Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:08:12.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Soil Smoothing Devices on the Action of Pre-emergence Herbicides in Soybeans and Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. E. Larson ,
D. L. Klingman  and
O. H. Fletchall
R. E. Larson
Affiliation:
Farm Machinery Section, AERD, ARS, USDA
D. L. Klingman
Affiliation:
Weed Investigations Section, CRD, ARS, USDA
O. H. Fletchall
Affiliation:
Field Crops Department, Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station
Get access

Extract

A review of literature indicates that there are considerable variations in the results obtained in using herbicides for selective pre-emergence weed control. These variable results have been attributed in part at least to a large number of possible factors, a few of which are: soil type, soil moisture, soil surface condition, rainfall, plant varietal difference, and application variations and errors. In 1952 a study of the literature reporting research studies and recommendations indicated that some method of rolling or smoothing prior to pre-emergence applications might prove to eliminate those variations in results from such applications as could be attributed to the rough, cloddy condition of the soil surface. This was particularly noticeable in early bulletins of the cotton producing states, a number of which (1, 3, 4, 6, and 7) recommended that the soil surface be rolled smooth prior to the application of pre-emergence herbicides for weed control in cotton.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1958 , pp. 126 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anon. Chemical weed control recommendations for cotton, 1952. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Cir. 171 p. 4. 1952.Google Scholar
2. Anon. Chemical weed control recommendations. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Cir. 195 p. 6. 1955.Google Scholar
3. Creasy, L. E., and Mayeux, M. M. The sprayer and its use. Louisiana State University and A. & M. College, Pub. 1085 p. 4. 1951.Google Scholar
4. Elder, W. C., Porterfield, J. G., and Dreessen, J. Chemical control of weeds in cotton. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Bul. B-397 p. 4. 1953.Google Scholar
5. McWhorter, C. G., Wooten, O. B., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. A study of seedbed smoothing devices for pre-emergence weed control in cotton. Proc. Southern Weed Conference 8:42–56. 1955.Google Scholar
6. Searcy, V. S. Chemical weed control in cotton. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Prog. Rep. Ser. No. 51 p. 2. Mimeo. 1951.Google Scholar
7. Thompson, J. T., Hauser, E. W., Stacey, S. V., Futral, J. G. Chemical weed control in cotton. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Press Bul. 649 p. 7. 1954.Google Scholar