Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Table 3. A comparison between waterinS and mechanical 1ncorporation at int,J;Y'als following CDEOapplications. 91e data are weed control ratings. 1:1 Days 'l'estBo. 1 ~" Mec~ical 1/2 in. 11l2.in~ 1/2 in. .·11/2 in. o 6.0 6.5 . '. 5.5 '4.75 6~(f r 6.0 .... '5.75 4., 3' 6.5 6.5 5.0 4.75 • Test No. 2 '0 '.0 1~0 '.5 '.0 _1 4.0 '.0 4.0 4.0 3 5.0 4~5 .. '.O'~O , . ~ :~i:rhe higher the number the .better the control :of weeds. , Another interesting point that shows clearly is that in test two, the l1igher level of wate!:'awl~~ation was definitely'- superior' to the lower level in all. times of app1ic~~,!:9n.~~1't tbe last,Whlc6:Vii~three ~ ~er tmc or, the' ,same as the cheeks. It;te to be DOted.th8t"3-dq plot, 'received 0.68 ~nche8 O:f rain in addition to thct &mowrt listed in the Table. On 'this basis the same' general tre~:~!~),- ~hat higher raJJita.u~ye 'better' weed '~ontrol. Although results With formUlatione-ere slightly'different in each of the .three tests, DO consistent 4ifferencea were evident. StudUs qQ' tl:ie"1ntfuence' of t1lle of CDBCiUllcation in rel!t10n to croE seed devel9l'/lD!nt. . _." .; . .' . . ..' ' The literature contains little information on the relationship between time of C!IBCapplication-to crop tolerlU1C8.'1'Wo"telit8vere qopducte.t in an attempt to' d.ete1'Dli~ ·.thet·'jlossib~e 1nfluenoe 'ott_' ofClBC application on crop aDd weedresponse. In tlli· first test,' 1U8Ustll~ a'small area vas plowed, fitted, aD4 marked off into eisbt plots 6' x 15'. Two rows each of beets, spinach, aad broccoli, were see&td at once across each plJ,.ot. Timothy was broadcast over tb8 errttre area~,' Two plote were apray84nth' tourpounds of CDECiDIIed1ately ~ ~.d1~;,' At two, foul',' aiId six a.qa arter· seeding, eddit10naI plots were treated •. On August 12 betWeen the first and second tnatins ptriod. about two-thirdl of 811 inch of rain fell. Tbe remainder of the treat1bg period was dry. The ultimate stand of cropS was erratic. Also" thiere Val variability between .1-"flplications. Therefore, precise ratings are not. iFeleAted. However. a trend 'was apparent which sbo'iled more dBlDf.l&e to crops trom the tour-and 's,ix-dS.y .treat8lents than from the earlier two treatment tiDIes.
A duplicate test was started August 11. This location with a similar sandy loam soU had very good uniformity. The weather I however, was mucb different. Irrigation was supplied after the first treatment. Light showery weather prevailed tor tbe next week. l-bisture at the surface was almost continuously good for seed germination. However, no substa'Zltial rainfall occurred.. By the time of the six-d.ey-treatment all crops seedings had emerged. In Table 4 are presented. the crop and weed control ratings taken three weeks following the first treatment. The data show a striking picture of increased injury at the time of crop sprouting and less deme&eat the siXth day when the crap had Just emerged. The same general trend but much less Pronounced was evident in weed control. These results strongly suggest that aQ'tivity of CDECin relation to crops frequently considered. "tolerant" is definitely influenced by time of application. Furthermore, that actiVity on weeds species is perhaps increased when the seeds are sprouting. Tabie 4. The influence of time of CDICapplication in relation to date of crop seeding • 4 lbs. of CDEC . CroPS* Beets Spinach· Broccoli* . Weeds!! 0 days 8.00 8.25 7.' 6.0 2 " 7.75 6.25 7.5 7.0 4 " 3.50 3.75 4.5 7.5 n 6 6.75 5.50 6.5 6.0 Check 8.0 7.00 7.5 2.2 '!I Check plots contained high populations of purslane, cregrass and galinsoga. * Ratings of crops are en average of four values for each observatlon except tor broccoli, which is for two values. 9. perfect growth; 7 == slight stunting but commercial.ly acceptable; 3 .. severe stunting and reduce~. stand; 1, ==complete kUla Weed control ratings: 9 .. l~ control; 5. subatantial weeding needed for commercial control; 1 • complete heavy ground cover. DiacU8sion In the tests reported here. there were several observations that need critical evaluation and interpretation. Results nth formulation were somewhat variable but were definitely not an important factor influencing overall CDECperformance • . Mechanical incorpOration was inferior to irrigation as a meansof enhaD.cing CDECactivity 'Whenthe soil was fairly dry. However, under condit ions as in test twO, where underneath the surface, seed germit!ation occurred without additional water, mechanicsl was generally ae good as watering. An important exception was tt1esuperior results obtatned with theb1gber rate of water u.ed1a;telyafter applying CIBC. No detin1teatatelDent can be made on the reasons tor thea41 result,. One possibil1ty 1. that mechanical incorpora. tion resulted in a ~t...~ penet.nt,.1on o.r-tbt herb1c1de than d1d
- 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: Figure 1. Relative performance trea
- 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
Table 3. A comparison between waterinS and mechanical 1ncorporation at int,J;Y'als<br />
following CDEOapplications. 91e data are weed control ratings. 1:1<br />
Days<br />
'l'estBo. 1<br />
~" Mec~ical<br />
1/2 in. 11l2.in~ 1/2 in. .·11/2 in.<br />
o 6.0 6.5 . '. 5.5 '4.75<br />
6~(f<br />
r 6.0 .... '5.75 4.,<br />
3' 6.5 6.5 5.0 4.75<br />
• Test No. 2<br />
'0 '.0 1~0 '.5 '.0<br />
_1 4.0 '.0 4.0 4.0<br />
3 5.0 4~5 .. '.O'~O<br />
, .<br />
~<br />
:~i:rhe higher the number the .better the control :of weeds.<br />
, Another interesting point that shows clearly is that in test two, the<br />
l1igher level of wate!:'awl~~ation was definitely'- superior' to the lower level<br />
in all. times of app1ic~~,!:9n.~~1't tbe last,Whlc6:Vii~three ~ ~er tmc<br />
or, the' ,same as the cheeks. It;te to be DOted.th8t"3-dq plot, 'received 0.68<br />
~nche8 O:f rain in addition to thct &mowrt listed in the Table. On 'this basis<br />
the same' general tre~:~!~),- ~hat higher raJJita.u~ye 'better' weed '~ontrol.<br />
Although results With formUlatione-ere slightly'different in each of the<br />
.three tests, DO consistent 4ifferencea were evident.<br />
StudUs qQ' tl:ie"1ntfuence' of t1lle of CDBCiUllcation in rel!t10n to croE<br />
seed devel9l'/lD!nt. . _." .; . .' . . ..' '<br />
The literature contains little information on the relationship between<br />
time of C!IBCapplication-to crop tolerlU1C8.'1'Wo"telit8vere qopducte.t in an<br />
attempt to' d.ete1'Dli~ ·.thet·'jlossib~e 1nfluenoe 'ott_' ofClBC application on<br />
crop aDd weedresponse. In tlli· first test,' 1U8Ustll~ a'small area vas plowed,<br />
fitted, aD4 marked off into eisbt plots 6' x 15'. Two rows each of beets,<br />
spinach, aad broccoli, were see&td at once across each plJ,.ot. Timothy was<br />
broadcast over tb8 errttre area~,' Two plote were apray84nth' tourpounds of<br />
CDECiDIIed1ately ~ ~.d1~;,' At two, foul',' aiId six a.qa arter· seeding,<br />
eddit10naI plots were treated •. On August 12 betWeen the first and second<br />
tnatins ptriod. about two-thirdl of 811 inch of rain fell. Tbe remainder of the<br />
treat1bg period was dry.<br />
The ultimate stand of cropS was erratic. Also" thiere Val variability between<br />
.1-"flplications. Therefore, precise ratings are not. iFeleAted. However.<br />
a trend 'was apparent which sbo'iled more dBlDf.l&e to crops trom the tour-and<br />
's,ix-dS.y .treat8lents than from the earlier two treatment tiDIes.
Change language