Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
, 80. (Convolvulus arvensis L.) and ragweed (~brosia artemisiifolia L.) appeared in occasional patches. ! On the Collington:l~am 801.1, ,ragweed was the primary broadleaf Crabgrass and switchgra8s (Panfeum.app , ) were the principal grasses. weed. Weed control was rated independently by two men on September 20. Scoring was delayed in order to obtain a measure of the treatments ability to furnish full season weed control. . RESULTS Post-Transplanting. The mean cont~'Ql r~tings shown in Table 2 indicate that the herbicides broadcast in early june ~ere not effective in suppressing weed growth for the subsequent l6-week period. . Table 2 Effect of Post-Transplanting Herbicide Treatments on Late Season Weed Control in Toma~o,Fields on TwoSoil Types Downer LdamY.fine. Sand Collington Fine Sandy Loam Treatment Grass Broadleaf; Grass Broadleaf ; Mean Control '. Rating* Check 1.5 3.4 1 1.5 4.4 Amiben 3.3 Z~9 2.9 2.8 Dacthal 2.6 1.5 ., 4.4 1.0 Eptam 3.7 3.0 1.7 1.0 Neburon 1.3 . 2.7 1.3 1.3 Solan 1.0 3.9 1.0 1.4 Zytron 1.0 3.5 LSD .05 1.) 1.0 1.4 1.0 .01 1.7 1~4 t 1.9 1.5 !; * 1 - no control, 5 - excellent control Rating of 4.0 or higher would be cammerciallyacceptable for the rating period. The effects of plant cOMpetition:'W'ere reflected in the yields, and fruit size (Table 3). For example, Neburon treated plots yielded 9.57 and 7.11 tons of tomatoes less than the check plots on the Downer and Colling ton soils, respectively. Fruit. from the Neburon, Solan and Zytron treated plots tended to be smaller than those. from the check. Reduction in size is indicated by the increase in number of f~it required per 35-pound hamper. The differences may be attributed chiefly to the,laek o~ weed control in the period between treat ment and lay-by when t~e check. plots' were kept weed free. EPtamtreatments ()n:tbe.Do~r loamy sand resulted in considerable leaf burn and epinasty. The, t>lantsrecovered quickly and the treated plots
( ( ( Table 3 Effect of Post-Tran~lanti9S Herbicide Treatments on the Yield and Q~ality of Processing Tomatoes - 1960 . DownerLoa.:m;rFine Sand . C~lington Sandy Loam. Yield Fruit Per Color Titratable .Yield Fruit Per Co.1or Titratab1e Herbicide Tons/Acre 35 1bs. Index Acidity Tons/Acre . 3~ lbe. Index Acidity· Check .18.56 li5 90.4 6.5 24.93 108 91.1 6.3 Amiben 19.61 121 90.3 6.3 25.04 112 87.1 6.8 Eptam 19.06 97 92.1 6.3 20.39 122 89.0 . 6.8 Dactha1 15.22 117 91.2 . 6.7 17.64 145 81.5 7.4 Neburon 8.99 148 86.3 6.8 17.82 131 81.0 7.1 Solan 13.84 124 88.4 6.2 19.78 133 89.4 7.3 Zytron 10.38 ·132 88.5 6.7 IBD .05 E).39 14 3.07 N.S. 3.01 13 ~1.S • N.S. .01 7.39 19 ~r.s.·· N.S. 4.17 19 r~.s. N•.3. 'X). . t-'
- 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: (' ( ( Table 1 Rates and Dates of H
- 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
( ( (<br />
Table 3<br />
Effect of Post-Tran~lanti9S Herbicide Treatments on the Yield and Q~ality<br />
of Processing Tomatoes - 1960 .<br />
DownerLoa.:m;rFine Sand<br />
. C~lington Sandy Loam.<br />
Yield Fruit Per Color Titratable .Yield Fruit Per Co.1or Titratab1e<br />
Herbicide Tons/Acre 35 1bs. Index Acidity Tons/Acre . 3~ lbe. Index Acidity·<br />
Check .18.56 li5 90.4 6.5 24.93 108 91.1 6.3<br />
Amiben 19.61 121 90.3 6.3 25.04 112 87.1 6.8<br />
Eptam 19.06 97 92.1 6.3 20.39 122 89.0 . 6.8<br />
Dactha1 15.22 117 91.2 . 6.7 17.64 145 81.5 7.4<br />
Neburon 8.99 148 86.3 6.8 17.82 131 81.0 7.1<br />
Solan 13.84 124 88.4 6.2 19.78 133 89.4 7.3<br />
Zytron 10.38 ·132 88.5 6.7<br />
IBD .05 E).39 14 3.07 N.S. 3.01 13 ~1.S • N.S.<br />
.01 7.39 19 ~r.s.·· N.S. 4.17 19 r~.s. N•.3.<br />
'X).<br />
. t-'
Change language