. Noll 1<br />
W.ed c~tro1 i. the ~aateat limiting factor ~a ~uc~.afu1 8I'oving of<br />
dir.ct 8eed~d tomatoe.. Mechanical ~iD8 i. inacleql.1&taand hand weediDl<br />
too expeaei,e. :Ulltil good chemical we.dinS i. de"lo~.cl the growing of<br />
direct 8e~td. tCl\lllltoa.in PellD8ylvania will b. limited in acre.g ••<br />
The we, ding of trall.p1aated tomatoes by m.cbaaicei1 means is not ae<br />
difficult br..~e. ~fadequate c'bemi•. 1 ... ding could be delve10p.d it could<br />
~ed\IC.prodrtiOD· co.t ••<br />
i<br />
PRQCBDURE<br />
In the! direct .eaded tomato exp.r~ent the se8ctbad wa. pr.pared May 24.<br />
soil iDcorp4n'.tlon treatIHllts vere applied and rotqti1!1.d into the sol1<br />
May 25. 'l'h. tomM:o variety l'irebiLll, was leaded tliat :s.e day. Th. preem.rs.nce<br />
tt:atmeat8 were appli" 4 days after .eedins and late pra-emergence<br />
treatments re applied 11 day. after .eeding. O~ S~lall plot received aa<br />
additional ptlioatlon 41 day8 iIL.fter ... ding. Indtvietual plots "er.1:; f •• t<br />
1001 and 3 ~.et Wide. Tr.... nts were randombed fon.ach of 6 blocks. The<br />
ch_call ".re applied with a 8ID&11sprayer over tbe ~ for a width of 12<br />
iDehes. 'l'h~ plot. wore cultivated. An estimate of weed control wa. made<br />
August 14 o~ a ba.is of 1 to 10; 1 being mo.t de.irable and 10 being 1ea.t<br />
dea1rab1e. ,N9 barv .. t record. ware taken.<br />
In th.ltran.P1anted tOlll&toe. the 88111evarie.t y 'wa~ g::otm. The seedbed<br />
wee preparels June 5, the 1011 incorporation trea~•• maet. June 6 and the<br />
tOlllllto.. tr.~p1aat.d June 7. Po.t-p1anting treatlHnti. were mad. 5 and 22<br />
day. aft.r~.r .... Planting. with th.. n08•• 1 of the. sP\'ay.r dir.ct1y over th.<br />
tomato p1a 8. Individual p10ta .... 20 feet 10111:ancl S feet wide and con<br />
.i.ted of 1, "lant •• ach. !reatil,eDta vere rand4'mi~ediD each of 6 blocks.<br />
The p1~ta were cultivated. An e.timate of WMd oontro1 vea made AUluat<br />
14 on a baa~a of 1 to 10. Tometoe. vere harve.ted ,twtce, August 22 and<br />
september 1~.; 0Il1y marketable fruits were harvested •<br />
. . RESULTS<br />
i<br />
The w~ control re.u1ts in the direct .eeded :to.to experiment i8 pre-<br />
.eat.d iD tlible 1. Although the Triazine compound. g.-ve the b.at weed control,<br />
they grut1~ raduoed the atand of tomatoea. The Dl'Ph$amid plots had f_<br />
weeela, tha lot • .receiVing 9 lb ••. p.r acre were reJ.aUYely free of weed.<br />
throughout he growing ... aon. '!'ba only other tre~t that gave any amouat<br />
1 . . '<br />
A•• oeiate trofe.sor of Olericultura, D.partment o~ HQrticu1ture, College of<br />
Agricultur and Bxperiment Station, Penn.yhaa!a ~atie Unlveralty, University<br />
Park, PallD y1vallJ.a. :
Change language