Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
,·TiO. Discussion and Summar,y -" The need for ad(litional techniques of obtaining wef:d control in veget alil.es ·without resorting to costly hand labor will continue to be great until consistently safe and effective selective herbicides are available. The authors "suggest that one possibility might be pre-treating with chemicals that have a high initial toxicity and a short residual period. Some of the chemicals tested such as EPTCand St. 2061, also Hercules 8043 and 7442, may possibly prove to be satisfactory ... However, many additional compounds need to be tested in this manner. Also, there needs to be considerable work on the influence of soils and ·envirornnent on breakdown of the chemical. A very practical question as yet unanswered is the extent to which the soil can be re-worked between initial treating and planting. It is hoped that other workers will assist in investigating thiS possible technique • .. _' i ., , ," :;
..... 11 ... - Progress Report on Weed Control in Beets, Carrots, Snap Beans and Sweet Corn W. J. Saidak l Chemical weed control trials in certain vegetable crops \Jere conducted at Ottclwa in 1959 and 1960. These trials were designed to compare promising new materials with the herbicides currently recommended by the Eastern Section of the Canadian National ~eed Committee. Particular attention was paid to the effect of treatments on yield, the duration of the weed control period and the reliability from year to year. The experimental design used for each trial was a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Minimumplot size for beets, carrots and snap beans was 3 rows each 25 ft long, while minimumplot size for sweet corn was 2 rows each 25 ft long. All crops were planted in rows 3 ft apart. Cultivation during the growing season was limited to the center 2 ft between rows. The sandy loam soil used was dragged and rolled before planting. All liquid chemicals were applied using a C02 powered plot sprayer at a pressure of 25 psi and in a water volume of 48 gpa. Granular herbicides were diluted with white silica sand and distributed by hand. The predominant weeds in the area used for the trials were: commonlambsquarters (Chenopodium aJ.,bum..L.) I redroot pigweed (AmarSlontbut.;1 retroflexYfl L.) I barnyard grass (Echinochloa crYSfalli (L.) Beauv.), commonpurslane (portulaca olerac§§ L.), Pennsylvania smartweed ~n£m ~ensYlvanicum L.), witchgrass (Panicum capillar~ L.), field bindweed (~nYolvulY§ arven~ L.) and shepherdspurse (Qapsella bursa-pa~toris (L.) Medic.) Beets Detroit Dark Red beets were planted on May 16, 1960. Treatments which were incorporated pre-planting were applied immediately prior to seeding; the pre-emergence treatments were applied immediately after seeding. The predominant weeds in the control plots were commonlambsquarters and redroot pigweed as well as some barnyard grass, commonpurslane and Pennsylvania smartweed. The marketable yield of beets and fresh weight of weeds obtained from the denter 20 ft of the middle row in each plot are presented in Table 1. These data were recorded on July 19 and 20. IPlant Research Institute, Ottawa. -
- 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 and 102: 1t1. ~ata - Onion stand counts, wee
- Page 103 and 104: The data in table 2 gives the signi
- Page 105 and 106: The following effects were noted. 1
- Page 107 and 108: PRE-fREATINGSOILS, APOSSIBLE.TECfiN
- Page 109: · 109. Table 2. The influence of d
- 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
- Page 153 and 154: 153. TreatiD§ Established Hemlock
- Page 155 and 156: 155. flowering and growth in the sp
- Page 157 and 158: 157. Table 2. Pansy Weed Control (P
- Page 159 and 160: 1590 Table 3. Herbicides Used on Tu
,·TiO.<br />
Discussion and Summar,y<br />
-"<br />
The need for ad(litional techniques of obtaining wef:d control in veget alil.es<br />
·without resorting to costly hand labor will continue to be great until consistently<br />
safe and effective selective herbicides are available. The authors<br />
"suggest that one possibility might be pre-treating with chemicals that have a<br />
high initial toxicity and a short residual period.<br />
Some of the chemicals tested such as EPTCand St. 2061, also Hercules<br />
8043 and 7442, may possibly prove to be satisfactory ... However, many additional<br />
compounds need to be tested in this manner. Also, there needs to be considerable<br />
work on the influence of soils and ·envirornnent on breakdown of the chemical.<br />
A very practical question as yet unanswered is the extent to which the soil<br />
can be re-worked between initial treating and planting.<br />
It is hoped that other workers will assist in investigating thiS possible<br />
technique •<br />
.. _' i ., ,<br />
," :;
Change language