08.06.2015
•
Views
148 SpinaCh wasplanted withan8-row 0~.-c1al seeder,1nd'1 vidual rowlB.,&paced12 inohea':apa%'t{ on A~t 30, September 2, and Septemper 5, giving plantings of 1, 4, and 7 days after herbioidal applloaUons, respectively. Eaoh pkn,ting consisted of two or thr~e drill strips aoross the plots. Brior to eaoh plant·,· ing, the area was reworked with a Meeker harrow in one direoticn aoross the plots., After _ch;planting;an_~valent o.f t-1nch of rain was applied to tbe area:- ,'seeded.. Weed~on'troJ;,and crop~njury rat1ng3',~ made on sep~ 28 and Ootbber '18' using the fl.-cale 0 to' 10~~re 0 • no eft.c~~. 10 lit stand Or vigor reduced leO per oent,.'!';:. ':.r: • .j. Result..-and D1.souss1!>ft': . , .,; .. c.; , In ta'Ples 1, 2, and 3 ..a:re: presenteds~riflls of weed oo».t1'Ol and spinaDb 1nJ1.Wf for the. plantings madEt:L-.;4, and 7 days, ~peoti'Vely. atterapplioatlonaoithe th.ree f~~tions of. Til~. From these data it oan be seen that the planting made soon after herb~oidal appliaat~on8 was relatively safe for spinaoh and that bette*, than adequate 'weecroontrol. resuJ.t.e. d.. It 1s als.o evident that 9V.drall weed eont~iJ; was 1mprove~': 'ldth oorresponding deoreases ..in' spinach injury, ,Jgy. delayins sp.~qh planting. ..~ was espeo'1~lly~true for the two exper1me.pta-kf,QI'II\ulat1ons wi~,the hydrooarboi'loarr1ers. Therecwas a slight ~;tlease in broadl.,.;ved weed cont~lw1th the lower·nJ;te of oo~o!al Tll~ in th8)p;la.nting made '7 days aft.erappl1cation. , There .W4. a similar· trend: with regard tograsB .;control ,; ~4tr i this was-:~ot signifioant. The experimental formulations were Sl1~h~lysuperior t~,~~meroial Tillam with regard to weed oontrol and orop safety. The formu1ati~ 'Containing thena~hthenio hYdr9~~bon fraotion was slightly m9re effeotive and se,fer than the,iforlnulation Qont!-1n1l;1g the paraffinio hydrooltXlbon,fract10n., ... ' ";~' .. Allf~rmulations of Til~ exh1bited~sidual herb101~j[:~ actiy1tyof long duration •. -Tbiswas mar. j)~l'lounoed for thepsses than for the broadleavedweeds •.. Gelierally",the two experim~~l fOrmulati~8 effected slight:ly longeracti~1ty than oamm.rcial·T11 lam.' Agai~. the toJ;'ttlulat10lt' containing the" paphthenio 1'raot1on was slightly nt.t'esuper10r to' the.:f'ormulation·'W:1th the paraffini~oarrier. .-+ '. '. ~ -: .-.
Stulllll&ry A study was lh1tlatedto evaluate th.)i8t:t'ects on spinach and weeds ,of sevettal planting dateSf"Ollowin£ripre~planting applications of three formulations of Tillam. Two exper1m&ntal formulations, ,one ,conta1n1nga paratfj.n1.c bYQ.%'
-
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 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:
1. Associate Research Specialist in
-
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~
Change language