Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
SUMMARY Post-transplanting and 'lay-by tests of Amiben, Dacthal, Eptam., Neburon and Solan were conducted with processing tomatoes on two soil types. The soils, located near Moorestown, New Jersey, were Downer loamy fine sand and Collington fine s~dy loam. The compound Zytron was included only in the experiments on the ~owner .sand, .: More of the herbicides applied broadcast approximately 3 weeks after transplanting were effective in suppressing weed growth for the subsequent l6-week period. Highly significant reductions in yield and fruit size were resulted from Dactha'L; Neburon and Solan treatiJents on tb:l Collington loam, and from Neburon, Solan .and Zytron,o~ the Downer. sand. Eptam treatments on young tomato plants on the sand resulted in leaf burn and epinasty. Similar treatments at lay-by injured the plants only slightly. No injury was observed in either experiment on the loam soil. Eptam wastne on).y. material tested at lay-by that controlled both grasses and broadleaf' weeds on1(he ..two,soal types. . . Amiben was as effective as Eptam on the Collington loam. On the Downer sand, Amiben did not suppress growth of grasses as well as Eptam. Loss of efficiency on the sand was attributed 1;0 low soil moisture.
Chemical Weed Control Charles J. No11 l in Beots Chemical weeding of beets has been practiced for a good many years. Nosingle treatment has been universi.1¥ successful. Commercially beets' are weeded with salt, Vegadex, Endothal, TCA or a combination of, chemicals. All these chemicals have their limitations. The following report is a sUIlllilary of work completed during 1960. Procedure . . The variety Seneca Detroit was seeded ~ 2, 1960. The pre-planting treatments were applied the day of planting and incorporated in the soil with a roto-til1er set sha1J.ow. The pre-emergence treatments were applied 8 days after seeding, the emergence treatments 14 days after seeding and the salt ,treatment 35 days after seeding when beets had 4-5 true leaves. Individual plots were 28 feet long and 2 feet wide. Treatments were randomized in each of 8 blocks. The chemicals were applied with a small sprayer over the row for a width of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weeds between the rows. The growing season was cooler than usual and rainfall less than normal. An estimate of weed control was made on June 30 on a basis of 1 to 10, 1 being most desirable and 10 being least desirable. Beet harvest was completed September 27. Results The results are presented in Table 1. All chemicals significantly increased weed control as compared to the untreated check except TD 62 applied pre-emergence or TD 47 applied postemergence on the combination of the two. The best weed control was with the pre-planting treat1llents of EPI'C and R-206l, the combination pre-emergence treatment of Endothal and TCAand the pre-emergence treatment of Zytron. 1 Associate Professor of Olericulture, Dept. of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and Experiment Station, ~nnsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
- 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: ( ( ( Table 5 Effect of Lay-By Herb
- 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
Chemical <strong>Weed</strong> Control<br />
Charles<br />
J. No11 l<br />
in Beots<br />
Chemical weeding of beets has been practiced for a good many<br />
years. Nosingle treatment has been universi.1¥ successful.<br />
Commercially beets' are weeded with salt, Vegadex, Endothal, TCA or a<br />
combination of, chemicals. All these chemicals have their limitations.<br />
The following report is a sUIlllilary of work completed during 1960.<br />
Procedure .<br />
. The variety Seneca Detroit was seeded ~ 2, 1960. The<br />
pre-planting treatments were applied the day of planting and<br />
incorporated in the soil with a roto-til1er set sha1J.ow. The<br />
pre-emergence treatments were applied 8 days after seeding, the<br />
emergence treatments 14 days after seeding and the salt ,treatment 35<br />
days after seeding when beets had 4-5 true leaves. Individual plots<br />
were 28 feet long and 2 feet wide. Treatments were randomized in each<br />
of 8 blocks.<br />
The chemicals were applied with a small sprayer over the row for a<br />
width of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weeds between the rows.<br />
The growing season was cooler than usual and rainfall less than normal.<br />
An estimate of weed control was made on June 30 on a basis of 1 to 10,<br />
1 being most desirable and 10 being least desirable. Beet harvest<br />
was completed September 27.<br />
Results<br />
The results are presented in Table 1. All chemicals<br />
significantly increased weed control as compared to the untreated<br />
check except TD 62 applied pre-emergence or TD 47 applied postemergence<br />
on the combination of the two. The best weed control was<br />
with the pre-planting treat1llents of EPI'C and R-206l, the combination<br />
pre-emergence treatment of Endothal and TCAand the pre-emergence<br />
treatment of Zytron.<br />
1 Associate Professor of Olericulture, Dept. of Horticulture, College<br />
of Agriculture and Experiment Station, ~nnsylvania State University,<br />
University Park, Pennsylvania.
Change language