Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

42$. TABLEI (cont'd.) Technique Formul at i on Season Na t ure 0 s veget ati on an d eff ecti veness .. Ste~ Foliar (conttd. ) T-water 1:100 Commercial Ammate 60 lbs. per 100 gals. water Commercial June '59 June '59 Ste~kill of red maple--cherry resurge. Greenbrier and sumac vigorously resurging. Too recent to fully evaluate. Stem-kill of sweet birch, oak and hickory show some resistance. Too recent to fully evaluate. Notching Ammate 2 notches 1 tsp. per notch Jan. '55 Black birch 2-3 11 DBHroot-killed. Larger trees resistant. Frilling .
429 where dense B-l'owths, such as greenbrier, present a problem. Hith trained applicators a fail' degree of selectivity is possible and desirable species can be "preserved. Stem-foliage sprays have been applied indiscriminately as well as selectively. Indiscriminate applications in September 1954resulted in a 53% root-kill. Three out of the four tree species present were effectively rootkilled. However, white oak was very resistant (Table I). Greenbrier was stemkilled but has presently resurged to its original density. Desirable shrubs such as mountain laurel, bayberry and high bush blueberry were root-killed. This points out the undesirability of using indiscriminate sprays. The 1959 commercial treatments are too recent to fully eval.uate , Hcvrevcr, certain trends are evident. The T-esters appear more effective than Ammateon most species but especially on root-suckering forms. Sumac and greenbrier are resurging considerably in the Ammate-treated areas. Of the tree species present" black birch is most sensitive to the T-esters and red maple to Arnmate. Oaks and hickories appear most resistant. By doubling the concentration of T-esters, applications to wet stems and foliage appear effective. In controlling greenbrier an oil-water formulation with a high concentration of T-esters (1:20) resulted in over 95%root-kill. Numerous other trials using water as a carrier gave good stem-kill but resulted in vigorous resurge. Widespread use of the stem-foliar technique in right-of-way vegetation management should be carefully scrutinized. Data indicate that percent rootkill is less than with other techniques. Preservation of desirable shrub- cover is also more difficult unless the personnel are carefully supervised."" Indiscriminate applications should be avoided since desirable species are destroyed, -- as indicated in this study. In addition, unsightly brown-outs result. Only vrhen other more effective and selective techniques are not feasible, are stemfoliar sprays recommended. On the demonstration area, the greenbrier cover directly under the lines represents a cover type where this technique is most applicable. The stump treatment has been employed where trees were too tall to permit them standing under the wires. Therefore, cutting and immediate treatment of the stumps with 1:20 T or D&Tin fuel oil has been most effective. ?reliminary trials with amino tr~zole in water have resulted in a certain degree of root-kill during the summer. The addition of a dye to the spray increases efficiency. Along the margins of the right-of-way in the forest edge, trees which have not yet reached the height of the wires are being treated and left,stcmding. Here notchinG or frilling has been employed. Ammatein notches has been effective on black birch 2-3" in diameter but ineffective on larger trees. Best results have been with frills using 1:30 T-esters in oil. Trees up to 4_8 11 in diameter have been root-killed. Problem of Species Susceptibility It has already been pointed out that those techniques which tend to get an adequate concentration of the chemical on the stems and leaves or into the root-collar area give most effective root-kill. During the investigation, possible factors accounting for the differential effectiveness and species resistance to stem-foliar applications have become evident. Since stem-foliar apFlications are more effective than just foliage coverage it would appear that absorption probably occurs through both the leaves and bark. As noted
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 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 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