weed control - southern nursery association - home

431

SNA RESEARCH CONFERENCE - VOL. 50 - 2005

Weed Control

James AltlandSection Editor and Moderator

432 Weed Control Section


Preemergence Control of Winter Weeds in Overwintering Ornamental Crops

Caren A. Judge, Joseph C. Neal and Robert E. WootenDept. of Horticultural Science, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609

Index Words: annual bluegrass, birdseye pearlwort, common chickweed, common groundsel, hairy bittercress, spiny sowthistle, and yellow woodsorrel

Signifi cance to Industry: BroadStar, OH2, and Snapshot TG were compared for control of winter weeds in overwintering nursery crop production. BroadStar, OH2, and Snapshot TG controlled common chickweed, common groundsel, hairy bittercress, and spiny sowthistle. OH2 and Snapshot TG controlled yellow woodsorrel better than Broadstar, although control was greater than 86% with all treatments. Annual bluegrass and birdseye pearlwort were controlled with Snapshot TG; BroadStar and OH2 were less effective on these species. If annual bluegrass or birdseye pearlwort are expected in overwintering structures, Snapshot TG should be used before covering or a dinitroaniline herbicide may need to be included with BroadStar to improve the spectrum of weed control.

Nature of Work: The container nursery industry relies upon broad-spectrum preemergence herbicides and supplemental hand weeding for weed management (1). In the southeastern United States, weed management in container nursery crop production is a year-round endeavor due to the relatively mild winters and overwintering protection of crops. Overwintering structures moderate the temperatures and provide conditions favorable for germination and establishment of winter annual weeds. Weed management options are limited in overwintering structures because no preemergence herbicides are labeled for application within covered structures (3). Preemergence herbicides must be applied several weeks before plants are covered in late autumn. Weeds emerging in containers over the winter must be hand weeded, which is usually feasible only after the overwintering covers are removed in the spring. Few studies have investigated effi cacy of herbicides on weeds in container nursery crops in covered overwintering structures. Effective control of hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta L.) and yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta L.) was obtained from October and February applications of Regal O-O (oxyfl uorfen + oxadiazon) or Gallery (isoxaben) plus Ronstar (oxadiazon) (2). Yet, this trial was conducted outdoors, in large containers, not in a covered overwintering structure. For a more comprehensive evaluation of winter weed control in overwintering ornamental crops, experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate the effi cacy of commonly used preemergence herbicides on several common winter nursery weeds in overwintering structures.

Broadstar 0.25G (fl umioxazin) at 0.42 kg ai/ha (0.38 lbs ai/A), Scott’s Ornamental Herbicide II 3G (OH 2, oxyfl uorfen + pendimethalin) at 3.4 kg ai/ha (3.0 lbs ai/A), and Snapshot 2.5TG (isoxaben + trifl uralin) at 5.6 kg ai/ha (5.0 lbs ai/A) were applied to 4-L (1 gal) containers using a handheld shaker jar November 7, 2002 and November 25, 2003. All herbicide treatments were compared to nontreated plants. A pine bark plus sand substrate (7:1 v/v) was used and containers were

Weed Control Section 433


absent of ornamental plants, containing only the weed species. Containers were arranged in a randomized complete block design with fi ve one-container replications of each species in 2002 and eight one-container replications of each species in 2003. About one month after treatments, containers were placed in temporary overwintering structures. Structures were about 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, 10.7 m (35 ft) long, 1.2 m (4 ft) tall (at the center peak), and covered with 6 mil white plastic. The plastic was removed periodically to water plants and evaluate herbicide effi cacy.

In 2002, the weed species evaluated were annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.), common chickweed (Stellaria media L.), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.), hairy bittercress, and yellow woodsorrel. In 2003, the weed species evaluated were annual bluegrass, birdseye pearlwort (Sagina procumbens L.), common chickweed, common groundsel, hairy bittercress, spiny sowthistle (Sonchus asper L.), and yellow woodsorrel. Weed control was visually evaluated compared to nontreated plants through the winter and spring. Final evaluations were recorded approximately fi ve months after herbicide application. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD at the 5% signifi cance level (4). Because weed control was evaluated relative to nontreated plants, data from nontreated plants were not included in the analysis.

Results and Discussion: In 2002, each herbicide controlled annual bluegrass, common chickweed, common groundsel, hairy bittercress, and yellow woodsorrel for the fi ve month evaluation period (Table 1). In 2003, for the fi ve month evaluation period, common chickweed, common groundsel, hairy bittercress, and spiny sowthistle were equally controlled by each herbicide (Table 1). Yellow woodsorrel control was slightly better with OH2 (98%) and Snapshot TG (100%) than BroadStar (86%). Snapshot TG was most effective on annual bluegrass providing 91% control. BroadStar and OH2 were less effective, providing 17% and 62% control, respectively. Trends for birdseye pearlwort control were similar to annual bluegrass; BroadStar provided 34% control, OH2 provided 72% control, and Snapshot TG provided 97% control.

In general, Snapshot TG provided the best control for the winter weeds evaluated in these studies. Most weeds were equally controlled by BroadStar and OH2 with the exception of annual bluegrass, birdseye pearlwort, and yellow woodsorrel. If the presence of any of these weeds is expected in overwintering structures, Snapshot TG should be used before covering or a dinitroaniline herbicide may need to be included with BroadStar to improve the spectrum of weed control.

Literature Cited:

1. Gilliam, C.H., W.J. Foster, J.L. Adrain, and R.L. Shumack. 1990. A survey of weed control costs and strategies in container production nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 8:133-135.

2. Mickler, K.D. and J.M. Ruter. 2001. Evaluation of a year long weed control program for container grown ornamentals. Proc. Southern Nursery Assoc. Res. Conf. 46:454-456.



3. Neal, J.C. 1999. Weed control in greenhouses. Horticulture Information Leafl et No. 570. <http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/pdf/hil-570.pdf>

4. [SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.

Table 1. Percent control of winter weeds with BroadStar, OH2, and Snapshot TG. The 2002 experiment was evaluated April 14, 2003 and the 2003 experiment was evaluated April 1, 2004.

2002 Weed SpeciesBroadStar OH2 Snapshot TG

------------------Percent Control------------------Annual bluegrass 92 az 100 a 100 a

Common chickweed 100 a 100 a 100 aCommon groundsel 94 a 100 a 100 a

Hairy bittercress 100 a 100 a 100 aYellow woodsorrel 100 a 100 a 100 a

2003 Weed Species ------------------Percent Control------------------Annual bluegrass 17 c 62 b 91 aBirdseye pearlwort 34 c 72 b 97 a

Common chickweed 100 a 98 a 96 aCommon groundsel 90 a 80 a 79 a

Hairy bittercress 95 a 92 a 98 aSpiny sowthistle 90 a 96 a 100 a

Yellow woodsorrel 86 b 98 a 100 az Means within a row followed by the same letter do no signifi cantly differ according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Means cannot be compared within a column. P ≤ 0.05). Means cannot be compared within a column. P



Doveweed, Florida Tasselfl ower and Eclipta Control Under Heavy Rainfall Conditions Using

Granular Preemergence Herbicides

Robert H. Stamps and Annette L. ChandlerUniv. of Florida, Inst. of Food and Agr. Sci., Dept. of Environ. Hort., Mid-Florida Res. and Edu. Ctr., 2725 S. Binion Rd., Apopka, FL 32703-8504

[email protected] .edu

Index words: fl umioxazin, oryzalin, oxyfl uorfen, pendimethalin, prodiamine, trifl uralin, BroadStar, OH2, RegalKade, Rout, Snapshot, Eclipta prostrata, Emilia fosbergii, fosbergii, fosbergii Murdannia nudifl ora

Signifi cance to Industry: This research shows that even under very heavy rainfall and irrigation conditions, there are several preemergence herbicides that can effectively control eclipta, Florida tasselfl ower and doveweed for at least eight weeks. Flumioxazin was particularly effective in controlling doveweed.

Nature of Work: The introduction and spread of new weeds is a common occurrence in the nursery industry (3). In order to effectively manage these “new” weeds, it is necessary to determine the weed control effi cacy of preemergence herbicides. In addition, irrigation and rainfall amounts (2) and timing (1) can affect herbicide effi cacy. In this study, six commercial granular preemergence herbicides were evaluated for controlling three weeds of increasing signifi cance in ornamental plant production.

The experiment was conducted outdoors at the Univ. of Florida/IFAS’ Mid-Florida Res. and Educ. Ctr. in Apopka, FL. On Aug. 5, 2004, 6-inch [15-cm] diameter plastic pots (Dillen Products) were fi lled with a soilless growing medium composed of 80% aged pine bark and 20% Canadian Sphagnum peat (Fafard). Initial medium pH and EC (dS/m) were 6.86 and 1.52, respectively. After the pots were fi lled, 15 seeds of one of the three weed species were sown in each one: Eclipta prostrata (eclipta), Emilia fosbergii (Florida tasselfl ower) or Murdannia nudifl ora (doveweed) Pots were then irrigated with 1.3 cm [½ in] of water. Each pot was reseeded with another 15 seeds of the same weed species on Sept. 16, six weeks after the initial sowing.

Plots were irrigated daily using overhead sprinklers, except during periods of high rainfall or when there was no electrical power to operate the well pumps. During this three-month long experiment, rainfall + irrigation water totaled 149 cm [58.8 in]. Thirty percent of that total occurred during the fi rst two weeks of the experiment from the heavy rainfall associated with hurricane (Charley). In fact, over 25.4 cm (10 in) of rainfall and irrigation water occurred during the fi rst week after the herbicides were applied.

Herbicide treatments (Table 1) were hand broadcast into each pot on Aug. 6 and irrigated with 1.9 cm [¾ in] of water. There were four replications of each treatment. On Aug. 23, containers were fertilized with a 180 day 18N-2.6P-6.6K



controlled-release fertilizer containing micronutrients (Florikan) applied at a rate of 964 kg N/ha/application [861 lb N lb/acre/appl].

Weed seed germination was monitored after each sowing. Percent weed coverage was determined visually for two weeks after the seeds were fi rst applied and, thereafter, was determined from digital images of each container and using graphics software (Corel). After 84 days from initiation of treatments, the aboveground parts of the weeds were cut from the containers and then dried at 70ºC [158ºF] for one week.

Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and means separations were by Duncan’s new multiple range test (P ≤ 0.05). When necessary to approximate P ≤ 0.05). When necessary to approximate Pnormal distributions, percentage data were transformed using the inverse sine transformation.

Results and Discussion: Weed seed germination (Table 1). Eclipta. Initially, Rout, Snapshot and the BroadStar treatments totally stopped Eclipa seedling development. The other herbicide treatments suppressed but did not eliminate successful plant development. None of the herbicide treatments were 100% effective in controlling Eclipta seed germination after the second sowing. Emilia.The same treatments that controlled Eclipta provided the best control of Emilia, and again, inhibition of successful seed germination was not as great following the second seed sowing. Murdannia. Only Rout and the treatments containing BroadStar provided excellent control of Murdannia following the fi rst seed sowing. Following the second seed sowing, successful germination was limited in all treatments due to competition from the already established weeds in the plots where the herbicides were not effective and by residual herbicide in the other plots, especially in those treated with BroadStar.

Weed coverage percentages (Table 2). Weed coverage percentages (Table 2). Weed coverage percentages Eclipa. All the herbicide treatments provided signifi cant control of Eclipta. Rout, Snapshot and the BroadStar treatments provided better control than Regal O-O and RegalKade. OH2, although not as effective in stopping successful weed seed germination and survival, also provided overall control comparable to the other top products. Emilia. For Emilia, Rout, Snapshot and the BroadStar treatments provided excellent control for eight weeks. After that control declined and by 12 WAT only Snapshot and the BroadStar treatments were still signifi cantly better than the untreated control. Murdannia. Rout provided good control and BroadStar was particularly effective in controlling Murdannia.

Weed dry mass (Table 2). Not surprisingly, weed dry mass followed a pattern Weed dry mass (Table 2). Not surprisingly, weed dry mass followed a pattern Weed dry masssimilar to that for weed coverage.

Despite the heavy rainfall throughout this experiment, the preemergence herbicides provided signifi cant weed control. Generally, Rout and the BroadStar treatments provided the greatest control of the three weeds in this test. Snapshot was also effective in controlling Eclipta and Emilia, but not Murdannia. OH2 was as effective in controlling Eclipta as were the abovementioned herbicides. The combination treatment, BroadStar + RegalKade, was no more effective than using BroadStar alone.



Literature Cited:

1. Fain, G. B., K. L. Paridon, and P. M. Hudson. 2004. The effect of cyclic irrigation and herbicide on plant and weed growth in production of Magnolia grandifl ora ‘Alta’. SNA Res. Conf. 49:37–39.

2. Monteiro, A. and I. Moreira. 2004. Reduce rates of residual and post-emergence herbicides for weed control in vineyards. Weed Research 44:117–128.

3. Stamps, R. H. 2003. “New” and emerging weed pests. Soc. of American Florists’ Annu. Conf. on Insect and Dis. Mgt. on Ornamentals 19:61–64.



Tab

le 1

.Her

bici

de e

ffect

s on

wee

d se

ed s

urvi

val f

rom

see

d so

wn

the

day

befo

re h

erbi

cide

app

licat

ion

and

agai

n si

x w

eeks

late

r.

Trad

e N

ame

Act

ive

ing

red

ien

t(s)

(a.

i.)A

ctiv

e in

gre

die

nt(

s) (

a.i.)

Ap

plic

atio

n

rate

(lb

a.i.

/A)

(lb

a.i.

/A)

Wee

d s

urv

ival

fro

m s

ow

n s

eed

(%

)W

eed

su

rviv

al f

rom

so

wn

see

d (

%)

Wee

d s

urv

ival

fro

m s

ow

n s

eed

(%

)W

eed

su

rviv

al f

rom

so

wn

see

d (

%)

Wee

d s

urv

ival

fro

m s

ow

n s

eed

(%

)W

eed

su

rviv

al f

rom

so

wn

see

d (

%)z

Fir

st s

ow

ing

Fir

st s

ow

ing

Fir

st s

ow

ing

Fir

st s

ow

ing

Sec

on

d s

ow

ing

Sec

on

d s

ow

ing

Sec

on

d s

ow

ing

Sec

on

d s

ow

ing

8 D

AF

Sy

11 D

AF

S15

DA

FS

8 D

AS

Sx

15 D

AS

S22

DA

SS

Ecl

ipta

pro

stra

ta (

Ecl

ipta

)U

ntre

ated

con

trol

——

41.5

6 dw

43.8

4 c

46.4

6 c

0.00

a1.

54 a

1.54

aB

road

Sta

r 0.

25G

fl um

ioxa

zin

0.37

50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

3.25

ab

11.9

1 ab

c4.

32 a

bO

H2

3Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

pen

dim

etha

lin2.

0 +

1.0

4.94

b9.

41 b

7.36

b8.

14 a

b3.

79 a

b4.

94 a

bR

egal

O-O

3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ o

xadi

azon

2.0

+ 1

.015

.91

c10

.59

b16

.53

b5.

95 a

b11

.17

abc

12.6

4 ab

cR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.03.

79 b

0.00

a0.

00 a

4.32

ab

18.0

2 ab

c24

.94

bcS

naps

hot 2

.5G

trifl

ural

in +

isox

aben

4.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

14.9

0 b

29.0

7 c

32.3

0 c

Reg

alK

ade

0.5G

prod

iam

ine

1.5

21.6

0 c

9.41

b16

.33

b12

.28

b24

.13

bc24

.13

bcB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

e0.

375

+ 1

.50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

3.79

ab

22.4

6 bc

24.3

6 bc

Em

ilia

fosb

erg

ii (F

lori

da

tass

elfl

ow

er)

Unt

reat

ed c

ontr

ol—

—78

.84

c81

.59

c75

.56

d0.

43 a

2.50

a6.

23 a

Bro

adS

tar

0.25

Gfl u

mio

xazi

n0.

375

0.43

a0.

00 a

0.43

a21

.52

b42

.88

b29

.88

abO

H2

3Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

pen

dim

etha

lin2.

0 +

1.0

31.4

8 b

36.2

4 b

41.4

1 c

2.50

a24

.36

b17

.67

abR

egal

O-O

3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ o

xadi

azon

2.0

+ 1

.056

.74

c63

.37

c70

.19

d10

.50

ab42

.88

b47

.87

bR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.017

.59

b2.

50 a

7.66

b4.

94 a

b25

.09

b35

.67

abS

naps

hot 2

.5G

trifl

ural

in +

isox

aben

4.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

10.0

5 ab

41.1

5 b

41.1

1 ab

Reg

alK

ade

0.5G

prod

iam

ine

1.5

68.5

8 c

69.2

0 c

71.0

1 d

0.43

a3.

98 a

11.2

5 ab

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

eB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

0.37

5 +

1.5

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.00

a11

.12

ab43

.26

b31

.54

abM

urd

ann

ia n

ud

ifl o

ra (

do

vew

eed

)U

ntre

ated

con

trol

——

46.4

6 d

55.6

5 d

58.0

6 c

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.00

aB

road

Sta

r 0.

25G

fl um

ioxa

zin

0.37

50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.00

a0.

42 a

0.42

aO

H2

3Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

pen

dim

etha

lin2.

0 +

1.0

7.36

bc

11.4

4 bc

17.5

9 b

1.67

a0.

42 a

0.42

aR

egal

O-O

3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ o

xadi

azon

2.0

+ 1

.018

.02

c32

.83

cd

29.3

2 bc

0.42

a2.

43 a

2.43

aR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

1.70

ab

0.43

a3.

75 a

3.75

a3.

75 a

Sna

psho

t 2.5

Gtr

ifl ur

alin

+ is

oxab

en4.

0 +

1.0

11.1

2 c

17.2

7 bc

21.7

5 b

0.83

a0.

00 a

0.00

aR

egal

Kad

e 0.

5Gpr

odia

min

e1.

514

.98

c28

.57

cd31

.83

bc0.

00 a

0.42

a0.

00 a

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

eB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

0.37

5 +

1.5

0.43

ab

0.00

a0.

00 a

1.67

a0.

42 a

0.42

az P

erce

ntag

es w

ere

tran

sfor

med

usi

ng a

rcsi

n tr

ansf

orm

atio

n, a

s ne

eded

, prio

r to

sta

tistic

al a

naly

sis.

y DA

FS

= d

ays

afte

r fi r

st s

owin

g.x D

AS

S =

day

s af

ter

seco

nd s

owin

g.w

Mea

ns fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lette

r w

ithin

the

sam

e co

lum

n fo

r a

spec

ifi c

wee

d ar

e no

t sig

nifi c

antly

diff

eren

t acc

ordi

ng to

Dun

can’

s ne

w m

ultip

le r

ange

test

(P

≤ 0

.05)

.P

≤ 0

.05)

.P



Tab

le 2

.Her

bici

de e

ffect

s on

wee

d gr

owth

from

see

d so

wn

the

day

befo

re h

erbi

cide

app

licat

ion

and

agai

n si

x w

eeks

late

r.

Trad

e N

ame

Act

ive

ing

red

ien

t(s)

(a.

i.)A

ctiv

e in

gre

die

nt(

s) (

a.i.)

Ap

plic

atio

n

rate

(lb

a.i.

/A)

(lb

a.i.

/A)

Per

cen

t w

eed

co

vera

ge

Per

cen

t w

eed

co

vera

ge

Per

cen

t w

eed

co

vera

ge

Per

cen

t w

eed

co

vera

ge

Per

cen

t w

eed

co

vera

gez

Wee

d t

op

d

ry w

eig

ht

(g)

(g)

2 W

ATy

2 W

ATy

2 W

AT

4 W

AT

6 W

AT

8 W

AT

10 W

AT

12 W

AT

Ecl

ipta

pro

stra

ta (

Ecl

ipta

)U

ntre

ated

con

trol

——

0.38

bx

2.13

b58

.5 c

92.3

d87

.6 d

100

c11

.3 d

Bro

adS

tar

0.25

Gfl u

mio

xazi

n0.

375

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.0

a0.

1 a

1.3

a14

a1.

2 a

OH

2 3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ p

endi

met

halin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

04 a

0.01

a0.

0 a

0.1

a3.

2 ab

24a

1.7

abR

egal

O-O

3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ o

xadi

azon

2.0

+ 1

.00.

05 a

0.69

a13

.5 b

49.6

c54

.5 c

80b

6.2

cR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.00

a0.

0 a

0.2

a4.

4 ab

18 a

1.5

abS

naps

hot 2

.5G

trifl

ural

in +

isox

aben

4.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.00

a0.

0 a

0.7

a18

.2 b

50ab

3.1

abR

egal

Kad

e 0.

5Gpr

odia

min

e1.

50.

10 a

0.13

a4.

2 ab

16.8

b42

.1 c

68 b

4.2

bcB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

e0.

375

+ 1

.50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

0 a

0.2

a3.

1 ab

20 a

1.2

aE

mili

a fo

sber

gii

(Flo

rid

a ta

ssel

fl o

wer

)U

ntre

ated

con

trol

——

1.47

b10

.10

d86

.9 c

100.

0 b

100

b10

0 b

18.8

bB

road

Sta

r 0.

25G

fl um

ioxa

zin

0.37

50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

1.0

a15

a47

a2.

9 a

OH

2 3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ p

endi

met

halin

2.0

+ 1

.01.

06 b

1.68

b41

.4 b

79.6

b94

b86

ab

12.6

bR

egal

O-O

3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ o

xadi

azon

2.0

+ 1

.01.

00 b

3.59

bc

49.8

b91

.9 b

100

b10

0b

14.7

bR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.04

a0.

51 a

5.6

a44

a75

ab4.

4 a

Sna

psho

t 2.5

Gtr

ifl ur

alin

+ is

oxab

en4.

0 +

1.0

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.00

a1.

3 a

23 a

60a

3.2

aR

egal

Kad

e 0.

5Gpr

odia

min

e1.

51.

47 b

4.68

c65

.9 b

c88

.5 b

90 b

91ab

14.3

bB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

e0.

375

+ 1

.50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.6

a17

a66

a3.

4 a

Mu

rdan

nia

nu

difl

ora

(do

vew

eed

)U

ntre

ated

con

trol

——

0.53

c8.

96 c

67.8

d10

0.0

d10

0.00

c10

0.00

c14

.8 c

Bro

adS

tar

0.25

Gfl u

mio

xazi

n0.

375

0.00

a0.

00 a

0.0

a0.

0 a

0.01

a0.

01 a

<0.

1 a

OH

2 3G

oxyfl

uor

fen

+ p

endi

met

halin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

08 a

b0.

88 a

b14

.9 a

bc52

.4 b

c83

.97

c97

.44

c12

.1 c

Reg

al O

-O 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

oxa

diaz

on2.

0 +

1.0

0.23

bc

1.84

b

11.8

abc

43.8

bc

65.9

2 bc

75.0

7 bc

8.9

bcR

out 3

Gox

yfl u

orfe

n +

ory

zalin

2.0

+ 1

.00.

00 a

0.00

a0.

7 ab

6.5

ab16

.20

ab33

.53

ab3.

4 ab

Sna

psho

t 2.5

Gtr

ifl ur

alin

+ is

oxab

en4.

0 +

1.0

0.15

b1.

56 b

20.7

bc

73.6

cd

90.6

2 c

99.4

0 c

13.8

cR

egal

Kad

e 0.

5Gpr

odia

min

e1.

50.

19 b

1.93

b28

.7 c

72.7

cd

85.3

6 c

85.3

6 bc

14.5

cB

road

Sta

r +

Reg

alK

ade

Bro

adS

tar

+ R

egal

Kad

efl u

mio

xazi

n +

pro

diam

ine

fl um

ioxa

zin

+ p

rodi

amin

e0.

375

+ 1

.50.

00 a

0.00

a0.

0 a

0.0

a0.

04 a

0.38

a<

0.1

az P

erce

ntag

es w

ere

tran

sfor

med

usi

ng a

rcsi

n tr

ansf

orm

atio

n, a

s ne

eded

, prio

r to

sta

tistic

al a

naly

sis.

y WA

T =

wee

ks a

fter

trea

tmen

t.

xMea

ns w

ithin

the

sam

e co

lum

n fo

r a

spec

ifi c

wee

d fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lette

r ar

e no

t sig

nifi c

antly

diff

eren

t, ac

cord

ing

to D

unca

n’s

new

mul

tiple

ran

ge te

st (

P ≤

0.0

5).

P ≤

0.0

5).

P



Control of Florida Betony with Herbicides

Mark Czarnota1, Byron Rhodes2 and Tim Murphy3

1University of Georgia, Department of Horticulture, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffi n GA, 30223

2University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service, 222 West Jefferson Street, Thomasville, GA 31799-0049

3University of Georgia, Department of Crop and Atmospheric Science, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffi n, GA 30223

Index Words: Rattlesnake weed, Stachys fl oridana, atrazine, carfentrazone, clopyralid, 2,4-D, dicamba, MCPP, dichlobenil, fl uroxypyr, glyphosate, herbicides

Signifi cance to Industry: Several herbicides appeared to do a good job of controlling Florida betony and providing greater than 70% control at 8 or 10 WAT, and these herbicides included: atrazine, dichlobenil, foramsulfuron, glyphosate, metsulfuron, Speedzone (carfentrazone, 2,4-D ester, mecoprop, dicamba), and trifl oxysulfuron. Most of these products are limited in their scope of use as only glyphosate and dichlobenil are the only products with labeling in landscape ornamentals. Dichobenil can be used over-the-top of select ornamentals and glyphosate can be used as a post-directed herbicide in the landscape. All of the other herbicides active on Florida betony are currently labeled as selective turfgrass herbicides.

Nature of Work: Many gardeners of the Southeast are plagued by Florida betony (Stachys fl oridana). With the species name fl oridana, betony is considered by many to be a native invader. However, we are not certain of Florida betony origins. Florida betony or rattlesnake weed is a “winter” perennial, and like most plants in the labiatae family, betony has a square stem with aromatic opposite leaves. Flowers of betony are usually pink and have the classic mint like structure. Unlike its relatives, it has the unique characteristic of producing tubers that look like the rattle of a rattle snake, hence the name. Betony is dormant during the hot, humid summers of the South. In most of Georgia, growth usually begins in early to mid fall and continues until late spring. Betony is a problem in both turf and ornamental beds, yet little control information exists. Most of the information is dated (Houston 1976; Murphy 1991; Norcini et al. 1995; Stamps 1992), and many new herbicides have been or are in the process of being introduced to the turf and ornamental market. A study was designed to determine the effi cacy of several new herbicides as well as herbicides that claim to control betony. In 2004 and 2005, studies were initiated to determine the degree of control provided by a single application of select herbicides. During both years, an area of betony infested turf in Thomasville, Georgia was selected for a study. In 2004, the average number of betony shoots per square foot was 42; and in 2005, the average number of betony shoots per square foot was 40. Identical treatments were applied both years and a treatment list is presented in Table 1. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Herbicides were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 20 GPA. Depending on the year of the test, percent control was visually estimated between 2 and 10 weeks after treatment (WAT). A description of the rating scale is presented in Table 2. All data were subjected to analysis of



variance (ANOVA) and means were separated using Fisher’s least signifi cant difference (LSD) test with a signifi cance level of P=0.05.

Results and Discussion: In 2004, acceptable control (> 60%) was not achieved until the 4 WAT rating. Dichlobenil, glyphosate, and metsulfuron were providing at least > 60% control at 4 WAT (Table 3). By 10 WAT, all herbicides but clopyralid were providing signifi cantly better control than the check. Atrazine, dichlobenil, foramsulfuron, glyphosate, metsulfuron, and trifl oxysulfuron were providing greater than 80 % control (Table 3). In 2005, the same trends were seen as acceptable control was not seen until 4 WAT (Table 4). All herbicides but clopyralid and carfentrazone were providing signifi cantly better control than the untreated check. At 4 WAT, atrazine, dichlobenil, foramsulfuron, glyphosate, metsulfuron, Speedzone (carfentrazone, 2,4-D ester, mecoprop, dicamba), and trifl oxysulfuron were all providing greater than 76.7% control (Table 4). This same trend continued into the 8 WAT rating as all treatments but clopyralid, fl uroxypyr, and carfentrazone were providing greater than 70% control.

Literature Cited:

1. Houston, W. 1976. Florida betony control. Fact Sheet # 425. Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service. 2 p.

2. Murphy, T. R. 1991. Agronomy fact sheet: Florida betony control in turfgrass and ornamentals. Fact Sheet #L425. University of Georgia. Griffi n. 4 p.

3. Norcini, J. G., J. M. McDowell and J. H. Aldrich. 1995. Control of Florida betony (Stachys fl oridana Shuttlew.) emerging from tubers. Journal of environmental horticulture. 13:89-91.

4. Stamps, R. H. 1992. Prodiamine controlled Florida betony (Stachys fl oridana) in leatherleaf fern (Rumohra adiantiformis). Weed Technology. 6:961-967.

Table 1.Table 1.T List of treatments.

# Trade name Active ingredient FormulationRate (product/Acre)*

Rate (active ingredient /Acre)

1 Casoron dichlobenil 4 GR 150 lb pr/A 6.0 lb ai/A2 Monument trifl oxysulfuron 75 WG 0.56 oz pr/A 0.5 lb ai/A3 Lontrel clopyralid 3 L 1.33 pt pr/A 0.5 lb ai/A4 Roundup Pro glyphosate 4 L 1.0 qt pr/A 1.0 lb ai/A5 Atrazine atrazine 4 L 2.0 qt pr/A 2.0 lb ai/A6 Manor metsulfuron 60 DG 0.5 oz pr/A 0.0188 lb ai/A7 Revolver foramsulfuron 0.19 L 26.2 oz pr/A 0.039 lb ai/A8 Spotlight fl uroxypyr 1.5 L 0.67 pt pr/A 0.126 lb ai/A9 Quicksliver carfentrazone 1.9 L 0.13 pt pr/A 0.031 lb ai/A10 Speedzone carfentrazone, 2,4-

D Ester, mecoprop, and dicamba

2.2 L 2.0 qt pr/A 0.405 lb ai/A

11 Check* lb pr/A = pounds product per Acre; oz pr/A = ounces product per Acre; pt pr/A = pints product per Acre; qt pr/A = quarts product per Acre



Table 2. Representations of numeric Florida betony control ratings.

Value Ranges Plant Symptoms0 No visual injury present.10-30 Minimal injury to desirable plant. Less than 10% of the plant

leaf surface area showing chlorosis and necrosis. A 10 to 30% biomass reduction.

40-70 More noticeable plant injury or stunting. Greater than 50% of the leaf area showing symptoms of chlorosis and/or necrosis. A 40 to 70% biomass reduction.

80-90 Plants severely injured. Most of the leaves and leaf surface showing signs of chlorosis and necrosis. An 80 to 90% biomass reduction.

100 Plant appears dead. No signs of regrowth.

Table 3. 2004 Florida betony (Stachys fl oridana) control ratings 2, 4, 7, and 10 weeks after treatmenta.

#Trade name

Formu-lation


Betony Control

2 WAT 4 WAT 7 WAT 10 WAT1 Casoron 4 GR 6.0 lb ai/A 23.3 ab 66.7 a 90.0 a 96.7 a2 Monument 75 WG 0.5 lb ai/A 23.3 ab 46.7 a-d 86.7 a 93.3 a3 Lontrel 3 L 0.5 lb ai/A 20.0 b 13.3 de 31.7 c 38.3 cd

4Roundup

Pro 4 L 1.0 lb ai/A 40.0 a 60.0 ab 93.3 a 93.3 a5 Atrazine 4 L 2.0 lb ai/A 13.3 bc 26.7 b-e 43.3 bc 71.7 abc6 Manor 60 DG 0.0188 lb ai/A 13.3 bc 60.0 ab 88.3 a 83.3 ab7 Revolver 0.19 L 0.039 lb ai/A 30.0 ab 43.3 a-d 85.0 a 91.7 ab8 Spotlight 1.5 L 0.126 lb ai/A 20.0 b 40.0 a-d 53.3 bc 68.3 abc9 Quicksliver 1.9 L 0.031 lb ai/A 16.7 bc 16.7 cde 31.7 c 53.3 bc

10 Speedzone 2.2 L 0.405 lb ai/A 40.0 a 50.0 abc 71.7 ab 60.0 abc11 Check 0.0 c 0.0 e 0.0 d 0.0 d

LSD 18.18 35.34 29.45 39.28Coeffi cient of

Variation48.92 53.92 28.18 33.82

aAbbreviations: WAT, weeks after treatment; GR, granular; L, liquid; DG, dispersible granularb Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s protected LSD at P=0.05.



Table 4. 2005 Florida betony (Stachys fl oridana) control ratings 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after treatmenta.

#Trade name

Formu-lation


Betony Control

2 WAT 4 WAT 6 WAT 8 WAT1 Casoron 4 GR 6.0 lb ai/A 6.7 bc 93.3 ab 98.7 ab 100.0 a2 Monument 75 WG 0.5 lb ai/A 10.0 ab 100.0 a 100.0 a 100.0 a3 Lontrel 3 L 0.5 lb ai/A 0.0 d 1.7 de 0.0 e 35.0 de

4Roundup

Pro 4 L 1.0 lb ai/A 5.0 c 90.0 ab 88.3 c 70.0 bc5 Atrazine 4 L 2.0 lb ai/A 3.3 cd 76.7 c 80.0 d 88.3 ab6 Manor 60 DG 0.0188 lb ai/A 11.7 a 98.3 a 92.7 bc 100.0 a7 Revolver 0.19 L 0.039 lb ai/A 6.7 bc 96.7 a 100.0 a 100.0 a8 Spotlight 1.5 L 0.126 lb ai/A 5.0 c 11.7 d 0.0 e 55.0 cd9 Quicksliver 1.9 L 0.031 lb ai/A 0.0 d 0.0 e 0.0 e 20.0 ef

10 Speedzone 2.2 L 0.405 lb ai/A 11.7 a 83.3 bc 97.3 ab 88.3 ab11 Check 0.0 d 0.0 e 0.0 e 0.0 f

LSD 26.49 10.87 7.16 29.56Coeffi cient of

Variation57.66 10.78 7.03 25.23

aAbbreviations: WAT, weeks after treatment; GR, granular; L, liquid; DG, dispersible granularb Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s protected LSD at P=0.05.



Preemergence Control of Marchantia polymorpha

Adam Newby1, James Altland2, Charles Gilliam1, Donna Fare3 and Glenn Wehtje1

1Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 368492North Willamette Research and Extension Center, Aurora, OR 97002

3USDA-ARS National Arboretum, McMinnville, TN [email protected]

Index words: liverwort.

Signifi cance to the Industry: Liverwort is an increasing problem in container-grown ornamental production within the Southeast. Since it is an emerging weed problem in the South, little research exists on preemergence controls

Nature of Work: Liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha) continues to spread throughout the South. Prostrate leaf-like structures of liverwort known as thalli create a mat over media surfaces in containers. Not only is liverwort unsightly, it can impede water and nutrient movement into the root zone (Svenson, 1998). Liverwort propagates sexually by spores and asexually by gemmae. It thrives in low UV light, high fertility and high moisture environments (Svenson, 1997).

Since liverwort is a newly emerging weed problem within the Southeastern United States, growers have limited knowledge about its control. There are promising new products for postemergence liverwort control, but preventing liverwort infestations would be more desirable.

The objective of this study was to evaluated the effectiveness of several commonly used preemergence herbicides for preemergence liverwort control.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the summer of 2004. Full-gallon containers were fi lled with a 6:1 pine bark to sand substrate amended with 14 lb of Polyon 18-6-12, 5 lb of dolomitic lime, and 1.5 lb of Micromax per cubic yard. Herbicide treatments were applied on 6 July 2004. Twelve granular herbicides were applied at the recommended rate: Broadstar (150 lb product/A), Kansel Plus (100 lb product/A), OH2 (100 lb product/A), Pendulum 2G (200 lb/ A), Regal 0-0 (100 lb/A), Regal Kade (200 lb/A), Regal Star (200 lb/A), Ronstar (200 lb/A), Rout (100 lb/A), and Snapshot (200 lb/A). Treatments were applied using a handheld shaker. Each treatment consisted of 4 replications and 4 plants per replication. After treatment, each replication was placed around a container of mature liverwort for inoculation. Treatments and a non-treated control group were arranged in a completely randomized design. There were no potted landscape plants involved in the test. The study was conducted under 47% shade. Overhead irrigation was split into two cycles per day with a total of 0.25” applied. Percent liverwort coverage of the medium surface was recorded 6, 11, and 17 weeks after treatment (WAT). Treatment means were separated with Duncan’s multiple range test (α=0.05).

Results and Discussion: At 6 WAT, all herbicides except Kansel Plus, Pendulum 2G, and Regal Kade provided equally signifi cant control ranging from



0.3% to 12.4% liverwort coverage as compared to 25.9% liverwort coverage in controls. Percent liverwort coverage in Kansel Plus, Pendulum 2G, and Regal Kade treatments was similar to non-treated controls. At 11 WAT, Broadstar, Regal 0-0, Regal Star, Ronstar, and Rout provided the best control with percent coverage ranging from 2.9% to 28.4%. By 17 WAT, percent liverwort coverage in the Broadstar treatment was numerically lowest at 11.9%. Ronstar provided similar control to Broadstar. All other treatments provided unacceptable control.

This study shows that Broadstar and Ronstar provide superior preemergence control of liverwort compared to the other herbicides tested.

Literature Cited:

1. Svenson, S.E. 1997. Controlling liverworts and moss in nursery production. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop. Soc. 47:414-422.

2. Svenson, S.E. 1998. Suppression of liverwort growth in containers using irrigation, Mulches, Fertilizers and Herbicides. Proc. Southern Nurs. Res. Conf. 43: 396-398.

Table 1. Preemergence liverwort control with currently available herbicides.

% Liverwort coverage of medium

Herbicide lb product/A 6 WATZ 11 WAT 17 WAT

Broadstar 150 0.3Y dX 2.9 d 11.9 f

Kansel + 100 18.5 ab 57.8 a 79.4 abc

OH2 100 6.3 bcd 48.7 abc 79.5 abc

Pendulum 2G 200 15.1 abc 60.9 a 86.3 ab

Regal 0-0 100 3.6 cd 19.6 d 55.3 de

Regal Kade 200 16.3 abc 52.6 ab 74.7 abc

Regal Star 200 4.4 cd 28.4 bcd 65.9 cde

Ronstar 200 0.3 d 8.7 d 32.5 ef

Rout 100 4.1 cd 25.3 cd 72.5 bcd

Snapshot 200 12.4 bcd 64.7 a 90 a

Non-treated control 25.9 a 59.8 a 73.8 abcZWeeks after treatment.YPercent coverage of liverwort within container.XDuncan’s Multiple Range Test (α=0.05). Means with same letter are not signifi cantly different.



A Non-Chemical Alternative for Weed Control in Container Nursery Crops

Ben M. Richardson1, Charles H. Gilliam1, Glenn R. Wehtje1, Glenn B. Fain2

1Auburn University, Dept. of Horticulture, Auburn, AL 368492USDA-ARS, Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville, MS 39470

[email protected]

Index Words: Mulch, Preemergence

Signifi cance to Industry: Preemergence herbicides may be impractical for growers that are producing crops in large containers. Container spacing is often such that application of a granular herbicide results in over 50% of the herbicide falling outside the containers. In addition labor involved in hand weeding is expensive therefore growers are seeking alternatives. Pine bark nuggets have been used as mulch in landscape beds for many years to control weeds. This research shows that it can also be used as mulch in the production of nursery crops grown in large containers control weeds.

Nature of Work: Container nursery crops are among the most valuable crops produced in the southeast. Weeds can reduce the value of nursery crops by reducing growth through competitive effects (1) and reduced salability due to consumer demand for weed free crops. Growers primarily use preemergence herbicides for weed control. However demand has increased for nursery crops grown in large containers and preemergence herbicides are often impractical due to the increased spacing between containers. Hand weeding is another option but expensive and labor costs continue to increase (2,3).

Fresh pine bark nugget mulch could be an alternative. It has been used for many years in landscape beds to control weeds and could be an option for use in container crops. Physical properties of pine bark are conducive to weed control. Fresh pine bark is hydrophobic with limited water holding capacity due to the large particle size. Pine bark is well suited to be spread uniformly as a mulch, covering the entire surface of the container while other mulch type products may leave cracks for weeds to establish.

The objective of this study was to evaluate coarse pine bark mulch for weed control in container grown crops and to determine depth of mulch needed for adequate weed control.

These studies were conducted in Auburn, Alabama fall of 2004, and spring 2005. Crapemyrtle (Lagerstroemia indica ‘Acoma’) were transplanted from trade gallon containers into 7 gallon containers. The substrate used was a 6:1 (v:v) aged pine bark: sand amended with 2.3 kg (5lb) of dolimitic lime, 6.4kg (14lb) of Polyon 18-6-12. and 0.68kg (1.5lb) of Micromax. All plants were potted to equal depths, approximately 3 inches below the top of the container. All plants were irrigated twice prior to treatment. Three treatments consisted of broadcasting 25 bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) seed on the surface of the substrate of each container, then coarse pine bark nugget mulch was hand applied at 0, 1.5 and



3 inches respectively. The nuggets averaged in size of 2 cm by 6 cm (English units???) fl akes. Two other treatments consisted of fi rst applying mulch at 1.5 or 3 inches, then broadcasting the bittercress seeds on top of the mulch. These procedures were also applied to fi ve more treatments and a granular herbicide (Broadstar 0.25G at 150 lb product/A) was applied after all mulch and seed were present. This study was initiated October 8th 2004 with a total of 10 treatments and 10 single pot reps per treatment.

In a similar study, common gardenia (Gardenia jasminoides) were transplanted from trade gallon containers into 7 gallon containers. On September 30th, 2004 the same treatments were applied to the gardenia except 25 oxalis (Oxalis stricta) seed were used per container instead of bittercress. In both studies, data collected were weed number per container at 30, 60, 90 and 180 days after treatment (DAT) and percent coverage of weeds at 60, 90, 180 DAT. Shoot fresh weight of weeds were taken for each container at 180 DAT. Plants were covered for overwintering from December 15 2004 until March 1 . Growth indices were taken on all gardenia and crapemyrtles at 180 DAT.

Results and Discussion: These studies show that pine bark mulch can provide effective weed control for nursery crops grown in large containers. At 180 DAT oxalis was present in the no mulch, no herbicide treatment which contained 3.9 weeds, averaged 35 % coverage of container surface and averaged a shoot dry weight of 12.9 g per container. All other treatments resulted in minimal oxalis growth. The combination of mulch plus herbicide provided complete oxalis control 180DAT.

At 180 DAT bittercress was growing vigorously in the control containers (no mulch- no herbicide). These containers averaged 8.1 bittercress, 100% coverage of container surface and 59.6 g of bittercress per container. In comparison no herbicide,1.5 inches of mulch treatment with seeding after mulching, averaged 2.6 weeds, 44% coverage of container surface and 33.7 g per container. Both treatments resulted in greater bittercress growth than all other treatments. Similar to the oxalis study, the combination of mulch plus herbicide provided complete bittercress control 180 DAT.

No herbicide or mulch applications affected growth of crapemyrtle and gardenia (Table 2).

Literature Cited:

1. Berchielli-Robertson, D.L., C.H. Gilliam, and D.C. Fare. 1990. Competitive effects of weeds on the growth of container-grown plants. Hortscience 25:77-79.

2. Gilliam, C.H., W.J. Foster, J.L. Adrain, and R.L. Shumack. 1990. A survey of weed control costs and strategies in container production nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 8:133-135.

3. Judge, C.A., J.C. Neal, and J.B. Weber. 2003. Dose and concentration responses of common nursery weeds to Gallery, Surfl an and Trefl an. J. Environ. Hort. 21:43-45.



Tab

le 1

. The

infl u

ence

of m

ulch

and

her

bici

des

on w

eed

cont

rol w

ithin

con

tain

er n

urse

ry c

rops

.

Oxa

lisB

itter

cres

s

90

DA

TZ

180

DA

T

90

DA

T18

0 D

AT

H

erbi

cide

App

liedY

Wee

ds

seed

edX

Mul

ch

dept

hWW

eed

#%

cove

rW

eed

#%

cove

rS

DW

Wee

d #

%co

ver

Wee

d #

%co

ver

SD

W

No

befo

re0

5.5a

V18

.5a

3.9a

35a

12.9

a9.

4a48

a8.

1a10

0a59

.6a

No

befo

re1.

50.

2b0.

5b0.

3b0.

9b0.

9b0b

0b0.

2c2.

5c3.

5c

No

befo

re3

0b

0b0b

0b0b

0b0b

0c0c

0c

No

afte

r1.

50b

0b0.

4b2.

5b1.

3b0.

4b5b

2.6b

44.2

b33

.7b

No

afte

r3

0b0b

0.2b

1b0.

8b0b

0b0.

1c1.

0c1.

4c

Yes

befo

re0

0.3b

1.5b

0.6b

2.5b

1.1b

0.1b

2b0.

1c8c

3.8c

Yes

befo

re1.

50b

0b0b

0b0b

0b0b

0c0c

0c

Yes

befo

re3

0b0b

0b0b

0b0b

0b0c

0c0c

Yes

afte

r1.

50b

0b0b

0b0b

0b0b

0c0c

0c

Yes

afte

r3

0b0b

0b0b

0b0b

0b0c

0c0c

ZD

AT

= d

ays

afte

r tr

eatm

ent.

Y App

licat

ion

of a

pre

emer

genc

e he

rbic

ide(

Bro

adst

ar 0

.25G

150

lb p

rodu

ct/A

).Y A

pplic

atio

n of

a p

reem

erge

nce

herb

icid

e(B

road

star

0.2

5G 1

50 lb

pro

duct

/A).

Y XT

imin

g of

see

ding

com

pare

d to

mul

chin

g, b

efor

e= s

eeds

und

er m

ulch

,afte

r= s

eeds

on

top

of m

ulch

.W

Mul

ch d

epth

in in

ches

, wee

d #

= n

umbe

r of

des

igna

ted

wee

d sp

ecie

s pe

r co

ntai

ner,

% c

over

= p

erce

ntag

e of

the

cont

aine

r su

rfac

e co

vere

d by

des

igna

ted

wee

d sp

ecie

s,

SD

W =

sho

ot d

ry w

eigh

t (g/

con

tain

er).

V M

eans

with

in c

olum

n fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lette

r ar

e no

t sig

nifi c

antly

diff

eren

t (D

unca

n’s

Mul

tiple

Ran

ge T

est: α

= 0

.05)

.



Table 2. The infl uence of mulch and herbicide on growth of container crops.

Growth indexZ 180 DATHerbicide AppliedY Weeds seededX Mulch depthW Gardenia Crapemyrtle

No before 0 59abV 85a

No before 1.5 54b 77a

No before 3 59ab 80a

No after 1.5 56ab 82a

No after 3 56ab 80a

Yes before 0 55ab 80a

Yes before 1.5 60a 88a

Yes before 3 56ab 79a

Yes after 1.5 54b 75a

Yes after 3 58ab 74aZDAT= days after treatment.YApplication of a preemergence herbicide(Broadstar 0.25G 150 lb product/A).YApplication of a preemergence herbicide(Broadstar 0.25G 150 lb product/A).Y

XTiming of seeding compared to mulching, before= seeds under mulch ,after= seeds on top of mulch.W Mulch depth in inches, weed # = number of designated weed species per container, % cover = percentage of the container surface covered by designated weed species, SDW = shoot dry weight (g/ container).

V Means within column followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test: α = 0.05).



Container-Grown Ornamental Granular Herbicide Demonstration

L. M. Miller, J. Popenoe, R.H. Stamps, R.C. Miller and D. LickfeldtHillsborough County Extension, University of Florida,

IFAS, Seffner, FL [email protected] .edu

Index Words: Viburnum odorotissimum, Quercus virginiana Mill., Preemergence weed control

Signifi cance to Industry: Weed control is a continuous challenge for Florida container nurseries despite the numerous chemical control options at their disposal. Many nurseries hand weed container crops to maintain them in marketable condition. This is an increasingly expensive option, especially with the recent rise in Florida’s minimum wage. Each preemergence weed control product available to nurseries has its strengths and weaknesses in terms of weed spectrum, crop safety and worker protection requirements. Each product will perform satisfactorily when applied according to label directions to control target weed species. Failure to adequately control weeds while using granular herbicides in container nurseries may be caused by too much or too little rain/irrigation, by the presence of weeds that are not controlled by the herbicide(s), by improper rate selection or by inaccurate/non-uniform application (1, 5, 6). This demonstration was designed to show that when applied correctly, most products will control target weed species successfully.

Nature of Work: Two nurseries, one in Hillsborough County and one in Sumter County, were used as test sites for evaluating a number of preemergence herbicides for weed control during containerized landscape ornamental production. Weed pressure, types of weeds, production practices and data collected varied by nursery.

Containers were treated with Snapshot 2.5 TG (200 lbs/acre), Showcase 2.5G (200 lbs/acre), OH2 3G (100 lbs/acre), Rout 3G (100 lbs/acre), BroadStar 0.25G (150 lbs/acre), Dimension 0.15F on a fertilizer carrier (333 lbs/acre), Trefl an 5G (200 lbs/acre in Hillsborough County only), or were untreated controls. In Hillsborough County, one of the untreated groups was hand-weeded on January 7, 2005. Weed control was measured twice in the spring of 2005 and the collected data analyzed using ANOVA (SAS). Differences among treatment means were determined using Duncan’s new multiple range test at P < .05.

Quercus virginiana ‘Cathedral Oak’ P.P. #12015, growing in 5-gallon containers in a pot-in pot production system, were treated in November 2004 at Meyer’s Nurseries in Thonotosassa in Hillsborough County, FL. A randomized block design with four replications of 8 plants each (288 total plants) was used. Herbicides were weighed and applied individually to each pot followed by 0.5 to 0.75 inches of irrigation. Each pot was visually rated for percent weed coverage on January 7 and March 7, 2005. Percentages were transformed using arcsin transformation, as needed, prior to analysis. On March 7, 2005 all weeds were



removed and the weeding times recorded. Percent weed control on January 7 was calculated based on zero percent weed control in the untreated controls.

Viburnum odoratissimum growing in 3-gallon containers at Lake Brantley Plant Corporation in Center Hill in Sumter County, FL were treated in December 2004 in a randomized block trial with four replications of 375 plants each (10,500 total plants). Applications were made with a hand-held broadcast spreader to dry foliage on jammed pots, followed by application of 0.5 to 0.75 inches of irrigation water. There were so few weeds in the plots on February 22, 2005 that weeds were counted from each plot as they were hand-weeded, but weeding times and percent weed cover were not taken. On April 28, all weeds were collected, counted, identifi ed, and fresh and dry weights taken. However, the block formation was no longer valid as plants had been moved and set out in different nursery beds in March and no statistics could be applied to the fi nal data.

Results and Discussion: Weed pressure, types of weeds, production practices and data collected varied by nursery. However, in both situations the herbicides performed acceptably in controlling weeds. Weed pressure was much lower at the Center Hill nursery, possibly because it is surrounded by fi elds and pasture and the shrubs quickly fi lled in the pots and shaded out weeds. However, dog fennel, which is more typically a weed found in pastures and row crops, was a signifi cant weed species in these containers. Both nurseries were blessed with the more typical Florida nursery weeds such as hairy bittercress, eclipta, wild carrot and shepherdspurse.

All herbicide treatments reduced weed growth signifi cantly compared to the untreated controls (Tables 1, 2). However Dimension, applied as a fertilizer-based formulation, seems to have encouraged weed growth at the Center Hill site, possibly because surface applied fertilizer has been shown to encourage weed growth (4, 2). While BroadStar appeared to perform best, it was not signifi cantly different from the other treatments.

The time required to hand-weed was cut in half by all treatments except Trefl an compared to the control plots. Hand-weeding once in the mid-season was as effective as herbicide treatments in controlling weeds. The cost of hand-weeding compared to herbicides must be considered. The cost for weeding each pot on 1/7/2005 was 5.625 cents, assuming labor costs of $9.52 per hour (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005).

Literature Cited:

1. Altland, J. 2003. Weed Control in Container Crops: A Guide to Effective Weed Management through Preventive Measures. Oregon State University Extension Bulletin EM8823.

2. Broschat, T. K. and K.A. Klock-Moore. 2003. Infl uence of fertilizer placement on plant quality, root distribution, and weed growth in container-grown tropical ornamental plants. Hort Tech 13:305–308.



3. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. Farm Labor Bulletin. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl

4. Foster, W. J., J.L. Adrian, and R. L. Shumak. 1990. A survey of weed control costs and strategies in container production nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 8:133–135.

5. Stamps, R. H. 2003a. Checklist for minimizing weed management failures. Proc. of the Soc. of Amer. Florists’ Annu. Conf. on Insect and Dis. Mgt. on Ornamentals 19:9.

6. Stamps, R. H. 2003b. Effective use of preemergence herbicides for controlling weeds in ornamentals. Proc. of the Soc. of Amer. Florists’ Ann. Conf. on Insect and Dis. Mgt. on Ornamentals 19:100–107.

Table 1. Results of Hillsborough County site.

Treatment Formulation Rate

% Weed coverage 1/7/2005

% Weed control

1/7/2005

Weeding time (min) 3/7/2005

% Weed coverage 3/7/2005

Snapshot 2.5 200 lb/acre

8.475 cz 76 ab 3.608 b 61.7 cb

Showcase 2.5 200 lb/acre

4.100 c 89 a 2.675 b 39.5 cb

OH2 3 100 lb/acre

9.975 c 66 ab 3.725 b 71.8 cb

Rout 3 100 lb/acre

7.375 c 67 ab 3.225 b 52.1 cb

Broadstar 0.25 150 lb/acre

3.500 c 76 ab 2.310 b 25.2 c

Dimension 0.15 333 lb/acre

4.913 c 85 a 3.158 b 43.0 cb

Trefl an 5 200 lb/acre

18.063bc 60 ab 5.368 ab 87.5 b

Handweeded 1/7/2005

26.975ab 44 b 3.043 b 49.5 cb

Untreated 40.088 a 0 c 7.708 a 82.9 aZ Values within each column followed by different letters are signifi cantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05.



Table 2. Results of Sumter County site.

Treatment Formulation Rate

No. Weeds (per plot of 375 plants) 2/22/2005

No. Weeds (total of all plots)

4/28/2005

Weed Fresh Wt. (g) (total of all plots)

4/28/2005

Weed Dry Wt. (g) (total of all plots)

4/28/2005Snapshot 2.5 200

lb/acre6.000 cz 62

237.90 20.72

Showcase 2.5 200 lb/acre

6.000 c 19405.27 39.79

OH2 3 100 lb/acre

12.333 c 38830.34 81.88

Rout 3 100 lb/acre

8.667 c 33611.94 66.32

Broadstar 0.25 150 lb/acre

5.667 c 789.67 7.98

Dimension 0.15 333 lb/acre

23.333 b 541746.69 185.21

Untreated 43.667 a 178 1288.50 132.87Z Values within each column followed by different letters are signifi cantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05.



Molecular and Morphological Characterization of Cardamine Species

Glenn B. Fain1, James E. Altland2 and Timothy A. Rinehart1

1USDA-ARS Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville, MS 394702North Willamette Research and Extension Center,

Oregon State University, Aurora OR [email protected]

Index Words: Cardamine hirsuta, C. fl exuosa, C. oligosperma, C. scutata,Nursery, Container, Weeds, Hairy Bittercress

Signifi cance to the Industry: This study was conducted to identify and compare species of bittercress (Cardamine) occurring in container crops and fi eld soils. Previously, researchers including the authors of this paper have referred to the bittercress in container nurseries as hairy bittercress (C. hirsuta L.). It is certainly, at least from a research perspective, important to know the species of weeds infesting container nurseries and those being studied in research trials. Weed seed used in research should be the same as those infesting production nurseries. As results of this study indicate, species in containers might not be the same as native or introduced species occurring in the landscape. Another important consideration is that different species might react differently to container nursery management practices.

Nature of Work: Cardamine sp. are problem weeds in container nurseries (3). Proper identifi cation of nursery weeds is important. It has been previously reported that Cardamine occurring in nursery containers is the introduced species C. hirsuta L.(hairy bittercress). It commonly grows as a winter annual throughout the southern, eastern and west coast areas of the US. Some have suggested that Cardamine occurring in northwest nurseries might be the native Cardamine oligosperma Nutt. (little western bittercress). Others have suggested that the introduced species C. fl exuosa With. (woodland bittercress) might also occur in nurseries and greenhouses.

Seed or plants were collected from container plants in Alabama (ALC), Mississippi (three locations MSC1, MSC2, and MSC3), New York (NYC), Oregon (ORC), and Virginia (VAC). Seed were also purchased as C. hirsuta from England (UKH) (Herbiseed). Another seed source was provided from Virginia (VAF) labeled as C. fl exuosa. Plants were also collected from the landscape in Mississippi (MSL) and Oregon (ORL) and from container plants from Florida (FLC). Seed for all but MSL and FLC were sown in a germinating mix and placed in a growth chamber. Stem and leaf tissue from two week old seedlings were used in a genetic analysis with the exception of the ORL plants due to a failure to germinate. DNA was extracted from seed for ORL and stems and leaves for MSL and FLC. Morphological characteristics of each taxon were examined with special attention to stamen number; stem, petiole, and rachis color; leaf shape (especially of young leaves); and stem and leaf pubescence (hairs).



Total genomic DNA was extracted from Cardamine tissue using Plant MiniKit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) and subjected to PCR amplifi cation of the internal transcribed regions (ITS1 and ITS2) using the primers and methods described by White et al. (4). Amplifi ed DNA was sequenced using BigDye version 3.1 (Applied Biosystems, Hayward, CA). Data were aligned using CLUSTAL and analyzed using UPGMA with 1000 bootstrap replicates.

Results and Discussion: Phylogenetic analysis of the ITS sequence data suggest there were three distinct species of Cardamine in our collection. Based on DNA sequence data, plants from ORL, VAC, UKH, and MSL are C. hirsutawith an average pairwise sequence similarity of 98.2% (Figure 1). Similarly, data for MSC1, MSC2, MSC3, ALC, NYC, and VAF match reference sequences for C. scutata Thunb. (Japanese bittercress, native to Alaska) with an average pairwise sequence similarity of 99.4%. Bootstrap support for these groups is high which also supports our conclusions (data not shown).

The ORC sample produced ITS data that could not be identifi ed based on sequences deposited in GenBank. However, confi dence is high that it is not C. hirsuta or C. scutata. It is likely that ORC is a species not represented in GenBank at this time.

Morphological data support the phylogenetic analysis. ORL, VAC, UKH, and MSL all exhibit pubescent leaves and 100% of the fl owers for all specimens had 4 stamens. By comparison the leaves of all other taxa were glabrous and 100% of the fl owers with 6 stamens. The literature supports pubescent leaves and 4 stamens per fl ower for C. hirsuta (1, 2). While ORC was not positively identifi ed by phylogenetic analysis, morphologically it does appear similar to descriptions of C. oligosperma, and thus could be as speculated.

Other observations were a reddish stem and rachis for VAC, UKH, and MSL. Also observed was a cordate terminal leafl et base for VAC, UKH, and MSL that was not as pronounced on the other samples. In our growth chamber study all Cardamine seedlings were subjected to a 12 hour photoperiod under which VAC and UKH grew prolifi cally but never fl owered. It was not until these plants were subjected to night interrupted lighting did fl owering initiate. This warrants further testing in the effort to determine why C. hirsuta might not be occurring in nurseries in locations where it is prolifi c in the landscape. It should also be noted that this survey did not exhaustively identify bittercress samples throughout all container and landscape areas within each region.

Literature Cited:

1. Al-Shehbaz I.A. 1998. The genera of Arabideae (Cruciferae; Brassicaceae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 69:85-166.

2. Marhold, K. 1995. Taxonomy of the genus Cardamine L. (Cruciferae) in the Carpathians and Pannonia. III. Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha. 30:397-434.

3. Ryan, G.F. 1977. Multiple herbicide applications for bittercress control in nursery containers. HortScience. 12:158-169.



4. White, T. J., T. Bruns, S. Lee, and J. W. Taylor. 1990. Amplifi cation and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. Pp. 315-322 In: PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, eds. Innis, M. A., D. H. Gelfand, J. J. Sninsky, and T. J. White. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Figure 1. UPGMA methods were used to construct a phylogram from the ITS sequence alignment. C. crassifolia was used to root the tree. Samples appearing on a single vertical line, or branch, are 100% identical. Horizontal branches indicate sequence divergence with longer branch lengths corresponding to an increased number of differences, or divergence, between samples. Samples that group together suggest a shared ancestry.group together suggest a shared ancestry.



A New Herbicide for the Nursery Industry

Mark Czarnota1 Darin Lickfeldt2 and Joe Neal3

1University of Georgia, Department of Horticulture, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffi n GA, 30223

2Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 462683North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609

Index Words: Bittercress, Cardimine hirsuta; crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis; eclipta, Eclipta prostrata; common groundsel, Senecio vulgaris; morningglory, Ipomoea spp.; mulberry weed, Fatoua villosa; phyllanthus, Phyllanthus spp.; sowthistle, Sonchus asper; spurge, Sonchus asper; spurge, Sonchus asper Chamaesyce spp.; woodsorrel, Oxalis spp. Broadstar, OH2, Ronstar, Showcase, Snapshot, trifl uralin, isoxaben, oxyfl uorfen, pendimethalin, fl umioxazin, oxadiazon, preemergence herbicides

Signifi cance to Industry: From these southeastern US trials, it appears that Showcase™ Specialty Herbicide at 5.0 lb ai/A can provide excellent control of many common weeds in container nursery. This three-way combination of oxyfl uorfen with trifl uralin and isoxaben appears to improve weed control relative to Snapshot™ Specialty Herbicide. On plants with whorled foliage, growers should still choose a herbicide not containing oxyfl ourfen with a long history of plant tolerance, such as Snapshot™ Specialty Herbicide. The addition of Showcase™

Specialty Herbicide to the arsenal of granular herbicides will provide growers with an additional tool to control weeds.

Nature of Work: All container nurseries in the United States continually struggle to control weeds (Derr et al. 1997; Rice 1992). To address this problem, agricultural chemical manufacturers are constantly testing new products and formulations to meet this need. With great success, Dow AgroSciences has been marketing the product Snapshot™ Specialty Herbicide to the landscape and container nursery industry for over 20 years. Snapshot 2.5 TG is a granular herbicide containing 2.0% trifl uralin and 0.5% isoxaben, and is used to control a broad spectrum of broadleaf and grass weeds from seed. To try and increase effi cacy, Dow has incorporated oxyfl uorfen into a preemergence, three-way combination herbicide. The new product was released in 2005 and is being marketed under the trade name Showcase™ Specialty Herbicide. Showcase is a granular herbicide containing 2.0% trifl uralin, 0.25% isoxaben, and 0.25% oxyfl uorfen. Experiments were conducted nationwide in both 2004 and 2005. Trials in the Southeastern U.S. were conducted in both Raleigh, North Carolina and Griffi n, Georgia. Identical treatments were applied at both locations, and a treatment list is presented in Table 1. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications, and each treatment of each replication contained at least 2 subsamples. At the Griffi n location, all one gallon pots were over seeded with a ¼ teaspoon of a weed seed mix immediately before treatments were applied. Weed seed mix contained 1 parts by volumn large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea and I. purpurea), hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta), spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata), mulberryweed (Fatoua villosa), woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta and O. corniculata). Before treatments were applied, all plants in a particular treatment were arranged in a 6ft. x 6ft. square. Pre-weighed herbicides were



then uniformly applied with a shaker jar to the 6ft. x 6ft. area. In NC weeds were seeded to separate pots, with 3 pots of each species per treatment per replicate (12 pots of each species total). In NC, all pots were hand weeded, re-treated, and re-seeded 8 weeks after the initial treatment. Depending on the location, percent control was visually estimated between 1 and 18 weeks after treatment (WAT). A description of the rating scale is presented in Table 2. All data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means were separated using Fisher’s least signifi cant difference (LSD) test with a signifi cance level of P=0.05.

Results and Discussion: In 2004, ornamentals tested at Raleigh, North Carolina and Griffi n, GA are listed in Table 3. Weeds evaluated at both sites are presented in Table 4. At the North Carolina site, ‘Night Beacon’ daylillies were signifi cantly injured by Showcase, OH2, Broadstar and Ronstar, but not by Snapshot TG. The injury observed was “contact type” damage of the new foliage. Foliage emerging after treatment was generally not affected and plants had recovered by 8 weeks after treatment. No other species were injured by any of the treatments at the Raleigh location. In Griffi n, no injury was recoded to either Fothergilla or the Fosteri holly (data not shown).

At the Raleigh location, large crabgrass, oxalis, and spiny sowthistle control was greater than or equal to 70% for the duration of the experiment (up to 10 weeks after treatment) (data not shown). Spotted spurge was controlled by all treatments except Ronstar. Longstalked phyllanthus, and eclipta were more diffi cult to control. Based on data following the 2nd applications, phyllanthus and eclipta were controlled for about 4 weeks by Snapshot TG whereas Showcase, OH2, Broadstar and Ronstar controlled phyllanthus for 10 weeks. Eclipta was not well controlled by Ronstar, or low rates of Showcase, but Broadstar and the high rate of Showcase provided >70% eclipta control 8 weeks after treatment (Tables 5 and 6).

At the Griffi n location, control of morningglory was acceptable until 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). At this rating date both the OH2 and Ronstar were providing signifi cantly less control than the other herbicide treatments. Control continued to decrease with all herbicide treatments during the fi nal 2 ratings, and by 14 WAT none of the herbicide treatments were signifi cantly different from the untreated control (data not shown). With crabgrass, control began to break at 8 WAT. OH2 and the low rate of Showcase and Snapshot were providing less than 70% control. By 14 WAT, only Ronstar and the high rate of Showcase were providing control greater than 70% (data not shown). Hairy bittercress, mulberry weed, woodsorrel, and spotted spurge control didn’t break until 14 WAT (Table 7.). Oxalis and mulberry weed control at 14 WAT was ≤ 73.3% with both the high rate of Showcase and Ronstar. At 14 WAT, control of bittercress was poor with all herbicide treatments. Spurge was completely controlled for the duration of the experiment with the high rate of Showcase, Broadstar, and Ronstar.

Signifi cance to Industry: From these southeastern US trials, it appears that Showcase™ Specialty Herbicide at 200 lb P/A can provide excellent control of many common weeds in containerized ornamentals. This three-way combination of oxyfl uorfen with trifl uralin and isoxaben appears to increase weed control



relative to Snapshot™ Specialty Herbicide. On plants with whorled foliage, growers should still choose a herbicide not containing oxyfl ourfen with a long history of plant tolerance, such as Snapshot™ Specialty Herbicide. The addition of Showcase™ Specialty Herbicide to the arsenal of granular herbicides will provide growers with an additional tool to control weeds.

Literature Cited:

1. Derr, J. F., J. C. Neal, L. J. Kuhns, R. J. Smeda, L. A. Weston, C. Elmore, C. A. Wilen, J. Ahrens, A. Senesac and T. Mervosh. 1997. Weed Management in Landscape and Nursery Plantings. In M. E. McGiffen, eds. Weed Management in Horticultural Crops. Alexandria, VA: ASHS. 139.

2. Rice, R. P. 1992. Nursery and Landscape Weed Control Manual. Fresno. Thomson. 290 p.

Table 1. List of treatments.

# Trade name Active ingredient Formulation*Rate (product/Acre)*

Rate (active ingredient /Acre)*

1 Showcase trifl uralin / isoxaben / oxyfl uorfen

2.5 GR 100 lb pr/A 1.0 lb ai/A


2.5 GR 150 lb pr/A 3.75 lb ai/A


2.5 GR 200 lb pr /A 5.0 lb ai/A

4 Snapshot trifl uralin / isoxaben 2.5 GR 100 lb pr/A 2.5 lb ai/A5 Snapshot trifl uralin / isoxaben 2.5 GR 150 lb pr/A 3.75 lb ai/A6 Snapshot trifl uralin / isoxaben 2.5 GR 200 lb pr/A 5.0 lb ai/A7 OH2 pendimethalin /

oxyfl uorfen3.0 GR 100 lb pr/A 3.0 lb ai/A

8 BroadStar fl umioxazin 0.25 GR 150 lb pr/A 0.375 lb ai/A9 Ronstar oxadiazon 2.0 GR 150 lb pr/A 3.0 lb ai/A10 Untreated

*lb pr/A = pounds product per Acre; GR = granular formulation.



Table 2. Representations of numeric weed control ratings.

Value Ranges Plant Symptoms0 No visual injury present10-30 Minimal injury to desirable plant. Less than 10% of the

plant leaf surface area showing chlorosis and necrosis. A 10 to 30% biomass reduction.

40-70 More noticeable plant injury or stunting. Greater than 50% of the leaf area showing symptoms of chlorosis and/or necrosis. A 40 to 70% biomass reduction.

80-90 Plants severely injured. Most of the leaves and leaf surface showing signs of chlorosis and necrosis. An 80 to 90% biomass reduction.

100 Plant appears dead. No signs of regrowth.

Table 3. Ornamentals tested in Raleigh, North Carolina and Griffi n, Georgia.

Common Name Scientifi c NameButterfl y-bush Buddleja davidii ‘Pink Delight’

Boxwood Buxus sinica var. insularis ‘Wintergreen’Dwarf Fothergilla Fothergilla gardenia*

Daylily Hemerocallis spp. ‘Night Beacon’Shrub Althea Hibiscus syriacus ‘Lucy’Foster’s Holly Ilex x attenuate ‘Fosteri’*Carrisa Holly Ilex cornuta ‘Carrisa’

Common Crapemyrtle Lagerstroemia indica ‘Natchez’Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera

Azalea Rhododendron X ‘Formosa’Doublefi le viburnum Viburnum plicatum var. tomentosum

*Plants tested at Griffi n.

Table 4. Weeds evaluated at both the Griffi n, Georgia and Raleigh, North Carolina locations.

Common Name Scientifi c NameHairy bittercress Cardamine hirsutaLarge crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis

Eclipta Eclipta prostrataa

Spotted spurge Chamaesyce maculataMulberryweed Fatoua villosab

Morningglory Ipomoea hederacea and I. purpureab

Oxalis Oxalis stricta and O. corniculataLongstalked Phyllanthus Phyllanthus tenellusa

Spiny sowthistle Sonchus asperaSonchus asperaSonchus asperaWeeds evaluated only at Raleigh, North Carolina.bWeed evaluated only at Griffi n, Georgia.



Tab

le 5

.Lon

gsta

lked

phy

llant

hus

(Phy

llant

hus

tene

llus)

con

trol

rat

ings

in 2

004

at th

e R

alei

gh, N

orth

Car

olin

e lo

catio

na .

#Tr

ade

nam

eF

orm

ula

tio

nR

ate

(act

ive

ing

red

ien

t /A

cre)

*

Lo

ng

stal

ked

ph

ylla

nth

us

con

tro

l

6WA

IT4W

AT

6WA

T8W

AT

10W

AT

1S

how

case

2.5

GR

1.0

lb a

i/A84

a95

a74

ab

88 a

70 b

2S

how

case

2.5

GR

3.75

lb a

i/A90

a99

a90

a94

a83

ab

3S

how

case

2.5

GR

5.0

lb a

i/A96

a10

0 a

99 a

95 a

95 a

4S

naps

hot

2.5

GR

2.5

lb a

i/A86

a68

b39

b20

cd

22 c

d5

Sna

psho

t2.

5 G

R3.

75 lb

ai/A

64 a

75 b

66 a

b34

bc

30 c

6S

naps

hot

2.5

GR

5.0

lb a

i/A96

a93

a81

a52

b45

c7

OH

23.

0 G

R3.

0 lb

ai/A

92 a

100

a10

0 a

100

a10

0 a

8B

road

Sta

r0.

25 G

R0.

375

lb a

i/A10

0 a

100

a10

0 a

100

a10

0 a

9R

onst

ar2.

0 G

R3.

0 lb

ai/A

100

a10

0 a

100

a10

0 a

100

a10

Unt

reat

ed0

c0

c0

c0

d0

dLS

D20

1235

2424

Coe

ffi ci

ent o

f V

aria

tion

1710

3224

26

a Abb

revi

atio

ns: W

AIT

= w

eeks

afte

r in

itial

trea

tmen

t; W

AT

= w

eeks

afte

r 2n

d tr

eatm

ent;

GR

, gra

nula

r.b M

eans

with

in a

col

umn

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e le

tter

are

not d

iffer

ent a

ccor

ding

to F

ishe

r’s

prot

ecte

d LS

D a

t P=

0.05

.



Tab

le 6

.Ecl

ipta

(E

clip

ta p

rost

rata

) co

ntro

l rat

ings

in 2

004

at th

e R

alei

gh, N

orth

Car

olin

e lo

catio

na .

#Tr

ade

nam

eF

orm

ula

tio

nR

ate

(act

ive

ing

red

ien

t /A

cre)

*E

clip

ta c

on

tro

l (%

)

6WA

IT4W

AT

6WA

T8W

AT

10W

AT

1S

how

case

2.5

GR

1.0

lb a

i/A62

b77

ab

55 a

bc40

ab

18 b

cd2

Sho

wca

se2.

5 G

R3.

75 lb

ai/A

81 a

b87

a76

ab

50 a

b35

abc

3S

how

case

2.5

GR

5.0

lb a

i/A78

ab

95 a

89 a

72 a

62 a

4S

naps

hot

2.5

GR

2.5

lb a

i/A86

ab

60 b

c34

cd

30 b

c12

cd

5S

naps

hot

2.5

GR

3.75

lb a

i/A84

ab

75 a

b41

bc

35 b

18 b

cd6

Sna

psho

t2.

5 G

R5.

0 lb

ai/A

92 a

81 a

b61

abc

30 b

c22

bcd

7O

H2

3.0

GR

3.0

lb a

i/A94

a76

ab

45 b

c40

ab

15 b

cd8

Bro

adS

tar

0.25

GR

0.37

5 lb

ai/A

94 a

97 a

89 a

70 a

41 a

b9

Ron

star

2.0

GR

3.0

lb a

i/A60

b45

c30

cd

20 b

c15

bcd

10U

ntre

ated

0 c

0 d

0 d

0 c

0 c

LSD

2826

4033

29C

oeffi

cien

t of

Var

iatio

n26

2653

5982

a Abb

revi

atio

ns: W

AIT

= w

eeks

afte

r in

itial

trea

tmen

t; W

AT

= w

eeks

afte

r 2n

d tr

eatm

ent;

GR

, gra

nula

r.b M

eans

with

in a

col

umn

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e le

tter

are

not d

iffer

ent a

ccor

ding

to F

ishe

r’s

prot

ecte

d LS

D a

t P=

0.05

.



Tab

le 7

.Per

cent

con

trol

of h

airy

bitt

ercr

ess

(Car

dam

ine

hirs

uta)

, mul

berr

ywee

d (F

atou

a vi

llosa

), w

oods

orre

l (O

xalis

str

icta

and

O

. cor

nicu

lata

), a

nd s

potte

d sp

urge

(E

upho

rbia

mac

ulat

a) in

200

4 at

the

Grif

fi n, G

eorg

ia lo

catio

na .

#Tr

ade

nam

eF

orm

ula

tio

n

Rat

e (a

ctiv

e in

gre

die

nt

/ A

cre)

*

Oxa

lisB

itte

rcre

ssM

ulb

erry

wee

d

Sp

urg

e

8 W

AT

14 W

AT

8 W

AT

14 W

AT

8 W

AT

14 W

AT

8 W

AT

14 W

AT

1S

how

case

2.5

GR

1.0

lb a

i/A70

c33

a70

bc

20 a

b93

a13

bc

87 b

33 a

b2

Sho

wca

se2.

5 G

R3.

75 lb

ai/A

86 a

bc50

a80

abc

36 a

b87

ab

46 a

bc93

ab

67 a

b3

Sho

wca

se2.

5 G

R5.

0 lb

ai/A

90 a

b80

a77

abc

63 a

93 a

73 a

b10

0 a

100

a4

Sna

psho

t2.

5 G

R2.

5 lb

ai/A

73 b

c53

a80

abc

13 a

b87

ab

53 a

bc93

ab

67 a

b5

Sna

psho

t2.

5 G

R3.

75 lb

ai/A

73 b

c36

a70

bc

13 a

b73

b27

abc

100

a67

ab

6S

naps

hot

2.5

GR

5.0

lb a

i/A83

abc

33 a

63 c

0 b

73 b

0 c

97 a

b67

ab

7O

H2

3.0

GR

3.0

lb a

i/A87

abc

33 a

83 a

b33

ab

93 a

33 a

bc10

0 a

33 a

b8

Bro

adS

tar

0.25

GR

0.37

5 lb

ai/A

93 a

56 a

93 a

36 a

b93

a67

abc

93 a

b10

0 a

9R

onst

ar2.

0 G

R3.

0 lb

ai/A

87 a

bc76

a80

abc

46 a

b87

ab

93 a

100

s10

0 a

10U

ntre

ated

0 d

0 a

0 d

0 b

0 c

0 c

0 c

0 b

LSD

1785

1958

1470

1369

Coe

ffi ci

ent

of V

aria

tion

1410

916

129

1110

19

64

º Abb

revi

atio

ns: W

AT,

wee

ks a

fter

trea

tmen

t; G

R, g

ranu

lar.

b Mea

ns w

ithin

a c

olum

n fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lette

r ar

e no

t diff

eren

t acc

ordi

ng to

Fis

her’

s pr

otec

ted

LSD

at P

=0.

05.



Oryzalin Movement in One-gallon Containers from Spray and Oryzalin-created Mulch Applications

Luke Case, Hannah Mathers, S. Kent Harrison, Sara Lowe and Alejandra Acuna

Dept. Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43212

[email protected]

Index words: herbicide leaching

Signifi cance to the industry: Three to fi ve preemergence herbicide applications are often needed per growing season to maintain acceptable weed control in container nurseries. At The Ohio State University, we are looking at ways to reduce herbicide use via mulches as herbicide carriers. Reducing herbicide use would be environmentally and economically benefi cial to the grower. With mulches as herbicide carriers, the number of herbicide applications could be reduced to one per year. Herbicide-treated mulches also reduce phytotoxicity of sprayable herbicides.

Nature of work: Mathers (3), and Case et al. (1), found that oryzalin-treated pine nuggets extended effi cacy to 130 and 115 DAT (days after treatment), respectively, compared to the over-the-top spray of oryzalin in one-gallon (3.8 L) pots. Fretz et al. (2) also found that herbicide-treated organic mulch provided control comparable to the conventional sprays up to 77 DAT. However, there are no studies showing herbicide movement in containers from herbicide-treated mulch. This study’s objective was to show the movement of the oryzalin in one-gallon pots from applications of an over-the-top spray and oryzalin-treated pine nuggets compared to an untreated control using a bioassay.

Oryzalin-treated mulch and direct sprays were applied at 2.0 lbs ai/ac (2.2 kg ai/ha) to one-gallon pots fi lled with a 7:1 aged pine bark:sand mixture. Mulches were treated by laying them out at one unit-layer thickness on a piece of plastic. One unit-layer thickness represents nuggets of pine bark laying side by side on the plastic with minimal overlap. Mulches were then sprayed in a spray chamber set at 20.2 gallons per acre (188.6 liters/hectare). After the mulches were sprayed, they were allowed to dry for 48 hours before applying to the pots at one unit layer thickness. The study was repeated in time, with trial 1 starting on January 12, 2004 and trial 2 starting on November 15, 2004. Both were conducted in a glass greenhouse at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH set at 75° F (24° C) day time temperatures and 65° F (18° C) night time temperatures. In trial 1, there were six dates of evaluation: 0, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 DAT, and in trial 2, a seventh evaluation was added at 128 DAT. An oat (Avena sativa) bioassay was conducted on three pot levels (0-2 cm, 2-8 cm, and 8-15 cm) and the leachate to determine herbicide presence at the different levels at each evaluation date. The leachate was kept in a silanized glass bottle until the end of the evaluation period. Media from each pot level was thoroughly mixed and a 55.0 gram sample was taken and put into plastic Petri dishes. Five pregerminated oat seeds were placed in each dish. Seeds were allowed to grow



for 24 hours; radical tips were marked, and were then measured at 48 hours. The procedure was similar for the leachates, except that the seeds were put in 110 grams of sand fi lled to fi eld capacity with leachate water in the Petri dishes.

Results and Discussion: In trial 1, pots with direct sprays showed more herbicide presence in the top 2 cm than the oryzalin-treated mulch pots at each of the evaluation dates (Fig. 1). In trial 2, results were similar in the 0-2 cm zone up to 32 DAT. At 32 DAT in trial 2, there were very similar amounts of oryzalin between the two oryzalin treatments (Fig. 3), and this lasted until 64 DAT. At 128 DAT, there was more oryzalin present in the oryzalin-treated pine treatments. In both trials, there was a signifi cant increase in herbicide presence in the oryzalin-treated pine nugget pots at the 0-2 cm level from 0 to 4 DAT, suggesting that the mulch does retain the herbicide. Also, results from both trials indicated more herbicide leaching into the 2-8 cm zone with the direct sprays compared to the pots containing oryzalin-treated pine nuggets (Figs. 2 and 4). In trial 2, there was indication of the herbicide getting into the 8-15 cm zone from the direct spray treatment up to 8 DAT (data not shown). There were no signs of herbicide presence in the leachates from any of the treatments from either trial (data not shown).

Literature Cited:

1. Case, L., H.M. Mathers, and N. Tuttle. 2002. Herbicide-treated mulches for ornamental weed control. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 56:72.

2. Fretz, T.A. and C.W. Dunham. 1971. The incorporation of herbicides into organic mulches for weed control in ornamental plantings. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 96(3):280-284.

3. Mathers, H. 2003. Novel methods of weed control in containers. HortTechnology 13:28-31.



Figure 1. Radicle lengths of Avena sativa grown in media from the 0-2 cm depth from different treatments across all dates in trial 1.





Figure 4. Radicle lengths of Avena sativa grown in media from the 2-8 cm depth from different treatments across all dates in trial 2.from different treatments across all dates in trial 2.



Controlling Liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha) Infestations

Adam Newby1, James Altland2, Charles Gilliam1, Glenn Wehtje1 and Donna Fare3

1Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 368492North Willamette Research and Extension Center, Aurora, OR 97002

3USDA-ARS National Arboretum, McMinnville, TN [email protected]

Index words: quinoclamine, Diuron, Linuron

Signifi cance to the Industry: Liverwort continues to spread throughout the Southeast as a weed problem in container-grown ornamental crops. The goal of this study to better understand the use of a new product being registered for liverwort control and to continue evaluating alternative controls.

Nature of Work: Liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha) is an ever increasing problem within the Southeast. It is a physiologically primitive plant with no vascular system. Marchantia polymorpha can be identifi ed by prostrate leaf-like structures called thalli that create a mat over media surfaces. They propagate sexually by spores and asexually by gemmae. Thalli can cover the entire media surface of a container and restrict water and nutrient movement into the root zone, as well as reduce the marketability of a crop (Svenson, 1998). Liverwort thrives in low UV light, high fertility, high moisture, and high humidity environments. Propagation houses, shade houses, and other covered structures provide ideal conditions for liverwort (Svenson, 1997).

Liverwort was initially restricted to the northeastern and northwestern United States, but is now found all across the country. This emerging weed problem has necessitated the need for additional research. One herbicide with potential is quinoclamine which has been used as an algaecide in Japan for decades. It is produced as a 25% wettable powder. Quinoclamine has proven to be very effective on postemergence liverwort control, and it is safe on a broad range of ornamental crops (Altland 2003; Newby 2004). The current recommendation for quinoclamine is 2 oz per gallon applied at 2 qt. per 100 ft2 (219 gal/A). Previous research suggests that lower rates and spray volumes provide adequate postemergence control. In 2004, a quinoclamine rate of 1 oz product/gal applied at 1 qt. per 100 ft2 (109 gal/A) provided adequate control (Newby).

The nursery industry in Germany has used diuron for liverwort control (personal communication with Dr. Heinrich Loesing). Diuron is an herbicide widely used in cotton production within the Southeast. It is highly active and inexpensive.

The objective of this study was to evaluate lower rates and spray volumes of quinoclamine than current recommendations and any interaction between rate and volume as well as evaluate the effectiveness of diuron for liverwort control.



Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at Auburn University in the fall of 2004. Liverwort was grown in full-gallon containers consisting of a 6:1 pine bark to sand substrate amended with 14 lb of Polyon 18-6-12, 5 lb of dolomitic lime, and 1.5 lb of Micromax per cubic yard. Postemergence treatments were applied on 4 November 2004 when liverwort covered at least 60% of the container surface. Treatments of quinoclamine were applied in a factorial arrangement consisting of four rates and three spray volumes. Rates of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 oz product/gal (0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, or 0.5oz ai/gal) were each applied at 27, 54, or 109 gal/A (0.25, 0.5, or 1.0 qt/100 ft2). Two herbicides containing diuron, Diuron 4L and Linuron 4L (Linuron does not contain diuron, it is a completely separate active ingredient), were each applied at 0.5 lb ai/A and 1 lb ai/A at 40 gal/A. All treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer fi tted with an 8004 fl at fan nozzle at 30 PSI. A non-treated control group was maintained. Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design with 6 single pot replications. In addition to liverwort, all treatments were also applied to 6 single pot replications of Humata tyermanii (Rabbit foot fern) and Euphorvia pulcherrima (Poinsettia). The study was conducted in a temperature controlled greenhouse under 0.25 inch overhead cyclic irrigation per day split into two cycles. Percent control was recorded at 3, 7, 14, and 28 DAT on a 0 to 100 percent scale where 0 equals no control and 100 equals death of entire liverwort within the container. As a measure of liverwort re-growth, percent of the substrate surface covered with living liverwort was recorded 35 and 70 DAT.

Results and Discussion: Main effects of quinoclamine rate, volume, as well as the interaction thereof were found to be signifi cant according to analysis of variance (p < 0.05). In general, control increased as rate and spray volume increased. Increased spray volume is more likely to improve control at lower rates. At 3 DAT, quinoclamine applied at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 oz product/gal at 109 gal/A provided 85 to 99% control (Table 1). Similarly, 1.0 and 2.0 oz product/gal applied at 54 gal/A provided 95% control. Among quinoclamine treatments, higher spray volume provided greater control with lower rates (you already said this above, delete on of these sentences or reword it so you are not reducntand). For example, at 14 DAT quinoclamine applied at 0.25 oz product/gal at 109 gal/A provided 53% control while the same rate applied at 27 gal/A provided only 28% control. Conversely, lower spray volumes (54 gal/A) can provide adequate control at higher rates (1.0 and 2.0 oz product/A). By 70 DAT, 2.0 oz product/gal applied at 54 and 109 gal/A had the least percent liverwort coverage among the quinoclamine treatments with 40% and 22% coverage. All other quinoclamine treatments had a higher percentage of liverwort coverage. Quinoclamine treatments were compared to Diuron and Linuron treatments as well as the non-treated control group using Duncan’s multiple range test (α = 0.05). Diuron and Linuron treatments were similar to the non-treated control 3 DAT. By 14 DAT, Diuron applied at 1.0 lb ai/A provided similar control to the most effective quinoclamine treatments. Diuron applied at 1.0 lb ai/A provided similar long term control to 2.0 oz product/gal of quinoclamine at 54 and 109 gal/A 70 DAT with only 16% liverwort coverage.

No injury was recorded on Humata tyermanii or Euphorvia pulcherrima at any time throughout the study.



These data show that quinoclamine rate and volume of application infl uence postemergence liverwort control. Rate and spray volume may best be determined by individual growers. Heavy infestations may require 1.0 to 2.0 oz product/gal in 54 to 109 gallons of water per acre. Conversely, if the infestation is lighter, a lower rate (0.5 oz product/gal) may provide adequate control, however the high volume of water (109 gal/A) is required. This study also recognizes Diuron as a promising treatment for liverwort with excellent long term control.

Literature Cited:

1. Altland, J.E., A. Newby, and R. Regan. Determine effi cacy and phytotoxicity of quinoclamine. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop Soc. 53:383-386.

2. Newby, A., J. Altland, D. Fare, C. Gilliam, and G. Wehtje. 2004. Postemergence Control of Liverwort in Container Production. Proc. Southern Nurs. Res. Conf. 49:396-400.

3. Svenson, S.E. 1997. Controlling liverworts and moss in nursery production. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop. Soc. 47:414-422.

4. Svenson, S.E. 1998. Suppression of liverwort growth in containers using irrigation, Mulches, Fertilizers and Herbicides. Proc. Southern Nurs. Res. Conf. 43: 396-398.



Tab

le 1

. Liv

erw

ort c

ontr

ol w

ith q

uino

clam

ine

as in

fl uen

ced

by r

ate

and

volu

me

and

with

sel

ecte

d tr

eatm

ents

of D

iruon

and

Lin

uron

.

Her

bici

de

Rat

eV

olum

e%

Con

trol

% C

over

age

oz p

rodu

ct/g

alga

l/A3

DA

TZ

14 D

AT

70 D

AT

Qui

nocl

amin

eY0.

2527

25ef

Xef

Xef

28fg

97a

5434

e36

ef97

a

109

60cd

53de

87a

0.5

2756

d61

cd89

a

5464

cd66

cd73

ab

109

85ab

87ab

c79

ab

1.0

2727

ef28

fg88

a

5495

ab94

ab59

bc

109

98a

83ab

c54

bc

2.0

2776

bc78

abcd

73ab

5495

ab97

a40

cde

109

99a

98a

22de

lb a

i/A

Diu

ron

0.5

4018

efg

70bc

d44

cd

1.0

4011

fg86

abc

16e

Linu

ron

0.5

4018

efg

17fg

h94

a

1.0

407

fg4

gf10

0a

Con

trol

2g

1h

100

aZD

ays

afte

r tr

eatm

ent.

Y Ana

lysi

s of

var

ianc

e of

the

quin

ocla

min

e tr

eatm

ents

rev

eale

d th

at a

ll re

spon

ses

wer

e in

fl uen

ced

by th

e m

ain

effe

cts

of r

ate

and

volu

me

as w

ell a

s as

the

inte

ract

ion

ther

eof

Y Ana

lysi

s of

var

ianc

e of

the

quin

ocla

min

e tr

eatm

ents

rev

eale

d th

at a

ll re

spon

ses

wer

e in

fl uen

ced

by th

e m

ain

effe

cts

of r

ate

and

volu

me

as w

ell a

s as

the

inte

ract

ion

ther

eof

Y (α=

0.05

).

XM

eans

with

in s

ame

colu

mn

with

the

sam

e le

tter

are

sim

ilar

acco

rdin

g to

Dun

can’

s m

ultip

le r

ange

test

(α

=0.

05).



Field Evaluation of Various Herbicide and Mulch Combinations For Ornamental Weed Control

Hannah Mathers and Luke CaseThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

[email protected]

Index Words: Ornamental production, nursery, landscape, preemergent

Signifi cance to the Industry: Weed control is the largest expense facing the nursery and landscape industries that nationally exceed $10 billion and $625 billion annually (Hall et al., 2005). In an industry where aesthetics determine profi tability, zero-tolerance of weeds is often adopted. Data indicates the integration of two tactics of weed control, mulch + preemergent herbicides can produce a positive interaction, offering a promising alternative pest management system and simplifying and enhancing the safety and effectiveness of applications through the utilization of an integrated pest management approach.

Nature of Work: Oliveira et al. (2000) found that the controlled release of herbicides using lignin as the matrix offered a promising alternative technology for weed control. Knight et al. (2001) found that the application of preemergent herbicides onto organic mulches reduced herbicide leaching by 35-74% compared with bare soil preemergent herbicide applications. This research project included two experiments and three objectives: 1) determine the effi cacy and duration of weed control of 10 herbicide-mulch combinations; 2) assess the phytotoxicity of the 10 herbicide-mulch combinations on two ornamental plants; and 3) determine effi cacy and phytotoxicity of three application methods for each herbicide-mulch combinations.

The two experiments conducted were effi cacy (experiment 1) and phytotoxicity (experiment 2). Both experiments were started on May 1, 2004, ended April 15, 2005, and are being repeated in 2005 at the Ohio State University Waterman Farm, Columbus, OH. The plots in experiment one contain no crop plants. Evaluations of effi cacy were conducted at 30, 60, 90, 120 and 350 DAT using dry weights and visual ratings from 1 X 1 ft sections in the 3 X 3 ft (0.9 m) plots. Effi cacy ratings were on a scale of 0 (no control) to 10 (complete control) and ≥ 7 (commercially acceptable). In experiment two, dogwood shrubs and crabapple tree liners were evaluated. A visual rating score of 1 (no injury) to 10 (complete kill) and ≤ 3(commercially acceptable) will be used for the shoots. The herbicide treated mulches and herbicide-mulch application methods were compared to sprays of the fi ve chemicals applied directly to the surfaces of the plots, the two untreated mulches applied to the plots and a weedy check (no herbicide, no mulch). Mulches were applied untreated, over the top of soil surfaces sprayed with the different herbicides. Mulches were also applied untreated to untreated soil surfaces and then sprayed with the different herbicides in the fi eld.

The fi ve chemicals applied were oryzalin, Surfl an (AS) (aqueous solution) 2 (ai)lb/acre, fl umioxazin, (SureGuard WDG) 0.34 (ai) lb/acre, acetochlor (Harness) 2.5 lbs ai/ac, dichlobenil (Casoron CS) 4 (ai) lb/acre and a combination



of oryzalin and fl umioxazin. Two bark types were evaluated, pine nuggets and shredded hardwood. Pretreated bark mulch treatments were prepared by placing the mulches on a sheet of plastic, as a single layer thick and sprayed over the top with the different herbicide treatments and allowed to dry for 48 h. Treated barks when dry and untreated mulches were applied directly to evaluation plots in varying amounts according to the mulch thickness. The mulches were applied as close as possible to a single layer.

Results and Discussion: Effi cacy ratings and dry weights showed signifi cant difference with treatment and date. Only dry weights had signifi cant treatment X date interactions. Twenty of 38 treatments gave effi cacy rating of ≥ 7, pooled over all evaluation dates (Fig.1). Only one was a direct spray, Surfl an + SureGuard (7.6). Three were pretreated mulches, Surfl an + SureGuard (8.2), Harness (7.8) and Surfl an (7.4) treated pine (Fig.1). None of the pretreated hardwood barks provided ratings of ≥ 7. Eight of the 20 were treatments with the herbicides applied under the bark. Seven of the eight provided ratings of ≥ 8, Surfl an + SureGuard under pine (9.1), Casoron under pine (8.9), Surfl an under pine (8.7), Harness under pine (8.0), Surfl an + SureGuard under hardwood (8.0), SureGuard under hardwood (8.0) and SureGuard under pine (8.0) (Fig.1). Eight of 20 were treatments with the herbicides applied over the bark with fi ve providing ratings of ≥ 8, SureGuard over pine (9.1), Casoron over pine (9.0), Harness over pine (8.3), Surfl an over pine (8.3), Casoron over hardwood bark (8.0). The untreated pine (3.5) and untreated hardwood (1.5) provided signifi cantly better effi cacy than the control (0.15); however, these three treatments were three of the fi ve least effi cacious treatments in the trial (Fig.1). At 350 DAT, four treatments were still providing above commercially acceptable weed control, none were direct sprays, none involved hardwood bark and one was a pretreated mulch, Surfl an + SureGuard pretreated pine (7.3) (Fig.2). The other three treatments were Casoron over pine (8.2), Surfl an + SureGuard over pine (7.6), Casoron under pine (7.4) (Fig.2).

Literature Cited:

1. Hall, C., Hodges, A., Haydu, J. 2005. Economic Impacts of the Green Industry in the United States. Draft (in review).

2. Knight, P.R, C.H. Gilliam, S.L. File and D. Reynolds. 2001. Mulches reduce herbicide loss in the landscape. Proc. South. Nurs. Assn. Res. Conf. 46:461-463.

3. Oliveira, S.C., Pereira, F.M., Ferraz, A., Silva, F.T. and Goncalves, A.R. 2000. Mathematical modeling of controlled-release systems of herbicides using lignins as matrices. Applied Biochem. And Biotech. Vol. 84-86:595-615.



Fig.1. Effi cacy rated score data for herbicide treated mulch experiment pooled over 30, 60, 90 and 120 days after treatment (DAT). The abbreviations OV, U, P and Hdwd mean over, under, pine and hardwood bark, respectively. Different letters signify least signifi cant difference (LSD) P=0.05.

Fig.2. Effi cacy rated score data for herbicide treated mulch experiment 350 days after treatment (DAT). The abbreviations OV, U, P and Hdwd mean over, under, pine and hardwood bark, respectively. Different letters signify least signifi cant difference (LSD) P=0.05.



Effect of Compost Type on Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Invasion

Derald A. Harp1, Kevin Ong2, John Sloan2 and Kristen L. McDowell1

1Texas A&M-Commerce, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Commerce, Texas 75482

2Texas A&M University – Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75252

Index Words: dairy compost, poultry litter, yard waste compost, grassy weeds

Signifi cance to Industry: Bermudagrass is an important and diffi cult to control grassy weed in beds throughout the southern United States. As we evaluate various composts and compost blends for use in gardens, it becomes important to know if the spread of bermudagrass may be exacerbated by compost type.

Nature of Work: A study was conducted on the campus of Texas A&M University – Commerce in Commerce, Texas to evaluate various composts for ornamental rose growth. As a part of this study, the beds were evaluated concerning the reestablishment of bermudagrass following incorporation of 4 different compost blends. The experiment was arranged in 4 blocks with 5 treatments in each block and 5 reps per treatment.

At initiation of the study, bermudagrass was mechanically removed from each bed. No herbicides were used either before or during this study. All planting areas were then tilled to a depth of 15 cm (6”). Four treatments then received one of the four following composts: 1) poultry litter compost (PLC), 2) yard waste compost (YWC), 3) dairy compost (DC), and 4) 1:1 mixture of dairy and poultry litter composts (MC). Composts were tilled in, and roses planted. No mulch was applied to the planting area. All composts were analyzed for %N prior to incorporation. Plots were analyzed post-plant for variations in pH and EC.

Plots were visually graded once every 30 days for bermudagrass coverage. Plots were scored on a scale of 1 – 10, with each point representing an estimated 10 percent of area covered. Plots were scored until 100% coverage. Statistical analysis was conducted using an ANOVA (SigmaStat, Systat, Inc.). Means were separated using Duncan’s.

Results and Discussion: Chemical analysis of plots and composts showed only minor variation among the treatments (Table 1). The amount of nitrogen was similar in all composts. As expected, those composts derived from animal wastes were slightly higher in %N, with PLC being the highest at 2.9%. EC and pH did not differ among the treatment plots or blocks.

At day 30, PLC and YWC had signifi cantly higher bermudagrass invasion than other treatments with roughly 70% coverage in all treatment plots (Table 2). Dairy compost had more bermudagrass than the control with approximately 40% coverage. MC did not differ from the control.



By day 60, the PLC plots were 100% covered, signifi cantly faster than any other treatment (Table 2). This can be explained by the slightly higher N concentration in the compost. Percent coverage in the control group was signifi cantly lower than other treatments with approximately 67% coverage. DC, MC, and YWC treatments had approximately 80% coverage.

By day 90, all treatments had reached at least 83% coverage (Table 2). Treatment C remained signifi cantly lower than other treatments. YWC matched PLC at 100% coverage. Bermudagrass in MC and DC treatments exceeded 90%. Full coverage in all treatments was reached at day 120 of the study.

The type of compost can affect the invasion of bermudagrass. Because bermudagrass responds quickly to increases in N, it is likely to invade adjacent gardens as incorporated composts increase soil fertility. This further emphasizes the need for barriers and other weed control measures in new beds and gardens.

Table 1. Chemical analysis of treatment plots. %N analysis of composts was conducted pre-incorporation.

Compost Blend %N pH EC (μS/cm)Control (None) N/A 7.12 152Yard Waste Compost (YWC) 1.1 7.15 141Poultry Litter Compost (PLC) 2.9 7.05 164Dairy Compost (DC) 2.0 7.12 136Mixed Compost (MC) 2.2 7.02 134

Table 2. Bermudagrass invasion scores for each compost blend. Each point represents 10% coverage.

Compost Blend Day 30 Day 60 Day 90 Day 120Control (C) 3.3a 6.7a 8.3a 10.0aDairy Compost (DC) 4.7b 8.0b 9.0b 10.0aMixed Compost (MC) 4.3ab 7.7b 9.3b 10.0aPoultry Litter Compost (PLC) 7.7c 10.0c 10.0c 10.0aYard Waste Compost (YWC) 6.7c 8.3b 10.0c 10.0a

weed control - southern nursery association - home

Documents