Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
DISCUSSION: Seed Treatment - There is some indication that the 40 and 80 lb. levels of seed treatment had a detrimental effect on both number and weight of marketable onions as compared to the untreated check. The 80 lb. rate gave signi ficantly lower values than thc 40 lb. rate for all measurements except marketabl~ fresh weight. These results may indicate that disease and insect damage were of minimum importance in this trial. Herbicides - Of particular note among the herbicide treatments is the reduction in stand count where the excessive rate of 12 lbs. per acre of Randox liquid was used. The remaining plants were able to compensate in yield of both total, and marketable fresh weight. Liquid CIPC fell down in the yield factors but this can be attributed to competition by a heavy grass population not controlled by.CIPC as noted in table 3. The hand weeding operation on 4/11-18 was particularly rough on these treatments. A tank mix of 6 lbs. CIPC and 6 lbs. Randox liquid spray resulted in stand reductions but here again the remaining population was able to make up the yield differences. Comparing a similar mixture in the granular form there was no significant effect on stand count or yield. Randox T granular at 6 lbs.·per acre gave significantly higher stand counts than any of the other treatments. The differences noted here could possibly be of greater significance under conditions of low seeding rates. About 6 - 7 lbs. of onion seed were planted per acre in these tests as compared to the usual seeding rate of about 4 lbs. per acre. Herbicide treatments that tend to reduce stand c~unt could result in reduced yields under low seeding rate conditions. Irrigation - Due to incomplete randomization of irrigation it would be rather risky to draw any conclusions. It seems pertinent to point out, however, that supplemental irrigation had an adverse effect on onion stands. This thinning out of'stand could very possibly have accounted for increased yield of marketable oni6n8 especially at the linch irrtgation level. Second and Third Order Interactions - In practically all instances for all ~urements of yield there were significant interactions between irrigation x herbicide and "irrigation x seed treatm~nt but in no case was there a significantinteractionbetween herbicide and seed treatment. In most instances yield benefitted by those factors which reduced stand counts with the exception that those onions which receiv~d no seed treatment practically always outperformed thcsewhich were treated.
The data in table 2 gives the significant third order intcractirn between the factors studied. M5/60. Table 2 - Onion Stand Counts - Belle Glade, Florida. Planted 2/4 Counts taken 3/21/60. Plants per 5 ft. of row. Amount of Irrigation 0" 1" Chemical & Seed Treatment Seed Treatment Seed Treatment Lbs. Activt.:./A o 40 80 o 40 80 o 40 80 CIPC Liq. 6 102.5 101.0 71.7 80.2 85.7 92.0 75:2 87.0 78.""2 CIPC Liq. 12 90.2 107.2 86.2 86.7 85.5 88.2 80.5 82.5 76.5 Randox Liq. 6 94.5 100.2 84.5 86.2 88.0 85.7 71.0 75.5 61.5 Randox Liq. 12 92.5 94.2 76.2 93.0 88.0 71. 7 67.7 57.7 44.2 Randox Liq • .; CIPC Liq. 6+6 98.5 89.5 81.0 89.0 84.2 70.0 72.7 67.5 50.5 Randox T Liq. 6 103.0 95.7 85.0 83.7 78.5 88.7 79. 7 70.7 59.5 Randox T Gran 6 106.2 107.2 87.7 89.5 94.7 95.0 97.0 80.2 85.2 Randox Gran 6 96.5 102.2 76.2 96.0 96.2 80.0 86.0 61.0 58.5 Randox + CIPC Gran (1)6+6 100.6 100.6 82.4 91.6 92.3 89.1 82.2 81.7 76.2 Check (2) 97.7 101.3 79.4 94.1 87.2 90.1 79.2 85.2 85.0 LSD 5% level = 15.62 (1) Average of 3 formulations. (2) Average of 2. DISCUSSION: Randox liquid, Randox + CIPC liquid, Randox T liquid, and Randox granular reduced stand counts ment rate. very markedly at the 2 inch irrigation level and 80 lb. seed treat I~ i~ interesting to note the reduction of onion stand count with Randox T liquld whereas Randox T granular did not reduce stand count. The Randox materials at the higher irrigation level in general reduced onion stand counts when used in conjunction with seed treatmcnts .•• the herbicide effect being less where no seed treatment was used. WEEDCONTROL: Under the conditions of this experiment beginning with a soil that was well suppliea'with water, irrigati~n had no significant effect on weed control, nor did the seed treatment. Table 3 gives these results.
- Page 51 and 52: Lower rates of R-1856 were tested o
- Page 53 and 54: greenhouse tests are listed below.
- Page 55 and 56: PROGRESSREPORTON LAY-BYUEEDCONTROLI
- Page 57 and 58: 57. Table 1. Effect of sodium silic
- Page 59 and 60: Sheets (1959) studied, under labora
- Page 61 and 62: M, ',. • • •• • " ' Treat
- Page 63 and 64: Figure 1. Relative performance trea
- Page 65 and 66: A duplicate test was started August
- Page 67 and 68: 67. "he two tests which dealt with
- Page 69 and 70: 69. CONTROLOF WEEDSIN VEGETABLECROP
- Page 71 and 72: 71.' TABLE 3. RESPONSE OF VEGETABLE
- Page 73 and 74: 73. COHBIltit.TloNS' OF cnu:'PITH C
- Page 75 and 76: 75. Results The delay in applicatio
- Page 77 and 78: 77. Summary Logarithmic, tank-mixed
- Page 79 and 80: (' ( ( Table 1 Rates and Dates of H
- Page 81 and 82: ( ( ( Table 3 Effect of Post-Tran~l
- Page 83 and 84: ( ( ( Table 5 Effect of Lay-By Herb
- Page 85 and 86: Chemical Weed Control Charles J. No
- Page 87 and 88: Table I. Weed control, plant stand,
- Page 89 and 90: Table 1 - Table Beets Pre-plant; Pr
- Page 91 and 92: 91. Chemical Weed Control in Onions
- Page 93 and 94: 93. Table I. l;ced control, plant s
- Page 95 and 96: 95. Results Survey Table I of Hando
- Page 97 and 98: 97. Weed counts were made 3 weeks a
- Page 99 and 100: 99. Third applications were made on
- Page 101: 1t1. ~ata - Onion stand counts, wee
- Page 105 and 106: The following effects were noted. 1
- Page 107 and 108: PRE-fREATINGSOILS, APOSSIBLE.TECfiN
- Page 109 and 110: · 109. Table 2. The influence of d
- Page 111 and 112: ..... 11 ... - Progress Report on W
- Page 113 and 114: 113. fndothal as a pre-planting inc
- Page 115 and 116: 115~ Table 3. Mean markebab l.e 9£
- Page 117 and 118: 1170 Chemical Weed Control Charles
- Page 119 and 120: 119. Table I .. Weed contrOl! plant
- Page 121 and 122: 121. '- The stand of plants of bo
- Page 123 and 124: 123. Table II. Weed control stand a
- Page 125 and 126: EFFECTOF SEVERALHERBICIDESONEARLYYI
- Page 127 and 128: Table 2. Calcula.ted ecre yields of
- Page 129 and 130: 129. - Treatment Average weight per
- Page 131 and 132: -- The herbicides were applied on J
- Page 133 and 134: 133. Table 2. Effect of pre-plant h
- Page 135 and 136: - 135. Dim tro for Weed Control in
- Page 137 and 138: PJ,OORESSREPORT:ON.:WEEJhCGNTROL IN
- Page 139 and 140: - Simazine 2 and 2 1/2 lb./A and at
- Page 141 and 142: 141. Results - .l2.22 Table 2 shows
- Page 143 and 144: - !!!! Applications 143. The plots
- Page 145 and 146: 145. Conclusions ADexperiment carri
- Page 147 and 148: 147. Residual herbicide activity wa
- Page 149 and 150: - Table 1. Herbicides and Rates Use
- Page 151 and 152: ~ __ ( ( ( Table 3. WeedControl on
DISCUSSION:<br />
Seed Treatment - There is some indication that the 40 and 80 lb. levels of<br />
seed treatment had a detrimental effect on both number and weight of marketable<br />
onions as compared to the untreated check. The 80 lb. rate gave signi<br />
ficantly lower values than thc 40 lb. rate for all measurements except marketabl~<br />
fresh weight. These results may indicate that disease and insect damage were<br />
of minimum importance in this trial.<br />
Herbicides - Of particular note among the herbicide treatments is the reduction<br />
in stand count where the excessive rate of 12 lbs. per acre of Randox liquid<br />
was used. The remaining plants were able to compensate in yield of both total,<br />
and marketable fresh weight.<br />
Liquid CIPC fell down in the yield factors but this can be attributed to<br />
competition by a heavy grass population not controlled by.CIPC as noted in<br />
table 3. The hand weeding operation on 4/11-18 was particularly rough on<br />
these treatments.<br />
A tank mix of 6 lbs. CIPC and 6 lbs. Randox liquid spray resulted in stand<br />
reductions but here again the remaining population was able to make up the<br />
yield differences. Comparing a similar mixture in the granular form there was<br />
no significant effect on stand count or yield.<br />
Randox T granular at 6 lbs.·per acre gave significantly higher stand counts<br />
than any of the other treatments.<br />
The differences noted here could possibly be of greater significance under<br />
conditions of low seeding rates. About 6 - 7 lbs. of onion seed were planted<br />
per acre in these tests as compared to the usual seeding rate of about 4 lbs.<br />
per acre.<br />
Herbicide treatments that tend to reduce stand c~unt could result in reduced<br />
yields under low seeding rate conditions.<br />
Irrigation - Due to incomplete randomization of irrigation it would be rather<br />
risky to draw any conclusions. It seems pertinent to point out, however, that<br />
supplemental irrigation had an adverse effect on onion stands. This thinning<br />
out of'stand could very possibly have accounted for increased yield of marketable<br />
oni6n8 especially at the linch irrtgation level.<br />
Second and Third Order Interactions - In practically all instances for all<br />
~urements of yield there were significant interactions between irrigation<br />
x herbicide and "irrigation x seed treatm~nt but in no case was there a significantinteractionbetween<br />
herbicide and seed treatment.<br />
In most instances yield benefitted by those factors which reduced stand counts<br />
with the exception that those onions which receiv~d no seed treatment practically<br />
always outperformed thcsewhich were treated.
Change language