08.06.2015 Views

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

224<br />

_lUtTS<br />

The data on number of -.dlllalt lta~.d.iI tOtalt1me of weeding,<br />

presented in Table 1, luggest that the t~ee herbicidel gave comparable<br />

weed control,att.ir lowest, ~d41e and highel&:;~.. relpect1~ly.<br />

An exception ii noted in the p4!rell.ftid,. that tbe tille required to we.cl<br />

th.lowe',trate of ca'Oron wae ile.. erthat of thet;heck than the low<br />

rate, at tha ot~r. cl.'-icals., .' .Tbeshorter t~e~~«ded far annuab<br />

allcomparedw1.th perennials wullue to the slD81~ei,plot ,iz.s and probal>ly<br />

better sol1 preparation before ,t~' herbicidel, wer,.8PP1f.ed.,<br />

TABLE1. NUMBEROF WIlDINGSAND. TIMBREQUIUD,l!'JU)MMAY31 TO AUG•. 3, 1961.<br />

PLOTSWIRE 96 SQUAREPDT PoR PERENNIALSAND48' SQUAREFIET FORANNUALS.<br />

PJB!rwi<br />

HERBICIDES.~lW:I. ,NO. or", TOTALWElDING ~. OF<br />

None<br />

CIPC<br />

CIPC<br />

CIPC<br />

S~<br />

SlMUtNB<br />

SIMA~:m,<br />

CASORON<br />

CASORON<br />

CA30RON<br />

':t::-"'--::::-"'~~~:..::===:'<br />

ANNUALS<br />

TOTAL WDD'UG<br />

(l",./A) WEED~HGi', TDG!,(Minut.s>*' 'WBBDINGSTDG! (Mimat.s>*<br />

7 1/2<br />

15<br />

30<br />

1<br />

24<br />

2'<br />

4<br />

8<br />

*Average of t~ee<br />

3 ll; 181 '2<br />

2 if 73 2<br />

2 SS 1<br />

1 30 1<br />

~, ~ ~<br />

1 34 F:; 1<br />

2 141 2<br />

1 46 1<br />

1 24 1<br />

replications.<br />

, The re.~on,e of eaen .,ecl •• to each rate ol,;tbe her~icide at t~,<br />

two dat.' of observation haa been prepared but hal motbeen included in,<br />

this peper in order to conserve space. Anyone lnt'erested in obtaining<br />

these details.".y request copies .from .the junior ~thor. Table 2<br />

sU~r1.. stb re.ult,s by ebbWil1J',the highest tat.' ~,feach chemicalt~<br />

wa. tolerated by the plante. ' ,<br />

None of the chemicals tested was lafe for all plante. In fact,<br />

eight epee ie' ,could not tolerate even the loweat ute of any· of the tu ..<br />

herbicides., .More plants could tolerate CIPC thp I~z:l.ne and casoron.!<br />

The datapre.ented in Table 2wo~i4 allow one to choose certain plants'<br />

ofll,"r\tich o~~lIIQI'e of the ~J;'~f.cide. might be ~.dl!ucceuful1)' for<br />

controlling weeds~ It 1& belleved, however, thAt' wide acceptall,Ce of<br />

chemical weed control on these herbaceous ornamentals will depend upon<br />

develop~ntof materiale. f~,,~~~olls or appl~o.Uo. techniques that<br />

wUl be eafe for a wider variety of speciel.'<br />

This work was perUafly supported by a grant from the Columbia<br />

Southern Chemical COlIIPany.<br />

53,<br />

27<br />

12<br />

11<br />

22<br />

13<br />

9<br />

22<br />

9<br />

15

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!