Title: Herbicide evaluation at Plantations Field Laboratory,1962-1963 season
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076401/00001
 Material Information
Title: Herbicide evaluation at Plantations Field Laboratory,1962-1963 season
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Orsenigo, J. R.
Publisher: Plantation Field Laboratory, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076401
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 126885373

Full Text
/ .'


Pla tati n Field Laboratory Mimeo Report PFL64-1 August 1963


HERBICIDE EVALUATIONS AT PLANTATION
FIELD LABORATORY, 1962-1963 SEASON 1/

J. R. Orsenigo and H. Y. Ozaki 2/


Summary: Secondary evaluation of preemergence herbicides for direct-
seeded pepper (591-4a-63): Acceptable pepper stand and
good pepper tolerance were noted for all herbicides. Tri-
fluralin (Treflan), handweeded and CDAA (Randox) treatments produced the highest
yields. Pepper yield was reduced in DCPA (Dacthal), diphenamid (Dymid or Enide) and
PEBC (Tillam) treated plots. Annual grass weeds were controlled best by trifluralin,
diphenamid and CDAA; trifluralin was the most effective broadleaf herbicide.
Weeding required by CDAA and trifluralin treatments was about one-third that needed
to maintain the handweeded control. The Enide formulation of diphenamid was slightly
superior to the Dymid formulation in some respects but the overall performance of
both formulations was similar.

Secondary evaluation of delayed preemergence herbicides
for direct-seeded pepper (591-4b-63): CDEC (Vegadex) in
mineral spirits, solan and solan / CDEC had slight effect
on pepper emergence, stand and tolerance. Pepper yield for these treatments was 6
to 11 percent lower than the handweeded control. All treatments afforded good grass
and excellent broadleaf weed control. Manual weeding of the treated plots ranged
from 16 to 27 percent of that required by the handweeded control. Delayed preemerg-
ence treatments appear promising for limited commercial trial.

Evaluation of lay-by herbicides for pepper (591-4e-63):
Amiben (Vegiben), dichlobenil (Casoron) and DCPA (Dacthal)
applied as lay-by treatments provided acceptable weed
control with slight .plant injury. Pepper yield for the herbicidal treatments was
lower than the handweeded control.

Primary evaluation of swep and Tok for preemergence Weed
control in direct-seeded pepper (591-4d-63): Reduced
pepper stand and tolerance were associated with 2 rates of
both herbicides. Only the higher rate of Tok effectively controlled annual weeds.
Pepper yield was acceptable. Further evaluation is anticipated.

Interaction of delayed preemergence herbicides and rate
and timing of Encap mulch application (591-6-63): Three
delayed preemergence herbicides were evaluated in factorial
combinations with 3 levels (100, 200, and 400 gpa) and three timings of Encap
petroleum mulch application. Pepper stand and tolerance were marginally acceptable
and poorer than anticipated. Annual grass and broadleaf weed control were margin-


1. This tabulation of the comparative performance of commercial and experimental
herbicides was prepared for research and industry. The data herein neither
constitutes nor imply recommendation of any herbicide for any usage.

2. Associate Horticulturist, Everglades Experiment Station and Assistant
Horticulturist, Plantation Field Laboratory, University of Florida.


~








ally acceptable. A wind storm (60 mph) caused severe sand cutting, wind and
dehydration injury to both pepper and weeds. The highest rate of Encap mulch
(400 gpa) appeared to minimize injury.

Primary evaluation of herbicide Encap formulations
(591-8-63): A number of herbicides were formulated
in Encap petroleum mulch and applied preemergence to
several vegetable crops. Certain of the herbicides were applied separately
in water solution after which Encap was applied as a covering spray. The weed
population was inadequate to evaluate herbicidal performance.'.Crop stand, toler-
ance and yield were very variable. Response to "herbicide PLUS mulch" and
"herbicide formulated IN mulch" applications was not uniform.


Experiment:

Location:

Soil:


Cultural operations:


Design:


pepper bed-top was 4

Description of crop:


591-4a-63: Secondary evaluation of preemergence
herbicides for direct-seeded pepper.
Plantation Field Laboratory

Pompano fine sand

Fertilizer schedule: 28 September 1962, 500 lb/A of
5-1005; at bi-weekly intervals thereafter 300 lb/A
of 10-0-10.
Pepper planted: 28 September 1962
Missing hills transplanted: 31 October 1962
Flooding for frost protection: 12, 14, 15 December 1962.

The experiment was installed as a randomized complete
block with 3 replications. Plots consisted of 2 rows
of pepper (16 in. apart) by 29;ft. long. The treated
ft. wide. Yield data were taken from 27 ft. of row.

The Florida Giant variety was planted. Pepper radicles
averaged about 1/8 in. long at time of herbicide application.


Description of weed population: The weed flora which developed in the un-
weeded control plots was mainly of crab-
grass, goosegrass, purslane and pigweed.
Weed seed were germinating and an occasional weed seedling was emerging at time of
herbicide application.

Description of herbicidal treatments: The herbicides and rates of application are
given in Table 1 and Table 2. Rates of
application are listed as ib/A active ingre-
ient. The preemergence treatments were applied broadcast to the pepper bed tops
in 40 gpa aqueous solution with a hand-carried, C02 experimental-plot sprayer.


Application data:


Date of application 2 October 1962 (09;00 to 09:40 AM)
Wind conditions SE at 3-7 mph. Sky full sun to
bright overcast. Spray water hardness -
220 ppm.
Soil Moisture 0 to 3/8 in depth 13%, 3/8 to 1 in depth
12%.


Rainfall and temperature data: Accumulated rainfall and average temperature
values are given for the time after application
indicated.






-3-


Time after
application
1 week
2
3
4
6


Method of eva


controls and
data tables.


Accum.
rainfall
0.67
0.89
0.89
1.51
2.74


Temperature of -
Max. Min. Mean


Jluation: Periodic evaluations were made of pepper emergence, stand,
tolerance, annual grass and broadleaf weeds, handweeding
times and yield. Both visual ratings based on the untreated
count or mensuration methods were used. These are indicated in the


Experimental results: A frost on 11 December 1962, at time of first bloom,
severely damaged these plants. Recovery and regrowth
were good. All herbicides retarded the emergence of
pepper seedlings. Pepper stand differed among the herbicide treatments but all
plots had commercially acceptable stand. Pepper was highly tolerant to all
treatments. Yields were reduced markedly by DCPA and moderately by diphenamid
and PEBC. The yield of trifluralin-treated plots approximated that of the hand-
weeded control while yield was reduced about 15 percent in the CDAA treatment.
Crop response data are in Table 1. The treatments differed in early weed control.
Trifluralin, diphenamid and CDAA provided the best control of annual grass weeds
and trifluralin controlled broadleaf weeds most effectively. The least weeding
was required in CDAA and trifluralin plots; weeding time for these treatments was
about one-third that required by the handweeded control. Weed control data are
in Table 2. The Enide formulation of diphenamid was slightly superior to the
Dymid formulation, particularly broadleaf weed control, but the overall performance
was similar.


Experiment:


Installation data:



Description of crop:


591-4b-63: Secondary evaluation of delayed preemergence
herbicides for direct-seeded pepper.

Location, soil type, cultural operations and design
information are identical with preceding Experiment
591-4a-63.

The Florida Giant variety was planted. Germinating pepper
seed ranged from 1/16 to 1/8 in below the soil surface
at time of herbicide application.


Description of weed population: The weed flora of the area was principally crab-
grass, goosegrass, purslane and pigweed. Weeds were
emerging at time of herbicide application and seedlings
were in the cotyledonary-leaf stage. Grass weeds were up to 1 in. tall while
broadleaf weeds ranges from 1/8 to 1/4 in. tall.

Description of herbicidal treatments: The herbicide and rates of application are
given in Table 3 and Table 4. Rates of application are
listed as lb/A active ingredient. Delayed preemergence
treatments were applied broadcast to pepper bed-tops in 40 gpa of either water
or mineral spirits with a hand-carried, CO2 experimental-plot sprayer.


Application data:


Date of application 4 October 1962 (07:50 to 08:00 AM)
Wind conditions NE at 0-2 mph. Sky overcast.
Spray water hardness 240 ppm. Soil moisture -
0 to 3/8 in depth = 12%, 3/8 to 1 in depth = 12/.














0o
0












*
00O C
CD to







0m 01























I Ci
^to H0

.H 0


Cti




(0



0 c0
















0) 0






& H-
D0t







pH 01

S -


't r 'ts td H-P
CD pF> ? o
P !DC 0
(D (D
pO p 9 { S pDH-'-Op~
Pi PAF F- -t-
0
a i ( p i P,'**'*'
0 a-- ts' B."
0 Ct.
HI Pp
0 VIn (D f





041%0 H-4 _3%0b%
H %-'pi H















so 1C- 0
4:-SV '*-'










-I^




















OIl)'H -'HV-



'4 5\ \O n Co






r. m WD2?
W<>*


H5 H-

C) 0>
0 10


0
frt) W Lj W ~- ro roDo
8 8-8-8 8W
01 PD PD
(D
m |W
0
k


m




0

0
H-











C+
H-


0

0
C.-
CD















go
H







00















00

C)
00













I- pi



t3
Dl


ItPD









01
01

I-b



o100


0






0.
H 0











ON









0'
0o
























(D
I
(D


















(* "
(D

0
1H-









CD




8I


i (B.0








o o
e .4
01 P


0P
o0Dlo














go 0


H -S1


: .g-0 !
gwSRR^q


p P P, H.5'
ID,~~~ -

0 P, tPhPi t t-48

0 C+'..-p
HJ tt p, m* *P'(04
HIn PD Pi 1

5


1-3




0



(D
H






*




D
30
0.














('DP
PO









m







Id
0
C+


(D

m

ty
(D














P)

(D
(D)
0
0
t+


(D


















I
0
II

H'



0
C)



g
01





ID
01












N
SI-'
(0






01
0



Dl>
0





H.
0
0
Dl
*


0

m


U> O *' 4\0 \ *-a,:,\ 0 t
^0^4^.^00- C) t5



104 ccpn
~ P S




H 0 \ P,




Li4 CD






c-F
PD




0 0-^^-^-^^-^ Pl
10


B'41HW(A U1 ID


a ~oC Iv 0-~ IH
I^S^^g^-I.pD't
HI 1d
H C)y








Rainfall and temperature data: Accumulated rainfall and average temperature values
are given for the time after application indicated.


Time after
application

1 week
2
3
4


Method of evaluation:


Accum.
rainfall

0.11
0.33
0.95
1.16


Temperature of
Max. Min. Mean


The treatments were evaluated by the same methods as
given for preceding Experiment 591-4a-63.


Experimental results: A frost at first bloom, 11 December 1962, severely damaged
the pepper plants; recovery was good. The herbicidal
treatments had slight effect on pepper seedling emergence,
pepper stand or pepper tolerance. Pepper yields were 6 to 11 percent less than the
handweeded control for all treatments (Table 3). All herbicidal treatments provided
acceptable annual grass control and excellent broadleaf weed control. Weeding time
for the herbicide-treated plots ranged from 16 to 27 percent of that required for
the handweeded control (Table 4).


Experiment:

Installation data:


Description of crop:


about 1 ft. tall and
application.


591-4c-63: Evaluation of lay-by herbicides for pepper.

Location, soil type, cultural operations and design inform-
ation are identical with preceding Expetiment 591-4a-63.

The Florida Giant variety was grown. Herbicides were
applied immediately after plants were severely injured
by a frost at first bloom, 11 December 1962. Plants were
the upper leaves were completely "watersoaked" at herbicide


Description of weed population: All plots had been maintained weedfree by hand
weeding until the herbicides were applied. The weed flora
of the area consisted of crabgrass, goosegrass, purslane
and pigweed.

Description of herbicidal treatments: The herbicides and application rates (lb/A
active ingredient) are given in Table 5. The spray applica-
tions, in 40 gpa of water, wet the lower leaves and stems
of the pepper plants and the weed-free soil surface. A hand-carried, CO2
experimental-plot sprayer was used.


Application data:




Rainfall and temperature


Time after
application
1 week
2


Date of application 11 December 1962 (08:00 to 08:20 AM)
Wind conditions nil. Sky sun.
Spray water hardness 220 ppm. Soil moisture -
0 to 3/8 in depth = 2%, 3/8 to 1 in depth = 6%.

data: Accumulated rainfall and average tempocrptvre
value are given for the time after application indicUated.
Accum. Temperature of
rainfall Max. Min. Mean
0.00 53
0.07 79 59 69
0.24 79 57 68
0.57 72 49 60








--6-


WM H5 W 0 1 -3 Pw ro H Ml o 0 m) am o-3

O o0
0,l td > ro ,o.,
(o bo ( B ,' o ot
S .m -o
0o a< Q P


-o o < ,.o s o ,"
C+ m 0 00 0 Id I
S t-0 2 01 H pi

Op 1' p Pt "a* i Id 002
D 3cl-P OH r ( t i 0) Ct,


H0O^d Co H .p CD P H"

P1 *t 0 .A
i C P C
ts H sO ; F %. 13 N




o t i -





g o o
C 8 ( K7 Mt 0-i op 1D



F- ,o 0r I
o (D so a


10 ffiO H 1'JIU.71 PA

So +
0 0 D ~0 n
(D 'UHr 0

A+ M (D (P' D
m CDCD (o F





m ". o
H [I %&





fHb O+ H ro C) o
+0 o0 O 9C 0P
o1& 'mA













CD*
0 (D CD IS
1 J co co 8o rt ?* 0 fl






Oa S 1 C0
AN 0 0p



WD 0 1 10*
0 P (a (D











cl-.







Method of evaluation:


-7-
The methods listed for preceding experiments were used
here also.


Experimental results: The several treatments did not differ in their affect on
pepper plants and all provided acceptable weed control.
All herbicides required less weeding than the handweeded
control.and all herbicide treated plots produced lower yields (4 to 18%) than the
handweeded control. (Table 5)
Four granular formulations (A, B, C and R) of dichlobenil were evaluated as
lay-by herbicides in non-replicated plots adjacent to the above trial. The
formulations did not differ greatly in performance from each other.

Table 5. Handweeding time and yield for lay-by herbicides applied to pepper; values
are averages of 3 replications. (591-4c-63)


Herbicide and Rate, lb/A

amiben (Vegiben), 3
dichlobenil (Casoron), 4
DCPA (Dacthal), 5
Handweeded control


Time to
handweed 1/


100 sec.
200
170
250


Pepper
yield/plot 2


41 lb.
48
47
50


LSD 73 NSD
1. Seconds to handweed, per plot, at 2Q months after lay-by application.
The handweeded control data do not include weeding time prior to herbicide
application.
2. Total of 3 pickings in March 1963.


Experiment:


Installation data:


591-4d-63: Primary evaluation of swep and TOK for
preemergence weed control in direct-seeded pepper.

All installation information is identical with Experiment
591-4a-63 preceding.


Experimental results: Pepper stand and tolerance were reduced by two rates of
both herbicides. Tol was slightly less injurious to
pepper than swep. Only the high rate of Tok provided
effective control of both annual grass and broadleaf weeds. The high rates of
swep and Tok required minimal handweeding effort. Yields of both rates of swep
and the low rate of Tok were acceptable. (Table 6)
I


Table 6.


Response of direct-seeded pepper and weeds to preemergence applied swep
(NIA 2995) and Tok (FW-925); values are averages of 2 replications.
(591-4d-63)


Herbicide, Rate

swep, 3 ib/A
swep, 6
Tok, 3 lb/A
Tok. 6


Pepper Rating Weed Control
Stand Tolerance Grass B'leaf


75%
75
87
87


87%
81
94
87


56%
69
19
87


50%
75
50
81


Time to Handweed
First Second


410 see.
270
430
210


270 sec.
130
250
90


Pepper
yield/plot


56 lb.
61
52
40


NB Pepper and weed control ratings were made at 5 weeks after application.
Handweeding data are for 5 and 7 weeks after application. Pepper yield
data are from one replication only and include 3 pickings in March 1963.








591-6-63: Interaction of delayed preemergence herbicide
x rate of Encap mulch application x timing of Encap
mulch application


Experiment:



Location:

Soil type:


Plantation Field Laboratory


Pompano fine sand


Cultural operations:





Description of crop:


Fertilizer schedule: 26 December 1962, 1000 lb/A of
dolomitic limestone; 700 lb/A of 5-10-5 banded on soil
surface after planting.
Pepper planted: 1 February 1963
Overhead irrigation applied: 1 February and 21 March


Early Calwonder pepper was planted. At time
application pepper seed were germinating and
were about 1/4 in. from emergence.


1963


of herbicide
seedlings


Description of weed population: The
goosegrass,
germinating
broadleaf weeds were emerging at time


weed flora of the area consisted of crabgrass,
purslane and pigweed. Weed seed were
and a light infestation of annual grass and
of herbicide application.


Description of herbicidal treatments: Factorial combinations of the following were
applied in a randomized complete block design with 3
replications: The 3 delayed preemergence herbicides
were: solan (Solan) 4 lb/A; solan 2 lb/A / CDEC (Vegadex) 2 lb/A; and, CDEC
2 lb/A in 30 gpa mineral spirits. The solan and solan / CDEC treatments were
applied in 40 gpa aqueous solution. The 3 levels of Encap petroleum mulch were:
100, 200 and 400 gpa. The 3 Encap timing dates were: immediately after herbicide
application and 1 and 2 days after herbicide application. Applications of the
herbicides and Encap were made broadcast to the bed tops with a hand-carried, 002
experimental-plot sprayer.


Application data:


Date of herbicide application 7 February 1963
09:00 to 11:35 AM). Wind conditions NE at 5-7 mph.
Sky sun. Encap applied 7, 8 and 9 February 1963.


Rainfall and temperature data: Accumulated rainfall and average temperature values
are given for the time after application indicated.


Time after
application

1 week
2
3


Method of evaluation:


Accum.
rainfall


Temperature of
Max. Min. Mean


3.16
4.17
4.19


Visual ratings of pepper stand and tolerance and of grass
and broadleaf weed control were made. Time to handweed
the plots was taken one month after treatment-.


Experimental results: Several herbicides solann, 2 lb/A; CDEC, 2; CDAA, 2; and,
CDAA, 1 / CDEC 1) were applied preemergence to direct-
seeded pepper and were covered by 600 gpa of Encap in an
earlier experiment (591-4a-63). Pepper germinated well but failed to emerge
apparently through inability to penetrate the mulch film.








This experiment (591-6-63) was initiated to attempt to determine the most
favorable rate and timing of Encap application for use with herbicides in direct-
seeded pepper. Pepper stand for all of the factorial combinations was less than
expected. Pepper tolerance was below the levels of the untreated controls. Annual
grass and weed cpntrpl were barely acceptable. The experiment.was terminated when
60 mph winds early in March caused severe sand cutting, wind and dehydration
injury to pepper and weeds. Apparently, the Encap mulch, particularly at the
highest rate of application, reduced the severity of crop injury and dehydration.
(Table 7.)


Experiment:


Location:

Soil type:


591-8-63: Primary evaluation of herbicide/ Encap
formulations

Plantation Field Laboratory


Pompano fine sand


Cultural operations:


Design:


Description of crops:


Fertilizer schedule; 23 October 1962, 1100 lb/A
dolomitic limestone.
Seeded: 10 April 1963
Overhead irrigation: 9 April 1963, l in.
Furrow irrigation: 3 to 4 times per week for three
weeks after 15 April 1963.

Non-replicated single treatment. Three crops were
planted per bed; two beds (4 ft. wide) by 6 ft. long
comprised a treatment plot.

The crops are listed in Table 8. Germination of some
seed had commenced but no seedlings had emerged at time
of herbicide application. Eggplant and pepper failed to
develop stand sufficient for evaluation.


Description of Weed Population: The weed population in the area wds not'sufficient"
for adequate weed control evaluation.

Description of herbicidal treatments: The herbicidal treatments and application
rates (lb/A active ingredient) are given in Table 8.
Some herbicides were applied only as formulated in Encap
mulch and as separate sprays which were followed by Encap application. These are
designated as IN or PLUS treatments. All materials were applied with a hand-carried
002 experimental-plot sprayer.


Application data:



Rainfall and temperature


Date of application 11 April 1963 (09:00 to 11:40 AM)
Wind conditions SSW to SW at 0-4 mph. Sky overcast
to full sun.

data: Accumulated rainfall and average temperature values
are given for the time after application indicated.


Time after
application
1 week
2
3
4
6


Accum.
rainfall
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.23
4.67


Temperature of
Max. Min. Mean.
5 57 71
84 59 72
86 68 77
82 61 71
87 66 76













0 o C 0
S00 P SJ. S1- H



a op oo E
(D 0


H m




0 'd 0 I

(D O ca H
g 0) 0

E. P |






7t 0 0 cc) 0o i .%0






0, H


0 Ei CD
0 0 --a OD'I


6C, .





I0 H

CD OD -.3-4 -ED-j ED 78 -3-4 co 0





0




(D p, 0 (0
0PA


I _







-11-


Method of evaluation Periodic visual evaluations of crop stand and tolerance
were made. Yield of certain crops was also recorded.

Experimental results: Very variable results in crop stand, tolerance and yield
may have resulted from inadequate and uneven soil moisture
or high soil temperatures under the Encap mulch (Table 8).
It is impossible to generalize regarding the comparative performance of "herbicide
PLUS mulch" or "herbicide formulated IN mulch" applications. Reduced crop stand
and tolerance were accompanied often by high yield. Specific crop/herbicide/Encap
combinations may be worthy of further exploration. The 200 gpa Encap film was not
continuous and was soft, pliable and fragile under mid-day sun. The 600 gpa film
was continuous and was heavier, firmer, and durable at mid-day. (Table 8)







-12-


S oooo oo ocoo o po
000 O00000 00000


f\) r\) A) SP r r PA
f')m m -o N)
00

o n


p \n -P \ u. -P
* **4 ;. J n;


. rN L)u H H HMo
vn bNK ro ) D \D a ?o v


*a w 0 o\o 0


co r\) O ro o o



..0 Q .. 0 0
N)0 \.n N" 0 0



ro 8










ovo m b b





. ro mo 0D~!R o o m
N) -4--] 0-1 1i
H







0 \. \O O




b*j Hn :4;o ;- ro-
* * *
(0i- 0 000000 0



vj o--30-3 -3]



00 0a 00^ Co00~]

-3%J3 10~'Jl-3\Jl


03 v-Co'-3


PH H
0 0M0-3 0






summ o ov
00 00 OD 00O
-3 -3 : -3-3




H POO H-3
H
P l WJ 0H*~

4


10000
,ba.

r%) P- No Ro
I a
0 0 0

6%
-o ooox
S-f-3 OD --4 D3O
\.n | -- \ J n Q4V






1080

H H
0-3 00- 000


000-03--1


CD
-14
0
b-s.





(D
o








S









0






m
ou
c*I





Fj













0
CD




























H
CO














Ii-3 b
JPIs




100
















(D
|a
8P


0-o 0
o0vim-.-


o o
o0vi o


rOM-3ol ri



- r\ 0i


ro)H ro H











0 00-4


so 0


S080




000-3




C000\- CH
-3l [ \ In-,


\-^.lUn















NC B0 g I co

0H m
.)


Ms


00 0


4. 4.
ag zz
VM a( a(


(D(D
S. S.

H


0o 8 o oo 00 O


0^ 0j0 0C






-a, OOOD UO. ro\t-





0n' -r 00 On o 0





*o -. ro o -.
U) P.) P oW w Ao \o -
OOOO bV lV

Hi-j H
800Q -4 0\ Q Q










--4 ^ ODb i)9 c\


Ho



* *




** *
0


** *







-N --4
wro



R






CD-a

4 VI
r')'J


0a\







ro
oo
.n 0






- J
o cc




H .
P N

o ro


\. o

'-n'J1


* *








*J
'0


,5,.*0


O






ON 0\
0\-.~












'o


&J
m
m












-*





*0
cl-















O
Ii3
-3









2











0 11
I>








0
Cl



P O

1,
I C

#-3













IP'


PI?
it S


4 U.W U O 4M O K
-* ro oo Ii~^ o
;-,6~ p : I


PFL 64-1
400 Copies


-13-




r




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs