Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
ab1e 3. Po~ato Vine Killing Discoloration Stud~es - Maine-1960 - Katahdin and Kennebec Varieties ..... 't! -- -~- - Df:scoloration Indexd Killil;l8 ,; Dealc()~~ ,< Bate/acre Actiy_@..~~~ __ Jndex.o!{ Katahain Kennebec ~o treatment - . -~ 1.0 0.0. 0.2 sodium arsen! te 1 lb. (As~03) 4 oz. plyac ~.o 0.3, 0.3 . It 2 Ibs. ' ,".0 0.8 0.5 " 3 Ibs. II " .0 1.2 . 0.8 n h Ibs. II II 5.0 1.6 1.4, " 6 Lbs , 'II It 5.0 3.0,' 3.0 l!' 81bs. '11 n· 5.0 16.2' 26.0 It 10 lbs. II ~. " II 5.0 31.4'" 42.5' .: premerge 1 qt:. 5ga,l8.fuel oil ", ' • ", " • • Roto-beater Ice water Fuel oil. only 2 qts. p1us 4 oz~ • II Plyao 5.0 5.0 6.2, 15.0 5.8 . 16.2 3.0 0"3' 0.$' 100 gals. -- 3.0 0.5 0.8 ~ ga1~. ~_ __~ -- 4.0 0.5'____0.5' V A:verage of two dates ,,~, an~ ~d~ys flftet- $em1ca~s applied on August'~, 1960 •• ' ?:I ~ighted average of au l'epl1c.tes of eaphvaJ,"hty or a "total of 360b i tubers. r; Examination of tubers made at two dates December 7, 1960 and January. 25, 1961. "(; '- . (. (
195 PROBLEMSIN THEAPPLICATIONOF HERBICIDESBI SMALLSCALEUSERS Arthur Bini mrRODUCTION Applied h~r1:>icide researcn is carried out to 4fvelop newer and better methods that can be used by the cOllllllercial farmer and 'possibly the home owner to control weeds in his plantings. Chemical control of weeds in ornamental crops has been invest1g",ted for several years and IlIWly reports have been presented at this conference. These repo:r:t;s included data on the herbicidal activity of II1Bll¥cOD;lOundsand the tj)lerance of a wide variety of ornamental plants to thel>e com:pounds. Mijch of this information has been utUized in formulatilli useful and success:(1,Jl weed control practices. Usually growers, with the advice of their county agricultural agent or COllllllercial representative, try tb.e more promising wbicides on a small scale on their crops 'under their own specific condi1;ioIlS. Then, if the small scale treatments are encoU1!8g:LJ:lg, the groweru,ses the chemicals on a larger scale. The' encouraging results of the experimenter or successful usage by a few growers occasionally is followed by poor, if not disasterous, results by other growers or home owners. Thil$ paper will be concerned with some of the failures and what we think are their causes. Werea4ily tell of our successes but conceal our failures. However,detailed lnfoa:mation on the faUuresis essential to the development of a BOund weed control prol!Wam. GLADIOLUS Ex.perimental preemergence treatments of plantinss of small gladiolus corms on sandy loam on Long Island in 1959 (2) with simazip.e granular and liquid resulted in fa;trly good control of most weeds at the- 2, 3, and 4 pound per acre rates. The gladiolus foliage showed some burning atter emergence but leaves that developed later were normal. A highly s~nificant delay in nowering and a significant reduction in cut nower y,Leld resulted from all rates. There were no significant reductions in corm yield. Similar results were obtained by other research workers in other states. Consequently, in the 1960 Gladiolus Weed Control SUI/IIIary published in, the North American Gladiolus CoUncil Bulletin (3)simaz:l.ne was not reo~nded for use on gladiolus by any of the experiment stations. Simazine is not recollllllended for use on gladiolus by the manufacturer. However, inclUded in the 1960 Sl\llllll&'Y were grower reports of good weed control, witil, simazine under their conditions. On the basis of the favorable grower reports, one New Jersey grower band treated all plantings of corms and cormEU.swith a preemergence spray of 1 pound actual simazine per acre. There WIle good weed control. On the rolling land there were several knolls of s~ soU with heavier soU on the nat ground around them. Gladiolus plants on the sandy knolls were severely damaged or killed. Gladiolus on the heavier soil were not aftecte,d. A check on the amount of material used, by lookinga:t the amount of material 1. Associate Professor, Cornell Ornamentals Research Laboratory
- 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
- 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: ( ( ~able 2. Effect of Several Che~
- 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
195<br />
PROBLEMSIN THEAPPLICATIONOF HERBICIDESBI SMALLSCALEUSERS<br />
Arthur<br />
Bini<br />
mrRODUCTION<br />
Applied h~r1:>icide researcn is carried out to 4fvelop newer and better<br />
methods that can be used by the cOllllllercial farmer and 'possibly the home<br />
owner to control weeds in his plantings. Chemical control of weeds in<br />
ornamental crops has been invest1g",ted for several years and IlIWly reports<br />
have been presented at this conference. These repo:r:t;s included data on<br />
the herbicidal activity of II1Bll¥cOD;lOundsand the tj)lerance of a wide<br />
variety of ornamental plants to thel>e com:pounds. Mijch of this information<br />
has been utUized in formulatilli useful and success:(1,Jl weed control practices.<br />
Usually growers, with the advice of their county agricultural agent or<br />
COllllllercial representative, try tb.e more promising wbicides on a small<br />
scale on their crops 'under their own specific condi1;ioIlS. Then, if the<br />
small scale treatments are encoU1!8g:LJ:lg, the groweru,ses the chemicals on a<br />
larger scale.<br />
The' encouraging results of the experimenter or successful usage by a few<br />
growers occasionally is followed by poor, if not disasterous, results by<br />
other growers or home owners. Thil$ paper will be concerned with some of the<br />
failures and what we think are their causes. Werea4ily tell of our successes<br />
but conceal our failures. However,detailed lnfoa:mation on the faUuresis<br />
essential to the development of a BOund weed control prol!Wam.<br />
GLADIOLUS<br />
Ex.perimental preemergence treatments of plantinss of small gladiolus corms<br />
on sandy loam on Long Island in 1959 (2) with simazip.e granular and liquid<br />
resulted in fa;trly good control of most weeds at the- 2, 3, and 4 pound per<br />
acre rates. The gladiolus foliage showed some burning atter emergence but<br />
leaves that developed later were normal. A highly s~nificant delay in<br />
nowering and a significant reduction in cut nower y,Leld resulted from all<br />
rates. There were no significant reductions in corm yield. Similar results<br />
were obtained by other research workers in other states. Consequently, in<br />
the 1960 Gladiolus <strong>Weed</strong> Control SUI/IIIary published in, the North American<br />
Gladiolus CoUncil Bulletin (3)simaz:l.ne was not reo~nded for use on<br />
gladiolus by any of the experiment stations. Simazine is not recollllllended<br />
for use on gladiolus by the manufacturer. However, inclUded in the 1960<br />
Sl\llllll&'Y were grower reports of good weed control, witil, simazine under their<br />
conditions. On the basis of the favorable grower reports, one New Jersey<br />
grower band treated all plantings of corms and cormEU.swith a preemergence<br />
spray of 1 pound actual simazine per acre. There WIle good weed control.<br />
On the rolling land there were several knolls of s~ soU with heavier soU<br />
on the nat ground around them. Gladiolus plants on the sandy knolls were<br />
severely damaged or killed. Gladiolus on the heavier soil were not aftecte,d.<br />
A check on the amount of material used, by lookinga:t the amount of material<br />
1. Associate Professor, Cornell Ornamentals Research Laboratory