Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
128. - a Weeds were taken from a 6' by 6' area ina ide a 9' by 12' plot to reduce likelihood of harvesting weeds from borders which may have received spray drift from adjacent plota. Weed weights are an average of the 8 replications for each treatment. b Denotes significance over treatment 2 at Stievel. c Denotes significance over treatmeat 11 at 5% level. d Denotes significance over treatment 4 at 5l level. All the treatments, except Simazine4Q, reduced the total weed growth over the non-hoed checks. Plant weights were taken after all the fruit had been removed and weighed. The plants were cut off at ground level before weighing. All treatments had significantly larger plants than the non-hoed check. The Simazine 80W+ Solan treatment had significantly larger plants than all other treatments except the hoed check and treatment 6--Eptam + Amiben followed by Solan. SUMMARY Simazine I Ib/A + Solan 4 Ibs/A applied June 22 was considered the best herbicide treatment in the trials. In the three measures of fruit production, early, marketable, and total
129. - Treatment Average weight per plant a number (Pounds) • t . < , ~~~~~-~-~~-~-~--~~-~-~-~------------ 1 Amiben Simazine 80W a Plants cut off at ground level and weighed August 23. b Significantly larger than non-hoed check at 5% level. c Significantly larger plants than 1, 2 at 5% level. d Significantly larger than all treatments except 6, 12 at 5% level. e Significantly larger than all treatments except 6, 8, 12 at 5% level. yield, it had significantly more production than all of the other herbicidal treatments. However, it was not significantly better than the hoed check except in total marketable yield. In plant weights the Simazine 80W + Solan treatments had significantly larger plants than all other treatments except-the -hoed check and treatment 6 n Ept am + Amiben followed by Solan. None of the treatments were significantly better than the Simazine + Solan treatment in weed control. I -Sch~bert, -Osc';r-E7 ad Hardin, N. Carl. 1960. Evaluation of several herbicides on tomato plants. Proc. 11th Annual Meeting NEWCC:81-85. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS· The authors are indebted and grateful to Dr. R. S. Dunbar, StatistiCian, West Virginia University, for the analyses of data. The cooperation of the following companies in supplying the herbicides used in this experiment is also gratefully acknowledged: AmchemProducts, Inc., Geigy Agricultural Chemicals, Niagara Chemical Division of Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, and Stauffer Chemical Company.
- 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 and 124: 123. Table II. Weed control stand a
- Page 125 and 126: EFFECTOF SEVERALHERBICIDESONEARLYYI
- Page 127: Table 2. Calcula.ted ecre yields of
- 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
- Page 175 and 176: more consistently effective than 5
- Page 177 and 178: 177. HUBICIDES roll YOUNGAPPLE TUES
129.<br />
-<br />
Treatment Average weight per plant a<br />
number<br />
(Pounds)<br />
• t . < ,<br />
~~~~~-~-~~-~-~--~~-~-~-~------------<br />
1 Amiben Simazine 80W<br />
a Plants cut off at ground level and weighed August 23.<br />
b Significantly larger than non-hoed check at 5% level.<br />
c Significantly larger plants than 1, 2 at 5% level.<br />
d Significantly larger than all treatments except 6, 12 at 5% level.<br />
e Significantly larger than all treatments except 6, 8, 12 at 5% level.<br />
yield, it had significantly more production than all of the other herbicidal<br />
treatments. However, it was not significantly better than the hoed check<br />
except in total marketable yield. In plant weights the Simazine 80W<br />
+ Solan treatments had significantly larger plants than all other treatments<br />
except-the -hoed check and treatment 6 n Ept am + Amiben followed by<br />
Solan. None of the treatments were significantly better than the Simazine<br />
+ Solan treatment in weed control.<br />
I -Sch~bert, -Osc';r-E7 ad Hardin, N. Carl. 1960. Evaluation of several<br />
herbicides on tomato plants. Proc. 11th Annual Meeting NEWCC:81-85.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS·<br />
The authors are indebted and grateful to Dr. R. S. Dunbar,<br />
StatistiCian, West Virginia University, for the analyses of data.<br />
The cooperation of the following companies in supplying<br />
the herbicides used in this experiment is also gratefully acknowledged:<br />
AmchemProducts, Inc., Geigy Agricultural Chemicals, Niagara Chemical<br />
Division of Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, and Stauffer<br />
Chemical Company.
Change language