Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
334 Table ~. ,~,~fect of speed,~~~d. size and clap. of hopper fullness,C)I\ -../ t\,\e~nt of granular.~1al (in gIIla) delivered by Appl1catQr 1*. , . l'i./ " ~< 'J: Degree of Hopper .:rullness Particle Size i full \ full !:!ll. ~ 15/30 1,16.4 a 112.5 ... 113.8 a 24/~ " ~ 'j'-1:: lM+.9 de 131.4 de! 129.8 cd 30/60 ~~ f 1.33.1 de 126.0 be 122.5 b 4 mph 15/30 7.9:.8 b 66.0 .' 24/48 'j', 69.3 ab 82.6 cd 83.6 cd 81.6 cd 30/60 .sa.s d 82.6 .Q4 79.5 c 2.m 15/30 53.6 b 46.5 • 49.4 a 24/48 58.1 c 58.9 c·· 56.9 be l: 30/60 I 57.3 bc 58.5 ere, 55.6 be * numbers fo1,~owed by, the a... letter within anyone speed are not" significantly different from each other. As shown in Figure 1, the ~P"" to which the hopper was filled made a significant difference in the 8IIIOUrit'-ofgranules delivered, with the amount' delive~ed generall)!' decreasing .. the·hopper varied f'om t-full to full. With' the1S/30 material, the ,-full hopper had the least output • .Sp'ced had a significant effe4ton the output of the different particl. sizes (Table 1), usually the 24/48 particle size having the highest delivery rate while the 30/30 part~c:1e size feUll_tween it and tlle',lS/30 size. The is/3D particle, size .output wa. s1gnif1cantly lower than th. emeller sizes at all speeds. AppU.sator 2. , ,Output varilition due to particle size was not .. great as in the previous instance and the yield of the 30/60 particle size fell almost midway betwe~nthe 15/30 and the 24/48-.
335 Figure 1. The effeetof partic1esize and degree of hopper filling .(\; fUll, , full or FUJ:l) on the output 'of'::'2 granular applicators. 9Q 'APPLICATOR1 . I I 8Q- r-'-"-- I !-~: i---· ! ! AqLlCATOR2 15/30 24/48 Particle * i~di~~tes the columns ~r; ~ignificantly different from each other Size 30/60
- 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
- Page 325 and 326: All treatments produced si~1f~c~tly
- Page 327 and 328: A 327 WEBDe
- Page 329 and 330: . Eli'FECTSali' WEEDSON YIELD AND"G
- Page 331 and 332: Pollen Maturity: ",l. ,. Broadleaf
- Page 333: '--' The applicators were tested un
- Page 337 and 338: 337 SRFeader 1 On this spreader onl
- Page 339 and 340: Table 4. The effect of speed, p~~cl
- Page 341 and 342: Table 1: Herbicidal treatments used
- Page 343 and 344: ·000 .000, I II ! WEEDCONTROLRATIN
- Page 345 and 346: 2.5000 CORNINJURY EXPRESSEDAS SQUAR
- Page 347 and 348: 347 1. 2. Danielson. l , ;4. L. Ef~
- Page 349 and 350: ',-- 34~ 3-(3 ..4-Dichlorophenyl)-1
- Page 351 and 352: weed control with adequate safety t
- Page 353 and 354: Untreated Table 2. Directed Post-E"
- Page 355 and 356: .s .... __ Table 7. Pre-Emel'ae~eWe
- Page 357 and 358: experiment is reported herE!. Trifl
- Page 359 and 360: Results are given. in Table 4~J'Rot
- Page 361 and 362: In Princeton fine sand, tritlupalin
- Page 363 and 364: Included in the lima. bean test wer
- Page 365 and 366: Table 1. The Effects ofS8veral form
- Page 367 and 368: Table 3. The effects of several for
- Page 369 and 370: 369 Table 5. The effects of sev~ral
- Page 371 and 372: • ~ : .• \ • ' -' ..,,:- ',-"
- Page 373 and 374: Heights of barley were significantl
- Page 375 and 376: Table 2. The effe,cts of s~\I'~ral
- Page 377 and 378: Table 4. 377 The effects of aevel8.
- Page 379 and 380: ,:' A PROGRESSREPORTONCOMIo!ERCIAL
- Page 381 and 382: 4. Undesirable dead stem.,lio not r
- Page 383 and 384: areas under service conditionsa~ va
335<br />
Figure 1. The effeetof partic1esize and degree of hopper filling<br />
.(\; fUll, , full or FUJ:l) on the output 'of'::'2 granular applicators.<br />
9Q<br />
'APPLICATOR1<br />
.<br />
I<br />
I<br />
8Q-<br />
r-'-"--<br />
I<br />
!-~:<br />
i---·<br />
!<br />
!<br />
AqLlCATOR2<br />
15/30 24/48<br />
Particle<br />
* i~di~~tes the columns ~r; ~ignificantly different from<br />
each other<br />
Size<br />
30/60
Change language