p r 66 annual meeting of the o c northeastern weed science ... · pdf filer o c e e d i n g s...
TRANSCRIPT
PROCEEDINGS NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY
Vol66
2012
PROCEEDINGS - VOLUME 66
66th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society
January 3-6, 2012 ▪ Sheraton Society Hill Hotel ▪ Philadelphia, PA
Annual Meeting of the Northeast Region
American Society for Horticultural Science
Weed Science Funding: New Avenues for a Changing Landscape
50687_newss_proceed_rb.indd 1 12/20/2011 9:04:29 AM
Meeting LocationSheraton Society Hill Hotel
One Dock StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106
(215)-238-6000
2013 Joint Meeting with WSSA:February 4 - 7, 2013
Monday through ThursdayLocation: Hilton, Baltimore, MD
To order a copy of the Proceedings contact:Irene Tsontakis-BradleyCornell Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center3059 Sound Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901Ph: [email protected]
For information regarding the Annual Meeting of the Northeast Region-American Society for Horticultural Science contact:Nick Polanin at [email protected].
The cover photo of common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) provided by Jennifer D’Appollonio of the University of Maine was the winning photo of the 2011 NEWSS Photo Contest.
50687_newss_proceed_rb.indd 2 12/20/2011 9:04:29 AM
Proceedings
of the
Sixty-sixth Annual Meeting
of the
Northeastern Weed Science Society
Darren W. Lycan, Editor
NORTHEASTERNWEED SCIENCE SOCIETY
2012 Sustaining Members
Gold
Platinum
BronzeACDS Gylling Data Management Reality Research LABServicesWEEDS, Inc.
Silver
ii
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS .......................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS .......................................................................... 2
SECTION CHAIRS .......................................................................................................... 3
COMMITTEES ................................................................................................................ 4
2011 NEWSS ANNUAL MEETING AWARD WINNERS ................................................ 6
2011 WEED OLYMPICS WINNERS ............................................................................... 7
NEWSS POSTERS ......................................................................................................... 8
THE SINNEMAHONNING COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (SIPMA) GETS TO WORK. T.J. MEYER,
J. ZOSCHG, AND M.A. BRAVO*, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (1) ... 8
GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES. M.A. BRAVO*, I.D.
BOWERS, AND J. ZOSCHG, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (2) ........ 9
COMPARING HERBICIDE TOLERANCES OF RARE AND COMMON PLANTS IN LANCASTER COUNTY, PA. I.M. GRAHAM*, J. EGAN, AND D. MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
(3) ................................................................................................................................... 10
EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE, SPRAY DROPLET SIZE AND SPRAY VOLUME ON CROP TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH ENLIST DUO. B.D. OLSON*, D.M. SIMPSON, D.E. HILLGER, C.C. LOVE, AND D.T.
ELLIS, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (4) ..................................................................... 11
MODELING OF VOLATILITY OF 2,4-D ESTER, DMA AND CHOLINE FORMULATIONS. B.D. OLSON*, D.E. HILLGER, P. HAVENS, J.A. HUFF, R.B. LASSITER, AND J.S. RICHBURG, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA,
NY (5) .............................................................................................................................. 12
METHODOLOGY FOR UTILIZING LOW TUNNEL STRUCTURES TO EVALUATE DIFFERENCES IN HERBICIDE VOLATILITY. B.D. OLSON*, D.D. RUEN, D.E. HILLGER, AND E.F. SCHERDER, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,
GENEVA, NY (6) .................................................................................................................. 13
EFFECTS OF METHIOZOLIN RATES ON CREEPING BENTGRASS AND ANNUAL BLUEGRASS ROOT
GROWTH. K.A. VENNER*, S. ASKEW, AND S. KOO, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (7) ..................... 14
CROP ROTATION: SEQUENCE BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS. C.L. MOHLER*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA,
NY (8) .............................................................................................................................. 15
HERBICIDE EVALUATION FOR WATERMELON GROWN WITH PLASTICULTURE. S.A. MATHEW*, B.A. SCOTT,
AND M.J. VANGESSEL, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, CAMBRIDGE, MD (9) ......................................... 16
EVALUATION OF PACLOBUTRAZOL FORMULATIONS AND RATES FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON PUTTING GREENS. A. POST*, S. ASKEW, M.C. COX, AND J. CORBETT, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG,
VA (10) ............................................................................................................................. 17
EFFECT OF WEED REMOVAL TIMING IN CORN AS INFLUENCED BY NITROGEN SOURCE AND RATE. W.J.
EVERMAN*, A. KNIGHT, AND J. HINTON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (11) ........ 18
A NEW POCKET SCOUTING GUIDE FOR AQUATIC WEEDS. B. LASSITER, R.J. RICHARDSON*, AND G.
WILKERSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (12) .......................................... 19
HAIRY VETCH SEEDBANK PERSISTENCE AS INFLUENCED BY MECHANICAL SCARIFICATION AND SOIL DEPTH. B.C. CROCKETT*, S. MIRSKY, AND W.S. CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
PARK, PA (13) .................................................................................................................... 20
iv
IMPACTS OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA ON SOIL ENZYME ACTIVITY AND FERTILITY. Q. ZHONG*, X. JUNFANG, Q. GUOMING, Z. JIA-EN, M. DANJUAN, AND A. DITOMMASO, SOUTH CHINA
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, GUANGZHOU, CHINA (14) .............................................................. 21
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA TO DIFFERENT IRRADIANCES. M. DANJUAN, Q. ZHONG*, Q. GUOMING, Z. JIA-EN, X. JUNFANG, AND A.
DITOMMASO, SOUTH CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, GUANGZHOU, CHINA (15) ......................... 22
MODELLING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA IN CHINA. Q. ZHONG*, A. DITOMMASO, C.L. MOHLER, AND Z. JIA-EN, SOUTH CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
GUANGZHOU, CHINA (16) ..................................................................................................... 23
SEEDLING EMERGENCE OF SEVERAL WEED SPECIES AS AFFECTED BY FURROW LOCATION, CORN PLANTING DENSITY AND PATTERN. F. KORDBACHEH*, H. RAHIMIAN MASHHADI, AND A. DITOMMASO,
UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN, TEHRAN, IRAN (17) ............................................................................ 24
THE EFFECT OF TIMING AND THE METHOD OF CONTROL ON JAPANESE STILTGRASS SEED PRODUCTION. J.L. HUFFMAN*, E.S. RAUSCHERT, A.E. GOVER, AND A.N. NORD, PENNSYLVANIE STATE
UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (18) .................................................................................. 25
PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF DICAMBA PERFORMANCE IN DICAMBA TOLERANT SOYBEANS IN THE NORTHEAST. D.J. MAYONADO*, R.L. RITTER, M.J. VANGESSEL, AND H.P. WILSON, MONSANTO,
SALISBURY, MD (19) ............................................................................................................ 26
SWEET VERNALGRASS: A NEW WEED PROBLEM FOR NORTHEASTERN TURFGRASS. A.N. SMITH* AND S.
ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (20) ......................................................................... 27
WEED MANAGEMENT WITH TEMBOTRIONE AND ISOXAFLUTOLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. W.J. EVERMAN*, J.
HINTON, AND M. ROSEMOND, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (21) ..................... 28
INVESTIGATING POKEWEED MANAGEMENT IN FIELD CROPS. K.M. PATCHES* AND W.S. CURRAN,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (22) ................................................... 29
MECHANICAL AND CULTURAL EFFECTS ON LIMA BEAN WEED CONTROL. B.A. SCOTT*, M.J. VANGESSEL,
AND Q. JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (23) ......................................... 30
THE WEEDOLYMPICS: A NATIONAL WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. J.T. BROSNAN*, G. ARMEL, G.K. BREEDEN,
J.J. VARGAS, AND M.J. VANGESSEL, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (24) ...................... 31
TANK MIXTURES AND APPLICATION INTERVALS FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL WITH
METAMIFOP. M.C. COX* AND S. ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (25) ................................ 32
TALL FESCUE TOLERANCE TO TOWER® (DIMETHENAMID) AND FREEHAND™ (DIMETHENAMID + PENDIMETHALIN). D. GOMEZ DE BARREDA* AND P. MCCULLOUGH, POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF
VALENCIA, VALENCIA, SPAIN (26) ........................................................................................... 33
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................... 34
EFFECT OF SAFLUFENACIL APPLICATION TIMING ON SOYBEAN AND ITS ROLE IN MANAGING GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED. J.T. IKLEY* AND R.L. RITTER, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,
COLLEGE PARK, MD (38) ...................................................................................................... 34
ABSORPTION, TRANSLOCATION, AND METABOLISM OF AMINOCYCLO-PYRACHLOR IN LOBLOLLY PINE (PINUS TAEDA). R.L. ROTEN* AND R.J. RICHARDSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC
(39) ................................................................................................................................. 35
CONTROL OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS BIOTYPES WITH THREE POSTEMERGENT HERBICIDES. K.M. HAN*
AND J.E. KAMINSKI, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (40) ......................... 36
HERBICIDAL ACTIVITY OF HETEROCYCLIC ANALOGUES OF DICHLOBENIL ON VARIOUS WEED AND ORNAMENTAL SPECIES. J.W. THOMAS*, G. ARMEL, M.D. BEST, W. KLINGEMAN, C-L. DO-THANH, AND H.E.
BOSTIC, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (41) .......................................................... 37
v
EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES IN TENNESSEE. J.J. VARGAS*, G. ARMEL, W. KLINGEMAN, P. FLANAGAN, R.M. EVANS, R.J. RICHARDSON, AND R.L. ROTEN,
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (42) ...................................................................... 38
FINE FESCUE VARIETAL TOLERANCE TO GLYPHOSATE RATES. M.C. COX*, S. ASKEW, W. ASKEW, AND J.
GOATLEY JR., VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (43) ................................................................. 39
EFFECTS OF ROOTING DEPTH ON HYBRID BERMUDAGRASS (C. DACTYLON X. C. TRANSVAALENSIS) INJURY WITH INDAZIFLAM IN VARIOUS SOILS. P.A. JONES*, J.T. BROSNAN, G.K. BREEDEN, AND M.T.
ELMORE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE, KNOXVILLE, TN (44) ......................................... 40
EFFECT OF CORN HERBICIDES ON SUCCESSFUL COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT. C.S. DILLON* AND W.S.
CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (45) ...................................... 41
PARTITIONING OUT THE EFFECTS OF NUTRIENTS FROM COMPOSTED MANURE ON WEEDS AND CROPS. N.G. LITTLE*, C.L. MOHLER, A. DITOMMASO, AND Q.M. KETTERINGS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY
(46) ................................................................................................................................. 42
EFFECTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT LEGACY ON WEED-CROP COMPETITION. H.J. POFFENBARGER*, S. MIRSKY, J. TEASDALE, J. SPARGO, D. TIMLIN, J. MAUL, AND M. CAVIGELLI, USDA-ARS, BELTSVILLE, MD (47)
...................................................................................................................................... 43
EVALUATING INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT FOR NO-TILL DAIRY CROPPING SYSTEMS. E.M. SNYDER*, W.S. CURRAN, H.D. KARSTEN, AND G.M. MALCOLM, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (48) ................................................................................................... 44
THE EFFECT OF ROW SPACING ON WEED PRESSURE, YIELD AND ECONOMICS IN SOYBEAN. J.M.
ORLOWSKI*, W.J. COX, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (49) ......................... 45
EFFECTIVENESS OF SHALLOW HIGH-RESIDUE CULTIVATION IN NO-TILL SOYBEAN. W.S. CURRAN AND
C.L. KEENE*, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (50) .................................. 46
IMPACT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ON PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL USING MICROWAVE
RADIATION. A. RANA* AND J.F. DERR, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (51) .................................. 47
INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF BIOENERGY CROPS USING THE NEW APHIS ASSESSMENT: HOW RISKY IS
RENEWABLE ENERGY? L.L. SMITH* AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (52) ............ 48
INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS FOR SILVERY THREAD MOSS
ON PUTTING GREENS. A. POST*, S. ASKEW, AND D. MCCALL, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (53) .... 49
NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY OF THE “INVASIVE” MISCANTHUS SINENSIS POPULATIONS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. R.F. DOUGHERTY*, L. QUINN, T. VOIGT, B. ENDRES, AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH,
BLACKSBURG, VA (54) ......................................................................................................... 50
DO DEER BROWSE ON INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS? DEER PREFERENCE TRIAL RESULTS FOR NATIVE AND INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS IN PENNSYLVANIA. K.M. AVERILL* AND D. MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (55) ........................................................................ 51
ECONOMICS, EFFICACY, AND NON-TARGET EFFECTS OF MANAGING THE FOREST UNDERSTORY INVADER MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM. D. TEKIELA*, A. POST, S. ASKEW, AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH,
BLACKSBURG, VA (56) ......................................................................................................... 52
NITROGEN-ENHANCED EFFICACY OF MESOTRIONE AND TOPRAMEZONE FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS (DIGITARIA ISCHAEMUM) CONTROL. M.T. ELMORE*, J.T. BROSNAN, G.K. BREEDEN, AND P.A. JONES,
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (57) ...................................................................... 53
QUANTIFYING VAPOR DRIFT OF DICAMBA HERBICIDES APPLIED TO SOYBEAN. J. EGAN* AND D.
MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (58) ................................. 54
NICOSULFURON-RESISTANT JOHNSONGRASS EXHIBITS DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY TO GLYPHOSATE.
A.N. SMITH* AND E. HAGOOD, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (59) ............................................. 55
vi
WEED BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY .............................................................................. 56
THE NON-NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA OF MONOMOY ISLANDS, MASSACHUSETTS. R. STALTER*, ST.
JOHN’S UNIVERSITY, QUEENS, NY (60) .................................................................................... 56
COMPOST INCREASES WEED ABUNDANCE IN AN ORGANIC GRAIN CROPPING SYSTEM. C.A. MARSCHNER*, C.L. MOHLER, B.A. CALDWELL, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY
(61) ................................................................................................................................. 59
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO DODDER SPECIES VARIATION IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. K.M. GHANTOUS*, S. STEFANOVIC, AND H.A. SANDLER, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, EAST WAREHAM,
MA (62) ............................................................................................................................. 60
EARLY SEASON PHENOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF CEREAL RYE PERFORMANCE. S. MIRSKY*, J. SPARGO,
W.S. CURRAN, M.R. RYAN, AND S. C. REBERG-HORTON, USDA-ARS, BELTSVILLE, MD (63) ................... 61
ORNAMENTALS .......................................................................................................... 62
BEDDING PLANT RESPONSE TO DIMETHENAMID. J.F. DERR*, VIRGINIA TECH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (64) 62
EARLY POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF BITTERCRESS (CARDAMINE HIRSUTA) IN CONTAINER PLANT
PRODUCTION. C. MARBLE*, C. GILLIAM, AND A. ALEXANDER, AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AUBURN, AL (65) .... 63
IR-4 2011 CROP INJURY SUMMARY OF SEVERAL HERBICIDES ON ORNAMENTAL NURSERY CROPS. K.A.
HESTER*, C.L. PALMER, E. VEA, AND J. BARON, THE IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (66) .................... 64
IR-4 2011 SUMMARY OF POSTEMERGENT LIVERWORT CONTROL IN NURSERY CONTAINERS. K.A.
HESTER*, C.L. PALMER, E. LURVEY, AND J. BARON, THE IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (67) ............... 65
PHENOXY HERBICIDE SAFETY IN CONTAINER PRODUCTION OF MUHLENBERGIA AND MISCANTHUS. C.
HARLOW* AND J.C. NEAL, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (68) .......................... 66
TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO MESOTRIONE, DIMETHENAMID-P, AND PENDIMETHALIN PLUS DIMETHENAMID-P APPLICATIONS. T.L. MERVOSH* AND J.F. AHRENS,
CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WINDSOR, CT (69) ...................................... 67
POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF MONOCOTYLEDONOUS WEEDS IN SELECTED CONTAINER-GROWN
ORNAMENTALS. A.F. SENESAC*, CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, RIVERHEAD, NY (70) .............. 68
SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF MULCH AND MULCH / HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS IN PANSY BEDS. J.C. NEAL*,
C. HARLOW, AND B. FAIR, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (71) .......................... 69
TOLERANCE OF CONIFERS TO MESOTRIONE ALONE OR COMBINED WITH OTHER HERBICIDES. J.F. AHRENS* AND T.L. MERVOSH, CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WINDSOR, CT (72)
...................................................................................................................................... 70
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ....................................................................................... 71
FRUIT TREE TOLERANCE TO ALION™ HERBICIDE. M. MAHONEY*, D. UNLAND, AND B. DEWEESE, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (73) .......................................................................................... 71
THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M. ARSENOVIC*, D. KUNKEL,
AND J. BARON, IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (74) .................................................................... 72
SWEET CORN WEED CONTROL: NO-TILL, NO ATRAZINE, NO WAY? D.D. LINGENFELTER*, M.J. VANGESSEL, B.A. SCOTT, AND Q. JOHNSON, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
(75) ................................................................................................................................. 73
SULFENTRAZONE FOR LIMA BEANS: ARE WE CHARGING FORWARD? M.J. VANGESSEL*, B.A. SCOTT, AND
Q. JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (76) ............................................... 75
PREEMERGENT COMBINATIONS OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILD BLUEBERRY FIELDS. D.E.
YARBOROUGH* AND J.L. D'APPOLLONIO, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO, ME (77) ............................ 76
vii
INJURY FROM DELAYED APPLICATIONS OF DICHLOBENIL ON FOUR CRANBERRY VARIETIES. H.A.
SANDLER*, UMASS CRANBERRY STATION, EAST WAREHAM, MA (78) ............................................. 77
MINI-SYMPOSIUM:SWALLOW-WORTS ..................................................................... 78
THE SWALLOW-WORTS: WHERE TO NEXT? A. DITOMMASO*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (79) ... 78
PALE AND BLACK SWALLOW-WORT GROWTH AND SURVIVAL IN NEW YORK STATE. K.M. AVERILL* AND
A. DITOMMASO, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (80) .............................. 79
APPROACHES FOR SWALLOW-WORT CONTROL - DECIDING HOW TO BEGIN. N.P. CAIN* AND T.L.
MERVOSH, CAIN VEGETATION, ACTON, ON (81) ......................................................................... 80
SWALLOW-WORT (VINCETOXICUM SPP.) BIOLOGICAL CONTROL UPDATE. L.R. MILBRATH*, USDA-ARS,
ITHACA, NY (82) .................................................................................................................. 81
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION ................................................ 82
GOATSRUE CONTROL PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. BRAVO*, J. ZOSCHG, L. ROSS, AND I.D.
BOWERS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (83) ........................... 82
COMPARISON OF HERBICIDES FOR EARLY SEASON CONTROL OF MILE-A-MINUTE AND IMPACT ON NON-TARGET VEGETATION. A.E. GOVER* AND J.L. HUFFMAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
PARK, PA (84) .................................................................................................................... 83
F9007: A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN PASTURE AND WHEAT. J.P. REED*, T.W. MIZE, G.G.
STRATMAN, AND B.A. NEUBERGER, FMC, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR (85) ........................................ 84
ABSORPTION AND TRANSLOCATION OF 14C-AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN THREE AQUATIC SPECIES. R.L.
ROTEN* AND R.J. RICHARDSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (86) ................. 85
TURION BIOLOGY OF MONOECIOUS HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA. R.J. RICHARDSON* AND S.T. HOYLE,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (87) ............................................................ 86
SYMPOSIUM: MOVING BEYOND ROTATING MODES OF ACTION: ADVANCING THE CONCEPT AND APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT ...... 87
DIVERSIFICATION, SOIL QUALITY AND INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT. E. GALLANDT*, UNIVERSITY
OF MAINE, ORONO, ME (88)................................................................................................... 87
CLASHING PERSPECTIVES LIMIT IWM ADOPTION IN THE NORTHEAST. D.D. LINGENFELTER*,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (89) ................................................... 88
IWM: WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? J. LINDQUIST*, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NE (90) ............ 89
INTERACTIONS THAT MATTER: IMPROVING EFFICACY WITH STRATEGIC COMBINATIONS OF CULTURAL WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. M.R. RYAN*, D. MORTENSEN, J. TEASDALE, R.G. SMITH, S. MIRSKY,
AND W.S. CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (91) ......................... 90
ARE ORGANIC FARMING AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE THE LAST HOPES FOR IWM? A VIEW FROM
CANADA. S. SHIRTLIFFE*, UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN, SASKATOON, SK (92) ........................... 91
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT WEEDS? ADDRESSING THE ROOTS OF A PERENNIAL PROBLEM.
R.G. SMITH*, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DURHAM, NH (93) ................................................. 92
TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ............................................... 93
METHIOZOLIN PROGRAMS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS PUTTING GREENS IN TENNESSEE. J.T. BROSNAN* AND G.K. BREEDEN, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE,
TN (94) ............................................................................................................................. 93
ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS WITH SPRING APPLICATIONS OF
METHIOZOLIN. S. ASKEW* AND S.-J. KOO, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (95) ............................. 94
viii
USE OF METHIOZOLIN FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA L.) CONTROL ON CREEPING BENTGRASS (AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA) GREENS. K.A. VENNER*, S. HART, S. ASKEW, AND C.J. MANSUE, RUTGERS
UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (96) ................................................................................... 95
SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF AN ANNUAL BLUEGRASS PUTTING GREEN. J. BORGER*, M.B. NAEDEL, AND
K.R. HIVNER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (97) .................................. 96
GROUND IVY CONTROL AS AFFECTED BY MOWING PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS. A.J. PATTON* AND D.V. WEISENBERGER, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN (98)
...................................................................................................................................... 97
BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS USING ALTERNATIVES TO SYNTHETIC HERBICIDES. D.T.
LINDE* AND S.J. MCDONALD, DELAWARE VALLEY COLLEGE, DOYLESTOWN, PA (99) ......................... 98
USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENOMICS FOR NATURAL PRODUCTS DISCOVERY OF NOVEL HERBICIDES.
J.T. KAO-KNIFFIN*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (100) ........................................................ 99
INFLUENCE OF EARLY APPLICATIONS ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION WITH
ETHEPHON AND MEFLUIDIDE. S. ASKEW* AND A.N. SMITH, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (101) ... 100
TALL FESCUE (FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA) TOLERANCE TO SPRING AND FALL AMICARBAZONE APPLICATIONS. G.K. BREEDEN*, J.T. BROSNAN, AND P. MCCULLOUGH, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE,
KNOXVILLE, TN (102) ......................................................................................................... 101
MESOTRIONE AND AMICARBAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA) CONTROL.
M.T. ELMORE*, J.T. BROSNAN, AND G.K. BREEDEN, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (103) 102
POTENTIAL ANTAGONISM OF SULFENTRAZONE AND FENOXAPROP TANK-MIXES FOR GOOSEGRASS CONTROL. A.J. PATTON*, D.V. WEISENBERGER, J.T. BROSNAN, AND G.K. BREEDEN, PURDUE UNIVERSITY,
WEST LAFAYETTE, IN (104) ................................................................................................. 103
COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS RESEEDING INTERVALS FOR METHIOZOLIN. P. MCCULLOUGH AND D.
GOMEZ DE BARREDA*, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, GA (105) ....................................................... 104
AGRONOMY ............................................................................................................... 105
ENLIST™ CORN TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH PRE FOLLOWED BY POST HERBICIDE PROGRAMS. B.D. OLSON*, S.C. DITMARSEN, C.A. GALLUP, M.W. MELICHAR, AND P.L. PRASIFKA, DOW
AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (106) ................................................................................ 105
REDUCED RATE RESIDUAL HERBICIDES PREVENT DANDELION ESTABLISHMENT IN ZONE-TILLAGE CORN AND SOYBEANS. R.R. HAHN*, R.J. RICHTMYER III, AND J.M. ORLOWSKI, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA,
NY (107) ......................................................................................................................... 106
ZEMAX™: A NEW MESOTRIONE PLUS S-METOLACHLOR FORMULATION IN CORN. E. HITCHNER*, R. LINS,
M. URWILER, AND G.D. VAIL, SYNGENTA, 08098, NJ (108) ........................................................... 107
PERFORMANCE OF F9310 AND F9316 IN THE NORTHEAST PRE AND POST CORN TRIALS IN 2010 AND 2011. J.P. REED*, J.S. WILSON, G.G. STRATMAN, B.A. NEUBERGER, AND T.W. MIZE, FMC CORPORATION,
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR (109) ............................................................................................ 108
EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERSIFY BURNDOWN OPTIONS IN NO-TILL CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. W.S. CURRAN* AND D.D. LINGENFELTER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
PARK, PA (110) ................................................................................................................. 109
DEFINING GEOGRAPHIC AND BIOCLIMATIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF TROUBLESOME WEEDS IN GRAIN CROPS.
E.M. BUCK*, A. DITOMMASO, S.J. RIHA, AND A.J. MCDONALD, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (111) 110
HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - A CRITICAL STEP IN PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT. W.J. EVERMAN*, L. GLASGOW, L. INGEGNERI, J. SCHROEDER, D. SHAW, J. SOTERES, J. STACHLER, AND F. TARDIF, NORTH
CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (112) ................................................................... 111
STEWARDSHIP OF DICAMBA IN DICAMBA TOLERANT CROPPING SYSTEMS. W.E. THOMAS*, S.J. BOWE, L.L. BOZEMAN, M. STAAL, T. CANNAN, AND S.W. MURDOCK, BASF CORPORATION, RESEARCH TRIANGLE
PARK, NC (113) ................................................................................................................ 112
ix
EFFICACY OF F9310 AND SULFENTRAZONE PREMIXES IN THE NORTHEAST SOYBEAN TRIALS IN 2011. J.P. REED*, J.S. WILSON, G.G. STRATMAN, B.A. NEUBERGER, AND T.W. MIZE, FMC CORPORATION, NORTH
LITTLE ROCK, AR (114) ....................................................................................................... 113
UPDATE ON HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP AND CONTROL OPTIONS IN CORN AND SOYBEANS. K.D. BURNELL*, V.K. SHIVRAIN, A.S. FRANSSEN, AND G.D. VAIL, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, PENFIELD, NY
(115) .............................................................................................................................. 114
SELECTIVITY OF GLYPHOSATE AND HPPD INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN A NEW SOYBEAN EVENT. M.
MAHONEY*, J. ALLEN, AND J. HINZ, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (116) ............................... 115
ANTHEMTM AND ANTHEM ATZTM :TWO NEW HERBICIDES FOR PRE-EMERGENCE AND POST-EMERGENCE CONTROL OF KEY BROADLEAF AND GRASS WEED PESTS. J.S. WILSON*, T.W. MIZE, T. MARTIN, J.P.
REED, G.G. STRATMAN, AND B.A. NEUBERGER, FMC CORPORATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA (117) ........... 116
GENERAL SESSION .................................................................................................. 117
OUTCOME FUNDING AND THE NORTHEAST SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEACH AND EDUCATION (SARE) GRANT PROGRAM. T.F. MORRIS* AND J.C. MCALLISTER, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS,
CT (118).......................................................................................................................... 117
NEWSS FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 2010 .................................. 118
NEWSS YEAR-END REPORT 2010 ........................................................................... 119
MINUTES FROM 65TH ANNUAL MEETING, JAN. 2011 ............................................ 133
NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS ..................................................................................... 136
AWARD OF MERIT .................................................................................................... 137
NEWSS FELLOW ....................................................................................................... 138
OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD ................................................................. 139
OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD ...................................................................... 140
SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD ............................................................................ 140
OUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER CONTEST ......................................................... 140
DR. ROBERT D. SWEET OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT ......................... 142
COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS ............................................................. 143
RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS ............................................................................... 146
INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR ...................................................................................... 149
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS .................... 150
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 150
OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS ............................................................................ 150
2011 NEWSS MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY ............................................................... 156
AUTHOR INDEX ......................................................................................................... 166
KEY WORD INDEX ..................................................................................................... 168
1
NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY Sheraton Society Hill
Philadelphia, PA
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
President M.J. VanGessel University of Delaware 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown, DE 19947 [email protected] President-Elect A. DiTommaso Cornell University
903 Bradfield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853
[email protected] Vice President D.D. Lingenfelter Penn State University
116 ASI Building University Park, PA
Secretary/Treasurer M.A. Bravo PA Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 [email protected] Past President H.A. Sandler UMass Cranberry Station P.O. Box 569 East Wareham, MA 02538 [email protected]
2
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Editor D.W. Lycan Syngenta Lawn & Garden 18 Appleridge Street Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Public Relations B.A. Scott University of Delaware 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown, DE 19947 [email protected]
Research & J.B. Willis Education Monsanto Company Coordinator 1305 Sanders Road Troy, OH [email protected] Sustaining J.H. O’Barr Membership BASF Corporation 108 Whippoorwill Lane Hummelstown, PA 17036 [email protected]
CAST Representative R.G. Prostak University of Massachusetts
Bowditch Hall, Rm 206 Amherst, MA 01003
Graduate Student A.N. Smith Representative Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 [email protected] WSSA Representative J. N. Barney Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 [email protected] Science Policy Director L. Van Wychen 900 2nd St. NE, Suite 205 Washington, DC 20002
3
SECTION CHAIRS Agronomy Chair: K. Burnell Chair-elect: R. Richtmyer Student Paper Contest Chair: H. Sandler Member: D. Yarborough Member: J. Baron Member: R. Keese Member: W. Curran Student Poster Contest Chair: Q. Johnson Member: K. Kalmowitz Member: D. Ganske Member: K. Burnell Member: G. Evans Ornamentals Chair: C. Becker Chair-elect: K. Hester Research Posters Chair: K. Hester Chair-elect: J. D’Appollonio Turfgrass and Plant Chair: J. Brosnan Growth Regulators Chair-elect: A. Patton Vegetables and Fruit Chair: R. Dunst Chair-elect: D. Kunkel Vegetation Management and Chair: B. McDonnell Restoration Chair-elect: J. Johnson Weed Biology and Ecology Chair: J. Barney Chair-elect: K. Ghantous
4
COMMITTEES
Site Selection Committee:
Antonio DiTommaso Chair, 607-254-4702 [email protected]
Mark VanGessel 302-856-7303 ext 510 [email protected]
Melissa Bravo 717-787-7204 [email protected]
Awards Committee:
Hilary Sandler Chair 508-295-2212 ext 21 [email protected]
David Yarborough 207-581-2923 [email protected]
Jerry Baron 732-932-9575 ext 4605 [email protected]
Renee Keese 919-547-2791 [email protected]
Bill Curran 814-863-1014 [email protected]
Nomination Committee:
David Yarborough Chair, 207-581-2923 [email protected]
Renee Keese 215-817-0637 [email protected]
Dan Kunkel 732-932-9575 ext 4616 [email protected]
Quintin Johnson 302-856-7303 ext 513 [email protected]
Kristine Averill 860-248-9969 [email protected]
Resolutions Committee:
Todd Mervosh Chair, 860-683-4984 [email protected]
Jon Johnson 814-863-1184 [email protected]
Kathleen Hester 732-932-9575 ext 4625 [email protected]
Collegiate Weed Contest:
Mark VanGessel Chair, 302-856-7303 ext 510 [email protected]
Antonio DiTommaso 607-254-4702 [email protected]
Greg Armel 865-974-8829 [email protected]
Dwight Lingenfelter 814-865-2242 [email protected]
Adam Smith 540-231-5835 [email protected]
John Willis 937-418-5667 [email protected]
Audit Committee:
Melissa Bravo Chair, 717-787-7204 [email protected]
Jim Steffel 610-562-5055 [email protected]
Todd Mervosh 860-683-4984 [email protected]
Archives Committee:
Dan Kunkel Chair 732-932-9575 ext 4616 [email protected]
Hilary Sandler 508-295-2212 ext 21 [email protected]
5
Photo Awards Committee:
Greg Armel Chair 865-974-8829 [email protected]
Darren Lycan 315-635-2818 [email protected]
AnneMarie Pennucci 603-895-8460 [email protected]
Joe Ikley 410-596-9091 [email protected]
Matt Mahoney 410-822-5215 [email protected]
Erin Hitchner 609-980-8832 [email protected]
Student Paper Awards Committee:
Hilary Sandler Chair 508-295-2212 ext 21 [email protected]
David Yarborough 207-581-2923 [email protected]
Jerry Baron 732-932-9575 ext 4605 [email protected]
Renee Keese 919-547-2791 [email protected]
Bill Curran 814-863-1014 [email protected]
Poster Awards Committee:
Quintin Johnson Chair 302-856-7303 ext 513 [email protected]
Kathie Kalmowitz 919-270-4592 [email protected]
Donald Ganske 540-662-6011 [email protected]
Keith Burnell 315-209-7580 [email protected]
Glenn Evans 607-255-9085 [email protected]
Weed Science Field Days Committee:
John Willis 937-418-5667 [email protected]
Quintin Johnson 302-856-7303 ext 513 [email protected]
Past Presidents Committee:
Roy Johnson Chair 215-348-5535 [email protected]
Hilary Sandler 508-295-2212 ext 21 [email protected]
Herbicide Resistance Plant Committee:
Mark VanGessel Chair 302-856-7303 ext 510 [email protected]
Russ Hahn 607-255-1759 [email protected]
Bill Curran 814-863-1014 [email protected]
Brian Olson 315-781-0140 [email protected]
Dan Kunkel 732-932-9575 ext 4616 [email protected]
Dave Mayonado 410-726-4222 [email protected]
6
2011 NEWSS ANNUAL MEETING AWARD WINNERS
Robin Bellinder Robert Richardson Scott Hagood Fellow Award Outstanding Researcher Award of Merit
Greg Breeden Robert Dickerson Kristine Averill Service Recognition Service Recognition Dr. Robert D. Sweet Outstanding Graduate Student (M.S.)
Student Paper Contest (L-R): 1st: Scott Wells (NCSU) 2nd: Brendan McNulty (VA Tech)
Student Poster Contest (L-R): 1st: Katelyn Venner (Rutgers) 2nd: Ian Bowers (Penn State) 3rd: Kyung Han (Penn State)
Photo Contest (L-R): 1st: Jennifer D’Appollonio (Univ of Maine) 2nd: Cory Johnson (not pictured,PA Dept of Ag) 3rd: Aaron Patton (Purdue University)
7
NEWSS WINNING INDIVIDUALS 1st Graduate: Dustin Lewis, North Carolina State 1st Undergraduate: Dan Tekiela, Virginia Tech NATIONAL COMPETITION WINNERS 1st UndergraduateTeam: University of Guelph- Thomas Judd, Adam Parker, Michael Vanhie, and Jessica Gal 1st Undergraduate Individual: Dan Tekiela, Virginia Tech 1st GraduateTeam: Purdue University 1st Graduate Individual: Jason Parrish, Ohio State Univ.
8
THE SINNEMAHONNING COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (SIPMA) GETS TO WORK. T.J. Meyer, J. Zoschg, and M.A. Bravo*, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (1)
ABSTRACT
Cooperative Weed Management Areas are growing in the Northeast. In 2008, with the support of the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Agriculture, the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the PA Invasive Species Council, the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and others, a group of concerned land managers in North central Pennsylvania, formed a Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) called the Sinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area (SIPMA), to work together to control noxious and invasive weeds.
Invasive and noxious plant species are a growing threat to biodiversity in the hardwood forests of Northern Central Pennsylvania, and it is still possible to control many species that are not yet common or widespread. The Sinnemahoning Cooperative Weed Management Area – the Sinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area (SIPMA) is working together to perform early detection and rapid response to weed populations in the watershed, monitor treated sites, and to educate the general public and the landowners about the problem. Various funding sources have supported the start up of the organization since 2008. In early 2011, funds were granted to hire a CWMA coordinator, who will be dedicated to implementing the goals of the CWMA partners. The SIPMA is composed of public agencies, private landowners, and non-profits.
Since 2008, The Bucktail Watershed Association (BWA), has been writing grants and obtaining funds for managing weed control projects, working to eradicate localized populations of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), mile-a-minute vine (Polygonum perfoliatum) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). The PA Department of Agriculture has assisted landowners with survey, detection and control of two state noxious weeds of limited distribution in the SIPMA area: mile-a-minute, and the federal noxious weed goatsrue (Galega officinalis). PDA field staff has assisted 41 landowners with the identification, detection and control of 24 acres of private lands adjacent to Sinnemahoning State Park in Cameron and Potter Counties that are infested with mile-a-minute. Herbicide reference plots (meter square) indicate that 0, 28, and 8 seedlings emerged in the same area where the previous year’s data detected 206, 261, and 114 respectively - these reference plots having been treated consecutively in 2007 and 2008. By contrast a control plot yielded 243 seedlings in 2011 down from 1,184 seedlings in 2010 – indicating that environmental conditions are also contributing to mile-a-minute demise. Observations of the beetle Rhinocominus latipes feeding indicate mile-a-minute cover dropped from 70% at one release site in August of 2010 to 5% cover as of September 2011. The Cameron County Conservation District has been writing grants for weed control projects and is doing education and outreach in schools and to the general public. Other state agencies are also working with the SIMPA to control localized populations of key species. The PA Game Commission is controlling buckthorn on state game lands in the SIMPA region. There are two PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Forests, the Elk and Susquehannock, as well as the Sinnemahoning State Park, who are working to control Japanese barberry, (Berberis thunbergii), Japanese knotweed and mile-a-minute vine, as well as some very limited populations of goatsrue discovered in recent years.
9
GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES. M.A. Bravo*, I.D. Bowers, and J. Zoschg, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (2)
ABSTRACT
In 1983, the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) declared the plant a federal noxious weed and targeted giant hogweed (GH) for eradication nationwide. As of 2011, GH had been found in 18 states and in Canada. It was added to the PA Noxious Weed Control List in 2000. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) and USDA/APHIS launched the GH Hotline in 1998 and created a national giant hogweed campaign to promote awareness of this poisonous plant and created a PA state hotline (1-877-464-9333).
Since the PA state program began, 453 sites have been found in 17 PA counties. The targeted eradication program has been very successful and 325 of these sites have been declared eradicated. More than 55% of the Pennsylvania populations are found in Erie County. Nearby sites are still known in Crawford, Mercer, McKean, Venango, and Warren Counties. Isolated sites are also known from Elk, Potter, Butler, Blair, Huntingdon, Carbon, and Wayne counties. PA also assists neighboring states with site specific eradication programs.
The goal for eradiation of this federal noxious weed from Pennsylvania and neighboring states requires field staff to monitor sites every year for at least 3 consecutive years to ensure the seedbank has been exhausted. Each season, between May and August, field staff in the Noxious Weed Program are regularly surveying active sites; assisting property owners with control measures (chemical and mechanical); monitoring released sites; and responding to the hotline calls. For Pennsylvania, these continued surveys detected 11 new sites of giant hogweed in 2011, that are, for all intents and purposes relate to existing sites on an adjoining landowner’s property. In all only 74 (16%) of the 453 known sites in the state remain active.
With the cooperation of the PA Dept. of Agriculture and USDA-APHIS, OHIO has been treating several sites in Ashtabula and Lake Counties. In 2011 a new site was found in Cuyahoga County. Ohio will continue to monitor all known sites until GHW is eradicated and relies heavily on the local townships and municipalities for their help in reporting and controlling GHW whenever possible. Maine reports that Giant hogweed is not prevalent with less than 25 known sites in the state, and new sites have been reported each year. In New York, the giant hogweed program is in its 3rd field season with more than 800 sites surveyed, monitored or controlled by the NYDEC program in 2010. As of 2011, more than 900 sites have been detected in 35 counties since the media began extensively reporting on the location of infestations.
10
COMPARING HERBICIDE TOLERANCES OF RARE AND COMMON PLANTS IN LANCASTER COUNTY, PA. I.M. Graham*, J. Egan, and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (3)
ABSTRACT
Plant diversity contributes to valuable services in agroecosystems, but has been in decline in many agricultural regions over the past half century. While this decline has often been attributed to escalating use of chemical herbicides, other changes in farming practice including the clearing of semi-natural habitat fragments have occurred over the same period and confound the influence of herbicides. Recent innovations in biotechnology will likely result in further changes in the quality and quantity of herbicide use. Understanding the extent to which herbicides shape plant communities in agricultural landscapes therefore remains an open and highly relevant area of research. If herbicides are in fact a key factor shaping agricultural plant diversity, we would expect to see the signal of past herbicide impacts in the current plant community composition of an intensively farmed region, with common, successful species more tolerant than rare or declining species. By combining data from an extensive field survey of plant diversity in Lancaster County, PA with greenhouse herbicide bioassay experiments, we tested the hypothesis that common species possess higher herbicide tolerances than rare species. Our experiments included congeneric contrasts with the common species Asclepias syriaca, Bidens frondosa, Elymus riparius, Polygonum convolvulus, and Verbena utricifolia and the rare species A. tuberosa, B. cernua, E. hystrix, P. lapathifolia, and V. hastata. We exposed each species to four doses of the herbicides atrazine, dicamba, and glyphosate plus a water control. Plants were treated 4-6 weeks after emergence and assessed 28 days after treatment for clonal shoot production in Asclepias and Elymus, flower production in Verbena and above ground biomass in all genera. Based on EC50 for clonal shoots, flowers, or biomass, preliminary analysis of our data did not indicate a statistically significant difference in tolerance between rare and common species for any of the genera for any of the herbicides. These results suggest that plant communities in agricultural landscapes may be more strongly shaped by growth rate, life history traits, and land-use patterns than herbicide tolerances.
11
EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE, SPRAY DROPLET SIZE AND SPRAY VOLUME ON CROP TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH ENLIST DUO. B.D. Olson*, D.M. Simpson, D.E. Hillger, C.C. Love, and D.T. Ellis, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (4)
ABSTRACT
Dow AgroSciences is committed to stewardship of the Enlist™ Weed Control System. Enlist Duo™ featuring Colex-D Technology™ will be a new herbicide solution with reduced potential for drift and low volatility of 2,4-D. The types of nozzles used in an application will also greatly impact the potential for drift. Dow AgroSciences will provide comprehensive stewardship guidance for deploying this technology system along with recommendations for the types of nozzles to use that reduce potential for drift. In 2011, field research trials were conducted under two separate protocols to evaluate crop tolerance and weed efficacy results using XR TeeJet©, TurboTeeJet©, AIXR TeeJet© and TurboTeeJet© Induction spray nozzles delivering spray droplet sizes ranging from fine to ultra coarse. In the crop response study, these nozzles were used to apply the high- end 2X use rate of the lead premix formulation of new 2,4-D choline + glyphosate, plus or minus 2.5% v/v AMS at 7.5 and 15 gallons per acre spray volume over-top Enlist™ corn stacked with SmartStax® and Enlist soybean stacked with glyphosate tolerance. Likewise, these nozzle types at 10 gallons per acre spray volume, were used to apply multiple, sub 1X to low- end 1X use rates of the new 2,4-D choline+glyphosate premix, to evaluate the effect of drift reducing nozzles on weed control over-top Roundup Ready® 2 Corn. Results from these trials support previous technical assumptions that nozzle tip selection criteria for reduced drift can be obtained without effect on crop tolerance or weed control.
™ Enlist, Enlist Duo and Colex-D are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist Weed Control System have not yet received regulatory approvals; approvals are pending. Enlist Duo herbicide is not registered for sale or use. The information provided here is not an offer for sale. Always read and follow label directions.©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLC
© XR TeeJet, TurboTeeJet, AIXR TeeJet and TurboTeeJet Induction are trademarks of Spraying System Co.
SmartStax® multi-event technology developed by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences LLC.
Roundup Ready® Corn 2, SmartStax and the SmartStax logo are trademarks of Monsanto Technology, LLC
12
MODELING OF VOLATILITY OF 2,4-D ESTER, DMA AND CHOLINE FORMULATIONS. B.D. Olson*, D.E. Hillger, P. Havens, J.A. Huff, R.B. Lassiter, and J.S. Richburg, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (5)
ABSTRACT
Dow AgroSciences conducted multi-year field trials (2010- 2011) at four different locations to evaluate the volatility of a new form of 2,4-D on both a comparative and quantitative basis. Large, multi-hectare field plots were treated with a single application of either 2,4-D ethylhexyl ester, 2,4-D dimethylamine salt or a novel 2,4-D choline salt. Air concentrations and sensitive plant injury were measured in a spoke and wheel fashion at distances of 5 and 15-m from the field edge, respectively. Volatility flux estimates, based upon back calculation procedures, suggest the reduction of volatile emissions from the new 2,4-D choline formulation was an order of magnitude or more lower than other 2,4-D forms, with no visible injury to sensitive plants placed around the field. When 2,4-D choline volatility flux estimates are integrated into the ISCST and CALPUFF air dispersion models, the estimated exposures to 2,4-D vapors were much lower than the levels that would affect sensitive vegetation.
13
METHODOLOGY FOR UTILIZING LOW TUNNEL STRUCTURES TO EVALUATE DIFFERENCES IN HERBICIDE VOLATILITY. B.D. Olson*, D.D. Ruen, D.E. Hillger, and E.F. Scherder, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (6)
ABSTRACT
Dow AgroSciences is committed to stewardship of the Enlist™ Weed Control System. Enlist DuoTM herbicide featuring Colex-DTM technology will be a new herbicide solution with reduced potential for drift, ultra low volatility, and reduced odor. A key component of Colex-D Technology is new 2,4-D choline. Qualitative and quantitative laboratory studies have been reported that clearly show lower volatility of 2,4-D choline compared to 2,4-D ester and 2,4-D dimethylamine formulations (DMA). Large 0.5-5.5 acre field studies using both quantitative and qualitative methods have validated the laboratory studies. For demonstration and training of sales representatives, growers, dealers and applicators, it is desirable to develop reproducible small plot methodology for comparing performance of various formulations. Previous work at Dow AgroSciences has shown the use of plastic row covers, referred to as low tunnel structures, will trap volatile emissions from treated surfaces, concentrate the vapors close to the row crop canopy and demonstrate the volatility effects of different formulations on susceptible plant species. Moveable low tunnel structures were constructed with ½” metal electrical conduit and 1 inch by 4 inch by 12 ft sideboards. A 5 ft long conduit was bent at 90 angles to result in 18 inch tall by 24 inch wide “u-shape”. The bottoms of five conduit u-shapes spaced 3 ft apart were connected to the inside of two boards. Clear, 1 mm plastic was stretched over the structure and attached to the conduit with ½ copper tubing hangers. Flats (10.5 x 21 x 2.5 inch) filled with sand were treated with herbicide at a location at least 1000 ft from the cotton field to avoid any potential physical drift. Applications were made with a back pack CO2 sprayer with three TT11002 nozzles spaced at 20 inches delivering 15 GPA. A series of experiments were conducted in 2011 to evaluate various factors in the experimental design to optimize results. The first experiment evaluated crop injury resulting from 2,4-D DMA applied at 1120, 2240 and 4480 g ae/ha. After application, three treated flats were placed in the center of a 24 ft by 30 inch low tunnel structure in two reps. After 48 hours the low tunnels and flats were removed. A second experiment evaluated the impact of the length of exposure (24 vs 48 hours) on crop injury for 2,4-D DMA at 2240 and 4480 g ae/ha. A third experiment evaluated the effect of area treated by comparing 3 flats treated with 2,4-D at 2240 g ae/ha to 1.5 flats treated with 2,4-D DMA at 4480 g ae/ha and 3 flats treated with 2,4-D DMA at 4480 g ae/ha. A fourth experiment evaluated the effect of soil type (silty clay loam vs sand) on volatility injury from 2,4-D DMA. In the fourth experiment, plots were 2.5 x 12 ft with a single treated flat placed in the middle of the plot. Results from these experiments show that 2,4-D DMA rate has minimum impact on level of injury under these conditions and that most of the injury results from volatility that occurred in the first 24 hours. The treated area can be minimized as long as the total amount of product applied is the same as that applied to larger area. Injury to cotton from volatility of 2,4-D DMA was not significantly impacted by the soil type. Results from these experiments validate the use of low tunnel structures to assess 2,4-D volatility on susceptible crops.
™ Enlist, Enlist Duo, and Colex-D Technology are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist Weed Control System are pending regulatory approvals. Enlist Duo herbicide is not registered for sale or use. The information provided here is not an offer for sale. Always read and follow label directions.©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLC
14
EFFECTS OF METHIOZOLIN RATES ON CREEPING BENTGRASS AND ANNUAL BLUEGRASS ROOT GROWTH. K.A. Venner*, S. Askew, and S. Koo, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (7)
ABSTRACT
Methiozolin (MRC-01) has controlled annual bluegrass on golf putting greens in several research trials in the US and other countries but little is known about the method of selectivity between creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass. The proposed mode of action of methiozolin is cell wall biosynthesis inhibition and research is currently working on further elucidating this mode of action and the mechanism of selectivity. In this study, we evaluated the effect of direct root exposure to methiozolin rates in nutrient solution on creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass root regeneration in an aeroponics system.
Studies were conducted in greenhouse and growth chamber environments with day/night temperatures of 29/21 C and supplemental light supplied by high-efficiency T-5 lamps generating 325 PAR on a 14 hr photoperiod. Two aeroponics systems were used in replicating treatments. The first consists of large chambers housing 6 annual bluegrass plants and 6 creeping bentgrass plants in a random arrangement. The system uses a sump containing nutrient water that is pumped into another chamber where spray nozzles mist plant roots suspended from the chamber lid. Excess nutrient drains out of the upper chamber back into the sump. Plants started as single tiller shoots placed in foam plugs. After 5 weeks, plants had 53 to 135 tillers and roots were 30 cm. Plants were separated into size classes that were uniformly distributed between chambers. Roots were cut to 2 cm and the study was initiated. Nutrient sumps contained 38 L of nutrient water and methiozolin at 8, 16, 32, 65, 196, and 328 ppb. These concentrations represent field application rates between 2.5 and 500 g ai/ha. Bensulide at a concentration to mimic the field application rate of 9 kg ai/ha was included as a standard. After 21 days the first replicate was completed and data showed that a rapid drop in percentage root growth (% of NTC) occurred between 2.5 and 25 g ai/ha methiozolin and then percent reduction leveled at approximately 85 and 60% reduction of annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass root length, respectively. The system was cleaned and prepared for the second replication; however, plant roots would not grow in the chambers that previously held the higher methiozolin rates. Scrubbing and pumping with ammonia water was not sufficient to clean plasticware of methiozolin because methiozolin is not water soluble. It was recommended we clean the system with an organic solvent such as methanol. Before doing so, we allowed plants to grow in the system for three months to evaluate root regeneration. After three months, bentgrass roots showed a clear advantage over annual bluegrass. In fact, many annual bluegrass plants died while creeping bentgrass plants continued to increase in size. In the chamber that contained 338 ppb methiozolin before cleaning, no bentgrass or annual bluegrass roots were longer than the 2 cm cut length after 3 months. A new system was created to allow for simultaneously replicated treatments. This system uses smaller sumps of 500 ml capacity and pumps nutrient solution in tubing to dribble down plant roots rather than spraying plant roots with nutrient. Results from this second replicated experiment will be presented. It appears methiozolin has a significant impact on root growth of both creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass but there appears to be significantly more reduction of annual bluegrass than of creeping bentgrass. We are not able to make conclusions at this time but a preliminary assumption is that differential root response to methiozolin may be one mechanism that allows for competitive displacement of annual bluegrass by creeping bentgrass on putting greens treated with methiozolin.
15
CROP ROTATION: SEQUENCE BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS. C.L. Mohler*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (8)
ABSTRACT
Much information on the problems and benefits associated with particular crop sequences can be found in the scientific literature of various disciplines. Until recently, this information was highly scattered, but it was collated in an appendix in the recently published book Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: A Planning Manual, Charles L. Mohler and Sue Ellen Johnson, eds., NRAES, 2009. This table has now been reprinted as an attractive poster which is available from NRAES (web address). The chart shows potential problems and benefits of following a crop shown on the left with a crop shown at the top. Most vegetable crops, field crops and cover crops grown in the Northeast are included in the chart. The letters in the body of the chart indicate potential problems: D, disease; W, weeds; I, insects; N, nutrients; S, soil structure; C, other agronomic problems such as timing issues. A minus sign following a letter indicates that the sequence is potentially beneficial. A booklet of notes shipped with the poster explains in more detail the nature of the problem or benefit indicated in the chart along with the source reference. The poster is useful in extension work as a means for motivating discussions of crop rotation and is invaluable for farmers as an at-a-glance reference when planning the season’s plantings.
16
HERBICIDE EVALUATION FOR WATERMELON GROWN WITH PLASTICULTURE. S.A. Mathew*, B.A. Scott, and M.J. VanGessel, University of Maryland, Cambridge, MD (9)
ABSTRACT
Broadleaf and grass weed species growing between the rows of plastic mulch for commercial watermelon production in Mid-Atlantic pose a challenge. Growers typically use residual herbicides tank mixed with non-selective herbicide applied using hooded sprayers for weed control in row middles of plastic mulch. The herbicide application time is usually two weeks after transplanting or before vines start to run off of the plastic whichever comes first. The herbicide options for watermelons are limited, but flumioxazin has been recently labeled for this use. This study was initiated to evaluate crop safety and weed control with flumioxazin as a component of herbicide programs for row middles of watermelon.
The study was conducted between 2010 and 2011 at two locations on Delmarva Peninsula. The study locations were University of Delaware’s Research and Education Center near Georgetown, DE and University of Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury Facility. Herbicide treatments were evaluated for weed control efficacy and watermelon crop injury. Residual broadleaf herbicides included flumioxazin, fomesafen, clomazone, and halosulfuron; and these were all applied in combination with ethalfluralin for grass control. All treatments included paraquat, except untreated check, for non-selective control. Treatments were replicated three times and arranged in a randomized complete block design. Plot size was one watermelon row (rows were 8 feet apart), 35 feet long. Both sides of the watermelon rows were sprayed with the herbicide treatment using a hooded sprayer. Standard triploid watermelon variety “Millionaire” was used for the study at both locations.
In 2010 at UM-LESREC or UD-REC, there were no differences between treatments for watermelon injury or yield. Watermelons at Delaware location showed slight leaf burn and stunting but were not consistent across treatments. Paraquat alone provided at least 85% weed control, and there were no differences in weed control between the various residual herbicide treatments in either location during 2010.
Weed control in 2011, at UD-REC was similar for all treatments with residual herbicides except clomazone plus ethalfluralin which resulted in lower morningglory species and large crabgrass control. At UM-LESREC, this same treatment resulted in less control of large crabgrass and smooth pigweed.
In 2011 at UD-REC, flumioxazin treatments resulted in higher levels of watermelon injury 6 days after treatment (10 to 13%), than other treatments. However, treatments with flumioxazin resulted in the highest yields. At UM-LESREC, there were no differences between treatments for watermelon injury or watermelon yield.
Early-season injury of watermelon often does affect yields. Paraquat alone provided (>75% control) good control of initial weed flush, residual herbicides were often needed for weed control through the harvest season. Season-long weed control is important for efficient harvest and ease of plastic removal. Flumioxazin could provide improved morningglory and large crabgrass control, provided the growers were willing to accept the risk of slightly higher crop injury.
17
EVALUATION OF PACLOBUTRAZOL FORMULATIONS AND RATES FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON PUTTING GREENS. A. Post*, S. Askew, M.C. Cox, and J. Corbett, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (10)
ABSTRACT
Annual bluegrass is the most prevalent weed problem on creeping bentgrass golf putting greens. There are no effective selective controls to manage it well. Most superintendants rely on plant growth regulators to slow the growth of annual bluegrass and effectively suppress seedhead production. A plant growth regulator program requires repeated applications throughout the season to maintain control. For example paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl are typically applied together 6 to 8 times at three week intervals beginning in late spring and continuing into the fall. Patents recently expired for both paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl and new formulations have been registered.
The objective of this study was to compare PGR programs using new generic formulations of paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl compared to the original proprietary products. Studies were established as randomized complete block designs at two sites in 2011, Draper Valley Country Club in Draper, VA and Spotswood Country Club in Harrisonburg, VA. Trials were initiated May 13th and May 14th, respectively and treatments were repeated every three weeks. Treatment programs included the following: 1) paclobutrazol (Trimmit 2SC) applied twice in spring and three times in fall at 0.28 kg ai/ha and three times in summer at 0.14 kg ai/ha plus trinexapac ethyl (Primo Maxx) at 0.05 kg ai/ha; 2) paclobutrazol (Tide Paclo) applied at same rates and timings as treatment 1 with the exception that the summer addition of trinexapac ethyl consisted of the product T-Nex instead of Primo Maxx; 3) same as treatment 1 except all paclobutrazol rates are reduced by half; 4) same as treatment 2 except all paclobutrazol rates are reduced by half; 5) flurprimidol (Cutless 50WP) applied twice in spring and three times in fall at 0.3 kg ai/ha and three times in summer at 0.15 kg ai/ha plus trinexapac ethyl (Primo Maxx) at 0.05 kg ai/ha. A nontreated check was also included and treatments were replicated three times at each site. Annual bluegrass cover was 35-47% at Draper when the trials were initiated. In mid July, annual bluegrass cover at Draper was 62% in the nontreated check and 13 to 27% and equivalent for both formulations at the low paclobutrazol rate and 4.0 to 4.7% and equivalent in both formulations at the high paclobutrazol rate and the flurprimidol program. Thus, there was a significant rate response and all treatments reduced annual bluegrass cover compared to the nontreated control but product formulation did not significantly impact annual bluegrass cover. Turf injury was never evident and quality was never significantly different from the nontreated check at Draper. Annual bluegrass cover ranged from 58-67% at Spotswood at trial initiation. On June 23, the nontreated control had 50% annual bluegrass cover and all treatments significantly reduced cover to 21 to 33% with no differences between treatments. In July and August, no differences were noted in annual bluegrass cover at Spotswood. Although creeping bentgrass was never injured by various treatment programs, on June 15 turfgrass quality was significantly decreased by both high-rate paclobutrazol programs due to phytotoxicity to annual bluegrass. On June 23, all treatment programs significantly increased turf quality compared to the nontreated control, presumably due to the addition of trinexapac ethyl for summer treatments. These programs are undergoing fall treatments now and fall ratings will be discussed at the annual meeting.
18
EFFECT OF WEED REMOVAL TIMING IN CORN AS INFLUENCED BY NITROGEN SOURCE AND RATE. W.J. Everman*, A. Knight, and J. Hinton, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (11)
ABSTRACT
Timely weed control and adequate nitrogen supply are both necessary to maximize corn grain yield and economic return. A field study was established in 2011 at locations, the Central Crops Research Station near Clayton, NC and the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station near Rocky Mount, NC to investigate the effect of nitrogen source and rate on critical time of weed removal and grain yield. Three nitrogen sources (urea ammonium nitrate, sulfur coated urea, and chicken litter), four nitrogen preplant application rates (0, 67, 134, and 202 kg N ha-1) and 2 weed removal timings (0, 7.5, and 15 cm) were evaluated. Weed removal timings were defined by weed canopy height to include control when weeds were 7.5 and 15 cm tall. Weed species present and evaluated consisted of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis). Plots were maintained weed free after each weed removal timing. At each weed removal timing, biomass samples were collected by species and fresh and dry weights recorded. Total nitrogen will also be measured in each weed species using the Dumas method. Yield was determined at 15% grain moisture.
19
A NEW POCKET SCOUTING GUIDE FOR AQUATIC WEEDS. B. Lassiter, R.J. Richardson*, and G. Wilkerson, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (12)
ABSTRACT
A new identification guide for common aquatic plants of the southern Mid-Atlantic region of the United States has been created by North Carolina State University. This guide is designed to be field portable; it will fit in a large pocket and is printed on water tolerant stock. Color photographs, comparison tables, line drawings, and text descriptions of approximately 60 species are included to aid users in identification. These species include selected algae, ferns, and vascular plants that are common and/or problematic. Both invasive species and common natives are included. Sample pages and ordering information for this guide will be displayed.
20
HAIRY VETCH SEEDBANK PERSISTENCE AS INFLUENCED BY MECHANICAL SCARIFICATION AND SOIL DEPTH. B.C. Crockett*, S. Mirsky, and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (13)
ABSTRACT
Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) is a legume cover crop commonly used in the Northeast region. It can be beneficial as a nitrogen fixer, while providing weed suppression and erosion control. Although the benefits of hairy vetch can be significant, adoption by some producers has been limited due to the perception that it can become an invasive weed. Hairy vetch is known to contain hard seed which can result in persistent seedbanks. Persistent seed and the vining competitive growth habit of the plant can lead to both crop yield loss and harvesting difficulties, particularly in organic systems. The goal of this study was to quantify seedbank persistence and seedling emergence of hairy vetch over time as influenced by soil burial depth, mechanical seed scarification and plant cultivar. Experiments were conducted from 2009 to 2011 at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center in Centre County, PA and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, MD. Five hundred seeds of two hairy vetch cultivars (Albert Lea and Groff Early Cover) were placed at the bottom of mesh cages at two burial depths of 3 and 15 cm. Half the seeds were mechanically scarified, while the other half were not (scarified vs. non-scarified). The experiment was structured as a split-split-plot with four replications and it was repeated over time. Emerged seedlings were counted approximately every two weeks throughout the study and cages were excavated at three time intervals (6, 12, 18 months). Intact seeds were collected and quantified for each excavation date and tested for viability. Results showed that scarified treatments contained no viable seed after six months at both locations, while non-scarified treatments had a maximum of 8% remaining. Nearly all observed hairy vetch emergence occurred within six months. Seed at the 15 cm depth showed decreased emergence at both locations and tended to increase seed bank persistence compared to the 3 cm depth. These results suggest that mechanical scarification of hairy vetch prior to planting has potential to eliminate hard seed and seed bank persistence without lowering emergence potential and could be used as a management tool.
21
IMPACTS OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA ON SOIL ENZYME ACTIVITY AND FERTILITY. Q. Zhong*, X. Junfang, Q. Guoming, Z. Jia-en, M. Danjuan, and A. DiTommaso, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China (14)
ABSTRACT
The rapid spread of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed) in China has been purported to cause substantial deleterious effects to the structure, biodiversity, and function of ecosystems colonized. The study reported herein was undertaken to better understand the impacts of A. artemisiifolia invasion on soil microbial communities and related microbiological parameters. Soils were sampled from four experimental areas including: (1) an historically-invaded area, (2) newly-invaded area, (3) grassland area, and (4) native-plant area from October 2009 to July 2010. Soil chemical properties, enzyme activities, microbial biomass and functional diversities based on community level physiological profile (CLPP) assays with BIOLOG plates were determined. A. artemisiifolia invasion altered chemical and soil microbial community properties. In areas with longer A. artemisiifolia invasion history, soil microbial community performance was enhanced and appears to have improved soil fertility and accelerated soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles. In contrast, the microbial community in invaded areas showed relatively lower efficiency in carbon source utilization, especially for carbohydrates and amino acids. The improvement of soil fertility as well as microbial community functioning in invaded soils may be beneficial for the successful invasion and growth of A. artemisiifolia in new habitats.
22
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA TO DIFFERENT IRRADIANCES. M. Danjuan, Q. Zhong*, Q. Guoming, Z. Jia-en, X. Junfang, and A. DiTommaso, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China (15)
ABSTRACT
The southward spread of A. artemisiifolia (common ragweed) in China in recent years has become a serious environmental problem. To better understand how A. artemisiifolia acclimate to these new habitats, we compared irradiance plasticity, capture ability, and adaptability of A. artemisiifolia and Urena lobata L., a native co-occurring species. We also explored relevant underlying mechanisms for response differences between the two species and effects of varying irradiance conditions on their antioxidant enzyme systems. We hypothesized that A. artemisiifolia will display higher plasticity than U. lobata in traits pertaining to biomass partitioning, growth, and photosynthesis and have unique strategies to regulate how the activities of its antioxidant enzymes acclimate to varying irradiances. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an experiment from November 2009 to June 2010 using seedlings of A. artemisiifolia and U. lobata grown under four irradiance regimes (10%, 30%, 55%, and 100% irradiance). A. artemisiifolia showed significantly higher total biomass, total leaf area, specific leaf area (SLA), relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate(NAR) but lower root mass fraction (RMF) and support organ mass fraction (SMF) than U. lobata in sun and partial shade. It also exhibited higher light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Pmax), light saturation points (LSPTs), dark respiration rate (Rd) except at 10% irradiance. A. artemisiifolia had a greater capacity for scavenging oxygen radicals at higher irradiance by significantly enhancing catalase (CAT) activities and peroxidases (POD), reduced gluthathione (GSH) and tea polyphenol (TP) content though superoxide dismutase (SOD) content was not greatly improved. Lower irradiance reduced antioxidant metabolism of both species, especially A. artemisiifolia. We conclude that A. artemisiifolia has higher irradiance plasticity in traits pertaining to biomass partitioning, growth and plant structure. It also exhibits greater ability to adjust photosynthetic capacities in response to varying light availability. Moreover, A. artemisiifolia possess a higher capacity for scavenging oxygen radicals at higher irradiance than at lower irradiance. The differential responses of antioxidant enzymes between A. artemisiifolia and U. lobata may be a possible mechanism for differences in irradiance acclimatization between the two species.
23
MODELLING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA IN CHINA. Q. Zhong*, A. DiTommaso, C.L. Mohler, and Z. Jia-en, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China (16)
ABSTRACT
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed) an invader with high colonization potential is currently rapidly expanding its range in China where it is considered a serious threat to agricultural production and human health. The ability of A. artemisiifolia to colonize new regions far away from its native North American range has raised considerable concern. Models predicting the potential geographical distribution of A. artemisiifolia can provide valuable insights on the extent of its future spread and information about how different ecological factors may affect its invasion potential. In this study, we used an ecological niche model, maximum entropy (Maxent), based on recorded global occurrence points to identify climatically suitable areas for A. artemisiifolia colonization in China. The models generated by Maxent were imported into GIS with which we performed a spatial analysis to probe the potential occurrence and establishment areas of A. artemisiifolia in China. Estimated latitude and longitude range with high occurrence probabilities of A. artemisiifolia were concentrated between 24.5°~45.5°N, 101.5°~125.5°E, covering the provinces of Jiangxi, Anhui, Hunan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Hubei, Liaoning, southern Jilin and northern areas of Guangdong province. Also, most of Sichuan, Heilongjiang and northern Taiwan were suitable establishment areas for A. artemisiifolia. A jackknife test in Maxent indicated that the maximum temperature in November was the most important environmental variable affecting the distribution of A. artemisiifolia in China. Based on these findings, there is a need to develop and implement practical management strategies to prevent further colonization and expansion of A. artemisiifolia in China.
24
SEEDLING EMERGENCE OF SEVERAL WEED SPECIES AS AFFECTED BY FURROW LOCATION, CORN PLANTING DENSITY AND PATTERN. F. Kordbacheh*, H. Rahimian Mashhadi, and A. DiTommaso, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (17)
ABSTRACT
Weed seeds in the soil seed bank may experience different microenvironments depending on the above-ground plant community and therefore may exhibit variation in their emergence response. This hypothesis was investigated in a field experiment that assessed the emergence of seven weed species under a corn canopy. Corn was planted at three densities (8, 12, 16 plant/m2) and two planting patterns (single and double-row). Seeds of seven weed species were sown perpendicular to corn rows at the same time and included, redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). During the experiment, temperature, and light quality and quantity at the soil surface were measured. The number of emerged seedlings of each weed species was measured at two distance intervals (0-10 cm and 10-20 cm) from the corn rows during three sample periods. Temperature fluctuations at the soil surface did not vary with corn density or planting pattern; but were reduced by the presence of a corn canopy relative to bare ground. We observed three general patterns of seedling emergence for the seven weed species: (1) small-seeded species such as redroot pigweed showed only one emergence flush as the corn canopy closed but emergence was not affected by canopy cover; (2) the number of emerged seedlings of other small-seeded species such as annual bluegrass, common lambsquarters, and green foxtail was significantly higher in bare ground than in the various corn canopy treatments. Moreover, seedling emergence was higher in the corn double-row versus corn single-row planting pattern with species exhibiting three emergence flushes; and (3) for relatively large-seeded species such as jimsonweed and black nightshade, the number of emerged seedlings did not differ significantly between bare ground and the different corn canopy treatments. However, the number of emerged seedlings of Johnsongrass under the corn canopy plots was greater than in the bare ground plots. For all of these three large-seeded weed species, the number of emerged seedlings was higher in double-row corn plantings relative to single-row plantings. Jimsonweed showed three germination flushes; whereas both black nightshade and Johnsongrass produced only one emergence flush. These findings can aid in better predicting the timing and density of seedling emergence flushes of major agronomic weeds in a corn canopy during the growing season. In turn, this information will more effectively guide the proper timing of weed management strategies such as cultivation and herbicide application.
25
THE EFFECT OF TIMING AND THE METHOD OF CONTROL ON JAPANESE STILTGRASS SEED PRODUCTION. J.L. Huffman*, E.S. Rauschert, A.E. Gover, and A.N. Nord, Pennsylvanie State University, University Park, PA (18)
ABSTRACT
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) invades native understory vegetation in a wide range of environments encompassing full sun to full shade. As an annual plant, controlling seed production is critical for management, yet the optimal timing of control and how this is influenced by the control method is not well quantified. We were specifically interested in assessing whether controlling too early would lead to further germination or regrowth. We tested the effect of timing and method of removal on Japanese stiltgrass seed production. The treatments consisted of string-trimming, hand pulling, and applying glyphosate at a rate of 1.68 kg ae/ha. Treatments were conducted at three different times during the mid/late summer. No subsequent germination was observed, and regrowth was very limited, mainly in the string trimmed and hand pulled controlled plots. At the end of the growing season, stem and seed counts were taken. Glyphosate was the most effective treatment. While mechanical treatments greatly reduced seed production compared to controls, resprouting did lead to some seed production, which could sustain populations for subsequent years. Timing did not affect the efficacy of glyphosate, but it appears that early mechanical control leads to more seed production than later mechanical control. These results suggest that it is most effective to control Japanese stiltgrass chemically at any time mid/late summer or mechanically in late summer, prior to the formation of viable seeds.
26
PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF DICAMBA PERFORMANCE IN DICAMBA TOLERANT SOYBEANS IN THE NORTHEAST. D.J. Mayonado*, R.L. Ritter, M.J. VanGessel, and H.P. Wilson, Monsanto, Salisbury, MD (19)
ABSTRACT
Weed control in Northeastern soybeans improved dramatically in the late 1990’s with the introduction of Roundup Ready® soybeans. A multitude of herbicide mixtures was replaced by one or two in-crop applications of glyphosate. This both improved crop safety and overall weed control. However, a few years after the introduction of Roundup Ready® soybeans, populations of glyphosate resistant marestail (Conyza canadensis) began to appear. As time has progressed, concerns have mounted about the development of other glyphosate resistant weeds. These concerns emphasize the need to modify the weed control programs used in Roundup Ready® soybeans. In the short term, weed control programs in soybeans must be diversified to include other non-glyphosate herbicides. Longer term, the development of other herbicide tolerant traits stacked with the Roundup Ready® trait will provide growers with additional herbicide tools for managing weeds. Monsanto is developing dicamba tolerance in soybeans (DTS) to stack with Roundup Ready 2 Yield® soybeans to provide more herbicide options for growers. In 2011, multiple trials were conducted on the Delmarva Peninsula examining potential weed control systems in soybeans stacked with glyphosate and dicamba tolerance. These trials showed that the inclusion of dicamba as a component of a burndown herbicide treatment could result in significant residual weed control. It was also shown that if dicamba is applied in-crop, applications to smaller weeds are most effective.
27
SWEET VERNALGRASS: A NEW WEED PROBLEM FOR NORTHEASTERN TURFGRASS. A.N. Smith* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (20)
ABSTRACT
Sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) is a perennial grass weed found in cool-season turfgrass that has recently become a concern in Virginia. It is highly competitive in the spring due to its rapid growth, early flowering, and potential allelopathic suppression. Research has shown that sweet vernalgrass has high phenotypic plasticity, allowing it to easily adapt to new environmental conditions. Experiments were conducted near Richmond, Virginia in 2010 and 2011 to determine herbicide options for sweet vernalgrass control in cool-season turf. Seven herbicide treatments were evaluated. In 2010, treatments were initially applied on June 15th, with a subsequent mesotrione application applied on July 6th. At 34 DAT, MSMA at 2.1 kg a.i. ha-1, mesotrione applied once at 0.28 kg a.i. ha-1, and mesotrione applied twice at 0.14 kg a.i. ha-1 controlled sweet vernalgrass 73, 63, and 57%, respectively. At 71 DAT, control by MSMA declined to 40%, whereas mesotrione applied once and mesotrione applied twice controlled sweet vernalgrass 100 and 67%, respectively. In 2011, initial treatments were applied April 20th, with a subsequent application of mesotrione applied on May 11th. Mesotrione applied once and mesotrione applied twice were the only herbicides that controlled sweet vernalgrass. However, mesotrione applied once did not maintain control and at 71 DAT, control was 0%. For mesotrione applied twice, control was 100% at 71 DAT. Fenoxaprop, quinclorac, amicarbazone, methiozolin, and sulfentrazone did not control sweet vernalgrass. In 2010, the decline of MSMA control can likely be explained by MSMA’s contact activity and the perennial nature of sweet vernalgrass. The differences seen with mesotrione applications between 2010 and 2011 may be explained by application timing. In 2010, rapid growth of sweet vernalgrass in the spring might explain why mesotrione applied once provided the best control as this herbicide tends to be more effective during rapid growth phases of susceptible plants and applying more active ingredient during sweet vernalgrass peak growth may play an important role in its control. In 2011, however, mesotrione was applied almost two months earlier. A single application may have been too early in the growing season, allowing the weed to recover. Additional research will be conducted on application timing of mesotrione to sweet vernalgrass. Delaying application may result in sufficient control without the need for an additional application.
28
WEED MANAGEMENT WITH TEMBOTRIONE AND ISOXAFLUTOLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. W.J. Everman*, J. Hinton, and M. Rosemond, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (21)
ABSTRACT
Palmer amaranth has become a driving force in weed management decisions in North Carolina due to widespread glyphosate and ALS-inhibitor resistance in the state. Growers are continually looking for options in primary crops as well as rotation options that allow for greater control. Recently tembotrione was introduced for weed management in corn in North Carolina; however, isoxaflutole currently is not labeled for use in North Carolina. Therefore, studies were initiated to investigate the effectiveness of tembotrione and isoxaflutole on various weeds and soils in North Carolina. Trials were conducted at the Central Crops Research Station near Clayton, NC, the Upper Coastal Plains Research Station near Rocky Mount, NC, and at the Tidewater Research Station near Plymouth, NC to provide a wide range of environmental conditions, weed species, and corn yield potential. Weed control varied by location with generally greater control eight weeks after planting on the sandier soils at Clayton and reduced control at the other locations. Large seeded broadleaf weeds such as morningglory species and large crabgrass had the lowest control ratings at eight to ten weeks after planting.
29
INVESTIGATING POKEWEED MANAGEMENT IN FIELD CROPS. K.M. Patches* and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (22)
ABSTRACT
Common pokeweed (Phytolacca americana L.) is a perennial broadleaf weed with a large persistent taproot that is also capable of abundant seed production. It has become a frequent problem in agronomic crops in Pennsylvania. Traditionally, plowing was used to manage pokeweed; however, the wide-spread adoption of conservation tillage and a decline in the use of soil residual herbicides in soybean may have allowed pokeweed populations to increase in recent years.
Our objective is to identify opportunities to better manage pokeweed in corn, soybeans, and other Northeast cropping systems. We believe an integrated approach that includes both cultural and chemical tactics could be successful in conservation tillage systems. We propose to conduct a number of experiments during the next two years that investigate the biology and control of common pokeweed in Pennsylvania. Plant biology experiments will examine emergence periodicity, seed longevity, and plant growth and fecundity. Herbicide experiments will be conducted in both corn and soybeans.
In 2011, a preliminary experiment was conducted in no-till corn at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center near State College, Pennsylvania, to evaluate herbicide effectiveness on common pokeweed. Seven POST treatments were evaluated which included: glyphosate (0.84 and 1.22 kg ae/ha), dicamba + diflufenzopyr at two rates (0.19 and 0.39 kg ae/ha), glyphosate plus dicamba + diflufenzopyr (0.84 kg/ha + 0.19 kg/ha), glyphosate plus mesotrione (0.84 kg/ha + 0.10 kg ai/ha), and glyphosate plus halosulfuron + dicamba (0.84 kg/ha + 0.18 kg ai/ha). Appropriate adjuvants were included in all treatments. The herbicides were applied on June 17 when the common pokeweed ranged from seedling to established vegetative plant and averaged 89 cm tall. The experiment was replicated three times and the treatments were visually evaluated on July 7 and September 27 on a scale from 0 to 100% control. On August 12, three common pokeweed plants from each plot were harvested and both fresh and dry weights were measured. Untreated plants from outside the plots were also collected for comparison. Preliminary results showed that the high rate of glyphosate provided about 80% control, reducing plant biomass by about 95%. The lower glyphosate rate provided 55% control but still reduced biomass by 91%. Including mesotrione with glyphosate enhanced performance, increasing control to 79% and reducing the biomass by 92%. Other treatments ranged from 36 to 79% control and reduced biomass 48 to 92%. Treatments will be assessed next year for longer-term control and additional trials will further explore both corn and soybean herbicides for common pokeweed control.
30
MECHANICAL AND CULTURAL EFFECTS ON LIMA BEAN WEED CONTROL. B.A. Scott*, M.J. VanGessel, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (23)
ABSTRACT
Weed control in lima bean has become more complex in recent years in the Mid-Atlantic region due to an increase of Group 2 resistant pigweed (Amaranthus) species. Growers have relied heavily upon imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control, and with limited options with different modes of action, growers need to implement additional integrated weed management strategies.
Two trials were conducted in 2010 and 2011 in order to determine if lima bean weed densities would be affected by 1) various cultivation equipment and timing of cultivation and 2) cultural production methods, particularly crop preceding lima bean and respective planting date. Each trial was a randomized complete block design with four replications.
Treatments in the lima bean cultivation trial were a factorial arrangement of cultivator and cultivation timing. The two cultivators were a standard s-tine cultivator and an in-row cultivator (BezzeridesTM). Cultivation was initiated at lima bean unifoliate stage, first trifoliate, second trifoliate, or rotary hoe at five days after planting (DAP) with cultivation at the unifoliate stage. All treatments with cultivation were cultivated twice, first time as noted followed by cultivation 7 days later. Comparison treatments include standard cultivator at unifoliate followed by 0.75 lbs ai/A of bentazon seven days later, 0.75 lbs ai/A of bentazon at the first trifoliate followed by standard cultivation seven days later, and an untreated check. Trial area had a residual herbicide application at planting.
Treatments in the lima bean rotation trial were: early-season lima bean following peas; early-season lima bean with no preceding crop; mid-season lima bean planted after barley harvest; mid-season lima bean into no-till bare ground; late-season lima bean after sweet corn which had no cultivations; and late-season lima bean planted after sweet corn which had two cultivations. All treatments were planted following soil preparation with heavy disking and/or field cultivation, with the exception of the one no-till treatment. Each lima bean planting received a PRE treatment of 1 lb ai/A of s-metolachlor.
Weed counts over a 25 ft2 area were completed at lima bean flower and at harvest. All plots were harvested and yields recorded.
In the lima bean cultivation trial pigweed density was lower when cultivation was delayed until the second trifoliate stage of the lima bean. There were no differences detected in weed densities between the in-row and standard cultivators. Pigweed densities were similar with or without the rotary hoeing followed by cultivation at the unifoliate stage.
Lima bean rotation influenced pigweed and morningglory densities. Pigweed and morningglory densities were less in late-planted lima bean. Also, yield by treatment interactions were observed. Yields differed by preceding crop as well as planting date.
31
THE WEEDOLYMPICS: A NATIONAL WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. J.T. Brosnan*, G. Armel, G.K. Breeden, J.J. Vargas, and M.J. VanGessel, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (24)
ABSTRACT
The WeedOlympics was the first national weed science contest involving student members of the Northeastern Weed Science Society (NEWSS), the North Central Weed Science Society (NCWSS), the Southern Weed Science Society (SWSS), and the Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS). A total of 137 graduate and undergraduate students from across the United States and Canada participated in this event hosted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN) in 2011. A total of 56 NEWSS students participated in the WeedOlympics. Universities represented included North Carolina State University, the University of Guelph, Cornell University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), and the Pennsylvania State University. At the regional level, University of Guelph Team #4 (Thomas Judd, Adam Parker, Michael Vanhie, and Jessica Gal) took top honors in the undergraduate competition. This team also placed first in the overall national undergraduate team competition. A team from North Carolina State University (Dustin Lewis, Stephen Meyers, and Bill Foote) placed first in the graduate competition at the regional level. The top graduate team at the national level was from Purdue University (Jared Roskamp, Ryan Terry, Chad Barbham, and Paul Marquardt). The top undergraduate and graduate individuals at the regional level were Dan Tekiela (Virginia Tech) and Dustin Lewis (North Carolina State). Dan Tekiela was also the overall national winner in the individual undergraduate competition. The overall national winner in the graduate competition was Jason Parrish from The Ohio State University. Distinguished NEWSS member, Dr. Gary Schnappinger, spoke at the awards banquet on the history of the NEWSS student contest and presented NEWSS students with their awards along with current NEWSS president, Dr. Mark VanGessel. Thank you to all the students, coaches, and volunteers who made the WeedOlympics a great event.
32
TANK MIXTURES AND APPLICATION INTERVALS FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL WITH METAMIFOP. M.C. Cox* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (25)
ABSTRACT
Metamifop is a new herbicide under development in US markets by Summit Agro. Metamifop controls annual grasses without injuring desirable cool season turfgrass species. Already marketed in 9 other Asian and 6 Middle Eastern countries as a postemergent annual grass herbicide in cereal crops and rice, metamifop shows great potential for future expansion to Japan and North America. Metamifop inhibits acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) which is the enzyme that catalyzes the first step in fatty acid synthesis. This enzyme inhibition prevents production of phospholipids which are the building blocks for new membranes and cell growth. Cool-season turfgrasses are said to gain tolerance to metamifop via an altered ACCase binding site, which makes this herbicide unique among other ACCase inhibitors that rely on rapid metabolism for turf safety. Field trials conducted in Blacksburg, VA evaluated the use of metamifop in application intervals and metamifop in conjunction with the broadleaf herbicides 2,4-D + dicamba + MCPP (Trimec Classic, PBI Gordon Corporation), carfentrazone (Quicksilver, FMC Corporation), and mesotrione (Tenacity, Syngenta) for control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). The experiments were implemented in Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) maintained at fairway height. Treatments for the metamifop interval trial consisted of metamifop applied at 300 g ai/ha alone or followed by an additional application at 3, 6, or 8 weeks after initial application. Treatments for the metamifop/broadleaf herbicides combination trial consisted of metamifop applied at 300 g ai/ha alone, Trimec Classic alone at 4.68 L/ha, Quicksilver alone at 0.15 L/ha, Tenacity alone at 0.58 L/ha, metamifop + Trimec (same rates as single treatments), metamifop + Quicksilver, and metamifop + Tenacity. A nontreated check was included in all trials for comparison. When applied alone at 3, 6, or 8 week intervals, metamifop controlled smooth crabgrass 88 to 98% and significantly better than metamifop applied once. These treatments did not injure Kentucky bluegrass or perennial ryegrass at any time during the study. Applications of metamifop alone, metamifop + Quicksilver, and metamifop + Tenacity controlled smooth crabgrass 65-90% initially and 55-63% 12 weeks after treatment (WAT). Metamifop + Trimec only controlled crabgrass 10% initially and 6% 12 WAT, suggesting a possible antagonism between the two herbicides. Likewise, Trimec alone controlled dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 90% 12 WAT and significantly better than metamifop + Trimec at 57% control 12 WAT. Nevertheless, metamifop + Trimec controlled white clover (Trifolium repens) 97% 12 WAT and significantly better than all other treatments. According to these data, metamifop is an effective herbicide for controlling smooth crabgrass in cool season turfgrasses when applied twice at 3, 6, or 8 week intervals. In addition, although metamifop may have safety when added to some broadleaf herbicides, an antagonistic response resulted when it was combined with Trimec Classic as a crabgrass/broadleaf herbicide tank mix. 2,4-D and MCPP, two active ingredients in Trimec Classic, are also known antagonist of other ACCase inhibiting herbicides such as fenoxaprop.
33
TALL FESCUE TOLERANCE TO TOWER® (DIMETHENAMID) AND FREEHAND™ (DIMETHENAMID + PENDIMETHALIN). D. Gomez de Barreda* and P. McCullough, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain (26)
ABSTRACT
Freehand™ (1.75G) contains dimethenamid (0.75%) and pendimethalin at (1%) and is being evaluated for potential use as a preemergence herbicide in turf. The objective of this field experiment was to investigate tolerance of a ‘Talladega’ tall fescue field established in fall 2010 to spring applications of Freehand™ in 2011. Treatments included Freehand™ at 0, 2.94, 3.92, 5.9, and 7.85 kg a.i./ha, Tower® 6L (dimethenamid) at 1.68 and 3.36 kg a.i./ha, and Pendulum® 3.8ME (pendimethalin) at 2.24 kg a.i./ha. All treatments were applied May 16 and again on June 28, 2011. Freehand™ injured tall fescue 11 to 34% by 6 weeks after initial treatments (WAIT) while all other treatments caused ≤15% injury. After the second application, tall fescue injury from Freehand™ ranged 19 to 50% by 10 WAIT but sequential applications of Pendulum® and Tower® caused <10% injury. Freehand™ rates >2.94 kg a.i./ha reduced turf quality on several dates from the untreated but Tower® and Pendulum® applied separately did not reduce quality.
34
EFFECT OF SAFLUFENACIL APPLICATION TIMING ON SOYBEAN AND ITS ROLE IN MANAGING GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED. J.T. Ikley* and R.L. Ritter, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (38)
ABSTRACT
The commercial release of the herbicide saflufenacil (trade name Sharpen) in 2010 has provided a new tool to help farmers manage the growing population of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.). The original labels for Sharpen and the prepackaged mix of saflufenacil + imazethapyr (trade name Op-Till) restricted applications to 30 days preplant (DPP) for soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr ] planted on coarse-type soils with less than 2% organic matter. In 2011, a supplemental label allowed up to 1.5 oz/acre of saflufenacil on coarse-type soils with a 44 day interval from application to planting. Much of the farmland on the Delmarva Peninsula is categorized as coarse or coarse-type soils. Up to 50% of horseweed plants in Maryland do not germinate until the spring, leaving growers with a small window between using a burndown herbicide application and planting their soybean crop. Sensitive and non-sensitive soybean varieties have been identified when saflufenacil is applied within 30 DPP on coarse-type soils. Field studies were conducted in the summers of 2010 and 2011 at the Wye Research and Education Center (WREC) located in Queenstown, MD, and the Central Maryland Research and Education Center (CMREC) located in Beltsville, MD, on the effect of saflufenacil preplant application timing on full-season no-till soybeans. The WREC site was selected for its medium-type soils, while the CMREC site was selected for its coarse-type soils. Studies included one saflufenacil-susceptible soybean variety, and one saflufenacil-tolerant soybean variety at each location. Treatment combinations consisted of the following: glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.045 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, and Op-Till at 0.085 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A. Ammonium sulfate and a methylated seed oil were added to all saflufenacil containing treatments. These treatments were repeated at 0, 15, and 30 DPP on separate plots. All treatments received a subsequent postemergence application of glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A. Stand counts and height measurements were taken at 4, 7, and 10 weeks after planting (WAP). In 2010, crop injury and reduced yields were observed for the treatments containing saflufenacil at 0.045 lb ai/A at 0 and 15 DPP, as well as the treatment containing saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A at 0 DPP in the sensitive soybean variety at CMREC. No significant differences were noted in the other studies. Greenhouse studies were conducted in 2011 on the efficacy of saflufenacil on both glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible horseweed. Treatment combinations consisted of the following: glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, and Op-Till at 0.085 lb ai/A. As in the field studies, ammonium sulfate and a methylated seed oil were added to all saflufenacil containing treatments. Treatments were applied to horseweed rosettes that were 0.5, 2.0, and 3.5 inches tall for both biotypes. Visual assessments were made on treatment efficacy at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). At 4 WAT, fresh and dry weights of the plants were taken. The combination of glyphosate + saflufenacil provided significantly better control than other treatments for the resistant-biotype. Both the glyphosate and the glyphosate + saflufenacil treatments provided the most effective control for the susceptible-biotype.
35
ABSORPTION, TRANSLOCATION, AND METABOLISM OF AMINOCYCLO-PYRACHLOR IN LOBLOLLY PINE (PINUS TAEDA). R.L. Roten* and R.J. Richardson, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (39)
ABSTRACT
Greenhouse and laboratory trials were conducted using 14C-aminocyclopyrachlor to evaluate root and foliar absorption, translocation, and metabolism in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Pine seedling plugs were used for all experiments. Trees designated for foliar experiments were first treated with formulated aminocyclopyrachlor in an overhead track sprayer before applying radiolabeled aminocyclopyrachlor to a single needle. Trees for root absorption studies were grown in half strength Hogland’s solution spiked with 14C-aminocyclopyrachlor. Plants were harvested at 1, 2, 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours after treatment (HAT) for all experiments. Plants with foliar treatments were harvested and divided into roots, lower stem, upper stem, bud, treated needle with fascicle, and untreated needle(s). Plants treated by root application were harvested and divided into roots, lower stem, upper stem, and bud. All partitioned plant parts were stored in envelopes at -20C. To determine absorption and translocation designated plant parts were dried, homogenized and radiation was quantified using liquid spectroscopy after being combusted in a biological oxidizer. Aminocyclopyrachlor metabolism was determined only in the treated needle and fascicle. The tissue was extracted in 90% methanol, and evidence of metabolism was determined using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. The results demonstrated that a maximum of 37% of the aminocyclopyrachlor (free acid) was absorbed after foliar application. Absorption was rapid, with the maximum by one hour. No significant difference was found in translocation regardless of harvest interval; 59% of the free acid remained within the treated needle and fascicle, 27% in the upper stem section, and all other parts had significantly less aminocyclopyrachlor with a range of 0.5 to 9%. Root absorption occurred in a linear fashion at a rate of one percent per hour and showed great xylem mobility after 48 HAT. Lastly, no metabolism of the aminocyclopyrachlor free acid was seen between 1 and 48 HAT when foliar applied.
36
CONTROL OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS BIOTYPES WITH THREE POSTEMERGENT HERBICIDES. K.M. Han* and J.E. Kaminski, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (40)
ABSTRACT
Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.; ABG) is one of the most widely distributed turfgrass species in the world and is generally considered a weed on golf course putting greens. Variation in ABG populations exists and is dependent upon a large number of factors. Due to this natural variation, control of the various biotypes can be highly variable. The objective of this study was to investigate the tolerance of perennial ABG biotypes to methiozolin, amicarbazone and bispyribac-sodium. Greenhouse studies were conducted in 2011. A total of 30 ABG biotypes were seeded at a rate of 98 kg seed/ha into pots measuring 79.2 cm2 on 3 May and 16 September. Pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with five replications. Prior to treatment, ABG was fertilized and treated with fungicides to prevent diseases. Herbicide treatments included amicarbazone (0.147 kg a.i./ha), bispyribac-sodium (0.074 kg a.i./ha), methiozolin (2.0 kg a.i/ha), and an untreated control. All treatments were applied twice on a 14-day interval in 815 L H20/ha using a CO2 backpack sprayer (276 kPa). The ABG pots treated with amicarbazone were severely injured within 1 week of initial application. Turfgrass treated with bispyribac-sodium or methiozolin resulted in a less rapid decline when compared to amicarbazone. In general, all 30 ABG biotypes were killed within 3 and 6 weeks when treated with amicarbazone and methiozolin, respectively. At the conclusion of the study, control of ABG was highly variable in pots treated with bispyribac-sodium. Based on the initial trial, amicarbazone and methiozolin provided complete control of all 30 ABG biotypes evaluated in this study. Amicarbazone appears to be most useful in situations of minimal ABG population and/or where a rapid kill is desired. Methiozolin provided a slower suppression of ABG and may be useful in situations where high populations are present or limited disruption to the putting surface is desired. The study is current being repeated and results of the completed study will be discussed.
37
HERBICIDAL ACTIVITY OF HETEROCYCLIC ANALOGUES OF DICHLOBENIL ON VARIOUS WEED AND ORNAMENTAL SPECIES. J.W. Thomas*, G. Armel, M.D. Best, W. Klingeman, C-L. Do-Thanh, and H.E. Bostic, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (41)
ABSTRACT
Discovery of novel chemistries which target herbicide sites of action that have little to no weed resistance issues is imperative for the future management of resistant weed biotypes. The herbicide dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) is an inhibitor of cellulose biosynthesis that is implemented for preemergence (PRE) control of various grass, broadleaf, and sedge weeds in orchards, ornamental nurseries, and various non-crop systems. To date there is only one weed biotype that is resistant to an inhibitor of cellulose biosynthesis. Greenhouse and laboratory studies were conducted at the University of Tennessee to evaluate various nitrogen containing heterocyclic analogues of dichlobenil for PRE weed control in ornamental containers, while maintaining crop safety to forsythia (Forsythia x intermedia “Lynnwood Gold”) and Japanese Holly (Ilex Cronata (“Noble Upright”). This paper will discuss the changes in herbicidal response with those novel analogues for weed management in ornamental production.
38
EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES IN TENNESSEE. J.J. Vargas*, G. Armel, W. Klingeman, P. Flanagan, R.M. Evans, R.J. Richardson, and R.L. Roten, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (42)
ABSTRACT
The cost of managing invasive plant species annually in the United States is estimated to be $35 billion dollars (Pimentel et al. 2004). According to the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystems Health, there are 388 invasive plant species in the state of Tennessee and these species are categorized as aquatic plants, forbs or herbs, grasses, hardwood trees, shrubs and vines. The University of Tennessee has established multiple studies from 2009 to 2011 to evaluate how the auxin mimic herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor controls key invasive species. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate aminocyclopyrachlor alone and in mixtures for control of species like sericea lespedeza (Sericea lespedeza), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Treatments included aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 16 to 263 g ai/ha alone or in mixtures with metsulfuron at 21 to 82 g ai/ha, 2,4-D at 1080 g ai/ha, imazapyr at 177 to 3730 g ai/ha, glyphosate at 1512 to 2030 g ai/ha, indaziflam at 70 g ai/ha, hexazinone at 2240 g ai/ha and/or fosamine at 6730 g ai/ha. Additional industry standard treatments included aminopyralid applied at 123 g ai/ha and triclopyr at 5050 g ai/ha. All treatments were applied POST and included 1% v/v of methylated seed oil or 0.5 to 1% v/v of non ionic surfactant. All mixtures containing aminocyclopyrachlor provided 100% control of lespedeza by 120 days after treatment (DAT). Aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 66 g ai/ha plus metsulfuron at 21 g ai/ha plus 2,4-D at 1080 g ai/ha provided 96% control of kudzu by one year after treatment (YAT). The addition of metsulfuron to the mixture of aminocyclopyrachlor plus 2,4-D was more effective in the control of kudzu than that observed by aminocyclopyrachlor plus 2,4-D. In the greenhouse, aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 66 g ai/ha plus 2,4-D at 1080 g ai/ha provided 53% visual control and 63% biomass reduction of Chinese privet. In the field, aminocyclopyrachlor at 263 g ai/ha plus metsulfuron at 84 g ai/ha provided 99% control of Chinese privet by 1 YAT when applied as a foliar broadcast application and was significantly more effective than responses observed with aminocyclopyrachlor applied alone at 263 g ai/ha. These observations indicate that mixtures of aminocyclopyrachlor plus the addition of other auxin mimic herbicides and/or active ingredients that affect acetolactate synthase greatly increase the control of invasive species over that provided by any products applied alone.
39
FINE FESCUE VARIETAL TOLERANCE TO GLYPHOSATE RATES. M.C. Cox*, S. Askew, W. Askew, and J. Goatley Jr., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (43)
ABSTRACT
As the current economic turn down affects golf budgets, more scrutiny is placed on managed turf areas to reduce fertility and mowing costs. Non-mow areas, or secondary roughs, are a cost effective and visually appealing approach to maintaining out-of-play areas on the golf course. Fine fescues are typically used for these areas because they are shorter than other grasses and tend to allow golfers to find and advance errant shots. A unique set of weeds exist in non-mow situations and weed control programs are lacking. Some fine fescues have demonstrated tolerance to glyphosate in past research, and glyphosate would be a valuable tool for controlling various perennial grass weeds in non-mow areas. More information is needed to determine which fine fescue varieties are more tolerant to glyphosate and how glyphosate rates affect visual quality and seedhead production of fine fescues. The objective of this study was to evaluate glyphosate at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/ha for effects on visual quality, NDVI, and seedhead production of 56 fine fescue varieties.
Glyphosate was applied at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/ha with an 18 inch wide sprayer on May 16, 2011. The 56 fine fescue varieties were comprised of 1 sheep fescue, 3 slender creeping fescues, 12 hard fescues, 13 Chewings fescues, and 27 strong creeping fescues. All plots were mowed in April approximately 5 weeks prior to treatment and not mowed again for the duration of the study. Glyphosate injured fine fescue most at 1 month after treatment. At this timing, 22, 9, and 2 varieties maintained acceptable quality when treated with 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/ha glyphosate, respectively. Of the 22 varieties that maintained acceptable quality 1 month after 0.6 kg ai/ha glyphosate, 12 were hard fescues, 8 were strong creeping, 1 was a slender creeping, and 1 was a sheep fescue. The following 7 hard fescue and 1 sheep fescue varieties maintained acceptable quality 1 month after 0.8 kg ai/ha glyphosate: SPM, Pick HF#2, Berkshire, Quatro, IS-FL 28, Scaldis, SRX 3K, Oxford, and Heron. Only Quatro sheep fescue and Oxford hard fescue maintained acceptable quality 1 month after glyphosate at 1.4 kg ai/ha. When not treated with glyphosate, the following 9 hard fescues and 5 strong creeping fine fescue varieties had seedheads on 25% of plots or less: Predator, SPM, A0163Rel, C-SMX, Pick HF#2, Berkshire, DLF-RCM, IS-FRR30, IS-FL 28, SR 3000, Oxford, DP 77-9360, DP 77-9579, and Heron. When not treated with glyphosate, the following 12 Chewings fescues, 2 strong creeping fescues, and 1 slender creeping fescue had seedheads on 70% or more of plot area: 7 Seas, ACF 174, Jamestown 5, ACF 188, LongFellow II, IS-FRC17, BUR 4601, SRX 51G, SRX 55R, Ambassador, DP 77-9885, DP 77-9886, PST-4TZ, Musica, and Navigator. When treated with 0.6 kg ai/ha glyphosate, seedhead coverage was less than 6% regardless of variety and seedheads were not produced by any variety when treated with the two higher glyphosate rates. These data suggest Chewings fescues produce the most seedheads while hard fescues and sheep fescues have better glyphosate tolerance.
40
EFFECTS OF ROOTING DEPTH ON HYBRID BERMUDAGRASS (C. DACTYLON X. C. TRANSVAALENSIS) INJURY WITH INDAZIFLAM IN VARIOUS SOILS. P.A. Jones*, J.T. Brosnan, G.K. Breeden, and M.T. Elmore, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN (44)
ABSTRACT
Indaziflam is a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor used for annual grassy weed control in warm-season turfgrass. Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) injury following indaziflam treatment has been observed by turfgrass managers. Research was initiated in 2011 to determine the effect of rooting depth on bermudagrass injury with indaziflam in various soils.
Hybrid bermudagrass (C. dactylon x. C. transvaalensis Burtt-Davey, cv. Tifway) was established from washed sod in mini-rhizotrons at the University of Tennessee in August 2011. Silica sand and silt loam soil were poured and packed into each mini-rhizotron at a density of 1.6 Mg m-3. An overhead irrigation system was used to promote active growth. Plants were maintained at a height of 3.8 cm and were fertilized weekly at 49 kg N ha-1 with a complete fertilizer (20N: 20P2O5: 20K2O).
The experiment was arranged in a 2 x 3 x 6 factorial, randomized complete block, design with four replications. Plants established in each soil were treated with six herbicides once root growth had reached three depth thresholds (5, 10, and 15 cm). Herbicide treatments included indaziflam (35, 52.5, and 70 g ha-1), prodiamine (595 and 840 g ha-1) and oxadiazon (3360 g ha-
1). An untreated control was included for comparison. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 281 L ha-1 utilizing flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124 kPa. Treatments were watered in (~6 mm) after application.
Bermudagrass injury was visually evaluated weekly after application using a 0 (no injury) to 100 (complete kill) scale. Digital image analysis was also performed to support visual assessments of injury. At 6 weeks after treatment (WAT) roots were washed free of debris and excised as close to the crown as possible. WinRhizo software was used to characterize root length, root length density, and root surface area. Leaf tissues were also analyzed for macro- and micronutrient content.
Significant soil-by-rooting depth and soil-by-treatment interactions were detected in visual injury by 5 WAT. In sand, treatments initiated at the 5 cm rooting depth injured bermudagrass 26% compared to 9% injury for treatments initiated at 10 and 15 cm. In silt loam, bermudagrass injury measured <1% at all rooting depths. When applied to bermudagrass established in sand, injury with indaziflam ranged from 24 to 41% at 5 WAT. When applied to bermudagrass established in silt loam, no indaziflam treatment resulted in significant injury compared to the untreated control. Regardless of soil, neither prodiamine and nor oxadiazon resulted in significant bermudagrass injury in this study at 5 WAT. Compared to the untreated control, all parameters of root architecture were reduced following herbicide treatment regardless of soil type or herbicide. Reductions with indaziflam on sand ranged from 81 to 90% but only 41 to 59% on silt loam. Similarly, reductions with prodiamine ranged from 68 to 70% on sand but only 17 to 37% on silt loam.
41
EFFECT OF CORN HERBICIDES ON SUCCESSFUL COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT. C.S. Dillon* and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (45)
ABSTRACT
Cover crops are becoming an integral part of agricultural production systems due to the many benefits that they provide to the crop, soil, and environment. These benefits include the cover crops ability to scavenge and/or fix nitrogen, improve soil structure and add organic matter, reduce erosion and transport of nutrients into waterways as well as potentially providing a forage source for livestock. Despite these numerous benefits, many farmers are still not including cover crops in their rotation. There are several important reasons for this including the added cost associated with cover crop seed and the extra trips across the field for establishment. In addition, the late fall timing of corn or soybean grain harvest can limit timely cover crop establishment. Finally, producers using soil residual herbicides in corn and soybean may limit cover crop options due to concerns for subsequent herbicide injury.
Studies were conducted at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center near State College, Pennsylvania to study opportunities for inter-seeding cover crops in corn and to evaluate the effects of corn herbicides on subsequent cover crop establishment. The studies were conducted in 2010 and are continuing in 2011. The inter-seeding study evaluated a prototype cover crops seeder that inter-seeds cover crops in no-tillage corn at the V6 to V8 growth stages. Cover crops included red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), white clover (Trifolium repens L), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), and a red clover-ryegrass mix. The study was conducted at two locations with the first in corn following corn and the second in corn following soybean. Corn grain yield was quantified for each treatment and cover crop dry matter was collected following corn harvest and in the following spring. The herbicide experiment examined the effect of PRE and POST corn herbicides for successful cover crop establishment with the inter-seeder or after corn silage. Some small grains and winter annual legumes were included in the fall evaluation. Cover crops were visually evaluated for percent stand.
First year results showed that inter-seeded cover crops did not impact corn yield. Corn planted into corn residue averaged about140 bu/acre, while yields averaged 170 bu/acre following soybean. Cover crop dry matter yields ranged from 100 to 500 lb/acre in late fall and 200 to 1450 lb/acre in the spring. Annual ryegrass and annual ryegrass plus red clover yields were higher than for other treatments. In the herbicide experiment, most herbicides had little effect on the fall seeded species. With the inter-seeding, metolachlor, atrazine, pendimethalin, and post-applied nicosulfuron reduced annual ryegrass establishment, while clover establishment varied across the experiment. These studies continue in 2011 and results will hopefully help farmers make better decisions about cover crop selection, time of seeding, and herbicide management.
42
PARTITIONING OUT THE EFFECTS OF NUTRIENTS FROM COMPOSTED MANURE ON WEEDS AND CROPS. N.G. Little*, C.L. Mohler, A. DiTommaso, and Q.M. Ketterings, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (46)
ABSTRACT
Most experienced organic farmers consider weeds to be the worst pest problem they face. This problem can be exacerbated by fertility management that does not take weed ecology into account. Increased weed growth and competition is observed in response to many inorganic fertilizers. The purpose of this research project is to partition out the effects on weeds and crops of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) from organic nutrient amendments. The long-term goal of this project is to contribute to integrated weed and fertility management by providing growers with information that will help them supply crops with necessary nutrients while minimizing weed pressure. Field and greenhouse experiments were carried out over two years, using blood meal for an organic source of N, bone char for P, and potassium sulfate for K. Three crops were studied: field corn (Zea mays cv. ‘VK6710’), lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. ‘New Red Fire’), and kale (Brassica oleracea cultivar ‘Lacinato’). Four weeds were studied: Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii S. Wats.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.). One of the main conclusions of this project is that some weed species, Powell amaranth in particular, benefit from high compost amendments much more than some crops, particularly field corn. Lettuce may benefit somewhat from high compost amendment levels, but good weed management would be crucial to maintain that benefit since the weeds respond strongly to the compost and are inherently more competitive than lettuce.
43
EFFECTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT LEGACY ON WEED-CROP COMPETITION. H.J. Poffenbarger*, S. Mirsky, J. Teasdale, J. Spargo, D. Timlin, J. Maul, and M. Cavigelli, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD (47)
ABSTRACT
Cropping systems research has shown that organic systems can have comparable yields to conventional systems at higher weed biomass levels. Higher weed tolerance in the organic systems could be due to differences in labile soil organic matter and subsequent nitrogen mineralization potential. The objective of our study was to test whether inherent soil nitrogen (N) mineralization potential differences in organic and conventionally-managed systems within a long-term cropping system experiment result in different weed-crop competition relationships. Greenhouse experiments were first conducted to determine the densities of corn (Zea mays L), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi L.) that result in equivalent N uptake. Initial experiments tested N use by a range of monoculture densities over a single 41- or 31-day after planting (DAP) timeframe and a subsequent experiment tested a subset of monoculture densities over several timeframes between 21 and 46 DAP. We used leaf area, shoot biomass and shoot N measured in these experiments to determine functional densities. The empirically determined functional densities were then utilized within a replacement series experiment to determine differences in weed-crop competition among the two soil management legacies. The corn:weed mixtures at proportions of 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100 were planted in three replicates in each soil, with 100% corn equal to 4 plants pot-1 (105 plants m-2) and 100% giant foxtail and smooth pigweed equal to 36 plants pot-1 (947 plants m-2). Species-specific shoot biomass and shoot N content, total root biomass, and soil inorganic N concentration were measured at each of three 24-, 35- and 43-DAP harvests. Total dry weight and N uptake by the species in mixture relative to monoculture were calculated for plants grown in each soil at the three harvests. Determination of functional densities and relationships observed in the competition experiment will be demonstrated.
44
EVALUATING INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT FOR NO-TILL DAIRY CROPPING SYSTEMS. E.M. Snyder*, W.S. Curran, H.D. Karsten, and G.M. Malcolm, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (48)
ABSTRACT
Small dairy farms characterize much of the Pennsylvania landscape, many producing the forage and some of the grain consumed by their herd. Rotating annual grain crops with perennial forages is common, and many farmers have adopted no-till practices. Weed populations in conventional no-till crops are managed with herbicides, often involving multiple applications per year. However, interest in reducing herbicide use is increasing as concern grows over environmental consequences of herbicides and the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. While no-till practices offer many benefits, they exclude the use of tillage for weed control. Weed management programs that minimally disturb soil, reduce herbicide use, rely more on cultural control tactics, and discourage the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds will help sustain northeast cropping systems into the future.
The Sustainable Dairy Cropping Systems Project, funded by the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NE-SARE) program, consists of two diverse six-year crop rotations, each containing three years each of annual and perennial crops. The experiment is being conducted at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Station at The Pennsylvania State University near State College, PA, and is modeled after an average-sized 60-cow dairy farm. The “Forage” rotation produces most of the needed forage, and features a comparison of manure management methods. The “Grain” rotation produces corn grain and soybean, as well as forage. It compares an herbicide-based “Standard Herbicide” weed management program with a “Reduced Herbicide” program which includes a combination of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control tactics. Both rotations also include canola that is utilized as an energy crop.
Applying diverse tactics for weed control can have synergistic effects whereby the efficacy of one tactic is enhanced by use of another. The “Reduced Herbicide” program combines banding herbicide over the crop row, suppressing weed emergence with rolled cover crop mulch, and using a high-residue cultivator to control weeds between the rows in corn and soybean. Planting companion crops is compared with herbicide application for weed control efficacy in establishment-year alfalfa. Weed density and biomass are quantified to test treatment effectiveness, and crop yields and quality are collected and analyzed for correlation with weed density or biomass. Weed data is collected both from resident populations, and from subplots that have been supplemented with three species of weed seeds.
First year results showed differences in weed density and biomass between weed management programs in both corn and soybean. Weed density and biomass were greater in “Reduced Herbicide” corn grain before, and in both corn and soybean after post-emergence weed management, as compared with “Standard Herbicide” management. There was no difference in corn and soybean grain yield between weed management programs in 2010; 2011 yields are still being collected. In alfalfa, there were no differences in percent weed composition or forage yield between treatments, and forage quality is currently being analyzed.
45
THE EFFECT OF ROW SPACING ON WEED PRESSURE, YIELD AND ECONOMICS IN SOYBEAN. J.M. Orlowski*, W.J. Cox, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (49)
ABSTRACT
Soybean production has increased steadily in the United States and New York State in the last 20 years. As new soybean growers enter production, agronomic factors such as selection of row spacing become increasingly important. Soybeans are currently planted in 19 cm rows using a grain drill or in 38 and 76 cm rows using a row crop planter. Most studies show that planting soybeans in narrow rows lead to a yield advantage over soybeans planted in wider rows in northern latitudes. One of the goals of this 2-year field study was to determine the impact of soybean row spacing and weed management program on weed abundance, soybean yield and farm profitability. This research was initiated in 2010 on two collaborator farms in the major soybean production regions of New York. At both locations, soybeans were seeded at approximate populations of 309,000 and 420,000 plants/ha at three row spacings (19, 38, and 76 cm widths). There were three replicates of each row spacing/seeding rate treatment at each location. One of the sites was chisel plowed, disc harrowed and received a pre-emergence application of Enlite (premix of flumioxazin, chlorimuron- ethyl and thifensulfuron-methyl at 0.204 liters /ha), which resulted in very low weed densities during both growing seasons. The other site was planted under no-till conditions in both years. In 2010 the site received an early pre-plant burndown application of glyphosate 672 g ai/ha, 2-4 D at 512 g ai/ha, and tribenuron at 279 g/ha. In 2011 due to wet spring conditions a pre-emergence application glyphosate was applied as a burndown two days after planting. In both years, post emergent applications of glyphosate occurred 4-5 weeks after planting. Weed densities were determined before post-emergent and at five weeks after post-emergent glyphosate applications in both years in a 2 m sampling area of each treatment combination using a 1 x 0.5 m quadrat. Dry weed biomass within each row spacing/seeding rate treatment was determined at harvest. Soybeans planted in narrow rows (19 and 38 cm) had substantially lower weed densities compared to soybeans planted at 76 cm row spacing after herbicide application at both populations at the no-till site. The narrow row soybeans also had lower weed biomass at harvest compared with the wider row spacing at the no-till site. Nevertheless, soybean yield did not differ in either year at the no-till site. At the tilled site, soybeans in 19-cm row spacing yielded 3.5% higher than soybeans in 76-cm row spacing. Planting soybeans in narrow rows led to an increase in net farm profitability because of the yield increase at the tilled site and because of a decrease in the cost of controlling perennial weeds in subsequent rotational crops at the no-till site.
46
EFFECTIVENESS OF SHALLOW HIGH-RESIDUE CULTIVATION IN NO-TILL SOYBEAN. W.S. Curran and C.L. Keene*, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (50)
ABSTRACT
The integration of cover crops and shallow high-residue cultivation into no-till soybean production will increase cropping system sustainability and reduce selection pressure for herbicide resistant weeds. Cover crops decrease erosion, improve soil quality and diversify crop rotations, while shallow high-residue cultivation can be coupled with banded herbicide application to control between row weeds and reduce total herbicide load. Though high-residue cultivation has the potential to contribute to integrated weed management, one barrier to adoption is the lack of information regarding when and how often to use this tool for effective, efficient weed control. An experiment was conducted at the Penn State Russell Larson Research and Education Center near State College, PA in the summer of 2011 to test the effects of different timings and frequencies of shallow high-residue cultivation on weed density and biomass and soybean density and yield. A split-plot design was used in which no-till soybean was planted in 76-cm rows into a terminated cereal rye (Secale cereal L. cv. ‘Aroostook’) cover crop or into a low surface residue environment. Prior to planting, the entire area was treated with 0.84 kg ae/ha glyphosate plus 0.56 kg ae/ha 2,4-DLVE and the cover crop was managed with a roller crimper. At planting, 0.22 kg ai/ha metribuzin, 0.037 kg ai/ha chlorimuron and 1.42 kg ai/ha s-metolachlor were sprayed in a 25-cm band over the row. Shallow high-residue cultivation treatments occurred at 4, 5 and 6 weeks after planting in all possible combinations and an uncultivated treatment was included for comparison. Weed density data were collected immediately before the first cultivation and one week after the final cultivation in each plot. Weed biomass data were collected on August 24 in all plots. First year results showed that cultivation reduced weed biomass compared to the uncultivated check plots and that the reduction was greatest in treatments cultivated two and three times compared to a single or no cultivation. Weed biomass amounts in treatments cultivated only once varied greatly depending on timing. Frequency of rainfall and subsequent soil moisture as well as weed density and maturity at cultivation likely impacted control with more frequent rainfall generally reducing cultivator efficacy. This experiment will be repeated in 2012 and expanded to include no-till corn planted into a hairy vetch cover crop. Our results will provide insight into effective use of shallow high-residue cultivation and will inform decision-making associated with integrating alternative weed management strategies into no-till production systems.
47
IMPACT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ON PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL USING MICROWAVE RADIATION. A. Rana* and J.F. Derr, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (51)
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the impact of soil properties on the effectiveness of microwave radiation for preemergence weed control. Controlling weeds prior to emergence avoids competition with the crop compared to postemergence weed control. Obtaining preemergence weed control is a challenge for organic farmers, though, since few options are available. With the phase-out of methyl bromide, additional preplant weed control measures are needed by growers using conventional methods. Conventional preemergence herbicides form a barrier in the soil to prevent weed seed germination or establishment. Their performance relies on favorable environmental conditions. Long-residual chemicals can pose production concerns for subsequent sensitive crops. Microwave radiations (2.45GHz), however, kills weed seed in soil before germination without leaving any residue and thus may be an option for organic and conventional growers. Microwave radiation penetrated soil depths up to 25 centimeters in our experiments, depending upon soil density, texture, and most important, soil moisture. Higher moisture content results in most of the radiation energy being absorbed in the upper soil layer, limiting downward penetration. We observed greater control of southern crabgrass [Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.] when seed was treated under lower compared to higher soil moisture levels when using a magnetron operating at 900 watt. The energy requirement for preemergence weed control using microwave radiation is comparatively much higher than that needed for postemergence weed control. Although certain properties like soil texture cannot be easily modified on a large scale, one can improve the effectiveness of microwave radiation for preemergence weed control by making applications at optimum soil moisture levels.
48
INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF BIOENERGY CROPS USING THE NEW APHIS ASSESSMENT: HOW RISKY IS RENEWABLE ENERGY? L.L. Smith* and J.N. Barney, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (52)
ABSTRACT
Through the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the federal government has mandated tremendous increases in the production of cellulosic-based fuel. Many species of rhizomatous perennial grasses proposed for cultivation, bearing desirable traits for large-scale production, have caused concern for their potential to become invasive. Therefore, one component of identifying the invasive risk of these potentially valuable crops is to conduct a weed risk assessment, which has become standard practice in many parts of the world. The Australian Weed Risk Assessment (A-WRA) has become the global standard, but the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) PPQ weed risk assessment (PPQ-WRA) will be the new US standard for evaluating the invasive potential of new species. We compared the outcomes of both assessments to evaluate the invasive potential of proposed biofuel crops against invasive species that were introduced for agronomic purposes, as well as other agronomic crops that are not invasive. These species include both known weeds such as Elymus repens and Dactylis glomerata, along with plants proposed for wide spread cultivation as biofuels including Arundo donax, Miscanthus sinensis, M. x giganteus, and Panicum virgatum. These two risk assessment models can be used to predict the invasive potential of future bioenergy crops in this emerging industry, with the potential to assist in future policy and management decisions. Both assessments suggest that many of the leading biofuel candidates have the potential to become weedy in specific ecoregions of the United States. Differences in the screening process are evident in the percentage of plants rejected by the Australian model (82%) in contrast to those receiving a high risk rating by the APHIS model (72%). However it should be noted, despite the similar percentage of high risk recommendation by the assessments, the species receiving acceptable or low risk ratings was not identical between the two assessments. Befits of the PPQ-WRA include the ability to include uncertainty and leaves management decisions to other decision-makers. Based on the outcomes of these assessments we can be better prepared identify aspects contributing to potential invasiveness of these crops, while also planning ahead for improved stewardship in those that are predicted to be of high risk.
49
INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS FOR SILVERY THREAD MOSS ON PUTTING GREENS. A. Post*, S. Askew, and D. McCall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (53)
ABSTRACT
Since the loss of mercury and other heavy metal based herbicides silvery threadmoss (Bryum argenteum) has become an increasing problem on golf course putting greens. Superintendants continue to reduce mowing heights and fertility on putting greens to meet golfer demands for faster playing surfaces. This creates optimal conditions for competitive displacement of creeping bentgrass by silvery threadmoss. Only one herbicide, carfentrazone (Quicksilver) and two fungicides, chlorothalonil (Daconil) and mancozeb (Manzeb) are labeled for moss control on putting greens currently. The objective of this study was to widely screen available crop protection chemicals for effects on silvery threadmoss and provide new options for its control on golf course putting greens.
Two trials were initiated to examine herbicide effectiveness on silvery threadmoss. Each was a randomized complete block design with ten replications and forty-nine herbicide treatments applied at one and two times the labeled use rates as well as a nontreated control. After herbicide treatment, moss plugs were randomly placed into 24-well cell culture plates where they remained for the duration of the study. Digital photos were taken for image analysis at 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment (DAT). Each one was then cropped to include a single plot per image. Data was captured in Sigma Scan Pro 5 and managed in ARM 8. Sigma Scan was set to count green pixels in a range from hue=38 to 100 and saturation=0 to 100. When compared to the zero-day after treatment pixel counts this provides a % reduction in green color for each moss plug which equates to a measure of control. Data were subject to ANOVA and means separated by fishers protected LSD (p=0.05). Herbicides which significantly reduced green color included: carfentrazone, flumioxazin, MSMA, glufosinate, sulfentrazone, and an experimental. By 10 DAT, several herbicides reduced green color by more than 90% including flumioxazin, carfentrazone, fosamine, diquat, and sulfentrazone. Successful treatments will be examined in the field next growing season to evaluate their efficacy and safety for potential supplemental registrations.
50
NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY OF THE “INVASIVE” MISCANTHUS SINENSIS POPULATIONS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. R.F. Dougherty*, L. Quinn, T. Voigt, B. Endres, and J.N. Barney, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (54)
ABSTRACT
Miscanthus sinensis is a perennial, C4 grass native to Southeast Asia. This species was introduced as an ornamental by the Biltmore estate in Asheville, North Carolina in the late 19th century. Genetic testing has shown that this introduction was one of many, as the plant’s distribution quickly spread north to Washington DC and New York City by 1920. Today M. sinensis remains a popular ornamental grass, with annual sales exceeding $39 million in North Carolina alone as of 2008. Miscanthus sinensis has since escaped the cultivated environment and naturalized across much of its introduced range, where it is now considered an invasive species. Miscanthus x giganteus, a sterile triploid hybrid of M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, is being used as a bioenergy crop with concern that it may escape and become invasive. Unlike the weedy parents, M. x giganteus does not produce seed, but has a much faster growth rate and grows much larger.
To better understand the invasiveness of the Miscanthus species, we must first characterize M. sinensis across its naturalized range in the United States to better understand its invasiveness. This study surveys the current range of M. sinensis across the northeast from Tennessee to Maine. Demographic and environmental data was collected from populations in 20 locations. Nearly all populations were located in low value, high disturbance areas such as roadsides, highways, railroads, power line right-of-ways, as well as abandoned gardens and nurseries. Population sizes ranged from 15 individuals to over 1000. These populations were compared across a large latitudinal gradient, which resulted in several significant trends. Both average tiller height and approximate basal area decreased as populations moved north. In order to fully assess the risk of wide spread M. sinensis cultivation, we must continue to gain a better understanding of this species in its naturalized range.
51
DO DEER BROWSE ON INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS? DEER PREFERENCE TRIAL RESULTS FOR NATIVE AND INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS IN PENNSYLVANIA. K.M. Averill* and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (55)
ABSTRACT
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) affect invasive plant dynamics in forest understories. The argument stands that selective deer browsing could result in plant communities that are more susceptible to invasion, resulting in increases in exotic invasive plant abundance. As part of a region-wide analysis, deer exclusion studies revealed that while abundance of some invasive plants increased in the presence of deer, other invasive plants decreased. Differences in the palatability of native and non-native flora could explain this pattern. However, the palatability of weedy and invasive plants has not been directly investigated. In August and October 2011, we conducted deer preference trials using captive deer to test the palatability of eight exotic and seven native plant species that commonly occur in northeastern forests. Based on preliminary analysis of field plot data collected across the study region, we hypothesized that half of the native and half of the exotic species would be palatable to deer. We determined (1) percentage of leafy plant biomass of each trial species consumed by deer and (2) order of trial species preference by deer for each trial species using videography. Biomass and videography results indicate that Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), and common privet (Ligustrum vulgare) were highly palatable to deer. More than 78% of the leafy biomass of these three invasive plants was consumed, which was comparable to the consumption of the highly preferred native species, red maple (Acer rubrum) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Only 20% or less of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) biomass was consumed in trials. Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) was the least preferred species, with no browsing in August trials and consumption limited to 14% in October. Large populations of deer have the capacity to decimate populations of palatable plant species, granting a competitive advantage to unpalatable species. Minimal deer herbivory of unpalatable invasive plant species may help explain their large spatial extent and abundance in the study region. Explanations other than deer browsing likely explain why the highly preferred species (C. orbiculatus, L. morrowii, and L. vulgare) have become invasive, such as high growth rates and/or increased tolerance of deer herbivory.
52
ECONOMICS, EFFICACY, AND NON-TARGET EFFECTS OF MANAGING THE FOREST UNDERSTORY INVADER MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM. D. Tekiela*, A. Post, S. Askew, and J.N. Barney, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (56)
ABSTRACT
Microstegium vimineum is a shade tolerant annual C4 grass that is an invasive species in the Mid-Atlantic and upper Southeastern US, and has been shown to negatively impact species diversity and composition in eastern native hardwood forests. Glyphosate (2% spray to wet) is currently the most common method for controlling M. vimineum invasions. However, little information exists on the long-term efficacy, costs, and non-target consequences of large-scale eradication of this understory invader. Therefore, a study was established in Southwest Virginia to compare the cost and efficacy of understory management practices that included mechanical removal (string trimmer) and spot applications of standard rate glyphosate (2%), reduced rate glyphosate (0.045 kg ai ha-1), and sethoxydim (1.5% spray to wet). We used a split-plot design to assess the efficacy of both a single seasonal application, and a multiple application treatment with the management goal of 100% M. vimineum control.
Prior to treatment, M. vimineum groundcover was 51% (±18.6%). Costs of fuel, herbicide, and labor were recorded for each plot to find the total cost of management per treated hectare. Plant community data was recorded before and after treatment application to assess the non-target species effects. Sethoxydim, standard rate glyphosate, and reduced rate glyphosate achieved near 100% M. vimineum control with a single application. Impact on non-target species was greatest in standard rate glyphosate plots (26% cover reduction) and lowest in sethoxydim plots (3% cover reduction). Sethoxydim also had no effect on tree seedling recruitment unlike all other treatments, which were reduced by 15-26%. Labor was >95% of total cost for all treatments, and herbicide costs did not greatly differ. On average herbicide treatments cost $237 ha-1 for single treatments and $348 ha-1 for 100% control (multiple applications). Mechanical treatment was >200% more expensive than any herbicide application due to longer application time requirements. It appears that a single treatment of low-rate glyphosate or sethoxydim was adequate for single-season M. vimineum control. The additional cost of labor for multiple applications per season may be unnecessary, and glyphosate has the greatest negative impact on the surrounding community. Both reduced rate glyphosate and sethoxydim are just as effective while having reduced impacts on the native flora, which may be alternative methods for managers in M. vimineum management.
53
NITROGEN-ENHANCED EFFICACY OF MESOTRIONE AND TOPRAMEZONE FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS (DIGITARIA ISCHAEMUM) CONTROL. M.T. Elmore*, J.T. Brosnan, G.K. Breeden, and P.A. Jones, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (57)
ABSTRACT
The herbicides mesotrione and topramezone inhibit 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) and have efficacy against smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). Research was conducted to determine the impacts of soil-applied nitrogen (N) fertilizer on the efficacy of mesotrione and topramezone for smooth crabgrass control.
Dose-response experiments evaluated the response of smooth crabgrass to mesotrione (0, 70, 140, 280, 560 and 1120 g ha-1) and topramezone (0, 4.5, 9, 18, 36 and 72 g ha-1) with 0 or 49 kg N ha-1. Smooth crabgrass was seeded into 10-cm pots filled with a Sequatchie silt loam soil blended with calcined clay in a 3:1 ratio. Treatments were applied with small-plot spray equipment at 280 L ha-1 to 3- to 5-tiller crabgrass plants. Percent visual control was evaluated 4, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT). Aboveground dry biomass was determined 21 DAT. Log-logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the herbicide dose required to provide 50% visual crabgrass control (I50). Further greenhouse research evaluated changes in visual necrosis, weight, chlorophyll and carotenoid pigment concentrations of smooth crabgrass leaf tissue following treatment with mesotrione (280 g ha-1) and topramezone (18 g ha-1) with 0 or 49 kg ha-1. Smooth crabgrass was seeded into 20-cm pots filled with a Sequatchie silt loam soil blended with calcined clay in a 3:1 ratio. Treatments were applied using a spray chamber at 430 L ha-1 to 3- to 5-tiller crabgrass plants. Leaves present at the time of herbicide application (except for the bud leaf) were marked with indelible ink, designating leaves as those fully emerged before and after herbicide application. Chlorophyll and carotenoid pigments were extracted from leaf tissue harvested 10 days after treatment and quantified via high-performance liquid chromatography. All herbicide treatments were applied with a NIS at 0.25% v/v. In dose-response experiments, N application reduced I50 values for mesotrione and topramezone by 50 and 65%, respectively, 21 days after treatment (DAT). Reductions in aboveground biomass with both herbicides were greater when applied following N treatment as well. In leaf-response experiments, N decreased total chlorophyll and xanthophyll cycle pigment concentrations and weight of leaves that emerged after treatment with topramezone. Treatment with N also increased necrosis of leaves emerged after herbicide application in mesotrione-treated plants. Responses of leaves fully emerged before herbicide treatment were not affected by N. Future research should investigate whether increased translocation of these herbicides to meristimatic regions contributed to N-enhanced efficacy.
54
QUANTIFYING VAPOR DRIFT OF DICAMBA HERBICIDES APPLIED TO SOYBEAN. J. Egan* and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (58)
ABSTRACT
Recent advances in biotechnology have produced cultivars of corn, soybean, and cotton resistant to the synthetic auxin herbicide dicamba. This technology will allow dicamba herbicides to be applied in new crops, at new times of years, and over greatly expanded acreages, including postemergence applications in soybean. From past and current use in corn and small grains, dicamba vapor drift and subsequent crop injury to sensitive broadleaf crops has been a problem. In this study, we measured dicamba vapor drift in the field from postemergence applications to soybean using greenhouse-grown soybean as a bioassay system. We found that when the volatile DMA formulation is applied, vapor drift could be detected at mean concentrations of 0.561 g a.e. dicamba/ha (0.1% of the applied rate) at 20 m away from a treated 18.3m x 18.3m plot. Applying the DGA formulation of dicamba reduced vapor drift by 96.0%. With the DMA formulation, the extent and severity of vapor drift was significantly correlated with air temperature, indicating elevated risks if DMA dicamba is applied early to mid-summer in many growing regions. Additional research is needed to more fully understand the effects of vapor drift level exposures to non-target crops and wild plants.
55
NICOSULFURON-RESISTANT JOHNSONGRASS EXHIBITS DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY TO GLYPHOSATE. A.N. Smith* and E. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (59)
ABSTRACT
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a common and difficult to control weed in corn production. The use of glyphosate- or glufosinate-tolerant corn varieties has led to a decrease in the number of herbicide modes of action used in field corn. Producers planting these varieties typically rely on glyphosate/glufosinate or nicosulfuron as their main options for grass weed control. This change in herbicide use patterns has inadvertently led to increased selection pressure for weedy biotypes resistant to these herbicides. Research has confirmed glyphosate and nicosulfuron resistant johnsongrass, but there are no reports of multiple resistance to these herbicides. A nicosulfuron-resistant Johnsongrass population was reported to have failed to be controlled by 0.88 kg a.e. ha-1 of glyphosate for two growing seasons in Virginia. Field experiments subjected Johnsongrass to four rates of nicosulfuron and five rates of glyphosate. Visual control was measured and seed was collected from surviving Johnsongrass plants. At 0.88 kg a.e. ha-1, control with glyphosate was 65%. At 3.52 kg a.e. ha-1, control was 90%. At 0.057 kg a.i. ha-1, control with nicosulfuron was 9%. In greenhouse experiments using Johnsongrass seedlings grown from collected seed, glyphosate at 0.22 kg a.e. ha-1 and 0.44 a.e. ha-1 provided no control, but surviving seedlings had visibly diminished vigor. Experiments were conducted to evaluate differential glyphosate sensitivity between individual biotypes. Several biotypes, when compared to a wild type, failed to be controlled by 0.22 kg a.e. ha-1 and 0.44 kg a.e. ha-1 rates of glyphosate. Additionally, greenhouse experiments were conducted with rhizomatous plants. Several individual plants treated with 0.22 kg a.e. ha-1 of glyphosate, while visibly injured, had increased vigor when compared to a wild type receiving the same rate. Moreover, plant regrowth was measured and several individuals had regrowth after application. These results suggest that this suspect Johnsongrass population may exhibit differential sensitivity to glyphosate, but additional confirmation is needed.
56
THE NON-NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA OF MONOMOY ISLANDS, MASSACHUSETTS. R. Stalter*, St. John’s University, Queens, NY (60)
ABSTRACT
The objective of the present study was to prepare a preliminary list of the non-native vascular plant species at Monomoy Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. Collecting trips were made to the islands during the growing seasons beginning September 2010 to September 2011 for the purpose of collecting voucher specimens. The preliminary flora consists of 126 species of which 26 are not native to coastal Massachusetts.
INTRODUCTION
Monomoy Island Wildlife Refuge, (41.56 N latitude, 69.99W longitude) comprising 1317 hectares, is composed of two barrier islands, North Monomoy and South Monomoy extending southward at the bend of Cape Cod from Morris Island, Massachusetts (Lortie et al 1991) Prior to 1958, the land was a spit extending south from Morris Island. The spit was breached at its northern terminus by an April storm in 1958 creating on large island, Monomoy Island. The second disturbance of note was the nor’easter/blizzard of February 6 and 7, 1978, which breached by the island approximately 3 km below the north end creating the two islands that exist today. Barrier Islands have an active geological history (Leatherman 1979). Waves, wind, tides, and severe storms have sculpted and modified Monomoy Island. Lortie et al (1991) have provided extensive information on the geomorphic changes on the island over the past 200 years and changes in its plant communities and vascular plant species. The island’s most mature plant community, the woody thicket, and a large freshwater marsh were destroyed by the nor’easter of February 1978. A number of taxa, noted by previous investigators, Carex debilis, Smilax rotundifloria, and Smilacina stellata, collected at the thicket community at Inwood Point, were probably extirpated at Monomoy Island when the woody thicket was destroyed by the 1978 nor’easter. The primary objective of this study was to prepare a preliminary list of the native and non-native vascular plant species at Monomoy Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts (Table 1). A second objective was to compare the percentage of non-native plant species at Monomoy Islands with the non-native plant species present at other nearby coastal sites (Table 2). A third objective was to compare the vascular plant floras of Monomoy Island prepared by various investigators from 1954 to the present (Table 3).
METHODS
The vascular flora at Monomoy Island was sampled monthly during the growing season from September 2010 to September 2011. Two whole plants or portions of plant material of each specific taxon were collected, dried, identified and mounted on herbarium paper. Voucher material will be deposited at the A.C. Moore Herbarium, at the University of South Carolina. Rare and/or endangered species were photographed.
Vascular plant species were classified according to Gleason and Cronquist (1991). Native and non-native status of each taxon follows Gleason and Cronquist (1991). The status of rare, threatened, and endangered vascular plants follows the latest edition of the Massachusetts Heritage Program (www.mah.org). The study will end September, 2012, the latest month in the 2012 growing season when boat transportation to the island will be available to Stalter.
57
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The preliminary list of the vascular flora at Monomoy Island consists of 126 species in 99 genera in 50 families. The largest family in the flora was Asteraceae (24 species); no other family had more than 10 species. Native species, 79.4% of the flora, were the major component of the flora. Polygonum glaucum, a coastal dune species was the only Massachusetts endangered or threatened species of the flora. Monomoy’s non-native plant species, 20.6% of the flora, was only slightly higher than the percentage of non-native vascular plant species on Gardiner’s Island observed by Hehre (1977), 19.1%. Both Gardiner’s and Monomoy experience little human activity. National Fish and Wildlife Refuge personnel observe and record bird and seal populations at Monomoy. Portions of Monomoy’s dune community are burned each October to provide appropriate nesting habitat for the island’s tern populations. Gardiner’s Island has been occupied by a succession of Gardeners since the 1600s! With the exception of a caretaker and ornithologists involved with a Christmas bird count, no “outsiders” have access to the island (Table 2). Plum Island, the site of the USDA’s Animal Disease Research Center, has limited human disturbance, the activity of the scientists who work at the main laboratory and at the animal research facilities. Great Gull Island, a small island east of Plum Island, has no permanent residents, but is the site of the American Museum of Natural History’s tern research colonies. The land at Great Gull Island is plowed and mowed yearly each spring to provide appropriate habitat for nesting terns; the plowed soil provides excellent habitat for invasive non-native vascular plants. The percentage of alien non-native taxa At Orient Beach State Park, N.Y. is misleading. Humans rarely visit the western portion of the park which supports a non-native plant species population of approximately 20% while the often visited eastern side of the park has a non-native plant species population of greater than 40% (Table 2). Human population density may be related to non native species richness on coastal northeastern islands (McMaster 2005). While population density influences species diversity, MacMaster (2005) found that the influence of island area was approximately six times stronger than that of human population density in his study of vascular plant diversity on 22 coastal islands. Monomoy Island’s vascular flora has been documented since 1954 (Table 3). The earliest investigators, Cross and Cross recorded 66 plant species in 1954. The greatest number of plant species was recorded by Lortie et al, who identified 201 species during their 8 year study, 1981-1989. The most recent study by Stalter, September 2010/2011 included 135 taxa. Additional plants will be added to this list when the grasses (Poaceae) and sedges (Cyperaceae) are identified and additional plant species are collected and identified during the 2012 growing season.
LITERATURE CITED
BAILEY, W. 1965. Plant List of Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. Contribution No. 2, Monomoy Light Research Station. Massachusetts Audubon Society, South Wellfleet, MA.
GLEASON H.A. & A. CRONQUIST. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States & Adjacent Canada. 2nd Ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 910.
HEHRE, E.J. 1977. The flora of Gardiners Island. Rhodora 79:214-239.
LEATHERMAN, S.P. 1979. Barrier Islands Handbook. National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
58
LAMONT, E.E. & R. STALTER. 1991. The Vascular Flora of Oriental Beach State Park, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 118: 459-468.
MCMASTER. R.T. 2005. Factors influencing vascular plant diversity on 22 islands off the coast of eastern North America. J. Biogeography 32: 475-492.
MOUL, E.T. 1969. Flora of Monomoy Island, Massachusetts. Rhodora 71:18-28.
Table 1. A statistical summary of the vascular flora of the Monomoy Islands, Massachusetts
Spore Plants Gymnosperms Dicots Monocots Total Families 3 1 38 8 50 Genera 4 2 79 14 99 Species 5 2 100 19 126 Native Species 5 1 75 19 100 Introduced Species 0 1 25 0 26
Table 2. Frequencies of native versus non-native plants at Plum Island, NY, Orient Beach State Park, NY (Lamont and Stalter 1991), Gardner’s Island, NY (Hehre 1977), Great Gull Island, NY (Stalter and Lamont 2001), and Monomoy Islands, MA.
Plum Island, NY
Gardner’s Island, NY
Great Gull Island, NY
Orient B., NY
Monomoy Islands, MA
Native Species 240 318 88 156 100 Non-Native Species 151 75 115 121 26 %Non-Native Species 38.6% 19.1% 56.7% 43.7% 20.6% Total Species 412 393 203 277 126
Table 3. Summary of the flora of Monomoy Islands, prepared by various investigators from 1954 to 2011. The floras listed chronologically, are those of Cross and Cross (1954) in Lortie et al (1991), Bailey (1965), Moul (1969), Lortie et al (1991) and Stalter (2011).
Cross/Cross Bailey Moul Lortie et al Stalter Spore Plants 1 6 3 6 5 Gymnosperms 1 3 3 3 2 Dicots 47 103 73 139 101 Monocots 17 41 29 63 27 Total 66 153 108 201 135
59
COMPOST INCREASES WEED ABUNDANCE IN AN ORGANIC GRAIN CROPPING SYSTEM. C.A. Marschner*, C.L. Mohler, B.A. Caldwell, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (61)
ABSTRACT
A long term cropping systems experiment in central New York State compared three organic systems that differ in nutrient inputs and intensity of weed management. The three systems were: a moderate nutrient-input system that approximated Cornell University fertility recommendations using chicken manure compost as the principal nutrient source; a low input system that minimized inputs to control costs; and a weed control system that combined low inputs with intensive weed management. The three cropping systems employed a three year rotation of corn, soybean and spelt undersown with red clover. Two of the three crops were grown each year. The experiment was conducted on moderately well drained silt loam soil, and results are presented for 2005-2011. Weed biomass increased over time to some extent in all three systems, but weed biomass in the low-input and intensive weed management systems, rarely exceeded 500 kg/ha at early August sampling and was often less. This level of weed pressure is acceptable to most organic grain producers. Weed biomass in the standard fertility system increased to a much higher level than the two lower-input systems. The corn and soybean yields in all three systems were the same, but spelt yields were higher with the additional nutrients. Several weed species responded more strongly to nutrient additions than did corn or soybean, leading to serious weed problems over time. Using typical university fertility recommendations for corn and soybeans in an organic system did not increase yields and contributed to weed problems.
60
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO DODDER SPECIES VARIATION IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. K.M. Ghantous*, S. Stefanovic, and H.A. Sandler, University of Massachusetts, East Wareham, MA (62)
ABSTRACT
Dodder (Cuscuta spp.) is an obligate parasitic plant that can infest cranberry bogs and presents a significant threat to cranberry yields. This weed is being reported on increasing numbers of farms, and its control is a high priority goal for Massachusetts cranberry growers. The species found on cranberry bogs has been traditionally considered to be Cuscuta gronovii. Dodders are very difficult to distinguish, and their taxonomy based on morphology is controversial. Dodder populations have been reported with visual variations in stem color, stem thickness, and temporally distinct flowering times. We speculated that some of these variations in phenotype may actually be variations in genotype. In addition, growers and researchers alike have experienced and reported variable results and/or failures when managing this pest with herbicides or/or non-chemical methods. Subsequent discussions lent some credence to the possibility that differences in dodder species or ecotypes may play a role in the inconsistent management of dodder on some farms.
Our objectives were to survey at least two dozen sites, collect dodder stems, and use DNA to identify which species are present in Southeastern Massachusetts. During the 2011 season, we collected dodder samples from 41 sites consisting of 39 commercial bogs and 2 naturally occurring populations. The sampled sites represented 23 towns, most of which were in a 25 -mile radius around Carver, MA, the production center of the cranberry growing region. Dodder samples were sent to a DNA laboratory where polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to identify species. Identifications are being made based on recent work on dodder phylogeny by Stefanovic et al. (American Journal of Botany 94(4): 568–589. 2007). Preliminary results from 5 bogs indicate that at least one species in addition to C. gronovii is present in Southeastern Massachusetts.
61
EARLY SEASON PHENOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF CEREAL RYE PERFORMANCE. S. Mirsky*, J. Spargo, W.S. Curran, M.R. Ryan, and S. C. Reberg-Horton, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD (63)
ABSTRACT
Cover crops have the potential to be used as multifunctional tool to enhance ecosystem services. However, maximizing the function of one service can hinder the performance of another. For example, cereal rye (Secale cereale) is used to both scavenge nitrogen (N) and suppress weeds. High levels of cereal rye biomass are necessary for adequate nonchemical weed suppression when used as a mulch. Residual inorganic soil nitrogen in the fall may not be sufficient to achieve biomass levels in the spring necessary for weed suppression. Several cover crop cost share programs prohibit fall applications of fertilizer. Furthermore, inadequate cereal rye biomass levels should be incorporated through tillage, in early spring, in order for optimal seedbed preparations. Early spring cereal rye phenological traits that effectively estimate mature cereal rye biomass and responsiveness to nitrogen fertilizer applications can aid with farmer decision making. We tested the effects of fall and spring soil N levels on cereal rye biomass accumulation at anthesis, and the relationships between spring shoot density at tillering and shoot elongation with mature cereal rye biomass. A normalized vegetation index (NDVI) was calculated using remote sensing techniques (active crop canopy reflectance sensors) and regressed with mature cereal rye biomass. Cereal rye shoot density at the tillering stage and NDVI measurements were both good estimates of mature cover crop biomass. Due to annual variations in the relationship between NDVI, at tillering, with mature cereal rye biomass, site-specific calibration may be required.
62
BEDDING PLANT RESPONSE TO DIMETHENAMID. J.F. Derr*, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA (64)
ABSTRACT
There are limited options for weed management in bedding plants. Dimethenamid, a relatively new herbicide for the nursery and landscape industries, may be an option for weed control in annual flowers. Both a sprayable EC formulation (Tower) and a granular product containing dimethenamid plus pendimethalin (FreeHand) were evaluated in field trials. No injury to gazania ‘Rose Kiss Hybrid’ , marigold ‘Queen Sophia’ , vinca ‘Pacifica Lilac’ , lanceleaf coreopsis ‘Early Sunrise’ , geranium ‘Multibloom Red’ , coleus ‘Wizard Mix’ was seen 8 DAT at FreeHand rates ranging from 1.75 to 7.0 lb ai/A. There was no reduction in flowering at 20 DAT. At 29 and 51 DAT, flower count in marigold and vinca decreased as the FreeHand rate increased, but there was no reduction at 1.75 lb ai/A when compared to the untreated. At 41 DAT, vinca flower count decreased as the FreeHand rate increased. Reduced flowering in gazania was noted at the highest rate of FreeHand at 41 and 51 DAT. At 58 DAT, marigold flower count decreased as the FreeHand rate increased but less reduction in vinca flowering was noted compared to earlier counts. At 60 DAT, there was injury (29%) in coleus at the highest FreeHand rate, but no injury was noted in marigold, vinca, or lanceleaf coreopsis. At 15 DAT, reduced flowering in impatiens ‘Dazzler Orange’, alyssum ‘Wonderland Rose’, and petunia ‘Fantasy Red’ was noted as the FreeHand rate increased. At 27, 37, and 45 DAT, impatiens flower count decreased as FreeHand rate increased, but no decrease was seen in petunia, vinca ‘Pacifica Lilac’, geranium ‘Multibloom Red’, or zinnia angustifolia ‘Stargold’. At 27 and 37 DAT, there appeared to be a slight decrease in vinca flowering at the highest rate of FreeHand. At 47 DAT, injury was only seen at the highest rate of FreeHand in impatiens and alyssum, with no injury at lower FreeHand rates.
Tower at 1.0 to 4.0 lb ai/A and FreeHand at 2.6 to 10.5 lb ai/A appeared to reduce flowering in zinnia ‘Stargold’ at 15 and 22 DAT, but no reductions were noted at 36 DAT. The highest rate of Freehand injured ‘Magnus’ purple coneflower and gazania. Flowering in purple coneflower appeared to decrease as the FreeHand rate increased. The highest rate of FreeHand and Tower reduced flowering in impatiens. In begonia ‘Cocktail Vodka’, flower count and plant stand decreased significantly as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased. In alyssum ‘New Carpet of Snow’, flowering decreased as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased. The highest rate of both chemicals reduced alyssum stand. In impatiens ‘Super Elfin Hot Mix’, flowering decreased as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased at 30, 41 and 75 DAT.
Gazania, marigold, vinca, petunia, lanceleaf coreopsis, geranium, purple coneflower, zinnia, and coleus appear to have good tolerance to FreeHand at the 1.75 lb ai/A rate, but some reduction in flowering can occur at 4 times that rate. Flowering in impatiens decreases as the FreeHand rate increases. The cultivars of begonia, alyssum, and certain ones of impatiens used in these trials do not have acceptable tolerance to Tower or FreeHand.
63
EARLY POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF BITTERCRESS (CARDAMINE HIRSUTA) IN CONTAINER PLANT PRODUCTION. C. Marble*, C. Gilliam, and A. Alexander, Auburn University, Auburn, AL (65)
ABSTRACT
Early postemergence control of bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) was evaluated using preemergent active herbicides. Bittercress seed were surface sown by hand onto 3.5 inch pots filled with a pinebark:sand (6:1 v:v) media that had been previously amended with standard fertilizer amendments on April 6, and April 18, 2011 in separate pots resulting in two stages of growth: 2 to 4 leaf (2-4L) and 6 to 8 leaf (6-8L) stages. On April 28, 2011, all bittercress were treated with the following herbicides: Dimension 2 EW [0.5 lbs active ingredient per acre (ai/A)], Gallery 75DF (0.66 lbs ai/A and 1.0 lbs ai/A), and Showcase (5 lbs ai/A). Spray-applied herbicides were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer (80-04 nozzle, 25 psi) using an application volume of 60 gallons of water per acre. Showcase was applied using a hand-shaker. Herbicides were applied to dry foliage and bittercress received no irrigation for 3.5 hours except for bittercress treated with Showcase which were sprinkled with water prior to treatment. Bittercress were grown under a shade structure and received daily irrigation via overhead impact sprinklers (0.5 in). Postemergence control was assessed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after treatment (WAT) on a scale of 0 to 100, 0 = no injury, 100 = dead plant. Fresh weights were also taken at 30 days after treatment. At 4 WAT, bittercress in the 2-4L stage had the highest injury ratings (100) when treated with Gallery (both rates), followed by bittercress treated with Showcase (90) and Dimension (83.8). All bittercress receiving a herbicide treatment had similar fresh weights at the conclusion of the study. Once bittercress reached the 6-8L stage, control ratings dropped slightly in all treatments. At 4 WAT, bittercress had injury ratings of 86 or higher when treated with Gallery (both rates), or Showcase. At this time, bittercress treated with Dimension had injury ratings of 60.0 and injury ratings were significantly less than all other herbicide treatments. Fresh weights indicated that Gallery (both rates), and Showcase all provided similar bittercress control. Bittercress treated with Dimension had higher fresh weights than bittercress treated with other herbicide treatments, but were significantly less than the non-treated control, indicating that Dimension had some postemergence activity. Results from this trial indicate that bittercress can be effectively controlled in the 2-4L stage with Gallery, Showcase, and Dimension at label rates. Once bittercress reached the 6-8L stage, Dimension was less effective as a postemergent application, but did provide some postemergent activity when compared to non-treated plants.
64
IR-4 2011 CROP INJURY SUMMARY OF SEVERAL HERBICIDES ON ORNAMENTAL NURSERY CROPS. K.A. Hester*, C.L. Palmer, E. Vea, and J. Baron, The IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (66)
ABSTRACT
The 2011 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored crop safety testing of over-the-top applications on several different herbicide products. Biathlon (oxyfluorfen + prodiamine) was tested on 9 crops, Broadstar 0.25 VC1604 (flumioxazin) on 5 crops, Certainty (sulfosulfuron) on 25 crops, F6875 (sulfentrazone + prodiamine) on 20 crops, Freehand G (dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin) on 40 crops, Gallery (isoxaben) on 9 crops, indaziflam on 17 crops, mesotrione on 13 crops, Sedgehammer (halosulfuron) on 13 crops, Snapshot (trifluralin + isoxaben) on 31 crops, and Tower EC (dimethenamid-p) on 24 crops. The goal of this research was to screen these herbicides for safety on container grown woody ornamentals and herbaceous perennial crops in nurseries. Applications were made at dormancy and approximately 6 weeks later for all products with the exception of Broadstar 0.25G VC1604 which was applied once at the later application date. The results from this research will aid in the development of the product labels and will help growers and landscape care professionals make more informed product choices.
65
IR-4 2011 SUMMARY OF POSTEMERGENT LIVERWORT CONTROL IN NURSERY CONTAINERS. K.A. Hester*, C.L. Palmer, E. Lurvey, and J. Baron, The IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (67)
ABSTRACT
The 2011 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored efficacy testing of several postemergent herbicides for liverwort, Marchantia sp., control in containers grown primarily under cover in greenhouses and hoop houses where few herbicides are registered for use. Applications were made across the United States using Bryophyter (oregano oil), FlowerPharm (cinnamon and rosemary oil), Greenmatch (d-limonene), Racer (ammonium nonanoate), Scythe (pelargonic acid), Sporotec (rosemary, clove and thyme oil), SureGuard (flumioxazin), Terra Cyte Pro G (sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate), Tower (dimethenamid-p), and WeedPharm (acetic acid). The results from these trials provide ornamental growers information on postemergence herbicides effective in controlling this troublesome pest, as well as, data for label expansion.
66
PHENOXY HERBICIDE SAFETY IN CONTAINER PRODUCTION OF MUHLENBERGIA AND MISCANTHUS. C. Harlow* and J.C. Neal, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (68)
ABSTRACT
Triamine II, Tri-Power, and Triplet Low Odor safeties to Miscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus’ and Muhlenbergia capillaris were evaluated. The experiment was conducted at Hoffman’s Nursery, Rougemont, N.C., a specialty nursery that focuses on ornamental grass production. Plants were irrigated as needed and insect pests were controlled by the nursery personnel according to common grower practice. Divisions of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus’ and seedlings of Muhlenbergia capillaris, in 3.5 inch cells, were potted to 1 gallon containers using a pine bark/peanut hull/coir based substrate on July 20, 2010. Plants were maintained under standard nursery practices until new growth was adequate for postemergence herbicide phytotoxicity evaluations. Treatments included a non-treated control, Triamine II @ 3, 6, and 12 pt/A, Tri-Power @ 3, 6, and 12 pt/A, and Triplet Low Odor @ 2.5, 5, and 10 pt/A. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates and 3 plants of each species per plot. Herbicide treatments were applied on August 4, 2010 and reapplied on September 16, 2010. Miscanthus showed no injury of practical significance following the first application in all treatments. Following the second application, foliage was uninjured by 1X applications of Triamine II and Triplet Low Odor but was injured by all higher doses and all doses of Tri-Power. All herbicides reduced flowering at all application rates. Muhlenbergia foliage was uninjured by 1X applications of the herbicides throughout the experiment and showed little injury following the first application of the 2X rates. Significant injury was seen at 4X rates and following the second application of the 2X rates. However, Muhlenbergia flowering was reduced by all herbicides at all application rates. The experiment is being repeated in 2011.
67
TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO MESOTRIONE, DIMETHENAMID-P, AND PENDIMETHALIN PLUS DIMETHENAMID-P APPLICATIONS. T.L. Mervosh* and J.F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT (69)
ABSTRACT
We conducted two experiments in 2011 to evaluate herbicide tolerances of ornamental grasses (Experiment 1) and woody shrubs (Experiment 2) in containers. In Experiment 1, species were Calamagrostis x acutiflora ‘Avalanche’ (feather reed grass), Panicum virgatum ‘Heavy Metal’ (switch grass), Pennisetum alopecuroides ‘Hameln’ (fountain grass) and Schizachyrium scoparium ‘Prairie Blues’ (little bluestem). Plants were potted in 1-gallon containers on June 29. Each plot contained three pots of each species plus three plantless pots (container mix only). Treatments were replicated four times in a RCB design. Sprays were applied at 50 gal/A using a CO2-pressurized boom with TeeJet 8004VS tips. All treatment solutions (including the control) contained non-ionic surfactant (0.25% v/v). Treatments were mesotrione (Tenacity 4F) at 0.187 lb ai/A and at 0.374 lb ai/A, mesotrione at 0.187 lb ai/A plus s-metolachlor (Pennant Magnum) at 1.91 lb ai/A, and mesotrione at 0.187 lb ai/A plus prodiamine (Barricade 65WG) at 0.65 lb ai/A. Treatments were applied on July 5 (T-1) and August 4 (T-2) over the top of dry foliage. Overhead irrigation for 45 min began 2 to 4 h later. On July 15, seeds of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) were spread in all plantless pots. Plant injury (0 to 10 scale) was observed as foliar whitening due to mesotrione. The injury level was not affected by s-metolachlor or prodiamine. The following injury ratings were recorded on July 19 (2 WAT-1): Calamagrostis, 0 to 0.7; Schizachyrium, 0.7 to 1.6; Pennisetum, 1.0 to 2.2; and Panicum, 2.3 to 2.8. By August 1, whitening had decreased on all grasses. On August 18 (2 WAT-2), injury on Panicum ranged from 1.5 to 3.2, but all other grasses had injury ratings below 1. Injury to Panicum subsided but remained significant in September. Crabgrass control (0 to 10) was evaluated on August 1 (PRE activity after T-1) and September 21 (PRE + POST activity after T-2). Mesotrione at 0.187 lb ai/A was not effective at controlling crabgrass (<4 at both ratings). Mesotrione at 0.374 lb ai/A provided better control: 6.7 on August 1, and 9.2 on September 21. Mesotrione combined with s-metolachlor or prodiamine had crabgrass control ratings of 9.4 to 9.8 on both dates. In Experiment 2, plants were Clethra alnifolia ‘Hummingbird’ (summersweet), Cornus kousa (Kousa dogwood), Hydrangea macrophylla ‘Endless Summer’ and Tsuga canadensis (eastern hemlock). Plants were potted in 1-gallon containers on May 23. The experimental design (without plantless pots) and spray applications (without surfactant) were as described above. Granules were applied with a calibrated auger-feed drop spreader. Treatments [dimethenamid-P (Tower 5.9EC) at 0.97, 1.94 and 3.88 lb ai/A, and dimethenamid-P plus pendimethalin (FreeHand 1.75G) at 2.65, 5.30 and 10.6 lb ai/A] were applied on June 28 (T-1) and August 4 (T-2). For all treatments and timings, Clethra and Cornus had injury ratings <0.7. After T-1, minor injury was observed on Hydrangea treated with FreeHand and on Tsuga treated with Tower. At 3 WAT-2, Hydrangea treated with the highest dose of FreeHand had an injury rating of 2.0, and Tsuga treated with the highest dose of Tower had an injury rating of 1.8.
68
POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF MONOCOTYLEDONOUS WEEDS IN SELECTED CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS. A.F. Senesac*, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY (70)
ABSTRACT
Certain container grown ornamental crops are vulnerable to invasion from monocotyledonous weeds such as yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) and annual grasses. In 2011, a local commercial nursery growing hydrangea cultivars and perennials such as Achillea millefolium 'Moonshine' and Perovskia atriplicifolia ‘Little Spire’ became heavily infested with these weeds shortly after the crops were transplanted outdoors. Yellow nutsedge was the most severe weed species, however, several annual grasses such as fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) were also very competitive. Bentazon can be an effective management tool of yellow nutsedge. Some historical data indicates a level of tolerance to bentazon from some these ornamentals. Fenoxaprop-P and sethoxydim were evaluated for post emergence control of the annual grasses. The trial was conducted at a commercial nursery on Long Island, NY. Spray treatments were applied on July 8, 2011 and again on July 20, 2011. Treatments were applied over the top with standard CO2 backpack equipment. Bentazon was evaluated at 0.375 and 0.5 lbs a.i./A with and without 0.5% methylated seed oil. Fenoxaprop-P and sethoxydim were evaluated at 0.373 lbs a.i./A, alone and with bentazon. Visual evaluation of crop response and control efficacy was recorded four times after treatment.
The results indicate that the hydrangea cultivars tested were severely injured by all rates and combinations of bentazon. Perovskia was well tolerated by all treatments. Achillea was moderately injured by bentazon, but tolerated sethoxydim well.
Yellow nutsedge was well controlled by both rates of bentazon even without adjuvant. Annual grass control was excellent with sethoxydim or fenoxaprop-P.
These results suggest that bentazon is not a good candidate for registration as an over the top treatment on modern hydrangea cultivars. However, further testing on the two perennial species appears to be warranted.
69
SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF MULCH AND MULCH / HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS IN PANSY BEDS. J.C. Neal*, C. Harlow, and B. Fair, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (71)
ABSTRACT
The safety and efficacy of mulches and mulch / herbicide combinations were evaluated in pansy (Viola x wittrockiana ‘Giant Yellow’). Prior to planting the field bed was rototilled and fertilizer incorporated at a rate of 1 lb N per 1000 sq. ft. On November 11, 2010, five pansy plants, grown in 18-cell packs, were planted in the center of each sq meter plot. After planting, mulches and herbicides were applied. Treatments included: Bare soil and no treatment, bare soil treated with Preen (trifluralin 1.47G) @ 4 lb ai/A, composted leaf mulch, triple shredded hardwood bark, Pine straw +/- Preen, pine bark mulch +/- Snapshot TG (trifluralin + isoxaben 2.5G), black dyed wood chips (Bella Vista) or black dyed wood chips impregnated with 0.0033% trifluralin + 0.00008% isoxaben (Preen Plus Mulch). Each mulch was applied to a depth of one inch (= one cubic foot of mulch per sq m). Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. In a separate area, these treatments were repeated in the absence of pansy plants for weed control evaluations. Additional treatments included in the efficacy experiment were pine bark mulch top dressed with 2.65 lb ai/A Freehand (dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin 1.75G) or 3 lb ai/A Pendulum 2G and wood chips impregnated with trifluralin (Bella Vista with Weed Block). In both tests, henbit plants per plot were counted in March and April. Weeds were hand-removed from the pansy test to minimize competition. Pansy plant quality was visually evaluated monthly in the spring on a 0 to 5 scale where 5 = the best plants in the test and 0 = all plants dead. Pansy flowers were counted on March 2nd and April 4, 2011. Similar to prior reports, pine straw reduced pansy growth and flowering compared to non-treated plants. Snapshot applied at 3.75 lb ai/A also reduced pansy flowering and growth. Triple shredded hardwood bark mulch reduced early season pansy vigor and final fresh weight, but did not reduce flower counts. Herbicide impregnated mulches did not reduce pansy growth or flowering. Henbit control was good with all herbicide and herbicide + mulch combinations. Pine straw, pine bark, leaf mulch and hardwood bark reduced henbit populations greater than did wood chip mulches alone.
70
TOLERANCE OF CONIFERS TO MESOTRIONE ALONE OR COMBINED WITH OTHER HERBICIDES. J.F. Ahrens* and T.L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT (72)
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted in 2011 with mesotrione alone and in combination with other herbicides at The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Valley Laboratory in Windsor, CT. The soil type is a sandy loam with about 4% organic matter. Six conifer species [white spruce (Picea glauca), Colorado spruce (Picea pungens), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) and white pine (Pinus strobus)] were planted between April 19 and April 21. White pines were 3-year seedlings (3-0), and all other conifers were 4-year transplants (2-2). Plots were 6 ft by 26 ft. Each plot contained five plants of each species, spaced 1.5 ft apart in two rows spaced 3 ft apart. The five herbicide treatments and the control were replicated four times in a RCBD. Herbicides were applied with a CO2-powered backpack sprayer, equipped with four TeeJet 8003VS nozzles and calibrated to deliver 30 gal / A at 28 psi. The treatments included mesotrione 4F (Tenacity) alone at 0.187 and 0.374 lb ai / A, and mesotrione 4F at 0.187 lb ai / A plus either s-metolachlor (Pennant Magnum) at 1.91 lb ai / A, prodiamine (Barricade 65 WG) at 0.65 lb ai / A, or fluazifop-p-butyl (Fusilade DX) at 0.5 lb ai / A. A non-ionic surfactant (Induce) was added to each treatment at 0.25% v/v. The controls were sprayed with water plus surfactant. Treatments were applied over active conifer growth and weeds on June 27 and again on July 26. Weed species prevalence in each plot was rated on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being few, 2 being several, and 3 being many weeds, before each application. Control of individual weeds was rated at 4 weeks after each treatment, on a scale of 0 to10, with 0 as no control and 10 as complete control. Injury to the conifers was rated at several intervals during the season on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no injury and 10 being dead plants. Fertilizer (10-10-10) was applied at the rate of 400 lb per acre on June 1, about 6 weeks after planting. Although 2011 was much wetter than normal, July was quite dry and we irrigated twice, applying about 0.5 inch of water each time. The June 27 application was made on dry foliage, but on July 26 foliage of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) was still wet with dew. The primary goal of this experiment was to evaluate conifer tolerances during their active growth. As a result, the weeds were mostly too large for optimal susceptibility to mesotrione, although carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata) and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) were highly susceptible to all the treatments. The best control of large crabgrass was with mesotrione plus fluazifop-p-butyl. Mortality was high for some of the conifer species (even in control plots), but none of the treatments caused significant injury to any of the conifers.
71
FRUIT TREE TOLERANCE TO ALION™ HERBICIDE. M. Mahoney*, D. Unland, and B. DeWeese, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (73)
ABSTRACT
Bayer CropScience has registered indaziflam (trade name Alion) for preemergence weed control in pome fruit, stone fruit, citrus, tree nuts and pistachios. Two years of crop tolerance studies in pome and stone fruit indicate no adverse indaziflam effects on yield, trunk growth and shoot growth at 10 and 20 oz/acre Alion per year.
72
THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M. Arsenovic*, D. Kunkel, and J. Baron, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (74)
ABSTRACT
The IR-4 Project is a publicly funded effort to support the registration of pest control products on specialty crops. The IR-4 Project continues to meet specialty-crop grower’s needs for weed control options despite the challenges of a mature market for herbicides and the selectivity of specialty crops to many of the more-recently-introduced herbicides. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act continues to effect IR-4 submissions and EPA reviews of packages. IR-4 submitted herbicide petitions to the EPA from October 2010 to October 2011 for: Sulfentrazone use on turnip, rhubarb, Wheat (PNW only), Sunflower subgroup 20B.From October 2010 through October 2011, EPA has published Notices of Filing in the Federal Register for: Clopyralid on apple, Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B, Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except gold of pleasure, Pendimethalin on leaf lettuce, Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B, turnip greens, Melon subgroup 9A, Soybean, vegetable, succulent, Fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E;Rimsulfuron on Caneberry subgroup 13-07A and Bushberry subgroup 13-07B; Rimsulfuron on chicory; Rimsulfuron + thifensulfuron-methyl on chicory; S-metolachlor on cilantro and garden beet leaves; Paraquat on Perennial Tropical and Sub-tropical Fruit Trees; Quizalofop-p-ethyl on sorghum (grain), and Rapeseed subgroup 20A. EPA established tolerances from October 2010 to October 2011for: Dicamba +2,4-D on teff; Fomesafen on pepper (bell and non-bell), potato, and tomato; Sulfentrazone on Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A, Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B, vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, melon subgroup 9A, pea succulent, Strawberry, and flax, and Triflusulfuron-methyl on garden beet.
73
SWEET CORN WEED CONTROL: NO-TILL, NO ATRAZINE, NO WAY? D.D. Lingenfelter*, M.J. VanGessel, B.A. Scott, and Q. Johnson, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (75)
ABSTRACT
Atrazine continues to be a very effective yet economical herbicide for broadleaf weed control in sweet corn, yet it is not without controversy for various reasons. Many growers have inquired about herbicide programs that allow flexibility for successional crops. Furthermore, glufosinate-resistant sweet corn varieties are expected to be registered soon, allowing over-the-top glufosinate applications and shorter crop rotation intervals. Also, as more producers are using no-till farming techniques for vegetable production, herbicide programs plays a key role in effective weed management. Research evaluating non-atrazine herbicide programs and glufosinate in no-till sweet corn is very limited.
Field studies were conducted in 2011 at two locations, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania and Georgetown, Delaware, to examine various herbicide programs in no-till sweet corn (Zea mays succharata, var. ‘BC0805’) that contain either atrazine or non-atrazine alternatives to determine their effectiveness on annual weed control. PRE and PRE fb POST programs were evaluated. PRE only treatments included: s-metolachlor + atrazine + mesotrione premix (2.47 lb ai/A); s-metolachlor + atrazine premix (2.9 lb) and pendimethalin (1.43 lb); s-metolachlor + mesotrione premix (1.83 lb); and dimethenamid-P + saflufenacil premix (0.65 lb); whereas, s-metolachlor + atrazine premix (2.2 lb); s-metolachlor + mesotrione premix (1.83 lb); dimethenamid-P + saflufenacil premix (0.65 lb); s-metolachlor (1.6 lb); and pyroxasulfone (0.133 lb) were applied PRE followed by a POST application of one or a combination of the following herbicides: topramezone (0.0164 lb); glufosinate (0.4 lb); atrazine (0.5 lb); foramsulfuron (0.033 lb); and 2,4-D (0.25 lb). Necessary adjuvants were included in the POST spray mixtures. Visual weed control evaluations were taken periodically throughout the growing period. Sweet corn yield data and crop phytotoxicity ratings were also collected (data not included). Small-plot studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications.
At Rock Springs, evaluations just prior to the POST application revealed that PRE acetamide-only herbicide treatments provided approximately 83% control of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria); however in PRE treatments that included atrazine or an HPPD- or PPO-inhibitor, control of these same species was ≥95%. Late season ratings show that control from PRE only treatments provided 63-92% control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and fall panicum (Panicum dichitomiflorum), whereas the PRE fb POST treatments increased control of these species to 90-96%. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control ranged from 78-94% and 91-97% for the PRE only and the PRE fb POST treatments, respectively. All treatments provided 89-97% control of velvetleaf and smooth pigweed. At both locations, treatments provided 91-100% control of common lambsquarters. Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control ranged from 58-92% for the total PRE treatments at both locations and the two-pass programs provided 92-96% control at Rock Springs and 83-97% control at Georgetown. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control at Georgetown ranged from 78-100% across treatments whereas annual morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.) control was 53-87%.
In summary, atrazine does improve control of certain weed species (as is well documented through various research) and is still a very effective yet economical herbicide for broadleaf weed control in sweet corn, including no-till systems. However, depending on weed species present, reducing the rate of atrazine or eliminating it could be possible if there are concerns about carryover to rotational crops, especially vegetables, and cover crops following field or sweet corn production. Problems with atrazine residues causing injury to rotational crops varies depending on use rates, soil types, rainfall, and other environmental conditions. However,
74
simply replacing atrazine with another product such as an HPPD- or PPO-inhibiting herbicide will not necessarily eliminate the aforementioned concerns. Several of these types of products have stringent crop rotation restrictions as well. Once registered, glufosinate may have a good fit in sweet corn production.
75
SULFENTRAZONE FOR LIMA BEANS: ARE WE CHARGING FORWARD? M.J. VanGessel*, B.A. Scott, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (76)
ABSTRACT
ALS-resistant smooth pigweed infestations have been documented in a number of the processing lima bean fields in Delaware. These resistant biotypes have been very problematic to manage since broadleaf weed control options are limited. Furthermore, infestations of Palmer amaranth have been identified in Delaware, a species prone to developing resistance. The options for Amaranthus spp. control are either Group 2 herbicides or bentazon which is not effective for Amaranthus control. Growers are often relying on wiper application of glyphosate to control Amaranthus species prior to harvest. In 2011, FMC supported a 24c label for the use of sulfentrazone (Charge Charge) as a preemergence herbicide in lima beans. A series of trials with similar treatments have been conducted in 2010 and 2011 examining lima bean safety and Amaranthus control with sulfentrazone. Sulfentrazone use rates in lima bean are lower rates than used for soybeans. Two trials were conducted in 2010 and one in 2011 at the UD Research and Education Center on sandy loam soils with overhead irrigation. Core treatments were similar for the three trials. Treatments included sulfentrazone alone at 0.0312, 0.07, 0.094, 0.14, and 0.187 lbs ai/A, and an untreated check. Also, two trials included sulfentrazone at 0.07 or 0.094 applied with s-metolachlor (1.5 lbs ai/A), and in 2011, s-metolachlor (1.5 lbs ai/A) plus imazethapyr (0.02 lbs ai/A) was included. Treatments were applied within 24 hrs of planting and irrigation was applied prior to lima bean emergence. Data collected included stand counts, number of malformed seedlings, visual lima bean injury or stunting, pigweed control (smooth pigweed and Palmer amaranth), yield, and yield components.
Lima bean injury did vary by site and evaluation date. Lima bean injury was similar for 0.0312 to 0.09 lbs ai/A at all rating dates, except for the site in 2011when there was a significant difference between 0.07 and 0.09 lbs ai/A. Ratings for rates of 0.09 lbs ai/A or less were ≤8% at 3 weeks after treatment.
Parameters for stand counts, yield, and yield components were similar across the three trials. Stand counts and number of malformed seedlings were not different for sulfentrazone treatments. There were no differences for yield/A, number of pods per 4 plants, and number of plump, flat, and dry pods. Amaranthus control did not differ between sites. There were no significant differences between 0.07 and 0.09 lbs ai/A with ratings at least 78%. Control was similar at 3 and 5 WAT with these two rates. Amaranthus control improved at higher rates. The optimum sulfentrazone rate range for weed control and crop safety on loamy sand soil is 0.07 to 0.09 lbs ai/A. Lima bean injury increases with rates above 0.09 lbs ai/A, requiring uniform and careful application. However, early-season lima bean injury did not significantly impact yield or yield components.
76
PREEMERGENT COMBINATIONS OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILD BLUEBERRY FIELDS. D.E. Yarborough* and J.L. D'Appollonio, University of Maine, Orono, ME (77)
ABSTRACT
A study to assess the effects of pre-emergence herbicide combinations on wild blueberry cover, phytotoxicity, and broadleaf and grass weed cover was conducted using an RCBD design with 6 replications: a check (C), the industry standard hexazinone (2.4 lbs a.i./gal) 1 lb/a + surfactant 1 qt/a (S), terbacil 2 lb/a (T), terbacil 2 lb/a + mesotrione 6 oz/a (TM), terbacil 2 lb/a + rimsulfuron 4 oz/a (TR), terbacil 2 lb/a + linuron 2 lb/a (TL), terbacil 2 lb/a + linuron 2 lb/a + diuron 2 lb/a (TLD), terbacil 2 lb/a + hexazinone 1 lb/a + diuron 2 lb/a (THD), halosulfuron 1 oz/a (H), rimsulfuron 4 oz/a (R), and indaziflam at 5 and 10 oz/a (I). The treatments were applied on 18 May 2011 and plots were evaluated approximately 1, 2 and 3 months post-treatment. All data were analyzed using a nonparametric median two-sample exact test with α=0.05; treatments were compared individually to C and S. In June, the TM and TL treatments had significantly higher blueberry cover than the check. In July, only TL blueberry cover was significantly higher than the C and S. By August blueberry cover in all the T treatments was comparable to the C or S. Phytotoxicity, observed primarily as chlorosis, was <10% in all T treatments across all evaluation times. In June, only TLD was higher than C, and none differed from S. In July T, TLD, THD treatments had greater phytotoxicity compared to the C but, TR had significantly less compared to S. By August no T treatment exhibited any phytotoxicity and TM and TL were not different at any evaluation. Broadleaf weed cover was reduced in all T treatments except T vs. C in June, while all except T and TR had lower broadleaf weed cover compared to S. By July, only TLD and THD suppressed broadleaf weeds compared to C, and THD was significantly lower than S. By August, there were no longer differences in T treatments compared to C or S and only TLD and THD had lower broadleaf weed cover. T was not different at any evaluation. Grass cover was low overall in June, and only TR and THD at 0% were reduced compared to C or S. By August, grass cover in all T treatments was significantly reduced compared to C or S except for TM which was higher than S. In June, both I treatments and H had lower blueberry cover than the C or S. In July there were no differences between I, H, or R treatments and the C or S. By August, blueberry cover in the low I treatment had declined until it was lower than S. Cover for R was not significantly different at any evaluation. The initial reduction in blueberry cover was due to significantly high levels of phytotoxicity in I and H treatments compared to the C and S, observed primarily as stunting with some chlorosis. R also showed significantly greater phytotoxicity, but was relatively minor. In July, phytotoxicity as stunting was <10% but was still significantly greater than the C or S in I and H treatments. By August, there was no longer any observable stunting or chlorosis in any of the treatments. Both I treatments significantly suppressed broadleaf weeds compared to the C in June, and the high I treatment was also lower than S. By July, only broadleaf weed cover in the high I treatment remained lower than C or S, while H and R became higher than C and S. By August there were no differences among any of the 4 treatments and C or S but all had more broadleaf weed cover than the C. R was not significantly different at any evaluation. Grass cover in I and H treatments was significantly greater than S in June. In July, I treatments had increased in grass cover until they were significantly higher than C or S, but H was no longer different. By August, low I and H were significantly lower than S. R was not significantly different at any evaluation.
77
INJURY FROM DELAYED APPLICATIONS OF DICHLOBENIL ON FOUR CRANBERRY VARIETIES. H.A. Sandler*, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA (78)
ABSTRACT
Dodder management protocols dictate that effective applications of dichlobenil be made prior to seedling emergence. Dichlobenil applications are typically applied in May, with most going out during the second and third week of the month. Research has indicated that dodder has an extended germination period in cranberry; it starts typically in mid-April and may continue through June. Dichlobenil applications made in May are likely not effective against these late-emerging populations. There is concern, however, that applications made late in May and/or in June will cause vine injury. Growers are reluctant to apply dichlobenil at this time of year even though dodder seedlings are continuing to germinate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the injury and yield response of cranberry vines to dichlobenil applications made in May and June.
In both 2009 and 2010, four distinct commercial cranberry sites in the vicinity of Wareham, MA, were selected, each planted in one of four common cranberry varieties: Ben Lear (BL), Stevens (ST), Early Black (EB) and Howes (H). Dichlobenil was applied, using a hand-held shaker, to 1 x 2 m plots arranged in a RCBD with 5 replicates. Treatments were made as single applications made on a weekly schedule, starting in early May and continuing to mid-June. Growth stage assessments were made at each application date. A high (67 kg/ha) and low (45 kg/ha) herbicide rate, typically used for dodder control, was applied at all timing intervals.
Injury ratings were visually assessed in the year of treatment and the year following treatment. Injury ratings were based on ease of spotting the injury (denoted by yellow vine symptoms) and by how prevalent the damage was in the plot. Yield was collected in the year of treatment by harvesting all fruit within a randomly placed 930-cm2 quadrat. The EB site was harvested (commercially) before the fruit could be collected (2009 and 2010), so yield data are not available for EB. Fruit were counted, assessed for any damage and weighed by the last week of October in each year.
Ben Lear vines exhibited stress symptoms in both years and Stevens vines showed stress in one year. No phytotoxicity was noted for Early Blacks or Howes. Data indicate that applications made during growth spurts have the potential to cause the most injury. In all cases, visual symptoms abated by the end of the season. No impact on yield (weight of fruit per unit area) was detected. Data from the present study can guide management decisions for dodder control to a limited extent. However, longer studies are needed to fully evaluate the repetitive use of dichlobenil on cranberry vines and yield production. Further work is also needed to document efficacy of delayed applications of dichlobenil.
78
THE SWALLOW-WORTS: WHERE TO NEXT? A. DiTommaso*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (79)
ABSTRACT
Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench. [Cynanchum louiseae Kartesz & Gandhi] (black swallow-wort) and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar. [Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi] (pale swallow-wort) are herbaceous perennial vines in the Apocynaceae (subfamily Asclepiadoideae) native to Europe. Both species are considered invasive in their introduced ranges in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada, where they form dense stands, especially in high light environments such as old fields and field-woodland ecotones. These Vincetoxicum species were introduced into North America in the late 1800s, likely as ornamentals, and soon after escaped cultivation. Numerous rare and sensitive plant and animal species have been negatively impacted by these two invasives since their introduction including the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus L., whose natural plant host and food source the native perennial herb Asclepias syriaca (common milkweed) may be displaced from areas where the species co-occur. The two Vincetoxicum species can also serve as population sinks for monarchs – attracting and stimulating female monarch oviposition despite their unsuitability for larval development. We have learned much about the biology, ecology, and management of these two invasive vines during the last decade of active work by several researchers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. We currently have a much better understanding of those factors that allow for their successful establishment and spread including seedling survival, vegetative expansion, and effects of allelochemicals and competition on the resident vegetation and microbial soil community for example. We have also learned much about managing these two invasive vines using herbicidal, cultural, and/or biological tactics. Despite these important knowledge gains during the past decade, research on these two Vincetoxicum species needs to remain active as it is likely that the two species will continue to expand their North American range in the coming years and negatively impact susceptible ecosystems in additional regions.
79
PALE AND BLACK SWALLOW-WORT GROWTH AND SURVIVAL IN NEW YORK STATE. K.M. Averill* and A. DiTommaso, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (80)
ABSTRACT
The invasive swallow-wort species [Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar. and V. nigrum (L.) Moench] pose challenges for land managers, as the species increase their ranges and invade new areas in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. Communicating current knowledge on the establishment, seasonal vegetative expansion, seasonal fecundity, and survival of swallow-wort plants will aid managers confronted with these invasive perennial vines. Data are based on demographic studies across 9 field locations in New York State, 3 of which included both old-field and forest habitats. Pale swallow-wort establishment ranged from 1.6% to 15% during 2 growing seasons following sowing. Establishment varied based on site and, to a lesser degree, on the level of pre-existing site disturbance. Survival of mature swallow-wort plants was nearly perfect (99.6 -100%) during 4 growing seasons. Mature pale swallow-wort individuals increased in number of stems per plant more rapidly in old-field habitats (60% yr-1) than in forested habitats (5% yr-1) across 3 locations and 4 years. Mature black swallow-wort individuals increased in number of stems by 42% yr-1. Pale swallow-wort fecundity in old-field habitats (130 seeds stem-1 yr-1) was generally greater than in forested habitats (45 seeds stem-1 yr-1), but was highly dependent on location. Black swallow-wort fecundity was approximately 100 seeds stem-1 yr-1 across all 3 locations. Understanding differences in swallow-wort survival, growth, and fecundity between species and across locations will provide new managers of these invasive species with baselines from which to gauge the necessary management approaches.
80
APPROACHES FOR SWALLOW-WORT CONTROL - DECIDING HOW TO BEGIN. N.P. Cain* and T.L. Mervosh, Cain Vegetation, Acton, ON (81)
ABSTRACT
Pale swallow-wort (PSW) [Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopov) Borhidi or Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopov) Barbar.], an invasive perennial in the milkweed family, has invaded many woody and herbaceous ecosystems and rights-of-way in south central and eastern Ontario and is spreading in New England. Only one herbicide, imazapyr (Arsenal, Habitat, etc.), lists swallow-wort among weeds controlled. PSW requires a whole-site management approach using herbicides for effective reduction of the weed. Our objectives are to identify herbicide treatments that control PSW with minimal harm to perennial grasses, forest tree species and other plants.
Four forestry trials in southern Ontario evaluated various herbicide programs for PSW control. The sites were a moderately-infested white pine stand in the Durham County Forest near Whitby and a heavily-infested red pine forest on Crown lands in Orono. The Durham Forest trial compared two triclopyr (Release) and two glyphosate (Vantage Forestry) programs treated in 2008 and 2009. A second 2009 trial, evaluated imazapyr (Arsenal) treatments compared with glyphosate. A third trial treated in 2009 and 2010 evaluated a two-year triclopyr program. The Orono forest trial, treated in 2009 and 2010, compared two triclopyr and two glyphosate programs with imazapyr. Imazapyr treatments provided one to two-season control of established PSW, depending on the level of infestation and seed bank. Glyphosate applied twice one year and once the following year, provided excellent control of established and seedling plants. Similarly, two applications of triclopyr provided good to fair control of PSW at the Durham site and more consistent control at Orono.
A PSW control experiment was initiated in 2007 at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge on Mt. Tom, near Holyoke, MA. Herbicide treatments were sprayed over plots on June 15; some plots were sprayed again on August 29. Treatments consisted of imazapic (Plateau), metsulfuron (Escort XP), triclopyr (Garlon 3A), triclopyr plus metsulfuron, glyphosate (Accord Concentrate), and triclopyr (June 15) plus glyphosate (August 29). Imazapic and low dose of metsulfuron had little effect on PSW growth in 2008. The other herbicides provided greater reduction in PSW cover and total pod weights when applied twice. Triclopyr applied once at 1.13 lb/A ae reduced PSW pod weight by 66% and had a control rating (0 to 10) of 7.0 in August 2008; the same dose applied twice reduced pods by 87% with a control rating of 8.3. Glyphosate applied once at 1.0 lb/A ae reduced PSW pod weight by 71% and had a control rating of 7.8; the same dose applied twice reduced pods by 97% with a control rating of 9.5.
Single treatments of imazapyr and programs of glyphosate or triclopyr provide effective PSW control. Triclopyr and imazapyr use is limited in forests with desirable understory species or hardwood saplings. Triclopyr provides selective control of PSW among grasses and other monocots. The choice of herbicide program for PSW control depends on the desirable species, the future use of the site and planting intentions.
81
SWALLOW-WORT (VINCETOXICUM SPP.) BIOLOGICAL CONTROL UPDATE. L.R. Milbrath*, USDA-ARS, Ithaca, NY (82)
ABSTRACT
Pale swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum rossicum = Cynanchum rossicum) and black swallow-wort (V. nigrum = C. louiseae) are herbaceous, perennial, viny milkweeds introduced from Europe (Apocynaceae-subfamily Asclepiadoideae). Both species are becoming increasingly invasive in a variety of natural and managed habitats in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada, especially New York State, southern New England, and Ontario. Mechanical control has been ineffective. Chemical control can be effective but expensive due to repeat applications, and non-target damage from either approach is a concern in natural areas. Biological control is considered the only long-term control option for swallow-worts. Although little to no damage by arthropods, diseases, or vertebrates has been reported to occur in North America on swallow-worts, some potentially specialized natural enemies of Vincetoxicum spp. are known from Europe. Therefore, identifying host-specific biological control agents appears promising. To date, several potential agents associated with Vincetoxicum spp. have been collected in Europe and Asia. Different species of Chrysochus leaf beetles, which possess a root-feeding larval stage, are potentially quite damaging to the plants, but based on host-range tests appear to present a risk to some native milkweeds. In contrast, defoliating moths in the genus Abrostola appear mostly specific to swallow-worts. However, swallow-wort in open fields is fairly tolerant of defoliation damage, so the moths’ efficacy is questionable. Additional natural enemies have yet to be assessed, such as the pathogen Colletotrichum lineola, a leaf anthracnose, and a seed-pod infesting fly, Euphranta connexa, and foreign surveys are continuing. The recent discovery of the pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii attacking pale swallow-wort in New York may offer potential as a bio-herbicide if it can be demonstrated that this isolate has a restricted host range. Plant demography models are being developed to identify potentially effective guilds of natural enemies, and they may indicate the need for an integrated approach to swallow-wort management.
82
GOATSRUE CONTROL PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo*, J. Zoschg, L. Ross, and I.D. Bowers, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (83)
ABSTRACT
Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) is a federally listed noxious weed with limited nationwide distribution. The largest site is a county in Utah, which in 1981 reported 38,000 acres (60 square miles) of infested cropland, irrigation waterways, pastures, fence lines, roadways and wet, marshy areas. Goatsrue is capable of forming a monoculture in wetland communities, displacing native or beneficial plants. Goatsrue is also fatal to most animals if ingested, particularly to sheep and cattle. In 1981 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared goatsrue a federal noxious weed and targeted it for eradication. Since then, USDA has been working cooperatively with state agencies to identify populations and limit any further spread of this federal noxious weed. The Utah State University and Utah Agricultural Experimental Station have conducted numerous studies on the biology, ecology and control of goatsrue in the United States.
Goatsrue was discovered in Pennsylvania at six locations in 1998 as a result of the USDA surveys. Three of these locations were in McKean County and goatsrue was added to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) Noxious Weed Control List in 2000. Additional surveys in 2009 identified more goatsrue populations were emerging throughout McKean County in the vicinity of Smethport. PDA responded and began intensively surveying the county in the fall of 2009. The surge in the number of sites appears related to the dredging of the town's Hamlin Lake and the subsequent dispersal of goatsrue seed that was in the lake dredgings. It is unknown when the goatsrue was planted in the vicinity of the lake and no data has been found to suggest it was a recent occurrence. Since its discovery, the PDA has assisted property owners in the affected counties with control measures to prevent the flowering, and further spread of this noxious weed. As of 2011, less than 7,000 square feet of infested roadside ditches, meadows, and streams are known from 8 sites in Cameron, Potter and Montgomery Counties. Less than a ½ acre has been found in Elk County, along forest roads in the Alleghany National Forest and Elk State Forest. These sites are being targeted for complete eradication.
In McKean County, approximately 43 acres of goatsrue has been discovered. The infestations can be found along roadside ditches, driveways, cropland meadows, and edges of waterways (streams, lakes, rivers) on 169 properties in 11 municipalities throughout. Thirty-six sites are state owned, 30 sites are municipality owned, 2 sites are federally owned and 101 sites are privately owned. These sites are being targeted by the PDA Noxious Weed program and partners for containment, and on a site-by-site basis, for eradication. Since the program began in the fall of 2009 at least 85% if not more of the known locations have been prevented from producing new seed once detected. In 2011, The PDA field staff extensively surveyed this counties back roads, watercourses and private lanes with few additional discoveries. Field results in 2011 indicate that once new seed production has been prevented, the surface seedbank is rapidly being depleted at these sites over consecutive years of chemical treatment. This is encouraging and landowners are confident that continued control measures will prevent further expansion- with the exception of the sites where seasonal high water scouring, due mostly to intensive periods of heavy rainfall, continues to spread seeds further in infested ditches and streams.
83
COMPARISON OF HERBICIDES FOR EARLY SEASON CONTROL OF MILE-A-MINUTE AND IMPACT ON NON-TARGET VEGETATION. A.E. Gover* and J.L. Huffman, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (84)
ABSTRACT
Pendimethalin is the current preferred herbicide for selective PRE suppression of mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum L., POLPF) in Pennsylvania state parks due to efficacy and minimal impact to established non-target species. Pendimethalin is not effective when seed germination has occurred, and is not labeled for use in wetland settings. An experiment was established in a floodplain at Bald Eagle State Park in Howard, PA, on April 21, 2011, to evaluate alternative treatments for selective suppression of mile-a-minute and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus var. imberbe (Nees) Honda, MCGVM), which were both beginning to emerge. Soil temperatures were 17, 11, and 9 C at 2.5, 7.5, and 15 cm deep, respectively. Treatments included pendimethalin at 4.4 kg/ha, imazapic at 0.18 kg/ha alone or added to pendimethalin at 4.4 kg/ha, prodiamine at 1.6 kg/ha, or oryzalin at 4.5 kg/ha; and flumioxazin at 0.29 or 0.43 kg/ha. A methylated seed oil surfactant was added to treatments containing imazapic or flumioxazin, at 0.5 percent, v/v. Imazapic was added to see if it would provide enough activity to control germinated seedlings without causing injury to established plants. Flumioxazin has contact and residual activity, and aquatic labeling. Treatments were applied in a carrier volume of 190 L/ha to a 2.3 by 4.6 m area in a 3.8 by 4.6 m plot, leaving a 1.5 by 4.6 m untreated strip in each plot. The plots were arranged in a randomized complete block with three replications. Data collected included visual ratings of total cover, and POLPF and MCGVM reduction on May 24; percent total, POLPF, and MCGVM cover on July 29; and dry weight of POLPF, MCGVM, and the combination of all remaining species on August 17, 2011. POLPF was harvested from the entire plot, and the other samples were collected from a 0.5 m2 subplot. For each plot, data were collected separately from the treated and untreated portions. Data were subjected to analysis of variance, and separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD.
POLPF pressure was light, averaging 3.7 g/m2 in untreated plots, and 0.1 g/m2 in treated plots. Common non-target species were boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum L.), goldenrod species (Solidago spp.), American burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius (L.) Raf. ex DC.), beggarslice (Hackelia virginiana (L.) I.M. Johnston), and several sedge (Carex spp.) species. Suppression of MCGVM was the only significant treatment effect at the end of the season, with imazapic alone averaging 192 g/m2, pendimethalin alone 66 g/m2, and all other treatments averaging 1.6 g/m2 or less. The primary difference between the July and August data was an apparent increase in the proportion of stiltgrass in plots treated with pendimethalin alone from July to August.
The addition of imazapic did improve suppression from pendimethalin, and in combination with prodiamine or oryzalin provided equal suppression to the pendimethalin combination. The imazapic rate was low enough to enhance suppression from pendimethalin without causing reduction in non-target species biomass. Flumioxazin provided excellent suppression of POLPF and MCGVM, and the contact activity was transient enough to cause no reduction in non-target or total biomass.
84
F9007: A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN PASTURE AND WHEAT. J.P. Reed*, T.W. Mize, G.G. Stratman, and B.A. Neuberger, FMC, North Little Rock, AR (85)
ABSTRACT
F9007 is a new proprietary herbicide comprised of the active ingredients, carfentrazone and metsulfuron for use in pastures and wheat to control broadleaf weeds. F9007 is formulated as a 35% dry flowable (DF) with excellent characteristics such as practically no volatility and no grazing or haying restriction. F9007 herbicide (aka Marshal) requires use of an Non-Ionic Surfactant and under hotter, drier conditions a COC or MSO adjuvant has shown more country. Research trials conducted by FMC and Universities with F9007 have shown rates in pasture, range from 1 oz F9007 product/A (0.022 lbs ai/A) to 2 oz F9007 product/A (0.044 lbs ai/A) with higher rates used for taller, larger broadleaf weeds. In wheat, trials have demonstrated 0.4 oz F9007 product/A (0.0044 lbs ai/A) as the highest rate needed for control and excellent crop safety. Excellent safety was observed in fescue, Bermuda grass and grass mixtures by all rates of F9007 tested in grass pastures. No rate response by F9007 was observed in controlling spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.) while a slight rate response was observed in controlling woolly croton (Crotalaria capitatus) and groundsel (Senecio spp.) and other annual broadleaves. Rate responses by F9007 were observed in control of various thistle species providing comparable or superior control with consistently greater speed of control. The addition of 2,4-D LVE (0.5 lbs ai/A) enhanced control of taller western ragweed and speedwell spp. (Veronica spp.) while horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) control was unaffected or reduced. Semi-woody species such as Lespedeza sericea, marshelder (Iva annua), brambles (Rubus spp), narrow leaf cudweed (Gnaphium falcatum) and multi-floral rose (Rosa multiflora) as well as vines such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Virgina creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolium) are easily controlled when applications are made to newer, green woody growth up to flowering. Last, F9007 at lower rates provided comparable or superior control of leafy spurge, while higher rates provided superior leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) to standard herbicides.
85
ABSORPTION AND TRANSLOCATION OF 14C-AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN THREE AQUATIC SPECIES. R.L. Roten* and R.J. Richardson, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (86)
ABSTRACT
Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate 14C-aminocyclopyrachlor absorption and translocation in alligatorweed, water hyacinth, and water lettuce. Alligatorweed plants were treated at the seven-node stage, water hyacinth was treated at the five-leaf stage, while water lettuce was treated at the eight-leaf stage. All plants were oversprayed with non-labeled aminocyclopyrachlor at a rate of 0.14 kg ai/ha with 1% MSO. 14C-aminocyclopyrachlor was then applied to a protected leaf, and plants were harvested at 1, 2, 4, 12, 24, and 96 HAT. Radioactivity was determined in the treated leaf, shoots above treated leaf, shoots below treated leaf, roots, and growing solution. Absorption was 17 and 79% in alligatorweed at 1 and 96 HAT, respectively. Absorption was 59% or greater at all harvest times for water hyacinth and water lettuce. In alligatorweed at 96 HAT, 43% of absorbed 14C translocated to shoots above the treated leaf and 17% translocated to lower shoot tissue. Water hyacinth shoots above and below the treated leaf each contained 17% of absorbed 14C at 96 HAT. For water lettuce at 96 HAT, 53 and 36% of absorbed radioactivity was located above the treated leaf and in the growing solution, respectively.
86
TURION BIOLOGY OF MONOECIOUS HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA. R.J. Richardson* and S.T. Hoyle, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (87)
ABSTRACT
Since the discovery of Hydrilla verticillata in the United States, much research has been conducted to find weaknesses in its life cycle. Most of this work has been done on the dioecious form, which has historically been the most prevalent and problematic. However, the monoecious form is rapidly expanding in range and significant differences may exist in the biology of the two biotypes. Recent research at North Carolina State University into the dynamics of monoecious hydrilla tuber sprouting has revealed interesting, and sometimes surprising results. Growth chamber trials have indicated similarities in sprouting of both biotypes under temperature and light manipulation. Research has also been conducted to determine the effect on tuber sprouting under exposure to a range of pH, salinity, or herbicides. Tubers sprouted in solutions with pH between 4.0 and 10.0 with few differences in initial growth. Tubers exposed to a salinity level of 24 part per thousand for 2 weeks sprouted when placed into a solution of deionized water, but did not sprout under constant salinity exposure. It was also observed that monoecious hydrilla tubers have multiple axillary buds preformed within dormant tubers that are capable of producing secondary shoots even when the terminal shoot is removed. These findings can help refine management plans to best exploit weaknesses in the biology of monoecious hydrilla.
87
DIVERSIFICATION, SOIL QUALITY AND INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT. E. Gallandt*, University of Maine, Orono, ME (88)
ABSTRACT
Few crops can be grown without some form of direct weed control, usually seedling-focused, and usually achieved with application of herbicide, or cultivation. Where seedling density is low, and efficacy is high, competition from a well-managed crop will minimize yield loss, weed biomass and seed rain. This simple approach to weed management begins to fail, however, when efficacy is reduced, as is often the case for cultivation, or with herbicide resistant weeds. One solution is to focus efforts on new or alternative cultivation or herbicide options with a high level of efficacy. Another approach aims to exploit multiple stresses on weed populations to reduce seedling density and thus the requisite efficacy for herbicide or cultivation events.
The view that “Many Little Hammers” can impose stresses at multiple life-history stages of weeds and thereby reduce the burden of weed management placed on seedling control is increasingly accepted in the organic farming community. Organic farmers are often diverse and they share a philosophy that places soil quality as a priority area for management. Soil-improving management in particular adds diversification and opportunity to reduce the weed seedbank, multiple benefits that farmers value.
Our cover cropping component and systems experiments over the past ten years have included research on allelopathy or residue effects on seedling establishment, weed seed predation, weed/crop interference, weed seed rain, and seedbank dynamics. Cover crop diversification generally affects these processes in ways that benefit weed management efforts, but particular practices can result in high levels of weed seed rain. Organic farmers frequently cite crop rotation and cover cropping as important weed management practices, after cultivation. However, observation and on-farm weed seedbank data demonstrate that these practices do not guarantee successful weed management. Clearly, it is not diversification, but rather management that drives weed dynamics, and in this regard, context may be everything. Where weed seedbank densities are low, moderate cultivation efficacy, crop competition, seed predation, and perhaps green manuring to reduce the abundance of safe-sites, may result in acceptable weed control. However, these same practices, lacking positive density-dependent effects, will likely fail where an initial seedbank is extremely high. In this situation, successful weed management requires practices that deplete the seedbank and preempt seed rain. Simulation models and case studies of successful organic farmers support this conceptual framework that efficacy of multiple stresses should be considered over a range of realistic weed densities.
88
CLASHING PERSPECTIVES LIMIT IWM ADOPTION IN THE NORTHEAST. D.D. Lingenfelter*, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (89)
ABSTRACT
There are many reasons why farmers are not utilizing more integrated weed management (IWM) practices. These reasons can be traced to many factors that ultimately influence the grower’s decision to incorporate various weed management options into a cropping system. Farmer’s decisions are not only influenced by their own beliefs and circumstances but also agricultural service providers, regulatory agency rules, academic recommendations, and societal leanings. These perspectives often conflict and limit the adoption on IWM techniques in Northeastern cropping systems. Some of these forces are based on traditions or ideologies, while others are driven by larger factors outside the producer’s control. Certain clashes or misunderstandings could possibly be overcome with communication and education but other elements are more difficult to manage since economics, government policy, personal beliefs and individual circumstances, and agronomic factors are all entwined. As agriculturalists we need to start asking some questions to better direct the stewardship of our weed management resources. For example: “What currently drives IWM?”; “What are farmer’s doing now and what limits them from using more IWM?”; “How are companies marketing herbicides and seed traits to encourage (or discourage) product stewardship/longevity and IWM tactics?”; and “Are government programs helping or hindering this process?” These and other questions need to discussed and addressed if we are to better deal with the dynamic nature of weeds with more integrated approaches.
89
IWM: WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? J. Lindquist*, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (90)
ABSTRACT
Integrated Weed Management (IWM) has been defined in many ways and many times. It is not the objective on this presentation to redefine it. However, the core principles of IWM will be discussed and a description of how some of my research is relevant to IWM will be given.
90
INTERACTIONS THAT MATTER: IMPROVING EFFICACY WITH STRATEGIC COMBINATIONS OF CULTURAL WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. M.R. Ryan*, D. Mortensen, J. Teasdale, R.G. Smith, S. Mirsky, and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (91)
ABSTRACT
Integrated Weed Management (IWM) calls for the use of multiple practices, but determining which practices to combine is not entirely clear. Combining some practices can result in antagonistic effects, whereas others can interact synergistically. Although there is a rich body of literature on testing for synergism and antagonism between herbicides, relatively little attention has been given to developing systematic tests of multiple cultural, physical, and/or biological weed management practices. We introduce a straightforward protocol for systematically testing the combined effects of non-chemical weed management practices. This protocol is illustrated using data collected from an experiment that tested the effect of crop planting rate and winter rye mulch amount in no-till planted soybean. Increasing mulch and planting rate resulted in a synergistic interaction between practices, defined as a statistically significant, positive deviation from a multiplicative reference model. We speculate the increased mulch delayed weed seed germination, allowing soybean, which has a relatively large seed, to emerge, form a competitive canopy, and effectively preempt weeds. In addition to management practices whose effects act simultaneously, interactions between practices applied sequentially also have important implications for IWM. Empirically testing the effects of sequences of practices applied to different cohorts of weeds at different life stages can be challenging and has generally been done by modeling population dynamics. Because some weed management practices can be density dependent (i.e., efficacy is greater at lower densities), previously applied practices can affect the efficacy of subsequent practices. Although not necessarily a synergistic interaction, such interactions between density dependent practices are important and deserve recognition. Harnessing synergistic interactions between practices applied simultaneously and strategic sequences of practices that result in effective non-chemical weed control is a promising solution to weed management challenges associated with herbicide resistance and organic cropping systems. Future research should aim to develop methods and approaches to testing the weed-crop competition, population, and community level effects of interactions between cultural, physical, and biological management practices.
91
ARE ORGANIC FARMING AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE THE LAST HOPES FOR IWM? A VIEW FROM CANADA. S. Shirtliffe*, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK (92)
ABSTRACT
Integrated Weed Management has been advocated by the weed science community for over 20 years yet there appears to be little adoption. The objective of this talk is to highlight research recent results from our IWM studies in our lab and explore reasons why the perceived adoption of IWM has been low. Organic weed management is inherently difficult because of the prohibition of synthetic herbicides. Because of this, organic farmers rely mostly on cultural and mechanical weed control. We have found that by combining increased seeding rates, competitive crop cultivars and in-crop harrowing in organic oat that we have been able to reduce weed biomass by 70% compared to standard agronomy. In a current study, we are investigating the utility of “organic” weed control benefits for controlling imadazolinone resistant broadleaf weeds in lentils. I believe that most people seek simplicity in life. Therefore, the expectations of weed scientists that farmers should increase the complexity of their weed control regime proactively may be unreasonable.
92
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT WEEDS? ADDRESSING THE ROOTS OF A PERENNIAL PROBLEM. R.G. Smith*, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH (93)
ABSTRACT
Weeds remain a perennial challenge to agricultural productivity despite decades of advancement in weed control practices intended to eliminate weeds. This paradox is in large part a consequence of our cropping practices, which effectively maintain cropping systems in a state of very early succession. As early successional plants, weeds are adapted to take advantage of the weed-promoting conditions that our cropping practices create, namely an abundance of resources and space. While Integrated Weed Management (IWM) programs often focus on the use of multiple control tactics aimed at diversifying the selection pressures that act on existing weed populations, an equally important, yet often overlooked principle of IWM is to address the factors that make cropping systems susceptible to weeds and their impacts in the first place. Understanding the ecological basis for why weeds are present and problematic in our cropping systems, and then explicitly addressing these factors through consideration of successional processes, may provide opportunities for the development and adoption of more robust IWM programs. The most robust of these programs are likely to include integrated management practices that promote or mimic the characteristics of later successional plant communities.
93
METHIOZOLIN PROGRAMS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS PUTTING GREENS IN TENNESSEE. J.T. Brosnan* and G.K. Breeden, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (94)
ABSTRACT
Methiozolin is a new cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor being evaluated for selective control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L). Research was initiated in 2010 evaluating the efficacy of single and sequential methiozolin programs for annual bluegrass control.
Research was conducted at Lambert Acres Golf Course (Alcoa, TN) on ‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass green naturally infested with annual bluegrass. Turf was established as a native soil pushup green. Turf was mowed daily at 3 mm and irrigated to promote optimum creeping bentgrass growth. Fertility was applied at 4.9 kg N ha-1 per week using a complete fertilizer (18N: 3P2O5: 6K2O). Applications of triticonazole, chlorothalonil, fosetyl-al, iprodione, and mefenoxam were applied on as-needed basis at labeled rates.
Methiozolin was applied singly and sequentially at 0.5 and 1 kg ha-1 at three fall timings: October, November, and December. Programs of two and three sequential methiozolin applications (applied on a three-week interval) were evaluated at each timing and compared to a sequential application program (three week interval) of paclobutrazol at 0.28 kg ha-1 initiated in October. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. All treatments were applied using a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 30 gpa using four, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 18 psi, configured to provide a 1-m spray swath. Creeping bentgrass injury was rated on a 0 (no turf injury) to 100% (complete kill of all turf) scale relative to an untreated control throughout the fall and winter of 2010. Annual bluegrass control was rated on a 0 (no control) to 100% (complete kill) scale in the spring of 2011. Annual bluegrass plant counts were made 25 weeks after initial treatment (WAIT) using a 1-m by 1-m grid with 100 intersection points.
Applications of MRC-01 effectively controlled annual bluegrass in this study. Annual bluegrass control increased throughout the spring with control ranging from 73 to 100% by 25 WAIT. With the exception of a single application in October, annual bluegrass control 25 WAIT with methiozolin at 1 kg ha-1 exceeded 90% regardless of application frequency. All MRC-01 treatments controlled annual bluegrass greater than paclobutrazol at 25 WAIT as well. By 28 WAIT, all sequential methiozolin programs at 1 kg ha-1 reduced annual bluegrass plant counts > 90% compared to 49% for paclobutrazol. Results suggest that MRC-01 is highly efficacious for annual bluegrass control in creeping bentgrass putting greens in Tennessee. However, additional research is needed to evaluate programs involving both fall and spring applications on sand and soil-based rootzones.
94
ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS WITH SPRING APPLICATIONS OF METHIOZOLIN. S. Askew* and S.-J. Koo, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (95)
ABSTRACT
Methiozolin (MRC-01) is a new herbicide under development by Moghu Research Center of South Korea for use on golf putting greens in the US and other countries. Previous research has shown that annual bluegrass control increased when methiozolin was applied in fall compared to spring or early summer treatments. Fall treatments work well in southern climates where annual bluegrass populations are typically less than 15% coverage and perennial biotypes are most commonly encountered. In the north, annual bluegrass populations on putting greens can exceed 70% and have a higher proportion of annual biotypes. Annual biotypes are easier to kill and fall treatments in the north may result in rapid control of large annual bluegrass populations, resulting in thin turf or bare areas on the putting green the following spring. In addition, creeping bentgrass does not have opportunity to fill voided areas of turf during the winter. Since spring and early summer is the time when most golf revenue is generated in the Northeast, loss of putting green canopy is unacceptable during this time. Since spring treatments are known to be less effective at controlling annual bluegrass, we hypothesized that repeated treatments in spring will result in a slower, smoother transition from annual bluegrass to creeping bentgrass. Our objective was to evaluate several treatment programs that included 4 kg ai/ha methiozolin split into 4, 6, or 8 treatments during spring and early summer compared to a program that included two high-rate spring applications followed by an additional application in fall.
Two studies were conducted on golf courses in Blacksburg and Harrisonburg, VA. Studies were arranged in randomized complete block designs with 3 replications. Plots were 2 m by 2 m in Blacksburg and 2 m by 5 m in Harrisonburg. The larger plots in Harrisonburg allowed for measurement of ball speed (stimp). Treatments were initiated on March 4, 2011 at Harrisonburg and March 20, 2011 at Blacksburg. Methiozolin was applied in 280 L/ha water using TeeJet 11004 TTI nozzles. Treatments included 8 applications of 500 g/ha at 2 wk intervals, 6 applications of 667 g/ha at 2 wk intervals, 4 applications of 1000 g/ha at 4 wk intervals, and 3 applications of 1120 g/ha in March, April, and October. On June 15, 2011, Methiozolin applied 8, 6, or 4 times in spring reduced annual bluegrass cover from 58% in nontreated plots to 2, 1, and 5%, respectively. The spring + fall program had received two of three treatments at this time and reduced annual bluegrass cover to 15%. Similar reduction in annual bluegrass cover was noted in Blacksburg. On June 3, 2011 in Harrisonburg, stimp on nontreated plots was 8.4 feet and significantly higher (9.5 to 10.0 feet) in methiozolin treated plots. Methiozolin did not injure creeping bentgrass at any assessment date. Putting green turf quality and NDVI was significantly lower than nontreated turf in April but equivalent in March, May, June, July, and October. The loss of NDVI and quality in April was attributed to loss of annual bluegrass vigor. The greatest loss of turf quality from methiozolin treatment was on April 28 when nontreated plots had quality of 6.5 and the worst methiozolin treatment had quality of 5.83, where 6.0 is minimally acceptable. Such transient loss of quality was actually deemed acceptable by golf course personnel due to the reduction in annual bluegrass. Turf quality was significantly higher in methiozolin-treated plots from May through October. NDVI was equivalent in all plots from June through October. These data suggest spring programs can successfully control annual bluegrass while having minimal impact on putting green quality on golf putting greens having greater than 50% annual bluegrass infestation.
95
USE OF METHIOZOLIN FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA L.) CONTROL ON CREEPING BENTGRASS (AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA) GREENS. K.A. Venner*, S. Hart, S. Askew, and C.J. Mansue, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (96)
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted in Virginia and New Jersey from 2010 to 2011 to evaluate the use of methiozolin for annual bluegrass control in creeping bentgrass putting greens. In Virginia, non-replicated demonstrations were established on four different putting greens at two golf courses. At Spotswood Country Club (CC), three strips (2m by 25m) were treated with methiozolin at 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 kg ai/ha on March 18, April 15, and Oct 20, 2011. At Lakeview CC, three different putting greens were treated with methiozolin at 1.0 kg/ha on April 15, May 13, and Oct 20, 2011. Initial annual bluegrass populations were 40 to 60% cover at all locations. When assessed in November 2011, annual bluegrass cover reduction was 20, 75, and 95% in plots treated with 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 kg/ha methiozolin, respectively. At Lakeview, annual bluegrass cover reduction was 90, 60, and 30% on the three test sites. In New Jersey, studies were established in the fall of 2010 at Riverton, Metedeconk, and Charleston Springs CC. Methiozolin treatment regimes were 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 kg/ha applied twice in Sept/Oct, Oct/Nov, and once in Nov. Methiozolin at 0.5 and 1.0 kg/ha was also applied three times in Sept/Oct/Nov. Annual bluegrass populations were high at Riverton (> 50%), low at Charleston Springs (<10%) and initially low at Metedeconk. However, by late fall plots at Metedeconk averaged 30 to 40% annual bluegrass cover. Creeping bentgrass injury was not evident until the following March at all three locations. At Charleston Springs, creeping bentgrass injury was 33 and 24% when methiozolin was applied at 2.0 kg/ha in Oct/Nov and Sept/Oct, respectively, but less than 10% with all other treatments. However, in late March creeping bentgrass injury increased to 65 and 30% with these two treatments. In addition, injury with all other treatments increased to 9 to 30%. At Metedeconk, creeping bentgrass injury was most evident in late March with 60 and 80% injury observed when methiozolin was applied at 2.0 kg/ha in Sept/Oct and Oct/Nov, respectively. Injury with other treatments ranged from 10 to 60%. At both locations, creeping bentgrass recovered rapidly with 30% injury or less with all treatments in early May. Many treatments which had shown noticeable injury in late March had completely recovered by early May. Annual bluegrass control was 85% or greater at both locations when methiozolin was applied at 1.0 kg/ha or greater regardless of application timing. Similar results were observed at Riverton CC when methiozolin was applied at 1.0 kg/ha or greater. These studies suggest that methiozolin can effectively reduce annual bluegrass populations dramatically when applied in the fall. However, additional research needs to be conducted to balance annual bluegrass control while limiting creeping bentgrass injury.
96
SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF AN ANNUAL BLUEGRASS PUTTING GREEN. J. Borger*, M.B. Naedel, and K.R. Hivner, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (97)
ABSTRACT
Three annual bluegrass (Poa annua, ABG) seedhead suppression studies were conducted using various materials and application timings. The first two studies, in 2009 and 2010, were conducted on a mature monostand of ABG at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. The third study, conducted in 2011, was conducted on a ‘Pencross’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) and ABG putting green at the Pennsylvania State University Blue Golf Course, University Park, PA. The objective of the studies was to determine if selected materials could suppress seedhead formation of 1000 ft2 under simulated golf course greens conditions. All trials were randomized complete block designs with three replications. For the first study, treatments were applied on April 1 (EARLY), April 13 (boot stage, BT), and May 6, 2009 (3 WABT). For the second study, treatments were applied April 2 (EARLY), April 20 (BT), and May 5, 2010 (3 WABT). For the third study, treatments were applied April 7 (EARLY), April 21 (BT), and May 12, 2011 (3 WABT). Treatments were applied using a three foot CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 80 gpa using one, flat fan, TP9508EVS nozzle at 40 psi. Test areas at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center were maintained at 0.125 inch using a Toro triplex reel mower. The test area at the Penn State Blue Golf Course was maintained at 0.140 inch using a Jacobsen walking reel mower. Turf was irrigated as needed to prevent moisture stress at both test sites. Test sites consisted of approximately 65% annual bluegrass seedhead cover in the untreated plots at the times of data collection. Annual bluegrass seedhead cover was visually evaluated on May 6, 2009, May 17, 2010, and May 16, 2011. Data were transformed into a percent suppression value via Abbott’s Transformation using Agricultural Research Manager software. In the first study, Primo Maxx at 0.125 oz/1000 ft2 (M) plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or in combination with ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A at various timings. All treated turf revealed a significant level of ABG seedhead suppression compared to the untreated turf, with the exception of Primo Maxx plus Proxy with a single application at boot stage (BT). Primo Maxx, Proxy, and ProGibb T&O applied EARLY and BT resulted in significantly higher seedhead suppression than turf treated with Primo Maxx plus Proxy applied once at BT. In the second study, Primo Maxx at 0.125 oz/M plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or in combination with ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A at various timings. All treated turf with the exception of ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A applied alone at any timing (except the EARLY timing) and Primo Maxx plus Proxy plus ProGibb T&O applied EARLY, did not significantly reduce seedhead cover. Notable results include a significant increase in seedhead suppression when Primo Maxx, Proxy, and ProGibb T&O were combined compared to Primo Maxx plus Proxy without ProGibb T&O applied EARLY or in succession (EARLY, BT). However, when these treatments were compared to one another with three total applications (EARLY, BT, and 3 WABT), no significant differences were found. In the third study, Primo Maxx at 0.125 oz/M plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or in combination with ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A at various timings. All treated turf, with the exception of ProGibb T&O applied alone three times (EARLY, BT, and 3 WABT), revealed a significant reduction of seedhead cover when compared to untreated turf. When ProGibb T&O was added to Primo Maxx plus Proxy applied three times, a significant increase in seedhead suppression was observed. More research will investigate the addition of gibberellic acid into annual bluegrass seedhead suppression strategies for golf course putting greens.
97
GROUND IVY CONTROL AS AFFECTED BY MOWING PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS. A.J. Patton* and D.V. Weisenberger, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (98)
ABSTRACT
Extension bulletins and turf herbicide labels often recommend not to mow turf 24 hours before or after application of a herbicide to maximize weed control. However, the effect of mowing on herbicide efficacy has not been sufficiently explored. The ability to make a herbicide application soon after mowing or prior to mowing would give turf managers more flexibility in scheduling applications and help lawn care operators who often make herbicide applications to lawns but do not have control of the mowing schedule for these properties. The objectives and this research were to 1) determine which herbicides most effectively control ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), 2) determine the effects of mowing on ground ivy control, and 3) determine if any herbicide by mowing timing interactions exist. The experiment was arranged as a 3 X 6 factorial with main effects of mowing timing and herbicide selection. Individual plot size was 2.25 m2. Three mowing timings included mowing 30 minutes before application, mowing 30 minutes after application, and no mowing 72 hours before or after application. These mowing treatments were designed to simulate a worst case scenario of mowing either immediately prior to or after a mowing. Plots were mown at 5 cm removing 1.3 to 3.8 cm of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) leaf tissue. Ground ivy was dispersed through the turf canopy at heights of 1.3 to 7.6 cm prior to mowing and the mowing treatments removed approximately 30-40% of the ground ivy leaf tissue. The seven herbicide treatments were 2,4-D ester at 3.2 kg ae/ha; metsulfuron at 0.02 kg/ha; aminocyclopyrachlor at 0.08 kg ae/ha; 2,4-D + mecoprop + dicamba; triclopyr at 1.12 kg ae/ha, and the untreated check. The herbicide was mostly dry on the leaf surface when mowing 30 minutes following an application; however, the deck of the mower was cleaned with a blower to remove debris after each plot was mown to reduce the potential to track herbicide from one plot to another. Plots were treated with herbicide 29 October 2010. Herbicides were applied in 814 L/ha water with a CO2-pressurized sprayer at 207 kPa. Ground ivy coverage was visually rated. All data were analyzed using SAS (SAS Institute, Inc). The data were analyzed as a 3 X 5 Factorial without the untreated check. Means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference when F tests were significant at α=0.05. When rated 17 November (3 weeks after application) there were no immediate visible effects of the herbicide treatments. However, on each spring rating date there was a significant effect of the herbicide. When rated on 8 July 2011, the 29 October 2010 application of aminocyclopyrachlor reduced ground ivy coverage most. The excellent control of ground ivy from aminocyclopyrachlor was consistent with other research done at this location. At no point in the experiment did the main effect of mowing have a significant impact on ground ivy coverage nor was there a significant mowing by herbicide interaction. Thus, this preliminary data suggests that whether or not turf is mown before or after an application may not be as important as previously thought for controlling broadleaf weeds. This experiment will be repeated in 2011-2012.
98
BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS USING ALTERNATIVES TO SYNTHETIC HERBICIDES. D.T. Linde* and S.J. McDonald, Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA (99)
ABSTRACT
Public pressure to ban or limit synthetic pesticide use on turfgrass has greatly increased the past few years. Very little research has been published or presented concerning alternatives to synthetic herbicides for broadleaf weed control in turfgrass. A 3-year study was conducted to evaluate broadleaf weed control in turfgrass using various alternatives to synthetic herbicides.
In September 2009, 11 treatments were applied to a lawn area in Doylestown, PA that contained about 20% broadleaf weeds and 80% cool-season turfgrasses. Treatments included hand-pull, Burnout II (citric acid, clove oil, sodium lauryl sulfate), Weed-A-Tak (clove oil, phenethyl propionate, corn gluten meal), household vinegar, compost, corn gluten meal, glyphosate, synthetic herbicide (2,4-D, MCPP & dicamba), Burnout II/seed perennial ryegrass, an experimental organic extract, and an untreated control. Treatments that were liquids were applied as spot treatments for the weeds using a hand-pump spray bottle and were re-applied 7 days after initial application to any remaining weeds. On adjacent sites, the study was repeated in September 2010 and September 2011 with 4 additional treatments— FeHEDTA, propane torching, ammoniated soap of fatty acids, and sodium tetraborate. Weeds were spot-treated 0 and 14 days after initial treatment (DAIT) for all treatments except corn gluten meal and compost which were blanket treatments.
Percent weed cover by weed species was evaluated approximately every 7 DAIT for 70 days. Since each weed species did not always appear in each plot, percent weed cover by species were combined for each plot. Statistical analysis was conducted on total percent weed cover data since treatments had similar percent weed cover at 0 DAIT. Total percent weed cover data were subjected to the square root transformation to stabilize variance and then subjected to ANOVA with means separated with Tukey’s HSD. Untreated control plots were included in statistical analysis. Turf quality was assessed visually according to NTEP standard practices where 9 was outstanding or ideal turf and 1 was the poorest or dead turf. A rating of 6 or greater was considered acceptable.
Most treatments significantly reduced percent weed cover, however some of these treatments (Burnout II, Weed-A-Tak, glyphosate, vinegar, organic extract, ammoniated soap of fatty acids) killed turfgrass as well and resulted in very poor turf quality. Hand-pull, FeHEDTA, and the synthetic herbicide treatments killed the weeds without decreasing turf quality. Some treatments (hand-pull, Burnout II, Weed-A-Tak, glyphosate, FeHEDTA, ammoniated soap of fatty acids, organic extract) controlled weeds as well as the synthetic herbicide. Various treatments needed multiple applications since the initial application caused only leaf necrosis and the weed resurged. The corn gluten meal and compost treatments did not significantly control weeds compared to the untreated control. The corn gluten meal significantly improved turf quality, however, growth was excessive.
99
USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENOMICS FOR NATURAL PRODUCTS DISCOVERY OF NOVEL HERBICIDES. J.T. Kao-Kniffin*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (100)
ABSTRACT
In the past 15 years, environmental genomics-based research has advanced new developments in the biomedical and manufacturing industries, but few products have been developed for agricultural and landscape management. Environmental genomics provides a new set of tools for the discovery of compounds that suppress weeds or enhance target plant growth. Direct genomic extraction from natural environments and complex communities into clone libraries allows researchers to screen for biosynthetic herbicides or growth-enhancing bioinoculants. I will be discussing examples of screening methods to isolate genes and gene clusters captured in clone libraries expressing the production of biosynthetic compounds relevant to weed management. Further isolation of the biosynthetic compounds in cell-free suspensions can elucidate the potential of the compounds as active ingredients in herbicides. Environmental genomics may provide a cost-efficient alternative to the development of new synthetic herbicides, as the cost of synthetic pesticide development continues to rise.
100
INFLUENCE OF EARLY APPLICATIONS ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION WITH ETHEPHON AND MEFLUIDIDE. S. Askew* and A.N. Smith, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (101)
ABSTRACT
Annual bluegrass comprises a large portion of putting green turf in the Northeast. Failed attempts to control this weed have led to its adoption as part of the playing surface and cultural practices have been adapted to improve putting conditions in a mixed creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass turf. One such practice is the use of plant growth regulators such as mefluidide and ethephon for suppressing annual bluegrass seedheads in spring. The two most common programs include application of mefluidide plus foliar iron or ethephon plus trinexapac ethyl when growing degree days at base 50 (GDD50) reach 50 units. These programs are notoriously inconsistent for annual bluegrass seedhead suppression. Suppression varies each year and ranges from 20% to 95% for ethephon and 40% to 95% for mefluidide. Attempts to reduce application frequency or increase the number of spring applications have led to turfgrass injury. Close observation of annual bluegrass on golf putting greens in early spring will show that many plants have already initiated seedhead production before 50 GDD50. Some plants have been observed to produce an occasional seedhead under snow. We hypothesized that inconsistency in seedhead suppression over years is largely due to variable amounts of annual bluegrass plants that initiate seedhead production during winter, driven primarily by periodic warm winter temperatures or thermal heating under snow. Our objective was to determine if applications made in late winter could improve annual bluegrass seedhead suppression from standard ethephon or mefluidide programs compared to these programs without the early treatment. We also included demethylation inhibiting fungicides (DMI) in some treatments to determine if several combined components of the program might accumulate and lead to turfgrass injury if mixed with use of a plant growth regulating fungicide. Two field trials were conducted on putting greens mown at 3 mm. One trial was in Blacksburg, VA and the other was in Harrisonburg, VA. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The "early" application was applied on March 4 and the putting green was still brown from winter stress. The normal program application dates were April 15 applied at 48 GDD50 and four weeks later. On April 28, annual bluegrass seedhead coverage was 47% in the nontreated check and equivalent in the ethephon early treatment, ethephon normal program, and with a single treatment of triadimefon. When the ethephon early treatment was combined with the normal program, however, seedhead coverage was reduced to 0 to 7%. The early treatment of mefluidide reduced seedhead coverage to 20% and all normal programs of mefluidide either alone, with the early treatment, or with the early treatment and triadimefon completely eliminated seedhead production. Similar trends occurred on May13th; however, on May 26th, all normal program treatments regardless of early treatment or DMI fungicide completely controlled annual bluegrass seedheads, presumably because the second normal program treatment had been applied prior to this rating. Early treatments and/or triadimefon did not increase turfgrass injury compared to normal mefluidide or ethephon programs alone; however, the normal program of mefluidide injured turf 30 to 60% and significantly decreased normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) from April 15 to May 13 while ethephon did not cause injury or decrease NDVI. These data suggest an early application of seedhead inhibitors can improve annual bluegrass seedhead suppression when applied prior to a normal GDD50-timed program, especially in the case of ethephon.
101
TALL FESCUE (FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA) TOLERANCE TO SPRING AND FALL AMICARBAZONE APPLICATIONS. G.K. Breeden*, J.T. Brosnan, and P. McCullough, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (102)
ABSTRACT
Amicarbazone is a new photosystem II inhibitor being evaluated for use in cool-season turfgrass. Data describing cool-season turfgrass tolerance to amicarbazone are limited. Research was conducted from 2010 to 2011 evaluating tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) tolerance to spring and fall to applications of amicarbazone.
Separate trials were conducted to determine tolerance to spring and fall amicarbazone applications. The site for each trial was a mature stand of ‘Coyote II’ tall fescue maintained as a golf course rough at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center-Plant Sciences Unit (Knoxville, TN). Plots (1.5 by 3 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Amicarbazone (98 g ha-1, 196 g ha-1 and 392 g ha-1) and bispyribac-sodium (111 g ha-1) were applied sequentially on a two-week interval. An untreated control was included for comparison. Four application timings were evaluated in the fall trial: September, October, November, and December. The same treatments were applied in the spring trial in March and April. All herbicides were applied with a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280.5 L ha-1 utilizing four, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124 kPa, configured to provide a 1.5-m spray swath. Tall fescue injury was evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no turf injury) to 100% (complete kill) scale at 7, 14, 28 49, 62, 91, and 144 days after initial treatment (DAIT).
Injury present 21 DAIT with amicarbazone at ≥196 g ha-1 ranged from 40 to 92% for treatments in September and October. By 66 DAIT, tall fescue injury with these treatments was >40%. Applied in November and December, these treatments induced 20 to 60% injury 21 DAIT. Applications of amicarbazone at 98 g ha-1 in November injured tall fescue from 0 to 36% at 21 DAIT. By 144 DAIT, amicarbazone at < 196 g ha-1 in September, October, and November injured tall fescue ≤ 8%. At 392 g ha-1 these treatments injured tall fescue ≥ 85% at 144 DAIT. Bispyribac-sodium applied at all fall timings injured tall fescue ≤ 42% at 28 DAIT. By 62 DAIT, bispyribac-sodium in September and December injured tall fescue ≤ 3%, while October and November applications injured tall fescue ≤ 38%.
Spring applications were less injurious to tall fescue as no injury was observed with amicarbazone at 98 and 196 g ha-1 in March. Amicarbazone at 392 g ha-1 in March injured tall fescue 25% by 49 DAIT, but declined to 0% by 91 DAIT. Injury with April applications of amicarbazone at ≤ 196 g ha-1 ranged from 0 to 12%, with no injury present 21 days after application. Amicarbazone at 392 g ha-1 in April injured tall fescue 50% by 28 DAIT. By 62 DAIT injury had decreased to ≤ 23%. Comparatively, bispyribac-sodium at all spring application timings injured tall fescue ≤ 25% through the end of the study. These data suggest that fall applications of amicarbazone should be avoided on tall fescue, while spring amicarbazone applications at ≤ 196 g ha-1do not result in significant tall fescue injury.
102
MESOTRIONE AND AMICARBAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA) CONTROL. M.T. Elmore*, J.T. Brosnan, and G.K. Breeden, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (103)
ABSTRACT
Mesotrione efficacy for annual bluegrass (Poa annua) control can be inconsistent. Amicarbazone is a photosystem II-inhibiting herbicide with activity against annual bluegrass. Field and greenhouse experiments were initiated in 2011 at the University of Tennessee evaluating the efficacy of mesotrione and amicarbazone for annual bluegrass control.
Annual bluegrass was collected from the East Tennessee Research and Education Center (Knoxville, TN). Single tillers were transplanted to cone-tainers filled with Sequatchie silt-loam soil. Plants were allowed to acclimate for 4 weeks and contained 5 to 7 tillers when treatments were applied. Nitrogen was soil-applied at 49 kg ha-1 (46N:0P:0K) prior to treatment application. Treatments were arranged in a 2-by-2 factorial, completely randomized, design with ten replications. Treatments consisted of mesotrione (280 g ha-1) or topramezone (14.5 g ha-1) applied with amicarbazone (0 and 79 g ha-1). An untreated-control was included for comparison. Herbicide treatments were applied singly with a nonionic surfactant (NIS) at 0.25% v/v and 340 L ha-1 water using a spray chamber. Two experimental runs were conducted in 2011. Annual bluegrass control was evaluated visually on a 0 (no control) to 100% (complete control) scale and using chlorophyll fluorescence yield (Fv/Fm) at 3, 5, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT). Aboveground dry biomass was measured 21 DAT.
Field experiments were conducted on a dormant bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) fairway overseeded with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) at 440 kg ha-1. Treatments were arranged in 2-by-4 factorial, randomized complete block, design with three replications. Treatments consisted of mesotrione (280 g ha-1) or topramezone (14.5 g ha-1) applied with amicarbazone (0, 79, 160 or 240 g ha-1). An untreated-control, bispyribac-sodium (78 g ha-1) and methiozolin (1.5 kg ha-1) were included for comparison. All herbicide treatments were applied singly with NIS at 0.25% v/v and 280 L ha-1 of water using small-plot spray equipment. Treatment responses were evaluated visually from 7 to 56 DAT. Grid counts were conducted 56 DAT as well.
In greenhouse experiments, amicarbazone alone provided < 5% annual bluegrass control on all rating dates. By 21 DAT, mesotrione only controlled annual bluegrass 44%. The addition of amicarbazone (79 g ha-1) to mesotrione increased control to 74% by 21 DAT. Topramezone alone or in combination with amicarbazone provided < 10% annual bluegrass control on all rating dates. Fv/Fm and biomass data supported visual observations.
In field experiments, mesotrione provided 78% annual bluegrass control 56 DAT. Amicarbazone alone provided 58, 78 and 96% control at the 79, 160 and 240 g ha-1 rates, respectively, 56 DAT. Mesotrione + amicarbazone provided > 96% control 56 DAT at all rates. These data indicate annual bluegrass control provided by mesotrione can be improved by the addition of amicarbazone.
103
POTENTIAL ANTAGONISM OF SULFENTRAZONE AND FENOXAPROP TANK-MIXES FOR GOOSEGRASS CONTROL. A.J. Patton*, D.V. Weisenberger, J.T. Brosnan, and G.K. Breeden, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (104)
ABSTRACT
Several herbicides are known antagonize grassy weed control when tank-mixed with fenoxaprop. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sulfentrazone and fenoxaprop applied alone and in combination with one another for postemergence goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control. Initial experiments were conducted on separate stands of goosegrass and crabgrass at the W.H. Daniel Research and Diagnostic Center in West Lafayette, IN in 2010. Treatments included the factorial combination of fenoxaprop (0.05 and 0.075 kg/ha) and sulfentrazone (0.28 kg/ha). An untreated control was included for comparison. Experimental design was randomized complete block with three replications and plot size measured 2.25 m2. Treatments were applied to 2 to 3 tiller goosegrass and 4 to 5 tiller crabgrass in 814 L/ha water with a CO2-pressurized sprayer at 207 kPa. In 2010 in West Lafayette, goosegrass coverage was lowest from treatments containing fenoxaprop. Goosegrass was not effectively controlled when sulfentrazone was applied at 2-3 tillers. When sulfentrazone was tank-mixed with fenoxaprop, higher goosegrass coverage was present following applications than when fenoxaprop was applied alone suggesting that antagonism was occurring when these products are tank-mixed. No antagonism was observed with these treatments on crabgrass. Experiments were replicated in 2011 at the W.H. Daniel Research and Diagnostic Center (West Lafayette, IN) and the East Tennessee Research and Education Center-Plant Sciences Unit (Knoxville, TN). Treatments included the factorial combination of fenoxaprop (0.05, 0.075, and 0.1 kg/ha), and sulfentrazone (0.28 kg/ha) with an untreated control also included for comparison. Results in 2011 in Indiana mirrored those observed in 2010. In Tennessee, no antagonism was observed with fenoxaprop and sulfentrazone tank-mixtures applied to goosegrass or smooth crabgrass. Additional research will be conducted in 2012 to determine the reason for the inconsistent response between locations.
104
COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS RESEEDING INTERVALS FOR METHIOZOLIN. P. McCullough and D. Gomez de Barreda*, University of Georgia, GA (105)
ABSTRACT
Methiozolin has potential for selective annual bluegrass control in cool-season grasses and practitioners may wish to reseed in treated areas after applications. The objective of this field experiment was to evaluate reseeding intervals of three cool-season turfgrasses following methiozolin applications at four application timings before seeding. Methiozolin (2.1 EC) was applied at 0, 0.56, 1.1, or 2.2 kg a.i./ha and compared to bispyribac-sodium (Velocity 17.6WG) at 45 g ai/acre. Herbicide treatments were applied 0, 2, 4, or 6 weeks before seeding on April 13, 2011. A broadcast glyphosate application was made 7 days before seeding to kill existing vegetation and facilitate visual assessment of creeping bentgrass, perennial ryegrass, and tall fescue seeded perpendicular to herbicide treatments.
All methiozolin applications on the day of seeding reduced turf cover by approximately 75 to 90% from the untreated for all grasses at 14 days after seeding and were more injurious than bispyribac-sodium by eight weeks after treatments. Methiozolin at 1.1 and 2.2 kg/ha applied two weeks before seeding reduced cover of all three grasses by approximately 35 to 50% from the untreated after 14 days but 0.56 kg/ha at this timing did not reduce final ground cover. Grasses established in plots treated with 0.56 and 1.1 kg/ha two weeks before seeding had similar cover to the untreated after six weeks. However, 2.2 kg/ha of methiozolin reduced establishment of all three grasses after eight weeks. Methiozolin at 2.2 kg/ha was the only rate that reduced creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass cover from the untreated when applied four weeks before seeding, but did not inhibit tall fescue establishment. All herbicides applied six weeks before seeding did not reduce establishment of the three grasses on any other evaluation date. Results suggest reseeding intervals after methiozolin applications vary depending on turf species and application rate. Due to temporary stunting and potential turf cover reductions, it appears practitioners should wait two, four, and six weeks before seeding in areas treated with methiozolin at 0.56, 1.1, and 2.2 kg/ha, respectively.
105
ENLIST™ CORN TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH PRE FOLLOWED BY POST HERBICIDE PROGRAMS. B.D. Olson*, S.C. Ditmarsen, C.A. Gallup, M.W. Melichar, and P.L. Prasifka, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (106)
ABSTRACT
The EnlistTM trait in field corn has been extensively evaluated in research trials since 2006. Enlist corn has demonstrated excellent tolerance to 2,4-D in single and sequential treatments applied preemergence and postemergence at rates up to 4480 g ae/ha per application. The Enlist trait has been stacked with SmartStax® traits to confer both 2,4-D and glyphosate tolerance. Enlist Duo™ herbicide is a novel premix containing the active ingredients 2,4-D choline and glyphosate dimethylamine (DMA) under development by Dow AgroSciences for use on Enlist crops. Dow AgroSciences will be recommending the use of soil residual herbicides as a part of the Enlist Weed Control system to provide early season weed control for crop yield protection and weed resistance management by providing additional modes of action.
Field research trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate a system approach involving GF-2726, the lead formulation of Enlist Duo, in conjunction with SureStart™ herbicide (acetochlor + clopyralid + flumetsulam). Crop tolerance studies included GF-2726 plus SureStart at 1X and 2X recommended rates applied at spike stage or 10-11 inch corn. Additionally, sequential applications of SureStart at 1X and 2X rates applied PRE followed by a POST application of GF-2726 at 1X and 2X rates to 10-11 inch corn were evaluated. Applications of SureStart plus GF-2726 at spike stage resulted in <1% visual injury 14 days after application. Applications to 10-11” corn of GF-2726 following or tank mixed with SureStart resulted in <10% injury 14 days after application. Weed control studies were conducted utilizing weed management systems consisting of SureStart PRE followed by POST application of GF-2726 to V4-V5 corn, SureStart plus GF-2726 applied early POST to V2 corn, or SureStart plus GF-2726 applied POST to V4-V5 corn. SureStart was applied at the full recommended rate for the respective soil type. The rate of GF-2726 was 1640 g ae/ha. Weed control ratings were taken at 0, 14 and 28 days after the V4-V5 application. PRE followed by POST, early POST only, or POST only treatments provided >90% control of ABUTH, AMARE, AMATA, AMBEL, AMBTR, CHEAL, IPOSS, SIDSP, and XANST species. These studies demonstrate the utility of residual herbicides followed by post applications of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate DMA as part of the Enlist Weed Control system in Enlist corn. Residual herbicides provide an effective means to prevent yield loss due to early season weed competition and bring additional modes of action to the weed control system for weed resistance management best practices.
™Enlist, Enlist Duo, and SureStart are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC. ®SmartStax is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist Weed Control System are pending regulatory approvals. The information provided here is not an offer for sale. ©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLC.
106
REDUCED RATE RESIDUAL HERBICIDES PREVENT DANDELION ESTABLISHMENT IN ZONE-TILLAGE CORN AND SOYBEANS. R.R. Hahn*, R.J. Richtmyer III, and J.M. Orlowski, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (107)
ABSTRACT
A rotation experiment was established near Aurora, NY in 2010 to determine the value of reduced rates of residual herbicides in preventing dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers) encroachment into zone-tillage corn (Zea mays L.) and soybeans (Glycine max Merrill). The field was fall plowed in 2009 to eliminate established dandelions. Four-year rotations established as main plots (12 rows by 300 ft) with five replications were: 1) continuous corn with residual herbicides, 2) corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans with residual herbicides in both crops, 3) soybeans, corn, soybeans, corn with residual herbicides in both crops, 4) corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans with residual herbicides in corn only, and 5) soybeans, corn, soybeans, corn with residual herbicides in corn only. Sub-plots (12 rows by 75 ft) within crops received no residual herbicides, one-half, two-thirds, or full labeled rates of residual herbicides. Corn sub-plots were treated early postemergence (EPOST) with 0.77 lb ae/A of glyphosate alone or tank-mixed with 1.23, 1.64, or 2.46 lb ai/A of a premix of S-metolachlor, atrazine, and mesotrione (Lumax). Soybean main plots were split into six row strips so two residual programs could be compared. In one strip, sub-plots received no residual or a premix of metribuzin and chlorimuron-ethyl (Canopy) at 0.84, 1.13, or 1.69 oz ai/A preemergence (PRE) followed by 0.77 lb/A of glyphosate mid-postemergence (MPOST). In the other strip, sub-plots received no residual or a premix of chlorimuron-ethyl, flumiclorac, and thifensulfuron-methyl (Enlite) at 0.67, 0.89, or 1.34 oz ai/A PRE followed by 0.77 lb/A of glyphosate alone or tank-mixed with a premix of chlorimuron-ethyl and thifensulfuron-methyl (Synchrony XP) at 0.05, 0.07, or 0.11 oz ai/A MPOST. Glyphosate resistant corn ‘DKC 4272’ and soybeans ‘AG 2130’ were planted May 17 and 25, 2010 respectively. EPOST corn herbicides were applied June 15 to 7 inch corn. PRE soybean herbicides were applied May 27 and MPOST soybean herbicides were applied June 25 to 6 inch soybeans. Preliminary dandelion counts were made in a 7.5 by 75 ft area in the center of each sub-plot May 2, 2011. Counts for corn sub-plot treatments were averaged across rotations since all were treated the same in 2010. Dandelion counts for corn averaged 182, 3, 2, and 1/1,000 sq ft for sub-plots receiving none, one-half, two-thirds, and full rates of the residual premix respectively. There were no differences in dandelion counts between the two residual soybean programs and counts averaged 80, 4, 1, and 2/1,000 sq ft for sub-plots receiving none, one-half, two-thirds, and full rates of these residual programs respectively. There were more dandelions in May 2011 following EPOST glyphosate alone in corn (182/1,000 sq ft) than following MPOST glyphosate alone in soybeans (80/1,000 sq ft). This difference may be due to the 10 day difference between glyphosate applications in corn and soybeans or to differences in canopies and shading between the two crops.
107
ZEMAX™: A NEW MESOTRIONE PLUS S-METOLACHLOR FORMULATION IN CORN. E. Hitchner*, R. Lins, M. Urwiler, and G.D. Vail, Syngenta, 08098, NJ (108)
ABSTRACT
ZemaxTM is a new corn herbicide for pre-emergence and postemergence residual control of grasses and broadleaf weeds. Zemax can be applied pre-plant, pre-emergence and post-emergence. The Zemax formulation is based on the same capsule-suspension formulation technology as Halex GT. The product is formulated for optimized handling, compatibility with sulfur-containing nitrogen fertilizers and other critical tank mix partners, and designed to minimize the effects of overwintering. ZemaxTM is the latest product in the Callisto Plant Technology® family of herbicides.
108
PERFORMANCE OF F9310 AND F9316 IN THE NORTHEAST PRE AND POST CORN TRIALS IN 2010 AND 2011. J.P. Reed*, J.S. Wilson, G.G. Stratman, B.A. Neuberger, and T.W. Mize, FMC Corporation, North Little Rock, AR (109)
ABSTRACT
F9310 and F9316 are two new herbicides under development by FMC for preplant, preemergence and postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in corn. F9310 is a combination of pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet-methyl. F9316 combines pyroxasulfone, fluthiacet-methyl and atrazine. Field research trials have been conducted in the US in 2010 and 2011 to evaluate crop safety and weed control provided by these two herbicides as well as comparisons to other standard PRE and Post herbicides for corn. Trials were conducted primarily at university research locations as well as independent contract sites across the Midwestern and Eastern Corn Belt, Middle Atlantic States and Southern corn production areas. Applications included early preplant, preemergence and early postemergence timings across various soil types and geographic distribution of corn growing areas. Rates of F9310 included 113 to 151, 132 to 169, and 151 to 188 g ai/ha on coarse, medium and fine soils, respectively. Rates of F9316 ranged from 0.95 kg ai/ha to 1.58 kg/ha across all three soil classes. Visual evaluations crop response as well as both grass and broadleaf weed control were evaluated. Crop response was low across most trials. F9310 and F9316 demonstrated excellent crop safety across all trials with a maximum of 5% crop response with F9316 recorded in 1 trial out of 39 sites. F9310 did not show any crop response from preemergence applications. Crop response from postemergence applications was low, averaging 5% with both F9310 and F9316 as leaf speckling or spotting from the fluthiacet-methyl as reported at 7- 30 DAT. Results at 3-6 weeks after treatment indicated excellent control of foxtail and panicum species and similar to other preemergence grass herbicides. Both F9310 and F9316 applied preemergence provided excellent control of several key broadleaf weed species including tall waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, common lambsquarters, and velvetleaf. F9316 provided greater overall control on common and giant ragweed, morningglories, velvetleaf, and greater consistency of control on waterhemp and common lambsquarters versus F9310. Both F9310 and F9316 provided excellent control of grass and broadleaf weeds when tank-mixed with glyphosate and applied postemergence. Control of foxtails, waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, lambsquarters, and morningglories, and velvetleaf was 90% or greater at 15-30 DAT. Excellent residual of both F9310 and F9316 when applied postemergence was observed. Lower levels of control were observed with treatments of glyphosate alone during this same evaluation period due to new weed flushes. F9316 provided greater control of giant ragweed, waterhemp than F9310 during the same evaluation period. Both F9310 and F9316 have been shown to be effective grass and broadleaf tools for flexible weed management in corn. Further research to develop effective weed management programs incorporating these herbicides is needed.
109
EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERSIFY BURNDOWN OPTIONS IN NO-TILL CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. W.S. Curran* and D.D. Lingenfelter, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (110)
ABSTRACT
Adoption of no-tillage agriculture holds a number of benefits including soil and water conservation, potential improvements in soil quality, reduced energy costs, and implications for carbon sequestration. At the same time, no-tillage systems rely chiefly on herbicides for weed management increasing some environmental risks and the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds. Diversifying crop rotations can help alleviate many pest problems including weeds and is even more important in continuous no-till systems. In no-till, herbicides are often required for control of emerged vegetation at the time of crop establishment. Glyphosate is the dominant nonselective burndown herbicide choice in many no-till systems and a number of selective herbicides can be included depending on the crop and application timing. However, for a number of reasons, glyphosate is often applied without tank-mix partners to control emerged vegetation. Using a single mode of action is a particular concern for herbicide resistance, so adding other effective herbicide modes of action to the program is warranted. The addition of 2,4-D can help broaden the weed control spectrum and reduce the potential for herbicide resistant broadleaf weeds. Although this combination is frequently used in no-till corn and soybean, labeling restrictions and concerns about crop injury have limited its utility in other crops.
To test the safety of 2,4-D in no-till establishment of some minor crops, an experiment was conducted in 2011 at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center near State College, Pennsylvania. The ester formulation (LVE) of 2,4-D was applied at 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 lb ae/acre to wheat stubble in late summer. The amine formulation of 2,4-D and the diglycolamine salt of dicamba were also included at 0.5 lb ae/acre each. Glyphosate was tank-mixed with all herbicides at 0.75 lb ae/acre to aid in the control of emerged vegetation. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.), canola (Brassica napus L.), and daikon radish (Raphanus sativus L.) were seeded the same day of herbicide application (0 day), and 7, 14, and 21 days after herbicide application. About one month after seeding, crops were evaluated visually for injury and in selected treatments above-ground biomass was harvested about 8 weeks after seeding.
In the 0 day seeding, 2,4-D LVE injury increased with rate ranging from 32 to 85% for alfalfa, 27 to 80% for red clover, 20 to 72% for crimson clover, 27 to 70% for hairy vetch, 21 to 81% for canola, and 16 to 76% for daikon radish. By 7 days after application, alfalfa injury did not exceed 19%, red clover 17%, crimson clover 11%, hairy vetch 14%, canola 29%, and daikon radish 12%. By 14 days after application, crop injury was mostly undetected even at the 2.0 lb rate of 2,4-D. Crop injury from the amine formulation was similar to the ester. Dicamba crop injury was observed in all species at up to 7 days after application, but had also mostly dissipated by 14 days. Rainfall during the experiment was frequent and exceeded normal (almost 13 inches for August and September) and may have helped increase the rate of dissipation. The results from this trial suggest that 2,4-D tank mixtures may have greater utility for burndown application in minor use crops, but additional research is necessary before reliable recommendations can be made.
110
DEFINING GEOGRAPHIC AND BIOCLIMATIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF TROUBLESOME WEEDS IN GRAIN CROPS. E.M. Buck*, A. DiTommaso, S.J. Riha, and A.J. McDonald, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (111)
ABSTRACT
Troublesome weed species are those which are most difficult for farmers to control. Life cycle, herbicide resistance, high compatibility with crop management systems, and ideal climatic conditions are a few factors that can contribute to a weed’s designation as “troublesome”. In this survey, we identified which weeds are most troublesome for grain corn, silage corn, soybean, and winter wheat growers in fourteen Northeastern U.S. states and investigated whether crop management practices influenced weed species composition. We sought to determine if certain weeds are troublesome within their total range or a portion of their range by comparing their occurrence distributions within temperature and rainfall-defined sub-regions. Current weed distribution maps, when paired with these climatic data, can be used to predict range expansions of “troublesome” weed species over time. We also examined whether herbicide resistance contributed to the designation of a weed as being “troublesome”. A survey was developed and electronically mailed to 462 cooperative extension employees, certified crop advisors, researchers, and industry professionals and the NEWSS member list-serve. As of late October 2011, a total of 70 participants contributed 120 survey submissions providing more than 1142 listings of “troublesome” weeds from 37 of the 62 sub-regions. Preliminary data indicated that climate region and herbicide resistance both influenced the distribution of some “troublesome” species. For example, the species considered most “troublesome” in New Hampshire (NH) corn cropping systems were yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), quackgrass (Elymus repens (L.) Gould), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.). Moving south, the most “troublesome” weeds in Pennsylvania (PA) corn crops were burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus L.), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.), common lambsquarters, and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) while in Virginia (VA) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.), morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.) were considered most troublesome in corn systems. Species tended to be most troublesome in only a subset of their known range. A morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.) was reported as troublesome once in New England and ranked 29th out of the 39 reported species. Rankings of 13 of 33 in PA, 2 of 28 in VA, and 1 of 28 in the Mid-Atlantic states suggest that morningglories are most problematic in more southern regions of the Northeast. Herbicide resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) contributed to its being considered “troublesome” in soybean crops. Delaware (DE) and PA ranked horseweed as the most “troublesome” soybean weed, with resistance reported in all cases in DE and 11 of 13 cases in PA. Horseweed was not a top troublesome species in VA, Vermont, or New Jersey, where 50% or less of responses indicated herbicide resistance. On-going work will focus on developing “troublesome” distribution maps for various species, examining the effect of climate, tillage, herbicide resistance, and cropping system on “troublesome” weed ranges. Once data have been compiled, results will be made available to all participants.
111
HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - A CRITICAL STEP IN PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT. W.J. Everman*, L. Glasgow, L. Ingegneri, J. Schroeder, D. Shaw, J. Soteres, J. Stachler, and F. Tardif, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (112)
ABSTRACT
Herbicide resistance education and training have been identified as critical paths toward advancing the adoption of proactive best management practices to delay and mitigate the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds. In September 2011, the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) introduced a training program designed to educate certified crop advisors, agronomists, pesticide retailers and applicators, growers, students, and other interested parties on the topic of herbicide resistance in weeds. A peer reviewed, five-lesson curriculum is currently available at the Society’s web page via web-based training and PowerPoint slides. Topics include: (1) An introduction to herbicide resistance in weeds (2) How do herbicides work? (3) What is herbicide resistance? (4) How do I scout for and identify herbicide resistance in weeds? and (5) How do I manage resistance? The lessons are unique among herbicide resistance training materials in that, for the first time, the WSSA presents a unified message on the causes of herbicide resistance and offers several strategies for identifying and mitigating herbicide resistance in weeds. The lessons contain the most up-to-date definitions for use in the field, including those for low- and high-level resistance, a video on how to scout for herbicide-resistant weeds, and an emphasis on proactive management. The lessons utilize animations to showcase these important points. A Spanish-language version has been also produced. Greater than 380 downloads were documented within the first two months that the lessons were available.
112
STEWARDSHIP OF DICAMBA IN DICAMBA TOLERANT CROPPING SYSTEMS. W.E. Thomas*, S.J. Bowe, L.L. Bozeman, M. Staal, T. Cannan, and S.W. Murdock, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC (113)
ABSTRACT
New weed control options are needed to manage a growing weed resistance problem that is limiting control tactics and in some areas cropping options. Glyphosate is an important herbicide in many cropping systems, but problematic weeds like Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), and horseweed (Conyza canadensis) have been confirmed resistant to it in at least 24 states. And many of these populations are also resistant to more than one herbicide mode of action. Given the limited herbicide options in many cropping systems, these weeds present significant management problems for producers. The dicamba tolerant cropping system will offer growers a new weed management option in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max). Dicamba complements the weed control spectrum of glyphosate and controls many broadleaf weeds that have been reported to be resistant to glyphosate. However, proper implementation of the dicamba tolerant cropping system is required to ensure its long term sustainability. As part of an integrated strategy, one should consider several stewardship tactics to address weed resistance management and on-target deposition. Weed management programs should consider an integrated system using multiple herbicide modes of action, effective rates and timings, and site monitoring as well as mechanical weed control when necessary. Maximizing on-target deposition can be addressed with formulation and application techniques including nozzle selection, boom height, and spray pressure. Environmental conditions such as wind and inversions also have significant influence on the level of on-target deposition and need to be considered before application. The goal of such a stewardship program is to allow growers to maintain flexibility and control of their farming operation. A training and education program can assist growers in achieving this goal. An improved formulation, optimized application techniques, and integration of other effective weed control tactics like alternate modes of action, tillage, and crop rotation will ultimately provide the most sustainable production system.
113
EFFICACY OF F9310 AND SULFENTRAZONE PREMIXES IN THE NORTHEAST SOYBEAN TRIALS IN 2011. J.P. Reed*, J.S. Wilson, G.G. Stratman, B.A. Neuberger, and T.W. Mize, FMC Corporation, North Little Rock, AR (114)
ABSTRACT
F9310 (Anthem™) is a new herbicides under development by FMC Corporation for preplant, preemergence and postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in soybeans. F9310 is a combination of pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet-methyl. Field research trials have been conducted at university sites in 2011 to evaluate crop safety and weed control provided by F9310, along with comparisons to other standard PRE and Post herbicides for soybeans. Trials were conducted primarily at university research locations in Midwestern and Eastern Corn Belt, Middle Atlantic States and Southern corn production areas.. Applications included preemergence and early postemergence timings across various soil types and geographic locations of major soybean growing areas. Rates of F9310 included 146 g ai/ha applied preemergence, 110 g ai/ha applied postemergence, and 91 g ai/ha applied postemergence in a treatment combination or an overlap system with a sulfentrazone herbicide applied preemergence. Visual evaluations included crop response at 14 and 28 days after crop emergence for preemergence applications, and 7 and 21 days after postemergence applications. Preemergence applications of F9310 demonstrated excellent crop safety across all trials and was comparable to other standard preemergence herbicides. Crop response from postemergence applications of F9310 was low and was reported as minor leaf speckling or spotting associated from the fluthiacet-methyl. Weed control ratings for preemergence application were taken just prior to a glyphosate postemergence treatment. Results at 3-4 weeks after treatment indicated excellent control of foxtail species with results similar or slightly better than standard preemergence grass herbicides. F9310 applied preemergence also provided excellent control of several key broadleaf weed species including tall waterhemp, and good control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and velvetleaf. F9310 provided excellent control of grass and broadleaf weeds when tank-mixed with glyphosate and applied postemergence. F9310 (Anthem) has shown to be an effective grass and broadleaf tool for flexible weed management in soybeans.
114
UPDATE ON HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP AND CONTROL OPTIONS IN CORN AND SOYBEANS. K.D. Burnell*, V.K. Shivrain, A.S. Franssen, and G.D. Vail, Syngenta Crop Protection, Penfield, NY (115)
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted on waterhemp (A. tuberculatus, syn. rudis) which is resistant to post-emergence HPPD inhibiting herbicides. Pre-emergence application of mesotrione alone and in combination with s-metolachlor and atrazine provided effective control. Also, s-metolachlor in combination with metribuzin and fomesafen applied pre-emergence controlled the waterhemp. Post- emergence herbicides including glyphosate, glufosinate, fomesafen and synthetic auxins provided effective control.
115
SELECTIVITY OF GLYPHOSATE AND HPPD INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN A NEW SOYBEAN EVENT. M. Mahoney*, J. Allen, and J. Hinz, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (116)
ABSTRACT
M.S. Technologies and Bayer CropScience are developing a new soybean event that is tolerant to both glyphosate and p-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor herbicides. Tolerance to glyphosate is similar to commercially available soybean lines. There is differential tolerance to HPPD inhibiting herbicides in this new event. This event is tolerant to preemergence applications of isoxaflutole and mesotrione. There are varying levels of tolerance to postemergence applied HPPD inhibitors. This event exhibits the best postemergence tolerance to isoxaflutole. There is reduced tolerance to mesotrione and tembotrione in this soybean event.
116
ANTHEMTM AND ANTHEM ATZTM :TWO NEW HERBICIDES FOR PRE-EMERGENCE AND POST-EMERGENCE CONTROL OF KEY BROADLEAF AND GRASS WEED PESTS. J.S. Wilson*, T.W. Mize, T. Martin, J.P. Reed, G.G. Stratman, and B.A. Neuberger, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA (117)
ABSTRACT
Anthem is a new proprietary herbicide premix than contains pyroxasulfone and fluthiacet-methyl that provides growers a convenient and flexible product for pre-emergence and early post emergence grass and broadleaf weed control. Anthem is formulated as a 2.15 pound per gallon suspoemulsion liquid. Anthem will be labeled for both corn and soybean uses. Anthem ATZ is a new three way herbicide premix than contains pyroxasulfone, atrazine and fluthiacet-methyl that provide growers a convenient and flexible product for pre-emergence and early post emergence grass and broadleaf weed control. Anthem ATZ is formulated as a 4.5 pound per gallon suspoemulsion liquid. Anthem ATZ will be labeled for corn uses only. Both Anthem and Anthem ATZ offers growers several modes of action for control of weeds, including weeds resistant to glyphosate and many difficult to control species. Both products provide excellent crop safety when used at the recommended pre-emergence rates for the particular soil type or in post applications. Anthem uses rates will vary from 6-13 fluid ounces per acre and Anthem ATZ uses rates will vary from 1.5 to 4 pints per acre. Research trials conducted by FMC and University researchers has shown excellent grass and broadleaf weed control with both Anthem and Anthem ATZ.
117
OUTCOME FUNDING AND THE NORTHEAST SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEACH AND EDUCATION (SARE) GRANT PROGRAM. T.F. Morris* and J.C. McAllister, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT (118)
ABSTRACT
The Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NESARE) program has used an outcome funding framework since 2000. Other USDA grant programs such as some of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) programs have recently switched to an outcome funding framework. One of the main reasons NESARE switched to outcome funding was to obtain more adoption of research findings by farmers, which is NESARE’s primary mandate from Congress. Outcome funding enables more adoption of new information by farmers because it requires that researchers have measurable goals for changes in the behavior or condition of farmers that are engaged with their research. Accomplishing these goals requires all research projects to have an educational program, deliberate and intensive engagement with farmers, and a plan for verifying changes resulting from the engagement. Most non-outcome funded research grant programs focus on obtaining research results, with only a small emphasis on the adoption of these results by the clientele being served. The change to outcome funding by NESARE made it difficult for some researchers to compete for NESARE grant funds. Researchers who were not accustomed to thinking in terms of how their research could be adopted by farmers were at a disadvantage. Researchers who were already working with farmers to plan, implement and evaluate their research, however, became highly successful in NESARE’s program after 2000. Writing competitive proposals in an outcome funded grant program like NESARE’s requires close cooperation with farmers, knowledge about how adults learn, and an effective verification plan to document the amount of adoption at the end of a grant, rather than a description of the type and quantity of activities that will occur. This presentation will provide a mini-workshop about outcome funding as practiced by NESARE. Key concepts used in outcome funding will be explained and characteristics of strong proposals will be discussed.
118
119
NEWSS Year-End Report 2010
Submitted by the Executive Committee For the 65th Annual Meeting
January 5, 2011 Renaissance Harborplace Hotel
Baltimore, MD
PRESIDENT’S REPORT – Hilary A. Sandler The 64th annual meeting in Cambridge was very successful with the theme of Meeting the Challenge for Food Production in Africa. There were two workshops: one on Weed Seed Banks and another on Extension and Technology; both were well received. We continued to hold onto a significant deficit for our 2010 fiscal year because of expenses that were previously omitted (but paid in this fiscal year) and low attendance at the Cambridge meeting (likely due to hard economic times for many people as well as the northern location). There has been a concerted effort to have members who do not attend the annual meeting stay current with their dues payment. New members to the Executive Committee were Toni DiTommaso as Vice President, John O’Barr as Sustaining Membership, Darren Lycan as Editor, and Randy Prostak as CAST Representative. Work began soon after the meeting for the Executive Committee to plan another conference, schedule the Collegiate Weed Contest and continue moving the society forward. Continuing in the cost-savings mode, we did not mail out the 2010 Annual Meeting program but posted it on the web site along with the meeting at a glance schedule. This was similar to the 2009 meeting and seemed to work well. Registration was available through the society website via ACTEVA, which charged a fee but allowed us to track the registration; there was also an option to mail in the registration without a fee. Title and abstracts were hosted on the WSSA web site for the second year. The downloading of information seemed to proceed more smoothly than in 2009, its first year of use. As stated in our Manual of Operating Procedures (MOPs), Executive Committee board meetings were scheduled, agendas circulated and hotel arrangements made. Committee Lists were updated, reviewed, approved and posted on the website. Proceedings are also posted on the web site one year after printing. Changes and modifications were submitted to the MOPs as needed. An invitation was again offered to the Northeastern American Society of Horticultural Science to hold our meetings jointly in January 2011 and they accepted. In 2011, we are physically holding our poster session jointly and will be having two workshops that were developed by both societies. NE-ASHS rescheduled their meeting days to more closely correspond with our meeting dates; in this way, their members could participate in both the symposium and joint workshops. We scheduled the Society Social for Tuesday night so NE-ASHS members could participate; both organizations are invited to the dessert social on Wednesday evening. In an effort to keep the Society solvent and perhaps gain some ground fiscally, we opted to not hold
120
the Awards Luncheon and will present Society Awards during the General Session and Business Meeting. The NEWSS EC and two representatives from NE-ASHS met to review the hotel space in October 2010 and final arrangements were made for the social, coffee breaks, and audio-visual set ups with the Renaissance Hotel staff. We were just able to make our minimum number of room nights as of the hotel room cut-off date. As of this writing, we have exceeded our room night minimum by approximately 30 nights. Renee Keese successfully solicited sustaining members for a contribution for the dessert and nightcap social, which will be held on Wednesday night. This open event continues to be very popular with the membership (taking the place of individual hospitality suites). No Resolutions were brought forward by the Resolutions Committee in 2010. We have an excellent Vice-President candidate for 2011, Dwight Lingenfelter, who has previously served as Public Relations Representative on our executive committee and has been very active as a Weed Contest Coach for many years. My sincere thanks to the entire NEWSS Executive Committee; you are a dedicated and hard-working group of volunteers.
PRESIDENT-ELECT REPORT –Mark VanGessel The theme of the annual meeting is “Impact of Regulation on Agriculture”. Speakers and titles were finalized for the general session and symposium. The topic of the symposium was developed by Toni DiTommaso, who was instrumental in organizing the symposium. The general session includes a Welcome Address from Nicole Sherry, head groundskeeper for the Baltimore Orioles at Camden Yard. NEWSS President Hilary Sandler will deliver her address, “The Benefits of Membership”. David Yarborough will deliver NEWSS awards including Award of Merit to E. Scott Hagood, Fellow Award to Robin Bellinder, and Outstanding Researcher Award to Robert Richardson. The symposium speakers are Edwin Kee, Secretary of Agriculture for Delaware and the title of his presentation is “Barriers and Progress: Agriculture Since 1970”. Mark Dubin from University of Maryland Extension who works extensively with water quality issues will discuss “The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Executive Order: What it May Mean for Agriculture”. Ed Gertler from Maryland’s Department of the Environment will discuss the “Status of Maryland Pesticide Discharge Permit Program”. The final speaker is Carlton Layne, executive director of Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation will discuss “NPDES: A View from the Boat”. Two workshops have been organized. The first one was organized by Northeast Branch of American Society of Horticultural Sciences and deals with on-farm research and demonstration. Titles and speakers are “Organizing On-Farm Demonstration Days” with Dave Wilson, King’s Seeds; Dan Ward from Rutgers University will speak on “Statistical and Experimental Design Considerations for Conducting On-Farm Research”; Jack Gurley from Calvert’s Gift Farm will discuss “Working with Farmers: a Farmer Perspective”; Ron Hoover from Penn State will discuss “Issues to Consider When Planning Successful On-Farm Research”. The second symposium will discuss the next generation of herbicide-resistant crops. Presentations will be made by representatives from Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Pioneer/DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, and Monsanto. The final speaker will be Bill Curran from Penn State to give his perspective on these HR-crops from a state extension weed specialist perspective.
121
In addition to the invited speakers we have 88 submitted titles, down slightly from previous few years. The Weed Biology and Ecology section has fewer titles than normal. There are fourteen student papers, 16 posters (includes 6 student posters), 11 Agronomy, 9 Ornamental, 10 Turf, 6 Weed Ecology/Biology, 10 Fruit and Vegetable, and 12 Vegetation Management and Restoration. Sections chairs assisted with arranging order of titles. We used a computer program designed by the WSSA for title and abstract submission. This was the second year we used online submission. It allows for more participation of the section chairs in coordinating the meeting. After a lengthy search, the 2012 NEWSS Meeting will be held at the Sheraton on Society Hill in Philadelphia, although no formal contract has been signed. The other two final hotels for consideration were the Marriott in Lancaster, PA and the Loews in Annapolis, MD.
VICE-PRESIDENT REPORT – Toni DiTommaso This past year most of my efforts focused on developing the theme for the NEWSS 2011 Annual Meeting General Symposium in Baltimore, MD. There was strong collaboration in developing the theme with President-Elect Mark VanGessel. This year’s symposium theme was: Impact of Environmental Regulations on Agriculture and we invited a number of excellent speakers including Edwin Kee, Secretary of Agriculture for Delaware who gave the keynote address titled: “Barriers and Progress: Agriculture since 1970”. The other speakers included Nicole Sherry, Head Groundskeeper, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Extension and USDA-NIFA Mid-Atlantic Water Program, Ed Gertler, Water Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, and Carlton Layne, Executive Director of the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. In other matters, this was the first year that the Vice-President was charged with taking the minutes at NEWSS Executive Committee (EC) meetings. Similarly, the President-Elect was responsible for developing and coordinating the 2011 NEWSS annual meeting program. This reorganization of tasks appeared to work well as it afforded the Vice-President an opportunity to make use of the first year on the Executive Committee to become familiar with the way in which the EC functions as well as current issues being discussed.
PAST PRESIDENT’S REPORT – David E. Yarborough Documents for 2009 were compiled and brought to the annual meeting to be submitted to Dan Kunkel for storage in the IR-4 Project Headquarters archive room. The Awards Committee this year consisted of David Yarborough as Chair, Jerry Baron, Renee Keese, Bill Curran, and Tim Dutt. Nominations were received for awards included: President recognition - Hilary Sandler, Award of Merit - Dr. Scott Hagood, Fellow (Previously was Distinguished Member Award) – Dr. Robin Bellinder, Outstanding Educator Award – none, Outstanding Researcher Award - Dr. Robert J. Richardson, Robert D. Sweet Outstanding Graduate Student Award - Kristine M. Averill (masters level), Service Recognition Award (2) - Greg Breeden and Robert Dickerson. Plaques were ordered for all the award winners and will be presented at the annual meeting general session and business meeting. The Awards Program was prepared by David Yarborough with edits from the committee and printed through IR-4.
122
The Past President’s breakfast was scheduled for Wednesday morning January 5, 2011. The Manual of Operating Procedures was updated and 60 new copies printed for the Annual Business Meeting and new Executive Committee members. There was a change with the Distinguished Member Award to Fellow to be consistent with the national recognition. Changes were made to the appendix to reflect the -10 points if the student paper were not on time and poster size was set to 3 x 4 feet and the criteria points were changed to give more weight to the study vs. presentation.
SECRETARY-TREASURER REPORT – Melissa Bravo Banking information: Signatories on the bank accounts are primary -Melissa Bravo; secondary- Hilary Sandler, and tertiary-Mark VanGessel. Due to increasing bank security precautions it will be necessary for outgoing EC board members to update the signatory cards immediately after the annual business meeting. The NEWSS also has a limited daily total transaction use ($1,000.00) mac card issued to the primary holder of the account. Please note that this bank charges a $15.00 foreign (Canadian and Euro) check processing fee unless the check is drawn on a United States Bank or received as a money order in American dollars. Insurance: The Society holds a Dishonesty Bond Insurance Policy with Fingar Insurance of New York for the E.C Board. This policy is current and remains in effect through February 16, 2011. The policy will be renewed with Fingar Insurance. The Society held a Liability Insurance policy with Western Mutual that expired in August of 2009. This policy was not renewed because Western Mutual does not have bonded agents in Pennsylvania and the Business address for the Society is now in Pennsylvania. At this time the Society does not hold a Liability Policy. Instead, single event (Weed Contest, NIVM short course) liability policies were purchased when requested by the Event Facility. Therefore, any event that requires NEWSS be bonded for liability must be sent to the Secretary 6 months prior to the event in order to acquire a Liability Policy (e.g. as done for NIVM in 2008 and 2009) and that liability fee then added onto the event budget accordingly. Standing Orders: Current year and archived Proceedings continue to be received by Irene T. Bradley and shipped from Cornell University. Past proceedings are also scanned and archived on the web. Web site: Updates and maintenance continues to be provided by Rob Dickerson at Penn State University. Melissa and Barb Scott worked with Rob to post the updated EC Contacts, annual meeting registration links and other society information. Weed Contest: Contest expenditures were approved by the EC board and paid to Cornell University for hosting the contest. Monies received by NEWSS for the Contest in 2010 were $4K from Sustaining members and $3,930.15 from contestant participation fees. Cornell University absorbed additional costs above this amount. Annual meeting: Registration fees and forms were approved by the EC and posted to the website in November. We are using ACTEVA again, an event company that the Society has contracted with, to allow for credit card purchases of event registration. As this is the second year of this on-line option, we would appreciate any feedback you may have. Other than delays in receiving disbursement of funds (every payment has been late) the process has been an
123
uneventful one and the support staff does respond promptly to assist with any queries. The online registration database provided by ACTEVA and additional registrations received by mail and at the annual meeting are used to generate the membership directory. Membership update: As of November, 2010, there are 237 members in the Updated Directory (2006-2010 Meeting Attendees). This includes 91 additional contacts in the NEWSS Listserve who are inactive members. In all, 99 inactive members were removed from the Directory and Listserve during this update process which had not been done since at least 2007. Beginning in January, members who have not been active in the society in the past 3 years will be removed from the printed directory if not registered at the 2011 meeting or if they have not paid dues ($50.00) for the 2011 fiscal year.
51% of our members attended the annual meeting in 2010. * Indicates number is not included in annual meeting attendance percentage. o 2010 Meeting Proceedings Sales (57); Proceedings and CD Sales (30); Standing Orders Sales (50) o 2009 Meeting Proceedings Sales (85); Proceedings and CD Sales (43); Standing Orders (50) Hotel Tax Exempt Form: Thanks to the resourcefulness of Dan Kunkel, Andrew Senesac and others we were finally approved for Maryland Tax Exempt status after 3 previous rejections due to outdated by-laws and changes Maryland wanted to see regarding official incorporation papers and dissolution of funds.
PUBLIC RELATIONS REPORT – Barbara Scott Compiled, edited and distributed three NEWSS Newsletters via email and web. Created a NEWSS News supplement to August newsletter dedicated solely to the 2010
collegiate weed science competition. Submitted two NEWSS News articles to the WSSA Newsletter (April and October). Photographed NEWSS major events for inclusion in newsletters, website, and other
media. Distributed NEWSS notifications, announcements throughout the year via list serve. Updated forms/information/website content and provided to Rob Dickerson for the
NEWSS website. Verified authenticity of NEWSS.org site links on the extension and weed id pages,
124
revised as needed. Created a poster of the NEWSS collegiate weed science competition for display at the
annual meeting. Created and assembled new annual meeting session identification signs. Assisted the President-elect with editing of 2011 Annual Meeting Program. Assisted Secretary-Treasury with periodic update of NEWSS listserve. Assisted Poster Contest Committee with revision of grading sheet.
EDITOR’S REPORT – Darren Lycan
Abstracts and titles were again submitted via the WSSA submission website for our 2011 annual meeting. As Program Chair, Mark VanGessel structured and formatted the Program booklet and I, as Editor, structured and formatted the Proceedings. There were 16 abstracts submitted for posters and 76 abstracts submitted for oral presentations. Program and Proceeding files were sent to Omnipress by December 17, 2010 and edits to the proofs were returned on December 20, 2010. We ordered 230 Programs and 175 Proceedings (50 of which were for Standing Orders). Omnipress charged a total of $3930 for Programs and Proceedings. In addition, 50 CDs containing Adobe PDF versions of our Proceedings were created. The cover for both the Program and the Proceedings featured the winning photo of the 2010 NEWSS Photo Contest: wild carrot (Daucus carota) taken by Randy Prostak of the University of Massachusetts. This year the herbicide reference lists were omitted from the Proceedings as it was agreed by the Executive Committee that this material can be found elsewhere (WSSA, on-line, etc.) and the reduction in pages could lead to reduced costs of production. Special thanks go to David Krueger from AgRenaissance Software, LLC for technical support for the website; Greg Armel for his assistance at the beginning of the year as he and I transitioned the role of Editor; and Syngenta Lawn & Garden for providing materials for the CD format (CDs, labels, and sleeves) at no cost to the Society.
RESEARCH & EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Rakesh S. Chandran Recertification credits provided at the NEWSS annual meetings at Cambridge Marriott, Boston, Jan 4-7, 2010, is summarized below. A total of 121 individuals secured state credits, and 15 individuals secured CCA-CEU credits during the various sessions. Necessary steps were taken to provide credits at the upcoming annual meeting in Baltimore, January 2011. All states have approved credits for the program. Certain states including New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York did not issue credits for the symposium and Workshop I (On Farm Research). CCA-CEU credits were approved for all sessions.
125
126
WSSA REPRESENTATIVE - Jacob Barney NEWSS is in negotiation for a joint meeting with WSSA for 2013. A proposal will be submitted to WSSA, which will vote on it in February at the annual meeting. The next WSSA meeting will be held in Portland, OR February 7-10, 2011 at the
Hilton Portland & Executive Tower and features: - A Practitioners Forum will be held on Feb 10 to bring academic weed science to weed Managers - Six organized symposia - The U.S. Witchweed Eradication Effort Turns 50: A Retrospective and Look-Ahead on Parasitic Weed Management - The Science of Herbicide Discovery - Significance and Use of Sulfonylurea Herbicides in Turfgrass and Landscape Environments - Non-Chemical Tactics in Herbicide Resistance Management: Current Needs and Future Prospects - Navigating the Universe of Grants, Contracts, and Gifts in the 21st Century - Advances in Dose-Response Methodology Applied to the Science of Weed Control
Future WSSA Meeting Sites: 2011 Feb 7-10 Portland, Oregon 2012 Feb 6-9 Big Island, Hawai’i 2013 Feb 4-7 Baltimore, Maryland (possible joint meeting with NEWSS)
WSSA has become a sponsor of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Website (http://pesticidestewardship.org).
GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE – Angela Post
This was a successful year for graduate students in Northeastern Weed Science Society. We had over 100 students from ten schools in three regions participate in the 2010 Collegiate Weed Science Competition. The event was graciously held at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY this year on July 27th. It was great practice for the National Weed Science Competition slated for 2011 in Knoxville, TN. At the 2011 meeting in Baltimore, there will be 14 student presentations in the oral competition, up from nine in 2010, and five posters, equal to 2010. Again this year we opted to have a deadline for student presentation upload. All student presentations are to be submitted by Monday evening before the student mixer or lose 10 points on the total score. The student mixer will be held jointly with NE-ASHS students, and we hope for some good networking. Industry representatives and professors seeking graduate students for the upcoming year have been encouraged to attend to make announcements and meet with students. I will rotate off the board (early) this year to make way for our new graduate student representative, Adam Smith, a PhD student at Virginia Tech. He will be serving you for the next two years. Please feel free to contact him with student related concerns: email: [email protected], office phone: 540-231-5835, Please leave messages with Julie Keating.
127
SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP – John O’Barr A request for Sustaining Membership was sent to all current sustaining members and prospective new members in fall 2010. We have received commitments from 21 organizations for 2011. We were able to recruit 5 new members in 2011 substantially increasing revenues for the society in 2011 vs. 2010. The 2011 Sustaining Membership breakdown is as follows: 3-Platinum, 8-Gold, 4-Silver, and 6-Bronze confirmed for a total commitment of $16,500 which is $3,000 more than in 2010. Therefore, overall support has increased.
2011 Sustaining Members will be recognized at the 2011 annual meeting and at the 2011 collegiate weed contest. No organization requested a commercial display table for the 2011 annual meeting in Baltimore. I would like to personally thank each Sustaining member for their generous support of the Society.
CAST REPORT - Randy Prostak
2010 Overview. 2010 was a very exciting year for the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Throughout the year the organization continues to implement changes in the way CAST operates. This year a Board of Trustees (see list of members below) was established that is intended to do the work that was previous done by previous CAST committees. CAST
128
continues to thrive despite financial challenges. The CAST bylaws were updated this year to reflect the new organization structure and operational changes. Publications. 2010 was an active year for the completion of CAST publication (new publication since July 2009 and forthcoming publications are listed below)
Special Publication Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production
Issue Papers Ethical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: Considerations for Animal Welfare
Decision Making Part 9, "Animal Agriculture’s Future through Biotechnology.
Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future: Addressing U.S. and Global Challenges. Water, People, and the Future: Water Availability for Agriculture in the United States (video post on CAST website, You Tube and SchoolTube). Animal Productivity and Genetic Diversity Part 8, "Animal Agriculture’s Future through Biotechnology”.
CAST Commentary Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: IV. Infrastructure Considerations for
Biomass Harvest, Transportation, and Storage.
The Endangered Species Act: Interfacing with Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems
Food Safety and Fresh Produce: An Update (include videos on CAST website)
Forthcoming Publications Air Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North American Perspective
(Issue Paper)
Agricultural Research for the American Public (Commentary)
Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture: Effects on Food Production, Animal and Human Health, and Public Policy (Commentary, Video & Social Media, Task Force Report)
Assessing the Health of Streams in Agricultural Landscapes: How Land Management Changes Impact Water Quality (Special Publication)
Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in US Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities for Mitigation (Task Force Report)
Convergence of Conservation Tillage and Weed Resistance (Issue Paper)
Energy Flow in Agricultural Systems: Corn and Soybean Production (Issue Paper)
129
Food, Fuel, and Plant Nutrient Use in the Future (Issue Paper)
The Science and Regulation of Food from Genetically Engineered Animals (CAST Commentary)
Water and Land Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North American Perspective (Issue Paper) 2010 Board Meeting. The CAST Fall 2010 Board Meeting was held in Sacramento, CA on October 5-8, 2010. Randy Prostak, the NEWSS representative will serve from Oct 8, 2010 to Fall 2011 Board meeting as Vice Chair and from Fall 2011 CAST Board meeting to 2012 Fall CAST Board meeting as Chair of Plant Agriculture and Environmental Issues Working Group. CAST Board of Trustees Max Armstrong, Director of Broadcasting, Farm Progress Companies James C. Borel, Executive Vice President, DuPont Claude E. Brown, President and Founder, Ag Industrial Manufacturing, Inc. Gale Buchanan, (Chair), Former Dean and Director of the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences & Former USDA Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics Gregory J. Coleman, (Secretary) V.P., Grower Relations, E. & J. Gallo Winery
Chuck Conner, President and CEO, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Former Acting Secretary of Agriculture Mark A. Hussey, (Vice Chair) Vice Chancellor and Dean for Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station Stanley Johnson, Chair of the Board of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy and Assistant to the Dean for Special Projects, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada, Reno Collin Kaltenbach, Vice Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation Wendy Wintersteen, Dean, College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
CAST Member Scientific Societies, Companies and Organizations American Academy of Veterinary & Comp. Toxicology American Academy of Veterinary & Comparative Toxicology and American Board of Veterinary Toxicology American Association of Avian Pathologists American Association of Bovine Practitioners American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources – Agricultural Management American Board of Veterinary Toxicology American Dairy Science Association American Farm Bureau Federation American Forage and Grassland Council American Forage and Grassland Council
130
American Meat Science Association American Meteorological Society American Meteorological Society, Committee on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology American Society for Nutrition American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers American Society of Agronomy American Society of Animal Science American Society of Plant Biologists American Veterinary Medical Association Aquatic Plant Management Society Council of Entomology Department Administrators CropLife America Elanco Animal Health Land O'Lakes National Cattlemen's Beef Association North Central Weed Science Society Northeastern Weed Science Society Novus International, Inc. Poultry Science Association Society for In Vitro Biology Society of Nematologists Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. United Soybean Board Weed Science Society of America Western Society of Weed Science
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT - Lee Van Wychen The core activities of the DSP are: - To monitor and report on activities in Washington, DC which are relevant to the societies. - To make the expertise of the societies known and readily available to the Congress, Federal departments, and agencies. - To comment on specific science issues that are of concern to the societies or where the societies have specific competencies. - To pursue specific interests of the societies as a group, or as individual societies, when there is a compelling need. - To provide leadership in drafting analytical statements and position papers - To attend national and regional weed science annual meetings as requested by the President of each society - To participate in the planning of National Invasive Species Awareness Week (NISAW) 1. USDA-NIFA funding for Weed Science. The restructuring of USDA’s research areas after the 2008 Farm Bill will have many long term impacts. I have devoted much of my time to ensure that USDA’s programs (research, extension, regulatory, natural resources and environment) will support weed science priorities and have worked with other coalitions to make sure that Congress provides the funding for this to happen. After we learned that the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA – pronounced NIFF-uh) did not include a Foundational Grant Program for weed research in their first release of their grant program last spring, it
131
became my top policy priority to change this. I had several meetings with Dr. Roger Beachy, NIFA’s first Director, and got him to attend the WSSA annual meeting in Denver. While there, he met with the WSSA executive committee where they expressed their concerns for the future funding of weed science research, including maintaining formula funding. I worked with the WSSA Research and Competitive Grants committee to develop our disciplines research priorities for multiple NIFA stakeholder meetings and have submitted a letter to Dr. Beachy on behalf the National and Regional Weed Science Societies discussing the need for funding weed science research in NIFA. I am happy to report that NIFA has included a separate Foundational Grant program for “Weeds and Invasive Plants” in FY 2011 and that it will likely receive around $5 million, which is more funding that it ever had as the old NRI grants program. 2. APHIS and EPA funding for glyphosate resistance publications. I secured $93,000 from APHIS and EPA for weed scientists to write two “state of the science” review papers. The first is on the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and weed shifts that are linked to the introduction of GE herbicide-tolerant corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, alfalfa and switchgrass. The second is on herbicide resistance management strategies. The goal is to publish both review papers via “open access” in Weed Science in the coming year. 3. Common sense resistance management regulations. EPA has decided, at the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) level that the Agency will become more greatly involved in resistance management especially for glyphosate. The goal is to have mode of action labeling on all herbicide labels. Herbicide resistance management will likely be my highest priority issue in the coming year. I am working closely with the WSSA special committee on Herbicide Resistance Education to move forward on several big events in Washington DC this year that will highlight the work of this committee and the National and Regional Weed Science Societies. 4. NPDES Permits. I have helped organize two NPDES fact finding trips, one to Florida in May, 2009 and a 2nd to New Mexico in August, 2010 for key personnel in the EPA Office of Water and Office of Pesticide Programs who are in charge of writing the NPDES permit language. The Office of Water and EPA have made great use of these trips to shape their approach to agriculture. The Office of Water Permitting Branch had no experience with any type of agriculture previous to my involvement and no academic partner that could stand as an independent resource for information. While EPA has been mandated to establish NPDES permits by the courts, we have had a huge impact in educating the Agency and shaping their NPDES permit language. I submitted comments on behalf of the six National and Regional Weed Science Societies regarding the EPA’s draft NPDES permit language in July. I am currently working with other coalitions to get a Congressional “fix” passed that would exempt FIFRA applied pesticides from Clean Water Act requirements. I will be circulating a support letter directed at members of Congress in this regard that I’d like each weed science society to sign in the near future. 5. Spray Drift. I submitted comments on behalf of the WSSA, the American Phytopathological Society and the Entomology Society of America Plant-Insect Section in March regarding EPA’s proposed new regulations for pesticide drift labeling and drift labeling interpretation. Together these three societies represent a healthy fraction of all agricultural research and extension efforts on pest management. EPA has received over 35,000 comments on their proposed pesticide drift label changes and will be moving forward with their modified language in the next six months. It is my understanding that they have addressed some of our concerns, but will be monitoring this
132
closely. I also helped organize a symposium on improvements in spray drift reduction technologies at both EPA and American Farm Bureau with the assistance of our WSSA Subject Matter Expert (SME), Jill Schroeder. 6. Weed Science Public Relations. Prior to the formation of the Director of Science Policy position, the National and Regional Weed Science Societies had minimal, if any, outreach to the public and policy makers. I strongly advocated for the formation of the WSSA Public Relations committee and Janis McFarland has performed admirably as the committee chair over the past 4 years. We meet via conference call every other Thursday and welcome all input and participation. We have prepared and distributed over 30 press releases through PR Web and 80 daily newspapers in key markets that include trade publications, smaller daily and weekly newspapers, broadcast news outlets and online publications. We have also drafted and designed a new Weed Science Careers Brochure and established a Twitter account. Our press releases have reached publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and have helped influence public policy makers (e.g. Secretary Vilsack on funding weed science research). 7. National Invasive Species Awareness Week (NISAW). February 28 – March 4, 2010. I have worked to make this an all taxa awareness event to achieve greater impact. It was a big step to have the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) step up to coordinate the week of activities this year, which includes education and awareness events during each day by different NGO and federal invasive species stakeholders. See: http://www.nisaw.org/schedule.pdf.
End.
133
NEWSS 65th Annual Conference Business Meeting January 5, 2011
(Recorded and edited by I.A. Bowers and M.A. Bravo) 4:50pm Start meeting President (H. Sandler) First order of business: accept minutes from last meeting. Dave Vitolo makes a motion from the floor. No discussion. Many “ayes”. Motion passed. Award Ceremony continued (D. Yarborough)
- Robert D. Sweet Outstanding Graduate Student Award: Kristine Averill acceptance speech.
- Service Recognition Award Greg Breeden U. Tenn. Greg Armel accepts in his stead. - Robert Dickerson Penn State. Dwight accepts award in his stead. - Recap the awards given out during General Session
o Fellow Award – Robin Bellinder o Outstanding Researcher – Robert Richardson o Award of Merit – Scott Hagood
Necrology Report (R. Prostak for M. Bravo)
- Went over recently deceased members (Richard Ilnickey, Les Mehrhoff) - Any additional from the floor -no response - Moment of silence in recognition of the passing of members. - Eulogies from the floor (Dave)
5:00 Year End Reports: Executive Committee President (H. Sandler)
- Recognizing people who contributed to meeting - Sustaining members - Maryland tax exemption – big deal, saves many dollars - Met contractual agreement 188 attendees (break down of numbers) successful - Feedback about joint meeting with horticulture - “Thanks” all around
Secretary/Treasurer (M. Bravo)
- Went over handout on financial update - Check directory to make corrections for listserv - Discussed proceedings - Questions? None. - Treasury report handout. We are in good shape! Thank you to all members and especially
the Sustaining members for supporting the Society in 2011. Audit Committee (Jim Steffel, Todd Mervosh, Art Gover):
o Jim Steffel met with Secretary Treasurer in October to review accounts.
134
o Jim Steffel, Todd Mervosh and Art Gover met again with Treasurer at this meeting for final audit. Everything checked out good: Thanks Melissa
Archive report (Jerry Baron in Dan. Kunkel’s stead)
- Everything is good, documents are safe. Director of Science Policy Report (L. Van Wychen)
- Thank you’s - Comments about activities on the Hill…. - USDA Funding:
o Continuing resolution. Everything is flat lined from last year’s levels. Losing some funding for a couple of areas. AFRI – didn’t get as much money as they hoped. Hopefully it gets put back. Won’t know until probably March. Huge increase in HATCH ACT-not as good as it looks.
o Herbicide Resistance: huge issue. “Superweed” hearings by house committee. End result trying to limit interstate movement of noxious weeds. Trying to stop these weed resistant weeds. Pretty much impossible.
o NPDS issue: WSSA has always supported. Need clean water act permit. Started from people being dumb and not following the LABEL!
Awards Committee Reports (D. Yarborough) Weed Contest: Tony Summarized 2010 Weed Contest hosted by Cornell. Huge success. Went over winners (also in handout). Student Awards (D. Yarborough)
- Best Paper presentation. CommentsStudents in general were speaking too fast & misspellings:
o 2nd: “Controlling Annual Bluegrass and Roughstalk Bluegrass in Cool Season Lawns with Methiozolin.” Brendan McNulty and Sean Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
o 1st: “The Effect of Rye Roll-Killed Mulch on N-Immobilization.” M. Scott Wells, C. Reberg-Horton, and A. Smith, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
- Poster Awards. Comments good looking posters do not always mean good content or
good presentation. o 3rd: “Influence of Nitrogen Plant Growth Regulators and Ferrous Sulfate on
Annual Bluegrass Populations.” Kyung M. Han and J.E. Kaminski, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
o 2nd: “Improving Survey Methods for the Detection of Giant Hogweed in Pennsylvania. Ian D. Bowers, Melissa Bravo and Jim Zoschg. Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
o 1st: “Length of Residual Annual Bluegrass Control of Mesotrione Relative to Other Preemergence Weed Control Products.” Katelyn Venner, Steve Hart and Carrie Mansue. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
135
Photo Awards (Greg Armel) - Comments Fun committee. 20 photos, 7 photographers:
o Honorable Mention - Jim O’Connell, and Aaron Patton Purdue Univ. o 3rd: Aaron Patton, Purdue. - “Spring Beauty” – Claytonia virginica o 2nd: Cory Johnson – PA Dept. Agric. – “Mile a Minute” Polygonum perfoliatum o 1st: Jennifer D’Appollonio – Univ. of Maine. “Common Yarrow” Achillea
millefolium
New President Announcement (H. Sandler) Transfer of Gavel. H. Sandler to Mark VanGessel New Business (Mark VanGessel) Any Resolutions from the floor? None. Nominating Committee: Dwight Lingenfelter for Vice President. Accepted. Committee Appointments:
- New nominating committee: Dan Kunkel. Christine Averill, Quintin Johnson (D. Yarbarough, R. Keese)
- New Resolutions committee: Kathleen Hester, John Johnson (Todd Mervosh). - Standing committees. See attached list.
2011 WeedOlympics (Greg Armel)
- July 25-27, 2011 at the University of Tenn. – East Tenn. Research and Education Center, Knoxville.
- Lodging. Everyone at the Knoxville Airport Hilton - Transportation provided to and from the Hotel to the Event. - Teams from all regions. Cross university teams encouraged - Contact info: www.weedolympics2011.org - President’s comments about WeedOlympics and final announcements.
Next meeting (Mark VanGessel) - -Jan 3-6, 2012 Philadelphia, Society Hill Sheraton. Next year’s meeting starts on Tuesday
because Monday is a holiday for state and federal workers. Meeting ends on Friday. - -2013 NEWSS Meeting. February 4-7, 2013 Baltimore Hilton meeting jointly with WSSA. Introduce 2012 Executive Committee (Mark VanGessel, President)
-Mark VanGessel (Pres.), Antonio DiTomasso (Pres.-Elect), Dwight Lingenfelter (Vice President), Melissa Bravo (Sec.-Treas.), Hilary Sandler (Past-Pres.), Darren Lycan (Editor), Barbara Scott (Public Relations), John Willis (Research/Education Coord.), John O’Barr (Sustaining Membership), Randy Prostak (CAST), Adam Smith (Grad.Student), Jacob Barney (Virginia Tech).
END TIME: 5:53 p.m. Motion to adjourn: Dave Vitolo motion, Dave Yarborough seconded. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa A. Bravo, Secretary, NEWSS (2008-2012)
136
NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS Gilbert H. Ahlgren 1947-49 Robert D. Sweet 1949-50 Howard L. Yowell 1950-51 Stephen M. Raleigh 1951-52 Charles E. Minarik 1952-53 Robert H. Beatty 1953-54 Albin O. Kuhn 1954-55 John Van Geluwe 1955-56 L. Danielson 1956-57 Charles L. Hovey 1957-58 Stanford N. Fertig 1958-59 Gordon Utter 1959-60 E. M. Rahn 1960-61 Lawrence Southwick 1961-62 Donald A. Shallock 1962-63 Anthony J. Tafuro 1963-64 Robert A. Peters 1964-65 Gideon D. Hill 1965-66 Richard D. Ilnicki 1966-67 John E. Gallagher 1967-68 John A. Meade 1968-69 Homer M. Lebaron 1969-70 John F. Ahrens 1970-71 George H. Bayer 1971-72 Arthur Bing 1972-73 Ralph Hansen 1973-74 Walter A. Gentner 1974-75 Henry P. Wilson 1975-76 Richard J. Marrese 1976-77 C. Edward Beste 1977-78 James D. Riggleman 1978-79 James V. Parochetti 1979-80 M. Garry Schnappinger 1980-81 Raymond B. Taylorson 1981-82 Stephan Dennis 1982-83 Thomas L. Watschke 1983-84 James C. Graham 1984-85 Russell R. Hahn 1985-86 Edward R. Higgins 1986-87 Maxwell L. McCormack 1987-88 Roy R. Johnson 1988-89 Stanley F. Gorski 1989-90 John B. Dobson 1990-91 Prasanta C. Bhowmik 1991-92 Stanley W. Pruss 1992-93 Ronald L. Ritter 1993-94 Wayne G. Wright 1994-95 Bradley A. Majek 1995-96 Thomas E. Vrabel 1996-97 Joseph C. Neal 1997-98
David B. Vitolo 1998-99 A. Richard Bonanno 1999-00 Brian D. Olson 2000-01 Jeffrey F. Derr 2001-02 David J. Mayonado 2002-03 D. Scott Glenn 2003-04 Robin R. Bellinder 2004-05 Timothy E. Dutt 2005-06 William S. Curran 2006-07 Renee Keese 2007-08 Jerry Baron 2008-09 David Yarborough 2009-10 Hilary Sandler 2010-11
137
AWARD OF MERIT
1971 Gilbert H. Ahlgren Rutgers University
Homer Neville L.I. Ag. & Tech, Farmingdale, NY Claude E. Phillips University of Delaware M. S. Pridham Cornell University Stephen A. Raleigh Penn State University
1972 Robert Bell University of Rhode Island Stuart Dunn University of New Hampshire Alfred Fletcher NJ State Dept. of Health Frank N. Hewetson Penn Fruit Res. Lab. Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Collins Veatch West Virginia University Howard L. Yowell Esso Research Lab.
1973 Moody F. Trevett University of Maine 1974 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc.
Arthur Hawkins University of Connecticut 1975 Philip Gorlin NY City Environ. Cont.
Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp. Robert D. Sweet Cornell University
1976 C. E. Langer University of New Hampshire Charles E. Minarik US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
1977 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Lawrence Southwick Dow Chemical Company John Stennis US Bureau of Fish & Wildlife
1978 None Awarded 1979 Carl M. Monroe Shell Chemical Company
Charles Joseph Noll Penn State University Jonas Vengris University of Massachusetts
1980 Otis F. Curtis, Jr. NY Agricultural Experiment Sta. Theodore R. Flanagan University of Vermont Oscar E. Shubert Virginia University
1981 Dayton L. Klingman US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine John Van Geluwe CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
1982 Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1983 Arthur Bing Cornell University
William E. Chappel Virginia Tech Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agricultural Prod.
1984 William H. Mitchell University of Delaware Roger S. Young West Virginia University
1985 John A. Jagschitz University of Rhode Island 1986 John R. Havis University of Massachusetts 1987 None Awarded 1988 J. Lincoln Pearson University of Rhode Island 1989 Robert A. Peter University of Connecticut 1990 Bryant L. Walworth American Cyanamid Co. 1991 Don Warholic Cornell University 1992 Robert Duel Rutgers University
138
Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University William V. Welker USDA/ARS
1993 None Awarded 1994 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta.
John B. Dobson American Cyanamid J. Ray Frank USDA-ARS/IR-4
1995 Francis J. Webb University of Delaware 1996 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts
Wilber F. Evans Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. Raymond B. Taylorson University of Rhode Island S. Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech
1997 Jean P. Cartier Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. 1998 Stan Pruss Novartis Crop Protection
Max McCormack, Jr. University of Maine 1999 None awarded 2000 Richard J. Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 2001 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University
Edward R. Higgins Novartis Crop 2002 Garry Schnappinger Syngenta Crop Protection 2003 None Awarded 2004 C. Edward Beste Univ of Maryland-Emeritus James C. Graham Monsanto (retired) 2005 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2006 Steve Dennis Syngenta Crop Protection 2007 None awarded 2008 Domingo Riego Monsanto 2009 None awarded 2010 Betty Marose Marose Ag. Consulting 2011 Scott Hagood Virginia Tech
NEWSS FELLOW
1979 George H. Bayer Agway, Inc.
Robert A. Peters University of Connecticut Robert D. Sweet Cornell University
1980 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. John E. Gallagher Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University
1981 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc. Arthur Bing Cornell University John A. Meade Rutgers University
1982 Walter A. Gentner US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine
1983 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS 1984 Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agric. Prod.
Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech 1985 None Awarded 1986 Chiko Haramaki Penn State University
Dean L. Linscott USDA-ARS/Cornell University 1987 Gideon D. Hill E. I. DuPont DeNemours
Williams V. Welker US Dept. of Agric-ARS 1988 Wendell R. Mullison Dow Chemical
139
James V. Parochetti US Dept. of Agriculture-CSRS 1989 None Awarded 1990 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts 1991 John (Jack) B. Dobson American Cyanamid
Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1992 Gary Schnappinger Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1993 Steve Dennis Zeneca Ag. Products
James Graham Monsanto Ag. Co. 1994 Russell Hahn Cornell University
Maxwell McCormick University of Maine 1995 Richard Ashly University of Connecticut
Richard Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 1996 Roy R. Johnson Waldrum Specialist Inc.
Edward R. Higgins Ciba Crop Protection 1997 Raymond B. Taylorson UDSA-ARS
Wayne G. Wright DowElanco Stanley F. Gorski Ohio State University
1998 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 1999 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland 2000 J. Ray Frank IR-4 Project Stanley W. Pruss Ciba Crop Protection 2001 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 2002 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2003 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University 2004 C. Benjamin Coffman USDA Joseph C. Neal North Carolina State University 2005 David Vitolo Syngenta Crop Protection 2006 A. Richard Bonnano University of Massachusetts Thomas Vrabel Eco Soil Systems, Central H.S. 2007 Larry Kuhns Penn State University Brian Olsen Dow Agrosciences 2008 Jeff Derr Virginia Tech 2009 David Mayonado Monsanto Co. Andrew Senesac Cornell University 2010 Scott Glenn University of Maryland 2011 Robin Bellinder Cornell University
OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD 1999 Garry Schnappinger Novartis Crop Protection 2000 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 2001 Robin Bellinder Cornell University 2002 Jerry J. Baron IR-4 Project, Rutgers University 2003 Arthur E. Gover Penn State University 2004 Mark J. VanGessel University of Delaware 2005 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University 2006 Grant Jordan ACDS Research 2007 Peter Dernoeden University of Maryland 2008 Shawn Askew Virginia Tech 2009 Joseph Neal North Carolina State University 2010 Todd Mervosh Connecticut Ag Experiments Station 2011 Robert Richardson North Carolina State University
140
OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD 1999 Douglas Goodale SUNY Cobleskill 2000 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2001 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland 2002 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech University 2003 Andrew F. Senesac Cornell University 2004 William S. Curran Pennsylvania State University 2005 Antonio DiTomasso Cornell University 2006 Russell Hahn Cornell University 2007 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 2008 Mike Fidanza Penn State University 2009 Scott Glenn University of Maryland 2010 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University 2011 None awarded
SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD 2009 Thomas Hines Virginia Tech 2010 Irene Tsontakis-Bradley Cornell University 2011 Greg Breeden University of Tennessee Robert Dickerson Penn State University
OUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER CONTEST 1979 1 Bradley Majek Cornell University 2 Betty J. Hughes Cornell University 1980 1 John Cardi Penn State University 2 Timothy Malefyt Cornell University 1981 1 A. Douglas Brede Penn State University 2 Ann S. McCue Cornell University 1982 1 Thomas C. Harris University of Maryland 2 Barbara J. Hook University of Maryland HM L. K. Thompson Virginia Tech HM Timothy Malefyt Cornell University 1983 1 Anna M. Pennucci University of Rhode Island 2 Michael A. Ruizzo Ohio State University HM I. M. Detlefson Rutgers University 1984 1 Robert S. Peregoy University of Maryland 2 Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut 1985 1 Stephan Reiners Ohio State University 2 Erin Hynes Penn State University
141
1986 1 Elizabeth Hirsh University of Maryland 2 (tie) Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut 2 (tie) Avraham Y. Teitz Ohio State University 1987 1 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University 2 (tie) Daniel E. Edwards Penn State University 2 (tie) Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts 1988 1 William K. Vencill Virginia Tech 2 Lewis K. Walker Virginia Tech HM Scott Guiser Penn State University HM Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts 1989 1 Frank S. Rossi Cornell University 1 Amy E. Stowe Cornell University 1990 1 William J. Chism Virginia Tech 2 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University 1991 1 Elizabeth Maynard Cornell University 2 Daniel L. Kunkel Cornell University 1992 1 J. DeCastro Rutgers University 2 Ted Blomgren Cornell University 3 Fred Katz Rutgers University 1993 1 Eric D. Wilkens Cornell University 2 Henry C. Wetzel University of Maryland 1994 1 Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 2 Eric D. Wilkins Cornell University 1995 1 Sydha Salihu Virginia Tech 2 John A. Ackley Virginia Tech HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 1996 1 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University 2 Mark Issacs University of Delaware HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 1997 1 David Messersmith Penn State University 2 Sowmya Mitra University of Massachusetts HM Mark Issacs University of Delaware 1998 1 Dan Poston Virginia Tech 2 Travis Frye Penn State University 3 David B. Lowe Clemson University 1999 1 Hennen Cummings North Carolina State University 2 John Isgrigg North Carolina State University 2000 1 Matthew Fagerness North Carolina State University 2 Steven King Virginia Tech
142
3 Gina Penny North Carolina State University 2001 1 Robert Nurse University of Guelph 2 (tie) W. Andrew Bailey Virginia Tech 2 (tie) Steven King Virginia Tech 2002 1. G. Michael Elston University of Massachusetts 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University 2003 1. Matt Myers Penn State University 2. J. Scott McElroy North Carolina State University 3. Robert Nurse Cornell University 2004 1. Whitnee L. Barker Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University 3. Erin R. Haramoto University of Maine 2005 1. Jacob Barney Cornell University 2. Steven Mirsky Penn State University 2006 1. Steven Mirsky Penn State University 1. Robert Shortell Rutgers University 2. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University 2007 1. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University 2. John Willis Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 3. Glenn Evans Cornell University 2008 1. Glenn Evans Cornell University 2. Alex Putnam University of Connecticut 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University 2009 1. Dustin Lewis University of Tennessee 2. Kristine Averill Cornell University 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University 2010 1. Katherine Ghantous University of Massachusetts 2. Angela Post Virginia Tech 3. Matthew Cutulle Virginia Tech 2011 1. Scott Wells North Carolina State 2. Brendan McNulty Virginia Tech
DR. ROBERT D. SWEET OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT 2009 Jacob Barney (PhD) Virginia Tech 2010 Matt Ryan (PhD) Penn State University Katherine Ghantous (MS) University of Massachusetts 2011 Kristine Averill (MS) Penn State University
143
COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS 1983 - Wye Research Center, Maryland Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Mike Donnelly, University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Bob Annet, University of Guelph 1984 - Rutgers Research and Development Center, Bridgeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: D. Wright, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: N. Harker, University of Guelph 1985 – Rohm and Haas, Spring House, Pennsylvania Graduate Team: University of Maryland Undergraduate Individual: Finlay Buchanan, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: David Vitolo, Rutgers University 1986 - FMC, Princeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: R. Jain, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Bill Litwin, University of Guelph 1987 - DuPont, Newark, Delaware Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Lewis Walker, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Allen Eadie, University of Guelph 1988 - Ciba-Geigy Corp., Hudson, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Del Voight, Penn State University Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech 1989 - American Cyanamid, Princeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: Cornell University Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Paul Stachowski, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Anita Dielman, University of Guelph 1990 - Agway Farm Research Center, Tully, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University 1991 - Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech
144
Undergraduate Individual: Tim Borro, University of Guelph 1992 - Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario, CANADA Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: Ohio State Graduate Individual: Troy Bauer, Michigan State University Undergraduate Individual: Jeff Stackler, Ohio State University 1993 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Brian Cook, University of Guelph 1994 - Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury, Maryland Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Robert Maloney, University of Guelph 1995 - Thompson Vegetable Research Farm, Freeville, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Jimmy Summerlin, North Carolina State University 1 996 - Penn State Agronomy Farm, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: SUNY, Cobleskill Graduate Individual: John Isgrigg, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Mark Brock, University of Guelph 1997 - North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brett Thorpe, Michigan State University 1998 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Kevin Ego, University of Guelph 1999 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Nova Scotia Agricultural College Graduate Individual: Rob Richardson, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Keith Burnell, North Carolina State University 2000 - University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: Ohio State University Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University
145
Undergraduate Individual: Luke Case, Ohio State University 2001 - University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Matt Myers, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Shawn Heinbaugh, Penn State University 2002 - ACDS Research Facility, North Rose, New York Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: North Carolina State University Graduate Individual: Scott McElroy, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Sarah Hans, North Carolina State University 2003 – Syngenta Crop Protection, Eastern Region Technical Center, Hudson, NY Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Andrew MacRae, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Jonathan Kapwyk, University of Guelph 2004 – North Carolina University, Raleigh, NC Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Jenny English, University of Guelph 2005 – Pennsylvania State University, Landisville, PA Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Gerard Pynenborg, University of Guelph 2006 – DuPont Crop Protection, Stine Haskell Research Center, Newark, DE Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Virender Kumar, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Adam Pfeffer, University of Guelph 2007 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: George Place, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Craig Reid, University of Guelph 2008 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Matt Ryan, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Blair Scott, University of Guelph 2009 - ABG Ag Services, Sheridan, Indiana (joint contest with the NCWSS) Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph
146
Graduate Individual: Angela Post, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Andrew Reid, University of Guelph 2010- Cornell University, Freeville, New York Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Jason Parish, Ohio State University Undergraduate Individual: Cory Chelko, Penn State University 2011-University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (joint contest with NCWSS, SWSS, WSWS) Graduate Team: NEWSS: North Carolina State University Overall: Purdue University Undergraduate Team: NEWSS and Overall: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: NEWSS: Dustin Lewis, North Carolina State University Overall: Jason Parrish, The Ohio State University Undergraduate Individual: NEWSS and Overall: Dan Tekiela, Virginia Tech
RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS 1983 1. Herbicide Impregnated Fertilizer of Weed Control in No-Tillage Corn - R. Uruatowski
and W. H. Mitchell, Univ. of Delaware, Newark 2. Effect of Wiper Application of Several Herbicides and Cutting on Black Chokeberry - D.
E. Yarborough and A. A. Ismail, Univ. of Maine, Orono HM. Corn Chamomile Control in Winter Wheat - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York
and P. W. Kanouse, New York State Cooperative Extension, Mt. Morris 1984 1. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Ornamental Res. Station, Painter
2. Triazine Resistant Weeds in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY HM. A Roller for Applying Herbicides at Ground Level - W. V. Welker and D. L. Peterson,
USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 1985 1. No-Tillage Cropping Systems in a Crown Vetch Living Mulch - N. L. Hartwig, Penn State
Univ., University Park 2. Anesthetic Release of Dormancy in Amaranthus retroflexus Seeds - R. B. Taylorson,
USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD and K. Hanyadi, Univ. of Agricultural Science, Keszthely, Hungary
2. Triazine Resistant Weed Survey in Maryland - B. H. Marose, Univ. of Maryland, College Park
HM. Wild Proso Millet in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1986 1. Discharge Rate of Metolachlor from Slow Release Tablets - S. F. Gorski, M. K. Wertz and S. Refiners, Ohio State Univ., Columbus
2. Glyphosate and Wildlife Habitat in Maine - D. Santillo, Univ. of Maine, Orono
147
1987 1. Mycorrhiza and Transfer of Glyphosate Between Plants - M. A. Kaps and L. J. Khuns, Penn State Univ., University Park
2. Redroot Pigweed Competition Study in No-Till Potatoes - R. W. Wallace, R. R. Bellinder, and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1988 1. Growth Suppression of Peach Trees With Competition - W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn,
USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 2. Smooth Bedstraw Control in Pastures and Hayfields - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca,
NY 1989 1. Burcucumber Responses to Sulfonylurea Herbicides - H. P. Wilson and T. E. Hines,
Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Water Conservation in the Orchard Environment Through Management - W. V. Welker,
Jr., USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Res. Sta., Kearneysville, WV 1990 1. Reduced Rates of Postemergence Soybean Herbicides - E. Prostko, J. A. Meade, and
J. Ingerson-Mahar, Rutgers Coop. Ext. Mt. Holly, NJ 2. The Tolerance of Fraxinus, Juglans, and Quercus Seedings to Imazaquin and
Imazethapyr - L. J. Kuhns and J. Loose, Penn State Univ., University Park 1991 1. Johnsongrass Recovery from Sulfonylurea Herbicides - T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson,
Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Growth Response to Young Peach Trees to Competition With Several Grass Species -
W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 1992 1. Teaching Weed Identification with Videotape - B. Marose, N. Anderson, L.
Kauffman-Alfera, and T. Patten, Univ. of Maryland, College Park 2. Biological Control of Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L. Reptans) with Xanthomonas
campestris (MYX-7148) Under Field Conditions - N. D. Webber and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1993 1. Development of an Identification Manual for Weeds of the Northeastern United States -
R H. Uva and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Optimum Time of Cultivation for Weed Control in Corn - Jane Mt. Pleasant, R. Burt and
J. Frisch, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1994 1. Herbicide Contaminant Injury Symptoms on Greenhouse Grown Poinsettia and
Geranium - M. Macksel and A. Senesac, Long Island Horticultural Res. Lab, Riverhead, NY and J. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
2. Mow-kill Regulation of Winter Cereals Grown for Spring No-till Crop Production - E. D. Wilkins and R. R. Bellinder, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1995 1. A Comparison of Broadleaf and Blackseed Plantains Identification and Control - J. C.
Neal and C. C. Morse, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Using the Economic Threshold Concept as a Determinant for Velvetleaf Control in Field
Corn - E. L. Werner and W. S. Curran, Penn State Univ., University Park 1996 1. Preemergence and Postemergence Weed Management in 38 and 76 cm Corn - C. B.
Coffman, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 2. Common Cocklebur Response to Chlorimuron and Imazaquin - B. S. Manley, H. P.
Wilson and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 1997 None Awarded
148
1998 1. Weed Control Studies with Rorippa sylvestris - L. J. Kuhns and T. Harpster, Penn State
Univ., University Park, PA 2. Postemergence Selectivity and Safety of Isoxaflutole in Cool Season Turfgrass - P. C.
Bhowmik and J. A. Drohen, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 1999 1. Winter Squash Cultivars Differ in Response to Weed Competition - E. T. Maynard,
Purdue Univ., Hammond, IN 2. Effectiveness of Row Spacing, Herbicide Rate, and Application Method on Harvest
Efficiency of Lima Beans - S. Sankula, M. J. VanGessel, W. E. Kee, and J. L. Glancey, Univ. of Delaware, Georgetown, DE
2000 1. Weed Control and Nutrient Release With Composted Poultry Litter Mulch in a Peach
Orchard - P. L. Preusch, Hood College, Frederick, MD; and T. J. Tworkoski, USDA-ARS, Hearneysville, WV
2 The Effect of Total Postemergence Herbicide Timings on Corn Yield - D. B. Vitolo, C. Pearson, M. G. Schnappinger, and R. Schmenk, Novartis Crop Protection, Hudson, NY
2 Pollen Transport from Genetically Modified Corn – J. M. Jemison and M. Vayda, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME
2001 1. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for yellow nutsedge control in plasticulture
tomato - W. A. Bailey, H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA. 2. Evaluation of alternative control methods for annual ryegrass in typical Virginia crop
rotations - S. R. King and E. S. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. 2002 1. Effectiveness of mesotrione to control weeds in sweet corn. J. M. Jemison, Jr. and A.
Nejako, Univ. Maine, Orono. 2. Flufenacet plus metribuzin for italian ryegrass control in Virginia wheat. W. A. Bailey,
H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter. 2003 1. Comparison of two methods to estimate weed populations in field-scale agricultural
research. R. D. Stout, M. G. Burton, and H. M. Linker, North Carolina State Univ. 2. Diquat plus glyphosate for rapid-symptom vegetation control in turf. W. L. Barker, S. D.
Askew, J. B. Beam, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; and D. C. Riego, Monsanto Co., Carmel, IN.
2004 1. Biology of the invasive plant pale swallow-wort. L. Smith, S. Greipsson, and A.
DiTommaso. Cornell Univ. 2. Evaluating perennial groundcovers for weed suppression: Roadside trials and
demonstrations. A. Senesac, I. Tsontakis-Bradley, J. Allaire, and L. Weston. Cornell Univ.
2005 1. Cover crop management impacts on the weed seed predator, Harpalus rufipes. A.
Shearin, S.C. Reberg-Horton, E. Gallandt, and F. Drummond, Univ. Maine, Orono. 2. Carfentrazone, quinclorac, and trifloxysulfuron effects on seeded bermudagrass
establishment and crabgrass control. J. Willis, D.B. Ricker, and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
2006 1. Mesotrione for preemergence broadleaf weed control in turf. D. Ricker, J. Willis, and
S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
149
2. Using a wet blade mower for pest control, fertility, and growth retardation in fine turfgrass. J. Willis and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
2007 1. Effects of emergence periodicity on growth and fecundity of horseweed. J. Dauer, B.A.
Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and D.A. Mortensen. Penn State University, College Park. 2. Vascular weed control in container production using selected non-chemical top-dress
treatments. A. Burtt. University of Vermont, Burlington. 2008 1. Evaluation of the impact of an adventitious herbivore on an invasive plant, yellow
toadflax, in Colorado USA. J.F. Egan and R.E. Irwin. Penn State University, State College.
1. Organic weed management: what the farmers think. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, D.O. Wilson, and P.R. Hepperly. Penn State University, University Park.
2009 1. Turfgrass response to herbicide-treated irrigation water. R.L. Roten, R.J. Richardson, and A.P. Gardner. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
2. Response of cranberry vines to hand-held flame cultivators- initial year evaluation. K.M. Ghantous, H.A. Sandler, and P.Jeranyama. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2010 1. Comparison of genetic diversity of weedy and domesticated populations in genus Cichorium. T. Zavada. University of Massachusetts, Boston. 2. Use of mesotrione for annual bluegrass control at Kentucky bluegrass
establishment. K. Venner, S. Hart, and C. Mansue. Rutgers University, New Brunswick 3. The effects of herbicide mixtures with Brassica meal on weed control and yield of
strawberry. J. Cummins, G. Armel, C. Sams, D. Deyton, and J. Vargas. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2011 1. Length of residual annual bluegrass control of mesotrione relative to other preemergence weed control products. S. Hart, C.J. Manuse, and K.A. Venner.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick 2. Improving survey methods for the detection of giant hogweed in Pennsylvania. I.D. Bowers, M.A. Bravo, and J. Zoschg. Penn State University, University Park 3. Influence of nitrogen, plant growth regulators, and ferrous sulfate on annual bluegrass populations. K.M. Han and J.E. Kaminski. Penn State University, University Park
INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR 1986 Nathan Hartwig Penn State University 1987 Thomas Welker USDA/ARS Appl. Fruit Res. Sta. 1988 None Awarded 1989 John E. Waldrum Union Carbide Agric. Prod. 1990 None Awarded 1991 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 1992 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 1993 None Awarded 1994 George Hamilton Penn State University 1995 Kent D. Redding DowElanco
150
1996 James Orr Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 1997 George Hamilton Penn State University 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS 1991 Russell R. Hahn Cornell University 1992 Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech 1993 None Awarded 1994 Robin Bellinder Cornell University 1995 None Awarded 1996 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech 1997 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
1991 Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech 1992 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. 1993 Joseph C. Neal Cornell University 1994 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 1995 Andrew F. Senesac Long Island Hort. Research Lab 1996 Larry J. Kuhns Penn State University 1997 Jeffrey F. Derr Virginia Tech 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued
OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS 1954 Studies on Entry of 2,4-D into Leaves - J. N. Yeatman, J. W. Brown, J. A. Thorne and J.
R. Conover, Camp Detrick, Frederick, MD The Effect of Soil Organic Matter Levels on Several Herbicides - S. L. Dallyn, Long
Island Vegetable Research Farm, Riverhead, NY Experimental Use of Herbicides Impregnated on Clay Granules for Control of Weeds in
Certain Vegetable Crops - L. L. Danielson, Virginia Truck Expt. Station, Norfolk, VA Cultural vs. Chemical Weed Control in Soybeans - W. E. Chappell, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg, VA Public Health Significance of Ragweed Control Demonstrated in Detroit - J. H. Ruskin,
Department of Health, Detroit, MI 1955 A Comparison of MCP and 2,4-D for Weed Control in Forage Legumes - M. M.
Schreiber, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
151
1956 None Awarded 1957 Herbicidal Effectiveness of 2,4-D, MCPB, Neburon and Others as Measured by Weed
Control and Yields of Seedling Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil - A. J. Kerkin and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs
Progress Report #4 - Effects of Certain Common Brush Control Techniques and
Material on Game Food and Cover on a Power Line Right-of-Way - W. C. Bramble, W. R. Byrnes, and D. P. Worley, Penn State Univ., University Park
1958 Effects of 2,4-D on Turnips - C. M. Switzer, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph,
Canada Ragweed Free Areas in Quebec and the Maritimes - E. E. Compagna, Universite Laval
at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Quebec, Canada 1959 Yields of Legume-Forage Grass Mixtures as Affected by Several Herbicides Applied
Alone or in a Combination During Establishment - W. G. Wells and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs
Influence of Soil Moisture on Activity of EPTC, CDEC and CIPC - J. R. Havis, R. L.
Ticknor and P. F. Boblua, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst 1960 The Influence of Cultivation on Corn Yields When Weeds are Controlled by Herbicides -
W. F. Meggitt, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 1961 Preliminary Investigation of a Growth Inhibitor Found in Yellow Foxtail (Setaria glauca
L.) - H. C. Yokum, M. J. Jutras, and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs 1962 The Effects of Chemical and Cultural Treatment on the Survival of Rhizomes and on the
Yield of Underground Food Reserves of Quackgrass - H. M. LeBaron and S. N. Gertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
Observations on Distribution and Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Chesapeake Bay,
1961 - V. D. Stotts and C. R. Gillette, Annapolis, MD 1963 The Relation of Certain Environmental Conditions to the Effectiveness of DNBP of
Post-Emergence Weed Control in Peas - G. R. Hamilton and E. M. Rahn, Univ. of Delaware, Newark
The Influence of Soil Surface and Granular Carrier Moisture on the Activity of EPTC - J.
C. Cialone and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY The Determination of Residues of Kuron in Birdsfoot Trefoil and Grasses - M. G. Merkle
and S. N. Fertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1964 Control of Riparian Vegetation with Phenoxy Herbicides and the Effect on Streamflow
Quality - I. C. Reigner, USDA-Forest Service, New Lisbon, NJ; W. E. Sopper, Penn State Univ., University Park; and R. R. Johnson, Amchem Products, Inc., Ambler, PA
EPTC Incorporation by Band Placement and Standard Methods in Establishment of
Birdsfoot Trefoil - D. L. Linscott and R. D. Hagin, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
152
1965 1. Corn Chamomile (Anthemis arvensis L.) Responses to Some Benzoic Acid Derivatives - Barbara M. Metzger, Judy K. Baldwin and R. D. Ilnicki, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ
2. The Physical Properties of Viscous Sprays for Reduction of Herbicide Drift - J. W.
Suggitt, The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Canada 1966 1. Weed Control Under Clear Plastic Mulch - Carl Bucholz, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. A Chemical Team For Aerial Brush Control on Right-of-Way - B. C. Byrd and C. A.
Reimer, Dow Chemical Co 1967 1. Influence of Time of Seeding on the Effectiveness of Several Herbicides Used for
Establishing an Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixture - R. T. Leanard and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham
2. Weed Competition in Soybeans - L. E. Wheetley and R. H. Cole, Univ. of Delaware,
Newark 1968 None Awarded 1969 1. Weed and Crop Responses in Cucumbers and Watermelons - H. P. Wilson and R. L.
Waterfield, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter 2. Effect of Several Combinations of Herbicides on the Weight and Development of
Midway Strawberry Plants in the Greenhouse - O. E. Schubert, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown
1970 1. Effects of RH-315 on Quackgrass and Established Alfalfa - W. B. Duke, Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, NY 1971 1. Activity of Nitralin, Trifluralin and ER-5461 on Transplant Tomato and Eggplant - D. E.
Broaden and J. C. Cialone, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 2. Field Investigations of the Activities of Several Herbicides for the Control of Yellow
Nutsedge - H. P. Wilson, R. L. Waterfield, Jr., and C. P. Savage, Jr., Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter
1972 1. Study of Organisms Living in the Heated Effluent of a Power Plant - M. E. Pierce,
Vassar College and D. Allessandrello, Marist College 2. Effect of Pre-treatment Environment on Herbicide Response and Morphological
Variation of Three Species - A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD
1973 1. A Simple Method of Expressing the Relative Efficacy of Plant Growth Regulators - A. R.
Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD
2. Agronomic Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Glyphosate for Quackgrass Control –F. E. Brockman, W. B. Duke, and J. F. Hunt, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1974 1. Weed Control in Peach Nurseries - O. F. Curtis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
153
2. Persistence of Napropamide and U-267 in a Sandy Loam Soil - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute for Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH
1975 1. Control of Jimsonweed and Three Broadleaf Weeds in Soybeans - J. V. Parochetti,
Univ. of Maryland, College Park HM. The Influence of Norflurazon on Chlorophyll Content and Growth of Potomogeton
pectinatus - R. M. Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham HM. Germination, Growth, and Flowering of Shepherdspurse - E. K. Stillwell and R. D.
Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1976 1. Top Growth and Root Response of Red Fescue to Growth Retardants - S. L. Fales, A.
P. Nielson and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston HM. Selective Control of Poa annua in Kentucky Bluegrass - P. J. Jacquemin, O. M. Scott
and Sons, and P. R. Henderlong, Ohio State Univ., Columbus HM. Effects of DCPA on Growth of Dodder - L. L. Danielson, USDA ARS, Beltsville, MD 1977 1. The Effects of Stress on Stand and Yield of Metribuzin Treated Tomato Plants - E. H.
Nelson and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs HM. The Influence of Growth Regulators on the Absorption of Mineral Elements - R. M.
Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham. HM. Quantification of S-triazine Losses in Surface Runoff: A Summary - J. K. Hall, Penn
State Univ., University Park 1978 1. Annual Weedy Grass Competition in Field Corn - Jonas Vengris, Univ. of
Massachusetts, Amherst HM. Metribuzin Utilization with Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute of
Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH 1979 1. Herbicides for Ground Cover Plantings - J. F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agric. Expt. Station,
Windsor 2. Weed Control Systems in Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute of
Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH 1980 1. Integrated Weed Control Programs for Carrots and Tomatoes - R. C. Henne and T. L.
Poulson, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH 2. Suppression of Crownvetch for No-Tillage Corn - J. Carina and N. L. Hartwig, Penn
State Univ., University Park HM. Effect of Planting Equipment and Time of Application on Injury to No-tillage Corn from
Pendimethalin-Triazine Mixtures - N. L. Hartwig, Penn State Univ., University Park 1981 1. Weed Control in Cucumbers in Northwest Ohio - R. C. Henne and T. L. Poulson,
Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH
154
2. Prostrate Spurge Control in Turfgrass Using Herbicides - J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston
HM. Some Ecological Observations of Hempstead Plains, Long Island - R. Stalter, St. John's
Univ., Jamaica, NY 1982 1. Differential Growth Responses to Temperature Between Two Biotypes of
Chenopodium album - P. C. Bhowmik, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst 2. Chemical Control of Spurge and Other Broadleaf Weeds in Turfgrass - J. S. Ebdon and
J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston HM. Influence of Norflurazon on the Light Activation of Oxyfluorfen - R. M. Devlin, S. J.
Karczmarczyk, I. I. Zbiec and C. N. Saras, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham HM. Analysis of Weed Control Components for Conventional, Wide-row Soybeans in
Delaware - D. K. Regehr, Univ. of Delaware, Newark 1983 1. Comparisons of Non-Selective Herbicides for Reduced Tillage Systems - R. R.
Bellinder, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter
2. The Plant Communities Along the Long Island Expressway, Long Island, New York - R.
Stalter, St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY HM. Effect of Morning, Midday and Evening Applications on Control of Large Crabgrass by
Several Postemergence Herbicides - B. G. Ennis and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs 1984 1. Pre-transplant Oxyfluorfen for Cabbage - J. R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 2. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter
1985 1. Peach Response to Several Postemergence Translocated Herbicides - B. A. Majek,
Rutgers Univ., Bridgeton, NJ 1986 1. Influence of Mefluidide Timing and Rate on Poa annua Quality Under Golf Course
Conditions - R. J. Cooper, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst; K. J. Karriok, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, and P. R. Henderlong and J. R. Street, Ohio State Univ., Columbus
2. The Small Mammal Community in a Glyphosate Conifer Release Treatment in Maine -
P. D'Anieri, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; M. L. McCormack, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono; and D. M. Leslie, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater
HM. Field Evaluation of a Proposed IPM Approach for Weed Control in Potatoes - D. P. Kain
and J. B. Sieczka, Cornell Univ., Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory, Riverhead, NY and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
1987 None Awarded
155
1988 1. Bentazon and Bentazon-MCPB Tank-mixes for Weed Control in English Pea - G. A. Porter, Univ. of Maine, Orono; A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs; R. R. Bellinder and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; M. P. Mascianica, BASF Corp., Parsippany, NJ; and L. S. Morrow, Univ. of Maine, Orono
2. Effects of Herbicide Residues on Germination and Early Survival of Red Oak Acorns -
R. D. Shipman and T. J. Prunty, Penn State Univ., University Park 2. Watershed Losses of Triclopyr after Aerial Application to Release Spruce Fir - C. T.
Smith, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham and M. L. McCormack, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono
1989 None Awarded 1990 None Awarded 1991 Award Discontinued
156
2011 NEWSS MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
Last Name First Organization Address City State Zip Phone No. Email Address
Abbey Tim
Penn State Cooperative Extension
112 Pleasant Acres Road York PA 17402
717-840-7408 [email protected]
Ackley Bruce The Ohio State University 2021 Coffey Rd. Columbus OH 43210
740-225-2014 [email protected]
Agnew Michael Syngenta Crop Protection
302 Rose Glen Lane
Kennett Square PA 19348
610-444-2063 [email protected]
Ahrens John
Connecticut Ag. Exp Station (Emeritus) P.O. Box 248 Windsor CT 06095
860-683-4985 [email protected]
Alea Stephanie Rutgers University 59 Dudley Rd New Brunswick NJ 08901
732-932-9711 x 116 [email protected]
Armel Greg University of Tennessee
252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg. Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-8829 [email protected]
Arsenovic Marija Rutgers - IR-4 Headquarters
500 College Ave Suite 201W Princeton NJ 08540
732-932-9575 x 4609 [email protected]
Ashley James
Evonik Goldschmidt Corporation
710 South 6th Avenue Hopewell VA 23860
804-452-5692 [email protected]
Askew Shawn Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-5807 [email protected]
Atland James USDA-ARS ATRU 208 Ag. Eng. Building Wooster OH 44691
330-263-3870 [email protected]
Averill Kristine Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
860-248-9969 [email protected]
Baker Robert Scotts Company 14111 Scottslawn Rd. Marysville OH 43041
937-645-2628 [email protected]
Barcel David OHP Inc. W331 S4122 Saddleback Dr. Genesee WI 53118
262-392-3004 [email protected]
Barkman Gary Montgomery Weed Control Inc.
18410 Muncaster Road Derwood MD 20855
301-503-6024 [email protected]
Barolli Sali Imperial Nurseries 176 Lost Acres Rd Granby CT 06035
860-653-1509 [email protected]
Baron Jerry Rutgers - IR-4 Headquarters
500 College Road, East, Suite 201 Princeton NJ 08540
732-932-9575 x 4605 [email protected]
Barrett Mike Argyle Country Club
14600 Argyle Club Road Silver Spring MD 20906
301-774-5102 [email protected]
Bates Ryan Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1014 [email protected]
Batts Roger
North Carolina State University - IR-4 Center
Box 7523, NCSU Campus Raleigh NC 27606
919-515-1668 [email protected]
Baxter David DuPont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell 1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714
302-366-5065 [email protected]
Becker Chris BAAR Scientific LLC 6374 Rte. 89 Romulus NY 14541
607-342-3610 [email protected]
Bellinder Robin Cornell University 164 Plant Science Bldg Ithaca NY 14853
607-255-7890 [email protected]
Beste Ed
Univ. Maryland, Salisbury Facility (Emeritus)
27664 Nanticoke Road Salisbury MD 21801
410-742-8788 [email protected]
Bhowmik Prasanta University of Massachusetts
Stockbridge Hall Room 10 Amherst MA
01002-2901
413-545-5223 [email protected]
Bonanno Richard University of Massachusetts
255 Merrimack Street Methuen MA 01844
978-361-5650 [email protected]
Borger Jeffrey Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-3005 [email protected]
Bowe Steve BASF Corp. 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-547-2559 [email protected]
157
Bradley Irene NEWSS Standing Orders
3059 Sound Avenue Riverhead NY 11901
631-727-3595 [email protected]
Bravo Melissa Pennsylvania Dept Agriculture
2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg PA 17110
717-787-7204 [email protected]
Breeden Gregory University of Tennessee
252 Ellington Plant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-7208 [email protected]
Brooks Thomas Crop Management Strategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056
610-767-1944 [email protected]
Brosnan James University of Tennessee
252 Ellington Plant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-8603 [email protected]
Buck Jenny Wildflower Photographer
121 Curtis Point Drive Mantoloking NJ 08738
732-892-5507 [email protected]
Bulcke Robert
Ghent University, Weed Science Laboratory
Coupure Links 653 B-9000 Gent
Belgium
+32-(0)9-264.60.98 [email protected]
Burch Patrick Dow AgroSciences LLC
3425 Elk Creek Road Christiansburg VA 24073
540-382-3062 [email protected]
Burnell Keith Syngenta Crop Protection 49 Hillside Road Penfield NY 14526
315-209-7580 [email protected]
Cain Nancy Cain Vegetation Inc.
4 Spruce Boulevard Acton ON
L7J 2Y2
519-853-3081 [email protected]
Calabro Jill Valent USA Corporation 1305 Colony Dr Annapolis MD 21403
443-235-0612 [email protected]
Case Luke The Ohio State University 2001Fayette Ct. Columbus OH 43210
614-292-0209 [email protected]
Chamberlin Joe Valent USA Corporation
2386 Clower St. Ste. E-100B Snellville GA 30078
770-985-0303 [email protected]
Chandran Rakesh West Virginia University
1076 Agricultural Sci PO Box 6108 Morgantown VA 26506
304-293-6131 [email protected]
Chism Bill US EPA, OPP P.O Box 258 Point of Rocks MD 21777 703-308-8136 [email protected]
Coffman Benjamin USDA-ARS
10300 Baltimore Ave Building 001 Room 110 BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705
301-504-5398 [email protected]
Corbett Jerry Quali-Pro 423 Batten Pond Road Selma NC 27576
919-279-2584 [email protected]
Cox Michael Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-5835 [email protected]
Cranmer John Valent USA Corporation
202 Davis Grove Circle-Suite 103 Cary NC 27519
919-387-2013 [email protected]
Cummins John University of Tennessee 1705 Lee Cr. New Market TN 37820
865-228-9789 [email protected]
Curran William Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1014 [email protected]
Cushman Mark The Scott Company
14111 Scottslawn Rd. Marysville OH 43041
937-644-0011 [email protected]
Custis Gary PBI Gordon Corporation
1217 W. 12th Street Kansas City MO 64101
816-460-6215 [email protected]
Cutulle Matthew Virginia Tech 1444 Diamond Springs Road Virginia Beach VA 23455
757-363-3884 [email protected]
D'Appollonio Jennifer University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469 207-581-2924 [email protected]
David Paul Gowan Company 343 Rumford Road Lititz PA 17543
717-560-8352 [email protected]
Davis James Vegetation Managers Inc.
5574 Clearfield Woodland Hwy Clearfield PA 16830
814-765-5875 [email protected]
Davis Todd Delaware Dept. Agriculture
2320 S Cedar Crest Blvd Dover DE 19901
302-697-4468 [email protected]
Davis Vince University of Illinois 320 ERML, 1201 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana IL 61801
217-333-1531 [email protected]
158
Dernoeden Peter University of Maryland
1112 W.J. Patterson Hall College Park MD 20742
301-405-1337 [email protected]
Derr Jeffrey Virginia Tech
Hampton Rds, AREC 1444 Diamond Spring Virginia Beach VA 23455
757-363-3912 [email protected]
Dillehay Bryan Monsanto Company 276 Decker Road Centre Hall PA 16828
814-404-2683 [email protected]
DiTommaso Antonio Cornell University
903 Bradfield Hall Dept. of Crop & Soil Ithaca NY 14853
607-254-4702 [email protected]
Dobbs Jeffrey OHP Inc. 1095 Applecross Drive Roswell GA 30075
770-992-0121 [email protected]
Dougherty Ryan Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-6323 [email protected]
Dufoe Allan FMC Corporation 735 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19106 410-570-6206 [email protected]
Dunst Richard
Cornell Lake Erie Research and Extension Lab
6592 West Main Rd. Portland NY 14769
716-785-9910 [email protected]
Dutt Timothy LABServices 342 South Third Street Hamburg PA 19526
610-562-5055 [email protected]
Egan John Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-6679 [email protected]
Ekins Rick FMC Professional Solutions
1735 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19103
215-299-5836 [email protected]
Elmore Matthew University of Tennessee
252 Ellington Plant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-7324 [email protected]
Estes Tony United Phosphorus Inc.
206 Stonewall Heights Abingdon VA 24210
864-202-7526 [email protected]
Evans Glenn Cornell University 146A Plant Science Bldg. Ithaca NY 14853
607-255-9085 [email protected]
Everman Wesley North Carolina State University
7620 Williams Hall Raleigh NC 27695
919-518-0488 [email protected]
Farrington Steven Gowan Company 724 Wrights Mill Road Auburn Al 36830
334-275-5396 [email protected]
Fausey Jason Valent USA Corporation
111 W. Co. Rd. 173 Fremont OH 43420
419-307-7666 [email protected]
Fidanza Michael Penn State University
Berks Campus, 2080 Tulpehocken Road Reading PA 19610
610-396-6330 [email protected]
Forney Raymond Dupont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell 1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714
302-561-0027
Gallandt Eric University of Maine 7 Mountain View Drive Orono ME 04473
207-581-2933 [email protected]
Ganske Donald DuPont Crop Protection
125 Cotton Ridge Rd Winchester VA 22603
540-662-6011
Ghantous Katherine UMass Cranberry Station
PO Box 569, 1 State Bog Rd
East Wareham MA 02538
508-295-2212 [email protected]
Gianessi Leonard CropLife Foundation
1156 15th Street NW Washington DC 20005
202-872-3865 [email protected]
Gilliam Charles Auburn University 101 Funchess Hall Auburn AL 36849
334-844-3045 [email protected]
Glasgow Les Syngenta 410 S Swing Rd Greensboro NC 27409 336-632-5501 [email protected]
Glenn Scott University of Maryland
0115 HJ Patterson Hall College Park MD 20742
301-405-1331 [email protected]
Goddard Matt Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-5835 [email protected]
Gover Art Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-863-9904 [email protected]
159
Graham James Monsanto (Retired) 12381 Country Glen Lane Creve Coeur MO 63141
314-805-7867 [email protected]
Graves Dean Chevy Chase Club 6100 Connecticut Avenue Chevy Chase MD 20815
301-656-6323 [email protected]
Green Jerry Pioneer 1521 Yeatmans Station Road Landenberg PA 19350
484-574-7761 [email protected]
Guiser Scott
Penn State Cooperative Extension
1282 Almshouse Road Doylestown PA 18901
215-345-3283 [email protected]
Hahn Russell Cornell University 238A Emerson Hall Ithaca NY 14853
607-255-1759 [email protected]
Han Kyung Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1014 [email protected]
Hannig Gregory Dupont Crop Protection
1199 Canandaigua Rd. Palmyra NY 14522
302-299-7304 [email protected]
Hanrahan Richard
Bayer Environmental Science
100 East Paliside Ave C-42 Englewood NJ 07631
201-294-5217
Harlow Chris North Carolina State University
70 Kilgor Hall, Box 7609 Raleigh NC 27695
919-515-8097 [email protected]
Harpster Tracy Penn State University
102 Tyson Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-3190 [email protected]
Hart Stephen Rutgers University 59 Dudley Rd New Brunswick NJ 08901
732-932-9711 x 166 [email protected]
Hearn Brian University of Delaware
16483 County Seat Highway Georgetown DE 19947
302-856-7303 [email protected]
Hedberg Rob
USDA National Institute of Agriculture
5612 Mclean Drive Bethesda MD 20814
202-720-5384 [email protected]
Heimer Lane
Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401
410-841-5920 [email protected]
Herrick Robert FMC Corporation 11 Wolfpack Court Hamilton NJ 08619
609-951-3792 [email protected]
Hess Dwayne J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc.
500 Spring Rdige Drive, P.O. Box 13848 Reading PA 19612
610-372-9750 [email protected]
Hester Kathleen Temple University 508 Heather Rd Exton PA 19341 484-868-2063 [email protected]
Higgins Simone Monsanto 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd St. Louis MO 63167
314-330-3053
Hines Thomas Eastern Shore AREC VPI/SU
33446 Research Drive Painter VA 23420
757-414-0724 [email protected]
Hitchner Erin Syngenta Crop Protection 380 Jefferson Rd Elmer NJ 08318
609-980-8832 [email protected]
Hodges Duane Scotts Company 14111 Scottslawn Rd. Marysville OH 43041 [email protected]
Hoffer Michael BASF Corp. 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-244-8973 [email protected]
Hooten Robert FMC Corporation
10100 N. Ambass. Drive Suite 400 Liberty MO 60468
816-589-5547 [email protected]
Horton Chris North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7620 Raleigh NC 27695
919-515-7597 [email protected]
Houseworth Doug Arysta LifeScience 2777 Ocean Oaks Dr. S.
Fernandina Beach FL 32034
904-321-0795
Hutto Kendall FMC Professional Solutions
136 Spring Valley Rd. Westerville OH 43081
614-392-1384 [email protected]
Ikley Joseph University of Maryland
6423 Church Street Sykesville MD 21784
410-596-9091 [email protected]
Isaacs Mark University of Delaware
16483 County Seat Highway Georgetown DE 19947
302-856-7303 [email protected]
James J.R. Syngenta Crop Protection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409
336-632-6000 [email protected]
160
Jemison John
University of Maine - Cooperative Extension
495 College Avenue Orono ME 04469
207-581-3241 [email protected]
Jester Jen Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-5835 [email protected]
Johnson Jon Penn State University 102 Tyson Bldg.
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1184 [email protected]
Johnson Quintin University of Delaware
Carvel REC 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown DE 19947
302-856-2585 [email protected]
Johnson David Pioneer Research 7250 NW 62nd Ave Johnston IA 50131
515-727-7234 [email protected]
Johnson Roy Waldrum Specialties Inc
1727 E Butler Pike Ambler PA
19002-2431
215-817-0637 [email protected]
Jones Patrick University of Tennessee
2431 Joe Johnson Drive Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-6730 [email protected]
Jordan Grant A.C.D.S. Research Inc.
9813 Glenmark Road North Rose NY 14516
315-587-2140 [email protected]
Jotcham Jim Marbicon Inc. Box 280, Berwick Nova Scotia Canada
B0P 1E0
902-538-7101 [email protected]
Kahl Jerry J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Drive, P.O. Box 13848 Reading PA 19612
610-372-9750 [email protected]
Kalmowitz Kathie BASF Corp. 3955 Stags Leap Circle Raleigh NC 27612
919-270-4592 [email protected]
Keese Renee BASF Corp. 26 Davis Dr Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-547-2791 [email protected]
Kelly Patrick
Anne Arundel County Recreation and Parks Dept. 301 Hope Road Centreville MD 21617
443-262-9655 [email protected]
Kirfman Gary Valent USA Corporation
6088 Winthrop Ave. Ada MI 49301
616-560-2510 [email protected]
Koepke-Hill Becky University of Tennessee
9182 Fox Lake Drive Knoxville TN 37923
865-329-6399 [email protected]
Kunkel Dan Rutgers - IR-4 Headquarters
500 College Ave Suite 201W Princeton NJ 08540
732-932-9575 [email protected]
Kyde Kerrie
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
WHS 11960 Clopper Road Gaithersburg MD 20878
301-948-8243 [email protected]
Larson Steven BASF Corp. 26 Davis Dr. Research Triangle Park NC 27709
281-684-4542 [email protected]
Leahey Caitlin Cornell University 503 East Buffalo St, Apt 3 Ithaca NY 14853
607-255-4747 [email protected]
Leather Gerald
West Virginia University Extension Service
66 N. High St., P.O. Box 1880 Romney WV 26757
304-822-5013 [email protected]
Lightfoot Rachel Crop Management Strategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056
610-767-1944 [email protected]
Lingenfelter Dwight Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-2242 [email protected]
Little Neith Cornell University Room 907 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853
607-346-5958 [email protected]
Little Daniel North Carolina State University 5616B Thea Ln Raleigh NC 27606
517-974-3000 [email protected]
Lloyd Kirsten Penn State University 102 Tyson Bldg
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1184 [email protected]
Loecke David PBI Gordon 5701 North Chatham Ct. Kansas City MO 64151
816-547-8373 [email protected]
Lohmann Henry Nicholls University (Retired) P.O. Box 22 Bellport NY 11713
631-286-1078 [email protected]
Lough Katherine University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469 207-581-2923 [email protected]
Loughner Dan Dow AgroSciences LLC
55 Armour Road, Princeton, NJ Princeton NJ 08540
609-921-1856 [email protected]
161
Lurvey Edith Cornell University -NYSAES 630 W. North St. Geneva NY 14456
315-787-2308 [email protected]
Lycan Darren Syngenta Lawn and Garden 18 Appleridge St. Baldwinsville NY 13027
316-635-2818 [email protected]
Lydon John USDA-ARS
5601 Sunnyside Ave GWCC Rm 4-2238 Beltsville MD
20705-5139
301-504-6470 [email protected]
Mahoney Matthew Bayer CropScience
4773 Sailors Retreat Rd Oxford MD 21654
410-822-5215
Majek Bradley Rutgers University 1128 Rainbow Circle Pittsgrove NJ 08318
856-455-3100 [email protected]
Manley Brian Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.
3054 E. Cornwallis Road Durham NC 27709
919-281-2162 [email protected]
Mansue Carrie Rutgers University 59 Dudley Rd New Brunswick NJ 08901
732-932-9711 x 116 [email protected]
Marose Betty USDA-ARS
10300 Baltimore Ave Building 001 Room 110 BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705
301-504-5156 [email protected]
Mathers Hannah Ohio State University
256 B Howlett Hall Columbus OH 43210
614-247-6195 [email protected]
Matthews Michael For-Shore Weed Control P.O. Box 536 Waretown NJ 08757
609-693-6999 [email protected]
Mayonado David Monsanto Company
6075 Westbrooke Drive Salisbury MD 21801
410-726-4222
McCullough Patrick University of Georgia
1109 Experiment St Griffin GA 30223
770-228-7276 [email protected]
McDonald Steven Turfgrass Disease Solutions LLC
38 Bertolet School Road Spring City PA 19475
610-633-1878
McDonnell Brian National Park Service 1 River Rd Bushkill PA 18324
570-588-0534 [email protected]
McNulty Brendon Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24060
540-231-5807 [email protected]
Mervosh Todd L. Connecticut Ag. Exp Station
CAES Valley Lab 153 Cook Hill Rd Windsor CT 06095
860-683-4984 [email protected]
Milbrath Lindsey USDA-ARS Robert W. Holley Center 538 Tower Road Ithaca NY 14853
607-254-7268 [email protected]
Miller Raymond Dow AgroSciences LLC
4020 Collinwood Ave Fort Worth TX 76107
813-363-9059 [email protected]
Mirsky Steven USDA-ARS ANRI SASL
10300 Baltimore Ave Building 001 Room 110 BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705
301-504-7199 [email protected]
Mohler Charles Cornell University Room 907 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853
607-255-0199 [email protected]
Mortensen David Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-6679 [email protected]
Mosdell Dean Syngenta Crop Protection
501-I S. Reino Rd. #183 Newbury Park CA 91320
805-480-0514 [email protected]
Munsterman Chris Syngenta Crop Protection
11 Quicksilver Court Martinsburg WV 25404
304-261-9564
Myers Donald D. Bayer Crop Science
2 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-549 2529 [email protected]
Naedel Matthew Penn State University
Valentine Turfgrass Ctr. Univ. Drive Ext.
University Park PA 16802
814-863-1613 [email protected]
Neal Joseph North Carolina State University
262 Kilgore Hall Box 7609 Raleigh NC 27606
919-515-9379 [email protected]
Nord Eric Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-865-9021 [email protected]
Norton Lawrence
Bayer Environmental Science 4233 Harriet Lane Bethlehem PA 18017
610-814-6220
162
O'Barr John H. BASF Corp. 108 Whippoorwill Lane
Hummels-town PA 17036
717-386-8259 [email protected]
O'Connell James UMass Cranberry Station P.O Box 569
East Wareham MA 02538
508-295-2212 [email protected]
Olson Brian Dow AgroSciences LLC 22 Delancey Dr. Geneva NY 14456
317-337-7245 [email protected]
O'Neal William AMVAC Chemical Corporation
102 Bay View Drive Chapel Hill NC 27516
919-619-3095 [email protected]
O'Neill Brian Weeds Inc 250 Bodley Rd Aston PA 19014 610-358-9430 [email protected]
O'Neill Drew Weeds Inc 250 Bodley Rd Aston PA 19014 610-358-9430 [email protected]
Orlowski John Cornell University Room 907 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853
518-596-9311 [email protected]
Orr James Asplundh 708 Blair Mill Road Willow Grove PA 19090
1-800-248-TREE [email protected]
Pacchioli Marc Crop Management Strategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056
610-767-1944 [email protected]
Palmer Cristi Rutgers - IR-4 Headquarters
500 College Ave Suite 201W Princeton NJ 08540
732-932-9575 [email protected]
Palmer Butch Reality Research 5916 South Ave. Williamson NY 14589 315-945-0945 [email protected]
Pannill Philip U.S. Fish and Wildlife
698 Conservation Way
Shepherds-town WV 25443
304-876-7432 [email protected]
Parker Astrid
Bayer Environmental Science 981 NC42 East Clayton NC 27527
919-625-3350 [email protected]
Parochetti James USDA-NIFA
Mail Stop 2220 14th &Independence Washington DC 20250
202-401-4354 [email protected]
Parrish Jason Ohio State University
2001 Fyffe Ct 256 Howlett Hall Columbus OH 43210
440-225-4831 [email protected]
Patton Aaron Purdue University Lilly Hall 915 West State Street
West Lafayette IN
47907-2054
765-494-9737 [email protected]
Pawlak John Valent USA Corporation
847-968-4700 [email protected]
Pennucci Annamarie
Northeast Turf & Ornamental Research
4 Englewood Drive Raymond NH 03077
610-895-8480 [email protected]
Phillips Bill US EPA, OPP 1200 Pennylvania Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20460
703-308-8099 [email protected]
Phillips Jeffery Monsanto 42 Botsford Street Poland OH 44514
330-402-2591 [email protected]
Pieczarka David Gowan Company 1630 Berry Road Lafayette NY 13084 [email protected]
Post Angela Virginia Tech
435 Old Glade Road Campus Box 0330 Blacksburg VA 24060
540-231-5807 [email protected]
Prostak Randy University of Massachusetts
Dept. Plant & Soil French Hall Room 2 Amherst MA 01033
413-577-1738 [email protected]
Pruss Stanley CIBA-Geigy (Retired) 443 Moninger Rd Washington PA 15301
724-222 4831 [email protected]
Pyle Steve Syngenta Crop Protection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409
336-632-2236 [email protected]
Qin Zhong
South China Agriculture University
c/o Cornell University Room 905 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853
607-254-5365 [email protected]
Rana Aman Virginia Tech 813 flaton trace Chesapeake VA 23322 757-237-3412 [email protected]
Rardon Patrick Dupont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell 1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19711
302-366-5546 [email protected]
Ratnayake Sunil US EPA 1200 PA Ave. N.W. Mail Stop Washington DC 20460
703-308-8191 [email protected]
163
Reeb Bryan The Ohio State University 2021 Coffey Rd. Columbus OH 43210
740-225-2014 [email protected]
Reed Joseph FMC Corportion 5284 Mayberry Pl., Dayton OH 45415
217-649-3249 [email protected]
Richardson Robert North Carolina State University
Box 7620 Williams Hall Raleigh NC 27695
919-515-5653 [email protected]
Richtmyer III Richard Cornell University 3179 County Line Road Watkins Glen NY 14891
607-342-1695 [email protected]
Riffle Michael Valent USA Corporation [email protected]
Ritter Ronald L. University of Maryland
12901 North Point Lane Laurel MD 20708
301-405-1329 [email protected]
Rogers Gregory DuPont Crop Protection 58 Middlecroft Rd Elkton MD 21921
443-309-0148
Rorem Kent
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
3800 Castle Hayne Rd. Castle Hayne NC 28429
910-675-2314 [email protected]
Rupp Peter
Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401
410-841-5920 [email protected]
Ruten Rory North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7620 Raleigh NC 27695
919-610-6165 [email protected]
Ryan Matthew Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-574-3028 [email protected]
Sandler Hilary UMass Cranberry Station P.O. Box 569
East Wareham MA 02538
508-295-2212 x 21 [email protected]
Sandy Dave Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
814-404-9001 [email protected]
Saunders David DuPont Crop Protection 24087 230th st. Dallas Center IA 50063
515-334-4485
Schnappinger Garry Syngenta - Retired 930 Starr Road Centreville MD 21617
410-758-1419 [email protected]
Schou Bert ACRES Research P.O. Box 99 Green Bank WV 24944 304-456-5558 [email protected]
Scoresby Rene Green Light 1058 Blueberry Lane Mosinee WI 54455
715-298-3315 [email protected]
Scott Barbara University of Delaware
16483 County Seat Hwy George-town DE 19947
302-856-2585 [email protected]
Sellman Leroy
Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401
410-841-5920 [email protected]
Senesac Andrew Cornell University Cooperative Ext.
3059 Sound Avenue Riverhead NY 11901
631-727-3595 [email protected]
Serensits Thomas Penn State University 116 ASI Building
University Park PA 16802
610-360-5985 [email protected]
Sharma Shiv FMC Corporation 1735 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19103
2152996871 [email protected]
Skibo Andrew FMC Corporation
701 PrincetonSouth Corporate Center Ewing NJ 08628
609-963-6733 [email protected]
Smith Richard University of New Hampshire 56 College Rd Durham NH 03824
603-862-2724 [email protected]
Smith Mark
Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401
410-841-5920 [email protected]
Smith Adam Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-5835 [email protected]
Smith Lyrissa Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-6323 [email protected]
Spak David
Bayer Environmental Science
981 Highway 42 East Clayton NC 27520
919-625-3350
Stachowski Paul Cornell University 1256 Poplar Ridge Rd. Aurora NY 13026
315-364-8296 [email protected]
164
Stalter Richard St. John's University
Dept. of Biology 8000 Utopia Parkway Queens NY 11439
718-990-6288 [email protected]
Steffel James LABServices 342 South Third Street Hamburg PA 19526
610-562-5055 [email protected]
Swanton Clarence University of Guelph
50 Stone Rd. E., Guelph Ontario
Can-ada
N1G 2W1
519-824-4120 x 53392 [email protected]
Sweet Robert Cornell University (Emeritus)
c/o Maxine Welcome, Hort Dept., 167 Plant Sciences Bld Ithaca NY 14853
607-273-7106 [email protected]
Szylvian Andrea US EPA, Region 1 Pesticide Program
Post Office Sq. Suite 100 OES 05-4 Boston MA 02109
617-918-1198 [email protected]
Tan Siyuan BASF Corp. 26 Davis Dr. Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-547-2679 [email protected]
Tardif Francois University of Guelph
50 Stone Rd. E., Guelph Ontario
Can-ada
N1G 2W1
519-824-4120 x 53395 [email protected]
Taylorson Raymond USDA & URI (Retired) 8721 Orchard Dr. Chestertown MD 21620
410- 778-9088 [email protected]
Teasdale John USDA-ARS
10300 Baltimore Ave Building 001 Room 110 BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705
301-504-5504 [email protected]
Tekiela Dan Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg VA 24061
540-231-6323 [email protected]
Thomas Gar BASF Corp. 1002 Bethel Roadd
Chesapeake City MD 21915
410-885-5920 [email protected]
Thomas Walter BASF Corp. 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-547-2549 [email protected]
Toressen Kristine Cornell University Room 907 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853
518-596-9311 [email protected]
Tranel Patrick University of Illinois 320 ERML, 1201 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana IL 61801
217-333-1531 [email protected]
True Sarah North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7620 Raleigh NC 27695
919-812-5679 [email protected]
Vail Gordon Syngenta Crop Protection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409
336-632-5596 [email protected]
Vanderwerker Cindy National Park Service 648 Rt. 32 Stillwater NY 12170
518-664-9821 [email protected]
VanGessel Mark University of Delaware
Research & Education 16684 County Seat H Georgetown DE 19947
302-856-7303 [email protected]
Vanini J.Tim New Dimensions Turf 9 Colvin Ave Buffalo NY 14216
716-319-7495 [email protected]
Vargas J.Javier University of Tennessee
Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg. Knoxville TN 37996
865-974-7324 [email protected]
Vea Elymar V. IR-4 Headquarters 308 Aston Forest Lane Crownsville MD 21032
410-923-4880 [email protected]
Venner Katelyn Rutgers University 59 Dudley Road New Brunswick NJ 08901
732-932-9711 x 116 [email protected]
Vitolo David Syngenta Crop Protection
303 W Farriss Ave High Point NC 27262
916-316-6951 [email protected]
Walls Bobby FMC Corporation 501 Parkwood Lane Goldsboro NC 27530
919-735-3862 [email protected]
Welterlen Mark PBI/Gordon Corporation
1217 W. 12th Street Kansas City MO 64101
816-460-6205 [email protected]
West Amanda North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7620 Raleigh NC 27695
919-812-5679 [email protected]
White Linda National Park Service 648 Rt. 32 Stillwater NY 12170
518-664-9821 [email protected]
White Tim Crop Management Strategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056
610-767-1944 [email protected]
165
Whitehouse Stephanie Cornell University 905 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853 607-255-4747 [email protected]
Willis John Monsanto Company
1305 Sanders Road Troy OH 45373
937-418-5667 [email protected]
Wilson Henry Virginia Tech
Eastern Shore ARC 33446 Research Drive Painter VA 23420
757-414-0724 [email protected]
Wilson Samuel FMC Corportion 113 Arlington Ridge Road Cary NC 27513
803-413-7824 [email protected]
Wollam John Bayer Crop Science
P.O Box 4913, 8400 Hawthorn Road Kansas City MO 64120
816 242-2000
Wynn John Dupont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell 1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714
302-451-5835 [email protected]
Yarborough David University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469 207-581-2923 [email protected]
Zawierucha Joe BASF Corp. 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park NC 27709
919-547-2095 [email protected]
Zelna Jeffrey Syngenta Crop Protection 4598 Reliant Rd Jamesville NY 13078
315-498-4259 [email protected]
Zontek Stanley
USGA Green Section, Mid-Atlantic Region
485 Baltimore Pike, Suite 203 Glen Mills PA 19342
610-558-9066 [email protected]
166
Ahrens, John F. 69, 72
Alexander, Anita 65
Allen, Jayla 116
Armel, Greg 24, 41, 42
Arsenovic, Marija 74
Askew, Shawn 7, 10, 20, 25, 43, 53, 56, 95, 96, 101
Askew, Whitnee 43
Averill, Kristine M. 55, 80
Barney, Jacob N. 52, 54, 56
Baron, Jerry 66, 67, 74
Best, Michael D. 41
Borger, Jeffrey 97
Bostic, Heidi E. 41
Bowe, Steven J. 113
Bowers, Ian D. 2, 83
Bozeman, Luke L. 113
Bravo, Melissa A. 1, 2, 83
Breeden, Gregory K. 24, 44, 57, 94, 102, 103, 104
Brosnan, James T. 24, 44, 57, 94, 102, 103, 104
Buck, Elizabeth M. 111
Burnell, Keith D. 115
Cain, Nancy P. 81
Caldwell, Brian A. 61
Cannan, Terrance 113
Cavigelli, Michel 47
Corbett, Jerry 10
Cox, Michael C. 10, 25, 43
Cox, William J. 49
Crockett, Benjamin C. 13
Curran, William S. 13, 22, 45, 48, 50, 63, 91, 110
D'Appollonio, Jennifer L. 77
Danjuan, Mao 14, 15
Derr, Jeffrey F. 51, 64
DeWeese, Bill 73
Dillon, Cory S. 45
Ditmarsen, Scott C. 106
DiTommaso, Antonio 14, 15, 16, 17, 46, 49, 61, 79, 80, 111
Do-Thanh, Chi-Linh 41
Dougherty, Ryan F. 54
Egan, J. Franklin 3, 58
Ellis, Drew T. 4
Elmore, Matthew T. 44, 57, 103
Endres, Bryan 54
Evans, Richard M. 42
Everman, Wesley J. 11, 21, 112
Fair, Barbara 71
Flanagan, Phil 42
Franssen, Aaron S. 115
Gallandt, Eric 88
Gallup, Courtney A. 106
Ghantous, Katherine M. 62
Gilliam, Charles 65
Glasgow, Les 112
Goatley Jr., J M 43
Gomez de Barreda, Diego 26, 105
Gover, Arthur E. 18, 84
Graham, Ian M. 3
Guoming, Quan 14, 15
Hagood, E. Scott 59
Hahn, Russell R. 107
Han, Kyung M. 40
Harlow, Chris 68, 71
Hart, Stephen 96
Havens, Patrick 5
Hester, Kathleen A. 66, 67
Hillger, David E. 4, 5, 6
Hinton, James 11, 21
Hinz, John 116
Hitchner, Erin 108
Hivner, Kyle R. 97
Hoyle, Steve T. 87
Huff, Jonathan A. 5
Huffman, Janel L. 18, 84
Ikley, Joseph T. 38
Ingegneri, Lynn 112
Jia-en, Zhang 14, 15, 16
Johnson, Quintin 23, 75, 76
Jones, Patrick A. 44, 57
Junfang, Xie 14, 15
Kaminski, John E. 40
Kao-Kniffin, Jenny T. 100
Karsten, Heather D. 48
Keene, Clair L. 50
Ketterings, Quirine M. 46
Klingeman, William 41, 42
Knight, Alexandra 11
Koo, Suk-Jin 7, 95
Kordbacheh, Farnaz 17
Kunkel, Daniel 74
Lassiter, Bridget 12
Lassiter, Ralph B. 5
Linde, Douglas T. 99
Lindquist, John 90
Lingenfelter, Dwight D. 75, 89, 110
Lins, Ryan 108
Little, Neith G. 46
Love, Christopher C. 4
Lurvey, Edith 67
Mahoney, Matt 73, 116
Malcolm, Glenna M. 48
Mansue, Carrie J. 96
Marble, Chris 65
Marschner, Caroline A. 61
Martin, Timothy 117
Mathew, Sudeep A. 9
AUTHOR INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS
167
Maul, Jude 47
Mayonado, David J. 19
McAllister, Janet C. 118
McCall, David 53
McCullough, Patrick 26, 102, 105
McDonald, Andrew J. 111
McDonald, Steven J. 99
Melichar, Mike W. 106
Mervosh, Todd L. 69, 72, 81
Meyer, Tanya J. 1
Milbrath, Lindsey R. 82
Mirsky, Steven 13, 47, 63, 91
Mize, Terry W. 85, 109, 114, 117
Mohler, Charles L. 8, 16, 46, 61
Morris, Thomas F. 118
Mortensen, David 3, 55, 58, 91
Murdock, Shea W. 113
Naedel, Matthew B. 97
Neal, Joseph C. 68, 71
Neuberger, Brent A. 85, 109, 114, 117
Nord, Andrea N. 18
Olson, Brian D. 4, 5, 6, 106
Orlowski, John M. 49, 107
Palmer, Cristi L. 66, 67
Patches, Kelly M. 22
Patton, Aaron J. 98, 104
Poffenbarger, Hanna J. 47
Post, Angela 10, 53, 56
Prasifka, Patricia L. 106
Quinn, Lauren 54
Rahimian Mashhadi, Hamid
17
Rana, Aman 51
Rauschert, Emily S. 18
Reberg-Horton, S. Chris 63
Reed, Joseph P. 85, 109, 114, 117
Richardson, Robert J. 12, 39, 42, 86, 87
Richburg, John S. 5
Richtmyer III, R. J. 107
Riha, Susan J. 111
Ritter, Ronald L. 19, 38
Rosemond, Malone 21
Ross, Lachlan 83
Roten, Rory L. 39, 42, 86
Ruen, David D. 6
Ryan, Matthew R. 63, 91
Sandler, Hilary A. 62, 78
Scherder, Eric F. 6
Schroeder, Jill 112
Scott, Barb A. 9, 23, 75, 76
Senesac, Andrew F. 70
Shaw, David 112
Shirtliffe, Steve 92
Shivrain, Vinod K. 115
Simpson, David M. 4
Smith, Adam N. 20, 59, 101
Smith, Larissa L. 52
Smith, Richard G. 91, 93
Snyder, Elina M. 48
Soteres, John 112
Spargo, John 47, 63
Staal, Maarten 113
Stachler, Jeff 112
Stalter, Richard 60
Stefanovic, Sasa 62
Stratman, Gail G. 85, 109, 114, 117
Tardif, Francois 112
Teasdale, John 47, 91
Tekiela, Dan 56
Thomas, Joseph W. 41
Thomas, Walter E. 113
Timlin, Dennis 47
Unland, Darren 73
Urwiler, Michael 108
Vail, Gordon D. 108, 115
VanGessel, Mark J. 9, 19, 23, 24, 75, 76
Vargas, Jose J. 24, 42
Vea, Ely 66
Venner, Katelyn A. 7, 96
Voigt, Thomas 54
Weisenberger, Dan V. 98, 104
Wilkerson, Gail 12
Wilson, Henry P. 19
Wilson, John S. 109, 114, 117
Yarborough, David E. 77
Zhong, Qin 14, 15, 16
Zoschg, Jim 1, 2, 83
AUTHOR INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS
168
2,4-D 4, 5, 68, 85, 98, 99, 106, 110
2,4-D choline 6
Abies balsamea 72
Abies fraseri 72
Absorption 86
Acetic acid 67
Achellia millefolium 70
Agrostis stolonifera 94, 96, 97
Alfalfa 110
Alion 73
Allelopathy 88
Alternanthera philoxeroides 86
Alyssum 64
Amaranthus hybridus 23, 76
Amaranthus palmeri 11, 21, 23, 76
Amaranthus retroflexus 17
Ambrosia artemisiifolia 14, 15, 16
Amicarbazone 40, 103
Aminocyclopyrachlor 39, 86, 98
Aminopyralid 83
Ammonium nonanoate 67
Antioxidant enzyme 15
Application timing 96
Application, banded 48
Application, methods 4
Aquatic environment 12, 86
Areas, natural 12, 55, 80, 82, 84, 86
Asclepias syriaca 3
Atrazine 3, 75, 109, 115, 117
Bean, lima 23, 76
Begonia 64
Bensulide 7
Bentazon 70
Bentgrass, creeping 94, 97
Berberis thunbergii 1
Bidens frondosa 3
Bioassay 58
Bioclimatic 111
Biodiversity 3
Biological control 82
Biology, weed 55, 79, 80
Bispyribac-sodium 40
Black nightshade 17
Blueberry 77
Bluegrass 7, 10, 95
Broadleaf weed control
99
Butterfly, monarch 79
Calamagrosti acutiflora 69
Canola 48, 110
Carfentrazone-ethyl 85
Cereal rye 63
Chenopodium album 17
China 14, 15, 16
Christmas trees 72
Clethra alnifolia 69
Clover 45, 110
Competition 88
Compost 99
Conifers 72
Conservation tillage 22
Conyza canadensis 38, 72, 111
Cooperative Weed Management Area 1
Corn 11, 22, 45, 48, 107, 108, 109, 111, 115, 117
Corn, herbicide-resistant 106
Corn, sweet 75
Cornus kousa 69
Cover crop 13, 45, 48, 63, 88, 91, 110
Cranberry 62, 78
Crop tolerance 78
Cropping systems 89
Crops, minor 78, 110
Cultivation 23, 48, 88
Cultural practices 91
Cuscuta gronovii 62, 78
Cynanchum louiseae 79, 82
Cynanchum rossicum 79, 81, 82
Cynodon dactylon 44
Cyperus esculentus 70
Cyperus iria 70
D-limonene 67
Danaus plexippus 79
Datura stramonium 17
Diakon radish 110
Dicamba 3, 19, 22, 58, 68, 98
Dichlobenil 78
Dichlorprop (2,4-DP) 68
Digitaria ciliaris 51
Digitaria ischaemum 57, 104
Digitaria sanguinalis 11, 69, 70, 72
Dimethenamid-P 64, 66, 67, 69, 71
Diuron 77
Dog-strangling vine 79, 81
Dormancy, seed 13
Dose-response 3, 57
Drift control 4, 6, 58
Ecology, weed 55, 79, 80, 93
Education 24, 89, 112
Eichhornia crassipes 12, 86
Eleusine indica 104
Emergence, weed 13, 17
Enhanced-efficacy 57
Enzyme activity 14
Ethephon 97, 101
Exotic weed 55, 80, 82
Extension 8, 112
F9007 85
F9310 109, 114
KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS
169
F9316 109
FeHEDTA 99
Fenoxaprop 70, 104
Fertility 11
Fine fescue 43
Fir, balsam 72
Fir, Douglas 72
Fir, Fraser 72
Fluazifop-P 72
Flumioxazin 66, 67, 84
Fluthiacet-methyl 109, 114, 117
Fomesafen 115
Forages 48
Forest 39, 55, 72, 80, 81, 82
Formulation 5
Functional diversity 14
Galega officinalis 1, 83
Genetic diversity 62
Genetically modified crops
58
Gibberillic acid 97
Glechoma hederacea 98
Glufosinate 59, 75, 115
Gluten, corn 99
Glycine max 38, 58, 91, 107, 115
Glyphosate 3, 4, 19, 22, 38, 43, 59, 81, 83, 99, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 116
Glyphosate resistance 19, 38
Grant program 118
Greens, golf 94
Habitats, disturbed 82
Habitats, natural 1, 39, 82
Habitats, semi-natural 55, 82
Hairy vetch 110
Halosulfuron 66, 77
Heracleum mantegazzianum 2
Herbicide injury 45
Herbicide reduction 48
Herbicide resistance 59, 110, 111, 112
Herbicide symptomology 72
Herbicide tolerance 72
Hexazinone 77
High-residue cultivator 50
Hydrangea macrophylla 69, 70
Hydrilla verticillata 12, 87
Imazapic 81, 84
Imazapyr 81
Impatiens 64
Indaziflam 44, 66, 73, 77
Integrated weed management 12, 48,50, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93
Interseeding 45
Invasive species 15, 55, 79, 80, 81, 82
Ipomoea hederacea 23
Ipomoea lacunosa 23
Ipomoea spp. 111
IR-4 Project 66
Irradiance 15
Isoxaben 66, 71
Isoxaflutole 21, 116
Japanese stiltgrass 84
Johnson grass 17
Label 66, 67
Lamium amplexicaule 71
Light availability 15
Light quality 17
Light quantity 17
Linuron 77
Lolium 45
Lolium perenne 103
Low tunnel structures 6
Management, alternative 93
Marchantia sp. 67
Maxent 16
Mechanical weed control 50
Mecoprop (MCPP) 68
Mefluidide 101
Mesotrione 22, 57, 66,69, 72, 77, 103,108,115,116
Methiozolin 7, 40, 94, 95, 96
Metsulfuron 81, 85, 98
Microbial biomass 14
Microstegium vimineum var. imberbe 84
Mile-a-minute 84
Miscanthus sinensis 68
Modeling 16
Mowing 98
Muhlenbergia capillaris 68
Mulch 71
Myriophyllum aquaticum 12
Myriophyllum heterophyllum 12
Myriophyllum spicatum 12
NE SARE 118
Nicosulfuron 59
Nitrogen 57
No-tillage 45, 50, 75, 110
Non-chemical weed control 99
Non-crop 55, 80
Non-native plants 60
Noxious weed 2
Nurseries 66, 68, 72
Nursery production 67, 68, 70
Nutrient content 44
Nuts 73
Oregano oil 67
Organic agriculture 99
Ornamentals 66
Oryzalin 84
Outcome funding 118
Oxadiazon 44
KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS
170
Paclobutrazol 10
Panicum dichotomiflorum 70
Panicum virgatum 69
Parks 55, 60, 80
Pastures 85
Pelargonic acid 67
Pendimethalin 66, 69, 71, 84
Pennisetum alopecur 69
Perovskia atriplicifolia 70
Petunia 64
Phaseolus lunatus 23
Photosynthesis 15
Physiological 80
Phytolacca americana 22
Phytotoxicity 77
Picea glauca 72
Picea pungens 72
Pine bark 71
Pine, eastern white 72
Pinus strobus 72
Pistia stratiotes 86
Plant growth regulators 10, 101
Planting population 17
Poa annua 17, 40, 94, 96, 97, 101, 103
Poa pratensis 98
Poisonous plants 2
Polygonum convolvulus 3
Polygonum cuspidatum 1
Polygonum perfoliatum 1, 84
Preplant weed control 51
Prodiamine 44, 66, 69, 72, 84
Propane torch 99
Pseudotsuga menzesii 72
Putting green 97
Pyroxasulfone 109, 114, 117
Quality, turf 97
Reduced rates 107
Residual herbicides 107
Resistance management 93
Rhamnus cathartica 1
Right-of-way 39
Rimsulfuron 77
Roadsides 80
Roots 44
Rosemary 67
Rotation, crop 8
Ryegrass 45
S-metolachlor 69, 72, 108
Safety 66, 71
Saflufenacil 38
Schizachyrium scoparium 69
Seed scarification 13
Seedbank 13
Setaria viridis 17
Sethoxydim 70
Soil depths 13
Soil fertility 14
Soil sterilization 51
Sorghum halepense 59
Soybean 48, 58, 91,107, 111, 114, 115, 117
Soybean, dicamba-tolerant 19
Soybean, glyphosate-resistant 38, 1166
Soybean, HPPD-resistant 116
Spruce, Colorado 72
Spruce, white 72
Stewardship, product 89
Sulfentrazone 66, 76, 104, 114
Sulfometuron methyl 83
Sulfosulfuron 66
Survey, weed 62, 111
Sustainable agriculture 91
Sweet vernalgrass 20
Synergy 91
Synthetic herbicides 99
Taraxacum officinale 107
Tembotrione 21, 116
Temperature fluctuation 17
Terbacil 77
Tillage 111
Tolerance 3
Topramezone 57, 103
Translocation 39, 86
Tree fruit 73
Triclopyr 81, 83, 98
Trifluralin 71
Trifolium spp. 45
Trinexapac ethyl 10, 97, 101
Tsuga canadensis 69
Turfgrass 10, 40, 44, 57, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104
Urena lobata 15
Vaccinium angustifolium 77
Vaccinium marcrocarpon 62, 78
Vegetation management 55
Verbena urticifolia 3
Vicia villosa 13
Vinca 64
Vincetoxicum nigrum 79, 80, 82
Vincetoxicum rossicum 80, 81, 82
Vinegar 99
Viola tricolor 71
Virginia 59
Volatility 5
Weed competition 11
Weed distribution 16, 79
Weed management 16, 21, 23, 77
Weed suppression 93
Wetlands 62, 78
Wheat 85, 111
KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS
171
Winter rye cover crop 50
Zea mays 107
Zemax 108
Zone-till 107
KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS