Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:49:05.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Factors Affecting the Tolerance of Peas to MCP and Other Growth Regulating Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. P. Buchholtz
K. P. Buchholtz*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Get access

Extract

Peas grown for canning purposes are subject to infestations of weeds even though recommended cropping practices are followed. If weeds are numerous they cause reduced yields of shelled peas and variable maturity. The quality of the pack of peas may also be affected for floral buds and fragments of the weeds are difficult to separate from the shelled peas. Excessive costs for seed peas may result from using high seeding rates in an attempt to control weeds by increasing the competitive ability of the peas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1954 , pp. 331 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © 1954 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. Aberg, E., Hagsand, E., and Vaartnou, H. Hormone derivatives against weeds. V. Field experiments 1946–1947. Vaxtodling 3: 9–64. 1948.Google Scholar
2. Andersen, E. G., and L'Arrivee, J. C. M. Screening tests for post-emergence weed control in peas. Research Report, North Central Weed Control Conference, pp. 123–4. 1953.Google Scholar
3. Birt, F. C. The effect of methoxone on field peas. Proc., Western Canadian Weed Control Conference, p. 41. 1950.Google Scholar
4. Buchholtz, K. P. Response of canning peas to several herbicides applied at 0.25 pounds per acre. Research Report, North Central Weed Control Conference, p. 93. 1949.Google Scholar
5. Buchholtz, K. P. Canning pea yields following treatment with three rates of 2,4–D applied with three quantities of water. Research Report, North Central Weed Control Conference, p. 94. 1949.Google Scholar
6. Buchholtz, K. P. A carbon dioxide powered sprayer for small plots. Agronomy Journal. 42: 614. 1950.Google Scholar
7. Buchholtz, K. P. Control of weeds in canning peas. Proc., North Central Weed Control Conference, pp. 75–76. 1952.Google Scholar
8. Hagsand, E., and Vaartnou, H. Hormone derivatives against weeds. VI. Effect on cultivated plants in the experiments in 1948. Vaxtodling 4: 8–30. 1949.Google Scholar
9. Hellquist, A. H. Spraying technique and the use of chemical weed killers. Vaxtodling 7: 78–94. 1952.Google Scholar
10. Hylmo, A. B. Weed control with high pressure sprayers in canning peas. Vaxtodling 4: 59–64. 1949.Google Scholar
11. L'Arrivee, L. C. M., and Andersen, E. T. Comparative effects of three formulations of MCP or weed control in peas. Research Report, North Central Weed Control Conference, p. 104. 1952.Google Scholar
12. Miller, M. W. Preliminary investigations with dinitro and MCP sprays for weed control in legume seeded peas. Proc., Northeastern Weed Control Conference, pp. 127–134. 1953.Google Scholar
13. Nielsen, H. M. Effect of hormone derivatives on cultivated plants. III. Reaction on various cultivated species to 2,4–D and 4K–2M. Den. Kg. Veterniaer og Landbohojskoles 27: 108–156. 1951.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, M. E. Comparative effects of various weed killers on yield, weed control, and tenderometer values for peas. Proc., Northeastern Weed Control Conference, pp. 133–139. 1952.Google Scholar
15. Sexsmith, J. J. Effect on canning peas of amine 2,4–D and MCP applied at different rates and spray volumes. Research Report, North Central Weed Control Conference, p. 80. 1954.Google Scholar