Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Diphenamid 1 1 , ~, 1 ~ Good above 1 1h/A 94 Table 1. Herbicide Selectivity Range. from Herbicide Applicati~'; on Five Leaf cr~~. Ul1nsehe 'J.osarithldc 'Spfly_r. ' ," , "'; " ':(' Good Control lelidual MaximumRate for Crop Toll!Eance U~!!/jH """O'ba/A. )" Weed SptDaclt' 1a1. . COllard. ~~rniV"Cr.'.·' Gra•• e. Broali-""Contro1 , .. '. :' '. '" ,..' '. 'leafl (11/24!61) R-3400 R-3408 R-341S R-1870 Tillam Epta. CIPO Vegadex' . Vegadex +CIPC Randox Ve8a~ + Randox Dacthal .Zytron NtA 6~70 Triflural1n J ~." '! 4 ",.", '4 \ I. ~ .', 16 '16 16 8 4 16 8 & '3; 2 ,·to 16 "\ 4 + 4, 4+4 4" 16 11 3 4 " 6 8 4 ! • ~ 16 8 4 4 16 16 8 8 '2'j:. 2 16 ,16 6:+1~"'j 6 + 1-\ I v 4+4 ;,J, '16' '~'6:" I 6 3 + 3 16 2 6 4 6 , .... L·" ,I ..: :-j 10 12 8 6 4 4 10 3, ',; ~,;:,] 8 10 4 4 4 ~'poor Poor "~oor 1»oor i' . -\ 'rlalr a\ove "'8 lbl!A '4 4'Pbbr '.';'; 1 6 +'~~3 + 3/4 2 ...;-\.' 'lii' a1>ove ;'8+2' fbi! A " 3" .: ,.,iJ IS ,ri ..,' '2 e;' 3 1 4 '8 3 1 '~~or "a'1.r 1 "flo". :"'+8 'fool' 3' COOd 'abcSv. 6"lb'/A. 8
95 Date planted: 915/61 Date treated: 9/7 & 8/61 Soil mOlsture: medium below, but dry on surface and in seed zone. Soil type: sandy clay loam Plot arrangement: Plots consisted of two 3% ft. beds 20 ft. long. One row of each crop was planted per pl~t, with 3 crops per bed. Experimental design: Random~zed block with 3 reps. Herbicide treatments: Spray treatments were applied on 9/7/61 1n 30 gals/A at 30 psi. Granular materials were appl~ed on 918161 using a small hand duster. There was no cultlvation or hand weeding. Rainfall data: Same as in trial No.1. /~ea harvested: Hanover salad and turnip greens were harvested on 10/31/61 The yield data represent one row, 20 ft. long, of each crop per plot., The other crops will probably be harvested in the .pring. R!§~s and Observations The visual observations in Table 2 and yuld date in Table 3 general~y.agree with the results reported for trial No.1. The most promising material .from the standpoint of weed control and crop tolerance in this trial was Triflural1n, although there was sign1ficant irljury to spinach and cress at 2 IbslA of the 4 e.c. formulation. Later trials u~der cool and moist conditions indicate that spinach may be 1njured even at 1 Ib/A of either 4 e.c. or2 G formulations. Both Tr1fluralin and Diphenamid gave very good weed control even at 1 IblAof either formulation. Diphenamid, however, showed no crop selectivity except at 1 Ib/A on Hanover salad. , The .tandard treatments of Vegadex, CIPC and the.Vegadex + CIPC mixture gave satisfactory weed control, especially at the hiah rates, with little or no crop injury except from 2 IbslA of. 4 e.c. CIPC. Undltr the prolonged hot, dry weather conditions, these and most other herbic1des conSistently gave slightly better weed control from spray formulations compared ee the granules. The.. opposite was true, however, of R-1870, although even at the rate of 4 lbs/A it did not give as good weed control as the standard treatments. The use of Dacthal agaln resulted ln good weed control from the 50 WPformulation while showing no signlficant crop injury except at 4 IbslA on spin.cb. Lack of moisture prior to the germination of the first weed seeds probably contributed to the lower degree of weed control from the Dacthal granules. While Zytron and NIA 6370 gave good weed control even at 8 and 5 IbslA, respectively, severe crop injury in many cases limits ~heir potential. ZytWon appears to be safe only in the gra~lular form at 8 Ib.,,(A, appl1ed to spinach,' Hanover salad and collard.. NIA 6370 seems to have greater selectivity on these same crops, with no appreciable injury from 5 IbslA in either the 4 e.c. or 5 G formulation, or from 10 lbslA in the 5 G formulation.
- 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: Results Date treated: 9/6/61 Soil m
- 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
95<br />
Date planted: 915/61<br />
Date treated: 9/7 & 8/61<br />
Soil mOlsture: medium below, but dry on surface and in seed zone.<br />
Soil type: sandy clay loam<br />
Plot arrangement: Plots consisted of two 3% ft. beds 20 ft. long. One<br />
row of each crop was planted per pl~t, with 3 crops per bed.<br />
Experimental design: Random~zed block with 3 reps.<br />
Herbicide treatments: Spray treatments were applied on 9/7/61 1n 30 gals/A<br />
at 30 psi. Granular materials were appl~ed on 918161 using a small hand<br />
duster. There was no cultlvation or hand weeding.<br />
Rainfall data: Same as in trial No.1.<br />
/~ea harvested: Hanover salad and turnip greens were harvested on 10/31/61<br />
The yield data represent one row, 20 ft. long, of each crop per plot., The<br />
other crops will probably be harvested in the .pring.<br />
R!§~s<br />
and Observations<br />
The visual observations in Table 2 and yuld date in Table 3 general~y.agree<br />
with the results reported for trial No.1.<br />
The most promising material .from the standpoint of weed control and crop<br />
tolerance in this trial was Triflural1n, although there was sign1ficant irljury<br />
to spinach and cress at 2 IbslA of the 4 e.c. formulation. Later trials u~der<br />
cool and moist conditions indicate that spinach may be 1njured even at 1 Ib/A of<br />
either 4 e.c. or2 G formulations. Both Tr1fluralin and Diphenamid gave very<br />
good weed control even at 1 IblAof either formulation. Diphenamid, however,<br />
showed no crop selectivity except at 1 Ib/A on Hanover salad.<br />
,<br />
The .tandard treatments of Vegadex, CIPC and the.Vegadex + CIPC mixture<br />
gave satisfactory weed control, especially at the hiah rates, with little or no<br />
crop injury except from 2 IbslA of. 4 e.c. CIPC. Undltr the prolonged hot, dry<br />
weather conditions, these and most other herbic1des conSistently gave slightly<br />
better weed control from spray formulations compared ee the granules. The..<br />
opposite was true, however, of R-1870, although even at the rate of 4 lbs/A it<br />
did not give as good weed control as the standard treatments.<br />
The use of Dacthal agaln resulted ln good weed control from the 50 WPformulation<br />
while showing no signlficant crop injury except at 4 IbslA on spin.cb.<br />
Lack of moisture prior to the germination of the first weed seeds probably<br />
contributed to the lower degree of weed control from the Dacthal granules.<br />
While Zytron and NIA 6370 gave good weed control even at 8 and 5 IbslA,<br />
respectively, severe crop injury in many cases limits ~heir potential. ZytWon<br />
appears to be safe only in the gra~lular form at 8 Ib.,,(A, appl1ed to spinach,'<br />
Hanover salad and collard.. NIA 6370 seems to have greater selectivity on these<br />
same crops, with no appreciable injury from 5 IbslA in either the 4 e.c. or 5 G<br />
formulation, or from 10 lbslA in the 5 G formulation.