16. 4. Cantarow, A. and Shel,artz, Be, Biochemistry, 2nd Ed., W. B. Saunders Co. Philadelj?hia, Pa., 1951. 5. Fang, S.. C. and Butts,J. S. ,.?lanI;Physiol. 1Z, 253, 1957. 6. Fang, S. C. and Theisen, P., JnI. ,b,gric. Food Chem., A, 295, 1960. 1. Fang, S.C., Freed,V. H., johnson, R. H. , and Coffee, D. R., Jnl. t'8ric. Food Chem., 1" 400, 1955. 8. Gysin, H., Personal Communication. 9. Gys:Ln,H., Advances in Pest Co,ntrol Research 'III, science Publishers Inc., New York, 1960. 10. Hagen, C. E., Clagett, C. 0., and Helgeson, E. A., Sci nce, 1!Q, 116, 1941. 11. Holley, R." Arch. Biochem. and Biophys., 12, 171, 19'52 12. Holley, R., Boyle, F. e., and Hand, D. B., Arch. Bioch m, l!. 143, 1950. 13. Jaworski,E. G. and Butts, J. S. ,Arch. B1ochem. & B1ohys., ~, 207, 1952. 14. Jeaper, J. K. F. and Bishop, J. R., ,Botan. Gaz., 112, 50, 1951. 15. Miller, L. ~. ~ Contrib. Boyce Thompson,Inst., !, 479, 937. 16. Miller, L. P., Cont'tlb. 'Boyce Thompson Inst., 2" 425, 938. 17. Miller, ~ P., Con~iib. Boyce Thompson Inst., 12,139, 1939. 18. Rhodes, fie and Ashworth, R. de B., Nature, ~, 76, 19 2. 19. Roth, W., R~cherches sur l'actlon s6lective de substan e, Herbicides du groupe des Triazines (A'dissertation)'Faculte des Scie ces, Strasbourg, 1958. 20. Shaw, W. C., et a1. The Nature and Fate of Chemicals Plants and Animals, A Symposium, ARB 20-9, p. 119, 196 ;' . 21. Synerholm, ]of,. E. and Zimmerman, P. W., Contrib. Boyce 369, 1941. 22. Uain,R. "L." Ann. llppl. Biol~, ~, 151, 1954. 23. Webley, D. 11., Duff, R. B.,andF~rmer', V. C.,'Nature, 24. , Weintraub, R. L., et ala ilant Physl01., 27, 293, 195 • lied • to Soils, 1467, 1956. , , 25. Weintraub, R. L., et a1. Arch. Biochem. ,& Biophys., 4 , 271, 1952. Figure 1. Production of C1402 from C 14 Amitrol by Oa "and Barley 1.5 . __ 6---- -- 1.4 oats /' __ -- i. 3 »: II, 1.2 /' 1'\ 1.1 e /, 1.0 / I " 0.9 I I " 0.0 I / "\'0 barley 0•.7, 0.6 / ' 0.5 / - 0.4 ~' 0.3 0.2 -- (!) 0.1 ,I 2 3 4, 5 6 1 8 9 10 12 13 14 Hours
Weed Control In Suburbia 1 Howard H. Campbell 17. I accepted this invitation to speak at your weed conference on home ground weed control because I believe that if we can more clearly understand each.otherfsproblems all of us will benefit; including the homeowner who lives in our new suburban America. My comments today are based not only on my own observations, but also on those of my associates, especially Norman J. Smith, Nassau County Associate Agent, who won your annual weed control award a few years ago. . In addition, the views that I am about to express reflect .'~he ideas and suggestions of a number of other county agents who now work in urban settings here in the northeast. Nassau County is a prime example of a county which has changed from a somewhat rural area to a suburban center since the end of World War II. It has been labeled the fastest growing county in the United States, and I have had the unusual experience of being in the middle of this change. In the past 10 years, Nassaufs population has increased nearly lO~. Approximately 150,000 new homes have been added, along with 600,000 . new residents. As a result of this change, about 25,000 acres of farm land was sub-divided into suburban homes. Weeds which were primarily the problems of the farmers, are now problems of new owners. We have the same soil and the same weeds, but the relative significance of these weeds has changed. To the farmers, the weeds were an economic problem beoause they reduoed yields and increased the labor costs of producing vegetables. To the new homeowner, the weeds are not only an economic problem, but primarily a sooial problem. Here, I think we oancreate anew definition of a weed that will be more suitable with the times. Our definition of a weed originally was, ftany plant growing where it is not wanted. tl This could be amended to include any plant which may endanger the social status of a homeowner. With this definition of a weed, it is easier to understand why weeds are more important to some people than they are to others. Crabgrass is more of a weed in s~me neighborhoods or developments than it is in others. If everybody has it, it is less important. However, if we look at a merion kentucky bluegrass development, then every other plant, including crabgrass which is growing in these lawns, can be considered a weed. 1 County Agricultural Agent, Nassau County, NewYork
18. Rhodes, fie and Ashworth, R. de B., Nature, ~, 76, 19 2.<br />
19. Roth, W., R~cherches sur l'actlon s6lective de substan e, Herbicides du<br />
groupe des Triazines (A'dissertation)'Faculte des Scie ces, Strasbourg, 1958.<br />
20. Shaw, W. C., et a1. The Nature and Fate of Chemicals<br />
Plants and Animals, A Symposium, ARB 20-9, p. 119, 196<br />
;' .<br />
21. Synerholm, ]of,. E. and Zimmerman, P. W., Contrib. Boyce<br />
369, 1941.<br />
22. Uain,R. "L." Ann. llppl. Biol~, ~, 151, 1954.<br />
23. Webley, D. 11., Duff, R. B.,andF~rmer', V. C.,'Nature,<br />
24. , Weintraub, R. L., et ala ilant Physl01., 27, 293,<br />
195 •<br />
lied<br />
•<br />
to Soils,<br />
1467, 1956.<br />
, ,<br />
25. Weintraub, R. L., et a1. Arch. Biochem. ,& Biophys., 4 , 271, 1952.<br />
Figure 1. Production of C1402 from C 14 Amitrol by Oa "and Barley<br />
1.5 . __ 6---- --<br />
1.4 oats /' __ -- <br />
i. 3 »: II,<br />
1.2 /' 1'\<br />
1.1<br />
e /,<br />
1.0 / I "<br />
0.9 I I "<br />
0.0<br />
I / "\'0 barley<br />
0•.7,<br />
0.6 / '<br />
0.5 /<br />
- 0.4 ~'<br />
0.3<br />
0.2<br />
--<br />
(!)<br />
0.1 ,I 2 3 4, 5 6 1 8 9 10 12 13 14<br />
Hours
Attention! Your ePaper is waiting for publication!
By publishing your document, the content will be optimally indexed by Google via AI and sorted into the right category for over 500 million ePaper readers on YUMPU.
This will ensure high visibility and many readers!
Change language