TECH ICAL PROGR ES REPORT NO. 156 JANUARY 1967

Herbicide Evaluation Studies

with Celery (Apium graveo/ens var. dulce),lettuce (Lactuca sativa) , and

Crucifers (Brassica spp.)

in Hawaii

R. R. ROMANOWSKI, JR.

J. S. TANAKA

and

P. J. ITO

HAWAII AG RICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIO 1, NIVERSITY OF HAWAII

ACK OWLEDGMENT

T he ass is ta nce of Dr. D. D. F . Williams and Mr. H. Waki, Superin­tendents of the Kula Branch Sta tio n and the Waima na lo Experimenta l Farm,respe ctive ly , was grea t ly app re ci ated . Thanks are extended to Mr. HenryC. Osh iro for his technical as sis ta nce in conduct ing the field trials. Mr.Yukio Nakagawa, Assoc iate Spec ia list in Horticulture , Hawaii CooperativeExtension Serv ice, was espec ially helpful in making recommendationswhich were useful in growing the crops .

The herbic ides used in the trials were s uppl ied through the courtesyof Amchem Pr oducts , Inc ., CIBA Corpor ation, Diamond Alkali Co. , DowChem ica l Co . , E . I. DuP ont de Nemours & Co ., E li Lilly and Co. , GeigyAgricult ura l Chemica ls, Her cules P owder Co . , Mons a nto Chemical Co . ,Niagara Che mica l Divi sion of FMC Corpora t ion, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. ,Rohm and Haas Co., a nd Standard Oil Co. in Honolu lu.

TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT NO. 156 JAN ARY 1967

HAWAII AGRIC LTURAL EXPERIMENT TATIONCOLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULT RE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIIHonol ulu , Hawaii

Herbicide Evaluation Studies

with Celery (Apium graveo/ens var. dulce),Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) , and

Crucifers (Brassica spp.)

in Hawaii

R. R. ROMANOWSKI, JR.

J. S. TANAKA

andP. J. ITO

INTRODUCTION

The chemical weeding of vegetable c rops is rapidly be comin g a nimportant new cultura l tool of interest to man y island farm ers. An increas in g

labor shortage on the island farms ha s co ntr ibuted to a n inte nse a war en es sby farmers of the rol e of che mica l weed c ontrol in the immed iate fut ure .The " lea fy gree n" and" col e" cr ops compr is e a n import ant s egmen t of theve getable industry in Hawa ii. T hese c ro ps req uire many hour s of ha nd

labor a nd tra ctor cultiva ti on to re move the weeds . T he studi es rep ort edhere in were co nduc ted to determine the feasibil ity of us ing her bicides tosupplement or replace th e pres ent-day methods of weed co ntro l.

I Dr• R. R . Roma no ws ki , Jr . . is As s ociat e Hor ti c ul t uri s t a t the Ha wa i i Agri c u l tural Ex pe ri ­men t St a tion and Associa t e P ro le s s or 01 Hor t icu lt ure , Un ive rs i ty 01 Ha wa i i.

2J . S. T anak a is J un ior Hor t ic ul tu ri s t , Ha wa i i Agri cultural E xp e rim ent tat io n.

3 Dr• P . J. Ito i s As si stant Hor t icu l tur is t , Ha wa i i Agr icultura l Expe ri ment Sta tio n.

3

Ce lery (A pium graveo le ns va r . dul ce ), le ttuce ( Lac tllc a s ativa), a nd

s e veral memb e rs of th e Cruc iferae fa mi ly we re tested und er s imilar co nd i­

t ions be ca us e of th ei r rel ated eco logic a l requi reme nt s . Th e Cruc ife rae

und er tes t we re : brocc ol i (B ras sica ole racea va r , i tal icav, ca ul iflo we r(Bras s ic a oleracea var , botrvt is ), head ca bba ge ( Bras s ic a olerac ea va r .

c apitata ), Chi nese ca bbage (B rass ic a pek in ens is ), whi te mus tard ca bbage

(B ras s ica chinens is), gree n mus tard ca bbage (Bras s ica [uncea), a nd da ikon(Raphanlls s atiuus var , longipinnatus} ,

e ve ra l herbicide s , re prese nt ing a di vers ity of c he mica l s truc tures ,

we re e va lua te d be ca us e pre vi ous e xpe r iments ha ve s hown that th e her bi­

c ides pres ent ly avai lab le for us e a re only partially e ffect ive und er is land

co nd it ions . ' Ian y of the che mica ls tested a re e ither re gi ster ed with theF ede ra l F ood a nd Drug Adm inis tra t ion for us e with vege ta ble cro ps in th e

Uni te d Sta tes or a ppear to be likel y ca nd ida te s for future re gi strat ion wi t h

the c rops under test. Some c hemi ca ls wer e se lec te d be cau s e th e y prov ide

commerc ia ll y a cce pta ble we ed co ntro l und er is la nd co nd it ions , but th ecrop se lec t iv it ies ha ve not been th orou gh ly eva lua ted .

MAT ERIALS AND METHODS

The he rb ic ide tr ia ls we re conducted a t four test locati on s whi ch

repres ent a wide ran ge of ec o log ica l a nd edap hic co nd it io ns in the cr op­

producin g a reas (T a hle n. Th e two hi gh-el ev at ion Bran ch Ex pe r ime nt

tat ions , Lalami lo a nd Kula , a re ce ntered in th e ma jor lettuce- , ce ler y-,

head ca bba ge -, a nd ca uliflowe r-growing a reas . So i l type s , cli mat ic co nd i­

ti on s , a nd we ed s pec ie s are ve ry s imi la r for the two ar eas irrespe cti ve oftheir differ ing island loca t ions . It s ho uld be not ed th at the s e tw o loca t ions

ha ve seve ra l ha rd -to-ki ll weed s pec ies whic h ar e co mmon to th os e found in

ma ny temp e ra te re a ions . T he soil is re la t ive ly high in orga ni c ma tte r (8 .5

9%) whic h undoubt edly co ntr ibutes to the unex pe ct ed res u lt s ofte n ob­ta ined in th e te s t pl ot s . Th e Waim an al o Ex pe r ime nta l F arm is loca ted on a

montmorill onit e type c lay whic h co ntai ns 3 to 4% orga nic matter . The weed

s pec ies are s imi la r to th os e found in s ubtro pica l a nd temp era te cl imat ic

zo nes .

T he c rops tested a nd thei r res pective expe r imenta l locati on s are

co nta ine d in T ab le 2.

4

TABLE 1. De scrip t ion of the T e st Loca t ions

MedianAnnua l

Exper imen t E le va t ion So i l Ra infallSta t ion Is land (fe et) Type (inc hes )

La lami 10 Branch Station Ha waii 2 ,650 Waimea loam 25

Manoa Campus Farm Oahu 90 Manoa cla y loa m 35

Kula Branch Stati on Maui 3, 20 0 Waimea (K u la) 28loam

Waimana lo Oahu 70 Waimanal o s i lty 45Expe ri menta I Farm cl a y

TABLE 2. He rbic ide Experiments and T es t Locat ions

ExperimentNo.

land 2

3 and 4

5

6

7

8

9 and 10

11

12

13

14

Crops Tested

Broc co l i 'Green Bud ,' Cauliflower ' P uekee,'a nd Heed Cabba ge ' Cope nha ge n Mar ke t '

Caul iflower 'Eerly Snowbe II' a nd Head Ca b.bage 'Copenhagen Market'

Celery 'Utah 15 ' and 'Utah 52-70'

Celery 'Utah 15' and 'Utah 52-70 '

Ce lery 'Spartan'

Lettuce 'Green Mignone tte , ' Green Mus tardCabbage 'Ka i Cho i,' White Musta rd Ca bba ge'Pak Cho i,' and Ch in e s e Cabbage ' Won Ba k'

Lettuce 'Earl y Grea t La kes ' a nd Ch ineseCabbage 'Nagaoka 60 da ys'

Lettuce 'Earl y Grea t La kes '

Ch inese Cabbage 'Nagao ka 60 days '

Da ikon 'Minoyo nba i.Long ' a nd ' C h ine s eHo If·Long'

Lettuc e 'G reen Mignonette'

5

Location

Wa ima na loExpe rimenta I Farm

Ku 10 Branch Sta t ion

Waima na 10Exper imenta l Fa rm

Lalam iloBranch Sta t ion

Lalam i 10Branc h Sta tion

Wa iman a loEx per imenta I F arm

La la mi 10 Bra nc hBranch Station

Lalam iloBranc h Stat ion

Lala mi loBran ch Stat ion

La la miloBra nc h Stat io n

Mano a Ca mpus Fa rm

ClLltura l Pract ices

Th e cult ura l pra c t ices conformed Lo those com monly in us e by island

far mer s . Overhead irrig a t ion was ap p lie d a L the di s cretion of the farm

mana ger .

A weed -fr ee " c ultiva te d chec k" was maintai ne d as s tandard prac t icein each experiment by s ha ll ow c ult iva t ion. An a ttem pt was mad e to removeex cessive weed growth in all tr ea tmen ts whe nev er a cro p x weed int eracti on

was a nt ic ipa ted.

Tr eatm ent A pplic ations

Commer cia l formu lations of the herbicides were used in the ex pe ri­

ments (T a ble 3). Th e ch emica ls wer e disso lve d or s uspended in wa te r

a nd the field spray mix a pplied at the rate of 40 ga l/ac re wi th a back­

mounted fib er glas s s prayer which wa s ope ra te d at 30 p.s . I. (pounds persq uare inch of pres s ure). Gra nular formula t ions were a ppl ied with ei the r a

ha nd cyclone s eeder or a han d-opera ted Ga ndy mac h ine . Ce rtain trea tmentswere a pplie d before the crops were tra ns planted or sown a nd immedia te lyincorporated into the topsoi l with a hand-operated motor-driven tilliva to r .

Th is tr eatment is ref erred to as "soil incorporated ." A majority of thedi rect -se ed ed cro ps wer e spra yed immediately after seed sowing and the

transplanted crops received ei ther ove r-the-p lant or di rec te d sprays short lya ft er tran splanting . The method of application a nd treatment dates a redescribed in the Appendix on a pe r-exper ime nt bas is .

Methods of E valuating and Rep orting th e Expe rim enta l Res ult s

T he cr op a nd weed responses to the herbic ides we re eva lua tedpr imari ly with the us e of the foll owin g s ubje ctive rating system:

Weed Control Ra t ings

I-no co ntrol

2-s light control3- fa ir control4-good c ontrol - commerci ally

ac ce pta ble

5- c omple te co ntrol

Crop Tol era nce Ra tings

I-no injury

2- s l ight inj ury3-mode ra te injury4- seve re inj ury5- dea d

T he procedure for the s ubject ive ra ting wa s to s tud y a ll of the chec k pl ot sin an expe rimen t be fore the eva lua t ions we re mad e; s ubs eque ntly, the pl ots

6

TA

BL

E3

.C

hem

ica

lsU

se

din

the

Ex

per

imen

ts

"'I

Tra

de

Na

me

!

Am

i ben

Ba

lan

Cap

aro

l

Ch

loro

-I.

P.c

.

Dac

tha

lW

-75

Dow

Sod

ium

TC

A

Dym

id

Her

ban

I.P

.C.

Lo

rox

Pre

far

Re

gis

tere

dfo

rU

seo

nth

eF

oll

ow

ing

Cro

ps

'

Le

ttu

ce

Bro

cco

li,

Cab

bag

e,

Cel

ery

,L

ett

uce,

Rad

ish

Bro

cco

li,

Co

uli

flo

we

r,C

abba

ge

,L

ett

uce,

Mu

star

dG

ree

ns

Cab

bag

e,

Ca

ulif

low

er

Cab

bog

e

Bro

cco

li,

Cob

bog

e,

Ca

uli

flow

er,

Ce

lery

,L

ett

uc

e,

Rad

ish

Tem

po

rary

De

sig

nat

ion

or

Co

mm

on

Nam

es

ami

ben

ben

efi

n

pro

me

try

ne

C.I

.P.C

.

DC

PA

,D

AC

893

TC

A

dip

hen

ami

d

no

rea

I.P

.C.

l in

uro

n

ben

suli

de

,R

-44

61

Ch

em

i cal

Nam

e

3-a~ino

-2,5

-dic

hlo

robe

nzo

ica

cid

N-b

uty

I-N

-eth

y1-

exex

ex-t

rifl

uo

ro-2

,6.d

init

ro-p

­to

luid

ine

2,4

-bis

(iso

pro

pyla

min

o)-6

-met

hy

lmer

cap

to-s

­tr

ioz

ine

iso

pro

pyI-

N-(

3-ch

loro

ph

eny

I)ca

rbam

ate

dim

eth

yl

est

er

of

tetr

ac

hlo

ro-t

ere

ph

thal

icacid

tric

hlo

roa

ce

tic

oc

id

N, N

-dim

eth

y1-

2,2

-dip

hen

yla

ceta

mid

e

3-(

hex

ahy

dro

-4,7

-me

tho

no

ind

on-

Svy

1)-1

,1­

dim

eth

ylu

reo

iso

pro

py

IN

-ph

eny

I-c

arb

amate

3.(

3,4

-dic

hlo

rop

he

nyI)

-1-m

eth

oxy

-1­

me

thy

lure

a

N.(

2-m

erc

ap

toe

thy

I)-b

enz

en

esu

!fo

na

mid

e

(Co

nti

nue

d)

TA

BL

E3

.C

hem

icals

Use

din

the

Ex

pe

rim

ents

(Co

nti

nue

d)

OJ

Tro

de

Nam

e

Ran

do

x

Sin

ox

PE

Sto

dd

ard

Sol

ve

nt

Te

nor a

n

TO

KE

-25

Tre

fla

n

Tre

fmid

W-5

0

Veg

adex

Reg

iste

red

for

Use

on

the

Fo

llo

win

gC

rops

Cab

bag

e

Bro

cco

li,

Ca

bba

ge,

Ca

uli

flow

er,

Cel

ery

,L

ett

uc

e

Bro

cco

li,

Ca

bba

ge

,C

au

lifl

ow

er

Bro

cco

li,

Cab

bag

e,

Cau

lifl

ow

er,

Cele

ry,

Le

ttu

ce,

Mu

star

dG

reen

s

Tem

po

rary

De

sig

na

tio

no

rC

om

mo

nN

am

es

R-7

46

5

CD

AA

DN

BP

,am

ine

Pet

role

um

solv

ent

Ch

loro

xuro

n

FW

-92

5

tri f

lura

lin

dip

hen

amid

plu

str

iflu

rali

n

CD

EC

Ch

emic

al

Na

me

2-(

a-n

op

hto

xy

)-N

,N-d

ieth

yIp

rop

ion

amid

e

2-c

hlo

ro-N

,N-d

iaIl

yI-

ac

eta

mid

e

4,6

-din

itro

-o-s

ec

-bu

tyIp

he

no

I(t

rie

tha

no

lam

ine

sa

lt)

3[p

-(p

'ch

loro

ph

eno

xy

)-p

he

ny

I]-1

,1­

dim

eth

ylu

rea

2,4

-dic

hIo

rop

hen

y1-

4-n

itro

ph

en

yle

the

r

2,6

-din

itro

-N,N

-di-

n-p

rop

yl-

aa

a-t

rif

luo

ro-p

­to

luid

ine

2-c

hlo

roa

Ilyl

die

thy

Idit

hio

-ca

rba

ma

te

1A

cti

ve

ingr

edi

en

tso

fc

he

mic

al

form

ula

tio

ns:

Em

uls

ifia

ble

co

ncen

trate

s(p

ou

nd

spe

rg

allo

n)-

Bala

n,

1.5

;A

mib

enan

dT

OK

,2

.0;

Sin

ox

PE

,3

.0;

Ch

loro

-I.P

.C.,

Pre

far,

Ran

do

x,

Tre

flan

,an

dV

egad

ex,

4.0

.

Wet

tab

leP

ow

de

rs:

Cap

aro

l,

80%

;D

acth

al,

75%

;D

owS

od

ium

TC

A;

94%

;D

ymid

,80

%;

Her

ba

n,80

%;

I.P

.C.,

75%

;L

oro

x,

50

%;

R-7

46

5,

50%

;T

eno

ran

,5

0%

;an

dT

refm

id,

50

%(T

refl

an10

%-D

ym

id4

0%

).

Gra

nu

lars

:A

mib

en,.

10.8

;R

and

ox

and

Veg

ade

x,20

%;

and

Tre

flan

,5

%.

2R

eg

istr

ati

on

so

bta

ined

from

U.S

.D.A

.S

um

mar

yof

Reg

iste

red

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

Pest

icid

eC

hem

ical

Use

s(2

nd

Ed

itio

n),

July

1,1

96

4,

were rated with out know le dge of th e trea tment. T his un biased method ofte nres ult ed in che ck plo t rat in gs greater tha n "1. " If more deta i led da ta we re

th ought necessar y, a stand count was made to measure th e weed controla ct iv ity ; similarly, crop yie Ids wer e re corded whe n de s ired . T ab le 4 con­tains a l isting of the weed s pec ies wh ich we re prese nt in suffic ientnumbers to be eva lua ted.

All data are report ed in the App endix as trea tment means. Th e L.S .D.(least signific ant d ifference ) was s e lected as th e main statistic for ease

of comparing treatment mea ns . It wa s us ed la rge ly to compare the herbi­cide treatm ent mean s to the cu lt iva te d ch eck whe n co ns ide ring cro p to le r­a nce a nd to the uncul ti va ted check when inter pre ting weed response . T hedata are presented in Appe ndix form to a llow for careful scrutiny by inte r­ested pa rties. It is assumed that the General Result s a nd Dis c us sion

s ections will provide ample information for many users of this report.

T A BL E 4 . Scient if ic Na mes of the We ed Spe c ies D is cus sed in this Repor t

Common Names(Hawa i ian Islands )

Grosses

fox ta i l, bri s t ly

kikuy u

ri cegrass , jungle

wi re gr a s s

Broadleaves

a ma ra n th , s p iny

a marant h (s pi nel e s s spec ies )

popalo

purs lon e (p igwe e d )

sor re I, ye Il ow fl owe r

sw inecress

9

Scient ific Names

Se ta ria vertici ll a tc

Penn is e t um c1ande st inum

Echinochloa colonum

Eleus ine indica

A mo ranthus spinosus

Amaranth spp .

Solanum nodiflorum

Portula ca o leraceo

Oxalis corn iculata

Coronopus d id ymus

HESULTS

The results s how that ther e are di stinct possibilities for expa nd ingth e us e of herbic ides on th e crops tes ted in the exper iments. Tab le 5

contains gene ral descriptive crop phy to to xic ity inf ormat ion which wasco mp il ed from the deta iled exper imen tal res ults prese nted in the Appe nd ix.A ge ne ra l s ummary of th e weed respons e data is presented in T able 6 . Thes ta nda rd test herbi cide , Ve gadex , provided co mmerci a lly acc eptab le weedcontrol for peri ods of 4 to 6 weeks in man y of the experime nts . Its marg inof safety on a ll of th e test cro ps wa s co mmerc ia lly ac ceptable . When con­sidering both crop phyt ot ox icity and ge nera l weed cont rol , Oa ct ha l can beus ed adva ntageo us ly und er island conditions for severa l " leafy green "a nd "cole " crops . Ca pa rol a ppears to be a n exce lle nt ca nd idate for wee dcontro l in ce le ry a nd the s atisfa ct ory weed co ntro l wi th T OK suggests thene ed for further expe r ime nta t ion with this co mpound in cele ry and Brassica

s pp. T wo new herbi c ides, Balan and Prefar , did not provide c ommer cially

acce pta ble co ntro l under th e test co nd it ions.

It s hould be noted that ce lery was tol erant to over-the-plant s praysof ma ny potentially useful herbicides . A s ingle expe r ime nt indica ted tha tda ikon (Japane se radish) was t olerant to a wide array of herb icid e chemis­

try. The to le ra nc e of s wine cress to several herbicides was discouragings ince it is a n import ant weed in most vegetabl e-growing a reas .

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

T he expe rime nta l res ults s how tha t Oa cthal and Ve ga de x should becons ider ed as the two primary he rbi c ides for us e with lettuce , head

ca bbage, broccoli , ca ul ifl owe r, white and gre en mustard ca bba ge, a ndChin e se cabba ge in Hawaii . Trefla n can be us ed to ad vantage for weed

cont ro l in head cabbage , ca ulifl ower , a nd broc coli , but its poor control ofswine cress and other broad leaved weeds in Ha waii will und oubtedly limit

its us e . Tab le 7 give s the recomme nde d procedures for us ing the herbi­

ci des und er Hawaiian c ond it ions. Alt hough Vegade x and petroleum so lve ntsare th e only two recommended her bic ides for present use in ce le ry, th e

experi mental res ults indi cate that s ome exce lle nt he rbic ides wi ll be ava il­ab le for use with ce le ry in the future . Similarl y, the res ul ts show tha t theBras sica spp . ar e tolerant to a broad spec tr um of new herbicide s . From a ll

indi cations, th e need ed impr ovement in le tt uce weed contro l in Hawai iwill require co nt inued research to find more sa t isfa ctory he rbic ides . Th etwo ne w herbi cides , Ba lan a nd Pre fa r , whic h ha ve be en report ed to co ntro lweeds in some of the mainland U. S. le tt uce -growing a reas , have pe rforme-dpoo rly on the so il types whi ch are commonly us ed for growi ng le tt uce inHawa ii.

10

Her

bicid

e

Am

iben

Bo

Ian

Ca

par

ol

C.I

.P.c

.

Do

cth

oI

- -D

ow

Sa

diu

mT

CA

Dy

mid

He

rba

n

I.P

.c.

Lo

rox

Pre

far

R-7

465

Ro

nd

ax

Si n

ax

PE

Sto

dd

ard

So

lve

nt

TA

BL

E5

.C

rop

To

lera

nc

eto

the

Her

bic

ides!

Cr

op

To

lera

nce

Sev

ere

inju

ryto

bro

cc

oli

(1),

ca

uli

flo

wer

(1,3

).an

dh

ead

ca

bb

ag

e(1

,4)

at

4Ib

/ocr

e.

No

inju

ryto

cele

ry(6

)w

hen

app

lie

do

ve

rth

etr

an

sp

lan

ted

cro

p.

No

inju

ryto

cele

ry(7

),le

ttu

ce

(11

,14

).a

ndC

hin

ese

cab

bag

e(1

2)w

hen

us

edas

ap

rep

lan

tso

il

inc

orp

ora

ted

treatm

en

tat

2Y2

Ib/a

cre

.

Cele

ry(5

,6,7

)w

as

nat

inju

red

inth

ree

ex

pe

rim

en

tsw

he

na

ppli

ed

as

ana

ver-

the

-pla

nt

sp

ray

imm

edia

tely

aft

er

tra

nsp

lant

ing.

No

inju

ryto

two

va

rie

tie

sof

dai

ko

n(1

3)

as

ap

re-e

me

rge

nc

es

pra

y.

No

inju

ryto

ce

lery

(7)

wh

enap

pl

ied

alo

ne

or

inc

om

bin

ati

on

wit

hV

egad

ex

as

ana

ver-

the-

pla

nt

sp

ray

.G

ree

nM

ign

on

ett

ele

ttu

ce

(8)

and

hea

dle

ttu

ce

(11)

we

ren

ot

inju

red

wh

enu

sed

as

ap

re-e

merg

en

ce

spr

ay.

Ka

iC

hoi

wa

sse

vere

lyin

ju

red

as

com

par

edto

slig

ht

tom

od

erate

inj

ury

toP

ak

Ch

aian

dW

anB

ok

atth

eW

aim

anal

oE

xp

erim

enta

lF

arm

(8).

No

inju

ryto

bro

cc

oli,

cau

lif

low

er,

and

he

adc

ab

ba

ge

(1,2

,3,4

)as

eit

her

ad

irecte

do

rav

er-

the

-pla

nt

spr

ay

.C

ele

ry(5

,6)

exh

ibit

ed

noev

ide

nce

ofin

jury

wit

ha

no

ver-

the-

pla

nt

sp

ray

at

10

.5Ib

/acre

.M

ode

rate

tose

ve

rein

jury

tole

ttu

ce

(9,1

1)

wh

en

spr

aye

dim

med

iate

lyaft

er

seed

saw

ing

,b

utno

inju

ryd

ete

cte

das

an

av

er-t

he

­p

l an

ts

pra

y2

week

sa

fte

rsa

win

g.

No

inju

ryto

Ch

inese

cab

bag

e(1

0,1

2)

and

da

iko

n(1

3)

as

apr

e-e

mer

gen

ce

sp

ray

.

No

sig

nif

ica

nt

yie

ldre

ducti

on

sw

ith

bro

cc

oli

and

cau

lif

low

eras

adi

rec

ted

sp

ray

at

6Ib

/ac

re.

As

lig

ht

re­

du

cti

onin

the

pla

nt

weig

ht

ofhe

adca

bb

ag

e(1

).

Se

ve

rein

jury

toca

uli

flo

wer

and

he

ad

ca

bba

ge

(3,4

).N

oin

jury

as

ap

re-e

merg

en

ce

spra

ya

nle

ttu

ce

(9),

Chi

ne

se

ca

bb

ag

e(1

0),

and

da

iko

n(1

3).

No

inj

ury

tocele

ry(6

)w

hen

sp

ray

ed

imm

ed

iate

lya

fte

rtr

ansp

lan

tin

g.

No

red

uc

tio

nin

ce

lery

(6)

yie

lda

t2

Ib/

acr

e.

No

i nju

ryto

lett

uc

e(9

)an

dC

hin

ese

ca

bb

ag

e(1

0)as

ap

re-e

me

rge

nc

es

pra

y.

Sev

ere

inju

ryto

daik

on

at

the

Lal

amil

oB

ran

ch

Sta

tio

n(1

3).

No

inju

ryto

ce

lery

(6),

lett

uce

(9,1

1),

and

Chi

nese

cab

ba

ge

(10)

wh

enp

rep

lan

tso

ilin

co

rpo

rate

d.

No

inju

ryto

ce

lery

(7)

an

dC

hin

es

ec

ab

ba

ge

(12

).

Mod

era

teto

sev

ere

inju

rya

nb

roc

co

li(1

,2),

he

adc

ab

bag

e(1

,2,4

),an

dc

au

lifl

ow

er

(1,3

)a

sa

liqu

ids

pra

y,

but

no

inju

ryw

hen

gran

ula

rsw

ere

ap

pl

ied

ove

rb

rocc

oli

(2),

hea

dcab

bag

e(l

,2,4

),an

dc

auli

flo

wer

(2)

.

Mo d

era

tein

jury

wh

en

use

dp

re-e

me

rge

nc

ein

do

iko

n(1

3).

No

inju

ryto

ce

lery

(6,7

)w

hen

spra

yed

ove

rth

epl

an

ts2

wee

ks

aft

er

tran

spla

nti

ng.

(Co

nti

nue

d)

.......

Iv

Her

bic

ide

s

Ten

ora

n

TO

KE

-25

Tre

flan

Tre

fmid

Veg

ad

ex

TA

BL

E5

.C

rop

To

lera

nce

toth

eH

erb

icid

es'

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Cro

pT

ole

ran

ce

No

inj

ury

tocele

ry(6

)a

son

ov

er-

the

-pla

nt

spra

yim

med

iate

lyaft

ertr

an

splo

nti

ng

.

No

inj

ury

os

ono

ver-

the-p

lan

tsp

ray

oncele

ry(6

,7)

at

2w

ee

ks.

Se

ve

rein

jur

yto

Ch

inese

cab

bog

e(1

0)

as

ap

re-e

me

rgen

ce

sp

ray

.

No

inju

ryto

bro

cco

li(1

),h

ead

co

bb

ag

e(1

,4),

and

cau

lifl

ow

er

(1)

wh

enap

pl

ied

as

dir

ecte

da

nd

ov

er-

the

-pla

nt

sp

ray

so

t4

to6

Ib/a

cre

.M

od

ero

tein

jury

tocau

lifl

ow

er(3

)a

tth

eh

igh

-ele

vati

on

Ku

laB

ran

chS

toti

on.

Cele

ry(6

)to

lero

ted

2Ib

/acre

soil

inc

orp

oro

ted

be

fore

tran

spla

nt

ing

.L

ett

uce

(9,1

1,1

4)in

jury

va

rie

dfr

oms

lig

ht

tom

od

ero

teu

nd

erth

ete

stco

nd

itio

ns

.C

hin

ese

co

bb

ag

e(1

0)an

ddo

iko

n(1

3)w

ere

tole

rant

toso

il-

inco

rpo

rate

dra

tes

of

2Ib

/acre

.

Le

ttu

ce

(9)

and

Ch

inese

cab

bag

e(1

0)

wer

en

ot

inju

red

wit

h7

Ib/a

cre

inc

orp

ora

ted

bef

ore

se

ed

so

win

g.

Ve

gad

ex

WaS

use

das

ast

an

dard

her

bic

ide

inall

ofth

ee

xp

erim

ents

.G

ran

ula

rfo

rmu

lati

on

was

nan

-in

juri

ou

sto

ca

uli

flo

we

r(1

,2,3

),b

rocco

li(1

,2),

and

hea

dcab

bag

e(1

,2,4

).V

eg

ad

ex

liq

uid

spr

oy

scau

sed

slig

ht

inju

ryto

hea

dc

ob

ba

ge

(1)

and

bro

cco

li(2

).

Cele

ryw

as

no

tin

jure

dby

ov

er-

the-p

lan

ts

pra

ys

inth

ree

ex

peri

men

ts(5

,6,7

).

Lett

uce

(8,9

,11

,14

),C

hin

ese

cab

bag

e(8

,10

,12

),g

reen

and

wh

ite

mu

stard

ca

bb

ag

e(8

),an

dd

aik

on

(13

)w

ere

no

tin

jure

dby

pre

-em

erg

en

ce

spra

yap

plic

ati

on

s.

1T

he

nu

mb

ers

inp

are

nth

ese

sre

fer

toth

eex

peri

men

tfr

omw

hic

hth

ere

sult

sw

ere

sum

ma

rized

.

TAB L E 6. P re -emergence Con trol of th e Pr eva lent Weed Spec ie sEncounte red in the Experiments ·

Gra sses Broad leavesRice· Wire. Amaranth Swine -

Her b ic ide Foxta i I Kik uyu gra s s gra ss spp. Purs la ne c ress

Amiben S S S S S 5 1-5

Balan I 1 1 ICa pa ra l S 5 5 5 S 5C. I.P . C . I I I IDactha l 5 T -I 5 I-S 5 S T-IDow Sa d ium TCA S 5 I T TDymid I-S S I-S i .sHerban 5 I 5 5I.P.C . T -I T -I S T -ILarox S SPrefo r T T TR·7465 I·S I·S T·IRand ox 5 5 5 S S ISino x PE I IStodda rd So lvenr 5 5 5 STenoran I S S 5TOK E-25 5 S S STrefla n I-S S 5 S ITrefm id I S S T -IVegad ex 1-5 T -I 1-5 S 1·5 S I-S

· Weed T o lera nce: T- T olera nt to herbicide ; I- Inte rme di a te (oft e n in fluence d by soi Itype ); S-5us cept ible .

TA BL E 7. Re co mmend ed Her b ici de s far T rial Use

Bra c c o li, Ch ine s eHe rbic ide Cau liflower, Cabbage,

(pounds Time of Head Mus tardactive/ acre ) Ap pl ication Ca bb a ge Ce le ry Lettuce Greens

Dactha l Pr e-emer gence to6 to 10Y2 lb . crop an d weeds. +

P os t -e me rge nce to+ +crop a nd pre-

emergence to weed s .

Pe t raleum Pcs t -emerqenc e tas o lven ts crop an d smo l] +4 0 ta 100 gal. we ed s .

Tre flan 1 lb. Prep lan t s o i I +in carporated .

Vegadex Pre-e me rgenc e to + +4 to 6 lb . crop and weeds .

Past-emergence tocrap (gr anul ar for mu- + +la t ion pre fe rred ) andpre-emergence toweeds .

13

RELATED LITERAT RE

1. Na kagawa, Y. , and R. R. Romanowski , Jr. 1963. Chemical weedcontrol in vegetable crops . Hawaii Coop erative Extension Service , Circular402. 16 pp.

2. Romanowski , R. R., Jr., J . S. Tanaka , D. L. Plucknett, and D. D.F. Wi ll iams , 1963. Tomato (Lycopers ic on escule ntum) herbicide screeningtrials in Hawaii . Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station . Technical ProgressReport No. 138 . 25 pp.

3. Romanowski, R. R. , Je.. and Y. Na kagawa . 1965. Current statusof chemical weed control with vegetable crops. Hawaii Farm Sc ienc e, Vo!'14, No. 1, pp. 6-9.

4. Romanows ki, R. R. , J r., and J . S. Tanaka . 1965. An eva luation ofherbici des for us e with cuc umbers (Cu cumis satiuus) and waterme lons(Citrullus vulgaris ) in Hawaii. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station.Te chnical Progress Report No. 144. 32 pp .

5 . Romanowski, R . R. , Jr., and J . S. Tanaka . 1965. Secondaryhe rbicide screening tr ials with leguminous vegetable crops in Hawa ii.Hawai i Agricultural Experiment Station. T echn ica l Pr ogress Rep ort No.146 . 23 pp .

14

AP PENDIX

EXPERIME 'T NO. I

(Permanent fil e co py WC-15)Waimanalo Expe rimenta l Farm F ie ld P-2

Crops:

Exp erimenta l

des ign:

Ex peri menta lprocedure:

Cli mat iccond itions:

Results:

Brocco li 'Green Bud,' Ca ul iflowe r ' Pua Kea,' a nd HeadCab bage 'Cope nhagen Market , '

Ra ndomized complete bloc k, 3 replications, split plotarrangement of trea tments-herb ic ides 5 ft. x 27 ft. , 6plan ts per s ubplot.

F ie ld prep ar at ion July 23, 1962; F ie ld transplant ing July23; Treatm ent a ppl ication July 25.

Rainfa ll (over .1 inch): July 22- .14 inc h, 31- 1.8, Augus t13- .13 .

Irrigat ion (Ove rhead): July 23, 25, 27, 30, August 3,6,10,13, 15 , 17, 20.

See Tables A-l -l a nd A-I -2.

Discussion and Summar y:

Crop tolerance : Dacthal and Vega dex (granula r formulat ion) were non­toxic to the test crops . Vegadex at 6 Ib/ac re (s pray formulat ion) was in­jurio us to head cabbage; whereas, Randox (s pray formulati on) and Amibenwere toxic to all crop species. Granular Randox was safe on ca bbage .

Weed control: Amiben, Dacth al , Randox, and Vega dex 6 Ib/ a cre(s pra y formulation) provided commercially a cce pta ble weed control of thewe ed s pec ies . TCA a nd Vega dex spray at the low ra te as we ll as thegra nula r formulation di d not perform satisfactor ily on a ll weed spe c ies .

15

TA

BL

EA

-l-l

.C

rop

tole

ranc

eto

the

her

bic

ides

,W

aim

an

alo

Ex

peri

men

tal

Form

,E

xpe

rim

ent

No

.

Tre

atm

ent

(po

unds

acti

vepe

ra

cre

)

Au

gu

st23

Ave

rage

num

ber

ofp

lant

s/p

lot

Br o

cco

liC

auli

flo

wer

Hea

dC

abba

ge

(4w

eek

s)

Ave

r ag

ew

eig

ht

ofpl

ant

s/p

lot

(Ib

)B

roc

coli

Cau

lifl

ower

Hea

dC

abb

age

1.C

hec

k,

uncu

Itiv

ated

5.0

6.0

5.0

3.3

3.9

3.5

2.

Ch

eck

,c

ulti

vate

d5

.75

.75

.37

.15

.94

.63.

Veg

ade

x4

lb.

dir

ect

eds

pray

5.7

5.7

5.7

6.7

6.9

7.4

4.V

ega

dex

6lb

.d

irec

ted

spra

y5

.06.

04

.36

.97

.03

.2*

5.V

egad

ex

6lb

.o

ver

-pla

nt

spra

y5

.06

.02.

7**

7.6

7.5

2.9

**

-6.

Veg

ade

x6

lb.

over

-pla

nt

gra

nu

lar

5.7

6.0

5.7

6.7

5.1

4.7

0\

7.

Ran

da

x6

lb.

dir

ec

ted

spra

y5

.76

.02

.7**

5.0

**

5.0

*2

.2**

8.

Ran

dax

6lb

.o

ver

-pla

nt

spr

ay3

.7**

6:0

4.7

3.9

**

5.4

2.0

**9

.R

and

ox

6lb

.g

ranu

lar

6.0

5.7

5.0

5.6

*4

.2*

4.1

10.

Dac

thal

6lb

.di

rect

eds

pra

y5

.75

.75

.37

.85

.75

.31

1.

Dacth

al

9lb

.d

irec

ted

spra

y6

.06

.05

.79

.05.

85

.81

2.

Am

ibe

n4

lb.

dir

ec

ted

spr

ay5

.06

.02

.0**

2.4*

*1

.7**

0.4

**

13

.T

CA

6lb

.d

irec

ted

spr

ay5

.36

.04

.76

.56

.83.

5*

L.S

.D.

5%

(1%

)1

.3(1

.8)

n,s

.1

.3(1

.8)

0.9

(1.9

)0

.9(1

.9)

0.9(

1.9

)

*Sig

nif

ica

ntl

yd

iffe

ren

tfr

omth

ecu

ltiv

ated

che

ck

atth

e5

%le

vel

(**1

%le

vel)

.

TA B L E A·1·2 . Weed co ntro l re s pons e to the he rb ici des ,Wa imana lo Exp er imen tal Fa rm, Expe ri ment No.

Augus t 14Number of weeds pe r square foot I

Treatment Rice - Wire - P urs lone Smooth(pounds ac t ive pe r acre ) gra ss grass Fo xta i I (Pi gweed) Arne scnrh

1. Check , unc ult ivated 22 .2 21.3 5 .0 2.5 3.2

2. Check , cu It iva ted 2.9 2 .2 0.4 0 .1 1. 0

3 . Vegadex 4 lb. directed spra y 2.2 0.4 0 .9 0 .8 2.1

4 . Vegadex 6 lb . d irected s pra y 0.9 0 .1 0 .3 0.0 0 .0

5 . Vegadex 6 lb . over-plant spra y 1.4 0.3 0 .4 0.0 0.2

6. Ve gade x 6 lb. ove r-p lant gran u lar 7.8 3.4 1.5 0.0 0.3

7 . Randox 6 lb. d irected s pray 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0

8. Randox 6 lb. over-plant spray 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0

9. Randox 6 lb. granular 0.1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0.0

10. Dacthal 6 lb. d irected spray 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0.0 0.0

11. Dactha I 9 lb. d irected spray 0. 2 0.9 0.2 0 .0 0 .0

12. Amiben 4 lb. directed spray 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0

13. TCA 6 lb. d irected spray 0.9 3 .3 0 .1 1.8 3.1

L.S .D . 5% (1%) 4.6(6.2) 4 .4 (5 .9) 1.5(2 .0 ) 1.1 (1. 4 ) 2 .1 (2 .8)

I An average of 4 read ings pe r plot .

17

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

(Perma ne nt fil e co py WC-2l)Waimanalo Experi me nta l Farm Field C-2

Crops:

Experim entaldesign:

Experimentalproc edure:

Cli mat iccondit ions :

Broccoli 'Green Bud,' Cauliflower ' P ua Kea,' HeadCab bage ' Cope nhage n Market. '

Randomized co mple te block , 3 replicat ions , split plotarrangeme nt of treatments-herbic ides 5 ft. x 36 ft. , 8plants per s ubplot.

Field preparation Oct ober 16 , 196 2; Field transplantingOctober 17; Treatment applic ation Oct ober 18.

Rainfall (over .1 inch) : October 17-.64 inch, 19-.12, 20­.68, 21-.48, 22- .93, 23-.14, Nov. 19-.1 inch.

Irrigat ion (Ove rhead) : October 31, Novem ber 9, 14, 19 , 21.

Weed species : i\lost prevalent: grass-w iregrass ; broadle ave s-s piny ama ­ra nth, pursla ne (pigwe ed), popolo.

Results: See Table A-2.

Dis cussion and Summary:

Crop toleran ce: T he cauliflower growth was not affected by the herbi­cides , and the spray formul ati on of Rand ox was the only treatment whichinjured head ca bbage. Gra nula r Ra ndox did not injur e the 3 crop species.Vegadex and Randox were toxic to broccol i whe n s pray ed ove r .th e plants .As in Experiment No.1, Vegadex (gra nular formulation) and Da cth al weresat is facto ry whe n us ed on the 3 crop species . Treflan exhibited goodse lec tivity on the crops tested.

Weed control: Tre fla n, Vegadex, and Dacthal (high rate) co ntrolledthe wee ds satis fac tori ly . Randox was more toxi c to wiregra s s than Da cthalOow rate); ne verthe les s , Dacthal was s uper ior on the broad lea ved wee ds.

18

TA

BL

EA

-2,

Cro

pto

lera

nce

and

wee

dco

ntr

ol

rati

ng

toth

eh

erb

icid

es,

Wai

man

alo

Ex

per

imen

tal

Far

m,

Ex

per

imen

tN

o.2

Cro

pR

esp

on

seW

eed

Co

ntr

ol

No

vem

ber

23N

ov

emb

er8

Tre

atm

ent

To

tal

Fre

shW

eigh

t/P

lan

t(I

b/p

lot)

Wee

dR

atin

gI

(po

un

ds

acti

ve

per

acre

)H

ead

Cab

bag

eB

rocc

oIi

Cau

lifl

ow

erG

rass

esB

road

leav

es-

--

1.C

hec

k,

un

cult

ivat

ed4

.94

.94

.61

.01

.02

.C

hec

k,

cult

ivat

ed7.

17

.14.

15

.05

.03

.V

egad

ex6

lb.

dir

ect

edsp

ray

8.7

7.0

6.8

**

4.7

4.0

4.V

egad

ex6

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tsp

ray

7.4

4.4

**6

.3*

4.7

5.0

5.V

egad

ex6

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tg

ran

ula

r7

.88

.98

.8*

*4

.04

.3

....6

.R

and

ox

6lb

.d

irec

ted

sp

ray

4.4

**

5.0

·5

.03

.33

.3\0

7.

Ran

do

x6

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tsp

ray

3.3

**'

2.6

**3

.94

.03

.38.

Ran

do

x6

lb.

gra

nu

lar

8.8

6.5

5.9

4.3

3.7

9.

Dac

thal

6lb

.d

irec

ted

spra

y7

.87

.38.

1**

3.7

4.7

10,

Dac

tha

I6

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tsp

ray

7,9

5.6

8,1

**3

.34

.71

1.

Dacth

al9

lb.

dir

ec

ted

spra

y8

.94

.0*

*5

.14

.35

.01

2.

Dacth

al9

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tsp

ray

8.3

8.7

8.5

**

4.3

5.0

13

.T

refl

an6

lb.

dir

ecte

dsp

ray

6.9

6.3

6.1

*5

.05

.01

4.

Tre

flan

6lb

.o

ver

-pla

nt

spra

y8

.35

.68

.2*

*5

.05

.0

L.S

.D.

5%

(1%

)2

.0(2

.7)

2.0

(2.7

)2

.0(2

.7)

0.9

(1.2

)0

.9(1

.2)

'Wee

dR

atin

g:

1-n

oco

ntr

ol,

2-s

lig

ht,

3-f

air

,4

-go

od(c

om

mer

cial

lyac

cep

tab

le),

5-c

om

ple

teco

ntr

ol.

*Sig

nif

ica

ntl

yd

iffe

ren

tfr

omth

eu

ncu

ltiv

ated

chec

kat

the

5%

lev

el(*

*1%

lev

el).

EXPERIMENTS NOS. 3 and 4

(Permane nt fil e copy WC-37H)Kula Branch Sta tion, Kula , Maui

Crops :Exp t. No. 3Expt. No. 4

Experimenta ldesign:

Experimentalproc edure:

Cli mat icconditions :

Results :

Cauliflower 'Early Snowball.'Head Cabb age 'Copenha gen Market.'

Rand omized complete block, 3 rep li cations , plot size 3 ft.x 27 ft. (18 plants) for each experiment .

Fie ld preparation-March 30, 1963; F ield tra ns plant ing­April 1 and 2; Treatment app licati ons April 3 and 4.

Rainfall (over .1 inch): Apri l 2-.20 inch , 6-.50, 7-.25 ,9-.46, 10-.27 , 11-.56, 14-.61, 15-. 90, 17-.46 , 18-.22 ,27-.23, 28-.58, 29- .44 , May 5- 1. 06, 15-2.00, 16-1.39 ,17-.74, 19-.34.

Irrigat ion (Overhead) : April 4- .5 inch .

See Tab le A-3 (& 4).

Dis cuss ion and Summary:

Crop tolerance: Dactha l, Tre flan, and Vegadex sh owed a good marginof crop tolerance on head ca bbage and cauliflower. The " s oil incorporated"Treflan exhibited a s lig ht redu ction in ca uliflower we ight compared to noreduction with the s urface treat ments . Amiben, Dymid, and Randox injur edthe ca uliflower; however, a di rected spray of Dymid and the granular formu­lation of Randox were a cceptable on head cabbage .

Weed control: Vegadex, Tre fla n (high rate), and Dymid all s howedcommercia ll y ac ceptable contro l of s winecress .

20

TA

BL

EA

-3(&

4).

Cro

pto

lera

nce

and

wee

dre

spo

nse

toth

ehe

rb

icid

es,

Ku

laB

ran

chS

tati

on,

Kul

a,

Mau

i,E'

xpe

rim

ents

No

s.

3an

d4

Ma

y9

Cro

pR

atin

g'

Exp

t.3

Ex

pt.

4

Jun

e28

Yie

ldD

ata

Cau

lifl

ow

er

June

29Y

ield

Dat

aH

ead

Cab

bag

e

Ma

y9

We

edR

ati

ng2

Ex

pt.

3

t>:l

t-'

Tre

atm

ent

(po

und

sac

tive

per

acr

e)

1.

Ch

eck

,un

cult

iva

ted

2.

Ch

eck

,cu

ltiv

ate

d3

.V

eg

ade

x6

lb.

ove

r-p

lan

tsp

ray

4.V

egad

ex6

lb.

dir

ecte

ds

pray

5.

Veg

ade

x6

lb.

ov

er-p

lan

tgr

anul

ar6

.R

ando

x6

lb.

ove

r-pl

ant

spra

y7

.R

ando

x6

lb.

gra

nul

ar

8.

Da

cth

al10

Y2lb

.d

irec

ted

spr

ay9.

Da

cth

aI

10Y2

lb.

aver

-pla

nt

spra

y1

0.

Tre

flan

4lb

.g

ran

ulo

r11

.T

refl

an

2lb

.gr

anul

ar

(soi

Iin

co

rpo

rate

d)12

.T

refl

an4

lb.

dir

ecte

dsp

ray

13.

Tre

fla

n4

lb.

ave

r-p

lant

spr

ay14

.D

ymid

6lb

.d

ire

cte

ds

pray

15.

Dym

idov

er-

pla

ntsp

ray

16

.A

mib

en4

lb.

gra

nul

ar

L.S

.D.5

%L

.S.D

.1%

Cau

li­

flo w

er

2.0 1.3 1.3

2.3

**

1.0

3.3

**

2.7

**

1.3

2.0

*2

.7*

*

3.0

**

2.0*

3.3

**

3.3

**

4.0

**

3.3

**

0.7 1.0

Hea

dC

abba

ge

1.3

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.3

3.0

**

2.0 1.3 1.3

1.7

2.7

*./1.

32.

01

.73.

3*

*4

.0**

0.7 1.0

No.

of

head

s/

plo

t

12.0

12.0

10.7

13.7

11.

07

.0'

12.0

11.7

12.0

12.7

12

.010

.78

.38

.01.

0**

8.3

4.1

5.5

Ave

rage

wei

ght

/he

ad

0.5

lb.

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.3

**

0.4

*0.

60

.5 0.5

0.4

*0

.50

.50

.4*

0.1

**0

.4*

0.1

70

.22

No.

ofh

ead

s/p

lot

15.7

14.3

14.0

12.0

14

.7

10

.7*

12.7

14.7

12.7

14.3

14.0

13

.712

.313

.08

.3**

9.0*

*

2.7

3.7

Ave

rag

ew

eig

ht

/h

ead

1.9

lb.

2.2

1.9

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.3

2.2

2.4 2.3

1.7

2.2

1.9

n.s

.

Sw

ine

-c

res

s

1.7

5.0

4.3

4.0

5.0

3.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

5.0

3.3

3.7

4.7

3.7

4.7

2.7

0.7 1.0

1C

rop

Rat

ing

Sca

le:

I-no

inju

ry,

2-s

lig

ht,

3-m

od

erat

e,4

-se

ver

e,

5-d

ead

.

2W

eed

Ra

ting

Sca

le:

I-n

oco

ntr

ol,

2-s

lig

ht,

3-f

air

,4-

go

od(c

om

me

rcia

lly

acce

pta

ble

),5-c

om

ple

teco

ntr

ol.

'Sig

nifi

ca

ntl

yd

iffe

ren

tfr

omth

ecu

ltiv

ate

dch

eck

atth

e5

%le

vel

(**

1%le

vel

l.

EXPERIMENT NO. 5

(Permanen t file copy WC-32)Wa imanal o Expe rimenta l Farm Fi e ld R- l

Crop:

Experimentaldesign :

Experimentalproc edure :

Climaticcond itions:

Weed s pecies :

Results:

Celery ' Utah 15' a nd ' Utah 52-70. '

Random ized comple te block , 4 replications . Spli t plotarrangement of treatments-herbicides 5 ft. x 30 ft., 15plants per s ubplot.

Field preparation December 28, 1962; Field transplantingDecember 28; Treatment applications January 19, 1963 asover-the -plan t sprays.

Rainfall (over .1 inch): January 16-1.90 inch, 19-.26,21-1.42, 22-1.36, 23- .19 , 25-.86, 26-.32 , 27- .10, 28­.10, 29-.08, 30-1.10, 31-.30, February 5-.17 , 6- .10, 7­.17 , 9- .18, 10-.28, 12-1.42, 17-.29, 19-.59 , 28-4.47,March 1-2.60,5-.18, 6-2.69, 17-.88.

Most prevalent: grasses-wiregrass, ricegrass; broadleaves- s piny amaranth.

Trace amounts : broadleaves-oxalis, popolo, swmecress .

See Table A-5.

Dis cus sion and Summary:

Crop to le rance: All of the herbicides merit furthe r consideration aspossible celer y herb icides be cause of the a ccepta ble crop selectivity.

lfIeed control: Ca parol and Rand ox perf ormed admirably for a periodof 2 months under excessive rainfall conditions.

22

TABLE A-5. Cro p toleronce ond weed control rotings to herbicides,Woimon olo Experiment Stoti on Experiment No.5

Treatment(pounds 'act ive per acre )

Apri I 24Average we ight/plont ( Ib)

Utah 15 Utah 52.70

March 14Weed Rating l

Gra s ses Broad leaves

1. Check, uncult ivoted2 . Check , uncult ivoted3 . Vegadex 6 lb .4 . Randox 6 lb.5 . Coporol 2 lb .6. Caporol4 lb .7 . Dactho I 9 lb.

L.S.D . 5% (1%)

0.90.90.80.60.70.60.8

n .s.

1.21.20 .90.81.10.91.4

n . s .

1.05.03.54 .04.55.03 .3

0.7(0 .9 )

1.04.83.84.35.05.03.3

0.7(0.9)

lWeed Ratin g: 1-no control, 2-slight, 3-fair , 4- good (c ommercially a ccepta ble) ,5-complete c ontrol.

EXPERIMENT NO. 6

(Permanent file copy WC-63A)Lalam ito Branch Sta tion

Crop:

Experimenta ldesign:

Exper imentalproc edures:

Climaticconditions :

Results :

Celery ' Utah 15' and ' Utah 52-70.'

Randomized comple te block, 4 replications , split plotarrangement of tre atments-herbicides 2~ ft. x 30 ft. , 15plants per s ubplot.

Field preparation June 22, 1964; Fie ld transplantingJune 25; Treatment applications-Prefar and Treflan in­corporated into s oil June 24, all other initial over -the­plant treatment applic ations June 25. Treatments 12, 13,and 14 appl ied over-the-plants on July 7.

Rainfall (over .1 inch): July 2- .1 inch , 15-.2, 20- .2,21- .2, 22- .1, 24- .8, 27- .4, 30- .2 .

Irrigation (Overhead) : Applied as needed.

See Tabl e A-6.

23

Discussion and Summary:

Crop tolerance: There was no ev ide nce of ce lery tox ic i ty from the 11he rbicides evaluated in this experiment. This information is espec ially

encouraging in that, with the exception of Prefa r and Treflan the herbi ­cides were sprayed di rectly over the celery plants .

Weed control : Amibe n, Dymid, Ca pa ro l, Stodda rd Solve nt, Tenoran ,

a nd T OK E-25 exhi bited co mmerc ia lly acce ptab le co nt ro l of th e weedspecies . The poo r to fai r contro l of swine cress (an important weed s pec ieson man y vegetab le farms) with Dac tha l , Prefar, and Trefla n was discourag­ing . T he ove ra ll poor wee d co ntro l with Prefar was pos tulat ed to be due tothe relatively hi gh soil orga nic matter (9%).

24

TA

BL

EA

-6.C

rop

tole

ranc

ea

ndw

eed

cant

rol

rati

ng

toth

ehe

rbic

ides

,L

alam

ilo

Bra

nc

hSt

ati

on,

Ex

per

imen

tN

o.6

Oct

aber

1-2

Jul

y24

Ave

rag

eW

eigh

t/S

taIk

(Ib)

Wee

dR

atin

gI

Tre

atm

ent

Tal

lU

tah

Pur

sla

ne

Smoo

th(p

oun

ds

acti

vepe

rac

re)

Uta

h15

52

.70

(Pig

wee

d)A

mar

anth

Swin

ecre

ssK

ikuy

u

1.

Ch

eck,

uncu

ltiv

ated

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.5

2.

Ch

eck

,cu

ltiv

ate

d1.

01.

13.

83

.34

.04

.03

.V

egad

ex6

lb.

0.9

1.1

5.0

3.8

4.3

1.3

4.

Cap

aral

4lb

.1.

01

.05.

05

.05

.04

.85

.A

mib

en

4lb

.0

.91.

25

.04

.85

.05

.0Iv

6.

Te

nora

n6

lb.

0.9

1.2

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.0

Cll

7.

Da

ctha

l10

l1lb

.0

.81.

05

.04

.32

.32

.38

.D

ym

id6

lb.

0.9

1.3

4.0

4.5

4.0

4.8

9.

Her

ban

2lb

.0

.91.

15

.03

.85

.04

.01

0.

Pre

far

4lb

.(s

oiI

inc

orp

ora

ted

)0.

91.

11.

51.

01.

02

.811

.T

refl

an

2lb

.(s

oil

inco

rpor

ate

d)

0.8

1.1

4.8

4.0

3.5

5.0

12.

Sto

dda

rdS

olv

ent

80ga

I/ac

reat

2w

eek

s0.

81.

05

.05

.05

.05

.013

.T

OK

E-2

56

lb.

at

2w

eeks

1.0

1.1

5.0

5.0

4.8

5.0

14.

Cap

aro

l4

lb.

at2

wee

ks1.

01.

25.

05.

05

.05

.0

L.S

.D.

5%

(1%

)n

,s,

n.s

.1.

0(1

.4)

0.9

(1.2

)1.

2(1

.6)

1.4

(1.8

)

lW

eed

Rat

ing

:1-

no

cont

rol,

2-s

ligh

t,3

-fai

r,4

-go

od(c

om

me

rcia

lly

acce

pta

ble

),5

-com

ple

teco

ntr

ol.

EXPERIME T NO. 7

(Permanent file copy we-81G)Lalamilo Branc h Station Field 4

Crop:

Experimentaldesign :

Experimentalprocedure :

Climaticconditions :

Res ult s:

Celery 'Spartan.'

Randomized complete block, 4 replications, plot size 4 ft.x 20 ft. (sprayed 2Y7 ft. x 20 Ir.).

Field preparation May 24, 1965; Field transplanting May26; Treatment applications-Treatment 8 (Balan) incorpo­rated into soil May 26, all initial over-the-plant spraysMay 27 , Treatments IO, 11, and 12 sprayed over-the-plantson June 10.

Rainfall (over .1 inch): June 4-.16 inch, 6-.1, July 11­.8.

Irrigation (Overhead): May 27-.5 inch, thereafter appliedas needed.

See Table A-7.

Discussion and Summary:

Crop tolerance: No Injury was detected with the entire group ofherbicides. This information was very encouraging, especially since theT OK E-25, Prometryne , and Stoddard Solvent were sprayed over the celeryplants at 2 weeks .

Weed control: Caparol, TOK E-25, Stoddard Solvent, and R-7465resulted in commercially acceptable control of the weed species.

26

TAB LE A-7. Crop tol er on ce ond weed con tro l rotings recorded for thevorious sp ecies , Lo lamilo Branch Sta t ion, Expe rimen t No.7

Crop We ed Ra t ing 2 J u Iy 2Tr e atments Ra t ing l Smoot h Purs lane

(pounds ac t ive pe r ocre ) J uly 2 Amara nth (Pi gwe ed)

1. Check , unc ul t ivo ted 1.0 1.0 1.0

2. Check, cult ivoted 1. 0 3.5 3.3

3. Vegadex 6 lb. 1.0 1.0 1.0

4. C. I.P.C . 6 lb. 1.0 1.3 2.8

5 . Vegodex 4 lb. +C. 1.P .C. 3 lb. 1.0 3.8 5 .0

6. Capa ro l 2 lb . 1. 0 4.3 5.0

7. Caporol 4 lb. 1.0 4.3 5.0

8. Bolan 2Y:z lb . (soil incorporoted) 1.0 2.3 2.3

9. R-7465 6 lb. 1.0 4.0 4.8

10. TOK E·25 6 Ib 1.0 5.0 5.0

}"11. Stoddo rd So Ivent 80 ga l/ac re 2 1.0 4. 5 4.3weeks

12. Capa ro l 4 lb. 1.0 5 .0 5.0

L.S.D.5% n.s . 0.8 1. 1L.S .D. 1% 1.1 1.5

1 Crop Rating : 1-no injury , 2-slight, 3-moderate, 4-severe, 5-dead.2 Weed Rati ng : 1-no control , 2-sl igh t , 3-fa ir, 4-good (commercia lly acceptable),

5-complete contro l.

27

EXPERIME T O. 8

(Permanen t fil e copy WC-22)Wai man a lo Experi menta l Farm Fi eld C-2

Crops :

Experimentaldes ign:

Experimentalprocedure :

C limaticcond itions :

Lettuce 'Gree n Migno ne tte ,' Green Mus tard Ca bbage ' Ka iChoi ,' White Mustard Cab bage ' Pak Cho i,' and ChineseCabbage 'Won Sok.'

Randomized comple te block , 3 replications , s pli t plota rrangemen t of treatments-herbicides 5 ft. x 36 ft., 9 ft.of row per s ubplot.

Field preparation Oct ober 16 , 196 2; Field sowing October17 ; Treatme nt appli cations-Treatments 3, 5, and 6 onOctober 18, T rea tment 4 a fter cult ivation on November 17.

Rainfall (over .1 inch ) : October 17-.64 inch, 19-.12 , 20­.68, 21-.48, 22- .93 , 23-.14, November 19- .1.

Irrigation (Overhead): October 31 and Nove mber 9.

Weed spec ies: Mos t preval ent : grass-wiregras s ; broadleaves- spiny ama­ranth , popolo, purslane (pigweed).

Res ul ts : See Table A-8.

Dis cussion a nd Summary:

Crop tolerance: Vegadex used as a pre-e merge nce spray did notinjure lettuce and Pak Choi , and only a s light growth reduct ion was notedwi th Won Bok and Kai Choi . Th e resul ts with C. I. P.C . varied from noinj ury to lettuce to complete era dicatio n of Kai Choi . Pak Choi a nd WonSok showed evidence of s li ght to moderate injury with C.I.P.C . The di ffer­ing se le ctivities withi n the Brassica genus are interesting.

Weed tol erance: Vegadex resulted in co mmerc ia lly accepta ble co ntro las co ntra s ted to only fair co ntrol with C.I.P .C .

28

TA

BL

EA

·8.

Cro

pto

lero

nce

and

wee

dco

ntr

ol

rati

ng

toth

eh

erb

icid

es,

Wai

man

alo

Ex

per

imen

tal

Far

m,

Ex

per

imen

tN

o.8

No

vem

ber

8T

reat

men

tC

rop

Rat

ing

1

(po

un

ds

acti

ve

per

acre

)L

ettu

ceK

aiC

ho

iP

akC

ho

iW

onB

ok

1.C

hec

k,

un

cuIt

ivat

ed1

.01

.01

.01

.02.

Ch

eck

,cu

Itiv

ated

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.V

egad

ex4

lb.

1.0

2.3

**

1.0

1.7

*!'-

:l\0

4.

Veg

adex

6lb

.g

ran

ula

r(p

ost

-em

erg

ence

)1

.01

.01

.01

.05

.C

.I.P

.C.3

lb.

1.0

5.0

"2

.0*

*2

.0**

6.C

.I.P

.C.3

lb.+

Veg

adex

4lb

.1

.05

.0**

3.0

*'

3.0

'*

No

vem

ber

26W

eed

Rat

ing

2

Gra

ssB

road

leav

es

2.3

2.3

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.7

5.0

5.0

3.0

3.0

4.3

5.0

L.S

.D.

5%

(1%

)n

.s.

0.6

(0.9

)0

.6(0

.9)

0.6

(0.9

)1

.8(2

.6)

1.8

(2.6

)

'Cro

pR

atin

g:

1-n

ain

jury

,2

-sli

gh

t,3

-mo

dera

te,

4-s

ev

ere

,5

-dead

.2

We

ed

Rat

ing

:1

-no

con

tro

l,2

-sli

gh

t,3

-fa

ir,

4-g

oo

d(c

om

mer

cial

lyaccep

tab

le),

5-c

om

ple

teco

ntr

ol.

*Sig

nif

ica

ntl

yd

iffe

ren

tth

anth

ecu

ltiv

ated

chec

kat

the

5%

lev

el(*

*1%

lev

el).

EXPERIMENTS NOS. 9 and 10

(Permanent file copy WC-63D and WC-63E)Lal amil o Branch Sta tio n

Crop :Expt. No. 9Expt. No. 10

Experimenta ldesign :

Experimentalprocedure :

Climaticconditions :

Result s:

Lettuce ' Earl y Great Lakes .'Chinese Cabbage ' Nagaoka 60 days.'

Randomized comp lete block, 4 repli ca t ions , plo t size 2~

ft. x 30 ft. for each experiment.

Fie ld preparat ion Ju ne 22, 1964; F ie ld sowing Jun e 23­25; Treatment applicat ions - T rea tme nts 10, 11, 12, and13 incorporated into soil June 24, all other treatmentsapplied on June 25.

Rainfall (o ver .1 inc h) : July 2-.1 inch, 15-.2 , 20-. 2,

21-.2 , 22-.1, 24-.8 , 27-.4, 30- .2.

Irrigation (Overhead) : Applied as needed .

See Table A-9 (& 10).

Dis cus s ion and Summary:

Crop tol erance: The results with Chinese cabbage show that thisspecies exhibits selectivity to many important herbicides . The lettuce in­jury inc urred with Dactha l , T OK E-25, and the high rate of Treflan are ofconcern.

IT' eed tolerance: T OK E-25 and Trefmid provided commercially accept­ab le control of swinecress , and T OK E-25 controlled kikuy u gra ss fromseed. Most herbicide s were effecti ve on purslan e a nd s mooth amaranthwith the exceptions of Dymid and Prefar on purslane and I.P.C. and Pr efaron s mooth amaranth .

30

TA

BL

EA

-9(&

10

).C

rop

tole

ran

cean

dw

eed

con

tro

lra

tin

gto

the

her

bic

ides

,L

ola

mil

oB

ran

chS

tati

on

,E

xp

erim

ents

No

s.9

and

10

July

24(4

wee

ks)

Cro

pR

atin

g!

Wee

dR

atin

g2

(Ex

pt.

No

.9)

Tre

atm

en

tC

hin

ese

Pu

rsla

ne

Sm

ooth

(po

und

sacti

ve

per

acre

)L

ettu

ceC

abb

age

(Pig

wee

d)

Am

aran

thSw

inec

ress

Kik

uyu

1.

Ch

eck

,u

ncu

ltiv

ated

1.3

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.

Ch

eck

,cu

ltiv

ated

loB

1.5

4.5

4.B

4.B

4.5

3.

Veg

ade

x4

lb.

2.0

2.0

4.B

4.0

2.B

loB

4.

Veg

ade

x6

1b

.2

.01

.54

.B4

.53

.32

.35

.I.

P.C

.6

lb.

2.0

1.8

4.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

6.

Dac

tha

I6

lb.

3.0

·1

.85

.04

.32

.82

.5

""7.

Dac

tha

Ilo

}1lb

.3

.8*

*1

.85

.04

.53.

B2

.5.....

.8.

TO

KE

·25

6lb

.4

.3*

*2

.55

.04

.84

.54

.39

.D

ymid

6lb

.2

.01

.82

.84

.03

.53

.510

.Pr

efar

4lb

.(s

oiI

inco

rpo

rate

d)

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

11

.I.

P.C

.6

lb.

(so

iIin

co

rpo

rate

d)

1.0

1.3

5.0

1.5

2.5

2.5

12.

Tre

flan

2lb

.(s

oi

Iin

co

rpo

rate

d)

1.0

1.5

4.5

4.0

2.0

2.8

13

.T

refm

idW

·50

7lb

.(s

oil

inco

rpo

rate

d)

1.5

1.8

4.3

4.3

4.0

3.0

14

.T

refl

on

4lb

.2

.8*

1.8

4.8

4.8

2.3

2.8

L.S

.D.

5%

(1%

)1

.0(1

.4)

n.s

.0

.9(1

.2)

1.1

(1.5

)1

.5(2

.0)

1.6

(2.2

)

1C

rop

Ra

ting

:1

-no

con

tro

l,2

-slig

ht,

3-f

air

,4

-go

od

(co

mm

erci

ally

acce

pta

ble

),5

-ca

mp

lete

.2

Wee

dR

atin

g:

1-n

oin

jury

,2

-sli

gh

f,3

-mo

dera

te,

4-s

ev

ere

,5

-dead

.*

Sign

ific

an

tly

dif

fere

nt

from

the

cult

ivat

edch

eck

at

the

5%

lev

el(*

*1%

lev

el).

EXPERIMENT NO. II

(P ermane nt fil e copy WC-BI A)Lalamilo Branch Sta tion Fi eld 3

Crop:

Experiment aldesign:

Experimentalprocedure:

Climaticconditions:

Results:

Lettuce ' Early Great Lakes .'

Rand omized complete block , 4 replications , plot s ize 5 ft.x 30 ft. (2 rows per plot) ..

Field preparation May 24, 1965; Soil-incorpora ted tre at­ments May 25; Seed s own May 25; Pre-emergence spraysa pplied May 26; Treatment No. 16 applied on June 10 asan over-the-pla nt spray.

Ra infall (over .1 inch ) : Jun e 4- .16 inch, 6-.1 , July 11-.8.

Irriga tion (Overhead): May 27-.5 inch , thereafter applied

as needed.

See Table A-11 .

Dis cus s ion and Summary :

Crop toleran ce: Dacthal was the onl y treatment that injured lettucewhen applied immediately after seed sowing as compared to no injury whe nsprayed over the plants at 2 weeks.

Weed control: The control of purslane was commercially acceptablewith the pre-emergence sprays of Da ctha l , C.I.P.C ., Vegadex , and Treflan2 lb/acre; also, the soil incorporated 2 Ib/acre applic ation of Tref'lan.Smooth amaranth was controll ed satisfactorily wit h Treflan 2 lb/acre andDacthal at s owing . The poor control of swinecre s s with a ll of the herbi­c ides was dis couragin g.

32

TABLE A-I 1. Lettuce to le ron ce and weed con tro l responseto the he rb i c ide s , " Lalam ilo Branch Stat ion,Exper iment No. 11 (Jul y 2-5 weeks )

Weed Ra t ing2

Tr eatm ent Lettuce Swine .(pounds ac t ive per acre ) To leran ce 1 Purs lane Amara nth cress

1. Check , uncult ivated 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2. Check, cultivated 1.0 4.0 4.3 4.3

3. Ba Ian 1 lb.

} s o i l

1. 0 1.5 1.5 1.5

4. Balan 114 lb. incorporated 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.0

5. Balan 2Y2 lb. 1.0 3.5 3.3 1.8

6. Ba Ian 2Y2 lb. 1. 0 2.8 3.0 1.5

7. Trellan * lb . ( 1.0 3.3 3.0 1.3

8. Trellan 1 lb. soi I inc orporat ed 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.8

f9. Trel lan 2 lb. 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.5

10. Treflan 2 lb. 1.8 3.8 3.8 1.8

11. V.,odex 6 lb.} 1.0 3.8 3.5 2.5

12 . C. I.P .c. 6 lb. so i I incorporated 1.0 3.5 2.0 1.8

13. C. I.P .C. 6 lb. 1.5 4.5 3.0 2.5

14 . Prefar 8 lb . soi I incorporated 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0

15 . Dac thal 10Y2 lb . 4.0 5 .0 5 .0 1.8

16. Dac tha I 10Y2 lb. at 2 weeks 1.3 4 .0 3.5 1.5

L.S .D.5% 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.1L.S .D. 1% 0.3 1. 1 1.1 1.4

I Lettuce tol er an ce : I -no in jury, 2-sl ight , 3- moder a te, 4- sever e, 5-dead.2We ed Ra t ing: I -no co ntrol , 2- sl ight, 3-lai r, 4- good (commerci a ll y acceptable) ,

5-comp lete .

33

EXPERIMENT NO. 12

(Perman ent fil e copy 81-F)Lalamilo Bran ch Sta tion Fi eld 4

Crop:

Experimentaldesign:

Experimentalprocedure:

Climaticconditions:

Results:

Chinese Cabb age ' agao ka 60 da ys.'

Rand omized complete block, 4 replications , pl ot size 2Yzft. x 20 ft.

Field prep aration May 24, 196 5; Balan inc orporated May25; Seed sown May 25; Pre-emergence applications May 27.

Ra infall (over .1 inch ): June 4- .16 inch , 6-.1 , July U­.8.

Irrigation (Overhead): May 27- .5 inch, thereafter appliedas needed.

Air te mpe ratures : Ma y 27- 64°to 660 F.

See T abl e A-1 2.

Discussion and Summary:

Crop tole rance: No crop injury was observed with the chemica lstested.

If!ee d contro l: Dacthal and Vegadex at the high rates were the onlyherbicides which showed s ome control of smooth amara nth. The other weedresults were somewhat varia ble and no s tat is t ica lly signifi cant differenceswere measured . The high rates of Vegadex and Dacthal aga in showedindicati ons of fair contro l of purslan e a nd sw ine cress .

34

TABLE A-1 2. Ch inese Cabbage ta le ra nce a nd we ed cant ra l rat ingsre car de d far the va ri ous spe cies ,Lala mila Branc h Stat ian , Experi ment No. 12

Ch ineseWeed Ra t ing2 J ul y 2 (5 weeks)Cabbage

Tr ea tmen t Tolerance l Smooth Purs la ne Sw ine-(pa unds act ive pe r acre ) Jul y 2 Ama ra nth (P igw e ed ) c ress

I . Che c k, uncul ti vat ed 1. 0 1.0 1. 8 1.0

2 . Chec k, cult iva ted 1.0 3. 0 2.8 2.5

3 . Vegade x 4 lb. 1. 0 2.0 3.0 3.0

4. Vegade x 6 lb. 1.0 3.3 3.8 3.5

5 . Da c thal 6 lb. 1.0 2 .3 2.3 2.0

6 . Dac tha l 10Y2 lb. 1. 3 3.5 3 .8 3.8

7. Balan 2Y2 lb . (s oi l incorpora ted) 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.8

8 . R-7465 6 lb . 1.0 2.0 3.8 2 .0

L.S .D . 5% (1%) n.s. 1.4 (1.8 ) n ;s , n . s ,

1 Crop Ra t ing : I -no in jury, 2-s light , 3-modera te , 4-severe , 5-dead.2 We e d Ra t ing : I-no contro l, 2-sl igh t , 3-fa ir , 4-gaod (c ommer ci a ll y acceptab le ),

5-comp lete contra I.

35

EXPERIMENT NO. 13

(Permanent fil e copy 81-0 )Lalamilo Branch Sta tio n F ie ld 2

Cr op:

Experimental

desi gn:

E xpe r imenta l

proc edure:

Climatic

conditions:

Results:

Daikon 'Minoyonba i-Long .'Daik on ' Chines e Half-Long.'

Randomi zed compl ete bl ock , 4 replicati ons , s pli t plotar ra nge ment of trea tments-herbic ides 2 ~ ft. x 30 ft. , 15 ft.of ea ch variety-subplot.

Field preparation May 24, 1965; T re fla n soil incorporate dMay 25 ; See d sown May 25; Pre-emer gen ce a pplica t ionsMay 27.

Rainfall (over .1 inch): June 4- .16 inch, 6-.1 , July 11-.8.

Irrigat ion (Overhead): May 27- .5 inch; thereafter appliedas ne eded.

Air te mpe ratu res : Ma y 27-640 to 66 0 F .

Se e Table A-l3 .

Dis cussion and Summar y:

Crop toleran ce: Moderate phytotoxici ty was observe d on th e 2 daikon

varie t ies tre ated with Lor ex and Sinox P E. Vegad ex, Da cthal , Caparol ,Treflan , and Dymid showed no evide nce of daikon inj ury . T he latter resultswere en coura ging for a good herbicide is ne ed ed for us e with daikon in theIslands.

If'ee d control: T re fla n, Lorex, a nd Ca pa ro l wer e the most sat is fact ory

as regards co ntrol of purs la ne an d s mooth a mara nth.

36

TAB LE A-13 . Dai kon to le rance a nd we e d co ntrol ra t ing s ,La lamil o Bran c h Stat ion, Exper ime nt No. 13Ju ly 2 (5 we e ks )

Wee d Ra t ing2

T rea tme nt Da iko n to le ra nc e I P urs lone Smooth(pound s a ct ive pe r a c re ) Long Ha If- long ( Pi gwee d ) Ama ran th

1. Chec k, uncu lt iva ted 1.0 1.0 1. 5 2 .0

2. Chec k, cul t ivated 1.0 1.0 4. 0 4 .3

3. Ve ga dex 6 lb . 1. 0 1. 0 4. 3 3. 3

4. Dactha I 10}2 lb . 1.0 1. 0 3 .0 3 .5

5 . Caparol 4 lb. 1.3 1. 0 4.3 3.8

6. Lorox 2 lb. 3. 3** 3.0 ** 4.8 4 .5

7. Sinox PE 6 lb. 2 .5 ** 3.0* * 3.3 2.0

8 . Treflan 2 lb. (s o i I incorporated) 1.0 1.0 4 .5 4.5

9. Dym id 6 lb. 1. 0 1.0 3. 5 3.3

L.S.D.5% 0 .7 0.8 1.4 1.0L. S. D. 1% 1.0 1.1 1.9 1. 3

' Cr op Ra ting : I -no inj ury, 2-sl ight , 3- mode rate , 4-seve re , 5 - dead .2 We e d Ra t ing : I-no control , 2-sl ight , 3-fa ir, 4- good (comme rci a l ly acceptable ),

5-complete c on tr ol.

*Si gni f ica n t ly d ifferent (Da ikon tolerance onl y) from the cu lt iva ted check at the 5%(** 1% leve l).

37

EXPEHIMENT NO. 14

(Permanen t file copy WC-84)Manoa Campus Farm Fi eld K-3

Crop:

Experimental

design:

Experimentalprocedure :

Cl imaticconditions:

Results :

Lettuce 'Green Mignone tt e .'

Rand omized co mple te bl ock , 3 replications , pl ot s rze 10ft. x 15 ft.

Fie ld preparation July 26, 1965; Soil incorp orated tre at­ments applied on July 26; Le ttuce sown July 26; Pr e­emergen ce tre atments applied on July 27; Le ttuce resownon Augus t 2, 1965.

Ra infall (ov er .1 inch) : Augus t 4- .16 inch , 5- .12, 6-.17,7 to 9-.43, 10-.47, 14 to 16-.28 , 17-.43, 18-.17, 21 to23-.65, 25- :22, 28 to 30-.28 , September 1-.14, 13-.61.

Irrigat ion (Overhead) : July 27- .5 inc h; ther eafter a ppli edas needed .

Se e Table A-l4 .

Discussion a nd Summary:

Crop toleran ce: Vegadex and Balan did not injure th e lettuce whi ch

was resown 1 we ek afte r tre atm ent applica ti on. T he injury incurred withT refl an appeare d severe ear ly in the grow ing cy cle ; howev er, th e lettuce

showed fair rec ove ry at 7 wee ks after treatment.

IT' ee d control: Treflan resulted in excellent weed control at th e

rates tes ted . Ba lan performed s lig ht ly better th an th e standard herb icide ,

Vegadex, but ne ith er he rbic ide exhibi ted comme rcia ll y accepta ble weedcontrol under th e te st condit ions .

38

TA

BL

EA

-14

.L

ettu

ceto

lera

nce

and

wee

dco

ntr

ol

resp

on

seto

the

herb

icid

es

,M

anoa

Cam

pu

sF

arm

,E

xp

eri

men

tN

o.14

Wee

dR

esp

on

seN

o.of

Wee

ds/s

q.

ft.

Sub

ject

ive

Rat

ing

2

Let

tuce

(3Y2

wee

ks

)(7

wee

ks)

Tre

atm

ent

To

lera

nce

'S

piny

(po

unds

acti

vep

era

cre)

(7w

eek

s)W

ireg

rass

Pu

rslo

neA

mar

anth

Wir

egro

ssP

urs

lane

1.C

he

ck,

un

cult

ivo

ted

3.3

38

.07

3.0

9.0

1.0

1.0

2.

Ch

ec

k,cu

ltiv

ote

d1.

70

00

2.0

2.0

3.V

egad

ex6

lb.

1.3

4.0

4.3

2.3

2.7

2.7

C;:>

4.B

.I."

Ilb

.}

1.7

2.6

7.6

1.3

3.7

3.7

\Q5.

Bal

an11

4lb

.(s

oil

inco

rpo

rate

d)

1.3

2.1

4.6

02

.32

.76.

Bo

Ian

2).7

lb.

1.7

1.3

1.3

03

.33

.77.

Bo

lan

2).7

lb.

1.3

0.3

2.0

0.6

3.3

3.7

8.T

refl

an

1lb

.}(

'1'

d)2

.70

00

5.0

5.0

9.

Tre

fla

n2

lb.

SO

lIn

cor

pora

te3

.30

00

4.3

5.0

10

.T

ref

lan

2lb

.2

.70

0.6

04

.03

.7

L.S

.D.5

%0

.93

.67

.81

.71.

31.

2L

.S.D

.1%

1.3

4.9

10.7

2.4

1.8

1.6

1L

ettu

ceT

ole

ranc

e:

1-no

inju

ry,

2-

slig

ht,

3-m

od

era

te,

4-

seve

re,

5-d

ead

.2

We

ed

Ra

ting

:1

-no

con

tro

l,2

-sli

gh

t,3

-fair

,4

-go

od

,5

-co

mp

lete

.

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIICOLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE

HAWAII AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONHONOLULU, HAWAII

THOMAS H. HAMILTONPresident of the University

C. PEAIRS WILSONDean of the College and

Director of the Experiment Station

G. DONALD SHERMANAssociate Director of the Experiment Station