Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
_'. 228 Table 1. Effects of Herbicides on Nutgras~ Treatme~tsl June 14 July Ie Se")t. n --1)'a11-- -- Spring i'l' Herbicide He-rbicicl.e Shoots _ !:-_bs./f._._J)~.j.L ~_~J't!. !Latirl.r0 Ititing 2, Shoots per sg.ft., Heedy Controls 96 0 0 19 Simazine 3 161 2.2 -6.L~ 41 Si:llUzine 3 110 3. L~ 6.5 26 Simuzine 3 Simazine 3 172 2.5 7.2 25 SimazinG 5 207 .5 5.0 L~3 S:i.nazine 5 S':i-maztnG3 129- 4.7 'I;.ri,.. 8.1, 27 Atrazine 2 232 .2, 2.7 45 Atrazii1e 2 S5.nazirie 3 148 1.7 7.2 28 Atrazine L~ 239 .7 1.0 52 Atrazine 4 Simazine 3 13d 2.9 6.5 36 Propazine L~ 151 1.5 ,3.5 L~O Propazine L~ Simazine 3 126 I~. 5 g.O 37 EPTC5 3.2 9.2 2.0 73- EPTC5 + Simazine 3 22 9.5 6.2 73 Amitro1 e 103 2.0 2.3 35 Amitrol 8 Simaz:i.ne 3 136 2.3 ~.5 30 r:-" DalaC)on10 75 1.8 1.7 39 Da1a;,;on10 Simazil'le 3 102 h.? , '-T'" 5.7 35 ___ _ _ -4 •.. ~ .. _ _ ', __ ' .. _ ~, .' __ " .,.,. , __ _'. _ ,.... io..- ~ 0. _ lRates given in terms of active ingredients. 2visua1 ratin~s; a - no C;ritrol~ 10 ~ 100 ~~r cent control.' .' '1"-.
Table 2. Effects of Herbicides on Quackgrass Treatments June 14 . 'Fall -;;';S"'p'-r"-:i-n-g- Shoots Herbicide Herbicide per Per cen! -1.~8.--1A _ ~..J£. S9,ft. co,1trol Ra,ting 2 Weedy Controls a o Simazine 3 59 7.1 Simazine 3 90 9.1 Simazine 3 Simazine 3 2.4 97 9.7 Simazine 5 92 8.2 Simazine 5 Sin~zine 3 97 9.8 Atrazine 2 10.9 $4 6.3 Atrazine 2 Simazine 3 92 9.4 Atrazine 4 l:-.5 94 8.6 Atrazine 4 Simazine 3 98 9.$ Propazine 4 $$ Propazine l, Simazine 3 95 EPTC 5 93 EPTC 5 + Simazine 3 3,$ 95 Amitrol 8 26.3 61 Amitrol 8 Simazine 3 10.5 $5 Dalapon 10 41.6 39 Dalapon 10 Simazine 3 14,6 79 $.2 L,S,D. p=;05 7;7 11 p=.Ol 10,5 15 0.9 0.6 1.6 o 5.8 0.6 1.1 a 0.7 0.6 6.3 10.9 1.7 $.9 3.0 97 98 94 100 78 98 96 100 97 98 82 77 59 94 67 89 16 21 229 Sept. _1_2 __ Shoots per Per cen! so,ft. control 26.8 o 6.0 78 - - - - - - - - _.-~. -- - - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - lper cent control based on shoots per sq.ft. 2Visual rating: 0 - no control, 10 - 100 per cent control.
- 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: Because of the lush growth of quack
- 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 (
_'.<br />
228<br />
Table 1. Effects of Herbicides on Nutgras~<br />
Treatme~tsl June 14 July Ie Se")t. n<br />
--1)'a11-- -- Spring<br />
i'l'<br />
Herbicide He-rbicicl.e Shoots<br />
_ !:-_bs./f._._J)~.j.L ~_~J't!. !Latirl.r0 Ititing 2, Shoots<br />
per sg.ft.,<br />
Heedy Controls 96 0 0 19<br />
Simazine 3 161 2.2 -6.L~ 41<br />
Si:llUzine 3 110 3. L~ 6.5 26<br />
Simuzine 3 Simazine 3 172 2.5 7.2 25<br />
SimazinG 5 207 .5 5.0 L~3<br />
S:i.nazine 5 S':i-maztnG3 129- 4.7<br />
'I;.ri,..<br />
8.1, 27<br />
Atrazine 2 232 .2, 2.7 45<br />
Atrazii1e 2 S5.nazirie 3 148 1.7 7.2 28<br />
Atrazine L~ 239 .7 1.0 52<br />
Atrazine 4 Simazine 3 13d 2.9 6.5 36<br />
Propazine L~ 151 1.5 ,3.5 L~O<br />
Propazine L~ Simazine 3 126 I~. 5 g.O 37<br />
EPTC5 3.2 9.2 2.0 73-<br />
EPTC5 +<br />
Simazine 3 22 9.5 6.2 73<br />
Amitro1 e 103 2.0 2.3 35<br />
Amitrol 8 Simaz:i.ne 3 136 2.3 ~.5 30<br />
r:-"<br />
DalaC)on10 75 1.8 1.7 39<br />
Da1a;,;on10 Simazil'le 3 102 h.? , '-T'" 5.7 35<br />
___ _ _ -4 •.. ~ .. _ _ ', __ ' .. _ ~, .' __ " .,.,. , __ _'. _ ,.... io..- ~<br />
0. _<br />
lRates given in terms of active ingredients.<br />
2visua1 ratin~s; a - no C;ritrol~ 10 ~ 100 ~~r cent control.'<br />
.' '1"-.
Change language