Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 CFAP entered 11,427 individual records from the 28 weed control ratings tables for fie com. Each line of data in the NCFAP database includes a reference code that identi es the individual report from which it has been drawn. The N FAP database contains control ratings for 87 weed species, whose names have been s dardized. The NCFAP database contains ratings for 78 individual herbicide treatm nts that are specific according to active ingredients and timing. In all, the NCFAP datab e contains 2,927 treatment ratings, that are specific to active ingredients and weed specie . The NCF AP com weed control efficacy database is summarized in a report that includ s a diskette copy of the entire database (4). The efficacy database was analyzed using e SAS system to generate descriptive statistics, such as number of observations, mean, aximum, minimum and standard deviation. Results Table summarizes the weed control efficacy ratings for common ragweed for nine single poste ergence active ingredients. Table 1 represents nine of the records of the 2927 treatm nt ratings from the national database. As can be seen, not all state reports rate all possib e control methods. While 20 to 21 reports include common ragweed control rating for atrazine and dicamba, only 7 to 12 reports include similar ratings for flumic orac, halosulfuron or clopyralid. There is a considerable range in the efficacy rating for individual active ingredients. For example, common ragweed control ratings for be tazon range from 50% to 95%. No statistical analysis has yet been performed to dete ine whether there are patterns with regard to the discrepancies. Discussion reports that include ratings of the control efficacies of com herbicides represent a ource of systematically-organized information that synthesizes research results with d field performance. The control ratings provide a valuable source of information ers, crop consultants and regulatory agencies who need to assess the relative perfo ance of individual products in the design of control programs or in the establi hment of restrictions on use. Regulatory agencies need to consider the relative perfo ance of products that may serve as replacements if a currently-used active ingre ent is restricted or banned. There are real differences in the way that products perfo in different regions of the country as a result of soil type, precipitation, tempe ture, planting times, weed emergence times and/or type of tillage operation. Analy is of the national weed efficacy control database over time may indicate trends in reduc efficacy resulting from resistance development. The efficacy database may indica improved effectiveness on certain weed control because of new products or new comb' ations of products, or the expanded use of existing products on newly developed resis t crops.
21 I TABLEt CORN WEED CONTROL EFFICACIES (SELECTED) Active Ingredient Timing <strong>Weed</strong> Species No. of % Control Stand. I Obs. Min. Max. Avg. Dev. 2,4-D i POS CommonRagweed 19 62 95 88 8.12 Atrazine I POS CommonRagweed 21 80 95 91 4.54 BentazQn i POS CommonRagweed 16 50 95 75 11.69 Bromoxynil I POS CommonRagweed 19 60 95 85 11.09 CIQpyralid i POS Common Ragweed 7 80 95 89 4.50 Dicamba I POS CommonRagweed 20 80 100 89 6.06 Flumiclorac POS CommonRagweed 12 40 90 71 16.42 Halosulfuron I POS CommonRagweed 12 80 95 89 5.23 Primisulfuron i POS Common Ragweed 16 80 95 89 5.31 LITERATURECITED 1. 1996Pest Janagement Recommendationsfor Field Crops, CooperativeExtension Service,Mat;rlandlPennsylvanialDelawarelNewJerseyNirginiaIWestVirginia,Bulletin 237. I 2. 1996 Cornell RecommendsfQrIntegratedField Crop Management,Cornell cooperatiV1Extension. 3. 199 N w n I d ui to W nttol in om, CooperativeExtension Service, VermontIM sachusettslConnecticutlNewHampshire/Maine/RhodeIsland. 4. Gianessi, ~~., and M. B. Marcelli, EfficacyRatingsfor Field Com Herbicides: A National STmaty, National Center for Food and AgriculturalPolicy, September 1996. :
Page 1 and 2: 1 DE~LOPING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTIC
Page 3 and 4: 3 MATERIALSANDMETHODS Experiments w
Page 5 and 6: I 5 I Table 3. Stand density of oat
Page 7 and 8: 7 TaL~NCEaFHNE~CU~TaCL~HarnM Larry
Page 9 and 10: 9 I CONTROLLING QUACKGRASS WITH CLE
Page 11 and 12: BELTSV~LLE 11 SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTUR
Page 13 and 14: Ii 13 I The 1996NEWSSCollegiateWeed
Page 15 and 16: 15 EFFECTOF rREPLANT TILLAGEANDNICO
Page 17 and 18: 17 i PENNMUjLCH, A NEW MULCH FOR TU
Page 19: 19 cover the sta~es in the Northeas
Page 23 and 24: 23 COMMON LAMBSQUARTERS CONTROL IN
Page 25 and 26: I I 25 I Table 2. Effectivaness of
Page 27 and 28: 27 PERFORMANCE OF PREEMERGENCE TREA
Page 29 and 30: I i I i I I 29 EFFECT OF TANK-MIXIN
Page 31 and 32: I 31 I EVALVATIONOF WEED CONTROLA
Page 33 and 34: I I i 33 I EFFECT$ OF EXP 31130A AN
Page 35 and 36: 35 Effect OfPO~T ApplicationTimingo
Page 37 and 38: II I ! I ! Ii I I 37 PREE~ERGENCE C
Page 39 and 40: I 39 U+ OF SLUDGE BASED FERTILIZERS
Page 41 and 42: i I 41 I EFFECT OF fSOXABEN APPLIED
Page 43 and 44: I 43 ~STCRABGRASS CONTROL AS lWO os
Page 45 and 46: I II 45 iI Gallery* f,r Weed Preven
Page 47 and 48: I POTENTIAL I I 47 USE OF EXP-31130
Page 49 and 50: I" i 49 j PFMERGENCE CONTROL OF PRO
Page 51 and 52: 51 TIIE E...·rL"",,- L OF TRINEXAP
Page 53 and 54: 53 PERF011MANICEOF ISOXAFLUTOLE IN
Page 55 and 56: 55 ISOXAFL OLE COMBINATIONSWITH PRE
Page 57 and 58: 57 Weed Interference in Full Season
Page 59 and 60: 59 HERBICIDE TRATEGIES FOR CONTROL
Page 61 and 62: 61 Table 1.Eff ct of WeedControlTre
Page 63 and 64: 63 DETECTION ND MOVEMENT PATTERN OF
Page 65 and 66: 65 TRAILERING AFETY: A TRAINING COU
Page 67 and 68: 67 EV ALUATIO OF WIT..DFLOWER ESTAB
Page 69 and 70: 69 LlNGSNOW ECOSYSTEM PROJECT: MICR
Page 71 and 72:
71 TABLE 1: Tree . jury provided by
Page 74 and 75:
74 GSNOW ECOSYSTEM PROJECT: WHITE S
Page 76 and 77:
16 cherry (Pnmus se otina ranks fou
Page 78 and 79:
.J 78 Table 1. Density, (D), relati
Page 80 and 81:
~---------_._-~---_.._--- 80 A NEW
Page 82 and 83:
82 WEED AFFINITY GROUPS AS A TOOL I
Page 84 and 85:
84 NEW TE HNIQUE TO COMPARE EFFICAC
Page 86 and 87:
86 PRO UCTION PERFORMANCE OF GLYPHO
Page 88 and 89:
88 Managing nterseeded Cover Crops
Page 90 and 91:
-----------t----~--- 90 Since weed
Page 92 and 93:
92 The mechanistic model (equ. I) a
Page 94 and 95:
94 Exploring the Feasibility of Pro
Page 96 and 97:
96 INHIBI ING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CI
Page 98 and 99:
98 However it .ncreased the control
Page 100 and 101:
100 LIVERWORT AND PEARLWORT MANAGEM
Page 102 and 103:
102 ULFENTRAZONEAND HALOSULFURON:HE
Page 104 and 105:
104 estern New York Nursery IPM Pro
Page 106 and 107:
106 C MMONRAGWEEDCONTROLIN FIELD CO
Page 108 and 109:
108 CGA-77102: A New Herbicide for
Page 110 and 111:
110 POSTEMERGENCEWEEDCONTROLIN SOYB
Page 112 and 113:
112 E FECTS OF REPEATEDLATE-WINTERH
Page 114 and 115:
114 GSNOW ECOSYSTEl\1 PROJECT: NITR
Page 116 and 117:
116 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION GI fosin
Page 118 and 119:
---------T---~~-- 118 EVALUA ON OF
Page 120 and 121:
120 B USB CONTROL PROVIDED BY LOW V
Page 122 and 123:
------- 122 W VOLUMEWEED AND BRUSH
Page 124 and 125:
124 EVA UATION OFGLYPHOSATEFOR DORM
Page 126 and 127:
126 E ALUATION OF IMAZAMETH FOR WEE
Page 128 and 129:
128 Presidential Address Delivered
Page 130 and 131:
130 Ho much land can ten billion pe
Page 132 and 133:
Waggone December 24, 1994 132 count
Page 134 and 135:
Waggone December 24, 1994 134 25 Pa
Page 136 and 137:
Waggone December 24, 1994 136 which
Page 138 and 139:
December 24, 1994 138 sets the pecu
Page 140 and 141:
----------+---- Waggone December 24
Page 142 and 143:
Waggone December 24, 1994 142 soil
Page 144 and 145:
Waggone December 24, 1994 144 ~oo~
Page 146 and 147:
Waggoner December 24, 1994 146 350
Page 148 and 149:
148 Appendix Calculate the environm
Page 150 and 151:
150 alone ac eptably controls typic
Page 152 and 153:
152 opportu ity to use sethoxydim a
Page 154 and 155:
---------+----------- 154 IMPACT OF
Page 156 and 157:
156 The STS® time line: • 1986 -
Page 158 and 159:
-------_. __ ._._--- d •••..
Page 160 and 161:
-----_._~-_._.__.- 160 SYNCBRONYTM.
Page 162 and 163:
162 Government approvals for Roundu
Page 164 and 165:
HH i ! 164 AG6101 l.oundup Ready®
Page 166 and 167:
166 n Lib rty LinkTM soybeans will
Page 168 and 169:
168 IMITMCORN YIELD PERFORMANCE* (H
Page 170 and 171:
170 to $15 an ere depending upon ho
Page 172 and 173:
172 e recent occurrence has been th
Page 174 and 175:
174 He bicide was added to the tiss
Page 176 and 177:
176 it can at ti es be a weed in Ke
Page 178 and 179:
178 ty's main campus that Rhizocton
Page 180 and 181:
180 weight conclu qualit treatm and
Page 182 and 183:
182 during the st or 2nd growing se
Page 184 and 185:
184 TABLE 1. Mean raspberry cover (
Page 186 and 187:
186 (A) STEM VOLUME - SPRING TRTM.,
Page 188 and 189:
188 concluded at 5.1 em of simulate
Page 190 and 191:
190 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ank United Agr
Page 192 and 193:
192 AGRICULTURE NEEDS MORE WEED SCI
Page 194 and 195:
194 Who is going to provide the edu
Page 196 and 197:
20 18 - 16 A v 14 e r 12 a g 10 e s
Page 198 and 199:
198 50th Annual Business Meeting of
Page 200 and 201:
200 • Graduate team winners were:
Page 202 and 203:
202 solclose to the New Year, as it
Page 204 and 205:
----~------ 204 e Committee Reports
Page 206 and 207:
! I 206 I Administration $1,527.23
Page 208 and 209:
208 Glickman comments that his "hig
Page 210 and 211:
210 York Sta~e. It is still unclear
Page 212 and 213:
I I I Bingham, SamuJ Wayne Virginia
Page 214 and 215:
214 Cianessi, Leonard Nat. Center o
Page 216 and 217:
L I • I I I I Langston, Vemon Dow
Page 218 and 219:
__________ m---+---m__ .... 218 Rie
Page 220 and 221:
-----------~ I I 220 Whalen, Mark Z
Page 222 and 223:
Helicopter Applicators, Inc. Martin
Page 224 and 225:
224 Employers of NEWSS members in 1
Page 226 and 227:
.l I I I I 226 NEWSSPASTPRESIDENTS
Page 228 and 229:
228 AWARD OF MERIT 1971 1972 1973 1
Page 230 and 231:
1995 I I I 230 Fra~cis J. Webb •
Page 232 and 233:
II II 232 1995 1'R~chard Ashly Univ
Page 234 and 235:
234 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1
Page 236 and 237:
I, I 236 1989 - AmeriJan Cyanamid,
Page 238 and 239:
--------_.~-------- 238 RESEARCH PO
Page 240 and 241:
1995 1 - iAComparison of Broadleaf
Page 242 and 243:
242 1960 1961 1962 . The Influence
Page 244 and 245:
244 1975 1 - Control of Jimsonweed
Page 246 and 247:
246 1984 1 - Pre-TransplantOxyfluor
Page 248 and 249:
248 Common or Code name trade Name
Page 250 and 251:
250 Common or Code name , rrade Nam
Page 252 and 253:
252 I Common ot Code namel I I flur
Page 254 and 255:
254 Common o~ Code name' I I i Trad
Page 256 and 257:
256 Common or i Code name I Trade N
Page 258 and 259:
258 , Ackley, J.A .• 7 Adams, R.G
Page 260 and 261:
260 1 I 2,4-D 2, 14, 1~, 22, 23,28,
Page 262 and 263:
262 I Agrosticpalus(ris 47, 48 Agro
Page 264 and 265:
SUBJECT INDEX Application T~mings 4
Page 266 and 267:
266 WEED INDEX Abutilon theop~rosti
show all

Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society