Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

·358 Tablej~. -~,he., _E, fre, ~t8," o~ D,"",t;:.i~_ht.' 'Sp,1;1. "T.r,~:~,",n,teon Pre .. ~me;r.lebt <strong>Weed</strong> Cqnt~pt.l;~it"h. Trl!lu~~.. ..- -'~ .. .,. ,( Surface Spray- ... . Rake '\ ' . 0.5 1 2 3 4 o ...,W Pre-Plant Oontrol - - - - - _.- - - ....,.:;- - Soil Treatment': Surfll.cespray--no incorporation; ralt.~soil incorp.oMt1on by. hand r"kiUIJ pre-plan1(a.oU incorpora~oD with rot~~or Grau -w,eeds were cr-abgrau and' 'f-;~iiJ bl'oadleat ••• d8 were p1gve~4 aQd carpetweed . yNumber weeds per 8C1~~~e. ·toot 70** 57* 87** 87** -65** o (1.4) . Y - .. - - - ..- ' ...... i, ':',"':: r With 1;.he cl.~Jl\o~sha..t1onot ~Prove'd activity- ~~~ritlural1n on 8:011 inc or.oporat-i.on:, another expel"1me1"t. wasc ondu~~1n, which 8ever ..l commons011 incorporation ~e~.quee were cQJ9Pared. Methods were: dO,uble .disking.once llpd; ·1(:wiceJ ra,king·.::the soil surface J : rotovat.!OJ1.~ and4inche.s d~Jcand Ilotovati\. 2 inches deep, dlelayed 6 hours after trifluralin application. Tritluralin surface spray was used for comparison. Plots were 5 by- 15 teet, replicated 3 times. Crops planted across the plots included soybeans, snapbeans, peanuts, and cotton. I~ • ! •
Results are given. in Table 4~J'Rotovation fti4elearly the be~'1!' method of soil incorporat:f:on." The orderJol'activitywas rotovation, raking, delayed rotovation, diskin')I'surface spray. None of the crops were injured-by any treatment. Table 4. -A Comparison of :·86i:l: Incorporation Methods with Tr1tluralin at 1'''n;!A. Expressed as Percent <strong>Weed</strong> Control 359 !r~;f!~a!i~ !!bLA., .... _ ~e!:c!n~ ~e~.. a~n~r~l .• ," i __ 8gq lr!a~m!!n!: _ .. ... Qr!!s!e! __ ....P!g!e!!d..: Surface Disk once Disk tWice· Rake· Rotovate-2 Rotovate-4" Rotova'te-2 Control 1t It , 6 hrs. --- - - - - ~ .. ,1\ 70* 77** 90** 97** 100** 79** o -(~.~)~- 26 ;1 63** ~2* 86** 94;** 96** iJ: 83** -- * and ** S18n1fica~1i'at the 5 and J,.!percent level.:, respect1ve],y,.using the tJ.'~nsormation 'fN:O.~ . , :. ," '. ,. ',. Number oi'w$eds per square]foot Leaching stud1~8were conducted with tr1:tlU:flalin to determine the rate of leaching from the soi]" surface and 11he depth of leaching in a soil column. Three soil types were used: Princeton fine sand, Brookston silty clay loam, . and Hough'tcm- muck. ~eacbiDg_Fram autfacG •• A measured quantity of soil was placed in _number 2 catlsprovided w.ith' .~bottom drainage. The s oil was flooded and allowed to drain 16 hours. The trifluralin was then app.lied at ·2 pounds per acre--to: the soi-l surf-ace and 1, 2, 4,· 6, 8 or 10 incbes of water was paned through the soil. 'Fresh II weight of crabgrass plantsgrow:n from seed;p.anted on the soi~ surface was use~_as a b1010gic.l assay. ' .. /
Page 1 and 2:
PRESENTANDFUTtJU OF AQUATIC'. WIlD
Page 3 and 4:
Complete reports from 12 Nor~heaste
Page 5 and 6:
The reawakening in aquatic weed con
Page 7 and 8:
,10.1ng -2,4.,;iD (19), 2,4~5.T (4)
Page 9 and 10:
9 The Role of the State in Res idue
Page 11 and 12:
,., 1'4 keep developmental work in
Page 13 and 14:
In addition to a review of field an
Page 15 and 16:
State workers have to consider resi
Page 17 and 18:
The vigorous regrowth of quackgrass
Page 19 and 20:
during t,he sUllllller.is l,ower ll
Page 21 and 22:
5. llslapon and other chlorine,ted
Page 23 and 24:
23 • ·i INTRODUCTION: !!'he Bear
Page 25 and 26:
Some damage to runners rssul ted fr
Page 27 and 28:
27 CELLSTRUCTUREANDPLANTGROWTHCRMON
Page 29 and 30:
pel'fQ.,..d,-.ear17M1932. that the
Page 31 and 32:
a copious precipitate deposits afte
Page 33 and 34:
B) A general review of the subject
Page 35 and 36:
This narrative of ineptitude must b
Page 37 and 38:
does Jo run a recreational facility
Page 39 and 40:
Another pote1U:ialuse for chemicals
Page 41 and 42:
Newapproaches in the use of herbici
Page 43 and 44:
43 sentence would bear this out". T
Page 45 and 46:
More and more each year since the a
Page 47 and 48:
11. Rice, E. J. The effects of cUlt
Page 49 and 50:
PFSI'ICIDESUSED - - - - - - - - - -
Page 51 and 52:
__..:I whether or not these apparen
Page 53 and 54:
Dosage. Ib./acre Dimethyl tetrachlo
Page 55 and 56:
~ ~_~ __ L L Table 2. Weed Susceoti
Page 57 and 58:
- - - - - - - - ~, - - - - --- - -
Page 59 and 60:
Table 7.. Weed Control in :l:!c,Ql1
Page 61 and 62:
Table '1. Rat.1lISstI 'Of carrot an
Page 63 and 64:
H , 'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.
Page 65 and 66:
65 plant press and dried in a f~ced
Page 67 and 68:
67 Tablet. 'lIi! EFFECT'or AN'INO'l
Page 69 and 70:
69 THE INFLUENCE JIt P.I!ll'ROLEUM
Page 71 and 72:
71 1 CDEC(Ee) 2 " " 3 4 " 5 " " 6 7
Page 73 and 74:
!a~l~ 1._ ~!:.c!: :!!1~hJl!:e.::m~d
Page 75 and 76:
75 EFFECT;OFCOMPOSITIONANDVOLUMEOF
Page 77 and 78:
A LOGARITHMICSPRAlERFORSMALLPLCflSY
Page 79 and 80:
79 Do~ Calculations The actual init
Page 81 and 82:
Selective Herbicides for Several Cr
Page 83 and 84:
83 Susceptible weeds Tolerant weeds
Page 85 and 86:
85 Marion Market 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Da
Page 87 and 88:
Table 5. Bai
Page 89 and 90:
weeding of Lima Bean. With Chemical
Page 91 and 92:
EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONQUALITYANDYIEL
Page 93 and 94:
Results Date treated: 9/6/61 Soil m
Page 95 and 96:
95 Date planted: 915/61 Date treate
Page 97 and 98:
Table 3. Yield Data on Hanover and
Page 99 and 100:
Weeding of Carrots With 'pre-lilanU
Page 101 and 102:
101 WEEDCONTROLSTUDIESIN SEElED ONI
Page 103 and 104:
Weather conditions at the two locat
Page 105 and 106:
In contrast to the damage noted in
Page 107 and 108:
107 Literature Cited 1. Althaus. R.
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Weed control: stand of pla
Page 111 and 112:
Results and Discussion. The data, p
Page 113 and 114:
CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or
Page 115 and 116:
Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of p
Page 117 and 118:
'Ihree experiments were conducted i
Page 119 and 120:
a- Table 2_"COIIlpartsonof' Several
Page 121 and 122:
fJ Table 3. CcBparison of Several.
Page 123 and 124:
c
Page 125 and 126:
Table 1. Seeding and Weed Counts on
Page 127 and 128:
WEEDCONTROLANDTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SE
Page 129 and 130:
Following emergence of the tomato s
Page 131 and 132:
indicates that several of the treat
Page 133 and 134:
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Transplant Tom
Page 135 and 136:
harvest was covered with weeds, and
Page 137 and 138:
An additional 2 years of tests on f
Page 139 and 140:
~ Table 2 .--l Average Number and P
Page 141 and 142:
~ Table 4 Total Yields in Number an
Page 143 and 144:
"" ~ Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto
Page 145 and 146:
of weed eoneee I without inj ury 't
Page 147 and 148:
1. Associate Research Specialist in
Page 149 and 150:
Stulllll&ry A study was lh1tlatedto
Page 151 and 152:
Table 2. The residual effects of se
Page 153 and 154:
FURTHEROBSERVATIONS ONCONTROL OF TH
Page 155 and 156:
Table 3 - Mean per cent brake contr
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 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 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 and 274:
273 TABLEII. ~1EED CONTROLANDYIELD
Page 275 and 276:
~ C'l TABLE tv. lIEE» OON1T..OLAND
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
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 and 334: '--' The applicators were tested un
Page 335 and 336: 335 Figure 1. The effeetof partic1e
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: experiment is reported herE!. Trifl
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
Page 385 and 386: We ,prpbablyhave no speeie of g~owt
Page 387 and 388: control. At the end of the third ye
Page 389 and 390: initial defoliation was evident lat
Page 391 and 392: OBJECTIVE In 1958 an experiment was
Page 393 and 394: Replicates DlO 810 I 2.0 0.5 II 1.5
Page 395 and 396: DISCUSSION One Year After Applicati
Page 397 and 398: 1. Button, E.F. Bndwrfg'h~';J .L. ,
Page 399 and 400: 399 The treatment consisted of appl
Page 401 and 402: 401 FIELD PROCEDURES Although. the
Page 403 and 404: 403 In the light of these data it a
Page 405 and 406: 405 ...·1!MLE I SAMPLECHARACTERIST
Page 407 and 408: 407 , '.". '.·',',~'l~rL,i;'. "\"
Page 409 and 410:
dltterent l"atespacaoreand"~"at thr
Page 411 and 412:
411 RESULTS ireatmentettect was det
Page 413 and 414:
, 413 ;. ' "1 ' "':j " • made wit
Page 415 and 416:
( ( . Table 3. Effectiveness on Spe
Page 417 and 418:
417 FENURQlt,A PROMISINGNEWTOOL FOR
Page 419 and 420:
There are a number of reaso~ for un
Page 421 and 422:
.n_ots, "'hhin a few months after:
Page 423 and 424:
sater method ot tree-killing close
Page 425 and 426:
Material ~izone is a,mixedf~g.. t w
Page 427 and 428:
427 On November 16, 1961, at the en
Page 429 and 430:
CHBMI-THINNINGWITH,AIrlINES IN THED
Page 431 and 432:
These tests show once aaaiJithe nee
Page 433 and 434:
Th:Ls ch!~ca1. tx'eatme:n1!_1IhClJ.
Page 435 and 436:
: if.. . ' A Comparative Study of t
Page 437 and 438:
'j 437 petioles, now elongated,f'or
Page 439 and 440:
Helisoma, Menetus, fhYSa andValvata
Page 441 and 442:
i s. The benth1c populat1Q~ W¥", O
Page 443 and 444:
443 Eurasian. wa~lfoil a W8t.f~~ ap
Page 445 and 446:
Empb4sis was on testing DOD-volatil
Page 447 and 448:
447 . , , -. I':'V'est~a.ti
Page 449 and 450:
FIELDOBSERVATIONS UPONESTUARINE ANI
Page 451 and 452:
more than 2 feet. ExceptionalUdes s
Page 453 and 454:
TABLE1. Responseof oysters t~ diffe
Page 455 and 456:
In the'Dundee Creek series. ,one of
Page 457 and 458:
workers. springer (1961) cite8& num
Page 459 and 460:
OBSERVATIONSONTHE OCCURRENCE' ANDPE
Page 461 and 462:
461 TABLE! Chemical Water QuaU1?::r
Page 463 and 464:
TABLEIII Threshold Taste and Odor C
Page 465 and 466:
(1.1-) Burttschell, R.H. , et al.,
Page 467 and 468:
Code A - seeded June 29 B - seeded
Page 469 and 470:
SUIIIIJ~, ~ Conclusions 5' 469 The
Page 472 and 473:
III. Average turf scores l' of thre
Page 474 and 475:
474 PIft'J'OTOXICBlFBQTS'QJe'CBRTAI
Page 476 and 477:
476 MERIONBLUEGBASS• T!BATANDsgD
Page 478 and 479:
478 In general. the treatments appl
Page 480 and 481:
4BJ days follow:lng the ohemical tr
Page 482 and 483:
') ') ' :_B!.ue~s•. Fescue au:l~"
Page 484 and 485:
:". ',J P~E~ C!',. O~.C~G~S 'F.~HEM
Page 486 and 487:
Lima and ferd'1izer applications sh
Page 488 and 489:
4es 1'.o~~1ty, ", .ewf!r''''rsenc.
Page 490 and 491:
} ) Table 1. Besu):ta.Qf 1961 pre-e
Page 492 and 493:
492 corresponding plots on este.bl1
Page 494 and 495:
494 ae.u!s,'I!IIDi,cua.:Lon leUllll
Page 496 and 497:
496 D±!3pa,~n~ Resul te)I? .,l-ta,
Page 498 and 499:
498 1 . 1 J. E. Gallagher and n. J.
Page 500 and 501:
500 Da1;ejJ01 e~uations ~,a.;t'ollC
Page 502 and 503:
502 TADLEIt Comparison of "severalc
Page 504 and 505:
504 TADLE3: Pre-oemergence and poet
Page 506 and 507:
506 Table 1. Re8eeding Resulte:afit
Page 508 and 509:
5"8 d1propalin ortrifluralin 'at ':
Page 510 and 511:
510 aUlIPIl iri '-1: ' D" "" Diphen
Page 512 and 513:
Fall ve. spriif ~nts .. 'Ibe",obl1.
Page 514 and 515:
514 ~ Tab1e2. Cr&bgraS$'Contr01 in
Page 516 and 517:
516 ,';1:".i'"'f'!r": :~,j i: .. r
Page 518 and 519:
. ~lS residual cemtrol of crabgrssi
Page 520 and 521:
520 - . \.. ; ."," ,
Page 522 and 523:
5~2 'rab4t13.· ~gtnc. ·QGabtiol:o
Page 524 and 525:
524 PRE.._RGENCE AMU' POsT-EHERGENC
Page 526 and 527:
526 Table 1. 'l'a):lsra,. ContrO.k1
Page 528 and 529:
528 Pre- andpost ..emergejljCec:rab
Page 530 and 531:
530 Prior to each chemical applicat
Page 532 and 533:
u 532 3) Those trea.t,mellts which
Page 534 and 535:
Table I (Coot'd) 27. JSc.F,~iOe t$~
Page 536 and 537:
536 EXPERIMENTS ONTHECHOOCALCOIm'l)
Page 538 and 539:
~______ , 53S Table 1: Control of c
Page 540 and 541:
54' In a similar po st-ell1~rgence
Page 542:
542 da~hal and diphenatrile) at ear
Page 545 and 546:
.. ";' -:' il; JT!.: .'\ i~'J" ; ~J
Page 547 and 548:
541 Distr:tbution of radioacti~tl t
Page 549 and 550:
549 •RESULTS The distribution of
Page 551 and 552:
GRAPHII: Comparison of the~.tl;'i~u
Page 553:
"-...-.. J.4 The distribution of r~
show all

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

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

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society