Vol. 54â2000 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SMoorn CRABORASS CONTROL IN 1999 T. L. Watschke and1. A. Borger! ABSTRACT Four studies were conducted on a mature standofperennia1 ryegrass at the Landscape Management Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. One of the studies was an evaluationof productsforpreemergencecontrolof smoothcrabgrass,one study was an evaluationforpre-postcontrol. and two studieswere conductedforpostcontrolof crabgrassin the two to threetiller stage. In the preemergence stndy, a randomized complete block design was used with threereplications. All of the treatments were applied on April 28, 1999 using a three foot CO, powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 80 gps using two, flat fan, 6504 nozzles at 40 psi. Granulartreatmentswereappliedwitha shakerjar.Afterapplicationthe entiretest site received approximately0.5 inch afwater. Crabgrassgerminationwas firstnoted in the test site on May 12, 1999. Non treatedchecks were ratedto have a minimumof80 percentcrabgrass infestationin all replications.The pre-poststudy,wasa randomizedcomplete block design with threereplications. All of the treatments were applied on June 18, 1999 using a three foot CO, powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 40 gpsusing two, flat fan, 6504 nozzles at 40 psi. Granulartreatmentswere appliedwitha shakerjar.The post emergencestudies were randomized complete block designs with three replications. All of the treatments were applied on July 19, 1999 using a threefoot CO, powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 40 gpa using two, flat fan,6504 nozzles at40 psi. In the preemergencestudy,most of the herbicidesused provided commercially acceptable control (at least 85%). Those providing the best control (at least 95%) werethe following; prodiamine 65WDO at 0.5 and 0.651bs ailA, dithiopyr IEC at 0.38, dithiopyr 40WP at 0.25 and 0.381bs ai/A, dithiopyr FO AND445 0.1640 at 0.381bs ailA, and XF99007 2.32SC at 0.25 and 0.381bs ai/A. Those providing from 90 to 95% control included; prodiamine 65WDG at 0.381bs ailA, AND672-99 at 3.61bs productIM, XF99006 2.32SC at 0.25 and 0.381bs ailA, pendimetha1in 60WO at I.5lbs ailA, Team Pro, 0.860 at 21bs ailA, and dithiopyr FO AND445 0.1640. Those materials that did not provide acceptable control were; 01 1399B, 011399C, 012799E, 012799F, prodiamine at 0.251bs ailA, AND669-99 at 3.61bs productlM, AND670-99 at 3.6 lbs productlM, dithiopyr (Crabex) 0.140 at 0.125 Ibs ailA, pendimethalin (Scotts) 0.860 at 1.5 lbs ailA, oxadiazon 20 at 2.0 lbs ailA, and Team 0.870 at 2.0 lbs ailA. In the pre-post study, acceptsble postemergence control of smooth crabgrass was atrained by applications of the following herbicides; Drive 75DF at 0.75 lbs ailA with I%v/v MSO, Drive 75DF at 0.75 lbs ailA plus 0.375 lbs ai/A of Dimension and MSO at 1% vlv, Drive 75DF at 0.751bs ailA plus I.5lbs ailA ofpendimethlin andMSO at I%v/v, and Acclaim Extra 0.57EWat 0.091bs ailA plus Dimension 40WP at 0.51bs ailA. All treatments containing granular Drive, Proclaim 3.09EC at 2.061bs ailA, Dimension40WP at 0.5 and 0.251bs ailA and Puma I EC at 0.12 lbs ailA did not provide a commercially acceptable level of control. In the post emergencestudy,acceptablepostemergencecontrolof smoothcrabgrasswas attainedby the application of Acclaim Extra 0.57EW at 0.121bs ailA, Puma IEC at 0.121bs ailA, Acclaim Extra IProfessorandResearchAssistant,respectively,Departmentof Agronomy,Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802 118
0.57EW at O.l21bs ai/A plus Confront 3S1. at 0.375 lbs ai/A, and Preclaim 3.09EC at 2.061bs ai/A plus Confront 3S1. at 0.3751bs ai/A. All other treatments did not provide commercially acceptablecontrol. Inthe otherpost emergencestudy,acceptablepostemergencecontrol(85%) of smooth crabgrasswas attainedby the applicationof Drive 75DF at 0.75 IbsailA plus MacroSorb Foliar at 2 oz/M with MSO at l%v/v and Acclaim Extra 0.57EW at 0.121bs ai/A plusMacroSorbFoliarat 2 oz/M.All othertreatmentsdidnotprovidecommerciallyacceptable control. Control was enhanced for Drive 75DF at 0.751bs ai/A, Drive 75DF at 0.51bs ai/A, Acclaim Extra 0.57EW at 0.12 and 0.091bs ai/A by the addition of MacroSorb Foliar. Adding MacroSorbFoliarto the DimensionlEe formulationdidnotenhancecontrolat 0.51bsaiJA. 119
Page 1 and 2:
WEED REMOVAL TIMING WITH ROUNDUP RE
Page 3 and 4:
EFFECT OF HERBICIDE RATES AND IRRIG
Page 5 and 6:
40 Effect of Pronone Applied with A
Page 7 and 8:
Comparisonof Sulfosateand Glyphosat
Page 9 and 10:
N 1175 feet Roundup Ready Studies R
Page 11 and 12:
VIRGINIA TECH'S ONLINE WEED IDENTIF
Page 13 and 14:
WEED CONTROL AND YIELD OF CUT FLOWE
Page 15 and 16:
Table I. Effect of napropamide and
Page 17 and 18:
The Effect of Total Postemergence H
Page 19 and 20:
with commercial fertilizer. In gene
Page 21 and 22:
HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS VERSUS HANDW
Page 23 and 24:
exceeded 4. The success of training
Page 25 and 26:
_u ____ Table2: Estimatesof herbace
Page 27 and 28:
DOUBLE CROP CORN WEED CONTROL IN VI
Page 29 and 30:
ANNUAL WEED AND GRASS CONTROL IN CO
Page 31 and 32:
MANAGING QUACKGRASSINFESTATIONSAS C
Page 33 and 34:
USING HERBICIDE RESISTANT HYBRIDS T
Page 35 and 36:
NICOSULFURONIRIMSULFURON COMBINATIO
Page 37 and 38:
GLYPHOSATE ALONE AND PRECEDED BY PR
Page 39 and 40:
ROUNDUPVS. LIBERTY:WHATHAVE WE LEAR
Page 41 and 42:
In summary, application timing for
Page 43 and 44:
INFLUENCE OF TIMING ON WEED MANAGEM
Page 45 and 46:
IMPACT OF GLYPHOSATE TIMING AND COR
Page 47 and 48:
PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES INFLUENCE W
Page 49 and 50:
COMPARISON OF WEED CONTROL SYSTEMS
Page 51 and 52:
Table I Mean Percent Weed Control V
Page 53 and 54:
SMALL GRAIN WEED CONTROL - NEW WEED
Page 55 and 56:
MODE OF ACTION, ABSORPTION, TRANSLO
Page 57 and 58:
INFLUENCE OF CROWNVETCH WITH AND WI
Page 59 and 60:
lRUMPETCREEPER, HONEYVINEMILKWEED,A
Page 61 and 62:
FLUFENACET PLUS METRIBUZIN PLUS ATR
Page 63 and 64:
CONTROLLING ASTERACEAE WEEDS WITH R
Page 65 and 66:
0... Figure1. GerminationRateof Roo
Page 67 and 68: BIOLOGICALLY BASED WEED CONTROL STR
Page 69 and 70: NON·NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA OF BISCA
Page 71 and 72: principally in ruderal sites. lawns
Page 73 and 74: EVALUATION OF AZAFENlDIN FOR PREEME
Page 75 and 76: AUTOMATING MONITORING OF ROADSIDE W
Page 77 and 78: Table I: Swnmary of brush managemen
Page 79 and 80: Table I: Sequence codes and general
Page 81 and 82: IR-4 ORNAMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRESS F
Page 83 and 84: personnel with many of the illegal
Page 85 and 86: TOLERANCE OF ORNAMENTAL GROUNDCOVER
Page 87 and 88: MUGWORT CONTROL WITH CLOPYRALID AND
Page 89 and 90: POTENTIAL WEEDINESS OF SEVERAL NEW
Page 91 and 92: Table I: Identification, morphologi
Page 93 and 94: Trifolium tricolor 232 26 62 0 18 S
Page 95 and 96: NUTRIENT REMOVAL BY WEEDS IN CONTAI
Page 97 and 98: CONTROL OF POAANNUA FROM MULTIPLE S
Page 99 and 100: ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (PDaannual CONTROL
Page 101 and 102: LATERAL DEVELOPMENT OF PLANT oaowra
Page 103 and 104: RE-ROOTING OF FOUR VARIETIES OF CRE
Page 105 and 106: Table 2. Top growth weights (fresh)
Page 107 and 108: CONTROL OF DALLISGRASS IN COOL SEAS
Page 109 and 110: Kentucky bluegrass was rated to hav
Page 111 and 112: Table 2. Fresh weight (grams) barve
Page 113 and 114: MANAGING FENOXAPROP RESIST ANT CRAB
Page 115 and 116: ADVANCED FORMULATION TECHNOLOGY FOR
Page 117: Table I. Preemergence smooth crabgr
Page 121 and 122: EFFICACY OF DITHIOPYR FORMULATIONS
Page 123 and 124: EFFECTS OF DROUGHT ON THE INTERFERE
Page 125 and 126: WEED MANAGEMENT WITH HALOSULFURON I
Page 127 and 128: WEED CONTROL IN SWEET CORN WITH CAR
Page 129 and 130: COMPARISON OF USING LEAF AREA AND W
Page 131 and 132: RESULTS OF NEW YORK VINEYARD TRIALS
Page 133 and 134: HERBICIDE TOLERANCE IN CRANBERRIES
Page 135 and 136: Classification based on action on a
Page 137 and 138: EFFECTS OF SEVERAL POTENTIALLY USEF
Page 139 and 140: Supplement of the 53 rd Annual Meet
Page 141 and 142: with society activities to anyone.
Page 143 and 144: WINTER SQUASH CULTIVARS DIFFER IN R
Page 145 and 146: INCORPORATING QUINCLORAC IN AUTUMN
Page 147 and 148: Control efforts aim to eradicate bo
Page 149 and 150: Table I Weed canopy, insect and dis
Page 151 and 152: Table 1: Percent mortality of respr
show all

Vol. 54â2000 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 54â2000 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society