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.

<strong>Weed</strong>ing of Carrots With 'pre-lilanUng, Pre ..emergence and<br />

Po.t-emerget!ceApplicatlonl ·of Chemicals<br />

Ch~r1e. J. No11 1<br />

<strong>Weed</strong>control hvery impbl''tant iii the early It ••• S of growth of carrot ••<br />

Moat coaaercia1 cropa of carrota.ate' aprayed for ".14control with Stoddar.d<br />

Solvent. Other chemical. have without recent years benn found to be effective.<br />

This year's work is a contin~tion of work .tarted a number of year.:<br />

ago.<br />

PROCEDURE<br />

The seedbed was prepared, pre.p1anting treaauent. applied and .eed.<br />

planted Kay 2. Pre-planting treatments were incprporated in the .011 with<br />

e rototiller .et shallow. The variety grown was Chantenay, red core. The<br />

pr.,:,,8IIIergenceapplications were made 1 or 3 days after seeding and post- '.<br />

emergence applications were made 33 day. after seeding when carrots had .<br />

their first true leaves. Individual plots were 28 f.et long and 2 feet<br />

wide. Treatments were randomized in each of 8 block ••<br />

The cheatca1s were applied with • small sprayer over the row for a wiath<br />

of 12 inche.. Cultivation controlled the weed. between the rows. Anest.:L".<br />

mat. of wee.~contro1 was made July 28 ona basis of 1 to 10, 1 being mo.t<br />

des~r.b1e and 10 being least deillr8ble. Carrotharve.t was completed Oct. 6.<br />

RESULTS<br />

. The results are presented in table 1. All treatment. except the po.t~<br />

emergence Deetb.1' treatment significantly increa.ed weed control as compared<br />

to the untreated check. The belt veed control tre8llleDts were in the so11 iilcorporation<br />

treatments of Ti11am at·~ 1bs. per acre, in the pre~emergence<br />

treatments 0.£.PrOllletryne at 3 1bs. per acre, Ipal1ne at 3 1bs. per acre,<br />

U 4513 at 3 lb •• per acre and Amiben at 5 1bs. per acre and in the postemergence<br />

treatment of Solan at 6 lb •• per acre. The stand of plants was<br />

significantly better than that of the untreated check with the post-emerg8ace<br />

treabaent. of Amiben at S 1bs. per acre aad Solan at'6 lb •• per acre. Many<br />

other chemicals had a .tand equal to the check. Significant increasea in<br />

yield as compared to the untreated plot were found in the following treated<br />

plots: in the .oi1 incorporation treatment R-1856 at 4 and 6 1bs. per acre;<br />

in the pre-emergence treatments of Herb. 326 at 2 1bs. per acre, U 4513 at<br />

2 1be. per acre, zytron at 10 and 15 1bs. per acre, Amibenat 5 lbe. per acre<br />

and Dactha1 W-50 at 8 lbs. per acra; and in the post-emergence treatment of<br />

Amiben at 5 1bs. per acre and Solan at 4 and 6 lbe. per acre.<br />

CQ,NCLUSION<br />

Taking into coaa1derat10n weed control, stand of plante and yield the<br />

best two treatments were the post-emergence treatments of Solan at 6 1be. per<br />

acre and Amibenat 5 lbs. per acre. Other chem1cale that look promising for<br />

the weeding of this crop are R~1856, Herb. 326, U 4513, Zytron and Dactha1.<br />

99<br />

1.. .._.... • .I! ..... 'I __ .. _._1 .. _~_-. ft ... ... _I: u __ .. ,,_ ...' .... _6 ,.".11<br />

4 ft<br />

..... ",

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!