الفهرس 
Materials and mithodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 93 |  |  |
| | | from | 93 | | |
Abstract
- 70-
1’wofield experiments were carried out at the
Reaearch and Exper1mental Station, houl ty ot .Agriculture
at Moshtohor. Xa1ubia Governorate, during 1981 and 1982
se880M to study the eff’ect ot some herbicides and its
methods ot applioation on weed oontrol in ootton.
!he soil of’ the experiments was ail t clay containing
l.~ organic matter, with pH value ot 7.9.
This study included 36 treatments which were the combination
of 3 application methods of herblo1des and 12
treatments of weed control. The treatme nt s were I
1. IDcorporat iOD
2. Spraying pre-plantiJ28 (befor. false irrigation).
3. Sprq1ng pre-planting (after false irrigation).
B. .W-e-e~d--c-o-n-tr~ol --tr~ea~tm~eDt-8-s---
1. Cottinll •• 1:tl at 1.25 q. Ca;1.)lt84. (2.75 Ib/fad.).
2. tret1an at 1.00 lb. Ca.1.)/fad.
3. Stomp at 0.83 q. Ca.1.) I fad.
4. !oIIIllon at 0.65 q. Ca.1. )/tad. (1.43 lb./tad.):.
5. st~p at 0.66 lb. Ca.l.) + Cotoran IIIU1ti at 0.50
q. (a.1. )/fad. (1.1 Ib./fad).
6. ~.t1an at 1.0 Ib Ca.l.) + Cotoran mu1tJ. at 0.50 kg.
(a.~.)/~ad. (1.1 1bl ~ad.).
---~._----~--------------------------
- 71 -
7. Cotoran m 1t1 at 1.25 kg. (a.1.)1 fad. (2.75
Ib./fad.) + ODe hoeing (the second hoeing at
35 days from sowing).
8. ~ef1an 1.00 lb. (a.1.)/fad. + one hoe1ng
(the second hoe1ng at 35 daYs from sowing).
9. stomp 0.83 lb. (a.1.)/fad. + one hoeing (the second
hoeing at 35 days f’.rom sowing).
10. Tamilon 0.65 kg. (a.1.)/fad. (1.43 lb. /tad.) +
one boeing (the second hoeing at 35 dqs trom sowing).
11. Hoeing 3 times carried out at 20, 35 and 50 days
from sowing.
12. Unweededtreatment.
~he experiment was 1a1d out in a split plot design.
The three application methode ot weed control .•ere arranged
at random in the main plots and the sub-plots were assigned
for the .•eed control treatments.
cotton seeds (GossniUIR barbadense L.) variety Giza
75 were sown UQlng double 1rrlgat10naethod on March 28 and
30 in 1981 aDd 1982 seasoDS. resp8ctlve17. !lhe spzoayvolume
W88 200 11ters/fed. Result. oould be 8UJWar1se4as followsl
A. !!!!c~ ot._mic.tioD •• thodst-
1. .elther fresh nor 4rI weight of weed8 were s1gn1f1-
cant1l -affected b7 application methods of weed control. The
iih1rd method showed :ln8:lga1.ftcan1: reduced in fresh and dry
- 72 -
weight ot weeds compared with the other two mehtods.
2. ~he applicatio.n mehtods of the herbicides did not
exert any significant affect on the growth characters ot
cotton plants. i.e., germination % ot cotton seeds, plant
height, llUDlberof leaves/plant and dry weightl plant.
3. Number of fruiting branches/plant t number of bolls/
plant t number of’ epemng bolls/plant, weight ot 10o-seed
as well as seed cotton yield/tad. were not significantly
affected by the application mehtods of weed control.
4. Application methods ot weed coJitrol bad no significant
eftect on fiber propert i8s ot cot ton, D8Dlely,lint% I
tiber stre~h and f1ber fineness.
B. Effect of weed control treatmentsl- ---~--------------_.--------~---
1. Most herbicide’” treatments as well as hoeing, were
effecti ve ill decreasiDg tbe tr •• h and dr7 weigbt of weeds
as compared to uu.eeded treaaent. llixture of herbicides
treatments gave t he best weed control.
2~ J.lI weed control treatments 1Jlcreased s1gn1ficant17
some growth charaCters ot cotton plant. DaDlal;r. plant heigb.t I
JlWDber ot leaves/plant and clr7 we1gbt/plaJJt at different stages
of growth. Onthe othar haDd. there· ••• .DO relevance
between weed control tr.a~eD8 aDd se~iDatioDS ot cotton
seeds.
J. ”be of tru’tiDg braDohes/ plant. ..ber of bolls/
plant 88 well as DlDber of.,.n1Dg bolls/plant were s1gD1tlcantl7
affected by weed control treatments.
- 73 ..•
4. All weed control treatment increased significantly
the seed cotton yield compared with the unweeded treatment.
The highest seed cotton yield obtained by hoeing treatment
followed by tomilon + hoeing, trefaln alone, stomp + hoeing
and tretaln + cotoran. The increases by these treatments
amounted to 62, 52, 48. 47 and 4~ of the unweeded one, respectivel7.
On the other hand, there 1s DQ signUioant 41-
t:terence amongthe mean values of weed control treatments
with regard to seed index as compared with unweeded treatment.
5. There 1s no significant difference between the
mean values of weed control treatments and umreeded one
with regard to lint % and fiber strength. On the other hand,
weed control treatment had significant etfect en fineness of
fibers. Hoeing and stClllP + hoelD8 treatmeJl’ts gave the finest
fibers, whereas the UJlWee4” treatment a.od cotoraa alone
gave coarse fiber C<DpariDg with ather treatments.
c. !~!!!!_g~_!!!!-~!~!i!1!
Growth characters were slga1f1cant17 affected b7
the 1Jlteraction between m.th... ot .pplieatioD. aDd weed
control treatments. Co’tCllraD’” superior when applJ’iDg
spl”Q’lns pre-eaergence (after false irrigat ion) on the other
two methods ot application 1Jl plant height DDDlMr of leavesl
plaa:t ancl dl’J’ weight ot cotto. p1ut. ~et1aD. bact the .-
trend when incroperate4 1Dtothe soU in all case. ao4 at
differeD ,.rioa. at cotton grGWth.