April, ’24] 
wakeland: alfalfa weevil control 
335 
showed very little injury. The second crop started immediately, altho 
a little ragged, and made a steady, rapid growth. 
Plot No. j was sprayed but once, the date being June 7th. At that 
time the general appearance of the field was brownish and the foliage 
was severely injured. After spraying, it recovered gradually until at 
cutting time the predominant color of the tips was green, and there 
was a ragged sprinkling of bloom over the entire plot. The second 
crop was slow and irregular in starting. A striking contrast between 
plots one and three was in the greater number of pupae on the latter 
due to the transformation of early-emerged larvae before the application 
of poison. 
Plot No. $ was cut early, June 7th. A notion exists among some farm¬ 
ers that the alfalfa weevil can be controlled by cutting the first crop 
early before it is injured. On the date mentioned very little injury 
had occurred on this plot, and it was cut in accordance with this notion. 
Even tho the first crop was cut three weeks earlier than on Plot No. 1, 
the second crop was two weeks later starting, thus five weeks elapsed 
after the cutting of the first crop before second crop growth started. 
An important point in relation to the maintenance of an alfalfa stand 
is here involved. Without control a field heavily infested with alfalfa 
weevil cannot make second crop growth until such a time as a majority 
of the larvae have entered the pupal stage and ceased feeding. During 
this time foreign grasses and weeds have an opportunity to make a 
quick, unrestricted growth. This condition is usually aggravated by 
the farmer who thinks to stimulate his alfalfa to a rapid recovery by 
the free use of irrigation water. The infested alfalfa cannot respond 
and the grasses and weeds are given an almost ideal condition for estab¬ 
lishment and growth. Plot No. 5 was almost entirely green with blue 
grass ( Poa pratensis) , water grass (. Echinochloa crus galli), squirrel tail 
(.Hordeum jubatum), and Bromus tectorum within a few days after 
cutting, and throughout the growth of the second crop these grasses 
were so tall as to hide almost completely the alfalfa. No attempt 
was made to weigh the second crop hay on this plot since there was no 
means of separating the alfalfa and weeds. After removal of third 
crop hay this plot showed a heavy stand of grass while the alfalfa stand 
in an adjoining sprayed plot was in a very good state of preservation. 
Other investigators have cited the undesirability of early cutting from a 
physiological standpoint. 
Plot No. 6 was untreated and allowed to stand as a check until 
June 26th when it and all sprayed plots were cut. At that time there 
