Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
'I'aoLe 4.'IGan marketdbl(: yield OJ.' sweet corn (lb/50 ft of r ow) and mean fresh weight of weeds (lb/50 ft of row) follotJing treatment ,'lith ddf'f'er'ent. herbicides. Although CD~C was the most effective herbicide evaluated for annual broad le~ved weed control in beets, it provided questionable commercial weed control. Excellent annual grass control was obtained using TeA pre-emergence. At present, these chGmicals are the only recommended selective herbicides for use in beets in "ast ern Canada. A more effective annual broadleaved weed herbicide than CDPCis still r equf red for this crop. Liquid or granular amiben was the outstanding herbicide evaluated in the 1960 carrot trial. Further studies are required with amiben in order to determine the factor or factors responsible for its variable performance. CIPC is worthy of consideration as an alternative recommendation to the current varsol rocommendation. Dieryl and possibly solan should be included in the 1961 carrot herbicide trial. Pre-planting incorporated EPI'G and E.206l and pre-emercence amiben provided excellent ~eed control in snap beans for the entire growing season, but require further evaluation. The present CIPC or DNBPpre-emergence and DNBPat emergence recommendations provide inadequate residual weed control, do not control annual grasses and are not reliable. The DNBPat emergence treatment may reduce yields if application is delayed. Comparison of simazine, atrazine, 2,4~» and DNBPin irrigated sweet corn ~ith a small population of annual grasses resulted in non-significant yield differences for the past t\1O groYJing seasons. Pre or post-emergence atrazine and post-emergence DNBPshould receive consideration as recommendations in swnet 00rn, to supplement the prosent 2,4-D, simazine and DNBPrecommen~ations. -'
1170 Chemical Weed Control Charles J. No11 l in Carrots In 1959 several herbicides treatments looked pro.m.is
- 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 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: 115~ Table 3. Mean markebab l.e 9£
- 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
- Page 161 and 162: ------- -------------_._------ ..
- Page 163 and 164: '. 163. In .Table 3 Co.mpariS01'U$
- Page 165 and 166: 1.65. "'-" Ia.!!l.! ! __!ind_a!!,d_
'I'aoLe 4.'IGan marketdbl(: yield OJ.' sweet corn (lb/50 ft of r ow) and mean fresh<br />
weight of weeds (lb/50 ft of row) follotJing treatment ,'lith ddf'f'er'ent.<br />
herbicides.<br />
Although CD~C was the most effective herbicide evaluated for annual broad<br />
le~ved weed control in beets, it provided questionable commercial weed control.<br />
Excellent annual grass control was obtained using TeA pre-emergence. At present,<br />
these chGmicals are the only recommended selective herbicides for use in beets in<br />
"ast ern Canada. A more effective annual broadleaved weed herbicide than CDPCis<br />
still r equf red for this crop.<br />
Liquid or granular amiben was the outstanding herbicide evaluated in the<br />
1960 carrot trial. Further studies are required with amiben in order to determine<br />
the factor or factors responsible for its variable performance. CIPC is worthy of<br />
consideration as an alternative recommendation to the current varsol rocommendation.<br />
Dieryl and possibly solan should be included in the 1961 carrot herbicide trial.<br />
Pre-planting incorporated EPI'G and E.206l and pre-emercence amiben provided<br />
excellent ~eed control in snap beans for the entire growing season, but require<br />
further evaluation. The present CIPC or DNBPpre-emergence and DNBPat emergence<br />
recommendations provide inadequate residual weed control, do not control annual<br />
grasses and are not reliable. The DNBPat emergence treatment may reduce yields if<br />
application is delayed.<br />
Comparison of simazine, atrazine, 2,4~» and DNBPin irrigated sweet corn<br />
~ith a small population of annual grasses resulted in non-significant yield<br />
differences for the past t\1O groYJing seasons. Pre or post-emergence atrazine and<br />
post-emergence DNBPshould receive consideration as recommendations in swnet 00rn,<br />
to supplement the prosent 2,4-D, simazine and DNBPrecommen~ations.<br />
-'
Change language