IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Trial Report

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Trial Report

Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis PRNumber(s): 25399 1

Project Title: Evaluation of phytotoxicity of V-10142 on

Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’)

IR4 PR#:

25399

Report date:

December 5, 2006

Authors: Heiner Lieth and Linda Dodge Department of Plant Sciences University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616

Narrative Summary: Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants growing in 1-gallon containers received two applications of V-10142 at 0.5 lb ai/acre (1X), 1.0 lb ai/acre (2X) or 2.0 lb ai/acre (4X) rates as described in the Materials and Methods section of this report. The interval between applications was 4 weeks. The plants in the Control group received no V-10142. The trial was conducted over 8 weeks from April 14, 2006 to June 6, 2006. There was a significant growth retardation effect on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants caused by V-10142 as quantified by canopy volume. At the 1X rate the canopy volume was only 57% of the control. While V-10142 does not seem to result in substantial visual blemishes on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants, it has a fairly serious effect on growth. Since nursery crops typically are sold by plant size, retardation of growth will result in substantial increases in production cost since the crop will take longer to grow to marketable size. Thus V-10142 should not be used on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ unless the grower is aware of these consequences. Acknowledgements: The research was supported through funding from the USDA IR-4 Program, Western Region based at UC Davis, Davis, CA. Personnel involved in this project included: Ron Lane (pesticide application, pest management) and Melaku Sebhatu (plant culture, data collection). The materials being tested were supplied by the manufacturer/distributor. Plants were provided by Matsuda’s Nursery, Sacramento CA.



Overview of Trial and Protocol: The trial was conducted according to the IR4 protocol # 06-010 (Appendix A). The details are listed in the section, below, entitled “Materials and Methods/Recordkeeping”. Phytotoxicity ratings were recorded at weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Phytotoxicity was evaluated using a “Phytotoxicity index”, consisting of a scale where values of 1 or below represent negligible blemishes and values above 3 represent damage that renders the plant unmarketable. Plant height and width measurements were taken at the beginning and end of the trial. Plant growth evaluations include a calculated “Volume index” which is proportional to the canopy volume. Results: Phytotoxicity index means for the Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants showed no treatment effect at any of the observation dates (Tables 1 and 3, Figure 1). None of the phytotoxicity index means was greater than 1.6. The relatively minor plant damage symptoms included leaf necrosis and abscission (Figures 2a and 2b). Over the 8 week growing period, the Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants in the control treatment grew an average of 5.5 cm taller and 3.6 cm wider resulting in a volume index increase of 2120 (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 1 and 3). There were no significant differences in height increase for plants treated with V-10142 at the 1X and 2X rates. There was no significant treatment effect on width increase. The volume index showed a treatment effect at the 10% significance level. Discussion: The phytotoxicity index levels of the Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants exposed to V-10142 were insignificantly small. None of the increases in phytotoxicity over the trial period were significantly different from the control. There was no phytotoxicity that could be considered to affect marketability. There was, however, a significant growth retardation effect by the product as quantified by canopy volume. This affected the Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants at the 1X rate, and even more so at the 4X rate. At the 1X rate the canopy volume was only 57% of the control. While V-10142 does not seem to result in substantial visual blemishes on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ plants, it has a fairly serious effect on growth. Since nursery crops typically are sold by plant size, retardation of growth will result in substantial increases in production cost since the crop will take longer to grow to marketable size. Thus V-10142 should not be used on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ unless the grower is aware of these consequences.



Materials & Methods/Recordkeeping: Crop History

Crop Cultivar/Variety: Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’)

Date of Seeding: Date of Emergence: Date of Transplanting: Liners received from Matsuda’s 3/1/06, transplanted 3/20/06 Potting Mix: UC Mix: 1/3 sand, 1/3 peat, 1/3 bark (by volume) Pot size & spacing: 1-gallon pots spaced on 12-inch centers Row spacing:

Product(s) applied prior to start of experiment:

Product Rate Application Type

Date of Application

Crop Growth Stage

Application Volume

Osmocote 15-9-12 1 tsp./pot Manual 4/4/06 Actively growing NA Experiment Information

Experimental Design: Randomized complete block Number of Reps: 9 (3 blocks x 3 reps per block)

Materials & Methods: Plant Material and Culture. Liners of Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ were received from Matsuda’s Nursery, Sacramento CA, on March 1, 2006. The plants were transplanted to 1-gallon pots containing UC Mix on March 20, 2006. The experiment ran from April 19, 2006 to June 12, 2006 in an outdoor nursery under 50% shade (Table 4). The plants were irrigated daily during the 8-week experiment with tap water using a drip irrigation system delivering 1 gallon per hour. Applications of pesticides as part of a normal pest management program were made as needed (see below). Experimental Procedure. Thirty-six plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with 0 (Control), 0.5 lb ai/acre (1X), 1.0 lb ai/acre (2X) or 2.0 lb ai/acre (4X) V-10142 with 9 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 06-010 (Appendix A). The plants received the first foliar spray application on April 19, 2006 and the second application 4 weeks later on May 17, 2006. Statistical Analysis. The data were analyzed using Proc GLM of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The phytotoxicity and change in mean value from the starting plant height, width and volume index were analyzed for significant differences using t-tests.



Application Equipment: Manual spray bottles for V-10142 Product(s) applied during experiment (including treatments, fertilizers, etc): Product Rate(s) Application

Type Date of Application

Crop Growth Stage Application Volume

V-10142 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 lb ai/acre

Foliar spray 4/19/06 Actively growing

V-10142 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 lb ai/acre

Foliar spray 5/17/06 Actively growing

Data Collected: Data Collection. Phytotoxicity ratings were taken at week 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8, (April 17 and 24, 2006; May 2, 15 and 22, 2006; June 1 and 13, 2006). Visual phytotoxicity evaluations were based on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no injury) to 10 (complete kill) (Table 5). Plant height and width were measured at week 0 (April 17, 2006) and week 8 (June 13, 2006). Plant height (cm) was measured from the container soil surface to the top of the canopy. Plant width (cm) was measured twice along perpendicular lines at the widest part of the plant, resulting in W1 and W2. For each observation a canopy volume index was calculated so as to be able to determine if canopy volume was affected by the application of herbicide. The calculation was made as H*W1*W2, where H is the height and W1 and W2 are two width measurements. The usefulness of this index is based on the fact that many of the models for such a volume calculation are of the form a*H*W1*W2. The constant “a” depends on the assumption of the shape of the canopy. Since analyses of variance are scale-independent, the conclusion will thus be for the volume of the plant canopy.



Table 1. Phytotoxicity changes over 8 weeks for Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1.0 (2X) or 2.0 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 at weeks 0 and 4. Different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). “Yes”/”No” designations refer to significant treatment effects at the 5% level. Means ± SE (n=9) Phytotoxicity Effect of V-10142 on Euonymus Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week no 2 weeks no 4 weeks no 0X -0.11 ± 0.11 a -0.22 ± 0.15 a -0.44 ± 0.18 b 1X 0.22 ± 0.15 a 0.22 ± 0.15 a -0.22 ± 0.15 ab 2X 0.22 ± 0.15 a 0.22 ± 0.15 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 4X 0.11 ± 0.20 a 0.11 ± 0.20 a -0.33 ± 0.17 ab Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 5 week no 6 weeks no 8 weeks no 0X -0.44 ± 0.18 b 0.22 ± 0.32 a 0.44 ± 0.18 b 1X -0.22 ± 0.15 ab 0.44 ± 0.44 a 1.22 ± 0.15 ab 2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 1.33 ± 0.44 a 1.56 ± 0.38 a 4X -0.33 ± 0.17 ab 0.56 ± 0.47 a 1.22 ± 0.36 ab

Table 2. Plant height, width and volume changes over 8 weeks for Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1.0 (2X) or 2.0 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 at weeks 0 and 4. Different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). “Yes”/”No” designations refer to significant treatment effects at the 5% level. Means ± SE (n=9) Growth Effect of V-10142 on Euonymus Increase by week 8 of: Treatment Height (cm) yes Average Width

(cm) no Volume Index yes at

10% 0X 5.50 ± 0.52 a 3.61 ± 0.61 a 2118.28 ± 363.90 a 1X 4.06 ± 0.50 ab 1.94 ± 0.47 b 1215.92 ± 210.61 b 2X 4.83 ± 0.81 a 2.44 ± 0.47 ab 1312.61 ± 243.50 ab 4X 2.56 ± 0.73 b 2.17 ± 0.63 ab 897.69 ± 267.84 b



Raw Data: Table 3. Phytotoxicity and plant growth data collected for plants of Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ treated with two applications of 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1.0 (2X) or 2.0 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 at weeks 0 and 4 of an 8-week experiment. Phytotoxicity Report Form Euonymus V-10142 Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 8 Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2Treatment Block Rep 0 1 2 4 5 6 8 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Control A 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 12 12 11 18 19 13.5Control A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 10 16 14.5 12Control A 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11 11 10 17.5 19 15.5Control B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 11 9 13 17.5 10.5Control B 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 9 8 10 10.5 9Control B 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 11 10 16 16.5 11Control C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 9 13.5 14 10.5Control C 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 12 10 16.5 20 12.5Control C 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 13 16 13 21 19 13.5

Mean 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 10.2 11.4 10.0 15.7 16.7 12.01X A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 15 13 18 16.5 141X A 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 11 14 11 12.5 17 11.51X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 9 12 12 15 14.5 13.51X B 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 12 14 13 15.5 14 141X B 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 11 8 11 12 7.51X B 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 9 10 9 13 14 141X C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 10 9 13 14 111X C 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 9 11 13 13 91X C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 19 10 14.5 22.5 13 Mean 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 9.9 12.7 10.7 13.9 15.3 11.9

2X A 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 8 8 10.5 9.5 82X A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 9 8 24.5 10 122X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 10 11 14.5 15 13.52X B 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 11 11 9 14 11 102X B 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 11 11 11 15 17 13.52X B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 8 10 13 11.52X C 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 14 9 14 15 9.52X C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 12 11 15 16 13.52X C 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 10 11 8 15 13.5 11.5 Mean 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.6 9.9 10.7 9.2 14.7 13.3 11.4

4X A 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 9 7 9 15.5 16 114X A 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 10 12 10 13 12.5 11.54X A 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 14 13 10.5 13.5 12.54X B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 14 10 15.5 19 134X B 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 11 10 10.5 14.5 13.54X B 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 9 8 11.5 12 10.54X C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 9 9 12.5 12 94X C 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 13 12 13 13.5 15 11.54X C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 8 11.5 12 9 Mean 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 10.1 11.0 10.0 12.7 14.1 11.3



Environmental conditions during the experiment: Table 4. Environmental conditions during the experiment to determine phytotoxicity of V-10142 on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’.

Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp (°F)

Min Air Temp (°F)

Avg Vap (mBars)

Avg wSpd (MPH) Precip (in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel Hum (%)

4/19/2006 592 75.1 40.6 9.4 4.3 0 0.19 57 4/20/2006 555 74 43 11.2 4.4 0 0.18 67 4/21/2006 297 68.9 45.1 11.8 5.2 0 0.09 77 4/22/2006 411 65.8 49.6 11.8 6.8 0.04 0.13 74 4/23/2006 426 67.6 52.2 12.4 6.4 0.05 0.13 75 4/24/2006 297 60.7 48.4 11.2 6.2 0 0.08 75 4/25/2006 368 66 46.2 11.9 4.3 0 0.1 79 4/26/2006 585 80 48 13.1 6.5 0 0.21 68 4/27/2006 607 85.6 52 12.9 7.4 0 0.26 54 4/28/2006 604 81.4 50.2 14.7 4.5 0 0.21 70 4/29/2006 512 74.5 51.5 14.5 5.1 0 0.16 77 4/30/2006 626 85.3 52.6 11.4 6 0 0.27 46

5/1/2006 625 86.4 45.7 11.4 4.6 0 0.25 50 5/2/2006 624 85.4 51.7 9.6 7.3 0 0.28 40 5/3/2006 615 73.2 50.1 11.7 6.6 0 0.22 64 5/4/2006 613 74.3 47.2 12.3 6.4 0 0.21 67 5/5/2006 595 73.1 48.7 12.4 6.7 0 0.2 71 5/6/2006 567 74 47.6 11.9 5.6 0 0.18 70 5/7/2006 614 83.5 47 13.3 3.6 0 0.21 60 5/8/2006 625 84.6 52.8 11 5.1 0 0.25 46 5/9/2006 638 87.8 51.6 7.7 8.2 0 0.32 30

5/10/2006 625 89.9 54.4 9 5.3 0 0.28 32 5/11/2006 647 89.1 54.8 11.1 4.7 0 0.26 43 5/12/2006 620 87.9 50.3 12 4.9 0 0.25 48 5/13/2006 648 84.7 52.6 12.7 4.7 0 0.24 56 5/14/2006 649 95.9 51.5 11.7 5.8 0 0.3 39 5/15/2006 628 91.5 60.5 13.8 5.5 0 0.28 46 5/16/2006 660 90.7 54 14.9 4.3 0 0.25 56 5/17/2006 665 92.4 54.4 15.2 4.7 0 0.25 58 5/18/2006 668 93.9 53.8 12.4 5.9 0 0.26 49 5/19/2006 365 76.3 50.9 12 6.2 0.02 0.13 65 5/20/2006 532 74.9 50.8 13.5 4.9 0 0.18 68 5/21/2006 252 68.9 55.6 14.9 5.6 0.23 0.07 79 5/22/2006 630 69.3 52.9 12 7.8 0.02 0.21 67 5/23/2006 524 73.7 56.8 12.2 6.3 0 0.18 60 5/24/2006 638 75.5 53.4 12.4 5.7 0 0.23 60 5/25/2006 682 78.2 48.1 11.6 4.8 0 0.24 58 5/26/2006 639 73.1 49.3 8.6 6.7 0 0.24 47 5/27/2006 632 70 44 8.1 5.1 0 0.2 49 5/28/2006 590 75.6 44.2 9.7 4.6 0 0.21 54 5/29/2006 631 80.6 44.3 9.1 3.8 0 0.22 45 5/30/2006 640 84.7 46.3 10.1 4.6 0 0.25 44 5/31/2006 640 87.9 51.9 13.3 4.2 0 0.25 53

6/1/2006 477 86.5 57.1 14.9 4.6 0 0.19 55 6/2/2006 623 86.1 60.6 16.3 5.6 0 0.24 60 6/3/2006 662 92.3 55 14.3 4.8 0 0.27 48 6/4/2006 697 85.9 58.2 13.8 7.6 0 0.3 48 6/5/2006 715 87.7 52.2 13.9 4.9 0 0.27 55 6/6/2006 688 89 54.8 13.9 4.6 0 0.26 52 6/7/2006 688 90.3 55 12.4 5.9 0 0.29 47 6/8/2006 687 81.6 53.4 12.5 6 0 0.24 56 6/9/2006 705 85.2 52.5 12.7 5.4 0 0.26 54

6/10/2006 629 79.8 52.1 12.8 6 0 0.23 62 6/11/2006 617 79.5 55.3 13.1 7.1 0 0.23 62 6/12/2006 685 71.5 55 12.1 9.3 0 0.25 62 6/13/2006 526 72.5 51.9 11.3 7.2 0 0.2 60



Table 5. Numerical plant damage rating scale used for phytotoxicity determinations.

Rating Description of plant damage 0 No damage 1 No visible damage but unintended (non-permanent) impact 2 Slight leaf/tissue damage (curling leaves, necrosis, etc.) 3 Marginal chlorosis on some leaves (damage on up to 10% of plant) 4 10% – 20% of plant damaged 5 Significant damage to much of plant (30% - 40%) 6 40% – 60% of plant damaged 7 Chlorosis or necrosis on most of plant (60% - 70%) 8 Abscised leaves, branch dieback 9 Tissue severely damaged (80% - 100% of plant) 10 Complete kill



0

5

10

15

Wid

t h (c

m)

0

2

4

6

Cha

nge

(cm

)0

5

10

15

Hei

ght (

cm)

0

2

4

6

Cha

nge

(cm

)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Vol

ume

Ind e

x

0

1000

2000

3000

Cha

nge

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

tot o

xici

ty In

dex

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Day of trial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Day of trial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Day of trial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Day of trial

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Control1X2X4X

Species: Euonymus -- Material: V-10142

Figure 1. Summary of results for Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1.0 (2X) or 2.0 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 at weeks 0 and 4. Both means and cumulative changes over time are plotted for phytotoxicity index, plant height, plant width and plant volume index. Histograms show changes over the 8-week trial period. SE bars shown. (n = 9)



Figure 2a. Examples of phytotoxicity ratings given to plants of Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ 8 weeks after 2 applications of V-10142.

Figure 2b. Leaf necrosis seen on Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ 8 weeks after 2 applications of 0.5 lb ai/acre (1X) V-10142.

0 1 2 3 Phytotoxicity ratings



Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 3. Euonymus fortunei ‘Gracilis’ 8 weeks after two applications of 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1.0 (2X) or 2.0 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 at weeks 0 and 4.



APPENDIX A Phytotoxicity to ornamental horticulture plants from tools to manage broadleaf weeds and sedges. Ornamental Protocol Number: 06-010 Objective: Determine phytotoxicity of Manage (halosulfuron), Sulfentrazone 0.2G, and V-10142 to unlabelled

perennial plants commonly grown in nurseries.

Experimental Design: Plot Size: Must be adequate to reflect actual use conditions.

Replicates: Minimum of 3 replications (preferably 4) with 3 plants per replicate

Application Instructions: Apply first application over the top of plants just breaking dormancy or, under climates where plants do not go totally dormant, apply prior to active growth in the spring. See table for product specific information.

Plant Materials: See attached list of plant materials. Plants grown in field containers are preferred to in-ground.

Evaluations: Record plant height & width at initial and final evaluations. At 1, 2, and 4 weeks after each application, record phytotoxicity on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No phytotoxicity; 10 = Complete kill). If appropriate, also include ratings for chlorosis, defoliation, stunting or other growth effects on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No effect; 10 = Complete plant affected). If any phytotoxicity is observed in treated plants, take pictures comparing treated and untreated plant material.

If different application methods or evaluations are made, please clearly specify differences in final report and explain how they enhanced results.

Recordkeeping: Keep detailed records of weather conditions including temperature and precipitation, soil-type or soil-less media, application equipment, irrigation, liner size, plant height & width, and plant growth stage at application and data collection dates.

Treatments: Product Rates Special Instructions Contact Information

to obtain materials and any needed adjuvants

Sedgehammer 75WG (halosulfuron)

1 oz per acre (0.047 lb ai) 2 oz per acre (0.094 lb ai) 4 oz per acre (0.188 lb ai)

Always use 0.25% v/v of a non ionic surfactant. If severe phyto symptoms do not occur and where feasible apply a second application 4-6 weeks later at identical rates.

Kory Wheeler 928-819-1592 [email protected]

Sulfentrazone 0.2G (sulfentrazone – 0.2% active)

0.125 lb ai/acre 0.25 lb ai/acre 0.5 lb ai/acre

2 applications on a 4 week interval

FMC, Bobby Walls, 919-735-3862, [email protected]

V-10142 75WG 0.5 lb ai/acre 1.0 lb ai/acre 2.0 lb ai/acre

2 applications on a 4 week interval

Valent, Joe Chamberlin, 770-985-0303, [email protected]

Untreated ------ ------ Reports:

Reports must include: Results summary (no more than one page) Summary table with appropriate statistical analyses Experimental design and materials and methods Appendices: raw data and recordkeeping information as listed above If pictures were taken, please include them. A report submitted electronically is preferred but not required. If the report is provided electronically, the basic report can be

sent in MS Word or WordPerfect, the recordkeeping information as pdf or other electronic documents, and the raw data in MS Excel or other suitable program such as ARM.

Please direct questions to: Cristi Palmer, IR-4 HQ, Rutgers University, 681 US Hwy 1 S, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, Phone 732-932-9575 x629, [email protected] OR Ely Vea, 308 Aston Forest Lane, Crownsville, MD 21032, Phone & FAX#: 410-923-4880, E-mail: [email protected].

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Trial Report

Documents

Transcript of IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Trial Report