Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
, '; , "~ ,j i, !p1ot1e'~ OGnsll1ted·pr:l.mari~;' ,'lhe,weed. spectra in the 349S9-1960, tellt of crabgrass~,,~1ene' and lambsqu8rtera, lohich'were:tl"ecerded aeparatelt, and of commonchickweed, red sorrel, ragweed, smartweed, pigweed and horsenettle, which 'Wlill'e.lpmpedtogether, in the ,miscellaneous' oolUllln'oif."the table which foUQWs, ain.Oe,these were minor compared with theevual11feed popUlati()ns~ 1 Ragwee~J,emaZ'twe.d and('l;1l~Z!8enettJ.e were riotfouzid ''to''tie..IUElrieptible, at 'least to the' rates"O'f ~G$'HAL herbieideus8d ,in these·test,,, i.' Intermediate to v~able control. of, p!gI«led."was obtained in ,the tests.iJ:)atallhown in Table ! are[·r fromrtoe BQst~niv,plots. d [ ,:', " DACTHAL Form. w-50 G-1.5F G-l.5s :1,'::r'": .'1.. ,TABLE I . "jj"
209 TABLEII Average Weed Cont~l ExhibitedbtiilACTHAL Formulations Applied on Ilex crenat&convexa Percent WeedrControl DACTHAL RatEi Cr'a\)grass Purslane taiilbsqutrs. MiscellaneG\is Form.' lbActive/A 7/6 EZ5 7/8 8(5 7/]':8/5 7/8 .8t:> W-50 5 100 100 98 96 94 100 48 52 10 100 100 100 100 98 95 46 .j? 15 100 100 100 100 99 100 42 "46' G-l.5F 10 100 ).(10 100 100 95 99 53 ,746 15 100 98 100 100 92 100 36 ::4"'5 G-5 5 97 94 99 99 90 92 36 38 10 100 99 100 100 93 96 36 41 15 98 98 100 96 91 94 47 50 Weeds!ft 2 of Check Plots 4 6 . 2 3 1 3 1 2 Treatments applied 10/23/59 and 6/10/60 Crabgrass, purslane and l~squarter s were the, predominant weeds in these plots. Ragweed, commonchi,ckweed and grape frQm,pomace are included in the miscellaneous column. Good weed control was secured in these plots throughout late fall. The effectiveness of the two treatments could be observed in the long period of weed control and a sharp delixwationwas observed in the fall 'between them, and the unt.reabedcnecks , createdby' the germination and ' invasion of Poa annua at the extremities of the plots. The absence of Poa ~ in the tra'iited areas strongly suggested effectllve control of this Weed. The results reported from P31'thenocissus tr1cu!!pidata and ~convexa plots are' typical for all thE; herbaceous and woodY or~entals under test during 1959--1960. " As can be seen from the list of ornamentals which tolerated treatments with DACTHALherbicide, plant response is quite favorable. However, duri,r\lL 1960 seven herbaceous species exhibited some degree of plvtotoxicity as shMl in ~l'able III.
- 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: The 1959 and 1960 replicated field
- 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
209<br />
TABLEII<br />
Average <strong>Weed</strong> Cont~l ExhibitedbtiilACTHAL<br />
Formulations Applied on Ilex crenat&convexa<br />
Percent <strong>Weed</strong>rControl<br />
DACTHAL RatEi Cr'a\)grass Purslane taiilbsqutrs. MiscellaneG\is<br />
Form.' lbActive/A 7/6 EZ5 7/8 8(5 7/]':8/5 7/8 .8t:><br />
W-50 5 100 100 98 96 94 100 48 52<br />
10 100 100 100 100 98 95 46 .j?<br />
15 100 100 100 100 99 100 42 "46'<br />
G-l.5F 10 100 ).(10 100 100 95 99 53 ,746<br />
15 100 98 100 100 92 100 36 ::4"'5<br />
G-5 5 97 94 99 99 90 92 36 38<br />
10 100 99 100 100 93 96 36 41<br />
15 98 98 100 96 91 94 47 50<br />
<strong>Weed</strong>s!ft 2 of Check Plots 4 6 . 2 3 1 3 1 2<br />
Treatments applied 10/23/59 and 6/10/60<br />
Crabgrass, purslane and l~squarter s were the, predominant weeds in<br />
these plots. Ragweed, commonchi,ckweed and grape frQm,pomace are included in<br />
the miscellaneous column. Good weed control was secured in these plots<br />
throughout late fall. The effectiveness of the two treatments could be observed<br />
in the long period of weed control and a sharp delixwationwas observed in the<br />
fall 'between them, and the unt.reabedcnecks , createdby' the germination and '<br />
invasion of Poa annua at the extremities of the plots. The absence of Poa<br />
~ in the tra'iited areas strongly suggested effectllve control of this <strong>Weed</strong>.<br />
The results reported from P31'thenocissus tr1cu!!pidata and ~convexa<br />
plots are' typical for all thE; herbaceous and woodY or~entals under test<br />
during 1959--1960. "<br />
As can be seen from the list of ornamentals which tolerated treatments<br />
with DACTHALherbicide, plant response is quite favorable. However, duri,r\lL<br />
1960 seven herbaceous species exhibited some degree of plvtotoxicity as shMl<br />
in ~l'able III.