Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

60 sbMmP.RClMJ:Sm'lIlil$ OF''IV.PeNr32,W v 1 ,ADIl SUBS':U!l'UrEDUREABEBBIClt8, _ R. ,n-~ Swe~~ J. o.C~ne and'acK,rp..:~. ~l'Jtotyqetable Crops, Cornell university In 1961, the Industrial and Biochemicals Departmeat of the E. I. Du Fon't de Nemours and Com.PanY, Inc., released to investisators Herbicide Jfo.326with the technical nameof 3-(3,4-DichlQl'OJlbenyl l)-l~.l-metbyl utea. The company.listed such attributes as pre-and post-emellpDee activity, relatively rapid disappearance from soil, aDdreJ.e.tively low :t;~ty to mammals. The herbicide was susgested pr:lme.rily U "post-emergeDM.t#rected spray on corn and pre ... mergen~on soybeens. Ot.1MIr-crops which ~\])e treatedwitb directional sprays were also stated as possibilities. carrots had been fouriii to be tolerarxb of berb:l;cidal quantities applied. as pre-emerpnt sprays. PreU m1nary reports indicated pre-emergence a~t1ons could~~Elrated by such crops, as snap, dry, and lima beans, squash.,4nd potatoes.' ~urY was found. on vegetables -1ncluding_ cucUlllbers, red beet.s,., and ,:toma~ " ". ". . ,. ,. ,. The purpose of the tests reported here wastp-o ~~. the .perf9rD18nQeof 326 on various vegeta:bles and nutgrass. Where'pre_rgence tolerance waS indicated, post-emerg«iUQetea'te _~ se~ly~t·. aJ,~s, conducted.. ,1--; L .-.) ~ " ,--j , Experiments with Carrots ,,,; 'j . . ', There were four tests with carrots; two were on coarse sand, one on s~ loam, and one on muck. The two on coarse sand were ab8ZIdoned after pre11.Dl1Dary n-ote taking due to severe crop damap. trom heavy st~. The muck test aDd the one on sandy loam soil involved botb'pre";' Ei.Ddpost-emergeat applications of about 25~tut." cl1emtcalsatsevere.l-zetes 0Cb. weM.")~8 were lIlBde~t ~. vals during' the season. "Although· Mrv'est. l1'eCOl'Cls W8ft '~n,. yields are 91-, questionaelevalue, cbec~" otf~ld rW;J'1ab:Uityp.beClUJSeweeds were.~ x: relllOved'p~"aa· tUybecame ~nt :I:n tbt.vadc~uB iP~ots. .' , .r c : , -I J.:.'" <strong>Weed</strong> and crop ratings of the mOre~ign1ficant llBter1als in' both thes8iJdy loam and the muck soU tests Qe·presented1.n behaved quite differently on thet"ilO--solls-.In" t.111e 1. regard Several materials to weed control, the pre-emergel1ee-applic:AiQlUJ ~C~, ,J:lact~, f'.ytt:OPj~.,~~ and D1J?be"N'1d were much less, etf~1."thOn mUQkto-. o~lIandy l~,·;;BQveVor, Pre":emerpnce treatments of Dtll'ont. ~6 .as 'weU.·"" .~U'lural~,;~~ ..and mc showed 110 si¢fic:ant 1nfiuence of so11 type on weed control. As wasto be expected., post -emerselSce:!lerb:r.c:tde.. ~re .1101; ~u~I;lqed. by. sou, ~ '.: .,. ,. ~'_::"l L ,(i: ~;-:-, ",., " :" ",!' ..,"', '~_ . Altbo~sb"'~' r,s~e"to .• r1?~s .1n"~'f¥l ..~.1nnuenced by herbicides, Dipbenamid was exceedingly toxic on sandy so11 and not harmful on muck toU. ~S1llce ~edpQ::.lt;r91. .. ~ P9Q.r."1,h .J>.1phenamidpn .the muck, it isprobablt!ltbe.t t.bis ..~... ' 1.&1 ...was.eit~ ...~~.~ rf- ..18bt.~.... adsor'!Jed or' quickly broken.aown_ S,1Doeop.,~.aoU ~phe . '_ ;.'p.~ ~tive1Y long lasting results, it is unl1ke~ that decompositioll'" as1mpoi"tant as adsorbtion. .c" ,-" • , f·
Table '1. Rat.1lISstI 'Of carrot and weed responses to herbioides six weeki _____ f!l!O!i~.Jl!B!t!D.s.._:.. .. ;:. ... __ ~ ... _ .'; .,'. .'". '. weeaa~l . Cro.JIH, .Qh!m!c!l__ '~b.!!..~ !1!!i!!,lC ~a~ !o!in: !U.!:k.: __ S~_l~~ _ ~__ Amiben ,2 gran. At p1anttns 7.0 2.0 B., s.o elPO Dacthal 326 326 4 II II 11'8.0' 3.0 s.o 7.0 4 II II 6.5 ',".lhO B.5.:di.5 8 ".. 7.5 ~.5 B.' ;8.0 6 (9') ,,~, 8.5, ""IIo~~' 9.0 ·'J·8·.o 12 "", 8.".0 9.0 BS 2~,~~~ ::: t~;. ,.0 ::g 1B., , 12 II II 7.5 l 4.0' 9.07.5 1/2(·) 1111 ,.0 9.0 , 1 II II 7.5 '-;.5 7~,6.5 1 1/2(3) "" 9.0 B.5 B.' "6., 1/2(-) Early Post 9.0 9.0-. 1 II." 9.0 8.5 B.o 6.,' . 1 1/2(3) II II 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.' Dip1'opalin 4At planting 7.5'3.0 9.0 9.0 8 It N . 8.0 .8)5~' 8.5 8.0 It .. Early' Poet 5.01'.0 9.0 ,'1740 8 ". ~ 1.5 t.o 8.5 ".5 TrlflUl'al1D 4 At plantil18 B., 7.' 8.57.5 8 II II 8.5 8.0 9.0 8.0 J)ip~eMlilld '4 "" B.5 c3.0 2.0 vs.c 8 II II. 9.0' "3.' 2.0;;' 8.0 lpazlM··.· . (30031) 1/2(·) II II' 6.0 8.5 1- ' II ". 5.0 6.5 8.5 1:1/2(2) ".. 6.0 j. 8.07.5' . ,1/2(·) Early Poirt . ,.0 .. B.o . 1 II II 5.0 6.5 8.0 1 1/2(2) "" 5.0 8.5 8.0 ·2 "" " 4.5 ,~o '8.5 .. II II ' 6.5 8.5 8.0 6 ( ..) II II 7.5 6.5 2 Sl-aD. Incorp. 5.5 6.0 8.0 6.5 4' 'I. II 6.5 'c'r 6;'0 7.0 6.5 Solvent 75 811. Early Poet 8.5 8.5 ~ Qb!c!. - ..,.': -,"'7' 1:-0_ -:~~ ~.~ 2..Q 7~__ !/Rat1ug of 9_perfect crop growth; complete weed kill. 7..commerclal crop growth; cOlllmerclal weed~rol. 5-moderatie·cropgrowtbJunacceptab1e weed control. 3-sev!tMcrop damase; poor weed control. J.oocropkill ; complete weed to1eranoe e- ~Pisures In parentbe&ls ·indicateWbel'e1".tesoD·~k differed from .tboee 'on the 'sandy 10Blll.., ---- ~--- _..I.."_ __ _. '1 ...11 .. __ ~ __ •• """'&_ft 61
Page 1 and 2:
PRESENTANDFUTtJU OF AQUATIC'. WIlD
Page 3 and 4:
Complete reports from 12 Nor~heaste
Page 5 and 6:
The reawakening in aquatic weed con
Page 7 and 8:
,10.1ng -2,4.,;iD (19), 2,4~5.T (4)
Page 9 and 10: 9 The Role of the State in Res idue
Page 11 and 12: ,., 1'4 keep developmental work in
Page 13 and 14: In addition to a review of field an
Page 15 and 16: State workers have to consider resi
Page 17 and 18: The vigorous regrowth of quackgrass
Page 19 and 20: during t,he sUllllller.is l,ower ll
Page 21 and 22: 5. llslapon and other chlorine,ted
Page 23 and 24: 23 • ·i INTRODUCTION: !!'he Bear
Page 25 and 26: Some damage to runners rssul ted fr
Page 27 and 28: 27 CELLSTRUCTUREANDPLANTGROWTHCRMON
Page 29 and 30: pel'fQ.,..d,-.ear17M1932. that the
Page 31 and 32: a copious precipitate deposits afte
Page 33 and 34: B) A general review of the subject
Page 35 and 36: This narrative of ineptitude must b
Page 37 and 38: does Jo run a recreational facility
Page 39 and 40: Another pote1U:ialuse for chemicals
Page 41 and 42: Newapproaches in the use of herbici
Page 43 and 44: 43 sentence would bear this out". T
Page 45 and 46: More and more each year since the a
Page 47 and 48: 11. Rice, E. J. The effects of cUlt
Page 49 and 50: PFSI'ICIDESUSED - - - - - - - - - -
Page 51 and 52: __..:I whether or not these apparen
Page 53 and 54: Dosage. Ib./acre Dimethyl tetrachlo
Page 55 and 56: ~ ~_~ __ L L Table 2. Weed Susceoti
Page 57 and 58: - - - - - - - - ~, - - - - --- - -
Page 59: Table 7.. Weed Control in :l:!c,Ql1
Page 63 and 64: H , 'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.
Page 65 and 66: 65 plant press and dried in a f~ced
Page 67 and 68: 67 Tablet. 'lIi! EFFECT'or AN'INO'l
Page 69 and 70: 69 THE INFLUENCE JIt P.I!ll'ROLEUM
Page 71 and 72: 71 1 CDEC(Ee) 2 " " 3 4 " 5 " " 6 7
Page 73 and 74: !a~l~ 1._ ~!:.c!: :!!1~hJl!:e.::m~d
Page 75 and 76: 75 EFFECT;OFCOMPOSITIONANDVOLUMEOF
Page 77 and 78: A LOGARITHMICSPRAlERFORSMALLPLCflSY
Page 79 and 80: 79 Do~ Calculations The actual init
Page 81 and 82: Selective Herbicides for Several Cr
Page 83 and 84: 83 Susceptible weeds Tolerant weeds
Page 85 and 86: 85 Marion Market 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Da
Page 87 and 88: Table 5. Bai
Page 89 and 90: weeding of Lima Bean. With Chemical
Page 91 and 92: EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONQUALITYANDYIEL
Page 93 and 94: Results Date treated: 9/6/61 Soil m
Page 95 and 96: 95 Date planted: 915/61 Date treate
Page 97 and 98: Table 3. Yield Data on Hanover and
Page 99 and 100: Weeding of Carrots With 'pre-lilanU
Page 101 and 102: 101 WEEDCONTROLSTUDIESIN SEElED ONI
Page 103 and 104: Weather conditions at the two locat
Page 105 and 106: In contrast to the damage noted in
Page 107 and 108: 107 Literature Cited 1. Althaus. R.
Page 109 and 110: Table 1. Weed control: stand of pla
Page 111 and 112:
Results and Discussion. The data, p
Page 113 and 114:
CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or
Page 115 and 116:
Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of p
Page 117 and 118:
'Ihree experiments were conducted i
Page 119 and 120:
a- Table 2_"COIIlpartsonof' Several
Page 121 and 122:
fJ Table 3. CcBparison of Several.
Page 123 and 124:
c
Page 125 and 126:
Table 1. Seeding and Weed Counts on
Page 127 and 128:
WEEDCONTROLANDTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SE
Page 129 and 130:
Following emergence of the tomato s
Page 131 and 132:
indicates that several of the treat
Page 133 and 134:
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Transplant Tom
Page 135 and 136:
harvest was covered with weeds, and
Page 137 and 138:
An additional 2 years of tests on f
Page 139 and 140:
~ Table 2 .--l Average Number and P
Page 141 and 142:
~ Table 4 Total Yields in Number an
Page 143 and 144:
"" ~ Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto
Page 145 and 146:
of weed eoneee I without inj ury 't
Page 147 and 148:
1. Associate Research Specialist in
Page 149 and 150:
Stulllll&ry A study was lh1tlatedto
Page 151 and 152:
Table 2. The residual effects of se
Page 153 and 154:
FURTHEROBSERVATIONS ONCONTROL OF TH
Page 155 and 156:
Table 3 - Mean per cent brake contr
Page 157 and 158:
lAssociate Research Spec1alist in W
Page 159 and 160:
PRE-E~mRGENCE WEEDCONTROLTEST IN RE
Page 161 and 162:
161 Table 2. Tolerance of Beets and
Page 163 and 164:
163 Results generally were good wee
Page 165 and 166:
USE OF GRANULAR CHl!H[CALAPPLICATOR
Page 167 and 168:
u.s. #1 potatoes and weed control e
Page 169 and 170:
0' ~ Table 2. Pre-emergent weed con
Page 171 and 172:
Table 3. Post-hilling weed control
Page 173 and 174:
~/Pe.nt>:r lITn. h.7(L T1o:oTl.,:r+
Page 175 and 176:
In table 2 are presettted weed a*1'
Page 177 and 178:
Since rec1root is only one of the I
Page 179 and 180:
w.l.th 3 and 4 Ibs. ot Randox per a
Page 181 and 182:
181 CONTROLOF ANNUALWEEDSIN pOTATOE
Page 183 and 184:
The following comments on the vario
Page 185 and 186:
185 S\:U!U!1fryand ConclWtlon No he
Page 187 and 188:
187 Table 2. Potato YIelds Followin
Page 189 and 190:
Residue analysis of potatoes treate
Page 191 and 192:
soil temperatures at the time the m
Page 193 and 194:
( ( ~able 2. Effect of Several Che~
Page 195 and 196:
195 PROBLEMSIN THEAPPLICATIONOF HER
Page 197 and 198:
197 scale tests on 2 cOlJllllercial
Page 199 and 200:
l!!!! Experiment A factorial experi
Page 201 and 202:
frOlll plot. at .horter i*nalt (~ t
Page 203 and 204:
6.50 Table 1. Effe,ct of p"e- an
Page 205 and 206:
205 EVALUATION0It' DACTHAL * HERBIC
Page 207 and 208:
The 1959 and 1960 replicated field
Page 209 and 210:
209 TABLEII Average Weed Cont~l Exh
Page 211 and 212:
Where the weed eompleJl;conststs of
Page 213 and 214:
...... 1.67, 213 Table 1. Effect of
Page 215 and 216:
215 Table 2. Bffect of pre-plant he
Page 217 and 218:
.217 Pive pre-plant herbicide. were
Page 219 and 220:
219 Table 1. Effect of pre-p1anthel
Page 221 and 222:
Table 2. tilat' of pre-plantbftb.tc
Page 223 and 224:
l EVALUATIONOF THREEHERBICIDESONPnE
Page 225 and 226:
TABLE2. TIll HIGHESTlATEOFHERBICIDE
Page 227 and 228:
Because of the lush growth of quack
Page 229 and 230:
Table 2. Effects of Herbicides on Q
Page 231 and 232:
Table 3. Effects of Herbicides on A
Page 233 and 234:
233 The inhibitory activity was ass
Page 235 and 236:
non-polar solvents. Table 5 shows t
Page 237 and 238:
237 Figure I Bioassay of cbrOlll4to
Page 239 and 240:
239 Weed Control and Residual Effec
Page 241 and 242:
Rototilling was done in June·' SO
Page 243 and 244:
243 in the spring of 1961 preceedin
Page 245 and 246:
WEEDCONTROL.AR
Page 247 and 248:
Li£erature Cited 1. Chappell. W. E
Page 249 and 250:
Tl'eatments ghing un.811~!8facto%'y
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1. Designa t ion Am1l:)en .\
Page 253 and 254:
Table 3. Percent Broadleat Weed Con
Page 255 and 256:
,255 CONTROLOF ANNUALWlmDSIN swDT C
Page 257 and 258:
of Casoron per acre was statistical
Page 259 and 260:
~.-! _ 1.37 ~ Table 2. Sweet Corn Y
Page 261 and 262:
Table 4. Peroent Control ot Ann.ual
Page 263 and 264:
EVALUATIONOF FIVE _~p>I!:S FOR KILL
Page 265 and 266:
265 STRAWBERRY HERBICIDEINVESTIGATI
Page 267 and 268:
267 Table 2. Eftect Of'herbicidet~e
Page 269 and 270:
'h ", 4. Tillam lOG at 5 lb/A a.i.
Page 271 and 272:
Asparagus The results of weed contr
Page 273 and 274:
273 TABLEII. ~1EED CONTROLANDYIELD
Page 275 and 276:
~ C'l TABLE tv. lIEE» OON1T..OLAND
Page 277 and 278:
WEEDCONTROLIN TRANSPLANT TOMATOES (
Page 279 and 280:
279 ·QUACKGRASSCONTROL S.M. Raleig
Page 281 and 282:
281 table II. The control of:'4oaek
Page 283 and 284:
no cultivation during the growing s
Page 285 and 286:
SummaryandConclu.1Qp' 1. A quackgra
Page 287 and 288:
If or where farmer acceptance of a
Page 289 and 290:
,~, ~ Tab1.e II. Chemical. Treatmen
Page 291 and 292:
so11 per plot at each sampling date
Page 293 and 294:
418' 293 Table III Main Eff,ects of
Page 295 and 296:
Table V, }nt ...... e..• ,fa~, I;
Page 297 and 298:
plots showed smaller decreases with
Page 299 and 300:
FURTHEREVALUmONor HERBICIDESFal· W
Page 301 and 302:
301 In the SUIIIIIlf)1' seeding, th
Page 303 and 304:
The results were similar to those o
Page 305 and 306:
In another experiment, loam soil wa
Page 307 and 308:
apparently due to severe competitio
Page 309 and 310:
ab1e 2. Average dry weight of corn
Page 311 and 312:
311 The most strllt~Mrr~ct. ~fiIIJI
Page 313 and 314:
313 RE9lfm'$~lfI)DI3CtlSSION '1.",
Page 315 and 316:
315 LrrERATURECITED 1. Fertig, Stan
Page 317 and 318:
.~ pattern following applications o
Page 319 and 320:
Ratings at the time of'gJ;Vllst; al
Page 321 and 322:
THERESPONSEOF NUTGRASS TO HERBIC~I)
Page 323 and 324:
'\.......- TABLE2. Ratings of Nutgr
Page 325 and 326:
All treatments produced si~1f~c~tly
Page 327 and 328:
A 327 WEBDe
Page 329 and 330:
. Eli'FECTSali' WEEDSON YIELD AND"G
Page 331 and 332:
Pollen Maturity: ",l. ,. Broadleaf
Page 333 and 334:
'--' The applicators were tested un
Page 335 and 336:
335 Figure 1. The effeetof partic1e
Page 337 and 338:
337 SRFeader 1 On this spreader onl
Page 339 and 340:
Table 4. The effect of speed, p~~cl
Page 341 and 342:
Table 1: Herbicidal treatments used
Page 343 and 344:
·000 .000, I II ! WEEDCONTROLRATIN
Page 345 and 346:
2.5000 CORNINJURY EXPRESSEDAS SQUAR
Page 347 and 348:
347 1. 2. Danielson. l , ;4. L. Ef~
Page 349 and 350:
',-- 34~ 3-(3 ..4-Dichlorophenyl)-1
Page 351 and 352:
weed control with adequate safety t
Page 353 and 354:
Untreated Table 2. Directed Post-E"
Page 355 and 356:
.s .... __ Table 7. Pre-Emel'ae~eWe
Page 357 and 358:
experiment is reported herE!. Trifl
Page 359 and 360:
Results are given. in Table 4~J'Rot
Page 361 and 362:
In Princeton fine sand, tritlupalin
Page 363 and 364:
Included in the lima. bean test wer
Page 365 and 366:
Table 1. The Effects ofS8veral form
Page 367 and 368:
Table 3. The effects of several for
Page 369 and 370:
369 Table 5. The effects of sev~ral
Page 371 and 372:
• ~ : .• \ • ' -' ..,,:- ',-"
Page 373 and 374:
Heights of barley were significantl
Page 375 and 376:
Table 2. The effe,cts of s~\I'~ral
Page 377 and 378:
Table 4. 377 The effects of aevel8.
Page 379 and 380:
,:' A PROGRESSREPORTONCOMIo!ERCIAL
Page 381 and 382:
4. Undesirable dead stem.,lio not r
Page 383 and 384:
areas under service conditionsa~ va
Page 385 and 386:
We ,prpbablyhave no speeie of g~owt
Page 387 and 388:
control. At the end of the third ye
Page 389 and 390:
initial defoliation was evident lat
Page 391 and 392:
OBJECTIVE In 1958 an experiment was
Page 393 and 394:
Replicates DlO 810 I 2.0 0.5 II 1.5
Page 395 and 396:
DISCUSSION One Year After Applicati
Page 397 and 398:
1. Button, E.F. Bndwrfg'h~';J .L. ,
Page 399 and 400:
399 The treatment consisted of appl
Page 401 and 402:
401 FIELD PROCEDURES Although. the
Page 403 and 404:
403 In the light of these data it a
Page 405 and 406:
405 ...·1!MLE I SAMPLECHARACTERIST
Page 407 and 408:
407 , '.". '.·',',~'l~rL,i;'. "\"
Page 409 and 410:
dltterent l"atespacaoreand"~"at thr
Page 411 and 412:
411 RESULTS ireatmentettect was det
Page 413 and 414:
, 413 ;. ' "1 ' "':j " • made wit
Page 415 and 416:
( ( . Table 3. Effectiveness on Spe
Page 417 and 418:
417 FENURQlt,A PROMISINGNEWTOOL FOR
Page 419 and 420:
There are a number of reaso~ for un
Page 421 and 422:
.n_ots, "'hhin a few months after:
Page 423 and 424:
sater method ot tree-killing close
Page 425 and 426:
Material ~izone is a,mixedf~g.. t w
Page 427 and 428:
427 On November 16, 1961, at the en
Page 429 and 430:
CHBMI-THINNINGWITH,AIrlINES IN THED
Page 431 and 432:
These tests show once aaaiJithe nee
Page 433 and 434:
Th:Ls ch!~ca1. tx'eatme:n1!_1IhClJ.
Page 435 and 436:
: if.. . ' A Comparative Study of t
Page 437 and 438:
'j 437 petioles, now elongated,f'or
Page 439 and 440:
Helisoma, Menetus, fhYSa andValvata
Page 441 and 442:
i s. The benth1c populat1Q~ W¥", O
Page 443 and 444:
443 Eurasian. wa~lfoil a W8t.f~~ ap
Page 445 and 446:
Empb4sis was on testing DOD-volatil
Page 447 and 448:
447 . , , -. I':'V'est~a.ti
Page 449 and 450:
FIELDOBSERVATIONS UPONESTUARINE ANI
Page 451 and 452:
more than 2 feet. ExceptionalUdes s
Page 453 and 454:
TABLE1. Responseof oysters t~ diffe
Page 455 and 456:
In the'Dundee Creek series. ,one of
Page 457 and 458:
workers. springer (1961) cite8& num
Page 459 and 460:
OBSERVATIONSONTHE OCCURRENCE' ANDPE
Page 461 and 462:
461 TABLE! Chemical Water QuaU1?::r
Page 463 and 464:
TABLEIII Threshold Taste and Odor C
Page 465 and 466:
(1.1-) Burttschell, R.H. , et al.,
Page 467 and 468:
Code A - seeded June 29 B - seeded
Page 469 and 470:
SUIIIIJ~, ~ Conclusions 5' 469 The
Page 472 and 473:
III. Average turf scores l' of thre
Page 474 and 475:
474 PIft'J'OTOXICBlFBQTS'QJe'CBRTAI
Page 476 and 477:
476 MERIONBLUEGBASS• T!BATANDsgD
Page 478 and 479:
478 In general. the treatments appl
Page 480 and 481:
4BJ days follow:lng the ohemical tr
Page 482 and 483:
') ') ' :_B!.ue~s•. Fescue au:l~"
Page 484 and 485:
:". ',J P~E~ C!',. O~.C~G~S 'F.~HEM
Page 486 and 487:
Lima and ferd'1izer applications sh
Page 488 and 489:
4es 1'.o~~1ty, ", .ewf!r''''rsenc.
Page 490 and 491:
} ) Table 1. Besu):ta.Qf 1961 pre-e
Page 492 and 493:
492 corresponding plots on este.bl1
Page 494 and 495:
494 ae.u!s,'I!IIDi,cua.:Lon leUllll
Page 496 and 497:
496 D±!3pa,~n~ Resul te)I? .,l-ta,
Page 498 and 499:
498 1 . 1 J. E. Gallagher and n. J.
Page 500 and 501:
500 Da1;ejJ01 e~uations ~,a.;t'ollC
Page 502 and 503:
502 TADLEIt Comparison of "severalc
Page 504 and 505:
504 TADLE3: Pre-oemergence and poet
Page 506 and 507:
506 Table 1. Re8eeding Resulte:afit
Page 508 and 509:
5"8 d1propalin ortrifluralin 'at ':
Page 510 and 511:
510 aUlIPIl iri '-1: ' D" "" Diphen
Page 512 and 513:
Fall ve. spriif ~nts .. 'Ibe",obl1.
Page 514 and 515:
514 ~ Tab1e2. Cr&bgraS$'Contr01 in
Page 516 and 517:
516 ,';1:".i'"'f'!r": :~,j i: .. r
Page 518 and 519:
. ~lS residual cemtrol of crabgrssi
Page 520 and 521:
520 - . \.. ; ."," ,
Page 522 and 523:
5~2 'rab4t13.· ~gtnc. ·QGabtiol:o
Page 524 and 525:
524 PRE.._RGENCE AMU' POsT-EHERGENC
Page 526 and 527:
526 Table 1. 'l'a):lsra,. ContrO.k1
Page 528 and 529:
528 Pre- andpost ..emergejljCec:rab
Page 530 and 531:
530 Prior to each chemical applicat
Page 532 and 533:
u 532 3) Those trea.t,mellts which
Page 534 and 535:
Table I (Coot'd) 27. JSc.F,~iOe t$~
Page 536 and 537:
536 EXPERIMENTS ONTHECHOOCALCOIm'l)
Page 538 and 539:
~______ , 53S Table 1: Control of c
Page 540 and 541:
54' In a similar po st-ell1~rgence
Page 542:
542 da~hal and diphenatrile) at ear
Page 545 and 546:
.. ";' -:' il; JT!.: .'\ i~'J" ; ~J
Page 547 and 548:
541 Distr:tbution of radioacti~tl t
Page 549 and 550:
549 •RESULTS The distribution of
Page 551 and 552:
GRAPHII: Comparison of the~.tl;'i~u
Page 553:
"-...-.. J.4 The distribution of r~
show all

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

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

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society