08.06.2015 Views

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

268<br />

of the above pl\;lllsj exce1:ltTteatnlerrt' 8,_rell1v.n,,~jl"5';''POund applicati01l.(<br />

of Sitllll.z1nein 'June or July . ''S1maztne"inJury WU' IIIOre-Prevalent in '<br />

Treatment 6- fl1iIAn:iaTre&tment9~:'l!t 'Be_as tllWlb':e1ther the .KarsH '<br />

following th6' Siazineappl1cation"1ntensified the~tof injury, or the<br />

Dactha~ 8.4'Pl1ed" .1;he·.._t1me)·_W'~ased the ,BIlO'lilt.o.t.c1l.lQ~sis .No .<br />

chlorosis was found in any of the subplots reee1v~iPIlly" the J~e or July<br />

application of Simazine.' "<br />

Plarl.ts,~8~plots~ceiving ~ add1tiOnal2.~und application of<br />

Casoron (TJ;U:tlI!l'Dt3) on September 29,had many re,~sh.purple leaves,<br />

whereas those in the II un,treated" s~plot were no~,,',' ,.,in cOlo,r,,' Most of the<br />

plants were killed in tbesubplots-,w!th a total 1;>1: ~,pounds of Casoron, lllld<br />

very few runner plants survived in'\ltie 4-pound s~p~ts. r<br />

Berry set and size were similar ,in all treatme~~ except Treatments'<br />

1, 3, a.nd4.Altbpugh it.was not po!Ssible to obte.:i~/yieldrecords in e~h<br />

of the 108 subplots, there is no doubt that yields were decreased in '<br />

Tres,tments 1, 3, "and 4. In SOllIe "ot the other treatments increased berry - .<br />

size tended' to ottset any' decreases in berry' n~eili, "80 large yield<br />

differences' wrenOt apparent.' " uc ,', ,<br />

The strSwberryplarit~g Was"no~ weeded at eiij"'1fJfte'1n1961 (the oD'J.i;'<br />

hand-weeding ~1~ donepr:tQrt.Q.~~ 19, 1960 0tli~ 'the Augwst ~~"~<br />

September 8, 1960period wbena11 'lieeds were remoY~ M'Wei8h1ng). On'"<br />

october 24, 1961, ·the per cent Clf':~~d control: "~~'ted for each plo~.<br />

At 1:histime some plots were stIllalJllost completeJ.li:~-ttee. The ."<br />

average per cent of weed control is pl'esented in Table 2. The percent.s<br />

were transformed to angles, and the statistical analysis made. The<br />

comparisons among means showed no differences between Treatments 2, 5, 6,<br />

7, 8, and 9 although the average per cent weed control: varied from 70 to 88<br />

per cent. Wee413OBtrol:was .18Bi1'f!eantlypOo1'er1ujTN~ts 3 and Itban<br />

in all othftttell.tlient8, except ~atmEint4. Th& dIl1Y'major shift in'd!t'gree .<br />

of weed col.'l.'ttOlf1'Olll19&:>to 19'61oacurred'W1thT*1iIIient 9.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!