Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T06:09:34.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Crop Toxicity Period of CMU in a Sandy Clay Loam Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. L. Danielson
Get access

Extract

The present report marks the completion of a 24-month study. The early phases have been described in brief in a progress report (3). Data contained in the earlier report are included in the present discussion to make the entire experimental record available as a unit.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1956 , pp. 255 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © 1956 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

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

References

Literature Cited

1. Bucha, H. C., and Todd, C. W. 3–(p–chlorophenyl)–1,1–dimethylurea–a new herbicide. Science 114:493. 1951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Dallyn, S. The effect of soil organic matter levels on several herbicides. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf., pp. 13–20. 1954.Google Scholar
3. Danielson, L. L., and Easley, Lila W. Progress report on the crop toxicity period of CMU in a sandy loam soil. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf., pp. 11–15. 1953.Google Scholar
4. Dolan, D. D. Factors determining the effectiveness of pre-emergence herbicidal treatments. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf., pp. 77–82. 1954.Google Scholar
5. Foy, C. L., Hoyt, J., and Leonard, O. A. Comparative efficiency of CMU and other residual type herbicides applied at lay-by for late season weed control in irrigated cotton. Proc. Southern Weed Conf., pp. 93–96. 1954.Google Scholar
6. Hale, M. C., Chappell, W. E., and Hulcher, F. H. Effect of certain herbicides on the O2 up-take by soil previously enriched with nitrifiers. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf., pp. 23–28. 1954.Google Scholar
7. Hill, G. D. Substituted ureas for pre-emergence weed control in cotton-soil relationships. Proc. Southern Weed Conf., pp. 76–87. 1954.Google Scholar
8. Hill, G. D., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. Journ. 47:93–104. 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Linder, P. J. Movement and persistance of herbicides following their application to the soil surface. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf., pp. 7–11. 1952.Google Scholar
10. Loustalot, A. J., Muzik, T. J., and Cruzada, H. J. Persistance of CMU in soil. Agr. Chem. 8:52. 1953.Google Scholar
11. Ogle, R. E., and Warren, G. F. Fate and activity of herbicides in soils. Weeds. Vol. 3:257–273. 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Report of the research committee of the Southern Weed Conference for 1954. Proc. Southern Weed Conf., pp. 329–336. 1954.Google Scholar
13. Willard, C. J. Review of work with CMU as an herbicide. Proc. North-Central Weed Control Conf., pp. 101–102. 1952.Google Scholar
14. Wolf, D. E. CMU—a new herbicide. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf., pp. 104. 1951.Google Scholar