The Botanical Review

, Volume 2, Issue 10, pp 498–527 | Cite as

The present status of seed treatment, with special reference to cereals

  • R. W. Leukel


Botanical Review Seed Treatment Cuprous Oxide Loose Smut Flag Smut 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Alexander, L. J., Young, H. C., andKiger, C. M. The causes and control of damping-off of tomato seedlings. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 496: 38 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, Dean A., andWalker, R. H. Residual effects of some germicides used in sterilizing legume seeds. Iowa Acad. Sci. Proc.38: 321–325. 1931.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arndt, C. H. A résumé of cotton seed treatments in South Carolina. Phytopath. (Abstract)25: 970. 1935.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, K. E. Das Wichtigste zur Herbstbeizung. Deut. Landw. Presse.42: 437–438. 1935.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    —. Das Wichtigste zur Herbstbeizung. Deut. Landw. Presse.41: 421–422. 1934.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolley, H. L. New studies upon the smuts of wheat, oats, and barley, with a résumé of the treatment experiments for the last three years. N. D. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.27: 109–164. 1897.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brentzel, W. E. Seed treatments. Seed disinfectants for wheat, oats, barley, emmer and millet diseases. N. D. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 56: 16 pp. 1935.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, J. G., andStreets, R. B. Diseases of field crops in Arizona. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 148: 228 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buckholtz, Walter F. Seed treatment as a control for damping-off of alfalfa and other legumes. Phytopath. (Abstract)26: 88. 1936.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burnett, L. C., andReddy, C. S. Seed treatment and date of sowing experiments with six varieties of flax. Phytopath.21: 985–989. 1931.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clayton, E. E. Increasing stands from vegetable seeds by seed treatment. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 554: 16 pp. 1928.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    -. Vegetable seed treatment with special reference to the use of hot water and organic mercurials. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 183: 43 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conners, I. L. Smut experiments. Rep. Canada Exp. Farms1927 (Rep. Dom. Bot.): 91–97. 1928.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook, H. T. andCallenbach, T. A. Spinach seed treatment. Bull. Va. Truck Exp. Sta.87: 1213–1233. 1935.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    —, andCallenbach, J. A. Comparison of the effectiveness of seed-treatment materials for the prevention of seed and seedling decays in eastern Virginia. Phytopath. (Abstract)26: 90. 1936.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coulson, J. G. Some notes on seed treatments. Ann. Rep. Quebec Soc. Prot. Plants21(1928/29): 17–27. 1929.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crosby, C. R., andChupp, C. The control of diseases and insects affecting vegetable crops on Long Island. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Bull. 278: 87 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darnell-Smith, G. P. The use of copper carbonate as a fungicide. Agr. Gaz. N. S. Wales26: 242–243. 1915.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    —. The prevention of smut. Agr. Gaz. N. S. Wales28: 185–189. 1917.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawson, G. T. Seed-borne flag smut infection effectively controlled by copper carbonate treatment. Agr. Gaz. N. S. Wales45: 431–432. 1934.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Finnell, H. H. Improving stands of grain sorghum by seed treatment. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 159: 15 pp. 1926.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    —. Control of common sorghum diseases. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Panhandle Bull.5: 10–12. 1929.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flor, H. H. Flax seed-treatment tests. Phytopath.26: 429–538. 1936.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    —,Gaines, E. F., andSmith, W. K. The effect of bunt on yield of wheat. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.24: 778–784. 1932.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Friedrichs, G. Untersuchungen über Trockenbeizung. I. Einwirkung von Trockenbeiz mittein auf Eisengeräte. Pflanzenbau4: 145–149. 1927.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fromme, F. D., andWingard, S. A. Blackfire or angular leaf spot of tobacco. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 25: 43 pp. 1922.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gage, George Raymond. Studies of the life history ofUstilago avenae (Pers.) Jensen and ofUstilago levis (Kell. and Swing.). Magn. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Mem. 109: 35 pp. 1927.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gassner, G. Die Verwendung von Quecksilberbeizmitteln in der wiederholten Tauchbeize Kettenbeize. Ztschr. Pflanzenkrankh.35: 1–15. 1925.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    —, andKirchhoff, H. Versuche zur Bekämpfung des Gerstenflugbrandes. Phytopath. Ztschr.7: 303–314. 1934.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    —, andKirchhoff, H. Versuche zur Bekämpfung des Weizenflugbrandes mittels Benetzungsbeize. Phytopath. Ztschr.7: 271–284. 1934.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    —, andRabien, H. Untersuchungen über die Bedeutung von Beiztemperatur und Beizdauer für die Wirkung verschiedener Beizmittel. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst. Land u. Forstw.14: 367–410. 1926.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Geuther, Th. Ueber die Einwirkung von Formaldehydlösungen auf Getreidebrand. Ber. Pharm. Gesell. Jahrg.5, Heft 12: 325–329. 1895.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gilbert, W. W., andPopenoe, C. H. Diseases and insects of garden vegetables. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers’ Bull. 1371: 46 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Güssow, H. T., andConners, I. L. Studies in cereal diseases and their control. I. Smut diseases of cultivated plants and their control. Canada Dept. Agr. Bull. 81: n. s. 79 pp. 1927.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanna, W. F. andPopp, W. Experiments on the control of cereal smuts by seed treatment. Sci. Agr.15: 745–753. 1935.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    —, andPopp, W. Experiments on the control of loose smut of wheat by seed treatment. Proc. World’s Grain Exh. and Conf. Regina, Canada, 1933,2: 243–248. 1935.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haskell, R. J. The spray method of applying concentrated formaldehyde solution in the control of oat smut. Phytopath.7: 381–383. 1917.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haskell, R. J., Leukel, R. W., andBoerner, E. G. Stinking smut (bunt) in wheat and how to prevent it. U. S. Dept. Agr. Circ. 182:20 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henry, A. W. Root-rots of wheat. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 22: 71 pp. 1924.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    -. Diseases of small grain crops. Alberta Univ. Bul. 18: 78 pp. 1928.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    -. Relative value of chemical dusts and formaldehyde for the treatment of seed grain. Alberta Univ. Ext. Leaflet 13: 2 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hewlett, C. H., andHewlett, J. H. Hot-water treatment of seed of barley and wheat. New Zeal. Jour. Agr.49: 37–41. 1934.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holbert, J. R., andKoehler, B. Results of seed treatment experiments with yellow dent corn. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull.260: 1–64. 1931.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    -,Reddy, C. S., andKoehler, B. Chemical-dust seed treatments for dent corn. U. S. Dept. Agric. Circ. 34: 6 p. 1928.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horsfall, J. G. A study of meadow-crop diseases in New York. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Mem. 130: 139 pp. 1930.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    -. Zinc oxide as a seed and soil treatment for damping-off. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 650: 25 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    -,Newhall, A. G., andGuterman, C. E. F. Dusting miscellaneous seeds with red copper oxide to combat damping-off. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 643: 39 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hubbard, V. C., andStanton, T. R. Influence of smut infection on plant vigor and other characters in smut-resistant oat varieties. Jour. Agr. Res.49: 903–908. 1935.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hurd, A. M. Injury to seed wheat resulting from drying after disinfection with formaldehyde. Jour. Agr. Res.20: 209–244. 1920.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hurst, W. M., Fulton, F. D., Humphries, W. R., andLeukel, R. W. Equipment for applying dust fungicides to seed grain. U. S. Dept. Agr. Circ. (In press.)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jensen, Jens Ludwig. The propagation and prevention of smut in oats and barley. Jour. Roy. Agr. Soc. England S. 2,24: 397–415. 1888.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Johnson, A. G., Haskell, R. J., andLeukel, R. W. Treat seed grain. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 219:4 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Johnson, J. Tobacco diseases and their control. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bull. 1256: 56 pp. 1924.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    -. Experiments on the control of wildfire of tobacco. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 62: 35 pp. 1925.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Johnston, C. O., andMelchers, L. E. Control of sorghum kernel smut and the effect of seed treatments on vitality of sorghum seed. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull.22: 1–37. 1928.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jones, G. H. Control of barley diseases. I. Closed smut. Bull. Tech. and Sci. Serv. Min. Agr. Egypt 142: 19 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jordan, E. Zur Gemüsesamenbeizung. Obst.-u. Gemüsebau.80: 54–55. 1934.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kiesselbach, T. A. Field experiments with seed corn treatments and crop stimulants. Nebr. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 218: 15 pp. 1927.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    — Field tests with treated seed corn. Jour. Agr. Res.40: 169–189. 1930.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kirby, R. S. Diseases of small grains. N. Y. (Cornell) Ext. Bull. 157:71 pp. 1927.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Koehler, Benj. Seed treatments for farm crops. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 444: 19 pp. 1936.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    —. Seed treatments for the control of certain diseases of wheat, oats and barley. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.420: 499–575. 1935.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Koehler, B., andHolbert, J. R. Corn diseases in Illinois. Their extent, nature and control. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.354. 164 pp. 1930.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Krause, J. Nachdosierung von quecksilberhaltigen Beizmitteln für Getreide. Ztschr. Angew. Chem.48: 1088–1091. 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kühn, Julius G. Die Anwendung des Kupfervitrioles als Schutzmittel gegen den Steinbrand des Weizens. Bot. Ztg. Jahrg.31: 502–505. 1873.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lang, W. Die Bedeutung der Temperatur beim Beizen. Nachrichtenblatt für den deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienst5: 29–30. 1925.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lee, H. A., andMartin, J. P. The development of more effective dust fungicides by adding oxidizing agents to sulphur. Sci.66: 178. 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Leukel, R. W. Further experiments on the control of bunt of wheat and the smuts of barley and oats. Phytopath.26: 347–351. 1926.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    -. Seed treatment for controlling covered smut of barley. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. 207: 23 pp. 1930.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    -. Further experiments on the control of barley smuts. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull.513. 12 pp.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    —,Dickson, J. G., andJohnson, A. G. Seed treatment experiments for controlling stripe disease of barley. Phytopath.16: 565–576. 1926.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    ———. Experiments with dusts for controlling stripe disease of barley. Phytopath.17: 175–179. 1927.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    -. Effects of certain environmental factors on stripe disease of barley and the control of the disease by seed treatment. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. 341: 39 pp. 1933.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leukel, R. W., andStanton, T. R. Effect of seed treatments on yield of oats. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.26: 851–857. 1934.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Loh, T. C. An improved method for the control of seed-borne diseases of rice. Lingnan Sci. Jour., Canton, China13: 603–605. 1934.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Machacek, J. E., andGreaney, F. J. Studies on the control of root-rot diseases of cereals caused byFusarium culmorum (W. G. Sm.) Sacc. andHelminthosporium sativum P., K., and B. III. Effect of seed treatment on the control of root rot and on the yield of wheat. Sci. Agr.15: 607–620. 1935.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mackie, W. W. Diseases of grain and their control. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 511:87 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    —. Aeroplane dusting with sulfur to combat stem rust of wheat. Phytopath. (Abstract)25: 892–893. 1935.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    -. Prevention of insect attack on small grain. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 282:8 pp. 1925.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    —, andBriggs, F. N. Fungicidal dusts for the control of bunt. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.364: 533–571. 1923.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    McClelland, C. K., andYoung, V. H. Seed-corn treatments in Arkansas. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.24: 189–195. 1934.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Melchers, L. E., andBrunson, A. M. Effect of chemical treatments of seed corn on stand and yield in Kansas. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.26: 909–917. 1934.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    —, andJohnston, C. O. Sulphur and copper carbonate dusts as efficient fungicides for control of sorghum kernel smut and millet smut. Phytopath. (Abstract)17: 52. 1927.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Melhus, I. E., Reddy, C. S., Raleigh, W. P., andBurnett, L. C. Seed treatment for corn diseases. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 108: 16 pp. 1928.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Muncie, J. H. Common diseases of cereals in Michigan. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 142: 54 pp. 1932.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    —, andFrutchey, C. W. Field trials on control of wheat stinking smut by dust fungicides. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull.17: 189–192. 1935.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nattrass, R. M. Diseases of cereals. III. The covered smut of barley. Cyprus Agr. Jour.29: 76–78. 1934.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Neal, David C. Cotton diseases and methods of control. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers Bull. 1745:34 pp. 1935.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Neill, J. C. Seed treatments for wheat, barley and oats. New Zeal. Jour. Agr.49: 43–45. 1934.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    O’Brien, D. G., andDennis, R. W. G. The dry disinfection of oat seed. Highland and Agr. Soc. Scot. Trans. V.46: 91–112. 1934.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Oort, A. J. P. Een nieuwe méthode ter bestrijding van tarwestuifbrand (Ustilago tritici). Tijdschr. Plantenziekten40: 185–197. 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Orton, C. R. Seed-borne parasites. A bibliography. W. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 245:47 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Peterson, P. D. The safe use of sulphur as a fungicide. Proc. Md. State Hort. Soc.37: 60–67. 1935.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Petit, A. Valeur de différents composés cupriques essayés au point de vue de l’action anticryptogamique vis-à-vis de la spore de la carie. Compt. Rend. Acad. Agr. France16: 529–533. 1930.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Pipal, F. J. Hot-water treatment for seed wheat. Purdue Agr. Ext. Bull. 100: 16 pp. 1921.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pittman, H. A., andNewman, L. J. Fungicidal and insecticidal dusts for use in market gardens. Jour. Dept. Agr. West. Aust. II,12: 203–205. 1935.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Plaut, M. Über die Entwicklung von Beizverfahren, über Beizmittel und ihre Anwendung in Saatzuchtbetrieb. Ztschr. f. Züchtung, A,17: 304–340. 1932.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Porter, R. H., andLayton, D. V. Dust treatments for seed corn diseases. Iowa Agr. Col. Ext. Serv. Circ. 221: 12 pp. 1936.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Reinmuth, E. Beiträge zur Frage des Gemüsesamenbeizung und zur laboratoriumsmässigen Prüfung der Beizmittelwirkung bei Gemüsesamen. Angew. Bot.16: 441–504. 1934.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Reddy, C. S.. Effects of seed treatment on disease free and diseased seed corn. Phytopath. (Abstract)26: 105–106. 1936.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    —. Flax seed treatment. Phytopath. (Abstract)26: 106. 1936.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    —, andHolbert, J. R. Further experiments with seed treatments for sweet corn diseases. Jour. Agr. Res.36: 237–247. 1928.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    —,Holbert, J. R., andErwin, A. T. Seed treatments for sweet corn diseases. Jour. Agr. Res.33: 769–779. 1926.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Riehm, E. Prüfung einiger Mittel zur Bekämpfung des Steinbrandes. Mitt. K. Biol. Anst. Land u. Forstw.14: 8–9. 1913.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    —. Prüfung einiger neuerer Beizmittel. Mitt. K. Biol. Anst. Land u. Forstw.15: 7–8. 1914.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    —. Prüfung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in den Jahren 1921/ 22. Mitt. Biol. Reichsanst. Land u. Forstw.24: 1–104. 1923.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Roark, R. C. Insecticides and fungicides. Indus. and Engin. Chem.27: 530–532. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Robinson, Joe L., andBryan, A. A. Iowa corn yield test. Results for 1933. Iowa corn and small grain growers Assoc. Report14: 28. 1934.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Robinson, Joe L. andBryan, A. A. Iowa corn yield test. Results for 1934. Iowa Corn and Small Grain Growers Assoc. Report15: 26–30. 1935.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    —, andRhoades, M. M. The 1935 Iowa corn yield test. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.343: 195–197. 1936.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Sayre, J. D. andThomas, R. C. New dust treatments for oat smuts. Phytopath. (Abstracts)18: 139. 1928.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    —, andThomas, R. C. Formaldehyde and iodine dusts for control of oat smut. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonth. Bull.13: 19–21. 1928.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Schulthess, Heinrich. Vorschlag einiger durch die Erfahrung bewahrter Hilfsmittel gegen den Brand im Korn. Abhandl. Naturf. Gesell. Zurich. Bd.I, 498–506. 1761.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Schwaebel, F. X. Kupferhaltige Trockenbeizen. Ztschr. f. Pflanzenkrank. u. Pflanzenschutz40: 113–117. 1930.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Southern, B. L. Copper bunticides. Jour. Roy. Soc. West. Aust.18: 85–103. 1933.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    —, andLimbourn, E. J. Copper powder for the prevention of bunt in wheat. Jour. Dept. Agr. West. Aust. 2nd Ser.6: 162–165. 1929.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Swanson, A. F., andGetty, R. E. Chemical seed treatments for sorghums. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.22: 472–475. 1930.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tapke, V. F. Single-bath hot-water and steam treatments of seed wheat for the control of loose smut. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bull. 1383: 28 pp. 1926.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    —. Seed treatments with chemical dusts and formaldehyde for smut control in oats. Phytopath.22: 429–441. 1932.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Taubenhaus, J. J. Diseases of grains, sorghums and millets, and their control in Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 261:34 pp. 1920.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    —, andDecker, Phares. Laboratory and field studies on sulfur as a fungicide. Phytopath. (Abstract)25: 35–36. 1935.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Taylor, J. W., andZehner, Marion Griffiths. The effect of a seed disinfectant on grain and straw yields and smut control in winter barley. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.22: 113–123. 1930.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Thomas, R. C., Stover, W. G. andRunnels, H. A. Dust treatments for the control of stinking smut of wheat. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonth. Bull.12: 115–117. 1927.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Tilford, Paul E. Diseases of ornamental plants. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 511: 82 pp. 1932.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Tisdale, W. H. Seedling blight and stack burn of rice and the hotwater seed treatment. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bull. 1116:11 pp. 1922.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    —,Taylor, J. W., Leukel, R. W., andGriffiths, Marion A. New seed disinfectants for che control of bunt of wheat and the smuts of oats and barley. Phytopath.15: 651–676. 1925.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Traaen, A. E., andJørstad, L. Kornavsopningsforsøk med kjemikalier i arene 1930–33. Meld. Statens frøkontroll i År 1932–33. 24 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Twentyman, R. L. Experiments on the control of “sstinking” smut of bunt. II. Tests on the dry copper powders. Jour. Dept. Agr. Victoria29: 235–248. 1931.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Uppal, B. N., andDesai, M. K. The effectiveness of dust fungicides in controlling grain smut of sorghum. Agr. and Live-Stock, India1: 396–413. 1931.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Vanderwalle, R. Contribution à l’étude de la désinfection des céréales par l’eau chaude. I. L’action de la chaleur sur la germination des semences. Bull. Inst. Agron. Stat. Rech. Gembloux4: 3–21. 1935.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Volk, A. Trockenbeizen in Abhängigkeit von Bodenreaktion und Bodenart. Landw. Jahrb.70: 583–592. 1929.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Weston, W. A. R. D., andBooer, J. R. Seed disinfection. I. An outline of an investigation on disinfectant dusts containing mercury. Jour. Agr. Sci.25: 628–649. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Wilson, J. D., andTilford, P. E. The use of formaldehyde dust in growing seedlings. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 520: 40 pp. 1933.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Winkelmann, A. Erprobte Mittel gegen Pilzkrankheiten. Biol. Reichsanst. Land u. Forstw. Flugbl. 74: 11 pp. 1934.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Woodroof, N. C. Treating cotton seed by the dusting method. Ga. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 70: 16 pp. 1931.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Woolman, H. M., andHumphrey, H. B. Summary of literature on bunt, or stinking smut of wheat. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bull. 1210: 44 pp. 1924.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Young, V. H., andMcClelland, C. K. Control of oat smut. Phytopath.23: 825–830. 1933.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Zade, A. Der latente Pilzbefall und seine Folgeerscheinungen mit Bezug auf Sortenimmunität und Beizwirkung. Fortschr. Landw.6: 388–391.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    -. Neue Untersuchungen über den latenten Pilzbefall und seinen Einfluss auf die Kulturpflanzen. Fortschr. Landw. 7: 529–532.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1936

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Leukel
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cereal Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant IndustryUnited States Department of AgricultureUSA

Personalised recommendations