Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
124. ;.chemical ""eed Control in Tomatoes W. J. Saidak and W.M. Rutherford l Chemical weed control experiments in transpl&nted tomatoes were cond~cted in 1959 and 1960 at the Central Fxperimental Farm, Ottawa, and the Experimental Farm, Smithfield, Ontario. The variety Fireball was used for the 'Ottawa trials, while, the variety Ferguson was used at Smithfield. The weed population at both locations was dominated by broadleaved annual weeds. The granular herbicides evaluated in 1959 were: amiben, CDEC, DNBP,EPTC, sim~zine, CIre and neburon. These chemicals were applied preemergence to the weeds,'two weeks after transplanting. Solan was applied as a post-emergence spray t9weeds le~s than 3 fnchea high one month after transplanting. Amiben, ~9lan, and CDFCwere selected for further evaluation in 1960 on the basis of weed control effectiveness determined by fresh weed weights, and lack of crop injury determined by marketable yields. In 1960, comp~rison was made between single and double applications of amiben, solan and ODIC. These treatments had no significant effect on yield. The duplicate applications provided significantly better weed control than the single'applicat:i:ons at Smithfield, but differences were not significant at ottawa wbqre the weed population was smaller. Pre-planting incorporation of amiben a~d CDF.Cresulted ina significant reduction in the weed killing ability of these chemicals. In these exper~ments solan and amiben at 4 and 6 Ib/A have produced reliable and effective weed control, while CDF~ resulted in less reliable weed control. liesearch Officers, Canada Department of Agriculture, Plant P~search Institute, Ottawa and Fxperimental Farm, Smithfield, respectively.
EFFECTOF SEVERALHERBICIDESONEARLYYIELDArID PLANTGROWTHOF VALIANTTOMATOES Peter C. Rogers and Oscar E. SchUbert l ·1250 Each year weed competition costs farmers considerable money ,by decreasing yield and increasing the costs of production. Any herb:i.cide that will increase the efficiency of weed control without appreciable injury to the plant or excessive cost is desirable. In 1959, O. E. Schubert and N. C. Hardin (1) tested several herbicides on tomato plants. The experiment described in this paper was planned to recheck the more effective treatments and combinations of these. The: herbicides were applied to established tomato transplants grown in the field to determine their effectiveness in weed control, the extent of. the injury to the tomato plants, and the yield of fruit. MATERIALSArID METHODS The experiment was conducted at the West Virginia U~iversity Horticulture Farm on a heavy clay loam. Valiant tomato plants were grown in 2 1/2 11 'WOodveneer bands before they were set out in the field on May 21. Each plot was 9 feet wide and 12 feet long and contained 4 plants. There were eight replications of twelve treatments each. These treatments are given in Table 1. . The first herbdides were applied on June 7, the day of the last cultivation. These treatments were all pre-emergent granulars and were applied as evenly as possible with a saltshaker having large holes. A follow-up spray application was made on some plots at the weed height optimum for the application of Solan. This height, 1-1 1/2 lt , was r~ached on June 22, and the plots were sprayed the same da.y. Also another spray, a combination of Solan and S1ma.zine, was applied at this time with the intent of killing and checking further growth of the weeds. The treatments were applied in water at the rate of 1 quart per plot or 100 gallons per acre at 75 pounds pressure by the use of a power sprayer with a weed nozzle. RESULTSANDDISCUSSION' Early J marketable and total yields of tomatoes are shown in /l'able 2. Where Simazine Sow+ Solan was applied the plants were significantly more productive than all the other treatments except the hoed check in both early (all fruit harvested by August 11) and total 'yields (all fruit harvested by August 18). The plants in the hoed check plots had significantly greater early production than those in .Amiben plots followed by Simazine Sow+ Solan. In total yield the plants in the hoed check plots -- 'TGraduate' stUdent and Associate Horticulturist, West Virginia. University.
- 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 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: 123. Table II. Weed control stand a
- 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_
- Page 167 and 168: 167. Maleic Hydrazide for Weed Cont
- Page 169 and 170: 169. 1. Dana, M. N. Sensitive Fern
- Page 171 and 172: 171. -' Table 1. Amino triazole res
- Page 173 and 174: 1730 Additiona! apple .,samples wer
124.<br />
;.chemical ""eed Control in Tomatoes<br />
W. J. Saidak and W.M. Rutherford l<br />
Chemical weed control experiments in transpl&nted tomatoes were<br />
cond~cted in 1959 and 1960 at the Central Fxperimental Farm, Ottawa, and the<br />
Experimental Farm, Smithfield, Ontario. The variety Fireball was used for<br />
the 'Ottawa trials, while, the variety Ferguson was used at Smithfield. The<br />
weed population at both locations was dominated by broadleaved annual weeds.<br />
The granular herbicides evaluated in 1959 were: amiben, CDEC,<br />
DNBP,EPTC, sim~zine, CIre and neburon. These chemicals were applied preemergence<br />
to the weeds,'two weeks after transplanting. Solan was applied as<br />
a post-emergence spray t9weeds le~s than 3 fnchea high one month after<br />
transplanting. Amiben, ~9lan, and CDFCwere selected for further evaluation<br />
in 1960 on the basis of weed control effectiveness determined by fresh weed<br />
weights, and lack of crop injury determined by marketable yields.<br />
In 1960, comp~rison was made between single and double applications<br />
of amiben, solan and ODIC. These treatments had no significant effect on<br />
yield. The duplicate applications provided significantly better weed control<br />
than the single'applicat:i:ons at Smithfield, but differences were not<br />
significant at ottawa wbqre the weed population was smaller. Pre-planting<br />
incorporation of amiben a~d CDF.Cresulted ina significant reduction in the<br />
weed killing ability of these chemicals.<br />
In these exper~ments solan and amiben at 4 and 6 Ib/A have produced<br />
reliable and effective weed control, while CDF~ resulted in less reliable weed<br />
control.<br />
liesearch Officers, Canada Department of Agriculture, Plant P~search Institute,<br />
Ottawa and Fxperimental Farm, Smithfield, respectively.
Change language