Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

M, ',. • • •• • " '
Treatments were identic81 'to those in the first tetrt except for the four plots
which were treated l during1U1gation. In this second test the liquid eIBe
was applied bymeana of 'a hose'-proportioner during the first one-quarter inch
of irrigation, instead of interrupting the irrigation temporarily after onequarter
inch had been applied. ' "
AlthoUgh moisture'determinations were'not made, it appeared that in the
second experiment soU' moisture Wasdefinitely better than during the first
test. ,'As can be seen;;t'rom Table 1, temperature conditions were very much
different. During the treating period midde\rmaximumteDl,pe!'attires .toe considerably
higher. On August 19th rain occurred, which brought au plots to a
level satisfactory ~or seed germination.
A third test in this series 'Wasstarted August27th~ In this test the
number of treatments' was greatly reduced. No mechanicalfr1corporation was
included. Only the one-be.1f inch rate of 1ttigatlon wasgiwa. An additional
important change in treatments was to increase the interval between
the time of applying ~IlECand the times of watering. These four times of
treatment ... e:l) dUrlDg;' 2) immediately following; '3) two~s; and 4)
one week following. Also, ,anaddi'tional formulat1on, eDICon vermiculite" was
added., Thus each ~or 12 x 10 plot consisted o~ three formulations. '
Table 1. Tempera'ture and rainfall during treatment periods for the CDEC"
incorporation, irrigation and formulation tests.
61.
Days Test No.1
Test No.2
Test No.3
After Jli1;y 4
August 16
Augu~t 27
eDEe OF.
eFt
OF
App1.** Max'.- :Min. Precip. Max.­ Min. PreciR' :Max.- Min. Precip.
69
0
48 .0 77 49 .0
82 57 .0
1 69 48 .0 82 54 .0
88' 49 .0
2 73 46 .0 85 53 .0 88 54 .0
3 74' . 411­ .0 75 54 .68 81 58 .0
4 19 45 .0 77 58 .12 83 59 .0
5 8S' 57 1.5* S2 61 .03 86 64 .0
6 .,
8'
84
83
87 '
60
56
56
.0
.0
.0
80
71
10
* OVerhead irrigation. .
** No treatments applied after three days in tests one and two, after Beven
da.y1s in test number three.
In this test soU and tetoperatbre"'eopditions were considerably different
from those in the,. previous two tests. SoU moisture to plow 'depth was 'so
seriously depleted that, nO seed activity could be noted unt.U' after irrigation
of the various plots; or UDtl1 the generaL rain 'Whleh oamee1gh:h da¥s a:rter
starting the test. '
62
51
44
T
.03
.0
72
70
71
49
43
61
.0
.0
.51