Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
252. sprayed plots was indicated by the profuse bloom of this weed. Trefoil bloom wase:ICcelhmt'on alf p'ot's. as was'bee atitivtty. Suc'hdtHerences In y i e Id as occurred ,canon'yM 'attri outed fo benefl c i e t effects of the dalapon treatments. . ;,. \ The 1959test was des I gn'd,Qltfortunat.'ly to primari Iy test the effecHvld'tess.of:f1'ne Insect iei_concerned •. Nebur on and the 4-(2.4-0B) treet.rits 'were"incfuded to control the d8ndelion' problem. The data es presented in Tab'le 2 again oni1' •. resulhtfor the various insectlc.ides, not Of. concern 'lin this' report_ ,No ch8ck .plot for "no herbicide:· existed wi thOut thephtseftce cf. an i ns'ec;tt e i de treatment. but "no treatment ff y i e I ds In an adjacent trial averaged about 147pounds of clean trefoH seed per acre.' " . , ", " severe C,v i,:suer est b,at .. ~ofweed speere. popu lat i ens were made. The July 9 \,-'8tl,ngs ;anowed'th4tdande.Hon stands 'averaged.'" for,thedel.pon DB combinations, I~ '.orthe derapon alone and2ll' for the dalapon-neburon treatments. Grass species present consisted of about a 211 tall fescue 1ftus ,qtla~ss: ,,., xt.unf whI eh _s.. redueed 5O.C 'by the da1apon a Ione and dalepon::..OS·eoiItbtnatlona. The "d8htpon-fteburOf1 treatments resultedirfonly $ gr8s8's'1'ahoaontr.ol. ;--T"'ef~il stand and bfO'Ofltw... exce I tent for all treat.entlJ 1 except thoaeconhllning 'neburon. These showed about'~ reduet" on in bfOOllt. ,A f'though not :substanUated stet i st i ca 11y i twou fd seem froM fhist.est tf'la't dafaponappJied on the samecl8tes withlnseeticlde did not materially '~_ge' tr4!ffoH :seed yie.lds.· The 1960trials were designed to precisely determine the effectiveness of herbicides applied et:the time ofi'nseetfeide treatment. The data in Table' give definite indications. for the flrs~ time, th~t the applicaf1dn"l)f • 'moderately lOW rate of delapcn a'lone or in combinat'iori with 4-(2;"'08) in the la·ht: spring towell-eshb'lished frefoi I 'resulted in lower 'rather than "'·ighera.ed yie'fdS.Thls d&pressio'n in 'seed yield was also very'evh:Jenf'·fClt" the use of'DB. 'The most st-ri1
253. almost a week, with treatment occurring on May 13. At the time of herbicidal application the trefoi I in 1959was showing approximately 2 inches of new spring growth; in 1960the growth present when sprayed was at about 4-5 inches. In the 1957tri e l , pract i ca II y no new spr ing growth was showing on the Empire plants at the time of spray application (May2). Since the only appreciable differences between the 1959 and 1960 applications of dalapon on Mansfield birdsfoot trefoi I were in the stages of growth existing at the time of application, it might be concluded that this factor could be the reason for the results obtained. Schreiber et al· (4) reported that a 5 pound application of delapon on Empire trefoi I having 1.2 inches of new spring growth resulted in no appreciable injury to the birdsfoot trefoi I. In this same stUdy 2.5 and 5 pound per acre applications of dalapon to a 3-year-old Viking stand in the dormant condition, and 17 days later when the trefoi I had 4-5 inches of new spring growth, resulted in no noticeable injury. No seed yields were reported, however, although the authors felt that spring applications at low rates resulted in effective grass control. Timing a spring application of dalapon for control of undesirable grasses and other plant species, to coincide with insecticide application for ~conomic reasons, can be an effective practice, from the standpoint of both weed control and minimal detriment to the trefoil plants and seed yield, apparently only if the trefoi I exhibits a minimumof new spring growth. The studies on date of application of insecticides conducted at this station and referred to above indicate that there is considerable leeway in time of their application. Additional studies are needed to determine an optimum date for herbicide application. CONCLUSIONS J. Early spring applications of low rates of dalspon to established seed production· fieldS of birdsfoot trefoi t effectively control undesirable grasses and certain broadleaf·plants. 2. T~e date for application can be timed to coincide with that of an l nsect Ic lde application without detrlmental effects on plant growth or seed yields. 3. The optimum time for dalapon application is possibly just after the initiation. of new spring growth on the trefoi I. REFERENCES CITED I. Fertig, S. M., Meadows, M. W., and Bayer, G. The control of perennial weeds in established birdsfoot trefoi I stands. Proc. Northeast Weed Control Conf. 14:308-313. 1960. 2. Leonard, W. H., and Clar~ A. G. ce., Minneapolis. 1939. Field Plot Technique. Burgess Publ. 3. MacCollom, G. B. Control of production in Vermont. Jour. insects affecting birds foot trefoil Econ. Ent. 51: 492-494. 1958. seed 4. Schreiber, M. M. Delapon residue in birdsfoot trefoi t. J. Agric. Food Chern. 7:427-La9. 1959.
- 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: 251. TABLE3. EFFECTSOF APPLICATIONS
- 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
252.<br />
sprayed plots was indicated by the profuse bloom of this weed. Trefoil<br />
bloom wase:ICcelhmt'on alf p'ot's. as was'bee atitivtty. Suc'hdtHerences<br />
In y i e Id as occurred ,canon'yM 'attri outed fo benefl c i e t effects of the<br />
dalapon treatments.<br />
. ;,. \<br />
The 1959test was des I gn'd,Qltfortunat.'ly to primari Iy test the effecHvld'tess.of:f1'ne<br />
Insect iei_concerned •. Nebur on and the 4-(2.4-0B)<br />
treet.rits 'were"incfuded to control the d8ndelion' problem. The data es<br />
presented in Tab'le 2 again oni1' •. resulhtfor the various insectlc.ides,<br />
not Of. concern 'lin this' report_ ,No ch8ck .plot for "no herbicide:· existed<br />
wi thOut thephtseftce cf. an i ns'ec;tt e i de treatment. but "no treatment ff y i e I ds<br />
In an adjacent trial averaged about 147pounds of clean trefoH seed per<br />
acre.' " . , ", "<br />
severe C,v i,:suer est b,at .. ~ofweed speere. popu lat i ens were made. The<br />
July 9 \,-'8tl,ngs ;anowed'th4tdande.Hon stands 'averaged.'" for,thedel.pon<br />
DB combinations, I~ '.orthe derapon alone and2ll' for the dalapon-neburon<br />
treatments. Grass species present consisted of about a 211 tall fescue<br />
1ftus ,qtla~ss: ,,., xt.unf whI eh _s.. redueed 5O.C 'by the da1apon a Ione and<br />
dalepon::..OS·eoiItbtnatlona. The "d8htpon-fteburOf1 treatments resultedirfonly<br />
$ gr8s8's'1'ahoaontr.ol. ;--T"'ef~il stand and bfO'Ofltw... exce I tent for all<br />
treat.entlJ 1 except thoaeconhllning 'neburon. These showed about'~ reduet"<br />
on in bfOOllt. ,A f'though not :substanUated stet i st i ca 11y i twou fd seem<br />
froM fhist.est tf'la't dafaponappJied on the samecl8tes withlnseeticlde<br />
did not materially '~_ge' tr4!ffoH :seed yie.lds.·<br />
The 1960trials were designed to precisely determine the effectiveness<br />
of herbicides applied et:the time ofi'nseetfeide treatment. The data in<br />
Table' give definite indications. for the flrs~ time, th~t the applicaf1dn"l)f<br />
• 'moderately lOW rate of delapcn a'lone or in combinat'iori with<br />
4-(2;"'08) in the la·ht: spring towell-eshb'lished frefoi I 'resulted in<br />
lower 'rather than "'·ighera.ed yie'fdS.Thls d&pressio'n in 'seed yield was<br />
also very'evh:Jenf'·fClt" the use of'DB. 'The most st-ri1