Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar Response to Fluchloralin, Metribuzin, and Vernolate

  • M. Daniel Martin, James P. Worthington, Elmer Gray
  • Journal:
    Weed Technology / Volume 1 / Issue 4 / October 1987
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 June 2017, pp. 282-285

  • In 1983 and 1984, 20 commercial soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars were field tested for their response to fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine], metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-l,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one], and vernoiate [S-propyl dipropylcarbamothioate]. Recommended rates for the herbicides were 1.1, 0.4, and 2.8 kg ai/ha, respectively. Each herbicide was applied at recommended (lx), 2x, and 4x rates in both years with an 8x rate added in 1984. Plant height, vigor, and injury were used to determine herbicide effects. Differences existed among cultivars, herbicides, and rates. Increased herbicide rates generally resulted in reduced plant height and vigor and increased plant injury. Cultivars tolerant to the three herbicides included Cumberland, Essex, FFR 560, NAPB 420, and Pixie.

  • 27 - Burn Patient Management

  • from SECTION A - CBRNE AND HAZMAT
  • Edited by Kristi L. Koenig, University of California, Irvine, Carl H. Schultz, University of California, Irvine
  • Book:
    Koenig and Schultz's Disaster Medicine
    Published online:
    05 August 2011
    Print publication:
    30 September 2009, pp 423-429

  • Summary

    This chapter focuses on the principles of disaster management to highlight the key features of a regional burn disaster plan. It highlights typical injuries that are best treated in the burn center facility. As with any mass casualty situation, casualty triage is an initial action with a burn disaster. One well-described method consists of combining the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) system with the Age/Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) Survival Grid from the American Burn Association. The next higher level of care should have personnel experienced with burn surgery and postoperative burn care. There should also be blood-banking and microbiological testing capabilities. At the burn center, the work begun at the initial patient care site should continue with greater emphasis on three injury types unique to burns: inhalation injury, chemical injury, and electrical injury. Future comprehensive emergency management plans must account for burn patients.