Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
1+8 'WEED CONrROLBY DIME1'HYt..:mRACHL6ROl'E1lEPHl'~'1'l!: ALO~ ANDIN CEm'AIN CCJ.lBINATJ:otlS L. E. Limpel, Paul H. Sohuldt, acdl n&tYid Lamont 1/ [ Dimethyl tetraohloroterephthalate in pre-emergenoe applioation onto freshly oultivated soil pos ses8S II remarkable residual aotivity against lIIaby . annual grasses, e.g., orabgrass (pigitatia spp.),' tbll foJCtails(SetaEia sW.), and barnyard weeds, e. g. grass [Eornoo~o: orus-galli purslane (JlrtiJ:C _ olenoea (L.) Beauv.] and some broadleaved L.) and lambsquarters (Chenopodium ~ L.). However, at reoommended dosages, it is ineffeotive for oontrol of ragweed (Ambrosia spps ) and Gal1ns~a spp, and usually provides only partial oontrol of pigweed (Amaranthus app- and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). The utility of this ohemioal would be greatly inoreased if it effectively controlled these latter weeds, but none of many experimental formulations has enhanced activity. In a continued effort to broaden the uses of this herbicide, it has been combined with several other materials used in pre-emergenoe applications. There are two ways in whioh combinations of weed killers can improve weed control I (1) The mixture lIID.ybe synergistic, i.e., a given weed speoies may be far more susceptible to the mixture than it is to either of the oanponents applied alone. (2) The mixture, in a simple additive fashion, may control a broader speotrum of weed speoies. It would be expected that oases of true synergism would be rare, and unless there was an antagonistic interaction, simple addition of spectra of aotivity would tend to be the rule. h order to take full advantage of this type of addition, the two herbicides to be combined ought to be as dissimilar in this respect as possible. Cbviously, such combinations would be restricted to use on crops which tolerated all components. MATERIAISANDMETHODS The herbicidal materials used in these studies are listed in the table on the following page. In the greenhouse test, soil contained in metal flats 12" X 8" X 3" deep was broadcast seeded both to pigweed (bmaranthuB retrof1exus L.) and to barnyard grass. Each species was restricted to a specific area of the soil so that pure stands would be present. The seeds were lightly covered with soil, and the following treatllB nte were then immediately sprayed onto tho s oil surface I dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, CDEC, and NPAeach at 2 lb./acre, dimethyl tetrachloroterephtha1ate + CDlOOat 2 + 2 1b./acre, and dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate + NPAat 2 + 2 1b./acre. The treatments were replicated three times and three untreated nats were included as checlcs. The flats were retained in the greenhouse untill good growth had occurred in the checks at which time total fresh weight of the aerial parts of each speoies was determined. Per cent control was calculated on the basis of reduction in fresh weight as compared to the checks.
PFSI'ICIDESUSED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,-- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- Common Active ~ Trade-mark ingredient Fortnulatiop. ~ DACTHALW-50 dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate 50 W Diamond Alkali CDEC VEGADEX 2-chloroallyl diethyl- 4 lb./gal. Monsanto di thiocarbamate E.C. NPA ALANAP-l N-l naphtllyl 90W Naugatuclc phthalamicacid crrc ORl'HO3-CHLOROisoproP)l N(3-chloro- 4 Ib./gal. California rrc EMUISIVE phenyl carbamate E.C. Spray DNBP PREMERGE dinitro-~see-butyl 3 Ib./gal Dow phenol, alkanolamine salts 2,4- D CROPRIDER 2,4-dichlorophenoxy- 4 lb. ae/ Diamond AMINE40-2 acetic acid, alkyl gal. Alkali amine salt 2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxy- Experimental Diamond acetic acid Alkali chlordane CHIPMAN CHIDRDANE: octach10ro-4,7-methanotetrahydroindane and related compounds 50 W Chipman 49 ·In the field tests, treatments were applied in 50.gallons of water per acre from a one gallon hand operated sprayer equipped with a Teejet nozzle. Weed control was always calculated from 4 or 5 independent estimates of the per cent of each plot covered by weeds, regardless of species, unless othe~ wis~ specified. The most commonweeds encountered in the field were barnyard grass, crabgrass [Digttaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. and ~. ischaemum (Schreb.) Muhl.], pigweed Amaranthus retrof exus L.), purslane, smartweed (Polygonumpensylvanicum L.), ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifplia L.), and galinsoga. Each plot in the Lima bean test was 3' X 30' and dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate at a and 4 Ib./acre, DNBPat 4 and 2 Ib./acre and dimethyl tetrach1orophtha1ate + DNBPata + 4, 4 + 4, and 4 + 2 Ib./acre were applied one day after cultivation and planting. There were three replicates in a randomized block design, and the combinations wore applied as tank mixes. Treatments were sprayed onto 3' X 15 1 plots two days after the onion plants were set. Thero wore four replicates in a randomized block design. The following treatments were applied, the combinations as tank mixes: +.A+.,..n..... },'n,..n+_t:u ••onh+'J.,r:l' ....+~ ..+ do .......;1 J ,"" J____ "T'nf" _..L , dimF!t.hvl
- 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: 11. Rice, E. J. The effects of cUlt
- 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
1+8<br />
'WEED CONrROLBY DIME1'HYt..:mRACHL6ROl'E1lEPHl'~'1'l!:<br />
ALO~ ANDIN<br />
CEm'AIN CCJ.lBINATJ:otlS<br />
L. E. Limpel, Paul H. Sohuldt, acdl n&tYid Lamont 1/<br />
[<br />
Dimethyl tetraohloroterephthalate in pre-emergenoe applioation onto<br />
freshly oultivated soil pos ses8S II remarkable residual aotivity against lIIaby .<br />
annual grasses, e.g., orabgrass (pigitatia spp.),' tbll foJCtails(SetaEia sW.),<br />
and barnyard<br />
weeds, e. g.<br />
grass [Eornoo~o: orus-galli<br />
purslane (JlrtiJ:C _ olenoea<br />
(L.) Beauv.] and some broadleaved<br />
L.) and lambsquarters (Chenopodium<br />
~ L.). However, at reoommended dosages, it is ineffeotive for oontrol of<br />
ragweed (Ambrosia spps ) and Gal1ns~a spp, and usually provides only partial<br />
oontrol of pigweed (Amaranthus app- and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). The<br />
utility of this ohemioal would be greatly inoreased if it effectively controlled<br />
these latter weeds, but none of many experimental formulations has<br />
enhanced activity. In a continued effort to broaden the uses of this herbicide,<br />
it has been combined with several other materials used in pre-emergenoe<br />
applications.<br />
There are two ways in whioh combinations of weed killers can improve<br />
weed control I (1) The mixture lIID.ybe synergistic, i.e., a given weed speoies<br />
may be far more susceptible to the mixture than it is to either of the oanponents<br />
applied alone. (2) The mixture, in a simple additive fashion, may<br />
control a broader speotrum of weed speoies. It would be expected that oases<br />
of true synergism would be rare, and unless there was an antagonistic interaction,<br />
simple addition of spectra of aotivity would tend to be the rule.<br />
h order to take full advantage of this type of addition, the two herbicides<br />
to be combined ought to be as dissimilar in this respect as possible.<br />
Cbviously, such combinations would be restricted to use on crops which<br />
tolerated all components.<br />
MATERIAISANDMETHODS<br />
The herbicidal materials used in these studies are listed in the table<br />
on the following page.<br />
In the greenhouse test, soil contained in metal flats 12" X 8" X 3"<br />
deep was broadcast seeded both to pigweed (bmaranthuB retrof1exus L.) and to<br />
barnyard grass. Each species was restricted to a specific area of the soil<br />
so that pure stands would be present. The seeds were lightly covered with<br />
soil, and the following treatllB nte were then immediately sprayed onto tho<br />
s oil surface I dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, CDEC, and NPAeach at<br />
2 lb./acre, dimethyl tetrachloroterephtha1ate + CDlOOat 2 + 2 1b./acre, and<br />
dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate + NPAat 2 + 2 1b./acre. The treatments<br />
were replicated three times and three untreated nats were included as checlcs.<br />
The flats were retained in the greenhouse untill good growth had occurred in<br />
the checks at which time total fresh weight of the aerial parts of each<br />
speoies was determined. Per cent control was calculated on the basis of<br />
reduction in fresh weight as compared to the checks.