08.06.2015
•
Views
·168 The yiel? of. U.S. #1 Katahdin potatoes from the untreated plots was 3~9 bushels per a,qre. StatisticaLan~J.yses of the yields indicated' that a .d1!ffElrence of 56 bushels was significant at the 5%level. Inspection of the results showscasoron was the ,only material which significantly reduced yields. 'It can also be seen that in 1960 with. adequate rainfall and fertility the heavier stand of weeds did not reduce the potato yields .....'Ibis is probablY duetQ,the fact that the annual weed"crop"'Iii'late potatoes usually does not becomeestablished until the vines mature, flatten out on the ground and lose manyof their leaves. Thep:-incipal objection' to late, 8,I:IIUl.el weeds is the difficulty they cause 'in the use of mechanical diggers, the increased tuber loss in the field and the amount of soil and debris that must be handled at the grading, shed. Procedure Pre-emergent'herbicide trials, 1961 The area of silt loam available for weed control during this season was not uniform with some low, moist spots and higher, drier ones. The large size of the plots, 15' x 48', helped to bridge some of these areas but some variability was inevitable. The land was in redtop sod the previous. 2 years. Redtop sod always exerts a favorable effect on the succeeding potato crop. Delus and Kennebec potatoes were planted 'on April 26 with 1600 lb/A of 10-10-10-2 (tc) fertilizer. The pre-emergent ,herbicides were applied on May16-17 using a calibrated low gallonage sprayer drawn by a tractor. The rate per acre was 40 gallons of spray. The granular materials were weighed for individual 'plots and spread by hand a,fter mixing with coarse sand. The area was not cultivated until June 26. The rainfall drought injury. Results .was scanty during July but the ,crop showed no evidence .of The amounts of herbicides per acre, weed estimates and yields of U.S. #1 tubers are shown in table 2. The principal weeds were ladysthtllllb and ragweed. Randomweed counts of several one, foot square areas for each treatment indicated that the triazine compounds, atrametryne, ipazine, prometryne and trietazine at the rate of 3 Ib/A of toxicant reduced weed stands considerably. The herbicides svph as dalapon, falone and zytron Whenused alone were not effective on the broadleaved weeds. The falone and zytron, however, slowed 'the initial growth of ladysthumb. DNBPused with these later materialS reduced the stands of ragweed aM ladysthumb. There were very few native annual grass seedlings at this time, and no conClusions were reached about their control. Foxtail and barnyard millet broadcasted over the area after hilling did not become established due to heavy vine cover and the dry July weather. Just prior to hill ing on June 26 the weeds weN pul Ied from random one foot square areas and their dry weights determined~ The weights were lal'gely of 1adysthumb with occasional ragweed and a few annual grass seedlings. !The . dal.apon plots had a .thick cover of 1adysthumb.Th& check, the dal apon and ,.falone trea'bnents still showed considerably ladysthumbat harvest time. Those combined with DNBPwere fairly clean at harvest •. Th~ .~~tatoes were dug on,
0' ~ Table 2. Pre-emergent weed control experiments with Kennebec and Delus potatoes (R.I. 1961). Average Av. # weeds per sq. ft. Gms. Ratin! Active Bu/A June 12. 1961 Dry weight Ladys- Toxicant U.S. #1 Ladys- Annual Weeds/sq. ft. th1,lll Material Ib/A Kennebec Qe1us thumb Ragweed grasses June 26 9126!t 1. D!'eP+Zytron 3+f) .. 646 491 3.0 1.,9 2.8 . 0.21 9.] 2. DNBP+Dalapon 3+3+{4 post-) 674 433 7.2 . 0.2 5.4 0.22 9.~ 3. DtI.'BP+Dal apon 3+3 573 464 0.6 0.2 3.1 0.43 9.~ 4. Zytron 8 508 407 13.4 6.2 1.9 2.93 7 .~ 5. Amiben (gran.) 5 525 388 9.7 4.2 1.5 2.06 7.t. 6. Zytron 5 509 414 12.8 5.8 2.2 3.18 7.e 7. Falone 4 534 388 14.2 5.3 0.3 9.04 4.] 8. Falone 4+{4 post-) 566 390 16.2 6.9 6.1 9.07 I.e 9. De.lapon 4 589 388 24.4 9.3 4.0 22.32 2.~ 10.· P'rometryne 3 654 459 0.6 0.3 1.6 0.48 8.1 ll. Atrametryne 3 539 436 0.3 1.1 1.4 0.33 8.~ 12. Ipazine 3 517 461 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.08 9.~ 13. Trietazine 3 661 441 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.05 9.~ 14. Trietazine 3+{2 post-) 612 406 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.04 9.e 15. No cultivation - 579 390 11.2 6.0 5.6 11.05 1.~ 16. CUltivated - 590 438 - - - - 7.e LSDat 0.05 NS NS *low numbers - high weed cover, 10 = no weeds ) )
-
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 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:
u.s. #1 potatoes and weed control e
-
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