This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

The two herbicides currently registered for the control of canarygrass in Arizona work by inhibiting lipid biosynthesis. The levels of control with these herbicides have been variable, ranging from 60 to 90 percent. Crop safety has been good. Two newer herbicides utilizing a different mode of action have provided more consistent and higher levels of weed control but with increased crop injury. These are numbered compounds (MKH6561 and F130060) and they are ALS inhibitors.

No description available.

Purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus is an important weed in cotton (Gossypium spp.) production in Arizona. It is estimated that 15% of the crop acreage is infested. The technology available for selective control of purple nutsedge is not adequate and the infestation level of this weed is increasing. In 1986, the thiocarbamate herbicides, vernolate (Surpass), EPTC (Eptam, Genep) and butylate (Swan +, Genate plus) were evaluated as preplant and postemergence incorporated applications for selective control of purple nutsedge in cotton. There were 25 different trials conducted in Arizona cotton fields. Butylate was more selective to seedling cotton than EPTC and vernolate but all were capable of unacceptable cotton injury. Where preplant irrigations require every furrow irrigation, this concentrated the thiocarbamates in the seed row and resulted in less selectivity. Preplant treatments controlled purple nutsedge for 1 or 2 postemergence irrigations. Postemergence applications were most effective following preplant treatments but were not consistent in controlling nutsedge season -long. This research indicates that purple nutsedge lowered yields only when the cotton was stunted in growth by severe early season infestations. Wherever cotton established dominance over the weeds, yields were not affected. Preplant applications of butylate, if carefully adjusted for the growing conditions, can provide early season control of purple nutsedge.

Research was conducted at Maricopa, AZ with EPTC (S -ethyl dipropyl carbamothioate) and butylate (S-ethyl bis(2-methylpropyl)carbamothioate) in 1986 to identify factors that influence the activity of these two thiocarbamates on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Butylate and eptc were applied alone and in combination with other cotton herbicides as either a preplant incorporated or preharrow treatment. The greatest injury to cotton and poorest weed control resulted when butylate or EPTC was applied alone on flat ground and incorporated to a depth of 2 inches or 4 to 6 inches. Adequate weed control and minimal injury to cotton was observed when these two thiocarbamates were applied pre-harrow.

Field research was conducted at Yuma and Goodyear, AZ on fallowed ground to measure the response of purple nutsedge to butylate and EPTC (Goodyear only). At Yuma, the greatest reduction in the number of live tubers resulted when two years of fallow were combined with annual summer application of 3.3 lb/A of butylate. At Goodyear, butylate and EPTC were more effective at controlling purple nutsedge when applied in early July vs early September. Also, one timely application of EPTC or butylate made in July was more successful in reducing the number of live tubers than two applications (July, Sept). September herbicide treatments were not as effective with an irrigation compared to without.