Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• < 292. 3. ileedone at 4 and 6 pounds of :DMA 'Per acre 98 and 99%control, respectively. 4. Clout (DMA)at Scotts spreader settings 7 and 10 - 87and'99% control, respectively. A significant, but not satisfactory, degree of control was obtained with Ph 2, 4-D. In this ,test SD 6623, sodium arsenite, cacodylic acid, nv 734, and Void failed to control crabgrass. ' . None of the materials caused discoloration severe enough to result in permanentinjury to the basic grasses. '. '."" ...
( ( ( Table I. Post-Emergence Control of Crabgrass .~........ in Lawn Turf w~ th Chemicals .. ~ - .~ - - - ,- - ....-::... - - - - Pounds- - - ~ - - - ....- - - Disco L-;:)rittoiil- - - - - - - - Control - - - . ' Active' . Per No.. of ;, ----~------~- ". -~-------~-~ lJo. of Plants ~:>ercent §.cb.!t,!. _C,2,n!r£,l: lfa!e£i!l_, !tl&r!d!e!,!t A.£r,!':" _A!p!i£a!i~D! _J!!,ll.~ _J~ll. 1 :..J!!,lr~2;". _ !er ~ • < ~ + SJ) 6623 . 3 Ib./gal. 2.0 1 0.3 1.7 " 0.0 41.7 0 S1i6623 " 3' Ib./gal. , ).0 2 0.2 0.7 ,0.1 48.7 0 81) 6623 +W.A. 3 Ib~1gal. 2.0 1 ' 0.1 0.5 0.0 ' 37.•7 3 StJ6623 + \'1.A. 3 Ib;/gal" 2.0 2 0.1 0.8 ~.4 34.0 12 51: 6623' . 3 Ib~/gal ..., 4.0 1 0.1 2.3 0.1 15.7 59 51' 6623 +J.A. 3 lb./gal. 4.0 .' 1 . 0.4 2.8 0.2 ' 30.0 22 st 6623 3 lb.1 gal. 6.0 1 1.1 2.7 0.3 '50.3 0 st 6623+W.A.: 3 ib~/gal~' 6.0 ,I ' 0.7 3.5 . l.O 32.0 17 SD 6623 "'; 3 Ib./gal. 8.0 1 1.7 3.7 1.1 56.1 0 D:ime't,+ 2 l6.0AHA'+ 3.43 3.4 AHA 3 0.4 0.7 ~.7 2.0 95 2, 4-J) .+ 0.7 ,-2, 4-D Artox 16..0 Al'JA 4.0 3 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.0 100 <strong>Weed</strong>one 12.3 ,.DMA 4.0 3 0.4 1.3 1.7 0.7 98 <strong>Weed</strong>one 12.3 DMA 6.0 3 1.1 2..2 2.8 " 0~3 .99 Olout: 2.5 J»IiA 2..8 ' 3 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 87 Clout: , 2.5DMA 5.6 3 t 0.0 0.0 0.2 ,0.3 99 Na nrsenite 4 Ib./gal. 0.7 3 1.0 1.7 1.1 42';'0 Cacott1~c 4cid 100.0 -0.5 3 1.1 3.7 2.0 61~O' o PI-; %:,4-1). ,,10-.0 0.8 3 0.4 1.9 2.0 12.0 69 ~t 134 25~ E.C. 0.5 3 0.0 0.1 0.3 . 28.0 28 Fl1 734 25% E.C. 1.0 . '3 0.2 0.7 1.0 33.3 14 Void' ' 3.15 'DLA. 4.1 3 0.0 0.,1 0.0 31.7 18 CheC?k _ 0..0 0.0 0.0 ~8.7 LSI, @ 5% ,;, 24.5 LSD @ 1%'" 32.8 Ibra~ororaiion-Index: -O-=-Nod:i"sc!)'loratIon,- '5 ;; Complete-dIscoloration: - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - '?ercent contI 01 based on ccrepar-Lson \V'ith check. N \.(' \.).)
Page 1 and 2:
THE USE OF VEGETATIVECHARACTERISTIC
Page 3 and 4:
In a few grasses with smooth sheath
Page 5 and 6:
5. FACTORSINFLUEUCINGTHE PERFORFANC
Page 7 and 8:
7. The introduction of synthetic or
Page 9 and 10:
The com;onents the distribution of
Page 11 and 12:
grains. We early found that the oat
Page 13 and 14:
13. Atrazine Days following cpm/O.
Page 15 and 16:
15. not find an abundant production
Page 17 and 18:
Weed Control In Suburbia 1 Howard H
Page 19 and 20:
For establishing new lawns, I would
Page 21 and 22:
Any improvement that you can make i
Page 23 and 24:
PROMISINGNEWCHEMICALSFORWEEDCONTROL
Page 25 and 26:
25. Promis ins results have also be
Page 27 and 28:
27. (Lycbnis alba), cinquefoil (Pot
Page 29 and 30:
THE EFFECTS OF ADDED PENETRANT AIDS
Page 31 and 32:
... Surfactant Produced bz: . 31
Page 33 and 34:
33. 33. of scintillation solution,
Page 35 and 36:
Table 3. The Net Counts Per Minute
Page 37 and 38:
The comparisons for lower leaves, s
Page 39 and 40:
39. SUMMARY Tests using 2-C 14-1abe
Page 41 and 42:
41. RECENTDEVELOPMENTS IN THEUSE OF
Page 43 and 44:
second application be made not late
Page 45 and 46:
45. Combinations of vegadex-Randox
Page 47 and 48:
11/ Persistence of Soil-Incorporate
Page 49 and 50:
Plot size varied from 9 sq. ft. to
Page 51 and 52:
Lower rates of R-1856 were tested o
Page 53 and 54:
greenhouse tests are listed below.
Page 55 and 56:
PROGRESSREPORTON LAY-BYUEEDCONTROLI
Page 57 and 58:
57. Table 1. Effect of sodium silic
Page 59 and 60:
Sheets (1959) studied, under labora
Page 61 and 62:
M, ',. • • •• • " ' Treat
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 1. Relative performance trea
Page 65 and 66:
A duplicate test was started August
Page 67 and 68:
67. "he two tests which dealt with
Page 69 and 70:
69. CONTROLOF WEEDSIN VEGETABLECROP
Page 71 and 72:
71.' TABLE 3. RESPONSE OF VEGETABLE
Page 73 and 74:
73. COHBIltit.TloNS' OF cnu:'PITH C
Page 75 and 76:
75. Results The delay in applicatio
Page 77 and 78:
77. Summary Logarithmic, tank-mixed
Page 79 and 80:
(' ( ( Table 1 Rates and Dates of H
Page 81 and 82:
( ( ( Table 3 Effect of Post-Tran~l
Page 83 and 84:
( ( ( Table 5 Effect of Lay-By Herb
Page 85 and 86:
Chemical Weed Control Charles J. No
Page 87 and 88:
Table I. Weed control, plant stand,
Page 89 and 90:
Table 1 - Table Beets Pre-plant; Pr
Page 91 and 92:
91. Chemical Weed Control in Onions
Page 93 and 94:
93. Table I. l;ced control, plant s
Page 95 and 96:
95. Results Survey Table I of Hando
Page 97 and 98:
97. Weed counts were made 3 weeks a
Page 99 and 100:
99. Third applications were made on
Page 101 and 102:
1t1. ~ata - Onion stand counts, wee
Page 103 and 104:
The data in table 2 gives the signi
Page 105 and 106:
The following effects were noted. 1
Page 107 and 108:
PRE-fREATINGSOILS, APOSSIBLE.TECfiN
Page 109 and 110:
· 109. Table 2. The influence of d
Page 111 and 112:
..... 11 ... - Progress Report on W
Page 113 and 114:
113. fndothal as a pre-planting inc
Page 115 and 116:
115~ Table 3. Mean markebab l.e 9£
Page 117 and 118:
1170 Chemical Weed Control Charles
Page 119 and 120:
119. Table I .. Weed contrOl! plant
Page 121 and 122:
121. '- The stand of plants of bo
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 and 174:
1730 Additiona! apple .,samples wer
Page 175 and 176:
more consistently effective than 5
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
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 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
Page 291: ,veedone at 4 pounds of tL.cl per a
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
Page 303 and 304: - 1 PRE-ENERGENCE CRABGRASS CONTROL
Page 305 and 306: Discussion 30; • a) Pre-emergence
Page 307 and 308: 307. TABLEI -- Comparison of Produc
Page 309 and 310: -' Table II (can't) 309. Stand of S
Page 312 and 313: 312. THEEFFECTIVENESSOF COMBINATION
Page 314 and 315: 314. Table 2. Stand Counts and Sile
Page 316 and 317: 316. planted control before these h
Page 318 and 319: Table II. The control of quackgrass
Page 320 and 321: 320. growing season in the 1957-59
Page 322 and 323: 322. Table I Main Effects of Cultur
Page 324 and 325: 324. Atrazine by September 10 when
Page 326 and 327: 326. Another effect of Atrazine tha
Page 328 and 329: 32S. Amitrol-T was intermediate in
Page 330 and 331: Qolumn Separation: Cellulose. A 24
Page 332 and 333: 332, Figure -I. Chromatogram of qua
Page 334 and 335: 334. PRELIMINARYRESULTSONTHE USE OF
Page 336 and 337: 336. DATEOF BERRYHARVESTAS IT AFFEC
Page 338 and 339: within three inches of the soIl sur
Page 340 and 341: 340 .. The growth ra.te of Horse ne
Page 342 and 343:
342. dish containing ten seeds bet\
Page 344 and 345:
344. is not a factor in in It is
Page 346 and 347:
346 • .Absornt:j.Qn Qn Exchange R
Page 348 and 349:
348. The' chrona tog ram."WaS first
Page 350 and 351:
350. PROGRESSREPORTON A STUDYOF THE
Page 352 and 353:
352. 7. Fluctuating warm and cold w
Page 354 and 355:
354. A clos.e correlation was found
Page 356 and 357:
356. 1 THE ANATOMICAL NATUREO:BTHE
Page 358 and 359:
358. The 2,4,5-TP was most effectiv
Page 360 and 361:
Table I. Effect. of Pre-emergence T
Page 362 and 363:
INTRODUCIIOB: THEEFFECTOF WEEDCOMPE
Page 364 and 365:
1";. 1958 JFab1e I (cont ' d) Treat
Page 366 and 367:
366. fiE USE OF FENACFOR QUACKGRASS
Page 368 and 369:
36$. SUMMARY: Based on a I).umber o
Page 370 and 371:
- Table 1. Chemicals and Rates Used
Page 372 and 373:
372. On spring plowed plots I where
Page 374 and 375:
Table 1. Treat.ments Used and Stand
Page 376 and 377:
37t. PRELIMINARYRESULTSONTHE CONTRO
Page 378 and 379:
378. CHEMICAL TREATMENTS FORTHECONT
Page 380 and 381:
Table ;. Visual RatiDgs and Stand C
Page 382 and 383:
ANN11AL WEEDCONTROL IN SILAGECORN1
Page 384 and 385:
TABLEI. field Corn tiead Control an
Page 386 and 387:
Sunderiand,' Mass..Experiment: In t
Page 388 and 389:
) ) BBLB I. QuackgT88S Control in F
Page 390 and 391:
TABLEIII. Quackgr888 Control in Fie
Page 392 and 393:
392. herbicides. In senerel."we.had
Page 394 and 395:
394. RESULTS§e PISCUSSION In Augus
Page 396 and 397:
396. WHATHAPPENS TO PHENOXYHERBICID
Page 398 and 399:
D. TASTEAND ODORSTUDIES Taste and o
Page 400 and 401:
herbicides produces aquantit.at.ive
Page 402 and 403:
4('2. • A DECADEOF BRUSHCONl'ROL
Page 404 and 405:
areas, fre1.uently the crews l'UIrL
Page 406 and 407:
406. During June and July 1959 a pr
Page 408 and 409:
408. Numerous chemicals have been u
Page 410 and 411:
" A Progress Report on Urab * Brush
Page 412 and 413:
412.
Page 414 and 415:
414. Urab is an effective chemical
Page 416 and 417:
416. application. Atrazine has a wa
Page 418 and 419:
418. COMPARISONOF TECHNIQUESANDSPEC
Page 420 and 421:
Table I - Results of chemicals appl
Page 422 and 423:
422. Results and Discussion Data fr
Page 424 and 425:
424. THE CONNECTICUT ARBORETUM RIGH
Page 426 and 427:
426. (Kalmia angustifolia) ,huckleb
Page 428 and 429:
42$. TABLEI (cont'd.) Technique For
Page 430 and 431:
43". by Leonard and Crafts (15) mos
Page 432 and 433:
432. awareness of the need for good
Page 434 and 435:
434. RECOMMENDAT:I"'NS FOR THE USE
Page 436 and 437:
436. The recommended materials for
Page 438 and 439:
438. NATURALANDSCAJ:'ING WITHHERBIC
Page 440 and 441:
440. STATEHIGHWAYHERBICIDE POLICIES
Page 442 and 443:
442. There is a matter of judgment
Page 444 and 445:
444. DATAON STATEHIGHWAYHERBICIDE P
Page 446 and 447:
446. ROADSIDEBRUSHCONTROLWIM PHENOX
Page 448 and 449:
446. Spraying begins in Connecticut
Page 450 and 451:
Basal applications can be applied e
Page 452 and 453:
452. UMASSACHUSETTS PROGRESSREPORTO
Page 454 and 455:
45,4. Again, since the solution is
Page 456 and 457:
456. Statistics In 1959, the low bi
Page 458 and 459:
458. formation of seed heads. It wa
Page 460 and 461:
460. In our northern division, we c
Page 462 and 463:
462. '. 1. A. 200 ga'l Lons of' wat
Page 464 and 465:
METHODSOF SMIJPLING RAG.hfEED POLLS
Page 466 and 467:
counted. ThJ grqins m~y ba st~inad
Page 468 and 469:
468. slide moved across the orifi~e
Page 470 and 471:
470. INTERIMREPORTONAQUATICWEEDCONT
Page 472 and 473:
,.' f'inal retJuJ.t was that the us
Page 474 and 475:
474. taste and odor problems. The a
Page 476 and 477:
476. AQUATIC'J1ElID.CONTJ3.,OL '65~
Page 478 and 479:
478. For example: Imagine, if you:
Page 480 and 481:
enefit of those both us1ng the wate
Page 482 and 483:
• • of ,-, "",jqc. '\:':' ',:,;
Page 484 and 485:
~ '. r; I ' ':'.' ~, ',;' '.'. 1·"
Page 486 and 487:
486. weeds increased the food 4.3 t
Page 488 and 489:
..; . " .," .. ,', oontro..lbe ·oo
Page 490 and 491:
490. Idee1ly these woUld coVer' foo
Page 492 and 493:
4')2. Literatm-o Cit~: Biolog:$,cal
Page 494 and 495:
494. SYSt.:Clil ..:ne sp:aying cont
Page 496 and 497:
496. 0ll'l;ljing, &hluL ..l V,~l"Y
Page 498 and 499:
etween our sprayine=. operatdons an
Page 500 and 501:
500. loblolly pine existed iii quat
Page 502 and 503:
502. 'j' " Using results for all ou
Page 504 and 505:
cut over several year. ,b.elozoe.·
Page 506 and 507:
506. HARJJ.rlOOD CONTROL WITHMIST B
Page 508 and 509:
508. distance was achieved. All sub
Page 510 and 511:
510. Hardwood oontrol within the li
Page 512 and 513:
• J ". 512. ~ ., and the weather
Page 514 and 515:
) ) ) '.. . . hble). EffectbeneBB o
Page 516 and 517:
516. HERBICIDf;TECHNIQUE.:> ,FORTn-
Page 518 and 519:
518. The possibility o:rusing contr
Page 520 and 521:
520 • . However, the capacity of
Page 522 and 523:
522. This is followed by planting i
Page 524 and 525:
524. AQJJATICWEEDCONTROLANDRELATEDP
Page 526 and 527:
526. findings we increased the amou
Page 528 and 529:
52e. There is a constant reinfectio
Page 530 and 531:
530. in 1960 the Potamogeton re-app
Page 532 and 533:
532. PROGRESSREPORT ON THE FIELD TE
Page 534 and 535:
534. It· was tht.;n necessary to d
Page 536 and 537:
536. l.qunlin Hcrbici(.l(; pr-ove-d
Page 538 and 539:
;538. P.EFEP..ENCES 1. ijOSCIlETTI,
Page 540 and 541:
540. The oontrol plot was ohosen so
Page 542 and 543:
542. The dissolved oxygen content r
Page 544 and 545:
544. Summary 1. Six experimental pl
Page 546 and 547:
546. A PRELIMINARYREPORTON THE EFFE
Page 548 and 549:
that either slow chemical hydrolysi
Page 550 and 551:
550. In July of 1959 funds were mad
Page 552 and 553:
552. The barge was run at ~ speed o
Page 554 and 555:
554. areas successfully treated in
Page 556 and 557:
556. pick~rel spawning suacess but
Page 558 and 559:
Control of the Pondweed. Potamogeto
Page 560 and 561:
560. THE ABSORPTIONANDMETABOLISMOF
Page 562 and 563:
562. in controlling weeds in ponds
Page 564 and 565:
CommonName WEEDSCONTROLLED ANDAQUAT
Page 566 and 567:
566. PROGRESS-R!PORT·ON CONTltOLOF
Page 568 and 569:
568. Herbicides used for these stud
Page 570 and 571:
570. StHtARy Invasion of Eurasian v
Page 572 and 573:
AUTHORINDEX(continued) ~ King, -Ken
Page 574 and 575:
S/I/pg.2 Dinitro (DNOSBP) •• 11
Page 576:
S/I/4 SUBJECTINDEX{corrt Lnued ) S/
show all

Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society