Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

08.06.2015 Views

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. ..~ ,

at both weed rating dates at Newark, however yield was not<br />

affected by this apparent chemical injury.<br />

Summary<br />

This .studyindicates that the herbicides in the test<br />

applied in grahular form did not seem to be more effective in<br />

controlling weeds than the same herbicides applied in solution<br />

with the exception of .2,4-n granular. The granular form of<br />

2,4··n was slight1y more effective in controlling broadleaf<br />

weeds and grasses at the Newark location than was 2,4-n in<br />

solution. .<br />

241.<br />

..~ ,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!