Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

34 EVAL ATION OF HERBICIDE PROGRAMS FOR MUGWORT CONTROL IN CORN M.Y. Day, B.S. Hagood, Jr., and S.M. Johnson' ABSTRACT Fie d experimentswere conducted in 1995 and 1996 in Westmoreland County, Virginiato evaluate h rbicide programs for the control of mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) in field com (Zea mays L.). I experiments were conducted using a randomized complete block design with four replicatio on a Leaf silt loam soil of pH 6.2 and 1.5% organic matter content. Com ('Pioneer 3163') was planted in 76-cm rows at approximately48,900 seeds/ha on May 8, 1995 and May 25, 1996.Indi dual plots consisted of 4 com rows 7.6 m in length, where the inner two rows received treatment d the outer rows served as borders. Herbicide applications were made with a CO 2 pressurize backpack sprayer delivering210 llha of water at 220 kPa using flat fan spray tips. In both exp . ents, the effects of two primary independent variables, herbicide treatment and applicatio timing, were evaluated. Herbicide applicationtimings included preemergenceto com, earlyposte ergence (5-6 leaf com), and late postemergence (10-15 leaf com). Mugwort heights in 1995 and 1996 were 5-15 and 5-10 em, 20-25 and 15-20 em, and 30-45 and 20-25 em for preemerg ce, early postemergence, and late postemergence application timings, respectively. Herbicide eatmentsincluded2,4-D, clopyralid,flumetsulamplus clopyralid,2,4-D plus clopyralid, and 2,4-D plus clopyralid plus flumetsulam.One rate of 2,4-D was used, while varying rates of clopyralid dlor flumetsulamwere evaluated.Dependentvariablesevaluatedincluded crop response, mugwort ontrol, and com yield. All data were subjected to appropriate analysisof variance and mean sep ation at the 0.05 significancelevel. No herbicide treatment caused a significantreduction in com vigor in either 1995 or 1996. Mugwort ontrol was highlydependent on herbicidetreatment, rate, and timingof application.No treatment hichdidnot containclopyralidaffordedgreaterthan 58% mugwort control in either year. Amongcl yralidcontainingtreatments,mugwort control varied as a functionof clopyralidrate and timingof plication. Neither the addition of2,4-D nor flumetsulamto clopyralidprovided greater mugwort ntrolthanthe controlobservedwith clopyralidalone. In 1995, applicationsof clopyralid madeat th earlypostemergencetimingprovidedsignificantlygreater control than applicationsmade at the earli or later timing,where the 0.15 kg/ha rate afforded approximately70% control and the 0.30 kglh rate approximately 85% control. In 1996, clopyralid applications made at the late postemerg ce timingprovidedsignificantlygreater mugwort control than that observed with earlier applicatio , where rates of 0.15 and 0.30 kglha again provided approximately70 and 85% control, respectivel . In both studies,the timingof optimumsusceptibilityoccurred when mugwort was 20-25 em in hei 1.No significanteffects of herbicidetreatments on com stand were observed, and com yield varie as a function of mugwort control. Grad.Res. Asst,Professor, and WestmorelandCo. Ext. Agent, Dept. of Plant Pathol., Physiol.and <strong>Weed</strong> Sci. VPI+SU, Blacksburg, Va 24061.
35 Effect OfPO~T ApplicationTimingof FiveHerbicideson BurcucumberControl in Com. i D.T. Messersmithand W.S. Curran' ABSTRACT Burc~umber (SiC. yo. angulatusL.) isbecomingan increasinglydifficultto control weed in agro omic crops throughout the Northeast. Severalnew postemergencecom (Zea mays L. herbicidesmaybe effectiveon burcucumber,however specificdata on burcucumber ontrol is lacking. A pos emergencetimingstudywas conductedon establishedpopulationsof burcucumber n com at two Pennsylvanialocationsin 1995and againin 1996. Prosulfuron, rimisulfuron,halosulfuron,and flumichloracwere appliedat a singlerate (0.036,0.036 0.063,.and 0.040 lb ai/Arespectively)and two postemergencetimings. A prosulfuron primisulfurontreatment (0.036Ib ai/A)was added to the study in 1996. Crop oil con ntrate was includedwith alltreatmentsat 1.0%(v/v) except flumichlorac which receiv d non-ionicsurfactantat 0.25% (v/v). Treatmentswere applied 10to 14 days apart eit er earlypostemergenceto 3-leafcom and cotyledonaryto 2-leaf burcucumberlorlate postemergenceto 6-leafcom and 5-leafburcucumber. Individual plot size mea§red 10by 25 feet, and treatmentswere arrangedin a randomizedcomplete block design ith 4 replications. Parametersmeasuredincludedburcucumberdensity, visual estima es of burcucumbercontrol, and burcucumberbiomassproduction. I Burcfumber emergencestarted in earlyMay and continuedthrough mid-August each year in e untreated plots. EarlyJune burcucumberdensityacross all locations ranged from; to 1 plant/squarefoot and averaged0.35 plants/squarefoot. Regardlessof June burcucumberdensity,untreated plots were over run withburcucumberby late season. Prosulfuron provided98 and 96% controlof burcucumberin 1995and 1996, respectively.IControl with primisulfuronwas 85% in 1995and 93% in 1996,and differencesbetween prosulfuronand primisulfuronwere seldomsignificant.Burcucumber biomassproduction in tbe prosulfuronand primisulfurontreatmentswas not differentin either year. jhe prosulfuron+ primisulfuroncombinationwas similarto eitherproduct alone. Flumichloracand halosulfuronwere ineffectiveat providingSeasonlong control of burcucumbenin both years of the study. The late postemergencetreatmentsappearedto provide better late season control of burcucumber,especiallyin 1996,althoughthe differences~ere not significant. This study suggeststhat prosulfuron,primisulfuron,and prosulfurontprimisulfuroncan be effectivefor managingburcucurhberin com. However, m re research is neededto identifyoptimumpostemergenceapplicationtiming. I I I lGrad. Res. {\sst. and Assoc. Prof. of <strong>Weed</strong> Sci.,Dept. of Agron., The PennsylvaniaState University,{jJniversityPark, PA 16802 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
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 and 20: 19 cover the sta~es in the Northeas
Page 21 and 22: 21 I TABLEt CORN WEED CONTROL EFFIC
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: I I i 33 I EFFECT$ OF EXP 31130A AN
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society