Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

115~
Table 3.
Mean markebab l.e
9£ ueeds (lb/25
yhld of snap beans
it of row) follov.ing
(lb/25 ft
treatment
-----­
Rate
Pate
Herbicide (lb!A) Bean Yield Herbicide (lb/A)
of row) and mean fresh welFl.t
TIith different herbicides.
-------------------------_ .._-----_ .._------­
F,.2061 4 (i) 15.3 Control H'N
Control n
14.7
N.5996
EFTC
4 (i) 14.4
Amiben (L)
Amiben (L) 4
14.4
EPTC
CIPC
6
14.3
Amiben (G)
N.5996
2
13.3
R.2061
Amiben (G) 4
12.9
DNBP+ CDre
rNBP (L)
3 (ii) 12.5
DNBP(L)
DNBP(L)
6
11.9
DNBP+ CDAA
DNBP(G) 6
11.9
CIPC
DNBP+ CDAA 3 + 3 (li ) 10.5
DNBP(L)
DNBP+ CD:'C 3 + 3 (ii) 9.9
N.5996
N.5996
4
9.1
DNBP(G)
Control BC
8.2
Control Be
4 O~S
4 0.8
4 (i) 0.9
4 1.4
4 (i) 1.6
:3 + 3 (ii) 2.1
3 (ii) 2.2
3 + 3 (ii) 3.7
6 4.1
6 4.6
2 5.5
6 6.5
16.4
Sweet CotA Seneca Arrow sweet corn was planted on May 27, 1960. Herbicides were
applied pre-emerbence shortly after planting and post-emergence on June 7 when the
corn was in the 2 to 3 leaf stdge. P~infall totalled 1.7 inches in the we€k
following the application of the pre-emergence herbicides. The weed population was
comprised mainly of redroot pigweed, commonpurslane and commonlambsquarters with a
small population of barnyard grass, witchgrass and field bindweed. The corn received
a single irrigation on July 28 when, 1 in of water was applied. Yield data and weed
fresh weight data presented in Table 4 are based on 2 rows each 25 ft long. fhe weed
weight data were obtained shortly after the final corn harvest on August 24.
For the past 2 growing seasons non-significant yield differences have been
obtained between the simazine pre-emergence, atrazine, pre or post-emergence, 2, 4-D
post-emergence, and DNBP pre or post-emergence treatments. In both years excellent
growing conditions for sweet corn were prevalent and supplemental irrigation was
applied when required. In addition, a small annual grass population has prevented
the detection of any diff~rences in annual grass control between 2, 4-D and simazine
or atrazine. P.a1nfall has been ~ore than adequate after pre-emergence applications
of simazine and atrazine minimizing any possible differences in weed control
ffectiveness between these compounds;
The 1960 trial indicated that there was no significant difference in weed
cOlltrul between granular or wettable powder formalations of simazine or atrazine at
the 2 Ih!A rate.