Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
62 Du R)nt 326 caused slight early stunting of carrots on muck. However, at barvest no differences in yield could be noted. In tbe t'WOtests on coarse sand where only early records we~.btained, 326 caused marked stunting at three pounds. It was for this reasOn that rates were kept at 1.5 lbs. ma.x1mum in the sandy !oem test. Ragweed is a severe pest not controlled by Stoddard Solvent. Tbe t'WO tests abandoned early, were in fields chosen primarily because of bigh ragweed population. These tests yielded some data on ragweed control. The follow1nc materials failed to control tbis pest: Cbloro !PC, Dacthsl, Zytran, Dipropalin (post-emergence) and Trifiuralin. Du R)nt 326 gave excellent control of ragweed. Other compounds whicb performed well were J:.pazine and Solan. In the planting on the sandy loam soil annual grasses were a serious problem. Ipe.zine and Solan gave only fair control of tbese pests. Du R)nt 326, however, performed exceedingly well. Tbus for a wide range of weed species on widely different soils under either pre or post-emergent conditions this chemical was outstanding. Nutgrass Ex,per1ments The activity of Du Pont 326 and other chemicals was studied at two locations beavily infested witb nutgrass. The materials were applied pre-planting at botb locations. At one location they were also applied in the "spike" stage and wben tbe nutgrass averaged 6 - 8 inches tall. The results of the several tests are presented in table 2. Timing bad a pronounced effect on the response of nutgrass to Du R)nt 326. Pre-plant applications whether on the surface or incorporated gave unsatisfactory control. Disappointing results were also bad from the "spike" stage applications. At both of these timings the foliage turned somewhat yellow and early growtb was slightly retarded. However, after about three weeks tbe nutgrass foliage returned to a normal color and the plants developed vigorously. When treated at the taller stage, the foliage turned yellow and gradually became necrotic. No regrowtb occurred on any 326 plot treated at the 6 - 8 inch stage. Atrazine performed less satisfactorily at the spike stage than is normally expected. EPrC, however, was consistently excellent. Dalapon gave widely different results at tbe two pre-plant locations. Tbe authors do not have any explanation for the poor early results ~b Dalapon at King Ferry. Generally, early applications witb Dalapon have givfn results similar to tbose obtained at Binghamton. ReSponse of Additional Crops In addition to the results already reported Du R)nt 326 was used as an at -planting treatment in one test on muck, three tests on sandy loam, and in three tests on stony silt loam. R)tatoes appeared to be tolerant, however, no post -emergent tests have been conducted on this crop. Other crops including cucumbers, muskmelons, peas, snap and lima beans, tomatoes, beets and spinach were either severely damaged or killed at rates needed for weed control. Squasb were moderately damaged from pre-emergence applications but were killed by
H , 'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.'tO_8i!V!,1'!.l..,Q~~~&!!&tl~!ti1!~'__ 6.:8_ 1!;!Ch!.s £h!.m!.c!l ~b!.... _ .. '!!!.-'R.l!!ii'2L;~ _ ............ "~!t!< ......... DeJ.apon Atrazine .~ , 7.00 . ~. .JC!!1Ib$Y',:KingTeeg, .!iDe Ii'erq ).0 3.5 10 8.50 2 5.75 5.5 4.5 4 7.50 1.0' 5.5 ,6;.,,· 8.75 8." EP1'C(Inc.) 2 6.5· 11;., 8.5 ' '; 8.5 8.0 ' Du Pont 326 1/2; • 1. 2.00" 2.95 5~0:'. 2 - 3 5.25 ~ i.50 ~ 6.5 Check ;,", 1.0,' -':,1",0 ,'1.0 ' '1.0" ;;-9:~~: :e:t:~ :f-t:P"'~~~~~."'c:.::Q~~~~; :f"'t~~~~."'''' 5.unsat1sfactory control W top growth. 1. heavy complete ground cover. Ratings made in early August. . 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 2/ All pre-plant treatments at King Ferriwere diS~•. ~Y the E}ltam W8lI incorporate4,at i1D&h&mton· .. ",", ,.; . .... , post-emergeneet~t.. ~" covet crops are'~ well whe~ .~·was applied in June OIlslWl:Y1OBlIl.. s~ and Conclusions • '" .• "")",C," , 1. In1.4Q1lel'1mant& on~.~ frOm~e'~ to IDUck,DI1.~~t 326 @IlVeexaelant 'eont1'ol ofaW1lit r6i1ge of azmUl4Weedsinc1.ud1ng:c~~s, Eragrostis !!E.', barn;yai'd' 'srast,~i lambsquarten J ;purslane, gal1Deo_, ragweed, senecio.,. and 1.ad;Y'8thUmb 8IDl\1'tveed.='SOU t)'pe hadl1ttle ,Qr no influence on res s.' , " ' ' , , 2. Northern il.utgaSllWU etljlec~. lIusceptlblA,:to ;post-em$rgenceappllcations of 326. bat; vas not coiJ.t1'01~ by' pre~;,pdlce t~ts. 3. C8IT0ts were tolerMt o~·~. irw. post~sence applications of 326 at rates adequate to control either annual weeds or m.ttgrass. Post-emerse~ appl1ce.tionswere very.ffei:lt1ve1litO~·5and 1.0 ~~'~'t¥ acre but abQ~:. twice this qU8lXtttywas Deeded pre~t:sence. ,~' ' ,'" 4. Potatoes tolerated pre-e'llBrgence applic&t1oZUl,l;>utit is not knovIl.if they will tolel'atepos-to.emergenO'e''trfttments. .. . . ' 5. IDng residual ai:ltivity j,s apparently not a PJ'l)blem on sandy loam. Information talao1dng tor ot~eoulS' . 63 _
- 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: Table '1. Rat.1lISstI 'Of carrot an
- 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
H<br />
,<br />
'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.'tO_8i!V!,1'!.l..,Q~~~&!!&tl~!ti1!~'__<br />
6.:8_ 1!;!Ch!.s<br />
£h!.m!.c!l ~b!.... _ .. '!!!.-'R.l!!ii'2L;~ _ ............ "~!t!< .........<br />
DeJ.apon<br />
Atrazine<br />
.~ , 7.00 .<br />
~. .JC!!1Ib$Y',:KingTeeg, .!iDe Ii'erq<br />
).0<br />
3.5<br />
10 8.50<br />
2 5.75 5.5 4.5<br />
4 7.50 1.0' 5.5<br />
,6;.,,· 8.75 8."<br />
EP1'C(Inc.) 2 6.5·<br />
11;., 8.5 ' '; 8.5 8.0 '<br />
Du Pont 326 1/2;<br />
•<br />
1. 2.00" 2.95 5~0:'.<br />
2 -<br />
3 5.25 ~ i.50<br />
~<br />
6.5<br />
Check ;,", 1.0,' -':,1",0 ,'1.0 ' '1.0"<br />
;;-9:~~: :e:t:~ :f-t:P"'~~~~~."'c:.::Q~~~~; :f"'t~~~~."''''<br />
5.unsat1sfactory control W top growth. 1. heavy complete ground cover.<br />
Ratings made in early August. .<br />
6.0<br />
8.0<br />
8.0<br />
8.0<br />
9.0<br />
2/ All pre-plant treatments at King Ferriwere diS~•. ~Y the E}ltam W8lI<br />
incorporate4,at<br />
i1D&h&mton· .. ",", ,.;<br />
. .... ,<br />
post-emergeneet~t.. ~" covet crops are'~ well whe~ .~·was<br />
applied in June OIlslWl:Y1OBlIl..<br />
s~ and Conclusions<br />
• '" .• "")",C,"<br />
, 1. In1.4Q1lel'1mant& on~.~ frOm~e'~ to IDUck,DI1.~~t<br />
326 @IlVeexaelant 'eont1'ol ofaW1lit r6i1ge of azmUl4<strong>Weed</strong>sinc1.ud1ng:c~~s,<br />
Eragrostis !!E.', barn;yai'd' 'srast,~i lambsquarten J ;purslane, gal1Deo_,<br />
ragweed, senecio.,. and 1.ad;Y'8thUmb 8IDl\1'tveed.='SOU t)'pe hadl1ttle ,Qr<br />
no influence on res s.' , " ' ' , ,<br />
2. Northern il.utgaSllWU etljlec~. lIusceptlblA,:to ;post-em$rgenceappllcations<br />
of 326. bat; vas not coiJ.t1'01~ by' pre~;,pdlce t~ts.<br />
3. C8IT0ts were tolerMt o~·~. irw. post~sence applications of 326<br />
at rates adequate to control either annual weeds or m.ttgrass. Post-emerse~<br />
appl1ce.tionswere very.ffei:lt1ve1litO~·5and 1.0 ~~'~'t¥ acre but abQ~:.<br />
twice this qU8lXtttywas Deeded pre~t:sence. ,~' ' ,'"<br />
4. Potatoes tolerated pre-e'llBrgence applic&t1oZUl,l;>utit is not knovIl.if<br />
they will tolel'atepos-to.emergenO'e''trfttments. .. . . '<br />
5. IDng residual ai:ltivity j,s apparently not a PJ'l)blem on sandy loam.<br />
Information talao1dng tor ot~eoulS' .<br />
63<br />
_