08.06.2015
•
Views
152 ...· harmful to privet and azaleas at moderate rates and hydranges was actually killed at 2 pounds per acre - the lowest ra.te used. ZiYtron, Da.cthal, CIPC, DNBP a:cd CDEC,and Amibenwere not harmful at &D;y of the rates· ..nsecl. Atrazine end Diuron at the higher rates caused yellowing of the lea,ves of llex. Table 3 listschem1caLs a:cd minimum rateot application necessary for commercially adequate weed control and, indicates which weeds tend to be a problem at that otherwise useful rate. S1mazine granular at 6 pounds per acre gave fairly-good weed control but a few mustard, ragweed, knotweed, and nutgrass survived. .Atrazine that was not raked into the sol1 gave better weed control that that raked into the soil. Crabgrass was.the only problem on plots treated with Atrazin.e at 2 poutl4s per acre. The raked-in plots had some mustard a:cd ragweed surviving. GeJ.insoga. was a problem in Dacthal, EETC, and Amiben plots. Weed growth was not evenly distributed in aU the plots. H~e, some weeds migh1; have been a problem in S()lIle treatments even though they did Dot appear as suCh in the eXperiment because they were not plentiful in tliat area. Residual Effect In another area granular herbicidal treatments have been repeated on the same soil for 6 years for Diuron and. CIPC and: 3 years for S1UIaZine. The rates used are .Diuron 1 1/2 pounds ,CIPC 8 pounds and S1maz1tle 6 pounds actual per acre. Plants now in the pJ:ots are Berberis verruculosa, nex crenata var. Helleri, Pieris japonioa, Rhododendron molle, Rhododendron obtussum var. Hinodegeri, nex crenate. convexa, Taxus cu.spidata., Rhododendron cata.wbiense, Leucothoecaetsbei" Syringa vulgaris grafted on privet, Ex:1kianthus campanulatus, Pieris floribunda, nex opaca, Juniperus hetzii, Berberis julianae, Hedera helix, and Osmanthus ~icifol:tus. Continued use of Diuron on the soil .was reducing growth or ;njur,ying Pieris japonica second year pl$Ilts and Rhododendron obtussum second yea:r plants. CIPC was injuring Pieris japonica second yea:r plants. Simazine was injury-ing Rhododendron molle second year, Rhododendron obtussum second year plants 1 Syringa vulgaris third year plants and Enk1anthustirst year plants. One nez crenata in the Simazine plot had extensive yellowing of foliage. All the other kinds of plants were doing well in the three treatments. In plots where CIPC was used at 12 and 16 pounds per acre for 5 years and D1uron at 3 aud4 pounds for 5 years, Te.xus cuspidata Hicks1i was doing well after two seasons • Din1tro for Chickweed Control Several years ago dormant Texus varieties and nex crenata convexa. were spr8¥ed with DNBPat 3~4 1/2 pounds per 100 gallons of water to . control chickweed that was growing over the plants. The results were successful and cOlllllercial growers have since, used th1s treatment. On October 7, 1960 yound chickweed was .developing in established nursery stock. The rows were treated with 4-6 pOUnds of DHBPby applying lO~ granular with a Cyclone rotary spreader. By October 11, the chickweed was eliminated and was not regrowing one month later·~ -
153. TreatiD§ Established Hemlock A nurseryman asked about controlling weeds, especially quackgrass, in an established planting of large hemlocks. On a Clear hot AprU 15, 1960 parts of rows of hemlocks were treated with Atrazine 4~ granular at. 2,4,6,8,10 .. Simazine 1,.igranular at 2,4,;,8, and 10, and CIPC 5~ granular at 4,8, and 16 pounds actuaJ. per acre. SeyeraJ. observations were made of this planting ..during the growing season. There was no plant injury from a:rJ.Y' of the treatments. FinaJ. observations were made on November 18, 1960. A1irazine at 4 pounds or more per acre and Simazine at 6 pounds or mre per acre gave more 1ihan sa1iisfac1iory comrnerciaJ. weed control. At higher rates of Atrazine and Simazine quackgrass was entirly eliminated. CIPC was not effective against quackgrass. Simazine 80~ W.P. at 10 pounds per 100 gaJ.1ons spr8¥ed on a hemlock April 15 did not injure the pJ.ant. Conclusion This 'WOrkis being continued trying to apply experimental data to nursery usage as soon as possible. 1 Many of the plan1is and some assistance in planting came from 1ihe Sta1ie Universi 1i1'Agricultural and Technical lusti tute at Farmingdale. other plants came from otto Muller Greenhouses East lfea.dow, NewYork, and Hicks Nursery, Westbury, N. Y.
-
Page 1 and 2:
THE USE OF VEGETATIVECHARACTERISTIC
-
Page 3 and 4:
In a few grasses with smooth sheath
-
Page 5 and 6:
5. FACTORSINFLUEUCINGTHE PERFORFANC
-
Page 7 and 8:
7. The introduction of synthetic or
-
Page 9 and 10:
The com;onents the distribution of
-
Page 11 and 12:
grains. We early found that the oat
-
Page 13 and 14:
13. Atrazine Days following cpm/O.
-
Page 15 and 16:
15. not find an abundant production
-
Page 17 and 18:
Weed Control In Suburbia 1 Howard H
-
Page 19 and 20:
For establishing new lawns, I would
-
Page 21 and 22:
Any improvement that you can make i
-
Page 23 and 24:
PROMISINGNEWCHEMICALSFORWEEDCONTROL
-
Page 25 and 26:
25. Promis ins results have also be
-
Page 27 and 28:
27. (Lycbnis alba), cinquefoil (Pot
-
Page 29 and 30:
THE EFFECTS OF ADDED PENETRANT AIDS
-
Page 31 and 32:
... Surfactant Produced bz: . 31
-
Page 33 and 34:
33. 33. of scintillation solution,
-
Page 35 and 36:
Table 3. The Net Counts Per Minute
-
Page 37 and 38:
The comparisons for lower leaves, s
-
Page 39 and 40:
39. SUMMARY Tests using 2-C 14-1abe
-
Page 41 and 42:
41. RECENTDEVELOPMENTS IN THEUSE OF
-
Page 43 and 44:
second application be made not late
-
Page 45 and 46:
45. Combinations of vegadex-Randox
-
Page 47 and 48:
11/ Persistence of Soil-Incorporate
-
Page 49 and 50:
Plot size varied from 9 sq. ft. to
-
Page 51 and 52:
Lower rates of R-1856 were tested o
-
Page 53 and 54:
greenhouse tests are listed below.
-
Page 55 and 56:
PROGRESSREPORTON LAY-BYUEEDCONTROLI
-
Page 57 and 58:
57. Table 1. Effect of sodium silic
-
Page 59 and 60:
Sheets (1959) studied, under labora
-
Page 61 and 62:
M, ',. • • •• • " ' Treat
-
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 1. Relative performance trea
-
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 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 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:
~ __ ( ( ( Table 3. WeedControl on
-
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
-
Page 179 and 180:
--. Table I. Treatments No. Materia
-
Page 181 and 182:
Table 1 -Effect of Granular Formula
-
Page 183 and 184:
iss. BVAWATIONor rIVE HEIBICIDES 10
-
Page 185 and 186:
PROGRESSREPORT'ON WEEDCONTROL IN CA
-
Page 187 and 188:
"'- Table' 1. Herbicide,s Used inCa
-
Page 189 and 190:
189. Tabl\7 5. Rating ot BroodIest
-
Page 191 and 192:
WEEDGONTROLIN SWBE:rCORNWITHDACTHAL
-
Page 193 and 194:
D. FlantinB A!Plication of Thiolcar
-
Page 195 and 196:
Table 2. Rainfall, Monmouth, Maine
-
Page 197 and 198:
197. Table 4. rercent> Broadlear We
-
Page 199 and 200:
1-. . " Table 6. Percent Broad1eaf
-
Page 201 and 202:
'\) 0' ,.... • ( ( ( Table 9. Y
-
Page 203 and 204:
ANNUALWEEDCONTROLIN POTATOESWITHDNB
-
Page 205 and 206:
·205. Percen t Woad Can trol ·196
-
Page 207 and 208:
, r t"
-
Page 209 and 210:
Table 5. Annual Broadleaf Weed Cont
-
Page 211 and 212:
211. Table 9. Effect of fast-Emerge
-
Page 213 and 214:
2130 Conclusion There are quite a n
-
Page 215 and 216:
SOMERESEARCHANDWEEDCONTROL METHODS
-
Page 217 and 218:
-- ,,"I. ,'~; "... TABLEII. EFFECTO
-
Page 219 and 220:
( ( ( - -~. , ~ ._w ~~ "PlOOl:tB21.
-
Page 221 and 222:
'-~ With respect to asparagus. howe
-
Page 223 and 224:
, 1 ,WEEDCONTROLIN ClaTAIN VlGBTABL
-
Page 225 and 226:
225 • r '.,':' .TABU: ~~ ... ,WEE
-
Page 227 and 228:
227 • . TABLEIV' -' WEED CONTROJ.
-
Page 229 and 230:
2290 'of.' .'J • ~ : ~. ... :.' "
-
Page 231 and 232:
231. Conclusions The results publis
-
Page 233 and 234:
possibility of too severe thinning
-
Page 235 and 236:
PRE-EMERGENCEWEEDCONTROLTN ceRN s,
-
Page 237 and 238:
INCORPORATED ANDUNINCORPORATED·LIQ
-
Page 239 and 240:
( ( ( Table 1. Weed Control Ratings
-
Page 241 and 242:
at both weed rating dates at Newark
-
Page 243 and 244:
DNBP - Zytron Mixture for Weed Cont
-
Page 245 and 246:
~ •• 245. ·Res~1~8 fr.o.George
-
Page 247 and 248:
247. Weed Control in Soybeans with
-
Page 249 and 250:
249, EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONSEEDPRODU
-
Page 251 and 252:
251. TABLE3. EFFECTSOF APPLICATIONS
-
Page 253 and 254:
253. almost a week, with treatment
-
Page 255 and 256:
( ( ( , Table 1. Effects of Various
-
Page 257 and 258:
Table 3. anal.ysi.s of Soil l,esidu
-
Page 259 and 260:
Results and Discussion ;llien the f
-
Page 261 and 262:
4. Immediate treattlent injury to t
-
Page 263 and 264:
( ( ( Table n. :'.!:sti.Jl'ated.'er
-
Page 265 and 266:
have very littla real II'+eaningas
-
Page 267 and 268:
267. Table 2. Pre-emergence crabgra
-
Page 269 and 270:
269 • ..., : Table 1.. 1960, Rain
-
Page 271 and 272:
271. Chlordane must be used at rate
-
Page 273 and 274:
u • 2 ( ( ( t Table 3. Effect of
-
Page 275 and 276:
275. Table 5. Effect. of preemergen
-
Page 277 and 278:
277. In one area, the old turf was
-
Page 279 and 280:
279. following application. The hig
-
Page 281 and 282:
2$1. The standard date of applicati
-
Page 283 and 284:
Table 2. Effect of season of applyi
-
Page 285 and 286:
L 1-l34B9 ,Jiphenyllactelonitrile o
-
Page 287 and 288:
287. Halts F-24, Halts F-26, Halts
-
Page 289 and 290:
POST-.EJ.iEhGENCE CONThOLOF CIiABGI
-
Page 291 and 292:
,veedone at 4 pounds of tL.cl per a
-
Page 293 and 294:
( ( ( Table I. Post-Emergence Contr
-
Page 295 and 296:
• •• ., .. • •• ',' •
-
Page 297 and 298:
297. compatible with grub-proofing
-
Page 299 and 300:
299, Diphenatrile Results During th
-
Page 301 and 302:
301. tentative generic name triflur
-
Page 303 and 304:
- 1 PRE-ENERGENCE CRABGRASS CONTROL
-
Page 305 and 306:
Discussion 30; • a) Pre-emergence
-
Page 307 and 308:
307. TABLEI -- Comparison of Produc
-
Page 309 and 310:
-' Table II (can't) 309. Stand of S
-
Page 312 and 313:
312. THEEFFECTIVENESSOF COMBINATION
-
Page 314 and 315:
314. Table 2. Stand Counts and Sile
-
Page 316 and 317:
316. planted control before these h
-
Page 318 and 319:
Table II. The control of quackgrass
-
Page 320 and 321:
320. growing season in the 1957-59
-
Page 322 and 323:
322. Table I Main Effects of Cultur
-
Page 324 and 325:
324. Atrazine by September 10 when
-
Page 326 and 327:
326. Another effect of Atrazine tha
-
Page 328 and 329:
32S. Amitrol-T was intermediate in
-
Page 330 and 331:
Qolumn Separation: Cellulose. A 24
-
Page 332 and 333:
332, Figure -I. Chromatogram of qua
-
Page 334 and 335:
334. PRELIMINARYRESULTSONTHE USE OF
-
Page 336 and 337:
336. DATEOF BERRYHARVESTAS IT AFFEC
-
Page 338 and 339:
within three inches of the soIl sur
-
Page 340 and 341:
340 .. The growth ra.te of Horse ne
-
Page 342 and 343:
342. dish containing ten seeds bet\
-
Page 344 and 345:
344. is not a factor in in It is
-
Page 346 and 347:
346 • .Absornt:j.Qn Qn Exchange R
-
Page 348 and 349:
348. The' chrona tog ram."WaS first
-
Page 350 and 351:
350. PROGRESSREPORTON A STUDYOF THE
-
Page 352 and 353:
352. 7. Fluctuating warm and cold w
-
Page 354 and 355:
354. A clos.e correlation was found
-
Page 356 and 357:
356. 1 THE ANATOMICAL NATUREO:BTHE
-
Page 358 and 359:
358. The 2,4,5-TP was most effectiv
-
Page 360 and 361:
Table I. Effect. of Pre-emergence T
-
Page 362 and 363:
INTRODUCIIOB: THEEFFECTOF WEEDCOMPE
-
Page 364 and 365:
1";. 1958 JFab1e I (cont ' d) Treat
-
Page 366 and 367:
366. fiE USE OF FENACFOR QUACKGRASS
-
Page 368 and 369:
36$. SUMMARY: Based on a I).umber o
-
Page 370 and 371:
- Table 1. Chemicals and Rates Used
-
Page 372 and 373:
372. On spring plowed plots I where
-
Page 374 and 375:
Table 1. Treat.ments Used and Stand
-
Page 376 and 377:
37t. PRELIMINARYRESULTSONTHE CONTRO
-
Page 378 and 379:
378. CHEMICAL TREATMENTS FORTHECONT
-
Page 380 and 381:
Table ;. Visual RatiDgs and Stand C
-
Page 382 and 383:
ANN11AL WEEDCONTROL IN SILAGECORN1
-
Page 384 and 385:
TABLEI. field Corn tiead Control an
-
Page 386 and 387:
Sunderiand,' Mass..Experiment: In t
-
Page 388 and 389:
) ) BBLB I. QuackgT88S Control in F
-
Page 390 and 391:
TABLEIII. Quackgr888 Control in Fie
-
Page 392 and 393:
392. herbicides. In senerel."we.had
-
Page 394 and 395:
394. RESULTS§e PISCUSSION In Augus
-
Page 396 and 397:
396. WHATHAPPENS TO PHENOXYHERBICID
-
Page 398 and 399:
D. TASTEAND ODORSTUDIES Taste and o
-
Page 400 and 401:
herbicides produces aquantit.at.ive
-
Page 402 and 403:
4('2. • A DECADEOF BRUSHCONl'ROL
-
Page 404 and 405:
areas, fre1.uently the crews l'UIrL
-
Page 406 and 407:
406. During June and July 1959 a pr
-
Page 408 and 409:
408. Numerous chemicals have been u
-
Page 410 and 411:
" A Progress Report on Urab * Brush
-
Page 412 and 413:
412.
-
Page 414 and 415:
414. Urab is an effective chemical
-
Page 416 and 417:
416. application. Atrazine has a wa
-
Page 418 and 419:
418. COMPARISONOF TECHNIQUESANDSPEC
-
Page 420 and 421:
Table I - Results of chemicals appl
-
Page 422 and 423:
422. Results and Discussion Data fr
-
Page 424 and 425:
424. THE CONNECTICUT ARBORETUM RIGH
-
Page 426 and 427:
426. (Kalmia angustifolia) ,huckleb
-
Page 428 and 429:
42$. TABLEI (cont'd.) Technique For
-
Page 430 and 431:
43". by Leonard and Crafts (15) mos
-
Page 432 and 433:
432. awareness of the need for good
-
Page 434 and 435:
434. RECOMMENDAT:I"'NS FOR THE USE
-
Page 436 and 437:
436. The recommended materials for
-
Page 438 and 439:
438. NATURALANDSCAJ:'ING WITHHERBIC
-
Page 440 and 441:
440. STATEHIGHWAYHERBICIDE POLICIES
-
Page 442 and 443:
442. There is a matter of judgment
-
Page 444 and 445:
444. DATAON STATEHIGHWAYHERBICIDE P
-
Page 446 and 447:
446. ROADSIDEBRUSHCONTROLWIM PHENOX
-
Page 448 and 449:
446. Spraying begins in Connecticut
-
Page 450 and 451:
Basal applications can be applied e
-
Page 452 and 453:
452. UMASSACHUSETTS PROGRESSREPORTO
-
Page 454 and 455:
45,4. Again, since the solution is
-
Page 456 and 457:
456. Statistics In 1959, the low bi
-
Page 458 and 459:
458. formation of seed heads. It wa
-
Page 460 and 461:
460. In our northern division, we c
-
Page 462 and 463:
462. '. 1. A. 200 ga'l Lons of' wat
-
Page 464 and 465:
METHODSOF SMIJPLING RAG.hfEED POLLS
-
Page 466 and 467:
counted. ThJ grqins m~y ba st~inad
-
Page 468 and 469:
468. slide moved across the orifi~e
-
Page 470 and 471:
470. INTERIMREPORTONAQUATICWEEDCONT
-
Page 472 and 473:
,.' f'inal retJuJ.t was that the us
-
Page 474 and 475:
474. taste and odor problems. The a
-
Page 476 and 477:
476. AQUATIC'J1ElID.CONTJ3.,OL '65~
-
Page 478 and 479:
478. For example: Imagine, if you:
-
Page 480 and 481:
enefit of those both us1ng the wate
-
Page 482 and 483:
• • of ,-, "",jqc. '\:':' ',:,;
-
Page 484 and 485:
~ '. r; I ' ':'.' ~, ',;' '.'. 1·"
-
Page 486 and 487:
486. weeds increased the food 4.3 t
-
Page 488 and 489:
..; . " .," .. ,', oontro..lbe ·oo
-
Page 490 and 491:
490. Idee1ly these woUld coVer' foo
-
Page 492 and 493:
4')2. Literatm-o Cit~: Biolog:$,cal
-
Page 494 and 495:
494. SYSt.:Clil ..:ne sp:aying cont
-
Page 496 and 497:
496. 0ll'l;ljing, &hluL ..l V,~l"Y
-
Page 498 and 499:
etween our sprayine=. operatdons an
-
Page 500 and 501:
500. loblolly pine existed iii quat
-
Page 502 and 503:
502. 'j' " Using results for all ou
-
Page 504 and 505:
cut over several year. ,b.elozoe.·
-
Page 506 and 507:
506. HARJJ.rlOOD CONTROL WITHMIST B
-
Page 508 and 509:
508. distance was achieved. All sub
-
Page 510 and 511:
510. Hardwood oontrol within the li
-
Page 512 and 513:
• J ". 512. ~ ., and the weather
-
Page 514 and 515:
) ) ) '.. . . hble). EffectbeneBB o
-
Page 516 and 517:
516. HERBICIDf;TECHNIQUE.:> ,FORTn-
-
Page 518 and 519:
518. The possibility o:rusing contr
-
Page 520 and 521:
520 • . However, the capacity of
-
Page 522 and 523:
522. This is followed by planting i
-
Page 524 and 525:
524. AQJJATICWEEDCONTROLANDRELATEDP
-
Page 526 and 527:
526. findings we increased the amou
-
Page 528 and 529:
52e. There is a constant reinfectio
-
Page 530 and 531:
530. in 1960 the Potamogeton re-app
-
Page 532 and 533:
532. PROGRESSREPORT ON THE FIELD TE
-
Page 534 and 535:
534. It· was tht.;n necessary to d
-
Page 536 and 537:
536. l.qunlin Hcrbici(.l(; pr-ove-d
-
Page 538 and 539:
;538. P.EFEP..ENCES 1. ijOSCIlETTI,
-
Page 540 and 541:
540. The oontrol plot was ohosen so
-
Page 542 and 543:
542. The dissolved oxygen content r
-
Page 544 and 545:
544. Summary 1. Six experimental pl
-
Page 546 and 547:
546. A PRELIMINARYREPORTON THE EFFE
-
Page 548 and 549:
that either slow chemical hydrolysi
-
Page 550 and 551:
550. In July of 1959 funds were mad
-
Page 552 and 553:
552. The barge was run at ~ speed o
-
Page 554 and 555:
554. areas successfully treated in
-
Page 556 and 557:
556. pick~rel spawning suacess but
-
Page 558 and 559:
Control of the Pondweed. Potamogeto
-
Page 560 and 561:
560. THE ABSORPTIONANDMETABOLISMOF
-
Page 562 and 563:
562. in controlling weeds in ponds
-
Page 564 and 565:
CommonName WEEDSCONTROLLED ANDAQUAT
-
Page 566 and 567:
566. PROGRESS-R!PORT·ON CONTltOLOF
-
Page 568 and 569:
568. Herbicides used for these stud
-
Page 570 and 571:
570. StHtARy Invasion of Eurasian v
-
Page 572 and 573:
AUTHORINDEX(continued) ~ King, -Ken
-
Page 574 and 575:
S/I/pg.2 Dinitro (DNOSBP) •• 11
-
Page 576:
S/I/4 SUBJECTINDEX{corrt Lnued ) S/
Change language