Proceedings

of the

Sixty-fifth Annual Meeting

of the

Northeastern Weed Science Society

Darren W. Lycan, Editor

NORTHEASTERNWEED SCIENCE SOCIETY

2011 Sustaining Members2011 Sustaining MembersPlatinumPlatinum

GoldGoldGoldGold

SilverSilver

BronzeBronzeBronzeBronze

ACDS BAAR Scientific, LLCCrop Management Strategies

Gylling Data ManagementLABServicesWEEDS, Inc.

ii

iii

NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY Renaissance Harborplace

Baltimore, Maryland

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICERS

President H.A. Sandler UMass Cranberry Station P.O. Box 569 East Wareham, MA 02538 hsandler@umext.umass.edu President-Elect M.J. VanGessel University of Delaware, REC 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown, DE 19947 mjv@udel.edu Vice President A. DiTommaso Cornell University

903 Bradfield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853

ad97@cornell.edu

Secretary/Treasurer M.A. Bravo PA Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 mab36@psu.dedu or mbravo@state.pa.us Past President D.E. Yarborough The University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono, ME 04469 davidy@maine.edu

iv

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Editor D.W. Lycan Syngenta Lawn & Garden 18 Appleridge Street Baldwinsville, NY 13027

Public Relations B.A. Scott University of Delaware, REC 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown, DE 19947

Research & R.S. Chandran Education West Virginia University Coordinator P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506 Sustaining J.H. O’Barr Membership BASF Corporation 108 Whippoorwill Lane Hummelstown, PA 17036

CAST Representative R.G. Prostak University of Massachusetts

Bowditch Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003

Graduate Student A.R. Post Representative Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 WSSA Representative J. N. Barney Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 Science Policy Director L. Van Wychen 900 2nd St. NE, Suite 205 Washington, DC 20002

v

SECTION CHAIRS Agronomy Chair: B. Dillehay Chair-elect: K. Burnell Graduate Student Paper Contest Chair: D. Yarborough Member: J. Baron Member: W. Curran Member: T. Dutt Member: R. Keese Graduate Student Poster Contest Chair: K. Kalmowitz Member: T. Hines Member: Q. Johnson Member: D. Ganske Ornamentals Chair: G. Armel Chair-elect: C. Becker Research Posters Chair: K. Burnell Chair-elect: K. Hester Turfgrass and Plant Chair: J. Borger Growth Regulators Chair-elect: J. Brosnan Vegetables and Fruit Chair: E. Lurvey Chair-elect: R. Dunst Vegetation Management and Chair: K. Lloyd Restoration Chair-elect: B. McDonnell Weed Biology and Ecology Chair: R. Smith Chair-elect: J. O’Connell

vi

2010 NEWSS Annual Meeting Award Winners

vii

2010 Weed Science Contest Winners

A B

C D

E F

G H (A): Graduate Individuals: 1st Jason Parish (Ohio State), 2nd Alex Lindsey (Michigan State), 3rd Kristine Averill (Penn

State); (B):Undergrad Individuals: 1st Cory Chelko (Penn State), 2nd Dan Tratt (Michigan State), 3rd Kelly Patches (Penn State); (C) Grad Team-1st : Michigan State, Dan Tratt, Alex Lindsey, Laura Bast; (D) Undergrad Team-1st: Univ of Guelph, Thomas Judd, Blair Freeman, Eric Schroeders; (E) Grad Team-2nd: Univ of Florida, Anna Greis,

Sarah Berger, Courtney Stokes, Sergio Morichetti; (F) Undergrad Team-2nd : Penn State, Ian Graham, Kelly Patches, David Harwick, Cory Chelko; (G) Grad Team-3rd : Penn State, Ben Crockett, Franklin Egan, Kristine Averill; (H)

Undergrad Team-3rd : Univ of Illinois, Ross Recker, Sean Breen, Max Hendrickson, Matthew Carton

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS ......................................................................... III 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ......................................................................... IV 

SECTION CHAIRS .......................................................................................................... V 

NEWSS POSTERS ......................................................................................................... 1 

IMPROVING SURVEY METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF GIANT HOGWEED IN PENNSYLVANIA. I.D. BOWERS*, M.A. BRAVO, AND J. ZOSCHG, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (1) ................ 1 

CORALLITA: INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTION OF A PLANT WITH DOCUMENTED INVASIVE CAPABILITY. J.M. BURKE AND A. DITOMMASO*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (2) .......................................... 2 

CWMA FORMATION IN RESPONSE TO MILE A MINUTE IN NORTHERN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. BRAVO*, J. ZOSCHG, AND C.A. JOHNSON, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (3) ......... 3 

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER PROMOTING PLANT INVASION IN NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

FORESTS? K.M. AVERILL* AND D. MORTENSEN, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (4) ....................... 4 

RESPONSE OF BUTTERFLY BUSH, JAPANESE BARBERRY, AND ROSE TO FOLIAR APPLICATION OF

SULFOSULFURON. R.S. CHANDRAN*, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, WV (5) ..................... 5 

EFFECT OF INDAZIFLAM APPLICATION TIMING ON RESIDUAL WEED CONTROL IN AN APPLE ORCHARD. R.S. CHANDRAN*, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, WV (6) ............................................. 6 

FIELD INFECTION OF DODDER: FAILED HERBICIDE TRIALS MAY LEAD TO NEW BIOCONTROL

POSSIBILITIES. J. O'CONNELL, K.M. GHANTOUS, F. CARUSO, AND H. SANDLER*, UMASS CRANBERRY

STATION, EAST WAREHAM, MA (7) .......................................................................................... 7 

USE OF FLUMIOXAZIN FOR WATERMELON. S.A. MATHEW*, B.A. SCOTT, AND M.J. VANGESSEL, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EXTENSION, CAMBRIDGE, MD (8) .......................................................... 8 

2010 NEWSS COLLEGIATE WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. B.A. SCOTT*, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (9) ........................................................................................................ 9

SWEET VERNALGRASS CONTROL IN COOL SEASON TURF. A.N. SMITH* AND S. ASKEW, VIRGINIA

TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (10) ............................................................................................. 10 

WEED IT: WEEDS OF CONTAINER NURSERIES IN THE UNITED STATES. A. KRINGS, J.C. NEAL, J.F. DERR*, AND C.S. BERNARD, VIRGINIA TECH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (11) ............................................ 11 

RESPECT THE ROTATION: A COMPREHENSIVE PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE HERBICIDE AND TRAIT

TECHNOLOGY. J.M. RUTLEDGE AND M. MAHONEY*, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (12) ............... 12

LENGTH OF RESIDUAL ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL OF MESOTRIONE RELATIVE TO OTHER

PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL PRODUCTS. S. HART, C.J. MANSUE, AND K.A. VENNER*, RUTGERS

UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (13) .................................................................................. 13 

ix

F9001 FOR PREEMERGENCE YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL. G.K. BREEDEN*, J. BROSNAN, M. ELMORE, AND B. WALLS, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (14) ....................................... 14 

THE JOURNAL OF AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT: A POTENTIAL OUTLET FOR AQUATIC, SEMI-AQUATIC, AND RIPARIAN WEED PUBLICATIONS. R.J. RICHARDSON*, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV., RALEIGH, NC (15) ............................................................................................................ 15 

INFLUENCE OF NITROGEN, PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS, AND FERROUS SULFATE ON ANNUAL

BLUEGRASS POPULATIONS. K.M. HAN* AND J.E. KAMINSKI, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY

PARK, PA (16) ................................................................................................................ 16 

GRADUATE PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................. 17 

METHODS OF ASSESSING THE ACTIVITY OF HPPD-INHIBITING HERBICIDES. M. ELMORE*, J. BROSNAN, D.A. KOPSELL, AND G.K. BREEDEN, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (21) ........... 17 

APPROACHES TO MANAGING HAIRY VETCH AS A WEED IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC WINTER

WHEAT. B.C. CROCKETT*, W.S. CURRAN, AND S. MIRSKY, PENN STATE, STATE COLLEGE, PA (22) ......... 18 

IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE HERBICIDES FOR MOSS CONTROL. A. POST*, S. ASKEW, AND D. MCCALL, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (23) ................................................................................... 19 

EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL, CROP TOLERANCE, AND DESICCATION IN

COWPEAS. J.J. VARGAS*, G. ARMEL, AND C.D. YOUMANS, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (24) ........................................................................................................................ 20 

CONTROLLING ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS IN COOL SEASON LAWNS WITH

METHIOZOLIN. B. MCNULTY* AND S. ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (25) ........................... 21 

EFFECT OF SOYBEAN ROW SPACING ON WEED DENSITY AND BIOMASS. J.M. ORLOWSKI*, A. DITOMMASO, AND W.J. COX, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (26) ............................................. 22

RESPONSES OF WEEDS AND CROPS TO ORGANIC NUTRIENT AMENDMENTS. N.G. LITTLE*, C.L. MOHLER, Q.M. KETTERINGS, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (27) ................... 23 

IMPLICATIONS OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN TALL FESCUE WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM. M. CUTULLE*, J.F. DERR, A. NICHOLS, D. MCCALL, AND B. HORVATH, VIRGINIA TECH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (28) ......................................................................................................................... 24 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC FUNCTIONAL DENSITIES: DEFINING NITROGEN UTILIZATION EQUIVALENCE FOR

WEED-CROP INTERFERENCE EXPERIMENTS. H.J. POFFENBARGER*, S. MIRSKY, J. TEASDALE, J. SPARGO, J. MAUL, AND M. CAVIGELLI, USDA-ARS, BELTSVILLE, MD (29) ........................................ 25 

THE EFFECT OF RYE ROLL-KILLED MULCH ON N-IMMOBILIZATION. M. WELLS*, S. REBERG-HORTON, AND A.N. SMITH, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (30) ....................................... 26 

EFFECTS OF RYE AND VETCH COVER CROPS ON HERBICIDE INPUTS IN FIELD CORN. A.N. SMITH* AND

E. HAGOOD, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (31) ................................................................... 27 

RESPONSE OF TALL FESCUE CULTIVARS TO MESOTRIONE APPLIED AT ESTABLISHMENT. K.A. VENNER*, S. HART, AND C.J. MANSUE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (32) .................... 28

x

EXPLOITATION OF MICROWAVE RADIATION FOR WEED MANAGEMENT. A. RANA* AND J.F. DERR, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (33) ................................................................................... 29

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CRYOGENIC SPRAYER FOR WEED MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIC

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. H.A. DUNCAN, L.A. GIBSON, A.J. MCLEMORE*, R.E. MESSER, G. ARMEL, W.E. HART, AND J.J. VARGAS, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (34) ................................ 30

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION ................................................ 31 

JAPANESE KNOTWEED RESPONSE TO GLYPHOSATE OR TRICLOPYR TREATMENT SEQUENCES. A.E. GOVER*, J.M. JOHNSON, K. LLOYD, AND J. SELLMER, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (39) ............. 31 

CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS ON AQUATIC SITES. K.R. HALL, R.J. RICHARDSON*, AND S.T. HOYLE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV., RALEIGH, NC (40) .......................................................... 32 

EVALUATION OF INDAZIFLAM FOR BARE-GROUND WEED CONTROL IN RAILROAD. D. SPAK* AND D. MYERS, BAYER ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, RALEIGH, NC (41) ...................................................... 33 

GLYPHOSATE AND TRICLOPYR COMBINATIONS SUPPRESS BOTH AUTUMN OLIVE AND MORROW’S

HONEYSUCKLE. A.E. GOVER*, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (42) ......................................... 34

GOATSRUE CONTROL AND ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. BRAVO* AND J. ZOSCHG, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (43) ............................... 35 

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL PROGRAM FOR MILE-A-MINUTE VINE IN CONNECTICUT. T.L. MERVOSH*, C.A. CHEAH, AND D.R. ELLIS, CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WINDSOR, CT (44).......... 36 

ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE ASIATIC SAND SEDGE. A. KLOO, L. WOOTTON, AND B.F. MCDONNELL*, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, BUSHKILL, PA (45) ........................................................ 37 

PROGRAMS FOR SWALLOW-WORT (DOG-STRANGLING VINE) CONTROL. N.P. CAIN* AND M. IRVINE, CAIN VEGETATION, ACTON, ON (46) ...................................................................................... 38 

RESPONSE OF THE INVASIVE VINE PALE SWALLOW-WORT FOLLOWING TWO YEARS OF MOWING AND

HERBICIDE APPLICATION. A. DITOMMASO*, L.R. MILBRATH, AND T. BITTNER, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (47) .............................................................................................................. 40 

CARRYOVER EFFECTS OF AMINOPYRALID, CLOPYRALID, OR AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR ON SPRING-PLANTED TREE SEEDLINGS. A.E. GOVER* AND R.K. WAGONER, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA

(48) ............................................................................................................................. 41 

EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR SELECTIVE WEED CONTROL IN TURF. J.M. JOHNSON*, K. LLOYD, AND J. SELLMER, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (49) .............................. 42 

AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN COMBINATION WITH PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR BAREGROUND

WEED CONTROL. K. LLOYD*, J.M. JOHNSON, AND J. SELLMER, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (50) .. 43 

SPECIAL WORKSHOP II: NEXT GENERATION OF HERBICIDE-RESISTANT CROPS ......................................................................................................................... 44 

BAYER CROPSCIENCE HERBICIDE-TOLERANT TRAIT TECHNOLOGY IN CORN AND SOYBEAN. J. ALLEN*, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC (53) ............................................. 44 

xi

DICAMBA-TOLERANT SOYBEANS: A TECHNICAL UPDATE. D.J. MAYONADO* AND S. SEIFERT-HIGGINS, MONSANTO, SALISBURY, MD (54) ............................................................................. 45 

DOW AGROSCIENCES HERBICIDE-TOLERANT TRAIT TECHNOLOGY FOR CORN AND SOYBEAN. B.D. OLSON* AND M.A. PETERSON, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (55) .................................... 46 

THE NEXT GENERATION OF HERBICIDE RESISTANT CROPS – ARE WE EXCITED? VIEWS FROM ACADEMIA

AND BEYOND. W.S. CURRAN* AND D. MORTENSEN, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (56) ................ 47 

ORNAMENTALS .......................................................................................................... 48 

CAN EMERGED BITTERCRESS, OXALIS, AND SPURGE SEEDLINGS BE CONTROLLED USING

PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES IN THE NURSERY? K.A. HESTER*, C.L. PALMER, E. VEA, AND J. BARON, THE IR-4 PROJECT, EXTON, PA (57) ........................................................................... 48 

HERBICIDE SPRAYS FOR CONTAINER-GROWN HYDRANGEA. J. AHRENS AND S. BAROLLI*, IMPERIAL

NURSERIES, GRANBY, CT (58) ............................................................................................. 49 

POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF DOVEWEED. J.F. DERR*, VIRGINIA TECH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (59) ........ 50 

UPDATE ON 2010 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C.L. PALMER*, E. VEA, K.A. HESTER, J. BARON, AND E. LURVEY, IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (60) ..... 51 

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS WITH MESOTRIONE FOR POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN ACTIVELY

GROWING CONIFERS. J. AHRENS* AND T.L. MERVOSH, CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION, WINDSOR, CT (61) ............................................................................................... 52 

SHRUB CANOPIES AFFECT GRANULAR HERBICIDES APPLIED TO CONTAINER CROPS. J. ALTLAND*, R. OLIVEIRA, AND R. DERKSEN, USDA-ARS, WOOSTER, OH (62) ..................................................... 53 

DIMETHENAMID-P: USE OF LIQUID AND GRANULAR FORMULATIONS IN LANDSCAPE BEDS. K. KALMOWITZ*, R.J. KEESE, AND K. MILLER, BASF CORP., RALEIGH, NC (63) ..................................... 54 

OHP114-10 (INDAZIFLAM) A NEW PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR THE NURSERY MARKET. D.J. BARCEL*, OHP, GENESEE, WI (64) ....................................................................................... 55 

EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY AND PLANT TOLERANCE OF INDAZIFLAM FOR CONTAINER NURSERY

PRODUCTION. A.F. SENESAC*, CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, RIVERHEAD, NY (65) ......................................................................................................... 56 

WEED BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY .............................................................................. 57 

WEED MANAGEMENT IMPACTS OF ROLL-KILLED COVER CROPS FOR ORGANIC CORN AND

SOYBEANS. S. REBERG-HORTON*, M. WELLS, A.N. SMITH, J.M. GROSSMAN, M.C. PARR, AND G.T. PLACE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (66) .................................................. 57 

SYNERGISM BETWEEN CULTURAL WEED MANAGEMENT TACTICS. M.R. RYAN*, D. MORTENSEN, J. TEASDALE, W.S. CURRAN, R.G. SMITH, AND S. MIRSKY, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (67) ......... 58 

SUPPRESSION OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS AND ARTHRAXON AND NON-TARGET RESPONSE USING

PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. A.E. GOVER*, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (68) ........................ 59 

xii

SIXTY YEARS OF INVASIVE SPECIES CHANGE AT METTLER'S WOODS, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW

JERSEY. R. STALTER*, ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, QUEENS, NY (69) .................................................. 60 

CAN SWITCHGRASS ESTABLISH IN CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN AREAS? J.N. BARNEY* AND J.M. DITOMASO, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (70) .................................................................... 63 

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF MUGWORT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND

EUROPE. K.S. TORRESEN*, B.W. OLIVER, I.S. FLOISTAD, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (71) .............................................................................................................. 64 

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ....................................................................................... 65 

EFFECTS OF PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR CONTROLLING WEEDS IN WILD BLUEBERRY. D.E. YARBOROUGH* AND J.L. D'APPOLLONIO, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO, ME (72) .............................. 65 

EFFECTS OF POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR CONTROLLING WEEDS IN WILD BLUEBERRY. D.E. YARBOROUGH* AND J.L. D'APPOLLONIO, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO, ME (73) .............................. 66 

ALTERNATE-YEAR PRUNING CAN BE ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS IN CRANBERRY: IMPLICATIONS FOR HORTICULTURAL AND PEST MANAGEMENT CHOICES. H. SANDLER*, UMASS

CRANBERRY STATION, EAST WAREHAM, MA (74) ...................................................................... 67 

TIMING, DURATION, AND TYPE OF FLAME CULTIVATOR AFFECTS WEED RESPONSE IN CRANBERRY. K.M. GHANTOUS*, H. SANDLER, W. AUTIO, AND P. JERANYAMA, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST, MA (75) .......................................................................................................... 68 

WEED MANAGEMENT IN TREE FRUIT WITH INDAZIFLAM. M. MAHONEY* AND D. UNLAND, BAYER

CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (76) ........................................................................................ 69 

SNAP BEANS AFTER MESOTRIONE: IS THERE A PROBLEM? D.D. LINGENFELTER*, M.J. VANGESSEL, B.A. SCOTT, AND C. DUNNE, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (77) ........................................... 70 

A COMPARISON OF NEW AND CURRENT DRY BEAN DESICCANTS. G.J. EVANS* AND R. BELLINDER, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (78) ................................................................................. 71 

THE IR-4 PROJECT:UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M. ARSENOVIC*, D. KUNKEL, AND J. BARON, IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (79) ....................................................... 72

VEGETABLE ROTATIONS WITH TOPRAMEZONE USE IN SWEET CORN. M.J. VANGESSEL*, B.A. SCOTT, AND Q. JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (80) ........................................... 73

EVALUATING NEW HERBICIDES FOR SWEET CORN. R. BELLINDER AND G.J. EVANS*, CORNELL

UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (81) ............................................................................................. 74

TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS .............................................. 75 

PREEMERGENCE ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT ZOYSIAGRASS. P.H. DERNOEDEN*, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD (82) .............................................. 75 

UTILIZATION OF MESOTRIONE IN HYDROSEED APPLICATIONS. S.J. MCDONALD*, TURFGRASS

DISEASE SOLUTIONS, LLC, SPRING CITY, PA (83) ..................................................................... 77 

xiii

SMOOTH CRABGRASS MANAGEMENT WITH CORN GLUTEN, NITROGEN, AND HERBICIDES IN TALL

FESCUE. P.H. DERNOEDEN* AND C.P. RYAN, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD (84) ......... 78 

ALTERNATING ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN SEQUENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF PREEMERGENCE CRABGRASS

HERBICIDES. A.J. PATTON*, D.V. WEISENBERGER, AND Z. REICHER, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, W. LAFAYETTE, IN (85) .......................................................................................................... 80 

DITHIOPYR AND SULFENTRAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR PREEMERGENCE AND POSTEMERGENCE

CRABGRASS CONTROL. C.J. MANSUE*, S. HART, AND B. WALLS, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW

BRUNSWICK, NJ (86) ........................................................................................................ 81 

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL WITH METHIOZOLIN ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS IN THE UNITED

STATES AND KOREA. B. MCNULTY*, S. KOO, AND S. ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (87) ...... 82 

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL. J. BORGER*, M. NAEDEL, AND K. HIVNER, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (88) ................................................................................................. 83 

FIELD PASPALUM CONTROL IN TALL FESCUE. P.H. DERNOEDEN* AND C.P. RYAN, UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD (89) .................................................................................... 84 

FENOXAPROP AND AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR COMBINATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE FOR

POSTEMERGENCE BROAD SPECTRUM WEED CONTROL. S. HART*, J. BROSNAN, AND P. MCCULLOUGH, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (90) .................................................. 86

RECOMMENDING CONSUMER PRODUCTS FOR LAWN CARE. S. ASKEW*, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (91) ...................................................................................................... 87 

AGRONOMY ................................................................................................................. 89 

HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING MODULES SPONSORED BY WSSA. L. GLASGOW*, W. EVERMAN, J. SCHROEDER, D. SHAW, J. SOTERES, J. STACHLER, AND F. TARDIF, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, GREENSBORO, NC (92) .............................................................. 89 

CONTROL OF ITALIAN RYEGRASS AND OTHER WEEDS IN WINTER WHEAT WITH PYROXSULAM. B.D. OLSON*, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (93) ............................................................... 90 

ATRAZINE: UPDATE ON DEFENDING AN IMPORTANT TOOL TO AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. C. MUNSTERMAN*, E.R. HILL, R.L. BROOKS, AND C.L. FORESMAN, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, GREENSBORO, NC (94) ..................................................................................................... 91 

PYROXASULFONE: ITS FIT IN ROW CROPS FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION. R.L. RITTER* AND J. IKLEY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD (95) ........................................................ 92 

EFFECT OF HERBICIDE BANDING ON YIELD AND BIODIVERSITY LEVELS OF FIELD CORN. R.S. CHANDRAN, C.W. YOHN, AND C.W. COBURN*, WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY, SPRINGFIELD, OH (96) ........... 93 

INTEGRATING A HAIRY VETCH COVER CROP FOR IMPROVED WEED MANAGEMENT IN NO-TILL CORN. W.S. CURRAN*, S. MIRSKY, D. MORTENSEN, AND M.R. RYAN, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (97) ... 94 

CONTROL OF HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP IN CORN AND SOYBEANS. G.D. VAIL*, C.L. FORESMAN, N.D. POLGE, V.K. SHIVRAIN, AND D.A. THOMAS, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, GREENSBORO, NC (98) ..................................................................................................... 95 

xiv

EDAMAME PRODUCTION AND HERBICIDE TOLERANCE. C.E. ALTEMOSE*, D.D. LINGENFELTER, W.S. CURRAN, AND M.J. VANGESSEL, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, BELLEFONTE, PA (99) ............................. 96 

IGNITING ANOTHER SOYBEAN WEED CONTROL OPTION. D.D. LINGENFELTER* AND W.S. CURRAN, PENN STATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (100) .............................................................................. 97 

TANK-MIXING RESIDUAL HERBICIDES WITH GLUFOSINATE TO IMPROVE POSTEMERGENCE WEED

CONTROL IN GLUFOSINATE-RESISTANT SOYBEANS. M. MAHONEY*, M. WEBER, J.M. RUTLEDGE, AND

J. ALLEN, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (101) ................................................................. 98 

ENCAPSULATED ACETOCHLOR FOR POSTEMERGE RESIDUAL WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEAN AND

CORN. J.B. WILLIS*, D.J. MAYONADO, AND B. DILLEHAY, MONSANTO, PIQUA, OH (102) ....................... 99 

FISCAL STATEMENT 2007-2008 .............................................................................. 100 

NEWSS YEAR END REPORT 2009 ........................................................................... 101 

MINUTES FROM 64TH ANNUAL MEETING, JAN. 2010 ............................................ 116 

NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS ..................................................................................... 121 

AWARD OF MERIT .................................................................................................... 121 

FELLOW (PREVIOUSLY DISTINGUISHED MEMBER) ............................................. 123 

OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD ................................................................. 124 

OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD ...................................................................... 124 

SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD ............................................................................ 125 

OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER CONTEST ................................... 125 

COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS ............................................................. 127 

RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS ............................................................................... 131 

INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR ...................................................................................... 134 

OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS .................... 135 

OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 135 

OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS ............................................................................ 135 

NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY 2010 MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY ............................................................................................................... 141 

AUTHOR INDEX ......................................................................................................... 160 

KEYWORD INDEX ...................................................................................................... 163 

1

IMPROVING SURVEY METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF GIANT HOGWEED IN PENNSYLVANIA. I.D. Bowers*, M.A. Bravo, and J. Zoschg, Penn State University, University Park, PA (1)

ABSTRACT

Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier) was first recognized by the federal government as a noxious weed in 1983. It originated in the caucus mountains of Asia. The infestation in the United States is the product of homeowners growing the plant in their gardens as an ornamental. The seeds then spread into roadside ditches, streams, etc. via water dispersion and birds. Populations have been found in 16 states. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the United States Department of Agriculture, started its Giant Hogweed Eradication Program in 1998. Since then over 500 sites have been found and treated in Pennsylvania in 17 counties. More than 55% of the populations are located in Erie County. In March, 2010 Pennsylvania had identified 296 sites for declaring officially eradicated. Many of these sites were known to be inactive for more than 7 years. PDA has adopted a three year negative seedbank followed by three years of follow-up surveys as the standard for officially releasing a site as eradicated. Each season, the PDA hires a seasonal giant hogweed (GH) field position for Erie County and surrounding counties. This person is responsible for 1) managing the state giant hogweed hotline and 2) surveying all known active sites and 3) surveying as many released sites and hotline call locations as possible between May and August for the presence of the noxious weed. Many of the sites are in very difficult to reach locations and the plant, in its cotyledon and early rosette stage, can be easily overlooked. To assist the surveyors in locating GH, a database of addresses, property owners contact information, GPS coordinates, and site descriptors has been compiled. However, addresses change, landowners move, and in some cases, the landscape itself is completely changed. These factors and the lack of site location knowledge in new hires make finding the correct locations very challenging. State-wide, 162 active and 262 released sites were visited. Fifty-two of the 166 active sites were positive for giant hogweed plants and 10 new sites were detected. In addition, 14 released sites were re-discovered to be active. Given that a single GH plant can produce more than 10,000 viable seeds the PDA is working to improve its survey and detection methods to address the correlation of time (7-12 years since site was released) and re-discovering a released site with the data available. This paper summarizes the materials and methods used by the Erie County GH hire to find 88% of 279 released sites through follow-up visits and 98% of 101 active sites in the assigned 4 counties and the relationship between surveying methods and successful eradication of spatially related populations. By improving and expanding upon the survey methodology used to re-locate released sites of GH and to detect new locations, 9 released sites were rediscovered that were still active and 6 new sites were found that were spatially related to known active sites. This information will be used to prioritize surveys of released sites in 2011 and in developing future survey methodology for noxious weed detections.

2

CORALLITA: INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTION OF A PLANT WITH DOCUMENTED INVASIVE CAPABILITY. J.M. Burke and A. DiTommaso*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (2)

ABSTRACT

Corallita (Antigonon leptopus) is a perennial vine, lauded as an ornamental for its vigorous growth, plentiful (usually) pink flowers, and even its ability to smother unsightly landscapes. In the United States it thrives in horticultural zones 8 - 10 and is also successfully grown worldwide in tropical climes. When Corallita is neglected, it can quickly grow over other vegetation, spreading beyond its introduced area. Once established, it is difficult to eradicate since it produces many tuberous roots that can propagate vegetatively. Its fruits are buoyant, allowing for successful seed dispersal in water. The islands of Guam (South Pacific Ocean) and St. Eustatius (Caribbean Sea) represent two regions where Corallita has become so pervasive it threatens local diversity. In Florida it is already classified as a Category II invasive. Our report adds taxonomic information to clarify the identity and range of Antigonon leptopus, and a preliminary study on St. Eustatius provides data on phenology, dispersal mechanisms, and efficacy of herbicidal control.

3

CWMA FORMATION IN RESPONSE TO MILE A MINUTE IN NORTHERN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo*, J. Zoschg, and C.A. Johnson, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (3)

ABSTRACT

Mile-a-minute vine (Persicaria perfoliata (L) H. Gross) aka (Polygonum perfoliatum) is an introduced annual vine from eastern Asia that has become a serious weed in the eastern United States. The first establishment of mile-a-minute (MaM) occurred in Pennsylvania (PA) in 1946 at a nursery in York County. By 1989 the weed had been spread by birds and water to more than 5 counties mostly along right-of-ways and riparian areas. The PA Department of Agriculture added MaM to the Noxious Weed Control List in 1989 but no official state control was implemented. As of 2004, MaM had been documented sporadically widespread in 26 southern tier counties and MD, DE and southern NJ but had not yet been detected in the northern tier counties of PA. This changed in 2005 when MaM was discovered infesting 900 floodplain acres of Sinnemahoning State Park and 50 acres of adjoining private land in Cameron and Potter Counties: an area 15 miles long x one-fourth mile wide along the Sinnemahoning Creek and PA Route 872 corridor. With the support of the PA Invasive Species Council, the Sinnemahoning Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) was formed. Since then, numerous partners have joined forces to target other invasive and noxious weed issues in northern PA’s First Fork of the Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed. More than 60 landowners have signed grants of permission for the CWMA partners to control MaM if found on private land. By 2008 the CWMA partners began regular quarterly meetings and adopted the name “Sinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area" (SIPMA). The group expanded their focus to include other invasive and noxious weeds of limited distribution in the Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed. In 2009 the SIPMA partners adopted their mission statement: to protect and restore habitat through the cooperative identification and management (suppression, control, or eradication) of noxious and exotic invasive plants in the SIPMA. They began to seek funding for group projects. Funding and program implementation for this 6 year effort has been led by the PA Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Program staff and supported by grants from the U.S. Forest Service, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the PA Fish and Boat Commission Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed Restoration Grant Program. Manpower resources were contributed by the Sinnemahoning State Park, Sizerville State Park, Elk State Forest, Susquehannock State Forest, PA Game Commission, PA Department of Agriculture, PA Department of Natural Resources, PA Department of Transportation, Wharton Township, Cameron County Conservation District, Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Penn State University, Hancock Forest Management, Seneca Resources, Forecon, Inc., Forest Investment Associates, Patterson Lumber Company, Western PA Conservancy, Bucktail Watershed Association, Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development Council, Sinnemahoning Sportsmen’s Association, East Fork Sportsmen’s Club and 19 private landowners.

4

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER PROMOTING PLANT INVASION IN NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES FORESTS? K.M. Averill* and D. Mortensen, Penn State, University Park, PA (4)

ABSTRACT

Multiple abiotic and biotic factors influence the susceptibility of a site to plant invasion. Some of those factors include invasive plant propagule pressure, disturbance, site productivity, habitat fragmentation, and herbivory. Whether the presence of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) influences plant invasion remains unclear from previous research. We are using data from paired deer exclosure and control plots (fenced and unfenced, respectively) (n > 100) to investigate the effects of deer on invasive plant species richness and abundance in Mid-Atlantic region forest understories. In this collaborative project, a distributed set of researchers are contributing data from plots that have been in place for up to 22 years. Spatial and temporal components likely affect the relationship between deer and plant invasion, including the local landscape matrix, land-use history, and deer population impact. We include such contextual factors in our analyses. Preliminary evidence suggests that invasive plant abundance, but not richness, is affected by the presence of elevated deer densities. Concurrent management of deer may be just as important as managing plant invasions in affected ecosystems.

5

RESPONSE OF BUTTERFLY BUSH, JAPANESE BARBERRY, AND ROSE TO FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SULFOSULFURON. R.S. Chandran*, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (5)

ABSTRACT

A field-container experiment was conducted in Morgantown, WV, in 2010, to determine the tolerance of drift rose (Rosa spp. 'Meiggili' Peach Drift), Japanese barberry (Berberis thumbergii var. atropurpurea), and butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii 'Blue Chip') to sequential over-the-top applications of sulfosulfuron at 0.066 kg ai/ha (low), 0.131 kg ai/ha (medium), and 0.262 kg ai/ha (high), six weeks apart. At the time of initial and second herbicide applications, on Jul 23 and Sept 23, untreated rose plants were 25 and 30 cm; Japanese barberry, 35 and 40 cm; and butterfly bush, 60 and 70 cm tall, respectively. Rose expressed phytotoxicity symptoms 10 d after herbicide application which progressed till three weeks after treatment (WAT). On a 0-10 scale, phytotoxicity ratings averaged 1 for the low rate of herbicide, and 2 for medium and high rates, at 3 WAT. At 4 WAT, phytotoxicity ratings averaged 1 for all application rates in conjunction with increased apical dominance and normal new growth. However, roses treated with sulfosulfuron exhibited bloom-delay by a month for each flush and resulted in fewer flowers overall, compared to untreated plants, till 12 WAT at all rates of application. The second application of sulfosulfuron caused more injury to plants already treated, with average phytotoxicity ratings ranging from 2 to 4 for low to high rates of sulfosulfuron, at 2 weeks after second application. The recovery of treated roses was slower and injury symptoms persisted till 6 WAT along with a severe (~90%) reduction in bloom, compared to untreated plants. Initial phytotoxicity symptoms due to sulfosulfuron application on roses manifested as reduced leaf expansion, mild to moderate chlorosis followed by mild necrosis and leaf puckering. Japanese barberry and butterfly bush tolerated sulfosulfuron at all application rates without manifesting any phytotoxicity symptoms.

6

EFFECT OF INDAZIFLAM APPLICATION TIMING ON RESIDUAL WEED CONTROL IN AN APPLE ORCHARD. R.S. Chandran*, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (6)

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was initiated in Romney, WV, in 2009, to evaluate residual weed control following fall and spring application of indaziflam on a newly planted apple orchard. A 200 SC formulation of indaziflam was applied to provide 73.1 g ai/ha (standard) or 95.0 g ai/ha (high) in fall (2009) or fall followed by spring (2010), and was compared to a single spring application of indaziflam at the standard rate, for residual weed control. All treatments contained glyphosate at 700 g ai/ha to completely control existing vegetation at each application timing. Fall application of indaziflam at both rates maintained tree-rows >90% bare-ground when evaluated on May 24, 2010, 227 days after treatment (DAT). The standard and the high rates of indaziflam maintained the rows bare-ground 68, 78%; and 44, 47%; when evaluated 251; and 306 DAT, respectively. Spring application of indaziflam at the standard rate maintained the rows 75% bare-ground at 75 DAT, similar to a fall followed by spring application of the herbicide at both rates. Fall application at both rates provided excellent (>90%) control of mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum L.), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris Mill.), and red sorrel (Rumex acetocella L.) at 227 DAT. Double application of indaziflam suppressed brambles (Rubus spp.) 70% , and hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum L.), 60% at 75 d following spring application. Overall, indaziflam provided excellent residual control of annual weeds and fair control of certain difficult-to-control perennial broadleaf weeds in orchards. Residual weed control from fall application is desirable during May and June when tree-fruits are most susceptible to weed competition in the mid-Atlantic region and orchardists are busy with other cultural practices.

7

FIELD INFECTION OF DODDER: FAILED HERBICIDE TRIALS MAY LEAD TO NEW BIOCONTROL POSSIBILITIES. J. O'Connell, K.M. Ghantous, F. Caruso, and H. Sandler*, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA (7)

ABSTRACT

During the 2009 and 2010 field seasons, multiple field studies were established on commercial cranberry farms in southeastern Massachusetts to evaluate various weed management techniques for control of dodder (Cuscuta gronovii). The weed management tools utilized in the field trials ranged from hand-held flame cultivators to the application of mesotrione as well as plant growth regulators. Curiously, all failed mid-July to late August due to fungal infection of the dodder stems. Infection caused necrosis and death of the dodder and hindered the evaluation of these weed management tools. Symptoms were noticed ca. 3 to 4 weeks after establishing the studies and applying the treatments. Diseased dodder occurred in the untreated plots, treated areas, and areas outside of the field trial. Diseased dodder stems were collected and taken to the lab for pathogen identification. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides was the primary fungus isolated from the diseased stems, although C. acutatum was also cultured. Lockdown®, a commercial product made from Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp aeschynomene spores, is registered solely for infection of joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Applications of the joint-vetch product, as well as 3 isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides generated from isolations of infected dodder found on local cranberry bogs, were made on 15 July 2010 to dodder that was infesting cranberry (RCBD with 4 replicates). Several adjuvants (water, 50% unrefined corn oil and 0.2% Silwet L-77) were mixed with the spore suspension. Plots were rated visual on a scale of 0-5 (0 being no infection, 5 being heavy infection) on 30 July 2010. Plots treated with field isolates had twice as much injury (ranged from 2.0-2.2) as control plots (water only) and plots treated with Lockdown (1.3 and 1.0, respectively). All plots treated with unrefined corn oil showed severe damage to cranberry vines, regardless of which isolate was used. The company has expressed an interest in working with the Cranberry Station to formulate a product that would be specific for dodder. Future plans include application of the spore suspension with and without various adjuvants to infestations of dodder. Although no data were obtained regarding the use of mesotrione, plant growth regulators, and flame cultivation for dodder management for 2 consecutive years, the serendipitous occurrence of these fungal infections might provide a potential biocontrol option for dodder management in the near future.

8

USE OF FLUMIOXAZIN FOR WATERMELON. S.A. Mathew*, B.A. Scott, and M.J. VanGessel, University of Maryland Extension, Cambridge, MD (8)

ABSTRACT

This study was done at University of Delaware’s Research and Education Center near Georgetown, DE and University of Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury Facility. Watermelon variety at both locations was ‘Millionaire’. All treatments were replicated three times and arranged in a randomized complete block arrangement. Each plot consisted of a single watermelon row and both sides of the watermelon row (25 to 30 feet) were sprayed with the same treatment. At UM-LESREC, there was no difference between treatments for watermelon injury or yield. At UD-REC, watermelon leaf burn and stunting was slight but was not consistent across the treatments. No differences were observed for yield parameters. At UM-LESREC, there were no differences in weed control between the various residual herbicide treatments. At UD-REC, weed control was above 85% for the treatment with paraquat alone, no residual herbicides. Thus the comparison of the various residual herbicides was not conclusive.No injury or yield response was observed in 2010. This trial will be repeated to ensure consistency of results across multiple conditions

9

2010 NEWSS COLLEGIATE WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. B.A. Scott*, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (9)

ABSTRACT

This year's collegiate weed contest was hosted by Cornell University and was held at the Homer C. Thompson Vegetable Research Farm in Freeville, New York on July 27, 2010. Nearly 100 students, representing 10 different institutions competed in the contest. Universities in attendance included Penn State, North Carolina State, University of Maryland, University of Guelph, Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue University, University of Florida, and University of Illinois. Students competed as teams and as individuals in four areas: weed identification, herbicide identification, field problem solving, and sprayer calibration. The NEWSS graduate award winners were: 1st place team: Michigan State University: Dan Tratt, Alex Lindsey, Laura Bast; 2nd place team: University of Florida: Anna Greis, Sarah Berger, Courtney Stokes, Sergio Morichetti; 3rd place team: Penn State University: Ben Crockett, Franklin Egan, Kristine Averill; 1st place individual: Jason Parish, Ohio State University; 2nd place individual: Alex Lindsey, Michigan State University; 3rd place individual: Kristine Averill, Penn State University The NEWSS undergraduate award winners were: 1st place team: University of Guelph: Thomas Judd, Blair Freeman, Eric Schroeders; 2nd place team: Penn State University: Ian Graham, Kelly Patches, David Harwick, Cory Chelko; 3rd place team: University of Illinois: Ross Recker, Sean Breen, Max Hendrickson, Matthew Carton; 1st place individual: Cory Chelko, Penn State University; 2nd place individual: Dan Tratt, Michigan State University; 3rd place individual: Kelly Patches, Penn State University The purpose of the contest is to provide an educational experience for students to broaden their applied knowledge and skills in weed science. The contest provides an opportunity for students to meet and visit with each other, interact with university researchers, extension professionals, and industry representatives. This year’s contest was invariably a success due to the efforts of many volunteers, contest sponsors and sustaining members!

10

SWEET VERNALGRASS CONTROL IN COOL SEASON TURF. A.N. Smith* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (10)

ABSTRACT

Sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) is a perennial grass weed found in cool-season turfgrass. It is highly competitive in the spring due to its rapid growth, early flowering, and potential allelopathic suppression. Sweet vernalgrass also has a high potassium requirement. It can easily adapt to new environmental conditions; research has shown that significant differences in morphologies, flowering dates, and seed yields have occurred due to genetic adaption to new environments. Sweet vernalgrass is very difficult to control. An experiment was conducted near Richmond, Virginia to determine herbicide options for sweet vernalgrass control in cool-season turf. Seven herbicide treatments were evaluated. At 34 DAT, MSMA at 2.1 kg a.i. ha-1, mesotrione applied once at 0.28 kg a.i. ha-1, and mesotrione applied twice at 0.14 kg a.i. ha-1 controlled sweet vernalgrass 73, 63, and 57%, respectively. At 71 DAT, control by MSMA declined to 40%, whereas mesotrione applied once and mesotrione applied twice controlled sweet vernalgrass 67 to 100%. Rapid growth of sweet vernalgrass in the spring might explain why mesotrione applied once provided the best control as this herbicide tends to be more effective during rapid growth phases of susceptible plants. Applying more active ingredient during sweet vernalgrass peak growth seems to play an important role in its control. Decline of MSMA control can likely be explained by MSMA’s contact activity and the perennial nature of the weed. Fenoxaprop, quinclorac, amicarbazone, methiozolin, and sulfentrazone did not control sweet vernalgrass.

11

WEED IT: WEEDS OF CONTAINER NURSERIES IN THE UNITED STATES. A. Krings, J.C. Neal, J.F. Derr*, and C.S. Bernard, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA (11)

ABSTRACT

Cost-effective weed management begins with the correct identification of the weeds present. To aid growers and extension personnel in the development of management programs, there are a number of weed identification resources available online. However, few employ state-of-the-art multi-access keys and fewer still are comprehensive in their coverage. Lacking altogether are digital diagnostic resources that are easily deployable in the field using personal digital assistants (PDAs) or smart phones. This is unfortunate given the costs associated with delayed weed identification and that the technology for field deployable digital products is readily available. Precision agriculture will require mobile access to diagnostic and management decision-aid programs. To help meet this need, we developed two weed identification tools that comprehensively treat the weeds of container nurseries in the US—one accessible online (Lucid), the other deployable in the field on a PDA (SLIKS). Both keys are heavily visual: (1) images obviate reference to a glossary for unfamiliar morphological terms, and (2) images accompany all listed taxa, so users can quickly scan for potential matches while selecting characters. Each taxon is linked to a fact sheet which includes additional images, a morphological description, and performance ratings against thirteen herbicides.

12

RESPECT THE ROTATION: A COMPREHENSIVE PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE HERBICIDE AND TRAIT TECHNOLOGY. J.M. Rutledge and M. Mahoney*, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (12)

ABSTRACT

Good stewardship practices enable growers to prevent, manage or delay the spread of weed resistance and protect all useful technologies. It is the right thing for crop production agriculture to preserve the utility of glyphosate and properly steward other technologies. Respect the Rotation is a proposed partnership among all sectors of the agricultural industry to establish a comprehensive initiative to drive industry-wide support for weed management stewardship to preserve trait and herbicide technology. Working together, the weed science, grower, consultant, government, and commodity communities can better steward weed management technology, preserve conservation tillage opportunities and promote sustainable and profitable row crop production.

13

LENGTH OF RESIDUAL ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL OF MESOTRIONE RELATIVE TO OTHER PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL PRODUCTS. S. Hart, C.J. Mansue, and K.A. Venner*, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (13)

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in the fall of 2009 and 2010 to evaluate the length of residual weed control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) on bare soil. Herbicides were applied to bare soil (Freehold sandy-loam with pH 6.4 and 2% organic matter). The compounds under evaluation were: mesotrione at 0.28 and 0.43 kg ai/ha, dithiopyr at 0.28 and 0.43 kg ai/ha, prodiamine at 0.57 and 0.74 kg ai/ha, and bensulide at 9.41 and 11.91 kg ai/ha. All applications were made using a single 9504EVS nozzle CO2 pressured sprayer calibrated to deliver 378 L/ha at 207 kPa. The study was visually evaluated at 4 and 8 weeks after treatment (WAT) and the following spring for Poa annua control. The plots were evaluated for percent control and percent cover of Poa annua, both on a scale of 0 (no control or cover) to 100 (complete control or cover). Annual broadleaf weeds were evaluated also at 4 WAT. Control of Poa annua ranged from 70% to 90% between the four compounds examined. Mesotrione was the only compound which showed significant difference between rates applied, 70% and 86%, respectively. All other compounds provided between 79% and 90% control, respectively. In springtime, mesotrione was found to only provide 31% to 44% control of Poa annua as opposed to the 81% to 85% provided by dithiopyr, 81% to 89% provided by prodiamine and 82% to 85% provided by bensulide. Annual broadleaf weeds, common chickweed (Stellaria media) and henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), were controlled with mesotrione. The result of one year of research suggests that the broad spectrum herbicides (dithiopyr, prodiamine, and bensulide) control Poa annua better than mesotrione as demonstrated by decreased control of mesotrione over time.

14

F9001 FOR PREEMERGENCE YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL. G.K. Breeden*, J. Brosnan, M. Elmore, and B. Walls, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (14)

ABSTRACT

Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) is a problematic weed in both warm- and cool-season turf. F9001 is a new preemergence herbicide mixture of sulfentrazone (206.3 g ai/L) + dithiopyr (273.5 g ai/L). Two research trials were conducted in 2010 evaluating the efficacy of soluble concentrate (SC) and granular (G) formulations of F9001 for preemergence control of yellow nutsedge. Both trials were conducted on a mature stand of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) maintained as a golf course rough at the Plant Science Unit of the East Tennessee Research and Education Center in Knoxville, TN. Plots (1.5 by 3 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Three rates of F9001 SC (493 g ai/ha, 706 g ai/ha and 908 g ai/ha), dithiopyr (426 g ai/ha), and sulfentrazone (281 g ai/ha) + prodiamine (562 g ai/ha) were applied at early (EPRE) and late preemergence (LPRE) timings on 31 March and 14 April, respectively. On each date treatments were applied with a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280.5 L/ha utilizing four, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124 kPa, configured to provide a 1.5-m spray swath. In a separate study, three rates of F9001 G (493 g ai/ha, 706 g ai/ha and 908 g ai/ha), dithiopyr (426 g ai/ha), and sulfentrazone (281 g ai/ha) + prodiamine (562 g ai/ha) were applied by hand on the same dates. All F9001 G treatments were impregnated on a fertilizer carrier. Weed control and turf injury were evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no weed control or turf injury) to 100 (complete weed control or turf injury) % scale. Data were collected at 21, 29 42, 75, 105, and 134 days after initial treatment (DAIT). At no time during this study was bermudagrass injury observed. Applied EPRE, F9001 SC at ≥706 g ai/ha controlled yellow nutsedge ≥ 88% at 105 DAIT through the end of the study. F9001 SC at 493 g ai/ha applied EPRE controlled yellow nutsedge 83% at 105 and 134 DAIT. All rates of F9001 SC applied LPRE controlled yellow nutsedge ≥87% on all rating dates. F9001 G applied EPRE and LPRE at 908 g ai/ha controlled yellow nutsedge ≥ 87% at all rating dates. EPRE applications of F9001 G at ≤ 706 g ai/ha controlled yellow nutsedge ≤ 85% at 105 DAIT through the end of the study. LPRE applications of F9001 G at rates ≤ 706 g ai/ha controlled yellow nutsedge ≤ 90% at 105 DAIT through the end of the study. Applied EPRE and LPRE, sulfentrazone + prodiamine controlled yellow nutsedge ≥87% at 105 DAIT. Sulfentrazone + prodiamine control of yellow nutsedge reduced to ≤83% at 134 DAIT for both timings. Both formulations of dithiopyr controlled yellow nutsedge 0% at all rating dates. These data suggest that F9001 can be used to provide preeemergence control of yellow nutsedge.

15

THE JOURNAL OF AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT: A POTENTIAL OUTLET FOR AQUATIC, SEMI-AQUATIC, AND RIPARIAN WEED PUBLICATIONS. R.J. Richardson*, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC (15)

ABSTRACT

The Journal of Aquatic Plant Management (JAPM) is a peer-reviewed publication of the Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc. It is published in January and July of each year with around 25 articles per issue. JAPM is currently indexed by 9 abstract and index services with additional sevices pending. Contributions dealing with all aspects of aquatic plant biology and ecology, vegetation management, field operations, regulations, and relevant reviews are accepted for consideration. Aquatic plants are loosely defined as any plants associated with aquatic, semi-aquatic, or riparian sites. Manuscript submissions from NEWSS members within these topic areas would be welcome and encouraged. JAPM is currently migrating to an on-line submission platform hosted by Allen Press, as is currently used by the WSSA journals. Additional information on JAPM may be found at www.apms.org.

16

INFLUENCE OF NITROGEN, PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS, AND FERROUS SULFATE ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS POPULATIONS. K.M. Han* and J.E. Kaminski, Penn State University, University Park, PA (16)

ABSTRACT

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) is perhaps the most common and problematic weed on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) putting greens. Various field trials have been conducted to investigate the influence of select plant growth regulators (PGRs) and fertility regimes on annual bluegrass (ABG) populations. Few studies, however, have investigated the interactions among these factors in combination with ferrous sulfate; an increasingly popular ABG management regime for golf course turf. The objective of this project is to elucidate the interactions of three cultural and chemical management strategies on ABG populations on golf course putting greens. Four field studies were initiated in the spring of 2010 at the Joseph Valentine Turfgrass Research Center located in University Park, PA. Trials were conducted on a mature stand of ‘L-93’ creeping bentgrass with approximately 25% ABG when the study was initiated. The area was mowed six times per week at a height of 2.5 to 3.2 mm. All trials were exposed to minimum surface disturbance and received no supplemental phosphorous. Plots measured 0.9 x 1.8 m and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with a factorial treatment structure. The four studies consisted of either a 2 x 3 or 2 x 3 x 3 factorial with the main factors of nitrogen (N) rates, plant growth regulators, and ferrous sulfate rates. Treatments were initiated on 26 May and applied approximately every 3 weeks throughout the season. All treatments were applied in 4073 L H2O/HA. Seasonal fluctuations in ABG populations were observed during the study. When ABG populations were highest, plots receiving flurprimidol provided the greatest suppression of ABG when compared to all other treatments. Populations of ABG were generally lower in plots receiving low seasonal nitrogen (25 kg N/HA/year) when compared to plots receiving high seasonal nitrogen inputs (107 kg N/HA/year). Additionally, applications of trinexapac-ethyl to low N plots resulted in a 58% reduction of ABG when compared to plots receiving no PGR. This result, however, was not observed within plots receiving 107 kg N/HA/year. Although ferrous sulfate (all rates and combinations) had little impact on ABG populations, it was effective at improving turf color. The effects of these cultural and chemical interactions will continue to be assessed to determine any long term positive or negative impacts on species segregation and overall turf quality.

17

METHODS OF ASSESSING THE ACTIVITY OF HPPD-INHIBITING HERBICIDES. M. Elmore*, J. Brosnan, D.A. Kopsell, and G.K. Breeden, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (21)

ABSTRACT

Mesotrione, topramezone, and tembotrione are herbicides that inhibit 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). Weed control following treatment with HPPD inhibitors is commonly evaluated through visual ratings or assessments of chlorophyll fluorescence. Minimal information is available regarding the accuracy of these techniques for estimating carotenoid and chlorophyll pigment concentrations after HPPD inhibiting herbicide treatment. Research was conducted in 2009 to determine the accuracy of visual ratings and chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) measurements for evaluating changes in carotenoid and chlorophyll pigment concentrations in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. Pers. cv. ‘Riviera’) leaf tissue following treatment with mesotrione, topramezone, and tembotrione. In July 2009, mature bermudagrass plants were transferred to 10 cm pots in a glasshouse (Knoxville, TN) and maintained at a 2 cm height of cut. After acclimating for 4 weeks, plants were treated with three rates of mesotrione (0.28, 0.35, and 0.42 kg/ ha), topramezone (0.018, 0.025, and 0.038 kg/ha), and tembotrione (0.092, 0.184, and 0.276 kg/ha) forming a 3 x 3 factorial, randomized complete block, design with three replications. A non-treated control was also included for comparison. Percent visual bleaching (VB) and Fv/Fm data were collected 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after application (DAA). VB was rated using a 0 (dark green leaf tissue) to 100% (white leaf tissue) scale, while Fv/Fm data were collected using a hand-held pulse modulated fluorometer. Immediately following VB and Fv/Fm data collection, leaf material above 2 cm was harvested and frozen at -80°C. Chlorophyll and carotenoid pigments were extracted from harvested tissue and quantified via high-performance liquid chromatography. Chlorophyll, lutein, β-carotene, and xanthophyll cycle pigment concentrations were regressed over VB and Fv/Fm data. With the exception of zeaxanthin, both VB and Fv/Fm were linearly associated with all carotenoid and chlorophyll concentrations measured between 7 and 28 DAA; few significant relationships were detected at 3 and 35 DAA. R2 values never exceeded 0.65 on any date, suggesting neither evaluation method can accurately estimate carotenoid and chlorophyll pigment concentrations following HPPD inhibiting herbicide application. Comparisons of R2 values indicated no distinct advantage to using Fv/Fm measurements in place of visual ratings to evaluate HPPD inhibiting herbicide activity.

18

APPROACHES TO MANAGING HAIRY VETCH AS A WEED IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC WINTER WHEAT. B.C. Crockett*, W.S. Curran, and S. Mirsky, Penn State, State College, PA (22)

ABSTRACT

Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) is an important cover crop option for organic and conventional farmers in the Northeast. There is considerable interest in utilization of hairy vetch as a cover crop and its potential benefits for nitrogen fixation, weed suppression, and erosion control. However, adoption of hairy vetch by some producers has been limited due to negative farmer experience and the perception that hairy vetch can be invasive, particularly in organic systems. The focus of this project is to examine organic and conventional management options for selective control of hairy vetch in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Experiments were conducted in 2009 at the Rock Springs Agronomy farm in Centre County, Pennsylvania and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland. Two studies were organized as randomized complete blocks with four replications. In early October, 11.2 kg/ha hairy vetch was seeded with 134.5 kg/ha winter wheat. Organic management tactics examined timing (fall vs. spring) and rate of application of three potential organic herbicides and propane flaming. Treatments included acetic acid (vinegar), ammonium nonanoate (Racer™), and lemon grass oil (GreenMatch™) applied at 0.5X and 1X the recommended rates. Propane flame treatments included two rates. Conventional herbicide treatments included 2,4-D amine, dicamba, MCPA amine, clopyralid, thifensulfuron, tribenuron, thifensulfuron + tribenuron, mesosulfuron, prosulfuron, pyroxsulam, and carfentrazone applied at varied rates and combinations in the fall and spring. Visual efficacy ratings (0 to 100%) for hairy vetch control and wheat injury were determined for all treatments and hairy vetch and wheat above ground plant biomass was collected from a 0.5 m2 quadrat per plot. Wheat grain was harvested with a small plot combine. Hairy vetch biomass in untreated plots for the conventional study at Rock Springs averaged 833 kg/ha. In the conventional study, fall treatments were generally less effective than spring. Fall applied clopyralid and spring treatments of dicamba, dicamba + 2,4-D, tribenuron, mesosulfuron, pyroxsulam, and clopyralid all decreased mean hairy vetch biomass below six kg/ha. Wheat yields for these treatments averaged 3994 to 4841kg/ha compared to 3191 kg/ha in untreated plots. Mean hairy vetch biomass and wheat yield of untreated organic management plots were 1152 and 3770 kg/ha, respectively. Most of the organic treatments did not effectively control hairy vetch. The high rate of flaming in the fall was the only organic treatment that reduced average hairy vetch biomass below 100 kg/ha with a mean wheat yield of 5095 kg/ha.

19

IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE HERBICIDES FOR MOSS CONTROL. A. Post*, S. Askew, and D. McCall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (23)

ABSTRACT

Since the loss of organometallic herbicides, prevalence of silvery threadmoss (Bryum argenteum) in golf course putting greens has increased. Demands for faster playing surfaces have led to reduced putting green mowing heights and fertility, creating perfect conditions for competitive displacement of creeping bentgrass by silvery threadmoss. Currently only one professional herbicide, carfentrazone (Quicksilver) and two fungicides, chlorothalonil (Daconil) and mancozeb (Manzeb) are labeled for moss control on putting greens. With a limited number of products available, the golf industry has experimented with off-label products with moderate success, including baking soda, lime, iron-containing fertilizers, and Ultra Dawn dish detergent. Research to date has not provided a solid understanding of which chemistries work and which do not. The goal of this research is to more thoroughly screen available crop protection chemicals for effects on silvery threadmoss and ultimately discover new options for its control. A preliminary herbicide screen on silvery threadmoss was established as a randomized complete block design with ten replications. It included 49 herbicides applied at one and two times the labeled use rate and a non-treated control. Over 1200 actively growing moss plugs approximately 1cm in diameter were collected from a bentgrass putting green and separated into groups of 99 plugs for each of the ten replicates. For each of 98 herbicide treatments, ten moss plugs were treated in a spray chamber calibrated at 814 L/ha. After treatment, plugs were randomly placed into 24-well cell culture plates. Photos were taken at 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment (DAT) and data were captured in Sigma Scan Pro 5. Sigma Scan counted green pixels in the range of hue=38 to 100 and saturation=0 to 100. When compared to the 0 DAT pixel counts, % reduction in green color was calculated for each moss plug which we equate to a measure of control. Data were subject to ANOVA and means separated by Fishers protected LSD (p=0.05). At 3 DAT, carfentrazone reduced green color 55% and pelargonic acid reduced green color by 89% and more than all other treatments. Other herbicides which significantly reduced green color included: flumioxazin, MSMA, glufosinate, sulfentrazone, and an experimental. By 10 DAT, several herbicides reduced green color by more than 90% including flumioxazin, carfentrazone, fosamine, diquat, and sulfentrazone. However, by this time fungal growth over the moss plugs was significantly limiting ability to attribute reduction in green color to herbicide activity versus fungal growth; the nontreated control plugs had 70% reduction in green color where no herbicide was applied. The study was completed despite the fungal problem and this preliminary screening supported previous literature reports that carfentrazone, flumioxazin, and pelargonic acid effectively control silvery threadmoss. We were not able to support findings that oxadiazon and oxyfluorofen are effective but several chemicals were added to the list of potential candidates for moss control, including: an experimental product, MSMA, sulfentrazone, and fosamine. Fungicide and surface sterilization screens are in progress to develop a procedure to prevent fungal growth in future chemical screens. Herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, adjuvants, and biocontrol organisms are slated for future evaluation.

20

EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL, CROP TOLERANCE, AND DESICCATION IN COWPEAS. J.J. Vargas*, G. Armel, and C.D. Youmans, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (24)

ABSTRACT

Cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) also known as southern peas, field peas, and black-eyed-peas are drought tolerant vegetables capable of growing in a variety of different soils. Two field studies were conducted in summer of 2009 and 2010 at the University of Tennessee Plateau Research and Education Center in Crossville, Tennessee and at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center in Knoxville, Tennessee to evaluate herbicide efficacy and desiccation on cowpeas, respectively. The first study evaluated cowpea (varieties ‘P.P. Summertime’ and ‘Cream’) safety following preemergence (PRE) and PRE-plant (7 days before planting) applications of saflufenacil alone at 25 and 50 g ai/ha, a pre-packaged mixture of saflufenacil at 50 g ai/ha plus imazethapyr at 141 g ai/ha, and a pre-packaged mixture of carfentrazone at 15 and 23 g ai/ha plus sulfentrazone at 138 and 209 g ai/ha, respectively. This study was maintained weed free to determine the full impact of these residual materials on crop yield. The second study evaluated cowpea (variety ‘Mississippi Purple Hull’) desiccation from postemergence (POST) applications of saflufenacil alone at 25, 50, and 100 g ai/ha and a mixture of saflufenacil at 25 g ai/ha plus glyphosate at 840 g ai/ha. These treatments were compared to glyphosate alone at 840 g ai/ha and carfentrazone alone at 44 g ai/ha. All treatments in the second study contained methylated seed oil (MSO) plus ammonium sulfate at 1% v/v and 4.4 kg/ha, respectively. In the first study cowpea injury never exceeded 36% with any PRE or PRE-plant herbicide treatment and there were no significant yield differences associated with these treatments. Saflufenacil applied PRE-plant at 25 g ai/ha injured ‘P.P. Summertime’ and ‘Cream’ 16 to 18%, while this same treatment applied PRE injured these same varieties 26 to 29%. Injury from all treatments generally appeared as stunting and mild chlorosis, which existed throught the growing season. In the second study, treatments were applied when the cowpeas contained pods that were starting to turn color from green. In this study saflufenacil applied at 100 g ai/ha provided 84% leaf desiccation and 69% vine desiccation by 3 days after treatment (DAT), while the commercial standards glyphosate and carfentrazone provided 54% and 39% leaf desiccation and 43% and 31% vine desiccation, respectively. However, by 7 DAT there were no significant differences in vine and leaf desiccation between glyphosate at 840 g ai/ha and saflufenacil at 50 and 100 g ai/ha. All treatments containing glyphosate or saflufenacil contained green pods by 14 DAT, while the untreated check had 18% green pods at that time.

21

CONTROLLING ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS IN COOL SEASON LAWNS WITH METHIOZOLIN. B. McNulty* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (25)

ABSTRACT

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) and roughstalk bluegrass (Poa trivialis) are annual grassy weeds that commonly infest home lawns in the United States. In cool climates, lawns are typically comprised of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Methiozolin is a new herbicide under evaluation by the Moghu research Center in South Korea for use in several turfgrass species. Three trials were initiated at the Glade Road Research Facility in Blacksburg, VA on April 19, 2010 to evaluate annual and roughstalk bluegrass control and turfgrass response to methiozolin compared to an industry standard. The first trial location was perennial ryegrass infested with annual and roughstalk bluegrass mown at 3.81 cm. The second location was Kentucky bluegrass contaminated with white clover (Trifolium repens) maintained at 3.81 cm. The third site was a weed-free area of tall fescue mown at 6.35 cm. Treatments were replicated 3 times in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and applied using a CO2 backpack sprayer calibrated at 280 L/ha. Treatments included; methiozolin at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, and 4000 g ai/ha, bispyribac-sodium (Velocity) at 74 g ai/ha, and a non-treated check (NTC). All methiozolin treatments 2000 g ai/ha or less and bispyribac-sodium treatments were repeated one month after initiation on May 19, 2010. Methiozolin did not injure any turf species at any timing. Bispyribac-sodium injured perennial ryegrass 20%, tall fescue 15%, and Kentucky bluegrass 60% at nine days after the second treatment. At rates above 1500 g ai/ha, methiozolin suppressed annual bluegrass seedheads by at least 85% one week after the first treatment. Bispyribac-sodium also reduced annual bluegrass seedheads by 85% at the same timing. Bispyribac-sodium controlled white clover at two locations, while methiozolin did not affect white clover populations at any rating. At 29 days after treatment (DAT), methiozolin at 2000 g/ha applied twice and 3000 or 4000 g/ha applied once controlled roughstalk bluegrass 60, 90, and 92%, respectively, compared to 90% control from bispyribac-sodium. At 49 DAT, methiozolin at 1500 and 2000 g ai/ha applied twice controlled annual bluegrass 84% and 94% respectively. Methiozolin at 3000 and 4000 g ai/ha applied once controlled annual bluegrass 85% and 93%, respectively at the same rating date. Bispyribac-sodium applied twice controlled annual bluegrass 38% 49 DAT. These results suggest that methiozolin could be a safe and effective herbicide for post emergence control of both annual and roughstalk bluegrass in a variety of cool season turfgrass situations.

22

EFFECT OF SOYBEAN ROW SPACING ON WEED DENSITY AND BIOMASS. J.M. Orlowski*, A. DiTommaso, and W.J. Cox, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (26)

ABSTRACT

Soybean production has increased steadily both in the United States and New York State in the last 20 years.  As new soybean growers enter production, agronomic factors such as optimal row spacing to be used become increasingly important.  Soybeans are currently planted in 19 cm rows using a grain drill or in 38 cm and 76 cm rows using a corn planter.  Recent studies show that planting soybeans in narrow rows lead to a yield advantage over soybeans planted in wider rows in northern latitudes.  One of the goals of this 2-year field study was to determine the impact of soybean row spacing on weed abundance and soybean yield under NY State growing conditions. This research was initiated on three collaborator farms in the major soybean production regions of New York.  At each of the three locations, soybeans were seeded at approximate populations of 309,000 and 420,000 plants/ha at three row spacings (19, 38, and 76 cm widths). There were three replicates of each row spacing treatment at each location.  One of the sites received a pre-emergence application of Enlite (premix of flumioxazin, chlorimuron- ethyl and thifensulfuron-methyl at 0.204 liters /ha), which resulted in very low weed densities during the 2010 growing season. The other two sites, which received early summer applications of glyphosate at 429.3 g a.i./ha, did have greater weed densities than the pre-emergence site.  Weed densities were determined before herbicide application and at two post-application times. A total of 2.0 meters was sampled in each row spacing treatment using a 1 m X 0.5 m quadrat.  Dry weed biomass within each row spacing treatment was determined at harvest.  Soybeans plots planted in narrow rows (19 cm) had substantially lower weed densities compared to soybeans planted at the two wider row spacing after herbicide application. In general, the narrow row soybean plots also had lower weed biomass at harvest compared with the wider row spacings.  However, while weed pressure differed between row spacing treatments, soybean yield did not differ (3600 to 3750 kg/hectare at the low and high seeding rates for all three row spacings).  The 2010 growing season provided very favorable conditions for soybean growth, which may have reduced the impact of weed competition on yield.  We will conduct this study in 2011 to determine if results are consistent across years.  

23

RESPONSES OF WEEDS AND CROPS TO ORGANIC NUTRIENT AMENDMENTS. N.G. Little*, C.L. Mohler, Q.M. Ketterings, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (27)

ABSTRACT

In the Northeastern U.S., dairy and organic vegetable producers commonly use manure or compost to meet the nutrient needs of crops. Application at rates needed to meet the nitrogen (N) needs of the crops will result in overfertilization with phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and other nutrients over time due to the relatively low N content and challenges in retaining the N for crop uptake. Since 2005, researchers at Cornell University have been conducting a long-term study comparing organic cropping systems. One of the findings of this study is that when compost application rates increase, weed growth also increases. In the summer of 2010 a field experiment was initiated to partition out the effects of N, P, and K from composted poultry manure on weed growth. Corn (Zea mays), lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) were grown individually in open-bottomed wooden boxes. The boxes were set into the soil and filled with soil amended with composted poultry manure (6-2-2) [N-P-K], blood meal (12-0-0), bone char (0-16-0), K sulfate (0-0-50), or the latter three together. Four amendment rates were designed to mimic the N, P, and K in composted poultry manure. These rates span from well below what a producer would generally apply to well above. Control plants were also grown with no nutrient amendments. The unamended soil was low in P, moderate in K, and high in calcium (Ca). It had moderate N from clover and alfalfa in the plowed sod. Research is ongoing to test the nutrient release from blood meal as a N source (N release dynamics over time). Corn biomass did not respond to any of the amendments. However, weed biomass (all three species) increased up to excessively high compost rates. None of the weeds responded to the blood meal, bone char, or K sulfate, either alone or combined. Lettuce biomass had not yet been analyzed at the time of abstract publication. Future experiments will test these hypotheses. The lack of corn response and the positive weed response to composted manure supports our hypothesis that compost amendment above crop needs increases weed growth. The results observed with the other amendments are consistent with the hypothesis that (1) P was the limiting element in this experiment and that (2) P from bone char was immobilized by the high level of Ca in the soil.

24

IMPLICATIONS OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN TALL FESCUE WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM. M. Cutulle*, J.F. Derr, A. Nichols, D. McCall, and B. Horvath, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA (28)

ABSTRACT

Tall fescue is one of the most commonly-utilized turfgrasses for home lawns in the United States. Tall fescue’s popularity is attributed to a deep root system (drought tolerance), relatively low nitrogen requirements, and a resistance to most diseases. However, two pests that are problematic in tall fescue include the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani (causes brown patch) and the cool season annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Rhizoctonia infects tall fescue stands during hot, humid conditions when tall fescue is under summer stress. The subsequent disease, brown patch, is aesthetically unpleasing and can thin the turfgrass stand, leading to the germination and encroachment of winter annual weeds such as annual bluegrass. Typically, tall fescue is overseeded in the fall, thus the application of preemergence herbicides for control of annual bluegrass is generally not an option. Currently, there are no selective postemergence herbicide options in the spring for control of annual bluegrass in tall fescue. A potential postemergence herbicide for control of annual bluegrass in tall fescue is bispyribac-sodium. However, previous studies report indicated that applications of bispyribac-sodium on colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaries L.) have increased its susceptibility to brown patch, thus promoting the sequential increase of summer disease and fall weed encroachment. Experiments evaluating timing and rates of bispyribac-sodium on annual bluegrass control and brown patch severity in tall fescue were performed at the Virginia Tech’s Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Bispyribac-sodium was applied at rates of 37 and 75 g ai ha-1 either April 22 plus May 6 or May 22 plus June 5 in both 2009 and 2010. Plots treated with bispyribac-sodium on May 22 plus June 5, 2009 had greater than 60% brown patch cover in June 2009, while the control plots had only 40% brown patch. The earlier set of applications did not increase brown patch severity. Greater than 115 brown patch lesions per 100 leaves were recorded in plots receiving the May 22 plus June 5 herbicide application, which was greater than the 45 lesions recorded for the untreated plots. Plots treated with the high rate of bispyribac-sodium on April 22 plus May 6, 2009 had less than 2% annual bluegrass cover on June 22, 2009. On that date, plots receiving the high rate of bispyribac-sodium on May 22 and June 5 contained 12% annual bluegrass cover. Similar trends were seen in 2010 regarding brown patch severity and incidence. However, environmental conditions favored annual bluegrass establishment and recovery for the 2010 trial, thus the April 22 plus May 6 applications in 2010 were not as effective as in 2009. Overall, May 22 plus June 5 herbicide applications promoted disease progress in June regardless of herbicide rate and were not as effective at controlling annual bluegrass when compared to April 22 plus May 6 applications.

25

SPECIES-SPECIFIC FUNCTIONAL DENSITIES: DEFINING NITROGEN UTILIZATION EQUIVALENCE FOR WEED-CROP INTERFERENCE EXPERIMENTS. H.J. Poffenbarger*, S. Mirsky, J. Teasdale, J. Spargo, J. Maul, and M. Cavigelli, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD (29)

ABSTRACT

Experimental design methods for assessing weed-crop interference play an important role in understanding competition outcomes and competitive characteristics of species. However, these designs have received considerable scrutiny over the past 30 years, particularly when important design limitations are not addressed. For example, a critique of the replacement series is that experimental results may vary based on the total density, a flaw that researchers have addressed by choosing densities that achieve constant final yield. To address biases that result from differences in biomass or resource use among species with an equivalent number of individuals, the use of functional densities (densities that reflect equivalent mass, resource use, or other characteristic) has been proposed rather than demographic densities (densities that reflect equivalent number of individuals) in replacement series experiments. Therefore, we conducted a greenhouse pot experiment to determine monoculture densities of corn (Zea mays), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) that result in equivalent resource utilization within the experiment’s temporal and N limitations (26 days for unfertilized pots and 31 days for fertilized pots). Nondestructive plant measurements included subweekly plant height, weekly leaf area and leaf chlorophyll content. Destructive plant measurements included biweekly shoot and root biomass, soil mineral N and plant tissue N. We identified leaf chlorophyll content and non-destructive leaf area to be the best non-destructive surrogate measures of soil N utilization and residual availability. The procedures that we developed to determine resource utilization by our species of interest may serve as an efficient model for defining functional densities, as influenced by soil resources, for purposes of examining the effects of long-term differentiation in soil resources on weed-crop competition relations.

26

THE EFFECT OF RYE ROLL-KILLED MULCH ON N-IMMOBILIZATION. M. Wells*, S. Reberg-Horton, and A.N. Smith, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (30)

ABSTRACT

The use of cover crops has been well documented in organic cropping systems for their ability to suppress weeds, enhance soil organic matter and prevent nutrient leaching. Rye (Secale cereale L.), along with leguminous cover crops, have been deployed in organic cropping systems to achieve many of these beneficial effects. One system that has been shown to both suppress weeds and aid in soil fertility is the roll-killed system. This study investigated the nitrogen immobilization dynamics of soybeans under the rye roll-killed system. The ability of high C:N ratio residues to cause N immobilization is well known, but the impact of surface mulches on immobilization is not well characterized. A two site-year study was conducted in North Carolina during the 2009 growing season at Kinston and Goldsboro. Two treatments were evaluated, one treatment with rye that was roll-killed (R) and the other without rye (i.e. bare-ground) (WR). Both treatments received 50 kg ha-1-N in mid February 2009, and the no rye treatment (WR) was sprayed with glyphosate and left fallow until the planting of soybeans (Glycine max L. ‘Hutcheson’) in May 2009. The rye biomass varied between the sites with approximately 8000 kg ha-1 at Kinston and 4200 kg ha-1 at Goldsboro. During the season, the flow of soil inorganic nitrogen was monitored via ion exchange probes along with soil extractions from two depths (0-10.2 cm and 10.2-25.4 cm). Tissue data was collected on both soybeans and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) to determine the percent nitrogen. For both sites, peak nitrogen immobilization occurred between 4 and 6 weeks. At Kinston there was a soil inorganic total nitrogen (NO3 and NH4) difference of 1 ppm-N between the rye treatment (R) and the bare-ground no rye treatment. During the same sampling period at Goldsboro a difference of 2.25 ppm-N was detected. The ion-exchange probes correlated with the findings at both sites. Surface mulches appear able to cause a significant N immobilization effect in the soil profile. Future work is needed to determine whether the effect is ‘created’ from transport of soil N to the surface residue or from dissolved C leaching into the soil.

27

EFFECTS OF RYE AND VETCH COVER CROPS ON HERBICIDE INPUTS IN FIELD CORN. A.N. Smith* and E. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (31)

ABSTRACT

Rye and hairy vetch are common cover crops that can be planted for erosion control, soil fertility, or weed control in no-tillage production systems. Research has shown that both cover crops, separate or combined, can provide varying degrees of weed suppression in no-tillage corn. Corn producers in Virginia have financial incentives available to them for planting winter small grain cover crops. The addition of hairy vetch to small grain cover crops is utilized by some producers to increase nitrogen levels in the soil. Most producers desiccate these cover crops in March. This allows for minimal residue levels that do not impede on corn planting. If allowed to grow, rye and hairy vetch cover crops will produce more residues and may provide supplemental weed suppression that allows for a reduction in herbicide inputs without a loss in weed control or crop yield. Experiments were conducted in Virginia to determine if rye and rye/ vetch cover crops provide enough additional weed suppression to allow reduced herbicide rates. Six different herbicide combinations were applied in three different cover crop residue levels. Cover crop residue levels were determined by time of desiccation. March desiccation resulted in no cover crop residues. Early April desiccation resulted in low residue levels and late April desiccation resulted in higher residue levels. Rye residue levels ranged from 1,773 to 5,889 kg/ha and rye/vetch residue levels ranged from 2,108 to 3,855 kg/ha. Early season weed control was greatest with atrazine, metolachlor, and mesotrione PRE at 0.7+1.87+0.187 kg ai/ha, regardless of cover crop or residue level. Late season weed control for herbicide combinations were affected by cover crop and residue levels. In no cover crop residues, atrazine, metolachlor, mesotrione PRE at 0.7+1.87+0.187 kg ai/ha had the greatest suppression of predominant weed species smooth crabgrass. In low rye residue levels, glyphosate POST at 0.48 kg ai/ha had the greatest control. For low rye/vetch, higher rye, and higher rye/vetch residue levels, atrazine, metolachlor, mesotrione PRE at 0.35+0.935+0.935 kg ai/ha and glyphosate POST at 0.48 kg ai/ha provided the best control. Cover crop residues alone did not provide acceptable late season weed control, ranging from 64 to 94% smooth crabgrass cover. Cover crop residues without herbicide inputs had corn yields that ranged from 2,657 to 5,479 kg/ha. In low rye, low rye/vetch, and higher rye/vetch, corn yields were highest with atrazine, simazine PRE at 2.24+2.24 kg ai/ha at 7,777, 9,151, and 10,120 kg/ha, respectively. In no rye and higher rye, atrazine, metolachlor, mesotrione PRE at 0.35+0.935+0.935 kg ai/ha and glyphosate POST at 0.48 kg ai/ha treatments had the highest corn yields at 7,786 and 8,895 kg/ha. Generally, corn yields were higher with rye/vetch cover crops. Incorporating vetch into small grain cover crops seemed to increase average corn yields. Reducing PRE herbicide rates did not seem to reduce corn yields. Producers may have the option of reducing PRE herbicide rates in conjunction with late April desiccation of rye/vetch cover crops.

28

RESPONSE OF TALL FESCUE CULTIVARS TO MESOTRIONE APPLIED AT ESTABLISHMENT. K.A. Venner*, S. Hart, and C.J. Mansue, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (32)

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in the fall of 2009 and 2010 in order to evaluate the response of eight newly seeded tall fescue cultivars to mesotrione applied at planting (PRE), and PRE followed by sequential treatment four weeks after turfgrass emergence (WAE) at rates ranging from 0.14 kg ai/ha to 1.125 kg ai/ha. All applications were made with a single 9504EVS nozzle CO2 pressured sprayer calibrated to deliver a total 178 L/ha at 222 kPa. Experimental design was a strip plot (tall fescue cultivar x mesotrione application regime) with 4 replications. Tall fescue cultivars ‘Rebel Advance,’ ‘Cochise II,’ ‘Hounddog,’ ‘Bullseye,’ ‘3rd Millenium,’ ‘Faith,’ ‘Falcon V,’ and ‘Mustang IV’ were seeded on September 9, 2009 at a rate of 295 kg/ha in 1.8 m wide rows using a drop spreader. PRE application was made on September 9, 2009 and PRE + 4 WAE on October 6, 2009. Tall fescue was visually evaluated for cover and injury at 4 and 8 weeks after seeding, as well as in the springtime on a scale of 0 (no cover or injury) to 100 (complete cover or injury). In this study, reductions in establishment were visible for some of the cultivars at 1.125 kg ai/ha applied PRE or PRE + 4 WAE. The most severe reductions occurred in the PRE + 4 WAE were visible in cultivars ‘Rebel Advance’ and ‘Hounddog,’ with 17.2% and 20%, respectively. There is some degree of intraspecific variability, with cultivars ‘Bullseye,’ ‘3rd Millenium,’ ‘Faith,’ and ‘Mustang IV’ showing the most tolerance to 1.125 kg ai/ha applied twice while ‘Rebel Advance’ and ‘Hounddog’ were more sensitive. The results of this study suggest that although differences in tolerance to mesotrione was observed in some cultivars, these differences were minor, suggesting that tall fescue cultivars should all respond similarly to mesotrione (Tenacity) applications.

29

EXPLOITATION OF MICROWAVE RADIATION FOR WEED MANAGEMENT. A. Rana* and J.F. Derr, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (33)

ABSTRACT

Irradiation with non-ionizing microwaves causes dielectric heating in materials where sufficient water is available, such as in plants. Some potential agricultural applications of dielectric heating includes pest control, improved germination of seed, and crop protection from frost injuries using appropriate doses of microwave radiation. Microwave radiation for weed control has several advantages, including minimal risk of fire, low risk of resistance development, potential use in organic production, and no residual effect. The objective of this research was to evaluate microwave heating of weeds as a technique for postemergence weed control. Approximately three-week-old seedlings of southern crabgrass [Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.], rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria L.) and broadleaf plantain (Plantago major L.) were treated with microwave radiation (2450 MHz) for 5, 10 and 15 seconds in a greenhouse trial. Five second exposure to microwave radiation resulted in 10 to 25% injury, depending on weed species, but the weed species were able to outgrow the damage. Exposing the weed seedlings for 10 seconds or higher resulted in excellent control. As initial plant canopy temperature increased, injury level increased. The exposure time required for generating effective killing temperatures within these species appears to be a factor limiting application of microwave radiation for weed control. This technique may be applicable for weed control in cases in which other physical processes or chemical means are inconvenient or undesirable.

30

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CRYOGENIC SPRAYER FOR WEED MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIC PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. H.A. Duncan, L.A. Gibson, A.J. McLemore*, R.E. Messer, G. Armel, W.E. Hart, and J.J. Vargas, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (34)

ABSTRACT

Producers, engineers, and biologists agree that weed control is the leading production problem in organic agriculture today. Greenhouse, field, and laboratory studies were conducted in 2009 and 2010 at the University of Tennessee to design, build, and evaluate a tractor mounted system to apply cryogenic liquids for weed management in organic systems. The incorporation of specialized technology including cryogenically tolerant hoses, a hydraulic nozzle delivery system, and a specialized insulated hood were designed in concert to facilitate an even spray application of liquid N2 to target weeds. Following liquid N2 application a weighted roller located behind the sprayer hood was designed to crush the weeds within seconds after application in order to damage frozen cells of the plant before they thaw, thereby providing synergistic weed control over that observed with roller compaction or liquid N2 applications performed separately. Two field studies were conducted to evaluate the cryogenic sprayer with liquid N2 being applied at 250, 500, and 1000 gal/acre rates on two sites primarily containing pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). In addition to application rate, sprayer height (placed 6 or 12 inches above the ground) and variations in pressure generated by the weighted roller (3 or 6 psi) were also evaluated as variables in improving performance of the cryogenic sprayer. Herbicidal response was apparent almost instantaneously after application and by 1 day after treatment (DAT), burndown of the existing vegetation was most pronounced when liquid N2 was applied at 1000 gal/acre. Liquid N2 applications were generally optimal with increasing rate, application height, and compaction pressure. By 7 DAT, 1000 gal/acre of liquid N2 applied at a spray height of 12 inches above the ground, followed by a compaction pressure of 6 psi provided 78 to 86% control of pitted morningglory. Our paper presentation will attempt to explain the engineering techniques, biological trials, and design challenges associated with building and implementing this prototype. In addition, this paper presentation will highlight the benefits of this technology as well as the limitations for commercial acceptance.

31

JAPANESE KNOTWEED RESPONSE TO GLYPHOSATE OR TRICLOPYR TREATMENT SEQUENCES. A.E. Gover*, J.M. Johnson, K. Lloyd, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA (39)

ABSTRACT

An infestation of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. and Zucc.) at Milton State Park, Milton, PA, was subjected to treatments including two cuttings (May 6 and July 23, 2009), cutting (June 2) followed by application of glyphosate or triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha (September 9), sequential treatment with glyphosate or triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha on May 6 and September 9, or sequential treatment with glyphosate or triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha on July 23 and September 9. The treatments were applied to 3.7 by 6.1 m plots arranged in a randomized complete block with three replications. The May 6 treatments were applied at a carrier volume of 750 L/ha to plots ranging from 15 to 45 percent cover, with stem heights ranging from emerging to 2 m. The July 23 and September 9 treatments were applied at a carrier volume of 1260 L/ha. The July treatments were applied to intact, 2 to 3 m tall canopies, while the September-treated plots were more variable, with canopy heights of 1 to 3 m and cover values of 15 to 100 percent. Canopy reduction was visually rated June 16, 2010, and a fresh weight harvest and stem count was taken September 24, 2010 from permanent 2.25 m2 subplots, and converted to kg fresh wt/m2. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and means separated using Fisher’s Protected L.S.D. test when treatment effects were significant.

Significant differences occurred between the herbicide treatments, but not between the treatment sequences for a given herbicide. The glyphosate treatments averaged between 97 and 98 percent canopy reduction, and were rated significantly higher than all other treatments. The triclopyr treatments ranged from 35 to 52 percent reduction, and were not significantly different from each other, and cutting twice resulted in a 20 percent canopy reduction. The untreated check averaged 1.8 kg fresh weight and the twice-cut plots averaged 3.4 kg. The glyphosate-treated plots yielded 0.02 to 0.18 kg/m2, and the triclopyr-treated plots averaged 0.78 to 1.6 kg. Compared to the untreated plots, the glyphosate treatments reduced fresh weight biomass 90 to 99 percent, while the triclopyr treatments reduced fresh weight 11 to 56 percent. These data confirm results from a similar trial at this site in 2008. In that trial, suppression from glyphosate treatments was similar to 2009 results, and knotweed suppression was greater in glyphosate-treated plots than triclopyr-treated plots, but in 2008 the triclopyr treatments provided more suppression relative to the controls than in 2009.

32

CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS ON AQUATIC SITES. K.R. Hall, R.J. Richardson*, and S.T. Hoyle, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC (40)

ABSTRACT

Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus) is an annual invasive grass native to Asia that is infesting riparian areas throughout the southeastern United States. It is extremely shade tolerant and forms dense monocultures after invasion. A study began in 2009 to evaluate herbicides that are registered or are pending registration for aquatic-use for Japanese stiltgrass control. Herbicides were applied at various rates to natural stands of Microstegium vimineum located alongside restored stream channels. Studies were performed to determine effectiveness of herbicides for both preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) control. The PRE study utilized five aquatic-use registered herbicides including carfentrazone, fluridone, imazamox, imazapyr, and penoxsulam and two aquatic-use registration pending herbicides of bispyribac and flumioxazin. The POST study employed six aquatic-use registered herbicides including diquat, fluridone, glyphosate, imazamox, imazapyr, penoxsulam and two aquatic-use registration pending herbicides including bispyribac and flumioxazin. Preliminary results indicated good PRE herbicide effectiveness with flumioxazin, fluridone, imazamox, and imazapyr. POST effective herbicides included flumioxazin, imazamox, and imazapyr. The study will continue in 2010 and preliminary data from 2009 will be discussed in this presentation.

33

EVALUATION OF INDAZIFLAM FOR BARE-GROUND WEED CONTROL IN RAILROAD. D. Spak* and D. Myers, Bayer Environmental Science, Raleigh, NC (41)

ABSTRACT

Indaziflam is a new alkylazine herbicide being developed for pre-emergence control of annual monocot and dicot weeds in industrial areas. Indaziflam is a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor (CBI) and represents a novel mode of action for bareground weed control. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of indaziflam for bareground weed control in a railroad bed. A trial was conducted in Sanford, NC on an abandoned railroad spur. Treatments included indaziflam 200SC applied alone (75 and 100 g ai/ha) and in tank mixtures (75 g ai/ha) with the following herbicides: Karmex (4483 g ai/ha), Oust Extra (150 g ai/ha), Krovar (7170 g ai/ha), Endurance (730 g ai/ha), Payload (286 g ai/ha), and Arsenal (821 g ai/ha). The standards were also applied alone. Glyphosate (2240 g ai/ha) was added to all treatments to control existing vegetation (30% cover). Applications were made on April 6, 2010 with a conventional CO2 backpack sprayer equipped with flat-fan nozzles at a spray volume of 25 GPA. Bareground weed control and species composition were evaluated at monthly intervals through August 2010. Weed pressure was very high due to heavy rainfall and previously low herbicide inputs. At 2 months after treatment (MAT), indaziflam and indaziflam tank-mixes were giving >90% weed control, and Krovar (7170 g ai/ha) was the only standard that gave comparable control. At 4 MAT, indaziflam alone was providing an average of 70% bareground with no differences between rates. Combinations of indaziflam plus either Karmex, Oust Extra, Krovar, or Arsenal continued to provide above 90% control, whereas combinations with Payload and Endurance were less than 90% effective. All standard herbicides with the exception of Krovar, provided significantly less bareground control than Indaziflam alone due to poor annual grass control, primarily large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis). Indaziflam gave good annual broadleaf weed control and was more effective than Payload or Endurance. Indaziflam tank-mixes gave better broadleaf control than either herbicide applied alone. Indaziflam applied at 75 to 100 g (plus glyphosate) provided excellent, long-term control of annual grasses, good control of broadleaf weeds, and outperformed many of the standard herbicides. Tank-mix combinations provided highly effective bareground weed control lasting at least 4 months. Therefore, indaziflam shows great potential as an herbicide for bareground weed control in industrial settings, and more work is needed to design regional programs and tank-mixtures.

34

GLYPHOSATE AND TRICLOPYR COMBINATIONS SUPPRESS BOTH AUTUMN OLIVE AND MORROW’S HONEYSUCKLE. A.E. Gover*, Penn State, University Park, PA (42)

ABSTRACT

Foliar herbicide treatments including glyphosate, triclopyr, or the combination were applied to autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb., ELGUM) and Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii Gray, LONMO) August 31, 2010, at Canoe Creek State Park, Hollidaysburg, PA. Treatments included a glyphosate:triclopyr combination sequence totaling 3.4 kg ae/ha at ratios of 3.4:0, 0:3.4, 1.7:1.7, 2.2:1.1, and 2.7:0.7. Treatments intended to be safe to grasses included triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha plus 2,4-D at 1.1, 2,4-D plus dichlorprop-p at 0.96 plus 0.49, or metsulfuron at 0.021 kg/ha; and triclopyr plus 2,4-D plus dichlorprop-p at 1.7 plus 0.96 plus 0.49 kg/ha, respectively. All herbicide combinations included a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25 percent, v/v. Treatments were applied to five plants each at 935 L/ha, based on shrub canopy basal area, using a CO2-powered, hand-held sprayer equipped with a TeeJet #5500 Adjustable ConeJet nozzle with an X-12 tip. Canopy diameters for both species ranged from 1.3 to 2.1 m. Canopy reduction was visually estimated August 2, 2010, 50 weeks after treatment. Data were subjected to analysis of variance by species, and means compared using Fisher’s Protected L.S.D. when treatment effect was significant. Glyphosate alone provided 100 and 22 percent reduction of LONMO and ELGUM, respectively, while triclopyr alone provided 56 and 100 percent, respectively. The only combination that provided acceptable control of both species was glyphosate plus triclopyr at 1.7 plus 1.7 kg ae/ha, which was rated at 100 and 90 percent canopy reduction of LONMO and ELGUM, respectively. All glyphosate-containing treatments provided at least 96 percent canopy reduction of LONMO, while no glyphosate-free combinations exceeded 82 percent canopy reduction. Triclopyr combinations containing at least 1.7 kg ae/ha provided 90 to 100 percent canopy reduction of ELGUM. Triclopyr combinations resulted in basal regrowth in LONMO that was free of symptoms and will likely recover. Glyphosate-injured LONMO showed severe growth malformations in the remaining foliage and it seems unlikely these plants would recover.

35

GOATSRUE CONTROL AND ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo* and J. Zoschg, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (43)

ABSTRACT

Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) is a federally listed noxious weed with a limited distribution. In 1891, goatsrue was introduced to Utah by the Utah Agricultural Experimental Station where it was tested as a livestock forage and green manure crop. Only after its establishment was its poisonous and highly invasive attributes discovered. By 1981, 60 square miles of cropland, irrigation waterways, pastures, roadways and wet marshy areas in Cache County, Utah were infested. In 1981, the United State Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) targeted goatsrue for eradication. A herbarium search found specimens form 1890 to 1960 from 10 continental states and Washington D.C. Goatsrue was first documented in PA in the 1950’s at the Morris Arboretum in Montgomery County. It was added to the PA Noxious Weed Control Law list in 2000. Prior to 2009, only 6 viable and under ‘official control’ populations had been detected. However, noxious weed surveys conducted in August 2009 by local, state and federal field staff discovered multiple sites of flowering goatsrue adjacent to or infesting cropland throughout 22% of the 900 square miles of McKean County. This significant discovery prompted an early detection rapid response control effort by the PA Department of Agriculture, PA Department of Transportation, Keating Township and Smethport Boro officials to immediately implement measures to prevent further maturation of seedpods. Noxious weed control orders were issued to limit the transport and sale of aggregate infested with goatsrue seed and all known infestations were chemically or mechanically treated. During the winter of 2010, PDA and partners developed outreach materials and work plans to assist landowners with control of this state and federal noxious weed. PDA has documented 50 acres of goatsrue on 139 properties as of September 2010. Populations were surveyed, measured and treated (chemical, mowing). Emergence of the seedbank and regrowth in mowed populations occurred at all locations and treatments were repeated. In all, 95% or more of the populations were prevented from producing viable seed. Extensive surveys have determined that the McKean County infestation is directly related to the movement of contaminated soil from the dredging of Lake Hamlin in the past five years. Municipalities, private businesses and private landowners used the dredgings as fill material for driveways and other projects. This has led to the direct infestation of hayfields, drainage ditches, flowerbeds, landscape areas, commercial aggregate material and vacant lots throughout the region: property descriptions range from roadside ditches in the Alleghany National Forest, Elk County and Elk State Forest, Cameron County; to State, Township and Boro maintained roads in Cameron, Potter and McKean County; to 4 commercial stockyards (stone, sand, sawdust, bark mulch) and multiple hayfields, fallow meadows and riparian areas along two waterways in the vicinity of Smethport. All private, local, state and federal landowners are committed to continued seedbank suppression in the future.

36

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL PROGRAM FOR MILE-A-MINUTE VINE IN CONNECTICUT. T.L. Mervosh*, C.A. Cheah, and D.R. Ellis, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT (44)

ABSTRACT

Mile-a-minute vine (MAM), also known as mile-a-minute weed, devil’s tearthumb or Asiatic tearthumb, has the botanical name of Persicaria perfoliata (L.) H. Gross (formerly Polygonum perfoliatum L.). This herbaceous plant is indigenous to eastern Asia and has an annual life cycle. MAM was introduced accidentally from China by a nursery in York County, PA in the 1930s. By the 1990s, MAM was established in eight eastern states. MAM is a serious invasive weed because it spreads rapidly in disturbed and natural habitats, where it can climb over and smother plants. In Connecticut, MAM was first identified in 2000 at the southwestern corner of the state in Greenwich (Fairfield County). Since then, MAM has spread to several other towns in Fairfield and Litchfield Counties. Large stands of MAM were discovered in 2008 in North Haven (New Haven Co.) and in September 2010 in Sprague (New London Co.). Many of these MAM sites are along rivers or streams, so herbicide use may not be feasible. A small weevil (Rhinoncomimes latipes Korotyaev) native to China has high specificity for MAM as a host plant and was deemed an excellent biological control candidate by the U.S. Forest Service. After extensive testing, these weevils were approved for field release by USDA-APHIS in 2004 and were released at MAM-infested sites in Delaware and New Jersey. In subsequent years, weevils were released in Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In 2009, Connecticut joined a regional program with support from the Forest Service and USDA-APHIS for the first releases of R. latipes in New England. This project is a collaboration between the University of Connecticut and The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, following protocols established at the University of Delaware. We received shipments of R. latipes weevils reared at a New Jersey Department of Agriculture laboratory. Our objective is to evaluate R. latipes as a biocontrol agent for MAM in Connecticut. In July 2009, we released a total of 7,000 weevils at seven MAM sites in the towns of Greenwich, Newtown, North Haven, Bridgewater and New Milford. In May 2010, we released a total of 6,000 weevils at four properties in Stamford, Westport and Fairfield. By the time weevils were released in 2009, MAM vine growth was extensive and some fruits were developing. Thus, the relatively small number of weevils (1,000 per site) caused little overall damage to MAM that year. However, feeding by adults resulted in many small holes in leaves. Mating and egg laying occurred, and larval tunneling into MAM stems was observed. A second generation of adults developed in late summer 2009. Most weevils survived the winter of 2009-10, and at sites in North Haven and Newtown, they survived extensive flooding in March 2010. Overwintering (or newly released) weevils began feeding early in the 2010 growing season, thus damage to MAM was more extensive. Three or more generations of weevils were produced in 2010, and some dispersed to MAM several hundred yards from release sites. No weevil damage was observed on native plants, including arrow-leaved tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum) and other Polygonum species. Depending on R. latipes availability in 2011, we plan to release weevils at other MAM sites in CT.

37

ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE ASIATIC SAND SEDGE. A. Kloo, L. Wootton, and B.F. McDonnell*, National Park Service, Bushkill, PA (45)

ABSTRACT

The Asiatic sand sedge (Carex kobomugi) is an invasive plant that is expanding rapidly on coastal dunes throughout eastern North America. This species outcompetes native vegetation, reducing the abundance and diversity of native plants within these habitats. It also changes the suitability of invaded dunes as habitats for native animals, including endangered species such as the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Because of its lower stature relative to the dominant native dune species, it collects sand differently, so the invasion even changes the profile of invaded dunes. As a consequence of the severe ecosystem damage, environmental managers are increasingly realizing the need to control the spread of this species and to remove it from habitats that have already been invaded. The goal of this project was to determine the effectiveness of a variety of chemical control methods for C. kobomugi. In our first experiment glyphosphate (Accord Concentrate at 2% v/v, equivalent to approximately 0.5 gal/A), and five different rates of imazapic (4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 fl.oz./A of Plateau) were applied to three replicate plots each within a relatively homogenous population of C. kobomugi in September 2009. In our second experiment three replicate applications of each of glyphosphate (Accord Concentrate at 2% v/v, approximately 0.5 gal/A), imazapic (Plateau at 12 fl.oz./A) and halosulfuron (Sedgehammer at 1.3 oz/A) were applied to three replicate plots each within the same population in May 2010. The number of surviving plants was determined using stem counts within three, one m2 quadrats within each plot, and the resulting mean was compared to control plots to which a solution of the surfactant, colorant and water, but no active herbicide, had been applied. Both Accord Concentrate and Plateau resulted in significant reductions in sedge survival relative to the control. There was no significant difference between the number of plants surviving in plots treated with Accord Concentrate or Plateau, or between plots receiving different concentrations of Plateau. However, qualitatively, Accord Concentrate performed better than Plateau, and intermediate concentrations of Plateau resulted in lower numbers of surviving sedge than did the lowest and highest application rates. In our second experiment, significant declines in sedge survival were seen with Plateau, but Sedgehammer and Accord Concentrate did not result in significantly lower survival of the sedge relative to the control. However, the second experiment was performed very early in the season, and a rainstorm occurred soon after applications, so these results may not be reflective of the true effectiveness of these products. We are currently repeating the second experiment and will report the results during our presentation if available. We conclude that both imazapic and glyphosphate significantly reduce the survival of Carex kobomugi. However, neither product completely eliminates the species in a single application. The effectiveness of halosulfuron for the control of this species is unclear.

38

PROGRAMS FOR SWALLOW-WORT (DOG-STRANGLING VINE) CONTROL. N.P. Cain* and M. Irvine, Cain Vegetation, Acton, ON (46)

ABSTRACT

Although present in Canada since the late 1800’s, dog-strangling vine (DSV, Vincetoxicum rossicum) has become a major invasive weed in Toronto and the regions to the northeast , infesting large areas of plantation forest and ROWs. This project evaluated aminopyralid (Milestone), glyphosate (Vantage Plus Max), imazapyr (Arsenal Powerline) or triclopyr (Garlon Ultra) for control of dog-strangling vine on non-crop lands and demonstrated different control programs. Three multi-year trials were carried out near Bradford, Whitby and Orono, in southern Ontario. Table 1 presents the treatment programs used. Whitby Trial: In the first year ratings Arsenal provided less than 68% control, but at both rating periods in the second year, Arsenal at both rates provided 100% DSV control, including seedlings. Three applications of Vantage Plus Max, a program used by the City of Toronto Parks staff, provided excellent control of DSV, by providing control of escapes and emerging seedlings with the repeat treatments, 99.8% control with 75% control of seedlings at 427 d after treatment (DAT). Milestone provided good control, 91 to 94% control by the end of the second year, better than the rating earlier in that year. Garlon Ultra provided excellent early control of DSV, 92.8% control at 86 DAT, but escapes and new seedlings emerged in the second year, necessitating a second treatment. The final evaluations in 2010 evaluated the complete program of two Garlon Ultra treatments. Bradford Trial. One year after treatment, Vantage Max Plus treatments provided significant control of DSV, 81 to 84% control, compared to the untreated plots. One Milestone treatment provided 45 to 52.5% control. The Milestone treatments provided 100% DSV seedling control a year after treatment compared to 25% control with the Vantage Plus Max treatment. By the end of the second year, 441 DAT, Vantage Max Plus program provided significant control of DSV, 94.8% control, compared to 27.5% control with no treatment at 441 DAT. The Milestone treatments only provided 51 to 64% control, not significantly better than the other treatments. There was a great deal of variability in the control of seedlings and there was no significant difference among treatments. DSV seedling control ranged from 82.5% seedling control with Vantage Plus Max program, to 51 to 53.8% control with Milestone, and 67.3% control with the untreated control (due to the thick canopy of mature plants). Orono trial. Both Arsenal Powerline treatments provided 100% control of DSV compared to the untreated plots at 355 DAT. The remaining herbicides provided 60% or less control. By fall, 402 DAT, both rates of Arsenal Powerline still provided excellent control, 96 and 94.8 %, compared to the untreated and one Garlon Ultra treatment, 0 and 30% control respectively. Two treatments of Garlon Ultra and Vantage Plus Max provided 57.5 and 54.8% control respectively, significantly better than the untreated. These herbicide programs provide options for controlling dog-strangling vine, depending on the use of the site.

39

Table 1. Treatment programs for dog-strangling vine (pale swallow-wort), Vincetoxicum rossicum. Trt No

Treatment Year 1: first or only treatment

Year 1: second treatment

Year 2 treatment

Whitby Trial

1 Untreated check no treatment no treatment no treatment

2 Milestone 0.5 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5%

Milestone no treatment no treatment

3 Milestone 0.5 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5% - twice

Milestone no treatment Milestone

4 Garlon Ultra 4 L/ha - twice Garlon Ultra no treatment Garlon Ultra

5 Vantage Plus Max 9 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5%- three ttimes

Vantage Plus Max

Vantage Plus Max Vantage Plus Max

6 Arsenal Powerline 3 L/ha + Agral 90 0.25%

no treatment Arsenal Powerline

no treatment

7 Arsenal Powerline 2.08 L/ha + Agral 90 0.25%

no treatment Arsenal Powerline

no treatment

Bradford Trial

1 Untreated check no treatment no treatment no treatment

2 Milestone 0.5 L/ha Milestone no treatment no treatment

3 Milestone 0.5 L/ha - twice Milestone no treatment Milestone

4 Vantage Plus Max 9 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5%- three times

Vantage Plus Max Vantage Plus Max Vantage Plus Max

Orono Trial

1 Arsenal Powerline 3 L/ha + Agral 90 0.25%

Arsenal Powerline no treatment no treatment

2 Arsenal Powerline 2.08 L/ha + Agral 90 0.25%

Arsenal Powerline no treatment no treatment

4 Garlon Ultra 4 L/ha Garlon Ultra no treatment no treatment

5 Garlon Ultra 4 L/ha - twice Garlon Ultra no treatment Garlon Ultra

6 Vantage Plus Max 9 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5% -three times

Vantage Plus Max Vantage Plus Max Vantage Plus Max

7 Vantage Plus Max 9 L/ha + Agral 90 0.5% - twice

Vantage Plus Max no treatment Vantage Plus Max

8 Untreated check no treatment no treatment no treatment

40

RESPONSE OF THE INVASIVE VINE PALE SWALLOW-WORT FOLLOWING TWO YEARS OF MOWING AND HERBICIDE APPLICATION. A. DiTommaso*, L.R. Milbrath, and T. Bittner, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (47)

ABSTRACT

Pale swallow-wort [PSW] (Vincetoxicum rossicum) is an invasive non-native perennial vine that is increasing in many regions of the NE U.S. and southern Canada. It thrives in old fields but can also establish in shaded forest understories. Control of PSW has been difficult and limited information is available on the efficacy of herbicides for its control. We conducted a 2-yr (2008/09) herbicide and clipping study in an old field (OF) and adjacent forest understory (FU) site near Ithaca, NY. We compared 7 treatments on PSW stem density and percent cover in these habitats. Treatment plots were 4 x 4 m and vegetation in all plots was mowed to a 5 cm height in mid-June of both years. There were 7 replicate plots for each treatment (49 plots total/ habitat). The 7 treatments were: (1) glyphosate (Roundup Pro®) at 4.87 & 2.44 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (2) triclopyr triethylamine salt (Brush-B-Gone®) at 0.93 & 0.46 kg ai/ha in OF and FU; (3) triclopyr triethylamine salt (Garlon®3A) at 4.87 & 1.70 kg ai/ha in OF and FU; (4) triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (Garlon®4 Ultra) at 2.99 & 0.43 kg ai/ha in OF and FU; (5) triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (Garlon®4 Ultra) at 4.87 & 2.27 kg ai/ha in OF and FU; (6) an untreated check; and (7) a second mowing at the time of herbicide application. Pre-treatment assessments of PSW stem number and percent cover, in a 1 x 1m sub-plot, were made a few days prior to mowing (mid-June). Herbicides were applied in late August with a CO2 back-pack sprayer pressurized at 100 kPa. Post-treatment measurements for 2008 & 2009 applications were made in mid-June 2009 and 2010, respectively. By mid-June 2010, treatment effects differed in the two habitats. In the OF, the highest reductions in cover relative to pre-treatment levels were observed for the triclopyr butoxyethyl (Garlon®4 Ultra– 4.87 kg/ha) (84%) and glyphosate-treated plots (77%). Mowing plots twice in 2008 and 2009 resulted in a 301% increase in PSW cover. The density of large (>5cm) PSW stems declined by 86% in triclopyr triethylamine (Garlon®3A– 4.87 kg/ha) and triclopyr butoxlyethyl (4.87 kg/ha)-treated plots. Large stem density increased by 73% in mowed plots. Small (<5cm) stem density decreased in all treatments, with the greatest decline (96%) in plots treated with triclopyr triethylamine at 4.87 kg/ha. In the FU, cover was reduced in all treatments including mowed plots (20%). The highest reductions were achieved in the glyphosate (80%) and triclopyr triethylamine (78%) (1.70 kg/ha)-treated plots. Large stem density decreased in all FU treatments, with the largest decrease (91%) occurring in triclopyr triethylamine (1.70 kg/ha)-treated plots. The greatest decline in small stem density (37%) occurred in plots treated with triclopyr butoxyethyl at 2.27 kg/ha. The density of small stems increased by 77% in triclopyr triethylamine (Brush-B-Gone®– 0.46 kg/ha)-treated plots and by 36% in triclopyr butoxyethyl (0.43 kg/ha)-treated plots. Findings suggest that management of PSW using herbicides in combination with mowing can be effective but may vary with habitat. Land managers should consider these possible differences to ensure successful control of this vine.

41

CARRYOVER EFFECTS OF AMINOPYRALID, CLOPYRALID, OR AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR ON SPRING-PLANTED TREE SEEDLINGS. A.E. Gover* and R.K. Wagoner, Penn State, University Park, PA (48)

ABSTRACT

Glyphosate at 3.4 kg ae/ha, alone or in combination with aminopyralid at 0.12, clopyralid at 0.55, or aminocyclopyrachlor plus chlorsulfuron at 0.26 plus 0.11 kg/ha was applied October 27, 2009 to a riparian area (Brinkerton silt loam) at Canoe Creek State Park, Hollidaysburg, PA, to be planted spring 2010 with tree seedlings. The treatments were applied to 2.7 by 12 m plots arranged in a randomized complete block with three replications. At treatment, vegetation consisted primarily of sparse regrowth of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) resulting from a June 2009 application of glyphosate at 3.4 kg ae/ha. On April 30, 2010, each plot was planted with seedlings of silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), river birch (Betula nigra L.), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida L.), black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), black locust (Robin pseudoacacia L.), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentals L.), and each seedling was enclosed in a 1.5 m tall tree shelter after measuring the height of the terminal bud. The predominant vegetation at tree planting was a sparse stand (approximately 10 percent cover) of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.). The seedlings were visually assessed for injury August 2, 2010 using a 0 to 3 scale (0=no injury, 1=slight, 2=moderate, 3=severe/dead), and height of the terminal bud on living trees was measured September 23, 2010. Data were subjected to analysis of variance, using a randomized complete block with a split-plot treatment arrangement, with herbicide treatment as main plot and tree species as sub-plots. Herbicide treatment, averaged over species, was a significant effect only for tree mortality on September 23. Glyphosate plus clopyralid treated plots had 33 percent mortality, which was significantly higher than glyphosate alone or with aminocyclopyrachlor plus chlorsulfuron (0 and 6 percent, respectively). Plots treated with glyphosate plus aminopyralid had 17 percent mortality, which was not significantly different from any of the other treatments. Species effect was significant only for tree height, which was analyzed as the difference between planting height and final height. Dead trees had a final height of 0 cm, and therefore had a difference that was the negative of their planting height. Living stems that suffered tip dieback, resprouted lower on the stem and were shorter than when planted also had negative heights. Black locust had the greatest average growth (85 cm), and was not significantly different from sycamore (52 cm) and birch (47 cm). Maple (41 cm) was significantly lower than locust, and dogwood (-9 cm) and walnut (-19 cm) were significantly lower than all other species.

42

EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR SELECTIVE WEED CONTROL IN TURF. J.M. Johnson*, K. Lloyd, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA (49)

ABSTRACT

Broadleaf weed control improves aesthetics, enhances turf integrity, and assures roadside safety. Effective management programs utilize herbicide rotations and integrate novel chemistries in order to prevent herbicide resistance. A new synthetic auxin, aminocyclopyrachlor, was evaluated in combination with other active ingredients for dicot weed control and safety to turf. Spring and late summer trials were established at two trial sites in Blair county, PA using several tank mix combinations of: aminocyclopyrachlor mixed with chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron, or rimsulfuron; aminopyralid alone or combined with imazapic or metsulfuron; and untreated checks. All herbicide treatments included a nonionic surfactant at 0.5 percent v/v. Studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were applied at a rate of 374 L/ha, using a CO2-powered sprayer. At trial site 1, treatments were applied to 7 by 9 m plots on September 24, 2009 and May 6, 2010. At trial site 2, treatments were applied to 2 by 8 m plots on May 28 and August 25, 2010. Initially, the percent total cover and cover by species was recorded. Subsequent ratings evaluated percent injury or phytotoxicity to turf and injury or control of select broadleaf species. An analysis of variance was conducted using Fisher’s Protected LSD and a significance level of 0.05. Control of broadleaf plantain, aster, red clover, dandelion, and wild carrot at the first site was 98 percent or greater at 224 d after treatment (DAT) and 117 DAT for the fall and spring-applied treatments, respectively, of aminocyclopyrachlor at 132 g/ha plus chlorsulfuron at 53 g/ha or metsulfuron at 21 g/ha. Injury to tall fescue was noted using metsulfuron at rates as low as 21 g/ha; however, by 117 DAT the effects were not noticeable. At site 2, chicory and goldenrod cover were completely eliminated with spring-applied treatments of aminocyclopyrachlor plus chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron with rates as low as 132 g/ha plus 26 g/ha or 66g/ha plus 11 g/ha, respectively, by 105 DAT. The higher rate of 132 g/ha aminocyclopyrachlor combined with chlorsulfuron was needed to gain full control of goldenrod. Fall-applied treatments of 132 g/ha aminocyclopyrachlor plus 53 g/ha chlorsulfuron or 21 g/ha metsulfuron resulted in 96 to 100 percent injury to chicory, 68 to 72 percent injury to goldenrod, and 43 to 60 percent injury to aster at 30 DAT. The aminocyclopyrachlor plus chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron tank mixes did not result in unacceptable injury to tall and fine fescue. In contrast, aminocyclopyrachlor plus rimsulfuron or aminopyralid plus imazapic did cause initial and unacceptable injury to tall and fine fescue or tall fescue, respectively. The aminocyclopyrachlor plus chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron combinations and rates evaluated in these studies provided effective control of all broadleaf species tested, except goldenrod and aster, and demonstrated equal or improved control to the other mixes tested. At higher rates aminocyclopyrachlor increased control of goldenrod.

43

AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN COMBINATION WITH PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR BAREGROUND WEED CONTROL. K. Lloyd*, J.M. Johnson, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA (50)

ABSTRACT

Season-long maintenance of bareground presents a challenge for single-application herbicide programs given the extended germination period of many annual weeds, such as foxtails and kochia. Aminocyclopyrachlor, a new synthetic auxin, was applied in combination with glyphosate and several preemergence herbicides to evaluate the effectiveness of each tankmix for total vegetation control. A trial was established in State College, PA and included fourteen treatments as follows: aminocyclopyrachlor at both 140 and 210 g/ha rates mixed with either rimsulfuron at 70.1 g/ha, oxyfluorfen at 1.12 kg/ha, oryzalin at 3.37 kg/ha, pendimethalin at 2.10 kg/ha, or diuron at 2.24 kg/ha; aminocyclopyrachlor at 140 g/ha with either flumioxazin at 281 g/ha or sulfentrazone at 281 g/ha; pendimethalin alone at 2.10 kg/ha; and an untreated check. All herbicide treatments included glyphosate at 2.24 kg ae/ha and nonionic surfactant at 0.5 percent v/v. The treatments were applied to 2 by 5 m plots in a randomized complete block design with three replications at a rate of 470 L/ha on April 22, 2010, using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer. Glyphosate was reapplied at 2.24 kg ae/ha on May 10, 2010, to eliminate vegetation that had escaped the first treatment. The study was visually rated for total and kochia cover 0, 13, 32, 55, 91, and 120 d after treatment (DAT). Kochia control (0 = no injury, 100 = death) was assessed at 13, 32, and 55 DAT. All data were subjected to ANOVA, and when treatment effect F-tests were significant (p ≤ 0.05), means were compared using Fisher's Protected LSD. Total cover on treated plots remained less than 2 percent through 55 DAT, and kochia control ranged from 99 to 100 percent among treatments, whereas the untreated check averaged 18 and 7 percent total and kochia cover, respectively. By 91 DAT, total cover had increased among several of the treatments, with a maximum of 14 percent, largely due to the growth of annual grasses, including foxtails, barnyardgrass, and sprangletop. Kochia cover remained at 0 percent for all treatments except pendimethalin alone (3 percent). Treatment efficacy against late-season grass germination was more apparent at 120 DAT. Those treatments containing aminocyclopyrachlor plus either oryzalin, pendimethalin, oxyfluorfen, or sulfentrazone had significantly lower total cover than aminocyclopyrachlor plus diuron; however, there were no significant differences in kochia cover (0 to 1 percent) among the aminocyclopyrachlor combinations. Increasing the rate of aminocyclopyrachlor from 140 to 210 g/ha decreased kochia cover from 1 to 0 percent. The combination of aminocyclopyrachlor at up to 210 g/ha plus diuron at 2.24 kg/ha failed to produce acceptable annual grass control. All treatments provided excellent preemergence control of kochia; however, the second application of glyphosate on May 10 likely decreased kochia pressure. Since aminocyclopyrachlor is selective to grasses, it should be mixed with either an additional broad-spectrum herbicide or preemergence material that will control annual grasses, such as oryzalin or pendimethalin.

44

BAYER CROPSCIENCE HERBICIDE-TOLERANT TRAIT TECHNOLOGY IN CORN AND SOYBEAN. J. Allen*, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC (53)

ABSTRACT

Bayer seed and trait business enjoys a rich research pipeline and a strong market position in its core market areas of oilseeds, cotton, rice and vegetables while working to expand in wheat, soybean, sugarcane, and corn markets. Bayer has an internationally renowned and comprehensive intellectual property portfolio as well as highly expert personnel who are committed to ensuring a responsible and effective use of our products and technologies. In the lab, effort is focused on the development of traits for improved yield, improved quality, and limiting abiotic and biotic stress impacts on the crop. In the field, Bayer has developed and commercialized the LibertyLink trait technology for corn, soybean, which provides an alternative herbicide tolerant trait technology for Integrated Weed Management in addition to other traits in the core markets. Bayer has broadly licensed its soybean and corn trait technology to the seed industry. Bayer continues its focus on Integrated Weed Management with trait development in soybean and corn. Bayer, in collaboration with M.S. Technologies, is working to bring soybean varieties to the market tolerant to both glyphosate and to HPPD inhibitors.

45

DICAMBA-TOLERANT SOYBEANS: A TECHNICAL UPDATE. D.J. Mayonado* and S. Seifert-Higgins, Monsanto, Salisbury, MD (54)

ABSTRACT

The growing global demand for food, feed and fuel will require increased yields per acre of land. Effective, integrated weed control systems are key to help farmers meet this growing demand. The addition of dicamba tolerance to the Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield™ Soybean platform will offer growers an additional tool for flexible and effective weed management along with the increased yield opportunity of Roundup Ready 2 Yield. Once approved, the dicamba tolerant technology will enable the use of dicamba and glyphosate tank-mixes for preplant burndown, at planting, and in-season applications adding considerable weed control value to the well-established and effective Roundup Ready® system. Dicamba is an economical herbicide that controls a broad spectrum of broadleaf weed species including those tough-to-control and/or resistant to ALS chemistry and glyphosate. Farmers have successfully used dicamba for decades in crops such as corn and wheat with few cases of documented weed resistance in the U.S. Dicamba tolerant soybeans will not be a stand alone weed control solution but will be part of an agronomically sound weed management system. Monsanto has been working with a group of academics over the past years to develop regionalized weed management systems for Dicamba tolerant soybeans. Early data demonstrate effective season-long weed control from an integrated approach that includes the use of residual components and different herbicide mode of actions. To help guide research efforts and address concerns with the launch of this trait, Monsanto has formed a Dicamba Advisory Council. The role of this council is to provide stakeholder input into the development of appropriate stewardship measures and weed control systems for this trait. Furthermore, extensive research programs have been initiated to identify appropriate application systems that address concerns regarding potential off-target movement of dicamba chemistry. Monsanto and BASF agreed to accelerate the development of innovative formulations for dicamba for use with herbicide-tolerant cropping systems. Both companies are working together to develop robust Best Management Practices for the use of dicamba over Dicamba tolerant soybeans allowing farmers to fully realize the benefits of this dual stacked herbicide tolerant weed control system in soybean. The Dicamba tolerant soybean project is in the Phase III stage of Monsanto’s research and development pipeline. Regulatory submission to the U. S. Department of Agriculture was made in July of 2010; submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and key global markets are anticipated to follow shortly. Dicamba tolerant soybeans are projected to be commercialized in the middle of this decade, pending global regulatory approvals with initial product launches in the U.S. and Canada.

46

DOW AGROSCIENCES HERBICIDE-TOLERANT TRAIT TECHNOLOGY FOR CORN AND SOYBEAN. B.D. Olson* and M.A. Peterson, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (55)

ABSTRACT

Dow AgroSciences Herbicide Tolerant (DHT) Trait Technology confers robust tolerance to the herbicide 2,4-D in corn, cotton and soybeans. The technology offering will also provide tolerance to glufosinate in soybeans and cotton and the FOP class of grass herbicides in corn. DHT will be stacked with other herbicide tolerance traits such as glyphosate tolerance to provide users a diverse and more complete herbicide system. By incorporating multiple classes of herbicides, the efficacy against glyphosate-resistant and hard-to-control weeds, such as: morningglory, pigweed (including Palmer amaranth), giant and common ragweed, lambsquarters, marestail, waterhemp and velvetleaf, will be greater than a single mode of action herbicide system. By managing these hard-to-control weeds with multiple modes of action, the DHT trait technology will help sustain the widely adopted glyphosate cropping system that helps make farming easier, more affordable and more environmentally beneficial. Along with the DHT trait technology, Dow AgroSciences is investing in research and development of novel 2,4-D herbicide technology. This technology will be specifically designed and authorized for use over-the-top of crops containing the DHT trait to deliver high levels of broad spectrum performance which align with Dow AgroSciences’ significant commitments to the stewardship of the technology. One aspect for this research is focused on improving safety to adjacent, sensitive crops by decreasing volatility and reducing drift. Dow AgroSciences will provide a comprehensive stewardship program that will maintain the long-term viability of the DHT system.

47

THE NEXT GENERATION OF HERBICIDE RESISTANT CROPS – ARE WE EXCITED? VIEWS FROM ACADEMIA AND BEYOND. W.S. Curran* and D. Mortensen, Penn State, University Park, PA (56)

ABSTRACT

During the period since the introduction of glyphosate resistant crops, the number of weedy plant species that have evolved resistance to glyphosate has increased dramatically from zero in 1995 to 19 in June of 2010. A recent National Research Council report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804) lists at least nine species of weeds resistant to glyphosate in the US, largely because of repeated exposure to glyphosate. Italian ryegrass, horseweed, Johnsongrass, common and giant ragweed, Palmer amaranth, and common waterhemp are the confirmed glyphosate resistant weed problems of today. Here in Pennsylvania and in most of the Northeast, setting aside some of the older resistance problems of the past (e.g. triazines, etc.) and focusing on glyphosate, we have been lucky thus far and are “only” dealing with glyphosate resistant horseweed and scattered populations of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed and suspected problems with common lambsquarters. But, where is the future of weed control in corn, soybean, and other northeastern crops heading if we continue to select for more glyphosate resistant and tolerant weeds? Do these glyphosate resistant weeds mean a return to using older products like bentazon, lactofen, acifluorfen, and 2,4-DB in soybean? Or will the latest transgenic technology currently being tested in regulated experiments across the US corn belt (DHT, dicamba resistance, and GAT) and being presented and discussed today nip this problem in the bud or at least delay the useful demise of glyphosate and other currently valuable chemistry? It’s never been more clear to us that the need to identify and develop integrated weed management programs that emphasize herbicide rotation and effective tank mixes in combination with nonchemical management strategies is critical for preserving the technology we have become so dependent on, but how do we achieve this goal? Voluntary adoption of good stewardship practices is a hard sell, but regulating herbicide use is controversial and opposition to this idea is widespread. These are discussions our scientific community must continue having, but time is short.

48

CAN EMERGED BITTERCRESS, OXALIS, AND SPURGE SEEDLINGS BE CONTROLLED USING PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES IN THE NURSERY? K.A. Hester*, C.L. Palmer, E. Vea, and J. Baron, The IR-4 Project, Exton, PA (57)

ABSTRACT

During 2008 and 2009, the IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program tested twelve pre-emergent herbicides across the United States to determine whether they had potential use in controlling emerged weeds at the cotyledon to 1 leaf or 2 to 4 leaf stage. Three troublesome weeds were targeted including bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta), oxalis (Oxalis stricta), and spurge (Euphorbia humistrata). Bittercress was controlled at the early postemergence application timings with Certainty (sulfosulfuron) at 0.035 to 0.094 lb ai/A, EXC3898 at 2.1 to 3.1 lb ai/A, and Gallery 75 DF (isoxaben) at 1.0 lb ai/A. Spurge control at early postemergence was demonstrated with 4.0 lb ai/A of Pendulum (pendimethalin). Emerged oxalis seedlings showed significant impact from Broadstar VC1604 at 0.375 lb ai/A and V-10142 at 0.38 to 0.75 lb ai/A; however, the impacts from these products were inconsistent and additional research on several other products is needed. Limited experiments including Broadstar 0.25G, Casoron, Freehand, HGH-63, and Tower showed promise on at least one weed species.

49

HERBICIDE SPRAYS FOR CONTAINER-GROWN HYDRANGEA. J. Ahrens and S. Barolli*, Imperial Nurseries, Granby, CT (58)

ABSTRACT

In earlier work (Proc. NEWSS 57:36) we found that container-grown bigleaf hydrangea (Hydrangea macrophylla ‘Merritts Supreme’) were sensitive to sprays of isoxaben alone or in combination with dinitroaniline herbicides. This work showed that sprays of diuron at 0.25 lb/A were less injurious than isoxaben to bigleaf hydrangea. In a 2010 experiment we tested again the effects of diuron sprays and also a newer herbicide, dimethenamid-p (Tower), on three macrophylla varieties. The hydrangeas were potted on June 7, 2010 into 1-gal containers, with a mix of 70% bark, 15% sand and 15% peat. The three hydrangea varieties were ‘Big Daddy’, ‘Penny Mac’ and ‘Endless Summer’. Three containers of each variety and six plantless containers were in each plot and the treatments were replicated four times in randomized complete blocks. The herbicides were applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held boom and 8004 tips, applying 50 gal/A at 3 ft/second, first on June 10. The hydrangea foliage, at treatment, was wet and some plants showed chlorosis. After applying the herbicide sprays, which took 40 minutes, the plants were irrigated for 20 minutes. Seeds of groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) were sown in treated plantless containers on June 17. Diuron 80W was applied at 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 lb ai/A and, in combination with oryzalin 4AS, at 0.25 + 2 and 0.5 + 4 lb ai/A, and with prodiamine 65WG at 0.25 + 1 and 0.5 + 2 lb ai/A. The standard comparisons included in the experiment, that are used on most plants at Imperial Nurseries, were isoxaben 75DF + oryzalin AS at 1 + 2 lb ai/A and isoxaben 75DF + prodiamine 65WG at 1 + 1 lb ai/A. Dimethenamid-p was applied at 1, 2 and 4 lb ai/A. The second treatment, of dimethenamid-p only, was applied on pre-wetted foliage on July 3 and the plants were irrigated for 20 minutes immediately after application. All of the diruon treatments, alone or in combination, caused excessive injury to the bigleaf hydrangeas after one application and were not treated a second time. Note that the hydrangea varieties differed from the variety tested in the earlier work. Dimethenamid-p at the lowest rate (1 lb ai/A) caused commercially acceptable injury to all three varieties and differences in dosage of dimethenamid-p did not appear to be important. Dimethenamid-p at 1 lb ai/A gave 95% control of large crabgrass and 90% control of common groundsel. This experiment indicates that further research with dimethenamid-p is warranted in container-grown bigleaf hydrangea.

50

POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF DOVEWEED. J.F. Derr*, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA (59)

ABSTRACT

Doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan), a summer annual weed in the spiderwort family (Commelinaceae), has been increasing in the nursery industry in the southeastern United States. It has also become a common weed in cotton, soybean, and turf in the southeast. Doveweed, a native of India, has been reported in 23 countries, and has been considered the third worst weed of the Commelinaceae worldwide. Doveweed is commonly found in wet areas such as drainage ditches, gravel areas in container production, and low areas with standing water but will also grow in cultivated lands, in containers, and in landscaped areas where it forms dense mats that compete with desired plants. There are only a few preemergence herbicides that provide acceptable control of this wed. In work conducted by Joseph Neal and Jeffrey Derr, the only preemergence nursery herbicides that controlled doveweed were dimethenamid, flumioxazin, and metolachlor. Little information is available on the postemergence control of doveweed. The objective of this research was to evaluate selective and nonselective herbicides available to the nursery industry for management of this weed. Doveweed was grown in one gallon containers of pine bark and all treatments were applied overtop plants using a CO2-pressurized back sprayer. For comparison, Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis L.), another weed in the spiderwort family, was included in the trials for comparison. Bentazon, halosulfuron, oxyfluorfen, and sulfentrazone did not provide acceptable control of doveweed or Asiatic dayflower. Sprayed applications of flumioxazin, glufosinate, and glyphosate all significantly reduced doveweed and Asiatic dayflower shoot fresh weight. Glufosinate gave a numerically greater reduction in doveweed shoot weight compared to glyphosate. When plants were cut back and then allowed to regrow, flumioxazin gave the numerically greatest reduction in regrowth shoot weight for doveweed of the three postemergence herbicides.

51

UPDATE ON 2010 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C.L. Palmer*, E. Vea, K.A. Hester, J. Baron, and E. Lurvey, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (60)

ABSTRACT

The 2010 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored crop safety testing of over-the-top applications on six different herbicide products: Biathlon (oxyfluorfen + prodiamine), Broadstar 0.25 VC1604 (flumioxazin), Freehand G (dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin), Gallery (isoxaben), Snapshot (trifluralin + isoxaben), Sulfosulfuron, and Tower EC (dimethenamid-p). The goal of this research was to screen these new herbicides for safety on woody and herbaceous perennials grown primarily in container nurseries. Applications were made at dormancy and approximately 6 weeks later for all products with the exception of Broadstar 0.25G VC1604, which was applied once at the later application date. Biathlon was applied to 15 crops; Broadstar 0.25G was applied to 12 crops; Freehand was tested on 52 crops; Gallery was applied to 6 crops; Snapshot was applied to 47 crops; Sulfosulfuron was tested on 40 crops; and Tower was applied on 20 crops. The results from this research will aid in the development of the product labels and will help growers and landscape care professionals make more informed product choices.

52

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS WITH MESOTRIONE FOR POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN ACTIVELY GROWING CONIFERS. J. Ahrens* and T.L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT (61)

ABSTRACT

In previous experiments, mesotrione and a three-way combination of glyphosate (Roundup Original) plus oxyfluorfen (Goal Tender) plus clopyralid (Lontrel, Stinger) controlled many annual broadleaf weeds and grasses and proved non-injurious to ten actively-growing conifers grown as nursery plants or Christmas trees (Proceedings NEWSS vol. 62, 63, 64). In one experiment in 2010, on a sandy loam soil in Windsor, CT, these herbicides were applied for a third year on the same ten conifers. The plants were eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), Fraser fir (Abies fraseri), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Norway spruce (Picea abies), white spruce (Picea glauca), Colorado spruce (Picea pungens), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), Japanese yew (Taxus media ‘Hicksii’) and juniper (Juniperus horizontalis ‘Blue Star’). All were actively growing at treatment. The herbicides were applied over-the-top in 25 gal/A with a four-nozzle hand-held boom and 8003-VS nozzles, on May 27 and repeated on July 1. Mesotrione 4SC was applied at 0.1875, 0.5 and 0.75 lb ai/A. The three-way combination of glyphosate plus oxyfluorfen plus clopyralid was applied at 0.125+0.25+0.094 lb ai/A and double these rates. Treatments were replicated four times in randomized complete blocks. No significant injury to any of the ten conifers was observed with any of these treatments. In Enfield, CT, on a silt loam soil, mesotrione was applied on June 2 and again on July 8, at 0.125, 0.1875, 0.5 and 0.75 lb ai/A, over actively-growing Fraser firs for a second year. Treatments were replicated four times in plots of six plants each. No injury to the firs was observed. In a third experiment, adjacent to the one above, Fraser firs planted in April 2010 were treated with mesotrione at the above rates with and without fluazifop-p-butyl (Fusilade DX) at rates of 0.25, 0.375, and 0.5 lb ai/A plus 0.25% NIS, when green foxtail (Setaria viridis) was 6 to 8 in tall on June 16 and again on July 22. Treatments were replicated four times in randomized complete blocks on plots, each with ten plants. None of the treatments injured the firs. Mesotrione alone did not control green foxtail but combinations of mesotrione with fluazifop-p-butyl gave complete control. It appears that the addition of fluazifop-p-butyl to mesotrione could improve control of grasses not controlled by mesotrione alone, without injury to actively-growing conifers.

53

SHRUB CANOPIES AFFECT GRANULAR HERBICIDES APPLIED TO CONTAINER CROPS. J. Altland*, R. Oliveira, and R. Derksen, USDA-ARS, Wooster, OH (62)

ABSTRACT

The most common formulation of preemergence herbicide used in container-grown shrubs are granular. Granular herbicides are broadcast applied overhead of container shrubs. Shrub canopies intercept some fraction of the applied herbicide, while the remainder falls to the substrate surface or the space between containers. Granular herbicide application is followed by 0.25 to 0.5 in irrigation. The role of the irrigation is to ‘wash’ the herbicide from the foliage and down onto the substrate surface, and to incorporate the herbicide and activate the chemical barrier within the substrate. The effect of shrub canopies and irrigation on herbicide quantity and uniformity beneath a shrub canopy has not been documented. The objective of this research was to determine the substrate surface interception of a common granular preemergence herbicide applied to two types of shrub canopy with and without irrigation. Hydrangea (H. macrophylla ‘Niko Blue’) and butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii ‘Pink Delight’) were potted in 3 gal. containers with a pine bark and peat moss substrate. At the time of potting, glass jars with 40 mm inside diameter were buried into the substrate so that only 2 mm of the jar protruded above the substrate surface. Four jars were buried in each container, spaced equally around the container and approximately 5 mm from the container edge. At the time of application, shrub canopies were considered mature, and extended beyond the diameter of the container. Applications were made with a Valmar 1255 granular boom applicator calibrated to deliver 200 lb/acre, traveling at 3 mph. The herbicide Freehand (BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC) was applied to hydrangea and butterfly bush with two separate applications. The first application was made and jars were collected immediately following application with care to not disturb the canopy and dislodge herbicide that might be captured within the canopy. A second application was made and followed immediately with 0.36 in irrigation. Canopies were shaken between the two applications to remove any herbicide from the canopy. Jars were weighed before and after the study to determine the amount of herbicide and water captured in each jar. Among butterfly bush, an equivalent of 192 lb/acre was collected in jars beneath the canopy when applications were not followed by irrigation. Applications followed by irrigation resulted in an equivalent of 227 lb/acre. In contrast to this, hydrangea received an equivalent of 113 lb/acre without irrigation and 142 lb/acre with irrigation. Irrigation increased herbicide on the substrate surface by 18% and 26% in butterfly bush and hydrangea, respectively. Overhead visual examination of the canopies showed that butterfly bush, with more narrow lanceolate leaves, are more open to movement of granules and water compared to the larger leafed hydrangea. It is likely that the leaf size and canopy structure hydrangea shed more herbicide and irrigation water away from the container substrate.

54

DIMETHENAMID-P: USE OF LIQUID AND GRANULAR FORMULATIONS IN LANDSCAPE BEDS. K. Kalmowitz*, R.J. Keese, and K. Miller, BASF Corp., Raleigh, NC (63)

ABSTRACT

Dimethenamid-P was registered in 2008 as a preemergence herbicide for ornamental uses including commercial field and container production and non-turfgrass landscape areas. Both a liquid EC dimethenamid-p (720 g/L) formulation and the dimethenamid-P + pendimethalin granular formulation (1.75%) are registered for over-the-top applications in nursery production and landscape sites. Previously, IR-4 researchers reported pendimathalin 2 G to have broad tolerance to herbaceous annuals and perennial ornamental plants. Pendimethalin is one of the components in the 1.75% GR dimethenamid-P based product. Also, these same reports show metolachlor EC formulation has less plant tolerance when applied to herbaceous plants. Metolachlor and dimethenamid-P preemergence herbicides are both chloroacetamide Group 15 herbicides. Research objectives in 2009-2010 focused on dimethenamid-P use in landscape maintenance and plant tolerance of herbaceous plants. The results show dimethenamid-P evaluated at use rates of 1.1 and/or 1.7 kg ai/ha for the 720 g ai/L EC and at 2, 3, and/or 3.9 kg ai/ha for the 1.75% GR along with exaggerated 2x or greater rates for plant tolerance as compared to a liquid or granular standard. Plant safety of some herbaceous plants improved when plants were established in the landscape as compared to applications made in container production. In the 2009 field trial in North Carolina Heuchera micrantha, Rudbeckia fulgida, Hemerocallis, Aquilegia vulgaris, Mulenbergia capillaries, Narcissus spp. and Tulipa spp. showed field tolerance to both herbicides and at use rates. The perennial, Veronica spicata showed sensitivity across locations and under all uses. A diverse group of annuals have demonstrated tolerance to both formulations of dimethenamid-P when applied over-the-top. Plant species such as Solenostemon spp. (coleus), Gomphrena globosa (globe amaranth), Tagetes spp. (African marigold), Ipomea (sweet potato vine), Celosia argentea(feathery amaranth), Angelonia spp.(summer snapdragon), Portulaca grandiflora (moss rose), Salvia splendens (salvia), Petunia hybrida, Zinnia linearis, Senecio cineraria (Dusty miller), Catharanthus roseus (Vinca) were all tolerant to both formulations of dimethenamid-P. Container studies previously showed few ornamental grasses had good safety margins to either dimethenamid-P products. New evaluations made to two ornamental grasses showed dimethenamid-P applied as either a granular or liquid delayed flowering and reduced overall inflorescence. This response is species specific and results demonstrate additional field trials will be required before grasses can be added to the labels for landscape uses.

55

OHP114-10 (INDAZIFLAM) A NEW PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR THE NURSERY MARKET. D.J. Barcel*, OHP, Genesee, WI (64)

ABSTRACT

OHP 114-10 (indaziflam) is a new preemergence herbicide for the field grown nursery market. It controls many common field nursery weeds such as annual bluegrass, common groundsel, spurge and others. OHP 114-10 was field tested in 2010 in the four quadrants of the USA- northwest, upper Midwest, southeast under commercial conditions having common field weeds. Several university trials evaluating for efficacy on specific weeds were also conducted (Auburn, Univ of Georgia, Cornell Univ, Univ of Florida). The use rates evaluated in the academic trials were 40, 60 or 80 g/ha applied once or 40 g/ha twice. Applications were made in the spring during normal nursery herbicide application periods. Spray volume was 100 gal/A with the application watered in using ½ inch of irrigation water. Weed counts were taken monthly. Initial results indicate excellent control on common nursery weeds such as spurge, Phyllanthus, common groundsel, oxalis and others with residual control up to 5 months or longer. Data suggests its activity is similar to flumioxazin. Ash, maple or black tupelo as well as many container ornamentals were tolerant to indaziflam. OHP 114-10 contains the active ingredient indaziflam which is a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor (CBI) and represents a novel mode of action for control of weeds in ornamentals.

56

EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY AND PLANT TOLERANCE OF INDAZIFLAM FOR CONTAINER NURSERY PRODUCTION. A.F. Senesac*, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, Riverhead, NY (65)

ABSTRACT

Three studies were conducted to evaluate weed control efficacy and container-grown ornamental plant tolerance to two granular formulations of the herbicide indaziflam. A plant tolerance study was conducted on: Aster ericoides 'Snow Flurry', Astilbe chinensis 'Pumila', Echinacea purpurea 'White Swan', Ophiopogon japonicus, Hibiscus moscheuto and Viburnum x burkwoodii. Two rates of indaziflam 0.03%G (0.045 and 0.09 lb ai/A) were compared to standard use rates of the granular herbicides Broadstar, Rout and Jewel. Treatments were applied to recent transplants in early June and repeated 8 weeks later. Visual evaluations of shoot growth were recorded regularly until eight weeks after the second application timing. Root growth was evaluated at the end of the study. The results of the shoot evaluations indicate that Astilbe and Echinacea were severely injured by both rates of indaziflam, but the other four species tolerated it well. Root evaluations indicated injury to these two species and also to Ophiopogon, particularly at the higher rate. Foliar injury was observed from Rout, Broadstar and Snapshot on Astilbe and Echinacea, but the severity and longevity of injury was greater in the indaziflam treatments for these species. An efficacy study was conducted to evaluate two formulations of indaziflam (0.03% G, 0.0224% G) applied at 0.045 lb ai/A. These treatments were compared to standard use rates of the granular herbicides Snapshot, Broadstar, Freehand, Ronstar and Jewel. The weed species: common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), common chickweed (Stellaria media), bittercress (Cardamine spp.) and crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) were overseeded shortly after treatment in May and retreatment in August, 2010. The results indicate that both formulations of indaziflam controlled bittercress and groundsel very well three months after treatment. Chickweed was controlled for a longer period by the 0.03%G formulation than the 0.0224% G. Crabgrass was well controlled by indaziflam for the first month after treatment, but control was poor at three months after treatment. In another study, using essentially the same treatments, yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta) and bittercress (Cardamine spp.) were overseeded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 weeks after treatment. The level of efficacy was evaluated for 3 months after each of the overseeding dates. The results indicate both weed species were very well controlled by both indaziflam formulations even at 12 weeks after the initial treatment. These results indicate that indaziflam has potential for being a useful weed management tool in container grown ornamental production.

57

WEED MANAGEMENT IMPACTS OF ROLL-KILLED COVER CROPS FOR ORGANIC CORN AND SOYBEANS. S. Reberg-Horton*, M. Wells, A.N. Smith, J.M. Grossman, M.C. Parr, and G.T. Place, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (66)

ABSTRACT

Roll-crimped cover crops have received recent attention as a possible means of reducing tillage in organic cropping systems. Beginning in 2008, multiple experiments were conducted on the agronomic and weed management impacts of roll-crimped cover crop mulches. Level of weed control was highly dependent on the amount of cover crop biomass. Percent yield loss due to weeds in soybean ranged from 0% with high rye biomass to greater than 80% reduction with low rye biomass. In the case of corn, mixed legume/rye mixtures outperformed straight legume plots in terms of both weed control and yield. While nitrogen contribution from the legumes was substantial, supplementation will likely be necessary in most years. Overall, both the rye/soybean and legume/corn system can reduce expenses for organic farmers but the long-term yield advantage or disadvantage to the system is still to be determined.

58

SYNERGISM BETWEEN CULTURAL WEED MANAGEMENT TACTICS. M.R. Ryan*, D. Mortensen, J. Teasdale, W.S. Curran, R.G. Smith, and S. Mirsky, Penn State, University Park, PA (67)

ABSTRACT

We developed a quantitative framework for evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of cultural weed management practices within an annual crop. Our framework provides a protocol that tests for synergism between tactics and which advances the quantitative underpinnings of the “many little hammers” approach to ecological weed management. This framework can be used to identify the relative contribution of multiple management practices, and can inform decisions about optimizing their use. We demonstrate the utility of this framework and report on an experiment that tested for synergism between increasing cereal rye mulch and crop seeding rate in organic no-till planted soybean. A synergistic interaction between these management practices was identified in two of the four site-years in which the experiment was conducted. In addition to outlining our protocol that statistically tests for synergism between cultural weed management practices, we also illustrate synergism between tactics using an isobologram. Isobolograms graphically depict the relationship between management tactics and can be a useful tool for visually evaluating the strength of interactions. Finally, we suggest using this framework to further refine our understanding of the interplay between weed ecology and tactic performance.

59

SUPPRESSION OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS AND ARTHRAXON AND NON-TARGET RESPONSE USING PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. A.E. Gover*, Penn State, University Park, PA (68)

ABSTRACT

Pendimethalin is the current preferred herbicide for selective PRE suppression of Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus var. imberbe (Nees) Honda) in park and natural areas due to efficacy, minimal impact to established non-target species, and history of use and manufacturer technical support. Pendimethalin is not effective after seed germination, and is not labeled for use in wetland settings. The impending introduction of flumioxazin and bispyribac with aquatic labels and increasing infestation of stiltgrass and jointhead arthraxon (Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino) in a seasonally wet meadow at Waterloo Mills Preserve in Devon, PA provided a setting to test pendimethalin and other herbicides against a new, C4 annual grass target. A second site at French Creek State Park, Elverson, PA was also used because it featured mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum L.) in addition to stiltgrass. The applications were delayed to test the utility of adding low rates of imazapic to strictly PRE herbicides to determine if the application window could be extended while maintaining selectivity. The April 1, 2010 treatments at Devon included pendimethalin at 2.1 kg/ha, and 4.3 kg/ha alone and in combination with imazapic at 0.018 kg/ha, prodiamine at 0.82 and 1.6 kg/ha, flumioxazin at 0.29 and 0.43 kg/ha, imazapic at 0.035 and 0.070 kg/ha, and bispyribac-sodium at 0.056 and 0.11 kg/ha. The Elverson treatments were applied April 9, 2010 and included pendimethalin at 4.5 kg/ha alone and in combination with imazapic at 0.018 or 0.035 kg/ha, prodiamine at 1.6 kg/ha alone or with 0.018 kg/ha imazapic, oryzalin at 4.5 kg/ha alone or with 0.018 kg/ha imazapic, and flumioxazin at 0.29 or 0.43 kg/ha.

When rated August 27, 2010, vegetative and stiltgrass cover at Devon averaged 87 and 32%, respectively, in control plots. Pendimethalin plus imazapic, prodiamine plus imazapic, and flumioxazin-treated plots averaged 1% or less stiltgrass cover. Arthraxon density was sporadic, and averaged only 2% in the control, with a maximum of 13 and 15% in the bispyribac-treated plots. There was no Arthraxon observed in plots treated with pendimethalin, alone or with imazapic, and flumioxazin. Prominent non-target species at Devon included several goldenrods (Solidago spp.), crabapple (Malus spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus L.), and mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum (L.) Duran & Jacks. ex B.L. Rob. & Fernald). Flumioxazin caused transient contact injury to all emerged species that were obscured by new growth by 33 DAT. Imazapic caused significant injury to soft rush, even at the 0.018 kg/ha rate, and the higher rates injured the undesirable reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) as well. At Elverson, except for short-term flumioxazin burn, significant injury was not observed on prominent non-target species, including goldenrods, deertongue (Dicanthelium clandestinum (L.) Gould), briars (Rubus spp.), grapes (Vitis spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze). Total vegetative and stiltgrass cover averaged 98 and 70% in control plots August 27, 2010. All treatments reduced stiltgrass cover to 20% or less, with pendimethalin plus imazapic, flumioxazin, and oryzalin plus imazapic-treated plots averaging 5% or less stiltgrass cover. Mile-a-minute seedlings were present at low densities in all plots at 0 DAT, but observed only in the controls on August 27.

60

SIXTY YEARS OF INVASIVE SPECIES CHANGE AT METTLER'S WOODS, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. R. Stalter*, St John's University, Queens, NY (69)

ABSTRACT

Mettler’s Woods, a 26 ha old growth forest, is the only uncut upland forest in New Jersey (Buell 1957). The woods were sampled by Bard (1952) who identified one hundred twelve vascular plant species of which five were non-native to the region. The objective of this study was to identify the non-native plant species at Mettler’s Woods during the spring 2010 growing season and to compare these species with those present at the site in 1951 at the conclusion of Bard’s study. Non-native species have increased from 5 taxa, 4.45% of the flora in 1951 to 11 species, 14.3% of the flora in 2010.

INTRODUCTION Mettler’s Woods is an old growth climax forest composing 26 ha in Somerset County, New Jersey 40.5081595 N Latitude, 74.5426554 W Longitude. This forest is one of the last uncut stands of old growth forest in the United States, and the only uncut upland forest in New Jersey (Buell 1957). The average age of the forest is 235 years though annual ring counts on several trees that died within the past twenty years attained an age of over 350 years. Bard (1952) reported that there were, “Fewer non-indigenous species at Mettler’s Woods than were present in nearby successional fields, aged 1-60 years.” Bard (1952) concluded that Mettler’s Woods was a “closed community.” and that it was, “impossible for the alien species to enter in competition with the long established native vegetation.” The primary objective of this study was to compare non-native vascular plant species present at Mettler’s Woods during the spring 2010 growing season with those present when Bard (1952) conducted her study at the site in 1949-1951. A second objective was to determine the time aggressive, invasive, non-native vascular plant species invaded Mettler’s Woods by examining voucher specimens in the Chrysler Herbarium, Rutgers University (Table 2). A third future objective will be to prepare a floristic inventory of Mettler’s Woods and to compare the vascular plant species present in 2010-2011 with those present at Mettler’s Woods in 1949-1951.

METHODS

Three collecting trips were made to Mettler’s Woods from April 17 to June 10, 2010. Objectives for each trip included collecting voucher specimens and accumulating information on abundance and habitat preference for each species. More than 100 specimens were the basis for this study. Taxonomically problem species were sent to various experts for identification. Gleason and Cronquist (1991) was consulted to determine to native status of each taxon. Bard’s (1952) dissertation was consulted to determine which non-native taxa were collected by her during 1949-1951. A comparison of the number and percentage of non-native taxa present at Mettler’s Woods during the 1949-1951 and spring 2010 collecting season is presented in Table 1. The number and percentage of non-native vascular plant species in Bard’s (1952)

61

Successional Fields and Mettler’s Woods and the spring 2010 collecting season are presented in Table 2. Nomenclature follows Gleason and Cronquist (1991).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bard (1952) reported 112 vascular plant species at Mettler’s Woods of which 5 were non-native, 4.46% of the total. A preliminary survey of the site during the spring 2010 included 77 species, of which 11, 14.3% of the total, were non-native (Table 2). Notable among the aggressive alien invasives since Bard (1952) completed her study were: Alliaria petiolata, Celastrus orbiculatus, Microstegium vimineum, and Rosa multiflora. An additional abundant invasive, Lonicera japonica, was present at Mettler’s Woods when Bard (1952) sampled the area in 1949-1951. Berberis thunbergii and B. vulgaris, two common shrubby aliens at the woods in the past, have been monitored, and when encountered, eliminated from the site by Rutgers University scientists. The seeds of Alliaria petiolata and Microstegium vimineum may have been transported to Mettler’s Woods epizocally in soil adhering to the feet fur and feathers of birds and small mammals while the seeds of Celastrus orbiculatus, L. japonica and R. multiflora may have been initially transported endozoically by birds and perhaps later by certain mammals. Germination of the seeds of these taxa may have been enhanced by ingestion as Krefting and Roe (1949) demonstrated that seed germination of certain plant species was enhanced after consumption by birds and mammals. Survival and growth of invasive vascular plant species may be encouraged by disturbances that create gaps in the forest. Disturbance events in Mettler’s Woods are browsing by white tail deer, wind throw during hurricanes, severe nor-easters, wind generation by passage of strong cold fronts, and defoliation outbreaks of gypsy moth infestation. Stalter and Serraro (1983) reported that oaks on mesic sites at the Greenbrook Sanctury, New Jersey, were more susceptible to severe gypsy moth infestation than those occupying sites where moisture conditions were less favorable. Death of old Mettler’s Woods trees have created gaps in the forest that may have favored light-loving alien taxa such as Celastrus orbiculatus, L. japonica and R. multiflora. LITERATURE CITED

1. Bard, G.E. 1952. Secondary succession on the piedmont of New Jersey. Ecol. Monogr. 22: 195-215.

2. Buell, M.F. 1957. The William L. Hutcheson Memorial Forest Bulletin, Dedication Issue. The Department of Botany, Rutgers. 42 pp.

3. Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist, 1991. Manual of Vascular plats of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, New York. 910 pp.

4. Krefting, L.W. and Roe, E.L. 1949. The role of some birds and mammals in seed germination. Ecol. Monogr. 19: 269-286.

62

5. Stalter, R. and Serraro, J. 1983. The impact of defoliation of gypsy moths on the oak forest at Greenbrook Sanctuary, New Jersey. Bull. Torrey Botanical Club. 110: 526-529.

Table 1. Number and percentage of non-native and native vascular plant species on abandoned fields of diverse ages and in Mettler’s Woods (MW), Somerset County, New Jersey. Data from Bard (1952) and from the present study, 2010.

Age of Field (yrs) Number of Non-native species Total Number of Species %Non-native Species

1 26 92 28.26 2 28 102 27.45 5 20 93 21.50 10 13 92 14.13 15 18 97 18.55 25 22 105 20.95 40 22 123 17.88 60 17 105 16.19 M.W. (1951) 5 112 4.46 M.W. (2010) 11 77 14.29

Table 2. Chrysler Herbarium acquisition data form aggressive non-native vascular plant species, Mettler’s Woods, NJ

Species Acquisition Data Ailanthus altissima 1960 Alliaria petiolata 1990 Berberis thunbergii 1949 Berberis vulgaris 1960 Celastrus orbiculatus 1960 Lonicera japonica 1960 Lonicera morrowii 1960 Microstegium vimineum None- Somerset County, 1959 Rosa multiflora 1967

63

CAN SWITCHGRASS ESTABLISH IN CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN AREAS? J.N. Barney* and J.M. DiTomaso, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (70)

ABSTRACT

To meet mandated energy demands for liquid transportation fuels and biomass-based electricity, dedicated energy crops will soon be planted on millions of hectares of US land. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), non-native to the western US, is a leading contender as a biomass crop due to its high yields, broad adaptability, and tolerance of poor growing conditions-traits that typify many of our worst invasive species. We have conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the probability of switchgrass escaping the cultivated environment and becoming an invasive species in California. The standard Weed Risk Assessment suggests that switchgrass has a high invasive potential in California unless a sterile cultivar is used-suggesting that the invasive potential lies in seed production and dispersal. A greenhouse study demonstrated that switchgrass is tolerant of both very dry (-11 MPa) and flooded soils, which increases the environments switchgrass can survive in moisture-limited California. However, a modeling study shows that riparian areas are the habitats of most concern as dryland areas are too dry for switchgrass, though we have demonstrated that roots can reach nearly 3 m deep in the establishment year. An ongoing field experiment is evaluating the survival and establishment potential of switchgrass using a controlled introduction in a local stream. Survival is low in upland (rain-fed) conditions with or without competition from resident vegetation. Survival and establishment is much higher in lowland conditions with most individuals growing large and flowering. Switchgrass appears to be a minor threat in dryland California due to limited soil moisture availability. However, riparian areas may serve as propagule reservoirs as switchgrass is capable of germinating, surviving, and establishing when water is not limiting. If sterile cultivars are introduced for biofuel production the invasive potential of switchgrass appears very low.

64

BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF MUGWORT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE. K.S. Torresen*, B.W. Oliver, I.S. Floistad, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (71)

ABSTRACT

Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) is a perennial in the Asteraceae family that was introduced to North America from its native Europe. In Europe, it is abundant along roadsides, field margins, fences, and non-crop areas, and occurs in perennial and annual crops especially in reduced tillage fields. In North America, A. vulgaris is abundant in nurseries, turfgrass, on roadsides and waste areas. It causes crop yield reductions and reduces the quality of crops and habitats. Moreover, pollen from this species causes seasonal allergies in some people. A. vulgaris typically flowers the second year after establishment from seeds. In Europe, A. vulgaris propagates mostly by seeds and single plants can produce 50,000-70,0000 seeds. The rootstock (rhizome) is short and thickened and new plants are usually formed if it is cut (e.g. by cultivation). North American studies show that A. vulgaris propagates primarily by an extensive rhizome system, while seed propagation is less important due to the production of few viable seeds. North American populations have been observed to be shorter, germinate earlier, have more ramets and greater belowground dry weight than European populations. These apparent differences will greatly affect the management of A. vulgaris. If seed production is an important feature of reproduction, then seed production should be curtailed. However, it is also important to remove the seed-producing plants. In populations that reproduce primarily via rhizomes, then plants should be removed and/or weakened. In Europe, it is relatively easy to control A. vulgaris with herbicides or plowing in arable crops, while this is more difficult in non-crop areas. A resource allocation study performed from spring to the initiation of flowering in Northern Europe showed a general increase in aboveground biomass during this period. In contrast, belowground biomass was reduced at the large rosette stage, at early stem elongation, and maybe during the last assessment, at the beginning of flowering. These stages may indicate a change in the directional flow of assimilates, and suggest when control efforts should be implemented. Interestingly, there were no differences in control when herbicides were applied in the late vegetative or the early flowering phase in a North American study. Experience from Northern Europe suggests that to prevent flowering, mowing should be performed at least twice during the growing season. Another option for smaller infestations, with a more concentrated root/ rhizome system than in North America, is to pull up the plant by hand before flowering. However, the most effective method of controlling A. vulgaris in non-crop areas still needs to be determined in Europe. North American research shows effective long term control of this species using the herbicides picloram, clopyralid, and large dose rates of glyphosate. Mowing prior to use of herbicides does not necessarily provide more effective control compared with not mowing.

65

EFFECTS OF PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR CONTROLLING WEEDS IN WILD BLUEBERRY. D.E. Yarborough* and J.L. D'Appollonio, University of Maine, Orono, ME (72)

ABSTRACT

A study to assess the effects of preemergence herbicides on wild blueberry cover, phytotoxicity and broadleaf and grass weed cover was conducted in spring/summer 2010 using an RCBD design with 6 replications: a check, hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) 6 pt/A, hexazinone (2.4 lb ai/gal) 4.8 pt/A, hexazinone (2.4 lb ai/gal) 4.8 pt/A + surfactant 1 qt/A, indaziflam at 5 or 10 oz/A, terbacil WP 2 lb/A, terbacil WDG 2 lb/A, terbacil WDG 2 lb/A + mesotrione 6 oz/A, pendimethalin 6.3 qt/A, and rimsulfuron 4 oz/A were applied on 11 May 2010. Plots were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatment (WAT) and were analyzed using a nonparametric median two-sample exact test with α=0.05. Treatments were compared individually to the check, to the standard hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal), and to each other where relevant. Hexazinone (2.4 lb ai/gal) significantly reduced broadleaf weeds in comparison to the check and did not injure wild blueberry. Hexazinone (2.4 lb ai/gal) resulted in lower grass cover than hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) at 1 WAT only. Addition of the surfactant resulted in a non-significant reduction of blueberry cover over time and a non-significant increase in broadleaf weeds and grass by 8 WAT. The indaziflam 10 oz/A treatment had significantly lower blueberry cover at 1, 2, and 8 WAT compared to the check and at 1 and 8 WAT compared to hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal). Both indaziflam treatments had significantly reduced broadleaf weed cover compared to the check by 8 WAT, while indaziflam 10 oz/A was lower than hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) at 1 WAT only. The indaziflam treatments also resulted in significantly lower grass cover than hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) by 8 WAT. There was higher blueberry phytotoxicity in the indaziflam 10 oz/A treatment than the check or the 5 oz/a treatment at 4 WAT, but lower phytotoxicity than the 10 oz/A postemergence treatment at 2, 4, and 8 WAT. All terbacil treatments resulted in comparable blueberry cover compared to no treatment or hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal), as well as negligible phytotoxicity. Terbacil WDG, alone and with mesotrione, significantly suppressed broadleaf weeds by 8 WAT compared to no treatment. All terbacil treatments significantly reduced grass cover compared to hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) at 4 and 8 WAT. Tank-mixing terbacil WDG with mesotrione did not significantly improve broadleaf weed or grass control compared to terbacil WDG alone. Terbacil WDG had significantly more blueberry cover than terbacil WP at 4 WAT and significantly less broadleaf weed cover than terbacil WP at 4 and 8 WAT. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in any cover or phytotoxicity for terbacil WDG versus terbacil WP or terbacil WDG + mesotrione. There were no significant differences between rimsulfuron and the check or hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) for blueberry cover or phytotoxicity. At 4 WAT there was significant phytotoxicity in the pendimethalin treatment, which resulted in significantly lower blueberry cover than the check or hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) at 8 WAT. Pendimethalin significantly reduced broadleaf weeds by 8WAT compared to the check. Grass cover in the pendimethalin treatment was significantly lower than hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) by 8 WAT, and rimsulfuron had lower grass cover at 4 and 8 WAT.

66

EFFECTS OF POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES FOR CONTROLLING WEEDS IN WILD BLUEBERRY. D.E. Yarborough* and J.L. D'Appollonio, University of Maine, Orono, ME (73)

ABSTRACT

A study to assess the effects of postemergence herbicides on wild blueberry cover, phytotoxicity and broadleaf and grass weed cover was conducted spring/summer 2010 using an RCBD design with 6 replications: a check, indaziflam at 5 or 10 oz/A, terbacil WP 2 lb/A and terbacil WDG 2 lb/A either left on leaves or washed off immediately with 91 gal/A water, quinclorac 4L 1.5 pt/A + COC 2 pt/A, and rimsulfuron 4 oz/A + COC 1% v/v were applied on 10 June 2010. Plots were assessed 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatment (WAT) and were analyzed using a nonparametric median two-sample exact test with α=0.05. Treatments were compared individually to the check and to the standard hexazinone (2 lb ai/gal) applied preemergence at 6 pt/A on 11 May. Indaziflam at 10 oz/A had less blueberry cover than the check at 4 WAT. At 4 WAT broadleaf weed cover in both indaziflam treatments was less than the check. Grass cover in the indaziflam 5 oz/A treatment was higher than the check at 4 WAT, but the 10 oz/A treatment was lower than the check by 8 WAT. Both indaziflam treatments had more phytotoxicity compared to the check at all evaluations; the 10 oz/A treatment had more phytotoxicity than the 5 oz/A treatment at 2 and 8 WAT. At equivalent evaluation date preemergence 4 weeks/postemergence 1 week (pre-4/post-1), there were no significant differences between hexazinone and either indaziflam treatment for cover or phytotoxicity. At equivalent evaluation date pre-8 weeks/post-4 weeks (pre-8/post-4), both indaziflam treatments had more phytotoxicity compared to hexazinone, and the 10 oz/A treatment also had less blueberry cover. Terbacil WDG wash-off had less blueberry cover than the check at 2 and 4 WAT, while terbacil WP wash-off had less at 4 WAT only, but left on leaves there were no significant differences. At 1 WAT terbacil WP had less broadleaf weed cover than the check; by 4 WAT, all terbacil treatments had less than the check but by 8 WAT only terbacil WDG did. Terbacil WP had less grass cover than the check at 2 WAT, and all terbacil treatments had less grass cover by 8 WAT. All terbacil treatments had more phytotoxicity than the check at 1, 2 and 4 WAT, with significant injury observed. There were no significant differences in blueberry cover between terbacil WDG or WP left on versus washed off, although washing off tended to reduce blueberry cover and increase phytotoxicity and broadleaf weed cover. At pre-4/post-1, all terbacil treatments had more phytotoxicity than hexazinone, and terbacil WP, WP wash-off and WDG wash-off had less blueberry cover. At pre-8/post-4, all terbacil treatments had more phytotoxicity than hexazinone; both wash-off treatments had less blueberry cover; and terbacil WP, WP wash-off and WDG had less grass cover. Rimsulfuron initially had more blueberry cover than the check, but by 4 WAT it had less, and it had higher phytotoxicity than the check at 1 and 4 WAT. Quinclorac had no significant differences in blueberry cover but had more phytotoxicity than the check at 1, 2, and 4 WAT. By 8 WAT rimsulfuron had less grass cover than the check but there were no significant differences in broadleaf weed cover overall. Quinclorac had less broadleaf and grass cover compared to the check at 4 and 8 WAT, respectively. At pre-4/post-1, both rimsulfuron and quinclorac had more phytotoxicity than hexazinone, and at pre-8/post-4, both treatments had more phytotoxicity and less grass cover.

67

ALTERNATE-YEAR PRUNING CAN BE ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS IN CRANBERRY: IMPLICATIONS FOR HORTICULTURAL AND PEST MANAGEMENT CHOICES. H. Sandler*, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA (74)

ABSTRACT

Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) growers are experimenting with various methods to maintain and manipulate the vigor of the vine canopy. Cultural practices, such as sanding and pruning, change the canopy architecture enough to affect air circulation, light penetration as well as pesticide distribution into the canopy. Weed management is especially important on young plantings (which have a lot of bare area) and will likely be important on beds that are subjected to repeated severe pruning or mowing events, which also opens up the canopy and increases the amount of bare or open space. Prior to evaluating vine response to herbicide application, it was deemed important to document that frequent mowing or severe pruning would be biologically sustainable to the plant as well as economically sustainable for the grower. Thus, a 6-year project was initiated to evaluate the interaction of nitrogen rate and vine-harvest method on cranberry vine production and yield. Four nitrogen rates (0, 56, 112, or 168 kg/ha) were applied annually and two spring vine-harvest methods (heavy pruning or mowing) were applied biennially in all combinations at one commercial cranberry farm (cultivar 'Stevens') in Southeastern Massachusetts for 6 consecutive years. Vine weights generated from each treatment combination were collected in Years 1, 3, and 5 (vine-harvest years). Mean vine weight across nitrogen treatments from the biennial pruning and mowing events was 3.14 and 8.06 Mg/ha (1.4 and 3.6 ton/acre), respectively. Increasing N rate increased overall vine biomass production. Four months after the vine-harvest event, vine weight of mowed vines was similar to or exceeded values typically associated with reasonable vine growth (at least 0.2 kg/m2) on a 2-yr old cranberry farm; vines receiving 112 and 168 kg N/ha exceeded 0.34 kg/m2. Vine-harvest method affected yield components (number and weight of reproductive uprights) since mowed plots had values near zero in the vine-harvest year and pruned vines were always productive. Pruned vines produced more marketable fruit than mowed vines in Year 4 and Year 6. Net income declined with increasing N rate (except Year 1). Averaged over 6 yr, increasing N rate decreased net income of and had no effect on pruned and mowed vines, respectively. Alternate-year mowing provided similar net income as heavy pruning (assuming income and/or cost savings from both vines and fruit) when 50 lb N/acre was applied. The incorporation of mowing into a program that uses various cultural practices to manage the cranberry canopy and generate fruit is a viable economic option. Cranberry was able to adequately recover from and sustain reasonable re-growth from three sequential biennial mowing events. If the canopy architecture is improved enough to increase air circulation and light penetration, alternate-year or occasional mowing may also provide an opportunity to reduce pesticide inputs into the cranberry production system.

68

TIMING, DURATION, AND TYPE OF FLAME CULTIVATOR AFFECTS WEED RESPONSE IN CRANBERRY. K.M. Ghantous*, H. Sandler, W. Autio, and P. Jeranyama, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (75)

ABSTRACT

Flame cultivation is a nonchemical method of weed control where target plants are damaged or eradicated by brief exposure to high temperature. The utility of flame cultivation on perennial weeds in cranberry systems is currently being investigated to determine if it could be a useful practice for weed control. Two problematic cranberry weeds are the herbaceous perennial, soft rush (Juncus effusus), and the woody perennial, dewberry (Rubus spp.). We hypothesized that flame cultivation will cause damage to rushes. Damage will increase with increasing exposure times and vary by type of flame cultivator. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated three handheld flame cultivators (FC): Infrared (IR), Open Flame (OF), or Infrared with Spike (IRS), on rushes growing on a cranberry bog in East Wareham, MA. Each plant had a single exposure (Exp) from one of the three FC at one of 4 levels: low, medium, high or no treatment. Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design with 5 replications. Damage was evaluated by counting the number of viable stems per plant and assessing biomass at the end of the season. Past work with dewberry plants using an experimental design similar to that described above has shown that a single Exp from any type of FC will cause a reduction of dewberry biomass by the end of a single growing season. The possible improvement in efficacy from multiple OF treatments within a single growing season, as well as the effects of timing of these treatments, was examined in 2010. Treatment areas (0.25 x 0.25 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5 replications. Plots were exposed to one of 7 treatments: a single Exp (June, July, or August) or two Exp (June/July, June/August, or July/August) or untreated control. Stems were counted and measured prior to treatment and again at end of the season. Plants will be evaluated in 2011 to assess if biomass reductions continue into the following season. Preliminary Results: Rushes: The effect of FC and Exp were significant (p ≤ 0.05) for the net number of stems per plant (final number of stems – baseline number of stems). FC and Exp affected the percentage of reproductive stems per plant. OF and IR reduced the net number and number of reproductive stems compared to rushes treated with IRS (IR, OF, IRS; net number of stems -22.0, -55.5, and 28.4, respectively; number of reproductive stems 22.9, 18.7, and 47.0, respectively). OF and IR did not differ significantly from each other for either parameter. The net number of stems and the percentage of flowering stems decreased with increasing Exp duration when treated with any FC. Untreated plots had an average increase in stem length of 126.1 cm, while treated plots had a reduction in average stem length that ranged from 81.3 to 147.7 cm. Dewberry: For dewberry plants at the end of the first year, the change in cumulative stem length per plot was analyzed. All treatments had significantly lower cumulative stem lengths compared to the untreated control; however, treatments did not differ significantly from one another.

69

WEED MANAGEMENT IN TREE FRUIT WITH INDAZIFLAM. M. Mahoney* and D. Unland, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (76)

ABSTRACT

Alion is a preemergence herbicide based on the new active ingredient indaziflam that Bayer CropScience has developed for use in perennial fruit crops. Registration is pending EPA approval. In trials conducted across the Northeastern United States in 2009 and 2010 both fall and spring applications of 73 g ai/ha demonstrated effective residual control of many common orchard weeds. Tankmixtures with other herbicides that provide postemergence control were necessary for weeds present at the time of applications. No crop injury was observed in any of these trials.

70

SNAP BEANS AFTER MESOTRIONE: IS THERE A PROBLEM? D.D. Lingenfelter*, M.J. VanGessel, B.A. Scott, and C. Dunne, Penn State, University Park, PA (77)

ABSTRACT

Mesotrione-based herbicide products have been very popular with corn (field and sweet) growers. One issue that has limited mesotrione use in vegetable rotation systems has been an 18 month rotation restriction for many vegetables. Growers and extension personnel have inquired about reducing the amount of time needed to rotate to vegetable crops, specifically snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Without a reduced rotation restriction, growers cannot legally use mesotrione products and then plant snap beans the following year. Syngenta is interested in reducing the rotational restrictions of Callisto, Lumax, Lexar, and Camix provided local data demonstrates there is good snap bean safety. Field studies were conducted in 2010 in Pennsylvania (Rock Springs, Centre Co.) and Delaware (Georgetown, Sussex Co.) to simulate the carryover effect of mesotrione-products on several varieties of snap bean. Lumax, Lexar, and Camix were sprayed at 0.02, 0.15, 0.3, and 0.6X the normal use rate (2.47 lb ai/A) to simulate a range of potential carryover levels one year after application. Herbicides were applied PRE at time of snap bean planting in early June. After conducting greenhouse assays, three or four snap bean varieties were selected for the field studies, two exhibiting low tolerance (‘Envy’ and ‘Dart’) to mesotrione and the others exhibiting medium to high tolerance (‘Caprice’ and ‘Slenderpak’) were planted. Studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. All plots were treated with POST herbicides to eliminate weed competition. Visual snap bean phytotoxicity evaluations were taken periodically throughout the growing period. Plots were hand harvested and final yields calculated. In Pennsylvania, across all varieties no more than 3% injury was observed at the 0.02X herbicide rate prior to harvest. At the 0.15X rate, Envy had 50-57% injury while Caprice and Slenderpak injury ranged from 17-28%. All varieties at the 0.3 to 0.6X rates had 35-93% injury. Yields for Envy were significantly different for all treatments at the three higher rates (0.15, 0.3, and 0.6X). In most cases, for Caprice and Slenderpak, yields were only significantly different from the check at the 0.6X rate. However, there were trends towards decreased yields with increased herbicide rate. In Delaware, the snap beans were terminated and replanted after one month since the majority of treatments caused severe injury. Even after replanting, significant injury was observed in the three highest rates in Caprice and Slenderpak at maturity. Only the highest rate caused greater that 20% injury to Envy and Dart. Yields were not collected due to Rhizoctonia that was observed in the snap beans at lower rates, confounding yield data. In addition to these studies, a complementary, two-year, field study is being conducted that evaluates actual carryover affects of Lumax and Lexar on several snap bean varieties at three different locations in Pennsylvania and Delaware. In summary, across both trials, from this preliminary trial data it appears that crop injury can be attributed to mesotrione and not the atrazine component of these products. Also, a number of factors can influence snap bean injury from mesotrione carryover including, variety, herbicide rate, soil type, and climatic conditions.

71

A COMPARISON OF NEW AND CURRENT DRY BEAN DESICCANTS. G.J. Evans* and R. Bellinder, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (78)

ABSTRACT

Dry bean desiccation is common practice in New York State. Preharvest herbicides are used to dry down green crop tissue, to desiccate uncontrolled weeds, and to even-out bean maturation. The objective of this research was to compare the speed and overall effectiveness of a number of potential dry bean desiccants. Herbicides that were evaluated included those currently registered in New York: flumioxazin (0.064 and 0.096 lb ai/A), carfentrazone (0.03 lb ai/A), glyphosate (1.0 lb ai/A), paraquat (0.5 lb ai/A) and sodium chlorate (6 lb ai/A). Additionally, several unregistered products were tested: saflufenacil (0.044 and 0.088 lb ai/A), glufosinate (0.25 and 0.4 lb ai/A) and diquat (0.5 lb ai/A). Several herbicide combinations were also tested. Trials were conducted in 2009 and 2010 at the Homer Thompson Vegetable Research Farm in Freeville NY. Drybean ‘Red Kanner’ was grown in 2009, while ‘Cal Early’ was grown in 2010. Trials were established as randomized complete block designs with three replications per treatment. Applications were made when 30 to 40% of dry bean leaves (and 15 to 20% of the stems) had naturally desiccated. Visual ratings of leaf and stem desiccation were taken 3, 7, and 14 days after treatment (DAT). In both 2009 and 2010, flumioxazin and saflufenacil provided the highest levels of leaf and stem desiccation 3 DAT. Desiccation levels continued to increase; by 7 DAT there was 95% or greater leaf desiccation in all flumioxazin and saflufenacil treatments. Applications of paraquat or diquat provided 53 to 73% desiccation 3 DAT. Further increases in defoliation were minimal (68 to 78% at 14 DAT) and were due to natural plant senescence. Compared to paraquat, sodium chlorate caused a moderately higher degree of leaf desiccation (73% at 3 DAT and 90% at 14 DAT). A tank mixture of a half rate of sodium chlorate (3 lb ai/A) and paraquat (0.25 lb ai/A) provided greater desiccation than the full rate of paraquat but less desiccation than the full rate of sodium chlorate. Glyphosate applications produced a gradual desiccation response, but by 14 DAT there was 85 to 100% leaf desiccation. However, the addition of 1 lb ai/A glyphosate to 0.064 lb ai/A flumioxazin delayed desiccation compared to the application of 0.064 lb ai/A flumioxazin alone. Glufosinate applications provided slightly quicker desiccation than glyphosate, though by 14 DAT desiccation levels with the two herbicides were equivalent. Of the currently registered products, flumioxazin at 0.064 and 0.096 lb ai/A will provide rapid desiccation of dry bean stems and leaves. The addition of glyphosate will not enhance defoliation. Saflufenacil should provide a capable alternative to flumioxazin. Registration of saflufenacil as a dry bean desiccant is expected for the upcoming season.

72

THE IR-4 PROJECT:UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M. Arsenovic*, D. Kunkel, and J. Baron, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (79)

ABSTRACT

The IR-4 Project is a publicly funded effort to support the registration of pest control products on specialty crops. The IR-4 Project continues to meet specialty-crop grower's needs for weed control options despite the challenges of a mature market for herbicides and the selectivity of specialty crops to many of the more-recently-introduced herbicides. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act continues to affect IR-4 submissions and EPA reviews of packages. IR-4 submitted herbicide petitions to the EPA from October 2008 to October 2009 for: Dicamba +2,4-D on teff; Paraquat on Perennial Tropical and Sub-tropical Fruit Trees; Quizalofop-p-ethyl on sorghum (grain) and Rapeseed subgroup 20A. From October 2008 through October 2009, EPA has published Notices of Filing in the Federal Register for: Glufosinate-ammonium on sweet corn; Linuron on dry pea and parsley; and Trisulfuron-methyl on garden beet. EPA established tolerances from October 2008 to October 2009 for: Endothall on vegetable, root and tuber group; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber group; vegetable, bulb group; vegetable, leafy except Brassica group; Vegetable Brassica, leafy group; vegetable, legume group; vegetable fruiting group; vegetable cucurbit group; fruits, citrus group; fruit, pome group; fruit, stone group; berry and small fruit group; grape; nut tree group; grain, cereal group; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw group; grass, forage, fodder, and hay group; animal feed, non-grass group; mint and rice; Clopyralid on Swiss chard, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, and annual strawberry (FL); Clethodim on Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, peach, and globe artichoke; Flumioxazin on Leaf Petioles subgroup 4B, Vegetable Cucurbit group 9, and hops; Halosulfuron-methyl on vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1c; Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, rhubarb, apple, and okra; Prometryn on Leaf Petioles subgroup 4B, carrot, celeriac, cilantro, okra and parsley; S-metolachlor on sesame, Melon subgroup 9A, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, lowbush blueberry, Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, sweet sorghum, Leafy Brassica Greens subgroup 5B, turnip greens, carrot, cucumber, okra, Onion bulb subgroup 3-07A, and Onion Green subgroup 3-07B andThifensulfuron-methyl on safflower.

73

VEGETABLE ROTATIONS WITH TOPRAMEZONE USE IN SWEET CORN. M.J. VanGessel*, B.A. Scott, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (80)

ABSTRACT

Weed control in sweet corn is challenging for a number of reasons. Finding a balance between weed control, crop safety, and rotational flexibility is difficult. Topramezone can be applied postemergence, has excellent safety for sweet corn, and controls a broad range of grass and broadleaf weeds. The topramezone label allows greater crop rotational flexibility than many other herbicides, providing “rotational crop guidelines” rather than “rotational restrictions”. This study was designed to examine the safety of topramezone to vegetables commonly grown in rotation with sweet corn. Topramezone was sprayed at four rates (0.016, 0.022, 0.033, and 0.044 lb ai/A) with or without 0.5 lbs ai/A of atrazine on May 11, 2010 to soil that was conventionally tilled three weeks earlier, but no crop was planted. Weed control ratings were taken and then plots treated with glyphosate. Snap bean (‘Slenderpak’ and ‘Envy’), lima bean (‘Cypress’), and cucumber (‘Vlaspik’) were planted no-till on July 6. On August 11, glyphosate was applied to kill the planted crops and weeds, and in mid-August mustard and turnips were planted without tillage. Visual ratings were made on crop injury. Common lambsquarters and morningglory control 2 weeks after treatment was influenced by topramezone rate and the addition of atrazine. Large crabgrass and giant foxtail was affected by topramezone rate only. Pigweed species and common ragweed control was excellent regardless of the treatment. Snap bean was the only crop that showed any significant crop injury, and Envy was more sensitive to topramezone than Slenderpak. The addition of atrazine to topramezone had no effect on crop injury. These results are preliminary and this trial will be repeated. Limited data shows good crop safety for lima bean, cucumber, mustard, and turnips. Replanting snap bean after sweet corn treated with topramezone needs to be examined further.

74

EVALUATING NEW HERBICIDES FOR SWEET CORN. R. Bellinder and G.J. Evans*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (81)

ABSTRACT

Trials were conducted between 2008 and 2010 at the H.C. Thompson Vegetable Research farm in Freeville NY, and in growers’ fields. The products and rates tested included: Cadet (fluthiacet-methyl, 0.004, 0.008 lb ai/A), Capreno (tembotrione + thiencarbazone-methyl, 0.04, 0.08 lb ai/A), Fierce (flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone, 0.14, 0.18 lb ai/A), Huskie (pryasulfotole + bromoxynil, 0.12, 0.24 lb ai/A) and Sharpen (saflufenacil, 0.056, 0.112 lb ai/A in 2008 and 2009; 0.022, 0.044, 0.066 in 2010). When Cadet, Huskie, and Sharpen were used in 2008, sweet corn ‘Bonus’, ‘Overland’, and ‘Temptation’ showed virtually no injury. Yields with each sweet corn variety were not reduced by 2X rates. In 2009, all five herbicides were tested on the variety ‘Bonus’. There was no injury or yield loss with 1X rates of all products, nor was there any injury with 2X rates of Cadet, Capreno or Sharpen. The 2X rates of Huskie and Fierce caused 26 and 16% injury, respectively, although yields were not reduced. In 2010, all five products were tested on eight sweet corn varieties: five fresh market [Sweet Ice, Honey N’ Pearl, Augusta, Brocade, Silver Queen] and three processing [GH4927, Bonus, Overland]. Corn maturation between varieties ranged from 74 to 92 days. None of the eight varieties were notably injured by the 1X rates of Fierce or Huskie (some transitory injury of less than 20%). While the 2X rates of these two herbicides caused unacceptable early injury (>20%), yields were unaffected. Sharpen did not significantly injure or reduce yields at any tested rate. The 1X rate of Cadet caused little injury, except in freshmarket varieties ‘Honey N’ Pearl’ (76 day) and ‘Augusta’ (79 day). However, the 2X rate of Cadet injured all varieties except ‘Sweet Ice’ (74 day fresh market) and ‘Brocade’ (82 day fresh market). Cadet failed to control annual grass weeds; therefore, yield reductions frequently occurred with both rates due to weed competition. Capreno caused unacceptable (>20% injury) injury in all eight varieties: yields of 2X treatments were frequently reduced. However, when Capreno was applied at the 1X rate, only yield of ‘GH4927’ was reduced. Of the eight tested sweet corn varieties, ‘Bonus’, ‘Overland’, and ‘Silver Queen’ had no injury or yield reduction with 1X rates of any of the five herbicides. Response of the other sweet corn varieties varied by product and by season. Of the tested herbicides, Sharpen has the broadest potential for use.

75

PREEMERGENCE ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT ZOYSIAGRASS. P.H. Dernoeden*, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (82)

ABSTRACT

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) is an intractable weed in golf course turf. Annual bluegrass becomes invasive in zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica L.) fairways in late autumn and winter and dominates with the advent of warmer temperatures in spring. Preemergence herbicides offer a means of controlling this weed, but there has been no research conducted in Maryland to identify effective and safe materials for zoysiagrass maintained at fairway height. For decades, bensulide has been the standard annual bluegrass preemergence herbicide used on golf courses, yet there is little research to confirm its relative effectiveness, when compared to more modern preemergence herbicides. The objectives of the research were to assess various rates and timings of bensulide when targeting annual bluegrass and to compare bensulide to more modern compounds as follows: prodiamine, oxadiazon, dithiopyr , pendimethalin, cumyluron and paclobutrazol (a plant growth regulator). Bensulide 4L was evaluated in two timings as follows: single PRE application on 3 Sept. (6.25 and 12.5 lb/A) or POST 14 Oct. 2009 (12.5 lb ai/A); and sequentially at 6.25 lb ai/A (3 Sept. + 14 Oct.). Prodiamine 65DG was applied once (0.38 lb ai/A) or sequentially (0.38 + 0.38 lb ai/A) and paclobutrazol 2SC (0.25 lb ai/A) was applied sequentially (3 Sept. + 14 Oct.). Cumyluron 45% F (6 oz. product/A), dithiopyr 40WSP (0.5 lb ai/A), oxadiazon 2G (4.0 lb ai/A) and pendimethalin 3.8CS (3.0 lb ai/A) were applied once on 3 Sept.2009. Sprayable herbicides were applied in 50 GPA using a CO2 pressurized (35 psi) sprayer equipped with an 8004E flat fan nozzle. Granular formulations were applied using a shaker jar. The site received rainfall or irrigation within 24 hrs of each application. Soil was a Keyport silt loam with a pH of 5.6 and 1.4% OM. Turf was a mature stand of Zenith zoysiagrass maintained to a height of 0.5 inches, which became winter dormant in late Oct. 2010. Plots were 5 ft x 5 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block with four replications. Percent of plot area covered with annual bluegrass and broadleaf weeds was assessed visually on a 0 to 100% scale where 0 = no weeds and 100 = entire plot area covered with weeds. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and significantly different means were separated at P ≤0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test. While there were few significant differences among most treatments between 23 Nov. 2009 and 11 Mar. 2010, plots treated with bensulide once or sequentially at 6.25 lb/A or at 12.5 lb/A on 14 Oct. generally had higher annual bluegrass cover, when compared to all other treatments. The period from 1 to 8 April was unusually warm and annual bluegrass plants began to tiller, expand in size and produce seedheads. Data were last collected at the time of zoysiagrass green-up on 9 Apr.2010, which was unusually early. On 9 Apr., 80% of untreated control plots had been colonized by annual bluegrass. Only bensulide applied once at 6.25 lb/A on 3 Sept. did not reduce annual bluegrass cover compared to the control. Bensulide applied at 12.5 lb/A on 14 Oct. had provided poor control (39% cover = 51% control), but had reduced annual bluegrass cover compared to the control. Bensulide applied at 12.5 lb/A on 3 Sept. (11 % cover = 86% control) and 6.25 lb/A applied sequentially on 3 Sept. + 14 Oct. (19% cover = 76% control) had provided a statistically equivalent level of control. Prodiamine applied once (0.38 lb/A) or

76

sequentially (0.38 + 0.38 lb/A) provided 94 (4.5% cover) and 99% (0.5% cover) control, respectively. Dithiopyr provided 98% control (2% cover). Prodiamine (0.38 + 0.38 lb/A); oxadiazon, pendimethalin, and cumyluron provided exceptional control (≤ 0.5% cover = 99% control). Paclobutrazol-treated plots had 30% annual bluegrass cover (63% control) on 9 Apr, which was a level of control equivalent to bensulide applied sequentially (6.25 + 6.25 lb/A). There were low levels of the following broadleaf weed species in the study area on 9 Apr.: dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber ex F.H. Wigg.), mouseear chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum L.), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum arviculare L.), corn speedwell (Veronica arvensis L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Plots treated with pendimethalin and prodiamine (0.38 + 0.38 lb/A) were winter annual (speedwell + chickwee)-free. Lowest other broadleaf weed (dandelion + clover + knotweed) populations were observed in plots treated with dithiopyr and pendimethalin.

77

UTILIZATION OF MESOTRIONE IN HYDROSEED APPLICATIONS. S.J. McDonald*, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA (83)

ABSTRACT

Establishment of cool-season turfgrass in summer months can be a daunting task due to weed pressure, especially from annual grasses. Three trials were conducted during 2009 and 2010 in Pennsylvania to determine the potential use of mesotrione for use in hydroseed applications. In 2009, one trial investigated the safety of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne; PRG) and weed control of mesotrione used at establishment with a hydroseeding application and again 21 days following. There were six treatments including: 1) mesotrione sprayed with a flat fan nozzle at 0.156 lb ai/A (5 floz/A) on bareground and then hydroseed mix (i.e. seed, water, fibers) applied at 6 lb seed/1000 ft2 on top of the treated soil; 2) hydroseed mix applied at 6 lb seed/1000 ft2 and then mesotrione sprayed with flan fan nozzle at 0.156 lbai/A on top of the hydroseed mix once dry on the same day; 3) mesotrione applied in the hydroseed mix at 0.156 lb ai/A; 4) conventionally seeded at 6 lb seed/1000 ft2 with no mesotrione; 5) treatment 3 applied twice over the plots (mesotrione at 0.312 lbai/A and 12 lb seed/1000 ft2); and 6) hydroseeded at 6 lb seed/1000 ft2 with no mesotrione. Hydroseed treatments were applied using a 50 gallon tractor mounted Turbo Turf Hydro Seeder. Plots were seeded 16 June 2009. The sequential application of mesotrione was applied on 7 July 2009. All plots receiving mesotrione at seeding had no ragweed (Ambrosia spp.) plants per plot which was significantly less than the conventionally seeded and hydroseeded-alone plots. All plots receiving mesotrione treatments had significantly less smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ishaemum) coverage on every rating date. Data from this trial indicate that mesotrione may have the potential to be recommended for use in hydroseeding applications with PRG. In 2010, two separate trials evaluated weed control and establishment safety of 1) PRG and 2) a mixture of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and PRG. The mesotrione rate for all treatments was 0.156 lb ai/A. There were six treatments: 1) mesotrione sprayed with a flan fan nozzle prior to hydroseeding; 2) mesotrione sprayed with flat fan nozzle prior to hydroseeding followed by a sequential application; 3) mesotrione applied in hydroseed mixture; 4) mesotrione in hydroseed mixture followed by a sequential application applied with a flat fan nozzle; 5) untreated (no herbicide at or following seeding); 6.) mesotrione sprayed with a flat fan nozzle at sequential timing (i.e. rescue treatment). Plots were seeded on 30 April and sequential applications occurred on 25 May 2010. In both trials, no significant injury was observed to desirable grasses. Mesotrione treatments were effective in reducing ragweed and smooth crabgrass when applied prior to hydroseeding or in the tank with hydroseed mixture.

78

SMOOTH CRABGRASS MANAGEMENT WITH CORN GLUTEN, NITROGEN, AND HERBICIDES IN TALL FESCUE. P.H. Dernoeden* and C.P. Ryan, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (84)

ABSTRACT

Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum [Schreb. Schweig.] Schreb. Ex Muhl.) is perhaps the most invasive weed in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) lawns and sports turfs in Maryland. The performance of preemergence herbicides that target crabgrass can be greatly influenced by weed pressure, environmental conditions and turf vigor. Nitrogen (N) is important in stimulating turf density and thus promoting its competitiveness with weeds. Two studies will be reviewed. Study I was conducted in 2009 and 2010 and was designed to take into consideration the use of corn gluten natural herbicide (Espoma Corn Gluten 9-0-0, Millville, NJ) and chemical herbicides (prodiamine and dithiopyr) applied to plots receiving organic or synthetic organic N. The natural organic N source was OceanGro 5-5-0 sewage sludge (Bayville,NJ) and the synthetic N sources were sulfur coated urea (SCU) and urea. The treatments were as follows: corn gluten (CG) + organic N; dithiopyr + organic N; prodiamine + SCU; dithiopyr + urea; dithiopyr + no N; no herbicide + urea; and an untreated control. The N was applied early April (0.75 lb N/ 1000 ft2), early July (0.5 lb N/1000 ft2) and early Sept. (0.75 lb N/ 1000 ft2) in 2009 and 2010. All herbicide treatments and CG were applied 2 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 and were watered-in by rain or irrigation within 24 hrs. Rates were as follows: CG at 20 lb product/1000ft2 and prodiamine at 0.75 lb ai/A in both years; dithiopyr at 0.50 and 0.38 lb ai/A in 2009 and 2010, respectively. In 2009, rainfall was plentiful. In 2010, the turf entered a state of dormancy in response to drought in June. Rain in late June was followed by routine irrigation throughout July to break dormancy. In Study II, the herbicides, N from OceanGro and CG were applied at the rates and dates shown in Table 1. Both studies were conducted in mature stands of tall fescue mowed weekly to a height of 2.5 to 3.0 inches. Sprayable herbicides were applied in 50 GPA using a CO2 pressurized (35 psi) sprayer equipped with an 8004E flat fan nozzle. Granular products were applied using a shaker jar. Plots were 5ft by 10ft and 5ft by 5ft in Studies I and II, respectively. In both studies, plots were arranged in a randomized complete block with four replications. Percent of plot area covered by smooth crabgrass was visually assessed using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 = no crabgrass present and 100 = entire plot area covered with crabgrass. Treatments with crabgrass ratings > 5% cover were subjectively judged to be commercially unacceptable. Data were subjected to ANOVA and significantly different means were separated using Fisher’s LSD at P ≤ 0.05. Crabgrass cover was assessed on 25 Aug 2009 in Study I and the untreated control had 28% crabgrass cover. Plots treated with prodiamine + SCU and dithiopyr + urea or organic N had 1% crabgrass cover (94 % control); whereas, plots treated with CG + organic N and no herbicide + urea had 18% cover (36% control). In 2010, all treatments had lower crabgrass cover compared to the control (89% cover) when plots were rated on 9 Sept. Plots treated with prodiamine + SCU (3% cover = 97% control); dithiopyr + organic N (13% cover = 85% control), and dithiopyr + urea (17% cover = 81% control) had statistically equivalent levels of

79

crabgrass cover. Poor control was observed in plots treated with CG + organic N (48% cover = 46% control); dithiopyr + no N (51% cover = 43% control) and no herbicide + urea (52% cover = 42% control). These data show that the performance of dithiopyr was improved by using it in conjunction with N (organic or urea) and that N alone from urea was as effective in suppressing crabgrass as CG + organic N. In Study II, crabgrass cover in plots treated with CG, Oceangro and mesotrione applied preemergence was excessive and ranged from 24 to 39% (Table 1). All other treatments provided a statistically equivalent level of crabgrass control and most had provided commercially acceptable crabgrass control (< 5.0% crabgrass cover). This included benefin + trifluralin, which was product received in 1992 and stored in an open bag for 18 years. Data again showed that N (i.e., OceanGro) was statistically as effective as CG in reducing crabgrass cover. Table 1. Preemergence smooth crabgrass control in tall fescue with corn gluten and commercial herbicides in College Park, MD 2010. Rate % crabgrass cover** Herbicide* (lb ai/A) 12 Jul 13 Aug Dithiopyr 2 EW 0.38 0.3 c 4.8 c

Dithiopyr 0.21G 0.38 0.5 c 5.3 c

Prodiamine+Sulfen. 4SC 0.75 0.0 c 5.5 c

Prodiamine+Sulfen. 0.3G 0.75 0.0 c 1.3 c

Pendimethalin 3.8ME 0.75 0.0 c 0.3 c

Pendimethalin 3.8ME 1.5 + 1.5 0.1 c 5.0 c

Benefin+Trifluralin 2G 3.0 0.0 c 0.9 c

Mesotrione 4SC 0.187 + 0.187 4.9 bc 37.8 b

Corn Gluten 20 lb product/1000ft2 2.6 bc 24.5 b

Corn Gluten 15 + 15 product /1000ft2 7.0 b 26.5 b

OceanGro 5-5-0 2.0 lb N/1000ft2 7.5 b 39.3 b

Untreated 12.8 a 63.5 a

*Treatments were applied 2 April and sequential treatments were applied 18 May 2010. **Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s LSD, P ≤ 0.05.

80

ALTERNATING ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN SEQUENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF PREEMERGENCE CRABGRASS HERBICIDES. A.J. Patton*, D.V. Weisenberger, and Z. Reicher, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN (85)

ABSTRACT

Crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) is a problematic weed for many turf managers. The traditional approach of applying one application of a preemergence herbicide in the spring does not always provide adequate season-long control. Therefore, many turf managers will apply half the label rate in the spring prior to crabgrass germination and then make a sequential application of the same preemergence herbicide approximately 60 days later in order to extend the window of herbicide activity. Turf mangers, especially lawn care operators, often need increased flexibility in their preemergence herbicide applications due to the number of customers they have and the large application date window that they use. For most consistent crabgrass control, previous research and practical experience suggests the initial and sequential application should consist of the same active ingredient. However, that research was reported in 1991 and active ingredients and/or recommended rates of active ingredients have changed since then. Therefore, the objective of this research was to compare the effectiveness of various sequential applications of dithiopyr, prodiamine, and pendimethalin when the preemergence applications were followed by the same or a different herbicide for the sequential application. A four by four factorial was used with four herbicide treatments (dithiopyr at 0.28 kg/ha, prodiamine at 0.42 kg/ha, pendimethalin at 1.68 kg/ha, and untreated) used for the initial application at half label rates followed by the same four herbicide treatments used for the sequential application at half label rates. Additionally, full rates of dithiopyr at 0.56 kg/ha, pendimethalin at 3.36 kg/ha or prodiamine at 0.73 kg/ha were included for comparison in both 2009 and 2010 in West Lafayette, Indiana. Separate but adjacent experimental areas were used each year, and the experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. As expected, sequential applications of all nine herbicide combinations (omitting the untreated) resulted in less crabgrass cover by August (<21%) compared to single spring applications at the full rate (>25% cover) for dithiopyr, pendimethalin, and prodiamine. Because of the postemergence crabgrass control from dithiopyr, dithiopyr as the sequential June application following an untreated March application consistently provided better crabgrass control than when prodiamine or pendimethalin were used as a sequential application following no herbicide in March. There were no significant differences in crabgrass cover when the same or different active ingredients were used for the initial and sequential applications. This suggests that turf managers can switch from one active ingredient to another when making sequential applications To support these findings, this study will be repeated in 2011 in West Lafayette, Indiana and at two locations near Lincoln, Nebraska.

81

DITHIOPYR AND SULFENTRAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR PREEMERGENCE AND POSTEMERGENCE CRABGRASS CONTROL. C.J. Mansue*, S. Hart, and B. Walls, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (86)

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in 2009-2010 to evaluate a combination of dithiopyr and sulfentrazone. Applied as a liquid or granular formulations for preemergence (PRE) and postemergence crabgrass control. The ratio of dithiopyr and sulfentrazone was approximately 5:4, application rates were 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 kg ai/ha. Application timings were PRE, 1-4 leaf, 1-2 tillers, and 3-5 tillers (2010 only). All granular treatments were applied by hand to dry foliage with a shaker can to plots that were 0.9 by 3 m. All liquid treatments were applied to 0.9 by 3 m plots with a single-nozzle CO2 backpack sprayer system utilizing a 9504EVS nozzle tip which delivered 374 L/ha of spray solution at 221 kPa. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Treatments were visually evaluated for crabgrass control in late August. In 2009 crabgrass control with PRE applications ranged from 90-99% while dithiopyr (2EW) alone at 0.6 kg/ha was 96%. Control of 1-4 leaf crabgrass ranged from 70-98% with the 1.0 kg/ha rate providing the highest level of control. Control of 1-2 tiller crabgrass ranged from 34-87%. Control significantly increased with increasing application rate. Crabgrass control was significantly greater with the granular formulation at 0.5 kg/ha. In 2010 granular and liquid formulations were evaluated in separate studies. 0.6 kg/ha of dithiopyr was included at each application timing. In the liquid formulation study crabgrass control with PRE treatments ranged from 76-86%. All treatments applied to 1-2 or 3-5 tiller crabgrass resulted in significantly less control relative to PRE treatments. In the granular formulation study PRE treatments provided 88-98% control. Control of 1-4 leaf crabgrass ranged from 85-98% and was equivalent to PRE treatments. Control of 1-2 tiller crabgrass ranged from 61-95% with application rates of 0.7 and 1.0 kg/ha providing equivalent control to PRE treatments. Treatments applied to 3-5 tiller crabgrass provided 65-81% control and was significantly lower relative to PRE treatments. The results of these studies suggest that granular formulations of dithiopyr and sulfentrazone provide a significant level of postemergence crabgrass control up to 1-2 tillers.

82

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL WITH METHIOZOLIN ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS IN THE UNITED STATES AND KOREA. B. McNulty*, S. Koo, and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (87)

ABSTRACT

Methiozolin (MRC-01) is a potential new turf herbicide currently being developed by Moghu Research Center in South Korea. It is being investigated for its selective control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) golf course putting greens as well as fairways and tees of cool- and warm-season turf. Methiozolin is in the isoxazoline class of chemistry, yet its mode of action (MOA) is not fully understood. Its MOA is believed to be related to cell wall biosynthesis inhibition, but more work is needed for confirmation. Methiozolin has substantial postemergence activity on annual bluegrass and roughstalk bluegrass (Poa trivialis) and suppresses seedheads of annul bluegrass when applied at the flowering stage. Methiozolin also has residual and preemergence activity, but the soil half-life is about 2 weeks. Methiozolin is reported to control other grasses including crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) and goosegrass (Eleucine indica). Turfgrass species that are tolerant to methiozolin include creeping bentgrass, perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica). Methiozolin received labeling and registration in South Korea in April of 2010. Methiozolin has been used successfully on over 100 of the approximately 350 golf courses in the first year of its release in Korea, and registration is currently sought in the United States and Japan. Research on methiozolin began in the US in 2008, with putting green experiments conducted at Auburn University and Virginia Tech (VT). At VT, a variety of studies have been conducted through 2010 including tolerance, efficacy, programs, and rate response trials. At two university research putting greens, methiozolin did not injure A4, L-93, and Declaration creeping bentgrass when applied at rates of 500 to 4000 g/ha. At Hanover Country Club near Richmond, VA, methiozolin at 2000, 3000, and 4000 g/ha injured L-93 creeping bentgrass 25 to 40% and significantly decreased normalized difference vegetative index at 39 DAT but not at later rating dates. During this period, the Richmond Virginia area experienced the hottest June on record and extended drought. In an adjacent study, methiozolin at 500 and 750 g/ha did not injure creeping bentgrass while cumyluron at 1720 and 2300 g/ha injured bentgrass 43 and 79% on August 3, 2010. At Spotswood Country Club near Harrisonburg, VA, methiozolin at 500 and 750 g/ha applied once in spring and once in fall during the 2009 and 2010 seasons decreased annual bluegrass populations 20 and 40% and more than cumyluron, bensulide, and oxadiazon. Single treatments of 1500 to 3000 g/ha at this golf course in fall reduced annual bluegrass populations over 70% in whole putting green demonstrations treated by the superintendent. Trials conducted to date suggest two to three treatments of 1000 g/ha at 1 month intervals provide the best annual bluegrass population reduction while maintaining creeping bentgrass safety. Additional work is underway to confirm this assumption.

83

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL. J. Borger*, M. Naedel, and K. Hivner, Penn State University, University Park, PA (88)

ABSTRACT

Two separate post emergence annual bluegrass (Poa annua) control studies were conducted using various materials and application timings. Both studies were conducted on a mature stand of ‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) and annual bluegrass at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. The objective of both studies was to determine if selected materials could reduce the annual bluegrass population under simulated golf course greens conditions. Both trials were randomized complete block designs with three replications. For the first study, treatments were applied on April 30 (APR), June 4 (4 WAT), July 7 (8 WAT), August 3 (12 WAT), and October 5, 2010 (20 WAT). For the second study, treatments were applied June 8 (JUNE), July 7 (4 WAT), September 20 (SEP), and October 22, 2010 (OCT). Treatments in both trials were applied using a three foot CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 87.12 GPA using one, flat fan, TP9508EVS nozzle at 40 psi. The test areas were maintained at 0.125 inch using a Toro triplex reel mower. Following applications, certain treatments were watered in with 0.4 inch of irrigation or natural rainfall. Additionally, turfgrass was irrigated on an as-needed basis to prevent moisture stress. Both test sites consisted of approximately 20 percent creeping bentgrass and 80 percent annual bluegrass at the initiation of the study. The annual bluegrass population was visually evaluated in the first study on April 27, 2010 and again on October 1, 2010, on a plot by plot basis, to determine the baseline population and percent change of the population in each plot. In this first study, all treated turfgrass revealed a significant reduction in annual bluegrass population. Plots treated with MRC-01 at 82 or 110 oz/A applied three times had significantly more annual bluegrass control than those treated with MRC-01 (methiozolin) at 55 oz/A, applied only once or twice, and Trimmit at 0.25 lb ai/A applied five times. Additionally, MRC-01 at 55 oz/A applied once or twice did not significantly differ from Trimmit at 0.25 lb ai/A applied five times. The second study employed a program approach to annual bluegrass reduction and control of annual bluegrass was variable. All treatments programs revealed a significant reduction in annual bluegrass populations with the exception of any treatment that was tank mixed with Ferromec. Plots treated with the program of Trimmit at 16 oz/A in June, Primo Maxx at 6 oz/A (4 WAT), and Trimmit at 32 oz/A in September and October had significantly more annual bluegrass control than all other programs in the trial. An observational non-replicated seedbed trial was also established at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center at Penn State University to observe the effects of various herbicide treatments on annual bluegrass germination. Treatments were applied two weeks before seeding on June 28 (2 WBS), at seeding on July 15 (SEED), and two weeks after seeding on August 3, 2010 (2 WAS). The following herbicides were evaluated: MRC-01, Tenacity, Prograss, and Tupersan. Each provided some insight to the control of annual bluegrass on a preemergence basis that will be considered when designing future research in this area.

84

FIELD PASPALUM CONTROL IN TALL FESCUE. P.H. Dernoeden* and C.P. Ryan, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (89)

ABSTRACT

Field or smooth paspalum (Paspalum laeve Michx.) is a growing weed problem in turfgrass sites in Maryland. Field paspalum is a warm-season perennial that has a bunch-type growth habit, but plants may develop short rhizomes. Leaves and sheaths are hairy and foliage typically appears grayish-green or yellow-green. Organic arsonates (DSMA and MSMA) have been used for decades to control Paspalum spp. in turf. The EPA has cancelled registration of DSMA and MSMA and sales of all products containing MSMA for use on golf courses, sod farms and highway right of ways will end December 31, 2012. Thus, new herbicides are needed to replace the arsonates for Paspalum spp. control. Three separate studies are reviewed. Fluazifop-P and sethoxydim were assessed in 2009 (unimproved site of Poa pratensis L. and Lolium perenne L.) and bispyrabac-sodium, fluazifop-P, sulfentrazone and sulfosulfuron were evaluated in 2010 ( tall fescue, Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) as postemergence treatments; mesotrione and siduron were assessed preemergence (PRE) in a spring seeded stand of tall fescue . The herbicides were applied in 50 GPA using a CO2 powered backpack sprayer equipped with an 8004E flat fan nozzle. Soil was a Keyport silt loam with a pH of 5.7 to 5.9 and 1.4 to 2.2% OM. Fluazifop-P was tank-mixed with 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant (NIS) in 2009 and 2010. Rates and dates of application are noted below. Plots were 5ft by 5ft and arranged in a randomized complete block with three (2009) or four replications (both 2010 sites). Field paspalum cover was assessed visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 = no paspalum and 100 = entire plot area covered by paspalum in 2009; in the 2010 post study the number of plants in each plot was counted. Turf quality was visually assessed using a 0 to 10 scale where 0 = entire plot area brown or dead and 10 = optimum green color and cover in the 2010 post study. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and significantly different means were separated by Fisher’s LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. On 10 June 2009, fluazifop-P (0.375 lb ai/A) and sethoxydim (0.47 lb ai/A) were applied to a dense stand of field paspalum (80% cover; FP). Data collected 54 days after treatment showed that fluazifop-P had provided complete control, while sethoxydim had provided 67% FP control. The mixed species turf was not injured, which was attributed to the dense FP canopy that likely intercepted most of the herbicide. In 2010, bispyrabac (0.033 and 0.066 lb ai/A), sulfentrazone (0.125 lb ai/A) and bispyribac + sulfentrazone (0.033 + 0.125 lb ai/A) were applied three times on 27 May, 11 June and 23 June; sulfosulfuron (0.023 lb ai/A) was applied twice on 27 May and 11 June; and fluazifop-P (0.375 lb ai/A) was applied once on 27 May 2010. Bispyrabac (0.033 lb/A) and fluazifop-P reduced tall fescue quality from 15 June to 5 Aug; bispyrabac (0.066 lb/A) reduced quality until 9 Sept.; sulfosulfuron almost completely eliminated the tall fescue; and sulfentrazone did not injure turf. Fluazifop-P and bispyrabac + sulfentrazone reduced FP populations (11 plants/plot = 84% control) compared to the control (68 plants/ plot). In the PRE study, mesotrione was applied once (0.50 lb ai/A) on 12 April or twice (0.125, 0.156, 0.187 and 0.25 lb ai/A) on 12 April and 12 May 2010 (0.25% v/v NIS on 12 May only); and siduron was applied once (12 lb ai/A) or twice (6.0 + 6.0 lb ai/A) on the aforementioned dates to

85

mostly necrotic plant debris and some bare soil in a seedbed. Data were collected 9 Sept. 2010 and all treatments provided a statistically equivalent level of FP control. For mesotrione, control ranged 80 to 94% (2 to 11% FP cover) and for siduron control was 98% (1% FP cover). This may be the first report of PRE control of field paspalum in turf at spring seeding.

86

FENOXAPROP AND AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR COMBINATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE FOR POSTEMERGENCE BROAD SPECTRUM WEED CONTROL. S. Hart*, J. Brosnan, and P. McCullough, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (90)

ABSTRACT

Fenoxaprop effectively controls crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea L.) turf but antagonism with growth regulating herbicides reduces potential to apply fenoxaprop in combination with many herbicides registered for broadleaf weed control. Aminocyclopyrachlor is a new broadleaf weed control herbicide that has not been evaluated in combination with fenoxaprop. Field experiments were conducted in Georgia, New Jersey, and Tennessee to investigate tank-mixtures of fenoxaprop with aminocyclopyrachlor for smooth crabgrass and white clover control. Fenoxaprop alone exhibited substantial activity on smooth crabgrass but synergistic effects were detected with fenoxaprop + aminocyclopyrachlor treatments. By 4 and 6 weeks after treatment (WAT), approximately 22 and 44% less fenoxaprop was required to achieve 80% smooth crabgrass control when the herbicide was tank-mixed with aminocyclopyrachlor at 220 and 330 g ai/ha, respectively. Fenoxaprop did not reduce white clover control with aminocyclopyrachlor as 97% control was achieved by 4 WAT for all aminocyclopyrachlor + fenoxaprop treatments. Tall fescue was not injured from any treatment. Results suggest aminocyclopyrachlor enhances fenoxaprop efficacy for smooth crabgrass control in tall fescue.

87

RECOMMENDING CONSUMER PRODUCTS FOR LAWN CARE. S. Askew*, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (91)

ABSTRACT

Homeowners, Master Gardeners, and Extension Agents have long complained that consumer herbicides were generally ineffective and information found in the Virginia Cooperative Extension Pest Management Guide (PMG) did little to aid consumers in product selection and use rates. In 2010, the Lawn Weeds section of Virginia Home Grounds and Animals PMG was corrected to address complaints from concerned individuals. The following problems were noted and corrected: 1) pest management recommendations were based on common chemical names of active ingredients yet most consumer products contain the full chemical name and not the common chemical name. To correct this problem the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) database was searched to identify approximately 700 consumer herbicides that represented 34 unique active ingredients. Interestingly, over 560 of these consumer products contained various combinations of just 8 active ingredients. A table was created to shows all synonyms that were filed with VDACS for consumer herbicides registered in Virginia and the number of consumer products that uses each active ingredient. The table of synonyms allows consumers to cross reference the full chemical names with the common chemical name used in the PMG. 2) In the old PMG, herbicide rates were expressed in pounds active ingredient per acre and of little use to consumers. Extension Agents, who understood these rates, could not find any consumer products that matched or allowed for equivalent use rates to those recommended in the PMG. To correct this problem, a professional equivalency formula was created and professional equivalency constants (PEC) were calculated for each unique combination of active ingredients registered in Virginia. The formula uses the percentage active ingredient, amount of product per container, and square footage treated per product container to determine how the consumer product compares to professional rates that are recommended by Virginia Tech. Most consumer products were found to be 0.46 to 0.79 times the recommended professional rate. Consumers are advised to choose the product that returns a value closest to 1 when using the formula. When evaluating consumer product labels, it was noted that many products have a suggested use rate followed by a maximum use rate. The maximum use rate is often expressed in pounds of active ingredient per acre and is not understandable by consumers. These maximum rates are typically twice the suggested rates and less than the professional rates on which the PEC is based. As an extension specialist, one struggles to give consumers and Extension Agents sound advice in using consumer products when suggested rates on these products are far less than Extension recommended rates, yet the product label legally allows for higher rates. The general belief among research scientists and company cooperators is that consumer rates must be reduced to allow for inevitable over application by consumers. It seems hypocritical to concede that over application of any herbicide is a breach of federal law with a concomitant assumption that homeowners will over apply consumer products. The use of PECs to pick consumer products is a first step to improving consumer product

88

effectiveness for Virginians. In subsequent PMG revisions, the concept of consumer product rates will be further evaluated.

89

HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING MODULES SPONSORED BY WSSA. L. Glasgow*, W. Everman, J. Schroeder, D. Shaw, J. Soteres, J. Stachler, and F. Tardif, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC (92)

ABSTRACT

Grower and agrichemical retailer education and training has been identified as a critical path in advancing the adoption of proactive best management programs to delay or mitigate the development of herbicide resistant weeds. Universities, private sector companies, crop commodity groups, and other groups have all been active in developing and distributing training materials to growers and the agricultural community at large. In February 2010, a proposal was made and accepted by the WSSA Herbicide Resistant Plants Committee (E12) and the special task force on Herbicide Resistance Education (S71) to form a team of public and private sector weed scientists (see list of authors) to review current web-based herbicide resistance training modules, with the intent to update and modify these modules as appropriate. The broad goals of the effort are to: (1) provide the most up-to-date information on causes and best methods for managing resistance, (2) increase consistency of basic messages to growers and retailers, (3) demonstrate to the public a unified public and private sector message of a science-based approach to managing resistance, and (4) increase incorporation of herbicide resistance training into formal certification programs such as the Certified Crop Advisor program. The team is developing five modules around the following questions: (1) Why is proactive resistance management important? (2) How do herbicides work and what is herbicide site-of-action? (3) What is herbicide resistance? (4) How do I identify resistance to herbicides? and (5) How do I manage resistance? In addition, the team, in cooperation with other weed scientists and agronomists, is developing a separate module to address the specific issue of the impact of resistance management practices on conservation tillage. Each of these modules will be developed in multiple formats (web-based training, PowerPoint slides, and videos). The modules will be made available to all who wish to use them and will be maintained and freely distributed by the WSSA. WSSA will also work with grower organizations and others to develop and distribute these materials.

90

CONTROL OF ITALIAN RYEGRASS AND OTHER WEEDS IN WINTER WHEAT WITH PYROXSULAM. B.D. Olson*, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (93)

ABSTRACT

In early 2008, pyroxsulam (PowerFlex) was registered by the US-EPA for use on wheat for postemergence control of key annual grasses including Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and annual broadleaves such as Amaranthus spp., Brassica spp., Geranium spp. Veronica spp. and wild pansy (Viola tricolor). PowerFlex is formulated as a 7.5% active ingredient water dispersible granule for use in winter wheat. In 2010, efficacy studies with PowerFlex were conducted against Italian ryegrass and other important weeds, such as common chickweed (Stellaria media), purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and wild garlic (Allium vineale), in the DELMARVA winter wheat production area. All treatments were applied in the spring, at “first green-up,” and PowerFlex was applied at 3.5 oz/A (0.0164 lb ai/A). PowerFlex provided excellent control of Italian ryegrass (92%) compared to Osprey (mesosulfuron-methyl) at 4.75 oz/A (92%) and Everest (flucarbazone-sodium) at 0.6 oz/A (72%). In a separate trial against purple deadnettle, Osprey at 4.75 oz/A and PowerFlex both provided fair to good control (72%) compared to Harmony Extra SG (thifensulfuron-methyl and tribenuron-methyl) at 0.75 oz/A (80%). In the same trial PowerFlex provided fair to good control (70%) of common chickweed, similar to Harmony Extra (83%) and better than Osprey (33%). In another trial where horseweed was the predominant weed, PowerFlex provided 77% control when tank-mixed with 0.25% non-ionic surfactant and 2% UAN (30-0-0). In the same trial Harmony Extra SG at 0.75 and 0.9 oz/A, also tank-mixed with 0.25% non-ionic surfactant, provided 60 and 87% control of horseweed, respectively. In three trials against wild garlic, control with PowerFlex ranged from 90 to 95% compared to 88 to 95% control for Harmony Extra SG at 0.75 oz/A. These trials demonstrate that PowerFlex not only provides excellent control of Italian ryegrass but other important weeds such as wild garlic, common chickweed, horseweed and purple deadnettle. ® Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC PowerFlex is not registered for sale or use in all states. Contact your state pesticide regulatory agency to determine if a product is registered for sale or use in your state. Always read and follow label directions.

91

ATRAZINE: UPDATE ON DEFENDING AN IMPORTANT TOOL TO AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. C. Munsterman*, E.R. Hill, R.L. Brooks, and C.L. Foresman, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC (94)

ABSTRACT

The first US registration for atrazine herbicide was granted December 1958, for use in corn and nonselective weed control in noncrop areas. Since then, US farmers have relied on atrazine as an effective and reliable broadspectrum foundation herbicide in corn, grain sorghum and sugar cane production for control of many troublesome weeds like pigweed and lambsquarters, as well as providing partial control of important grasses including foxtail and barnyardgrass. Atrazine is used preferentially in reduced till and no-till corn, which helps reduce soil erosion and runoff into streams and rivers.

92

PYROXASULFONE: ITS FIT IN ROW CROPS FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION. R.L. Ritter* and J. Ikley, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (95)

ABSTRACT

Pyroxasulfone has been investigated as a preemergence herbicide for use in corn (Zea mays L.), soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). In corn and soybeans, excellent season-long control of summer annual weeds such as giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.) was observed. Fair control of seedling johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] and morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.) was observed and seemed to be rate dependent. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) control varied, dependening upon rate, but in general, control was inconsistent. While pyroxasulfone expressed excellent preemergence control of a number of broadleaf weed species, it appears that a tank-mix partner such as atrazine in corn or the blend of chlorimuron + metribuzin in soybeans may be needed. However, in Roundup-Ready corn or soybeans, a tank-mix partner may not be necessary depending upon the weed species in the field. Phytotoxicity to corn was non-existent, but varied in soybeans depending upon its tank-mix partner. Yields were excellent for both corn and soybeans. Large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] control was also invesitgated under no-till conditions. While control varied depending upon rate, in general, poor to fair control was observed in corn and soybeans. In winter wheat, excellent control of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) was achieved with preemergence and delayed-preemergence applications. However, under high rainfall conditions, a high degree of winter wheat injury was observed.

93

EFFECT OF HERBICIDE BANDING ON YIELD AND BIODIVERSITY LEVELS OF FIELD CORN. R.S. Chandran, C.W. Yohn, and C.W. Coburn*, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH (96)

ABSTRACT

Field experiments were established in Charles Town, and Morgantown, WV, in 2010, to compare the effect of broadcast and banded application of preemergence herbicides on corn yield and weed biodiversity levels. Individual experimental plots in Charles Town had an area of 0.5 ha, simulating grower-fields, and each plot in Morgantown had an area of 7.5x10-3 ha. A pre-mixture of atrazine, metolachlor, and mesotrione was applied broadcast to provide 0.84, 2.24, and 0.224 kg ai/ha, respectively, or banded 38 cm wide over corn rows spaced 75 cm apart at the rates of 0.42, 1.12 and 0.112 kg ai/ha, respectively, prior to weed emergence when the corn was 10 to 15 cm tall. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) were the predominant weeds in Charles Town, whereas yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca (L.) P. Beauv.) and yellow nutsedge were the predominant weeds in Morgantown. Charles Town experienced drought-like conditions and moderate weed pressure (30 to 50% ground cover in untreated plots) during the 2010 growing season, whereas precipitation was close to average in Morgantown with high weed pressure (>90% ground cover in untreated plots). While no yield differences were recorded between broadcast and banded plots, broadcast application resulted in 28 and 103% higher yields in Charles Town and Morgantown, respectively, whereas banded application resulted in 26 and 65% higher yields, in Charles Town and Morgantown, respectively, compared to untreated plots. Simpson’s Diversity Index analysis generated 1-D values of 0.63 and 0.67 in banded and untreated plots, respectively, reflecting probability levels of two randomly-selected weeds to belong to different species one month after treatment in Morgantown. At this time and location, broadcast application resulted in total weed control, thus lacking a 1-D value. In Charles Town, 1-D values were 0.80, 0.76, and 0.76 for banded, broadcast, and untreated plots, respectively. Shannon’s Index for Biodiversity analysis generated H values of 1.15 and 1.37 in banded and untreated plots, respectively, in Morgantown, and 1.88, 1.48, and 1.68 for banded, broadcast, and untreated plots, respectively, in Charles Town; according to Shannon’s Index an H value > 1.5 is considered to be biologically-diverse.

94

INTEGRATING A HAIRY VETCH COVER CROP FOR IMPROVED WEED MANAGEMENT IN NO-TILL CORN. W.S. Curran*, S. Mirsky, D. Mortensen, and M.R. Ryan, Penn State, University Park, PA (97)

ABSTRACT

Hairy vetch has become a popular legume cover crop in some US cropping systems. Hairy vetch offers a number of benefits including winter hardiness, N-fixation, opportunities for no-till management, and the potential to help suppress weeds. Corn is well suited for no-till planting into a managed hairy vetch cover crop, however potential benefits may not be realized unless corn planting is delayed to insure sufficient hairy vetch growth and biomass. The objective of our research was to examine how hairy vetch termination date coupled with cover crop biomass influenced weed suppression and no-till corn performance. An experiment was conducted at our Rock Springs Agronomy farm in central Pennsylvania in 2008 and 2009. Hairy vetch was seeded in early September at 34 kg/ha in combination with 22 kg/ha spring oats. In late fall, weed seed bank sub-sub plots were supplemented with giant foxtail, smooth pigweed, and common ragweed at four different densities. Weed seed bank density sub-sub plots included the resident weed population (none), 100 (low), 450 (medium), and 1050 (high) seeds/m2 of each weed species. The following spring, hairy vetch was sampled for biomass and terminated using 0.84 kg ae/ha glyphosate plus 0.56 kg ae/ha 2,4-D LVE at two different dates about 14 days apart. About one week after termination, glyphosate-resistant corn was no-till planted and about five weeks after termination, glyphosate was applied postemergence at 0.84 kg/ha to half of each plot (subplot). Weed density was sampled by species in each sub-sub plot at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after termination, weed biomass at 12 weeks after termination, and corn population and grain yield in late season. The experiment was conducted at three locations over two growing seasons and each location was analyzed separately. Hairy vetch biomass increased with delay in termination ranging from 1100 to over 4000 kg/ha. Weed biomass increased with increasing seed bank density and tended to be lower in the later planting date compared to the early planting date. In one of the three locations, weed biomass was significantly lower at the later planting date, which had approximately half the weed biomass of the early planting date. Weed biomass in the hairy vetch alone treatments (no postemergence herbicide) ranged from 1109 to 1718 kg/ha, while the postemergence glyphosate treatment consistently reduced weed biomass to less than 100 kg/ha. Corn yields were generally higher in the treatments receiving the postemergence herbicide application. Over the two-year study, corn yields in treatments receiving the postemergence herbicide ranged from 7155 to 8152 kg/ha, while treatments that did not receive the postemergence glyphosate ranged from 6076 to 7317 kg/ha. Although delaying corn planting and increasing amounts of hairy vetch biomass tended to improve weed control, the post glyphosate application increased corn yield suggesting that the cultural weed control tactics were inadequate for maximizing yield. These results show that increasing cover crop biomass and delaying corn planting can improve weed suppression, but high weed seed bank density will require additional management efforts.

95

CONTROL OF HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP IN CORN AND SOYBEANS. G.D. Vail*, C.L. Foresman, N.D. Polge, V.K. Shivrain, and D.A. Thomas, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC (98)

ABSTRACT

A population of waterhemp (A. tuberculatus, syn. rudis) from a continuous seed corn production field in McLean County, Illinois has been confirmed resistant to three post-emergence HPPD inhibiting herbicides. Post-emergence resistance was confirmed in both greenhouse and field trials conducted in 2010. Other post emergence herbicides including glyphosate, glufosinate, fomesafen and dicamba effectively controlled the waterhemp. Additionally, pre-emergence applications of mesotrione also provided control in both the field and greenhouse.

96

EDAMAME PRODUCTION AND HERBICIDE TOLERANCE. C.E. Altemose*, D.D. Lingenfelter, W.S. Curran, and M.J. VanGessel, Penn State University, Bellefonte, PA (99)

ABSTRACT

Edamame is a food grade soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) that is very popular in East Asia. More recently, it is becoming more popular in the United States. Because it is a healthy source of protein and energy, edamame is used as a snack food, in salads and stir fry and many other dishes. Food grade soybeans differ from feed grade soybeans (fed to livestock) in that they are normally larger in size and sweeter in taste. Edamame is harvested as an immature soybean at reproductive stage 6 (R6), when the soybean pods are green and have two to three fully developed green-colored beans inside the pod. Currently, the vast majority of edamame is produced in Asia and imported to the United States. Because of its large market potential, Penn State is working with other universities, USDA, and private industries to introduce U.S.-developed edamame varieties that would be locally grown, to American markets. One necessary aspect for large scale production of edamame is adequate and economical weed control options. Replicated, small-plot field studies were conducted in 2008 to evaluate herbicide tolerance of five edamame varieties (‘Butter’, ‘Envy’, ‘Mooncake’, ‘VS3622’, and ‘VS3688’) and a standard, feed grade, agronomic soybean variety, ‘Pioneer 93M11’. Bentazon, chlorimuron, cloransulam, fomesafen, imazamox, s-metolachlor, and pendimethalin were applied preemergence (PRE) and/or postemergence (POST) at standard soybean use rates. Across all varieties, none of the PRE herbicides caused any crop injury. In general, depending on the treatment, initial injury from POST applications ranged from 7 to 30%, including the control ‘Pioneer 93M11’ variety. However, late season crop injury ratings revealed that the POST herbicides caused no more than 11% injury to any of the varieties which is similar to what was observed with the control variety. From these and other efforts, Syngenta has secured a Section 3 label for Dual Magnum that includes use in edamame (immature soybean seed) production. Other companies are working to obtain herbicide product labels that list edamame. Products that are potentially pending approval include Basagran, Command, Prowl H2O, Pursuit, Raptor, Reflex, Treflan HFP, and Select.

97

IGNITING ANOTHER SOYBEAN WEED CONTROL OPTION. D.D. Lingenfelter* and W.S. Curran, Penn State, University Park, PA (100)

ABSTRACT

As more weeds become resistant to glyphosate, many wonder if the LibertyLink® soybean (Glycine max) system will be the answer to this problem. Glufosinate (Ignite 280®, formerly known as Liberty) has the potential for both burndown in no-till and for control of emerged weeds postemergence (POST). However, there are several benefits and challenges to consider and these are forefront on many university extension weed scientist’s minds. In central Pennsylvania, initial investigations of LibertyLink soybean programs to evaluate weed control were conducted from 1995 – 1999 and then were revived in 2008 prior to commercial marketing of LibertyLink soybean varieties. These field experiments compared POST-applied glufosinate alone and in sequence with preemergence (PRE)/residual herbicides (e.g., pendimethalin or s-metolachlor + fomesafen premix). In general, glufosinate (0.36 or 0.4 lb ai/acre) treatments were applied with ammonium sulfate as an adjuvant. Studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Visual weed control evaluations were taken periodically throughout the growing period. Late season evaluations of eight studies revealed that glufosinate herbicide alone provided 80 – 83% control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) when applied early postemergence (EPOST). However, when glufosinate was applied in combination with a PRE-residual herbicide or in a glufosinate (EPOST) followed by glufosinate (POST) program, control of these same weed species improved to 90 – 97%. These study results combined with research at other universities and with information from the glufosinate product label provide some practical guidance for soybean growers. Benefits of the LibertyLink system include: good, in-crop, annual weed control option; use of a different mode of action (non-glyphosate) as a possible herbicide resistance management tactic; wide POST application window; currently, no resistant weed species; and good crop rotation flexibility. Some challenges include: weaker than glyphosate on certain annual weeds (especially grasses) and perennials and in burndown situations; thorough spray coverage necessary for effective weed control; time of day and climatic conditions can affect glufosinate performance; and possible higher cost of glufosinate- vs. glyphosate-containing herbicide products. In a well planned crop rotation, LibertyLink soybean system has the potential to provide effective weed control and reduce the reliance on glyphosate when used in an integrated weed management scheme. For example, in no-till LibertyLink soybeans, use a glyphosate-based burndown mixture that includes a reduced rate residual herbicide followed by an in-crop application of glufosinate.

98

TANK-MIXING RESIDUAL HERBICIDES WITH GLUFOSINATE TO IMPROVE POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN GLUFOSINATE-RESISTANT SOYBEANS. M. Mahoney*, M. Weber, J.M. Rutledge, and J. Allen, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (101)

ABSTRACT

Glufosinate has provided excellent weed control postemerge (POST) in glufosinate-resistant soybeans. However, as a means of herbicide resistance strategies laid out by Bayer and other companies, the inclusion of a residual soil-applied herbicide is recommended. In today’s rush to plant soybeans earlier and large planting equipment, results in crop emergence before growers and retailers can apply their soybean residual soil-applied herbicides. Most soil-applied herbicides must be applied before soybean emergence or significant crop response may occur. Field studies were conducted through the U.S. to evaluate residual herbicides with the first application of glufosinate and demonstrate how that compares to either a PRE fb POST or POST applications alone.

99

ENCAPSULATED ACETOCHLOR FOR POSTEMERGE RESIDUAL WEED CONTROL IN SOYBEAN AND CORN. J.B. Willis*, D.J. Mayonado, and B. Dillehay, Monsanto, Piqua, OH (102)

ABSTRACT

WarrantTM herbicide is a new encapsulated acetochlor (33% or 3 lb/gal) specifically designed for postemergence applications in Roundup Ready® crops. Warrant provides residual control of small seeded broadleaves and annual grasses. Warrant can be tank-mixed with Roundup® Brand Agricultural herbicides. Applications to soybeans should be made after soybeans are completely emerged but before soybeans reach growth stage R2, and labeled rates include 1.25 to 2 qt/A depending on soil type. The optimum timing and rate in most situations is when soybeans are V2-V3 at 1.5 qt/A. Warrant may be used in field corn from emergence to 30 inch corn, drop nozzles are recommended after 24 inch corn simply to improve weed and soil coverage under the crop canopy. Corn label rates include 1.5 to 3 qt/A depending upon soil type. Data demonstrates at 1.5 qt/A, Warrant will provide up to 40 days of residual control of grasses and small seeded broadleaf weeds, including tall waterhemp, common lambsquarters, and pigweed species. Warrant is not designed to control emerged weeds, therefore should be applied with Roundup to control emerged weeds.

100

101

NEWSS Year-End Report 2009

Submitted by the Executive Committee For the 64th Annual Meeting

January 6, 2010 Boston Marriott Cambridge

Cambridge, MA

PRESIDENT’S REPORT – David E. Yarborough

The 63rd annual meeting in Baltimore was very successful with the theme of Biofuels and the Implications for Weed Management and with special Turf grass and Ornamental symposia that had excellent attendance. We did have a significant deficit for our 2009 fiscal year because of expenses that were not accounted for at the end of the 2008 fiscal year and a greater expenditure on the 2009 joint weed contest. New members to the Executive Committee were Mark Van Gessel as Vice President, Melissa Bravo as secretary treasurer, Barbara Scott for public relations, Shawn Askew as WSSA representative and Angela Post as graduate student representative. Work began soon after the meeting for the Executive Committee – to plan another conference, schedule the Collegiate Weed Contest and continue moving the society forward. Our website was working quite well this year allowing us to post meeting information and registration information for electronic submissions. This year we did not mail out our program but posted it on the web site along with the meeting at a glance schedule. Registration was available through the society website via ACTEVA which charged a fee but allowed us to track the registration and luncheon numbers, there was also an option to mail in the registration with out a fee. This year the titles and proceedings were hosted on the WSSA web site to try out their new registration program, which was less flexible and more of a challenge to use for our editor than what we had in past years. As President, Board meetings were scheduled, agendas circulated and hotel arrangements made. Committee Lists were updated, reviewed, approved and posted on the website. Proceedings are also posted on the web site one year after they are printed. Changes and modifications were submitted to the Manual of Operating Procedures. We have a significant change in responsibilities this year with many of the duties of the vice president and president-elect being exchanged; the president-elect will now be the program chair and the vice-president will record the meeting minutes.

102

An invitation was given to the Northeastern American Society of Horticultural Science to hold their meeting jointly with us by me in January at their last annual meeting and they accepted. The last time we met with them was in Washington, DC in 2005. We welcome their addition to our program. As in the past, we have included them in our program, adding a session of horticultural talks to the meeting. We met to review the hotel space in October and final arrangements were made with the staff for the lunch, social, coffee breaks and room set ups with the Marriott Hotel staff when the registration and hotel room reservations were in. Most of our society members waited until the 11th hour as we had only half of the hotel rooms needed the week before the deadline. Our new dues structure and corporate sponsorship has been very successful and now the society only approaches companies one time each year for a contribution. Renee Keese has solicited the sustaining members for a contribution for the social nightcap, this has taken the place of individual hospitality suites we have had in years past and is a successful addition to our meeting. No Resolutions were brought forward by the Resolutions Committee in 2009. We have an excellent Vice-President candidate for 2010, Toni DiTommaso who has previously served as WSSA representative on our executive committee. It has been a pleasure working with this Executive Committee, as they are hard-working volunteers and dedicated to weed science!

PRESIDENT-ELECT REPORT –Hilary Sandler Collegiate Weed Contest: The 2009 Weed Contest was held on July 23 at the ABG Ag Services near Indianapolis, IN. This was a joint contest between the Northeastern and North Central Society’s. Fourteen graduate and 9 undergraduate teams participated from 11 universities. Students competed in weed and herbicide identification, sprayer calibration and farmer problems. Each region was awarded separately. The “Golden Hoe” award for the top graduate and undergraduate team from both regions went to Penn State and Guelph, respectively. Toni DiTommaso and Robin Bellinder are the contacts for the 2010 Weed Contest, which will be held at Cornell in New York. They have committed to host the contest; exact dates have not been set yet but they are honing in on the last week of July. The first ever Weed Olympics will be held in Knoxville, TN on July 26-27, 2011. Jim Brosnan and Greg Armel have agreed to be the coordinators in this joint contest that would engage the 4 regional societies in a national contest. The contest will combine aspects of the NCWSS, NEWSS, and SWSS contest rules to comprise what Jim and Greg believe will be a very challenging event that incorporates crops, herbicides, farmer problems, and weeds of importance to each region. 2011 Annual Meeting: We have signed a contract with the Renaissance Harbor Place Baltimore for our 2011 meeting, for the dates January 3-6. This is the same property that hosted the 2007 and 2009 Annual Meetings. We have negotiated a room rate of $125/night single or double, complementary meeting space, a complementary reception for the Society, complementary podium and lavaliere microphones, reduced parking at $13/day, and several other incentives. We will invite NE-ASHS to join us in Baltimore in 2011.

103

The 2010 meeting is a joint meeting with the Northeastern American Society of Horticultural Science. The meeting is being held at the Boston Cambridge Marriott, Cambridge, MA during January 4-7. Executive Committee Members: Replacement for Executive Committee members whose terms have been completed have been identified. Darren Lycan will replace Greg Armel as Editor; John O’Barr will replace Caren Judge as Sustaining Membership; Randy Prostak will replace Bob Sweet as CAST representative.

VICE-PRESIDENT REPORT – Mark VanGessel The theme of the annual meeting is “Meeting the Challenges of Food Production in Africa”. Speakers and titles were finalized for the general session and symposium. Since many of the speakers have a heavy travel schedule, it was not finalized as soon as I would have liked. However, I am very pleased with the speakers. The general session will include Scott Soares, Agricultural Commissioner for Massachusetts; David Barnett from Mount Auburn Cemetery, in Cambridge, MA; Daniel Gustafson who is the Washington, DC liaison for Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and our presidential address by David Yarborough. The symposium will include Teshome Alemneh, from Higher Education for Development, a group that works very closely with the U.S. State Department and U.S. Aid for International Development; Albert Ayeni, who is the Associate Director for the Global Institute for Bioexploration-Africa at Rutgers University; Peter Jeranyama, from the UMass Cranberry Station who is president of the Association for African Agricultural Professionals for the Diaspora which recently received a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their efforts; and Leonard Gianessi of CropLife Foundation, who is working with U.S. weed scientists to assist in various African countries. We also have two workshops planned: one on “Weed Seed Bank Dynamics” organized by Eric Gallandt and one on “New Media Options for Extension and Teaching” organized by Dwight Lingenfelter. In addition to the invited speakers we have 95 submitted titles, down slightly from the previous few years. The Weed Biology and Ecology section has fewer titles than normal, but many of the presenters in the Weed Seedbank Workshop typically would have submitted titles to this section. There are ten student papers, 16 posters (includes 5 student posters), 11 Agronomy, 10 Ornamental, 17 Turf, 4 Weed Ecology/Biology, 10 Fruit and Vegetable, and 10 Vegetation Management and Restoration presentations. There are also an additional six presentations in the General Session and Symposium and five presentations in the Turf symposium. Sections chairs assisted with arranging order of titles. The 64th meeting is being held along with the Northeastern Branch of the American Society of Horticultural Science. The schedule was arranged to allow them to be part of the symposium and we coordinated the Fruit and Vegetable Section and the Ornamentals Section so that members could attend the two programs. We will hold a joint mixer for the two societies and both organizations are invited to the dessert social on Tuesday evening. I agreed to serve as program chair for the 2011 meeting as well. This will facilitate a change in the MOP with the vice-president organizing and coordinating the symposium, and President-

104

elect organizing the program. Organizing the program is a major responsibility, and the EC felt that someone who had served on the board for one year prior to organizing the annual meeting would be more prepared. We used a prototype computer program for title and abstract submission. It worked fairly well for title submission, but not as helpful as we had hoped for abstract and keyword submission. We will be looking for feedback from the membership on their thoughts of the process during the meeting.

PAST PRESIDENT REPORT – Jerry Baron

Documents for 2008 were compiled and submitted to Dan Kunkel for storage in the IR-4 Project Headquarters archive room. The Awards Committee this year consists of Jerry Baron as Chair, Renee Keese, Bill Curran, Tim Dutt, and Robin Bellinder. Nominations were received for all awards. Plaques were ordered for all the award winners. The Awards Luncheon Program was prepared and printed through IR-4. The Past President’s breakfast was scheduled for Wednesday morning January 6th. The Manual of Operating Procedures was updated and 60 new copies printed for the Annual Business Meeting and new Executive Committee members. There was a significant change with the President-elect taking on the duties of the Program Chair. This will allow the new Vice-President to have a year of accumulation on the Executive Committee before being in charge of planning the Annual Meeting. Other duties were swapped to balance the workload between Executive Committee members.

SECRETARY REPORT – Melissa Bravo

Incoming Secretary Report Between January and April, 2009, Chris Becker, outgoing Secretary/Treasurer and Melissa Bravo, incoming Secretary/Treasurer worked together to transfer the bank accounts and pay expenses for the 2008 annual meeting. Brian Manley, past Secretary/Treasurer and signatory on the NY B.O.A. accounts finalized all B.O.A. transfers and the B.O.A. accounts were closed out in April. Melissa opened a new checking and savings account at the 1st National Bank of Fredericksburg located in Fredericksburg, PA and a business postal address next door at the Fredericksburg US Post office. Signatories on the bank accounts are primary – Melissa Bravo; secondary David Yarborough; and thirdly, Hilary Sandler. Due to increasing bank security precautions it will be necessary for outgoing EC board members to update the signatory cards immediately after the annual business meeting. A limited daily total transaction use ($1,000.00) mac card was also issued to the primary holder of the account. Insurance The Society holds a Dishonesty Bond Insurance policy with Fingar Insurance for the E.C Board. This policy was renewed and remains in effect through January, 2010. The policy will be renewed with Fingar Insurance. The Society held a Liability Insurance policy with Western Mutual that expired in August of 2009. This policy was not renewed because Western

105

Mutual does not have bonded agents in Pennsylvania and the Business address for the Society is now in Pennsylvania. At this time the Society does not hold a Liability Policy. Instead, single event (Weed Contest, NIVM short course) liability policies were purchased when requested by the Event Facility. Standing Orders for current year and archived Proceedings continue to be received by Irene T. Bradley and shipped from Cornell University. Past proceedings are also scanned and archived on the web. Web site updates and maintenance continues to be provided by Rob Dickerson at Penn State University. Melissa worked with Rob to post the updated EC Contacts, annual meeting registration links and the 2008 NIVM short course registration information. Weed Contest expenditures were approved by the EC board for the purchase of new booms and parts for the calibration part of the contest. The booms are currently housed at PSU and with the Secretary/Treasurer. All expenses for the Weed Contest with the exception of the shipping costs for the booms have been expensed. NIVM short course income and expenses were approved by the EC board and the short course grant fiscal year reporting was reconciled for the 2008 and 2009 events. The secretary/treasurer worked closely with the short course coordinator in processing registration fees and invoices for the event’s expenses. As of November 14th, 2009 all registration fees and known expenses have been expensed. This two year event was funded by a grant from the USFS and at the request of the National Park Service. More than 100 land managers from throughout the northeast attended the hands on training course over the past two years, which was taught by numerous members and affiliates of the Society. There is strong support and interest from the target audience, stakeholders and the instructors for the Society to continue hosting this event in a sustainable fashion. Several organizations are looking into how the event can be funded again by grant monies. The two year event was profitable to the Society in the amount of $4,317.39. A poster summarizing each year’s activities was presented at NEWSS and WSSA and the end of grant summary was submitted to the USFS in December of 2009. Annual meeting registration forms were updated and posted to the website in November. New this year is the use of ACTEVA, an event company that the Society has contracted with to manage the online event registration. The online registration database provided by ACTEVA and additional registrations received by mail and at the annual meeting will be used to generate an updated membership directory. The membership directory is intended to reflect the last three years’ annual meeting attendees and those who do not attend the meeting but pay dues. Also new this year is Julie Queen who has taken over for Cheryl Ferrazoli. She will be paid to assist with registration and updating membership information, and earlier this year assisted with the NIVM short course registration and course material preparation while working for PDA this summer.

106

Members 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Regular 200 171 187 173 132 Student 19 19 21 32

Dues only 6 Distinguished 11 11

Retired 1 3 Sustaining 5 22 13

Invited Speakers 3 3 3 3 Symposiums and Workshops 113 18 59 14 76

TOTAL 313 211 273 245 276 Hotel Tax Exempt Form was acquired by David Yarborough and given to Melissa Bravo who then provided it to the Marriott Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Society was denied tax exempt status for the 2009 meeting in Maryland due to lack of an “incorporation paper”. Maryland is the only state that has not accepted our other forms of proof that we are an IRS approved Tax Exempt Non-profit organization and we will submit anew to Maryland for the 2011 meeting for tax exempt status. As Pennsylvania has reciprocity with Maryland (but NY did not) this may not be an issue in 2011. AESOP Listserve continues to be used for the Society’s electronic announcements. However, once the new database is complete for the 2010 meeting a new electronic listserve will be created at Penn State. For this reason, please review the contact information in the back of the directory to ensure that the correct email contact is used as the AESOP listserve will be deactivated in 2010.

TREASURY REPORT – Melissa Bravo On November 1, 2008 the Bank of America beginning balances were $53,079.22 Advantage Checking Acct. and $18,228.89 Investment Acct. and during the banking transition period $15,000.00 in checks was in the possession of the outgoing Treasurer. New deposits of $42,538.42 and $20.38 in interest from November 1st, 2008 through the close of the B.O.A account and $790.00 in cash in the possession of the outgoing Treasurer. Against all funds, expenses were paid in the amount of $46,974.64 from the B.O.A account and $8,141.81 checks and $790.00 cash from monies in the possession of the outgoing Treasurer, leaving a B.O.A balance of $51,870.37 and $7,375.29 in the possession of the outgoing Treasurer at the time of the asset transfers to the incoming Treasurer. The Society’s business address and bank accounts were relocated to Fredericksburg, PA on December 28th, 2008 and January 15th, 2009. Bravo – SEC-Treasurer: 1st National Bank accounts were opened with a personal check from

Melissa Bravo in the amount of $190.00 with $50.00 placed in Savings and $140.00 placed in Checking.

Bank of America: Final transfer of funds from the NY Bank of America accounts in the amount of $51,870.37 to the 1st National Bank occurred by April of 2009 with $20,000.00 placed in Savings; $20,000.00 placed in an 8 month CD; and $11,870.37 placed in Checking.

Becker – SEC-Treasurer: Final transfer of NEWSS finances from Chris Becker – Secretary, in the amount of $7,375.29 occurred in April to the 1st National Bank and was placed in Checking.

First National Bank: New deposits of $27,327.75 occurred from January 15th through October 30th, 2009. Against those funds, $30,556.39 was deducted from the 1st National checking account

107

for NEWSS expenses leaving 1st National Bank account balances of $16,017.02 in Checking; $20,054.32 in a negligible yielding Savings and $20,147.15 in an 8 month negligible yielding CD for total cash assets of $56,218.49 on October 31, 2009.

Total Net worth 2007 – $60,112.29 Total Net worth 2008 – $71,308.11……..** ($52,335.22)

Total Net worth 2009 – $56,218.49 ____________________________________________________________

NEWSS Fiscal Year Revenue ($70,831.16) and Expenses ($86,462.84) Tracking

Non Annual Meeting Revenue of $24,378.33 and Expenses of $45,766.24 returned a net non annual meeting loss of -$21,387.91 for the fiscal year. The Weed Contest booms and the joint NCWSS/NEWSS event host fee were a new expense this year and the NIVM short course revenue/expenses posted across fiscal year 2008, 2009 and 2010 (**$18,972.89 in expenses from the 08 course posted to this fiscal year).

Annual Meeting Revenue of $46,452.83 and Expenses of $40,696.60 returned a net annual meeting profit of $5,756.23 to the Society as of October 31, 2009. In summary, the Society’s fiscal year total Revenue/Expenses for the period November 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009 returned a Net loss of -$15,631.68. Accounting and Bank Statements were reviewed by James Steffel on 12/17/09 and Grant Gordon on 01/06/2010 who signed off on the Society’s Fiscal Year Financial Statement that follows.

108

109

PUBLIC RELATIONS REPORT – Barbara Scott

Three NEWSS Newsletters compiled, edited and distributed via email and web

Two NEWSS News articles submitted to the WSSA Newsletter (April and October)

Photos taken at major events for inclusion in newsletters, website, and other media

Updated forms/information/website content provided to Rob Dickerson for the NEWSS website

Compiled a scrolling pictorial-summary of 2009 NEWSS events and created a poster of the NEWSS-NCWSS weed science contest for display at the annual meeting

Assisted the editor with Awards Banquet, Weed Contest & Photo Contest Winners’ pages for the 2010 Proceedings

Assisted the Vice-President with testing the new title submission website

EDITOR’S REPORT - Greg Armel

Upon receiving the program from Mark VanGessel, I sent the final program and proceedings file to Omnipress by December 16, 2009. In total, there were 17 posters and 88 oral paper presentations scheduled for our meeting at the Boston Marriott Cambridge in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The cover for both the program and the proceedings were augmented once again to include the winner of the Northeastern Weed Science Society photo contest from our meeting the previous year. The winner of this new honor was Randy Prostak of the University of Massachusetts, who won our photo contest back in January 2009 with a picture of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.). Our proceedings were approximately 17 pages shorter than last year’s proceedings and we did get 1 more color page than last year. Our program book was actually 8 pages longer than last year. Omnipress charged us $3,670.00 for 150 copies of the proceedings and 230 copies of the program books which is $70 more than what we were quoted originally from Omnipress. This increase is related to a request from the board to get 30 more program books (200 in the original contract) to make sure that we have enough programs for all NEWSS and ASHS members. In addition, 50 CDs containing Adobe PDF versions of our proceedings were created at the University of Tennessee and are being provided free of charge to the society. Darren Lycan of Syngenta has agreed to take over as Editor of the Northeastern Weed Science Society as my term in office expires. I will assist him in learning how we complete the Proceedings/Program books before our next meeting. I have appreciated the opportunity to serve the society as editor.

RESEARCH & EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Rakesh S. Chandran

At the 63rd annual meeting of the NEWSS in Baltimore, recertification credits were provided for 14 states, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), and the Agronomy Society Certified Crop Advisor Program (CCA). Individuals who signed for pesticide license recertification totaled 202, CCA accreditation totaled 31, and GCSAA at the turf workshop totaled 19. Top three states requesting credits were New York (32), Maryland (27), and

110

Delaware (23). Details of recertification credits provided in various break-out sessions are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Recertification credits for the 64th annual meeting will be requested from all states in the Northeast region and from Tennessee for the first time. Also, CCA and GCSAA credits will be sought for the annual conference. Table 1. Northeastern Weed Science Society’s 63rd Annual Meeting, Renaissance Baltimore, Jan 6-9, 2009 - recertification sign-up by states, CCA, and GCSAA.

Sign-up Session States CCA GCSAA

General Session (1 hr 15 min) 6 0 0 Graduate Student Contest Session A (1 h 30 min) 4 3 0 Graduate Student Contest Session B (1 h 45 min) 17 5 0 Special Workshop I – Statistics (1 h 30 min) 2 2 0 Special Workshop II – Spray Technology (1 h 30 min) 28 1 0 Biofuels and Weed Management Symposium (2 h) 20 4 0 Graduate Student Contest Session C (1 h 45 min) 10 5 0 Agronomy Session (2 h 45 min) 25 2 0 Ornamental Session (2 h 45 min) 7 1 0 Vegetation Management and Restoration Session (2 h 30 min)

13 1 0

Turfgrass and PGR Session (1 h 30 min) 4 1 0 Vegetables and Fruit (2 h) 10 0 0 Weed Biology and Ecology (2 h) 1 1 0 Ornamentals Workshop (4 h) 18 4 0 Turfgrass Workshop (3 h) 6 1 19

Total 171 31 19

111

Table 2. Northeastern Weed Science Society’s 63rd Annual Meeting, Renaissance Baltimore, Jan 6-9, 2009 - recertification credits by states and break-out sessions.

1NA – No credits were provided for this session by the state agency.

GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE – Angela Post Graduate Student Mixer. The graduate student mixer will be Monday night. She has requested it be extended from 1 to 1 ½ hours. She will welcome everyone and then open the floor to company representatives and professors to announce job and internship opportunities. She will have several, fun weed science activities rather than a speaker. The workshop/relay is designed to have everyone interact with one another so that it will be a more “social” event. We will probably do the usual pizza and beer thing and anticipating a smaller number of students; maybe include wine—up for discussion. Graduate Student Oral Paper Contest. We have nine presentations and she will moderate for the talks Tuesday morning. Kristine Averill will moderate for the talks after lunch. Any students who fail to upload their presentations by the appropriate time will lose 10 points. Angela will e-mail Graduate Student Paper Contest rules and guidelines and send out information about room reimbursement for students who present in the paper contest. She will also outline the need for papers to be in before the start of the GSM or have the 10 pt penalty. This change should be

Session CT DE MD MA ME NC NH NJ NY PA RI VA VT WV General Session 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 NA1 NA 0 0 0 1 Graduate Student Contest Session A

1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 NA 0 0 0 2

Graduate Student Contest Session B

1 0 3 1 2 1 0 2 3 NA 0 0 0 2

Special Workshop I – Statistics

0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0

Special Workshop II – Spray Technol.

2 4 6 1 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 1 0 2

Biofuels Symposium

1 2 5 1 1 1 0 2 5 NA 0 1 0 2

Graduate Student Contest Session C

0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 NA 0 1 0 1

Agronomy Session 0 7 4 1 0 0 0 2 5 2 0 2 0 1 Ornamental Session

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1

Vegetation Mgmt. and Restoration

0 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 4 0 1 0 0

Turfgrass and PGR Session

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Vegetables and Fruit

0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1

Weed Biology and Ecology

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Ornamentals Workshop

3 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 4 0 0

Turfgrass Workshop

0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Total 11 23 27 7 12 11 1 20 32 16 1 10 0 13

112

added to the MOPs. Graduate students will be encouraged to submit presentations prior to a time determined by the EC or be penalized 10 pts (this revision goes into the Judges sheet). The following language will be added to item 7 after questionnaires, “including rules for student contests”. Hilary moved to revise the language in the MOPs, Angela seconded, and it passed unanimously. Jerry will add change to MOPs.

SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP – Caren Judge

A request for Sustaining Membership was sent to all current sustaining members and prospective new members in fall 2009. We have received commitments from 17 organizations for 2010. We are awaiting confirmation from four 2009 sustaining members. We were unable to recruit any new members in 2010, in spite of efforts.

The 2009 Sustaining Membership breakdown is as follows: 2-Platinum, 6-Gold, 5-Silver, 4-Bronze confirmed for a total commitment of $13,500, and potential for $15,000. Therefore, overall support has decreased from 2009.

2010 NEWSS Sustaining Members

Organization 2010 Level BASF Platinum Syngenta Platinum Bayer Crop Science/Bayer Environmental Science Gold Dow AgroSciences Gold Dupont Gold The IR-4 Project Gold Monsanto Gold Valent Gold Amvac Silver FMC Silver For-Shore Weed Control Silver OHP Silver PBI Gordon Silver Quali-PRO Silver ? Weed Systems Inc. Silver ? ACDS Bronze ? BAAR Scientific Bronze Crop Management Strategies Bronze Gylling Data Management Bronze LABServices Bronze Weeds, Inc. Bronze ?

2010 Sustaining Members will be recognized at the 2010 annual meeting and at the 2010 collegiate weed contest. Two organizations requested a commercial display table for the 2010 annual meeting in Cambridge. At the end of the 2010 annual meeting in Cambridge, I will be transferring responsibilities as Sustaining Membership Chair to John O’Barr with BASF, as my job has taken me outside of the

113

Northeast region. I would like to personally thank the executive committee and general membership of the NEWSS for the opportunity to serve.

CAST REPORT - R.D. Sweet/Randy Prostak

Randy went with Bob Sweet to the meeting in St. Louis Oct 7-9 hosted by Monsanto and the Donald Danforth Center for Plant Science. Much of the meeting was a tribute to Norman Borlaug who passed away. He wrote the first CAST paper and won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize. Randy discussed the restructuring of CAST Board. Working groups were combined and reorganized. Plant Science and Plant protection groups were rolled together. This affects us most. NEWSS is in the Plant Agriculture and Environmental Issues working group. They dissolved committee boards such as budget and finance and editorial. CAST wanted to improve focus meetings onto papers and publications. They are forming a Board of Trustees with an odd number (9 or 11) of members. Randy asked for suggestions of names. Another change will be that there will only be a fall meeting board now and the location will rotate. They want to change the format to 3 days instead of 4 as it is now. The spring meeting replaced by a teleconference call. Randy mentioned that CAST’s financial troubles continue. The fall 2009 meeting was hosted by Monsanto this year and they helped with hotel costs significantly. Danforth Center also contributed. The use of industry hosts is new. Increasing membership in CAST is a priority. NEWSS has the highest % of all the 35 or so groups that are present in CAST (about 15 people have individual memberships). Several big societies have dropped out, APS, Crop Science, Soil Science, etc. New pubs are coming out: endangered species and biostock for energy. Monsanto made suggestions for new issue papers. Randy said CAST will ship a display for the NEWSS meeting in 2010.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT - Lee Van Wychen Washington DC Policy Report

Doubling Campaign for USDA Agricultural and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) I have been working with several research coalitions (National C-FAR, Co-Farm) to double the AFRI grants (old NRI) over the next 5 years. Funding was $193M in FY 2008 and $201M in FY 2009. Our ag research coalition group was pushing Congress for $250 million in FY 2010 (exclusive of any Section 406 Program funding), with a goal of $500 million in total funding by FY 2015. The FY 2010 ag approps bill was passed this fall with $262 million for AFRI, which is a huge increase compared to past years. We also targeted the Obama White House and OMB about campaign promises to increase science R&D. While some agencies (NSF, NIH, DOE) have done well, agriculture research funding was left in the dark. Reminder to NEWSS members to keep an eye out for new mandatory research funding from the 2008 Farm Bill in the areas of biofuels, specialty crops, and organic ag. USDA personnel changes -ARS hired Dr. John Lydon as the new National Program Leader for Weed Science. - Roger Beachy was selected as the first Director of NIFA (6 year appointment).

114

- Under Sec for Research, Education and Economics is vacant as Rajiv Shah left for US-AID. Herbicide Resistance Management Policy APHIS/EPA Grant for Herbicide Resistance White Paper WSSA members Bill Vencill, Carol Mallory-Smith, Bill Johnson, Nilda Burgos, Ted Webster, Bob Nichols, and John Soteres have been working on a “state of the science” review paper on the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and weed shifts that are linked to the introduction of GE herbicide-tolerant corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, alfalfa and switchgrass. The goal is publish the review paper via “open access” in Weed Science by February 2010. In October, Jill Schroeder, WSSA-EPA Liaison, helped coordinate a learning session on herbicide resistance management in Washington DC. David Shaw, WSSA President, gave a presentation to EPA-OPP and CropLife America in October that discussed results after the 3rd year of 4-yr, 6 state study that showed that net returns on fields managed according to recommended best practices are equal to or greater than the returns on those where glyphosate is used alone. WSSA recommendations include focused educational efforts that target all appropriate groups including media, growers, dealers/distributors, and consultants. We need to convey a consistent, accurate message about managing herbicide resistance and it must be urgent. Discussions about herbicide mode-of-action labeling are also on the table (similar to Canada and Australia). EPA- Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES) I have spent a lot of time over the past year working to ensure that FIFRA remains the preeminent federal law for pesticide regulation that protects both people and the environment. The extensive research and science-based risk assessments required by FIFRA should not be jeopardized by politics (and it is). More background can be found in the report titled “EPA Florida Aquatic Pesticide Tour” on the WSSA website. Many thanks to Jill Schroeder (WSSA-EPA liaison) and Kurt Getsinger (APMS, Army Corp of Engineers) for their excellent work on this issue. The CWA will have a huge impact on our discipline if CWA NPDES permits are required for pesticide applications “in, over, or near water”. The citizen lawsuit provisions in the CWA (but not in FIFRA) will be an incredible economic burden on everyone. In January 2009, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that EPA’s final rule was not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA since the terms “chemical waste” and “biological materials” unambiguously include aquatic pesticides. The WSSA along with many other stakeholders (including USDA Secretary Vilsack, and House and Senate Ag Committees) asked EPA to petition for a full court rehearing. In April, Industry asked for the full 6th Circuit Court to rehear the case, but EPA only asked for 2 year stay to implement an NPDES permit system for pesticides applied “in, over, or near water”. There are currently 3 avenues being pursued to ensure that pesticides applied in accordance with FIFRA are exempt from any CWA regulation: Judiciary Branch- Industry (Crop Life, National Cotton Council, etc.) appeal to full 6th

Circuit Court denied. Industry has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Decision on whether or not to rehear the case should come in spring 2010.

115

Legislative Branch- Congress could provide exemption of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA from CWA. The Baucus amendment to Senate bill 787 (which broadens the scope of CWA jurisdiction) initially looked good, but did not provide a true exemption. S. 787 passed the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, but I don’t think they have the votes to pass it in the full Senate. On the House side, the Small Business Committee had a hearing on S. 787 this summer and they heard massive opposition against the bill because enactment of S. 787 would subject federal CWA permitting requirements on ditches, water and sewer pipes, streets, gutters, man-made ponds, storm water basins, and even “puddles of rainwater” according to some of the bill’s critics.

Executive Branch- EPA has until April 9, 2011 to implement a NPDES permit system for all pesticides applied in, over, or near water.

EPA plans to release a draft version of an NPDES general permit for public comment this spring. States will be required to do their own permitting, but EPA would not object to “plagiarism” of its general permit. State general permits must be approved by EPA prior to April 9, 2011. An NPDES General Permit will allow an applicator to perform certain activities (mosquito control, aquatic weed control, etc.). Applicators would need to file a ‘notice of intent’ (NOI) that would be good for 5 years (still discussing timeframe). The NOI is intended to be a simple 1 to 2 or 3 page form with name, address, application type, discharge area, etc. Applications should be able to be made within 2 days to a week of NOI submission. EPA does not believe that individual NOI’s should be made available to the public, although general permits could be made public. Atrazine Re-Evaluation in 2010 Atrazine was re-registered in 2006 after a 3 year review of over 6,000 studies on atrazine. EPA concluded that “no harm that would result to the general U.S. population, infants, children or other…consumers” from atrazine use. The World Health Organization, the National Cancer Institute and EPA all have studied atrazine and found no health concerns when used as directed. Specifically that atrazine does NOT disrupt the endocrine system and has NO adverse effect on frogs. However, the new administration wants to review atrazine again due to some requests by “extremist” groups. This is very unfortunate as there is no new scientific evidence and is basically just fear-mongering by these groups to raise money. Climate Change Bill (H.R. 2454) - Passed House. Stalled in Senate, but could see action early this year. WSSA has no official position on the bill. The ag lobbying ‘block’ is divided, as are past USDA Secretaries. The no-till carbon sequestration provisions under a Cap and Trade system would likely be good for WSSA.

End.

116

January 7, 2010 NEWSS Annual Business Meeting

(Recorded by Julie Queen, Edited by M. Bravo)

Dave Yarborough called the Meeting to order at 4:50 pm In the interest of time the business meeting annual reports in detail (17 pages) is available

at the back of the room. (Members can also request report from Secretary Treasurer). Dave asked the members at large to approve last year’s business meeting minutes as

amended. (See page 117 of your Proceedings. The 2007 financial statement was included in the Proceedings by error. The correct 2008 financial Statement (Fiscal Year November 30, 2007 through October 30, 2008) are available in the room (Members can also request report from Secretary Treasurer). Andy Senesac will make sure that Standing Orders receive the correct Financial Statement as well.

He provided comments on excellent program. Dave thanked Mark VanGessel, who was responsible for choosing the theme, for finding

speakers and ensuring they were present throughout the week. Pleased with discussion and information presented at this years meeting. Presentation Recap

o 17 poster papers – 5 student presentations o 88 oral papers - 10 students competed in the student oral paper competition

Drawing for Borders gift card went to Russ Hahn for submitting paper on time to session chairs. This incentive is a reminder for membership that the EC board needs members to submit papers on time per the time schedule in the program in order for events to start on time and stay on time throughout the week.

Proceedings. Dave thanked Greg Armel for another year of an excellent job in preparing the Proceedings. Note the Proceedings are 17 pages shorter than last year but the program is longer because of the NEASHS papers. This reflects the fact that the attendance is less compared to previous years.

Weed Seed Bank workshop, excellent discussion of issues dealing with seeds. Noted that as in past years, workshops draw in presenters from regular sessions and the smaller Weed Ecology and Biology session reflected this.

Meeting Recap.

o Attendance down significantly; 149 at meeting this year compared to 200 last year o Regular membership down to 93 regular members; 21 students o May have to reevaluate location of meeting location to bring up numbers.

Typically NEWSS has rotated between Baltimore/DC area and Philadelphia or Boston every third year.

MOP Change o Portions of the duties of vice president and president elect were exchanged so that

the vice-president now takes notes and the president elect is the program chair; this means that Mark Van Gessel will be responsible for next year’s program as well.

Announcements: Ornamentals session will start at 8 am on Thursday

117

Approval of Minutes No other changes, for 63rd Annual Business Meeting. Motion to accept by Scott Glenn,

seconded by Hilary Sandler, no discussion; minutes accepted at 4:58 pm. Changes to Other Members of Executive Committee Greg Armel rotated off as editor. Replaced by Darren Lycan. Bob Sweet retired after 30 years of service represented NEWSS on the CAST board and

is being replaced by Randy Prostak. John O’Barr will be replacing Caren Judge as Sustaining Membership Committee.

Necrology Report (Melissa Bravo). Asked the members at large: Robert Peters passed away in the last year; former president; Distinguished member.

Reflections were provided by Todd Mervosh, John Ahrens and James Parochetti. Melissa announced also deepest sympathy and thoughts for members who lost family

members over the holiday. Nathan Hartwig for his wife and Tim Dutt for his mother. Moment of silence

Secretary/Treasurer Update: (Melissa Bravo) Recap on position change at last year’s meeting. Melissa asked to take over duties due to

additional duty obligations for the short course income and expenses Thanked to Chris Becker for outgoing Secretary/Treasury assistance in learning the

ropes. Acknowledgement to Julie Queen who was hired as staffing assistance to download

ACTEVA, make name tags and process registrations at the registration desk and update the Society Directory.

Grateful to Brian Manley for coming back from Switzerland to help close Bank of America Accounts.

Outgoing Secretary Report: (Chris Becker): Official 990EZ report submitted in timely manner for the fiscal year 2007. (NEWSS files

in arrears). Incoming Secretary Treasury report: (Melissa Bravo) Secretary Report and Treasury Report as well as the Fiscal Year November 1st, 2008 to

October 30th, 2009 financial statement are found in the handout for today’s meeting. Status of Finances: Showing deficit for fiscal year; largely due to cross posting from

2008. 2009 Annual Meeting Recap: Reflecting a positive cash flow for the meeting itself. Payments, Deposits and Bank Account statements were audited by Jim Steffel and Grant

Jordon and all are in order. No questions or amendments.

Audit Committee Report (Jim Steffel) Agree that everything is in order and thank Melissa for her good job; report has been

signed off on

118

Archive Report. (Dan Kunkel) Dan attested to receiving the archival information from Past President Jerry Baron.

Awards committee report (Jerry Baron) See Awards Booklet provided during Awards Luncheon Recognized outstanding nominations from everyone in group. Reminded members to

submit nominations for the various awards to the Awards Committee in time for next years October EC meeting.

Awards Recap: o Distinguished member: Dr. Scott Glenn o Ward of merit: Betty Marose o Outstanding educator: Dwight Lingenfelter o Outstanding researcher: Dr. Todd Mervosh o Two Bob Sweet Outstanding Student Awards: Matt Ryan (Ph.D.) and Katherine

Ghantous (Masters) o Service Award. Andy spoke on behalf of Irene T. Bradley who has processed the

society’s Standing Orders for several years. He conveyed her gratitude and appreciation for receiving this award.

Weed Contest Report (Renee Keese) The contest was held jointly with the North Central region and included: 54 graduate students 31 undergraduate students 11 universities Announcement of winners: Penn State placed 1st and overall. Acknowledged the Penn

State Team and Coach Dwight Lingenfelter. The Overall award “Golden Hoe” went to Northeastern Weed Science Society team – Penn State.

Student Paper Competition (Renee Keese) Graduate student paper contest awards: Judges very impressed with papers, very top notch and high quality In judges’ meeting: two papers did not fit research format; students need to consider

appropriate data analyses 3rd place Matthew Cutelle – Jeff Derr, Virginia tech $50 2nd place Angela Post - Shawn Askew , Virginia tech $100 1st place Katherine Ghantous - Hilary Sandler, UMass $200

Judging sheets will be in mail; look forward to good contest next year Research Poster Competition (Kathy Kalmowitz) Only 5 of the 17 posters were in the student contest. comments: make sure all of info is accurate and labeled correctly; reminder to students to

consider questions as part of contest and know that you are being judged on completeness of your answers and the knowledge you show

3rd place J. Cummins, U of Tennessee, Knoxville 2nd place Katelyn Venner, Steven Hart, Rutgers University at New Brunswick 1st place Tomas Zavada, University of Massachusetts, Boston (Richard Kesseli, advisor).

Note. Hilary Sandler circulated an announcement to nearby Universities to participate in the contest and this is how Tomas heard of the event.

119

Photo contest (Grant Jordon) 28 photos were submitted by seven different photographers non-monetary honorable mentions:

o Barb Scott-Mouseear chickweed (University of Delaware) o Scott Morris-bittersweet nightshade (Cornell University)

Winners

o 3rd Nelson DeBarros-common milkweed (Penn State) o 2nd Javier Vargas-musk thistle (University of Tennessee) o 1st Randy Prostak-wild carrot (University of Massachusetts)

Old business: Angela Post – Asked the members to keep Joe Neal, his daughter and family in thoughts

and prayers as they continue to wait for a liver transplant for her. She is doing well under the circumstances.

No other business

Handing over of gavel by Dave Yarborough to Hilary Sandler

New Business (Hilary Sandler): First act to thank Dave for serving on committee as President and conducting an excellent

meeting for us this year here in Cambridge. Presented a plaque to David Yarborough for his service to NEWSS.

First order to ask if there are any resolutions and there were none. Nominating committee report (Renee Keese): Candidate for office of Vice President of NEWSS: Dr. Toni DiTomasso Open for other nominations: None Dave Yarborough motioned to close the nominations, Hilary 2nd the motion; approved by

voice acclamation. Other Appointments Need two members for 2010 nomination committee Jerry Baron and Roy Johnson appointed by Hilary and EC to serve on committee Three nominations from floor:

o Keith Burnell nominated himself o Steve Hart nominated himself o Shawn Askew nominated himself

Voice approval: all in favor Acceptance of committee for 2010

Need two new members for 2010 Resolution Committee Dwight Lingenfelter was appointed by Hilary and EC to chair the resolutions committee

o Chris Munsterman nominated by Bill Curran o Todd Mervosh nominated himself o Voice approval: all in favor

120

Announcements for weed contest 2010 Toni DiTommaso and Robin Bellinder have agreed to be hosts of the 2010 Weed

Contestant Cornell near Ithaca (Freeville, NY). The date is Tuesday July 27, 2010. New event: Weed Olympics in 2011 with Greg Armel at U of Tennessee will be a two-

day event; involving all regions of WSSA on July 26-27 in Knoxville. Mark your calendars.

2011 NEWSS Annual Meeting Next meeting in Baltimore at Renaissance Harborplace on January 3-6, 2011.

Introduction of new members to committee Darren Lycan to replace Greg Armel as Editor John O’Barr to replace Caren Judge as Sustaining Membership Randy Prostak to replace Bob Sweet as CAST representative

Introduction of current committee President – Hilary Sandler Vice President – Mark VanGessel Secretary/Treasurer – Melissa Bravo Vice President Elect – Toni DiTomasso Past President – Dave Yarborough Editor – Darren Lycan Sustaining Membership – John O’Barr Research and Education – Rakesh Chandran Public Relations– Barbara Scott WSSA Representative – Shawn Askew CAST Representative – Randy Prostak Grad Student Rep – Angela Post

o Melissa note: Website – Rob Dickerson – Penn State o Melissa note: Standing Orders – Irene T. Bradley o Melissa note: Archives – Dan Kunkel

New business: None

Welcoming of 2010 committee Applause from the floor Melissa announced student contest judging forms could be picked up at the desk and

asked Sustaining members to stop and pick up their complimentary proceedings. Melissa will mail all award checks by next week to all award winners and student

reimbursements for rooms. Motion to adjourn at 5:35pm Jerry Baron , Seconded – Scott Glenn– someone so moved Members adjourned to social.

End Business Meeting Notes

121

NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS Gilbert H. Ahlgren 1947-49 Robert D. Sweet 1949-50 Howard L. Yowell 1950-51 Stephen M. Raleigh 1951-52 Charles E. Minarik 1952-53 Robert H. Beatty 1953-54 Albin O. Kuhn 1954-55 John Van Geluwe 1955-56 L. Danielson 1956-57 Charles L. Hovey 1957-58 Stanford N. Fertig 1958-59 Gordon Utter 1959-60 E. M. Rahn 1960-61 Lawrence Southwick 1961-62 Donald A. Shallock 1962-63 Anthony J. Tafuro 1963-64 Robert A. Peters 1964-65 Gideon D. Hill 1965-66 Richard D. Ilnicki 1966-67 John E. Gallagher 1967-68 John A. Meade 1968-69 Homer M. Lebaron 1969-70 John F. Ahrens 1970-71 George H. Bayer 1971-72 Arthur Bing 1972-73 Ralph Hansen 1973-74 Walter A. Gentner 1974-75 Henry P. Wilson 1975-76 Richard J. Marrese 1976-77 C. Edward Beste 1977-78 James D. Riggleman 1978-79

James V. Parochetti 1979-80 M. Garry Schnappinger 1980-81 Raymond B. Taylorson 1981-82 Stephan Dennis 1982-83 Thomas L. Watschke 1983-84 James C. Graham 1984-85 Russell R. Hahn 1985-86 Edward R. Higgins 1986-87 Maxwell L. McCormack 1987-88 Roy R. Johnson 1988-89 Stanley F. Gorski 1989-90 John B. Dobson 1990-91 Prasanta C. Bhowmik 1991-92 Stanley W. Pruss 1992-93 Ronald L. Ritter 1993-94 Wayne G. Wright 1994-95 Bradley A. Majek 1995-96 Thomas E. Vrabel 1996-97 Joseph C. Neal 1997-98 David B. Vitolo 1998-99 A. Richard Bonanno 1999-00 Brian D. Olson 2000-01 Jeffrey F. Derr 2001-02 David J. Mayonado 2002-03 D. Scott Glenn 2003-04 Robin R. Bellinder 2004-05 Timothy E. Dutt 2005-06 William S. Curran 2006-07 Renee Keese       2007-08 Jerry Baron 2008-09 David Yarborough 2009-10

AWARD OF MERIT

1971 Gilbert H. Ahlgren Rutgers University

Homer Neville L.I. Ag. & Tech, Farmingdale, NY Claude E. Phillips University of Delaware M. S. Pridham Cornell University Stephen A. Raleigh Penn State University

1972 Robert Bell University of Rhode Island Stuart Dunn University of New Hampshire Alfred Fletcher NJ State Dept. of Health Frank N. Hewetson Penn Fruit Res. Lab. Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Collins Veatch West Virginia University Howard L. Yowell Esso Research Lab.

1973 Moody F. Trevett University of Maine 1974 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc.

Arthur Hawkins University of Connecticut

122

1975 Philip Gorlin NY City Environ. Cont. Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp. Robert D. Sweet Cornell University

1976 C. E. Langer University of New Hampshire Charles E. Minarik US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp.

1977 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Lawrence Southwick Dow Chemical Company John Stennis US Bureau of Fish & Wildlife

1978 None Awarded 1979 Carl M. Monroe Shell Chemical Company

Charles Joseph Noll Penn State University Jonas Vengris University of Massachusetts

1980 Otis F. Curtis, Jr. NY Agricultural Experiment Sta. Theodore R. Flanagan University of Vermont Oscar E. Shubert Virginia University

1981 Dayton L. Klingman US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine John Van Geluwe CIBA-GEIGY Corp.

1982 Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1983 Arthur Bing Cornell University

William E. Chappel Virginia Tech Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agricultural Prod.

1984 William H. Mitchell University of Delaware Roger S. Young West Virginia University

1985 John A. Jagschitz University of Rhode Island 1986 John R. Havis University of Massachusetts 1987 None Awarded 1988 J. Lincoln Pearson University of Rhode Island 1989 Robert A. Peter University of Connecticut 1990 Bryant L. Walworth American Cyanamid Co. 1991 Don Warholic Cornell University 1992 Robert Duel Rutgers University

Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University William V. Welker USDA/ARS

1993 None Awarded 1994 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta.

John B. Dobson American Cyanamid J. Ray Frank USDA-ARS/IR-4

1995 Francis J. Webb University of Delaware 1996 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts

Wilber F. Evans Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. Raymond B. Taylorson University of Rhode Island S. Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech

1997 Jean P. Cartier Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. 1998 Stan Pruss Novartis Crop Protection

Max McCormack, Jr. University of Maine 1999 None awarded 2000 Richard J. Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 2001 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University

Edward R. Higgins Novartis Crop University

123

2002 Garry Schnappinger Syngenta Crop Protection 2003 None Awarded 2004 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland-Emeritus James C. Graham Monsanto (retired) 2005 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2006 Steve Dennis Syngenta Crop Protection 2007 None awarded 2008 Domingo Riego Monsanto 2009 None awarded 2010 Betty Marose Marose Ag. Consulting

NEWSS FELLOW (Previously denoted as Distinguished Member)

1979 George H. Bayer Agway, Inc.

Robert A. Peters University of Connecticut Robert D. Sweet Cornell University

1980 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. John E. Gallagher Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University

1981 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc. Arthur Bing Cornell University John A. Meade Rutgers University

1982 Walter A. Gentner US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine

1983 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS 1984 Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agric. Prod.

Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech 1985 None Awarded 1986 Chiko Haramaki Penn State University

Dean L. Linscott USDA-ARS/Cornell University 1987 Gideon D. Hill E. I. DuPont DeNemours

Williams V. Welker US Dept. of Agric-ARS 1988 Wendell R. Mullison Dow Chemical

James V. Parochetti US Dept. of Agriculture-CSRS 1989 None Awarded 1990 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts 1991 John (Jack) B. Dobson American Cyanamid

Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1992 Gary Schnappinger Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1993 Steve Dennis Zeneca Ag. Products

James Graham Monsanto Ag. Co. 1994 Russell Hahn Cornell University

Maxwell McCormick University of Maine 1995 Richard Ashly University of Connecticut

Richard Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 1996 Roy R. Johnson Waldrum Specialist Inc.

Edward R. Higgins Ciba Crop Protection 1997 Raymond B. Taylorson UDSA-ARS

Wayne G. Wright DowElanco Stanley F. Gorski Ohio State University

1998 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts

124

1999 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland 2000 J. Ray Frank IR-4 Project Stanley W. Pruss Ciba Crop Protection 2001 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 2002 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2003 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University 2004 C. Benjamin Coffman USDA Joseph C. Neal North Carolina State University 2005 David Vitolo Syngenta Crop Protection 2006 A. Richard Bonnano University of Massachusetts Thomas Vrabel Eco Soil Systems, Central H.S. 2007 Larry Kuhns Penn State University Brian Olsen Dow Agrosciences 2008 Jeff Derr Virginia Tech 2009 David Mayonado Monsanto Co. Andrew Senesac Cornell University 2010 Scott Glenn University of Maryland

OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD 1999 Garry Schnappinger Novartis Crop Protection 2000 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 2001 Robin Bellinder Cornell University 2002 Jerry J. Baron IR-4 Project, Rutgers University 2003 Arthur E. Gover Penn State University 2004 Mark J. VanGessel University of Delaware 2005 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University 2006 Grant Jordan ACDS Research 2007 Peter Dernoeden University of Maryland 2008 Shawn Askew Virginia Tech 2009 Joseph Neal North Carolina State University 2010 Todd Mervosh Connecticut Ag Experiments Station

OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD 1999 Douglas Goodale SUNY Cobleskill 2000 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2001 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland 2002 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech University 2003 Andrew F. Senesac Cornell University 2004 William S. Curran Pennsylvania State University 2005 Antonio DiTomasso Cornell University 2006 Russell Hahn Cornell University 2007 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 2008 Mike Fidanza Penn State University 2009 Scott Glenn University of Maryland 2010 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University

125

SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD 2009 Thomas Hines Virginia Tech 2010 Irene Tsontakis-Bradley Cornell University

OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER CONTEST 1979 1 Bradley Majek Cornell University 2 Betty J. Hughes Cornell University 1980 1 John Cardi Penn State University 2 Timothy Malefyt Cornell University 1981 1 A. Douglas Brede Penn State University 2 Ann S. McCue Cornell University 1982 1 Thomas C. Harris University of Maryland 2 Barbara J. Hook University of Maryland HM L. K. Thompson Virginia Tech HM Timothy Malefyt Cornell University 1983 1 Anna M. Pennucci University of Rhode Island 2 Michael A. Ruizzo Ohio State University HM I. M. Detlefson Rutgers University 1984 1 Robert S. Peregoy University of Maryland 2 Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut 1985 1 Stephan Reiners Ohio State University 2 Erin Hynes Penn State University 1986 1 Elizabeth Hirsh University of Maryland 2 (tie) Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut 2 (tie) Avraham Y. Teitz Ohio State University 1987 1 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University 2 (tie) Daniel E. Edwards Penn State University 2 (tie) Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts 1988 1 William K. Vencill Virginia Tech 2 Lewis K. Walker Virginia Tech HM Scott Guiser Penn State University HM Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts 1989 1 Frank S. Rossi Cornell University 1 Amy E. Stowe Cornell University 1990 1 William J. Chism Virginia Tech 2 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University

126

1991 1 Elizabeth Maynard Cornell University 2 Daniel L. Kunkel Cornell University 1992 1 J. DeCastro Rutgers University 2 Ted Blomgren Cornell University 3 Fred Katz Rutgers University 1993 1 Eric D. Wilkens Cornell University 2 Henry C. Wetzel University of Maryland 1994 1 Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 2 Eric D. Wilkins Cornell University 1995 1 Sydha Salihu Virginia Tech 2 John A. Ackley Virginia Tech HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 1996 1 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University 2 Mark Issacs University of Delaware HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 1997 1 David Messersmith Penn State University 2 Sowmya Mitra University of Massachusetts HM Mark Issacs University of Delaware 1998 1 Dan Poston Virginia Tech 2 Travis Frye Penn State University 3 David B. Lowe Clemson University 1999 1 Hennen Cummings North Carolina State University 2 John Isgrigg North Carolina State University 2000 1 Matthew Fagerness North Carolina State University 2 Steven King Virginia Tech 3 Gina Penny North Carolina State University 2001 1 Robert Nurse University of Guelph 2 (tie) W. Andrew Bailey Virginia Tech 2 (tie) Steven King Virginia Tech 2002 1. G. Michael Elston University of Massachusetts 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University 2003 1. Matt Myers Penn State University 2. J. Scott McElroy North Carolina State University 3. Robert Nurse Cornell University 2004 1. Whitnee L. Barker Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University 3. Erin R. Haramoto University of Maine 2005 1. Jacob Barney Cornell University

127

2. Steven Mirsky Penn State University 2006 1. Steven Mirsky Penn State University 1. Robert Shortell Rutgers University 2. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University 2007 1. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University 2. John Willis Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 3. Glenn Evans Cornell University 2008 1. Glenn Evans Cornell University 2. Alex Putnam University of Connecticut 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University 2009 1. Dustin Lewis University of Tennessee 2. Kristine Averill Cornell University 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University 2010 1. Katherine Ghantous University of Massachusetts 2. Angela Post Virginia Tech 3. Matthew Cutulle Virginia Tech

COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS 1983 - Wye Research Center, Maryland Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Mike Donnelly, University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Bob Annet, University of Guelph 1984 - Rutgers Research and Development Center, Bridgeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: D. Wright, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: N. Harker, University of Guelph 1985 – Rohm and Haas, Spring House, Pennsylvania Graduate Team: University of Maryland Undergraduate Individual: Finlay Buchanan, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: David Vitolo, Rutgers University 1986 - FMC, Princeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: R. Jain, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Bill Litwin, University of Guelph

128

1987 - DuPont, Newark, Delaware Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Lewis Walker, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Allen Eadie, University of Guelph 1988 - Ciba-Geigy Corp., Hudson, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Del Voight, Penn State University Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech 1989 - American Cyanamid, Princeton, New Jersey Graduate Team: Cornell University Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Paul Stachowski, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Anita Dielman, University of Guelph 1990 - Agway Farm Research Center, Tully, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University 1991 - Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Tim Borro, University of Guelph 1992 - Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario, CANADA Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: Ohio State Graduate Individual: Troy Bauer, Michigan State University Undergraduate Individual: Jeff Stackler, Ohio State University 1993 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Brian Cook, University of Guelph 1994 - Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury, Maryland Graduate Team: Virginia Tech

129

Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Robert Maloney, University of Guelph 1995 - Thompson Vegetable Research Farm, Freeville, New York Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Jimmy Summerlin, North Carolina State University 1996 - Penn State Agronomy Farm, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: SUNY, Cobleskill Graduate Individual: John Isgrigg, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Mark Brock, University of Guelph 1997 - North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brett Thorpe, Michigan State University 1998 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Kevin Ego, University of Guelph 1999 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Nova Scotia Agricultural College Graduate Individual: Rob Richardson, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Keith Burnell, North Carolina State University 2000 - University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: Ohio State University Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Luke Case, Ohio State University 2001 - University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Matt Myers, Penn State University

130

Undergraduate Individual: Shawn Heinbaugh, Penn State University 2002 - ACDS Research Facility, North Rose, New York Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: North Carolina State University Graduate Individual: Scott McElroy, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Sarah Hans, North Carolina State University 2003 – Syngenta Crop Protection, Eastern Region Technical Center, Hudson, NY Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Andrew MacRae, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Jonathan Kapwyk, University of Guelph 2004 – North Carolina University, Raleigh, NC Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Jenny English, University of Guelph 2005 – Pennsylvania State University, Landisville, PA Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Gerard Pynenborg, University of Guelph 2006 – DuPont Crop Protection, Stine Haskell Research Center, Newark, DE Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Virender Kumar, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Adam Pfeffer, University of Guelph 2007 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: George Place, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Craig Reid, University of Guelph 2008 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Matt Ryan, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Blair Scott, University of Guelph 2009 - ABG Ag Services, Sheridan, Indiana (joint contest with the NCWSS)

131

Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Angela Post, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Andrew Reid, University of Guelph 2010- Cornell University, Freeville, New York Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Jason Parish, Ohio State University Undergraduate Individual: Cory Chelko, Penn State University

RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS 1983 1. Herbicide Impregnated Fertilizer of Weed Control in No-Tillage Corn - R.

Uruatowski and W. H. Mitchell, Univ. of Delaware, Newark 2. Effect of Wiper Application of Several Herbicides and Cutting on Black

Chokeberry - D. E. Yarborough and A. A. Ismail, Univ. of Maine, Orono HM. Corn Chamomile Control in Winter Wheat - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New

York and P. W. Kanouse, New York State Cooperative Extension, Mt. Morris 1984 1. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder,

Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Ornamental Res. Station, Painter

2. Triazine Resistant Weeds in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY HM. A Roller for Applying Herbicides at Ground Level - W. V. Welker and D. L.

Peterson, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 1985 1. No-Tillage Cropping Systems in a Crown Vetch Living Mulch - N. L. Hartwig, Penn

State Univ., University Park 2. Anesthetic Release of Dormancy in Amaranthus retroflexus Seeds - R. B.

Taylorson, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD and K. Hanyadi, Univ. of Agricultural Science, Keszthely, Hungary

2. Triazine Resistant Weed Survey in Maryland - B. H. Marose, Univ. of Maryland, College Park

HM. Wild Proso Millet in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1986 1. Discharge Rate of Metolachlor from Slow Release Tablets - S. F. Gorski, M. K. Wertz and S. Refiners, Ohio State Univ., Columbus

2. Glyphosate and Wildlife Habitat in Maine - D. Santillo, Univ. of Maine, Orono 1987 1. Mycorrhiza and Transfer of Glyphosate Between Plants - M. A. Kaps and L. J.

Khuns, Penn State Univ., University Park 2. Redroot Pigweed Competition Study in No-Till Potatoes - R. W. Wallace, R. R.

Bellinder, and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1988 1. Growth Suppression of Peach Trees With Competition - W. V. Welker and D. M.

Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 2. Smooth Bedstraw Control in Pastures and Hayfields - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ.,

Ithaca, NY

132

1989 1. Burcucumber Responses to Sulfonylurea Herbicides - H. P. Wilson and T. E.

Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Water Conservation in the Orchard Environment Through Management - W. V.

Welker, Jr., USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Res. Sta., Kearneysville, WV 1990 1. Reduced Rates of Postemergence Soybean Herbicides - E. Prostko, J. A. Meade,

and J. Ingerson-Mahar, Rutgers Coop. Ext. Mt. Holly, NJ 2. The Tolerance of Fraxinus, Juglans, and Quercus Seedings to Imazaquin and

Imazethapyr - L. J. Kuhns and J. Loose, Penn State Univ., University Park 1991 1. Johnsongrass Recovery from Sulfonylurea Herbicides - T. E. Hines and H. P.

Wilson, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Growth Response to Young Peach Trees to Competition With Several Grass

Species - W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 1992 1. Teaching Weed Identification with Videotape - B. Marose, N. Anderson, L.

Kauffman-Alfera, and T. Patten, Univ. of Maryland, College Park 2. Biological Control of Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L. Reptans) with

Xanthomonas campestris (MYX-7148) Under Field Conditions - N. D. Webber and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1993 1. Development of an Identification Manual for Weeds of the Northeastern United

States - R H. Uva and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Optimum Time of Cultivation for Weed Control in Corn - Jane Mt. Pleasant, R.

Burt and J. Frisch, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1994 1. Herbicide Contaminant Injury Symptoms on Greenhouse Grown Poinsettia and

Geranium - M. Macksel and A. Senesac, Long Island Horticultural Res. Lab, Riverhead, NY and J. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

2. Mow-kill Regulation of Winter Cereals Grown for Spring No-till Crop Production - E. D. Wilkins and R. R. Bellinder, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1995 1. A Comparison of Broadleaf and Blackseed Plantains Identification and Control - J.

C. Neal and C. C. Morse, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Using the Economic Threshold Concept as a Determinant for Velvetleaf Control in

Field Corn - E. L. Werner and W. S. Curran, Penn State Univ., University Park 1996 1. Preemergence and Postemergence Weed Management in 38 and 76 cm Corn -

C. B. Coffman, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 2. Common Cocklebur Response to Chlorimuron and Imazaquin - B. S. Manley, H.

P. Wilson and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 1997 None Awarded 1998 1. Weed Control Studies with Rorippa sylvestris - L. J. Kuhns and T. Harpster, Penn

State Univ., University Park, PA 2. Postemergence Selectivity and Safety of Isoxaflutole in Cool Season Turfgrass -

P. C. Bhowmik and J. A. Drohen, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 1999 1. Winter Squash Cultivars Differ in Response to Weed Competition - E. T.

Maynard, Purdue Univ., Hammond, IN

133

2. Effectiveness of Row Spacing, Herbicide Rate, and Application Method on Harvest Efficiency of Lima Beans - S. Sankula, M. J. VanGessel, W. E. Kee, and J. L. Glancey, Univ. of Delaware, Georgetown, DE

2000 1. Weed Control and Nutrient Release With Composted Poultry Litter Mulch in a

Peach Orchard - P. L. Preusch, Hood College, Frederick, MD; and T. J. Tworkoski, USDA-ARS, Hearneysville, WV

2 The Effect of Total Postemergence Herbicide Timings on Corn Yield - D. B. Vitolo, C. Pearson, M. G. Schnappinger, and R. Schmenk, Novartis Crop Protection, Hudson, NY

2 Pollen Transport from Genetically Modified Corn – J. M. Jemison and M. Vayda, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME

2001 1. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for yellow nutsedge control in

plasticulture tomato - W. A. Bailey, H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA.

2. Evaluation of alternative control methods for annual ryegrass in typical Virginia crop rotations - S. R. King and E. S. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

2002 1. Effectiveness of mesotrione to control weeds in sweet corn. J. M. Jemison, Jr.

and A. Nejako, Univ. Maine, Orono. 2. Flufenacet plus metribuzin for italian ryegrass control in Virginia wheat. W. A.

Bailey, H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter. 2003 1. Comparison of two methods to estimate weed populations in field-scale

agricultural research. R. D. Stout, M. G. Burton, and H. M. Linker, North Carolina State Univ.

2. Diquat plus glyphosate for rapid-symptom vegetation control in turf. W. L. Barker, S. D. Askew, J. B. Beam, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; and D. C. Riego, Monsanto Co., Carmel, IN.

2004 1. Biology of the invasive plant pale swallow-wort. L. Smith, S. Greipsson, and A.

DiTommaso. Cornell Univ. 2. Evaluating perennial groundcovers for weed suppression: Roadside trials and

demonstrations. A. Senesac, I. Tsontakis-Bradley, J. Allaire, and L. Weston. Cornell Univ.

2005 1. Cover crop management impacts on the weed seed predator, Harpalus rufipes.

A. Shearin, S.C. Reberg-Horton, E. Gallandt, and F. Drummond, Univ. Maine, Orono.

2. Carfentrazone, quinclorac, and trifloxysulfuron effects on seeded bermudagrass establishment and crabgrass control. J. Willis, D.B. Ricker, and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

2006 1. Mesotrione for preemergence broadleaf weed control in turf. D. Ricker, J. Willis,

and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

2. Using a wet blade mower for pest control, fertility, and growth retardation in fine turfgrass. J. Willis and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

134

2007 1. Effects of emergence periodicity on growth and fecundity of horseweed. J. Dauer, B.A. Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and D.A. Mortensen. Penn State University, College Park.

2. Vascular weed control in container production using selected non-chemical top-dress treatments. A. Burtt. University of Vermont, Burlington.

2008 1. Evaluation of the impact of an adventitious herbivore on an invasive plant, yellow

toadflax, in Colorado USA. J.F. Egan and R.E. Irwin. Penn State University, State College.

1. Organic weed management: what the farmers think. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, D.O. Wilson, and P.R. Hepperly. Penn State University, University Park.

2009 1. Turfgrass response to herbicide-treated irrigation water. R.L. Roten, R.J. Richardson, and A.P. Gardner. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

2. Response of cranberry vines to hand-held flame cultivators- initial year evaluation. K.M. Ghantous, H.A. Sandler, and P.Jeranyama. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2010 1. Comparison of genetic diversity of weedy and domesticated populations in genus Cichorium. T. Zavada. University of Massachusetts, Boston. 2. Use of mesotrione for annual bluegrass control at Kentucky bluegrass

establishment. K. Venner, S. Hart, and C. Mansue. Rutgers University, New Brunswick

3. The effects of herbicide mixtures with Brassica meal on weed control and yield of strawberry. J. Cummins, G. Armel, C. Sams, D. Deyton, and J. Vargas. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR 1986 Nathan Hartwig Penn State University 1987 Thomas Welker USDA/ARS Appl. Fruit Res. Sta. 1988 None Awarded 1989 John E. Waldrum Union Carbide Agric. Prod. 1990 None Awarded 1991 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 1992 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 1993 None Awarded 1994 George Hamilton Penn State University 1995 Kent D. Redding DowElanco 1996 James Orr Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 1997 George Hamilton Penn State University 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued

135

OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS 1991 Russell R. Hahn Cornell University 1992 Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech 1993 None Awarded 1994 Robin Bellinder Cornell University 1995 None Awarded 1996 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech 1997 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued

OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

1991 Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech 1992 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. 1993 Joseph C. Neal Cornell University 1994 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 1995 Andrew F. Senesac Long Island Hort. Research Lab 1996 Larry J. Kuhns Penn State University 1997 Jeffrey F. Derr Virginia Tech 1998 None Awarded 1999 Award Discontinued

OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS 1954 Studies on Entry of 2,4-D into Leaves - J. N. Yeatman, J. W. Brown, J. A. Thorne

and J. R. Conover, Camp Detrick, Frederick, MD The Effect of Soil Organic Matter Levels on Several Herbicides - S. L. Dallyn,

Long Island Vegetable Research Farm, Riverhead, NY Experimental Use of Herbicides Impregnated on Clay Granules for Control of

Weeds in Certain Vegetable Crops - L. L. Danielson, Virginia Truck Expt. Station, Norfolk, VA

Cultural vs. Chemical Weed Control in Soybeans - W. E. Chappell, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA Public Health Significance of Ragweed Control Demonstrated in Detroit - J. H.

Ruskin, Department of Health, Detroit, MI 1955 A Comparison of MCP and 2,4-D for Weed Control in Forage Legumes - M. M.

Schreiber, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1956 None Awarded

136

1957 Herbicidal Effectiveness of 2,4-D, MCPB, Neburon and Others as Measured by Weed Control and Yields of Seedling Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil - A. J. Kerkin and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

Progress Report #4 - Effects of Certain Common Brush Control Techniques and

Material on Game Food and Cover on a Power Line Right-of-Way - W. C. Bramble, W. R. Byrnes, and D. P. Worley, Penn State Univ., University Park

1958 Effects of 2,4-D on Turnips - C. M. Switzer, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph,

Canada Ragweed Free Areas in Quebec and the Maritimes - E. E. Compagna, Universite

Laval at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Quebec, Canada 1959 Yields of Legume-Forage Grass Mixtures as Affected by Several Herbicides

Applied Alone or in a Combination During Establishment - W. G. Wells and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

Influence of Soil Moisture on Activity of EPTC, CDEC and CIPC - J. R. Havis, R.

L. Ticknor and P. F. Boblua, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst 1960 The Influence of Cultivation on Corn Yields When Weeds are Controlled by

Herbicides - W. F. Meggitt, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 1961 Preliminary Investigation of a Growth Inhibitor Found in Yellow Foxtail (Setaria

glauca L.) - H. C. Yokum, M. J. Jutras, and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

1962 The Effects of Chemical and Cultural Treatment on the Survival of Rhizomes and

on the Yield of Underground Food Reserves of Quackgrass - H. M. LeBaron and S. N. Gertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

Observations on Distribution and Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Chesapeake

Bay, 1961 - V. D. Stotts and C. R. Gillette, Annapolis, MD 1963 The Relation of Certain Environmental Conditions to the Effectiveness of DNBP of

Post-Emergence Weed Control in Peas - G. R. Hamilton and E. M. Rahn, Univ. of Delaware, Newark

The Influence of Soil Surface and Granular Carrier Moisture on the Activity of

EPTC - J. C. Cialone and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY The Determination of Residues of Kuron in Birdsfoot Trefoil and Grasses - M. G.

Merkle and S. N. Fertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1964 Control of Riparian Vegetation with Phenoxy Herbicides and the Effect on

Streamflow Quality - I. C. Reigner, USDA-Forest Service, New Lisbon, NJ; W. E. Sopper, Penn State Univ., University Park; and R. R. Johnson, Amchem Products, Inc., Ambler, PA

EPTC Incorporation by Band Placement and Standard Methods in Establishment

of Birdsfoot Trefoil - D. L. Linscott and R. D. Hagin, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

137

1965 1. Corn Chamomile (Anthemis arvensis L.) Responses to Some Benzoic Acid

Derivatives - Barbara M. Metzger, Judy K. Baldwin and R. D. Ilnicki, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ

2. The Physical Properties of Viscous Sprays for Reduction of Herbicide Drift - J. W.

Suggitt, The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Canada 1966 1. Weed Control Under Clear Plastic Mulch - Carl Bucholz, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. A Chemical Team For Aerial Brush Control on Right-of-Way - B. C. Byrd and C. A.

Reimer, Dow Chemical Co 1967 1. Influence of Time of Seeding on the Effectiveness of Several Herbicides Used for

Establishing an Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixture - R. T. Leanard and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham

2. Weed Competition in Soybeans - L. E. Wheetley and R. H. Cole, Univ. of

Delaware, Newark 1968 None Awarded 1969 1. Weed and Crop Responses in Cucumbers and Watermelons - H. P. Wilson and

R. L. Waterfield, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter 2. Effect of Several Combinations of Herbicides on the Weight and Development of

Midway Strawberry Plants in the Greenhouse - O. E. Schubert, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown

1970 1. Effects of RH-315 on Quackgrass and Established Alfalfa - W. B. Duke, Cornell

Univ., Ithaca, NY 1971 1. Activity of Nitralin, Trifluralin and ER-5461 on Transplant Tomato and Eggplant -

D. E. Broaden and J. C. Cialone, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 2. Field Investigations of the Activities of Several Herbicides for the Control of Yellow

Nutsedge - H. P. Wilson, R. L. Waterfield, Jr., and C. P. Savage, Jr., Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter

1972 1. Study of Organisms Living in the Heated Effluent of a Power Plant - M. E. Pierce,

Vassar College and D. Allessandrello, Marist College 2. Effect of Pre-treatment Environment on Herbicide Response and Morphological

Variation of Three Species - A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD

1973 1. A Simple Method of Expressing the Relative Efficacy of Plant Growth Regulators -

A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD

2. Agronomic Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Glyphosate for Quackgrass Control –F. E. Brockman, W. B. Duke, and J. F. Hunt, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

138

1974 1. Weed Control in Peach Nurseries - O. F. Curtis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Persistence of Napropamide and U-267 in a Sandy Loam Soil - R. C. Henne,

Campbell Institute for Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH 1975 1. Control of Jimsonweed and Three Broadleaf Weeds in Soybeans - J. V.

Parochetti, Univ. of Maryland, College Park HM. The Influence of Norflurazon on Chlorophyll Content and Growth of Potomogeton

pectinatus - R. M. Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham

HM. Germination, Growth, and Flowering of Shepherdspurse - E. K. Stillwell and R. D.

Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 1976 1. Top Growth and Root Response of Red Fescue to Growth Retardants - S. L.

Fales, A. P. Nielson and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston HM. Selective Control of Poa annua in Kentucky Bluegrass - P. J. Jacquemin, O. M.

Scott and Sons, and P. R. Henderlong, Ohio State Univ., Columbus HM. Effects of DCPA on Growth of Dodder - L. L. Danielson, USDA ARS, Beltsville,

MD 1977 1. The Effects of Stress on Stand and Yield of Metribuzin Treated Tomato Plants - E.

H. Nelson and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs HM. The Influence of Growth Regulators on the Absorption of Mineral Elements - R. M.

Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham. HM. Quantification of S-triazine Losses in Surface Runoff: A Summary - J. K. Hall,

Penn State Univ., University Park 1978 1. Annual Weedy Grass Competition in Field Corn - Jonas Vengris, Univ. of

Massachusetts, Amherst HM. Metribuzin Utilization with Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell

Institute of Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH 1979 1. Herbicides for Ground Cover Plantings - J. F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agric. Expt.

Station, Windsor 2. Weed Control Systems in Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell

Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH 1980 1. Integrated Weed Control Programs for Carrots and Tomatoes - R. C. Henne and

T. L. Poulson, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH 2. Suppression of Crownvetch for No-Tillage Corn - J. Carina and N. L. Hartwig,

Penn State Univ., University Park

139

HM. Effect of Planting Equipment and Time of Application on Injury to No-tillage Corn from Pendimethalin-Triazine Mixtures - N. L. Hartwig, Penn State Univ., University Park

1981 1. Weed Control in Cucumbers in Northwest Ohio - R. C. Henne and T. L. Poulson,

Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH 2. Prostrate Spurge Control in Turfgrass Using Herbicides - J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of

Rhode Island, Kingston HM. Some Ecological Observations of Hempstead Plains, Long Island - R. Stalter, St.

John's Univ., Jamaica, NY 1982 1. Differential Growth Responses to Temperature Between Two Biotypes of

Chenopodium album - P. C. Bhowmik, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst 2. Chemical Control of Spurge and Other Broadleaf Weeds in Turfgrass - J. S.

Ebdon and J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston HM. Influence of Norflurazon on the Light Activation of Oxyfluorfen - R. M. Devlin, S. J.

Karczmarczyk, I. I. Zbiec and C. N. Saras, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham HM. Analysis of Weed Control Components for Conventional, Wide-row Soybeans in

Delaware - D. K. Regehr, Univ. of Delaware, Newark 1983 1. Comparisons of Non-Selective Herbicides for Reduced Tillage Systems - R. R.

Bellinder, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter

2. The Plant Communities Along the Long Island Expressway, Long Island, New

York - R. Stalter, St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY HM. Effect of Morning, Midday and Evening Applications on Control of Large

Crabgrass by Several Postemergence Herbicides - B. G. Ennis and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs 1984 1. Pre-transplant Oxyfluorfen for Cabbage - J. R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS, Beltsville,

MD 2. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia

Tech, Blacksburg and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter

1985 1. Peach Response to Several Postemergence Translocated Herbicides - B. A.

Majek, Rutgers Univ., Bridgeton, NJ 1986 1. Influence of Mefluidide Timing and Rate on Poa annua Quality Under Golf Course

Conditions - R. J. Cooper, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst; K. J. Karriok, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, and P. R. Henderlong and J. R. Street, Ohio State Univ., Columbus

140

2. The Small Mammal Community in a Glyphosate Conifer Release Treatment in Maine - P. D'Anieri, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; M. L. McCormack, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono; and D. M. Leslie, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater

HM. Field Evaluation of a Proposed IPM Approach for Weed Control in Potatoes - D.

P. Kain and J. B. Sieczka, Cornell Univ., Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory, Riverhead, NY and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1987 None Awarded 1988 1. Bentazon and Bentazon-MCPB Tank-mixes for Weed Control in English Pea - G.

A. Porter, Univ. of Maine, Orono; A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs; R. R. Bellinder and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; M. P. Mascianica, BASF Corp., Parsippany, NJ; and L. S. Morrow, Univ. of Maine, Orono

2. Effects of Herbicide Residues on Germination and Early Survival of Red Oak

Acorns - R. D. Shipman and T. J. Prunty, Penn State Univ., University Park 2. Watershed Losses of Triclopyr after Aerial Application to Release Spruce Fir - C.

T. Smith, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham and M. L. McCormack, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono

1989 None Awarded 1990 None Awarded 1991 Award Discontinued

Las

t N

ame

F

irst

N

ame

Co

mp

any

Org

an

izat

ion

Ad

dre

ss

C

ity

Sta

te

Zip

P

ho

ne

No

. E

mai

l A

dd

ress

Ab

be

y T

im

Pen

n S

tate

Coo

per

ativ

e E

xten

sion

11

2 P

leas

ant A

cres

R

oad

Y

ork

PA

17

402

71

7-84

0-7

408

tm

a13@

psu.

edu

Ac

kle

y B

ruce

T

he O

hio

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

2021

Cof

fey

Rd

. C

olum

bus

OH

43

210

74

0-22

5-2

014

ac

kley

.19

@os

u.ed

u

Ag

new

M

icha

el

Syn

gent

a C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

302

Ros

e G

len

Lan

e K

enne

tt S

quar

e

PA

19

348

61

0-44

4-2

063

m

icha

el.a

gnew

@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Ah

ren

s

John

F.

Con

nect

icut

Ag.

Exp

S

tatio

n (E

mer

itus)

P

.O. B

ox

248

W

inds

or

CT

06

095

86

0-68

3-4

985

jo

hn.a

hren

s@ct

.gov

Ale

a

Ste

phan

ie

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity

59 D

udle

y R

d

Ne

w B

runs

wic

k N

J 08

901

73

2-93

2-9

711

x 11

6

step

hya

@e

den.

rutg

ers.

edu

Arm

el

Gre

g

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

25

2 E

lling

ton

Pla

nt

Sci

ence

s B

ldg.

K

noxv

ille

TN

37

996

86

5-97

4-8

829

ga

rmel

@ut

k.ed

u

Ars

en

ovi

c

Mar

ija

Rut

gers

- I

R-4

H

eadq

uart

ers

500

Col

lege

Ave

Sui

te

201W

P

rince

ton

NJ

0854

0

732-

932

-957

5 x

4609

ar

seno

vic@

aeso

p.ru

tger

s.ed

u

As

hle

y Ja

me

s E

von

ik G

old

schm

idt

Cor

pora

tion

71

0 S

outh

6th

Ave

nue

H

ope

wel

l V

A

2386

0

804-

452

-569

2

jam

es.a

shle

y@e

voni

k.co

m

As

kew

S

haw

n

Virg

inia

Tec

h 43

5 O

ld G

lade

Roa

d B

lack

sbur

g V

A

2406

1

540-

231

-580

7

sask

ew@

vt.e

du

Atl

and

Ja

mes

U

SD

A-A

RS

AT

RU

20

8 A

g. E

ng. B

uild

ing

Woo

ster

O

H

4469

1

330-

263

-387

0

Jam

es.a

ltlan

d@ar

s.us

da.g

ov

Ave

rill

K

ristin

e P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Un

iver

sity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

86

0-24

8-9

969

km

a236

@ps

u.ed

u

Bak

er

Rob

ert

Sco

tts

Com

pan

y 14

111

Sco

ttsla

wn

Rd.

M

arys

ville

O

H

4304

1

937-

645

-262

8

robe

rt.b

aker

@sc

otts

.com

200

6-20

10 M

em

bers

hip

Dir

ecto

ry (

235

)

141

Bar

cel

Dav

id

OH

P I

nc.

W33

1 S

4122

S

addl

ebac

k D

r.

Gen

esee

W

I 53

118

26

2-39

2-3

004

db

arce

l@oh

p.co

m

Bar

kma

n

Gar

y M

ontg

omer

y W

eed

C

ontr

ol In

c.

1841

0 M

unca

ste

r R

oad

D

erw

ood

M

D

2085

5

301-

503

-602

4

gbar

kman

sr@

gm

ail.c

om

Bar

ne

y Ja

cob

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alifo

rnia

1

Shi

eld

Ave

D

avis

C

A

9561

6

916-

612

-226

9

jbar

ney@

ucda

vis.

edu

Bar

olli

S

ali

Impe

rial N

urse

ries

176

Lost

Acr

es R

d G

ran

by

CT

06

035

86

0-65

3-1

509

sa

izba

@ya

hoo.

com

Bar

on

Je

rry

Rut

gers

- I

R-4

H

eadq

uart

ers

500

Col

lege

Roa

d,

Eas

t, S

uite

201

P

rince

ton

NJ

0854

0

732-

932

-957

5 x

4605

jb

aron

@ae

sop.

rutg

ers.

edu

Bar

rett

M

ike

Arg

yle

Co

untr

y C

lub

1460

0 A

rgyl

e C

lub

Roa

d

Silv

er S

prin

g M

D

2090

6

301-

774

-510

2

turf

god1

@C

S.c

om

Bat

es

Rya

n

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

116

AS

I Bui

ldin

g U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

3-1

014

rt

b175

@ps

u.ed

u

Bat

ts

Rog

er

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity -

IR-4

Cen

ter

Box

752

3, N

CS

U

Cam

pus

Ral

eigh

N

C

2760

6

919-

515

-166

8

roge

r_ba

tts@

ncsu

.edu

Bax

ter

Dav

id

DuP

ont C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

Stin

e-H

aske

ll 10

90

Elk

ton

Roa

d N

ew

ark

DE

19

714

30

2-36

6-5

065

da

vid.

a.ba

xte

r@us

a.du

pont

.com

Bec

ker

Chr

is M

. B

AA

R S

cien

tific

LLC

63

74 R

te. 8

9

Rom

ulus

N

Y

1454

1

607-

342

-361

0

beck

er89

@flt

g.n

et

Bel

lind

er

Rob

in R

. C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

16

4 P

lant

Sci

ence

B

ldg

Ithac

a N

Y

1485

3

607-

255

-789

0

rrb3

@co

rnel

l.ed

u

Bes

te

Ed

Uni

v. M

aryl

and,

S

alis

bu

ry F

acili

ty

(Em

eritu

s)

2766

4 N

antic

oke

Roa

d

Sal

isbu

ry

MD

21

801

41

0-74

2-8

788

eb

este

@um

d.ed

u

Bh

ow

mik

P

rasa

nta

U

nive

rsity

of

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Sto

ckbr

idge

Hal

l Roo

m

10

Am

hers

t M

A

0100

2

413-

545

-522

3

pbho

wm

ik@

pssc

i.um

ass.

edu

142

Bo

na

nn

o

Ric

hard

U

nive

rsity

of

Mas

sach

uset

ts

255

Mer

rimac

k S

tree

t M

ethu

en

MA

01

844

97

8-36

1-5

650

rb

onan

no@

ume

xt.u

mas

s.ed

u

Bo

rger

Je

ffre

y P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

5-3

005

ja

b267

@ps

u.ed

u

Bra

dle

y Ir

ene

N

EW

SS

Sta

ndin

g O

rder

s 30

59 S

ound

Ave

nue

Riv

erhe

ad

NY

11

901

63

1-72

7-3

595

it2

1@co

rnel

l.edu

Bra

vo

Me

lissa

P

enns

ylva

nia

De

pt

Agr

icul

ture

23

01 N

orth

Cam

eron

S

tree

t H

arris

burg

P

A

1711

0

717-

787

-720

4

mbr

avo@

stat

e.p

a.us

Bre

ede

n

Gre

gor

y U

nive

rsity

of

Ten

ness

ee

252

Elli

ngto

n P

lant

S

cien

ces

Kno

xvill

e T

N

3799

6

865-

974

-720

8

gbre

eden

@ut

k.e

du

Bro

oks

T

hom

as J

. C

rop

Man

agem

ent

S

trat

egie

s P

.O. B

ox

510

H

eref

ord

P

A

1805

6

610-

767

-194

4

tjb_c

ms@

fast

.net

Bro

sna

n

Jam

es

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

25

2 E

lling

ton

Pla

nt

Sci

ence

s K

noxv

ille

TN

37

996

86

5-97

4-8

603

jb

rosn

an@

utk.

edu

Bu

lcke

R

ober

t G

hent

Uni

vers

ity,

Wee

d S

cien

ce L

abor

ator

y C

oupu

re L

inks

653

B

-900

0 G

ent

Bel

gium

+32

-(0

)9-

264.

60.9

8

robe

rt.b

ulck

e@ug

ent.b

e

Bu

rch

P

atric

k D

ow

Agr

oSci

ence

s LL

C

3425

Elk

Cre

ek R

oad

C

hris

tians

burg

V

A

2407

3

540-

382

-306

2

plbu

rch@

dow

.co

m

Bu

rnel

l K

eith

S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 49

Hill

side

Roa

d P

enfie

ld

NY

14

526

31

5-20

9-7

580

ke

ith.b

urne

ll@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Cai

n

Nan

cy

CA

IN V

EG

ET

AT

ION

IN

C.

4 S

pruc

e B

oule

vard

A

cton

O

N

L7J

2Y

2

519-

853

-308

1

cain

.veg

etat

ion@

gmai

l.com

Cal

abro

Ji

ll V

alen

t US

A C

orp

orat

ion

13

05 C

olon

y D

r A

nnap

olis

M

D

2140

3

443-

235

-061

2

jill.c

alab

ro@

vale

nt.c

om

Cas

e

Luke

T

he O

hio

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

2001

Fa

yette

Ct.

C

olum

bus

OH

43

210

61

4-29

2-0

209

ca

se.4

9@os

u.ed

u

143

Cas

ini

Mar

k D

uPon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 10

90 E

lkto

n R

d.

Ne

war

k D

E

1971

1

302-

451

-082

8

mar

k.s.

casi

ni@

usa.

dupo

nt.c

om

Ch

amb

erlin

Jo

e V

alen

t US

A C

orp

orat

ion

23

86 C

low

er

St.

Ste

. E

-100

B

Sne

llvill

e G

A

3007

8

770-

985

-030

3

jcha

m@

vale

nt.c

om

Ch

and

ran

R

akes

h W

est V

irgin

ia U

nive

rsity

10

76 A

gric

ultu

ral S

ci

PO

Box

610

8

Mor

gant

ow

n

VA

26

506

30

4-29

3-6

131

rs

chan

dran

@m

ail.w

vu.e

du

Ch

ism

B

ill

US

EP

A, O

PP

P

.O B

ox 2

58

Poi

nt o

f Roc

ks

MD

21

777

70

3-30

8-8

136

ch

ism

.bill

@ep

a.go

v

Co

ffm

an

B

enja

min

U

SD

A-A

RS

10

300

Bal

timor

e A

ve.

Bld

g. 0

01

Bel

tsvi

lle

MD

20

705

30

1-50

4-5

398

be

n.co

ffman

@a

rs.u

sda.

gov

Co

rbe

tt

Jerr

y Q

uali-

Pro

42

3 B

atte

n P

ond

Roa

d

Sel

ma

NC

27

576

91

9-27

9-2

584

je

rryc

@q

uali-

pro.

com

Cra

nm

er

John

V

alen

t US

A C

orp

orat

ion

20

2 D

avis

Gro

ve

Circ

le-S

uite

103

C

ary

NC

27

519

91

9-38

7-2

013

jc

ran@

vale

nt.c

om

Cu

mm

ins

Jo

hn

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

17

05 L

ee C

r.

Ne

w M

arke

t T

N

3782

0

865-

228

-978

9

reco

n77@

utk.

edu

Cu

rran

W

illia

m

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

116

AS

I Bui

ldin

g U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

3-1

014

w

curr

an@

psu.

edu

Cu

shm

an

Mar

k T

he S

cott

Com

pan

y 14

111

Sco

ttsla

wn

Rd.

M

arys

ville

O

H

4304

1

937-

644

-001

1

mar

k.cu

shm

an@

scot

ts.c

om

Cu

stis

G

ary

PB

I Gor

don

Co

rpor

atio

n

1217

W. 1

2th

Str

eet

Kan

sas

City

M

O

6410

1

816-

460

-621

5

gcus

tis@

pbig

ordo

n.co

m

Cu

tulle

M

atth

ew

Virg

inia

Tec

h 14

44 D

iam

ond

Spr

ings

R

oad

V

irgin

ia B

each

V

A

2345

5

757-

363

-388

4

cmat

the

w@

vt.e

du

D'A

pp

ollo

nio

Je

nnife

r U

nive

rsity

of

Mai

ne

5722

Dee

ring

Ha

ll O

ron

o

ME

04

469

20

7-58

1-2

924

je

nnife

r.da

ppol

loni

o@m

aine

.edu

144

Da

vid

P

aul J

. G

ow

an C

ompa

ny

343

Rum

ford

Ro

ad

Litit

z P

A

1754

3

717-

560

-835

2

pdav

id@

gow

anco

.com

Da

vis

T

odd

D

elaw

are

Dep

t. A

gric

ultu

re

2320

S C

eda

r C

rest

B

lvd

Dov

er

DE

19

901

30

2-69

7-4

468

T

odd.

Dav

is@

sta

te.d

e.us

Da

vis

H

enry

T

he W

eed

Doc

tor

204

S. C

eda

r C

rest

B

lvd.

A

llent

own

P

A

1810

4

610-

439

-245

4

rxw

eed

@gm

ail.c

om

Da

vis

V

ince

U

nive

rsity

of

Illin

ois

320

ER

ML,

120

1 W

. G

reg

ory

Dr.

U

rban

a

IL

6180

1

217-

333

-153

1

davi

sv@

illin

ois.

edu

Der

no

ed

en

Pet

er

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aryl

and

11

12 W

.J. P

atte

rson

H

all

Col

lege

Par

k M

D

2074

2

301-

405

-133

7

pd@

umd.

edu

Der

r Je

ffre

y V

irgin

ia T

ech

H

ampt

on R

ds, A

RE

C

1444

Dia

mon

d S

prin

g V

irgin

ia B

each

V

A

2345

5

757-

363

-391

2

jder

r@vt

.edu

Dill

eha

y B

ryan

M

onsa

nto

Com

pan

y 27

6 D

ecke

r R

oad

Cen

tre

Ha

ll P

A

1682

8

814-

404

-268

3

brya

n.di

lleha

y@m

onsa

nto.

com

DiT

om

ma

so

Ant

onio

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

90

3 B

radf

ord

Hal

l D

ept.

of C

rop

& S

oil

Ithac

a N

Y

1485

3

607-

254

-470

2

ad97

@co

rnel

l.ed

u

Do

bb

s

Jeffr

ey

H.

OH

P In

c.

1095

App

lecr

oss

Driv

e R

osw

ell

GA

30

075

77

0-99

2-0

121

jd

obbs

@oh

p.co

m

Du

ns

t R

icha

rd

Cor

nell

Lake

Erie

R

esea

rch

and

Ext

ensi

on

Lab

6592

Wes

t Mai

n R

d.

Por

tland

N

Y

1476

9

716-

785

-991

0

rmd7

@co

rnel

l.edu

Du

tt

Tim

oth

y E

. LA

BS

ervi

ces

342

Sou

th T

hird

Str

eet

Ham

burg

P

A

1952

6

610-

562

-505

5

tedu

tt@pt

d.n

et

Eg

an

John

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

865

-667

9

jfe12

1@ps

u.ed

u

Eki

ns

R

ick

FM

C P

rofe

ssio

nal

Sol

utio

ns

1735

Mar

ket S

tre

et

Phi

lade

lphi

a P

A

1910

3

215-

299

-583

6

rick.

ekin

s@fm

c.co

m

145

Elm

ore

M

atth

ew

U

nive

rsity

of

Ten

ness

ee

252

Elli

ngto

n P

lant

S

cien

ces

Kno

xvill

e T

N

3799

6

865-

974

-732

4

mel

mor

e6@

utk.

edu

Eva

ns

G

lenn

J.

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity

146A

Pla

nt S

cien

ce

Bld

g.

Ithac

a N

Y

1485

0

607-

255

-908

5

gje2

@co

rnel

l.ed

u

Eve

rman

W

esle

y M

ichi

gan

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

50

0 W

Lak

e La

nsi

ng

Rd

Apt

D47

E

ast L

ansi

ng

MI

4882

3

517-

898

-736

4

ever

man

@m

su.e

du

Far

rin

gto

n

Ste

ven

Go

wan

Com

pan

y 72

4 W

right

s M

ill R

oad

A

ubur

n

Al

3683

0

334-

275

-539

6

sfar

ringt

on@

go

wan

co.c

om

Fau

sey

Jaso

n V

alen

t US

A C

orp

orat

ion

11

1 W

. Co.

Rd.

173

F

rem

ont

OH

43

420

41

9-30

7-7

666

ja

son.

faus

ey@

vale

nt.c

om

Fid

an

za

Mic

hael

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

B

erks

Cam

pus,

208

0 T

ulpe

hock

en R

oad

R

eadi

ng

PA

19

610

61

0-39

6-6

330

m

af10

0@ps

u.ed

u

Fo

rne

y R

aym

ond

D

upon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n S

tine-

Has

kell

Res

earc

h C

ente

r N

ew

ark

DE

19

714

30

2 56

1 00

27

ra

ymo

nd.fo

rne

y@us

a.du

pont

.co

m

Gal

lan

dt

Eric

U

nive

rsity

of

Mai

ne

7 M

ount

ain

Vie

w D

rive

Oro

no

M

E

0447

3

207-

581

-293

3

galla

ndt@

mai

ne.e

du

Gan

ske

D

onal

d D

. D

uPon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 12

5 C

otto

n R

idg

e R

d

Win

ches

ter

VA

22

603

54

0-66

2-6

011

do

nald

.d.g

ansk

e@

usa.

dupo

nt.c

om

Gh

an

tou

s

Kat

herin

e

UM

ass

Cra

nbe

rry

Sta

tion

5

Sun

nyr

ock

Driv

e W

alpo

le

MA

02

081

50

8-29

5-2

212

k_

ghan

tous

@ho

tmai

l.com

Gia

ne

ssi

Leon

ard

C

ropL

ife F

ound

atio

n 11

56 1

5th

Str

eet

NW

W

ashi

ngto

n D

C

2000

5

202-

872

-386

5

lgia

ness

i@cr

oplif

efou

ndat

ion.

org

Gill

iam

C

harle

s A

ubur

n U

nive

rsity

10

1 F

unch

ess

Hal

l A

ubur

n

AL

3684

9

334-

844

-304

5

mur

phan

@au

burn

.edu

Gle

nn

S

cott

U

nive

rsity

of

Mar

yla

nd

0115

HJ

Pat

ters

on

Hal

l C

olle

ge P

ark

MD

20

742

30

1-40

5-1

331

sg

lenn

@um

d.ed

u

146

Go

dd

ard

M

att

Virg

inia

Tec

h 43

5 O

ld G

lade

Roa

d B

lack

sbur

g V

A

2406

1

540-

231

-583

5

mgo

ddar

d@

vt.e

du

Go

ver

Art

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-990

4

aeg2

@ps

u.ed

u

Gra

ha

m

Jam

es

Mon

sant

o (R

etir

ed)

12

381

Cou

ntry

Gle

n La

ne

Cre

ve C

oeu

r M

O

6314

1

314-

805

-786

7

jcgr

ah@

char

ter.

net

Gra

ves

D

ean

C

hevy

Ch

ase

Clu

b 61

00 C

onn

ectic

ut

Ave

nue

Che

vy C

has

e M

D

2081

5

301-

656

-632

3

dean

g@ch

evyc

has

eclu

b.or

g

Gu

iser

S

cott

P

enn

Sta

te C

oop

erat

ive

Ext

ensi

on

1282

Alm

shou

se R

oad

D

oyl

esto

wn

P

A

1890

1

215-

345

-328

3

sxg6

@ps

u.ed

u

Hah

n

Rus

sell

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity

238A

Em

erso

n H

all

Ithac

a N

Y

1485

3

607-

255

-175

9

rrh4

@co

rnel

l.ed

u

Han

nig

G

reg

ory

Dup

ont C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

1199

Can

and

aig

ua

Rd.

P

alm

yra

N

Y

1452

2

302-

299

-730

4

greg

.han

nig

@us

a.du

pont

.com

Han

rah

an

Ric

hard

B

aye

r E

nviro

nme

ntal

S

cie

nce

10

0 E

ast P

alis

ide

Ave

C

-42

E

ngle

wo

od

NJ

0763

1

201-

294

-521

7

rich.

hanr

ahan

@ba

yerc

rops

cien

ce.c

om

Har

pst

er

Tra

cy

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

102

Tys

on

Bui

ldin

g U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

5-3

190

tlh

8@ps

u.ed

u

Har

t S

teph

en

E.

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity

59 D

udle

y R

d

Ne

w B

runs

wic

k N

J 08

901

73

2-93

2-9

711

x 16

6

hart

@ae

sop.

rutg

ers.

edu

Hea

rn

Bria

n U

nive

rsity

of

Del

awar

e

1648

3 C

ount

y S

eat

Hig

hwa

y G

eorg

eto

wn

D

E

1994

7

302

856

730

3

bhea

rn@

udel

.ed

u

Hed

ber

g

Rob

U

SD

A N

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of A

gric

ultu

re

5612

Mcl

ean

Dri

ve

Bet

hesd

a

MD

20

814

20

2-72

0-5

384

rh

edbe

rg@

nifa

.usd

a.go

v

Hei

mer

La

ne

Mar

ylan

d D

epa

rtm

ent o

f A

gric

ultu

re

50 H

arry

S.

Tru

man

P

kwy.

A

nnap

olis

M

D

2140

1

410-

841

-592

0

lane

heim

er@

msn

.com

147

Her

rick

R

ober

t F

MC

Co

rpor

atio

n 11

Wol

fpac

k C

ourt

H

amilt

on

NJ

0861

9

609-

951

-379

2

bob.

herr

ick@

fmc.

com

Hes

s

Dw

ayn

e

J.C

. Ehr

lich

Co.

, Inc

. 50

0 S

prin

g R

dig

e D

rive,

P.O

. Bo

x 13

848

R

eadi

ng

PA

19

612

61

0-37

2-9

750

dw

ayn

e.he

ss@

jceh

rlich

.com

Hes

ter

Kat

hlee

n T

empl

e U

nive

rsity

50

8 H

eath

er

Rd

E

xton

P

A

1934

1

484-

868

-206

3

slhk

ah@

yaho

o.co

m

Hin

es

Tho

mas

E

aste

rn S

hore

AR

EC

V

PI/S

U

3344

6 R

esea

rch

Driv

e P

aint

er

VA

23

420

75

7-41

4-0

724

th

hine

s@vt

.edu

Hit

chn

er

Erin

S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 38

0 Je

ffers

on R

d

Elm

er

NJ

0831

8

609-

980

-883

2

erin

.hitc

hner

@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Ho

ote

n

Rob

ert

FM

C C

orp

orat

ion

1010

0 N

. Am

bass

. D

rive

Sui

te 4

00

Libe

rty

MO

60

468

816‐589‐5547 

robe

rt_

hoot

en@

fmc.

com

Ho

rto

n

Chr

is

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

Cam

pus

Box

762

0 R

alei

gh

NC

27

695

91

9-51

5-7

597

ch

ris_r

eber

g-ho

rton

@nc

su.e

du

Ho

ug

hto

n

Val

erie

F

ox R

idge

Fa

rm

2121

0 B

arre

ns R

d.

Sou

th

Ste

war

tsto

wn

P

A

1736

3

717-

993

-332

2

foxr

idge

farm

1@ao

l.com

Ho

use

wo

rth

D

oug

A

ryst

a Li

feS

cien

ce

2777

Oce

an O

aks

Dr.

S

. F

erna

ndi

na

Bea

ch

FL

32

034

90

4-32

1-0

795

do

ug.h

ouse

wo

rth

@ar

ysta

lifes

cien

ce.c

om

Hu

tto

K

enda

ll F

MC

Pro

fess

iona

l S

olut

ions

13

6 S

prin

g V

alle

y R

d.

Wes

terv

ille

OH

43

081

61

4-39

2-1

384

ke

ndal

l.hut

to@

fmc.

com

Ikle

y Jo

seph

U

nive

rsity

of

Mar

yla

nd

6423

Chu

rch

Str

eet

Syk

esvi

lle

MD

21

784

41

0-59

6-9

091

jik

ley@

umd.

edu

Isaa

cs

Mar

k U

nive

rsity

of

Del

awar

e

1648

3 C

ount

y S

eat

Hig

hwa

y G

eorg

eto

wn

D

E

1994

7

302-

856

-730

3

isaa

cs@

udel

.edu

Jam

es

J.R

. S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 41

0 S

win

g R

oad

G

ree

nsbo

ro

NC

27

429

33

6-63

2-6

000

j_

r.ja

mes

@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

148

Jem

iso

n

John

U

nive

rsity

of

Mai

ne -

C

oope

rativ

e E

xte

nsio

n 49

5 C

olle

ge A

venu

e O

ron

o

ME

04

469

20

7-58

1-3

241

jje

mis

on@

umex

t.mai

ne.e

du

Jest

er

Jen

Virg

inia

Tec

h 43

5 O

ld G

lade

Roa

d B

lack

sbur

g V

A

2406

1

540-

231

-583

5

jest

erj@

vt.e

du

Joh

nso

n

Jon

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

102

Tys

on

Bld

g.

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-118

4

jmj5

@ps

u.ed

u

Joh

nso

n

Qui

ntin

U

nive

rsity

of

Del

awar

e

Car

vel R

EC

164

83

Cou

nty

Sea

t Hw

y G

eorg

eto

wn

D

E

1994

7

302-

856

-258

5

quin

tin@

udel

.ed

u

Joh

nso

n

Ro

y W

aldr

um S

peci

altie

s In

c 17

27 E

But

ler

Pik

e A

mbl

er

PA

19

002-

2431

21

5-81

7-0

637

rjo

h834

880

@ao

l.com

Jord

an

G

rant

A

.C.D

.S. R

esea

rch

Inc.

98

13 G

lenm

ark

Roa

d

Nor

th R

ose

NY

14

516

31

5-58

7-2

140

gl

jord

an@

acds

rese

arch

.com

Jotc

ham

Ji

m

Mar

bico

n In

c.

Box

280

, Be

rwic

k

Nov

a S

cotia

C

anad

a

B0P

1E

0 90

2-53

8-7

101

m

arbi

con@

east

link.

ca

Kah

l Je

rry

J.C

. Ehr

lich

Co.

, Inc

. 50

0 S

prin

g R

idg

e D

rive,

P.O

. Bo

x 13

848

R

eadi

ng

PA

19

612

61

0-37

2-9

750

je

rry.

kahl

@jc

ehrl

ich.

com

Kal

mo

wit

z K

athi

e B

AS

F C

orp.

39

55 S

tags

Lea

p

Circ

le

Ral

eigh

N

C

2761

2

919-

270

-459

2

kath

ie.k

alm

owitz

@ba

sf.c

om

Kee

se

Ren

ee

BA

SF

Cor

p.

26 D

avis

Dr

Res

earc

h T

riang

le P

ark

NC

27

709

91

9-54

7-2

791

re

nee.

kees

e@ba

sf.c

om

Kel

ly

Pat

rick

Ann

e A

rund

el C

oun

ty

Rec

reat

ion

and

Par

ks

Dep

artm

ent

30

1 H

ope

Roa

d

Cen

trev

ille

MD

21

617

44

3-26

2-9

655

rp

kell9

6@aa

cou

nty.

org

Kir

fma

n

Gar

y V

alen

t US

A C

orp

orat

ion

60

88 W

inth

rop

Ave

. A

da

MI

4930

1

616-

560

-251

0

gkirf

@va

lent

.com

Ko

epk

e-H

ill

Bec

ky

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

91

82 F

ox

Lake

Driv

e K

noxv

ille

TN

37

923

86

5-32

9-6

399

ko

epke

b@gm

ail.c

om

149

Ku

nke

l D

an

IR-4

He

adqu

art

ers

50

0 C

olle

ge A

ve S

uite

20

1W

Prin

ceto

n N

J 08

540

73

2-93

2-9

575

ku

nkel

@ae

sop.

rutg

ers.

edu

Kyd

e

Ker

rie

Mar

ylan

d D

epa

rtm

ent o

f N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

WH

S 1

1960

Clo

pper

R

oad

G

aith

ersb

urg

M

D

2087

8

301-

948

-824

3

kkyd

e@

dnr.

stat

e.m

d.us

Lea

ther

G

eral

d

Wes

t Virg

inia

Uni

vers

ity

Ext

ensi

on S

ervi

ce

66 N

. Hig

h S

t., P

.O.

Box

188

0

Rom

ney

WV

26

757

30

4-82

2-5

013

ge

rald

.leat

her@

mai

l.wvu

.edu

Lig

htf

oo

t R

ache

l C

rop

Man

agem

ent

S

trat

egie

s P

.O. B

ox

510

H

eref

ord

P

A

1805

6

610-

767

-194

4

ral_

cms@

fast

.net

Lin

gen

felt

er

Dw

ight

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

865

-224

2

dwig

ht@

psu.

edu

Lit

tle

N

eith

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

20

3 M

adis

on S

tree

t Ith

aca

NY

14

850

60

7-34

6-5

958

ng

l7@

corn

ell.e

du

Lit

tle

D

anie

l N

orth

Car

olin

a S

tate

U

nive

rsity

56

16B

The

a L

n

Ral

eigh

N

C

2760

6

517-

974

-300

0

dalit

tle@

ncsu

.edu

Llo

yd

Kirs

ten

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

102

Tys

on

Bld

g U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

3-1

184

kl

l24@

psu.

edu

Lo

hm

ann

H

enry

N

icho

lls U

nive

rsity

-R

etire

d

P.O

. Bo

x 22

B

ellp

ort

NY

11

713

63

1-28

6-1

078

ha

lohm

ann@

aol.c

om

Lo

ug

hn

er

Dan

D

ow

Agr

oSci

ence

s LL

C

55 A

rmou

r R

oad,

P

rince

ton,

NJ

08

540

P

rince

ton

NJ

0854

0

609-

921

-185

6

dlou

ghne

r@D

ow

.com

Lu

rve

y E

dith

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

-N

YS

AE

S

630

W. N

orth

St.

G

enev

a

NY

14

456

31

5-78

7-2

308

el

l10@

corn

ell.e

du

Lyc

an

Dar

ren

S

ynge

nta

Law

n an

d G

ard

en

18 A

pple

ridge

St.

B

aldw

insv

ille

NY

13

027

31

6-63

5-2

818

da

rren

.lyca

n@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Lyd

on

Jo

hn

US

DA

-AR

S

5601

Sun

nys

ide

Ave

G

WC

C R

m 4

-22

38

Bel

tsvi

lle

MD

20

705

30

1-50

4-6

470

jo

hn.ly

don@

ars

.usd

a.go

v

150

Mah

on

ey

Mat

the

w

Ba

yer

Cro

pSci

ence

47

73 S

ailo

rs R

etre

at

Rd

Oxf

ord

M

D

2165

4

410-

822

-521

5

mat

t.mah

one

y@ba

yerc

rops

cien

ce.c

om

Maj

ek

Bra

dle

y R

utge

rs U

nive

rsity

11

28 R

ainb

ow

Circ

le

Pitt

sgro

ve

NJ

0831

8

856-

455

-310

0

maj

ek@

aeso

p.ru

tger

s.ed

u

Man

sue

C

arrie

R

utge

rs U

nive

rsity

59

Dud

ley

Rd

N

ew

Bru

nsw

ick

NJ

0890

1

732-

932

-971

1 x

116

cm

ansu

e@ae

sop.

rutg

ers.

edu

Mar

ose

B

etty

M

aros

e A

g-C

onsu

lting

. 50

58 D

urha

m R

d. W

. C

olum

bia

MD

21

044

41

0-73

0-7

768

bh

mar

ose@

com

cast

.net

Mat

her

s

Han

nah

O

hio

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

25

6 B

Ho

wle

tt H

all

Col

umbu

s O

H

4321

0

614-

247

-619

5

mat

hers

.7@

osu.

edu

Mat

thew

s M

icha

el

For

-Sh

ore

Wee

d C

ontr

ol

P.O

. Bo

x 53

6

War

eto

wn

N

J 08

757

60

9-69

3-6

999

m

ike@

for-

shor

e.co

m

Ma

yon

ad

o

Dav

id

Mon

sant

o C

omp

any

6075

Wes

tbro

oke

Driv

e S

alis

bury

M

D

2180

1

410-

726

-422

2

davi

d.j.m

ayo

nad

o@m

onsa

nto.

com

McC

ullo

ug

h

Pat

rick

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

eo

rgia

11

09 E

xper

imen

t S

t G

riffin

G

A

3022

3

770-

228

-727

6

pmcc

ull@

uga.

edu

McD

on

ald

S

teve

n T

urfg

rass

Dis

ease

S

olut

ions

LLC

38

Ber

tole

t Sch

ool

R

oad

S

prin

g C

ity

PA

19

475

61

0-63

3-1

878

tu

rfgr

assd

isea

seso

lutio

ns@

yaho

o.co

m

McD

on

nel

l B

rian

Nat

iona

l Par

k S

ervi

ce

1 R

iver

Rd

B

ush

kill

PA

18

324

57

0 58

8-0

534

br

ian_

mcd

onne

ll@np

s.go

v

McN

ult

y B

rend

on

Virg

inia

Tec

h 43

5 O

ld G

lade

Roa

d B

lack

sbur

g V

A

2406

0

540-

231

-580

7

bmcn

ulty

@vt

.ed

u

Mer

vosh

T

odd

L.

Con

nect

icut

Ag.

Exp

S

tatio

n C

AE

S V

alle

y L

ab 1

53

Coo

k H

ill R

d W

inds

or

CT

06

095

86

0-68

3-4

984

to

dd.m

ervo

sh@

ct.g

ov

Milb

rath

Li

ndse

y U

SD

A-A

RS

Ro

ber

t W.

Hol

ley

Cen

ter

T

ow

er R

oad

Ith

aca

NY

14

853

60

7-25

4-7

268

lin

dsey

.milb

rath

@ar

s.us

da.g

ov

151

Mill

er

Ra

ymon

d

Do

w A

groS

cien

ces

LLC

40

20 C

ollin

woo

d A

ve

Fo

rt W

orth

T

X

7610

7

813-

363

-905

9

rcm

iller

2@do

w.c

om

Mir

sky

Ste

ven

US

DA

-AR

S A

NR

I SA

SL

1030

0 B

altim

ore

Ave

nue

Bld

g. 0

01

Bel

tsvi

lle

MD

20

705

30

1-50

4-7

199

st

even

.mirs

ky@

ars.

usda

.gov

Mo

rten

sen

D

avid

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

865

-667

9

dmor

tens

en@

psu.

edu

Mo

sdel

l D

ean

S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 50

1-I S

. Rei

no R

d.

#183

N

ew

bury

Pa

rk

CA

91

320

80

5-48

0-0

514

de

an.m

osde

ll@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Mu

bar

eka

M

.S.

Abo

ud

Spr

out-

Les

s V

eget

. C

ontr

ol S

yste

m

1125

Po

we

r R

d.

St.J

osep

h de

M

ada

was

ka

Can

ada

N.B

., E

7B

2M3

506-

739

-644

7

sam

co@

spro

ut-l

ess.

com

Mu

nst

erm

an

C

hris

S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 11

Qui

cksi

lver

Cou

rt

Mar

tinsb

urg

W

V

2540

4

304-

261

-956

4

chris

.mun

ster

man

@sy

ngen

ta.c

om

Nae

del

M

atth

ew

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

V

alen

tine

Tur

fgra

ss

Ctr

. Uni

v. D

rive

Ext

. U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-86

3-1

613

m

bn11

2@ps

u.ed

u

Nea

l Jo

seph

N

orth

Car

olin

a S

tate

U

nive

rsity

26

2 K

ilgor

e H

all B

ox

7609

R

alei

gh

NC

27

606

91

9-51

5-9

379

jo

e_ne

al@

ncsu

.edu

No

rd

And

rea

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-763

8

andr

eano

rd@

psu.

edu

No

rd

Eric

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

865

-902

1

eric

nord

@ps

u.ed

u

No

rto

n

Law

renc

e

Ba

yer

Env

ironm

ent

al

Sci

ence

42

33 H

arrie

t Lan

e B

ethl

ehem

P

A

1801

7

610-

814

-622

0

larr

y.n

orto

n @

baye

rcro

psci

ence

.com

O'B

arr

John

H.

BA

SF

Cor

p.

108

Whi

ppoo

rwill

Lan

e

Hum

mel

stow

n

PA

17

036

71

7-38

6-8

259

jo

hn.o

barr

@ba

sf.c

om

O'C

on

nel

l Ja

mes

U

Mas

s C

ranb

err

y S

tatio

n

P.O

Box

569

E

ast W

areh

am

MA

02

538

50

8-29

5-2

212

ja

mes

o@um

ext.

umas

s.ed

u

152

Ols

on

B

rian

Do

w A

groS

cien

ces

LLC

22

Del

ance

y D

r.

Gen

eva

N

Y

1445

6

317-

337

-724

5

bdol

son@

dow

.com

O'N

eal

Will

iam

A

MV

AC

Che

mic

al

Cor

pora

tion

10

2 B

ay

Vie

w D

rive

C

hape

l Hill

N

C

2751

6

919-

619

-309

5

bone

al@

spry

net.

com

O'N

eill

B

rian

Wee

ds, I

nc

250

Bod

ley

Rd

A

ston

P

A

1901

4

610-

358

-943

0

bgon

58@

aol

.com

Orr

Ja

mes

A

splu

ndh

708

Bla

ir M

ill R

oad

Will

ow G

rove

P

A

1909

0

1-80

0-24

8-T

RE

E

jimor

r@as

plun

dh.c

om

Pac

chio

li

Mar

c C

rop

Man

agem

ent

S

trat

egie

s P

.O. B

ox

510

H

eref

ord

P

A

1805

6

610-

767

-194

4

cms1

@fa

st.n

et

Pal

mer

C

risti

IR-4

He

adqu

art

ers

50

0 C

olle

ge A

ve S

uite

20

1W

Prin

ceto

n N

J 08

540

73

2-93

2-9

575

pa

lmer

@ae

sop.

rutg

ers.

edu

Pal

mer

W

. H.

Rea

lity

Res

earc

h

5916

Sou

th A

ve.

Will

iam

son

NY

14

589

31

5-94

5-0

945

w

hpa

lmer

@lo

caln

et.c

om

Pan

nill

P

hilip

U

.S. F

ish

and

Wild

life

698

Con

serv

atio

n W

ay

She

pher

dsto

wn

W

V

2544

3

304-

876

-743

2

phil_

pann

ill@

fws.

gov

Par

ker

Ast

rid

Ba

yer

Env

ironm

ent

al

Sci

ence

98

1 N

C42

Eas

t C

layt

on

NC

27

527

91

9-62

5-3

350

as

trid

.par

ker@

ba

yer.

com

Par

och

ett

i Ja

me

s U

SD

A-N

IFA

M

ail S

top

2220

14t

h &

Inde

pend

ence

W

ashi

ngto

n D

C

2025

0

202-

401

-435

4

jpar

oche

tti@

nifa

.usd

a.go

v

Par

rish

Ja

son

Ohi

o S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

2001

Fyf

fe C

t 2

56

Ho

wle

tt H

all

Col

umbu

s O

H

4321

0

440-

225

-483

1

parr

ish.

174@

osu.

edu

Pat

ton

A

aron

P

urdu

e U

nive

rsity

Li

lly H

all

915

Wes

t S

tate

Str

eet

Wes

t Laf

aye

tte

IN

4790

7

765-

494

-973

7

ajpa

tton@

purd

ue.

edu

Pen

nu

cci

Ann

amar

ie

Nor

thea

st T

urf &

O

rnam

enta

l Res

earc

h

4 E

ngle

woo

d D

rive

Ra

ymon

d

NH

03

077

61

0-89

5-8

480

aa

penn

ucci

@ya

hoo.

com

153

Ph

illip

s

Bill

U

S E

PA

, O

PP

12

00 P

enn

ylva

nia

Ave

., N

.W.

Was

hing

ton

DC

20

460

70

3-30

8-8

099

ph

illip

s.bi

ll@ep

a.go

v

Po

st

Ang

ela

Virg

inia

Tec

h 43

5 O

ld G

lade

Roa

d C

ampu

s B

ox 0

330

Bla

cksb

urg

VA

24

060

54

0-23

1-5

807

ar

post

@vt

.edu

Pro

stak

R

and

y U

nive

rsity

of

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Dep

t. P

lant

& S

oil

Fre

nch

Hal

l Roo

m 2

A

mhe

rst

MA

01

033

41

3-57

7-1

738

rp

rost

ak@

ume

xt.u

mas

s.ed

u

Pru

ss

Sta

nle

y C

IBA

-Gei

gy-

Ret

ired

44

3 M

onin

ger

Rd

W

ashi

ngto

n P

A

1530

1

724-

222

483

1

spru

ss@

hugh

es.n

et

Pyl

e

Ste

ve

Syn

gent

a C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

410

Sw

ing

Roa

d

Gre

ens

boro

N

C

2740

9

336-

632

-223

6

stev

e.p

yle@

syng

enta

.com

Ran

a

Am

an

Virg

inia

Tec

h 81

3 fla

ton

trac

e

Che

sape

ake

V

A

2332

2

757-

237

-341

2

rana

aman

29@

gm

ail.c

om

Rar

do

n

Pat

rick

Dup

ont C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

1090

Elk

ton

Roa

d S

210/

170

N

ew

ark

DE

19

711

30

2-36

6-5

546

pa

tric

k.l.r

ardo

n@us

a.du

pont

.com

Rat

na

yake

S

unil

US

EP

A

1200

PA

Ave

. N.W

. M

ail S

top

7503

P

Was

hing

ton

DC

20

460

70

3-30

8-8

191

ra

tna

yake

.sun

il@ep

a.go

v

Rau

sch

ert

Em

ily

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

116

AS

I Bui

ldin

g U

niv

ersi

ty P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-431

1

esj1

13@

psu.

edu

Ree

b

Bry

an

The

Ohi

o S

tate

U

nive

rsity

20

21 C

offe

y R

d.

Col

umbu

s O

H

4321

0

740-

225

-201

4

reeb

.22

@os

u.ed

u

Ric

har

dso

n

Rob

ert

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

Box

762

0 W

illia

ms

Hal

l R

alei

gh

NC

27

695

91

9-51

5-5

653

ro

b_ric

hard

son

@nc

su.e

du

Ric

htm

yer

III

Ric

hard

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

31

79 C

ount

y Li

ne

Roa

d

Wat

kins

Gle

n N

Y

1489

1

607-

342

-169

5

rjr39

@co

rnel

l.edu

Rin

eho

lt

Sha

wn

E

coT

ech

Env

ironm

enta

l 28

770

duP

ont

HW

Y

Mill

sbor

o D

E

1996

6

302-

933

-811

0

ecot

eche

nviro

nmen

tal@

gmai

l.com

154

Rit

ter

Ron

ald

L.

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aryl

and

12

901

No

rth

Poi

nt

Lane

La

urel

M

D

2070

8

301-

405

-132

9

rlritt

er@

umd.

edu

Ro

ger

s

Gre

gor

y D

uPon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 58

Mid

dlec

roft

Rd

Elk

ton

MD

21

921

44

3 30

9 01

48

gr

egor

y.s.

roge

rs@

usa.

dupo

nt.c

om

Ro

rem

K

ent

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Dep

t of

Agr

icul

ture

38

00 C

astle

Ha

yne

Rd.

C

astle

Ha

yne

N

C

2842

9

910-

675

-231

4

kent

.ror

em@

nca

gr.g

ov

Ru

pp

P

ete

r M

aryl

and

Dep

art

men

t of

Agr

icul

ture

50

Har

ry S

. T

rum

an

Pkw

y.

Ann

apol

is

MD

21

401

41

0-84

1-5

920

ha

lletd

c@m

da.s

tate

.md.

us

Rya

n

Mat

the

w

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

116

AS

I Bui

ldin

g U

nive

rsity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

81

4-57

4-3

028

m

rr20

3@

psu.

edu

San

dle

r H

ilary

U

Mas

s C

ranb

err

y S

tatio

n

P.O

. Bo

x 56

9

Eas

t War

eham

M

A

0253

8

508-

295

-221

2 x

21

hsan

dler

@um

ext

.um

ass.

edu

San

dy

Dav

e P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

404

-900

1

djs2

30@

psu.

edu

Sau

nd

ers

D

avid

D

uPon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 24

087

230t

h st

. D

alla

s C

ente

r IA

50

063

51

5-33

4-4

485

da

vid.

w.s

aund

ers@

usa.

dupo

nt.c

om

Sch

na

pp

ing

er

Gar

ry

Syn

gent

a -

Ret

ired

930

Sta

rr R

oad

C

entr

evill

e M

D

2161

7

410-

758

-141

9

schn

apg@

toad

mai

l.com

Sch

ou

B

ert

AC

RE

S R

esea

rch

P.O

. Bo

x 99

G

ree

n B

ank

WV

24

944

30

4 45

6 55

58

be

rtsc

hou@

aol.c

om

Sco

resb

y R

ene

G

ree

n Li

ght

1058

Blu

eber

ry L

ane

Mos

inee

W

I 54

455

71

5-29

8-3

315

re

nesc

ores

by@

yaho

o.co

m

Sco

tt

Bar

bara

U

nive

rsity

of

Del

awar

e

1648

3 C

ount

y S

eat

Hw

y G

eorg

eto

wn

D

E

1994

7

302-

856

-258

5

basc

ott@

udel

.ed

u

Sel

lman

Le

roy

Mar

ylan

d D

epa

rtm

ent o

f A

gric

ultu

re

50 H

arry

S.

Tru

man

P

kwy.

A

nnap

olis

M

D

2140

1

410-

841

-592

0

halle

tdc@

mda

.sta

te.m

d.us

155

Sen

esac

A

ndre

w

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity

Coo

pera

tive

Ext

.

3059

Sou

nd A

venu

e R

iver

head

N

Y

1190

1

631-

727

-359

5

afs2

@co

rnel

l.edu

Ser

ensi

ts

Tho

mas

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

11

6 A

SI B

uild

ing

Un

iver

sity

Pa

rk

PA

16

802

61

0-36

0-5

985

tjs

204@

psu.

edu

Sh

arm

a

Shi

v F

MC

Co

rpor

atio

n 17

35 M

arke

t Str

eet

P

hila

delp

hia

PA

19

103

21

5299

687

1

shiv

.sha

rma@

fmc.

com

Sh

aw

Nig

el

Nat

iona

l Par

k S

ervi

ce

15 S

tate

Str

eet

Bos

ton

MA

02

109

61

7-79

7-4

569

ni

gel_

shaw

@np

s.go

v

Sk

ibo

A

ndre

w

FM

C C

orp

orat

ion

701

Prin

ceto

nSo

uth

Cor

pora

te C

ent

er

Ew

ing

N

J 08

628

60

9.96

3.67

33

A

ndre

w.S

kibo

@fm

c.co

m

Sm

ith

M

ark

Mar

ylan

d D

epa

rtm

ent o

f A

gric

ultu

re

50 H

arry

S.

Tru

man

P

kwy.

A

nnap

olis

M

D

2140

1

410-

841

-592

0

smith

mj@

mda

.sta

te.m

d.us

Sm

ith

R

icha

rd

Pen

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

116

AS

I Bui

ldin

g U

niv

ersi

ty P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-430

9

rgs1

4@ps

u.ed

u

Sp

ak

Dav

id

Ba

yer

Env

ironm

ent

al

Sci

ence

98

1 H

igh

wa

y 42

Eas

t C

layt

on

NC

27

520

91

9-62

5-3

350

da

vid.

spak

@ba

yerc

rops

cien

ce.c

om

Sta

cho

wsk

i P

aul

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity

1256

Pop

lar

Rid

ge R

d.

Aur

ora

N

Y

1302

6

315-

364

-829

6

pjs1

6@co

rnel

l.edu

Sta

lter

R

icha

rd

St.

John

's U

nive

rsity

D

ept.

of B

iolo

gy

8000

U

topi

a P

arkw

ay

Que

ens

NY

11

439

71

8-99

0-6

288

st

alte

rr@

stjo

hns.

edu

Ste

ffel

Ja

mes

LA

BS

ervi

ces

342

Sou

th T

hird

Str

eet

Ha

mbu

rg

PA

19

526

61

0-56

2-5

055

jim

@la

bser

vice

s.co

m

Sw

anto

n

Cla

renc

e

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

ue

lph

50 S

tone

Rd.

E.,

Gue

lph

O

ntar

io

Can

ada

N

1G

2W1

519-

824

-412

0 x

5339

2

csw

anto

n@

uogu

elph

.ca

Sw

eet

Rob

ert

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

(E

mer

itus)

D

ept.

Ho

rtic

ultu

re 1

67

Pla

nt S

cien

ces

Bld

It

haca

N

Y

1485

3

607-

273

-710

6

sdt1

@co

rnel

l.edu

156

Szy

lvia

n

And

rea

U

S E

PA

, Reg

ion

1 P

estic

ide

Pro

gram

P

ost O

ffice

Sq.

Sui

te

100

OE

S 0

5-4

B

osto

n M

A

0210

9

617-

918

-119

8

szyl

vian

.and

rea

@ep

a.go

v

Tan

S

iyu

an

BA

SF

Cor

p.

26 D

avis

Dr.

R

esea

rch

Tria

ngle

Par

k N

C

2770

9

919-

547

-267

9

siyu

an.t

an@

basf

.com

Tar

dif

F

ranc

ois

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

ue

lph

50 S

tone

Rd.

E.,

Gue

lph

O

ntar

io

Can

ada

N

1G

2W1

519-

824

-412

0 x

5339

5

ftard

if@uo

guel

ph.c

a

Ta

ylo

rso

n

Ra

ymon

d

US

DA

(R

etir

ed)

8721

Orc

hard

Dri

ve

Che

ster

tow

n

MD

21

620

41

0-77

8-9

088

ra

ymo

ndta

ylo

rso

n@ve

rizon

.net

Tea

sda

le

John

U

SD

A-A

RS

10

300

Bal

timor

e A

venu

e B

elts

ville

M

D

2070

5

301-

504

-550

4

john

.teas

dale

@a

rs.u

sda.

gov

Th

om

as

Gar

B

AS

F C

orp.

10

02 B

ethe

l Roa

dd

Che

sape

ake

City

M

D

2191

5

410-

885

-592

0

garf

ield

.thom

as@

basf

.com

Tra

nel

P

atric

k U

nive

rsity

of

Illin

ois

320

ER

ML,

120

1 W

. G

reg

ory

Dr.

U

rban

a

IL

6180

1

217-

333

-153

1

tran

el@

illin

ois.

edu

Tru

e

Sar

ah

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

Cam

pus

Box

762

0 R

alei

gh

NC

27

695

91

9-81

2-5

679

sl

true

@nc

su.e

du

Vai

l G

ord

on

Syn

gent

a C

rop

Pro

tect

ion

410

Sw

ing

Roa

d

Gre

ens

boro

N

C

2741

9

336-

632

-559

6

gord

on.v

ail@

syn

gent

a.co

m

Van

Ge

ssel

M

ark

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are

R

esea

rch

& E

duca

tion

1668

4 C

ount

y S

eat H

G

eorg

eto

wn

D

E

1994

7

302-

856

-730

3

mjv

@ud

el.e

du

Van

ini

J.T

im

Ne

w D

imen

sion

s T

urf

9 C

olvi

n A

ve

Buf

falo

N

Y

1421

6

716-

319

-749

5

tim@

ndtu

rf.c

om

Var

gas

J.

Javi

er

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

E

lling

ton

Pla

nt

Sci

ence

s B

ldg.

K

noxv

ille

TN

37

996

86

5-97

4-7

324

jv

arga

s@ut

k.ed

u

Vea

E

lym

ar

V.

IR-4

He

adqu

art

ers

30

8 A

ston

For

est L

ane

C

row

nsvi

lle

MD

21

032

41

0-92

3-4

880

ev

vea@

com

cast

.net

157

Ven

ner

K

atel

yn

Rut

gers

Uni

vers

ity

59 B

udle

y R

oad

N

ew

Bru

nsw

ick

NJ

0890

1

732-

932

-971

1 x

116

ka

teve

nn@

eden

.rut

gers

.edu

Vit

olo

D

avid

S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 30

3 W

Far

riss

Ave

H

igh

Poi

nt

NC

27

262

91

6-31

6-6

951

da

vid.

vito

lo@

syn

gent

a.co

m

Wal

ls

Bob

by

FM

C C

orp

orat

ion

501

Par

kwoo

d L

ane

Gol

dsb

oro

N

C

2753

0

919-

735

-386

2

bobb

y.w

alls

@fm

c.co

m

Wat

sch

ke

Tho

mas

P

enn

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

42

5 A

SI B

uild

ing

Uni

vers

ity P

ark

P

A

1680

2

814-

863

-764

4

tlw3@

psu.

edu

Wel

terl

en

Mar

k P

BI/G

ord

on C

orp

orat

ion

12

17 W

. 12t

h S

tree

t K

ansa

s C

ity

MI

6410

1

816-

460

-620

5

mw

elte

rlen@

pbig

ordo

n.co

m

Wes

t A

man

da

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity

Cam

pus

Box

762

0 R

alei

gh

NC

27

695

91

9-81

2-5

679

am

wes

t@nc

su.e

du

Wh

ite

T

im

Cro

p M

anag

eme

nt

Str

ateg

ies

P.O

. Bo

x 51

0

Her

efo

rd

PA

18

056

61

0-76

7-1

944

cm

s1@

fast

.net

Wh

iteh

ou

se

S

teph

anie

C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

90

5 B

radf

ield

Hal

l Ith

aca

NY

14

853

60

7-25

5-4

747

se

w54

@co

rnel

l.edu

Will

iam

s

Cla

rk

Foc

us o

n T

rain

ing

US

A

LLC

7

Che

stnu

t Str

ee

t Q

uake

rto

wn

P

A

1895

1

215-

651

-573

2

cwill

iam

s@fo

cuso

ntra

inin

gusa

.com

Will

is

John

M

onsa

nto

Com

pan

y 13

05 S

ande

rs R

oad

T

roy

OH

45

373

93

7-41

8-5

667

jo

hn.b

.will

is@

mon

sant

o.co

m

Wils

on

H

enry

V

irgin

ia T

ech

E

aste

rn S

hore

AR

C

3344

6 R

esea

rch

Driv

e P

aint

er

VA

23

420

75

7-41

4-0

724

hw

ilson

@vt

.edu

Wo

llam

Jo

hn

Ba

yer

Cro

p S

cie

nce

P.O

Box

491

3, 8

400

Ha

wth

orn

Roa

d

Kan

sas

City

M

O

6412

0

816

242-

200

0

john

.wol

lam

@ba

yerc

rops

cien

ce.c

om

Wyn

n

John

D

upon

t Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n s3

15/2

310

PO

Box

30

N

ew

ark

DE

19

714

30

2-45

1-5

835

w

-wyn

n.jo

hn@

usa.

dupo

nt.c

om

158

Yar

bo

rou

gh

D

avid

U

nive

rsity

of

Mai

ne

5722

Dee

ring

Ha

ll O

ron

o

ME

04

469

20

7-58

1-2

923

da

vidy

@m

aine

.edu

Zaw

ieru

cha

Jo

e B

AS

F C

orp.

26

Dav

is D

rive

Res

earc

h T

riang

le P

ark

NC

27

709

91

9-54

7-2

095

jo

seph

.zaw

ieru

cha@

basf

.com

Zel

na

Je

ffre

y S

ynge

nta

Cro

p P

rote

ctio

n 45

98 R

elia

nt R

d.

Jam

esvi

lle

NY

13

078

31

5-49

8-4

259

je

ff.ze

lna@

syn

gen

ta.c

om

Zo

nte

k

Sta

nle

y U

SG

A G

reen

Se

ctio

n,

Mid

-Atla

ntic

Reg

ion

485

Bal

timor

e P

ike,

S

uite

203

G

len

Mill

s P

A

1934

2

610-

558

-906

6

szon

tek@

usga

.org

159

160

Author Index

Note: Abstract numbers are referenced (not page numbers)

A

Ahrens, J……………..……………………...58, 61 Derr, J.F. …………………….………..11, 28, 33, 59

Allen, J. …………………………………….53, 101 Dillehay, B. ………………….……………………102

Altemose, C.E. ………………………………….99 DiTomaso, J.M. …………….…….………………..70

Altland, J. ………………………………………..62 DiTommaso, A. …………...…..……2, 26, 27, 47, 71

Armel, G. ……………………………………24, 34 Duncan, H.A. ………………….……………………34

Arsenovic, M. ………………………………….. 79 Dunne, C…………………..……..………………….77

Askew, S. ………………………10, 23, 25, 87, 91

Autio, W. …………………………………………75 E

Averill, K.M. ……………………………………… 4 Ellis, D.R. …………………………………………44

Elmore, M. ……………………….………….. 14, 21

B Evans, G.J. ……………………………………78, 81

Barcel, D.J. ……….……………………………..64 Everman, W. ……………………………………...92

Barney, J.N. ……….…………………………….70

Barolli, S. ………………………………………...58 F

Baron, J. ………………………………..57, 60, 79 Floistad, I.S. ……………………………………….71

Bellinder, R. …………………………………78, 81 Foresman, C.L. ……………………………….94, 98

Bernard, C.S. ….………………………………..11

Bittner, T………………………………………….47 G

Borger, J………………………………………….88 Ghantous, K……………………………………..7, 75

Bowers, I.D. ………………………………………1 Gibson, L.A. ……………………………………….34

Bravo, M.A. …….………………………….1, 3, 43 Glasgow, L………………………………………... 92

Breeden, G.K. ………………………………14, 21 Gover, A.E. …………………………..39, 42, 48, 68

Brooks, R.L. …………………………………….94 Grossman, J.M. ……….…………………………..66

Brosnan, J. ……………………………..14, 21, 90

Burke, J. M. ……………………………………….2 H

Hagood, E.S…….……………….…………………31

C Hall, K.R. …………………………………………..40

Cain, N. P. ………………………….……………46 Han, K.M. ………………………………………….16

Caruso, F. ………………………….……………..7 Hart, S. …………………….………….13, 32, 86, 90

Cavigelli, M. ……………………..………………29 Hart, W.E. ………………………………………….34

Chandran, R.S………………….………… 5, 6, 96 Hester, K.A. …….……………………………..57, 60

Cheah, C. A. …………………………………….44 Hill, E R. ……………………………………………94

Coburn, C.W. ……………………………………96 Hivner, K……………………………………………88

Cox, W. J. ……………………………………….26 Horvath, B………………………………………….28

Crockett, B. C……………………………………22 Hoyle, S.T. ……………………………………...…40

Curran, W. S. ……………22, 56, 67, 97, 99, 100

Cutulle, M………………………………………..28 I

Ikley, J………………………………………………95

D Irvine, M…………………………………………….46

D'Appollonio, J……………………………..72, 73

Derksen, R……………………………………..62

Dernoeden, P. H. ……………………..82, 84, 89

161

J N

Jeranyama, P. …………..………………………..75 Naedel, M…………………………………………..88

Johnson, C.A. …………….………….…………….3 Neal, J.C. …………………………………………..11

Johnson, J.M. ……………….…………..39, 49, 50 Nichols, A…………………………………………..28

Johnson, Q……………………….….……………80

O

K O'Connell, J………………………………………….7

Kalmowitz, K…………………….……………….63 Oliveira, R…………………….…………………….62

Kaminski, J.E. ……………….………………….16 Oliver, B.W. ………………………………………..71

Keese, R.J. ………………….…………………..63 Olson, B.D. ……………………………...…….55, 93

Ketterings, Q. M…………………………………27 Orlowski, J. M. …………………………………….26

Kloo, A……………………………………………45

Koo, Suk-Jin …………………………………….87 P

Kopsell, D.A………………………………….…. 21 Palmer, C.L. …………………………………..57, 60

Krings, A………………………………………….11 Parr, M.C. …………………………………….……66

Kunkel, D…………………………………………79 Patton, A. J. ……………………………….…...….85

Peterson, M.A. …………………………………….55

L Place, G.T. ………………………………………...66

Lingenfelter, D.D……………………...77, 99, 100 Poffenbarger, H.J…………………………………29

Little, N.G. ……………………….………………27 Polge, N.D. …………………..……………………98

Lloyd, K………………………………….39, 49, 50 Post, A…………………………………………..….23

Lurvey, E…………………………………………60

R

M Rana, A…………………………………………….33

Mahoney, M……………………………12, 76, 101 Reberg-Horton, S.C. ….…………………….30, 66

Mansue, C.J. ………………………...…13, 32, 86 Reicher, Z. …………………………………..……85

Mathew, S. A……………………………………. 8 Richardson, R.J. ….………………………....15, 40

Maul, J…………………………………………..29 Ritter, R. L. …………………………………..…...95

Mayonado, D.J. …………………………..54, 102 Rutledge, J.M. ………………………………12, 101

McCall, D. …………………………………..23, 28 Ryan, C.P…………………………………….. 84, 89

McCullough, P………………………………….90 Ryan, M.R. ….…………………………………67, 97

McDonald, S.J. …………………………………83

McDonnell, B.F. ………………………………..45 S

McLemore, A.J………………………………….34 Sandler, H. …………………………………7, 74, 75

McNulty, B…………………………………..25, 87 Schroeder, J………………….……………………92

Mervosh, T.L. ……….………………………44, 61 Scott, B. A. ………………………………8, 9, 77, 80

Messer, R.E. …………………………………….34 Seifert-Higgins, S………………………………….54

Milbrath, L.R. ….………………….……………..47 Sellmer, J………………………………….39, 49, 50

Miller, K…………………………………………..63 Senesac, A.F. …………………………………….65

Mirsky, S……………………………22, 29, 67, 97 Shaw, D……………………………………….……92

Mohler, C.L. …………………………………….27 Shivrain, V.K. ……………………………………..98

Mortensen, D………………………...4, 56, 67, 97 Smith, A.N. …………………………..10, 30, 31, 66

Munsterman, C………………………………….94 Smith, R.G. ………………………………………..67

Myers, D…………………………………………41 Soteres, J……………………………………….….92

162

Spak, D……………………….……..……………41

Spargo, J…………………………..…….……….29

Stachler, J…………………….…………….……92

Stalter, R……………………………….…….…..69

T

Tardif, F. ……….………………………………..92

Teasdale, J………………………………….29, 67

Thomas, D.A. …………………………………..98

Torresen, K.S. ……….…………………………71

U

Unland, D……………………………………….76

V

Vail, G.D. ………………………………………..98

VanGessel, M.J…………………….. 8, 77, 80, 99

Vargas, J.J…………………………………. 24, 34

Vea, E. ………………………………………57, 60

Venner, K. A. ……………………………….13, 32

W

Wagoner, R.K. ………………………………….48

Walls, B………………………………………14, 86

Weber, M……………………………………….101

Weisenberger, D.V. …….………………………85

Wells, M.S…………………………………...30, 66

Willis, J.B. ……………………………………..102

Wootton, L……………………………………….45

Yarborough, D.E. ………………………......72, 73

Y

Yohn, C.W……………………………………… 96

Youmans, C.D. ………………………………….24

Z

Zoschg, J…………………………………...1, 3, 43

163

Keyword Index

Note: Abstract numbers are referenced (not page numbers)

2

Artemisia vulgaris………………………………….……...71

2,4-D…………………………………….…….22, 42, 55, 79

Arthraxon hispidus………………..………………………68

Aster spp………………………….……………………….49

A

Astilbe………………………….…………….…………….65

Abelmoschus esculentus……..…………….……………79

Athletic fields……………………………….….…………..88

Abutilon theophrasti……………………..……..55, 95, 100    

Atrazine…………………………..…...………31, 77, 94, 96

Acer platanoides…………………………….…..…..……48    

Acer saccharinum……………….………………………..48    

B

Acetochlor………………………………….…..….……..102    

Barberry, Japanese………………………………………...5

Agrostis stolonifera………….…...............……..16, 87, 88    

Bareground………………………………………………...50

Allium vineale…………………………….….…….….…..93    

Bean, dry…………………………………………………..78

Amaranthus hybridus…………………….….….………..29    

Bean, snap…………………………………………….77, 80

Amaranthus powellii…………………………….………..27    

Bensulide………………………………………….13, 82, 87

Amaranthus retroflexus…………………………….30, 100    

Bentgrass, creeping………………………………….16, 88

Amaranthus spp…………………….………….………..102    

Bermudagrass, turf………………………………………..14

Ambrosia artemisiifolia……………….………...55, 83, 100    

Betula nigra………………………………………………..48

Ambrosia trifida……………………………………….…..55    

Biodiversity………………………………………………….4

Amicarbazone…………………………….………….……10    

Biological control……………………………………….7, 44

Aminocyclopyrachlor…………………….…..48, 49, 50, 90    

Biology, weed……………………………………………..71

Aminopyralid……………………………….…43, 46, 48, 49    

Bispyribac-sodium…………………………...25, 28, 68, 89

Ammonium sulfate………………………………………..16    

Blueberry…………………………………………………..79

Anthoxanthum odoratum……………………....…………10    

Blueberry, wild………………………………………...72, 73

Antigonon leptopus…………………………………..…….2    

Bluegrass…………………………………………………..87

Apocynum cannabinum……………………………………6    

Bluegrass, Kentucky……………………………………...83

Apple…………………………………………………………6    

Brassica napus……………………………………………79

Application timing…………………………………….88, 93    

Broadstar VC1604……….………………………………..57

Application, granular……………………………………..62    

Bromoxynil…………………………………………………81

Application, ground…………………………………..55, 93    

Brown patch……………………………………………….28

Application, methods……………..………………...…….83    

Buddleia davidii……………………………………………62

Application, sequential………………………..….………85    

Butterfly bush…………………………………………...5, 62

Aquatic environment………………….………………15, 40    

 

Areas, natural……………….…3, 4, 15, 39, 42, 44, 47, 68    

164

C     Crop Safety………………………………………………..60

Cadet……………………………………………………….81     Crops, glyphosate-resistant……………………………..12

Caneberry………………………………………………….79     Crownvetch………………………………………………..43

Canopy management…………………………………….74     Cryogenic………………………………………………….34

Capreno……………………………………………………81     Cumyluron……………………………………………..82, 87

Cardamine flexuosa………………………………………57     Cuscuta gronovii……………………………………………7

Cardamine hirsuta………………………………………...57     Cynodon dactylon…………………..……………14, 21, 87

Carex kobomugi…………………………………………..45     Cyperus esculentus…………..………….…………..14, 96

Carotenoids………………………………………………..21    

Cerastium vulgatum……………………………………6, 82     D

Chenopodium album…………………27, 55, 95, 100, 102     Datura stramonium……………….……………………….95

Chlorimuron-ethyl…………………………………………99     Daucus carota………….………………………………….49

Chlorophyll…………………………………………………29     Defoliant………….……………....………………………..78

Chlorophyll fluorescense…………………………………21     Dessication…………………………..…………………….78

Chlorsulfuron………………………………………….48, 49     Dewberry…………………………………………………..75

Cichorium intybus…………………………………………49     Dicamba…………………………………………..22, 54, 79

Citrullus lanatus…………………………………………….8     Dichlobenil………………………………..……………….57

Clethodim………………………………………………….79     Dichlorprop (2,4-DP)……………………………………..42

Clopyralid………………………………………….22, 48, 61     Digitaria ischaemum……………………………..83, 84, 85

Colletotrichum………………………………………………7     Digitaria sanguinalis…………………….41, 58, 85, 86, 90

Competition……………………………………………26, 29     Dimethenamid-P…………………….……….57, 58, 60, 63

Compost……………………………………………………27     Ditches, ditchbanks………………………………………43

Computer applications……………………………………11     Dithiopyr……………………………..13, 14, 82, 84, 85, 86

Conifers…………………………………………………….61     Diuron………………………………………………….50, 58

Consumer herbicides……………………………………..91     Drift control………………………………………………..55

Conyza canadensis…………………………………..55, 93    

Cooperative Weed Management Area………..………….3     E

Corallita………………………………………….…………..2     Early Postemergence……………………………………57

Corn……………….27, 29, 31, 55, 79, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102     Echinacea purpurea……………………………………..65

Corn, glufosinate-resistant……………………………….53     Echinochloa crus-galli…………………………………..50

Corn, sweet……………………………………………80, 81     Ecology, weed………………………………….2, 4, 27, 67

Cornus florida……………………………………………..48     Economics………………………………………………..74

Cotton………………………………………………………55     Edamame (edible soybean)…………………………….99

Cover crop………………………………………...30, 31, 97     Education…………………………………………………92

Cranberry…………………………………………...7, 74, 75     Elaeagnus umbellata…………………………………….42

   

165

Eleusine indica……………………………………………87     Glyphosate resistance………..…………………………..54

Ethofumesate……………………………………………..88     Gossypium hirsutum….……….………………………….55

Euphorbia humistrata…………………………………….57     Grape………………………….……………………………79

Europe……………………………………………………..71     Greens, golf…………………………………………...16, 88

EXC3898…………………………………………………..57    

Exotic weed……………………………………………..2, 47     H     Habitats, disturbed…………………………………………2

F     Habitats, natural………………………………………..4, 44

F9001………………………………………………………14     Habitats, semi-natural…………………………………4, 47

Fenoxaprop……………………………………………10, 90     Halosulfuron…..………………………………………45, 79

Ferrous sulfate……………………………………………16     Hay……………………..………………………………43, 79

Fescue, fine……………………………………………….49     Hemlock, Canadian……………………………………….61

Fescue, tall…………………………………...28, 32, 49, 83     Heracleum mantegazzianum……………………………...1

Festuca arundinacea…………..25, 28, 32, 49, 83, 84, 87     Herbaceous plants………………………………………..63

Festuca spp……….……………………………………….49     Herbicide carryover…………………………………..77, 80

Fierce……………………………………………………….81     Herbicide resistance………………………………….12, 56

Fir, Douglas………………………………………………..61     Herbicide rotation…………………………………………12

Fir, Fraser………………………………………………….61     Herbicide tolerant traits…………………………………..53

Flame cultivation………….….……………………………75     Hexazinone……………………………………………72, 73

Fluazifop-P…………………………………………….61, 89     HPPD Resistance…………………………………………98

Flucarbazone………………………………………………93     Huskie………………………………………………………81

Flumioxazin……………………….8, 40, 59, 60, 68, 78, 81     Hydrangea macrophylla……………………………...58, 62

Flurprimidol……………………………………………16, 88     Hydrangea, bigleaf………………………………………..58

Fomesafen…………………………………………………99     Hydroseeding……………………………………………...83

Forest…………………………………………..4, 44, 47, 69    

Fruit………………………………………………………..76     I

Imazamox………………………….………………………40

G

Imazapic…………………………………………..45, 49, 68

Galega officinalis………………………………………….43

Imazapyr…………………………………………..40, 43, 46

Genetically modified crops……………………………….55

Imazethapyr……………………………………………….24

Glufosinate………………………..53, 55, 59, 78, 100, 101

Indaziflam…………………………6, 41, 64, 65, 72, 73, 76

Gluten, corn………………………………………………..84    

Industrial……………………………………………….41, 46 Glycine max……..26,30,54,55,67,79,95,99,100,101,102

   

Insect-plant interactions………………………………….44 Glyphosate…….….12, 31, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 78, 97, 102

   Integrated weed management…………11, 47, 56, 67, 84

   

166

Interference………………….……………………………29    

Metsulfuron……………………………………….42, 43, 49

Invasive species………………..2, 3, 4, 43, 44, 46, 69, 70    

Mettler's Woods…………………………………………...69

Invasive vine………………………………………………47    

Microstegium vimineum var. imberbe………………40, 68

IR-4 Project………………………………………………..79    

Microwaves………………………………………………..33

Isobolgram…………………………………………………67    

Mile-a-minute vine………………………………………...44

Isoxaben…………………………………………..57, 58, 60    

Mobile devices…………………………………………….11    

Modeling……………………………………………….29, 70

J    

Monitoring…………………………………………………...1

Juglans nigra………………………………………………48    

Moss control……………………………………………….23

Juncus effusus…………………………………………….75    

Mowing………………………………………………...39, 74

Juniperus horizontalis…………………………………….61    

MSMA………………………………………………………10    

Mulch…………………………………………………..66, 67

K    

Mulch, living……………………………………………….30

Kochia scoparia…………………………………………...50    

Murdannia nudiflora………………………………………59    

Mile-a-minute vine…………….…………………………..44

L    

Mobile devices…………………………………………….11

Label………………………………………………………..60    

Modeling……………………………………………….29, 70

Lactuca sativa……………………………………………..27    

Monitoring……..……………………………………………1

Lamium amplexicaule…………………………………….13    

Moss control…………..…………………………………..23

Lamium purpureum……………………………………….93    

Mowing………………………………………………...39, 74

Landscape beds…………………………………………..63    

MSMA………………………………………………………10

Landscapes…………………………………………………2    

Mulch…………………………………………………..66, 67

Lettuce……………………………………………………..27    

Mulch, living……………………….……………………….30

Linaria vulgaris……….……………………………………..6     Murdannia nudiflora………………………………………59

Linuron……….…………………………………………….79    

Lockdown……………………………………………………7     N

Lolium multiflorum………………………………………...95     Nitrogen immobilization…………………………………..30

Lolium perenne…………………………………...25, 83, 87     No-tillage………………………………………………31, 97

Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum…………………….…..93     Non-chemical weed control………………………….27, 33

Lonicera morrowii (Morrow's honeysuckle)…………….42     Non-crop……………………………………………2, 42, 47

    Non-disturbance…………………………………………..16

M     Non-native plants……………………………………..44, 69

Malus spp…………………………………………………...6     North America……………………………………………..71

Mesosulfuron-methyl…………………………………22, 93     Noxious weed………………………………………..1, 3, 43

Mesotrione………...10,13,21,31,32,61,72,77,83,84,88,96     Nurseries………………………………………….11, 57, 61

Methiozolin……………………………………10, 25, 87, 88     Nursery production………………5, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64

167

Nursery, container production………......5, 11, 57, 60, 65     Polygonaceae……………………………………………….2

    Polygonum cuspidatum…………………………………..39

O     Polygonum perfoliatum………………………………..3, 44

Odocoileus virginianus……………………………………..4     Postemergence…………………………………..73, 86, 90

Old field…………………………………………………….47     Preemergence……………………………………57, 72, 86

Organic agriculture……………………………….27, 30, 34     Prodiamine…………………………..13, 58, 68, 82, 84, 85

Ornamental grasses………………………………………63     Pruning……………………………………………………..74

Ornamental weed control………………………………….5     Prunus persica…………………………………………….79

Ornamentals………………………………………..2, 58, 64     Pyroxasulfone…………………………………………81, 95

Ornamentals, container-grown……………………...58, 60     Pyroxsulam……………………………………………22, 93

Oryzalin……………………………………………50, 58, 68    

Oxadiazon………………………………………………….87     Q

Oxalis stricta……………………………………………….57     Quinclorac………………………………………………….73

Oxyfluorfen………………………………………………...61    

    R

P     Radiation……………………...……………………………33

Panicum virgatum…………………………………………70     Repeat annual applications………………………………61

Paraquat……………………………………………………78     Residual……………………………………………………..6

Parks…………………………………….3, 4, 39, 42, 48, 68     Resistance management…………………………………92

Paspalum laeve…………………………………………...89     Right-of-way………………………………….41, 43, 47, 50

Pea…………………………………………………………24     Rimsulfuron……….…………………………………..72, 73

Pendimethalin…3, 50, 57, 63, 68, 72, 82, 84, 85, 99, 100     Riparian areas…………..3, 15, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 70

Perennial weeds……………………………………………2     Risk assessment………………………………………….70

Persicaria perfoliata………………………………………44     Roadsides………………………………………………2, 43

Pesticide use reduction…………………………………..96     Robinia pseudoacacia……………………………………48

Phaseolus vulgaris……………………………….77, 78, 80     Roller-crimper……………………………………………..66

Phytotoxicity…………………………………………..72, 73     Rose, Drift…………………………………………………...5

Picea abies………….……………………………………..61     Rubus hispidus………..……………………………………6

Picea glauca…………………………………..…………..61     Rubus spp…………………….……………………………75

Picea pungens………………………….…………………61     Rumex acetosella………………….……………………….6

Pinus strobus………………………………………………61     Rye……………………………………………………..30, 31

Plantago major…………………………………………….49     Ryegrass…………………………………………………..87

Platanus occidentalis……………………………………..48     Ryegrass, perennial……………………………………....83

Poa annua………………………13, 16, 25, 28, 82, 87, 88    

Poa pratensis……………………………………..25, 83, 87     S

Poa trivialis…………………………………………….25, 87     S-metolachlor……………………………………77, 99, 100

168

Safety……………………………………………...55, 60, 87     Training…………………………………………………….92

Saflufenacil………………………………………..24, 78, 81     Transgenic soybeans……………………………………..54

Secale cereale…………………………………………….30     Trefoil, birdsfoot…………………………………………...43

Sedge, Asiatic sand………………………………………45     Tribenuron-methyl………………………………………...93

Selectivity, herbicide……………………………………...47     Triclopyr……………………………….3, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47

Senecio vulgaris…………………………………………..58     Trifluralin…………………………………………………...60

Setaria faberi………………………27, 29, 50, 95, 96, 100     Trifolium pratense…………………………………………49

Setaria glauca……………………………………………..96     Trifolium repens………………………………………25, 82

Setaria viridis……………………….……………………..61     Triticum aestivum ………………………………..22, 93, 95

Sethoxydim……….…………………………….………….89     Trinexapac-ethyl………………………………………16, 88

Sharpen……………………………………….……………81    Turfgrass …. …… 10, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 46, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91

Shrubs……………………………………………………...62    

Solidago spp……………………………………………….49    

Sorghum……………………………………………………94     V

Sorghum bicolor ssp. bicolor…………………………….79     V-10206……………………………………………………...8

Soybean…………………...26, 30, 54, 55, 67, 95, 99, 102     V-10142…………………………………………………….57

Soybean, glufosinate-resistant………………53, 100, 101     Vaccinium angustifolium……………………………..72, 73

Soybean, glyphosate-resistant…………………………..54     Vegetation management…………………………………..4

Sprayer, multiple boom…………………………………..58     Veronica arvensis…………………………………………82

Stellaria media………………………………………..13, 93     Vicia villosa……………………………………………22, 97

Stewardship, product…………………………………….12     Vigna unguiculata…………………………………………24

Sulfentrazone……………………………14, 24, 50, 86, 89     Vincetoxicum rossicum………………………………46, 47

Sulfosulfuron…………………………………..5, 57, 60, 89     Vinegar……………………………………………………..22

Survey, weed…………………………………………….1, 4    

Sustainable agriculture…………………………………...27     W

Switchgrass………………………………………………..70     Waterhemp………………………………………………..98

    Watermelon…………………….…………………………..8

T     Weed contest………………..……………………………..9

Taraxacum officinale…………………………………49, 82     Weed control systems……………..…………………54, 71

Tembotrione…………………………………………..21, 81     Weed identification……………………….………………11

Terbacil………………...………………………………72, 73     Weed management…………….22, 34, 47, 54, 72, 73, 74

Thermal weed control…………………………………….33     Weed suppression……………………………….31, 47, 82

Thifensulfuron-methyl…………………………………….93     Wetlands……………………………………...15, 40, 44, 68

Tillage………………………………………………………31     Wheat……………………………………………...22, 93, 95

Tillage, reduced…………………………………………...94     White-tailed deer……………………………………………4

Topramezone…………………………………………21, 80    

169

Y    

Yew, Japanese……………………………………………61    

Yield loss…………………………………………………..81    

   

Z    

Zea mays……………..27, 29, 55, 80, 81, 95, 96, 97, 102    

Zoysiagrass …………………………………………..82, 87