Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
96. .. Spray applications were made with a hand sprayer fitted with a boom at a volume rate ot 45 gallons peraere. Granular applications were made with a small hand duster which provided good uniform distribution. standc.ounts were made approximately 4 weeks later and results are presented in Table II. Table II Onion Stands Following Pre~emer.genceApplications. of Ran40x T Percent stand* . Treatments 20'. row' 'ormulatIon rate, Handox T Randox CDAA equlvalentper acre 6 qts. 4.2 94 If 9 6.3' 91 12. II 8.4 86 42 los. 4.2 89 63 II 6.3 15 II 84 8.4 306Ibs. 6.0 ~ qts. ' '6.0 88 * average 10 replicates 5 test areas , . These results combine the average of treatments made trom 1 to 14 days after application. These averages are depressed somewhat by . the. influence ot the treatment made 1 day atter seeding. This can be expected since Ftandoxalone causes more tha~' tolerable reductions ot stand ,1f app11catlQns'are made immediately fo~10w1ng seeding particularly it heavy rains should tollow. ,It is for this reason that the norma1 practice 1s to make applicattons of Handox just at emergence.. Under these conditions the seedling is no longer sus- ' ceptlble to CDAAahol,1:J,dant be leached tnto the root zone. There was a cons'1stent increased reduction of startd wtth the two higher rates of Randox, T in th~ granu.1ar formulation.. No consequerrte L interactions between treatments and varieties and soil funglcldeinsecticide treatments were apparent. . .
97. Weed counts were made 3 weeks after application. Unfortunately severe frosts 10 days after the pre-emergence application troze out the weed seedlings trom the untreated areas making comparisons possible on only 1 ot the 5 farm sites. Even in these plots, weed populations were extremely low. These results are shown in Table III. Table III Weed Counts Following Pre-emergence Application* LambsquartersSmartweed. Barnyard graBS Randox T 6qts per A 1.5 2.0 II It II 9 1.0 1.5 II II It 12 .5 1.0 Randox T 42 -Lbs per A .5 .5 granules 63 II II II .5 0.0 II 84 " " .5 .5 Randox(gran.) 30 lbs. per A .5 2.0 Randox 6 qts per A 2.5 2.0 o untreated control 5.5 8.0 4 * average count 1.0 sq.tt. Second applications were made on-June 7 and Bon threetarm sites. Plants at this time were in the 3 to 4 leat stage. Prior to the application, all plots were cultivated and hand weeded including the untreated controls. Application rates wereidenttcal to the tirst treatments. The sprays were directed to the base ot the plants. Where accidental spray contSct on the leaves was made, some burning was noted. Subsequent growth ot these injured plants was not impaired and recovery appeared to be complete. Weed populations were heavy in the untreated controls and most treatments gave very etfective control as is shown in Table IV.
- 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 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: 95. Results Survey Table I of Hando
- 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
- Page 135 and 136: - 135. Dim tro for Weed Control in
- Page 137 and 138: PJ,OORESSREPORT:ON.:WEEJhCGNTROL IN
- Page 139 and 140: - Simazine 2 and 2 1/2 lb./A and at
- Page 141 and 142: 141. Results - .l2.22 Table 2 shows
- Page 143 and 144: - !!!! Applications 143. The plots
- Page 145 and 146: 145. Conclusions ADexperiment carri
96. ..<br />
Spray applications were made with a hand sprayer fitted with a boom<br />
at a volume rate ot 45 gallons peraere. Granular applications were<br />
made with a small hand duster which provided good uniform distribution.<br />
standc.ounts were made approximately 4 weeks later and results are<br />
presented in Table II.<br />
Table II<br />
Onion Stands Following<br />
Pre~emer.genceApplications. of Ran40x T<br />
Percent stand*<br />
. Treatments 20'. row'<br />
'ormulatIon rate,<br />
Handox T Randox CDAA equlvalentper acre<br />
6 qts. 4.2 94<br />
If<br />
9 6.3' 91<br />
12. II 8.4 86<br />
42 los. 4.2 89<br />
63 II<br />
6.3 15<br />
II<br />
84 8.4<br />
306Ibs. 6.0 ~<br />
qts. ' '6.0 88<br />
* average 10 replicates<br />
5 test areas<br />
, .<br />
These results combine the average of treatments made trom 1 to 14<br />
days after application. These averages are depressed somewhat by .<br />
the. influence ot the treatment made 1 day atter seeding. This can<br />
be expected since Ftandoxalone causes more tha~' tolerable reductions<br />
ot stand ,1f app11catlQns'are made immediately fo~10w1ng seeding<br />
particularly it heavy rains should tollow. ,It is for this reason<br />
that the norma1 practice 1s to make applicattons of Handox just at<br />
emergence.. Under these conditions the seedling is no longer sus- '<br />
ceptlble to CDAAahol,1:J,dant be leached tnto the root zone. There<br />
was a cons'1stent increased reduction of startd wtth the two higher<br />
rates of Randox, T in th~ granu.1ar formulation.. No consequerrte L<br />
interactions between treatments and varieties and soil funglcldeinsecticide<br />
treatments were apparent. . .
Change language