Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:25:23.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-Volume Application of Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Milton A. Barzee and
Edward W. Stroube
Milton A. Barzee
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio, 43210 and the Ohio Agr. Res. and Dev. Center, Wooster, Ohio, 44691
Edward W. Stroube
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio, 43210 and the Ohio Agr. Res. and Dev. Center, Wooster, Ohio, 44691
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field and greenhouse study was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of preemergence herbicides applied at low volume (9.35 to 37.4 L/ha) and conventional volume (187 L/ha). In the field study 11 preemergence herbicides were applied to plots seeded with seven weed species. Five herbicides were used in the greenhouse study each applied at five rates and two volumes. Both field and greenhouse results indicated that water soluble materials and emulsifiable concentrates which need not be incorporated can be applied at low volume with results comparable to conventional volume application. Field results suggested wettable powders can be applied low volume with success; however, greenhouse results indicated that with present equipment and technique wettable powders are not well suited for low volume application. Incorporated materials were included only in the field study and gave irregular results.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 1972, pp. 176 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Amsden, R. C. 1962. Reducing the evaporation of sprays. Agricultural Aviation. 4(3):88–93.Google Scholar
2. Bode, L. E. and Gebhardt, M. R. 1968. Low volume (0.5–5.0 gpa) applicator for preemergence herbicides. Proc. No. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:49–50.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W. and Burnside, O. C. 1965. Aerial and ground application of preemergence herbicides in corn, sorghum, and soybeans. Weeds 13:334–336.Google Scholar
4. Koski, Joseph T. 1968. ULV brings new benefits in air war on pests. Year Book of Agriculture. Ed. by Hayes, Jack. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 386 p.Google Scholar
5. Marvin, P. 1965. Spray drift: the observations of an arbitrator. Agr. Chem. 20(11):69–74.Google Scholar
6. Robson, T. O., Little, E. C. S., Johnstone, D. R., and Hill, R. F. 1966. A new technique for accurate aerial application of herbicides to drainage channels with negligible spray drift. Weed Res. 6(3):254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Santelmann, P. W., Greer, H. A. L., and Six, I. L. 1968. Factors influencing the activity of soil incorporated herbicides. Oklahoma State Univ. Exp. Sta. Bull. B-658. 20 p.Google Scholar
8. Siemens, J. C. and McLane, Stanley R. 1968. Spray characteristics of a new low volume applicator. Proc. No. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:5.Google Scholar