Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- Table 1. Chemicals and Rates Used as Fall and Spring Treatments 00 Quackgrass, 1960. Treati:nent Chemical Used Rate/A. Chemical Used Rate/A. No. Fall lbe. A.E. Spring lbs. A,E. l' Atrazine 2.0 Atrazine 2.0 2 Atrazine ;.0 Atraz1ne ;.0 ; Simaz1ne 2.0 Simazine 2.0 4 Simazine ,.0 S1me.zine ,.0 5 Dalapon 4.0 DaJ.apeo 4.0 6 Dalapen 5·0 ~poo 5·0 7 Atraz1ne 2.0 ... Amitrol-T 4.0 8 Propazine 2.0 Propaz1ne 2.0 9 Propazine ,.0 Propazine . ;.0 10 Fena.c ,.0 Fenac ,.0 11 .Fenac 4.0 Feoa.c 4.0 12 'Dalapon 5.0 Simazine 3.0 1; Da1apen 5·0 Atrazine 3.0 14 D~ia.pon 5·0 Propazine ;.0 15 Fenac 4.0 Atrazine ;.0 16 Check 0 Check 0
: i I Table 2. Stand Counts of Quackgrass and Yields of Silage Corn from Fall and Spring Treatments, 1960. I - Ave~ }lo. of Quackgrass I Yield of Silage Corn in Tons/A. I I shoots/sq. ft. * at 7", Moisture** Treatment : Fall . Spring Fall Plowed Spring~Plowed No. Cultivated**fNot Cultivated tultivated : Not Cultivated Cultivated :Not Cultivated :Cultivated ;Not Cultivated I I I • 'f I I I I I I I I I I t I , I I I I t I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I t I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1 4.5 9.5 1.0 1.6 14.8 16.2 19.6 14.9 I 2 0.17 1.7 0.14 0.:;:; 16.0 15.8 18.0 14.4 :; 1:;.7 12.2 18.0 I I 13·9 I I I I I I I 4 I 9·5 I 9·5 I :;·3 4.9 17.5 I I 13·0 I 17·1 I 13·5 I I I I I I I 5 12.1 6.:; I I I I I I 18·1 12.8 I I I I I I I I 6 12.6 10.8 I I I I I I 11·5 " ' I 11.5 I I I I 14.0 I 10.:; I I 1 I I I I I I 15·5 14.0 I 8 6.3 8.5 :;.2 5.7 16.0- I I I I I 15.5 I 16·1 14.0 I I I I I I I I 9 4.0 0·5 18.9 13·1 18.0 I 1·3 I I 0·1 I I I I 16.7 I I i I I I I 10 ; 14.6 10.8 I I I I I 19.8 I 13·3 I I I I I I I 11 14.0 I I I I I 13·3 I 11·8 I 14.4 I I I I I I I 12 I I I I 16.0 I 12.1 I 18.2 I 10.8 I I I I I I I 1:; I 9·1 I 11·0 I 6.0 I 6.0 15·3 t 14.9 t 20.0 I 16.9 I I I I I I I 14 I 11-3 I 18.0 I 6.0 I 1·5 16.6 I 18.2 I 18.5 t 16.0 I I I I I I 15 I 11.0 I 15·0 I 5·0 I 6.1 15·5 • I 14.8 I 16.6 I 13·7 I I I I I I I 16 I 26.0 I 25·0 I 25·0 I 23.0 12.1 I 11.5 I 14.6 t 12.1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I * The average of 3 - 2 sq. ft. quadrat counts per plot. The blank spaces:in the table were those pl.ots where the . stand of Quackgrass, based on visual observation, compared to the check treatment. ** The yield values have been corrected for stand -- to the same number of harvested plants per plot~ **'. The s'tand count au the -CUltivated cheek plots was made ·in the row. w ~ I-' ..
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 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
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society