Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T10:11:47.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Method for Assessing Herbicide Performance in Small Plot Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A.S. Hamill ,
P.B. Marriage  and
G. Friesen
A.S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Harrow, Ontario, NOR 1GO
P.B. Marriage
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Harrow, Ontario, NOR 1GO
G. Friesen
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Harrow, Ontario, NOR 1GO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A method is described that provides an accurate and useful assessment of herbicide performance in small plot experiments. This method is an extension of previous rating systems and provides an assessment of the control of individual species through an estimation of the percentage that each contributes to the total broadleaf or grass weed cover on the whole plot area. It permits data collection on individual weed species but is less time-consuming than counting individual plants and it takes into account the size and vigor of individual weed plants as well as their relative abundance. Further, the system allows tabulation of data from across the entire plot rather than from small areas within the plot. The data can be readily entered into various computerized retrieval systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , September 1977 , pp. 386 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Brown, D. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation. Commonwealth Bur. Pastures and Field Crops Bull. 42. Farnham Royal, Bucks. U.K. 223 pp.Google Scholar
2. Canada Weed Committee, Eastern Section 1974. Research Report 19:1)–110, 228–231.Google Scholar
3. Canada Weed Committee, Eastern Section 1975. Research Report 20:94–101,217–220.Google Scholar
4. Fryer, J.D. 1970. Inter-relations of research, development and educational programmes of private and public agencies in establishing effective weed control programmes. Pages 579–590 in Proc. FAO International Conference on Weed Control, Weed Sci. Soc of America.Google Scholar
5. Hamill, A.S. 1974. Can evaluation techniques be standardized? Minutes of Canada Weed Comm. (East. Sect.) 19:48–49.Google Scholar
6. Klingman, D.L. 1970. Measuring weed density in crops. Pages 3:1.5/1–3.1.5/6 in Crop Loss Assessment Methods, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
7. Rasmussen, L.L. 1956. Evaluation of selective weed control in wheat. Weeds 4:15–21.Google Scholar
8. Shaw, W.C. and Swanson, C.R. 1952. Techniques and equipment used in evaluating chemicals for their herbicidal properties. Weeds 1:352–366.Google Scholar
9. Staniforth, D.W., Lovely, W.G., and Cady, F.B. 1965. Sampling procedures for estimates of weed yields in corn plots. Weeds 13:357–360.Google Scholar
10. Sweet, R.D. 1975. Comments on rating systems in weed science. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:264–268.Google Scholar