08.06.2015 Views

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Weed</strong>ing of Carrots With 'pre-lilanUng, Pre ..emergence and<br />

Po.t-emerget!ceApplicatlonl ·of Chemicals<br />

Ch~r1e. J. No11 1<br />

<strong>Weed</strong>control hvery impbl''tant iii the early It ••• S of growth of carrot ••<br />

Moat coaaercia1 cropa of carrota.ate' aprayed for ".14control with Stoddar.d<br />

Solvent. Other chemical. have without recent years benn found to be effective.<br />

This year's work is a contin~tion of work .tarted a number of year.:<br />

ago.<br />

PROCEDURE<br />

The seedbed was prepared, pre.p1anting treaauent. applied and .eed.<br />

planted Kay 2. Pre-planting treatments were incprporated in the .011 with<br />

e rototiller .et shallow. The variety grown was Chantenay, red core. The<br />

pr.,:,,8IIIergenceapplications were made 1 or 3 days after seeding and post- '.<br />

emergence applications were made 33 day. after seeding when carrots had .<br />

their first true leaves. Individual plots were 28 f.et long and 2 feet<br />

wide. Treatments were randomized in each of 8 block ••<br />

The cheatca1s were applied with • small sprayer over the row for a wiath<br />

of 12 inche.. Cultivation controlled the weed. between the rows. Anest.:L".<br />

mat. of wee.~contro1 was made July 28 ona basis of 1 to 10, 1 being mo.t<br />

des~r.b1e and 10 being least deillr8ble. Carrotharve.t was completed Oct. 6.<br />

RESULTS<br />

. The results are presented in table 1. All treatment. except the po.t~<br />

emergence Deetb.1' treatment significantly increa.ed weed control as compared<br />

to the untreated check. The belt veed control tre8llleDts were in the so11 iilcorporation<br />

treatments of Ti11am at·~ 1bs. per acre, in the pre~emergence<br />

treatments 0.£.PrOllletryne at 3 1bs. per acre, Ipal1ne at 3 1bs. per acre,<br />

U 4513 at 3 lb •• per acre and Amiben at 5 1bs. per acre and in the postemergence<br />

treatment of Solan at 6 lb •• per acre. The stand of plants was<br />

significantly better than that of the untreated check with the post-emerg8ace<br />

treabaent. of Amiben at S 1bs. per acre aad Solan at'6 lb •• per acre. Many<br />

other chemicals had a .tand equal to the check. Significant increasea in<br />

yield as compared to the untreated plot were found in the following treated<br />

plots: in the .oi1 incorporation treatment R-1856 at 4 and 6 1bs. per acre;<br />

in the pre-emergence treatments of Herb. 326 at 2 1bs. per acre, U 4513 at<br />

2 1be. per acre, zytron at 10 and 15 1bs. per acre, Amibenat 5 lbe. per acre<br />

and Dactha1 W-50 at 8 lbs. per acra; and in the post-emergence treatment of<br />

Amiben at 5 1bs. per acre and Solan at 4 and 6 lbe. per acre.<br />

CQ,NCLUSION<br />

Taking into coaa1derat10n weed control, stand of plante and yield the<br />

best two treatments were the post-emergence treatments of Solan at 6 1be. per<br />

acre and Amibenat 5 lbs. per acre. Other chem1cale that look promising for<br />

the weeding of this crop are R~1856, Herb. 326, U 4513, Zytron and Dactha1.<br />

99<br />

1.. .._.... • .I! ..... 'I __ .. _._1 .. _~_-. ft ... ... _I: u __ .. ,,_ ...' .... _6 ,.".11<br />

4 ft<br />

..... ",

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!