Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
174. Weed Centrel and Residual Eft'ects 81' Simazine and ef Atrazine A;ppli ..
more consistently effective than 5 lbs. AlAwettable powder formulations in reducing stands of perennial grasses. Hedge bindweed developed in dense stands in all plots from which turf was reduced by half or more. The herbicides Simazine and Atrazine applied to turf without rototilling or mechanically disturbing the soil surface resulted in appreciable reduction in grass stand. Wettable powder formulations were consistently more effective immediately following application in 1959 but were less effective than granular formulations in the year following application, i. e. 1960 compared to 1959. Thus granular fo:rmulations in this test had longer or gJ:"eater residual effect than wettable powder. The most effective combination of treatments in the present experiment is the combination of the herbicide followed at once by rototilling. 175. Residual action of herbicides The primary objective of rototilling in 1960 was to provide a seed bed for test crops. These crops included buckwheat and oats. .'Both species of the ornamental crops Ligustrum ovaUfolium and Euon;ymusfortunei are sensitive to Simazine. They were set out bare root for maximumexposure of roots to residual herbicide. Forsythia intermedia "Spring Glory and Pachysandra terminalis were also included in fiel! planting. In OCtober 1950 soil samples were taken and planted to kidney beans in the greenhouse as a final bioass~ for residual effect of the herbicides Simazine and Atrazine. Observations made in early August on discoloration in the seedling stage of buckwheat and oats or in the young foliage of Eu0D1InUSindicated clear response only with Simazine at the 10 pound rate of the granular formulation. Response to Atrazine was found in the 10 pound rate in the twice rototilled plots for both liquid and granular formulations. Not all plants of a kind in these plots showed response. Usually less than half of the plants showed yellowing of seedling leaves only or of new foliage formed after planting. Later season results in November indicated less response except with the Euon;ymus. Mature foliage of oats and buckwheat were normal. The test plants grew essentially as well as the normal non-yellow controls. Seedling beans showed no indication of abnOrmal growth in soil samples taken in October 1960 after herbicide application in July 1959. Residual action in cla;y loam ma;ybe effective in deterring immediate regrowth of grasses. Bindweed and Canada thistle, dandelion, and plantain appeared in 1959 and continued in 1960 unless rototilling was done. In this case regrowth was reduced in amount or to seedling stage. Residual action in 1959 or in 1960 was not adequate to prevent. the establishment of annual grasses and other weeds.
- 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 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: 1730 Additiona! apple .,samples wer
- 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
174.<br />
<strong>Weed</strong> Centrel and Residual Eft'ects 81' Simazine and ef Atrazine<br />
A;ppli ..
Change language