Proceedings 67th ANNUAL CALIFORNIA WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY

“California Weeds – Weather or Not…Controlling Weeds under Challenging Climatic Conditions”

Fess Parker DoubleTree Resort Santa Barbara, California

January 21, 22, & 23, 2015

CWSS 1948-2015

2015 Proceedings of the California Weed Science Society

Volume 67

Papers Presented at the 67th Annual Conference January 21, 22, & 23, 2015 Fess Parker DoubleTree Resort 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard Santa Barbara, California

2014/2015 Officers and Board of Directors:

Rick Miller, President John Roncoroni, Vice President/Program Chair Kate Walker, Secretary Steve Fennimore, Past President Dave Blodget, Director Oleg Daugovish, Director Josie Hugie, Director Steve Orloff, Director Jesse Richardson, Director

Judy Letterman, Business Manager/Treasurer

Preface The proceedings contain contributed summaries of papers presented at the annual conference, year-end financial statement, award winners, sponsors, exhibitors, and names, addresses and email addresses given by permission of those attending the meeting.

Table of Contents 2015/2016 Board of Directors ...... 7 2015 Conference Sponsors ...... 8 2015 Conference Exhibitors ...... 9 2015 Honorary Member Award – Michelle LeStrange ...... 10 2015 Award of Excellence – Deb Shatley ...... 11 2015 Award of Excellence – Barry Tickes ...... 12 2015 Student Awards ...... 13 In Memoriam ...... 14 Oral Paper Summaries WEED SCHOOL: AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Chair: John Madsen

Introduction to the Aquatic Environment ...... 17 Mike Blankinship, Blankinship & Associates, Davis Overview of Management Options for Controlling Aquatic Weeds ...... 18 John Madsen, USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit, Davis

STUDENT ORAL PRESENTATIONS Chair: Oleg Daugovish

A Comparison of Automated Thinners with Hand Thinning of Lettuce in the Salinas Valley ...... 19. Elizabeth Mosqueda* and Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno; Richard Smith University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County Dose Response of Transplanted Tomatoes to Pre-plant Herbicides ...... 20 Jorge Angeles*, Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno; Kurt Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno Hybridization and the Selection of Adaptive Traits in Large Statured Invasive Grasses ...... 22 Randall Long, University of California, Santa Barbara

Duration of Weed Free Period in Organic Lettuce: Crop Yield, Economics, and Crop Quality ...... 23 Sarah R. Parry*, Ryan Cox, and Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno

1

Uncovering the Mechanism of Resistance to Propanil in Ricefield Bulrush (Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla) from Rice Fields of California ...... 24 Rafael Pedroso, University of California, Davis

GENERAL SESSION Chair: Rick Miller Herbicide Discovery: The Search for New Modes of Action ...... 26 Olena Castello, Cliff Gerwick, Tim Johnson, Paul R. LePlae Jr., William Lo, and Joshua Roth*, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN

Herbicide Discovery Screening – Back to the Future? ...... 27 Rex Liebl, BASF, RTP, North Carolina

TREE & VINE Chairs: Dave Cheetham and Seth Gersdorf

Managing Junglerice and Other Summer Grasses in Orchards ...... 28 Brad Hanson, Marcelo Moretti, and Seth Watkins, University of California, Davis

Pre and Post Emergent Control of Horseweed in Vineyards; A Season Long Approach ...... 29 Mick Canevari, Paul Verdegaal, Don Colbert, Randall Wittie, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Joaquin County Burn-down Control of Tough Weeds in Grapes with Flazasulfuron ...... 33 Kurt Hembree* and James Schaeffer, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno County

Revisiting the Principles of Integrated Weed Management in Vineyards ...... 34 Anil Shrestha and Kaan Kurtural, California State University, Fresno; Kurt Hembree and Matthew Fidelibus, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno

Grower Perspective for Weed Control in Grape Vines ...... 36 Todd Berg, Trinchero Family Estates, St. Helena

AQUATICS Chairs: Andrew Skibo and Joe Vassios

Action Threshold Based Cyanobacteria Management for Preserving Drinking Water ...... 37 Dave Blodget*, Shaun Hyde, and West Bishop, SePRO Corporation

2

Abundance and Size Distribution of Aquatic Plant Fragments Following Typical Mechanical Harvesting Operations at Lake Tahoe ...... 38 Lars Anderson*, WaterweedSolutions, Chad Johnson and Jeremy Waites, SEA

Controlling Invasive Aquatic Weeds in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ...... 39 Angela Llaban, California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways

Eurasian Watermilfoil Control in the Western U.S ...... 40 John D. Madsen, USDA-ARS EIWRU, University of California, Davis

NEW TECHNOLOGY Chairs: Carl Bell and Lynn Sosnoskie

A Historical View of Weed Control Technology That Informs Current Practice and Future Development ...... 41 Carl Bell, University of California, San Diego

Impact of Automated Thinners on Weeds and Lettuce Production ...... 44 Richard Smith, University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County

Using Your Smartphone for More than Facebook and Fantasy Football: Apps That Can Make You a Better Weed Scientist ...... 45 Lynn M. Sosnoskie, University of California, Davis

The Role of Biotechnology in Weed Research and Weed Management ...... 46 Sarah Morran, University of California, Davis

ROADSIDES, UTILITIES & INDUSTRIAL SITES Chairs: Bill Nantt and Jason Robbins

Invasive Plant Management at East Bay Regional Parks ...... 48 Casey Brierley and Pam Bietz, East Bay Regional Park District

Computer Controlled Chemical Injection Spray Truck Used at Solano Irrigation District ...... 49 Jeff Null, Solano Irrigation District

Bare Ground and Invasive Weed Treatments in the North State ...... 50 Dustin Johnson, Siskiyou County Department of Agriculture

Comparing the Performance of Newer Products to Older Standards ...... 51 Scott Nissen, Colorado State University

3

TURFGRASS & LANDSCAPE Chairs: Jim Baird and Dean Mosdell

Landscape Weed Control ...... 52 John T. Law Jr. Ph.D., ValleyCrest Companies

Control of English Lawn Daisy, Kikuyugrass and Annual Bluegrass...... 53 Mark Mahady, Mark M. Mahady & Associates, Inc., Carmel Valley

AGRONOMY Chairs: Pedro Hernandez and Steve Wright

Weed Community Composition and Species Shifts in Conservation – and Conventional-tilled Cotton – Tomato Rotations With and Without Cover ...... 60 Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno, Kurt Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, Jeff Mitchell, University of California, Davis Impact of Weed Seed in Dairy Manure and Weed Spread in Agronomic Crops ...... 61 Steven D. Wright and Thomas A. Shultz, University of California Cooperative Extension, Tulare County, David W. Cudney, University of California, Riverside

Recent Research Development on Palmer Amaranth and Junglerice in the Southern San Joaquin Valley ...... 63 Sonia Rios, University of California Cooperative Extension, Riverside/San Diego County, Steve Wright and Sarah Parry, University of California Cooperative Extension, Tulare/Kings Counties, Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno

Managing Field Bindweed in Field Crops and Vegetables ...... 64 Kurt J. Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno

FORESTRY, RANGE & NATURAL AREAS Chairs: Stephen Colbert and Byron Sleugh Poisonous Plants in California: Identification, Animal Physiology, and Control ...... 65 Julie A. Finzel, University of California Cooperative Extension, Kern, Tulare and Kings Counties

Influence of Herbicides and Native Plant Revegetation on Medusahead Infested Sites at Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge ...... 66 Rob G. Wilson, Darrin Culp, and Kevin Nicholson, University of California Intermountain Research and Extension Center

4

Herbicide Use in Forest Management ...... 68 Vanelle F. Peterson and Richard K. Mann, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN

Defoliation to Control Medusahead ...... 70 Jeremy J. James, and P. Brownsey, University of California Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, E. Gornish, E.A. Laca, University of California, Davis

VEGETABLE CROPS Chairs: Casey Butler and Oleg Daugovish

Herbicide Symptoms on Cool Season Vegetables in the Coastal Production District ...... 71 Richard Smith, University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County

Vegetable Weed Control Update for Arizona and Summary of Recent Research ...... 72 Barry Tickes, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension

New Tools for Nutsedge and Other Difficult Weeds in Strawberry ...... 73 Steven A. Fennimore, Husein A. Ajwa, University of California, Davis, at Salinas, CA, Tom C. Miller, Consultant, Salinas, CA

LAWS AND REGULATIONS Chairs: Maryam Khosravifard, Laura Petro, and Margaret Reiff CEQA Mitigation Measures for Pest Control Recommendations ...... 74 Scott Johnson, Wilbur-Ellis Company

Proposed Changes to Pest Regulation by the California Department of Food and Agriculture .....75 Dean G. Kelch, California Department of Food and Agriculture Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) ...... 76 Richard Spas, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Local Regulatory Issues/Pesticide Regulations and Compliance: Santa Barbara County ...... 77 Tashina Sanders, Santa Barbara County

STUDENT POSTERS Chair: Oleg Daugovish Assessment of Glyphosate and Paraquat Resistance in Hairy Fleabane and Horseweed Populations of the Central Valley ...... 78 Marcelo L. Moretti*, M. Jasieniuk, B.D. Hanson, University of California, Davis

5

Effect of Light Intensity on the Efficacy of Some Post-Emergent Herbicides on Different Biotypes of Hairy Fleabane from the Central Valley ...... 80 Mala To and Anil Shrestha, California State University, Fresno

Resistance of Leptochloa fusca spp. fasicularis (bearded sprangletop) to ACCase Inhibitors in California Rice ...... 82 Whitney B. Brim-DeForest, Rocio Alcarcon-Reverte, and Albert J. Fischer, University of California, Davis

Interactions Between Glyphosate and Foliar Micronutrient Applications in Minimizing Corn Injury ...... 83 Oscar Morales, Bahar Y. Kutman, Brad Hanson, University of California, Davis

The Effect of Spin-Aid on Spinach at Different Leaf Stages and Radiation Levels ...... 84 Esteban Gonzalez* and R. Lati, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Year End Financial Report ...... 85

Honorary Members of the California Weed Science Society ...... 86

Award of Excellence Recipients of the California Weed Science Society ...... 87

Conference History ...... 88

2015 CWSS Conference Attendees ...... 90

6 California Weed Science Society 2015/2016 Board of Directors

President Director - Steering John Roncoroni Byron Sleugh Farm Advisor Dow AgroSciences UC Coop. Ext. Napa Co. Field Station Leader Phone: (707) 253-4221 Phone (559) 494-3327 [email protected] [email protected]

Vice President Director - Non-conference Education Katherine Walker Lynn Sosnoskie Technical Service University of California, Davis BASF Corporation Assistant Project Scientist Phone: (919) 358-6123 Phone: (229) 326-2676 [email protected] [email protected]

Secretary Director - Membership Maryam Khosravifard Josie Hugie Sr. Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Crop Research Manager State Water Resources Control Boards Wilbur Ellis Phone: (916) 323-3427 Phone: (916) 261-8744 [email protected] [email protected] Past President Director - Student Liaison Rick Miller Scott Oneto Specialty Products Farm Advisor/County Director Dow AgroSciences, LLC UC Coop Ext/ Central Sierra Phone: (916) 212-8598 Phone: (209) 223-6834 [email protected] [email protected] Director - Finance Director - Public Relations Dave Blodget Gil Del Rosario Aquatic Specialist MLA, PCA; Sales Representative SePRO Corporation Dow AgroSciences LLC Phone: (916) 955-2464 Phone: (949) 878-7371 [email protected] [email protected]

Business and Office Managers (non-voting) Judy Letterman & Celeste Elliott CWSS Business Office P.O. Box 3073 Salinas, CA 93912 Phone: (831) 442-3536 Fax: (831) 442-2351 [email protected] (Celeste) [email protected] (Judy)

7

2015 Conference Sponsors

The California Weed Science Society wishes to thank the following companies for their generous support of the 67th Annual Conference.

Sponsor Level I – CWSS Business & Awards Luncheon

Dow AgroSciences Oro Agri

Sponsor Level II – Wednesday Night Member Reception

BASF Syngenta

Sponsor Level IV – Student Support

Blankinship & Associates CAPCA PAPA Syngenta Target Specialty Products Wilbur-Ellis

Sponsor Level V – General

Alligare FMC Ag Products SePRO Target Specialty Products Van Buerden Insurance Services, Inc.

8

2015 CWSS CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

The California Weed Science Society wishes to thank the following exhibitors at the 2015 annual conference.

ALLIGARE DUPONT CROP PROTECTION

AMVAC CHEMICALS GOAT THROAT PUMPS

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTS/LONZA HELENA CHEMICAL

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, INC. NEUDORFF USA

B & J TRADING LLC NORSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

BASF NUFARM

BASF TURF & ORNAMENTAL ORO AGRI

BAYER CROPSCIENCE PAPA

BAYER ENV SCIENCE SEPRO CORPORATION

BAYER ES SPRAYTEC

BRANDT TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS

CALIFORNIA VETERAN SUPPLY INC. UCANR

CAPCA UPI

CLEAN LAKES VAN BEURDEN INSURANCE SVCS INC

CROP PRODUCTION SVCS WESTBRIDGE AG PRODUCTS

CYGNET ENTERPRISES WEST, INC. WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY

DOW AGROSCIENCES

9 2015 Honorary Member – Michelle LeStrange (Presented by Steve Fennimore, CWSS Past President) At the 2015 Annual Membership Business Meeting in Santa Barbara Michelle LeStrange was awarded the title of Honorary Member of the California Weed Science Society, which recognizes role models in the profession of Weed Science and outstanding service to the CWSS.

Michelle was born and raised in La Jolla, California. In 1976 she spent six months travelling throughout mainland Mexico and Guatemala, which inspired her to return to college to learn how to produce food. She knew nothing about agriculture, but was determined to seek a career where she could contribute to food production, so she enrolled and was accepted into UC Davis. In 1981 she graduated with a B.S. degree in Plant Science and in 1985 she finished her M.S. degree in Plant Science-Agronomy. Her first job in her field of study began in 1983 as a Farm Advisor Intern serving in Imperial County and later in Colusa County learning vegetable crop production. She became a Farm Advisor in Tulare and Kings Counties in 1985 where she worked until she retired in July 2014. Her area of expertise was Vegetable Crop Production, Turfgrass and Landscape Management, and Weed Management. She also instituted and managed a Master Gardener Volunteer Program, whose emphasis is home gardening.

Michelle’s involvement with CWSS began in 1983, when she was the Graduate Student Poster Contest Winner for her 2 acre field research project “Competition between Watergrass and Rice under 5 Nitrogen Treatments”. Since then she has attended every annual conference (except 2 or 3) and served in some committee capacity including the Collegiate, Steering, Publicity, Urban, Vegetable Crop, and T&O Session committees. She was awarded the CWSS Award of Excellence in 2004. In 2005 she began service on the Board of Directors as the Director of Public Affairs, which led to her seeking terms as the CWSS Secretary and serving on the Executive Board. In her 32 year involvement with CWSS Michelle also generated the first and second editions of the CWSS brochure, helped create the first and second versions of the CWSS website, helped produce the CWSS Research Update and News Bulletin, co-edited two chapters in the CWSS textbook, and presented 15 talks and research posters.

In her words, “CWSS has been THE BEST professional organization for me to learn research- based knowledge and take it back to the field to improve production practices in agriculture. Being an active member in CWSS was genuinely rewarding because the membership represented the widest cross section of agriculture and every person always strived for the best. I treasure the people I have met and had the honor of working with for the common goal of the CWSS.”

10

2015 Award of Excellence – Deb Shatley The California Weed Science Society is pleased to present Deb Shatley its Award of Excellence. Deb started her career following graduation (1977) from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, as a sales representative for Elanco Products Company in the Imperial Valley. In 1985, Deb took an opportunity to transfer to Lockney, Texas, where she focused on selling Treflan for weed control in cotton and other minor crops. Following the joint venture between Elanco and Dow Chemical (DowElanco), she moved to south Texas and assumed the responsibility for sales between Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley. In 1999, Deb accepted a new position as a Customer Agronomist and relocated back to California. Now residing in the Sacramento Valley, Deb has the research and development position for Dow AgroSciences in Northern California, where she specializes in weed control for rice, trees and vines. In addition to her field research responsibilities, she is also the Biology Team Leader for fumigants for the US. Deb is a Past President and Honorary Member of CWSS, as well as an Honorary Member of the California Agricultural Aircraft Association (CAAA).

11

2015 Award of Excellence – Barry Tickes The California Weed Science Society is pleased to present Barry Tickes its Award of Excellence. I attended Arizona State University for my bachelor’s and master’s degree in engineering and applied science. It was actually a pretty good applied program and I had some good instructors, one of which was Jesse Richardson's father who taught soils. My degree was Ag Resource Management. I had no agricultural background but was a night milker in the dairy at the ASU Research Farm and got interested in it. I was in a PhD program in Arid Land Studies and a research assistant at the University of Arizona for 2 years when I was hired as county agent with the University of Arizona in Yuma. I never finished the PhD degree. That was in 1980 and I began working on weed control because Stan Heathman, the weed specialist with University of Arizona at that time, was fun to work with and the projects we did together were very gratifying. I have been in that position for 34 years and recently took on the responsibility of County Director in La Paz Co., in Parker AZ while retaining my old responsibilities in weed science in Yuma. Very honored to receive this award from CWSS.

12 2015 Student Awards Presented by CWSS Director-Student Liaison, Oleg Daugovish

Research Papers

($500) Rafael Pedroso, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis Uncovering the Mechanism of Resistance to Propanil in Ricefield Bulrush (Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla from Rice Fields in California.

($300) Sarah Parry, Undergraduate Student, California State University, Fresno Duration of Weed-Free Period in Organic Lettuce: Crop Yield, Economics, and Crop Quality.

($200) Elizabeth Mosqueda, Graduate Student, California State University, Fresno A Comparison of Automated Thinners with Hand Thinning of Lettuce in the Salinas Valley.

Research Posters

($500) Marcelo Moretti, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis Assessment of Glyphosate and Paraquat Resistance in Hairy Fleabane and Horseweed Populations of the Central Valley.

($300) Whitney Brim-DeForest, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis Resistance of Leptochloa fusca spp. fasicularis (bearded sprangletop) to ACCase Inhibitors in California Rice.

($200) Mala To, Undergraduate Student, California State University, Fresno Effect of Light Intensity on the Efficacy of Some Post-Emergent Herbicides on Different Biotypes of Hairy Fleabane from the Central Valley.

Front row: Whitney Brim-DeForest, Sarah Parry, Rafael Pedroso Back row: Mala To, Marcelo Moretti, Elizabeth Mosqueda

13 In Memoriam Stanley W. Strew was born June 7, 1916, in Yakima, Washington. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Washington State University. Prior to assuming the position of Executive Director of CAPCA in 1974, Stan was the former president of Colloidal Products Corporation, and also had worked as the western regional sales manager of Chipman Chemical Company. Stan served as president of the California Weed Science Society in 1961, and was an honorary member as well. Additionally, he served as president of the Western Agricultural Chemicals Association (WACA), and the Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS). Stan passed away on July 29, 2013, in Grants Pass, Oregon, where he had relocated to in 2011. He was preceded in death by his wife Wanda Strew in 2006. He is survived by a son, William Strew of Yakima, Washington, and two daughters, Carol Porter of Groveland, CA and Kathe Arrington of Grants Pass, Oregon, 9 grandchildren and 12 great grandchildren. Edward “Ed” Rose, a resident of Sanger for 89 years, passed away on March 21, 2014. He was an agricultural steward, a farmer, father, grandfather and a wonderful husband. Ed had strong family ties and was most proud of his grandchildren. Ed was born on April 10, 1924, in Fresno, California. As a child, Ed was raised on his parent’s farm near Sanger and attended Granville School. He graduated from Sanger High School where he lettered in track and field sports. He was a graduate of Fresno State College. Ed enlisted in the Army during World War II and proudly served his country in the Army Infantry in the Pacific Theater. He worked for Stauffer Chemical Co. for 37 years before retiring as their Western Region Product Development Manager. Ed was a supporter of agricultural education and was instrumental at starting the Ag Backers Council (ABC) at Reedley College and was one of the forming and founding members of Ag One at Fresno State. Ed also was a guidance director for Children’s Hospital Central California and member of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Sanger. Ed, with his wife, traveled extensively visiting 49 states in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Croatia, Chile and Argentina. In retirement, he continued his love for farming and he and his wife took their produce to various Farmer’s Market in the Monterey Bay area. He loved the atmosphere and people who came to Market, and made many more friends, introducing them to the fruits of the family farm.

An active member of the California Weed Science Society, he was instrumental in gathering other members together to advocate the publishing of the “Principles of Weed Control” textbook. It was his persistence that led to its initial publication. His other major contributions were to initiate award money to student poster winners, and championing the idea of establishing student scholarships.

Ed was passionate about giving back to Fresno State agriculture. He was the founder and first president of the Ag One Foundation which he helped organize in 1979. He shared his fond memories of Ag One's beginnings at the 25th Anniversary celebration in 2004. The endowment that was established by the celebration was renamed several years ago to recognize what he did to help future generation of students in the Jordan College attain a college education.

14 Ed loved life and was an inspiration to all who knew him. He touched the lives of many and will be dearly missed.

Conrad Skimina passed away on April 30, 2014. He was born in Chicago, Illinois on May 9, 1928. Conrad served in the air force during the Korean War. He graduated from the University of Illinois with honors and received his M.S. degree from the University of California. He worked with a friend in the landscape business before coming to California where he became director of research for the Monrovia Nursery Company. He retired after 45 years and moved to Fallbrook. A contributing speaker and active member of the California Weed Science Society, he was awarded an honorary membership in 2003. Conrad participated in the “People to People” exchange program (started by President Eisenhower) in China and Russia for the purpose of exchanging ideas with professionals in his field. He is survived by his wife Barbara of 53 years; son William and wife Tatiana; grandson Matthew of Fallbrook; sisters Vivian and Joan; brother Tony and wifa Rindalee; three nephews and their wives and children who all reside in the Chicago area. Conrad was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather. He will be greatly missed by his family. Michael Hollarman died peacefully at home surrounded by his family on May 25, 2014, after a brave battle with a very rare cancer. Michael was born in Van Nuys, California in July of 1948 and later moved to Santa Barbara. In Santa Barbara he enjoyed surfing, working on cars, skateboarding and water skiing. Mike graduated from San Marcos High School in 1966. He joined the U.S. Navy at 17 years old, and served on the USS Bon Homme Richard Air Craft Carrier in South East Asia for three years. He returned to California and attended Cal Poly to study Ornamental Horticulture and Crop Sciences in the School of Agriculture. Mike graduated in 1974, and began working as superintendent of a golf course in Goleta, followed by work as a foreman in a greenhouse growing beautiful house plants in Nipomo after relocating back to SLO. He subsequently went to work for the SLO County Ag Department as an Agricultural Inspector for three years. In late 1981, Michael found his true passion working as a Certified Pest Control Advisor with Crop Production Services (formerly known as Western Farm Service). He loved working with growers of wine grapes, grains and some vegetables. He found such satisfaction in helping growers keep their crops healthy and strong. Mike was a die-hard problem solver and being a PCA you have nothing but problems to solve for your clients. He was a member of CAPCA for many years, the treasurer for the last 10 years in the county chapter. Mike was a member of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of the Central Coast. He valued mentoring Agricultural students from Cal Poly in the field whenever possible. Michael married Lynelle Newitt in 1977. They were blessed with two wonderful children; Ben and Amber. Michael and Lynelle enjoyed traveling, going for walks and creating new recipes together during their 40 years together. They also had three precious grandchildren: Nathan, Abigail, and Madelyn. Michael treasured his time with his close family nearby.

15 Charles “Chuck” H. Doty passed away at home on Aug 15, 2014, at the age of 74. He was born in Davenport, Washington, but lived in numerous places across the country before making Fairfield, California, his home for the last 22 years. Immediately following his high school graduation, Chuck served several years active duty in the U.S. Navy and was honorably discharged in 1964 as 3rd Class Petty Officer (E-4). He then attended and graduated from Washington State University only to continue his education at Cornell University, receiving his Ph.D. in Vegetable Crops and Weed Control. During this time he met and married the love of his life, Kathy, in 1968. After a long and well-respected career in agricultural science, in 1999 Chuck helped found and has since been co-owner of the successful company SynTech Research. At this point he was able to travel the world with people he loved doing work he was passionate about. He was a contributing and valuable member of the California Weed Science Society. Even with all of these accomplishments, Chuck would never boast. He was a humble and honest man who shared his wisdom with the world through the strength of his character. He was a mentor to many and was always willing to help those in need. Above all, he will be remembered as a selfless, kind and generous man who taught by example with the way he lived his life. Chuck was an active member and faith-filled servant at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church for more than 20 years. He also found joy working with and encouraging young minds. His most cherished hobby, which brought him both peace and delight, was working in his garden and sharing his harvests with friends. He is survived by his devoted wife of 46 years, Kathy Doty; loving daughter, Heather Duarte; brother, Larry Doty; and sister, Barbara Root.

16 Introduction to the Aquatic Environment. Mike Blankinship, Blankinship and Associates, Davis, CA

The environment of aquatic weeds differs considerably from terrestrial weeds, and this presentation will discuss the environmental factors to consider in managing aquatic weed populations, both from the perspective of the environmental constraints on weed growth, as well as environmental considerations in management. The presentation will also briefly touch on the difference in regulatory aspects related to the aquatic environment.

17 Overview of Management Options for Controlling Aquatic Weeds. John Madsen, USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit, Davis, CA

While managing aquatic weeds has many techniques in common with terrestrial weed management, there are important differences in the selection and application of these techniques. Aquatic weed management techniques can be divided into four categories of approaches: Biological, chemical, mechanical and physical. Biological control methods include the use of insect herbivores, vertebrate generalist herbivores, and pathogens. Chemical control techniques involve the use of US EPA-approved aquatic herbicides to control weeds that are either submersed or emergent, applying herbicides as foliar sprays or injected into the water. Some common US EPA-approved active ingredients include bispyribac sodium, carfentrazone ethyl, complexed or chelated copper formulations, diquat, endothall, flumioxazin, fluridone, glyphosate, peroxides, imazamox, imazapyr, penoxsulam, topramezone, triclopyr, and 2,4-D. Mechanical approaches include cutting, harvesting, hand removal, diver-operated suction harvesting, and rotovating. Physical control techniques include benthic barrier, drawdown, dredging, nutrient inactivation, and shading. Aquatic plant management must be species-specific to be effective. These methods should be used in the context of an integrated plant management approach, seeking to minimize both the economic and environmental cost of management while maximizing long-term effectiveness. Species-selective control is often desirable, managing the target species while encouraging the growth or regrowth of desirable native plants.

18 A Comparison of Automated Thinners with Hand Thinning of Lettuce in the Salinas Valley. Elizabeth Mosqueda*1, Richard Smith2, and Anil Shrestha1; 1California State University, Fresno, Fresno, CA, 2University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County, CA. *Corresponding author: [email protected]

Recent labor shortages in the agriculture industry have impacted growers yield and income, especially in high volume producing areas such as California. Furthermore, it has also created a shortage in supply of crops, especially vegetables, which are a highly labor-intensive commodity. In 2012, lettuce growers in the Salinas Valley, which is California’s largest producer of fresh market lettuce, began to implement the use of automated lettuce thinners to compensate for these labor shortages. These implements were meant to replace the standard lettuce hand thinning crew which goes through the fields to remove closely spaced lettuce plants and weeds. This provides adequate spacing for optimum crop growth. As these implements are relatively new to many growers, assessments on their efficiency to thin lettuce are imperative for grower’s knowledge and livelihoods. Therefore, a study was performed in the summer of 2014 in order to analyze various aspects of the automated lettuce thinners compared to hand thinning. The primary objective of the study was to compare the efficiency of these implements with the hand thinning crew on weed control. The study was conducted at seven different locations. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with each location being a block. At each location, the field was split into two plots with one side being mechanically thinned and the other side being manually thinned. In each treatment, six to ten sub-plots consisting of one 40-inch bed measuring 30 ft. in length were randomly chosen as sampling sites. One to two days prior to thinning, lettuce stand counts and weed counts were taken in each sub-plot. Counts were taken within each seedline, as it is the area where weeds are of primary concern as they can inhibit crop growth if left uncontrolled. The time taken to thin each treatment plot was recorded at each location. Immediately following the thinning process, stand and weed counts were taken again in the designated sub-plots. Doubles, or two closely-spaced plants, were also counted for each treatment and measurements were taken to determine the average plant spacing. Seven to fourteen days prior to the thinning process, a hand crew removed any doubles and weeds at each site. Again, time taken for this process was recorded. It was observed that the automated system was more efficient than the manual system in lettuce thinning (P<0.05), as the average thinning time for the two systems was 0.91 hours per acre and 6.56 hours per acre, respectively. Although the automated system left more (P<0.10) number of doubles, the time taken to remove the doubles were similar between the two systems. Spacing of plants, which is targeted to be 10 in., was more accurate (P<0.05) in the automated system as 71% of plants were between 9 and 11 in. compared to 57% in the manual system. However, the manual system resulted in higher (P<0.05) weed removal (73 vs. 68%, respectively) than the automated system. These results suggest that automated thinning holds great potential to aid lettuce growers in the Salinas Valley in various ways. The study will be repeated in the summer of 2015.

19 Dose Response of Transplanted Tomatoes to Pre-plant Herbicides. Jorge Angeles1, Anil Shrestha1, and Kurt Hembree2; 1Department of Plant Science, California State University, Fresno, CA 2University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA

In the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), tomato planting has transitioned from direct-seeding, surface- irrigation, and deep tillage to the use of transplants, buried drip irrigation, and shallow tillage. Since drip tape can last at least three years when buried 10-12” deep in semi-permanent beds, tomatoes can be planted several years in a row or rotated with other crops that use similar practices. For several years, the use of pre-plant herbicides in tomato production has had no negative effects on tomato health, until the last few years. In 2009, stunted plants with reduced root growth were discovered in processing tomato fields that had been previously treated with pre-plant herbicides under this growing culture. The plant symptoms and field pattern were linked with the herbicide injury symptoms caused by dinitroaniline herbicides. Compared to the current growing practices in processing tomatoes, the old practices aided the breakdown of pre- plant herbicides that were routinely applied. With the conversion to sub-surface drip irrigation and shallow tillage, the potential of reduced herbicide degradation and increased residue carryover and the potential for negative effects on tomato production are of concern. The objective of this study was to determine the growth response of transplanted tomato plants to incremental doses of soil-applied herbicides at planting. A greenhouse pot study was conducted in summer 2014 to evaluate the effect of incremental doses of three common pre-plant herbicides used in processing tomato production in the SJV. These included trifluralin (Treflan), s- metolachlor (Dual Magnum), and pendimethalin (Prowl H2O). The experimental design was a two factor (herbicide type and dose) randomized complete block with four replications. The herbicides were mixed in field-collected native soil at doses of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 ppm using a cement mixture. The treated soil was added to 3 gallon plastic pots and tomato seedlings were transplanted and allowed to grow for 45 days. Plant growth in terms of height and leaf numbers was monitored weekly. Prior to harvest, chlorophyll concentration in the leaves was estimated by a SPAD meter. At harvest, the plants were clipped at the soil surface and separated into leaves and stems. The total leaf area of the plants was measured and then the aboveground plant parts were dried in a forced-air oven and dry weights were recorded. The root biomass was washed to remove all soil particles, dried in a forced-air oven, and the dry weight was recorded. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, and dose required to reduce biomass by 50% (GR50) of the different herbicides was estimated by non-linear regression models. Results showed that aboveground and belowground biomass was affected by the herbicide type and the dose. However, there was no interaction between the herbicide type and the dose. Averaged over the herbicide doses, trifluralin resulted in the least aboveground biomass, whereas s-metolachlor resulted in least below-ground biomass. All three herbicides at doses greater than 2 ppm reduced total aboveground biomass. However, compared to the non-treated control (0 ppm) root biomass was reduced at a dose of 0.5 ppm with further reductions beyond 4 ppm. Non-linear regressions showed that the GR50 of trifluralin for both above- and below-ground biomass was lower than that of pendimethalin and s-metolachlor. Plant height was only affected by the herbicide type and dose had no effect. At each dose, plants treated with s-metolachlor were taller than those treated with trifluralin or pendimethalin. Chlorophyll concentration of the leaves, as estimated by SPAD units, at harvest were affected by the herbicide type and there was an herbicide type by

20 dose interaction. Trifluralin was the only herbicide that reduced chlorophyll concentration at doses greater than 1 ppm. There was no significant difference between the herbicides for chlorophyll concentrations when the data was initially taken (2 weeks after transplant). Herbicide injury symptoms were observed from the third week after planting. Therefore, it can be concluded that all three herbicides tested reduced aboveground biomass at doses greater than 2 ppm; however, doses as low as 0.5 ppm caused reductions in belowground biomass. The effect on the herbicides on the roots at this low dose warrants further research. Future studies will examine the effects of these herbicides at doses ranging for 0.1 ppm to 1 ppm which are similar to residue levels detected by bioassays in grower fields showing dinitroaniline herbicide injury.

21 Hybridization and the Selection of Adaptive Traits in Large Statured Invasive Grasses. Randall Long, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Invasive grasses are a particular problem for conservation and resource managers. A closely related group of Large Statured Invasive Grasses (LSIGs) comprised of Giant Reed, (Arundo donax), and Common Reed, (Phragmites australis) are current and emerging species of concern throughout California and the Southwest. Arundo donax has been considered an invasive problem in riparian areas, and is a cause of habitat and biodiversity loss as well as a fire promoter. Phragmites australis has become a dominant invader in wetlands throughout the world. Within P. australis there are many different genotypes within the species, each that exhibit varying levels of invasiveness. The specific genotype that is responsible for most invasions is the type M haplotype from Europe, there are also a number of native haplotypes that occupy specific niches within an ecosystem and do not tend to become invasive. While type M has become established in the bay area and San Joaquin delta, it has not spread to wetlands and riparian areas of southern California. A rapid spread of P. australis has occurred recently in the Las Vegas area of Nevada and it has been confirmed that this invasive type is a hybrid of the native and Type M P. australis. Current work is being completed with the Southern Nevada Water Authority to track the spread of the hybrid throughout the watershed. Thirty-six populations from Utah, Nevada, and California were sampled for leaf tissue to determine the genetic origin, and over 1,000 seed from each location was collected to determine the viability of hybrid seed compared to the native and M haplotypes. Vegetative rhizomes were collected and planted in a common garden to evaluate the physiological traits of the different haplotypes. This research will provide information on the risk of the hybrid P. australis of spreading into the southwest.

Large Statured Invasive Grasses are able to thrive in a diverse group of ecosystems, ranging from coastal wetlands to interior deserts. Both species are considered to utilize the typical C3 photosynthetic pathway that is susceptible to photorespiration in dry or hot environments. However, it has been shown that different ecotypes of P. australis exhibit traits that are closer to that of a C4 photosynthetic pathway. I hypothesize that the reason these grasses are able to thrive in different locations is an adaptive trait that allows for a spatial or temporal adaptations to their photosynthetic pathways. Samples have been collected for both species from different locations that would favor either C3 (moderate temperatures and abundant water) or C4 (hot and dry) photosynthesis. They will be analyzed for δ13C values and compared to the standard values of δ13C for C3 plants average around -28 and δ13C values of around -13 for C4 plants. Values that are higher than the standard for C3 plants will indicate that LSIGs are an example of a C3-C4 intermediate plant. Further studies would involve reciprocal transplants and greenhouse studies to see if populations of either species are (1) able to adapt to variations in temperature and moisture over a season or (2) they are genetically predisposed to one type of pathway. Plasticity in their photosynthetic pathways could reveal one adaptive trait that has allowed these grass species to be so successful across a range of ecosystems.

22 Duration of Weed-Free Period in Organic Lettuce: Crop Yield, Economics, and Crop Quality. Sarah R. Parry*, Ryan Cox, and Anil Shrestha, Department of Plant Science, California State University, Fresno, CA. *Corresponding Author‘s Email: [email protected]

Lettuce is the number one crop in terms of acreage of organically produced crops in California. Estimates show that organic lettuce is produced in about 33,431 acres in California. Weed management in organic cropping systems has been cited as a major challenge. Organic cropping systems generally rely on mechanical, physical, or cultural methods of weed control and hand weeding is often an important component. Therefore, weed management accounts for a substantial portion of farm budgets in organic systems. Critical period for weed control (CPWC) is an important component of integrated weed management systems. CPWC is the period in a crop's growth cycle during which weeds must be controlled to prevent yield losses due to irreversible damage through competition. A sub-component of CPWC is duration of weed-free period, which is the minimum amount of time the crop needs to be kept weed-free to avoid crop yield and quality loss. Knowing the duration of weed-free period in a crop is useful in making decisions on the need for weed control. The determination of duration of weed-free period is even more so important in organic cropping systems in crops such as lettuce, which rely on substantial amount of hand weeding. Therefore, the objective of this project were to determine the effect of duration of weed-free period on 1) crop yield, 2) weed biomass, and 3) crop quality of transplanted organic lettuce. The experiment was conducted in the certified-organic plot at the California State University, Fresno in fall 2014. Romaine lettuce was grown for 8 weeks, with 8 different durations (weeks) of weed-free periods [0 (no weed control), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (weed-free entire 8 weeks)]. The plots were kept weed-free by hand weeding once a week. The experiment was designed as a randomized complete block with four replications. All standard organic production practices were followed. Data were collected on total fresh weight (crop yield), hand weeding costs, weed density, weed biomass, crop quality rating, chlorophyll concentration (SPAD units) of the leaves at harvest, and anthocyanin content. The crop was rated for quality using a 1 to 4 scale (where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, and 1 = poor). Leaf samples from each plot were taken for analysis of anthocyanin content using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Data were analyzed using non-linear regression models at a significance level of 0.05. Results showed that the critical weed-free duration for lettuce yield was up to four weeks after transplant. The marketable quality of the lettuce based on visual ratings and SPAD readings showed a similar trend. However, total stand counts and diseases incidences were not affected by the duration of weed-free period. The major weed species in the plots were lesser swinecress (Coronopus didymus) and burning nettle (Urtica urens). Weed biomass data also showed that there was not much benefit in controlling weeds beyond four weeks after lettuce transplant. Therefore, it can be concluded that a weed-free duration of four weeks after transplanting will be sufficient to produce quality Romaine lettuce with optimum yields and weed management costs in organic production systems.

23 Uncovering the Mechanism of Resistance to Propanil in Ricefield Bulrush (Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla) from Rice Fields of California. Rafael Pedroso, University Of California, Davis, CA Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla (ricefield bulrush; SCPMU) is a problematic annual weed (Cyperaceae) of rice in 43 countries. In California, SCPMU management was complicated by the evolution of resistance to acetolactate-synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides in 1997; ALS- resistant (R) populations are now widespread throughout CA rice fields. In the wake of resistance to ALS inhibitors, applications of the post emergent photosystem II (PSII)-inhibiting herbicide propanil (3, 4-dichlopropionanilide) were increased to control ALS-R SCPMU and other weeds of rice. Lack of proper control following propanil spraying was detected in 2012 suggesting resistance to this herbicide might have also evolved in some SCPMU populations. The objectives of this research were to confirm resistance to propanil, ascertain resistance levels, and establish the underlying mechanisms of resistance in SCPMU biotypes collected in rice fields of California. Our results indicate biotypes derived from field-collected populations displayed a high level of resistance to propanil (R/S ratio equaled 6.5). When rice cv. M-206 and propanil-susceptible (S) and –R SCPMU were sprayed with propanil jointly with the insecticide carbaryl (a known propanil synergist that inhibits propanil degradation in plants), all plant species except propanil-R SCPMU experienced significant growth suppression, suggesting propanil metabolism is not the mechanism of resistance in the R biotypes used. Afterwards, experiments were conducted to determine whether or not P450 monooxigenases and esterases are involved as a mechanism of resistance to propanil. Since such enzymes and inhibited by the organophosphate insecticide malathion, propanil was sprayed jointly with this herbicide onto rice cv. M-206 and propanil-R and –S SCPMU biotypes. Results indicated a 48% decrease in the resistance level of R biotypes (which was not detected in S biotypes or rice) and thus suggested involvement of either P450s or esterases; inhibition of these enzymes, however, did not yield results of similar magnitude to those reported for other propanil-R weeds displaing metabolic resistance, and could be a secondary resistance mechanism. Interestingly, propanil-R biotypes were found to be cross-resistant to other PSII-inhibiting herbicides (diuron, atrazine, bromoxynil, and metribuzin), although resistance to atrazine is weak. These results suggested propanil resistance might involve the PSII-inhibitor binding site at the target protein D1 of PSII. Therefore, we sequenced the herbicide-binding region of the chloroplast psbA gene, which codes for propanil’s target site (e.g. the D1 protein), where a valine to isoleucine substitution at amino acid residue 219 was identified. This mutation had already been identified in Poa annua biotypes resistant to diuron and metribuzin and in propanil-R Cyperus difformis from California, and is not associated with resistance to atrazine in agreement with our results. Therefore, unlike resistance in grasses and selectivity in rice - at which resistance is attributed to enhanced propanil degradation, the mechanism of resistance to propanil in SCPMU from CA resembles propanil resistance recently discovered in another weedy sedge (Cyperus difformis) and is endowed by a single mutation at the D1 protein, which affects binding of propanil at its target- site. For control of propanil-R SCPMU (and given the widespread resistance to ALS inhibitors in CA rice fields), it is thus necessary to switch herbicide modes of action away from PSII and ALS inhibitors, and prevent spread of resistant populations by preventing seed contamination by performing proper cleaning of tillage and harvest machinery. Further research has also indicated that other herbicides used in rice are effective against propanil-R SCPMU, such as carfentrazone,

24 benzobicyclon, and thiobencarb. Since applications of malathion and propanil in combination decreased the biomass of propanil-R SCPMU but not rice cv. M-206, future research will be carried out in the field to evaluate the feasibility of use of this mixture as an option for management of propanil-R ricefield bulrush.

25 Herbicide Discovery: The Search for New Modes of Action. Olena Castello, Cliff Gerwick, Tim Johnson, Paul R. LePlae Jr., William Lo, and Joshua J. Roth, Discovery Research, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN

Herbicide-resistant weeds were first reported in the 1950s and the number of weeds resistant to existing herbicides has grown over time. At the same time, Global food demand continues to increase and the regulatory requirements for new agricultural products shift and expand. To address these challenges, one approach Dow AgroSciences is pursuing is the discovery of herbicides with novel modes of action. Using an imidazole carboxylic acid herbicide hit as a case study, the process of herbicide discovery, addressing mode of action concerns, and the optimization of chemical structures will be presented.

26

Herbicide Discovery Screening – Back to the Future? Rex Liebl, Global Herbicide Product Development, BASF, RTP, North Carolina

Herbicide discovery involves the identification of screening hits and optimization of those hits to achieve the necessary efficacy, crop selectivity, and regulatory attributes. Once a compound that fulfills these requirements has been identified it will enter the commercial development phase.

Historically, herbicides have been discovered by “randomly” screening compounds for activity on weeds. Starting in the 1950s through the 1980s this approach was widely successful, resulting in the discovery of essentially all herbicides in commercial use today. In the 1990s, as the pace of discovery slowed, the agrichemical industry turned to new in vitro screening and molecular design technologies complemented by advancements in functional genomics to pick up the pace of discovery. But despite the promise, these new approaches have yet to deliver new herbicide candidates. Consequently there is renewed interest in screening compounds directly on target plants. But this time around we are able to combine whole plant testing with the speed of in vitro screening using robotics and automation. High throughput in vivo screening coupled with new diagnostic tools for rapid mode of action determination should greatly aid in the identification of new herbicide candidates.

27 Managing Junglerice and Other Summer Grasses in Orchards. Brad Hanson, Marcelo Moretti, and Seth Watkins, University of California, Davis, CA

California orchardists and pest control advisors have noted increasing problems with junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and other summer grasses in recent years. In many cases, the problem is due to suspected or confirmed resistance to glyphosate. However, summer grasses like junglerice can be challenging even in orchards treated with preemergence herbicides because they emergence and grow during summer, long after dormant season herbicide applications.

Junglerice is quite variable in form, ranging from 1-3 ft tall and can be either erect or prostrate and is often confused with a closely related species, barnyardgrass (Echinocloa crus-galli), at the seedling stage. Junglerice usually has a flattened sheath, relatively hairless leaves, and no ligules or auricles. The most distinctive feature of junglerice in most populations is the red or purple bands on the leaves; however, this too can be variable and is not present in all populations or in all light environments. For more information on junglerice, refer to the UC-IPM site at http://www.ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/WEEDS/junglerice.html

Glyphosate-resistant junglerice has been documented and confirmed in numerous orchards in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Interestingly, there appears to be a range of levels of resistance which suggests that more than one mechanism of resistance may exist in California populations. This indicates that resistance likely developed independently several times in different areas of the state and is not simply due to movement of seed from one location to new areas. Research on the phenology, genetics, mechanism of resistance, and potential for gene flow among weedy Echinocloa species is ongoing at UC Davis.

In herbicide trials conducted during 2013 and 2014, results did not indicate any cross-resistance of glyphosate-resistant junglerice to herbicides with other modes of action. Postemergence herbicide including rimsulfuron, clethodim, sethoxydim, fluazifop, paraquat, and glufosinate all worked well on emerged junglerice seedlings. However, those products with no residual activity did not always provide good control if new seedlings continued to emerge following the application; these cases would require additional treatments.

Preemergence herbicides including oryzalin, penoxsulam/oxyfluorfen, rimsulfuron, pendimethalin, and indaziflam also performed well on both glyphosate-susceptible and –resistant junglerice populations. In general, preemergence treatments that included pendimethalin or oryzalin were very effective on summer grass weeds, particularly if these dinitroaniline herbicides were applied in late winter or early spring as part of a sequential treatment program.

Growers facing the challenge of winter annual weeds plus emerging problems with summer grasses such as junglerice, should consider tankmix and sequential applications of preemergence herbicides in order to reduce the density of weeds that will have to be controlled later with postemergence herbicides. There are no one-size-fits-all approaches to season-long weed control in California orchards, but several herbicides are available and can be used to manage difficult summer weeds, including glyphosate-resistant junglerice.

28 Pre and Post Emergent Control of Horseweed in Vineyards; A Season Long Approach. Mick Canevari1, Paul Verdegaal1, Don Colbert1, Randall Wittie1; 1University of California Cooperative Extension, San Joaquin County

Introduction Horseweed/Marsetail Conyza Canadenses is a major weed issue for many California tree and vine growers. Horseweed is especially problematic because it is a prolific seed producer setting 200,000 seeds in a single large mature pant with 86% of the new seeds that can germinate immediately upon seed shed. Its long germination time extends from fall to spring and can act as an annual or biennial. It is a tall stout plant reaching 4-5 feet high growing into the grape canopy that interferes with cultural and harvesting practices. It has a deep tap root that will compete efficiently for water and nutrients. In addition, years of widespread reliance on a glyphosate dominated program has led to development of a resistant biotype spreading across the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys.

Methods and Procedures In 2014 a series of Pre and Post emergent herbicides trials were conducted in the Lodi wine grape district with new and existing products to evaluate an effective long term control program. Pre- emergent trials were initiated beginning November 2013 to January 2014. Vineyards sites of heavy populations of horseweed where selected and preparation of trials was done by removing all leaves, debris and old horseweed carcasses. Any new germination of horseweed was removed with a combination of Roundup and Rely tank mix to insure only new emerging plants were recorded. All treatments were made with a Co2 backpack sprayer 35psi and spray volume was 37 gpa. On December 9, 2013 observed a few horseweed plants germinating in the check plots and herbicide treatments were all free of weeds. A substantial number of horseweed plants were observed in the check plots, cotyledon to 2 leaves and 0.25” diameter on January 22, 2014. Evaluations were done on monthly intervals until June.

Summary Results for pre-emergent control trials are shown in PowerPoint graphs listed as Table 1& 2. Long term pre-emergent activity up to six months was provided best with Alion and Chateau 98 & 100 percent respectively. Mission, Matrix, Zeus and Trellis began to break after four months but when in tank mix combination with Alion or Chateau remained at 100% for six months.

Post emergent trials were set up to evaluate horseweed escapes or situations of herbicides breaking. Post trials began with timing A initiated February on 17, 2014 and timing B beginning March 17 of 2014 to various sizes of horseweed plants growing in a Lodi vineyard. Plot were 5 by 14 ft. arranged in a randomized complete design with three replicates. Applications were made with a CO2 backpack sprayer. Hasten (MSO) 1%V/V and Ammonium Sulfate (fertilizer) 8.5 lb/100 Gal was added to all treatments. Table 3. A PPT graph showing results of post herbicide treatments at different horseweed growth stages. Application “A” was an early timing on small plants. For each treatment three horseweed growth stages were flagged in each treatment/rep with a total of 10 plants in each plot. Growth stage #1 = <1 inch diameter; Growth stage #2 = 1 to 2 inch diameter and Growth stage #3 = >2 inch to 3 inch diameter and prior to bolting. Visual observations were used to determine plants

29 to be dead or alive and results were reported as % Dead Plants. Also, an overall % horseweed control rating was made for each treatment on each observation date.

Timing “A” Summary On Controlling The Three Horseweed Growth Stages Ranging from <1” to 3” in Diameter. Horseweed Size #1 = <1” diameter; Size #2 = 1-2” diameter; Size #3 = >2-3” diameter Shark gave poor control on all three horseweed growth stages. Rely, Roundup Powermax, Treevix, Gramoxone and Rely + Powermax gave complete control of the three horseweed growth stages. Broadworks mesotrione controlled all 10 horseweed Size #1 plants (<1” diameter), killed 9 out of 10 plants Size #2 (1-2” diameter) and Size #3 (>2” -3” diameter). Broadworks was slow acting with both soil and postemergence activity; it took 25 DAT to obtain maximum control of horseweed.

Application “B” was made March 17, 2014 in 57 gpa of water to larger horseweed plants. For each treatment four horseweed growth stages were flagged, 10 plants for each growth stage. Growth stage #1 = 3 to 4 inch diameter, bolting, 1 inch height. Growth stage #2 = >4 inch to 5 inch diameter, bolting, 1 inch height. Growth stage #3 = >5 inch to 6 inch diameter, bolting 1 to 1.5 inch height. Growth stage #4 = >6 to 7 inch diameter, bolting, 1.5 to 2.5 inch height. Plants were observed and determined to be dead or alive and results were reported as % Dead Plants. Also, an overall % horseweed control rating was made on each observation date.

Timing “B Summary on Controlling The Four Horseweed Growth Stages Ranging From 3 - 7” Diameter (Early Bolting) Size #1 = 3”- 4” diameter, bolting, 1” height; Size #2 = >4”-5” diameter, bolting, 1” height; Size #3 = >5”-6” diameter, bolting 1.5” height; Size #4 = >6”-7” diameter, bolting 1.5-2.5” height. Rely 1.17 lb ai/A: Killed 10 out of 10 plants horseweed Size #1, Size #2 and Size #3, growth stage ranged from 3-6” in diameter, bolting, 1-1.5” height. Killed 9 out of 10 plants Size #4 growth stage <6” - 7” diameter, bolting 1.5 to 2.5” height. Rely 1.5 lb ai/A: Quite similar to Rely 1.17 lb ai/A; killed 10 out of 10 plants Size #1, #2 and #4 with 9 out of 10 Size #3. Roundup Powermax 2.75 lb ai/A: Killed 9 out of 10 horseweed plants Size #1 with only 3 plants dead out of 10 for the larger growth stages. Treevix 0.0438 lb ai/A: Killed only 6 to 8 plants out of 10 on the four horseweed growth stages. Gramoxone 1.0 lb ai/A: Killed only 6 to 8 plants out of 10 on the four horseweed growth stages.

30 Broadworks 0.188 lb ai/A: Killed 10 out of 10 plants Size #1, 9 out of 10 for Size #2 and #3 and 7 out of 10 for Size #4. Rely 1.17 lb ai/A + Powermax 1.38 lb ai/A: Killed 9 out of 10 horseweed plants Size #1 and #3 and 10 out of 10 plants for Size #2 and #4. Rely 1.5 lb ai/A + Roundup Powermax 1.38 lb ai/A: Killed 10 out of 10 horseweed plants Size #1 and #4, 9 out of 10 plants Size #2 and #3.

Best post treatments for controlling the larger four horseweed growth stages were Rely applied alone and Rely tank mixtures with Roundup Powermax followed by Broadworks, Gramoxone Inteon, Treevix and Roundup Powermax.

Table1. Pre-emergent Horseweed control extending for six months.

Table 2. Pre-emergent Horse weed control extending for 5 months.

31

Table 3. Post Herbicide Evaluations on different size Horseweed plants.

32 Burn-down Control of Tough Weeds in Grapes with Flazasulfuron. Kurt J. Hembree* and James Schaeffer, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA. *[email protected]

Weed control with postemergence herbicides can be challenging for grape growers in California, given the diversity of weeds and their sensitivities to the various herbicides, the need for ample equipment and labor to be able to treat in a timely manner, the presence of herbicide-resistant species, and the type of trellis system used, which influences canopy development and the ability to spray the weeds without injuring the grapevine foliage or fruit. While it would be ideal if we could treat emerged weeds and kill them the first time without having to re-spray, this is not always the case. Failures in postemergence herbicide activity often come down to late spray timing and/or lack of weed sensitivity to the materials used. In particular, Conyza canadensis (horseweed), C. bonariensis (hairy fleabane), Urtica urens (burning nettle), and Epilobium brachycarpum (panicle willowherb) are difficult to control with postemergence herbicides alone, particularly when glyphosate is used. In most cases, these weeds require combinations of pre- and postemergent sprays to be managed effectively. Flazasulfuron (Mission) was recently registered for use in grapes in California and is known to have preemergence activity on some key weeds, including Conyza spp. However, little is known on the postemergence activity of flazasulfuron on hairy fleabane and other problematic weeds. Two field trials were conducted in 2014 to evaluate the effect of flazasulfuron as a postemergence treatment in grapevines to kill well-established horseweed, hairy fleabane, burning nettle, and panicle willowherb. In both trials, flazasulfuron was used in combination with glyphosate, flumioxazin, and glyphosate + flumioxazin and compared to a grower standard treatment of glyphosate alone. For each trial, treatments were arranged in a Randomized Complete Block design with three replications. Herbicides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer with 8004 spray nozzles in a spray volume of 39 gpa. Ammonium sulfate and a methylated seed oil were added to all treatments. In the first trial, combining flazasulfuron plus glyphosate gave 95-99% control of established horseweed and hairy fleabane plants, regardless of size or age. Control was similar when flumioxazin was added to this mix. Glyphosate applied alone only provided 20% control of horseweed and hairy fleabane and adding flumioxazin to the glyphosate only marginally improved control to 30%. In the second trial, combining flazasulfuron with glyphosate gave 99- 100% control of burning nettle, panicle willowherb, and hairy fleabane. Adding flumioxazin to this mix controlled these weeds completely. As in the first trial, glyphosate used alone did not provide effective control, giving 40%, 43%, and 67% control of burning nettle, panicle willowherb, and hairy fleabane, respectively.

33 Revisiting the Principles of Integrated Weed Management in Vineyards. Anil Shrestha1, Kurt Hembree2, Matthew Fidelibus2, and Kaan Kurtural1; 1California State University, Fresno, CA, 2 University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA

Herbicides are an important component of weed management in vineyards and have contributed to the economic production of raisin, table, and wine grapes for several decades. However, in recent years, the evolution of several herbicide-resistant weed species have compelled researchers, educators, and growers to explore alternatives to chemical weed management in vineyards. Although an alternative mode of action may be available for the control of weeds that have evolved resistance to a certain herbicide, it is important to remember that there are only about 25 different herbicide families based on their site of action and less than half of these are actually labeled and registered for use in vineyards. Additionally there are none to very few new herbicide modes of action in the development pipeline. Therefore, it is important to protect the herbicide resource we have and prevent the onset of new herbicide- resistant weeds. It is not only essential to rotate herbicide families but also important to revisit the principles of integrated weed management in vineyards. Integrated weed management advocates the use of several weed control tactics including physical, cultural, biological, mechanical, and chemical weed control. Again, sole-reliance on one particular technique will select for weed species that will become adapted to the method of control. Further, cost-effectiveness of one particular method can also be an impediment to adoption as the sole method of control. Therefore, these techniques should also be used in a truly integrated manner. There are several principles of integrated weed management that have been developed for annual cropping systems that can be adapted to vineyards and other perennial cropping systems. For example, it is very important to start clean with good weed control during vineyard establishment as the critical period for weed control in vineyards is the first 12 weeks of vine growth. Uncontrolled weeds during this period can reduce and stunt vine growth and serve as a refuge for various invertebrate and vertebrate pests, and pathogens for vine diseases. Care should be taken while selecting appropriate control tools during this phase of vineyard establishment as the vines can be susceptible to damage by chemical and other methods of weed control. Once the grapevines have been established, they are more tolerant to weed competition and can withstand greater weed densities. Although certain densities of weeds in established vineyards may not directly result in yield or quality loss in the grape berries, the weeds can again be an impediment in surface irrigation systems, harvesting machines, and refuges for pests. Also, it is important not to let weeds set seeds as a single weed can produce thousands of seeds that increase the size of the seedbank where the seeds can live for several years. Other tools for weed management in vineyards include mechanical and thermal weed control methods, to name a few. Mechanical and thermal (flaming in particular) tools can generate dust and smoke and this can have implications associated with air quality regulations in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). Also, their application timing and efficacy can be affected by soil moisture levels. However, mechanical methods in general can be very cost-effective and can provide excellent weed control. Again, reliance on mechanical weed control alone can cause weed species shifts. For example, continuous reliance on implements that control weeds by shallow cultivation tends to select for grassy weed species and sedges that become the dominant weeds in consecutive years. Therefore, mechanical tools should also be combined with other strategies such as spot-treatment with herbicides, etc.

34 Monitoring is also an important component of integrated weed management. Proper monitoring of vineyards is essential for the evaluation of weed management methods and for the development of future weed management strategies. In summary, integrated weed management is not a new concept but it is time to revisit its principles to prevent the evolution of new herbicide-resistant weeds and protect the existing herbicide families registered for use in vineyards from becoming ineffective, prevent the adaption of certain problem weeds to a particular method of weed control, and manage weeds in an ecologically sound manner.

35

Grower Perspective for Weed Control in Grape Vines. Todd Berg, Viticulturist/PCA Trinchero Family Estates, St. Helena, CA

The more difficult to control winter weeds such as filaree and Malva can be controlled effectively when the weed size is relatively small. Likewise, early treatments of pre-emergent herbicides of Prowl or Surflan in October or November has proven to be effective for Italian ryegrass. However, the grower is faced with a dilemma of starting early for better control of more difficult Winter weeds, but giving up a shorter lasting residual program for many of the problematic Summer weeds such as: barnyard grass, pannicle willowherb, bristly oxtongue, shortpod mustard, horseweed, field bindweed and fluvellin. Growers can overcome this by applying contact burn down applications of Goal and Shark, prior to leaf drop, which have proven very effective to clean up dense populations of filaree and little mallow. After leaf drop, an application of glyphosate and oxyfluorfen (goal) has proven to be a highly effective combination. Pre-emergent products targeted for summer weed control can then be delayed to extend their performance longer into the summer months. Another approach is to use a split application for better overall control. This would consist of starting early post harvest and then re-treating again at a later date. Finally, where the site allows, growers should consider an integrated approach where they can use mechanical cultivation combined with chemical control. In this program a berm is built in the fall to get early weed growth under control. A delayed pre-emergent program is applied and mechanical cultivators are used in the late summer months when drift from contact products is a concern.

36 Action Threshold Based Cyanobacteria Management for Preserving Drinking Water. Dave Blodget*1, Shaun Hyde2, and West Bishop3; 1SePRO Corporation, Bakersfield, CA, 2SePRO Corporation, Carmel, IN, 3SePRO Corporation, Whitakers, NC. *Email: [email protected] Cyanobacteria can cause significant impacts to drinking water quality through increased water treatment chemical demand (e.g. chlorine), elevated levels of disinfection by-products, and production of metabolites like volatile organic compounds (e.g. taste and odor compounds). These taste and odor compounds (e.g. geosmin and MIB) are of particular concern due to the difficulty and expense of removal during the drinking water treatment process as well as the ability for humans to detect an off flavor at extremely low levels (5-10 ppt) and associate this detection with safety of consumption. Managing source water to offset cyanobacteria blooms is an effective approach to enhance the quality of finished water. Silverwood Lake is a popular recreational resource and domestic water supply for an estimated 3 million residents in Southern California. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California routinely monitor Silverwood Lake and adjacent waterbodies to test for cyanobacteria and the associated taste and odor (T&O) compounds geosmin and 2- methylisoborneal. When cyanobacteria and T&O levels reach action thresholds, these agencies work to implement management practices including treatment of source water prior to entering the water treatment plant. As geosmin levels began to increase in Silverwood Lake in June 2014, DWR collaborated with SePRO Corporation and to assess, prescribe and implement a treatment program. The algaecide PAK® 27 was applied to the lake on July 1 and 2, 2014 targeting the cyanobacteria (dominated by Anabaena spp.) as the identified culprit of taste and odor production. The treatment provided rapid decline in cyanobacteria one day after application and sustained a >90% reduction for over two weeks after treatment. No further treatments were required to maintain water below action threshold levels for the remainder of the growing season. Geosmin concentrations dropped 56% seven days after treatment and continued decreasing with a 98% reduction documented 21 days after treatment and non-detect MIB and geosmin at 28 DAT. This targeted source approach to drinking water management can provide significant and rapid relief of nuisance and potentially harmful cyanobacteria, improve source water quality, and decrease in- plant management inputs required to achieve drinking water objectives.

Abundance and Size Distribution of Aquatic Plant Fragments Following Typical Mechanical Harvesting Operations at Lake Tahoe. Lars Anderson1*, Chad Johnson2, and Jeremy Waites3; 1WaterweedSolutions, Pt. Reyes, CA, Consultant with Sierra Ecosystem Associates (SEA), 2Natural Resources Analyst, SEA, 3Botanist, SEA. * Presenter

Due to prohibitions against using aquatic herbicides in Lake Tahoe, the management of excessive biomass produced by Eurasian watermilfoil, curlyleaf pondweed, and coontail in the Tahoe Keys marina as relied on mechanical harvesting. The presence, abundance and distribution of these plant impairs ecosystem services associated recreations uses and impedes establishment of native fish. The harvesting operations occur in the two main “lagoons” in South Lake Tahoe and provide open “lanes” for boat traffic. This management method also produces fragments of the target plants that can spread within the lagoons and may be transported to Lake Tahoe proper. At four sites in the Tahoe Keys, we deployed a rectangular net from a boat along fixed linear transects to capture, measure, count and identify (to species) the fragment present before and after typical harvest operations. Results showed that number of fragments and size (length) of fragments increased after harvest and that the relative abundance of species fragments mirrored the relative species abundance found in prior plant surveys. The data suggest that some improved methods to capture fragments could be employed, but also point to the physical limitations on efficacy associated with using large harvesters in the lagoons where access to near-shore plants is limited.

38 Controlling Invasive Aquatic Weeds in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Angela Llaban, California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways, Sacramento, CA

The California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) is the designated lead State agency for cooperating with agencies of the United States and other public agencies in controlling water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Egeria densa, and South American spongeplant (Limnobium laevigatum) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, its tributaries and the Suisun Marsh. Other aquatic invasive weed species such as curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) may also be targeted for control in 2015. Program objectives are to keep waterways safe and navigable by controlling the growth and spread of non-native, invasive plant species and to minimize negative impacts on navigation, public safety, recreation, ecosystem services and agricultural activities in Delta waterways. Because of the continued survivability and persistence of these invasive aquatic weeds in the Delta, legislative mandate is for control, rather than eradication. The primary method of control has been chemical treatment, supported by manual removal and mechanical removal. Biological controls are being researched in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and California Department of Food and Agriculture. DBW’s Aquatic Weed Control Programs balance potential impacts of invasive aquatic weed management by working to minimize non- target species impacts and prevent environmental degradation in Delta waterways and tributaries.

39 Eurasian Watermilfoil Control in the Western U.S. John D. Madsen, USDA-ARS EIWRU, UC-Davis, Davis, CA

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) is a widespread submersed aquatic weed in Western U.S. water resources. Introduced from Europe and Asia, it is well-adapted to invade lakes, rivers, reservoirs, permanent irrigational canals, and estuaries. As might be suspected from a pest of such diverse habitats, a range of management options have been used to fit these environments. I will present scenarios from a range of habitats covering research from the past 25 years, and demonstrate both effectiveness and selectivity in managing this pest. The key to managing Eurasian watermilfoil in western water resources is understanding the water exchange characteristics of the site. Laboratory-based concentration / exposure time studies for specific combinations of herbicides and target plants have provided an excellent basis for selecting herbicides for water exchange conditions. For low exchange sites, the use of long exposure time products may provide excellent control at relatively low cost. For intermediate exchange sites, auxin-mimic products like 2,4-D and triclopyr provide excellent control with intrinsic selectivity. As expected exposure time decreases, tank mixes of auxins and contact herbicides have provided good control. At the shortest exposure times, contact herbicides such as endothall or diquat are the best choices for control.

40 A Historical View of Weed Control Technology that Informs Current Practice and Future Development. Carl Bell, Emeritus, University of California, San Diego, CA [email protected]

The domestication of wild plants to become desirable crops was the beginnings of agriculture. Weeds were the concomitant domestication of unwanted plant species along with the crop species in the same site. So the history of weed control technology is co-existent with the history of agricultural technology. Weed control technology started out in 8000 BCE as the plow and hand-weeding (which includes hand-pulling, cutting with a knife, hoes and mattocks), and it stayed that way for the next 10,000 years until the 18th Century CE; there was not much change. An important factor, one that is sadly overlooked, for this 10 millennia lack of improvement is that there was an abundance of labor, mostly women and children, to hand-weed.1 It is not surprising, therefore, that the beginning of the industrial age in Europe was accompanied by improvements in weed control technology; not just because it was an age of invention but also because women and children were being pulled off farms to work in industry.

The name that stands out in the industrial age with regard to weeds is Jethro Tull (1674-1741), a gentleman farmer in England. He invented the grain drill and cultivation tools. Actually, Romans and farmers in India were using similar tools 2,000 years ago, but they were never in widespread use (likely because of the abundance of labor); so maybe we should say that Tull re-invented these tools. Regardless, Tull’s grain drill and cultivation ideas were widely adopted and replicated in the 18th Century, aided by the ease of creating and distributing printed materials like newspapers, books and pamphlets. Tull’s creations fostered the rapid development of these types of tools in Europe and North America, and formed the basis of what was called the British Agricultural Revolution. The grain drill did a simple thing; it planted the grain crops in rows. Before the drill, crops were hand-scattered over plowed fields. The weeders, the women and children, had to take time to make sure they were weeding just the weeds and not the crop; so knowing that anything outside the crop row was a weed made the job much simpler. It also allowed Tull’s cultivation tool, a horse-drawn harrow to be used between the crop rows to loosen the soil between the drill rows and to kill weeds.

Cultivation tools have been the mainstay of weed control for nearly three centuries. These tools, using animal traction and later tractors, became quite varied and specialized. One of the most useful and inventive tools in California was the sled planter system. This tractor-drawn implement was a platform with runners that ran in the furrows. The sled hugged the beds and kept the platform closely in line with the bed-top. During a cropping season, the sled was first

1 See http://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/solving-africas-weed-problem- report1.pdf for an excellent discussion of this issue as it exists today in Africa. This Crop Life Report states that smallholder farms spend 50-70% of their labor handweeding; that women contribute 90% of the handweeding labor; and 69% of farm children aged 5-14 miss school during peak weeding periods.

41 outfitted with planters, which sowed seed in very straight lines. After the crop germinated, cultivation tools were fitted on the sled just off the seed lines. This tool allowed cultivation very close to the emerging crop, usually within two inches on both sides of the seedline. Some of the other ingenious cultivation tools, many developed on farms in California for specific purposes, include flexible tine and rod weeders; rotary hoes; and finger weeders. In orchard crops cultivation implements like the French Plow cultivate weeds, but then through a mechanism, are automatically pulled back away from the vine or tree trunk. These tools are discussed thoroughly in the fourth edition of Principles of Weed Control. The success of cultivation for weed control has been remarkable, but close guidance to crops, especially between crops in the seedline has always been the major challenge. The realization of robotic weeders and thinners in recent years has been very exciting. Robotic systems and digital guidance only happened, in my opinion, because there was a highly developed practice of mechanical cultivation to build upon.

In Asia, rice was domesticated about the same time as cereal grains in the Mideast. But because it is grown in water, crop production practices were different but weeds were still a problem. By at least 3,000 BCE grass carp were a part of rice production in flooded paddies. This might have been serendipity, some fish got into the paddy because of a monsoon rain or a break in the dikes and the farmers noticed that they ate weeds and some insect pests. So putting fish, mostly grass carp but also tilapia and other species, into rice paddies is a common practice from Japan to India. The fish is also an agricultural commodity, so it’s a win-win situation. Another rice growing practice is using transplanted seedlings instead of direct seeding - the common practice in the US. Transplants minimize weed and some other pest problems because the rice plants have a head start over the weeds. So Asia initiated agricultural practices that conform to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) philosophy long before it came to be a part of our language in the west.

In the New World there were no draft animals, so plowing never developed. Instead a common farming method was ‘slash and burn’ (also known as ‘fire and stick’), where an area of forest or brush is burned, then roughly cleared for planting. Crops are sown by making a small opening into the soil with a stick and dropping in seed. In what is called the Milpa system in Mexico and the three sisters in the US, three crops were sown together. These were corn (maize), squash and bean. The squash germinated and grew quickly, creating a cover crop for the corn and bean. The corn grew tall, providing a pole for the beans. This integrated system delivered carbohydrates from the corn, protein from the bean and anthocyanins plus fiber from the squash; simple and nutritious. When the notion of cover crops was being introduced in the US in the 1980’s, the Milpa was often referenced as the model.

For most agronomists and weed scientists in the 20th century, the history of technology in weed control is the history of herbicides. For some it didn’t begin until the introduction of synthetic herbicides in about 1950. In reality, herbicides, in the sense of chemicals used intentionally on a crop for weed control started in the mid 19th Century. The first herbicides were inorganic salts such as sodium chloride, sodium chlorate, arsenic salts and carbon bisulfide as a fumigant. In addition various oils, inorganic acids like sulfuric acid, and solvents were used as burn-down herbicides. All of these chemicals were used at what today would be unbelievable rates, 600- 1000 pounds per acre for sodium chlorate for example. They were toxic and some were extreme

42 fire hazards. The discovery of 2,4-D and the chemical synthesis process that allowed for this discovery opened the floodgates for herbicides. The ninth edition of the Herbicide Handbook published by the Weed Science Society of America in 2007 includes more than 200 herbicides presently in use or in development in the US.

It has been known for a long time that the use of weed control technologies is inversely correlated with poverty and the abundance of women and children for weeding. So technology is not something that is uniformly available. It may be hard to imagine that the latest technology, the robotic weed control machines, will ever be developed for small scale use on a family farm in Pakistan, but it is perhaps better to ask, “Why not?”

43 Impact of Automated Thinners on Weeds and Lettuce Production. Richard Smith, Vegetable Crop and Weed Science Farm Advisor, University of California Cooperative, Extension, Monterey County, CA

Thinning crops is a labor intensive activity. As a result, over the years, growers and researchers have sought a means of mechanizing this practice. Efforts by Land Grant Universities and private companies to develop automated thinners for sugar beets extend back over 100 years. Early designs incorporated various swinging or spinning blades, but no plant detection technology was employed and thinning was therefore done on a rote spacing method that did not account for skips in the stand. In the early 1960’s, John Deere made a commercially available beet thinner that utilized a plant detection mechanism (moisture sensitive metal plate) which greatly improved the resulting stand because accounted for skips in the stand and accurately achieve the desired spacing. The development of computer processing of digital images of crop stands made it possible to make precise decisions on which plants to remove and achieve accurate spacing. Automated weeding machines developed in Europe that used this technology such as the Tillet (Garford Corp., England) were developed for weeding transplanted vegetables. They were evaluated for thinning lettuce, but did not perform well as a thinner partially due to the slowness of the mechanical kill mechanism (a spinning blade). In 2011, the first thinners that had a spray kill mechanism were introduced. The spray mechanism had the advantage of low inertia and simplified mechanical design. In 2013-14 four companies had developed commercially available machines for thinning lettuce that use the spray kill mechanism: Agmechtronix: Silver City, NM. http://www.agmechtronix.com/; Blue River Technology: Sunnyvale, CA. http://bluerivert.com/; Foothill Packing: Salinas, CA. http://www.foothillpacking.com/; and Vision Robotics Corporation: San Diego, CA. http://www.visionrobotics.com/ . These machines remove unwanted lettuce plants and associated weeds in a four inch wide strip around the seedline and within 3/8 to ½ of an inch to either side of the keeper plants. Materials used to remove the unwanted lettuce plants include salt and acid based fertilizers such as AN20 and NpHuric, as well as herbicides. In 2014 a 24c registration for carfentrazone was granted, specifically for thinning lettuce. A registration is being reviewed for a carboxylic acid herbicide for use in organic production. If the plants are wet at the time of application the efficacy of fertilizers is reduced. Carfentrazone and the 9% v/v rate of carboxylic acid are effective under these conditions which is important because it allows the machine to operate effectively early in the morning when there is dew on the plants. Thinning by hand or automated thinner removes weeds in the seed-line however, weeds that are close to the keeper lettuce plants are not removed by the automated thinner if they are in the unsprayed zone. Hand thinning also leaves plants because it the worker may not notice a weed plant tucked up close to a keeper lettuce plant and the hoe also has limits regarding how close it can safely get to a lettuce plant without damaging it. In an evaluation conducted in 2014, hand thinning removed 72.6% of the weeds and the automated thinner 68.4% during the thinning operation. The technology used to guide the automated thinner is a powerful new tool in vegetable crop production. It is expected that this technology can be further developed in the future to be used for other purposes such as for specifically removing weeds in vegetable crops production operations.

44 Using Your Smartphone for More Than Facebook and Fantasy Football: Apps That Can Make You a Better Weed Scientist. Lynn M. Sosnoskie, Project Scientist, University of California, Davis, CA

Currently, smartphone owners account for almost 65% of the total number of mobile phone users in the United States; this fraction is expected to rise to 80% in the next two to three years. The bulk of smartphone users spend the majority of their time on apps (short for application software, which are self-contained programs designed to run on mobile devices and accomplish specific functions), primarily for entertainment (i.e. YouTube, various games) and social networking (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) purposes.

In response to the rising adoption of smartphone technology in rural/agricultural regions of North America (estimates of ownership range from 40-70%), many farm-related apps have been developed to assist growers with routine tasks, including weed management. The available programs can be divided into three general types of apps, including:

• Information delivery (such as weather apps [e.g. Weather Channel, National Weather Service) or apps that provide access to pesticide labels[e.g. Label Guide]), • Assessment tools and calculators (apps to assist with weed identification [e.g. ID Weed, Ag Weed ID] and pest plant mapping [e.g. Connected Farm Scout], and apps designed to help growers with the selection of spray nozzles [Spray Select], calibrating sprayers [e.g. Calibrate my Sprayer], and identifying the potential chemical interactions when designing tank mixes [e.g. Mix Tank]), • Information dissemination (social media apps that allow growers to interact with university, regulatory and industry personnel, each other, and the general public [e.g. Twitter, Facebook]).

Smartphone applications designed to work with the major operating systems can be easily found and accessed using your mobile device or via the internet. Online compilations of farming related smartphone apps can be found at:

• http://www.ssca.ca/index.php/smartphone-apps • http://aged.illinois.edu/sites/aged.illinois.edu/files/resources/Apps-for-Ag- Revised.pdf • http://www.farmingwithapps.com/ • http://farmindustrynews.com/precision-farming/top-agricultural-mobile-apps- your-smartphone#slide-0-field_images-54491 • http://www.croplife.com/editorial/matt-hopkins/13-new-mobile-agriculture-apps- for-2013/

45 The Role of Biotechnology in Weed Research and Weed Management. Sarah Morran, Department of Plant Sciences, MS 4, University of California, One Shields Avenue. Davis, CA 95616

Biotechnology has long been used as a tool in many areas of science to research genetic and molecular processes. Its use in weed science is continuously expanding as our knowledge of resistance mechanisms increases. Here we review three contributions these techniques are making to weed research focusing around 1. The genetic engineering (GE) of crop plants. 2. Improving our understanding of resistance mechanisms in weeds and 3. Looking at weed behavior and relating it back to the plant genome. The genetic engineering of crop plants has made a major impact in the variety of weed management programs that are available to growers. Many traits make attractive targets for GE crop varieties such as those with enriched nutrient production, insect resistance and abiotic stress tolerance. Of major impact to weed management was the introduction of herbicide tolerant GE varieties. These varieties have allowed growers to use previously unavailable herbicide chemistries in their cropping systems, use less toxic herbicides, and have reduced the cost of weed management through reduced pesticide use. Along with the ability to use different chemistries, these systems can also promote the dependence and repeated use of a single chemistry over long periods of time. This increased selection pressure on weed species contributes to the evolution of resistant weed populations. The ability of GE herbicide resistant varieties to be used in the long-term relies on the ability of growers to use different mode-of-action chemistries. Some such varieties in the pipeline for release include 2, 4-D and dicamba tolerant crops. Resistance to these chemistries can be achieved through metabolism of the herbicide in the cell, before it is able to cause detrimental effects in the plant. New products that focus on these included Dow Agrosciences Enlist ™ Weed control system. These products contain multiple genes allowing the GE plant to metabolize 2,4-D and will have resistance to 2,4-D, glyphosate and glufosinate (www.enlist.com). Monsanto have developed the product range Roundup Ready Plus Xtend System®. These products have been modified with a gene allowing the plant to metabolize dicamba and will have resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate and dicamba (www.roundupreadyplus.com). Biotechnology approaches are also being taken to investigate the evolution and spread of resistance in weed species. A current study is investigating glyphosate resistant junglerice (Echinochloa colona) in California. A survey of junglerice populations across the central valley showed that glyphosate resistance was present in multiple samples. These populations contained varying levels of resistance and sequencing revealed that multiple target site mutations were present. A high throughput approach will be used to investigate the genetic diversity of these populations with the aim to determine; if glyphosate target site (TS) resistance is moving from glyphosate resistant plants to susceptible plants in close proximity, if these TS mutations can converge in single individuals (gene stacking) and if this resistance can move into closely related Echinochloa species such as E. phyllopogon (Late water grass) and E. oryzoides (early water grass). Detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) will be used to detect genetic differences between populations. Genetic diversity between

46 resistant populations within an orchard suggests that resistance has evolved independently multiple times; genetic similarity suggests a ‘founder effect’ where one plant has evolved resistance and seed has dispersed from this plant. Genetic diversity between populations across California suggests resistance may have evolved independently in response to selection pressure numerous times, however genetic similarity can suggest the movement of a resistant biotype via seed dispersion over large distances for eg. via irrigation channels, farm machinery contamination and seed contamination. This understanding can help to tailor management strategies that mitigate this spread. Next-generation technology is also being used in weed research. Recently Gaines, T.A. et al2 used RNA-seq to identify genes involved in diclofop resistance in Lolium rigidum. This technology provides a snapshot of gene expression levels in a plant at the time the tissue is harvested. In this study candidate genes were identified as those being differentially expressed in resistant and susceptible L.rigidum before and after treatment with diclofop. As a result of this work, Gains et. al. identified four candidates for major contributors to diclofop resistance. As biotechnology advances in all areas of science, and the cost of these large scale technologies reduces, the contribution to weed research will increase. These technologies allow new integrated approaches to investigate the evolution and spread of resistance weeds with the ultimate goal of providing better management strategies for weeds.

2 Gaines, T. A., Lorentz, L., Figge, A., Herrmann, J., Maiwald, F., Ott, M.-C., Han, H., Busi, R., Yu, Q., Powles, S. B. and Beffa, R. (2014) ‘RNA-Seq transcriptome analysis to identify genes involved in metabolism-based diclofop resistance in Lolium rigidum.’ The Plant Journal, 78: 865–876. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12514

47

Invasive Plant Management at East Bay Regional Parks. Casey Brierley and Pam Bietz, East Bay Regional Park District, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties

Overview of Invasive Plant Management at East Bay Regional Park District. The district encompasses 119,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It is primarily a wildland park district which includes shoreline, parks, lakes, golf courses, botanic garden, bike trails, cattle grazing, and historic buildings and sites.

The presentation will examine the IPM program at the district. Topics will include invasive weeds in grazing lands, aquatic weeds, toxic algae, eucalyptus removal, thistle programs and the constant battle against non-native species using a variety of techniques for control.

48 Computer Controlled Chemical Injection Spray Truck Used at Solano Irrigation District. Jeff Null, Solano Irrigation District, Vacaville, CA

The use of computer controlled, chemical injection spray trucks is common in the roadside herbicide application field. Because each truck is typically custom built to fit the needs of the business or agency, an understanding of the components of these trucks is necessary in making an informed decision on the design. This presentation will discuss the various types of applications that are common at Solano Irrigation District and the components of an injection spray truck that are utilized to meet the spray application needs. The presentation will also discuss the advantages of a computer controlled, chemical injection spray truck as compared to a typical tank mixing spray truck.

49 Bare Ground and Invasive Weed Treatments in the North State. Dustin Johnson, Vegetation Control Supervisor, Siskiyou County Dept. of Agriculture

With California being one of the most ecologically diverse states in the US, agriculture and its practices vary greatly from one end of the state to the other. With that in mind I would like to share some of the aspects of my job as the vegetation control supervisor for the Siskiyou County Department of Agriculture.

The first thing I would like to discuss is the roadside bare ground treatments conducted annually from March thru April. This is a very important part of my program that has its ever changing challenges. This last year presented many obstacles, mainly due to the extreme drought and the extremes that came with it. However it was an exciting year for testing products that were new to my department as well as the state. I am always looking to better my program, and an important part of that is keeping up with the new chemistry, technology and methods in the industry. One product that seemed intriguing for my roadside program was Perspective. With promising results from many test plots, I am excited to share my findings. Another product I was excited to work with was Esplanade 200 SC, using different rates and tank mix partners this too is a great product I am excited to speak about.

The second part of my program that I would like to share is the invasive weed treatments my crew and I perform throughout the county annually. There are many California A rated weeds that are targeted every year, but let’s not forget about some of the lesser rated weeds that have a significant impact to our environment. Dyers woad is weed that I would like to spread concern about. I have seen this plant do considerable damage to crops, rangeland and displace many desirable or rare species. Even with a California B rating it is not a weed to be taken lightly. I would also like to share some of our success stories about Squarrose knapweed, Leafy spurge and other invasive pests. The invasive weed program in Siskiyou County is taken very seriously and has grown to a fairly large seasonal program. I hope to bring awareness and share any information that may assist others in their battle with invasive weeds or keeping their roadsides safe and free of obstruction.

50 Comparing the Performance of Newer Products to Older Standards. Scott Nissen, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Total vegetation control is desirable in many situations including road sides, rights of way, oil and gas pads, and power substations, just to name a few. Off target movement of some commonly used bareground herbicides is an issue associated with surface runoff and sheet erosion. Herbicides currently registered for bareground weed weed control have a wide range of chemical properties that will influence off target movement. A general discussion of herbicide movement and how it is influenced by these chemical properties will be presented.

51 Landscape Weed Control. John Law, Director of Tech Services, ValleyCrest Companies, Oakland, CA Discussion of weed control on commercial landscapes or the “built” environment. Ornamentals are irrigated for much of the year. Civil engineers specify that the soil be strengthened by compaction during site development to ensure a stable base for foundations, infrastructure and stability during earthquakes. Consequently the soil has high bulk density. Weeds are controlled by a combination of: • Preemergent herbicides • Postemergent herbicides • Hand weeding • Management of water • Mulch • Often maintaining a continuous plant cover that shades the soil.

52

Research Update New Product Options Control of English Lawn Daisy, Kikuyugrass and Annual Bluegrass. Mark Mahady, President, Mark M. Mahady & Associates, Inc. [email protected]

Introduction

English lawn daisy (Bellis perennis), kikuyugrass (Pennisetum clandestinum) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua or Poa) are troublesome turfgrass weeds throughout California.

The objectives of this presentation are as follows:

1. to present the results of recent replicated field trials comparing the performance of “industry product standards” and “new product options” for control of English lawn daisy, kikuyugrass and Poa annua, and,

2. to describe the strengths and limitations of the industry standards and new product options relative to efficacy, turf injury, use with various turf types, and incorporation into practical agronomic programs to reduce the potential for weed resistance.

English Lawn Daisy

English lawn daisy or English daisy (Bellis perennis) is a difficult to control broadleaf turfgrass weed. English daisy continues to frustrate turf managers due to its ability to adapt to a wide range of cultural practices and to resist and tolerate many presently registered broadleaf herbicides.

English daisy is a fibrous rooted perennial with basal leaves and a prostrate, spreading growth habit. The leaves are nearly smooth or loosely hairy, entire margined or variably toothed, broad above, and narrowed at the base to a long stalk. Flower heads are white or pinkish with yellow centers. Flower stalks generally exceed the leaves in length.

This aggressive and invasive broadleaf weed spreads through a rapidly advancing rhizome system, and exhibits the potential to root and produce new plants at each node along individual rhizomes. English daisy also appears to be a prolific seed producer. Germinating seedlings have been observed in Northern California from April until late September. Once established in turf this dual propagation system contributes to the rapid spread and invasion of English daisy in adjacent turfgrass areas. English lawn daisy was introduced from Europe as a garden plant and today there are thought to be at least six known biotypes in California.

53 Penoxsulam: The Industry Standard for English Daisy Control

Today penoxsulam, trade name Sapphire (Dow AgroSciences), is the industry standard for English daisy control. Penoxsulam exhibits the following classifications and characteristics:

• Sulfonamide herbicide classification • Postemergence herbicide, ALS (acetolactase synthase) inhibitor • Mobile, but not persistent • Low volatility • Reduced risk pesticide due to its favorable human health risk profile

From 2004 to 2008 five replicated field research trials and two superintendent applied split fairway demonstration trials were conducted on golf courses in the Monterey Peninsula in order to evaluate the performance of penoxsulam for English daisy control. Results were as follows:

• In a replicated field trial conducted on a golf course fairway in 2006-2007, two late summer treatments of penoxsulam applied at 0.02 lb (9 grams) ai/A resulted in 96% English daisy control 345 days after the second application. In a replicated field trial conducted on a golf course fairway in 2007-2008, two late summer treatments of penoxsulam applied at 0.02 lb (9 grams) ai/A resulted in 100% English daisy control 70 days after the second application.

• If late summer penoxsulam treatments are to be deployed, maintain soil volumetric moisture levels above 20% prior to application. Sporadic injury to Poa annua and perennial ryegrass has been observed with late summer applications when soil volumetric moisture levels fall below 15%. If adequate soil moisture is a concern during late summer, consider early spring applications when soils are often still moist from late winter rainfall. For spring treatments deploy three sequential applications at 0.01 lb ai/A at 21-day intervals. Use a non-ionic surfactant at standard label rates with all applications.

Pylex (Topramezone or BAS670): a Future Option for English Daisy Control

Topramezone (BAS670), trade name Pylex (BASF), shows encouraging potential as a future English daisy herbicide. Pylex is not yet registered in California. Registration in California is expected by the end of 2017.

54

Topramezone exhibits the following classifications and characteristics:

• Pyrazolone herbicide classification • Postemergence herbicide, HPPD enzyme inhibitor resulting in disruption of carotenoid synthesis • Systemic herbicide absorbed by leaves, roots and shoots • Weeds stop growing soon after application and within days exhibit a bleached appearance followed by necrosis and death • Mobile, but not persistent

In a replicated field trial conducted on September 21, 2012 on the fairway of the 7th hole at Laguna Seca Golf Ranch in Monterey, California the following results were observed:

• BAS670 (1 oz/A) + MSO (1%v/v) exhibited 85.1% English daisy control 42 DAA2. • BAS670 (1 oz/A) + Drive XLR8 (64 oz/A) + MSO (1%v/v) exhibited 94.4% English daisy control 42 DAA2. • Sapphire (8 oz/A) + NIS (0.25% v/v) exhibited 99.5% English daisy control 42 DAA2.

Drive + BAS670 + MSO exhibited faster burn-down than Sapphire the industry standard, but Sapphire exhibited a slightly higher level of control (99.5%).

If BAS670 (Pylex) is registered in California in the future, the opportunity to utilize two modes of action in an English daisy best management program (Sapphire ALS inhibitor and Pylex HPPD inhibitor) should reduce the potential for English daisy weed resistance.

Kikuyugrass

Kikuyugrass (Pennisetum clandestinum) is a warm season grass native to East Africa. Kikuyugrass was introduced into Southern California during the 1920’s by the Soil Conservation Service to control erosion along water ways. This highly aggressive and invasive perennial exhibits medium leaf texture and a yellow green color that spreads by rhizomes, stolons and seeds.

During 2008, 2010 and 2011 replicated field trials were conducted in a rough area located on the 14th hole at the Pebble Beach Golf Links in Pebble Beach, California. The site was heavily inundated with mature kikuyugrass. The first replication had a mixture of kikuyugrass, perennial ryegrass and Poa annua. Replications II, III and IV consisted of virtually 100% mature, highly stoloniferous kikuyugrass. Key results and the top performing treatments from three replicated field trials conducted during 2008, 2010 and 2011 are presented in the table below.

55

Treatment Rate 2008 2010 2011 % KK % KK % KK Control Control Control Turflon Ultra Ester 32 oz/A * 99.2% 92.8% Turflon + Drive XLR8 32 + 43.5 oz/A 99.7% 99.9% * Tenacity 5 oz/A 95.7% * * Tenacity + Turflon 5 + 8 oz/A 97.7% * * Drive XLR8 43.5 oz/A 52.8% 53.9% 77.1% Drive + QuickSilver (QS) 43.5 + 2.7 oz/A * 93.9% * Drive + Pylex 43.5 + 1.0 oz/A * * 82.0% SpeedZone Southern+Drive+QS 80+43.5 +2.7 oz/A * 94.7% 95.4%

Key Take Home Messages: from the 2008, 2010 and 2011 kikuyugrass field trials:

 Turflon alone or Turflon + Drive: highly efficacious (99%+), virtually no regrowth. Safe for use on perennial ryegrass and Poa mixtures. Highly injurious to fine fescue and bentgrass.

 Tenacity: highly efficacious (95.7%), minimal regrowth. Safe for use on perennial ryegrass, Poa and fine fescue mixtures. Highly injurious to bentgrass. Bleaching without Turflon.

 Drive + QuickSilver: good control (93.9%). Safe for use on perennial ryegrass, Poa, fine fescue and creeping bentgrass.

 SZS + Drive + QuickSilver: good control (95.1%). Safe for use on perennial ryegrass, Poa, fine fescue and creeping bentgrass.

Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua)

Ethofumesate (Prograss 1.5 EC: Bayer Environmental Science) is an active ingredient that has been used successfully for postemergent control of Poa annua in overseeded bermudagrass fairways for many years. Perennial ryegrass is very tolerant to ethofumesate applications.

56 Previous field research conducted by Mark M. Mahady & Associates, Inc. in the Palm Springs, California perennial ryegrass overseeding market, showed that two sequential treatments of Prograss 1.5 EC applied at a rate of 1.125 lb ai/A (0.75 gal/A) at 21-day intervals beginning approximately December 7, resulted in very high control levels (90%- 99%) of annual biotypes of Poa annua control in perennial ryegrass overseeded bermudagrass fairways.

The Poa annua control information presented in the table below is based on the results of five replicated field trials conducted from 1997 to 2005 in the Palm Springs area by Mark M. Mahady & Associates, Inc. From 1997 to 2005 two sequential applications of Prograss 1.5 EC resulted in extremely high levels of Poa annua control (90.4% to 100.0%).

Year Location Treatment Rate No. Appl. % Poa Control ‘97-’98 Desert Dunes GC Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 90.4%

’98-’99 Desert Dunes GC Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 97.0%

‘98-’99 Sun City West GC Prograss 0.5 gal/A 2 97.7%

‘02-’03 Indian Wells CC Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 99.0% ‘04-’05 Indian Wells CC Prograss 0.5 gal/A 2 99.0%

‘04-’05 Indian Wells CC Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 100.0%

Unfortunately, by 2009 several golf courses in the Palm Springs area were reporting Poa annua escapes following properly timed and accurately deployed Prograss applications. Results from these five replicated field trials shown below reveal the extremely poor control (32%-36%) observed at the Vintage Club and Rancho La Quinta Country Club from 2009 to 2014.

Year Location Treatment Rate No. Appl. %Poa Control ’09-’10 Vintage Club Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 34.6% ’10-’11 Vintage Club Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 32.0% ’10-’11 Vintage Club Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 36.0% ’12-’13 Rancho LQ Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 35.3% ’13-14 Rancho LQ Prograss 0.75 gal/A 2 36.5%

57 From 2010 to 2014 a new series of replicated field trials were initiated at the Vintage Club in Indian Wells, California and Rancho La Quinta Country in La Quinta, California for the purpose of evaluating new Prograss tank mix partners to improve Poa annua control. The results are presented in the following table.

Year Location Treatment Rate No. Appl. % Poa Control ‘10-’11 Vintage Club Prograss 96 oz/A 2 34.8%

‘10-’11 Vintage Club Prog+Trim 96+8 oz/A 2 89.0%

‘12-’13 Rancho LQ Prograss 96 oz/A 2 35.3%

‘12-’13 Rancho LQ Prog+Trim 96+6 oz/A 2 61.7%

‘12-’13 Rancho LQ Musketeer 20 oz/A 4 79.1%

‘13-’14 Rancho LQ Musketeer 20 oz/A 6 87.0%

‘13-’14 Rancho LQ Prog+Msk 64+20 oz/A 2 90.6% Fb Musk 20 oz/A 3 ‘13-’14 Rancho LQ Pro+Tr+Pr 64+6+6 oz 2 90.6% Fb Tr+Pr 6+6 oz/A 3

Key Take Home Messages: from the 2011 to 2014 Poa annua control field trials.

 With repeated use over many years, specific Poa biotypes show reduced sensitivity to Prograss 1.5 EC resulting in unacceptable levels of Poa control (32%-35%).

 Tank mixing Trimmit (paclobutrazol) with Prograss, improves herbicide activity and Poa control (61%-89%).

 Four sequential applications of Musketeer alone (paclobutrazol + trinexapac-ethyl + flurprimidol) showed 79% Poa annua control.

 To date the two best performing programs include the following:

1. Two applications of Prograss 64 oz/A + Musketeer 20 oz/A followed by three applications of Musketeer 20 oz/A (90.6% control).

58 2. Two applications of Prograss 64 oz/A + Trimmit 6 oz/A + Primo 6 oz/A followed by three applications of Trimmit 6 oz/A + Primo 6 oz/A (90.6% control).

Summary and Practical Perspectives

Be open minded, but always question performance claims when considering the use of new products and/or new agronomic strategies. Always test new products and programs on a small scale before moving to larger acreage.

59 Weed Community Composition and Species Shifts in Conservation- and Conventional-tilled Cotton-Tomato Rotations with and without Cover Crops. Anil Shrestha1, Kurt Hembree2, and Jeff Mitchell3; 1California State University, Fresno, CA, 2 University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA, 3University of California, Davis, CA

Cotton-processing tomato rotation is quite common in the Central Valley. However, the use of reduced tillage systems and cover crops is not a common practice in this rotation. A replicated field study was conducted in Five Points, CA from 1999 to 2011 to explore the potential of the use of reduced tillage and cover crops in this rotation. Concerns about weed densities and species shifts are a concern in reduced tillage systems as tillage is an important weed management tool. Another concern is weed seed return from uncontrolled weeds and addition of these seeds to the weed seedbank. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterize the weed community composition and the weed seedbank size after 12 years of this rotation. Treatment comparisons included standard tillage with no cover crop (STNO), standard tillage with cover crop (STCC), conservation tillage with no cover crop (CTNO), and conservation tillage with cover crop (CTCC). The four treatments were maintained in the same plots for the duration of the entire experiment. The cover crop included a mix of Juan triticale (Triticosecale Wittm.), Merced rye (Secale cereale L.), and common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). A glyphosate- tolerant upland cotton variety was used in the study. Weed management practices in the tomato phase of the rotation included a pre-transplant application of glyphosate. These applications were followed by a post-transplant application of sprinkler-incorporated rimsulfuron. This herbicide program was slightly modified in 2005 with the addition of a post-transplant application of sethoxydim. In 2007 and 2008, glyphosate was applied with a hooded sprayer along with S-metalochlor. In the cotton plots, trifluralin was applied preplant with two to four pre- and in-season applications of glyphosate. Weed density, by species, in each plot was assessed in 2003, 2006, and 2011. In 2011, soil cores were taken from each plot to estimate the weed seedbank size and species composition by the seedling emergence method. Seedlings that emerged were counted by species and the data were subjected statistical analysis. Results demonstrated that tillage systems and cover crops had differential effects on total aboveground weed densities and on specific weed species in this rotation. It could not be conclusively stated that CT systems increased total weed densities compared to ST systems. However, in general, weed densities were greater in the plots with cover crops than in those without cover crops. The seedbank size was the largest in the CTCC system and the weed community composition of this system was distinctly different from the others with shepherd’s-purse, black nightshade, henbit, and common chickweed being the most prevalent species. Barnyardgrass and horseweed were associated with the CTNO system. None of the weed species demonstrated an association with the ST systems. It can be concluded that although weed densities were not consistently different between the ST and CT systems in this rotation, the CT system resulted in higher numbers of weed seeds in the seedbank than the ST system in the long-term. Having a cover crop in the CT system further exacerbated this problem by increasing the seedbank size comprised mainly of winter annual species. Therefore, more competitive cover crops or more efficient cover crop/crop management systems need to be developed to limit the weed seedbank in CT cotton-tomato rotations in the SJV.

60 Impact of Weed Seed in Dairy Manure & Weed Spread in Agronomic Crops. Steven D. Wright, Tulare County, David W. Cudney, University of California, Riverside, Thomas A. Shultz, Tulare County

Acknowledgments: Jeanie Katovich, Roger Becker-University of Minnesota, Jerry Doll- University of Wisconsin, Pete Huerta, Mike Cummings- Innovative Ag. Hanford, Deanne Meyer- University of California, Davis

Manure is an important soil amendment. In addition to providing valuable nutrients, manure enriches the microbial population and adds organic matter. Many of our high yield crops in the San Joaquin Valley are a consequence of inputs of dairy manure. Manure is a valuable nutrient amendment, but may harbor weed seeds. Many assume manure is always rich in weed seeds. The opposite is probably the case as some of our harvested forage/hay is relatively free of weed seeds. Exceptions obviously exist. The biggest contribution of weed seed can come from contaminated hay and grain, however, a portion of weed seed present in feed can remain viable after passing through an animal’s digestive tract.

Two studies in Nebraska characterized the effects of the digestive tract and manure on weed seeds (Harmon and Keim 1934). Weed seeds were fed to calves, horses, sheep, hogs, or chickens. 1. 25% of the seeds fed to hogs & cattle were recovered in the manure. 2. 10 to 12% were recovered from horses and sheep. 3. Chickens were the most effective in destroying weed seeds with only 2% of the velvetleaf seeds fed recovered. None of the bindweed, sweet clover, smooth dock, smartweed, wild rose and pepperweed seeds fed was recovered. Digestion of weed seeds by animals kills many, but not all seeds. Although few in number, 62% of the velvetleaf seeds that survived the trip through a chicken germinated, suggesting that the grinding action of the gizzard may have actually scarified the seed and stimulated germination.

The fermentation process that is part of ensiling corn or forages can reduce the viability of weed seed, as can digestion in the rumen of cattle. A Weed Seed in Dairy Manure Study was conducted in Tulare/Kings Co. 1989-1992- (Cudney, Wright, Shultz). Samples were taken from 5 Tulare Co. and one Kings Co. dairy considered typical of San Joaquin Valley. 350-1,500 cows with traditional open corral with shades. Seven samples taken: In first year, one in April, July, Oct., and Dec. In 2nd year, one in April, July, and Oct. Each sample was taken from 2 ft. deep into pile, and weighed 2.2 lbs. Dairy manure collected for 2 years from various sites in seven Central California dairies was found to contain viable weed seed. Weed seed contamination was most severe when manure was taken from dry cow pens (21,755 viable weed seeds/ton of manure) and liquid manure sedimentation handling facilities (15,827 viable weed seeds/ton of manure). Dairy manure from producing cows had fewer weed seeds than manure from dry cows, presumably because the dry cows received lower quality (weedier) feed. While composting did not eliminate all viable weed seed, on average, correctly executed composting decreased viable weed seed to less than 2,000 viable weed seeds per ton of composted manure. It is recommended that dairies compost longer than the typical 6 to 8 weeks, in deeper piles, and to add supplemental water to increase temperatures.

Moisture (>35%) optimum for kill. Work in Nebraska showed that moist compost killed cocklebur, morningglory, pigweed, sunflower, velvetleaf (except for 14%), foxtail, smooth

61 brome and shattercane faster and more completely than dry compost, in part due to increased compost temperatures when moist (Eghball and Lesoing 2000).

Some hard-seeded weeds such as velvetleaf and field bindweed would require temperatures in the range of 160 to 180o F and longer composting times to kill all seed. (Larney and Blackshaw 2003). Avoid feed high in weed content. Livestock vary on the effect their digestion has on weed seeds, but all decrease weed seed viability. Well executed composting destroys most weed seeds. Weed species with hard seed coats like field bindweed and velvetleaf present the greatest risk of surviving composting. However, if the manure pile or compost is moist, reaches the desired temperature, and completes its full cycle of decomposition, even seeds of these species can be killed. Focus manure piling on dry cow and sedimentation areas. In summary an aggressive mgmt. program is needed using herbicides, tillage, rotation. Reduced till in SJV has a large source of weed seed. Weeds are killed then in 1. field 2.ensilage 3. livestock 4. piling + heat 5. Field.

Rule 4565: Biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter operations

62 Recent Research Development on Palmer Amaranth and Junglerice in the 1 2 3 Southern San Joaquin Valley. Sonia Rios , Steve Wright , Anil Shrestha , and Sarah 2 Parry 1 2 3 UCCE Riverside/San Diego County, UCCE Tulare/Kings Counties, California State University, Fresno

Glyphosate is the most popular herbicide for weed management in agriculture and non-crop areas globally. However, heavy reliance on glyphosate has resulted in the evolution of several glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed species globally. Two species of great concern in the Sothern San Joaquin Valley are GR Junglerice and potentially GR Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus plameri). GR Junglerice populations have been confirmed throughout the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) and GR Palmer amaranth have been confirmed in southeast U.S. since 2005 causing huge economic losses. In recent years, growers in the SJV have observed poor control of Palmer amaranth in some glyphosate-tolerant crops and other crop and non-crop areas. It is not known if these are GR populations or application of glyphosate at more tolerant stages of the weed. These studies evaluated Palmer amaranth populations from 23 different locations of the SJV. Plants from two locations that showed some tolerance to glyphosate at the label rate (840 g ae ha-1) were further compared to a known GR population from New Mexico. Five- to 8-leaf stage plants were treated with glyphosate rates ranging from 0 to 3.36 kg ae ha-1. Most of the SJV plants died at the label rate. Hence, the presence of GR Palmer amaranth in the SJV could not be definitely determined. Plant mortality was also evaluated at 3 different growth stages with several herbicides under greenhouse and field conditions. Tolerance to some herbicides including glyphosate was observed at more mature growth stages. Several herbicides and herbicide mixtures were identified for control of junglerice and Palmer amaranth should GR populations of Palmer amaranth be definitively documented in the SJV in future.

63 Managing Field Bindweed in Field Crops and Vegetables. Kurt J. Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA, [email protected]

Convolvulus arvensis (field bindweed) is a deep-rooted perennial broadleaf weed that was first documented in California in 1884 in San Diego. Field bindweed now infests millions of acres of productive farm land throughout the state and is considered by some to be one of California’s worst weeds. Field bindweed can have an extensive underground rhizome and root system, extending 20′ deep or more, making eradication very difficult once established. After re-growth from underground rhizomes occurs, typically in the spring in the southern San Joaquin Valley, the above-ground canopy of field bindweed develops and spreads out quickly, smothering newly emerged field and vegetable crop plants, reducing and/or eliminating crop stands. Well- established crop plantings are also affected as field bindweed’s vine-like stems climb the stems of crops to envelope the crop canopy. In garlic, patches of field bindweed can reduce harvest efficiency and increase risk of bulb rot associated with increased relative humidity at the soil surface. Field bindweed management options in field and vegetable crops are limited. While seedling field bindweed plants can be fairly easily killed with pre- and postemergence herbicides or cultivation, established plants are more difficult to manage. Trifluralin can be used pre-plant incorporated in tomatoes to control seedling plants and delay growth of established plants. Cultivation is often used for cutting plants below the soil surface along bed tops and shoulders, but is not effective within the crop rows, so hand removal is used. In some vegetable crops, like processing onions, cultivation is not an option due to the close plant row spacing. Here, hand removal is usually required to preserve the crop stand. Shielded sprayers are sometimes used to treat field bindweed with herbicides between rows, but multiple applications during the season are usually required. Some growers will plant glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa, corn, or cotton varieties so glyphosate can be sprayed over-the-top to manage field bindweed, without harming the crop. Perhaps the most effective method of management is to treat with systemic herbicides (like glyphosate plus dicamba) in the fall (after crop harvest) before field bindweed plants enter dormancy. Here, the herbicides are transported down through the rhizome and root system along with the plant’s carbohydrates to help hinder re-growth the following season. Treatment should occur when plants are at about 10% bloom. A pre-irrigation may be needed if plants appear droughty. This type of fallow treatment can be very effective, but requires special attention to crop replant intervals if the herbicides used have soil activity. Finally, irrigating in the fall, spraying with a high rate of glyphosate, waiting 7-10 days, then undercutting rhizomes at least 16” deep can result in field bindweed suppression for a season or two.

64 Poisonous Plants in California: Identification, Animal Physiology, and Control. Julie A. Finzel, UCCE Kern, Tulare and Kings Counties

Poisonous plants occur throughout California and encompass a number of different species. Common toxic substances found in poisonous plants, include nitrates, glycosides, alkaloids, tannins and alcohols. Each toxin produces unique symptoms, however, symptoms can vary between and within species based on the level of toxicity of each plant, amount eaten, time of year, current weather conditions and more. Basic control options vary, but are generally limited to mechanical or chemical control because many cultural practices are not viable.

65 Influence of Herbicides and Native Plant Revegetation on Medusahead Infested Sites at Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Rob G. Wilson, IREC Center Director/Farm Advisor; Darrin Culp & Kevin Nicholson, IREC Staff Research Associates. University of California Intermountain Research & Extension Center, 2816 Havlina Rd., Tulelake, CA. 96134 Phone: 530/667-2719 Fax: 530/667-5265 Email: [email protected]

Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consists of approximately 33,500 acres. Sagebrush uplands on the Refuge support pronghorn antelope and mule deer as well as many species of birds including greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Sage grouse populations are allied closely with sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Sage grouse also rely heavily on the availability of highly nutritious perennial forb species within sagebrush ecosystems. On July 3, 2001 a lightning strike ignited a wildfire on the Clear Lake “U” which burned 3,800 acres on the refuge. Following the fire, cheatgrass and medusahead quickly invaded the burn. Little or no recovery of sagebrush and native vegetation occurred on burned sites over the last 11 years. Cheatgrass and medusahead populations, however have increased in size and severity.

In 2010, CLNWR managers and University of California researchers formed a collaborative project to research methods for habitat recovery on burned sites on the Clear Lake U. The primary objective was re-establishment of healthy low and big sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) communities. Reducing infestations of exotic annual grasses was seen as vital to minimize fire ignition hazard and prevent competition with native vegetation (perennial grasses, shrubs, and forbs). Funding was secured for two years, and an experiment was established at the Refuge in fall 2010. The experiment examined the influence of herbicides on native vegetation, with or without reseeding.

The same experiment was established at three sites infested with medusahead with differing baseline plant communities. Site 1 had a healthy low sagebrush over-story and sporadic perennial grasses and perennial forbs. Sites 2 and 3 were burned by wildfire that destroyed most low sagebrush. Site 2 had a healthy perennial grass stand and sporadic forbs. Site 3 was a near monoculture of medusahead with sporadic perennial grasses and forbs.

Three herbicide treatments were evaluated: fall-applied imazapic at 1.5 fl oz ai/A, fall-applied rimsulfuron at 1 oz ai/A, and spring-applied glyphosate at 3.75 oz ae/A. Herbicide rates and application timings were designed to maximize annual grass control while minimizing non-target plant injury. Plots were reseeded in March one year after herbicide treatment using a native seed mix containing sagebrush, squirreltail, Idaho fescue, and Great Basin wildrye. Percent cover of all plant species was evaluated in early spring and mid-summer for three years following herbicide application. Seeded species density and cover were measured the year of seeding and year after seeding.

Herbicides had a similar effect on annual grasses at all sites. Imazapic and rimsulfuron reduced medusahead and cheatgrass cover by more than 95% the year of treatment compared to the untreated control. Unfortunately annual grass cover in both herbicide treatments rebounded one

66 and two years after treatment. Glyphosate reduced annual grass cover by 60 to 70% the year of application, but annual grass cover quickly rebounded one year after treatment.

Glyphosate caused unacceptable injury to several native annual and perennial forbs. Rimsulfuron and imazapic were safe on perennial forbs, but they caused unacceptable injury to multiple annual forbs. As a result, forb cover in herbicide treated plots was lower or similar to the untreated control the year of application. Both annual and perennial forbs prospered one year after herbicide application in imazapic and rimsulfuron treatments. Total forb cover was 75% to 250% higher in these herbicide treatments compared to the untreated control. The increase in forb cover was temporary and total forb cover declined back to near pre-treatment levels two years after treatment.

Glyphosate caused unacceptable injury to most perennial grasses. Rimsulfuron was safe on perennial grasses except perennial bluegrass species. Imazapic was safe on all established perennial grasses. Perennial grass seeding establishment ranged from 0 to 1.2 grass seedlings per 1 m2. At the two sites that lacked sagebrush, seeded grass establishment was highest in the rimsulfuron and imazapic treatments. Seeded sagebrush establishment was highest in the rimsulfuron and imazapic treatments at all sites. Imazapic was the only herbicide treatment with higher perennial grass cover compared to the untreated control two years after treatment.

Most herbicide effects on vegetation were limited to the year of application and year following application except for permanent reductions in perennial grass cover. Final year results point to annual grass cover returning to pre-treatment levels for all herbicides at all sites. Glyphosate did not match land-use objectives due to unacceptable injury to native forbs and grasses. Imazapic and rimsulfuron appear to have the best fit with land use objectives related to increasing forb and sagebrush cover. Both herbicides temporarily increased forb cover for species important to several wildlife species including sage grouse. Both herbicides also temporarily increased established sagebrush cover and sagebrush seeding success.

67 Herbicide Use in Forest Management. Vanelle F. Peterson and Richard K. Mann, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, [email protected]

California has approximately 33 million acres of land in public and private forests with about 5 million acres in private forest industry holdings. The California Forest Practice Act (1973) requires that landowners regenerate their forest after a timber harvest or leave it in a stocked condition within 5 years. Foresters use mechanical, cultural, chemical, and other tools to prepare sites for planting seedling conifers and to help provide the new seedlings the resources (light, water, and nutrients) necessary for growth. Herbicides are used in forest management in order to prepare sites for planting (“site preparation”) by reducing vegetation on the site and later in the life of a plantation to release conifers (“conifer release”) from undesired plant competition.

Site Preparation and early conifer release treatments may be applied in 1 or 2 fall or spring applications to prepare the site and to keep grasses and herbaceous vegetation from out- competing the conifers once they are planted. Some common weeds targeted for site preparation and early plantation release applications are: annual grasses such as downy brome (Bromus tectorum), wild oats (Avena fatua), marestail (Conyza canadensis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Woody brush species can be problematic early in the life of a plantation if the seedlings begin to germinate soon after planting. Target brush species include: manzanita species [greenleaf (Arctostaphylos patula, whiteleaf, A. viscida and hairy, A. columbiana)], deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus), snowbrush (C. velutinus), squawcarpet (C. prostratus), chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), and whitethorn (Acacia constricta). Common herbicide active ingredients used for woody brush control include: triclopyr, imazapyr, hexazinone, glyphosate, fluroxypyr, and 2,4-D.

Pindar® GT herbicide is a pre-emergence and early post-emergence herbicide currently registered for use in tree nuts and noncropland. It contains penoxsulam at 0.083 lb/gallon plus oxyfluorfen at 3.96 lb/gallon in a soluble concentrate formulation. Over 20 small plot research trials have been established in northern California to study conifer tolerance and efficacy on key weeds. Pindar GT exhibited excellent conifer tolerance when applied for site preparation prior to planting and as a broadcast application over the top of seedling conifers such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiii) and Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Conifer tolerance was also excellent when applied prior to planting or over the top of conifers such as sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) or white fir (Abies concolor) that are intolerant to hexazinone. Pindar GT provides foresters another tool in their herbicide tool box and controls weeds that impede conifer growth. Surprisingly, Pindar® GT controlled seedlings of 2 woody brush species: squaw carpet and deerbrush. When applied in the early spring prior to seedling emergence, 3 pints/A of Pindar GT reduced cover of squaw carpet from 60% cover to 10 - 20% cover, facilitating the survival and growth of conifer seedlings. This reduction in squaw carpet cover doubled the conifer volume growth in treated plots over

68 the conifer volume growth in the non-treated plots. When applied in the fall, 4.5 pints/A of Pindar GT controlled 85% of deerbrush seedlings the following spring. Herbaceous and woody plant weed control provided by Pindar GT at 3 to 4.5 pints/A during preparation or conifer release improved conifers stands. A Special Local Need (SLN) for Pindar GT registration for use in California forestry was submitted to California Department of Pesticide Registration in September 2014.

69 Defoliation to Control Medusahead Jeremy J James1*, P. Brownsey1, E. Gornish2, E. A. Laca2. University of California Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, Browns Valley, CA1, University of California Davis, CA2. *corresponding author [email protected]

Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput medusae (L.) Nevski) is an invasive annual grass that continues to spread across much of California’s rangeland. This species shares many traits that are similar to other desirable annual grasses making selective control costly and logistically challenging. Defoliation through grazing is often viewed by managers and ranchers as the most economically viable and practical means for control. In some situations defoliation by mowing may also be a feasible management option. We quantified rate of medusahead phenological progression across multiple sites and years in California and evaluated how these changes relate to forage quality and susceptibility of seed production to defoliation. We then integrate these data to identify optimal treatment windows for controlling medusahead through grazing and defoliation. Lastly we evaluate how these responses vary deepening on medusahead seedbank density and habitat type (grassland vs. oak woodland). Defoliation across a range of grazing intensities reduced medusahead abundance compared to ungrazed plots. Medusahead maintained adequate crude protein to support beef cattle nutrition until seed head emergence and during this stage resulted in a 3 to 8 fold decrease in medusahead seed production, depending on grazing intensity. Defoliation via clipping latter in the growing season prior to kernel formation provided similar results. By seeding oak woodlands and grasslands at a range of medusahead densities we found that medusahead establishment and seed production in oak woodlands was over 10 fold lower than in open grasslands. Other desired grass species only showed about a 2 fold reduction in density in oak woodlands compared to open grasslands. Collectively these data help identify optimum treatment windows for medusahead via defoliation and how these responses vary across habitat types.

70 Herbicide Symptoms on Cool Season Vegetables in the Coastal Production District. Richard Smith, Vegetable Crop and Weed Science Farm Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County

The cool season vegetable production area extends from Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties in the north south to Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in the south. This is an intensive production system with multiple crops grown on the same piece of land each year. The most common soil active preemergent herbicides used in the cool season vegetable production district include bensulide, cycloate, DCPA, flumioxazin, oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, prometryn, pronamide, and S-metolachlor. A number of contact materials are used in the production fields and adjacent areas to provide post emergence weed control. Some crops are exclusively direct seeded while others are nearly all transplanted, and in general, the fields are small (<20 acres) with a mosaic of crop species mixed in the agricultural landscape; to further add to the complexity of the situation, production spans from the cold soil temperatures of late winter through spring and summer and back into cool soils in the fall. Given the intense rotations, it would seem that issues with herbicide carryover from one crop to another might be a huge issue; however, in spite of the rapid turnover of one crop to another, herbicide issues are relatively rare. However, in spite of grower’s and PCA’s best efforts, each year a limited number of issues from misapplication, drift or carryover of herbicides occur. Diagnosing these herbicide related issues can be difficult at times given the large number of factors that can be in play. Herbicide toxicity on vegetables can result from application of the wrong herbicide to the crop from a contaminated tank or a mistaken application. In addition, too high rates of the correct herbicide for a crop can cause significant problems as well; this issue is most often observed on sandy soils and can be exasperated in cool soil conditions in the winter and early spring. Drift from herbicides with contact action such as carfentrazone, flumioxazin, oxyfluorfen and paraquat cause non-descript necrotic spots on leaf tissue. However, many other chemicals such as fertilizers or phytotoxicity from other pest management materials cause necrotic spotting on leaves; to determine which chemical may be responsible for an issue, it takes careful observation of the pattern of symptoms in the field as well as background information on the history of pesticide applications to make a reasonable diagnosis. A good understanding of the age of affected tissue (young vs older tissue) and the type of symptoms (e.g. type of yellowing: diffuse, interveinal, mottled) can give clues as to the type of chemical that may be responsible for symptoms. Lab confirmation of the responsible chemical can be very useful; however, if the samples are obtained too late, the material can be diluted to below the detection limit of the lab which would give a false negative result. Finally, it needs to be kept in mind that ‘herbicide like’ symptoms can also be caused by other factors such as disease, environmental stress, adverse soil conditions, as well as some nutrient deficiencies.

71 Vegetable Weed Control Update for Arizona and Summary of Recent Research. Barry Tickes, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension

Lettuce, cole crops and melons are the principle vegetable crops grown in Arizona. There is a low tolerance for both weeds and crop injury by vegetable growers and the number of registered herbicides for these crops are is low. The loss of Kerb on leaf lettuce has resulted in an increase of broadleaf weeds, especially mustards. An Emergency Exemption (Sec 18) has been applied for in Az. although no action has occurred. Kerb is normally applied from 2 to 10 days after sprinkler irrigation is initiated to avoid leaching the herbicide prior to weed germination. Split applications have been tested to achieve the same goal and are now registered. Research has indicated that split applications can be beneficial in some instances. The use of Prefar has increased with the loss of Kerb on leaf lettuce. Research has indicated that increased levels of water applied by sprinklers helps incorporate this herbicide and improves control. Prowl was registered on cole crops in recent years and and trials have indicated that the highest labeled rate of 2.1 pts/ac. is too low in many situations .4.2pts./ac. is significantly more effective. Both older and new compounds are being tested on vegetables although most have been ineffective or unselective.

72 New Tools for Nutsedge and Other Difficult Weeds in Strawberry. Steven A. Fennimore*1, Tom C. Miller2, Husein A. Ajwa1; 1University of California, Davis, at Salinas, CA, 2Consultant, Salinas, CA. * [email protected]

Fumigant soil treatments were evaluated in lab studies, in field stations trials and on commercial strawberry production fields in coastal California during 2000 to 2014. This presentation will focus on the performance of several fumigants for the control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) tubers. IRF135 (Dominus, allyl isothiocyanate, AITC) was evaluated to determine the lethal dose required to kill 90% of weeds (LD90). Dominus LD90 data show that sweet clover and pigweed LD90’s required >396 lbs/A Dominus, yellow nutsedge required 92 lb/A. Annual bluegrass and sowthistle were controlled by <13 lb/A Dominus. In field studies to evaluate nutsedge control with Dominus, the 20 GPA rate resulted in 14% (b) viable nutsedge while the Dominus 40 GPA rate resulted in 0% viable nutsedge (c), i.e., 100% control. The nutsedge viability in the untreated control by comparison was 80% (a). Barrier films are becoming more widely used in California to trap fumigants in the soil and reduce fumigant emission. In a comparison of TIF (totally impermeable film, Vaporsafe) and HDPE (standard high density polyethylene film) nutsedge control with Pic-Clor 60 (1,3-D 35%, chloropicrin 60%) was better under TIF than HDPE. Pic-Clor 60 applied under TIF controlled nutsedge at 200 lb/A while Pic- Clor 60 applied under HDPE did not fully control nutsedge at 300 lb/A.

73 CEQA Mitigation Measures for Pest Control Recommendations. Scott Johnson, Wilbur-Ellis Company, [email protected]

Per the standard language on all California pest control recommendations, the Pest Control Adviser who signs that document should be able to “certify that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the environment have been considered and, if feasible, adopted”. This language comes from the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. This presentation will briefly define what CEQA is and explain how it is connected to the pesticide registration and regulatory program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). It will discuss what mitigation measures are, and also give examples of using drift retardants to mitigate, or lessen, adverse impact of pesticides that might move off target during a pesticide application.

74 Proposed Changes to Pest Regulation by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist, California Department of Food and Agriculture [email protected]

The pest classification system of the California Department of Food and Agriculture evolved as a system to indicate actions recommended by the department to control pests. Inclusion on the various pest lists was based on the expert opinions of departmental staff. As part of an effort to expedite effective regulatory action and in order to increase the biological rigor of pest classification, CDFA currently is putting into regulation an explicit pest risk analysis protocol for pest classification. The methodology is a simplified one using the most relevant and predictive questions from other pest risk assessment models. A standard model will be used for weeds, insects, plant disease organisms, and nematodes. This proposed approach will allow the public to see why (or why not) an organism was given a pest rating. It will also change regulated pest lists as contributions by extra-departmental experts are submitted. It also allows for regulation modifications as additional data becomes available.

75 Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Richard Spas, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA [email protected]

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has adopted the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). While the U.S. EPA has established that pesticide labeling is not required to reflect the new label language on federally regulated products, the labeling will be required on California Only registrations. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has adopted the GHS for California Only registered products and recognizes the challenges that the registrants will have in updating their labels. To assist with this process, DPR has created a self-certification template to help registrants update their labels on file.

76 Local Regulatory Issues / Pesticide Regulations and Compliance: Santa Barbara County. Tashina Sanders, Agricultural Biologist, Santa Barbara County [email protected]

This presentation was a pesticide laws and regulations update which discussed requirements for second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, changes to groundwater protection regulations, employee pesticide handler requirements, and a review of pesticide labels and issues local to Santa Barbara County. Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides were designated as California restricted materials, effective July 1, 2014. The active ingredients for these products are Brodifacoum, Bromadiolone, Difenacoum, and Difethialone. These products have been designated as restricted materials due to the hazard they present to non-target wildlife, particularly predator species. The use of these products now requires a restricted materials permit and can only be used in and within 100 feet of structures to protect them from house mice, Norway and roof rats. Structural pest control companies are exempt from restricted material permit requirements and are the only type of pest control businesses that are allowed to apply these materials. Requirements for Ground Water Protection CCR § 6800 were discussed including additions of active ingredients that have the potential to contaminate groundwater based on chemistry and environmental fate and removal of products unlikely to contaminate groundwater. Requirements for Wellhead Protection CCR § 6609 for mixing and loading pesticides or applying pre-emergent herbicides listed in CCR § 6800 within 100 feet of a well were also discussed. The presentation also covered complying with the pesticide label, how to interpret label statements and General Application of Standards CCR § 6601 relating to personal protective equipment for owner applicators. The presentation also focused on requirements for employee pesticide applications, not found on pesticide labels including requirements for training, personal protective equipment, decontamination and the use of coveralls. CCR § 6614 Protection of Persons, Animals and Property was also discussed and included definitions for substantial drift and due care found in CCR §6000. This code section places responsibility on the applicator prior to and while making an application to evaluate the equipment to be used, meteorological conditions, the property to be treated, and surrounding properties to determine the likelihood of harm or damage. Finally, local issues for Santa Barbara County were discussed including wildlife poisoning concerns due to possible use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, investigations of pesticide drift and growing public concern of pollinator protection, in part due to increasing use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

77 Assessment of Glyphosate and Paraquat Resistance in Hairy Fleabane and Horseweed Populations of the Central Valley. Marcelo L. Moretti*, M. Jasieniuk, B. D. Hanson. Plant Sciences Department, University of California, Davis, CA. *Corresponding author ([email protected])

Resistance to glyphosate is a growing problem in California with confirmed cases in six weed species. Glyphosate-resistant populations of hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) and horseweed (C. canadensis) were first documented in California in the mid-2000’s and now are found throughout the Central Valley in orchards, vineyards, and non-cropped areas. Management of these populations relies on efficacy of herbicides other than glyphosate, but this approach is being jeopardized by the presence of glyphosate-paraquat-resistant populations of hairy fleabane. No cases of glyphosate-paraquat resistance have been reported in horseweed in California to date, but have been confirmed elsewhere in the United States. Resistance to glyphosate and paraquat in the same plant is rare with only three reported cases worldwide. Identification of herbicide resistance can aid in the implementation of management practices aiming to mitigate resistance spread. The objective of this research is to assess the distribution of resistance to glyphosate and paraquat in hairy fleabane and horseweed in California. To assess the distribution of glyphosate and paraquat resistance, a total of 15 populations of Conyza spp. were selected, of which ten were hairy fleabane and five were horseweed populations. All populations were collected from orchards and vineyards in the Central Valley in 2010, and represent previously identified distinct genetic groups that correlate with geographical distribution. Additionally, reference populations were included: glyphosate and paraquat susceptible (GS) and glyphosate-resistant (GR) for both species, and glyphosate-paraquat- resistant (GPR) for hairy fleabane. In total, twenty populations were characterized simultaneously in greenhouse dose response experiments during summer 2014. The experiments included nine rates of glyphosate (0 to 54 kg ae ha-1 ) or paraquat (0 to 40 kg ai ha-1) and six replicates per treatment per population. The experiment was repeated. Plant mortality was assessed 21 days after treatment, and biomass was collected and dried. Data were analyzed using regression and the rate that reduced growth by 50% (GR50) was used to compare level of resistance among populations. All tested populations demonstrated some level of glyphosate resistance when biomass accumulation was compared to the reference GS population. The level of glyphosate resistance ranged from 2.5- to 25-fold among hairy fleabane populations, and from 5- to 35-fold among horseweed populations. Even the highest glyphosate rate (54 kg ae ha-1) did not control all plants of some populations, but the reference GS lines of both species were controlled by 2 kg ae ha-1 of glyphosate or . Paraquat resistance was present in two hairy fleabane populations and one horseweed population. Levels of resistance ranged from 35- to 47-fold in the hairy fleabane, and almost 300-fold in the horseweed. In all cases, paraquat resistance was associated with glyphosate resistance. Glyphosate-paraquat-resistant populations were found in Merced County for horseweed, and in Kern, Fresno, and Merced counties for hairy fleabane.

78 In summary, this research confirms the first case of glyphosate-paraquat-resistance in horseweed in California. Glyphosate-paraquat resistance has now been found in two Conyza spp, and the resistant populations are found in several areas of the Central Valley.

79 Effect of Light Intensity on the Efficacy of Some Post-Emergent Herbicides on Different Biotypes of Hairy Fleabane from the Central Valley. Mala To* and Anil Shrestha, Department of Plant Science, California State University, Fresno, CA *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Hairy fleabane [Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq.] is a problematic weed in California. This problem has been further aggravated by the discovery of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and glyphosate + paraquat resistant (GPR) biotypes. Therefore, alternative herbicides are being explored for their control. Saflufenacil (Treevix TM) is a fairly new herbicide labeled for tree crops. Although this herbicide is labeled to be effective against hairy fleabane, the influence of light intensity on its efficacy is unknown. Light intensity at the time of herbicide application can influence the efficacy of a protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicide like saflufenacil as these herbicides are light-activated. However, light intensity may also influence other post-emergence herbicides. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of light intensity on the efficacy of saflufenacil, glyphosate, glufosinate, and pyraflufen on GR, GPR, and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) hairy fleabane plants. Seeds of confirmed GR, GPR, and GS hairy fleabane plants were planted in a greenhouse. Once the seedlings reached the 2 to 3-leaf stage, they were transplanted into 2” pots containing potting soil. At the 5- to 8-leaf stage, the plants were treated with either glyphosate (28 oz/ac), glufosinate (82 oz/ac), saflufenacil (1 oz/ac), or pyraflufen (4 oz/ac). A 1% v/v methylated seed oil and crop oil concentrate was added to the saflufenacil and pyraflufen treatments, respectively. Ammonium sulfate was added at 2% w/v for saflufenacil and glyphosate treatments and 1% w/v for glufosinate treatments. The treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer at a spray volume of 26 GPA. Immediately after treatment, the plants were exposed for 48h to 4 different light intensities in an open field and kept in mini-tents with shade cloth of different shade levels [0% (complete darkness), 50%, 70% and 100% (full sun]. The plants were then returned to the greenhouse and kept for an additional 28 days. Plant mortality was recorded weekly. Plants were harvested at 30 days after treatment (DAT) and the aboveground dry biomass was recorded. The experimental design was a split-split plot with four replications. Light was the main factor, biotype the sub-factor, and herbicide treatments the sub sub-factor. The results showed that light intensity had no effect on the efficacy of the herbicides on any of the biotypes. The herbicides had differential effect on the different biotypes. Glufosinate controlled 100% of all three biotypes. Saflufenacil controlled 46, 55, and 58% of the GR, GPR, and GS plants, respectively. Glyphosate controlled 29, 38, and 100% of the GR, GPR, and GS plants, respectively. Pyraflufen controlled only up to 4% control of any of plants. Almost 50% of all three biotypes of the saflufenacil-treated plants regrew at all levels of light. The plants were completely necrotic at 7 DAT but by 30 DAT they regrew with healthy green leaves. Although light intensity had no effect on the mortality of the plants, the injury symptoms were greater at the 100% and 70% than at the 50% and 0% light levels in the saflufenacil and pyraflufen treatments. Plant biomass in these treatments was also lower at the higher light intensities. Therefore, this study showed that light intensity up to 48 hours after treatment did not influence herbicide efficacy. Glufosinate was the most effective treatment for control of all three biotypes. Saflufenacil was effective early on but many plants regrew. It is not known if moving them back

80 to the greenhouse after 48 hours of treatment was responsible for this. This phenomenon should be further investigated.

81 Resistance of Leptochloa fusca spp. fasicularis (bearded sprangletop) to ACCase Inhibitors in California Rice. Whitney B. Brim-DeForest1*, Rocio Alarcón-Reverte1, and Albert J. Fischer1; 1Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis *[email protected]

Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth ssp. fascicularis (Lam.) N. Snow (bearded sprangletop) is a native weed of rice in California common to dry-seeded systems or systems where the water level has been allowed to recede. Herbicide resistance in Leptochloa species has been documented in other parts of the world, but this is the first reported instance in Leptochloa fusca. Resistance has not yet been found in the species L. fusca spp. uninervia (J. Presl) N. Snow (Mexican sprangletop), also a weed of California rice. Anecdotal evidence of resistance to cyhalofop has been recently noted by California rice growers. Growers are currently limited in the number of available herbicides that can control this species (cyhalofop, clomazone and thiobencarb). Thus, the objectives of this research were: 1) to confirm resistance to ACCase inhibitors in L. fusca spp. fascicularis (bearded sprangletop) in California rice; and 2) to determine a possible mechanism of resistance.

Seeds from two populations of L. fusca spp. fasicularis (bearded sprangletop) were collected from fields in Butte County, CA, in 2012 and 2013. Greenhouse experiments for whole plant bioassays were conducted at the Rice Experiment Station, in Biggs, CA in 2014. Single-seed lines of two populations, one presumed resistant (RI1) and one known susceptible (F) were used. Clethodim, cyhalofop and quizalofop were applied using a cabinet track sprayer when plants were at the 1-2 leaf stage. Clethodim was applied at 0, 26.3, 52.5, 105.1, 192.7, 280.2, 560.5 and 1121 g ai ha-1, cyhalofop was applied at 0, 67.7, 156.3, 271, 302.2, 333.5, 667, 1334 g ai ha-1, and quizalofop was applied at 0, 9.6, 19.3, 38.5, 65.5, 92.5, 185 and 277.4 g ai ha-1. Partial sequencing of the ACCase gene in susceptible and resistant biotypes was conducted to elucidate the possible presence of resistance-conferring mutations.

Evaluation of the whole-plant bioassays confirmed resistance to cyhalofop and quizalofop, but not to clethodim. Resistance selected by cyhalofop use confers cross- resistance to quizalofop but not to clethodim. Preliminary evidence suggests that the mechanism of resistance to the cyhalofop and quizalofop involves a target-site alteration: the resistant biotype has a substitution at Trp2027Cys in the ACCase gene: a nucleotide change from guanine to thymine (TGG to TGT) at the third position of the codon encoding the amino acid tryptophan (Trp), which translates to a change from tryptophan to cysteine (Cys). This point mutation is known for conferring resistance to “fop” herbicides.

Since cyhalofop resistance appears to be target-site and unless another source of resistance is unveiled, current recommendations for growers are to use herbicides with a different mode of action, such as thiobencarb, clomazone or benzobicyclon.

82 Interactions between Glyphosate and Foliar Micronutrient Applications in Minimizing Corn Injury. Oscar Morales, Bahar Y. Kutman, Brad Hanson, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis

Herbicide drift may lead to reduction in growth and yield of non-target crops. Use of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops increases the risk of drift injury for farmers who grow non- glyphosate-resistant plants nearby. A few studies in the literature point out the possibility of reducing glyphosate drift injury by foliar applications of micronutrients. The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether micronutrients (zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), and manganese (Mn)) would prevent drift injury when applied prior to simulated glyphosate drift or correct or reduce injury symptoms when applied after glyphosate. In this greenhouse experiment, sweet corn (Zea mays cv. Precious Gem) was used as a model plant. Nine days after sowing (DAS), pots were sprayed with 3 glyphosate doses: 0, 1.5 or 3 % of a recommended glyphosate dosage (100% = 1 lb ae/A). Either two days before or after glyphosate application, the plants were treated with foliar applications of water, Mn, Ni or Zn. Height measurements were taken during the experiment and plants were harvested 14 DAS for dry weight determination. It was found that neither pre- nor applications of these micronutrients had a significant beneficial effect on glyphosate drift injury in corn. However, it was observed that post-glyphosate applications of micronutrients actually aggravated injury. Relative to control plants, 1.5% glyphosate-treated plants were 15% shorter and had 30% less shoot biomass, whereas 3% glyphosate-treated plants were 65% shorter and had 90% less shoot biomass. When compared to pre-treated plants, post- treated ones were reduced by 15% in height and 30% in dry weight. Although more trials need to be conducted to verify these observations, the timing of micronutrient sprays seems to be critical since post-drift applications may actually worsen the glyphosate drift injury symptoms.

83 The Effect of Spin-Aid on Spinach at Different Leaf Stages and Radiation Levels. Esteban Gonzalez.* R. Lati. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA. University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County, CA. *[email protected]

Two fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) varieties, Regal and Sardinia, were used to develop preliminary data about spinach response to cycloete (Ro-Neet) followed by phenmedipham (Spin-Aid) at several growth stages. A second set of experiments was conducted to evaluate the impact of light intensity and application timing on spinach tolerance to phenmedipham using the same two varieties. The first set of experiments showed that there was a significant reduction(~60%) in the weight of the Regal variety that were sprayed in the cotyledon stage when compared to those sprayed at the 2- leaf stage. There was a significant biomass reduction in both varieties under both 100% (full sun during summer in Salinas, CA) and 50% (half full sun during summer in Salinas, CA) radiation with the application of phenmedipham compared to the control. Overall there was a very low tolerance for phenmedipham at the cotyledon stage of both fresh market spinach varieties at any radiation level.

84 CWSS FINANCIAL STATEMENT 7/1/14-3/10/15

Ordinary Income/Expense Income 4000 · Registration Income 112,475.00

4001 · Membership Income 1,120.00 4020 · Exhibit Income 23,000.00

4030 · Sponsor Income 10,426.00 4065 · Orchid Fundraiser 318.00 4290 · Refunds -1,968.00

4295 · Contribution income 133.37

Total Income 145,504.37

Expense 4300 · Conference Accreditation 165.00 4310 · Conference Facility Fees 500.00 4320 · Conference Catering Expense 43,249.71 4330 · Conference Equipment Expense 3,473.40 4360 · Student Awards/Poster Expense 2,000.00 4361 · Awards-Board/Special Recog. 194.36 4380 · Conference Supplies 768.50 6090 · Advertising 750.00 6105 · Merchant Services Fees 2,384.62 6120 · Bank Service Charges 281.00 6130 · Board Meeting Expenses 1,289.99 6240 · Insurance - General 3,245.00 6270 · Legal & Accounting 4,036.95 6280 · Mail Box Rental Expense 80.00 6307 · Outside Services - PAPA 31,423.68 6340 · Postage/Shipping Expense 1,201.19 6345 · Printing Expense - Newsletter 1,671.55 6355 · Website Expense 1,070.79 6390 · CWSS Textbook 3,808.16 6520 · Telephone/Internet Expense 118.08 6530 · Travel - Transport/Lodging 1,384.93 6540 · Travel - Meals/Entertainment 573.93 6545 · Student Travel - Transport/Lodg 1,667.02 6550 · Student Travel - Meals 292.17 6555 · Speaker Lodging/Travel Expense 704.82 Total Expense 106,334.85

Net Ordinary Income 39,169.52

Net Income 39,169.52

Edward Jones Investment Account Balance 2/27/15: $290,059.54

85 CWSS HONORARY MEMBERS LISTING

Harry Agamalian (1983) Harold Kempen (1988) Norman Akesson (1998) Bruce Kidd (2009) Floyd Ashton (1990) Don Koehler (2003) Alvin Baber (1995) Jim Koehler Walter Ball * Butch Kreps (1987) Dave Bayer (1986) Edward Kurtz (1992) Carl E. Bell (2010) Art Lange (1986) Lester Berry Wayne T. Lanini (2011) Tim Butler (2008) Michelle LeStrange (2015) Mick Canevari (2008) J. Robert C. Leavitt (2010) Don Colbert (2002) Oliver Leonard * Floyd Colbert (1987) Jim McHenry Stephen Colbert (2012) Bob Meeks Alden Crafts * Bob Mullen (1996) Marcus Cravens * Robert Norris (2002) Dave Cudney (1998) Ralph Offutt Richard Dana Jack Orr (1999) Boysie Day * Ruben Pahl (1990) Nate Dechoretz (2003) Martin Pruett Jim Dewlen (1979)* Murray Pryor * Paul Dresher * Richard Raynor Ken Dunster (1993)* Howard Rhoads * Matt Elhardt (2005) Jesse Richardson (2000) Clyde Elmore (1994) Ed Rose (1991)* Bill Fischer * Conrad Schilling * Dick Fosse * Jack Schlesselman (1999) Tad Gantenbein (2004) Vince Schweers (2003) Rick Geddes (2006) Deb Shatley (2009) George Gowgani Conrad Skimina* (2003) Bill Harvey * Leslie Sonder * David Haskell (2009) Stan Strew* F. Dan Hess (2001)* Huey Sykes (1989) Floyd Holmes (1979) Tom Thomson (1999) Nelroy Jackson (1997) Robert Underhill Scott A. Johnson (2013) Lee VanDeren (1983) * Warren Johnson (1977)* Ron Vargas (2001) Stan Walton (1988) * *Deceased Bryant Washburn (1988) Steve Wright (2007)

86 CWSS AWARD OF EXCELLENCE MEMBERS LISTING

1985 June McCaskell, Jack Schlesselman & Tom Yutani

1986 Harry Agamalian, Floyd Colbert & Ed Rose 1987 Bruce Ames, Pam Jones, & Steve Orloff

1988 Bill Clark & Linda Romander

1989 Earl Suber 1990 Ron Hanson & Phil Larson

1991 John Arvik & Elin Miller 1992 Don Colbert & Ron Kelley

1993 Ron Vargas

1994 Jim Cook & Robert Norris 1995 Mick Canevari & Rich Waegner

1996 Galen Hiett & Bill Tidwell

1997 David Haskell & Louis Hearn 1998 Jim Helmer & Jim Hill

1999 Joe DiTomaso 2000 Kurt Hembree 2001 Steven Fennimore, Wanda Graves & Scott Steinmau s

2002 Carl Bell & Harry Kline 2003 Dave Cudney & Clyde Elmore*

2004 Michelle LeStrange & Mark Mahady 2005 Scott Johnson & Richard Smith

2006 Bruce Kidd, Judy Letterman & Celeste Elliott

2007 Barry Tickes & Cheryl Wilen 2008 Dan Bryant & Will Crites

2008 Ken Dunster* & Ron Vargas*

2009 Ellen Dean & Wayne T. Lanini 2010 Lars W.J. Anderson & Stephen F. Colbert

2011 Jennifer Malcolm & Hugo Ramirez 2012 Rob Wilson

2013 Rick Miller 2014 Carl Bell*, Brad Hanson & Anil Shrestha 2015 Deb Shatley & Barry Tickes

*President’s Award for Lifetime Achievement in Weed Science

87 California Weed SCienCe SoCiety Conference History

CONFERENCE DATE HELD LOCATION PRESIDENT

1st February 16, 17, 1949 Sacramento Walter Ball 2nd April 4, 5, 6, 1950 Pomona Walter Ball 3rd January 30, 31, Feb. 1, 1951 Fresno Alden Crafts 4th January 22, 23, 24, 1952 San Luis Obispo Murray Pryor 5th January 20, 21, 22, 1953 San Jose Bill Harvey 6th January 27, 28, 1954 Sacramento Marcus Cravens 7th January 26, 27, 1955 Santa Barbara Lester Berry 8th February 15, 16, 17, 1956 Sacramento Paul Dresher 9th January 22, 23, 24, 1957 Fresno James Koehler 10th January 21, 22, 23, 1958 San Jose Vernon Cheadle th 11 January 20, 21, 22, 1959 Santa Barbara J. T. Vedder th 12 January 19, 20, 21, 1960 Sacramento Bruce Wade th 13 January 24, 25, 26, 1961 Fresno Stan Strew th 14 January 23, 24, 25, 1962 San Jose Oliver Leonard th 15 January 22, 23, 24, 1963 Santa Barbara Charles Siebe 16th th January 21, 22, 23, 1964 Sacramento Bill Hopkins 17 January 19, 20, 21, 1965 Fresno Jim Dewlen 18th th January 18, 19, 20, 1966 San Jose Norman Akesson 19 January 24, 25, 26, 1967 San Diego Cecil Pratt 20th st January 22, 23, 24, 1968 Sacramento Warren Johnson 21 January 20, 21, 22, 1969 Fresno Floyd Holmes 22nd January 19, 20, 21, 1970 Anaheim Vince Schweers 23rd January 18, 19, 20, 1971 Sacramento Dell Clark 24th January 16, 17, 18, 19, 1972 Fresno Bryant Washburn 25th January 15, 16, 17, 1973 Anaheim Howard Rhoads 26th January 21, 22, 23, 24, 1974 Sacramento Tom Fuller 27th 28th January 20, 21, 22, 1975 Fresno Dick Fosse 29th January 19, 20, 21, 1976 San Diego Jim McHenry 30th January 17, 18, 19, 1977 Sacramento Les Sonder 31st January 16, 17, 18, 1978 Monterey Floyd Colbert 32nd January 15, 16, 17, 18, 1979 Los Angeles Harry Agamalian 33rd January 21, 22, 23, 24, 1980 Sacramento Conrad Schilling 34th January 19, 20, 21, 22, 1981 Monterey Lee Van Deren 35th January 18, 19, 20, 21, 1982 San Diego Dave Bayer 36th January 17, 18, 19, 20, 1983 San Jose Butch Kreps 37th January 16, 17, 18, 19, 1984 Sacramento Ed Rose 38th January 21, 22, 23, 24, 1985 Anaheim Hal Kempen 39th January 27, 28, 19, 30, 1986 Fresno Ray Ottoson 40th January 26, 27, 28, 29, 1987 San Jose Ken Dunster 41st January 18, 19, 20, 21, 1988 Sacramento George Gowgani 42nd January 16, 17, 18, 1989 Ontario Ed Kurtz January 15, 16, 17, 1990 San Jose Dennis Stroud

88

California Weed SCienCe SoCiety – Conference History

CONFERENCE DATE HELD LOCATION PRESIDENT

43rd January 21, 22, 23, 1991 Santa Barbara Jack Orr 44th January 20, 21, 22, 1992 Sacramento Nate Dechoretz 45th January 18, 19, 20, 1993 Costa Mesa Alvin A. Baber 46th January 17, 18, 19, 1994 San Jose James Greil 47th January 16, 17, 19, 1995 Santa Barbara Nelroy Jackson 48th January 22, 23, 24, 1996 Sacramento David Cudney 49th January 20, 21, 22, 1997 Santa Barbara Jesse Richardson 50th January 12, 13, 14, 1998 Monterey Ron Vargas 51st January 11, 12, 13, 1999 Anaheim Scott Johnson 52nd January 10, 11, 12, 2000 Sacramento Steve Wright rd 53 January 8, 9, 10, 2001 Monterey Matt Ehlhardt th 54 January 14, 15, 16, 2002 San Jose Lars Anderson th 55 January 20, 21, 22, 2003 Santa Barbara Bruce Kidd th 56 January 12, 13, 14, 2004 Sacramento Pam Geisel th 57 January 10, 11, 12, 2005 Monterey Debra Keenan th 58 January 16, 17, 18 2006 Ventura L. Robert Leavitt 59th th January 8, 9, 10, 2007 San Diego Deb Shatley 60 January 28, 29, 30, 2008 Monterey Carl Bell 61st nd January 12, 13, 14 2009 Sacramento Stephen Colbert 62 January 11. 12. 13 2010 Visalia Stephen Colbert 63rd th January 19, 20, 21, 2011 Monterey Dave Cheetham 64 January 23, 24, 25 2012 Santa Barbara Michelle LeStrange 65th January 23, 24, 25 2013 Sacramento Chuck Synold 66th January 22, 23, 24 2014 Monterey Steve Fennimore 67th January 21, 22, 23, 2015 Santa Barbara Rick Miller

89 CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

TROY ABRAHAMSON JOHN ADKINS HARRY AGAMALIAN CALTRANS 358 HAVENSIDE AVE UCCE EMERITUS 1120 N ST. NEWBURY PARK, CA 91320 6 SAN CARLOS DR SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 [email protected] SALINAS, CA 93901-3008 [email protected] [email protected]

KASSIM AL-KHATIB EDDIE ALLEN TONY ALVAREZ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS ALBAUGH LLC GO GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2625 SOMERSET CIR 284 POST AVE. 1203 CORBETI CYN RD. WOODLAND, CA 95776 SANGER, CA 93657 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DAVID ANDRADA MICHAEL ANDREW JORGE ANGELES BAYER CROP SCIENCE CLARK PEST CONTROL CSU FRESNO 2221 WILD PLAINS CIR 555 N GUILD AVE [email protected]

ROCKLIN, CA 95765 LODI, CA 95240 [email protected] [email protected]

DEE ARELLANO JAMES ATHERSTONE JEFF ATKINSON COUNTY OF VENTURA PW 11251- 828 GRIMES AVE SEPRO CORPORATION B RIVERBANK DR VENTURA, CA MODESTO, CA 95358 28 WINDERS CREEK DR 93004 [email protected] ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27804

[email protected]

FRANK AULGUR BOB AUSTIN ALBERT AVILA DUPONT LAND MANAGEMENT BAYER CROP SCIENCE FRIANT WATER AUTHORITY PO BOX 92 572 RIVERGATE WY 854 N. HARVARD AVE. DUNNIGAN, CA 95937 SACRAMENTO, CA 95831 LINDSAY, CA 93247 [email protected] [email protected]

JIM BAIRD GREG BALDWIN JOE BALLMER UCCE RIVERSIDE AG RX SYNGENTA 1098 RANCHO VALENCIA DR 609 S DEPOT ST 207 MARSH HAWK DR RIVERSIDE, CA 92508 SANTA MARIA, CA 93456 FOLSOM, CA 95630 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CARL BANNON GERARDO BANUELOS REED BARNES DUPONT CROP PROTECTION CSU FRESNO DWR 3590 PAYDIRT DR 2515 E. BEECH CT. 351SOUTH DR PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 VISALIA, CA 93292 LEBEC, CA 93243 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DON BARTEL DAVID BATCHELDER NATHANIEL BATIIG SIERRA CONSULTING & IPM LLC CALTRANS - DISTRICT 9 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES P.O. BOX 1971 500 S. MAIN ST. 1137 PRINCETON AVE NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 BISHOP, CA 93514 MODESTO, CA 95350 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MIKE BATILES TRAVIS BEAN JAMES BEAN LOWER TULE RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE CITY OF VISALIA 357 E. OLIVE AVE. 2141 BATCHELOR HALL 336 N BEN MADDOX TIPTON, CA 93272 RIVERSIDE, CA 92521 VISALIA, CA 93292 [email protected] [email protected]

PAMELA BEITZ CHRISTINE BELDEN CARL BELL EAST BAY RPO LACACWM U.C.C.E. EMERITUS PO BOX 5381 3 PEPPERWOOD CIR PO BOX 33632 OAKLAND, CA 94605 POMONA, CA 91766 SAN DIEGO, CA 92163 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

90 CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

JUDY BELL BRAD BELL WANDA BENELISHA J SAN DIEGO ZOO UPI PAUL GETTY TRUST PO BOX 33632 549 DALE AVE 1200 GETIY CENTER DR SAN DIEGO, CA 92163 YUBA CITY, CA 95993 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

TOM BENGARD TODD BERG JENNIFER BERGH TOM BENGARD RANCH, INC. TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES BASF 959 OLD STAGE ROAD 221 TOYON LN 5160 NE ELLIOTI CIR UNIT A SALINAS, CA 93908 WINTERS, CA 95694 CORVALLIS, OR 97330 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

TROY BETINER MIKE BISCIEGLIA ALAN BISHOP SEPRO CORP BAYER ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MONSANTO 11550 N MERIDIAN ST STE 600 1735 E HEITMAN AVE 2370 ERLING WAY CARMEL, IN 46032 LA CENTER, WA 98629 KINGSBURG, CA 93631 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DAVE BLODGET CHRIS BLODGET BERNIE BORGES SEPRO CORPORATION CPS TIMBERLAND CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 3300 NORD AVE 5571 NEWLAND RD 750 SHANNON HILL DR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93314 PARADISE, CA 95969 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOSE BOTELLO DAVID BOWER STEPHEN BOWMAN AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, INC. BRANDT FRANTZ WHOLESALE NURSERY 2511 CERRITOS RD PO BOX 35000 12161 DELAWARE RD BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 FRESNO, CA 93745 MODESTO, CA 95323 [email protected] [email protected]

ART BOWMAN TOM BOYD JACK BRAMKAMP SALIDA AG CHEM AGRl-TURF DISTRIBUTING, LLC CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 7212 COVERT RD 10551 HATHAWAY DR 2622 THIRD ST. MODESTO, CA 95358 SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOSE BRASIL CARA BRENTS WHITNEY BRIM-DEFOREST SOILFUME, INC. MONTEREY CO AG COMM OFFICE UC DAVIS 974 FRIGUGLIETTI AVE 1428 ABBOTT ST 1 SHIELDS AVE LOS BANOS, CA 93935 SALINAS, CA 93901 DAVIS, CA 95618 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MATTHEW BRISTOW DONNA BROWNE DAWN BRUNMEIER CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES AGRl-TURF DISTRIBUTING, LLC BASF PO BOX 346 10551 HATHAWAY DR 6752 E. MAIN ST. THERMAL, CA 92274 SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 STOCKTON, CA 95215 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

STEVEN BUMP DAVID BRYSON TIM BUFFALO VALLEY FRESH FOODS, INC. BUFFALO LAND MANAGEMENT LAKE OF THE PINES PO BOX 910 1476 ANITA ST. 11665 LAKE SHORE NORTH TURLOCK, CA 95381 CARPINTERIA, CA 93013 AUBURN, CA 95602 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

KEITH BUNGO WELL- CARLOS BURBANO TODD BURKDOLL PICT, INC. 5201 STRONG CIRCLE COOL PLANET ENERGY VALENT USA ROYAL OAKS, CA 95076 2716 E PONDEROSA DR APT 50 2461 N DEMOREE ST [email protected] CAMARILLO, CA 93010 VISALIA, CA 93291 [email protected] [email protected]

91 CWSS 2015 ATTEN DEES

CASEY BUTLER ALAN BYNUM JR SERGIO CABRERA SELF- SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION BYNUM AG CONSULTING EMPLOYED 695 S LANUS DR 1499 N. ROGERS 1218 MANZANITA DR GILBERT, CA 85296 CLOVIS, CA 93611 EL CENTRO, CA 92243 [email protected] [email protected]

JOSE CABRERA AMBER CANDELA-COONEY MICK CANEVARI SYNGENTA DWR UCCE EMERITUS 2726 NIVERTH PLACE 5280 BRUNS RD 4360 N ALPINE RD SANTA MARIA, CA 93456 BYRON, CA 94514 STOCKTON, CA 95212 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DAVID CANNELLA MARTIN CARRILLO VINCE CARVALHO SIMPLOT GROWER SOLUTIONS BRANDT COUNTY OF SONOMA PUBLIC WORKS 8961 ROAD 272 P.O. BOX 35000 2175 AIRPORT BLVD TERRA BELLA, CA 93270 FRESNO, CA 9374S SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 [email protected] [email protected]

NINO CARVALHO KANDI CARVALHO DANIEL CAVALETIO NINO CARVALHO FARMS & AG SPRAYING NINO CARVALHO FARMS DROP PRODUCTION SVCS, INC. 7696 S. JAMES RD. 7696 S JAMES RD 35 S KELLOGG AVE TRANQUILLITY, CA 93668 TRANQUILLITY, CA 93668 GOLETA, CA 93117 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PATRICK CAVANAUGH VICTOR CAVAZOS CELSO CERRI CA AG TODAY RADIO KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT CPS 2191 DECATUR AVE 501TAFT HWY 1015 E WOOLEY RD CLOVIS, CA 93611 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 OXNARD, CA 93030 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JAMES CHAMBERS DAVE CHEETHAM KEVIN CHIN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AG DEPT HELENA CHEMICAL CO. R & D BOLTHOUSE FARMS 777 E RIALTO AVE 3155 SOUTHGATE LN. 7200 E BRUNDAGE LN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 CHICO, CA 95928 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GREG CHIOSSI KEVIN CHUMAN PATRICK CLAY COUNTY OF SONOMA PUBLIC WORKS CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES VALENT USA 2175 AIRPORT BLVD S466 N. FELAND AVE. 7498 N REMMINGTON AVE STE 102 SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 FRESNO, CA 93711 FRESNO, CA 93711 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CHRIS CLEMENS STEPHEN COLBERT PETER COMPTON SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION DUPONT CROP PROTECTION VALLEY FARM SUPPLY 1616 VENICE LN 1413 SIERRA DR PO BOX 370 RICHLAND, WA 99352 ESCALON, CA 95320 NIPOMO, CA 93444 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JERRY CONDREN VICTOR CONTRERAS THOMAS COOPER CROP PRODUCTION SVCS GROVE CARE, INC. CALTRANS DISTRICT 11 9355 COPUS RD PO BOX 1268 4050 TAYLOR ST BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 OJAI, CA 93024 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CARLOS CORTEZ CYNTHIA COSSI DAVID COX COUNTY OF VENTURA PUBLIC WKS VALLEY LANDSCAPES SYNGENTA 11251-B RIVERBANK DR PO BOX 714 14446 HUNTINGTON RD VENTURA, CA 93004 WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690 MADERA, CA 93638 [email protected] [email protected]

92

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

RYAN COX JIM CROSBY WES CROXEN CSU FRESNO - STUDENT AQUMIX ALLIGARE, LLC 2715 S ASPEN ST 2705 CEDAR HOLLOW RD PO BOX 1175 VISALIA, CA 93277 GEORGETOWN, TX 78628 MADERA, CA 93639 [email protected] [email protected]

CHUCK DAL POZZO RUSSELL DARLING OLEG DAUGOVISH TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS CDPR U.C.C.E. - VENTURA COUNTY 15415 MARQUARDT AVE 10011 ST 669 COUNTY SQUARE DR STE 100 SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 VENTURA, CA 93003 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DONALD DAVIS KEN DE LEO SHEA DE VANEY DAVIS FAMILY FARMS VALENT USA J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY 1295 HIDDEN RIVER CT 5026 W SPRUCE AVE P.O. BOX 877 RENO, NV 89523 FRESNO, CA 93722 CORCORAN, CA 93212 ddavis7114@gma ii.com [email protected] [email protected]

BRIAN DEETER STAN DEGUCHI STEVE DEITZ GOWAN CO. CROP PRODUCTION SERVICE SAWTOOTH AG RESEARCH 35124 QUALLS PRATHER RD. 1012 W. LIME AVE. 20829 AVE 380 AUBERRY, CA 93602 LOMPOC, CA 93436 WOODLAKE, CA 93286 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GILBERT DELROSARIO TIM DESILVA LANCE DOHMAN DOW AGROSCIENCES J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS 14581 LIVINGSTON ST PO BOX 877 PO BOX 606 TUSTIN, CA 92780 CORCORAN, CA 93212 CONCORD, CA 94522 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

STEVE DOLAR ROBERT DOW BEN DUESTERHAUS COUNTY OF SONOMA PUBLIC WORKS J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY MID VALLEY AG SERVICES 2175 AIRPORT BLVD PO BOX 877 16401 E HIGHWAY 26 SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 CORCORAN, CA 93212 LINDEN, CA 95236 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FRED ECKERT KEVAN EDEN DANA EDSON BASF TURF & ORNAMENTAL SELF-EMPLOYED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 3604 PINE AVE. PO BOX 390 300 WILSON LANE MANHATIAN BEACH, CA 90266 YOLO, CA 95697 WINDSOR, CA 95492 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

TONY ENCALADE CURTIS ENGLE PAUL ESCOBAR SSJID UPI SSI MAXIM CO. PO BOX 747 9433 N FOWLER AVE 4832 N ARROWCREST WAY RIPON, CA 95366 CLOVIS, CA 93619 BOISE, ID 83703 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DAVE ESROCK JOE ETCHEVERRY DALE EVENSON TRI-CAL INC. WEGIS AND YOUNG SLO FARM SUPPLY COMPANY 961 FOOTHILL DR 12816 JOMANI DR 7455 CASEY DRIVE WINDSOR, CA 95492 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 SAN MIGUEL, CA 93451 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MICHAEL FARQUHAR LARRY FAUSETI GLENN FEENSTRA QUALITY SPRAYERS PRIVATE CONSULTANT CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 1549 WEST 17TH STREET 3739 MERU LANE 2622 THIRD ST. LONG BEACH, CA 90813 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

93

CWSS 2015 ATIEN DEES

JOE FEIL ABATE-A- STEVE FENNIMORE NICK FERERIA WEED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 7104 PALM TREE CIR 1636 E ALISAL ST P.O. BOX 747 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 SALINAS, CA 93905 RIPON, CA 95366 Joe@abateaweed .com [email protected] [email protected]

DAN FISER TODD FITCHETIE KIT FLOM BRANDT WESTERN FARM PRESS CAL TRANS-RETIRED PO BOX 35000 P.O BOX 2429 249 SOUTH PACIFIC AVE FRESNO, CA 93745 TULARE, CA 93275 VENTURA, CA 93001 [email protected] [email protected]

LOUIS FONTES DAN FOREY LORIANNE FOUGHT KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT EUROFINS AGROSCIENCE SVCS J.R. SIMPLOT CO. 501TAFT HWY 328 N BETHEL AVE 11856 ROAD 29 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 SANGER, CA 93657 MADERA, CA 93637 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JAMES FOWLER TODD FREDRICK ROY FREER CALTRANS GOLETA SANITARY DISTRICT CALTRANS/RETIRED 4821 ADOHR LN. 1WILLIAM MOFFETT PL 7792 TASSAJARA CREEK RD CAMARILLO, CA 93012 GOLETA, CA 93117 SANTA MARGARITA, CA 93453 james [email protected] [email protected]

NEAL FRIESEN DAVID FRYE TAD GANTENBEIN COMPASS MINERALS 17637 RIVER RUN RD CONSULTANT 3135 HOLLY AVE SALINAS, CA 93908 1608 MCCLAREN DR. CLOVIS, CA 93611 [email protected] CARMICHAEL, CA 95608

[email protected] [email protected]

RAFAEL GARCIA JR CHERYL GARTNER SETH GERSDORF COUNTY OF TULARE UC DAVIS COOP EXT BAYER CROP SCIENCE 4437 S. LASPINA ST. 1413 SIERRA DR 266 S MONROE AVE TULARE, CA 93274 ESCALON, CA 95320 FRESNO, CA 93706 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

NEAL GIFFIN BRENDAN GILBRIDE GARRETT GILCREASE BRANDT MICHAEL WOLF VINEYARD SERVICES, INC. SYNGENTA P.O. BOX 35000 P.O. BOX 3540 13970 GRANITE CIR FRESNO, CA 93745 YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 HANFORD, CA 93230 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SCOTT GISBERTZ LAUN NIE GINN JEFF GLEAVES BOLTHOUSE FARMS CPSU, SAN LUIS OBISPO AG UNLIMITED 10813 HOWELL MOUNTAIN DR RT 2 BOX 407 PO BOX 198 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 KELSEYVILLE, CA 95451 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

KENNY GONZALEZ ESTEBAN GONZALES ESTEBAN GONZALEZ CALTRANS CPSU SAN LUIS OBISPO CAL POLY, SAN LUIS OBISPO - STUDENT 691 S TUSTIN AVE 14462 DEL MONTE FARMS RD ORANGE, CA 92866 CASTROVILLE, CA 95012 [email protected] [email protected]

STEVEN GOULD ROBERT GOODWIN JOHN GRACIA MONSANTO IT & 0 R.E. GOODWIN FARMING CO AG RX INC. 23905 CLINTON KEITH RD 114-522 2320 DEL SOL PLACE PO BOX 1218 WILDOMAR, CA 92595 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 NIPOMO, CA 93444 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

94

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

MICHAEL GRAY STUART GRAY KRIS GRIFFIN CITY OF FAIRFIELD SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES CALTRANS 420 GREGORY ST. 8246 CHURN CREEK RD. 6575 NAVAJOA AVE FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 REDDING, CA 96002 ATASCADERO, CA 93422 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOEL GUERERRO LARRY GUIDOTII ADAM GUINN SOILFUME, INC. AG RX BUENA VISTA WATER STORAGE DISTRICT 2051 SMOKEY DR 9908 FLYROD DR 525 N MAIN ST LOS BANOS, CA 93635 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 BUTTONWILLOW, CA 93206 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DAVID HAAS MICHAEL HAILE KEVIN HALEY CALTRANS LINWOOD SUPPLY, INC. K & J SERVICES 2537 OCCIDENTAL CIR PO BOX 463 9903 CINDERELLA RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 DIXON, CA 95620 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311 [email protected] michael@ linwoodsupply.com [email protected]

GREG HALLQUIST ROGER HAMAMURA JON HAMILL ORO AGRI INC. PLANASA, LLC SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION 3816 S WILLOW AVE #101 3767 ROLLAND DR 710 E BRANDY CT FRESNO, CA 93725 COTTONWOOD, CA 96022 SANTA MARIA, CA 93454 [email protected] [email protected]

JERAD HAMILTON ANN HANGER JEREMIAH HANSEN CLARK PEST CONTROL CDPR THE WEED WORKS 555 N GUILD AVE 10011 ST P.O. BOX 99 LODI, CA 95240 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PASO ROBLES, CA 93447 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MARK HANSEN BONNIE HANSEN DAVID HANSON CPS-TIMBERLAND DIVISION STUDENT VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 328 7TH AVE 710 CATALINA DR 825 MABURY RD SEASIDE, OR 97138 LIVERMORE, CA 94550 SAN JOSE, CA 95133 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BRAD HANSON JIM HANSON GORDON HARADA UC DAVIS MEADOW WORKS ASSOCIATES/CA NATIVE J.R. SIMPLOT CO. PLANT SCI DEPT MS4 ONE SHIELDS AVE GRASSLANDS ASSOC 60 MANSFIELD LN DAVIS, CA 95616 5616 SIERRA AVE CAMARILLO, CA 93010 [email protected] RICHMOND, CA 94805 [email protected] [email protected]

STEPHEN HARDGRAVE RON HARDING JEFF HARRINGTON AMVAC HARDING FARMING BOLTHOUSE FARMS 6074 MILLERTON RD 242 N. HARDING RD 286 HERMOSA DR FRIANT, CA 93626 MODESTO, CA 95357 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

LARRY HARRIS CINDY HARRIS WILL HARRISON KINNIKINNICK SERVICE CO J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 150 N DANA FOOTHILL RD PO BOX 877 154185 MARQUARDT AVE NIPOMO, CA 93444 CORCORAN, CA 93212 SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JIM HARTMAN JASON HAUGHT BILL HAYWOOD COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PARAMOUNT FARMING DWR 12300 LOWER AZUSA RD. 10870 PISTACHIO RD 31770 GONZAGA RD ARCADIA, CA 91006 LOST HILLS, CA 93246 GUSTINE, CA 95322 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

95

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

LOUIS HEARN RODNEY HEINRICH JEANETIE HEINRICHS SIMPLOT 4225 W DAYTON AVE VAN BUERDEN INSURANCE SVC INC PO BOX 889 FRESNO, CA 93722 PO BOX 67 KINGSBURG, CA 93631 [email protected] KINGSBURG, CA 93631 [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN HELM KURT HEMBREE PEDRO HERNANDEZ WESTERN AG RESEARCH PROFESSIONALS UCCE NICHINO AMERICA, INC. 7187 VIA MARIA 550 E SHAW AVE STE 210-B 32801 ROAD 204 SAN JOSE, CA 95139 FRESNO, CA 93710 WOODLAKE, CA 93286 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FERNANDO HERNANDEZ MIGUEL HERNANDEZ CASTRO DAN HIGGINBOTHAM COUNTY OF VENTURA PW 11251- SANTA BARBARA CO FLOOD CONTROL PLANT DOCTOR B RIVERBANK DR VENTURA, 9266 MILPAS ST 8970 CURBARIL AVE CA 93004 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ATASCADERO, CA 93422

[email protected] [email protected]

MAHLON HILE LOUIS HOLLOWAY FLOYD HOLMES EMERITUS - CSU FRESNO BAYER CROP SCIENCE SANTA BARBARA CO FLOOD CTRL 6309 N. 9TH ST. 266 S MONROE AVE 130 E VICTORIA ST STE 200 FRESNO, CA 93710 FRESNO, CA 93706 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BEAU HOWARD SARAH HOWARD JAMES HRUSKOCI J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY BASF BAYER CROP SCIENCE PO BOX 877 PO BOX 85 15371 S EAGLE CREST DR CORCORAN, CA 93212 RIPON, CA 95366 DRAPER, UT 84020 [email protected] [email protected]

XIAOHONG HUANG JOHN HUBBARD ROBERT ANDY HUDSON DWR-SAN JOAQUIN FIELD DIVISION NICHINO AMERICA WESTBRIDGE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 4201 SABODAN ST 1933 S ROYAL OAKS DR 1260 AVENI DA CHELSEA BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 VISALIA, CA 93277 VISTA, CA 92081 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

!AN HUDSON JOSE HUERTA ROBERT HUNTER TRICAL, INC. J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY SEPRO CORP PO BOX 1327 P.O. BOX 877 PO BOX 422 HOLLISTER, CA 95024 CORCORAN, CA 93212 LA JOLLA, CA 92038 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RICHARD HURSTAK ALEX HUTCHISON DAVID !LIFF CROP SCIENCE SERVICES KINGS MOUNTAIN VINEYARDS AG RX 710 RIVER OAKS DR 187 KINGS MOUNTAIN RD 1310 JODI CT PASO ROBLES, CA 93445 WOODSIDE, CA 94062 SANTA MARIA, CA 93454 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ROBERT IMBACH LYNDON INOUYE ED ISHIDA THE TREMONT GROUP, INC. VALENT USA BAYER CROP SCIENCE 102 MARSHALL AVE P 0 BOX 183 1773 POWELL DR WOODLAND, CA 95695 KINGSBURG, CA 93631 VENTURA, CA 93004 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JIM JACKSON CHRIS JENNINGS LINDSAY JENNISON U.C. DAVIS UPI CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 36604 CO. RD. 17 PO BOX 1627 P 0 BOX 1645 WOODLAND, CA 95695 TEMPLETON, CA 93465 HOLLISTER, CA 95024 [email protected] [email protected]

96

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

MANUEL JIMENEZ SCOTT JOHNSON WILBUR- CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON BAYER CROP SCIENCE ELLIS CO. BUTCH JOHNSON FARMS 323 OLD LINE AVE. 1710 FLUETSCH CT. 7802 S. JAMES RD. EXETER, CA 93221 STOCKTON, CA 95207 TRANQUILLITY, CA 93668 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SUEANNE JOHNSON DUSTIN JOHNSON RICHARD JONES UCANR SISKIYOU COUNTY DEPT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DWR 2801 SECOND ST 525 S FOOTHILL DR 36623 PEARL PLACE DAVIS, CA 95618 YREKA, CA 96097 PALMDALE, CA 93550 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GARY JORGENSEN TIMOTHY JUNGENBERG DANIELJUNGERS PACIFIC AGRONOMICS VENTURA COUNTY DEPT OF AIRPORTS D A JUNGERS INC 6483 N HAZEL 555 AIRPORT WAY STE. B PO BOX 4294 FRESNO, CA 93711 CAMARILLO, CA 93010 EL CENTRO, CA 92244 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

STEVE KAWAGUCHI ELI KERSH OLIVA MARYAM KHOSRAVIFARD SOUTHLAND SOD FARMS AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, INC. CALIFORNIA WATER BOARD 136 COTTAGE GROVE AVE PO BOX 606 1001 I ST. CAMARILLO, CA 93012 CONCORD, CA 94520 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BRUCE KIDD CONRAD KIERNAN MICHAEL KIRKORIAN CONSULTANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3136 E KERCKHOFF AVE 39962 VIA ESPANA PO BOX 207 FRESNO, CA 93702 MURRIETA, CA 92562 YORBA LINDA, CA 92885 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

COURTNEY KITE DOUG KLEWENO DAVID KLUTTZ SILENT FIRE INC. CYGNET ENTERPRISES WEST, INC. LAKELAND RESTORATION SVCS 1409 KUEHNER DR #211 5040 COMMERCIAL CIRCLE STE E 78 E RIVER SPUR SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063 CONCORD, CA 94520 PRIEST RIVER, ID 83856 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CARL KOENIG MARJA KOIVUNEN GERALD KOOP WESTLAKE LAKE MANAGEMENT CSU CHICO CLCA 32353 TRIUNFO CANYON RD PO BOX 2277 104 COREMARK CT. WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 DAVIS, CA 95617 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SCOTT KREIGHBAUM TIM KSANDER RAKSHA KUEN EN 5593 ELLIOTT AVE CHEMINOVA, INC. BAYER CROP SCIENCE ATWATER, CA 95301 169S GREENWOOD WAY 266 S MONROE AVE YUBA CITY, CA 95993 FRESNO, CA 93706

[email protected] [email protected]

ARLENE KUROKAWA FRANKIE LAM BENJAMIN LAMBRECHTSEN BAYER CROP SCIENCE BRANDT B & J TRADING LLC 5194 N. VIA TREVI 19243 DOVEWOOD CT PO BOX 3356 FRESNO, CA 93711 SALINAS, CA 93908 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PAUL LANCASTER DAVID LANGONE RAN LATI LANCASTER AG TECH VINO FARMS LLC UC DAVIS 195 PALM CIRCLE 1377 E LODI AVE 1316 E ALISAL TULARE, CA 93274 LODI, CA 95240 SALINAS, CA 93905 [email protected] [email protected] ra [email protected]

97

CWSS 2015 ATIEN DEES

LINDA LAVANNE JOHN LAW JR MICHELLE LE STRANGE SYNGENTA VALLEYCREST COMPANIES U.C.C.E., EMERITUS 1565 BRENTFORD AVE 379 EUCLID AVE 44 37 - B S. LASPINA ST. WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 OAKLAND, CA 95610 TULARE, CA 93274 linda .lavanne@syngenta .com [email protected] [email protected]

STEPHEN LEE-THOMAS KENT LEGGE KEVIN LEHAR SOILFUME, INC. CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES WOOLF FARMING COMPANY 209 RIVERSIDE RD 930 WOOLLOMES PO BOX 219 WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 DELANO, CA 93215 FRESNO, CA 93234 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MICHAEL LEHMAN RICK LEONARD JUDY LETIERMAN CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT BAYER CROP SCIENCE PAPA P.O. BOX H20 12204 MARSHFIELD WY PO BOX 80095 CONCORD, CA 94524 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 SALINAS, CA 93912 [email protected] [email protected] m · [email protected]

RICK LETTERMAN ALLEN LEVY DON LEWIS TESSENDERLO KERLEY CALTRANS SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION 18570 RANCHITO DEL RIO DR 2418 22ND AVE. 61BROOKVINE CIR SALINAS, CA 93908 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 CHICO, CA 95973 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN LEWIS NEWPORT- ERNIE LEYVA TRI- BOB LINO TRI- MESA USO CAL INC. CAL INC. 27969 CAMP PLENTY RD P.O. BOX 1327 P.O. BOX 1327 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 HOLLISTER, CA 95024 HOLLISTER, CA 95024 jtlewis550l @yahoo.com [email protected] [email protected]

ANGELA LLABAN PAUL LOFTHOUSE EMILIO LOPEZ STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DBW CALTRANS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1CAPITOL MALL STE 410 PO BOX 3733 777 E RIALTO AVE SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PASADENA, CA 91031 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 angela.llaban@ parks.ca.gov [email protected] [email protected]

STEPHEN LUCICH FRANK LUENSER WALT LUIHN NORCAL NURSERY CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES SO SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT PO BOX 1012 1336 W MAIN ST PO BOX 747 RED BLUFF, CA 96080 SANTA MARIA, CA 93458 RIPON, CA 95366 [email protected] [email protected]

MATI MACEDO RICK MACK LARRY MADDOX SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES WILBUR ELLIS CO. P.O. BOX 747 2149 VISTA VALLE VERDE 5342 S FIG AVE RIPON, CA 95366 FALLBROOK, CA 92028 FRESNO, CA 93706 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN MADSEN USDA- CAROLYN MADSEN MARK MAHADY ARS EIWRU 34 HILLER CT MARK M. MAHADY & ASSOCIATES INC. PLANT SCI M/S 4 1SHIELDS AVE WOODLAND, CA 95776 P.O. BOX 1290 274 ROBBINS HALL [email protected] CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924

DAVIS, CA 95616 [email protected] [email protected]

MICHAEL MALONE TOME MARTIN-DUVALL MIKE MARTINEZ CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES MD AG SERVICES, INC. FMCCORP 35 S. KELLOGG 11534 ROAD 32 7259 N DEARING AVE GOLETA, CA 93117 MADERA, CA 93636 FRESNO, CA 93720 ba [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

98

CWSS 2015 ATIEN DEES

JOE MARTINEZ ISAAC MARTINEZ PHILIP MASCHMEYER MARTINEZ AG SERVICES VALLEY GREEN SOLUTIONS NO SALINAS VLY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 9337 CAMPBELL ROAD 1680 W SAN MADELE 342 AIRPORT BLVD WINTERS, CA 95694 FRESNO, CA 93711 SALINAS, CA 93905 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JIM MATSUYAMA SUZANNE MCCASLIN BRYAN MCCLEERY DOW AGRO SCIENCES SAN LUIS OBISPO FARM SUPPLY AMVAC CHEMICAL P.O. BOX 3203 224 TANK FARM RD 5057 ABU ELA DR VENTURA, CA 93006 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN DIEGO, CA 92124 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GREG MCCOSKER KEVIN MCCOSKER CHRIS MCDONALD HARVEY LYMAN COMPANY HARVEY LYMAN COMPANY UCCE PO BOX 279 PO BOX 279 777 E RIALTO AVE WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690 WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

WALTER MCDONALD DAVID MCEUEN SCOTT MCKELVIE ORO AGRI MCDONALD FARMS J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY 3816 S WILLOW AVE STE 101 2112 11TH P.O. BOX 877 FRESNO, CA 93725 LOS BANOS, CA 93635 CORCORAN, CA 93212 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

THOMAS MCNABB JACOB MCNALLY NEALE MCNUTT CLEAN LAKES, INC J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY TRI-TECH AG PRODUCTS, INC. 2150 FRANKLIN CANYON RD PO BOX 877 374 N COOP DR MARTINEZ, CA 94553 CORCORAN, CA 93212 CAMARILLO, CA 93010 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JIM MCNUTT BRYAN MELIKIAN SHERI MELKONIAN AMVAC CHEMICAL J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY M & S AG CONSULTING 9930 N ROWELL AVE PO BOX 877 PO BOX 4825 FRESNO, CA 93720 [email protected] CORCORAN, CA 93212 FRESNO, CA 93744 [email protected]

ALLAN MELTON JASON MELVIN JASON MENDES SOILFUME, INC. CONSTELLATION BRANDS J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY 5575 BROADWAY 980 BRYANT CYN RD PO BOX 877 LIVE OAK, CA 95953 SOLEDAD, CA 93960 CORCORAN, CA 93212 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

KAY MERCER BEAU MILLER RICK MILLER KMI DOW AGRO SCIENCES DOW AGRO SCIENCES 750 SHANNON HILL DR P.O. BOX 292609 9854 OAKPLACE EAST PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 SACRAMENTO, CA 95829 FOLSOM, CA 95630 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JASON MILLER BRAD MINTON PAUL MIRASSOU UPI SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION GROWER PCA 8839 N CEDAR AVE #102 20310 LAKE SPRING COURT P.O. BOX 1429 FRESNO, CA 93720 CYPRESS, TX 77433 GILROY, CA 95021 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN MITCHELL JOHN MOORE SHERYL MOORE 15101 VIA NAPOLI DR GROWERS CROP CONSULTING DWR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 7816 CAROL SUE CT 31770 GONZAGA RD [email protected] BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 GUSTINE, CA 95322 [email protected]

99

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

DAVID MOORE TOM MOORHOUSE JUAN MORALES WILBUR- NEUDORFF USA CLEAN LAKES, INC ELLIS CO. PO BOX 2264 PO BOX 3548 841W ELKHORN BLVD APTOS, CA 95001 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 RIO LINDA, CA 95673 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

OSCAR MORALES MARCELO MORETII SARAH MORRAN UC DAVIS UC DAVIS UC DAVIS 1845 N WOODLAWN DR 4141 COWELL BLVD APT #78 DEPT PLANT SCI MS4 ONE SHIELDS AVE SANTA MARIA, CA 93458 DAVIS, CA 95610 DAVIS, CA 95616 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DWAIN MORTON DEAN MOSDELL ELIZABETH MOSQUEDA DOW AGROSCIENCES SYNGENTA CSU FRENO 2376 WILLET WAY 501-1 S. REINO RD. #183 1150 E HERNDON AVE #177 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 NEWBURY PARK, CA 91320 FRESNO, CA 93720 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JAMES MUELLER BRIAN MULLENS KEN MURRAY DOW AGROSCIENCES COUNTY OF EL DORADO CALTRANS 316 MT SIERRA PL 4518 EIGHT MILE RD 1120 N ST. CLAYTON, CA 94517 CAMINO, CA 95709 SACRAMENTO, CA 94581 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GLENN MURTA JOHN MYERS WILLIAM NAIRN NPS KUSTOM TILLING BASF 1700 BROADWAY # 102 366 N. POWERS AVE 7081 N MARKS #341 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 MANTECA, CA 95336 FRESNO, CA 93711 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BEN NAKAYAMA BILL NANTI MIGUEL NEGRETE PACIFIC AG RESEARCH CALTRANS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 1840 BIDDLE RANCH RD 1744 WINDJAMMER 1995 MARKET ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 LODI, CA 95242 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 [email protected] bill.na [email protected] [email protected]

STEWART NELSON COURTNEY NICHOLS BRIAN NIETO ALL SEASONS WEED CONTROL CAL POLY SLO - STUDENT NIETO AG CONSULTING P 0 BOX 1548 PO BOX 15355 571 KENT ST GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406 SALINAS, CA 93905 [email protected] [email protected]

CHARLES NIETO ROBERT NORRIS CHERYL NORTON NIETO AG CONSULTING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SOLERA SOURCE DYNAMICS 9735 HILLVIEW TERRACE 25112 CENTRAL WAY 3119 MIDWAY ISLAND ST SALINAS, CA 93907 DAVIS, CA 95616 W SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GREGORY NOWELL JEFF NULL RAY O'BOSKY ALL SEASONS WEED CONTROL SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT GOWAN USA P.O. BOX 1548 810 VACA VALLEY PARKWAY #201 100 N ROEBEN ST GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 VACAVILLE, CA 95688 VISALIA, CA 93291 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MARIE OCAFRAIN JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI CLINT OLEN BERGER CPS CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES SIMPLOT GROWER SOLUTIONS 712 E CHAPEL ST 4488 FOOTHILL RD 25967 AVENUE 70 SANTA MARIA, CA 93456 CARPINTERIA, CA 93013 TERRA BELLA, CA 93270 [email protected] baja [email protected] [email protected]

100

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

STEVE OLIVEIRA BERNARD OLSEN RICHARD O'MALLEY PANCHO RICO VINEYARDS NOVA SOURCE/TKI SYNGENTA PO BOX 272 3045 LINNE RD PO BOX 21436 SAN ARDO, CA 93450 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WOODLAND, CA 95695 [email protected] [email protected] richard.o'[email protected]

STEVE ORLOFF GERARDO OROZCO GARY OSTEEN UCCE SISKIYOU TRICAL, INC. RUSH, MARCROFT & ASSOCIATES 1655 S MAIN ST PO BOX 1327 P 0 BOX 20006 YREKA, CA 96097 HOLLISTER, CA 95024 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93390 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PAUL OSTERLIE JEFFREY PACHECO JOHN PALANIUK AMERICAN FERTILIZER & FOLIAR CO., LLC DUPONT CROP PROTECTION MPRPD 2505 SHERIDAN WAY 2740 E MOUNTAIN SKY AVE 3270 DEL MONTE BLVD APT 19 STOCKTON, CA 95207 PHOENIX, AZ 85048 MARINA, CA 93933 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PAUL PALOMO ANDREW PALRANG JOEY PALUMBO NO SALINAS VLY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST BAYER CROP SCIENCE MPM FARMING COMPANY 342 AIRPORT BLVD 266 S MONROE AVE 2435 FAIRMONT AVE SALINAS, CA 93905 FRESNO, CA 93706 CLOVIS, CA 93611 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

NIK PARIS SARAH PARRY JON PASQUINELLI JG BOSWELL COMPANY CSU FRESNO STUDENT ORO AGRI PO BOX 877 506 E SIMPSON AVE 3816 S WILLOW AVE STE 101 CORCORAN, CA 93212 FRESNO, CA 93704 FRESNO, CA 93725 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN PATINO BRIAN PATZ SLAVISA PAVLOVIC CPS CALTRANS DIST 9 J.G. BOSWELL COMPANY 1335 W MAIN 500 S. MAIN ST. 9519 CLEMENS WAY SANTA MARIA, CA 93458 BISHOP, CA 93514 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311 bria n.patz@ dot.ca.gov [email protected] [email protected]

DENNIS PENNER RAFAEL PEDROSO ROGER PENNER ABATE-A-WEED UC DAVIS PENNER ADVISORY SERVICE 9411 ROSEDALE HWY 4400 SOLANO PARK CIR APT 4313 26124 WALCH AVE DAVIS, CA 95616 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 ORLAND, CA 95963 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RICHARD PERONA KEITH PERANICK JOHN PERRY GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION BRANDT SIMPLOT GROWER SOLUTIONS 1882 BUENA TIERRA ST P.O. BOX 35000 P.O. BOX 603 BENICIA, CA 94510 FRESNO, CA 93745 KINGSBURG, CA 93631 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN PETRONI LAURA PETRO GEORGE PICCARDO HENRY MILLER RECLAMATION DIST CDFA PICCARDOFARMS 11704 HENRY MILLER 1220 N ST STE 221 3651 ST. ANDREWS DOS PALOS, CA SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 DR STOCKTON, CA 93620 laura [email protected] 95219 [email protected] [email protected]

BARBARA POLLOCK MICHAEL PRUETI POLLOCK FARM NICHOEL PRYOR LANDSCAPES USA PO BOX 297 SYNGENTA 9164 REHCO RD DIXON, NM 87527 21435 COUNTY RD 98 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 [email protected] WOODLAND, CA 95695 [email protected] [email protected]

101

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

JOHN RACHUY MATI RACKERBY PHILLIP RADONICH U.C. DAVIS FMC CORPORATION SOILFUME, INC. 1636 E. ALISAL ST 725 N CRUMAL 7554 VIA GUISEPPE LN SALINAS, CA 93905 VISALIA, CA 93292 SALINAS, CA 93907 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

HUGO RAMIREZ ABRAHAM RAMIREZ JESUS RAMIREZ DUPONT CROP PROTECTION ALL AROUND LANDSCAPE SUPPLY COUNTY OF MONTEREY AG COMM OFFICE 28687 ROAD 148 1229 REBECCA LN UNIT H 1428 ABBOTT ST VISALIA, CA 93292 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 SALINAS, CA 93901 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FRED RAMOS LEANDRO RAMOS ROBERT RATKOVICH RAMOS ORCHARDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DBW TRI NCH ERO FAMILY ESTATES PO BOX 488 1CAPITOL MALL STE 410 PO BOX 96 WINTERS, CA 95694 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FARMINGTON, CA 95230 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RICH RECORDS LON RECORDS DONALD REEDER AG RI-TURF DISTRIBUTING, LLC AGRl-TURF DISTRIBUTING, LLC C & R RANCH MANAGEMENT 10551 HATHAWAY DR 10551 HATHAWAY DR 375 CAROL DR SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 VENTURA, CA 93003 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FRED REHRMAN MARGARET REIFF RICK REIMER DOW AGRO SCIENCES CDPR REIMER PEST & WEED CONTROL 1059 COURT ST. #104 P.O. BOX 4015 1178 HILL VIEW WAY WOODLAND, CA 95695 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 CHICO, CA 95926 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MICHAEL REINEKE RILEY REYNOLDS ANDY RICHARD VALLEY FARM SUPPLY INC ORO AGRI STATE OF CALIFORNIA-DOT P.O. BOX 370 3816 N. WILLOW AVE. STE. 101 500 S. MAIN ST NIPOMO, CA 93444 FRESNO, CA 93725 BISHOP, CA 93514 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JESSE RICHARDSON PETER RIGALI SONIA RIOS DOW AGRO SCIENCES DWR UCCE RIVERSIDE/SAN DIEGO CO 9846 LINCOLN AVE 1100TELEGRAPH RD #90 397 S. STANFORD AVE #97 HESPERIA, CA 92345 VENTURA, CA 93004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ALDO RISI JR AMY RITCHARDSON DANIEL RIVERA ALTA VISTA COLD STORAGE, INC WILBUR- ELLIS SAN BERNARDINO CO AG DEPT 2557 ROAD 136 841 W ELKHORN BLVD 777 E RIALTO AVE DELANO, CA 93215 RIO LINDA, CA 95673 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 [email protected] [email protected]

FRANCISCO RIVERA JASON ROBBINS KEITH ROBBINS COMPASS MINERALS TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS VINO FARMS 2029 H ST STE 103 2478 N SUNNYSIDE 1451 STANLY LN BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 FRESNO, CA 93727 NAPA, CA 94558 [email protected] [email protected] m [email protected]

ANNABEL RODRIGUEZ TOM ROGERS DYLAN ROGERS CSU FRESNO/BAYER CROP SCIENCE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT J.G. BOSWELL CO 21886 E. SPRINGFIELD 3321 FRANKLIN RD 5902 QUEBEC AVE REEDLEY, CA 93654 MERCED, CA 95348 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

102

CWSS 2015 ATTEN DEES

ERNIE RONCORONI JOHN RONCORONI ERNIE RONCORONI SR. TREMONT/LYMAN GROUPS INC. U.C.C.E. NAPA UC DAVIS - RETIRED 201 EAST ST 1710 SOSCOL AVE STE 4 702 RUBICON PLACE WOODLAND, CA 95776 NAPA, CA 94559 WOODLAND, CA 95695 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

VICKI ROSE WILBUR- GIOVANNI ROSSINI JANET ROWLEY ELLIS CO. TANGLE RIDGE FARM SERVICES DOW AGRO SCIENCES P.O. BOX 1175 523 W FALLBROOK AVE 11525 E QUIET VALLEY PL WHEATLAND, CA 95692 CLOVIS, CA 93611 TUCSON, AZ 85749 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CODY ROYCE JOSHUA RUBIN DAVE RUMBLE CALTRANS DIST 9 UC DAVIS SALIDA AG CHEM, INC. 500 S MAIN ST 200 WEBSTER ST 4443 CHAPMAN RD BISHOP, CA 93514 PETALUMA, CA 94952 MODESTO, CA 95356 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DALE RUSH PETER RYAN DON SALFEN RUSH, MARCROFT & ASSOC. CERRITOS COLLEGE LYMAN COMPANY 28951 FALCON RIDGE RD 15110 PIONEER BLVD 13045 BORDEN RD SALINAS, CA 93908 NORWALK, CA 90650 HERALD, CA 95638 [email protected] [email protected]

JEROME SALVADOR ROBERT SANDERS JAMES SCHAEFFER SALVADOR RANCHES AND CONSULTING 271E 4TH AVE UC ANR 6317 N DEWEY CHICO, CA 95926 6345 N TENTH ST FRESNO, CA 93711 [email protected] FRESNO, CA 93710 [email protected] [email protected]

JOHN SCHEIMER SHARON SCHNABEL ANDREA SEALOCK PO BOX 248 M & S AG CONSULTING CYGNET ENTERPRISES WEST, INC. ARBUCKLE, CA 95912 4937 CIBOLA WAY 5040 COMMERCIAL CIRCLE STE E [email protected] SACRAMENTO, CA 95820 CONCORD, CA 94520 [email protected] [email protected]

RICHARD SEFTON DAVID SELDEN ADAM SEVIER BRANDT ALL AROUND LANDSCAPE SUPPLY BUENA VISTA WATER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 35000 4760 CARPINTERIA AVE 525 N MAIN ST FRESNO, CA 93745 CARPINTERIA, CA 93013 BUTIONWILLOW, CA 93206 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JANET SHARP PAUL SHARPE DEB SHATLEY BASF SAN BERNARDINO CO AG DEPT DOW AGRO SCIENCES 423 WELLS LANE 777 E RIALTO AVE P.O. BOX 519 RIPON, CA 95366 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 LINCOLN, CA 95648 [email protected] [email protected]

MARK SHEPHERD ERYN SHIMIZU KRISTINA SHORT BASF CDPR WESTBRIDGE AG PRODUCTS 3370 S MCCALL 10011 ST 25 ALAMEDA PARK CIR SANGER, CA 93657 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 CHICO, CA 95928 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ANIL SHRESTHA MICHAEL SILVEIRA ROBERT SIMAS CSU FRESNO WILBUR ELLIS CO. SIMAS FAMILY VINEYARD 2415 E SAN RAMON AVE M/5 AS 72 4553 CO. RD. RR 418 BUENA VISTA WAY FRESNO, CA 93740 ORLAND, CA 95963 WOODLAND, CA 95695 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

103

CWSS 2015 ATTEN DEES

RHONDA SIMMONS ANDREW SKIBO BYRON SLEUGH HELENA CHEMICAL CO R & D SEPRO CORPORATION DOW AGROSCIENCES 505 C ST 1145 ARUBA DR 7521 W CALIFORNIA AVE CULVER, OR 97734 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 FRESNO, CA 93706 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RICHARD SMITH PAUL SMITH TED SMITH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HELENA CHEMICAL CO. AMVAC CHEMICAL 1432 ABBOTT 3100 ORANGE GROVE AVE 40 WESTPORT SALINAS, CA 93901 NORTH HIGHLANDS, CA 95660 IRVINE, CA 92620 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

STEPHEN SMITH JOHN SMITH SCOTT SNYDER ARVIN EDISON WSD DELTA AG SERVICE SAN BERNARDINO CO AG DEPT PO BOX 175 PO BOX 690 777 E RIALTO AVE ARVIN, CA 93203 RIPON, CA 95366 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 [email protected] [email protected]

RICHARD SPAS DON SPEAR JUSTIN SPELLMAN CDPR COUNTY OF EL DORADO DOT J.G. BOSWEL COMPANY 10011 ST P.O. BOX 4015 4465 KRISTIN LEE CT. P.O. BOX 877 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 CORCORAN, CA 93212 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RUSSELL SPENCE GARY SPONSLER STEVEN STARCHER ALLIED WEED CONTROL CITY OF FAIRFIELD SAN JOAQUIN RIVER STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM 10218 LIBERTY AVE 420 GREGORY ST 1440 N. FLOYD AVE. LIVINGSTON, CA 95334 FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 FRESNO, CA 93723 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

WAYNE STEELE SCOTT STEIN MAUS FORREST STEPHANIAN DUPONT CROP PROTECTION CPSU, SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA VETERAN SUPPLY INC. 2114 E OMAHA AVE 1GRAND AVE - HORT & CROP SCI DEPT 1109 4TH STREET FRESNO, CA 93720 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93407 CLOVIS, CA 93612 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SEAN STEVENS SCOTT STODDARD JAKE STREETER WELL-PICT, INC. UCCE MERCED RAMOS ORCHARDS PO BOX 651 2145 WARDROBE AVE PO BOX 488 OXNARD, CA 93061 MERCED, CA 95340 WINTERS, CA 95694 [email protected] [email protected]

STEVE STRINGER DEE STROWBRIDGE JAMES STURGES BRANDT CAP CA AMVAC CHEMICAL COMPANY PO BOX 35000 2300 RIVER PLAZA DR. #120 2831 ASHLAND DR FRESNO, CA 93745 SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

TERRY SUTION KB SWAIN GLENN SWEANY KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT NORSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC. SANTA BARBARA CO. FLOOD CONTROL 501TAFT HWY 2302 A ST SE 912 W FOSTER RD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 AUBURN, WA 98002 SANTA MARIA, CA 93455 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CHUCK SYNOLD BRYAN TAHMAZIAN JIM TATMAN TRI- AGRl-TURF DISTRIBUTING SIMPLOT CAL INC. 2475 N BUNDY DR PO BOX 550 1709 SHYVIEW DR FRESNO, CA 93727 KINGSBURG, CA 93631 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

104

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

TIM TAYLOR TERRI THOMAS STEVE THOMAS MONTEREY COAG COMM OFFICE DUPONT CROP PROTECTION ATTAWAY FIELD RESEARCH 1428 ABBOTI ST 13130 RD 19 1050 E. GOBBI SALINAS, CA 93901 MADERA, CA 93637 UKIAH, CA 95482 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JASON THOMAS BRYAN THOMPSON ROBERT TICK ES SYNGENTA PEST OPTIONS INC. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA - STUDENT 8391 N FISHER 135 N MANCHESTER 2280 W SILVERBELL OASIS WAY FRESNO, CA 93720 ANAHEIM, CA 92802 TUCSON, AZ 95745 [email protected] [email protected]

JEFF TIENKEN MALA TO KEVIN TONG T & T AG SERVICES STUDENT CALTRANS P 0 BOX 915 CSU FRESNO 15182 LILLE CIR. LINDSAY, CA 93247 [email protected] IRVINE, CA 92604 [email protected] [email protected]

JOEL TRUMBO JAMES TUTTLE BUZZ UBER CA DEPT FISH & WILDLIFE BRANDT CROP INSPECTION SERVICE 1812 NINTH ST P.O. BOX 35000 31130 HILLTOP DR SACRAMENTO, CA 95811 FRESNO, CA 93745 VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

IGNACIO VALADEZ AVELINO VALENCIA THOMAS VALENTA SOILFUME, INC. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 209 RIVERSIDE RD 1995 MARKET ST 3321 FRANKLIN RD WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 MERCED, CA 95348 [email protected] [email protected]

DAVE VAN WIE RON VARGAS RICHARD VASQUEZ DAVID VAN WIE AG R & C UCCE EMERITUS CITY OF FAIRFIELD 140 SUN RIDGE LN. 20251AVE 17 1/2 420 GREGORY ST NIPOMO, CA 93444 MADERA, CA 93637 FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOE VASSIOS DANIEL VEIK ORLANDO VELAZQUEZ UNITED PHOSPHORUS INC. SOILFUME KLEENGLOBE 2817 CATALINA DR. 209 RIVERSIDE RD 11280 COMMERCIAL PKWY ROCKLIN, CA 95765 WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 CASTROVILLE, CA 95012 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ANTHONY VILLALOVOS HUMBERTO VILLELA DAVID VITOLO SANTA BARBARA CO FLOOD CONTROL COUNTY OF VENTURA PW SYNGENTA 9266 MILPAS ST 11251-B RIVERBANK DR 1036 VANDERBILT WAY SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 VENTURA, CA 93004 SACRAMENTO, CA 9S825 [email protected] [email protected]

GORDON VOSTI GREG WAHL PAUL WALGENBACH BAYER ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE BASF BAYER CROP SCIENCE 731 VIA BANDOLERO 3329 MCCOWAN WAY 789 LAKECREST DR. ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95762 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

KATHERINE WALKER MARK WANDER KENNETH WARREN BASF SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. FARM SUPPLY 318 SEABRIGHT AVE 16310 ROBRE LANE P.O. BOX 698 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 katherine.wa [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

105

CWSS 2015 ATTENDEES

KEVIN WARREN ANNE WATSON SAMUEL WELLS J.R. SIMPLOT CO. J. PAUL GETIY TRUST BAYER CROP SCIENCE 11574 STROUD AVE 1200 GETIY CENTER DR 266 S MONROE AVE KINGSBURG, CA 93631 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 FRESNO, CA 93706 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ROBERT WELTY NANCY WESTCOTI ROGER WHEELER WELTY ENTERPRISES GOAT THROAT PUMPS ROGER WHEELER LANDSCAPING 217 MEADOWLARK RD 60 SHELL AVE PO BOX 249 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 MILFORD, CT 6460 KELSEYVILLE, CA 95451 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MARK WHITE ROY WHITSON DANIEL WICKHAM BAYER CROP SCIENCE BAYER CROP SCIENCE WILBUR ELLIS COMPANY 10598 E 36TH PL 2732 W. BROWNING 2275 EAST LOCUST COURT YUMA, AZ 95365 FRESNO, CA 93711 ONTARIO, CA 91761 [email protected] [email protected] dwickham@ wilburellis.com

FRANK WILLIAMS KREIG WILLIAMS MIKE WILLIAMS WIND FALL FARMS 1 TRI-CAL INC. COMPASS MINERALS 3009 E. CARDELLA 831KRAMER DR 2029 H ST #103 FIREBAUGH, CA 93622 LODI, CA 95242 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ROB WILSON ERIC WILSON RON WOLFE UC ANR FRIANT WATER AUTHORITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DWR 2816 HAVLINA RD 854 N. HARVARD AVE. 13906 VIA LA MADERA TULELAKE, CA 97603 LINDSAY, CA 93247 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93314 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JOE WOODS STEVEN WRIGHT CRAIG WYATT PO BOX 1148 UCCE TULARE & KINGS TALBOTI VINEYARDS EL DORADO, CA 95623 4437-B SOUTH LASPINA ST 1960 SUNNYSLOPE RD [email protected] TULARE, CA 93274 HOLLISTER, CA 95023 [email protected] [email protected]

RICH YAMASHITA KEN YELLE PATRICK YOUNG WESTERN NUTRIENTS CORP AGRI SEARCH PAT YOUNG VEG MGMT CONSULTING PO BOX 2163 P 0 BOX 775 31665 ROCK CREEK RD MORGAN HILL, CA 95038 ELK GROVE, CA 95759 MANTON, CA 96059 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

JAKE ZACCARIA HECTOR ZAVALA ANN ZEMKE-CHASE ZACCARIA AG CONSULTING SOILFUME, INC. CHASE AG CONSULTING 5408 SUMMERWIND WAY 1210 JUNIPER DR 649 E COTIONWOOD ST STE 1 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 GILROY, CA 95020 COTIONWOOD, AZ 86326 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MATT ZOOST ALLI GARE 1407 CONCORD SANTA MARIA, CA 93454 [email protected]

106