Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

121.
'-­
The stand of plants of both lima bean and snap bean was
significantly roduced as compared to the untreat~d check by Fenac,
Propazine, Atratone and Niagara 5996. The chemicals CIPC and A1anap
3 reduced the stand of lima beans but did not reduce the stand of snap
beans.
Snap bean yield was significantly better than the check or any
other treatment where DNBPwas applied at 4 Lbs, per acre 2 d~s after
seoding. Many other treatments were equal to the untreated check.
Chemically weeded l.im.a bean plots were significantly better in
yield than the untreated check plot where the following chemicals were'
applied. Amiben at 4 Lbs, per acre, Zytron at 12 and 18 Lbs, per' acre,
Trietazine at 4 and 6 lbs. per acre, Hercules 7442 at 4 and' 6 1bs. per
acre, Dacthal at 6 and 9 Lbs, per acre, DNBPGranular at 3 Lbs, per
acre and DllBP liquid at 4 and 8 Lbs, per acre.
Conclusion
Snap beans and lima beans do vary in their response to various
chemicals as shown by the stand and yield records. A number of
chemicals look promis ing for the weeding of lima beans in add it ion
to our recommended chemical DNBP. Snap bean. yields were best in the
DNBPtreated plot.