W

1

       
      

M

W F“ MHWYMIMW“

\

m
\U

     

 

Hm.)
Icoo |
(130110

TOXECIW ANS" Emit: “CY 53*? SELECED
HERBICEDES GM R59RESENTATIV'E
OREWENTAL PLANTS

Tixmsis {:39 Hm Degree sf M. Sc.
MICESESE £251.. ‘IM‘J’EESETY

Duncan G. Birdsell
1956

“'3‘..-

TOXICITY AND EFFICIENCY OF SELECTED HERBICIDES
ON REPRESENTATIVE ORNAMENTAL PLANTS

BY
Duncan G. fiirdsell

AN ABSTRACT -

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Horticulture

1956

Approved.by Cztér19-4~41¢£ <ED. (gnu)<:¥22;:5‘-\

We..-

Duncan G. Birdsell

Five of the newer herbicides were applied non-direc-
tionally to established field grown plants of Pfitzer Juniper

(Juniperus chinensis pfitzeriana); Japanese Yew (Taxus cus-

 

 

pidata); Spreading Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster divaricata); Amur

Privet (Ligustrum amurense); and Tatarian Honeysuckle (Loni-

 

cera tatarica) on June 20. The same herbicides were applied
non-directionally to newly planted plots of Myrtle (Vinca
minor) and Baltic Ivy (fiedera helix baltica) on July 12 and

to newly planted blocks of Pfitzer Juniper (Juniperus chinen-

 

sis pfitzeriana); Japanese Yew (Taxus cuspidata); Spiraea

 

 

(Spiraea bumalda cv..Anthony Waterer); Amur Privet (Ligustrum

 

amurense); and Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) on

 

July 21.

The following herbicides were used: a) 2,u-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic amide (2,4-D amide) at 2 lbs. per acre; b)
2-chloro-u, 6-bis(diethylamino)-z-triazine (Triazine) at 8
lbs. per acre; c) 1—n-butyl-3-(3,h-dichlorophenyl)-l-methy1
urea (Neburon) at 2 lbs. per acre; d) trichlorobenzoic acid
(TCB) at 2 lbs. per acre; e) 2—(2,u,S-trichlorophenoxy)-
ethyl 2,2-dichloropropionic (2,h,S-T "Prop") at 20 gal. per
acre.

Injury from 2,u-D amide ranged from slight on Spiraea,
Honeysuckle, and Myrtle to severe on Ivy. .All plants except
Ivy appeared normal at the end of the summer. Triazine caused
moderate to severe injury to Yew, Privet, and Ivy. Slight

chlorosis was exhibited by Honeysuckle, Cotoneaster, and

WED-A

Duncan G. Birdsell

Spiraea with Juniper and Vinca being uninjured. No toxicity
to plants from Neburon was evident except for slight chlorosis
on Ivy and Yew. TCB caused severe injury to Juniper, Yew,
Privet, Cotoneaster, and Vinca and moderate injury to Honey-
suckle, Spiraea, and Ivy. .All plants were severely injured
by 2,u,S-T "Prop."

Approximate weed control one month after treatments was
100 percent with 2,u,5-T "Prop," 80 percent with 2,h-D amide,
75 percent with Triazine, 70 percent with Neburon, and 66
percent with TCB. Excellent control of broad-leaved weed
seedlings was exhibited by 2,u-D amide and Triazine with
good control of broad-leaved weed seedlings exhibited by
Neburon and TCB. Plots with 2,u,S-T "Prop" treatments

remained weed free throughout the summer.

 

TOXICITY AND EFFICIENCY OF SELECTED HEHBICIDES
0N REPRESENTATIVE ORNAMENTAL PLANTS

By
Duncan G. Birdsell

A THESIS f_

Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State
University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Horticulture

1956

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr.
Donald P. Watson and Dr. Buford H. Grigsby for their in-
valuable guidance in the total aspect of the project; to
Dr. William D. Baten and Mrs. Adele Pequet for their assis-
tance in the statistical and pictoral portions of the
thesis; and to Mr. Olen Brown, Mr. Bruce Bishop, and Mr.
James Taylor for their help in the planting and spraying

operations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................... ..... ............
REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................
SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON NURSERY CROPS
METHODS AND MATERIALS...................................
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS...................................

SUIvaAMCOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO0.0...

BIBLIOGRAPMOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000CIOOOO0.0.0.000...

PAGE

9
27
31
58
62

TABLE

I.
II.
III.

IV.

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

IX.

X.

LIST OF TABLES

Toxicity of Herbicides to Newly Planted Shrubs.....
Toxicity of Herbicides to Newly Planted Shrubs.....
Toxicity of Herbicides to Newly Planted Ground

Cover8COCOOOOOOOOOOCCOOOOO000......OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Toxicity of Herbicides to Newly Planted Ground

Covers.............................................
Toxicity of Herbicides to Established Shrubs.......
Weed Counts One Month After Treatments.............
Weed Counts Two Months After Treatments............

Weed Counts Seven Weeks After Treatments of Ground

coverSOOOOOOOOOOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOO0....

Weed Counts Ten.Weeks After Treatments of Ground

coverSCOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO

Average Amount of Growth of Four Longest Shoots
from Five Established Plants.......................

Average Amount of Growth of Three Longest Shoots
from Nine Newly Planted Plants.....................

PAGE

1.3
1m

A6

us
1.8
51
52

56
56
S7

57

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE
1. Injury to shrubs five weeks after treatments...........
2. Injury to shrubs ten weeks after treatments............
3. Number of weeds in ground covers.......................
h. Injury to ground covers................................
5. Injury to established shrubs 66 days after treatments..
6. Herbicidal injury to plant species.....................
7. Number of weeds in shrubs one month after treatments...
8. Number of weeds in shrubs two months after
treatments.............................................
9. Need control in junipers sixty-five days after
treatments.............................................
10. Need control in privets sixty-five days after

treatments.............................................

PAGE
#5
1+5
1.7
LL?
1&9
SO
53

53

5h

55

INTRODUCTION

In l9Sh estimated losses due to weeds on agricultural
land was estimated at about three and three-quarters billion
dollars. Losses/due to natural seil deterioration was esti-
mated at only about one and one-half billion dollars (Anony-
mous, l95h).

Controlling weeds by chemicals has become a standard
practice in many crops, but the use of herbicides among
nursery crOps has been practiced only to a limited extent.

Possibly this is because: slight herbicidal damage
is serious in an expensive crop of nursery plants; the
diversity of plants in a nursery makes it difficult to find
suitable selective herbicides; the relatively small area of
many nurseries makes cultivation and hand hoeing more prac-
tical than for large acreages; and damage to foliage of
nursery crops makes the plants unsaleable whereas in farm
crops foliage damage is less significant.

Recommendations for weed_control in field rows of nur-
sery stock include applications of 2,h-dichlorophenoxyethyl
sulfate (SES) or isopropyl-N-(3 chlorophenyl) carbamate
(CIPC) for non-directional spraying, and h,6-dinitro-ortho-
secondary-butylphenol (DNBP) or pentachlorophenol (PCP) in
aromatic oil for directional spraying (Shaw gt gl., 1956).

The purpose of the present project was to evaluate five
of the more recently introduced herbicides for weed control

and toxicity to selected nursery plants in field plantings.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The ability of various inorganic acids and salts to func-
tion as weed killers and soil sterilants has been known since
the last part of the 19th century. Jones and Norton (1899)
recommended sodium chloride, carbolic acid, and arseniate of
soda as soil sterilants. Bolley (1908) reported the value of
sodium chloride, iron sulfate, cepper sulfate, and sodium ar-
senite as weed killers for crops. Dilute sulfuric acid gave
moderate control of weeds in onions and also worked well in
barley fields infested with wild radish and mustard (Ball and
French, 1935). Hanley and Heinard (1935) reported control
of broad-leaved weeds in lawns with mercurated ethyl stearate.

The use of pioneer inorganic weed killers did not receive
wide acceptance because of their caustic and corrosive pro-
perties, their long residual effects, the uncertain mortality
of weeds in some cases, the high costs of application, and
some fire and explosion hazards.

The appearance on the market in 1938 of the first organic
herbicide, sodium dinitro-ortho-cresylate (Sinox), with its
highly selective action stimulated the practice of chemical
weed control. Early use of Sinox was for controlling wild
radish and wild mustard in grains and flax (Hestgate and

Raynor, 19h0) and for annual weeds in peas (Barrens and

Grigsby, l9hS).

Experimentation at the end of World War II confirmed the
intriguing possibilities of 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,h-D) and its derivatives as herbicides. Zimmerman and
Hitchcock (l9h2) reported on the growth regulating properties
of 2,héD. Hamner and Tukey (l9hS) observed positive action
of 2,h-D against bindweed and poison ivy. The selective
action of 2,h-D with regard to sugar beets, red clover, and
wheat was reported by Nutman et al. (l9h5) and its ability
in controlling broad-leaved weeds in lawns was indicated by
Marth and Mitchell (l9hh). Since then countless experiments
have been conducted using 2,b-D and its many derivatives as
herbicides, brush killers, and soil sterilizers. Out of
these tests have come uses for 2,hpD as herbicides in an ex-
tremely wide variety of crops and for 2,h,S-trichlorophen-
oxyacetic acid (2,h,S-T) to destroy brush.

The use of light aromatic oils as selective herbicides in
crops of the Umbelliferae family has been an important develop-
ment. Crafts and Reiber (19kb) and Sweet et a1. (l9kh) reported
the use of stove oil as a selective weed killer in carrots.
Lachman (19hh) reported successes with sprays of Sovasol No. 5
and a mixture of Sovasol No. 75 plus white kerosene on carrots
and parsnips.

Since 2,h-D was first proven successful as a selective
herbicide a steady number of new organic compounds have been

tested. Templeman and Sexton (19h5) first recognized the

herbicidal properties of isopropyl-N-phenyl carbamate (IPC)
and McCall (19k8) and Carlson and Moulton (l9h9) noted satis-
factory uses for IPC. More recently the close derivative of
IPC, isopropyl-N-(3 chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC) has ex-
hibited better weed control (Buchholtz, 1951). Sodium and
ammonium salts of trichloroacetic acid (TCA) noted by McCall
(19MB) and 2,2-dichloropropionic acid (Dalapon) noted by
Barrens (1953) are two of the best herbicides for control of
grasses in crops. In 1951 Hellman described the use of
sodium.2,h-dichlorophenoxyethyl sulfate (SE8) as having great
value because it only became active when in contact with
soil. Wolf (1951) described the use of 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-l,
l-dimethyl urea (CMU) as both a soil sterilant and a selective
weed killer. Possibilities of weed control in oats, sorghum,
and certain legumes with 3-amino-l, 2,k-triazole (Amizol) was
described by Behrens (1953) and its outstanding eradicative
power against perennial weeds was reported by Tafuro et al.
(1955).

Need control work in specific nursery crops has included
2,h-D in young apples (Hamner and Tukey, l9u5), sodium salt
of 2,h-D in gladioli (Krone and Hamner, 19h7), IPC in straw-
berries (Carlson and Moulton, l9h9; Nylund, 1950), a mdxture
of 2,h,5-T and 2,h-D in apple orchards (Hewetson, 1951),
amine salt and esters of 2,h-D in apple orchards (Bryant
and Rasmussen, 1951), and Dalapon sodium salt in mature

apple and pear orchards (Davidson et a1., 1955). Some use

of the various soil fumigants and temporary soil sterilants
such as methyl bromide (Niner, 1951), allyl alcohol
(Stoeckeler et al., 1951), and 2,h-D (Clifford, 1952) has
been made in nursery seedbeds and transplant beds prior to
seeding and transplanting. In nurseries growing pine,
spruce and fir, various oil sprays have proved satisfactory
for weed control in almost all stages of development of conifer-
ous plants. Robbins et al. (19A?) had good success with Stanisol
on beds of Ponderosa, Red, and White pines and Norway spruce
ranging in age from young seedlings to two year old plants.
Cossitt (19h9) reported good weed control in seedbeds of
southern pines using mineral spirits. Damage to seedlings
was noted only when sprays were used at the time of emergence
of seedlings. Rates of 100 gallons per acre proved safe on
60 days old seedlings. Eliason (1950) got good control of
summer weeds in conifer seed beds using a variety of oils in-
cluding Stoddard solvents. He found that ngig was the only
genus susceptible to applications of 20 to no gallons per
acre. Curtis (1952) reported excellent control of weeds be-
tween rows of small nursery fruit trees with directional fuel
oil sprays as long as the oil did not touch the tree trunks
and good control of annual weeds without injury with non-
directional dinitro sprays.

Beatty and Franklin (l9h5) reported the first trial of
a herbicide on field rows of mdxed nursery stock. Using a

1 percent solution of 2,h-D they found that killing was

greatest among herbaceous perennials and rows of two year old
deciduous shrubs. Evergreens were quite tolerant and the
tolerance of the plants to 2,h-D increased with advancing age.
Pridham.(l9u7) found that the sodium salt of 2,h-D when used
as a dormant spray in nursery stock produced temporary injury
to early growth on some plants the following spring.

In spite of these few scattered uses, there were no
generally accepted chemical methods for weed control in nur-
sery field stock as reported by Alban in 1950.

Introduction of newer herbicides such as CMU, CIPC, and
SES brought an enlivened interest in weed control in nursery
stock. Mahlstede (1953) found that a mixture of Alanap l and
SES worked well in established plantings of evergreens and
deciduous shrubs with no injury. Pridham (1953) found that
sprays of dinitros and CIPC when applied to rows of yews and
deciduous shrubs either in July or winter gave good winter
weed control with negligible damage. Chadwick and Barker
(l95h) achieved effective weed control with SE3 on general
nursery plantings with damage noted only on Regel's Privet,
Euonymous, and Boston Ivy. In yew plantings Chadwick and
Barker (l95h) obtained the best weed control with 7.5 lbs
per acre of CIPC but with some tip damage, and good weed
control with no damage to yews using u lbs per acre of SES.
Kuntz and Biker (l95h) demonstrated good weed control without
damage to young plants of cottonwood, red pine, and jack pine
using CMU, CIPC, and mixtures of the two. In a later experiment

using 7-year old plants of yew in the field, Chadwick et al.
(1955) produced good weed control with no damage to the
plants by using a.mdxture of CMU and SES. Holm.and Taylorson
(1955) indicated 90 percent weed control in two-year old
seedlings of spruce, pine, arbor vitae, and fir with mixtures
of SES plus CMU and SES plus NP with no damage from.SES plus
CMU and slight damage on Black Hills spruce and Douglas fir
from the use of SES plus NP. Ticknor and Bobula(1955) were
successful in controlling weeds in four- and six-year field
plantings of yew and six-year field plantings of rhododen-
dron using sprays of Karmex DH, CIPC, and CMU with no damage

to either type of plant.

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS USING HERBICIDES
ON NURSERY CROPS

10

common
madame aces:

mo aoapsoo Row
maopma«KOAdd4

easedeu<

mass: m

.90 owsao>s

as sou Hosp
usoo use: boom

.<\ooa oa oe ease
seaaax mpsmam sauces 9:4.N I oocemaoaoupmom

«\mna o as Amwaoa

noamv Hosondahvsnuoentouoauacau

we pass esdasdocstm .<\mnH N

-uo o-:.m .<\ooa : so ooouHsm
sobaonsaaoo= Hhsenaoaoanefioa:

.m ssseoo .<\oa H o. epeoooo
candoaes amused one nu:.m no

osoz oaspnaa I cash 0 eocowaoeouoam

«\eoa : so
osoz mmm n hasm a somewaoEespuom

.msoapeo
naaadd e>ammooxo so escapaonoo meaa we owe Goa: masonsoep
oaudfidao oceans on can mashed «\nna b on a Scam msawsma aspen
Ho mouse ooomaoma .madnsa ca H ooaoaoaom menu I aeEESm
Soak seam hHSaoHand seesaw use madame u oedemaoaeupmom

«\ooa : so
mam nos: sesame on .oooeao new one m ego .<\eoa s o. mam
ooaaea :20 non: oooosoooee .<\oa m.oe e20 . oooomeosouoeom

 

uaeassoaom one adorned

Asmoa

.aswoeom one seeoeem.
Edacow.
uaeaom one mSoHoo

ASS tee so senate.
maosaoe one assoc

o .oz . .saoneeae

memos
.aoxamm use xousossov
moon adficcoaod cow“:

3%: to. so sort
madanaoaea
one massage ooxaz

Ammoa
.eoaeem one nonsense.
senses N

. oaowaeez ooooom

 

Hoapsoo 6003

hannsH wsahdAQm

 

I‘iii‘l “II ('I’

 

 

'9‘ ‘1 ’11 III)»

III)’ (I )il I” I,

apneam

 

 

ll

oopoemwm pmmoa
nomasam .mcom
Imou weaseaw N
hon .uh.wm\3m

m we ousuadn
odds and: nose:
oo>moHIomoao

no Hoauuoo Rom

on:.m as“:
Hoaucoo pmem

«\eoa om one
.0H .m means
mason sewed
GO Gammon
emsosoo moo

Hoausoo moo:

.uM.Uu\€Ew NH one 0 made:

mpssadmsmap on mashed .asooo

pea choose: so unease soaoo

use .pm.du\esw m as nsoaasnsa

Icon opsmadu onus .msoau

Issusooooo swan pm mwsaaooou

moaaesfisaow on case» even

Idem aeaaoo one ooaaoane oGHN

manages
so manned mamaoaSoa aonawm

swan em some

need madman Hausa so QI:.N

Scam mashed on .mhmaam Ham

Soak undead Aeoao so haswsH

oesowaeSeIth an ocean
Isoaaoda soa>me£ co unmaoz
ane one .opmo mafiaooan
.npzoam Ho wsdosapoa esom
.mxooz M No use; a means
masospmeap NuapsmHaIeao

Aomoa .moeoooaee3.
has He

made ends: assume: cam

.eu.oe\qsm NH .oa .w .o .2 es
agendas aeoaoe one .ooaaoaco campus: .aam maamsoa
.oosadm ssmSHowcm

osaa.epmMH5m ends I madame

Mesh ww eosaom Gama
In mom .
.mooou I havoc boa

mpCmHomcmap

I mpsmaaecmap so eccemAQSo .esfio zoaaoh campus:

IumOQ .eooen so eczemaeEeIoam

 

uaouasoo

.osao spans assume:

«mead

ooa .ssaaceea one hoeeome

0» when H as Accoooozv QI:.N

I unsws< I oosewaeSoIpmom

Housed amusoIoemIoaaasdo no
new addsoSSd use Homasdpm

a
.sommm .o-s.~ uo oHee_sseooe

I season I somewaeSeIumom

0 I h «\mmnfi
om one ea m m as n- N

no name Sdfioom I cash use a:

Scam manna“ on haamaesom IoocemaoEoIoaa one weapsmHQIeam

hasnsH

waahsanm

mflefisseaoa
one «assess can“:

ES

.aeGEsm one ocoamv.
memos b on

a .oz I usaoeoeflo

.asoa

.aonsmm use ocean.
sauce 0 on

fl .0z I m9H0HUch

musmam

2
l

oowodoaon

so wsaocoaeo
soon so .oo>moa
cacao .nommsam
no Hoausoo
assesses boom

nausea N

ou A son Hon»
Isoo coo: coco

common
wcazoaw No one
Haas: Hoapsoo
coo: psoaaooxm

amends ago

.0» baseman

Iea massage can
nasacsoaod no
Hoausoo coca

neozxoano Ho
Hoausoo 6000

uses: 3 so m
now some: no
aoapeoo doom

soaaaso.np«3 Nashua
on .mousa nonman no“: mHHon
nepcmwa so sundae op hadnsH

soaumwdSSH seams «has
0H 0» 5 mo pad3.na«3 osoz

souuswaadm seams
ammo n He has: and: oaoz

Nsfimmadm sound when
ma so one: eon: meshes oz

hasnsa oz

venous: Ado;
pass ea venues» 9H manna“ oz

-<\ooa om one oa so cooeaoo
.<\ooa as so «ea eo «\ooa

om so omHo so“: «\eoa m so so
Magnum no D20 mo uncapmcansoo

.4\mnm : one N as 39 Keenan one

920 I seesaw I oosemaoeeIumom

«\aem om one oa
as coausaoa Honooas HhHHs
RN.0 I he: I NuapnsHaIeam

.ou .oo ooa\ooa n so eossooo
ahnpoe I cash I moapssaanam

«\ooa o no oI:.m
no name fiasco» I Hash new
season oped I magpcwHanam

«\ooa mm
as epssendoaoazoousoo Esdoon
I Hash coma I oedemaoEoIpsom

.ou .o.
\no ma\m as case oaasemasm
I sauce I oesomaoSeIoam

.smoa

.soaam one sesame
nuswaansmapI scan com

.amoa

..Ha no seaoxoooamv

coon

I scan mean new mom

“Hmoa .eeoszv
coon

espa> noose Hepseaao
use scan anoaoosom

Ammoa .oeoeosaov

musmaaussAp

I «seaflooo noesom

gamma .smnodamv
ncooawaeem

Asses

.eoaowm one hoauaemv

women

I enemasoo umeaom

 

Hospsoo coo:

hasnsH

Nuahsaam

npauam

 

13

.naoez :

sebum Hoaaqoo
noes moo psooe
o>mm mam one
:20 no mess»
INHE and: shaman
seamen .e\eoa

e on new one
«one one: am»
no: unmade sash
and: axes:

: heave Hosp
Isoe coo: poem

mam odd mz
coax Hoapnoo
poem .tz one

omHo nee: Hone
Inoo pee: poem

sooeaea
no“: Hoausoe
madam psoaaoo
INo .noaspwfis
spa: Hoaocoo
denuded oooo

«\ena : oe mam.one

«one .<\eoa m oe one one «one

«\eoa : no one .<\oa m oe Dan I

mssfica oz .ms< use scab I coco aeEoIpoom

.<\eoa am one ma we Atze

openness Haaona0na finance .4

\eoa om ee m2 .<\eoH .ma oe omHo

.<\oa a oe onenen-o.m .e\eoa m

manned on omazaonuo .mz one as Amzv odes casuamnpnd ahsudes
omHo and: owsEeo ode 050m IHIz I possum I oosemaeEoIpmom

«\eoa on one om oe nooeaen
.<\eoa on on «on no .<\eoH om oe
Henooono .<\eoa om oe omHo nan:

Ammoa
..He no sonzoenoe

when» m
I dumufimm50 demB

.omea .eosnem
one sonsoene.
«new» A I wanna

.omoa
.eoanm one «enemy

hashes oz «\eoa N no use I oesomaeEo poem ages» 0 I nomad eons:

 

sononoo ooo:

 

reg gleam

 

eeneam
\

saddened .mmmam

avsaaon .mmmam

Ioeno no mnnaann

mm

0>H90099m

empHmOQEoo Ho
mucoEoB 080m

.nou uaooxo
oboe: :08800

no wnnaaen

exec: OH on
0 poems Hos»
Icoo flow psoom
non: «\eoa

: on one one

«use non: Hone
Idoo uses boom

Homecoo use:
Il/

cooz

weapons no measasm

.3eh on manned o: .oosndn odds
oomaoaoo one .ompa> Moons
.xoOHSon eyeddcdn ou ommEmv
hamaoaaep .aeaassfi anaH

one sesame open: no wsadanm

mashed game oson

one soausaaouoo eons on:

when» .om ddMMH.co .Aeoaasn
aspaam one .ocaa nouoom one
open: .oosaam 05am oosaoaoo
can mesaoz .oeu«> noose op
manned on so mappaa .xooHEon
no npzoaw so: on hymns“ unwfiam

oepH> noose up soon .aoaea
no noneeeaoueo .nnu on enoz

manned o: omazsonpo .mmepan
one one ma non: annfinn enom

mnofioH

«\Hew on
on m Haadm Hosanna I seesaw
one .saadm I eosewaoEeIpmom

mHHo Homeam use o>opm
I sneeze I accommoBOIpuom

ooa
on when H as Aesooeozv QI:.N
I puswd< I somewaoEeIumom

m .02 Houe>sm
I seesaw I oocewaosoIpmom

nIn.m no oHee annooe
I poem I oesowaeEoIpmom

«\eoa : so one .<\eoa :
on one one «one .<\eoa N
no one one man .n\eoa : oe
adapez one .naapmz .Ganem
«\eoa mm on one one mm m2
.<\eoa : we one one mono
magnum I oesowaoEoIseom

mnflaenam

henna .ooneeoov
mwcfiaoeem

mI hence can spouses
I one woman Gmegpsom

“News .ooneeeoe
mmsHHooom

I nomad saonpdom

Amend

.neasnenn one hooeeme

epoch m

0 NHOGHH .HOHHCOO

xenon .onmanoe
Moon» made»

I maeMNCOo mend:

Apnea .senonnme
espfib hopes

.nonea .awm Beeaem

Ammo”

.soeaoahea one enemy

name» N

I eaomfinoo wosz

nonufim

15

when om seams
meson endprE
rqu Hoapooo
one: moo .mmm
no soHpeoHHQ
Ida Maude how
paeoxo amends
Ham anz
Hoapsoo coo:
moo undead

.sHemm moan
30am Haas

madam as: bad
dosSaom .ooeoz
Hudson made» no
mnHHHHs oooo

0N Kouceum

one encampmm
.ooocemoomasm
Edfleoesn means
some: oo>mmH
Ioeoao can
mmmhmxomda

you pcoaaooxm

moadmoa oooc

HOQUCOO “$03
I'll!

madman
Ham on encode no eoceaeaoa

endpmHoS

HHom boom Qsz wsHmesam eon:
mwcHHoeom neoao on mash

Ina on «Gopreoa oo>aso cw
ma Hmpoooahn sen: mwcHHooom
madmaeEo no mcHHHHx oaom

«\eoH mH pnooe on

mouse ahnpefi one .ON Housman
.sonoumm wQHms hasncd oc no
manuaa .opHComsm one ounce
ImoomHSm Edasoaae mo NGHHHHN

ennfinH

«\eoH m

He new one «\eoH m on H
aesead we endeHS .<\moH 0 pm
anoez .<\eoH m oe H oeneHn
.<\eoH NH one o oe mom

I mama one .eGSh .Add I 8009

oeao>oo nqu oocewaoseIpmom

e\.Hem om on mm oe eoHnHee
anaesfls I Masada one wcHaam
I somewheEoIpmoq one Imam

seams Hhmuos

can AON Noncmpm cam consummv
modem QI:.N .ouwmemae
.oumcehoomasm ESHCoEEe

I umsws< I meanneHQIeam

COHpsaoo ma canvass scenes
I mcaaom I eooemaoBoIoam

magnum.

AmmoH .ooeoeHneze

as» : I.Ammmmd

dddflM .mam n I .ses
mHmsoano mmmm ..mam
o I adamammmam.qmdw

 

AeneH .oeHeeoee
name» N

on meson wsHpmsfiEaem

I mocHa mmosoo

Inom one .csHMpm54
equz .mocaa naenpsom

AaeeH .nenoenme
use» A I 30h

onoceanh one uxOHm

ANMOH .Qo>opwv

nmsfinooom I maoMHcOo

nucoam

mnHHoooo oHo
seemIH 39H: poHd
so Homecoe mom
.wcaaooem oao mac
IOH noH: ooHo

m :o Hoaucoo wag

noes:
oe>eeHIoeoao
home we Hoausoo

«\eoH on one
om noH: one.a m
nouns Heepcoo
one: pcoHHoewo
.<\ooH 0H one
m apHs ease» N
hooks some: Ho
epzoawoa oaom

Homoeoo odsooooo
o>Hm nos
oHo eaaowaeeo
hocpo .coapez
csz Hosp

Isoo nee:
maeuefiaxoammw

Hosacoo oooz

sundae oao
use» 0» once .mmsaaooou
oHo heoIoa on mashed oEom

ocoz

«\uoa m o>ood
eHee oane nI:.m noH: nozonm
mo Nuaoampoa msoaaom .uase

seHooo oI:.m noH: annfinH oz

«\eoH on one om non: aneHnH
oae>oe on opeaoooe .<\eoH 0H

use m on» Spa: easeh N menus
mpsmad on hudwca on haaenosoo

douse» mstoaw

no use as done: hasnsa oz unmadmseAp 3H eosomsoBeIumom

‘ll(

knownH

Houasdum
I cash I eocomaoEoIpnom

moeeundm need

no: on nsoaoammsm escapes»
Iceosoo CH Homdcspm I noEESm
no madame I oesomaoBoIpuom

«\ooH com one 00H

.oo .o: .oH .o .o.H oe nHeo
oane nI:.m .e\ooH oH on oHee
adHoon QI:.N I wsHaoe no Hana
I oosewaeEqueod Hesoaaooaan

nHHoo eama
msoHan> so «\eoa 0: one ON

0H .m we D20 I weapseam oaomoo

mass» m on N I wchcsHQIeam

«\eoH o one o no anoez

.e\ooH OH so new one ooeonnoo
oHneHH no ooooan .e\eoH o no
Honenoo .o\eoH NH one o .e on..ImmHuemHHmm eHmneano

I .nn .eumenm .mm

mam I mafia new cash I moon

I

mcfimeaqm

. AeneH
..He no enHooomv
poem H on

weaeo OH I onHo ooan

AaeeH

.He no ennooome
hash H on noses

I H I enemaaoo pend:

HmoH .noH
.Imneom one senoHnmv
eaHn
nma I 30h onesedeh
.aoaHsSH aoaudmm

AmmoH .nonnnv
upceanmcepu

I mocHa mom can mean

AmmoH .ooooeHneze
uwcappde vopooa

 

Ill

nuaeflm

vI
.l
e>apoommo anon
anon mmzn one
oudSEd .nnon
Imou N nwnoanp
Hoapnoo oooz
ooom o>aw 3:0

nooo3
oo>eoAIoeono
one momnmaw

Hasnns mo
Hoapnoo ooou

meanmnano
one unopnand
In.onda no
Honpnoo oooc

I,

Honunou ooex

{I

eooozmoo manoonu ooHHHs
mam wanHepnoo anoSpeona

hadnna oz

«\eoH o oe one one maze
.e\ooH : no one .<\oH m

.nnh N I oooz
Iwoo wanozoau one

as :20 I oonomneSeIpmom canes omenedeh oeppom

«\eoH mm on one .<\ooH om
no one .<\eoH mmm oe unease
.<\ooH em on enoeHoe oneoooom

HomeH .HHonnonv
awnapneaa oHo pooh

.<\oa o\HIH as mmzn I noses» 03p one one I enonnm
one manam I eonemneneIpeom one moon» uaonnouaonm

 

mwona ooenm

enoz

eweeeo on omflznenpo

.omepm mannnHSnom on neama o»
emosdo omae .oopen h>eon as
nonea one onHa noOpom on onom

mnofinH

onoz

«\eoH n so one .<\oH m
on 320 I oonewnoeeIpeom

«\Hem on on om oe AeoHnHoo
Henenda .npne>H0n oneooovm
.Hoanepm .Hoewbomv change
ado I neEEnm I eonewneEeIunom

HooHnepm
I thh I oonomnenoaumom

F
l

wnfimendm

AmmeH .nosnem

one moasoenov

.nnh m

.Ixeh onenedah “nah
N I oonnam hazaoz
I enoanoe ooppom

Homoa .nomuaamv
. when» N on
awnHHoeom wnwwaeSe

I enoudnoo ooxwz

. . .33
23M“: 3335

I onwm oom

J

mpnwflm

ooHOHnnen no mnH
Ioneaeo npoo no
no .mo003 oo>ooH
.iIoeono .nommonw
no Honpnoo
Hnnoeeee o000

aspen

«\eoH On one ON
nqu ones» N
nopue Honpnoo
one: unoHHeoKo
.<\ooH 0H one

m an3 undo» N
nouns some: no
npzonmon oaom

oanmnna one
.aesnm noSEnom
.mmmnmoono

no wnHHHHn

«noes m

no emmnobm

no now Hon»
Inoo oeoz o000

Honunou ova:

'(

noqusn anz hnanH
on .mepen noann ans uHHou
nepanH no apneHd op hndnnH

oooen <\eoH O:

on ON an3 mnnwnH ono>om

op opmnooos .mopon «\nnH OH
one m on» nqu ones» N noune
noneHa op hnnnnH on hHHenonoo

wannno neeH one>em

onoz

.uhmnom no nonpso

IHHon esHomoONo no enoHpHonoo
eranHe esoHns o» eoo hndmnH
no sense oounHomH .annwnH
Bonn menu mHEnoann munsHm

II) (

hnnfinH

 

‘II‘I‘

«\ooH om one OH oe nooeHeo

.<\ooH OH no «on no «\eoH ON ye

omHO non «\onH n one m on so
Noendm no :20 no mnOHpmannoo

.<\eoH n one N no :o_nosnea one

D20 I nonnsn I eonewnoSeInnom

oHHom ooh» enoHne>

no «\eoH On one Om .OH

.m oe one I mnnoneHo ononoo
ones» m on N I wanneHNIonm

«\Hew cm
as mpHanm Henoan I nonnne
one manQe I eonownoneIpeom

nIn.m no oHeo soHooo
I poem I eonownoneIpmom

mpana

we owe non: mnHoneQeo <\mnH
b on H nonu wnHmnen aspen

n« H ooHOHonem mono I noses»
one manan I eenownesoIpnom

mthenam

Idea: .3023: no

mNQprno I oooznopnoo

AmmOH .nonnne

mwnHupso I oceanouuoo

HaneH .ooHoooOO
nwnHHoooe

I peSOOH xoeHo

.nms .pmSOOH honon
.sdHepeo .pnnHez .EHm

AanOH .nenonnnv
nm< nsOHnon<

HomeH ..He no nnHeO

epnoHa
oHeHu 0» anocfifi

5:

(I

muneHm

l9

«mum mmmmwmm one .nononooooonm
.Kom op mnnnnH on .nHeHoosm one
.nmnm monoem .anpmenom on mnnn
InH hnenodnop .eeon enOHanHnE one
.mbH noumom .ueoSnnouuHm no mnHHHHM

adnpmanH one

.eannon .mnndoosHHnm op mnsnnH on
no hnnnnH mnenoafiop .oHnooho one
.onooHnoH .eanhmnom no mnHHHHM

onoz

ooHHH noESoo no
mo>moH ooEnonoo oceans nnonmdum
no nOHanHonoo .eonsemonon no

00H non
anon H as Henooeozv QI:.N
I unomn< I monomneEeIpmom

. OOH non
anon H vs Aonoooo3v QIdeN
I pmnmon I eonownoneIpmom

QIfieN no pHmm EnHoom

xenon .oeneneen
one nooeome

unmoh

OH on m I mnnnnm
moosoHooo neEHeoom

nmeeH .nHHsnenn
one hppeomv

mneoh N I monnnm
ononoHooo ootz

2:3 .senoHnnO
none pnownem

I none: I monomneEoIpmom .ononmmonon noHnepnsB

nIe.m no oHee

me>moH oofinonoo one nOHpoHHonoQ BnHoom I poem I oonmwnoEoIpmom

 

mnnnnm

«\ooH Om one
On .Om oe nooeHen .<\eoH ON

 

 

AnneH .senonnne

oeHHH
nonnoo .omnne nnon

Imspm .oHHonmhenom

 

oe OnHO one «\ooH m on one HomeH
Honpnoo .<\moH m we D20 .<\moH : us .nome new syn:
pneHHoenm hnnnnH 02 3mm .xam .020 I eonewnenquoom amok m a mkg
II. . HH on
HOhHGOU @003 hgfiGH gfihdham OQCQHAH (I

 

20

«\eoH OON one OOH .Oo .On .oH
.o .o.H an pHem eane QI:.N I
onoz .nq4 no .>oz I eonewnosquuom

«\eoH oH oe oHeo neHooo nIn.m

npzonw no wnHonmpom I oopoonHo oonemnonoIpmom

ammo om nouns

xenon onanHn

anz Honunoo
ooo: Roe .mam «\eoH m on one one «\ooH m on
no nOHueoHHQas H amneH< no enouNHS .<\enH 0
thdo non pace as anpez .<\moH m an H
IHo saunas HHe odndH< .<\moH NH one o no mum
anz Honpnoo cannon I tho one .onnb .no4 I 8009
one: mom ondond HHn op nuneHo no ooneneHoa oone>oo anz eonomnoEoIpmom

nHeOHnono HHe

anz hnnonnene nonoann no moneun
nH noHnonoon .<\eoH On one Om

no momenm ones ooHHHx 920 .nusonw
ounoo NanoSona :20 nqu mhonan HHo
no anoneHop hnnooHenoe .npoonm no
noondn nH noHposoon use Henpoonm

one onHO nan: eooon no mnnHHHn «\ooH O
oooHooo on .eon one one no enoHe one .On .Om no «On .<\ooH O
Innuneonoe noann no npneHa seen one .oN .OH on Henpoonm onm

enOHnnoHns no mnHHHHn oooneoa .OnHO .mzo I no< I manugwflqeoam

(I)

Honenoo oooz. hnzhnH mthoan

’
(I)

AHmeH .nonnenm

one SenoHnmv
mneom

I «mum seenH m

AHmeH .nonneee
one.nenonnne
mmmmmmmd.mddmw one
aHneMHn> swanhW

 

ones»

4 I unanoeHHnm
one s an m

AmmOH .anonnonm
one nepHHnemV
munoHn

Innenp I mnnoannoo

one .onenm w a

nomon enoHnHuHsz

ll

mpnsHm

21

neunenw one
m>H nouHon no
Honpnoo ooo0

neo noHno no onoo mnHmenam
nenz ommHHon on omoneo oz

none: no

How m\nH H pm nonaHea one Eon
OOOm oe nIm .: .N no enoeeo
one nenHEm I mth .onnh .na4
I HmnOHpoonHo oonemnoSoIpmon

 

uannn neon one eons

onoz

mmnnam no nOHuooHHnae o>Hmnoo
Ins no nnOHpHonoo oHuonHHo
oanns on coo nnnfinH

no sense oonoHOmH .nnanH
Bonn eenn annoans mpneHn

ammo:

M no emmno>m
no non Hon»
Inoo oooz ooo0

h>H
noamom one .mnonhnonm no
meHooam m .uo>Hnn m.Hemom

oponvoo< no nOHeroxo anz hndwnH oz

UWHO onn

noannHo anz
mono: nounHz

no Honnnoo Moo
Honmmoe oww:

{I

HoOHBeno hno

II, P

nnonnm

«\eoH n ee one one m
one .<\ooH n no one .<\oH
m an 920 I oonomneEOInmom

. muann
no own noun wnHonodeo «\moH
b on H Bonn wnHmnsn aspen

nH H ooHOHnnom mono I nossnu
one mnnnae I oonomneEqumom

«\onH : no
mam I thh I monomnuEeIpmon

:26 one .eonnnnno

.OnHO .OnH.ooenonen Hnnoonooen
.oneHennnnononnmNonoxoono I b.m
.pno>Hom oneoooum .opmnonnonOHno
Iounea SnHoom .epenmmo nnHmmeuoa

Eonn ansnnH eHneeOHpon oz I anh .neh .oon I oonownmEmnumom

'I‘J ||
[1

mnHmenmm

HomeH .HHoooenOe
neon»

ensues I oHan<

AmmoH .nonnem

one sonnoenov
unnnos J
I eHnononon ooonon

A:MOH ..He no nnHmV
nunan

oHeHn op enonHH I

scone nnemnnn oeKH2

AanH .nosnem
one 20H3os£00
Son oHOHn I
xoopu knomnon ooKH2

AmmmH eednoHnmv
200nm 0H0Hn I .0.<
sownnnohm eannmnnmm

fimofimaflfi «as
.35 .eneeenémme

1‘

mnneHn

Ad
Ad

mommonm no

aonpnoo Anon

 

.aooos uo>moa “omoa .mnannnmv
Ioooun no «noon 0 no>o oaonm Hno nn nonpanno oonnnpnon upnwan
nonpnoo oooc na nonuonoon no hhnnnn oz noesnm I oonoonSoIpmom canvas I moamno
n “omoa .mnasonmv
«\mna om no «on monoaa
munwao ooaanm Ednoon I >02 I oonomnoSoIpuom manpws I moounw
nomad .unflsoomv
GlfiuN QHQQHQ
monn> ou andnnn anonnom I noeenu I monomnoEoIpmom canvas I mononw
Amman .nnpnnov
munch m
Ihhhono noose
@009» no mums op ommSoQ Hao Hosn I oonownoEoIpmom ond .nwou .oana4
ouuando
no“: name
noooz oo>woa
Iononn no Hon»
Inoo pnoaaooao
.Hno nun: none: .<\Jom mm on ma no can»
oo>moHIoooan mama» m IKHE Hoo oonnnunon onpnnao
ona .mmonm no>o mhmnam onpnndo Scan ona «\Hmm own on cm on Ado Amman .mnunsoV
Imonnd no Hon» omnsdo oz .pomanoo poouno anon N 102 I nommom swoonnu Q
Icoo oconnooxm non: «goon» oomQSoo Hno noon oooooc no I oonomnonoapmom a a He:
III «I I .4. 4 «on n . ofiooo
Honuooo oooa mnohnn mnnnonmm nonoam III

1'"!

 

 

oooaoan no
no Honpnoo ooou

nommon no one
on» Anon: ooooz
ombuoHIoaonn
no Honpnoo

madam oan
nxonpnon no Hon»
Inoo opnpoonno
uuoH pan oodnm
xowdo no Hon»
Inoo ooow o>mm
«\wnH om .umdhw
onHo axonpnon
ono muonmxoanv
ooflanx «\ooa oo

ooozonno
.no HHHu noon
ond no» h>dom

oHpman

oomnwo on hadnnH
ono>ou .nnOH»
Imnpnoonoo 30H
pm ponawo oan
.onOHHoonmo
.xooo no monaann

nuounHoz onu
.nonpwnoh .meHOHHoQ on 0:02

hnnnnH unonnEnoa
on ads hummnHao hanOQEoB

noHu

IdoHHQam ano anz mpoonm
no mnHunnpn ona .wnHtho
.nHmOHOHno «noHpuonHaao
.ooz no“: onooooano onmaam

anon-o on» no oeoa

nan: omoHHon no mannnn onn
meopm no mummnHmo mndnon
I80» .pnnnn no nOHuoEnonon

axooz m on : mHno oopmoH
ownEoo .oommohonH mnOHponp
Inoonoo no ooonnononn onoe
mnHEooon mummnnao hadnonaos

mnoHpooHHaam oz» nH «\mnH m
an uHam ended onm anoumo

QIdom I poem I oonownoEOIumom

«\onH
: oca m oo nI:.m no oHoo
EsHoom onn «\DH H am gonna

QI:.m I mth I oonomnoEoIpmom

«\ooa oo ooo
om .oa no «on esnooo I haoo

no .994 .>oz I oonownoEoIpmom

goo ooo.m ooo oom.H oo oI:.m
no mpro ona onoamo I thh

onm onna opaH I oonomnoEoIpmom

goo oo:.m oo oo:

Eonn um onoa QI:.N I anh onw

ondh opMH I oonownoSoIpmon

AHmOH .nouunamwm
ono anamnmv
noonu manpoe I uHaa<

nomoa .onsflnzv
noon H I hauopzwnpm

.mooa .copaooz
ona noaHumov.
ozon oHo
noon MH I hnnonamom

no 0H
.IHn no and nmv

noon»
canvas I oHaa<

AoJOH .noanoov
onooh N ono H

I hnnonzanpm

 

Honocoo coo:

nannon

mannanam

1+

nonoam

Haonaono
nonaHo no noHpno
IHanw Scan nos
I65» wnHonHon
on» moundnw

no nonapn

on mmu osooo
no nonuonoom

2%

oonn
nOdenunoonoo
noun mnHononoo
moooz nounH: no
Honpnoo Rmm

on om anond

noadHuQ anz
Honpnoo macaw

mound unoH
IH033 .Dzo no
nonuanunoonoo
swan no“:
oonnoa naohIozu
ho>o noooz no
Honunoo oooa

axons m
mound Honunoo
ooo: &N pnono
o>a omomo
.aKon omomo
nun: among»

:20 non: non»
Inoo oooz unom

onoz

onoz

human noadeQ
Eonn anHmmom pmoowo npzonw
no upon nH wnHoadpon oz

oopoopona onoz

mxnnhu on» amnoano nhanan
nonuo Eonn omnEno on

.noohp no mannnpm ono can
IOHOHno oomddo monnuxfis :20

«\ooH

0H ond .m .m an noaquQ

ooo «\ooa on ooo .m .m oo
omno I HHan I oonownosoIpnon

«\ooa
ma oco .NH .o no omHo
I HHdn I oonomnosoIpmom

«\ooa

u on n no ooHuwnonn oHoHoE

.<\oon on no ooooaoa .<\How

00H no Hno ooHannonIoApHnHo
.<\moH m an nHuom ono moan

«\ooH m ooo H go one I moans»

ona manao I oonomnoEoIpmon

«\nom oo oo omzo ooo

HHo .<\unH N no noaoHda ona
m :20 .<\ooH N no :ooonoo
.<\ooa m oo p20 .<\ooa

on no omomo .4 and on on
unHo I has I can» noEoIpnom

AmmoH .noanwov

apnoHa oonuHHndpmo

I hnnonamom.

AmmoH .noanuov
axoOHoHoopu

monaaoz oooonaooooo
ond noon H I 0Hnn<

zomOH .uHunnov
manna
noon H I oHan<

Amman .Hannoaomv

npnaHoununp I oHaQ<

 

.Honpnoo owe:

hnnnnH

wnnnanam

gonad»

S
2

axoos 0 non
Honpnoo .<\noH
o no anpoz
ooo «\oon o
ona o no namom
nun: Honpnoo
poem Inzanm
HHa nun: Hon»
Inoo o>Hpoonnm

nooouoo
nmnonnp moooz
noaanm opoH
no Honpnoo
opHpoonnm

oannHo 39H:
nonmanm no
Honunoo noon
gonno ono :20
nqu nomoon
non noooz no
Honunoo oooa

“mm on on

9:09: Sonn
wnnmnon Honpnoo

Honpnoo oooz

hnnnnH oz

hndnnH and no nodpnoe oz

020 anz apnoHannon» mnnfi

no opooo poo :20 non: oooono
onooos on omoonwo on .omno
ono ononnno non: mashed oz

mnonponp
Inconoo noann nqu moon»

oHaQo nooHo no hndnnd on
.mGOHpmnpnoonoo no30H 29H:
noHnnono noon Op nnnnnH oz

annnnH

«\oon o ono :

. no nnnnoz .<\ooH m oco o no
onoom .o\oon : no mom I ooom
ono ano I oonomnoEoIpmon

«\oon o

ooo : no onnooz .o\oon o
ooo : no nnoom .o\oon : no
mam I anh I oonomnoEoIpmon

«\oon on
no onno ooo .<\oon N no use

.nononoeo nno oonnnonon ononnno

I noses» I oonoanEquaom

«\oon on no noooooom ooo m one

«\oon on no onno ooo m :20
«\oon om ooo .om_.on no cone
«\oon ma ooo on .m .N no mac

mnHzoan

AdmOH .nomHnoov
noon H I mnnonzonpm

MdmOH .nomHnoav
nwo H I hnnonnnam

nomon .nnnnosomv
mpnaHm
unapofi onu npnon
Innanp I nooonc

, Ramon
.pnonHHm ono EHomv
undo»

on on» o I onoo

anh ono nnd I oonomnoSoIpmomonn¢Oh : I nnnono nnom

oooonn

 

26

ooozonnn no
Honpnoo ooou

ounce

Iooono nooomnH
no n0Hmmoo
Ionm n mnHmd
oonnouoo moonm
Incond no
Honpnoo nHon
.4\ooH om no
muonwxoonv

ono monsnon

no Honpnoo

man» onwnw ono mnnonzoo no
xooooHo .mQHp mnnonmmon oon
onm oHaQo on humonHQo nonnz

«\mnH om

nuns HHon mnon>ona on» oopoonp
oan no mnnnam nn oopana

moon» Guava onw .nooa .mHQam on
omoEoo oz .<\mnH m pnood mopon
no oonnwnn moHnnonammn ono
.moHnnonoan .moaonw .monomoa
.mEde .monnnono nnom .<\nnH

00 on om no momnono on mndnnH
nnonanop .onoaponpnoonoo meow
nun: moadnm ondpos onm noon»
OHan oHo noon m on annnnn Sons

.<\oon o: ooo om non: oonoooo
moon» noon ono oHQno oHo noon

on on noonon oooonnnnmnuon

.soo ooon no nI:.m

Amoon
.moxna ono nonsomv
moonw .mnnon

Izoo .znnonamon oom

I noEEnm I monownoEqumon no ozon oHonn I ona<

o\oon oo ooo o: .om .on

.m “M no nomoHoQ I noEEdm ono
wanQm I mananannQ onm
HononpoonHo oonownoEoIpmom

Ammon
.IHo no nomoH>va
znnopoan
.znnonamon .ononm
oedHa .hnno£o nnom
.omnono .nooa .oHaad

 

Honunoo oooz

hnnnnH

wnnznnam

apnon

 

27

METHODS AND MATERIALS

At the Michigan State University horticultural test plots
the following seven species of ornamental plants were planted
for testing with five new herbicides: 2-year old Pfitzer
Juniper (Juniperus chinensis pfitzeriana); 2-year old Japanese

Yew (Taxus cuspidata); 1-year old Amur Privet (Ligustrum

 

amurense); 2-year old Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica);
1-year old Spiraea (Spiraea bumalda cv. Anthony Waterer); 1-
year old Myrtle (Vinca minor); and 1-year old Baltic Ivy
(Hedera helix baltica).

All planting took place between May lb and June 10, 1956
using a randomized plot selection with three replications per
herbicide. Units within the plot consisted of seven shrubs
spaced three feet apart. Rows were spaced 8 feet apart and
units within the row spaced 7 feet apart.

The two ground covers, Eigga and Hedera, were tested in
rows separate from the shrubs with a randomized plot selec-
tion and three replications. Units within the plot consisted
of 8 plants spaced 1 foot apart in a rectangular pattern.
Rows were 8 feet apart and units within the row were h.5
feet apart.

Fifty pounds of 12-12-12 fertilizer was applied to the
entire planting on June 15 using a band pattern around each

plant.

28

The following treatments were applied:

a) l-n-butyl-B-(3,h-dichlorophenyl)-l-methyl urea
(Neburon) sprayed at the rate of 2 lbs per acre;

b) 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic amide (2,h-D amide)
at the rate of 2 lbs per acre; 2

c) 2-chloro-h, 6-bis(diethylamino)-z-triazine
(Triazine) at the rate of 8 lbs per acre;

d) trichlorobenzoic acid (TCB) at the rate of 2
lbs per acre;

e) 2-(2,h,S-trichlorophenoxy)-ethyl 2,2-dichloropro-
pionate (2,h,S-T "Prop") at the rate of 20 gal per acre;

f) no treatment.

Herbicides were applied to the ground covers on July 12
and to the shrubs on July 21 using a hand sprayer with T-jet
nozzles No. 6503, 30 pounds pressure, and at the rate of 65
gal per acre. Herbicides were applied non-directionally with
a boom to all plants providing coverage of the soil 2 feet on
either side of the row. The boom was held one foot above the
ground.

The shrubs were observed for herbicidal toxicity after
2,5, and 10 weeks. Injury to shrubs was rated on an ascending
numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5 with a grade of 1 indicating
no plant damage and a grade of 5 indicating death of the plant.
Sixty-five days after treatment photographs were made of repre-
sentative plants indicating herbicidal injury and control of

weeds. Four days later measurements were made of stem

29

elongation of Privet, Honeysuckle, and Yew for an index of
herbicidal toxicity. Weed counts in sample areas of #0 square
feet were made approximately one month after treatment. This
was followed by weed counts of sample areas of 30 square feet
two months after treatment.

The ground covers were examined for herbicidal injury 12
and 77 days after spraying. The injury to ground covers was
rated, using the same numerical scale, an and 77 days after
treatment. Stems of the ground covers showing characteristic
injury by each herbicide were photographed 19 days after treat-
nmnt. Weed counts of.sample areas of 8 square feet were made
7 and 10 weeks after treatment.

In a second location the treatments were repeated using
non-directional applications around established field-grown
plants in Cottage Gardens Nursery on Miller Road in Lansing,
Michigan. Only toxicity of the herbicides was observed on
these plants to determine whether older established plants
were more resistant than the newly transplanted material.
These plants included 5-year old Pfitzer Juniper (gggipgggg
chinensi; Eillzeriana); 5-year old Japanese Yew (Igggg qgspiz
‘Qgtg); h-year old Spreading Cotoneaster (Qgtongagtgr divarigata):
2-year old Amur Privet (Qiggstggm amggegge); and 2-year old
Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). The same herbicides
were applied late in June using twelve-foot sections of a
row per herbicide with each section usually containing five

plants. The plants were observed for herbicidal toxicity at

30

intervals of 10 and 87 days after spraying, and vegetation
showing representative injury per herbicide was photographed
10 days after treatment. The plants were rated for herbicidal
injury 66 days after treatment using the previously adopted
numerical scale. Measurements were made of stem elongation

of Juniper, Yew, and Privet 9h days after treatment as an

index of herbicidal toxicity.

31

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Average temperatures during July 1956 and August 1956
were 69.8" F. and 70.0° F., respectively. Departure from
normal rainfall during July 1956 and August 1956 were plus
0.14.]. inches and plus 0.52 inches, respectively.

The following observations were made of the toxicity of

the herbicides during the summer:

ALL-D amide

Ming;

Newly planted stock - slight epinasty of young branches
after- 2 and 5 weeks, recovery after 10 weeks

Established stock - slight chlorosis of leaves and slight
epinasty of young branches after 10 and 66 days, recovery
after 87 days

You

Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis and epinasty of
growing tips after 2 and 5 weeks, recovery after 10 weeks

Established stock - epinasty and slight chlorosis of
gr'C"'*'1ng tips after 10 and 66 days, recovery after 87 days

M

Newly planted stock - epinasty of stems and leaves at
grow'li-ng tips after 2 weeks, recovery after 5 and 10 weeks

Established stock - epinasty of stems and leaves at
grcnMing tips after 10, 66 and 87 days

W

aft Newly planted stock - slight epinasty to young stems
er. 2 weeks, recovery after 5 and 10 weeks
Established stock - none

32

Cotoneaster

Established stock - pronounced epinasty of young stems
after 10 days, slight epinasty after 66 days, recovery after
87 days
Spiraea

Newly planted stock - epinasty of younger leaves after
2 weeks, recovery after 5 and 10 weeks

Vinca

Newly planted stock - slight epinasty of stems and leaves
after 12 and uh days, recovery after 77 days

.111

Newly planted stock - severe epinasty of stems and leaves
and death of growing points after 12, an and 77 days

Triazine

Juniper

Newly planted stock — none
Established stock - none

Yew

Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis at growing tips
after 2 weeks, same injury to some plantsafter S and 10 weeks

Established stock - slight chlorosis of leaves after 10
days, severe chloriosis of leaves after 66 and 87 days

Privet

Newly planted stock - moderate chlorosis of leaves after
2 and 5 weeks, slight chlorosis after 10 weeks

Established stock - severe chlorosis of leaves and in-
hibition of growing tips after 10 days, slight chlorosis of
leaves after 66 days, recovery after 57 days

Honeysuckle

Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis of terminal leaves
after 2 weeks, recovery after 5 and 10 weeks
Established stock - none

33

Cotoneaster

Established stock - slight chlorosis of leaves on new
growth after 10 days, recovery after 66 and 87 days

Spiraea

Newly planted stock - chlorosis and browning of leaves
after 2 weeks, slight browning of leaves on some plants after
5 and 10 weeks, damage possibly due to drift from neighboring
2,h,S-T "Prop" treatments
Vinca I

Newly planted stock - none
Ivy

Newly planted stock - severe chlorosis of youngest leaves
and death of growing tips after 12 days, continued severe
chlorosis and dying of plants after an and 77 days.

Neburon

Juniper

Newly planted stock - none
Established stock - none

Yew
Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis at tips of
branches after 2 and 5 weeks, recovery after 10 weeks
Established stock - slight chlorosis at tips of branches
after 10 days, recovery after 66 and 87 days
Privet
Newly planted stock - none
Established stock - slight epinasty of leaves at growing
tips after 10 days, recovery after 66 and 87 days
Honeysuckle

Newly planted stock - none
Established stock - none

Cotoneaster ‘

Established stock - none

31L

Sgiraea

Newly planted stock - none after 2 and 5 weeks, browning
(Jf'leaves on some plants after 10 weeks, damage possibly due
‘tca drift from neighboring 2,h,S-T "Prop" treatments

Vinca

Newly planted stock - none

ZExry

Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis of leaves after
12, L114 and 77 days

TC

Juniper

Newly planted stock p pronounced cnlorosis, epinasty and
dceath of leaves and buds at growing tips after 2, S, and 10
wreeks

Established stock - browning, epinasty, and death of
lteaves and buds at growing tips after 10, 66 and 57 days

‘Yenw

Newly planted stock - severe chlorosis, epinasty, and
desath of leaves and buds at growing tips after 2, 5, and lO
weeeks

EstabliShed stock - epinasty, browning, and death of
leeaves and buds at growing tips after 10, 66 and 87 days

Pri vet

Newly planted stock - severe epinasty and abnormal
Purlplish tinge to leaves at growing tips after 2 and 5 weeks,
Bevwere epinasty, dwarfing, and early dropping of leaves at
Erotving tips after 10 weeks

Established stock - severe epinasty and abnormal reddish
tinge to leaves at growing tips after 10 days, severe epinasty
andchlorosis of leaves at growing tips after 66 and 87 days

W

Newly planted stock - light browning of leaves upon
direcrt contact after 2, 5 and 10 weeks
.Established stock - none

35

Cotoneaster

Established stock - severe epinasty of leaves and
stunting of plants after 10, 66 and 07 days

Spiraea

Newly planted stock — slight cnlorosis of leaves after 2
weeks, slight epinasty of a few young leaves after 5 and 10
weeks

Vinca

Newly planted stock - severe epinasty of leaves at growing
tips after 12 days, death of growing tips after an and 77 days

Ivy

Newly planted stock - slight chlorosis on youngest leaves
.after 12 days, continued slight clorosis after an and 77 days

211-14211. "Prep”

Juniper

Newly planted stock - severe localized browning of leaves
snfter 2 weeks, heavy general browning of leaves after 5 and 10
Iaeeeks

Established stock — browning at tips of branches after 10
days, heavy general browning of leaves after 66 days, some re-
covery to normal green color after 87 days

item:

Newly planted stock - severe localized browning of leaves
and chlorosis at tips of branches after 2 weeks, moderate to
heavy general browning of leaves after 5 and 10 weeks
‘ Established stock - browning at tips of branches after 10
Clays, heavy general browning throughout plants after 66 days,
Scnne recovery to normal green color after 87 days

Privet

Newly planted stock - severe browning and chlorosis of
leaves after 2 weeks, continued general chlorosis and browning
after 5 and 10 weeks

Established stock - severe localized browning and chlorosis

of leaves after 10 days, severe browning, chlorosis, and epi-
nasty of leaves after 66 and 87 days.

36

Honeysuckle

 

Newly planted stock - localized death of leaves and buds
upon direct contact of spray after 2 weeks, generalized
browning and chlorosis after 5 and 10 weeks

Established stock - localized death of leaves upon
direct contact of spray after 10 days generalized browning
and chlorosis of leaves after 66 and 67 days

Cotoneaster
Established stock - localized death of leaves upon
direct contact of spray after 10 days, general browning

and chlorosis of leaves and stunting of plants after 66
days, some recovery to normal green color after 87 days

Spiraea

Newly planted stock - severe localized browning of
leaves upon direct contact of spray after 2 weeks, severe
overall browning of leaves or death of some plants after
5 and 10 weeks
Vinca

Newly planted stock - localized browning of leaves
after 12 days, general stunting and browning of leaves after

AA and 77 days

111

Newly planted stock - severe browning of leaves and
death of many growing tips after 12 days, death of many
plants after an days, death of all plants after 77 days

The epinasty exhibited by all plants when treated with
2,k-D amide parallels typical 2,N-D effects on plants
(Zimmerman and Hitchcock, l9h2; Tukey et al., 19h6). Chlorotic
conditions, as noted in Juniper and Yew, have been observed by
previous applications of 2,h-D sprays to woody plants (Hamner
and Tukey, l9h6). All of the plants sprayed, except established

Plants of Privet, assumed normal appearance and growth after

one or two months. Other woody plants on which 2,h-D has been

37

applied have exhibited this recovery (Bryant et al., l9li9;
Beat ty and Jones, 19145). Both groups of Yews were stunted

by the 2,11-D amide sprays (Tables X and XI); but the great
reduction in annual growth in the established Privet (Table I)
may have been caused by some other factor. Spraying Yews with
amine salts of 2,l+-D has also inhibited growth (Pridham and
Stangler, 1951). The relative polarity of 2,11-D amide accounts
for its reduced amount of absorption by the foliage and its re-
duced injury in relation to that of 2,).l-D acids and esters.

Apparently Triazine was readily absorbed by plant foli-
386 because five of the six shrubs quickly showed chlorosis,
ind 1cating an inhibition of chlorOphyll formation. Possibly
Junipers were buffered against this chemical in some manner
31111.1 lar to that reported in cotton, corn, and snapbeans
(Anonymous, 1956). Yearly growth measurements indicated that
the severe chlorosis on Yews greatly reduced normal growth
(Table X). With little food material being synthesized pos-
sibly the meristematic regions were not active.

Neburon generally showed little toxicity to the plants
conforming with injury from low dosages of GNU, a closely
related compound. Applying ChU at rates ranging from -% to 2
lbs Per acre to Yew, Rose, Forsythia, Mock Orange, Japanese
Barberry, Red Pine, ‘Jack Pine, and Rhododendron gave little
or no injury (Pridham, 19533 Kuntz and Riker, 1953; Chadwick,

1955; Ticknor and Bobula, 1955). The slight chlorosis on Yew

38

was similar to injury caused by other urea herbicides which
were absorbed primarily through the roots (McCall, 1952).

Privet, Yew and Juniper exhibited responses from TCB
similar to those previously noted on tomato (Zimmerman and
Hitchcock, 1951). It was reported that the herbicide was
readily absorbed by the leaves and moved rapidly to the
growing tips where the main damage was concentrated and that
high concentrations of the chemical inhibited growth. Honey-
suckle and Spiraea, although injured, showed some degree of
tolerance. Using TCB at identical rates against brush of Oak,
POP lar, Ash, Hawthorn, Willow, Wild Rose, Hazel, and Dogwood
Produced extensive foliage damage to all species except Dog-
wood (Playfair, 1955).

The initial moderate to severe injury to all shrubs used
With applications of 2,11,5-T "Prop" conformed with previous
Observations of damage to woody species when the chemical was
applied to the soil directly around them (Swezey, 1956).
Severe foliage burn and chlorosis coincided with physiological
effe cts shown by previous testing of the compound (Swezey,
1956). Although both of the components of 2,14,5-T "Prop" are
r‘Eamily translocated (Coulter, 1951+; BEI‘I‘ODS: 1953) initial
Observations indicated that damage was largely localized in
areas of‘direct spray contact. Foliage may have been killed
too quickly for translocation to take place or mid-summer
I‘edufition in growth may have prevented rapid translocation

of the chemical throughout the plants. Later observations

39

did show toxicity of the chemical throughout the plants indi-

cating general root absorption. Definite stunting of Coton-

easter, Privet, and Yew plants (Tables X and XI) parallels

stunting of cotton plants by applications of the same herbi-

cide (Swezey, 1955). Late season recovery by some of the

established plants indicated that a larger plant does neutralize
the chemical in time or that many of the roots are below the

area in which the herbicide is still located.

Treatments of the ground covers with respective herbicides

p1?<>duced injuries similar to those of the shrubs. Vinca showed

resistance to Triazine parallel to that of Juniper and Neburon
continued its pattern of little or no injury. With the excep-

tion of TCB, Ivy was more seriously damaged by the treatments

than was Vinca (Tables III and IV). The less extensive root

System and the concentration of the roots near the surface of
the soil in the Ivy plants possibly accounted for the serious
injury pattern.

The grass weed population within the plots was mainly

large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), small crabgrass (Digi-
Emg ischaemum), stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis), and

tickle grass (Panicum capillare). The broad-leaved weed pepu-

lation was mainly rough pigweed (Amaranthgs retroflexus),
Prostrate pigweed (Amaranthgg graecizagg), lamb's-quarters
(&enomdim album), prostrate spurge (Euphorbia supine),

Bandwort (Arenaria serpyllifolia), purslane (Portulaca

 

NO

oleracea), shepherd's purse (Capsellg bursa:pastori§), and

 

dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).

Tables VI, VII and VIII indicate excellent control of
broad-leaved weeds with 2,h-D amide up to seven weeks with a
decided increase of small broad-leaved weeds at the end of
two months. These results conform with the known toxicity
of 2,u-D compounds to broad-leaved weeds. Although 2,h-D
amide partially controlled grass weeds, the grasses were of
major importance after 65 days (Figure <9 ). Work with 2,h-D
sprays on grass seeds and seedlings have not shown high mor-
tality unless high concentrations were used (Mitchell and
Marth, 19k6; Pridham, 19h7). Other phenoxy compounds have
given effective weed control at rates ranging from.h to 6 lbs
per acre (Mahlstede, 1953; Chadwick, 195h3 Holm and Taylorson,
1955), but light rates of these compounds have not proven suc-
cessful (Chadwick and Barker, 195u; Ferrell, 195k). Although
rainfall during July and August was high the toxicity of 2,h-D
amide on weeds continued to be effective through two months.
Previous screening with this material had revealed its ability
to resist leaching (Anonymous, 1956).

Triazine showed excellent control of broad-leaved weeds
for ten weeks, second only in effectiveness to 2,h,5-T "Prop"
(Tables VII and IX). Only fair control of grass weeds was '
achieved (Tables VI and VII). Similar results for broad-

leaved and grass weeds has been obtained (Anonymous, 1956).

kl

Previous testing with Triazine at 8 lbs per acre has given

89 percent and 83 percent control of weeds after h and 8 1/2
weeks respectively (Anonymous, 1956), as compared with the
present results of approximately 75 percent and 78 percent
after h and 8 weeks, respectively. Percentage differences
could be accounted for by composition of weeds, amount of
rainfall, soil type, or prevailing temperatures.

The amount of weed control in the present experiment using
Neburon was low compared with some of the results of other
workers who used substituted urea herbicides (Holm and Gilbert,
195a; Hemphill, 195a, 1955). When they sprayed with CMU and
PDU at 2 to 2.5 lbs per acre satisfactory control of both
broad-leaved and grass weeds was obtained. In spite of
Neburon being recommended as a crabgrass herbicide (Carlson,
1956) little control was exhibited. Possibly its low solu-
bility in water (Carlson, 1956) caused uneven coverage and
spotty weed kill.

TCB showed good control of broad-leaved weeds after one
month (Table VI), but was unsatisfactory in other respects.
Other reports indicated better control of broad-leaved weeds
than grass weeds (Vengris, 1956; Rogers and Hart, 1955).
Residual activity of TCB in soils two months after spraying
has been observed (Ferrant et al.,'1956) and Table VII indi-
cates small residual effects after an identical time lapse.

As indicated, 2,h,5-T "Prop" gave complete weed control

on all plots for at least ten weeks (Tables VI, VII, VIII and

h2

IX). Combining the 2,u,5-T radical and its effectiveness
against broad-leaved weeds (Phillips, 19h?) and the 2,2-
dichloropropionic acid radical and its effectiveness against
grass weeds (Swezey, 1955) evidently produced good synergism.
Earlier trials snowed that one application of 2,h,5-T “frop"
gave good control of weed growth for one growing season in

areas of moderate rainfall (Swezey, 1956).

h3

TABLE I
TOXICITY OF HERBICIDES TO NEWLY PLANTED SHRUBS

(5 weeks after treatment)

 

 

 

Shrub imlde Triazine Neburon TCB §§33g3T Untreated
Juniper 1.62 1.10 1.19 3.81 3.72 1.00
Yaw lob? 1057 lob-3 3091 2081 1e00
Privet 1019 30m 101“. 3086 3e76 leOO
Honeysuckle 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 3.00 1.00
Splraea 1000 1e09 1000 1052 hell.) leOO
Overall
Average 1.31 1.58 1.17 2.84 3.h9 1.00

 

Ratings based on average of three replications of seven

plants.
Rating scale: 1 - no injury; 5 - death

LSD at 5% = .975
1% - 1.3M

TABLE 11
TOXICITY or HERBICIDES TO NEWLY PLANTED saaues

(10 weeks after treatments)

mm

 

 

Shrub iiiég Triazine Neburon TCB Efifisg;T Untreated
Juniper 2.05 2.03 1.98 3.67 b.23 1.81
Yew 1.09 1.28 1.28 3.95 3.62 1.09
Privet 1.33 2.78 102h 3.95 3.88 1.57
Honeysuckle 1.33 1.1h 1.23 1.81 3.57 1.00
Spiraea 1.19 1.38 1.62 1.76 3.95 1.19
Overall
Average 1.80 1072 10,47 3e03 3072 1033

 

Ratings based on average of three replications of seven

plants.

Rating scale: 1 - no injury; 5 - death
LSD at 5% . .752

Injury Ratings

Injury Ratings

Iniurv Ratings

Injury Ratings

#5

Injury to Shrubs Five Weeks After Treatments

 

2.4-0 Amide

Triazine

 

 

Neburon

 

 

 

 

 

Injury to Shrubs Ten Weeks

 

 

 

Untreated

 

 

 

After Treatments

 

2,4-D Amide

 

Triazine

 

Neburon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Untreated

 

 

Injury Rofings

IIIIIIIIIJIII Juniper - Privet :) Spiraea I. No Injury
W Y" W Homywcm .............. AVON!” 5. mam

Injury

46

TABLE III

TOXICITY OF HERBICIDES TO NEWLY PLANTED GROUND COVERS

(uh days after treatments)

 

 

 

- 2:“ 5‘T
plant imgd: Triazine Neburon TCB "Prgpn Untreated
Vinca 1e22 1000 1.06 11.00 3022 1.0
Ivy h.00 3.67 2.61 2.50 h.78 1.0

 

Rating scale: 1 - no injury; 5 - death

TABLE IV

TOXICITY OF HERBICIDES T0 NEWLY PLANTED_GROUND COVERS

(77 days after treatments)

 

 

 

Plant iélag Triazine Neburon TCB géfiégfiT Untreated
Vinca 1.00 1.33 ' 1.00 h.33 n.33 1.0
Ivy h.67 h.00 2.67 3.17 5.00 1.0

 

Rating scale: 1 - no injury; 5 - death

0‘
(I

not
a 0

Weeds Per Eight Square Feet
N

5 5

(I

1+?

Number of Weeds in Ground Covers

 

  

2,4-D Triazine Neburo

  

 
   

 

7///////////////////////////////A
7///////////////////////////////////4

_.
.—
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
.—
~—
.—
.—
—
—
—
—
—
.—
.—

 

..
.. N
. ..

TCB 2,4.5- Untreated

Amide "Prop”
7 Number of Gross Weeds Number of Brood-Isoved Weeds
W 7 w...“ After Trgg'mgnfg WT Weeks After Treatments

—Number of Grass Weeds WNumber of Brood-leaveu Weeds

Injury Ratings
N u ‘- 0.

IO Weeks After Treatments IO Weeks After Treatments

Injury to Ground Covers

 

  

 

 

 

2,4-0 Triazine Neburo TCB 2,4, T
Amide "Prop"

W VInca 44 Days After mvmca 7.3.0”: After

Treatments Treatme

- Ivy 44 Days After mum Ivy 77 Days After

Treatments Treatments
Injury Ratings

I. No Injury
5. Death

as

TABLE V
TOXICITY OF HERBICIDES TO ESTABLISHED SHRUBS

(66 days after treatment of five plants)

 

 

 

2 h S-T .
2 -D Triazine Neburon TCB ’ ’

Shrub Amgde "Prop" Untreated
Juniper 1.6 1.0 1.0 h.0 3.u 1.0
You 1.6 3.6 1.h h.0 3.8 1.0
Privet 2.6 2.0 1.0 u.o 3.6 1.0
Cotoneaster 1.5 1.0 1.0 u.0 h.0 1.0
Honeysuckle 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 h-0 1.0
Overall
Average 1.7 1.7 1.1 3.u 3.8 1.0

 

Rating scale: 1 - no injury; 5 - death

1+9

530 .n

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:35 39.34.. ......
.......... :2... 02 s
3.32.38 II jl nocMom :25
2:03:23: § W
.2... I m .m.
m n
_ m «M
b.“ In. on. H
.csfi use: A a M
g no 9 0 Is
. . $.16 e N em
n
v lllllllll W —[m
......................... u .. m.
«K
no.5 0 W
32 ofuot... (M.
.354 aim s
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

£55.32... 3
.
2 ”.225 mm 33.3 35.333
. o. ».:_c_

‘l’rlellle

  

Truuee

So

HERBICIDAL INJURY T0 PLANT SPECIES

ii

2. 4- D emlde

Neburo-

REE

Trust-e 1.4-D nude

“0»

TrIIII-e 1.4-9 snide

Trllslee

Tttsllle

Neburon

Neburon

M

1. 4-D elude

1. 4-D lllll‘l

Nah-rel

ma,

Nature-

5&1“.

Trustee

2. 4- Dlmld'e

Duran

”\‘t

  

I. 4. 5 T ”W Users-led
Iumrn & i I /
1.4.5-1‘ ”W , Ilene-led
I
nuvn‘ E % ‘
I
1. 4. 5-1‘ "M's," Ultra-led

\ ‘4. V.

2. 4. 5- 1' ""Prep untested
"" km IT? x
2. 4, 5 1" "'Prep Ultra-led
1. 4. S-T "Prop" Unlreelcd

COTONEASTBR \ Ed

2.4.5T"r0Pp

WEED COUNTS ONE MONTH AFTER TREATMENTS

TABLE VI

(“.0 SQe ft.)

 

 

 

Broad-leaved Grass Weeds Total Weeds

Treatment Weeds per Plot per Plot per Plot
2,1;‘D wide he“. 38o]. 14.205
Triazine 5.9 51.7 57.6
Neburon 11.9 57.1 69.0
TCB 7.5 68.7 76.2
2,h,5-T "Prop" 0 0 0
Untreated 73.8 150.5

22h.3

 

TABLE VII

52

WEED COUNTS TWO MONTHS AFTER TREATMENT

(30 sq. ft.)

 

 

 

 

Broad-leaves Grass Weeds Total Weeds
Treatment Weeds per Plot per Plot per Plot
2911-1) afflido 19e5 28.2 “-7e7
Triazine 5.9 33.1 39.0
Neburon 11.8 51.5 63.3
TCB 33.1 69.2 102.3
2,h,5-T "Prop" 0 O 0
Untreated 85.7 93.5 179.2

LSD 5% - 10.66 LSD 5% - 28.3 LSD 5% . 33.07

1% .

10.18 1% - 39.0

1% ' hS-SS

53

Number of Weeds in Shrubs One Month After Treatments

 

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§

Untreated

  

2,4, 5-T
e PTO pus

 

 

TCB

§§

    

.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.

Ne buon

  

V\\\\\\\\\\\\\§

Tr

4-0
AmIde

  

2

 

V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
”mm

m I .. n w a. w w
:0“. 22:5 :3... .8 3:3

Number of Weeds in Shrubs Two Months After Treatments

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N

Untreated-

 

4, 5-T
Prop"

g..-

 

    

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

C‘B

§§§r

eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeee

2.4-D
Amide

 

 

 

m s w m u m n w m n
to... 22.5 at...» 1:. 3..)

Grass Weeds

.
d
e
m
d
e
V
a
h
o
d
a
o
'-
a

 

\. .ki/ .fi‘. ..u...u. «Maggi.

5h

WEED CONTROL IN JUNIPERS SIXTY-FIVE DAY 8 AFTER TREATMENTS
my -."H'-‘1:"éi'.".§:.£
. . o.- “a: .

     

 

2.4,5-T"Pr0p" Untreated

._flr

141* huh-W:

mu.“ ”misty... ...

\t

Edi!

55

WEE) CONTROL IN PRIVETS SIXTY-FIVE DAYS AFTER TREATMENTS

1 .- ~or4‘ .

I. '1' \. .1 ~ .5:- .‘ ' .. " '. he '- '. . " l‘
-:. ' - '. ‘ . ELK—2‘1 _ x3 .." ‘ , '

    
 
 

r o J"; -
A" {Ur-3“". ,

"

 

2,4,5-T"Prop" Untreated

56

TABLE VIII
WEED COUNTS 7 WEEKS AFTER TREATMENT OF GROUND COVERS

 

 

 

 

(8 sq. ft.)
Broad-leaved Grass Weeds Total Needs
Treatment Weeds per Plot per Plot per Plot
2,L|.-D 8.me 1.8 18e5 20e3
Triazine 1. 27.5 28.5
Neburon ‘ 9.5 29.3 38.8
TCB 10.5 31.3 h1.8
2,h,5-T "Prop" 0 0 0
Untreated 19.5 3ho5 5h.0
LSD 5% e 7.07 LSD 5% = 10.37 LSD 5% = 1n.19
1%-- 9.79 1% . 19.90 1% . 19.65
TABLE IX

WEED COUNTS 10 WEEKS AFTER TREATMENT OF GROUND COVERS

 

 

 

(8 sq. ft.)
Broad-leaved Grass Weeds Total Weeds

Treatment Weeds per Plot per Plot per Plot
2,h-D amide 6.2 18.6 2h.8
Triazine ,2. 20.8 22.8
Neburon 6.8 19.0 25.8
TCB _ 10.8 26.6 37-h
2,h,5-T ”Prop" 0 O 0

Untreated 21e8 25.2 LL? .0

 

LSD 5% = 7.06 LSD 5% . g.

03 LSD 5% = 12.81
1% - 9.67 1% = 1 .98

1% - 17.51

57

TABLE X

AVERAGE AMOUNT OF GROWTH OF FOUR LONGEST SHOOTS
FROM FIVE ESTABLISHED PLANTS

 

 

Shrub ZIN'D Triazine

 

Amide Neburon TCB FEES§FT Untreated
cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. cm.'
Yew 17.88 1h.63 20.35 9.20 17.87 25.38
Juniper 28.2h 31.90 29.58 23.93 26.75 31.69
Privet 113.33 65.13 88.95 71.63 72.61 93.73

 

TABLE XI
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF GROWTH OF THREE LONGEST SHOOTS

FROM NINE NEWLY PLANTED PLANTS

2 h-D 2.8.5-T
Shrub Aéide Triazine Neburon TCB "Prop” Untreated

 

cm. CMJ cm. cm. CMe CMe
Yew 7.21 7.13 8.78 6.88 5.91 8.70
332:1; 59.76 57.67 53.33 61.67 61.17 62.26
Privet h2.09 h1.00 h1.67 38.2h 25.28 h2.35

 

58

SUMMARY

Five of the newer herbicides were applied non-directionally
to established field grown plants of Pfitzer Juniper (Juniperug
chinensis pfiitzeriana); Japanese Yew (Tagug cuspidatg);
Spreading Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster divarioata); Amur Privet
(Ligustrum amurense); and Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera
tatarica) on June 20. The same herbicides were applied non-
directionally to newly planted plots of Myrtle (Vinca minor)
and Baltic Ivy (Hedera £3115 baltica) on July 12 and to newly
planted blocks of Pfitzer Juniper (Juniperus chinensis
pfitzeriana); Japanese Yew (2253; cgspidata); Spiraea (§Eigggg
bumalda cv. Anthony Waterer); Amur Privet (Ligustrum amurensg);
and Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) on July 21. For
the newly planted shrubs and ground covers a randomized block
arrangement was utilized with three replications per herbicide.
The established shrubs were growing in Miami loam soil and the
newly transplanted shrubs and ground covers were growing in
Hillsdale sandy loam soil.

The areas were clean cultivated immediately before
treatments. Equipment used was a hand sprayer with T-Jet
nozzles No. 6503 and 2-and h-foot booms. The boom was held
one foot above the ground using 30 lbs pressure and a volume

of 65 gal per acre.

59

The following treatments were applied:

a) 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic amide (2,h-D amide) at
the rate of 2 lbs per acre;

b) 2-chloro-h, 6-bis (diethylamino)-z-triazine (Tri-
azine) at the rate of 8 lbs per acre;

c) 1-n-butyl-3-(3,h-dichloropheny1)-1-methyl urea
(Neburon) at the rate of 2 lbs per acre;

d) trichlorobenzoic acid (TCB) at the rate of 2 lbs
per acre;

e) 2-(2,h,5-trichlorophenoxy)-ethyl 2,2—dichloropro-
pionate (2,h,5-T "Prep") at the rate of 20 gallons per acre;

f) no tredtment.

All of the plants exhibited epinasty from sprays of
2,h-D amide with Junipers and Yews also showing slight chloro-
sis. All or the plants except Ivy showed complete recovery
within one to three months. Most of the Ivy plants were dead
after 11 weeks.

Triazine caused moderate to severe chlorosis on Yew,
Privet, and Ivy within three weeks. Slight chlorosis was ex-
hibited by Honeysuckle, Cotoneaster, and Spiraea with Juniper
and Vinca being uninjured. Ivy remained in poor condition
after 11 weeks, but the other plants showed partial or complete
recovery by then.

No toxicity to plants from Neburon was evident except

for slight chlorosis on Ivy and Yew.

6O

TCB showed immediate damage to all plants with injury
being concentrated in the growing tips of the plants. Juniper,
Yew, Privet, Cotoneaster, and Vinca all showed severe epinasty
of leaves, tip dieback, and either chlorosis or necrosis of
leaves. Honeysuckle, Spiraea,and Ivy exhibited slight chloro-
sis or necrosis of leaves from the spray. Only established
Honeysuckle showed complete recovery after three months.

Overall toxicity to plants was greatest from 2,h,5-T
"Prop”. Severe localized browning of foliage on all plants
was observed within three weeks of treatments. Within five
weeks general browning and chlorosis of leaves was noticed
on all plants. Eleven weeks after the treatments all of the
Ivy plants were dead, with some fatalities also observed in
other species. Some late season recovery was exhibited by
established plants of Juniper, Yew, and Cotoneaster.

Grass weed population consisted mainly of large crab-

grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), small crabgrass (Digitaria

 

 

ischaemum), stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis), and tickle

 

 

grass (Panicum capillare). Broad-leaved weed population con-

 

sisted mainly of prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus graecizans),
rough pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), lamb's-quarters

(Chenopodium album), prostrate spurge (Euphorbia supine),

 

sandwort (Arenaria serpyllifolia), purslane (Portulaca
oleracea), shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), and

dandelion (Taragacum officinale).

61

Best overall weed control was exhibited by 2,u,5-T
"Prop", followed by 2,h-D amide, Triazine, Neburon, and TCB.

Complete freedom.from weeds was observed on plots
sprayed with 2,u,S-T ”Prop" at least 10 weeks after treat-
ments.

2,h-D amide gave approximately 80 percent weed control
one month after treatments with excellent broad—leaved weed
control and fair grass weed control. Observations two months
after treatments showed some regrowth of broad-leaved weeds
and abundant grass populations.

Triazine gave approximately 75 percent weed control one
month after treatments with excellent broad-leaved weed con-
trol and fair grass weed control. Observations two months
after treatments showed continued excellent broad-leaved weed
control and some reduction in the grass weed population.

Neburon gave approximately 70 percent weed control one
month after treatments with good broad-leaved weed control
and fair grass weed control. Observations two months after
treatments showed good broad-leaved weed control and poor
grass weed control.

TCB gave approximately 66 percent weed control one month
after treatments with good broad-leaved weed control and poor
grass weed control. ‘Observations two months after treatments

showed poor control of both broad-leaved and grass weeds.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alban, E. K. 1950. New developments in chemical weed control
fruits and ornaments. Proc. North Central Weed Control
Conf- , 6h’660

Anonymous. 1956. Emid. Amer. Chem. Paint 00. Information
Sheet.

Anonymous. No year. Geigy huh. Geigy Agricultural Chemicals.
BT'B.

Anonymous. 1956. Geigy huh, an experimental pre-emergence
and post-emergence herbicide. Herb. Tech. Bull. No. 56-1.
Geigy Agr. Chem. Res. Lab.

Anonymous. 195k. Losses in agriculture. Agr. Res. Service.
USDA. 88,161.

Ball, w. E. and o. 0. French. 1935. Sulfuric acid for con-
trol of weeds. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 596.

Barrons, Keith C. 1953. Dalapon as a grass controlling
herbicide. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf.

57-580

Barrons, Keith C. and Buford H. Grigsby. l9h5. The control
of weeds in canning peas with chemical sprays. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull. 28(2):lh5-156.

Beatty, Robert H. and Franklin D. Jones. 19h5. Effect of
Weedone on nursery stock. Amer. Nurseryman 82(11):9-10.

Behrens, Richard. 1953. Amino triazole. Proc. North Central
Weed Control Conf., 61.

Bolley, H. L. 1908. Need destruction or control by means
of chemical sprays. North.Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.

80 : 5’41-573 0

Bryant, L. R. and L. H. Rasmussen. 1951. The use of 2,h-D
in orchard bindweed control. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 58:131-135-

Bryant, L. R., C. L. Vincent, and E. G. Schafer. l9h9. Bind-
weed control studies with 2,h-D in a bearing non-irrigated

orcha d n stern Hashin ton. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
391. £93é3-zge g

63

Buchholtz, K. P. 1951. The use of chloro IPC as an herbicide.
Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 105.

Carlson, A. E. 1956. Substituted urea herbicides. DuPont
Agr. News Letter 2h(3):h9-53.

Carlson, R. F. 19h9. Control of weeds in strawberry plantings
by the use of 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Proc.
mere SOCe Horte SCie #93221-223e

Carlson, R. F. 1953. Control of winter annual weeds in
apple rootstock with 3-CIPC. Proc. Northeastern Weed

Control Conf. 1&7-1h9.

Carlson, R. F. 1955. Grass control in red raspberries. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull. 37:3h9-353.

Carlson, R. F. and J. E. Moulton. 19h9. Chickweed control
in strawberries with IPC. Proc. North Central Weed

Control Conf. 77-78.

Carlson, R. F. and J. E. Moulton. 19h9. Control of grasses
in raspberries by fall, spring, and summer applications
of sodium trichloroacetate. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

53:2u1-2u6.

Carlson, R. F., J. E. Moulton and Paul R. Krone. 1951.
Further developments in weed control in gladiolus. Mich.
Agre Exp. Sta. Quart. B1111. 333269-27Lle

Chadwick, L. C. and P. A. Barker. 195k. Chemical weed con-
trol in deciduous and evergreen nurserg stock. Proc.
North Central Weed Control Conf. 86-8 .

Chadwick, L. C. and P. A. Barker. 195k. Chemical weed control
in Taxus. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 8h-86.

Chadwick, L. C. and P. A. Barker. 1955. Tolerance of certain
nursery stock to CMU and SES. Proc. North Central Weed

Control Conf. 52.

Chadwick, L. c., P. A. Barker and H. D. Chambers. 1955.
Chemical weed control in a Taxus nursery. Proc. North
Central Weed Control Conf. 52.

Chappell, W. E. 1956. Control of poison ivy and grass in
apple orchards. Down to Earth 12(1):6-7.

Clifford, E. D. 1952. Use of 2,h-D to control weeds in coni-
fer nurseries. Tree Planters' Notes, 12:6.

61+

Cossitt, F. M. 19h7. Mineral spirits as selective herbicides
of southern pine seedbeds. Southern Lumberman, 175(2201):
203-20 0

Cossitt, F. M. 19h9. The use of petroleum products in weeding
southern pine seedbeds. Proc. Southern Weed Conf. 8-lh.

Coulter, L. L. l95h. Right-of—way brush control. Needs, 1:
21-27.

Crafts, A. S. and H. G. Reiber. April 19uh. Toxicity of
oils to carrots and weeds. Calif. Agr. Col. Mimeo.
Leaflet.

Curtis, 0. F. Jr. 1952. Chemical weed control in nursery
tree rows. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 60:109-116.

Curtis, 0. F. Jr. 1956. Growth of young apple trees weeded
with CMU, Crag, Sesin, MH, or Dalapon. Proc. Northeastern
Weed Control Conf. 297-30h.

Davidson, J. H., L. E. Warren and J. R. Fisher. 1955.
Dalapon in fruit planting. Down to Earth 10(h):22-2h.

Denison, E. L. 195h. Chemical weed control in raspberries.
Res. Report North Central Weed Control Conf. 117.

Denison, E. L. 195k. Chemical weed control in strawberries.
Res. Report North Central Weed Control Conf. 118.

Eliason, E. J. 1950. Oil sprays control weeds in coniferous
nurseries. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf. 261-262.

Ferrant, N. A., M. J. Papai, W. Baran, H. Sweet, and E. R.
Marshall. 1956. Results of field trials with new pre-
emergence herbicides on field corn. Proc. Northeastern
Weed Control Conf. 32-38.

Ferrell, E. K. 195h. Chemical weed control in shelterbelts.
Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 117-118.

Finn, T. P., L. J. King, and A. J. Vlitos. 195k. Crag Herbi-
cide-I (sodium 2-(2,h-dichlorophenoxyethy1 sulfate) for
preventing weeds in flowers, shrubs, and nursery stock.
Proc. Northeastern‘Weed Control Conf. 239-2h9.

Gilgut, C. J. l9h6. Control of weeds in the nursery by
chemical sprays. Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. h36:5h.

65

Hamilton, K. C. and K. P. Buchholtz. 1953. Use of herbicides
in establishing shrubs. Res. Report North Central
Weed Control Conf. 1&8-1h9., '

Hamner, C. L. and H. B. Tukey. 19h6. Herbicidal action of
2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on several shrubs, vines
and trees. Bot. Gaz. 107:379-385.

Hamner, C. L. and H. B. Tukey. 19h5. Selective herbicidal
action of midsummer and fall application of 2,h-D dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid. Bot. Gaz. 106:232-2h5.

Hanley, J. H. and F. F. Weinard. 1935. The chemical eradi-
cation of lawn weeds. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:

Bus-8u9.

Hartley, Carl and Roy G. Pierce. 1917. The control of
damping off of coniferous seedlings. USDA Bull. #53.

Hemphill, D. D. 195A. Chemical weed control in vineyards.
. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 82-83.

Hemphill, D. D. 1955. Weed control around newly transplanted
apple trees. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. h9.

Hewetson, Frank N. 1951. New herbicides for controlling
poison ivy in apple orchards. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 58:125-129.

Holm, LeRoy and Franklin A. Gilbert. 195M. Weed control in
apple and cherrg orchards. Proc. North Central Weed
Control Conf. 3-8h.

Holm, LeRoy G. and Ray Taylorson. 1955. Mixtures of herbi-
cides for nursery weed control. Proc. North Central
Weed Control Conf. 51-52.

Jones, L. R. and W. A. Norton. 1899. Killing weeds with
cgemiggls. Vermont Agr. Exp. Sta. 12th Annual Report.
1 2"]. e -

Krone, Paul and Charles L. Hamner. 19h7. 2,h-D treatment
for the control of weeds in plantings of gladioli.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. h9:370-378.

Kuntz, J. E. 1953. Prolonged effects of CMU on weeds and
trees in forest plantations. Res. Report North Central
Weed Control Conf. 78. ’

66

Kuntz, J. E. and A. J. Riker. 195h. Control of weed and
grass competition in forest plantations. Proc. North
Central Weed Control Conf. 116-117.

Kuntz, J. E. and A. J. Riker. 195k. Weed control in forest
plantings. Res. Report North Central Weed Control Conf.
120-121.

Lachman, William H. 19hh. The use of oil sprays as selective
herbicides for carrots and parsnips. Proc. Amer. Soc.

Hort. Sci. h5zhh5-hh8.

Mahlstede, J. P. 1953. Chemdcal weed control in established
nursery stock. Res. Report North Central Weed Control

Conf. 1h9.

Mahlstede, J. P. 1953. Studies on weed control in conifer
transplant beds. Res. Report North Central Weed Control
Conf. mge

Marth, Paul C. and John W. Mitchell. 19hh. 2,h-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid as a differential herbicide. Bot.
Gaz. 106:22h-232.

McCall, G. L. 1952. CMU; new herbicide. Agr. Chem. 7(5):
(40-112, 127, 1290

McCall, George L. 19MB. Report on results from use of IPC
and TCA. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 175-176.

Mitchell, John W. and Paul C. Marth. 19h6. Effects of 2,h-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on the growth of grass plants.
Bot. Gaz. 107:276-28h.

Niner, G. C. 1951. Control of weeds with Dowfume.MC-2 in
woody stock production at the Albuquerque SCS nursery.
Tree Planters' Notes. h:9-10.

Nutman, P. S., H. G. Thornton and J. H. Quastel. l9h5. In-
hibition of plant growth by 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
and other plant-growth substances. Nature 155zh98-500.

Nylund, R. E. 1950. The use of 2,h-D for the control of
weeds in strawberry plantings. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 55:271-275.

Phillips, W. M. l9h9. Comparative effectiveness of 2,h-D
formulations and 2,h,5-T on a mixed stand of annual
weeds at Hays, Kansas. Res. Report North Central Weed
Control Conf. Sub.

67

Playfair, Lloyd. 1955. 2,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid as a
foliage spray. Res. Report North Central Weed Control

Conf. 16Se

Pridham, A. M. S. 1951. Chemical weed control in the nursery.
Amer. Nurseryman 9h(h):l2.

Pridham, A. M. S. 1953. Control of winter annual weeds in
rows of woody nursery stock by directional spraying with
contact herbicides in late fall. Proc. Northeastern Weed
Control Conf. 293-295.

Pridham, A. M. S. 19h7. Delayed action of 2,h-D on trees,
shrubs and perennials. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 50:

395-397.

Pridham, A. M. S. 19h7. Preplanting sprays to control weeds
in nursery stock. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. R9:

351-35h.

Pridham, A. M. S. l9h7. The effect of 2,h-dichlorOphenoxyacetic
acid applied at the time of seed germination in reducing
stands of annual grasses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

h9=355~358.

Pridham, A. M. S. and B. B. Stangler. 1951. Response of
woody ornamentals to 2,h-D. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.

Sci. 58:313-316e

Robbins, P. W., B. H. Grigsby, and B. R. Churchill. 19h7.
Report on chemical weed control for conifer seedlings
and transplants. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull.

30:237-2ho.

Rogers, B. J. and R. D. Hart. 1955. Pre-emergence applications
of polychlorobenzoio acids and salts for weed control in
corn. Res. Report North Central Weed Control Conf. 101.

Shaulis, Nelson J. 1950. A progress report on the use of
fortified oil emulsions in weeding grapes. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 56:203-209.

Shaw, W. C., F. L. Timmons, W. B. Ennis Jr., D. L. Klingman,
R. J. Aldrich and M. W. Parker. 1956. Suggested guide
for chemdcal cOntrol of weeds. Agr. Res. Service USDA
NO. 22-230 190

Steven, H. M. 1932. Weeds in forest nurseries. Forestry
6 : 175-181 0

68

Stoeckeler, J. H., E. I. Roe and R. O. Sowash. 1951. Allyl '
alcohol for weed control in forest nurseries. Tree
Planters' Notes. 7:10-12.

Sweet, R. D., R. Kunkel and G. J. Raleigh. l9hh. Oil sprays
for the control of weeds in carrots and other vegetables.

Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. h5:th-hhhe

Swezey, A. W. 1956. Baron, a new residual herbicide. Down
to Earth 12(1):15-16.

Swezey, A. W. 1955. Baron presents low drift hazard. Down
to Earth 11(3):lO-11.

Swezey, A. W. and J. R. Fisher. 1955. The control of annual
grasses in California cotton with Dalapon. Down to Earth

11(1):2-5.

Tafuro, A. J., R. H. Beatty and R. T. Guest. 1955. Progress
report of crop tolerance period following various rates
of Amizol on Ewingsville soil. Proc. Northeastern Weed
contrOI Confe 31-390

Templeman, W. G. and W. A. Sexton. 19h5. Effect of some
arylcarbamic esters and related compounds upon cereals
and other plant species. Nature 156:630.

Ticknor, R. L. and P. F. Bobula. 1955. Some results with
pre-emergence applications of several herbicides around
rhododendrons and Taxus. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control
Conf. 211-215.

Tukey, H. B., C. L. Hamner and Barbara Imhofe. 1946. Histo-
logical changes in bindweed and sow thistle following
applications of 2,h-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in herbi-
cidal concentrations. Bot. Gaz. 107:62-73.

Vengris, Jonas. 1956. Weed control in field corn. Proc.
Northeastern Weed Control Conf. 27-31.

Wahlenberg, W. G. 1930. Investigations in weed control by
zinc sulfate and other chemicals at the Savenac forestry
nursery. USDA Tech. Bull. 156.

Wellman, R. H. 1951. Herbicidal properties of sodium, 2,h-
dichlorophenoxyethyl sulfate. Proc. North Central Weed
Control Conf. 103.

69

Westgate, W. A. and R. N. Raynor. 19h0. A new selective
spray for the control of certain weeds. Cal. Agr. Exp.
Stae B1111. 6311:1-36.

Wolf, Dale E. 1951. CMU - A new herbicide. Proc. North
Central Weed Control Conf. 10h.

Zimmerman, P. W. and A. E. Hitchcock. .1951. Growth-
regulating effects of chlorosubstituted derivatives of
benzoic acid. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 16:209-213.

Zimmerman, P. W. and A. E. Hitchcock. l9h2. Substituted
phenoxy and benzoic acid growth substances and the rela-
tion of structure to physiological activity. Contrib.
Boyce Thompson Inst. 12:321-3h3.

 

  
   
    

l ”Rt:

he

R8851 USE OE‘ELY ; Date

 

Demco-293

 

MICIITIIIWINNHSIT‘ WNW “WW I) IHIIIIBHWITI' ES
3 1193 03058 0397