Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
q Due to thunderstonns.,atJd d;i,;f'fiJ'ul;ty:..W1tbtbe'apparatus, the treatments were applied at diff~enttimei~" ThiCbeJiica).4J, rites, and times of application are listed inTableql~ "'-' . Table 1. _. , .' . - -... Crop response ,'~olOIa.r1~cCQIbinat1on8ot s.ever~. herbi,c1des. est Chemical and rate te " : .ec1~:f!;Beets g :., s· + .aIPC ..5 ; n 2 ... . Lettuce .l Ciim 2 ' ., .8 ····,··.1 ·.0 7.5 " , 1t .3 +.' .). " " .2.0 4.0 7.0 II 1.2S .2:.0" 2.5 6~, " B CIPc 2'" CDm 6 " , ,~ .," " Aug. 1 5.0 . , 4.0 1., ).0', 3.5 9.0 1+ n 9 3.5 2.0 1.., 3.5 4., 8.0 " " 10 1.S'· ,2.0 ,; 2.0 .'.2.5, 4..$ 6., .7",1t .. .. (] .. -CDAA.3+'CIPC2 ' :.. -~ Jul7 29 5-.0 h.> ')..0 " h.,. 5.5 5.5 II 1., + CIPC3 4.D 3.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 6.0 It l+ClPC 3.25 .3.0 3.0 . 1.0 1., 1.5 . .4.0 D cno ,., 2+ CUll .3 Aug. 1 ..2.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 5.0 II 1t 1'" 4.S- 4.5 . .3.0. 2'.S,-' J.O .. 6., n .75·. CDAA, . " .3.5 3.0 1.0- '. .3.0 4.5 5.0 E CDm 6+ CDAA3 Aug.. 1 S.o 3.0 1.0 3.5 4., ,.5 It , It 3 + 4.5 5., 5.0 7.5 4.0 6.0 8.0 It " 2 + 3., 4.0 S.s 3.5 5., 5.5 " ( .~, r . CDAA:3+ CJ)]OO6 Aug. 1 -7~0 5.5 6.5 6.5 6" 8.0 7..5 .. ,l.'.·Cnm 9 6.0 '·6.0 . 6.5 6.0 6.5 fl. 1,+"CDl& 10, • 4.0 4.5 7.0 4.5 6,;5 7.5 . carrots Tom. 9M·"r"~·~' ~.!~~ G ' CD~. 6 + Solan 4 5,,5 1.0 1.0 1,0 II .3"'" "', 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ft' 2+ " 1 '3.0 1.0 1'.0" 1.0 B ' Bolan 4 ...CDI.t 6. .1.5 1.6 1.0 '1.0 II 2'+'" 9 4~o 1.0 1.0 1.0 fll., + cum 1'0 2~O 1.0 1.0 1.0 , . I Dacthal 4 + Sola'n II' .' Aug.' 5 '. ; 3~ a, 1.$ 1:.0 1.0 1.0 '.1t .' 2+ ",6 ' , " 7.5 ' 2.0 -: 1.0 ' 1.0 . 1.0 ", 1" + SOlan '7 - ;-6.$ 1..5 1.0 '1.0 1.0 . ' J Solan 4 + llBcrthall ' 'Aug,. S' 9.0' 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 " 2 + n 12 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 tI 1,,$ + It 13 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1..0
75. Results The delay in application time undoubtedly had an important inUuence in the results because the weed 4nd crop seeds were actively geminating alJnost immediately. At the time ot th~ August 5 application many seedlings were at or near the soil surface. Chemicals which have contact action were favored when applied at this date. Conversely, chemicals which act as gemination inhibitors were undoubtedly penalized. A few of the data obtained on crop response are presented in Table 1. From them several important facts can be noted. When Solan is applied to sprouting crops it can be very toxic. Carrots show good tolerance to Solan i~, mixtures. It is also apparent that CIPC in the cotnbination was likely to be somewhat toxic, except possibly to lettuce. This trend has been noted by the authors in seeded crucifer experiments, not reported here. The most favorable combination. seemed to be CDro and CDAA. Weed.control was generally good in these tests. The most speetaclar results were obtained with the Solan combinations. Here both contact and preventati va type chemicals were involved and the plots stayed weed free the remainder of the season. CDAAplus CDS::Test Since response of crops and weed control were rather good with CDECplus CDAAcombinations, it was decided to give them detailed testing by means of specific dosages on a series of plots. An area was fitted, seeded, and treated August 24. Plots were 6 1 x 15:( and each contained two rows of tomatoes, cabbage, broecoli, spinach, lettuce, carrots, and beets. Good moisture prevailed because of irrigation and rain. Crop growth was generally good. '''eed populations were heavy and. consisted ~ of crabgrass, barDY&rd grass, red root pigweed, and purslane. Information on chemicals, rates, crop response and weed control are presented in Table 2. However, flea beetles damaged the crucifer seedlings so severely that data from these two crops are omitted from the table. Indi vidual crops responded somewhat differently. Tomatoes and spinach were quite tolerant of practically every dosage and combinati,on of CDAAand CDS::• Carrots and beeta were severly stunted by the highest combinations; somewhat less stunted by high single treatments or moderate· combinations. Neither crop was injured by the lower combinations or single treatments. Lettuce was the.1I1ost sensitive of any crop to high 'or intermediate rates of CDAA. Injury was much greater when CDIDwas applied in combination with CDAA. Only at the loWest rates did CDAAalone or in· combination with CDECfail to injure lettuce. One of the most striking features of this test was the enhanced kill of weeds that was obtained by combinations of CDro and CDAAas compared to either chemical applied singly. It can be seen in Table 2 that even as much J.l8 Aiglrt pounds of CDAAgave poor control. of broadleaves and a similar rate
- 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: 73. COHBIltit.TloNS' OF cnu:'PITH C
- 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
q<br />
Due to thunderstonns.,atJd d;i,;f'fiJ'ul;ty:..W1tbtbe'apparatus, the treatments<br />
were applied at diff~enttimei~" ThiCbeJiica).4J, rites, and times of application<br />
are listed inTableql~ "'-' .<br />
Table 1.<br />
_. , .' . - -...<br />
Crop response ,'~olOIa.r1~cCQIbinat1on8ot s.ever~. herbi,c1des.<br />
est Chemical and rate te<br />
" : .ec1~:f!;Beets g<br />
:., s·<br />
+ .aIPC ..5 ;<br />
n<br />
2 ... .<br />
Lettuce<br />
.l Ciim 2 ' ., .8 ····,··.1 ·.0 7.5<br />
"<br />
,<br />
1t<br />
.3 +.' .). " " .2.0 4.0 7.0<br />
II 1.2S .2:.0" 2.5 6~,<br />
"<br />
B CIPc 2'" CDm 6<br />
"<br />
, ,~ .,"<br />
"<br />
Aug. 1 5.0 . , 4.0 1., ).0', 3.5 9.0<br />
1+ n<br />
9 3.5 2.0 1.., 3.5 4., 8.0<br />
"<br />
" 10 1.S'· ,2.0 ,; 2.0 .'.2.5, 4..$ 6.,<br />
.7",1t<br />
..<br />
.. (] ..<br />
-CDAA.3+'CIPC2 ' :..<br />
-~<br />
Jul7 29 5-.0 h.> ')..0 " h.,. 5.5 5.5<br />
II<br />
1., + CIPC3 4.D 3.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 6.0<br />
It<br />
l+ClPC 3.25 .3.0 3.0 . 1.0 1., 1.5 . .4.0<br />
D cno<br />
,.,<br />
2+ CUll .3 Aug. 1 ..2.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 5.0<br />
II<br />
1t<br />
1'" 4.S- 4.5 . .3.0. 2'.S,-' J.O .. 6.,<br />
n .75·. CDAA, . " .3.5 3.0 1.0- '. .3.0 4.5 5.0<br />
E CDm 6+ CDAA3 Aug.. 1 S.o 3.0 1.0 3.5 4., ,.5<br />
It<br />
,<br />
It<br />
3 + 4.5 5., 5.0 7.5 4.0 6.0 8.0<br />
It<br />
"<br />
2 + 3., 4.0 S.s 3.5 5., 5.5<br />
"<br />
( .~,<br />
r . CDAA:3+ CJ)]OO6 Aug. 1 -7~0 5.5 6.5 6.5<br />
6"<br />
8.0 7..5<br />
.. ,l.'.·Cnm 9 6.0 '·6.0 . 6.5 6.0 6.5<br />
fl. 1,+"CDl& 10, • 4.0 4.5 7.0 4.5 6,;5 7.5<br />
.<br />
carrots Tom. 9M·"r"~·~' ~.!~~<br />
G ' CD~. 6 + Solan 4 5,,5 1.0 1.0 1,0<br />
II .3"'" "', 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0<br />
ft' 2+ " 1 '3.0 1.0 1'.0" 1.0<br />
B ' Bolan 4 ...CDI.t 6. .1.5 1.6 1.0 '1.0<br />
II 2'+'" 9 4~o 1.0 1.0 1.0<br />
fll., + cum 1'0 2~O 1.0 1.0 1.0<br />
, . I Dacthal 4 + Sola'n II' .' Aug.' 5 '. ; 3~ a, 1.$ 1:.0 1.0 1.0<br />
'.1t .' 2+ ",6 ' , " 7.5 ' 2.0 -: 1.0 ' 1.0 . 1.0<br />
", 1" + SOlan '7 - ;-6.$ 1..5 1.0 '1.0 1.0<br />
. '<br />
J Solan 4 + llBcrthall ' 'Aug,. S' 9.0' 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0<br />
" 2 + n 12 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0<br />
tI 1,,$ + It 13 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1..0
Change language