UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of aldrin, isodrin, dieldrin and endrin on germination, growth and chemical eonstituents of some… Unrau, Abraham Martin 1953

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1953_A4 U6 E3.pdf [ 10.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302611.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302611-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302611-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302611-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302611-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302611-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302611-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302611-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302611.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF ALDRIN, ISODRIN, DIELDRIN AND ENDRIN ON GERMINATION, GROWTH AND CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF SOME HORTICULTURAL CROP PLANTS by Abraham Martin Unrau, B.S.A. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n the Department of Horticulture (Plant Nutrition) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE Members of the Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia October, 1953 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. G. H. H a r r i s , Professor, Department of Horticulture under whose guidance and supervision the work contained i n this thesis was c a r r i e d out. The writer i s also grate-f u l for Interest and encouragement shown by members of the committee, Dr. V. C. Brink, Dr. A. F. Barss, Dr. A. H. Hutchinson and Dr. C. A. Hornby. The writer i s indebted to the J u l i u s Hyman and Co. Denver, Colorado, who supplied the chemicals and most of the recent l i t e r a t u r e on work concerning the i n s e c t i c i d e s used i n experiments described i n this t h e s i s . * •* ABSTRACT S o i l was treated with A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrln respectively and a number of h o r t i c u l t u r a l crop plants planted i n i t and the effects were observed and recorded. Y i e l d increases were obtained with potatoes and carrots under f i e l d conditions, the maximum y i e l d being found at the rate of 6.5 lbs . per acre of each compound used. Growth rates of tomato plants appeared to be s l i g h t l y stimulated by a l l the compounds. With r a d i s h , on the other hand, A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed f o i l i a r growth while D i e l d r i n and Endrin favoured top growth; this was r e f l e c t e d i n top-root r a t i o s . D i e l d r i n and Endrin had a d e f i n i t e stimulatory e f f e c t on germination of radish seeds grown on treated agar. Maximum stimulation was obtained with D i e l d r i n and Endrin at 40-200 p.p.m., with Isodrin at 40 p.p.m. and A l d r i n at 10 p.p.m. S o i l applications of the compounds appeared only s l i g h t l y to stimulate radish seed germination while tomato seeds were unaffected. A general depression of sugar content was noted i n a l l crops with a l l compounds while Vitamin C content of radish was s i g n i f i c a n t l y depressed. A l d r i n "and Isodrin greatly depressed the nitrogen content of radish tops and roots while phosphorus was depressed g r e a t l y i n the f o l i a g e . D i e l d r i n and Endrin increased nitrogen i n radish f o l i a g e and roots and had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the phosphorus content. A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n greatly increased the chlorine content of potatoes but d i d not af f e c t the dry matter content. Endritn and Isodrin had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the chlorine content of carrots. * * * i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Review of l i t e r a t u r e 3 (a) Direct effect of compounds on plants . . 3 (b) I n s e c t i c i d a l effectiveness of compounds 5 (c) Methods of analysis for compounds . . . 8 (d) Toxicological aspects 10 I I . MATERIALS AND METHODS 12 Description of Compounds . . . . . . 12 (a) A l d r i n 12 (b) D i e l d r i n 15 (c) Isodrin 17 (d) Endrin 19 F i e l d experiments . 21 (a) Vitamin A analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 21 (b) Total chlorine analysis 26 (c) Vitamin C analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 27. Experiments with tomatoes 21 Experiments with radishes 29 (a) Germination Z1 (b) Nitrogen and phosphorus determinat-ion -32 1. Ef f e c t of compounds on y i e l d , top growth, top-root r a t i o s , growth rates and germination . . Photographs of germinating radish on p e t r i dishes 2. E f f e c t of compounds on sugar content . . . 3. Ef f e c t of compounds on carotene content . . 4. Ef f e c t of compounds on Vitamin C . . . . . 5. E f f e c t of compounds on dry weights . . . 6. E f f e c t of compounds on ash content • . . . 7. E f f e c t of compounds on nitrogen content . • 8. Ef f e c t of compounds on phosphorus content . 9. Effe c t of compounds on t o t a l chlorine content . . . . . . . . . . IV. DISCUSSION V. CONCLUSIONS VI. SUMMARY LIST OP REFERENCES . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . APPENDIX INDEX . . . APPENDIX TABLES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . * * * EFFECTS OF ALDRIN, ISODRIN, DIELDRIN AND ENDRIN ON GERMINATION, GROWTH AND CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF SOME HORTICULTURAL CROP PLANTS INTRODUCTION The production of large quantities of highest q u a l i t y food i s a major industry. Agriculture i n general has been revolutionized with the advent of modem science. Engineering and physics have designed newer and better machines while from the chemical l a b o r a t o r i e s , come the modern fungicides and i n s e c t i c i d e s . At the present, i t seems hard to v i s u a l i z e the tremendous e f f e c t the development of various organic i n s e c t i c i d e s w i l l have on production of high q u a l i t y food. Since the release of D.D.T. (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane) i n s e c t i c i d e , many other named and unnamed 2 i n s e c t i c i d e s nave been synthesized i n laboratories. These new organic i n s e c t i c i d e s have a much wider range of e f f e c t i v e -ness than the older Inorganic i n s e c t i c i d e s . A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , and the recently named newer isomers of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin respect-i v e l y , are c y c l i c chlorinated organic i n s e c t i c i d e s which are i n many ways more potent i n s e c t i c i d a l l y than D.D.T. or chlordane. The value of A l d r i n and i t s isomer, Isodrin, and D i e l d r i n and i t s isomer, Endrin, as f a r as t h e i r i n s e c t i -c l d a l potency i s concerned has been amply demonstrated. The object of th i s experiment was to investigate the l e s s e r known aspect of these compounds; namely t h e i r effect on the plant, rather than on the insect. To date, very l i t t l e published work exists on the possible effects A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin might have on plants* Attention has been directed mainly to the immed-iate effects of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on h o r t i c u l t u r a l crop plants. Their e f f e c t , i f any, was noted on y i e l d , general top growth, e f f e c t on some chemical constituents, and effect on germination of seeds. 3 Review of L i t e r a t u r e : (a) E f f e c t of chlorinated hydro-carbon i n s e c t i -cides on plants. Probably some of the most recent work i n this f i e l d was conducted by Randall (28). He studied e f f e c t s of c h l o r -dane, (a compound cl o s e l y resembling A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n ) , D.D.T. and Benzene hexachloride on growth and nodulation of Red c l o v e r , T r l f o l i u m protense Linn. Stimulation of germination was noticed at c e r t a i n concentrations. S i g n i -f i c a n t growth and y i e l d differences occurred between i n s e c t i -cide treatments and dosage l e v e l s . Size and d i s t r i b u t i o n of nodule formation was affected by the i n s e c t i c i d e s while the nitrogen and phosphorus l e v e l s i n the f o l i a g e appeared to be unaffected. B i o l o g i c a l assay of the clover plants f a i l e d to show any evidence of translocation of the i n s e c t i c i d e s from roots to f o l i a g e . Effects of chlord^ne at high concentration have been studied by the writer (33). I t was noted that high levels of chlordetae used as a s o i l s t e r i l a n t reduced Vitamin C content and per cent sugars i n r a d i s h . Total chlorine analysis of plant tissue showed a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n bet-ween amount of i n s e c t i c i d e used and amount of chlorine pre-sent i n the plant t i s s u e . 4 Nelson (26) reports that 12 l b s . per acre ap p l i c a t -ions of D i e l d r i n gave onion maggot and smut control and also resulted i n very marked stimulation of growth of onions. No phytotoxic reactions were noticed by Kuitert and Tissot(24) when D i e l d r i n was used to control budworms and hornworms on tobacco while Elmore (13) reports that better stands of lima beans were obtained with D i e l d r i n combined with Arason than with Spergon alone. Growell and Morrison (7) however, report that A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n as well as some other simi-l a r i n s e c t i c i d e s have phytotoxic effects on cucurbits i f the compounds are applied under r e l a t i v e l y moist conditions. Squash v a r i e t i e s belonging to the,species Cucurbita maxima appeared more tolerant of the i n s e c t i c i d e s than other var-i e t i e s . This suggests that d i f f e r e n t plants may react quite d i f f e r e n t l y to these compounds. This has been substantiated by Poster (15) who reports that many d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s were observed when using D i e l d r i n , A l d r i n and other organic i n s e c t i c i d e s i n s o i l with many species of plants. Numerous reports e x i s t on the ef f e c t of some organic Insecticides on flavour. Benzene Hexachloride appears to a f f e c t the flavour more r e a d i l y of more crops than any other organic I n s e c t i c i d e now used. Howe (20) reports off-flavours of squash when Benzene Hexachloride and Lindane were used to control squash vine borer. Gould et a l (18) tested Benzene Hexachloride, chlordane, parathion, 5 D.D.T. and Toxaphene on tomatoes, lima beans, carrots and potatoes and peaches and plums. These were processed accord-ing to accepted commercial practises and a f t e r three months' storage, sampled by a trained taste panel of twelve persons. The potato was the most susceptible to off-flavours imparted by the in s e c t i c i d e s while carrots and lima beans were the le a s t susceptible. These workers concluded that Benzene Hexachloride formulations affected the flavours of a l l f r u i t s and vegetables while chlordane, parathlon, D.D.T,, and Toxaphene may impart o f f - f l a v o u r s to the edible parts of some of the f r u i t s and vegetables. Translocation studies c a r r i e d out at Kansas State College (1) indicate that no A l d r i n residues were present i n potatoes and tomatoes with s o i l applications up to f i v e pounds of actual A l d r i n per acre and with cabbage, onion and sweet corn, even 100 pounds actual A l d r i n per acre gave no residual e f f e c t s . I t should be noted that 100 pounds actual A l d r i n per acre i s 20 to 50 times the amount required f o r economical insect c o n t r o l . (b) The effectiveness of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin against soil-borne i n s e c t s . The l i t e r a t u r e describing the usefulness of the above i n s e c t i c i d e s i n combating various pests i s mainly i n connection with A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n . The newer s t e r i o -isomers, Isodrin and Endrin r e s p e c t i v e l y , are being tested 6 at the present time# The compounds are extremely i n s e c t i c i d a l l y potent. This i s well demonstrated by the f a c t that 6 to 8 ounces of Al d r i n and 3 to 4 ounces of D i e l d r i n per acre w i l l control army worms while from 1 to 3 ounces of A l d r i n or D i e l d r i n give e f f e c t i v e control of grasshoppers. In general, 3 to 10 ounces of A l d r i n or D i e l d r i n per acre w i l l control a large va r i e t y of insects (8) and the same amounts of Isodrin and Endrin appear to be equally e f f e c t i v e f o r insect control (14) (23). Excellent control of turf and s o i l insects has been reported when using 2 to 5 pounds-Aldrin per acre applied to the seed bed and thoroughly mixed with s o i l (2). Very favourable control of s o i l i n s e c t s , such as southern corn root worm and sand wire worm has been obtained using chlordane and other chlorinated hydro-carbon i n s e c t i -cides i n f e r t i l i z e r mixes, Watts (34) reports successful control of insects with f e r t i l i z e r mixes containing the ins e c t i c i d e s A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , chlordane, D.D.T. and B.H.C. Breakey and Gould (5) report highly s a t i s f a c t o r y control of wire worm with D i e l d r i n i n Wedgwood I r i s bulbs. Bulbs were dipped f o r 10 minutes and planted i n v/ire worm Infested s o i l . Another report (21) states that 10 pounds of actual D i e l d r i n gave excellent reduction of wire worm i n 7 potatoes i n one season while i n another test (22) i t gave very promising results f o r control of wire worm and white grubs i n potatoes, Morrison (25) reports that 2 to 4 ounces D i e l d r i n per 100 pounds of sugar beet seed appeared to be of p a r t i -cular value f o r wire worm control and D i e l d r i n seed t r e a t -ment also gave excellent control of seed-corn maggot. The i n s e c t i c i d e compounds appear to have a very d e f i n i t e place i n Insect control i n wheat f i e l d s . A few ounces of chlordane per acre w i l l give s a t i s f a c t o r y control of grasshopper. S i m i l a r l y , F r a n k l i n (17) reports that 4 ounces D i e l d r i n per acre gave 83 per cent control of army cutworm and increased yi e l d s 143 per cent over the control p l o t s . In a similar, experiment,-(16), 1, 2 and 4 ounces D i e l d r i n per acre again gave 50 to 88 per cent control of army cutworm while yields of wheat were increased by 233 per cent over the contro l . Other reports (14) state that favourable results could be discerned i n wheat f i e l d s eight days a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n of 8 ounces actual D i e l d r i n per acre. As mentioned e a r l i e r , the sterioisomers of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n appear to be equally potent i n s e c t i c i d e s . Early tests with Endrin (14), isomer of D i e l d r i n , show excellent control of red-backed, s t r i p e d , dingy and variegated cutworm at as low as 0.07 pounds actual Endrin per acre i n raw tre a t -8 ments or 0.2 pounds i n broadcast treatment. The onion root maggot appears to be completely controlled with the newer organic Insecticides. Hanford and Pinlayson (19) obtained promising results using 1 ounce D i e l d r i n per 100 pounds onion seed. At another l o c a l i t y (17) D i e l d r i n appeared to give the best onion maggot control while S t i t t i n Washington State (30) reports s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s from the use of the above compounds. The compounds appear to be useful not only f o r control of a large v a r i e t y of s o i l insects but also for l e a f hoppers, beetles, ants, earwigs and other insects which attack f o l i a g e . (c) Methods of Analysis A complete de s c r i p t i o n of analysis f o r A l d r i n (25) i s described under Materials and Methods i n this thesis. How-ever, various other methods exist and since the i n s e c t i c i d e compounds are r e l a t i v e l y new, better methods of analysis are being developed. Methods of analysis might be divided into chemical, physical and b i o l o g i c a l . The bioassay method of Dahm and Pankdskie (9) u t i -l i z e s the housefly as a test insect and permits detection of 1 to 2 micrograms A l d r i n . The bioassay method appears to be reasonably applicable to the other three compounds as well 9 and various modified procedures are possible to determine the minimum l e t h a l dose of various test organisms* Further bioassay methods have been developed, using test organisms, f o r A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n by Dahm (1G) while Terriere and Crowell (32) used the bioassay method to evaluate i n s e c t i c i d e residues i n potatoes grown i n treated s o i l s , Bioassay methods prove valuable where other methods cannot be c a r r i e d out. Photometric analysis methods have been devised to detect A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n . These methods employ f a i r l y elaborate procedures and equipment and consequently f i n d only li m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n . A method f o r A l d r i n detection has been developed by Danish and Lldov (11) while Danish, Koening and Kuderna (12) l a t e r developed a method whereby A l d r i n and Di e l d r i n could be detected by a Photometric analysis method. No photometric analysis methods have at the time of this writing been developed f o r Isodrin and Endrin. Total chlorine analysis i s a useful method where other methods cannot be used or, as i n the case of Isodrin and Endrin, other methods have not yet been devised. A complete description of t o t a l chlorine analysis procedure is described under "Materials and Methods." 10 (d) Pharmacological and Toxicological Aspects of the Compounds. The manufacturers advise that reasonable precaut-ions be taken by the user, e s p e c i a l l y with the newer isomeric compounds (8), (14), (23), while experimenters have found that when D i e l d r i n i s used at recommended dosage r a t e s , i t i s only o n e - f i f t h as toxic to the operator as parathion applied at the usual rate (31). Hearings have been held to e s t a b l i s h minimum level s of these compounds as spray residue by Pood and Drug Bureaus. Amounts of the compounds must be small to meet standards. Such standards would appear very necessary since Anderson et a l (3) reports that 3 p.p.m. of technical A l d r i n caused a s i g n i f i c a n t depression of the growth rate of young turkeys. A l l levels above 25 p.p.m. were highly toxic while at 12.5 p.p.m. a 15$ mortality rate i n a 42-day feeding period was encountered. Arant (4) experimenting with 3 and 6-week old chickens found that chickens of both age l e v e l s died i f A l d r i n was present at 25 p.p.m. concentration i n the feed. P r i n c i and Spurbeck (27) found that 95 to 105 mg. A l d r i n per kilogram of body weight and 65 to 95 mg. D i e l d r i n may be l e t h a l to dogs. P r i n c i p l e signs of chlordane poison-ing were of a neurological nature; the c h i e f pathological changes were damage to the l i v e r and subscrosal hemorrhages. 11 Examination of 27 humans exposed to the compounds i n various manners ( i n factory or handling) revealed no abnormalities and the experimenters were l e d to believe that under the conditions of formulation and use, chlordane, A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n would not produce measurable harmful e f f e c t s among those persons who are continuously exposed to con-centrations encountered under ordinary conditions of usee However, ordinary precautions were advised to prevent exces-sive accidental exposures and skin absorption. Further t o x i o o l o g l c a l work would appear to be d e s i r -able e s p e c i a l l y with the newer compounds, Isodrin and Endrin* In general, i t appears that A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin are less hazardous to the user than some of the older i n s e c t i c i d e s and consequently w i l l probably f i n d r e l a t i v e l y wide use* The experiments described i n this thesis were started i n the summer of 1952 and completed i n the summer of 1953. Greenhouse experiments were conducted during the winter of 1952-53. A l l work described was c a r r i e d out wkthe H o r t i c u l t u r e , greenhouses and laboratories of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. MATERIALS AND METHODS The organic i n s e c t i c i d e compounds A l d r i n , I s o d r i n , D i e l d r i n and Endrin were used as s o i l i n s e c t i c i d e s at var-ious rates and t h e i r e f f e c t on subsequent plant growth and chemical composition studied. The various experiments are f u l l y described i n this section of the paper as well as the i n s e c t i c i d e s . Description of the Compounds: A l d r i n (1) De f i n i t i o n s : A l d r i n i s the o f f i c i a l coined name f o r an a l k a l i -s table, i n s e c t i c i d a l product containing not less than 95% of 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10 - hexachloro -1, 4, 4a, 5, 8, 8a -hexahydro -1, 4, 5, 8 - dimethanonaphthalene and not more than 5% of i n s e c t i c i d a l l y a c t i v e , r e l a t e d chlorinated hydro-carbons. The dimethanonaphthalene compound has an empirical formula C i 2 H 8 c l 6 a n d i t s planar s t r u c t u r a l representation i s IS Physical and Chemical Properties: Appearance: Buff coloured, nearly odourless, cry-s t a l l i n e s o l i d . Melting Point: On repeated c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n , A l d r i n melts at 101-102°C. The melting point of the commercial product i s not less than 90°C. Solubility:: A l d r i n Is f r e e l y soluble i n a l i p h a t i c and aromatic solvents and i s sparingly soluble i n methanol. I t i s Insoluble i n water. Chemical S t a b i l i t y : A l d r i n i s stable i n the presence of strong organic and inorganic a l k a l i s and i s un-affected by hydrated metallic chlorides. I t i s also unaffected by acids normally encountered i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l chemical f i e l d . 14 Compatibility: Because of Its chemical s t a b i l i t y , A l d r i n may be f r e e l y used with most of the a v a i l -able a g r i c u l t u r a l chemicals, including f e r t i l i z e r s , herbicides, fungicides and i n s e c t i c i d e s . I t may be used i n the pre-sence of a l k a l i n e s o i l s , lime, lime-sulphur, Bordeaux mixture and other materials of high pH. When used i n combination with a c i d i c i n s e c t i c i d e s , A l d r i n i s unaffected unless the a c i d i t y of the single-phase solu t i o n f a l l s below a pH of 3. Residual Properties of A l d r i n : The persistence of A l d r i n residues on plant mater-i a l i s of r e l a t i v e l y short duration as compared with other chlorinated i n s e c t i c i d e s , chlordane, toxaphene, D.D.T. and D i e l d r i n . Prom extensive studies and analyses c a r r i e d out, r e s u l t s have shown that lindane residues were the l e a s t , followed by A l d r i n , Chlordane, D i e l d r i n , toxaphene and D.D.T. i n that order. The v o l a t i l e nature of A l d r i n i s indicated i n the following table. A l d r i n Residues on A l f a l f a treated with 0.5 pounds A l d r i n per Acre (11). Cutting time After Application (days) 0 1 3 5 7 14 19 22 25 P.P.M. A l d r i n residue based on Dry Weight of A l f a l f a 5.80 3.60 1.50 1.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 The amounts of A l d r i n residue w i l l not be uniform since they depend on a number of factors such as time, frequency and method of ap p l i c a t i o n , stage of development of edible crop, wind, r a i n and temperatures between application and harvest, and other variables. D i e l d r i n D e f i n i t i o n : (6) D i e l d r i n i s the common coined name of a new chemi-c a l insect toxicant. The empirical/tof D i e l d r i n i s C^gHgOClg and the i n s e c t i c i d a l product contains not less than 85 per cent of 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10- hexachloro -6, 7- epoxy -1, 4, 4a 16 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a - octahydro -1, 4, 5, 8 - dimethanonaphthalene. Structural:Formula: S t a b i l i t y : D i e l d r i n i s stable i n the presence of organic and inorganic a l k a l i e s and also stable to the action of acids commonly encountered i n normal conditions of use i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l chemical f i e l d . However, i t may be affected by strong mineral acids. Compatibility: D i e l d r i n Is compatible with a l l commonly used ins e c t i c i d e s and fungicides, Mamialian T o x i c i t y : D i e l d r i n is a toxic material and must be properly used. I f used within recommendations and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , i t can be used without hazard to man, animals or plants. Swine appear to be most re s i s t a n t while young calves are most susceptible when exposed to sprays containing D i e l d r i n . Residual properties: The r e s i d u a l properties of D i e l d r i n w i l l give pro-taction to crops f o r a long period without leaving harmful harvest residues. It i s desirable because of i t s r e s i d u a l action to apply the compound long before harvest. Isodrim(,1I7//J D e f i n i t i o n s . (25) Compound 711 Is a sterioisomer of A l d r i n , and was developed i n the research laboratory of J u l i u s Hyman and Company. I t Is the numerical designation p r o v i s i o n a l l y given by J u l i u s Hyman and Co. to the i n s e c t i c l d a l chemical 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10 - hexachloro - 1, 4, 4a, 5, 8, 8a -hexahydro - 1, 4, 5, 8 - endo-endo-dimethanonaphthalene. T h e formula i s Ide n t i c a l to A l d r i n except that A l d r i n Is the endo-exo Isomer. Physical and chemical properties! Empirical formula: C-^gHgClg St r u c t u r a l Formula: 18 The compound Is a white, c r y s t a l l i n e s o l i d which i s slowly decomposed when heated above 100°C. The chlorine atoms of Compound 711 are not removable with the usual alkaline reagents; r e f l u x i n g of the compound with metallic sodium i n isoproponol i s required to a f f e c t dehologenatlon. In single phase solu t i o n s , strong mineral acids w i l l add to the double bond of Compound 711. S o l u b i l i t y : The compound i s insoluble i n water but i s soluble i n the usual organic solvents. The s o l u b i l i t y of 711 i n aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene and xylene i s greater than i n p a r a f f i n i c solvents such as hexane or kerosene. Residual Action: The r e s i d u a l a c t i v i t y of Compound 711 appears to be of a duration comparable to that of A l d r i n . Compatibility: The compound i s stable to a l k a l i e s and i s unaffected by a c i d i c conditions normally encountered i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use. This material i s compatible with the commonly used i n s e c t i c i d e s , fungicides and herbicides. Phytotoxicity: Compound 711 produced no adverse effects on plants tested. Corn buds have showed signs of "burn" i n one Instance but more i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s under way to determine exactly the 19 cause of burning* Mammalian T o x i c i t y : Tests f o r Its o r a l t o x i c i t y to laboratory white rats showed the median l e t h a l dose of the compound to be 12 - 17 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Subacute and chronic t o x i c o l o g i c a l investigations are under way. It is evident, based on existing Information, that the compound, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the more concentrated form, w i l l have to be handled with caution. However, because of i t s high order of i n s e c t i c i d a l effectiveness plus i t s moderate r e s i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the mammalian t o x i c i t y i s not expected to preclude i t s use except on food and forage crops near har-vest* E n d r i r o ^ f J D e f i n i t i o n s : (14) Compound 269 i s the numerical designation provision-a l l y given by Ju l i u s Hyman and Co. to the i n s e c t i c i d a l chemical 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10 - hexachlor - 6, 7 - epoxy -1, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8,8a - octahydro - 1, 4, 5, 8 - endo-endo-dimethanonaphthalene. I t was developed i n the research laboratory of Juli u s Hyman and Co. and i s a sterioisomer of Di e l d r i n . The formula of 269 i s i d e n t i c a l to that of Di e l d r i n except that D i e l d r i n i s the endo-exo isomer. 20 Physical and Chemical properties: Empirical formula: ci2^8G^6Q S t r u c t u r a l formula: Hi CI H H, Compound 269 i s a white, c r y s t a l l i n e s o l i d which melts with gradual chemical re-arrangement when heated above 200°C. The chlorine atoms of the compound are not removable with the usual alkaline reagents; reflu x i n g of the compound with metallic sodium i n isoproponol i s required to e f f e c t deholo-genation. Acids cause Compound 269 to rearrange Into an i n s e c t l c i d a l l y inactive compound. S o l u b i l i t y : The compound i s insoluble i n water but i s soluble i n the usual organic solvents. I t i s more r e a d i l y soluble i n aromatic solvents such as benzene and xylene than i n p a r a f f i n i c solvents such as hexane or kerosene. Residual Action: The r e s i d u a l a c t i v i t y of the compound appears to be that of D i e l d r i n . 21 Compatibility: Compound 269 i s stable to a l k a l i e s and i s unaf-fected by acidic conditions normally encountered i n a g r i -c u l t u r a l use. I t i s also compatible with the commonly used Insec t i c i d e s , fungicides and herbicides. Phytotoxicity: The compound produces no adverse effects on plants when used i n the recommended dosages. Corn bud and cucumber fo l i a g e have shown signs of "burn" i n one or two instances but closer i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s necessary to ascertain what caused t h i s . General t o x i c i t y to. Mammals: I n s e c t i c i d a l formulations containing Compound 269 should be handled with extreme care. Contaminated clothing should be removed and laundered and the compound washed off the skin promptly. During ap p l i c a t i o n of the compound, respirators should be worn. The various experiments conducted are described more or less i n the order they were conducted. F i e l d tests were ca r r i e d out with the four i n s e c t i c i d e s just described. Carrots and potatoes were chosen on which to conduct the t e s t s . I. (a) The effect of Isodrin and Endrin on ca r r o t s , D&UCJ IS carro t a. var. Chantenay Bed Core. Four d i f f e r e n t rates of application of the i n s e c t i -22 cide were used: 0.5, 3.5, 6.5 and 9.5 pounds of actual Isodrin and Endrin per acre and compared to control plots where no i n s e c t i c i d e was applied. Treatments were r e p l i c a t e d nine times i n a randomized block p l o t design. Individual plots were 24 square feet i n area. The compounds were mixed int o the top 1 to 2 inches of s o i l near and i n the rows. The seeds were planted with a seeder to ensure uni-form stand and planting depth. Ordinary c u l t u r a l practises were c a r r i e d out dur-ing the summer and when the carrots were mature they were harvested and weighed and 15: ;roots were selected at random from the crop of each plot and stored f o r future chemical analysis i n common storage. T o t a l y i e l d (root weight) and top weights were recorded on each plot and the top-root ratios obtained from this recorded data. The storage time was kept to a minimum i n order to make further analysis with r e l a t i v e l y fresh material. Roots were cut i n pie-section and the pieces thoroughly mixed and f i n e l y ground i n a vegetable grinder. On a portion of the ground sample the sugar content of expressed jui c e was determined with a refractomer. Prom the remaining portion of the f r e s h l y ground material 5 gram samples, i n d u p l i -cate, were added to a given volume of acetone and t i g h t l y sealed f o r carotene estimation. Further, 10 gram samples, also i n duplicate, were, placed In 40 ml. of .1 N Nft0H f o r 23 chlorine determination and 20 gram samples were weighed, i n duplicate, into previously tared crucibles and d r i e d i n an e l e c t r i c drying oven at 60°C to determine the percentage moisture. These dried samples were l a t e r i g n i t e d and ashed i n an e l e c t r i c muffle furnace to determine the percentage ash. Method f o r determination of carotene i n carrots -the procedure outlined i s suitable f o r carrots only. (Method developed by Booth). The previously stored samples were transferred with the acetone into a mortar and very f i n e l y ground. The coloured l i q u i d was c a r e f u l l y poured o f f into a separatory funnel and the residue covered with small quantities of 60-30 acetone-petroleum ether extracting s o l u t i o n and ground f u r -ther. This was continued u n t i l no colour remained i n the residue. The coloured extract i n the separatory funnel was given a gentle s w i r l i n g motion. The acetone-ether with the dissolved carotinoids forms a d e f i n i t e layer above the colour-less acetone-water layer. The acetone-water layer i s allowed to run out and the acetone-ether l i q u i d i s brought to volume. Aliquots of this solution were read i n a Klett-Summerson colourimeter. The standard solu t i o n f o r comparison i s a 0.02 per cent potassium dichromate solution which i s equi-valent to 30 mgms. carotinoids or Vitamin A which has been checked against a sample of pure beta-carotene. 24 Sample c a l c u l a t i o n : P i n a l volume of extracted solu t i o n - 55 ml. Weight of carrot - 5 gm. Colourimeter reading of Standard -110 H " ° unknown -325 10 ml. of o r i g i n a l 55 ml. used f o r reading. • ' -f§ x 325 x o.02 x 100 = 7 > 1 4 fflg# carotinold per 100 gms. of carrot , P.W. The method of analysis f o r t o t a l c h l o r i n e : (As described i n A.O.A.C.) The 10 gms. of sample along with the 40 ml. of Na0H (.IN) were transferred to large b o i l i n g tubes. These were placed i n a water bath at 100°C and contents s t i r r e d from time to time. The soluti o n should be strongly a l k a l i n e . A f t e r the pieces of tissue were disintegrated, the contents were a l -lowed to cool and the contents made to 100 mis. Thirty mis. of this suspension were then measured into a b o i l i n g tube and 5 ml. of N/50 s i l v e r n i t r a t e and 5 ml. concentrated n i t r i c acid were added. The tubes and contents were placed i n a water bath at 100°C and l e f t f o r about 1.5 to 2 hours. A further 5 ml. of s i l v e r n i t r a t e and 5 ml. of n i t r i c acid ware added and heating continued f o r about 30 minutes. About 1.5 gm. of chloride f r e e f e r r i c sulphate was added to the tubes and about 40 ml. of d i s t i l l e d water and the tubes and contents heated i n the water bath.for a few minutes. The 25 tubes are then cooled i n running, cold water and the contents t i t r a t e d with N/50 potassium thiocyanate from a graduated burette. Blank determinations involving every stage of the method were made. Sample c a l c u l a t i o n : 10 gm, of plant material were made up to 100 and 30 ml. of t h i s were used f o r the chloride determination. Thiocyanate required f o r blank - - - - 4.90 ml. « » •» unknown 4.25 " Difference due to chlorine i n unknown 0.65 B Therefore 100 gm. of material contained 0.65 x 55.5 x 100 x 100 = 15,4 mg. chlorides 50 30 10 (1000 ml, potassium thiocyanate react with 35,5 gm. of chlorine, therefore N/50 KCNS w i l l react with 55.5 gms. of ~50~ chlorine. In the above procedure, the NaOH brings down chlorides present as NaCl, Upon addition of measured quan-t i t i e s of AgNOg and HN03, AgH0 3 reacts with NaCl to form AgCl, a p r e c i p i t a t e . Addition of FegfSO^ghas no d i r e c t e f f e c t and does not enter into reactions u n t i l the KSCN i s added i n the t i t r a t i o n . KSCN reacts with excess s:Hh/er^oxis u n t i l these have been exhausted and then reacts with FegtSO^g to give the red or rose end point. Thus, a c t u a l l y the amount of chlorine i n the o r i g i n a l sample i s measured i n an i n d i r e c t manner• 26 I. (b) A s i m i l a r f i e l d experiment to determine the effects of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n was conducted using potatoes as test plants. The same plot design was used and i d e n t i c a l rates of applicat i o n . Individual plots were 40 square feet i n area and the tubers were planted i n rows, with h i l l s being about 1 foot apart* The i n s e c t i c i d e s were f i r s t mixed with a quantity of s o i l while t h i s mixture was sprinkled over the trenches. As with car r o t s , no v i s i b l e differences i n growth could be detected and the usual c u l t u r a l practises were employed. The tubers were harvested when mature and the y i e l d of each plot recorded. Twenty-five tubers from the y i e l d of each p l o t were selected at random and stored i n a c o o l , dry place f o r further chemical analysis. As with carrots, s t o r -age time'was kept to a minimum. The samples were removed from storage and thor-oughly washed. Cross-sections were cut and these were ground with a vegetable grinder. The percentage of sugar was measured on a sample of expressed j u i c e with a refractometer. As quickly as pos-s i b l e , 5 gms. of f r e s h l y ground material were transferred to 25 ml. of 0.4 per cent Oxalic acid and covered f o r Vitamin C determinations. Ten gram samples (duplicate) were added to 40 ml. of 0.1 N NaOH f o r determination of chlorides. 27 Duplicate samples of 20 gms. of the f r e s h l y ground material were weighed Into previously tared crucibles and placed In an e l e c t r i c drying oven at 60 GC to determine dry weights. This dry material was l a t e r i g n i t e d and ashed i n an e l e c t r i c muffle furnace to determine percentage ash. Total chlorine analyses were c a r r i e d out i n a si m i -l a r manner to that described f o r carrots. The method of the Robinson and Stotz (29) Vitamin C analysis procedure was used to evaluate Vitamin 0 i n the potato samples. The method used involves the t i t r a t i o n of 2 , 6 - dichlorobenzenonindophenal against a standard solu t i o n of ascorbic ac/sd and into unknown samples. The ascorbic a c i d becomes oxidized, reducing the dye to give a character-i s t i c colour. I I . (a) The eff e c t of s o i l applications of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin ( i n powder form) on tomatoes -Lycopersicum esculentum, var Vetomold. The experiment was car r i e d out i n the greenhouse. Treatments of 0, 10, 20 and 40 pounds of actual compound per acre were r e p l i c a t e d three times. The plants were grown i n ten inch pots. I t would have been desirable to have at lea s t 4 or 5 r e p l i c a t i o n s of each treatment but greenhouse space and large diameter pots were at a premium when the experiment was c a r r i e d out. 28 Tomato plants started i n sand f l a t s and of uniform s i z e as possible were planted i n the pots. Weekly growth measurements were made up to 9 weeks ( i n c l . ) . Number of days t i l l blossoming were recorded and t o t a l weight of a e r i a l por-t i o n of plants recorded before discarding the plants. I I . (b) An experiment was conducted to determine the eff e c t of s o i l applications of acetone solutions of Isodrin and Endrin on tomato plants grown i n the greenhouse. Twenty-seven 10-inch clay pots were f i l l e d with s o i l and the s o i l treated with solutions of Isodrin and Endrin dissolved i n acetone respectively. The pots were set up as three randomized blocks with nine pots i n each block. The treatments consisted of. rates of applications equivalent to 0 (acetone only) 1, 5, 10, and 20 pounds of actual compound per acre. Each pot was planted at d i f f e r e n t times, namely 1, 3, T and IS days a f t e r treatment with the compounds. The compounds are quite soluble i n acetone and i t was,hoped the maximum uniformity of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the compound could be attained by applying i t to the s o i l i n an acetone spray. Growth rates of the two l a t e r series of plantings that survived were taken on a weekly basis and recorded. I I I . (a) The effect of Endrin and Isodrin i n powder form was evaluated f o r i t s effect on germination of tomato 29 seeds i n s o i l treated with the compounds. The rates of application used were the equivalent to 0, 1, 5, 10, and 20 pounds actual compound per acre. The seeds were planted i n pots i n the greenhouse and each treatment was r e p l i c a t e d three times making a t o t a l of 27 pots. The tomato seeds were covered at as uniform depth as possible. Two counts were made; one 4 days aft e r seeding and one f i n a l count when a l l seeds should have germinated* I I I . (b) Further effects of the compounds on germination of seeds were determined using radish, (Raphanus satlvus, var Scarlet Globe), as a test plant* An experiment was conducted where r a d i s h seeds were planted i n p e t r i dishes on bacto-agar containing the compounds. Acetone stock solutions were made of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin and the desired quantity of this s o l u t i o n added to water and bacto-agar* This was b e l l e d f o r some time to drive off a l l acetone. The compounds were precip i t a t e d i n the agar i n a very f i n e suspension and this quantity of agar (a measured volume to a t t a i n desired con-centrations of the compounds) was transferred to s t e r i l i z e d p e t r i dishes. The agar was allowed to cool and s o l i d i f y at room temperature and then 20 seeds selected at random were placed i n each dish. The number of seeds germinating were counted at 48 , 72, 168 and 216 hour intervals-and recorded. The concentrations used were 40, 200 and 600 p. p. m. of 30 actual compound and these treatments compared with a control agar plate to which no compound had been added. The re s u l t s from the above experiment were so s i g n i f i c a n t that a re p l i c a t e d experiment using the same concentration and com-pounds was conducted. Treatments were r e p l i c a t e d three times and germination counts made at 48, 72, 96, 120, 144 and 168 hour i n t e r v a l s . Photographs of a l l treatments were taken at two d i f f e r e n t stages of"development of the seedlings. III.*' (c) In another experiment using r a d i s h seed, A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin were applied to s o i l i n powder form. The radish seeds were-grown i n f l a t s , 18 x 24" and concentrations of the compounds i n the s o i l equivalent to 0, 1, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 pounds of the actual compound per acre were applied and r e p l i c a t e d three times. The compounds were sprinkled over the smooth surface of the s o i l and then thoroughly worked into the top 1 to 2 inch l a y e r . The f l a t s were planted with 32 seeds selected at random at as uniform depth as possible. The f l a t s were kept i n the greenhouse u n t i l a l l seeds appeared to have ger-minated then were moved outdoors to encourage greater root development. Germination counts were made 3, 4, 5, 6 days a f t e r planting and a f i n a l count made sometime l a t e r . The l e a f diameters of f u l l grown primary leaves were measured. Average 31 plants were selected and an average value of three measure-ments per plot was used.-The plants were harvested when the roots had reached a desirable (bunching) s i z e and the roots and tops were weighed. Other v a r i a t i o n such as colour were also noted. Average sized roots were immediately washed.and ground. The sugar content of the expressed sap was measured by means of a refractometer and 5 gms. of f r e s h l y ground material was rapidly transferred to 25 ml. of 0.4 per cent Oxalic a c i d f o r Vitamin C determinations. The method f o r Vitamin C analysis used was the same as that previously described f o r potatoes. Proximate nitrogen and phosphorus determinations were made of both root and leaf p e t i o l e . A. modified method was employed i n that reagents as recommended by Spurway were used but colour i n t e n s i t i e s were measured i n a K l e t t -Summerson colourimeter. The following i s a det a i l e d outline of the method with sample c a l c u l a t i o n s . One gram of f i n e l y divided plant material was extracted with 10 ml. of a sodium acetate solu t i o n (10 gms. per l i t r e ) and buffered to pH 5. This i s allowed to stand i n t i g h t l y stoppered test tubes f o r 24 hours. 32 Nitrogen: One ml. of extract was placed i n a colourimeter tube and 6 drops of Diphenylamine solu t i o n (0.03 gm. of diphonylamine dissolved In 25 ml. of pure HgSO^ free from n i t r a t e ) added. The tube and contents were allowed to stand f o r 5 minutes and then brought to 10 ml. with d i s t i l l e d water and the blue colour which developed read i n the colourimeter.. A standard solu t i o n was made of KNOg s o that 1 ml. contained 1 mg. KNO3, or 1 ml. contained 0.14 mg. N or 140 p.p.m. N. The standard s o l u t i o n received the same treatment as the unknown i n that 1 ml. of standard was treated with 6 drops of n i t r a t e reagent and then brought to 10 ml. and read i n the colourimeter. 33 crj © u <D -P <D S « H o H O O Figure • The behaviour of various concentrations of the standard (KNOg) used i n the nitrogen determin-ations of radish  9 140 i 105 70 35 • 1: .2 3 4 - mg. KNOg \v£ (140) (280) (420) (560) - p.p.m.N. a - i n d i v i d u a l readings made Sample c a l c u l a t i o n ; 1 ml. standard reads 35 = 140 p.p.m. N, 1 11 unknown " 4 5 N i n p.p.m. = 45 x 140 = 180 p.p.m. 35 34 Testing f o r Phosphorus: One ml. of the plant extract was placed i n a colourimeter tube. To thi s was added 5 drops of molybdate solution (5 gms. of Amen, molybdate, free from arsenic or phosphorus, i n 50 ml. of d i s t i l l e d water and warm gently to hasten sol u t i o n . F i l t e r i f solution i s turbid) and 3 drops of t i n chloride s o l u t i o n (dissolve pure, clean t i n p e l l e t i n a few ml. of cone. H CI. Make up to 10-15 ml. with d i s -t i l l e d water). The contents were made up to 10 ml. with d i s t i l l e d water and the blue colour read i n the colourimeter within 30 seconds. Sample Calculations: Standard solu t i o n of Na 3P0 4 made up so that 1 mg. of NagP04 per ml. 1 ml. standard read 300 which i s then equivalent to 0.19 mg. P or 190 p.p.m. 1 ml. of unknown reads 285, therefore the unknown contains 285 x 190 = 180 p.p.m. P. 300 < As f o r the nitrogen determinations the various con-centrations of phosphorus standard were read i n the c o l o u r i -meter and the res u l t s plotted on a graph. The r e s u l t j u s t i -f i e d the above method and c a l c u l a t i o n . 3 6 Figure The behaviour of various concentrations of stand-ard (Na , P O . ) used i n the phosphorus determinations o 4 of r a d i s h 1200 b O •d cd <D u -P <D a • H u 3 O r H O O 9 0 0 600 300 1 5 0 7 5 . 2 5 -": o5 rUC % % •-: mg Na« P 0 A am'-mm J:^) c ^ - j P.P.m? P4 • - i n d i v i d u a l readings made 56 RESULTS The re s u l t s are presented i n tabular form show-ing the summarized data. The complete data used f o r s t a t i s t i c a l evaluation Is shown In the appendix i n each case. Where i t was considered advisable to show trends, graphs have been included. Table 1 The effect of A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin on y i e l d , and top-root r a t i o of carrot and y i e l d of potato Treatment Y i e l d ( i n ounces) Lbs/ac A l d r i n D i e l d r i n Isodrin Endrin Potatoes Carrots Tubers Tubers Root Top R/T Root Top R/T Control 807 0.5 905 3.5 1011 6.5 1026 9.5 960 807 851 963 904 864 1173 1264 1318 1323 1288 296 330 324 320 334 4.00 3.98 4.09 4.14 3.95 1173 1312 1418 1322 1267 296 322 349 337 316 4.00 4.13 4.09 4.07 4.08 I t i s noteworthy that with both carrots and potatoes, a consistent stimulatory trend exists and the maximum e f f e c t appears to be at the 6.5 pounds per acre application of each compound. The compounds did not affect the top-root r a t i o s . For complete data, see appendix. Table 2 Treatment Lbs /ac The e f f e c t of A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin on y i e l d , top growth and top-root r a t i o of radish Y i eld ( i n grams) A l d r i n Root Top T/R D i e l d r i n Root Top T/R Root Top. T/R Isodrin Endrin Root Top T/R Control* 1 5 10 20 40 80 110 123 118 121 163 161 129 x 137 131 137 140* 138 1.37 1.31 1.57 1.16 1.06 1.03 x 86* lOw**!^ 163 1.37 169 x 206 1.22 147 254 X £1.76 3 U C 131 199 1.56 133 242 x s1.82 x x 131 232 x 1.79** 183* 186 1.02* HlO 77 1105 90 L09 115 99 163 131 147 121 128 152 127 1.37 1.41 1.40 1.62 1.25 1.24 1.45 110 .163 169 187 155 216 124 202 123 214 132 201 96 191 1*37 1.12 1.40 1.78 1.79 1.60 1.9.8 *A standard value obtained by averaging s i x control p l o t s . A l d r i n - Roots - L.S.D. @ .05 28 - Tops -T / R tt @ tt = 28 @ .01 = 40 - ti @ tt = 0.35 D i e l d r i n - Roots _ ii @ tt =- 41 - Ton - T / R „ n @ it =' 54 @ .01 = 76 _ ft @ tt = 0.26 @ .01 = = 0.37 Isodrin - Roots _ it @ tt - Tops - T/R _ n @ it m>mm - » @ tt = mum Endrin - Roots @ it - Top - T / R _ tt @ a = WW •> n @ it — Note: urea s m-pt'ci nf 3t .OS P 7ev<±l at .O/ ? /ei/el XX For complete separate tables, see appendix. Prom Table 2, some effect of the compounds on y i e l d i s evident. A l d r i n appeared to stimulate y i e l d and the maximum was reached at 40 pounds per acre while at 80 pounds, the y i e l d was markedly decreased, Isodrin had no apparent e f f e c t on y i e l d . D i e l d r i n increased the y i e l d con-siderably, e s p e c i a l l y at the 1 and 80 pound treatment l e v e l while Endrin stimulated y i e l d at the 1 and 5 pound l e v e l and depressed y i e l d at the 80 pound treatment. In general, A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed top growth while D i e l d r i n and to a lesser extent Endrin greatly favoured top growth. This i s further demonstrated i n the top-root ratios shown i n the above table, . <: . Table 3 The e f f e c t of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on growth of primary leaves i of radish. Diameters of leaves are shown i n tenths of an inch and are average values of normal plants Treatment Diameters of leaves Lbs/ac A l d r i n Isodrin D i e l d r i n Endrin Control 9,3 9.3 9.3 9.3 1 11.0** 11.3** 9.3 10.0 5 10.6** l l . O * * 10.6 9.5 10 11.0** 10. 3 X 10.3 9.6 20 11.3** l l . S * * 9.6 9.6 40 11. 12.0XX 10.0 8© 6 80 10. 12.O** 9.3 9.0 For complete tables, see appendix. A l d r i n L.S.O. @ .05 = 0.9, @ .01 = 1.2 Isodrin " @ " = 1.1, @ n = 1.5 39 Table 3 shows that both A l d r i n and Isodrin stimulated growth of primary leaves as indicated by l e a f diameter measurements whereas D i e l d r i n and Endrin had l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on growth of primary leaves. This trend did not follow through to maturity but was reversed i n that A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed top growth and D i e l d r i n and Endrin favoured top growth. Table 4 The effect of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on the weekly growth rate of tomato plants (aver-age of 9 weeks) Treatment Lbs • /ae Growth rate ( i n Inches) A l d r i n Isodrin D i e l d r i n Endrin Control 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 10 5.52 5.39 5.38 5.60 20 5.64 4.77 5.26 5.50 40 5.78 4.86 4.47 5.41 A l l compounds tended to increase growth rate with exception of Isodrin. 4 0 Table 5 Growth rates of tomato plants planted i n s o i l 3 and 18 days a f t e r treatment respectively with acetone solutions of Endrin and Isodrin Treatment Growth rate ( i n inches) Lbs/ac Endrin Isodrin 3 days 18 days af t e r a f t e r planting planting 3 days 18 days a f t e r a f t e r planting planting Control 2 . 0 1 . 3 2 . 0 1 . 3 1 1 . 6 * 1 . 5 1 . 6 X 1 . 4 5 l,*** 1 . 6 1 . 6 X 1 . 5 10 1.2**- 1 . 3 1 . 6 X 1 . 9 20 o.e** 2 . 2 l o 8 X©8 Endrin L.S.D. - 3 days @ . 0 5 = 0 . 3 7 * @ . 0 1 = 0 . 5 2 * Isodrin L.S.D. - 3 days @ . 0 5 = 0 . 4 Planting three days a f t e r acetone so l u t i o n t r e a t -ment depressed growth whereas when planted 18 days a f t e r treatment with acetone s o l u t i o n , a s l i g h t growth stimulation appears evident. 41 Table 6 t The ef f e c t of A l d r i n , I s o d r i n , D i e l d r i n and Endrin on time of blossoming of tomato plants. Treatment Lbs/ac A l d r i n Average no. of blossom Isodrin days t i l l opens D i e l d r i n f i r s t Endrin Control 90 90 90 90 10 79 83 82 76 20 83 81 80 83 40 79 83 85 90 The compounds appear to hasten blossoming. Table 7 * . Ef f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on germination of tomato seeds. Total seeds per plot=10 Treatment Per cent germination Endrin Lbs/ac 4 day count F i n a l count Isodrin 4 day count F i n a l count Control 1 5 10 20 17 17 19 17 17 60 68 70 68 62 17 18 16 16 16 60 72 66 66 70 F i n a l counts show increased germination. 42 Table 8 Germination of radish seeds i n A l d r i n treated s o i l s . Counts were recorded at 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 days from planting. Lbs.Compd./ac No. of days 3 4 5 6 Pi n a l Check 0 28 48 55 65 1 1 43 62 66 71 5 6 46 60 67 74 10 0 41 60 66 73 20 5 40 59 60 70 40 4 32 58 59 71 80 0 39 58 67 71 Although no si g n i f i c a n c e i s shown s t a t i s t i c a l l y , figures show that the compound tends to hasten and increase germination. Germination i s stimulated most at 1 to 20 pound treatment l e v e l at a l l i n t e r v a l s . 43 Table 9 Germination of radish i n Isodrin treatment conditions as In Table 18 Lbs.Compd./ac 3 4 5 no. of days 6 F i n a l Check 0 28 48 55 65 1 3** 35 55 63 65 5 52 63 68 75 10 43 56 65 73 20 l x 43 61 69 76 40 3 7 x x 46 63 69 74 80 1 2 x x 41 57 65 71 L.S.D. of 3 day column @ .05 = 1.0, @ .01 = 1.3 Marked si g n i f i c a n c e i s present i n "3 day1* figures while otherwise, a similar trend exists as shown by A l d r i n i n the previous table. The 40 and 80 pound treatments very markedly stimulated germination, but this difference disappeared i n l a t e r counts. Table 10 Germination of radish i n D i e l d r i n treatments. Conditions as i n Table 18. Lbs. compd./ac No. of days 3 4 5 6 F i n a l Check 0 28 48 55 65 1 0 18 37 49 71 5 1 30 56 66 75 10 0 31 51 61 65 20 0 17 50 62 75 40 0 20 49 56 66 80 0 18 44 54 66 No trend i s evident i n the above table. Table 11 Germination of radish i n Endrin treatments. Conditions as i n Table 18 Lbs. compd./ac No. of days 3 4 5 6 Pi n a l Check 0 28 48 55 65 1 0 11 36 55 66 5 0 21 51 68 77 x 10 2 33 51 66 77 x 20 3 39 53 58 65 40 0 27 41 56 64 80 0 29 47 55 58 L.S.D. f o r f i n a l column @ .05 = 12 5 and 10 l b . compd. per acre tends to stimulate ger-mination while lower and higher treatment levels appear to have l i t t l e or no e f f e c t . The 80 pound treatment s l i g h t l y depressed t o t a l germination. 46 Results of a germination experiment with radish seed using treated bacto-agar as substrate*) Table 12 Effects of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on germination of radish seed on bacto-agar with var-ious concentrations of the compounds. Number of seeds germinated - Total seeds per plate = 20 Treatment Hourly inte r v a l s Total p.p.m.of compd. 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 168 hrs. 216 hrs. /20 Check 0 1 5 9 9 A l d r i n 40 9 0 0 0 0 n 200 0 0 0 0 0 " 600 0 0 0 0 0 Isodrin 40 8 11 14 15 15 200 1 6 11 11 11 600 0 0 4 _ 4 4 D i e l d r i n 40 13 19 19 19 19 200 10 12 17 18 ' 18 600 0 5 10 12 12 Endrin 40 11 13 17 18 18 200 11 14 18 19 19 600 0 0 . 3 6 6 Note from the above Table that A l d r i n completely i n h i b i t e d germination even at 40 p.p.m. concentration. Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin stimulated germination at 40 and 200 p.p.m. while Isodrin and Endrin s l i g h t l y depressed germinat-ion at 600 p.p.m. 47 Table 13 The e f f e c t of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on the germination of radish seeds grown on an agar medium con-taining the compounds at various concentrations. Counts were made at 6 i n t e r v a l s . Number of seeds per d i s h = 20. Treatments were r e p l i c a t e d 3 times while 6 control r e p l i c -ations were used Compound Time i n t e r v a l s Per cent germination (hrs) Rate of treatment (p.p.m.) 0 40 200 600 48 8 1 7 x x l g x x 0 x x Isodrin 72 33 4 5 x x 6xx 96 37 53 x 54 x 20 x 120 45 53 x 54 x 32 x 144 47 53 x 54 x 37 x 168 47 53 x 54 x 40 48 8 20xx 1 2 X X 0 X D i e l d r i n 72 33 54XX 39 28 96 37 56^ 49 33 120 45 57 51 37 144 47 57 x 55 n 168 47 57 x 55 x 43 48 8 16x l l x 2 X Endrin 72 33 45 38 26 96 37 53 41 35 120 45 54 47 41 144 47 54 50 44 168 47 54 50 44 * 0 10 20 40 48 8 10 3** Q X X A l d r i n 72 33 33 17xx 7 xx 96 37 46 31 15 x 120 45 47 41 2ixx 144 47 50 44 27 x 168 47 50 50 30 x 4fr Concentrations of A l d r i n were reduced to 10, 20 and 40 p.p.m. since i n Table 12, 40,200 and 600 p.p.m. prevented germination. Isodrin: L.S.D, 48 nr. @ .05 = 1.22, @ .01 = 1.85 » 72 H tt tt = 3.41, tt ti 5.18 " 96 It it n =13.4, tt tt 20.7 n 120 tt tt tt = 9.0, tt II 13.7 " 144 n tt ti = 9.0, ti it = 13.7 » 168 tt n tt = 9.0, tt tt 13.7 D i e l d r i n L.S.D. 48 it tt ti = 2.6, it tt = 3;9 72 II tt it =10.0, tt tt 15.5 96 it it* it =14.0, tt it 120 tt n tt =13.4, it ti = 20.4 144 tt it tt = 7.3, ti tt ss 11.1 168 tt n tt = 6.0, it tt = 9.1 Endrin L.S.D. 48 tt tt ti = 6.6, tt tt MM A l d r i n L.S.D. 48 tt tt it = 3.3, ti tt = 5.0 72 tt tt it = 6.0, tt tt = 9.1 96 tt tt tt =16.7, tt tt = 25.3 120 tt tt tt =12.4, tt it = 18.8 144 tt ni l it =15.9, tt tt 24.1 168 n tt tt =12.0, it tt — 18.1 Isodrin at 40 and 200 p.p.m. stimulated germination while at 600 p.p.m. i t i n h i b i t e d germination up to the 144 hour i n t e r -v a l . D i e l d r i n stimulated germination at 40 and 200 p.p.m. while at 600 p.p.m. i t i n h i b i t e d germination at the 48 hour i n t e r v a l ; no i n h i b i t i o n was noticed at l a t e r Intervals. The effe c t of Endrin was much the same as that of D i e l d r i n exeept not so pronounced. A l d r i n i n h i b i t e d germination at 20 p.p.m. at the 48 and 72 hour intervals while at 40 p.p.m., i n h i b i t i o n was s i g -n i f i c a n t throughout. No stimulation was noticed even at 10 p.p.m. It should be noted from the above Table the A l d r i n i s d i s t i n c t l y i n h i b i t o r y when compared with the action of Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on germination. 49 Photographs of the germinating radish seeds appear i n the following pages. In series A, the plates had been seeded 4 days previous to photography while i n series B, the plates had been seeded 8 days previous to photographing. Series A. Plate 1 Control Plate 2. A l d r i n - 10 p.p.m. Plate 3 Plate 4 A l d r i n - 20 p.p.m A l d r i n - 40 p.p.m. Note - no seeds have germinated at t h i s concentration 51 Isodrin - 40 p.p.m. A l d r i n at 40 p.p.m. appears to I n h i b i t germination as much or more than Isodrin at 600 p.p.m. 52 Note stimulated germination at 40 and 200 p.p.m. and f a i r number of germinating seeds at 600 p»p.m. 53 Plate 11 V Endrin - 40 p.p.m. Plate 12 Plate 13 Endrin - 200 p.p.m. Endrin - 600 p.p.m. Endrin appears to act s i m i l a r l y to that of D i e l d r i n . 54 Series B. Plate 14 Check The above photograph of a check dish as w e l l as the check i n series A were considered average from the check treatments made. 55 Plate 15 Isodrin - 40 p.p.m. Plate 16 Plate 17 Isodrin - 200 p.p.m. Isodrin - 600 p.p.m. Note marked i n h i b i t i o n at 600 p.p.m. l e v e l . Note marked growth stimulation at 40 and 200 p.p.m. with reduced growth at 600 p.p.m. 57 Plate 21 Endrin - 40 p.p.m. Plate 22 Plate 23 Endrin - 200 p.p.m. Endrin - 600 p.p.m. Very l i t t l e difference i s v i s i b l e between the effects of D i e l d r i n and i t s isomer Endrin. 58 Table 14 The effect of Isodrin and Endrin, and A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n , on the sugar content of carrots and potatoes respectively Treatment Lbs/ac Per cent Sugar (as measured b; refractometer, Endrin Isodrin (Carrots) A l d r i n D i e l d r i n (Potatoes) Control 12.4 12.4 5,75 5.75 0.5 12.7 11.3 5.77 5.07 3.5 11.8 12.0 4.85 5.28 6.5 12.2 11.5 5.53 5.43 9.5 11.7 11.5 5.52 5.55 A l l compounds appear to reduce sugar content. Endrin and A l d r i n d i d not depress sugar content at 0.5 pounds/acre while Isodrin and D i e l d r i n d e f i n i t e l y depressed sugar content at this concentration. 59 Table 15 The effect of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on the sugar content of radish as measured by refractometer Treatment Per cent sugar Lbs./ac A l d r i n Isodrin D i e l d r i n Endrin Control 3.66 3.66 ' 3.66 3.66 1 3.16 2.50 x x s.oo 3™ 5 4.33 X 3.16 x 1 2.50 x x '3.33 10 3.33 3.16 x S.OO^ 3© 33 20 3.50 3.16 x 2.66 x x 3.33 40 3.50 3.33 2.00 x x S.OO^ 80 3.00 X 3.66 2.33 x x 3.83 Although some discrepancies exist i n the above Table, the compounds depress sugar content. Isodrin and D i e l d r i n have the most depressing effect on sugar content. 60 Table 16 The effect of Isodrin and Endrin on the carotene content of carrots - mgms/lOO gms. F.W. Treatment Lbs/ac Mgs Endrin • Carotene Isodrin Control 3.86 3.86 0.5 3.50 3.57 3.5 -3.17 3.46 6.5 3.35 3.66 9.5 3.96 3.64 With one or two exceptions, the compounds tend to depress carotene content s l i g h t l y . Table 17 The e f f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on the Vitamin C content of potatoes gms.F.W. - mgms/lOO Treatment Lbs/ac Mgs. A l d r i n V i t . Co D i e l d r i n Control 13.7 13.7 0.5 15.1 15.8 3.5 15.9 14.7 6.5 15.4 12.6 (1) 9.5 13.8 14.1 With one exception (1), the compounds seem to have caused a s l i g h t increase of V i t . C content at a l l rates of applications. 61 Table 18 The effect of A l d r i n , Isodrin, Dieldrin.and Endrin on the V i t . C content of radish -mgms/lOO gms. F.W. Treatment Lbs/ac A l d r i n Mgs. Isodrin V i t . C. D i e l d r i n Endrin Control 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 1 15.4 13.8 11.3** 12. S** 5 13. 8 X 12. S** 13.8** 10 12.5** 12. 5** l l . ? * * 7 .5 X X 20 11.9** 12.5 X X 9.6** 40 10.9** 80 l l e e ^ 6.5** 7.5 X* A l d r i n L.S.D, @ .05 = 1.35, @ .01 = 1.89 Isodrin tt tt n =2.17, 11 " = 3.05 D i e l d r i n it ii w = 0.85, " » = 1.19 Endrin it tt " = 0.85, " " « 1.19 A l d r i n depressed Vitamin C at 5 to 80 pound per acre treatment while Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin depressed Vitamin C at a l l treatment l e v e l s . 62 Table 19 The e f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin and A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on percentage dry matter of carrots and potatoes, res p e c t i v e l y Treatment % dry matter Lbs/ac Endrin Isodrin A l d r i n D i e l d r i n Carrots , Potatoes Control 15.7 15.7 24.5 24.5 0.5 15.6 16.2 . 24.5 24.5 3.5 15.8 15.8 24.1 24.7 6.5 15.9 16.0 « 25.3 24.5 9.5 15.6 16.0 24.2 25.6 V The compounds appear to have no e f f e c t on the dry weight o$ potatoes and c a r r o t s . 63 Table 20 The effect of Endrin and Isodrin and A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on the ash content of carrots and potatoes r e s p e c t i v e l y Treatment % ash Lbs/ac Endrin Isodrin A l d r i n D i e l d r i n carrots potato es Control 0.7719 0.7719 1.170 1.170 0.5 0.8256 0.8253 1.154, 1.118 3.5 0.7383 0.8284 1.175 1.041 6.5 0.8288 0.7651 1.086 -* 1.214 9.5 > 0.7913 0.7775 1.077, 1.216 No d e f i n i t e trends are evident from the above Table and i t appears that the compounds have l i t t l e or no effect on ash content of potatoes and carrots within the range of treatments used. 64 Table 21 The eff e c t of A l d r i n , I s o d r i n , D i e l d r i n and Endrin on the nitrogen content of leaves and roots of radish Treatment p.p.m. nitrogen Lbs/ac A l d r i n | Isodrin . D i e l d r i n Endrin Leaf root (leaf root l e a f root l e a f root Control 164 186 164 186 164 186 L64 186 1 7 2 x x 226 3 2 0 ^ 206 171 173 v 5 5 7 x x 7 1 x x 7 3 X X 8 6 X X 346 x x 229 L56 153 x 10 59** 6 5 ^ 5 5 x x l l i x x 4 1 3 ^ 240 173 9 7xx 20 5 1 x x 4 5 X X eg** 4 6 0 x x 213 176 1 2 4 x x 40 4 4 X X - 80** 7 6 x x 4 0 0 ^ 186 4 7 3 X X 166 80 7 7 X X 8xx 9 2 X X 1 2 6 ^ 226 160 A l d r i n L. S.D. l e a f = @ .05 = 17,. @ .01 ss 24 -11 it root it it = 21, tt tt SB' 29 Isodrin • tt l e a f , '» n = 26/ tt tt = 36 • 11 11 root tt tt 20, tt tt = 29 D i e l d r i n - it l e a f n n = 91, tt tt ss 128-tt ti root it n = — » n tt ss. ~ Endrin it l e a f 11 tt as 61, it tt 86 ti n root it it ss 31, tt tt — 44 Prom the above Table, i t i s shown that A l d r i n and Isodrin gr e a t l y reduce the nitrogen content of leaves and roots of radish at a l l concentrations used while D i e l d r i n g r e a t l y i n -creases nitrogen at a l l treatment levels except 80 lbs/acre where a reduction i s evident. Endrin only increased n i t r o -gen of the leaves at 40 and 80 lb/ac. l e v e l s . A l d r i n markedly reduced the nitrogen content of rad-i s h roots at a l l treatment concentrations while Isodrin i n -creased the nitrogen l e v e l somewhat at 1 pound per acre but greatly reduced i t at a l l higher treatment l e v e l s . D i e l d r i n seemed to Increase the nitrogen content of the roots while Endrin decreased the nitrogen content at 5, 10, and 40 pound per acre treatments. 65 Table 22 The effect of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin on the phosphorus content of radish leaves and roots Treatment p.p.m* phosphorus Lbs/ac A l d r i n Isodrin D i e l d r i n Endrin Leaf root l e a f root leaf root l e a f root Control 182 47 1 8 2 47 182 47 182 47 1 1 6 3 x 6 4 x x 175 6 2 x x 2 4 7 x x 51 174 50 5 1 1 2 x x 46 1 4 5 x 38 173 48 161 3 6 ^ 10 QQXX 39 114XX 47 1 3 3 x 54 1 5 3 3 9 x 20 9 2 x x 40' U S * * 3 0 X X 89 ^ 48 1 0 8 x x 42 40 1 0 2 x x 4 6 logxx 1 6 6 3 3 x 163 37XX 80 98XX 32XX 173 2 8 x x 209 A l d r i n L.S.D. - leaves - @ . 0 5 17.., @ . 0 1 23 tt tt root3 tt tt = 1 1 , tt tt — 15 Isodrin tt leaves it tt = 2 6 , 11 it — 36 » tt roots n tt s 4 , it tt - 6 DieHrin tt leaves n tt 3 8 , it ti s 53 tt n roots tt 11 as 1 3 , tt tt = 18 Endrin tt leaves tt tt = 3 6 , tt tt = 50 tt it roots tt tt 6 , tt tt 9 Both A l d r i n and Isodrin reduced the phosphorus content i n rad-i s h leaves while i n the roots, the same compounds Increased phosphorus at 1 lb/ac concentration; at 80 lbs/ac A l d r i n de-pressed phosphorus i n roots while Isodrin reduced phosphorus at 2 0 , 40 and 80 lbs/ac. D i e l d r i n r a i s e d the phosphorus l e v e l In the leaves at 1 lb/ac concentration while a reduction i s evident at 10 and 20 pound treatment l e v e l s . Endrim reduced the phosphorus content at 10 and 2 0 lb/ac l e v e l while a s l i g h t increase i s noted at 8 0 l b s . Endrin per acre. D i e l d r i n de-pressed phosphorus i n the roots at 40 and 80 pound treatment levels while Endrin reduced phosphorus at 5 , 1 0 , 4 0 and 80 pounds per acre* 66 Table 23 The e f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin, and A l d r i n and Di e l d r i n on the chlorine content of carrots and potatoes respectively - mgm./lOO gms. P.W. Treatment Mgs. Chlorine Lbs/acre Endrin Isodrin A l d r i n D i e l d r i n Carrots Potatoes Control 78.6 78.6 21.5 21.5 0.5 83.0 80.3 38.9** 38. 9 ^ 3.5 84.4 . 82.1. 41.3 X X . .41. 6.5 89.5 87.1 38.p** 4:4,8XX 9.5 89.8 88.9 45, A l d r i n L.S.D. @ .05 = 9.67, @ .01 = 12.7 Di e l d r i n tt tt 0 =11.9, @ n = 15.7 It w i l l be noted from the above Table that the compounds (Isodrin and Endrin) only very s l i g h t l y increase the chlorine content of carrots. In contrast, A l d r i n and Di e l d r i n g r e a t l y increased the chlorine content of potatoes at a l l treatment l e v e l s . 67 DISCUSSION The foregoing r e s u l t s appear to indicate that the i n s e c t i c i d e s have some very d e f i n i t e effects on the plants used In the experiments described. Furthermore, i t appears that the compounds do not have i d e n t i c a l effects on a l l plants. Some plants may be adversely affected while with others, the compounds appear to have a b e n e f i c i a l effect i n that, growth Is stimulated and y i e l d Increases r e s u l t . Such effects have been noted by other workers. Randall (1) ob-tained s i g n i f i c a n t growth and y i e l d differences with s i m i l a r i n s e c t i c i d e s while Nelson (26) obtained marked growth stimu-l a t i o n of onions with D i e l d r i n s o i l a p p l i c a t i o n s . Phyto-toxic effects were noted on cucurbits by Crowell and Mor-ris o n (7) when using A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n while Foster (15) reports various effects of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on d i f f e r e n t species of plants. Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t , applications up to 6.5 l b s . per acre of the four compounds appear to i n -crease y i e l d of potatoes and carrots, while D i e l d r i n and Endrin resulted i n a somewhat greater y i e l d Increase than A l d r i n and Isodrin when used as s o i l applications f o r radish. It appears that very high rates of application give a general depression of y i e l d , i r r e s p e c t i v e of kind of plant. Light applications of Endrin and Isodrin appeared to sJLightly favour top-growth of carrots while A l d r i n and Isodrin had a d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on top growth of radish to that of D i e l d r i n and -Enidrin. • While A l d r i n and Isodrin s i g n i f i c a n t l y depressed top growth, D i e l d r i n and Endrin had s i g n i f i c a n t s t i m u l a t o r y v e f f e c t s even at rates as high as 40 l b s . actual compound per acre. This Is of Interest In that I n i t i a l l y , i t appeared that A l d r i n and Isodrin had a stimulatory e f f e c t . The l e a f diameters of primary leaves were s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater as a r e s u l t of the A l d r i n and Isodrin treatments than with the D i e l d r i n and Endrin treatments. Leaves of plants i n the A l d r i n and" Isodrin treatments were a bright green colour while those of the D i e l d r i n and Endrin treatment were d u l l green. The compounds appeared to s l i g h t l y stimulate growth rates of tomato plants. Acetone solutions of Endrin and Isodrin s i g n i -f i c a n t l y depressed growth rates of tomato plants. However, more experimentation using t h i s type of treatment seems necessary to eliminate possible effects of acetone alone. In general, plants so treated developed a purple colour, s i m i l a r to plants s u f f e r i n g from severe phosphorus d e f i c i -ency. 69 The concentrations used In the carrot f i e l d experi-ment appeared to have no e f f e c t on the top-root r a t i o s . With radish, d e f i n i t e effects are evident. As might be expected from top growth data, A l d r i n and Isodrin decreased the magnitude of the r a t i o by suppressing top growth while D i e l d r i n and Endrin increased the magnitude by favouring top growth. A l l compounds seemed to stimulate e a r l i e r bloom-ing of tomato plants. This must, however, be investigated i n greater d e t a i l before d e f i n i t e conclusions could be made. Ins e c t i c i d e s , s i m i l a r to those used i n the preced-ing experiments, have stimulatory effects on germination of sugar cane cuttings while Randall (1) reports Increased germination of red clover seed with chlordfine, benzene hexa-chloride and D.D.T. No stimulatory action of Endrin and Isodrin on germination of tomato seeds ( s o i l treatments) was obtained while a l l four compounds appeared to s l i g h t l y i n -crease speed and t o t a l germination of radish In treated s o i l . However, marked early stimulation and t o t a l germination as well as growth rate of radish seedlings was obtained when seeds were placed on treated bacto-agar i n p e t r i dishes. There appeared to be a d e f i n i t e difference In the i n d i v i d u a l effect of the four i n s e c t i c i d e s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 40, 200 and 600 p.p.m. A l d r i n completely prevented germination while the other three compounds stimulated 70 germination at 40 and 200 p.p.m. The stimulatory action of Di e l d r i n and Endrin was much greater than that of Isodrin. In a l a t e r experiment, 10, 20 and 40 p.p.m. A l d r i n compared favourably to 40, 200 and 600 p.p.m. Isodrin (see photo-graphs and germination t a b l e s ) . Under f i e l d conditions, no effects of the i n s e c t i -cides could be found on the sugar content of car r o t s , while i n potatoes, a s l i g h t reduction of sugar was apparent. In radish, a s l i g h t decrease was general i n A l d r i n and Isodrin treatments while a more marked s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n sugar was found as a r e s u l t of the D i e l d r i n and Endrin treatment. It Is of interest to note that In a l l evaluations made, carrots appeared to be lea s t affected by the compounds of any of the plants used In the experiments. Gould (9) also found this to be the case in flavour e v a l u a t i o n s — potatoes were most e a s i l y affected while carrots were r e l a t i v e l y Immune. The e f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on carotene content of carrots i s s l i g h t and not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i -f i c a n t . A s l i g h t depressing trend appears to ex i s t how-ever. Further vitamin analysis showed that a tendency towards an increase of Vitamin C i n treated potatoes existed. A very d i f f e r e n t trend existed in the Vitamin C content of radish i n that a l l compounds depressed Vitamin C at a l l concentrations and the depression became highly 71 s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5 l b , per acre l e v e l . The compounds appeared to have no effect on moisture and ash content of potatoes and carrots. I t has been found that high chlorine content generally reduces dry weights. Although A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n appreciably increased the chlorine content of potatoes, the high chlorine contents apparently were not great enough to affect the dry weights obtained f o r potatoes. In the l a s t experiment conducted, using r a d i s h as a test plant, i t i s of interest to note that the two. groups of compounds (Aldrin-Isodrin and Dieldrin-Endrin) had i n some respects, very d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s . The A l d r i n and Isodrin treatments v i s i b l y depressed growth and the f o l i a g e exhibited marked v i s i b l e nitrogen and phosphorus d e f i c i e n c i e s . On the other hand check plots and D i e l d r i n and Endrin treated plots exhibited dark green, lush f o l i a g e . In general appearance the D i e l d r i n and Endrin treated plots appeared superior to the control p l o t s . Nitrogen and phosphorus determinations sub-stantiated the v i s u a l symptoms observed. A l d r i n and Isodrin severely depressed the nitrogen l e v e l i n both f o l i a g e and roots while D i e l d r i n and Endrin caused a highly s i g n i f i c a n t increase of nitrogen i n f o i l a g e but not a s i g n i f i c a n t one i n the roots. A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed the phosphorus 72 l e v e l i n the f o l i a g e i n a highly s i g n i f i c a n t manner while i n the roots the phosphorus l e v e l was stimulated at the 1 lb/ac. treatment and s i g n i f i c a n t l y depressed at the 80/lb/ac. treatment of A l d r i n and the 5-80 lb/ac. treatment of Isodrin. Although D i e l d r i n and Endrin depressed the phosphorus l e v e l at some treatment l e v e l s , general trends could not be est-ablished and i t appeared to have l i t t l e e f f e c t on phosphorus content of the f o l i a g e . However, i n the roots, some highly s i g n i f i c a n t depressions were encountered at the higher t r e a t -ment l e v e l s . No potassium deficiency was noted and deter-minations of potassium were not conducted* The analysis f o r chlorine i n carrots and potatoes showed that the experimental compounds increased the t o t a l chlorine content of the crops. The s l i g h t increase i n chlorine content of carrots was i n s i g n i f i c a n t while with potatoes, t o t a l chlorine was Increased i n a l l treatments i n a highly s i g n i f i c a n t manner. This difference of response to the compounds by di f f e r e n t crops i s of interest but renders i t d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible to make a general statement covering t h e i r behavior without detailed i n v e s t i -gation on a large number of crops. 73 CONCLUSIONS (1) At r e l a t i v e l y low concentrations, s o i l applications of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin gave s l i g h t y i e l d increases of potatoes and carrots under f i e l d conditions. (2) A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed top growth of radish while D i e l d r i n and Endrin favoured i t . (3) D i e l d r i n and Endrin stimulated germination of radish seed on treated agar at 40-200 p.p.m.,. Isodrin at 40 p.p.m. while A l d r i n completely depressed germination above 40 and at 200 and 600 p.p.m. (4) High applications of the compounds depress sugar content and Vitamin C content of radish. (5) A l d r i n and Isodrin depressed nitrogen and phosphorus content of leaves and roots of radish while D i e l d r i n and Endrin increased the nitrogen content and had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the i r phosphorus content. (6) A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n increased t o t a l chlorine con-tent of potatoes while Isodrin and Endrin had l i t t l e e f fect on chlorine content of carrots. 74 (7) In general, I t may be concluded that A l d r i n and Isodrin have s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c effects i n one d i r e c t i o n while D i e l d r i n and Endrin have s i m i l a r character-i s t i c effects i n an opposite d i r e c t i o n . (8) Plants are not necessarily affected by the com-pounds i n a l i k e manner, e.g., the high chlorine content of potatoes i n contrast to the unchanged chlorine content of carrots. SUMMARY The effects of d i f f e r e n t concentrations of A l d r i n , Isodrin, D i e l d r i n and Endrin as s o i l applications were studied on a number of h o r t i c u l t u r a l crop plants. E f f e c t on y i e l d as well as t h e i r effect on top growth, growth rate and other general growth effects were noted. Germination experiments with radish and tomato seeds planted i n treated s o i l and rad i s h seeds planted on treated bacto-agar were conducted. Possible effects on chemical constituents of test plants were studied. The e f f e c t on sugar content and carotene content were determined on carrots and Vitamin C determinations were made on potatoes and radish. The effects of the compounds on nitrogen, phosphorus and t o t a l chlorine content were also evaluated© Yields appeared to be increased, germination stimulated at ce r t a i n concentrations, Vitamin C content generally dep-ressed as well as the sugar content. A l d r i n and Isodrin suppressed top-growth i n general, suppressed nitrogen and phosphorus while D i e l d r i n and Endrin had the opposite e f f e c t . A l l four compounds increased chlorine content but had no effect on dry weights or, per cent ash. REFERENCES (1) A l d r i n Entomological Progress Report 1950. J u l i u s Hyman and Co., Denver, Colo, p. 7. (2) A l d r i n - General Information B u l l e t i n . 1950. C i r c u l a r 401, March, Juli u s Hyman and Co., Denver, Colo. (3) Anderson, R.W. , R.M. Blakely, and H.I. MacGregor. 1952. The T o x i c i t y of A l d r i n f o r Growing Turkeys S c i . Agr. 32 (11):586-591. (4) Arant, F.S. 1950. T o x i c i t y of A l d r i n , Chlordane, et a l on Chickens. 62 Ann. Meeting Amer. Assoc. Econ. Ent. Denver, Colo. t5) Breaky, E.P., and C. J . Gould. 1951. Wireworm Control on Wedgwood I r i s . West. Wash. Exp. Sta., Puyallup, Wash. (6) Circular 500-A 1951 - March J u l i u s Hyman & Co., Denver, Colo. (7) Crowell, H.H., and H.E. Morrison. 1950. The Phytotoxicity of Cucurbits of Some New Ins e c t i c i d e s . Jour, of Econ. Ent. 43 (1):14-16. (8) Current Use Status of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n . C i r c u l a r 300 - May 1951 J u l i u s Hyman & Co., Denver, Colo. (9) Dahm, P.A., and J.E. Pankoskie. 1949. A B i o l o g i c a l Assay Method f o r Determining A l d r i n . Jour. Econ. Ent. 42 (2):987-988. (10) Dahm, P.A. 1950. Microbioassay of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n i n Experi-mental Animal Tissue. 62 Ann. Meeting Amer. Assoc. Econ. Ent., Denver, Colo. 77 (11) Danish. A.A., and fi.E. Lidov. 1950. Colourimetric Method f o r Estimating Small Amounts of A l d r i n , Analyt. Chem., 22:702. (12) Danish, A.A., et a l . 1951. Treatment of Plant and Animal Material Con-taining Micro Quantities of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n f o r Photometric Analyses. Proc. of Amer. Chem. Soc. , Boston, Mass. (13) Elmore, J.C. 1952. Chemical Control of the Seed Corn Maggot on Lima Beans. U.S.D.A., B.E.P.Q., Whlttler, C a l i f o r n i a . (14) Endrin - Entamological Progress Report 1951. J u l i u s Hyman & Co., Denver, Colo. (15) Foster, Arthur C. 1950. How Toxic to Plants are Some of the New Insecticides? Agr. Chem., 5 (9):37-39. (16) F r a n k l i n , W.W. 1952. An E a r l y Season Attempt at the Control of Army Cutworm i n Wheat. Kansas State College Branch Sta., Hays, Kan. (17) F r a n k l i n , W.W. 1952. A Late Season Attempt at the Control of Army Cutworm. Kansas State College Branch Sta., Hays, Kan. (18) Gould, Wilbur A., et a l . 1951. Flavour Evaluations of Canned F r u i t s and Vegetables Treated with Newer Organic Insecticides. Food Technology 5 (4):126-133. (19) Hanford, R.H. and D.G. Finlayson 1952. Onion Maggot Control. Abstracts 11th Ann. Northwest Veg. Insect Conf• Portland, Oregon. (20) Howe, W.L. 1950. Reactions of Squash Vine Borer to Certain I n s e c t l c i d a l S o i l Treatments. Jour. Econ. Ent., 43 (4):549. 78 (21) I n s e c t i c i d a l Newsletter* 1951* F r u i t Insect Investigations, Div. of Ent., S c i * Service Dept. of Agr., Ottawa* 2(1):January* (22) Insecticides for Potato Insect Control 1952. Pennsylvania State College, Div. of Agr. Extension. (23) Isodrin - Entamological Progress Report. 1951. J u l i u s Hyman & Co., Denver Colo. (24) K u l t e r t , L.C., and A.N. Tlssot* 1949. Control of Budworms and Hornworms i n Flue-cured Tobacco. F l o r i d a Agr, Expt. Sta,, G a i n s v i l l e , F l o r i d a * (25) Morrison, H.E. 1952. S o i l Pests - Formal Report of Grant-in-aid Project from Oregon State College, C o r v a l l i s , Ore. (26) Nelson, R. 1951. Onion Smut and Maggot Control. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Mich. (27) P r i n c i , Frank, and G.H. Spurbeck. 1951. A Study of Workers Exposed to the Insecticides A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n and Chlordane* A.M.A. Arch, of Indus.Hyg. and Occup* Med., 3:64-72. (28) Randall, Armand Peter. 1952. The Effects of D.D.T., Chlordane and Benzene Hexachloride upon Germination, Growth and Nodulation of Red Clover* Dept. of Hor t i c u l t u r e , Univ. of B. C* (29) Robinson, W.B. and E. Stotz. 1945. The Indophenol - Xylene Extraction Method f o r Ascorbic acid and Modifications f o r Inter-f e r i n g Sunstances* Jour. B i o l . Chem., 160:175. (30) S t i t t , Lloyd L* Onion Maggot Control Western Wash. Expt. Sta., Puyallup, Wash* (31) Supplement to C i r c u l a r 678. Department of Hort., Univ. of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, 111. (32) T e r r i e r e , L.C., and H.H. Crowell. Bioassay of Insecticide Residues i n Potatoes Grown i n Treated S o i l s . 35 Ann. Meeting of P a c i f i c Branch Amer. Assoc of Econ. Ent., S e a t t l e , Wash. (33) Unrau, A.M. 1952. Chlordane. i t s E f f e c t on Radish when used as S o i l S t e r i l a n t . Grad. Essay Submitted to Dept. of Hort., Univ. of B. C. (34) Watts, J.G. 1951. S o i l Insect Control i n Southeast by Mixtures of Pesticides and F e r t i l i z e r . Agr. Chem., 6 (4):36-38, 115-116. BO BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adams, J . A l f r e d . 1951. Test with D i e l d r i n f o r Control of Japanese Beetle Larvae i n Turf. Jour. Econ. Ent., 44 (1):127. 2. A l d r i n Bibliography 1951 - March J u l i u s Hyman &*Co., Denver, Colo. 5. A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n Resume 1951-1952. J u l i u s Hyman & Co., Denver, Colo. 4. Anderson, F. D. 1951. Summary of Tests on Various Crops i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a During 1951. Citrus Exp. Sta., Riverside, C a l i f . 5. App, B.A. 1950. Insecticide Dusts to Control the Clover Root Borer and the Meadow Spittlebug. Jour. Econ. Ent., 43 (4).407*414. 6. Asquith, Dean. 1951. Concentrated Sprays and Plum Curculio Control. . Jour. Econ. Ent. 43 (6):843. 7. Bishopp, F.C. 1951. Food, Health and Insecticides. Agr. Chem. 6 (2). 8. Borgman, A.R. et a l 1950. Exhibit #1218 - Toxicological studies of A l d r i n on Laboratory animals. Food and Drug Hearings on Residue Tolerances, Washington, D. C. 9. Bushland, R.C., et a l . 1949. E f f e c t on Livestock of Sprays and Dips contain-ing new Chlorinated Insecticides. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41;642. 10. Compton, C.C. and McCauley, W.E. 1951. Use of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n i n S o i l Widens Scope of Pest Control. 9th Int. Cong, of Ent. , Amsterdam, Holland. 81 11. The Control of White Grubs, 1951. Jour. Econ. Ent. 44 (1):58-6Q. 12. Cox, H.C., and J.H. L i l l y . 1951. Progress Report on A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n as S o i l Insecticides i n Iowa. Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa. 13. D i l l s , L. E. 1951. A Summary of I n s e c t i c i d a l Work on Vegetable Insects. Pennsylvania State College. 14. Durr, H.J..R. 1951. Preliminary Investigations of Relative T o x i c i t y . Ent. & Plant Quarantine Sta., Rosebank, Cape Province, South A f r i c a . 15. Gyrisco, G.G. 1951. The Control of European Chafer Grubs Using Several d i f f e r e n t Concentrations and formulations , of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n . Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 16. Gyrisco, G.G., and D.S.Marshall. 1950. Further Investigations on the Control of Clover Root Borer of New York. Jour. Econ. Ent. 43 (1):82. 17. Hanford, R.H. and F.L. Banham. 1952. Control of Potato Tuber Flea Beetle. Abst. 11th Ann. Northwest Veg. Insect. Conf. Portland, Oregon. 18. Onion Maggot Control. 1950. Jour. Econ. Ent. 43 (6):951. 19. Parr, H.C.M. Notes on Chloredane, Toxaphene and D i e l d r i n as Insecticides. Colonial Insecticide Research Unit. Arusha, Tanganyika Terr., Br. E. A f r i c a * 20. Polivka, J.B. 1952. F i e l d Tests of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n f o r Control of Norther masked chafer - Cyolocephala b o r e a l l s . Jour. Econ. Ent., 45 (2):347. 21. Progress Report on Project 100 (Souther Masked Chafer Control). 1951. Kansas State College, Manhattan, Kansas. 82 22. Ritcher, P.O. 1949. New Material f o r Control of Strawberry Crown Borer. Jour. Econ. Ent., 42 (5):838-839. 23. Schreod, J.C. 1951. S o i l and Grassland Insect Investigations. Connecticut Agr. Expt. Sta., New Haven, Conn. 24. Schenefelt, R.D. 1951. Insecticides f o r White Grubs. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 25. Sherman, Martin. 1951. The chemical control of Sweet Potato Insects. College of Agr., Univ. of Hawaii. 26. Sun, Y.P., and TungSun, J.Y. 1950. Microbioassay of Inse c t i c i d e s . 62 Ann. Meeting Amer. Assoc. Econ. Ent., Denver, Colo. 27. Tox i c o l o g i c a l Studies of A l d r i n . 1950. Amer. Jour. Vet. Res. 11 (41):378-381. 28. V i a l e , E. 1951. Control of Sweet Potato Weevil. Costa Rica. # * * APPENDIX INDEX TABLES Number 1. Ef f e c t on yiel d s I mm VI 2. Effec t on top growth VII - XI 3. Effec t on le a f diameter XII - XV 4. Ef f e c t on tomato plants (growth) XVI 5. Ef f e c t on top-root r a t i o s XVII - XXI 6. Eff e c t on growth rates XXII - XXVI 7. Eff e c t on blossoming XXVII 8. Eff e c t on germination - Tomatoes XXVIII - XXXI 9. Eff e c t on germination - Radish XXXII - XXXIX 10, E f f e c t on sugar content XL mm XLV 11.Effect on Vitamin A content XLVI 12. Ef f e c t on Vitamin C content XLVII - LI 13. Ef f e c t on moisture content LII - LIII 14. E f f e c t on per cent ash LIV - LV 15. Effe c t on nitrogen content LVI - LXIII 16. Ef f e c t on phosphorus content LXIV - LXXI 17. E f f e c t on chlorine content LXXII _ LXXIII * * * Table I The e f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin treatments ( s o i l ) on carrot yields (oz. per plot) Treatment . Replicates Lbs.compd./acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Check 120 < 124 128 151 124 90 160 160 116 1173 Endrin—0.5 158 190 .180 140 144 116 132 155 97 1312 3.5 152 156 184 166 126 134 210 156 134 1418 6,5 206 210 140 164 160 105 117 100 120 1322 9.5 114 198 160 178 150 126 108 103 130 1267 Total 750 878 792 799 704 571 727 674 597 6492 Check 120 124 128 151 124 90 160 160 116 1173 Isodrin-0.5 156 140 106 160 152 152 121 134 153 1264 3,5 120 152 140 144 124 144 166 176 152 1318 6,5 156 136 142 130 161 158 122 196 122 1323 9.5 198 184 100 132 138 132 142 121 141 1288 Total 750 736 616 707 699 676 711 787 684 6366 Although a trend i n y i e l d t o t a l s Is evident, the experiment appears not to be r e f i n e d enough to show s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Greater control of variable factors such as s o i l v a r i a t i o n appear to be e s s e n t i a l i n evaluating y i e l d effects of the compounds at lower treatment l e v e l s . A complete s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the above data i s found on the following page. The same method of data analysis has been used f o r a l l other tables and l e a s t s i g n i -f i c a n t differences calculated where the P values indicated s i g n i f i c a n c e . L.S.D. = J 2 x v a r i a n c e ( 1 , x N ( 2 ) x tS5* Totals f o r above table, (1) variance = error variance of variance analysis (2) N = number of treatments. (3) t value f o r above = N = 32 @ .05 = 1.95 f o r means - L.S.D. = 12x var x t V n" Analysis of data - Table Endrin C P . = (6492) 2 = 936579 45 Total S.S. Block S.S. = 979062 - 936579 42483 4759920 - 936579 « 15405 5 8460970 - 936579 = 3529 9 Treatment S.S. Error S.S. = 42483 - (15405 + 3529) = 23549 Factor S.S. Total 42483 Block 15405 Treatment 3529 Error 23549 Isodrin _ C.F. = (6366)^ 45 Total S.S. = Block S.S. = Analysis of Variance Variance D. of P. 44 8 4 32 1926 882 736 Treatment S.S. Error S.S. « 900,577 923170 - 900577 = 4521824 - 900577 = F.c. 2.er' 1.19 22593 3788 F.t. 2.25 (3.12) 2.67 (3.97) = 8120022 - 900577 = 1648 9 = 22593 - (3788 + 1648) = 17157 Analysis of Variance Factor Total Block Treatment Error S.S. 22593 3788 1648 17157 D. of F« 44 8 4 32 Variance P.c. 474 412 536 F.t. 0.88 2.25 0.76 2.67 (3.12) (3.97) Table I I E f f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on y i e l d of potatoes (Ounces per p l o t ) Treatment Lbs • Beplicates Total Compd/acre 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 Check 32 64 87 124 98 134 68 110 90 807 A l d r i n 0,5 72 146 98 75 76 118 151 68 101 905 3,5 172 132 128 103 80 136 108 73 79 1011 6.5 69 196 160 108 57 114 120 88 114 1026 9.5 92 108 84 172 116 124 127 39 78 960 Total 437 646 557 582 427 626 574 378 462 4709 Check 32 64 87 124 98 134 68 110 90 807 ) i e l d r i n 0.5 79 87 126 72 95 60 110 127 95 851 3.5 135 87 103 162 147 83 94 86 66 963 6.5 146 72 180 104 76 108 74 44 100 904 9.5 58 144 116 59 94 103 125 69 96 864 Total 450 454 612 521 510 488 471 436 447 4389 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference ( s t a t i s t i c a l ) apparent i n t o t a l y i e l d figures from complete s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of data. Table I I I E f f e c t of A l d r i n on Y i e l d of Radish (Weights expressed In grams) Treatment Replicates Lbs .compel./acre A B C Total Check 39 29 42 110 1 35 38 50 123 5 39 37 42 118 10 30 42 49 121 20 38 40 53 131 40 48 35 57 140 X 80 28 28 30 86* Total 257 249 323 829 L.S.D. @ .05 = 28 Table IV E f f e c t of Isodrin on Y i e l d of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs . c ompci ./acre A B C Total Check 39 29 42 110 1 20 34 23 77 5 37 27 41 105 10 28 41 21 90 20 27 45 37 109 40 28 40 47 115 80 17 33 49 99 To t a l 196 249 260 705 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference exists i n y i e l d t o t a l s . Table V E f f e c t of D i e l d r i n on Y i e l d of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C Total Check 39 29 42 110 1 56 59 54 169 x 5 43 64 40 147 10 35 57 39 131 20 41 49 43 133 40 50 47 34 131 80 65 59 59 183 x Total 329 364 311 1004 L. S.D. @ .05 = 41 Table VI - Eff e c t of Endrin on Y i e l d of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C Total Check 39 29 42 110 1 48 59 62 169 5 58 46 51 155 10 29 34 61 124 20 33 37 53 123 40 36 34 62 ' 132 80 35 32 29 96 Total 278 271 360 909 No s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t difference, probably due to C r e p l i c a t e t o t a l . Table VII E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on top growth of carrots - weights i n ounces per p l o t Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Check 55 33 34 36 32 20 40 44 24 296 Endrin 0.5 48 48 40 32 35 30 35 34 20 322 5.5 48 36 44 42 27 32 48 38 34 349 6.5 60 64 35 38 36 28 25 28 23 337 9.5 32 56 40 44 36 28 28 28 24 316 Total 221 237 193 192 166 138 176 172 125 1620 Check 33 33 34 36 32 20 40 44 24 296 Isodrin 0.5 50 50 24 38 42 38 28 28 32 330 5.5 32 40 , 28 37 28 38 40 41 40 324 6.5 37 36 36 28 40 36 29. 48 30 320 9.5 60 46 24 42 36 33 28 32 33 •: 334 Total 212 205 146 181 178 165 165 193 159 1604 Nc s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment t o t a l s . Table VIII E f f e c t of A l d r i n on Top growth of Radish (Weight of Tops i n grams) Treatment Replicates • Lbsacompd./acre A B C Total Check 60 41 62 163 1 44 56 61 161 5 38 40 51 129 x 10 46 41 50 137 20 42 46 49 137 40 45 45 48 138 80 33 34 42 109 x x Total 308 303 363 974 L.S.D. @ .05 = 28 L.S.D. @ oOl = 40 Table IX Effe c t of Isodrin on Top \ growth of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs./compd./acre A B - C Total Check 60 41 62 163 1 36 50 45 131 5 53 39 55 147 10 33 51 37 .121 20 46 49 33 128 40 47 53 52 152* 80 35 43 49 127 Total 310 326 333 969 Does not f i t otherwise d e f i n i t e trend, n u l l i f i e s s i g n i -f icance. Table X Eff e c t of D i e l d r i n on Top growth of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C Total Check 60 41 62 163 1 57 70 79 206 5 78 101 75 254** 10 60 71 68 199 20 79 87 76 2 4 2 x x 40 85 83 66 232 x 80 67 57 62 186 Total 484 510 488 1482 L.S.D* @ .05 = 54 L.S. Table XI D. @ .01 = 76 L E f f e c t of Endrin on Top growth of Radish Treatment Replicates Lbs.Compd./acre A B C Total Check 60 41 62 163 1 63 64 60 : 187 5 85 79 52 216 10 59 70 73 202 20 62 74 78 214 40 60 64 77 201 80 74 64 53 191 Total 463 456 455 1374 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment t o t a l s but trend similar to that In Table X. Table XII Leaf diameters of primary leaves of Radish. An aver-age value of normal plants. Figures i n tenths of an inch and measured 13 days a f t e r planting A l d r i n Treatment Replicates Lb s.c ompd./acre A B C Average Total Check 9 10 9 9.3 28 1 11 11 11 11..0** 33 5 11 10 11 10, 32 10 11 11 11 11..0** 33 20 11 12 11 l l . S ^ x 34 40 11 12 12 ii.©** 35 80 11 11 10 lo.exx 32 Total 75 77 75 227 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.9 Table XIII L.S.D. @ .01 = 1.2 Leaf diameters of primary leaves of Radish (Cont'd.) Isodrin Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C Average Total Check 9 10 9 9.3 28 1 11 11 12 11.. 3** 34 5 11 10 12 11.0" 33 10 11 10 10 10.3 X 31 20 11 11 12 11.Z** 34 40 12 13 11 1 2 0 0 x x 36 80 13 11 12 12.0 X X 36 Total 78 76 78 232 L.S.D. @ .05 = 1. 1 L.S.D. @ .01 = 1.5 Table XIV Leaf diameters of primary leaves of Hadish (Cont'd.) D i e l d r i n Treatment Replicates [*bs o /c ompd/acr e A B C Average Total Check 9 10 9 9.3 28 1 9 10 9 9.3 28 5 11 10 11 10.6 32 10 10 11 10 10.3 31 20 9 10 10 9.6 29 40 10 11 9 10.0 30 80 9 9 10 9.3 28 To t a l 67 71 68 206 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment means Table XV Leaf diameters of primary leaves of Radish (Cont »d.) Endrin Treatment Replicates Lbs•compd/acre A B C Average Total Check 9 10 9 9.3 28 1 9 11 10 10.0 30 5 9 10 9 9.3 28 10 10 9 10 9.6 29 20 9 10 10 9.6 29 40 8 8 10 8.6 26 80 10 8 9 9.0 27 Total 64 66 67 197 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment means Table XVI E f f e c t of Aldrin i , D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin i n growth of tomato plants Total weight of a e r i a l growth of 10 wks. i n oz. Treatment Lbs • c ompd. /ac. Replicates 1 2 3 Total Check 8,0 7.0 9.0 24.0 A l d r i n 10 8.0 12.0 9.0 29.0 20 6.0 10.0 10.0 26.0 40 8.5 6.5 12.0 27.0 D i e l d r i n 10 9.0 9.0 10.0 28.0 20 9.0 8.0 12.0 29.0 40 4.0 5.0 4.0 13. 0 X Isodrin 10 8.0 9.0 6.0 23.0 20 4.0 8.5 5.0 17.5 • 40 5.0 8.0 10.0 23.0 Endrin 10 8.5 9.0 10.0 27.5 20 8.5 6.5 7.0 22.0 40 7.5 11.0 8.0 26.5 Total 94.0 109.5 112.0 315.5 L.S.D. @ .05 = 12.5 Table XVII E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on top-root r a t i o of carrots Treatment _ ., . n , . t>/-r Lbs.compd/ Replicates - fatio as K/T A v e r . acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 3 . 63 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 6 4 o l 9 3 . 8 7 4 . 5 0 4 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 4 . 7 5 4 . 0 0 3 6 . 0 8 Endrin 0 . 5 3 . 2 9 3 . 9 5 4 . 5 0 4 . 3 7 4 . 1 1 5 . 8 6 3 . 7 7 4 . 5 5 4 . 8 5 4 . 1 3 3 7 . 2 5 3 « 5 3 . 1 6 " 4 . 3 3 4 . 1 8 3 . 9 5 4 . 6 6 4 . 1 8 4 . 3 7 4 . 1 0 3 . 9 4 4 . 0 9 3 6 . 8 7 6 . 5 3 . 4 3 3 . 2 8 4 . 0 0 4 . 3 1 4 . 4 4 3 . 7 5 4 . 6 8 3 . 5 7 5 . 2 1 4 . 0 7 3 6 . 6 7 9 . 5 3 . 5 6 3 . 5 3 4 . 0 0 4 . 0 4 4 . 1 6 4 . 5 0 3 . 8 5 3 . 6 7 5 . 4 1 4 . 0 8 3 6 . 7 2 T o t a l 1 7 . 0 7 1 8 . 8 4 2 0 . 4 4 2 0 . 8 6 2 1 . 2 4 2 0 . 7 9 2 0 . 6 7 1 9 . 5 2 2 4 . 1 6 1 8 3 . 5 9 Check 3 . 6 3 3 . 7 5 3 . 7 6 4 . 1 9 3 . 8 7 4 . 5 0 4 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 4 . 7 5 4 . 0 0 3 6 . 0 8 Isodrin 0 . 5 3 . 1 2 2 . 8 0 4 . 4 1 3 . 9 4 3 . 6 1 4 . 0 0 4 . 3 2 4 . 7 8 4 . 8 4 3 . 9 8 3 5 . 8 2 5 . 5 3 . 7 5 3 . 8 0 5 . 0 0 3 . 8 9 4 . 4 2 3 . 7 8 4 . 1 5 4 . 2 9 5 . 8 0 4 . 0 9 3 6 . 8 8 6 . 5 4 . 2 1 3 . 7 7 3 . 9 4 4 . 6 4 4 . 0 2 4 . 3 8 4 . 2 0 4 . 0 8 4 . 0 6 4 . 1 4 3 7 . 3 0 9 . 5 3 . 3 0 4 . 0 0 4 . 1 6 3 . 1 4 3 . 8 3 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 7 3 . 7 8 4 . 2 7 3 . 9 5 3 5 . 55 Total 1 8 . 0 1 1 8 . 1 2 2 1 . 2 7 1 9 . 8 0 1 9 . 7 5 2 0 . 6 6 2 1 . 7 4 2 0 . 5 6 2 1 . 7 2 1 8 1 . 6 3 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n means. Table XVIII E f f e c t of A l d r i n on top/root r a t i o of radish Treatment . Replicates Lbs.Compd./ac. A B C Average Total Check 1.55 1.42 1.14 1.37 4.11 1 1.27 1.44 1.21 1.31 3.92 5 2.00 1.50 1.21 1.57 4.71 10 1.51 0.98 1.01 1.16 3.50 20 1.10 1.15 0.92 1.06 3*17 40 0.95 1.30 0.84 1.03 x 3.09 80 1.17 1.21 1.42 1.23 3.80 Total 9.55 9.00 7.75 26.30 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.35 , Table XIX Eff e c t of Isodrin on top/root r a t i o of radish Treatment Lbs. compd./ac A B C Average Total Check 1.55 1.42 1.14 1.37 . 4.11 1 1.77 1.47 2.00 1.41 5.24 5 1.45 1.44 1.34 1.40 4.21 10 1.83 1.24 1.80 1.62 4.87 20 1.73 1.10 0.92 1.25 3.75 40 1.70 0.90 1.11. 1.24 3.71 80 2.02 1.32 1.01 1.45 4.35 Total 12.03 8.89 9 o 32 30.24 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference In treatment means. Table XX Eff e c t of D i e l d r i n on the top/root r a t i o of radish Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 1.55 . 1.42 1.14 1.37 4.11 . 1 1.02 1.18 1.47 1.22 3.67 5 1.81 1.59 1.87 1.76** 5.27 10 1,70 1.23 1.76 1.56 4.69 20 1.91 1.76 1.80 1.82 x x 5.47 40 1.65 1.76 1.95 1.79** 5.36 80 1.03 0.97 1.05 1.02 x 3.05 Total 10.67 9.91 •11.04 31.62 L.S.D. @ o05 = i 0.26 Table L.S.D. XXI @ .01 = 0.37 Ef f e c t of Endrin on the top/root r a t i o of ra d i s h Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Tota l Check 1.55 1.42 1.14 1.37 4.11 1 1.31 1.09 0.97 : 1.12 3.37 5 1.46 ,1.71 1.02 . 1.40 4.19 1° 2.07 .2.07 1.19 1.78 5 . 33 20 1.87 ,2.02 1.47 . 1.79 5.36 40 1.66 1.91 1.24 1.60 4.81 80 2.14 1.98 1.81 1.98 5 a 93 Total 12.06 12.20 8.84 33.10 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment means. Table XXII The effects of A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin on weekly growth rate of tomato plants ( i n inches) Treatment Lbs.compd/ac. 1 Replicate 2 3 Average Check 5.20 5.07 5.33 5.20 A l d r i n 10 5.58 5.62 5.37 5.52 20 4.97 6.10 5.86 5.64 40 4.99 6.07 6.29 5.78 D i e l d r i n 10 5.76 5.16 5.23 5.38 20 4.61 5.39 5.77 5.26 40 4.58 4.59 4.23 4.47 Isodrin 10 5.34 5.22 5.61 5.39 20 4.66 5.18 4.47 4.77 40 4.65 4.73 5.17 4.86 Endrin 10 5.68 5.43 5.70 5.60 20 5.76 5.71 5.04 5.50 40 5.20 5.52 5.50 5.41 Average 5.15 5.37 5.35 5.29 :No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the treatment means. Table XXIII Growth rate (weekly) of Tomato plants grown i n s o i l treated with Acetone solutions of Endrin (#269). Plated 3 days a f t e r treatment (In inches) Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C D Average Total Check 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.0 8.0 1 1.7 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.6* 6.4 5 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.1 I . 4 X X 5.6 10 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.7 l . S * * 4.7 20 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 X x 2.6 Total 7.3 6.4 6.6 7.0 27.3 L.S.D. -it „ .05 Level * .01 " = = 0.37 = 0.52 Table XXIV Growth rate (weekly) of Tomato plants i grovmin s o i l treated with Acetone solutions of Isodrin (711). Planted 3 days a f t e r treatment (In inches) Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C D Average Total Check 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.0 8.0 1 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 X 5.5 5 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.6 X 5 © 5 10 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.6 X 5.6 20 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.2 1.8 X 7.1 Total 8.0 7.6 8.5 7.6 31.7 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.43 L.S.D. @ .01 = 0.61 Table XXV Weekly growth rate (In inches) of tomato plants grown i n s o i l treated with Endrin (1269). Rates as i n Table and planted 18 days a f t e r treatment Treatment Replicates Lbs•c ompd.-/acre A B C D Average Total Check 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.3 5.1 1 2.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.5 6.0 5 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.2 1.6 6.2 10 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.3 5.0 20 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.2 X 9.0 Total 9.2 7.1 8.1 6.9 31.3 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.58 Table XXVI Weekly growth rate ( i n inches) of tomato plants grown In s o i l treated with Isodrin C711) . Rates as In Table and planted 18 days af t e r treatment Treatment Lb s•compd./acre A B C D Average Total Check 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.3 5.1 1 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 5.4 5 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.4 1.5 6.1 10 1.6 2.0 1.3 2.8 1.9 7.7 20 1.5 1.9 1.5 2.1 T.8 7.0 Total 7.7 7.7 6.4 9.5 31.3 No s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n treatment means. Table XXVII The e f f e c t of A l d r i n , D i e l d r i n , Isodrin and Endrin on blossoming of tomatoes No. of days t i l l f i r s t blossom opens Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./ac 1 2 3 Average Check 88 92 90 90 -A l d r i n 10 85 75 78 79 20 85 78 85 83 40 78 ; 85 75 79 D i e l d r i n 10 75 85 85 82 20 80 85 75 80 40 78 85 92 85 Isodrin 10 85 85 78 83 20 78 85 80 81 40 85 85 80 83 Endrin 10 78 75 75 76 20 80 85 85 83 40 . 102 78 90 90 Average 83 83 82 83 Compounds appeared to hasten blooming but figures not s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y . Table XXVIII Ef f e c t of Endrin on germination of tomato seed. Number of days f i r s t 4 seeds germinate. Total seeds per pl o t = = 10 Treatment Lbs.compd./acre Replicates A B C D Average Total Check 8 8 12 7 8.7 35 1 8 10 8 8 8.5 34 5 11 12 8 8 9.7 39 10 8 10 8 8 8.5 34 20 8 10 8 8 8.5 34 Total 43 50 44 39 176 No S.D. i n treatment means Table XXIX E f f e c t of Isodrin on germination of tomato seeds. Number of days f i r s t 4 seeds germinate. Total seeds per plot = 10 Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A B C D Average Total Check 8 8 12 7 8.7 35 1 10 9 10 8 9.1 37 5 9 9 7 8 8.1 33 10 7 10 10 6 8.1 33 20 10 8 8 8 8.2 34 Total 44 44 47 37 172 No S.D. i n treatment means Table XXX Total number of tomato seeds germinated i n s o i l treated with Endrin. Seeds per plot=10 Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd./acre A . B C D Total/40 Check 8 7 7 8 30 1 8 7 9 10 34 5 7 9 10 9 35 10 10 7 9 8 34 20 8 5 10 8 31 Total 41 35 45 43 164 No S.D. i n treatment t o t a l s Table XXXI Total number of tomato seeds germinated In s o i l treated with Isodrin. Seeds per plot = 10 Treatment Lbs.compd./acre Replicates Total/40 A B C D Check 8 7 7 8 30 1 8 10 9 9 36 5 7 7 10 9 33 10 9 8 9 7 33 20 10 7 8 10 35 Total 42 39 43 43 167 No S.D. In treatment totals Table XXXII Germination t r i a l s with radish i n A l d r i n treated s o i l Treatment R e p l i - No. of days Pi n a l Lbs.compd•/ac. cates 3 4 S 6 Count Check 1 0 11 19 22 24 2 0 8 11 12 18 S 0 9 18 21 23 Total 0 28 48 55 65 1 1 1 12 18 21 23 2 0 17 22 22 24 3 0 14 22 23 24 Total 1 43 62 66 71 5 1 2 17 22 23 25 2 2 13 18 23 27 3 2 16 20 21 22 Total 6 46 60 67 74 10 1 0 15 21 22 25 2 0 12 20 22 24 3 0 14 19 22 24 Total 0 41 60 66 73 20 1 1 13 20 20 24 2 2 15 19 19 22 3 2 12 20 21 24 Total 5 40 59 60 70 40 1 1 9 16 16 23 2 2 11 19 20 22 3 1 12 23 23 26 Total 4 32 58 59 71 80 1 0 12 17 19 21 2 0 10 17 23 25 3 0 17 24 25 25 Total 0 39 58 67 71 G.T. 16 269 405 440 495 No S. D. i n treatment t o t a l s . Table XXXIII Germination of radish In r e p l i c a t e d s o i l f l a t s , counted at d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v a l s . 32 seeds per plot Isodrin Treatment R e p l i - No. of days P i n a l lbs•compd./ac. cates 3 4 5 6 Count Check 1 0 11 19 22 24 2 0 8 11 12 18 3 0 9 18 21 23 Total 0 28 48 55 65 1 1 1 10 18 22 22 2 1 13 20 22 23 3 1 12 17 19 20 Total 3xx 35 55 63 65 5 1 0 19 24 25 26 2 . 1 14 17 19 22 3 1 19 22 24 27 Total 2** 52 63 68 75 10 1 1 10 17 22 24 2 1 21 24 26 27 3 0 12 15 17 22 Total 2xx 43 56 65 73 20 1 0 13 20 25 26 2 1 13 20 20 25 3 0 17 21 24 25 Total l x 43 61 69 76 40 1 12 15 20 24 26 2 12 16 22 23 25 3 13 15 21 22 23 Total 37?* 46 63 69 74 80 1 4 12 16 18 19 2 4 14 20 22 25 3 4 15 21 25 27 Total 41 57 65 71 G'.T. 57 288 403 454 499 L.S.D. - 3 day column @ ,05 = • 1.0, @ .01 = 1.3 Table XXXIV Germination t r i a l s with Radish (cont'd). D i e l d r i n Treatment R e p l i - No. of days Pi n a l lbs.compd./ac. cates 3 4 5 6 Count Check 1 0 11 19 22 24 2 0 8 11 12 18 5 0 9 18 21 23 Total 0 28 48 55 65 1 1 0 3 10 12 23 2 0 6 11 15 23 3 , 0 9 16 22 25 Total 0 18 37 49 71 5 1 1 9 18 22 26 2 0 12 23 24 25 3 0 9 15 20 24 Total 1 30 56 66 75 10 1 0 11 19 22 24 2 0 10 17 20 20 3 0 10 15 19 21 Total 0 31 51 61 65 20 1 0 6 15 21 26 2 0 6 21 24 24 3 0 5 14 17 25 Total 0 17 50 62 75 40 1 0 5 14 18 23 2 0 . 9 17 18 20 3 0 6 18 20 23) Total 0 20 49 56 66 80 1 0 7 15 20 22 2 0 5 14 17 20 3 0 6 15 17 24 Total 0 18 44 54 66 G.T. 1 162 335 403 483 No S.D. exists i n t o t a l s . Table XXXV Germination t r i a l s with radish (con't.) Endrin Treatment R e p l i - No. of Days Pi n a l Lbs.compd./ac• cates 3 4 5 6 Count check. 1 0 11 19 22 24 2 0 8 11 12 18 3 0 9 18 21 23 Total 0 28 48 55 65 1 1 0 1 10 19 24 2 0 5 12 16 19 3 0 5 14 20 23 Total 0 11 36 55 66 5 1 0 8 18 25 28 2 0 9 20 25 27 3 0 4 13 18 22 Total 0 21 51 68 77X 10 1 1 8 14 23 27 2 0 12 17 21 23 3 1 13 20 22 27 Total 2 33 51 66 77 x 20 1 1 10 14 16 20 2 1 15 22 23 23 3 1 14 17 19 22 Tot a l 3 39 53 58 65 40 1 0 7 13 20 22 2 0 9 13 17 19 3 0 11 15 19 23 Total 0 27 41 56 64 80 1 0 12 18 20 20 2 0 9 14 18 20 3 0 8 15 17 18 Total 0 29 47 55 58 G.T. 5 188 327 413 472 L.S.D. of f i n a l count column @ .05 = 12 Table XXXVI Replicated germination tests with Radish seeds using same concentrations as i n preliminary t r i a l — r e Table /Z Number of seeds per plate = 20 Isodrin Treatments Replicates p.p.m.compd. Time A B C Total Check 2 3 3 8 40 48 hrs. 6 5 6 1 7 x x 200 3 5 4 1 2 x x 600 0 0 0 0xx Total 11 13 13 37 Check 8 15 10 33 40 72 hrs. 16 16 17 4 9 x x 200 15 16 14 600 1 3 2 Total 40 50 43 133 Check 8 17 12 37 40 96 hrs. 18 17 18 53 x 200 18 18 18 54 x 600 5 9 6 20* Total 49 61 54 164 Check 13 18 14 45 40 120 hrs. 18 17 18 53 200 18 18 18 54 x 600 9 13 10 3 2 x x Total 58 66 60 184 Check 14 18 15 47 40 144 hrs. 18 17 18 53 200 18 18 18 54 600 10 15 12 37 x Total 60 68 63 191 Check 14 18 15 47 40 168 hrs. 18 17 18 53 200 (Pinal) 18 18 18 54 600 11 16 13 40 Tota l 61 69 64 194 Table XXXVII Germination re s u l t s (cont'd.) A l d r i n Treatments Replicates p.p.m.compd. Time A B C • Total Check 2 3 3 8 10 48 hrs. 2 4 4 10 20 1 1 1 40 0 0 0 0 x x Total 5 8 8 21 Check 8 15 10 33 10 72 hrs. 9 13 11 33 20 4 8 5 1 7 x x 40 0 4 3 Total 21 40 29 90 Check 8 17 12 37 10 96 hrs. 16 14 16 46 20 10 9 12 31 40 2 8 5 15 x Total 36 48 45 129 Check 13 18 14 45 10 120 hrs. 16 15 16 47 20 13 14 14 41 40 3 11 7 2 1 x x Total 45 58 51 154 Check 14 18 15 47 10 144 hrs. 17 16 17 50 20 15 14 15 44 40 4 14 9 27 x Total 50 62 56 168 Check 14 18 15 47 10 168 hrs. 17 16 17 50 20 (Fi n a l 16 17 17 50 40 Count) 6 14 10 30 x Total 53 65 59 177 Table XXXVIII Germination re s u l t s (cont'd.) D i e l d r i n Treatment Replicates p.p.m.compd. Time A B C Total Check 2 3 3 8 40 48 hrs. 7 7 6 2 0 x x 200 3 5 4 600 0 0 0 Total 12 15 13 40 Check 8 15 10 33 40 72 hrs. 19 18 17 5 4 x x 200 11 15 13 39 600 8 11 9 28 Total 46 59 49 154 Check 8 17 12 37 40 96 hrs. 20 18 18 56* 200 15 18 16 49 600 10 12 11 33 Total 53 65 57 175 Check 13 18 14 45 40 120 hrs. 20 19 18 57 200 17 18 16 51 600 10 14 13 37 Total 60 69 61 190 Check 14 18 15 47 40 144 hrs. 20 19 18 57 x 200 18 19 18 55 600 12 15 14 41 Total 64 71 65 200 Check 14 18 15 47 40 168 hrs. 20 19 18 57 x 200 (Fi n a l 18 19 18 55 x 600 Count) 14 15 14 43 Total 66 71 65 202 Table XXXEX Germination r e s u l t s Endrin (cont'd.) Treatments Kepiicates p.p.m.compd. Time A B C Total Check 2 3 3 8 40 48 hrs. 5 6 5 16* 200 5 2 4 11 600 1 • 1 0 2* Total 13 12 12 37 Check 8 15 10 33 40 72 hrs. 16 14 15 45 200 14 11 13 38 600 9 9 8 26 Total 47 49 46 142 Check 8 17 12 37 40 96 hrs. 19 16 18 53 200 15 13 13 41 600 12 12 11 35 Total 54 58 54 166 Check 13 18 14 45 40 120 hrs. 19 16 19 54 200 17 15 15 47 600 13 15 13 41 Total 62 64 61 187 Check 14 18 15 47 40 144 hrs. 19 16 19 54 200 17 17 16 50 600 15 15 14 44 Total 65 66 64 195 Check 14 18 15 47 40 - 168 hrs« 19 16 19 54 200 (Pinal 17 17 16 50 c ount) 15 15 14 44 Total 65 66 64 195 S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of Table XXXVI 48 hrs. 72 » 96 " 120 144 tt tt L.S.D. @ .05 = 1.22, @ .01 = 1.85 «» '» » = s.41, " » = 5.18 " " » =13.4 , " M =20.7 " » " = 9.0 , " n =13.7 » « » = 9.0, » u =13.7 S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of Table XXXVII 48 hrs. - L.S.D. @ .05 = 3.3, @ .01 = 5.0 72 tt tt tt it 6.0, @ tt 9.1 96 tt it n tt = 16.7, it it = 25.3 120 tt tt it it = 12.4, tt ti = 18.8 144 ti ti tt tt = 15.9, it tt = 24.1 168 tt tt tt tt = 12.0, it tt = 18.1 S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of Table XXXVII 48 hrs. - L.S.D. @ .05 2.6, @ .01 = 3.9 72 ti ti tt tt — 10.0, it tt = 15.5 96 tt it tt tt = 14.0, it ti — 120 ti tt tt tt = 13.4, tt it 20.4 144 tt tt tt tt = 7.3, it tt 11.1 168 tt n tt tt 6.0, tt it 9.1 S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of Table XXXIX 48 hrs. - L.S.D. @ .05 = 6.6 A l l other Intervals not s i g n i f i c a n t . Table XL E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on the sugar' content of carrots as measured by refractometer Treatment Replicates Lbs. compd/ __ • ; — Aver-acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 15.5 14.0 11.2 11.5 12.5 10.0 11.3 14.3 12,0 12.4 112.3 Endrin 0.5 11.5 13.5 13.7 12.2 13.7 11.5 12.5 12.2 13.5 12.7 114.3 3.5 13.5 13.0 10.0 12.0 11.2 10.3 11.0 11.2 14.2 11.8 106.4 6.5 13.0 12.7 13.0 12.2 10.7 11.7 13.5 12.5 11.2 12.2 110.5 9.5 12.2 11.5 11.5 12.7 12.7 10.7 9.7 12.7 12.2 11.7 105.9 Total 65.7 64.7 59.4 60.6 60.8 54.2 58.0 63.9 63.1 549.4 Check 15.5 14.0 11.2 11.-5 12.5 10.0 11.3 14.3 12.0 12.4 112.3 Isodrin 0.5 13,0 11.7 11.2 10.0 9.0 12.0 11.2 12.5 11.0 11.3 101.6. 3.5 13.0 10.0 10.5 12.5 12.7 10.2 11.5 13,5 14.2 12.0 108.1 6.5 13.0 10.5 12.7 10.7 11.2 10.2 11.2 13.2 11.2 11.5 103.9 9.5 13,0 11.0 11.0 11.2 10.2 11.5 12.0 11.5 12.2 11.5 103.6 Total 67.5 57.2 56.6 55.9 55.6 53.9 57.2 65.0 60.6 529.5 No S. D. i n treatment means. Table XLI E f f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on the sugar content of potatoes as measured by a refracto-meter Treatment Replicates Lbs. compd/ Aver-acre 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 5.5 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 6.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 5.75 51.8 A l d r i n 0.5 5.7 5.2 5.7 6.5 7.2 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.77 52.0 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 4.2 5.7 5.2 4.5 5.2 5.2 4.85 43*7 6.5 5.7 5.0 6.0 5.7 6.0 5.0 6.2 5.0 5.2 5.53 49.8 9.5 5.7 5.7 5.2 5.2 6.0 6.7 6.2 3.5 5.5 5.52 49.7 Total 26.6 26.8 27.6 27.8 31.6 29.1 27.9 24.2 25.4 Check 5.5 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 6.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 5.75 51.8 D i e l d r i n 0.5 5.2 5.2 5.7 4.7 6.0 5.0 5.2 5.0 3.7 5.07 45.7 3.5 5.0 4.7 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.0 5.2 5.0 3.5 5.28 47.6 6.5 5.2 5.2 5.5 6.7 6.2 5.2 4.2 6.2 4.5 5.43 48.9 9.5 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.7 5.2 6.0 4.7 5.55 50.0 Total 26.1 27.0 28.9 29.8 30.4 28.4 24.3 27.2 20.9 No S. D. i n treatment means Table XLII E f f e c t of A l d r i n on the sugar content of radish as measured by a recWctometer Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd./acre A B C. Average Total Check 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.66 11.0 1 3.0 . 3.0 3.5 3.16 9.5 5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.33 x 13.0 10 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.83 10.0 20 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50 10.5 40 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50 10.5 80 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00 x 9.0 Total 25.0 24.0 24.5 73.5 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.52 L.S.D. @ .01 = 0.73 Table -•XLIII Effect of Isodrin on the sugar content of radish Treatment Replicate Lbs.c ompd/acre A B C Average Total Check 3.5 3.5 4»0 3.66 11.0 1 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.50 x x 7.5 5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.16 x 9.5 10 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.16 x 9.5 20 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.16 x 9.5 40 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.33 10.0 80 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.66 11.0 Total 22.0 22.0 24.0 68.0 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.50 L.S.D. © .01 = 0.70 Table XLIV E f f e c t of D i e l d r i n on the sugar content of r a d i s h as measured by a refractometer Treatment Lbs.c ompd•/acre A Replicate B C Average Total Check 3 . 5 3 . 5 . 4 . 0 3 . 6 6 1 1 . 0 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 S . O O ^ 9 . 0 5 2 . 5 ; 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 5 0 x x 7 . 5 10 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 0 x x 9 . 0 2 0 2 . 5 2 . 5 3 . 0 2 . 6 6 x x 8 . 0 4 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 0 x x 6 . 0 . . 8 0 2 . 5 2 . 0 ' 2 . 5 2 . 3 3 x x 7 . 0 Total 1 9 . 0 1 8 . 5 2 0 . 0 5 7 . 5 L.S.D. @ . 0 5 = 0 . 2 6 L.S.D. @ . 0 1 = 0 . 3 7 Table XLV Effect of Endrin on the sugar content of radish Treatment Replicate Lbs. compd./acre A B C Average Total Check 3 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 0 3 . 6 6 1 1 . 0 1 2 . 5 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 8 3 X X 8 . 5 5 3 . 0 3 . 5 3 . 5 3 . 3 3 1 0 . 0 10 3 . 5 3 . 5 . 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 1 0 . 0 2 0 3 . 0 3 . 5 3 . 5 , 3 . 3 3 1 0 . 0 , 4 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 s . o o 2 * 9 . 0 8 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 3 . 5 3 . 8 3 1 1 . 5 Total 2 2 . 5 2 4 . 0 . 2 3 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 L.S.D. @ . 0 5 = 0 . 4 5 L.S.D. @ . 0 1 = 0 . 6 4 Table XLVI E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on Vltuutlu-A content of carrots - Mgs./lOO gms Treatment Lbs. c ompd/ Replicates Aver-acre 1 2 3 4 5 .6 : 7 8 . 9 age Total Check 3.48 3.02 3.78 5.59 5.30 5.20 2.85 3.23 2.32 3.86 34.77 Endrin 0,5 3.27 3.60 2.50 3.48 6.06 3.60 2.52 2.60 3.90 3.50 31.53 3. 5 3.01 2.66 2.28 3.69 4.80 3.79 2.66 2.30 3.38 3.17 28.57 6.5 3.65 4.50 1.20 4.02 4.06 4.20 2.65 1.70 4.20 3.35 30.18 9.5 4.20 4.86 2.21 5.64 5.46 4.17 2.48 3.15 3.48 3.96 35.65 Total 17.61 18.64 11.97 22.42 25.68 20.96 13.16 12.98 17.28 160.70 Check 3.48 3.02" 3.78 5.59 5.30 5.20 2.85 3.23 2.32 3.86 34.77 Isodrin 0.5 1.80 3.40 3.60 5.04 4.92 4.92 2.64 2.85 2.96 3.57 32.13 3.5 2.47 2.73 2.56 5.14 4.88 2.97 3.65 3.64 3.10 3.46 31.14 6.5 5.40 3.36 2.76 3.40 5.24 4.88 3.24 3.04 1.65 3.66 32.97 9.5 4.95 3.69 2.97 4.88 4.44 4.88 2.08 2.73 3.00 3.64 33.62 Total 18.10 16.20 15.67 24.05 24.78 22.85 14.46 15.49 13.03 164.63 No S. D. In treatment means Table XLVII Effe c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on Vitamin C content of potatoes ( i n milligrams/lOO gms F.W.) Treatment Replicates • : - - • Aver--lbs.compd./acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 13.5, 12.5 .15.5 9.0 14.0 17.0 18.5 15.0 8.5 13.7 . 123.5 A l d r i n 0.5 16.5 14.5 16.5 17.5 15.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.1 136.0 3.5 12.0 15.0 21-. 0 13.5 13.0 12.0 18.5 20.0 18.5 15.9 143.5 6.5 17.5. 16.5 12.5 13.0 21.0 16.0 13.5 16.5 12.0 15.4 138.5 9.5 12.5 9.5 .20.0 12.5 11.5 15.5 20.0 12.0 11.5 13.8 125.0 71.0 . 68.0 85.5 65.5 74.5 73.5 84.5 77.5 65.5 666.5 Check 13.5 , 12.5 .15.5 •<• 9.0 14.0 17.0 18.5 15.0 8.5 13.7 123.5 Di e l d r i n 0.5 15.0. 16.5 19.5 10.5 17.0 16,0 20.5 18.0 - 10.0 • 15.8 143.0 3.5 13.5 . 16.0 ,14.0 15.0 15.5 18.5 15.5 12.0 13.0 14.7 - 133.0 6.5 13.0 - 17.0 .16.5 11.0 13.5 12.5 11.5 9.5 9.0 12.6 113.5 9.5 17.5 10.0 17.0 14.0 16.0 16.5 16.0 9.5 10.5 = 14.1 127.0 72.5 . 72.0 82.5 59.5 ' 76.0 80.-5 82.0 64.0 51.0 640.00 No S. D. i n treatment means. Table XLVIII E f f e c t of A l d r i n on. the Vitamin C content of radish (milligrams /100 gms.P.W.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd./ac. A B . C . Average Total Check 15.0 15.0 16.3 15.4 46.3 1 16*3 15.0 15.0 15.4 46.3 5 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 X 41.4 10 12.5 , 12.5 12.5 12. 5 ^ 37.5 20 12.0 11.8 12.0 11.9** 35.8 40 11.3 • 10.0 11.3 10.9 X X 32.6 80 10.0 12.5 12.5 11.6 X X 35.0 Total 90.9 90.6 93.4 ^274.9 L.S.D. @ .05 = 1.34 L.S.D. @ .01 = 1.89 Table XLIX E f f e c t of Isodrin on the Vitamin C content of radish (mg./lOO gms. F.W.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd./ac. A B C Average Total Check 15.0 15.0 16.3 15.4 46.3 1 13.8 , 13.8 13.8 - 13.8 " , 41.4 5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 X X 37.5 10 12.5 12.5 12.5 12. 37.5 20 12.5 12.5 12.5, ... 12. 37.5 40 7.5 8.8 8.8 25.1 80 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 X X 18.9 Total 80.1 81.4 82.7 244.2 L.S.D. @ .05 = 2.17 L.S.D. @ .01 = 3.05 Table L Effec t of D i e l d r i n on the Vitamin C content of radish (Mg./lOO gms. F.W.) Treatment Replicate Lbs .compd./ac A B C Average Total -.. Check 15.0 15.0 16.3 15.4 46.3 1 11.3 11.3 11.3 11. 3 ^ 33.9 5 13.8 13.8 13.8 1 3 . 8 K 41.4 10 12.5 11.3 11.3 11.7 X X 35.1 20 10.0 10.0 8.8 9.6 X X 28.8 40 8.8 8.8 8.8 26.4 80 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 X X 22.5 Total 78.9 77.7 77.8 234.4 L.S.D. @ .05 = 0.85 L.S.D. @ .01 = 1.19 Table LI Effec t of Endrin on the Vitamin C content of radish (mgi/100 gms . F.W.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd./ac A B C Average Total Check 15.0 15.0 16.3 15.4 46.3 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5^ 37.5 5 8.8 8.8 8.8 26.4 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 X X 22.5 20 7.5 8.8 8.8 8.4 X X . 25.1 40 8.8 7.5 8.8 8. 4 X X 25.1 80 8.8 8.8 8.8 26.4 Total 68.9 68.9 71.5 209.3 L.S.D. © .05 = 0.85 L.S.D. @ .01 = 1.19 Table LII E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on moisture content of carrots - % water Treatment Replicate Lbs • c ompd/ Aver-acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 82.05 85.10 85.35 84.40 83.40 84.90 86.45 82.35 84.80 84.31 758.8 Endrin 0.5 84.50 84.50 84.60 85.20 82.70 85.60 83.90 84.50 83.90 84.38 759.4 3.5 82*50 83.75 85.70 82.50 82.95 85.55 84.90 85.90 84.05 84.20 757.8 6.5 83.00 84.75 83.90 84.20 83.60 84.20 83.50 84.15 85.40 84.08 756.7 9.5 84.00 85.45 83.80 83.55 83.10 85.25 85.40 83.95 84.80 84.37 759.3 Total 416.05 423.55 423.35 419.85 415.75 425.40 424.15 420.35 422.95 3792.0 Check 82.05 85.10 85.35 84.40 83.40 84.90 86.45 82.35 84.80 84.31 758.8 Isodrin 0.5 83.70 86.20 84.90 81.60 86.40 81.15 83.70 83.05 83.75 83.83 754.4 3.5 83.75 85.80 86.30 82.65 84.45 82.90 85.35 84.15 82.65 84.22 758.0 6.5 83.45 85.40 80.80 85.10 82.95 83.20 85.65 83.95 85.90 84.04 756.4 9.5 84.25 85.55 84.95 85.65 85.45 83.75 84.45 86.50 84.50 85.01 765.0 Total 417.20 428.05 422.30 419.40 422.65 415.90 425.60 420.00 421.60 3792.6 No S. D. In treatment means. Table LIII E f f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on per cent dry matter (dry weight) of potatoes Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aver-age Total Check 21.5 25.3 23.8 25.2 , 25.5 22.8 25.5 , 25.2 25.5 24.5 220.3 A l d r i n 0.5 22.6 22.9, 22.1 22.6 25.6 26.9 , 23.8 , 28.1 25.9 24.5 220.5 3.5 20.4 24.6 23.5 22.1 , 24.8 25.3 25.9 24.8 24.9 24.1 216.3 6.5 24.8 24.4 23.1 22.6 , 26.9 24.2 25.2 . 27.1 29.1 25.3 227.4 9.5 22.7 24.0 24.4 23.0 23.9 . 22.9 22.3 27.9 , 26.6 24.2 217.7 Total 112.0 121.2 116.9 115.5 126.7 122.1 122.7 133.1 132.0 1102.2 Check 21.5 25.3 23.8. 25.2, 25.5 . 22.8 , 25.5 . 25.2 25.5 24.5 220.3 D i e l d r i n 0.5 23.3 23.3 22.7 22.9 27.0 24.1 22.3 . 26.8 ,. 28.3 24.5 220.7 3.5 23.2 27.0, 22.1 23.8 , 25.5 26.0 23.6 24.7 26.3 24.7- 222.2 6.5 2 0 . 7 24.7 24.0 ; 26.3 ,25.0 .23.3 , 24.4 . 25.6 -26.5 24.5 220.5 9.5 28.4 22.9 23.8 24.8 23.4 29.0 , 23.4 27.5 27.5 25.6 230.7 ........ Total 117.1 123.2 116.4 123.0 126.4 125.2 119.2 129.8 134.1 1114.4 No S.D. i n treatment means. Table LIV E f f e c t of Isodrin and Endrin on ash content of carrots. Expressed i n per cent Treatment Replicates Lbs.compd/ acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average Check 0.7580 0.7780 0.7280 0.8830 0.6115 0.7915 0.8125 0.8730 0.7120 0.7719 Endrin 0.5 0.8800 0.8670 1.1260 0.7115 0.8840 0.7625 0.7770 0.7120 0.7100 0.8256 5.5 0.7835 0.7690 0.6015 0.7625 0.7715 0.7355 0.7435 0.6550 0.8225 0.7383 6.5 0.8335 0.8485 0.9115 0.9310 0.8335 0.7845 0.7540 0.7735 0.7895 0.8288 9.5 0.7130 0.7755 0.8300 0.8385 0.9985 0.7155 0.7115 0.8760 0.6635 0.7913 Check 0.7580 0.7780 0.7280 0.8830 0.6115 0.7915 0.8125 0.8730 0.7120 0.7719 Isodrin 0.5 0.8555 0.8630 0.7540 1.0390 0.7680 0.9160 0.7880 0.7610 0.6730 0.8253 3.5 0.9875 0.6420 0.8650 0.8410 0.8600 0.9495 0.6835 0.7625 0.8650 0,8284 6.5 0.6855 0.6405 0.8030 0.7625 0.8300 0.8995 0.7215 0.7985 0.7450 0.7651 9.5 0.8005 0.7240 0.7425 0.9225 0.7980 0.8615 0.7110 0.6765 0.7610 0.7775 No S. D. i n treatment means. Table LV Ef f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n bn ash content of potatoes, (expressed i n per cent) Treatment Lbs.compd/ acre Replicates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 age Total Check 1.361 1.183 1.337 1.387 1.160 0.979 1.041 0.936 1.150 1.170 10.534 A l d r i n 0.5 0.993 1.253 1.124 1.051 1.360 1.028 1.065 1.388 1.120 1.154 10.382 3.5 1.436 1.034 1.178 1.375 1.251 1.211 1.103 1.060 0.931 1.175 10,579 6.5 1.093 0.997 1.170 1.037 1.234 1.222 1.011 0.962 1.047 1.086 9.773 9.5 1.047 1.338 0.898 0.994 1.234 1.091 1.016 1.004 1.071 1.077 9.693 Check 1.361 1.183 1.337 1.387 1.160 0.979 1.041 0.936 1.150 1.170 10.534 DieBrin 0.5 0.864 1.268 1.337 1.198 1.160 1.214 0.913 1.075 1.031 1.118 10.060 3.5 1.124 1.037 0.849 1.012 1.181 1.286 0.946 1.027 0.909 1.041 9.371 6.5 1.126 1.337 0.998 1.431 1.220 1.213 1.118 1.445 1.042 1.214 10.930 9.5 1.085 1.309 1.225 1.304 0.989 0.930 0.995 1.830 1.280 1.216 10.947 No S.D. i n treatment means Table LVI Effec t of A l d r i n on Nitrogen content of. radish (Test i . - . t - i * *• r-of l e a f p e t i o l e - i n p.p.m. ) Treatment .Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 180 164. 148 164 492 1 60 84 72 ijrgXX 216 5 48 64 60 172 10 ; 60 * ' 52 ' 64' 5 9 X X 176 20 56 50 48 5ixx 154 40 48 • 48 * 36* 4 4 X X 132 80 28 44 32 3 5 x x 104 Total • 480 : 506 460 ' 1446 L.S.D. @ .05 = 17.19 Table LVII L.S.D. @ .01 = 24.16 Ef f e c t of Isodrin on Nitrogen content of rad i s h (Test "of leaf p e t i o l e - i n p.p. m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A-' 4 B c * Average Total Check 180 164 148 164 492 1 112 . 60 -92- . 8 8 x x 264 5 82 80 56 , 7 3 X X 218 10 60 64 ,40 . 5 5 x x 164 20 36 64 36 4 5 " 136 40 i. 28 i. 40 ,32 I 3 3 x x 100 80 8 8 8 8 " 24 Total . 506 480 412 1398 L.S.D. @ .05 = 25.90 L.S.D. @ .01 =36.42 Table LVTII Ef f e c t of D i e l d r i n on Nitrogen content of radish (Test of l e a f p e t i o l e — In p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 180 164 148 164 492 1 380 320 260 320** 960 5 340 400 300 3 4 6 X X 1040 10 420 360 460 4 1 3 X X 1240 20 500 420 460 4 6 0 x x 1380 40 360 500 340 4 0 0 x x 1200 80 140 124 116 126 380 Total 2320 2288 2084 6692 L.S.D. @ .05 = 91.36 L.S.D. @ .01 = : 128.41 Table LIX Eff e c t of Endrin on Nitrogen content of radish (Test of leaf p e t i o l e - i n p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 180 164 148 164 492 1 152 180 180 171 512 5 160 168 140 156 468 10 156 164 200 173 520 20 172 198 160 176 530 40 400 480 440 4 7 3 x x 1320 80 320 220 340 29 5XX 880 Total 1540 1574 1608 4722 L.S.D. @ .05 = 61.43 L.S.D. @ .01 = 86.35 Table LX E f f e c t of A l d r i n on Nitrogen content of radish roots (In p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 200 200 160 186 560 1 60 68 68 6 5 X X 196 5 64 68 80 7 l " 212 10 72 64 60 65^ 196 20 70 72 64 6 9 x x 206 40 72 80 88 s o " 240 80 64 88 80 232 Total 602 640 600 1842 L.S. D. @ .05 = 20.72 L.S.D. @ .01 = 29.13 Table LXI Eff e c t of Isodrin on nitrogen content of radish roots ( i n p.p • m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 200 200 160 186 560 1 220 220 240 2 2 6 x x 680 5 100 88 80 8 6 " 268 10 120 108 104 1 1 1 " 332 20 80 60 68 6 9 " 208 40 88 80 60 7 6 " 228 80 100 88 88 9 2 x x 276 Total 908 844 800 2552 L.S.D. @ .05 = 20 L.S.D. @ .01 = 29 LXII E f f e c t of D i e l d r i n on Nitrogen content of radish roots ( i n p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd./ac A B C Average Total Check 200 200 160 186 560 1 240 180 200 206 620 5 220 228 220 229 668 10 260 200 260 240 720 20 200 220 220 213 640 40 180 220 160 186 560 80 200 220 260 226 680 Total 1500 1468 1480 4448 No.S.D. i n treatment mean - a general trend i s evident, however. LXII I Ef f e c t of Endrin on Nitrogen content of radish roots ( i n p.p. m. ) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 200 200 160 186 560 ' 1 180 160 180 173 520 5 180 140 140 153 x 460 10 112 88 92 9 7 x x 292 20 120 120 132 12 4 x x 372 40 140 180 180 166 500 80 160 160 160 160 480 Total 1092 1048 1044 3184 L.S.D. @ .05 = 31 L.S.D. @ .01 = 44 Table BCEV E f f e c t of A l d r i n on phosphorus content of radish l e a f p e t i o l e ( i n p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.c ompd/ac A B C Average Total Check 180 198 168 182 546 1 151 182 157 163 X 490 5 119 107 110 112 X X 336 10 72 103 66 SO** 241 20 86 110 80 92** 276 40 94 119 94 102** 307 80 106 100 84 96** 290 Total 808 919 759 2486 L.S.D. @ .05 = 17 L.S.D. @ .01 = 23 Table LXV Eff e c t of Isodrin on phosphorus content of radish l e a f p e t i o l e ( i n p.p.m.) Treat men t Replicate  Lbs, compd/ac A B__ C Average Total Check 180 198 168 182 546 1 176 186 164 175 526 5 157 157 122 1 4 5 x x 436 10 116 113 114 114 X X 343 20 103 97 138 I I S * * 338 40 103 113 110 lOg** 326 80 94 100 100 98** 294 Total 929 964 916 2809 L.S.D. @ .05 = 26 L.S.D. @ .01 = 36 Table LXVI E f f e c t of D i e l d r i n on phosphorus content of radish l e a f p e t i o l e ( i n p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 180 198 168 182 546 1 239 252 252 247** 743 5 189 189 141 173 519 10 163 116 119 X 133 398 20 97 81 91 89** 269 40 157 189 151 166 497 80 204 132 182 173 518 Total 1229 1157 1104 3490 L.S.D. @ .05 = 38 L.S.D. @ .01 = 53 Table LXVII Ef f e c t of Endrin on phosphorus content of radish leaf p e t i o l e ( i n p.p.m.) Treatment Lbs.compd/ac A Replicate B C Average Total Check 180 198 168 182 546 1 170 189 163 174 522 5 176 157 151 161 484 10 144 170 144 153 458 20 119 97 107 323 40 144 182 163 163 489 80 220 170 236 209 626 Total 1153 1163 1132 3448 L.S.D. @ .05 = 36 L.S.D. @ .01 = 50 Table LXVIII Ef f e c t of A l d r i n on phosphorus content of radish roots (In p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 50 44 47 47 141 1 72 56 63 64** 191 5 37 56 44 46 137 10 34 40 44 39 118 20 38 42 40 40 120 40 47 50 40 46 137 80 28 28 34 3 0 X X 90 Total 306 316 312 934 L.S.D. @ .05 = 11 Table L.S.D. LXIX @ .01 = 15 Ef f e c t of Isodrin on phosphorus content of radish roots ( i n p.p • m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Tot a l Check 50 44 47 47 141 1 59 63 63 6 2 " 185 5 40 37 37 3 8 " 114 10 47 47 47 47 141 20 31 31 28 30** 90 40 37 31 31 3 3 x x 99 80 37 30 30 3 2 " 97 Total 301 283 283 867 L.S.D. @ .05 = 4 L.S.D. i ,01 • 6 Table LXX E f f e c t of D i e l d r i n on phosphorus content of radish roots (Tissue tests - i n p.p.m.) Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B 0 Average Total Check 50 44 47 47 141 1 34 59 59 51 152 5 47 47 50 *48 144 10 63 47 53 54 163 20 47 53 44 48 144 40 37 31 31 33 x 99 80 31 28 25 2 8 x x 84 iXO Total 309 309 309 927 L.S.D. @ .05 = 13 L.S.D. @ .01 = 18 Table LXXI Ef f e c t of Endrin on phosphorus content of radish roots (Tissue tests - i n p.p.m Treatment Replicate Lbs.compd/ac A B C Average Total Check 50 44 47 47 141 1 50 47 53 50 150 5 37 34 37 3 6 x x 108 10 37 37 44 39 x 118 20 37 44 44 42 125 40 37 40 34 3 7 x x 111 80 34 40 34 108 Total 282 286 293 861 L.S.D". @ .05 = 6.0 L.S.D. @ .01 = 9 Table LXXII Effe c t of Isodrin and Endrin on chlorine content of carrots mg/lOO gms. fresh weight Treatment _ ,. . Lbs. compd/ Replicates  acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' Average Total Check 52.1 78.6 94.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 63.9 78.1 68.6 78.6 707.7 Endrin 0.5 108.8 71.0 89.9 80.7 92.5 93.5 71.0 73.3 66.2 83.0 746.9 3.5 92.3 101.7 78.1 90.6 74.8 91.0 61.5 79.7 89.9 84.4 759.6 6.5 94.6 99.4 120.7 89.4 91.6 85.6 79.7 71.0 73.3 89.5 805.3 9.5 89.4 120.7 99.4 78.8 91.6 91.6 78.1 89.9 68.6 89.8 808.1 Total 437.2 471.4 482.7 430.1 441.1 452.3 354.2 392.0 366.6 3827.3 Check 52.1 78.6 94.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 63.9 78.1 68.6 78.6 707.7 Isodrin 0.5 59.5 80.4 92.3 88.6 86.6 92.5 63.9 56.8 101.7 80.3 722.3 3.5 63.9 82.1 63.9 92.5 89.6 86.6 97.0 78.1 85.2 82.1 738.9 6.5 89.7 75.7 104.1 92.5 74.8 94.5 94.6 75.7 82.0 87.1 783.6 9.5 82.8 99.4 87.5 90.6 95.5 83.7 82.8 97.0 82.8 C 88.9 800.1 Total 348.0 416.2 442.4 454.8 435.1 447.9 402.2 585.7 420.3 3752.6 No S.D. evident i n treatment means. Table LXXIII E f f e c t of A l d r i n and D i e l d r i n on chlorine content of potatoes ( i n milligrams/l00 gms.F.W.) Treatment Lbs.compd/ Replicates acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average Total Check 21.3 14.2 33.1 23.7 21.3 28.3 16.6 26.0 18.9 21.5 193.4 A l d r i n 0.5 21.3 52.1 45.0 28.4 49.7 56.8 35.5 45.0 16.6 38.9** 350.4 3.5 42.6 26.0 71.0 42.6 30.8 45.0 33.1 35.5 45.0 41.3** 371.6 6.5 35.5 30.8 63.1 28.4 40.2 44.2 28.4 26.0 45.0 38.0** 341.6 9.5 23.7 49.7 54.4 61.5 47.3 52.1 49.7 56.2 45.0 48.8** 439.6 Total 144.4 172.8 266.6 184.6 189.3 226.4 163.3 188.7 170.5 1706.6 Check 21.3 14.2 33.1 23.7 21.3 28.3 16.6 26.0 18.9 21.5 193.4 D i e l d r i n 0.5 52.1 21.3 61.5 45.0 54.4 14.2 37.9 45.0 18.9 38.9** 350.3 3.5 35.5 37.9 45.0 40.2 52.1 47.3 42.6 16.6 56.8 41.5** 374.0 6.5 35.5 36.6 30.8 37.9 47.3 47.3 73.3 45,0 49.7 44. Q** 403.4 9.5 42.6 35.5 49.7 43.7 35.5 30.8 87.5 49.7 33.1 4 5 . 3 " 408.1 Total 187.0 145.5 220.1 190.5 208.6 167.9 257.9 182.3 177.4 1729.2 Al d r i n L.S.D. «= 9.67 at .05 l e v e l 12.74 at .01 ° D i e l d r i n L.S.D. = 11.93 at .05 * 15.7 at .01 ? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302611/manifest

Comment

Related Items