Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
plots twice using the single rate calibration,on the tlprayer. The granular materials were applied by hand, using asbaker to evenly distribute the herbicide over the plot area. The weed control ratings were taken June 28, 1960, at GeorgetOwn an~ June 29, 1.960, at N~ark.,appro~imat.lY81x weeks following planting. Fall weed ratings were tak.11 at Newark, September 20, 1960. These data are summarized in Table 1. No data other than weed ratings were taken at Georgetown since a poor 8~d :was
at both weed rating dates at Newark, however yield was not affected by this apparent chemical injury. Summary This .studyindicates that the herbicides in the test applied in grahular form did not seem to be more effective in controlling weeds than the same herbicides applied in solution with the exception of .2,4-n granular. The granular form of 2,4··n was slight1y more effective in controlling broadleaf weeds and grasses at the Newark location than was 2,4-n in solution. . 241. ..~ ,
- 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: ( ( ( Table 1. Weed Control Ratings
- 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
plots twice using the single rate calibration,on the tlprayer.<br />
The granular materials were applied by hand, using asbaker<br />
to evenly distribute the herbicide over the plot area.<br />
The weed control ratings were taken June 28, 1960, at<br />
GeorgetOwn an~ June 29, 1.960, at N~ark.,appro~imat.lY81x<br />
weeks following planting. Fall weed ratings were tak.11 at<br />
Newark, September 20, 1960. These data are summarized in<br />
Table 1. No data other than weed ratings were taken at Georgetown<br />
since a poor 8~d :was