Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

, 413
;. ' "1 ' "':j " •
made with an: aaid equivalent of one1pound per- acre II 8%;liitwo sets were made
at one and one~ pourlds per .~.. , Tb$ are_so _,.~ were abandoned fields
invaded by harc11n:lpds'wh:l.chad",. pl8Jlted to odiJifere. Most of the vegetat1.on'WaS
less than th1rty teett~taiu~' ,. I •
, .". " I
Test 7, om 'poo1ld 2, 4, '-T:':1n 2.~ gallODe ,dfl1'Uill 0:1.1per aare., was
matohed aga:l.tlBt Test 8, one poua:J4,1nvert 2, 4, ,..,~ ~ ..'O gallonstuel o~l
and 1. 75 g~ns Of water. In t1ltlditterentsi tuattoliS· on different days ,
(Tests 9 lUld,cll) the oil JIlixture~:.pplied at one _,one-halt pounds per acre
was matohed against the invert se».wtion applied a~ ~, S8lll8 rate per acre
(Tests 10 and 12). .. : ': f • '
, I
Good hardWOodcontrol was "oh:1~Ved on ell siX,ar •• s treated, and the
invert ell.llsion ,ave control wblI.'lh' 'Comparedfa~·~th the stander,d p:l.1
lIl1xtUres (Table' :2). There appees to be little ditterence :in suscept1bil it 7
a.mo:cgthe speoies when treated .a.th the two mixtun, ,(fable 3). There 11M
less drift with the, invert emul8~oni which reduced~ effeotive range ot,'1ihe
blowers. Treated st1'ips should! be less than twentliitl1'88tin width it sattftactory
,ooverage,18 to be atW1:led .a.th invert eDQ1eiOns. These tests 'Mj:iUld
iXldicat'ethat this material oanille more safely used I tban regular 2, 4, 5..l '
where danger of damage to agriOU1tural crops CXl'other nearby vegetation is a
taotor.'
I
It was hoped that greater he1ght penetration lIIDU1d be achieved with. ~
invert eII.Ilsions th'a1').with re~2, 4, 5-T,beoauaethe droplets ere ot:
largersize. Th1s :t'esuJ.t wasno,:eVident, however,lon any 01' the three tests.
An exam:l.mtion of the eUeets 01' the various, hi:'bicides tested on ~oies
groups (Table 3) 'does not indicaije that one mixture; is effective on one $7OUP
of species and not eftective onanother. The herbieid~s which proved mo$'t
et'£ective were equa1J.y efteotive on:en species at ~d'lOQd and about equal
in their damage to -cO%liters. ' i
~
,. '
Costs ,are 'bf,Setloni88 acres *ayed in' f~t4!I'n'llO'.rld.Dg days in 1~9
and 1960. 'Costs rqe trom $6.17 to $10.73 per acre (Table 4). Materi$,
labor, and,machine costs increase' with the QPP'lic¢on. at more material per
acre. The use 01' 0:1.1in the mixturesinoreases tlJel cost modestly but improves
hardwood eontl'ol greatly.'Increasi:cg ~ v.cJ,ume01' herbicide applied
may some:whatiIDprove hardwood ~tl'ol at a ,s~tant11!J. increase in oost tCXl'
the small gain attained. Howe~, oosts tor even :tIe most expensive app1!­
cation are stillV8r7reasonable4t'$J,.0.73 per acr~:fCll' a siIlgle treatment.
It some additional spraying is %lece~sary to achieve:tlJe results desired,
costs will be increased accCXl'dingJ.r~ Two light' ~s at one pound per
aore will proba~y give better !'onttol for the DJonCt spent than one sprey
at the two-pOUIld'~ aore level~ C . . .