II

I
I

I

IIIIII

I

IIIIIIII

I

III
III

I
I

131
674

 

THS_

w ”‘0“ “J. "I I' .° "' A I. . I. ' If
$1UDI:Q.Q CIK‘ 1L1... L.I~.-I-I‘v: '. :~.‘r?o—'LI In. I.

I?“”"‘II III III“ I...“- :;I.I;;:-.I II’AR.
Wfilfllm an: “‘“‘ ‘

.. v. I" ‘1‘".
III- ”mum .ms LIN... I

Mflmu fiflwfitw

"WI-3 '.~'I.-. "t. 5.73 '1‘
Hams-.3 I.» ma {(4:33 3. II»... :I.

r'1 -..'"-'

I‘I’IICEIIIG!" III 31W .. (2-1:: .. -..

'

2‘1 iChfird' i {533

FI‘I‘I
T§3&

waists

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

Studies on the Control of Pteridium
Aquilinum (L.) Kuhn, Var. Latiuscqum lDesv.)
Underw.

 

presented hg

Richard R. Yeo

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

M— degree in My

Q H W
Major proleé or
IMMW. 301 /9f3—

 

 

STUDIES ON THE CONTROL OF ETERIDIUM AQIUILIITU'M (L.) KUEN.

VAR. LATIUSCULUM (DESYJ UNDERW.

By

RICHARD YEO

A TESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology

1952

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHEPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . .......

III. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . .
Dormant . . . . . . . . . . .

Cut- and Uhcut-Emerging—Fronde

Cut- and Uhcut-Mature-Fronde .
Flawed-Rhizome . . . . . . . .
Foliage . . . . . . . . . . .

D11‘80t'fih120me e e o e e e o 0

VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS - SECOND YEAR
VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . ...
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HPWDIX o e e o o O o 0 o 0 o e e e e e 0

2.92942

PAGE

10

l3

25
28
31
33

36
38
no
uz

I . INTRODUCTION

The bracken fern. m M (L.) Kuhn. Var.
latiggculm (Dean) Underm, ie a well-known peat to the farmer
and the forester. It is found in open woods. thickets. burns and
olearinge, extending fron northeastern United States throughout
the middle-west and eonthveetvard to northeastern Hexico. Wherever
found. the bracken fern has generally become not only a nuisance
but a competitive plant in paeture or rengeland. wildlife habitats
and cottage sites. and means of eradicating it have long been de-
eired. Thin study was undertaken with the hope that the informe-

tion obtained will be an aid in the control of bracken fern.

II. REVIEW 0? LITERATURE

The life cycle of the bracken fern.makes it extremely diffi-
cult to eradicate. .A germinating spore forms a small gametophyte
which. on its underside. gives rise to numerous archegonia and
autherozoids, one of which upon swimming to an archegonium. unites
with the egg cell and forms a zygote. The zygote deveIOps into
a young sporephyte with a primary leaf. primary root, stem. and
foot. Eventually it becomes a large. spore-producing organism.
Braid (5) states that a single plant can grow to a clump more than
one yard in.diameter in a single year. The chief manner of distri-
bution over a region is by wind blown spores and rhizome growth.is
responsible for the spread of local infestations.

lhch.year many of the plants in each locality produce spores.
In some patches practically all the fronds produce spores while
adjacent patches of fronds are barren. The barren fronds remain
green late into automn. while the fertile ones turn brown early.

In autumn, the fertile and barren bracken can thus be recognized
from a distance. Spores are produced in great quantities. but the
young bracken sporelings seldom are seen.

In an investigation of the life-history of bracken in Scotland,
it was found that the viability of spores varies considerably from
year to year (h). Vhile the spores germinate throughout the year.
the maximum crop appears in February and March. The two hazards

of the sporelings are desiccation. by the drying winds of March,

3
and late frosts. Thus the rapid increase of bracken for any period
of time is thought to be due to seasons suitable for the deveIOpment
of bracken sporelings.

In vegetative multiplication the continuous rhizome system
is broken up by the decay of older parts. hence. new plants arise
fro: the detached groups of branches. The rapid spread by vegeta-
tive means is a function of the number of bracken.patches and not
of their size (4).

The rhizome system is best described as having three tiers (3).
The lower, or leader. usually runs at a depth of 10 to 20 inches
and is the main invading stem. It possesses the thickest branches.
ending in a terminal fingerlike bud which periodically produces side
buds. The side buds develop into branches which bend upward and.
if they are within nine inches or less of the surface. often bear
fronds. Sideébuds also produce subsidiary buds which grow into
shorter and thinner branches. often characteristically zigzagged
and densely covered with many fine roots. These branches develop
nearer the surface and frequently produce groups of fronds. In a
friable soil of good fertility. the lower and middle tiers are pro-
duced abundantly. while if conditions are such as to check:these
the upper tier develoPs most. The lower and middle tiers are most
abundant about the periphery of an area. and the upper tier in the
center. In all cases the terminal bud of each tier is the most
actively growing‘bud. By dichotomous division. the terminal cell
gives rise to lateral buds which produce either rhizome branches

or fronds. The buds may also lie dormant for some years. The fronds

u,

of each season normally arise from the side buds immediately behind
the terminal buds of the upper and middle tiers. but sometimes
subsidiary buds may also deve10p at the frond bases. The end of a
frond-bearing branch in late autumn. will show the growing point with
its lateral bud. farther back a well-formed frond—bud one-half to
three inches high and. adjacent to the point where the lateral branch
Joins the main rhizome. a small dormant. scale-like bud at the base
of an old stipe. If a frond is destroyed in the green stage. the
bud destined for the next season's frond begins to develOp.

In control measures to date the chief mode of attack has been
to remove the fronds. as not only does this reduce the production of
food. but the underground reserves are depleted in the develOpment
of fresh fronds. It has been shown by chemical analyses (15) that
the amount of food reserve. expressed as soluble carbohydrates and
nitrogen. diminishes rapidly from.dpril and reaches a minimum in.July.
after which there is an increase.

Many methods have been.proposed for removal of the fronds.
most of which merely reduce the number of ensuing fronds over a long
period of time and do not eliminate the plant entirely. Among the
methods that have been suggested are plowing. cutting. burning. and
grazing by livestock.

On tillable land. deep plowing is a most effective means of
ridding an area of bracken. As the bracken rhizomes often lie at a
depth of at least 20 inches. a heavy digger type of plow must be used.

If a well-drained area. heavily infested with bracken. is plowed during

5
the dry summer months the amount of bracken is so reduced as to be-
come negligible and. if planted to a row crop such as potatoes. the
fern is practically all killed during the second season (10).

An experiment conducted in Scotland (15) resulted in the con-
clusion that three years' cutting uncovered the grass and allowed
the grazing of stock to take place. The cuttings did not entirely
remove the bracken. so that when left undisturbed it eventually
re-established itself. The number of cuttings made per year seemed
to make little difference in the following year's emergence.

In the experiment Just described. the rhizomes were examined
and some interesting effects were noted. The rhizomes were shrunken
a short distance behind the growing-point, and they contained a milky
fluid instead of the firm white tissue of normal bracken. Consider-
able lengths of the older rhizomes had a loose. frequently ruptured
cortex. so that long bands of the hard sclerenchyma were exposed as
broad flat fibers. No growing-points were found on these parts. The
effect of rhizome depletion was to break up a widespreading continuous
plant into a number of pieces or separate plants. The fronds were
produced from tufts of branches mainly near the surface. Hence. the
water supply from deeper soil layers was not accessible. and the more
superficial root-system competed for water with the grasses.

Another experiment (1?) was begun in 19h6. in which the bracken
fronds were either cut or crushed regularly. Little difference in
the number of fronds occurred until 1950 when four cuttings were made
in May and June: yet complete eradication seemed unlikely for another

year or two.

Burning is a hazardous and inferior means of eliminating
bracken and is totally ineffective unless it is combined with certain
other steps (8). In Australia it has been suggested that the subter-
ranean clever or burr clover be sowed upon the ashes. superphosphate
applied. the area stocked lightly and the process repeated the follow-
ing year. The procedure may not be applicable in the midwestern
United States. but it merely illustrates the difficulty of eradication
by means of burning. More suitable for this region is the method sug-
gested by Jenkins and Jeclonan (12) for the western variety of bracken
fern. 2. m (L.) Kuhn. Var. W (Desv.) Underw. hey
recommend that. after burning. the area be seeded to good. permanent.
adapted grasses. and then pastured as soon as the grasses are estab-
lished. Chewing's fescue. tall fescue. creeping red fescue. highland
bent grass. orchard grass. and tall oatgrass are all adapted to western
fernland. Broadleaf birds' foot trefoil. alta fescue. redtOp. common
ryegrass and perennial ryegrass are acid-tolerant perennial species
which are recommended for pastures in the midwestern area (1).

Cattle and other aninls have been used to some extent for the
control of brecken. Trampling by cattle in the spring. after previous
burning. is a method which is extensively used in new Zealand (9).

m removing the cattle to better grazing for short periods every three
weeks. the risk of bracken poisoning can be appreciably reduced. It
has been observed that the animals will eat bracken. as the only al-

ternative to going hungry (ll). The animals must be forced to trample

7
successfully. and this presents a problem on larger areas unless the
areas are subdivided in order to concentrate the animals (13). Once
the fern uncurls. however. control by crushing is more difficult. and
the principle of rhizome starvation by trampling fails as a means of
control.

Sheep and swine tend to be tolerant of the poisonous effects
of bracken and have limited usefulness in bracken control because of
their voracious eating habits. The hogs. desiring the abundant.
starch-filled rhizomes. uproot the underground.stems and.the sheep
close-graze the fronds (16). Close-grazing can be encouraged by the
application of crushed rock salt. two hundred pounds per acre. when
the fronds are emerging.

Another method of bracken eradication is by the use of chemi-
cals. In reviewing the literature it was found that two types of
chemicals. those which are translocated within the plant and may de-
stroy distant parts of the plant along with those parts with which
they are in contact. and those chemicals which effect only the parts
of the plant actually in contact with the herbicide. were used.

Sodium chlorate is described as being the most effective of
the chemicals. This chemical is extremely toxic to plant life. but
is quite harmless to animals and.humans. The effect on the animal
system is somewhat similar to an equal quantity of Epsom Salts.
Braid (h). Griffith (10). and Bates (2) have recommended the'use of
sodium chlorate at 200 pounds per acre for bracken eradication..

Davies (9). describing Braid's work in Scotland. stated that plots

treated with a single application of 200 pounds per acre in 1937
showed much less regrowth of bracken after 10 years than plots which
were out twice a year. Griffith (10) found that if sodium chlorate
were applied during February or March. even to land very heavily in-
fested with.bracken. hardly any growth would take place on that plot
for a very long time. In one instance. after seven.years had elapsed.
very little bracken had reappeared. Bates (2) also described a method
for the direct application. using a hand-scythe attachment. of a con-
centrated solution to the cut surface of bracken fronds whereby only
15 to 20 pounds per acre was needed to effect a 50 to a 100 per cent
kill. the lower kill being attributed to wet weather.

the contact herbicides. in single treatments. produce the same
effect as one cutting of the fronds. fheir use is not generally prac-
tical unless an abundant supply of water is readily available. Common
salt. sodium chloride. has been used successfully at 200 pounds per
acre in 75 gallons of water (1“). The best results are obtained when
the fronds have fully expanded. Although salt has the advantage of
not permanently injuring grasses. the presence of salt on the fronds
is detrimental to livestock. which may be induced to eat the salty
fronds. A.lo per cent solution of sulphuric acid will also kill the
current year's growth. Retreatment for a period of six years is
necessary (h).

Sodium arsenite is also effective. but it is poisonous to man
and.animale (7). Trials were conducted by Millard. in Yorkshire. in
which.a proprietary selective hormone weed-killer was used at rates

up to 300 pounds per acre. It was found to be totally ineffective

in all cases (9). Burton (6) suggested a method which might be
valuable if brought beyond the experimental stage. He implied that
by the application of growth substances which would stimulate dormant
buds to grow out of season there was the possibility of the produc-

tion of a cr0p of fronds in autumn or early spring to be destroyed

by the frost.

II I . MHODS

The present experiments were started in 1950 and the first
tests were located 100 miles northwest of last Lansing at Big Rapids
and located on the eastern fringe of the Hanistee National Forest.
Because of the distance from last Lansing repeated observations could
not be made. The infestation lay on an open. gradually sloping de-
pression surrounded by a mixed oak and maple forest. A dense. but
not smothering. turf of grass underlaid the bracken campy. The
soil consisted entirely of sand. except for a shallow organic layer.
one to three inches deep.

be 1951 treatments were located on the farms of Steven Siple
and Stanley Loomie. four miles north of hst Lansing.

On the Loomis farm. the treated area was a low. poorly-drained
area somewhat more fertile than the Big Rapids area. having a sandy
soil through which the organic matter was distributed. Considerable
vegetation other than the bracken fern was present and included witch
hazel. black willow. red oak. white oak. solomon's seal. wild straw-
berry and a healthy growth of blue grass interspersed with some ca-
nary grass and woolly beardgrass.

The experiments conducted on the farm of Steven Siple were
on land which was a sandy. well-drained upland. with a dense stand
of white and red oak trees. The area was comparable to the one at
Big Rapids in that the denser section of the infestation lay on a

slope facing the south. The bracken had grown to the extent of

11

crowding out nearly all other herbaceous plants. ‘A section of the
rhizomes at the maximum depth of the lower tier of rhizomes contained
22} lineal feet of rhizomes. including the lateral branches.
Seventy-six active and potential growing points were present. These
included terminal buds. frond buds and scale-like buds. giving an
average of 3.“ potential growing points per foot of rhizome.

The size of the bracken varied somewhat in the wooded.and open
areas. In the wooded area the fronds ranged from 2 to 3 feet in
height and the number of rhizomes per square foot were considerably
reduced. The more flourishing open area produced fronds 3 to b feet
in.height and had more rhizomes per square foot. The differences
in vigor were attributed to the open area receiving abundant runoff
following heavy rains. lack of tree competition. shade. and its exp
posure on the sunny southern slope. thus providing the necessary
soil moisture and temperature to begin early growth. The reduced
size of the fronds in the wooded area occurred because of competition
of the bracken fern.with the oak trees for soil moisture and the
decreased soil temperature. due to shading by the early appearance
of the oak leaves. delaying emergence of the fronds.

Soil samples from the wooded and open.areas were taken to
determine the correlation.between the size of the fronds and the soil
fertility. The soil analyses were made at the Michigan State College
Soils Laboratory. It was found that the soil was decidedly acid.
pa u.5 in.the wooded area. and pH h.2 in the open area.

The methods employed in this study are. in part. a duplication

of the chemical methods described in the literature. The duplication

12
was made in order to obtain a basis for comparison between the
results derived from the work of other investigators and the results
derived from the experiments conducted in this study. Single appli-
cations of the chemicals with one exception were made to determine
the effects of the chemicals on the stage of growth present at the
time of the application. In this way the need for additional appli-
cations could be predicted for future investigational work.

The field experiments were performed during three stages of
growth of the fronds. namely: 1. when the frond buds were in the
dormant stage. 2. when emerging as young. tender. unfolded fronds.

3. and when the foliage was completely expanded and the stipe some-
what woody; The dormant treatments were made early in the year when
the fronds had not yet emerged. The cut- and.uncut-emerging-frond
treatments were made when the fronds were emerging. and the older

of the fronds had attained a height of twenty-six inches. During

the stage when the foliage had fully expanded treatments were applied
as follows: cut- and uncut-mature-frond applications. plowed-rhizome
applications. foliage applications. and direct-rhizome applications.
Single applications of contact herbicides usually do not give complete
control; therefore. soil sterilants and translocated herbicides were
‘used in most of the experiments. The objective in making the dormant
applications was to have the translocated herbicides and soil ster-
ilants leach to the rhizome layers and affect the roots and growing
points. Applications were made early in the season. while snow was

still on the ground and until the middle of May. before the fronds

13
had emerged. Treatment at this time of the year is advantageous
from the farmer's viewpoint because farming activities are at a
minimum.

In 1950. translocated. soil sterilizing. and contact herbicides
were applied to the emerging fronds. In 1951. only the translocated
herbicides. some of which were of a soil sterilizing nature. were
applied. In the latter experiments two plots were sprayed at the
same rate; one plot was left undisturbed and the fronds on the other
plot were cut with a scythe. The cutting was done to secure a direct
contact with the exposed food and water transporting structures of
the plant. By having both cut and uncut plots. a means was provided
for determining the effectiveness of each method as well as which
herbicide offered the boat control.

The cut- and uncut-mature-frond sprays were applied to both
the entire outer surfaces and to the cut surfaces. Translocation
to the rhizomes was thought to be more effective late in the season
because the foliage was expanded and the synthesis of food was tak-
ing place. The movement of translocated herbicides to the rhizome
system seemed more likely to occur while in the foliage stage than
during the emerging-frond stage. At the time the fronds are emerg-
ing. the young succulent stipes contain large amounts of water and
which tends to flow freely for a short time after cutting. At this
stage of growth the downward movement of foods is at a minimum.

The foliage applications were made late in the season to

insure the presence of a maximum number of expanded fronds.

14
The chemicals used were translocatable herbicides. soil sterilants
and contact herbicides. All herbicides were applied at rates that
ordinarily are toxic to most plants upon contact.

Another. method of eradication was tried on the Siple Farm.
Two areas. devoid of heavy undergrowth. were plowed to a depth of
twelve inches. The soil was overturned as completely as possible
to expose the rhizomes. Square-rod plots were then measured and the
rhizomes sprayed with a number of herbicides. The purpose of the
experiment was to simulate a method used to destroy quackgrass.
W m L.. where the rhizomes are exposed by cultivation
and then sprayed with sodium trichloroacetate. Desiccation is also
an important factor to be considered because the exposed rhizomes
are subject to drying.

When response was observed from applications of 2.l&-dichloro-
phenoxyacetio acid and 2.4.5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid to the
foliage and exposed rhizomes an additional experiment was conducted
to further test their action. Solutions of 2.1-kb at concentrations
of 500. 1.000 and 2.000 ppm. and similar solutions of 2.4.5-T. were
placed in plastic bags of approximately one quart capacity and sealed
to the ends of freshly cut rhizomes. The bags were elevated to allow
gravity to assist in the movement of the growth regulators into the
rhizome. The large volumes of dilute herbicides were then available
for absorption by the rhizome.

In addition to the bracken experiments. test plantings of

bromegraes. E22291 sp.. and Norway pine seedlings. Pinus resign; Ait..

"-..

15
were made on several of the treated plots. Bromegrass was chosen
because of its popularity as a grazing species in Michigan. Approx-
imately six grams of bromegrass seeds were sowed in two square feet
in each of the herbicide treated plots. The seeds were then scratched
into the soil. A heavy rain occurred a week after planting. and pro-
vided the soil moisture needed for germination. The Norway pine
seedlings were planted. two in each plot. on the plowed-rhizome areas.
The purpose of the plantings was to determine if the bremegrass and
tree seedlings could survive the residual action of the herbicides.

In the laboratory. several experiments were made to determine
the magnitude of reaction with mixtures of 2.l&-D and 2.h.5-T at .01
and .02 per cent concentrations made up in paste form using Carbowax.
polymerized ethylene glycol. as a solvent. The paste mixture allowed
the growth regulators to remain in contact with the rhizomes for a
long period of time. he following treatments were made: l. 2.4-!)
paste. 432$. was applied to one end of eight rhizomes. each support-
~ ing a frond in a different stage of deve10pment. 1. a}, 3. 5. 6. 8,
10. and 12 inches in height. The frond 10 inches tall was beginning
to unfold. The 12 inch frond was fully expanded at the time of ap-
plication. 2. Small portions of the .01$ and .02$ mixtures were
applied to the cut surfaces of several rhizomes. each having an un-
folded frond attached. 3. An experiment was performed applying 431%
mixtures of 2.4-1) and 2.1+.5-T to the ends of a section of rhizomes.
h. Spores from a frond that was grown in the greenhouse were sowed

on a flat of soil. The gametophytes appeared three to four weeks

16
later followed by the formation of the embryo and.first leaves.
One leaf tip from each of four young sporelings was smeared with the
mixtures of 2.h-D and 2.h.5—!. Two sporelings were left untreated
for controls.

Another experiment was conducted to determine if 2.u-n and
2.“.5-1 were translocated to the rhizomes and frond buds. Ueighed
samples of rhizomes from the direct rhizome application. buds from
the dormant-cut- and uncut-emerging-frond experiments and buds from
the cut- and.uncut-mature-frond experiment were ground separately
in a laring Blender.‘ the resulting solutions were allowed to stand
for at least twenty-four hours to permit the herbicides to diffuse
from the ground plant material.

Cucumber seedling tests were then.made to determine the pres-
ence of the growth regulators. twentyafive cucumber seeds were placed
between blotting papers in germination dishes. On the first and sec—
ond day two milliliters of flhe solutions described.above were added
to each of the germination dishes. rho length of the primary root of
each of the seedlings was then.measured on the third or fourth day.
preferably the fourth day when the difference between the affected
and nonaffected roots are greater. ”the lengths of the seedling roots
in each dish were totaled and an.averago taken. the different aver-
ages were then compared with normal seedlings.

The chemicals generally were applied by broadcasting or spray-
ing with a.0hampion.Knapsack Sprayer. .A two-nozzled boom was made

in order to increase the width of the swath. TeoJet nozzles with

 

17
an aperture of .01 or .06 of an inch. depending on the type and
quantity of the chemical sprayed. were used. Broadcasting was done
only when the chemical was insoluble in water or when low air temper-

atures prevented the use of aqueous solutions.

17
an aperture of .01 or .06 of an inch. depending on the type and

quantity of the chemical sprayed. were used. Broadcasting was done
only when the chemical was insoluble in water or when low air temper-

atures prevented the use of aqueous solutions.

IV. RESULTS

Results of the dormnt. cut- and uncut-emerging-frond.

cut- and uncut-mature—frond. and plowed-rhizome treatments are based
upon the number of fronds per square yard. buds per square foot and
per cent germination of sowed bromegraes. The number of fronds per
square yard on a plot was used as a measure of that plot's usefulness
for pasturing. during the same year as when the application is made.
he fronds. which emerged and then were killed due to the chemical
were not counted. counts of the buds per square foot. undo in the
fall. gave an indication of the following year's probable crop of
fronds and is probably the best criterion in determining the effect
of a treatment. Because of the labor involved in digging. but counts
were made only on the plots showing effects due to the chemical and
on these plots treated with translocated herbicides. The bromegrass
plantings were also made on only these plots. The results of the
pine seedling plantings in the plowed-rhizome treatments were not
tabulated as no injury occurred in any of the plots. Data on the
foliage spray treatments were recorded as per cent hill of the fronds

in each plot. A measure of the effectiveness of the herbicides was

obtained by dividing the average root length of the treated seedlings
by the average root length of the control seedlings.

The results of the laboratory experiments using mixtures of
2.104) and 2.h.5-f showed several interesting facts. The first experi-

ment. as described in the discussion on methods. where .02 per cent

19
2.194) was applied to fronds in different stages of development
showed that 2.1M) will affect bracken if the proper penetration can
be achieved. Ihe effects vary in different stages of frond formation.
Ten days after application the l and 2} inch fronds which had not
begun to unfold were shriveled and dried. The 3. 5. 6 and 8 inch
fronds which had not unfolded were unaffected. except that the 8
inch frond drooped sliditly. The 10 inch frond. partially unfolded.
was the first to show a reaction to the herbicide. i‘wenty-four hours
after application it was observed that the frond was in an extremely
drooped position. the pinna nearly touching the soil. i'he frond was
dead at the end of the 10 day period. The tips of the pinnae on the
12 inch. completely-unfolded frond were brown while the rest of the
pinnae were chlorotic.

Application of a .02 per cent mixture of 2.“.5-2 on the cut
surface of a rhizome. in experiment 2. caused the unfolded frond to
wilt within two hours and to turn brown in 72 hours. Mixtures of
.01 per cent and .02 per cent 2.1+-D and the .01 per cent mixture of
2.14.5-1 produced the same results. but at a slower rate. At the end
of three weeks all the fronds were chlorotic.

In the third laboratory experiment. where the four mixtures
were applied to the rhizomes. four with single unfolding fronds. and
four with single expanded fronds. it was found that. after a lapse
of four hours. the unfolding fronds drooped considerably while the
expanded fronds were unaffected. At the end of seven days the treated
unfolding fronds were dead: the treated unfolded fronds were chlorotic

on the edges of the pinnae.

The treated sporelings. after three months. were in a
stunted condition. The fronds still had the appearance of a two
months old sporophyte and were approximately one-third the size

of the untreated plants.

20

 

 

 

'l
.
s .
. ,
. a
l
: I.~
. ,
.
. .
e
’ s v
I I
c . .
I e
.' ,
‘
. I i
,. . . ,.
.
- .
- O
s' _- .' ‘L ’
.
.
.
n - e.
. . , .
_.
I‘ ‘
' A e
. .
. ‘ --
. .
. .
,. . e
- .
. ._ ,
v L
' '
’ n ’ . a g ‘
s r .
o A . .-

The treated sporelings. after three months. were in a
stunted condition. The fronds still had the appearance of a two
months old sporophyte and were approximately one—third the size

of the untreated plants.

20

The treated sporelings. after three months. were in a
stunted condition. The fronds still had.the appearance of a two
months old sporophyte and were approximately one-third the size

of the untreated plants.

20

 

Anam- aaacosaov

Ha\e euoeonom om .mpH : HouonmlflhmeWhamuqooonIoncuoaoapagan

Andes anacoaamv
HH\0 ouomoueu ow .epH N oammonalahcmpwhhmduooemlonuaouoncdnan
Ha\m sens; om .upH one enemas» soaaoo
Ha\w nope: om .mpa om commanm uoamoo
HH\0 poem: ow spa on enemy“: moaaoo
HH\o amass om .mpd on easuaum.aeaaoo
HH\o noon: ow .mpH ooa eumuadu Gounoaad
Ha\o head: om .mpH om enemasm amano384

vacuunmsuuuonn «compo:

m.oa Hosea
on\: hens: ow .epa m Auden academy macs oupeoshuonoAAonoanououm.N
om\: econ om snowmoncuonnoaua
om\e some: om .epd o: eaeceosonoanoan» meadow
o.m :H\m hen .mpa one cannon anaco- ons cannonsuuea anacow
n.m :H\m hen .epa own cannon unavo- vns eaeuopsauoa sudden
m.m 2H\m none: can .upa one cascades assess
om\: oso.ouou on ..pH on Hoeoeuonoaeosnaom
:H\m seam: om .epH 00H eamssudmm seasoned

 

 

I'l. Ilia g’lloll. . ll

 

'.Iilli.'l|.l.‘l' Ill l‘l‘l‘.! " ‘l!ll¥lil‘illlntillxi|ill| .l.‘ I I!

”consume

.vh .dm .yw .um even neanmso .asa .<.aoa
Asa scam non eumth .epn scum

 

 

«unsung «coupe:

onma an mnamdm_on ad.flnd= manflzadflma Hug kc manpmnm and
nOHadoaAmma.h6 fiaaq .NNOd.MHm mzoqflda .mfiadm .mfldHMHadx .noHadoHHmmd.ho madman:

H figm<u

n~\a
nm\a

mm\a
nm\a

Ha\e
Ha\o

Ha\o

Ha\e
Hn\e
Hs\e
as\e
Hn\e
nn\e
Hn\o
ns\e
aa\e
Hfl\o
an\e

edemoneu
onomoaou

moan:

noes:

uses:
nope:

econoaeu

euemerM
odomoneu
enououou
enouoaou
enoeouou
euemoaou
cuesoaou

have:

hope:
enemonou
euomoaon

ow

om
om

om
om

om

om
om
om
ow
om
om
om
om
ow
om
ow

.mpH
.mpa

.mpH

.mpa

.mpa
.mPH

.mpa

.mpa
.mpd
.epd
.mpH
.mpa
.mnd
.mfiH
.mpH
.mpfi
.mpH
.mpd

o

o

H

H

00
H0!

deN d’

dQOO‘ONN

,4

FIN

euuuoaco omenhnaehaom

ocauoflno ensahAaehaom

samuHam anaaoaam
seam.oceasennaoueaeuNonosoeeo-m.«unaccouan
ecmunpm anasosad

soda oasasnnenoeeenuuoeonoeaa-a.musaaeoenn

ecoumuonocu:

oeaeflusae nomonaasn

ecauanaad nomoaccmfl

Aanuv Aaeauev pace canoeshxononaoaoamoact:.m
Anopmov mace ouaeoshuouonaoaoanoanaum.:.m
“Huav Assamev case oaaooshuononaaaoflnoavua.N
anamaueoeev cans oaaoomhwouenaouoamounalm.a.N
“Mooney odes oaaooahnomoAAonoHnoanpum.2.N
Anecuov mace cauoomhuouonAoaoHno«nanm.:.N
Auounev odes oucooshxouoeaouoanoaulm.N
haecmev cued oaaoomhmononaouoanoavua.N
Anoamov ococoomomoanouup auaeom

Annamov soopooooaodmoamc summon

cadence cahaouoa thonm

encased sausages ammonm

Homenaonodnomauom

Homoeaouoanomuuem

«compo:

E
.»n .em .e» .em onus sadness .nuc .4.noa Headache
hem mean sea squeak

1||.‘lIs-|.l.ll ‘1‘ '1‘! IIII"I‘ I |.I ul‘l

 

 

m.m
mm: euesoueu
mm? euonoHeM
o.m n~\a anon
o.~ nm\a‘ nope:
m.m mNNa coco:
m~\a sacs:
m.: n~\a «one:
m~\a sons:

.2: a
.2: N

.mpn om."
.3...” con
.2: cm

.2: ow."
.2: cm

M028
$3ro 33 egoomhuosonaaofloaaanméfi
Aneumov gem oaaeodhuoaeaaonoflodaanm.n.~

oueuaepouoduoana

033330.333 530m

3583833 spsnodno 533

manna common 533 was ocgopscmea 3:33..
ueHaauAmuoC message 530.

no.3 3939 sauces cud oueuopmamea Epsom
season .533 one oasaopsaaem maven
summon muses use ocgopdcuom 538

 

.nh .em .e» .em open sadness
Hem scam new eduoah

 

 

.4 sea
.25 spam

H53

.7358

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.: ma\ma seam .upH cum seasons» canon one season apnea»

m6 mQNH doom .2: cm." sauna?» no.3» use cuckoo. .333

m.~ em\m oaonosom om ..pfl o: oenuoflno oasesenoaaom

m.m 8R oueeoaou ow .25” cm 35.3.30 eseahnaohaom

o.o m~\m snouonou om ..na on eeauoano ousaaecoaaom

8.: o.N mm? comm .unH om $0233 endogenouahuonalanahmouagn

m .N 03m comm .25 c: 23.63 eamsmpue?nhaenm|atahaouaoeu

m5 mm: 693 .3...” ON “.3933 eumaaphsoudhaonmtuuaaonaomn

o.m mm? doom .2: 0..” “economy eusadphsoIaQenaamloaoqumH

m.m e\n “one: own .upa oma.a onsqsaoone» anaaoaa4

o.m mm? soon: 03” .2...” com episode» nuances.

wo.mm o.o w\m sons: omH .apH can cascades. ssaaoasq

oo.m o.o m~\n “one: one ..pa owe «assumes» auaaoas4

no.0 o.o m\m none: con .una own ousaeeaa. auanoaaq

m.~ mH\NH noes: own .upa cum onsaseapu annaoaa<

nmd 0.0 a: 693 .2: Sm...” caucus» canon one 39.83. 533 c.5333

op.:a m.o Hd\m essm ..pH mmm.~ seduced» scoop ens season season secueanqq

mm.~ 0.0 mm? comm .spH mam sawed: some; use 393.» Space- 36%

nm.a~ o.o ma\me seam ..pa can cannons» scoop ens unseen apnea. ssoueeeq<

oo.aa o.o mH\NH seam ..pa own seasons» canoe and season apnoea .aoeeaese

o.o nQNH deem .sfl” ow." 035.73 some... one ensues 55cc. 3an

.»h .5 6M .3 open neauueo .dmo .4 “on #3323
Hon 3.5m mom #3lo .mp9 cadm

 

 

penance «cones:

Hmma an azamzaa amen as.an¢m mazmxaamma awe no manpnmm on«
3343me no mean £34 mam $0.33 £33 63834: £3,305.34 no 80me

mm as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:3 0.3.3.30 5300

mmé m6 a: 03m .2: nmmé 0.9.3 0003... 5300 use oaemopeuuom lagoon

Chung 0903.30 5300

mmé 0.0 mm? 03m .2: mum 09.3 033p 3.300 was eamuopeauom Epsom

32$ 3.0.3.30 55000

of mime 38 .2: oi 3% 3&3 .538 e5 flagged 538

his 090.330 5300

m6 “Qua 28m .2: own .03 323 538 use evanescence 233m

629 303.30 35000

0.0 QOa and .2: SH 33 383 533 one 938.333 538

0059.335 00.03.30 5300

00.3 0.0 3m 03m .03 one 0.9.3 0003: I300- 03 3030.0000a. 530m

083.7333 03.330 3300.

o.o 3m deem .05 own 0.5m 303p 3.300 cum 3039033 sudden

0056.383 30.330 5230

m.m 3m deem 09H own 06.3 0003p 35000 93 Schopeamea 530m

00533333 03mg: meson one 000.3...

0.0 a? and .3.“ «n3 538 and 323 :33. e9. snagged 530m

3.: 0.0 3m 23m .25.. own...” 090.39 3.9300 .23 00038339 sudden

mo.m o.o 3m 03m .03 9% epmuop 9.330 and 0c0kopmou0m 530m

0.0 km 33 .2: own :23 space. as. attendee.“ 53$

$.N o4 in coca. 8H .an com 033.20 538

coin m.N +1 n .3003 oma .09.” co: 00.03.30 Eamon

o.m a: 000m .2..." 3m 000.330 8538

8.8 o.o am? 38 .2: «mm; .352» s88. e8 393:. 538

$4. o.o am? and .2: one sensors :83 ea. 39:5 588

8f: m.m mQNH .38 .2: 03 cough» 3.3; one 0.3.30 Epsom

.fi .3 .8 .E .38 002.30 .30 .4 non H0385
.3m 035 3a mesons .25 000m

 

0800

'Il

 

11ml

 

 

.0pn 000m

'll» I Ill}. .II: II 'II'I l" 'I":I.l il "lllli. || ll| I‘

an flflmdu

 

00.9 0.0

00.9 m.m Him 0000: cm .00.” NH A3003 0000 0000§0000003H00000t05§
0.: SR 0000: 00 .2: 0 2002; 200 30300500009322.0010 .00
000030 03
00.: 0.0 Q: 0002 00 00.3 “000000 0000 0000Q0h300000330003§
000500 03
0.0 0? 000." 0w 0.93 A3003 0000 00000E000000003000|0.N
00.2 0.0 :\N .3000 00 .2: N: 00303 300 30080083083800...&
n .0 Him .300: 00 .03 o A3003 0000 0000§0000000000000|0.N
00.0 0.0. mm? 0000 .2: 00: 00303802300 5800
R4: 0. mm? 00.0 .2: can 330830333 03000
0.0.... «a? 00.0w .05 con 00000000330000 00008
00H00unaumv 00000H00 000000
nm.m 0.0 0? 0000 .05 ome 00.3 000.30 000000 000 0003000000 00008
00000.303 0003.30 000000
00.9 0.0 0? 000m .00." 000 00.3 000.30. 000000 000 0003000000 000000
0000a|naumv 00000H00 000000
0.0 0? 0000 .00.." 0mm 00.0..“ 000.30 000000 000 0003000000 000000
00000.3”9 0003.30 000000
0.: 0:0: 030 .2: S0 2:0 .083 5:02 09. 38300000 00:30
0000.03309 000.3000 000000
0.N mQNH 0900 .03 0mm 003 000.30 000000 00.0 0003000000 000000
:09 00.03.30 000000
00.0 0.0 mm? 00.00 .000” mam; 00.3 000.30. 000000 000 0003000000 03000
.00 .3 .00 .00 300 .8028 .000 .4 .30 0030.00

.30 00:5 .30 0000K

Aaaov can: cannedhuoconnouoaneuv

m.m N\o ado Houoan o: .Ham om u:.~ .caOG oaaoodoaoanoaua .Houonmouoanoauaom

vac» cannedhuononmouoanoac

o.m N\o ado kuoan o: .Ham om u:.m .oaod oaaoocouoanoaua .Hoaonmouoanocanom

Annoy caod odoooahuoqonmouoanoad

o.m «\o aao Houoan o: .Hdw oH I:.N .c«o¢ cannedouoanoan» .HononmouoHAOdpqom

uaod oaaoowhuononmouonno«u

m.m «\o ado Hoooan o: .Hdm 0H n:.m .c«o¢ odooodouoanouua .Hoqonmonoanoapnom
noaaauao

oo.mm 0.: :\o Hao Houoan o: .upa m Aoaov ocuamnchn oaodmz
noauauao

8.2 9m in do $83 3 .2: m .3332 303.
nodandao

oo.Hm m.o :\w ”do Houoan o: .apa mm Annoy ouauanchn oaoddz
doduanaa

8.? 9m :3 do 333 3 .2: mm 3:823 032:

mm.mm 0.5 N\w ado Honoun om .mpa mu Aaflovlaaoawauaov oadadpndolHanoAAIQIHhmoumouH

mm.HN n.: m\o ado Houoan om .mpa ma “doumflgaov oawadphdoaahnonmunuHumoumonH

o.m N\o ado Houoan ON .mpH on Aaaovundoauadaov oadadpuconahaonmrnldhmoHQOuH

m.w N\m ado Hmaodn om .upa 0H Adoaunsaov oadaannaouahqonmnauammonmooH

0.5 «\w ado Hmmoan om .upa m Apubvuhnoamauaov opdaapudoaahaonmlqnahmoumoaH

o.N N\w ado Honoun om .npa m Adoanadaov ounadpuaonabnonmaauahmoumomH

«.93 06 n3 83: cm .2: 0mm 3ro 388?. 53364

mm.ma o.o m\o you»: om .mpa own oudadmnuu adaQoaad

mm.:m o.H n\o noun: om .upa omH Annoy onwadMHuu anauoaad

nm.mm o.m n\o «can: om .upa owa oauadufluu apnaoaad

 

ll ‘Iu 0|."

 

[It ‘|"|‘ III!

:5 .3 .3 em 38 .8230 43 .4 you 3355
pom udsm «on ocnonh opdm

 

 

 

daonuamdamuoEOIanouD cud none ”conga:

Annoy Aaoam uom

.o.o n.~v duos canonmuonm

mo.q¢ m.mH «\m nopuz o: .mpa : mafia had“. oqaauv cued odaoouhuoaonmouoagodv.a.N
“pong uom .o.o m.mv caod canonmuonm

mm.am o.HH «\0 poem: 0: .apa : gang and“. onaaav cued canooahuononmouoanoavaa.m
Agnew Avoam hon .o.o m.mv vaod oduonmaonm

mm.nm m.oa «\o noun: 0: .upa N swam Auadn cadeav cued uapoouhxqaonmouoanu«dua.N
Aaoam non .o.o m.mv vuod oauonmuonm

mo.um o.~m «\0 hood: 0: .upa N gnaw “pad. Qua-av aged oaaoodhuononmouonno«dn:.N
$93 30.3 .39 6.0 m.Nv was canonaoonm

o.mH N\m nova; 0: .pa H qpam “pawn oqaadv vaod capoodhnononmouoanoauld.m

Aaoam non .o.o m.~v ado: canonmuonm

m.:H m\w nova: 0: .pH H qpam “pawn anaadv wand ouaooahuoaonmouoanoavla.N

oo.mn o.o «\o «and: cm .mpa cum “apov cacaooaouoagodua apaoom
ww.mm o.o n\o nopfia ow .mpa own unnamedouonnoaua anacom
mn.mm o.“ m\o Hops: om .upH om” Apnov unapooaouoanodua apdcom
mo.n~ o.o n\o has»: om .opa om” evapoonouoanodu» anacom
wo.o~ o.m m\m any“: on .mpa om Annoy oauaoooouoanodu» asacom
oo.m~ m.o n\o nova: ow .apa on oaaaooaouoanouu» anacom
oo.mm m.m m\o u¢aau o: .apa ON “apov coup.annaoaac.a.Huadhaonaouoanoumv-m
mm.om o.m n\m head» as .apH cm «on: ahnaoadeua.HuflfihqongouOHaosmvum
mm.m~ m.m n\w “can: o: .apH oH Repay «on: flagpoadu.a.anhahqonmouoanosmvum
mo.:a o.n m\m heads 0: .apa ed «on: Haaaoadcun.H.5H»aonnouoano.mvun
nn.: o.o a\o you»: om .upa one “gnaw oaauoano anacom
mm.m o.o :\o you»: om .upa cam oeuuoano auflcom
wo.~a 0.0 :\w noun: om ..pH own bunny «pancano apduom
mm.HH o.o :\m “can: om ..pH own cannoano auauom
no.5 c.o a\o hop»: on .upH oma Annoy opauoflno auduom
mn.n~ o.o :\m moans om ..pH owe oaauoago aaauom

,4 non duodaoao

.upn ovum

.c» .u« upon yoguauo .Hoo

“on ounohh

a: 0d“
uom mung

f?

HH Hands

hapov Avon Ham

.o.o m.~v vHod OHHonnqum

 

 

 

 

mw.a m.m om\m honor o: .apH : nnHm AaHda asaooav cued 0HnooahuoaonnouoHnoHvua.m

Aaon non .o.o n.mv cHoa oHuonmuonm

oo.mH o.m om\m poem: 0: .an : oan AaHd- aanoov cued oHaoonhuqqonmonoHnocha.N

Haney Auon mom .o.o m.Nv 6H0: OHuonnuonm

ww.mH 0.0 om\m “and: o: .an N quHm AaHdu auauouv cHod OHpoOthonoamouoHnochd.N

nooHA «on .o.o m.uv vHod oHuonmoonm

09m m.m cm? .83. 3 .2: u .39 3d: 5:33 38 oSoSbSnfimzoEodg.~

Haney Aaon «on .o.o m.mv uHoa oHaonnuonm

m.m om\m pond: 0: .pH H nuHm Aqun adadomv can» oHuoOthoaonmouoHnoHvld.N

naon non .o.o m.~v cued canonnuonm

0.0 0Q... .32.: 3 .fl H 33 $1. 55%: 33 oSooahoaofloSHfiHYa.~

Anuov anabHon HHo

ow.mm o.m N\o o: anm Auoaoov cHod 0HpoochuononmouoHnocha.N

«dovHon HHo

mn.m~ o.m m\m o: qum Anouoov cued oHnoonhuoqonmonoHnoch:.N

Aepov anohHou HHo

n.5H N\o cu qum Auoaaov wand cupooahuoaonmonoHnoHvuz.N

anobHo. HHo

o.m «\o . om nnHm nuoauov cHoa oHpooahKonanmouoHnoauué.N

wo.nH o.m om\n HHo HouoHn om .mpH : Aauovunuoauov cHou 0HpooahuoaonmouoHnoHunz.N

oo.m o.nH om\m HHo HouoHn om .mpH a Humanov uHOd 0HaooahuononmouoHAoHcoa.N

oo.:n “.mH on\m HHo HonoHn om .upH N Annovunuoouov uHod oHaooahxouonmouoHnoHuua.N

8.3 93 on? 20 H238 om .2: N €3ro 33 2»..8?83m83§?s.~

m.w «\o you»: 0: .pH H Auuovnauoamov ado: oHaooahHononmouoHnoHuua.N

0.3 «3 33. 3 .5 H .833 33 338538398223.~

.9. .5 .3 .3 3.5 32.30 :3 .4 8m 12...vo
«on oddm non nunonh, .neH ovum

 

 

HH HHMdH

 

 

oo.mm m.o m\m HHo HouoHn o: .upH : “epovuhaHdo oaHiav anaconn Hhaunnoo-uououaHan

oo.m m6 5:. do 133 3 i: :-. $7. 2:9: 382a “53.98-95338

Aaaovohuoooov can. 0H»

oo.om 0.0 :\m “only am .opH 00H IooahnononnoAOHnoHuoun.:.N quHm oadadquu apHaoaa4

.upH 0H Anopuov cued 0H»

00.:m o.o m~\o hood: om .an 00H nee-huononnouoHnoHuasm.:.N uan oodldnHuu aanoaad

.opH OH AaflovlauonuOV «Hod

wo.:m 0.0 :\m moan: om .upH 00H oHaoonhHononnouoHAOHuua.N ouHm oadadeuu nancaad

.upH 0H Anon-0V vans

mn.mH o.o mm\o noun: om .an ooH oHaootheaonmcuoHnoHdla.N quHm oonaduHuu auanoaaq

3% 0.0 mm? .32.. cm .2: 84 35 33...? 5385

ow.wH o.o mN\o nova: om .upH om: cadaduHsu auHaoaid

8.3 0.0 at. 8.3: 8 a: 8m 38v 383d; 53034

nné o.o at. .33: 8 3.: own ova-$3.. 5225

8.0 o.o a? .33. 8 ..£ a: $ro .35qu. 532.5

mo.- o.o ¢\s noes: om .upH owH cadaQMHuu auadoaaq
daoumuouuanatauonb cud uaao ”convex

nn.~n m.: xoono

oo.nH o.HN on\m HHo HouoHn om .opH a Aadovlauonuov cued OHaooahNonogmouoHAoHuuum.a.~

86 93 on? do H238 cm .2: a 2.23 33 ofiooahoaofiouofiofl?m$.~

ooén 93 on? do 2:3 8 .23 N 33723.: 33 odaooafioaofiouofioflaumim

oo.nH o.mH om\m HHo HoooHn om .an N “nouoov cued oHvooahuouonnouoHnoHuanm.:.N

m.n on? no :33 cm .fi a $8713.: 38 odaogouofiouoafiza$€u

o.mH om\m HHo HouoHn on .pH H Anon-av uHoa oHaooahKoaonnouoHnoHuvum.:.N

.fi .3 .3 .S 38 .3258 48 .4 .23 7388

you noun mom ndaonh .upn ovum

 

 

HH Hflnda

 

 

8.00 0.0 0:. H2. H238 3 .2: .4 380-33. 2:93 3823 303-038-3033

oo.m m6 5:. HHo H33: o: .25 .H 3H4- oqdaav 3283 Hhagloonuououfina

AafiovuAuoonov 306 3»

oo.o~ 0.0 a? heads cm .25 SH IooahnoaonmouoHnoHnaunié 3—H: 033ng. 5.3254

.2: o: 12.2; 38 2:

moém 0.0 mm? .38»: cm .upH 00H nogonoaouoHAoHuanm£§ .39 38333 5.305

.upH OH AafluVIAuouoov 33

main 0.0 a: :36: cm .2: ooH oHaogononmouoHaognz.N odHn 3.3330 5.3254

.2: o: $32.0 :8

nnéH 0.0 mm? :30: cm .upH ooH oHaogononmouOHnoj§ 35: 393::- 5305.4

8.00 0.0 003 “Sun 8 .2: 00: $80 33$? 5:85

36H 0.0 on? Honda on .2: cm: engage 3930.53

8.3 0.0 at. :3: o0 3: own $ro 3.23:8 53034

nné. 0.0 in. “and: cm .opH own 3.2.3.30 532.64

8.0 0.0 at. 83. 00 .2: 8: $80 333?. 5383

8.00 0.0 0? nova: 00 .2: 8H 383?. 5383.

Bouuugafinapoap :3 .38 62:2.

nn.~n m5 M030

8.nH 040 on? :0 Hana on .2: a 380.52%: 38 03.050800802020850

8.0 0.0: on? H? H233 cm .2: a 23.3 38 oSooafioaoflouoBoflnumsfi

8.00 93 on? do 335 on .2: m 387?:ro 33 afiooafiononmouofloflaum£§

8;: o.mH on? :o H233 8. .2: u €325 38 oSoShanfiouoEoflaum£§

0.0 on? H: H839 om 2: : Havovufiofiov 38 egoonhonofiouofloflaumié

o.mH on? HHo HoooHn ON A: H 23.3 uHoa OHaooohHoaonmouOHAoHuutméé

.2 .90 .3 .00 38 .8230 .30 .4 .3H H3330
.Hom 003m «cm 339‘ .03 3am

 

 

HH HHS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co.mH 0.0 :\n 0000: cm .opH ooH fionovu oadooooouodnoaua anacom
oo.m: 0.0 :\m nous: om .up: ow: opupooaouoaqo:up asavom
3:3... 0.3.3.30 5.300
00.0 0.0 5:. cddm .2: cam; 0:59 30:00. 03.350 .05... oudhopapnom gadom
30.330 9.3000
nné 0.0 is 080m .2: emu..." 25: 30.30 13000 and 03330309 530m
353... 000.330 5.300
mm.n 0.0 a? 30m .2: 23 05.3 30.39 .3300 .23 03.300309 3303
30.830 5503
00.: o.o m: cam .09." 0:0 35: 0903p 533 and 30:30.30: Epsom
oo.m 0.0 m\m yoga. co: ..op: can Aauov- ouauoHao aaaoom
00.0 o.o h\u you»: on: .up: ozo guanoHno auuuom
mm.o o.o m\s aged: 00: .mp: can Annoy oauuoaao apauom
00.0 0.0 u\n nova: o0: .op: own oauuoano au:com
nn.n o.o n\p “can: co: .up: ow: “away oaauoano au:uom
oo.m o.o “\5 nova: om: ..p: co: oaauofino sudden
00.3 o.o mm? :30: a: .2: o: 3.93 30.3.30 530m
oo.n~ 0.0 mm\u «can: a: .up: o: oequHao agave»
oo.u: o.o mm\n nouns o: .up: om Annoy oaauoano apauom
oo.m: o.o mm\u “opus o: .up: om oaauoano auauom
00.3 0.0 mm: :0 .3003 3 .25 0 3.907330 538.53 00.323 “03300030109339
oo.m: o.o mm\u ”do :o.o:a o: ..p: o A»:¢u auaaoaaav anaconm :maupuoo.-o.ouodn:n
mnfin 0.0 mm: 50 .3003 o: .3...“ 3 9.907330 530953 30023 ahaupsoounououaufln
00.0." 0.0 mm: 30 Homes 0.... .05” : Auda- apadoaaav 00.30am ahagloouuououvana
3.3 0.0 u? do Hanna 0: .2: m 3:07??- 0333 3.323 Huagnoouuououuanan
oo.~: e.o u\n ado Hooodn on ..p: 0 “ads. onaauv oaaaonn Haeunuoouuosonadnan
.an .um .0» .0m cane uoauuuo .Hua 24 Hum duoflaoao
no: .35 no: anon.— .25 00.3

 

 

HH as

 

aaobaoa

 

 

m.~m uH\m anon o: 1. ado a“ Anouuov caod oaoooahnoqonmouoanoduuz.N
ano>aom
m.m uH\o anon on ado a“ “nounov wand oaaoodhuononmouoanoacuz.N
0.2 23 do H808 S .2: N 23ro 33 Spooobsaoamfioflgjé
«.3 2? do 133 om .5 a $33 33 aflooahonofiouofioinm
m.mH ba\o head: om .mpH ooa oadaoOdouoHnoaua sudden
92 SE you»: on .23 cm 33833223 538
m4 SE .33: om .2: 8m 32030 53%
Wu 2? .83: cm .2: o3 3.23% .538
92 5? Son 3 do :33
0.0 53 .33. om .2: 8m easing. 53an
9m 23 .33: om .2: o3 ougngu 52234
a 838m
oaouanuuuozoam ”donaox
9.8 o.~ x028
hapovt adobaoo ado
mm.:a m.m mm\o anon ow qpam Anopoov aged o“«manhuononmouoHAOadnz.N
unopaoo Hao
m.:m o.H mm\o anon ow ndam Auoouov can: oaaooahnoaonmouoanoacu:.N
0.0 :\n anon om Annoy: unannoponoanuuua
m.o :\5 each om oaonaopOHOHnouna
3.8 o.o at. 3%: on .2: own 337 33838233 533
oo.NH 0.0 :\5 nova: ow .unH own oadaooconoaaoaup auavom
.£ .$ .3 .3 8.3 32.30 .3 .4 non 33.38
“cm oddm hog avaonh .upfl ovum

%
HH fiflmdfl

 

 

m.H guano
o.o m\m you“: om .apa om «on: ahnpoaddua.H-Aahqonmonoflnoumv-n
o.n m\m “my“: om .upH oa «on: amnaoadu-a.Hafiahnonmouoanoumvun
o.o m\m head: on .upH n ocflnauuhn odoflmz
o.o m\m nova: om .npa m.m ocduanchn odoflu:
0.0 n? Go Hogan cm .2..." 0H “0333..ng upgpndouabqonmunuahmoumoon
0.0 m3 .30 Homes om .2: m ”0333.383 oedadpudouahqonmuanahmonmoua
o.o “\m ado Houofln om .mpH m Hoqonmuahaapahnucaoooanonauo-oupdadn
o.o m\m ”do Hoaodn om .upH : Hoaonm.Haappumuuunooou-onauosouauaan
o.o m\w ‘ anon om “do agenda
HH down—00m
o.nn guano
o.- 5H\o ado ”omega 0: .apH m Anopuov can» capoouhxoaonmouoanoduaum.:.~
“.ma 5H\o ”do Ho.ofia o: .pH a Auoauov aqua oflaooahnononmoHOHaoduosn.¢.~
.£ .3 .3 .5 33 3.3.30 .3 .4 non .73...vo
non :35 non 33lo .3..." 23m

[I'l‘ll’lnl

an 53

on 0.: w anon om one-ouch
om mi w each 0: Ono-ouou

3.239... 3.323:
03 min .83: 3 .9: S 3E oufifipfionfifinonfiofiouo.«.3383

33:32. 5305!.
8 aim .83. 3 .2: m 3% opaafifigucionouofioao.mun—.383
cm 23 "can: 3 .2: S oafifiufloéfifionouofiouo.$5823
om min .333 3 .25 m nonadnanmonchnflonouoddono.mun—560.3
ooa min ado-Bow o: .2: N Acapdanauadaov unannouahaonmunnahmoumo:
mm NQw odououou 3 :5 .n “03633333 oauadpndoéhaonnnauahmoumoun
ma min 332 cm .30 H303
ow aim 23: 9: do Homes
0: ma\n Moan: on .upa own upmnmflpm nommoo
on «in .83: 3 .2: om 323% 8.38
can «in head: 3 .2: cm 330330.302... 3.30.30
OOH «(a nova: o: .2: o: oaduoodonodnoauu gaoado
mm «in .83. own .2: com 383%". 5538
on «Q» .83: cum .2: 2: 353...? 5:38
co." «Cw “can: a: .2: co.” 33.9303» 833834
8H «a? not»: 3 .2: cm ondndhooanp 530334
can «in hood: 3 .2: on one-6.3.9.8 530364
2: «Cw .256: 3 .25 o: oaifidmdfi 53054
2 min .83.. 3 .2: o2 33 3:9...9. ”23.8333 33 band? 334
S «in no?» 3 .2: on 38 38nd: “2:832: 33 Road? 234

 

3.3.30 . 3 .4 .39 fined-28

Aha." NH 9653 Ema ad .mgadfimfl wagon ho mama 8nd. Hg
.mfloaa .and .mflm mfiadm .3942 .moaadoaqmmd ho GONE

HHH HHS

'l

I?

‘3‘- cl .I-‘ al I. . 'Iv u I .Io’!

‘1
Iqlt‘oulvllr..l.‘-.vIllll."o .F‘
‘ Q
.
ril. -. A.I.' III], .O..cllo : In...
. n . . ,.Ir"..... - ‘1.
.
_
.
D
.
. .
u . ‘
.
.
. .
. ‘5
u
, . . ‘
t . . .
‘ ‘ u . ‘-
c . r .
\
‘\ I
.u
. n ‘
I
. .
.
I. ul 1..
. n E
.I. .I I6
. .
s 1
II II
a .
o .
ll IO
. .
u
ll .0
I Q
ll :1
I .0
J

 

 

om NH\m “on“: o: .upa 0:
cm ~H\n nova: o: .apH om
ooa NH\® “Qua: o: .upa 0:
ma NH\m «and» o: .mpH ow
om ~H\m poem: on .upH com
mm mH\m “and: cm .opH ooa
ooa ~H\m Hogan 0: .opa om
oa ~H\m “and: o: .upH o:
ooa Na\w unadb o: .npa ma
om ~H\m “opus o: .upH w
on ma\m noon: on .upa com
om mfl\w nova: om .upa ooa
om ma\m nova: a: .upH 0H
3 23 .33. 3 .2: m
ooa wH\w nova: o: .upH om
00H me Roads 3 .2: 0H
ooa wa\m onomouom o: .onH on
mm ma\m odmuouau 0: ..9H m
on ma\m onoaouou om .ana 5
mm mH\m anomougu o: .mpa a
con ma\m ocomonou o: .upa m
oOH ma\w oqouonou o: ..pH mm
ca mH\w “can: on ..pH N
ca mfl\m yoga: 0: .pH H
Hflau aqoo now ovum uoauudo .Hac .4 non
ovum

 

 

 

Ill!

 

HHH nnmda

oadnpnnn Hhmoumoua asavom
oaanquu Hhmonmoua auauom
vaadndho anacom

caadddho 530m

ocauoano aduuow

evan0Hno anacom

oaduoaso anacom

oadnoano afiflvom

oadndho adauoduom

oaaq¢ho afidauaoom
ocauoano auaouwaom
ocauoano auanudaom
ocauoafio odoahfiaohaom
ouduoano oaoahnaohflom
ondaoOd odnuouoa Haaonm
unapoou oanpouoa thonm
Hononnouoanodanom
accommouoaaouaqom
anneadouchguuuoa
'db.S.3.dfi.b.£|0h0flfl06¢00lmaw.5.0.m.#omoN.H
oaadndouchquuao»
I65.6.#.dfilk.#'0h0flfl0¢000l®.®.b.0.m.#.m.N.H
onoqouonoaohoouoanooaoo
cacaononoaohoouoasoOpoo
ouduuuchn odoau:
o¢dunuahn odofla:

 

Hn""""uu""HH"ufluuuunuflnflnflflnunuunuuu
”deflaono

 

 

mw

mm
om

00H

ooH
ca
oH
ma
ma
m

m
ooa
ooa
ooa
cod
ooa
ooa

OCH
OCH

on
on

'1

 

 

 

'll

addu «goo pom

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH\® onononou o: .npa own unquaoosonaaanwlouongonm
NH\m odouonou o: .upH ond onofiflopuouaaaolouoanouu
ma\w anon ow onanacpouoanoaua
ma\w 0:02 o: unannoponoanouua
used cupoodhnoamnmouoanodc

mH\w oaooonou ow .undm o: I:.~ can Hoaonmouoanodunbm .oaod ouaoodouoanoana
caod capwoahnoquMOHoanoau

ma\w ouououou on .quM on In.m and aoqonnonoanodanom .c«o¢ oaooououoanoaua
~H\w nova: o: .upa : non: annaoadcua.Huhahnonmouoaao.mvum
~H\m you»: as ..p~ N aon: Hagaoaduud.Huaahaonnouoano.mv-m
mH\m noun: ooa .me m ado: eduanmaam
mH\m “can: ooH .aam m.m aqua oanpgmaum
wH\m oaoa ow doudqupm
wa\m «non o: Hoaaqaam
ma\w odomouom o: .mpa NH Anoauov oaaaoowouOHnoaua auduom
NH\w onooonou o: .upa m Auoamov codewoaonoanoau» anacom
~H\w 9096: o: .npa om oadaoodouoanoau» auadom
~H\m you»: c: ..pH o: evapooaouOHnodua anacom
ma\m Hood: 0: .upa ma oadaonnoMOHAOdpnom.auauow
Na\m nova: o: .npa w oannonmouoanodaaomtauueom
cannoano suave:

ma\m nova: own .npa om usam opmuop aflauom dad caduopaanom awavom
cannoHno sudden

NH\w you»: cod .opH o: nuam opduop anacou cad oadnopwaaom sudden
Na\w nova: ooa .upa om oednop spaces can oaduopdanom.auacom
ma\m noon: ova .opa o: oaanop auadou cad oaduopdaqom.apavom
coma n.4unuo .Huc .4.uom Haoaaano

ovum

1%

HHH fiHMdH

3.353 onauqofihfio and 30.3%

 

 

ow aim anon on
on 33 3oz 3 933:: 3.3333. Eu 283"
ma aim n3»: 3 .2: 3 «Sides. nomofiqfi
mm 23 .33. S .2: m oflflgsu Swedish
:3 23 ham :8 32.80 AS .4 “on $358
.3

H

HHH as

 

 

[ll

Rawaoov wand capoowhxoaogmoAOHnoaupnm.z.
Anopnov cued oaaooahuoaoAQOHOHnodnpam.a.
Anoaoov caod oaoooahnonmnmouoanoduonm.3.
Auoumov owed oaaoothoQonmonoHnoanoIm.3.
Auovuov owed oaaooahuoqonmonoanoauanm.3.

Anosuov wand
Anopuov cans
Auouaov cued
Auooaov ado:
Ahopuov daod

NNNNN

odpoochHononmonoanoacua.m
capoomhuononncuoanoavu:.N
capooahuononmouoflnoavnd.N
oaaoodhxononnouOHnoavta.N
eapoochxoqongouoanoaduz.m

Anopoov vaod oauoodhxoaonmouoano«uuum.a.~

fiend: anuuoov cued
Auoauov daod
Anew» oqaadv cued

oaaooahuonoAQOHOHnoausa.N
capoOthononnouoHnoadn3.N
oaaoodhnoamnnouonnoawuz.N

humanov ufiod oauoodhuononmouoflnoauanm.:.N

Auoauov duod

 

 

 

 

m.mo .pm Hm .oa0n5nm .amm ooo.~
n.5m .9“ n aaaouflnm .amm ooo.~
m.m: .3“ N aoaoudgm .amm ooo.H
H.nw .»u m mesonanm .amm com
v.0: .»H N noaouaam .Bmm com
H.w: .a» n .oEoudnm .amm ooo.~
5.:5 .um NH uoaouaam .smm ooo.H
«.mm .3“ H aoaouanm .amm ooo.a
o.mu .au ma .oaonanm .aa com
m.m: .»u m uoaondnm .amm con
m.mm «can .oa\.upH :
o.nm nusm .o¢\.upH :
m.mu avam .o¢\.opH :
98 Sam .8\..£ :
®.b: ovum .oa\.mpd NH
0.0m ovum .ou\.upH NH
adauoz no anon uom candy-«n puma andam ovum

mozHAnfifiw MHmZDoDo ho masomu 26
Zamodmm nfiadfima Zomh meadmaxfi.mfla<§ ho maofihhfi

bn finmda

cauoouhuononaonoano«vnz.N

 

 

”doggone

 

 

 

 

~23 .3 8 «383m 5:3 coed 238V 38 oflooafioamfiouoflfibumé.m
m.mw .am m mascudnm .amn ooo.N Anopnov wand oaaoOGhHononmouoanofinplm.:.N
9m: .3 N 852nm .amm 804 $3ro 33 ofloéoaofiouofloflauméé
H.mw .oH m moaouanm .amm com Anopmov caod capoodhnoaonmouoanoanoum.:.N
w.m: .»H N moaouanm .amm con Auoauov uaod oupooamxoquQOAOHnoauaum.:.N
H.wz .au n uoaouanm .amm ooo.N Ancpmov wand cacoedhuoqcnnouoanoawu:.N
p.35 .um NH moaouanm .amm ooo.a Anopnov wand oaaoomhuononmouoanoadla.N
N.mm .»u H moaonanm .amn ooo.~ Auouuov deed capoonhuoaonmouoHAOAuuz.N
m.mn .aw wa noaonanm .aam com Anopuov cued oaaoomhuoaonmouoanoavua.N
«.m: .9“ N moaouanm .amm com Anopmov can» oavooahwononmonoanoawna.N
~23 33 63:2: 3 “not: 38 oflooafiogcfiouogoflpnméé
cam 33 .8\.m£ : 33.. 53o: 38 Spooafioqofifioflfi?im
m.mm acam .o¢\.opH : Auoanov cans capoowhnonanmouoanoaunz.N
N.Hw udum .om\.upa : naaau onaadv cans oaoooazHoQonnouoanoacna.N
m.bn ovum .od\.wpa NH nuwonov daod owuoowhuoaonmouoanoauanm.:.N
98 «can .852: NH 23:; 33 ofiooufionofifiofific..§
adauoa no anon pom condundn puma andmm ovum adoaaono

 

 

mazHAnfifiw MHNZDQDO ho mabomc 20

pH fiends

ZHModmm nHBdfima 20m“ weedmaxfl MMBNS ho maofihhfi

 

 

u.mo .am HN uoaoanm .amm ooo.N humaaov dHod OHpoothoqmnmonoHnoaupum.d.N
n.5w .»m m uaaoanm .amn ooo.N Anouuov vHod 0HpoodhuoaonnouoHnoHupnm.:.N
m.m: .»m N aoaoanm .amm ooo.H Anoaaov vac» oHoooahHoQonmouoHnoHuoum.:.N
H.mw .an m moaoNHnm .399 com nuoamov uHod oHpoOdhKononmonoHAoHnunm.:.N
w.m: .»H N moaouanm .amm com Auoauov uHOd 0HpooahuoqonmouOHnoHnaum.:.N
H.w: .9H m uoaoudnm .amn ooo.N Ancaaov uHod oHa¢othononnouOHnonun.N
p.35 .um NH moaoanm .amm ooo.H Anopuov uHod 0Hpoomhuoao£mou0HnoHUIa.N
N.mw .»M H uoaoanm .amm ooo.H Anouuov uHoa 0HpoonhuononaouoHnoch:.N
w.mn .om mH ooaouanm .amm com Auoauov dHod oHpooahxoaonmoHOHnoHva:.N
m.m: .9“ N moaoaHnm .amm com Aboauov uHoa 0HaoOdhKononmouoHAOHwnz.N
h.mm mdfim .oa\.upH : Auouuov vHod oaamowhuononmouoHAOanum.:.N
o.mm mcsm .od\.mpH : AaHau aaHuonv cHoc oaaooahuononmonOHnoHuua.N
m.mm ucsm .oa\.upH : Anopnov uHod 0HpaedhuononmoHOHnoHu1:.N
«.8 33m .8\.afi : 3H3 333 28 odao8fionoflouoflofl?a.m
w.m: ovum .o¢\.mpH NH Auwanov Hand 0HpooahuononmouoHnoHuunm.:.N
0.8 83 .352: NH $333 38 ofioouhonofiouofis?a.m
Hdauoz no anon ham evade-HQ chum aqum ovum HdoHaono

 

 

mczHAnHHm mfimZDoDo ho makomw 20

bu finmda

2HM04mm 9M34HMB EDMH maodmaxfi mmadi ho maofihhfi

TABLIY

RESULTS OF SOIL ANALYSIS OF THE SIPLE FARM

Wooded Area

T
.—

Open Area

H

 

 

pH. ...... .............45

NitrOgen. ........... .0.0 ppm

Phosphate............0.3 ppm

Potash. . .

........5.0 ppm

.0...‘.....O..0.0..h.2
.. ................ .0.“ ppm

........ .......... .0.7 pp.

0.00.00.00.00000000100 Ppm

V. DISCUSSIOH OF RESULTS

Dornan

lo frond counts were made in 1950, but two square-yard counts
in several plots were recorded in 1951. It was observed that pre-
energent treatments with a mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium
borate. at rates of 320 and 640 pounds per acre. gave good control
of the fronds during 1950 and partial control during 1951. In 1951
a more extensive use of borax.compounds in dormant applications was
made. Rates from 160 to 3,917 pounds per acre of a mixture of anhy-
drous sodium borate and boron trioxide were effective in controlling
the fronds. Rates of 976 pounds per acre and greater prevented emer-
gence of new growth until the second week in.August when a few greatly
stunted fronds. less than three inches tall, emerged. Lower rates
did not prevent emergence early in the season but did kill the fronds
later. A.rate of 976 pounds per acre applied late in.hpril had a
greater effect on the buds per square yard than did applications two
and four times greater made in January and February. Thus it appeared
that the timing of the applications was more important than the rate
of application in obtaining control.

.An examination of plots containing the higher rates. 976 pounds
per acre and greater. showed the buds growing abnormally in small
clusters. The plots were denuded of all vegetation except for blue-

grass which ccvered 30 per cent of the areas.

22

The April applications of a mixture of sodium borate and
boron trioxide. 976 and 1,952 pounds per acre. had a greater effect
on the fronds than earlier applications of lesser quantities. The
number of buds per square foot was considerably larger than in the
untreated plot. Clusters of buds appeared on the rhizomes. Seventy
to ninety-five per cent of the grass remained uninjured on the plots.

.L mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate also con-
trolled the fronds throughout flhe 1951 season. Ihe number of buds
in the plots was somewhat less than in the untreated plot. but too
numerous to indicate effective control. clustering of the buds was
not observed in any of the plots. Grass covered 95 Per cent of the
area in the plots with the lower rates. 320 and 6&0 pounds per acre:
while the 1,280 pounds per acre plot had 50 per cent grass cover.

Low rates of the commercial mixture of sodium pentaborate and
sodium berets plus sodium chlorate, at a 3 to 1 ratio, were not ef-
fective in.preventing emergence of the fronds. Late in the summer
where 160 and 320 pounds per acre were applied the fronds died. .A
rate of 690 pounds per acre was not as effective as lower rates prob-
ably due to the variation in density of the infestation. .Applications
in May of 976 and 1,952 pounds per acre prevented emergence of the
fronds. A.rate of 1,952 pounds per acre was totally effective in
controlling the bracken. One-fourth the area in the treated plot
was excavated and all rhizomes and buds were completely dead. Appli-
cation of 1,523 pounds per acre in January did not prevent emergence

of the fronds and did not decrease the number of buds as did the next

23

lower rate applied later in the season. The time of application
was important in obtaining the maximum effect on the bracken. Pre—
pared mixtures at a 3 to 1 ratio, 320 and 640 pounds per acre. gave
results similar to those of the commercial preparation. The same
rates of a 10 to 1 ratio were more effective. Emergence was prevented
with.6ho pounds per acre. but the rate was not large enough to destroy
the buds. The grass flourished on all plots with 640 pounds per acre
or less. In the plot treated with 1,952 pounds per acre only 5 per
cent of the area remained in grass.

.L mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate plus sodium
borate and boron trioxide. 1,152 pounds per acre. did not prevent
the fronds from emerging. The fronds that emerged. however, were
completely brown by September 2.

.A prepared mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate
and sodium chlorate plus sodium borate and boron trioxide. at rates
of 6&0 and 1,280 pounds per acre. prevented emergence of the fronds.
but did not reduce the number of buds per square foot by September.
.Lt 6&0 pounds per acre 80 per cent of the plot was covered by grass.
while at 1,280 pounds per acre only #0 per cent of the plot had grass.

Pre-emergent applications of noo and 800 pounds per acre of
sodium chlorate applied in.March greatly reduced the number of fronds
and buds. The fronds in these plots were two-thirds the size of the
fronds in the untreated area. .A.rate of 381 pounds per acre applied
in early January did not reduce the number or size of the fronds.

Host of the grass was eradicated from the plots.

2n

April applications of sodium trichloroacetate stunted all
the fronds growing in the treated plots. A.rate of 480 pounds per
acre caused 50 per cent of the fronds that emerged to be killed; the
remaining fronds were uninjured.until the first frost. The number
of buds per square foot in.the plot receiving 480 pounds per acre
was considerably less than in the plots sprayed with lower rates and
all treatments had fewer buds than untreated plots. The number of
fronds in each.of the treated plots was greater than in the untreated
plot: a stimulation of the formation of fronds apparently had taken
place.

Ammonium sulfamate, at 320 pounds per acre, applied in Decem-
ber did not give control of the fronds. .A rate of 320 pounds per
acre applied in May did not completely prevent the fronds from emerg-
ing. but only four fronds appeared in the whole plot. These four
fronds did not exceed fourteen inches in height. .Ammonium sulfamate,
at #80 pounds per acre, produced a similar effect with.eight brown
fronds. The fronds were eliminated for the entire season with.6#0
pounds per acre. In May, 320 pounds per acre gave fair control: #80
pounds per acre in March gave poor control. .A rate of 640 pounds per
acre in March resulted in a large increase in the number of buds.
There was no clustering of the buds like that occurring with the borax
compounds. The grass in all the plots treated with ammonium sulfamate
was uninJured and in the March and May sprayed.plots there appeared

to be an increase as compared to the untreated areas.

25

Pre-emergent applications of 2.4-D did not eliminate the
fronds entirely. The fronds that emerged were nearly all brown.by
September 5. 2,h—D (plus oil solvent) and 2.b.5-T had little affect
on the number of fronds that emerged. The number of buds was not
affected in the 2,hHD or 2,4,5-T plots.

.Applications of maleic hydraside. disodium-Z.6-endoxohexahy-
drophthalate and ammonium sulfate. zinc sulfate. copper sulfate.
dichloral urea. 2~chloro-6-nitro-toluene. isopropyl~n~pheny1~carbamate.
and polyethylene chloride had no noticeable effects on the bracken
fronds. Isoprophy—n-phenyl-carbamate and 10 pounds per of polythylene
chloride gave reductions in the number of fronds. but as the higher
rates of each compound showed little effects and the reductions were

attributed to the variation in density of the infestation.

Qut- apd uncut-Emergigg-Irondg

Good control of the fronds was had during the summer of 1950
with 160 pounds per acre of ammonium sulfamate when sprayed on the
young unfolded fronds. Abundant new growth of fronds with distorted
pinnae appeared later. A.low rate of ammonium sulfamate also caused
distortion of the pinnae and gave them a leathery appearance.

In 1951 ammonium sulfamate, at 160 pounds per acre, on the
‘uncut plot gave only 75 per cent control of the fronds due to poor
application. On the cut plot 95 per cent of the regrowth was killed.

The pinnae were distorted and stunted. 0n the out and.uncut plots.

 

Ft

. . .. .
. u .
- ‘\ i
l
. v
.0
l. s .
.
Q I
. x. t. . r
. .
A e
. t
. C
.
e . O
9 .
.
. a s s
.
. . a
. 1
‘4 a
. .-
. .
. I w
.
v. a u?
s
. .
.
t a
. s
‘- , A .
. .
.
s
o.
e . P
. I. u r
O
‘ o .
. . .
\s, . a s.
. ..
e
. c
a. . A
v
s
l ..
x
s
I
l A .

f?

26

sprayed with 320 pounds per acre of ammonium sulfamate. no fronds
grew for the entire season. The absence of fronds did not necessarily'
mean complete control of the bracken was obtained. Buds for the next
year's crop of fronds were present in an amount approximately half
that of the untreated plot. The number of buds in the plots receiving
160 pounds per acre showed little reduction. Both treatments where
the fronds were cut gave slightly lower bud counts than the uncut
plots.

Sodium chlorate did not prevent the emergence of the fronds,
but within three months those that did emerge were all dead. The
plot which was treated with 160 pounds per acre had the largest num-
ber of fronds and the greatest height, while the plot receiving 6&0
pounds per acre had fewer and shorter fronds. The regrowth was light
green in color. The number of buds was not reduced to the point where
complete control could be expected. The application of 6h0 pounds
per acre to uncut fronds gave the best results with 2.66 buds per
square foot. The data showed no correlation.between the cut and un-
cut treatments.

In September, three months after application, 90 to 95 per
cent of the fronds in all the sodium trichloroacetate plots were brown.
The fronds emerged and appeared normal for two months. and then turned
brown. Late regrowth did not turn brown. Leaching of the sodium
trichloroacetate in the sandy soil apparently destroyed the fine mass

of roots on the rhizomes. Late regrowth was apparently unaffected

27
by this root destruction. The number of buds in both the cut and
uncut areas did not show a large variation from those in the untreated
area.

The low rate of 3-(P-chlorophenyl)-l,l-dimethyl urea had little
effect on either fronds or buds. The high rate had no effect on the
fronds, but the buds on the uncut plot were approximately twice the
number of the untreated plot and had the clustered appearance simi-
lar to that occurring with the boron applications in the dormant treat-
ments. These effects were not present on.the cut plot possibly be-
cause of poor application at the time of spraying.

lighty per cent of the fronds that emerged on the maleic hydra-
side plots were brown at the time the frond counts were made. Later
regrowth did not appear to be affected. The number of buds was greatly
increased in three of the four treated plots. The low count in the
high rate, uncut plot is attributed to poor application methods.

In general. the number of fronds on the 2.4-D and 2.h.5-T
treated plots was increased as a result of the treatments. There.
was no consistency between an increase in the number of fronds and
increases in the rate of application, nor between the cut and.uncut
plots. The young pinnae were distorted into a variety of oblong and
narrow shapes. Many fronds which had extremely twisted stipes were
killed. Distortions were prominent on all the fronds a week after
spraying, but the regrowth displayed no effects of 2.h-D or 2.4.5-2

whatsoever. indicating that the growth regulators were not translocated

28
to the buds in toxic amounts. Variations occurred in the results
obtained with the three formulations of 2.4-D. With an increase in
the number of fronds there also was an increase in the number of buds
per square foot in the 2,4—D amine plots. The opposite was found
with the other formulations. Cucumber seedling tests showed the pres-
ence of growth inhibiting in the buds. There was no correlation be—
tween the per cent reduction of cucumber root length and the number
of buds per square foot or fronds per square yard.

The commercial mixture of pentachlorophenol, trichloroacetic
acid and 2.h—dichlorOphenoxyacetic acid appeared to have no other
effect than that of a contact herbicide. The fronds that were pres-
ent on the plots at the time of spraying were killed, but the subse-
quent regrowth was unaffected.

The various rates of isOprOpyl-n-phenyl carbamate showed no
effects on the young fronds present nor on.the regrowth. The number

of buds per square foot also appeared to be unaffected.

— a t- t e-

Applications of 160. 320 and h80 pounds per acre of ammonium
sulfamate on.plots with mature fronds and on those which the fronds
had been cut eliminated the fronds completely for the remainder of
the growing season. The number of buds per square foot appeared to
be reduced, but not in.pr0portion to the amount of chemical used.

The bromegraes planting flourished on the 160 pounds per acre plot,

29
was slightly reduced on the 320 pounds per acre plot and almost
totally killed on the #80 pounds per acre plot.

The combination of ammonium sulfamate. at 160 pounds per acre.
and 2,h-D or 2.u,5-T, at 10 pounds per acre. killed the fronds pres-
ent on the uncut plot and prevented the emergence of any further re-
growth on both plots. The bud counts showed only slight reductions.
The bromegrass planting was slightly reduced.

The fronds on the uncut plot treated with 2.4-D (plus oil sol-
vent), at 80 gallons per acre, were killed at the time of spraying.
but regrowth on this plot. and on the cut plot occurred. The number
of buds on the plot left uncut showed a slight increase and the cut
plot showed a slight decrease as when compared to the check plot.

The bromegrass was unaffected by the chemical.

Sodium chlorate sprayed at rates varying from 20 to 6&0 pounds
per acre killed all the fronds present on the uncut plots and prevented
further emergence of the fronds on all the plots for the remainder
of the season. The number of buds on the plots treated with 20 and
no pounds per acre was only slightly reduced. while on the plots with
160. 320 and 6&0 pounds per acre the buds were reduced by one-third
or less. The plot with 640 pounds per acre did not appear to be more
effective than the plots with.l60 pounds per acre nor was there any
conclusive evidence that the sprays were more effective on the plot
which was out than those left uncut. The bromegrass plantings were

entirely exterminated on all plots.

30

In 1950 a water-soluble mixture of sodium pentaborate and
sodium borate to which.aodium chlorate was added at a ratio of 10:3
was sprayed at the rates of 80 and 160 pounds per acre on the mature
fronds. All the fronds were killed and further emergence was pre-
vented.

The commercial mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate
plus sodium chlorate. at 6&0 and 1,280 pounds per acre. gave good
control of the fronds. preventing further emergence. The bud counts
were greatly reduced. Ho correlation between the cut and uncut plots
appeared. The bromegrass planting was reduced only slightly.

Sodium trichloroacetate at 160 and 320 pounds per acre killed
the fronds on the uncut plots and prevented the emergence of regrowth,
with.the exception of one frond in each of the four treated plots.
Similar results were obtained in 1950 using 160 pounds per acre.

All but one of the four plots had reduced.bud counts: this normal-
appearing plot could not be accounted for. The chemical killed nearly
all the bromegrass sowed in each of the two plots.

Ironds treated with dinitro-o-secébutyl phenate (ammonium salt),
at h and 8 pounds per acre, were completely killed. Regrowth on both
plots out and.uncut showed no injurious effects. The bud counts on
the plots uncut showed considerable reductions over those out plots
indicating possible translocation to the rhizome system. The brome-
grass was greatly reduced in both plantings.

Dinitro-o-sec-butyl phenate (amine salt). at h and 6 pounds

per acre, gave 100 per cent browning in all plots and prevented

31

regrowth for the remainder of the season. The number of buds in
each treated plot was less than in the check plot. There were no
distinct differences between the plots cut and uncut. The bromegrass
was partially killed at the low rate. but almost entirely killed at
the high rate.

At 80 gallons per acre trichlorobensine only partially browned
the fronds on the uncut plot. Regrowth. showing no effects on the
chemical. appeared on both plots. No bud counts were taken. Only

a very small amount of bromegrass was present.

glowed—Rhizome

 

Chemical treatment of the freshly plowed rhizomes. using ammo—
nium sulfamate at 160 and 320 pounds per acre. did not give complete
control even with repeat applications made one month later. The fronds
in the 320 pounds per acre plot were greatly stunted. none reaching
a height greater than eight inches. Both bromegrass plantings were
greatly reduced.

Some browning occurred on the fronds in the plots treated with
diesel oil. at to gallons per acre. but a complete kill was not ob-
tained. The number of fronds appearing was reduced to nearly half the
number in the untreated plot. The bromegrass was uninjured.

Sodium chlorate, at 160 and 320 pounds per acre. gave reason-
able control of the fronds. Several stunted fronds appeared late
in the season on each of the plots. The bromegrass was unaffected

two months after application of the chemical.

32

Sodium trichloroacetate. at 80 and 160 pounds per acre.
killed several of the fronds shortly after they emerged. Those fronds
present at the time of the second application were killed. Regrowth
appeared abundantly after the second spraying. The bromegrass was
nearly all killed at both rates.

2.h-D. at 1 and 2 pounds per acre. did not prevent emergence
of the fronds. but they were reduced in number. The repeated spray
partially browned the fronds present. This was probably due to the
carrying agent. diesel oil. The plots treated with 2.1;. 5-r. st 1 and
2 pounds per acre. responded in the same manner. The bromegrass was
uninJured.

The commercial preparation of 2.h-D (in oil solvent). at 20
and #0 gallons per acre. caused some of the earlier emerging fronds
to die. The later emerging fronds were unaffected. The bromegrass
was not affected.

The number of fronds in the second.part of the experiment was
almost nil on the check plot and marginal area surrounding the treated
area and it is assumed that plowing the rhizomes in the middle of the
summer drought resulted in the obvious lack of fronds. Repeated treat-
ments were not made in this part of the experiment. Each of the plots
usually had at least one or two fronds.

The results of the bromegrass plantings varied. The diesel
oil check did not injure the grass seedlings. Dinitro-orthossecondary-

butyl phenate (ammonium salt) slightly reduced the germination at

33
both rates. Isopropyl-nephenyl-carbamate. at 5 and 10 pounds per
acre. killed all the seedlings. While the low rate of maleic hydra-
side did not cause injury the high rate was effective in causing a
slight reduction. 3-(P-chlorophenyl)—l.l-dimethyl urea at the high
rate reduced germination and almost completely destroyed all the young.

grass seedlings.

o i e

Visual estimates of the percentage kill of the fronds made
with the contact sprays varied from O to 100 per cent. .As most of
the sprays were applied using low volumes and the density of the fronds
varied considerably. percentages ranging from 90 to 100 per cent were
acceptable as giving good control. The herbicides that gave good
control when applied at the following rates per acre are: ammonium
sulfamate. at no and 80 pounds per acre; ammonium thiocyanate. at
80 and 160 pounds per acre; calcium cyanamid. at 200 pounds per acre:
calcium trichloroacetate. at #0 and 80 pounds per acre: diesel oil.
at 80 gallons per acre; isaprOpyl-n-phenyl-carbamate (emulsifiable).
at l and 2 pounds per acre; disodium-3.6-endoxohexahydrophthalate. at
5 and 10 pounds per acre: disodium-3.6-endoxohexahydrophthalats plus
ammonium sulphate. at 10 pounds per acre; octochlorocyclohexenone.
at 2% and 5 pounds per acre; pentachlorOphenol. at 8 and 16 pounds
per acre: phenyl mercuric acetate. at 10 and 20 pounds per acre:

polyethylene chloride. at 5 and 10 pounds per acre; potassium cyanate.

3b
at 16 pounds per acre: sodium chlorate. at 40 and 80 pounds per
acre; sodium.chloride. at 100 and 200 pounds per acre: sodium penta-
borate and sodium borate plus sodium chlorate. 3 to 1 ratio. at no
and 80 pounds per acre; sodium pentachlorOphenate (ammonium salt).
at 8 and 16 pounds per acre; sodium trichloroacetate. at 40 and 80
pounds per acre; sodium trichloracetate (ester). at 6 and 12 pounds
per acre: sulphuric acid. mixtures of 2% and 5 per cent at 100 gal-
lons per acre; commercial preparation of trichloroacetic acid. pentan
ohlorophenol and 2.4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. at 20 and no gallons
per acre; trichlorobenzine. at 80 gallons per acre; 2-choro-6-nitro-
toluene. at 160 and 320 pounds per acre: xanthogen disulphide. at
5 and 10 pounds per acre; and xylene and ethylbenzine mixture. at
80 gallons.

The herbicides which were effective in giving 100 per cent
control at the low rate should be used at reduced rates to determine
the lowest rate at which toxicity will occur. Those chemicals which
were not effective in maintaining good control should be used at

higher rates. i.e.. where economically feasible.

Direct-Rhizome

The evidence obtained from direct applications of 2.h-D and
2.4.5-T to the rhizomes indicated that translocation does occur.
Tissue from all dilutions showed some reduction of cucumber seedling

root length. The samples taken nearest the solution bags had the

35

greatest concentration of herbicide present; those farthest from the
bags contained a lesser amount. It was observed that five weeks after
application the fronds attached to the treated rhizomes had been killed

for a distance of several feet.

VI. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS - SROND YEAR

Visual observations made in the second year. 1952. showed that
rates of 3.917 and 1.958 pounds per acre of mixtures of anhydrous
sodium borate and boron trioxide in the dormant applications were
uneffective in obtaining complete control of the bracken. .At the
high rate a few stunted fronds emerged; the plot treated at low rate
likewise contained fronds. The 480 pounds per acre of ammonium.sul-
fanate did not give complete control of the fronds. The number of
a.'fronds were few and stunted. possibly due to the fact that the grass
dwas successfully competing with.the bracken. .Although the brush in
the sodium trichloroacetate plots was entirely dead the fronds were
numerous. rour fronds were present in the plot treated with the mix-
ture of sodium.pentaborate and sodium borate plus sodium chlorate.
at 1.952 pounds per acre. This was attributed to an invasion of the
rhizomes surrounding the plot.

In the cut- and uncut-emerging-frond plots ammonium sulfamate.
at 320 pounds per acre and sodium chlorate. at rates of 160. 320 and
6&0 pounds per acre. gave complete control of the bracken. Some
stunting of the fronds was noted in the sodium trichloroacetate plots.

The bracken was completely controlled in the cut- and uncut-
mature-frond plots with sodium chlorate. at rates of 160. 320 and 6&0
pounds per acre; ammonium sulfamate. at 160 pounds per acre; ammonium

sulfamate plus 2.h—D. at 160 pounds per acre and 10 pounds per acre;

37

ammonium sulfamate plus 2.h.5—T. at 160 pounds per acre and 10
pounds per acre; and a mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium bo-
rate plus sodium.chlorate. at 1.280 pounds per acre. Satisfactory
control was obtained with ammonium sulfamate. at 320 pounds per acre
and sodium pentaborate and sodium borate plus sodium chlorate. at
6&0 pounds per acre. Better results were obtained.with 160 pounds
per acre than with 320 pounds per acre of ammonium sulfamate and were
possibly due to the latter presence of a litter of leaves-covering
the plots receiving the latter amount. One hundred and sixty pounds
per acre of ammonium sulfamate did not give complete control at Big
Rapids in 1950. but did at East Lansing in l951. The greater density
of the infestation at Big Rapids probably was the reason for the
failure at this location.

In the plowed rhizome area which had a repeat application.
the sodium.chlorate. at 320 pounds per acre. plot contained a few
fronds and the ammonium sulfamate plot. treated with two applications
of 320 pounds per acre. was satisfactorily controlled. having only
two fronds. The area plowed during the drought had fronds growing

in all plots.

 

VII. COHCLUSIONS

Dormant or pre-emergent applications were not effective in
obtaining the complete eradication of the bracken fern. Time of spray—
ing and density of the infestation are important factors. Late appli-
cations appeared to be more effective. Areas where the rhizomes are
more numerous require a greater concentration of the herbicide. The
various boron compounds were approximately equal in their toxicity;
rates of 320 pounds per acre. applied in late April and May are ef-
fective in controlling the fronds for the remainder of the season.
Combinations of boron compounds and sodium chlorate have a greater
herbicial value than boron compounds alone. Rates of approximately
2.000 pounds per acre gave complete eradication. Early applications
of sodium chlorate gave only partial control of the fronds. Appli-
cations of ammonium sulfamate. at 320 pounds per acre. in Hay. and.
at #80 pounds per acre. in March. did not completely destroy the fronds.
but allowed the grass present to become well-established and crowd
out the fronds.

The bracken can be successfully controlled with 320 pounds
per acre of ammonium sulfamate. applied when the fronds are emerging.
Sodium chlorate. at 160 pounds per acre. will eradicate the bracken.
2.h-D and 2.h.5-T affected the emerging fronds. but did not give con-
trol. Sodium trichloroacetate destroyed the emergent fronds with

little effect on the next year's growth.

. 39

Mid-summer application to the mature fronds is the easiest
time to completely control the fern. .Ammonium sulfamate. at 160
pounds per acre; ammonium sulfamate plus 2.0-D or 2.h.5-T. at 160
and 10 pounds per acre respectively; sodium chlorate. at 160 pounds
per acre; and a mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate plus
sodium chlorate. at 1.280 pounds per acre. gave complete control.
Satisfactory control was obtained with.a mixture of sodium pentabo-
rate and sodium borate plus sodium chlorate. at a rate of 640 pounds
per acre.

Two sprayings of ammonium sulfamate. at 320 pounds per acre.
gave satisfactory control in the plowed-rhizome treatments. The
plowing of bracken during a drought does not give complete eradica-
tion.

Many herbicides have been.found to kill the fronds when applied
at relatively low volumes. Absorption of dilute solutions of 2.b-D
and 2.h.5-T in direct contact with the rhizomes and translocation

through the rhizome was observed.

39

Mid-summer application to the mature fronds is the easiest
time to completely control the fern. .Ammonium sulfamate. at 160
pounds per acre; ammonium sulfamate plus 2.h-D or 2.h.5—T. at 160
and 10 pounds per acre respectively; sodium chlorate. at 160 pounds
per acre; and a mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate plus
sodium chlorate. at 1.280 pounds per acre. gave complete control.
Satisfactory control was obtained with.a mixture of sodium pentabo—
rate and sodium borate plus sodium chlorate. at a rate of 600 pounds
per acre.

Two sprayings of ammonium sulfamate. at 320 pounds per acre.
gave satisfactory control in the plowed-rhizome treatments. The
plowing of bracken during a drought does not give complete eradica—
tion.

Many herbicides have been found to kill the fronds when applied
at relatively low volumes. Absorption of dilute solutions of 2.h-D
and 2.“.5-T in direct contact with the rhizomes and translocation

through the rhizome was observed.

 

LITERATURE CITED

1. Anonymous. Northland Pastures. Northrup. King and Company.
Minneapolis. Minnesota. 1951.

2. Bates. G. 3.. A Method for the Application of Sodium Chlorate
to Bracken. Rubber and Agriculture Series. The British
Rubber Publicity Association. June. Bulletin Number 14.
Pages 1-7. 19160.

3. Braid. I. L. The Eradication of Bracken by Cutting. Scottish
Journal of Agriculture. Volume 18. Number 2. April. Page
‘22, 1935‘

4. . . The Bracken Eradication Problem. Agricultural
Progress. Volume 1‘}. Pages 29-39. 1937.

5. .. The Relation of Bracken Control to Hill-Land
Farming. Annals of Applied Biology. Volume 38. Number 1.
Pages 303-301}. 1951.

6. Burton. 14.. Bracken: A Threat to Agricultural Land. Illustrated
London News. October. Pages 215-217. 1900.

7. Cox. H. R., Eradication of Ferns from Pasture Lands in the
Eastern United States. United States Department of Agri-
culture. l‘armer's Bulletin Number 68?. 1936.

8. Culliby. M.. The Bracken Peru and Its Eradication. J. Depart-
ment of West Australia. Volume 15. Pages 1114-1420. 1938.

9. Davies. G. M. and Davies. R. P.. Control of Bracken on Unplough-
able Ground. The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture.
November. Volume 57. Pages 365-367. 1950.

10. Griffith. Moses. Pasture Improvement and the Eradication of
Bracken and Rushes. The Welsh Journal of Agriculture.
Volume 11+. Pages 176—181. 1938.

11. Hagan. W. A. and Zeissig. A.. Experimental Bracken Poisoning
of Cattle. The Cornell Veterinarian. D. H. Udal. Ithaca,

New York. April. Volume XVII. Number 2. Pages 190-208. 1927.

12. Jenkins. 1.. and Jackmsn. D. R... l'ern. Oregon State College.
Corvallis. Washington. Extension Bulletin 579. November.
1941.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

41

Levy. B. 1.. The Control of Weeds. Herbage Publication Series
Imperial Bureau of Pastures and Forage Craps. Aberystwyth.
Great Britain. January. Bulletin 2?. Page 155. 1940.

Robbins. V. W.. Crafts. A. 8.. and Raynor. R. N., Heed Control -
A Textbook and Manual. HcGraw-Hill Book Company. First
~ Edition. 6th Impression. Chapter XXVI. Pages 458-460. 1942.

Smith. I. G.. Notes on the Effects of Cutting Bracken (Perig
gggilina L). Botanical Society of Edinburgh Transcripts
and.Proceedings. Volume 30. Part I. Pages 3-12. 1927-28.

Tehon. L. R.. Morrill. C. C. and Graham. 3.. Illinois Plants
Poisonous to Livestock. University of Illinois. College
of Agriculture. Extension Service in.Agriculture. urbane.
Illinois. Circular 599. Pages 15-16. 1946.

Threipland. P. W. Murray. The Eradication of Bracken. Quarterly
Journal of Iorestry. Volume 44. Page 195. 1950.

 

 

 

PLATE

I

APPENDIX

Cubic foot of soil from a bracken infestation.

(Left) Portion of normal frond (Right) Portion of frond
affected by 2.4-D.

Wilting of the pinnae caused by 2.4-D applied to rhizome.
Roots and rhizomes from a cubic foot of soil.
Fronds killed by 2.4-D in the emerging stage.

Abnormal clustering of buds from a plot treated with a high
rate of boron mixture. ‘

Habit of rhizomes in an infestation.

Twisted fronds. 24 hours after being treated with 2.4-D in
emerging stage.

Lateral branch showing: A. Terminal bud; B. Frond bud; and
C. Dormant bud.

II

Regrowth in plot treated with 2.4-D (in oil solvent). at 80
gallons per acre. applied when fronds were mature.

(Left) Trend killed by sodium trichloroacetate. at 320 pounds
per acre. applied when fronds were emerging.
(Right) Normal frond.

Effects of ammonium sulfamate. at 320 pounds per acre, on
regrowth.

Effects of sodium chlorate when applied at 320 pounds per acre
to the emerging fronds.

Effects of ammonium sulfamate. at 160 pounds per acre. on re-
growth. applied when fronds were emerging.

43

6. Regrowth of fronds in plot treated with 160 pounds per acre
of ammonium sulfamate. applied on the emerging fronds.

7. (Left).A mixture of anhydrous sodium pentaborate and sodium
borate. at 976 pounds per acre. in the dormant treatments.
(Right) A.3 to 1 mixture of sodium pentaborate and sodium bo-
rate plus sodium chlorate. at 1.952 pounds per acre. in the
dormant treatments.

8. Effects of ammonium sulfamate. at 80 pounds per acre on the
pinnae. applied when emerging.

9. Bracken infestation at Big Rapids.

PLATE III

1. Dormant application of sodium pentaborate and sodium borate
plus sodium chlorate at 320 pounds per acre.

2. Regrowth in the plowed-rhizome plot treated with ammonium
sulfamate at 320 pounds per acre.

3. Young fronds prior to unfolding.

4. Grass flourishing in dormant plot treated with ammonium sul-
famate at 480 pounds per acre.

5. Rhizomes eXposed by plowing.

6. Frond affected by 2.4-D in direct-rhizome application.

7. Untreated area.

8. Area being prepared for plowed-rhizome applications.

Direct—rhizome method and materials.

 

CIH GAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIE

M||999| 99||9||9||||||9||||9||||