Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:53:16.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Canada Thistle by Soil Fumigation without Tarpaulins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. G. Ogg Jr.
A. G. Ogg Jr.*
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Irrigated Agr. Res. and Ext. Center, Prosser, WA 99350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three years of field experiments showed that Canada thistle. [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.] could be controlled with deeply injected soil fumigants without covering the soil with a tarpaulin. The degree of control depended on the kind of fumigant, the rate of application, and the depth of injection. Weed control with fumigants usually improved as the rate of application and depth of injection increased. The most effective treatment was 1,3-dichloropropene at 560 kg/ha injected to a depth of 46 cm. Good to excellent control of Canada thistle was also obtained with 1,3-dichloropropene at 280 kg/ha injected either 23 or 46 cm and ethylene dibromide at 160 kg/ha and chloropicrin + ethylene dibromide at 20 + 55 kg/ha injected at 46 cm. Results with ethylene dibromide and chloropicrin + ethylene dibromide were more erratic than with 1,3-dichloropropene. Increasing the percentage of chloropicrin in the combination reduced the control of Canada thistle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 191 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Adamson, R.M. 1956. Control of field bindweed with methyl bromide. Down Earth. 12:12.Google Scholar
2. Altman, Jack and Fitzgerald, B.J. 1960. Late fall application of fumigants for control of sugar beet nematodes, certain soil fungi and weeds. Plant Dis. Rep. 44:868–871.Google Scholar
3. Goring, C.I.A. 1962. Theory and principles of soil fumigation. Advances in pest control research. 5:47–84.Google Scholar
4. Hannesson, H.A., Raynor, R.N., and Crafts, A.S. 1945. Herbicidal use of carbon disulfide. Calif. Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 693. 57 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hodgson, J.M. 1968. The nature, ecology, and control of Canada thistle. U.S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. No. 1386. 32 pp.Google Scholar
6. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1967. Statistical methods. The Iowa State Univ. Press., Ames. 593 pp.Google Scholar
7. Tennant, R.L. 1970. The use of fumigation for noxious weed control. Proc. Wash. State Weed Conf. Yakima, Wash. Pages 29–30.Google Scholar
8. Wilson, J.D. 1968. Soil fumigation. Amer. Potato J. 45:414–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar