Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

PRESENTANDFUTtJU OF AQUATIC'. WIlD· CONTROL 

. 1 

F. L. TiDlllons 

1 

The iapottanc.Jof aquatic aud aarginal weeds ead their control i. dosely 

related to' theii.portance and value of water. Wae.r i. now or is rapidly 

HCOllling the IIOst precious and limiting resource ift'lIOst parts of our country. 

Deficiencies in quantity or quality of available wetaT limit agriculture, 

in~strial and ut~an 'development, navigation,:or r.ecreetion in msny are ••• 

Therefore, it is not surprising that aquatic and"l'ginal weeds that waste 

water, X\8duce Wlter quality, :tnterferewith aconCllllic u'es of water, and 

prevent ite free and timely flow through waterways8hould cause general " 

puDlicconcern. 

' 

Aquatic weeds may be grouped into the following types: filamentous algae, 

nonf:tlamentousalgae, floating, rooted submersed, rooted emersed, and marginal 

weeds. Tbese,.types of weeds cause losses or create public nuisances 'in 

aquatic areaainaany ways. They may reduce the flow in canals and streams, 

and interfere with navigation, delivery of irrigation water or drainage of 

excess water and may cause flooding. breakage ,of canal' 'banks, 'or damage to 

bridps and.,,other structures and. _y resul't in salt""wat:er 'intrusion in lowlying 

coastal. areas during drought periods. Algae and ,other aquatic wee4. 

may affect the health and comfort of people and lh.stock by' causing unde'" 

sirable odor .. or, tastes in potable water, harborin's'insect pests and vectots 

of human di .. aae., and interfering with proper .ewe~ disposal and stre .. ' 

sanitation. Many forms of aquatic vegetation are nuisances in fishing and 

bathing areas and in wildlife habitats. Emersed aquatic weeds such as cattaUs 

2 

wera infested with alluatic .. adticaDd, 395,020 .cree.to. infestad with b.nk 

weeds. Total estilllated losses of water caused by ... ds in 1957 was 

1,966,068 acre-f.at. This watar'.a. v.1u.d .t $3,626,742 at tha farmer'. 

h.adgat •• nd h.d .n estimat.d nat productive v.1ue of $39,321,360. The coat 

of oth.r d..... ,jb' the we.d .... $2.112,422.; Til. ',&Iotabco.t of we.dcODtro1 

on irr1aaUoD s,st .. in the 17 West.mStat .. 1* 1957 •• s'$8;113;297. '0ftf.s· 

cost &dduto"th.lo .... ·fr,omweed. brought tha 'total.'&1UIO&1co.tof .... _ 

we.tern.lrrLgat1onaod drdn ... a,.t:em. tonead, $JO .Ulloo. Incf:deItli.U}'; 

the •• tilllated lo .... pr.ventecl by.the .xpenditure " .• ,,113,297 for: '*IIJ.iIW' 

·.ndb.nk weed coat.-oJi J.n US7 '.8$15,860.026, .neo'· ... in' of $7,746,7·2";: 

This was a. 'U!e~l. ~.l',r:.tlII'a Oft the Natiaa ' •. i,llW8tl1ent 1a r .... n:h, 

extansion, .~ .~thereffOL"t. c!u.eted toward the d~Opment and u••. ot 

improved method. of controlling wad. in the irrigation and draina ... y.~' 

of tha West. 

No equall,'~ahen.lv.and, ~liabla data .r&·,available on tha extent'of 

aquatic,an4, INrg1nal .. ed probl ••• , tha 10.. es c.u'" by t~,. anel the ~t 

· and C08ta of.con~ol 1n oth.r parte,of·the United 8.tate8. However, 11'....... 

tary ,infonllU;1on,1nc1ll:&ce. that' "u-.1:ic wed probl __ ,ai:'eju.t a. critiCal '£11 

other ~rt. of·thecountrya •. ill ,tll1eWe.t. It was .. twated ' in' 1947 (5)" tllat 

tbeZ'. Tiler. SOO.OOQacreS of LouiaJ1ana w.terway .. anclwat1and. iftfe.tecl wi.' 

wat.~hyac1nth .~alU.a.torweed. P1gure. suppLi.d, bptbe U. S. Arw,y,c.,..of 

Engineer. (3)sh9W. that over, $511l1111/.onwas 'pa1lt.eeau-oll1ng waterhyaciath. 

in.Louisiana, Pl~jda, .and Al.~.•~et1Men 1905 .lId ,11155.' The inh.tat1Gif'ln 

·Louisi-. ba.be., I'educed aboutJJ.O''P'rcent to 2S0.GOOaere. eccording ItO' C 

reCeDt .atilllltea." , 

. ;,-' 

The Central and Swthern 110dela Flood Ccm-Crol;Diatr ict ba. a De tWork~ 

of SOOlll118. of ~ulec.n.h f. 1Ib1chthe 8II"u..i.l~cb.it...of aqu.Uc .e.clt 

control exc.ede "50.000. In .del1U.on, about' $30,000" 11. .,.Rt ennually fOlt' 

aquatic weed control 1n the ... 11er irrigation and drainage ditche •• ervina 

15,570 .quarelllUuof agricultutal land in soutb ..... n:noru.. c 

~ .'I 

One way to e.tilDat. the potedia1 .qu.t1c'wead.~ 'prob1a.in tbaUnited'" 

State. i. to det.rmine the extent of different aquatic area. in which weed 

problems could o~ur. PerUnen~.:'d.~ onth.t qu•• t~~tm·fr.tl!e 1949 or 1954 

Agricultural Censu•• nd the 1961 Statistical A~str.ct of the United State. 

are suauriled lll'table 1. .,. 

. . j"""" . " ".: ., ~ 

In an attelllPt to obtaill ufo_tion on the axteatof ,,,.ed prob1ema.iD 

th .. e aquatic. ~as .nc! on the •• teat of control PIl0p'aliI.; _ thode ,uMd ,',.ef 

co.tI of· cOllt1lo1.a questionnaiJ:e'!tlype, surv.y ".s iaittated in Septellbe~ "lM1. 

Queat1onnaire. on,the prob1-eIll,in .•Iam pond., drU"",,41tcb!lls. and 1rdallltl.OD 

c.n.1e weI'. sent to all SO State Agricultural Expert.ent Station. and 

que.t1onnair .. on ,inland uturaJ,,·lia .... nd wat.ervay."uelar,tiflcial illpoad 

.. nte stoehed. witb' fish were ·se.'·,tO,J'f:.h.nd a-·rcc-l.a1on. or 

Con.aryat1on DePM'_ftte In all 54' atate.. . "'; 

i -; 

aepl tes rece1vecl frOll 38SUta Ixper1ment Statf:Ont .nd 31· PUh and 0 

C~.s1on. iDcllca,ta that vel'" Uttl. definite inf .... Uan laav.Uabl. oai 

aquatic area. in central and .astern region. of a type that wa. obt.ln~ct~~... 

irrigation and drainage sy.te •• in tha West. However, the 13 complete .nd 

.,.,"_A__'_" ....4l._ IP "_-* ,,0 .......... _ ... _A ..... _ ,'Ill ~_.t.a!lll. .. _ -A

Complete reports from 12 Nor~heastern, Northcentral, and Southern State 

Fish and Came'COIIIIDissionsindicate that the diffe""t ,.types of Ilquatic~eds 

cons,titute pro!>1emsmUchmore'freCfUehtly:Lnmar".' and artif1c~al f.mpoqnd 

_ft .... ""Aft fn nAf"ur .. l1 ..Iu!A and Itt!'eams. This i. ".... ciallytrue ofroo,ted 

13 iftcomplete"rtports from Pish 'and Game Commi"iGlt.;providevaluab1e ilnfcmution. 

"Host of ttielnformatlcm:'OiI P8'l'centagesofqGal:tc areasoccupted 'by 

prOblem'wee4s"were based on 'eltt_tea by aquaUe fllNd ':apedalisu and ,Call be 

con!,ideredtbe iDost ~eli.ble l"afcmut:loil' 'neWava1:til1Jle ~ Only a very fev 'of, 

thl!l ilpecidist:i .ttemptl!ld to •• t:Uiite,tlfelllOnet.rt

.... 

4 

,typeil! .oLaecl •• vec",e ·10.4 •.,8«lf·!a~f"l\d!3,,3f(11j1ll• ..,c;ti,,8,J.y. An.JlNln~~d .'; 

arti,llicial .1IDpou .... ntl•• -natu; ..l,~..... ~ ~t~.~dlrt~"S .~£qrs~ll .~"e~llOj: 

.resion •• : the biPe.'pel'ceDt ...... .J# 1I1f"_'~19lbb}l\o&~AA ~ "q.f ".,q"".t~ r'Je~~ 

in 'anYJ:es_ ar.; ... foU .... ;· ,t:11.. ~~•• ,~~ ~I~i ;non~U,"tOIJ'I·")l Me; 

all4e -24,root:e4,.u_neclH·'-4.4 ..~~crtecl,.... ~~&d,,"J ~. ;;J.,Qatb\8,~ ,H,~~~,:; 

woody plants· 16. Algae and rooted submersed we.d. were li'.. ~~r!=etL'~',Iffi.~"" 

much more frequently in natural lakes and streams 1n the northcentral resion 

than in other 1:.. f,QRS,. C')'" J ,; ",.,/ cL:!!'I" n.; "-""'C' ., ,c' "·'-.f 9I";',.T 

The BillJle complete report frOlll the western resion was not consider.d 

repr!~e~~at~~ ye.of~~tlia t:r.8~Qil"c -T"~;.!:~.9.·-~Qiijit ,~;~l'n-e--lllarute-ct-m-..,t"'be- 

reportfX:~ ~1~~ Wh!.~~.~atcs~ there are no ~liilr~""~n ~~y. ,~u~m:,J"lJ1 

situat.i~.•. t.'ttir., ,~~.r.l ~.p..Pi. r.e.I?'tlY'Al. a' ..k.lit.Wi.tli.('it~ pr._. ~~ ..l.ake .: ,. ai¥L ..~r"., ~u 

abun~~nt fiahiltd glllll8, ailar-few people, 1a'comp~~k':r~itn your own Nort a.t 

about 200 yeari--ago;' . Probably; --WbeIfiill'ihfoliiii'ttiRr'"fir'obI thl!--qunrtomiatte 

.urveyin,.!~.~~a. been.o,.UlIIlItIlrized, cb,e,q~, and iq~er:eted, a final report 

will be published similar to the joinE'riport publmt1S'on the survey of weed 

10ss8s, coU,~ and bene{it. of weed cOl1~rol in we~~r.rl1rrigation.q~ :d,oi," 

drainage systems in 1957. ' .' ., , J,,,. ", 

,~'·'~i.: '. . t~ 't:):". -!~~d.!' u.ed ,for r~. _qPAUC,~e~., f'r~". r 

irr,1gatlott ditebe.by 1940· (lh, .W4&J:ll ~t-J.ll,,~~yWr., ,~, lIl~u:p~Il.~C;a.l, ~'t1UHItj 

for aquatic weed control to a much greater extent tb-an we ar. Jar ~on.t;!='O~ ;01 

land weeds. .. . ",ur _... 0 '.• 

e~.;ll.,ae in.~.•ih,, ..s.in,..c.e 1.~. 

, '~opper ~l'~~ ~s f1n~ JI~4 'fc~' e~trc;)~;~ :~s ~a'r~Y",a~, l~~4 .6,7),; J 

altd'it ls stntt~ ·most widely.1uMd_th04-.

The reawakening in aquatic weed control really' began about 1957. In,', 

that year the Agricultural Research: Service increasediis research effort.-on 

aquatic weeds from about 3 man-years to 9 full-tim. scientists. A contract 

was arranged with Auburn University to conduct primelty !ivaluation of 750 

chemical compoundS as aquatic herbicides on represeritatlve submersed aquatic 

weeds and to check 100 of the most promising of the .. for toxicity to 

representative species of fish. Previously, very fe1fof the many thousands 

of chemicals tested for herbicidal activity on land weeds had been tested 

for effectiveness on aquatic weeds by the chemicallnc1u1try. 

, 

In July 1958, Congress authodsed, under Section 104 of Public Law 

85-500, the annual expenditure of $1,350,000 by theU;S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and eight Atlantic and Gulf Coast States for the control of alIigatorweed 

and other obnoxious aqua'tic plat'lt growth8,lln 'Ibecombined interest 

of navigation, flood control,drairtage, agriculture'. fll1h and wildlife conservation, 

public ,health, and related purpoaeslrtcludi.ng continued research 

fordevelopillent of the most effective and economicoontllol measures. T"e 

cooperative research program, "Expanded Project., Aquatic Plant Control," 

which was developed as part of tbis total program,:tnvolve's s:tx Federal and 

as early as 192~lnW~sccmsf.n(CI). __Iti. stilltbiL_ai: extensively used 

herbicide for control of submersed weeds in lakes and ponds in many parts of 

the country despite its toxicity to warm blooded animale. 

I 

During the early 1940's chlorinated benEenes wtreused to some extent 

for control of submersed weeds in Ela.tern pOncls and lakes and in western .1. 

irrigation canals. Research by Agricultural ResearcH service and Bureau of 

Reclamation scientists beginning ,1n 1947 developed.'effective method' of 

using xylol-type benzenes, COllllllOftlycalled arOlllat1c' solVents, for contrCiPof 

submersed weeds in irrigation canals (2). More than SOO,000 gallons of xYlol 

is now used annually for this pUrpose. 

The renaissance in general weed control, whlchwes' sparked by the 

discovery of the herbicidal properties of 2,4-0 in 1944'and really got uridarway 

about 1947, did not have much effect on aquatic weed control or research 

until nearly 10 years later. A ·few eXceptions were -'the' research on control 

of waterbyacintb with 2,4 ..0 by seYe1:'al Federal and State agenctes beginning 

in 1946, the researcb on methode Of controllingweeds'ia western irrigatiOn 

systems by the Agricultural Research Service and' Bure'au l of Reclamation . 

beginning in 1947, and the research on control of marsh weeds with 2,4-0 by 

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Tennessee Valley Authority beginning 

about 1947. 

The general lack of interest in aquatic weed e~trol research prior to 

1955 is indicated by the fact that less than 2 perce1'lt.f the papers presented 

at MOrtheastern, Northcentral, and Southern Weed"Control Conference_ 

each year were on aquatic weeds. Research subcommittee. on aquatic weeds '. 

were not established until 4 to 8:years after general r.search committees 

were created. It was only in the Western Weed Cont'rol ¢onference that an;' 

early interest was shown in aquatic weed control research. Beginning in 

1950, 5 to 10 percent of the papers and research reportS in that conference 

were on aquatic weeds and the Research Section incl\1ded' an aquatic weed 

subcommittee from its establishment in 1952. 

5

6 

"' .. gt StatusofMHtic Weed Centro",nd Research 

.'. 

That brief hhtRry 

','; 

brillg.g~,o tbepr ... nt WO public lnterest ln 

aquat:Lc weed control and rue arch ..... to be at flow t:Lde and to be .urglng 

higher. Ona f,ndf,catlon hthe f,ct thae 25 papen' Oft aquatic weed. were pre 

•• nte4ae the. We'"SoCgty of _,1c.~ogr.. 10 a.cellber 1961 .s comptNd 

wlth 11 ,.pe,.s"la19~. 13 In.195$, and 7 in 1956. Aaotberlndlcat:Lon 1., the 

factthat.16$t,f~e~~lc\lltur.1 :.... rf.lllent St.tte. •• ubmltt.d propo .. la,f.n. 

S-ptell1:!er1961 f9f ,ptI;'t1dp.ti~ .1,na reglon.l , .... I'Q!l pzoojecton aquatic 

weed reaearcb f~d by Fedeul·,;fUl)d. d•• i.gnat&4 •• the "central Reaeucb 

Fund." Four of tbe .. proposals by tbe Al.b .... c.Ufor:nla •. NewYork. and 

Nortb Carolina State Experiment Stat:Lons weI" appzooved and funded. Prevloualy 

•. only ~ Al.b .... K1.1S~,·.nd Orellon Stolte hperf.lllent St.ti •• 

had bten.ctf.'IIe. .,in fuearch·on ,aquaUc wed control. 

"'.' . " 

The. 38 Se.t,flxper1mentStet~. wblchrepU4.·. to,my q~st1onna1J:'... nt 

out in Septelllber 1961zoeported • total r .... rch ..feort on .quatic weed CODtrol 

of 10.5 lIIIIl~y.ar... nau&l.J.y•. ~be 31 St.te'"",'" OuIeCoalml.a100e· 

reported. total re~ar;ch .ff~t on aquatic weedccnt.t:to1 of 24 _n-y.a:n 

amu.1ly. 

".,. ~. 

The total acreage of aquatic areas treat.d for: control of dlfferent:· 

types of .quatic weeds ln 1961 as reported by 10 to 16 State Flsh and a..e 

C~1e.ions .in _theutern ,Nor:thcentra1, .nd Sou~rn St.tes were 10,"2 

(14) .of f11_Jlteu •• lgae, 33,-808 (10) of otber f_ of algae, 15,373 (16) 

ofl'OOted ,sul!meree4weede, 10,5076,(16) of roote4·_ned weeds, and 39.611 

(10) of· floa.ting weeds., Wtth the po.e1b1. except¥to of floating weed. dleM 

treate4, aX'd. represent only .. U ·fractions of tbe.X'e.s in whlch these 

weed. were'X'eporrted to be MdOlol.9robl .... 

Re.99Z'ta OIl the .xtentoftr..talent of fant,poadsand drainage ditc:htl'. 

for aquaticweedCOlltrol. in ~tIae.. tern. oortQceatoral" and .outhern r'aione 

were not suffident in number for.a reliab1 ...... indication. Howewr-, 

there appeared to be conslderab1e chemlcal treatment for weed control in 

fal'1ll pond. in Nev .Jersey,' Ohio,Soutb Carolina. MWourl, and Teu..Apparently 

•. tbe UN of weed..contro1. practices 1n aquade ••• as is not nearly ..• e 

extenll-iwin. central., Southen. and Ba.tern Stat •• ; as it is in irrlgatiGn 

and drain ... canala oftbe Wee;t. The survey lIleIa~fioMd! earlier (8) .hCMtll. 

that 63,448mU ••. of.C/lDala were. tnated for: aqua'tflc weect. and.328.232,,· 

acre. of 4itebbAlnk weI'. treated for: weed control 1tI 19,57. These were 54 

and 80 percent ,re.,.ct;i vely. of the. total weed-iI1fested areas. 

A SU1llll8ry of I'tlp*t. ln ·the questionnaire .urYlY indicates the or., of 

preference for chemical and _chanlcal method. of controlllng the different 

types of aquatic "..da •• f.OU9WS·,vUh the number:·oI·apeciff.c mentlons' . 

shown in parentheees aft;er e~h .. thod: 

':!"",: 

~ .. copperwlf.te (la).; MdlUD1.r: .. nite,Q) ,carp (2). dlchlOM;(l). 

! Rooted 'uWreed:(D094' n. es) -~_ .~te (27), 2,4-Q (24), 

. .UYex -(,\2) •• ndotiwll;C .. cbanical ""oct. (2). canale!l!!l 

ditsbu) - ·MCh.anl~l. ",thods (7). xylol ;(4), urea (2) ,acro1'1o(2) • 

RgoteS !IIIH'!!CI -, 2,4-D (38!).•,;4alapon (22) ..... ~. (16). _chuie.,1 

methods (U), 111ve", ,P), 2.4,5-T (5). . :

,10.1ng -2,4.,;iD (19), 2,4~5.T (4), silvex (4). 

'Ha ...dnal - 2,4-D (34), dala.pon (26), amltrole' (13), 2,4,5-T (12), 

.Uvex (11), mechanical .thads (10), oil (8), bu...ning (6). 

7 

The Hawaiian Agricultural E~ertment Station ...eported that a herbiv,orous 

fi.h, TiLapia1llOa.amblca, has 8ive1'l excellent coril:rol of submened aquatic 

weeds in canals,clitc:hes , pond', and ...eservoiri wttbpermanent wete... supplY. 

This fish is used fo... food inlia.aii and the Philippines but is not hip~y 

rega ...ded as afoocl or gsme fi8h, in South....n Unlted'S~.tes where preU:mi11.ry 

tests have shown it to be not_It adapted..' , 

Lack of time prevents lIl1.aylng mot.'8about control methods. I ...e~nd 

fw you... readinge recent publicllt10n by T. F. Hall (4) which contains an 

excellent discussion of the naeure of aquatic weeclproblems and of contrdl and 

management methods with an extensive review of lit~rature. 

Future Prospects for Aquatic'Weed Control and Research 

All signs point toward continued and probably much increased intereit 

and activity in aquatic weed control. Wehave a barger backlog of unsa1:v,d 

problems than in most other phue's of weed controL As water supplies become 

more limiting and critical those aquatic weed problems will increase and 

become more acute. The 38 replies to my questionnaire to State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations reported a need for increasing research on aquatic weeds 

from 10.5 to 88.5 man-years, eight times as many. The Federal agencies that 

have shown an early interest i~ aquatic weed problems probably will con~lnue 

and perhaps increase their present efforts.' , 

The replies' to the survey questionnaire were almost unanimous in 

pointing out the need for a more' effective, less ei~nsive, longer lasti~s, 

more easily applied aquatic herbicide that is safe>for fish, humans, livestock, 

and wild game. I do not predict that many miracle herbicides thae 

meet all those specifications will be found but the prospects seem pr~i~~ng 

for much better herbicides than wanow have in coaaercial use. A totaldf 

131 chemicals of the 854 compounds evaluated by Auburn University in the' 

initial contract with the Agricultural Research Service gave 90 percent or 

better control of representative aquatic weeds at 5 ppm. Sixteen of eh••e 

chemicals proved safe for fish. Hany of these promising chemicals are~dw 

undergoing secondary evaluation, and a few look extremely promising irifl~ld 

tests. Probably additional promlsing aquatic herbiCides will be discovered 

in two primary evaluation programs still underway at Auburn UniversIty. 

Several chemical companies have recently establishe1:t sCt.'eening programs ,for 

aquatic herbicides. That development shOuld great:ly increase our supply 'Of 

promising aquatic herbicides far' 'further testing and ~evelopment. '" 

Biological agents probably will play an important role in futurecorttrol 

of aquatic weeds. The EntoDlologyResearch Division 'of the Agricultural"" 

Research Service i. now investigating in South Americ$ the feasibility of 

introducing promising insect pests of alligatorweed-into the United State •• 

A large freshwater snail, !!!!!.!!: cornuarietis L..,"us shown considerable 

promise for control of certain submersed and floating weeds in Puerto Rico 

and Florida in investigations conducted by the Agricultural Research Service,

8 

control of filamentous algaeal;"U1l4e\"WaY at.ubQrn(QQivenity. Obser~t1on. 

by Bureau.'o~ Bec14U!l!lti~~;.,.r'cnJlt.~r:inWa.h:I,D.tOft,i~.nte that a low-ir~ing 

species ~~ wa~r p~ta~lJ plac. lion eaapba.ill2On 

th"@Qat~.t!llOr;~~.98Y. ~ya101ol!.'_ 1#. ey~ ,a.AquaUc weada itl "'0) 

:rel~~tl$pJJ ,;to.~•.frr.~~t.r91 •. 'll~"f.~ of· herb141dee IAc_ter and aquatic .011. 

and~ factors t~t.a,f~et~~lip)a. retentiQQ,; _decOllIPOaition in~• 

. will alao be thoroughly investigat~~.., ..Par;tiqiJl8Dt .., Ut· tbe lQ8W cooper.tb.,,·' 

Regional Re.earch Project on Aquatic Weeds involvina the Alabama, California, 

Rew).~k... and ,~.~car~J.,iDta:A81

9 

The Role of the State in Res idue Determinationp and Clearances 

with Particular Reference to Agricultura¢ Chemicals. 

Charles E. Palm Y 

New York S'\;ate College of Agriculture 

Cornell University 

The rapid expans ion in the use of chemicals in al~ phases of modern 

agriCUlture is one of the great developments of recent decades. The pr1lllary 

concern of your conference is With an important part of the field of agricultural 

chemicals -- the development and use of herbicides. Closely related 

chemicals used as insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, plant growth regulators, 

defoliants· and related compounds, have much in; commonin the research 

programs of many of the State Colleges of Agriculture and their Agricult~al . 

Experiment Stations. The topic I he.ve been asked to rEiview deals with the 

broad field of policy, as well e.s opportunity for service in the state experiment 

stations, regarding residues that may result ~rom the use of thelJe 

chemicals in modern agriculture, and the state's role:b obtaining tolerances 

and registration for use of materials needed in its prqgrams. My own professional 

experience he.s come from association with in~ect-control programs 

in which insecticides have been of primary concern; ye"t; in e. broader sense, 

cooperative research projects within our own experiments stations at Ithaca 

and Geneva, as well as participation Ql the Northee.stern Regional Residue Research 

Program from its inception, have provided an awareness of the total 

problem. 

It is essential at the outset to remind ourselves that the State workers 

are partners in a cooperative venture with representatives of the agricultural 

chemical industry, at home and abroad, and the several agencies of the federe.l 

governmentengB8Eld in resee.rch, extension, and regulatot-y programs in this 

field. In short, we have responsibilities, but they mus:t integre.te with those 

of others. I should like to review e. few developments to illustrate this 

point. 

RESlDEm' INSTRUCTIONIN OURSTATECOLLEGESANDUNIVERSITIES. 

Since the este.blishment of the Land Grant Colleges. through the Morrill 

Act by the Congress and the President in 1862, the impo:rtance of teaching 

agriculture he.s been recognized in each of the several states. This is the 

Centennial Year for the Land Grant Colleges, and recognition of their m~ 

contributions to our nation continues to be highlighted. Further, one of the 

gree.t developments of the past century has been the rise o£ research in our 

land grant institutions, des1gIled to be of service to the citizens of the 

states. The Hatch Act of 1888 recognized the need tor ~ederal support for 

establishing the agricultural experiment stations a.t th~ land grant universities 

and continues with increasing support today. Then, e.s p.ewknowledge beCaate 

available, the Cooperative Extension programs at these ,awe land grant units 

was made possible by federal support through the Smith-Lever Act in 1914. (rhe 

psttern of teaching at the undergraduate and graduate l,vels, the conductPf 

research in be,sic as well as applied fields, and its ap:plication through extension 

channels throughout the several states. has bl'!Nilnv> A . ..,,,11 _In."""", ~_......~-

10 

In most Of the states, regulatory activities peJ,"ta~ing tq agriculture 

in the broad senae ot the term, haw remained' sepe.ril1le tram the educational 

programs referred to above. But I wo\Udhaste~ to ~ 1;hat these programs 

have needed close cooperationtrom· the educatiOl1al 1Datltutions, and, for the 

most part, have received it. 

It is worth noting that government and industry are consumers of trained 

personnel that are a product of the teaching and research programs of our 

colleges and universities. Thus, an important part of the state's contribution 

to the, problems we have under c0l:lSideration is its ability to provide t:rlL1ned 

men and womento conduct the work. Wehave been assisted in recent years, in 

support ot the graduate train1ll6pr08rams particularly by industrial grant., 

and foundation support. The launching of the ~us.si~ sputnik a few yeqS,,!P80 

bt'ought into sharp tocus the need fbr support of badc :!i'8search and develOpment 

in the, sciences in the United States. For example, the great growtl:l.,et 

dollar support tor the plant sciences by federal and pr:\.vate foundations during 

the past five years :La giv1ll6 the universities, bo'j;h state and privately .up~ 

ported, unparalle.led opportunities for expansion of flmdamental research ~ 

all areas at a level never before 'known. It hasbrousbt into greater proql1 

nence postdoctoral train1ll6 in specialized areasofsc~nce in all parts9~ 

the world, which shoUld reflect in increased productivity among scientis~ 

in the days ehead. The teamwork of'modern scientistll in attack1ll6 problems 

with equipment and inStrumentation that promote progress continue to 8.IIlS$8 

the uninformed. In spite of theloDS history of sc~ncEl in the world, it 

is est1lliated that of all scientists 'Whoever lived, 90 per cent are alive 

todayl With our current rate ot development, knowleaBe is doubling avery 10 

years. It has been amply demonstrated that ideas kriOwnopol1tical 'bo~ias. 

Our phenomenal developments in communication and travel have made us a functional 

part of the world cOllllDUnity,wherever we IlU!¥be. WeIDUstkeep abz1east 

ottha work ot scientists in all lands. ., 

llESEARCBIN OURS'l'ATECOLImES l UlIIVERSITIESAND;§XP!RIMEN'1' STA!rICtiS. 

One of the 1mportant phases ot any research prolram that seeks to a...elo.p 

a herbicide, iDfJecticide, fungicide or other agricUltural chemical or foOlS 

additive is determining whether a residue of the chemical remains in or on 

the raw agricultural commodity or the processed pr~~t, and if it does, .: 

evaluat1ll6 its toxicity to man and other warm~blood8dau1ma.ll!i. Broader concerns 

with residues eXist; for instance, the accWlll1lation of these produots in 

the soil, the metabolism of the C~unds by plants 9r 8D1mals in the eaN Of 

systemic pesticides, and the like.' 

From the viewpoint of rese,arch ,.in the deve,i9~t of new compounds, the 

maJor' oontributibnain the field Of esricultural,cbP1cals have come from 1D~ 

dustry and thetederal laboratories. ' Much of the ~ in this fUndamenta.;La-ea 

of chemical research will of necessity cont1n\le to ~me from industry, w:\.tb 

occasional' eOl:ltribu't1onsfrom~edei'1!Il and sta'\;e sta~1QJU!' The production aDd. 

sale ot 88Z'icUJ.tural ehemicals 18 ¥ustry's businlllY, and likely w1l1ao 

relllli1b. Once selected chemical compoundSare thr.oujh pr1maryscreen1ll6 azd 

areavallable for 1Secoridary scrEi'enil:ikand deve;Lopmentai resear~h, the sta1les 

tra4.itionally have provided IDUchhelp. For several ~sfollOW1ll6the' un.. 

veiling ot2,4"b in 1945 a cona1dE!table 8lIIOuntot t~ld. testing was neceHa1"1, 

to catchup with grower demands tor usage. The :r;oece:l1ttreDdof this research

,., 

1'4 

keep developmental work in progress to guide their extet\sion recommendations. 

Obviously the benefits have not been one-sided, because;Lthe scientists in:the 

experiment stations kept abreast of new developments ana. acquired experiences 

on performance prior to grower use; industry was able ~ spread its range of 

environmental conditions into different ecological Utu"tions in many parts 

of the country and speed its decisions about the value Qf candidate compounds 

as well. Thus, cooperation helped speed progress , I 

The great array of synthetic organic compoundstha'l; have appeared in the 

past two decades have been sorted and finally put into ~ignificant use as agricultural 

chemicals because the state scientists, cooperating with those of 

industry, and the federal government, have provided much!needed data on biological 

performance and levels of residues on specific crops under a variety of 

conditions. In the aggregate, these data have meant mu4h to industry in preparing 

the petitions for registrations with the U. S. DElpartment of Agriculture 

of agricultural chemicals moviIlg in inter-state commercd, as well as supporting 

the requellt for tolerances or exemption tolerances by t~FOod and Drug Ad- ' 

ministration where they are required. State residueres~arch, supplied directly 

to government or industry tor these purposes, has made ~ vital contributioZl. 

I 

It became obvious in the years immediately follow1z1g the Second World War 

that ~ pesticide ohemist was an essential member of ~ team of scientists 

working in scien1;1tic agriculture. A number of thestat1e experiment stations 

undertook residue research as a basis for guiding their~xtension programs for 

pesticide recommentlations and use. The public hearing ~ Washington in 1950 

held by the Food and Drug Administration to determine t~ necessity for use 

of pesticides in the production of fresh fruits and vege~ables brought forth 

much data from state sources as well as the federal and iindustrial laboratories. 

The obvious inadequacy of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Ac1t at that time in 

establishing residue tolerances or exemptions, was remed!:l.edwith the passage 

of the Pesticide Chemicals amendment in 1954. The earl~r legislation involving 

the Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in 1~41 established the 

pattern for registration of chemicals going into interstjl.te commerce. It became 

mandatory upon the fimS application for registratio~ of an agricultural 

chemical for a spe9itic use to provide the essential infi>rmation by which 'the 

USDAand the FDA,in most instances, could arrive ata dtcision on these requests. 

Thus, residue data assumed a new role of importa ce in the agricultural 

chemical f!:l.eld. The pattern was set and residue rese, rach I became an integral 

part of practically all pesticide research programs. T~ state experiment 

station chemist, workiIlg With o:tber companions in the' inVestigations, based 

the residue determinations on analytical methods provide~ by the manufacturer 

of the chemical, or those developed through his own res8$rch. In some states 

without the services of a full-time pesticide chemist, t~ treated samples 

were sent to the industrial laboratories for analysis. This procedure still is 

being followed, but with increasing effort supported inlpart by federal regional 

research funds, to equip and staff the state experimElnt stations laboratories 

for the ir own res idue research programs. The 'tedllral foundations have 

given generously in support of research dealing with res~dues and providiIlg 

matching fUndS for bUllding health related facilities. i 

',,---- With the expandiIlg interest and capability for NSi

Rapidstr1des :lA resid\1e reseas-ch have beenllll4& possible because 'oa.:i'Cl 

research is prpv:l.diDc new inf01'lll&tioo on plant phys1elogy, insect phys1oloV' . 

biochemistry, .eo~", microbiQJ.osy and related fieids. As we undeI'standmo:re 

about the I118chan1!Jmof the proeessel that go on in living cell.l!l, therewWbe 

opportunities. to utilize knowlediein selectiveregUlil.t1on of species popiil . 

lat1otlS. MallYof ua were delightadto see the importance of weed research' 

recognized by the lMt COngreis which prOVided substanUaJ. sums tor add:Lt:t!oQe.l 

research on almost all aspects ot '.weed control. . '!'be... new funds will p!'Otide 

the states with support for workm depth in specific areas, as for example" 

with aq.uatic weeds, weed,.l1feeycJ.es, range weeds,ta1ieof residues, ecql~, 

perhaps biolog1caJ.control anc1tbe; like. Through8ll. iexchange of informat1Ot1, 

cooperative effort will benefit aJ.l states interested in the problems.' . , 

12 

in limited areas. This further emphasizes the cooperat1onthat existsW'tWeen 

industry and state am federal· go.:rmnent. 

Thereare t1mes when pub1ic8efVice patentsmq cover a good am uaet\ll 

asr1cultural chemical, but becsWIeof the non-excluaive nature of the p&teDt-, 

IlOc compBllYis, wUl1Zlg to carry out the developmaa:tal prcgram 011 :res1dufls,";. 

toxicity studies am the like necessary for FDAaDd USDAtolerances aM'~istration. 

In important instances, it is up to the state stations, alOlle or in 

cooperation with the federal gove:rnment and/or 1nduetl'Y, 1;0 do the work aid 

seek the approval am registratiQn\,bf the product. SUch recently was tl». cae 

with some of' the blossom tl!:1nn1Zlg cbemicaJ.s .for 11M intruit set, di~) . 

amiae for reducing fruit .scald 011 apples stored ineantl'Olled atmosphe~ttorage, 

certe.U1 of the chemice.J.s for preveEl-tion of post-harvest' rots in citrus")' ClUoro 

IPC for use as a sprout inhibitor on Irish potatos.'in! storage, am the i1ke. 

Current progr8lll8' are underway to seek clearance Of 2,4,S-TPfor use inesll.blahed 

legume stands and with 4(2,4-IlB) for legume,ned1ing establishment{ 

These are impOrtant areas for growers and industria. within the states),l)iR IIltl.y 

well ..be of minor economic concern to the chemicaJ. llI&DUf'acturerin hill totU 

volume ofbua1ness. The costs involved in reseat"chof this type otten deter' 

industry unless there is reasonable assurance of covering their investment. 

, ' I 

StUl another area of respans.ibility for, resMues of agriculturalCJiem:l. 

CW is theoeltdtor state workers to determ1n8thetr·eff'ect on benef1ciaJJ'· 

1IUIects, for example, the hone7bee and other pollmatimg insects. M8Zl;yt:l'l11t 

and vegetableeropt are increas111Sltdependent on tale h

In addition to a review of field and laboratory research in progress 

with cooperators of industry, government, and adjOining states, the extension 

man must set the stage tor product recommendation and use within his areas Of 

responsibility, and coordinate the information to min1mize confusion. In 

addition, he calls attention to failures in field performance, new problems~ 

and S1milar voids in our information that offer a beals for future research. 

He works closely with the county agricultural agenes on programs that meet 

safety standards and res idues tolerances. The extene ion spec ialist from the 

State colleges and universities has a great responsibility, and. his recolillllendations 

must be based on reliabJ,e research that is correctly interpreted, and 

is supported by industl'Y .in terms of' "-v"- i l ..h 1.. "'''''''n"'''ofo,, t7~. - ...... _ -- L"'_ 

A broad area of responsibility considered :la1 many of the States and.. 

elsewhere, is the effect of pesticide residues on flavor and other quality 

determining attributes of foods. With an increasing growth.in processed foods, 

the necessity for maintaining uniform high quality in the products is maIldatory 

in a canpetitive industry. l'obch work continues to be done in this 1mportant 

area by research scientists in food technology at the state experineat 

stations. S1milarly, the problems reach an1mal products like meats, egg., 

milk, poultry, and the like, both in terms of possible harmful residues as 

well as effects on flavor and qUality. The use of antibiotics for mastitis 

control in dairy, cattle, for examp1.e, has had far reaching effects in terms 

of residues, because they affect marketability of the milk. Fortunately bioassays 

have been most helpful in residue determinations for several products 

that are used in mastitis control programs. 

A word of recognition should be given to several of the states in 1mich 

work has been 'done on the development of eccurate , streamlined analyticaJ., 

methods for pesticides. One of the great break-throughs of recent months-has 

been the use of gas chromotography for certain residue determinations. ~~e 

speed of the method, plus its extreme precision, will provide research workers 

in the residue field with a much better understanding of residue levels Of' 

certain types of chemicals in or on commodities than was ever possible by other 

methods. A number of the systemic pesticides have yielded to the use of radioactive 

tracer research techniques in determining the metabolic products as 

well astba modeot action. Still other fields of residue research ha~benefited 

from bio-assay techniques, using both plants and an1mals as indicator 

mechanisms . 

EXTENSIONIN OURSTATECOLLEGESANDUNIVERSITIES. 

The Cooperative Extension Service of the Land Grant institutions has 

been a great force in quickly dispensing available 1nf'ormation on the use of 

agricultural chemicals for specific problems and conditions to farmers and 

homeowners. The magnificent benefits received from their use, as well as the 

safety record with their use, attest to this point. The extension worker, 

whether a herbicide specialist, entomologist, plant pathologist or plant 

phys iologist, selects from the informat ion that research has available and 

recommends the products the.t have met with the regulatory procedures for safe 

use. Based upon his own judgement from field trials' as well as grower use, 

industry experience, and the like, he makea his recollllJlendations to suit his 

particular .. geographical areas and. problems. This is a great responsib-1l1ty, 

but is one that is being met by capable workers. throughout the country. 

13

State research workers are expaad1Ilg fundamenta:rJresearch in biochemistry'J 

phyB;l.oloS1 and fieJ4a allied to jp'Owtb and developlllltbt of liv1Ilg organisms. 

These data help materially in unde:rstand1Ilg the metab()lim8 of chemicals in 

livinlz svs1:ems. 01" t.heil" B1'!~I1I111,llL+'inft, in Al"li'. And .. 10.. , H .... V.+t.M"""' ....... 9 

14 

Because the topic of this papal: is the role of the State in residue 

detel'llinatiOnsand cJ.earances, it calls for emphas1a on the +ork of the 

state scientists, but recognitiOn IIIWltbe given to tbe fact that they are. 

but one important part of a cooperative team includ:blg industry and govern· 

ment work:lng for development andaafe use of agricultural. chemicals • 

.. The Land Ora:ntCollege movement in the United liltates has provided tb18 

nation with an educational resource in support of modern asricult\U'8 that':18 

second to nomI. in the world. The three maJor funct1onsof these inStitutiOns 

in.their service to the people of this country are wadt1Jlgj research imdextension. 

One maJor contribution of the teaching prosr8llia to tbe importaat . 

field of agricultural chemicals is the output of trained men and womenwho go 

to other agencies for theirproduc'tive careers. AskDlWledse and support expand, 

Qur universities are expand1Jlg'their graduate P1"OSramsrapidly. Great 

emphasis is nowbeing placed on·~ areas of basic researcb • 

.. 

ReSl1latory actiVities withagr:l.cultural chemioals and food additives are 

usually asepa.ratefunction instate government, aDd nota part of the teachillS, 

research and educational prosram of the Land Grant 'institutions. Halfever, 

cloee lia.is.on.1s essential ,between them tor ,effective programs. Furtber, 

state regulatoI"Y programs are obviouslyeseent1al in coordinating the :l.utrastate 

activities. with uniform inter-state regulatioDS·ot the FDA and USDA• 

, .,. ...,-'- . 

Research conducted by the state experiment station is tr8ditional aa4 

essential in the agricultural chemical field. It 18 recognized that cooperation 

with industry and the federal labora.tories is an ~:l'@!lPart of tb,e PoP-am.. 

The states, almost Without exception, depend upon 1l:ldustry for the development 

and selection of new chemicals as well as produc1Ilg and marketing them. '.!!be 

States work With their performance, mode of action,.atety when used as d11"ected, 

determination of residues tbat mq be present, 8chedall.88 of application,. in 

many other important areas basic to their ultimate u". 

Concern1Ilg res.idues specifically, many states _vedeveloped their own 

research laboratories for residue researcb as an 1Irqlortent part.of their is:t'icultural 

chemical ~am. Much of the researcb is IIIIide available direct]i 

to the 1l:ldustI"Yth$tsupplies chemical forllll1lation t6 the State for rese&reh 

and appra:1,aaJ.. In, turn, residue data as well as per1'Grmance data are given 

to industry for support of the ir reg18trat ion and tolarance petit ions • 

In inStances of minor crops where the volume of use may be small, and 

witb chemicals not oovered. by patents of en individualcb~, the state 

exper:1Jr!ent.stations ~ve assumed responsibility fOr the development of performance 

and :esi~ data, and even helped arrange fortox:l.city studies before 

applyqfor.toa:rances, registratiOllB for Spec1t1CU8es, or both. state 

scientists also are focusing attention on scbedules 01' uSes that must be c~s 

idered where products are to meet export requiremetite.

State workers have to consider residues in relation to natural populations 

where increased public concern is voiced about widespread use of chemicals in 

the environment. 

The extension specialist coordinates information for recommendations 

that will assure safe use of!l&X'ic\l.ltural chelllicals and avoid excessive resi,,· 

dues. His contribution ..:ls a most 1mportant liDk in the chain of cooperation; 

his program extends to the cOl,lOtyagricultural agents, and often directly to 

individual users of the pesti~jl4er He plays a major part in the public relations 

aspects of the use of pesticides. 

The role of the state university and its experiment station, in work 

concerned with agricultural chemical residues, will increase in importance, 

because more and more, modern agriculture, suburban 11ving and community de 

velopmen'j; projects utilize the broad array of 1llCl@l"Il- .!l&X'icultural chemicals 

to secure their IIIanY benefits. The:Land Grant institutions must remain in the 

forefront of teaching, researqh and extension tOplopv1de better educational 

programs in the development and safe use of modern agricultural chemicals, 

15

16 

SOMECHARACTERISTICS OF QUACKQR4SS ArID THEIRRELATIONTO CONTROLY 

'.. . '.' .',,'> ',".' ,I " ,'.' ,', 

K. P. ElUchholtz y' ·,_,.i" 

.- 

QuaeJcgrass is a widely distributed end persietent'weedili the northern 

states arid Canada. .It has proved to be adapted to 'Cobt,. temperate n!gions 

and lsfevoi'ed .by' hUmid or subJ.!tIum1dcUinstell." 1he;weed is IOOsttroubl8some 

in areas thatdare subjected tcqlerlodic 1 but'no,t; ,cxmtinuous tillage. It Competes 

stronglY with forage cropS',; gn-ins, com··1tt!d'other row crops', f'J:'lrl,ts, 

and: vegetables. !:t is objectionable in forestry p1:antations, laws, 'llndindustria~ 

sites. 

In ordert,(, develop effecti.~Controlprogr,.ror qusckgra ss it, i8 

necessary ,to' consider the fectors that account,tb-r1ts adaptation in,.the' 

northe~ states and the reaso,ns for its pers;l.stene;:e•. ' Quackgrass spre8~') 

by both rb1'ZOIlIeS, and seeds. It iSl'robehlethat ~ad by seeds is J1I!)rj:_ 

w;idespreadthanis generally rElaJ;tzed. Because or':aimi.larity in shape,t,!'1~ 

seed is more cOll!lOOn in oats than itl seed of other'icereals. In 1957 a stUdy 

in Wisconsin showed that 35%of 799 oat samples handled by the State Seed 

Testing Laboratory in that year contained qusckgrass seeds. Seeder box 

surveys of oats being seeded have consistently shown that from 50~ to 60%of 

the grain being used as seed in Wisconsin is infested with qusckgrass seed. 

Viability of quackgrass seed in seed grain was frequently as high as that 

of the oats. In addition to the spread in seed grain the mature seeds of 

quackgrass are frequently harvested with hay and ultimately find their way 

back to the field in manure or bedding. Seeds also mature in pastures where 

they shatter readily and infest the soil. The prevalence and vJ.abil1ty of 

qusckgrass seeds often allows reinfestetion aftsr all established plants 

hava been eradicated. 

The ability of quackgrass to spread by rhizomes is widely recognized. 

These spreading underground stems may extend as 1IIUChas 3 or 4 feet in a single 

year. Tillage often extends the area of infestation IllUchfarther than this 

by dragging fragments of the rhizomes beyond the area of initial infestation. 

Rhizome production is prolific in a productive soil. Meyer (9), Schirman 

and Buchholtz (14) and Johnson (4) all found as much as 6000 lblA of dry 

rhizomes in heavily infested areas. This mass of rhizomes was contained in 

the plow slice and in an undisturbed sod was concentrated in the upper 4 

inches of so11. 

The life of a particular rhizome is not as long as would be expected. 

Sagar (13) mentioned that the rhizomes may live for 3 years in England, but 

seldom longer. Johnson and Buchholtz (6) found no evidence that the rhizomes 

lived more than 2 years under IOOrerigorous conditione in Wisconsin and a 

large proportion of them lived no longer than 1 year. The fact that the rhizomes 

are relatively short-lived is a vulnerable point in the life cycle of 

the weed. If new rhizome growth could be limited or eliminated for 1 year, 

the persistence of the weed would be sharply reduced. 

11Published with the approval of the Director of the Wisconsin Agricultural 

Experiment Station as a collaborator under Horth Central Regional Coop- 

___ ..1.,, '1"\__ .I. __ ...L '-1_ "In

The vigorous regrowth of quackgrass is related to the large number of dormant 

buds that are present on the r!;lizomes in an in;f'ested area. Weight of dry 

quackgrass rhizomes averages about 0.4 gm per foot.' If an area contains $000 Ib 

of the dry rhizomes per acre, this is equal to about 130 feet of rhizome per sq 

ft. The nodes on rhieomes average no more than 1 inch apart. Therefore, it is 

safe to assume that in excess of 1500 buds exist on the rhizomes in each sq !t 

of infested soil. Quackgrass standl1 seldom exceed '::tSOshoots per sq ft. From 

this it is apparent that 90 percent or more of the bilds on the rhizomes retn8in 

inactive until circumstances are favorable for their development. This reservoir 

of dormant bUds is a major hazard, for wheneyer. a stan~ of shoots is destroyed, 

some of the dormant buds Will be activated' and will very soon res13ta - 

blish the plant. . . 

The rhizomes Of qua.ckgrass contain a number of carbohydra.tes of which trit1c1n 

is probably present in greatest concentration. Total available carbj'hydrates, 

vary from about 30 to $0%of the dry rhizom~tweight according to Pinckney 

(12), Schirman and Buchholtz (1.4) and LeBaron and F~rtig (7). If one aSflWnesan 

average concentration of availa9le carbohydrates of ,40~ and a total dry ma~ter 

content of $000 lb/A, it appears that a reserve of 2000 lb/A of readily av~lable 

carbohydrates is stored in the rhizomes. Such,li!large reserve, along with 

the abundant supply of inactive bu4s, is ample reason why the growth of quackgr8J.ss 

is vigorous and w!:lythe regrowth occurs with such persistence. . 

The trends in total carbohydrate reserves during the year in quackgrass do 

not show the fluctuations that are found in many hel;'baceous plants. The work 

of Pinckney (12) and Schirman and Buchholtz (14) show;s that only minor var;Lations 

in reserve level occur during the year. LeBaron and, FeX'tig (7) found a substantial 

reduction in fructose content of the rhizomes djl.;r'ingthe winter, but their 

data are not fully comparable to the others cited, for it is based only on ,the 

content of fructose found in th~. tissue. Since there appeare to be no marked 

depression in total carbohydrate level during the seaeon, there is no most favorable 

time at which control measures directed at reducing the carbohydrate 

content may be initiated. 

Stoa, et aL, (15) was one of the first to comment,that the carbohydrate 

reserves of quackgrasa could be reduced by continual and consistent defoliat10n. 

Dexter (2) showed that organic reserves were reduced more readily after fertilization 

with nitrogen~ Defoliation by some tillage 9peration is no doubt effective, 

but it is inconvenient and requires the majqr portion of a season to 

produce the desired results. Alternative methods involving use of herbicides 

now'appe'ar l!I)re promising. 

Buchholtz (1), M~ggitt (8) and Fertig (3) have all reported on the superior 

control of quackgrass obtained withatrazine and other triazine herbicides.According 

to Schirman and Buchholtz (14) and LeBaron and Fertig (7) control results 

from the drastic reduction in carbohydrate reserves in the rhizomes following the 

treatment. !tappears that respiratory activity is maintained at a high l,-r'lll 

after trea'\;ment even t.hough photosynthesis is interrupted. The result is ~_.faster 

rate of depletion than can be accomplished by consistent defoliation or,m . 

other known method. D~pletion appears to proceed more rapidly when the t~, 

growth of the quackgrass is allow-edto remain intact for a month or more following 

treatment than.when it is removed. This is reasorulble for the presence:of 

the top growth increases the total respiratory activ,Lty of the plant. j, ' 

17

18 

containing fertiJ.izer were app118dto the t;re8ted.ar~a~ TheappJ.ic.ti~~, ~t 

nitrogen st1muliltiecl the foliar growth of thegrasl ..,nd tended to incre.se, the 

. number of shoots produced.' Both ()f these :reSpo~se~;lIccelerlited the rate of· 

carbohydrate, de,P,l,~ti,on., Th," ,e qU,at;l,k,g~'~8 Plants,,.fe,'Il,PO,,, .,n", ~,",dd to, a pPlic,at10nl!l" Of, ' 

atraz1ne a8 low as OS lb!A, but the.etfect wastrapfi1;ory, probably becaua.e 

of, .a sho.rt period 9£ residue, in'the so11. un~rboAQi7ions favorable f~ 

growth' an epp%'eei81;lleresidue or ·.trazine W!lS peedecl,Ul. the eo11 for .bout 

2 m:lnths in ord~r tel fully dep+et.~, tpecarbohydrat~8..~ thel'hizomes.nq.s 

waf!generally accoll1pJj,shedwith ~l?P.J,.ications ot 41,~/J\. of atrazine and OClcasionally 

at th.g :l.blA rate .w~!'1' t~agewas \leel! w;retardregrowth aft.~ 

a period of depletion. " . 

,., ,LeBaron an4Fertig(7) aleosl1cl~d that ~trqlz:educed fructose Qc!Ij1 

centrstions in rl1izomes of treats!! plants. Tbe :re4wition was not as drastic 

as 'lI'henatrazinewasapplied and. the plants often ilNldeeomerecovery a1'tctl' 

several months. There is goode\t1dencethat one olVbeactions of smitrol 1s 

reduction 1nphotosynthet:l.c acti-n.tr', However, the,¢hlorotic response ~rently 

does not a.lways,persist long' filnbughto deplewcarbohytlrates to tq!, •. , ' . 

lethal P9int~, The alll1trol in the tissue is bound 'or metabo11zed so that , 

eventually it is not presenti~ stif'ficient conc~ntr.tion to produce Chlo;'l)'" 

Eiis. '-!hen p~ologically active COncentrations o,t.amitrolare lost before 

carbohydrates are fully depleted, the plant recovers. 

5ioo.e the rhizomes in an infested area are a~nt,the carbohydrat4p 

reserves normally at a high level, and the dormant ~cr. very nwn.. oue., it 

appeared prot1tSble to determine the factors that int'lue1)Ce the activityq.r 

these buds.' If a means could be devised for lIiCJo.it.ng the activity of buds 

on the rhizomes, tol'1ar treatments for thecontroJ. r:?fquackgrass would bjs, 

IOOresuccessful tor a greater leaf area would be p",sent at time of tre~t.. 

Increased ntimberso£ shoots would ,81so allow for IOOZ'!'~apid depletion olthe 

carbohydrate reserves than wouldo;therwise be the !lase. As an alternatiYll, , 

it the buds coUld be treated so that they would reilJaindormant indetinit~, 

control measures might be devised IOOrereadily for the'weed would become'Jiillch 

less competitive and a large portion of the rhizomes would probably die trom 

nat~l causes withii1a year. 'Consequently, a, seri.e!S

during t,he sUllllller.is l,ower llndthe quackgrass is therefore able to develop 

more aggressively. In areas where the sOJ.ls are warm for extended periods 

during the SUIlIInerthe quackgrass is inacti va for long periods. This re

20 

June. Applications ot .300,lblA over five dates dJ,u'ing the growing season 

gave' sO/Il8Whlltg;reater activitylete in the se~so~'bu:t ~d llOt' fullyoyercome 

the dormancy oote4 during the early l3ummerll1Ot?-tb~. T~ second tOI'lll ofciormancy 

is therefore related to an mremely JP.gh~~:r'gon-nitrogen ratio in the 

rhizome tissue.' '. , " , 

A third torm ot t'ormancy was shown by Meyer (9) to arise trom apical 

dominance. The inhibiting etfect was JOOstprono~d. uhen a shoot weBpresent, 

but this tom of d'Omancy co~ 1;>ed6Jl¥)nl3trateclOJl~{l1zomes sections ~' 

when the sheot ,was r'en!oved. ,The buds on nodes ~ta1 trom the tip enved 

the least activ:i.,ty.Thef.act tbat all budtl pos~,s the same ciegreeQ!:IlCtivity 

inherently ~l8.sd8Jl¥)nstrsted'bycuttingthe rhizoM- int-o single node sect1ons. 

TA/henthis was dbne, ~e buds t1'omthe various lop.j;,~ons on the rhizO/I1e,sbowed 

equal activity ,!t1d IGadeequal shoot growth. 

While it can be demonstrated that apical doMinance exists in quackgrass, 

it was tound ,this, diq,no,t acCount tor all ot the ~ dQrmsncy noted in the 

tield. Meyer (~) 'rembved th~ s_~

5. llslapon and other chlorine,ted organic !lciQs,iS:well as MIl, reduoed wot 

growth of ~8Ckgress drastically, but did not IlI8terially reduce bid 

dormancy is otten cited as the mechanism involved. A IIIOreexact evaluation 

"-" ot the response atter treatment with the chlorinated aliphatic acids is that 

bud activity is in fact maintain"', but thet the shoot growth is sharply 

reduced. 

The dsstruction of shoot growth after trea_not, with dalapon interrl1pts 

photosynthetic activity and some reduction in carbohydrate occurs, but at a 

rate MUChslower than in the case of plants treated:'wit,h atruine or amitrol 

because the respiratory activity!s lower. The residue of dalapon in the 

soil and in" the tissue is dissipated rather quickly and after a period of 

several, months partial regrowth .-y occur. This regrowth develops from 

buds that have remained inactivewb1le the dalaponwes present. Shoots that 

do devebp are apt to grow vigorously because of the relatively high carbohydrate 

reserve that has been lIl8inte1ned in the rhizome. 

The bud response followi~t~tment withMli is somewhat siJnilar to that 

observed with dalapon. Zick (16)' snd i1eyer (9) both found that bud activity 

was not altered lnaterially, but that the shoot growth was greatly reduced. 

Maximumresponses occur only under conditions that fmr absorption ofb 

chemical. Applications of MHdo not destroy t,h.' folia,ge so carbohydrates 

continue t~ accumulate. The maintenance of,th~ shoote also serves to maintain 

a considerable degree of apical dominance. Eventually inactive buds on the 

rhizome are releued and when t!lis occurs, teg;rowtb, is abundant and vigorous. 

21 

1. Quackgrass is a widely distributed and persistent weed in the northern 

states and ilj. Canada. The plant spreads zoap:l.dlNb1 both seeds and ridzomefragments. 

' The rhizomes are abundant in t,he surface soil and " 

normally maintain a total available carbohydrate content of 40% or I1lOre 

during the year. This, along with an abut1-dant'lUpply ot inactive bU~ , 

on the rhizomes, assures vigorous and persi,stent,regrowth after de!o]J;ation. 

2. Qusckgrass plants treated wi.th,atrazine show marked reductions in the 

'total available carbohydrates in ,the rhizomes. The speed of carbo~te 

reduction 'is accelerated by maintBining shoot growth on treated plants 

and by adding nitrogen when a def~ciency ot ~e element occurs.! major 

r.esponse ot quackgrass to ,am1trol also in-volvesthe depletion of carbohydrate 

in the rhizomes. Amitrol may not persist in the active form 

in the tissue long enough to deplete the resel"VQ to the lethal point. 

3. The activity of vegetative buds en quackgras's rhizomes is reduced or 

limited by (1) temperatures above 25 C,(2) w1dec.rbon-nitrogen ratios 

in the rhizome tissue dUring late spring, and enapical dominance of 

shoots or terminal buds. 

4. '!'he growth substances inql.l8ckgrass mq be .~ lliaterid other than IAA 

for this cotnpoimdhad no detectable effect on the activity of vegetative 

buds. TIBiI.IOOdJ.1'i.edpolar transport of bud irJhj:biting tectors while 

NAAand various herbicides inhibi t~ or, el1ilQ.nated bud ecti vi ty.

22 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Buchholtz, K.P. Use of atrazine to control quackgrass in com fields. 

Proc , NCr,{;C17: 25-26. 1960. 

2. Dexter, S. T. Seasonal variations in drought resistance of exposed rhizomes 

of quackgrass. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 3!I:1125-1136. 1942. 

3. Fertig, S.N. The effectiveness-of combinations of plow-down, pre-emergence 

and post-emergence treatments for quackgraSs control, 1960 results. 

Proe , NCWCC15:3l2-311~. 1961. -- 

4. Johnson, B.G. Natural and induced dormancy of the vegetative buds on Ilhe 

rhizome. of quackgress (Agropyron repens (L.) lleauv.). Ph.D. thesis, 

Univ. of Wisconsin. 1958. - 

5. Johnson, B.G. and Buchholtz, K.F-. An in vitro method of eValuati~ the 

activity of buds on the rhizomes of quackgrass (Agropyron repens (L.) 

Beauv.). Weeds 9:600-606. 1961. 

6. Johnson, B.G. and Buchholtz, K.P. The natural bud dormancy of quackgrass 

rhizomes. Proc. NCweC14:29. 1957. 

7. LeBaron, H.M. and Fertig, S.N. The effects of chemical and cultural 

treatments on the food reserves of quackgrass rhizomes. Proc , NEWCC 

15:319-328. 1961. 

8. Meggitt, W.F. Herbicide combinations for quackgrass control. Proc , NC\r.rcC 

17:83. 1960. 

I 

9. Meyer, A. A study of factors affecting the bud dormancy of quackgrass 

(Agropyron repens (L.) Beeuvo).Fh.D. thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin.1961. 

10. Meyer, R.E. andBuchholtz, K.P. Some factors affecting the activity and 

growth of buds on quackgrass rhizomes. Proc , NCtllC 17:37. 1960. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

Mudd, J.B., Johnson, B., Burris, R.H., and Buchholtz, K.P. Oxidation 

of indoleacetic acids by quaokgrass rhizomes. Plant Phy.- 34:l44;148. 1959. 

Pinckney, A.J. Composition and vitality of quaokgrass roots. North 

Dakota Agr. Exp , Sta. Bull. 334 (Tech.). 1945. 

Segar, G.R. A~2rn repene - An introduction. Proc , British Weed 

Control Cont. : 9-263. 1960. 

Schirman, R., and Buchholtz, K.P. The effect of atrazine on the carbohydrate 

levels in rhizomes of quackgraes , Proc. NCWCC17:19. 1960. 

Stoa, T.E., stl,JrlauglUl,V. and !'1cColly, H.F. Control of quackgrass by 

tillage. North Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 244. 1930. 

leo Zick, W.H. Factors influencing the effectivenes~ of maleic hydraZide 

in control1inlZ auack,,'!"/'''''''' Aa1"n~'" ~ft~~__ Tn..... L~ - -, - .,.

23 

• ·i 

INTRODUCTION: 

!!'he Bearch -tor lUld·de1te~pment of promising. neillC'helDicals for weed eeatr!?l 

hIlS continued. rapidly.. So. ctoD has the Ileamlh,fornew ,uses for old : 

herbicides. Treatment method .... ' tilll8,the additiOn of adjuvants, and th, 

"correct" fOl'lllU:La't1onhave found ·'tl\e1r place' iathe:. fittJ.d of herbicide 

and practice." ~.•extemied \Ia.·of! newhei'bicidal :eheild:caJ.sis hardly 

r."eareh 

. '. 

possible withou:t khowleilge and :aU:1"ization of .thet acv. factors. .,' 

~~ U;,' 

Physical and chemical combinations of herbicides or herbicides and 

adjuVants, which l arebffii1g inteniidTely studied, appear promising as a means 

of increasirig heZ'btcidal actiVities or extending ~- selective properties: 

for weed control. 

Equipment is being -developed ~ mod:i:fiedt(j~'~ proper placement and 

to. take advantage of the physical properties afforded by herbicides formulated 

on"~lar IlIatel'ials. . . 'i 'i .,' .1, 

-~~ ~, 

Several chemicalfamiliesWwto ~d contrClli:.~ been introWCed ad 

apPear promising as herbicides':1n vai'1oussituatioblh- 'Only time and use Y.Ul 

prove the worth':ofnew herbicides.": 

NEWCHEMICALSWITHPROMISINGUSES: 

Arylamines - Eli Lilly- and' Ccmpa!!y 

Dipropalin. (If,l(.i,di;'(n~prbW.J;)~, 6-din1 tr~"~J,analin.) was tolerated 

without visible injury by-a large number of field and horticultural crops when 

used as a prtl-.mergencetrea1lmen.t~•. Weed control..-: gdod to elCcellent •. .JIB 

withmilny heZ'bieides it appearsthatl ilIore chemical'1s 'reqUired on heavier" 

soils. Field crops which tole'r&tW'6-8' lbfA of. tMeo

'1'r1floralin 

(N ,!-4l"(!"~olo2.6-41rd.tr0-4-tJl:i't1uorOlleth11aDaliDe) 

appeve particular!7 pI'OIII18ins·in a DWllber of field and horticultural crop. 

as a pre-emerpnee treatjaent •. F1..ld,oorn, cotton, n..x, peanuts, and 

safflower tol.rat" 6 lb/A or more of this herbicide without risible sip 

of injUl'1, wbereu ~ broadl.aYed and P'au1 weedswere eradicated 01' 

controlled at rate. of ,. lb/A or 1••• 

!ronoU, eubap,eaulif1otlitr .... ,'CollUda, ,fi.w.r .... 

, baDOftr ..w, 

kal., llma~ beazuI•. lIWJtlu'd sre.... Jl&Il*l.1. pe.. ,~, lIWHt CO"" aa4 

turnip tolerat.d 8 lb/4 of tr1f1W1l1iD applie4~I"PDC•• ' PipHd,,.... 

graae,carpet , era .... and'laBaqU&rtere .... .er.d1cate4 on lipt"l 

with 1 lb/Aw 1 S~l illcOl'JlO1'U1_ of tbie _~ .DbaIlC•• it8 . 

h.rbicidal actint,-. A~catumottriflora1Ul", .,~ted &PRJ or OIl'& 

p'anular carri.r after "l.an cultivation at 1&7-b1 appeare pJ'Olllieins. 

. tisccmpOUlld.hU done a ,004 job cODtrolliDl 0_....in t\lrf. D.... 

to turf baa beeri',"ported wh.re .b1Ib.', rat.8 

!!!.r 

, -'. I- 

of ~atiOll were uae4. 

(~£oLVj:j=ntt=:_r5nc. 

Thie herbicide appears promieins for th. pre __ l'pne.!:lODtrol ot ~ 

broadl.aved and 1I"A887we.de in a wide variety of crops. Buckwh.at, cotton, 

C0wpH8" .f1a.t" _lh,and' .. pbHQe~ to _.,~,tol.r&llC. to 41b/A 

whe:reaaoorn, ,u... ~_, pe~" aatnowel', llIlC\-,~ toJ,vated &II.. 

as 8 lb/A. weed control wae .xc.llent. Ba7.r 405~1"'tiDcl \I".. a 

direct.d sPRJ or in SJ'&Dula1'f01'lllaft.r cl.an cultivation at l&7-by. 

• ,i: ~-'IJ 

S.v.ral P'Us crope and SJ'&881 we.de appear-Yei7 tolerant to pc.t- 

.... rpne. applicatiOll8ot .4-8 Jib/A.· Y'; '.' 

.Dip." cl -' EM I4.Uz:e' CO!P!ily ... JJUebB'9o/IilAA.y 

. . , .':':J: \', ",.";: ,

Some damage to runners rssul ted frOlll'the high application rate 0 Postemergence 

treatments with 5 lb/A gave good control of weeds in cucumbers, 

cantaloupes, watermelons, and squash. Post-emergence treatments at lay-by 

- after clean cultivation would seem prOlllising. This herbicide appears to 

remain herbicidally active in the soil for extended periods, a characteristic 

which should be noted. 

25 

Du Pont 326 - E. I. 

emPont de Nemours Company 

The pre-emergence or directed post-emergence application of Du Pont .}26 

(3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-l-methylurea) gave good weed control in a 

number of field and horticultural crops. 

Field corn, oats, safflower,soybeans, and Sudallgrass tolerated 1-2 lb/A 

as a pre-emergence spray whereas ·lIIOaJtbroadleaved aadgtl'assy annual weeds wers 

controlled by application of 1/2 lb/A. This herbicide also looks promisiDg 

for the pre-emergence control of annual weeds in sweet corn and carrots. 

As a directed post-emergence spray, Du Pont 326. reportedly looks good for 

weed control in corn ·and cotton at rates of 3/4-3 lb/A. Some oontact injury 

to the lower leaves of corn has been reported butthia was short-lived. 

HPC7531 - Hercules 

Powder Company 

Limited trials show that the HPC7531 is extremely active at 4 1b/A on 

most crops and weeds as a pre- or post-emergence treatment. Peas, sorghum, 

and Sudangrass show limited tolerance to pre-emergence treatments. When 

used as a post-emergence treatment, 4-8 lb/A of HPC7531 acted as a Boil 

sterilant. 

HS-55 - Badische Ana1in and Soda Fabrik 

HS-55 is a combination of n-cyc1oocty1 dimethy1urea and butyny1 N-(3 

-chloropheny1) carbamate. As a pre-emergence spray at a rate of 4 1b/A or 

less HS-55 may be useful for the control of a number of annual weeds in corn, 

lima beans, and sugar beets. At application rates of 8 1b/A or more HS-55 

acts as a soil sterilant. 

Ago 

NFM5778 and NFM2995 - Niagara Chemical Division, 

FMC 

Pre-emergence applications of NFM5778 (4,6-dinitro-2-sec-buty1phenol 

acetate) at rates of 6-8 1b/A are promising for control of annual broad1eaved 

and grassy weeds in field and sweet corn, cotton, peanuts, peas, snapbeans, 

and soybeans. Few crops show tolerance to over-all post-emergence treatments. 

Pre·-emergence applications of NFM2995 (methyl !!-(3,4-dichloropheny1) 

carbamate) appear promising for weed control in field corn, cotton, peanuts, 

soybeans, Sudangrass, sweet corn, lima beans, and snapbeans. These crops 

tolerated 3 1b/A without visible injury. Annual broadleaved and grassy weeds 

were controlled by 1 lb/A or less. Anover-all post-emergence spray caused

26 

some damage to .test: crops. Granuw Or directeOgt..emergence .tna~.,a~ 

lay-~ may :hold prOlllise. ;: 

. •. . '. :' . . .. }. . ,:. ~,.: . . '" ." ."f :', : 

The thiolcarbamates continue to be promising as exce~lent. her~ici~[~n. 

a number of weed-crop situations. The high activity of several' of these compounds 

as pre-eme1"!Wncetreat.nts .'1Ul.dthel.owllc.t~·tY'as post.,.eJI)erpnce 

,treatments add to the versatilftj 'of' possible l18eii~" Soil-incQriJoration and 

fol'llh,tlation.stlldies arecontilll.liq -rapidly_ 

R-1607 (propyl di-,e-proPYlth10lcarbamate) .an4a-1870 (eth1l-di-~~J..:" 

thiolcarbamate) appear particularly promising in a aeries of vegetable, leaf', 

.salad, 'and cole .cropeas ,pre-pluting soll-inc~t;l.pnor pr.-emer~ 

treatments" R-l6o?ia report~.J":I'1 promiains'~-l!I01beans ,as a pr........ ~e 

treatment; with the granular f'OI'lIIUlation superior,to~eemulsif'iablec0DPJ8n'" 

trate spray formulation. 

':' The 6>1b/A'rate of R-2061(p:I'OPyl eth1l-,e~~lthioloarballla~) l.ooks 

go:od as. a :.pOtJlt...tanaplant tr •• ~t in "tomatot,.. ,peppers •. and str~berr~.a . 

at 6lb/A; . ~ep.riOdof

27 

CELLSTRUCTUREANDPLANTGROWTHCRMONEACTION 

ArthlW W. Galston l 

The Chemical control of pJ.Qil groWth is largeJg.~ empirical art which 

has only occasionally approached the level of a pre~table science. This 

empiricism is largely a consequence of our imperfeot unqerstanding of the 

nature of· the action of growth reg~ator,y chemical~ .such as the auxins.and 

gibberellins. It is a constant source of embarrassment to plant physiologists 

and biochemists that roughly 35",~s after the disoove1'!Y of auxins we are . 

still completely unable to. describe their mode of. &lotion in plant cells. 

Lest we become too humble and emba;rrasaed about this sta!te of affairs, it 1s 

well to recall that nowhere in biochemistr,y or phys1010gf :l,.sthere complete 

understanding of the mode of action of any honnone} even such well known 

systems as insulin have not been definitely pin-pointed biochemically. This 

has caused some people to wonder whether if, in invelitigating the mechanism 

of hormone action, we have not been barking up the wrong tree. All of us 

have been looking for chemical effects, and in order to lilXPlain the ver,y 

great efficacy of very few molecules of the honnone,we have tended to assume 

that the hormone either becomes part of an enzyme systelll; or controls the 

action of an enzyme system. Only in this way, it has been believed, can we . 

get the proper amplification to pe:nnit relatively large biological effects 

to be produced by a small number of molecules. Nonetheless, this line of. 

reasoning has been most unrewarding in the past and In fact we still know 

of no honnone whose action can be oompletely explained with reference to ~ 

partioular enzyme system. 

Perhaps a part of the reason for our ignorancElof the mode of action . 

of honnones lies in the fact that we are only now beg!nntng to understand 

the structure of the ver,y complexl1llichine which we call the living cell. 

Just as one could not hope to understand the funotioning of an automobile 

engine without knowing in detail the structure of its component parts, M 

the student of any aspect of cell physiology cannot hope to be able to 

supply definitive answers without an intimate knciwledge .of the structure of 

the cell and of its component parts, In recent years a revolution in our 

understanding of cell structure has resulted from. 1;tle systematic applicat+on 

of electron miorosoopy and ultra-thin sectioning to tJ1e ,study of various 

cell types. BeeauseI believe that this new info~t:l,.on is basic to any 

discussion of oell physiology and of auxin action, ! shall preface IIl;y 

remarks with a brief description of our modern view of tpe plantoell. In 

so doing, I would like to remind you that while the o~nar,y light mioroscope 

is able to give us magnifioations in the range. of 1,000 diameters 

with a resolution dOlm to '.2 mierons, the eleotron lIIicrosoope has already 

given us olear pictures at 150,000 diameters magnif1~ation with a resolutipn 

of 0.003 microns. In faot the theoretical limit of resolution, being based 

on the wave length of the radiation employe~ can be imprpved still further 

by two orders of magnitude , This clearly brings us liown to the range of 

molecular dimensions. We should therefore expeot ~t ~thin the next 

several decades, the ~stematic improvement of elec~onMicroscopy and 

related. techniques will permit us to have a fairly qetailed view of the

2S 

J 

complex moleculail" architecture 

o.f the cell. 

I would like to show you tiNt a pictUi'e' 1)£.a cell in the root tip at 

maize. This is a transverse sect1on~ l75p, trom.the apex. T~e large.c~ 

tral bodY is t.be nucleus with the darker c~1ft aNa8'andnumerou, Pclres 

in the double ,nuclear membrane. "The elongated c~ ·~through 'the 

cytoplasm are portiOns :of the lIlidOplasm1oretioUlliifirwl\ioh represent,Pt'ojectionS 

of'theriuolear doilblemedSrane •. The :nUllllili'OIls olub sba,pedor.· . 

106undedbodies Withintemal pro~cti6ns are thftlli1~ohondria with their 

cristae. The' grouPsdt sh61't ~swith veliliOUlul:.rIds&re Colgi bodie •• , 

The lighter stipPled-apPeai'1ns~sin' the ti~pWin ,are the vacuole$.:, .;.. 

Certa1nlyth1sia a beautiful 8rii "canplex maohifte~d'ItJ represents a strU.~ 

ture towl'li Mial.l1'h7siologioal'data must be %',ete1,i8d'ff, indeed, we ~ to 

understand what we are tal1d.ng a~ut. .,". . 

In addition tothenumerousoytoplasmio structUre1swhich wehave jUst . 

seen, the plant -oell also posed"s a complex cell! will which is physic~ 

quite rigid during lIIOstof the dtrveloJXDllntof tl'~;'beU arid ooilstrains the. 

protoplast frOlnexparvH.ng undet' the intlilenceot lnti!lrnal turgor pres~. 

Chem1cantthi~ 0.1;]. walloons18ts of'such mat~us' ¥ pectin,. polysaoc~ , 

rides of "aMolis 'types (including cellulose), lignins, and proteins •.. T~_ 

plant o;VtolOS!st, 11Sing light,lIlfoiQscopy, has b~'"abJ,eto dist1n~s~. ~. ' 

middlelameUa-which we novibe:l;ieve to be mairily p'~ctin ~ nature, a p~ 

wall which iis pl'ii:lllirily 'oellulosi'c and a secondart'·;,au which may oont4n, 

almostantthing. : This wall is'tx'Ucturemaybe contllulbu is but it is usuai.l.;r , 

perforated by numerous pits am holes and electron mi~rroscopy has revealed 

thatoytoplasmio strands and perhs,ps even branohes .Of the endoplasmic 1!etioulUlllrUnfran 

'cell to cellth~~these per{ora,t1~ -. Thus, despite i~. 

separli.'tio~ into ~sorete wOoden'}ld~s,the l1,v1ng,.partof the plant bodr: 

does represent a p~toplasaa,~ cb,htinuum; thereap~!I to be easy 00lllllW1ice,.. 

tion between cells by means of" their cytoplBSJlliq ,oQnnections., 

~

pel'fQ.,..d,-.ear17M1932. that the administl'&tto.a of auxin to certain 

tnes otplUtceUsresults'1n;III'1,1ncrease inth.'l'1a.ttic extensib1l1tyot 

the1f8ll.-Sinee, .. we haveedd.htore,the Wall constrains the protoPlU 

1110' contentll:.in their growth, a loosening up ot wa1l structure could lead to 

stretc~;of tbeceU under the 1Iitluenceot intemar' turgor pressure. 

This. 1s .the:lnterpNtation usU4lJ.T-J;sLvento explaiD"the cell extension pre;.. 

mot1ng actJivi1l7 ,otauxln.· ' . 

iUntol'tunatel;rth1s cannot be the ClOI'IIpleteanewer. wemow, tor exa» 

ple, that auxin promotes division of many cells in the plant. Manyyears 

ago, it became clear that cambial divisions in ~ spring were initiated by 

auxin OOIIIingtmll the growing bu6' above. TbSue ~tures of cambiai' and 

other ceUa trequentlT require an endogenous source: ot natul'al or art1t1~tal . 

auxin for tbecont:Uwation of cell division. The initiation of adventitious 

root., "hich 1nvol"'. celldiV:1e1cmin the per!ctele, i. also caused br.' , 

auxin •. Clearl, then 'cell diTiision promoting .actiOO8 c;annot be attributed 

to the wall. In hot, since one generelly thinkllot the nucleus as the 1b1 

tiator of the cell division cycle, one is tempted here 'to regard the nucleus 

as the intracellular locale of auxin action. 

But eventhb picture is not Oomplete. ~~ thirty years ago, Th1- . 

mann·aI1dsWeene;r,worldng with thecel18 of ~Coleqptiles, sb:lwed that 

the applicaUo*'o! awd.ntOauxf~t1cient c~li.wQUL~ initiate protopJ.Umic 

stream1ni':~ thatremovalot,.aux:l.n would1'$iE!ult tn a diminution ot. protoplasmic 

eti'ftla:l.ng~ . The~le aspect ot t~(·~~trol is that it CU1 

be ·exerted within several minutei. To what organeU8are we to look here? 

What is it that controls cytopl&lllll1,cstreaming? In :t~t we do not mow•. 

Th.. olosest we'canoalle is to 8~ that cytoplasm1c·.'t~am1l'!8 is quite obvioulJl7 

dependent 'on·an energy supply and an 8lttern~s~ply ot OJq'gen. Since 

it is the m1tochOndrion in which rtlspiratory activ1.tyl,s localized, we are 

tempted to consider the ml.tochondr1on as the seat.9.f plant hormone actien in 

this instance. Or perhaps we should look to the so-called "structure!es8 

cytoplasm. II 

In factex.per1ments pertoJ"llBd,lD8n1years ago ,!?yHenry Northen sho,e4 

that the eppllcatiOfl ot auxins to

30 

One approach would appear to be by the use of'labeled auxins. satya 

we now have techniques available for homogenizing,tnd differentially centrifuging 

out the intact organolles of.a cell" theoretJ:cally at least we could 

feed a labeled auxin to a plant eeJ.l and after spjlDning out. eacib. component 

of the cell we could count each .fraction to see 'Nha'e theradioactivityi'S' 

localized. I ,shall return to /fame experiments on this subject later. This 

technique is tricky in that the homogenization procedure may" in fact" cause 

the removal of labeled auxin frama particular organelle or, conversely" may 

artifactually cause its adsorpt1onon to an organelle to which it is not 

normally attached. ' 

Perhaps a better technique would be histochemic4l autoradiography., 

This technique has been of great utility for the m~clil&1" cytologist,S±noe 

it has permitted him to localize nucleic acids in the cell with great precision. 

Unfortunately the plant.growth hormone is present in the cell in, 

such low concentrations that this technique cannot ~e.employed. In 'factI 

do not know of anY work along these lines which hasi1yielded useful data4,:or 

the plant physiologist. 

I would like now to describe some experiments performed several years 

ago in collaboration with Dr. Ravingar Kaur and later with Drs. Satishand 

Nirmala Maheshwari. We decided to 'at!:llck the probJ,em of the .localization.a! 

auxin action in the cell by feeding C 4 carboxyl-labelled 2,,4-D to th61iJ:OWing 

cells of the pea plant and then atter hamoget4zat.ion and, differential 

centrifugation of the cell, counting each of the f,ractione. Since both , 

the fractionation scheme and the basic results have. alreacl,y been pUblishecl." 

I will summarize them only briefly here. After the ,first homogenization 

we found that the cell walls and unbroken tissue fr~ents, which deposited 

at lowest speeds, contained a, si¢ficant number of counts. These however., 

were readily removed by regrinding ,and rewashing.' We concluded that, in 

reality, the wall did not contain f:$.rmly bound 2,4-i:l. Other particulate , 

fractions, such as the chloroplasts, mitochondria and ~crosomcs containe~ 

smaller activity, which was very readily removed by gentlo washing and 

recentrifugation. In fact, the results of many such experiments convinced 

us that the great bulk of the labeled 2,4-D fed to tbe plant cell does not 

attach to any particulate fraction but remainsint~final centrifugal 

supernatant'fluid after homogeni~ation and centr1~uistion. This means 

that it is either in the vacuole cr' dn the clear Ils'\;ructureless ll fraction,' 

of the cytoplasm. ' ' 

In order to see whether the 2,4-D 10calized1n.this way might poss1l:>ly 

be attached to a macromolecule, such as protein, weatt~pted both dialysi, 

experiments and coagulation of proteins. The dialysis experiments told us 

that,the labelled 2,4-Dpassed readily out of the bag, ~lthough not SO 

rapidly as similar material not 'in contact With pro~~in. All in all, ,the l 

data indicated no firm binding ot aUXin to protein..~he precipit.:ation 

experilnents, also, showed some small activity onthe,;coagulatedproteins." 

but whether this occurs in vivo or in vitro is hard to tell. ,What intore"ted 

us most was the finding that auxin'markedlY depresse,r:i t~e heat coagula'billty 

of the proteins in this phase. In fact in certaih~eriments the coagulability 

is so altered that there is no protein precipitate at all in the 

experimental (auxin treated) series, but/the control (auxin free) series 

4~

a copious precipitate deposits after ten minutes of boiling. Subsequent 

experiments have revealed that this effect is proportional to the concentration 

of 2,4...D employed, both in stElllla, where 2,4-D promotes growth, and in 

roots, where 2,4-D inhibits growth. The minimal effective concentration 

appears to be about 10-6 molar in both tissues and the effect rises linearly 

with the logarithm of the conoen~rat1on emplqyed. There is no evidence of 

an optimum. Certain of these facts have, of course,. compelled us to doubt 

the physiological significance of this phenomenon, for, as you are aware, 

a graph relating growth effect to concentration of auxins applied to plant 

tissues usually shows a sharp optimum concentration, for growth promotion. 

I believe, however, that this is not a serious stumbling block, for in our 

laboratory we have obtained evidence that the growth inhibitional phase of 

auxin action on stems, at least, is quite separable from the grolvth promotional 

phase •. For example, in experiments with excised pieces of etiolated 

pea stem, it can readily be shown that when sugar is added to the medium 

there is an auxin optimum, but when sugar is omitted from the mediumthere 

is no auxin optimum. Regarding the lack of difforential effect on root 

and stem in our protein test system as contrasted with differential effects 

of auxin on root and short in vivo, we need only remark that there is good 

evidence to believe that the basic action of auxin in all tissues is fundamentally 

the same. Whether one aohieves growth promotion or growth inhibition 

as a result of auxin application is probably the result of secondary 

reactions of various types in the different tissues. At any rate, we do 

not believe, at the moment, that we need to relegate the results we have 

found to the limbo of the physiologically meaningless. 

What evidenoe do we have that the phenomenawe have discovered are 

in fact biologically meaningfUl? In the first place, the effect appears to 

be elicited only by those t,ypes of molecules which show auxin activity. 

For example 2,4-D and indoleacetio aoid are most active, phenylacetic 

acid and.2-3-5-triiodobenzoic acid are moderately active, and the antiauxin 

p-chlorophenaxyisobut,yTic acid is cqinpletely inactive. Secondly, only 

those cells of both etiolated and green pea plants which are capable of 

responding to auxin from a growth point of view show the altered coagulability 

pattern of proteins. Thirdly, kinetic studies have convinced us 

that altered heat coagulability maymnnifest itself as soon as two hours 

after application of auxin, although the usual time lag is four hours. 

Since we can first detect growth differences between .control and treated 

tissues in about one hour or so we are at least close to the range in which 

our effect must operate to be of significance in the control of growth. 

Fourthly, gibberellin, which produces no marked effect on the growth of 

excised pea stem tissue, is also without effect on alteration of the heat 

coagulability of proteins, though it does appear to synergize slightly with 

auxin, as it does in growth itself. 

an'the·chemicalside we have also done certain experiments to try to 

understand the nature of changes wrought in the proteins. The first question 

would appear to be this1 Is it protein itself which is changed by auxin 

trea"bnent or can we possibly be altering something else in the tissue which 

results in an altered stability of the proteins toward heat? The first 

thing to remark here is that the altered coagulability persists after prolonged 

31

'. '.32 

. dialysis against 'both EDTAand vater. Therefore, ,'wnatever is 'be1ngCh~Fed 

,_"is a macromolecule. The precip;ttate itself is 11Iorethan 90%protein but 

'does contain SOiftenucleic acid)~ ,sbinepetrtin' tyjle subs.tances and airlaU qUtq1 

'tities of lipid. While we have found that' the .~&fi"tilm of cOmmercial ~~'to%'Us 

pectin will, in fact, alter the heat coaSU1abU1~"of pea proteins, tho; 

.quanti ties which we have hatt to add to produce this >I'lffeot are so large as 

.to be physio16g1cally unimportant in our, e:xperimen~~ ,The. crucial'test, . 

of the hypothesis that: pectins 8rtil altering the h~~~ coagulability of ,', . 

.proteins would be to isolate the pectins from pee.s~ add them to the proteins 

-and exaininethe effect 9fphy'aiological quantitie'is~fth\>se matwrials 01,1 " 

the 'heat coagulabilitY' patterns. We are currentl;r. pvrforming such exPeriment.s, 

.. . ! . 

Wehave also found that the auxin-induced reaction can be inhiBited 

,very markedly bY'ethionine at about 10-.3 M.Ano~Elr !ntp.bitor which SQElzaS 

to work fairly well is p-fluorOphenye.lanine.Siijde'bcith these substanclilS' 

are amino acid antagonists (for tyrosine and methionine rospectively)' We '. 

,.,.infer thllt protein synthesis '~ be involved 1ntJ11s auxin-induced roa~ori. 

This is a h!ghl$ tentative conclusion which must. ~·'axami.ned further, :. 

especially in view of the factthe.t ethionine is aleo'a competitor with . 

methionine for methyl group transfer reactions WhiChmayinvolve the pectins. 

Other' genara~inhibitors which have been found ett.octiive aro 2-4-dinit1'qphonol, 

at about l~ molar, iodoacetic acid at about 10-4 1I!0.larand potassiQlllC1!lnide 

at about 10-3 molar. The reactionalilo fails to occur in an atmosphere' : 

devoid of oxygen." 

Wehave als~ attompted to obtain evidence for .or against the fo;rmation. 

of a of anew pr?tein under tha:1pfluonqaof auxin \:)ysubjecting the par,tia1ly 

purifiGd soluble supernatant protein to ,electp:ph~sis both on paper and 

on starch. Our resUlts to date show that apprClXi!1l8telyfour maj"or peaks. 

are present in the electrophoretic patterns ot the: prqtei,tls, at pH 8.6 .. ' 

with verona'l, ·buffer. .These se6ll1to be. altered qu~ti~atively as a res)1lt 

of auxin application, and one new small peak arises as the resUlt of8UXin 

application. The interpretation Qt:these :r:esu.J.ts1s ~ome'Hh£'.tuncertain, . 

and must nwai-tf'urther work•. Ou,r ,.tentati've concl~on is, however, that , 

auxin treatmont has somehowalterod the protein :spe'ctrum of the cell, ,OM 

that such alteration may lead to somo or all ot thegt'owth effects noted' 

as a r"sul t of auxin applicotion. . :' . . . 

References 

A) Some of the data for the conclusions cited above aro"£ound in: 

1) Galston. A.W, and Kaur, R. An effect of a\ixins on th0 heat 

coagulability of the proteins of growing plant cells. Proc. 

Natl. Acad. Sci, (U.S.). l!2,,1587-1590, 195~. ' 

2) and • The intracollular locale of auxin actiam' 

Ane1'l'ect of auxin onthe physical state.~f cytopltsmic proteins. 

in. Plant Growth Regulation, Proceedihgs of: the IVth Inti.· Conf'er-J 

enoa. 355-362. Iowa State College Press, 'Ames, Iowa. 1961.

B) A general review of the subject is found in: 

33 

3) Ga1ston, A.W, and Purves, W.K. The mechanism of action of auxin. 

Ann. Rov, Pl. Physio1, 11J239-276. (1960) 

C) . An art~c+a sUlllllla:t'iz1ng the Il'Y ll~olog1cal and chemical data will shortly 

be. sUbmittea, to the American Journal of Bot/UlY.

34 

THB USB OF HBR,BlCIDBSIN FORBS'J:"MANAGBMENT 

Wuu..n F. Muri8og.~"" 

J 

..I·am go1ag eortla1Ce It-mybwIlDe8*:iodayto ~;ii6DIisl~'lIlyour~..r Jl~ -, 

tb1s not from any feeling ofmal1cEltoWaidsyoUor from diD'titb8rnpessim1s'rri'WtI1Cb has 

as Its goal the negation of all construet1ve thought. Rather my hope Is that what 1 have 

to say will sharpen your notions about the resource weforesters work with and hetghten 

your appreciation of the problems that coufront us. 

One of our biggest problems at the moment is dec1dIDgwhat Is a weed. IrODicas 

it may seem, this Is actually the case in many parts of the region. Our forests on the 

Atlantic seaboard are extremely complex biologically. We have many tree spec1es 

that reach merchantable size and many that have a present or potential use in terms of 

the wood that they yield. Then toft there are wide regional differences among the for· 

ests of the Northeast •• from the boreal forests of northern Maine to the pine barrens 

of NewJersey. Bach vegetational region can lay claim to a number of species that 

are commercially desirable or soon will become so. In one forest with which I am. 

famWar, there are upwards of 20 spec1es that reach tree size. At the moment, ODe 

is about as good as the other in terms of the financial returns we can hope to gain by 

se1l1ngthem, and I for· one would be reluctant to call any of them weeds. 

One cannot escape the fact that the Northeast Is a forested country. The rural 

landscape is a forested one and this becomes particularly evident as one travels the 

hUlcountry to the north of here. Woods we have lots IIf. And as the miles roll by 

and the forested landscape unrolls before your eyes. the realization comes to you that 

this Is a wild crop over which man exerts only minor control. Mlch of it, like Topsy, 

Just grows. The degree of stocking, the species composition and the distribltiOD of 

age classes is none of our doing; the events that shaped the forests of today are now 

history and it is sobering to discover that many of the chaDges that brought about the1r 

present cond1tiODwere similarly beyond our control. 

As U the wide extent and the biological complexity of the resource were not enough 

to deal with, we are sooner or later brought face to face Ir1th the ownership pattern 

that underlies this resource. It too is complex in the ead:reme. Land ownerships in 

the reglon are characteristically small and the land is owned and taxes paid on it by 

people who have a whole arsenal of reasons for wanting to do 80. Bven U it were physically 

possible, let alone financially desirable, to manage these forests intensively over 

wide areas, management prescriptions would falter and fa1lin the face uf such an 

ownership pattern. Bothsocially and economically. then, our contrel of the resource, 

crude as it may be, 18 further constrained and we are reduced to the role of consultants 

who, by our powers of persuasion, hope to influence others to do what we think to be 

the r1gbt thing in the right place at the right time.

This narrative of ineptitude must be tempor8rilylillJ.ted at this point to allow me' 

to draw your attention to the forester's peculiar burden,.time. Without appearing to 

be pedantic, I would like to emphaSite that it takes a longtime to grow a tree. Commercial 

hardwoods of sawlog size talf:eupwards of SOyears to reach maturity, while 

our fastest growing conifers need 35 or 40 years before they become saleable. Whether 

due to climate, past geological events or man's activitY, it is nevertheless true to say 

that the lengthy time periods tnvolved with the productiOn of mature forest crops in the 

Northeast constitute for the forest manager, as opposed to the manager of any other 

enterprise, one of the most serious impediments to IIU1Ilagement. Howis one to plan 

for an SO-year period? And how are such plans possible when so little is knownabout 

the resource we would control and when the climate for control, of even the most 

modest proportions, is so inhospitable? 

Butlet us proceed. It is an old aphorism that tlieworld is many things to many 

people and this is nonetheless true of the forest and the people who use it. There are 

those who work in it, those who live in it, some who huilt or fish in it, many who 

recreate in it, ,and appreciable numbers who draw their water supply from it. The 

forests of the Northeast are experiencing all these uses today in some degree or other. 

In some cases, these varied uses arecomplementary; unfortunately, it is more common 

for them to come into conflict with one another. Use creates value, and it has 

been our historical experience that use changes with tirhe:and with it the values that 

arise from such use. Ours is athn~that breeds ~ and we are witnessing today 

rather revolutionary changes that prOfOUndlyaffect the'uses to which we put our forests. 

These changes have their origin in the large centers of populanon that separate the 

forests from the sea and have to do with the geometric nature of population increase 

and the flourishing development of oUr urban way of life. The peoples of these heavily 

populated areas are on an active crusade for "Lebensrauin" and they are going to the 

very place where they can gEt it easiest, the woods. 'q1eir quest is not only one of 

acquiring living space but also of finding solace and seClUSionfor short periods of time 

aside and apart from the press of people that daily surrounds them. Bytheir numbers 

and the economic power that they wield. these people have created de novo a use for 

the forests of the region which is both popular in its' appeal and pre;';ing in its .needs, 

As foresters. we have not been trdned to meet this ch4Uenge. Our management 

techniques are fashioned around the production of wood fOr uses that are of long sranding, 

such as lumber. pulpwood or poles. We are not ecpipped to handle the diversity 

of use that arises' from the recreational use of forest land nor are we able to prescribe 

with any intelligence when confronted by a request for management techniques 

that would have the effect of upgrading the aesthetic values of forest property. Here 

again, we are reluctant to say categorically that this or that is a weed tree and should 

be eltmtnated, For who is to say what is weed arid what is not? We are dealing here 

with subjective preference which it is beyond our ability to objectively determine, Our 

present asseeament of the greatest good or the highest value that the forests pOssess 

may be so altered by the passage of time and the changes that it works that there will 

be those who, in future time, will setiously question oUrsanity. 

35

36 

I wouldlike to.adpinsult. to ~ry by dwelling.for a ~pme,nt on the uncertainties 

that plague the forest' manager' int[1e~9i.l;beast. I woUld~U1ce'tP paint for you a v~~ 

pictute of Jo Sylv~ JuattecentIy. grad~ W1thabacb~oi:~ f\)restry degree froma 

leading school ofbi~~OJlUte. Jobas ~.luclcy enough tq)lU?-da Job as manager 9f,a 

10,OOO-acretr,.ac~ ono~tlapd inS,~utheastern New Hainplh1;re. apd he bril1fJ to~e 

Job all theentliliSiasm 8ndlcnowledsetlui.tbis training and~:r years can muster. ' 

His einployer's WtJ:'UCtiODSare both ~rse and to th~ point ,~-, "operate in such a mal'.· 

ner that I get a netreturn from my in~~ent each YetU'.aij.devery year." 

,~ , : "f' _ ' ',c.'; i _ );' ! 

Jo bas beeq,thorougbly' school~ 011bow to cruise timber and how to measure, grpwth 

rates, sIllshe proceedswith a1acrity~ow.ake a detailed in~tpr)r of the forests wUku: 

bis Jurisdiction. This'done, he figUres' Outhow much ¥bMin saleable wood pro~, 

ducts, at what rate bis growing stock is increasing, and hOwmuch he can afford to cut 

each year for the,n,ext 50 years. Let's assume that he C;~ cut the equivalent9flOOO 

cords. of wOodper year. His next Job is finding somewhere .tosell the wood. fie " 

scouts the area with1na lOO-mile radius of bis forest and dls~overs' that he can sell 

some white pine to .a pail and tub faptory, some spruce PUlPitQ a construction co~, 

'some 89O'dgradehardwood logs to a flirnlture manufactu;rer. and about 500 cords Qt,' 

spruce to~ pulp mUhome 75mUesdistant. He goes ~'tq,bis desk and figures Out 

what he bas to cUt, where and at whats.eason of the year,WbatJ:he prices must be to.r 

bim to show a profltQtib1s operatfou 8ndwhat si~e crew ~e Willhave to bire to .~tbe 

work done most efficiently. So far,' it aUappears str~rward and quite wi~ . 

the compass' of bis' tecbD1cal ability'. '.'Sowithout flirtheJ: ~,'J9 IJegins to operate Jds, 

woods. ' . . 

Let's assume now'~ '10 yeaks~"ee1a.psed and th~:~e are paying Jo • visit to 

see howhe is gettp1g on v- ~er all, .lite mostfores~ei's,ba is a likeable chap., . 

Imagine our di$may and horrOr whenwefind that Jo is no longer there. He was f~ 

two years ago. It dOesnot take long to find out why. On,tnCJIiry, it transpires ~ 

the pail and tub factory went out of business in the interim, tbe,construction firm 

started using altun1'munpiling, thefuriUtui'e manufacturef~d buy cheaper hardwood 

imported from Liberia, and the pul~.JllU1had sWungover'tO,a's,emi-chemical process 

which 81lowedit to use low-grade sprGiuthardwoods whichlt could buy for next to 

nothing in great quantity'from farmwqocJlots in its immediate vicinity •. Poor Jol 

In ~erence to ~ current public, demand for a hapPf~. however, let us 

continue in time to the year 1980 wh~ .~ luck would have it, ,.e happen to pass Jo's 

old forest IJ881n in the course of being tdlcenfor a Sunday ~ve,by our married ~ter 

andfamUy. We are surprised by~l~~ sign which says. "TranquU Acres" and'~ 

on to announce thatcamp1l:1gfacilitlesare' available.tothePubUc for a sum of $5.00 per 

family per night,that sWimming andtenDis are' available "",side attractions, and. 

yourfricmdly hoSt is Jo Syl"a~ Notb1J:lgw11l do but that we stop and see our friend.' 

, Weare greeted at the'ooor by a.corpulent hunkof cordiality Whois all set to sign'Qll.up 

for the weeItend andwe have some tJ;oUl:I1c identl,fyingourse1'Vesbecause of the bifOcals 

and receding hairlines' that we have acquired in the intervening years since our last 

encounter. We soon reestablish our relationship, however, and we find that not only

does Jo run a recreational facilitythat'isih~llV11ypatrOnl:ledtheyeataround but healso 

has a portableparticleboard'assernblywbioh he hss mourit~(N)n struck and whioh'he 

moves fr.om one bloWdownarea totbe other. The hurtlclihe6f1971lookedlikea i , 

major disaster for Jo at the time but this new particle boa1'dinachine that uses small 

red maple stems in short lengths as its raw material enabled him to convert a seemingly 

hopeless situation into his biggest mOJley-tnaldngaSset oVem'ight'almost. SUitably 

impressed by the resUtency of the' maa, we take our ISave and ,marvel for the remainder 

of the day on the magtdtude of the changes. that have occurred in the short time' thEIt1iie 

have knownIo and his forest..' 

'11/1y reasons for relating this tale must surely be obvioos. I wish to empbasize 

for you that risks and uncertainties ~as mu~ a' part of the natural environmentiri 

forest management as the trees themSelves. lfour hlstadeal experience is anyprecedent, 

we can be sure that the future Willbring majorchallgeB in price for the prod&lCts 

that we have to sell and that these ptl:¢e cbanges will be affected to asignificant'degtee 

by technological de:velopmentsthat create new uses for Woodtlndin so doing make suddenlyvaluable 

species Whichhitherto we considered valtieless.In short, we can' 

expect present uses to change and newuses to develop fOt species that we attaeh:aouse 

to at present. The forests within which these species grow are just as likely to change 

in ways that are not orderly or within dur control. It' islfllte within the bounds ot' 

poSSibility that certain orour more valuable specieswUl sucO\lmbto some pathopn 

such as has happened in the past with birch, chestnut, aDdnow perhaps white asia. 

Cat'ac1ysmic events, such as fire or;Wind, may affect out grOwing stock in suddeft and 

serious fashion so that we are impelled to reviSe our cutttng schedules in such a way 

as t,osalvage losses or rebuild out inventory • And all,ot't'hellechanges, I would have 

you',note,are eXtraneous to the forest and have nothing'cddo Withthe way the trees 

grow or how the forest composition changes overtime. Their influence is great,and 

their significance is the greater the more intensive the degree of management. In 

other words, the more elaborate the management ,program fora given tract of forest 

land, .the more disruptive is the effect Of events of tbisnatllre. 

It becomes evident, then, that the forest manager ... eneompaesed about with a 

plethora of variables that he can seldOm:predict or control., More often than not, he 

operates from mcompl~e knowledge of the events which 'f/ill d~emnine the COllt1m.led 

integrity of his' enterprise. In this tndeftnite aura of ehaz1Seand uncertainty he bas 

now been preSented with a herbicidal toOlthat enables hiDlto control with greater 

efficiency the composition of his forest~ All well and gOod. He knows too from the 

experience of others ~·the effects of· suoh herbicidal tr.eatments are not whollypre~ 

dictable, that they vary with the nature of the carrier, 'Whetheroil or water, with the 

season of the year in wbichapPlied, the type of vegetatiGlftbeingtreated, the sprouting 

ability of the species treste4,.and ·the intensity of the treatment. To add to his misery, 

he:does not know nor canhe 1~W$.th._YcJegree of cetUtnty how-much such herJld~ 

cidal treatments will' cost wqenappliied to bj.f;lWoodsaact1heBites that they grow on, 

and there are cohflictingopinionB:a8to the lJestchemica1'1llD.'iIpply and the bestmarmer 

in which to apply it -- foliage spray, basal spray or frW by axe or tree injector. 

Then, too,he has long considered that there are certain sites where it would be 

37

38 

f'~iQl~. ~bQtb~micaUy andpb~Q&UY' to r~~~QU8g.1;'Owth bybe3:~qi~ 

contro! Q1tb' '~w~" haJ:dwood$~ JY?:one has giv. ~JtJ,:IeI1l~,whereby i,le'Pan 

iden~ dtes~Nli. ~~ the ground" .'ffJ.e~nder otttis~ taO!ql~Y for~tersha,e 

us~ .these ~Qals at aU. " 

ba~eqtheybave doDeso wlthgood JU~J,nt. 

:P1£ttbey: 

this w~d contro! WQI'k, .and hav~ beardor read aboQt~~~, ~, ~d' I wUl~f 

mention som~C)f.~ more si~c. ijBeB as they ~ ~or .asthey are likelY,,~, 

develop in the near future. 

' 

AsklBUlar lin" wiPespread ~8I;teristic of()U;~~:woodJ,ands in the Northeast 

is theb:::den8iq ot:~~. Inv~ythere are t~·~~.s~ per unit area. f\>r 

I Pave seens~'~ 

the~0l.'e81:$to ~npidly~ ~tb18dense veg~ve~ rntlitates aga1~t ~" 

natural etUQYlntllt-QfthewOOd$by _~. The naturalinf~tyof the soUs .the,(;~upport 

these dewle:WISlQC1ehas a UmitiJ)g ettecton the nwnberot:"teR\S that reach oper~e 

Sizes, the c~~ being the.UUsMllcalfor l18tUl'a1JOl'f!St to-be compot!Jed;o( 

large stems ratberwide1y spaced 1W4.~r these stems to-be ~erspersed wlth,1W~ous 

smaller fltQl.1llJ•. \I81Jallyof a dlffer._pecies. In most9l¥'eB, the prOOuctivity~the 

site Is aQeCflatelY:\ltWzedby the ~ trees so that ~".~er trees ~me:~1 

impedimeot.. U ~"re \lncerta!n "'the abI,llty ·of~ 9Ver~1;Qry trees to repr~ . 

theJD;selvesQX'.wereoperating in anar.., where sproutiQl;was not su

Another pote1U:ialuse for chemicals in forest management has to do with the thinning' 

of plantations that are compoBedot species that are liable to infection by~ 

annosus f Tbisrooc rotting organiBm'epreads both subtei'raneally and by spores and 

is particularly serlousin plantatiou& tIU\t are in the pale stage. Thinning by the conventional 

method of cutting creates stUmps that are infection sites for the activated 

spread of the pathogen but it is possible to circumvent thi8:difficulty if the trees to be 

thinned arc poisoned by frilling and allowed to disintegrate in place. Since so many of 

the earlier tbinnings in plantations do not yield usable wood, it is entirely possible that 

this means of thinning will not only cost less but be productive of fewer hazards. 

There are many woodland owners today who are interested in growing Christmas 

trees. Where there is available open land, there are few problems that a good mowing 

cannot cure. The situation is somewhat different with those who plan to raise their 

trees in areas that are already wooded. It is possible for them to clear off a patch of 

woods and to maintain this area in an open condition at the expense of much time and 

labor. A more feasible method involves the thinning of the present forest cover to 

permit enough light on the forest floor to encourage the growth of coniferous transplants. 

We have tried this and it seems to work. We thinned an oak-maple-hickory stand 

rather heavily and after sprouting had taken place, treated the cut stumps with a 

2, 4, 5 - T solution in kerosene. Some months later we planted the area to 2 x 0 

Norway spruce, and after one growing season they appear to be doing well. The competition 

from what hardwood sprouts remain is inconsequential. 

The release of conifers from hardwood competition has always seemed to be a 

most logical occasion on which to use chemicals. In view of what I have said previously, 

I hope you will forgive if I do not wholly subscribe to this seemingly obvious contention. 

I am ready to admit, however, that there are some sites where the relative productive 

potential of the site under conifers is so superior to anything that we can hope to derive 

from hardwoods grown on the same site, that little doubt exists as to the advisability 

of chemical release work. I am immediately reminded of some of the problems that 

our cohorts to the south are faced with. But there are large areas of the Northeast 

where conifer release is not justified economically or sUviculturally and, as I have 

tried to indicate previously, wemust know more about site quality as it affects growth 

and be more certain in our predictions that future markets will offer suitable compensation 

for the costs involved. 

There are many other subsidiary uses of chemicals in forest management and, 

depending on what you do and where you happen to be, they may be of considerable significance 

to the success of an operation. I have encountered references to the use of 

chemical weed control in watershed management and in fire protection and both, in 

their respective local areas, were considered to have great promise. The emphasis, 

however, continues to be on the herbicidal control of "undesirable" species, and it is 

this type of blanket prescription which prompted me to enter upon this discussion of 

change, uncertainty and the insufficiency of our present knowledge about what is or is 

not desirable. 

39

40 

For ifc~be our ,lot and\ll1certainty $tree t:benMe'hadbetter be fle.xiblein 

our purposes and a4ept.at altering~. •We onlyD.y,iatJle face of troubleifW6 ..ch$inel 

our eltorts. into asl.1,ISe andsaetUl

Newapproaches in the use of herbicides 

turf llIlUIagement 

c. Richard Sk~gleyl 

in 

The control of weeds always hils been and probably always will be an important 

factor in the'maintenance o-f turf. A review of the literature dating 

back prior to the advent of theintrQduction of 2,4-D, ancl modern day weed eontrol 

practices .would bear this out. 

Someof the earliest reports on selective weedcOl'ltrol in turfgrass callle 

from the Rhode ISland Agricultural Experiment Station. Experiments had been 

started in' 1905 to compare fertilizer mixtures' designed to affect the soil reaction 

differently. An acid, neutral and alkaline· fertilizer was each applied 

to different grasses. three years later differences became ~Jite apparent' 

betweengrasse$ and by 1910 it was .noticed that weeds were least abundant on 

the plots receiving the acid fertilizer. Although Kentucky bluegrass was . 

favored by decreasing the soil acidity, clove~ and weeds were more prevalent. 

ThiS work was continued for manyyears and a number'of publications wet. 

written which included data from these trials (3, 5, 6, 8, 10). It is interesting 

to note some of the early reactions to the ~&sultsobtained. Hartwell 

and Dainon(8) in discussing the work !Stated that "Ongen.ral principles 

perennial grasses will be permanent to the extent tha~ their specific requirements 

are fUlf~lledeither naturally or artificiaJ1ly". They also wrote 

that "Even when the specific needs' of a grass are known, it is not ,always advisable 

to maintain these needs because the growth of certain undesirable 

pl arrts, such as weeds and fOUl grasses, may be promoted by the same conditions". 

For quite a number'of years the "Rhcqe' Island weedle•• lawns" received great 

publicity. Here was an admitted case of penalizing the desirable grasses to 

aid in weed control. In 1910 with little knowledge available what choice was 

there? 

,. .: - .. - . ',", 

These investigators continued their efforts, however, until they were 

convinced that it wasn't soil acidity 2!t 1! but rather differences in plant 

tolerance to aluminumwhich increaseQ; in thesolls01utionwith increasing 

acidity. 

It wasn't until almost 1940'that Rhode Island gave up trying to control 

weeds in turf by keeping the 5011 in.~ acid condition. It had becometoo"') 

diffic1.ll t to maintain any kind of91'assunder these cc>nclitions'- even Co10ni/l,1 

bent. .' . , 

Sprague and EV8ul'in a NewJersey bulletin, (13) published in 1930 made 

this statement "In general it se,ms sensible that fertilization to control 

weeds shOUldbe cor'lducted on the ,basis of ,encouraging vigorous growth of the 

turf sa that grasses may successfully compete with weeds. The development of 

excessive acidity may cause more trouble than the weeds themselves". Researchers 

in both states seemed to agree that keeping soils 'very acid to prevent 

lAssociateProfessor of Agronomy-TurfManagement.University of Rhode Island.

42 

weed growth wasn't the best answer. Amongprofessional men in the field today, 

however, there still are those who are not convinced that the acid soil theory 

of weed control should be discarded. 

Reginald Beale (1), writing in Great Britain about 1930, made this statement: 

"There are tens of millions of pounds spent on education every year and 

yet there are still manywho cannot understand that' when ~{eeds come up in a 

lawn, or elsewhere, it is a perfectly natural occurance, in fact it would be 

unnatural if they did not, because every part of the earth's surface contains 

seeds or spores of some sort of weed or another". He goes on to write" It is 

essential for the owner of a lawn, no matter if it be sown or turfed, young or 

Old, to fight the weeds year in and year out if he wants anything approaching 

a good lawn". Mr. Beale then goes On to explain how these weeds are to be 

battled. Small lawns, those up to about 15,000 sqU~re feet, can be handweeded. 

Weeds in larger areas may have to be suffered in reluctance. He did sugg~st 

one chemical treatment if the turf contained a great many weeds. A material 

called Carteri te, or lawn sand, COUld,be broadcast at a certain rate. This 

notation was made: "Lawn sand being highly caustic will burn everything' ineluding 

the grass, and will kill upwards of 80 pere~nt of the weeds, only the 

very strong and deep-rooting varieties escaping". Can you imagine a rec~.men. 

dation of this sort today? 

In a book written by Dickinson of Massachusetts (4), published in 1930, 

a few chemiCals are suggested for turf weed control. Dusting ammoniumsulfate 

on the leaves of certain weeds, or painting them with a concentrated solution 

of the chemical is suggested. Iron sulfate spray is suggested where dandelions 

are numerous. 

Another book (2), published in 1933, listed i+on SUlfate, copper SUlfate, 

sulfuric acid and sodium arsenite as chemicals available for selective weed 

control in turf. 

other chemicals often suggested through the 1930's for spot treatment of 

weeds were kerosene, powdered lead arsenate, powdered fertilizer, and sodium 

chlorate. 

This paragraph appeared in a 'past issue of turf CUlture (7). Can you 

guess when it appeared? "A few years ago when the news of a cheap, effective, 

reasonably safe method of controlling weeds in turf with chemicals began to 

spread, there were manywho harbored the allusion that this was the final 

answer. There WOuldbe no more we$dsl Simply sprinkle a magic powder over the 

lawn and presto! - a perfect lawn with no work involvedl This idea, more than 

any other, has retarded the cause of chemical weed control by producing disappointing 

results. Some illusions are dispelled quickly, others gradually; 

this one takes no time at all. The first trial convinces anyone that che~al 

weed control is but one step in the production of beautiful turf". This might 

logically be from an article written today but actually the date was 1939. The 

chemical in reference was sodium arsenite. 

Just where are we today in turf weed control? . First, I believe all turf 

specialists are in accord that good managementis the first and most important 

step in control. In the recent book on weed control by Klingman (1) this

43 

sentence would bear this out". The importance of practices that produce a 

strong and vigorous turf cannot be overemphasized. 

Items that are generally agreed upon as necessary of consideration in management 

are proper establishment procedures, selection of weed-free seed of 

the right grasses, correct usage of lime and fertilizers, proper cutting and 

intelligent use of water. 

Proper method of establishment involves several things. The soil itself, 

soil additives used, if any, slope and drainage all have a bearing on the finished 

product and the ease of maintenance - including weed control. One procedure 

that is often recommended, and many times employed, is seedbed sterilization. 

Haphazard and sloppy procedures for establishment seem the rule rather 

than the exception. The use of proven soil sterilants such as methyl bromide, 

calcium cyanamide or sodium methyldithiocarbamate could very well be included 

as one step in proper lawn establishment. Manylawns are lost or end up in 

poor condition because of weed competition in the first few weeks after seeding. 

This is particularly the case since most lawns are started in the spring 

despite years of education to the contrary. 

The selection and use of good seed is also related to weed control. The 

seed buying public, it would seem, places most of the blame for lawn weeds on 

the seed companies. This is hardly the case but the high weed content listed 

on the label of many of the cheap "supermarket" mixes might make you wonder. 

Wedo knowthat some seed lots contain weed seeds that cause real concern 

mouse-ear chick'Weed, velvet grass aOOcertain ~ species. Good seed mixtures 

containing small quantities of tall fescue or Highland bentgrass also 

add to the list of complaints about weeds in seed mixtures. Most of the cheap 

seed mixtures contain a large percentage of annual ryegrasses and other coarse 

textured species that may be temporary under lawn conditions. These temporary 

grasses often disappear quickly leaving large bare areas in which weeds may 

flourish. The use of high class, adapted, seed mixtures is very important in 

~he fight against weeds. 

Low, wet areas or high, dry ones that might have been eliminated with. 

proper grading or construction often add to the lawn weed problems. The chances 

are good that certain weeds will adapt to these situations muchmore quickly 

than do our good turfgrasses. 

It is a most unusual soil, here in the Northeast, that is not inherently 

deficient in the major plant nutrients and is not considerably acidic in reaction. 

These are conditions which make turf production within the region a 

more complicated job than in many other areas of the country. The better 

turfgrasses, currently available, do not perform at their optimumunder the 

conditions normally prevailing. It is necessary to add nitrogen, phosphorus 

and potassium to most of our soils. It is suggested that they be added in 

good quantity when establishing a lawn and at least twice a year thereafter. 

It is also desirable to lime soils regularly to develop and maintain a pH of 

6.0 to 6.5. Unless these amendmentsare made we can expect persistent weed 

problems. There are many more weed species, covering a wide range of adaptation, 

than there are lawn grasses. It is only when the grasses are receiving 

a reasonable supply of nutrients that they are capable ·of holding their own 

against the multitude of competitors.

It might dispel some confusion here to hazard &1'1opinion, shared by 

numerous turf specialists, regarding fertilizer usage. - Manydifferent grades 

and formulations of fertilizers can be used successfully in a turf management 

program. The~e is nQ single grade ,brand, or type that is yet recognized' as 

being superior oV4trall. Certain ratios are often given as guides and application 

rates are suggested but beyond this it has been Clearly demonstrated- that 

dense, vigorous turf can be maintained with many different grades and formulations 

of complete fertilizers. 

Perhaps it should be made clear also that too much fertilizer can be as 

damaging to ~ maintenance program as too little or none at all. 

There should be little doubt anymore that cutt£ng height of turfgrasses 

is a critical consideration in the management of lawns. Numerous studies have 

clearly indicated a close correlation between heig/ltof cut and depth and extent 

of rooting. Qoberts and Bredakis .(12), in a rtport from Massachusetts in 

1960, reviewed 35 years of root studies. A number of concjusdcns were drawn 

on the basis: of these many studies. A very important-one is as followsl 

"Regardless of the type of grass under experimentation, clipping or defoliation 

at regUlar intervals inhibits the development of new roots in comparison ~th 

nonclipped tu;rf. ·Onmost species and strains this reduction in root development 

becomes progressively greater as the height is·'lClWered"• 

. There are differences in cutting height ·to1erance among the genera, 

species or varieties of lawn graScS8s. These have been pretty well detennined 

and every article on cutting management suggests minimumcutting heights for 

the various grasses. Grasses that are cut consistentJy, shorter than suggested 

invariably become weaker and are less able to compete with weeds. In addition 

to this,grasses weakened by too clos.e mowing are; 1_" able to tolerate herbicide 

treatment. The problems encountered in treating close-cut golf course' 

turf with herbicides Is a good example. 

Another facet of cutting height relates to weed seed germination. 

Ught intensity minimumsmust be exceeded before certain weed seeds can 

germinate •. T,1'leCOllllllOn crabgrasses, for instance, do' not germinate or grow 11'1' 

fairly shaded areu. Keeping the soil surface shaded by maintaining a dense 

turf, cut at recommended heights most assuredly aide In reducing the weed 

popUlation. 

Water usage in turf management is important in +ooeedcontrol. It has been' 

very. enlightening to me to see firsthand many clear cases of weed infestation 

positively correla~ed with improper water usage. This has been most Clearly' 

shown following. the installation of irrigation systems on golf courses and 

home.lawns •.. .fQai!3mIi' crabgrass, bentgrass and evetta few of the broad1eaved. 

weeds often flourish and gain the ~pperhand within two or three years fo~Xowin9 

the install.ation of irrigation systems. This is particuLarly the case whe~ 

the grass is cut too short, is thin, or the water is 'applied lightly and 'fr$quently. 

It is likely that an increased incidence of disease is many timel!;'an' 

intermediaryin-re,pect to turf density, water usage and weed population. In. 

overly ..wet ..collditions.disease ismClre prevalent and damaging and frequently' 

thins the turf open:l:ng it up for invasion by weeds. ' .

More and more each year since the advent of truly selective weed chemicals 

the publiC has come to rely on the herbicides as anessentail part of turf management. 

I doubt if there are many who would argu& with this belief. Weeds 

such as crabgrass, Veronica, mouse~ear chickweed, mwhlenbergia, dandelion, 

plantain and, when out of place, bentgrass are seldom controlled by management 

alone. There are other weeds in this category also. Mlny of our commonturfgrass 

weeds are controlled readily with 2,4-D. I WOulddoubt, however, whether 

there are many turf specialists who still don't have certain qualms, even after 

manyyears of research and use, about recommendingthis widely used herbicide. 

Injuries are reported every year, as are failures, even when the material is 

used to the best of our knowledge. Because of the many interactions amongthe 

wide range of variables governing the growth of a given piece of turf we still 

cannot predict with accuracy the reiponse to herbicide treatment. A chemical 

that is dependable in one area of our region may not be in another. Endothal 

is recommendedfor the control of a Veronica species in one state in the Northeast 

but cannot be made to work safely in another. Chlordane, for crabgrass 

control, has given erratic reSUlts from one location to another and from one 

season to another. One of the newer crabgrass herbicides, Diphenatrile, has 

given excellent results in two years of testing within one state but has done 

poorly in another state only 200 mil~S distant. Calcium and lead arsenates, 

although exhibiting real possibilities, have not been promoted because of lack 

of consistancy. They almost always give excellent control of crabgrass but 

on occasion they are damaging to the turf. 

The reasons for variable results with the many herbicides are numerous. 

Most of the reasOns are not clear or fully established. Weknowthat soil 

type or texture has a bearing on results with chemicals applied to the soil. 

The base exchange capacity of the soil, influenced mostly by the clay and organic 

matter content influences the actiVity of herbicides. Microbial populations 

of the soil govern breakdown of certain herbicides. The persistence 

of these herbicides in the soil, then, would depend on the size of the microbial 

popUlation and the rate at which they can increase. 

Time of application of herbicides - spring, summeror fall, is critical 

and for various reasons. The growth rate of the turfgrasses and the weeds at 

the time of herbicide application is most important. This has been documented 

and reported, on many occasions. Factors governing the growth rate - soil 

moisture, temperatures and fertility levels must always be adequate for the 

optimumtiming of herbicide application. 

A recent study by Rice (11) at the University o~ Rhode Island indicated 

that the roots of certain putting green grasses reach their greatest depth and 

maximumextensiveness during the spring months. Extensiveness and depth both 

decrease during the summerand roots remain shallow even through the fall 

months. This study is not complete but if the present indications shOUldbe 

born out by further research or review then mid- to late-spring application of 

herbicides to turf for selective control of biennial or perennial weeds should 

prove considerably safer than late summeror fall applications. CurrentlY both 

seasons are suggested with the fall season frequently being favored. Additional 

studies of this more basic nature are badly needed in the turfgrass field. Regional 

projects on turfgrasses, completely lacking in the northeastern region, 

at the moment, could be most instrumental in conSOlidating and validating many 

of the loose-ends and conceptions or mis-conceptions currentlv exis~ina_ 

45

46 

It is intere$tingtolook around' within the region to see how many herbicides 

are presently .being recOJlllllendedfor turf weed control. The number is few. 

This despite the fact that manycheuii~als of. proven potential are available. 

Howmany of these J.nterestihg chem1cal ls are actuall y'being reconrnended orPJ'Omated: 

2,4-0, 2,4,5-1, Silvex,'sodlum' arsenite, phenyl mercury, calcilJll 

arsenate, potassium cyanate, the atsonates, Chlordane, Zytron, Dacthal, 

Diphenatrile, .Endothal, Calcium Cyenamide, Vapam, methyl bromide? And there 

are many others that could be added to this list - both old and new• 

. 'I 

There are many obstacles to'overcome befon we clln actually get off the. 

ground and feel that we have a "new approach" 1n tUrf. weed control with herbicides. 

Progre$sin this field has been slow. It is Slow for as Dr. Klin91J18n 

.,(9) states, "Be~au&e millions of ccnsumers and hundreds of turfgrasses and 

ornamental pl~nts are involved, the job of educating ~sers is more complex 

than in other areas of weed conllrol" .../.Wecertainly have come some distance 

since the introduction of 2,4-D. With closer cooperat~on among states, with 

the federal goverl'lllent and amonglndustry the next 10 years could be much more 

productive in developing the fielo than has all of the past. 

Li terature 

Cited 

1. Beale, R. Book of the lawn. Cassell &Co. London. 1931. 

2. Cubbon, M. H. and l'8rkuson, M. J. Soil management for greenkeepers. 

W.F. Humphrey, Geneva, N.Y. 1933. 

3. Damon, S. C. 

Ext. Bul. 48. 

The making and care of lawns. R.I. Agr. Expt. Stat 

1927. 

4. Dickinson, L. S. The lawn. Orange Judd Pub. Co., Inc. NewYork. i9301 

5. Garner, E. S. and Damon, S.C. The persistence' of certain lawn 

grasses as affec.ted by fertiu"zationand competitlon. R.I. Agr. Expt. 

Stat Bul. 217. 1929. . 

6. Gilbert, BasilE. and Pe~et,F. F. Toleranoe ofcettain weeds and 

grasses to toxic aluminum. Soil Sciill'iCe 39: 42a-428. 1935. 

7. Grau, F. V. Chemical weed control on lawns and sports fields. Turf 

Culture I: 53-60. 1939. 

8. Hartwell, B. L.and Damon, S. C. The persistence of lawn and other ., 

grasses as influenced· especially by the effect of inanures on the degree 

of soil acidity. R•.I. Agr. Expt. Stat Bul. 170. 1917. 

9. Klingman, G. C. Weed control: As a science. John Wiley 8. Sons, Inc •. 

NewYork. 1961~ 

10. North, H. r. A.,Odland, T. E. and DeFrance, J. A. Lawn grasses and their 

management. R.I. Agr. Expt. Stat Bul. 264. 1938.

11. Rice, E. J. The effects of cUltivation and gypsumtreatments on seasonal 

root growth of E2a~ and Agrostis palustris on putting greens. M.S. 

Thesis, Univ. of R.I. 1961. 

12. Roberts, E. C. and Bredakis, E. J. What, why, how of turfgrass root development. 

The Golf Course Reporter 281 12-24. 1960. 

13. Sprague, H. B. and Evaul, E. E. Experiments with turfgrasses in New 

. Jersey. N.J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bu!. 4971 30-34. 1930. 

47

1+8 

'WEED CONrROLBY DIME1'HYt..:mRACHL6ROl'E1lEPHl'~'1'l!: 

ALO~ ANDIN 

CEm'AIN CCJ.lBINATJ:otlS 

L. E. Limpel, Paul H. Sohuldt, acdl n&tYid Lamont 1/ 

[ 

Dimethyl tetraohloroterephthalate in pre-emergenoe applioation onto 

freshly oultivated soil pos ses8S II remarkable residual aotivity against lIIaby . 

annual grasses, e.g., orabgrass (pigitatia spp.),' tbll foJCtails(SetaEia sW.), 

and barnyard 

weeds, e. g. 

grass [Eornoo~o: orus-galli 

purslane (JlrtiJ:C _ olenoea 

(L.) Beauv.] and some broadleaved 

L.) and lambsquarters (Chenopodium 

~ L.). However, at reoommended dosages, it is ineffeotive for oontrol of 

ragweed (Ambrosia spps ) and Gal1ns~a spp, and usually provides only partial 

oontrol of pigweed (Amaranthus app- and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). The 

utility of this ohemioal would be greatly inoreased if it effectively controlled 

these latter weeds, but none of many experimental formulations has 

enhanced activity. In a continued effort to broaden the uses of this herbicide, 

it has been combined with several other materials used in pre-emergenoe 

applications. 

There are two ways in whioh combinations of weed killers can improve 

weed control I (1) The mixture lIID.ybe synergistic, i.e., a given weed speoies 

may be far more susceptible to the mixture than it is to either of the oanponents 

applied alone. (2) The mixture, in a simple additive fashion, may 

control a broader speotrum of weed speoies. It would be expected that oases 

of true synergism would be rare, and unless there was an antagonistic interaction, 

simple addition of spectra of aotivity would tend to be the rule. 

h order to take full advantage of this type of addition, the two herbicides 

to be combined ought to be as dissimilar in this respect as possible. 

Cbviously, such combinations would be restricted to use on crops which 

tolerated all components. 

MATERIAISANDMETHODS 

The herbicidal materials used in these studies are listed in the table 

on the following page. 

In the greenhouse test, soil contained in metal flats 12" X 8" X 3" 

deep was broadcast seeded both to pigweed (bmaranthuB retrof1exus L.) and to 

barnyard grass. Each species was restricted to a specific area of the soil 

so that pure stands would be present. The seeds were lightly covered with 

soil, and the following treatllB nte were then immediately sprayed onto tho 

s oil surface I dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, CDEC, and NPAeach at 

2 lb./acre, dimethyl tetrachloroterephtha1ate + CDlOOat 2 + 2 1b./acre, and 

dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate + NPAat 2 + 2 1b./acre. The treatments 

were replicated three times and three untreated nats were included as checlcs. 

The flats were retained in the greenhouse untill good growth had occurred in 

the checks at which time total fresh weight of the aerial parts of each 

speoies was determined. Per cent control was calculated on the basis of 

reduction in fresh weight as compared to the checks.

PFSI'ICIDESUSED 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,-- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- 

Common 

Active 

~ Trade-mark ingredient Fortnulatiop. ~ 

DACTHALW-50 dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate 

50 W Diamond 

Alkali 

CDEC VEGADEX 2-chloroallyl diethyl- 4 lb./gal. Monsanto 

di thiocarbamate 

E.C. 

NPA ALANAP-l N-l naphtllyl 90W Naugatuclc 

phthalamicacid 

crrc ORl'HO3-CHLOROisoproP)l N(3-chloro- 4 Ib./gal. California 

rrc EMUISIVE phenyl carbamate E.C. Spray 

DNBP PREMERGE dinitro-~see-butyl 3 Ib./gal Dow 

phenol, alkanolamine 

salts 

2,4- D CROPRIDER 2,4-dichlorophenoxy- 4 lb. ae/ Diamond 

AMINE40-2 acetic acid, alkyl gal. Alkali 

amine salt 

2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxy- Experimental Diamond 

acetic acid Alkali 

chlordane CHIPMAN 

CHIDRDANE: 

octach10ro-4,7-methanotetrahydroindane 

and 

related compounds 

50 W Chipman 

49 

·In the field tests, treatments were applied in 50.gallons of water per 

acre from a one gallon hand operated sprayer equipped with a Teejet nozzle. 

Weed control was always calculated from 4 or 5 independent estimates of the 

per cent of each plot covered by weeds, regardless of species, unless othe~ 

wis~ specified. The most commonweeds encountered in the field were barnyard 

grass, crabgrass [Digttaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. and ~. ischaemum 

(Schreb.) Muhl.], pigweed Amaranthus retrof exus L.), purslane, smartweed 

(Polygonumpensylvanicum L.), ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifplia L.), and 

galinsoga. 

Each plot in the Lima bean test was 3' X 30' and dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate 

at a and 4 Ib./acre, DNBPat 4 and 2 Ib./acre and dimethyl 

tetrach1orophtha1ate + DNBPata + 4, 4 + 4, and 4 + 2 Ib./acre were applied 

one day after cultivation and planting. There were three replicates in a 

randomized block design, and the combinations wore applied as tank mixes. 

Treatments were sprayed onto 3' X 15 1 plots two days after the onion 

plants were set. Thero wore four replicates in a randomized block design. 

The following treatments were applied, the combinations as tank mixes: 

+.A+.,..n..... },'n,..n+_t:u ••onh+'J.,r:l' ....+~ ..+ do .......;1 J ,"" J____ "T'nf" _..L , 

dimF!t.hvl

50 

In the third field test, in which no crops were included, a somewhat 

di~terent' approach was taken. The test area was thoroughly cultivated with 

a rotovator,and then divided into four equal blocks or replicates. Bands 

4 16" wide were treated with dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate at 6 and 2 

:l,b./acre, sprayed. in a north-south direction, the length of the replicate, 

each replicate being treated separately. Also, untreated north-Bouth barns 

of the same width were included -in each block. Baoos of the other herbicides, 

5 16" wide were then applied in an east-west direction, the width of the 

replicate, crossing the bands of dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate at right 

angles. Dosages applied werel'Crro at 4 and 2 lb./acre, NPAat 4 and 2 

lb./acre and.2,4-D'at 2 and llb./acre. Again, each block was treated 

separately and untreated east-west bandswereinc],uded. This procedure 

resulted in a series of 4 16" X 5 16" subplot~ containing all combinations of 

dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate with all dosages' of the other herbicides. 

In addition, subplots containing each dosage of each herbicide alone, as well 

as untreated oheoks were formed. 

Plot size in the crabgrass oontrol test was 7' X 7' with three replicates 

in a randomized block design. Combinations were applied as tank mixes 

in 100 gallons of water per acre. Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate at 10 

and 5 lb./acre, 2,4-D at 0.5 lb./acre, NPAat 10 lb./acre, ohlordane at 40 

lb./acre, dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate + 2,k-P at 10 + 0.5 lb./acre, 

dimethyl tetraohloroterephthalate + NPA at 10 + 10-and 5 + 10 lb./aore, and 

dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate + chlordane at 5+ 40 lb./acre were 

included in the test. 

The amount of weed oontrol whioh could have been expeoted from the combinations 

was oalculated and is reported in eaoh table. The following 

formula, whioh was derived from the literature on inseotioide synergism (1), 

was used to oalculate expeoted weed oontrol assumiDg oomplete independent 

action of the components in the combinations I 

x = %weed oontrol by h6rbioide A at p pounds per aore 

y = %weed oontrol by herbioide B at r poullds per aore 

E = expeoted %weed control by A + B at p + r pounds per acre 

E=x+y-~ 

This equation is oonsidered to be valid only when applied to a given 

speoies. When oombinations are evaluated against a population of mixed 

speoies, the relationships beoome muoh more oompli~ted. However, it is 

assumed that oaloulations of this sort give a meas~re of enhanoed weed eGOtrol 

due to a broadening of the speotrum of susoeptible weeds. True 

synergism, unless very pronouncsd , w::luld tend to be masked when oombinations 

are evaluated against mixed speoies. 

RESUIJrSANDDISCUSSION 

The results are presented in Tables 1 to 5. There e.re three instanoes 

where certain combinations appeared to provide oontrol of given speoies 

greater than expeoted I' dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate plus CDECagainst 

barnyard grass and dimethyl tetraohlorotcrephthalate plus NPAagainst 

pi~eed (Ta?le 1) ~~. ~im~~hyl_tetrachl?roterephthalate plus ohlordane

__..:I 

whether or not these apparent cases of enhanced control are meaningfUl should 

await further evaluation. 

In the field tests (Tables 2 to 4) against populations of mixed speoies, 

certain trends seem apparent. Most combinations provided weed control 

better than eXpected. In general, greatest benefit seemed to be imparted to 

the lower dosages of dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate. Differences between 

actual weed control and expected control appeared to increase with time. In 

other words, the oombinations responded less to dosage and provided longer 

control than the herbicides applied alone. 

TABIE 1 

Relative Effectiveness of Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate 

Alone and Combinedwith CDECand with NPA 

Greenhouse Test 

Dosage, Ib./aore 

Dimethyl 

tetrachloroterephthalate 

other 

2 

o 

CDEC2 

2 

2 

o 

2 

NPA2 

2 

o 

Per cent 

Pigweed 

control 11 

Actual Expected 

85 81 

81 

87 

53 

o 

53 93 

78 

Barnyard grass 

f.ctual Expected 

96 81 

38 

11= Actual per cent control based on fresh weight. 

= == = = = = = = = = = = = = === = = = = = = = ===== == = = = =::;: = = 

TABIE2 

Relative Effectiveness of Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate Alone 

and Combinedwith DNBPin Field-Grown Lima Beans 

Dosage. 1b. lacre 

Dimethyl 


8 

4 

8 

4 

4 

DNBP 

o 

70 

9.3 

%weed control, days after treatment 1I 

40 


95 

66 

4 .CJ8 

42 93 

85 

o 4 41 

2 

97 

80 

78 

36 

51 

49 


80 

30 

11= At 40 days the check was'4 per cent covered by pigweed, purslane, 

'\.. ... __ ~ 

1.._______.:I _.L. I • .:1 .!.L an .L

6 . 2,,,""D2 90' "88 77 54. 

"l 0'> &') ",n· ?t:. 

52 

TABIE3 

Relative Effeotiveness of D~th,yl Tetrachlorot~phfhalate Alone 

and Combined withCIFC, in, Onion Traosplapts .• F:ield Test. ' 

- - - - - - -~. --- 

DAAage, Ib./acre 

Dimethyl 

tetrachlor~ 

terephtha1ate CIPC 

8 0 

4 0 

8 

4 

o 

- -- _.- ~ ----- 

------~;~ - - -- 

Per cent weed contr612S 

. tree.t1nent~.1J 

Actual 

63 

36 

4 

2 

97 

82 

4 

2 

o, .. ~. • I 

76 

41 

------------ -------------------- 

days atter 

Expected 

1/.==The check waS. 94pe.r~tl!lt ~overed by. pigweed, smartweed, 

.ragweed, purslane, gal1l'lSogB., and barnyaJd grass, 

. ..-. - 

=========================.=.~-~=========== 

TABIE4 

Relative Effectiveness Against Weeds 'of Dimethyl Tetntchloroterephthalate 

Alone and Combined with CIFC,'NPA, am 2,4.;.D • Field Test 

- - - - - - ----- --- - - - -- - --- - ---- - - - - - - - - - -- 

Dosage, lb, lacre Per cent weed contrDl at days atter 

Dimethyl 

treatment.JI 

tetrachlorc. 31 

42 

terephthalate other Actual Expected Actual Expected 

6 0 57 33 

2 0 36 7 

6 crrc 4 81 82 55 48 .. 

2 '4 86 72 45 28 

() 4 .57 23 ..- 

~,~. 

','·6·, (,lIPC2 80 ' 70 49 38 

2 2 :S'--.. 56 ·16 14 

0 2 31 8 

6 NPA 4 86 88 70 52 

2. 4 91 81 66 33 

0 4 71 28 

6 NPA 2 85 72 65 39 

.:2 2. 84 58 48 15 

0 2 34 9 

92 

62 

,.

Dosage. Ib./acre 

Dimethyl 


other 

6 

2,4-D 1 

2 1 

o 1 

TABLE4. (Continued) 

53 

Per cent weed control at days after 

__ --..:'~_- tre~tl!..lolY'--__ = _ 

31 ..,...,.--,~L;2...:...",,_~...,. 

P.ctua1 Expected Actual 3.xpooted 

86 

84 

43 

Jj =At 31 days the check was 97 per cent covered by barnyard grass 

crabgrass, purslane, pigweed, and galinsoga, and at L;2.days the 

check was 99 per cent covered by the same weeds. 

====================================== 

TABLE5 

75 

64 

71 

55 

12 

Crabgrass Control in Turf by Dimethyl Tetrach1oroterephthalate 

Alone aOO in Certain Combinations - Field Test 

Dosage, Ib./acre 

Dimethyl 

Per cent control 134 days after 


other 

Actual 

Expected 

treatment 11 

10 0 

91 

5 0 

43 

10 2,4-D 0.5 91 91 

o 

0.5 0 

10 NPA10 87 91 

5o 10 26 43 

10 0 

5 o 

chlordane 40 65 45 

40 4 

J/ = The check was 23 per cent covered by orabgrass. 

SUMMARY 

Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate has been tested in various combinations 

with CDEC, NPA, DNBP, CIro, 2,4-D, and chlordane. In general, the results 

were qUite promising and tend to encourage additional research with these as 

well as other oombinations. 

REFERENCE 

1. Busvine, J. R. ·1957. A Critioal Review of the Techniques for Testing 

Insecticides. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London. 208 pp, 

41 

18

54 

DIPHEIUHID FOR PRE..Ei,ERGENTvJEE£ CONTROL 

IN HORTICULTURALCROPS 

E. F. Alder and W. L. Wright 

Diphenamid is the tentative common name for N,N-dimethyl-ct,ttdiphenylacetamide. 

Last year at the regional weed conferences 

we first reported the selective herbicida1.-propert:l:.esof thie 

compound and other substituted diphenylace,amrdes (1,2,3). 

Confirmatory eVidence has subsequently been'published (4). 

Diphenamid is an effective pre_emergent herbicide against annual 

weed grasses and several annual broadlea! weeds. It has shown 

useful selectivity in several horticultural crops. A list of 

crops which have been tolerant to diphenamid at rates through 

eight pounds per acre is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1. Crolls Tolerant to Diphenamid at 8.lb/A 

- - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - - - 

tomatoes (seeded and 

Peppers (seed4d and 

Strawberries 

Snapbeans 

Lima beans 

Peas 

,Potatoes, Irish 

Potatoes, Sweet 

transplant) 

transplant) 

Cabbage 

Nustard 

Radishes 

Turnip •. l 

Kohlrabi 

Rutabaga 

A list of weeds classified according to their susceptibility to 

diphenamid at rates of four tq six pounds p,r acre is presented 

in Table 2. Diphenamid has given excellent control of most 

annual grass ~eeds tested. Broadleaf weed control has been 

promising but variable. Rainf.ll or irrigation'soon after treatment 

improved 'the broadleat weed control perto'rmance of diphenamid. 

1. Contribution of Eli Lilly and Co., Gre~nfield Laboratorie~, 

Greenfield, Indiana 

2. Head, Plant Science Research, and Plant Physiologist, 

respectively

~ ~_~ __ 

L 

L 

Table 2. Weed Susceotibility to Diphenamid at 4-6 lb/A 

55 

Susceptible 

------ 

Crabgrasses 

Foxtails 

Barnyardgrass 

Goosegrass 

Stinkgrass 

Cheat 

Pigweed 

Lambsquarters 

Carpetweed 

Chickweed 

l-loderately 

Susceptible 

Wild oats 

Fall panicum 

Ragweed 

Smartweed 

Wild mustard 

Purslane 

Tolerant 

Jimsonweed 

Velvetleaf 

Venice mallo.r 

Field 

Tests 

Tomatoes 

Diphenamid was applied to field-seeded and transplant tomatoes 

in 33 experiments at Greenfield, Indiana and at other Indiana 

locations. A. total of ten varieties of field-seeded and transplant 

tomatoes were tested. Spray applications were made with 

either a modif~ed Hahn Hi-Boy sprayer or a ~~lky spray unit. 

Plot sizes varied in the different experimehts but were usually 

greater than 50 square feet. Weed control wa~ determined by 

counts or visual ratings. 

Table 3 presents data from a typical pre-emergent experiment 

on field-seeded tomatoes. Application was made immediately 

after seeding the tomatoes. Grass weeds were large crabgrass 

and yellow foxtail. 

Table 4 presents typical data from an experiment on transplant 

tomatoes. In this experiment diphenamid was applied as an overtop 

treatment on the transplants pre-emergence to the weeds. 

Grass weeds were large crabgrass and yellow foxtail; broadleaves 

were pigweed, lambsquarters, smartweed, and ragweed. 

In all tests, four pounds per acre was adequate for weed control 

on light soils. Six pounds per acre was needed for heavy soils. 

On heavy soils, field-seeded and transplant tomatoes were not 

d.amaged by diphenamid at rates through fifteen pounds per acre. 

In one experiment of the fiv~ experiments oonducted on sandy 

soils,.moderate early injury to the tomatoes was noted at the ten 

pound rate. A. month later this damage had disappeared. Final 

yields were not reduced in any of the experiments. It is apparent 

.~~+ A~_~_~~_~~ ~ __ft~_ ~_ ~ __ 

~_ 

~ 

' __ ~ 

L _

56 

Table 3. W~ed Control in Fieid-Seeded tomatoes with DipLenam1d 

:>Percent Weed Control 

- - - .- - - - - -- ~ - 

Diphenam1d' Grasses : B!o~d!e~v!s _ 

_ _l~:!l! _ __ _ _ ~igw!e£l _ !:a!!.lbtq~att!r~ 

Wettable 

Powder 

4 

6 8 " 

12 

Granules' 

8 

o 

99iHt 98** 70** 

,96-!Ht 99** 67*it 

100{t* 99+*':~ 8S*it 

1,00** 99+*{t 96** 

,99iHt 98** 67** 

0 0 0 

(8.3) (63.4) (2.7) 

~ !I !I 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

** Significant at 1% level 

!I Number 'weeds per aqu.are foo,t 

76** 

87*it 

9S*it 

92** 

~ ) 

Table 4. Weed Control in Transplant TOlllatoe~ with Diphenam1tf 

- - - - - - -- - ~ ..- 

',93** 

'97** 

, 96*-1t 

98** 

~ 

DiPbenamid ...: f19tCen~ t!e§Q ...CQP~rgl __ 

.. ..1~/! ... __ .. gr!,s~e~ _. __ BrQ!d~e!v!s __ 

Wettable 

powder 

2 

46 

8 

o 

o 

(23·l) 

.,' !I 


!I Number weeds per square foot 

3) 

78** 

74** , 

8)** 

The effect of diphenamid on final tomato y1elds is demonstrat.d 

in Table,. ,Tw.o typicalexp,e~illlents ,are p8sent&d which show 

increa,sedyields obtained from diphenamid t:l!.eat.ed plots. This' 

increase Wlla probably due to t-he control of :weeds on thoseplo·ts. 

~ 

"j 

r ,

- - - - - - - - ~, - - - - --- - - - - - - - 

Tomato Yields (Tons/Acre) 

-.~ -.-- - - -.~ - - - - - - - 

Fie~d-Seeded . Transplants 

- - - "-- - - - - ~, - - - - - - -- 

Table 5. Yield Data on Field-Seeded and'T~ansplant Tomatoes 

Diphenamid 

__ l~/~ _ 

Wettable 

Powder 

2 19.5 

4 18.8 

6 19.6 

8 18.7 

o 16.7 

15.8 

20.0 

20.4 

20.0 

57 

In five trials on seeded and transplant green peppers, diphenamid 

gave no damage to peppers with comparable weed control to that 

obtained in tomatoes. 

In experiments on first-year transplant and established strawberries, 

diphenamid has given good weed contr()l with no damage 

to the strawberries at rates. through eight pounds per acre. Above 

eight pounds s ome le.afburnand decreased runner production was 

noted. 

Table 6 presents data from a typical experiment on first-year 

transplants. Diphenamid was applied two days after the berries 

were set. The dominant grass weed was large crabgrass. Lambsquarters 

and velvetleaf were the dominant broadleaf weeds. Tpe 

latter species is tolerant to diphenamid as i.ndicated in Table 2. 

In several experiments on transplant strawberries the plots 

were placed under cultivation after the first weed control data 

were obtained. Subsequent observations indicated that shallow 

cultivation did not destroy the weed control effectiveness of 

diphenamid.

58 

Table 6. Weed Control inT,r&1lsplant Sllraw~er1'1ies with Diphe:n:am1d 

Dtphenall1id 

_ _ ~btA __ 

Wettable 

Powder 

4 68 

10 

12 

Granuleljl 

4 8 

12 

o 

- - _.-'- ............ .... 

..,;' ' .- 

.'- - - - - - 

_P:r:~t'_w.!Q~£Q~t!:o! _ ,,, Strawbeuy- 

_ ~r~s~e~ __ ~~~~d~e!Y~s: ~ !n~u~Y"_R~t~n~~ _ 

98** 57** 0 

99** 72** 0.7 

99** 65** 0.3 

99** 64** 0.7 

100** 79** 1.0 

98** 76** 0.3 

100** 87** 1.7 

100** 92** 1.3 

0 0 ",I 

0 

(12.9) (5.6) 

"EJ ~/ 

- - - - - - - - - - - - --...... 


-'!I C-noefhot, l-3*sl1ghtinj ur 1, 4'~6-II1)oderate 

il1jury,'T-8-severe i'njury-,9 ..cciJiipJ:etekUl 

'WNUlllber weed,s per ~,quare f·oot 

~~ 

Report~ fro;m se:ver~l investig~tors indicate-:ddphenamid to be 

pTomising for the control of weeds in Irish potatoes and in sweet 

potatoes at ratefl of four .t.o s:d.x pounds per 'aJ:re. 

, L' 

I••..• 

I r 

Lima beans, snapbeans; and peas have shown tol.erance to 

diphenamid at rates through twelve pounds per acre. Table 7 

presents data from an experiment in which these crops were 

included. 

t: :

Table 7.. Weed Control in :l:!c,Ql1llIeswi th Dip~~namid 

'- 

Diphenamid 

___ ~bLA _ 

** 

Wettable 

Powder 

2 

4 

6 

8 

12 

o 

- - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ .' - - 

Signifioant at 1% level' 

.. ~e!c~n~ !!e2d_C2n~r2l_ ..c.!o2JnJU!Y.R~t!n~s~/. 

59 

Lima Snap- 

..G!a~s~s __ .B!o~d!e~v~s ..b~a~s .. _b~a~s __ P~a~ • 

93** 58** ' "0 0 0:, 

99** 66** 0 0 0 

99+** 74** 0 0 0 

100** 88** 0 0 0; 

100** 93** '0;.3 1 00 0.,7 

0 0 "0 0 0 

(207.4) (12.2) 

pJ 

.: ~ 

pJ 

-.' 

. - - . . . . - - - .. - .. - .. _I:,:• 

'2./ 

O-no effect, 1-3-s1ightinjury, 4-6~o4erate 

injury, 7~8·severe injury, 9-complete kill 

Number weeds per square foot 

Summary'" 

-- 

',~.- 

Diphenamid,has shown considerable promisel,or the control of 

annual grass and,several bl'oadJ.eaf weeds at rates of four to 

six pounds per acre. Crops -on: which diphe-namid looks par- . 

ticu1arly promising are seeded and transplU\t,'tomatoEls, pepp-e1's, 

strawberries, potatoes, the legumes, and some of the cole crops. 

Lite~ature 

- ""'!""~.- - - - -- 

Cited 

1. Alder, E. F., Wright, W.L., and Soper'; Q. F. Control ot' 

weeds in vegetable.'erops with a ·substi tuted 

diphenylacetamide.Proc. Ncwee ~. 55. 1960. 

2. Alder, E. F., Wright, W,,'L., and SoperVQ. F. Control of 

, weeds in vegetable crops with a substituted 

dipheny1acetamide. :'Proc. NEWCC1$:69-72. 1961. ,_c' 

3. Wright, W. L. , Alder,; E:'.F., and Sope'l'l Q. F. Control ot 

weeds in vegetabh and agronomic' crops with' a 

substituted dipheny1acetamide~ Prot. SWC 14: 

126-192. 1961. . .~". 

I. T ~_~.. A .1. .ann ~TJ.anlL r. _ The nre-emer2ence herbicidal

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.:.'" 

Weed 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

62 

Du R)nt 326 caused slight early stunting of carrots on muck. However, at 

barvest no differences in yield could be noted. In tbe t'WOtests on coarse 

sand where only early records we~.btained, 326 caused marked stunting at 

three pounds. It was for this reasOn that rates were kept at 1.5 lbs. ma.x1mum 

in the sandy !oem test. 

Ragweed is a severe pest not controlled by Stoddard Solvent. Tbe t'WO 

tests abandoned early, were in fields chosen primarily because of bigh ragweed 

population. These tests yielded some data on ragweed control. The follow1nc 

materials failed to control tbis pest: Cbloro !PC, Dacthsl, Zytran, Dipropalin 

(post-emergence) and Trifiuralin. Du R)nt 326 gave excellent control of 

ragweed. Other compounds whicb performed well were J:.pazine and Solan. 

In the planting on the sandy loam soil annual grasses were a serious problem. 

Ipe.zine and Solan gave only fair control of tbese pests. Du R)nt 326, however, 

performed exceedingly well. Tbus for a wide range of weed species on widely 

different soils under either pre or post-emergent conditions this chemical was 

outstanding. 

Nutgrass 

Ex,per1ments 

The activity of Du Pont 326 and other chemicals was studied at two locations 

beavily infested witb nutgrass. The materials were applied pre-planting at botb 

locations. At one location they were also applied in the "spike" stage and wben 

tbe nutgrass averaged 6 - 8 inches tall. The results of the several tests are 

presented in table 2. 

Timing bad a pronounced effect on the response of nutgrass to Du R)nt 326. 

Pre-plant applications whether on the surface or incorporated gave unsatisfactory 

control. Disappointing results were also bad from the "spike" stage applications. 

At both of these timings the foliage turned somewhat yellow and early 

growtb was slightly retarded. However, after about three weeks tbe nutgrass 

foliage returned to a normal color and the plants developed vigorously. When 

treated at the taller stage, the foliage turned yellow and gradually became 

necrotic. No regrowtb occurred on any 326 plot treated at the 6 - 8 inch stage. 

Atrazine performed less satisfactorily at the spike stage than is normally 

expected. EPrC, however, was consistently excellent. Dalapon gave widely 

different results at tbe two pre-plant locations. Tbe authors do not have any 

explanation for the poor early results ~b Dalapon at King Ferry. Generally, 

early applications witb Dalapon have givfn results similar to tbose obtained 

at Binghamton. 

ReSponse of Additional 

Crops 

In addition to the results already reported Du R)nt 326 was used as an 

at -planting treatment in one test on muck, three tests on sandy loam, and in 

three tests on stony silt loam. R)tatoes appeared to be tolerant, however, no 

post -emergent tests have been conducted on this crop. Other crops including 

cucumbers, muskmelons, peas, snap and lima beans, tomatoes, beets and spinach 

were either severely damaged or killed at rates needed for weed control. Squasb 

were moderately damaged from pre-emergence applications but were killed by

H 

, 

'ta~l!. g,._~e~_O!~ut~• .:.:.'tO_8i!V!,1'!.l..,Q~~~&!!&tl~!ti1!~'__ 

6.:8_ 1!;!Ch!.s 

£h!.m!.c!l ~b!.... _ .. '!!!.-'R.l!!ii'2L;~ _ ............ "~!t!< ......... 

DeJ.apon 

Atrazine 

.~ , 7.00 . 

~. .JC!!1Ib$Y',:KingTeeg, .!iDe Ii'erq 

).0 

3.5 

10 8.50 

2 5.75 5.5 4.5 

4 7.50 1.0' 5.5 

,6;.,,· 8.75 8." 

EP1'C(Inc.) 2 6.5· 

11;., 8.5 ' '; 8.5 8.0 ' 

Du Pont 326 1/2; 

• 

1. 2.00" 2.95 5~0:'. 

2 - 

3 5.25 ~ i.50 

~ 

6.5 

Check ;,", 1.0,' -':,1",0 ,'1.0 ' '1.0" 

;;-9:~~: :e:t:~ :f-t:P"'~~~~~."'c:.::Q~~~~; :f"'t~~~~."'''' 

5.unsat1sfactory control W top growth. 1. heavy complete ground cover. 

Ratings made in early August. . 

6.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

9.0 

2/ All pre-plant treatments at King Ferriwere diS~•. ~Y the E}ltam W8lI 

incorporate4,at 

i1D&h&mton· .. ",", ,.; 

. .... , 

post-emergeneet~t.. ~" covet crops are'~ well whe~ .~·was 

applied in June OIlslWl:Y1OBlIl.. 

s~ and Conclusions 

• '" .• "")",C," 

, 1. In1.4Q1lel'1mant& on~.~ frOm~e'~ to IDUck,DI1.~~t 

326 @IlVeexaelant 'eont1'ol ofaW1lit r6i1ge of azmUl4Weedsinc1.ud1ng:c~~s, 

Eragrostis !!E.', barn;yai'd' 'srast,~i lambsquarten J ;purslane, gal1Deo_, 

ragweed, senecio.,. and 1.ad;Y'8thUmb 8IDl\1'tveed.='SOU t)'pe hadl1ttle ,Qr 

no influence on res s.' , " ' ' , , 

2. Northern il.utgaSllWU etljlec~. lIusceptlblA,:to ;post-em$rgenceappllcations 

of 326. bat; vas not coiJ.t1'01~ by' pre~;,pdlce t~ts. 

3. C8IT0ts were tolerMt o~·~. irw. post~sence applications of 326 

at rates adequate to control either annual weeds or m.ttgrass. Post-emerse~ 

appl1ce.tionswere very.ffei:lt1ve1litO~·5and 1.0 ~~'~'t¥ acre but abQ~:. 

twice this qU8lXtttywas Deeded pre~t:sence. ,~' ' ,'" 

4. Potatoes tolerated pre-e'llBrgence applic&t1oZUl,l;>utit is not knovIl.if 

they will tolel'atepos-to.emergenO'e''trfttments. .. . . ' 

5. IDng residual ai:ltivity j,s apparently not a PJ'l)blem on sandy loam. 

Information talao1dng tor ot~eoulS' . 

63 

_

64 

OP AtmtO mIAZOLE 

ONTHEGERMINATION OP NORTHERN NUTmASSSEEDI 

THEE~~OT Op. FOLIAR:.APptICATION~ 

Jr. It. HUl, ~1. H. 'Lachman, D. N. l1aynard 

and W. C. Lincoln, Jr. 2 " 

University of Massachusetta Agricultural Expedment Station 

Amherst, Massachusetts 

Introduction 

Donnalley and Ilahn (3) have reported that they applied Cl4 

labeled amino triazole to the leaves of the Northern nutgrass plant. 

Autoradiograms of treated plants ahatTedthat the chemical was trans· , 

located in'the plant and into the tubera. Subsequeae'tests showed 

that this treatment reduced cermination of the tubers. 

The object of this experiment was to detemine whether foliar 

applications of amino triazole are translocated to the inflorescence 

and if this treatment has an affect on seed germiaatiOn. 

}~terials and 118thods 

Plants of Northern nut grass (~eru8 esculencu I 

) were erown 

in the ereenhouse and treated with~4 labeled 3 am no-l,2,4 

triazole; the tacced atom was on the S-position of the triazole 

ring. The specific activity of .this chemical waa 0.9S millicuries 

per millimole. A 4500 ppm stock solution, contaiatngSO microcuries, 

was prepared by.addinz distilled water to the sample. 

Each treatment consisted of a ten microliter droplet, with an 

activity of 0.5 microcurie., beins placed inside a: lanolin ring on 

the plant.~eactiv1ty was aimUar :lD all 1;&8e8,.but the site of 

appl1catioD and the duration of the treatment wa..... r:Led. Five 

microliters of a 0.1 per cent TritoD B-19S6 spreader .olution was 

added to each droplet. 

At the end of the various treatment periods,ithe Unolin was 

removed with absorbent tissue.. 1heaerial po~tion of the plant 

was harvested, sectioned, placed be~~een blotters, bound in a 

lThe project was financed in pert by fun4l!1fr.omN(tftheastern Regional 

Project NB-42, "Studies of the Life Hf.story of tio~t:ilern Nutgrsss 

(Cxperus e.sculeDtu,) as Related to Possible l1ethoda of Control". 

2Th~ authors wish to thank lomchemProducts, Inc; ~.upplyin8 the 

Cl4 labeled amino triazole. ' 

Contribution No. 1337. }~ssachu8etts Agricultural Experiment Station.

65 

plant press and dried in a f~ced draft oven .~DO·900C. Sectioning 

of the plants was neceseC'Y because of thdr: luge size. 

Immediately following each cut, the encl. were,~r.ed in melted 

paraffin to seal them and pr:~Dt leakace of 'the plant .ap out of 

the tissue during drying. The sections were

. ',': 

66 

iJ . f. third treatmeQt involVed the placingot, tIiIi h.rbicid. 011 

tbe pec1uDc'le.' midway,bet:weelfl'lthe rillchl •• ':ptrdUQote base. '1be 

ten' m:fiCl"oliterck'oJ)let' ..... cIed'ioto' t'".equal parts aa4 

.aCh .pat:t;'''Pp1t8d to d1ffere.": pedUDc1".'1b1W'~t:hre. p.chmc18s 

-of th&'Uiabetll""trest~' With the total clo... ·beldS 0.5 

mierocutte •• ' 'No tritOn "',u'ed. ~lban appa1.' tfo a 7S per cant' " 

sture' ·t.liiRl fol" '.three.clay tnatment p.rf:04itlt' wa.trAn.- . 

locat.d up the peduncle aactl!achll and lnto.st1ke. NoDewa.-':' 

lIIOVeddown tbe peduncle. fib•• imilarly applied to a mature 

umbe'l,tbe tIIlMlli\8ntwa. agaiU-f.&1tothe apike-.f'bUt there •• al.o 

a .Uzht· aiovemeat dCM1"tbe ptdunc1e ~ . . ,0,' c . ' . 

.-.... . . 

\ ,. , . 

Field plant. which vera tr8atecloo AuCU.t 17: eXhib:Lted a 

l114t:kcldcblfttseititheir app.aruce by Aueult2t.lnthe plot 1'••. 

ceiv1Dgtwo pOUlld. per .. e'. thawtera.s luuI:~a1oped a a1:Lgbt 

chlorod.; planta in the four pound plot were darker yellow, and, 

tho.aid eM eight pound plot wara nearly Uub-=bI'own·. ' 

. . . a~ 

I.~ Had' harvest t:l.me;Sapt8lllber 1 811411>':,the planta that Me 

sprayedOl1I.ugu.t2G hed .bOuttb .... colot!' as :those :Lnthe chMk 

plota but those that hed 'baeD'Ipnyad ,011 Aupt, 17w8n st111' 'I 

chlorotic. It was noted that the plants sprayed on Aucust 17 hed 

fewer .alde 'p.inflorescence and plane. tr •• cecl with eight pound. 

of tl1e cbelllica1 pl'Oduced Ollly:wenty ..f1ve puJ·CleIt'of the yield 

barvested from:the two pOund tr.eatllleDt. ;.,",., ' 

Analyats of thedat. ar8l'pre .. nted in' Tablet[; '1't is reedUy 

appareatthat emina tri.BOle ·-.pray. had a deieten.ou. and sten:LU· 

.cant effect 'onaead serm1natton •. Hhen the tna'tlll8tits a~e compared. 

it is leen that seed from the check plotl 8~aated .isnif1cently' 

greater than tho.e from any of the otber treatments. A lineal effect 

extsts 8IIIOngthe rate. of applicat:Lon, with the higher rates of the 

ob8lllical giv:Lng the pooreat g4mDination. Seed from plots treated 

on Auguat 17 1dth e1ght pounds of amino tr:LallOle germinated only 

ZS-30per .,ceat' es well as' 'thNe from me.cbedc·p'blts. ~1hen· oompar· 

:Lns the·d.o£appl1catloNl,1t CIIDbe 't:h&tl~be'Auguat 17 

. ,:'" . 'tr.atment., gftmil\4-red onlyqiftty per oen1: 11 .s,>those tba-t· 

were treat" on Augu,s~t 2.·.;'mu.d1ff~r8llC8 i.hi'sJ11y~lg1lit1cau1: • 

In th... teaCa, the time of.ti8!V'.•• t had .1\0idl~" On·the rate 

. of' germination. "Jj- ;, ' 

.'-S"m'n 

. ,.:\" ,j 

. The autorad10gratlhic taelmique was U8.4-'4lO diet.l'IIiinet1'i.~.t 

of tranalOC&t:Lon of C14 IIID1ncrtrt.Bole inNol'_J:In nutgrllss, The 

:I.IllaZe1l1'evealed that this .ch-.d.cal istrand.-tea froDlthe p01n1: 

of application to thesead l;t1lies .'l'he8l'l101itlt:Slibch1ngtha spika 

depend. onthac118tancefrOlll·,the point of.,.sltcadon it muat t1:'8II'el. 

The grMe.lt·.acCUIlIUlatioa ,tn 'theapik. occ.a i. _ appl1cation 11 

to the peduncle, while the least aC4U11lUlat:LoD.:OcCur.whenapplied ' 

to the bract leaves.

67 

Tablet. 'lIi! EFFECT'or AN'INO'l!t'IilZOLEsP.tAYGAND 

mm'01!'HARVEST ON~t1tNATION .OF lnITcm.ss 'SEED. 

t :..: ~. ;. . . .;. • . • 

Checl~ 44.56 52.44 

2 Lb./Acre 'S117 '32.10 33.81 

4 Lb./Acre 3/17 30.78 26.14 

8 Lb./Acre S/17 14.25 14.31 

Total l1inusCbeck 77.13 74.26 

2 Lb./Acre 0/23 34.73 45.57 

4 Lb./Acre 8/26 35.94 37.17 

8 Lb./Acre 8/2G 31.15 35.03 

Total Ilinus Check 101.£2 112.27 

Total 223.51 244.47 

L.S.D. (.05) ~ 12.13 

L.S.D. (.01) 19.02

Pollar appl:l.cati.4mso. '~no tr1uole .~~·¥ate ,o~ .two, four, 

and eight poqcd.ller "Cl'er~l~ed in a .....

69 

THE INFLUENCE JIt P.I!ll'ROLEUM Ml:fLOi"'O. N 'Jl}JE 

PERFORMANCE OF SEVERALHERBICII:lBSY 

George Bayer ,Bodgerdfsrgsn and Joseph Cialone Y 

For .the past several yearsplutic sheets. Poth, black and clear and V!lU'Ying 

in width have. been .used commerc1ally as a methodotCClntrollingweeds, 

stimulating plant· growth and 1m,proVing small fruit $:Id vegetable quality • 

. ':his report is c01lQerned with,the applicat1()n~ a liquid petrole1,llllmuJ.ch in 

cOllbinat ion with herbicides Which IIl!ght serve some of the same purposes 8l$. the 

black plastic sheets. but to be 'PPLied as a~~pr~ alter seeding or prio~·to 

transplanting. Work done by Kaye&:Wiggans21 ind:1cated that the effectiv.ess 

of certain herbicides ' was enhanced when used in coaPinetion with aspha1t~ch. 

Experimental 

Four tests were carried out duriIig the 1961 growing season at Ithaca. The 

sandy loam soil was ploved, diskedand harrowed with a meeker to prOVide a uniformly 

f:Lne s~ bed. The randomized plots were eaeh 3 x 15 feet and rep.l.:lcated 

two to four t1meso.epending on the nature of theJt.,1t. The herbicides were 

applied with a ~ proessure-operated Small-~l,ot spraye. 1' •. For. ease of operat. ion 

in the latter two tests the petrole1,llll mulc~ wa, oppUed.; using a hand o.. rateo. 

1.5 gall.oJl;garden~type sprayer connected to a standard spray boom equi~w1th 

two 8004 TeeJet ~~type noZZles. 

In total; seyendifferent~heJilJ,cals were exam1Jledin three categories relating 

to the mulch: under the mulch, ~ with mulch an4:;no mulch. A fourth.C)~check 

category was that of no mulch and no herbicide. Application of herbic;l.de':fllI.d 

mulch was on an overall basi.s. In the first test two rates of mulch were tested. 

Since no differences were observed" only one rate wasused m subsequept -tests. 

Crops were varied according to chemical. SQlIlfl:werechosen on the be,sie. of 

present herbic:Ldal practices but. several sensitive grops were selected as ,indicators 

of chemical. toXicity or &et1v;l:ty. 

The foUl'. tests were started respectively on JU~ 16, July 7-10, Augl1$;tl 7, 

and September 1. 

!JPaper No• 469of the~partmentof Vegetable Crops, Cornell University,-tthaca, 

gj~;~duate Assistants, Department of Vegetable Crops, Cornell University .' 

YKays , W.R.aDd S. C. WiggaM,Oklahoma State, S~water, Oklahoma. Soil 

stabilizers and herbi~ide combinations for weed. ~trol with horticultural 

4 jcrops • Oral presentation ASBS.. August 1961. 

:::tFormulation E.A.P. 2000 except as noted. 

Part of this research was made possible by a grant in aid from Esso Re8ear~h 

and Engineering, Linden, New,J~sey.

70 

In general, the s~ lIIOU'tur" 8M 1:Uth did not:~ ~tly between tests. 

The one exception in the. J'uJ.:Y7 -'10· tellt will be d1sctJiiie4 in detaU later. 

Weed species and-populat1onvarhd- 8Omewha't~ tests, but included: 

redroot, purslane, gaJ.1nsoga, henb1t, groun4sell, crabgrass and be.rnyard grus. 

The area tor:test No.1 was bari'cJwed, planted 8bI\.tl

71 

1 CDEC(Ee) 

2 " " 

3 

4 

" 

5 " " 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

COM (EC) 

U II 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

14 EPrC (EC) 

15 " (Inc.) 

16 " 

17 " (Inc.) 

18 " 

25 Check 

26 

27 

4 M:Uted 

" Un&!r 

" No 

" Mixed 

" Under 

4 Mixed 

" Under 

" No, 

" Mixed 

" under 

11 Atrazine(aa.)2 Under 

12 " "No 

13 " " Under 

4 Mixed 

" Under 

"No 

" Mixed 

" Under 

19 Dacthal(50W) 8 Under 

20" 

21" 

" 

" 

No 

Under 

22 DNOSBP 

23 " 

24 " 

4 Under 

" Iio 

" Under 

No 

No 

484 

484 

706 

706 

484 

484. 

706 

706 

484 

706 

484 

484 

706 

706 

484 

706 

484 

706 

9.0 

8.0 

6.3 

.9.0 

9·9 

5.7 

8.0 

5.7 

2.0 

8.3 

3.0 

4.0 

4.3 

2.0 

4.3 

4.3 

3.7 

6.0 

3·7 

1.0 

8.0 7.1' 

6.7 6.0 

8.3 6.7 

8.0 6.7 

8.0 ~ -:>./ 5.7 

Sp1nac~ Tomatoes 

5.7 8.3 

3.0 8.7· . 

~ 8.7 7.6 

4.3 8.0 

2.7 8.0 

Beens Corn 

1.0 8.3 

1.0 8.7 

_ 1.0 8.3 

Beets Beans 

8.3 7.3 

8.0 8.0 

8.0 8.7 

, 7 0 ~.3 

" 6:7 7.3 

Cabbage Carrots 

7.7 8.0 

8.7 8.0 

5.0 7.0 

Beans Corn 

6.7 6.0 

.4.7 6.7 

7.7 6.3 

Corn Beans 

8.3 9.0 

Sp~h Carrots 

7.3 "7.7 

Beets Tomatoes 

6.7 4.3 

Cabbage Corn 

28" No 2.0 1.0 6.0 7.0 

~weed Rating 9 .. complete contr4 'i 7 .. cOllllDerc;Lal ,control 1 .. no control. 

~prop Rating. 9 • perfect growth 7 .. acceptable 5 .. stunting 1 .. kUl. 

:U Poor stand of sp1l:l8ch in all plots .•

72 J 

7 EPrC (Gr~) 

8 " !f 

9 

10 

11 

12 

" 

" 

" 

Jf.':f.')',: 

~v"), 

3 Shallow 

• 'II 

" 

:bee!p 

" ,.Il 

" ,.''!b'tl,inc. 

" -t., II 

.-, t 

13 Check -. ) 

14" ,C,',j, 

Y Shal10w~n:corporation 1/2". 

, . 

gj Mulch .'R!te of 484 Pi/A. 

~eP incorporation 2 - 3 inches. 

'JJWeed lIti4'~ Rating'~'isee footno~e tab~ 1. 

lYFigures:.:J parenthese~ ~e from a ·t,1f'th'~eplica1

!a~l~ 1._ ~!:.c!: :!!1~hJl!:e.::m~d_h~r£i~i!!e!!.~' _ 

Chemical Rate/A Mulch Weed Ratin;.! Crop Yield 

-1- mC-CInc.r- - _lE.S lT- - - - -NO'~ - - - - - g.O- - - - - J:.bt.!)?~C£.;.. - 

2 II II Mixed T.; .44 

3 II II Under 6.5 1.09 

4 CIPC (EC) 6- No 8.5 1.67 

5 II Mixed 9.0 1.06 

6 " Under 9.6 1.37 

7 CDEC(EC) t No 6.5 1.06 

II 

8 Mixed 7.0 .57 

9 " Under 6.0 .91 

10 CDEC(EC)+ CDAA(EC)3+4lJ2· No 7.5 1.18 

U Mixed 7.0 ·52 

12 Under 6.5 .61 

13 CNOSBP 5 No 8.5 .15 

14 Mixed 2.5 1.15 

15 Under 4.5 .81 

Av. of 4 checks No 2.2 1.15 

Yes 1.0 .56 

73 

!J Supplied by Esso. 

gj See fOotnote 1 Table 1. 

Summary and 'Conclusions 

1. Agricultural petroleum mulch frequentlY enhances weed growth. 

2. Herbicides can be effectivelY used in conjunction with this mulch both 

mixed with or under the mulch. However, each chemical must be eVaJ..uated individualJ,.y 

with respect to compatibility and effects on activity. 

3. The residual effectiveness of CDEC.a~ cDAAwas~~ng1;hened when used 

in conjunction with mulch. .. 

4. Compatibility problems arise with certain herbicide formulations such 

as Atrazine Bow,IJe.cthal 50Wand DNOSBPamine salt liquid. 

5. The physical condition of the soil surface is important when using 

petroleum mulch since this factor materially affects the type of seal resulting.

74 

!'&2. 1!. !±.._!,h!, ~HJ!'~o:: !n_IfI!!.l=.hJ2.~1.i2.ll!"",,; _ ....-:~ -X-.;.o~ 

2 1 2 

'. Weed::J" , Cl:l-OpRating=- 

__ M!t!,r!.&i _ .J.~f!._ _ ..M~c~ R!,t!.ns. C2.~ __ !'!.o~ __ ~ _ 

-JI. Atrazine(80W) 2 Mixed r# 9.0 8.5 1.0 4.$: 

2" Under 9.0 8.5 1.0 2.5 

3 It No 9.0 7.5 1.0 1.5 

4 Ale.nap3 (EC) 6 Mixed B 8.0 8.0 9.0 s.o.: 

5" Unde~ 7.5' 7.5 9.0 8.5" 

6" No 8.0 7.0 8.5 8.5 

7 

8 

DNOSBP 5 

9 

10 Ale.nap I (wp) 6 

11 

12 

13 

14 

EPl'C (EC) 4 

15 

Mixed B, 

Under, 

No 

Mixed 

Under 

N() 

Mixed B 

Under 

No 

8.0 

8.5 

9·0 

6.5 

6.5 

8.0 

9.0 

8.5 

8.5 

8.~ 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

9.0 

8.0 

9.0 

9·0 

7.5 

9·0 

9.0 

8.0 

4.5 

4.5 

5.0 

.9~:d:,n:' 

16 Check Yes , 6.5 8.0 8.0 7.5 

17 " No 7.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 

18 Check Yes 6.0 7.5 8.5 8.5 

19 It No 7.5 9.0 8.5 9.0.-_ 

20 Check Yes 6.0 8.5 9.0 8.6 

21 It No ·'7..0 7.5 7.5 8~.S 

22 Check Yes 5.5 9.0 9.0 '. 8,:5 

23 It No 7.5 8.5 8.0 . 8.'5 

24 Check Yes 5.5 8.0 

' 1 

E5 n No 7-5 1.0 > 

9.0 

8.0 

8.5 

8.5 

Y B • A basic mulchpB7 - 8. ' All othe~ mulch 'pH 3~1j. trormulation EA2000' 

gj See footnote tabJ;e 1."d 

6. Altho~gh'~P(ECf nonieJiy requil'~8 ~nccj~rll.tion, it appe~to ' 

haVe equal' activi1;Y' when not incorporated if' ,covez:ed.,~ a COlXtinUOUBpetr61,UIIl 

mulcllf.1lm.. EPl'C (Ea), also ~rfo~ well when m:lxed.':wtththe mul,ch. ' '; 

8.5 

8.0 

6.5 

7.5 

8.0 

,~ '."~

75 

EFFECT;OFCOMPOSITIONANDVOLUMEOF ORGANICSOLVENTS 

ONPERSISTENCEOF CARBAMATES IN SOILS 

ANDONGRANULAR CARRIERS 

(Abstract) 

L. L. Danielson and W. A. Gentner !I 

Earlier studies (Danielson et aI, Weeds 9:463-476. 1961) showed that 

technical ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbamate [EPTC]had long, intermediate, 

and short persistence when applied in 40 g/A of acetone, No. 2 ruel oil, and 

kerosene, respectively, in soil-incorporation studies. 

Continuation of this research to evaluate the effect of volume of kerosene 

on persistence of soil-incorporated EPTCshowed that persistence is 

short at 40 g/A and increases as the volume decre .... s. The period of per. 

sistence is not affected in the range of 40 to l38s/A. 

Measurable but limited differences in persistence of soil-incorporated 

isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate [CIPC] and 2-chloroallyl diethyldithiocarbamate 

rCDEe] were observed in greenhouse studies when the herbicidesvere 

applied in 40 g/A of acetone, benzene, xylene, No. 2 ruel oil, and kerosene. 

Persistence of soil-incorporated ethyl N,N-di-n-butylthiolcarbamate (R-1870) 

was similar to that of EPTCwhen the same-solvents were used. 

Fourteen liquid petroleum fractions were evaluated as carriers for 

impregnation of EPTCon uncalcined 30/60 attapulgite applied as surface and 

soil-incorporated treatments in greenhouse experiments. Persistence was 

differentially affected by sol~ents and placement. 

Four petroleum waxes were used at 2, 4, 8, and 16 olb/A in a continuation 

of the study ()f petroleum fractions as carriers for impregnation of EPTCon 

40 lb/A of 3O/60-mesh uncalcined granular attapulgitefor use as soil-surface 

treatments. The persistence of EPTCwas differentially affected by the amounts 

and composition of the waxes. Persistence of EPTCwas inversely related to the 

amounts of waxes used. 

11 Plant Physiologists, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, 

u. S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MaryIand.

76 

EFFECTSOF Nt1M!ImANDSIZE OF CLAr GRANULES 

,ON PERFORMANO!iOF" GRANULARHERmCIDEs 

(Abstract) 

L. L. Danielson and W. A. Gentner !I 

Uncalcined attapulgite granules of 15/30-. '20~5-, and 3O/60-mesh sieve 

sizes were used in greermouse and'growthroom studieS to determine the etrects 

of, size and number of granUles per uni t of soil arfA.or soil volume on tht 

activity and persistence of soll-surface-appliedail4 Boil-incorporated .. 

ethyl!! .!!-di-!!-propyltldolcarbaaiate [EpTC). ' 

EPTCwas applied at 2 Ib/A on.5. 10. 20. and 30 Ib of each clay carrier 

mesh size. Granules were prepared by dissolving the-required amount of' 

technical EPTC in kerosene at. rate of 20 ml of ~roe.ne to each lOOg1'am~ 

of clay carrier. The granular preparations were appiied simultaneously .. 

surface treatments to soil in plasticized paper cups and as incorporated 

treatments in' quart plastic containers of soil. '!tie so:l.:l lised was a It 1 

potting soil-wuhed pit sand IIl1xture. Nine replicates' of each treatment!lere 

prepared for bi~&ys with ryegraas on each ofthtee dates (ilJllllediatel;r.' 

after treatment and 2 and 4 weea). The entire exPeriment was duplicate(f'('for 

concurrent studies under greeDhoueeand controlled" grOwth-reom condi tiozut~ 

All containers were sub-irrigated., 'Average tempe1'8tur.s in the greenhause 

were approximately 80 to 85°F for. days and 65 to 70 0 for nights., Growthroom 

temperatures Were maintained at 70 0 • Air JIOvem.nt in the' greenhouse was 

slight whereas it was rapid in the growth room. Glieenhouse light intenft~e8 

were relatively high as cOlllpar8d with approximatelY l.5OOfoot-candles ilfthe 

growth room. " 

In 4 weeks surface_applied EPTCwas dissipated in the greenhouse and 

the growth room irrespective ot carrier particle 'she ornumber, but n*'ot 

~eoil-incorporated chemicalcwu'dissipated. ~ particle size and DUmber 

therefore do not appear to be critical in the effeotive use of EPTCin 

granular form ineurface or soil-incorporated treatilbents. Field experieftC'8 

indicates that similar studies on slightly soluble, highly soluble, and' 

vapor-active herbicides on granules are necessary., 

Soil-surface, chemical di~siP41'ed more rapidly,.1.rLthegrowth room in 

initial and confirmatory experiments. Evaluation of greenhouse and growthroom'environments 

suggests that air movement can facilitate dissipat10ftot 

soil-surface-applied EPTC. ' 

!I Plant Physiologists, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. Beltsville, Maryland.

A LOGARITHMICSPRAlERFORSMALLPLCflSY 

77 

Introduction 

!fBn;I"verfl10ns of the· 10garitbm;1c tJi;e sprayer baVElbeen devised sino« the 

advent of the Chesterford Logaritl:ml1c Sprayer, intrQduced by Hartley, Pfeiffer 

and Brunskill in 1956(3). The uses for this type of sprayer bave been covered 

by Leasure (4). Efforts bave beep.-.de by SOllIe worIEers to develop a logaritbmic 

type s:prayerwich~uld be. su1~le for small plots (1,2). In the opin1ol1 of 

the autnors moat of these efforta bave failed to· give .. sprayer which 18 truly 

suitable to small plot work. ~.t ot the sprayers· aeveloped have used COIIlPlicated 

and expensive components (1,2,3,4) and ease of handling with respect :to 

portability has in lIIOs'tcases been overlooked. It is realized that simplification 

can result in sacrifices in accuracy and other desirable properties, 

however, if the desired properties p].us simplicity ean be incorporated,· gains 

can be -.de in the range of areas where such a piece of e(Jlipment can be 

utilized. 

In the work of Ries and Terry (5) with a small p].ot sprayer, the various 

desirable properties of small sprayers for experimental work were enumerated. 

They are: 

1. Accurate herbicide appl:J,cations should be easilY attained on "small 

plots" of either a few or a few hundred square feet. 

2. Cost should be low. 

3. Construction and operation should be simple. 

4. Operation should be accurate and efficient under a variety of soil 

conditions • 

5•. Changing from one herbicide to another should be rapid. 

6. Contamination between herbicides must be II$gligible. 

7. Agitation of spray liquid should be adequate for a wide range of 

materials and formulations. 

a. Uniform pressure should be maintained. 

9. Apparatus should be sufficiently light in weight to permit easy ope~'atioD. 

by one person without need of wheels, tractors, extra personnel.:',e6c •. 

It is felt that these features are applicable to 8Il\Y log-sprayer designed for 

small plot use. In addition, the property of requiring only small amounts of 

chemical is desirable where new herbicides are being tested. The Ries and Terry 

sprayer was designed on the basis of the 9 points which they outlined. The 

size of their sprayersystem further allows their lJPr'I!lIYer .to f1ll the requirement· 

• J

. . . . '. . ) 

figure 1,. Aachematic ,dr$w1Qsof the 1Q8N'~tbn1c COllOeD:-:, 

tration ,spra.ver when in position for spr8.y1ng. 

78 

of using only small amounts of ch8lll:lciU~ 

With the above in mind a log-llpJ'&.Yer-.s :aes1gaid using the Ries and Terry 

sprayer as the basic component. 

Design Features 

Tbeautbcir$j us !trig, the bas1c'Mes andTe~1BiIIIlJJ1. ~~ti!lprayer (5)/,.'hi.ve 

adapted the unit 80 tbSt'a logar1thild.o dosage curve *~ Obtained. Tlie _~,. 

, ifiedsprayer c'OD8ista·~nent1.a.U:y' dr ,two DaSieim1t. of! 1ll.fterent size :C6'ilbeCt 

,ed in series • The :un1t closest W~~hEi co~t$O~ 1S·.:" que.rt glassroUlld'" 

milk 'b()t'Ue: Bt'ld,Sft'V'eSd~S tlledllueRt tank or 8Our~ ."'Jti, un:l..t .nearest.·'fIbe '" 

bOOlll i8 a s1lllUar~1;bottle e.ndlsietVes as the,(:on~e chamber. 'l'be'''I' 

pressure'soU1'Ce 'is l a COoacylinder rt'bh a, pre-set, predUH-regulating vaJ.v.~ ~' 

(Fig. 1.,). ' : ',', 'If;;' ,;., , : k, 

c ;'_'-'.; •..1.:\':;' 

In moetlOglOSprayerselabor8te .. chanical 88itaUOn :1;8 proVided, ~; 

none is incll1dedln the:present iDo4ltJ.. The mixing otJthe 861utions in the ",' 

concentrate tanlt is accomplished, bytbe h;ydraul1c :force Of the diluent etttWlng 

the pint bottJ.e. The inlet 1s adjacent to the outlet and this plus the faot.; , 

that there is only a relatively small volume (1 pint) in the chamber makes 

6deqU&te m1xingposslble." 

'" 

" , The factors affecting any spray apparatus such as pressure, nozzle 81&tJ., 

speed, etc. govern the range of output of this spra.yer. Since the sprayer must 

be carried by band,'walld.ilg' speed ~8an 1IlIpCrte.a\l,faCtor. Ex,per1enee.'bas 

shown that walking speeds for d1etbClit8 up to 40 feetI:can be controlled qu1t":~: ' 

accurately without the use of any special pace setting devices. For this re&8on 

it is best to keep plot sizes Within this limit unlese:llpl!!cial means ate uaedto 

set a constant pace for the operator. To overcome some of the problems involved 

with :walking speed, a float valv.;cons1atlng of .. roODdf'lflOOdenball has been put 

in the diluent chamber. When all the liquid in this chamber is expended the 

ball Sellls, off the 'outlet and' 1nataat'1,y cuts Ofttl1e~s.ure supply. ..SilLtie the 

two containers are connected in series, stopping the flow of diluent 8't~, &11 ' 

flow from the nozzles and the dilution of the material in the concentrate tank 

stops. This markS the end of the plOt, which isthell .. sONd and dosage .. , 

calculated.

79 

Do~ Calculations 

The actual initial concentration of solution 1n the concentrate chamber is 

unaffected by distance or area covered, however, the initial dosage rate/a 

converted from this concentration does vary as to total area covered. In 

general a given amount of material is placed in the concentrate tank depend:i.l1gon 

the desired total plot size aJild'the desired dosages. The float valve (wooden 

ball) on the 'diluent supply has'the advantage of allowing, accurate calculation 

of rates used in case the desired plot length was"''missed'' by the applicator. 

With any spray application,·&peed must be constant. .All of the above generalizations 

regarding dosages with·this sprayer are based on the assumption that 

walking speed is constant. If the desired plot length is not attained, it must 

be assumed that the speed was incorrect but yet coostant. Data by Riee c$X1d 

Terry (5) show that

80 

A half -dosage distance of ~Q.l.?:, teet seems to be .best due to the fact 

that any shorter distance would nOt give accurate results unless crop and weed 

populations were heavy and unif01'lll. 

J 

Discussion· s. 

.. 'j~;: j • ! (-. ~ :'~,'1 

rt .:f.s realized that certa1nl1m1tationsare~llt:;I.n .this sprayerdu~ 

to the size of the d1J.l*1tcoutawwused.. rt canbe,J~~ulate¢ from'the'r.., 

forlilula of Leasure (4) .1iha1l when one quart of diluellt M. ~lIted 't!:IrQugl;lODe 

pint· of conoeutra1le the 'initial conce.n:t;n.tion 1D.the ~r.-t. chamber '101'1+,1. 

be hal'Vedtwo fUll tline. and al.moat a third t1llle. ,',~ 

E\teo this ~1m1t 18· riot reachtld wi:th th18aP1l8"lot~f.,_ to the fact tbs.~'the 

f~oat vabe stops 'tbe :tJ.owbefore one full quart has "'

Selective Herbicides for Several Crucifer CropsY Y 

81 

Rodger H'argan, Gao. Bayer, Joseph CialOneY 

In NewYork about 16,000 aeres of cabbage, 5000 acres of cauliflower, and 

about 2600 acres of broccoli are grown each season~ Almost the entire acreage 

is transplanted rather than dffoeet field-seeded. For I!l8llY horticultural and 

economic reasons reaearch workers and growers are investigating the technique 

of field-seeding. Whereas witlf transp:J.4nts, the n~ for an herbicide is minor, 

with field-seeding there is a'\I'Jmost impossible weedproblem unless an herbicide 

is used. 

The pu:rpose of the investigations being reported here was as follows: 

1. To investigate crop residues with the more promising herbicides under 

a wide range of so11 and weather conditions. 

2. To evaluate weed control potential and crdp :r"esponse to the more 

promising herbicides under the above conditions. 

3. To evaluate in a limited fashion chemicals Just recently released to 

research workers for their potential as herbicides ,in crucifer plantings. 

, Field Evaluation of Promising Herbicides 

For several seasons, resear~h in Virginia' and by the staff at Ithaca has 

shown that, CDEChas potential for seeded and transplanted crucifers. In' 59 

and '60 the authors found. Dactbal (DAC 893) to be promising. In 1960 Zytron 

performed very well in a limited number of tests at Ithaca. In 1960 Dallyn 

and Sav!yer (1) reported Dacthal as promising. That same season Sweet and 

Cialone (2a, ze) reported combinations of CDECand CDAAas being worthy of 

further trials. 

Tests, were conducted in 1961 at 15 locations representing up-state New 

York production areas for broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower. These tests 

were designed to evaluate the promising materials noted above in regard to crop 

response, weed control, and chemical residue in the crop under a wide range of 

so11 and enVironmental conditions. In addition, tpe factor of field-seeding 

vs. transplanting, was investigated with broccoli and cabbage. A summary of 

peritnent conditions for each test is presented in Table l- 

Each test COntained 4 replications with treatments randomized within each 

replication. 'Plots were one row wide and 20 feet long. All liquid materials 

were applied with a small plot, CO2, hand operated sprayer. Granulars were applied 

with a small hand shaker. 

~Paper No. 468. Department of Vegetable Crops, Cornell University, Itbaca,N.Y. 

~Research Assistants. 

J!Much of the work conducted away from Ithaca was supported by a grant in aid 

from the Diamond-Alkali Company, Cleveland, Ohio.

') 

') 

!a~l~ !.__ ~~ ~f_~r~~£o!!.d!t!o~_t~rJ!e!.d_t!:i~ ~tl_b!:.o£c~J.!,..:.C!b~.~~_C!U!.1!.l~~ _ 

;-

83 

Susceptible 

weeds 

Tolerant 

weeds 

Dacthal, Zytrfl) 

and CDEC+CDAA:!:I 

lambsquarters, redroot 

Eragrostis sp. purslane 

crabgrass, 

ragweed, 

nutgrass, 

bartlyard 

smartweed 

Equisetum 

gras s , galinsoga. 

De.cthal 

CDEC+CDAA 

Crop Responses 

no symptoms on $!JYcrop at 

no symptoms on $!JYcrop at 

$!JYlocation. 

$!JYlocation. 

Zytron 

Three instances of severe' foliage symptoms in 15 tests. - Two 

of these ,"'ere due to the liquid formulation. One occurred on 

direct-seeded broccoli. 

y Chemicals gener6lly performed similarly on the several weed species. 

However, in lII08t locations the level ot weed. cont1'01 :W815sUgbtly 

lower with CDEC+CDAA. 

Broccoli and cabbage were combined in alternate rows in experimental 

fields at locations 4 and. 5. All other tests weree1:tuated in growers· fields. 

In these instances the entire crop production with the exception of weed eontrol 

was according to the commercial practises of the particular grower. 

DacthalWP was applied at 8 and 24 pounds; zytrtm either liquid or granular 

at 8 and 12 pounds; CDECgranular was combined nth enAAgranular at 2+2 and 

3+3J.bs. - ;;, 

Results 

and Discussion. 

A sUllllll8rYof crop and weed response is presentell in Table 2. Both De.-ethal 

and granular Zytron at 8 pounds per· acre resulted in good. weed control, and. good 

crop tolerance on all crops whether direct-seeded or- transplanted. - 

De.cthal proved to be safe under all conditions"~.,en at rates three-fold, 

which were needed for weed control. In the earliest tests, Zytron liquid, 

however, proved toxic to crucifer foliage. The symptoms were chlorosis in areas 

of the leaf where spray accumulated; cupping of leaves was also noted. General 

stunting of growth accompanied theaesymptoms. Zytl"On granular was, therefore, 

substituted in the later tests, and no damage to fol:1age was evident. The$s 

symptoms of damage were generally. outgrown at barve8tand yields were usually 

satisfactory. Zytron at 12 poun4s caused some damaseat one location even' on 

the seeded crops. This indicates a possible narroW:'Bafety margin. Weed control 

was generally good with both Zytronand De.ctb61. -lli!l't;h materials were effective 

agb-inst redroot pigweed, laIJIbsquarters, purslane, crabgrass and Eragrostis 

megastacbya. Neither material controlled ragweed, smartweed, barnyard grass, 

gallinsoga, Equisetiem sp., or northern nutgrass.

84 

COmbinations· of CIIlC and CDA!prQved safe on ~ • However, weed colll'Ol 

was in most looatklDa· sl.1ptl;y l.cMIr than ttiat obtatniQ. 

with .eit.her DaotJl&l.Qr ·Zytroa. Weed specie toleraDQeand susceptibility 

followed about the Slime pattern with the combinationS as noted above with 

Dacthal and Zytron. 

Yield data of good reliability is not generaJ,l;y .v.uable from these .tests 

because of the need for harvesting plots differentially depending on residue 

sample needs. Incom,plete yield records, however, tended to bear out the visual 

ratings of crop response. 

Samples for residue analYsis were obtained frOIDiau lOcations. All slll,Ples 

were submitted to the appropriate comp8llylaboratory. Detailed results are not 

yet ~va1lable, however, the pre11miJ:l!l.rypicture locke. Vilry good for Dacthal·and 

for CDEC-CDAAcombinations. 

Cabbage Var~ety 

Reseses., 

A county apnt work.~ with the slime treat~8," those in the 15 teats 

described above, reported severe CI8mllgefromZytroncm:seeded cabbage. An 

investigation was made of such factors as soil, environmeo:l;, rate, etc., butno 

cause for this trouble was evident. Two .factors vere suspect: the formulation 

used in the ageo:l;'s work was somewhat different from that used in the 1960 

Cornell work; the cabbage varietywu a newl;y introClucedYellows Resistant 8Lory. 

Tests were iIIIIIled.iatel;yconducted 0110cabbage and brocaol:l to determine if tor.. ' 

mulat10n -were a faC'\ior. These tests.indicaUdno differential response beUeen 

1959 and 1960formulat,ions regardles" of rate. A tee1;, involVing five var:let:Les 

of cabbage was then conducted. Marion Market was inoluded because it was the 

variety on whic;h an.previous CorneU.berblcide wOrkh14 been done. In add1'Uon . 

to the new YeUowa.Resistant .~~ yv~y wb,ich l:la4.-.en'damaged, two B'tabaard . 

strains of Danish Ballhead were included, one of which was yellows resistarlti. 

Also included was a new hybrid C~. 

The exper1meo:l;al design for chemicals was a randomized block with 4repj.1 

cations •. Dacthal and Zytron wer•. iLnc1udedat 12 po\Dldaeacb. Individual. plots 

were 6x2o feet and the f:lYe ,var:Le1:lt,.verf:plwecl •• .ayatematic order 

lengthwise of eBlOlapl... Plot.' were fitted, seeded • treated JulY 11. The 

sandy loam soil was moist and in excellent physical condition. Light shovers 

followed plao:t;1ng.Tb,1spluswarlll weather promoted rapid germination and an 

almost perfeet .stand resulted •. ,.libeJlt.be plant8 llIl!l:re.wall-eatablished the7 .re 

tbinned.tO.a~tely,one.per toqt e>trow.' 

. . .. ,. . 

,"The variety :L"e.poDSesare presented in T-.ble .3. It is readily apparebll 

that· Dacthal. badDO adver,e eff~C't on any variety. HlMmtr,. Zytron was 'Y&l'1eble. 

Mar1onMll.rketwas.llI:)t.inJ~ed. ,Iiles:a..tant Glory&Q4aedstaDt Danish,. bowYer, 

gave severe s)'lll}YtQlll8 in eertainr.i¢ates and DOt-~j;he others. The otber 

var1et.1esvere, .not1Dflu.e&ced~~c"it -.ppears tbati,the Zytron damage re ... 

ported from the field, was poa.ib;Ly d.lMtto diftereDt:t.a. varietal response.

85 

Marion Market 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Danish Ballhead 7 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 

Resistant Danish 8 9 9 9 6 8 8 9 

HYbrid C2A 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 

!!e!i!t!n~ Ql2,q __ .3___ 9___ 2.__ .3___ 2.___ 4__ .3___ .~ __ 

Rating Scale: 9 .. no injury. 7 = commercially acceptable crop. 

5 = moderate damage. 1 = Crop dead. 

New Chemical Evaluation - 1961 

There were three tests conducted on fine sandy loam soil at Ithaca in 1961 

in an attempt to evaluate new chemi

86. 

!oa'.!?l!~._ ~2.h!.s;;.o!~g_f~r;..;7.:c.\!1!!og~,W!C!t!O~ 2.f ~! S.~!, 

Days following'· ;. Test 1 Te8t-2' Test 3. . 

__ t!:,e!t!,ni __ ....;,....;q;:;,__ ~u~e_7_ ~ __ ...;.__ :!U!l_l! Aug~sig,4_ ... ...- 

-- ~ 

0 .00 .00 

" 

1.45 

1 .65 Trace ·32 

2 .01 .05 .00 

3 .78 :.19 Trace 

,::"li 

4 1.08 '. .07, .03 

5 .00 .15 .00 

6 .50 ;00" .00 

~.- 

.1, -.: .Ol'·· .ce .. .02 ' 

..-.-,.~; ----1- ----------~:...----------.~ 

__ 'to!.B!. 

~ 

~ :_l·Q.S__ .:..-;- ~.!i8-~ _' 1!,.Bg,_..:...,. 

It can be seen in Table 5t_,z)lphenamid was ucept10nally variable. l1n 

pe1'formance between the several te8't:s. It is thOupt; that the leaching 'QItiabJ.e 

may accolmlifortbese difference8ioiDacthBl gave UD1tormly gOod resuJ.ts. There 

is toxic to crucifers at . 

higher rates. Trifluralin was outstanding in weed·corxtrol. Except wbel'il..'leach,., 

ing wasprQbab~.severe it appears to be safe, even at 3 or 4 times the. d,c)sage, 

nMded 'for weed ooDt1'Ol. CIlEC..cDAA'performedwell ti'bb .:l1ttle crop.Cla1IItIPand 

generally good weed control. However) in the second test Wbere no heavy ri.1ne 

occutX'ed)' weed coetrol was only. mediocre. .:, ", 

Those compounds performing, unsatisfactorily, et1;be~ beCal»e of poor 1lIHd" 

control or because of crop inj1.li7. are listed in Ta~ 6. '" 

l. 'DacthBl:has a wid.eme.rg1nof safety on seeded or transplanted b:l'oCco11, 

aa~e,and cauJ.ttlower. :rt is effective on l11811Yannualweed species. .... ' 

weed~'6peeies tolerant of DacthBlare ragweed, S1II&1'tiJ8edand galinsoga • 

..~.Zytronhasc.•pprOX1mat.ly the sameactiv11lyce,a DacthBl as tar 88 .«i . 

species ;is coneened. However" 1lbere seems to be Ii' 41stinctly narrover .~. 

of.crop. sat~ty.Tbe ,granular formulation IIlUStbe sUbstituted fortbe l1q11td if 

cruciterfol1ale ispreseDt. 

3. Cabbage. .,.,ieties appear tc! react d11'fefeat1ally to-Zytron.Irl ODe 

tr1al two ;yeUows reeistant varte\ttee seemed to be'.eresu8ceptible than-'l1Dnresistant. 

However only 5 varieties were included in this study. More 1lCrk 

is needed on this aspect.

Table 5. Bai

88 

2,b!!D1C!1!. 

.;..' '.,;...._ 

!e£J.:.2.._!!e~!:. 

.!!D!~t'L!.:f!c.!.0!7.;.~ W~=,~,!.~.... ctuS1!e!:.~:.; 

Chemicals lacking crop '." Chem1clU.s~Xli ·weed control 

tolerance but 81v1n8 . and/or 'croJ,jt"oleranee 

ade~ateweed control .. ". " . '.. ' .. 

- - - -:.- ":"~ - -: - - -lbsZA-: ... ":" ...... - - ....- .. .,.,'.. - .. - - .. - rbi!A:~" - 

Amchem 61-l22 4, 8 . Amchem61-

weeding of Lima Bean. With Chemical Herbicides 

Char1el J. No1l 1 

The weeding of lima beans is tBportant in reduoing the cost of production 

of this crop. DRBPhas been commoolyu.ed but the .earch continues for a > 

better and le .. expensive chemical. The expertBent :reported in thi. paper>18 

a continuation of work started a-few years ago. 

PROCEDURE 

The seedbed was prepared and pre-planting treatmente made June 1. Tha.e 

treatments were t.corporated in the .oi1 with a roto~i11er .et .ha11ow. The 

following day the lima bean varlety rordhook 242 wal leeded. The pre-emel'lence 

treaenent. were applied from 1 to 6 days after planting. Post-emergence treatments 

were made 10 day. after planting. Individual plot. were 27 feet long 

and 3 feet wide. Treatments were randomized in each of 6 blocks. 

The chemicals were applied with a small sprayer over the row for a width 

of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weed. between the rows. An e&timate 

of weed control was made Auguat 24 on a baais of 1 to 10, 1 being moat>. 

desirable and 10 being leaat desirable. Bean harvest wes completed September 29. 

RESULTS 

The result. are pre.ented in table 1. All chemical •• ignificantly increaaed 

weed control a8 compared to .the untreated check. There were aignif~ 

caat differencea in wee' control between the treated plota but the higher > 

rate of treatment of most chemicals gave sufficient weed control. The 8t~nd 

of plants waa unaffected by the treatments. All treatment. except U-4513 

at the 1.'8er rate re.ulted in significant increa.e in weight of beans. 

CONCLUSION 

Taking into consideration weed control, 8tand of plant8 and yield no 

chemical treatment was superior to DNBPapplied post-emergence. Many 

chemicals did a good job of weeding lima beans without injury to the 

stand aad with increase in yield _ compared to the UQtreat.ed·aback 

plot. Someof the mo.t promi8ing of the8e are Atramatryne, Trietazine, 

Herb. 326 and Hercules 7531. 

89 

1 A.eociate Profe,80r of 01erlcu1ture, Department of Horticulture, College of 

Agriculture.and Experiment Station,Penn8y1vania State Univer8ity, Univer.ity 

Park, Penn8y1vania.

90 

Table 1. Weed cOIJ~~.l. Itend of plante and yield of Hubeans under 

chemical herbicide treatments. 

. r f),' '.: 

AVERAGE PERPLOT 

A~U"e Rate •... ed 

·Wt. of 

PeZ'Acre AppLication Dayl O-trol Stand of i.ca 

,Cb.. 1cal 11:1', fl'Gl Seediu . ··n-lm P1Ilnte :111. 

Nothing -- -- 9.2 91 8.4 

Tillem 4 Soil lac. -I 4.7 92 13.6 

" 6 " " -I 3.5 85 14.7 

AmJ.b~ 3 PlaatiDg Time 0 -3~2 91 14.4 

" 44 " ." 0 ·4JO 93 '15.4 

PrOlll8tryne 2 

"" j 0 ·l.a: 89 'i6.l 

" 

3 ." " 

0 1~7 90 '14.9 

Atr~t~. 3 P,...-..rgance 5 1.3 90 1'1.3 

'~" 

" 5 , 2.0 91 16.2 

Trietazine 4 " 5 2.0 92 16.3 

" 

" 6 :" S .1. ..., 92 16.8 

Herb 126 2 " 5 ·),0' 85 14.3 

• 1,' d . 

~~. 3 

, 

.. , 

S .1.3

EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONQUALITYANDYIELDOF SWEETPOTATOES 

(A PROGRESSREPORT) 

William V. Welker. Jr. 

1 

Weeds are one of the maJC?3!' problems in the culture of sweet 

potatoes. Four to six CUltivations per season plus hand weeding 

are general practices employed in sweet potato culture. Chemical 

weed control measures would appear to have considerable economic 

potential. The project was initiated in 1959 with greenhouse 

screeni~ 9f chemicals on fo~ varieties of18weet potatoes. The 

most promi 13ing chemicals .\'fe~etaken to the field in 1960. Most 

of the treatments were repeated during 1961. 

The field experiments were carried out on a sandy loam soil. 

A randomizedcomp~ete block design with fo~ replicates was used. 

Each plot consisted of two rows 30 feet long with a guard row on 

each side. All herbicides. exgept NPA (N-l-naphthylphthalamiC 

acid) which was applied as a granular. were applied as sprays. 

The sprays were applied over the foliage of the sweet potato 

plants shortlY after the plants were set in the field. During 

1960 the plots received normal cultivation between the rows beginriing 

three weeks after the herbicides were lil,pplied. During . 

1961 the plots,.received no CUltivation af'terthe herbicide treatments. 

WeedsW:~re counted several times during each season. 

All plots were hand-weeded at the normal ~ay-by time. 

, ' 

The predominant weed species :r;>resent . both years were 

crabgrass (D1~taria s uinal s (L.) Scap.)., pigweed (Amaranthus 

retronexus r.. iambsquarters Cheno odium album L.). arid common 

ragweed (Affibrosi •• edata taken included weed 

control. inJury rattemiS11f',Olia 

"01 owing herbicide application •. yie1d. internal 

color analysis. organoleptic tests. and herbicide ef'fect on storage 

and sp~ou.t1ng. 

. The speCific effect of the herbicides ,upon yields weed control. 

and quality factors will be discussed., Amiben b amino..... 2. 

5·-dic~orobenzoic acid). casoron (2.4 dic~orobenzon1trile). diphenamid 

(N.N-dimethyl-i,-7(-diphenylacetamide}. and dacthal 

(dimethyl 2.3.5.6 tetrach10roterephalate) appeared acceptable with 

respect to all factors studied. NPAwas not included in the 1961 

experiment because of its harmful ef'fects upon skin quality found 

in the 1960 experiments. CIPC (isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) 

carbamate) injured the sweet potato plant and reduced yield. The 

weed control obtained with CIPC was less satisf'actory than that 

obtained with the other compounds. Diphenamid was included only 

in the 1961 experiments. 

These studies indicated that the solution of the weed control 

problem without a reduction of sweet potato yields is at hand. 

Additional investigation of the effects of herbicides on quality 

is needed. 

91 

lHorticulturist. Crop Research Division. AJzricultu:ral Rf'HIAA,.~h

92 

Int{p

Results 

Date treated: 9/6/61 

Soil motsture:medium below, but dry on lurfaQe and 1n seed zone. 

Soil type: sandy clay loam 

Plot arrangement: One row of each crop was planted on a 3,ft. bed 

110 ft. long. 

Herbicide treat.ents: All herbicidel were apPl1e4 beginning at the rate 

of 16 lbs/A and decreasing to 1/2 lb/A with a half dosage distance of 

20 ft., using 125 gals/acre at 40 psi. The width of the sprayed area 

was about 5 ft. There was no cultivation or haRd weeding. 

Rainfall data: 0.52 in. the d4Y prior to makina the beds and planti.,. 

Soil surface and seed zone dried out rapidly and remained dry until Sept. 

14 when 0.67 in. fell. Subsequent precipitatiollduring the 4 weeks dter 

planting was: Sept. 15, 0.14 in.; Sept. 18-20, 0.35 in., Sept. 28, 

0.40 in.; and OCt. 2-4, 1.98 inl. 

and Observations 

Visual observations and measurements are summariced in Table 1. There were 

several herbicides besides the standard treatmenta WhiChshowed promising degrees 

of crop·weed selectivity. The material with the wid.. t safety margin on most 

crops was Dacthal, giving good initial weed control to 1 lb/A while showing no 

crop injury at the highest rate of 16 lbs/A. except on apinach which waa tolerant 

below 4 lbs/A. R·1870 was equally safe on moat cropa including spinach, at 

l6lba/A, but 6 lba/A were required for good weed control. Other materials 

showing good selectivity on most crops teated were Trifluralin (, to 3 lba/A), 

Tilla. (4 to 8 lha/A) and Eptam (4 to 8 lba/A except on spinach). Zytron 

(4 to 6 lbs/A), Randox (3 to 4 lba/A) and NIA 6370 (8 to 12 lbs/A) showed "limited 

possibilities on apecific crops. 

It is obvious that the dry and hot weather cond1clons at the time of appli· 

cation and for 8 daya afterward had a major influence on the results. Unuaually 

high ratea, eapecially of the thio~carbamates, were aece.aary for good weed 

control. However, crop tolerance also resulted at correspondingly high rat.l. 

Increased efficiency from theae materiala, as well al Vegadex and CIPC, has 

consiltently been obtained when foll~ed by rain or Iprinkling. Trifluralla, 

Diphenamid, Zytron and Dscthal, on the other hand, are apparently not so subject 

to volatilization and loss under adverle weather and 8011 conditions. Othew teats 

show. however, that Dacthal is very dependant on precipitation getting it into 

the aoil before the weed seeds ge~lnate. 

Trial No.2: Pre· ... rgence herbicide applicationl 08 six leaf cropa ustng 

conventional plots. 

Methods and Materials 

Crop varieuea: 

Spinach - Old Dominion Blight Resiatant 

Kale • Vates Dwarf Blue Curled Scotch 

Hanover salad - Early 

Collards - Vates 

Turnip areens • Seven Ton Salad 

93

Diphenamid 1 1 , ~, 1 ~ Good above 

1 1h/A 

94 

Table 1. 

Herbicide 

Selectivity Range. from Herbicide Applicati~'; on Five Leaf cr~~. 

Ul1nsehe 'J.osarithldc 'Spfly_r. ' ," , "'; 

" ':(' Good Control lelidual 

MaximumRate for Crop Toll!Eance U~!!/jH """O'ba/A. )" Weed 

SptDaclt' 1a1. . COllard. ~~rniV"Cr.'.·' Gra•• e. Broali-""Contro1 

, .. '. :' '. '" ,..' '. 'leafl (11/24!61) 

R-3400 

R-3408 

R-341S 

R-1870 

Tillam 

Epta. 

CIPO 

Vegadex' . 

Vegadex 

+CIPC 

Randox 

Ve8a~ 

+ Randox 

Dacthal 

.Zytron 

NtA 6~70 

Triflural1n 

J 

~." '! 4 ",.", '4 

\ I. ~ .', 

16 '16 

16 

8 

4 

16 

8 

& 

'3; 2 

,·to 16 

"\ 

4 + 4, 4+4 

4" 16 

11 

3 

4 " 

6 

8 

4 

! • ~ 

16 

8 

4 

4 

16 

16 

8 

8 

'2'j:. 2 

16 ,16 

6:+1~"'j 6 + 1-\ 

I v 

4+4 

;,J, 

'16' 

'~'6:" 

I 

6 

3 + 3 

16 

2 

6 

4 

6 

, .... L·" 

,I ..: :-j 

10 

12 

8 

6 

4 

4 

10 3, 

',; ~,;:,] 

8 

10 

4 

4 

4 

~'poor 

Poor 

"~oor 

1»oor 

i' . 

-\ 'rlalr 

a\ove 

"'8 lbl!A 

'4 

4'Pbbr '.';'; 1 

6 +'~~3 + 3/4 2 ...;-\.' 'lii' 

a1>ove 

;'8+2' fbi! A 

" 3" .: 

,.,iJ 

IS 

,ri ..,' 

'2 

e;' 

3 

1 

4 

'8 

3 

1 

'~~or 

"a'1.r 1 

"flo". 

:"'+8 

'fool' 

3' COOd 

'abcSv. 

6"lb'/A. 

8

95 

Date planted: 915/61 

Date treated: 9/7 & 8/61 

Soil mOlsture: medium below, but dry on surface and in seed zone. 

Soil type: sandy clay loam 

Plot arrangement: Plots consisted of two 3% ft. beds 20 ft. long. One 

row of each crop was planted per pl~t, with 3 crops per bed. 

Experimental design: Random~zed block with 3 reps. 

Herbicide treatments: Spray treatments were applied on 9/7/61 1n 30 gals/A 

at 30 psi. Granular materials were appl~ed on 918161 using a small hand 

duster. There was no cultlvation or hand weeding. 

Rainfall data: Same as in trial No.1. 

/~ea harvested: Hanover salad and turnip greens were harvested on 10/31/61 

The yield data represent one row, 20 ft. long, of each crop per plot., The 

other crops will probably be harvested in the .pring. 

R!§~s 

and Observations 

The visual observations in Table 2 and yuld date in Table 3 general~y.agree 

with the results reported for trial No.1. 

The most promising material .from the standpoint of weed control and crop 

tolerance in this trial was Triflural1n, although there was sign1ficant irljury 

to spinach and cress at 2 IbslA of the 4 e.c. formulation. Later trials u~der 

cool and moist conditions indicate that spinach may be 1njured even at 1 Ib/A of 

either 4 e.c. or2 G formulations. Both Tr1fluralin and Diphenamid gave very 

good weed control even at 1 IblAof either formulation. Diphenamid, however, 

showed no crop selectivity except at 1 Ib/A on Hanover salad. 

, 

The .tandard treatments of Vegadex, CIPC and the.Vegadex + CIPC mixture 

gave satisfactory weed control, especially at the hiah rates, with little or no 

crop injury except from 2 IbslA of. 4 e.c. CIPC. Undltr the prolonged hot, dry 

weather conditions, these and most other herbic1des conSistently gave slightly 

better weed control from spray formulations compared ee the granules. The.. 

opposite was true, however, of R-1870, although even at the rate of 4 lbs/A it 

did not give as good weed control as the standard treatments. 

The use of Dacthal agaln resulted ln good weed control from the 50 WPformulation 

while showing no signlficant crop injury except at 4 IbslA on spin.cb. 

Lack of moisture prior to the germination of the first weed seeds probably 

contributed to the lower degree of weed control from the Dacthal granules. 

While Zytron and NIA 6370 gave good weed control even at 8 and 5 IbslA, 

respectively, severe crop injury in many cases limits ~heir potential. ZytWon 

appears to be safe only in the gra~lular form at 8 Ib.,,(A, appl1ed to spinach,' 

Hanover salad and collard.. NIA 6370 seems to have greater selectivity on these 

same crops, with no appreciable injury from 5 IbslA in either the 4 e.c. or 5 G 

formulation, or from 10 lbslA in the 5 G formulation.

96 

Tlble 2. Vilual Crop Injury and Weed Contl:01 Rating. 

~ .... weed 

Herbicide Formulation' Rate Spinach Kale Ha,lover, ~. 1A'id.Turnip. cr;;;; Control 

J 

R-1870 6':e.1:•. 2 '10 " 1

Table 3. Yield Data on Hanover and TUrnips 97 

Averase Yield in 1bs/20 ft. of row 

Herbicide Formulation Rate Hanover Turnips 

R-1870 6 e ,c . 2 22.7 25.4 

" 6 e.c. 4 27~5 21.5 

" 10 G 2 28.0 21.8 

" 10 G 4 23.4 23.7 

CIPC 4 e.c. 1 21.7 21.1 

" 4 e. c. 2 25.1 18.3 

" 5 G 1 32.0 17.8 

" 5 G 2 22.8 16.1 

Vegadex 4 e.c. 2 24.8 24;3 

" 4 e.c. 4 27.1 21.7 

" 20 G 2 '··28·.0 23.2 

II 

20 G 4 23.0 23.7 

Vegadex 4 e.c. + 4 e.c. 2+\ 28.3 24.1 

+ CIPC 20 G + 5 G 2+\ 26.1 23.6 

Dacthal 50 WP 2 25.1 22.1 

II 

50 WP 4 ,24.2 22.9 

II 

2\ G 2 25.9 22,,1 

" 2\G 4 19.7 21.9 

Zytron 3 e.c. 8· 18.9 10.9 

II 

3 e.c. 16 8.2 1.5 

" 25 G 8 30.5 14.3 

II 

25 G 16 23.5 8.6 

NIA 6370 4 e.c. 5 30.9 8.3 

" 4 e.c. 10 13.7 0 

II 

5 G 5 27.3 12.8 

" 5 G 10 25.2 14.1 

Trifluralin 4 e.c. 1 31.3 23.4 

II 

4 e.c. 2 33.3 23.1 

" 2 G 1 26.4 25.0 

II 

2 G 2 25.4 22.9 

Diphenamid 80 WP 1 29.7 14.3 

II 

80 WP 2 23.4 7.8 

" 5 G 1 33.4 14.7 

" 5 G 2 25.5 7.8 

Diphenatrile 5 G 5 32.1 27.8 

" 5 G 10 24.8 23.6 

Check 25.2 21.9

9S 

Diphenatrl1e i. worthy of further .tudy in both ,ranular and .pray torab~ 

latlons. The granular material gave fair to good weed control with complete 

tolerance of all crop. to 10 lb./A. 

fugmpAryfnd eonclu.iop. 

Preltminary investigations with .everal of the new experimental herbicid.es 

offer promising possibilities of alleviating the more serious weed problema _till 

facinS ··leaf crop growen of Eastern Virginia. 

Decthal, a-1870, Tillam, Trifluralin and Diphenatrile appear to be equal, 

and in some cases .uperior, to Vegadex and CIPC ln crop tolerance. These 

materials offer po•• ibiLities especially during period. of the year or on weed 

.pecle s :where the preseatstsndard treatments often faU. A longer period of 

effective control may also be possible from some of these chemicals, e.g., 

Trifluralin. 

Further trials and information are needed at different periods of the year 

to determine the influenca. of climatic and soil conditions on the result. 

obtained from these materials on specific crop. and weed species. 

Literlture 

Cited 

(1) Daniellon, L. L. Evaluation of pre-emergence .pray and granular applications 

of COECon vegetable. leaf and cole crops. Proc. N.E.W.C.C. 12: 17-22. (1958) 

(2) Price, C. D. Pre- and post-emergence weed control in leef crop. using 

h~bicide combinetiona. Proc. N.E.W.C.C. 13: 510-516. (1959) 

"

Weeding of Carrots With 'pre-lilanUng, Pre ..emergence and 

Po.t-emerget!ceApplicatlonl ·of Chemicals 

Ch~r1e. J. No11 1 

Weedcontrol hvery impbl''tant iii the early It ••• S of growth of carrot •• 

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

Solvent. Other chemical. have without recent years benn found to be effective. 

This year's work is a contin~tion of work .tarted a number of year.: 

ago. 

PROCEDURE 

The seedbed was prepared, pre.p1anting treaauent. applied and .eed. 

planted Kay 2. Pre-planting treatments were incprporated in the .011 with 

e rototiller .et shallow. The variety grown was Chantenay, red core. The 

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

emergence applications were made 33 day. after seeding when carrots had . 

their first true leaves. Individual plots were 28 f.et long and 2 feet 

wide. Treatments were randomized in each of 8 block •• 

The cheatca1s were applied with • small sprayer over the row for a wiath 

of 12 inche.. Cultivation controlled the weed. between the rows. Anest.:L". 

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

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

RESULTS 

. The results are presented in table 1. All treatment. except the po.t~ 

emergence Deetb.1' treatment significantly increa.ed weed control as compared 

to the untreated check. The belt veed control tre8llleDts were in the so11 iilcorporation 

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

treatments 0.£.PrOllletryne at 3 1bs. per acre, Ipal1ne at 3 1bs. per acre, 

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

treatment of Solan at 6 lb •• per acre. The stand of plants was 

significantly better than that of the untreated check with the post-emerg8ace 

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

other chemicals had a .tand equal to the check. Significant increasea in 

yield as compared to the untreated plot were found in the following treated 

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

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

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

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

Amiben at 5 1bs. per acre and Solan at 4 and 6 lbe. per acre. 

CQ,NCLUSION 

Taking into coaa1derat10n weed control, stand of plante and yield the 

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

acre and Amibenat 5 lbs. per acre. Other chem1cale that look promising for 

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

99 

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

4 ft 

..... ",

100 

Tab1,e 1. Weei· cem:rol. stand (>f pl.aat. andweipt .of~t. of carrot. 

under chemical berblci6.tre .... nt •• 

Ipadne 

Amiben 

Daethal W-50 

AiDiben. 

Daethal W-.50 

Stoddard Solvent 

Solan 

" 

Chemic.1 

Nothing 

T1UIllll 

II 

R-18S6 

II 

Berb. ,326 

" 

" 

" 

Prometryne 

U-4S13 

" 

Ipadne 

" 

,'. 

" 

, 

Active Rate 

Per Acre '. j Applle.tionDay. 

Ibe. froll Plant1Dll 

-- ";"-- 

4l' 'lsbU Inc. 

6 "" 

4 "II 

6 :", II 

" \ 

2 Pre~emergenca 

2 " 

II 

, '" " 

2 " 

3 If 

2 

3 

I"' .. 

' I' 

10 " 

1.5 'J, " 

S " .. 

8' n 

S 

8 " 

70 gal...· 

,,·~t-"rg. 

4 

6 ~ .. ' " 

2 ',;, " 

3 "" 

Lealt Ilplflcant difference 51 

1'1 

*Weed Control I-lOt 1 Perfect Wfe4cCoQtrol. 

10 Full WeedG~th. 

AVERAGBPERPlm 

'*Weed I 

CoDtrol I Stand of 

"ltiol0l i P1anta 

• i "9'.8 i 140 

e r: It.8 I 26 

o 2.9 6 

o 6.1 I ISO 

o 5.0 13S 

1 4.6 98 

1 ' 4.5 37 

1 i.i '5'.0 S4 

1 '2.4 29 

1'i' ""6.3 SO 

1 "4.0 18 

I' 

"1; 

6'.0 

'3.9 

118 

68 

3 6.8 130 

" i', 6.4 ISO 

3' ! t.3 

3' '" 5'.8 

99 

191 

33; ." ~4.3' %22 

33 8.6 173 

33 

33 

5.8 

4.3 

160" 

12S 

'3 2.9 219 

;3 h 6.1 126 

ss I', 4~S 130 

1.8 

2.4 

S6 

, 74 

Wt. of 

,lOOts 

'lb ... 

l ' :~::" 

~7 

9.2 

11.6 

10.9 

:4.4 

:"7." 

'4'.9 

n',;4 

; )%a' 

9.2 

7'.3 

12.1 

:'11.0 

'1f)~6 

l1ii8" 

"I.' 6.S 

8.5 

13.0 

13.1 

6-..5 

81 

3~4 

4~4 

,U 

;1' 

, . : 

I' 

.' .. \

101 

WEEDCONTROLSTUDIESIN SEElED ONIONSV 

J. C. Cialone, G. Bayer and R.D. Sweet. 

Introduction 

New York with about 15,000 acres ranks all one of the leading onion p:L'0 

ducing sta1ies, with the majority of the production centered in the muck soil 

areas where 'Weeds are a serious problem. Growers have shown great interest in 

herbicides as an aid in reducing weeding costs. 

Most of the acreage in NewYork this year was treated with cbloro-N-Ndiallyl-acetamide, 

CDAA,sold as Randox. This prosram consists of a 6 lb/acre 

rate of the liquid formulation of CDAAin the crook stage of onion development 

and subsequent applications of the granular formul~ion as they are needed 

throughout the remainder of the season. CIPC (cbloro-isopropyl-phenyl carbamate) 

is used in combination with the CDAA,primarily in situations were purslane 

(Portulaca sp.) has not been controlled by the CDAA. In general, the above two 

chemicals have given .very satisfactory results over a wide range of environmental 

conditions on muck soils. CDAAdoes have the limitation that it will not control 

purslane other·than in the seedling stage of development and does not have a 

very long period of residual activity in the soil. 

Since CDAAoften gives injury when applied immediately after planting, if this 

application is followed by rain, and since liquid formulations may give Uljury 

when the onion has reached the nag stage of development, the early period of 

safe use is a short and crucial one. l't can readily be seen that with the great 

variations in spring weather conditions this period of safe use may not alw.ys 

coincide with the stage of weed growth at which CDAAwill be most effective. Any 

chemical which could eliminate this crucial timing with respect to the crOp and 

still be an effective herbicide would be very valuable. Tests conducted on muck 

soil in 1960 by Althaus, Langlois and Gleason (1) indicate that a combination ef 

CDAAand TCBC(Tricblorobenzylcbloride) sold as R8l'1doxT, was effective e.ge.1nSt 

purslane, gave generally good weed control and g8velittle stand reduction wbOn 

used at 6 and 9 qt/acre rates. Romanowski in 1960 (4) indicated that this e

102 

because past weather reco:l\ds indicated that these two lbcations generally have 

very different cl:1mstic conditions. . 

General 

Standard Chemical, Rate, Mixture and Timing Tests. 

IdenticaJ. .teats were conducted at Oswego and Elba. locations in growers' 

fields. IrIdi vidual plots were 5x20 feet haVing four rQVlI of' onions lengthw1M 

in each plot. In Table 1 are presented a list of trea1llllents, rates and t1lll1Dc. 

!a~l! h._ [~2.f_c~ic!,l!,_r!.t!._an~ !1l!i~~ .., _.., ..,.__ 

_ _ _ _ _M!,t!r!8!,s_U!.~ T!1II!.2.f_al?\'hi~a112.n ... .;.'_ 

Chemical 

CDAA 

CDEC 

eIPO 

CDAA+ TCBC 

CDEC+ CDAA 

CDEC+ CDAA 

fI 

It 

" 

" 

CDAA+.CIPC 

4,6 

4,6 

4,6 

4,6· 

3+3 

4+4 

4+2 

2+4 

6+4 

6+6 

"", ' 

. Oswego 

~-MsiV 1, 2 days after planting 

~-May 15, onions 

in crook 

~-May 18, lO-2~ onions in flag 8'tqe 

tI " 

1st MsiV.8, sailleday as planted 

2nd MsiV17, onions in early crook 

_________ .... 3rd~_2i,...,..0~11! !nJ!.Bi _' _ 

*rates .based on quantity of CDAAapplied. (solldasRaMo~..T) 

. Each plot 'Wasreplicated three times with the chea1cal treatments randQm1zed 

in each replicate. The timing factor for each chemical. treatment, however, was. 

not randomized, so that the three times of application: were side by side in .. 

pre-set order. The t1m1ng f'actor,tben, is composed ottbne sUb-plots in 'bhe 

main plot which is the chemical treatmeJ1't. There was a. check plot in each tier 

of each· replicate. 

Although each treatment was applied at three differeJ1't times in relation to 

onion development, it must be stressed that each plot was treated only once, ... 

that is, different plots were treated at each of the three t1m1ngs. 

All chemicals used were the c01lllllercial liquid fol'lllUlations and all combinations 

were tank mixed. Applications were made with a hand CO2pressure small 

plot sprayer. . . 

Visual weed and crop ratings were made· in each location throughout the· . 

season •. At OSYeSoall plots were hand'weeded on July 5th and weights of weeds 

were taken. Yields and stand couJ1'ts.vere taken in September at time of bar'leet. 

Stand couJ1'ts and field records were taken on the 15 feet of the middle two ron 

in each plot.

Weather conditions at the two locations weX'equite. different. At Elba 

precipitation came in the form of severe thunderstorms through much of the 

season. A severe hall storm on June 23rd when the ou1ons were approxime.tely 

6 1nches te.11 was extremely detr~al to the C1'Op. Both locations he.dabout 

the se.me total precipitation for May, but the precipitation at Elba seemed. to 

have come at a more crucie.lt1me in relation to crop emergence. In addition. 

the particular soll used at Elba, was very subject to compaction, and resulted 

in poor stands. It was est imated that at the' flag stage at Elba 30 percent 

of the seed which had germinated was still beneath the -soll and never emerged, 

regardless of treatment. 

103 

There are several other factors :wbichmust be considered before examining 

the results' obtained. At neitheX' location were effoX'ts made to measure the 

weed competition factor. For this reason y1e1

104 

~a~l~ ~. _C!:.0l!, £e!JlOJ1!.8_ ai QS~i0:. _ '"' __________ 

, . " T1meof 'l'reatlent ------- ' -- '. ' 

Chemical ,,'. At_Pl~t~," - -~-S~~7.· - !.l!8_Sias.e 

~r!.ailll!.ni __ ~J."2..LA__ [~_8!.8!!i,;. ',- ~__ Si~.;..· __~ _ -.si~_ ., ___ 

CDEC 6 7.3 281 6.3 248.6 7.0 268.6 

CDAA 6· 9.0 296.3 9.0 29 1"3" 8.6 264.0 

C'lEC 4 7.6 236.0,,;r 7.0 268.6, 7.6 256.0 

CDM 4 9.0 3a6.0 8.6 293.0,. 9.0 304.6 

CDAA+CDEC 4+2 8.6 294.0 7.0 223.6 7.3 282.0 

" + " 3+3 8.0 284.0 7.6 266.0 7.0 267.3 

" + .2+4 8·3 293.0 8.3* 289.5*, 8.6 288.0 

" + " .11+4 8.0 27J..6 6.3 2!1o.0 6.6 240.3 

CIPC 4 9·0 304.3 . 9.0 265.6 '9·0 284.0 

" 6 9.0 ·265.0 9.0 288.3, 8.6 271.0 

CDAA+QIPC 6+4 8.3 304.6 9.0 300.6 9.0 290.6 

" +' " 6+6 8.5* 265.0* 8.3 265.6, 8.3 283.0 

CDAA+TCBC 4+10 8.6 277.6 8.3 265.3 8.6 263.6 

" + " 6+15 8.6 278.0 8.6 247.3 7.6 249.0 

CK 9.0 264.9 9.0 264.9 9.0 264.9' 

. .' 

*---'-~-~'-~--~-------~-~---~~~-------~---- 

.'. ..',' . '.. 

•¥&nS of only 2 replications. 

!:.t9 • perfect crop; 7. commerc~ acceptable; 5 • ,~rate damage. 

1 • crop completely killed. Data t.-n June 12. 

'!:.a~l!.l._ ~e!.dj"~_C£.op_R!.s~~s!. !.t_E!.b!.. ..:. _ 

2oh!.m!.c!.l_ 

~e!.d_~ni1"2.J.3! Qr2l! ~t!.~Q.O~is 

!..b~~ __ All._ £ __ 'E'J./ All.__ C__ !: All.__ £ __ ]_ ~ __ 

CDEC 6 6.6 6.3* 6.0 4.0 6.0 7.3 71.6 141.5 144.6 

CDAA 67.6 8.3 9.0 6.6 7.6* 8.5 '105.6 159.3* 190.3 

CDEC4. 2.6 4.0 4.6 7.0 7.0 6.3, ·U5.6 143.0 166.3, 

CDAA, l,., 7.~ 8.0 8.6 ... 7.6.7.6 8.3 ,~~.6 149.3 188.0. 

cDi"c+ciiAA - W- -773:-"'f.b -870....- - 3'l; -770-8.0: -,~ -,.t3'-14876:-"r7g.5,~ - 

" + 'II 3+3' 7.3 7.6 8.0 4.6 7.3 8.0 81.0 108.6 148.0 

" +" 2+4 8.0 8.3 8.6 4.6 6.3 7.6 69.0 130.6 165.0 

" + " . 4+4 . . 8.0 8.6 3.0 ,2.3 6.0 8.0 . . 44.6 146.3 191.6., ..' 

CIPc-..."'-,."4- :- -27P- 4'.~'"'476- ...- 8.3':-e73 1l' is - :-115'.o"'14'370"r~.3 -- 

Q~_ _ _ _ 6 _ .J:.O.;. §..§._7:.0 §..Q_8~.o_ a.§..;;.: ,:.;,l2§..Q. _1!t2.0_ ~78.6

In contrast to the damage noted in EJ.ba from applying either CDAAor CDEC 

at planting, itI Oswego CDAAwas not toxic at any t:l.llle of appJ.ication. C~, 

however, gave some damage at all thx'ee times of application, with the crook 

stage being most severe. A heavy shower followed the crook stage application. 

It is believed to be the cause of damage, just as in the first application at 

Elba. 

At both EJ.ba and Oswego combipations of CDAAand CIPC followed the general 

pattern of CDAAalone with respect to both crop response and timing. This is to 

be expected because experience bas shown onions in the early stages to be much 

more tolerant of CIPC than of CDAA. 

CDAA-tlrCBC (Randox T) was similar in per:(ormance to CDAAat both locations.' 

Treatment at the flag stage generally gave less CrQP inJury than, did treatments 

at other times. Much of the data Obtained follow the CDAAresponse. It is . 

difficult to evaluate the effect of TCBCsince this, chemical was not appJ.ied 

separately. 

At both locations, weed control (see table 4) was best at the last two applications. 

This probably was due to several factors. First, in the periodl)etween 

planting and the third time of treatment, temperatures were quite low and weed 

development slow. In this same period rainfall was heavy and soil fixation and 

other forces were active which tend to reduce the effectiveness of herbicides. 

Later with higher temperatures when weed activity did reach its maximum, many 

of the chemicals were probably below their maximumlevel of activity. 

!a£.l~ ~._ ~!.s!.~_C~n~r~l_a~d_w~i~ ~f_w~e!!sJ~~v~d_b;r, !!a~d.L ~uq3.L Q.s~~o:.. _ 

!,t ]!.a~t!n~ £r2.0~ ~t~! :El!g_S~8§.l! 

Chemical lbs/ 1bs. lbs. lbs. 

!r~t _']l~n~ __ A__ !!.e~d~ _ ~u!.s!.an~ W~e!!s_ .Jl~~~n~ __ y~e!!s__ ~U!.s!.~e_ 

105 

CDEC 

CDAA 

6 

6 

19.33 

14.96 

1 

2 

CDEC 4 15.33 1 

CDAA 4 10.40 3 

CDEC+CDAA4+2 9.20 2 

CDEC+CDAA3+3 

CDEC+CDAA2+4 

5.10 

16.23 

3 

2 

CDEC+CDAA4+4 11. 40 3 

CIPC 4 29.20 2 

CIPC 6 29.83 1 

CDAA+CIPC 6+4 8.65 6 

CDAA+CIPC 6+6 11.25* 7* 

CDAA+TCBC4+10 6.33 9 

CDAA+TCBC6+15 ,5.03 . 9 

CK 34.97 3 " 

1P oory -two -replicates. - - - - - - - 

9.36 

6.46 

9 

2 

6.53 

4.53 

7 

2 

15.76 6 22.40 7 

8.0 3 8.2 5 

7.06 4 10.07 4 

5.30 6 6.63 6 

5.70* 5* 6.96 5 

4.46 6 2.93 6 

24.36 2 26.30 2 

21.30 1 14.93 1 

3.30 7 3.16 7 

6.60 6 4.36 7 

3.10 9 4.10 9 

1.46 '9 1.03 

__ 3!!:,.2,7 3 3~.2,7 

'9 

:1 _ 

At both locations regardless of timing CDAAgave more effective weed control 

than did CDEC. Where the two chemicals were in combination at Oswego both 

the 4+4 and 3+3 lb. rates gave effective weed control regardless of timing. 

The 4+2 and 2+4 combinations of CDAA+CDEC were not consistent in weed control 

performance.

J:n Oswego at the. latter two times of applicationcmc at 4 or 6 pounds gave 

better· eontrol of purslane than did CDAAat s:l.m1J.e.i'mea. Combinations of--these 

two chemicals·at 3+3or 4+4 gave fair purslane control. 

CIPC was generally inadequate in weed control at bOth locations regardless 

of rate or timing. For some unexplained reason CIPC even performed poorly in 

control of purslane. For purslane control CDAA+CIPCgave better performance 

than either compound·used alone. CDAM-TCBC (Randmt-T) at either 4 or 6 pounds 

gave excellent weed control at both locations at au times of application. 

Purslane control was virtually complete at all times. 

At harvest. CDAA+TCBC plots treated at the third stage were nearly devoid of 

all weed species • However• an occasiOnal weed did apar. Growth was .slijbt 

and weed foliage ·exhibited hormone-like symptoms. whioh indicates a longre!dual 

from the TOBeportion. it should be noted again tha't' TCBCis automatically . 

added at the rate of 10 and 15 pounds when 4 or 6 poUl!idsof CDAAequivalen:tiis 

applied from the cODllllercial combination. t'1henever a chemical exhibits season 

long activity there is inherent danger it may carry over and cause damage to the 

succeeding crop if it is susceptible. Most vegetable crops including pot8toe's 

fall in the susceptible class. 

Su.ry 

and Conclusions 

Tests were conducted on seeded onions at two muck soU locations using-' 

various chemical treatments. at different rates. combirlations and times oftr'eatment. 

Rainfall and soU at these two locations differed markedly. 

R,eD.1:ts.indicate that combinations of CDAA+TCBC give excellent control of 

purs1ane and otber weed species over·a long period of time with only one aW1icati 

..... 

Whenapplied in the early stage of onion growth. CDAAapplications if 1'01 

lowed by heavy rains caused severe crop damage. 

Whenapplied 1mmediately a:f'ter planting or in the crook stage CDEC.if 

followed by rainfall gave crop inJury. 

CIPC used alone faUed 1;0 give adequate weed control resardless of rate. 

timing or rainfall. 

CIPC+CDAAcombinations performed much like CDAAalone. with respect to crop 

response. but 'Weedcontrol in general and control of purslane in particular 

was IIlOreeffective with the combinat1lm than with CDAAalone.

107 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Althaus. R. E•• R. H. Langlois. L. S. Gleason. Weed Control "11th Randox T 

in Corn and Onions. Proc. NEWCC15:94-99. 1~. 

2. Cialone, J. C. and R. D. Sweet. Combination ofcmo with CDAAand Other 

CompoundSfar Weeding Vegetable. Proc: NEWCCl 15: 73-77• 1961.. 

3. Meadows, M. v., S. R. Orsenigo. and J. D. Van GeJ.uwe. Interaction of Sol1 

Moisture, Beed Treatment and Herbicides on Onion Statlds and Yields on 

Muck SOU. Proc. NEWCC15:100-106. 1961. 

4. Roma1:Iowski. 1960. Personal OOIIII1unieation.

108 

Ch.. ical Weeding of On1"n. GrownaD Hinera1 SoUa. 

, 1 

Charlea J • Noll 

A1thClughmoltt onion. in' tha,..-"th.'at 'are grown "o~lIUCk .0Ua, a 

conaiderable acre ... i. grown on mineral aoi1s. The'co.t of hand we.dinS 

hlab' thaltlh.re ,used it l1111it. the ~.... ,Proeluct:l.on colt. ,c 

could be reduc.d and _cr.ege incr ... ecllf adequat."c_iAla1 weediq were 

developed. '!'bi. y.ar. experiment il a continuation of work ltarted a 

nUlllber of ye.n .10. 

onions 1. .0. 

The onion ~ad.ty Sweet Spanilh... a.ecl.d tbill ayth •••• db.d was pUpared. 

The pr.· ... rl.nce treatment. were applied 1 'day after'a.eding, the 

emergence treatment. 14 dayl aft.r ••• ding and the po.t-emergence treatm.nt. 

17, 21 or 22 dayl after seeding. Individual plot. were 28 feet long and 2 

feet wide. Treatmenta were randomized in each of 8 block •• 

The chemical I were appli'dwith a ~all .prayer ov.r the row for a width 

of 12 inches. Cultivation controlled the weedl between the rows. An e.tt.8te 

of weed control was made July 24 on a ba.il of 1 to 10, 1 being moat deairab1e 

and 10 leaat delirable. Onions were harvested September 25. 

USULTS 

Th. relu1ts 1"1- prelll11ted in table 1. All chemieah except Exp. R I:I.gnifi~"nt1y 

iocreaaed weed control as compared to the untreated check. The 

belt weeded plotl were treated with Prometryne, Diph.namid and Dactha1 and 

Ipazine at their higbest rate. Manytreabuents wignificantly reduced the 

stand of plants. Only two treatmenta had a stand sizn:l.ficantly greater than 

the untreated ch.ck plot. Th.a. treatments were Dacthal and CIPC. A a1S· 

nificant increa.e in yi.1d was obtained where Dactha1 and eIPC had been 

appUed a. compared to all other treatlllents. 

CQHCLUSION 

Taking into con.ideration weed control, stand of plants and yield the 

be.t treatlllenta in this exper1lllent for weeding onion. were Dacthal appUed in 

a pre·emergence application and eIPe applied at t1llle of onion emergence. 

lAssociate Profeasor of 01ericulture, Deparbuent of Horticulture, College of 

Agriculture and Bxper1lllent Station, Pennsylvania State Univeraity, Univeraity 

Park, Pennay1vania.

Table 1. Weed control: stand of plants and weight of onions under chemical 

herbicide treatments. 

AVERAGE PERPLOT 

Active Rate '*'Weed Wt. of 

Per Acre AppU.c4tion Days control Stand of OOione 

Cheaical lb •• ·f. SeedinlZ ~11.10) Plants lb •• 

'.. 

Nothing -- -- 9.4 61 1.8 

Dacthal W-50R 8 Pre- .... rgence 1 4.0 112 9.4 

It It 

'. 16 1 2..3 104 11.9 

It 24 . It 

1 1.8 120 11.0 

It 

Exp R 8 1 9.5 37 1.5 

It 

" 16 1 11).0 51 1.4 

" 24 

It 

1 9.6 45 1.5 

Zytron 10 

11 

1 ~~3 83 5.S 

" 15 

It 

1 5.3 55 4.8 

Diphenamid 6 

It 

1 1.3 10 1.0 

It 

9 

It 

1 1.1 2 .1 

U-4S13 2 " 

1 3.5 

I 

67 3.9 

" 3 

It 

1 3.3 58 ~.S 

Atratone 2 

It 

1 4.4 27 :~8 

CIPC 4 Emergence 14 4'.4 116 7.7 

" 6 " 14 3.1 141 11.2 

Randox T 6 

It 

14 5.4 81 4.6 

It 

9 

It 

14 5.9 71 4.8 

I 

KOCN· 12 " 14 7..0 68 2.3 

It 

18 

It 

14 7.•1 45 2.•1 

Atratone 2 POlt-emergence 22 J.9 50 S~8 

Prometryne 2 " 21 2.•0 8 .9 

It 

3 

" 

21 1.1 3 .3 

It 

4 

It 

21 1.3 6 . ~.s 

lpadne 2 " 21 4.3 22 1.7 

It 

3 

It 

21 2.6 25 1.8 

It 

" 4 21 2.0 5 .9 

It 

Casoron 

17 B.S 37 1.7 

It 

17 1~0 33 1.7 

" 

~ 

Least significant difference 5% 

1% 

*Weed Control 1-10: 1 Perfect WeedControl 

10 Full WeedGrowth 

1~3 

1.7 

31 

40 

2~3 

3~0

liQ 

WKEDOONTRQI, IN. TRANSPIANTEll O~l , 

S. 'L. Da~ and R. L. sa;q.;;ti:' , 

"" 

Blght years .,when tranaplanted_et Spanish type 

oniQl1$weretiret groll1'1on eastern:~ Island, the main weed pests were,,, 

ohiokweed and puss1ey~ Some orabgrass and barnyara-gi-ass would oome in .l&~r 

in the season 'bv.t presented no signifioant ,probl,~ Four Pounds per, ~ore:' ',, 

of OIPOapplied in direQted sprKyS at apprOXimately three: week interTa1s', '> 

togethllr with a relatively smal~ allDunt of hand weeding,g~ve growers good 

seasonal control. " '. . 

ChangeS have: occurred during the past three to four 

years which have requil'ed a rs-&y.aluation of our--eerUerresults. ElrC&l~t·" 

weed oontrol is still adhieved up until June 20-25: when the grasses begirt" 

to ell18rge. Th1-"date of emergenpe is apparently at least a week earlier, .' 

than :1t used t.Obe, possibly bec~use of higher soU tsmpe;rature due to llic'k 

of :weedoover, and in addi;tion, J.coentuated by a IIIljIchhigher infestation pf 

grass seed. The grass problem, particularly barn;y-.rd, hall multiplied man1i'old. 

With PIPO pro'Vi,ding little if ant,oolllllElroial cont~l, growers have had to ." 

use oonaidezoable hand labor to k~thei1' fieldsFeHeMbly ol~through , 

harVest.' , ' , ",' , ' , 

Methods. . The two majot'varieties grown ~ EarlY Harvest and 

SWeet,Spanish,' and though the latter is deoreasirli:in importanoe'the weed 

problem in it is greater beca~e,,.t matures later. Seasonal and layby 

exper1Jllents wereoonduoteli,therW:OI'e, on both.,,A,lthough OIPCis still _:liisfaotory 

through IIDst of June, it,~s felt that other materials should be',', 

tried to determine if the,y woutd:provide better early oontrol of germinat~ 

IftSs. This in tarn would allow 1&ter appl:icationof SOmelayby' materials 

known to be effective against gra,ssbut injurious to onions if applied too 

earJ:9'.· , " .. ' ,',' ' 

Early Harvest~ transplants Weresei in the field APr:l.~ 12, 

treated May 8, .JUne1.3, July 5, J(1ly 28, and harvested August 8; Sweet Spanish 

were set April 25, treated May 1$, June 1.3, July 5 end '26, and harvested 

August 17. Theherbioides were applied with a t'WO-llOw,uaotorlllOunted " 

sprayer and directed towards the base of the plants. Prior to each application 

all plots were rated, and established weeds re1iPved .;.- by hand in the 

rows and shallow oultivation between ron. 0"', '" ' 

Onions used in the layby experiments were treated at 

three week intervals during the first part of the growing season with OIPC. 

All plots were clean cultivated and weeded before the layby treatnrants were 

applied -- June 29 on Early Harvest, July 18 on Sweet Spanish. The liquid 

fomulations were handled as described above; the granulars were applied 

directly over the row and the foliage brushed with a trailing rope. 

Additional experinrants were conduoted in cooperation with a commercial grower 

where the grass problem was much more severe than on the Researoh Farm. 

The Early Harvest test, the only one reported here, was applied June 28 and 

July 6, and the crop harvested August 10.

Results and Discussion. The data, particularly for the herbicides, were 

sim:l.lar on both vari.eties; therefore, only the results on Barly Harvest 

are given in this paper. Differences which did occur in the Sweet Spanish 

experiments are ,mentioned in the text. 

111 

Table 1. 

Results from the seasonal trial are summarized in 

Table 1. Results from several herbicides used on Early Harvest onions during 

the growing seaeon, , Treatmmts were applied 5/B, 6/13, 7/5 and 

7/2B; crop.harvested 8/8. ' '. 

Treatment 

1. CIPC 4 lbs/X (3 Ibs 5}8) 

2. CIPC + Vegadex 4+1 Ibs/A n that they improved grass control. 'The deletion of the 

first spray (May 8) involving any of these three materials was unacceptable 

because of reduced control up to July 3 when the third application went on. 

Zytron at five pounds per acre was comparable to the:standard but only the 

ten pound rate gave good control of grass. This higher rate reduced yileld 

when applied four times but, in treatJll)l1t #9, where the first application 

was left out, good grass control was obtained without affecting yield. 

The material looked prom:l.sing and should be tried in conjunction with tbt 

use of CIPC early in-the season. Dacthal looked \fel'y good and rates up to 

12 pounds per acrewet'e used throughout the seaecn without affecting the 

onions. None of the treatments had any effect on yield ot the Sweet Spanish 

variety. Prospects are reasonably good that our current seasonal recommendation 

will be able to be improved.

112 

The data tr01lIthe leyby trialQOnductod on the Research 

Farm are given in Table 2. .... 

Table 2. Results from laybY' treatments on Early HameR ·onions. Applied. 

June 29; weed control rated August 10 iJlIIIediately prior to 

hanee:1l.. ' 

" 

Weed l Yield Average 

Treatment' tlohtrol 'BulA Bulb wt. 

1. ClPU . 6 lbs/A liq~ ..2.':F' 616 0.68 ' 

" 

2. CIPC + Vegadex 4+1 lbs. 11q. "l~8,;t 56i .63 

3. CIPC + Vegadex 4+4 n II 2.5 579 .66 

4. CIPC + ~c:bx 4+4 ,II It 2.7 602 .67 

5. Vegadex +Randt!x . 4+4 It 11 3.5",. 589 .64 

6.~Vegadex 6' It ft 

2.8 :' 588 .65 

7. Randox 6 

Ii II 

3.0 " 598 .61 

8. Eptam 4 lbs. @:mn. incorp., 405 493 .56 

9.:Eptam 4 ,It ,11 surface 3.5 535 .60 

10.; 'EPtam 4 It liq. incorp. 4.0 512 .62 

11. Eptam 4 It' II surface 3.2 599 .65 

12~, ''l'111am 4 II pan. in corp. 4.5 588 .64 

13.'l'illam 4· 

It 11 

surface 3.4 600 .68 

14. "l'illam 4 

It 

liq. incorp. 3.2 ' 540 .67 

15. Dacthal 16 11 liq. 3.0 628 .68 

16.U ..4513 4 ,II liq. 2.8: 568 .63 

17. ZWtron 5 11 11q. 3.0 585 .64 

18. ,ZWtron 100 II .liq. 3.2 521 .62 

19. Amiben 4 It liq. 4.0 557 .63 

20. Check 1.0 616 .67 

L.S.D. 5% 60 .05 

1 1 - no control 

5 ~ excellent control 

, " '. ." ..The grass po~tion in. the. ar~ ot.this experiment 

was consi,derably h~r than that of the preVious o~, hence control rat~s 

for similar treatments were some.t lower. None ot.the treatments, involv.. 

ing CIpe, Vegadex,. anina~~cm, proVided satisfae't.-" 

ory oontroll1ll~ll harves1i t1me.·Ep~",m, incozwrated.1nto, the soU, gave 

very good control but~e granuJ,aZ:formulaticm d~in1tely reduoed 7101d and 

the liqUid, althoughthe,~f.t:erence was not s1gnit1oant~ -probably had a 

similar tendency. On t~basis of previous experience the effect of the 

granular was not unexpeoted but .ttl-is was the firstti!n11l ,the liqUid had 

appeared to haVI1latlY'detrimental effect when used at layby.' Tillam, 

granularineo"porated. also gave very good control li\nd had no adverse 

effect on the orop. On OUX' lighter 

SassafX'as8 10aJlllil: it 

'WOuldbe safer 

either to use Tillam or reduce theX'ate of Eptam .to .perbaps three pounds , 

peraoX'e --'on Ear4rHarvest at le~st.Amiben wasltf'eq:l;ive against grail. 

but its efieot on yield X'equiree further testing..D4ctbal, u-4513, and 

Zytroil; as used under the conlti.t1ons ot this experiMl'l1;, were not satisfactory. 

"

CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or in combination as 

layby sprays, wet-e unsatisfactory.' Both Eptam and Tillam gave excellent 

control when mcorporat.cd into the soil. Eptam reduced yields of Early 

Harvest onions on light Sassatrass loam but not on lie dium heavy Sassafrass 

silt loam. Amiben looked promising, Zytron was variable, and u-4513and 

Dacthal were only fair at the rates used. The Sweet Spanish variety was 

considerably more tolerant to several herbicides than was Early Harvest. 

Interestingly enough, .no treatment had any eff'eet oil Sweet Spanish indicating, 

as in the seasonal experiment, that this variety is considerably mor€) 

tolerant of herbicides than is Early·Harvest. 

The mst rigorClustesting oonc:tlt1ons for the herbicides 

occurred in the experiment sunrnar1zed in Table. 3. 

Table 3. 

Treatment 

1. CIPe 

2. CIn + Vegadex 

3. CI'Pe +,Randox 

4. Vegadex olo'Randox 

5. Eptam' 

6. Eptam 

7. Eptam 

8. Dacthal 

9. Dacthal 

10. Zytron 

11. Amiben 

12. Check 

Results from layby treatments applied 1'.6Early Harvest I'nions ~ 

a commercial field. Treatments 5, 6 and?' applied to dry soil 

surface June 28; rest applied July 6 and irrigated. Weed 

control rated July 25, 7. de.ys prior to onion maturity. 

1 1 - no control 

5 - excellent control 

.'6 lbs. 

lil1. 

4+2 liq. 

4+2 l1q. 

3+3 liq. 

4 gran., incorp. 

4 " surface 

4 liq., incorp. 

8 liq. 

16 liq. 

10 liq. 

4 liq. 

Yield 

B5G~ 

625 

574 

584 

614 

542 

592 

555 

546 

588 

646 

603 

N.S. 

The results on weed control were in fairly. close agr~~ment 

with those from the work on the Research Farm.. Eptam, four pounds 

incorporated, Zytron, ten pounds, and Wben, four pounds, gave very good,. . 

colllllerdial conttol. None of the other treatments were considered satisfactory. 

'!here were no effects on yield, probably because of the soil type -- a me~llm 

heavy Sassatrass silt loam. 

SUITD'IIary: An increasing grass problem has _de growers dissatisfied 

with the performance of CIPC during the period June 20-25 through 

harvest. Seasonal and layby experiments were conducted to study possibilities 

for improvement of current recommendations. 

CIPC, Vegadex,. and Randox combinations throughout thll 

growing season did not,provide satisfactory grass control. Zytron andDDacthal 

looked promising. 

113

114 

weediOl of Sweec Corn With Chemical Band-cid .. 

CharLe.'J. Noll 1 

More than half, ot Jiaenll8y1vaD1a'. 24,000 acr .. of .wet corn are weeded 

with chemicala. Mo.t 1arg. growr. lrowing for freah _rket us. ch.. ical '. 

h.rbicides. A. th.r. i. no lack of good herbicides to weed corn, this experi· 

lII8nt wa. deaipe4· to COIIIp8rethe bett.r known ch.. ica1. with tha newch.... &1. 

thought to b. promi.inl for the weedinl of thi. crop. 

The s•• dbed W8. prepared May 1.5. The pr.·p1anting tr.at1Mnta W8r. 

applied just ahead ofs •• dingonMay 17 and incorpo ... ted in the .0U witb .• 

rototUler .et.hallow. The vari.ty seeded was. 1tt.The pre· ... ra••• ·· 

tr.atments w.r. appli.d 2 days aft.r ••• ding. Th. "'1'1.nce tr.atm.nts .... 

appU.d 17 day. aft.r seeding wh.n corn was in the .pik. stag.. Individual. 

plots were 36 feet long and 3 feet wide. Treatment. were randomized in •• db, 

of 6 block •• 

The chemicala were applied with a small spra~l'ov.r the row for a width 

of 12 inch... Cultivation controlled the weeds betw.nth. rows. An .stWet. 

of we.d contro1wa. made July 24 on a bali. of 1 to.O, 1 being most d.sir~l. 

and 10 being l .. at d.sirab1e. Corn vas harve.ted Aqu.t 23. 

USULTS 

Th. results ar. pr.sented in tab1. 1. All ch.. ica1s significant1y1Dcr.""9d 

weed control a. compar.d to the untreated chacko Th. best weedCOlKro1 

treatments were Atraz1ne, Herb. 326, Diruon .and Pa10D~ The .tand of p1anta w•• 

unaffected by ,the treatments. Only ~he Atra.tn. and: tPa 2,4·D treated. plot. 

had dgn1ficantlymoremark.tabb 88;1 than the unt,...ted' ch.ck.,p10t. A 

h:l.gblY·."pUle.at tacna •• in .. iglac o.f mazltetab1e ear., as cc.par.d to _ 

un,tr.ated check plot was 'ound wh.r. Atraz1ne, 2,4-1> &IMltha lower rate of· 

Herb. 326 weI" appu'edat time of Co1'11elll8rpnc. and wh..... DNBPat 6 1ba•. 

per acr. and RaD40xat 10 1bs. per acr. w.re appli.d priOr to corn emerpnc •• 

Many other chemical. had .ignificant increaaea in welsht of marketab1 •• ar. 

at the S%1ev.1 a. compar.d to the untreated check plot. 

COHpLUSIQN 

Many ch.. icala wh.n applied to corn gave good weed control, no Itand 

reduction. and incr.a ••• in yi.ld~. compared to th.untr.ated. ch.ck plots. 

Th. outstanding ch.. ical in thi,experiment va. Atraaina. 

1 . . .,. , . . 

A' sociate Prof.s.or of' 01erlcu1 ture, ~'Department of BoFticu1 ture, Coll.g. 

of Agriculture and Bxperiment Sta.tioD, P8IlIlaylvanuoJtat.Univer.lty, Uni.,.reity 

Park, Pennsylvanu. ..' 

'I'

Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of plants and number and weight of marketable 

ears of sweet corn under chemical herbicide treatments. 

AVERAGE PERPLOṬ 

Wt.of 

Active Rate *W... d Stand No.of MItt. 

Per Acre Application Daya Control of MItt. Ears 

Chemical 1b,. from Plant ina (1-10) P1antl Ear. lb •• 

Nothing -- -- 8.3 53.7 36.5 23.2 

TU1am 4 Soil Inc. 0 4.0 53.0 42.3 31.4 

" 6 " " 0 2.7 55.5 40.3 29.8 

O.M. 1306 10 Pll'.-emergence 2 4.8 51.0 . 38.5 29.2 

" 15 " 

2 ".3.7 50.3 43.0 ·31.9 

U-4513 2 2 5.5 53.7 39.5 24.9 

" 3 

2 4.0 52.5 30.7 20.2 

CP 17029 3 " 2 •• 5 52.0 39.7 27.5 

" 4\ 2 2.8 54.2 43.3 31.8 

Casoron 3 2 5.0 53.0 40.5 27.7 

2 4.2 52 5 38 5 29 1 

RandoxT 10 2 3.7 54.3 43.0 36.8 

" " 

" 

15 2 2.2 53.2 40.0 29.9 

Randox 10 2 4.7 54.3 41.2 30.1 

" 15 2 3.0 51.2 36.3 27.2 

Nia. 2995 4 2 .. 3.8 . 50.0 40.3 30.8 

" 6 2 2.8 50.3 41.3 n.1 

Fa10n lOG 4 2 2.0 50.8 41.5 2'9.7 

" 8 2 1.5 51.2 3•• 5 28.9 

Palon 44E 4 2 2.7 53.8 39.7 29.3 

" 6 2 2.3 51.0 40.7 28.0 

DNBP(Premerge) 4 2 3.7 49.8 39.5 28.6 

" 6 2 3.2 52.5 42.3 33.2 

Atrazine + DNaP., 1 + 2 " 2 1.3 51.5 44.5 31.2 

Simsaine 2 ." 2 5.2 53.8 41.3 27.5 

Atrazine + S~azine 1 + 1 !me.rlence 17 1.0 54.2 46.8 36.6 

Atrazine 2 17 1.0 53.8 45.0 35.4 

" 1 17 1.0 53.5 45.0 35.3 

Atrazine + Surfactant 1 + 8 17 1.0 53.7 44.8 34.4 

2,4-D Amine \ " 

17 4.5 52.0 45.5 33.4 

II:: 

" 1 17 2 7 51 7 43.0 31.8 

Herb. 326 2 17 1.2 53.2 42.7 32.4 

" 3 17 1.0 51.2 39.5 27.3 

Di1ll'.on 2 17 1.2 51.2 41.5 31.0 

" 3 " 17 1.0 48.2 38.8 28.9 

Least significant difference 5% 

1% 

*WeedControl 1-10: 1 Perfect WeedControl 

10 Full WeedGrowth 

115 

1.6 N.S.D. 7.2 6.5 

2.6 N.S.D. N.S.D. 8.S

2. Graduate Fellow and Assoc. Prof. of Horticulture. University of Delaware. 

116 

WEEDCONTROLIN FIELD-SEEDEDAND TRANSPLANTED ~PERS AND!jQMATOEsl'. 

, 2 

R. B. Seely.and E.M. Rahn, 

Field-seed1ns. peppers and tomatoes is a possible,.ElIAns of reducing the 

cost of high p1liJttpopuiations wh19t ~eem necesilal:7 r'ir maximumyields. 

High plant popul,atiOfl8 appear to be especially nece;: :; for high yields 

where tomatoes:are,to.be' mechanically harvesW. ' er,oneof the maii'i 

obstlacles.in r~ld-seed1ng is to prevent weed growth-in the pepper and toIlI&to 

seedlings. CheMicals a;-e needed to control these weeds until the plants are 

large enoUgh to cultivate. An effective her~icide is also needed to contrOl 

weeds in tr.nsplanted tomatoea and peppers. Wteds become a problein in 

the row soon after transplanting and between, as wetlas in, rows atter l&1~ 

by'until the eJ;ldofharvest. Reported herein are several experiments con" 

duCted in 1960 and 1961 in an attempt to solve these problems. "' 

Procedure 

and Results: 

S1milareXperimentS 

Field-Seeded 

Experiments 

were conducted with both peppers and tomatoes on a 

Norfolk loamy sand at the Georgetown Substation of the University of Dela-'" 

ware,' The principal, wee~,s on this soil were crabgrass (Digitaria )an~:,;, 

alis), goose-gra's8 (Eleusine indica), nutgrass (Cyperus esculentus, a 'squarters 

(Cheno odi mum), pigweed (Amaranthus retro .xus, ragweed " " 

(Ambrosia a lw,-and smart-weed (PO~gO 0 er). Morning 

glory (Iiomoea e racea) and carpetweed (MOluBO . c ata appeared occasional 

y. , .\ 

;In 1960, 12~rbicides or herbicidal combinatiofta were tested on Cali':', 

fornia Wohder peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes. Plot *!ze was a single row 

7, feet long. Pepper rowe were 4 feet apart while tCllll&torows wet'e, feet 

apat't. 'lberewere two replicates in randomized :t'l~k8. , PCP (pentaohlor~ 

phenol), KOCN(p~8sium cyanate) plus TCA(sodium triChloroacetate) and " 

Tillam (proPl1 ethyl-n-butyl thtolcarbamate) proved io be outstanding. ,', 

PCP, applied Ju~ibefore crop emergeme, and Tillam, lincorporated just before 

s.eedin ĖI . by ,t.,wo,'diSCingS" were applied with a losarithmi, csprayer. " 

KOCN,161b/A, plus 'l'CA,.3Ib/A,.was applied in a baD:! over the row with a 

single-nozzle hand sprayer. Results showed that the ainimum rate of PCP 

required to control weedsws.s 3.61b/A, while the ~ rate tolerated 

bY'the crop was 6.1 Ib/A. Comparable figures for TUlam were 3.5 Ib/A and 

4.91b/A,respectively.Other herbicides tested weN: Sun Spirits 

(Stoddard solvent),TCA plus PCP, TCA,Dalapon (2,2-ct1chloropropionic acid), 

CIPC (isopropy1 N (3-11hloropheny1) carbamate) plus Pqr" Vegadex (2-ohloro- , 

ally1 diethyldith:Lolcarbamate) plus PCP, Solan (N-(3-chloro-4-methy1phentL) 

2-methl1pentanamide)" and Zytron (0-2-4 dichlorophe~ o-methyl isopropyl- . 

phosPhoro amidothioate). . 

___ ,.,' I 

1. Published as Hiscellaneous Paper No. 411 with' the" approval of the Director 

of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. Contribution No. 75 

of the Department of Horticulture, November1961.

'Ihree experiments were conducted in 1961. In1;he first experiment, 

the above three outstanding herbicic1es, or combinations of herbicides, were 

tested on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes. Spray applications were " 

made with a single-nozzle hand sprayer • Tillam gran\llar applications were 

made with a small hand duster. Plot. size was 2 row:e, 20 feet long. Treatments 

were replicated three tiDIes in randomized bl~s. Tillam granular 

and spray at 4 lb!A, incorporated just before see41ng by discing, raking, 

or by irrigation, caused severe injury, particularly of peppers. PCP, 5 lb!A, 

and KOCN,16 lb!A, plus TCA, 3 lb!A, applied just before emergence, gave good 

weed control with no significant crop injury. 

In the second experiment in 1961, the following herbicides were tested 

on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes, using a logarithmic sprayer: 

Diphenamid N, N-dimethyl- 0(, ~ -diphenylaoetamide), from 10 to 1.5 lb!A; 

Dacthal (dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalic acid), from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; 

Stauffer 1870 (ethyl di-n-butyl-thiolcarbamate), from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; 

Tillam, from 12 to 1.8 lb!A; Zytron, from 20 to 3 lb!A; and Geigy Prometryne 

(2,4-bis(isopropylamino-6-methyl mercapto.s·triazine), from 10 to 1.5 lb!A. 

Plot size was a single row 15 feet long. Treatments were replicated 

three times in randomized blocks. Rows of peppers were 3t feet apart and 

rows of tomatoes were 5 feet apart. Tillam and Sta,uffer-1810 were incorporated 

just before seeding, while the remaining herbicides were applied 

just after seeding. Diphenamid was the only outstand,1ng herbicide in this 

experiment. The minimum rate required for weed contz'ol was 2.6 lb!A, while 

the maXimumrate tolerated by peppers was 4.1 lb!A, and the maXimumrate 

tolerated by tomatoes was 1.1 lb/A, . 

In the third experiment in 1961, Diphenamid, PCP, and KOCNplus TCA 

were evaluated on Calcom peppers and Del. 13-2 tomatoes again. Treatments 

were applied and replicated as described above for the first experiment. 

No crop injury was produced by any of these treatments (Table 1). All 

three treatments gave perfect control of broadleaf weeds. Diphenamid gave 

perfect control of annual grasses, while PCP, and KOCNplus TCA, gave near 

perfect control of annual grasses. 

The following two treatments were super-imposed on the PCP, and KOCi'l 

plus TeA plots in the third experiment, to extend the duration of weed cori:. 

troll Tillam granular, 4 lb!A, raked in, or Diphenamid, 5 lb!A, applied as 

an over-all spray. Both chemicals were very effective for extending the 

duration of control of both broadleaf weeds and annual grasses. However, 

Tillam caused considerable stunting of both peppers,arxl tanatoes. Diphenamid, 

on the other hand, had no adverse effect, 

Transplantsd Peppers and Tcmatoes 

117 

Procedure 

and Results: 

These experiments were located adjacent to the field-seeded experiments. 

Therefore, thfl soil and principal weeds were silnilar. Plot size for both

118 

the pepperantl tollato expel'1men~"'s :3 rows 36 teet :l.ong. Pepper row. 

were 4 teef. apart, .While the ~rows wen Slept apart. Treatments 

were replioated tour tiines in ranllblliized' blocks.,. Herb~cide treatmentS 

used:l.n'the l$l6Oexpedments are'pi'esented in rsbleJ ,2"antl 3. Sprays 

were applied

a- Table 2_"COIIlpartsonof' Several" Herbi\)1dEta tor Weed contrP.1~ 

.-f 

.-f 

Transplanted Peppers in 1.960, Georgetown, Delaware • 

Herbici3: Weed Control on 8/1.9 2, percent Marketable Crop injury 

and rate Yield, on 7/20, 

Annual Tons/A percent 

BroadJ.eats GrasSes Nutgrass 

TUl8J11 spray3" 4-1.b/k 58 33 85 4.0 0 

rar. 61b/A 60 71 89 3.9 0 

" , 

fi.1laa-$p 

Eptam gramilarJ, 

2 1b/A 55 40 83 4.2 0 

Eptam granular3 , 4 1.b/A 70 68 95 3.7 28 

Amiben granu1ar, 

5 1.b/A 85 81. 64 4.9 0 

Dacthal. spray, 8 1.b/A 71. 58 38 4.7 0 

Dacthal 

granular, 

8 1.b/A 25 53 53 3.7 0 

Cultivated check 100 1.00 1.00 3.3 0 

Unhoed check 0 0 0 3.8 0 

LSD 5% 22.8 27 NS NS 8 

1.. Herbicides were applied 6 weeks after plants were set in field. 

2. '!his was 7~ weeks after herbicides were applied. 

3. These herbicides were incorporated by two cultivations. 

) )

120 

Tillam spray,:6 lb!A, and Daethal granular, 8'lb!A were superior to 

other herbicide treatments on trarmplanted tomatoe;_ (Table 3). Eptam 

grant1lar~ 4 lb!A, oause4 a burning of the new ~th and Amiben granular,. 

5 lb!A, caused a moderate stunti~ of plants. 

Calcoin pepper plants were aet in the field on May18 for the 1961 

experiment. Rows.ere spaced 3, teet apart in:' plot that consisted ot' 

3 rows 25 feet long~ Herbicide treatments were rePlicated three times 'in 

randomized blocks.· :Eight weeke after traneplanting,-herbicidss were a,pplied 

to cleanly cultivated aoil as 'described above for the 1960 experiment. ' 

Cultivation was discontinued except on the cultivated check plots after the 

herbicides were, applied. ' " 

Deleher toinatotransplant.e were set in the, field on May10, 1961. Rows 

were spaced 5 teet apart in plots of 3 rows 25 feet long. Herbicide 

treatments wer8~replicated four times in randomized blocks, and were &11 

plied asdescrUled above for the 1960 experiment. After this, as with the 

pellper experiment, plots were not cultivated, except for the cultivated~ 

c~ck plots. 

'Most treataenu-ti gave goocl to excellent weed control with no adver. 

effect on y1elc:bl of both peppers and tomatoes. Results for the best 

treatments for~eppers and tomatoes are presented in Tables 4 and 5, ~ 

epectively. Various methods of soU incorporation of the over-all Tillam, 

spray, 6 lb!A, were evaluated in both experiments. Rototilling 3 inchu 

dee,'p, two, cul t1.Y,', ations, , inc}:l,of ir, rigation,l?r two cultivations follOwed' 

by t, inch of irrigation were slightly better I118thodsof soU incorpora'\;ion, 

as cOmpand with raking, inch deep, or by a single cultivation. Soil 

i:';:orporation of TUlam granular, 6 lb! A, by! inch of irrigation, was; 

superior to incorporation by two cultivations in both peppers and toma1;pes. 

'!he best spray and granular applications of T1l1am were essentially equally 

effective in each experiment. However, the spray aJ:Plication of T1l1alll' 

caused a il1igl:1t burning of foliage, which was presumed to be, due to the; 

solvent in the Tillam formulation. '!his was not noted in 1960. 

Amiben granular was more effective when t inch of irrigation followed 

application on peppers. This herbicide was not used on tomatoes in 1961 

because of injury caused in 1960. Solan, 4 lb!A, plus Dacthal, 8 lb!A, 

applied in an over-all spray when weeds were less than! inch high, was 

v8r)""effective on tomatoes but gave severe injury on peppers. Stauffer 

1870 spray, 61b!A, incorporated by two cultivations, was less effective 

for weedco'ntrol than Tlllam applied s1mUarly. 

Conclusionsi 

The:.ltiLlowing herbicides were most effective for weed control in fieldseeded 

peppers and tomatoes, Diphenamid, PCP, an:! KOCNplus TeA. Diphenamid 

was slightJ.y more etfecti'Vl!l in the control ot annual grasses. 'ltiis 

chemical was applied just after seeding at 3 lb!A on peppers and 5 lb!A on 

tomatoes, and gave excellent control of both annual grasses and broadleaf

fJ Table 3. CcBparison of Several. Herbicides for Weed Control in lTartsplanted. Tomatoes 

r-I in 1960, Georgetown,. Delaware. 

Herbici~ Weed Control on 8/1il-, percent Maiicetable Crop injury 

and rate Yield, on 7/20, 

Broadleafs .Annual Grasses Nutgrass Tons/A percent 

Tillam spray3, 4 Ib/A 68 73 75 26.6 4 0 

Tmam spray3, 6 Ib/A 79 83 89 27.3 0 

Eptam granular3, 2 Ib/A 78 69 83 24.1 4 0 

Eptam granuiarJ, 4 Ib/A 91 79 91 22.7 4 28 

ADdbeh~ar, 51b/A" 58 76 48 19.5 4 13 

Dactbal spray, 8 Ib/A 75 63 50 23.~ 0 

Dactbal granular,8 Ib/A 53 53 70 27.4 0 

Cultbated cbe ck 100 100 100 28.6 0 

Unhoed check C 0 0 24.6 0 

LSD S% 16.4 17.1 23.1 1.8 7 

~. 

1. Herbicides were applied 4 and 7 weeks after plants were set in field. 

2. This _s 7t weeks after last herbicide application. 

3. These herbicides were incorporated by two cultivations. 

4. Yields significantly lower than those from the cultivated check plots. 

COll:LUSIOlC3(continued): . weeds until crop plants became siX inches tall. Ho crop injury was 

noted at these rates. PCP, 51b/A, or KOCH,16 Ib/A, plus TeA, 3 Ib/A, applied a day before 

crop emergence were almost as effective as Diphenamid. 

Tillam spray or granular, 6 Ib/A, or Amiben granular, 5 Ib/A, were most effective for 

weed control on transplanted peppers. 'l'1llam spray caused a alight temporary burning of pepper 

foliage 1:1 1961. The most effective methods of incorporating Tillam spray were the following: 

Rototilling 3 inches deep, two cultivations, t inch of irrigation, or two· cultivations followed 

by t inch of irrigation. Tillam granular am Amiben granulE~. were most effective when t inch 

of irrigation followed just after application. 

) )

) 

.~ 

Table 4. Most Effect1v6 Herbioide Treatments ilt'l'rall8pl::mted PepPers 1n 1961 at Georget'oWn, Delaware. 

Herbicide Method of Weed Control oil 10/16 2, percent Marketable Crop in:ury 

and rate l Incorporation Yield, in 

Broadleafs Annual Grasses Ton3/A Percent 

Tillam Spray, Rototilled 

6 1b/A 3" deep 95' 90 16.1 10 

Tillam Spray, Cultivated 

.6. J,b/A tlQ.ce 97 90 ·15.0 10 

'l'1llam Spray, t" Irrigation 87 85' 10.0 10 

6 l.b/A 

Tillam Spray, Cultivated 97 95' 15.0 10 

6 1b/A twice + i" 

Irrigation 

Ti11.am,Granu1.ar ~" Irrigation 97 93 15.3 0 

61b/A 

Amiben,Granu1.ar ~tl Irrigation 88 88 16.3 0 

5' Ib/A 

Cu1.ti va ted che ck --- 100 100 17.0 0 

Unhoed check -- 0 0 15.0 0 

LSD 5'% 5' 9 tiS 3 

1. Herbicides were applied 8 weeks after transplanting. 

2. !his was Bi weeks~a1'terhe~b1cide aw1.ication. .. 

CONCLUSIONS(continued): !he treatments described above for transp1.anted peppers were the most 

effective for transplanted tomatoes with two exceptions: Amiben granular injured tomatoes to a 

N considerable degree, and an additional treatment, Solan, 4 Ib/A, plus Dacthal, 8 Ib/A, applied as 

~ an over-all spray when weeds were less than f inch high, was veryeffeotive.

c

~ J 

STVD~WITH SOLANJ/ FORTHECONTROLOF 1'iEEDSIN DIRECT~SEEDED m~ 

'. j, " •. . . 

:C. c. Wyatt ,V and R. J. Cond~JI 

D~cJt-seeding of tomatoes is an ~ortant means of securing high:' 

tomato plan~ populationespeoially with small determinate plants destined,for 

use with on4e-over meohanical h&1"ll'ester. '. " , 

During the past five years studies of direot-seeded tomatoes haV'j9'~$en 

oarrie4 out lin the...Bowling Green, Ohio area. The principal problem en~r'itered' 

has been ~lW germ1nation and gr~ of tomat~ seedlings as compared to!Jl)rEl . 

rapid gro .' of certain species r:eds in 0001 soil normally present ih'late 

April and e rly May. ' 

I ' . " 

Sol4n ~-(3-chloro-4-~thYlphenyl)~2-methYlpentanamide) was reporied 

by Sweet and lubatzky(l) to show promise as a seleotive pre-emergence herbioide 

for direot-Eieeded tomatoes. During 1961 a series of tllO plantings of dfioect~ 

seeded toma~oes were made on Menn1ll Loam soil. and subsequently treatedWfth 

Solan. 'j . .' 

Procedure 

Fol~owing preparation of the soil with a rototil1er, varieties ~ball 

and Heinz 1~50 were seeded on May 4. Three replicates 72 feet each receiv:ed , 

Solan at th~ rate of four pouncl8 per acre in 60 gallons of water on May lJ;, and 

May 15. Ap~lications were made with a hydraulic sprayer. On I~ay 11 a few 

weed seedl1~s had emerged and tDmato seeds had sprouted but most had not: 

broken through the soil surface. On May 15 twenty-five per cent of the tOmato 

seedlings h~d emerged and a very large weed population was present. Just'~r1or 

to cultivatibn on June 9 tomato seedling ani weed counts were made. Following 

CUltivation on June 9 accurate 

.. 

records of the time to weed and block the plots 

were made. 

j 

.' 

-' 

' 

'Follbwing preparation of the soil by harrowing, a second seeding or 

Fireball wasj made on June 5. On June 9 Solan 1'8S applied to four replicatAls 

of 72 feet each at the rate of 4 pounds per acre in 60 gallons of water. 'Many 

weeds had broken through the surface of the soil on June 9 and the tDmato seed 

had germinaf1ed. Tomato Seedling and weed counts were made on June 21. 

, , 

Results 

Tomato and weed counts are reported in Table 1. The predominant weed 

present in ~e nay 4 seeding was smartweed (Polygon1um Persicaria L.) with 

lambs quarters (Chenopodium.M!mm. L. ), pigweed (Cb~OPOdium paganum 1'1eich.), 

red-roof ( anthus retronexus L.) and crabgrass Digitaria sp.) alao pre~ 

sent. The p edominant weeds present in the June c;seeding were of the same 

type indicat d above. 

11 Registerf:Jd trademark of the Niagara Chemical Divis:iDn of Food Hachine17 

and Chemlcal Corporation. 

Y H. J. He~nz Conpany, Pittsburgh, Pa, 

J! H. J. Heinz CompSlliY,Bowling Green, Ohio

Table 1. Seeding and Weed Counts on Field-Seeded ~to Plots Treated With 

Solan Premergence. 

125 

Lbs of Active Broadleaf Weed Grass 

Treatment Chemical Acre Count 6 Sq.F~ 

Solan, 1 ~ek 4 .t.99.6 24.6 

After· Seeding 

Solan, Just Be~ 4 20.0 6.6 56.0 

fore Seedling 

Emergence 

Check 46.0 318.0 20.0 

L.S.D. 5% 21.9 95.4 N.S. 

L.S.D. 1% N.S. 158.3 N.S. 

B. Seeded June 5 

Solan, JUst Before 

Seedling 

4 51.5 4.8 1105 

Emergence 

Check 4 53.7 109.2 5405 

L.S.D. 5% N.S. 37.8 27.2 

L.S.D. 1% N.S. 55.9 hO.2 

Significant control of broadleaf weeds was obtained with all treat~ 

ments of Solan. Control of grasses was not significant in the '~ay 4 seeding, 

but was significant in the June 5 seeding, after pre-emer-gence Solan treatment. 

A significant reduction in seedling stand was recorded just prior to 

emergence treatment, May 15. Following applications of Solan en May 15, 

emerged tomato seedlings were either killed or severely injured. No reduction 

in seedling at and was obtained with other treatments. 

The man-hour-s required to hand-weed and block the May 4 seedling stand 

were recorded on June 9. The man-hour-e required to block and weed tre treat~ 

ments was 14.2 and 23.8 for 4 pounds Solan just prior to emergence and one 

week after seeding, respectively, and 31.2 hours for the untreated plots. 

Because weeds and tomato seedlings were large, it follows that the man-hours 

required to block and weed the treatments was greater than normally anticipated 

for all treatments. 

Summary 

Excellent broadleaf weed control was obtained in plantings of directseeded 

tomatoes with pre~emergence treatments of 4 pounds Solan per acre. No 

reduction in the stand of tomato seedlings was obtained when Solan was applied 

prior to emergence of seedlings.

126 

The1!1me-reqUired to hand-Weed and block direct-seeded tomatoes was 

reduced by m~e than one-half when 4 pounds Solan wasapplied just prior to 

emergence of tomato seedlings. 

Lttera~reCited 

1. Sweet. R.&... and V. RubatzkY.· Herbicides for Tomatoes. Proc. of N.E.~, J 

WeedCol@r01Conf. ,ll: 84-92. 1959. 

, 1

WEEDCONTROLANDTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SEEDLINGSTAN~ 

Colen C. 1ITyatt 11and J. 

Introduction 

D. V11ieonY 

127 

IN DIRECT-SEEDEDTOMATOES 

Experiments conducted in 1960indicated that Vapam and Allyl Alcohol 

were two chemical compounds that might be expected to give a considerable 

degree of weed control and at the same time increase the stand of seedlings 

in the dil"ect-seeding of tomatoes up to the time ot blocking and thinning. In 

the 1960 trials these two materials were mixed with the 10p three inches' of 

soil with a tractor-mounted rotary tiller in bands approximately 16 :Inches 

wide. In some instances the treated band was coveNd with a polyethylene tarp. 

About 12 to 14 days later tomatoes were seeded into the treated bands of soil. 

Because of the favorable results obtained in the 1960 experiments it was 

decided to continue the experimentation. 

Procedure 

Vapam (sodium n-methyl dithiocarbamate), Allyl Alcohol and Tillam 

(propy1ethyl-n-butythiocarbamate) were included in the 1961 tests. In 

addition, various types of mulches or sealants were added to the treated bends 

of soil in an effort to evaluate their effectiveness in slowing down the 

escape of the Vapam and Allyl Alcohol from the so11 and thus improve their 

performance in killing weeds and fungi in the surface imh or so of soil. 

Tillam was also mixed with the soil alone and in combination with Vapam and 

Allyl Alcohol to increase the degree of weed control. The treatrents used 

and the results obtained at Bowling Green and ',~o~, Ohio are indicated in 

Table 1. 

The soil was thoroughly disked and harrowed to put it in gio d physical 

condition before it was treated. The treatments were applied in cooperation 

with personnel from the U.S.D.A. Engineering Laboratory located at Wooster, 

Ohio, with tractor-mounted equipment designed and developed by that laboratory. 

The chemical compounds used were incorporated (mixed) nth the top 3 inches of 

soil in bands 16 inches wide, where so indicated, by spraying them on the 

surface just ahead of the tilling equi.pmenb; In a few instances where the 

rotary tiller was not used about 2 inches of soil 1'I8rethrown over the sprayed 

band by means of carefUlly mounted dis ca, In both meth>ds of application the 

soil was smoothed and packed somewhat in a rounded mound about 2 inches h1~er 

in the center 'han at the edges. If the treated band was to be covered w:l.th a 

polyethylene tarp, this covering was then laid and the edges covered (sealed) 

by means of specially mounted discs. After 4 or 5 d~s thetarp was removed. 

If liquid sealants were to be employed, these were applied by placing the 

selected sealant in a paint sprayer operated by compressed air fran Which it 

was sprayed on the treated band of soil. These so-called sealants were left in 

place and the seed drilled through the mulch some 10 Dr 11 days after the 

treatments were applied. 

y Research Horticulturist, H. J. Heinz Company, Pittsburgh, Pa, 

Y Professor of Plant Pathology, Ohio Agricultural Experim"nt Station, 

V"oos~er, Ohio

128 

Table 1. To,atoSeeo1ling and ~eed Counts on Plotls'tl'9ated1"1'th Several:: 

Chemicals at Bowling Green and Vooster, Ofi1O, '1.961. 

Chemical 

Mixed 

TUh 

Mulch 15011 

None 

None· 

PolYethylene 

Tarp 

Polyethylene! 

Tarp 

Asphalt 

Asphalt 

2" Soil & 

Asphalt 

Latex 

Latex 

2" 5011 & 

Latex 

1 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes' 

I 

Yes 

f 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

SoU Set 60 Yes 

Soil Set 60! Yes 

2" SoU & No 

5011 Set 60 

2" Soil No 

2" Soil 'No 

None Yes' 

None Yee 

POlYethylenel Yes 

Tarp 

Polyethylene I Yes 

Tarp 

I 

Asphalt I Yes 

Asphalt ! Yes 

2" Soil & No 

Asphalt 

Latex Yes 

Latex 

1 Yes 

2" 5011 8< No 

Latex 

5011 Set 60 ,Yes 

Soil Set 60 1 Yes 

2" Soil, 8< t No 

5011 Set 60 

2" Soil . No 

'2" Soil No _ 

Location 

of 

Two Allyl 

ChemiCal Treatmen t 

T111am 

Tillam 

& Allyl 

Plots Vep8111Alcohol .:.:Ti::.:U::;!!::"~'..::&c...V;;.:.a:£p!:.::::.=m....::===-~;.;;;;..,. 

Alcohol None 

.....ooster 

B.Q. 

'!rooster 

B.G. 

B.G. 

Vooster 

B.O. 

B.G•. 

V'ooster 

27 

23 25 24 

23 

32 

29 

25 

23 

25 

32 

36 

23 

35 

23 

32 

30 

24 

3L. 

26 

28 

36 

48 

33 

'j 0 I,' 

B~' seedl~~Stand'r Ff;e1i~i';B.S!W' si 

"'~08ter 23 25 ISh' '. 18 

B.G. . 26 20 .-, 

B. G. 

,",ooster 

. B.G. 

. -, ' ..,- 

~i..;I· 

-,T.' 

B. 'l!'eed Count per 10 Square Feet 

B. G. 125 118 6S;,< 

'f'ooeter 213: 8~ 28,-· 

B.O. 18 25 '. 

'Wooster 

B.G. 

'\"iooster 

B.G. 

B.G. 

"ooater 

B.G. 

B.G. 

Wooster 

B.G. 

B.G. 

?ooster 

18' 

.159 

98 

164 

108 

130- 

4J: 

167 

L3 

124 

62 

122 

3 

135 

44 

90 

86 

23 

.56 

126 

29 

41 

76 

45 

.I!I!;, 

.!" : 

32 

7 

20 

13 

.t

Following emergence of the tomato seedlings,. 

were made to determine the comparative effectiveness 

stand and weed counts 

of the treatments used. 

At Bowling Green workers experienced in blocking, weeding and thinning vegetables 

were employed to go over the tomato plots. The average time required 

to finish each differently treated row was recorded and the data are reported 

in Table 2. 

129 

Table 2. Studies of the Time to Treed and Block Direct-5eeded Tomatoes Treated 

~th Several Chemicals. Bowling Green, Ohio, 1961. 

Chemical' 

Mulch 

Chemical Hours to "eed and 

Combined Block One Acre of 

~th Soil Direct-8eeded Tomatoes 

Vapam 

Vapam 

Vapam 

Vapam 

Vapam 

Allyl 

Allyl 

Allyl 

Allyl 

Allyl 

Alcohol 

Alcohol 

Alcohol 

Alcohol 

Alcohol 

Tillam 

None 

Tillam & Vapam None 

Tillam & Allyl Alcohol None 

None 

None 

Yes 

polyethylene 

Yes 

Soil Sealants* Yes 

2° Soil & Soil Sealants No 

2" Soil No 

None 

Yes 

Polyethylene 

Yes 

Soil Sealants* Yes 

2" Soil & Soil Sealants* No 

2" Soil No 

None 

yes 

yes 

Yes 

8.50 

5.67 

5.67 

5.67 

5.67 

9.07 

5.67 

7.09 

130 

Table 3. 

Rates ~d Dates of Chemical Trtlatrnent and Seeding of Direct-Seeded 

Touto Trlais. Bowling Qteen and wl"JOster..,,6M.;0'1961. . 

Bowling 'a~eed' 

'\ ' 

Vapam 5PGallons/Acre 

Allyl Alcohol 50 Gallons/Acre 

Tillam 3 Pounds 

Latex* t 600 Gallons/Acre as Formulated 

Asphalt* 600 Oe.llons/Acre as!'onnulated 

SOil.Set* ' ,:'609Gallons/Acre asP'ormuJated 

1l1.dthof ..Tres,ted LMld 

Row"iidth ' 

Date of Chemtoal' Treatment 

Date of SeeQing,'. 

Rate of Seed:fug 

16" .. 

48" 

MaY. 4 

May.1$ , 

4 Seeds/Foot 

,wOoster 

40 Grd16ri.~/Acre ., 

60 Gallons/Acre 

h Pounds 

600 Gal.lons/Acre as Formulated 

600G

indicates that several of the treatment combinations halved the labor required. 

The use of Vapam or Allyl Alcohol reduced the time by about one-third, whereas 

in most instances it was reduced by one-half when polyethylene tarp or one of 

the sealants was applied. This was true whether Vapam and/or Allyl Alcohol 

was mixed with the soil or simply covered with soil with a pair of discs. 

131 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Sweet, R. D. and J. Cialone. Proc , of N.E. l"eed Control Conf', 15: 107-110. 

1960.

1]2 

ADDITIONALFIELD STUDIES WITH SOLAN 

AS A 

HERBICIDE FOR TOMATOES 

~nald H. Moorel 

Research and Development Department 

NIAGARACHEMICALDIVISION 

. FMC CORPORATION 

Middleport 1 New York 

Solan l N-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)-2-methyl-pentanamide 

has been tested by a number of investigators as a herbicide 

for tomatoes l over a period of four years. 

Sweet and Rubatzky (1) found Solan to give commercial 

weed control and to be outstanding in lack of crop damage to 

both transplant tomatoes and field seeded tomatoes. Saidak and 

Rutherford (2) in 1959 and 1960 trials l found Solan to be reliable 

and effective as a herbicide in tomatoes when applied as 

a post-emergence spray, one month after transplanting l to weeds 

less than 3 inches high. Schubert and Hardin (3) found Solan to 

give commercial control of broadleaf weeds in post-emergence 

treatments. Grass control was satisfactory only for about one 

month if the grass was not more than l~ inches high at time of 

spraying. 

Results of preliminary field studies of Solan as a 

poxt -emer-gence herbicide tlor tomatoes have been presented previously 

by Moore and Dor~chner (4). It is the purpose of this 

paper to summarize performance data which have been obtained 

over the past two years. 

METHODSANDMATERIALS 

Tests in 1960 were conducted on the varieties Fireball 

and Red Jacket. These included both field seeded and field transplant 

stock. Treatments were applied as broadcast sprays using 

a knapsack sprayer. Fifty gallons of total liquids per acre were 

applied. The experimental design was one of randomized complete 

block with three replications. 

In 1961 experimental procedures were similar l but with 

the follOWing exceptions: Sprays were applied at 40 psi and a 

volume of 30 1 rather than 50 gallons of total liquids per acre 

was utilized. In some instances rather large areas were sprayed 

With a given treatment. SUch plots were not replicated. The 

formulation of Solan used for all tests was a miscible formulation 

containing 4.0 pounds of active material ner ~allon.

DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS 

Transplant Tomatoes. Experiment No.1. 1960 

The chemical tre.attnents in this trial were five in 

number. and consisted of the following: 

a. Solan at rate of 2.0 pounds/acre; 

4 applications at two week intervals. 

b. Solan at rate of 4.0 pounds/acre; 

2 applications one week apart. 

c. Solan at rates of 2.0. 4.0. and 6.0 pounds/acre; 

single applications. 

Both grasses and broadleaved weed species were less 

than one inch high when the first treatment was made on June 21. 

Weed species represented Were pi~weed (Amaranthus retroflexus). 

lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), buckhorn plantain (Plantago 

lanceolata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), and yellow 

foxtail (Setaria lutescens). None of the plots was cultivated. 

1.3.3 

Data on weed control were taken at three intervals 

throughout the season. The final counts just prior to harvest 

are reported in Table 1. The most effective treatment was tw.o 

applications of Solan (4 pound/acre rate) made at 7 day intervals. 

There was an appreciable reduction in weed population following 

all single treatments, but in view of the size reached by the 

surviving weeds, these data may be misleading. Thus, in the case 

of the 2 pound rate, the escapes developed to such large size as 

to interfere with growth and yields of crop plants. At both the 

4 and 6 pound rate the escape weeds were considerably reduced in 

s:'ze. 

The total number and pounds of tomatoes produced for 

the entire season for each treatment are reported in Table 2. No 

significant difference was noted in the number of tomatoes 

produced following any of the 5 control programs and the cultivated 

check. 

Although the untreated check was not included in the 

analyses of data, it 1s obvious that all treatments had significantly 

more fruit than the check. 

Considering the total number of pounds of tomatoes for 

the season, the treatment receiving a single application of 2 

pounds of Solan per acre yielded significantly less than the 

cultivated check in the case of Fireball. This was interpreted 

to be the result of weed competition. 

Transplant Tomatoes, Experiment No.2, 1961 

A test was implemented in 1961 with the purpose of 

-" ".3 __ L...! -.._Of "" L'I . .. _c _ _L ~ _

134 

were used, but as already noted, sprays were applied with a 

tractor-mounted boom sprayer. One treatment'consisted'of 2' 

applications of Solan at the 4 pound per ~cre rate. The first 

of these was made about 2 "~ks after trarisplanting (July 1), 

and the second at la;

harvest was covered with weeds, and tomato plants were very 

small. Harvesting in this area was very t1me consuming, compared 

with either of the treated ~eas. ' 

Total seasonal yields, both iq ~bersand pounds of 

tomatoes for each variety, are s\UIlnIarized1n Table 4. All varieties 

except Roma produced a grea~er totalwe1ght of fruit in the 

treated than in the untreated. Only in the case of Roma and 

Homestead.61 were there slightly more fruit in the untreated than 

the treated. This implies that Solan did not.have an inhibiting 

effect on the set of fruit! 

The varieties Hom~stead 24, H J.370,Manalucie, val~~t 

and Rutgers California produeed somewhat fewer pounds of tomatoes 

at the 8 pound rate than at the 4 pound rate. . The fact that the 

other varieties produced eq4al or greater .weights of tomatoes at 

the 4 pound rate suggests that one is working with a good ~gin 

of safety when suggesting the lower rate asa commercialpract1ce. 

~ Seeded Tomatoes, Exper1mentNo. 1, 12§Q 

Seeds of the varieties Fireball and Red Jacket were 

planted and Solan at the rate of 2, 4 and 6 pounds per acre was 

applied to the seeded areas on the day of, and 2, 5 and 7 day~ 

after planting. Each treatment comprised a single row 10 feet 

long and was replicated three times. 

Uhder conditions of the tel;lt, ~'stage of gr-owth" of the 

tomato plants varied from "not,germinated 

ll 

·to Ilbreaking the· 

ground ll • Weeds at the various test intervals varied from "not 

germinated ll to one inch high: Results of stand counts and percent 

of weed control, as taken some two weeks after the last 

t'eatment, are ,given in Table 5. 

Treatments applied on the day of seeding had no eft~t 

on germination of either variety. Control or weeds, while partial, 

was far from satisfactory" Delaying the tneatment even 2 days 

did not reduce crop stands, a~d resulted in appreciable controa. 

It was noted that some weeds had germinated at the time of treatment. 

When applications were made 5 days after seeding, crop 

plants had germinated, but had, not broken the soil. Weeds had~ 

germinated considerably ,but were less than one inch in height., 

Under these conditions the stand of Fireball was reduced when 

Solan was applied at 4 and 6 Pounds per acre, and the variety 

Red Jacket was reduced only when treated at the 6 pound level.' 

Control of broadleaved weed species was good, but grass control 

was marginal. 

The remaining plots were treated one week after planting, 

at Which time weeds were one inch tal]:., and tomatoes were 

breaking the ground. There was a significant reduction in crop 

135

1,36 

',L,),) ;~)o, j:',.' , "- 

stand or lHlreballfOl10Wi1:iiPbotfi the 4 ~46;poun4 per acre-,til~atmenbs 

, While there was a tendeneytoward reduced stands of the 

variety Red Jacket at both the 4 and 6 P01,U'l(tp~r acr-e rates, these 

reductions Jw.ere ~ot l!l1~.1t'1~~~..weed cont±". ,..9..1.-We.a cons1der.ed~~.0 

be good, ranging "from 86to,:99 i percent of, bfo,a.:~leavedspec1es, i 

an

An additional 2 years of tests on field transplanted 

tomatoes have continued to demonstrate the value of Solan as a 

post-emergence herbicide. 

Applications of four pounds of this chemical per broadcast 

acre made 14 days after transplanting, and again at lay-by, 

have been well tolerated by the varieties Campbell 146, Glamour, 

Long Red, Marglobe, ES 24, H 1370, Homestead 24, Manalucie, 

Moreton Hybrid, Trellis 22, Valiant, and Rutgers California. A 

slight temporary foliage chlorosis was noted on the varieties 

Roma and Homestead 61 at the four pound rate. Two applications 

of Solan, each at 8 pounds, resulted in a temporary chlorosis 

to Campbell 146, Glamour, Long Red, Homestead 61, H 1370, Moreton 

Hybrid, Trellis 22, Valiant, and Rutgers California. The 

minimum seasonal yield increase at either rate over the wltreated 

for all varieties except Glamour, Homestead 61, and Roma 

ranged from 64 to 243 percent. For the latter three varieties 

there was an 18 and 9 percent increase, and a 5 percent decrease, 

respectively. 

Solan, when applied at a rate of 4 pounds per acre to 

broadleaved weeds and annual grasses less than one inch in 

height, provided excellent results. Repeat treatments were 

necessary for seasonal control. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Sweet, R. D. and W. Rubatzky, 1959, "Herbicides for Tomatoes", 

Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Control Conference, 

13:84-92. - -- -- 

2. Saidak, W. J. and W. M. Rutherford, 1961, lIChemical Weed 

Control in Tomatoes", Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed 

Control Conference, 15: 124. - --- ---- 

3. Schubert, O. E. and N. C. Hardin, 1960, "Evaluation of 

. Several Herbicides on Tomato Plants", Proceedings of the 

Northeastern Weed Control Conference, 14: 8i-85. ---- 

4. Moore, D. H. and K. P. Dorschner, 1960 "preliminary Studies 

of Solan as a Post-emergent Herbicide for Tomatoes", Proceedings 

of ~ Northeastern Weed Control Conference, 14:85-101. 

137

.J 

') 

) 

Table 1 

Treatment 

Weed Control with. Solan in Transplant Tomatoes - 1960 

. j .. 

Average No. Weeds per'Square 

Lbs. Active Date of 

Per Acre Applications 

Foot - Aug 

Lambs- 

Pigweed· quarters Plantain Grass* 0 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Solan 2.0 6/21, ~~ 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 

four applications 7/14, 2 

"; 

~lan , 4.0. 6/?:J., 6/28 1 e.0 0..3 . LO.O 4.6 

,', ~ I 

two'appl1cat16ns 

SOlan 

one application 

2.0 6/21 3.3 0.3 1.6 4.0 

Solan 


4.0 6/21 2.6 0.6 0.0 2.3 

Solan 


6.0 6/21 1.3 l.b 1.3 2.3 

CUltivated Check --- 6/21, 

7/11 

6/28 8.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 

Unt:t'eated Check --- --- 17.3 96.6 

- _ - -. ' - ' ..,. - 

4.3 9.0 

*J)arnyard.grass and yellow foxtail grass 

'lQ.JB?toefLtran~p;Lfln~~~6/3/69: . 

.

~ Table 2 

.--l 

Average Number and Pounds o~ Tc~atoe8 per Plot per Season For Tomatoes 

Receiving Foliar Applications o~ Solan - 1960 

Treatment 

Lbs. Active Date o~ 

Per Acre Applications 

Average No. Tomatoes Average No. Lbs 

Per Plot Per Season Tomatoes/plot/ 

Season 

Fireball Red Jacket Fireball Red Jac 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Solan 2.0 6/21, 7/5 82.0 146.0 18.6 37.6 

~our applications 7/14~ 8/2 

Solan 4.0 6/21, 6/28 75.3 152.0 16.5 34.9 

two applications 

Solan 2.0 6/21 75.0 114.0 15.0* 25.2 


Solan 4.0 6/21 83.0 150.0 17.6 33.0 


Solan 6.0 6/21 81.7 142.0 16.1 37.9 


Cultivated Check --- 6/21, 6/28 83.7 149.0 21.0 36.4 

7/11 

Untreated Check --- --- 25.6 14.0 2.9 2.2 

LSD .01 25.6 56.0 7.2 16.2 

.05 18.8 41.0 5.3 11.9 

------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 

*Signi~icantly lower than cultivated check. 

) )

) 

) 

Table 3 

Results of an Application of Solan on Commercial Scale for Control of 

: t .•Weeds in Transplant Tomatoes - 1961 

Treatment Lbs. Active 

Per Acre 

Weeds Per Square Foot - August 9. 

Date of 

Applications Pigweed Lambsquarters other-s 

--~--~--------------------------------~---------------------------------------~--------~--- 

Solan . , .. 4.0 7/1. 8/1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

two applications 

Solan 4.0 7/1 11.0 3.0 1.0 


untreated Check --- --- 39.0 14.3 1.2 

------._---------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . 

Tomatoes transplanted 6/16/61 

Plots cultivated 7/11. 7/18/61 

~

~ Table 4 Total Yields in Number and Pounds of Fruit for Each of Fourteen Tomato 

Varieties ~eceiving Foliar Applications of Solan - 1961 

Rbte Rate Rate 

Per No. Pounds Per No. Pounds Per No. Pour 

~Acre ,of of Acre of of Acre of of 

Tomato Variety \Lbs.} Fruit Fruit (Lbs.) Fruit Fruit (Lbs.) Fruit Frt 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Campbell 146 4.0 286 84 8.0 326 101 Untreated 156 L 

Glamour 205 65 242 86 177 ~ 

Long Red 364 105 351 103 139_ 

Marglobe 331 65 278 67 133 

Roma 720 93 841 100 910 

Homestead 61 310 97 349 99 346 

E.,S. 24 492 101 518 110 212 

H 1370 575 151 570 128 315 

Homestead 24 342 93 293 81 170 

Manalucie 345 94 289 85 185 

Moreton HYbrid 447 120 497 140 280 

Trellis 22 601 102 638 115 348 

Valiant 520 149 491 . 134 322 

Rutgers California 259 66 210 54 125 

s 

c 

~ 

~ 

E 

~ 

/ 

E 

C 

r 

~ 

Date-~f-T;~~t;e~t~-7/6~-7/28-----------------------------------------------~t;-pi;~t;d;--E 

) )

') 

') 

Table 5 The Effect of a Delayed Pre-emergence Application of Solan on Stands of 

._ . Field Seeded Fireball and Red Jacket Tomatoes - 1960 

r1:>8. 

Act/ Date Stage of Avg. Plants/3 ft. of Row %Weed Control-July 14 

Treatment Acre Treated Tomato Fireball Red Jacket Broadleaved Grasses(l) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Solan 2.0 6/22 Not up 21.7 12.0 23.9 58.2 

Solan 4.0 6/22 Not up 22.3 15.0 21.4 87.7 

Solan 6.0 6/22 Not up 22.0 25.6 43.8 48.4 

-- v, l· 

Solan 2.0 6/24 No.t up 14.7 13.7 83.1 98.6 

Solan il .•O 6/24 Not up 16.3 18.3 80.9 95.3 

Solan 6.0 6/24 Not up 23.0 18.7 85.8 97.2 

Solan 2.0 6/27 Not up 12.7 15.7 79.0 78.4 

".,- 

Solan 4.0 6/27 Not up 9.3* 12.0 93.8 53.1 

Solan 6.0 6/27 Not up 8.7* 8.3* 84.4 65.7 

Sol.an 2.0 6/29 Breaking ·17.3 . 16.7 85.8 83.1 

SOlan 4.0 6/29 Breaking 5.6** 9.0 96.6 13~7 . 

-So-lan 6.0 6/29-. Br-eaking~ n_ ~- 7.0* J.3.7 98.8 84.5 

Untreated --- -- 18.3 15.3 21.3(2) 

Check 

N . LSD .01 11.5 9.9 

;:l 

fiJ-Grasses-:-BarnYard-graSs-&£~iiOw-foit~i~------------7i3SIgnlflcant-dlfference-------- 

2 No. of weeds per sq. ft. in untreated area. ** Highly significant difference.

"" 

~ 

Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto~ ~aedcontrol :fuRield Seeded Tomatoea - 1~1 

Lbs. Plants per foot of Row 7/12/61 %.Weed 

Act./ Dates stage oi' . . Cbntrol 

Treatment Acre Treated Tomato Red Jacket Fireball Manalucie Roma ·9/11 (3) 

------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - 

Solan 3.0 7/1, 7/20 Sprouting 4.4 11.3 6.1 4~0 81.3 

Not up· 

II· 

Solan . :4.0 7/1, 7/20 ~.6 10.8 5.0 4.4 93.8 

(,. 

Solan 3.0 ']/5 Breaking· 3.3 3.6 6.2 0.0 .- 73.1 

ground- 

Solan 4.0 7/5 Some 1" 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.4 85.6 

Solan 8.0 7/5 Some 1" 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.3 91.9 

Solan 3.0 7/10· l~" tall ~.l 1.3 0.1 .1.9(1) 79.4 

Untr.eated 

Check 3.2 13.8 5.8 4.4 i6.0(2) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

(1) Counts made at end of' season 

(2) No. weeds per sq. ft., mostly broadleaved weeds 

Tomatoea,planted 6/28/61 

) )

144 

All Jva1_Uoll of Cheaaicab U.ed Porthe WMdi. of Tomato.s. 

I ' 

I Char1•• J. Noll 1 

W.ed c~tro1 i. the ~aateat limiting factor ~a ~uc~.afu1 8I'oving of 

dir.ct 8eed~d tomatoe.. Mechanical ~iD8 i. inacleql.1&taand hand weediDl 

too expeaei,e. :Ulltil good chemical we.dinS i. de"lo~.cl the growing of 

direct 8e~td. tCl\lllltoa.in PellD8ylvania will b. limited in acre.g •• 

The we, ding of trall.p1aated tomatoes by m.cbaaicei1 means is not ae 

difficult br..~e. ~fadequate c'bemi•. 1 ... ding could be delve10p.d it could 

~ed\IC.prodrtiOD· co.t •• 

i 

PRQCBDURE 

In the! direct .eaded tomato exp.r~ent the se8ctbad wa. pr.pared May 24. 

soil iDcorp4n'.tlon treatIHllts vere applied and rotqti1!1.d into the sol1 

May 25. 'l'h. tomM:o variety l'irebiLll, was leaded tliat :s.e day. Th. preem.rs.nce 

tt:atmeat8 were appli" 4 days after .eedins and late pra-emergence 

treatments re applied 11 day. after .eeding. O~ S~lall plot received aa 

additional ptlioatlon 41 day8 iIL.fter ... ding. Indtvietual plots "er.1:; f •• t 

1001 and 3 ~.et Wide. Tr.... nts were randombed fon.ach of 6 blocks. The 

ch_call ".re applied with a 8ID&11sprayer over tbe ~ for a width of 12 

iDehes. 'l'h~ plot. wore cultivated. An estimate of weed control wa. made 

August 14 o~ a ba.is of 1 to 10; 1 being mo.t de.irable and 10 being 1ea.t 

dea1rab1e. ,N9 barv .. t record. ware taken. 

In th.ltran.P1anted tOlll&toe. the 88111evarie.t y 'wa~ g::otm. The seedbed 

wee preparels June 5, the 1011 incorporation trea~•• maet. June 6 and the 

tOlllllto.. tr.~p1aat.d June 7. Po.t-p1anting treatlHnti. were mad. 5 and 22 

day. aft.r~.r .... Planting. with th.. n08•• 1 of the. sP\'ay.r dir.ct1y over th. 

tomato p1a 8. Individual p10ta .... 20 feet 10111:ancl S feet wide and con 

.i.ted of 1, "lant •• ach. !reatil,eDta vere rand4'mi~ediD each of 6 blocks. 

The p1~ta were cultivated. An e.timate of WMd oontro1 vea made AUluat 

14 on a baa~a of 1 to 10. Tometoe. vere harve.ted ,twtce, August 22 and 

september 1~.; 0Il1y marketable fruits were harvested • 

. . RESULTS 

i 

The w~ control re.u1ts in the direct .eeded :to.to experiment i8 pre- 

.eat.d iD tlible 1. Although the Triazine compound. g.-ve the b.at weed control, 

they grut1~ raduoed the atand of tomatoea. The Dl'Ph$amid plots had f_ 

weeela, tha lot • .receiVing 9 lb ••. p.r acre were reJ.aUYely free of weed. 

throughout he growing ... aon. '!'ba only other tre~t that gave any amouat 

1 . . ' 

A•• oeiate trofe.sor of Olericultura, D.partment o~ HQrticu1ture, College of 

Agricultur and Bxperiment Station, Penn.yhaa!a ~atie Unlveralty, University 

Park, PallD y1vallJ.a. :

of weed eoneee I without inj ury 'to .t(llll8toes was in the TU1am treated plot •• 

Although no yield reoords were ta~.n it was thousht tha~ yields in the best 

plots would have been good. 

The results ln the transp1ant.a tomato exper~ ls presented in table 

2. All chemicals B1gnificant1y increased weed control as compared to the 

untreated check. The best weed C0l1tro1 wes in plots treated with Diphen-, 

amid at 6 and 9 1bs. per acre, Stam P-34 at 6 1bl. per acre, Prometryne at 

3 1bs. per acre, Casoron at 4%lb•• per acre and Tl11e. at 6 1bs. per acre. 

145 

Only two harvests were made and only ripe marketole fruit taken for 

record. Plots treated with Dlphenamid at 9 1bs. per acre and Tl11am at 4". 

1bs. per acre had a significant l~rease in yield as compared to the untreated 

check,plot. The yleld from'the plots treated with the chemical 

Stam P-34 at 6 lbs • per aCre appro~hed B1gn1fiC8ftee. 

OONCL1!SION 

In the direct seeded tomato ezpertment, it 100ke at this ttme that 

chemicals .cou1d replace other mathods of weed control in the plant row. 

If this is 't~ue, direct seeding of Cpmatoes is a possibility in Pennly1 

vania. The beltareatments wereDlpbenemid at 6 and 9 lbs. per acre in a 

pre-emergence application and Ti11am at 6 1bl. per acre in a pre-planting 

loi1 incorporation treatment. 

" I 

In the transplanted tomato experiment, the outstanding chemicals 

were Dipbenamid in the post-plantiPi treatment. Ti11~ ~n the pre-p1aneing 

soil incorporation treatment and Stam P-34 in the delayed post-planting 

treatment.

T

1. Associate Research Specialist in Weed'CO~trol, NewJersey Agricultural 

Experiment Station; Head, AgriCUltural Research, 

Seabrook Farms Co., Seabrook, New Jersey; and formerly Research 

dAAiAT.~nT. in ~~m ~~onR_ RutgP.~R _ the ~tRte TTniversitv. New 

THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATIONAND PLANTINGDA'lE :ON THE HERBICIDAL 

ACTIVITY OF PROPYL ETHYL-ft-BUTYLTHIOLCARBAMATE 

R. D. Ilnicki, T. S. Gill, and T. F. Tisdell 

1 

147 

Within the last several years there has been much interest 

in thiolcarbamate herbicides as evidenced by the many orop-weed 

situations investigated. To date, there is little or no reoorded 

information on the use of propyl ethyl-n-butylthiolearbamate (Tillam) 

either as a pre-planting or pre-emergence herbicide for weed 

control in spinach. Previous work at this Station and elsewhere 

has indicated the effectiveness of this herbicide with little or 

no injury to several horticUltural crops. .'Research has shown 

that delayed plantings following applications of other thiolcarbamate 

analogues will reduce injury to horticultural crops. This 

study was initiated to evaluate the effects'on spinaoh and weeds 

o't several planting dates fOllowing pre-planting application13 of 

several formulations of Tillam. 

Materials 

and Methods 

commeroial propyl ethyl-n-butylthiolcarbamate (Tillam 6E) 

and formulations containing two different h¥drocarbon carriers 

were the treatments evaluated. A low volatile, seleot paraffin 

traction haVing oarbons above ClR~ served as the oarrier in one 

blend (EAP 4160) and a somewhat nigher volatile naphthenic fraotion 

above C1R was used as a solvent or carrier in the other 

(EAP 4161). The two experimental formulations oontained slowbreakiqg 

emulsifying systems and were identioal in all other respeots. 

The three formulations ot Tillam were ,applied as pre-planting 

treatments on August 29 a!t rates ot 3 and 5 pounds per acre 

with a knapsaok sprayer oonnected to a boom:'equipped with five 

nozzles spaoed 20 inches apart. The applications were made in 

water dilutions of 40 gpa to a finely prepared seedbed of a sassafras 

sandy loam soil at Seabrook Farms, Seabrook, New Jersey. 

Plots were 10 x85 feet. Only 8-1/3 feet of $ach plot width was 

sprayed for the entire 85-foot length. The outside borders served 

as bufter areas and as checks to allow for any lateral movement of 

the treated soil at time of incorporation. Immediately after application, 

the treatments were disked into the upper 2-3 inches 

with a Meeker harrow in one direction only. Check plots were also 

inoluded in addition to the border areas between plots. There 

were two replioations of all treatments.

148 

SpinaCh wasplanted withan8-row 0~.-c1al seeder,1nd'1 

vidual rowlB.,&paced12 inohea':apa%'t{ on A~t 30, September 2, 

and Septemper 5, giving plantings of 1, 4, and 7 days after herbioidal 

applloaUons, respectively. Eaoh pkn,ting consisted of 

two or thr~e drill strips aoross the plots. Brior to eaoh plant·,· 

ing, the area was reworked with a Meeker harrow in one direoticn 

aoross the plots., After _ch;planting;an_~valent o.f t-1nch of 

rain was applied to tbe area:- ,'seeded.. 

Weed~on'troJ;,and crop~njury rat1ng3',~ made on sep~ 

28 and Ootbber '18' using the fl.-cale 0 to' 10~~re 0 • no eft.c~~. 

10 lit stand Or vigor reduced leO per oent,.'!';:. ':.r: • 

.j. 

Result..-and D1.souss1!>ft': 

. , .,; .. c.; , 

In ta'Ples 1, 2, and 3 ..a:re: presenteds~riflls of weed oo».t1'Ol 

and spinaDb 1nJ1.Wf for the. plantings madEt:L-.;4, and 7 days, ~peoti'Vely. 

atterapplioatlonaoithe th.ree f~~tions of. Til~. 

From these data it oan be seen that the planting made soon 

after herb~oidal appliaat~on8 was relatively safe for spinaoh and 

that bette*, than adequate 'weecroontrol. resuJ.t.e. d.. It 1s als.o evident 

that 9V.drall weed eont~iJ; was 1mprove~': 'ldth oorresponding 

deoreases ..in' spinach injury, ,Jgy. delayins sp.~qh planting. ..~ 

was espeo'1~lly~true for the two exper1me.pta-kf,QI'II\ulat1ons wi~,the 

hydrooarboi'loarr1ers. Therecwas a slight ~;tlease in broadl.,.;ved 

weed cont~lw1th the lower·nJ;te of oo~o!al Tll~ in th8)p;la.nting 

made '7 days aft.erappl1cation. , There .W4. a similar· trend: with 

regard tograsB .;control ,; ~4tr i this was-:~ot signifioant. 

The experimental formulations were Sl1~h~lysuperior t~,~~meroial 

Tillam with regard to weed oontrol and orop safety. The 

formu1ati~ 'Containing thena~hthenio hYdr9~~bon fraotion was 

slightly m9re effeotive and se,fer than the,iforlnulation Qont!-1n1l;1g 

the paraffinio hydrooltXlbon,fract10n., ... ' ";~' .. 

Allf~rmulations of Til~ exh1bited~sidual herb101~j[:~ 

actiy1tyof long duration •. -Tbiswas mar. j)~l'lounoed for thepsses 

than for the broadleavedweeds •.. Gelierally",the two experim~~l 

fOrmulati~8 effected slight:ly longeracti~1ty than oamm.rcial·T11 

lam.' Agai~. the toJ;'ttlulat10lt' containing the" paphthenio 1'raot1on was 

slightly nt.t'esuper10r to' the.:f'ormulation·'W:1th the paraffini~oarrier. 

.-+ 

'. '. ~ -: .-.

Stulllll&ry 

A study was lh1tlatedto evaluate th.)i8t:t'ects on spinach and 

weeds ,of sevettal planting dateSf"Ollowin£ripre~planting applications 

of three formulations of Tillam. Two exper1m&ntal formulations, 

,one ,conta1n1nga paratfj.n1.c bYQ.%'

150 

Table 1. The residual effects of several formulations of 

Tillam* applied as pre;..plartting treatments one day 

prior to spinach planting on weed;tcMtrPl and crop 

r injury .** Fo:mulationsappl1ed Augu~t 29 and spanach., 

seeded August 30, 1961. 

Control l ,;.; 

Weed 

Crop Injury 

Treatment Rate, Broadleaved Grassy- ;:, Stand 2 Vigor3 

Ib/A weeds weeds 

,Days after 

AppUcation 

30 50 30 50 

:-·if' 

-'30 50 30 .50 

Tillam 6E 3 6.8 1.0 . 8~3 8.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 

5 7.8 5.0 9.0 9.8 I.!? 1.5 1.3 0.5 

EAP 4160 4 3 7.1 1~5 9.4 7.0 '0.0 0.5 0.0 .0.0 

5 8.5 0.5 9.5 9.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 

EAP 4161 5 3 6.0 0.5 9.0 9.0 1.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 

5 9.5 7.3 9.8 9.7 ;.0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 

* propyl atbYl-n-buty1thiolcarbamate 

** average of two replications 

l'Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect, 10 = stand an/or 

vigor reduced 100% 

2 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect, 10 = stand reduced 100% 

3 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect, 10 = complete kill 

4 Herbicide dissolved in a select hydrocarbon paraffin fraction 

above c l8 

5 Herbicide dissolved in a select hydrocarbon naphthenic fraction 

above C 18 

I

Table 2. The residual effects of several fbrmJulations of 

Tillam*applied a&pre-planting t~tments four 

days prior to spinach planting on'weed control 

and crop inJury. *....Formulations applied 

August 29 and spinach seeded September 2, 1961• 

151 

..lrltle'FC-:.ntrol 1 ... 

Crop Injury 

Treatment . Rate. Broadleaved Grassy Stand 2

152 

'~llam* appl1edc'u, pre-planting t~tments seven 

~ys prior to spd.na:ch plant1ng. onsweed control and 

prop inJury. ** Fclmnula tiona "a~n~Ued August 29 and 

spinaoh seeded September 5, 1961., 

Table 3. I • residual efr ..... , of ........ , f"""*,,,,U..,. of C 

.: , ,I'· ,; 

"Treatment 

'..':-Ra te, 

lb/A 

'WMd ('cctra1 l Crop In,1ur:r 

Broadleaved Grassy '~ ,Stand 2 , 'f,fgor3 

weeds weeds 

30'" 50 

Days atterApplication 

30'50 30 50 30 50 

T111am 6E~; 3 7.0 0.0 9.5 10.0 0.8 1.0 1.:0", 0.0 

'5 ' 9.0 : 3.5 10.0 10.0 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 

EAF"4160~ 

," 

! 

3 9.3 ,0.5 10.010.0 0.0 1.0 0.:0', :::0.0 

5 9.5', ,'2 ..0 ' -9.8 J.0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

EAP4161 5 t"\ 3 :8.7 ".1.5 9.8'1,0.0 0.0 0.0 00'0 0.0 

5 9.5 ,5.5 9.8 10.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 

* propyl ~thyl-n-butylth101c~amate 

** average lof two replications 

lBased ori'sleale a to 10j e -no 'effect, 10' ',j,!.!3tandand/or 

, vigor re~uced 100% ) 

2BaS'ed on s!ca:le0 to 10j 0 .. ' riO effect. 10'*[ s'tand reduced 100%' 

3Based on 0' to 10'j O='no err$ct, 10 ";comPlet~ kill 

4 .' :: I " , ,'''C'-''' .. " , ,< 

Herbicide 'dissolved in a select hydrocarboriparaffin fract~Qn 

.above 0;J.S , ':,. 

5Herbicide dissolved in a'select hydrocarbon'naphthenic fractiQn 

above 0tL8

FURTHEROBSERVATIONS ONCONTROL OF THECQvJMON BRAKE,TERIDIVMAQUILINUML., 

IN LaolBUSHBLUEBERRIES WITHPOLYBORCHLORATEl 

, ,i: ',d 

W. J. Lord 'ead J. S. BaUey:z., 

15.3 

One of the chief concerns of thAlmanagera ofloffbush blueberry areas il 

the control of weed apecies wh:l.ch·~t~ out theblu ..... rles and seriously 

interfere with harveating. In 194'8"'. weed survey in'r~b.e lowbush blueberry 

fields in the Granville-Blandford area of Massachuaetts revealed that the 

cOlllllonbrake', 'l8r1dlum aguilinum t ..,(:h a serious weed in many places (1). 

Previous work (1) has shown that 400 to 600 pounds per acr. of polyborchlorate 

applied'l,)J;ior to "burn" will et£ectively control the cOllllllonbrake, 

but this matel'ial'injure. the blueberries. Whenthe polyborchlorate was 

applied in the fall previous to the year of burn, recovery of the blueberry 

plant. was better than when it Was applied in the .pt~ng'after the burn. T~ 

difference waa highly significant. The difference in brake kill betweent6e 

spring and fall applications was not significant. Following either fall 1957 

or spring 1958appltcations the number of brake. on'the ~lots was less tn 

1959 than 1958, 1ndtcating'a carry-oVer of the chem~c&1. 

. \ 

.. , ...' 

Whether,ornot'brake're1nfestadon occur. andhoWfa.t the blueberry 

plants re-establish them.elves fotlawtng the application ofpolyborchlorat~' 

are questions of vital importance to the grower. 'ThIJ'work reported here wall 

undertaken to answer these qu.stio~•• 

Method' ilndMaterids'" ; 

In the .fall of 1957, six s~at. rod plots were laid· out at each of three 

locations. Polyborchlorate was 'appU~ at 400, ,500,. and 600 pounds per acre 

on half the plots at each location On'November13, 1957 and on the other half 

April 25, 1958. Before treatment .;jquare-yarcls~t"on of each plot was ' 

measured and the brakes in each of these squares~ouPtedr The number of , 

blueberry plants 'waa counted on f~r,l-foot squates ~hOsen at random on ea¢& 

plot. On August '7, 1958 post-treatment counts of brakes were made and on . 

July 14, 1959, July 12, 1960, and September 13, 1961, counts of both brake. 

and blueberry plants were made. No ~ounta of bluebeiry planta could be maa. 

in 1958 because the fields were burned. From these data the percentage kill 

of brakea and ,the percentage recovery of blueberrYi~ants were calculated •. 

,. " i", .,', 

For stati.tical treatment b1'a~lysis of variande the percentage. of 

brake control'were transformed to.nsles (3) and the 'percentages of blueberry 

plant recovery to rarik1t valu8.(2). The mean' irt" compared by the . 

method of J .S. '!'Ukeyas modified iiy Snedecor (3) .~lIUference necessatf 

for significance is expressed as D rather than LSD.' ...". , , 

lContribution No. 1329, Masiachu•• tt. Agricultural EXperiment Station, Amhe.ret 

.:.

154 

I 

.i,;,'!,(. 

·t~, 

:',';,',.? 

.ijgcat1gD" 

I . 

,II 

J;~I,:. 

it"'\~""~';;,";,':" ;-' -: i"t,' - ~'\iL}" , " . , 

'!r ..&.n~ 9pntr~1,:: .L\ Ap&1.U l u !! 

·.'."f ..,. 

(~ :.)liJ t'· 

~~'- ", -,;. ~""_',;., ('''j',-[''' .' ":"',' J (J 'ni::;:.\. . '" -1:,1 'I 'i);; 

D fqr ~~ l~v.t, -, ,36. .Val~e.,:":L~~ ~b. 'lI!lIe ~.t!t,rH4r. nQt 8~8"U.ca_1J. " 

different •. j . .,':. d.-"" 

'_n::-';'" ',,: j ..: • ::nL'}_~" . ~.::" ~::'j ;;,r;'.~ ..i:'- " ,'" ",:. : ",,:, ;'1" 

Brak~j,09~~ol JollC11!inS,_8pa:;~Pt,applic~t~~!D~rl1f&!t~.!tt.~ l:~n'dt'f:: f4U 

treatment .nd the dlft~r.nelt,,,.,.:,§~g~~Y,l\~snU~~.IpS~.;c~:"8Ja o~the.~If4b_ 

control in iang1e. for the fall treatment va. 50.58 and the .pring treatment 

69.89~Tb'U.~D,,,d,,.fo~. th'fJ~ 1!4;~c,~nJ; ~"v.~,"M,~S,.~7 Qd :t;~e1 ~Jl1C;~ 

level, 7.64" .~~e~ ~ th.:l.n~.~.t~O&l b.tWll•• ;,lol!_~~Cl1I and tim. :()ftr ....~At ' 

was higb1~ j.~SIJ~fieant 'Ta~le ~~~\i' .', "J' j'Y:' -" «: j: . 

. ; . ", '.'; - I., ,;;;'1 ';..:' .. -I;.:' 

Table 2 • Hean per cent brake llontrol for the faU'and .pttng treatm.ntl of 

po1yborchlorate at ~~~.._"lQeat~on.. ~., : " '. .' 

. ..' T.I'OI!·"1_·; . .. .; 

C.i!·,r ;\j·r.t:,,- •• '-·'::·.,-'~-~:·1J.,:~ -:,~"'~'r.iI'_'_ --.j"'i~~-"-:~:'-".~ - __ , 

. . ;~. "". r~':-~'J",i ,,.,;.1L,, r; J _;111 : _. 

. .'t~~qt :':. :"'1' \ I: A.:fl~n,i :p~ r,::lAMlf,: P::t:,4Df~e;, 

- ...- ! ..... !'~ ...l- .sllJl~"',r ~~~.. i ...a.Jlt.~ r :","~ i ...i~ ... i-~.I!941J ... 

Fa~1;.(1.11. i.~S1.J.,I:, ~2.~,1 ·.'.$,~.~'KJ."··. ir 'J'6.5.;~ "~I ,;;$~•.~. a. I:' ~.2 ..'),. 4S ..·~J.:a 

spdna (4/~/$e>., ~,9,l.21 ,&4.,&::~ j )69.4 li ..~t~'" a I 86.4 I,. ~,.4.b 

D ~~r .1;' l~~i:~ '~'-Ts4." ':va~~M .~tf;h t~~GUIll•. ~~~t~; '~r~ n~t ~i~1~~~aQ~~' 

dlft.r.~~·1 ;:·;:.:,·~,'-H;: / ••; ""'~!. 1.. '':'l;,; j";(' ... ',' :_;, ">"~-'l~i':7i< ';' . .' i .~,,_ " . 

, ·Th.~ta:~'b~·)fh.. dhl.t.~c:·~,~~i:w.~n .~a~8 1~1{'tha per centbt~ke '~~t~oi' 

in ana1.ell,.tt~~Q,~~ ..frCIIIthe:"~~p.. 4~d~pr1~a t;¥~•. ~t;. lo~t.iqq,~~. ~~ not 

8i~nif.1.c...~t:~

Table 3 - Mean per cent brake control from August 7. 1958 to September 13. 

1961 following treatment of plots with polyborchlorate November 13. 

1957 and April 25, 1958. 

X!!!: Per cent control Angle values 

1958 66.6 54.7 a 

1959 76.3 60.9 a 

1960 81.9 64.8 b 

1961 75.9 60.6 a 

D for 1%level - 9.24. Valuesw~tb the same letteraranot significantly 

different. 

Table 4 shows while no differences existed between rates of application 

for the spring treatments, the fall treatments did 8bow differences. The: 

differences in brake control betwee.n means of the 400 and 500 pound rates' of 

po1yborch1orate applied as a fall treatment were significant. Less brake 

control was obtained with 500 poundBthan with 400 pounds. Atone 10caUOIl 

brake control with the 500 pound rate of po1yborch1~ate wesnot as effective 

as the 400 and 600 pound rates. 

Table 4 - Mean per cent brake control for the fall aDd spring treatments of· 

po1yborchlorate at 400, 500, and 600 pound rates. 

1.4L21/181 

Treatment I !a.!1_

156 

tbe .pring, 1-9.48. Tbe LSDat the S per centievel·.a. 1.69 end at tbe 1 'per 

cent level, 12.28.,In ,fact, C1bebitueberry planta 1D'tb.plota treated in tbe 

spring have"Jnot COllI"pletely recovere,d tbree ye.,ra deer'treat_nt as indicated 

in Table 5. Tbe differences between year. or rate. of application were not 

.ignificanll.'1'be,clrop. in per cent recovery in 1960 for the fall treatmenU 

i. difficul' to explain. 

Discus.ion 

and Conclu.ion. 

The dat~ preseoted show that tbe brake control following an application 

of polyborc~orate per.i.ted over a period of tbree year. and that tbe control 

w.. ,be~er::fo1lC1W1ns .pring. 'than fan appl1cad ... attwooftbe thr": 

location •• On the otber hand, blueberry plant recovery following the 'fal~: 

applications, was better than that witb spring applications. 

, Both .,J,8IIlIlU1'It Of brake kill"~d blueberryidj~JtY were variable •. Tkl.. 

wa.. probablldue to difference. in,Talnfall, in soillt1P8 and depth, 01' £a;. ' 

.011 mo1stu~ at different locaUon.. Since wild JJ:lunerry plants grow'" 

.eed, the c!lpaw' :an BClIlIetlllea'Iutte diUimUarand1ll&y vary in their", 

.u.cepUbUi~ em reai.tance to. polyborcblorate inj\1l'1.') 

Altbous~ .pring application of polyborcblorate reaults in better brake 

control"itaj~e:at tbattime, ila qtaetUonable beca":~f injury to the blue-" 

berry plants. However"inar •• , _ving .uc,b heavy lNIpIIl.t1ons of this weed 

that harvest~ng of blueberries is difficult or impos'ible, .pring application. 

of.p01,.,orchlOC'ate.would b. f.a.ible. In le~.4 tbe differenc,.,,"tft' 

kUlbetweenl rate'.f400, 500,!lDd 600 pounds of pO~cbloTate wer.en~· . 

• ignificant. le" than 400 pound. mey be enough for adequate brake control, 

particularly for the .prins treatments. Thi. i. being inveatisated. 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Balley, ,~obn S.'andW. J. Lord~ 1960. Conuol of th.common brake, 1', 

Teridiumlaguilinum L., in lowbuah blueberries with p01yborchlorate. 

Proc. l4tb Annual Meeting Nortbeastern Weed Control Conference. pp. 60-65 • 

••• l, 

2. Fi.ber a.d Yates. 1938. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural, 

alld, mecll~al:Il.... rch. Ol1verandBeyd, Edtnburlb. 

3. Snedecor, G. W. 1946. Statiatical method.. Collegiate Preas, Inc., 

Ames, I~a. SOb,ld,. 

; ! 

r , 

I s, 

t.' 

Tbe p.olybol'chl«ate ua.4 

__ 

in the.. 

" 

.xperiment~ was !Juppciled by the PaCific,' 

~_.A~ ~A ~ .~

lAssociate Research Spec1alist in Weed Control; Assistant 

Professor Pomology; and formerly Research Assistants in 

PROGRESSREPORTOF WEEDCONTROLIN S'l'RAWBERRIES 

R. D. Ilnicki, C. R. Smith, T. F. Tisdell, and C. F. Everett l 

.ABSTRACT 

Annual weeds are a serious problem in strawberry production. 

In the present system of culture it is difficult and 

time consuming to keep the rows weed-free without seriously 

affecting the development of plants and runners. At present, 

there is no safe herbicide .with residual activ.ity long enough 

to allow the plants to become established during their critical 

time of development. The object of th~s stUdy was to 

evaluate some new herbicides for annual weed c,ontrol during 

the early stages of development. 

Jerseybel1e plants wet-a set on April 12, 1961 and on 

April a8, following an initial cultivation, the following 

herbicides were applied in quadruplicate: 

Herbicide and FormUlation Rate, lb./A 

Dimethyl 2,3,4,6-tetrachloroteraphthalate(dacthal) 

50Wand 5G , 4, 8 16 

Dacthal + isopropyl-N-(3-chlorphenyl)-carbamate (CIPC~ 

50W+ E.C. 6 + 1 

2-chloro-6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine (s1mazirte) 

80W . . .. It 

2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-diethylamino-s-triaz1ne 

(trietazine) 

50Wand 4G . . 2, 4 

N,N-dimethyl- ,7\, j -diphenylacetamide (diphenani1d) 

80Wand 5G (Eli Lilly and co.) 2t, 5, 10 

50Wand 4G (Upjohn ce.) 2, 4, 6 

0-(2,4-dich1oropheny1)-0-methylisopropy1 phosphoroamidethioate 

(zytron) 

E.C. 

10, 20 

Ethyl di-n-propylthiolcarbamate (EFTC) 

E.C. and 5G 3, 6 

t-butyl-di-n-propylthiolcarbamate (R-1856) 

E.C. and lOG 3, 6 

Ethyl di-n-butyl thiolcarbamate (R-1870) 


Propyl ethyl-n-butylthiolcarbamate (R-2061) (Tillam) 


In addition, several untreated checks were inclUded per 

replication. All thiolcarbamate herbicides were incorporated 

immediately after application. 

157

158 

, 

OUtstanding treatmentttT1.ncluded 

, 

thet'ollowing herbicides: 

d!Phenamid - allra.tea were effect1 ve ,but the rn1d- 

, rate (4-5 lb.) was about optimum. The 

highest rate'~had no effect on stand but 

it decneaeedEhe vigor of the transplants 

and the rooting of runners. The wettable 

powderwaacsuperior to the granular prepara~ 

tlona butlt,also caused greaterreductiona 

1n vigor. 

dacthal - allratb~ere effectivfl'arid the rn1d-rate' ' 

(8 lb.) was more than optlriium. There were " 

slight reductions with tht 'highest rate. 

The wettable powder was sori1~\'ihat safer but 

not as effective as theg~ariular. ' 

zytron ,- both rates ,were effeot1v... There was no, 

increase:lin herbicidal aot1vity with the 

high rate. 

Tillam (R-2061) - both rates were effective. There 

was a slight increase in ~oadleaved weed 

control with the higher rate. The granular 

preparatic>n,c'waasuperlor to tbeelliulsif1able 

concentrate ~ut it also produced slightly 

more inJury. 

' 

dacthal + CIPC -th~scombinationproduced excellent, 

weed control out it caused' some injury to 

stand and vigor of transpl~nts. The rooting 

of runners'wasalso delayed. The control 

was compa~ableto dacthal ,alo~e at the mid-, 

rate. ' , 

Ekc - this compound was effective at the higher rate 

" I but some injury to transplants resulted.Tbe 

granular was more effective than the emulsi~ 

fiable concentrate. 

The s-triazine herbicides were injurious to strawberries 

notwithstanding that they prOduced outstanding weed oontrol~: 

There was no difference between the wettable powder and the 

granular preparation of trietazine. ' 

All other herbicides ,were ineffecti"te in this study. 

This experiment will be continued through next year. 

After yield analyses more complete information will be 

forthcom+ng.

PRE-E~mRGENCE 

WEEDCONTROLTEST IN REDBEETS 

S. A. Anderson(l), L. E. Curtis(2), and Alexander Zaharchuk(2) 

159 

In 1960 several herbicide treatments looked promising for the cortrol 

of weeds in red beets. The experiment~ reported in this paper 

are a continuation of last years work. In both experiments total 

yields and grade y~elds were obtained to determine the effect of 

treatments on yields. 

Procedure 

Expt. I was conducted on Ontario silt loam soil at Gorham, N. Y. 

Detroit Dark Red beets were planted on June I, 1961. Tillam was 

applied and worked into the soil with a garden cultivator on May 25. 

Pre-emergence treatments were applied within two days after planting. 

Herbicides were applied overall except for the two high rates 

of Solubor, which were applied in an 8 inch band centered over the 

row. Sprays were applied with a knapsack spayer equipped with a 

pressure gauge and six foot boom. Granular applications were made 

with a special small hand-powered duster. 

Weeds were r,smoved by hand from the check plots before mid-July in 

anticipation of yield performance in relation to any possible reduction 

or depression of yield caused by chemicals. 

Expt. II adjoined Expt. I and conducted on Ontario silt loam soil 

at Gorham, N.Y. Tillam was applied on ~~y 25, 1961. Detroit Dark 

Red beets were planted on 5/25{61 and on 5/28/61. Plots in Experiment 

I and II were 6' X 30' that were randomly replicated 3 times. 

Tillam was worked into the soil immediately 'following applicat~ 

with a garden tractor to an estimated depth of 2-4 inches. The soil 

was prepared for the second planting by tilling with a garden cultivator. 

Results 

Expt. I Table I gives the results of weed control, beet effect, 

total yield, and size grade yield. Each rating for crop and weed 

control represents an average of the three replicates. Total yields 

and grade yields also are averages of three replicates. This is 

also true in Expt. II. 

Expt. II Table 2 gives the results of weed control and beet effect. 

Discussion 

Expt. I Treatments'worthy of note from the standpoint of weed control 

and lack of beet injury are as follows: Tillam pre-plant at 

4-6 Ibs. E. C.; Tillam granular at 3 Ibs.; Solubor at 20-40 Ibs. of 

elemental boron; Vegadex at 4 Ibs. and ACP61-81.

"'1 

) 

Table 1. Pre-Plant and ~rgence Weed Control on Tab1e Beets 

Rating* I Yield 

Per Acre 

Chemical Beets Weeds (Tons) 

T' 

Tillam 

, Tillam " 

+ 3 + ~. :Pre. SDraY' 2.0 2.1) 21).1..0 : 2..6 2~".1.. J.2 ..I) TL'71Q.'7-' 

Randox 

Solubor ** 10 Pre. St>raY 0 2.~ 2l.~? 2.8 28.L.. 1l.2 lA.? Q.L.. 

Solubor 20 

" 

Spra.T 0.2 2.8 22.80 2.0 39.5 44.6 9.6 L..."I I 

Solubor -m " 8" Band 1.0 ~·l 2'L so 1.A 28.8 L..I).8 1s,n i R.7 I 

Solubor l..O 

" 

St' Band 1."1 L...2 2"1.'70 2.L.. "I1.Q I 1.1)."1I 1'7.'\1 ?Q 

Zvtron f, 

" 

Snl":lV 1:;_0 ~_A 

z.vtron 12 n Snrav '\.0 s,n 

Veedex i: Snr.a.v O.R ~.f, ?l..Q~ 2_1. ':10_1. l;(LO n di-,.o j 

" 

Vep;adex 6 Spra.v 0.8 "1.7 

" 

I 2'i.7~ I 1.2122.2 I L..'i.7 I H , 1,£ ., 

ACP 61-81 

A 

Sn,."v 0.'7 ':1.1. 

" 

ACP 61-62 2 

" 

SPrav 5.0 s,o I i i 

Check - - - O. o l zs.so J 1.h I"", e: 1"\ o 1""£' "c ! 

* 

** 

Visual rating system: o - No weed control - no crop injury. 

5_- Complete weed control -cClDJlll~t:.e c~p destru.cUon. 

The rates given for Solubor are based on elemental Boron and not manufactured product. 

The 30 and 40 lb. rate of Boron is that for the area in the 8 inch band. The rate per planted acre 

would be 1/3 of that reported in Table 1 since i-owwidth is 24 inches. 

s 

ri

161 

Table 2. Tolerance of Beets and Weed Control Obtained with 

Tillam E. C. and Granular 

: 

Lhs. Rating *** 

Active 

Chemical Per Acre Timing * Beets Weeds 

- 

Tillam E.C. .3 0 2.8** 3.0 

Tillam E.C. 5 0 1.3 4.5 

'N 1 1~... n~~~. ':l o o_~ ':1.7 

Tillam Gran. 5 0 2.7 4.3 

Check - 0 0 0 

Tillam E.C. 3 .3 0.4 2•.3 

Tillam E.C. 5 .3 0.7 .3.7 

Tillam Gran. 3 .3 0, 3.5 

Tillam Gran. 5 .3 l.e .3.8 

Check - 

':I 0: 0 

* 0 - Applied and incorporated into the soil 5/25/61 - Beets planted'5/25/6l 

.3 - Applied and incorporated into the soil 5/25/6'). - Beets planted 5/28/61 

** This average reading influenced by one high reading from a questionable 

replicate. 

' 

*** Visual rating system: 

o - No weed control 

- no crop injury~ 

5 - Complete weed kill - complete cr6pdestruction.

162 

Til~arn E. ~" 4 and 6 Ibs. as well as Tillam granular 3 Ibs. gave, 

fair to ve y g.o.0...d weed contro..l with some.su..ppression ... of beets •. ~ie -..-I 

would sugg st further trial E. C. 4 to 5 Ibs~ per acre and g~ular 

at 3 to 4 libs. "In this material we, appeal" 'to have approachecfthe 

level of be'et tolerance. ' !. 

Solubor at 120-40 Lbs , of elemental boron gave fair to excellant weed 

control. There was no apparent suppression of beets. at the lower 

level but suppression incr~ased from the 3U-to the 40 lb. rate. 

Yield data !compared to the check plot is very favorable in respect 

to the weed control at the 30-40 lb. rate. As the season progressed, 

Beets overcbme the earlier suppression effects. caused by the Boron. 

The 30 lb. Irate is suggested as the higher rate could leave toxic 

residues in the soil that would affect other crops grown in rotation 

with beets. 

The 4 lb. rate of ~«gadex performed more satd~tactorily than the 

6 lb. rate because 6'f damage to the stand at the ~igh rate. The 

grade yield shows this in terms of a greater-percentage of beets 

3" and up in the 6 lb. treatment. 

A C P 61-81' gave good weed control with little damage to the stand 

of beets an~ merits. further investigation. Yield data was not reported 

as two of the three replicates were damaged by heavy rains 

causing doubtful results. 

Zytron gave excellant we'ed ,Control at both .rates but aliSO killed 

the betts. Beets emerged but died within a week. 

Expt. II With the Tillam E. C. 3 and 5 lb. rates tho weed control 

was good and beet injury at. a Yowlevel with: the exception as noted 

in the table. The same is true of the Tillarn granular 3 lb. rate. 

In the case,of the granular 5 lb. rate the beet injury was marked. 

Yield and gtades were taken and were fouPd to be rather variable 

with chemical treatments substantially exceeding check plots. The 

results wou1d indicate that for this trial, planting immediat~ly 

ftDDwing; in¢orporation of the Tillam was an acceptable practice. 

Vagadex has .been ill use for weeding table beets for several years. 

Res\1lts are iextrt3mely variable rangingfrom'~od weed control and 

no crop inj~ry to a complete lack of weed control in the a~sence of 

moisture. Severe crop injury often results. ~th rates per acr~ as 

low as 31b~ •. actual when temperatures rise ,'tosS and 90° F• ,Faced 

with the possibility of hand weeding costs running as high ashfty 

to seventy live dollars per acre, growers in ~entral and Western 

New York trE:$teda substantial acreage of beets with solubor in 1961. 

Twenty-five pounds of solubor (20.6% Boron) waedissolved in 20 or 

more gallons of water and-applied per acre of beets in 24 inch rows. 

The spray was applied Pre-emergence on the planter in a 4 inch band 

over the row. TQis approximate,s the rate ofJO Lbs, per acre of 

elemental boron in the area actually covered in the 4 inch bana and 

represents an application of slightly over 5 Ibs. of actual or elemental 

boron usually required for nutritional purposes o~ our alkaline 

soils.

163 

Results generally were good weed control with only slight crop effect. 

Severe beet crop injury resulted from boron toxicity on one 

field with pH below 5.5. Considerable suppression was observed in . 

another field which may have been associated with lighter texture end 

somewhat lower organic matter. Since solubor is used for weed COn .. 

trol when the normal borax supplement is omitted from the fertilizer, 

the pOSsible danger of Black or dry rot (boron deficiency) should be 

considered in the complete absence of rainf'ollowing planting.

164 

EQUIPMEmFORSPRAYING camaCAIS FORLAYB1' _ 

WHILECULTIVATXNG POl'ATOJl3 .. 

Arthur Hawldns 1 

(IDNrROL 

Directing a spray appllcatlQn .0£chemicals to the· soil tor weed contm 

atter the Ja.st cultivation in potatoes is practica.:l4r impossible with standard 

potato sprayers when potato vines are large. Special equipnent would have to 

.be devised to part the vines and direct the spray on .the soU. It wu suggested 

to growers that low pressure spra7 equipment could. be used to spra7 the chemicals 

behind the hillers WlUe maldng the final cultivation. 

During the past three years, three Connecticut pot,ato growers equipped 

their tractors. with low pressure power take-oft pumpe and equ1p11Sntto sP!V 

weed control chemicals on the soil while IIBking the tinal cultivation with 

two-row equ1puent. Th87 obtained control of weeds with the chemicals applied ~ 

One of the growers built a platform at the rear ot his traotor to support 

a 50 gallon metal barrel which 'IIIIl.S used &8 a container tor the spray soluti6n. 

Copper tUbing was used to make the boom which 'IIIIl.S located behind the barrel. 

Twonozzles located behind each rear wheel and three nozzles on a drop pipe 

between the rows just behind the barrel, were directed to 81%'a7the soU. 

Regular potato sJra7llI'· nozzles with No."3 discs and 30 lbs. 1%'esstu"llwere used 

to ap~ 8 gallons of solution pel' acre. 

With a ditterent kind of traotor, another grower raised the drawbar 

sufficiently' to make room' for the power take ott-pumpJ the barrel WlUI located 

off-oenter on the drawbar. 

The third grower, using a tool bar (drawar removed), located two 

rectangular-shaped metal tanks of 4O-gal1on capacit7 between the wheels and 

the oontrols, the tanks were bolted to the axle housing. The spray nozzles' 

were attached to the spades held b;r the tool bar at the rear 6t the tractor. 

The nozzles wre direoted to spray the soil behind the spades. Thirt7 pound 

pressure was used to aPP4r 12 gallOI18 ot solution per acre. Rubber hose WILS 

used to aupp4r the nozzles irlstead ot copper tubing. 

1 Agronom1et and Elttenslon Potato Spec1a1ist, Universit7 or Connecticut, Storrs, 

Connecticut

USE OF GRANULAR CHl!H[CALAPPLICATORFORLAY-mWEEDCONl'ROLIN POTATOES 

Arlhur 

HawldML/ 

165 

L8iv-btWged cont:rrol in potatoes was obtaine4:ldth granular formulations 

of several. chemicals when b~aat by hand a.tterthe: last cultivation in 

Connecticut in J.960.~:report;ed yield ~s of potatoes where 

chemicals controlled crabgrass' &rIiicaused little dr' no inJur;y to potatoe •• 

It appeared desirable to make hrthe1-com.parl.son& Usihg a commercialJ.y avaUable 

granular ohemical applicator. . 

. In 1961. g1'IlnU1ar formulations or several ohEll1o@3.swere aPplied broadcast 

with an eight-toot granular chemical a~V. Thegranulea were 

applied ldth1n Ii few hours to one day a.tter the fUtal cultivation of 

Katahd1n potatoes in six commercial fields. The hopper was adjusted to a 

height ot about six inches above the pOt~to. foliage to obtain satistactor,y 

spread of the granules. . 

f .... 

Burlap bags were attached behind the machine to brush granules 1'rom the 

plants to i'ed.uoe 1njur;y tram leat absorption ot c*"a:1n chemicals. The 

distribut10n of, granuJ:.es appellZ'ed to be unitom and l"esulted in unitorm 

control of weeds on the hills and between the rows nnder 1961 conditions. 

Ettective control ot weeds was obtained with '&I'llhular to:nnulations or 

some ot the chemicals applied at adequate rates with the granular applic8.toi'. 

Increases in yields ot potatoes to ~5% were obtained where crabgrass or 

barnyardgass was controlled. The high yield i.nIll-ease occurred in afield 

where a heavy population ot crabgrass was contro1.l.ed and potatoes were not 

ldlled by t'rost until Ootober 16. 

Since the machine used was of the gt'avity-teed type, a oonstant field 

speed was maintained to obtain a unitorm rate ot application. It was 

operated at a field speed ot 4 MPH(352 teet ot travel in one minute). 

When caJjhrating the machine, it was pulled at field speed tor a di$tance 

that would give 1/20 acre. The granules were caught in a piece ot 

plastic i'iJm.; the .contents were weighed in a pan .en a scale weighing 

accurately in ounces. It was 'eas1er to repeat ealL1brations tor 20 lbe. or 

more ot gNnu1es per acre than tor lower ratee. 

1/ AgronoJllist &l'll1Ex!;ension Potato Specialist, University /')t Conn., Storrs, 

Conn.,' ., . 

2/ Hawkins, Arthur. Post-Hill Chemical. Weed Contrel in Potatoes with Granular 

Formulations. Proc. NElNCC151100-181.. 1961. 

3/ Manutaotured by Gandy' Co., Owatonna, Minnesota

166 

Weed'control experiments w*Irish pot~tQ.§:ttr

u.s. #1 potatoes and weed control estimates are shoWnin table 1. The sources 

of the herbicides and their chemical compositions are in the appendix. 

Table 1. Average yields of Katahdin potatoes and weed ratings from posthilling 

herbicide applications (R.I. 1960). 

!J:J!A Bu/A WeedRat7n gs* 

Active U.S. 8/24 60 Annual 

Herbicide Toxicant # 1 Ladyatthumb Grasse$ 

1. Falone spray 4 364 7.4 8.8 

2. Falone gran. 4 376 8.6 5.5 

3. DNBPgran. 3 379 8.4 4.0 

4. Dalapon gran. 2.5 364 7.4 3.8 

5. Alanap gran. 4 364 8.0 7.9 

6. Dalapon spray 2.5 358 6.5 2.0 

7. Zytron spray 10 403 9.4 9.5 

8. Zytron gran. 10 387 8.8 7.4 

9. Trietazine spray 2 399 9.5 4.8 

10. Tr~etazine gran. 2 373 9.4 6.0 

11. Casoron 4 323** 9.4 3.2 

12. Casoron gran. 2 329** 9.6 2.2 

13. No treatment 399 7'.1 2.0 

14. Dalapon &DNBPgran. 2.5 + 3 342 9.0 3.8 

15. Falone &DNBPgran. 3 +4 361 9.0 7.9 

16. Alanap &Falone gran. 4 +4 352 8.8 8.5 

ISD at 0.05 56 

*10 =no weeds, 1 =no control **some physical damage to tubers 

167 

Someweeds were already established on the crowns of the hills previous 

to applying the herbicides. These were disregarded in the estimates of percent 

weed control. Only the weeds which sprouted from the freshly stirred soil 

after hilling were rated. The annual grass popUlation was mostly foxtail and 

barnyard millets from the broadcast seeding. Ladysthumbwas the prevalent 

broadleaved weed. 

The following chemicals produced a marked reduction of the ladysthumb populationl 

zytron spray at 10 lb/A, trietazine spray or granular at 2 lb/A, and 

casoron at 2 and 4 lb!A. The casoron which was applied before hilling caused 

considerable pitting'of the potato tubers. Granular DNBPalone, or combined 

either with dalapon or falone, produced fair control of ladysthumb. Alanap, 

falone or dalapon alone were not effective in preventing growth of this weed. 

Results with the herbicides that usually inhibit grasses were disappointing 

in the control of the millets. Falone spray at 4 lb/A of toxicant gave 

good control while the granular preparation was only fair. A combination of 

granular alanap and falone each applied at a rate of 4 lb/A produced a satisfactory 

reduction of the annual grasses. Dalapon at the 2.5 lb/A was ineffective 

during the 1960 season. Likewise 2 Ib/A of trietazine was not as effective 

as in former seasons. Zytronspray at 10 lb/A produced a marked reduction 

_ ~ __ 11 ... _.L _ ,. __ • ••

·168 

The yiel? of. U.S. #1 Katahdin potatoes from the untreated plots was 3~9 

bushels per a,qre. StatisticaLan~J.yses of the yields indicated' that a .d1!ffElrence 

of 56 bushels was significant at the 5%level. Inspection of the results 

showscasoron was the ,only material which significantly reduced yields. 'It 

can also be seen that in 1960 with. adequate rainfall and fertility the heavier 

stand of weeds did not reduce the potato yields .....'Ibis is probablY duetQ,the 

fact that the annual weed"crop"'Iii'late potatoes usually does not becomeestablished 

until the vines mature, flatten out on the ground and lose manyof 

their leaves. Thep:-incipal objection' to late, 8,I:IIUl.el weeds is the difficulty 

they cause 'in the use of mechanical diggers, the increased tuber loss in the 

field and the amount of soil and debris that must be handled at the grading, shed. 

Procedure 

Pre-emergent'herbicide trials, 1961 

The area of silt loam available for weed control during this season was 

not uniform with some low, moist spots and higher, drier ones. The large size 

of the plots, 15' x 48', helped to bridge some of these areas but some variability 

was inevitable. The land was in redtop sod the previous. 2 years. Redtop 

sod always exerts a favorable effect on the succeeding potato crop. Delus 

and Kennebec potatoes were planted 'on April 26 with 1600 lb/A of 10-10-10-2 

(tc) fertilizer. The pre-emergent ,herbicides were applied on May16-17 using 

a calibrated low gallonage sprayer drawn by a tractor. The rate per acre was 

40 gallons of spray. The granular materials were weighed for individual 'plots 

and spread by hand a,fter mixing with coarse sand. The area was not cultivated 

until June 26. 

The rainfall 

drought injury. 

Results 

.was scanty during July but the ,crop showed no evidence .of 

The amounts of herbicides per acre, weed estimates and yields of U.S. #1 

tubers are shown in table 2. The principal weeds were ladysthtllllb and ragweed. 

Randomweed counts of several one, foot square areas for each treatment indicated 

that the triazine compounds, atrametryne, ipazine, prometryne and trietazine 

at the rate of 3 Ib/A of toxicant reduced weed stands considerably. 

The herbicides svph as dalapon, falone and zytron Whenused alone were not effective 

on the broadleaved weeds. The falone and zytron, however, slowed 'the 

initial growth of ladysthumb. DNBPused with these later materialS reduced the 

stands of ragweed aM ladysthumb. There were very few native annual grass 

seedlings at this time, and no conClusions were reached about their control. 

Foxtail and barnyard millet broadcasted over the area after hilling did not become 

established due to heavy vine cover and the dry July weather. 

Just prior to hill ing on June 26 the weeds weN pul Ied from random one 

foot square areas and their dry weights determined~ The weights were lal'gely 

of 1adysthumb with occasional ragweed and a few annual grass seedlings. !The 

. dal.apon plots had a .thick cover of 1adysthumb.Th& check, the dal apon and 

,.falone trea'bnents still showed considerably ladysthumbat harvest time. Those 

combined with DNBPwere fairly clean at harvest •. Th~ .~~tatoes were dug on,

0' 

~ 

Table 2. Pre-emergent weed control experiments with Kennebec and Delus potatoes (R.I. 1961). 

Average Av. # weeds per sq. ft. Gms. Ratin! 

Active Bu/A June 12. 1961 Dry weight Ladys- 

Toxicant U.S. #1 Ladys- Annual Weeds/sq. ft. th1,lll 

Material Ib/A Kennebec Qe1us thumb Ragweed grasses June 26 9126!t 

1. D!'eP+Zytron 3+f) .. 646 491 3.0 1.,9 2.8 . 0.21 9.] 

2. DNBP+Dalapon 3+3+{4 post-) 674 433 7.2 . 0.2 5.4 0.22 9.~ 

3. DtI.'BP+Dal apon 3+3 573 464 0.6 0.2 3.1 0.43 9.~ 

4. Zytron 8 508 407 13.4 6.2 1.9 2.93 7 .~ 

5. Amiben (gran.) 5 525 388 9.7 4.2 1.5 2.06 7.t. 

6. Zytron 5 509 414 12.8 5.8 2.2 3.18 7.e 

7. Falone 4 534 388 14.2 5.3 0.3 9.04 4.] 

8. Falone 4+{4 post-) 566 390 16.2 6.9 6.1 9.07 I.e 

9. De.lapon 4 589 388 24.4 9.3 4.0 22.32 2.~ 

10.· P'rometryne 3 654 459 0.6 0.3 1.6 0.48 8.1 

ll. Atrametryne 3 539 436 0.3 1.1 1.4 0.33 8.~ 

12. Ipazine 3 517 461 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.08 9.~ 

13. Trietazine 3 661 441 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.05 9.~ 

14. Trietazine 3+{2 post-) 612 406 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.04 9.e 

15. No cultivation 

- 579 390 11.2 6.0 5.6 11.05 1.~ 

16. CUltivated - 590 438 - - - - 7.e 

LSDat 0.05 NS NS 

*low numbers - high weed cover, 

10 = no weeds 

) 

)

170 

Yie.s of U.S. #1 Delus potatoes ranged from3~a, bushels to 491 bushels 

per acre; and those of Kennebec',fran 508 to 646bu~helS per acre. The variability 

of the individual yields was such that no statistically significant 

differences between treatments ~' ,found. Th, sPCIP'11:1c gravity of the Kennebec 

potatoes averaged 1.078 and,the,Delus 1.083~:' 

Procedure 

Post-hilling and layby herbicide applications, 1961 

These tests were randomized in blocks which alternated with the pre-emergent 

blocks. They were planted ,at the same time ancf:Ileaeived the same fertilization 

and managementexcept that they were CUltivated on May31, June 6, 16, 

and 20, with preliminary hilling on June 26 and final hilling on June 30. 

Ladysthumband ragweed were eliminated from the tops of the hills by the cultivating 

process. The field was overseeded with millets but the heavy fOliage 

cover and dry weather minimized the stand. 

The post-hilling herbicide sprays were applied June 26 with a calibrated 

sprayer at 'the rate of 40 gallons to the acre. The granular materials were 

weighed out individually and mixed with sand befo" spreading by hand. A few 

plots received vine-down applications on August 15. The vines were green and 

leafy but had opened up enough so herbicides COuldreach the soil. Trietazine 

spray prod~ced a little yellowing on the older leaves but this effect disappeared 

within two week$. 

Results 

The materials used, stands of weeds and yields of U.S. #1 Kennebecand 

Delus potatoes are shown in table 3. The yieldS of Kennebecs ranged from 500 

bushels per acre where the double application of t1'ietazine was used to 631 on 

the falone plots. The controls averaged 590 bushels. The maximumand minimum 

yields of Oelu6 potatoes were 481 and 341 bushels per acre for these same two 

treatments, respectively. The check plots of Delus produced 438 bushels per 

acre. Unfortunately, the variation within blocks was such that significance 

could not be established at the 5%level. It is suspected, however, that the 

lowest average yields obtained from the combined application of trietazine at 

layby and vine-down is in part due to the heavy application of this herbicide. 

Whentubers of the, Kennebecvariety were dug in ~9ust for trietazine analysi~, 

smaller potatoes than in the check plots were found. ~ext season it is 

planned to' harvest potatoes at several periods to see whether the post-hilling 

spray retards tuber development. 

The weed stand was rather light. Proper CUltivation in June produced a 

nearly weedfree area. Ladysthumb(Polygonvmgersicaria) and some of the 

annual millets were present. '" 

The data in table 3 show that granular falone, alanap, zytron, eptam, 

dalapon, and amiben were effective in reducing the stand of annual grasses. 

Falone spray and trietazine spray were also effective. 

Repeating'the application of falone or trietazine at vine-down was no more 

effective than the post-h~lling treatment alone. The repeat application of

Table 3. Post-hilling weed control experiments with Kennebec and Delus potatoes 

(R.I. 1961). 

Active toxicant 

Ib/A U.S. #1 Weedrating* 

Vines BulA Ladys- Annual 

Material Layby down Kennebec Delus thumb 9/26/61 grasses 

Falone 4 631 481 7.2 9.3 

Falone 4 4 629 440 8.1 9.5 

Falone (gran. ) 4 554 421 7.7 :9.0 

Falone (gran.) 4 4 514 406 7.4 9.1 

Alanap (gran.) 4 458 391 6.0 9.0 

Dalapon (gran.) 5 505 428 5.8 8.5 

Zytron 5 598 445 5.0 8.6 

Zytron 8 589 416 5.3 8.6 

Zytron (gran.) 8 621 461 5.6 9.1 

Eptam (gran.) 5 571 445 6.6 8.7 

Eptam (gran.) 5 4 550 428 9.0 9.6 

Trietazine 3 506 405 9.0 9.2 

Trietazine 3 2 500 341 9.4 9.5 

Amiben (gran.) 5 593 465 8.6 9.5 

No chemical** 590 438 6.3 7.8 

*low numbers = poor control, 10 = no weeds **regular cultivation 

eptam seemed somewhat more effective in reducing the stand of ladysthumb. Where 

eptam was used at post-hilling and vine-down the plots were nearly free of this 

pest. 

Falone retarded the growth of ladysthumb while the other "grass" herbicides 

did not materially effect it. Trietazine prevents the development of this weed 

rather well. 

Summary 

The grass herbicides, such as falone or alanap at 4 Ib/A, eptam, dalapon 

or alanap at 5 Ib/A and zytron at 8 Ib/A reduced the stands of grasses without 

altering the yields of U.S. #1 potatoes. Dalapon and zytron at 5 Ib/A did not 

appear quite as effective as the others during 1961. Repeat applications of 

falone or trietazine at vine-down did not increase the effectiveness this year. 

A repeat application of granular eptam was more effective than one application. 

Trietazine is an effective herbicide for annual weeds. Its effect on the rate 

of development of potato tubers needs further· investigation. 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Bell, R. S. and Erling Larssen. 1960. Pre-emergent and post-hilling weed 

control tests with Katahdin potatoes, 1958-59. NEWCC, pp. 201-206. 

2. Ilnicki, R. D., J. C. Campbell, T. T. Tisdell and H. A. Collins. 1961. 

Progress report on lay-by weed control in potatoes. NEWCC, p. 55. 

3. Trevett, M. F., H. J. Murphyand Wm.Gardner. 1960. NEWCC, pp. 207-213. 

171

172 

Appendix 

Alanap NaugatuCk.~a(.,sodil.JDl N-l_naphthyl:phthalamate 

AmiPen(gran.) ·...Amqhem l~ 3-amino-2,!)-di~orcbenzoic acid on 24-48 

.attaclay 

Casoron Niagara ~~ 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile 

Casoron (gran.) Niagara 4%2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile 

Dalapon (gran.) Dow '1~ salt of sodil.JJl1,2-dichloropropionic: 

Dalapon Dow8~ salt of sodil.JJl12,2-dichloropropionic 

DNBP Dow '3 lb Igal. alkalarnine salt 4,6-dinitro-,Q" 

~ec-butyl phenOl 

Eptam,(gran. ) 

Falone 

Falone (gran.) 

Ipazine 

Prometryne 

Trietazine 

Zytron 

Zytron '(gran.) 

Stauffer 

Naugatuck 

Naugatuck 

Geigy 

Geigy 

Geigy 

Dow 

Dow 

,5% ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbarnate 

, .~ Ib 1981. tris.(2.4-dichlorophenoxyethyl 

phosphite) , 

1~tris-(2,4-dichlo1'Ophenoxyethyl 

Atrametryne Geigy 2~ethylamino-4-isopropylarnino-6-methylmercapto-£-triazine 

2!)%2-chloro-4-(diethylarnino)-6-(isopropylamino)-A-triazine 

2,4-bis 

triazine 

2-chloro-4-(ethylarnino)-6-(diethylamino)-£triazine 

2 lb Igal. O-(2,4-dlchlorophenyl) O-methyl 

isopropyl phosphoramiQothioate ' 

25%O-(2,4-dichloropHenyl) 

phosphorarnidothioate' 

phosphite) 

(isopropylamino)-6-methymercapto-2~ 

O-methyl isoprOP~l

~/Pe.nt>:r lITn. h.7(L T1o:oTl.,:r+.m .. n+. nt' V.. a,,+ ..,hl .. ("",rona ("ro",n .. ll TTn'hr .. ",,,i+.v T+.h .. ".. IILV_ 

CHEMICAIBFORWEEDINGrorJlM&i!.J 

ON MUCKANDUPLANDSOILS 

173 

, R. D.Sweet, J.e. Cialone, R. HliIorgan 

Department of Vegetable Crops,COrneil UlI.iversity 

Potatoes are one of the leading inter-tilled crops of the Northeastern 

United States. New York is second to Maine in total production. Although the 

most concentrated area of production in NewYork is on Long Island, significant 

concentrations of production exist in several upstate areas so that in total 

there is about the same acreage, currently 44,000, in each region. - 

Generally speaking, the Upstate regions have shorter spring and fall 

. seasons than Long Island. Consequently, the crop is in the ground for only 

three or four months as compared to four to six months 'on Long Island. 

Furthermore, weeds such as annual grasses and nutgrass which germinate and grow 

Vigorously only at warm temperatures start fairly soon 'after planting in 

Ups1,;ate areas, but ~ not start for one or two months after planting on Long 

Island. Upstate the potato plant especially on muck grows fairly rapidly and 

is likely to provide heavy shade early in the season and continue to prOVide 

shade until Just prior to harvest. In contrast, Long Island potatoes start 

slOWly and, in addition, are often left in the field a month or two after the 

.foliage has been drastically reduced in vigor. 

The purpose of these tests was (A) to investigate under Upstate field conditions 

the relative merits of selective herbicides which have been previously 

reported satisfactory and (B) to evaluate new chemicals for their potent1ai as 

selective herbicides. ' 

Field Testing of Herbicides 

COllllllercial fields at two locations, one muck and the other gravelly loam 

were chosen as sites for testing the relative merits of several herbicidal" 

which had been reported as selective and effective in potato weed control., At 

both 10catiotlS treatments were made pre-emergence Imd early post-emergence. In 

the pre-emergence treatments, no eultivatiml was given except at hilling. The 

other plots were cultivated normally. Post-emergence application was made a week 

prior to "lay-by" on the muck, but on the mineral soil 'treating was actU8illy at 

lay-by as far as the plots were concerned ewen though the crop was only 1 -' 4 

inches tall. On muck, however, the plants were knee-high anda1lllost-'touoli1ng 

bet_eli rows. The crop was planted on mineral so11 about May 22 and treated 

June 1 at).d June 15. The muck crop was planted May " and treated May 24 and 

June 28. There vere four replications with individual plots 3 x 15 feet pl.anted 

to one row of crop. 

Results of the pre-emergence applications on bOth soils are presented in 

table 1. It can be seen from these data that muck so11 greatly reduced the 

relative herbicidal effectiveness of several compounds. namely. Hercules 8043, 

Dacthal) Zytron.and RobInand ~ F-34. Moderate eduction in herbicidal 

effectiveness was noted for T1llam, Hercules 7531 and Dinitro granular and 

liquid. Trietazine was inconsistent. On the other hand, CDEC+CDAAwas more

174 

!a~l!. !.._ ~io_~_W!.~J~'i!'1J!'!.s_t!? IN.:.~~e_h!,r~i~i~e!.. _ 

-.'Wfti~~itlngs!l 

Crop Yields 

Muck . -"v - Mineral Muck M1iiereJ. 

Qh!.lIl!c!l__ !!.b!'__ !.~._ JJ~!.8 !-!!:o__ O!:~__ .;._ ~u~ bJ!.__ 

Amiben 4 7.9 7.7 5.2 7.7 541 330 

EP.l'C 6 6.5 '7.0 7.7 7.0 580 439 

TUlam 6 ,.0 ,.0 7.5 7.0 530 340 

Here. 7175 3 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.0 360 150 

7531 4 5.5 5.5 6.7 7.7: ' 537 387 

" " 8 6.6 6.3 8.5 8.2 

'·386 

1/ 

8043 5 2.2 3.0 7.7 6.0 ~~~2I 42S 

CIlEC+CDAA4+4 8.2 7.7 6.5 6.0.::- 565 334- 

DB . gran. 5 4.2 6.3 8.2 6.5 678 360 

DN+Dal 5+7·5 7.6 7.0· 8.2 7·0, 590 420 

Trietazine 4 4.5 7.6 8.5 . 6.2- 582 384- 

Dacthal 10 4.5 4.7 6.5 6.2 602 340 

Zy'tron 10 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.7 u.Y 350 

R&H F;'34 6 3.0 3.0 6.0 3·7 

___21 

DN liq. 5 5.2 6.0 7.7 6.2 540 361 

Check - 1.2 2.0.. 2.7 2.0, 534 356 

~ ~b:q~:r:,-s~:'~~,-b:r~~ .; ~~~~.- - ~'~.-- 

& 9-eOJDP,l.eteC9ntrol; 7-eolJlllllt1"ciaJ. contrOl j 5-uucceptable' control ;3i11J1OOr 

~ control;labeavy rank weed growth. 

b._Yields, DOttaken, b,ecause of poor early- 1lElX'fprmuce • 

effective on muck than on m1DereJ.sOlls. In taetrth$s treatment vas ~ 

outstanding for both broadleaf and grass control OIl muck soU. 

Potato resppnse was generaJ.ly favoraple. The only significant reduction' 

~ from Hercules 7175• This compoundhad previously shownpromise on m1nereJ. 

8011s 'uDderconditions of loy raiDtall.-, ,. 

In the ppst-emergence tests. ,few cbanses ... t~made in chemicals and 

rates used. CIlEC+CDAA granularalld Falone ~..wreadded onlil1ner&l~ 

soU~ ",.Zy'tron, F-34, and B..-e043vere el:lm1.Dlrtedhom1;hemuck test becaaH of 

poor performance pre-emergende. 

'/'L';:-- 

398

In table 2 are presettted weed a*1' C%'Opresponses'topOm:-emergence appll. 

cations. ODeoft!le 1IIOB'tII'tr1ld.rlg''WlIIed:-~1't'e occur1'edon mila. Here, no 

weeds developed after la:y'ooby. This ,vas undoubtedly due to the rapid heavy' , 

foliage growth of the pota1ioes plU& ,the relatively e81'!tbarvest.The ~-,!'at. 

ings which are in the table were taken approximately six weeks follow1ng trdtiDg. 

Ratings taken at harvest are not presented in the table, but were practicall,y " 

identical. This indicates that ear1:Ychemical' aet1vitt plus crop shading can 

give sufficient control of weeds under Upstate condit1oDs. 

~a'e..l~ ~',.. ~~a~o,..&rii_WfJ..~ ::.e2Jl2.nr:i~!.t:.e!!!::.~C!. !!,e::.b!.c!:.d!s.:. 

____ 

WeedRat ' , ,,' Cr2;P Yield 

MuCk'::"- - Mineral "MuCk 

Chemical Lbs. B.L:--Grasa B.L. Grass " 'Bii': 

- - Mineral 

iiU•. - 

--------------------------~~,-,~----------~ 

Am1ben 4 No weeda2J 7.2 7.2 536 424 

EPl'C 6 " 7.2 7.7 '..21 ...£J 

Ti1l8lll 6 " 7.0 7.2 526 360 ," 

Herc. 7175 3 " 8.7 9.0 ' 195 9j 

93 

" 7531 4 " 7.5 8.5 3879: 423 

" " 8 7.5 9.0 390 

Falone gran. 4 6.0 5·7 390 

CDEC+CDAA 4+4 " 7.0 6.5 454 ,422 

DN ~. 5 " 8.5 7.5 658 405 

DN+Dal. 5+7.5 " 8.7 7.7 406 39; 

Tr1etzaine 4 " 7.7 6.7 401 450 

Dacthal 10 " 7.0 7.2 615 392 

Zytron 10 4.0 5.2 317 

R&HF-34 6 7.0 7.5 404 

CDEC+CDAA 4+4 6.7 7.0 447 

(gran.) 

!C~ c~!. :. 2·1 5.:.5__ :.. _ 23~ 32 6 _ 

r QClt 

9/3ee table 1 for species. 

!/9=eomplete control; 7-eommercial control; 5-l1nSccept&ble control; 3- poor 

control; l-J:leavy rank growth. 

~Thorough tillage plus rank top growth prevented subsequent weed developnent. 

£tParts of these plots were harvested at 3 intervals for'residue ~seslhence 

A ,accurate yields are I1nSvailable. 

~ 6 lbs. instead of 4 lbs. of 8043. 

, , 

r __ 

175

176 

There was less difference betwen chemicals on m1neral soils as compared to 

those obtained on muck. Almost all e,bem1cals gave adequate weed control. 

However, Falone at 4 lbs. and Zytro~ &1; 10 1bs., were :l.nf'erior. CDEC+CDAA 'WaS 

only borderline in effectiveness. This is in contras't)"to its excellent per .. 

formance on muck. ',); 

The crop waS.not seriously redu~e~ by 8lJY chemica.). except Hercules 7175. 

Experiments to Evaluate New Chemicals 

In 1961 two tests were conducted With potatoes a:Bll attemtt to evaluate 

crop and weed response to new chemical.. One of these was located in stolJY 

silt loam and. the otl;ler on muck. li:achpl.ot was 3 x 15'1'eet and 1iIBS repJ.icated 

twice. All treatments were made shOrtly after planting. Chemicals known to 

require incorporation 'were hand r$ked. 

Potatoe~ responded favorably to almost all chemicals. Two exceptions 'Ilere 

Hercules 7175 and Rand.oxT both of which injured the crop. The weed population 

was limited pr1mariJ.y to redroot on the mineral soil. Many compounds were active 

against this pest. The muck test was heavily infested with perennial or swamp 

smart weed, P01ygonum coccineum. No chemical provided any control. 

A sl.l!llll18rYof redroot response to the various chemicals is presented in 

table 3. 

Table 3. A summary of redroot response to chemicals applied pre-emergence in 

- - - - - P.Oiai'~~cePtib1e - - - . - - - - - - - - - fi,ferant - - - - - - - - - 

Chemical - - - - - - Lbs. 

nafapon - - - - - - - ~ - - 5+fo- 

Chemical - - - - Lbs. 

- - - - -AJich'em5"1:"8f - - - - - -2+4- - - - - 

DN 3+ 5 Diphenamid 4 

Amchem61-122 4+8 Bayer, 35850 2 

Amiben 3+4 Hercules 7531 2 

Dacthal 8-1-12 Monsanto 17029 2+4 

Zytron 8-1-12 EPI'C gran. 3 

Diphenamid 8 Til1am 3 

Trifluralin 4+ 8 Stauffer 1607 3+6 

Dipropal1n 4+ 8 II 1870 3+6 

Bayer 30056 2+ 4 " 

Bayer 35850 4 II 

2007 

1856 

3+6 

3+6 

Du Pont 326 1+ 2 tI 3400 5+10 

Geigy 27901 2+ 4 " 3415 5+10 

II 30031 2+ 4 

II 34161 2+ 4 

II 34361 2+ 4 

Hercules 7175* 2+ 4 

" 7531 4 

EPl'C 6 

Til1em 6 

stauffer 3408 5+10 

Randox T* 4+ 

-------------------- 

6 

--------- ---_.----- 

*'roxic to potatoesj all others relatively 

safe for pre-emergence applications. 

J

Since rec1root is only one of the IIIaJlYweed species Pr"ent in potato f1e1ds~ the 

results are not particularly" de:f1n1t1ve. If, however~ redroot is the principal 

pest, certain chemicals can either be el1m1ntted or tried at much higher rates. 

The principal value of the data is to point out that for pre-emergence use, the 

research worker has a Wide lattitude in choosing chemicals whic probaly will 

not be toxic to potatoes. 

Judging from the weed results obtained with theee compounds in other teets, 

the authore Suggelilt that particular attention be paid to the following new 

compounds: DipheJ:l8m1d,TrifluraliD~ Du Pont 326 and Hercules 7531. 

Summary~ COnclusions 

177 

Two ex;per1ments wel'$ conducted • the effectivElQ4!Ss and safety of preand 

post-emergence applications of several herbicides, on potatoes.. One 'test was 

on muck~ the other on graveely" 108lIl.. Two tests were .conducted to evaluate new 

chemicals as to their· potential tor selective weeding of potatoes. One of these 

was conducted on muck and one on m1neral soil. 

1. Muck soils· gre$tly reduced the herbic1.dal effectiveness ot Herct,Uee 8043, 

Dacthal, Zytron, and HolD and Haas 11'-34. On the otb$r band CDEC+CDAA activity 

was much improved on muck as compared to that obtained on mineral so11. . 

2. In contrast to previous work by the authors Hercules 7175 was toxic to 

potatoes. 

3. Both chemicals and crop shading markedly influence weed populations at 

harvest. 

4. NO chemical was tound to be toxic to swampor perennial smartlll!led, 

Polygonum cocc1neum. 

5. A large number ot distinctly different chemicals are safe for preemergence 

and post -emergence use on potatoes. 

6. Of the newer chemicals, Diphenam1d~ Triflural1n, Du Pont 326, and 

Hercules 7531 are especially outstanding for pre-emersence use. It is not known 

how potatoes wUl react to Du Pont 326 and Trifluralin it they are used 

post -emergence.

178 

LAUY CHliY4!OAL WEEDCONl'ROLINJlOrATOESWI'1'H~.·FORMUUTIONS OF .' 

. CDM, D~,':4ND or~ cHlj~c;~ . 

.AriblkHalddnel;;;:f L 

~," 

GnnuJar formuJations of CDM, Dalapon and other ohemicals were applied 

a.fter the final oultivation in s~-4l fielQ80t Ka~ potatdeSwheN ~ 

grU8'~..b&rnl&:t'd~a88was expected. and occurred l4W.. A Gam;,'granuJ.6,tt'; 

ohemical appliCa:tor was used to. &PIWthemater1a1eln'moet 

of the tests:. ' . 

Materht s ADaMethods' ", 

. ,. J 

GranuJar f'OrmuJations conta~5 to 20%acti'Qcoh~..]a were appllM 

within a fewhOUl'li to ..one ·~af"ter f",irial cultivatiol1f,ot Kat4hdin potatoe,:; 111 

several oOlllDercial ti~ during the period JuiT6 to;A'uq ).5.' :' 

C~isons of rates of CDM (~doJt) were maderlth hand-spread appll~tion 

on plots:3 rows wide x 16 fe~ 10ngl repl1oated.) t.sateach of two. 

locati~. Inother"teets granules of COM, D.alapon~4 other ohemicale wl'e 

br~ w11;h' a Gtmd:r. Lo-Hi 8-toqtgran~r chemic~ /ij?pllc"tOl' in plots " 

8 teet x ~ t6 80 te.1S'I: long. The treatments were repllcated 2 to 4 tmes at 

each-location. The gravit;r-teedtype machine was c~.tedat the fie1d speed 

used, 4 MPH,before entering the fields. Provision Wasmade to brush granuJAle'. 

ott the plants. See details in previous article, Use of' Granular Chemical 

Applicator tot' IqbY' WeedControl.in Potatoes.!C) 

In meet instances the sUt loam to fins sandy loam soils were moist at the 

time the granulee were applied; in ,all cases nea.r],y ~!nch of rain occ~' 

within three day! afterappllcatiori. Nearly three iriChes of raj,n occurred ,"~ 

most of the locations during the period August 22-24; this reduced f'es1dual ' 

effect of some cnemicals especiallr at locations witl:1:,~er soils. 

Results iJIWDiscussions !"\. 

!!U! s::CDAA.:In colllf.&risonS'Qt CDM (Ranck:i:ij-'i~'12, :3,and 4\lbs. P.":i 

acre at several J.ocat1ona,the:3 Ib~rate provided goOd"to very good cont1'OJ" 

of' crabgrass during the earlY' part of' the "season at all locations. Follilwing 

the heavy' rainfall August 22-24, the 4 lb. rate was superior to the :3 lb. rate 

for crabsrass control in most of the tests. Where a btavy popuh.tion of crabgrass 

was controlled with :3 and 4 lbs. of Randox per acre and potatoes were not 

killed bY'a freeze until Jate in the season, imreases of 20 to 25% in yield 

'~f potatoes were obtained over adjoining untreated plots, Table 1. 

Control of b~rd grass with CDAAvaried with locations. Under the mozoe 

'moist soil conditions at Fann D, 60 to 75%control of barnyard grass was obtained 

1/ Agronomist and Potato Specialist, UniversitY' of Connecticut, St6rrs, Connecticut. 

The author acknowledges the excellent assistance of H. C. Yokum, 

former4" Research Assistant, in installing these tests.

w.l.th 3 and 4 Ibs. ot Randox per acre respectively, wb-1J.e 85 to 95%control 

was obtained at Far:m.S. Increasecl yields otpotatoe. were obtained with 

contrOl'dt ba~d grass and some :1alDQsquarlercontro-l at location 8, 

Table? 

179 

Table :I.- Eftect or Granular Fonn~tlons ot COM, and. Daiapon Applied at 

. ~ on Control ot Hig.h Popu.la.t1on of Crabsre.ss and on Yield or 

Katahdin Potatoes - F&1lIlG - Connecticut 1961 

.CrabFaelS Control 

Active Rate ...L21Ch~ 

Yield 1/ 

%of Chegk 

CDAA 20G 

(Randox) 

it lbe/A sAO =722 

3 

4 

95 

100 

85 

95 

121 

125 

Dalapon lOG 4 (All 70 ?/ 

5 wilted) 95 l24 

, t 

1/ Yield, on s:1ng~ plots 2 rows x 50 feet, in percent ot adjoining check. 

2/ Adjoining checkcl&Iaged by spray tracks. . 

~ 2! DalapotH In a field with a heavy popuJation or crabgrass the use 

or Dalapon at 5 lbs."per acre resulted in nearly 95%csbntrol"and was far' 

superior to the 4 lb. rate. Control or crabgrassw.l.th 5 lbs. Dalapon resulted . 

in a 24%irorease in yields of potatoes over yields on untreated plots, Table 1. 

The crabgrass tleedlings on treated plots grew 3 to 4 inches in height befar~ 

death occu1'!'ed. ,,' 

Moderate control or barnyard grass was obtained with Dalapon at 4 and 

5 lbe. per acre and resulted in ihorea8ed yield of potatoes at two locatione 

where this grass was the JI':l.maryproblem, Table 2. 

Table 2 - Effect or GranuJar "Formulations of CDAAand Dalapon Applied at 

La,y-by to Potatoes, on J3a~rd Grass and Ytit-ld8 of Katahdin 

Potatoes, Connect1cut - 1961 

Farm D 

Farm S 

CDAA 20G 

(Randox) 

Dalapon lOG 

Active Rate 

)bs/A 

Barnyard Yield 1/ Barnyard Yield 1/ 

Grass % ot· Grass % at 

Control Check: Control Check 

9/22 9/22 

% % % 

3 60 2/ . 85 

4 75 2; 95 

4 

5 

50 1123/ 70 

75 99 4! SO 

% 

III 

21 

1284;1 

107 5 

1/ Yield, 2 rows x 50 feet, in percent of yield of adjoin:ing check. 

\....... 2/ No adjoining check for cOlllJ:'B-rison 

3/ Average of 3 comparisons 4/ single comparisons 5/ average 2 comparisons

1i! 

l~ 

, .' . . " 

ot!!tf~l!hem1.cals: Falone at 4 !bs. per acre ~ good earl)' control'. P'1 '., 

grasses and bro&!heated weeds 8;ta1lloca~ions. Pc)1,1~ heav .rains,~,t; 

22-24, thill rat.e was not auf'ficient in 80IIIe cases. " . .- 

. . ". ~ 

Zytron at 7.; lbs. per aore looked pranisingtor crabgrass control earl¥ ' ' 

in the season but this rate was not suffioient later~' . GOodcontrol of 'crhh':' 

grass was obtained with 10 and 15 lb. rates in 1960~ . 

Tested at one looation, granular formUlations .~ Eptam and Stautter R-1607 

applied at 4lbs. aotive pera,oJ;'lJ-&a'" 1Ocx1and vel'tSOod control respe9tlvely~ 

ot grasses when the granules werll cultivated int.o.tbe IOU soon (20m:l.nuteeJ-· 

atter application. Control was not as 100d where cultivation occurred1::letore 

rather than atter application. Fairly goOd control ot lambsquarter and'~ed 

was obtaine4. v., /.' 

a coU:~'W:/~=~ie~p~:t~~:rw~: rt~cnUtt~i: ~~a~th 

d 

potatoes at several location6j rates ot CDAA(Randcae)were also compare 

small plots at tllO locationa • 

. Better orabarus and be.i'n:Ja1'dgrass oontrol ... ··obt&:!nedwith 4 Jha. ODAA 

per ac;l'e than with t.he3 lbe. rat. in IIIC8toases, tol.1ow1ng leachins oo~Dne . 

~ Auguat. .. . . 

Dalapon at ; lbe. active per acre gave cona:ft1erably better control ot 

crabgrass and bari:G'Vd grass than the 4 lb. rate. 

Falone at4 lba. per acre sav.-·sood control ot. sruMa and broacllAt,ed 

weeds early in the sea60n but th1a rate .wasnot ntftc1ent 11Mer conUtiollls' 

favorable for leaching. 

Eptam.aM. stautter

181 

CONTROLOF ANNUALWEEDSIN pOTATOES 

M.F. Trevett, H.J. MUl'phy, and Robert Littlefield Y 

Introdulllt 

ion 

This paper is a report on the effectiveness of the herbicides 

listed in Table 1 on the control of annual broadleaf weeds and 

annual grasses in potatoes. Comparisons were made between herbicides 

applied singly, Block II,and between various combinations 

of herbicides, Block· I. Com1:lination treatments were applied to. 

dete~mine the likelihood of aomplementaryactibn that would either 

increa.se percent total weed oontrol or lengthen the period of 

effective weed oontrol. . 

Procedure 

Two blocks of Katahdin potatoes were planted in a sandy lQ8m 

soil in late May, 1961. Block I was planted 22 May, Block II was 

:planted 26 May. .Seed pieces were spaced 12 inches apart in ro~s 

42 inches apart. "Planting" treatments were applied 24 May in 

Block I and 29 May in Block II, two and three days after planting. 

Emergence treatments were applied when about 5%of the plants had 

emerged: 12 June in Block I, ahd 13 June in Bloo,k II. 

Treatments were replicated six times in randomized blocks .of 

single row plots paired with untreated plots. Herbicides were 

applied with one pass of a small plot spraye.r at 40 pounds pressure 

and 50 gallons per acre volume. Potatoeswel'e hilled three times. 

The final hill was 24 inches wide at the base, 10 inches high, and 

6 inches wide at the top. . 

The principal broadleatweeds were: Wild Rutabaga (Brassic, 

rapa Li), Red-root Pigweed (Amaranthus l'etrotlexusL.), Lambsquarters 

Pigweed (ChenopodiUll1 album t.), Ragwe,ed {Ambrosia 

artem1s11!gUj. L. h andsmal'tweed (POlY~OaUll! pensYlvanicum L.). 

The annua! gl'asses pl'esent we.re: Barny-ar Grass· (EOhlnochloa Cl'USgatp 

L.) and Foxtail (Seteria viridis L.). 'Weed counts and~ 

ra ngs were made- approximately twelve weeks atte.r treatments. 

11 Associate Agronomists, and Technical Assistant, respectively, 

Agronomy Dep8r~ent, Maine Agl'icultural Experiment Station, 

Univel'sity of Maine, Orono, Maine.

182 

Beoause o£ spaoe Um1t8~lons in this ,eper,signifioanoe 

arrays derived £rom Duncan f s Multiple Range Test are not given tOI' 

annual weed contr01. Annual grass pontl'ol,. hc*ever ,was estimated 

by number ot plants survivirig tl'eatment in quadrats, 6 inohes wide 

and 25 £eet long. For stat~Jtioal analysis, number of plant. pe:r 

quadrat were converted to\{i + .0; • For statistioal analys18, pe~ 

oent annual broadleat wee~ contl'ol was oonverted to angles. 

Signif1oanoe was determined at the 5% level. 

Results 

",' ," 

In both blocks, y1eld was related more '~l.Q•• lyto broadle,ill' 

weed oontrol than to annual .ar~8S oontrol: thehighe.r the pe.rc;4Itit 

b.roa'dleaf weec:!,oont.rol, the.l1I1gber they1eld. ~1eldwasnot olosely 

related to annual g.rass contriol beoause o£ 10K ~otentialstand:r 

compared to the .relativel y high potential stand ot annual b.roadlear 

weeds: oheok plots ave.raged 2.6 annual g.ras8 plants pel' 

squar-e foot in Blook I and 2.8 pe.r squal'e toot in Blook II, oompared 

to 30.5 annual b.roadleaf weeds in Blook I and 15.7 per square toot 

in Block II. 

Although a oomparison between plantins, appl1cationand en:uwgenoe 

appl1cationwa8 not intended tn. the exper1.Da.... Ldesign of thee. 

blocks, in Block I all emergence treatmentsoutylelded 'planting 

treatments, 'Pable2. The hi.gh8.ryield toll:Qtdrngeme.rgenoe tl'eitmente 

is related t.o .peroent b.roadleat weedccmtl"olt all emer.8ert,oe 

treatments gave highe.r peroent control than all planting treabm~t8. 

Beoause all combinatiOns o£ herbicides were not app11ed at botp 

plant1ng .and eme.rgenoe, 1t is not poss1ble t:C1oonolusivelY asoel'tain 

whether the cl1tfel'ences in weed control resulted £.rom oharactel':h- . 

tics o£ the herbicides or resulted £.rom d1tt.:renoes 1nrain£al1' 

£ollowing applioat1on: 3.29ino,bes of rdn .t_llduring the firsti 

four 'days after the planting application, O.S() inChes tell dUI'1b$ 

the first tour days atte.r the emergence appl1paUon. Detil t:rOIll'! 

Block II, howeve.r, indioate that part of the ditte.rence, at lea~t, 

was due to rainfa.11. The planting appl10atiCllI .1nBlook II wel"i 

made 29 May,. 19.611 Sf.ter the. he.av y. 1.'8.inS .. fOl.lL.'.O. wing B.100k· I aP. 

tions. p110a-. 

In Block J:t:wnere coMparisons betweencplanttng and emei'genoe 

appl10at ion otthe. same herb1ci"e can be mad.. , ,incont.rut toSlook . 

I, nelthel' yleld no~percent. bro.dleaf weed dentrol i •• ssoolabed 

withtirile of appl;1ce'Uon. T.1l:1S ... oonclusicn _PJlUes torylelds 'bO-.' 

6 and 9 pounds ~i~gal'e 5778, ;Land·,4pounds.Q! Atl'ametl"yne, aria4 

pounds P.rometryne, . and tor percent bl"oadleat weed oontrol, 

to 3, 6, and 9 pounds o£ Niega.ra 5778, 2 and 4.»Qunds of At.rametDJDe, 

and 4 pounds ot P.rometryne. 

, . ',.,' .'.;; t '. 

No single herbicIde o.r oombination ot h~191de. in eithe,r" ' 

Block I or Blook II gave signif10antly h1gber"potato "ields 01." give 

signitioantly highe.r b.roadleat weed control than the standard 

treatment ot 4.5 pounds DNBP.

The following comments on the various,hel'bicides are based 

on observations made in 1961 and in previous years: 

ATRAMETRYNE ANDPROMETRYNE:appeal" to cont.rol annual grasses 

better than tl'letlzine; may be 'less effective on 

ragweed than DNBPJin the absenoe of leaching rains 

may be applied either at planting 01" at emergence, 

and at a 2-4 pound rate may be ueffe~tive as DNBP 

on annual broedlea: weeds and mol". effeotive tha~ 

DNBPon annual grasses, 

CASORON: 

DALAPON: 

one pound pel" aCre does not etreotively control annual 

weeds; 2 and 4 poUnds in p'l"eviob.s years has signifioantly 

reduced yield. ~ 

DIPHENAMID: more effective on annual grasse$ than DNBP, but at 2 

and 4 pound rates is less eftectiv$ on annual broadleat 

weeds; requires reintorceml!lnt with other herbicides 

tor acceptable total annual weed control. 

, ; 

DIURON: applied alone, has not consisteritly given acceptable 

weed control: applied with DNBP,has frequently given 

a longer period of residual weed control than DNBP 

alone. The residual period was not lengthened in 

1961 tests. ' 

~: 

DUPONT~: 

in combination with DNBPhas usually increased annual 

grass control oyer DNBPalone; frequently the period 

ot residual weed control is unaooeptably short. 

peroent control ot annual broadleat weeds is not 

usually exceeded by other herbialdes but often has a 

short residual per fod of sa tist«ctory con trol: controls 

annual grasses about half as ett~ctively as it controls 

annual broadleat weeds; in heavy infestations of ann~al 

grasses, usually will not give aaequate control but 

usually has given more nearly satisfactory control than 

other selective herbicides. 

183 

FALONE: 

NIAGARA

184 

~: Solan has cOIltl'!?+lec1'annual: .b~p"dleaf weeds u 

eff.!)t1ve1y UJ?NBF,but hal ~~t, cons1stlently controlled 

annual grass better tlian ONBP; Solan has 

.been safely llP!i:lie4po.t-~lMlrl$l~e at a 6 pound nte; 

annual weed control 118s bnn· .... t1sfaotory follOWing 

post-emergeno~ IlPpllcation,U'",.eeds had not developed 

mGre than one or two true leaTe. and if .annual gras.es 

"Ilr. less than one-half inch ,tall •. 

, :.' ,.". ¥-

185 

S\:U!U!1fryand 

ConclWtlon 

No hel'blclde or COO1blll.'tlon of herblc.!des tested gave s1gnificantly 

higher yields of K.tahdin' potato •• than the stand8!"d 

treatment of 4.$ pounds DNSFper acre appo.i.ed at'emergenoe. 

Herbicides that did not diffeZ' s1gniUoantly in etfecton 

yIeld from 4.$ pounds DNBP included planting applications ot'3 

pounds Trietazine, 4 pounds Prometryne, 6 and 9 pounds Niagara 5778, 

4 pounds AtrametZ'yne and emeZ'gence application of 4 and 6 pounds 

Solan, 2 and 4 pounds Prometryne, 2, 3,4, '$ pounds Dupont lZ~, , , 

3,~6, 9 pounds Niagara $778, and 4 pounds A~!"ametryne. 

Combinations of her bIoi des that did ni5tCiHfer sigriitioiiDtly 

in effec t ,on yield from 4.$; pounds DNBP,inoluded emergenoe applioations 

ot m1xtUl'es of Duponlf')26 and' Frome'~!"tne or Diphena1l11d-or 

Atrametpyne or Zyt!"otl or Tll'1etazine, mi:lct~s, of DNBPand ,A,b-rjllI1etryne. 

or Zytron or Diphenall1id or Dalapon or Proll1etryne or 

Trietazine or DiUl'on, and mlxAiures Solen &I!ld'Diph41A#imidor Trlet$1" 

zine. 

Yields and annual wee,d pootrol tended\to be signifioantly lower 

when heavy rains fpllowed ,pplloation. 

Herbloidee giving slgnj,t~cantly lowe~:;a~ue.l broadleaf weed 

control than 4.$ pounds ])NBP'wp.en heavyrs~s' did npt follow applios 

tion inClllded, ,emergence ~PP1,".Lea tionOf, 4,po,~ds Falone and planting 

applioation of 1 pound Pllsoron, 2 and 't pounds Diphenall1id, and 

2 pounds Prom~tryne. Herbl~~des giving signifioantly lower annual 

broadleat weeQ.control whe~.nelivy rains followed applioation included 

plaritingapplica tionof 3 pounds FrPJ!l.etryne ,-a mixture Qf 8 

pounds NiagaI'a $778 and 10 pounds Zytron, ) pounds Atrametryne, 1 

pound Casoron. 8 pounds Niagara $778, 2 pounds Diphenamid, and 10 

'pounds Zytron. ---- ,--" . ' 

He rbioides giVing signifioantly highe!!, annual grass oootI'ol 

than 4.5 pounds DNBPwhen heavy rains did not follow applioation 

included planting appllcatiQq of 2 pounds ~ipb.enamid, 2 or 4 po~ds 

Prometryne, ,.~, and 4 pounds.'\t,Pametryne. -4,tJ1d 6 pounde Solan, ar..d 

2, 3, 4. and $ pounds Dupont 326. H~rbioi~@s giving sign1fi~,ntly 

higher annual grass contrbl than 4.5 pounds DNBPwhen heavy I'ains 

followedal?R+:lrcation included e,lI1~J:'genoesp.p.1-1(lat1on of 3 pounds 

Dupont 326,.l1liXtUl'es of Dupont 326 and A-:t"Ill8~l:'yne or Diphencdd 01' 

Prometryne ,o~ZytI'on or TI'iee~azine and amix,ture of DNBP and 

Atrametryne. ' , , " 

The most promising new ,herbioides tes~.d in 1961 are Dllpont 

326 for either planting or emeI'gence application and Solan for 

either emerg~oe or earlYP~l!I,t-emergenoe application.

186 

It is suggested( tblJ •. ttt4.2.kU'reql.lenoY'with whioh oombina tions 

of he~bioides oontrol annual weeds signiticantly better than the 

more etfeotive oomponent alone results trom tailure to oOllJbine' 

hM'bioidesth&t'8re: ~ompbll'um.rr orc' beoau8~f' &ne or the other 

oomponent maT:not1 have b'een a1bt>11eclat· appopil" time tor maximum 

etteot1vene~"8"iOitl beoause one or the componeM'8 giveaadequate" 

oontrol of both annual broadleat weeds and annual grasses -- , 

as sum1ng·that" ade~ua teco'ntlt:o~ omy not neo~ll.lr 11)' .a lwa tl mean., , 

100% oontro;l .. " '.c l ' .I'. ' "- 

. ","; :·~r.~ .1,:',; ,;')1 (' :';--; , .~'.• r. 

Table 1. Herbib1de8;Used.in lti:>t.s:toes. 

'-; \', l.~ . 

Atrametr~e ,;'" .,'~;:,:~;mero&pt~:-4:~'(eth:11Uli~~ ~Jl, SOP1"opYi.m1n0l:~· 

Ca-sQt'on: ;. '2.~lbh1ol'obeni'~itri1e,' !' :"j • r-v ; ' . , . 

Dalapon 2,2-dichloroprop10nic aoid .0' 

Diphenamid N,N-d1methy1-diphe~y1acetamide, ! 

D1uron ;.3".(3,4-dioh'lol-o)hetl'yl) "'l·.l"'d1m.t~U1'ea 

DNBP 4,6-dini tro-o-secoadal"Y butlyll'lieilel' , 

DUP"ont326 3.-.O.. ,4-diOh.l,O.r.o.,p, h.e,nYl)..-1-meth,01t Y-).-l!1ethY1W'ea 

Fa~one ' "t):'1&"(2,4-dich.1el'oph.en~~yetih"11~o~h1te . 

Niagara 5778( 4,6-d1ni tro-2-see-iObutylllhenyl acetate . .' . '..': 

PrOIlHttl'1Ue ,'2-;meth)'J.meroapt-o"4,6-b1S ( 1Boptt(1)7~a!il!.no) "1-tr1u1n~ 

S1mazin ' f2'-:-ohli:>l'o-4,6-M. s'h~htla~JnoJ ~8"til':lUil1~ ,..•. ,J, " . 

Solen " .. 11"O-\3hlol'o-4-llifiitHylphEln,1 )..~iilj,t~11-pen.tanamid.F '.. 

Tr1etazine'" ,2-Chlbl'O-4-d1ethtlammo-6-&t, ~t1~m.tnO"I-tl"~~Z1n.e ,':, ..•..; 

Zytron ;:~ ,:;1i~~~:~:~;?l'Oph~1l) ~~~met~tf,tl80P~OP!lPhOSPh~~,~... 

; '-:L(";' < .';. ~ \,i , 

.r.;h, , 

,.J 

,_ 

EM ==appl1edf,ab":elrJergenoe"PL = appl1$d'wtP-plant1n.g. : j 

Rank 011 ='iJsElntiallyo(Ulplete contro1,c1d.;f"!annual weeds; 

Rank 0/)·2'= l-owest contt"ol.' ' • " 

. . ~. " "-'.' ,.~ .-~ .~of. 

,.... I, 

Beoause, or'spaoeUm1tati6h.'a'1nthbp.,p~ S'ignit1cance aJ:ft:~l' 

187 

Table 2. Potato YIelds Following Application of Various 

Combina tions of' Herbicides, B100k I. 

Rank 

Annual Broadlear 

Acre rate of herbioide 

grass ,'weed 

(ao ti v~ ~edien~J,._.. ~__ ..!2.!:!~.2=.i!U.!~~_...'::.:::~~=--....J::.:=:':~:':' 

Bushels/aore control ',control 

4.5# DNBP 

EM 467.3a 

20 17 

4.5# DNBP+ 3# Atrametryne EM 463.8ab 

7 15 

3# Dupont 326 + 

3# Prometryne 

EM 437.0ab 

5 

1 

3# Dupont 326 + 

2# Diphenamid 80W 

EM 432.7ab 

6 

1 

4.5# DNBP+ 10# Zytron 

EM 425.5ab 

15 

1 

4.5# DNBP+ 

2# Diphenamid 80w 

EM 422.7ab 

1 

3# Dupont 326 

EM 422.$ab 

1 

3# Dupont 326 + 10# Zytron EM 421.7ab 

1 

4.5# DNBP+ 2.22# Dalapon EM 421.3ab 

1 

3# Dupont 326 + 

3# Trietazine EM 

4# Solan + 2# Diphenamid 80W EM 

3# Dupont 326 + 

3# A.tI'8metryne 

4.5# DNBP+ 3# Prometryne 

4# Solan + 3# Trietazine 

4.5# DNBP+ 3# Trietazine 

405# DNBP+ 0.6# Diuron 

4# Solan 

3# Trietazine + 

2# Diphenamid 80W 

3# Trietuine + 

3# Prometryne 

8# Niagara 5778 + 

2# Diphenamid 80w 

3# Trietazine + 1# Simazin 

3# Tr1etszine 

3# Tr1etszine + 

EM 

EM 

EM 

EM 

EM 

EM 

8# Niagara 5778 PL 

3# Tr1etazine + 10# Zytron PL 

3# Prometryne PL 

3# Atrametryne PL 

1# Casoron PL 

2# D1phenamid 80W PL 

8# NIagara 5778 PL 

8# Niagara 5778 + 10# Zytron PL 

10# Zytron PL 

Untreated 

414.8abo 

409.7abo 

409.2abo 

406.2abcd 

393,9abade 

385.5abcde 

377 .2abcde 

357.5abade.f 

PL 355.7 bade.f 

PL 310.8 

PL 296.8 

PL 295.8 

PL 263.3 

257.8 

255-3 

252.8 

229.8 

186.5 

170.5 

159.3 

149.3 

112.5 

73,8 

cde.fg 

de.fg 

e.fg 

.fgh 

.fgh 

.fgh 

.fgh 

ghi 

h1j 

hijk 

hijk 

ijkjkk 

l~ 

3 9 

2 

14 

1 

10 

17 8 

12 

18 

22 

24 

16 

29 

32 

31 

27 

23 

25 

28 

21 

26 

19 

30 

11 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 , ... 

16 

19 

22 

21 

20 

23 

18 

24 2$ 

~A 

30 

29 

26 

31 

32

188 

Table 3. Potato Yie1da Following Planting and Emel'genoe 

Applioations of Val'ipua Hel'bloldes,:B1ock II. 

Rank 

Annual Annual 

Acre l'ate of herblolde Bushels per sPa as bl'oad1eat' 

(aoUve ms£edlent) aore oontro1 weed eontl'ol 

6# Solan 1liM .512.7a 8 1 

2# Prometryne EM .503..5a 10 1 

3# Dupont 326 EM .500.7a 1 1 

6# Niagal'a .5778 8M 490 •.5a 18 1 

4.5# DNBP+ 2.22# Da1apon EM 489 •.5a 16 1 

4# Solan EM 48.5.)a 9 1 

3# Tl'letazlne PL 480.7a 22 1 

4# Atl'ametl'yrle EM 472.3ab 7 1 

3# Niagal'a 5778 EM ij67•.5abc 2.5 1 

4#Pl'ome tl'yne PL 464.6abc 13 17 

4# Dupont 326 EM ij61.8abc 

1 

4#~l'ome tl'yn e EM 461.5abc .~ 

1 

9# Nlagal'a .5778 PL 461.0abo 28 19 

i# Atl'ametl'1J1~ PIt 460.0abo 6 18 

#Nlagal'a 5178 PL 4.56.2abo 21 23 

5# Dupont 32 EM 4.51•.5abe 3 1 

2# Dupont 326J EM 'li50.8abe 2 1 

4 •.5# DNBP EM, .433..5abe . 27 1 

9# Niagal'a .5778 J!ltII !.j.27.0abo 14 1 

2# Atl'ametl'yn$ PL 413.7abed 19 22 

2# Atl'ametryne EM· 1j.12•.5abcd 11 1 

2# Prometryne . PL 377.7 bede 20 

4$ Dlphenamld .5OW PL 374. bode 17 

3 Niagara .5778 PL 370. A ode 30 20 

4# Dlphenamld-5OW PL .369.0 cde 12 25 

2# Dlphenamld.8OW PL ·.325.7 def 1.5 27 

Untreated 322.8 def 24 32 

i# Falone EM 318.8 der 33. 30 

# Falone EM 318•.5 der 26 21 

1# Guol'on PL . 309.7 ef 32 29 

2# Dlphenamld-5

Residue analysis of potatoes treated withtrietazine 

for weed control. l 

C. E. Olney, R."S. Bell and T. W. Kerr2 

The compoundtrietazine, 2-chlor0-4-diethylamino-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 

is a new herbicide being tested for the control of annual grasses and other 

weeds in potato fields. The present investigation was undertaken to determine 

whether measurable amounts of this herbicide would accumulate in potato tubers 

following applications in the field. 

The tubers analyzed were obtained from an experiment on herbicidal weed 

control reported by Bell et al (1) elsewhere in this journal. The potatoes 

were planted in late April, 1961 using four randomly replicated plots per 

treatment. While both the Delus and Kennebec varieties were exposed to the 

treatments, residue data were obtained from the latter variety only. The 

treatments and the amounts of trietazine (active ingredient) applied as sprays 

and the occasions when tuber samples were taken for residue analysis are presented 

in table 1. The pre-emergence treatment was made on May16, the posthilling 

on June 27, and the vines-down on August 15. Harvest of the potatoes 

was September 27 and 28. 

On each of the 4 sampling dates, 4 pounds of potatoes were obtained at 

random from each of the 4 replicates. These were then halved lengthwise and 

the halves diced into half-inch cubes, from which a representative 200 gram 

sample was taken. After homogenizing in a blender, each sample was tumbled 

with chloroform and filtered through anhydrous sodium SUlfate. The extracts 

were stored at 25Of. for future analysis. 

The analytical method was supplied by the Geigy Chemical Company(2). It 

is based m the conversion of trietazine to hydroxytrietazine by acid hydrolysis 

Table 1. Residues of trietazine in potato tubers following application in 

various treatments. Kingston, R.I. 1961. 

Treatment 

Active toxicant 

Pre-emergent 3 

Pre-emergent plus post-hilling 3 + 2 

Post-hilling 3 

Post-hilling plUS vines down 3 + 2 

and the determination of the latter by its 

line technique. 

Residue (p.p.m.) in tubers 

on dates indi,atedl 

189 

190 

POTATOVINE KILLING IN MAINE~' 1960 

H. J. Murp!+y and ,M. J. GOV;E!~ 

This paper isa progreasrf3port of pote,~o ;vine killing; 

studies made in Maine during the 1960 growil:lS l\I~aaon. Eva1uat1-on 

of harveated tubers waa made quring the 19Mi;61 atorage aeason. 

MATERIALSANDMETHODS: 

Five new chemicals whioh had been reported t.o be of some 

value for desiocation of crops other than pqi;atoes, and twost~n.. 

dard potato vine killing materials were teste~ at Arooatook state 

Farm, Presque Isle, Maine in 1960-61. ,The primary purpose of 

these trials was to determ:~ne the rate and the oompleteness of 

kill, and the possible effects on internal tuber quality. 

All materials were applied in 100 gallona of water per aore 

to green potato vines on the dates indicated in the various 

tables. 

Using the rating aystem given in Footnote 2 of Table 1, kill 

ra tinge were made at seven, and again a 1t fourteen days after 

matorials were applied. 

Triplicate samples of tubers were taken/lt harvest, from each 

of the six replicates for post-harvest studies. One set of samples 

was uged for residue analysis. The romaind.ng, samples were stor~d 

at 4S F. and ret SOoF. for examination duri!l$,thewinter months., 

Storage oxaminations consisted of snipp1!l8 the stem end from eaoh 

tuber and classifying each tuber as to peroent of vascular ring 

showing disooloration. From those ratings, weighted values were 

computed as reported in tables 1, 2, and 3. ~ 

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION: 

Table 1 and 2 indicate tho effoct of several desiccants on 

vines and tubers of the Katahdin and Kennoboc"potato varieties. 

Data in these tables indioate that all materials were of some 

value in killing potato vines. Methylated napthalene, howeve:t?, 

was not partioularly effeotive. Ammoniumthfoo¥anate and Reg16ne· 

(diquat). a.t all rates oaused oonsiderab1e intorhal tuber disooloration. 

Disooloration was more anvere with the Kennebeothan 

with the Ka~e.hdin variety, probably beoause of higher air and 

Associate Professor of Agronomy, University of Maine, Orono~ 

Maine and Teohnical Assistant in Agronomy, -Aroostook Stato 

Farm, Preaque Isle, Maine. - .1

soil temperatures at the time the materials were applied to the 

Kennebec vines. 

Table 3 shows the effect of several rates of sodium arsonite 

and of premerge on rate of k~ll and tuber discoloration. Rates 

of sodium arsenito above six pounds per acro, and Premerge at tho 

2 quart rate caused considerable internal disooloration. Same 

of this internal vascular discoloration is not caused specifioally 

and only by the chemioals tested but appears to be associated with 

death of tops, whethor doathl& brought abQut by chomioals, or 

mechanically by vino boaters, or even by drenohing with ice water. 

Of tho fivo new matorials tested in 196o-6~ Reglone, known 

commercially in the United S~ates a~ Diquat, and ammonium thiocyanate 

are ~rthy of f~thor testing. 

191

Table 1. Errect or Several Ch~cals Used ror Vine Killing on Katahdin Potatoes 

Aroostook Farm - 196o!1 

..... 

-.0 

~ 

Desiccant 

No treatment 

Sodium arsenite 

It 

\I 

Premerge 

Ammoniumthiocyanate 

Rate/acre 

8 Ibs.(AS203) 

It, 

2 qts. 

~ 

\I 

Activator 

Sodium silicate 

Ii gals. 

40z.Plyac 

5 gals. ruel 011- 

KilliA& 

ind~ 

4 3 

1 

3 

Tuber'~Ch1p 

diSColo::!70n 

ind . 

color,,} 

index.:tl 

0.3iji.E 

0.2 S.O 

0.0 

0.5 

4 oz. Plyac 2 . {).6 

3 oz. sulronated . .. 

activator 5 5.8 1.8 

Penta-Chlorophenol 2 Ibs. 5 gals. ruel oil 3 0.8 5.2 

Arsenic acid 2 pts. 4 oz. Plyac 3 0.0 5.0 

Methylated Napthalene 6 gals. 4 oz. Plyac 10.04.8 

Reglone (diquat) 2 Lbs , 4 oz. Pl;yac 5 6.0 6.3 

11 Materials applied August 30, 1960. 

51 Relative rating used ror vine killing. 

1. Poor kill or both stems and leaves. 

2. Most leaves killed but poor stem kill. 

3. All leaves killed and poor stell kill. 

4. All leaves killed and rair stem kill. 

5. Good kill or both leaves and stems. 

J! Discoloration readings made on January 25, 1961. 

y/ Read on N.P.C.l. Color Chart l=light: lO=dark. 

5.2 

5.2 

6.2 

l (

( 

( 

~able 2. Effect of Several Che~~cals Used for Vine Killing on Kennebec Potatoes _ 

Aroostook Farm - 196o!1 

Desiccant 

to trea merit 

lodium ar-aenf te 

II 

u 

II 

~onlum 

It 

" 

thiocyanate 

Rate/acre 

8 Lba , (AS203) 

8 1bs.(As203) 

8 Lbs , (As203) 

8 Ibs. (As203 ) 

~6 

5% 

7i'f, 

Activator 

Killi}W 

index.=t 

1 

5 

*gal. sodium 

silicate 5 

1 gal. sodium 

silicate 4 

It gals. sodium 

S11icate 

3 oz. sUlfonated 

4 

Tl.i1:>er 

color,,/ 

index.V inde~ 

0.0 4.6 

2.1 4.2 

discolorat~on 

1.6 

1.4 

2.9 

chip 

activator 523.9 5.8 

3 oz. sUlfona ted • . 


3 oz. sulfonated 


3 oz. sulfonated 

If 

10% 

, aotivator ~ 59.6 1.2 

~enta-Chlorophenol 2.1bS' GR-7 plus acetone .o'.a. ~.2:. 

n 2 Lbs , 5 gals. fuel oil 1.8.2 

u>se~c acid 2 pts. 3' 0.0 .7 

.. 3pts. .1.5 .• 2 

n 4 pts. 5 -4.3 -4.4 

~ethy\ated Naptha1ene i gals. 4 oz. ftlyac 1 - 0.5 ,h.ll 

gals. 2 0.5 4.0 

n gals. n ~ 0.5 u.o 

ieglone (diquat) 2 U>S;, 11 5 15.8 4.5 

n 4 1bs. " 5 23.7 4.4 

n 6 Ibs. " 5 30.2 4.4 

Materials applied August 23. 1960 in 90 gallons of water per acre. 

Kill ratings were made at 10 and 14 days after materials applied. 

Discoloration readings made on January 23. 1961. 

Read on N.P.C.l. Color- Chart l=ligl:lt: :to=de,rk. 

4.2 

4.5 

6.1 

t:; 

""

ab1e 3. Po~ato Vine Killing Discoloration Stud~es - Maine-1960 - Katahdin and Kennebec 

Varieties 

..... 

't! 

-- -~- - Df:scoloration Indexd 

Killil;l8 

,; 

Dealc()~~ 

,< 

Bate/acre Actiy_@..~~~ __ Jndex.o!{ Katahain Kennebec 

~o treatment - . -~ 1.0 0.0. 0.2 

sodium arsen! te 1 lb. (As~03) 4 oz. plyac ~.o 0.3, 0.3 . 

It 2 Ibs. ' ,".0 0.8 0.5 

" 3 Ibs. II " .0 1.2 . 0.8 

n h Ibs. II II 5.0 1.6 1.4, 

" 6 Lbs , 'II It 5.0 3.0,' 3.0 

l!' 81bs. '11 n· 5.0 16.2' 26.0 

It 10 lbs. II ~. " II 5.0 31.4'" 42.5' .: 

premerge 1 qt:. 5ga,l8.fuel oil ", ' • ", " • 

• 

Roto-beater 

Ice water 

Fuel oil. 

only 

2 qts. 

p1us 4 oz~ 

• II 

Plyao 5.0 

5.0 

6.2, 

15.0 

5.8 . 

16.2 

3.0 0"3' 0.$' 

100 gals. -- 3.0 0.5 0.8 

~ ga1~. ~_ __~ -- 4.0 0.5'____0.5' 

V A:verage of two dates ,,~, an~ ~d~ys flftet- $em1ca~s applied on August'~, 1960 •• ' 

?:I ~ighted average of au l'epl1c.tes of eaphvaJ,"hty or a "total of 360b i tubers. r; 

Examination of tubers made at two dates December 7, 1960 and January. 25, 1961. 

"(; 

'- . 

(. (

195 

PROBLEMSIN THEAPPLICATIONOF HERBICIDESBI SMALLSCALEUSERS 

Arthur 

Bini 

mrRODUCTION 

Applied h~r1:>icide researcn is carried out to 4fvelop newer and better 

methods that can be used by the cOllllllercial farmer and 'possibly the home 

owner to control weeds in his plantings. Chemical control of weeds in 

ornamental crops has been invest1g",ted for several years and IlIWly reports 

have been presented at this conference. These repo:r:t;s included data on 

the herbicidal activity of II1Bll¥cOD;lOundsand the tj)lerance of a wide 

variety of ornamental plants to thel>e com:pounds. Mijch of this information 

has been utUized in formulatilli useful and success:(1,Jl weed control practices. 

Usually growers, with the advice of their county agricultural agent or 

COllllllercial representative, try tb.e more promising wbicides on a small 

scale on their crops 'under their own specific condi1;ioIlS. Then, if the 

small scale treatments are encoU1!8g:LJ:lg, the groweru,ses the chemicals on a 

larger scale. 

The' encouraging results of the experimenter or successful usage by a few 

growers occasionally is followed by poor, if not disasterous, results by 

other growers or home owners. Thil$ paper will be concerned with some of the 

failures and what we think are their causes. Werea4ily tell of our successes 

but conceal our failures. However,detailed lnfoa:mation on the faUuresis 

essential to the development of a BOund weed control prol!Wam. 

GLADIOLUS 

Ex.perimental preemergence treatments of plantinss of small gladiolus corms 

on sandy loam on Long Island in 1959 (2) with simazip.e granular and liquid 

resulted in fa;trly good control of most weeds at the- 2, 3, and 4 pound per 

acre rates. The gladiolus foliage showed some burning atter emergence but 

leaves that developed later were normal. A highly s~nificant delay in 

nowering and a significant reduction in cut nower y,Leld resulted from all 

rates. There were no significant reductions in corm yield. Similar results 

were obtained by other research workers in other states. Consequently, in 

the 1960 Gladiolus Weed Control SUI/IIIary published in, the North American 

Gladiolus CoUncil Bulletin (3)simaz:l.ne was not reo~nded for use on 

gladiolus by any of the experiment stations. Simazine is not recollllllended 

for use on gladiolus by the manufacturer. However, inclUded in the 1960 

Sl\llllll&'Y were grower reports of good weed control, witil, simazine under their 

conditions. On the basis of the favorable grower reports, one New Jersey 

grower band treated all plantings of corms and cormEU.swith a preemergence 

spray of 1 pound actual simazine per acre. There WIle good weed control. 

On the rolling land there were several knolls of s~ soU with heavier soU 

on the nat ground around them. Gladiolus plants on the sandy knolls were 

severely damaged or killed. Gladiolus on the heavier soil were not aftecte,d. 

A check on the amount of material used, by lookinga:t the amount of material 

1. Associate Professor, Cornell Ornamentals Research Laboratory

196 

left in the container from Whilih the herbiCide _~oniy verified the 

grower I s estimate of the rate used. We aSBuplean even application was made. 

6imaz1ne applied on sand;y soU lo,,·in organic matter is harmful to gladiolus. 

A home garden gladiolus entbU8!e.st treated corn in 1960 with 1 to 2 

pounds of simazine per acre. . The following year he. planted gle.d:+olus co;rmels 

on this 8ameso11. .The gladiOlU8'folill8e was b~'liurned and manyplant" 

M~ . . ... ~ . ," . 

In the semeyears, at the OrnamenteJ.s Rfilsee.rCll:)h~atory, gladiOl~' 

cormels were planted in the sprins-of 1961 inso:O. treated in 1960 with ~ ,10 

pound. rate of Bimaz1ne1n theepritlgfollowed bY'-Ei.;n5 pclund rate in the-t~'. 

Corm yield in the treated soU was 346'grams of c~ ~er 4-foot plot· c~ed 

to 454 pamS1'1'Omthe previously untreated soil.ttiisreduction in yiel4, 

from a soil rece1vi~ a high rate6f itimazinewas 1:ess'l!ievere than that> 

sustained by the home·gardener we-used a muchl~re.te. In. soUtr~~t~d 

in 1960 withatrazineat the s8lllerates as the. Simzine,thei961 yield we;sreduced 

to, 129 grams of cOrms :f'rOiDa 4 foot plot. "JAti-az:bie is reportt'd 1;l) 

be much IIIOreharmful to gladiolus than simazine (2). . ,- 

JUNIPER 

Most evergreens are qUite toienmt to simazine:!his information ~~ 

been reported ~ times in papers -from experimenti'1rtationsand in reports 

from commer-e:LaJ. nurseries. Tbfsihae been summarized in anew bulletin b~ 

Ahrens (1). On LOZlg-ISland, tWb eXperimental plantt!:igsofHetz juniper vere 

tolerant to two yearly applications of simazine at 6 to 10 pounds per acre. 

These plantings received treatment s starting 1 or 2 weeks after the small 

liners were transplanted into the field. A landscape. gardener made 11:, plfl,llting 

of Andorra juniper and' some 'siJIel1 ornemente1 trees:bn II- steep bank in t~. 

rear of a customer' shouse. The soU was a poor, ~ subsoU norlllllll.1'" 

used as backfUl. To control weeds, the landsC~'8.pplied. granular simazlne 

to the planting at 'Which he thought was 'the recoiimehd'eli rate. There was . 

excellent Wed control. SoonlllOa'b of the junipers-:were d;y1.ngand some ot.._ 

the new follage on.the small trees, especially chem, .showed symptoms'of 

silllG.lllneinjury. The lawn below the beJJk had sti- 13aks of 'dead grass Where' 

simazine had: wuhed'trom the bailk •. eateful inveljltiP.tion ShoWedthat the •. 

actual alIIOuntused'we.enever lllE!88U1'edbut a conse~lve' eljltilll8te wasat 

least 16 pounds actuaJ. simazine pel' acre. "'" . 

EDGLIBH', IVY 

On another bank of'sand;y soU'a planting of' En&Llsb;'ivy was care~ 

treated by a home owner with aimalline granular at8 'poundS actual per acre. 

The high ratewea used to el1m8tequa.ckgrass. Sev~e injury resulted exdept 

Jsoll. 

Where much peat moss had been lIieor;Porated into the- Prelim1narytests 

at the Cornell ~teJ.s Researcli Laboratory endEd; Salisbury Park by-the 

Nassau County ~ultural Ex'tension Service showed S~ilieto be a .' 

promising herbicl4e for English ivy and several cith'e'rgr-ound covers. Ivy' 

at the park received 12 pounds ot simaz1ne one year and 4 more the next. 

This was on heavy Hempstead loam to Which peat IIIOss..~h¢ been added. Lar~~;,.c 

~lJ 

.•

197 

scale tests on 2 cOlJllllercial plaz:rt1nSs on heavy soUsbowed some initial 

burning but later recovery. ' , 

, Apeopy planting at the st~te University ASr1cJ1t~al. and Technical 

InetHlJte, at Farlldngdale has. re~e1ved allnUal wint~ tr'eatments, of diuron. "' 

up to .4 pounds p~r. acfe ands1illa.Z~ne' up to 10 pOU%1~W per acre for suc.cess1ve 

4 ye~e. The treat~nts were 1lIelii:~. ~n a. planting ot:,~,ed varieti,es. . ,',. 

Tolerance to .the chemicals e.p,d ~ed.oontrol at .the v~ous rates have been 

good: 'Results on commercial pliUltinSs usually have'been successful. Alt/;ieugh 

there have been some reportl3 of uneven weed control anainjury t'o peOniesL[L 

where granular sime.zine or, ditii.iOrihad been used. The rates were in the range 

of 2; to 3 pound~ of. f11\1%'on' or 3 to; 4 pounds a.ctual s;t.ine per acre. Usually 

injury has been due to uneven a,1sM-;bution of gran~e., Some of the cro~, " 

injury may be due to a variation in the tolerance of,a.few of the mapy 

varieties to simazine or diuron. Where simazil;le had. been used for 3 ;Ye$:t'Jf 

011peonies, and: d.a1' lilies a redUct1.\lln in vigor was~. ' 

Soil type ,is one, of the fe.ctorlil apparently respQns1b.le for some, of the 

inj141'y when herbic-1des are used at high rates.' W1:tQaJ:IYchemical herbic~~ 

growers should determine how loW.a :rJate they can use, On their crops and, s;t;W , 

get adequate weed control. RecolllDe&dedrates for l:LBhter soils are usuaJ.;lq 

considerably lower than for heavier soils. Herbicides are selective and 

should:be tested on a few plants ora variety befor~ lllitge scale usage. 

Herbicides must be used at a safe rate and be evenlY !~pplied. I 

The usera", 

frequently need help in selecting the proper herbio:l.ae,calculating dosages, 

and selecting proper application< equipment to avoid diseppointing results 

from the use of herbicides. 

Although large scole tests b.a,v.~demonetre,ted ci,~!lZ'iy that herbicides ,can 

be used safely on some crops for one season, some growers of perennials I1a;ve 

noted A reduction of growth after two or three seasons use of the same 

herbicide; This e,ge,in eliJPhasizes the value of using'l9Wer rates alternating 

with other chemicals and/or cultivation. ,. ' . 

LITERATURECITED 

1. Ahrens, J. F. 1961. Chemical control. of weeds in nursery plantings. 

Conn. Agr. Expt. Ste.. Bull. 638:41p. 

2. Bing, A•. 1960,. A comparis0p,ofsome herbicides in flo'jl'ering and corm 

yield of gladiolus variety Friendship. NEWcC'14:148-155. , '.. 

3. Bing, A. 1961. 1960 gladiolus weed control sUDlllia.ry. N.A. Glad.:Lol.us ' 

Council Bull. 65:71-74. 

")

198 

BFPlCTSOF SOIL rQTILITY ONS,PfAZINB.INJURJ.J'C),lflJUBRYPLANTS: 

PRELIMINARY"RESULTS 1" .,.. . 

8.YJ. F. Abrens, D. V. Sweet, and J. R. Havis 2 

Si.aill8 baa lIecOlM1qeful.lor weeel cOlltf:~l 1.n"ooely ornamentals., 

Conaicler.bJ.e~8l'~atiOD .1n pla1l¢j\.t~1.'J:'ADce baiJ"e,ffeporteel, however?iti,~~ll. in 

rate. of_.all1e .aDcI.tIIIOnapl~t- .pecie.. .So!). .t",e, is recopheel to~lu.nce 

~~::i;:t~1i::~:i:~.;;t~~r,~~p~:;=~t.J=:i::~i~~t~e::u~:I"',~~o;y 

were planll8d Joillt17 b7workefa .t the COllD8ct'ic\it~&I\4.Ma.sachusetts .... IC,u1.. 

tural Exped_Dt Stations.' .... '~. " . . 

" .:.' : ,;;.. " ' 

MNrIRIALS ANDMBTHODI." .1 

Tta ar"Dilou .. tdal ... ; eoDclucteel atWaltliiui.· Mes.achusetta, allcl't1le-: 

field test vas conducted at WIDd8Of:,COIU1ecticut.,; ':~~" 

GreeEs •• eri_atu: 

The so11 mix cOllllated of 2 puts of' ·ft .... ncl7' 10_;' 2 part1l.:aat1,Wl 

peat and 1 put baak sand. Dola-itic limestolle .a. addeel .t the rate of 

1/2 cupful per bulhel. Fertiliser rates were. 0, 625, alld 1250 pounds of 

8-16-16 fertiliser per &Cre, calculated 011 an area basil. SImaline rates 

were 0, 1, 2, .ael 4 ,_d. actual per .cre, ca1eu1at:ed 011 an u .. basbic:frOlD 

411l'aoulu 

soU, _d 

f--.alation. 

the Illxt.es 

ruUU .. zoanci ai_d .. were tboroullll;y1llixH vith 

.ere placed, io wooden f·lat.,I foot x 2 feet x' 3 1__ s 

deep. Bachtr.at_at .aa replicated thre. tt.s. . cr.. 

j'J, 

PIve' plat. each' of tile followilll vare .at "zoe-root In each nat~' 

1m! media .IiW!.. (rooted cutU~~) 

LlIYatrY! ibol&u! (rooted cuttl~) 

Tsu,a canadeyls (l-year seedUnaa) 

The pPert.llt was set u,on JuDe 22, 1961. ,Atthia t1llle cOlDP~d~e soil 

s&IIPles of. euhof the fertllher treatment_wete :tUblIlitted to the Mol''' quick 

test. . 

, So:l.1S&lllple. were al.o talulll on Auplt 1 fr_ the 2-pound rate of. 

silDadne. Followina ue the result. of the Au.,astl testl: 

Rate of rertllhatioll pH ~ .!!!!t P205 

o 6.3 VL L M 

625 6.2 L L MH 

1250 6.0 MH L MH 

These qUick test me.sur"'et. show that 

existed durina ~h. perioel of ob"J:'Vatlon. 

~o Soluble Salts (1-5) 

VL 

L 

K 

.sitterences 

. -r., 

o 

2. 

10 

1contrlbution No. 1333 Massacllusetts AgdculturalIXper1lllent Station. 

111 fertility levets 

2Collnecticut Aaricultural Experimellt Statioll, Windsor J University of 

Massachusetts Field Station, Waltham (dece •• ed), and University of 

Haal.chua.tta. Ambe~8t. ~ap.~tively.

l!!!! Experiment 

A factorial experiment with 3 replications wa. conducted on a Merrimac 

sandy loam, part of which had not been fertiUzed fn eeveral yean. The 

soU was Umed in AprU 1961 to bring it up to a p8:,of about 6.0. A 10-6-4 

fertilizer, with 50 percent of the nitrosen in or saDie form, was applied to 

the 9 ft. x 21 ft. plots at rates of 0, 333 or 1,000 Ibs. per acre and disked 

in. Three days later (April 18, 1961), three'to five plants of the followins 

types and ases were planted into the plots: 

199 

!!!2! cuspidata - once (2 yr.) and twice (5 yr.) transplanted 

Taxu. ~ Mcksi - once transplanted (2 yr.) 

I.!!!!! canadensis - twice (4 yr.) and three times (5-6 yr.)transplanted 

Ligustrum ovalafolium • once transplanted (2 yr.) 

Eu0nY!llUs radicans • once (2 yr.) transplanted 

Granular simazine was applied over the soil a¢ rates of 2, 4, and 8 pounds 

of active insredient per acre with a lawn spreader. Simazine applications 

were made either at 2 or 7 week. after transp1antins. Injury evaluations 

were made by three peraons on July 14 and srowthof'lome p1antB was measured 

in the fall. control plots not tr.ated with sima.iDe were hoed at 4- to 

6-week intervals during the season and at the same time, elcaped weeds were 

removed from the simaztne treated plots. ' 

RESU~S ANDDISCUSSION 

Greenhouse Experiment 

Twoweeks after iniUatioD of the test, LiIU!trum began to exhibit, 

chlorosis in the no fertilizer treatments. By the -Irit of August markad 

differences in shoot growth and size and color of l.aves of Ligu.trum were 

seen. The plante without f ertUh.r had small,.chlQtotic leaves and weak 

.hoots. The plants in the mediulllfertility level lII!4ev1sorou. growth, , 

leave. were normal size and medium,to light green ia· color. The Ligu,tr, 

plants in the highfertl1ity level made vigorous growth, leaves were 1arae 

and dark green. Neither!!!2! nor ..I!!!S.! exhibited foliage difference. or 

growth response to the fertilizer IeVeIs. ' 

Characteristic I1madne injury symptomson L~lfl!trum were lOBSof . 

chlorophyll on leaf edges, deve10pins to browning oftha edges, and death of 

entire leaves in extr8118 injury •. RatiDgs of deareeOf injury were made on 

AugustlO. TberaUnss in Table 1 ,showthat the 8IIOUntof injury to 

Ligu.trum was markedlY influences by the fertility treatments. Tbe most 

striking influence of fertility 'levels was seen at the i-pound rate of 

simadnewhen s,tilvereinjury was exhibited at the lowest fertility and no 

injury at the highest fertility level. It was also.tnteresUns to note 

that one pound ofsimazine at low fertility gave comparable iafary to 

four pound. of 8imazine at high fertility. . 

I!!2!, and'Tsus, failed to exhibit injury symptom. from any of 

the treatments. 

'.

200 

TABLE1. RBSPONSEOF LIGYSTRUMGROWINGIN S'IMAZINE-TREATEDSOIL~AS ; r . 

INFLUENCEDBY FBIlTtLITY~,GQIlJHOUSB. 

stUdDr' ' Petti1izet 

, , ,1b.:1 , ; 1b• .!'A 

o .\11 level. 

11 o 

625 

1 

1250 

aate1 

RAT~",~. ON,AUGUST10. 

I "I J!ilUtt RatiDs2 

I~, " 

:' i;; 

0.00 . a3 

",1.43 be 

h' :::,O.qoa 

0.00 a 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

: ,4 

" 

0' '.':1 

625 

1250 .,,";i'," 

o 

625 

1250 

':18• 16-16' fal'dl1~r 

~o-aoiDjuYf''''lant.daad 

, . ~ 

u,,' 

, '3~10 d 

0.80 ab 

0.00 ., 

. 4.50 

. 4.50 

.1.87, 

e' 

a 

c, 

3p1pl'e. withd:ll~.rant iettel'8 'a'i{'~8ltlf:l.cantly 

different at p-.Ol' ' 

:~ i ' 

,t 'I., 

Pield ExpefimeDt I ' 

" ,N,!dllli~icant injury '!a. found, in the l!D!, 07;' laraat't.ul5a ev.ti at 

8 poutut. of active dudae pew.acre, sliilbt'lJijuy wa. obaerved tD the 

nallerI!!!i!!(4yr. becl-grclwil~lanta) at aUrite.'ofdmazine but,'""; 

fert1Ut~1s'bad no appueat effect •• , 'Alt~6it ,ie reporte4ly';a 

pUmt ofbOrcleru'ae toleraaoe 'to .f.IlIazine,L1s,rQa .bowed prOnQUDce4,' 

disc~I07;'ationoltl,. 1D one replication where ra , ,l.tl as tha granular:: 

silll8sine vai balal,appUed. ,'ID thi. caee tbt!d~~qI07;'.tion was IIlUQh'-!ore 

.evere .tthel_at fertilitY );eve!. , Silll8z~-'affectedgrowth 'oftii.l' ' 

Lipltnua OD~1 at the 8 1&,' per.ere rate. " , " 

Eu09Y!Us proved tob.ethe beet indicator, of s1lpazioe in theeoU, 

D1ecoloratioilof ~, .~thc?ush confined to 'i_'_SiDs in ma~~~aea, 

was found in 'aU' the.illl8dae-.tr.ated plota, ",'Al.t!'tiOUghllO Buonm.pfab 

were killed by .:I.mazill8,.evere yel10wiDgand l(i.aof leeveawae evi4tMt 

oDplaatatreatedwith the a.;"OIiia4per acre late;: ,'1'bia diacoloratt~' 

wa•• omewhat:reducall at.,the btlhel' fartUU;y 1~18~ 'aa ehown ,la T.~U"Z •. 

, .' " "',' J ',' " • "", 'r 

'. 'i'imaof .bIazi~ appltcadoD~fter plaatilMiba.4 110dgniflcant: 

effact 011 the'iaju1.";Y ratins aD'd,the data frOlll .tlW 2'" aad7-we.k ~reatMate 

are combinecl.in Tabta 2, .: Wb8" the veedawerecotitrol1edby periocU:c' 

hoelUS, growth of the fa.t growiUS lUolte. and"Ltsp.trum . "ae .ffect'H . 

very little. b,. added fertilizer!. 

Sima.ina at 4 Ibe, per acre appear a to .tt.Dlate growth de.pltetbe 

foliase diacoloratioa, To properly aeparate compatitive effects of waads 

vith chemical .ffect, pel' ee, future work should iavolve r8lllOVingwead. J

frOlll plot. at .horter i*nalt (~ to 3.,.. > •• out the .ea.on. Iven 

with sen.itive plaot •• uch •• t::!zau.,. d.e.leterlOU. competitive effect. of 

w•• d. appe.r: to out:wi.h .f.maa .. ,.•n.oU. 

o 

o 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

WIll ;2. urllC'J:Of,naTILQll ,ON,SQ.fUPII INJURY 

PI.'I'III~~' 

.' 'TOI170t1J1*"MPW6" 

5i_aiDe Rat. .rft'tilb.t;.a~.t ' Di'~016r:.dcHI Growth above 6't3 .. 

,Pa.IA U..~/. :",. R.t=~ ". ' S./plot ,. ;J:' 

o 

333 ' 

1000.. ,:1

202 

'Ch"ica~;~ CofttrOl,1. 

f!Ml t 

CbUriP~il 'm:l\ d;:,l 

CSu1tivatioit'ib field' ofe.t.'lihfid'llOod1' C)~talll'.... lta in good 

weed control ift area. b.e.e.npl .... Nn.' ..... eI!~.VitWillpta to ou1tivat. 

very c10.. ,to,p~n~J:'~a re.ult!.!~,~cban1oal1nJml~~·plaftts. ,if: 

_lean 

. "'~':'~fl1'.;~q 

culu. i. 

m' , •. &." •• _,._...._.~ 

not po.aibWJit tou1d be lIed.able 

q, .. ,:'. .. 

In areaa-1fheN. 

to apply a herbicide which haa both a poat-.arg8Dc. and a pre-emergence 

cida1 activity. ' : '.~;. 0 

berbi- 

~(f 

The herbicide, uaed in woody-ornamental p1ant'0ti. Uin1y of th. pr." 

emergence typ..~ltbouah a fev.,~an be us.d 

a pr.- and po.t-ellersence herbid'.. 

aa a po.t .... 

:) 

rs.nce or a. both 

f[i 

Several berbl&1des and herble1.e combination ..... teated for pre- and 

polt- .. rgence weed control in an e.tabUabed I!!Y! planting. 

?!,'j_1~ 1

6.50 

Table 1. Effe,ct of p"e- an

204 

TIa foUow11l8'U_U1enta gaft:'''a.tti~"tory' wee&~l: Alitldne at 2'~ l ••. 

and 8 pounda per acre; Atratoae aDd Simadne, ~'l +£:S.8ftd 2'+ 6 poundl per 

acre; Atra&1ne-8G at 4 and 8 pouDda per acre; S1m&IIlne-4G at 8 pounds pel' 

acre i -and· APe 68-"at'8 poum!rpft" acre_' ..._.... . . . 

, ... IJ:~ ~.' 

._t',1n.!~,u:~~f! P.19tS tr"lt'~i.JtLtbtbel•..bemu.u.uat111 shoWd' .... 

weed CQl1t~ol; Aal1dne at 8 po",pd~ per .cre; Atr.t. aDd SiJladae atl~(t.r~ 

.tradp;~llG at 8 pouDda per a~!~i and S1mIldne-4G .t, ~., pounda per acre. 

" ..... ~J;: ..'; . . ..V . . . 

Tt14a"redOlDi~t weedlve~ ..lel1ow foxtail. quac •• II. d.ndel1an. chicory. 

IDUJ,C:«.d ..,.Srllell.folitall. lamb-quarter. winter,cr· ••• C&a.d., th1atle, tUlllbl.. ,~. 

PennaYJ,,~~la ... rtweed. dog f~l. and gJ:een pipted •. Other weed. ~I!'h 

tt..oth", ~n ragweed. yelle,l.pdsorrel. vild ~~t. prickly let;t~f', 

barnya~~~•••• three .eeded ~~fUry. nodding .purp"lwbite cockle. ground 

cherry. purple lovegra... v114 \1:?~kwheat • milkweed ,. \~"ckeeed plantaia. 

cUl'b~ .~ock. Ml1~" burdock.. .rauab~.. aad...dowIlybrOlMlr .... 

(' ". , \' I) .• 

10·hublc1dal injury va. ,RI!.-rved on any of the T~ plana. even 

tboush ..t'h4t. b•• al foUagetwbic~(~ sprayed. val in an ~Uve .tage of 

growth,!,. 

i 

. -, ,:",' " . 

:p~v~ ,pre- aDd POlt-emuS.:': herbicldel and ee-blQ&tton. were appUed 

to par~~~ly-c1ean. cultiv.tedp.l,antingl of mature I!!!I! plante. Three rata. 

of a,p.pU.ca:UOI1p.lu, ao..untreatllcLcbeck nre ...l'ep1icated .four t1lDa. in a -- _ . 

• pUt p1,oe deeign. O:i 

• 

Attar: 12 weelul tbe follo~ treatment. gave IOOd weedcontrol with no 

injury ,to.ctlva17 sroring ea~.~.hed I!!!:!! plante: AaaiBioe at 8 pOUDd. per 

acr •• Ati.toa •. aoc!S1lIlazf.oe at ...2 ..+....6 pounda p.r.ac&:e~ Au_iDe-sa atS-pouncIa 

per acre. aDd Simuin.-4G at 8 pounds per acre. . 

("

205 

EVALUATION0It' DACTHAL * HERBICIDEON 

TREES, SHRUBSANDHERBACEOUS ORNAt-lENTALS 

Al~ertDiDario, H~ H~~arris, T. L. Curr,y and L. G. Utterl 

Field studies were intt1a~d in 1959, at~'P;;inesville, Ol:lio, and, 

expanded in 1960 and 1961 to detJ):'liI1rie bo th the weedicide activity oi'DACTHAL 

l:lerbicide (dimethYl-ester of tett'ao!lloroterephthalic., ac,1d)and the tolerance 

exhibited by ornainentals to trea1flftih'ts with this material. During this three ... 

year period, awi1ie range ofsee¢lJ~;;:transplanted and established ornlll\lentlil 

crops in 90 genera were evaluate¢,:in~ found to be completely tolerant to 

DACTHALherbicide at rates up to~lS'p'ounds active per acre. Such broad. ~roP 

tolerance WO\lJ,dpef/llit spray an~altl~ular treatments: to. be made in seed beds, 

lining out ofnur~ stockand~.'],i!.hdscaped plantings when these crops ate 

grown on mineral soils. ..... 

Detaiis on the: procedU:f.e$~d results of these tests follow. 

Materials 

and Methods: 

Ornamental species listed in the following cai;egories were treated 

with DACTHALup to 15 pounds active per acre in the three-year trial. The listing 

shows plant species and yea,r(s);inc1uded in the field test program. (1) 

indicates inclusion in the 1961 tes~; while (0) is for 1960 and (9) for 19S9 

test periods, respectively: 

WOODYORNAHENTAL LINERS 

Abe1ia grandiflora 1 

Euxus sempervirens 1 

Cotoneaster sa1icifolia 1 

Deutzia gracilis 1 " 

Euonymous~ compacta 1 

Forsythia intermedia.O, 1 

Hedera Helix 0, :c' " 

~gea sp, , Nikko ,Blue i 

I ex Aquifolimn 0,1' .', ' 

I. crenata convexa 9, 0, 1 

Juni~erus chinensis, Hetzi 1 

Kalmu latifol1a 1 .. 

r:rgustrmn :vulgare 0, 1 

Magnolia SoUlangeana 0; 1 

Mahonia nervosa 0, 1 

Parthenocissus tricusgidata 9, O~;.J: -r 

Philadelphus virginalJ.s 1 ._. 

PERENNIALHEHEACEOUS LINERS 

Achillea spp. (mixed) 0, 1 

~ genevensis 0, 1 

Anchusa myosotidiflora 

Aquilegia spp.:,.(llybrids) 

Artemesia albula 1 

Aster spp. (mixed) 0, 1 

C'iiiiiPanulapSrsu:ifolia 1, . 

Chrysanthemmn aPP., (miXed) 0, 1 

Coreopsis ver~icil1ata 0, 1 

Dianthus sp, , Her Majesty 0, 1 

Dicentra spectabilis O~ 1 

Delphinimn spp, (mixed) 0, 1 

Echinacea ~urea 1 

Erica carnea. , 

ii'e'UcIierasanguinea 0, 1 

Hosta undulata 1 

Iberis s~rens 0, 1 

* Registered Trademark' of Diamon4 Alkali Company , 

1 Senior Research B101cgists, Formulation Chemist, and Manager, Agricultural 

Chemicals Research, respectively,T. R. Evans Research Center, Diamond 

Alkali Company, Painesville; Ohio .

WOODYORNAMENTAL LINERS(cont .) 

Picea glauca 1 

Pieris j:aponica,O,..l 

Pinus ~lvestris 1 

mots~a taxifolia glauca 1 

Rhododen ron' .catawb1ltnse·,0, '1' 

R.,molle9,O.1 " ..... 

Iiosi1ii'WtU'lo~a japonica, 0, 1··' 

,B.• IWP, Radiance. 0, L '... 

~V~()uttei1, 

SyrIIlga V\(sat'is.1.'. 

Taxus cu~:ldata 9 ~ 0, 1 

i~ta t:iitata.9, 0, 1 

T':"":Cs 

lfhli.a oec den is ~ 1 

srga canadensis 1 .. 

We selia sp.,Java Red 1 

, ; + ~ 

'U-. 

PBR1iNtAtHERBACEOUS LINERS(oont.) 

.. .' : 

f .-' 

1 

,SHADETREE· PI..AmINCl5 

, .,\ 

;, !'. 

.~PLANTINGS 

,. c . ;'. 

Malus.'SP·'·;t 

mca's'p'o a: 

tfr@ sp, l' 

r,osmos ap.,Sensation .1' "~'. . . . ._._ 

~h~~9:·pi~r~er~al.l.,~.}·. 

Helianthus sp.•, Surtd8id a r' 

Helichrys\lll .bractBat.um·1 .. 

Impatiens balsamtria 1 

Ipomea RUilu.tea 1 -. . 

I. sp.excana alba 1 

tat1Xrus odoratus (miXed) i 

Rira i~is Jalapa (lIiixed) 1 

~uamoclit sloter1 1 ." - 

agetes sp., Naughty Marietta 1 

'ropaeolum m~r 1 - 

~innia sp., umination 1 

PERENNIALFLOWERING SEED: 

ilf 

Aohillea f'Ui~endulina 1 . 

A eratum sp. 

A ssum saxat:l.le· oompactUlli1 

t em s ttriotoria 1 

Aster spp.,

The 1959 and 1960 replicated field plots variedinsie,e and de~~ 

depending upon the availability of 'species, plant characteristics and the number 

of replications. Plot sizes ranged from 9 to 27 square feet and replications 

from 2 to 14. All plant rnaterials were grown on well-drained sandy lOalllB~ .. ;., .... 

The formulations used included DACTHALW-50~DACTHAL G-5F~ a five 

percent fast water disintegrating granular and one' and one-half percent granulars 

in two ,formulattone, DAC'lHAL;~l.5F and DAC'lHAIt'G-l.5S,; DACTHALG-l'.SF 

has the prope:ptyof .relatively fast ,water-dhintegr&!ll1onin comparison with 

DACTHALG-l.5S. Tb.e~e granulat"f'oI'lllulations were applted at rates to give', 

10 and 15 pounds active per acre on the herbaceous ornamental group and 5)'10 

and 15 pounds active on the woody ornamental species. 

The wettable powder was mixed with water for application at the rate 

of 150 gallons per acre with a small plot sprayer. The granular formulations 

were applied by hand with a perforated shaker 'for,e_e of application and to 

obtain unUormity in. distributiOn. The plots were treated as soon as possible 

after transplanting, usually the ro1i6wing day. In some instances, where 

treatments were delayed because of inclement weat!J.e;rJthe plots were handhoed 

beforeprt:j;;.'Emlergence treatments. 

.' 

Weed c"bntrol data were obt'ained by making weed counts of the entire 

plot area , except in the case of RhOdodendron mo11e;(plots~ where the high 

purslane popUlation dictated counting' a measured small plot sector~ Weed 

counts were made twice at approximately 5 and 11 weekS after applications. 

Plant response or injUry evaluation was based on observational 

ratings on a scale of 0 .. no injury to 11 • entire plant dead. These ratings 

were made at the time of the two weed counts.'" 

During 1961 ~ woody shrubs i. bare-rooted tr$~ liners and perennial ' 

herbaceous transplants were planted in two adjacent:'ireas of approximatel;y' 

three-fourths acres each. The ornamental species in'each of these areas were 

planted in double rows with three of each species opposite one another in 

adjacent rows. This gave a total of six plants of each species grouped together. 

The plantings were replicated four times in each area for a total of 48 plants 

of each s pedes. Seeded annual and perennial flowei-ing species were planted 

in one and one-half foot sections within each row. The two areas were on a 

poorly.;drained Caneadea silt loam. i, 

One area' was sprayed with' DACTHALw-50' atthe rate ··6f 10 pounds 

active per acre and the other with the same formulati!c)1'l at 15 pounds acM,ve 

per acre. A 50..gaJlLon, tractor-mounted low pressureIPTO:"driven field gpta;rer 

was utUizedfor app¥ng DACTHALherbicide under actual field conditions.' 

It had a boom·containing a Tee Jet 8006 nozzle and the sprayer was operat13d 

to deliver 56 gallons of water per acre. All crops except the trees were 

treated with a topical application> pre-emergence t~ tihe weeds. Application 

was made on a band 20 inches wide. The trees were spra:red on eaoh side of' the 

row pre-emergence to weeds with the nozzle placed on the end of the boom to 

cover a swath 20 inches wide from two sides. Some overlapping in this application 

occurred. 

207

, '; , "~ ,j i, 

!p1ot1e'~ OGnsll1ted·pr:l.mari~;' 

,'lhe,weed. spectra in the 349S9-1960, tellt 

of crabgrass~,,~1ene' and lambsqu8rtera, lohich'were:tl"ecerded aeparatelt, and 

of commonchickweed, red sorrel, ragweed, smartweed, pigweed and horsenettle, 

which 'Wlill'e.lpmpedtogether, in the ,miscellaneous' oolUllln'oif."the table which 

foUQWs, ain.Oe,these were minor compared with theevual11feed popUlati()ns~ 1 

Ragwee~J,emaZ'twe.d and('l;1l~Z!8enettJ.e were riotfouzid ''to''tie..IUElrieptible, at 'least 

to the' rates"O'f ~G$'HAL herbieideus8d ,in these·test,,, i.' Intermediate to v~able 

control. of, p!gI«led."was obtained in ,the tests.iJ:)atallhown in Table ! are[·r 

fromrtoe BQst~niv,plots. d [ ,:', " 

DACTHAL 

Form. 

w-50 

G-1.5F 

G-l.5s 

:1,'::r'": .'1.. 

,TABLE I 

. "jj"

209 

TABLEII 

Average Weed Cont~l ExhibitedbtiilACTHAL 

Formulations Applied on Ilex crenat&convexa 

Percent WeedrControl 

DACTHAL RatEi Cr'a\)grass Purslane taiilbsqutrs. MiscellaneG\is 

Form.' lbActive/A 7/6 EZ5 7/8 8(5 7/]':8/5 7/8 .8t:> 

W-50 5 100 100 98 96 94 100 48 52 

10 100 100 100 100 98 95 46 .j? 

15 100 100 100 100 99 100 42 "46' 

G-l.5F 10 100 ).(10 100 100 95 99 53 ,746 

15 100 98 100 100 92 100 36 ::4"'5 

G-5 5 97 94 99 99 90 92 36 38 

10 100 99 100 100 93 96 36 41 

15 98 98 100 96 91 94 47 50 

Weeds!ft 2 of Check Plots 4 6 . 2 3 1 3 1 2 

Treatments applied 10/23/59 and 6/10/60 

Crabgrass, purslane and l~squarter s were the, predominant weeds in 

these plots. Ragweed, commonchi,ckweed and grape frQm,pomace are included in 

the miscellaneous column. Good weed control was secured in these plots 

throughout late fall. The effectiveness of the two treatments could be observed 

in the long period of weed control and a sharp delixwationwas observed in the 

fall 'between them, and the unt.reabedcnecks , createdby' the germination and ' 

invasion of Poa annua at the extremities of the plots. The absence of Poa 

~ in the tra'iited areas strongly suggested effectllve control of this Weed. 

The results reported from P31'thenocissus tr1cu!!pidata and ~convexa 

plots are' typical for all thE; herbaceous and woodY or~entals under test 

during 1959--1960. " 

As can be seen from the list of ornamentals which tolerated treatments 

with DACTHALherbicide, plant response is quite favorable. However, duri,r\lL 

1960 seven herbaceous species exhibited some degree of plvtotoxicity as shMl 

in ~l'able III.

210 

, " 

TABLEIII 

~ 

DIarithus 

Iris 

taVandula 

Teucrium 

Veronica 

violli 

Plant Response Exhibited: ,"'Seven Herbac.o.asOrnamentals to 

FarmulatiCin8;:,and Rates of EaCDlAL 

2 o 

1 1 

51142 '10 

2 

o 

2 

2 

o 2 

1 1; 

5 

1 2 

o 2 

1 :)j 

2 2 

10 it~:~on 8/?I~:~b~·5i51b_, ' 

o \0 0 0 

o "0 '0 0 

58 5 6 

o 0 0 0 

0"0 0 0'[ 

o 0 0 0 

o 0 0 0 

The '1961 tests, hoWever, do not conf'1nn tJ111.these species, when 

transplanted and treated, are injUred. Iris planted in 1960 were from div;i.sions 

while those transplanted in 1961 were no~It is sliggested that t hepr~ " 

cause of untavorableresponse to this species resUlted trom poor divisiori5~ 

rather than to phytotoxicit,r from chemical treatment. 

,• 'AllwoodY'shrubs , trees and perennial her~eous t ransPlantslined 

out tn 1961 'exhibited nl) phytot

Where the weed eompleJl;conststs of annual grasses and of certain 

annual broadleaved WEed species,DACTHAL herbicide can be economically utilized 

in commercial nursery plantings. 

It is evident that economical control of broadleaved weeds such 

as ragweed, hOr!36l1ettle and smartweed cannot be obtained with DACTHALat the 

rates used in ,these. test,s. This confirms previous findings of their lack of 

susceptibility to DAC,THAL. ' 

It was also demonstrated from the data that the wettable powder 

and G-l.5 formulntions were more effective than the!l-5 granular because 

optilnum coverage of the treated areas with the higher concenbrated granular 

formulat,ion coul.d not be o~tained." 

211 

1 ' 

~{ ; 

:;"",

lA.aistant Profeasor of Orn.mental Horticulture, Col18ge of Agriculture, 

Th. Penn.vlvant • .Rt:A~. n"fv "9_"n4 1)a" 'D .. __ .1 _'. 

!'l;;~ : 

Pr .. ~1abt'WetdcCoftt~ol 

Chilo Baramaki 1 

in Ha~ rtantillg8 . 1:>' 

Dudng.l':60. Pft)Ia1sing,re*ult:iI were obtaiMd 'tnt1ie ueeofpre-plane' 

herb:LdJe. inrtbaoontrol of '.filS!!.' in pfttl1tA~,I\S pl*iiJt:iog.. , The te.t8 vm 

' I, . 

expanded thi' year by inclucling narigolds in the tut.... '.ISroof tbe..o~:o 

promising chemical. in 1960 were kept and three other. added. 

I.! 

~Jr~') 

BArEHuM' !.lm'J!m!Q!S' ')",' 

,,',• ':,~" 

• ':.i t-. ,'.,: ;Jj: .;": .' , l~jJJ;, 

The te,te were made in a Hagerst.l)l!ID.ilt l~gtll'lchwa. Z'Otottl1~rrL, 

several times to a depth of 5-6 lnches. Pivo herbicidal at tbree concentrations 

plu. an entreated check were replicated three times in a split 

plot design. Bach plot had an area of 100 square feet. 

The herbicide' were applied on June 5, 1961. The air tempe•• cure w•• 

in the SO's and the so11 temporature at 6 inches depth was 6BoF. The herbicide. 

u~ad included Casoror., EP1~, St~uffer a-1607, Ti11am and Vorlex. Bacb 

of the fir.t four chemicals were applied by fir.t mixing tha chemical with 

a .ufficient 8IIIOuntof water to maleea gallon of mixture and then sprlnkliq 

this amount on eech plot. 

The.e plot. were rototi11ed to a depth of 2-3 incbes immediately after 

herbicide application. Vor1ex we. injected into tba sol1 with a fUllllgun. 

ODahundred eighty one ,injection., each approximafl8ly 9 inches apart wera 

made in each plot. All of the plots were heavily weterad aftar treatment. 

Spry, a dwarf double Prench mari801d was planted in all of the plot. 

at different date. following soil treatment. Bight plant. were transplant.d 

in each plot at tbe following interYal after treatment: one day, two day., 

one week, -.0 weeks, three week., and four weeks. Another planting ws. 

made in the fiftb week in the Vorlex treated plots. 

USUltTS A!mDISCySSION 

The plots were checked for weed prevalence on July 5, and August 

17, 1961, which were approximately 4 and 10 week. after treatment. Tha data 

on weed prevalence I.e .UIIIJlar:lzedin Table 1. After four weaks weed control 

in all treatment. was good except in the check plot. and tho.e treated with 

Vorlo at ~ and I.iquart per 100 lMluarefeet. After 10 week. good weed 

control wa. obaerved in the plotl t ....at.d with c.aoroo at 2, 4 and 8 poUDda 

per acre, EPTCat 10 pound. per acre, and R-1607 at 5 and 10 pound. per 

acre. 

The predomineat weed. were: tuableweed, gre.p pigweed, green and 

yellow foxtail, lambaquarter, winter cree., Pennsylvania smartweed, and 

hairy crabgrae.. Le.ser frequent .. eds included: canada thlaUe, bitterdock, 

dog fennel, three •• eded mercury, pur.lane, ca.mon ragwe.d, black

...... 

1.67, 

213 

Table 1. Effect of pre-plant herbicide. on weed. w~.lence. Treated 

JUGe5.1961. .L 

, 

C" , ''C'' . 

Active . u_ ... "-evalence* '.' 

Herbicide Rate Ju1v5 1961 AWl. 17 1961 

.' ., , '. 

cesoron 0 2.33 

I,; 6.67 L..:, 

21/A 1.00 r~ ,'> 1.67 ., 

MIA 1.00 2.00 

81/A 1.00 >-' 1.00, 

..,. 

EPTC -: 0 ..';'''- 2.67 . 

7.67,,, 

21s1/A ., :.~ I 1.33, ,. 6.67 :Ji 

SIll.. 1.00 . -:'"·.:'\'i :' 4.00 

101/1.. 1.00 '".:,., 1.00 

,. 

. , 

a-1607 0 2.67 . ~ 7.00 

21st/A .. 1.00 -, 3.00- If' 

s'/A 1.00 '-"r', 2.33 I 

1011A 1.00 -t. 2.00 

. 

.. 

Tillem 0 1.00 6.33 

" 

2'11/1.. ", 5.00· 

SlIA 1.33 3.67 

101iA 1.00 3.67 

Vodo 0 6.00- 8.00 

\ Qt./1OO sq. Ie;. 4.00 . ~) '. 10.00 

\ Qt./100 sq. ft. 3.67 10.00 

1 Qt./100 sq. ft. 1.00 6.67 

* 1. No Weeds 

10 • 100%WeedCoverage 

"

Effective weed control with little or .. injury to the marigold tr ... • 

plants "18re obtaiIied with EPTCat 10 pounds per aCl'e. and 1-1607 at S 

and 10 pound. per acre. Casoron at 2 and 4 pounds per acre gave good wac! 

bindweed. ,.. cldial·.purp,:c ..... ;ul1ow .• heab:l.t.~:;""'1··.: p1ataltl., "'J,~,:: 

shepherds purse. quacksrass. milkweed. velvet1 .. f. pokebeny.'badock. 

yellow woodsorre1. IlUstard. c~n niptshade. white campion. wUd lettuce. 

chttlary, srolJDdchen'y. n,me--teand saDdworr.·yanw-.- dandel1on. lIIOun- ...",. 

ea~~. chic __ • l.a4,nepta~.~~e. .~; ~ _ . ~

215 

Table 2. Bffect of pre-plant herbicides and weed competition on marigolds. 

Checked eleven weeds after treatments. 

~tDe of TransDlantinR After Treatment 

Active 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 

Herbicide Rate day days week weeks weeks weeks weeks 

Casoron 0 0.83 1.04 0.38 0.58 0.58 1.25 

211A 1.21 0.67 0.50 0.63 0.17 0.25 

44/A 1.50 .1.88 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.25 

81/A ·4.50 3.71 2.29 1.67 1.17 2.25 

EPTC 0 1.13 1.63 1.21 0.79 1.00 2.08 

2W/A 0,67 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.46 o.n 

5'/A .0.29 0,33 0.25 0.08 0.04 0.08 

1011A 0.33 0.46 0.71 ! 0.42 0.21 0.54 

a-1607 0 0.92 .1.54 1.50 0.79 0.96 0.88 

21t11A 0.38 0.33 0.13 0.29 0,13 0.33 

511A 0.75 0.50 0.04 0.13 0.38 0.38 

1011A 0.08 0.71 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.13 

Till am 0 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.63 0.54 0.75 

2%#/A .1.13 1.08 0.71 0.50 0.58 0.47 

lilA 0.29 0.38 0.33 0.42 0,00 0.38 

10#/A 0.83 0.67 0.53 0.21 0.71 0.13 

Vorlex 0 2.13 2.33 2.00 1.33 1.83 1.38 1.83 

t Qt.!lOO sq. ft. 4.58 4.25 3.21 2.58 2.88 2.79 2.83 

\ Qt./lOO sq. ft. 4.25 3.71 3.21 3.44 3.06 2.83 2.92 

1 Qt./l00 sq. ft. 3.17 2.42 2.29 1.00 0.92 1.42 1.33 

Plant Injury Scale: 

o - No Inj'lry 

1 - Very elight chlorosis or necrosis 

2 - Slight chlorosis cr necrosis 

3 - Moderate chlorosis or necrosis 

4 - Severe chlorosis or necrosis 

5 - Dead

'::;'.' . 

21:6 - .. 

' ..... 

Table 3. Height of llIIlrigold p1anu 

treatment. 

in inch.... 1~_ weeki after 

T~of Tranlu1antiu 

After Treatment 

Active 1 2 1 2 3 i 4 5 

Herbicide ··bte da" d.,,1 week .. ekl .. ekl weeka .. eJr., 

C.loron 0 .. 110.2' 10.13 11.42 10.71 10.21 9.71 

211A 7.71 8.71 9.92 9.42 9.00 10.25 

4I/A 6.25 6.00 7.67 8.08 8.13 7.92 

lilA r.es 2.83 .5.58 7.21 7.96 ·7.92 

EnC 0 9.42 8.75 9.33 10.13 9.63 7.58 

2.,11. 10.~ 10.50 10.58 10.58 9.83 9.75 

5I/A 10.12 11.08 11.17 11.75 11.38 11.54 

1011A :1O.0S 10.79 10.58 10.38 10.21 10.08 

a-1607 0 11.04 9.17 9.42 10.08 8.71 9.96 

2\111. 10.3S 11.21 10.88 10.38 10.83 10.25 

5#/1. 10.67 10.54 11.13 11.17 10.17 11.13 

1011A 10.25 .9.00 10.75 10.21 10.71 11.25 

Till_ 0 10.33 11.3. 10.79 10.67 10.08 9.88 

21s11A 9.58 9.88 10.08 10.33 10.08 10.46 

Sf/A 10.71 10.33 .10.25 10.58 10.08 10.58 

1011A 10.11 10.13 10.67 9.86 10.79 11.00 

Vorla 0 9.79 8.79 10.29 11.13 9.38 10.67 10.13 

~ Qt./l00 Iq. ft. 2.08 4.21 8.38 19.15 8.58 9.75 8.96 

.~ Qt./olOOIq. ft. . 4.13 5.38 7.71 '9 •.54 9.46 9.17 8.04 

1 Qi:.I1OOaq. ft. 3.63 6.29 1.08 :9.00 9.04 9.13 10.21

.217 

Pive pre-plant herbicide. were applied at three concentrations. Marigold 

plants were transplanted 1n tbe treated plata one day. two days. one 

week. two weeks. three weeks. four weaks and five weaks after treatment. 

After 

~ , .. 

io weeks C8soron ali. 4 aDd 8 pound,,.... acra. £PTC at 10 

pounds per acre aDd R-1607 a~ S and 10 pounds perM ..e still produced 

good weed control. 

The renlts indicate thlat •• 18Qlda can .aCely be tranapl.nted in' 

the BPTC, "R-1607. and Tlllam traated plots one day after treatment. A 

few days dalay 1f88 naacl8d in. daecasoron and Vodex. tlleated plata. 

Effective weed control wit:h,UtUe or noinjuc, to the marigold 

traDaplant. were obtained with-me.a 10 pound. per acre. aDdR-1607 

at S and 10 pound. per acre. ca.orol1 at 2 .and 4,peuads per acra gave 

good weed control but at least a week after treatment was necessary before 

transplanting. 

.i . 

\n

lA•• i.tant Prof ••• or of Ornam.nt.l Horticultur., Coll.ge of Agricultur., The 

'D , a 11- _ ,r- _ 'D_.1. 'Da._ ••• 1 •••• 'lI!l 

218 

Pre.Planting Herbicid. Appli.ation. for Weed Control 

in Petunia Plantlna' 

., maiko Rar~kli .:~~j", i 

In the 1960 tr1all two chemicall, CalOron .Dd BPTCg.v. highly 

proaiilns' re.1ilu'., pr.-plaM ... rbidd •• '01' 'pet.... 'pl.aUng.. The 

two chMtC&l. wrel'.coatlnaell t.il te.t. in 1961itijei:1lerwitb neY cba8tca1a 

thought to b. promi.ing for the ... ding of thia crop. 

r. 

Th• .,.._DC .... OODClUcCHon a 1I8gec.COilnf'IUt 10. IOU. 'lbe 

.0U was rotoUll.d •• val'al tiM. to a d.pth of 5 to 6 inches prior to 

treetIMnC.',IIt.·plote were, loa'.qua". f •• tin·'autlo-Th. pl'.-plant 

herblcid •• WH .ppUed at t ..... d1ft.rant, raCe.cos.th.1'with • unUM'H 

check'~ 'Th. tr ..... nU .. r. "pUcatH thr •• t •• -in a .pUt plot d.d ... 

, . ':.~ ... f 

Th. h.rbicide. uaed: 

C&.oron (lIi.gara) ••••• ppli.d .t th. r.t. of 2, 4 .nd 8 pound. 

of .ctive ingr.di.nt per acre. A lallon of e.ch .olution 

... applied to e.ch plot. 

,BPTe (St.uff.r) - we. appli.d at the r.te. of 2\, 5, .nd 10 pouDd. 

of .ctiv. ingredient per .cre. Th. concentr.t. w••• ixed 

with • .ufficient amount of w.t.r to make • g.llon of 

.ixture, which we. applied to e.ch plot. 

1l-1607 (St.uffer) - w.. .ppli.d at the ... r.t.. .nd the ... 

unn.r •• BPTC. 

Till.. (Stauff.r) - w.. applied at the ... r.te. and conc.ntration 

•• !PTC and 1l-1607. 

Vorlex (Morton) - a 100'%.active •• t.dal we. appli.d at the rat.a 

of ~, \ and 1 quart per 100 .quare fe.t. Th. Vorlex ... 

inject.d into the IOU .ith a '.laUD. 100 lnjectioDl .. re 

made per plot at a .p.cing of 12 lochea by 12 inche •• 

The h.rbicide. were applied on June 1, 1961. All of the plot. except 

tho .. tre.ted with Vorlex were rototilled to a d.pth of 2-3 inches after 

applicatlon. All plot. war. h.avily watered aft.r treacaent. On the day of 

treatment, the air tepper.tur .... in the 80'. and the .oil temper.tur. 

at 6 inch •• depth .a. 60°'. 

The varlety grown wa. Sllv.r Medal, an '1 hybrid multiflora .ingl. 

petunia. Blibt plantl were traDlpl.nted into aach plot on each of th. 

dat •• following tr.atalent: one d.y, two d.y., four day., on.... k, two .... ,

219 

Table 1. Effect of pre-p1anthelfbicides on veed~v.1ence. Treated 

JaM 1, 1961. 

Active 

WeedPrevalence'" 

Herbicide Rate Ju1v 05 1961 AWl:.22. 1961 

Casoron 0 7.33 10.00 

211A 1.67 8.33 

" 

411A 1.33 4.00 

I' 

alIA 1.00 2.00 

EPTC 0 7.00 J.'';; 6.67 

, 

2%,#lA 4.33 1.33 

o5IIA 2.67 6.00 ' 

lOIIA 2.33 7.67 

R-1607 0 8.67 10.00 

: 

2W/A 6.33 

9.61 

"/A 1.00 5.33 

I 

10#/A 1.00 1.67 

TU1am 0 8.00 10.00 

21t11A 7.67 8.67 

511A 5.00 8.00 

10#/A 2.33 5.67 

, ' , 

Vor1ex 0 8.00 10.00 

\ Qt./100 sq. ft. 8.33 10.00 

• Qt./100 sq. ft. 8.33 9.67 

1 Qt./100 sq. ft. 4.67 9.33 

" 

'" 1. No Weeds 

10 • 10~ WeedCoverage 

');' 

!

The petunial in the Till .. treated plots exhibited little to moderate 

reduetion in 8rowth due to weed competition. Thi. injury decreas.d a. the 

herbicide concentration was increased. No injury WI obaened due to 

220 

and 3 weeks.' . In' the Yorl~ 'tnatad p10te n add4t¢oaal planting. was ....... 

the fourth week following treatment. All of the p1ants'vere watered at 

the time of traD.p1anting and throughout tha grow:l.n8 season rainfell was 

supplemented by 'OYUbead' irrigation. . 

RBSULt8..1!mDlSCYSSIQl(:'~_ 

The jlote were checked tot weed control July' and Ap8. 22, 1961~'i" 

appro~il88te1y 5 and 12 wee~.'ter treatment. Table 1.• ~ri.es the 

perfol'lll&nce of the pre-plant·;~rbic:l.de. on weed control. The following 

chemietl. _bowedgOod ",.4 CQ~Cr91 after 5 .. e~1I j ..CI,-otOIl at 2. 4aluL_. 

8 PO_I per acre, BPTCat 5&fld 10 pound. per acl'~, a-1607 at 5 and 10.,.. 

pounda .pel' ecre, and Tillam .• e,-.10 pounda per acre. After· 12 weeka the .'. 

followiD8 chamicala .howed~cl weed control j Caeoron at 8 pound. per 

acre and a-1607 at 10 pounda'Par ecre. 

. . . 

Predominant weedl in the ,lou were 18111baquar~er. yellow foxtai1,.;\ .... 

green p~d, Caneda thiltl •• Pennly1vania 8I88rtWed.aad purslane.Weed. 

of 1e.. ~r frequency included ,d,nde1:l.0n. yellow wood.orre1., three leeded 

mercurf, .tinkgra.s, barnyard'Sras •• v.lvet1eaf, b1ack;~indweed. common 

rapreed. lren.f.osa:aU, hairy .crabll'a .. , pur,ple 1o.Y-ara.. , mustard,r.Q\IIb 

pipeed, .'181 's p1aDtain, 8ro\1ndcherry, timothy. ~urdock. wild 1ettu,ce •. 

and ttab~.... ed. 

On September 13.1961, approximately 15 weeke efter.herbicide application, 

the.. petUDi.. were eX8lil1l\8d.for aDy detr.:I.alHt.•t ..•ffect. due to '. .. 

herbicideand from weed competition. The data on ~e type of plant 8~ 

produced L. 11IIIIUri.ed in Table 2. , •. ..... .' . 

, . \ 

The petunias in the check plots were IIIOde;r.t. \:0' .evere .tunting due 

to. weedcompetit;1og. '.'the plant.~p the. Caeoron titaeed plota .. I" f~ .... 

sUsht to moderately stunted. The petuniaa in the 2 pound per acra.plota 

exhibited a1:l.sht to moderata injury due to weed cOllJ1)~tit:l.on. SU$Ilt ..',: 

stunting aDd necro.il waa observed in the 4 poundaper acre p10ta, this' 

injurt .a. due to a combination of weed competition and herbicidal action. 

Plantl in the 8 pound per acre plot. Ihowed moderate Itunting and .nacrosis 

due to the herbic:l.de. The herbic:l.de in the 4 and 8 poundl per acre treatmenta 

appeared to have long ree:l.duel activity. 

The lIetunia plants in the BPTCtreated plote exhibited sli8ht to moderate 

stuntins becaute of weed competition. No injury from herbicide wa. obsened 

even wilen they were tr.lplanted one day after treatment in the hiBbelt rate 

per acra plote. 

The plant. in the a-1607 treated plota had 111lht to levere reduction 

in growth Where weeda were not controlled by the chemical. The petunia. 

in the 10 pound pel' acre plotl were not injured. The petunias Ihowed no 

herbic:l.da1 injury even when planted one day after treatment.

Table 2. tilat' of pre-plantbftb.tcld •• and wed,OomIteUt1on on petunia •• 

Checs.tflfteen -.k.,·gnr tre .... nt. " . I 

221 

Herbicide' 

Active 

Rate 

o 

.""'Ll' 2 

cl.y da" 

EPTe 

2\1/A 

S/f/A 

...lot/ A.. 

a-1607 

Till_ 

Vorlex 

o 

:. 

" •., 

.0 

r'2~tA" 

5i/A 

1~1j. 

"'0 

1'2\#/~' 

Sl/A 

10l/A 

Plant Injury Scale: 

'3.08 

2.3& 

2.'7 

.~!02c~; 

3.13 

3.13 

3~46 

~.04 

• :':~,lf~~' 

2.54 3.17 2.79 

2,96 i,is 3.00 

3.33 2.61 2.50 

2.29 2~~ 2.58 

3:~;~ 3.79 3.71 "3;th; 2.88 

2.92 4.46 3.59 3.50 3.29 

1.25 1.92 2.11 2.83 1.71 

-. ;0l'~' .r.u 0.92.;O'~,~L. 0.75 

3.46 

3.S8 

3.88. 

5.00. 

;' 

., 

2.17 

3.33 

1.79 

2.79 

2.96 

2.54 

1.46 

O.~; 

3.33 

2.08 

1.79 

1.17 

o - No Inj a'~y 

1 - Very .l!g~t nacrosis or .tuntlng 

2 - Slight cecro.1. or stunting 

3 • MOderate n6cro.la or stunting 

4 - Severe llecroais or .tunting 

S - Dead

I 

222 

J;' 

.'; .. ~pl4ant;.,:lq .~. Vod_ lI c.d1W»tA; •• ~,.. oda~.Co aevlilllla!r 

injury and cleaChclue 'to weecl ;f.t~1IU14:UD~ .c,UQndlt \ aDel 

\ quart per 100 .quare feet. In the 1 quarC ~r 100 .quare feet ploc •. ,1, 

..... t-.of-t:o.-pet. ........ vh1.ch we" • .u-aplaDCecl.¥fttA~-UH&1.WHk-weft!,-:':t. 

kUleq,,\lrr.~~•• ~.."""'''J\;.H.llr .. pl~Ced CWOCo four "eka ". 

'anir·c\"ii(jiHlit"re tillecl Wuv.iJllY .tuDt~ b1 a ~ClIIIbI.._t1on of 

~~~~~L'~!"" ant! "-l ~~~~~.' :;...:...._._...:... .. . it!!·, 

'£h~ '1>1~. ~~ted Wt~h ~~i07; '~F .10 ;~. per ach exhibitecl dlio~,;' 

be,t we~~tZ'C)l ~ the t~~e~, ~ta. bad very little or DO 

clamage.~ .en tnD.planted ont i:f~ :!lfeertreac.ent, Plot. treated 

witb C.~ ac8 pouncl, per aen hiId'800cI wead oooCl'Ol but .howecl 

'ilOiiel'n~U!r~ot1iepetUD1~', '.(~.c.'" ..- .."-"-'-- _. .. ....._. ~';:;.~ 

ca,olrou~ 1i"rC.':a-1607. fill .... aDelVode~ vere appUed at th'ree 

raUi.-petUiiUII'-wre tranllp1alit~'oneach of f1i4iaaci,'fol1owing 

treatment), oile ct""cwo-cle1e~,.f~;cley~. one .ek. CWO"ek,. thl'l8e 

wek.. an~ four "ek,. . . . . . . 

~-I'j. ; i '.. f ;. • 

petl~a"co~ld; .ately bc"-t&Ji,iailtecl 1~ the IPTC. 1-1'607 aad TU1.. 

ptOfi,-'·oi\e:lfat·U~;~r- tr.lltaiellt:~ nijil:i inth. caiOl'On~.at.cI plote' n~,:;~:' 

injureclbY the '.~icld•• · P~~"": in thie V9Z'lex treated plot' were' ... 

injuracl ~r t~a ~~cal if pl~nt,el ~tbin ~. fir,t two welt, follov1nl 

treetmeqt,~ iet~~' t~.n,pl~~*e4 l~ plo~•• ~owf.na poor .. ad control 

!8!!~~!~~~e~~,!C) ,e:verely."!ja~~·.by w.~:*d' c~.,..~.~~.~n.. '.' ... _ .... 

.. ·Eft!e~~i.a "'~cI control ~Jb:1f.ttl. ornO~,.. a to the petUD1a"r-r'; 

Pt.~D~' .:.'f 9...un4)n. P10tl tr ...".:ei' ..vl.:,.t.b ..I-l ..60! lit.:.. O'~~' per acre, Plotl 

t~.~ed ~~Ca~to~ at. 8 po~,"p.J\ a~re ba" _, ~control but 

.~.t~i~~-p~~~~ Iw!' 80ml 1Djud~l. ~)1e' btarbicicle •. .: ....~.'~_ .... 

:"·'S 

• f 

,\ 

~ ;:

l 

EVALUATIONOF THREEHERBICIDESONPnENNIALSANDANNUALS 

DALEV. swur 2 AlII) JOHNR. HAVIS 3 

223 

Production of fteld I~~ berbaceous orn_ntale iothe northea.t 

bas been handicapped by leck of.conomic.l weed c:ontrol practices. 

Recent. report..ussest that atiladne may bave".au.,. on perenniale (1) 

~nd casaronon annuah.(2),'1eld trials "ue cpllducted at WaltlWa. 

Massachuseth, to ~va1uate .the •• two her~icid~~and CIPC on 22 peJ;'e~ia1e 

and 11 annuall(18' famiUes represented). .. 

MATERIALsANDMETHODS 

The plants

224 

_lUtTS 

The data on number of -.dlllalt lta~.d.iI tOtalt1me of weeding, 

presented in Table 1, luggest that the t~ee herbicidel gave comparable 

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

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

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

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

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

better sol1 preparation before ,t~' herbicidel, wer,.8PP1f.ed., 

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

PLOTSWIRE 96 SQUAREPDT PoR PERENNIALSAND48' SQUAREFIET FORANNUALS. 

PJB!rwi 

HERBICIDES.~lW:I. ,NO. or", TOTALWElDING ~. OF 

None 

CIPC 

CIPC 

CIPC 

S~ 

SlMUtNB 

SIMA~:m, 

CASORON 

CASORON 

CA30RON 

':t::-"'--::::-"'~~~:..::===:' 

ANNUALS 

TOTAL WDD'UG 

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

7 1/2 

15 

30 

1 

24 

2' 

4 

8 

*Average of t~ee 

3 ll; 181 '2 

2 if 73 2 

2 SS 1 

1 30 1 

~, ~ ~ 

1 34 F:; 1 

2 141 2 

1 46 1 

1 24 1 

replications. 

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

two dat.' of observation haa been prepared but hal motbeen included in, 

this peper in order to conserve space. Anyone lnt'erested in obtaining 

these details.".y request copies .from .the junior ~thor. Table 2 

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

wa. tolerated by the plante. ' , 

None of the chemicals tested was lafe for all plante. In fact, 

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

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

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

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

controlling weeds~ It 1& belleved, however, thAt' wide acceptall,Ce of 

chemical weed control on these herbaceous ornamentals will depend upon 

develop~ntof materiale. f~,,~~~olls or appl~o.Uo. techniques that 

wUl be eafe for a wider variety of speciel.' 

This work was perUafly supported by a grant from the Columbia 

Southern Chemical COlIIPany. 

53, 

27 

12 

11 

22 

13 

9 

22 

9 

15

TABLE2. TIll HIGHESTlATEOFHERBICIDES 'ATWHICH 

THEREWASNOINJURYTOTHEPERENNIALS~ ANNUALS 

PERENNIALS SIMAZlNE CASORON CIl'C 

lJJI./A lJIa./.A 'lb1./A 

A1YIsumlaxatile 0 2 0 

Aquilegia crimson Star 0 0 7 1/2 

Arabil rosaa 0 0 0 

Campanulacarpatica 0 C)c 7 1/2 

ChrY8anth8lllUlll coccineum 0 0 15 

Delphinium SummerSkiel 2 2 15 

Dianthul deltoidei erecta 0 0 0 

Digitalis gloxinoides 2 0 7 1/2 

Dimorphathaca aurantiaca 1 0 15 

Euphorbia splandens 1 2 15 

'atlhedara l.. ai 1 0 15 

Gaillardia srandiflora 1 ,0 15 

Gyplophila pacifica 1 c 0 

Redera Helix 1 .() 15 

Hemaroca1lia bfbrida 2 4 30 

Heuchara unguinaa 1 0 0 

M1osotia sy1vatica 0 0 0 

!'rilllUla hybrids 0 .~ 7 1/2 

!'rilllU1averis 0 '..0. 7 1/2 

Rudbeckia gloriosa 1 0 15 

Veronica Ipicata 0 0 0 

Viola cornuta 0 0 0 

~AY 

Aster BaU Mix. 0 0 30 

Browallia graodiflora 0 0 o. 

Celosia cristata 0 0 7 1/2 

Coieul Ball Mix. 1 0 7 1/2 

Dianthus barbatva 0 0 0 

Lobelia l11cifo1ia 0 :~ 7 1/2 

M8;18~if Naught1 Marietta 2 0 30 

Petunia Double Mix. 1 '2 0 

Phlox twinkle 0 0 0 

Verbena Dwarf 1 0 7 1/2 

Zinnia Giant Cactus 0 0 15 

225 

LITERATURE CITED 

1. Bini, Arthur. 1961. The uae of several herbicides on perenniala. 

!'roc. N. E. W. C. C. 15:154..159. 

2. Haramaki. Chiko. 1961. ,lvaluation of levaril pre·plant herbicid •• 

for petunias. !'roc. N. E. W. C. c. ISl13G-134.

226 

Chemical Control 

of ~1¥1~s and ,Nutgr&l!/JiinINursl!ry Liners 

by Johh F. Ahrens 1 

Quackgran .(Agropyron raPins) is )d.dely distributed in nursery plantings 

and occasionally lias mte n the abandomment of fields forornam.ental. 1t 

Nutgrass (Cyperus esculentUs) is less frequent in Co nrle Cl t :lcut nursery 

but also pl-8ll,itings 

MS been dillicurt and expensive to control. The use of simaziNlfor 

controlling annual weeds in nursery liners is becoming an accepted pract~~. 

The objective of this study' was to evaluate chemical.J\leans of controlling:quackand 

nutgrass in nursery liners with and without the p~ ,of sima~ine for 8Rl'!ual 

weed contrOl.' " 

\ ') ~ ::,. 

Materials 

and Methods 

The area.aeleoted for the test was infested with a denseetand of q~kgrass. 

Although nutgraBs plante were not in great abundance,t:h,esoil was infes~ with 

tubers. The soil texture was a silt loam. The heavy growth 'of grass was mowed, 

raked and fertilized with 560lbs./A of 8-12-12 fertilizer on October12,l960. 

The quaokgrass was groting .v~r~: on October 26 when ~e fall trea:tIneQts 

were applied on 61 x 12 1 plots replicated three times. '1'he!cllowing mat8ii'ials 

were used in this test: ' 

a) &mitrol (J-amino-l,2,4 triazole) 50%water soluble powder ' 

b) atrazine (2-ohloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isoprop,ylamino)~~riaZine)~ W.P. 

0) dalapdn; (2,2 dichloropropionic acid) sodium salt . " ' 

d) EPTC (ethyl di-n-prop,ylthiolcarbamate) 5%G. . 

e) propazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis (isoprop,ylamino)-s-triazine) 50%W.p. . 

f) simazine (2_chloro-4,6-biS (ethylamino)-s- triazine) 80%W,P. and 4% G. 

The fall treatments were applied in 70 gallons of solution per aore with 

a knapsack sprayer. 

rate of ! teaspoon 

Dupon,tspreader-stioker 

per gallon of spray. 

was added weach solution 

' 

at ". 

_. 

The area 'was disked on April 9, and again on April 20, after granular \EPTC 

was applied by hand to the lIIOist soil in one, set of plots. The ground W8(p'lowed 

and disked on AprU 22, and on April 24, the .followingdcinds and numbers' o.t 

nursery stock w~re ,planted in each plot and t~immed to uniform sizes: 

Fors 1& ~termed1a. 1 to 2 year old - 5 plants per plot 

her s a oblca, 2 year'liners - 3 plants per plot " 

tsuga cans ens s, 3 year seedlings - 6 plants per plot 

~ ~ ~, 2 year liners - 5 plants per plot 

Eleven days after planting, the rowllwere ouJ,t:LVf,tedand granular simazine 

was applied over half the plots at a rate of 3 lbs./A. A lawn spreader with 

large wheel.s was used to apply ,the ,granular ,simazine. ., ' 

, , 

..' . 

1 Assooiate Plant Fhys.iologiat, C.onneet1outAgrieultDal .llltperi~EI1t Station, 

Windsor ,,; 

fj'

Because of the lush growth of quackgrass, nutgrass and annual weeds in 

some plots, all plots were cultivated with a tractor on May25, June 19 and 

August 1. Counts of quackgrass and nut[rass were made in June and September 

by taking four one-square-foot samples from each plot. After the ratings were 

made in June and July, weeds were removed from all the plots, including controla. 

All of the plots were weeded, cultivated and seeded to oats in September. 

The nursery plants were evaluated by three persons in August and the new 

growth of forsythia was measured in September. 

Air temperatures were slightly below normal and rainfall was above normal 

in April and Mayof ·1961. 

Results 

and Discussion 

Control of Nutgrass As shown in Table 1, only EFTCat 5 lbs.A controlled 

nutgrass appreciably on June 14. At that time nutgrass control was almost 

complete with some small and deformed plants remaining. The rating of 9.2 

is the better measure of control on June 14, because the counts included 

the stunted plants. Had the plots not been weeded and cultivated at that 

time perhaps EPTCwould have continued to control rnrtgrass , The ratings on 

July 18 and the counts in September show that EPTCno longer was effective. 

Although simazine as a fall or post-planting treatment had no effect 

on the first crop of nutgrass in the spring, the data clearly indicate a 

suppression of the second 'crop of nut.grasa with all of the simazine treatments. 

In nursery plantings, where hoeing every three to four weeks is a 

rule, arv suppression of nutgrass such as that by simazine would be of 

c.efinite value. 

The final counts of nutgrass in September indiuate that none of the 

herbicide treatments had any lasting effects on the development of nutgr3ss 

from tubers. All of the treatments, in fact, had more nutgrass thAn the 

oontrols, most likely because the treatments all controlled quackgrass which 

appears to suppress nutgrass germination. 

COntrol of Quack~rass The data for quackgrass are given in Table 2. Fall 

applicat~on of s~zine at 3 oro5 lbs./A, atrazine at 4 lbs./A and propazine 

at 4 lbs. provided about 90 percent or better control at all counts and ratings. 

Amitrol and dalapon alone were somewhat less effective. The pre-planting 

treatment with EPTCprovtded 93 percent control of the first crop of quackgrass 

but later evaluations indicated a reduction in control, whereas most 

other treatments provided better control at lat&r evaluations. 

Although granular simazine alone at 3 lbs./A provided relatively poor 

control ef quackgrass, it greatly increased the eff£ctiveness of all treatments 

except EPTC. The combination of fall applications of atrazine at 

4 lbs./A or simazine at 5 lbs./A with a post-planting treatment of simazine 

resulted in almost complete control of quackgrass fbr the season. 

227

_'. 

228 

Table 1. Effects of Herbicides on Nutgras~ 

Treatme~tsl June 14 July Ie Se")t. n 

--1)'a11-- -- Spring 

i'l' 

Herbicide He-rbicicl.e Shoots 

_ !:-_bs./f._._J)~.j.L ~_~J't!. !Latirl.r0 Ititing 2, Shoots 

per sg.ft., 

Heedy Controls 96 0 0 19 

Simazine 3 161 2.2 -6.L~ 41 

Si:llUzine 3 110 3. L~ 6.5 26 

Simuzine 3 Simazine 3 172 2.5 7.2 25 

SimazinG 5 207 .5 5.0 L~3 

S:i.nazine 5 S':i-maztnG3 129- 4.7 

'I;.ri,.. 

8.1, 27 

Atrazine 2 232 .2, 2.7 45 

Atrazii1e 2 S5.nazirie 3 148 1.7 7.2 28 

Atrazine L~ 239 .7 1.0 52 

Atrazine 4 Simazine 3 13d 2.9 6.5 36 

Propazine L~ 151 1.5 ,3.5 L~O 

Propazine L~ Simazine 3 126 I~. 5 g.O 37 

EPTC5 3.2 9.2 2.0 73- 

EPTC5 + 

Simazine 3 22 9.5 6.2 73 

Amitro1 e 103 2.0 2.3 35 

Amitrol 8 Simaz:i.ne 3 136 2.3 ~.5 30 

r:-" 

DalaC)on10 75 1.8 1.7 39 

Da1a;,;on10 Simazil'le 3 102 h.? , '-T'" 5.7 35 

___ _ _ -4 •.. ~ .. _ _ ', __ ' .. _ ~, .' __ " .,.,. , __ _'. _ ,.... io..- ~ 

0. _ 

lRates given in terms of active ingredients. 

2visua1 ratin~s; a - no C;ritrol~ 10 ~ 100 ~~r cent control.' 

.' '1"-.

Table 2. Effects of Herbicides on Quackgrass 

Treatments 

June 14 

. 'Fall -;;';S"'p'-r"-:i-n-g- Shoots 

Herbicide Herbicide per Per cen! 

-1.~8.--1A _ ~..J£. S9,ft. co,1trol Ra,ting 2 

Weedy Controls 

a o 

Simazine 3 

59 7.1 

Simazine 3 

90 9.1 

Simazine 3 Simazine 3 2.4 97 9.7 

Simazine 5 

92 8.2 

Simazine 5 Sin~zine 3 

97 9.8 

Atrazine 2 

10.9 $4 6.3 

Atrazine 2 Simazine 3 

92 9.4 

Atrazine 4 

l:-.5 94 8.6 


98 9.$ 

Propazine 4 

$$ 

Propazine l, Simazine 3 

95 

EPTC 5 

93 

EPTC 5 + 

Simazine 3 3,$ 95 

Amitrol 8 

26.3 61 

Amitrol 8 Simazine 3 10.5 $5 

Dalapon 10 

41.6 39 

Dalapon 10 Simazine 3 14,6 79 $.2 

L,S,D. p=;05 

7;7 11 

p=.Ol 

10,5 15 

0.9 

0.6 

1.6 

o 

5.8 

0.6 

1.1 

a 

0.7 

0.6 

6.3 

10.9 

1.7 

$.9 

3.0 

97 

98 

94 

100 

78 

98 

96 

100 

97 

98 

82 

77 

59 

94 

67 

89 

16 

21 

229 

Sept. _1_2 __ 

Shoots 

per Per cen! 

so,ft. control 

26.8 o 

6.0 78 

- - - - - - - - _.-~. -- - - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - 

lper cent control based on shoots per sq.ft. 

2Visual rating: 0 - no control, 10 - 100 per cent control.

230 

UndoubtAldlythe three oult:I.vations and the' two hoeihgs on the weedy plots 

during the season added to the effeotiveness of the ohemioal treatments. The 

stands of quaokgrass in the oont:r9.1.».lotsw.ere reduoed by about 60 percent from 

June to September as a result of these operations. 

Control of ~uaJ. Weeds An abundanoeof annual we.19dsand bindweed (COnvolvulus 

arvans!s) Vided the plot areas ~ The annual weeds were predominantly ragweed 

fAmtrosia arte~iifolia),orabgrass (Digitaria ean~alis) and yellow foxtail 

~ lutescens). Ratings of these and other annua weeds are shown in Table 3. 

Fall appli'cations of amitrol, silllazine, atrazine and propazine all appeared 

to deorease the. stands of annual weeds, especially in June. Beoause of the ' 

oompetition offered by the nutgrass in plots of these treatments, however, little 

can be said of t-heir real value. Dalapon had little effaot on the annual weed 

population althOUgh EPTCappeared to control bindweed. 

G~anular simazine, applied at 3 lbs./A aft~r planting provided satisfactory 

control of annual.weeds for the season. Bindweed did 'not persist in plots 

treated with combinations of atrazine, propazine or simazine in the fall and 

granular simazine in the spring. 

Plantin s Nona.of the treatments injured"any 

~o~~e~n~u~r~s~e~ry~p~an~~s-s~e~r~o~u~e~y~.~~e~~o~r~sythia were slightly disoolored by the 

atrazine treatmlilnts but th~ injury appeared to be temporary. The forsythia grew 

vigorously, and made more growth in the treated plots than in the controls 

(Table 3). The forsythia grew poorly in these plots where annual weedS and/or 

nutgrase were not controlled. 

The oats sown in September yielded information on residual activities o~ 

the triazine herbioides. Qats are very sensitive to the triazines. The Only 

plots with pronounced injury to the oats were the combinations of simazine at 

3 or 5 lbs./A in, the fall ",ith simazin,e at 3 lbs./A in the spring. 

Summary 

Combinations of fall and spring pre-planting treatments with a post-planting 

application of simazine in the spring were tested for their effects on quackgrass 

and nutgrass in nuraery liners. A pre-planting, ,soil-incorporated treatment with 

EPTCat 5 lbs.!A'controlled the first crop of nut~ass but had little etrect on 

nutgrass germination after two months. Repeated applications of EFTCmay be 

needed for seasonal control. Simazine greatly suppressed growth of nutgrass 

during the summe~. 

With periodic cultivation and weedlng,.. fall applications of atrazine and 

propazine at 4 1'c;s./A and simazine at 3 or 5 lbs./A provided good centrol of 

quackgrass for the season. Seasonal control of annual weeds and excellent 

?ontrol of quackgrass waS obtained when these treatments were followed by a 

post-planting application of,grapular simazine at 3lbs.!A. 

None of the herbicide treat~nts seriously af!ectedthe newly-plantod 

nursery stock.

Table 3. Effects of Herbicides on Annual Weeds and Forsythia 

Treatments 

"Fall --spring 

HerbiCide HerbiCide 

.-lbs.j~. 

lbs.!~ 

Weedy Controls 

Clean 

Simazine 3 

Controls 

Simazine 3 

Simazine 3 Simazine 3 

Simazine 5 

Simazine 5 Simazine 5 

Atrazine 2 


Atrazine 4 


Propazine 4 

ProDazine 4 Simazine 3 

Amitrol 8 

EPTC 5 

EPTC 5 + 

Simazine 3 

Amitrol 3 Simazine 3 

Dalapon 10 

DaLapon 10 Sil:lazine 3 

o 

9~2 

9.7 

8.7 

9.3 

7.0 

9.8 

3.7 

9.7 

7.0 

8.8 

0.8 

8.5 

o 

6.4 

2.7 

1.0 

1.7 

231 

Forsythia 

GrowtllalJove 

Discolo 30 em. 

tion 2a- g!plot 

Aug. 10 Sept. 13 

651 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

0.3 

0.3 

0.1 

o 

o 

0.1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

1229 

1239 

848 

14l~0 

856 

100$ 

1250 

1139 

952 

1130 

1197, 

1212 

1290 

1005 

721, 

1262 

702 

11:.61 

- -- - - - - - ... -- -- - - - - - .- - - .....- - ...- - - - ...- ...- - _...- .- - ".;", 

. . 

IVisual rating, 0 - no control, 10 - 100 per cent control. 

20 - no injury, 1 - sli~ht injury, 5 - dead plants.

232 

PRBLIMINARYSTUDIESONA GRoonJ IlIHIBITOR 

FROMARTBMIS!AVULGARIS 

C. W. LeFevre"and W. E. Chappell 1/ 

Virg,inia Agricultural Experiment ~~t1on 

Bl.. sJ,urS. Virginia 

The production of toxic substances by certain plants was DOted as early as 

1832 when D8Candolle observed flax was inhibited Bp~ge and oats by hors ... ttle. 

Since that tillie, considerable cirC\Dlltantial evidence supportins the presence of 

these substances has appeared and more convincing evidences are now accUIIIUlatins. 

The literature on this subject has Hen comprehensi'v;ely reviewed by Livingston 

(1907). Loebwins (1937). Bonner (1950). B~rner (1960). and Woods (1960). 

Artemasia vulgaris is rapidly spreading over lIUly areas of Eastern Virginia. 

It bas few. if any. natural eD8lllies and has the abillty to choke out crops and 

other weeds if allowed to grow undisturbed. Funke (1943) included Art_da 

vulgaris in an experiment designed to compare inhibition of various plants near 

hedges of species thought to secrete toxic substances into the soil. Plants 

were inhibited up to 100 em. from Mt_sia absinthl. with the effect grlldually 

tapering off in the last 50-60 em.' There wes' UDifo~ inhibition up to 60 em. 

from the Mt_sia VUlgaris beyond which tbe p~,'\nts were DOrmal. Funke attributed 

this effect to mechanical oppression of the Vigorously growins VUlgaris branches. 

Plants growing near Atriplex hortensis were not affected. In another experiment, 

seeds were placed in shallow bowls' containing either sailor soil mixed with the 

leeves of Artemisia absinthi\D or AJitemesia !!!J.garis. There was reduced gemination 

in the bowls containing plant'material of both plants, but the effect was 

greater from the leaves of Art_sit absinthi\D. 

In this paper. we are presenting tbe results of the extraction of a s,ubstance 

from Art_sia YUIgar1s wbicb is inhibitory to the growth of alfalfa 

seedlings. 

Materials 

and Methods 

Art_sia vulaaris used in this study was air dried and ground in a 40 

mesh whiley mill. Five g. of the ground meal was placed in a colEn and leached 

with 300 Jll. water. The solution was evaporated under reduced pressure at 45 0 C. 

and the residue dissolved in 100 mi. distilled water. This was diluted to make 

a series of concentrations which were prepared for assay. 

Extract of green Artem6sia vulsaris was prepared by placing fixe g. green 

leaves and stems in 100 mI. water in a Waring blender. 'f'here it was ground 20 

minutes and filtered with a Bachner funnel. 

lAssistant Professor and Professor of Plant Physiology.

233 

The inhibitory activity was assayed according to the method of Lell'e-rte 

and Clagett (1960). This consisted of placing 5 alfalfa seeds in 5 mI. be~ers 

containing a fileer disk wetted with .5 mI. test solution. The seedlings were 

grown 4 days and the percent inhibition was calculated in relation to controls 

grown in distilled water. 

In later experiments, ground meal was placed in dialysis tubing with one 

end open and autoclaved. The meal was saturated Wit'6'water, the other end of 

the tubing was tied, and the bag was placed inaso6let extractor and extracted 

with water. With .thia method extraction and dialy.sis ..were accomplished aimultaneously. 

Results 


Green vs. 

Dry Plant Material 

The results of the alfalfa seedling inhibition test showed inhibitionwaa 

present in both green and dry Art .... ia vulgaris (Table 1). 

Table 1. Inhibition from green Artemasia vulaaris 

compared with extract from dry meal. 

...---------- _ _ --_._.--_._--_-_. 

Green 

Dry 

Percent inhibitionoiSeedling growth 

* 58./100 2.58./100 1.4g./l00 5/8g./l00 

92 

95 

----_ ------ _ _.._~_.._-- 

ii 

95 

44 

92 

50 

73 . 

* Concentration of extract in grams plant material extracted per 100 mI. 8OJution. 

Extraction from Flowers, leaves. roots, and stems 

Extracts from soxhlet dialysiS extraction of leaves, stems, roots, and 

flowers all produced 100 percent iDbdbition of alfalfa seedlings at the concentration 

comparable to ~ttract from 5g. meal in 100 mI. solution. 

Table 2. Inhibition from flowers, leaves, roots, and stems. 

Control 

Flowers 

Leaves 

Roots 

Stems 

43 

oooo. 

00 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Since the inhibitor was found in all parts of the. plant any plant material 

could be used in f1arther extract1onl. thus a mbture,.of the above ground .parts

234 

we:re used .1n tbe .:r8ll!&1nde:rof tq::@tW\y. 

Effect 

of "beat 

'J 

,';,- " . 

When a coiuam packed witb'~:'drYed meal wasa~to~lav.d b.fore ext:rac~icm. 

tbere was no loss of inhibition (Table 3). 

I&:able.3. Effecit,o~ aut!clcv:1nl on inhlb1t~ of 

a1£alf,a seed1iaa ..gJ:01l1th. 

....... 

------_._ 

.;.;.-.._._.:. 

---.. _~,~.'.._-_. ---...-..._-..,..'.'-.~..;.-.._..... _..-..•;..... 

• '1_ 

Percent Inhibition 

Concentration * 5g ./100 ml. 2% g ./100 "g./~OO 518 g./1oo .. 5/].6/100 

..----_ --•.•..••... _-.._-- - - -- ---_..-.-_ ..----~. 

Autoc1aved 

100 

87 

89 71 

Non-Autoc1aved 

88 

90 

85 71 56 

Volatile 

-17 . 

-_..--_.-_.-_.•-.••••.••••---jllt ••••--.•••--_..•••_-~.--••••••.•.•_-_ . 

* See footnote Table 1 

This showed that the 

'. 

inhibitor is 

.,-, 

.8t.le at 1200 C _2~ peifor 20 minutes. 

When'the first 100 iDl. passecn:brough anautoc"!.ved column ltwas .vaporated 

and the wa,te:r,cODClencedunde:r, _ ....oe pack. The ... ay showed alfalfa seedling 

growth slishtly. peatier tban ~t, pf the controls. It is evident from this 

e:cper:lment that the active principle 1.s non·vol.tile.· .. 

Soxhlet 

extraction 

AcOiDparison of extractionefflCiency of severa"!' solvents was made ualng 

the' Soalet ext:ractor. Art_s1., vuJ,8ari! llleal wu.ti:aClted 48 hours. 

.-.._.....-.-_.- 

Table 4 Soxhlet Extr.~JI;~D 

.....__._...-•.._..._.~~..~_.... 

_..-....._.. 

Percent 

Percent 

. . gerad:ution . inhibtttea '. . 

._-_.---._-_..------_._--...__...._-_._-_._..-~~..~_..-.... ' 

Control 

Water 

Methanol 

Acetone 

Eenzetle 

Xylene 

Pet Ether 

Chlorofo:rm 

95 

00 

15 

4'5" 

85 

95 

9S 

50 

'00 

100 u 

79 

8!l 

68' 

13' 

16 

71 

The solvents were evaporated and the :residu.s shaken with water with a wrist 

action shaker for 20 minutes. 

The results showed, the inhib1.tton was most sollable in non·polar solvents 

(Table 4) • However. there were 1.Dbibttory substaucuJ extracted, by some of'the

non-polar solvents. Table 5 shows that an inhibition extracted with chloro#o~ 

can be separated from the chloroform by shaking with water in a separatory 'funnel. 

Similar results were obtained with benzene. 

Table S. Removal of activity from chloroform with 

water in a separatory funnel • 

._-._._---_..-.-..... _.-..---------------_.-.-.-- 

Percent 

geradnation 

Percent 

inhibition 

---_._.-._-_---.' -.- - _-----_. 

Extracted 

Chloroform 

Water Extract 

80 

30 

24 

70' 

235 

Whenone g. dry meal was asbed at 625OC. for 4 hours and 20 ml. water 

added to the ash to makeup a test solution, alfalfa seedlings grew as well: as 

,controls (Table 6). The ash solution was basic (pH 12.2). HN03was added"to 

bring the solution to pH 7. However, seedlings grew well in both solutio~s. 

Growth in the basic solution is explained by spcretion of organic acids from 

the alfalfa s4edlings as the pH in the basic test bad come down to near pH 7 

at the end of 4 days seedling growth. 

Table 6 

The effect of ash on inhibltion of' 

alfalfa seedlings. 

Dialysis 

-----------------~_!~~~~~--_:~~~~~~~~~----- 

Control 37 00 

Ash (No neutral~aatten 

treatment)' 42 -13 

Ash (Neutralized 

with HN0 3) 39 - 5 

.-.~--~._-.--.---...._._..----_..-_. 

__.._--- 

Autoclaved extract was placed in cellophane dtalycer tubing and the tubing 

inserted in a cylinder. Water in the cylinder was changed about 10 times during 

three days treatment. All material outside the cylinder and the heavy concentrate 

which did not pass through the casing were concentrated and diluted for 

asaay. Table 7 shows most of the activity passed through the cellophane tubing.

236 

Table 7 Iffect of 4ial,8110n the iab:lblUOD 

.--------- ... -_ ...... _._ ... -- r-- • • • ,...... • • • • - - ..,~_.. " ... - ... _ .... 

,-rcent 

Percent 

a~natlon iDbl~~tj.on 

....-..__.~-.~..-._-_._......•. 

Diaijzed· 

·10 

Non d~a11zed 95 

_.__..-.-_ 

-_..-..--- 

_.- _- _---,-------- .•..._-_ -.- 

As a result of this expertment aDd stability to heat.fur~ber extractions were 

made by placing autoclaved lIleal in dialyzer. tubing aDd eXtracting in a Soxhlet 

extractor. thus extracting and dialyzing in one operati'Ott.· 

Ion excMne;e 

Table 7 shows the inhibitor is not absorbed to either cation or anion 

exchaqeredcs e-. JlIe~e was very. little 19S5 of act~Yitlon passage throuah 

Amberlite lR..l20 oratt,e.r havil16 passed t!;irpugl1 bot~ ,t:1;1isresin aDd AIIlberll,te 

lRA./too. .... . . . .. .' ' : 

Tabl.8 

----.-. __.----.~.~~~---.._~-----~-~~.-_.._-_.. 

Perc.nt,!.~ent 

germination 

inhibition 

-- -_._ _.~-- •. _ •• • • .•..... • • .• -,"!' •.. .,-~ - ••• _ .. 

Through AIIlberlite 

m-120 

Through AIIlberlite 

IM-4QO. . 

o 

o 

100 

•.. _._. ~O.o 

J'.J 

Paper 

chrO!l!&togIaphY 

Deionized and dialyzed extract frOID 5 g.Att:s-a~lgliris was streaked 

on one 19 x 19 8&8 470..A filter paper having a Wba .;lfo. 7 wick. The solvent 

used was isopropanol water (90..1o-v/,,» 1nan~.~phere. Discs t..ere cut 

out of the chromatograph with a cork borer and placed in 5 ml. beake ..a. Each 

disk was wetted with .5 ml. water aDd 5 seeds were added for assay. Mostof 

the inhibtor was found between Rf values 56-72 (Figure I). This was aheadof 

_thy! red which bad a Rf value of about 47.

237 

Figure I Bioassay of cbrOlll4tographed extflact 

, 

~ick 

------_. 

__.__._.. _._._._--_._.-_. 

0 

Extract Streak 0 

-I 

I 

--Methyl 

Red streak 

~=i 

0 

0 

0 

Methyl Red 0 

0 

0 

0 

Yellow 0 I 

0 

1 

0 

Front 0 

0 ,I 

0 

I 

i 

Rf 

Control 

o 

9 

17 

24 

31 

37 

43 

48 

57 

64 

71 

77 

84 

92 

98 

Percent 

Inhibition 

o 

16 

-I 

-4 

54 

-9 

16 

14 

-21 

100 

60 

80 

77 

22 

-27 

-31 

11 

Summaryand Conclusions 

Agueous extracts of 5/16 g. Artemesia vulgaris when diluted to 100 mI. 

inhibited alfalfa seedling growth over 50%. The inhibitor was found in green 

and in dry plant material and could be extracted from either leaves, roots, stems, 

or flowers. It was stable to autoclaving at 20 p.s.i. for 20 minutes, but was 

destroyed completely when ashed. It was dialyzable and nonvolatile. It was 

soluable in polar and semipolar solvents and partly soluable in some nonpolar 

solvents. Inhibition e:~tracted with nonpolar solvents could be removed by 

shaking with water in a separatory funnel. The substance was not absorbed to 

either strong cation or anion exchange resins. Paper chromotographs run in 

isopropanol and water (90 - 10 /) in an IIIIIIIIOniatmosphere showed the inhibitor 

or inhibitors to have an Rf value between 56 and 76. 

Literature 

cited 

Bonner, J. 1950. The role of toxic substances in the interaction of higher 

plants. Bot. Rev. 16:51-65. 

Borner, H. 1960. Liberation of organic substances from higher plants and their 

role in the soil sickness problem. Bot. Rev. 26: 393-424.

238 

Decaodolle, A. P. 1832., Physl,oloBfA VageUle. 3:1414~1475. 

Funke, H. and B. Sed1D8~ 1948. Uber das Wachsstoff-Hemmstoffsystem del' 

Haferkoleoptile-UDd del' Kartoffelkncille. P18i1tii36:341-379. 

LeFevre, C. W. aDdc. o. C1aaet.t.1960. CoDG8ntraUoD·.of a growth Inhibitor 

from Asromon repens (Quackgrass). Proc. N.Bi-WeedCont. Conf,14:353-356. 

Livingston, B. E. 1907. Further studies on thepr~~l'ties of unproductive soils. 

U.S.D.A. Bur. Soils Bul. 36. 71 pp. 

Loehw1ng, W. F. 1~37. Root interactions of plants. Bot. Rev. 3:195-239. 

t~oods, F. to1. 1960. Biological antagonisms. due to phytotoxic root exudates. 

Bot. Rev. 26:546-569.

239 

Weed Control and Residual Effects of Simaz1ne and of Atrazine 

Applied to Soil Prior to Planting ~$ery Stock 

A. M. S. Pridham, Cornell University 

Simazine and atrazine have both been used in wettable powder and 

granular formulation in two series of tests since J.951in plantings of evergreens 

(~ and Thuja) in Cornell nursery areas. 

The 1957 series of plants were rototilled and replanted in 1959. Rototilling 

has continued throughl961. The originaJ. plan of the plots is no 

longer visible from the weed growth or lack of it. 'Evergreen crop gro'l-rth is 

normal. 

Red l~idney beans were planted. in JUly 1961 in soil that had not been 

treated with triazines as well as in the old plot areas. Germination and 

growth were similar in both sections of the field, indicating that the soil 

was essentially free of triazines in the area of the bean root zone. 

A second nursery area was treuted in 1959 to till sod before planting 

nursery crops. Simazine and atrazine were applied JUne .21 and 22, 1959 at 

two rates, 5 and 10 pounds of active ingredient framlCeach of two formulations 

(wettable powder and granular) as well as surfaoe· application and in- 

corporation of the herbicide by rototilling 3-4 inches immediately following 

planting. 

During the summer of 1959 timothy sod was eliminated from treated plots 

except when simazine was used on the· sod surface in granular form without 

rototilling. Dandelion was st1muJ.e.ted in she and dark green color. Bindweed 

was released but re-invasion by seedling weeds was of minor proportions. 

In 1960 half of each 10 x 10 I plot was rototilled and the nursery indicator 

plants, Ligustrum oValifolium, EuOnymus fortunei, Pachysandra terminalis 

and Forsythia intermedia were planted in the freshly rototilled soil. The 

indicator crops oats, buckwheat and later red kidney beans were also planted. 

Typical growth response of these test crops to triazines was found only 

at the 10 pound level. Not all plants of an indicator group responded within 

a plot. Growth of beans was normal in soil samples taken to the greenhouse 

in fe.ll 1960 for testing indoors under soil moisture at field capacity from 

intermittent misting. 

June observations in 1961 indicated very little residual response in 

test crops. EuOnymus fortunei foliage in granular simazine plots at 10 

pound level showed yellow margins on a few leaves in young growth typicaJ.of 

triazine injury in this and other crops including ~ and Taxus. 

A single strip was rototilled in June 1961 at right angles to 1959 and 

1960 rototilling. Red kidney beans were planted in a single row through each 

rototilled strip. Growth and color of the red kidney beans in the untreated 

controls and in the triazine plots were very similar. Samples of 10 bean 

plants at flowering stage were cut at the soil level and green weight taken

240 

immediately. The weights are given in 'rf!.ble 1 anq.',liIhowno consistent trend 

nor statistic~ valid difference even at the 5~ level. under these circumstances 

the plots ~ be regarded as having a tria:tS.ne content lower than 

that plVtotox1c to nursery crops tested. 

'rable 1. Green weight in grams of 10 red kidney belln,.plants at first 

flower stage following' June planting in, con'jlrol plots and in 

treated plots. 

5>.11 

Type cat ion 

S011 tl'eatment No. of 'plots 

,Rotot1lled 

Control 

Eptam 

Simazine 

Atrazine 

Mean weight 

SNt'ace, 

16 

888 

214.25 

246.13 

233.75 

215·00 

224.69. 

204.56 

220.12 

248.75 

206.50 

216.95 

. S1mazine and ll.trazine, have. given .good,control ,9f established stands of 

Agropyrbn repens. Reinfestat10n, howeVer, fol;l.ows unless sCllleadditional 

control measures are maintained. Spot spra;ying,aultivation, plowing or 

weeding ma;y be sel.ected but pro3.0nged residueJ.ac4onis not adeqUate to 

prevent re-estab1ishment of some weeds and release of' others from a minor to 

a dominant position. Hedge bindweed, Convolvulus a.i'd' was present in. 

mi~ilmOUntsp1n"1959 but eJ.1 plots showed some '6, :wee in autumn 1961 - 

7~ of eJ.l the plots rated 5 or,more on a sceJ.e oto through 9. Grass stand 

was eJ.so rated on stand density. Agr'?PY3'0nrepens, was present to 50~ or 

more in rototilled plots. ' 

'rab1e 2. Stand of perennieJ. grasses present at the close of the third 

seasonatter a s.1ngle &?plication O,f atrazine, and sima.zine 

based on rating 0-6to1:&1 for 3 repl1ca:tes' and duplicate 

ratings (hence 6 x 3 x 2 = 36maximum). ' 

Rate 

Not .rotot1lled 

1959 04 

~ototilled ." 

Herbicide lbs. AlA 1959-61 ,960only 1959 & !§O0 

Control 0 27 18 18 17 

Atrazine 5 26 22 23 17 

10 30 24 22 13 

EPtalll 5 30 20 21 20 

l~ 28 23 17 18 

S1ms.zine 5 20 15 20 13 

1:0 2; 11 19 12 

,-~, '

Rototilling was done in June·' SO that the 1959 and 1960 data represents 

re-establishment over the period June 1960 to November 1961. In the fall of 

1959 three months after treatnumt little Agropyron repens was present in 

the plots receiving simazine or atrazine. This was true also in November 

1961 following June 1961 rototilling. 

Summary 

In a Dunkirk' silty c1B¥ 101$ simazine and atraZine applied on the SUI" 

face at 5 poundS or at 10 pounds' of active ingredient per acre are effective 

in controlling Agr0J2.:'Lr.cnr~pens'antt'seedling wceds'ror one and possibly 'biro 

growing seasons. Ro'';;otiJling 2- 3 times at the closE! of the second aeason 

largely reduces any herbicidal value and permits nomal growth of red kidney 

beans during the sensi.tive juvdhileleaf' stage on through to flowering stage. 

Normal growth of all indicator plants tested is taken to indicate that the 

soil is free of herbicidal leveis Of the herbicide applied. Incorporation 

of simazine or atrazine at the tfm~ of application increases the initial 

efficiency of the herbicidala.ctibh.It is ljJ~ely that incorporation 

assures placement within the soil. and minimizes loss through run off or ' 

spreading to adjacent plots. ao~dtilling once a year in present tests 

appears to be as effective as herbicidal appEcatj,on used once in a three 

y'ear period. Weed control value is lost and phytotoxic effect to indicator 

plants was not evident after the second year following application. 

:References 

Pridhem, A. M. S. Crop, voed !Uld.~oi1 aspects of sil'nazine, atrazine and' 

other herbicides in greenhouse and field tests. Proc. 14th 

Almual Meeting N.E. Weed Control conr , 142-147. 1960. 

• 

-----a~:t~r~a~z~i·ne 

Weed control. and residual effects 

applied to. sod prior to planting 

of simazine and of 

nursery stock. 

Proc. 15th Annual MeetiDg R.E. Weed Control Conf. 174-176. 

1961.

WEEDCONTROL IN.STRAWBERRIES WI'DIEITAH, 

NEBURON, TRIEWINE ANDZY~ 

Jolin S. 

8&11ey2 

In the northeast strawberry fi.1ds are cu.tomari1y fruited only onc.. One 

of the chief reasons for this i. the failure of growers to keep weeds under 

control. The use of Sesone haa helped but under 'CllII8condition. results. bave 

been d1sappointing. Several other chemicals have been tried but none bas been 

widely used (1,2,3,5,6). Therefore, the search for a better weed control 

chemical for use in strawberry fields continues. 

Materials 

and Method. 

In mid-April, 1960, virus~frea plants of the variety Surecrop were s.t in 

plots 5 feet by 12 f.et. The mother plants were s.t2 feet apart, 5 to a plot 

and allowed to form matted rows. The materials t ..... d and rates per acre w.re 

as follows: Eptam 51 granular at 2 and 4 pounds; NeburoD 18.5~ W.P. at: 1 and 

2 pounds; Trietadne 50%W.P. at 2 and 4 pounds and Zytron 25%on clay at 10 

and 20 pound.. Each treatment was replicated four time.. . 

The plot. were hoed and cultivated until June 10 so that the plants would 

be thoroughly established before any treatments were applied. On June 10, 

after thorough cultivation and hoeing the Trietaaine and Neburon were sprayed 

over the plots using one pint of wat.r per plot. On June 13 the Eptam and 

Zytron for each plot was mixed with a double handful of dry •• nd and broadcast 

by band. The•• two material. were then cultivated in lightly with an 

iron rake. 

By mid-July some of the plots were getting very weedy, especially the 

untreated plots. Therefore, all the weeds on each,lotwere counted. S1Dce. 

very little gra.s appeared in any of the plots at t~s time or later, all the 

data will cover broadleaf weeds Oh1y. Those present were mostly purslan., 

Portulaca 01er~5~; red root pigweed, Amarant~~lt retroflexusj 1ambsquarters, 

~~~ ~j and smartweed, Po1ygonumhydropiper. 

After the weed counts were made all plots were thoroughly cultivated, 

hoed and on July 26 and 27 all plots were re-treated. 

By September 23 some plots had become very weedy again. Therefore, the 

plot. in each block were ranked for weed population so that the results could 

be tested statistically by the rankit method (4). The most abundant weed at 

this t~e was commonchickweed, Stellaria media. After the ranking all plots 

were cultivated and hoed and no more chemi~applied either in the fall or 

lContribution No. 1328 of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. 

University of Ma.sacbusetts, Amherst. Mals. 

2Associate Professor of Pomology. Department of Horticulture, University of 

Ma.. achu.etts.

243 

in the spring of 1961 preceeding the picking of the ~rop. 

Results 

The results of the weed counts on July 15 are iiven in Table I. The 

treatment means are compared by the method of J. S. Tukey as modified by 

Snedecor (7). The difference nec.... ry for significanc.,is expressed as.D 

rather than L.S.D. . 

Table 1. Percentage Weed Control on July 15, 1960 Following Herbici4. 

Applications on June 10, 1960. 

Rat. Average Transformation 

(lbs/a) No. weeds per to angles 

_T.I..!t!!.n t ,,(a.:.i.v .§.0_sS.....fl.Jl!01 __ !£o!lt,to! __ a!:.,ta.ae_v!l~e__ 

Untreated 

Trietazine 

Trietazine 

Eptam 

Neburon 

Neburon 

Eptam 

Zytron 

Zytron 

2 

4 

4 

1 

2 

2 

10 

20 

139.0 

2.7 

4.0 

20.0 

29.0 

27.3 

44.3 

47.3 

51.7 

D at 5'7.: 16.62 

98.1 

97.1 

~5.6 

79.1 

80.4 

68.1 

66.0 

55.6 

*Differences between means having the same letter ar~ not significant. 

82. 33a* 

81.05a 

67.94ab 

63.58b 

63.46b 

54.75b 

54.4lb 

51.85b 

Most of the materials gave good to excellent weed control. The outstanding 

material is Trietazine. The two pound rate seems to be just as good as the four 

pound. Eptam at four pounds per acre also gave sucb good control that ther~ is 

no significant difference between it and the two rat .. of Trietazine. The 

difference in weed control between the two rates of ·Tr1etazine and the other 

materials is significant but the differences betwee~ Eptam at four pounds per 

acre and the others is not. . . . . 

Table II gives the results in rankit values (4) of the plots on . 

September 23. 

Table II. Results from Ranking on September 23~ 1960 of plots treated 

a Second Time on July 26, 1960. 

Rate 

Rate 

(lbs/a) Rankit (lbs/a) Rankit 

!r!a~m!n1 (!.!.l_ !:a.!u! Ir!a1m!n~ .-;__

241+ 

The Trietazine plots were abaost entirely free of weeds while the 

untreated plots had a heavy infestation. Again, Trietaaine rated the highelt 

and there is no difference between r&ta.. However. there il no .significant 

d1ffer~nce between Trietaz1ne at .:j.tb,r2 or' 4 'pouncit per acre. Neburon a~ 

pounds per acr~' aDaZytron at 20 pouildl per acre. ''J', ." 

2 

. -, " : ,'. \ • 'l • , ';., ~ 

'In the .UllIIilerof 1961 the 11eld80f fruit 'ftom"cile'pl6ts wen obtatn.~: 

These data when treated by analysil of variance give no lignificant diffetlhce 

between treatmentl. Therefore,comparilonl between 'treatments are omitted. Thil 

relult IUIge'tl tlia': ilone of the h.rbicidel changed "th., yield of ftuit" 

lignificantly. ' i' 

Conclusions 

I • __ : 1.. , 

. When de&1ing with h.1'bicid .... 1t:1.8 neverlafa todtaw bard •• d fa.t' , 

conclusions from the results of one yaar or one crop cycle. However. th. ,data 

'presented Ihow that during the one two-year cycle for strawberriel, most o.f,the 

'"materials did a realonably good job of controlling broadleaf weeds. ,but 't~ 

',Trietazine was outstanding in thil respect. The yields ineticated no adve~"~ 

'effectl of the herbicidel tried. 

Literatur, 

Cited 

1. ClIDpbeU.R. W. and G. S. Atteridg. 19'6. Comparilon of some chemical~') 

applied as residual pre-emergence sprays to control crabgrall in est.b1.iahed 

Itrawberry plantings. Proc. 13th Ann. Meet. North Cent. Weed cene , Conf. 

p.62-63. 

2. ChappeU. W'. E. and'1; L. Bc$"er. 'Jr. 1959. GraUl'rand spray applications 

of certain herbicidelin s~r_erries 'and raspberries. Proc. 13th Ann. 

'Meet. ,North.astern Weed Cant'. 'Con£.p.64-68. ." 

3. Curtis, O. F. andJ.P. Tomkinl.1958; . Herbiclda'''effects on strawberry 

,yieldl., proc •. 12th .Ann.Meet'.''ltorthealtern We.¢',cont.Cod. p:S3-59. 

, ...' '.:",~, ",. .. .. .. .. . 

4.M1t:hellon. l.; F., W. R. LachDiatllind D. D. Allen.19~8~ .The use, of the 

','Weighted RAlnkit~',Method in'variety tdab. prdcf;~er.Soc •. Hort. Sci. 

7l:33~-338. ,,", . 

5. •. Poulos P. L. 1958.' N'eburoll: newelt of the subitituted' urea herbicidl". 

Proc. 12th Ann. Meet. Northeastern Weed Cont. Conf. p.45-49. 

, • ~. ".:. : I" r-n- " '; , 

6. Rlhn. E. ~. and J. D. Fieldhouse; 1960. EvaluaCl~~ dfseveral herbicides for 

.strawberiies. Proc. 14th Ann. Meet. Northeastem Weed Cont. Cpnf. p.55-59. 

7. Shedecor, 'G. W~ 1956. Statistical ~ethods. 

Iowa. 5th Bel" p.25l-U3. 

oott".iate Presl, Inc. Am~~, 

...

WEEDCONTROL.AR

Bxpedlllflnt II. 

In 1960 a .~d axp.r1. .. nt;:~r.e.rte4;'~',~0IQIlH):l!.v.ral rate. of 

S1.IIIazlneand the u.ually te~~,;,rat4t; .of ;DR1..... The plot. were lald out 

In an orchard planted In 1958. Thl. orchard contalned flv. tr.e •• ach of 21 

n.w varletie. all on Ba.t Malllni.W:t,roPUtoclt •• 

The treatment. con.lsted of Dalapon at 10 pounde per 100 gallons of water 

8Ild &UtaI1ne.t-.10, U, .20,25 and 30 pounde' a.1.:,pa':> JiOO-sallone.AppUoat1C1n. 

"er' .. de. OIl' June 16, 1960 Id.tila 3-plloo c~.. d 'all' .pr.yer 00 G 

are.,4 to, 5 feet LA d:Laeter around, .ach tre.. AboUili2o,.quart. of.pray wre 

und, for 7 tr.... TbeDalapoa plDb were ,.1vea a .teCllld application em 

Augu.t 18,1960 • 

. The exper1JDeAtal layout cout.t.d of 6 .tr.at1Il .... ' upl1cated 7 tilll8•• 

Slo.1. tl'8e, plotl weX'.~ed. 1\'...... " were.pace4:1.0::«hat ,t;here wa.at 

lea.t J 0118 \lntraated Ilraebetwe.1l1 &lraC.d treea'.' rhat.f.e. til each block' 

there were 6 tr.ated trees and 8 to 10 guard tree.. ,-:"'" 

on September 7, 1960 e.t1tlal •• iiware .Ue:of,t:h. effectivenes. of the 

treatlDenti by rating the plots frcmO to 10.Or'epr ••• nting no control and 10 

repre.ent1ng perf.ct control (no WI.deot gila" pre •• nt). Th. averale rating. 

for the treatment. are glven In the table. 

~'-Jq;." .r.: ,,!"",jB :'-L':: ~:t;J 

RaUng o£weedCoDtrol ifollCW1.DI AppUcaUOD. rof. »a1apoll and; S1ala'£".~' :I. 

)_.' ,~:~.d I ; ; {,:"j j fl.!"-:'1 ' .:, ; : i .: \:,::.i! 

I Rate • .J Ap'KOX. .::::...;.; ";;'-(.i!f:-.,,;;;(;.;;RJt!DM ,~;l',- 

Ir.!a.£!D.!n! l.!!/.l0.Q,Sa.ls..t__ l.&!eJ.a !e,Et,!1D,2e.!1.,_11,602__ Maz.ll1"19.!1 

DalapoQ' ,1Q .s: ,:&-10 '; rqRWtb',o •• Ctill' 

Dalapon plot., which had been, ..e,pl'qed .5 weeks b.fOldl' the,e.t1.lllatelJw.n-_cIa' • 

.'.r'-, J J',.1. IH."v.:. " . • l:·)'U,.l:.~P 

In theSpl'1nl: Qf 1961 lt WA' '.nned, IlbaIlAIlO8!Jl.; ratl'lJil; .the foUowi~,:~el' 

vatlODS were_de:~,l)S.Cllll8 ar."J'~ __ny broadlaaIJ .... de WIre; cC*tns~, 

the ,'t'alaPQn plcaU ..,:. 2) MolIt oftiMU ... d. caD1ng:,_kll1ldlo. the,S1llaslne,plClb', 

were quack gra .. , AaropYron repen.. 3), Gran c_na> tIlCo"the:SliIIaaia. .~ 

looked stunted and yellow. 4) S1IIIadne was not eff.otiv •• Ia1.~stclnq~ll~o_f.l, 

Potent111a !p.S,- The effect1vene ••- ofSlmazlna ior- ... d control was stUl" 

eVide~;'lJ;, IIIP1l*ib aft.ri~pjil.Cl.t-J.·ClO'~.upH1a11)'J':at "taoa .tJ! U,to 30 p~,~ 

per 100 gallem. of water,'j' "";>('>1,\, :cd:",. ""',;: ,'I'.V~~\·'t 

: ;~l~.;:;.a, 

.')iJLJr

Li£erature 

Cited 

1. Chappell. W. E. and George WiUialIIa. 1960. We.d control studies in young 

apple orchards. ,Prac. 14th Ann•. Meet. Northea.~~,Wee~ Cant. Conf. 

217-218. 

2. 

3. 

Curtis. o. F •• Jr. 1956. Growtb of young apple trees weeded with CMU. 

Cras. Sesln. MR. or na1apon. hoc. 10th Ann. Meet. Northeastern Weed 

Cant. Conf. p. 297-304. 

, . ..', 'F 

Curti •• O. F •• Jr. 1958. ,Gr•.•• and weed cont~,under peach tree'. :Proc. 

12th Ann. Meet. Northea.teri Weed Cont. Conf., ....100·107. 

r 

, ' 

247 

4. Harrison. T. B. 1957. 

(Dow Chemical Company) 

Chemical grass control in orchards. 

13:14-~~. 

Down to Barth 

5. Larsen. R. p. and S. K. Ries. 1960. S1mazlne for controlling weeds 1n 

fruit tree and grape plantiQl'. Weeds 8(4):671~'77. 

6. LeUe. J. S. and R. P. Lonile,. 196(). The conla:ol of weeds around yoiuia 

apple trees. Weeds 8(3):422-4~6~ 

7. Schubert. o. B. 1959. Effect of recODlllendt\danclexcesa1ve rates of, 

certain herbicideS to apple trea. of varyins ase,., Proc. 13th Ann. Meac. 

Northeastern Weed ceae , Conf~p. 62·63. . 

~', 

.' 

j ... 

, , 

i 

r . 

•

248 

...../ 

CONTROLOFANNUALWEEDSIItc'cARRarSWITHSOLAN,ZYTRON,AMlBEN, 

. " DIPHENAM~~: ANDPROMETft~, . t • • ·'~.~!i~ .• 

.: . 'M.I~i'~l'e.,.ttari4"RObe1"t Lit'ti.:ti~id1:;' '. 

'J 

Hl.;< • 

..·:).C~>·, 

This papel' .i.a a... 1'e pol't ... Qn ...• t.he ette~.t1...y~ .. ' ... as.rv. ot the,he~.~g:~.dU 

'Uated in TaN.':llon:th.ci)n.~Ol ot annUd',J)i6~~eat' we~d' ~'l 

annual gl'assell .h1'Cazll'oth' . ..' 

I 

:.\:i'l~ 

Pl'ocedure 

. ';"iJd 

"~ , ",'1 

Long Chantanay oal'l'otls ',tere planted 'in". loam so11 12 .rune, . 

1961, ,and wel'e eventually thtnned to tWl?inqhea. Tl'eatmenta._l'e. 

l'ep11oated .... A'·ta .. 111'a .tlandom1zedbio~~ b.t 'e1ngle-l'owp];Q,ia 

pail'ed with untl'eated plotll. Spl'aya weite app:u.ed with' one pa',', 

ot a small plot 8pl'.yel'at 40 pounda pl'es.sW'ean4 ,0 $dlon4.;~ .' 

aore volume. ,.i"blc1d ..awff'~ 'aJ)pl:led to 1i:l~f'rent lle1"if)aot, p~ota 

at 'plan t.ing(12 June) Ie t the "oCtt)'ledona.ry stage (26 Ju-ne),~n~"at 

the tl'ue letit stage (j July).·" '. ,. . 

The pl'~oipal bl'oadleat weeds wel'e: Wild Rutabaga (Bl'assl08 

a L.), L"ambsqual'tel'a (Chenopodium~ L.), and Spurl'Y 

el' ula a ven is L.). The annual gl'asae. p1'8aent wel'e: Foxtail 

Se 81' a v.), and Barnyal'd gl'aa8 (Eohinoohola 01'uafalll L.). 

Weed ooun 8 an 1"atings were 1I18deten weeka atte1" tl'eatmen • 

Results 

Hand weeded plots, and plots l'eoeiving 4 pounds ot Solan pel" 

aOl'e eithel' at the cotyledonal'y atage 01' at the tl'ue lear stage 

or cal'l'~ts, and 2 01"4 pounds or Pl'ometl'yne applied at planting, 

pl'oduced s18J1irlcantly highe1" rields ot cut-ott cal'l'ota than all 

othel' tl'eatments except 4 and 6 pounds or Amiben applledat 

planting, Table 2. Highest numel'ioal yielda wel'e pl'oduced in 

hand weeded plot., and in plot, l'eceiving 4 pounds or Solan at the 

cotyledonal'y ste! .. 

11 Associate agl'onomlst and technioal assiatant, Agl'onOMYDepa1"tment, 

Maine Agl'ioultural Experiment Station, Uhive1"sity ot 

Maine, 01'0no, Maine.

Tl'eatments ghing un.811~!8facto%'yy~.eids inoluded: planting 

application of 6 pounds of Solan pel' aCl'e, 10 pounds of Zytl'on, 

4 pounds of Diphenamid, and 4 pounds of Diphenamid plus 4 pounds 

0t Aml08l'1,Table 2. ';, '"1· I 

249 

,. I, .:" '_~ :.' ;'.~ '1 (1 " ,,', '.! ',; ;~: . 

Low fields wel'e aa.8oe1ated eithei'w1tb, !'1~adequate w~e'dJcbntl'ol 

ol.'wi~h n..l'Ucipe.· indu~811c; nop injW'y'. ~ LM

250 

,~ 

, ..,)' 

rv:: ": 

" ' C .. .,i...: _. . • ;- ~ • - t.b,r:LJ, \ ;(~rr 

In 1961, as in previous yeal's, SOlan applied in ca:rrGh' at 

eithel' the ootyledonary 01' at the first true leaf stage, s~ti. 

ta~,t 01;'1,1.y ~",ct;~9U"'annua~, "Uda' and; anual( '1'8S8U .wi thoil~ 

toedu9,t S,. ; tnl yJ.•.~'q~l'e4: tot bandweeded: Jpl ot _, .: SU18t8otOl'f' 

.Qn~rd· deJ)~Il., tl,qn, .ppl,.1~g~;Sol.whilft we.d_ 1a" "uall, pit.'e*, 

al?}.J.be/cpr" Ml'e.~ tan one".ol'dlwo tl'ue bari.'tla.e develop.d.;'·~ 

., ... '.' J_'.');.,'-.f;};:~,~ __;~ :., 'i'.:') \~' "'fl:l, r-:,,'; , ',::','-..L, 

PlanUng.r"IPpUoatlOi1Jot,;dth81' .2ol'dV JDowtdl ot PJlc::lmetl'~ 

;;9:? 

~~::~4:tori:e~~l'O~\l~~d.,tield~ 

,.!. )1; 

DO~ :'.~~~ltlNat~ytdi~~'ftt 

.: " " ",I., '_'/,)' '1''If.' " . • ~:i 

'. -. _ _ :'~ e 1'~1

Table 1. 

Designa t ion 

Am1l:)en 

.\ : 

D1phenam1p 

Frometryne 

Solan 

Zytz'on 

Herb1c1desUseQ, 

~ .Q.,arrot,s. 

, ,,:1', 

'\~i.; ',:" Ac;1.ett....;; .... ~-d~'1\-en-t---- 

j~1~o,2,~~1chlOrOb&~zJ1~1aotd' 

~'~rd1methyl_d1PhenylaCe~amt'e 

Z~~b. thylmercapto-4,6-b1s 

I 

' 

\.(18 p;opYlam1n~)-s- 

~h1ne .! .. 

~~(~-ChlOro-4-methYlPhen~1)-~-~~tih~lPentanam1de 

0- (4!,4 -d1chlorophenyl) -o-jnet~y:t; '1'sopropy;lphosphoroamu'oth1oa 

te ..! . ' 

, ! 1 - 

~.' '": 'I 

: i 

;-' 1 (, 

'.., ~ , ... 

i , 

I: 

0. 

., .; 

l..! 

I: 

, I.) 

. I 

~'i 

. .;' 

-j 

,1 .. ' 

'.;! 

" , 

i 

/.1", 1- .-~ • 

, '"I

) 

.., 

~~ble, 2.. , Yield ot Car~ts. Following Application of Various Herbicides. 

; -." 

Pounds 

of 

cut off Rank (1 - highest. 11 = lowest) 

carrots Annual Bi'oadleaf Number of Weight l 

Acre rate of he~blclde per 25.' grass weed cal'l'ots per cut of: 

(activE! ingre'diant) of l'OW contl'ol control 2$' of row CQI'rot: 

.:H.and 1fe~d': .., 

'4# so~. c 

" , ,~.aaY 

4# Solan. 

4# Pl'Cimetryne 

2# Prometryne 

6# Amlben 

4# Amiben 

6# Solan 

10# Zytl'on . 

4# Am1,ben'+.4# Diphenamld 

4# Di*enamld 8Qr1. . 

Coty:!:l24.1a 

Tl'. 20.6ab 

Pl 20.3ab 

PI 20.3ab 

Pl 19.4abc 

Pl 16.9 bcd 

Pl 13.4 cd 

!pI 11.3 de 

SOW l>1 6.0 et 

PI 5.4 f 

L.S.D. 5$ $.3 

11 Coty = applied at cotyledonary stage of oQI'rots, 26 June, 1961. 

T1 = applied at true leaf stage of CQI'l'ots, 3 July, 19b1 • 

. Pl = applied at planting, 12 June, 1961. 

y Means having the same letter designations do not dittel' significantly at the 5%level 

(Duncants Multiple Range Test). 

2 

8 

10 

1 

i 

5 

11 

941 

1 

~ 236 

10 

891 

11 

4 359l 

2 

81 

11 

10 

1 

i 

2 

3 

$ 

19 

10 

8 

11 

N 

(Q

Table 3. Percent Broadleat Weed Control in Carrots Following 

Applioation ot Va~ious Herbicides. 

253 

. .. 

Ac~e rate ot 

active, in6tedient 

Handweeded 

4# Prometr;yne 

2# Prometryne 

4# Solan 

4# Solan 

6# Amiben 

4# Amlben + 4# Diphenamid 80W 

6# Solan 

10# Zytron 

4# Alliben 

4~ .Di~henamid 8G1 

t. eD.51 

11 See Footnote #1, table 4. 

Ply 

Pl 

Coty 

Tl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pi 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Percent broadleat 

weed contDol 

Table 4. Percent Annual Grass Control in Carrots Following 

Application ot Various Herbicides. 

Acre rate 

(active 

L.S·P.$% 

of herbicide 

ingredient) 

4# Prometryne 

Hand weeded 

2# 'Prometryne 

4# Amiben + 4# Diphenamid 80W 

4# Amiben 

6# Amiben 

4# Diphenamld 

4# Solan 

'J.O#Z)"iron 

4# Solan 

6# Solan 

Plli 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Coty 

Pl 

Tl 

Pl 

Percent 

ot annual 

o(mtro~ 

grass 

11 Cotyo= applied at cotyleci0l:lary stage ot~arrots, 26 June,- .1961. 

, Tl ,. = applied at true leat stageot carrots, 3 July, 19b1. 

Pl =appl1.d at planting 12 JUl),e, 1961. 

~ Means ha~1ng the same letter designation. do not ditfer significantly 

at the 5%level (Duncan's Multiple Range Test).

254 

Table 5. Number of CsrrotaFPtir 25 Feet' ot,aew'. 

Acrerate-of 

active in8!'841ent 

10# Zyttlon 

4# Amlbel1 

4# Solan 

Handweeded 

4# Solan 

6# A1lilb~n 

2# P,r.oltietr;yne 

6# Solan 

4# P!'1).llletryne 

4 Diphenamid 

+ 

PlY 

Pl 

:Ooty 

, .. r 

:. Tl 

j Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

BOW 1 

;"ig,' 

."Number o'err-ots 

per 25 felt of 

, ,tlOK' v,~ ',' ' 

Y See Footnote #1, table 6. 

~ See Footnote #2, table 6. 

dJ 

';; 

Table 6. Weight Pel' Cut-Off Carrot Fo11~g Applioation of 

of., ya.rio~s He.rbic,~c!~,~ •. 

, "Acre 1'iltEl at 

actiYe1ngredlent 

Handweeaed 

4# Promet.ryne 

2# Prometryne 

4# Solan' 

6# Amtb~n 

4# Solsp . 

4# Amlben 

4# Amiben+ 4# Diphenamid BOW 

6# S91sn 

lO#Zytl'on' .. 

4#Dl'henamld 

'.'BOW 

: L.E.p.SS ! 

Y Coty= ap~lled at 

Tl = applied at 

Pl =.applied. at 

y Means hav11lg the 

,Pl'y 

,;fl 

.Ooty 

Pl 

Tl 

Pl 

'Pl 

, Pl 

Pl 

P1 

,.,1e 

co&;yle4o~ary stage of oar.rot,' 26 June, 1961. 

true leaf stage ot oarrots, 3 July, 1961. 

plant1l1h 12 June, 1961.'" .', 

.1. • v;·' 

same letter designations do not dlffe.r sign1f1 

cantly at the 5% level (Duncan's Multiple Range Test).

,255 

CONTROLOF ANNUALWlmDSIN swDT CORNWITHATRAZINE, 

DICHLOROPHENYL ..MElrHOXY-MI!:l'HYLUREA, DINITRO-SEC-BUTYLPHENYL 

ACETATE,DIPHENAMID,ANDSEVERALPYRIMIDINES 

M.F. Trevett and Robert L1tnetiel~ 

Introduotion 

This paper is a report on the etfectivene,s of the herbioides 

listed in Table lin oontrolling annual b~o,aleaf weeds and ahrlcial 

grasses in sweet oorn. 

Procedure 

Seneoa Golden sweet OOl'nwas planted in a sandy loam soil. 

5 June, 1961. Treatments were replioated se.en times in a rand,0 

mized block of single row plots paired with untreated plots. 

Sprays wel'e applied with one pass ot a .ma11p10t sprayel' at 40 

pounds pressure and 50 gallon8 per acr-e volume~ Planting al'P~oation,s 

of herbie1des were made 6 June, 1961, Jll'eemergenoe applioations 

were made 13 June, 1961. 

The prinoipalbroadlear weeds were: Wild rutabaga (Brads1oa 

~ L.), Spurry (sperpjula srvensis L.), Ragweed (AmbrosIa 

~m1si1folia L.), and Sma~tweea (P01asonum,pensSlvanIoum t.)4 

The prinoIpal annual grass wls Barnyar ,grass (Eo Inoofiloa ' 

oruspjslli L.). 

Results 

Treatments that did not diffel' signifieantly in effeot on 

yield at the 5 pel'cent level from the standard treatment of 2 

pounds of atrazine per acre were: 6 and 8 pounds of Niagal'a 5178 

applied preemergenoe, planting applioation ot 10 pounds of either 

R-3408 01' R-3400, 01' 3 pounds or Ca801'0n, and h~hd weeding, 

Table 2. 

Treatments pl'oducing lowel'yields than the six best tl'eatments 

did so because of eithel' inadequate broad1eat weed control 

or a reduction in stand of oorn, Table 2. 

11 Associate agronomist and technical assistant, Department of 

"'-' Agl'onomy, Univel'sity of Maine, Orono, Maine.

256 

Annual gl'ass, avel'sging2,,8 planbs'-pel',.quare foot in untl'ea 

ted plots, ciid not seriou.~.1 oompete w$.:ool'n fol' mohtW"t 

and nutiiients. ,&ooedleaf we.df" on phe obh... ' J:!.and, pl'inoipally 

Bl'assioa leie L., avel'aging 20.$ plants pel' squal'e foot in untl'eated 

p 0 s, 'sharpJ,.y I'eduoe;dryields when ~l1didste hel'bioidu 

gave less than 80 pel'cent oontl'ol. six pounds of Niagal'a $778 

pel' aOl'e did not diffel' signifioantly fl'OM 8 pounds in bl'oadleaf 

weed oontrol, Table 3. Ten p,OJil'ldsof 81thel' R-3408 01' R-3400 gave 

signifioantly bettel' bl'oadle"at\teedcontl'ol than 5 pounds of 81thel' 

hel'bic1de. Ten pounds pel' aOl'e of R-3441 dld not diffel' signitlcellUyfrom 

;1.0,pound. of R-3408, Table 3. '~o pounds per 80N of 

dipnellamld gaveun.a tistaotoU;.o.ontl'ol ofB~ue1ce species, ' buth 

gave fa1~ ooritl'ol of I'agweed. 

Hel'b10ides giving signifioantly highest annual gl'ass oontrol 

inoluded Dupont 326 at 3 and 6~po~d aOl'e I'ates, 3 pounds ot Dupont 

326 pel' aOl'e plus 2 pounds ofd!phenamid, 2 pounds of atl'uine, and 

8 pounds ot Niagal'a 5778. Eight pounds of Niegal'a $778 pel' acre did 

not' ,d,l,:!'fel' Sl 8Pl,fl,O$ntl,Y f~DP1,'?,', pounds, ofcUlpbecamid, Table 4. 

R-3490 and R".3408 did not ~i,tf.~ a1gnifioa~.:l.~,1n annual ~a.. :' 

oontl'ol, Tabl,e 4. .' :' : 

Plo'ts'that bad I',eoeivea ,a6 pound pel' ,~re nteof Dupon~, 326 

hads1gn1tican~ly, fewer cO-Nlplanta per 2S f.-t· of row than 'plo:ts 

reoeiving any other tl'estment', 'Table 5. Plo.fiJ t'ut had received 

a 3 pound pel' aCl'e rate of Dupont 326 elther' alone 01' in oombinatlonwlth 

2 pounds of dlphe~d: had s1gnit\l~ly fewel' oom:planbs 

per 25 f~et 'of row than all ,l'~1nlngtreatJl1mts except 2 po.und~ .'. . 

per acre,of dlphenamid alone. ,;t!eno6, in -'p~" ot, t.he neal' lI18X~uil' 

annua'l weed con+-:roloptdned,.3, pounds pel' '~ 'or Dupont 326 't. " 

too high a I'ate fur pl'eemel'genoe applica tion in sweet oOl'n on~dy 

loam soils. 

Summal'Yand Conclusions 

Fol' nine weeks., aftel' sp:pl1oa ti on, 2 pouods, per aore of " ' 

atl'ulne (wettable powder), 3:.apd 6 pounds ot Pupont 326, and 6 

and,8 pounds; of N1agua 5778 iave oomplete opntro1 ot annual ", 

bl'oadleat weeds in, sweet cO""o'- Two pounds p,1' aore, of a tl'szine, 6 

pounds of DUpont 326, 3 pouAds of Dupont 326 with 01' wlthout.2 ' 

pounds of diphenamid, and 8 pounds of Niagara 5778 gave complete 

oontl'ol or annual gl'ssses for nirleweeks aft~~ applioation. 

Compal'ed to all othel' h;l'blcldes tested,i6 pounds pe~ a01'8 of 

Dupont 326 significantly I'eduoed stand of oorn. Three pounds pel' 

aCl'e of Dupont 326, 2 pounds of diphenamid, and a mixtUl'e of 3 

pounds of Dupont 326 and 2 pounds of diphenatdld- Signifioantly'-- 

reduceci corn ,stand co~al'ed.,to 2 P,oun,ds ,0,fatpaz1ne, 6 and 8 pom,'d8 

of Niagara $778, and'~ and, ·10 p,Ounds of e1theI! ;Ft-3400 01' ,R...34.l1. 

COl'n stand in plots recei v:k1geither 1 pound of Banvel T or 3 pounds

of Casoron per acre was statistically exoee~~only in plots 

receiving 2 pounds of atrazine. """ ' 

257 

Two pounds, qi' a trazinep8.t!&cre and 6 ,pe-wtd-e of Niagara S178' 

produced significantly higher yields than all other herbi9ides,' 

tested except a,pounds ofN18gara :$778, 10 peunds of either R-3408 

or R-3400, and 3 pounds of Ouoron. I~' 

,:.... , ,

258 

Table h 'He~bic!des Ueied':th-SWeet qo~n•. 

:': 

p., ','; 

,"., .~ ~. . 

,'• ..' r.'j ... 

: ~';. ,J 

AtI'azine 

Banvel T 

CaSOl'on 

Dlphenamld 

Dupont 326 

NlsgsI'a 5778 

R-3400 

R-3408 

R..344l 

2-methoxy-3,5,6-tl'lchlol'obenzolc 

2,6-dlchlol'obenzonltl'lle 

N,N-dlmethyl-dlphenylaoetamlde 

acld 

3-(3,4-dlchloI'ophenyl)-l-methoxy-l-methylul'ea 

4,6-dlnltI'o-2-sec-butylphenyl acetate 

2-benzylmel'oapto-4,6-dlmethylpY!'lmldlne 

2-(4-ohlol'obenzylmel'oapto)-4.6-dimethylpYl'imldine 

2-(3,4-dlchlol'obenzylmel'oapto)-4,6-dimethylpyI'imldlne

~.-! 

_ 1.37 

~ Table 2. Sweet Corn Y~eld Following the Application or Various Herbicides. 

~.- . 

N 

Acre rate of 

aotive ingredient 

~ _ - .~-~ . ":.'

260 

Table 3. Percent· Control of'Annual Bl'oadl.if :Weeds in Sweet Com J 

Following Application of Various ,jezibicides. 

Acre rate of 

aotive ingredient 

2# Atrazine 

3# Dupont 326 

6# Dupont 326 

8# Niagara 5778 

3# Dupont 326 + 2# Dlphenamid 

6# Niagara 5778 

10# 11-3400 

3# Casoron 

10# 11-3408 

10# 11-3441 

5# 11-3400 

5# 11-3441 

5# 11-3408 

1# Banvel T 

2# Diphenamid 8aw 

pJJ} 

Pre 

Pre 

Pre 

80WPre 

Pre 

Pl 

P~ 

P1 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

Pl 

P1 

·:Me~ns 

oObverted 

to ahgles 

90.00 

90.pO 

90.PO 

90.90 

90 000 

88.15 

75.05 

66.83 

65.19 

57.68 

~~:~~ 

37.58 

3Q.IO 

:J.9.40 

Mean.s 

reeonverted 

to percent 

lOOoOsY 

100.Oa 

100.0a 

100.0a . 

100"Oa 

99.9ab 

930.3 bo 

8405 od 

82.4 cd 

71.4 de 

52.4 ef 

52.4 ef 

.37.2 l' 

34.7 l' 

11.0 g 

11P1 = appl1ed at planting; Pre = applied p~eemergence. 

., 

Y Means having the same let tel' designations do not differ significantlyat 

the 5% level (Duncan's Multiple.-Range Test).

Table 4. Peroent Control ot Ann.ual Gra.. ·SA Sweet Corn Following 

the Applioation ot Various Herb1oides. 

261 

Means 

Means 

Aore rate ot oonverted reconverted 

act1ve1ngra41pnt t.Randes to percent 

3# DUPODt326 + 2# Diphenamid 80W pr,)/ 87.61 99.eaiI 

3# Dupont 326 Pre 79.45 96.7i 

2# At~az1ne ~wettable powde~) Pl 79.18 96.5. 

6# Dupont 32 Pre 77.25 95.1a 

8# Niagara 5778 Pre 75.96 94.1ab 

2# D1phenam1d8OW·. Pl 

G 5 • 08 67.2 bo 

3# OasOl"on Pl 5.16 50.~ 0 

6# N1&gar' 5778 Pre 34.71 32. od 

lO#'R~400 P1 23.02 15.4 de 

5# R- 41 P1 18.~4 9,9 de 

1# Banvel T Pl 17. 0 8.9 , de 

10# R-34~l Pl 15.55 Z,2 ': de 

5# R-340 Pl 14.96 .7 de 

lOll R-G406 Pl 12.95 5,0 5# R-3 00 Pl 5.38 0.9 e 

. '" - ""WR ~ 

dania 

L.S.D. 5% ~8,38 

11 Pl = applied at planting; Pre" applied'JPel8mergenoe. 

Y Meana having the· lame le'41er dUignatl1011,Fdo not dirter 

oantll at the 5% l ... el (D~.an's Multlp1. Range Test), 

r

262 

Table' s..' HumbelhofCQrn:;ihQt,,,if:.zo ,2$,F'_-';t~'l,R~. , 

. Aor. rate of ;,' 

active ingredient, ., 

2#,\A~~.. 1ne,." 

;; -, J 

6#,NI,'i'l'a 5778 

8# N18iar. a 5778 

10# Rt;h41 

10#:....·Rt.34 6 O 

5#,J~-3400 

5#r,R-)ij41 

51,R-3408 

10# R-.3408 

\.) 

• 

= 

,o,,'!. 

!.. 

r ..1 

11 Banve1 T '. . . I 

J# CUQl'on c, ~ 

?./j.Diab..nam1d 8OW..'. I ; ,. 

3# DUPQnt 326 + 2#~D:1phenam14:8OW 

3# DupQnt .326 ." ii 

6# DUPQnt 326 . ; , •. 

~ ..'.",'.__.,s ._.,-.•.£,. t 4X, a ,·4 ; ._. 

_-,vrn-n'S·d.H 

oonverted: 

\IT.+ .9~. 

1;': .' ",: ' . 

.. '-~"Il'f"'- 

reoonverted 

to n\lllJ_er8 

1I P1 = a:gp,~1.d,~tpl~tlng;,i.re =·appl1~~.-p~merg~Q". I, 

?sIMea.n~~~tn8';/:l•. 8~ .!~~l'.,des.18natlQ,M,,:do not. 4Uf;el',.~1~ 

. f1oant.ly,%~;~ ,5%leveJ;, (Dw1Q8l).'. l1ul!~-e Range T-.st).. iJJ " .. 

V" 

. 1,

EVALUATIONOF FIVE _~p>I!:S FOR KILLING ~TABLISHED POISON. IV¥ 

IN AN APPLEORCHARD~ YEARSFOLLOWINO"t\SINGLETREATMENT •.. 

Oscar E. Schubert l: 

This study is being cont1n~1i to detennine th~:-number of years a single 

herbicide application will give ~'significant redubtion in poison ivy when 

compared with unsprayed chec'ks-; .Add1tional detail's tli"'the experiment and 

yearly results have been repor1:;E!~Jn the ProcEledings of the Northeast Weed 

Control Conference (1,2,3). .... ".!: . 

Seventy-two plots (l/lOOth"acre in area) were::~ls.ssified according to 

the relative denSity of poison ivy, and then groupc'~lnto twelve replications, 

each with similar poison ivy stands. Six replications composed of six plots 

each were laid out around treell' ..8:Qdo.nother sUe replications were laid out 

in spaces between tree plots itf the tree row. The~erbicides were applied 

at ra.nliom within each replication. ' 

Between A\lgUSt 13 and 17, ,1957, ATA, 2,4,5-'1' ~~ter, Sllvex, 2,4,5-'1' 

Amine, and Ammate were applied tQ, J(ell established.:iioison ivy in a mature. 

apple ore:bB.rd'. All herbicides,~x

264 

Table 1. Average number of poison ivy stems in six l/lOOth-acl'e replicated 

plots one, two, three, and four rears following a s:l.!l8le herbicide 

annl1cati" on,' 

I" AuriiI" t', 1°'1,,) to, " 

~iIf. - _ - - ~ ~__ '" - - -j"Tt'- e"&tlb1:", 'i,i,s, --,-he4, ',.... iIf.----'-~l'!'C'- '. 1,een,'ifl

265 

STRAWBERRY HERBICIDEINVESTIGATIONSFOR 1961. 

Oscar E. Schubert l 

The 1960 strawberry herbicide investigations for a combination of 

herbicides to control weeds witb a minimum of hand-""eding wel'e continued 

in 1961. 

Experiment 1 

Catskill· strawberry plants were set in early Ap#l J 1960, and weeded by 

hand-hoeing and a rotary cultivator until June 19 .. On June 20-21, and on 

July 21, seven herbicides, or combinations thereOf, were applied at ran40m to 

four replicated plots (9 feet wide and 12 feet long). Information about 

average weed weights, kind of weeds controlled, and :number of runner plants 

formed during the first season I s grOwthwere reporte!d (1). 

It was not entirely feasible to fulfill one of the original purposes of 

the experiment--to determine if herbicides alone co\U.d be used for adequate 

weed control without any additional hand-weeding--si!1ce the weeds had to be 

removed for weighing. In Treatments 2 and 6, the ~tity of weeds removed 

last year was small (0.43 and 1. 45 pounds per plot c.ompared with 112 pounds 

in the non-hoed check plot) so these treatments may ~pproach the goal. 

On September 28-29, 1960, ~bout three weeks after weeds were removed 

and weighed, the plots were divided .into three SUbplots (4 feet wide and 9 

feet long). Two subplots in each plot were treated /3otrandom with 

additional herbicides on September 28-29 and/or November 4, 1960. The 

entire series of treatments are pres.ented in Table L 

The planting was mulched with 'ltheat straw in ear~y December. The 

strawberry plants came through the light covering of'mulch the following 

spring; therefore, it was not necessary to remove th,mulch. 

On June 14, 1961, careful observations were m~ in all the plots 

regarding plant vigor, stand, berry size and set, ~ possible herbicide 

injury. The vigor of each SUbplot was estimated as a percentage of the most 

vigorous hoed-check plants (rated as 100). The aver~e per cent vigor of the 

two subplots which were treated in September and/or ~ember is given for 

each treatment in ·Table 2. The analysis of variance and all comparisons 

among means were computed on the percentage data after the percentages were 

transformed to angles (angle .. arcstiJ. Jpercentage). . 

lHorticulturist, West Virginia University. The cooperatiq~ of the following 

companies in supp,lying the herbicides used in these i inveis:tigations is 

gratefully acknowledged: Amchem'Products, Inc., Diamond Alkali Company, 

Geigy Chemical Corporation, Niagara Chemical Division of Food Machinery 

and Chemical Corporation, and Stauffer Chemical com.;e.riy. The author also 

wishes to acknowledge a grant in aid from the Geigy Chemical Corporation 

which partially supported this work.

, 

, 

~J.:. ! .....!e~!c!d!:. ~~a~!S_aV!i~_""2.£a!&~1!j_S~~~~ ~!&.:. 

" ,- .... 

, ~ ..... .. '-,'" ~. " ',- "'~ " ,',:. -"-, 

.Herbicides applied Herbicides applied as a Herbicides' a.pplied Herbicides applied as 

June 2O-21.L 1960 s~ on July 21.L 1960 8eR,teDiber 28-29, 1960 c _sR.ry...;.l(!!,~Dibe!. ~,~ 

Treatment HerbIcIdi'· - - Ratelr - HerbIcIae - - RRte- - - HerbicIae - - Rate- - Herbicide-Rate 

number and lb/A and lb/A and 1b/A and. lb/A 

Formulation a a.1. Formulation a.i. Formulation a.1. Formulation a.1- 

- - - - ..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s:liaii'ne:aow- -175- - 

__ ! _ ~ _N£n~ in£l1:l~~~~L~~_-ti __ ~ N£I1~ ~ !a!.S!~~~ .t4.:. 0__ 

~.. ' . .; ;. ... S " ine- , '. 1/ 5 .. .: ., '.. '. ,,:...Simazb~. 1~5 

"' 2 c' ;~'tam-5Gd, + 'Y--- h 2le ' ;+4.0',;, -......~ ... " ,6.0 .• + KaraU-ailC. ,M.o 

..... - - - ~;--& - - - ";-l~.'.--''''''' ....- ~.:=rr,,:=,~{_,;_. __ -_.~.-- -'- --~~ - - -'- - -.- - - - - ..-.- ~ - -- -- 

__ 1_ .:..':"C!8£r£n.:.~~_ ~4.:.0__ N£I1!. C!8£r£n.:.1iQ. 2.:.0 !O!!e_ - -0';;.,- _ 

, Simazine-ovw- 1.5 Simazine,-uvw.· 1.5 

4 + Karsil-2EC ,+4.0 Karsil-2EC 4.0 None ' 3-Kars:U-~" +l.p 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S'LJBz'Ine-8o'W - - 1.'5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ "'"- """.-=:::'- 

__ .2 ~.!i!-~ 4.:.0__ +_~.!i!-gE£ __ ~.2. N£I1!:. !a!.s!l.:.~ 4.:.0__ 

-:-'-:J-- 

_-.2.__ -.'S~~-~_.3,:.5,__ Kyy.!.:o'gB£ ,~.£. _'- _S.!i!:z~~:...i_2.:.0;.. __ !&£s!1.:.~._ -.:4~0__ 

267 

Table 2. Eftect Of'herbicidet~el[Ltments on plantv1go.r and weed control,; 

;r~a;~n; - -vI;i· -W~ed. ~o~t;'i'o~;o~ ~~s~~c;~bIcId~:~lIed. - - 

J~e 14, OCtober 24" .. '- - - - -'- __ .~:~ - - - -- - - - --: 

_____ ..._ ~... 1261._ ..._ ...§.iH!&!:!,a 

_ 

(Mean ~)c (Mean j)C 

e_ ....KF!i,! _ Qt!!e! 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

16 de 20 c 

45 bed 

, 6e 

70 ab 

15 c 

35 cd 42 bc 

78ab 71 ab 

81 a 74 ab 

60 abc 76 ab 

71 ab 76 ab 

51 abc 88a 

1.5 

3·0 

3·0 

1.5 

3·5 

3·0 

1.5 

3·5 

4.0 

13',0 

1~;0 

12.0 

8.0 

8,0 

'110.0 

/1_":. 

12.0-Eptam 

6.0-Casoron 

8.0-Dinoben 

24;0-Dacthal 

------~--_._----~~'~------,-~~---------~ 

aExpressedas Percentage of t1u,lmo~t vigorous hoed~c1leck plots (rated as ~). 

bA weed-free plot would be given a 10C/f.rating and, a complete weed cover l[L CJ1, 

rating. 

' 

CAverage ot four replications .~e~s in a;;olumn19tl1 the same letter do not 

differ s1sn1fican,tly at, the 'fIi.., ieve1 of probab" 'F!Y' The percenta ges",lIere 

transformed to, angles (angle. =arcsin percen } before ma.k1ng . 

statistical analysis since theve.riable cor..J:l,sta of the proportion of " 

individual plots s:rfectedwhe~'the distributioJ1,tends to be binomial'u 

force. " . 

. '.{.I 

The vigor of plants in Trea~nt 8 (the' fO:l;'lller,'lIhQedcheck" which 

received only'o11,e application of S$mazine and ~rs.U.) "id not differ 

significantly froID plants in Treatiments 5, 6, 70Z'~9 which received 

greater quantities of herbicid.e.,·Only plantsin~tment3 (Casoron 

alone) and '!'rea_ntl (the fOrmer non-hoed checkf:,.,re significantly 

poorer in vigor than most of the ,t:rea~d plants, 

. ", ; 

Plants in Treatment 4 (in whicJa a total of 12 ·pp~ds of Karsil plus. 3 

pounds of Simazine were applied) were lower in vigor than Treatments 5, ,6, 

and 8. Many of the plants in Treatment 4 had both chlorotic and necrotic 

areas on leaves. The leaves were often "tattered" in appearance since 

portions of the hecrotic tissues were broken off. 

The vigor of plants in the "check" subplot (with reference to September 

and November treatments) did not differ significantly from each other. The 

stand in Treatments 3 and lwa, "pc:lOrerthan in all.,other treatments. 

,j, . 

Interve!nal and marginal chlorosis 1 presumably,Q,ue to higher, levels of 

Simazine, was observed in Treatments 6 and 9 where a 2-pound application was 

made on September 29, 1960. No .chlorosis was detec~edin Treatments 2, 4, 7 

or 8 where only a 1.5-pound appUcation was made Onj-WOVember 4, 1960. All

268 

of the above pl\;lllsj exce1:ltTteatnlerrt' 8,_rell1v.n,,~jl"5';''POund applicati01l.( 

of Sitllll.z1nein 'June or July . ''S1maztne"inJury WU' IIIOre-Prevalent in ' 

Treatment 6- fl1iIAn:iaTre&tment9~:'l!t 'Be_as tllWlb':e1ther the .KarsH ' 

following th6' Siazineappl1cation"1ntensified the~tof injury, or the 

Dactha~ 8.4'Pl1ed" .1;he·.._t1me)·_W'~ased the ,BIlO'lilt.o.t.c1l.lQ~sis .No . 

chlorosis was found in any of the subplots reee1v~iPIlly" the J~e or July 

application of Simazine.' " 

Plarl.ts,~8~plots~ceiving ~ add1tiOnal2.~und application of 

Casoron (TJ;U:tlI!l'Dt3) on September 29,had many re,~sh.purple leaves, 

whereas those in the II un,treated" s~plot were no~,,',' ,.,in cOlo,r,,' Most of the 

plants were killed in tbesubplots-,w!th a total 1;>1: ~,pounds of Casoron, lllld 

very few runner plants survived in'\ltie 4-pound s~p~ts. r 

Berry set and size were similar ,in all treatme~~ except Treatments' 

1, 3, a.nd4.Altbpugh it.was not po!Ssible to obte.:i~/yieldrecords in e~h 

of the 108 subplots, there is no doubt that yields were decreased in ' 

Tres,tments 1, 3, "and 4. In SOllIe "ot the other treatments increased berry - . 

size tended' to ottset any' decreases in berry' n~eili, "80 large yield 

differences' wrenOt apparent.' " uc ,', , 

The strSwberryplarit~g Was"no~ weeded at eiij"'1fJfte'1n1961 (the oD'J.i;' 

hand-weeding ~1~ donepr:tQrt.Q.~~ 19, 1960 0tli~ 'the Augwst ~~"~ 

September 8, 1960period wbena11 'lieeds were remoY~ M'Wei8h1ng). On'" 

october 24, 1961, ·the per cent Clf':~~d control: "~~'ted for each plo~. 

At 1:histime some plots were stIllalJllost completeJ.li:~-ttee. The ." 

average per cent of weed control is pl'esented in Table 2. The percent.s 

were transformed to angles, and the statistical analysis made. The 

comparisons among means showed no differences between Treatments 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, and 9 although the average per cent weed control: varied from 70 to 88 

per cent. Wee413OBtrol:was .18Bi1'f!eantlypOo1'er1ujTN~ts 3 and Itban 

in all othftttell.tlient8, except ~atmEint4. Th& dIl1Y'major shift in'd!t'gree . 

of weed col.'l.'ttOlf1'Olll19&:>to 19'61oacurred'W1thT*1iIIient 9.

'h ", 

4. Tillam lOG at 5 lb/A a.i. raked in 1/2 to 1 inch plus Trietazine' 

50Wat 2.5 lb/A a.1.apPlt~d as a s~ .. .: . I 

5. Trietazine 50Wat 2 lb/A a.1. plus Simazine 1 lb/A a.1. applied as 

a spray. 

6. Dacthal 5Gat 15 lb/A a.1. applied on surfaCe' plus Trietazine 50W 

at 2.5 lb/A a.1. 

(~69 

Tr,~~l1t '~,~. ~ only ~~b,tc1de treatm,ent .•~t¥.~ ,sa.Ve 'good weeet9BDtrol 

thr01JBbo;ut 'tAe,19t:lJ;,seaaon . .. l ,~, } ~ , . 

~, 1[;,. 'f,;,,1 _ T'rJ 

From ·~·1n.torma.tion pre~~1i~here ,and obse;vr8:t~pns1n the fieJ.d,rl-~ 

appears ,encQ~~th&t herbiq~dfJ.or. combinat1o~,o:t"herpicides will b~ 

able to 'conilrQl w~ in strawberlf1esfQr at +eaatFne;ortwo full SeaSQp.s • 

• :i: :.} ,-, 

~RATURE 0I!I!ElO:, [ ,1' , ~ 

;':.').t: ~~..., ,,': '.J't: ' 

1. Schubert, Oscar E. and Peter C; Rogers. 1961. Evaluation of several 

herbicides on strawberry plants during their first grdwiilg sea!lon. 

Proc. 15th Annual Meeting NEWCC: 160-166. 

,', ".. 

:'rj ,":; 

',1::;"(; 

) " i 

"11"

.' r:: ' ,.:1,,:" 

WEE])CONTROL INmt'l'AtN VEGETABLBC1I)P'S";' 1961 1 

~:J . ~.:.~: -:.:;n.: ,.. ' t.r, ,. 

W. H. Lachmanand H. F. Vernel1 2 

t,,() t;::': .:' ;J~ .: 

The purpose of this paper is to report relultl of telts conducted 

during 1~6l to field-screen .certain chemicall al potential weed killers 

';:e;:e~~:::ft:~:o;:;et=::::~~~l:~::da:~~:"sc::o:~~C'i!:; 

,v:erYflne" .. nd~ l~am. The ~d il well drained. has a high ~ater 

boicting c4PaCi.t,t and i8 infetted imt\uaUytdtb. A".;{ioroul grOwth 8Iil'd 

veryheavr 'atam:lof annual:'~"c011s1lting iildbl'f"'of a 1d1liture ·of; :::.:,c 

"'p:t~'ed,'8a1i:dsoga, crabgra ... : 8hepherd"F •• ,I'.urtweeci, lamb-'." ",[', 

quarters and purslane. Amplerainfall during the period when the 

chemicals were being applhd'.~dto provide conditions that are 

generally conlidered ideal for killing weeds by these methods• 

.... "..... -.':. '~»~(,..,.::'~,>:/:. -. ,., .or~ ,- oj 

~ '-,.. 

.!&weetCorn 

.

Asparagus 

The results of weed control tests in asparagus are presented in 

Table II. Crabgrass was perhaps the most persistent weed present in 

th*i\plots. 

Zytron was included in the tests because this chemical is considered 

to be very specific for controlling cra~sra~s. vThere Zytron 

was used, weed control was satisfactory for several weeks but long 

before the end of the cutting season these plots were badly infested 

with pigweed, lamb's quarters and crabgrass. Atrazine, and more 

particularly Simazine, was vel;'y effective in coatrolling weeds in 

these tests. This was also true in the 1960 tests (3). No significant 

differences were displayed among means of the plots as far as 

total or marketable yield of asparagus spears was concerned. 

Last year we reported that where monuron had been applied yearly 

for four years an oat bioassay test indicated that none of the chemical 

persisted in the soil over winter (3). A cucumber bioassay in the 

spring of 1961 corroborated the earlier finding, and also indicated no 

toxic residues from 2.5 to 5.0 lb. applications of Atrazine and Simazine 

made one year prior to the test. 

271 

Tomatoes 

Certain chemicals that have some herbicidal properties have been 

reported as being selective for tomatoes. Results from testing some 

of these are presented in Table III. 

Tillam was incorporated into the soil with a rototil1er just prior 

to plantin3; Amiben was applied as granules and Casoron, Sola~Diphen~id 

and Dacthol were applied as sprays at lay-by. Only one application was 

made of the chemicals. Although Solan appears to be the most promising 

of the materials that have been tested, in 1960 when two applications 

were made, considerable folia3e injury resulted to the crop. Broadleafed 

weeds were controlled well in those tests but crabgrass grew 

rampant. The one application in 1961 reduced growth of broadleafed 

weeds without perceptible foliage injury. Weed control was not good, 

however, and crabgrass was abundant and vigorous. Yields were not 

affected in the 1961 tests here but in 1960 Moran (4) reported highly 

significant reductions in yield and fruit size in tests conducted on 

two different soil types. . 

Seedling tomato plants three to four inche.,talU were killed with 

a Solan spray at the rate of four pounds per acre i$1 50 gallons of water.

TABLEI. 

HEEDCONTROLAIUlYIEIJ) IN EARLmING mlEET CORN 

~ale__ 

Planted June 16, 1961 - (3 Re;lt"~ions) 

; '1 ~: 

wee;'~ontrol 

Yield-Lb. 1/' 

T1me I-Poor to ~nttable • 

.'Applied 9-hceUent Ean 

..,._Chemisa!.". _S!1.U£cJ.· ':;'.1.6Ll2,I§..l_ _ ';"V~f~l- SL2j.l§.1""'· ..,.__ 

Check-Cultivated,.O' 46• 

4.0 Lb. Atratine Ge1gy . Pre-eaierg. :g.O 

4.0 

11 

Sima:d!le 

11 11 11 

;'.0 

t." 

2.0 11 Atrazine 

11 11 It 

8.0 

,':l' I 

3.0 

11 

S1mazine 

I. 11.' 11 

9,0; 

1.0 " Urea 326 D1.IPont " 

11 

273 

TABLEII. ~1EED CONTROLANDYIELD IN ASPARAGUJ 

(4 aeplications) 

_R,!t!! ___ 

,£h.1ll'lc,al __ 

Heed Control 

Time 1-Poor to Yield-Lb. 

Applied 9-Excellent 5/11/61- 

§.o.!:!.X's.e;..' _ _5Ll1/&1_ _ _ _ 2/2/&1____ Y1/§.'C_ 

1,6 Lb. C'TG DuPont: Pre-emerc· 5.3 7.2 

2.4 " 

3.2 

II II 

2.5 

II 

3.75 II 

5.0 

II II 

" 

" " " 7.3 7.7 

Atre:~ins Geig'j " 

" 

II II 

G.O 3.3 

II 

7.0 7.0 

11 II II II 

0.3 7.6 

9.0 

II 

Zytron D~~~ 

" 

II 

" 9.0 7.4 

II 11 

2.3 3.2 

15.0 

II II II II II 

5.8 9.1 

2.5 

II 

Simazine Geiey 

II II 

8.8 0.4 

3.7-5 II 

II II II II 

9.0 9.0 

5.0 

II II II II II 

8.8 6.5 

Check 1.0 7.8 

N.S.

274 

TABLEIII. ~1EI$I),:OOIfrROL ANDYIl3LDIN ~TOES 

'(4 a,pUcations) 

~aS.e__ 

Ueed Control 

l-Poor to 

S-Excellent 

,..Ch es 1£a! ___ ,- _S~uI.~ __ T!lII!&1!.l!8!i __ 2.11lL61__ !1!.14.-1b,:. 

3.0 Lb. Casoron Niaz. Lay by 0/4/61 2.0 21.1 

4.0 

II 

" " 

II 11 

2.0 27..,7 

4.0 " Solan 

11 

" " S.S 22.9 

4.0 

11 

D1phenamld Lilly " " 

3~S 23•.3 

6.0 

11 

" " 

11 11 

4.3 24~S 

4,0 

11 

Dacthol D1&.Ait(. 

11 11 

3.3 25~0 

8.0 

Ii 11 11 11 11 11 

2.5 22'6 

12.0 II 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 22,9 

4.0 

11 

Am1ben(Gran.) Amdttin 

11 

6.0 

11 

8.0 " 

" " 

" 3.5 25..9 

11 11 11 

5.0 21.2 

11 11 11 11 11 

5.0 20.8. 

Checlc 1.0 18.4' 

0.66 Gal. Tillam(1ncorp.) Stauffer 6/5/61 2.3 24.4 

N.S.

~ 

C'l 

TABLE tv. 

lIEE» OON1T..OLAND YIELD IN CAIID.OTS 

(3 Replications) 

_ B,a£.e_' 

Heed Control Crop Appear. Yield- 

Time Applied I-Poor to I-Poor to 1/ 

Pre-emerg. 5/11/61 9-Excellent 9-Excellent Lb.- 

Ch~s.al !o~s.e !.o!.t::.e!!}!3!k.61lJ.I§.1_ _6L211§.C 6L211§.1 !OL2Q/§.1 _ 

- •. ~ -; ,. c, ~. ~ - , 

&AOUto,"".na~~l; e. ,_ DialR.,Allt... 

5;~0- ,Il -l:Diihit ' ~ , AmcIlieIlt ,0: :-: 

1.0 _ "Ipaziae Geigy 

4.0" DIlcthol Diam. 

9'.0, II Zytron Dm7' 

AIle. 

2.0 "Hercules 843 Here. Powd. 

4.0 II ,Solan NiaZ. 

1.0" Ipa&ine Geigy 

,lOO"O,'~l. _S~ Solvent ,~$ocon,y 

3')ot;Lb~ ND1~;' , ~ __ 

12;0-'''' ::nacthol '~.,-AlI~;' 

1.5 ,. 'Ipaaine Geigy: 

2.0" Solan Niag. 

1.0" Hercules 843 Here. Powd. 

6.0" Zyt1:on Dow 

6..0" Solan Niag. 

4'.0," Hercules 843 Here:. POWlf. 

4.0" Ami1JeD Amchem 

1.5 .. _ ipazibe Geigy 

4~0 Qt. R8D4ox'1' Mon.an. 

6-~O It .." 11 

5.0'1 tI .l . " 

Pre-emerz·' 

.. 

-"IS It . . 

11 

11 

" 

"11 II" 

Post-emer3. 

11 II 

11 

" 

l're..-#g. 

,'" ":, 

" ,: l"ost-emerg. 

n " 

Pre-emerg. 

" " 

Post-emerg. 

Pre-emerg. 

.. II 

----------.------------------------------------------- 

1/ - - - 

" 

II 

" 

" 

" 

__ 

'__5.7. 

3.0- ' 

_5.7 

6.3 

8.0 

,7.4 

7.7 

4.7 

" 7.4 

~ 6.'( ., 

- 7.4 

5.0 

6.7 

6.3 

7.4 

8.3 

8.3 

7.4 

6.3 

4.0 

5.7 

6.3 

- Means included in brackets are not significantly different at the 5% level. (Duncan' s) 

Multiple Range Test. 

7.4 

4.7 

6.3 

7.0 

7.0 

6.0 

7.0 

6.7 

6.0 

7.4 

6.3 

5.0 

5.7 

6.3 

7.4 

5.0 

5.3 

6.7 

4.3 

2.3 

1.0 

1.3 

111.9' 

110.7 

110.3 

104'~11_ 

l04.Qj 

99·U 

S6.& 

95.9 

95.9 

95.2 

95.2 

93.& 

91.4 I 

89.4 , 

88.L-1 

86.9 

86.4 

85.!L.-J 

73.5 

36. 

24;'21 

17.61 

) )

276 

Carrots 

£ 

Seeds of Ro)-alChan,~~~ ~!e 'p~~~:~~?¥:l'~a~et. Jr; plate :hO:l. 

number 9 in the ddll seeder;.:n\e p~a~t. were-not thinned_other thaq; 

the thinning that re~lted .. tnjury'f~ the berbtc1des. '~esultli o~~ '~. 

the tests are presented in Table IV•. It is evident that Randox Tis' 

least adapted as • potenti~l,h,~b,i~~!ie 1", C:~}'9.t~.•, ';l'hill treatment r~ 

sulted in poorest'wead e~n~~l~; greatest C1:0V ~p ,:and~owest yt:el~ 

Using the same ~~teda, fOt: e.v.~,.tion.; ~!t, qb~:calwi.,t~:most promi~ 

was Zytron; this·;was,alsq; tne':;lti ~e 1960te.~ '-'(2).,P'~r poundJ .~ 

of Solan also performed l7el1. ;{t h·interestlnc that- 100 gallons ,of 

Stoddard Solvent' ~aused some c~op injury and affected yields advetseij.',· 

in both the 1960 and 1961 te.t.~ 

-'J' 

'c- QRpclu,&opf" :.: ~ ':',- 

.l,:.:':,~~ or:(' ~:: ,\", (, :';-:,f " •• ; :1i ',", .!~ .. 

The results·~ubl~.b.d :J1~r.: .!loutdj1C;~·."~'~eJlp~t.4lcla. a fi¥l i~ 

asse •• lllent of the chemicals in,,~lved -bt' the te.~s sluc.· the balance 

of em1romental ~nfluence.' ar ..: extremely' impo$ant !n determining ,< 

the value of all herbicides-. "-ther pbs' or mtlus m:l~r to major, 

variatioDs may be ,expected from trials conducted under other con- . 

dition-.. Ther«f~~e, tests conducted over a period of years are 

necenarY to evaluate the potent1d of~~cl!. pr~~ct. ':' 

~. '. }. 

,'1 1, I 

LiteratureCit~. ~ 

c ' 

. . . 

-I. DunCan. David B. Hultiple ranee and IllUlt1ple F tests. 

Biometrics 11:1-42. 1955. 

2. Lac_n, 

vecatable 

H. H. and H. F. 

crops - 1960. 

Vernell. Heed control 

Proc. NmlCC15:223-231. 

in certain 

1961. 

,(),~~ .>1. .. ;' O! 

3. Lac:hmall, H. H. -Somll' feaearchl. anaweed' control' methods 

~t~ asparagus. hoc. NmlCC 15:215-222. 1961. 

4. HoralJ, 'Charles H. Post-transplanting and lay:'by weed, 

contrC)l in processing tomatoes. Proc. mmcc15:70-84. 

'1961. : r , 

r . '. ~ 

1'" i.~' i ~ , 

,'>\ (~ " 

I :'.) ..-", ','.i' '-, 

-'. 

,''-.')c: ( 

':1 ( , 

•.:!." 

c

WEEDCONTROLIN TRANSPLANT TOMATOES 

(A PROGRESSREPORT) 

277 

W. V. Welker. Jr. and T. J. Monaco l 

Two e.Jtperiments were conducted on transplanted tomatoes duping 

the 1961 season as a continuation of a project initiated in 1957. 

The objective of these experiments was to eval~te herbicides tor 

the control of weeds from the last cultivation through the harvest 

season. 

The variety Rutgers was used in an eJCPeriment at New Brunswick 

on a Sassafras sandy loam soil. The plants were set May 31 and 

the herbicideswere applied July 18 as granular formulations. The 

plots were maintained weed-free by cultivation up to the time of 

treatment. Half of each plot was cultivated immediately before 

application of the herbicides. None of the herbicides were 

worked into the soil. The major weed Rpecie~ that developed af.ter 

application of the herbicides were CrabgraSS~1fitaria sangu1na11s 

(L.) Scap.) and fall panicum Panicum dichtt f OrUD! MicbX.).· The 

minor weed species were pigwee ranthus retroflexus L.) and 

lambsquarters (Chenopodium a1bum 

A randomized complete block design with three replications 

was used~Each p~ot consisted of two rows 3~teet long with 7 

feet between plots. Three pickings were made during the season. 

Weeds were counted to determine the degree of weed control. 

The herbicides used may be placed in three categories as 

follows: 

Excellent Weed Control 

amiben 

3 -amino -2 . 5 - d i c hl o rob e nz o i c acid) 

tillam 

Propyl ethyl-N-butylthiocarbamate) 

diphenamid ~ N.N-dimethyl-c-'-diphenylacetamide) 

4 & 8 lb/A 

4 & 8 Ib/A 

3 & 6 lb/A 

Intermediate 

dacthal 

CIPC 

CDEC 

Weed.Control 

(dimet~l 2•.3.5 J 6 tetrachloroterephalate) 

(isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate 

(2-chloroallyl diethyldithiocarbamate) 

12 lb/A 

6lb/A 

81b/A

278 

Unsatisfactory Weed Control 

CDEC . (2-chlorQ8.lky:l diethyld1thioc;arbamate) 

plus ". 

CDAA 

(2-chloro-N,N~diallyacet~de) 

CDEC (2-chloroallyl diethyldit~o~rbama.te) 

plus ',. -." ~'-- , 

CIFC (isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate) 

i:1aethal (dimethyi 2.3.5.6 tet:ra,ob!Qroterephala te) 

plus 

CIFC . (isopropyl N~(3-chlorOphen1l)carpamate) 

4 Ib/A 

plus 

4 Ib/A 

4 Ib/A 

plUS 

4 Ib/A 

6.lb/A 

,PlUS 

~·4,:lb/:Il 

. . ) .. . 

None of the herbicide treatments listed cau.e~plant injury or reducedyield 

•. 

. . . 

~e .second experiment. ~~onducted ·on ..' l1ghtersandy soil 

in southe:rn New Jers.ey with the variety Campbelll46.The maj:or 

weed that developed in the experimental area was cI'abgrass.and, 

minor weeds. welle lambsquarters .and pigweed.': The herbicide: :t:reat .. 

ments wereappl1ed as granUl&1'8 at lay-by to freshly culUvatled, 

sol1. A ~orniaedcomplete. block designwJ.th four repl1cat:t&ls . 

was used.'l'hr$e pickings were.made durirlg the season. Visual' 

ratings of weed control and plant injury we1l'e made tbreet1me.,c 

during the season. .' _. 

The herbicides used may be placed in three categories a$ 

follows: 

Excellent 

Weed Control 

amiben 

3 - amino -2 . 5- di c hl orob enz oi c aC.id) 

EFTC 

ethyl N.N-di-n-propylthiooar.bamate) 

tillam ~ propyl ethyl-N-butylthiocarbamate) 

Intermediate 

R-1870 

R-1856 

dacthal 

CIPC 

Unsatisfactory 

WeedControl 

~ 

e thy l di-n-butylthiolcarbamate) 

t-butyl di-n-propylthiolcarbamate) , 

dimethyl 2.3.5.6 tetrachl¢rotere- . 

phalate), J -. 

(isopropyl N- (3-chloropheny;1)earbama te·, 

'. 

.~ ""y~~"" '."'. 


2 &:41b/A 

3 &:,6,lb/A 

3 &:o"lb/A 

3 &:6 lb/A 

3 &:6 lb(A 

~,.lb/A 

o'lb/A 

CIPC (isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate) 2 &:4 Ib/A 

None of the herbicides used in the second exper:1Jnent reduced yield. 

EFTC at 3 and 6 pounds per acre caused visible. injury late1n---bhe 

season.

279 

·QUACKGRASSCONTROL 

S.M. 

Raleigh l 

Variation in genetic strains of quackgra's was very evident in 

1961. These stiains can best be observed by applying treatments across 

areas where corn bas been grown.. 'Cultivation tendlt'to spread strains 

up and down the row. These strata. have been observed especially with 

Atrazine, but also with Dalapon and Amitrol-T. 

Plowing, preparing a ,•• ed bed, and planting the same day the 

land is plowed followed by good 4ultivation will reduce the stand of 

quackgrass considerably, especially if a chemical is used whicb is 

injurious to q\lackgrass and not. to the corn. 

The pre-emergence application of Atrazine at two pounds per 

acre, (data in Table II) with A*1trol-T. Dalapon or Atrazine reducedtbe 

stand of quackgrass very little.. In other fields where Atrazine was applied 

as pre-emergence the day of planting, the quackgrass was reduced considerably. 

Under these conditions rates of four pounds and higher did not give much, 

better control than the two pound rates. 

The control of quackgca•• with Dalapon (Table II) is rather poot. 

In anotber field of twelve acre •. where Dalapon was used with and without 

wett.ing agents, the control was much better. There were six replications. 

The results were: Dalapon, 5.92.pounds alone (Dowpon, 8 pounds) 93%, with 

Dash added, 96%; Dynawet, 97%; rab, 95%; liquid All, 93%; and Tritton x 

100, 92%. Four pounds of Atrazine in this test save 90%control. 

(l) Professor of Agronomy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 

Pennsylvania.

2130 

Table I. Pall and Spring .".Ucatlons of herbicides on quacl~gras. 

Cora Pleat .. ··Hay 25, 196L 

tl'nivers1tyP,ark. Penneylvania 

. . - - - - - - - - - -aiel- - _DI - -.- - -.. --..._ - 

Chemical. WbeJl.applied lbtt./A Plowtd· ,.lowed Plowed P!lowed 

: '. . •. ..•:. Uav 25 ';4a!. 16 "'"c. 9 -. 10 

- - - - -. - -. - "':'_.- - - - - -~~.a.":. -1----;.'.".-- 

- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -.- -.- -(ff,"'loCoOcioI; -10,-C:;Plete;;;&(1) 

.AIIIitrol-r Rov. 4 : .4· 6.5 6...6 4.7 2.0 

. Hay 13 4 9.5 5.5 6.0 1,7 

Alaitrol-T Nov. 4 2 7.7. ... 6.:8 5.7 4.3 

Hay 13 2 8.8 7.0 5.3 3.7 

).\ 

Atraz1ne Nov. 4 4:0 8.9 

Hay 13 ·4:< 9.3 I 

8..6 

8.0 

8.3 

7.8 

7~3 

&.0- 

Atraz11W ..lIov.:4 2:.". 8.0 

~ .:'! 6.7 5.0 2~3 

Hey 13 2 . 8.3 '!, 

5.3 5.0 "6.0 

AllDL.trol-TaDd NoV. 4 21·2 9.0 6.3 5.7 2.0 

Atraz1ne . May13 2,12; 9.0 6.3 7.0 S.7 

c: 

Da1apon Nov. 4 11.1 7.3 7.7 6.7 3.3 

May 13 5.92 9.0 6.7 5.7 4~0 

Geigy 34162 Nov. 5 4 5.3 4.7 3.0 1.0 

May13 4 7.0 6.5 3.0 1.0 

Geigy 32293 Nov. 5 4 9.0 6.5 5.7 1.3 

Hey 13 4 9.0 6.2 4.3 2.7 

Cbeck 4.0 2.0 3.0 .0

281 

table II. The control of:'4oaekal'au tittb.'j)ltlnl 

AppUed ,-y 24 and 2S 

applications 

" 

Atrazlnli -2* 

Atraz:Lne 1 

Atraz1.ne 2 

Mlitr,ol ..t 

,Am;~rol-t 

,:' ,'. ;-:",r:'"" . 

. ',C j ril\llli,~l-T 'j , • 

AJa;f. fa'Ol..T 

' 

1.>8:.1' . 

fl8~y; 

;-1I Crr:) t·';' 

...~ ...jJ i" .. ". 

..j$-, "~,' 

9.5, 

9.6. 

8.3 

a~5 

S.O' 

5.&r 

.7~0 

.,"7r.:'l:,:,;.', 

Atraz1.ne 2** 

i.~rad4e . 

Atradne 

.' ..-& 

9.S 

9.S - 

7.S 

7.8 

2>.0>-''''-. 

2.0>1' 

Amitrol-T L 

AmitJ:91-T2 ' , 

Amitrol-t 2 

AtrazLne 2 

AtraUN 

.A~~ne·, 

'"i 

. -1~i8 

".-

2. Assistant Professor. Department of Agronomy, University of Massachusettt, 

Amherst. Massachusetts. 

282 

CHEMICALQUACICGWSCONTROL 1 , 

Jona. 

Ve~gri82 

Atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamine-6-i80prop,lamino-s-triazine) and 

other herbic,ide.areavailable wh~~Il,,,ppear to provida reliable mean8 of 

controlling quackgral8 (Agropyron repen8). Atradne:'.uppresses this weed 

significantly ~utoften recollllend_" t.j;e. fail.to e.radicate it completely., 

The persi8tence of this weed i8 related to its primary mode of reproduction. 

i.e. itl rhizomes which usually ate distributed in the l'low layer. Rhizomes 

vary in length and depth and thist·a. our tests indicate (2). i8 at leatt 

part of the explanation for failure. in controlling quackgrass with chemicals. 

Atrazine sholi14 be applied c.•• clole as pouible to the rhizomes .It 

is re.sonable to conclude that mi.i~g the herbicide with the soil should 

be advantageous. The ch4llllical will be closer to the rhizomes and under dry 

surface .oil conditions mixing ma, provide better moisture conditions for 

atrazine to be tAken up by rhizomes and kill them. 

The main objective of ou~ trials in 1960/1961 was to investigate 

the importance of mixing atrazine ",ith the soil by rototUling versus leavtag 

the material on the surface. Comparisons were al.e .. de between fall and 

spring applications. In addition'to'atrazine. other promising herbicides 

or their combination. were included. 

Procedure 

Trials were conducted on a well drained gravelly sandy loam. The 

area had a good unif.,. stand of quackgrass. Plots wlere 12 ft. by 28 ft. 

Three replicates were used. Time :0'£'application and ~ates are given in 

Table II. Fall applications were made on October 10. 1960 and spring applications 

on April 27, 1961. The quaclgrass was from 5 to 7 inches tall. 

On May 19 the exper1lilental area w". "lowed. disked, fertilized and prepared 

for field corn planting. On May 22 after seedbed preparation, atrazine and 

EPTCwere applied as shown in Table-iII. Treatments 10, 11, 12 and 20 were 

rototillad about 4-~ in. deep immedtately following application of the 

material. The next day on May 23, Ohio M-1S silage field corn was planted. 

Thus treatments appUed on May 22 aMybe considered lUI being made at planting. 

Atrazine is only slightly soluble ·in'water (70 ppm i1l':water) and moisture 

conditions in the soil at the time of application and for the first ten days 

after application are critical fo~tbe effectiveness of treatment. In 

Table I. rainfall and temperature data are shown for the various treatment 

dates. With each date.of application, the moisture conditions were favorable 

for the action of atrazine. On June 5 the whole experimental area was sprayed 

with 6 pounds per acre· of dinitro' (DNB') for annull'lW4eedcontrol. There wa• 

._-----------_.._----------------_.- .. _._----._---_.--_._------------ 

1. ContributiCn No. 1336 of the University of Massachusetts, College of 

Agriculture, Experiment Station, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

..--- .

no cultivation during the growing season. All herbicide rates presented 1ft 

Table II are expressed in pounds of acid equivalent or active ingredient per 

acre. Quackgra88and field com teeponse to dUfereb«: tl'eatments was observed 

throughout the srowing season. Q'*'1tgra88 .ta~d es~tes werelll4de on July 29. 

Quackgrass control as well as sil_.e' ,com yield data

284 

A,.· t.)· if'/' ( 

.,., Tb,41~~ pJ.ota prod~~".. w srcnrtJi, of ~1tgft8lt which anoqi" 

cCl!DP~t!!ldwith!=011':for plant nu~~ ..tul ,ep.daU4'~ ,fol'watel'. All tn.,.. 

~"1ncre.. ecl dla~ c.om ;11.1"'t#~Ulcantl,. n, !'/. 

.' 

'>I $:J;'TCpve eKc.llentC;9q1;~lof Cluackll"'.x~c(.,:n wua1gnUiCaDtly 

injur.d and yield88:f~ected. Th. c~ill8tion treatllelltl of da1.pon, amltro).-T, 

and G-34162 witb'fn.adlle were a~~Q!,.~mising in controlling quackgr'88 in 

field com. ' " . "","L 

In I~neral all treatmant~.,,.~~fect1vely\con,,}.1:.d q~ackgrai8. ,~~r,', 

aeems that the CJpt1m\lll\rate of at11ldtae to control ~kJna8 11 al'OlJDdtf.~bJA. 

Although atra.Ln-e can be applied nec'.aafully in th. ftaU, early sPring o.t:: 

p1.nting time .~l1cation8 seem 1IO''t. practical. The.e ~OUld b,.pU.t .~P~i;' 

cations - 2 1blk:on fo1iag. in Apl'll'~d 2 1b/A 2-3 week. later on pr8p.r'~ , 

seedbed at com planting time. 811111.1'results h,v. b•• n obtained el8ewh,e/=8(l). 

Results from this experiment alao 'lJbstantiated ptei\~ui' f1nd1~18~3)tha(..i . , 

mixing the atl'dlne illllllediately '~.l' applications with the loll improves', . 

quackgrau coRth1. By mixing th.! ~h-'mica1 with th.:lio~l·:f.t COl!l8S in clo,-r 

contact with t:h.,'mau of rhizomes ~d: sol1 moisture cond'1t1oni'are better'lo 

facilitate ab80rPtion of atradn. ",. the roots. In 196:1."'tnCli6i weumad~"otl. 

rhizome depth .in the sol1 and the effectivene,s ()f ~tJ'IlI1118. Wooden bo:v:~o'" ..... 

l'x1 'xl' ware. set in the field at Bl'ound level. 'rh~-inch and 9"iechthtl!i~ . 

cuttings were planted horizontally\~-inch and 4-inc!liil'.eepin the .oiL~Jn 

order to e1mulate field condition'~'l'hizomes were p"i±it.d ~ho at a11llOs~ ',-,rtical 

angles of'·60":70o so that the t~~'ends were one inchJfrtlm the surf.ce.~,':_ 

Immediately afta. planting, atrazina'at 1 1b/A and 3 lb/A was app1iedaa'sorface 

treatment. The average relative nl1ilts ,of four rii~Hcatc,s are presente4ri~ 

Table III. Atrazine at the rate of, l' IlblA as Ii "urfideaplllicaUon did' not , 

affect rhizomes planted four inch •• deep. At t'be'3 l'tl/A rate atrazine gave 

comp1.tt controlc:;fall rhizomes planted ona inch deep in horizontal 01' vertical 

position ltut some milliomes survived which were 4 inchea away from 'the allP'11~4 

atradu. Por.~::s'iiateat effect of atradne, 11: 11 of first importanc:e~' 

get the Mterial as close as POUib1. totherhizo~fJ~ It 1s of inter.~t~tio 

note that rhizomes p'l!aced et a 60-7Q .'~$le wft;ht~e)

SummaryandConclu.1Qp' 

1. A quackgrass control in'lteld corn experiment was conducted on 

a well drained gravelly l8ady loam. Atraziae, methymercapto 

analogue of atrazine, dalapon, amitrol-T, and EPTCwere used. , 

285 

2. Atrazine was effective and most promising in controlling quackgritllB 

in field com. TheciptilllUlllrate was,'. f'f.b/Aof active 

in8redl.nt~ . It may be appl1ed in thefail~ early in the spri~$ 

on quaoklra .. foliage O'r:(Wt'planting' on a iJ"r'!paredseedlled. These 

prellminar,v trials indicate that the 'most praCtical way to apply 

atraZine is as a splitt:reiitment 2 lb/A oi:t"'oUage early in the '.' 

spring arid 2 lb/A at plut.f.ils. Mixing the ~.~razine with the soU', 

increased the effectiveria.llIignificantl,. J~oget conclusive . 

tesults moteCests should'&e'conducted. 

3. EPTCand combination treatments of dalapon, amitrol-T, and G-34l62, 

with atraziDe were also promising in controlling quackgrass in 

field com. EPTCat 6 lb/~ rate injure~ t~. com and resulted in 

decreaaed yielda. 

• 

Literature Cited 

, •..1 

1. Fertig, S. N. 'the effective1les'i'lof combinationsbf plow-down, preemergenee 

aad p08t-emers~c.:treatments foi,qUackgrass control, 

1960 results. Proc. Northea.tem WeedConttol Conference 15:312 

314 (1960). 

2. Veagris, J~n88. The effect of rhizome length ..avdepth of planting on 

the mechanical and chemical control of quaciSrass •. ~ 10 (1), 

1961. 

3. -------- Cheaical quackgra'scontrol. Proc. Northeastern WeedControl 

Conference 15: 385-390. (1961). 

}.

286 

Introduction: 

A SUMMARYOF QUACmRASSCOR1'9JLS'l!l1DIE PUR'$' 

8tQl!M'II!,Ia; Fe7!ti~ '(n-: 

::\. 

, .• '., - _,., ', :" "';; _ ::-r", ;~j,:.J .:.'HO : 'r .:-;:",);.- . " .... : 

Quackgr•••. ;cplllMt~;tI~'C&ll be,f" ..pIlIJortactor 111-* yi.~d of com for 

silage o~ forp'a1A •. ;Ita I!8du~1qpiJ1D,.stapdot ~lo8s e,nd.reduce4 compet1tiot1l,s 

to .be ol!t~ by. c~~ppe%!,.tlOras, ~"tJ3ey IIIWJtbe. 

frequent ~ pr(lpeJ,').~t1med. ; TJ:ut,.~pf: a a1D{1le ClJMiCl~ ,01', 'CQIIIb1,natlon 

of chem1cal8pl~ q~t~ope?:''''1I~'ha''ProveJl ~.SIliliY let~ect1ve1n controlling 

qua.ckgr~s,. 'rhe',cp~d*¥!,t1on of~ ePlus Pfe'" :~"'IIZ'J.y pojJt-emersence 

herb1c1@,~~n\l wp.l ,elind~".~assC9IIP8U,to.ton :l.n corn for the 

growing season and Where moisture, 4-f,~t1ng o~~~t1n ;y1e,ld:l.ncreases 

of silage 01' grain by 50 - 100 percent. 

Method and;. 

frss,q,u.i;e:: 

\ ,:.' _' ;'~ ,1" 'I -}

If or where farmer acceptance of a chemiceJ. treatment is based on visueJ. 

observation or the absence of vegetation, the above treatments would be considered 

unsatisfactory even though the yielda may not be affected. 'Including 

the cultivated and non-cultivated treatments, 18 )'leld values are represented 

in the above treatments rated as poor or fair in control. The yields from 9 

of these plots are, however, in the first 20 highest yields obtained in the 

experiment. A clear d:l.stinct10n should be made between seasoneJ. suppression, 

reduced stands and kill or el1m1nation of quacltgr8ss when writing for or 

. - . . - ~ 

:287 

are reported in pounds per aereef 20 percent lII01ature hay equi veJ.ent • 

The CQrn silage yields were calculated from the harvest of 2 - 10 foot 

.ections of row,tuen from the center area of thecml;t1vated and from the 

center area of the non-cultivated portions of eaoh treatment. A random I 

sampJ.e was ,ara~;f'rom the harvested plants, chopped and a 2,000 gram sample 

of chopped :ulaterial was oven dried to determine dry matter content. The 

yields of IJilage in tons per acre at 75 percent moisture were calculated 

from these values. 

Discussion~ 

All chem:lca]. trea~tson the corn stubble plots (Table I) when combined 

withoult:l..vat10n resulted in e. significant reduction in the competitive 

effects of~&s as indicatedby' the silage yields. As shown by the 

y:te~ds of quackgz!ass foliage '911l1l1l.Dytreatments, however, the effect was dUe 

to a reduction in the vigor and jp'OWthof quackgrass rather than effective' 

klll. 

Whenthe plots were harvested' in September ti1Elre was an excellent cover 

of quack8ras. on treatments 3, 5, '6, 10, 12 and to a lesser extent 14. _n 

though the yields of s1188e were GOt significantly reduced on these trea1j. 

ments, the ~ll of quackgrass was: rated fair to very poor. It is fair to ' 

assume that had mo:l.sture conditions been less favorable throughout the growing 

season, 'the y1elds would have..been reduced by .M¥eral tons· per acre. 

A CClZIIliletekill of quackiras.$ is possible by ~ated applications of 

plow-down and pre" or post-emergel)ce chemical treatments. The same total 

SlIPunt of eJJemical :l.n split applications has been tar more effective in 

killing quackgra8s compared to a single application. Where kill of quaekgre.ss 

is desired, the cost of an additional spray treatment is Justified. 

The silage yields from treatments on the sod area (Table II) are eJ.S(). 

quite uniform Within the cultivated and non-cultivated plots. A significant 

yield difference at the 5 percent level does exist'l\l4!ltween some treatments. 

Considering the combination of cClll,POundsand treatments used, however, these 

d:l.fferences are small. 

Also, based only on the yields obtained from the cultivated and nonoultivated, 

the Value of cultivation would be questioned. Visual ratings on 

the oontrol of quaekgrasll at the tlme of harvest, however) shewed a definite 

adve:atage for cultivation in kill1ng quackgrass. Even though the yields do 

not reflect it, treatments 6, 10, 13, 15, 21 and 23 were rated poor control 

and treatments 14, 18 and 22 were rated fair control.

') ) 

.;/ u 

" . 

y~ ~ca1 I ,; ,~ CheDdCl,' . ~~: EeI··1 ~ I I 

1* Atraz1ne ~ 0 11+_8_ : .. n" . . ' .' i8"'~i'" ~ NO- - - 

2It 

3* 

4* 

5 

6 

1 

8* 

10 

II 

9* 

Atrazine 

S1mad.ne 

G-34696 

G-34361 

2.0 

Jan~-~J re.Q, "~, ." 

~. F2.0 "::( 

.~. 0. ,- ..r 

Pro~ne:. 

G-34360 

Atratone 

~.o 

2.0 

2.0 

::!~:t~~: 

. , 

G-34696 

G-3436l. 

Atratoue 

2.0 

2.0 

Atraz1De.::: '2'.0 

~:'"~ . ~ 

~ e.~ 

Propazine 3·0 

G-34360, 2.0 

I a.e 

-~.... - 

Bone 

,,,,'WQ.; 

12 

"",~_.;i._ 

1280 

-----~. 

13 

4.0 

16..6 

340 

14 

" Atraz1JJe I 2.0 16.3 15.5 

310 

15 

00 1------- r---- '1-------- l18osL!0. 

I..;--- I Atraz1De IU 

r ..~ .I .255 

re16 p!Jeck .---- -:::==:1 --~-_L=:---- ------~ 9.1" 4.~-~-~~ 

. *S~ chemical, ra1;e per acre and methOd of treatJl!etlt used in lYbQ. . .all.otller trea'tmeDts the cheln1~a1 vas changed 

.q ~ 

;·1.30 

1367 

l.26O 

61.5 

495 

~

,~, 

~ Tab1.e II. Chemical. Treatments Used on Sod Area and Yiel.ds of Corn Silage 

('0/ andQuackgrass Foliage. 1.961. 

I - c Tons of silage corn Ib~(A of" quacltgrass 

P1ow~wn ChSn:LCaJ. - Pre.;me;;~ce lloat-emerge,i;lce at 751imisture rollage at 2i:1f,moist\ 

~at~ ChemieaJ.'BB£e/A Chemical. Rate/A Chemical. Rate/A. Not Not 

No. 1bs.a.e. P.bs.a.e. _ bs a.e. Cul1;1vated ~ul:tivated Cultivated Cultivate 

,I Atrazine 1.0 Atrazine 1.0 ------ .... ---. 21.5 1.9·9 60 70 

2 Atrazine 1.0 Atrazine 2.0 ------ ----- 21.3 21.1 331 0 

3 Atrazine 2.0 Atrazine 1.0 ------ .._--- 22.1 21.1 --- 20 

4 Atrazine 2.0 AtraziDe 2.0 ----- : 

----- 21.2 20.5 15 5 

5 Atrazine 3.0 Atraz1ne ' 1.0 ---_._- ----- 23·9 22.8 None 15 

6 Amitro1-T 1.0 Atrazine 1..0 -...---- ----- 1.9.4 20.9 455. 400 

7 c Amitrol-T 

lO ~ ~, J¢raz1rW" ~1...0- -."-~-- ; ----- ~c'.3, .~ 20,5 ~:c.'J .: 40 

8',;0' Mntrol-7 

." ~ "At1".8.z1Jie ':, '~:

290 ' .. i '~r I.". ',-: 

: l.1 r, '" ' 

THEEFFECTS01 CHEMICALANDCULTt1IALTUATMENTSONTill SURVIVAL~ RHIZOMES 

ANDON'tHB YIELD01 llNDERGROIJIfD FOODRBSERVs.:S_Ol. QUACIGRASS- , 

.".- -. ._.-_...• --',,' .. 

H. M. t+t~ :~d,8,., N. h~t,a 

IntrodupUQA_ " )'J ~ S-:' I 

In order .t~ ~ogtroi~r i .tallll1·~~p.'rllDD~~)f 

' •• ', ~' 

~~~ci~"lt 11 neceaaary,e1ther 

directly. lnd1r~t11" to ,#,n4!Jcet.::d •• tructlono(~~e org~n.which pe~p.t· 

uate: the plant,., IIltb,~ cQ. ~.quc.kcC... ,the plal).1:""rtl re.ponl1ble fot lt1 

perennta11tyare the ma•• of under around atem. cal1ed~rhl.omes. 

The 'uormal Ute otlildlvldual"'quiCkgra .. iiiizome;"is pr~bably not mucb ov.r 

a year. It i.not alwaysappreclatedthat this characteristlc i. one of.t~. few 

lmportan~ weakness_' tabarent i~; ~c~.~•., rb~.;b.~. of .pecia1 inte~~at 

ln the use;of herb1c1d •• for the oogt~J: orer~d~cat~. ~f quacklrass. A cbemlcal, 

to be effective .. maJ not n_cea.ari1~;Id.~l the plant Mrl8bt or directlyc.uae 

itea,th a.~ d.cOlllPOdUQftol tbe rh9"i< Control ... , "'.ffected indlrect1y by 

lnduclnldormaaoy or preventin8proc§~.!~~!l qf., no rb1aollea until the netum 

deatb of 'th.·~an~·,~avif·l:.ken;'pl~c., 'J However, ~h, A.l~tion that a dlr,ec,t 

u1sUolt~lp .:/CUt. b.tween the e~~.ct;~ oj a tr.a~m.nt "" topsrowth and le;s :effect 

on aurvlval and actlvlty of the rhl.~' may be lubject to error, especially 

wbenquackgr •• , control from different cbemlcala are b.inl compared. 

Thls i inve.tigatlon was ~a~r~ec;l ~~ to o1?tain a mOIj. complete ~ow1.d~e, of 

the pbyl1plogy'Of tbe quackl~a... r~1••• 8apeciallyall l-t ls affected by, b~rblcidel 

a.d IIIOdel'n,control' recoaae~~t~~a~A :prev,lou. "apar reported on the 

effacta of tre.dDe~ti ontberfood re.erv. content: of :q~Ckar"s rhizomes (2). 

The .xt.nt of ~blzome carbobydrate r.duction waa t6bad 'to be more a char.Ct~latic 

of t~e berbic14e us. thaD' it ••• ~"'.te4 'to-fopsrWtbsurvival and re,rowth. 

It 1i r.alonable'to luppoae that. I~~l.,r ,raau1t1 ~outd :a1Jo be expected fr~ tbe 

rhizome survival: data. : , "', :', , 

. '". i 1. J '. 

Materia4 

and, .1f.etboda- 

,A deicrlp~i~n of, .~ experl~'t~:::clta1gn, ... ,Uot; acbedu1e arid procedUre, 

and ~aboratory /II.t~cI.,b•• b~n gl~ ~:prev1ou.p.per.. (1, 2). The field :Plots 

were located near Itbaca, N.Y., on a Mardln ailt loam .oil which had a unlform 

aad heavy quackaraal infelUtion. Th. treatments were replicated four tim.',ln 

a 3 x6 .p11t-plot factorial. .' 

H'of 

Sample. of quacqra'lrblzOlll8" "r. collected p.t_~cally ulinl a ate ..l 

cylinder., All aoil and foreiln l118~t!lr :J'~re relllQved by ~a.hil).l iaa cement li1xer. 

The r~1zomes were tbendried, Welshed, 'ground, mixed thoroughly. and analyzed 

for c,arbohy'dratll content. Since fructo •• polymers, 1••• .! fructolana, :w,erl_,faund 

to be the pd~1pal food reaerve cO'Q'tt1;Uent quackji-.I. rhizomel, quantitative 

carbohydrate determlnatlons were baa.d on tbe free fructo •• content fo110wlna 

acid bydrolyall. On the baah of th. rbi.ome. obtained frClll one aquare foOf of 

1This include. part of tbe work don. on the Ph.D. study at Cornell Univer.ity. 

2Plant Pbya101olllt, -Virginla Truck ixP~~1ment- S~at1~~,'Horfolk, Va. and 

Profei.or of Agronomy, Cornel1Un~~~r.lt~, ~tbaca, N'Y",respective1y. 

~ ,

so11 per plot at each sampling date., the yield of l!",~omes and their fo04 reserve 

content were determined. The yield of fructose p~l&l1it area was subsequently 

calculated as the product of these two determinations. 

291 

Results 

and Di,cussion 

Main effects of cultural trea~~t,: 

\ 

The main effects of cultural treatments on the' yield of quackgrass rhizomes 

are given in Table I. Both the plowing and fallow treatments resulted in an 

early decrease in the yield of.,J:l:a:f.'l:lIDes 

about, 4PJpercent. The effect Df the 

single spring ploWing tended to a~~ease throughoutlthe experiment as regrowth 

of foliage occurred, although it continued to show lower yields than the uncultivated 

quackgrass. The effect of continuous fallow, on the other hand, increased 

and resulted in a decrease of a\)o,~$, 7S per cent infhizome yields by late autumn. 

'" 

J 

The depletion of total carbohydrate yield due to cultural treatments was 

especially severe as shown in Table II. The dataabow that the first plowing is 

by far the most important s1ng1e)c~l~ural treatmenti'resulting in an earl, and 

rapid decline of over 70 per cent' ~n the fructos."eld. Where no further 

tillage was appl1l!d, however, tlHtfood reserves weregraduaUy replenished. By 

late autumn the plowed plots were no longer significantly lower than the uncultivated 

plots, and by the following spring the re~~don of total carbobY'lt:ate 

was only 24 per cent. The fallowereatment continu.d a gradual depletion of 

fructose yield to 94 per cent by late autumn, which 'persisted to the next spring. 

Main effects of chemical treaem,~.ts: 

The effect of herbicides onthe'dry weight yieids of rhizomes was always 

significant throughout the experim£\~t, as seen in Tab,le III. AU of the :urbicides 

with the exception of DalapOn caused an early and marked decrease in rhizome 

yielda. Although only Atrazine.bowed a significant reduction of about SOper 

cent by the first sampling date" tbe rhizome yield;teductions from Sfmazine, 

Amitrol-T and Penac ranged betWeeri.~S and 39 per c~t. Throughout the remainder 

of the experiment, Atrazine, Sfmazlne, and Amitrol continued showing,gradual 

decreases in rhizome yields, resulting in eventual declines of 88, 76, and 68 

per cent, respectively, at the f.l~,~ aampUng date'Jl Thes,e three herbicide,s 

resulted in consistently lower survival of rhizomes than Penac or Dalapon. While 

Penac showed only minor changes from the initial decrease of 35 per cent throughout 

the remainder of the experi~nt, the effect of ntilapon was gradual and· 

continuous throughout the growing ~aon resulting. in a 56 per cent lOBS of 

rhizomes by late autumn. However, lta effect decre.sed during the winter and 

early spring, showing a reduction 01 ,only 31 per cent by May 10,1960. 

Since the herbicides generally, caused simultan.£lous reductions of both 

rhizome yields and fructose content, the effects of chemical applications on the 

total carbohydrate yields were considerably accentuated, as shown in Table IV. 

Atrazine gave a very sharp and~arly,decrea.e in Ir~tOBe yield of 88 per ~ent 

by the first sampling date one mOnt~:after application. Thia carbohydrate 

depletion increaaed slowly throullloUtthe year to 97 per cent by autumn and 99 

per cent by May 10, 1960. Simazine showed similar results although it reacted 

slower, with an initial reduction of 72 per cent, and a 94 per cent reduction by 

late summer. However, its effect decreased during the winter and early spring,

292 

Table I-MaiD' Bfieed'Of

418' 

293 

Table III Main Eff,ects of Her~1c1cl.a on the Yie1di~fQu,ackgra88 RhizOlae4lr, 

at all Sampling Dat~a;~; 

Sampling Herb~cide Treata;e~tj¥e~JUI (lba.Jacr~) Significance 

Date !lb, , ,I (per cent) 

June 1S, 1959 Atr. Siill. 1 

11760 2120 5 

I 

lJAIireated 

" Mean 

4760 

Aug. 5, 1959 

Sept. 10, 1959 I sLil. 

I 680 

I Sim. Atr. 

I 1060 

! 

1220 

Ami. ,~. ~l.l 

1680 I 19'80 2060 , 

~,-odi'3:l' I 

Atr.' AmL!I~~r. Fen. I 

700 1220 1240 1640 

, 

i it I 

-.,j'J t 

No herb~' 

2460 

1 

5 

1 

5 

i. , 

4700 

3660 

Nov. 10, 1959 

May 10, 1969 

Table 

IV 

I 

I Atr. 

I 340 

, 'ii' , 

Sim. AmL'I'~n~1 Da1. No hef~,~J 

§SOl 88~ 1.1?2.0, 1920, 27~!t 

.." , , ,,' 

1 

5 

1 

S 

~960 

Main Eff~~ta of Herbici~e. on the Yield ,) vructoae,from QuaCk&r~aa 

Rhizomes at All, Sampl1."Jlatea.· , 

Sampling 

Date 

Herbicide TreatmeptHea~s (lba./acr~) 

June 15, 19$9 , Al;r. Sim. Ami.. 

, I 

No h.~b. 

82i l 

Significance Untreated 

(eer cent) ",n 

1 

5 1,873 

Aug. 5, 1959 Atr. 

§l 

Sept. 10, 19591 Atr. 

I 26 

Sim. Ami.. }~en. 081. Noll'~'" 

27 

i 

21 A :; 

• 5Q4 15608601' I 

I I 

I 

Sim. Ami.'Dal.. I Fen. I N~ h~~.1 

43 186 210 I 401 I 762 

1 

5 1964 

1 

5 1540 

Nov. 10, 1959 I Atr. Sim. Ami. ,:,~l. 'Fen. I Nohe~~! 

I 42 80, 276 t 

i 

633 I U3~ 

_ 

.':; I ,I' I 

May 10, 1960 r Atr. Silll. Ami.re~. IDal. • No !luI!. 

I 7 83 112 1'302 3S7 588 

t )j 

I 

1 

5 2463 

1 

5 597

294 

;~~~r::~~~~r::::~~::U:~l~ 

:~;~!~~0~h~::Oin~::1::jf~~'!:::~·:0·;e;a~~it'~ 

fall an~ held ~on~~ant., tUlthe. {o1.~Cl'(l~._epr~Df!I'~~'~ .o~ the reduct1~ ;0.£ 

rbi .. e. by 'e.c,thefructose1tifcl ;ehOvel al\ iutl:'tl1. etecl1ne of 37 per Q~~, 

WhiCh'increa,"'. ['loW.ltlto 53. p.'~..,by ..•. late .au.~UIIIIl .."•. a:::III.~_.. 'tb. en.-decre.s.•.ed 'to.···. 7+9'-" 

per cent by the nell;t sprln8 •., _ D~'iijieiiiAoW.dno •• ~~~ioJ1 the.f~lICt,~ 

yle1dl, but call1.ed .·a fa1rly~~lcf'''.c;,~~e 4~rJ.bI :~~~: .~~ to 72 per cent in 

total carbohydrate.. The effeelt ofDlftlapon· cleona"iI~.HDI the fall and winter, 

re.u1ting In a reductlon of only ~t~r:: cent· by Maylo-;-I96·0. 

Interactlon beeweett cU1tunf.q~cah~~~' t'l'eaitm~Q~:: ;\~, r 

, ' . -, I .. ~". 

There wae no liplflcant tRt..... loa between the-.ffectl of cultural treatmenta 

and herblcldal apPUca!:i~i-~if~. auivlval ot~ltb.ea ,unUlthe ~a~t, ~YCl~ : 

.~~inl date,. : . . '. '." ";,: .i : '.", ,)c'" '" 

~ ..~ 

'k explanation of the il1t:eracf'ioou1' be given by cOlllparing the effecta of 

the different herbi~idel witl" -eac~~¥~ra1tr.•at~~t..,,~.~ fi~a1 1aq>~i~J d~t. , 

given ln Table V. "rhe IDOltl:tti~\\1 c~ari.~ 1,."".r ....:jlo cu1~lvat1on wal 

app1:ted. The hllgh_it rhllom."yl'e1.d "a~ not .obta1~e4~ 'the untreated .od, but 

from p10tl trea/:ed with Dalapon or r,-l!. Thouih tlM:£i~ferencel are not lipificant, 

they do indlcate th,atth'~~n~.rbicicle.~l•• ti~ .ffe,c~I,~, 1~, 

de. truftion of quae:fcgra.. rbisc.d' unl •• ~: accompaz:ilad bl'; ~111.g. treatments, even 

thoupr topgrowth wal killed and'regrow'tfl .uppre .... ltl;_apon.At the oppollte 

extreme wa. Atradne, which actually !~.'\llt~d in lei.' rhizomes .urvivlng when 

applied to uncu~tivated p10ta than,~ell lupp1 ... n~!d~y_plowl~orfa.l1ow •• " 

Quackp'''''aocf·'~i'eat'd'W'1th Atrli.til~ alia18ft uncl~'tii~"'4 Ihowed a 9~ per' ceilt· 

reduction ln the rhlzome infe.tation by' the followiiii".pHng. . .' 

AcCllllpar1'''b of-the"h.rbldd •• *thtrf the plent' tr.. tJ.erit indicate •. tfi~i 1.11 

herblcidel l~t.a~:highlyd.. Y'eantreduct!on~ ~rhill'Ollle yie1d- """," 

compared to .pring p1OWingwith-:nci:Ji.i&+cf.d-~ -Thi.,:_~.p.rtdue to •• ~~u1ati, 

influence of plowing on tat! su~~equet:lt ~0trt:li o~,tuac~t.... rhlZOIile.' 

wheillto herbicl.e w••• pplied,·lhowiq'art inctea.e'-o~~t 50 per cent by May 10, 

1960 over that ~f the uncult-tvat_::tIIaeeIt-plota •. The r.sults of continuous f.llow 

tended 'to elimi'.te or ma.k the .he~~eI4d eff~cu.ll"~J... ther uniform,anej ." 

complete de.tru •.ti~ of quackF".j'lrh1&~e. ; '...•.. Th 

e ·~t•.~~:- tbat, by th!! follOWing 

rprlng, 

69 per cent 

the, fallow traatllllllta-r48U.ii'd. 

whe. no herbicide was udll.to 

in rhi8'" ruction ranging from 

81. per cent' when Atredne was applied, 

compared to theuntr::eated Qheck)t~t:.;:H:There wereDO-.~f,Uicant 

be tween, any of the fa llow treat\!Jetit!.; ", ,:. . "" . .' 

d1ffere~c., 

.. .. ,. 

, 

I : ,.:, ,", .', , ; , J.,'_ .....!' - . ~'0:[:-'~ . 

The lntera4tion between cultural' alid"chemic.1 tre.m.nts on the tou1 

fructo.e yield "al .ignif1ca~t a.t .1J.-.am.pl1ngd.tea.-'~'leaeral ..' any c;om~~. 

tionl of treatment.lthat resu1.~~~o~'.:~.n.ein t~~~d of'qu.ckgrssl rhlzome. 

simu1'uneoualy causH a change"!ll th.t.fOod i ••• rv.·· . "t·of the rhlllom.1 in the 

same direction. Conl.quently., tha.~enc:.-of the tieatmente on the totd 

fructole yield "as ~sually accent""tea-;; Table.V1 'i?""~,lUIIDAryof thein~~~ 

act~on data frOll th~ firat, la,f~ tft1, ;~d t,lna! .""'UIlI'ietatel. - .\- 

. . .' 

.\..,. _.~,._., ...,.... 

All treatlllllntl wlth the exceptiOQa ,of, !JllculUvatR plot. treated w1!:~ ,"., 

Da1apon or renae relu1ted in high1y's1snificant carbohy4rate yield reductiona by 

the first salDl)Una date'. The aillll:1e u1owinll: treatment eaull/ld the ftr ..d"",ifta,,"

Table V, }nt ...... e..• ,fa~, I;i.,on.,B.~. ~w..ee.ll.:..~..ht~f;.,..l.,.a.n.. ,.~. ,.:B., eEb~C;~~&ilTf~atm.ntl.o, 

,'t~elaof·QI1acq~a~.·~~ft"" ~'8J1IPlecl"XaA9, ~960) 

th",j 

295 

',d"; . 

NoAultivation 

Pattow 

Fallow 

Pa&ow 

Plow" 

Herliicide 

Atraa~ne 

Atraa~e 

Simaaine 

Pense 

Atraz:r:'ne 

Significant 

Ipt 

1%' 

'.~ 260 

: 380 

380 

380 

400 

Significant 

at 

·U 

Per Cent 

Re!i?};iMlfiLL 

.; j\~; • \' 

~". 

87 

",)l:;v·';." 

,~,,( 7:il.: ) ,; 

I:; ai: 

87 

Pa~low 

Amitrol 

\ 460 

Paflbw 

Dalapon 

'680 

~. 1 .' 

Plow 

Sima&1ne 

740 

75 

Pal~w 

No heJ:'bls:ide 

920 

No ~~ltivation 

Simaztne 

940 

69 

'.,l (·0") 

Plow 

Amitr~l 

1020 

66 

No '~~l.t1vation 

1180 

~\.'~' 

Plow 

Plow 

No cultivation 

No cultivation 

No'iultivation 

Delapon 

Penac 

No herbiCide 

Pense 

Dalapon 

No herb'icide 

1360 

'1680 

3000 

3120 

, 3740 

4440 

J 

55 

~K:; 

. (! 1',or{ t, 

Per cent 

increaae 

4 

25,0.;:: " 

48' .'" 

',::

296 

Table VIr l.t'iietiOti.;'~tw.-"J~idi~.l:.Il~"'~tb~aili~:;~.at""tiid~ t'e 9ldi\T 

y(.ld ofPtuoto •• "~.-t1ijc:ltlfa.,. n!.aul~.tThre. SampUq Dete•• 

Treatll.IlU ",\'"gj::, 

i.': : _~ ".. j f .; ,,"!r; -:; 

....,,1·· ...· 

June 15. 1~59 

'~/~cr.t) ,.. 

·~,~1lJ.. _ '. 

New. 10. 1959 

Mean 

(l~,.~~~~~) 

'auc 

Pallow 

'enac ',',; , Plow 

Feuc· , 

r1 

No cult~ 

Atra.hte 'allow i 

Atrad"e Plow 

Atra.tDe 10. cuU. 

S1aIa.~~e , Pallow i 

S1lIa.fM Plow , 

S1IIa.~.»e No. cuttl. 

, 

I 

AlI:ltr~r"T Pallow : 

AIIl:ltrol~T Plow : 

AlI:ltral-T No cult~ 

-:'\ 

150 

80 

457 

.' 127 

,,276 

'c 819 

141 

368 

1049 

.;: 

14 

147 

,'f!~';'.ri 

s: . 

'GO [J f,{ 

",~,~" 

"1"- '. 

\Jl')J .\ 

~;:\ 

',jj'p~~ 0',; 

Dalapou 

DalapOJ1 

Dalaporl' 

No herb. 

No hetb~ 

No h~b. 

L. S.D.~ .11 

L. S.D., ~I 

i 

rallow , 

Plow 

No cult. 

Pallow 

Plow 

,\ ~13 

~9 

1560 

[ 

,'14 

129 

, 276 

1873 

'iI, 

, IC 

,~10 

1.,1 67 

No ,ult. 

i ' 

1420 

2463 

:,br-." OJ .~ l 

57 " 

llW'J, 

'. .'Ji97', 

, , -v.r J rUe) ('f' . 

, : '590' .. 

·,'J.O.ru.) o:'.

plots showed smaller decreases with the exception Qf Atrazine, which gave ,an 

early decrease of 95 per cent with 'no cultivation. While the difference. 'between 

the cultivated and uncultivated t.ttazine treatments were never significant. the' 

undisturbed .od treated with Atrazine consi.tently Jave carbohydrate yield. equal 

to or greater than when Atrazine w~. supplemented by tillage. The effect of 

Atrazine alone increased from a .evere fructo.e yield reduction of 95 per cent 

by the fir.t .ampling date to Virtually 100 per cent by late fall. This continued 

to the follow1ng spring. "ibdicating that no live rhizomes remained. 

Simazine. without cUltivati~(.~resulted in an e.arly reduction of 76.~er cent 

in the fructose yield. WhlCh iacre.sed to 97 per ce~t by late fall. By ~he 

following .pring, however. the affect of Simazine decreased to a 73 per ce~t 

reduction in fructose yield. Whllespring plowingt'ended to slightly augment the 

effectof Simazine ontht(ltotal food reserves throliShout the experiment, it, also 

decreased from a 99 per" cElnt,depletionln late SU1lllll8t' to 87 per cent by the 

following spring. indicating,thatat least some live rhizomes survived. 

Similar trends. but wi~h les. striking reductions, were generally oD.erved 

for the other three herbiCides. 'In all cases, Amitrol-T. Fenac and Dalapon on 

uncultivated plots induced a, reduct,ion in underground carbohydrates which 

increased to a high of 83 per cent, SOper cent and ,75 per cent. respectively. by 

fall. The effecta of these herbicides ceased or d~lnished during the following 

winter and spring, however. show1ng a reductio~ of 7lper cent for Amitro17T, but 

increases.of 1 .per cent for FeMcand 42 per cent fot: Dalapon. While the .ingle 

spring plOWing after application of Amitrol-T,Fenae'or Dalapon was yery effective 

in stimulating or prolonging the rhizome and carbOhydrate yield reductions. their 

effects ware,nevertheless, diminished between latef.ll and spring. 

There was generally a clos. relationship ~e~e.nthe appearance of the quackgrass 

rhizomes and the level of food reserves they contained. Vlgoroua white 

rhizomes with many fibrous roots were always relatively high in carbohydrates. 

As the prevalence of roots decreased. the, rhizomes Fadually appeared more 

diacolored, and their carbohydrate level generally dtminished accordingly. When 

no fibrous roots remained on the IIh.izomejoints. the rhizomes appeared 1n ,various 

shades of brown corresponding to the degree of deccDposition and carbohydrate 

depletion. 

297 

There was a general relationship between the elfects of cultural and chemical 

treatments on tlle Eurv~val ar-d regrowth of rhizomes and their effects on the 

carbohydrate content, of rhizollles' ... presented in a pi'evioull paper (2). 

Of the cultural tr2atments. spring plClwingresulted'ln the most rapid 

decrease in yield cf t'oth rhizomes and carbohyl1I8tes; As soon as new topgrowtb 

developed. however. c&rbohydrates were gradually restored and the growth of new 

rhizomes was stimulated. 

Repeated cultivations during the growing seasou'resulted in a continuous 

depletion of rhizomes and carbohydrates. Although more than 25 per cent of the 

total dry weight of rhizomes still remained in the fall and the following spring. 

they Were greatly weakened due to a allllUltaneous reduction in food reserves,.

298 

.. ' .. _ ' "'. ," ," lj(,':.'~,.),: '. ':.'~~I:"_' ~ . ,: "1 

Al~hO\lgh r'4uc~ionll in the ,)'~fUj;o,rhizOlD8l1 a... ~carbohydrate. re.ultecJl ' 

f,rom aU he,'tb.iC.~de.·I..t..,~" t,h..e, ~hem.iC".... 

degree of the d.pl.t~ol)lI. ~ey .'lt9,r ••ponded dUfet.ly in tile intarectt'" 

With cultural ttaabaenU'I~ .,,> 

1;I.tl". .f, '.. reofil'O'l)l,l'i". rQJy' in thente, period all4 

. . ,,:.,',. ,';'1 ,'.' 

Delaport, A1pit1iol-~: and Atrel~q., tI!~~ Ibowed lIomawhU,l1l11lar afhcu onj'~.ckgra.. 

foliage.' In aU :!:lallell, the 1;CtpIJ:l>Vthcealed,.' -rlll'a t1llle .of app UcaUOII, and 

gradually diedback'after about two .. ekl. Little or no regrowth occurred 

thrCNp'ou,t t~• .,J.l'OW~~i,l~alon on .~t~.Il!~e tr.ate4u4:or plowed piou.lOD the" 

under8~undor8~n.. and. c.rbohydraty" (..b""ever ,~l.p., lIbowe4 very littla, 'P: 

reduc~.l.on.duritil tha fiut three ~~..~ch of eM 'i_ctton in yield of~; , . 

rhilome .... nd fructQle.tbat occurred ·bylata ..faU WalMCO'fered by the folldlriq 

Iprlns~, Aaui1:~O~-~" _hUe lbowiOS,a ,.~ rapid and.qeNncluctiOll in both 

rbi.omellalld carbobydratel, wallll~~ jto DelapOQ,1Q:A:Mtitreached it.; .... 

effect bylat~ fall,' d1lllinbhi~ .~t by Ipr1q. ,;;-,,·.ffect of Atrad_Jw .. 

lIIOlttapidandcciaiplete,relulting ill'd.ltruction of virtually all rhizomel and 

carbl)hy~rat.1 by late f.U. ,,:, :" .1\" 

, i~ ', 

The eff.ectl of.IUllluine and P~ ,' >0' ':1.1 'Ji~ "'- 

Alt' the ,he,r~~c,~~... appl1ed ,difl ~relpond equa1iiy,« in the 18me way'tw' , 

culturaltrea~'ntl~ The herbicides, lilted in the order of their dependency 

upon pl~iDg fo~, ~ff.c;tiv~, contrOl" ,1,l¥8Iured by,ehe l'e4ucdon of rbizOIIIIti' and 

food re.~~el!.,.~." followl: D..lap~, renac, 1tm1trol~T. Slma&ine and Alultrail. 

J)a l~potl art( renae Ihowed no ,~It~~~~~Y to caule 4i.e~t" dea tb and decOllpol'Uon 

of quackara~s ~~~~clIII.. w.h~D not h~l~.~ 'by tUlale.,.'Ac;~adua1 andtemporar, . '.. 

reduc.tion.inJoo4re,ervei (.nd rhi,l!!M, yield took place.' ,HOwever, thhha,Ni'en 

over cOllI! by 'tllefC)tl~JQ8 .pnng. ',: s:L ,. 

. ': .... \. ,,', .. ' " .' . 

Itmitrol-T'relulted in greater reductions on unplowed plots than Dalapon or 

Fenac, but was: sUll 1II0re efficient if followed by plowing_ Simaz1ne ao4 :'_::,' 

Atrazine resulted in greater depletionl of rhiz~el and carbohydratel than ~be 

other herb,ic14ea ,eiepll,r with or wl,t.h~tt1lla8e. St.ma:a&utwal benefited.l!flhtly 

by plowin$'~4trad~•., ilpwever, lbow. noincreale in effectivenell from,eitWel'" 

plowina or'f~~~01f dnc:e~o live rb;1&.... : remained by 1ft., fan. I., 

:; .,' ' 

Llteratyte 

i;i~ei' 

.. . ' ~ "t:··'· ,:, ,~, , 

': '(1) LeBaron, H.,H. arid FerUg. S.· H. Relationship. between control of 

quackgt'an (.vL'mY£.Q!1 URSD.!) aud carbohydrate content of rhh OllIeI • 

Proc •. ~.F;.W,C.C.14:357~362. ;(l.~.(;) . b 

:, . " . /' ;,-' :--. :,,:o/,.~... . ,;;',:.:' 

(2) LeB~r~~,Jl~) ... ,;.• nd~ert18, S.,". ~ effect:. ofclua1c.l end culturel 

tr~atllla)1t." ,on the, fpod relerv~~tua~kar... rh£b:oiIa.', PrClC. H.E.W.C;'e. 

15:319';'328.' (1961)

FURTHEREVALUmONor HERBICIDESFal· WEEDCONTROL IH;BI!.WSEEIlOOSor WAIIA 

R. Ao PetQe. and H. C. Ycmu.'1 

299 

~~ have been tried tt>r selective weed control in alraJ.tabut 

to date none ot the materials CCIIlIIIIIl"oUJ.l1' available haw given broad 

spectrum wed control as well as sutticient selectivit7. 

Since the practice of usirlg P'atn companion cro~8 for new seedings ot 

torage legumes is nowbeing quest1oned2, there is en· increasing need tor a 

satistactor7 herbioide for use on nw seadings. Testing of some of the 

older materials as well as an:vpraa1sing new materials should be done on a 

continuing basis .. 

Procedure: The experimental area'" on the .Agrcmom;y. Research Farm, 

Uniwrsit:r otConnecticut, S!;orrs,Connecticut. The principal e:xper:iment . 

discussed below was a SUlIIIIerseaclinB ot DuPuits alfalfa seeded on July 28, 

1961. 

Pre-emergence applicatioM were made on August 2, 1961. Approximat~ 

25%ot the alfalfa seedlings had snerged bY'the time or treatment. Postemergence 

applications were made ClI'1'August 15, 1961 when the second. true 

leaf ot the alfaJ.ta was about to e:xpand. 

Plot size was 5 bY'15 teet repl1cated three times. Est:llllates ot stands 

were made on October 10 and yields were determined on October ll, 1961 b7 

harvesting a strip 39 inches wide on each through the centGr ot each plot. 

The domina."lt weed species preSent in the experimental area was old 

witchgrass (Panicum cap1llare) with an adm.i..xtu... ot large crabgrass 

(Digitaria sanguinalia). Only a trace ot broadleaf weeds were present. 

Sub-samples were taken tor determinaUon ot dry matter and, when 

necess&r7, tor hand separation to determine the percentage ot alfalfa bY' 

weight in the plot. 

In another e:xperiment, not discussed in .full in this paper, several 

herbicides were applied On a spring seeding (April 'Z7, 1961) of alfalfa.. 

Included was diphenamid at 4 pounds per acre and G.34696at 2 pounds per" 

acre both applied as pre-emergence mater1Als and dalapon plus 2,lv-DB as 

a poat-emergence material. Rainfall oocurred within two hours ot the time 

the pre-emergence materials were appl'.ed. 

Results: In the spring seadings,. the diphenamid ga-n outstanding resuJ.ts on 

a'Uali'a in terms ot weed control ntb no indication ot injur;y to the alfalfa. 

lAssooiate Professor"and, former~~ Research Assistant., UniversitY' of 

Connec~icut, .S!;orrs, Connecticut. > 

2 Peters, R. A. Legume Establishment as Related to the Presence or Absence 

of an Oat Companion Crop. Agron. Jour. 53:195-198. 1961..

300 

This JilaterialOC8ip1et.:l7 conf;1'o11ilt,bOth the~~th. broi.cWi&t ..... 

Included were ,.,nowtox1;a1J, (Setar:la lutescens); J.uop erabgrass (Dig1taria 

sangu1nalis), old w1tchgraee (pam,,~a.p:tJ.lal'e), aIxl.barrqard grass 

(Echinochloa orusgalli). BroaclleatWMde included black lI1U8taZ'd(Braseica 

nipr), COlllDlOn chickweed (stell&ria 1lIdia) 1ambequarter (Chenopodiuma1b1D.) 

and1"OU&h¢l&'med (~hws ·,.Nti1ioa.Zl18~. '!'heN: ..... little i1'id1oatiqa 6t 

re-invaeionot· .... later in the ~~ naaon. ' .::' 

_£0' 

~A.,,· 

Chemical Actiw T:1Jneot Graeq "/i).. l.", 

Treatment Fpmulation MatS'14l Appl1caticm Weedstend Dr;y Mitts 

l~R': 

"rl 

1;1 Rat1lrsa'QE Yiel4 " 

' ' ~" 

. '. " 

Neburcm 

,~wp ~, 1.0 

lSSO~ 

Neburon It II 

-~"~':.. 0.6 1390 

" 

Dacthal 5Q%WP It 

" 4- 1.3 1550 

Dacthal II 

'I, 

It 1.0 1360 

Diphenamid, 8O%WP , It 

0 136Cl 

D1phenam1d It 6 II ':1,". 0.3 lO9O' 

Tr1f'lural1n 2G ;3 

" 

0.6 6;0 " 

Tr1f'lural1n 2G it 

It 0 

21' 

~. ! 

G3469f? 

~wp 1/2 

It 

2.3 1225 

G34696 It .1, II ',d::; 2.0 ll80 

l/2- 

Diuran ~wp 

II (1'(' . 0 '5l$ ':"ir 

Diurcn n 1 

It 

0 3lS 

,II 

2,4-D Amine 1/2 Pcst.-eIlJ8! ~;.,.: '7'00 290':\,'" 

DNBP .3Jb Lf:./G 1 1/2 

It 

3.3 13.30 

DNBP II ,. 3.6 ,1;80 

. 

" ,.'::".~...:' 

2i4-IIB + dalap

301 

In the SUIIIIIlf)1' seeding, the highest"yields ot alfali'a were obtained trom. 

the low rates of neburon and dacthal with the dr.vmatter production comparable 

tor each chemical. While not si~ lower, somewhat lower yields were 

obtained trail ~,lllb.; dact~a SIb.; diphenaJll.i;d, .3lb.; DNBP,It , 

lbo; and 2,4-IJl plus dalapon. Yiaa;dS wre ~ign1f'ic~ loiter, however, wh~ 

G34696was uaEid..DOubUn$ the rate'ot 'diphenamid or D" resulted in a ' 

hi~ signif'icant yield reductionotthe alfalfa. Serious injury' trom both 

rates was obtained from. tritluralin and diuron o 

Control ot the predominant weed, old w:l.tchgrass,isindicated by the 

estimate ot stand given in Table 1. Oomplete grassoomrol was obtained tl'd!ll. 

both rates ot diphenamid and diuron and trom. the high rate ot tritluralin, 

with CQrlplete selectivity obtained onl,y with the diphenamid.. Alfalfa was 

serioual;r injurec:1 by diuron and tritluralin as stated pt'eViously 0 While not 

cOJllPlete, good' grass oontrol was obtained trom. both rates ot neburon, 

dacthal, the 2,4-l1B anddalapon OCIIIIb1natiODS, and the low rate ot tritluralin. 

Only tair control was obtained from DNBPand G34696. 

DiscussiG£1 

Diphenamid was outstanding" in its degree ot selectivity on alfalfa in 

both spring and summer seedings ~ gi 'rlng ne8.1·~ complete weed control without 

injury to alfalfa at the .3 lb. per acre rate. This material merits further 

testing on alfalfa as a hi~ selective, wide spectrum pre-energence 

herbicide 0 

In-the summer seeding reported, neburon and dacthal were quite effective; 

however, these IIIll.terials have not generally cot.trolled as wide a range of 

weed species. 

Two JJmitations ot l1mP tor weed oontrol in altalta are shown in this 

experilnent. The nat"l'OWrange ot alfalfa tolerance is shown by over a '$if, 

reduction in alfalfa yield as the DNBPis doubled from. 3/4 to li lb. per 

acre. The weakness 01' DNBPin post-emergence control ot grassy weeds is 

shown by the poor rating at eithe!" rate compared, e.g., with dj,phenamido 

G34696merits turther testing on alfalf'a, at rates ot 1 lb. per acre or 

less. While it did not give complete old witchgrass oontrol in this experiment, 

in a separate trial at the storrs station this mat.erial controlled a 

tair~ wide range at weed species. The dalapon plus 2,4--DB combination 

caused tempor8.17 injury to the alfalfa as evidenced by leaf curling and 

stunting. Injury 

spring seed1ngs. 

has been more frequent at storrs on summer seadings than 

The injury noted wu outgrown, however, by tJle time of 

an 

harvest. 

Tritluralin shows no promise tor alfalfa weed control because ot severe 

injury. The injury pattern is unique in that emergence occurs but development 

beyond the cotyledonary stage does not occur on most plsnt80 If' further 

d3V810pnent does event~ occur, multiple shoots torm trom the coty.ledonary 

"--'" nodes resulting in multiple small steme.

302 

Selective,' cOntrol.of ~s~ (PeD1C1D'o~JJare)in a 8UIIIDer, ' 

seed1ni ot ~a1iaW&8 obt " ",' pre-emergenoe 'appllcationa ot ~, 

dacthal &QddipbeneiJdd aM !rc!n:~rgeneea~ationao! 2,4-m • 

DNBP. ,DiPb~ in particular:,~ts turtber c~.. tion on eltelte.. 

DNBPwas selective only at the lower rate usedfbi is.), G34696caUsed 

8CIIIl8 Jielt;\ ZI«1uct1on but merits furthIS:' tesij.ng, blr~cl1Dg lan:r rat,.., 

DitU'01'1,trit,Luralin and 2,4~ abOwDO pranise torp.emergence use ori ' 

eltalta. ",,, .,' " 

The OoOlJe:rat:lCllof the tollCllld.ng oompanies ift:r~ chemioals 1.' 

aoknowledgedl The Dow Chemical" CO.J AmchelllPro

The results were similar to those obtained previously. There was more 

arsenic in the bluegrass grown in the 1 and 100 ppm P nutrient solutions 

than in that grown in the 10 ppm P nutrient solution.. Likewise, crabgraas 

grown in the 1 ppn P nutrient solution had a much higher concentr~tion of 

arsonic than crabgrass grown in the higher phosphorus nutrient solutions 

or thall bluegrass grown in the 1 ppm P nutrient solution. 

ljlir~~ Research Officer in ••Weed Control, Field Crops Section, 

Canada Department of llgriculture Research Station, Fredericton, New Brunswick. 

formerly Research Ass; st.",11t.-: DAn",..t.mAYlt, "f' ","'10m 0.,.""" l~,,+"~.. o 

EFFIDJTOF PHOSPHORUSON THEUPTAKEOF TRICALCIUMARSENATE 

BY BWmRASS LNDCRABGRASS 

C. Fred Everett 

l 

and Richard D. Ilnicki 2 

ABSTRACT 

The phosphorus level in a soil is considered to be one of several 

factors which influence the phytotoxicity of arsenic. 

303 

An established Kentucky bluegrass sward was fertilized in the fall 

with three rates of phosphorus: 0,75 and 150 lb. F20S/a. The soil was a 

Nixon sandy loam which was low in available phosphori\ls. Two pH levels, 

S.O and 6.0, were established by additions of sulfuric acid. "Low lime" 

tricalcium arsenate at 0, 3, 6 and 9 lb. of As per thousand square feet 

was applied the following March. Grass was harvested in June and August 

of the same year. 

The arsenic and phosphorus coneerrtr-atdona in the grass were not 

affected by the additions of phosphorus to the sward. The higher pH slightly 

decreased the arsenic content of the grass. The application of higher 

rates of arsenate slightly increased the ars~nic concentration. There was 

no visible sign of injury to the bluegrass. 

In the greenhouse Merion blue'grass and crabgrass plants grown in a 

nutrient solution with 10 ppn of phosphorus were preconditioned for one 

week in nutrient solutions having 1, 10 and 100 ppm of phosphorus. "low" 

lime" tricalcium arsenate and sodium arsenite treatments were applied and 

the plant tops harvested 24, 48 and 72 hours later. 

High levels of phosphorus in the zmtrient solution reduced the phytotoxicity 

of the arsenate treatments to practically nil, but they did not 

influence the phytotoxicity of the arsenite treatment. The phosphorus 

concentration in the bluegrass tops grown in the 100 ppn P nutrient 

solution was five fold greater than that in the bluegrass grown in the 1 

ppm P nutrient solution. Bluegrass from the 1 and 100 ppn P nutrient solutions 

contained two to three times as much arsenic as bhiegraae grown 

in the 10 ppm P nutrient solution. On the other hand, crabgraae had the 

most arsenic when grown in the 1 ppm P nutrient solution and by far the 

least when grown in the 100 ppn P nutrient solution. 

"low lime"6tricalcium arsenate was synthesized in the laboratory and 

tagged with As7. This was applied to nutrient solutions as above. The 

bluegrass and crabgrass toPll. 6were 

harvested 9, 18 and 36 hours later, 

digested and counted for As7•

304 

FACTORSCONTRIBUTING TOTHELOSSOF 

AMIBENPHYTCTOXICITY IN SOILS 

W.E. Rauser 1 . and cJ.:. S\.iitzer 2 

Abstract .3 

This study was tindetiaken to det~:rrnine the general 

persistence of Amiben (J-amiM-.:2,5-dichlorc:benzoic acid) in sc:l,.;l., 

and the effeot of leaching, rnic·ro-crganisms.,,: and otherfaotors, on 

its aotivity. ., 

Amiben was used as the triethylamine salt formulation 

oontaining two pounds acid equivalent per gallon. Application of 

herbicide was made to four 50il types - muc~,sand, clay and.jl.oam , 

Herbioidal aotivity in soil samples was qetermined by using'a 

biologioal test based on the dry weight of oat seedlings. 

Leaohing stiudd e a wer-e carried out; in glass tubes, 9 in . 

by 1 13/16 in. After leaching, the soil vras pushed from the tubes 

and sliced into one inch segments which were then tested for 

~liben activity. 

Amiben applied tqmuck (at 3, 6 o:r;~ Ib/A) and leached 

with 2, 5 or $ in ()f water was found to rem~,;in mainly in the.~pper 

-,ne inoh layer. The greatest movement dawnt-iard was found with the 

highest rate of chemical. Leaching was Independent. of the inj,tial 

moLst.une vcont.errt.rof the so i+'. or the volume 0,'water applied. 

As little as 2 inc~es of vlat'er wa~I,folJIld to remove 

amiben almost completelyfro~ the sand soil whereas almost all of 

the applied chemical was found 'an the surface UJ,ch of clay, 

regardless of the applied ylat,er-. 

" 

The direct dependence of the downward movement of 

herbicide on the application rate, but not on the applied water, 

sugf;ests a mass aotion effeot in \1hich the herbicide was swept 

along allowing adsorption on colloid s(')il constituents. Soils 

high in colloids (muck) woul.d be expe ct e d to, retain much of the 

chemical near the surface wher-eas those containing fe",., colloids 

(sand) ',"auld be unable to hold much. Such expectations were' 

supported by the data obtained. 

Research Officer; Canada Department of AgricultuNe:, 

Exper-Lraerrt al, Farm, Scot·t; Saskat chevran , 

Associate Professor, Depar-trnent. of Dota;r.y, Ontario J,gricU:lture 

College, Guelph, Ontario. 

Paper accepted for publication in 1Jleeds~ The Journal of the 

~;1eed 80.ciety of America.

In another experiment, loam soil was treated with amiben 

(at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 or 6 lb/A) at 5 week intervals for a total 

of 7 applioations. Oats were planted in the soil after each 

application. In general, the first herbicid~ application resulted 

in the greatest yield decrease relative to the check. Further 

amiben applications produced a lower constant yield depression at 

all rates. Therefore, it seemeQ that there was little build up of 

herbicide toxicity. Since leaching from the containers was 

impossible and volatilization was unlikely, the loss of herbicide 

(lack of accumulation) would seem to be due to either chemical or 

micro-organism breakdown. In experiments designed to separate 

these possibilities, it was tound that loss otam1ben toxicity 

from incubated soil was more rapid in muck than in clay. There 

was no detoxification in sandy soil during the 10 week period indicating 

that microbial breakdown of amiben is negligible in this 

type ot soil. 

When the two factors leaching and microbial detoxification 

are considered, it would appear that leaching is the major 

factor in amiben disappearance trom sand. Loss of actiVity from 

muck and clay soils is dependent on both leaching and microorganism 

activity, with the latter probably being more important 

in muck. OUtdoor incubation of muck and clay soils showed that 

considerable breakdown could occur during the cropping season. 

305

lContribution No. 1046 Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station. 

306 

Nutgrass control stUdi_a:!n corn with .~zine and 

its '-residual effecb on a foragese.-dingl. 

r 

, R. S. Bell arlCFP. B. Gardner2..J' 

" ~:" 

~irazine has proven·to be an efficient herbicide' ·t~r the control of c&:t1:&in 

weeds in corn (1). ~r1Jninary repma(3) indicated'tfiat early post-eme:t'g4!nt ' 

appW1ations of atrazine., at 3 t04pounds per acre '9'&'"'seasonal control of~tgrass. 

Donnalley and Rehn (2) reported tha·t autoradi~raphs from foliage ~pl1 

cations ofami't:roleand atrazine to nutgrass plants !:leiring tubers showedthat 

atrazine dio not aCCUlll.Jlatein the nUtl'ets but was re'8dl1y translocated throu.9h~ 

out the plant. Atratineresiduesdlilappear slOWlyfi'&t the soil and rnayc:~U~e: 

some dilll!ageto a forage seeding the following spring.,." 

"J:' 

Procedures 

1960 Tests 

~nn. 602Acorn was planted on May25, 1960 inBHdgeharnpton silt lO~,$oi1 . 

fertilized with 1000 Ib/A of an8~12"12..2 grade. The;'Subplots were l5'x 3~~' 

and ther~ were 4 replicates of each'treatment.One ~Hof plots received' 2•.5 

lb/A of atrazine BONshortly after planting 'and 5 Ib¥A'\¥tienthe plants were.l~. 

inches high on June 30. Other ploti5 received atrazin~~atthis later date at 5, 

7.5, 10 and 12.5 lb/A, respectively. Fifty gallons per acre of spray was used. 

Four randomized plots received no herbicide. 

The tests were not cultivated during the month of June so that the nutgrass 

stand on each plot could be estimated. Several'randomized counts of one foot 

square plots indicated a range from 1000 to 2000 nutgrass plants per plot. After 

the post-emergent herbicides were applied the area was CUltivated twice to loosen 

the soil. This incorporated the atrazine between the rows and dislodged much of 

the nutgrass. 

The 1960 rainfall and weather in general favored the growth of corn. There 

were over 3 inches of rain during the 3-week period following the post-emergent 

applications of atrazine. The corn was harvested September 6. 

Results 

The yields and various nutgrass counts are shown in table 1. The corn 

yields ranged from 4.2 T/A of oven-dry material from the check plots to 4.8 T/A 

from the area which received 5 lb/A of atrazine. The check plots were heavily 

infested with yellow foxtail grass. Analysis of variance showed no significant 

difference in yields due to treatment. After harvest the nutgrass plants on 

each plot were counted. The average number per plot ranged from 21 on the 

check plots to only 1 where high rates of atrazine were used. The reduction of 

nutgrass in the control plots after CUltivation is striking. This reduction is 

.; ._~

apparently due to severe competition from the growth of corn and yellow foxtail 

grass. Atrazine kept other weeds out of the corn and, combined with the corn 

competition, almost entirely inhibited the nutgrass. 

Table 1. Tons per acre of Penn. 600Acorn, nutgrass'count, and forage survival 

in plots treated with atrazine. R.I. 1960-61 

307 

Atrazine 

b A 

Red clover 

& timothy 

survival 

Jet 

5 4.8 

7t 4.5 

10 4.3 

l2t 4.4 

2t pre-,5 post- 4.6 

no chemical 4.2 

2112 

2496 

2160 

2060 

1056 

1584 

4 

1 

1 

1 

2 

21 

641 

777 

657 

633 

557 

620 

12 30- sOIl: 

10 0- 5~ 

5 0- 5% 

3 0- 1% 

12 25- 75% 

17 95-10O)b 

l$D at 0.05 0.4 

* estimated before CUltivation by 4 random 1 foot square counts per plot. 

**these counts represent plants from tubers dormant during 1960. 

Scarcely any nutlets were produc.ed by the small weak plants present on 9/7/60. 

The nutlets which produce next year's crop of nutgrass lie dormant in the 

soil undamagedby atrazine residues which maybe strong enough to destroy a crop 

of red clover and timothy. The winter rye on the areas treated with more than 

5 pounds of atrazine per acre was destroyed by sprinq,196l. The count of rye 

seedlings per foot of row in mid-November1960range~ from 3 from the heaviest 

rate of atrazine to 17 on the checks. The area was plowed in April 1961 and 

seeded to red clover and timothy. The stand was unif~rm and vigorous for about 

3 weeks, when the roots of the seedlings contacted tie residual atrazine. 

Estimates of forage survival in mid-June showedcomplete elimination of the 

forage crop where 10 to 12 Ib/A of herbicide were applied the previous summer. 

Nutgrass, however, was growing vigorously in these plots, indicating a high tolerance 

to atrazine where no other competition was encountered. The numbers of . 

nutgrass plants per plot ranged from 557 to 771 with no inhibition indicated 

from the previous herbicide treatment. 

Procedures 

1961 Tests 

A nearby area heavily infested with nutgrass was selected for the 1961 

tests. Both Penn. 602Aand Penn. 602 dwarf silage corn were used. Therewere 

3 randomized replicates of each chemical for each variety. Atrazine SOWin. 40 

gallons of water per acre Ivas sprayed at rates of 2, 4 and 6 pounds, resp~c~ 

tively, before the corn came up. S,imilar amounts wen applied 3 weeks after' 

emergence of the corn. These res~'!:ive dates were ,rune 6 and 29. Granular 

preparations were also used. These,,,~terials and the, results are shown in 

table 2.'

308 

Results 

.~' ;,,~, . 

July 1961 was considerably@-l..-than thep:revj,ous July, particularly the 

first 3 weeks after the post-emergent atrazine. ComParative accumulative rainfall 

for these seasons is shown Jin,U,ure 1. 

Nutgrass in four randOlllon'!'_~!J?9-t..square areafl.2!l.plot wlls~ounted on June 

19 indicating a range of 1000 to 6000 plants per plot. All plots were cultivated 

on June 20,27 and July .3 1;()·~:?>.9sen soil.and '.~ the later date to incorporate 

the atraz1ne. After layby,:aconsiderable infestation of crabgrasses 

occurred and lTI06tp10ts receivinga1;~azine at la)'bll._11J,.well as the checks .. had 

heavy' stands of redrooted pigweed. The pigweed grew as rapidly and as tall as 

the ceen, 

The corn was harvested on August 15 at the' fUll pollen-shed stage in order 

to prevent further development of weeds. As seen as weed estimates were made, 

the area was plowed. 

Because of the tangle of n.ut,grllS.Sand crabgUIlS.J it did not seem feUible 

to try to count every nutgrass pl:ant' on each of the 72 plots. Weed estimates 

were made by cutting nutgrass, crabgrass and pigweed;.at ground level frOlll:lIt1 

area 3 feet wide (1.5 feet on either side a corn row) and 7 feet long. These 

weeds were separated by genera and the grams of oven-dry weights per sample 

area are presented in table 2. Analysis of varianee of the oven-dry weights 

showed that the 602A corn produced significantly more yield than the dwarf corn. 

The average yield for all treatments'was 3.01T/A of Penn. 602A and 2.72 rIA 

of Penn. 602 dwarf. .1'he analysis ,~owed there was no significant interaeUon 

between treatlnente and varieties u>!.r as dry matter' wasconcerned. Therefore 

only the average dry weight f,or t;he;.,2 varieties is shown in table 2. It

ab1e 2. Average dry weight of corn (rIA) and nutgrass, crabgrass and redrooted 

pigweed (gm/21 sq. ft.) on plots treated with atrazine 80Wspray or 

granular atrazine (2~). R.I. 1961. 

Lb/A Dry' wt , Grams per 21 sq. ft. 

atrazine rIA Weed 

80Wor gran. Corn Nutgrass Crabgrass Redroot totals 

Pre-emergent 

2 3.07 217 20 237 

4 2.96 83 20 103 

4 gran. 3.05 10 3 13 

6 2.88 104 11 2 117 

Average 2.99 103 13 117 

309 

Post-emergent 

2 2.85 108 126 13 247 

4 2.90 158 115 214 487 

4 gran. 2.93 144 36 348 528 

6 2.72 62 137 199 

Average 2.85 118 103 195 365 

Pre- and post- 

2+4 3.03 89 15 104 

2 + 4 gran. 2.76 83 39 122 

Average 2.89 86 27 113 

!SO at 0.05 121 94 240 

No chemical 2.37 120 20 784 924 

Post- 6 1bs. 

No corn 399 513 187 1099 

!SO at 0.05 0.32 147 265 282 339

310 

.. C." 

(/) 

QI 

4 

.c 

.... g 

t:: 

.... 

.... 3 

co 

c.... 

co 

Ii 

.... 

0 

t:: 

0....2 

... 

co 

.... 

s;:l 

o o 

< 

1961 

1 

o 

o 

«$"; ..' 

/J 

10 20 

Days after treatment 

Figure 1. Accumulatedinches of rainfall after the post-emergent applications 

of atrazine. 1960-61. 

30

311 

The most strllt~Mrr~ct. ~fiIIJI * t~~a:r;';jt~S!t ,_l\:t'/';·U 

..... '-~.,..; ~.~::~}!: 1(lj"r;,t,:,~/~ ..ti l !-rt)j",,-x .c.~I'"~, ,1~lfr;,~~::':~r hIlt"' tl'~:':~>r ,"j ~~r~.th!.Ij~·,·' 

L.::···.·)·,(' 'I"', r;":r:." ~·.:8;•.r 'co'· ~:t'.,Qited-H :"j,.,Iq 8,""::' :; '-:J';, "8 r;•. -r: 

"+) ~Q~:" ':"~:' .;;"~~.",,,-.,JJJ. ~,~'; \-aut fI!t,rf-+ -: ~~., ;~~"("''t'Q+'''': ~~·'f;;~. '\',:~';'1""~) ~;~c-Jl~,"""r~;~l,,~rt,fi~\~~~:' ~h:h' :Agr. e~o.,:,\ 

06!tll'~.JiP-l~ill.';f :,.-, - '.'l tllR.LLt'r .,~,~'1"": !,"'rJ ;lflS..':'-,'1"'! " '. ,;':3 ','n.1C;'· 

2. rF~ll~" -w-.e'FJ.{anCI~;;"dfJ.o RatIb.;rl'1%l;.]: TranlJ.ciMitd.bw,of' mnitro1.,;'.ti+ '~,'') ,}~:'," :i':~ ~l.n,)r~,:~~·: ··~ri;!- ;:-)'l't b-3nlt1J,-;,; .yt~~-.! :'~~b b.f;; ~."'f 

';' 

':'1': )' >:j 

hf'i,"!')'I'""':~:< 

::..;,'J,;'.::-~L, "I 

l·~-·:;t: 

'.""1.: ,..,;~ ..~ 

: ~~ (~,.I. 1'=';,:':; 

I', 

",':. F' 'l.":'-:" 

",-i ,:',,---. :;:"{ ~~ ". 

"'''. "''-''; '~~,'; -')!, 

y'J;.·!~r'):) [l)j'r.r"!rJ b::'s t,J2.t:r.C:1..,'r~i' ,:·r.::::;L',. t~;::~l~r::i'i:J~~ L':··~·· 

.....j-df'1fi":l'~~ ,,:,~e:'l 1", "(,J,(8':( i7tV.£nU ~·v:l(: ..- ...· """! :L'-'::V~ JI-YH!-'! ,",;" 

.·7;':}): .~~';,r;'~:~r .r.l~rl'c,,~· t.: l i '1Q ;;'ft '! s qeG ,

312 

WEEDCONTROL IN FIELDCQRI'\tt'l'HATRAZINB,"'J!:PrAM, ANDTILLAM. 

J.T. :litcb:l.n, R.'."1iUcet, and 1C.:B.'t1tmruldt 1 

.: .' .,,: :d i, ' b,',-,,: ' 

. c~ION ::"U\ 

" 

NewHaIllp8hire.hr!llershawti*lri unsuccessM 1ft att8lllptl!ltecmitiol ' 

nutgraBJI.in"li.ld oom :bY'cultiTattclbi 'In ebservat1Wil irials, !'ptalll at'-tr8nd 

6 pounds active ingredient per acre satisfactorily controlled this weed in each 

of the''threeeucc:eu1Ye slMlsone(1.9S8:.. 1960)(2h '.

313 

RE9lfm'$~lfI)DI3CtlSSION '1.", ~:; c, 

:~.

314 

are given in Table 2. Oreen 'fIIII~::r1.1" ·of'w1l1~tr.atlll8tlts exoept Ti1lam, 4 

pmmdll per acre, 1I8re eign1t1oanitfurgeratthi'-'11leTel than from the no 

henh:" Jcheola~"ttee1luDt. TlW", tJw-"·MQ\ e1::\.1Ire11n.,weetmmta re .. 

sUltlid;:1nis:tgat~o.ofll:J!i':(U) :1a* __ tft:wi_~.than· th. Ti11arl t~\-· 

mena:alld,theneb.ck~."':'" ;'l"H9d$-;" ", ",.,;f 'r.,[T" ':", r. ,~~ ,,0, 

,~:.,:. ,sr.'Ld.~ ihe'!1O·~id.·t1Iea~;__ th 'Of the T:Ll1Mll; .... 1lmente. 

. "'~ [;,::.,1 ::',' "1' r., 

-i"';' '; -l'tf:tlameti:-tlhe flJUlllbw.J6f'1'p1:anta.1D:tneaa-ttd area of! each plot 

wer.och1ft'hlli 'J1!H MlniDGllber:·'of''1l_t_ per .... ;.. ~1:'~eat.menta_':21J800. 

No hfJ'bft'td_ tfe.t1I_tn.1gn1fi«:Jllftl/r'Jrictaced tbe'P~ JIopul.a;11OD.. ',;n;';' 

·...·...;:.1""1',·Hi"'F'·'.; d,;'-i':":'i.'1J'J~1 _;r,.,,',~'" .:',',"·n.. ' 1Bf l J' :' ~r'.;'):Jbs iT]: f':··',·:,:'" ".,d t , ...'smJ:;~r 

.... c,'.:ti.;,:nj~bl;e)~41 -JUfeo1;,'oiI· . ~:"1:"J \ Ie' 

.. ;-;yii .~+'''.') 

Herbicide· 

Atralllble'; h" J 'n ;';- >.b;' 

A~",~, :',: ~ ~j~~"2 

plua Atradne 2 

Atra~e, r,..2 

Atrallline 2 

Atral&1Jie 4 

EptaJli." i. [ 4 

Tlll*:: .. 4 

TillD;' c," 6 

None;:-' ;'

315 

LrrERATURECITED 

1. Fertig, Stanford N. 1961. Preliminary results on the use of chemicals for 

nutgrass control in field crope., Proc. NEWCClSt334..33S. 

2. Kitchin, John T. 1961. Varieties, methods, and aids for timely vegetable 

production. N. H. Progress Report 7(2}t9..11. 

3. Vengris, Jones 1961. Nutgrass control with Atrazine and Eptam in field 

corn in 1960. Proc. NEWCClSt~91"392.

316 

NUTGRASS~LIN rtELD CORN1 

R. H. Cole.. ,C. D. _le~~end P... B-.Spdnger, Jr. 2 

. The objective of the .. lm.tigatlon.1ru to determine the 

rate ofappl~cation ofAt~~ioe (2-chloro·4-ethylamino-6 

isopropylamlno"l-trlazine)iaftd EPTC(ethylJ; N-di-n-propyl- .' 

thiolcarbamate) needed to control yellow nutgrals (Cyperus 

esculentus L.) in field corn. Comparisons were made between 

pre-emergence and post-emergance application. of Atrazine and 

liquid and granular application. of both herbicides. 

Nutgrass control result. with Atrazine and EPTChe". 

previously been reported by Vengris (2, 3). The effect of the.e 

herbicide. on corn and nutgra •• plants hal been investigated by 

Donnalley and Rahn (1). 

Procedure 

Two nutgrass control test. were conducted in 1961 at the 

University Substation Farm, Georgetown, Delaware, on a deep, 

well drained Norfolk sandy loam. In Test I a heavy rye-vetch 

cover was plowed down two weeks prior to planting and in Test 

II a rye cover was plowed down one month prior to planting. 

Fertilizers were used as indicated by soil tests to approximate 

yields of 100 bushels per acre. The plot size in Test I was 

12 feet by 60 feet and in Test II, 12 feet by 30 feet. Hybrids 

with known performance were planted on the dates indicated in 

Table 1. 

Applications of pre-emergence treatments followed planting. 

Post-emergence treatments of Atrazine were made approximately 

three weeks following planting. Wettable powders and emulsifiable 

concentrates were applied in water with a bicycle sprayer. 

Granu1ars were applied with a hand shaker. EPTCwas incorporated 

with a hand rake directly following application. The rainfall 

1. Published as Misc. Paper No. 410. Contribution from the 

Department of Agronomywith the approval of the Director of 

the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, 

Newark, Delaware. 

2. Assistant Professor, Research Fellow and Assistant Agronomist, 

respectively, University of Delaware. Mr. Springer is 

presently Technical Advisor, Central Chemical Corporation, 

Hagerstown, Maryland.

.~ pattern following applications of herbicides was remarkably 

similar in both tests. There waS sufficient precipitation for 

activation of herbicides and for rapid germination of the corn 

and weeds. Tabl~ I lists t~frates, application dates and forms 

of the herbiciaes studied.' ." " 

All plots were cultivat~ once after the first nutgrass 

ratings were recorded. Ratinis of nutgrass and other weeds 

present were also recorded atbarvest. In Test 1 the only weed 

identified at the t1meof t~:fi~.t ~a~ing,'ias nutgrass. There 

was a very llsht infestation pf commoncreDltas. (Dyitada 

sanguinalis) and horse nettl~~(S9lamum carolinense) in some plots 

by harvest time. In Te.t II l;he predominating grasses were nut. 

grass, crabgrass&nd goosegra" (Eleusine indica); and the predominating 

..broadleaveswere rllgweed (Ambrosia artemisi1folia , 

pigweed (Amaranthus retrof1exuS> and morning ,glory Ipomoea 

purpurea) • l.) ,. ' 

Resul~ 


Test I: All of the weed. e~cept nutgra.s were initially controlled 

by a pre-emergence ap,lication of three pounds of Atrazine. 

Three weeks after planting, none of the Atrazine treatmenti were 

providing nutgrass control. ~e Atrazine plus EPTCtreatment was 

giving virtually 100 percent ~tgrass contro~ on the same date. 

One week following the poet-emergence applications of 

Atrazine, the nutsrass plants began to die where a total of six 

pounds or more Atrazine were applied. Dying occurred somewhat 

earlier in. the pre- plus the post-emergence treatments than in 

those where the application wee totally pre-emergence. This could 

have resyl ted from the s~l1 ~unt of absorption from the leaf . 

surface.- Six pounds of Atrazin.e were giving 'effective control 

when the seven-week ratings.wa~etaken. While the Atrazine had 

not prevented the germinatiqn' of tubers, plants were killed when 

the food reserves in the tub... were depleted. A total application 

of ni~ or twelve pounds9f Atrazine gave complete nutgre.s 

control. 

The Atrazine plus EPTC~r.atment had lost its complete, , 

initial nutgrass control by the time of the seven-week ratings. 

By this time it was ranked as .giving no bettyr control than six 

pounds of Atrazine alone. The work of Raba "';.would suggest that 

the dormant tubers, inhibited ,by the EPTCdudng the early weeks, 

were now viable. 

1 E. M. Rahn. Peraonal correspondence. November, 1961. 

317

Table I. Weed Control Ratings of Two Nutgrass. (pntrol Tests Conducted at Georgetown, 

Delaware, in 1961. ' (10 = perfect control, 0 = no control). ,Averages of 

two repl~catioft8. 

'.' 

Test I: Planted' April 25. Chemicals 

_rgen~Hay ~S.1961. 

, , , 

appUedpre-emergence'AprU' 

' " 

26 and· post- 

' , , 

;. 

~ , (.) .. ':",~_::, . " O.~ ~< ~~ .;i::~·O', c. i O~~~j :._:- ;~ 

(1) E~c-' Cbrn ioJ~ry 8J1iP~ 

" .C· ." .• 

, ~.~ 

'"". 

.

Ratings at the time of'gJ;Vllst; although generally higher, 

showed little change in the relationship of treatments. 

319 

Teat U: ,All the nutpat. weedcont17O-1i' ratings of comparable 

treatmentBrecord~d 'in th:l.superiment wereb,l8her than those found 

in Test 1. This was part:LallY'attdbuted ti).' ehe less severe ahd 

less uniform nutgrass infestation found in this field. The area 

in which Test II was conduct;ad:was lower: :Lnorganic matter than 

that of Test 1 which would condition the results to be expected 

from both chemicals. ' : 

!l 

Three pounds of Atrazine." pre-emergence or post-emergence, 

were effective in controlling nutgrass in this test. Granular: 

Atrazine, however. gave 1e.8cuns:Letent and-slightly less 

effective control than liquid application8., . 

Four pounaof EPTCgave.exce11ent earlt' control and highly 

effective controL throughout the season. The nutgrass growth,' 

such as that observed later in the summer in Test 1, could have' 

been suppreseed in Test 11 by the shading effect of the tall 

broad1eaves growing in the EPTCplots. Granular and liquid 

EPTCapplications were equally effective. EPTCcorn injury 

symptoms, twisting of about 10 percent of the plants, were 

observed in all plots. 

Summary 

Nine pounds of Atrazine were required for complete control 

of nutgrass in field corn. Three pounds were sufficient for 

effective control in one test area; ho~~ever, six pounds were 

needed in another test area. Four pounds of EPTCprovided 

effective nutgrass control, but corn injury symptoms were recorded 

in both tests. 

The time of application (pre- vs. post-emergence) of Atrazine 

was less important than the rate of application. 

Granular Atrazine gave slightly less effective and less consistent 

control than its liquid counterpart. No important differences 

were observed between granular and liquid EPTCtreatments.

320 

,.', 

"i', .: .:':» \i ..td';,3.fH,:,:-:' 

2. V~~i8, J.onas. WeMDJ:Ol'lt-ro1ia. fwlc1 epm. Pt'oe."'· 

14th Ann. NEWCC. p. 367~)69J', ?1960.; ,:Jr 

.3. , VlWI8r~., J~ • Nu~tp'.ueontro~ wt'th Atrazine arut'~ 

Eptamln £t814,c;orn in 1960. r"l'oc.15th ~:IIBWCC. p. ,391.. :)~,' 

392.'1961~' '.1

THERESPONSEOF NUTGRASS TO HERBIC~I)]1:S 

APPLIEDAT V~ING STAGESOFGROW'rHl 

P. W. Sante~lII~ and J. A. ._Z. 

In recent years' NutgraS8(c;ntl~' esculentu.~)hasbecOllle more prev~lent 

in Maryland. There have been severa: reports published on nutgrass control 

and a regional bulletin is in press describing the life history and reproductive 

capabilities of this weed. Thf,spaper is an exten.~on of this work in Maryland. 

The promising' chemicals ctrft~ntly available ar~' adaptable only to nutgress 

growing in corn and potatoes. ll4lqce. the follow:l.ag,wot'k has been limited 'to 

pre-planting, pre-emergence and pq'~~emergence apPl'~tions in corn fields·in 

the Piedmont area of Maryland. 

' 

MATERIALSANDMETHO!)!) 

The matedal.were appliedil'l all three years (1959, 1960 and 1961) ,,1.th 

a Wcfd. sprayer deU"ring 30 spa. In 1959 and 19,fo the pre-plan~ing ~rWs 

were incorporated.y cross-discin, immediately at a'~pth of 3-4 inches. In 

1961 a garden type roto-hoe was used. Rainfall data,for the three years i~ 

1:I.sII.d in Tablet., . 

TABLE1. Raiafall data (inches) for the years ~?5? 1960 and 1961•. 

at" tile location of ehe nutgrass coritr6t. l!!XPeriments. . 

..,.1959 'May 1960 June 1961 

3 0.3 1 0.34 9 0.25 

4 .Pre-plant ,8 1.5

322 

Other infOrlllation unique to .f'bf the three'y~8:ls Ustedbelow: 

!ill - The, pr.-planting treatmen~ fif"mc:'*er~: aPpu.'a' ohMay 4. There were 

no rlants visible at the ,time., The,801l1l101st'UJi8 w.,.,8~ •. ~ l:0rn waa;planted 

on Ha)r1l, and the pr .... rsenc • .u~t.oIEPTC· ~ '~traz1~ .weI'. ,.cltpl;~n.·,; 

May 16. ,:. '. ' -" - '" . . ....I; '.'" 

.;., . ! _. ..... r t ~l cr.",. 

Atr4dne :was"applied .. _in on:Nne4, toa d!ffeient' series of plots •. At 

this time the corn ,was 8 inches. ~~lllU1d the t:'u~,sr'''''E~~':~S ~chestal,l~ 

i -,' , .. " '" ).',' ( .... . " , .. ' , (~r, -: _ ',' , _ " .., : : :; .i "\'. ,'. 

1960,,.:The pre-plantf.1\i treatlDritr 'Of !PTe, R-1607 ·•. ~~'2.~Q,. ,all .DJ4tet:~~:. 

of the Stauff .. C1t4imicalCoIIlpany,_iii applied on HJ1t;, ,'the soIl .mo;l.~tqlrJl 

was good. The corn (Conn. 870) was planted and At"tm'neapplied as apreemergence 

spray on the 181118 da~.'!i'!Y" ,'y • 

, .. p.c:'s.j:-8lIfr.senc;e~e~Jl~s?9,f:J~~"'~~ were ~'l~. ~" dates: i1l, a ...;ir~te 

experl:litel1t. ~ #t~t ~r~nt,,:¥'''';:>IIJI~ on J\&I18'.~n1'l.w·torn was·8 r1nela't:;,dl1, 

nutarU8 was 3::-5'ltl~hesin hdg~t ~,.1n ~ 6t9'rJui.)stap. r , " , •••• 

f", _, ,~~'c t, .,'",,1 ", ,:"l.~';~ti·'·'''' ..' . :)r-",,~l-,">':" '.':-'; .' .. L.'.I:.." i 

Oil the aec6ftd date oftr.eatme~t, 'June 22, the corn was 15. inches, tall;'aiUf ; 

the nutsrass 8-10 inches with 9 leaves. 

~_.,., {',":' ,L; -,

'\.......- 

TABLE2. Ratings of Nutgra~s Control and yield 01;,corn for 1959. 

Rate 

Date ~tin,g * yield 

Treatment lb!l£acre time ~ ~lO/a Bu/acre 

EPIC 4 Pre-plant 9 8 0 110 

EPTC 6 ,ire-plant 9 10 2 92 

.................. ~~~..,••.•.••......•. ,•...•......•... 

EPIC 4 h.-em 3 2 0 108 

EPIC 6 Pre-em 3 1 0 102 

•••••••••••••••••• ;~_,J ••••••••••••••••• i •••••••••••••• 

Atrazine 2 J'-=-e-em 3 5 2 110 

Atrazine 4 }I;e-em 4 8 7 103 

Atrazine 8 Pre-em 5 9, 8 112 

•••••••••••••••••••••• I.e' I,' ••••••••••• • ,e .•••••••••• I •••• 

Atrazine 4 Post-em 9 6 99 

Atrazfne 8 Post-em 10 10 104 

Check 0 0 0 107 

•.323 

* Ratings on a scale of 0 . no control. 10 • complete kill 

TABLE3. Ratings of Nutgrass control and yield of corn for pre-planting 

and pre-emergence treatments in 1960. 

Rate Date of Rating * yield 

Treatment lbs/acre Time 6/22 us 10/6 bu/acre 

EPIC 3 Pre-plnnt 7 5 4 116 

EPIC 6 Pre-plant 6 3 3 110 

·..................................................... 

R*1607 3 Pre-plant 7 7 5 102 

R*1607 6 Pre-plant 4 2 4 113 

·..................................................... 

R-2060 3 Pre-plant 2 0 1 94 

R-2060 6 Pre-plant 5 4 5 111 

·................... 

,..................................... 

Atrazine 3 Pre-em 6 6 5 106 

Atrazine 6.5 Pre::'em 7 8 9 104 

Atrazine 9.5 Pre-em 9 9,; 9 119 

r.h .. r1, n n n nn

3~ 

.!2.§Q- The me applied pre-pI_tins, as shawn in'f8hle 3, had about the' 'ame 

pattern of control as indicated for 1959. Good early season control was obtained 

but thb contt"Ol tac1ed samewhatAt the end of the '•• 'ason. Two analogs of EPTC, 

R-1607 and a-206O,were also i1UiobJdedin the pr."~lng applications. ot 

these the R-,2060 was considerably less active than,BPTC but the R-1607 was as 

effective or perhaps a little more so. -t- 

Atrazine as a pre-emergence' treatment did not '~control the nutgrass 

adequately at3 -pounds.. However,. 'at 6.5 or9.S 'pc1lllid.'sea.on long control 

was obtained., There were no sianificant differenc •• in yield between 

treatments in the pre-emergence experiment. 

"., 

In a sepa,r,at~ exp~riment, At¥,wne wasuse.d .at. .1" 4, and 6 pounds at two 

stages of nutgrass growth. The results as shawn in Table 4 indicate that at 

stage I, when nutgrass was 3 to 5 inches tall, 2 pounds of Atrazine did a 

fair job of control but was not entirely satisfactofY. The 4 and 6 pound 

treatments were satisfactory the entire season. ~ application of 2 pounds 

of Atrazine at stage 2 did not control the nutgrass" and 4 pounds did not give 

season long control. The nutgra'as at time of treatillent of stage '2 was 8 to 

10 inches tall. -The' 6 pound application on thls'mature'nutgrass'resulted 

in axcellentcontrol. 

TABLE4. Rat~ngs of Nutgraas control and yield of florn for postemergence 

treatments at ~o stages of growth in 1960• 

.. 

Rate zi!te of RaiQif * yield 

atment Ibs/acre 7.. ,ill 10 6 butalire 

Irt 

N~t8rass 

3 - 5 inches 

Atrazine 2 7 4 3 125.8 

Atrazine 4 10 10 8 ',134.0 

Atrazine 6 10 10 10 130.2 

Nutgrass 

8 - 10 inches,' 

Atraz:lne ' 2 j' 2 2 119.5 

Atrazine 4 7 8 4 ,123.8 

Atrazine 6 8 9 9 ' '133'.4 

Check 0 0 0 97.2 

'UD 05 

• 29.%" - ' 

LSDol • 39.3 

* Ratings on a scale of 0 • no contrpl) ,10 • complete kill

All treatments produced si~1f~c~tly higher y1e~ tqan the check 

except for 2 po~dlof.Atrazine ~t~~',~~ 2." d'.[ ': .'. . 

. : -, ,,_. ' : • '~"J _ '.- '. . 

1961 - As indicated in Table 5, this' was an excellent year for Nutgrass control.: 

The pre-planting treatments of EPTC,Tillam, and R-1870 all gave good control 

of nutgrass for the entire season. The £PTeat 6 pounds, however, significantly 

lowered the yield of corn. All other ~terials significantly increased the 

yield. On the basis of yield and lffl~dlcontrol it woul~,.appear that R-.1870Jls 

the most prOll\idngc!hemical in th1~.~o~p.. • . . 

TABLE5. Ratinls.of Nutgrass contr()r'~dyield of cci~:for 1961. 

Rate :.'j Date of Rattms * yield 

Treatment Ibs/acre '1'1;-.: @W /'JJ!L.abu/acre 

_;_. t 

)(·S 

EPTC' 3 pre':'}!f~t, '8 9 84.1 

,EPTC 6 Pte~~~~t 8 7 ,10 49.6 

, _..... J 

Tillam 3 Pte-plant 8 2 3 86.2 

THlam 6 Pre-plant 10 9 7 89.6 

R-1870 3 Pre-plant 6 8 7 91.4 

R-1870 6 Pte-plant 9 10 8 87.1 

....~..,....•..........•............. '.....•...•...•.. .... 

Atrazine 

0-34162 

4 

4 

Pre-em 

Pre-em 

............•........••...•.•.••.... 

10 

10 

10 

7 

10 

10 

, ........•........... 

91.8 

80.7 

Atrazine 3 Post-em 9 10 98.4 

Atrazine· 4 •Post-em 10 10 ;00.0 

Atrazine 5 Post-em 10 10 86.9 

Check 0 0·· 0 69.0 

LSDos • 

14..5 

L5D Ol = 19.6 

.• Ratings on a scale of o • no control, 10 • complete kill 

32; 

'The pre-emergence treatment of.Atrazine at 4 pounds provided good control 

'--" and resulted in a significantly higher yield than the checl~. Another Geigy 

material (G-34162).at 4 pounds per acre tave good nutgraa. '~ontrol but there 

"'ascorn in1urv evi.d..n~ in.,""" 'l'll"foa U_._. __ ~t. _ _ .J.'J u'

326 

Atrazineappl1ed as- a post-etnergence treatmentwllen the nutgrass was I 

2 inches high with some old plants up to 6 inches resulted in excellent control 

at 3, 4 and 5 pounds per acre. 'lhl!)'ie1ds were aign,t£:icant1y increased at', 

all rates. '. J ' 

§UMMARY 

The resufts of three years of work wIth nutgrass control chemicals 

indicates that the carbamate materials have promise. The use of EPTCat 

6 pounds did result in decreased yields in 1961 butth~ R-1870 used in 196~ 

appears to be very promising. Thti advantage of these materials is that they 

do not have a residue problem in tbe~uceeding crop. 

As many investigators have Showit',the use of Atrazine at rates exceeding 

2 pounds precludes the growing of anything but corn the follol-Ting year. In 

order to obtain satisfactory nutgrass control with Atrazine a rate of 4 pounds 

pre-emergence or post-emergence is necessary. If anutgrass stand does appear 

in corn then 4 pounds as a post-emergence treatment will give excellent 

control.

A 

327 

WEBDe

328 

Table II. Percent conlto1:'.Uh po.t:· ... ws.nc. applications. 

Atradne' 1,2,3 93, 77 98 93 100 65 

Atradne with ,. 

wetting agent 1,2,3 95 99 100 

Ge181 34162 1,2,3 93 47 93 60· 97 60 

Gei81 3229~ 1,2,3 81 50 89. 37 100 60 

DuPont 326 1,2.3 SIS, 40 99 95 100 73 

LV·4 2,4-D 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 9$' 0 99 0 100 0 

, - 

theperc:ent weed control ~n Table II 11 ~0lD different te.ts~ " 

Neither field wae cultivated. na-r. were tblck at.~s of annual broadle~( 

weeds where the broad1eafs were sprayed and heavy .tands of annual gr.. s•• 

in the oth.r test. 

All compoundskilled the b~oad1eaf weed. with the three diff.r~t: 

rates. DuPont 326 and Atradne weI'. beat on the __ 1 grasses. Atradll8. 

18 a little weak·on crabgrass. The wetting agent ~ed to Atrazine caua.a 

more rapid killing of the weeda. DuPont 326 muatbe applied as a directional 

apray. 

~ I .

. Eli'FECTSali' WEEDSON YIELD AND"GROWTHCHARA~ISTI£S OF FIELD (;o.;:~ 

• isitaria S~u1nal1s) and pigweed (Amaranthus 

retrotlexus) were seeded by and to specific plots· wIthin tne ex... 

perifuental area and subsequently were thinned to the desired densi 

ty .within an la-inoh wide band over the co~ row. Weed dens1 

ties oorresponding to treat~~s included: (1) weed-free (2) 

4 grass (monoootyledonous) wee

.. 

330 

The experimental areal"8C~*ved no tiuce,thl'oughout the:~.. 

ing season, the weeds :I.n t~:,~epte:r:'24: inl1b 'Jltmpsbetween rows being 

controlled by a directed spray applioation of atrazine at 2 

pounds active ingredient per •• c~ u.tlli-z.1ng',a 1a:l.apsacktype sprayer. 

The atrazine applioation was made as a post-emergence treatment with 

respeot to weed development. Weede not killed by the spray were 

either removed by hand or by hand hOeing. 

Perlo41cinspectlons ot-UlPlots we~ ii!e,tQma1l.ltaintg,e 

desired weed,-populationand:ctori~emove uriae~1~a~~ weeds. /~~', 

" .- , , '; 0" ' " ' 

Data w~r. COlle~ted d~1q':tlle seas6~ .t6(f~~e.t'o1l0wing:~~nt 

he1ght, -ear,sboOt emergenoe i I1lkemergerioe"i (,ear ),;e1Sht.. tase:e~', ~, . 

emerglilnoe, pollen maturity, and grain y1eld. . r, '" " ' • 

Cornae1ght; - < ,» ""-" , " 

. - ''''. ' .' ;':.: 1 ~ . r.·.) .. "'d,' 

Themean oom, he1ght, ,(-vC't'1oal d1stande· f'*'o m the ~Oll~~ 

to the t1p o.t'thehighestexteaNed lea-f) was!~ l!llgnif1cantJ;t'lnfluencedby 

-broadl4!l8t or grae.''W8edg dV1..!% r~season; h.owev-~... 

there WJoIUl:de.t'1n1te tendenofl ~or the b1'Oa~ weeds to red\l~ ,' 

the mean he1ght of plants more so than grass weeds.' Nitrogen '8'1gni.t'1oantly 

1noreased ·the mean he1ghtof co~. .This was espec+ally 

apparent it1mulated tl\'i- earliness of slU. 

development to a s1gn1f1oan~:~.nt over t~,ro~~plots rece1y~Di: 

no nitrogen., ,', . !. ' ,"[ 

Ear Height: 

~ " ': /. _ _ _. .,' ~_:. _ " . , . ~:J' L 

The mean e~ height (v.. Ucial height tram· s011 Surt'aQ8 to ear 

attaQ,hment node) of corn pl~8 was UnatteCittd 'by weedt~e o~Aena1ty, 

h~wev~, the1J18an ear height within n+i;rogenplots. was .~';' 

n1.t'1oantly greater than tho.', O'tplots reoEi1:V1r1$no nitrogen. 

Tassel 

Emergence: 

Braodleaf and graas wee~;tlpparEmtlyexot.d no 1n.t'luence'on 

theearlin, esao.t', t,assel emergence, however,; ,'~tro,,gen appli oat,.i,J.,M", S 

a1gni1'1cantl:V st1mulated the" re&%ll1ness 0:: ta"elemergenoe o'\!'er,:; 

plots l'ece1v1ng l»n1trogen" '-, " ',:"" , . . -;~~~ 

;:r1"j

Pollen Maturity: 

",l. ,. 

Broadleaf weeds tended to delay pollen'maturity (pOllen shedding) 

whereas grass weeds apparently had no ,effect. Nitrogen~plications 

significantly stlm~ated the earl~pess of pollen maturity. 

".! . ,... " 

~: 

The yield Of corn in bushels per acre at 15.5% moisture w•• 

significantly reduced by bros'clleafweeds atlloth levels of weed, 

infestations over that of weed-free or grass'lnfested plots which 

did not differ significantly from one anoth~:r·.· Dry matter production 

of weeds per acre was closely associate~ with corn yield. 

The dry matter pl'oduction of, ,grass weeds pe:r·acre was significantly 

less than the production of broad leaf weeds., yorn yield was sj,g"" 

n1ficantly increased byappl1dation of nitrqgen. . 

.331

332 

VARIATIONDfTHE I'UJt1RATE(Jt 

GlWIJLAB.Am.1CATcai$l 

~.~C'. Glace,J •. A. ~ and P. W. sant~2 

'. :" ,'''~ , .;, " Lr1d "',; ": ~,',~·:)S;):". " 

(;t'anylar 'b.rb~cLde8 are .incr~i.I4Ds in 1mportan~et.pthe eastern Unite4" 

States, 'a8 is'evidenced by increaBing'sales of this form of herbicides. 

However, there has been considerable question as to the efficienty of the 

machines used to apply the granular particles. This is one of the main 

problems confronting those who would rather use the granular forms of 

herb1ci4es.Tb,e i!n~ortance of th'dlJ;'0blem is becOllliqal~~ acute as 

herbic1d~. ,fOtlDul~~X:s Jllake granular;:JII&~rialsmore con-.~tr.ted, part1cularlyt 

where the rates apPlied per acrear.~ 'lUa;Y low. 'rhisl!'.Wez:wntwas set UP- I 

to .dfitetmine if, tht.te,.11 vari~i4,~~ -(n cOIIIIIlercial.srMUlar appliqators. 

MaterJ.!1eend 

Methods 

" _ ' • .,i _ ,: .'.' .'. . . r -':, 

Four different granul.ar app~~~tOf~s wer,e compare~. "Two of th •• e machi•• 

were row crop applicators and two were of the law spreader tyPe. All were the 

most recent models of machines widely available on the market. ,They were as 

follOWs: ' . 

Applicator 1 - A row crop herbicide applicator, planter mounted, 

ground driven, 2 row type, the output regulated by a dial on the 

rear of the hopper which moved a plate on the bottom of the 

hopper and adjusted the hopper openings, with a flanged force 

feed rotor bar (agitator) inside the hopper at the base, the 

flanges treversing the full width of the hopper. 

Applicator 2 - Similar to Applicator 1 except that the flanged 

agitator bar inside the hopper did not traverse the full hopper 

width. The flanges only covered the immediate area of the outlet 

holes. 

Spreader 1 - A standard 2 wheel, oblong hopper lawn spreader, with 

the outlet holes covered on the outside of the hopper by a base 

plate. In operation the plate moves to the rear to open the holes. 

The output is regulated (by means of a c~librated plate on the 

hopper) by the distance the base plate is moved. 

Spreader 2 - Similar to Spreader 1 except that the output is 

regulated by a dial at the upper end of the handle. This limits the 

degree to which the handle can be turned to open the holes in the 

base of the hopper. The base plate moves to the side to open the 

outlet holes, rather than to the rear. 

!/ Scientific Article No. A952 Contribution No. 3315, of the Maryland 

Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agronomy. 

1/ Graduate Assistant, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, 

respectively, Department of Agronomy, Maryland Agricultural Experiment 

Station, College park, Maryland.

'--' The applicators were tested undertbe conditi~ns whielirWould be encountered fn 

normal practice. The row crop appJ;1cators were mount~d on a planter and tested 

on level land that had been worked and leveled as for corn planting. The planter 

shoes were run in the soil. The lawn'spreaders were tested on a bluegrass lawn. 

The granules distributed by the row crop applicators, were collected by 

placing the delivery tubes into bOttles and the material collected was weighed. 

The outpQt of each delivery tube was collected and recorded separately so that 

it woulc be determined if there w8s:a difference in the rate of delivery. A 

calibration box was designed to collect the herbicide delivered by the lawn 

spreaders. The settings on the appl~cators were not changed during the course 

of the experiment. The length of each run was 150 feet for the row crop 

applicators and 75 feet for the lawn'spreaders. 

333 

The variables 

were: 

(1) Three granule sizes - 30/60 granule size l~ 2,4-D; 24/48 

granule size l~ DNBPj and 15/30 granule size 2~ CIPC. 

(~) Three speeds (2, 4 and 6 mph) for the row crop applicators 

or two speeds (2 and 3 ~h) for the lawn spreaders. 

(3) Three levels of material in the hopper (~ full, ~ full or full) 

The materials used for the different granule sizes were 

commercial herbicides on attaclay. 

For the field applicators the tachometer on the tractor was used as the 

standard and the tractor was run in the lowest gear which would attain the 

desired speed, so that each speedwou1d be as constant as possible. A 

speedometer was mounted on the lawn spreaders so that the speed could be 

determined and maintained as a constant. Four repetitions were made with each 

variable, and the data statistically analyzed. . 

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION!. 

The different applicators used~atied in different ways and so each wi11' 

be discussed separately. - 

APplicator 

I 

The weight ·of~materi~l delivered by the machine decreased as the speed'was 

increased. This might be explainedtn that once the nt.terial is carried over . 

the opening it becomes a matter of gravity feed and the faster the rotor bar:!s 

turning the less material will be able; to pass through the opening before the 

next blade will sweep away what is left. The left delivery tube yielded 

significantly ,greater amounts than the right side. 

The effect of particle size was highly significant with most of the 

difference being between the 15/30 size and the two smaller sizes. A sharp 

decrease in the amount of material delivered occurred between the 15/30 size 

particle and the 24/48, and then there was a slight increase to the 30/60 

'--' granule size.

334 

Table ~. ,~,~fect of speed,~~~d. size and clap. of hopper fullness,C)I\ -../ 

t\,\e~nt of granular.~1al (in gIIla) delivered by Appl1catQr 1*. 

, . 

l'i./ " 

~< 'J: Degree of Hopper .:rullness 

Particle Size i full \ full !:!ll. 

~ 

15/30 1,16.4 a 112.5 ... 113.8 a 

24/~ 

" ~ 'j'-1:: 

lM+.9 de 131.4 de! 129.8 cd 

30/60 

~~ f 

1.33.1 de 126.0 be 122.5 b 

4 mph 

15/30 7.9:.8 b 66.0 .' 

24/48 

'j', 

69.3 ab 

82.6 cd 83.6 cd 81.6 cd 

30/60 .sa.s d 82.6 .Q4 79.5 c 

2.m 

15/30 53.6 b 46.5 • 

49.4 a 

24/48 58.1 c 58.9 c·· 56.9 be 

l: 

30/60 I 57.3 bc 58.5 ere, 55.6 be 

* numbers fo1,~owed by, the a... letter within anyone 

speed are not" significantly different from each other. 

As shown in Figure 1, the ~P"" to which the hopper was filled made a 

significant difference in the 8IIIOUrit'-ofgranules delivered, with the amount' 

delive~ed generall)!' decreasing .. the·hopper varied f'om t-full to full. With' 

the1S/30 material, the ,-full hopper had the least output • 

.Sp'ced had a significant effe4ton the output of the different particl. sizes 

(Table 1), usually the 24/48 particle size having the highest delivery rate 

while the 30/30 part~c:1e size feUll_tween it and tlle',lS/30 size. The is/3D 

particle, size .output wa. s1gnif1cantly lower than th. emeller sizes at all 

speeds. 

AppU.sator 2. 

, ,Output varilition due to particle size was not .. great as in the previous 

instance and the yield of the 30/60 particle size fell almost midway betwe~nthe 

15/30 and the 24/48-.

335 

Figure 1. The effeetof partic1esize and degree of hopper filling 

.(\; fUll, , full or FUJ:l) on the output 'of'::'2 granular applicators. 

9Q 

'APPLICATOR1 

. 

I 

I 

8Q- 

r-'-"-- 

I 

!-~: 

i---· 

! 

! 

AqLlCATOR2 

15/30 24/48 

Particle 

* i~di~~tes the columns ~r; ~ignificantly different from 

each other 

Size 

30/60

3.36 

Table 2.'J:h,e etfe..ct Oi .. , spee4~. J':~."MeleSize. anci..~.". of hOPper..fiu.ill8!~~' . 

the ilmount of' granul«; JII'otedal (in pa),-. ae~ivered by Applicator 2*. 

.. . . . '.~ 

., ". ' . _. ., , 

_.'[~;:J)egr~e of Kopper Fullness 

.~ 

Particle size I; full ; full ~ 

2 mph 

15/30 103.3 b 101.8 ab 108.6 c 

24/48 10!).6 cd 101.1 ab 112.6 d 

30/60 98.5 a 102.1 ab 108.8 c 

4 mph 

15/30 50.8 ab 50.0 ab 49.9 ab 

24/48 51.6 abc 49.1e 56.6 d 

30/60 " 52.1 abc 53.5 bed '$5.0 cd 

.) 

6 mph iJ I, 

15/30 36.1 a 35.5 a 36.0 a 

24/48 34.5 a 34.6 a 37.8 a 

30/60 37.0 a 36.3 a 38.1 a -. 

c 

* numbers follGw.4bythe same letter within anyone 

speed are not significantly different from each other. 

This applicator also showed a significantly higher delivery rate from the 

left side than from the right. 

The output generally decreased as the level of material in the hopper 

decreased. but not necessarily in a linear manner (Figure 1). A s1gni£icant 

granule size x hopper level interaction showed that the granule sizes did not 

react the same for all hopper levels. . 

Different particle sizes did not act the same ~y at all speeds. As is 

shown in Table 2 the 30/60 granule size yielded the lowest of all sizes at 

2 mph (-\ full) but almost the highest at 4 mph. Th. effect was mainly linear. 

A significant speed x hopper level interaction show.~c~hat ~he output of the 

different hopper;levels did not act"ln the same manner for the different speeds. 

The -\ hopper level output consistently fell between the output of the full and 

~ hopp~r .levels. 

:.Al;

337 

SRFeader 1 

On this spreader only the main 'effects were significantly different and 

all were linear in effect. The output was inversely proportional to the speed. . 

as seen with the previous applicatoi'll. As the particle size became smaller there 

was a consistant increase in the application rate of the spreader (Table 3). 

Also the amount delivered decreased as the level of material in the hopper was 

lessened (Figure 2). The lack of statistical significance between the columns 

in Figure 2 for the 15/30 granule size is due to the wide variation in the 

amount of material delivered in different runs with all variables constant. 

Table 3. The effect of speed. particle size and degree of hopper fi11ingoh 

the amount of granular material (in gms) delivered by Spreader 1*. 

Degree of Hopper Fullness 

Particle Size S full ; full Full , . 

2 mph 

15/30 441.8 a 516.3 b 538.8 b 

24/48 553.3 b 545.0 b 610.8 c 

30/60 642.5 c 609.3 c 613.0 c 

3 mph 

15/30 362.5 a 384.0 ab 417.8 be 

24/48 453.5 cd 444.3 cd 476.3 d 

30/60 491.0 d 568.0 e 563.0 e 

* 

numbers followed by the same letter at anyone speed 

are not significantly different from each' other. 

Spreader 2 

On this lawn spreader the three main effacts were less linear in nature 

than with Spreader 1. There was again a decrease in the rate of application 

as the ,speed was increased. The amount delivered of each granule size showed 

a slight increase in going from the 15/30 to the 24/48 granule size and then a 

sharp increase when the 30/00 partio1e size was used. When the effect of hopper 

level was measured with the 24/48 particle size there was a sharp decrease in 

the amount metered by the spreader between the full and half hopper level. 

followed by a sharp increase to almost the full hopper rate at the quarter hopper 

level. . .. 

The interaction of granule size x·hopper level showed that the granule 

sizes did not act in the same manner for all hopper levels. as shown in figure 2.

338 

Figure 2. The effect of particle size and degree of hopper filling 

(~ full. \ full and Full) on the output of two lawn spreaders. 

,... 

.... 

Ql 

Ql 

.... 

U"\ 

,... 

Ql 

'" 

~ 

600 

! 

j, 

I 

: 

500 

450 

~ 400 

I 

I-~ 

~--,.- 

! 

\ 

I 

I 

-_._.'-. 

I 

i 

._..-- 

I 

I 

sPREADER1 

I 

-----.,~. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

I I 

I 

! I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I I I 

I 

I 

I 

; 

~I 

1\* FI 

i 

\ \ \ F* % IF t 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

; 

, 

I 

550i 

I 

,-1--"1 

SPREADER2 

35 r 

I 

I I \J % F*I 

30o;._.-L._,._ __L __ ..L 

15/30 

1-1 II 

I 

---I 

~ %*1F 

I ; 

_....L-_ 1L. !. 

24/48 

-1--1, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\* % i F , I I 

........._--~._._,._-,.._------- 

Particle Size 

* Indicates this column is significantly different from 

.. 1.8 "", .. 1.__ 1. __ 

30/60

Table 4. The effect of speed, p~~cle size and( d~ee of hopper filling on 

the amount: ,of granul.q :.. !erial (in"SJlUl) ;da~ivered by Spreader 2*. 

339 

Part1c1e 

Size 

", ", 'Degree qf."Holner. ·rul1lless 

'\fuli ; full Full 

15/30 

24/48 

; :;. ~ 

414.3 be 

,l..!!!!hj 13 

>ti"- t 

394.5 .. 

" r:;f .. 

369.0 /l( 

409.8 b 

450.3 cd 

~l'1 

30/60 

1502.0 e 

r: 

434.~'b~ 

484.0 de 

I,. , 

15/30: 

24/48 

30/~Q' 

.r- 'j ~'~n ,'. 

332.3 ab 309.3 a 342.3 abc 

1""7 ,: 

.-,;,,:~.8 d 

., 

*' numbers follciWeCLby the same leiter at anyone speed !, 

are not significantly different from each other. 

'-t' , 

The hopper levels again, d~_act in theltame manner for the two speeds. 

The output of the full hopper was the highest at 2mph but the middle value at 

3 mph. The, i-hopper level output ~a;s the lowest th~hout., 

S~;AtI~ CONCLUSIONS.:' 

FOU1"'gl'anularapplicators ~:L"e~.r~qmparedundar~ndf.tions similar ~o '-" 

thosewhtchwould. normally be en~t:ered. Thevarq.,ti,On in the amount 0#;. 

granular material delivered by 2 .fi~ld applicat~:~cl ~ lawn spreaders W¥ ' 

measured;' the variables being ~~~d speed, partip'1,ci size and amount of,: 

material in the hopper. " "" ' ,'.. . ',:, 

For all applicators test;ed,~h,~, output wasin.y~rllely,proportionalto the 

speed of themacbine. The various"particle shes );.~~~ddifferently as~~ 

spell.,d,',and,hO,,P,pe,r content change,ii,"',: ',LAt, so the vat",,ia:ti~tf,' W,J.,",thinan"Y,one par, t,i,~,la,size 

was not consist ant as speed and, h~p»~r content vl¢i~~. ,,'J;he amount or ~~F~al 

in the hopp~r, hac!a significant; ,not' necessari1YJi~ar.effect (In thewe~~t 

of granules, deUvered. '., ' ' ' ';c 

There was considerable variation between spreaders as to their reaction 

to a change in the speed. hopper content or particle size. In one ap~~£oebor' 

the output was inversely proportional to hopper content, in anothe~ itwa~ 

directlyprCilpOfU()nal. There waS':also significantmili.tlon in the daliv~ry 

rate Df ~el1eft ~d ~lght side.,~f ~he fieldappllc~ors. For the la~rn8preaders 

there was considerable variability ia the amount of :~erhl delivered trdmone 

run to another at a constant speed, particle size and hopper content. This was 

true t~ a lesser degree w~th the field applicators. 

..";~::l:: 

,,'

340 

''.l'HI'EFlI'ECT dl"BlMmAL GRANUIARi1lORMUI/lTIONS 

OF 2,4-o-D r ON lmRBIOI»ALA'CfIV'ITY 

ThOlll&S'1'. T1i!I~'~1"artl!'R1chard D. IlniOki 1 

; .. ,'" ,- ; r ," 

.~-~.;: 

• ~'1 " I' 

Granular tormulat~~ot many herbicides have been available 

to research workers tor seve~l years. Some ot these investigators 

report better weedoentrOl with the granular preparations (1) 

while others state that the liquid torms ot ce~a1n herbicides are 

more satistaetdJi'J (3). ,,', , 

Previol1s J'work in Ne.'Jersey(2) indicated that a 10 per cent 

granular ester ot 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) gave better 

oontro1 than a 20 ~-aent ester. It was t'urther observed and 

reported that a_s10w-bre~downpart,io1e re.ulted in a higher degree 

ot' con'tlrol;,than fast'disintegrating particles,; however, more 

corn injury was also noted ,with the 10 per cent granular ester. 

The present study was designed to further investigate these 

findings and to,'detertn1ne' ''the etfectivenesa ot' several sizes of 

clay particles and two types of granule br~down. 

'" ~ ::1' ' . «,", -: t,,'., " .: 

Metlid, 

and Materi!}.a 

",' 

"~'I' 

• " .1',: 

An experiment' was condUcted on a Sassafras sandy loam near 

.Jamesburg, NewJersey. N~,.JtFsey No. 8 ~rid field corn was 

planted at the rate of tOUr"kemels per hill in 2l-inoh hills on 

May 17 an~,t~nned,to two p~ts per .h1ll,~ JW1e 19. The,plots 

were, t9UX'.rowP'witte ,and 12 ,~1l8 Ions., Herb.1:ei.:/,anci three ,m__,~, ,~izes Of. the g%!aDu1arcarr1er.L1quid 

prepara~ions of the two fQrmulat10ns w.,. 

inoluded for comparIson with the granular materials. 

1. 

. .' ~ ~'r ' . ; i. 

Fbr,merly R'~roh Ass1ataat and AS8001a~eRes.arch Special~ 

,1st .in ~ C~ps, res.peci1vely, Rut~_· the state Un!ve!"lo 

s1tj,:. Ne\t(.~wi~, New~r8ey. ., 

I (' 

J ) 

, l 

".1,',

Table 1: Herbicidal treatments used in the 2,4-D granUlar experiment. 

Formulation 

Granu]ar Breakdown Granular Rate 

concentration 

percentage tlP e size, mesh Ib/A 

Amine 10 RVM(1) 30/60 1 1 

II II II 

24/48 

II II' II 

20/35 

II II 

LVM(2) 30/60 

II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

20/35 

II 

" 

~ RVM 30/ 60 " 

II II 

24/48 

II 

II II II 

II 

II 

20/35 

LVM 30/60 

II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

Ester 10 RVM 30/60 

II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

20/35 " 

20/35 

II II 

LVM 30/60 

II 

II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

20/35 

II II 

20 RVM 30/60 

II II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

II 

20/35 

II 

II 

LVM 30/60 

II 

II II II 

24/48 

II II II 

1. Rapid disintegrating particles 

2. Slow disintegrating particles 

20/35 

The treatments listed in Table 1 were also studied at three 

pounds per acre or 2,4-D. Cultivated and uncultivated check plots 

were included. There were three replications or all treatments. 

The cultivated check plots were hoed once during the season on 

June 19; however, due to ino1ement weather the treated plots were 

not cultivated at all. 

341 

11"2" 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II

342 

Approximately five weeks after herbic1~1 applications were 

made, weed control and corn injury ratings were made by several 

independent observers using the scale 0 to 10, where 0 =no effect 

and 10 - complete control or kill. These data were transposed 

to square roots in O~d8r to permit more valid statistical 

analy~is. 

The corn was harvested trom the two center rows on October 

2 and 4. Yields were determined by obtain1ag ten butt samplelS 

and drying these to constant weight, then converting all fiel~ 

weights to 15.5 per cent moisture. 

J 

Results 


The principle weeds observed in the e~erimental area were 

barnyard grass (Echinochloa crussa11i) and lambsquarters (~podium 

~). 

The weed oontrol data expressed as square roots for the . 

three granular sizes for the two partiole breakdown types and at 

the two rates of herbicidal applioation are presented in Figure 1. 

It oan be seen that the material carried on the 30/60 size of the 

RVMtype granular effeoted less weed control than that of the, LVM 

granular type. The 24/48 size produced a higher level of control 

than the 30160 size as RVMgranu1ars, however, both sizes displayed 

comparable oontro1 with the LVMtype. 

Whenthe various mesh sizes of the granular preparations were 

oompared at the two rates, irrespeotive of granular breakdown or 

granular ooncentration, two interesting observations were made. 

Firstly, at the li pound rate the 24/48 meSh size produoed the 

highest level of oontrol the 20/35 mesh size produoed the poorest 

control, and the 30/60 size was intermediate. Seoondly, the 

inherent differenoes observed at the lower rate of 2,4-D were ob 

1it4rated at the three pound rate. 

The effeots of particle breakdown and granular concentration 

on weed control, irrespective ot formulation and particle size, 

are presented in Figure 2. It oan be seen that the 10 per cent 

ooncentration granular showed better weed control than the 20 per 

cent material with the RVMtype. However,'phese two ooncentrations 

gave similar results with the LVMgranular. . 

There ~as a slight differenCe in weedpontrol in favor of 

the 10 per oent ooncentrationat the high r.te of 2,4-D. When 

these two conoentrations were. compared at the 1; pound rate, ~he 

control was similar. .

·000 

.000, 

I 

II 

! 

WEEDCONTROLRATINGS'EXPRESSED AS 

SQUAFi...; OOTS .:::I' 0 

o (IJ (IJ 

co .~ 

~ ""'-co 

.:T 

~-q 

(IJ ~~ 

": , co 

! I 

! 1- I!\ ~ 

n 

, l~ 

r-~ 

('/') 

~ 

d- I 

0 (IJ 

0 

~ - 

I 

RVM 

LVM 

LIQ. 

Fig. 1 

.:T 

(IJ 

--'-r 

0 ~ 

- 

; 

.('/') 0 

,.- ('/') 

i 

I!\ 

('/') 

I 

n 

l~/A 

, 

I 

I 

I 

d- 

(IJ 

I 

3/A 

I 

343 

WEEDCONTROLRATINGS EXPRESSED AS 

". SQUAREROOTS-- 

I~ !~ 

.ooq 

I 

~ 

0 ~ 

r-f 

\-'i 

~.~- 

I I (-I 

I , 

I 

I~ 

I 

1 i 

I I.. (IJ_ I ,~ 

I I ~-.c:\I 

I 

I 1 ~ 

I 

--, 

. 

! I I I I 

, 

! I ! I 

I 

! 

I 

RVM LVM 

Fig. 2 

* Distance reauired for sia:nificance Rt c;

344 

The degree 01' oorn inj~ obtained with the various particle 

sizes and breakdowntypes-!e.graphioally presented in Figure 3. 

The ettect 01' granular sizt!LlUld rate ot herbioidal applioation on 

the level 01' inj~ is aleQ,shown. 

It is evident that there are no real ditterenoes among the 

various granular preparations with regard to size or breakdown. 

However, there is slight t~end toward more oo~ inj~ with the 

higher rates 01' 2,4-D. Although not shown, the amine gave slightly 

more injury than the ester tormUlation. 

In Figure 4 the effect ofpartiole size, breakdown type, and 

rate 01' herbioidal appl1oa~on'on the oornyields is illustrated. 

'The yield presented tor the liquid tormulation is an average ot 

the amine and ester and the two rates 01' 2A·~D. The ditterences 

among the various treatments w~re not statistioally signitioant. 

Notwithstand1ngthis laok ot sign1tioance~there is an interesti~ 

trend toward higher yields with the 24/48 size g~anUle at the Ii 

pound rate. Although not r~resented in this tigure, the ester 

tormulation resulted in higher average yields than the amines. 

Generally the yields obtained with the liquids were higher than 

those with the granular treatments, but again the ditterenoe was 

not signiticant. 

The poor weed oontrol ob~erved (in certain cases) with the 

20/35 size may have been a~trtbutable to the smaller number 01' 

partioles per unit area with this granule size. The same amount 

01' herbioide was applied per unit area with all granular sizes; 

however, the 20/35 granUla;-has a~prox1ma~+y t as many particles 

per given area as the 30/60~~ze (4). Thus' with the larger size 

particle the herbicide distribution would be t that 01' the 30/60 

size. It oould very well be that the 30/60 size particles would 

be subjeot to taster disintegration than the larger sizes. Theretore, 

accounting tor the lower control with this size. 

Notwithstanding that oertain trends toward greater weed oontrol 

and/or corn injury ettected by the various granular carriers 

were not statistically signitioant, it is believed that with lower 

rates 01' herbicidal applioation these trend,s, would be more clearly 

demonstrated. AS was evidenced in this stu~, many expressions 

were masked at the high rate 01' herbicidal application. These expressions 

should be more pronounced at rates lower than the It 

pound rate used in this study. 

. ~. .:

2.5000 

CORNINJURY EXPRESSEDAS SQUAREROOTS 

), 

, 

LVM 

Fig~ 3 

3 Ib/A' 

70_) 

CORNYIELDS IN BUSHELS'PER ACRE 

'~ 

OJ 

,:::t 

~(\J 

60- 

0::;:- 

~ 

~ 

~ 

SOl 

40- I 

RVM 

~ 

II' ~ 

LVM 

Fig. 4 

0 

\.0 II' 

~~~ 

• .:;I" ~ 

(\J ,

346 

1. 

2. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

8. 

SUMMARY 

A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of several forms 

of attapulgite as a carrier of 2.4-D. 

In this study the 30/60 size gave better control with the LVM 

granular than with the RVMgranular. 

The 24/48 and 20/35 si~es appeared to be affected very little 

by type of particle breakdown. 

All granular sizes gave comparable weed control when the three 

pound rate was conslde~ed. 

The 24/48 particle size resulted in a higher degree of weed 

control than the 20/35 size at the lower rate of herbicidal 

application. 

The 10 per cent concentration granular produced better control 

than the 20 per oent concentration granular at the lower 

rate. 

There was a slight trend towards higher yields with the 24/48 

size at the l~pound rate. 

The somewhat greater weed control and lower corn injury obtained 

with the liquid formulations were not significantly 

different from those obtained with granular formulations. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. R. J. Marrese of 

Diamond Alkali Co. Cleveland. Ohio. for his assistance in preparing 

and supplying the herbicides for this study.

347 

1. 

2. 

Danielson. l , ;4. L. Ef~~rt;", o.f.g:ranular., herbicides on yields of 

. '1;o!llatoes and--fWleet·potatoS's.' Proc. NEWCC. 10:116. 

1956. 

lln1c1s;;l..,R •. D•. arid EYe~t:.~ C. F. Tb:fL.ei'fectsof several car 

. ,·r1~rE;l. of~~~DI~d1t,storm'4a't;.1ons on weed co~rol 

i~l~n the r~P9!lBeo.f corn.:. l';roc. NEWCC. 16: (i!42. 

. ; 'j, j 

3. Meggltt,'W .. F. ·prognssrIreport on her!i1eides fot' weed c~ntrol 

. inoorn andCI(ilybeans. Procoi-NEWCC. 15:259. 1960. 

".' , .." .. , 

t •• -~ .! - . 

4 •. T$cbnica.l·~ormation..~~.i53. M1neJ;'~~ and Chemicals ~J;'Por 

Ei,t1on.of Am,eJ'~~a! December;,~59. 

i ,I 

:·,c... 

. • c':'

348 

J 

I 

Introduction 

SELECTI~~~~uirm~:t~~~ID:fTH A NEW 

'G. ·n.~,~~l# _A~.)ii;~~:' ancfll~[.~ y~er2' 

. ",' 

,ae.ul1:s fromexterrsive. UbOratoryCana JtS.eld studies- have .. 

de)bOn,.ttatedtt\a~,:~,...(3~4"d:L~~bt~n;yl.) .~,:,.tf(~::-l-methylurea 

is a l't'omisil'lS .agrteultural chiuiieal f"or co:rnni~Cl soybean culture. 

This compound, coded as Herbic:lde 326# combine.. 'both post-emergence 

and pre-emergence herbicidal activity on annual weeds which 

.pe~ts~l~d ~i~"tur~a .~Qmc.~urrent; .~~fh,on1:2;o~ 

p~a9t"'~'•• ~~_ 

crops. . B~8' • "'1i.flUle .:~od~t provides,'~tbl'roorngrower with 

a choice of two methods of.ed control. For greatest economy# 

it may be desirable to use a rotary hoe and po8tp~e the use of 

an herbic:i:tde·until: a weed,#.oblem develop,) it fr 1':he:'corn field~ . c 

Under such circumstances#'Hirbfcide 326'a, .odttected post-emergence 

spray will eliminate most existing annual weeds and give 

residual control of weeds which germinate later. lo1hereearly 

protection is desired# application to the seed bed shortly after 

corn is planted will give pre-emerzence control of germinating 

weeds. 

Results from widespread tests on a range of soil types have 

demonstrated that Herbicide 326 will provide effective pre-emergence 

control of annual l'18edswith safety to soybeans. Good to 

excellent results have been obtained with pre-emergence and postemergence 

applications of Herbicide 326 on carrots. 

Herbicide 326 has a favorable pattern of disappearance from 

soil after the desired weed control period. Bioassays with oats 

have shown no detectable soil residues 3-4 months after treatment 

and fall-sown cover crops have grown normally. 

(1) Contribution from the Industrial and Biochemicals Department# 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.# Wilmington, 

Delaware. 

(2) The valuable assistance of L. E. Cowart# D. W. Finnerty# 

F. J. Otto, H. L. Ploeg# M. B. Weed and A. W. Welch of the 

du Pont Co., and commercial and institutional investigators 

is gratefully acknowledged.

',-- 34~ 

3-(3 ..4-Dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-l-me~y~\1t'ea3 under t~ 

trademarl< name of ''Lorox'' WeMKiller has.received federal label 

registrations for pre- and post-emergence Use' in field corn grown 

for grain and pre-emergence use on soybeans grOl'm for seed. ' 

"Lorox" tleed luller .. formula~d as a 50% wettable powder .. will 

be available for sale in l1~~~d quant1tie~ during 1962 forqpth 

crops. 

Physical and Chemical Propeie~es 

Pure 3-(3 ..4-dichloropbenyl)-1-methoXY;c1"'methylurea is a l 

white crystalline solid (m.p.,~3-94°C.) wi~p.a low vapor pressure. 

Its solubility in l'later is 7~.ppm at 25°C. The compound iS8~ble 

in water but decomposes slawly in acids and bases. It is subject 

to microbial decomposition tinder moist con4~tions in soil. 

Toxicology 

and Residues 

The approximate lethal. dose (ALD) by q#al administratioq .eo 

male white rats is 1500 mg./l~. body weight. vJhile the chemiA.al 

causes slight :l.rritation totne. skfn and e~s .. it is not a, 

sensitizeX'. Long-term c~onicstudies are ,'in' the second. year: 

and the results indicate no toxicology problem. Analyses have 

demonstrated no residues in corn grain." . 

- 

Pre- and Post-Emergence Weed Control in Com 

Summary data are now available from a.total of 73 tests 

conducted over a two-year period in 21 states. Tests were conducted 

on different corn varieties and under representative 

conditions of soil type .. weed $Ol'lth .. and-weather conditions 

existing in the major corn-l>re,4ucing areas •• 

Results from pre-emergenc;~' tests Show~hat soil type is d1e 

predominant factor in the selection of effe~tive use rates. In 

the Corn Belt on silt loam and clay loam soils of moderate to 

high organic matter .. effecti~ ~ontrol was pbtained with rates 

of 2 to 3 pounds 4 per acre. No' crop irijurywas obtained at ~ce 

;' 

..,J 

(3) The du Pont Co. has propOsed formally to the K-62 Committee 

of the American Standards ,Association that the term 'linuron'· 

be established as the approved common (aeneric) name. 

(4) All rates are expressed on an active ingredient basis., "

3~ J 

.. i,c matt.er" which 

these rates. On, lighter .~Hs" low in orMD 

predominate outside the Ct>it;15elt" rate8~:f:3l4 to 1-1/4 p~ 

per acre gave effective .!~:~ontro1 with !lP adequate safety . 

margin.' ':.:' , .. . . 

Fo11~8e spray's of H8r~~~ide ~26are~tgbly effective on;'! . 

grOWing annual-plants. AHnl.cdve effect is achieved by directing 

the spray nozzles to wet the growing portion of the weeds' 

while avoiding the same on corn 1>lant!J.Th1s, type ofapplic~,- . 

tion has been most promising when thec~ft--wes at least 12 tnches 

tall. lolhennozzles were1llC?unted so that~spray struck only 

a fetl inches 'up the cornit~tk, only sUIM*~tt-=Ul injury to the , 

. .bottom leaves has been noeed. ~leeds up ttL 0 inches tall were 

,controlled Wit:h,~"l/2 to ~: ,peJtindsper acr.~' ,These rates he ... 

. provided' adequate'residual~ed controlog'the various so11 H~S 

prevalent'1ncorn"growing areas. Established corn has shown a . 

good margin of safety to directed post-emQrgence applicatiog •• 

In Corn Belt soils" where rates of 2 to 3,!~s perae:re'ari; 

recommended, rates up to .6 pounds have be..~ gon-injurious. In 

lighter soils" With recommended rates of t~1/2 to 2 pounds ~ 

~re ,,4 'poUnds has proven jeh to corn. s'Fay volumes in ~.,.,', 

range of, 30 gallons have perlormed wep.. $pr.ay pressures of 

40 p.s.i. or'lower arene_nded topre~1'ltmisting.' 

In t1¥)st sit~tions band';treatments W£llbe most econom!~al. 

The weeds remaining ;;Lnthe middles can be removed by cultivat;ing 

during the spray operat:Lonic...:The nozzles· fl\ou-ld be' mounted ahead 

of the cultivator to el1mi~te weeds on tl).e edge of the band. 

This procedur$"would red\We",.tM amounto~~X:bicide requ;l.re!;lLPY 

ewo-thfrCts. .:' " '" .... . ... :,. ' .'. ' 

The an1'lUaigrassesan~. t~oadleaf .~~~.~ich .have been 'fe 

controlled satisfactorily With recommended r.tes include foxtail 

,(green" yellow ..and giant) , Crabgrass,; bams.rd grau or. watergrass" 

smartweed" rasweed, purslane" lati1b,":quarters" pigweed-l 

" .., ',", ", ' "" ~' " ..J ' ; t I 

buttol1We.ed and cocklebur ... .: ... i 

. RepreS$ntAt1ve weed'c~~olresult. ~Qyield data are· 

'containedin Tables'l throlJgl1 6. . . 

Pre-Emergence' Weed Control 

in Soybeans 

. Resulu~m field t~~:..dUring a ewo-year period at 30) 

locatioga in U states have,·demonstrated chat Herbicide 326" 

appli~d at re~oUlD8nded rates, will provide effecti~ pJ;'e-e~gence 

, , ; r' •

weed control with adequate safety to soybeans. Tests were conducted 

under representative conditiqns of soil type, weed gro,"lth 

and weather existing in the.mejor·soybean-t*~ucing areas. 

On silt loams and clay loams with ~de~ate to high organic 

matter, commercial control was obtained with 1 to 2 pounds per 

acre with adequate safety margin. On lightjr soils, low in 

organic matter, rates of 0.5 to 1 pound per.acre were sufficient. 

Results from tests on lighter soils indicate that safety to soybeans 

increases when the depth of planting ~s increased from 1 

inch to 2 inches. Representative weed contrpl results and yield 

data are contained in Tables 1 through 9. 

Pre- and fost-Emergence We~ Control in CariEts 

Carrots have shown a high degree of tolerance to Herbicide 

326•. Satisfactory weed control has been ob~ined with 0.25 to 

0.5 pound per acre for post-emergence treatQlents and from 0.5 

to 3 pounds per acre pre-eme~gence depending on soil type. 

351 

Disappearance 

from Soil 

The growth and evaluation of indicator .9rops is the most 

practical method for the determination of residual activity of 

herbicides in soils. This method was used to follow the rate 

of disappearance of Herbicide 326 under a wide variety of conditions 

on so:Ll types rangit;13, from sandy loamswith low organic 

matter to heavy clay loamswlth a high organic matter content. 

Soil samples (O-'V" and 4-8 11 depths) ~'1ere talcin from treated plots 

at 20 geographical locations :j.n the United S;1;ates. These areas 

encompassed the important corn and soybean-I¢oducing regions. 

These sa.mpleswere compared with untreated .amples fr.om the same 

areas in oat assays in the greenhouse. Data:.were taken at 21-23 

days after planting. . 

Results from these st~dies indicate that phytotoxic concentrations 

of Herbicide 326 disappear from the 'soil within 3 to 4 

months after treatment, when used at rates of 1.5 pounds on sandy 

Loams, 2 to 3 pounds on s11.t .loam soils and 3 to 6 pounds per 

acre on heavy clay loams (medium to high organic matter). Thus, 

there. should be no problem to the next crop.~

') 

') 

>,' 

t .). - 

Table 1. Weed CO~tro1' 'lNaluations and Corn. ,Yields FollbWlngD1recte4 Post 

Emergence Applications of Herbicide326- Mi.d~st Corn Belt 

Average Percent of Overall Weed Control, and Mean 

Rate .' Yields in BQshels Per .Acre 

J Lb. A~tive Farm 11' Farm #~ ,Farm 13 Farm#4 Farm #5 

Treapuent ,fer :6cre '-., ,,6 W]y. 7 Wks. i ~ Wks. • 3 !Jt!. 3 WIes. 

lfftbii:~ .~~: '~i ~E' 0~'~5:·Q ' b ~)11'~ f3'Ulsf._v~ ~~.5) ~,;; 1::~ ,',~'" 60 (64) 

" ' , 1.S ' )7 (99) 65 (77):-'87(107) 72 (84) ~'75 (68) 

, " 3.~ 83 (103) .,92(93),' ~90 (106) 18 (89) 33 (68) 

.. 6.0 93 (101):97(101) 95 (100) 87 (93) 95 (76) 

GJ;QWer"a - 65 (105)30 (37) 85 (35) .: (80) 75 (58) 

Pror;r:aiclJ " 

~ c ':, 

UJa~t.4' ContrOl 

.~. 

t. 'I :;~ 

o (79) r, 

n 

.{~ :_,..~ 

& ill) " 

.; 

e (65) 

~',..j "

Untreated 

Table 2. Directed Post-E".sence Weed C~trol in Corn 

Du Pont Researlill\hp - Newark""pela\'Iare 

Control 

353 

Rate Percent Weed,Control 

Lb./A '. Grasses ... &:'oadleaves Yield 

Material (Active) § Wk. 9 Wk. 3 \o1lt. ~ Bu./A 

Herbicide 326 

II 

" 

Hoed Control 

0.75 98 68 97 95 89 

1.50 :99 98 99 99 86 

3.00 99 99 99 100 85 

·'8 95 ,00 45 81 

0 0 0 0 80 

Keyport silt loam. Three repli~Hltions. Com ...12" tall at time 

of treatment, weeds were 4" tall. No injury to corn. Weed 

species: crabgrass, Panicutn, ragweed, smart:weed, annual morning 

glory and horsenettle. 

Table 3. Directed Post-Emergence \-leed Control in Corn 

DuPont Researcn Farm - Raleigh, N.C. 

Material 

Herbicide 326 

II 

" 

Rate 

Lb./A 

(Active) 

0.75 

1.50 

3.00 

Percent Weed Control 

Weeks After Treatment 

l' 

)'6 

ao 63 

97 99 

"100 '·100 

Crop Injury 

No injury 

to corn. 

j'l: 

Untreated 

Control 

0 0 

.. 

Norfolk sandy loam. Three replications. Corn was l

354 

" 

Cultivated 

Untreated 

'1'81)1.4., !'re.E ..... tlCeWe.d;;Colll.. ol in Corn jO; 

Iti:!ltKa1k,"n11n!",: 1 

Control 

Control 

.... 'ti~.IA' 

, (Ac"tiiir·' 

.T' 

2" 

4, 

(3 cul~vations) 

Percent:.weed Control 

3 WkttI ,; 5 lns.e• 

81:-vs: .~ 56 

90"--" .. 84 

99 ex.o 90 

......- 

\l\., ~ ,_ 

o )L.:~ 0 

Yield 

, ',Bu,s'A 

:,." 7 

··.~',94:~,::;,·.: 

Joll 

101 

'62 

Clay :l,oam. Three replica~tons • weed species: annual lI1Orad.ng 

glory, smartweed, velvet leaf and Canada thistle. 

Table 5. 

Material 

Herbicide 326 

" . 

" 

Hoed Check' . 

Untreated Control . 

Pre·Emergence Weed Control in Corn' " 

Du POnt WeaESh Bra 1;:!fm18rk,Delaware :,l',iC.' 

Rat~;Lb./A 

(Active) 

0.75 

:t-&Q' 

3.;QQ, 

:"~;:Y,· 

'L" 

Percent ~ ,Control· .; r~j.; 

Aftg',§"Weeks .Yiilld 

Grasses Broadleaves Bu./A 

96 100 90 . 

,•.99 . o'.lQO ..89 

100',8,.' .100 84 

9"595 80 

,0 ~. 0 42 

" "'i ;.'-. :1\• , _' .. 

l(eyport;sil~,loam. Three-replications. ,:-Jiee.d'ispecies: c~_._ 

grass, rSg'Weed,smartweed, pigweed,' Japanese"millet and rape. 

Material 

Herbicicl.' 

" 

"Ii 

Table 6. 

3.U: 

Hoed Check 

Untreated Control 

0(,.:. 

Pre·Emergence ~ed Cont:IrQ1:in Corn 

Du Pont Research Farm· Raleigh, N.C. 

Percent 1o1eedControl 

After 4 ~eeks 

G Sl~.~~" J92, 

.J,' .~:: 98 

,

.s 

.... 

__ 

Table 7. Pre-Emel'ae~eWeed Coner.lin Soybeans 

Van Wert, Ohio 

355 

Rat~ Lb./A 


Material 

(Abttve) 

, 4 Wks. 6 Wks. 

Herbicide 326 

1.0 

66 73 

" 

2.0 

97 96 

4.0 

99 97 


o :0 

I 

Brookston clay loam. Three replications .-Weed species: fo*tall, 

buttonweed, smartweed, bamya.rd grass, raS.ed and pigweed. So 

injury to soybeans. 

" .: . 

Table 8. Pre-Emergence Weed Cont~ in Soybeans 

Du Pont ~esearch Farm - Newark, Delaware 

Material 

Herbicide 326 

" 

Hoed Check 


Rate Lb./A 

(ActiVer 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

Percent 

After 

Grasses 

W8edControl 

4 Weeks 

Broadleaves 

88 93 

90 95 

95 96 

98 98 

o . 0 

Yield 

BU.,A 

20 

32 

32 

28 

9 

Keyport sllt loam. Three replications. Weed species: crabgrass, 

Japanese millet, rape, pigweed~ -horsenettle and purslane. 

Material 

Herbicide 326 

" 

" " 

Untreated 

Table 9. Pre-Emergence Weed COfltrol in Soybeans 

Du Pont~search Farm -Raleigh. N.C. 

Control 

Rate Lb./A 

(AE!!ve 1 

1.0 

1.5 

3.0 

rcent 


3-1' ~:W1ts 5-1/2 Wks. 

47 

90 03 

99 97 

100 99 ... 

Norfolk sandy lo~m. 'Three repl,ications., ,~9y,~eans planted 1-1/2 

inches deep. Weed species: crabgrass, foxtail, pigweed, lambs- 

_ ....... _ ... _ __ . ..2 __ .I ~ 

...~_ ~_.1 

__ ~ 

'L. _

356 

TRIFL URi.;,m~p:OR ,'·~EME:Ro!]fT 

WEEDC ONTROt~"'I~ AGRONciMfCCROPSl 

S. J. Pieczarka, W. L'. Wrigbt, and E. F. Alder 2 "" • .,.I 

The herbicidal properties of trifluralin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-di~! 

propyl-a,a,a-tritluoro-'p'-toluidine) have been investigatedd1.n. ~be 

field and laboratory. "T"rifluralin appears promising' as aSff.:t..: , 

lective pre-emergent annual grass and broadleaf herbicide f.Qr_,..'Qlbeans, 

lim~bean8,snapbea.D.~"ireenpe_h;'\'O~'OCO, p,eanuts cellcotton. 

These crop •. haVl;lnot,'h.o.wn ,in3.1:l,ZlTf:r,~, trU';j.uralin ,aR~ 

plications aehigh as 8 poudds" per' acre, sur-taoe spra7, or 4".; 

pounds per acre, soil incorporated. Rates of 4-6 pounds per acre, 

surface spra7, or 1-2 pounds per acre, soil incorporated, have 

given excellent annual grass and broadleaf weed control ... Table 1 

contains a l1st"fdw.eed8".c.~~:f.ble to'tr!.~li·n •. 

~,~ :,";j ()'q ui" 

Table 1. Weed'sp'e61Els Suiifc'ep:tlble to TrU'rur'&lin Surface 

SpI'&7 at~-6 lb/A L', 

- -'... --'.~.- - 

Susceptible 

." - 

- 

-'I'i' - - - - - • .' .... 

':.,:- Moder'ate17 

~ p • ~u!c!p!i~l~ _ • 

Barn7ardgrass 

Crabgrass 

Foxtail 

Fa:ll. p,anicum 

Stinkgrass 

C~petweed 

Ragweed 

Chickweed, common, .;' S.llIartweed 

LJaNquarters: 

,CL. 

UP8: e d

experiment is reported herE!. Trifluralin Wal applied to Clark 

and Haros oy soybeans with a. Jf~"" Highb oy spre,yer. Plots wer'e 

5 by 25 feet, replicated 3 t~es. Triflura11n weed control resultsare 

given in Table 2•• rs,·1;e of 1 pound -per acre gave excellent 

grass weed control ·1~ this experiment but only fair brDadleaf 

weed control. Four t06 pounds per ac~were necessary for 

good broadleaf. weed control. :Nel ther soybean variety was damaged 

by any of the treatments. 

Table 2. Percent Weed Cont~ol in Soybeans With Trifluralin 

Surface Spray ; 

- -- - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - 


Trifluralin 

1 

2 

4 6 

o 

-, 

- - - - - - - - - - - -- 

grts~~~ 

93 

96 

99 

99 

o 

(65.9).!?J 

B~o!dle!f~/_ 

56 

84 

88 

96 

o bl 

(2.5)_ 

357 

Grass weeds were crabgrass andfoxtailJ 

broadleaf weeds were pigweed and smartweed 

'E./ 

Number weeds per square foot 

~o!l_I!!cgrio£a~ign -- An experiment was conducted to determine 

if trifluralin activity is improved by soil incorporation. Trifluralin 

was sprayed on the soil surface with no incorporation, 

raked lightly into the soil, and pre-plant incorporated 2 inches 

deep. Herbioides were applied with a sulky or:ig to plots 3 by 15 

feet, replicated 4 times. Soybeans, snapbeans, ootton, tomatoes, 

cabbage, and cucumbers were planted across the plots. 

The results indicate that pre-plant soil incorporation of trifluralin 

increased herbicidal activity 4-6 t.imes compared with the 

surface spray application (Table 3). One-half pound per acre o·f 

trifluralin pre-plant soil incorporated gave" better weed control 

than 4 pounds per acre as a surface sp:ray. It'aked plots were"intermediate 

in response. Cotton, soybeans, snapb~ans and cabbage 

were tolerant to all treatm-ents"J tomatoes and cucumbers were not.

·358 

Tablej~. 

-~,he., _E, fre, ~t8," o~ D,"",t;:.i~_ht.' 'Sp,1;1. "T.r,~:~,",n,teon Pre .. 

~me;r.lebt Weed Cqnt~pt.l;~it"h. Trl!lu~~.. 

..- -'~ .. 

.,. ,( 

Surface 

Spray- 

... 

. Rake 

'\ ' . 

0.5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

o 

...,W 

Pre-Plant 

Oontrol 

- - - - - _.- - - ....,.:;- - 

Soil Treatment': Surfll.cespray--no incorporation; 

ralt.~soil incorp.oMt1on by. hand 

r"kiUIJ pre-plan1(a.oU incorpora~oD 

with rot~~or 

Grau -w,eeds were cr-abgrau and' 'f-;~iiJ bl'oadleat 

••• d8 were p1gve~4 aQd carpetweed 

. yNumber weeds per 8C1~~~e. ·toot 

70** 

57* 

87** 

87** 

-65** 

o 

(1.4) . 

Y 

- .. - - - ..- 

' ...... 

i, ':',"':: r 

With 1;.he cl.~Jl\o~sha..t1onot ~Prove'd activity- ~~~ritlural1n on 8:011 

inc or.oporat-i.on:, another expel"1me1"t. wasc ondu~~1n, which 8ever ..l 

commons011 incorporation ~e~.quee were cQJ9Pared. Methods 

were: dO,uble .disking.once llpd; ·1(:wiceJ ra,king·.::the soil surface J : 

rotovat.!OJ1.~ and4inche.s d~Jcand Ilotovati\. 2 inches deep, dlelayed 

6 hours after trifluralin application. Tritluralin surface 

spray was used for comparison. Plots were 5 by- 15 teet, replicated 

3 times. Crops planted across the plots included 

soybeans, snapbeans, peanuts, and cotton. 

I~ • 

! •

Results are given. in Table 4~J'Rotovation fti4elearly the be~'1!' 

method of soil incorporat:f:on." The orderJol'activitywas rotovation, 

raking, delayed rotovation, diskin')I'surface spray. None 

of the crops were injured-by any treatment. 

Table 4. -A Comparison of :·86i:l: Incorporation Methods with 

Tr1tluralin at 1'''n;!A. Expressed as Percent 


359 

!r~;f!~a!i~ !!bLA., .... _ ~e!:c!n~ ~e~.. a~n~r~l .• ," i 

__ 8gq lr!a~m!!n!: _ .. ... Qr!!s!e! __ ....P!g!e!!d..: 

Surface 

Disk once 

Disk tWice· 

Rake· 

Rotovate-2 

Rotovate-4" 

Rotova'te-2 

Control 

1t 

It 

, 6 hrs. 

--- - - - - ~ 

.. 

,1\ 

70* 

77** 

90** 

97** 

100** 

79** 

o 

-(~.~)~- 

26 

;1 63** 

~2* 

86** 

94;** 

96** 

iJ: 83** 

-- 

* and ** S18n1fica~1i'at the 5 and J,.!percent level.:, 

respect1ve],y,.using the tJ.'~nsormation 'fN:O.~ . 

, :. ," '. ,. ',. 

Number oi'w$eds per square]foot 

Leaching stud1~8were conducted with tr1:tlU:flalin to determine the 

rate of leaching from the soi]" surface and 11he depth of leaching 

in a soil column. Three soil types were used: Princeton fine 

sand, Brookston silty clay loam, . and Hough'tcm- muck. 

~eacbiDg_Fram autfacG •• A measured quantity of soil was placed 

in _number 2 catlsprovided w.ith' .~bottom drainage. The s oil was 

flooded and allowed to drain 16 hours. The trifluralin was then 

app.lied at ·2 pounds per acre--to: the soi-l surf-ace and 1, 2, 4,· 6, 

8 or 10 incbes of water was paned through the soil. 'Fresh II 

weight of crabgrass plantsgrow:n from seed;p.anted on the soi~ 

surface was use~_as a b1010gic.l assay. ' .. 

/

360 

Ta~leS. ,Tb.:~,,~hlnl ot'tl!Uhral1n atl'ilb/AbOJll the So!l' 

8uZ'~..o••. ,Expr •••• 4 ..s Pero •• t, •• 4uot1on in Growtll: l 

ot C:ra_.ratp' ~I h"," , ,~ , 

- ..-- - -.;'. 

.'p!r!l~t_R!d~C?1:~~n",~! ,£r!bsr!s! ~r2~_ • 

... ~,!~ IDQhlS .;.t',:,.olJ }fajilt 

.Sii;L tne ••• _ ••• 0••••• 2•• ~":: .6 •• § .12 

Princll"tOn 'tine sand "99 97 '96 i,T ,,96 84 ,90 

Brooke.tonsiit)-' :ell'a,., l.oamiOi'):100 10O-:J.do 2 100 100100 

Houghton muck . " :9':1£.:90 8S, :19".'80 '74 74 

------~-- ..~~--------- ---- 

The results arp,presented in,\Table S. In the fine sand there was 

a slight reduction in the .. ~t of herbicide present after tbe 

addition of 8 ,incbes of wa~lt- Tritluralin did not leacb from tbe 

aurface of tbl'H .. ~lty clay~. The 2 pounds p-er aore rate ot 

tritlural1n ln, H.oughton mucJt';JI:.a not suffioient to capletel)' kill 

all the orab,ra.s, thus ineW-oat-ing ada$)rpt1

In Princeton fine sand, tritlupalin leached ,tic a. depth of 8 

inches, reducing subsequent cr~bgrass growth 29 percent at this 

depth (Table 6). In the silty'o!Lay loam; little activity was 

found below the 1 inch level. These results confirm the results 

from the previous experiment which indicated trifluralin did not 

leach from the surtace in th!. soil. 

361 

Surface sprays of triflural~ngave excellent,~re-emergent weed, 

control at 4-6 pounds per acre with no damag. to soybeans, snapbeans, 

lim. beans, green pelU!, peanuts, and~;otton. Soil in .. ' 

corporation increased activit7Jl ..6 times ovel' surtace sprays. , 

Rotovationprovedsuperior to o:t;her incorpor~tion methods.. . 

Tritluralin leached very slowly trom the surtace of sandy, silty 

claY' loam, and muck soils. The compound leached to a greater 

depth in sand than in siltY' claY' loam.

lA~sociate Resear~h_Specia1ist in Weed Control; formerly 

362 

MODIFIEP.,'1'HIOLCARBAMA':J:i,)¥ERB:J:CIDES' WI'1'1$,· .• OADERUTILI'l1Y:" ' 

R!P~ Ilrt1ckij lJ:

Included in the lima. bean test were ,the standard formU~ 

lations (R-1856 6E and 100). and the expemmental formulations 

EAP4030 and EAP4031. The\design was' a>~andomized block I' 

with three replications. 

The soybean experiment was a split plot factorial with 

two replications.. The 1lla1.n-,plot included'rates of application 

and the subplots comJ1'8ted of unincorporated and in- I 

corpora.ted treatments ofal.l'fonnulationlJi'randomized completeiy. 

m£ 

The experimental formulations were evaluated for weed 

control and· crop toleranoein strawberries, corn, and soybeans. 

, ,I 

The strawberry experiment included commercial EPTC 

(EPtam 6E and 50) and the formulations EAP4001 and EAP4002. 

Rates of 3 and 6 pounds 'were used for the"oommercial EPTCbut 

only the.lowerrate .was uled for the latter two materials. 

All treatments were applied in quadruplicate, in a randomized 

block design, 16 days afteJ:I,transplantllll8~' 

Included in the corn experiment were commercial EPTC 

(EPtam 6E and 50) and experimental formulations EAP4000 and 

EAP4005 at rates of 3 and 5 pounds. The experimental design 

was a split plot factorial With three replications. The main 

plot included rate of appl!ca.tion and tn. subplots consisted 

of unincorporated and incorporated treatments of all formulations 

randomized completely. 

The soybean experiment was similar tlo the corn experiment 

in design. Rates of. 4 and 6 pounds were applied in duplicate 

for the following formulations: EPtam 6a"and 50, EAP4001 

and EAP.4002. 

363 

Weed control and crop injury ratings were made periodically 

using the scale 0 to 10, where 0 = no effect, 10 = stand/vigor 

reduced 10Q%or completektlLFor the ~e of brevity, details 

concerning .planting,appl1eab:1.on;. and observation'da1#'es. 

have been omitted here. TheB13may be f'OUIldin the summary 

tables elsewhere. 

Results 

and Discussiop 

In tables 1~5 are presented summaries .01' weed control arid 

crop injuI"J ratings for the·e.xperimental formulations of R-:1856 

and EPTCapplied to the various test crops. For ease of di,scussion 

each thiolcarbamate herbicide will be discussed separately. 

J •.1 

J" ~,

364 

data thatEAP4031 was 4.., t1mee moreaica". than R-1856 6~ , ,J 

or lOG,on,soybeans and J:1ma!beans.' The:1'brD\ulatlon EAP 4030 

was silllll.:larly' more actlwt! tllan the erhul.sti'i:able concentrate: 

on the granular preparatlon on l1ma b~b'ut there was riof]; 

dlfference on soybeans. 

jJ': ;!' '''qi::' 

ll'heseaetivefoI'JI'IU1a't1ons, conta1n:Lal.i:paraffinlc hydrO';':, 

.. carbon asoairr1ers, wera.characterlzed'! aa.'fb8v1bg greaterre&ldualactiV1ty 

and they tet8:lned their heJ4>1cldal poten~y Uhf' 

Di'ore tha.n t~o months on soybeans. The same results wouldbeantidlpated 

bh lima beans had additional weed control notes 

been made. ,:,. 

It ls' .interesting ·tOo'note that incoJoporation had no 

effect onan1",'o:f theformu~ationsandth.tun1flcorporated 

EAP 4031 was slightly superior to the incorporated treatmenO' 

notWithstanding that this difference may not be statistically 

signifioant ~"! ;, '1' '} 

InJury to ,soybeans wab h1sherwjithi lIAP,:4031thanwi thiaily 

other formulation butth18d1njurywal! .1a1Je~;outgrowri. ' .. 

These data indicat.e .tha'tbroad.%'ut~:ty tor R-1856 i', 

possible and that its use may not be limited to grassy weed 

situationd. - , :f. 'Cl" 

" br!. 

;:} ....:..,Cj 

The errectso:f the Vat-1ous formulllt:OClrlltof EPTe on ct'op. 

response and weed ·contrO'1JaN'summarized r,hr 81t'rawb.erries:;c: 

corn, and soybeans in tables 3, 4, and5;'T~tre'epectively; ").(: 

'. Fowmula't1ons. EAP 4001-·:and"EAP4002; -P.@n1t;a1ningaparaffime 

hUdrocar1:Jori as acarr:1er, ,.ffected\ gtl!ea"ter in! tialweetf. 

control' Wtlthdecreased inJUf'\v to\,stra",~ transplants than' ' 

commercial E,ptam 6E. These two experlmental preparations were 

comparable to the granular preparation but less injury was 

produced.:' ' ' ') b r:i. 

, 

In1't1al; activity of'EA~4001andEAac#OO2 wasorily -lJ.) 

, slightl,. beeter,than the :ciODlAerolal,fomUllafttons on soybean., 

. but their;aotlv1t.yperslst.ecS~ longer.' c.r.,lnju%W was less on 

both corn and soybeans with the experimental .formulationB).-.l.l"" 

including also EAP 4000 and EAP 4005, on both incorporated and 

unincorporated test Jllb~,~' ' -:3 

i Generally, incorporating theformulattcms effeotedgreater 

weed: controJ.;jhowever, ldth(.EAP 4001 bn'BbybJansthere wa.s no 

a

Table 1. The Effects ofS8veral formulat:llons of t-butyldi-n-propylthio~carbamate 

(R-1856) on weed control 

and baby lima besn injury. Thaxter baby lima 

beans planted andtormulations appl:ied June 2. 

Weed control and crop injury ravings made 

July 7, 1961. * 

\# 

Weed control l 

Treatment Rate, Br;oadleaved Graa.es Crop Injury2 

Ib./A weeds 

R-1856. E.C. 4 ~.8 3.3 1.3 

6 1.3 5.3 2.0 

R-1856. lOG 4 1.0 4.7 2.0 

6 1.7 5.7 5.7 

EAP40303 4 10.0 9.:0 7.3 

6 10.0 9.6 7.8 

EAP4031 4 4 9.8 9-.:.4 5.7 

6 9.9 9.4 1.0 

* Average of three replications. 

1 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 no effect I '10 

reduced 100%. 

stand/vigor 

2 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect •. 10 = complete kill,. 

3 R-1856 dissolved in a select hydrocarbon fraction above C18 

and containing a slow-breaking emulsifier system. 

4 a-1856 dissolved in a seleot hydrocarbon fraction above C18 

and containing a fast-breaking emulsifier system. 

365

366 

Table 2•. The' effectsot,~a~tormulat1lOn. of t-butyl . 

d!t-n-propylthie!clWbamate CR~l9S6·):(at· four pounds 

pel/acre on. WEled.control and flo~ean inJury •. 

Clark soybeans~larited andfor~at1ons applied 

Treatment 

June 5. Weed control and crop i3.l'Jj\t1'Y' ra't1ngs made 

.... - 

JUly 13 and. AUgust 20, 1961. *. ',- . 

G%'8ssea' 

weeds jJ . 

.Bl'oadlea~ed 

l.,) .... __ 

Crop rnJury2 

'38 

Days after Application 

76 38 . 76 38 

76 

r- .' 

R-1856, E.C. U3 3.0 0.0 

r4, 2,.0 0.0 

R-1856, lOG u 2.5 0.0 

I 2,.0 0.0 

EAP4030 5 U 4.0 0.0 

I 2.0 '0.0" 

EAP4031 6 U 9.8 10.0 

I 9.2 :1.0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0' 

0.0 

0.0 

3.0 

1.0 

* Average ot two replicat1~. 

1 Based onsaale 0 to 10; 0 .,no. effect, 10 .'~tand/vigor 

neduced 100%. l' 

2 Based on seale' 0 tv 10;. ·0 ... ndeft:ect, 10 • complete kill. 

3 u = treatment unincorporated. 

4 

I = treatment incorporated into adil immediately after 

application. 

5 R-1856 dissolved in a select hydrocarbon fraction above 

and containing a slow-breaking emulsifier system. 

6 R-1856 dissolved in a select hydrocarbon fraction above 

and containing a fast-breaking emulsifier system. 

, ./. 

~ • I "; ~

Table 3. The effects of several formul~1ons of EPTCon 

weed control and ,strawberry inJury. Jerseybelle 

strawberries set April 12. F~ulations applied 

April 28. Weed Ratings made Jane 9. Data on 

rooting of runners obtained July 1, 1961.* 

367 

WeedControl l c£up In,1ury 

Treatment Rate, Broad";' Grassy St~2 Vigor 3 Rooting 

lb./A leaved weeds of 

weeds 

runners 

EPTC, ,E.C. 3 6.5 8.1 0.0 2.9 Slight 

delay 

6 1.2 9.4 0.0 2.7 Slight 

delay 

EPTC, 5G g 8.2 9.8 0.0 2.1 Normal 

9.0 10.0 0.0 3.2 Slight 

delay 

EAP4001 4 3 8.5 9.4 0.:0 1.3 Normal 

EAP4002 5 3 9.0 9.4 O.p 0.1 Normal 

* Average of four replications. 

1 Based on scale 0 to 10j 0 no effect, 10 stand and/or ' 

vigor reduced 100%. 

2 Based on scale a to 10j 0 = no effect', 10 stand reduced 

100%. 

3 Based on scale a to 10j 0 = no effect, 10 = complete kill, 

4 EPTC,dissolved in a select hydrocarbon.traction above C18 

and containing a slow~breaking emulsitier system. 

5 EPTCdissolved in a select hydrocarbon fraction above C18' 

and containing a fast~breaking emulslt~er system. 

/'

368 

Table 4. The effects of several formula~1~8 Of EPTCat 

three pounds ~:aere,on' weed c~~rol and corn 

injury. New·Jeney,No. 8 cOXtlr';1'anted,May22 

and formUlations applied May 23. 'Weed control 

and, crop 1nJururatings made July 2 and, 

Se~~ember 8, 19~~.* . 

WeecfControl l 

I 

Treatment Broadleavec1" Grasses; Crop Injury~ 

weeds 

Days after Application 

38 76 38 76 38 76 

EPTC, E.C. U 3 3.0 6.3 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 

I 4 8.0 3.7 9.0 6.0 2.0 0.0, 

EPTC, 5G u· 8.0 6.3 6.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 

I 8.0 5.0 7.5 5.0 4.0 0.0 

EAP40005 u 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.7 

!. 9.0 8.2 9.8 7.3 2.0 0.0 

EAP4005 6 u, 1.0 3.3 1.0 l'.3 0.0 0.0 ,. 

I 9.3 ·9..0·, 9.3 6.6 0.5 0.0 

, , 

* Average of three replications. 

1 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect:. 10 = stand/vigor 

reduced 100%. 

1t 

2 Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = no effect, 10 _ complete kill. 

3 U.• treatmentunincorporahd. 

4 I = treatment'1ne~rpoX"ated into so11 1mri1ediately after 

application."""" 

5 EPTCdhsolved'in a se1ect:hydroca3:'bonlraetion above C 18 

and containing a fast~breaking emu181fte~ system, 

6 EPTCdissolved in a select hydrocarbon fraction above C 18 

and containing a slow-breaking emulsifier system.

369 

Table 5. The effects of sev~ral formulations of EPTCat 

four pounds per acre on weed control and soybean 

injUil"Y. Olar~ :fl';ibeans plant~@rand fomulatlons 

appUe

370 

,"~ary 

Exper1men'taltormuJ;a~of' 

R-1856i~d .ZPTCwere 

evaluatedt*the1rherbl~aal. activity oif$everal agronomic 

and hOI'ticUlt'-Ui"S.l crops. 'Htgh boiling pirl'itt'inic hydrocarbonfracj;1.ona,.havUlg 

..car.bon nUDlbw8-.aDos1e-Cts",were used-· 

as carriers for these herb1~j.de~ ~ " 

.;~ .. 

There were 1nit1al 1ri~iias~s in we.~i(rontrol with the .'" 

experimental formulations of' both R-1856 "'ti!ddEPTC. Simiiar""1y, 

tliere-~ai3.- greater'-~'jisTdu:al act1 vrty from these pre- 

.,parations than from the c6mniercial formulations. These increases 

in activity were especially pronounced with R-l856. 

It""wa-s-'observe-d'tha"twtth-e-el't"ain fortnulan6ris it was not ,_ ... 

necessary to1ncorporatethem1nto the 1S011·surface for 'I', 

improved activity. 

It may be concluded that the effectiveness of R-l856 

can be extended to incl~.~ broadleaved weed aotivity by 

formulating this herbicide ineertain hydrooarbon carriers. 

Acknowledgements' 

i 

i 

The authors wish to acknowledge Dr., Robert H. Salveson, 

of Esso Research and Engineering Company, L1nden,New Jersey" 

for preparing "and suppl:l1ng,~tbe, experimental.'formulations of' 

thetl'lo .1!h:l.Ql.Q,ar'ParoatesL. .cr.ed1t is dus.h1m,f'.or h1.s assistance 

in obtaining data in the field and for his aid in preparing 

this manuscript. -: 1J 

Cred1t1.~lso due StaurfeI' Chemica! Company for supplYfng 

R-1856 6E and lOG and Eptam 6E and 5G. 

~,O ~). 

, I 

..:;;:. - 

I

• ~ : .• \ • ' -' ..,,:- ',-" ' > • '. 

ENHANCINGHEftBICIDAt, AC'l'mfi OF SILVEXPoR THE CONTROLO'F":: 

DOGFENNELtlf i ;3MA: LL GRAINS' .]-~ 

,..\" 

R. D. Ilriioki* , 

. Dog f~~el (Anthemus o01ii~) oauses se»lous losses in s~n 

grainproduotion and is alSO.'l ... ·..p.e.st. in other .•••crops and pasture~.i 

in the Northeastern States.,:~ previous wOX'kat this stat~on: 

it was found that of the phenoxyalky-loarboxylio aoids evaluated 

for post-eI!1ergenoe oontrol the.lf.lpha-phenox;'fQX'op1onio aoids were 

the mostetfeetiv'e' in oontr6;ll1ng this speo:1e's~ Little or nOt 

signifioant injuxoy to small grains results if these herbioides 

are used within a oertain q9~~g~range at. tolerant stages of 

growth •. 2-(2.,4,S-triohloroplte. '~.">.-proP1onic.. aoid (silvex) was 

the most aotive of this gro\olp.p(J.,,2). ,c . 

31r 

, 

InjurYtcJ~i!!EUl gra1ns ~,I):,irnrn1nent )"'l}el;(~pplioationsare 

made at er1tioa.lstages ofg.@~p. ~1noe 1nA,ury may ooour r~i 

application'rates nec~ssary·'r':Qr;·.dog fennel o~trol an attempt '.' 

made to det.elop r.ormulations:W-Woh would be.".ss phytotoxio to .. ( 

the grain but. whioh would reta1~their speo1(~o1ty for dog r~~l. 

,I '.• '.' .. • '.. . .' . . 

Maten&~ and MethC!4!!, ;, , " _ 

• , , ::';" .i. ,;' c , " ,~,I.(:,~, " ~.:>:.. 

Formulat1otisof silvex,~fng high b01li~pararf1nio frao~,~ 

as oarr1ers,~repX'epared as:aq\?-eous disper~.pns d1frering onlM,in 

their emulsU1e;t', ·,systems.The ]1udrooarbon 'fmot1on was a select. 

material havingcarbonnumber.sabove C18. One formulation (EAP 4019) 

oontained. a s;Low~bX'eaking e~t+ls,3..!'1er and tpe.;p1;iher (EAP 4020) contained 

a fast-bX'e~k1ng emulsif'~X' system. ~t.P preparations oQntained 

the same hydrocarbon to .perb1cide rat~p. Commeroiallya"rallable 

silvex (propylene glyool butyl ether esters) was used as a 

standard for oOJllparison with1;ihetwo experi~ntal systems. 

'. • dO • '- ,_ ",1' 

Dog fennel infested ar.ea:~~,Qtbarley (v~J.), : Wong).and wheat 

(var. Pennoll) 01lth~ oamPus. .ot:.the New Je~"y ~gricultural Elc,., 

periment StatiOtlwere seleot;ed to receive hel'b~cidal applications 

of these mat~t'1al~~ ,Ratesot 1/8, 1/4, 1/~hi,;I~U1d 1 lb. per aore 

were applied on AP:rl1 21, 1~6;J.iJn 40 ~a wi"\:;~:an experimental 

sprayer or the. typedesoribeq.1;>,¥' Shaw {3). Tbe experimental 

design, for the two small g1'Un.areas was a ,pl1t plot with 

three. repl:t,oat:1,ons. Rates ot:~'liplioation oonstitute the whole 

plots and ~o;rm~lat10ns comPll~e.ltd the sub_plo1lil. Several oheok 

plots werealsoinoluded. P1Qts were 6 Jl; 20~feet. At the time' 

of appl1ca~:1on1;~ small gra1ns~and dog fenn~l were at the fol. 

lowing stages of grOwth: 

baz'ley c" jointing I . 

whea1Li_ ,la te tille:ll'htB:- early joint 

dog;~Et:onel - 2-5" t.all;2,..9" spread) 

4-10 t-.111e1's• 

Period opservat1ons we~: ~de throughou~:the course of the 

experiment ,and ..apyunusual elt'AAts were X!eool'llled. Not~ths~ 

\.....- that tille~ngappeare'd comR'l-e.i;e. at time of n-rQi.cidal applioation, 

. .1:-.

372.,· 

~~;~li~~aW::ie:t:d ~=Q~r~~~=;::~~~~;O~e:l:1 

made on June 29 and weed controls and crop injury rat1ngs were J 

made on July 5 and July 17 for., barley anci .at l respectively. 

Plots were harvested on July 10 and July-l?1 respectively, tor 

~~n... 

;.'. 

:~.·e:~~f.. ~¥~.a·..~e'~t..... se~..~i.iQ~....a~..~.~.. d,r.· ;:t~.~.' .. 

!i··r.:. 

t 1 .f.;omba.::.:n(:!R 

..... :..." 

were .,~l~ctl!CL~t%'8.ndoml~.· ,itbreS1)8d~C~ldi,';~d, wej,Sheds ' an4.i ' 

the- 'data~ convEtrted to we1 ; ~el' thousa~" ,zonels., ,"'. ::1,,"' 

.! .:_ • '_ .' '.- '-~l j. : ..• ~~,- '. •. '. -..> " . • , 

. . Al1~datawere ~nalyZ!~[i~rSP11t piot.:~~ranQomizedbJ.o.~ 

designs •. ":::':Lc'. . ,·:n~Wheat was·riijt ttfected by aHt·t·ormtilat10n.' '.1'.neee 

data were in agreement w1t!l~~1er Ob~~~10ns in whioh barley 

exhibited greater abnol'!ll8.1t hre8p0n8~ from the new formulations 

than .f~~the OOIJ1lDe~o1a.;Lf.p.rm\.\..la~1.9.,~, A+,l!!ilv.ex.. ~.. The, '':l 

fomu](a.-t1o~ ()'?ll. ~1tU..ne; ..the... '~.,1ijW., .....brea~n..g' ~.'..... ~~.n..et ..f~otep,. ··.·"Ia::. 

grea~r abnormal SI"o\ft~~eson 'dog ~i1: ah4,.barleY than, 

the f0z!tl\ulat-,!;oh oonta1n1n~' '~: tast~br~~~j~II1U;I$1'on. ..:1. ~ 

,.,. 't '; ." ..,~ . ":,' • :'~'.I'.J ..... ,.- : :,·',~ ..;... d'" :~, ' ... ,' , . .r:.- 

at1:Otl~dri' ·~1l'~.··~mat,1oh~ .,p¥t 

vat10ns are eV1~...ent. Whep c~.a:J;'e,d. t,o.....t.h~ c;1;~~ate...d. o.... ~eok .nQ ... _,:rate 

of anytormulat'1on effec~eg.''':ae;~t'ea~'e~..~,~~ ;n~:se-s inn1.\l!l1?e~ of 

barley t.LUera., "''llh$.'. nroi'tllU.,1.H. one. Y1ere'.:~, . p,.~.~~.mo.,t'e, 'e-.r.1t1.9~. ". Y.. 

(spUt plot--:Ul&1Y~18)1t·~.J~v:ldent,that.. '. 

'I'1ere,%'~ater:~- 

,o-reases·1'n' tiller tormat1GR tram tM t1t,O, 1'& ).Q,tiQnD.cont.:1~ng. 

the parafr1n1Gl·!'Z!8.ot1ons :'t~,; from the,:o. _, r~~al- rOrp1ulat~ow:. '... 

moreoverl····.the :~c.rease. wa8 l,sreater wi .. th....:.~h.r1"t).?:'mw.a.t~o..,n'..ce..Jjlt ..~~.-., ..r 

1ng the fast-lWeak1ng emU.III.~..... n.'. ,.Th.ei.~h.~;~~b.n.."01'. tQrttl .. \lla.,.~~~. .x 

rate was 81gzU.t1cant • Genlftlly , d$cr.astti fb n~l:!ers, ot b~~ltti''' 

t-Uler.s~result.edas rate8f1ii.. Q~.ased. t.r 9m ..";lg tb... ·..'V.tt.pO.Und.' .•. ;.·'~.~.J.er' 

produot1on ..1ncl'eaaed With lntireas1ng ",te!,' i11Q.V~ 1/2 POUrid,~: i" 

Inoreaseswere, not as grat \ftth.thetormu ~~~t1 cOhtaln1nat~ 

fast-breaking emulsion. These data su~stan~~te obse~at10ns' 

made in the field. Alth0U$l\St:Uler1ng Wisalmost oompleted at 

time of hetb1c1clal·appl:tcaUon, tbehishHXoates of treatment 

retarded maj,n c~1m devel0P,mes)t-andt111erlng continued. This 

situation was not tl"ue .. ,tor'''lil'eat. 

Wb:eat was..'·8t.1l11n ..t*uUUe1'1n 

g .....at•.*.'. e.~) '1; ..·.·.he. ·t.,1me...1' ....:..... ·.'i~' 

. herbJ.cWlaJ.::iEl.pp11oat1on. 1f'ItoJI7 

seen ,that 8;'11:.rates, 01' tl1e cQlieefomuIa"ilorilfl l·' generall~d.e';' -- 

creased tiller production. Furthermore I when tormulations were 

compared more olosely (split. plot analys1q) ;i.t was ev.14ent:t .... --tfte- 

the pl>e8~n~~tf~g~~.m,tta:s,t .~ ¥ ,

Heights of barley were significantly reduced by silvex containing 

the paraffinic carriers at rates of 1/2 and more. These 

formulations had no such effect on wheat. 

That the two experimentaitormulatiotls'bt silvex were more 

phytotoxic to barley than the-commercial fOZlDlulation is furthe~ 

evidenced by the yield data, Notwithstanding that commercial 

silvex reduced yields, the reduotions were not as great as those 

from the two experimental formulations. Rates above 1/4 pound 

of all preparations significantly reduced barley ~ ields. On 

the other hand, wheat yields were not reduce4 significantly be-, 

low the check by any rate or formulation. 

From the data on kernel weights it can be seen that this" 

quantitative response was somewhat related to tiller formation. 

Greater decreases in kernel weight resulted from the formulat1Pns 

containing the paraffinic fractions than from the commercial 

formulation. This decrease was greatest with the formulation 

containing the fast-breaking emulsion. The same was true for 

tiller formation. The interaction of formulation x rate was 

also statistically significant for kernel weights. As with 

tiller production, increas£s in rate of all formulations effected 

corresponding increases in kernel weight. The reverse, 

relationship of tillers to kernel weight might be suspected. 

The explanation is easily made. Since the high rates of herbi~ 

cides tended to check the development of the main culms and 

often prevented the formation of heads, the ones that did form 

were larger in size and weight. It is known that checking the 

development of main culms results in the format~on of more 

tillers. No such response or relationship was noted on wheat. 

373 

From the data and discussion it can be seen that herbicidal" 

activity and general phytotoxicity of silvex was greatly enhanced 

by using paraffLnic fractions, in aqueous dispersions, as carriers 

for this herbicide. Of the two experimental formulations, 

the one containing the slow-breaking emulsion was slightly more 

effective on dog fennel than the one containing the fast-breaking 

emulsion. The same generally was true with regard to their effects 

on certain yield components of small grains. There were 

instances when the reverse was noted. Additional work is 

needed to determine whether the latter is mo'reapparent than 

real. 

Summary 

(1) Two formulations of silvex using high boiling paraff~c 

fractions as carriers were compared tQ"a commercially 

available formulation of silvex for dog fennel control in barley 

and Wheat. 

(2) In addition to weed contrOl, the effects of all herbicidal 

treatments on tiller production, plant heights, yield, 

and kernel weights were made. 

(3) The two experimental formulations were more phytotOXic 

to dog fennel and on certain Yiel~ c?~ponents of the small grains

374 

Table 1. 

...L ; c,.; 

. . "~~ ~ , ...- 

Treatment 

Av.: 

S1lvex 

4 P ara t f in10 

(EA/ 

6' lZ4 

71/2 

8 "1 

Av.' 

5 P j ()~9l,l/8 

Si1vex (EAP 40,paratf1n1C 

'20)' , 

(9j 1/8 1/4 

11 1'/2 

~ 

10 

12 1 

Av. 

Check' 

(13) 

carr1ez(con:ta1n1hg a sl~,:"b~eak1ng emul~j,ra.~r 

0.0 2 .O~:) 0.0 Q.O 

. ('~.~05' . 3. 7 .,~; '. 0.0 ..OB,.33. 

.¥ 8. 3' [" 0.0 ' • 

',10:.0 10.0 ::5 0.0.-7 

3.4 ~~.Q,I 1 1 , 

. i: 

carrier ~onta1n1ng, a fa8~break1ng emu1s1t~ 

0.0 

"0.0' 

3'~0 

10'.0 

3.2 

'.-- 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

*Average of three replications. 

i Based on scale 0 to 10; 0 = ni-·-effect. 10 • 100% reduction of 

stand. ,i~l '.r 

2Based on scale 0 to 10; o "'no effect,. lO:"'~(Um:pletekl11 •. 

,. 

" t'· •

Table 2. The effe,cts of s~\I'~ral formulat1~ns of sllvex OT! t4.Uer 

formation, p1an;,,~1ghts, yields"r and kernel weights of 

barley. * 

Treatment 

'ci..l1ers. 

n9tn 2 f 

L.S.D.'s 

Rate (split plot) 

, " b'-05 N~ S~ 

0.01 N.S. 

Formulation (split plot), 

0.05 6.3 

0.01 , N.S. 

Treatment (randomized block) 

0.05 N.S. 

0.01 N.S. 

Plant 

heights, 

inche&-,. 

Yield 

hulA 

Ker~~~Wt. 

wt./IOOO, 

grame, 

J ; 

f'" :11 

Silvex. proPYlene glycol bV1:ylether esters (commercial form~ation) 

lil 

lA3 'S7.7 ' 37.3 44.4 35~f:5 

11.4 51.7 36.0 30.9 40~ ~ 

1/2 43.7 34.0 17.2 40.' 6 

1 68.7 35.7 14.8 ' 40.58 

Av. 

",55. 4 ~~.8 26.8;:,39.35 

Silvex l 

Av. 

paraffinic 

(EAP~019) , 

5 61' 1/8 1/4 

7 1/2 

1 

8 1 

Silvex l 

paraf~n1c 

(EAP ~020), 

~ 

f6 l 'i~ 

11 1/2 

12 '1 

Av. 

Check 

(13) 

carrier containing a slow-breaking emulSic¢ , 

li6~3 37.7 36.8 39.~4 

42.~ 35.7 29.0 35.~ 

53.3 33.0 13.8 39.06 

64.7 33.0 7.3 ,40.03 

51.6 3:4.8 21.7", 38.42 

carriercorttaining a fa~~-breaking emulsfOi,., 

44.0 

44.7 

41~3 

51~7 

46.9 

48.0 

37.3 35.9 39.~~' 

35.7 29.0 40.~ 

32.0 17.0 32.07 

33.3 5.3 38.~ 

34.6 21.8 37.48 

.';.; 

35·L, 44.5 34,••9;1, 

2.9" 

N.S. 

5.6 

8.4 

N.ij 

N~S: 

,U'': 

N.S. 

N.S. 

~.l 

•3 

1.15 

N.S• 

N.S. 7.0 2.71 

N.S. 9.5 3.94 

f .; 

*Average of three 

replications

~ .....~._ 

376 

, . "".1'&1 

'labile 3.. Ili6til7to .ddgr_l,C'a~''''h~t 'r91~bW1ng t%featment!.w~h 

J1'fGrmulatleDs~~ ~!S11ve%i·.· q '!", " 

... .. ,'-' ··,····· ..-Ino1m;y ·Ratings 

" Dog !~_1 Wheat 

, ".$~'nd1 u :.v~gor2 "'Sta.nd 1 V:tg6f.! 

'f' '1 f 

, sf;x~x4J~rrf1:~~c, carrier contairiing a slow-breaking emui~1~n 

!fl: ~ 

. ',~Av. . : " 

3.0 

·4.6 8.5 

10.0 

6.5 

';0.6 

0.0 . 

0.0 

0.0 

Check 

(13) 

. '.", , . ( f-l. " 

*Average or three replications 

lBasep on scalE!.q to lO;,?:- no errec,t, 10 -. lb6~ reduCltii6n"6t n 

stant!. " ' , ' . 

2Based'on sca1~'0 to 10;'0'. no erre~t~ 

~. r..' .• " 

~'_:. 

I . 

~.._.... ...., 

..... 

-.. 

....

Table 4. 

377 

The effects of aevel8.:1 formulations of silvex on tiller 

formations, plant" h-eights, yields, and kernel weig1)1;sof 

wheat. *, -r I ' . 

Treatment 

4,; 

d 

Ra:~~, TlllieJ:!lfj,' Plant, ,;', Yield 

1b/A no./2 1 heights, bu/A 

inches 

Kerne1.Wt. 

wt./lOCO 

grams 

Av. 

propylene glycol butyl ether esters (oommercia1 formUlation) 

, . 1/8 . 39. 7}-i~ 45.3 J:'22.2 45.4 

1/4 34.7·'1 44.0 ," 21.8 47.42 

1/2 30~()\ , 43.7') 23.3 48.07 

1 30.0 44.0 22.5 47.92 

.;33.6 44t~' 22.4 ..' 47.20 

Si1vex,- paratf~~ic 

(EAP4019) 

III ~ 

Av. 

S11vex,- paraffjnic 

(EAP4020) 

~ 

16 l i~~ 

11 1/2 

12 1 

Av. 

Check 

(13) 

carrie~oontain1ng Sos~~-break1ng emulsion 

32.7 

33.0 

30.7 

32.1 

·3~.2 

carrier containing a fast-breaking emulsion 

33.0 

33.0 

46.0 

41.0 

47.3 

38.2 

L.S.D.'S 

Formulation (split plot) 

0.05 5.1 N.S. 

Treatment (randomized block) 

0.01 5.3 N.S. 

45.3 22.4 

44.0 25.9 

47.0 27.5 

46.3 25.6 

45.~ 25.4 

45.0 25.8 

45.0 29.7 

46.0 27.9 

45.7 24.6 

45.4 27.0 

27.4 

N.S. 

N.S. 

46.12 

46.12 

46.82 

47.25 

46.94 

45.59 

47.59 

48.37 

46.97 

N.S. 

N. S. 

46.58 

47.12 

*Average of three 

replications.

378 

Ae1m,gw1e:dae!!!ent ..... ,~ 

. . ".,': ....,- . .' " ~. ,;. . ., ~.> i. '.f ":-:":. -, 

T11~ author Wishes to aoknolwedge Dr. Robert H. 'Salvesen of 

Esso Researoh and Engineer1~ C_~paNI.1r+p.,~.h.__l)Te,wJ eraey 1'01L~:-, : 

,p-repar1ng'andsupplnng'tM-exper:rmental formulations of silveat 

and. tOrDow"Chem~~',Compan;y'J;t1QZ"l makingclmRONave.1la.ble for t~~_ " 

stUdY"' ..':.: . I.: Jrr,";: ;J:'. ''-~'" :',:f '. ...: ', ' 

'-~:\ri "", 

Referenoes 

1. "Iln;oki~·~Th~:'~:t:r·ect~·'·~:~~4_D. 4-(2.4~1~): 2..(2.4-DP) • ,;~~~- 

, . ,. , Sllv~f' on whe1!'~\:,~d oats., '~': \: { 

Proc., NEWCCl~: ,\266. 1960. /,.( 

2. 

3. 

'.£> 

v ' 

Ilnicki. R. D.' ·".r 

, .'!'he activity of several'substituted benzoio and 

pl;\enoxyalkylcar~9JCYUo a9i4~. ~,small, gra.1ns an

,:' 

A PROGRESSREPORTONCOMIo!ERCIAL APPLICATIONSOF MH-30FOR~ 379 

INHIBrrrONUl'ILltZINGA NE\'fLt)imSIGNIm'HIGH.slI£D!HIGHWAYSPRAYER 

,f',." 

Behne, P. W. and Morgan, B. S. 

r 

In the spring of 1961 CODh1lElrcial type applications of MH~30 were made to highways 

in thirteen Eastern andM.:.d..\'1ei9~Eln\ s-'~ates and ct;tiii'da.Tbese spray appUcations 

. 1 , Lf,C\:J .:' , 

W'3::,estarted in mid-March in North Carolina and continuod into the Northern Sbates 

through June 1. 

Four or six pounds of the active material in 50 ga:ii~ns of wr.ter solution' wore 

used per acre as the basic mixture in these treatrents,. ~iiSpra.::rs were made on (1) es- 

!'! \ 

ta'lillished grass after it obbafned 3-'lf inehesof new'sPr1Iig growth; (2) established 

'( 1 

grass mowedto four inches prior to spraying, and (3) estjiblished gr&.ss which was 

sprayed and then cut to four inches 7 - 10 days later. fol::"c11"T:".ng al::" three 

methods 

of sprayir1g l'roperturf manageuent reB1.l,lted in highly fI~tif:lfactory gr-owbh oonnro) .• 

,,' .', '..,.! 

MH-30 materially reduced or~ in a ~ ct~sea, eliminated.:m6ting. This dependEfcfupon 

~ • :' t ~ 

the par ticular management program in a given area. In'80me instancos the use.of' 

.• Ii,: 

MH-.30would.Ls~nl'!:jO:Ded1).otUl:n::indm,lS!bets:.ot'l!lOW.ngj :tit'S:pr'llOwing costs_ ,2j 4-Dwas 

added at the rate of llb./A:- where1"'b~'I'~,j.:jeaf'we~de, 'WIilr~j lj. problem. 

Spray' equi,pm,entJhad·,poeedonec.cf t~" major, prl:itbaeA\S:>l;licoiMtercial'hdg_yr: appli- 

. ~,', . . "L' '. " ~ i ' '. 

cations, ,eilpeaiani.!lt,the ,hard' t·o:,mbW\areas:which'weri'l!.leo hardto'spraY":br.con.,. ," 

ventional ..spray equipment .', In eooperat1tn':,wi1ih the,F.l!il~ lIb'ersJmdBroe.· Oo-li

380 I ',,'iei:[f If ,;f 

'l't ')eI4EMic~J9'bON'J,~:eJb\,)~~~A¥lGN1~_~~NNSTLV1aNiA J 

. ,'(:~ J)r:,J"J:', T~:;;)'!':·':1ifJ')_O;;:)CJj~\JJC'~J.~9~_.p. "':!~"d:\tw ~'~:':~\,':"':.-','~', ,:.j ~t~'~'~ (\ " 

,L :;±':l)lI'bl~wm".,fIe~tJlii!p~d.Ut'~ht!qp~FPQ81:1:,' , 

7" ~"Jr~J1.1~~i~i ~"Jv~ii~g~~Jja~;;'~A'\l'.a f~o~'tia~·t~q~~ce f~r bru~b caiii~ii if') 

,',J . :,~ ;-::;' .. i ,r .• ,·:f:"~F' "j,-: '" (,,~I-,~i':~,t,~.

4. Undesirable dead stem.,lio not remain on-rigbt.of.way. Contrary 

to some popular opinion we find dead stem. remain in lines for two 

to three years and may cause considerable trouble in communicationline 

.. particularly in wet weather or tif,*bey are ·covered with 

vines. . ''j,:' I , 

381 

1 

We do not U88 dormant apr"y,metbods. M~•• !01 our railroad can be' 

sprayed with D&tT and Where ornamentals or crops are present on adjacent 

properties they are treated wi~b Anunate. . .! 

.,c' 

We dO not make generallJ.'''' granlliarbru.~control chemical •• ince. 

we have found them to be not tqo,.f"ctive at ec

382 

Chemlcal.control ofMUlad .vegetation: ,oniSlIo\J1.der Areas of Main 

',Track.:,: ,;,'" ,,'.;, ; B"f ,':''''~':lo 'I.'" 

Our'purpose l;leJle'tato ~I:ItJDr retard,tbe .illlJwtbof all vegetation in 

an area extending eight to ten feet from the ballut border. Thi .. treatment 

should be desiined to improve tbe appearance of the railroad and maintaiJll 

track ,drmnap Dy'preventing 'e'licr~meDtof veg."UIdrltnto ballast. 

. :~;'l,'l";. :', .,.-, "Ie ~'l ,·;"t.~lr;·-r..: '. ::?:i 

Unfortunately we know of nos'ingle chfimi'deflWMch wiU effectlvety , 

control ~he wide spectrum of vegetation found in shwlder areas. Varioul 

chemicumixtul'e.Sha ... been u.. asiftthout .ueceJ.'~IW''ri'a.onable cost. MOlt 

of thea.mixCaru·'COI1t"ht,acoti&R:tJknler'to redu'e.'ieg.tation to a. pre..;.~rJence 

state. a iJoil',ete.Uaftt tG,contt'df ;Haies and, millit 'ah'uals and ,a hormone' " 

matelJ'lcl 'to let '~oodt' pliante aad 'Il\oO*.'alea'ts. ' ;,0 b" , . r: ' 

" We, hav.;I1iJ~:coatact iimrla10n sbouldeil'-lt14~"'bul: satisfactory . 

resultl r84uiN ,UpOcJ'th.e. appU~hl peT Year t~~;8nt'''areae and the, t.~t~( 

coat :applied t~ cOJnPanble'to tbat'/6f i a.good co~bl~~ti tteatment whiC~:~~n 

give lealOll cofttre1~th' onlnlplftfc.ar~n. ,,' ~,.i ; >''', 

.' " ~~.' :', \' ,',I " '{d J.~,!),;.' ,~;t:,etC'.~).' .. I.", 

We have also tried"eyli&A4l\C'ldl'llil"s :whlcb'\fb'generally more etf~~'. 

tive than contact killers. but which do not give a lO~ J.li'~' even with two 

applications per year.,,- 

.. ,. Here again we'a1'e in'nee:a'b'fsomethinS~IW;:'l chemicalor mbf,~r~" 

of chemicall which will p'i'ovidetCbm:~lete control of )ihoulder vegetation at a 

COlt of $ZO per acre or leu would be mOlt desir~b1eJ . . 

.' ;.: ;' _.~::' .";',r' t:,' ·.i > -~ 1., \' 

WeedContl'ol 

¢ 

on TrackandiShoulderA.rea~'~ Branch 

dH l L! ,Y' 

Lines 

. 

OU; purpouhel'e 'i8 t(H~.td growth or!r.ii\lc~ population of ~~~d.' 

in the track ItructUl"e and on shoulder,S over a totalwidtb of 16 to ZOfeet. 

Syltemic and i 

chemicai;~c;;:~:~~:ot:;>~~~;~:~:~:t:~:; ·:~lt~~s:a;:r·i~~:t:':::.~n 

we have beentestini weed control ,cn,e~ical~ sin,,,~~,ll~~LO~r proceclure is 

:a~~~i~~I~:l::~~:~l:~a~J~~':a~~ ;:;.:I1:r;~:!~~~~I::~:·1a;::~~:,'

areas under service conditionsa~ various poiute o!W,the system. Those which 

perform satisfactorily here are usually approved for general use. 

Conclusion 

.~ 

Vegetation problems f.. ~~ ~y railroads ar".generally well kno_ to 

suppliers andmanufac~uren of",e~4 control chemil;al.. The ever increUiug 

number of weed control chemiclf.\8 ,nd comp.ounds on the market are evidence 

of their interest iu solving the •• pr,4>blem8. Use of iJDproved applicatiol1: 

techniques a.nd moreeconomical.elective use of a~.ilab1e chemicals will: 

help us to reduce our costs, b\lt~e,ultimate in we~ and brush control wUI 

not be achieved on the Pennsylva"aiaRailroad until ~w.r cost, more unive!' 

sally effective chemicals are available for use on a large scale. 

I·

V.B:CETATIONCONTROL QNWESTERNMARYLAND RAILWAyl 

R. R. Cunderson l 

I could discuu the hie tory and the many virtues of the Western· 

Maryland Railway Company at.relit length., be'cai1Wtllm a member of a 

team'that has tremendous pride' In' ~u'r property.' H6We1ver, I fee I sure cbat 

1 

each of ,you are famttiar withwfllitT'biight uyalOq tlut line. I will ther*·' 

fore confine my comft*nts to on. 

i 

of· the probleins'thit i8 of particular i~rest 

to this group. OM· that many of u.'_hare. Spe~ineslY, I will o~tUneou:t~roblem 

of controlling weed., gra .. aa4:bru*h, on'our"i'operties, ourobjeetive 

in this regard, and what we ar4H:lomg about the prcMeM. ' " I.. 

I ~i ; r., \( 

Our railroad originates, historically, in the tidewater area of the 

great seaport of Baltimore, Maryland. Physiographically, our line traverses 

the Piedmont area of central Maryland, cro .. es the Blue Ridge range of the 

Appalachian Mountains and down through the South Branch Valley, an extension 

of the Shenandoah Valley, westward thru Hagerstown, Maryland. We then 

follow the Potomac River to Cumberland, Maryland, and its North Branch to 

the headwaters, crossing the Allegany Mountainl and then following the Welt 

slope of thil range thru E;lkinl, West Virginia, into the extenlive coal fields 

to Weblter Springs and to Durbin, West Virginia. Our main line, weltward, 

at Cumberland, pauel thru one of the natural gaps thru the mountain range 

and climbl the East slope of the Allegany mountains for approximately twenty 

miles. Croseing thil range, we dowly drop down the Weltern Slope of thele 

mountains, following the Casselman and then the Youghiogheny Rivers, to 

Connelliville, Pennlylvania. We vary in elevations from plus 4 at Baltimore 

to 4,067, which, I believe, ie the highelt elevation reached by a Clase I 

railroad east of the Mi8liseippl River. I thul delcribe the areas on our lines 

merely to accentuate the variety encountered on our relatively small property. 

The weed, grass and brulh probleml are almolt as varied al the physiographic 

areas. 

Climatic conditions are very favorable to plant life _ temperatures are 

moderate and rainfall is plentiful. Average annual temperature is in the mid. 

fifties, and annual rainfall varies from 35 to 43 lnches. Snowfall il heavy in 

many areas, providing good protectlon to many dormant plants and seedl We 

have abundant sunlhine and right at the height of the growing seal on, the 'month 

of August, we allo have our wettelt month. These conditions produce excel. 

lent farm cropl and fruit, but are not helpful in our effortl to control growth 

of vegetation. 

IEngineer Maintenance of Way, Western Maryland Railway Company

We ,prpbablyhave no speeie of g~owth tha:t:i'''i'ecullar to our raitzfoad, 

but we lUre have variety. We h..... ''1~me spots of:blUei. bermuda, and crab 

graUthat would be welcome in 1iD.. t'bome yards.'ltWe alsohave quack,lWitch, 

brame, wheat gran.s, and foxt.i~,il 'we haul lal'se'~ntities of all commili' 

cialgrainsand leakage from car. adds to out" pro1dlm; particularly in "'rds 

and the storage tracks at tbe elevators. Three .pea'le. of weeds are a pirticular 

problem; namely, bouncfla'llbet, tnilkweed~f!.nl:i horsetail, Many'e"reeping 

varieties wait outside the collift'Ot pattern and tUn eome in as soon atl:'Other 

resistance bas been knocked down. Sumac, sassafras, wild cherry, locust, 

are some of the more rapid growt1l,i ..'peeies that'~me a hazard to our signal 

and communication wires and to ri"onat road cr0t'81ngs. I I 

'nt. )i, ,. 

I have brieny outlinedthepllysiographic ana{eUmatic conditions ~J1 . 

our properties and some of the' preblem growth that~we encounter. I do not 

wish to leave the impreuion that wetaccept all of tiK. in resignation. On'the 

contrary. we hav e,, what we think:' to- be, reasonalHylg'OOd control of weed., 

grasses, and brush, on our railroad. I can saYI with reasonable assu~~e, 

that we have close to 90% control of the .•~ problems. We do not have complete 

control - and it is entirely pos.ibl.:'that we neve'r ~lU reach this stage. 

:1' 

Previous to 1951, we prcWidea our tnen with'lh.nd scythes, brush hooks, 

and a couple of rather crude W86'd burning machin"'; At that time we were 

paying our trackmen a basic rat.(~f:$l. 39 perhout{! We could then spa~ men 

to cut down' special problem are .. and, after the oeIler work was layed b¥.they 

could be used to clear right-of-""""" I think, in altt'airneas, that we d1d. 

rather complete job - but it was'latways a case of.dllng an existing .i~t1on, 

and we accepted the fact that regl'owth would occul'ftbe'following year, or'years. 

As wage rates crept, or leaped, upward, we soonlO

3~ 

own,.root.g~p~ ~f'!f.•. tl1e:p~_,p•..j. completaly-killedand.· ina matter 

of fQur or fiy. ~.r!lJ ~Qi. new ~,,*._rnande athlUi-. Other .pecie'i1&J'e 

. genera,Uy '.lower ia their neeet~o par.tilcola1fty thole that de'VIe'" 

fro!P:· ••• c:l.1.~l'~.II" .... ,i~colN,ts,;~'.pro.bl cm.Ob prop.rly. We CQaItmt 

o~r bru.h ~9#tl'ol.prmi ..,ily JO'~""'P.1telUl. area"'wedonotpaymllC~at. 

tentlon to~ru.b ,~•• whe,r•• ~tn."".J'••1lrlct.vl.iOlll_tlae vicinity of .i •• b 

or &;t r o!,d cr.oa,.,iQa.. qr ~~'II,\i'H,.uIQ 1:l:outlitut4," ~a~ d to etructurq_. 

bulldJDSIl. I w.nl;dl.,f,c:~••. boWcwtl""'d~the•• ,.:it"'i ..... a biMatet'.: ii" 

• " • l :-:!{~,;:..:, ',:~i~-< ..1",: t~:·r ·:-;:::lP.L 

Shortly af~r we tl'8J.ttUU.r,_ with .c;beznLi:.at,we ,made,our flrat.lWforts 

to control weed. and. gr~.'" 'f'\~A8~9~rnendedt.zftica1.~ ..Our first· :bleatment 

consisted of two balic ch.mica11. One wa. an average of four poundl 

of 78folfl~Di.ch1~o.propioni(); ~w..~ums.u.. .. tt.Jgal1011 of coocenttate 

solution. T~ot~r .wa. on.an."..~.,tbie.quWJd•• t._four. pounda'O( H.:' 

Dl&clUoroptut~oxyac.t~ac:.id peJ'l._~n. The •• ee .... l'ate mix .. we're '~.' 

1utedin.~a~er: at~. I'aw, of lt~k~ ~d Ito 100 r•• ,.ctiv.ly:. and applie-cl1doag 

theri&ht.o~.waY;AAd·U1 ~rdS,\ .nr., , . . ·1iY'

control. At the end of the third year we omitted tr.atment between the ralls 

in one yard and regrowth becameve~y evident. wti thereby assume that Ithe 

sterllent prOpertysbollld be continlied each year htorder to maintain cOdtrol 

and, to date. we are following that practice. 1 do not want to imply that the 

material that we use is the only o~ that will produ~ip ~~sults - 1 only report 

what we have obtained. 

'.' 

'C:'> 

..u 

387 

.' ,. ..' .;'., . ,,' c·' T 

The'good ruultsthat we qbtained from use Of drY chemicals in yards 

led to furth~'r.,a~Pt.te..atlotl.,s •... · We' d., ~s,~.i:.l.bute,thll, marte .•. :r.;".ia,~. around signals", ,,~o.ne 

booths, relay-boxes a~d power ,wif~,~,macJ1ine •• b~ndlpgs. fuel tanks, ~~ 

beneathsor:ne bJi'idge structures.':!., also have distributed material ben8!~th, 

pole lines that are not a~ceUlbfe,flom track. 111" tli\s ease a small handf~; of 

material placed tna pn~at the 'ba•• of larger gro~~ will shortly remov,\tl\at 

problem; You are aware that sol1..,.terilent type n\&~er,ials are rather ~on~ 

selective and that' care ~ust be:exe~cised in their,~:~~o as not, to dama~: 

growth adjoining your properties,., However. we hare l.iand applled matel1ials 

without harming apple and peacli'trees that were leeil than fifty feet away. We 

have shared in:payi,~ claims af,ter~sing liquid ~.r~~h k~llers. but we l1ave had 

no claims resulting'tre>m dry chemicals. 1 mlghq~ention one intere!lt~.complaint 

that has resulted from our us.e; of dry chemic"ls and this was in the 

vicinity of our grl..in elevator in~~lt.tmore. Weed growth was rather lux\l: 

riant in thi* area and ra~sfoUl1,dBo~dharbor. The~o,wth was ellminateji. 

the rat population substantlally:?{creaeed, and thF,lI'mQVed further away for 

harbor, many of them off our property. I' 

. 1 have diverted from my,t'i.rfJ menUonof we:fld and grass control within 

thebeI'm s.ctlonalol1,g our lineol r;oad. Our initifJrm.thod of control w~s 

repeated the secondyea~ and ouroyerall results ~e still spotty, generia~ly 

good, 'but with discouraging effect lolponseveral a~~s. The following ye~r we 

added a thir~ cheJPic::al to our prev:iplol8 mix, namely,. Baron. 1 wanted to avoid 

use of any trade names, butthech.mical terms loriAis product are too "pauch. 

This was adde,1i at the rate of fOl.lf po,unds acid equly~1ent per gallon of concel1, 

trate and diluted at the rate of? 5,.,.,1l0ns of water~f This total combinatiqn 

produced milch be~ter results b4!t ~ appropriatiol1,~,..a. not sufficient to,4over 

the entire railr,oad a1)d we lost,onse. of 01&1' previo~ cQlltrol in these un~~.ated 

locations. ,The following year 1lVeJ;'~verted to our i,l:tial program but 1&8814 an 

aromatic 0\1 in ,s,o,me of pur le~JII. b;'o\lblesome are~,,, This oll was fortif~p 

with rather small quantities of pe~chorophenola1l4 of Z,4-D. We were able 

to hold the degree of control that we had developed but there was real room 

.for improvement .• ,Early in thi'p'~r we had an in~fl ..ting e~perience. 

I' .,., . ,,', " "j, ,'l ,- , 

One, of, the ~anufacturer. ,o!l;Iasic IlhemicaJ.f.;koew of our attempt~o 

maintain a planned contr,ol program." We were askefl.to set aside 80me ail'"a. 

of our most severe problems an,djc'ooperate with~~r research depart~nt in 

test appl~atioDofvarious produ

388 

amo~~s.ofte"" :re'I,\Ui~~~om ~!~~~~P.~Y 'pilot, P~t,,~:Pl\' We Mted fz:~ 

these, testa~p~~(:~tiO~l'.~hat t~e b~~~,~~~c:~It.)(.c:;:Mqlf .v~,~i~~m\Yi904-:, 

re'l,\l~s,~, ,','I'b,ts~eVel~ed i",to a1-';~~ 9~r;e.'pJ).~ClJup,~qB-J;~m ~ follo~~.. , 

year. " ,1 .e: "',, ""l;:, ~:;iwd.rc':i ';, ." "\, 

" 'i ./1". '~ ~_'"" ,"._ ,;'flllIj'.)! j,',. (,"'::, "en,9d: ~~:- ::,,,., :J-l'~ '?i Ị 

Our first use of CMU as our principal control che,w~"l'llas 4~ne,~, .. 

conjunction with the same aromatic oil previously tried, except that it was 

further fortified with Z,4-D. The oil "I'as ..ppll~d, ~",~. rate of 2.0 aa~lens 

pet a~re, o~e ,galt~n oI'Z; 4-0,p'~i~r'~I'j:.~d 'tAe',~¢~l!';",~' vM~~ in ~,t•.·,ra~ " 

of applica~io~. T~, ci~sai~ .of:C~'tL}f~tt~~:(r~)I~ 10,!,~drZO po~,~\a~r a~Jl~' , 

This .e~~e~:nt~ation '-~.'J ~~lec.ted'\).ydl1)e.•~v~ti,on.9t~M~Wt, p1,o~... ani;l,wit~,~... 

sidera!lon ~t.the 4e~~itY; of ~z:o~tR:A:;t~js}r~at~R~rJ=,I,a.J?p'li~.d,earlY ~JjUM,r. 

The ~n~tia1 top ~mr ~ t~~ ~l1'wa~"V$l,rl.:iOQd, "a'.,I1~""l,s ~d. ra~~8.l1 ~or~.d.r9~ . 

very favorably; ~n·tri.~,;mittl.Di t~•. ".lf~e~Hn,tq. thA;tf:PY-!"Y'{eexpe,rien~AA:,~ 

beat control'l:hat we ~ver had - .~,~~, :~er~ effe,ctlr,jlcli0~trqlled, ev"n J 

t~Jllhe 

i;liffic~lt bouncing bet. Gran ... ,were ~•• Q contro\\O~tJl.~lfCfl~t ~n,."oe u~a"'t 

continue. t6 be a p~~blein to u.,') ..~jf~,'our ~~~~t~.~ PrjpIl4.· •.· .~ ,. , 

, " 'r~e tr~at~~nt~at IhaY(Q~~e~lLbOv~:~~; ~rsjjeu.~~~f~,J1l1.ve ,~~~cs-, 

for the,lJu't t~w ye~~ejand wa.,:':*'~d}I\£llyear· ..•9u~rtC~tro',h,a,...beeno9.7 hrr 

served by otane ou~.t'd.e our Cotrl1>anl:.~~d: i~~C;i:.e;P!"'fa, i1?eini,good. W'~j;,' 

8 .. ~~t.wi. t.~l'.n.. 0.. l1t~.~r.II..Y..p..au~.~~. r.... 

' ,, 

~~ L '.' 

have ver Y.li;tt1e,.b. 011.*,.,.Cift. 

?f.,i.1. k.••.. weed c..on.tin,u. 

to growbuHHs .tunted'and doe~ DotCh~'adup. Ji~~~r~.~t;lDOW h~~,e~pql~ , 

of horsetail although we are hopefut tttat 'the ~h~ft,1il:'tt ~eveJ1tua~l! g~t d,~~: 

to these roots too. . ..,l) . , 

'C~Udoeiinot:kfiep seve~"t '~Cie:. of81'a8i.n~1it of' ~esp~a.y p~t.t~.r~ 

in theprobletti'a'rell that. ImefttlBliei£'" Soil'in tbi •• :fxijo~lle 'area does ·not,·1. 

retab, the .tntlenti'ch.m'ica1' DeW~ai s'u'rface a.utMie'\\hime to.now ¥ttlon: 

on the roote of' th4f'1"••e. ,a1thJulh'lt'd6'eske~p' do.jft·tli~gene'ral\V.ed'ptob~ 

1em within the.pray ~elrn; 'rMi yjar -.\>etreated 18is !itob\~ma.rea dilff,r - ' 

ent than the :i'&stOf·Our 1ineil,'trj{ij1iodium 'trl:cblt?l'~cC!ta~e it .ixpol1nde.'p.~ 

galloll. "dUate'd 4inwater.. I bavewatafie'd tbb al'eacl'olely attdIatrl.• ttlih~"':" 

fu1 that we .will fhtcfw()me .ris\Wl"tb.l wiUbe' ec-onb1mc'allyleaiibl&; I Seve....i' 

::~e::~~:::n~~a~~a:~~:~~il~:et::fct*i:~~;~r::~tia:\i{~':~D~ ; 

prod\icnt\aH"~d;lt!t~~t' iii thi~."a.-. t!~:.an.~... ~t.t8.:.~tim~t,i~~.,.:eff~c..tiV.·,e'~it..~~.F.~J.' 

'II.:.'." 

test plot v: We 'HtJPew.'Can get a fait'fntr tu'tof thi,_ ri\ll~rial thi. comins~", 

but, at the prh'ent tlme, it iandti:trifime'rd ..ttyani~te. :. " .. :, _', 

; -';- '-,'. .: ,_,,~>1 ",'?' ~:.J;I;', .;~').: ;.:",-, • ',1 • ,11..:'.', 

OurGomp.1lYri~eived scririe tjifiblh:ity in t95lcJ~~D'~e J'Clinedwitla: 1 W.' 

DuPont ComPlLny in a teet applic~!i~n of d~y cbe~i~ale_ ffo.~ II.he1iC,op~t· i 

Dybar Ferlu1"okt, i1lpeU~tform, Wi. kfepoette d o,"er .:1feU'mt1. , uedpn ot ()_~! 

raildld It Ift-ate'of Sa'pOUnds peraere' mUe, aM'edai't~c!to'aboutat6;)f()Dl,!q 

wide area beneath our:'pole' line. i i 'Thill wasapp 1ted. ijf~Ch of,ttiat ,year,' ... ~ , 

we had~l()\ihibrmalrai'rdal1 until'k80Ut'ih June; TWlotrtlbalgrow'tband"''1'Ii . 

',,( .i . • Of'" ": ',,'j" d" .' J '10 ::,'1,., '. '. ,- 1 .:; • :'r,.)'., t ' " 

'

initial defoliation was evident late in July on sumac, wild cherry, and locust 

in the treated area. We also obtat:ned considerableir~S8 kill and good ,ffect 

upon most weeds, 

This experiment was c~ted to give uS..~ look at a new tool fo~ 

application and it was our conel.albn that accura.teccontrol of pattern and 

concentration was obtained. The tool is fast and is not hindered by traitlc. 

The payload capadty is rather' •• 11 and loglstics\lecome a problem. We 

have not furthered our use of thtstool, but several other railroads have done 

so. 

I have trouble pronouncing some of the names of chemicals that we 

deal with and my ability to posiUv.ly identify a s~tie of plant is ratbetlim 

Ite d, This is a highly specializji:Uield and the problem is only one of many 

that we have in our everyday work of maintaining a railroad property, But 

it is an important problem, and * that cannot be ignored. 

389 

- 

I, for one, do not expe;t,perrect control -c'omplete elimination of all 

plant life within a,reas that we trea,t. I even questl,n whether such an ~d 

development would be morally gQOd - it might con~~vably be come anot.r 

cold war weapon and potentially, DJOn dangeroul tban any prelently known. I 

think most of us will accept a ci)nkol that keeps down objectionable weeas and 

tall growing grallel. We need to keep growth out of the ballast section beneath 

our track •• o'that drainaSln. not blocked, Vie want surface drai!age 

to get out of the ballast section and into our drain':,. ditches. We want," 

sufficient grQwth,preferably of the low growing typ. that has good root., so 

that the slopes of our cuts and fill~.do not erode a~ay; The modern highway 

letl a good example. but we do not,.have their acce,. to tax dollars to pe~mit 

us to have oUr rljht of way look like a continuous -park. We mUlt have 'control 

at a price that we can afford to pay. I do not question that we could obt~in the 

ideal results by using chemicals that are available today, but it would take so 

many different o~I,and luchqu.nt~ties, that we cannot presently afford the 

ideal. We remain hopeful th.at t~re may be so~ ,all-purpose chemica,\ tn 

lome laboratory that will permit.o!&r 

• . 

objectives ~ remain 

, 

within ourpuclgets 

I 

. 

So, in avery real sense, we are dependent upon relearch that is ,being 

carried forward.; We want to cooperate with thelepeople and we admire their 

high standardl, both as individuals and al companles. I value my auoclation 

with sales representatives in thtsfleld because th4t..'yare knowledgeable !gentlemen 

and keep UI all informed ofd~velopments -: ~~ind them very patienr :wlth 

people like myself and I thinktbey give me honestaDlwere - it remainsi up to 

me to properly weigh their entm.8ialm for their productl. I value the advice, 

the concern for our problem, the cooperation and the follow-up lervice.,that 

we receive from those, who apply our control program. I particularly appreciate 

being here today because I feel sure I will ~.oaden my underetanding of 

thil problem, and take away far more than I have 'eontributed. Thank you for 

your kind attention.

J ..... ') . 

Three' Y~ar :Summary oi'tl'l~ "C:Oillparlsonot f tertailiHerbloldei'i 

for Guide Rail So11 Sterilization in Connectiout ';' n.. 

E. F. Button;.' Agronom1stL'am>l,Kees'iPothar~wM.ter1als TedlUlie1an . 

. ,ConnectieU~t&tat9,Highway c!).eputment ' 

., . . ,

OBJECTIVE 

In 1958 an experiment was designed to evaluate the weed. 

killing efficiency of two soil sterilants,diuron and simaziqe, 

and to determine the relative extent of sU1"face washing after 

application. No bi tumencove:r was used on'plots. 1 

MATE}{IA.LS ANDMETHODS 

Diur.on and simazine were each compared at 10, 16, 32 anct64 

pounds active material per acre in 10 square-foot plots established 

on sloping areas. Four replications of each rate were made, 

with two replicates at one location and the other two each at 

different locations. The treatments were applied on September 30, 

1958. . . . 

The plots were evaluated for vegetative control and downslope 

damage outside the plot one year after application 

(October 8, 1959). Vegetative control was rated as zero for no 

effective control to 10 for complete weed control. Down-s;lope 

damage was recorded as the number of feet below plots showing kill 

of weeds. Ratings were made in October 1959, July 1960 and 

August 1961. . 

Table I: Amount of Diuron and Simazine Applied Per Acre on 

Roadside Slopes in Central Connecticut 

(September 30, 1958) 

391 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Treatment Lbs. Commercial Treatment ' . Lbs. Commercial 

No. Active Product No. Active Product 

D10 10 12.5 SlO 10 20.0 

D16 16 20.0 816 16 32.0 

D32 32 40.0 S32 32 64.0 

D64 64 80.0 864, 64 128.0 

\ 

*As "Karmex" diuron weed killer (80 per cent diuron wettable., . 

powder). 

**As "8imazine" 50-W (50 per cent simazine wettable powder). 

Ten square-foot plots, four replications ot·each treatment.Replications 

at three locations accentuated degree of slope and type 

of watershed for the plots. 

REPLICATESI & II - GlastonburY Route 17. Plots 2x5 feet across 

the slope. Top of plots eight fee·t below guide rail cables of 

fill slope. Manchester gravelly loamy sand, 35 per cent slope. 

Growth at time of application was a sparse cover of sandbur, red 

fescues, equisetum, tall fescues, some brambles, and broadleaf

392 

REPLICATEIII - Portland Route 6A, near intersection of Route 17. 

Plots, 2x5 feet, across an e~avated slope, about 10 feet from 

the pavement shoulder. Gr~b at time of ' 'toPplication was .8 dense 

cover of chiefly red fescues,. some .bl\legras~, some milkweed ~d 

equisetum,and a few small,b:tJ'~b:l.es •. ~alles'ter gravel under, the 

plots; Manchestergravelly~o,amy sand ab9~!the plots. Slop, 

under plots about 25 per cent and above plots about 40 per cent, 

length of slope above plots about 50 feet .., 

REPLICATiIV-Columbia, in~~rseotion pi ~ute 6 and 6A. Plots 

(about 3.2x3.2feet) about 10 feet from edge of pavement sho1j1lder 

on a gentle slope (5 to 10pe.r cent) ~.No q~rb at edge of I'0$.dso 

pavement w.atershedcould run. across the!p1~ts. Hinckley.sanelY 

Loam, well draiJ?Bd under .t~e :;plots. ..GroW:1{hq~ location a la~n.. 

like texture, composed of bluegrass and fescues, with someb.nts. 

FIELD DATA ,,,"IT 

195~·~·· 1960 - *961: 1 

Table II: Weed Control Ratings in Pld"ts One Year 

Arter Treatmant (October8 f 1959) 

Treatment Replicates i 

No. t II" III .. IV 

D10 Grasses 9.5 a.5 9.0 5.5 

Broadleaves 6.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 

SlO Grasses 3.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 

Broadleaves 4.0 " ·-·!fyO . 5.0 -10.0 

D16 Grasses 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 

.. Broadleaves . 8.0 8.0 6.5· ·lQ.O 

'816 Grasses 4.0 7.5 10.0 9.0 

Broadleaves 7.5 8.0 9.0 9.0 

Variation due to material rates significant at 0.1 per cent level. 

Variation due to material source not significant. Variation due 

to replic~tion not significant for grasses, but significant ~t 

five P13r cent level for broadleaves. 

Applications of 32 and 64 {)ounds active for both products showed 

complete sterilization (10) of both grasses and broadleavesln 

all plots. Note: Nonsignif1cance is here£h meant as below tpe 

20 per cent level. . 

Tab].e lit: One Year Measurement of Damaged Area Below 

Plots as the Number of Feetof Killed Vegetation 

(October 8,1959) .

Replicates DlO 810 

I 2.0 0.5 

II 1.5 1.0 

III 0.5 0.5 

IV 0.5 0.5 

Treatments 

3.0 

2., 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

0., 

7.0 

Above 'Dama~ Area 

3., 1.5 

1+.; 1.0 

2.,· 2.0 

9.0' 6.0 

7.0 

7.0 

3.0 

10.0 

Variation due to material soti~be not signif1pant; due to replication 

significant at five per.cent level; and due to material, 

rates significant at 0.1 per cent level. 

Replicates 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

Table IV: One Year Sterilization Ratirl$s for Grass in 

Damaged Area Below Plots as !Designated in 

Table III ,; 

!2lQ 

8., 

8., 

10.0 

: 5.5 

SlO 

4.0 

7.0 

6.0 

9.0 

Treatments 

Above Damaged Area 

393 

MEt 

1.5 

1.0 

2.0 

8.0 

s64 

8.5 

10.0 

9.0 

5.5 

Variation due to material source not significant; due to replication 

significant at five per cent level; and due to material rates 

not significant. . 

Table V: One Year Sterilization Ratings for Broadleaf .• 

Weeds in Damaged Area Below Plots as Designated 

in Table III 

Treatments Above Damaged Area 

Replicates DlO 810 Dl6 S16 D32 S32 D64 

··s64 

I 5.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8., 

II 5.0 7.0 8.0' 7.0 7.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 

III 7.0 6.0 6., 7.0 9., 7.0 10.0 9.0 

IV 10.0 9.0 9., 4.0 6.7 4.5 7.0 5.5 

. 

Variation due to replication and material sq~rce and material 

rates not significant. 

Table VI: Second Year Sterilization R~tings for Vegetatilon 

in Plots (July 1960) . 

Treatment!3 

Replicates ID:Q §1Q D16 816 !2.35. 832 D64 

I 

6 7 6 9 9 9.5 9., 

II 6 8 7 8 8 10 10 

~ 

TTT "i' "i'."i' R ? ? q q.q q.q 

864

394 

Variation due to replicatio:q ap.d materi.al source not significant; 

va~1at1ondue to Illaterial rat~lI verYh1'glU1~:j!1gnif1cant at th~,. 

0.1 per cent level. ., .... ... 

Table VII: . Second Year M~asurement ot,~amaged Area Below 

Plots as the'~umber of Feet of Bare 80il 

(July 1960)' , . 

,nft;eatments AboD',Damaged Area 1+ 

1 

86 4 

Replicates ID.Q 810 .' 816 zsa aaa D6 

I 0 0 1 1 2.5 2 6 4 

II 0 0 I, 1 1 •.5, 1.5 3 3 

III 0 0 0 0 0 

I· 0 0.5 0.5 

IV 0 0 0 0 ~.' .. ". 1 6.5 6 

Variation due to replicatio~sj.gnifican.t at the 5 per cent level; 

due to mate'rial' source not 's'1gnificant; diiEi:'"t¢liiaterial rates very 

highly significant at the O.lper cent lever; ... . 

.) . 

.'Table VIII: Third Year Sterilization Ratings for Vegetation 

'IIi'"15Iots (August 1961) "-. 

TreatmeE!! 

Replicates m.Q 810. !>16 816. D ... .. ~ D64 ,m 

I 0 1 2 3 

6"; 8 8 8 

II 1 0 0 1 2 

8 7 

III 0 0 8 . 6 6, ~ 8 9 

IV 3 3.5 6 5 9'· 8 1 0 

L 

Variation due to replication and material source not significant; 

variation due ,to material r.ate.~ significant at the 5 per cent 

level. .... . ., .. .. 

Table IX: Thir~ Year Mea$~rement of p~aged Area Below Plots 

as t e Numberpf Feet of ~:r~ Soil (August 1961) 

Treatment Aboveppaged Area 

D64 s64 

Replicates ill.Q SlO 016 S16 ~ ~ 

I 0 0 0 0 1 . 0.5' 3 1.5 

II 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.5 1 

III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

IV 0 0 0 0 ,1/' 1 0 0 

Variation due to rep'licati9J:l',material source and material rates 

not significan~;

DISCUSSION 

One Year After Application (1959): 

395 

Observations one year after treatment showed a high degree of 

weed control but some weeds, broadleaves in particular, were present 

in many of the plots. There was regrowth of some grasses 

such as sandbur and crabgrass (shallow roots), and of broadleaf 

species such a Linaria, Stellaris, Lepidium and Chenopodium within 

the plots at the lower two rates. Living plants of equisetum 

were found in both the diuron and simazine plots, except at the 

two higher rates. 

I 

Eliminating the two higher rates in which weed control was 

so complete as to show no differences, the data shows diuron t¢ 

be appreciably more effective than simazine on grasses, and equal 

to or slightly more effective than simazine against broadleaf 

weeds (Table II). In fact, on grasses, 10 pounds of diuron usually 

performed as well as 16 pounds of simazine (Tables II and IV). 

Thus, these tests indicate that the first year diuron gives more 

effective weed control than simazine on an equal active ingredient 

basis. As the rate of application increases above the minimum 

required for complete kill, differences in the materials are not 

evident. 

This difference in efficiency between the two compounds must 

be taken into account in evaluating the data on surface washing 

on slopes. As can be seen from the data, the effect of down-Slope 

washing was not appreciably different·, between the two compouncll.s 

at equal lower rates. (Table III) Both materials tended to wash, 

as would be expected. At equal higher rates, the effect of diuron 

was more pronounced, but Whether this was due to a greater ten~ 

dency to wash, or to its greater herbicidal efficiency, is not 

clear from these data. 

Second Year After Application (1960): 

Observations the second year after application (Table VI) 

showed 50 to 60 per cent vegetation control in the plots at the 

10 pounds per acre rate of both materials; 60 to 80 per cent c~ntrol 

at the 16 pounds per acre rates; but 80

396 

Third Year After Application (1961): 

Observation of th~ P'l~t~' the' thiia ·yeal"-_,'af:t.e;rapplication! 

(Table VIII) indicated only 10 to 30 per cent vegetation control 

at the 10 pounds per acre rate; 10 to 60 percent control at the 

16 pounds per acre rate; 20 to 90 per cent control at the 32 : 

pounds per acre rate; and 10 to 80 per cent control at the 64 

pounds per acre rate. 

In general, most of the area which showed some degree of 

below-plot injury to vegetation due to herbicidal transport the 

first and second years Was recovered from the harmful effects by 

the third year. (Table IX) 

Most of· the areas which recovered from the effects of the 

herbicides are now filled in with the species of grasses adjacent 

to the area. 

SUMMARY 

In general there are a few main conclusions that can be 

offered: 

1) There was no long term significant difference due to 

source of material under the conditions of this study; howeve!,? 

the rate of active herbicide used was significant up to the third 

year after application. It is doubtful that. ,any visible control 

will be evident by the fourth year after application, even at the 

highest rates. 1 , 

2) It would appear that the optimum vegetation control per 

dollar of expenditure would be obtained at the 16 pounds per acre 

active herbicide rate. 

3) Type of soil (sandy soils used in tll.1s study) might pt'esumably 

have some bearing upon the rate of vegetation recovery', 

and upon the, extent of down-slope transport of the herbicide. 

4) Prevention of concentrated water running over treated 

areas would materially help to reduce down-slope transport of 

herbicides. (There is no substitute of good construction and 

sound run-off control.) 

r . 

5) Departmental experience with 6 to 8 year vegetation control 

under guide rail fences after soil sterilization with herbicidesis 

presumably the result of an adequate bitumen cover 

applied immediately over the sterilized area? rather than to the 

rate or kind of herbicidal soil sterilant Whlch was used. Thel 

bitumen cover prevents re-entry of viable seed to the treated 

soil, and materially helps to prevent down-slope transport of the 

~homi~Q' i~~o'~_

1. Button, E.F. Bndwrfg'h~';J .L. ,C!onlpEff1s'lm of Certain WEled 

Killers for Roadside Weed Control in Central Connectic~t, 

Proc. Fourteenth Ann. Meet. Northeastern Weed Control Conference, 

New York, J~I~~~q, ,p.p·l - 8. . 

Greene, W.C., Use 01,:,""~¥~~mic Gr~M..(~ller in Highwa~ 

Roadside Maintenancer'O:PeratiofiS, ' ,proC!'. Eleventh Ann. M~et. 

Northeastern Weed Contl"ol.·, GOPfer~p- New York, Jan. 19,7, 

pp 310 _ 311. .7'IT ,'. ".' " .:'1' 

Anonymous, Waging WaY'difWeedS aIi.dT~l-ush!, Rural RoadSti 

Vol. 9, #5, Sept.-Oct. 1959, pp 23 - 26. Also, Button" E.F. 

Connecticut, Believes in a Sound Roadside Maintenance Pjrogram 

---, Better Roads. April 1961, pp , 23 - 25. :It_~ 

I. 

«I i 

, - 

, , 

.rr:i: 

',1::>" 

• ,,~ ,I 

, -c ...

398 

HERBICIDEs AN~ FACTORIN THEPROOOCTION 

'J 

OF I., T~.~E~~ ,IN POTABLEIf.pR 

JaT 

., '..... 

• K ~.• , ~.b' 

'; ."; " ,'. d ..,., 

d'ARD:a.GRICH ,'I'!( 

.CONStJL~n«t~m OHmtt,Sf;,:~: 

EDlfA'ittHt: [hltlCH, INO. )~l 

PAT~N~ ".NEI'iJERSEY., 

. .L" 

... d 

INTRODUCTION " 

Fayllon Lake Comnunity, Illc., a water ooJllP&rG' looated 

in a 

residential area in NewJersey, obtains their water supply entirely from 

well sources, although they maintain three lakes tar reoreational 

purposes. 

Two lakes and two wells are signifioant 1n terms of this paper 

namely, West Lake (65 acres), South Lake (30 acres) and the South and 

Viest wells 1008ted 1BIDediately offshore of Scnth lAke. 

The two lakes are interconneoted, in series, with the ~Iest 

Lake flOlt'ing into the South Lake. The South well i8 located in the 

proximity ot the dam owr which South Lake flows 1Dto • stream. (See 

Figure 

A). 

In the SUllllllerof 1960 \U'ldesirable growtM were prevalent in 

the two lakeS, and the lakes were treated With a OCDDeroial herbioide 

(Kuron). 

luron is • propylene ~ol (C3%~C9~) oontaining butyl 

ether esters of 2-(2, 4, 5-TrlchlOJ'ophenoxy) propioDio aoid.

399 

The treatment consisted of applying a '2:ppm dosage of the 

herbicide 111the Westlake and lppn in the South lake. This was completed 

in August 1960. 

In September 1960, 1JIped1ately £ollowing."ll1rricane 

Donna, a strong 

medicinal taste was prevalent in tl1! well water eJdDating from the South' .: 

well. No silfliticant taste was apparent in the West well. 

This persisted until the period between November 15, ·1960 and ' 

December 1, 1960 when the taste dilll1nished and finally disappeared. 

However, in December 1960 the taste returll8d as strong as had I . 

been experienced in the past. This reoccurrence coincided With the 18Y'1J!l« 

of an und~ater cable in the lake by 1. T. and T~" 

These two incidents appeared to lend weijtrtto the considera- I 

tion that a distrubance of the lake bed was at lea~ partially responsible 

for the production of the undesiralile taste. 

~T.Q.Rl. INVESTIGATION¥....§.TUDIES 

With this history as a starting point aridtbe taste still persisting 

in January 1961, samples Weredrawn from the' South Lake (bottom 

sample), the South well and a point in the distribution system which 

embraced a combination of the South and ,Jest well waters. Trese were 

anaJ¥zed, the results of which are"tabulated in Table I. 

The cClllparative analyses 'olthe South Lake water and the South: 

well revealedsutticient difference's to establish th'atthey were not the 

same water. This~of course, did not rule out tbe'~osslllility that a 

portion of the 

; . - '" 

lake water was present 

" ~ 

in the well water. 

Since Kuron is a phenolic compound, pheno'i determinations were 

performed on all samples With negative results being obtained. This 

coincided With preVious findings by others.

400 

Since tbe.d1cinal ,taster was p1n-po1lt~~la"being iodoform, 

iodine determinations ,were peJ't~ and'rewaled • 'interesting pictUre.' 

The South Lake water, a8 obtained tran the bottan, contained 0.65 ppmot l 

iodine; the Soa'l;hwell water 8IC1(the cOllbinatton'wI1Jf _ter contained 

0.1.5 lndO.20 ppmof1od1neJ tWW8st wellal~oGnt~U.rJed onlyatra~ 

of iodine which waa not suttic18tlt'tc produce the dDagree ablit'taste 

found in the South ".11. ' 

class1f'ied as ~iani.t'lcant, it .My necessary tofU •• 'tabl18ha "threshOld ll 

This was accompllshedby"applying 

inClre'.a8:liDgly' larger dosageS ., 

iodine to d1st~4water .an

401 

FIELD PROCEDURES 

Although. the ~~estwell water did not re"..lsignificant concentrations 

of iodine, as an extra precautionary maasure both the South I. 

and West well chlorine feeds were increased to .3 ppIl. This resulted in 

immediately abol1shingthe iodoform tastes from· tbli cfi>tllbinedwaters 

from the wells. 

The West well chlorine feed was then reduced to its normal .feed 

With no il1-eftects in te~ms of:tastes. 

The Sooth well ohlorine :teed was maintained at .3 ppm for the 

next two months aftArwhi'lh it waa'det:I'eased in sllla'll increments to 

ascertain !Whether t:,edisagreeaoleta3te would r.etnrn. It was found that 

the ohlor:imefeedwas eV9ntuall,v'returned to normaiwithout resultant ill 

effects. 

For tbenext eight months, there was no 't'lrthtr eVidenoeof a ' 

taste problem. HoW'ewl', in Septeirber 1961 it rppJleared, immediately 

following Hurricane Esther. The clulorine dosage was 1l'loreased, and the 

taste immediately disappeared. 

At present, the chlor1neteed has been ~ned to nomal, and 

there is no evidenoe of a taste problem. 

A recent analyses obtained on November 2, 1961 revealed an 

iodine content in the South well to be 0.05 ppm (irlsuftioient to produce 

a diSagreeable taste). A bottom sample of South Lake revealed a concentration 

of 0.28 ppm iodine. This' 'is considerablrlllss than the concentration 

found in this lake on January lit 1961 (0.65 }lIIilm)but indicates that 

the effects have' not yet been fullY' dissipated. ,I 

CONCLUSIONS 

The taste problem that occurred on three aeparate occasions

402 

prior disturbance ot the lake bed. The offending well was, in ea~h oil"" " 

the well located imDIld1ately adjaent t.o the o'ferftoW'dam ot South Lake 

(South well). The well located:,atrthe tar end of \au"same lake did n~' 

exhibit8l)y:taste problema (ifut·.wellh ,':"J',I;, 

In addition. the conoenvaticm ot iodine::wa. cCMiderably 

greater at the lake bottom as callpared to the concentration found in '.: 

the lIe11 water. 

These considerations re.ulted in the the'Clll'Ythat the iodine:lf.' 

present at the bottom of the lake ,and, tollavr:Lng cSistlU'bance of the bottom, 

significant alllOWltsof iodine found its way into t'be South well supply.;':' 

The reason tor the contamination ot the South well suppl;r and I': 

not the West well l!IUpplycan be attributed to the :tact that the tlow 

pattern in South Lake is away from the Viestwell and toward the South - , 

Well. Further,;:it appeared poSldJ:lle that the1odtJJe· was concentrated 

in the illD.ediate Jr88 of the 'OWU'fiolf dam (bd SClIIi;h.:. _U). 

The 8Q1rce of the iodilrJe. of course, ~ a IIG'stery. It' 

did not appear feasible that the disturbance of 1:bt'14ke bed alone was 

significapt in it.elf ,.ince o~;QisturbaDces ba4 outainly been encountered 

prior to this past ;,ear 1f1tboUttbe prQchlCltion of disagreeable ' 

tastes. Neither oculd the herb.101deitself b.etezwed,'the cl1rect respoas:1ble 

agent since ,its chemical ~updcel'Jnot include _torm of iodine. r, 

The onlY remaining SQlrc •• then, appeand to be the undes1rab3let 

plant Il'mbathatwere ett,ouw~ destro;,ed: by the herbicide. PossibJiF 

these .f'resh-Water plant lVowthlS, upon beingdestrapd, resulted in the 

release ot iodine Which eventu.U7 settled to' the ,/lab bottom. 

Seaweed (or kelp) is known to be a significant source ot iod~;) 

althougn these are of salt-wat,r,origin.

403 

In the light of these data it appears desirable to give consideration 

to the derivation of a classification of fresh water growths I 

in terms of their iodine content in order that effects similar to those 

experienced herein can be avoided in the future. Further, it may be 

possible to harness these effects by controlled feeding and thereby 

derive more beneficial results trom these effects. 

It is the sincere hope of the author that this paper will result 

in stimulating minds more familiar With this problem to ascertain the 

possible far-reaching significance of these findings. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

Grateful acknowledgment:ls given to Fays on Lake COllllllUnity,Inc. 

and, in particular, Mr. John Stoveken, for their allowing the presentation 

of this material and their sincere aid and advice in its completion.

404 ' 

.': 

, rl 

r, ·,:t'i I~' .i\,'v 

'~'- '. -" 

./ 

'i/' :~\ 

, ,\ / .....' ,,~, ~ /( J: ) 

"",'\ IN/" I ! ,f" '" 

\i,fLEI / 

"-. ...._- ...-~ 

I-~'~:""-,_..~N6...;..T 

\ ..... ,/.:;.. I 

- vv,-'..... ~ 

(

405 

...·1!MLE I 

SAMPLECHARACTERISTICS 

DRAWN: V{ednesday; 1/1l/61 ANALYZED:Wednesday; 1/1l/61 

CIIARACTERISTIC 

pH 

Specific Conduc~ce, u mhos 

Phenol, ppm 

Iron, ppm 

Iodine, ppm 

Chlorides, ppm as Cl- 

Taste 

Note: N.F.· None Found 

Ii''l'l 

SOUTHLAKE: SOUTH COMBINATIONSOUTHBe 

BOTTOM WELLWATER WESTWELl.WATERS 

no; 

6.70 7'i.022! 

7.28 

120 

201: 

201 

N.F. 

N:.~'" r r, N.F. 

0.35 0..08 

0.08 

0.65 0.15 

0.20 

12.8 9.1 

8.5 

:"l' - FalrJf'" Strang medicinal; 

strqmedio1:D41; 

iodoform 

1odQfotJll· 

'1'1 

j I 

TABLEII 

q 

CHLORINE' TREATMENTOF mLWATIR • 

f; 

CHLORINEOOSAGEbAPPLIED, ppm·'w, 

') 

REMARKS 

0.0 

1.0 

2.0 

Strong 1lled1oinal (iodOform) taste 

Strong medioinal (iodoform) taste 

~J' 

Weak mediciizlai (iodoform) taste' 

·Ii' : 

No diaagrfNble taste 

"'.~. ~a

406 

SUMIIARY or SBYlRALAQttATBOL 

,'fUATllBBtS IN NEWJBRSEYWATER 

by 

R. L. LINDABERRY 

PENNSALT alBllICALS CORPORATION 

'This disCus.ion deals with a summary of some results of 

cOIIlIIlercial appliCation. on .eveHJ. different lakes within potable . 'i· 

wetersbed areas in. Northern New Jersey. 1'I* Jrrol l.o\\t' ;DI · are the 

result.e, ob.ervations-:·. . 

I. COZy LAKE - 

CoDdlUons: ~ tetal lake area is 30 acres with a maximum 

depth td tt teet and .. j avera.e of 4 feet, with a total of 100 

acre feet. The illejor .... d .pecies was Najas mlnor, wlth minor 

species ceratophyllum.6Jljo, Potamogeton criapu., Nuphar sp., Blcdea 

canadenai., green filamentous algae. 

Application: An application wa. lIIade on llay 22, 1961, by 

Roy Younger, Conaul t inc Biolccists Inc., Philadelphia, Penn.ylvania, 

on Cozy Lake. The lake waa drawn dOWll6 lnches. OI1e 

appllcation waa made of 227 ,allons of AQUATIOLfor a total 

concentration of 2 ppm. 

Resuit.r Excell.n~10Il11l0:l. of .U ·'.xcept Elodea 

and al,ae. In mid-Septe.ber Najas minor had commenced to 

regrOW il1 ... 11 patches.· Elodea canaden.~':"!!I!~"1Itar~.d.totake' .. 

over one end of the lake. other species were not present. An 

alr .. ·.~trol t".t_Dt:!~f,':9,,5 ppm euso wa... de to control 

4 

algae bloolll. 

II. 

Condi tiona: The total lake area is 18 acres with a D18ximumdepth,oflO:r.et 

.anIL_e-liverage depth of 7.5 feet. Tbs major 

weed speciea was Potamoreton cr1spus, with acattered Myriophyllum 

sp. and Blodea sp •• 

Application: Two treatments were applied as follows: OI1eon 

June 13, 1961, to the north dde of the lake and the other on June 23, 

1961, to the aouth side of the lake by W. C. Hall, Chemtree Corporation, 

Rarriman, New York. The lake was drawn down 12 inches, 

and a total of 225 gallona waa applied in a aplit application of 

112 gallons for a 1.5 ppm treatment (in treated area), with onehalf 

of the lake being treated each time.

407 

, '.". '.·',',~'l~rL,i;'. "\" , ,', ,.'~;':P;1 

Results: Effective •• d' 'cootrol. was obtlftbed for the season. 

Ob!,&~""#CJ.IIilI aD4 comiten~,!p:.~1lerqU811tY,~.~ .,.d&byf\1chard .' 

E., ·~:r)1 '~"',icVa11ey W~~,.COlllllli•• l0G ,l4il:td,•. Falls,. NEtwJers~y 'I t ' 

. as fo1~: o. [! ' . i" 

. :-~ ,.'i:.,.r-., ' " ,.... 

.~ , ,. ;,.l,." 

"An ef~ective ~Jt~p was obtat,~.~thout ,l" 

.pp~~nt iDcreasej,n;~, water odor,d.,. ,to, the use of 

AQUATROL.The increa.e in odor when ltct'id Occur \Vas 

due primarily todecayillg .vegetation. 

, I ~ , .,IiO~ ~ 

",urther indic8;t~1f:!S were that mi~~~~plc organisms I,. 

, were Jl.4led initial~t'. ~ the use of ~, and this in 

,t""D 1011~ed by an,~usincrease~ t~. water 

i bacteria. however, q~~tebahnce ap~ecl to have .been 

,re"ained in about 1Q'J11J1~ to 2 we.les af~~r treatment." . 

. "&.w:tie,ns: Total l,~'.~ea is 140 aczij' "lth an 896 acre. f~i 

vo~" "i,th ~ average ~P~li.:pf 6.4 f.et •. ~ .. jor weed specie.,!' 

was fo.t~ton c~ispus ,with, aliae patches ~~entthrougho,u~ t~ I?' 

lake prior to treatment. . 

.' " " ','._" d," '. ,:-L.~I ')'7" .'C . "" " ,,,:' < .4.,L 

;:,: ;,:Ape11eeti,oJl,:" A sincle~l:LcaUon wu 948 ~onJuly 10, l.~l",:t~l..; 

-by;.Ro,VoQlllrer,COnsul t~).1~~Oiists Inc. ,. ,~~de1Phia, PeIlJ1~~~""1 n, 

vaDU!Gp~ylD8 3:45 ga110&\8 '~, AQUATHOL to ¥~.cres at a CODCjJJl-.'· . 

1;ratiPn',of .~ ppm in the;t~a;~~ area. ,':} ..' 

. ·-V·',, '. v.. ,~.~; " .,', -)21:.1'3 

.: 1,~.~1t.r ,~..CODtrO; #l"bieved was90l ~h,.a limited alllo~t 

~~.t-~-l'-p"th, b7,:-:id-Septe~Ft, .: The en:tirela~ .was .treated with 

to: control~bloODl.. 't, 

,O.5pP1D,CuSo.. 

y;: 

.IV..,MIg!:'@OI1S- .~ 

Various other lakes In New Jersey OUt81~oi watershed areas 

, -relt~a~cI:: "loth very ~cl,~.ults when "l'PM-Jca~10Ds were me,de 

alfa1~>t~, ~ds speciUe4;:oo the label ancl*recommended ratea., 

This,c~IDci.desvery well.~the results ob~d in the rest of . 

the l1n-ited state. and cana~..; 

~'.; 

.:'

408 

SPRAY I4IX'1'tIREB TFStED 

Five sprq JII1xtureswere tested 111oonoentrat1Qa8 rqizlg from 1 to 2 

pouMs aoid equivalent ot 2, 4, '·T per acre. One JIIf.xtunwas applied at til)

dltterent l"atespacaoreand"~"at threerattlX\o' give a·total,Of 

eight te,t8. __ b1014eSUJe4 •• 2, 4,'-T'Ind.liWert eJIIJlsioh Gr't> 

a, 4,' ...T.:.A1l' •• JidrturelJ'We')iIade at the fi1ifb:!oi' 

r l :9, one pll1't"'t 

herbioide at tOlrff!JOUl'li28M!diti:idtalent 1'er~J:'Io ~ parts ..ot" ,t;l 

oa:ft'ier~ D1tfle:rInt'l'a1lElsotaOdlolt1on were ao!B:.lIobyappl~ dftr __ 

8IIlCNDtset :'Q8,.-.tid.x1lu:re t6jd-;;'~. Table l.,,,..ie:lx pairS otJlllitdb!Sbg 

l:lftb1oide tlflrq ~te,te. 0~CL:h 'C :":\n:::, '.' , , ' )( 

409 

. .'. 'L') 4' .' ,!"r~~, i\~ "J \)~'1'. "1 J..,,;,:[' 

OUB ~;:t:eo~:r=::tL~~::'~Ci~O:tr~ 

a oonventional emulsion whioh is oil-in-water. Conventional oil-in-water 

emulsions have about the sema vi8cosi t1 as water • Invert eJWlsions III8Ybe 

thiok like heavy eDg1ne oil or 8Wi ~se. The increased viscosity 

results in increased droplet size, a reduction in dtitt hazard, and in- 

CllH. .. d4epolJ:l.'Wot

410 

w.r.~J~s,·'X4,Pi;.[~vgt..~~.c,.aq,'to·lIII1ce .. :AU, 

:DOt'WJ4:)M.£"'~t.J4s~~.>c_.~"2Jr.4, J!!It~;t=-d,a _tt,tldok 

ore8Dl"!~~ ,~_. "ttlt1lfl4.IS',~",,,,,,, i,t·.IICIt:1'ftQ.VDt,:q,\ -.:.. 

ag1ta.4'2,,'"4c,,-~ I, 'Lat!

411 

RESULTS 

ireatmentettect was dete1"Jld.JJtdby measuriDg'l2,3concentric circul.. 

plots ear~ in september the yee atter sprq.i%1g. tow 1:xt'UBhwas measured 

on .COl_acre plots (radius 3.72 teet), high brUBhbn .005 acre plots 

(radius 8.33 teet), and trees on:.~.acre plots (Mdius 26.3 teet). The 

plots 1ieI'e mechanically locatedbyconpass andpa(fbg; . 

The first .two matching test. were made in JlaSftohusetts in a white 

pille-hudwood stem less than tCll"V teet tall. b majCll" hardwood speo!es 

present were ~e;y b1roh and red lI8P1e with SOJlle oa1t.aDd shrubs like blueoberry 

and hucklel;lerl7. The hard1llOCldswere for the'lIOSt part taller and ~e 

vigorous than the pine.' . 

, 

Twopounds 2, 4, ' ...T in 4.' gallons ot No. I ruel oil per acre was'· 

matohedagainst two pounds 2, 4, 5-T in 4.' gallomi: of water. As shown'b. 

Table 2, the water JIlixture prove4to be less etfecUve than the matching:1,,:11 

JIlixture and was less eftective than 8Zl;Yother herbiCide mixture testel!. • 

Twenty-eight per cent ot the low brush on Test 1 showed no damage (Table 2). 

This \Uldamagedvegetation was huok1eberry and blue1Jerr;v'. The undamaged :J,ow 

brush in Test 6 was maleberry and1aurel. Huclde1:«"rY, blueberry, malebe1'1'Y, 

and la\l1'el (all ericaceous shrubs) proved resistant::1n every test where they 

ooourred. In all tests control o1'hard\1lOCldsin the: tree olass (2" DBH_up) 

was not as good as control of the ;Lesser vegetatioD; Jmly ot these trees were 

beyond the eftective height range at the machines ,.ed. In dense stands Ithe 

lower branohes of trees were ldJ.1ed, but the tope 1JIIK'oeleftintact, bee_a 

spread Of the mist was checked on hitting the bottm ot the tree orO\UlB. IA 

second spraying would do more daJDageor probably kS1l the tree it it ere :'less 

than thirty feet tall. \. 

İ 

The second set ot matching tests was conduete4·f~in:New Hampshire so'1lhat 

the sensitivity ot red spruce and balsam fir tOthe:herbicides could be judged. 

Tests we:t'econduetel! in stands w:I:thpille, hemlock,'Jred spruce, and balsaDlfir 

JIlixed with hardwoods whioh were general~ overt~the softwoods. ~ of 

the trees Vlere less than forty feet tall. < .I • 

Test 3, too pounds 2, 4, ' ..T :I.n 4.5 gallonsot No.' 2 diesel oil was 

matched ag~t Test 4, two pounds 2, 4, 5-T in on8'!gallon of No. 1 tuel bl1 

and 3.5 gallons of water per acre. Here againthelllittture with straight o~ . 

as a carrier was substantially superior to that oon'llWting part water (1'&1'1e2). 

On the other hand, the mixt\l1'e with the oil-water oarrier, Test 4, gave '. 

better control than the mixture 1I:I.thstraight water; as the oarrier, Test '2. 

It is probably safe ..to say the JIIOre oil there 1s. 1:11' the' JIlixture, the better 

is the hardwoodoontrol. 

Somedamage to cOZlifers waS observed on all t.he!test areas. JOOst I" 

damage tooon:l.fers was observed on Test 3, the area''ti:re&ted with the diee.1 

oil mixt\l1'e. Six small suppressed pine were foum'iaad:on the plots taken 

in this area. This damage probably occurred, beoause diesel oil, being less 

.i;; 

I) .

412 

volatile than No. 1 fuel oil, stapon the tree lozIpr and has a more lastiDg 

toxl0 eUeot. It should be merrtioned that d8111118 to conifers occuiTl!l\\ 

on all plots. 1be ~ other ~0IlU8r ... reoarded>on a plot on Test 2 

1ibereft_only was used as .~er. Sp.ruoe,t.Izo.,·*D1hemlook1l81'e~' 

sensitive tQ all herbicides tbu p:lDe, bl.1tdaJIBP to.' these speoies did DOt 

exoeed an acceptable J.evel.. .An/ClOoasione1leader '. side branch was k111;tc!, 

bl.1tmost of the trees sho'Ied ne:evidence ot'dlllltie ..L . : ~~, 

_ diesel o.:Q.. J$ttUre did ':noll...appea:t' to .:.. ,weU ar to 'hq' in. 

the a:I.r·as.lq as tM. llihter,~ oil. There lIIm'egares of Wld811111fe4 

trees ~.. en the strips, en ~ft1on that the JiIae:i1al did not dr:l.tt·WU. 

He1gbt.~netllation tid not eqWl1 t.bat of the othe1"£~s. Diesel oU' . 

should not be used in partable mist spr~rs, because .the operatCfl' will"04 

the d~ dr~~d with oil. It No. 1 fuel oil or 1c«l'oseneis used, it w:Ul 

evaporate t.rolIl tbeoperatar. re~, and he w:Lll 'ei:DI. -the. day dry and' ~artable. 

lllmber l~ oU is SI.Ipe(l'icxr to d:l.esel aU ltieoause it gives herd1lOOd 

~trcJ. equal to 01' better thIUl.4ieeel oil, gives; better he:l.ght peJltliratien, 

and it does less damageto con:Lttlll'e.. 

I • [j 

11:Ie.th1rd set ot matohillg:te.ets cOJllPuedoil.Lzttn.es at the rates of 

oneand,t'WO,pounds per acre.'n. sta!lds treated .... s.tural and planted 

Wbite piJltl.in'teJ'spersed with bsrdwoodtrees aDdsJaollibe. ),bat of the trees 

were less. than 1.JdJ:'Wfeet in be:lcht. Aspen.was 1M pl'edom1nanthardwcca; 

$pecles. Test 5,t1lO pounds 2; 4,,'-T in 4.'gallClill of fuel oil per aeH; 

was.matched.ase:1JlBtTest 6, 1.J)OUIId2, 4, ,-T 1D .~~ tallons of fuel 011) 

peraQre. ,!loth ~a_nts gavegoccl control of h~swith little.,p:I.M 

damage•. '1rea~t.t the two-poulld leVel wassoDe_t better thim the ClI1ltpQ\lIld 

treatment, bIlt the one-pclUDI1,'treatment0OlllP .. d ravarably with ot1Jiiif . 

oil treatmerrts c~cted in other tes~ (Ta1lle 2) .~st of the low b:rU8h' 

which showed :DOdllDl8J8i.J1these ~sts wasmalebe1'17,. huo1l;leberry, and laurel, 

species ~ch were :Nllistent to·,eu the herbiQide.?te.ted, as :DOtedeu11er. 

'1'1ft:lwhite oaksover laflin d:1.~·,end'more than'i!arWfset tall were JIn1ed 

on this area. Co,u.l of aspen 'WI very good except "Ib8ilthe trees -.rea1lo've 

the effect~:,erqe of the eq\dJlllltlit ~ the canap, was,80 dense that otiJ;fthe 

lower branches were hit by the mist. , :::;" . . , ; . 

ResproutiDsooow:ored a~ only on 8IIl8J.1e aspen end red map18~ 

Sprouts 'IIe1'eDI101Lmorea'bw:ldllDt;thesecond Y88r .at* spraying. SollIeof the 

heed. high aspen atandswl11ch bd, :exQellent h&1'd1lP04:'oontrolthe first yeC' 

. wit.b only l~ of the. stems sprcmt:tng·were severe;l$~ting with the pm. . 

at the end o.f the aeootld grow1JlBsoson. This eXpe~Cle coupled with ob.IervatiOXlS·on 

other .Bfeas treated w1tb.mist blown ,4Doe 1~7 pOints up·tljjt 

fact tJl,at c~oJ. ami·not o~teJd.ll :l.s aoh1eveil1d.th mist spr~. TtIOor 

more treatments may be Decessuy to briDg a slO1i'l1respOZl4iDgstand ot: Si:lftwoodsup 

tllrough the oaqpetiDg h8:rdwoodswhich ere rell4ered less coupt1t1va 

by the treat.meAt.ar ld.J.led. fJR411!DOd damage :Lsotlills1Progressi va, and Gtmtrol 

may'bebetter 1!!18e.e~ or tb1r4Il'Pwing seuon attei'. spraying than it .. 

the first ~,;"re... demaged .oclI'd.fers, on the otNr hand, quiokly rt~1'• 

.-1 I 

'!'bree sets of tests were made matching the stl1ldud oil mixture of 

2, 4, '-Tasainst anel invert elllJ1sion of 2, 4, '-T. One set of tests was

, 413 

;. ' "1 ' "':j " • 

made with an: aaid equivalent of one1pound peracre 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 . . .

Table 2. Effectiveness of Various ForDIl1ati-' Ion'. 2 •"'JIll,., ::4n 1Z3l . 5.:fl:l:K> ~ ~1»,' 

..' . •. " '''-. . . -.,.; .. , ' .' ,I 1 

245-T .Water ! 2 1.%4i~ I 9J.j 3909 [34,i 364'·. 2541« 1199 3,4, '.~J 9 '.73 13 ~ i 6 .-4'7:~ 124 3$.131 ;41i 

·~:TlD 02-l-2-1~!6cJ-l-m-+-!;33~8-1-~t ~ ~~3- 2221~it;;;? ;676 66-+20'~s4j2, 163~.h;r5-1 

:~J~.f.':'=. 

it.~.-l~.,1J.=.,~.~.'~.=L.;~ §i,.~.=~. 

1..=.l.~~ 

~~".'=~~.'.C.i'I!:.+. 

t7-t. 

~~".'.,. :"':'~':='".~f~. 

:t;.§., ..~~.9=1 

245-T 'Oll' ~~: 2 t~~ :1@.\18:'38'6':- Yi1."~ 126ii5laDt :~ 04!:u.a:~: ~;ill156' ~1~ 3 f1 

·~T-!~:- ~(tr;';!;4-_tii!m -{;;;? ;;;;!;;1~4-~ r~b.l ~6~;'- ~i;t; ~r~~-! 

·---!---·-l-,-t~---'----I----'--'" ~-:--,--I-~-t-:,r- i- ... _ L-,-+-,~I-i-I 

245-T!Oll .l'Il375 1 °O . ~ ! - :..,..: ... :~ \2501171-1-i47, ~illl122' 9L"7L2 I 

-,--I'-.l .. 'r.T],·-.J; .. ;.~•.•. :;.,-. +'.-. -.~' .~~-I.'.~.- -:.-. 1.. -..11:-.\ ..; ' ~~.. '.; ..~•. '!~·'1•.... ;.t~•.",_..•• 1.;\61 

~1;..~.. 

. ,,--,,··,-r· ........."'i".- 

'. t., 

·.-.·1-f--:.- •.... .,... '-'.. -.:.. 

'.i;.·~'.~.. 

'1' ~tttf~l~:~-lT~~':* ~~--I~-it£;IH1~ -"ltJti'I .. 

-.-[--r-L---n,_l 

, , ... ':_~~"':"'-7 -~-l--I""-+-'" ----1~~-+ ..b -~~:!"!,rl '" --:,' . 

rnvert O+W r li. W 25 ; '55 63:m 1]2 l ! ,i 89 ";';"; 22 1'1 '10;24:4816]JO .~35 I 

----'.--..--1-- 

-.-~T,--~-J..-t. -t- - -'--'.- -. '.' - - 1 

245-T 'Oll ' 1tlll25I'lO 

-.1"•.-:---J.-. 

! l25 i15 12515 - ~o i83,300 17 -I ..- !92 311 ~ 122105' 35 12 I 

l 

----:--. --.'-.-..1".--'.--r +.-. -~-l--.'I-. j-. -1-+.,.-~ ...1,-...~!-. -i-.·'-.' -.,-,-: 

rnvert 3 jO+W 11t 18335\100 I i.. '- I I- r. 94110061..;1- t';31168 !47 79 22 . -- j 

-- - - .... - - - - - T- -:'- - r - i - r -;-- - -J '- - -:\' - - - ,-t - -I.,- T. - - -r - ' -1- - - I- - 

Ave•. ,324272 ' '70 113:292 7 ; 716,78 ·221.14 8516 ,28 2 78 28. 66 23 1IJ9 12810 

• , ,-". .: .' _. . .. ". -, _ _ ~ ~. I -..". _ _ .. . - _._. .. , . ~ 

_____ -.:,,"" ,"-_ L,...L_.l. ' __ '__ + ~~.,.. _1,_ ....:+._..l,.. of'.....~ _ '.' ... __ I.....1_ "", __L.; -- I 

~w - do.wiater. , "::.' 4 S/J.l;~t:steDMli~'~~ ~,,:->~ *~~:~_~~;~..~ 

o - Iliese1.,oi,;l .;> 5 ~lII1" .. 'SOI'or~, de~' -:.. c;Ho!Ie. ~,Ii188 ~ *detQliated 

:wer1; - 2,4.5-T 6 Severe - 50%to 80%detoliated 

1 

., 

l 

l

( 

( 

. Table 3. Effectiveness on Speoies of Various Farmu.latiODS of Herbicides 

- - - - - - - - .• - - .....- - - _~4--,=T_1,n ~ !:t~JJlsA net. !:m.:. e _ Ie!.t~_I1_ - - - - - ... - - -1 

~_f'!~_t2 P..2 11 12B!I 1_T!:lJ.~...,6~ !o_11 ... 9~ 12B!IJ:-~Sr;...@.Q .,zm...~u;Q _ 

. rIP.! ~-~... 

. De.as. J.S!.~I;5l~ b,~-I~~~.:> ,~~~_~t7 ~~_-I~~ ~~·L~A _- _-- 

.. ~!Jl~' ~.j. i6l, It.02J6J.4Q"JI1'2P+ - 1-I_716 

t22. 

t·ml . I i 

l8. ~9__ 

.•.~.i. ..... -'. - ~ _ ...... -'-. -i- -t -. -t.- 1.'-.' ~..J.'i: .•I:'~.~ '4 __. 

:_~"1_91.1 1..5_ZI$D;"JI". + JJl~ 1.0..;.ul9 ...6g,...3S '2Q~ ~O_I_ I 

-- ~1i5· ~ _ _-- 

lJJ6U5o. _91.J. 9Q9_~ ~ u....l.l29J34 .s«....2.zaJ.J_ ...AQfl z ~ .... lI$ _ 

- . I· , 

- T - - - - - :r",k!'2-4 QiJ. !,tldT: !~ !:~ 

i?-IZ7ll_?:1..!U2 J:l,a..I...:u iJ.2..A4.J.7-iJ22..i46. 

"_- - +':"._- - I _ _ _ _ "t.,. or-.l6't A7~ 1.8fUI- - ;- T - ~ - JJ, 1.3"".. 

: ~- iu-E---1-.-+--- "- 

._ ..... _I __ ..... ~__ --_ 

-+; 

.... -'tl/t..l.OJ1:-+.-_ ....._[-:f.- -'.p4. ~--I 

rUt-... 

~ ~ : : 

;~ 

, 

;-.--11l-- --..... ~., - ~ - -I ~,,~,',i-.ttJill' 

~~~.'!'-~:. 4.. :~~·' .•. ; [~:. i.~ ~,..~-..... 

~~~~t.~,,~~I.~ .. 

1'.':~.'~•. ·:..•..~. ~.~i..m.,i ..Zl.,-"ii 

Il:-wd • 

~mAl.;.andi~ 

.~.:::-~ -~.'~. t.iO~ 

- - ~ .,. -! ~Q ...?2.-'8. . - ~-j - -to- -9.J.J!~I...3aL 2. ~.. I 

- '. -' ...- - - -~~ 2--i-"'t--to-±~:z.2~l.O ~ 2.8__ . 

___ L... I ~ ~ _ _ "_ 9Q9; 27. 4'5.j.l __ ,_ -t_ :..... 17l.4.lt18~ _ .a 2 _ _7__ : 

2P25 .J. ~ L7...l- - -' -.:. - [7.L7_ ~9.l. aLa,_..1 _ ::I_ 29J.2dI§.213l_~t~L 10__ I 

1 

..i--J~H!~~~''-3... 

- - ...-.-- 15"!"li9t9. 

(Combined) . 

-.- - _1- - - -. -. - .....-:.- - - T - - &'-2-1 Ul_0:t1~a1 J. ~S;.~ ~ ~_~a~_1~~~6t2.,~-- ! 

~Cae! i-'lU ~~ 1-7 14_ ~ +_ 4- l-4Q.6..J fP. 9.) JZ.'~ 1_7 .....:_ ~. 2 "1Ȯl3J.' 23.1~ 6 6_ 

4 

!!6.d..2.o~ l 

~.~_e. s_ i_ 

ZlJ,Q'.','. "to &3. 2r :..1.2J_ :,~. ..1.•D,(I2 \ ..2& ...... IJ.! ~•.t.-.6~.. ..o ~•........... 

"~".J.3Q.' .. 

!rYt4J.Ll46'-"l~49~~:-:'-~. ~....l ~9~?U~.J4.:.RMQ: 

'~...-.ii&P _-S' - -..:•..- ....-- ". __ =",~-,~;,."",r~.r:Z3J~;lIl~ - ,"-'c'. ~~ft .. ,.-" .~~. I 

..: p 

-',"-- -l:g--~t~~- >.+"'~~~'-~" '1~,1~1~l;~~lJ.+~I;J>~Z'- •...iA.. 

~_~l~~~;:;Jl! I 6";~~ ~ 'q ~i'71U'>.l81'" 

lJ_ J."!"4a.6. il §.a_I40__ 9..;J.4_ S._8 - _ ... _ [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \.It 

121_1l4 

i!'~~121J.'19 .)33_~ 1_ J

S'QWARXANDCONCWSIONS

417 

FENURQlt,A PROMISINGNEWTOOL 

FOR FORESTRENOVATIONIN THE NOR1'HEAST 

By 

Carl. C. ZimmElrID&n* 

~.a.wk Tree Farms 

R.F.D. No.2, Box 180 

Laconia, New Hampshire, . 

'I'be Northeast has an i~(lreasing trend toward permanent forest I 

holdings by urban people, who use the houses for sUllllllerretreats, week-end 

recreation or retirement. They do most of the work on this land themsel'lnes 

as a spare-time occupation, because. hired labor is. ,e,xpensive even when it I S 

available. These holdings are mostJ,y less than 1,000 acres, and each tract 

is gener~ly less than 100 acres. 

Typically, these are m:i.xedstan's of val~le hardwoods and 

conifers in which various weed trees shortly predOlllil.nate. Some of the mo:-e 

serious weed species are aspen, gray birch, swamp maple, wild cherry, andl 

elm. Cutting these weed trees ~s not satisfactory ~cause re-sprouts frQlt 

the stumps and roots become an even more severe pro1:llem. 

111eanswer to this problem seems to be an ..1nexpensive and simpl, 

method of selective chemical weeding, involving little investment in mechWcal 

equipment. Blanket chemical applications either from the air or ground 

are inadvisable because of possible damage to desizWille forest trees or nearby 

crops and ornamentals. 

In three years I experimentation at Blackhawk Farms, fenuron, which 

is cOllllllercially available only in 25 per cent pellets at the present time, 

appears to be a promising tool for forest weeding. 

The Site 

Blackhawk Farms consists of about 1,000 aqr,es of typical north- • 

eastern woodland, in six tracts around Gilmanton, N. H., a few miles southeast 

of Laconia. lUl six tracts Were at one time pU'ts of cultivated farms 

or pastures, but they have now reverted to forests and brush • 

The. over-all forestry aim is to develop this .total acreage into 

an economic sustained-yield tree in unit. The pr~nt program started in 

1949. Unt11 1956, the ma.in activity was planting con:lfers in abandoned 

fields. Cutting was the only methOd used for removius weed trees. 

* A 50ciolo61st at Harvard University, who treef!U'DIII for an. avocation. 111is 

project is supported by a grant from the Permanent, ;6cijilnee Fund of the 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

418 

EarlY 'Chemical Trea~':, 

. . .. .. ,:,;) 

Chemical control of weed trees began in 1957, mostly with a one 

:Per cent solution of 2,4,5-T in 011, applied by hand as a basal spray. Although 

this was effective, it was laborious. PrOlllllling 1958 trials with 

dry fenuron in a sawdust carrie:r;"irid later with the 25 per cent fenuron 

pelleted formulation, led to 'an~l!insive experiment in 1959. 

An 18-acre piece of Illi~ forest (the:2-Durgin field) was chosen 

for this experiment. Applications were made in May 1959. The fenuron pellets 

were applied in a heel depression at the base of each weed tree or clump. The 

rate was one-quarter ounce per tree or clump (a slightly heaping domestic teaspoon 

or 1.9 grams of the basic chemical). A few weed trees were chopped down, 

rather than treated', where they seemed too close to" desirable trees for sllote 

chemical use. 

'", 

Altbough the summerwu very dry, wide's~ad defoliation was o~erved 

after the fall rains began, jus't before frost .1Jul-:jJ:lg the winter and e~iy 

spring of 1960, neighboring conifers showed somebro'wning of the needle tips. 

However, they recovered during 1960, and grew with increased vigor. Seedlings 

more than doubled their top growtb. Most of the ~'d.trees showed ad~tional 

defoliatIon andtlnally died. Mantof tL.:Jse whichlu.d', not die continueddafoliating 

in 1961. A number otthe weed trees tha~'surVlved into 1961 we~e 

multi-stelll!lledbirch or stump sprouts of swampmaplflNl.,The explanation tor the 

birch survival seems to be eUherthat more chemiclil'should have been used per 

clump, or It should have been spread over more are!',., With the swampmaple 

stumps, apparently the' feeder roOts, were too far ~the point where tba 

chemical was applied. -, , 

'[f' 

A group of profession8.ltoresters who in:8;Pectedthis tract on July 

25, 1961, considered it an adequate job of forest weeding. 

,me}260 

Experiments 

Beginning in July 1960, further chemical weeding was lmdertaken on 

about 35 acres of a 50-acre phce (the l-Proctor lot). On this land there , 

were many valuable hardwoods intermixed with small pines. Since the selecti v 

ity of the 1959fmmronapplicat1en.had not beenetlmp1etely established, ';the 

program started lIIIl1t1lywith 2,4, 5-'tapplied in fri~.; To redllce tranepgrtation 

and labor,jelliedsod1uma1"senite was shortl:f'!Used tor the weed 'tr,"e~ " 

close to desirable ones • ' ;j , " 

As continUedobservatlotFof the 1959 f~,a;pplicationslnai¢~ed: ," 

its safety to nearby untreated t1'eelt" more and, IIIOre't'.ehUron,was applied '4\lring , 

~:~u:~:::so~P~~~d "~~ ~:~::eer:a:t::l'b~~h:~~hOd. ,Mo~t rJf tlie" - 

....._~..'.~ ., 

Repeated inspections of this area in 196J..1n4.1catethat,,-tbe 2:'-4~~,lT, 

treatment wasettect1 "e 'without n6tleeable re-sprOttt1n~. Tr~es -tJ:"eated With _- 

sodium arsenitere-sprouted severely, even where the'stems w.ere,kiUedj liut J 

many of the larger trees did not ~e at all. ,8 - '

There are a number of reaso~ for unders{anding the mode 

fenuron in tree-killing and for,recognizing its effects at various 

of acHonor 

stages. 

419 

Observations during 1961 of the trees treated with fenuron in the 

fall of 1960 indicate that about' 80 per cent of t*irihave been surely Idlled. 

The same problema of inadequate dOsage or poor d1i1tr:l.bution for multi-stemmed 

and large trees appeared again in the 1960 fenuron program. However, no valuable 

trees were damaged with :f'entiron, except onelSat-ge wolf oak., Fenuron from 

four nearby treated trees ap~ntl;y was taken up 'by its perimeter roots on 

one side and the whole tree defoliated late in 196!L. ' 

(' 

Two general conclusiopswere made from the 1960 program. Fir&t~ 

fenuron could have been used more Y.!.dely in place"bt the 2,4,5-T and so4fum 

arsenite, with consequent redUction in laborarii'l. :I.lire-sprouting. Resti-l'tS 

with fenuron would have been be'1;ter on larger and :Jz1Ulti-stemmed.trees w:Il1lh 

higher dosage and wider scattering over the root tone. 

!!.he 1961 Experiment~"' 

On the basis of 1960 success, fenuron w~used in 1961 for weeding 

10 different forest areas, ranging in size from slightly under an acre up to 

25 acres. The total was 61 acres, requiring 318, pounda of fenuron pellets or 

only ab?ut five pounds per acre. The first ap:plic,tion was made in Mar~h, on 

snow, ~d the work continued throuP Sept ember 20,r'" During the summer a 'few 

modifications in application were adopted. Fenuroo'Wll.s applied in the dbttventional 

manner on' the ground, and, for close work~" tn various homemade jellies 

or pastes in hatchet cuts. Dosage for so11 applieation was differentia-bed for 

various size trees, up to a full ounce of pellets, for a 30-inch swamp maple. 

The, spoon was abandoned for hand applicll-tion. Ex~pt for close work, the 

pellets were slightly scattered at tree bases, in~ead of being concentrated 

in a heel print. In most areas, the duff was scuttedaway so the :pelle1;SWe1'e 

put on bare soil, and then a duff covering was kicked over them. (A tabu}.ation 

of these 10 "commercial-sc~e" treatments is, ,available from the authOr.) 

In the first nine, and. a first :pll.rtof tIle tenth, of the fieldis, 

injury symptoms from "Dybar" fenuron, weed and brush'killer were quite evident 

before the seasonal changes of foliage by the ,mid.dle of October. In each case 

all the smaller weed trees (up to six inches d.b.1i}') with few ~cept1ans., were 

defoliated. ' . , 

" ~ 

On the majority of these weed trees, a s:econd crop of lee:vee ~ 

started~ as occurs in the spring When,a late frost 'freezes early leaves,' In 

most cases, the second crop of,1eaves also showed chlorosis. That is, the 

chemical, either remaining in the ground, or, w4at:)s more likely, rema.1n1ng 

in the tree systems, was interfering with the proclliction of the second crop of 

leaves. The inner wood of the trees was still cle~, White, and seemed alive. 

Although definite results will not be evident until 1962, the I 

preliminary shm.>:ingwas excellent ~ 

~ of Action"'! 

I,

420 

S;!.nce t~es treated w:Lthfilnuron d:J,es~or may recover from 

what a.ppearto ~,~ot1Qeable eff~tJ,1t is import., to recognize the vaa';f,ous 

symptoms and to be !Il!le to pred;l.1;'lf,~ether an atf'~~~ tree w:Lll d:J,eor r~over. 

, ". :.":{j :):\; . '.:-: 3 ._ ". . ,: 

, 'The.cle~t case is ~t"C!f the healthy.: ~ maple leaf duri~ 

the height oftheyre~feed:J,ng,~ }ligh, photOsyn~~8,,,jleason. L1ghter-~d 

spots first appear in the tissue; Qt'"the leaves b~~'J:he veins. These ~ 

be detected by' lookins through the leaf toward the sUn. The colors of these 

spetliJ chanae ,b~d on the l1gb.t,.:pectrum scale, Fen-yellow-orange-redbrown, 

untilthey'seem to be delIA.Jq&terial. ;tn ~J~antime, ,the edges ot j 

the 

leave8~eatld. ~;,~ the l1v~n~.~.af is reduqe

.n_ots, "'hhin a few months after: ~pplication, mO$t:pt its effect is lost~.If 

the aUll!DJeris moderately dry, treli\ted trees may n~:..defoliate completely that 

season. In a wet summer, however, trees may defoliate at least twice. 

A er;:'od of active 0 . and trans irat .·is necessar for effective 

kill.' When enuron is app '. to the soi, tj,;lIIQyesinto the roots; 

SOmewhataccording to the rapidi'l:r: pf grQwth. sucqessful usage has been~e 

at Blackhawk from Me-rch through, No~mber, but mOliltJ:apid results were frqm 

June thrOUgh Ausust.$ leaves ~OW, tlley transp1;;!li1 ~oving the chemical ,t-o 

the leaves Where it affects Ptot9'~"f.;hesis. Photos;yl1thesis is naturally .pt 

affected under the best growing conditions. Since tenuron seems to inhi¥;t 

Ptotosynthesis directly, the lea'fes seem starved tor;' sugar, and chloroPtYJ1;l, .is 

not manufactured. The lack of chl,Q~oPtyll further ;-educes the total Pt0i;pc 

synthetic activity of the affected plants. Then t!¥!: plant appears to drapon 

reserves of sugars and starches in the roots until these are depleted, and the 

plant finally starves to death. 

Applications in the late f.'Zldwet fall o.f ~60 did not show material 

results until after the highly.act.ixe growth period ;t;n,midsummer 1961. ~ly 

spring applications in 1961 did. not show any eftect,untll late in the s~r. 

But applications Iilade between May2~ and July 5 .shQYe

_.," 

h?? 

on Vigorous ~owth within 8 year or so. Hardwoods (black cherry in particular) J 

t.r~at.ed w1t.l1'milcl,40sep. of the chelll1calin 1957 ~d 19;8 showed very eVi~t . 

chlort>t.1Qs1gpll,th~ tirs:\; yearb~~edovered their' ~sor completely by 1.958~d 

l~. Rell"ie:t.ed t.reatment with ·"~):1dose :rn1961:'~.0JIie-Th1rd field) a~en..ly 

killed them.' ",''- ... .' ,J- 

. ' .·,Aj;lpeent1ythe k~1l1ng,:~r:~ tree with t~',~C1i~c:al 1s1argely • 

problem otgetting·' sufficient ch~c.." into the tr". . At forest applicatl.9D 

: 'rate.", the l.onse , Viit,Ot'. the, cheill;J. ....~'.(.'in,t. be gr~,nd,'~ .•.~', s n.ot very great,.~one 

season atthlHllOl!lt i but oneaPPJ.!8ation mayiI:t:1~i b~ing about partial aefoliation 

1n broadleat ltrees the"tH!ra season a:t.'terapPlication .. possibly 

even lat.er. ' " . 

. . Thull asa-forest tooi'i't!.:!s' eveIi valuable~rthesecontinued ~lal 

d.efo1iat1ons,'u ~tl!~~orest isO;:!d.IIlOl'l\! and, JllO~e:iiOU1creased penetrat~ of 

t.hesunl1Sbt. ll'Iu'thftlllore, th~, ,,,.~,' seems affected,p,a total organism. Wbat 

:kilJ.s the tl"ee, aleo'seems to ldl,f)

sater method ot tree-killing close tb desirable treet.On pure speculation, 

in the tace ot doubts from some advisers, an injection method was first trled 

with tenuron in september, 1960.,:, A,watery mixture was made up from fenuron 

pellets and poured into hatchet gashes in a number of weed trees. 

, • ".j'" o':~ . 

Since then, about a doz~1:l homemade fo:rms Olttenuron liquids, pastes, 

jellies,an4 salves have been made and used durin. r_year 1961. several 

aMi ti ves have been' used. These bMre been injectecl~uneath the cambium ~rs 

ot several thouae.ndtrees of all rises and types. ,'a.'81m of the project ~s 

to de,velop a' one-1no1sion, one-inpct10n quick. metbcl'6,ofl eliminating weed trees 

in situations where applications, • ,the ground coul6 epdanger valuable trees. 

So far, the results of tbese experiments hue been' highly sa.tisfactory. 

"![be influence of the chemical fenuron s~ :tOJ be the same, no I$tter 

whether it is introduced into the tree through theJ:!OQ1;a or injected almost 

anywhere beneath the cambium layer ot the trunk. However, further time is 

needed to, confirm theae results.'",' 

Conclusions 1,:" 

.rr 

lAss tban a1"1'lICt10no1' 0Qli percent of:tb.ule81rable. trees have 

been afflicted in tracts Where fenu&'Onhas been used'4lor tree weeding. Of 

thesel iIlostwere an],y sUghtly t01ilohed, andexper:tilIllIC* iJ.ndicates that .they 

wlll, recoVer:. In other words, with due precaut10nsjJJ*iu non-selective nature 

of fenuron, 1snotlul; important danger in its use as ~~st weeder. Most of 

the valuabletreesiatfected wereintractswh1chwerllr treated when there •• 

snow on the ground:. Apparently tbe snow water. puddJ.e4the chemical away ttom 

the'point ot app1icat1on.u; 

',':-1 ~" ~)I ;':: 

It is believed thatth1s study shows clea!:ly that fenuron pellets, 

applied: to the grounll,' constitute ,':usableand value'ld.e'1nstrument for 'the 

necell~jweedillgjot,.torests. It., alao suggests.' ev:LcDtncefor further study of 

injection' t:reatBIEtnt. '!be .'ord1~, t'orest owner. ~an fIIoW· beeome a silvicide 

expert it he learns to, ustlthis' cbell1cal. He needS1IObther equipment except 

a pail and a paint marker. 

This chemical is not a "treatment" but a "tooL" tor forest use. 

Each tree, each plot, each acre, can be approached according to its needs, arod 

toward an OY8J;'",;a1J,.d~siSQ "for 'A yal\l~ble susta1ned~iL~ forest.

424 

PLANTRESFONSETO T~IZONE 

E. G. Terrell, Jr. 

SOIL Fu~I~,N7 

Weed control in forest tree nurseries continues to be a high 

labor cost operation despite the general use since 1948 of 

petroleun distillate or oil sprays. (2,S). In the Northeast, 

weed control is complicated by the great variety of species 

grown for reforestation. Some are tolerant while others are 

sensitive or intolerant. Seedlings of Scotch pine and larch, 

while ordinarily not killed by moderate amounts of oil spray 

applied during the first year, are often damaged so that 

plantable-size seedlings are not produced Ul 2 years. Hardwood 

seedlings, which are intolerant to oil spray must be handweeded 

or cultivated. 

Weed control in seedbeds is most important during the first 

year when the small, relatively slow-growing seedlings are 

least able to stand the competition of fast-growing weeds. 

Hand-weeding is costly, and may do considerable damage if 

weeds are allowed to get large. The use of soil surface 

herbicides, such as Neburon. before or soon after tree seed 

germination causes high seedling mortality in some species. 

Weed control need not be considered sep~ately from the control 

of other nursery pests if one treatment will provide effective 

control of both. Soil funigants. ~~hich erradicate or greatly 

reduce the numbers of living weed seeds and weed vegetative 

parts, as well as nematodes. fungi, and insects. are useful 

nursery tools. They can help the nurseryman get the seedlings 

past the first critical year with a minimum of damage by pests. 

Soil funigation is not new; in fact. it has been in use since 

World War I left large stocks of Chloropicrin (4). Funigation 

with methyl bromide under hand-sealed plastic tarps has become 

standard practice in some Southern nurseries. but adoption of 

the practice in the Northeast has been slow. Labor costs, 

soil temperatures. sowing times. and tIle severity of the 

damage by weeds and pests in the Northeast are quite different 

from those in the South. 

The development of a tractor-mounted combination injector-tarp 

layer by the DowChemical Co. led to our resumption of funigant 

testing in 1959 (1,6). Results obtained from an application of 

one of the test materials, Trizone. is reported here. 

l 

1 Manager. Saratoga Tree Nursery. N. Y. State Conservation 

Department, Saratoga Springs, N. Y.

Material 

~izone is a,mixedf~g.. t with the fol~owing composition 

by weight (:l): ::::f', t 

f·J· 

Methyl bl'~4't'l 

•. 61~0% 

ChloropiQl'4p t' 

:.jao.O% 

3",BromopropYM (proparg 

. , , , " bromid,) ,~:' 60;8% 

BrQlllj.nated Csh¥QroclU'bons 4 ~.~ 

. . p • 

It i. a, :l~~d ,t (j8o,~, ~1l pressures~29 lb. per sq. in. and 

is, supplielll in 175 lh."iA:ly~~er".Re~ dosages are from 

1~O-2QO lh.per.;ClCre 4JPeIJlI\ing upon tma·Wtv,erity and the nature 

of the I\4l8t Pro~18lll.1 ,.'/ i . 

" . ';r

426 

Sinc~! staJ'ldardnurset'y Htd»eds '1"efM"~'with·as:i;c."foot'J' 

center-to-center distance between paths, the S; t'bot· ·tarp does 

not extend to the' center of the path4 rnotii8'

427 

On November 16, 1961, at the end of the:f1~et growing season, 

~OO trees each from a treated and ~treated row were randomly 

se1ectedfor comparison of; height,

428 

.r> 

SUrlfnary.and'Conolus!o*,'lo i" i I.)(? 

. . .. ...• . ',intI 'l' " 'ne 

Ah;U.·appll1aatiotlofi.lrizoneat,the'l'aM:of 175 lbs per acre 

.was 'Iuiderto'nursery seedbed. withanin:Jictor-tarplayer machine. 

Broadcaiitr.:beds of.white·tipruce were i SOWft·?1n'· the usual mazmer 

about one month 1a'tl!'r .. 'i. Observations !nathe'S\IlI!ler of the first 

year indicate good weed control in areas not contaminated with 

weed seed afterfumiga:t.1aa. Modificatidn8 of sowing. methOds 

have been made toireduce"tihia type' o;f'caoRt/llllination. A substantial 

increall! in stocking, height, and diamet .. was apparent at the end 

of the first grOwing.MUon.;.!") " 

'_,pC :. _ . .' ..~_:,t_t.,_._..." 

.Trizone, a relatively new soil fumigant, has performed well in 

;the Saratoga production trials. Use of this material seems 

justified where 1) weed control by other means is more costly, 

more difficult, or more damaging, 2) plant stimulation e~f~cts 

can be utilized to reduce the time required to grow a plantab1e 

s.eedling .:' . '; , . r 

Literature, 

Cited 

1) Dow ~hemical Co. Trizone triple acti~ soil.f~lant 

.'-.", Mit i'edh, ,Bull •..'l;ICt;; JMay ,1.961. ~ . 

2),El-ia~, E. J •. j""C:;.·use OfOii'~y for the control of 

_ • i ; GwBeds in conifetl'OlI8. nurseries. ;l-l~:' Y• 

State Conservation Dept. 8 pp (Processed) 

1948. . 

,,'j ,SD11' fumigation>je"aluations in white pine 

.. ;Hy)seedbeds and otbe!!i ..ftursery investigations. 

TREE PLANTERSNotES No. 41 pp:17-21, 

April 1960. 

",.> " . L 'T3q ."·1 

4), ijeWhaU, .A.,G. & Il«IUI',.'Bert 'So:U:i\:Inigation for nematode 

and disease control. Cornell Univ .• Ag. 

". Exp. Sta. Bull. 850, September 1943. 

5) . ~t0i!C;:1UIU? I _J. 1;1., " lIUl,ling nurser)t _elb; withoU sPl'ayei •. 

"·'i;v..,~. Forest Sel'!!:'; I>akeStates FOl'est Exp. 

.; j c. Sita • Tech note,H() .,1 p (Processed)! ,1.943. 

~",: ;~ uc 

6) ~~~' G. 0 •. . ;id3jp;Lz~ -.l\nett(l:rlipll1! action. so:U,' 

'J. J ~'~:- "' 

.. p:\.gan"t. DOWN' 'J:O'BARTH1S (14-) 2..5,. 

Spring 1960. . ,;:;,,:;,

CHBMI-THINNINGWITH,AIrlINES IN THEDORMANT SEASON 

429 

Robert R. MorrowJ. 

"Hardwoods 

Cons1derab1eearly work in chemi-thinn1ngbSrdwoods was reported 

in 1959 (3). At that time the importance of a eqm,plete frill for 

dormant season deadening of most NortheasternU~ted States species 

was stressed. Top-kill was cllousedby adding cil~cal to the frill, . 

to make a zone of dead wood. Successful chemi-Wdles were made with 

2,4,5-T in kerosene, 2,4-Din kerosene, and .rosene alone. The 

former chemical caused a wider girdle and appea3d to hasten topkill 

by as much as two years1n comparison with 1'2,4-D and oil alone. 

Wiant and Walker (4) have recently confirmed t~ Glil alone is sufficient 

to cause top-kill when e4ded to frilJ.s.··' 

In recent years there has been considerable-;I.nterest in the 

performance of amines of 2,4-D and 2,4,5~ in ~arison with esters. 

Such interest is spurred by reports that top-k:1.J.a., especially of oaks 

in the growing season, has resuJ.ted from aminee4D partial cute (some' 

li terature reviewed in reference 3). Comparatiw tests of amines, , 

esters, and oil were made in 1957 aniI. 1958 on a-.riety of species 

in woodlots in southern New York. All chemica1lf rwere applied in a 

complete frill at a rate of 2;"3 ml. per inch of,·tiameter. Most treatments. 

were made in October and November; a few W2'emade in February •. 

Table. 1 gives the approximate .t:tmerequired for -~b percent of the 

chemi;"girdled trees to be 90 percent top-ld.lled~· 

In mo@ttrees ,that required two to four YeEll'Sfor top-kill l there" 

was little kill the first year. Occasional treg'cling to life for 

many years, even though completely girdled, prerilliably thr01.1gh root 

grafts. In general there was little difference l!Ietween trea.tments 

in the time required for top-kill. A few cases 'Of live wood bridging 

girdles were found in the 100(1 ahg ~,4-D amine1treatment. These 

occurred on large vigorous trees, mainly red map;ij!. This may have 

resulted from polilr spreading and transJ.ocation cStamine in water at 

near freeZing temperatures. On the other hand, kerosene s];:reads and 

soaks into woody tissue rapi~ .at low temperatures. 

lAssoc. PrOf. of Forestry, Department .of Conservation, Cornell University. 

The' author wishes to acknOwledge the ektensive cooperative 

tests carried out' in western KeY'.York by the Nelt:l'ork State Conservation 

Department under the supervision of District Forester E. J. 

WhaJ.en.

430 

Treatment 

400IFahg 2,4-D ,e.m:I.ne 

(undiluted) 

~00/l ahg 2,4-]) amine 

in water 

20# ahg 2,4,5~ ester 

in ke:t'Oeene 

Kerosene, ' 

100# ahg 2,4-D amine 

in water 

(in a second woodlot) 

' 

Species 

beech 

red maple 

sugar ,lIIQ~ 

wh1te,ub::, 

basswood ' 

beech 

red _~'~ 

sugar ......:Ili!l'. 

blaCK ii~Cb:" 

, J 

beech :,': ".~., 

"d JIlIIl~ 

sugar-·1IitPJe' 

Wbi:teu!l 

basswood, : 

~00# ahg2,4-D amine ",bassW0d4w . 

in water 

~okory "c ,.>J:' 

(in a th11'C1woocUot) Amer1QMe1m 

blaCk :'olIe-rr 

wh1te:'O!ak' _ ;i .. 

400/1.ahg 2,4-D ~ne 

(placed in Pe.rt;j,'1. 

cuts 1 not C01iIp].etetriU) 

, 

No. trees j.b.h. range Years 

~3 4-~4" 2-3 

5 6-12" 3-4 

5 ,5-10" 3 

5 'J::;- 5~ 9" 3-4 

3 'lV~" . 6,. 8" 2 

~9 '~-15" 3 

24 , '6-15" 3-t 

30 

0 5-12" 3+ 

1 ':.y 7·~4" 3-4 

13 ;7-ll" 3+ 

~. 

. r'_ t. " 2 

'J., 

9 ,4-ll" 2 

';~~~d, 

4 5- 9" 3-4., 

'1r 

4 "4- 7" 2-3 

[::"'t' : 

2 '.5- 6" 2 

"I Sf 

9 

"',f 5-14" 24 

2 6" ",-,8"- 3-4' 

4 ,6. 9" 3 

a 

~'1J . 

5 " 3-4 

2 ',',;d'o:" 7 " 3-4 n-: 

.px"'-' 4 . I , 

lao " . '4-12" 3+ 

"0

These tests show once aaaiJithe need for ecmplete frills in dormant 

season cl:I"emi-"th1nn1ngin Nort.be..-te:rn United states. They also demonstrate 

no advantage tor ~.' over esters or 011 alone in dormant 

season work. 

431 

Conifers 

In 1957, a preliminary report (2) was made concerning dormant 

eeaaon application of und11.~: 2,4-D amine in partial cuts for chem:i.. 

th1nn:1ng pine plantations. Briefly this report stated: 

1.. In red and Scotch piXIe pl.a.Utations, trees 3-5" d.b.h. 

received, 2 or 3 cuts per tree.. Each cut received 3-4 mJ.. 

of chemical. 

2. For red pine treated in November and ~ch, the terminal 

leader and uppermost whorl of lateral branches died back 

the follow1ng June; the whole tree was top-killed by the 

end of sUIlllller. 

3., For Scotch pine, death of trees was sJ.()wer; edge trees with 

large crowns sometimes recovered. 

4.: Presence ofa few dead red pine trees ~acent to treated 

trees suggested caution in recormnendiqg the new treatment. 

! 

\ 

Subsequent red pine growth studies have eSt' :blished the probable 

reason tor death of untreated·· trees in the plan :tion as a combination 

of drought e.nd shallow soil 'which predisposed t weaker trees to suecessful.. 

bark beetle attack. S1m:iJ.ar bark beetJ.ei damage has been found 

on numerous red pines on poor sites in recent y$rs. 

In the past five years, applica.tion of UDi~uted 2,4-n amine 

in partial cuts has been made in several. plantat\Lons of moderate size 

to test the general utility of this method of chemi-thinning. These 

treatJ!'StXts are described in Table 2. ' 

Nearly all trees in these stands were top-klJ.led by the end of 

the graw:l.ng season following tfeatment. Exce:ptibns were hemlock, which 

was not killed, and sUllllllertreatments of Scotch ~d red pine, which 

resulted in slow kill over .most Of .. two growing s.asons. Slow kill 

was observed occasiona1]y in treu, with large,c~s and in trees 

with fewer than one cut per two inches of di8iJiet'r.

') 

') 

C t1 

c, r .L..j 

\' ':,~ 

~, c (' 

:

Th:Ls ch!~ca1. tx'eatme:n1!_1IhClJ.ose~ as80C!ia.ie~Jw1th lJm'k .beeUcl·'·I. (; 

~e;to ~re~ia. ~,pi:Di,~.JF1n.~peJ. ~~JleftJit involve:Cl.,nor- ·'t' 

mall;y'18 "pj.1;obed out Qf~l;~~s, but~;,pr dying.,1lrees a:t'I!ll'" 

susceptab~.·)i~ 'cbem1~~ted tree~ 

't~\i~ '.lowl3'·dy1ng.~,(0. 

prime targets, end beetle populations ms:ybuild up following treatment 

of extensive~. This pOP\llation build-up poses tD questions: 

(a) What roles do beetles PlaY in kil11ng treated trees? (b) Will 

the build-up cause success~;. ~le attack on neighboring healthy 

trees? 

" . . .' •. :'e I ",' "~.. ,J 

~~ 6f,j;he .chemi.ca1.·a~.sto betrElO.~4 upward in narrow 

bends above the point of application, leaving sizable streaks of live 

wood ~etween. ~ WQOA.~Ii!: ~~.1nd1cstedl;ly ~ration of liSP 

wood following treatment. ·~ry,Uttle ~~xus1ocat:lonis indicated. 

This has been verified' by treating one stem of twin red 

pines; p,s~ o~ the tre~ :f;tem dies. S1nc:p:~e tree dies;t'roe .f 

the to:p do~, a tree ~th a:~ crown is ~i~d... Treeswitb. 

large crowns and large areas of live wood between dead tissue may 

live ;LolIgel'qr;eveu.recover~ F~ s~ch trees 1;9)~., they must e.itber .j. 

be overtopped. and .~d out ~~,colI\Peting .trees .• '__e-girdled through 

progressive dying of live tissue along the stem.· Beetle attack may 

influence the latter process, but its significance is not known. In 

most of the treatments, beetle activity was abundant and trees otten 

died quickly. In at least two of the areas, there was little or no 

beetles activity; good top-kill was still attained. 

Whether or not bark beetle population build-up might become sufficient 

to endanger healthy trees is not known. In most of these 

treatments beetle activity was sufficient~ heavy to cause the base 

of treated trees to be ringed with frass droppings; even so, no untreated 

trees were dameged. This fact appears to be especially 

significant in respect to the white pine stands which had never 

been thinned and contained many non-vigorous trees suppose~ susceptable 

to beetle damage. 

The use of undiluted 2,4-D amine is cheap. The chemical cost 

of most thinnings is about $2.00 per acre. The labor time required 

by an experienced Ban using hatchet and plastic squeeze bottle 'With 

chemical varies from 1.5 to 4 hours per acre depending mainly on 

ability to Il'.ovethrough the plantation. One cut for every two inches 

of diameter is otten sufficient. For particularly fast kills to 

reduce bark beetle build-up, for trees 'With large crowns, and for 

speeding kill following summer treatment, more cuts are needed and 

the cost will be somewhat greater. 

In sU1lJlllarY, 2,4-D amine in partial cuts is en easy, cheap, 

non-hazardous, and effective method of chemi-thinning many conifers 

in the dol"ll8nt season. It is particularly applicable to plantations

',Weed 

434 

becauH ,~tlIt'~·, '1sUni1ii!lf\ Weuts~" ril.t~ ,eOziIplete'.'ffl~et, 

ere-tar ._~\W ~~&H(~11'dlf~i~ work.~~~' 

and~·;(;J.)iti;de '-1te~e4iJb 'W6fiod:'sUde~.M::f&.-'k:l1:t1ngd1~~:I 

. p1ne;1ttc~j ''bl\Us'theH_~be'Y:I;:;; 

':,'1 C•.f ; 

:-\.J (1".:"\1;(' 

.' i::l i'c'l:lJt, 

, .'!,,··DII,· 

J :t)1.~,· 

I'. J.sC;,-l"·'·: 

'rc 

, 

~:: i_'1::_~,-j"1 

... ', ".;" , ,; 

. . ~. 

... ..~;

: 

if.. . ' 

A Comparative Study of the AppUoatlon of 

Three Weed1c1des, Kurosal G, Kurosal 5L 

and a 2, 4-~E.~er to Three ~e~ 1n 

Long Pond, Dutc~,ss County, Npw ~ork. 

, .. "," 

435 

Made~ene E. P1eroe, Vas,ar College,Poug~eeps1e,'New York. 

t - . 

" , . ,I' " 

The purpose of th1s stu4Y.was to oomp~e the results of I 

the applioat10n of three w.~4191des upont.b,Jjee, separate plots, 

The weed1c1des were Kurosal G,Kurosal 5L, .~da 2, 4-D Ester, 

All were app11ed at the same concentration of act1ve 1ngred1ents, 

2.2 ppm. In the early SUl11m"1'."frequentobIl,Fv,at10ns were made 

and records lteptnot onlYct, "tAe effect up0ltthe pondweeda, b.t 

also upon nekton, plankton".~ benthic or.l.ms. The duration 

of th1s study was from May jl ,~ October 4;~ +96~. 

'"',, 

I w1sh to thank Mr. warr-~ ~oKeon, alld;~ Kenneth W10h Qt 

the Poughkeeps1e otfice ort~! ,Ne'liYork 5,ta~ Conserva t10n ~, 

partmen t for the1;r .haLp 1n14h; ;f'1eld. Mr. 9.!tto Johnson again 

gave the use ot his boats tp.r'r~he season. :1)oW'Chemical Company 

suppl1ed the produots wh1ch wWe being stud~ed;and Vassar 

College provided a small e;~,ant tor oovering:.tudent assistance 

and transportat,1onexpenses.:; ,,',' 

• J J 

Cond1tions in Long Pond have been oal"efJ1J.ly descr1bed 1n detall 

1n prev10us papers. (~1'rce1958, 195~f 1960, 1961)· 

Three exper1mental areas wf#'e~ staked ou t , , ,11'jo·~of" these were ],0 

ca ted wi th1n the shallow lj,ttoi'al zone (l ..

436 

several speoles of Potamo eton ,(Po amPlifol~S, P. crispus, 

P. pusillus, an.... ~.• atans •. Othe.r sUb~.rc... weeds are present 

but in limIted'a"_ • . . .:. . " ..' '.' 

.' ',

'j 437 

petioles, now elongated,f'ortoed miruature arches above the'L·'. 

water; the ,pads overturned and theentire,jplot presented a4"8ddiSh 

oast oompared to the surrounding untreated green area.UBy 

the end of the first week, the surface supported a tangled mass 

of stems, leaves ,and bloa'8dms, whioh stlon:began to deoompoee. 

From this point on, deoomposition proceeded slowly, more al",,1y 

than in previous years. Whereas the surfaoe of treated a~•• 

usually had been free of pad. by late JUll,' they were not.tjoee 

of pads until August or earl~ September i~ 1961. 

In oaves or little bays of area I II" where the waterw&s 

qUiet, the 111y pads disappeared more qUickly, as well as mQre 

oompletely. In the region of the ohanneL~exposed to win~ 

and probably a small ourrent, the treatment was not as effe~t~ 

1ve, and even in september oonsiderable ngmbers of lily pad$; 

dotted the surfaoe. Submersed weeds (Utrloularia) responde~ 

in muoh the same way. They.were reduoe! cr nearly eliminated 

in qUiet waters, but not in the deeper and more exposed ohannel 

area.! 

.-: J t) I 

Areas I and II oan be oommented upon'·together. Exoept',ltor 

a narrow band olose to shore •. these areas responded suooesst.lly 

to tr~atment. By early september the surtace was well olea~edof 

111y pads,and the submerged weeds (mostlJ: Utrioularia) had·IQeen 

ei tbel" eliminated Qr muoh re(1uced •. Along~:the west shore, a cmos-s, 

hornwort, and some water 1111es form an:exoeedingl~ dense b~r.d&r 

of 8 feet in wldth. These plants were not eliminated or substantially 

reduoed. As fo.r the Potamoge~. it is very diffioult 

to judge. InsparElel-y populatedare",s. it seems to di~ 

appear With treatment, b"t in densely popQtated areas, ther$c 

a,ppears to be no reduction lP number of pl&;nts. l 

, , j' 

One halr of area I r!&j:utlved a seoond.pp110a tion of K~sal 

G on July 5, three weeks. afUr the first¥pllcation. Thisn 

treatment was made ~in order ,.to test the v1:80Zlof a large pa1i~ 

of NUpp!r advena whioh had not. beenaffeo'ed by the first appli 

ca tion.. By the end at . twoweeks, thepA,ants were dying. ~d 

by early September they w8l"'e.-declmated, bu:1l.not oompletely 

eliminated. 

.I 'r::- i ' 

It may be oonol1uded that, ln genera1., ~~haea, BrasenM, 

and Utr!1oul~rla res,ponded l1uooessfully tOfJLIlithree weedio1i$8 

when applied at a oonoentra1iion of 2 ppm. ".No one of the thl"IH 

weedloides proved more effeotive than the,-other two. I 

The summer of 1961 3,n P:utohesEl Countl:W8,:S hot and humid 

With all" temperatures oft.enj,n high 80'.S~; low 90's. FrPm.i: 

May 31 - September 20, bottom, tempe;ra tur~-ttd):r- the pond variei1. 

with the usual seasonal ~enQ.. Op May 31iot.ne temperature "Joil 

a 0001 60 0F, whioh rose sharply during a hot period in early 

June to 78 0F. During the AA~terohalfo:r. ~nei .and early JU::LY, 

the pond oooled to a conatan t, 74 F, but %?qse",galn by mld.... Ju.iLf 

to 80°F. Although no sample~ were taken 1~ AUgust, it is

" 

, 438 

reasomlb;Le,',t!o &Hume the -!pdDd ~rema1ned ,1i4Nb' the 80°': level 't6~ 

,seT-eral w.o., , By Sep'l;e.m'ber~O, bottoll' ~ratures 'had ' , 

falleD' '0 ,680F. 'jf ( • 0: 1 

~ : . ~) ~;~~- j" .:~ " ~ 

:'llM,d:1sJlOlvec1 oxygen t~«n.ected 10. geliel!lll'the s.ea.son8il.' ", 

. ~re.n.d· ot .~~:ture. As.,':1nrprevious 81U11111er,s, the dissolve4F', 

oxygen, OQft'ten!t>otJ 1ii1e Qont~li area was oonaiste:ntlytheloww.-t'. 

on May; 'J14')'J::t,w~8;,9.,5 ppn.G7J!tlep' ocourrell e's:toltdy deorea:~'[~' 

a low of .5 ppni 1n la.te;:Jlt~, followed 'bJ ;t;rrreadlng of 5.6 .; 

ppm on September 20. Experimental are~s showed the same trend. 

In. areag;!::a:ndi II on I-~':3lrt)'t;ha diesolve4J',oitygen oontent wa!l 

lO'ppm.. d1pplng to 1.4 ppaq' f ,and remainlni!,tl IItt'OI,tnd 7. 4-7.8 ptml ~ 

as ;Late &S),Se:p.1A'emPer20.,~difJsolved: ooqg.en oontent ot ~) 

III, el1OWed,ol.o:.e:roorrela.ti1l)tl with tempeftture. On May 31 1~, 

was' 'l0. ppiili, Cdecreasing daMn'g'JJuly to 5.53~, and returnlng'bt 

septeml!1er. ~ to'?_, 2 P~'.::) DIn-a' appeared, :'0 be: no c;orre1a tUft' .: 

oflcUtYi!;eni contbt'wl'th' the1iappl1cation of tn., weed1cide.' 

. 'j!:. *~ \ "':':'~)(.:.·S~~ -" .liT ,;T f:. 

The pH read1ngs 1n all areas showed the same trend. The)" 

were highest 1n May and June, deoreased to a lower point by 

late JUl." aAd:.r$maltled at tl1'l1s1evel'8VeftOaa late as September. 

The .~rla1l1on8 ;oocurred betw •• n e.) ....7 ~20lj 'lhe pH of' the \(jon:-i' 

trolareawalJ oons1stentllYf.:1l0wer than all Iothe:rs, 7.8 - 7/l. 

i 

c, 

Exper1Dlental"areaawere e1tdl.l'~ to eaohother'andshow$d '1,.' ' 

va:riat1on •."beheena.3 ....,7~~4. ·No co:t'lrela1ll1on of pHwlth the" 

applioation Q.ttih.weed1ctd"'loan'b.dedUCJH~ , ',FCC 

',~'. t- .~ . ~:;"! .::-!I"·r ~ "l"' j 

'The:planltt6ri identll~JOt&nbe grOUP~ ae "in' prev10uli 

i 

,.; " 

yea1'8: M~Ph1ceaelCh1~l*10ea.e; Pro 

micro-organisms revealed a faso1nating pioture of' the ohange 

oQ~t'~ngt~w1~n,,~he plank-Wtll pdpuJ.atfod'O!J1;htt liIaason p'ro~-:" 

re'ued'.: ': , I:D 

'In bGth'e!Xp~Ii1ll1ental::andJ 'control aio_'.i large aqua tio 

vertebrate4,' 't'1eh, ,froge,' 'ahd:tur1l1es yij!'e ~serit1n -abun- , .. 

danoe atid (li1cvel y:l n:behavfb¥.;,'!' : Many adu1."t.fililh and large 

". .t 

sohooliir Of'

Helisoma, Menetus, fhYSa andValvata; Peleoypoda (Sphaerium); 

Amphipoda (the scud ; Isopoda (Asellus); Insecta (larvae or 

nymphs of Mayfly, Damsel fly, Dragonfly, and Midge). The 

seasonal trend: ot populatlpn, W..s refleo,\;e

:lBummary 

'eI' 

. ( 

1. Th%"e&~xpe1"1IDenta], ar-e•• Were ohosenli_: the shore ot:,rtidhg 

Pond.: :NCor these weH'ohe ao:re, one •• but,a halfaoM. 

'v. ~ fIJ"-':>: .. :; 

2. Observa t-t.()hs.on theeeVA8 J were made ·lll"OlIf May.)l - Oot~ 

4, 19p1. . " ":j,'~.; ';: ':).t .. ' ' 

3. Prel1mlnary et-udy of the tollowingoondt'tione and organ 

1.llls,\' __t...o~r.~Qg QU1;,t...r2ll!Jlay31.,-.J'Y.n4LZ;. ,bQttOlll temperatures, 

.pH"jA#.:ssolved, oxygen ,oontent, plankton population, 

benthio 'popUlation " lILrgeaquat10 vertl!lt>1'ates, andpondweeds. 

Afte.%-treatment, thiS prooedure wa~repeat.ed June 

14-16, June ZO-23, July 5-7, July 22-24,~.hd September 

19-26. " 

4. The three areas were treated on June 1) With the same concentration 

of weedicide, namely 2.2 ppm. Area I received 

Kurosal G, Area II a 2, 4-D Ester,andArea III Kurosal 8L. 

5. Within a narrow marg1nal border of extremely dense growth, 

surtace and submerged weeds did not respond to treatment. 

6. Wlthln more open portlons, although stll1 of dense weed 

growth, weeds dld respond. 

7. N!iPhaea odorata and Brasen1a sp. were suocessfully ellmlna 

ea1n most areas. 

8. Utricularia purpurea was eliminated ln many areas, and 

greatly reduced 1n most areas. 

9. Nuphar advena was dec1mated, but not ent1rely oleared, even 

after a seoond application. 

10. The three weedioides used appear equalll etteotive. No one 

appeared to be superior. 

11. The temperature of the bottom water showed seasonal variations 

within 60 0 - 800F. 

12. The range ot pH was between 7.4-8.0, and followed the 

pa ttern of the oontrol. 

13. The fluctuations of dissolved oxygen content were between 

4.5 - 9.5 ppm, and paralleled those ot the oontro1. 

14. The plankton was represented oonstantly bl the same groups 

as 1n previous years. The rlse and fall in abundanoe of 

individual plankters refleoted seasonal trends, and were 

obvious in both experimental and oontrol ~reas. No period 

of deoreased numbers or aot1vity was observed after the

i s. The benth1c populat1Q~ W¥", OOr,ls',tantlY~"",p:resented by the 

same forme as 1n prevloUf-':lfUuuners. An1'"S1gn1f1cant 1nore9.se 

1n number ofa81ri~le speo1es was exh1b1ted by exper1mental 

and control areas, and therefore interpreted as 

seasonal. ' . , 

;' ',"1 

16. Fish of all ages, frogs, and turtles, were present and 

lively 1n treated and control area~ throughout the summer. 

r'",: 

,:,,, G 

~i(~ ~-:;'!" ..: 

l 

:?i~ 

.rta. t ( 

'I~ t J 

':.I'Zf;" • .' : 

,."'\:p;~ 

S 

. "';! d.~ 

i! ~'J ~,~ 

.. d!t' 

J it 

~n,ll 

.. ~: ill' 

,,' 7~' Ie' 

,'",,', j 

, I 

',U" 

! ~'·1:t 

,.',~ 

:.,;;' 

.. ,; 

'. :l1. i' : :'[.::1 

J'!,Bi..

OuBaVATl. ~Cl{:J)IS'DlDoTtclr:ijQ~.~'.1U wA'1'BIIHIUOIL ... 

. ~.IAY• .1961'to'. ; 

Jolw.~. Steew)/ V~ 0. Stot:ta. V ~!=1.' R. GU1.tJ' 

, ~\.. '1 . 

1'ba 1aY¥101l of the uppa' a. ky ftIiOIl 'r Bur.. 1ao .. tamilfoU 

10 .... Gu~r R1~ 

ill 1954. e.1Cbau1b• 'PllICflJlllll'''' c:ollacted 10 the 

did DOt bacaaa eppanDt U1ltU ~ 'l t".. cll.oz,." 

at; .. beacI of t:ba Ba,. 

dv .. 10 1902 u.4 tbe plat bad"'" .. tabU ..bed .. eM l'otellUC Rivu at 

lau, 'f.Dce 1933!/. B,. late 1959. tr ........ ta of • pl ....t .. re fOWld dl"Uti ... 

over .much of the 1&7.ao.d.... baa had baccaa ... 1ubed wherever QVUOD 

_Il~l co11dltlou .... Vt1lfact:ol:1. Ss.aee flOla. tr .... DtI CD .Ul'Vlve 

1" ,.UD1tie. of 20 pptloil(BeaveQ, 1960). tldal ~ta could cany UviDI 

plao.tl 1oto the &a.haI' portlOlll of lIlO.t •• tu&r£N; of Cba8apaakeBa,.. 

Bvr.. f.u. .. tand.lfoU c10•• 1ylte •.-l.......ve watena11foU 2 1OPbr U \III 

exalbescep'. wb1cb 11 fouucl nf.Dcf.,.U,. 11l al.ci... ...... '1'be 4i ereDCeI 

10 eppeuace betwau tbaae two .pacle. ere for _ II08t pert relative. 

Leaflet .epellta OIl the upper portiou of the •• __ 11,. DUllbel' lII01'e 

t:ba 12 In Bur.. l .... watena11foll .. fewe tban ll) ill the utlve speele •• 

Inte~leaflet .pace. In Bur.. lao. wtena11foll .\1&117 &l'e .maUel' t:ba 

tho.. 11l the utlve .pecte.. III addltion. leaneClt of Bur.. ta .. tulIIl1. 

foll often &l'e lDOI'ecurved. 1bue two ch&I'eoteri.adc. slve tb. l.af of 

J/ '.tuxeat W11dl:l.fe Re.e&l'cb ceuC&l', 

Laurel, 

Mar,.lad. 

U. S. Fl.b tad WUdUfe Service, 

Jl Kal'1l ao.d Game u.el IIl1u.4 rub OOIIII1. .. iOD, Pf.e:tIIUoollobertsoo Project 

W.30-R. ~li8. Mar,.luel. 

J/ tafonatioo supplied by OorcloDI. SlIlitb, t. ...... Valley AuthorU,.. 

!J./ hu.cl. H. Uhler, UDpUbll1beclreports. 

il "t. P&l'ta pel' tbouaao.d.

443 

Eurasian. wa~lfoil a W8t.f~~ appearauce. ,,"ter buds ~ seeds ,of 

the neUve s~c1es geaerally v.' twice as 1&1'8'1,.'thDse of Eurasian _tel: 

mil foil. Both apecies. grow~t..i.n. alkaline waee.cbabit8ts •. Eurasian 

watermil€oil, hQWeVer., is the, "~7,sp.C1es of KYIjOpbtllum known to grow 

iD coa\lt,1 ~e.l;. ofapPl'ecf.q~.:,~lia1ty. It 'pnchaoes vigorous growth 

in waters of sa~1D:I.tyup to ~O ;pp(;aad caa grow li&Ulf8her saliD! ties ' , 

(Bu ••• 1960). ' 

Theobjectins of these 

'Objectives 

,

444 

taken OR' the spedes, bd' abu~ of, nad."pl.~ '!he Virginia I~t~~te 

of Marf.De:sae .. cooper.tedR:tltsuney 11\ V~aj the Maryland NaWta1 

ResOUl'ceslutitu.,M1p.d' s~ti tileatea &ClII'""Dft~WashiD8ton, D., q~,: . 

, along the MBylua4 std. 'of, ChiQPO c R:tver, ad, .11ODS .the Weste~ SJi6tt 

to theh.u"o!·,Cbu.,..u Ba1i :theMarylarael"'aaid loland F18h .. ., ~ 

Coam1.u1d1l·•• t.ted tn the s--:f"g lII6et of the -ilUtern Shore doWn to ' 

Tal:bot County.' . . .J ',";S' , 

Siuce previous studies (S~. aDd Stotts, 1961) had indicated that 

phenoxy cCllllpOUDds,parttcular~y 2,4-D1mpregnated .~~ttaclay gr&DUles, 

were the 1IIOR.en.cU". cbeadllliAJW;fcWcontrol tit adlanwateX'lll1.lto1l10 

tidal ,ar... ._8IIlPtiasis In 19M !We OIl refl ..... '·ol techD1ClUes.of· ttl.. ':.. 

I\I8Dt and on cn.... to·determ1i1ie':'·wetber other P.'''~]>benoxy comp~.~, 

be8ldU 2,4-01>tIIDU1dg1Ve 1Iuec:8Htdi results. AbOift5;000 pounds ofgr~ 

pheDoXyfCJzWalatl ',' .:..:' .: •.". '. .iJbY") 

:piopyl'elie '81,"1: fobUtyl ether"~sbf 2,4-0dlchlorcS2 

" ·':·pheao.x)'a~·tecld . )

Empb4sis was on testing DOD-volatile esters of 2,4-D lmpregaated in 

granules. Series of randOlllized. replicated trea~ts, with checks, were 

made on liS-acre and l-acre plota in fresh and brllidciah water habitats 

during ti~, of slack low water. 'lbe dosage rate .... re 10, 20, and 30 

pounds a. e.. per a... Chemiuls WIre applied duriiIB the latter part of 

May and early Juae after watend.l~ll was high enouahto reach the water 

surface at ebb tide; most of the treatments were. made when the temperatul:'e 

of the water was above lSoc. Other phenoxy formulations were applied at. 

dosages of 5, 10, and 20 pounds' •••• per acre on Lilo-acre plots in both 

fresh and tidal water ereas; X'epU.catioDS were made at the 10 pound a. e.: 

per acre rate. testing was cont1aued until after taitial flowering. 

Additional tests of both e,tews and amine sal~ of 2,4-D were made et 

high tide, when dispersal of herbicides by currents would be greatest; 

these tests were made on 1/2-acre ADd l-acre plot.. EDdothal. which is a 

highly .oluble and readily dispUs.d formulation, was te.ted at 40 pouDd,I 

a.e. per acre on a 2 1/2-acre plot in a small bay at dead-low tide to see 

whether it would be effective under such favorable conditions. 

Herbicides Were applied frOlll a l4-foot boat. "tlich was propelled by, a 

5 horsepower air~thrust motor. Granular herbicides were applied with a 

knapsack power sprayer (Solo Model 60) strapped to a seat in the center of 

the boat. A hopper .of the type ,used for farm tractors was cradled in a 

wooden fr8llle on the gunnels of the boat and attached to the knapsack POlfllr 

uDit with a rubber bose. '1be gr ... les were fed by::sravity into the rotor 

of the air-thrust unit and dispersed through a 4-iach rubber hose and head 

device in a 10';'foot swath. 'lbe flow of granules was regulated with a 

pointed stick that fitted the opening of the fuDDel. Liquid formulations 

were applied with coaventional power spray equipmeat from a boat propelled 

by an air- tbrus t motor. 

Results 

Distributiog Studies. The rasults of the survey in the Chesapeake Bay 

and PotOlllac River region in 1961 indicated that the area of infes tetioo of 

Eurasian watermilfoil toteled about 100.000 acres &Del that new esteblishments 

were occurring at a rapid rate. This is in contrast to its known 

range of 50,000 acres in 1960 (Stotts, 1961). 

'1be rapidity of invasion 111illustrated by the records of aDDual OCtober 

surveys. of the Susquebal:lna Plats, an area of major importance for waterfowl. 

Previous sampling of stetions sbowd the following. frequencies of occurrence 

at vegeteted stations in successive years: none, 1957; 1 perct,t. 1958;, 

47 percent., 1959; and 84 percent, 1960 (SpX'inger et al., 1961)A '1be stJtYey 

in 1961 X'evealed that Eurasian Rtermilfoil was pX'Uent at 88 pucent of' the 

stations. 1Jl July 1961, a silil!lar auX'Vey showed that 71 percent of the : 

stations had Eurasian wateim1lfoil. 

445 

1/ a.e ..- = acid equ.ivai~t. 

~l Also, P. 'to SpriaSeX'. V. D. Stotts. and C. K. Rawls, se., unpublished 

field DOtes. 1961.

446 

Another illus tration of .aplodve growth U '. very rapid increale in 

erMka at the mout:lt of the ~ Il1ver. which ii.tl .. thervery importUf: 

waterfowl ana. No Bur.. 1aD _CMtJll!dlfoU wu UO__ rtll .urve;ya made dur1111 

the .UlE8r aod fall of 1958 aadli59, but it .. '-~ IIDd cODBpicUOUIby 

1960. B;yOCtobc 1961, the creeb'1Ifte cOIIIpletet""'tted over with thil ; 

.'plllDt, IIDd oati:vaplantl. indUldl1ll highly del1rllltle duckfood .pecie' ..... 

virtuallyabl81lt. 

Ck"owthof Bur.. ian watermilf.U i. gel18r.ll,,"~ent alons • horeli.l·in 

shallow watar expoled eo .ever.-).¥aVe lIDcl tidal ac'll\m. but oyster drel.gel 

bave picUd up rooted .pec1.lD8U;, at: depths of 14 t;O'!'16feet offshore frOIl . 

SC1118of thele ar.... 'lbe plllDt grows best en soft. mucky bottOlllS. but allo 

rapidly invade8 hard IlIDcl in protected ar....' 

Althoush Buraalan wat.ermilfoU is spreading'.' 'rapidly in the upt)er 

part of Chelapeake. Bay. it .... to have reachecl'iblllllXim'JIII rar.ge in IIIIICb 

of the Potomac River. In fact, ill recent yeat'sltJ'b .. decreased 80mewhat in 

certain are .. , lIDcl cleQ8ity of· 8l'wth hal been ob...... d to fluctuate. !ti8 

factors caudng these reductions in growth are un1cD.owD, although salinity, 

turbidity, tidal currants, cal'J' i6fe.tation, aod "'ii1bly midge larvae 

infe.tetions may be involved. 'c' 

control ~1ments. Gr.. ·le81mpreguated1fitff'2.4-Dccmtinued to :,ive 

better contro~the otherp .. ..,. cOlllpounds. ''iId:e:is significant d_e . 

2,4-D also :ls the cheapest p~compound on the IlI8I'tcet. Accordingl,.., 

telta were made pr·imarUy with ·f..-lations of 2.~. 

'1be tlIr_ elter80f .2,4-» (bR~tball()l, 1860ec'tyl. and proPylenel1lcol 

to. butyl ether) gave almolt cClll91eu control at ..... rate of 20 pOuDda 

a.e. per acre. Under ideal situatioDB of limited watel:' movement. the 8Ill1De 

salt of 2.4-D applied at a rate of 10 pounds a.e. per acre gave similar 

results. Envirollllel!.tal conditioDB 'cIS\I&Uy did D.Otpermit maximlJllI co..trol 

,wi th amine sal ts at· low dosages. hOW8"er. Under varying condi t:l.')DB of tidal 

.movement IIDdwave actiOn. e.ters of 2.4-D gava 11IO:'&.'G.9IJs1stent control than 

did the amines. 'lbis may have bean because the DGIIiIo801ubleas tel'S havellOre 

residual effects .than the soluble a.1De salts of2i4-~ 

. Good control at high tide relAlltedfrQIII app1lOatious of esters of 2.4-D 

on l-acre pIaU. On smaller plota and friDge areu, bowever.better c')ntrol 

was obtained at low tide when the vegetationbel~' eo,contain t3herbic1de. 

Molt herbicide granules una.1n this study __ of 8 to 15 inch IllUh 

hard-baked attaelay. smaller .t&e.:were difflcultl~,u.e. Soft granulea 

gave • faster diapersal of the. eatc and a sl1g1atql faster herbicidal 

reaction thaD the ba:ked gr!lllUlu. .!be 80ft pellat.. 'bOwever, usually 

crumbled more ~ly aod, for' tb1e rauen. were llICIIl'eQifficult to uae • 

• j ..;.,..,

447 

. , , 

-. I':'V'est~a.ti

448 

'."I.e. ..0.'. 2 i4o'Dllt'1Q{Iouads .. ~..'.••....• (t:~. ':'81* .•' .~ •..• 1..~O'.·.· ... ·.'··i·-: a .' ~'~hie.itavoir.bl.·~Oitit ]"~. Jd:thea'ter. 

,.•. 1a,.·C'C8":.'.S.'~·.1.·..' 

of 

,c:.~."""1 

i~:. 

'.'.' 

.., ..... ~. ·eoagi •• ';tiolttioot., .;· •. ·•• i~:" 2'~D beuu.·.·of~.:r. 

l'Uldull1'-.u.ct",~·:BuhalaG 1~1_..' coqaT~1S1214.0!>~~'':': '.: 

=l.'~.b._.~~=.·.".: ;~."'." 

..1. ood 

..: ~....•........•... ::.= ..·-. 

t..~~.~ './.J.· •... 

. ~~.1::.•.. ~.;.' ; 

Ba1~ioD.~.·~~1 t:8'~ti~~]'t~,,; l~.•.l. 

;;:..' .. ~;'~ .,' 

.~•• C~~·::l!)';." 

Beava. a. r. 1960. wa&:ee'1li11t8n"tudf.~J~ ~\lcbe•• p.ake area. - ..'...;: 

. ~ DepattlleDt: Of .... arch aDd lClWi~OIl. Ref. No. 6O-if~' 

• III1Mo.;, 5 p. :. . ',.,,~ -;'1g . , . 

" , ','. 'r' .' . !l":~-:~;'."! :' ';:~J,:~«' 

;. """,.,, 'i "':l< .:::!. . -c. 9~~~ .',~; " 

uavell'··D;o 1961. •...... ian .. urMlfo:l.1 in Chei.aH8&··'Bay aDd thePOt~t 

River. Preseated ac':"'tbaofth8'Iitlliriftat. COllllllill1onof"~ 

the PotomacRiver Basin. 7 p. 

" • ' . .' r " :,:OC·:. ',' 

P.ttan.B.·C.,..J'r~· 1'54. DMP.te_of ..... riaD's-pec1es 'of -: ~. 

. Mrdopb,U_ .. 11.... 1.. b,~·.d~.of the in~#_ /~r 

__ .' tal'Nt:weeIl··!e";'ItiM80eli8·hm'i~.":!o spicatum 1. in:':-' 

NevJe1's8)' •. JtbodclWa: (670): 213-225'. :..~ . .' c,, 

SprlDpr, P.I'. (S~~):. ':'19J9~ 'SUBui:y oli:ltWspncy meetiq OQ,. 

Bur .. t. _teJ:aI:116;t1:. 'i,atu:.hltY:llCil'llk 'Ieaearch .Center. . ; '.! 

~. ", '1}L.:~·

FIELDOBSERVATIONS UPONESTUARINE ANIMALS EXPOSED TO2,4-D l 

2 .3 4 

G. Francis Beaven, Charles K. Rawls, Gordon~. Beckett 

''".. 

449 

ABS'l"RACT 

Oysters, crabs, clams and fish were held near the center and outside 

of one.acre tidewater plots of Hlri9phYllumfPl~tum L. during 

and after treatment with the butoX1.ethanol-ester'o,~.4:D at several 

specified rates. Mortality of the caged animals in 'reated plots and 

in controls was observed for five weeks. Examinationof native bottom 

or~isms in the plots was madeb, hFdraulic dredge aadby grabs with 

a Petersen dredge. Results indicate that applieatiOl1 at rates as 

high as 120 lbs. acid equivalent per acre are not dl.ect1y lethal 

to the caged animals. In one instance an anaerobic,eondition developed 

that was lethal to both caged and native animals. Whennormal 

aerobic conditions are maintained,tr.eatments of 3OU,. liE/Aresulted 

in no mortality to the native macro-fauna observed and did not 

kill the valuable native plants.' Groupsof animals:eiposed to the 

above treatnient are being analyzed fo~ herbicide red¢ues. I ' 

INTRODUCTION j. 

" 

,I ' 

, :1, 

The ChesapeakeBiological Laboratory of the University of MarylandNatural 

Resources Institute, in cooperation with the PatuxeatWildlife Research 

Center, the MarylandDepartmentof Ga.m$'andInland Fish. and the Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science, is engagedin a joint research programupon the 

varied aspects of invasion of the Chesapeakearea by ~sian watermilfoil 

(Myriophyllumspicatum L.). This paper,deals with preliminary observations 

of the effects upon certain native aquatic organisms that result from milfo11 

control by 2,4-D in tidal estuaries.! 

Acknowledgment and sincere appreciation is expresst4 for the help given' 

to this phase of the study by personnel of the above agencies, by the Taft 

Sanitary Engineering Laboratory, by the manycooperat1!18',shOreownersand 

marina operators in the areas where the experiments we:rliconducted,and by 

Mr. Robert Wakefield, a student of Antioch College who'bred in the field 

workduring the spring and early summer. 

': , 

(l) 

(2) 

{J} 

(4) 

Contribution No. 192 of the Nat~ral Resources Iattitute of the Uni~ 

versity of Maryland, ChesapeakeEiological LabQtAtory,Solomons,Md. 

Senior Biologist, Shellfish Investigations, ChesapeakeBiological 

Laboratory. 

Biologist II, Aquatic weedstudies, ChesapeakeBiological Laboratory. 

Biologist I, Aquatic weedstudies (nowgraduate .tudent at OklahomaState 

University). 

'

450 

OJJJCfIVES 

A major aim of the toxicolDC!aal~ttudles con4~ br.the Institute 

during 1961 has been to determine Whether or not the field application to' 

milfoil of attaclay pellets impregnated with the butoXT_ethanol_ester of 

2,4-D causes lethal effects upon species of~ommercial importance that 

occur in the Chesapeakearea. A second objective was to determine if 

herbicide residues are present lal tissues' of ·food sp.des held in experi. , 

mental plots durinc aad after treaUlent. An addit1_1objectivehas beellc 

the accumulation of"dati. concernliii,~the etfect of treatment on other 

aquatic aniJilals and plants natlvelto' the treated ar ... ~~ 

~ ,.:,X ~ -, '1 ~, 

This particular f'ormulatiOl1of a,4-Dwas Ielect4citor the study be;.;·':: 

cause ear11er research .(Beaven,1,601Steenis andStotti., 1961) had' ' 

demonstrated its etfectiveneu and apparent safet", •• used'for mllfolli 

control in local tldalareas. '1'" . fl' ;' 

rl ~ 

LOCATIONOFUPElUMENTALPLO!l'Sj I 

·i.- -"t' \ .' 'fl. 

Important commercial:fisherits!or the easte·rn-,zofster (Crassostrea 

rM:inica), the blue crab (CallipHttssapidus )ud.-ahe softshell clam 

M arenaria) occur in the saltier waters invaded bVmilfoil. For this 

reason, the primary area selected for st1,1dywall..tb.t1,lower PotomacRiver 

where these three species occur. Field trips were madein early spring 

to selectll1llfoll irifestedcreslts:ol" 'coves where onwcll. plots could be 

laid out. It wasessentia.l that [the.e be well sheUtJ!edand subjected to 

a minimumof water dispersal from:tlde and wind moveMnt. The three most 

suitable Potomactributaries meetlng·these specificatloDs were St.Patrlck 

Creek and 'Wblte Neck Creek on the Ma17landshore amULOwerMachodocCreek 

on the Virginia slde.In each of ,these, oysters aril:planted~ commercial 

crabbing and f1shlngarepracticecl taM.'beds of naUte,sottshell clams are 

present although not exploited commercially. An additional area, Dundee 

Creek near the head of the Chesapeake, was chosen for observations in 

fresh to barely brackish tidal water. ' :':; "J. 

r:,.," 

In the'potomacexperiments't~l'ee replications 9'l-itreatments were \", 

madeduring late spring at 3Ellbu:,acid equivalentdt 2.4-D per acre. 

60 Ibs. AElAandof'untreated control plots. A single plot treated at th.'~ 

rate of 120 Ibs. AE/Aand a fourth control plot .werf,lIalaolOCated in this;' 

area. These provided observations of applications, madeduring the most 

favorable period for herbicide effectiveness, at double and quadruple the 

quantity shownby'priorexperiBlen\t,(30 Ibs. AE!A):te,beaufficient for . 

good contro~. SUbsequentobse~at10's this lear (Slfenls et al 1962) have 

shownthat over large plots, 20 Iba. :AE/Acan supptijiAlillfollunder proper 

conditions of application. 

;:.;." J\'" : 

Each one-acre plot was roUBblf"square in shapeJ.-d"contained dense" 

beds of milfoil. Plots were measured with floatingpolTethylene rope and' 

corners markedby stakes set firmly in the bottom aDd projecting eight or 

more feet above the surface. Each plot was designated by a number. Average 

depth was apprOXimately3 feet with tidal fluctuations of a little

more than 2 feet. ExceptionalUdes several feet ~yond the normal ran~ 

occasionally occur. 

' 

Nosingle creek in the lower Potomachad suffIciently extensive mil. 

foil beds to accommodateall ofth~ replicated plots and provide adequate 

buffer zones betweenthem. Tbethree creeks selected were as nearly alike 

as possible but had slight differences in salinity-and in other characteristics 

of minor importance. Since it was moredesirable to replicate 

measurementsof the differences in 'mortality betw~n groups of animals etposed 

to zero, 30and f:IJLbs, AFJAof 2,4-D than tOrepl1cate identical! 

treatments, a complete series of the three treatmen~swas placed in each 

creek. Hence, plot numbersfor one each of thethfee treatments were 

chosen separately and at randomfor the individual' .creeks. The site of· 1 

the 120 Ibs. AEtAtreatment and'of a control were¢rawnfrom plots near J 

the mouthof \'lhite NeckCreek. Plots for each typ~f of treatment in the i 

low salinity habitat of DundeeCreekalso were chal$enat random. " 

WATERTElJ,FERATURE ANDSALINITY 

Collection of certain envlronmentaldata begaa·in early spring when 

the plot sites were se~ected. ~ing the period o~test-animal exposure, 

the salinity of the MarylandPotomactributariesu~ually varied between 

7 and 9 parts per thoulland, whllethat of plots in]he upper portionot 

the LowerMachodocwas ap~roximatelY two parts lo~r. salinity in Dundee 

Creek remainedwell under 1 ppt or essentially tr~~h. ThePotomacvalues 

were about twoppt below the seasonal normal tpr that area. 

j' . 

Water temperatures rose irregularly during the study period and generally 

were below seasonal normal. At the time of.herbicide application 

in the MarylandPotomactributaries (May29-June I), water temperatures 

ranged between18.5° and 21.5° C. , During the preceding week, they ran 

from one to twodegrees higher. Whenthe Machodoc:plotswere treated on 

June 7, water temperatures were unrecorded'at the time of application but 

were ranging in the low to mid.twenties as determined from parallel data. 

During the subsequent period of observation, water temperatures ranging 

up to 27.5° were recorded in the Potomacplots. 

In DundeeCreek the water temperature was l6.~o C whenherbicide was' 

applied on May20 at 5:30 A.M. Higher temperature~ had occurred at this 

location a tew days earlier and on'May21 the tem~ature was 18.5°. No 

further temperature readings"were taken in the'to%\cological study plots' 

at this location. " 

HOLDING QFExpERIMENTAL ANIMALS 

In each treatment plot, cages of experi~ental animals were placed 

near the center, about 10 ft. outside the plot boundaryand at a point 

about 200 ft. outside the plot. Oncontrol plots, animals were held near 

the center. Limitations of time and personnel did not permit replication 

of cages at each holding site. 

4.51

452 

. '!'he cages-used were tw~toot:~bes constl'llCltMlot. half-lnch mesh 

galvaniziQ hardware cloth fastened by hog rings. A hor1znnt&1 parti Hon... 

about 8 i~. above the bottom divided the cage into two compartments. 

Ropes and buoys marked the pos~t10n of each cage .~. the water. 

~ , . '':-•. . ,'., .. ~ J:-, ' '. ,; '; 

One'Or two days before herb~¢.de applica-t1on ... c~ cage in the Pot~ 

tests had 25 oysters and 5 blue crabs placedint. ~ttom compartment~ 

5 small fish in the upper sect1,Qn. In Dundee Cre.~: lQ.fish (pumpklnsee4, •. 

Lepom1sdbbosus) were used.~.e Potomac fish w~ ... mixture of pumpkin, 

seeds, whiteperch (Roccus wr4qanus) and yello~Jlerch (Perca naveseMl). 

In add1Hon sottshell ~l~s ~ere placed .lP:bread tins 6 inches .: 

in depth and fll l·25 

~ with bot toui:8011. Corners .Qf•.,8iChtin wer.efasterieci to 

ropes lea41ng to a buoy line. '.tb~~e groups of c. were placed beside 

each caeeln thtj Maryland PotOlll8.C, tributa.ries..~1al cages and trqs: , 

containing large Bl'nups of each .nlmal were plaoe4,;'fiI,t. the center of one of 

the salt water plots treated at )0 Ibs. !EVAto provide animals for resi 

·due tests. 

ANIMALMOJl'GAkITIOBSEliVATI01§ 

All .ca.gecianimals in the '~land Potomac'tii~tar1es were examined' 

daily for. the fi.rst sevendays.~ter herblc1dea~t+l~t1on. Dur1ng the 

second week they were exam1nedt'fl.ce. Exam1naU~tben were madeat . 

apprqximate ten-day1ntervals Ullto the t1me"';he~~es were removedat 

the end of five. weeks. In the MaCbodoc,on the t,\t~lnia' side, two e~ .. 

inations were madeduring the flrst week, one the second, one the third and 

the cages removedat the end of the f1fth. 

Ananaerob1C.c:ondition deve10pedin one of ~r~&> lb. treatment . 

. plots and hd~scrlbed separat~~1.·; \;lith the abovf e;t~eption, no important 

differences were observed .in mortalitiesoftest~lmals amongthe thre~ 

creeks in the Poto~ac area. Statistical analysls:Qfdata from the siml~$r 

plQtsls notwarrarited and the~e plots are groupe!:to,ether in the summary 

tha t tollows. '11 

'. OYSTERS.Nodead oysters were found in any' of th~ cages. except1~ 

tn theanaeroblcplot, during tbe.,first two week~, A,few scattered deaths 

occurred durlngtbe following thr.eweeks· that ~~~x1mate expected ~or~ 

tali ty amongsimilar oysters In thIs area. Th.1s'f@'*place both in co,",.: 

troIs and In· treatment plots e . ,! .condensed,tabu~~on, of the number of . 

oyster deaths is shownin Tabie r. ., .. 

~', 

.'

TABLE1. Responseof oysters t~ different concentrations of 2,4-D. 

Total animals 

in 4 plots 

Days 

ExPosed Control 

14 Live 100 

Dead 

24 Live 

Dead 

o 

98 

2 

3.5 Live 

Dead 2 

Total animals 

in 3 plots of 

.30 lb. MIA 

Cen- " 

ter edge ~200f 

75 75 

o 0 

7.5 7.5 

o 9 

74 73 

1 2 

7.5 

o 

Total an1ma.ls Total animals 

in 2 plot. of in 1 plot of 

60 lb," AI/} ~o lb, AELA 

Cen- .... enter 

ed9'200' teredge 200' 

so SO 50 25 2.5 25 

o o o o 0 o 

75 48 .50 50 2.5 23 

o 2 0"" 0 o 2 

7.5 47 49 50 2.5 23 

o 3 1 o o 2 

2.5 

o 

2.5 

o 

453 

~. Noclams in the containers died durtng the first weekex- I 

cept in one of the controls where nine were dead·on-the sixth day. Crabs 

were feeding upon these and attacking the remaining live clams. During 

the second weekdead clams with crabs feeding upon themwere found in all 

of the remaining plots. At the end of the second weeknone of the experimental 

clams were left • 

. Crabs have been'observed elsewhere to attaclt::and consumelive sort 

clams that are exposed above the bottom. It is theorized that in our 

plots crabs were attracted as scavengers soon after the first death occurred 

in each container of clams. Since the liv4ng clams were thinly 

covered by soil they were easily uncovered and at~cked by the scavengers. 

Crabs continued to be attracted until all clams ~re destroyed. 

CRABS.The normal morta:H.tyrate amongcaptive crabs is hIgh, es'; 

pecial!y after the first few days of conrtnenent, Furthermore, dead crabs, 

together with any that becomeinjured or that molt, are rapidly consumed 

by other crabs. and predators s~h as eels that canenter the cages. 

The large numbermissing from our cages exceededexpectations and rendered 

the numberof dead recorded, two from the controls and two from the outer 

cages, of no significance. If it can be assumedthat most of the missing 

had died, a doubtful possibility, then the numbei~of survivors gives some 

indication of the extent of mortality. For this reason, the survivors 

are summarizedin Table 2. Initial numbersare fisted since a fewcra~s 

were lost before herbicide application.

454 

TABLE2. Surv1~l of C888dcrabSi..: 

'J.', 

.' ~ 

Tota'l1lUlDber Total l1'lJIiNr Totalnumbel' Total number 

in 4p10ts, 1n J plots .rof ' 1n ,2 plots ot in 1 plot of' 

30 lb. QtA' 60 lb. WAr feelb. il/A_ 

Days Cen-c:' " Cen- ,.,,' , en. ' 

Exposed' ConttoA' tel' *e'200' tel' ed«e,p' tel' edge 200' 

o days 24 '14 14 14 9 9 '9 5 5 S 

1 day 22 1.3 12 11 9 9 8 S S S 

7 days 20' 1.3 10 .. 9 8 6 e 4 4 S 

35 days J 

. 2 .1.~t.; _ 2 4 • 2 3 5 .... 

F1na1 % 15.8 14.3 ' 35,1;;, 21.4 44,4 44t~11., 40..0 6'0.0 J,OO..Q 

FISH~ The6h1yl8,rge mortal1rY'of fish occurred. in one of the control 

cages~any of those fotUlddead appeared to have becomegil led in small 

openings or to-have, been caughtb! crabs nipping them through the horizon.. 

tal partitionot thecaie. Du1'~ItI\the first weelt,'4Il1dat two later periods, . 

holes were folUld in the top ot'se.,eral cagesthat,:perm1tted the fish to 

escape, thus accounting for most:ot' those missing.,,' Table J shows theobeo 

served fish mortalitY in the ,Potomacplots for the most significant, intetvah. 

TABLẸ3. Resp6nse off1sh (.3 speC1es) to differenit'concentrations of 2,4-:0. 

~ .:.' 

'.' 

Total number', Total number Total num1ter Total number 

,in 4 plots 1n J plots;d in 2,'plot8"c~t in 1 plot of 

, JO lb.A'E:tA:' 60 lb. AEtl" ~20 lb. AE/A 

Days Cen-:. Cen- "" en- 

Exposed Control tel' edse 200' tel' edQ 200' tel' edge ?QQ' 

1 Live 34',· 25. 24, 25 20 2(l' ,120 10 10 

'"'lu. 

f() 

":0 

Dead 0' 0 0' 0 0 0 

-, 

7 ,Live' 26 20 14", ,':21 19 19.~i6 10 9 9 

D,ad 8 0 1 

: Xl!' 

'! 4 1 l:?("~ 0 1 1 i' , 

J5 Live .17 0 2 "l2 9. 16 ,0 10 9 9 

1, 

LJ.·,' i 

Dead 17 0 1 s 6 4: ' 11 0 i 1

In the'Dundee Creek series. ,one of the f'1shdltdbefore herbicide 

application aJld Is exclUded.. Onthefil'st day aftet'lappl1caUon, all i i 

were al1ve~' Thisdseries remainedlilChecked until ~9f,aays after appl1catioil. 

whenaga,inallfish. present. wel'.',Ulve though.s everilhad escaped. Local I 

fishermen 'occasionally examined the) Cages througho'l1t f'the period and repor~ 

ed no dead fish iii them up to the 'time they were '1".'84 1n late summer. ' . 

Theyalsoneporteclthat t1shing'.sgood in theplot,trom which the herb~';;: 

cidehad. cleared the milto1l. Tnetisb caught apPe$ted ttl be normal and " 

wel'l!of excellent·"flavor. ' " 

1 '1 t j r 

.M!mOBISDmtQPMENT. The'p~e'Where anaerob conditions developediasffn'.,a;cove'containing 

veJlt'it41nseM io 1 ;~61"owth. The bottom 

wasasottmuclt ",Hh water depth'9t,4 to fee, riding upon tidal . 

stage. Rate of 2,4-D application was 60 Ibs. AE/A. ,'lEttects of the herbtl" 

cidewere well contained within th~ plot and, ast1)e mass of weeds died, it 

sank to the blJttom and was not dls»laced by current,. On the first day 

aftu :aPPl1,cat1on,all'a.nimalste~~al1ve. 1abula~ of the oyster!! isi 

shown.1nTable4. '. '" ',::- .! " • 

~: .., ~~ . .2:1,.r : 

'Days 

ExpOsed 

i. TAiLE4. CIJMRLATtVE lfBER 

OF OYSTER~ ATPLOT10 

455 

r. 

1 0 

,f 0 0 

~. ,.. 

i. 1 

5 4 j •.•.. :;O 0 

9 8 

, 0 0 

rj r 

16 16 2 0 

~ IJ 

34 . 25 2 relllffed 

Th~ 5 fish and 4 crabs present In the center '~ at the time ot application 

were alive after one day. B,rthe 5th day, 1 t~sh and 3 crabs were 

dead. On the 9th day, :3fish and all 4 crabs had.df~. One fish was alive 

on the 16th d81andnone atthe end of observationsFNo predation occurl'fi4 

lnthecenter cage but did occur:1nthe other two. )'two:fish survived to the 

34th dat in the' cageoutside theedte and 2 crabs t~\'the 16th day. . 

NATURAL FAUNANDFLORA.Numbersof fish, mostly menhaden (Brevcer~ 

tYTannis) were observed swimmil18in,the Potomac area plots both beforea 

atter treatment. ~ottom samples were taken by Peter,en dredge in early May 

and againih mid~JUne trom the trel~ment plots in tat Machodoc. These have 

been analyzed by Dr:MarVinWass of~ the Virgin1a Iri~~~ tute of Marine " 

Science. He concluded that, for these samples, thedetect10n of changes due 

to the experiment 1s ne~ted by na~ural seasonal Ch!Ulgesduril18 the long 

time interva.l' that' resulted from pO'stponementof thet's~heduled treatment. 

'. . . "( .

OnAUlUst2,3rd the1abol'f,tQr,~, researchves .. l.~equlppedwlth'a"· 

fine-mesh.ed,~ydraul1c dredge, _e transects of tIIe'::,Machodoc Plots;; ThiU 

d~vIce.t:eect1vell .".shes: outl~~"tijeQottom'ancl;'rlBgs up all matet1al~y 

thatl:1IJ1 b~reta,lned on the, t~~ghtb.""lnch.. e.,beit. The sampl1ns H 

depth ,8~t~s to)8 1nches.b8~'f:r~he bottom-wat.erillbtertace (ManniJlB,'r·!," 

1959).~ept ~ lntheeJla8J'oll"chP1&t, r1lU1erOUS s,.teeof l1v11l8clus, r[Hi 

worms, ~9-,other ,an1mals al?Pea,Md[!\o,beeq\l6llJ!.~t both within "udy' : 

outside the tres.~ed plots. M j~~~.rest in eval,.lift&'effect1nness ot·r~_e~ 

herbicIde against milfo1l wasthe evidence of extenslnk1ll1ll8 otlll~oU 

roots in the treated plots, although such roots were so abundant outside 

as to reDder oP':rllot~Qn of the,·-I\leMe verydifftcult.·:;In,theanaer,oblCAplot 

all clams "',ere d.~, ,an, ,d~e\l.P",ij'J!J!yyst1x lncheeof ,btJrOi~iIatel'laLcont&'liM:": 

none of ;the ,invertebl'a ~esthanreff'l"bundantly (pre.-". short distance oOlt. 

814.eof the:Plot bOundary~, .i"jC

workers. springer (1961) cite8& numberof references and gives values as 

low as 1 ppmfor d.amageto bluegills by the butyl:'ester. Other esters 

were less toxic and the sodiumsalt was tolerated.~,by rainbow trout at eollcentrations 

up to 112 ppm. It is thought that in somecases add1tivesand 

impurities mayaccount for muebot the observed fi,h mortalities. 

457 

Noreferences have been found that give toxicity of 2,4-D to the eastern 

oyster, the blue crab, the softshell clam or commonspecies of estuarine 

fish. The presence of inorganic'salts in seawater'may possibly a.lter the 

toxicit1 of 2,4-D compoundsto a species of fish Ill, salt water as comparedto 

the samespecies in fresh water. IA series of experiments is underwayat 

Solomonsto determine the toxictt,of the bl4tOxy ..ethanol-ester used in:ollr 

field tests upon the economically11l1portantestuat1ne, animals in both fresh 

and saltwater aquaria. 

A preliminary series of observations on cage4ranimals was madein the 

Machodocduring July and August of 1960 (Beaven, 1960). In that series. no 

lethal effects were detected upon oysters, crabs or fish at the centers of 

three plots each receiving a different formulation··of 2,4_Dat 40 lb. AE/A. 

A fourth formulation at 20 IbsoAE/A, however, killed all animals in the 

cl18e. These tests all were madeduring higher walter temperatures than In 

1961 and with plants moremature. Milfoil control was poor. In the plet 

where the animals died, the treatment produced little noticeable kill of 

milfoil and anaerobic conditionfwere not a factor. It was postulated that 

toxic impurities in the formulation caused the observed animal losses. 

In late June of 1961 an adlH.honal one.acre treatment of JOIbs. Af./A 

and a control were placed in the LowerMachodoc.lData from these are not 

included in the preceding tables since they were not directly comparable to 

the others' due to the later appl1tation. Fifty d*1s after treatment, all 

oysters in both plots were aUTe, 2 crabs survivelin the treatment co.red 

with 0 in the control, and 8 fish survived the treatment comparedwith 9 in 

the control. 

.~ 

Although data for crabs are 'weak, the resuQt~of the studies to date 

indicate that the formulation of 2,4-D used, whenapplied in a similar manner 

at concentrations of JOlbs.AEVA or less, does not·directly cause a sl8hlfi 

,cant .mortality amongthe econeetc.'forms exposed, iner amongthe observed!. 

native bottom fauna. 

A serious threat, howevel',·til oysters, clams-:and other bottom org!llAisms 

'is evident in treated areas~en large mats of decomposingmilfoil remain 

upon the bottom. Parallel kills. 'of native fish. Cl' crabs maynot occur !in a 

small plot, even though those caged in the anaerobic plot did die. As free 

swimmers,these animals can moveout of locally unfavorable areas and it is 

noteworthy that, though liVing abundantly in surrounding water, no native 

fish or crabs were found as dead specimens in the plot. However,if dense 

milfoil beds over an entire creek are killed, with subsequent anaerobic development, 

it is possible that a heavy mortality of fish and crabs in it 

mayfollow. 

.

458 

Th~ anaerob1c condlUon obstrved probably flas(tugely con:t'1nedtl)'

OBSERVATIONSONTHE OCCURRENCE' ANDPERSISTEN

460 

deteJ'lnined by a modification .~.: the 4-amino.~tipyrine colorlm~t'ic 

method (2). Analyses forphe~ol were made iJIl.o.rder to asoertain 

the background level of these naturally oocurring compounds fr~ 

decaying vegetation and to oq~~~t the 2,4-DOf data. The 2,4-0· 

was determined by a modified bhromotropie a~~ color1metrio 

method (3). '\ 

Materials 

. . . ..-.. , -; , ;. " , ':t ,,~ 

The granular formulatiori,QeOntained 20 p,tr oent by weight.oid 

equivalent of the 1-so-octylest,er of 2,1.L-dh~oropbenoxyaoeticiaoid. 

This material was added at tnlil rate of 20 po~s of the acid .. 

equivalent peraore or at theo,oncentration~ll.34 mg/l. This, 

formulati.on was f.oupd also to contain 0.65milgram of 2,4-DCP or. 

a ooncentration of ~.36 ug/lln the lake. " , 

Table I shows the chemicaf quality of ti1~.lake water. just I . 

before addition of ~he 2,4-D.· The high pH value of 9.4 was attlr1.buted 

to a tributary,cl[lrrying dra~nag~ from ,a l1~e,~one quarry. The 

bicar.bonate, (.to.~&l).alkal1nit.y·.... _.nd thoe tota ..l..fha.r..dne sa were. of , 

low to medium conoen..trationlil.,,' the color v~+ e or 20 is fair1Y 

low for surface waters. Or8~ni~ matter was ,.asured indireotll 

th%'oush: the ohlorin$demand an-¢oB.O.D. analy~s. The valuesai'. 

0.4 mS/1 ,.ana. I. 3.5 mg. /1, r.espect.i. ".el Y, indioa.,t.!E.. ,mall amounts ot, 

organio matter. ,The natural or background '.~~'hold odor numb.~ 

of 2 was~ulte low and was qual1tativeJ,y IdeD~ltied as "earthY"i 

or "musty'. Small, insignificant amount s 01"_'interfering sub- : 

stanoes were repo;oted as 2,4-D epd phenol. lfo2,4-DCP was ' 

detected prior to herbicide t!'$atment." I 

Results 

No significant eftects on the chemical characteristics ot pH, 

total l;1ardness, and total alkalinity (Table It bY' the 2,4-D weI'$ 

observed th%'oughout a samplintp~riod ot 70 ~.1s •. LikeWise, th~re 

were no signifioant devlations.tromthe orig~'al values tor colpr, 

chlorine demand, B.O.D. and d113i!Jolved oxygen'.~ These latter 

analyses were made primarllytl)\observe any slIeondary etfects 

on water quality by decaying vegetation. Apparently the release 

of organio matter was too slow to register an appreoiable effect. 

The threshold odor number remained at the value o~ 2 throughout 

the sampling period'.,!lhe slS1'lticancecf thi. oboorvElt!on is . 

discussed later in the paper. ' I' 

Table II shows the oocurrence and perslstenceot 2,4-D, 

2,4-DCP, ..andphenol atvarioue t.1meinterval.a....up ..to 132 days •. 

The maximum conoentration ot 2,4~D, 49.5 ug/l~ was observed 

13 days atter treatment whereupon there wu a'"gradual decrease I 

to 13.0 ug/l atter 132 days .'J:'!?-ese data shQ~, :1:h.at very 11 ttle 

2,4-D was detected in the "r:ree~rlowing" portion ot the lake 

despite the fact that the he~btcide was appli.~ at the concentration 

ot 1.34 nig/l. .• " ':,'

461 

TABLE! 

Chemical Water QuaU1?::rof Rockawa::F:PaiPkLake (a) 

Analyses 

pH 

Total Alkalinity 

Total Hardness 

Color 

Chlorine Demand(c) 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand(d) 

Temperature OF 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Threshold Odor Number 

2,4-DCP 

Phenol 

2,4-D 

9.4 

4?5 mg/l as cac0 3 

54.5 mg/l as CaC03 

20 color units 

0.40 mg/l as C1 2 

3.5 ms71as 02 

73 . 

119.5 %saturation 

2 

0.0 

9.0 usll as phenol 

8.0 ug!l as 2,4-D 

(a) sample taken 6/27/61 and analyzed 6/28/61 

(b) average of four samples 

(c) contact time = 15 min., chlorine residual (OT)= 0.1 mg/l 

(d) 5-day, 200C, B.O.D. 

The ~,4-DCP exhibited the same patternpf' occurrence and 

persistence as2,4-D in Table II, but at lel~er. concentrations'. 

There appeared to be a slight increase of 2t~-PCP to the 10-11 

ug/l range after 70' days •. A spot check f'orf,l2,4--DCP was made at 

132 days where the concentration was observe~ to be 13 ug/l. A 

very low level,. 5.0-15.0 ug/l, of tlbackgrol.U1dl'phenols were 

observed.' 

Discussion 

The use of 2,4-D as an aquatic herbic1~,~ releases 2,4 

dichloropneno1 as an impurity 'from the CO~.OOlia1 formulation. 

A oaloulated oonoentration o'f' 4.36 ug/l 2,4~ in the lake 

would have resulted from the g:r-anules of 2,!tt.:Dused in this. 

study. The possibility also exists that th;B ~h10rinated 

phenol would be released asan'intermediater;biologloal 

degradation produot of 2,4-D •. There is s o~ eVjidence to 

support this statement from a preliminary report on the 

effect of some aquatic herbic~des on water Cjua1ity (6) and 

f'rom a study of' 2,4-D degradation 

, .. by so11 rtLt;croorganisms (5).

462 

Ooout't'enoe 

TABLEII 

chlot'onhenol, 

~ 

Be1'ot'e ( a) 

1 hout' 

2 days 

13 " 

22 " 

27 " 

48 " 

55 " 

70 " 

132 "(b) 

(a) June 27, 1961 

(b) Novembet' 16, 1961 

Dete!'minat1on.~verage 01' Four Sampling 'Areas 

2,4-D 2,4-DCP Phenol 

~ . ug/l uBIl . 

0.0 

1.0 

3.0 

2.0 

.5 

2.0 

0.0 

11.3 

10.5 

13.0 

()\ 

.. :..J,. .' 

Th~ 1~~a1s 01' 2,4-DCP shown in Table II oan be oompared 

with threshold taste and odor oonoentrations reported by But'ttsohell 

et al (4). These investigators 1'ound that1;M'major ohlorination 

produot. >$".otP.heii6 ...1~. (C6H5.OH).we. Jo .... ~ ?-ehlorophe.nbl,. q.-ohloropheno i".' 

2,6-dlohlvrophenQl, 2.4-diol:).lprppnenol and 2,4.o-triohlorophen I' 

01' these 1'ive cbmpo~ds. the ,~~OP. 2.4-Dcp.~nd 2.6-DCP were " 

1'ound to be. the major' taste~M odor produoEl~~'.' Threshold i' 

taste aRd odo:rcbncentrat1o~u~,C?f' these 1'1ve'cw,lor1nated 

phenols a~e 'g1veri1n TaolerfI. 

The odor level 01' Rockaway Park lake water was not af'1'eoll"il., 

by the observed concentrations of' 2.4-DCP in Table II since th, 

threshold:value of'2 re~il'j.eit:\,r;()nstant thro. 70 days of' . 

examination •. A'. 81'0.t ,checkwEl.S;.~adefor thEt ~yp1cal medicinal' 

taste .andodorof'chlQrina~eq'MenoJ,s at 1:32.:ldays since a concentration 

of' 13.0 ulzll of 2,'.4o:..n.CPwas f'ounq}.,41,'Nomedicinal 

taste or' odo'r .w.as,,o.bserre.d." .... ,.¢h .... ·.ese dat.a ~re.,.J1n.··.g.eneral agreement 

With Buzwttschel). ,sinc~t~, concentraticmsot2.4-DCP did 

not sign1ticantIyexceed tho~e'~equlred tQ·~ar11a taste OP 

to raise the thre'shold odor level. . . . 

.,-,"" i 

, .... . ,f 

2, 4_D~~q:~:mo~~e~~~\;tw;~t,tror:~dQi3~edrYf.d i~;~e u~'~ao;er4! 

not verified by subsequent analysis and, therefore, were not 

considered valid.

TABLEIII 

Threshold Taste and Odor Concentration ot Various Phenolic' , 

Compounds(a) ! 

Component Geometric Mean Threshold-ug/l 

~ ~ 

Phenol 

2-CP 

4-cp 

2,h.-DCP 

2,6-DCP 

2,4,6!~TCP 

-,..1000 

4 

"'1000 

8 

2 

"'1000 

(a) a~ter Burttschell e~ ~l (4) 

7 1000 

2 

250 

2 

3 

~1000 

The data also indicate th~t any 2,4-DCPpresent in a lake 

treated with 2,4-D would be there primarily'~san impurity ~roin 

the ~ormulation. There is no evidence from this study to 

suggest that,an appreciable oonoentration 0~'2,4-DCP would 

arise ~rom the biological degradation o~ 2,4--D. I~ 2,4-DCP 

is an intermediate degradation product, then apparently it 

decomposes at about the same rate as 2,4-D. 

The data also show that2,4-D does not Persist ~or any 

appreciable length o~ time. This compound apparently reaches 

its peak concentration soon a~ter application whereupon it , 

decreases to levels that reach ~ sensitivity o~ the analytical 

method. In addition, very small amounts o~ 2,4-D, 13-50 ug/l, , 

were detected in the "~ree ~lowing" portion o~ the lake that . 

came ~rom the initial 1.34 mg/l dosage. ThIs'may be an empirioal 

reason why, in this particular study, the degradation o~ small 

amounts o~ 2.4-D is not a signi~icant source o~ 2.4-DCP. 

This study, perhaps, presents a more realistic picture of 

the occurrence and persistence o~ 2,4-DCP in a 2,4-D- treated , 

lake than the carboy study reported here last'year (6). At ' 

that time, there was evidence that 2,4-DCP oouurred and 

persisted at levels high enough to produce taetes and odors 

according to the data o~ Burttschell. Since this investigation 

was limited to one lake and one type o~ ~ormulation, however, 

additional ~ield studies are needed to show tme.'e~fect o~ 

various concentrations of 2,4-Dand of other types of formulations 

on taste and odor water quality. The previous carboy study 

showed that the ooncentir-atn orr iot' 2,4-DCP impur,i ty varied considerably 

with type and concentration of ~ormulation (6). The

464 

pOBsib,i11 ty ,also eXists, tha,,t,',"O,8,O&,Yi, n,8' a"qu,,~,1,c ,vegeta tionmaYi,J 

release2,4-~DCP as a metabol~!f)

(1.1-) Burttschell, R.H. , et al., "Chlorine Derivatives of 

Phenol Causing Taste and Odor", J. Amer. Water 1Mks. Assn., 51, 

205 (1959). 

(5) Audus, L.J., "The Decomposition of 2,4-D and 2 

Methyl, 4 Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid i~ the Soil", J. Sci. Food Agr., 

J, 268 (19$2). . 

(6) Faust, S.D., Tucker, R.J., Aly, 0.>}4., "A Preliminary', 

Report on the Ef'f'ect of' Some Aquatic Herbicides on Water Qualit1", 

Proe. of' the N.E. Weed Gontrpl Conf., Vol. 12, 546 (1961). 

465

466 

Seed and seedling to~e~ance of lawn.~asses to 

certain ~~ass herbicidea! 

E. J. Rice and C. R. SkOgle~2 

'" Several herbi'cides will seiectively control crabgrass when applied i{ 

stands of established turfgrass prior to the germination of the crabgrass,seed. 

The degree of injury to established grasses has been quite well determine~ . . 

under \llanyconditions;.· Very little knOWledgeis avaUableregarding the action 

.'of most cra.bgrass herbicides whenappUed to the son p:Hor to seeding turf .. 

grasses or when applied to iJJJnature grasses. 

There are many instances when it would be desirable to treat soils before 

seeding, at the time of seeding or shortly after seeding. This study was undertaken 

in an effort to determine, under one set of conditions, how long residues, 

toxic to certain perennial grasses, remained in the 80il. A second purpose was 

to ascertain the length of time necessary between seeding and treating with certain 

herbiCides at various rates. 

Materials 

and Methods 

The test plots were located on a soil that is classed as Bridgehampton 

sil t loam. A productive, well-drained soil, it had been fallowed for two 

seasons prior to 1961. Fifty pounds of ground limestone and 25 pounds of an 

8-6-2 grade fertilizer per 1000 square feet were added to the soil during the 

seedbed preparation on June 21, 1961. 

Nine chemicals, most of them at two or more rates of application, were in 

Cluded in the test. An untreated check was maintained for comparison purposes. 

The chemicals, formulations, and rates at which they were applied can be found 

in table I. 

All chemicals were applied to each of three grasses - Merion Kentucky 

bluegrass (~ praten,is), Astoria colonial bent (Agrostis ~) and Chewing's 

fescue (Festuca ~. The bluegrass was seeded at the rate of two pounds per 

1000 square feet, the fescue at 5 pounds and the bentgrass at one pound. 

Each block or replication consisted of one 28-foot strip, 66 feet long, 

for each of the three grasses. Each 28-foot strip of grass was divided into 

7 4-foot widths through the entire 66 foot length. These 4-foot plots were 

treated or seeded, the fUll length, at each treatment interval. The 66-foot 

length was divided into 22 3-foot Widths, each of which received different 

chemical treatments. Thus, each individual plot size was 3- by-4 feet, and 

there were 462 plots in each of the 3 blocks. 

Chemicals were applied according to the following plan: 

lContribution No. 1050 of the Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station. 

2Graduate Assistant and Associate Professor of Agronomy,respectively.

Code 

A - seeded June 29 

B - seeded June 29 

C - seeded June 29 

D - soil treated June 29· 

E - so11 treated June '29 

F - soil treated June 29 

G - soil treated June 29 

treated 2 week~'later 7/12/61 

treated 4 weeks later 7/28/61 

treated 9 weeks,later 8/30/61 

. seeded - same d~y 6/29/61 

seeded 2 wee~s Jat,r 7/12/61 

seeded 4 week,SJater 7/28/61 

'seeded 9 week$~ater 8/30/61 

The test,area was irrigated fre~ntly throughout the season to assure adequate 

moisture for germination and'gtowth of the gi~ses. The grasses were cut 

at a height of 1 1/2 inches as need~' following esta,plishment. Clippings were 

removed when they were excessive.' 

' 

Those plots seeded 2, 4 or 9 weeks after the solI was treated were hoed and 

raked 1ightl y prior to each seeding date. This most"ce~tainl y caused some mixing 

of the chemical with the soil. It was necessary~however, to remove annual 

weeds and to loosen the so11 surf8~e to prepare a sa~isfactory seed bed. In all 

cases seed was spread with a mechanical spreader. Chemicals were weighed or 

measured in amounts required to treat individual 3-~~ foot plots with the'ex~ 

ception of treatments 20 and 21. These chemicals were applied with a mechanical 

spreader .• DrY.formUlations were mixe.dwith one Pint,.~ef dry sand and applied by 

hand. The liquids were added to one pint of water ('1't>0gal s/A) and applied with 

a hand spra~r at 30 pounds pressure. r' 

Grass response to chemical treatment or treatmeQ~ interval was determined 

by comparing the growth of grass on the treated plot, with that on the checks. 

Assuming that, inmost cases, the stl!nd and vigor of,fihe grass on the untreated 

plots to be 100 percent the grass on'the treated was~scored from 0 to 100 percent. 

The scoring was done from 2 to 4 weeks follow~ng treatment. This depended 

on the length of time required for the slowes1;.grass to attain sufficient 

growth to be properly scored. ' 

Twoor three suosequent read'1ngs were taken dur~~9 the season to determine 

whether the initial injury was of a temporary or pe~ent nature. 

ReSUlts and Discussion 

Table I presents the average 'turf ,scores, based 'ondensity and vigor, of 

the three grasses when seeciing was done at various in'l;ervals following the'application 

of the herbicides to the S()~l. The averag~,;turf scores on the th1'ee 

grasses receiving treatment at va~i()us intervals aft~ seeding are given in 

table II. These scores are forttie'first readings ta,~en on each plot. 

The scores for each grass at ea~h interval were~ubjected to analysis' Gf 

variance and the least significant difference at the ~ percent level was ob-' 

tained. This information is also given,in tables I .~ II. 

, With only a few exceptions chemical treatment re$ulted in some reduction 

~ in stand or vigor of the grasses. ',There are a few general observations that 

can be stated regarding the results obtained in this study. 

467

468 

First, soil treatment within a few weeks prior to seeding grasses was more 

risky than application to young, established grasse •• Injury was greater when 

treating the soils and seeding~.~ later than when seeding and treating 

:am-.u. later. ,. - 

Second, four-week old turfwas'more toleram; of,.chemical treatment, in 

general, .than wastwo-week old 'turf.. This trend dMLnot continue through the 

9th week. ,For some reason the~~ui:tant injury wal,-greater, in general, on 

the turf treated 9 weeks after,s!ted~ng than on yQlll)le%'turf. One possible explanation 

,would be the weather condItions on or following the treatment d~te. 

The growing conditions on August ~O\:h were consid.$ly less favorable than, on 

July 12 or 28. The fescue and, ~oa lesser extent,i!the bentgrass wereno~ 

growing as rapidly, or exhibitiil,9 a.Shealthy an aPJ)Ul'ance in late August as 

they did during July. It would appear that gr,pwin9'~onditions at the time of 

treatment, as well as age of the young plant, are important considerations in 

timing herbicide applications. .' . 

Third, although chemical tr.a~nt often thin~ or delayed the initial 

stand of g1'88S, ePloughplants ofteo'remained in hea!thy condition to eventually 

give satisfactory stands of turf. -tables III and. ~ contain the turf rat:f,l'Igs 

taken at the end of the trial 1n m:tl:l-betober. -COIlIPU'isonsof the turf scores 

between tables land III and II andr-J will clearly,lNu this out. 

The treatments that did nots!9J'!ificantly lowel';the turf score are shown 

in tables I and· II. Whenthe soil was treated at, ~prior to, seeding only 41 

treatments out of a total of 240 failed to significantly reduce the turf s~ore. 

Twenty-one of these 41 treatments were associatedw1th the use of calciumJ)%'0pyl 

arsonate and the combination ofca1c~um propyl and 'flcium methyl arsonate..-. 

Diphenatrile and the light rate :of ~ndane plus Chl~ane accounted for over 

half of the other treatments that did not significantly lower the turf scOre. 

In table II there are 91 out of, a total of 189 vestments that did not' 

show a significant reduction in turf score. This wo.lfldindicate that there is 

less injury associated with foliar applications of the chemicals used than with 

soil treatments at or before seedin9~ Only triflura11~was unsafe to all grasses 

at all rates and dates of application. As is shownQll the table, certain rates 

of all other materials appeared safe to one or more grasses at one or more time 

intervals. Diphenatrile, Bandane, Bandane plUS Chlo!dane, Dacthal Gl.5 SY, and 

the combination of calcium propyl and calcium methyl arsonates appeared to.be 

relatively safe, to use at certain .rates or times." ' 

Two trends which appeared duril'l~. the test are a. interest. First, the 

grasses with the largest seed were l~jured the least.~rom soil treatment with 

chemicals. Injury was greatest tobentgrass, blue~s was intermediate 'and 

fescue was injured the least. . , ' . 

Second, when treating grasses ~(ter seeding, thet !time interval required 

for safety depends somewhat on the, ra:t;e of establ1shrnef\1t.. Bluegrass is slaw to 

establish and was injured more frequehtly when treated two weeks after seeding 

than was the bent or fescue. At later treatment dat .. ;the blue was the most, ~ 

tolerant of the herbicides, bent W$s':totermediate and~f.scue was the most au'- 

ceptible to injury~ , "

SUIIIIJ~, ~ Conclusions 5' 

469 

The following chemicals at the.cre rates indie.ted were applied to the 

soil at seeding, 2, 4, and 9 weeks prior to seeding;'and 2, 4, and 9 weeks after 

seeding. three different turfgrasses: trifluralin (N,N-di-n-propyl-2,6~dinitro-4-trifluoromethylaniline) 

at 2 ~ 4 Ibs., Dip~QRalin (N,N-di-n-propyl-2,6 

dinitro-4-methylanlline) at 2, 4 and 8 Ibs , , Diphennrile (diphenylacetonitrile) 

at 30 Ibs., Bandane (polychlorodieyclopentadiene isomer) at 20 and 40 lbs., 75% 

Bandane plus 2~ Chlordane at 20, ~Oand 40 Ibs., Qacthal (dimethyl ester of 

tetra chloroterephthalic acid) at 10 and 20 Ibs., Daethal SY (experimental compound) 

at 10 Ibs., calcium propyl arsonate at 40 lbs~ and a combination af calcium 

propyl and calcium methyl arsonates at 50 ibs, . 

Merion Kentucky bluegrass,Astoria colonial ~grass and Chewing's fescue 

were the grasses used. The first treatments and seedings were made on June 29 

and the last ones on August 30. Turf scores based on density and vigor of· stand 

were taken c;Iuringthe season. The· a~rage scores Qnj'all treatments are given 

for two complete readings. 

Based on the results obtained under the conditi~ns of this study the following 

conclusions are made: 

1. Calcium propyl arsonate ancI·combinations of'·calcium propyl and calcium 

methyl arsonates, when applied to the soil at or prior to seeding certain 

lawngrasses, do not appreciably interfere with germination and growth of 

those grasses. 

2. Nine weeks after soil treatment with Diphenatrile it is safe to seed 

Merion Kentucky bluegrass, Astoria Colonial bentgrass and Chewing's fescue. 

3. In general, soil treatments with herbicides prior to seeding turfgrasses 

are more apt to result in injury than are the same treatments made after 

seed germination. 

4. Dipropalin, Diphenatrile, Bandane, Bandane~hlordane combinations, 

Dacthal ~Y and combinations of calcium propyl and calcium methyl arsonates, 

at certain rates, may be safely applied to 4~ek old stands of turfgrass. 

~ , .. . 

5. Bandane, the arsonates al'ldDiphenatrile appeared to be the leastphytotoxic 

to the turfgrasses. . 

AcknOWledgment 

Appreciation is extended to the Velsicol Chemical Company,Eli Lilly and 

Company,DiamondAlkali Companyand t6 AmchemProducts, Inc. for support in 

conducting this research.

I. Average tUrf scores- of three grasses seeded at intervals after the application of herbicides to. the 

seedbed: first observations. 

~ 

Triflura1in 2.0 

Trif1uralin • 2.0 

Dipropalin 2.0 



Diphenatrile 11.5 

Bandane (E.C.) 4#/9al. 

Bandane (E.C.)., ~,4#lgiJ,t 

Bandane (Verm.l .' 7.5'; 

Bandane (Verm.)· 7.~ 

,:c 

Bandane (Clay) '.' 7.5 

Bandane (Clay 7.5 

Bandane & Chlordane 10.0 

Bandane &Chlordane 10.0 

Bandane & Chlordane ulO.O 

Dactha1 2.3 

Dactha1 .' ,2.3, 

Dacthal "~ '!'., ~~ S;l.!f 

Calcium methy1arsonate '*'.'6.0 

~. c, 

Calcium propyl arsonate '18.0 

Calcium propyl arsonate 12.5 

Check 

tSO/5% 

2 

4 

2 

4 

8 

30 

20 

40 

20; 

40 

20 

4(, 

20 

30 

40 

10 

20:· 

10.. t'c 

50 

'40 

o 

o 

17 

17 

3 

20 

7 

3 

:.37 

~20 

63 

40 

63 

47 

33 

3 

, ,,3 

~:t7 

80 

13 

100 

17 

3 . 10 

o 3 

27 50 

23 43 

7 23 

30 63 

13,. 27 

3 23 

50, 57 

m ?37 

57 60 

27 47 

67 77* 

33 

23 

57 

. 53 

20 43 

~'.-: .~ 

fb ':)it7 

77* 87* 

90* 83* 

'100 93 

24 20 

3 

o 

20 

20 

3 

57 

50 

:30 

33 

'27 

63 

37 

57 

37 

27 

1'0 

•. 0..3 

,,', °0 

7 40 

o 17 

30 70 

13 63 

27 60 

43 83* 

50 73 

~ .60 

4b ~·,·73, 

2~ . i1' 

63Ti 

40 63 

70 83* 

47 73 

33 60 

33' '67. 

l~ "Qn 

9'-'-~ 

.93* 96*c93* 

97* 97* 90* 

97 90 100 

16 26 19 

3 7 17 17 

o 0 10 7 

20 30,73 53 

13 7 53 30 

o 3 17 7 

57 87* ~7* 83* 

43.~ 77* 77 

.io 2,32i iC\" 

:3l!- 43,63 

'13:'~ 

17 17, 33·· 27" 

40 6083 67' 

20 17 23 3 

77* 53 90* 77 

40 43 60 57 

17 ,'23 37 33" 

o -2043 30 

;i,-. '.- ~,_- :.+~ :', ~...l -' .:..... :-~ 

::' 

.~. h ,~ 

.j) ::.) "'-+ ...' '--: 

u 

83* 

n 

100 

20 

20 

10 

60 

20 

20 

90* 

~ 

23 

7.'D 

Xl 

70. 

33 

93* 

70 

4-7 

41 

1& 

13 

97* 

97* 

97 

23 

43 

20 

77* 

73* 

40 

93* 

90* 

67 

80* 

57 

73* 

53 

80* 

67 

63 

73* 

30 

40 

83* 

97* 

90 

21 

l

III. Average turf scores l' of three grasses seeded at intervals after -the application of herbicides to the 

seedbed: final observations. 

.r:- 

~ 

Lbs, active Saine time 2 wks. later 4 wks. later 9 wks.Tater 

Chemical % act. Per acre Bent Blue Fes. 2 Bent Blue Fes. Bent Blue Fes. Bent Blue Fes. 

frifluralin 2.0 2 27 27 33 3 7 13 10 20 37 17 20 63 

frifluralin 2.0 4 20 7 10 0 0 7 7 3 17 7 7 20 

Dipropalin '2.0 2 83 80 83 67 80 83 70 63 90 50 77 93 

Dipropalin 2.0 4 63 70 80 37 37 57 40 23 87 27 20 87 

Dipropalin 2.0 8 43 67 63 7 13 33 3 13 33 10 13 57 

Diphenatrile 11.5 30 80 87 73 77 83 90 97 100 83 90 10 90 

Bandane (E.C.) 4#/gal. 20 70 70 47 73 87 77 90 90 80 77 60 90 

Bandana (E..C.) , 4#/gal. 40 40 37 30 33 37 ~37 50 53 60 33 33 77 

Bandane .(Vem.) 7.5 20 87 100 90 73 93 80 90 90 77 73'10 8? 

Bandane (Yerm.) 7.5 40 93 83 80 67 60 67 63 53 50 30 30 70 

Bandane (Clay) 7.5 20 90 97 90 87 97 90 93 90 87 73 80 80 

Bandane (Clay) 7.5 40 87 90 73 73 67 47 57 50 40 33 50 73 

Bandane & Chlordane 10.0 20 100 97 60 100 93 93 100 97 87 83 87 77 



Dactbal 2.3 10 50 80 80 33 77 73 17 53 67 37 47 87 

~- 2.3 20;( 40 

, ,- :4'3 3Q' 10 67 :40 )-~ 1$" 27 ~'(- 7' '·1'1 2? 

Dacthal 1,'5 10 40 50 33 10 40 40 3 2~ 47 7 f7 41 

:alcium methyl arsonate + 6.0 

;alcium propyl arsonate 18.0 50 97 100 93 100 100 87 100 100 93 93 93 93 

:aicium propyl arsonate 12.5 40 100 97 90 100 100 83 93 97 90 83 90 97 

:heck - - 90 100 90 93 97 93 100 100 97 93 100 93 

score = visual observation- of turf -density with 0 being bare ground to 100 being optimun density. 

= A~toria colonial bentgrass, Blue = Merion Kentucky bluegrass, Fes , ::Chewing's fescue. 

l (

93 

( 

( 

e IV. Average turf scores l of three grasses treated with herbicides at intervals after seeding: final 

observations. 

Treated Treated Treated 

Lbs. active 2 wkS. later 4wks,' later 9 wks. later 

Chemical % act. Peracre Bent Blue res. 2 Bent Blue Fest Bent Blue Fes. 

Trifluralin 2.0 2 57 83, 57 43 60 0 50 47 13 

Trifluralin 2.0 4 10 53 13 17 40 0 23 50 '0 

Dipropalin 2.0 2 93 93 93 83 100 77 97 100 83 

Dipropalin 2.0 4 87 97 80 63 90 43 63 87 67 

Dipropalin 2.0 8 70 97 80 53 77 13 77 73 30 

Diphenatrile 11.5 30 83 100 70 77 97 70 83 100 87 

Bandane (E.C.) 4#/gal. 20 87 93 63. 100 93 ~3- .- 100 97 ,'~, 

Band-ane(E.C.) 4#/ga1. 40' 70 'SO 20 ·83 ,17 ,5Q', &J;' '87 ,50 

...... 

Baraane (VerDI.) 7.5 '20 ~ 10(> : 83 '90- ;93 Q3.,' .' laG . ~OO sO 

Bandane (Verm.) 7.5 40 97 93 67 83 87 20 93 97 60 

Bandane (Clay) 7.5 20 100 100 83 93 100 50 97 100 83 

Bandane (Clay) 7.5 40 100 97 67 90 87 17 93 100 63 

Bandane &Chlordane 10.0 20 93 100 80 97 100 67 93 100 87 

Bandane &Chlordane 10.0 30 90 100 90 97 100 53 100 100 83 

Bandane &Chlordane 10.0 40 100 100 77 ~ ~ a 100 100 77 

Dacthal 2.3 10 73 lQE) _,37 ., ~" .:100 - 21,: c 83 ':',97 70 

Dac~l 2.3 ..:,20 ii> f~ ;~3, .~~90 \.;;;.13 t; o~ w ~,~ 10 5-~' o~ ~, ~ aO'S-loo C!lIi 

..,1.~,~ 

Dactba1 1.5 , 51 n '17";" '61; ""90 13' ~ 77 '97 '60 

Dacthal Gl.5 SY 1.5 20 80 '93 ""33 . 77" 93 17" 93 . 100 '"83' 

Calcium methyl arsonate + 6.0 

Calcium propyl arsonate 18.0 50 100 100 90 100 100 73 100 100 47 

Calcium propyl arsonate 12.5 40 93 97 60 100 93 43 67 87 10 

Check - - 93 100 93 97 100 97 87 97 100 

f score =visual observation of turf density with 0 being bare ground to 100 being optimum den~ity. 

t =Astoria colonial bentgrass, Blue =MElrlonKEmtuckybluegrass, Fes , =Chewing's fescue; 

~'~:.1 . , ';..., ;7 

"1 ~ ",; I'·; t~~ ~i.~·,-~ ..-," 

. ~ ,-.-.......;....;- 

,., . 

~I' '.' 

~ 

'...:J 

'-'>

474 

PIft'J'OTOXICBlFBQTS'QJe'CBRTAINpp ..~ 

cRAlGRASs CONTROL'!W'l'MtNTS O"NsUDtn.c TtlRP 

QlASSBS 

.w. B. CbappeJ.~~. a, B. SctDiclt-i!J 

VirSida Asdcultval BxperiMnt Station 

Bl",,~.i .Virslni. :j ~ 

(', 

Four ·turfar..... that are sauerally grown in V1rslnia w.te chosen tOr 

this .tudy. ;They weI'. Merion bluqra8l. cr •• pins ncl fescue. coaDOD·bemicla. 

aDd s•• e1cl~ "nt. .The.. in obj841~ ,."a' to fiDd o~t,.*, .•,.._Uins plante of :the•• 

speei •• vera isusceptibl.' to cert.La- cbeaica1e tut, tltdshown ptOllis. of OROtrol1ina 

cnbar." wben applied as pre .... rg.nc. applic.tion.. S 

• -", . ). J' • ) ··1

\....-. 

BENTGRASS- TREATANDSEED 

g;!: 

Treatment A. Lilly L-36352 2% 4#/A 

II 

B. 2'1. &IF/A 

C. " L-35455 2'%. 4tH/A 

II 

D.· " 2% &IF/A 

E. AmchemNo Crab 20% 431/A 

F. Chlordane 60% ~A' 

G. Bandane 7.5% 2OO/A 

H. " 7.5% 4OO/A 

I. 

II 

311gal. 20iJi*' 

II 

J. 40fFlA 

K. ~ytron 8% lS/FlA 

L. D,actha1 2.5% lOO/A 

M. Dipheny1 acetonitrile 11.5% 4I/A 

N. Check 

475 

Treated - May 1. 1961 

Seeded - 1.- 5/7/61 

2 - 6/14/61 

3 • 715/61 

4 - 7/19/61 

5 - 8/2./41 

Chemical Treatment - Density l-All dead 

10-viBorous plants 

B I A K H D N G F L M ICE 

5.20 5.47 5.535.67 6.27 6.80 7.00 7.27 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.47 7.73 7.73 

--------------------* 

TUDeof seeding - Density ,,).~U dead 

'-lO"lVigorous plants 

7119 

5.98 

8/2 

6.21 

5/11 

6.62 

715 

6.86 

6/~ 

8.0:1 

BENTGRASS- SEEDANDTREAT 

Seeded - May 24• .1961 

'Treated- 1 - 6/11/61 

2 - 7/4161 

3 - 7/18/61 

4 - 8/1/61 

Chemical Treatment • Density 

1-All dead 

lo-Yigorous plants 

B A K G J D N FMC E H I L 

6.25 7.88 7.88 8.63 8.163 8.15 8.15 8.88 8.88 9100 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00. 

"--' * Figues underscored by a continuous line are not s1pificantly different.

476 

MERIONBLUEGBASS• T!BATANDsgD 

(lh 

T1me of ".d108 averyes • not s:l.8!lifKaot en 

Chemical Trea_Dts 

Not s:l.&nificantly different.. \ 

,I 

a:..:~ . ;:~ 

Triated - May I, 196] 

$edH - 1 - 5/20/61 

" ' 2 .. 6/17/61 

"l- 3 ~ 7/10/61 

4 .. 7/24/61 

Seeding 

dates 

6/17 

3.76 

5/20 

4.83 

7/10 

5.26 

7/24 

6.14 

1-Dead bluegrass 

lo-Ytsorous bluegrass 

'.I ';' ' 

BENTGRASS• SIBD ANDTREAT 

Chemical 

TreatllleD~' - Dendty 

S"ded. May24, '196:£:::·: 

lWeated • 1 - 6/22/61 

7/15/61 

1/21/61 

8/8/61' 

B A K D T C I H I L. G F N M 

1.75 4.63 5.88 6.38 7.25 1.38 7'~~ 7.50 7.63 7.1i 8.00 8.13 8.13 8.25 

,,>•. , 'S" , 

Seed!Ba Date!'':' 'PWttl - Not s1p:l.f:l.saot 

. :1J J~

FESCUE• SEEDANDTREAT 

"'1' 

'~d - May 24, 1961 

~eated • 1 - 6/26/61 

7/17/61 . 

7/31/61 

8/14/61 

477 

Chemical Treatment • Density • 10~{6J 

1Q/"100% 

1!"Dead plants 

B A KD L MJ F E ~ N I G H 

2.67 4.00 5.75 6.00 6.42 6.42 6.67 6.83 6.92 7:08 7.42 7.50 7.58 7.92 

Treatment Dates • Pensity 

7/31 

5.90 

8/14 

5.90 

6/26 

6.83 

7/17 

6.83 

ladead plants 

10-100% 

BEI'.MUDA - TREATAND SEED 

Treatment 

A. Zytron 

B. Dactha1 

C. Cal. Prep. Ars. 

D. Btmdane 

E. Dlpheny1 acetonitrile 

F. Lilly L-35455 

G. Check 

8.0% 

2.5% 

20.0% 

7.5% 

11.5% 

2.0% 

Treated - June 30, 1961 

Seeded - 1 • 7/15/61 

2 • 7/29/61 

3 - 8/10/61 

4 - 8/24/61 

1S#/A 

101/A 

43#/A 

201/A 

4#/A 

4I/A 

Treatment 

• Density 

FAD E B G C 

2.75 3.67 4.67 4.75 9.83 6.00 6.75 

1-Dead grass 

10-100% 

Seeding date 

8/24 

.. ..:? 

- density 

7/15 

I. .,..: 

8/10 7/29 

1"'

478 

In general. the treatments applied before sMdi_ resulted in more':, 

injury to the &'Nss'el than did thole which were steeled first and then treated. 

This could be ~cted slnce most seminating seed are usually killed e.. 11y 

in the pres8ace of IIOst herbicid.s. Poor ItandS of SUIS in the treat aDd 

seed plots can be partially attributed to weather oonditions at the time of 

seeding. Abetter technique would have been to treat at different detes aad 

leed all plots at one time. 

.:L .. 

Under the oonditions prevailing tn these experiments • the .dipropalin 

ceused considuable injury to bent, fescue, and bl_srass seedlings. 'rbi' 

wal true ~n the pre-seeding aDd po.t-seeding appl~tions. As ~ndica~ by 

the data. t~ere W8I little eff.c~ o~ the other tr.~s on srass stands. 

. . .; ~ . ., ;:'. ,-. . . 

!'rom thes.studies it appears that seedins p-alSes are not advere1ey 

affected by the'more cllDIOnly weed·lJre __ rseac. et:llbp'a31 control treatll8llts 

if they are three weeks old 01'1101'8. On the otberUDd, s.&dins SOOD after 

application may not be sclv1sabl.~ . - 

", ... 

.\

479 

'!HEEFFECTOJ1"CERTAINPREEMEqNCE 

CHEMICALSONGRASS~ATION ANDSFlElllLINGRASSES 

"f),' 1 

J. M. Mch, B. R. Flem1Bg, A. E. Dudeck ~ G. J., Shoop 

. The objectives of thj,s lJ:twiywere to de~m;ine the effect of 

several preemergence chemicals on seedlings of tht'ee major turfgrass 

species 'Whenapplied at varying intervals followiq Beeding, and their· 

effect on the germ1llation of tbeee: grasses 'WheneNded at varying intervals 

following applica tiona :.'} 

Mater:Lals ~ Methods 

This stud;r was conduo~~ at University~k, Pennsylvania on 

HagerstownsUt loam soU with a pH of 6.3 and med:lumlevels of avaUable 

phosp.orous and potash. Initiation of the study was delayed until 

la te spring due to inclement weather. The area was trea ted with hot 

methyl bromide at 1.2 pounds per 100 square feet in late May 1961, 

following root zone tillage, to eliminate any undClSired plants during 

the growing seaSal. Prior to ~J, seedbed prePQJlltian, 45 1bs. of 

10-5-5 (70% ureaform and 30% act;tvated sludge ni~en) per M was 

applied. 

Turf was maintained at lilt height of clIt, throughout the season 

with all clippings removed. Irrigation was a:flllied for establishme~t 

and maintenance, however, the turf: was allowed t,,,..mowmoisture stress 

prior to maintexumce watering to a:llow any possib:J;, trea1ment effects to 

be expressed. 

Post-emergence Test. On June 20, 1961 cOnunOnKentucky bluegrass, 

creeping red fescue and Astoria bent mre"eded in individual 

3 x 63 foot adjacent strips at 2, 4 and 1 pound p~ M, respectively. 

Three foot sod strips were placed parallel to eacl;l(series of seeded strips 

to facilitate mulch removal, irription, etc. ~:experimental design ""'s 

a triple replicated randomized block with trea1m~t dates, grass species, 

and chemical trea1ments the respective factors. 

Chemical trea1ments lIilI'f awlied in J,x9 foot strips perpendicular 

to the grass strips resu1~ in 3 x 3 foot 1a'eatments an each grass 

species. Treatments were madeqat 6, 38, 69 and 190 da,ys following seedimg. 

Preemergence Test. '1he'above chemicalt.reatments were applied 

at similar rates ana piOtSizes toa prepared seedbed on June 26. All plots 

were mulched w:1,th,first-cut fo~ge at approximate~ 100 pounds per M to 

assimilate a turf cover condition.nd to, preventllflJterial movement and 

exposure to light. The three grass species were Meded at 0, 32, 63 and' 93 

1 Assistant Professor; Instruotor and Graduata J\.msistants, respectively. 

Agrono~ Department, Pennsy1vania State University.

4BJ 

days follow:lng the ohemical treatment. Except At the first seeding date 

which was made with the chemio6ltreatment, eaoh.tWbsequent seeding date 

was handled in the following' manneI'I mulch was removed, seed applied, 

covered with'sterili.eed soil, :rolled to tim, l'eo4'everedwith mulch and 

watered. MuJ.chwas finally removed on the basis of control plot germination. 

'rteatmente. Six oherid.cals were involved in both the pre- and 

post-emergenoe studY' at rates 1teted in Tables ];~iand 2. Bandana (po;qohlorodioyclopentadiene 

ismers witb'60-62% chlordane );.s, emulsion concentration 

and on attapuJ:gite t No-Crab(caloium prowl ar8~teh Dacthal WP'(dl\illtth.vl 

ester of tetrachloroterephthalio acid), U-4513W'~N~ N-dimethyl-il.x ..d1;phenyl 

acetamide), Zytron emulsion (~(Z, 4-dichloro~) O-methyl isopropylphosphoramidothioate) 

J and D1~trile (diph~oetonitrile) • 

L1qU1dformulations.~:appliEld with a)plot sprayer at 35 psi and 

90 gp8,Dry IIftlterlals were

substantially until after 69 elvs. The 100 day _tment reduced stand of 

all species by' 20.30 percent with continued discoJlin'ation 50 days after 

application. 

f 

481 

ztirfiili showed the longest residuaJ. effeJi on grass germination 

from comple ibi tion at the 0 day treatment to;ja maximumof 30 percent 

on bluegrass after 93 days. Bent germination· was completely inhibited for 

0, 32, and 63 day treatments and only 8 percent showed following 93 day 

treatment. Seedling stand redu(lt1on was complete tor all species aj:; 6 days, 

60·90 percent reduction at 38daye and 20-40 percaot reduction follcnJing 69 

and 100 day treatments. The latter treatment continued to show discoloration 

50 days after app1ication~ .:: 

Di~natrile showed the greatestspeciea:.'differential effect for 

both ge:rmii'ia on ana stand. At 0 date bluegrass and bent were greatly inhipi 

ted, followed by' a sharp increase at 32, 63 and 93 day treatments which 

ranged from 67 to 98 percent. Fescue emerged at 80 percent at 0 day t;reatment 

and ranged from 87 to 98peroent for following three treatment dates. 

Bluegrass, bent and fescue stands were reduced 88;--58 and 40 percent, 

respectively, at 6 day treatment, 2-15 percent at J.8 days and showed no 

stand reduction for the following two treatment daities. 

Under moisture stress, no treatments we~ observed to show possible 

root reduction except for severely injured plots where all plant parts 

appeared to be affected, even -at optimum moisture.:< 

Oonclusions 

The effects of preemergence crabgrass ohemicals on the germination 

and seedUng stand of bluegrass, fescue and Q.itnt were studied. Differential 

species effect was found with certain materials on both inhibition 

ot gemination and, seedling tw:'f.In all instanoltii injury was correlated 

with age of seedlings, but with varying effect. Provided that acceptable 

levels of orabgrass oontrol can be aohieved, cer~ materials appear to 

show promise for situations requiring use on seedllng turf and at periods 

following seeding, 

o· 

t •

') 

') 

' :_B!.ue~s•. Fescue au:l~"I;.~ at O~ 32. 63 and 93 

_.. , ..Tab1Q.1.·•..• ~.. ~t,-Ge~1;;i.~~.••~... 

j'QUow.i.ng~-caJ..pPUcati.on. Data Re~'30 ~ After Seeding 

: ;':-DrQi 

Materi.a1 

Bandana EC 20 a.i./,. 7 90 95 100 

Ban,dane lCI 40.a.i./A 0 ~82 82 9? 

WaneRf4Jf.c;s: io:'ri~1.ii J; ~ C' "s! §.,B6?'..f3 

BA.1:ldAnAlttap. 

No-Crab 

DactbaJ.-W 

u-$JJ W,;! ;:_~., :' ;' ~~ a.1~7A'~;.,;. ., tl 4 4~' ~ 

~on EO": - , :~ 15~a.i.ti· ",; '~ 0 5 30 

Dipbena tril.e 

Rate 

40 a.i./A 

5~ 

10 a.i./A 

30 a.i./A 

o 32 63 22 

24 S7 72 83 

94· 96 93 100 

6 S2 87 77 

1 78 88 95 

..E.E§J.22 

38 92 92 100 

22 80' 8-3 72 

i: 

r; ..... 

{... r , L; 

~10 

_.c 

ft+' B7 c 95 

48 55 68' 85 

91' 93 96 100 

24 43 70 63 

~O~: .}' 37c 67 

r~ .._' ~'. '.. ..' (: 

c: (; 

:0 ). J!f 15 

80 87 88 98 

°E2l21 

2 83 9S 100 

o 72 80 88 

52 78 78 95 

8 57 72 87 

82 9S 97 100 

o 12 4 15 

o 13 77 87 

o 0 0 8 

2 67 85 98 

* Based enIK'lnt:ro1p10t g~~., 

E'J 

to ..:t

~ 

1;ab~, 2•.. FexQeDt ~tle.,.•... , ¥l.,".. S~,: of ~. 

' ~. 1::'.:~ _ Ben 

...t ~~.": . 

• 10~, 38, $, 'and l80 ~ At1lielt':~ Da.~~ 30 J:)qsc c r: 

. h1.1 0 

Cr. Red Fescue 

No. of Days 

---- 

6 38 69 100 

38 18 4· 0 

8t J~ J3 i.i.~ 

1725 0 ·0 

Astoria Bent . 

No. of,Daya 

.2....~ §i.•..• ie2 

80 22 6 0···· 

;.~: . :'f,'t 

: SiP~~J3 ' ~ ,; d" ~ 

..... l t; en 

t"--~! e- ~ •.. 

":ij~33 ' ~ .. 0';, 

Bandane Att&p. 

No-Crab. 

J)IIc~ w 

1J-bSIJW" 

Zytron 

Be 

40 a.4/A 

5/K 

10a~, 

2.S~ 

15 a.i./A 

60 13 0 0 

1 10 0 0 

t3,,:?:!.3, 0 

··100 2S 15' 20** 

100 60 20 20** 

35 27 0 0 

12 22 0 0 

~. 2'57 13 ;, ~2 

100 c~ J5"~ 

100 87 40 3s-* 

67 23 O' 0 

1 1() 0 0 

.::~_80 ,~;, J", 

~.:65 ;~ ~:. 3oJ. 

100 90 25 20** 

Dipben1:ir:Ue 

30 a.i./A 

88 10 0 0 

40 J5 0 0 

58 2 o 0 

* Based QIl ccmtra1 pl.o~ 8~d. 

** ShcN:l.JwvariabJ.e degreq of disco1aratli.cm atter SOtllqB. 

) 

)

:". ',J 

P~E~ C!',. 

O~.C~G~S 'F.~HEMICAJ.Sl 

.€I~. T'~ll~ J.t-~nd}. ~dd4Pat~2 . 

Several chelillc* ~~e ~Pl"'d ~~ t~rf a~ea~s In:'~rder to· determine their 

effectlYene.1 for pr. •• m~'rle4h..... bgr •• s control. • seda:of plots was 

l~ out in 1960 and a s.con~I.~.1 in 1961. 

')Procedure in 196'0: .:~ f:j 8" • ,., 'J 

,~ .' ttll'Q "- q C1 .,"',~ u :';.: 

! ;'; Seven tle--X1iencei cra1Jgrau c.ontrbl a.Kale wer~:tested in 1960 

wifh,'th. followinl& ~.C$;tvet- {\)Pre.~r8.nc:k·eo~rol of ;:~bgrau _ .u; 

(21. ~eir effeetlv.nel. under oetural precip{~atlbD and irri,-tlon; and (3) 

T'hei~ effectivenesa at different fertility levels. • 

>,:~p~ot8i~ere •• tabUlhed on fairway turf w~ict!; contained a ~avy infe.tation 

of~~~r"'fln ..~.5~t J,he ,~~t.~~ch~et~. ~lf Cours,~ The per· 

ma~tjgr.,s.. conliated mainly of blu.gras. (Poa praten.e). i~ermixed with 

a ~itl,~ ~~t ~!b~ ~ro~1t:::Ja1~tr~.) ~d ,~.e,. (Fe.tuc~~ rubra) . 

~ ;~ ;~' 'H,.UJc~ ~ th~ ha~lc~es,wer~1 c~r~ in five 'blocks. E.ch 

bl:~fi.On.rf&d Cit 24. 4'xlO plot.. Treatm.ntl 'ware repUcat~ three time. 

W't~~~~.c ~J blo~1 z: " 0 o ,::. :::~ i(~ r: ~ 

,.'-j i~.l ~ M )'" 

.l::l_-8 

'--I The pKof the test ar .. 1 was 6.0. ','Fo,* blocks recei~d 50 pound. 

ot:1-a1"'10-10 fertlliser per 1.000 Iq.ft. The fifth block rec!fved no lime 

or;f.f4tr~;i1izer in either 1960 or 1961. f;,. 

\. -t' " I " ,.j 

;:'i;,g ~l~ ch"i~1..;'re-';p,He4bn April: l4;ia 'I'bth years at rates recom· 

mettdtet;by tJ::hlf r~"rc:.Uve,JII8IUJ,f.c~re~. ,AU ,~ry",~tltdients 

cl~~. co~~i .aiI . fOr .... of .'Prading;' Lt~uid' tri&tmantl 

were mixed with 

weI'. appU.d with 

a ~paac,\;~ra~,f·,..;j, c: ,':0' ,'-i .:~. 

,C t' '" :.' ..' 

" -;'i ~Ga. ,~rbicidea which lbow.d promisina control of crabgrase in 

1~60were igain ~tp~ad"o bf,O o..c. 

~ ")Resulta in 1960: 

_.~ :i:. 

the. fi,ve b~'j)c~j in,.1961. 

,=" B.c.ua~ Iof, the insipd.fleant d1ffe.qanc~ batw•• n the fertiUs.d 

v"aua th ....,l\GU.£.,ttt1ael plal jed ~t",~ntJ1e ... t.1 pr.cipitation verlUI 

ir.rigatior{~ptots. re.u1ts obt.ined from the 5 b10cka h.v. be.n combin.d .nd 

ata 8hownln.)T.~. ~~ :~~ (;~; fj ~: '.~.; i< c' 

•••• • ';~.f';;J._ ._~_. _•• _~._._ •••••••• _ •• _• • • ~_•• _.: •• • • • ••• _. ••• ._ 

1. Contr"~loQo .--1334 of ~ u..ivaHity, o(,;lIa... chuletts. College of 

Agricu&t.r._ Exp.riment St.tlon. Amher.t. Ha•• schuI.tta. 

+, Z:~~ './ {/ 

2. Assi.tant PiOfa.ior~ancf'In.i'r:uctor .'DepAl:t.t Of Agronomy. University of 

Hauachue.tts. Amherat. H.... chu•• tt.." ,"

.10 t 

TABLEI. Pre·emer •• nca Control of Crabgrass with Chemicals 

, , Amherst, Ma... 1960 

*Eatiaate ~ Control 

Ulrbi;idl. BlCI.of.6DD1£;IClog. •••6ua••1960••••••• ~ 

Dacthal 

2S lbs/2S00 sq.ft. 99 

Zytron, Dry 

6 lbl/1OOO sq.ft. 98 

Arsenical complex 20 lbs/1OOO aq.ft. 63 

FHA 

7 pinta/acre 27 

Calcium &rsanate 

Zytron. Emulsion 

12 lbs/1OOO .~.ft. 

10 gal/acri " 

73 

99 

Chlordane 

80 lbs actual/acre 89 

Check 

watar 0 

* Percent control basad 00 average estimatad by 

3 individuals. 

'{', 

Procedure 1961: 

In 19~1 two of the five'bioeks were re~tr•• t*4W'ith 4 chemicala' 

which were most effective in cOfttrolflng crabgrasl i. q1960. 

To detemine 

r the residual .ffect of the fo" chemicals. 2 of the' 5 

blocks were left untreated. The fifth block waa see. with viable crabgr'" 

seed and not re·treated with chemicals. This was daDe to obtain a truer 

picture of residual effects. 

All ch~icals were appl't.,a'at the same rat •• ali in 1960. Result' 1!r$ 

shown in tables 2, 3. and 4. " 

Resu1tl in 1961: 

TABLEII. Crabgrall Control in Plota Retreated in 1961 

Eatlmate 

iltbl;l~l. IICI.gt.6»»ll;lt£gO i.QQotEQ1. 

Dacthal 

Zytron(granular) 

Calcium arsenate 

Chlordane 

Check 

2S lbs/2S00 sq.ft'. 

6 lbe/1000 aq;ft. 

12 lbe/10OO aq.ft. 

80 lbs. actu*l/acre 

watel" 

95 

99 

99 

" 97 

(, 0 

,.•, 

i 

"'I 

TABLEIII. Residual Effects 

Bexbic1da. 

Dacthal 

Zytron (granular) 

Arsenical complex 

FHA 

Calcium areeDlt. 

Zytron Emulsion 

in P1~~"ot Retreated 1D(,1~1 

Sathlate 

, ~~J:Ol~ 

16 

2 

15, 

1 

'(:' , 53 

!'j 41 

:1' ",

Lima and ferd'1izer applications showed little effect on 1:ta.-ir .nil 

effectiveness of vadoul heJ;'bicid... r "r. ",. 

4S6 

TABLEIV. Re.idual Effect on Crabarass Seeded Plot. Rot Retreated in 1961 

Herbicide jH ;',". J,' "l'".,,):.t~l'. '( 

------------ ,.' "':'I;..!.~•• ggottgl_ ... 

Decthal 

Zytron (granular) .. 

Arsenical complex 

Calcium ar.enate 

PMA 

Zytron Emulsion 

Chlordane 

Procedure: 

..........• - . , 

: \ sdJ 

:" '1 "ldJY 

,. i.a.l;q 

\ Bdl' 

J:.sV I 

t-d.l. I ~. I 

17 

46 

18 

39 

11 

69 

63 

{c,:·, . 

~ Li, .. :" 

, .;~ ~1.f·· 

Several new introduction. a.well as those chemicals which had 

controlled crabgrass satisfactorily in tbe 1960 trial. were used. A,~r~.~ 

of plot. 4'xlO' were set up with tbree replication.. The established turf· ' 

consisted, of ~w;lq. ~uesral'. U~... J:r~v~.l.h) 1 0 ~lltll'''' (,Aa:ro.ti.palustris) I 

and .omeryegra6l(Loll,UIl spp.)~.t;i~;ar.. was be.:VJlNll:nfested With :~r..b~~' .• 

The sol1 was • sandy loam. Pertilber was applied totbe area in the fair of 

1960 and again: i~ t~!,sping o~ ~~~ll" The ch~~"'.~~9,e~, applied at ~e 

manufacturer-nc ... nde~.;r&te•• on"A.trj.114,.196Lj·T ,I,.: ,.,.,,; e,: 

(iJli.l 

,f!'" 

Relults: • r.:t ',-, 'j 

! i..> .nlr" t 

TABU V. EffecU.,.p •• O~ 're ..~~pn,~.; Crablra .... ~.rol. C".. icall 

Amher"t~"Mass. . 19'61' ""'-~';.' . 

• 1" 'i' . ,f ql 

Herbicides* Lbs. Active 

loarl4ieotLi;rt 

:,"'Jj;,'; 

Dacth.l (Swift), 10 

Zytron, Dry (Dow) i':: :r' 15 

Calcium arsenate (Linck) .... . 4U: 

Calcium IIrsenate (Linck.) 8~6' 

Calcium arsenate (Linck)123~' 

Chlordane . 80', 

Diphenylacetonitrl1 (Connco) 2eL4' 

Diphenylacetonitrl1 (Alldco) ...2,5.4 

Calc1U1l1propyl arsonate (AzilChem) . Jl3.S 

U 4513 (Upjohn) . . 2.0 

\'dI (.~. 

i .'

BxceUentcrebgraes COM.1 was obtalned'lKl:h Bactha1 and giatiifhr 

Zytron ln 1960 and also In 1961.'" , I 

Ch1ol'dane,.at 80 IbsiacMr rate. gave SObel!C:oiltrol 1111960arid: 

excellent contl'Oltb 1961. ,! ' },;.(; 

.f\j I i ~} :,' .. 

CalctUIII a'r.enate gave.fab control in botlli 1960 and 1961. ; AU"~a 

treated ln' 1960ilndre-treatad :tIl,'1961 indicate. excellent control in 196\'~ 

Good and· excellent· control wer.) obtdned by doubU.** aad tripling the t" 

reco_dad rate 'of applicatiOWl fot:' this chemicd:.'l':t! '." 

v),:): 

lneffective. 

FHA. wIlich 11 not r~oaed for 

' ,'T,' 

pre-e~*ftce control. was 'j 

" ;'1;, 

The u.eR1cal compleX'fpl.e poor control;'!lo' 

ZytroR emulsion gave ·e.callent control ia J t 960 . but it also 8e"'rely 

injured the desirable grasses. Zytron M2025 which~.used in 1961 gav~ 

excellent control of crabgrau ;"','4id not injure 'file desirable gras.e~~J 

Dipheny1acetonitrU geve excellent control at the higher rat.eof 

application (28.4 tbs> per acre)'. lCalcium ptopyl'~odateand Upjohnptoduct 

U4513 were ineffective e. pre-emat .. nce crabgra8s'i1njrs. Grase'in pl'ots 

treated,with U451~ ap~ared stunted two weeks after treatment. Five weeks 

after the date of. application. the turf in these plots was severely injured 

and did,not recover. 

Atealtreated with eft"~Ca1c1um arsenate. Zytron emulsion. or 

Chlordane 1n 1960'aadnot re-t~~ in 1961 had the, lowest re-infestation 

of crabgra... 'lbe apparentreli«~ control of t~ chemicals could have; 

come about by' control of new seed Which may have come into these areas or' 

possibly by.agreater kill oLthe eid.st1ng seed in 1960. The fact that 

some degree of control was found 01t.1the plots which were hand seeded wit~ : 

crabgrass indicatel the possibillt"of some carryover of these chemlea~." 

from the 1960 to t.he 1961 season. ( 'I ' 

''J 

{; 

4S7 

.;inq; 

, 1 

hH'l 

: 1~-:r~q

4es 

1'.o~~1ty, ", .ewf!r''''rsenc. oz.. ...... AC1.U.utQ\,!!!IBe.:LcCh'aue. 

. ' .. J. Troll, J. zaJc, and D. Wadcl1Jll.t_ l . . . ; '1O'~'1 

Sev.-raJ.:;pT~~JlCe crab.,"" .killers we~! ,,111ld .to pUN " 

.tand. of nine well .stablished ,ra.' species. The JIb:t1; type·".. ; '.'r! '1: j 

Sudbury fine, .andy loam having a pH of 5.5. Th. c~icals were 

apPl~d.at .t~ r.c:.aa 'r8cpumenc11l4;bIb,the I18nufac.... :rad, in two 

ca,.", a~; lldjij,tlQllJljl'&t8.. AppU$JItiOIlll were:__ .' April 27, 1961;. Yu,,·,) 

The plots ,,,.r. 

i 

thf"· '-QHHloted:P81iCllllically to noCle'.' ti£l coloration CI1l.:; t!,: 

other eigns of injury. Herbiclcl ... ,l'ate' of .pp·U..cLOD, and l'e.ulta '8",,0,.' 

li.ted in table 1. 

U45lJ. ,inJ~rJAl:.ll, ap.c18.~.. tH. ·At; fiut,t.,.Uectaof . 

this chemical stunted Sl'owth, but oolol' wes normal. After fifteen ; ,··ql},;.· 

daya, the stunted plants started to die with very little recovery. 

In this, as well aa in another .... r1... at, tbil.~a1w"·1118ffect1ve 

in controlling crab~aas. 

Chlo~d'll. ·.&D4Aip~.llYlae.to.l"U did not. cau.t. abtervable damage 

to anyo~ t~.'F'",stl.tr.ated.· . " . . ;"ea,,';,:' .•vt u: '1.' 

InJ"'*~"8aQ4:cI~"dol'8t1or&.,"... d by chlllllica1''1~llber thanU4513 I"l 

weI'. notlastins. . 

; . ':~',;',,'~ 'J i':" ~l',: ".,\)-"'~.,!.. i.:rjr.,,- I 

'''i,,'l'ab~''tf'~o;' _«8(:,t,O£. he Crab8l'a.l,ao.c1fol Ch_ica!Slr,,,i::{ v l" 

,on ~t.1;Il~a~TvfQra' ,.t Alllbern,Ma ... h1l.. tts, ,1961, ;'1 E.li:,: 

,'il ;~.;9·" 'c' .b9Ji'.".:I' .., ..... ". ~:~.,jll···j 

." lr,J .v: , .'1 tir";'" $.., I ".N"l'r." : 

.t~ ~e~g .... ';,r)r 

.... 

~- .U.diJ~L",; .. 

Q"al8~ ~ Jlal!t !f,'!) 

Rid Dal1tha S S r,) 

Zytron-:q~ ,. '. S S S 'C ,il 2 

., .. 1'1< 'J~",) 

Dll118t.:f.C,c..~ .. ,I.~i " 

",J aI',1 

Dimet ,J'.~P'+'i'!' .~ , " 

,'eoeB '8 .;.:d,·.... 

.,'.~ .Hi'S S H S S8 8,,:1 ,:;n" 

Dimet P.C.C.+ - Linck 

Chlordane 

Dlphenyl.cetonitril - Corenco 

Diphenylacetonitrl1 -,Alr100 

Calcium propyl ar.onate - AmChem 

U 4513 

U 

Extent of injury 1. indicated by S 

*Supplied by designated compan1e. 

1. Contrlbut:l.on No. 1335 of the University of Ha.. aobusetts, CoU.ge of 

Agriculture, Experiment Station, Amherst, Hasl.chusetts. 

2. As.1.tant Profes.or. and Inltructor, Department of Asrono~, University 

of Hasl.chu.ett., Alllber.t, Ha•• achu.ett •• 

1 

'.'

Pre-emergence Crabgrass Control 

A number of chemicals are now !lva.11able for the pre-emergence controlof 

crabgrass (Dig te~ ischaemum, 12.;.sanguinalis). This paper reports the 

results of our 19g1 trials in which ocemercf.al, f'ormuJ.ations of sevendif-· 

ferent chemicals were observed for their effectiveness in the pre-emergence 

control of crabgrass. 

MA.TERIAUlAND METHODS 

The experimental plots ,,'erelocated at the Cornell Turfgrass Research 

~lots, Nassau County Park, East. Hempstead, Long Ioland. 

Two separate areas were selected for these trials. one area, designated 

"poor turf," consisted of a thin stand of native bentgrass and loed. 

fescue and was selected because of its reliability of crabgrass infestat:tbn. 

'i.'he experimental design was a complete randomized block with seven treat':' 

ments in quadruplicate on 7 x 7' plots. Four plots served as checks. ~ 

area was fertilized following application of the chem1caJ.s excep-t; for plots 

tre,ated with the arsenical-fertilizer formuJ.ation (Pax). All the chemicals 

were watered in. 

The second area, designated "established turf," consisted of a unifqtm 

and dense stand of Kentuclty bluegrass, red fescue, and bentgrass. Little 

crabgrass was present in this area in 1960 even though a heavy infestation 

(70'f"crabgrass) had occurred in 1959. In order to provide conditions more 

favorable for the development of crabgrass within this area, it was subjet 

to a rather severe renovation treatment prior to the application of the . 

chemicals. Th€l area was clipped at a height of approximately t inch. , 

Several passes were made over the area with a Henderson Thin-Cut set So the 

blades cut into the soil approximately t inch. The pre-emergence crabgr8lSs 

control materials were then applied and watered in. The experimental des'Jign 

was a complete randomized block with eleven treatments in triplicate on . 

7 x 7' plots. Seven plots served as checks. The turf was maintained at·..' 

approximately 1 inch, well fertilized and adequately irrigated. 

The materials were applied on March 29) 1961. All of the chemiCals', 

were in granular formuJ.ations and were broadcast by hand without a.iluent. 

REO'ULTSANDDISCUSSION 

The materials 'Used, rates of application, percentage crabgrass control 

and turf injury ratings are found in Table 1. 

1 Assistant Professor wld Professor of Ornamental HortiCUlture, respectively, 

Cornell Univer~ity, Ithaca, New York.

} ) 

Table 1. Besu):ta.Qf 1961 pre-emergence ~s con~ trtals':Q()rneU ....assau COunty Park Turigrass 1 

~1ication: March 29, 1961 Ii1jury ratings: _ 31, 1961 Control ratings: July 25, 1961 

Plots: 7 x 7' Established turf: 3 replications Poor turf: 4 replications 

Proprietary material Acti ve ingr~ent 

1. Chip-~' 'grtmular calcium arsenate 

';) . 

;~l .(1 

2. Halts 

3. Pax 

4. Bo'-Crab 

'5· .Agt'1cp~grass 

"~.roi -, 

6. Rid 

7. Dow Crabgrass 

Killer 

Percentcra'Qgrass in check 

ch1~ ~i reie.teei~CBIIP01J!fI'f~ '~ 0' .. , 

d1P~llearsenical 

calcium 

propyl 

dacthaJ. 

zytron 

cOJllPOU1lds 

ar80nate 

Pounds of 

Formulation!M 

15 

~6/ 

20 

5 

10 

10 

~ 

, 10 

20 

B 

16 

Established turf Poor t1l 

'.J 1 Injury 2 ~ 

Control Ratings Control 

99 100 96 

.\. "_. -r-.,~ ..." '.-1 

• ; ~< 

~ '; o.o .Ell 

95 1.0 71 

2 0.0 25 

2l 0.0 

40 0.0 69 

87 ~.3 -- 

100 0.0 98 

100 1·7 

96 0.7 99 

100 2.0 -- 

I 

'90 

0 

0" 

-:t 

l. 

2. 

Percent crabgrass cont'ro1 calculated on the basil3 of' averagenulliber of plants per square foot in ·chec 

at the time of estimating; average of' 9 l;lamp1es,_3 o~e square foot samples per replicate. 

TUrf injury ratings: O-none; 1-slight; 2-modera'tej3'-severe; 4-comp1ete }till. 

3· Percent control based on estimates of percent crabgrass in checks at time of estimating.

Crabgrass Control and Turf InjUry'·- Established ''l\irf 

i~. 

ZiY'tron (Dow Crabgrass Killer) and dacthal (Rid) gave 96%and 100% control) 

respectively. When double the recommended rate was used, 100%control 

was obtained with both materials. However, 8'l1ght to moderate turf 

injury occurred when these rates Were used (zytrolt' caused some thinning of 

the turf at the normal rate ofappl1cation). 'l\u'(;:1njury, in this case, ' 

was expressed by the failure of the red fescue and'bentgrass populations to 

fully recover following the pre-application thinnfUei and mowing treatments. 

491 

The same materials used in experimental triaJ,.s on establisHed turf 

were also used in the pre-emer~nce crabgrass cort~ol trials on poor turf. 

The results were similar to that which occurred on 'established turf, although 

in some cesea, the reduction in crabgrass populations was not as great. The 

most notable exel!1Ples of this were ,With chlordane-{Halts) and with the t 

arsenical-fertilizer formula.tion (Pax). Crabgrass control with chlordane 

was reduced from 91%in established turf to 61%in the poor turf areas, with 

a similar decrease (95%to 7l'{o) observed for the e..rselilical-fertilizer fQ1'IIlUlation 

(Pax). Calcium propyl arsonate (No-Crab) tUid diphenatrile (Agrico 

crabgrass control) gave n greater crabgrass control, than that found in

492 

corresponding plots on este.bl1~4~,. but were ~~ll not .o.s effectiveaa 

the other materiaJ.s included in thei!le triaJ.s. 

Another point t1;lat is feltd)~;:ieof SUfficient~:¢t to be reported 

here is tha.t when the annuaJ. sr$BN began to devel~ in the poor turf area, 

it was obs~rved thEtt approx1mo.1;G~;LOi of the gro.s.were that of corn- . 

grass, Pan1CU1l1d:l.chotcu1flor:um.· '~s is an annual JfRlecies of grass that, 

OJ.th~not cOIDIIIQn, 1.s apparent~ t'oundas 0. lo.~ ~a. iJl some areas on '. 

Long I,sland. This was first b~;t, to our attant* severnl years ago quring 

post-emergence crabgrass control trials at our research plots (3). 

zvtron anddacthaJ, gave excellentcpntrol of this ~ srass (m).Cnlchm 

arsenate, however, did not appear to be effe:ct~ve end the FanicUlll continued 

to develop.wi1;hin the13e plot. even thoughc~ass control was excellent 

• It appears, ·there:t'ore,.t~ cal,oium arse~ ,10 mqre selective. in 

its toxicity to tho various -SPftc~s.·of annuaJ. gr~8e~ ~e.n either qtronor 

dacthaJ.. ~is ~ ~an :U/i)Ortrmt consideration ill ,~as where Panicum 

species are 0. problem. It should be emphasized th~,:the8e are only one 

years observations. 

NOtutf' inJlri:y- ratings couldb.mado for BDYofthe chemicals within 

this area becwse of the lack of Ilutticient st-ands Orthe desirable grasses 

to make accUrate ratings. , , 

Under the conditions of thes,e trials, a ll\IlI1ber"~1;he pre-emergence. 

crabsrass. control chemicals gave soQd cOlXtrol ot ~sto.ss. ~ron and .' 

dacthal continued to givc excellent. crabgrass cont~~ (96to 100%)althoUgh 

slight to moderate turf injury was noted. Turf inJul-y by these materiaJ.s 

was confined to red fescue and bell:l;.p-.asswith nOI\lli~ent injury to Kentucq 

bluegrass. , Calcium arsenate was ',~so effective 111,~rolling crabgrass. 

(96to 99il. Chlordane and .the ars~icaJ.-fertllizel fOrmulation gave goo9., 

control of crabgrass on established:. turf althoush ~ degree of control ~ 

reduced in ,trials on poor tUrf'WhG~ larger populat~pns of crabgrass ...•. 

developed. Diphenc.trlle gave, on:Iy .:~ intemcdiate, ';j!ve:L of control at,1;~~ '. 

recommended rate although the degree of control incr~ased proportionately . 

as the raw of ll,p;plication was incrilased. CalciUlllWopyl arsonate gave only 

negligible crabgra.ss control. ."." 

Pan1cum dichotOlll1florum wase~;f'ectively contr64ed by dacthaJ. and zy'ti-on 

but was not controlled in plots treated with calciuilf arsenate. . 

Literature 

Cited 

1. Mower, Jl,. G. and J. F. Cornman. 1961. EltPerilneij'i;s11l pre-emergence 

crabgrass control. Froc,H.E. Weed contt=91C6nf. 15:264-267. 

qrabgrass 

control. 

. . 

3. .' 1959. 9b¥rve.t~ons on pre-emergence' 

and post-emergence crabgrass ~ontfOl, etC.Proci~N.E. Weed Control 

Conf. 13: ise-rn, "

COMPARISONOF CHEMICALSroJ{'''''EMBRGENCE 

JobD1t'. HaVis 2 

~SS CONTROLIN TURF l 

':: 

493 

The area used for this t.at had been ..... dto a fairway mixture 

about fifteen years previously~ The grasses present were mostly 

bluegress and fescues. Miscellaneous weeds were present, includlQ8 

dandelion and plantain, but very little natural: crabgrass. 

During the first two week. of April, 19&1, the grass was mowed 

to 1 1/2 inches, fertilized with 10-6-4, and a light top dressing of 

soil was applied. The area ¥as then seeded Wf.th5 pounds of weed 

seeds having a high perceDtapof crabgrass, ,l'the area, 32 x 60 fe.t, 

was dlvided tnto24 plots '1:'FliO feet in siH/le This provided plott 

for 8 treatllle!¢s, ll\clud1ng.'a,reheck, replica_ three times. The' 

area had a slight pitch to the east but not _fieient to cause 

excessive washing. 

Seven granular pre-emergence herbicides were applied April 14 

at rates racollllll8ndedby tu "'lWfacturers, a.':.11ows: 

Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. 

,:"H 

(Pounds) 

PAX- "new" formul~~ (more arsenic~ •. Less N) 20 

Bandane 7.5% 

6.1 

Tricalcium Arsenate 48% (1961 formu1tlion) 

16 

Dactha1 2.3% 

10 

Zytron 4.4% 

8 

Ca1~i~ Propyl Arson.~a 20% :r£., 

5 

Diphenatrile 11. S% 

6 

Irrigation was not available. The spr1Dg weather was cool and 

moist, rainf,dl during May"measuring 4.67 1...... Crabgrass in.the 

test plots germinated about JUne 15. The fiutweek of July the turf 

area was given a second appl1cation of fertiliser and sprayed with 

2,4-D to kill broad-leaved weeds. The grass was mowedweekly at 

1 1/2 inches. 0,1 

L. t.e., 

lContribution Number1331. Maiiachusetts Agridaltural Experiment Station. 

2Department of Horticulture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

494 

ae.u!s,'I!IIDi,cua.:Lon 

leUlllllted crabgrass cOll~,. Ausu-t 11, 1961 

(Avera.e of three replications): 

u 

zytron 991 

CaJ.dUll :Ars.nate " ' 851 'oj t 

B.n4ane 85% ' ,:;

..495 

1961 PREEMERGENOE ORABGRASS RESULTS 

J. M. Duich,B.R.Fleming, A.E.;Dudeck, G. J; ~op and J. Boydl 

:. ,'.;, , ,:-1;"'" , ",', ) 

The object of this study ~, .to determine ~etfect of various 

commercial and eJq:leX'~ntal preemer$en~el crabgrass c~cals under practica:lconditions 

in southeastern Pennaylvard!l where crabgraap is a paramount problem 

and permanent turf difficult to"produce. . . 

Materialp!w! 

Methods 

The test was conducted ~t. ~ Springhaven C~ (golf) in Wallingford, 

Pennsylvania on two. areas.'l'et!t area No.1 was'#Ie practice fairway 

(irrigated) with a history of heaVyc:t'Apgrass infels~~On, annually, and a .: 

large popula tion of Poa anmia which predOlllinated spring and fall and usually 

faded during the sumiii6rperIod. B+1,l,e~ass, bent and t.,scue accounted for less 

than 20 percent of the pemanent turf population. .. 

Test area ijo. 2 (non-ir:rig~~) was located~ a fairway satllrated 

with seepage water frOlllunderground' springs, primar~y".in the spring and faJJ... 

Turf was predaninantJ.;r oreeping ben.~~ !2! trivialie, a~ traces of bluegrass. 

.: ",-, ,'rfi 

Single applicat1onsof ~~c:m._treatment were~on April 3, 1961 

two weeks prior to earliest anticipated crabgrass germination for the area. 

The region was characterized by unu~ cold, wet ~th~ which delayed 

the initial gemins tion of crabgra!'li' ~or four weeks ph :Area 1 and six weeks 

on Area 2. Poa annua growth was also unusually heavYdne to protection from 

heavy winterenows and-moist oandi~ for most of i~ growing season. Poa 

annua faded ctuickly starting in mid-Jv.],y, A further ~cation of climatlC 

conditions was the fir$tmOW1ng date or April 27, wb1~ is late for the area. 

',11 . , 

-.. , O l: 

Indivic1ualplQts were 6.x,~ ,.feet with thrll$,repl1cations on Area ~' 

and two repli6at10na on Area 2 w1~,j;Q~ controls per ~~lication. Liquid '.' 

materials were applied with an experirii'8ntal boom sprayer at 35 psi and 90 gpa. 

Dry materials .were diluted with tOUI'QUSrta ot soil a~applied by hand. 

There was over 0%18inch of ra:lJi.1'allo"'r a three da;v.~Od beginning the daY 

following application. " ".J . 

Plots were rated period1o~ throughout the .season for discoloration 

and injury. Final orabgrass co~, detemination WBS made on October 2 on 

the basis of estimated percent oov~~ ~ce partial co~l often resulted in 

more vigorous crabgrass growth due ,to lack of turf c~:tition. 

1 Assistant Professor, Instructor, G%'llduateAssistanf/ GI'aduate Assistant, 

AgronomyDepar1lnent, Pennsylvania State University and Superintendent, 

Springhaven ClUb, respectively.

496 

D±!3pa,~n~ Resul te)I? 

.,l-ta,terials!, rates and percent crabgI'E\ss,~1}ro1 for bothtE3st areas 

are shown in Table~. A h1ghe~ 1MI of control' _ obtlt1nEldonArea 2 1IIith 

the exoeption of 7 of 28 trea'bDentl, 4 of whioh gave the best oontrol in the 

study (95 peroent or better). A higher level of control on Area 2 due to 

pe:nnanent, turfcompetitionto~p'ass germina¥:l.~ ,:wpJ,1ldprobab~have resul 

~d :11'the col.der~ wet soil?ot1d:1 tions had ~,~ ~ther delayed ge~tion 

on this area •. Delayed germina'tL0nand loss Of~:t1ve toxioiW over:t;bne 

oould be interpreted as the explanation for ~o:wet,[~:vels of control in~ral 

for some of the materiab. ' ,'t.!!) " , ' 

U-4513 was found to betc:nc to Pea ~&nd resulted in almost 

oomplete el.1Jninationof' this species on Area-I""'6Y.Junel. Consequent1:Y', 

with little turf compe'tition the'tj,;,45:J3plots, hEid>J&"l:iigher level of crabpss 

inf'estst.i

Table 1. Peroent Cr$~lX'ass Control ~ Single 

Applioa tion of Preemergence Materials on APril 31 1961 

Springhaven Club1 Wallingford 1 Pennsylvania 

- 

%Crabgrass Control* 

Material Rate ~ Area 2 

Zytron M-1937 l$:~~i./A 99 92 

J.i>. 

Zytron M-1329 lO,""i.!A 53 84 

Chlordane G 90 a~i./A 95 

,Chlordane EC 90a.i.!A 50 

~~: 

Chlordane - Halts , 6/11. 

' , 

;,G 

, 35 79 

Bandane - Va. l(le.i.!A 4 19" 

Bandane - Vem. 20 ••i.!A 45 36- 

Bandana - Verm. ~O,a.i.!A 65 52 

Bandane - Attap. 10 :a.i./A 26 ..3 

Bandane - Attap. 20 ... i.!A 56 19 

Bandane - Attap. 30 'a.i.!A 97 S4 

Bandane EC 10 a.i.!A 10 - 9 

Bandane EC 20 a.i.!A 18 20 

Bandane EC 30 e..i.!A 48 68 

Daothal - Rid lO,ffl .'" 68 64' 

Diphenatrile - Agxoico 10jM , 

"1'.: 33 4,7 

Diphenatrile- Lilly 30 a.i.!A 

-- 

31 38, 

Diphe:o.atril~·';' LV 2-21-61 6~ 34 76 

Diphenatrile -LC 2-21...61 ,6'/M, r " 34 $6. 

35455 - Lilly 6a.h!A, 48 68 

Ca. Arsena'teG-48 16/li 

"r~.: 

98 72 

Ca. Arsenate + P205 IS "'2IM ~.;" . - 1 52 

Pax 

497 

2~ 

74 64 

Ca. Prop. Arson. - No Crab 5: - 14 19 

U-4513 50 W l a.i.!A 

,~u - 4 - 2 

U-4513 50 W '4a;i.!A - 4 -33 1 

U-4513 G 1 a.i.!A - 4 11 

U-4513 G 4 a.i.!A - 1 ....L 

Average 40 46 

\.....--* Based on control.

498 

1 . 1 

J. E. Gallagher and n. J. Otten 

The 1961 pre-emergenoe orabgrass oontrol trials compared 

the effectiveness of a number of cOllllllercial formulations" experimental 

materials from other companies, and a number of our own experimental· 

materials. 

Similar rates and dates of application were used in tests at 

three principal sites: AHCHEMResearch Farm, Ambler, h.; Oak Terrace 

Country Club, Ambler, Pa.; Pine Valley Golf Club" Clementon, N. J. Sites 

were chosen because they all had a past history of severe crabgrass Welt& 

tiona. The turf at each site was rather thin" open and closely cut. : The 

natural turf at eachsite was a m1xture of bluegrass 'and fescue with sane 

bentgrass. 

All materials were applied as a dry foZ'lllUlation, usualJy on 

vermiculite or an organic carr:Ler. All materials were weighed out in advance 

according to the rate and plot size. Applicationa were made with a meo~ca1 

spreader or dusted on by hand, depending on the plot size. 

Plots at Oak Terrace CCwere ,f x 20f or 100 sq.tt. 

Plots a1l Pine Valley GCwere,f x 10' or ,0 sq.ft. 

Plots at AHCHEUResearch Farm were 18 n x 16.6f or 25 sq.tt •. 

A total of about 7,0 individual plots were applied at these 

three locations during the 1961 season. . 

1) Agricultural Research Departmen1i, AmchemProdUCts, Ina., 1\I1lbler,i'eansylvania

Materials 499 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

Calcium propyl 

ZiYtron 

Dacthal 

Dacthal 

Chlordane 

Dipropalin 

Trifl1Jralin 

DiphenattlUe 

DiphenatrUe 

arsona.te' 

Tricalcium arsenate 

Lead arsenate/arsenOU 

oxide complex 

Calci'Uillpropyl/calcium 

methyl arsonate mix 

(Amchem) 

(Dow) 

(Swift) 

(Swift) 

(Scotts) , 

(Lilly) 

(Lilly) 

(Lilly) . 

(Agrico) 

(Chipman) 

(Kelly. 

Hestern) 

, (Vineland) 

;;,':2Ojg'on vermiculite carrier 

4.4%on organic carrier 

,~, on organic carrier 

2a$3%on organic/fertilizer 

carrier 

e% on vermiculite carrier 

2%on vermiculite carrier 


~. on vermiculite carrier 

5.85%on fertilizer carrier 


8.5/25.1%on inorganic"~~er 

It.7/5.3$ 

f.; 

.0J: 

Dates of Application as Related to Crabgrass OrCfth ' 

Evaluations 

AMCHEMResearch Farm 

Oak Terrace 

Pine Valley 

CC 

GO 

0' 

on vermiculite 

carrier 

March 18 

: !1~.~ 

pre-emergence 

April 18 ',1" , pre-emergence 

Hay 18 

'.0 " a.t emergence 

June 5 early post-emergence 

July' 17 late post-emergence 

", 

Aprll13 

pre-emergence 

, May' 17 ,}> 

early post-emergehOe 

r 

June 5 ,'" 'early post-emergenoe 

July' 17 .' .;:i late post-emergenOe' 

,~. 

]"~':- 

, 

April 18 :pre-emergence 

May4 

'," pre-emergence 

June 10 ;.:.; early post-emergElBOtl 

) ~ 

Visual estimates of the ,proportion of each plot infested wit'll: 

crabgrass were made at intervals throughout the .... Bon", ~ese were cOnl'pered 

to the untreated check plots to obtain the Per Cent Control figures reported 

in the following ,tables. )') 

jl ... 

, 

;;r1! "= 

By the middle of A~ the crabgrass:ip1'8stat1on in alluntMted 

plots was so complete that 1.1;"~ or no tur.i'grOl!t~ showing. 

~,. . 

. ,: :1

500 

Da1;ejJ01 e~uations 

~,a.;t'ollClW&I., 

, . " l r I 

,.AMCHEJ{ Research ~t June 20, JulT 24, August 24 " 

: "September 29 

, 08k., Twrace CCt r·",,· June 20, Ju4r 27, August 24 

September 29 

~. 

',i1~e Valley GCs June 27, JulT 22, ,Ootober 11 

./ '"j '. 

( r', .i 

iThe sp,~.~~f·" ~961 ~,.t~'~:Old and~:~1l)kt\,~he PhUadelphia.',; sr: 

area,as. it wasin many other parts of the North... , crabgrass emergence 

was two weeks to a month later than usual, and growth after emergence was 

very slow until around the middle of June. Muchot the emerged crabgrass 

was still in the 2 to 4 leaf ,s'tap,on June let.' _ , 

, ' . Ra:lntallwas constant ,\brR'I,1ghouthe SUJMr· and temperatures were 

high enough to t,Cl(Drcontinuous ,prmaxim'lllll emergence of crabgrass. There 

..ere no distinct. ~.ods of crabgrNs emergence and growth as is 'lSSualin 

our &r84.0.. ,~ 

\'r 

Hhile no n'lllllerical counts of the actual stand of crabgrass per 

unit areaw.ereT~to compare~.rstand to previoUs seasons, visual 

~uatione .:1ndica:ted.,that the nat'Ol'alcrabgrass iDtestation was much more 

uaUom andseV~than in prev:1oul years. Thus, it is possible that in 

the past seaso~.;8Il.ef:fective c~cal producing 9Sto 98 per cent control 

may have left 10 to 15 crabgrass plants in a 50 to .100 square foot area. 

In 1961, on the ,other hand, 95 to9S per cent control of amuoh larger 

number ofsp%'out~gC1!E!bgrass seedS!imayhave allowed 50 to 75plants to 

develop.in the881lle plot area.' J: 

Whentransformed into the visual estimates used in our eva+.ua~ions, 

the larger n'lllllberof plants present would greatly reduce apparent contfo.l.i 

Thus, a chemical ~ have controlled 50 per cent of the crabgrass plants 

actualJ.¥· emerging,bU.t those ~g plants wou14:'beenough to completely 

intestthe plots ,and wew~ld8ft;].lIa'te this as' n(j,i,~aren't control.' .,:' ,,' 

This probably accounts for the reduced, etleotiveness 'of material's 

such as dacthal, zytron and tricalci'lllll arsenate, wh1ch have been consistently 

effect~ve :in our, 'tUttt.1t1- previau.::years. Theon1.:j liUlt.erialsproviding _ 

more than 80 p.. oent· control t~th$., season ·1fMtritluraJ.in at 4,"~ , 

and 8 lb/A and d1lll'opalin at 8 lb/A. 

In 1960, salcium propyl arsonate showed IIltcellent tolerance to 

established turf and new turf planted before or after application, good 

post-emergence activity on crabgrass, and aat:lsfactory seasonal pre-emeraence 

crabgrass control.

D~ed. 011\., the 1961 tr~~epp:rteClhe1.'el ,~~um.·prCWl arsonate 

showt!defirt1te p~~genoe ac:~i, tr on crab~8 !p,to the 4 to Sled' 

stage,•....The best treatments lfi~)~ .oOll1poundw~e;)liW).1ed in May, 'about 

two'weeks after orabgrass eimergenoe. Rates of lt _ lllb/1OOO sq.£t. 

gave cc)ntrol comparable to pre-emersenoe treatments at 15 lb/A of zytron 

~ far SUPlil:rj.~ ~o~$~emergenoe treatments with recanmended rates of 

dacthal, cb,lo~an., ,diphenatrile, tr1oaloium. arsenate and lead arsenate 

compJ.~ ", ..',' .:; . ; ';;, 

501 

.' >" Tl:J,e. oomb1nat1on,of caloi Ulll methyl arlf()~~ and calcium. propyl 

ar~te may1'lave s~ht~lncreased initial pos~enceact1vity, 

but"d1d not increase pre-emergenoe residual aotiviV in comparison to 

oalcium proWl ars~te alone. . " 

Turf tolerance 

T6,; only,~ounds oausing o1m,ous ~$,~ur:r in these test/. 

plots were ~ur~ and trioalci~:arsenatee: .~uralin thinned the 

turf slowl\r".aver ail6riodof severallllOnths. ~1um. arsenate caused 

a general fo1iage ~ within a week after appl1catlon, and much of 'the . 

g1'a8.l!l neverl'eco~ d~ the remainder of the,.e,ason. ' .'nL" 

'"\" ., 

..,'" 

\' >~·1 

Conq1l1sion 

"l:" 

: . De,oause~ a c0lll1!;lnat1onof weather o:on91101ons in 1961 - coldt'cF" 

wetltpring,dela;re4;;crabgrass genrdnat1on, warm)..wet;sumrner- all the 

prirtl:l~:pal s~1~t1~(llrabgrass control; chemicals ~t~ av8ilable produced 

uns&¥sfactory crablfass ,control~.,WhUe QO de~tf reason for this can be 

presented at this tillie, possible' explanations for these failures are 

exc~s1ve or,abgras8,:~ergenQe"1clachi~ and b1olog1,qal breakdown. "1." ' 

Calcium.propyl arsonate, applied as an earl\r'pos~rgenoe 

treatlllent ra;t~er th~ a standard pr~ergence trea,t-nt, produced seaecndi.' :(' 

crabgrass oontrol eqUivalent to the best of the long r8aldual pre-emergenoa:', 

crabgrass killers ;lncluded in our 1961' tests. . 

" . -,;:,1.. 

:\'.,'

502 

TADLEIt Comparison of "severalc¥mercial and, exper1:nental pre-emergence 

C:1'abgrass' control Ch~W, applied at OaifiTerrace, Country Club,' 

Pine Vall~Golf Club I "AMCHEMResearch 'am. 

< .' ',\ ' :>'~ ", .. ,-.,.." ". '''!:l 

Rate 

'f;'percent Crabgrass Cont,t-gl 

1" ~ ,- 

During Season 

*** 

Material Per Acre Applied Location * June JUlY ~ ~fug. 

Zytron '1$ April' or ~ 85 74 

" 

'1$ Api1,l' pry 

:~~~1~4,·.,; . 92 "'~ 

** 

Dacthal 10 April or ';~ n 34 is 

10 April or 92 85 49 32 

10 April pry 97 94 

** ,;68 

Diphenatrile 20 April pry 

i 

65 "22 

26 AprD:' OT 37 32 

** 

J,p 

30 

26 April: ACP 17 April' pry 13 ;0, 

** ** :: ~ .' 

.:t! 

Trifluralin 4 April pry 'too 100 

** 

96 

6 April pry 100 100 ** 98 

6 Harch ACP 68 91 

** .. ··i 

8 April pry 100 100 

** 

79 

;~ "/',' 

6 Apra pry 

90 ** 

6 May ACP , '6 93 

** 

6 Apl'H." pry )[100 

98 ** 

r: 

'~ 

~., 

** 

DipropaJ.1n 4 April pry 

:';' 

Lead arsenate 870 April or '~ 53 20 0 

complex 

(fo~ 

Tricalcium '160 April' or 

Arsenate 

(form.) 

-,e": 

" 

71 

',~., 

53 .?fl 

'_'r 

" 

Chlordane 60 April or 20 13 18 0 

60 May or 56 0 12 0 

90 April or $0 42 20 8 

120 April or 30 8 14 2 

120 l-1ay or 59 13 4 0 

* Location: OT - Oak Terrace Country Club 

PV - Pine Valley Golf Club 

ACP - AMCHEMResearch Farm 

** No ratings of these plots made on these dates. 

*** Averal?e of ~ renlicat.ionsa Contro1 basp-rl on cOl'llTla1"'l Ron t.o unt."'""t,P.rl

503 

'-- TADLE2: Crabgrass oontrol with CaloiUll1Propyl Arsonate ·using various 

rates and dates of application. 

Peroent Crabgrass Control 

CaloiumPropyl Arsonate 

Pounds per 1000 aq.· ft.. Looation* AfPlied ~. AuguSt: 

Dul'§Season *** :!iii. 

1/2 or April 0 0 0 >0 

OT May 94 84 47 26 

3/4 ACP March 34 0 0 -0 

ACP April ·95 70 31 37 

OT April 30 5 0 0 

ACP May 100 96 il4 57 

or Mrq 94 69 35 15 

ACP .rune 82 97 72 24 

ACP July ** ** 51 30 

C7l' July ** ** 25 16: 

1 ACP Mal'oh 18 25 0 0 

ACP April 50 29 6 2 

C7l' April 82 64 35 40 

ACP Mar 100 99 82 41 

OT Mar 96 95 79 4' 

ACP June 100 98 78 33 

ar June 96 90 69 32 

ACP July ** ** 66 27 

or . July ** T** 18 8 

'-- 

11/4 OT April 69 40 18 3 

or M8y 96 92 85 6'8 

OT July 

** ** 37 13 

1 1/2 ACP March 67 25 0 0 

ACP April 91 88 55 40 

OT April 69 40 4 0 

or May 100 100 94 58 

OT July ** ** 43 16 

* Looation: ~ -:. Oak T~r::ace ~ol1ntry Club; ACP.. AMCHEMResearch Farm

504 

TADLE3: Pre-oemergence and poet-energence crabgHaS control with a 

combination of calci\Dl1 propyl arsonaw"ald:calcium methyl 

arsonate. 

Per Cent Crabgrass 

Pounds per 1000sq. ft. 

Cont1'01 Dur~ Seuof1' ***. 

Ca~h'Op.As. 08;..Meth.As. App¥ed Looation* 

'.. :& P¢«, ...Iftl!litI. 

.44 .14 . 

.66 .21 

-- 

- 

or 

94 48. 24 :3 

~ ACP 

** ** 

$1 30 

or (~ 82 5$ 10 

June PV 72 79 28 

** 

~ or r.** 41 2 

~ ACP ... ** 29 7 

'.88 .28 MI(y OT '94 84 79 l.6 

June ACi? 100 98 80 37 

June PV 97 88 48 

July • ACP 'H 

$9 ** 10 

** 

J~ or ** $1 J6 

** 

J..U .3$ or 96 90 80 ., 

J~' or 

** ** 

39 7 

- 

1.32 .44 Mat or 1

505 

DIPHENATRILE,DJPROPALIN, ANp,!TRIFLURALINAS 

" 1 

PRE-EMERGEN TURF HERBICIDES 

.. 2 

E. F. Alder and R. B. Bevington 

I 

Diphenatrile (diphenylaceto~itrile), dipropalin (N,N-di(n-propyl) 

2,6-dinitro-£-toluidine) an4 trifluralin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-di-~propyl-a,a,a-trifluoro-E-toluidine) 

have been extensively tested 

as pre-emergent herbicides for turf at the Greenfield Laboratories 

of Eli Lilly and Company. Sixty turf experiments, consisting of 

over 3,500 plots, were conducted. Emphasis in these inve~tigations 

has been placed on thi determinatloi of effectiveness, 

appropriate application rates, ,duration of ~ctivity, safety to 

turfgrasses and ornamentals, effects of ea~ypost-emergent applications 

on weed grasses, and length of delay before reseeding. 

lli12h~n!!tri1e 

The herbiC1dalproperties ofd1phenatrlle ~ve been previously; 

reported in detai1 (1). At 3'0 pounds per ap:re. the. compound ,~s 

controlled seedling weed granes (barnyardgl,a,~", g ooaeg r-as s , 

.foxtails, and crabgrasses) in turf. D1phen,.trlle is completely 

safe to established turfs, trees, shrubs, a~'

506 

Table 1. Re8eeding Resulte:afiter APpl1cati:bn' of 30 lb/A 

Diphenatrile.Ex~~essed,as:rp.jllo:ff to Turf'grasses 

- - - -.- - - 

Days Af'te'r 

Treatment 

1 

10 

17 

24 

37 

__ ~yrrg~a~s_Injpri Ba~ing~ _ 

__ B!n~g~a!s_ ~l~Elsr!s!

Table 2 presents a summarY~f crabgrass cOp:1frol results obtal-ned; 

wi th dipropalin and triflural:1n. With 6-8,pounds per acre ot',di .. 

propalin or lS pounds per 8lll'E! of trifluralin, very good

5"8 

d1propalin ortrifluralin 'at ':rec ommendedr~t.es gave full-sealsc)J1 

-cl'abgral!i1J control. Excelleft1icontrol was'Ob-tained from mid-Mnch 

treatments 'Which were sUbjeet~d to over' 30. etnches rdntall and' 

irrigation water. Substantial control wasI:Jbbtained as long illS' 

216 days atter chemical application. 

. ... .I:' 

Table 3. Duration of Crabgrass Control With Dipropalin 

and TrifiuraJ.in .. 

ApplIn 

_D!t§ 

_ _ 

Feb. 16 

Mar. 3 

Mar. 16 

Mar. 29!V 

Apr. 13 

Apr. 27 

May 10V 

May 17 

May 24 

June 2 

Days 

Jijl!Pleg 

216 

201 

188 

175 

160 

146 

133 

126 

119 

lio 

Dipropalin 

~ __ Ttit l u ra11n _ 

l! ;t.bLA_ J. "&bLA_ _2 _JJ2/~ 

81 

69 

69 69 8S 

79 

86 71 94 

86 47 91 

83 74 91 

87 68 90 

97 8'7 96 

..93 81 94 

92 :1j 84 

).: 

- - - --- - - 

Calculated by estimatingl:(ercentredUC~~,o~ 'in crabgrass 

cover: (Sept .. Zl) in trea't.d plots as C~~ared with untreated 

control o , 

!V ' POOl' application due to ht'gh winds 

,1' '. 

V Crabgrass germ·inationstar.ted May 3 

~l .: 

, , 

~a!e~y_ t~ f1!n~s -_ Dipropalih and triflural:in were observ~d ,t~r 

safety to turfgrasses in 31 experiments. Observations were made 

on bentgrasses, bluegrasses,.fescues, ryegrul!I, Bermudagrass,., ftnd 

ZOYSia.. A..pplications of dipr. ~palin,. thrOugh;.~J;.;{).' pounds per ac~.:',: 

gave no turf grass damage in ... ny test. Tri:f1Ul'alin was safe )).p' . 

all turfs at 2-3 times the 'i'ecommended rateiDamage occurred a:t 

6 pounds per acre inbentg.rlul." b1uegrass,:111id fescue turfs; '~ome 

damage was obs,erved at 4 pounds per acre. ,''ZOYSia and BermudagtaSs 

were. not damaged by 10 pouna~ '1>er acre. :~., " . '. , 

A large number or \Toody orn8.111enta1s/ fihrub.~..,'·vines, arid estab;L1shed 

annual a.nd perennial flowbrs have proved' '.to1erantto tri'''; .... , . 

tluralin,' even at very high' Jl,Jlplication ra~e:e. or 1e. trees ,3e 

shrubs, 2 broadlhf ground cOvers, 3 perennl,U species', and 6, . 

rose varietfestested, none sh'owed damage t1l'trifluralin at 1'0

)"509 

pounds per acre. Thirty ot~ Joung established annual flower 

species were undamaged by tritluralin at this rate. Dipropalin 

~has :been le~.s w:1deJ,;y,t.,s,~, ,~,8hows 8:~a!' satetyto '0%'11&;': 

~en~tal~~::""i" '." ;}' ::' .: \~i" .'... J., 

la~l! ~o·it1=~'~"P~ ·Act:L,!:~i.J:~';'· Severa}; ,e~1ments 'show ee.tfenUa1f:ythe 

&~,~uults.:aJ.N!"''F') given in TabJJeJ. In this e~llrlmentera~gr8,-Si" 

t~8t beo .... ,.,ill11:11e in' untftated are •• on Jo1.tI~. 

A,~, the,:'M"7~~' ~ppJ.ioa.U()n·4.t., it was in.'tbIel ..leaf' stage; '0W1.~ , 

M'ay17 ,the .?,:!,l.~.f stage JC~.~,M.y 21.1,the '2s..n4 3-lea£ stage'" 'll'1d 

on, June?, . t~e~.3 ~nd 4_1 •• , .~'Ie. Excellitnt control wail o~Ubed 

with both dipropalin and trifluralin through the May 24tJOI.t. .. 

ment. Activity was reduced in the last application at the 3 to 

4-leaf stage. Dipropalin and trifluralin at recommended rates 

control crabgrass throu~h:;.~._a::leat etllge. 

J!e!etdin~ c~~¥.~te! -:-, );>iprClpa~il1, .$ondtritl ur~l~D l!ere app.l1l!d: aZ}4 

de~iz:ab.~Ef ..t·u.r'.,f',g~.,."'.d..~e s ,w.e..1" ;'~.'." !!-QQ~d .at the 1i~~ of ehem1ca.l .,&:P.Pl1 

cati6n,'an.d, ;threeand, si,x ,,~~ f'ollowi~& rW.... tment (TabJ.,,,,4). 

Injury ratings vere made -s1'1' to seven weekI atter each seeding. 

No injury was observed with either chemical six weeks after 

treatment. Current recommendations are to wait 45 days after 

treatment before reseeding. 

Table 4. Reseeding Injury of' Turf Grasses after 

Dipropa1in and Trifluralin Treat.ent~7 

- - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - ...- ... ....... ... 

Turf 

Ir!a~m!!n~ .GraaS!!S - - .O_W~s.!. ... .3_ W lE s" - - 

_6...w~s.: 

Dipropal1n Bentgrasll 4 3 1 

8 Lb/A Bluegrass 5 4 1 

Fescue 5 3 1 

Ryegrass 3 1 1 

Triflura1in Bentgrass 4 3 1 

2 Lb/A Bluegrass 5 3 1 

Fescue 5 3 1 

Ryegrass 4 2 1 

- - . - - ....... . ... - ...... - - ... 

!I l-no injury, 3-moderate injury, 5-complete kill

510 

aUlIPIl iri 

'-1: ' 

D" "" 

Diphenatrile at 30 pounds per' acre, d1pro~alfn at 6-8 pounds per 

acre, and triflural1n at lS pounds per acre have given ,exce':i~ent 

full-season control of weed grasses in turt •. Spray tormulat,ipns 

of dipropalinand triflurcUnare easily .jntepared; sHghtJ,Yb!.ghar 

rates are required. All three cOlllpou~d.f' are sate for use"'On 

turi'grasees, tree's, shrubs'; roses, perentiS.r.l 'and most young" 

annual flowering plants. All three materlt!s kill crabgrass in 

turf through the 2-leafsttge. Reeeeding •.!lc'an be made 30 day~ 

after diphenatrile and 4511ays, atter diPpofaH.n or tritlural1n 

treatment.';···: 

, \ ~l 4 • 

Lite_aturs Cited c' 

--- - - - - - - 

1. E. F.Alder,W. L. wr1~ht" and Q. F. S,~er. Control of,;~'~ed1 

ing grasses in turf w~th diphenylac~tQ,D:ltrile and a substituted 

dinitroaniline. ~r)oc. NEWCC15 ,)~,98 .,302,. 1961. .' 

. 'I

Pre-emergence Control of CrabP'Q'UIIi,n Turf- w1·~ Fall and Spring Treatments 

:J .. F. AhrenS;7,R.i,J.. Lukensal1l:tA •.!!~:~Olsonl 

t ;~l ':'fC' "" 'f' 

" ; J:.~ j:" ~ c, .,' !";~~.~. /> :""1':..,d

Fall ve. spriif ~nts .. 'Ibe",obl1.:cUv.ottbUl~'IIiper1ment was to determine 

the relative eleotlveness of tall and spring tre •• nts for the control of 

crabgrass 1n turt. The test was conduoted in l'1t. Cal'lll8l, Conneoticut, ..Ql1 turf 

seeded' inthel i splllll1' Of .1960;1ill'''~l' ill!ictU1"e otK.ntieJq'· bluegrass, ..uto~ 

Celonial b4inll!l .... ;.i~,oheWiil:"~.:),..du.;. -'Fall treiWiits were applied' 'oi;~:" ~. 

3 

Ootobtlr 10,~1l~nandJ:.prlng'tH~fMhtt were at,)PU"'!~:April 27~ 1961. .: , :, . 

1.,;11,' ;,~,u {.',} ~Ji: ~~.£l ,~ fa ee'.; " ," 'La i.. ,'. (>"1.1',,, 

Cra~rass emergenoe started .Mi i"JrY10 but'fis ''iie1a,ed beeause of:cjdti:t 

temperatures. Stands of orabgrass in this test were excellent, averaging 40 

plants/sq.tt. 1n the oontrol~l;~lttf'D.l.g1tar1.'lacpmum was the prinoipal 

species. . 

. ~:1i>~,i;j~~ Z',;. 'j'-;:J"J :; " . J;S'~':':' • H,I' - ". 

c 'Ms'~ifh_ 111'~~: 0./ thee.ttl 'applicatione!,or:8ilery lUlrbicide tiOn~Wjli.d 

cr~.)bQtR,1Ilb& "tall .ppl&'ca1Jl~, althdughl'" cH.tterence w.ass~Jlt·· 

'thie ,lowratee:~oI: ~Jj c~~\md calo1W1laMha1le • The 1nter8et~'Ofil·~tJ 

seasOlt tJt\ appllL-"lmWith oheJdQ'W&IiI' 'statisU:CdlT Significant at jr,;.f~os. 

"Pax" and dacthal !fere most aff'ecte~ by season o.f .apP~.'catio.n •. T,he res.Ulte 

'"""It,'that h1gbet'u~.of ~. are'i'equi'riCl !'OT'fall' applicati'dti ~ 

~i1'lgilppUda~nay)'1nd1catii1f'1:lfitt- pert of, the' li_rMbide may be lost~" 

the fall and winter. 

_treatments on rough turf Several comlllerc~aJ?1;r.av.,a.il~ble an~ eX?,ef1me.9,t~ 

','.' , rp .. ·.fiii.i'iL~m'we%'e[.tllt-flBt$d "~a st'8n~~ ,rtiugh turt in ~orl,' 

··Crmneoticut·.,'£j'!W-rturfUoons1$:ied'6t'lha Jl11X t ur e 'bf·blue~aell, .red fescue,' .1.\a 

f~ftlIIe i I 'Col.ul11eritssr.,., a1'ld"·ilIiMlleneoUs·weeds'4-. 1 ,'Tl'ie soil was as,andf '\l)lI!JI 

of generally low fertility. . . "".,,!., A . 

~1'8111l rfe*~ler' wel'ie;~d 'in 'earlY Aprtl'-and' ad~tional f'ertl-11zer 

was at1pliedJ fiII'\lunit': and"July. 'I'd 1tlWur~.8 stend' ot-'ij~abirasli, the area . 

.overseeded oOrJ'Ma1'f3". ·;:wi..; ',:.;'\n]~,'i . ., .L'!-T:'.L, ... , ., "I. "., 

cOmmericalUVailable .materials The herbioides weiN applied on l!/.q. ~. ~"-'1' 

4' x 2Q"d;J.!i'fIillO!i£i&ithi'e&, tt.- •. Orabgrass.llIIIiIFjenoe,lltarted b~' . 

Mey 10 erni. 2P,:lndifJl~~onsr.~~te'low,:,avet1qtDg' '.l..6;plMte/sq.1.'t'e''lU·' 

the I1I)trelited plots.' . Y

Table 1. Effeo~ of.Season of ~p~;cation on Crabir!'. Control and Turf ~Pdury 

Herbioide 

Calcium 

arsenate 

Rate 

aoi. 

Ibs./A 

'310 

740 

Chlordane 70 

140 

Dacthal 7.5 

15 

"Pax" (8%N) 880 

1760 

Zytron 15 

30 

513 

Peroentage Percentage 

Time of,'):' contri)l of thinni 

ApplicathD Crabil;'~~ of tur~ 

Sept. C::, July 13 Sept. i4 

\,~ : ~'Ii' ;.[. 

, Oct.-_.... 8503"-- 0 '0- 

April 90.7; 0 0 

Oct. 98.0 0 0 

April 99.3 ' r~ 8 e 

Oct. 85.7 ;,) 0 0 

April 87.7 0 0 

Oct. 89.0'i', 4 0 

April 95.3 2 ,0, 

,.) 

Oct. 86.7 0 0 

April 96.0 '~: 5 0- 

Oct. 97.3 2 0 

April 98.3 )0 5 

,;~ ',rLl 

Oct. 31.7 0 0 

April 46.0 0 0 

Oct. 64.3 ' 5 "0' 

April 86.0 .'. 2 0 

Oct. 87.7 , . , 

0 'G 

April 92.3 0 0 

Oct. 93.0 0 0 

April 96.0 12 ,(), 

\;; 

L.S.D. .05 9.6 _., 

.01 12.8 'I 

--------------------------------------- 

lAverage ratings of two personSio~r three replicates. 

At the lower rates of app~cation, zytron, di~penatrile, and chlordane 

provided 90 per cent or bet,ter' ~ohtrol of crabgra$~"; whereas calcium pro~yl 

arsonate and calcium arsenate proVided about 85 pel; cent control of cra1;lirasl' 

(,Table 2) •.. "Pax" at 880 Ibso/A,,anCl,'. dacthal at 7S,;,;LbS./Adid not cont~J,..crabgrass 

satisfactorily. These rates of "Pax" and d~P.thal apparently are taolow 

for consistent. oontrol of crab~~a~~.·' . 

In general, cr~bgrass,contro1.,with zytron, dag;thal, and "Pax" in 196;1.was 

similar to that obtained in 19~~. Calcium arsenat$was less effective ~n 1961 

than in 1960 and chlordane at 101bs./A in 1961.we, somewhatmore effeotiye 

than at 60 Ibs./A in 19600" 

In addition to crabgrass, zytron also appeared to control Oxallls spp~ 

in this test, and both calcium arsenate and "Pax" appeared to control sheep 

sorrel (Rumexacetosella).

514 ~ 

Tab1e2. Cr&bgraS$'Contr01 in Rougl\ Turf with"Spr'.inif'l'reatments of eo_HI!ally 

Ava:l.lable NateriaJ.e 

.'r'-)'I 

CJ".'!"s Control' . iT 

. d'l. 

Rate perceli~..'.; No. Plants '. ss, Percent;! 

'"a.l. control.::" .. per SQ.ft. 2 .thinni 

Herbicide lbs./A August 21 Sept. 2 JUlj 17 Augus! ~l 

Untreated plots or. 

, 

3.77 0 .0 

Calc:l.UDl 370 66 1.39 16 6 3 

arsenate 

740 9~ .67 3 0 

~l ~ 

,('0, 

CalciiWll 44 6~ 1.2~ 

6 7 

propyl 

arsonete 66 80 16 10 

-. ;",1;' ~_~ r ' 

ChlOrdane 70 91 1.26 1 0 

140 96,. ' .26 0 3 

Dacthal 7.~ 66 1.63 3 :3 

'l~ 93 .j.: .69 ~ .3 "";>l:' 

Diphenatrile 30 99 o' : .39 6 6 3 

60 99 .50 13 15 3 

IIPaxII(4%N) 680 31 

'! 

;,' I 

1 "\,.J 

2.39 

2 0 

1760 69 1.17 3 3 

Zytron 15 98 .17 0 0 

30 99 .11 0 0 

---------------~--------------------~~~ 

,. 

l,Average ratings of two persoruJover three replioates. 

2Averege ot B:l.xsq. foot samples·,.~.·u:~h ofthree·~lloates. 

3C010nial bent appeared to be thinned. 

: -__- , ' ,_.,0(:' '. _ - . _ ~- _ . '1'~': . - ,. '. . 

The higher rates of chlo,r!!~,~' ,e.taot)'l,al,,IlPa*.~1 '1~n4 zytron did not 1p.1)lre 

the,turf .in this test.zytrortaotW11J,.! sti!'lu+ate'~'" '" wth of t~ grasSes;,1IP4 

olover. '. D:l.phenatl':l.leat, 60 Ibs~/A, Qalcium areen!!,. .:1; 370 Ibs./A and c14~ilpll 

propyl arsonate at 4~ r681bs~IA,.11 caused 10hi . of the t).lX'f. Ca~pm 

arsenate and' diphenatrile appearid to be thillJ?in~ ~ , •.o~lonial bentgraE!8:"w~~reas 

oalcium propyl arsonate appeared to be thinnins the ascue grasses. 

er1mental materials The mate«ii~ givenl!\TabJ.rfwere applied onMey 6, 

., in tN ce-re p1ieated plot~. 'G~'11u1ar zytron,1.,poluded in this te~t ••• 

standerd, provided excellent cant.fol'of crabgrass ~~~h~o injury to thetqif. 

Zytron also controlled spotted spurge (Euphorbia !!!!!ans) and la1otl~eed (PoJl~ 

gO~umav:l.9ulare). '"., 0: /'1:,' ~ 

,. [':.

Table 3. Crabgrass Control in Rough Turf with Experimental IVJaterials 

Rate PerO@tage , d'L 

control\~ ;Q~abgrasS Pe~t,¥e thinning 

Herbicide ~ugusti Ju~8 August 21 

,"i:;:iA 

"Bandane"" , 20 70.0 . :~.r 0 

' [ 

40 97.0 

0 

Dipropalin, 5 99.{)·· gL 0 

],0 99.0 62, 15 

Trinuralin 3 99.0 l~:, 15 

6 99.0 3 .; 35 

:'1(..' 

j 

515 

u4513 4 77.0 

f~'~ 

26 

8 94.5 95 

Zytron 15 99.0 ~. 0 

" 

u4513 controlled crabgrass well but killed moi~ of the grass et thB,8 Ibs./A 

rete, leeving on~ broadleafed weeds. Trifluralin~.lso was very injurious to 

the turf. Dipropalin et 5 Ibs .•/ P provided good control of crabgrass and was not 

injurious to the turf. At 10 lbs.!A, however, dipropalin caused consid~rible 

thinning. "Bandane" at 40 Ibs./A provided excellent control of crabgrass and 

no turf injury. Of 'the new materials, both dipropaIin and "Bandanen warrant 

further testing_ " 

'. ":,l,' L-" 

Effects of mowing height on herbicide effectiveness In the spring of 1960, 

standS of turf grasses ~lere established in unrepHgate

516 

,';1:".i'"'f'!r": :~,j i: .. r ~_o~,~.. 

and decthal. The best control ot crabgrass was obtained with zytron at the 

2-inch cutting hei~ht. This test reemphasi,zes:bhe need for proper turf 

management'.in. cr~b.8r~~_~~t~l, at!)· ~r, ,,~_thollt~:M'herbi cide. . 

-,'. '~,! - _. "< • '., ' ~- - • " , '"1 

Table 4. Effects ot 1'1owi~ Heights and Herpic:ide Treatments on nrabg,..~ 

ContrOl in a tuM' Nurse1"1 .' 

Treatment 

Untreated 

Mowing 

heiJ.h.t 

~ 

1 

2. 

Zytron 1 

151bs./A 2' 

Dacthal 

1l.a5nil./4 J,. 

2· 

Vis!1al estimates 

Percqp.tage 

area 

covered bY 

orab¢ass l 

OI'abgrass counts 

69 0 32.7 0 

25, 64 12.4 62 

4.3 

0.2' 

94 

99.7 

0.9 

0.3 

97 

99 

1.,..' », 

11 .- 84 r3lil&n :88 

1,.9 97. ~Q" 97 

. 

, j(':; 

:;. ~... ..:: 

l~' 

liS 

,:" 

L.S.,P.' .0$' ( 

"~,, _ \.. :. 0, J ,.J 

-; -:,-",T'- - r,,-l'~ -:!-; -:-- - ~ -'-lrTi - 7'-~-- - ~:'-lr"r;'.-,-'!-·'- -.- -.'- -"~[',:' 

l.Aver2ges over eleven turt grasses grown alone or in oombinat10n~ ';.,.,.;' 

2Peroentage control based on compl'r;son with untreat"q. HJ.0ts at 1" cut1i~~ . 

.height. . ,..... ' , .' ..::";.:.~:":"'::. .. .... .~,- ~(~.:.:._) : . " '. ';~': 

3.Average~ ;of to~~~naom 'Cl.tt.,' ~aJilples'in~ao~,~ol~~v~ turf 3ras~s.imixtures. 

. , 

Although the interaotion betw&en ohemicalssdtllllOWing height wasnpt 

statistically signUicant becauSe 'Of smeUamoUiiWf"of,crabgrass in some' grass 

bloCks",it appears that zytron '"elfless atteoted':b!fout'ting height than daothal. 

;It the l-inch cutting height, control of crabgrass wasuna:'atfsfacrtory in SOII1ll 

of the dacthal plots. It is clear 'that slow' ou't'fjUbjects these herbiCides to 

a more severe test, than a hiiJh·Out. lI'urther wcii'ktfloUld reveal how oth.eJ' 

materials are affected by mowingheight. ~r~ . 

I '~, ".'.: '_ " _" , . , , .",' , _ .:~" -"! .t. -.' . _i:' -'. ': ,', ' : 

Residual trtectspfherbic. j.@es:s.~,Q'l:,.abgrasJL,.' ~~,nd., ',Pl,"ots i,n NewHevep.i::,',' 

treated to!,th"pre-emergence e;r .~. es inApri-r:-~i we:re part:i.ally ,r~ated 

on April 29, 1961. ''l'he only cihanges were sli]ht increases in the rates, ~ " 

chlordane and "Pax" in 1961. The results are shown in Table 5. 

A~ ~~" .o.,lson. 

'i'J ::' 

iDbJ: 

," ,': j~, 

lAhr.,en...s',. J., r..'.aP,d,.i 

,~..JJt, ap.~1P..aria .01'll!l .J. , r}~ ~."'.',lI\IilrgenceHerbiCiQeS,for 

Contro], of ~.~gras.s ~ Proc; ~1l.'j'IqQ :lli:~7.6-~.!9~(1pjp,). '" .""j r. " 

1 • -~, ,. T,' • ~;-,r.' [;j r.""''"-~ (j ,;.. . . '::l; ,-.- r'. 

"':'cf! • " ~i 

:~'

__ 

·517 

______________ .. __ :... ~ 

lViaual 

est1mete8 by three persons. 

..... ._2 ...... ;.. ... _,.l __ 

The treatmenta 'tfttt pI'orided 98~r cent orbettit: )~~trol of crabgrass . 

in 1960 also provided. large me~~ of control inl~~~ These j,.nclude!lcalciUlll 

arsenate at SSSlb •• /l, dacthal at 10 lbs./A, and zyti'Oil at 20 lbs./A.l·~tments 

applied in 1960 that did not control erabcraae in 1961 included. chlordane 

at 60 1bs./A, "Pax" at 784 1bs./A, qt2'on ,t 10 lbS./...&"., ,and,daotha1 at 7.S lbe./A. 

• . ,< "', . • "'" .•• ' 

The SSSlbs./A rate ot calci_ aNenete in 1960..... till tb1nnin~the.~ 

in 1961. In repeat treatments, calciUIIIarsenate at )'10 lbs./A and "Pax" thinned 

the fescue-bluegrass turf' but .ytro~•. 4acthal, and c~l'dsne d1d not. 

'1'!le1960-appliostion of chlo~at 120lbs./A, :~*ecl poet-emerg~.iltd 

not control crablft.s that season •. I~ 1961, howe. vel', ~~t70. percent 

'j( 

IH 

caQtJol 

was obtained Oft tb1s plot without !uribeI' treatllle~... 'Controlhel'e was a ruJJlt 

ot residual chlordane in the soil. Because of ita 1~ 111' •• " •.ha .A~' ....:...

. ~lS 

residual cemtrol of crabgrssi~oiitnnet!''td tfiCi,tl~£wij .f~~riate also can ;'bi.r~tiri_ 

buted to residual chemical ac.tiJd,ty. Although teste are in progres$, it is not 

yet .knownwheth.tF;jgirri'4±d~a+;rettects of zytron .nd~~~cthal on crabgrass the 

~~ar, f~~lo~-;.~Wt;~e,~ residual ohelld:o.1·....ctivity"-or- the' prevention 

.·or·~~e:¢~~;:1.'n the..leU~atment. t'1;.~es on residU81e~~cte ot 

~s-Qlt) 'iJless 1M', .) being ccntAn'Ud. ..'- 

f; ') ~ f~'i,; ~,~ :mr \J,~~)'!: 

SWlImaryand ConclUsions 

itfumpBriso~':Were made of~.veral pre-eJigrg:~~6:berbicide~£6r,~",qg~~~1 

of cr,abgrass W.established ~t. To evaluate ..the performan\l8S.,or;'v:ar.~ ,:~ 

ohetid'cals, efftdts of season 'of application, residual activity, a~ .h~~ ot 

out were studied. 

.' 

Spr;l.ng app~ications of dtihium arsena1;.e,:Cbi~ne, da'c\'hal',' iiPax',j:'!iridi:.i 

zyt1'9n 'oontro],ll'd; orabgrassb,tter than fell" a'p'pffo~tions. ,~thoj1g~,~,~plicatiOns 

may'be' -Slightly leSS' 'injurious to turf, spring appl~cations appear to 

be l1}9re·practj,.,C;Jl. Severalttp.ngs may happen to lawns bct-ween,OCtob~~.~' 

that-' could red-b.icethe effect1"vtlneas of fall appiications,' f.e., rakirig"o~.leaves 

and ~ass, flcwliin~, etc.. o :>" .. Tt~Yf '.\. "(sri.,,,,;,' 

Raising tti"el: 

height er c~t" from 1 to 2 inches sreatly r~~u'ced cra~~~~~:' 

..'.,8.1...'.'f.• ,...._al 

pop~ationa ~. increased the. ~£fectivenesso,t. ~y!tJ:pn and dac:th 

imp]jcation is',that good cr@~asa control may.pEIachieved evep :w~th· ,~~ll1Y 

inetfective he-tbicides if the'turt is mowedhigh. It also can be expe d . 

that ~ood o~~l of crabg:t!Js, in closelyc~1;. ~'1111t such as~:tt~8,;~'" 

wil1)'r~quire high rates of ap~lication or.~8,hlYHM'fective msterials. .: 

At normal 'fates of appUhhtion in April or -early May, an"di' th/'l~b~iied 

mate~a18 tes~,g except "Pax~~ controlled cr~8i%'~...."atisfactority~1 ,'1'!tql~mentel 

materia~!, "Bamane" ~pd dipropalin, als9Provided good ~on~~~-rtO'T . 

,qalcium a?i~lffiate 

has inj~t'd Golonial bflH:Ii,r."frand fesou~~ljl~~8Ic~ut 

in 8,ometests~~~liereas "Pax", s caused little 9r no turf inj\l~.. ,~LM~;. 

apol:l.cations m'at be hazsrdouS' th both materials. Calcium propyl arsonate-has 

injured fe8cl1e~bluegraas..turt j,n. two...di£fe;,~t-,UNs... ' - - - -.. 

Even at hi~h rates of application, chlbi'dei'14i'1tajY~~t iri.1\l~d' t~rl i~~.~ 

test. For COllsistent control of orabgrass, however, rates higher than the 

o~r,~~!' ;:s.~g~~t!%;! q~~Z:~~ffl dr,~ ,,~t 6Q.lbs.1 ,A;l~~o~eq.ed. ,- . :,. ';:,,,1'1 

. ;.' nrphenlltrfi~~~'; je~ ~~;hete "fiSt f;~h~' .f'iJ'.st.tlmt:)j'.i961~ ..~ i.njur~~~tJ.i.l 

..:~,~~~~.~~~~~,:·:t~n,-r J()~.jl/!:':·~" ,.~;~~,~~~~,~,::;', "~' .~"r ...,~.·'l.:-tl;·'·;·· :,~~:.:'jJ .. ""."" \'T~"·) ".1"" . 

. .',';.-i"S~gg~~U~c6'.~ci~lj~f~~;' ~adti{Ji sbd"ti~h8';e ilo;ri~ist~n~li p~~vided 

.)~.q~=:.r:~r~t,?f: m~t~~·s, '.'~t¥':\\ ~~~101,14t .iw.~,~!p.JIlOst.q1' .t~ qollllllQl1~lp-t 

,_j:'~:,~. ~,~, ! A\.e:J.! i"\',~ ;" ·t~tl'n,::, '~,:'.' '> 1 ',.J f lflr'1: J.. .': .. .f:~ "!,:) 

- . Resid\i~l; Jdi'itiJ8f\1.tJoraf)~ajJc~I'~e6odd~~a~'ori~tbee~obt~ined with'si~le 

'1/.ll..P.,P.l..i.ca~,~..o.ns., 

i'5srlbS"''&;'-aMIi' , itli~ne 'at-\:uP, t.w,""w"'J e..I,A,t1a~I',tWll in ..rl..c .... ~9t . ,JIt1e~ .e. at 

r(~h1lf"re.s.i~~.'-;,,'. ~~.J~~.'.

lAs80o~~e ~!~r, ~?rm~~ Res~ch, Aa~istant',,:and Graduate stUdent, 

CBSERVATIONS ONCHEMICAL CONrROLOF CRABGRASS IN TURF(1961) 

!:": '..: '. r1 

R.'A. Peters; H.:~:b.iokum, and Ie..C. 8teverisl 

'.' 'j ~ 

. . 

'19 

: .. : " I :~. . ," 

Presently a large numbw o~ herbd.cides are avallable which 'show,pr:azdse 

tor selective :control o~ crabgrass in turt. Further e'YSluationisneecled ot 

available materials'used under a range ot conditions and at various ~s of 

crab~ass growth. . 

, ' .. (.,; 

Procedure: The aperU1ental. areas were laid out Cll'1the lawn ot the tJn!iyersity 

ot Connecti~t at storrs. The areas were subjected to the same tert!ll"zation 

and ~g ~ent as was thttt ~ ot the,.campua Uim. Individual, ~ot 

size. was 4 by 25 (eet with each:~~. replioatid tbree times. fort!le 

pre-emergence and emergence ~t. Onone;~gence area ~ A) 

each plot was 4 b7 10 teet and ~ ~plicated fOur~8. On the otlllet: 

post-.E!J]lergencearea (Area B) ~ p;ot was 10 bY'."~ .f'~ and was ~~ted 

twice. ""i ,'. 

,.1 . 

All ot the JDA¢eriala used 1I$re'granular except tc# the dactllal an«: 

M-202; which .·.were appl.. ied as.. sp$8. at the rate 0..•t ~~.~ons per. ~~~.'. The 

crabgrass P"lent,.. small.creJar&Js (Digitarla: i . ). The;~ 

perennial. gr&N species was Kentuck7bl.uegrass with an,admixture ot .co:{bniaJ. 

bent on the ~gence sites. ';" " 

The pre-Ellll8rpnce apPllcations'~re made oriMaZ'cll.~3l at which tU1~ the 

bluegrass was just beginning to ~ up. The eij1ergence application.· were 

made on Ma;r15 when less than 2; ~ent by estiiate ot the crabgrass 

see

520 

- . 

\.. ; ."," ,

521 ' 

Chemical 

Check 

Zytron granular 

Zytron granular 

Dacthal 

Dacthal 



Diphenatrile . 

Diphenatrile 

Dipropalin 

Dipropalin 

Diphenam1d 

Diphenamid 

NIA-6.370 

·NIA-6.370. 

CPA 

CPA 

s.s 

13.0 

6.5 

13.0 

305.0 

610.0 

22 

40 

5 

10 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4.3 

S6 

Pre .... egoe.- :&aergence -,.',. 

5.7 

1.0 

0.3 

0.5 

0.3 

1.0 

0.' 

'\.' t". 

4.4 

2.2 

0•.3 

O.s 

1.0 

1.2 

0.8 

0.5 

0.5 

0.8 

0.,3 

4.0 

4.0 

s.o 

7.5 

2.8 

0•.3 

,:~, ~' 

All ot·the. pt"e-emergence mater;1.tls used-sytron, d.acthal and calcium 

arsenate-gave ve17goodcontrol.9t' crabgrass at all rates used.At·';:r 

81118J'gence,'the Balie three gave ~. good results;- ''!'he other materialS- 

used only at emergence-diphenatrile, dipropalln, !lZldCPAat the 86 lb. .i'e 

rate-al80gave. very~dcontrol. The 43 lb. rate of .cp'Awas SOlllewhat r 

:¥ . 

less effective, being rated as good. UnsatisfactoI7 r$~ults were obtaIned 

from diphenamid and NIA-6.370,with the fomer rated as poor and the latter 

as no control .::' Turf density j,n the experimental a'l'ea was poor at the. t1M.>. 

of treatmentmBldng evaluation of turf injury difficult. No obvious ~" 

to turf from tJrJ:Yof the treatments was noted. ,l"', 

j,n 

Results obtained from pos~8ence app;J.icat:JJms en Area A are giwa.. .. 

Table3. 

yery good control, as ~W Jul;y 18, ~961;,l'" obtained fran tu 

roytron M-2025, the CPAformulations and .the 4 lb ••-'of tritluralin. . '1'lIlI' 

2 lb. rate of tritluralln gave fair to good control, whUe diprop8.lin gave 

poorcontrol. Neither NIA-6.3701JP,Z' :l11phenatrUe __ c:ioJJt.rolat this stfIke 

of growtn at the rates. used. v • t .r 

-:.

5~2 

'rab4t13.· ~gtnc. ·QGabtiol:of' C~II'''''',!urf uEvaluatec1 

b;r Stomta1llt:lutee..:- ..... /,$1.' 

ctt_oll '.. 

- --~. L.: .. r" 

Check . 

z,tron ~5, 

CPA 

CPA 

r 

CPAin J.O-6..:4 fel'tWser 

NIA-6370 :,,) 

Dipropalln . 

Trit'luraJ.1n ' 

TritluraJ.1n ". 

Dipbenatr11~' 

:::)!:tlJ6loabIl'US 

Control Rat1np 

"~ Acti.... '.,'1:';-. (0 • no cover; ~:}·I: .,~ 

J'i@'I'pjr acre····'·_·10 • cC:mpl.ete00Wl") 

15 

43 86 

43 

6 

4 

2 

4 

30 

,C 

6.5 

.0.8 

0.3 

0.0 

0.1 

6.1 

4.7 

2.1 

1.0 

7.1 

'. 

Table '.J.: '~vea the results of poat-emergence I,ppu.oations on Area B.. 0,• 

Table 4. Poat-cergenoe Control of Crabgru.~1n Turf as Evaluated. 

'b;y stmt"Zlrt1mate~A1'e& lJ---- . ' . 

. J 

Ch8D1cal ). 

, , ; 

Check . 

....... 

CPAin 10-6-4, fettU1er. 

CPA·.'·:··.·. 

Diphenat.~ .: 

z,trcln' grat\Ular 

. z,tron M-2025 

PMA . 

"11', 

. 10• o9!!i!?J4te99!BJ . 

"rx1fJJ',', 

,..",' ,p• 

ase 

no 

Control ~.",.'. 

cover; . ·d.' . 

4.0 

1.5 

0.3 

3.0 

2.0 

2.0 

1.0 

It ,IWU ~ itbG the hig1l*' ,_eol CPA(Mt':a,O'pve control of ~, 

caJllOft wb1illlolc1,,* {':rUol1Ulalle"'). " " D!'i. . :.•. ' 

·1".". .\ .»•.~",.;', • ~,~ ~, • ~( 

··Turt .~... mtedb;r .'T 7M1l'OD the ~;treated With t~ 

w:1th'the 4 lb. rate Biv.lng an &wrage of 20 pero~.f&ereaee in the deMft7 

of the blWllI'us.

523 

::;3S, 

a:l 

. Sati18tactol7 CRlfttt"Olof lIIIaU:~U8 W&8Cl~ fl'CIII1appUoat1one 

ot.u..~ _Ueclas'&Pl"Il, ..... pm8 applio"'AlU sytron#dactbal;:c:, 

=~!t~::t;~~~wE~e~1::~i,;;~~: 

di~d, ~~~,s,.S am CPt:;~ 43 lb. per ~~\ 

1a1fi1:I'W1th 

~:i&PJtl1oat1:.ot

524 

PRE.._RGENCE 

AMU' POsT-EHERGENCICWBGRASS 

,',' . . . :0'. 

CONTROl.XJ"TURFGWS" 1~: i: 

, "):t 2 

C. D. Kesler. R. H.'lole, and C. E. Phillips 

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness 

of severa1chem1cals ...• far;the control:," crabgrass on " 

established Kentucky b1uegra" turf. :'~;; . 'c 

. > 

Materials and Methods ., 

'-. " 'J~J1' . 

The experimental area.,.. -located on tIbe l\8r1cul tural 

Experiment Station Farm at· ... rk. Delawan.'Chemicals were; 

applied to a Kentucky blue'g'tatls·turf heavlJ,:tnfested with cribgrass 

the previous season. 'rb- crabgrass t()pulation cons1ste~ , 

of approximately 90 percent smooth crabgran ~Digitaria ischaemum,. 

and 10 percent common crabir~s, Digit!rl",~ulnalis. The 

plot layout .. a randomized block designlQ9Qf sting of2 r.p~ications 

and 17 treatments. hch plot mea."red 12 feet by 20':Jee~. 

'fl':, '; 

The soil was a Matapeake silt 10amofjWledium fertilltywtth 

a pH of 6.0. Fertilizer was applied in the early spring as 

indicated by soil tests. The area was mowed once a week to a 

height of 1 1/2 inches. 

Pre-emergence uterial. were applied .. March 20. Emul.ifiable 

concentrates and wettable powders W8~.,:applied in water ·1jith 

a modified bicY

The area was not irr~•• · Within 24C'ltobl's after the 

application of the first and second post-emergence treatments, 

there were .70 laches and :1t,l::rlnches of. precip:Ltation, respe~ 

tively. No precipitation ,ococ.rred withio' days after the 

third post-emergence application. 

~ j l ;J 

525 

Periodic obs.rvations" for turf injury and crabgrass con-:'::· 

trol were made following application of the chemicals. Dis- .'::; . 

coloration readinss were taken 5 days after each p08t-emerg ... ~~ 

application. ' The>percentq •• of crabgrass contrl:)l and turf ..r.~li', 

grass injury weredeterminid by averaging Httutes of three '.::'L" 

independent observers. : :.\, 

~;_ {:I':« ', 

The herbicidal materials used and rate of active ingre- :h 

dients per acre are included with the data in tables land '2.,'1 

Results 


Table.laa.d 2 show the ..esults obtaldta With the chemi';"~C' 

cals used in this experimeltt~·, ;,m~' : 

None. of t\\ .• pre-emergent. chemicals produfed any obserY~:.~· 

able turf discOloration ort","f injury.Zytron liquid formulations 

were the only trea~dts producirta excellent control 

of crabgra .. dUring the entire growing season. Granular zytron 

and,dacthal W-50 gave goodeontrol.' 

'1::1: 

Tricalcium arsenate and calcium propyl arsonate produceef: 1 

excellent control early in the season. By mid-summer, contr

526 

Table 1. 'l'a):lsra,. ContrO.k1d:th Pr.~Herbicid.s 

. 'l';Jq 

aag·. 

I a.t·.J4. 

Zytron, gran. 15 

Zytro_t1-Ua9· 

15.' 

is 

Zytron.H-20~S, .. 

Da~tJ.l4tW~sO . ~10". 

Tr1ca1c1.\IID.Jr.e~.. 

.6-5",1.' 

Calc1" .. P\l'op~l(, .... o~~e . c41!16 

PEWCF-28 . 30.8 

PEWCF-I08 30.8 

PEWCr ..1U ;.,30 if 8 

PEWC,p..iu .: ;,,,37119 

Niagara 6370 5 

Control 

,j.' ',. :". A':'-~. 

perCeDeecatrol of Crabsl'GS 

Ju·lyJ>.t:..Aug. 15 Sept,·b 

", h,;-:,.., ,,;. 

100 91 80 

·100, J.t:: 94 92 

100;n' 93 92 ! 

90',':10 .88 82, 

9&,'I~:" 48 48 

90 :,iX!): 50 42 i'.l; 

75 • c.', 69 65 ..-: 

85 85 82 

90.r"j'~ . 83 

95don 82 

10 oo 

Table~.

the application of theae treatments. Evideece. of discoloration 

were noticeable for more than 3 weeks after the last application. 

Both DMAand CMApermanently injured the Keatucky bluegrass reducing 

the stand by one-third. At least 90 percent control of 

white clover was recorded in area' treated w,itb AHA.DMA,and 

CMA.The broad1ed popu1at:i;oQ,.in these s,.,. treatments was 

reduced by more than SO peJ.'c,q.~. .... . 

SUlllDl8rytpdConcluslons~; 

Pre-emergence and post-_rgence crabg~us contre)' chemicals 

were evaluated at the University of Del"-re during the 

spring and sUDlllerof 1961. . . .1 • 

Zytron liquid gave excellent control of crabgrass during 

the entire season. Zytron granular, dacthal W-SO, PEWC'-108. 

PEWC'-111, and phenyl mercuric acetate produced good control 

528 

Pre- andpost ..emergejljCec:rabgrass contHi in lawn' turf l 

'i t .... "., - 

R. B,. ~~'~C. R. Skog~~ 

If man could find a cheap,*,fticfent andsaf~;bbeinical to control the' 

"d"""""'" '~""I"'" ,',' 

conrnoncrabgrasses', Digitaria l'cblt*mwn and D " ungulntUs, tu,;f, t:ech~ 

nicians would be able to solve many chronic compla' 's. The crabgrasses"he ' 

versatile in that they grow vigorously under the various cutting heights normally 

employed for turfgrassesi'!~ 3/16 inches;,,:r~~er unmowedconditions, 

they grow into robust plants often reaching three feet in height. Because of 

their sun..loving hab,it and heat,to+uance they ~f..1~,t,and grow under ~ry 

high temperatures whel) basic l~~ ~asses fail. 1JlIae, grasses can aho :N~y 

adapt to fmile or infertile soil conditions var~9 greatly in reac:ti~ All 

of these factors may need to be c:onsidered in attempting to develop a themical 

control. 

Methpd§ and Hatedals 

, ~ ". ' :l 

All rates of applicationare,'iven in pounds '-. acre. Injury reJdinS. 

are read aSI 0 = no 'injury, 5= complete kill. Plant counts were made,p'¥,: 

counting crabgrass plants in two one-foot squares per plot. The average of 

plant counts was calculated and uS,ad to compute t~~ ~rcent control over check. 

Pre-ernergEince 

site 

The area selected for the pre-emergence tria!F.was a level, well-d:l'aned 

on Bridgehampton silt loam. The grass stand was several years old and 

consisted" ~nd.iJll1n1shing ordef"9f Col onialbentlW~ss, Kentucky bluegrass and 

Red fescue,. ,',_, " :/,:: " ' 

,j--"""".' (.•.. ::"-'" '.·',-·Jr~""J 

In order to provide a untform stand of crabgraas'the test area was overseeded 

with crabgrass seed in November of 1960. Seed from 1959 and 1960 was 

mixed and broadcast over the entl'nLarea' 

inch and scarified with a verticut. 

J,' " 

after it< hlld been mowedto 3/4 of an 

'~.i: ,F'. 

Throughout ibe :1961 growin9('~~'$on the 9raS$,:JI8,~owed as neede,d at ,a, 

height of 3/40:f~ninch. Hea~~c:~ippings we~e ~~~, ,Frequent 11gh1

529 

The chemicals were applied May3 •. The day was: clear and windy with 'an 

air temperature of 50 0F. The soil was wet and cold. 

Injury to the basic grasses was recorded threti'tiJnes throughout tl)e,season 

and crabgrass coverage estimates were made on August 11th and September J~th. 

C.rabgrass counts were made on September 19th. ',' I " 

The chemicals included, the rete of applicati~h, and the companies sOPPlying 

the materials are as follows: 

1) Triflural1n (N,N-di-n-prOJ'¥l-2,6-dinitro";'4: trifluromethylanilinel 

2, 4 S. 6 lb. Eli L11ly Company." . ,if . . 

at 

2) Dipropal1n (N,N-di-n-propyl ..2,6-dinitro-4'lrnethylaniline) at 2,.4.& 

8 lb. Eli Lilly Company.' .[' '. ,~' 

3) Diphenatrlle (diphenylaoetonitr11e) at 30 Llb, Eli Lilly Company'Cat 

26 lb, Agrico Crabgrass Killer; at 30 lb, International Minerals and Chemical 

Company. 

4) Dacthal G-l.5 (Dimethyl' ester of tetra 

10 S. 15 lb. Diamond Alkali Cheniical Company. 

chlbroterephthalic 

,,, 

acid)l}t5, 

;;' 

5) Dacthal W-50 (Dimethyl ester of tetra chloroterephthalic acid) at 9.8 

(Rid), at 10.8 (Vitogrow) - Swift Chemical Company. 

6) Niagara 6370 experimental at 6 lb. Niagara Chemical 

Machinery and Chemical Corporation. . 

Division, ,Food 

7) Bandane E.C. (pOlychlorodicyclopentadiene isomer) 

Velsicol Chemical Company. ',1 

at 10, 20 S. 30 lb. 

8) PEWCF-l08 (Chlordane and polychlorodicyctbpentadiene isomer) at'47 

lb. O. M. Scott Company. 

9) FEVCF-lll (Chlordane and pol ychlorodicyclbpentadiene isomer) at 57.5 

lb. O. M. Scott Company. 

10) FEVCF-1l3 (diphenylacetonitrile) 37 lb. O. M. Scott Company. 

11) FEWCF-114 (polychlorodicyclopentadiene ·iibmer). O. M. Scott ~ompany. 

12) HaltSF-2b (Chlordane) at 59.6 lb. O. M.~co.tt Company. ' . 

13) Tricalc!um arsenate (Pur~e) at 355 lb. A~oW Seed Company. . 

14) Calcium propyl arsonate (No Crab) at 40 11:>. Amchem. . 

15) Zytron (o-(2-4-dichlorophenyl)0-methyl iS~~OPYl-phophoromidoth~~te) 

at 15 lb. Dow Chezn.ical Company.... .:, ' . 

16) Corenco 106 (DiPhenYlacet..o.nitrile and DiS~ ... 1'1 methyl arsonate.Hex a 

hydrate) at 31.1 and 5.4 l.b respectively. Consolidate Rendering Company. 

17) SD 6623 (Tri methyl sulfonium chloride) at 6 b. Shell Oil Co~pany. 

lb. 

18) 75'){,Bandane and 25'){,Chlordane at 15 and 5,.20 and 6.6, and 30 arid 10 

Velsicol Chemical Company. I, ": . . 

Post-emergence 

This area was located on asaridy loam s01l th~ was heavily infeste~,with 

smooth crabgrass. The stand of turf was thin andcpnslsted of Colonial bentgrass, 

creeping red fescue and Kentucky bluegrass~th,the former being the 

most prevalent. The soil in the test area was oflbw fertility and the turf was 

mowed regularly at a height of 1 1/2 inches.

530 

Prior to each chemical application the area was watered to assure sufficient 

moisture for growth and~~ q~plywith the4'~ections for the application 

of the dry materials. . , 

The first chemi~al appl1cat1gns were made on~JulY 18 at which time the 

crabgralls>s:>lant¢.,we:qein the 2-3l;d stage. The~'Ywas clear and the ail-temperature 

was 85OF. The second ~p~lication was m~!July 28. The air ttlllperature 

at time of application was 82Of. The third application of chemicals was 

made on AU9J.I~t 10. The air ttJllP8J:8ture on this dill was 85Op. 

Table II shows that some chemicals 

) 

were applied only once while others 

we~e,applie(t:twoor three times. Certain chemical."or rates of various chemical 

s , causeif serious injury to the turf afterth,()fiI.~st application. 1llese 

treatment~ were not ,repeatecl. Candn other trea1lllents controlled crabgrass 

satisfactcirilywith'two applications so these chemic;a}.swere not applied a 

third j:lm,. The third applicatioQ}V8s made only wtw.nit appeared necessary for 

safe a~ a~equa~e control. : 

,Throughout the, ,growing seasol1 soil moisture .' ,not limiting for any prolonged 

period of time even thou~,.~etest area r~ived no irrigation except 

on :t;reatment dates. 

i"·:' 

F01,!ril')jury ratings on the' ba;sic grasses were.:,Jl;a~en during the season with 

the final ones, plus plant counts, on September, 19.; 

An analysis of variance was run on these plan\counts and the percent 

control over the checks was calcVl~ted. 

Tl1elJlat~ri~lsincluded, the ,rates used and ttMt;companies supplying the 

chemicals are as follows: .' 

, , " :" 

, 1) Niagara 6376 (exper"ime\'ltal) at 6 lb. Ni*ra Chemical Division, Food 

> Machinery and ,Chemical Corporation.;i 

, 2) StainP;"34 (3,4-dichloroprepionanilide) a~~,and 4 lb. ChipmanChemical 

Company,' Inc. ' >' ' , , ' 'Jl 

,3) Ansar A:"l2. (organic arseJ'lcill, As 44.3% ,byiVIt.) at 1 ~ 1 + Wetting 

Agent, 1 1/2, 2, 2 + WAand 4 lb. Ansul Chemical~pany. 

, 4) ,Ansar A~~(organic 8rs.n19a1, As 24.~,l;2yr:Wt.)at 1 1/2, 1 1/2: + WA, 

21/2, 3 1/2, 3 112 + WA, and ,5,lb. Ansul Chemical! C:QJlItlany. " 

5)'Super,C;rab-E-Rad (Ca191U1l!acid methyl ara~1;e) at 21.5 lb. Vineland 

Chemical CO!IIpimy., ":! ,,': r 

6) Methar 80 (Dis odium methyl arsonate H,xah~rate) 7.2 lb •. W. A. C.leary 

Corporation. 

' 

7) Super Methar (Ammoniummethyl arsonate) 16.1 lb. W. A. Cleary 

Corporation • 

. ' ,8). Lofts C 7abgrass KilleJ:, (Pi~odiun methYl ,,~oRate Hexahydrate) at , 

2.85 lb. ,Pe

1) Ansar A-12 at 2 Ib + WAand 4 Ib and Methar 80 controlled significantly 

with only one application but injured the basic grasses severely. 

2) These chemical treatments - Ansar A-12 at 2 lb, Ansar A-35 at 3 1/2 

lb, 3 1/2 Ib + WA,5 lb, Super Crab-E-Rad and Super Methar all controlled over 

90 percent of the crabgrass after two applications. These treatments caused 

'i++_'~ +n mnnC'T'::a+c +OI"nn.I"'\"'~""''\t .; ... .;1........ +1"\ +h"'- ............"'"' ... 4 ... 1 _ ....... ~ ....,.. 

The liquid materials for bothp%e~ and post-eme~nce trials were applied 

with a 2 gallon pumpsprayer at 30 IDS pressure arxl.'volume of about 250 

gallons per acre. The dry chemicals were applied with a calibrated spreader 

set according to labeled directions or by mixing weighed amounts with dry sand 

and broadcasting by hand. 1: 

Results 

Tables I and II relate the chemicals, rates of application, number ofap. 

plications, average plant counts per square foot, percent cover of crabgrass, 

injury readings and percent control of· each treatment!~er the check. 

Pre-emergence 

531 

Whenworking with living organisms one can rarely expect perfection or 

exact resul t s, It is pleasing to note that fifteen df·'the 44 chemical treat- . 

ments resulted in l~ control ofc1'lIibgrass. These themical treatments are 

as f011011SI Trifluralin at 2, 4 and· 6 lb; Dipropalinl'at 8 lb; Dacthal G-l~5 

at 10 lb; Rid (Dacthal W-50) at 9.8 lb; Vitogrow (Dacthal W-50) at 10 Ib; 

Agrico's Diphenatrile on fertilizer; Purge (Tricalciuilfarsenate 355 Ib); Nlill 

(Diphenatrile at 30 Ib); DOlI's crabgrass killer (Zytronat 15 Ib) and finally 

Corenco 106 (Diphenatrile & DSMA31 and 5.4 Ib}, . '-~ 

There were also four chemical treatments with over 90%control, namely: 

Dipropalin at 4 lb, Diphenatrile at 30 lb, PEWCF-l08 at 47 lb and Trifluralin 

E.C. at 4 lb. 

Somematerials which gave 90 - 100 percent contrbl also discolored se-. 

verely. They were Trifluralin at 4 and 6 lb, Dacthal.G-l.5 at 15 Ib and 

Zytron. Most of the chemicals that reSUlted in onlyY~ir control showed 

little phytotoxicity to the turfgrasses. 

It was noted that some of the chemical treatments, Niagara 6370, Bandane 

atta. at 10 Ib, Bandane Verm. at 10 Ib, Halts F-2b, NoCrab, SO 6623 at 6 Ib and 

Dipropalin E.C. at 4 Ib had a higher crabgrass count than the check plots. 

There may be many factors involved here. Twowhich stand out are that the infestation 

of crabgrass was not heavy enough to canceFexperimental variatiOn 

due to crabgrass stand or possibly because treatments,r'lctually created a m~±,e 

favorable condition for germination and growth of cra~rass plants. 

Post-emergence 

Again in this test it was encouraging to find that fifteen of the treatments 

controlled over 90 percent of the crabgrass. Within this range of control 

there were other interesting reSUlts, mainly: 

,>:~ ". ,

u 

532 

3) Those trea.t,mellts which weft, applied 3 time .. , gave little injury,;8nd 

controlled signif1~ant1y were A""Un~12at 1 1b,). lb' + WA, 1 1/2 1b, Ans*, ' 

A-35 at 1 1/211)." ~,1/2 + WAand2.V2 lb. ' 'lc" . . 

Two chemicals, Lofts Crabgrass Killer and Void, controlled significantly 

but were under 90 percent. 

The Niagara 6370 and Starn F-34 at 2 lb and 4 1b per acre gave very' little 

contro1..t 

.~': ~j 

At the :tiJlleof final, crabgra .. counts, no inju:q' was apparent on the ballic 

lawn grasses from any of the treatments. 

SUmmaryand Conclusions 

Because ol~ c~~tinued in:tertJt in crabgrasl\"clmtro1 in turf, the University 

,of Rhpde, Island Agricultural ~xperiment Stati1mconducted pre-and 

post-.merge~e crabgrass tria1sd!.irip9 1961 to eva1Lllte22 chemicals. The 

chemicals were evaluated for effectW.ness in controUing crabgrass and for 

sa fety to perenrUa,l. turfgrassehc ,•.rbf.rates of applieations and other specUics 

were follQWed according to manuflcwrer,s I reconmendatd.ons or suggestions. ,·rr-hOse 

chemicals which showed satisfactory:chemical controlGat one or more rates ate 

as followsl 

Pre-emergence 

1) Trif1uralin 

2) DaGtha19~1.~ apd Dacth1l1,W..50 

3) Dipr()palin ., ' 

4) piphenatri1e and Diphenatrl1e 

5) Zytron 

+ DS~ 

6) A:VCF-108 

7) ,Tricalcium,arsenate 

Po~t-emergence 

I'" ," .• 

1) Ansar A-12.a~f\.n$ar A-3~', 

2) ~alGiUQI ac1d methyl arson.te 

3) Ammoniummethy1 arsonate 

4) Disodium methyl arsonate 

.:, 

!. 

I;::Yf 

+ 

" 5

( ( 

Table I. Average percent crabgrass cover, injury rating, crabgrass plants present and control over check 

plots for the various formulations and rates of pre-emergent herbicides tested. 

crabgrass 

TrePtinent % act •. 'llJ/A 

plants/sq. ft. 

9/18161 7/~'/61 9/1 8/ 61 9/18/61 

% control 

Over chec 

1. Tiif\W'.ali,n .(V~m.) 2.00 2- 0,,0 1.0 0.1 0.0 100 

2. Trlfil¢.aJ.ifl., (Vei'm.) 2.00 4 Q"O 1,,3 0.5 0.0 100 

3. Trlflliraiin (Verm.) 2.00 6' 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 100 

4. Triflura11n (Fert.) .92 4 0,,0 1..0 0.5 0.0 100 

5. Dipropalin (Verm.) 2.00 2 2.J 0.0 0.0 2.2 54 

6. Diprop.alin (Verm.) 2.00 4 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 96 

7.. Dipropalin(Verm.) 2.00 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 

,~~ D~~l.~JF~t·)\f9,2· 4 1..7 O..Q 0..0 1.7 64 

,g~ ~¥;ne~V~. i ll'.:iQ. 30 O,~ O,Q' 0,0 0.2. 96, 

l~ ~aF:iJ.tl (Fert.) [.~'~~. ~d h~' (/.,0 0.0 QJ! 82 ..' 

It. Dactha1G"1.51~50. 5. 1..3 O.b 0..0 .0 ..5 . 89 

12. Dacthal G-l.5 1.50 10, 0.,3 0...2 0.1 0.0 100 

13. Dactha1 G-l.5 1.50 15 0.,0 0.2 0.5 0.0 100 

14. Dactha1,w-50 (Rid) 2.30 9.8 0.0 0,,2 0,,1 0.0 100 

15. Dactha1 W-50 

. •(" i togrpw) 2.53 1'0.8 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 100 

16.,. NiA~7-Q,-;;" -- . 5.00 6 16,,3 0,,0 0,,0 13,2 ,0 

l~L_ 0"0 

~-mt.c. f:~~~: 

\;,~ 00 

0; 

- .. all.- ci'n'__.G. Z~ . ., £1'& &:8 ~j 

QV 

.. 

19.. SWam!" 'SoC. 4 1bfflal. 30 5,7 ().O .~2 2.9 46- 

20. BtfndaneAtta. 4 Iblga1. 10. 16,7 0,0 0.0 8.8 0 

21 .. Bandane Atta. 4 lb!gal. 20 3,,0 0.0 0.0 2,,8 39 

22. Bandarie Atta. 4 1b!gal. 30 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 79 

23. Bandane-Verm.· 4 Ib!ga1. 10 16.-1 0.0' 0.0 ·10.5 a 

24. Bandane Verm. 4 lb!gal. 20 10,3 0.0 0.0 1.7 64 

25. Bandane Verm. 4 1b!gal. 30 2.0 0.0 '0.0 1.0 79 

26. Diphenatrile 

. ,--- 

-(Agri6e-}------ .--. 5.85 .• -26· ... -0.0 0..0· .., .---0.0. -O.{). 100 

.l:~'·i']~~; i (·::.'~,:;J-·1'j 

Ave. 

no. 

~. 

\J.)

Table I (Coot'd) 

27. JSc.F,~iOe t$~4 : 

28. '_ f;'111 22.3 , 

29. we:F-1l3 , 14.5 . 

30. laC F-1l4 11.8 

31. HaltsF2b 23.0 . 

32. Trica!c!tID arsenate 51 

33. Ca,lplL1!lpz,ropy1 

_.,~~a*- 20 

~.tt~(~H i:4 

36. C~nco 106 15.9+3.ISI#. 

37.. ' SO6623 4 Ibl.ga1. 

3a. Zytron E.C. 3 Ib/ga1. 

39. D!propalin EeC. .4 Hi/gal. 

40. T:I1ifluralin E.c., 4 1b!gal. 

41.. 7$~" , 

.• ,.~ ... 10. 

42...,~, __~\L~~~'-: ~j .) t.;(· 

. -~~... ';. 10: 

43.. .7'$ ~ane . . 

~ Chlordane 10 

44~ 

45. 

Dacthaf 

Ch8ck' 

G-1.5 SY 1..5 

*Injury ratings 0 - 5; 0 =no injury, 5 =complete kill. 

% Ave. no. 

Crabgrass 

cr~ass 

Rate Cover.' ,ave. plants $q. ft. % control 

r1ir3);1 9hB/61 OVer e 

47 0.3 ()~O O~O 0.3 93 

'SJ.7 4.0 '0..0 0.0 1.0 79 

37 0.0 6.0 0..3 0.8 82 

30 0.7 0.0 0,,0 0..'5 89 

59.3 18.0 0.0 0.0 7..7 0 

355 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 

, ' 

* 

40 5.0 O~O O~O 6~O 

. 0 

30,_ O".Q -P..O 0,,0 0.0 clOO 

15' 0,,0 ':0 ..., 0..9 '0.'0 '100 

31.1+5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 

6 31.7 0.0 0.0 12.5 0 

15 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 75 

4 21..7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0 

4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 96 

15+5 

I~"r 

0..0 .0,,5 

6~ 39 

( ( 

Table II. Average injury ratings, crabgrass plants present, control over check plots and number of 

applications for the various formulations and rates of post-emergent herbicides tested. 

act· Lbt ton 7/28/61 8/7/61 8/10/61 8/15/6 

1. Nia 6370 5% gran. 6 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.8 13 

2. Starn F34 15%verm. 2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.2 12. 

3. Starn F34 15%verm. 4 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.0 13 

4. Ansar A-12 25% 1 3 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 8.2 92 

5. Ansar A-12 25% 1+WA 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 96 

6. Ansar A-12 25% 1 1/2 3 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 98 

7. Ansar A-12 25% 2 2 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 7.2 93. 

8. Ansar A-12 25% 2+WA 1 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.0 91 

9. Ansar A-12 25% 4 1 4.0 2'.3 0.0 040 7.7 92.· 

10. Ansar A-35 21% -v- 

1 1~ 0.0 . 0,0 0.0 0.0 7.5 93 . 

11. Ansar A-35 21% 112+WA 3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 4.8 95 

12. Ansar A-35 21% 2 1/2 . 3 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.3 97 

13. Ansar A-35 21% 3 1/2 . 2 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 93 

14. Ansar A-35 21% 3.1/2+wA 2 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 94 

15. Ansar A-35 21% 5 2 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 95 

16. Super 

Crab-E-Rad 8% 21.5 2 0.7 0.2 O.{) 0.0 9,5 91 

17. Methar 80, . 75%,.:. c--.;" '.c .c, 3.2.; 1 .a,o . ,.(41'. Q.

536 

EXPERIMENTS ONTHECHOOCALCOIm'l)LOF 

CRABGRASS IN LAWNTURF 

Cla;yton M. Switzer * 

Considerable variability in the response of' crabgrass (Digitaria" 

sPP.) to herbicides has been f~n4 by JI1&ll71nv8StJ,~tors. This variabillt.T 

is influenced. by such factors as '.1011moisture, ~w btl'lll1,cI1tT,soil •. 

air temperature, soil fertility, tillle of treatment relative to stages of· 

growth, and to variety (or species) of this grass. Sinee it is impossible' 

for a home owner to control such factors to any great extent, it would cap,:; 

pear that the most acceptable crabgrass herbicides will be those that are 

effective over the widest range of conditions. 

. ' 

At present it appears that' in general. the p;:-e-emergence crabgr&s. 

killers are most effective. While the use of this type' of herbicide fi:ts,'in . 

well with the operations of professional gardeners and golf-oourse superintendents, 

it has oot been widely ac~epted by the aV'J"llIe homeowner, probably 

because of' the tendency of t'he~layman not to.w+.rtY about weeds, i~ects 

or diseases until they beeane apparent .to. him. Therefore, investigati~s:on 

the cClltrol of crabgrass in turf· should continue to include chemicals capable 

of killing this weed after elllersence, as well.4f the pre-emergence materials. 

An ideal herbicide woul'l1eeemto be one wtth both pre- and poisi;-;, 

8IIlergence activity, and having sufficient residual effect'to make yearly 

application unnecessary. . 

This paper reports on the results of experSlilentsusing pre- ~ 

pos1;.;eJllergence chemicals, and on the residual effectiveness of ,SOlll8 of these 

chemicals on crabgrass. 

I§1'HODS 

All experimental work was ~ed out on tIMumpus of the Ontario 

Agricultural College. The turf gra'''s were mainly'lentuoky and Cenadablue 

with SOIlle oreeping red fescue .end ereepingbent gruil. Plots were 100 sq.' 

ft. in area and in most experiments. treatments were replicated 4 times in a 

randomized block design. The areas seleoted were OOTeredwith sparse tUrf' 

and had bean infested with a hea'V)' orabgrass population the 'year previotj,s ~ 

treatment. Sprays were applied (100 gal/A) with a knapsack sprayer and 

granulars were distributed by meanaof a small fe~1.z.r spreader. 

* Associate Professor, DepartmerJt.of Botany, Ontario~rioultural Colle$e, 

Guelph, Canada. 

1/:

RESULTS 

Pre-emergence treatment: The efrEf~ts of chemicals 

applied Apr!l 27 - May 1, 1961are presen~ed in Table 1. Rainfallon 

the plot area between April 29 arid May 3 was 0,78 in. 

First crabgrass emergence was noted in the control plots on 

May 15th. -, . 

S37 

Excellent control of crabgrass with no injury to other 

grasses was given by all rates of zytron (-bt:rt1fliquid and 

granular formulations), dacthal (wettable powder and granular), 

diphenatrile (diphenylacetonitrile) and dipropalin. Diphenylacetonitrile 

(Agrico formulation) gave good control (over 90%.1 

at the lower rates and excellent controla'e--the highe st rate. 

Calcium propyl arsonate was good at 60 Ib/A but not satisfactory 

at lower rates. This chemical had a strong inhibitory effect on 

clover. 

. Pax (36.5% metallic arsenic) and Chip Cal (50% 

tricalcium arsenate) gave good control at the highest rates but 

were poor at lower rates..T:r.:H'luralin causedmarked burning of 

all plants in the plots and, therefore, was not satisfactory 

even though it gave 100% control of crabgrass. 

Similar results were 0 btained in 1960 -d.n an experiment; 

in which zytron (liquid and granular), dacthal (granular) and 

calcium arsenate were tested, 

Residual effects: .The 1960 plo;ts WEl!'eunintnine.d and 

observations-on-the:residual effects were made periodically dUring 

the summer of 1961. Some crabgrass was found in all the ; 

plots, but those treated with all rates of zytron (a, 16, 24 Ib/A 

both liquid and granular) and those treated with tricalcium 

arsenate at 15 Ib/1000 sq. ft. or with dacthal granular at 

15 Ib/A, had considerably less than the others. Control with 

both 16 and 24 Ib/A of zyYron exceeded 90% throughout the s\.Ulllller. 

The g Ib rate gave fair control (50-70%) as the granular formulation, 

but liquid zytron at a Ib/A did not have as much residual 

effect. 

In another experiment, set up to stnrdy the effectiveness 

of application of pre-emergence crabgrass herbicides in the fall, 

plots were treated on Nov. 14, 1960 with zytron, liquid and 

granular (10,20,30), dacthal, wettable powder and granular (10~15, 

20), and tricalcium arsenate.(5-,7!,10,15).Rates of zytron and 

dacthal are Ib active/A, and of tricalcium arsenate are Ib active/ 

1000 sq. ft. Only the plots receiving the low rate of dacthal' 

granular and the lowest two rates of tricalcium arsenate weren()t 

completely free of crabgrass on July 21, 1961'" 'However, by August 

31, crabgrass was noted in all plots except.~hose receiving 20 or 

30 Lb of zytron or 20 Ib of d/icthal, al.t.hough, plo t s treated with 

~tron 10, dacthal 15, or tricalcium arsenate 15, contained on~y a 

few crabgrass plants. On11 the: highest rate ~f zytron caused any 

turf dffinage (some thinning) and even these piots recovered by early 

Jurie , A m::l,...l.ra~ ~+-.;"""" ,.......:...._ ~~ L'_ -

~______ , 

53S 

Table 1: Control of crabgrass by chemicals applied before 

emergencfl. 

1 

'1 

j. j' 

Chemica-I 

Zytron 

Zytron 

Dacthal 

(liq.) 

(gran,.) 

(W-50) 

Dact.ha.L (gran) 

Calcium propyl 

arsonate 

(No-Crab) 

Diphenat~ile 

(Lilly) 

Trifluralin 

(Lilly J! ..' 

Dipropalin 

(Lilly) 

Pax (36.5% 

metallic 

arsenic) 

Dipheny1ace~onitri1e 

(Agrico) 

Chip-Cal (50~ 

Tricalcium 

ar-senabe) . 

' 

Rate 

Ib/A*'. 

8 

:1.6; 

5 

1. 

15 

.20 

40 60 

20 

3') 

40 

.;:)'}1 r' ": 

Cr~bgr.a~s C~ntro1 Rating·*' 

July 21 Augugtr c'23 

4 

··4" 

,.4. 4: 

4- , 

4-' 

3 

4 

'4 4 

'4 r J 

4 4: 

68 4' 

4 

10*' 

20*' 

30*' 

25 50 

75 

,10*' 

15* 

20*', 

o 

1 

4 

O' 

1 

3 

i~ 

4' 

4 

4 

1 

1 

J 

Turf 

InjuloY 

None 

II 

II 

" " 

" 

" " 

" 

II 

" 

Slight' 

Heavy 

Heavy 

None , 

" II 

J.. __ 

" 

" 

1 I 

1 

.:P "ro 

"fI 

fI 

" Slight 

Rates a~e 'pounds 'of activ~ material per i~e - except Pax and 

Chip-Cal ,~1hi'ch are pOunds'of pro duct per~,J.OOO sq. ft. 

** 4. 100% 00 ntrol; 3 = over 90?~; 2 = 60-90;::; 1: = 25-60% 

o = less than 25% control.,,! rt. 

I.:'}

Post-emergence application~. Data from several experimsnt.s 

carried out during thesUl11lner of 1960 'are summarized in 

Table 2. . . 

Table 2: Effects of various 1?ost-emergence treatments en 

crabgrass and turf (1960 data}'t 

Pot. 

Chemical Treatment Date of ** 

Application 

Cyanate 

P0t. Cyanate 

(repeated sprays) 

FVl 734 

(Rohm and Haas ) 

Zytron 

Disodium Hethyl 

Arsonate 

AmmoniumLethyl 

Arsonate 

* 

** 

*** 

~ ~~~ ~:i : 

3 oz/3 gal '" 

1 oz!3 gal * 

2 oZ/3 gal * 

2 Ib!IOO gallA 

4 Ib/lOO gallA 

8 Ib/IOO gal/A 

10 Ib!lOO gallA 

20 Ib/lOO gallA 

30 Ib/IOO gal/A 

6 lb/IOO gallA 

4 Ib/200 gallA 

1 

1 

1 

2,4,5 

2,4,5 

1,4,5 

1 

1 

4,5 

4 2 

2,4 

2,3,5 

Corrt.r-e L 

0-4 *** 

2 

2 

:3 

4 

4 

o 

1 

1 

1 

:3 

4 

3 

2 

Turf 

Injury 

None 

SLBurn 

Burned 

539' 

31.Durn I 

Sl.Jurn 

None 

Sl.:3urn 

Burned 

Sl.Burn 

Burned 

Sev.Burn 

None 

Slight 

Applied to 400 sq.ft. only, all rates in terms of active 

material. 

1 = June 6; 2 = ~une 28; :3 = July 15; 4.= July 25; 5 =Aug.4 

a = no control; 4 = 100% control 

Good control was produced by potassium' cyanate even at 

the lowest rate tested vrhen tr.eatments were repeated 3 times. 

T"TOsprays gave fair control but one was not Jsufficient. Temporary 

turf burning occurred in all plots. Similar results were 

obtained with the arsonates but they were consideraoly slower in 

action and not as effe cti ve as cyanate. It "TaSnot.ed that the 

effectiveness of ammonium meth¥l arsonate vras increa sed when 

applied during a hot day (85°F) 

Zytron '.Jurned crabgras$, bent grass and fescue at all 

rates and killed them completely in the plots'sprayed ~lith 30 Ib/A. 

HO"Tever, the blue-grasses in these plots were strongly stimulated 

by the treatment, so that a healthy, dark-green, pure blue-grasq 

~ stand of grass was produced. The greater injury to turf from 

zytron in the post-emergence plots as compar-ed to the pr-e-emer-gence 

may have been nar-t.Lv t,h" """,,"1+ '"f' h';"'h~~ +~,~~~~~ .. ,,-~ _ ...... 1.._ .... ---

54' 

In a similar po st-ell1~rgence experij]l~nt. carried out in 

1961, herbicides were applied June 27 when the crabgrass seedlings 

had 5-8 leaves and were 1-3 inches in height. Data from this 

experiment are presented in Table 3. 

Table 3: Effects of variou/t.post-erI1ergence;1lireatments on crabgrass 

and turf (1961 data) 

.. 

·Chemicai Treatment 

~ 

.t- 

~..Date of Control Turf 

. Application "'* 

~~4 **'" Injury 

--~.-...~ 

I 

\ 

Calcium propyl 60 Ib/A 1 

arsonate 

'4 None 

mA 1 n*/3 gal 1 ,2 None 

(l()% liquid) 2 oz"'~ gal' 1 , . :3 Slight 

~Z"'?J gal' 1,2 '. 4. Sligllt 

, 

2 OZ'" 3ga1, 2 

4. Slight 

Disodium methyl 2.2 lb/A 1 1 None 

arsonate 3.4 lb/A 1 1 Slight 

3.4 It/A . 1,2 4 Slight 

4.5 It/A 1 4. Slight 

3.4 lh!,,- 3 3 Slight 

Ammonium methyl 6 lb/A 1 3 Slight; 

arsonate 5 Ib/A 1,2 4 Slight 

12 Ib!A 1 4. Iloderate 

Potassium cyanate 1 oZ/3 gal 

400 sq. ft. 1 1 Slight 

2 oz/3 gal 

400 sq. ft. 1 3 Loderate 

, 

-1ighland gz-anu.Lar- 100 lb"'/A 1 

~ None 

(1.87% disodium 200 It'''!A 1 -- 1 None 

methyl arsonate) 

'" 

"'''' 

"''''''' 

;ieight 0 f product per 400 sq. ft. - all other rate s are in 

terms of active material. 

1 • June 27;2 = July; 3 = August 1. 

o =no centrol, 4. = 100%control 

Excellent control of crabgrass was obtained throughout 

the eummar of 1961 in the plots treated ''lith calcium propyl 

ar-sonat e , and in those treated with the highe.r rates, or given 

repeated treatments with ~,DMA, or'ANA. the latter three 

materials caused slight burning of turf gras~es for a few days, but 

there was no permanent effect. The late appJ;ication of alA (Aug.l) 

to partially headed-out crabgrass reduced th~ stand markedly, indicating 

that there may ~)e value in such a treatment where eal'lier 

applications have not been c~rried out.

Control with the granular formulation of INA was poor. 

Potassium cyanate was used only once. Iteaused discolorati:on 

for a few days, and gave good control of, the crabgrass pr-esent at 

time of application. The eff1ectiveness of-calcium propyl arsonate 

when applied post-emergence to the crabgrass was interesting. At 

60 Ib/A (of active material) good control was' producted by 

applications from April 29 to June 27. f 

541 

In another experiment, c~rtain chemicals that usua~l~ 

have been regarded as pre ...em~rgence herbicides for cr-abgr aas " 

aontrol were applied shortly ',after germin~ti:on (May 23, 1961) when 

the crabgrass seedlings were-in the 2-3 le~f stage. The results 

of this experiment are presented in Table;~. ,All of the ' 

herbicides listed gave good .control when ~sed as early postemergence 

treatmentj· ' " 

Table. 4: Effe.cts of certain chemicals on":crabgrass when 

applied soon after emergence. 

Herbicide Rate Control Turf 

(lb/A) (0-4) * Injury 

Calcium propyl 40 3 None 

arsonate 60 4 None 

(No-crab) 

Diphenatrile 

(Lilly) 

40 4 Slight 

Zytron (liq.) 16 4 None 

Dacthal (gran.) 15 4 None 

* o • no control; 4 • 100%control 

DISCUSSIQ.!::! 

~n the basis of two years results, the outstanding preemergence 

crabgrass herbicides in the Guelph, Ontario area 

appear to be zytron and dacthal. Data for 1961 alone indicate 

that diphenatrile and dipropalin could be as good. However, 

growing conditions were excellent for turf throughout the summer 

of 1961, and it is probably safe to aSSillne that the chance of 

obtaining good control would be better than if the turf grasses 

offered little competition. 

Several chemicals applied after crabgrass emergence 

(Potassium cyanate, ~lA, ~, and ~lA) controlled crabgrass, but 

more than one application per season seemed to be required and 

some degree of turf injury was brou~lt about by each. The use of 

some "pr-e -emer-gence " herbicides (calcium propyl arsonate, zytron

542 

da~hal and diphenatrile) at early post-eme~g9nce appeared , 

promising. Xi' such .results .Gould be repeatedconsistentlYi' .. 

chemicaJ,s.oi' this nature woQG.1i!seem to offer the best posslbilities 

f5r becoming widely, accepted'crabgrass herbic.1.des. . 

h . '\ ,"'1 , '"Ie' \ . ( 

.:.. "'!'he.,q.u.e,$tj..on ariseI!J1Whether there:8tdual effect of .some 

chemicals '( zytron in particular) was dUE!tOITetention of the' '~'. 

chemical in the soil, or to lack of crabgrass seed at the surface 

because of 100% control in 196Q. Since th$" lfas also 100% 

c9ntro1 in 196b in the plo~~'t:&"eated with 'po

544 . 

Table 1. ~~~~f:~::~on~:!a~~~~ ~it~jt=~d ~~i:me~~~JV6Et >-/ 

Chemical 

oalcium' &l"s$natiF:I; .. 

ca~;~~Ump,z-O~t+ 

c!u:O:f'd9.ne' ..'" 

e.a,~§d#~e 

c." " ,) ,'.. ' . 

dacthal 

l;~':' 

dlp!:ena trile 

zyt;l'on 

'.'i_U1 

TabI!~~ 

. 'I bf1£ ,:,., .. / " .1 t"'~\;· 

Ra~lt/A. Treatment Date 

c ide~o :~~r;~""~;':r")~l~) .'r-:'''iqr1:t~:, 

, ~ '-' 1LL.)Ci.... ' '~"~;. i?n .. @i') ...... - . 

c%"S:bgra~~(Rontrol 

," "", ;..., -'anI" :'·~'l' 

.elJ!!i Jl - '.' 1"''''18 Qw,.j '--j" '·6') 

. '-'.,; b' , '" (lO'T:::: "T ..·.'(;)(1·.. '. 

·•.~~... 

)_, .~~'\.1!~ ~~~·~.Nf;lW.Je-~:s:~.. ·~61. >. ·;~~I1:. ' 

\i ;... T..J.ln t',", ~Ti'ti8 '!t" .q'ihqUn. 

. ;~~:ili~~.. 

.. 

~;et~ft 

~~~~t.r.Se;~..g~l'~~.y'~~~~.~"i~. ;~ti~.3~.~~~rt·,1,., 

ban~ 

II· . 

II 

II 

trifr~l1;ra;L1n 

II 

, vermioul1-~ :'i ~ ,;Jl.(r;'I';' .80.0.,,'1 

." " II, IcJn 4,.} '1:0 J. 91,.7 ;3rt~:', 

II ,'''I,:£'[ ,.6J :;cto'1C;~ 96,.&;',i:"ll;·:;j,i 

- r. ... lS'i'i';r,rl~~:Y c:;:~ .10 ,;y.. • }.O'l~~ l" ~ 

'::.:;s ".,.... . .':,', ',J'l\, ;' " ;;.;··.H'1~ft·l"'· '.', ··l;-ti9J" 

>,~ryappJ.~..t~1>n g$.veQ~tently ~~~l'abgraller cont!t."Cd.tr:·, 

. ~~~~~:- ~~a=:a.~~n:::~"Jt~hfj:~~~~~~~::·~n~~::~'. 

palin; however. 1t was comparatively small for trifluralin and 

zyt:ron-. 

''::: J't ; r E 10 ')) i' . . 'i'1' 

.: q.J: SUIl!tna!W: ;) 'H~rt:~l:: ' a'r 

• f:,:,.;j ,,'1"-"">" __" ;':~, :.~ i;'L·i~".;, ~; ':'jrtlC:J"3 ...·;, ..., .'. ~,"L"Vj:,] . 

. l'.':P~lla-~ II It:r~tlUl'$:U..'8M1a.:·zytro~~ ~:: t'p. 97 per~t [., i 

P"~~~r19§l1:1;l$.8l,'a,'/3 oQp.pn>iJ.'as.:"~liJeQ;:5.-Jl J.lilllj:El .•' ." ;"'.sO1 \ 

"'~,. . k~~::,~ip~.tl'll~b&1propal+fu:(~~ne:, and" Qs,Wurn ~ 

arsenate gave crabgrass co~ ~~t ra~"~ ~ to79pel'~.·· 

3. Bandane , dipropalin , and triflura11n treatments suggested 

the respective optimum treatment rates of 30pounds ..

.. ";' -:' il; JT!.: .'\ i~'J" ; ~Jdj 

1. Professor 1n Turf'grass Management; fo~ Researoh Ass1stant 

1n Farm Crops; and. AS,soo+§j;e R~~ear911 ,_,Q~a,J,.1st .1n We~'i- QQntl'Ol 

i .respec:t1 vely , Rutge8...r-the state' !lMvarsity 1 New 3'.~ey 

Agr1cultural Exper1ment Station, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 

,~;~ 545 

THE EFFECT 'Oli'THREESPRIR:'DATES OFPRE-baENCE HlllRB!CIDE 

APPLICATIONON CRABGRASSCONTROLIN ESTABLISHEDTURF 

'I.' [",' . • 

R. E. Enge1 1 R. N. cook l and R. D~Ilniok1 1 

I:W'I. 

'DAb&tract I ell ,,'!, 

r·~.'.l. :"';: r.fa~~,j Y-:;:1 

'.The eftect·of 'date of tJt_tment em pre~s.noe' crabgre.A contI'Ol 

in turf'was studied WUh,1e!ght herb:Loi1_:and three tztUtlient 

dat.es. ,:sa.ndane, 'caloium us_te, oalci\lnlfttO'Pyl arsortate; ~0t4ordane, 

daOtlha~, diphenatrllej,ltr.1tlural1n',;.ai!l4J :z:ytztonwere· a~,1:l.ed . 

onMaX'Ch 29, Apr:U20 1 and; "'17, 1961.' :AJ.1i: tx-ea,tmenU tl6r.- l·ln 

tr1plicateon'a lawrtturf Wtttheliapi'(i!ldom~c~f Kentuoky bl-sra s s • 

The spring aes.lon :andcrabpan, ge1'lllinat1~approx1mat.lt' 2 

to 3 weeks later than normal • 

. ~"rf, ;::' -11:L-',j 

: Crabg2l'asa'est:tmates·t ... ·i.n'Septemb' .. Showed: " (I) od.1Ibm 

ax-sen&. teand "dacthal gave' beR))·reaul ts 'Whe~.,p11ed: in Itraztol'i) c~'( 2) 

ch;Lordane. ·,.d1plWlatrlle ,antl!C08rlc1tUrl P:rOp'f11:tai-ilonate~ve~l'le!,.. 

lUshest ratings··'a .. May treatilleMs;and (3)'~tlurallrt and ,~on' 

produced good control at all three'dateB.,J:tlandlinega,ve itlPhlthest 

rating with March applioation,. but it ci1d.not appear t,o be 

affected severel$! bytreatmettt "Oate" .S1ncd!'~~18' cheinj,

546 

,'j' .~•.~COVERY;OFC14AMIl9EW FROMA 'ryPICAL'GIU!mIOUSE TYPESOIL 

-,,~lJh:... /" (1,' ',.~; FIr, 

by Me- :t. Sutherland 

, , 

INTOODUcr ION 

The effectiveness and depend~bility of a soil active herbicide is 

greatly influenced by such variatcros as leaching, photodecomposition, 

,~,e~~l,d~~~tion, and:~~~tionby sodll$l>Uoids. If achemlcal 

,,"iibAA' fOJ\~ ~~~oundin qlle.llt.ion is nota vaiJlBblea bioassay technique 

~~ o1;'teJ'l~1J.11~,Ile

541 

Distr:tbution of radioacti~tl through soil pl'otdle: 

A procedure was developed where layers of soil"in 1/8" increments 

could be counted directly in a gil' now,windowlesll1>roportional counter. 

A stainless steel tube with 1/8"w811, 1 314"diameter, and 6" long was 

sharpened on one end. This tube was forced by hand.'into the treated 

containers wi th a rotary motion until only It" of t~ tube remained above 

the soil surface. Moisture conditions were such th ..t.'the soil remained inside 

the steel tube when it was pulled back out of the soil. The core was 

then extruded out the top of the tube 1/8" at a timer by. inserting 1/8" 

shima at the bottom. Since the planchets used for counting the soil were 

only l:t" in diameter this allowed'" of the outer edge of the soil layer to 

be trimmed away. This minimizes any shifting of theo:soll.l profile due to » 

friction between the soil core and the tube as the ·core was first forlOOd or 

extruded. Planchete containing the· soil layerswe~ drlied at 125 0 C for 

one hour prior to counting. 

Chemical recovery and identtification of radioaot1vity from different· 

soil levels. 

Larger samples of i" soil lay~:rs for chemical apalysis were collected 

in a very similar .fashion to that ciescribed previou .•;Ly., The aluminum tu@ 

used to obtain the coil core had 'a 1/8" wall and lOOaJ,ured4" in diameter 

and 10" long •. The tube was forged ,into the ground by hand and a soil core. 

4t" deep was removed. The soil. core was extruded' out t~e top in t" incre,... 

ments and collected in a petri dish., The average dW Weight of each t laiYltr 

was 80 grams. .. 

Fifty grams of soil from each .~ layer was Plac~"in a 250.cc beaker ~ 

mixed with 50cc ofa 10% Ba(OH)?aol~tion. The mixtqre was boiled on·a· bot 

plate for 30 minutes with occaei.onal, stirring •. The.fll;Lurry was then transferred 

to high density polyethylene centrifuge bottles and centrifuged at 

2500 rpm for 10 minutes. The supernate was decan~(1nto a 250cc beaker and 

the precip:ltat,e resuspended in2$cp boiling water al}ll,centrifuged. The . 

combined supernates were adjuste4 to pH 2.5 withC9ll\ff!ntrated H2S04' The" 

barium sulfate. tbat was formed tias J'!!mond, by. centr~llgation and supernate •. 

decanted off. .'rilebarium sulfate !l;j~ resuspended i~,J.5.cc water and centr-ifuged. 

The. pH of the combined sUJI!lrpates was readj~ted to 2.5 and extrac;\ed 

with three 25cc portions of dietitl¥~. ether. The e.th~~xtract was backwaSp#!d 

with 5cc of pH 3 water. 'Ihe ettle.r. e,xtract was then~laced in a 125 round ' 

bottom flask containing 5cc of methanol and evaporat~d to 5cc on a rotating 

flash evaporator. The 5cc of methanol concentrate was transferred to a 10cc 

stoppered graduate and diluted to 10cc with methanOl. One milliliter 

aliquots of this concentrate were pippetted directiyonto a stainless steel 

planchet with raised concentric rings in the floor (Nuclear - Chicago Corp. 

GC -12 sample pan). The planchets were dried on a rotating platform under 

an infra-red lamp located approximately 6" above the samples. The samples 

were heated several minutes after all of the volatile liquid appeared to 

have disappeared and then counted. 

j

5M 

Availabili ty ot the· rad:llcJacrt,1T.L·ty in the'va.soua soil levels to . _ 

germinating sO:'(beans: , " 

:' .,' ,.,-: '.' '. I ;'. :0J.:' 'r.,· 

. '1\fenty 'Monroe soybeansve:re 'planted ineachdin···x Ji" petri dish .: 

containing '!" layers of soU 'fl'om.each treatinent~,!'0tiI.y the three ,"'~rs 

from the: top 1,," of, soil were ,sampled. The petr:b.tdiicSheswere place. 011' 

sand containing a heating cable:to maintain thetJench temperature frorri 

75°C to'60OC.·Theseeds were ,allowed imbibe for ~ days and were then 

removed trom the 'petri dishes .. · Soil was washed m lmd the seed coat WliS 

removed trom eiach seed to minilld.ze· any surface· clthtandnation. 

' 

t· C;' . 

Analy'sis of 'the imbibeu seeds ,included an ~al1ne digest to hydrblys~ 

any Amiben plantcOl1iplex. 'lheS'w 6 grams of·.e'lln. seeds weregroulld in 

25 grams of gl:vcero1 with a lIlCl1'!tarandpestleand' transferred to a 2! ciII :it 

20 em test tubei' Five gralllsot"JroH pellets was ''-G4'and the oontents ,", " 

mixed with a thermometer. The test tube is then d.'iIllIlersedin' a 150 0 c on 

bath for 15 minutes. The test tube is adjusted in the oil bath. so that the 

glYI:lE!:i'ol~~fltU:'h 9n.ttle wa:l.l!.!L~fthe test ~.im.·l:>nl'y a miniinumamciunt 

,of stirring is required. 

Aftler the 'hydrolyses is'twm,pleted theoon~s"btithe test tube is " 

transferred tiCf,a 2~Ooc centrifuge bottle with t~ aid of 50cc of dist1'lied 

wash water~Ube'sol'utionisU'\eni ,acidified w:itltJ'tel'loehtrated ~S04 t,o B 

pH of 1 or lower. The fatty Bcd.d's·that arepree1111tated on additioh of the. 

suUuric a'cid are removed bY'e1Cttacting the, acidlc) ablution with two 2S'Clc 

portions of petrolel.lm' ether.:.;'. emulsions thllttwe~ ,forllled were read;l.1y 

'broken by centrifugation. The pH of the solution wall adjusted to pH 2~S 

with NaOHand the solution was then extracted with three 25cc portions of 

d!el.hyl fether.·~ evaporatidh"ot the diethyl 'e~ri and plating of the 

mettumoJ: conoeiit~ate is the 11'_ IiIS outlined 'P~ous1:y for therecovert 

0.f'rad1oaoUVfty-i fi'6m the soi1-" .! . ),0, ; . 

. ; I .. , . . ': :" ",~I • .', . ")1t j 

The radlOlictift'&Olut1bnif"~lita1ned rroi1lth*!.~!1.Y'sis or "'hetre.sted . 

soil and imbibeC1:sbybeans weN. eXOdned by one aaenUonal paper chroma;;. 

tographyo. 'Sheets' of Whatmai1'NO.4 filter paper'iJ!3 emby 19 cm,were used 

in;an asoendirigchrbma'ta'gra~c¥:tank. .The deviellJilinent so1~t1on used waS 

twoparts'ri"Q,~ol : one p8I1l"~l. alcohol : ~helr~ 2 N NHhOR. The f', 

~heets wetes~ after deveIbi:bent with a ~ss gas ,flOW detection 

he~d' oonnee,tedto "ll"scaler." C~· Jbn1benstandl1Jld8'.'werelocated on eit~r , 

~pots for acc~te comparison~JD., . " 

side of unkhewn 

..' ., . ,. I '- : .' ' ~ " .• • ,. . rJ 

,r' 

') 

," ;'.1,) 

tr:' 

·'!.3f ·

549 

•RESULTS 

The distribution of radioactiv:j.t-y in the top four inches of soil 

four months after a 6 H/Atreatment of c.I4Wben can be seen in Graph I. 

It is to be noted1ihat the h~8t concentrati6ft otradioactivity is f~ 

in the layer of soil 1/8 n to 1/4"below the soU surface. From that point 

on there is a gradual decline in radioactivity. Direct counting of untreated 

soil1ll1der the S8itte conditi 9lUl.yields an avera~\ of 13 counts pprmin .. uiiF of 

above background due 1;0 the 'natura~ oceurring~:loactivity K40•. The lOll'.' 

counts received therefore, frcllIl'the 3" to 4n 1~ are still greater than that 

received !rom the untreated soil·. ,", 

' •. '.f 

The comparison in dil.8Wi1bution of racH\iiactivity between the 3 H/A 

treatment and the 6 HI! is shown in Graph II. 'iIill*el/2 1t soil layers were 

collected and counted d1rec~.Obviouslt one~s pot obtain as quite a 

clear picture of the radioactive distributionwh1jft l/2 11 layers are oounted 

as compared to 1/8 11 layers. The olose similaritj/:ln oounts reoeivedbe'tween 

the 3 H/Aand 6 H/Atreatments is undejItandable,e1nce both applications 

contained exactly the same amount of C Wben.\.:.I£ Graph II had pl',en drawn 

to show the total amount of Wben for each 18i181"'- instead of the Cllf fraction 

then the relative length of the bars for the 3 HtArate would be twice as 

long as indicated while the bars for the 6 H/Arate would be four t:iJlles as 

long. . 

Of the various chemical procedures tried a barium hydroxide digestion 

was the most efficient in remov:lng t.he radioactive components from the soil. 

The choice of this partioular alkali was based upon the work oonducted by 

Ercegovich in reoovering Amitrole from the soil. (2) 

Table I is a summary of the results of analyses of the various soil 

layers using the barium hydroxide digestion. In each case only a part of the 

radioactivity is removed. For inste,nce the alkaline digestion of SOgramsof 

soil from the 0-1/2 11 layer only decreased the counts from 4S7clmto 29Sclin. 

This drop of 162 clm from the so11 surface represents a recovery of' 62,420 

clin in the purified extracts. Dy plotting the recovery data in Table I from 

the various layers of soil it is possible to approximate the total amount of 

radioaotivity present in the soil. If one ass1.lJll8Sthat all of the radioactivity 

in the top four inohes of soil is Amiben then this would account for approx 

:iJllately 17% of the Wben that was originally applied. 

Paper ohromatography was used to examine the alkaline digests "to 

determine how much of the recovered radioactivity could be attributed to 

Amiben. Examination of the Rf values in Table I indicates that the aotivity 

reo overed from the lower two layers was not Amiben. It may be a complex of 

Amiben that is stable to the alkaline digestion used or poss;\.Ply an entirely 

different oompound synthesiZed by soil o!'ganisms utilizing C14 from Wben. 

,\ .

550 

GRAPHI - Distribution of radioactiv:l.j:.y in the top 4" of so11 four months 

after a 6#/A treatment of Cl4 Amiben. 

·);~.,1 

oj 

a~'; 

't ,,; 

:;,~)l:"",' 

.'" :~. f, ,~. 

-.'" ,. 

,:! I:.'.'" 

£.1£.\- 

, ',v,J... 

. : .: 

;.~.. 

nJ 

i 

>0 ~_:",I 

I rreeF ~i 

;r{.t ". 

~;~r.:(~ 

.:~.;. 0/ 

.: ",'c:i":~, i 

",".. ' 

J;I

GRAPHII: Comparison of the~.tl;'i~ution of rad~activity in $Oils trested 

wi t~ 3#..and 6#1ACt4r_ben four monthriJafoter application .~, ..t 

551 

Soil 

Depth 

0" 

1/2" 

1" 

11/2" 

2" 

3111AAmiben (50%)c14) 

_. 

. Co~tB per minute 1 

100 200 300400 

----------------~---I 

xxxxx.xnnxxxxxxxx 425 XX 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

xxxxxxxx 254 ·XX 

~ 

mXXXXXXXittX 

XXXXXX 224 XX 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

XXXXXXXX 

XX 163 X 

XXXXXXXX 

Soil 

Depth 

0" 

1/2" 

1" 

11/2" 

2" 

jt'"ll't 

~611IA. Amiben (25%c1 4) J 

., :,Counts per minute 

j' 100 200 .300" 400 

-----I-----I-----I---~-I 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

~rmxxxxxxxxxx:xxxxx 485 XX 

umxXXXXXXXXXXXXlOOOtJOOCXX 

xxmxxxxxxxxxx 

XXXXXXXX244 XX 

·XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

mx:xxxxx 

2153 XX 

XXXXXXXXX 

IDXXXXXX 

Ii[ 152 XX 

XXXXXXXXX 

TABLEI: Reeovery and identification of c14activity from soil four 

months after a 6#/A treatment of c14Amften. 

Soil 

Depth 

Direct count~ of Soil Radioactivity 

before hydrolysTS! after hydrolysis recovered 

0 11 _1/ 2 11 

li'le'-l" 

1"~1 1/2" 

457clm 

466 elm 

171 clm 

I.··· 

295 elm 

195 elm 

112: elm 

J 62,420 

clm 

~)))9:,.420 elm 

:., r>: 

" p C 35, 430 elm 

0.58 

0.56, . 

1 1/2"-2" 

167 c/m 

113 elm 

34,150 clm 

.\ r. 

0.42

552 

. . The~ gt iSoy'beaD g(l)rininated,~,i)12W layers of soU '~ous17 

tNeW iWith 6-1/1.of cl4 AtntbtrP'are tabula'ted. i :fjC\Tab1eII. These results 

are strildng17 different than those received frClllthe soybeans orig1nal17 

planted in this same soU just prior to application of the chemical. In that 

case 222,Soo o/mwere recovered from a compara~1t,8tllge and weight of soybean. 

In add1tic:m'pa~c~tograp~ of the radioact~'ti7 recovered from the 

soybeans treated pre-emergent revealed that the _terial was Amiben. ,nt 

values fcnmd in fable I oleai~:;1ndicate that'iltfifadioactive compon~t:. 

absorbed f)ythe'soybeans p~~n soil 4 month. after application ~ "fult 

.AIlliben. . .... .. ,- . ._. '. ' . 

The reatl1ti1 reported in this paper doM' e11minate the poss,~bil1ty 

thats1gnif:1olZl'U 10nes may Wo occur bywaYo.':~h1ng, photodec~tion 

ormic1"Obial ~Cnm~ . 

TADLEJI: ~of e 14 activity from imbibed .~ seeds planted' 

iii dUteioent layers of soU 4 months after a 6 H/A treatment 

of e14 Amiben . 

-1/" 

...f" ...', 

SoU Depth 

(inches) 

Saed l>1eigt1t 

(e) "e 

o - 1/2" 

1/2 - 1" 

1 - 1 1/2 11 

* Rf value for Amibenin same:!tlaDkO.SS 

Radioactivity 

Reoovwed 

2,220 elm 

1,S60 elm 

S3 elm 

::.)f:j 

..\ " 

0.34 - .41 

0.34 - 0.41 

SlDfMARI 

~i·'•. ' . , 

-, NOrm8l~':tnefherbicur'a1';activftljof~d1sappears w1thiri 6to 8 

weeks .at,. appJ.1oation to soil •. ;1:,w~s .I~en,.eralJf beUeved that thieloli'll of 

aotivity. was dUe to an IiLctualdisappearance of Andbenby either leaching, 

photodeeOMpodtiooQl' microb1a1\ae"OIIIposition. A taaged field trace:f.·-a~ 

is desoribed that showed signif:1cent amounts of, AII1benstill remained :1D. 

the IIQU four .on~ .after an ~pl1oation of 3 H/1am6 H/Arates of (IlA' 

Amiben• . 

Of the variOUS methods tried, an alk~1Il. ~.$estionwas foU11!Lt9be 

the ·lIios't'effiofin"t:l.i1 recovei'!Jiirwioactive mat.erraI from the soil •. Moet of 

th ..·radioactivelllaterial relllovedby digestion was identified as Amibenby" 

paper ohromatography. However, the majority of the raaro4ct1"V1ty at111i'emained 

tightly' bolmd to the soil even atter repeated alkaline digestions.

"-...-.. 

J.4 The distribution of r~tivity l'esulUng from an application 

of 0 Amiben to the soil surface was dete~ed 1>7d:lrect counting of soil 

collected in 1/SIlsegments from the soil profile. The highest concentration 

of radioactivity was in the la,yef,,'~ soil located ~~". to 1/4"b~low tpe,. 

soU surface. . .' , .'.' . f.. , . . 

~53 

itt'::thiltop 1/21'l~ of four months old ~ted 

SO)'beans' gmrunated 

SO..il contained 2,200 c/m•. In"q'()'~ ... " ,.st when_the soybeans had been planted in 

tlle soil just prior to the apP. ~~~on ot 014 Amiben and harvested 5 days 

.later the plants' contained 100" .8 as much radioactivity. Furthe1"%l1Ol'e,., 

chromatographic EIlCa1Ili.nationof ~~ "Ioybelll1$.plantea in' .the soU ~our !J1on~, 

after application of 014 Amibea'~maled that the im8J.l amount of radi()~t:.;I.ve 

component present was not Am1b~ ,.,In contr~t it haii previously been sli9im 

that the'majority of'rad10aoti't1tf·tound in soybeaDs' planted just prior 'to 

the' treatment was Amiben. 

~ 1 :",lr: 

It is hoped that the 1 ilfti1abili ty of the' cllemical methods desc~ibed 

in this paper will encourage other ;investigators to examine various soil 

typltS for the:lr ab;Uit;' to comb~~::Nith Amiben so tightly that it is not 

biologically available. ' '. .' 

(2) 

DIl3J;.:tOGRAPHY 

,\. :';J..J,,'. 

;"j" ., 

(1)' Ercegovich, 'O.D., studies Oti'tbe Analysis & Persistence of ATAin 

Plant Tissues & Soil: Doctoral Thesis 19$7; Pennsylvania State 

Universi'b1'.' '.t',' • • . 

Dondarenko, D.D., Decomposi~ion of 0J.41abe:):ed' Aininotriazole in SoU: 

,Procctedings Fiftee~b '.l\mUal NCWCOpg. !J1958. ' 

. [. . ... ' 

. , 

(3) Rauser, toT.E., Factors con~~g to tl1eloss' cifAmiben Phytotoxicity 

in -flOils: 1961 Mastel'lf~sis, The Univereity of Toronto. 

",' ' ... 

.~ '/ -~ j

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society