Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
274 TABLEIII. ~1EI$I),:OOIfrROL ANDYIl3LDIN ~TOES '(4 a,pUcations) ~aS.e__ Ueed Control l-Poor to S-Excellent ,..Ch es 1£a! ___ ,- _S~uI.~ __ T!lII!&1!.l!8!i __ 2.11lL61__ !1!.14.-1b,:. 3.0 Lb. Casoron Niaz. Lay by 0/4/61 2.0 21.1 4.0 II " " II 11 2.0 27..,7 4.0 " Solan 11 " " S.S 22.9 4.0 11 D1phenamld Lilly " " 3~S 23•.3 6.0 11 " " 11 11 4.3 24~S 4,0 11 Dacthol D1&.Ait(. 11 11 3.3 25~0 8.0 Ii 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 22'6 12.0 II 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 22,9 4.0 11 Am1ben(Gran.) Amdttin 11 6.0 11 8.0 " " " " 3.5 25..9 11 11 11 5.0 21.2 11 11 11 11 11 5.0 20.8. Checlc 1.0 18.4' 0.66 Gal. Tillam(1ncorp.) Stauffer 6/5/61 2.3 24.4 N.S.
~ C'l TABLE tv. lIEE» OON1T..OLAND YIELD IN CAIID.OTS (3 Replications) _ B,a£.e_' Heed Control Crop Appear. Yield- Time Applied I-Poor to I-Poor to 1/ Pre-emerg. 5/11/61 9-Excellent 9-Excellent Lb.- Ch~s.al !o~s.e !.o!.t::.e!!}!3!k.61lJ.I§.1_ _6L211§.C 6L211§.1 !OL2Q/§.1 _ - •. ~ -; ,. c, ~. ~ - , &AOUto,"".na~~l; e. ,_ DialR.,Allt... 5;~0- ,Il -l:Diihit ' ~ , AmcIlieIlt ,0: :-: 1.0 _ "Ipaziae Geigy 4.0" DIlcthol Diam. 9'.0, II Zytron Dm7' AIle. 2.0 "Hercules 843 Here. Powd. 4.0 II ,Solan NiaZ. 1.0" Ipa&ine Geigy ,lOO"O,'~l. _S~ Solvent ,~$ocon,y 3')ot;Lb~ ND1~;' , ~ __ 12;0-'''' ::nacthol '~.,-AlI~;' 1.5 ,. 'Ipaaine Geigy: 2.0" Solan Niag. 1.0" Hercules 843 Here. Powd. 6.0" Zyt1:on Dow 6..0" Solan Niag. 4'.0," Hercules 843 Here:. POWlf. 4.0" Ami1JeD Amchem 1.5 .. _ ipazibe Geigy 4~0 Qt. R8D4ox'1' Mon.an. 6-~O It .." 11 5.0'1 tI .l . " Pre-emerz·' .. -"IS It . . 11 11 " "11 II" Post-emer3. 11 II 11 " l're..-#g. ,'" ":, " ,: l"ost-emerg. n " Pre-emerg. " " Post-emerg. Pre-emerg. .. II ----------.------------------------------------------- 1/ - - - " II " " " __ '__5.7. 3.0- ' _5.7 6.3 8.0 ,7.4 7.7 4.7 " 7.4 ~ 6.'( ., - 7.4 5.0 6.7 6.3 7.4 8.3 8.3 7.4 6.3 4.0 5.7 6.3 - Means included in brackets are not significantly different at the 5% level. (Duncan' s) Multiple Range Test. 7.4 4.7 6.3 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.7 6.0 7.4 6.3 5.0 5.7 6.3 7.4 5.0 5.3 6.7 4.3 2.3 1.0 1.3 111.9' 110.7 110.3 104'~11_ l04.Qj 99·U S6.& 95.9 95.9 95.2 95.2 93.& 91.4 I 89.4 , 88.L-1 86.9 86.4 85.!L.-J 73.5 36. 24;'21 17.61 ) )
- 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: 273 TABLEII. ~1EED CONTROLANDYIELD
- 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'$~lfI)DI3CtlSSION '1.",
- Page 315 and 316: 315 LrrERATURECITED 1. Fertig, Stan
- Page 317 and 318: .~ pattern following applications o
- Page 319 and 320: Ratings at the time of'gJ;Vllst; al
- Page 321 and 322: THERESPONSEOF NUTGRASS TO HERBIC~I)
- Page 323 and 324: '\.......- TABLE2. Ratings of Nutgr
274<br />
TABLEIII. ~1EI$I),:OOIfrROL ANDYIl3LDIN ~TOES<br />
'(4 a,pUcations)<br />
~aS.e__<br />
Ueed Control<br />
l-Poor to<br />
S-Excellent<br />
,..Ch es 1£a! ___ ,- _S~uI.~ __ T!lII!&1!.l!8!i __ 2.11lL61__ !1!.14.-1b,:.<br />
3.0 Lb. Casoron Niaz. Lay by 0/4/61 2.0 21.1<br />
4.0<br />
II<br />
" "<br />
II 11<br />
2.0 27..,7<br />
4.0 " Solan<br />
11<br />
" " S.S 22.9<br />
4.0<br />
11<br />
D1phenamld Lilly " "<br />
3~S 23•.3<br />
6.0<br />
11<br />
" "<br />
11 11<br />
4.3 24~S<br />
4,0<br />
11<br />
Dacthol D1&.Ait(.<br />
11 11<br />
3.3 25~0<br />
8.0<br />
Ii 11 11 11 11 11<br />
2.5 22'6<br />
12.0 II 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 22,9<br />
4.0<br />
11<br />
Am1ben(Gran.) Amdttin<br />
11<br />
6.0<br />
11<br />
8.0 "<br />
" "<br />
" 3.5 25..9<br />
11 11 11<br />
5.0 21.2<br />
11 11 11 11 11<br />
5.0 20.8.<br />
Checlc 1.0 18.4'<br />
0.66 Gal. Tillam(1ncorp.) Stauffer 6/5/61 2.3 24.4<br />
N.S.
Change language