Proceedings of the Sixty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed

Proceedings

of the

Sixty-fourth Annual Meeting

of the

Northeastern Weed Science Society

Gregory R. Armel, Editor University of Tennessee Knoxville NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY 2010 Sustaining Members Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze ACDS Gylling Data Management BAAR Scientific, LLC LABServices Crop Management Strategies WEEDS, Inc.

ii NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY The Boston Cambridge Marriott Cambridge, Massachusetts

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICERS

President D.E. Yarborough The University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono, ME 04469 [email protected]

President-Elect H.A. Sandler UMass Cranberry Station P.O. Box 569 East Wareham, MA 02538 [email protected]

Vice President Mark VanGessel University of Delaware, REC 16483 County Seat Hwy Georgetown, DE 19947 [email protected]

Secretary/Treasurer M.A. Bravo PA Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 [email protected] or [email protected]

Past President J.J. Baron IR-4 Project Headquarters 500 College Rd. East, 201W Princeton, NJ 08540 [email protected]

iii COMMITTEES

Editor G.R. Armel University of Tennessee 363 Ellington Plant Sci. Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996

Legislative D.L. Kunkel IR-4 Project Headquarters 500 College Rd East, 201W Princeton, NJ 08540

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

Research & R.S. Chandran Education West Virginia University Coordinator P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506

Sustaining C.A. Judge Membership BASF Corporation 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

CAST Representative R.G. Prostak University of Massachusetts Bowditch Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003

Graduate Student A.R. Post Representative Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061

WSSA Representative S.D. Askew Virginia Tech 203 PMB Glade Rd. Res. Ctr. Blacksburg, VA 24061

iv SECTION CHAIRS

Agronomy Chair: G. Jordan Chair-elect: B. Dillehay

Graduate Student Paper Contest Chair: Renee Keese Member: J. Baron Member: W. Curran Member: T. Dutt Member: R. Bellinder

Ornamentals Chair: T. Mervosh Chair-elect: G. Armel

Research Posters Chair: C. Palmer Chair-elect: K. Burnell

Turfgrass and Plant Chair: D. Lycan Growth Regulators Chair-elect: J. Borger

Vegetables and Fruit Chair: R. Belinder Chair-elect: E. Lurvey

Vegetation Management and Chair: R. Prostak Restoration Chair-elect: K. Lloyd

Weed Biology and Ecology Chair: J. D'Appollonio Chair-elect: R. Smith

v Below: Award winning photos and photographers from the 2009 NEWSS photo contest. (From left to right) 1st place and the cover photo for the 2010 proceedings—Spotted knapweed by Randy Prostak, University of Massachusetts; 2nd place—White clover by Dustin Lewis, University of Tennessee; 3rd place—Musk Thistle by Javier Vargas, University of Tennessee.

Northeastern Weed Science Society Awards Banquet Winners Below: David Mayonado Below: Andrew Senesac Below: Scott Glenn received the Distinguished received the Distinguished received the Outstanding Member Award Member Award Educator Award

Below: Joseph Neal Below: Thomas Hines Below: John Willis received received the Outstanding received the Service the Robert D. Sweet Researcher Award Recognition Award Outstanding Graduate Student Award

vi A

GRADUATE DIVISION: 1st place team: Penn State (Franklin Egan, Benjamin Crocket, Ryan Bates, Nelson Debarros) (A); 2nd place team: Guelph (Scott Cressman, Chase Phillips, Joel Hemingway, Ben Rosser) (B); 3rd place team: Guelph (Meghan Moran, Melody DeJony, Marijke VanAndel) (C); 1st place individual: Angela Post—Cornell (D); 2nd place individual: Nelson Debarros—Penn State (D); 3rd place individual: Ryan Bates—Penn State (D)

UNDERGRADUATE DIVISION: 1st place team: Guelph #1 (Andrew Reid, Blair Freeman, Scott Timmings) (E); 2nd place team: Guelph #2 (Ryan Stafford, Craig Arnett, Amanda Green) (F); 3rd place team: Guelph #3 (Wesley Emmott, Thomas Judd, Ryan Benjamens, Eric Schroeders) (G); 1st place individual: Andrew Reid—Guelph (H); 2nd place individual: Blair Freeman—Guelph (H); 3rd place individual: Amanda Green—Guelph (H)

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ...... III COMMITTEES ...... IV SECTION CHAIRS ...... V NEWSS POSTERS ...... 1

2009 COLLEGIATE WEED COMPETITION. B. SCOTT AND M. VANGESSEL ...... 1

ASSESSMENT OF CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE INDUCTION IN BLACK NIGHTSHADE TREATED WITH AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR AND DIFLUFENZOPYR ALONE AND IN MIXTURES. J. VARGAS, G. ARMEL, AND J. BROSNAN ...... 2

WEED SPECIES COMMON IN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL CORN FIELDS IN YATES COUNTY, NY. S. WHITEHOUSE, A. DITOMMASO, AND L. DRINKWATER ...... 3

A FRESH LOOK AT HERBICIDE BANDING IN CORN. R. CHANDRAN AND S. HAGOOD . 4

DIMETHENAMID-P: LIQUID AND GRANULAR FORMULATIONS FOR TURFGRASS WEED CONTROL. K. KALMOWITZ, J. ZAWIERUCHA, AND K. MILLER ...... 5

ADVANCEMENTS IN QUINCLORAC FORMULATION PERFORMANCE FOR TURFGRASS WEED CONTROL. J. ZAWIERUCHA, G. OLIVER, T. CANNAN, AND K. KALMOWITZ ...... 6

MESOTRIONE FOR MANAGING WEEDS DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS AND TALL FESCUE TURF IN THE TRANSITION ZONE. A. REIS, J. BROSNAN, G. BREEDEN, AND M. ELMORE ...... 7

INTERACTION OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS AND CUMYLURON ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS. B. MCNULTY, J. JESTER, S. ASKEW, AND B. MACK ...... 9

THE PERENNIAL CHALLENGE OF MANAGING PERENNIAL WEEDS IN CERTIFIED ORGANIC FEED AND FORAGE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. R. SMITH, D. MORTENSEN, D. SANDY, AND M. BARBERCHECK ...... 10

COMMON RAGWEED COMPETITION IN LIMA BEAN. B. SCOTT, M. VANGESSEL, AND Q. JOHNSON ...... 11

THE EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE MIXTURES WITH BRASSICA MEAL ON WEED CONTROL AND YIELD OF STRAWBERRY. J. CUMMINS, G. ARMEL, C. SAMS, D. DEYTON, AND J. VARGAS ...... 12

viii SPOT TREATMENTS OF BROADLEAF WEEDS AND GRASSES IN WILD BLUEBERRY FIELDS USING A MESOTRIONE/CLETHODIM TANK MIX. D. YARBOROUGH AND J. D'APPOLLONIO ...... 13

SHORT-TERM FLOODS AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS: DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED PROGRAM FOR DODDER CONTROL IN CRANBERRY. J. O'CONNELL, H. SANDLER, L. ADLER, AND F. CARUSO ...... 14

2009 NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE VEGETATION SHORT COURSE. M. BRAVO ...... 15

USE OF MESOTRIONE FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AT KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS ESTABLISHMENT. K. VENNER, S. HART, AND C. MANSUE ...... 16

COMPARISON OF GENETIC DIVERSITY OF WEEDY AND DOMESTICATED POPULATIONS IN GENUS CICHORIUM (ASTERACEAE). T. ZAVADA ...... 17

GRADUATE PRESENTATIONS - I ...... 18

CONTROL OF GROUND IVY WITH APPLICATIONS OF QUINCLORAC AND SULFENTRAZONE. M. ELMORE, R. KOEPKE, J. BROSNAN, G. BREEDEN, G. ARMEL, AND B. WALLS ...... 18

RESPONSE OF SAWBRIER, DEWBERRY, AND CRANBERRY VINES TO INFRARED AND OPEN-FLAME WEED CONTROL. K. GHANTOUS, H. SANDLER, W. AUTIO, AND P. JERANYAMA ...... 19

RETHINKING INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH APPROACHES. K. AVERILL, D. MORTENSEN, AND A. GOVER ...... 21

EVALUATION OF REDUCED RATE HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS FOR CHEMICAL MOWING OF GRASSES AND BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN GRAPE ROW MIDDLES. J. VARGAS, D. LOCKWOOD, G. SHEPPARD, AND G. ARMEL ...... 22

GRADUATE PRESENTATIONS - II ...... 23

APPLICATION PLACEMENT AND HUMIDITY EFFECTS ON MESOTRIONE BIOEFFICACY. A. POST, M. GODDARD, AND S. ASKEW ...... 23

DYNAMICS OF WEED AND DISEASE ENCROACHMENT IN TALL FESCUE AS IMPACTED BY MOWING HEIGHT AND FERTILITY PRACTICES. M. CUTULLE AND J. DERR ...... 24

INTERACTION OF FENOXAPROP AND HALOSULFURON ON HERBICIDE EFFECTIVENESS. A. RANA AND J. DERR ...... 25

EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL WEED CONTROL TOOLS IN HIGH RESIDUE CORN AND SOYBEAN. R. BATES, R. GALLAGHER, AND W. CURRAN ...... 26

ix SPECIAL WORKSHOP I: WEED SEED-BANKS: DYNAMICS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT ...... 27

GIANT FOXTAIL AND VELVETLEAF SEED PERSISTENCE, AND RECRUITMENT AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE AND GREEN MANURES. S. MIRSKY, D. MORTENSEN, W. CURRAN, AND A. HULTING ...... 27

MANAGING WEED SEED RAIN. E. GALLANDT ...... 28

WEED COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY IN A LONG-TERM CROPPING SYSTEMS EXPERIMENT. M. RYAN, R. SMITH, S. MIRSKY, D. MORTENSEN, AND R. SEIDEL ...... 29

THE WEED SEEDBANK: A FARMER'S PERSPECTIVE. D. MORTENSEN, C. MORTENSEN, R. SMITH, D. SANDY, AND W. CURRAN ...... 30

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION ...... 31

SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL GRASSES ALONG HIGHWAY GUIDERAILS. J. JOHNSON, K. LLOYD, AND J. SELLMER ...... 31

MANAGEMENT OF PALE SWALLOW-WORT USING MOWING AND HERBICIDES IN TWO CONTRASTING HABITATS. A. DITOMMASO, T. BITTNER, AND L. MILBRATH ... 32

KUDZU ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M. BRAVO AND J. MILLER .. 33

SUPPRESSION OF JAPANESE KNOTWEED WITH GLYPHOSATE OR TRICLOPYR APPLIED SEQUENTIALLY OR FOLLOWING CUTTING. A. GOVER, J. JOHNSON, K. LLOYD, AND J. SELLMER ...... 34

GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M. BRAVO, M. POLACH, AND J. ZOSCHG ...... 35

SUPPRESSION OF MILE-A-MINUTE AND JAPANESE STILTGRASS, AND NON- TARGET IMPACTS WITH PREEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF PENDIMETHALIN, IMAZAPIC, OR SULFOMETURON. A. GOVER, J. JOHNSON, K. LLOYD, AND J. SELLMER ...... 36

SEVERAL TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS IN A WOODLAND. T. MERVOSH, J. WARD, AND J. BARSKY ...... 37

RESPONSE OF WOODY SPECIES TO FOLIAR OR CUT SURFACE APPLICATIONS OF MAT28. J. JOHNSON, K. LLOYD, A. GOVER, AND J. SELLMER ...... 38

SUPPRESSION OF KOCHIA IN THE ROADSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY USING NEW CHEMISTRY. K. LLOYD, J. JOHNSON, AND J. SELLMER ...... 39

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ...... 40

QUINCLORAC FOR DODDER CONTROL IN CRANBERRIES. B. MAJEK ...... 40

x INDAZIFLAM - A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN FRUIT, NUT, AND GRAPE CROPS. M. MAHONEY AND D. UNLAND ...... 41

WINTER ANNUAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN PEACH ORCHARDS. P. CHRISTOFFOLETI, M. VANGESSEL, AND B. SCOTT ...... 42

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EVALUATION OF TWO NOVEL CULTIVATION TOOLS. G. EVANS AND R. BELLINDER ...... 43

THE WEED MASTER: INNOVATIVE PHYSICAL WEED CONTROL TOOLS FOR THE SMALL FARM. E. GALLANDT ...... 44

POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN BROCCOLI WITH A FLOWABLE FORMULATION OF OXYFLUORFEN. B. MAJEK ...... 45

TANKMIXING PESTICIDES AND ADJUVANTS WITH GOALTENDER IN CABBAGE. R. BELLINDER AND G. EVANS ...... 46

RESISTANCE TO PHOTOSYSTEM II-INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN COMMON LAMBSQUARTERS FROM SUGAR BEET: A TALE OF THE (UN)EXPECTED?. R. BULCKE, E. MECHANT, T. DE MAREZ, AND J. APER ...... 47

THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HERBICIDE REGISTRATION (FOOD USES). M. ARSENOVIC, D. KUNKEL, AND J. BARON ...... 48

IMPROVED STAKEHOLDER INPUT - REVISED IR-4 PROJECT NOMINATION PROCESS. E. LURVEY ...... 49

WEED BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 50

APPLICATIONS OF PUCCINIA PUNCTIFORMIS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE. A. SPANGLER, S. CONAWAY, AND P. BACKMAN ...... 50

NON-NATIVE VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES RICHNESS IN FOUR NORTHEASTERN CITIES. R. STALTER, B. DREXLER, AND A. BRUNSON...... 51

MAPPING THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED RANGES OF TWO SWALLOW-WORT INVASIVE VINES. N. LITTLE, S. MORSE, A. DITOMMASO, AND L. MILBRATH ...... 55

RESULTS FROM A PILOT PROGRAM USING SMOLDER (ALTERNARIA DESTRUENS) AS A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT FOR DODDER. H. SANDLER, F. CARUSO, J. MIKA, J. COLQUHOUN, J. PERRY, AND J. CASCINO ...... 56

ASSESSING AND EVALUATING MULTIFUNCTIONALITY IN AGROECOSYSTEMS: AN EDUCATION AND EXTENSION EXERCISE. R. SMITH, T. PISANI GAREAU, D. MORTENSEN, AND M. BARBERCHECK...... 60

xi AN EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING APPROACH TO GERMINATION PERIODICITY. D. MORTENSEN, M. RYAN, S. MIRSKY, AND W. CURRAN ...... 61

TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS - I ...... 62

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS VIA DIRECTED HERBICIDE APPLICATION. S. ASKEW AND M. GODDARD ...... 62

CUMYLURON AND METIOZOLIN: POTENTIAL NEW HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS. B. MCNULTY, M. GODDARD, AND S. ASKEW ...... 63

GOOSEGRASS CONTROL IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND PERENNIAL RYE. S. MCDONALD ...... 64

INDAZIFLAM - A NEW PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. D. SPAK AND D. MYERS ...... 65

APPLICATIONS OF INDAZIFLAM FOR CONTROL OF ANNUAL GRASSES IN WARM-SEASON TURF. J. BROSNAN, G. BREEDEN, AND M. ELMORE ...... 66

MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL. M. B. NAEDEL, J. A. BORGER, K. R. HIVNER, AND D. L. LOUGHNER ...... 67

SEASONAL TIMING AND TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON THE EFFICACY AND COOL SEASON TURFGRASS SAFETY OF AMICARBAZONE. S. HART, P. MCCULLOUGH, C. MANSUE, AND Z. REICHER ...... 68

MESOTRIONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN SPRING SEEDED HARD FESCUE. S. MCDONALD AND P. DERNOEDEN ...... 69

USE OF MESOTRIONE IN HYDROSEEDING, CONVENTIONAL SEEDING, AND SOD ESTABLISHMENT OF COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS. S. MCDONALD AND M. AGNEW ...... 70

TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS - II ...... 71

TENACITY-SELECTIVE GRASS AND BROADLEAF CONTROL IN LAWNS AND SPORTS FIELDS. D. LYCAN, M. AGNEW, J. JAMES, D. MOSDELL, AND T. WOODS ...... 71

SELECTIVE GRASS WEED CONTROL IN TURF WITH METAMIFOP. S. ASKEW AND M. GODDARD ...... 72

BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL AND COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS SAFETY WITH AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR APPLIED ON A FERTILIZER GRANULAR. C. MANSUE AND S. HART ...... 73

CANADA THISTLE CONTROL IN FIRST YEAR HARD FESCUE. S. MCDONALD ...... 75

xii NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR TURFGRASS WEED SCIENCE. P. MCCULLOUGH, C. WALTZ, A. MARTINEZ, AND W. HUDSON ...... 76

WEED CONTROL AND COOL SEASON TURFGRASS RESPONSE TO METAMIFOP. S. ALEA, S. HART, AND C. MANSUE ...... 77

HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY AND GOLF BALL ADVANCEMENT IN FINE FESCUE SECONDARY ROUGHS. A. POST, S. MCDONALD, AND S. ASKEW ...... 79

POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE MIXTURES FOR STAR-OF-BETHLEHEM CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURF. G. BREEDEN, J. BROSNAN, G. ARMEL, AND J. VARGAS ...... 81

POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS IN TALL FESCUE. S. MCDONALD ...... 82

AGRONOMY ...... 83

DETERMINATION OF GROUND COVER IN COVER CROP SYSTEMS USING OPEN SOURCE IMAGE ANALYSIS TOOLS. E. NORD, W. CURRAN, AND D. MORTENSEN ...... 83

DISCOVERY OF SIGNIFICANT INFESTATION OF GOATSRUE IN MCKEAN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. M. BRAVO, J. MILLER, AND J. ZOSCHG ...... 84

WEEDY PASTURES: PASS THE BUTTER AND MUSTARD TO THE HORSES AND PIGS. D. LINGENFELTER AND W. CURRAN ...... 85

WINTER GRAIN/CORN DOUBLE CROP FORAGE PRODUCTION SYSTEM EFFECTS ON WEED DYNAMICS. J. JEMISON ...... 86

CONTROL OF ITALIAN RYEGRASS IN WINTER WHEAT WITH POWERFLEX AND CROP SAFETY TO DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEANS. B. OLSON, B. HAYGOOD, AND L. WALTON ...... 88

CAPRENO (THIENCARBAZONE-METHYL + TEMBOTRIONE + ISOXADIFEN- ETHYL): A NEW HERBICIDE FOR GRASS AND BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN CORN. M. MAHONEY, J. HORA, G. SIMKINS, B. PHILBROOK, D. LAMORE, AND J. BLOOMBERG ...... 89

SAFLUFENACIL FOR ANNUAL BROADLEAF WEEDS IN CORN. R. HAHN, P. STACHOWSKI, AND R. RICHTMYER III ...... 90

OPTIMUM® GAT® CORN HERBICIDE PROGRAMS FOR THE NORTHEASTERN STATES. D. SAUNDERS AND D. GANSKE ...... 91

NEW TOOLS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED IN FULL-SEASON NO-TILL SOYBEANS. R. RITTER AND J. IKLEY ...... 92

xiii ASSESSING SOME OPTIONS FOR THE CHEMICAL CONTROL OF SELECTED COVER CROPS IN NO-TILL CORN AND SOYBEAN. W. CURRAN AND D. LINGENFELTER ...... 93

ORNAMENTALS ...... 94

UPDATE ON 2009 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C. PALMER, J. BARON, E. VEA, AND E. LURVEY ...... 94

USING GROWTH REGULATOR BONZI ON ROOTED CUTTINGS OF RHODODENDRON. S. BAROLLI AND N. ZEKA ...... 95

POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN ACTIVELY GROWING CONIFERS. J. F. AHRENS AND T. L. MERVOSH ...... 96

PREEMERGENCE WEED MANAGEMENT IN SPRING-FLOWERING BULBS. J. DERR ...... 97

FATE OF PENDIMETHALIN IN A SHRUB CANOPY. J. ALTLAND AND D. RICHARD ..... 98

RESPONSE OF FIELD AND CONTAINER-GROWN HERBACEOUS ORNAMENTALS TO FREEHAND (DIMETHENAMID-P+PENDIMETHALIN). A. SENESAC ...... 99

TOWER (DIMETHENAMID-P) SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN NURSERY CROPS. J. NEAL AND D. LITTLE ...... 100

INDAZIFLAM AND OXADIAZON COMBINATIONS FOR WEED CONTROL IN CONTAINERS. J. NEAL AND K. ROREM ...... 101

WEED CONTROL AND ORNAMENTAL TOLERANCE WITH INDAZIFLAM. A. PARKER, D. MYERS, AND D. SPAK ...... 102

ASSESSING THE SAFETY OF FIELD AND CONTAINER GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO SELECT HERBICIDES. B. KOEPKE-HILL, G. ARMEL, W. KLINGEMAN, J. VARGAS, P. FLANAGAN, J. BEELER, AND M. HALCOMB ...... 103

RESPONSE OF FINELEAF FESCUES TO HERBICIDES APPLIED DURING ESTABLISHMENT. A.E. GOVER, J.M. JOHNSON, K.L. LLOYD, AND J.C. SELLMER ...... 105

NEWSS YEAR END REPORT 2008 ...... 107 NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS ...... 118 AWARD OF MERIT ...... 119 DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS ...... 121 OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD ...... 122 OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD ...... 122 SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD ...... 123

xiv OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER CONTEST ...... 123 COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS ...... 126 RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS ...... 130 INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR ...... 134 OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS ...... 134 OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...... 134 OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS ...... 135 NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY 2009 MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY . 141 HERBICIDE NAMES: COMMON, TRADE, AND CHEMICAL ...... 151 COMMON PRE-PACKAGED HERBICIDES ...... 169 EXPERIMENTAL HERBICIDES ...... 185 PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ...... 185 COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF HERBICIDE MODIFIERS ...... 186 AUTHOR’S INDEX ...... 187 MAIN SUBJECT INDEX ...... 189

2009 COLLEGIATE WEED COMPETITION. B. Scott and M. VanGessel, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE.

ABSTRACT

This year’s collegiate weed contest was hosted by ABG Ag Services and was held in Sheridan, IN. on July 23. For the first time the contest brought together two societies to compete in a combined challenge. The Northeastern Weed Science Society and the North Central Weed Science Society competed as teams and as individuals in four areas: weed identification, herbicide identification, field problem solving and sprayer calibration. Fourteen graduate teams (54 students) and 9 undergraduate teams (31 students) participated from 11 universities. The NEWSS universities represented at the contest were Cornell Univ., Univ. of Guelph, Penn State and Virginia Tech. The NCWSS universities represented at the contest were Univ. of Illinois, Kansas State Univ., Michigan State Univ., Univ. of Missouri, Univ. of Nebraska, Ohio State Univ. and Univ. of Tennessee. Although both societies competed together, awards were given separately to the NE and NC participants. The NEWSS graduate award winning teams were: 1st place - Penn State, 2nd place – Univ. of Guelph, and 3rd place - Univ. of Guelph. The Univ. of Guelph NEWSS undergraduate teams swept 1st, 2nd and 3rd place! NEWSS top graduate individual winners were: 1st place individual - Angela Post, Cornell Univ.; 2nd place individual - Nelson Debarros, Penn State; and 3rd place individual - Ryan Bates, Penn State. NEWSS top undergraduate individual winners were: 1st place individual - Andrew Reid, Univ. of Guelph; 2nd place individual - Blair Freeman, Univ. of Guelph; 3rd place individual - Amanda Green, Univ. of Guelph. The NCWSS graduate award winning teams were: 1st place – Michigan State Univ., 2nd place – Ohio State Univ. and 3rd place – Univ. of Nebraska. The NCWSS undergraduate award winning teams were: 1st place – Univ. of Illinois, 2nd place – Michigan State Univ. and 3rd place – Univ. of Missouri. A “Golden Hoe” award was presented to the top graduate and undergraduate teams overall. The Penn State graduate team, consisting of Franklin Egan, Benjamin Crocket, Ryan Bates and Nelson Debarros, and the Guelph undergraduate team, consisting of Andrew Reid, Blair Freeman and Scott Timmings, won the Golden Hoe awards! The purpose of the contest is to provide an educational experience for students to broaden their applied knowledge and skills in weed science. The contest provides an opportunity for students to meet and visit with each other, interact with university researchers, extension professionals, and industry representatives. This year’s contest was a success due to the efforts of many volunteers, contest sponsors and sustaining members!

ASSESSMENT OF CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE INDUCTION IN BLACK NIGHTSHADE TREATED WITH AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR AND DIFLUFENZOPYR ALONE AND IN MIXTURES. J. Vargas, G. Armel, and J. Brosnan, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Synergistic herbicidal responses were observed at 5 days after treatment (DAT) on black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) from applications of the auxin mimic herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl at 35 g ai/ha plus the auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr at 35 g ai/ha. Symptoms associated with this synergistic response included more pronounced epinasty, stunting, and chlorosis than was observed with black nightshade treated with aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl or diflfenzopyr alone. Laboratory and greenhouse studies were conducted in 2009 to evaluate the chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) and photosynthetic efficiency (PE) of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) treated with aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl and diflufenzopyr by Pulse-Amplitude-Modulation Fluorometry (PAM). Blacknightshade was treated with aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl and the auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr, both applied postemergence (POST) at 35 g ai/ha alone and in mixtures together. All herbicide treatments contained 1% v/v methylated seed oil. ChlF and PE parameters were measured 5, 6, 7 and 8 DAT. Measurements of ChlF included Fo (minimum fluorescence), Fv (variable fluorescence), and Fm (maximum fluorescence), and calculations of fluorescence ratios including QY_max (maximum quantum yield), qP (photochemical quenching) and NPQ (non- photochemical quenching) provided analysis of PE. Fm and QY_max parameters were reduced the most by the aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl + diflufenzopyr mixture. Fm values were reduced by 29%, 15%, 40% and 32% with the mixtures of aminocyclopyrachlor- methyl + diflufenzopyr at 5,6,7 and 8 DAT intervals respectively and this reduction was greater than those observed with the aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl and diflufenzopyr applied alone. QY_max values were reduced the most by the aminocyclopyrachlor- methyl + diflufenzopyr mixture and this reduction in measurements of PE peaked at 32% by 8 DAT. This reduction in photosynthetic activity caused by applications of an auxin mimic herbicide plus an auxin transport inhibitor is likely related to increasing levels of ethylene and abscisic acid which causes stomal closure preventing photosynthetic activity. Our studies confirm that addition of auxin transport inhibitor to an auxin herbicide can more rapidly reduce photosynthetic activity over an auxin herbicide applied alone.

WEED SPECIES COMMON IN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL CORN FIELDS IN YATES COUNTY, NY. S. Whitehouse, A. DiTommaso, and L. Drinkwater, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. ABSTRACT

Fields under conventional or organic management systems differ in many physical, chemical, biological, and ecological aspects. Weed species composition and abundance in these management systems also can differ. Having information available about the type of weeds typically associated with each of these systems can assist growers with more effective planning of management decisions. Weed surveys were conducted across ten conventional and organic fields in Yates County, NY in 2007 and 2008. All fields had a history of corn production with a soybean or wheat rotation for the conventional and organic systems respectively. The primary objective of this field survey was (1) to identify the weed species present among the sampled fields, and (2) to illustrate weed community differences between the two field management systems. We hypothesized that (1) the number of annual species found will outnumber perennial and biennial species, (2) the species makeup of the weed communities will be structurally different between management systems, and (3) that annual species will have higher population rates in conventional fields than organic. Fields were surveyed twice each year, once in late June and again in late July. In each field, weed species were identified and counted in 35 1m-2 quadrats that were selected following a stratified random sampling plan. In the two years, a total of twenty-four weed species were found during the surveys. Species trends across cropping systems and mean densities across each field were evaluated. Of the 24 species recorded, annual were the dominant growth habit (58%), followed by perennials (34%), and biennials (8%). Although annual species were also the most prevalent across both management systems, the ratio of annuals: perennial species was larger among the conventional fields (24:11) than the organic fields (25:14). Mean densities of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), redroot pigweed (Amaranthis retroflexus), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) were greater in organically versus conventionally managed fields. For example, the mean density of giant foxtail was 67 plants m-2 in the organic fields and only 0.6 plants m-2 in conventional fields. The variability in mean density of these species between management systems may be due to the process of weed control used across the fields. Despite a history of organic management for a minimum of ten years, the mean densities of annual weeds indicate that the organic fields in this study are experiencing greater weed pressure than the conventional. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether variable nitrogen inputs or soil characteristics are playing a significant role in the weed community ecology of the two management systems. Results from these field surveys will assist conventional and organic growers, extension agents and researchers, in identifying key problematic weed species for Yates County and developing effective management programs.

A FRESH LOOK AT HERBICIDE BANDING IN CORN. R. Chandran, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV and S. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Field experiments were conducted at Blacksburg, Virginia, and Morgantown, West Virginia, in 2009, to compare banded and broadcast applications of preemergence herbicides in grain, silage, and sweet corn. A pre-mixture of atrazine, metolachlor, and mesotrione at 1.702, 1.702, and 0.220 kg ai/ha was applied either broadcast or in bands of width 19 or 38 cm over corn rows spaced 75 cm apart, prior to weed and crop emergence. Weed control and yield data were recorded. At locations where corn was grown for silage and/or grain, the inherent weed pressure was low (<10% ground cover) due to field history, compared to high (>95% ground cover) weed pressure in the sweet corn field. Excellent (>95%) weed control was observed with band or broadcast treatments until canopy closure. At the Morgantown location, herbicide treatments resulted in marginal (5 to 10%) but insignificant yield increases of silage corn compared to untreated plots. Grain corn yields recorded separately in same experiment were similar across all treatments including control. In the sweet corn experiment, untreated plots suffered 100% crop loss as a result of weed competition prior to canopy closure. Sweet corn yield (ears/ha) did not differ among herbicide treatments, however, band application of 38 cm resulted in 16 and 57% higher average corn ear volume, compared to that from plots that received broadcast application and 19 cm band application, respectively. Corn ear length measurements reflected similar differences, whereas sweet corn dry weights failed to reproduce these treatment differences.

DIMETHENAMID-P: LIQUID AND GRANULAR FORMULATIONS FOR TURFGRASS WEED CONTROL. K. Kalmowitz, J. Zawierucha, and K. Miller, BASF Corp., Raleigh, NC.

ABSTRACT

Dimethenamid-p, a Group 15 chloroacetamide herbicide from BASF, was registered in 2009 as a preemergence herbicide for golf course turfgrass use. This new use follows the 2008 registration for commercial nursery production and non-turfgrass landscape areas. In trials from 2004 to present, tolerance to a liquid dimethenamid-p EC formulation (720 g/L), Tower® has been demonstrated on cool and warm season turfgrass species. Additional turfgrass uses were submitted to US EPA for dimethenamid-p applications for residential commercial maintenance, athletic and recreational fields and sod farm. Registered rates of the product used for turfgrass preemergence weed control are Tower® at 1.1 and 1.7 kg ai/ha. Preemeergence weed control with dimethenamid-p targets goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and kyllinga species (Kyllinga spp.) as well as specific broadleaf weeds. With high levels of control observed in ornamental trials, timing for control and management of doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora) in turfgrass was added as a 2009 objective. Doveweed, a member of the Commelinaceae family, is predominately found from the transition zone south to Florida and through to Texas and the Gulf Coast. This weed has been observed to have increased as an emerging species on golf courses, populating roughs and bunker faces and some adjoining plant landscape beds. Two types of formulations have been examined over the past years with dimethenamid-p. Liquid formulations both as an experimental CS and the registered 720 g/l EC along with granular formulations based on clay as well as fertilizer. BASF plans to continue additional formulation work with this active. Although trials to date show dimethenamid-p use during overseeding, reseeding or sprigging are less injurious than most dinitroaniline preemergence herbicides, restrictions on days after application for dimethenamid-p had to be established. Work will continue in the future to define all limitations for these uses and to also determine if a liquid or a granular-based formulation may be safe on greens for weed management uses.

ADVANCEMENTS IN QUINCLORAC FORMULATION PERFORMANCE FOR TURFGRASS WEED CONTROL. J. Zawierucha, G. Oliver, T. Cannan, and K. Kalmowitz, BASF Corp, Research Triangle Park, NC.

ABSTRACT

The herbicide quinclorac was developed and registered by BASF, for use in the United States, in rice, sorghum, preplant wheat, fallow systems, noncrop areas and turfgrass. Quinclorac provides control of many key grasses such as barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) and foxtails (Setaria spp.), as well as broadleaf weeds such as white clover (Trifolium repens) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). The lead formulation marketed by BASF has been a 75% DF (dry flowable). In response to market preferences for liquid formulations, BASF initiated a project to develop more effective, user friendly, liquid type quinclorac formulations. Initial efforts focused on products tailored for the turfgrass market. This effort led to the development of two SL (soluble liquid) formulations that were extensively compared to the DF standard. One experimental was a solo quinclorac formulation (BAS 514H) and the other a mixture formulation (BAS 790H). BAS 790H included MCPP-p and dicamba to target a broader spectrum of broadleaf weed species. In paired test comparisons under greenhouse and field conditions, the SL based formulations out performed the standard DF quinclorac formulation for crabgrass control while exhibiting a similar turf response profile. Additionally, BAS 790H provided similar broadleaf weed control as the standard three-way mixture. These two SL formulations are now currently registered and sold under the trade names of DRIVE XLR8 and Onetime, respectively, by BASF Corporation.

MESOTRIONE FOR MANAGING WEEDS DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS AND TALL FESCUE TURF IN THE TRANSITION ZONE. A. Reis, J. Brosnan, G. Breeden, and M. Elmore, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Mesotrione is a triketone herbicide registered for the control of several broadleaf and grassy weeds in cool-season turf. Data evaluating mesotrione use for managing weeds during the establishment of cool-season home lawns is limited. Two research trials were conducted in the spring and summer of 2009 at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center (Knoxville, TN) to evaluate the efficacy of mesotrione as part of weed control programs used during the establishment of tall fescue [Schedonorous phoenix (Scop.) Holub.] home lawns in spring and summer. Trials were conducted on a tilled and leveled Sequatchie loam soil seeded with 'Faith' tall fescue at 38.7 g/m2. Plots (5 by 7 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments included both single and sequential [6 week after seeding (WAS) or 6 and 12 WAS] mesotrione applications at 280 and 840 g ai/ha. These treatments were compared to applications of mesotrione (280 and 840 g ai/ha) at seeding followed by (fb) quinclorac (840 g ai/ha) at 6 and 12 WAS. Sequential applications were made at 6 and 12 WAS in the spring trial, but only at 6 WAS in the summer trial. All mesotrione treatments included a non-ionic surfactant at a 0.25% v/v ratio, while all quinclorac treatments were delivered with a methylated seed oil surfactant at 1.5 L/ha. An untreated control was included in both the spring and summer trials. Herbicide treatments were applied immediately after seeding the spring trial on 29 April and the summer trial on 26 June. Treatments were applied using a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 842 L/ha using four, 04 flood-jet nozzles at 248 kPa, configured to provide a 1.8-m spray swath. Nozzle spacing was 25 cm and a wheeled aluminum frame maintained the boom at a height of 25 cm while spraying. Weed control, turf injury, and turf cover were evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no weed control, turf injury, or turf cover) to 100 (complete weed control, turf injury, or turf cover) % scale. In the spring trial, tall fescue cover was rated weekly until 63 days after seeding (DAS), while injury was rated until 112 DAS. Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) and goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control were rated weekly until 105 DAS in the spring trial as well. During the summer trial, tall fescue cover and injury were rated until 63 DAS, while smooth crabgrass and goosegrass control were rated until 70 DAS. All treatments increased tall fescue cover (>93%) compared to the untreated control (60%) at 63 DAS in the spring trial, and no tall fescue injury was reported for any treatment. In the summer trial, no treatment yielded a tall fescue cover value that was significantly different from the untreated control at 63 DAS. Tall fescue injury at 15 DAS exceeded 50% for all mesotrione treatments at 840 g ai/ha applied at seeding. In spring, mesotrione at seeding fb mesotrione or quinclorac at 840 g ai/ha controlled smooth crabgrass ≥ 80% at 70 DAS. This response was observed for both the 280 and 840 g ai/ha rates of mesotrione. Additionally, all mesotrione treatments

7 applied at seeding controlled goosegrass >85% 42 DAS. Sequential applications of mesotrione at the 840 g ai/ha rate did not increase goosegrass control compared the 280 g ai/ha rate in spring. In summer, all mesotrione treatments applied at seeding provided > 85% control of smooth crabgrass at 42 DAS; however, this declined to <50% at 70 DAS. Sequential applications of both mesotrione (at both rates) and quinclorac increased smooth crabgrass control to >83% at 70 DAS. Applications of mesotrione (at both rates) at seeding provided 100% control of goosegrass at 20 DAS but this declined to 23% by 70 DAS. Goosegrass control at 70 DAS exceeded 90% for sequential applications of mesotrione at both the 280 and 840 g ai/ha rates applied 6 WAS. These data suggest that mesotrione can be an effective tool for controlling weeds during the establishment of cool-season turfgrasses in spring and summer.

INTERACTION OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS AND CUMYLURON ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS. B. McNulty, J. Jester, S. Askew, and B. Mack, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Plant growth regulators (PGR) are used extensively on golf fairways and putting greens to improve turfgrass quality, decrease clipping production, inhibit seedhead development, suppress annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and improve turf stress tolerance. Cumyluron is a new herbicide that is under evaluation by Helena Chemical Company for annual bluegrass control in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) fairways and putting greens. Since PGR use is common on golf putting greens and cumyluron potentially will be used on putting greens, studies were conducted to test for interaction from PGR and cumyluron tank mixtures. Two studies were conducted in 2009; one in Blacksburg, VA on an A-1 creeping bentgrass putting green at the Glade Rd. Research Facility and the other on a creeping bentgrass putting green of unknown variety at Massanutten Golf Course. The green at Massanutten had 30% cover of annual bluegrass at trial initiation and the green at Glade Rd. had less than 1% annual bluegrass. The Massanutten trial was treated on April 2, 2009 and the Glade Rd. trial was treated on April 16, 2009. Studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 1.2 m2 plots and 3 replications. A two by six factorial treatment arrangement was used to test all possible combinations of cumyluron and PGRs. The first factor was cumyluron with 2 levels (none and 1.72 kg ai/ha) and the second factor was PGR with 6 levels including: trinexapac-ethyl (0.048 kg ai/ha), ethephon (3.82 kg ai/ha), paclobutrazol (7.64 kg ai/ha), flurprimidol (0.28 kg ai/ha), mefluidide (0.14 kg ai/ha), and no PGR. Experimental objectives were to evaluate effects of products applied alone and in tank mixture on visually-estimated turf quality, color, and injury and normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) measurements of turf canopies. At Massanutten, cumyluron did not increase turf injury when mixed with any PGR. At Virginia Tech, creeping bentgrass injury did not exceed 12% at any evaluation, however, cumyluron increased creeping bentgrass injury in a few instances. Although these increases in turf injury at Virginia Tech were statistically significant, the levels of injury were low and considered acceptable in all cases. At Massanutten 21 days after treatment (DAT), mefluidide injured putting green turf 45% when applied alone and 2% when mixed with cumyluron. This significant decrease in turf injury accompanied a concomitant increase in turf color and NDVI readings. At Virginia Tech, turf color and NDVI readings did not significantly differ between treatments at any time. The apparent safening of creeping bentgrass to mefluidide by cumyluron warrants further investigation as turf injury by mefluidide is a common concern on golf putting greens and application times of the two products would overlap; allowing for tank mixtures.

THE PERENNIAL CHALLENGE OF MANAGING PERENNIAL WEEDS IN CERTIFIED ORGANIC FEED AND FORAGE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. R. Smith, D. Mortensen, D. Sandy, and M. Barbercheck, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Organic farmers report that perennial weed management is one of the most serious challenges in certified organic cropping systems. Increasing interest in reducing tillage in certified organic systems has led to the need to better understand how perennial weeds respond to changes in tillage and cropping intensity. In 2007 and 2008, we established a three-year field experiment comparing four organic feed and forage cropping systems that varied in tillage and cropping intensity. The legacy from a previous transition experiment at the site resulted in initial perennial weed populations that were high in the two tillage-intensive systems and low in the reduced-tillage systems. Two years after the implementation of the tillage and crop intensity treatments, perennial weed dry weights were 1.6 g m2 in the most tillage-intensive system and 44.1 g m2 in the least tillage-intensive system. These results suggest that in certified organic cropping systems, increases in perennial weed abundance following reduction of tillage can be effectively managed by increasing tillage intensity. Unfortunately, the converse also appears to be true, low perennial weed populations can quickly increase when tillage is reduced, suggesting that rotational, rather than continuous no-till, may be the most realistic approach to minimizing tillage in certified organic feed and forage production systems typical of the mid-Atlantic region. Additional research will be necessary to determine optimal strategies for reducing tillage without compromising productivity and quality in these systems.

COMMON RAGWEED COMPETITION IN LIMA BEAN. B. Scott, M. VanGessel, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE.

ABSTRACT

Lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus) are a profitable business for Delaware vegetable growers. Delaware harvests more lima bean acreage than any other state in the U.S. and in the last ten years, Delaware acreage has ranged from 13,000-18,000 (NASS-USDA 2008). Few herbicide alternatives are available to Delaware growers, with the most frequently used products for broadleaf weed control being ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Delaware fields have been confirmed with ALS-resistant pigweed spp. and ALS-resistant common ragweed. Statistics were available for yield reduction in lima bean due to pigweed competition; however, yield reduction in lima bean as a result of common ragweed competition had not been researched. In 2008 and 2009 a trial was conducted to determine the potential for lima been yield reduction due to common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, AMBEL) competition. Trial area was chisel plowed, disked and field cultivated and fields were fertilized according to soil test results. Lima beans were planted on June 11 both years. ‘Cypress’ baby lima beans were planted in 30 inch rows with 3 inch in-row spacing. Pre-plant incorporated herbicides (1.3 pt/A Dual II Magnum + 1.7 pt/A Prowl) were applied one day prior to planting. Common ragweed was seeded in trays in a greenhouse on June 11, transplanted into peat pots, and then transplanted into the field on July 1 (lima bean 2-3 trifoliate stage) both years. Prior to common ragweed transplant, at lima bean 2- trifoliate stage, postemergence herbicides (1 pt/A Select Max + 1 pt/A Basagran + 1% COC) were applied. Plots were field cultivated once and hand-weeded three times to remove undesirable weed competition. Treatments were as follows: 1) weed free, 2) AMBEL at 0.25 plants/m-row, 3) AMBEL at 1 plant/m-row, 4) AMBEL at 3 plants/m- row. A 5th treatment of 28 days weed free f/b AMBEL at 3 plants/m-row was transplanted at lima bean early flower, approximately 7 weeks after planting. Plots were four rows wide and 25 feet in length and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with six replications. Four common ragweed plants per plot were harvested for biomass 3 days prior to lima bean harvest. A 44 ft section of lima bean was harvested from each plot. Plants were cut off at soil level and fed into a stationary viner. Shelled beans were cleaned of dirt and debris and weighed to determine yield. Five plants per plot were sampled for dry pods and total number of pods. Common ragweed competition at the 3 per m-row level decreased lima bean yield by 22 to 28% as compared to all other treatments. Common ragweed biomass indicated significant intraspecies competition did not occur. Biomass of full season common ragweed competition did not differ with weed density. Dry pods did not differ between treatments in each respective year. On the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain and under irrigation, it takes a high density of early-emerging common ragweed to reduce lima bean yield.

THE EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE MIXTURES WITH BRASSICA MEAL ON WEED CONTROL AND YIELD OF STRAWBERRY. J. Cummins, G. Armel, C. Sams, D. Deyton, and J. Vargas, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

ABSTRACT

Weed control is an important issue for strawberry growers. The common practice in the Southeast is to grow strawberries in raised-beds on black plastic mulch. This greatly reduces the weeds between strawberry plants, however weeds can still emerge in the planting holes and decrease yield. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) can pierce plastic mulch and cause rapid deterioration of the mulch. Yellow nutsedge has often been controlled by methyl bromide; however, this material is being phased out by the EPA. Methyl bromide had the dual effect of not only reducing pathogens but in greatly reducing weeds in strawberry plantings. Similarly, isothiocyanates (ITC) released by Brassica meal can effectively control soil pathogens and have displayed some allelopathic potential control on weed seedlings. Since weeds compete with strawberries for nutrients, decrease fruit yield, and can increase mulch deterioration, there is a need to test new herbicides for strawberries and to examine potential interactions between some of the newer herbicides with Brassica meal. Herbicides were chosen based on their potential for control of the perennial weed yellow nutsedge. In order to ensure an adequate stand of yellow nutsedge for these evaluations, 5 qts of yellow nutsedge tubers were evenly distributed throughout the trial prior to herbicide applications. In the fall of 2008, herbicides were applied and immediately incorporated in the bed prior to covering with black plastic mulch. ‘Chandler’ strawberry plants were transplanted into the beds one week after application. Herbicides were applied using a CO2 backpack sprayer set to deliver at 23 GPA. Mustard meal and dazomet treatments were applied by hand. This study evaluated pre-transplant incorporated applications of several herbicides alone and in combinations with mustard meal at 2240 g ai/ha (containing herbicidal isothiocyanates) compared with mustard meal alone at 2240 g ai/ha alone (samples of mustard meal without isothiocyanates) and the standard fumigant dazomet at 390 kg ai/ha. Herbicide treatments included the following: 1) ALS- inhibitors- halosulfuron at 26.3 and 52.5 g ai/ha, trifloxysulfuron at 5.25 and 10.5 g ai/ha, and V10142 at 560 and 1120 g ai/ha; 2) PPO inhibitor- sulfentrazone at 140 and 280 g ai/ha. All treatments injured strawberry plants between 14 to 30% and there were few significant differences among treatments.· All treatments containing herbicides except for the lowest rate of sulfentrazone provided 67 to 99% control of yellow nutsedge which was similar to dazomet (82%). Plots treated with trifloxysulfuron (both rates), V10142 (both rates), halosulfuron at 26.3 g ai/ha plus mustard meal at 2240 g ai/ha, or dazomet at 390 kg ai/ha contained fewer nutsedge plants (puncturing the plastic) than the untreated check. In the spring of 2009, all treatments containing herbicides except for the lowest rate of halosulfuron provided 39 to 99% control of yellow nutsedge which was similar to dazomet (80%). Treatments did not significantly reduce strawberry yield, berry size, or runner number compared to the untreated check. Mortality was not increased with herbicide treatments when compared to the untreated check.

SPOT TREATMENTS OF BROADLEAF WEEDS AND GRASSES IN WILD BLUEBERRY FIELDS USING A MESOTRIONE/CLETHODIM TANK MIX. D. Yarborough and J. D'Appollonio, University of Maine, Orono, ME.

ABSTRACT

A spot treatment trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of a mesotrione/clethodim tank mix in controlling broadleaf weeds and grasses in wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Twenty 1x4 m plots each were located on non-crop fields at Blueberry Hill Farm (BBHF) in Jonesboro, ME and Jasper Wyman and Son’s Burnt Camp Hill lot in Deblois, ME; each plot contained blueberry and similar suites of broadleaf and grass weed species. At each site, ten plots were treated with a handheld spray boom tank mix of mesotrione at 3 oz/a and clethodim at 6 oz/a with a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v. The BBHF site was treated on 2 June and 10 July, while the Wyman’s site was treated on 16 June and 20 July. The Wyman’s site was treated later because the weeds at this site were developmentally behind the BBHF site; therefore, the weeds were monitored until the proper developmental stage was reached (grasses 2-6” high). Blueberry, broadleaf weeds and grass covers were assessed pre- treatment and approximately one and two weeks post-treatments using a Daubenmire Cover Class scale, which was converted to percents. Blueberry and weed phytotoxicity were evaluated approximately one and two weeks after each treatment on a scale of 0- 10, which was converted to percent injury. Cover and phytotoxicity data were analyzed using a non-parametric one-way median two-sample test (α=0.05). Blueberry cover was slightly higher in the treated plots compared to the check plots both pre-treatment and for all four evaluations, but there were no significant differences. Broadleaf weed cover in the treated plots was significantly lower compared to the check plots by the second evaluation; it rebounded following the second (July) treatment, but was only about half the amount of cover in the check plots at the fourth evaluation. Grass cover was significantly suppressed in the treated plots at the second and third evaluations, but equaled the check plots by the fourth evaluation. Phytotoxicity to wild blueberry, observed as leaf chlorosis, was significant at all four evaluations, but levels were below 10% and the plants showed signs of recovery by the third and fourth evaluations. The tank mix was largely but not completely effective in controlling broadleaf weeds and grasses in wild blueberry fields. The second treatment suppressed broadleaf weeds significantly compared to the check plots, which helped to allow blueberry cover to increase by 25%. However, late-emerging broadleaf weeds and regrowth of certain species such as dewberry should be taken into account when deciding when to apply a second treatment. The second treatment also increased grass control efficacy, but the timing of the second treatment may need to be refined to account for secondary flushes of grass growth. In this trial the Wyman’s site was consistently behind the BBHF site in weed emergence and maturation, possibly because the Wyman’s site was on an east- facing slope close to treelines to the east and south, while the BBHF site was open. By monitoring fields and applying the second treatment once new grass growth is 2-6” high and late-season broadleaf weeds have emerged, control could be improved.

SHORT-TERM FLOODS AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS: DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED PROGRAM FOR DODDER CONTROL IN CRANBERRY. J. O'Connell, H. Sandler, L. Adler, and F. Caruso, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA

ABSTRACT

Three studies were conducted to test new management strategies for the control of dodder (Cuscuta sp.). Two unreplicated demonstration field experiments on commercial farms evaluated various plant growth regulators (PGR) and DPX-MAT28, for dodder and cranberry injury. A replicated incubator study evaluated the use of short- term flooding on dodder seed germination. The MAT28 study had 7 treatments (applied July 16 2009): 3 rates (5.7, 11.5, and 22.9 g a.i.•ha-1) with and without 0.25% v:v nonionic surfactant (NIS; Activator 90) and untreated control. Visual assessment ratings indicated that all rates of MAT28 + NIS and 22.9 g•ha-1 alone were most injurious to dodder stems compared to the control. Cranberry vine and fruit injury (including fruit drop) were observed in all plots treated with any rate of MAT28 + NIS. PGRs were applied before (July 23) and during (July 29) dodder flowering. Each timing had nine treatments including a high and low rate of ammonium thiosulfate (ATS; 12-0-0), Florel (3.9% ethephon), s-ABA (10% a.i.), or ProGibb (4% a.i.), and untreated control. ATS-low rate (4.5 L•ha-1) had the highest injury to dodder stems in the before flowering timing compared to the control. For the during flowering timing, Florel-low rate (95.4 kg a.i.•ha-1), ProGibb-high rate (4.04 g a.i.•ha-1), and s-ABA (1000 and 2000 ppm) caused moderate injury to dodder stems. The short-term flooding study evaluated floods simulating spring (10, 15, and 20 C) and summer (15, 20, and 25 C) water temperatures. Three (0, 24, and 48 hr) and five (0, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hr) flood durations were used with the spring and summer simulations, respectively. Using four incubators set to the same temperature, flood duration treatments were applied to dodder seeds submerged in plastic containers filled with water; the process was repeated until all temperatures were tested. Both studies were conducted twice in their entirety; results below are from the first study. In the spring flood study, percent dodder seed germination was lower for seeds submerged at 10 C than for those submerged at 20 C. Seeds submerged at 15 C had similar germination compared to those at 10 C and 20 C. Temperature had no effect on percent seed germination in the summer study. Flood duration did not affect percent dodder seed germination in either the spring or summer flood study. Evaluating DPX-MAT28 without NIS and varying the application timing may provide greater dodder control with less vine injury. PGRs look promising, but not all data have been processed. Dodder control may be improved when a combination of tactics, such as flooding with postemergence herbicide application, are used.

2009 NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE VEGETATION SHORT COURSE. M. Bravo, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.

ABSTRACT

The Northeastern Weed Science Society (NEWSS) Noxious and Invasive Vegetation Short Course (NIVM) was held for the second year in Pennsylvania. Weed management professionals affiliated with NEWSS instruct and staff the course. This course has evolved to meet the demand and need for training and instruction of professionals involved in the administration or implementation of invasive plant management in the Northeastern United States. This course is designed for public and private land managers (parks, conservancies, preserves, forests, private parcels and farms) from Maine to North Carolina who desire a better understanding of non-cropland weed management. A huge success in 2008, the course expanded in 2009 to include even more topics. Classroom, laboratory and field exercises are utilized and the course is designed to encourage interaction between students and instructors. This year’s course also offered different workshops for novice and advance applicators. Funded by a grant from the USFS, the two year program has trained more than 100 land managers in the Northeast on invasive and noxious weed identification and control, early detection/rapid response, survey and inventory, herbicide chemistry and environmental fate, pesticide regulatory information such as PPE wear, mechanical tool and environmental safety training, herbicide labels and toxicology studies, hands on sprayer calibration and application techniques, as well as weed management/best management scenarios for some of the most problematic invasive vegetation in our region.

USE OF MESOTRIONE FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AT KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS ESTABLISHMENT. K. Venner, S. Hart, and C. Mansue, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in the fall of 2007 to the spring of 2009 to evaluate the response of newly seeded Kentucky bluegrass cultivars to mesotrione applied at planting (PRE), and PRE followed by (fb) sequential treatments four weeks after turfgrass emergence (WAE) at rates ranging from 0.28 to 2.24 kg ai/ha. In separate studies annual bluegrass control in newly seeded ‘Midnight II’ Kentucky bluegrass was evaluated with mesotrione applied PRE fb sequential treatments 4 and 8 WAE at 0.14 to 0.56 kg/ha. All applications were made with a single 9504E nozzle CO2 pressured sprayer calibrated to deliver a total 375 L/ha at 220 kPa. Experimental designs were a strip-plot with four replications for the Kentucky bluegrass cultivar study and a randomized complete block with four replications for the annual bluegrass control study. Kentucky bluegrass cultivars ‘America’, ‘P-105’, ‘Midnight II’, ‘Avalanche’, Kingfisher’, ‘Washington’, ‘Bedazzled’, ‘Thermal’, and ‘Award’ were seeded on 8-28-07, and 9-16-08 at 1.7 kg/ha in 1.8 m rows with a drop spreader. Annual bluegrass control studies were initiated on 9-13-07 and 09-22-08. Kentucky bluegrass cover and annual bluegrass control were visually evaluated in December and the following spring on a scale of 0 (no cover or control) to 100 (complete cover or control). In the Kentucky bluegrass cultivar study significant cover reductions were not evident across all Kentucky bluegrass cultivars at rates of 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha. Cover reductions were evident on some cultivars at rates of 1.12 and 2.24 kg/ha and sequential applications further reduced cover. A high degree of intraspecific variability was evident with cultivars ‘Thermal’ and ‘Washington’ showing the most tolerance while ‘Kingfisher’ and ‘Avalanche’ were the most sensitive. In the annual bluegrass control studies, nearly complete control of winter annual broadleaf weeds such as chickweed, henbit, oxalis and veronica were observed at all application rates. ‘Midnight II’ cover was not significantly reduced by mesotrione. Annual bluegrass control ranged from 61 to 94% and increased with increasing mesotrione rate. Annual bluegrass control was 83% at 0.28 kg/ha averaged across the three application regimes. Applying a sequential application of mesotrione at 4 WAE increase annual bluegrass control to 80% from 74% compared with a single PRE application. Applying a third application of mesotrione at 8 WAE did not further increase annual bluegrass control compared with two applications. The results of these studies suggest that the overall tolerance of Kentucky bluegrass is excellent and mesotrione can be safely used at establishment for high levels but not complete annual bluegrass control.

COMPARISON OF GENETIC DIVERSITY OF WEEDY AND DOMESTICATED POPULATIONS IN GENUS CICHORIUM (ASTERACEAE). T. Zavada, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

ABSTRACT

Cichorium is a small genus within the Asteraceae or Sunflower family, the largest family of flowering plants, with up to 30,000 species in nearly 1700 genera (Bremer et al. 1994; Funk et al. 2005). The genus Cichorium possesses two well known cultivated species, Cichorium intybus (Chicory) and C. endivia (Endive). Chicory is a diploid (2n = 18), perennial, and self-incompatible species (Rick 1953) and is a cultivated but also an invasive species in some parts of the world. Endive is a diploid (2n = 18), annual, and self-compatible species (Rick 1953) that is only known from cultivation. (Kiers 2000). The genetic relationships among the various cultivar groups of endive and chicory and their weedy cousins are of practical interest for the management of genetic resources. The purpose of this study is to assess the genetic diversity among samples from native Eurasia and from invasive US ranges. A measure of the allelic diversity in the compared populations may give an insight into the invasiveness of this species and may provide valuable information about the genetic relationships likely involved in the domestication of endive and chicory.

CONTROL OF GROUND IVY WITH APPLICATIONS OF QUINCLORAC AND SULFENTRAZONE. M. Elmore, R. Koepke, J. Brosnan, G. Breeden, G. Armel, and B. Walls, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea) commonly invades golf course and residential turf areas throughout the transition zone. Research was conducted in 2009 at two locations on Egwani Farms Golf Course (Rockford, TN) to evaluate the efficacy of a commercially available formulated mixture of sulfentrazone + quinclorac (Solitare™; FMC Professional Products) for selective postemergence ground-ivy control in tall fescue [Schedonorous phoenix (Scop.) Holub.] turf. Single applications of sulfentrazone + quinclorac were applied at rates of 0.14 + 0.42 kg ai/ha, 0.21 + 0.63 kg ai/ha, 0.28 + 0.84 kg ai/ha, 0.35 + 1.05 kg ai/ha, and 0.42 + 1.26 kg ai/ha, respectively. These treatments were compared to single applications of quinclorac at 0.84 kg ai/ha and 1.12 kg ai/ha, a commercial pre-packaged mixture of quinclorac + sulfentrazone + 2,4-D + dicamba at 1.73 kg ai/ha, and a commercial pre- packaged mixture of 2,4-D + mecoprop-p + dicamba applied at 0.96 kg ai/ha. All treatments were applied with a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha. The sprayer boom contained four, flat-fan nozzles spaced 25 cm apart. A wheeled aluminum frame maintained the boom height 25 cm above the surface while spraying at 124 kPa. Treatments were applied at the first location on 8 June and 6 July at the second location. Ground ivy control and tall fescue injury were rated visually utilizing a 0 (no control or injury) to 100 (complete control) scale at 3,7,14,21,28 and 56 days after treatment (DAT). Plots (1.5 by 3.0 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Sulfentrazone + quinclorac at rates of 0.35 + 1.05 kg ai/ha, and 0.42 + 1.26 kg ai/ha were not significantly different from one another for any rating date at either location; each treatment provided greater than 80% control at 14 DAT and 90% control at 56 DAT. Control following treatment with both rates of quinclorac was significantly less than all mixtures of sulfentrazone + quinclorac at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT at the second location. This response was also observed at the first location 3, 7, 21, and 28 DAT. Mixtures of sulfentrazone + quinclorac did not significantly increase control compared to commercial pre-packaged mixtures of quinclorac + sulfentrazone + 2,4-D + dicamba or 2,4-D + mecoprop-p + dicamba at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 56 DAT at the first location. This response was also observed at the second location at 7, 21, 28 and 56 DAT as well. No tall fescue injury was observed on any rating date.

RESPONSE OF SAWBRIER, DEWBERRY, AND CRANBERRY VINES TO INFRARED AND OPEN-FLAME WEED CONTROL. K. Ghantous, H. Sandler, W. Autio, and P. Jeranyama, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

ABSTRACT

Sawbrier (Smilax sp.) and dewberry (Rubus sp.) are high priority cranberry weeds that have no effective management strategy. The utility of flame cultivation (FC) on perennial weeds in cranberry systems has not been investigated. The response of cranberry vines and weeds to FC is of interest to determine if it could be a useful nonchemical practice for cranberry weed control. Last year, qualitative data were presented on damage and recovery for cranberry plants subjected to FC. Preliminary results presented here relate to the quantitative assessment obtained by counting and measuring cranberry stems, and weighing dried aboveground cranberry and total weed biomass. We evaluated three hand-held propane FC instruments: Infrared (IR), Open Flame (OF), and Infrared Spike (IRS). The OF uses a direct flame, while the IR has a flame projected onto a ceramic plate that is put into direct contact with the plant. The IRS has a small ceramic plate with a protruding metal spike that is inserted into the ground at the plant stem. Five levels of exposure (Exp) were tested: 0, low, medium, high or glyphosate wipe (12.5% solution). The impact of FC on damage and recovery of four cranberry varieties (Mullica Queen, Crimson Queen, Stevens, and Howes) were evaluated in 2008-2009. Rooted uprights were planted in clay pots and placed in a plastic greenhouse. Each pot was subjected to a single treatment from one of the FC at one Exp; all combinations were tested. Treatments were arranged in a RCBD with 5 replications. Plants were allowed to recover in the greenhouse, then placed in a cold storage unit at 5°C for approximately 4 months to accrue chilling hours, then returned to the greenhouse to resume growth the following spring. To evaluate the impact of FC on problematic perennial weeds, sawbrier and dewberry plants growing in cranberry bogs were transplanted in 2008 into a prepared area and allowed to become established for 1 year prior to treatment. Sawbrier plots were planted with two tubers and at least one live stem. Dewberry plots were planted with three crowns. In 2009, each plot was subjected to a single treatment from one of the FC at one Exp; all combinations were tested. Treatments were arranged in a RCBD with 5 replications. Plants were allowed to recover from treatment for approximately 3 months before weed biomass was harvested. Digital pictures of weed growth were taken periodically. Remaining data are currently being collected and will be processed in the near future. Preliminary results indicated that for Crimson Queen, choice of FC and length of Exp affected the total number of uprights; only Exp affected percent reproductive uprights. Pots treated with IR had a higher number of total uprights than pots treated with either OF or IRS. Total number of uprights and percent reproductive uprights decreased with increasing exposure. For Mullica Queen, FC and Exp affected the total

19 amount of cranberry biomass produced. The effect of FC on cranberry biomass recovery for Crimson Queen varied with Exp, suggesting that varieties may have different recovery responses. Total dewberry biomass (shoots and roots) declined with increasing exposure regardless of FC used.

RETHINKING INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH APPROACHES. K. Averill, D. Mortensen, and A. Gover, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

We propose re-evaluating current approaches for conducting invasive plant management research. Managers must carefully make decisions to conserve ecosystem and management resources and prevent needless harm to the surrounding environment. Since managers must consider a wide range of conservation targets, researchers must also consider the same contextual breadth when conducting research.The impacts of invasive plants and their management are not well understood. Furthermore, deciding to manage an invasive plant may be more detrimental to the ecosystem than the disservices of the species.Without a well-reasoned decision-support framework, decision-making can result in wasted resources and the loss of important ecosystem services.To make the most informed decisions, researchers and managers should consider the overall services/disservices of invasive plants in addition to the consequences of control and remediation.We reason that management of natural areas could be improved economically and ecologically if both researchers and managers operate under the same decision-making framework.The framework we propose includes identifying (1) conservation target areas, (2) ecosystem services and disservices influencing the targets, (3) consequences of management, and (4) action steps.This framework will help managers develop holistic plans and reveal to researchers critical knowledge gaps.A number of natural resource managers use some form of this framework now. We argue that it is critical for invasive plant researchers to benefit from such a context shaping decision framework, as it is clear it will enhance the relevance of our applied research programs.

EVALUATION OF REDUCED RATE HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS FOR CHEMICAL MOWING OF GRASSES AND BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN GRAPE ROW MIDDLES. J. Vargas, G. Armel, D. Lockwood, and G. Sheppard, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in 2009 to evaluate chemical mowing with herbicides at reduced rates alone and in mixture to tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) in grape (Vitis spp.) row middles. Trial sites were established at the Highland Rim Research & Education Center and the Plateau Research & Education Center in Tennessee and an additional site was located at Three Sister’s Vineyard & Winery in Georgia. All treatments were applied postemergence (POST) to tall fescue infested with weeds such as buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and white clover (Trifolium repens) and all species were 2 to 9 cm in height at the time of application. Field plots were 3 by 6 meters and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Herbicide treatments in all three trials included: sethoxydim at 131 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 9 g ai/ha, sethoxydim at 131 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 18 g ai/ha, glyphosate at 110 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 9 g ai/ha, glyphosate at 110 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 18 g ai/ha, sethoxydim at 131 g ai/ha + glyphosate at 110 g ai/ha, glyphosate at 110 g ai/ha, sethoxydim at 131 g ai/ha, carfentrazone at 9 g ai/ha, carfentrazone at 18 g ai/ha, glufosinate at 234 g ai/ha, glufosinate at 234 g ai/ha + sethoxydim at 131 g ai/ha, glufosinate at 234 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 9 g ai/ha, and glufosinate at 234 g ai/ha + carfentrazone at 18 g ai/ha). All treatments were applied with a CO2 powered backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 23 gal/A. All treatments contained crop oil concentrate at 1% v/v. Fescue suppression and weed control were evaluated 7, 14, 28 and 56 days after treatment (DAT). By 28 DAT, sethoxydim applied alone or in combinations with glufosinate, glyphosate or carfentrazone provided the greatest suppresion of tall fescue (72 to 79%). Glyphosate and glufosinate alone and in combinations with carfentrazone provided 30 to 53 % supression of tall fescue by 28 DAT. Carfentrazone alone did not provide adequate supression of tall fescue. By 56 DAT, tall fescue was still suppressed with treatments containing glyphosate and or sethoxydim in comparison to the untreated control; however heights were greater than a commercially acceptable range (24-31 inches). In addition, no treatment evaluated in these studies provided sufficient control of buckhorn plantain, dandelion or white clover.

APPLICATION PLACEMENT AND HUMIDITY EFFECTS ON MESOTRIONE BIOEFFICACY. A. Post, M. Goddard, and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Though mesotrione activity has been examined for several crop and weed species, information is inconsistent or lacking on the effects of humidity and soil versus foliar application on bioefficacy. Three experiments conducted at Virginia Tech’s Glade Road Research Facility in Blacksburg, VA evaluated mesotrione activity when applied to foliage, soil, and soil plus foliage at 50 and 90% relative humidity (RH). The crop and weed species for this trial were tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.) Holub) and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. ex Muhl.), respectively. Tall fescue injury ranged from 0 to 21% and was significant in 6 of 20 comparisons. Application placement significantly influenced tall fescue response to mesotrione; however, RH only influenced tall fescue response to soil plus foliar applications. Mesotrione injured tall fescue most with soil plus foliar applications, followed by foliar only applications, and least with soil only applications. Mesotrione applied to soil and foliage injured tall fescue 2 to 4% at 50% RH and 8 to 21% at 90% RH. For smooth crabgrass, application placement significantly influenced plant response to mesotrione. Mesotrione effects on smooth crabgrass were influenced by RH only when applied exclusively to foliage. Mesotrione injured smooth crabgrass least when applied to foliage only and highest when applied to soil plus foliage. Increasing RH from 50 to 90% caused a 4- to 18-fold increase in smooth crabgrass phytotoxicity when mesotrione was applied to foliage only. At 14 days after treatment when averaged over RH, white leaves comprised 16% of leaves when only foliage was treated and 55 and 62% when applied to soil plus foliage and soil only, respectively. Furthermore, when mesotrione was applied to soil or soil plus foliage, white tissue was found predominately in the youngest two leaves, but when applied to foliage only, white tissue was noted predominately in older leaves. Mesotrione absorbed through roots appears to move quickly to the growing point and has an equal or greater impact on plant phytotoxicity than mesotrione absorbed through foliage. In addition, increasing RH significantly increases injury from foliar absorbed mesotrione, however, the product appears to remain at or near the point of absorption.

DYNAMICS OF WEED AND DISEASE ENCROACHMENT IN TALL FESCUE AS IMPACTED BY MOWING HEIGHT AND FERTILITY PRACTICES. M. Cutulle and J. Derr, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA.

ABSTRACT

Tall Fescue [ Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.) Holub ] is a commonly- utilized turfgrass in the temperate and transition zone areas of the United States. It establishes quickly, requires moderate amounts of nitrogen, and is resistant to most diseases. However, during hot humid summers, tall fescue is under stress and is susceptible to Rhizotonia solani infestations. This disease, referred to as brown patch, causes turf thinning, leading to encroachment from weeds such as bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.]). Cultural practices such as fertility and mowing height may impact brown patch disease severity in tall fescue Improved brown patch control may result in increased tall fescue density, thus reducing weed infestations. Two mowing heights (5 and 10 cm), 3 levels of fertility (49 , 171, and 220 kg of nitrogen annually per hectare), and spring preemergence herbicide application (oxadiazon or no herbicide applied) were evaluated in an established stand of ‘RTF’ tall fescue. Three plugs of common bermudagrass were planted in each plot in May 2008. Data collected monthly included weed composition and density, bermudagrass diameter, brown patch severity, and turf quality. The experiment was repeated in May of 2009. Mowing height had a significant effect on bermudagrass diameter in June, July, and August in year one and year two. In July 2008 a higher mowing height resulted in 17 cm bermudagrass diameter when averaged across all fertility treatments, which was significantly less than the 27 cm bermudagrass diameter averaged across fertility treatments that resulted when the plots were mowed at the low mowing height. Fertility did not have an effect on bermudagrass diameter. In July and August, southern crabgrass [Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.]) density was much higher in the 5 cm mowing height plots. Tall fescue cover was significantly reduced in the 5 cm mowing treatment due to weed competition but was acceptable at the 10 cm height. Higher fertility resulted in increased brown patch severity, with the higher mowing height/highest fertility combination having 16% brown patch cover, which was significantly greater than the other treatment combinations. However, the plots recovered when weather was cooler and drier. The same trends were observed in both years. However, there was greater incidence of brown patch in year two due to the increased precipitation.

INTERACTION OF FENOXAPROP AND HALOSULFURON ON HERBICIDE EFFECTIVENESS. A. Rana and J. Derr, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Tank mixing herbicides is a widespread and economical method for controlling a broad spectrum of weed species in turf and other crops. The use of herbicide mixtures, however, could alter their effectiveness compared to herbicides applied separately. Antagonism occurs when the weed control response induced by the herbicide combination is less than the expected results of those chemicals applied alone. The objective of this research was to determine the effectiveness of combining fenoxaprop or quinclorac, postemergence herbicides used for annual grass control, with halosulfuron, used for yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) control. The two combination treatments were compared to fenoxaprop, quinclorac, and halosulfuron applied alone. These studies were conducted in containers using a randomized complete block design with one plant per plot, three pots per species per plot, and with four replications, and each study was repeated. Herbicides were applied using a CO2- pressurized backpack sprayer at 25 gal/A using 8003 flat fan nozzles. The nonionic surfactant X-77 was added at 0.25 % v/v to each treatment. Plants were approximately one month old when treated. Injury ratings were taken 2 WAT and shoot weight was recorded 4 WAT. Application rates for the first study were: fenoxaprop, 0.03 lb ai/A; quinclorac, 0.38 lb ai/A; and halosulfuron, 0.025 lb ai/A, and each of those rates were doubled for the second trial. Fenoxaprop provided good to excellent control of southern crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler) and yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult.) when applied at 0.06 lb ai/A. Adding halosulfuron at 0.05 lb ai/A, to fenoxaprop antagonized the control of southern crabgrass and yellow foxtail. Southern crabgrass and yellow foxtail shoot weight increased by approximately 28% when halosulfuron was added to fenoxaprop, compared to fenoxaprop applied alone. Adding fenoxaprop to halosulfuron appeared to speed injury development in yellow nutsedge at 2 WAT, although shoot weight at 4 WAT was similar in halosulfuron and halosulfuron plus fenoxaprop-treated plots. Fenoxaprop did not affect yellow nutsedge growth when applied alone. Quinclorac applied alone reduced yellow nutsedge growth. Adding halosulfuron to quinclorac resulted in excellent yellow nutsedge control. Yellow foxtail shoot weight was approximately 23% lower in halosulfuron plus quinclorac-treated plants compared to quinclorac applied alone. Quinclorac suppressed growth of yellow foxtail and adding halosulfuron appeared to improve its control. Adding halosulfuron to quinclorac did not improve southern crabgrass control compared to quinclorac applied alone. For maximum effectiveness, it appears that fenoxaprop and halosulfuron should be applied separately due to antagonism of annual grass control when the two are combined. Quinclorac and halosulfuron can apparently be combined without observable antagonism.

EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL WEED CONTROL TOOLS IN HIGH RESIDUE CORN AND SOYBEAN. R. Bates, R. Gallagher, and W. Curran, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Corn and soybean producers have widely adopted conservation tillage practices to reduce the potential for soil and nutrient losses. However, these systems rely heavily on herbicides for weed control. In addition, glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybean crops have increased the dependency on a few select herbicides, but increased the adoption of no-till practices. Increased dependence on herbicides can lead to herbicide resistant weeds and raises the potential for additional offsite impacts. A more integrated approach that includes nonchemical management strategies can reduce the negative effects of herbicides, while maintaining adequate weed control, competitive yields and comparable production costs. The objective of our study was to evaluate mechanical tillage implements for their incorporation into an integrated weed management system in high-residue corn and soybean. Ten individual treatments compared a vertical coulter implement, a rotary harrow, a high residue rotary hoe, and a high residue row cultivator in combination with pre-plant broadcast, pre-plant band, or post emerge herbicides. A conventional no-till treatment using herbicides and a weedy check treatment without any weed control were included for comparison. Each treatment evaluated surface residue, weed density and end of season weed biomass, grain yield, and production costs. Treatments including herbicides reduced weed density and weed biomass compared to treatments relying on mechanical alone. The vertical coulter and rotary harrow combination controlled weeds similar to a burndown herbicide treatment. In addition, the vertical coulter and rotary harrow combination had production cost similar to a burn down herbicide treatment. Treatments that included banded herbicide reduced weed density and weed biomass compared to no herbicide, but banded herbicide and cultivation was not as effective as the broadcast herbicide treatments. Of the mechanical tools tested, the rotary hoe provided the least consistent weed control, while the high residue cultivator was the most effective in reducing weed density and weed biomass. However, regardless of previous operation the cultivator reduced surface residue levels below 30%. The vertical coulter and rotary harrow reduced surface residue on average 20% and the rotary hoe did not impact surface residue. Banded herbicide and the cultivator costs were comparable to broadcast pre emerge herbicide. Overall, mechanical tillage implements alone did not provide adequate weed control, while integration with reduced herbicide inputs maintained acceptable weed control, competitive yields, and similar production cost to herbicide-based programs.

GIANT FOXTAIL AND VELVETLEAF SEED PERSISTENCE, AND RECRUITMENT AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE AND GREEN MANURES. S. Mirsky, D. Mortensen, W. Curran, and A. Hulting, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD.

ABSTRACT

The weed seedbank is a critical life history stage that regulates summer annual weed population growth rates and represents a source of propagules that continue to challenge weed management. Low initial seedbanks have been identified to be critical to the success of ecologically based weed management tactics. It has been suggested that increased microbial biomass resulting from organic amendments to soils can result in higher rates of seed decay and increased weed expression via recruitment; however, management-induced changes in persistence has been limited. Integrative strategies for directly managing weed seedbanks are needed. The objective of this research was to evaluate the influence of soil disturbance and green manuring frequency on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed persistence, cumulative emergence, and mortality (fatal germination and seed death). In early spring of 2005 and 2006, after-ripened weed seed buried in the previous fall in mesh bags were either: 1) kept in the mesh bags and buried in fields receiving a high frequency of soil tillage that varied in green manure additions (mesh bag experiment), or 2) removed from the mesh bags and placed into wire mesh cages that were buried flush with the soil surface (seed cage experiment). The magnitude of decline for velvetleaf and giant foxtail, over a one year period (November through November), was 72 and 80% in 2004, and 47 and 87% in 2005, respectively. Weed seed persistence decreased with tillage for both species. Green manuring did not influence weed seed persistence, however, reductions in giant foxtail cumulative emergence was observed. However, green manure did not influence weed seed persistence. Giant foxtail mortality was primarily due to fatal germination; whereas other factors appear to influence velvetleaf seed death.

MANAGING WEED SEED RAIN. E. Gallandt, University of Maine, Orono, ME.

ABSTRACT

Organic farmers rely extensively on cultivation to reduce weed density and thereby reduce yield loss and other negative impacts of weeds. If weed pressure is high, repeated cultivation events are necessary, each killing a fixed proportion of weeds, to reduce the density of surviving seedlings to an acceptable level. Over time, if weed density is increasing, a corresponding increase in this direct weed control is required. Alternatively, growers may attempt to reduce weed pressure over time through concerted strategies focused on the weed seedbank, including practices that minimize “credits” (seed rain) and others that maximize “debits.” Effective cultivation and a competitive crop minimize weed density, biomass, and thus weed seed rain. However, end-of-the-season management practices may prevent important mechanisms which debit the seedbank. Seed burial by fall tillage, for example, makes it difficult for predators to detect seeds. As predators may reduce the surface seedbank by 50% or more over the fall, winter and early spring, preemption of their activity by tillage is clearly undesirable. Maintaining weed seeds close to the soil surface is also expected to encourage germination losses to the seedbank. Farmers evaluating fall no-till cover cropping compared to tilled cover cropping have experienced impressive levels of seedling recruitment during brief periods of favorable spring weather. A single season of complete weed control can have a large effect on the germinable seedbank. For example, a zero seed rain treatment reduced the seedbank of common lambsquarters to 600 germinable seeds per square meter, compared to 11,000 per square meter, 10 cm depth, following no-till cover cropping. Practices that reduce or eliminate weed seed rain, maximize seed predation, and maintain weed seeds in the most active surface strata of the soil profile offer a comprehensive strategy to support cultivation-based weed control with, notably, opportunity for improving conditions over time. Or, you could deep plow...

WEED COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY IN A LONG-TERM CROPPING SYSTEMS EXPERIMENT. M. Ryan, R. Smith, S. Mirsky, D. Mortensen, and R. Seidel, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Community assembly theory provides a useful framework to assess the response of weed communities to agricultural management systems and to improve the predictive power of weed science. Under this framework, community assembly is constrained by abiotic (management, climate etc.) and biotic (pathogens, competition, etc.) "filters" that act on species traits to determine community composition and structure. We used an assembly approach to investigate the response of weed seed banks to 25 years of management-related filtering in three row-crop management systems in SE Pennsylvania; two organic (one manure-based, the other legume-based) and one conventional. Weed seed banks were sampled in the spring of 2005 and 2006 and quantified by direct germination. We also assessed the filtering effects of weed management practices and relationships between seed bank and emergent communities by allowing or excluding weed control practices and measuring emergent weed community response. Germinable weed seed bank densities and species richness in the final year of the study were over 40% and 15% higher, respectively, in the organic systems relative to the conventional system. Seed bank community structure in the organic systems was different from the conventional system, and the relationships between assembled seed banks and the emergent flora varied depending upon management system and weed control treatment. Primary tillage, control practices, timing of planting, and fertility management appeared to be the main filters that differentiated weed seed banks. Weed life history, emergence periodicity, and responsiveness to soil fertility appeared to be the most important functional traits determining how weed species responded. Our results suggest that management systems can exert strong filtering effects on the assembly of weed communities, and that these effects can persist over relatively long time scales. Legacy effects of filtering may be more important than previously assumed, and should be incorporated into predictive models of weed community assembly.

THE WEED SEEDBANK: A FARMER'S PERSPECTIVE. D. Mortensen, C. Mortensen, R. Smith, D. Sandy, and W. Curran, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, many weed science papers have been published arguing for a “seedbank- centric” approach to weed management with a central goal being seedbank reduction. While this goal may optimize weed management, it may come at a cost to other aspects of a cropping system. For example, if the fertility of a farm relies on manure and compost, and if that compost contains weeds seeds, then that farm may have to accept increases in the weed seedbank to achieve nutrient delivery to the crop and other associated soil quality benefits. Such cropping systems level tradeoffs are revealed in a series of interviews with growers in our region. The interviews underscore the importance of seeing disciplinary goals and tenets in the context of the tradeoffs that regularly confront farmers.

SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL GRASSES ALONG HIGHWAY GUIDERAILS. J. Johnson, K. Lloyd, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Annual grasses, such as foxtail (Setaria spp.), plague roadside bareground weed control areas. Limited herbicide half-life and rapid degradation due to environmental extremes make season-long control of annual grasses difficult. Preemergence grass herbicides were evaluated in tank mixes, as single or dual applications, and at two locations for control of late-season germinating annual grasses. The trial was established at guiderail locations in Washington County and Centre County, PA using a randomized complete block design with three replications. Ten herbicide combinations (kg ai/ha) and an untreated check were applied to 7.6 by 1.2 m plots. The herbicide combinations included sulfometuron at 0.16, chlorsulfuron at 0.08, and diuron at 7.19 alone, or combined with either pendimethalin at 4.46, oryzalin at 4.49 or 6.73, prodiamine at 1.64, imazapic at 0.21, rimsulfuron at 0.07, or sulfentrazone at 0.42; sulfometuron at 0.16, chlorsulfuron at 0.08, and diuron at 13.47; and a split application of sulfometuron at 0.10, chlorsulfuron at 0.05, sulfentrazone at 0.27, metsulfuron at 0.02, and diuron at 5.39. The second treatment of this split application included sulfometuron at 0.06, chlorsulfuron at 0.03, sulfentrazone at 0.15, metsulfuron at 0.01, and hexazinone at 0.84. Glyphosate at 1.68 kg ae/ha and 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant were included in all herbicide treatments. Treatments were applied using a CO2-powered hand held sprayer equipped with a single off-center tip targeting 374 L/ha on May 15 and May 27, 2009 at the Washington and Centre sites, respectively. The second treatment of the dual application was applied on July 10 or 20, 2009 at the two sites. Plots were evaluated for total cover approximately 0, 60, and 120 days after treatment (DAT) and for annual grass cover at 120 DAT. Predominant grass species at Washington included smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.), fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.). The Centre site was inhabited by the following grass species: giant foxtail, yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes), smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. Ex Muhl.), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.), barnyardgrass, and orchardgrass. By September (120 DAT), untreated plots averaged 68 and 83 percent total vegetative cover and 2 and 12 percent annual grass cover at the Washington and Centre sites, respectively. Treatments ranged from 1 to 34 percent total and 0 to 14 percent annual grass cover at Washington. At Centre, treatments produced between 1 and 32 percent total and 0 and 8 percent annual grass cover. Treatments containing pendimethalin, imazapic, or rimsulfuron provided the poorest control, with differences most pronounced at the Washington site. There were no significant differences in annual grass cover at either site; however, the addition of oryzalin (either rate) and the split application tended to produce the best results.

MANAGEMENT OF PALE SWALLOW-WORT USING MOWING AND HERBICIDES IN TWO CONTRASTING HABITATS. A. DiTommaso, T. Bittner, and L. Milbrath, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Pale swallow-wort [PSW] (Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar.) is an invasive non-native vine that is increasing in prevalence in many natural and semi- natural areas of the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada. This herbaceous perennial thrives in old fields and ecotones but can also establish in shaded forest understories. Therefore, we conducted a two-year (2008-2009) herbicide and clipping study in an old field (OF) and adjacent forest understory (FU) site near Ithaca, NY. We compared the effects of seven treatments during two growing seasons on stem density and percent cover of PSW in these two habitats. Treatment plots measured 4 by 4 m and vegetation in all plots was mowed to a height of 5 cm in mid-June of both years. There were seven replicate plots for each treatment resulting in a total of 49 plots in each habitat. The seven treatments were: (1) glyphosate (Roundup Pro®) at 4.87 and 2.44 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (2) triclopyr triethylamine salt (Brush-B- Gone®) at 0.93 and 0.46 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (3) triclopyr triethylamine salt (Garlon® 3A) at 4.87 and 1.70 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (4) triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (Garlon® 4 Ultra) at 2.99 and 0.43 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (5) triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (Garlon® 4 Ultra) at 4.87 and 2.27 kg ai/ha in OF and FU, respectively; (6) an untreated check; and (7) a second mowing at the time of herbicide application. Pre-treatment assessments of PSW stem number and percent cover, in a 1 by 1m sub-plot, were made a few days prior to mowing (mid-June). The herbicides were applied in late August using a CO2 back-pack sprayer pressurized at 100 kPa. Post- treatment measurements for 2008 applications were made in mid-June 2009 and for the 2009 applications will be recorded in mid-June 2010. Thus, data (percent cover) resulting from only the first year of treatments (2008) are presented. By mid-June 2009, treatment effects differed in the two habitats. In the OF, the highest reductions in PSW cover relative to pre-treatment levels were observed for the glyphosate (46%) and triclopyr butoxyethyl (41%) (Garlon® 4 Ultra - 4.87 kg/ha)-treated plots. Plots treated with triclopyr butoxyethyl at 2.99 kg/ha resulted in only a 9% reduction. Cover of PSW in triclopyr amine (Brush-B-Gone®)-treated plots at 0.93 kg/ha increased by 17%. Mowing plots twice in 2008 resulted in a 281% increase in PSW cover. In the FU, PSW cover was reduced in all treatments including plots mowed twice (16%). The highest reductions in cover (56%) were achieved in the glyphosate and triclopyr butoxyethyl (0.43 kg/ha)-treated plots. The lowest reductions in cover (30%) were observed for plots sprayed with triclopyr butoxyethyl at 2.27 kg/ha. Data collected in June 2010 sampling will confirm whether the effects observed following control during this single season will be maintained. However, it is likely that observed differences in the efficacy of treatments between the OF and FU habitats will not change. If so, these findings suggest that management of PSW using herbicides and mowing may vary depending on the habitat being managed.

KUDZU ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M. Bravo and J. Miller, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.

ABSTRACT

Kudzu is a state noxious weed in Pennsylvania and all known sites in the state are tracked by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). Kudzu is found in Zone 6 of the U.S. National Arboretum Plant Hardiness Zone Map which includes half of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Prior to the implementation of the field program in 2006, only a handful of kudzu sites were known in Pennsylvania and little to no site specific data had been evaluated. A very successful program, this state wide effort by the PDA has confirmed 140 properties in 15 counties with 89 spatially distinct populations. Currently, 59 properties are under treatment in the pilot program using start up funds received from the PA legislature in 2006. Several populations have been eradicated as a result of the program treatments. The remaining sites are awaiting enrollment which is dependent on future funding. The majority of kudzu sites in PA are less than a half an acre in size but at least 4 sites are greater than 2 acres in size. Enrolled sites are treated for a minimum of 3 consecutive years by the Bureau of Plant Industry or as needed to gain 100% control of the above ground biomass. Technical assistance and training are provided to property owners to enable monitoring and effective management of the seed bank once the above ground biomass and all viable crowns are effectively controlled. Herbicides used in the program include aminopyralid, clopyralid, imazapyr, metsulfuron and triclopyr.

SUPPRESSION OF JAPANESE KNOTWEED WITH GLYPHOSATE OR TRICLOPYR APPLIED SEQUENTIALLY OR FOLLOWING CUTTING. A. Gover, J. Johnson, K. Lloyd, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

The rhizomatous perennial Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. and Zucc.) was subjected to five, two-operation treatments during 2008, including cutting to the ground on June 18 and July 21, cutting on June 18 followed by a foliar application of glyphosate at 3.4 kg ae/ha or triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha on September 30, or sequential foliar applications of glyphosate at 3.4 kg ae/ha or triclopyr at 3.4 kg ae/ha on July 21 and September 30. The July 21 foliar applications were applied in 1730 L/ha of carrier, while the September 30 applications were applied to a reduced canopy at 865 L/ha. All herbicide treatments included a modified vegetable oil surfactant at 4.7 L/ha. Each treatment was replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. Prior to initiation of treatments, stem counts were taken in a permanent 2.25 m2 subplot in each 4.7 by 7.6 m plot on May 18. At this time, average stem density was 15 to 20/m2, and average canopy height for the plots ranged from 2 to 3 m and height range of counted stems was 0.2 to 3 m. Peak average canopy heights of 4 m were observed June 18. Visual ratings of percent canopy reduction were collected May 8, 2009, and stem counts and biomass fresh weights were collected from the permanent subplots on June 2, 2009. The untreated plots averaged 15 and 14 stems/m2 in 2008 and 2009, and 5.4 kg fresh wt/m2. The twice-cut plots were rated at 30 percent canopy reduction, increased from 20 to 28 stems/m2 from 2008 to 2009, and averaged 4.8 kg fresh wt/m2. This stem density was significantly greater than the untreated plots but the biomass was not significantly different. Fresh weight yields and percent canopy reduction ratings among the herbicide-treated plots were not significantly different, and ranged from 0.2 to 1.3 kg fresh weight/m2 and 90 to 99 percent canopy reduction. There were significant differences in stem density among the herbicide-treated plots, as the cut-herbicide treatments averaged 9.3 and 13 stems/m2 for glyphosate and triclopyr respectively, which was not significantly different from the untreated plots. The sequential treatment plots averaged 1.8 and 1.3 stems/m2 for glyphosate and triclopyr, respectively.

GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M. Bravo, M. Polach, and J. Zoschg, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.

ABSTRACT

Pennsylvania has been controlling and eradicating giant hogweed, a federal noxious weed of limited distribution in Pennsylvania since 1998. Giant hogweed has been discovered in 19 counties at 488 sites since the program began in the state. Of these only 10% required treatment in 2009 and 53% of the known sites in Pennsylvania are inactive and have been released from the program. Sites are released from the program after three or more years of no seed bank emergence. The remaining sites (37%) did not require treatment in the past three years and are under review for release at the end of 2010. Pennsylvania also assists Ohio with control efforts in Ashtabula County. The Pennsylvania program continues to have few new sites reported with less than 20 new sites of giant hogweed reported and confirmed in the last two years. All of the newly confirmed sites had not been previously listed and/or were not releases from previously identified sites. This information supports the states findings that an effective eradication of giant hogweed from infested sites can occur after 3 consecutive years or less depending on the seed bank. Herbicide trials in 2007, 2008 and 2009 at three different locations in Pennsylvania confirmed the effectiveness of triclopyr (Garlon 3A) and aminopyralid (Milestone VM) separate and in combination. Pennsylvania will continue to use triclopyr at 5% v/v or 2.5% v/v (determined by plant size) with 0.156% v/v aminopyralid or aminopyralid alone at equivalent rates of 53 to 123 g ae/ha in either a Thinvert or water solution as the base program recommendations.

SUPPRESSION OF MILE-A-MINUTE AND JAPANESE STILTGRASS, AND NON- TARGET IMPACTS WITH PREEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF PENDIMETHALIN, IMAZAPIC, OR SULFOMETURON. A. Gover, J. Johnson, K. Lloyd, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA. ABSTRACT

PRE applications of pendimethalin at 4.5 kg/ha, imazapic at 0.14 kg/ha, or sulfometuron at 0.053 kg/ha were applied March 10, 2009 to plots with residue removed at 187 L/ha, or residue intact at 187 or 935 L/ha. Herbicide-free plots were established with and without residue. Residue biomass was not measured, but comprised a layer approximately 2 cm thick composed primarily of previous year’s Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus var. imberbe (Nees) Honda). Each plot was visually evaluated for percent total vegetative cover and percent cover by mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum L.) on May 5 (56 days after treatment [DAT]), June 9 (91 DAT), and July 22, 2009 (134 DAT), and percent cover from stiltgrass on July 22. Each treatment was replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. Evaluations of herbicide by residue and herbicide by carrier volume effects were conducted with separate analyses of variance on factorial subsets of the data. There was no interaction between herbicide and residue, or herbicide and carrier volume for any dependent variable. The effect of residue or carrier volume was not significant for any dependent variable at any rating date. Mile-a-minute pressure was lower than anticipated, was observed at low levels in the experiment, but did not exceed 1 percent cover for any treatment by 134 DAT. Herbicide was a significant factor for total vegetative cover only when the untreated plots were included in the analysis. At 56 DAT, the untreated plots averaged 51 percent cover, while the pendimethalin, imazapic, and sulfometuron plots averaged 25, 19, and 12 percent cover respectively. At 134 DAT, the untreated plots had 100 percent cover, while the pendimethalin, imazapic, and sulfometuron plots averaged 71, 56, and 27 percent cover, respectively. Stiltgrass cover at 134 DAT was 91 percent for the untreated plots, 39 percent for imazapic (70 percent of total cover), and 1 and 3 percent for pendimethalin and sulfometuron. Pendimethalin provided the best combination of stiltgrass suppression and release of non-target vegetation. The most common species observed in pendimethalin-treated plots included wild grape (Vitis spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze), blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis Porter), arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum L.), and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum L.). Sulfometuron-treated plots had a similar spectrum of woody species as pendimethalin-treated plots, but plant size and density was less, and apparent injury symptoms were observed, particularly on multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr.), and cover from herbaceous species was reduced. Pendimethalin currently provides the most selective means to suppress mile-a-minute and stiltgrass where a mixed community of residual vegetation is to be preserved.

SEVERAL TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS IN A WOODLAND. T. Mervosh, J. Ward, and J. Barsky, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT.

ABSTRACT

Japanese stiltgrass (JSG) [Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus], an annual grass species, has become a serious invasive plant problem in the eastern U.S. Because it can grow in low light, JSG tends to dominate the groundlayer of forests. The location of our study is a woodland along the Connecticut River in East Haddam, CT. The site is infested with JSG, which is displacing native plant seedlings. We are evaluating several non-chemical and herbicide treatments for efficacy in controlling JSG, impacts on other vegetation, and relative treatment costs. Four blocks of eighteen 3-m by 4-m plots were established in May 2008, after JSG seedlings began to emerge. Each treatment was assigned randomly to one plot per block. Treatments were applied on June 11, July 25 and August 29, 2008, and on June 10, July 23 and August 20, 2009. Each plot was treated once per year, with the same treatment applied in the same month both years. Treatments included pulling JSG by hand [July timing], flaming with a 400,000 BTU propane torch (directed heat) until severe wilting of leaves [June and July], and cutting with a string trimmer [July and August]. The following herbicide treatments were applied: vinegar (5% acetic acid, undiluted) [June and July], pendimethalin (3.0 lb ai/A) plus pelargonic acid (5% solution) [June], pelargonic acid (5% solution) alone [June and July], imazapic (0.125 lb ai/A) [June], fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (0.04 and 0.16 lb ai/A) [July], glufosinate (0.125 and 0.5 lb ai/A) [August], and glyphosate (0.125 and 0.5 lb ai/A) [August]. Herbicides were applied with a hand-held, three-nozzle spray boom (8003VS tips) pressurized with CO2 at 22 psi. Spray volume was 25 gallons per acre, except 50 gal/A for vinegar and pelargonic acid treatments. A non-ionic surfactant (0.25% v/v) was added to each spray bottle. Plots were evaluated periodically for JSG stand density (% area covered), height and vigor, in addition to JSG seed production and effects on other plants. All aboveground JSG parts, including seeds, were collected from four 0.1-m2 sample points within each plot in early October each year. End-of-season JSG stand density in untreated plots was about 90% both years. All treatments reduced JSG coverage and seed production. The most variable and least effective treatments were vinegar and pelargonic acid (without pendimethalin). In 2008, hand pulling in July reduced JSG seed production by 81%. Flaming, string trimming, and all herbicides (except vinegar and pelargonic acid alone) reduced seeds by more than 90%, with imazapic, fenoxaprop, glufosinate and glyphosate treatments completely preventing JSG seed production, even at the low- dose applications. Plots in which very few seeds were produced in 2008 had much lower JSG seedling emergence in 2009 compared to untreated plots. This observation suggests most seedlings that emerged in 2009 may have been from seeds shed the previous year. Several effective non-chemical and herbicide options are available to control Japanese stiltgrass.

RESPONSE OF WOODY SPECIES TO FOLIAR OR CUT SURFACE APPLICATIONS OF MAT28. J. Johnson, K. Lloyd, A. Gover, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Aminocyclopyrachlor (MAT28, DuPont Crop Protection) is a broad-spectrum herbicide with selectivity to grasses, belonging to the new chemical class of pyrimidine carboxylic acids. In two separate trials, MAT28 (aminocyclopyrachlor) was evaluated for use in foliar (e.g., black locust, Robinia pseudoacacia L.) and cut surface treatment of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L. f.), and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata). The foliar trial targeted black locust along a recently constructed section of I-99 near State College, PA. The study was arranged in a completely randomized design with twelve treatments, and each treatment was applied to five trees, ranging from 2 to 3 m tall. The treatment volume for each tree was derived using estimated canopy area and target application rate of 468 L/ha. Treatments included an untreated check; 70 g/ha aminocyclopyrachlor alone, or combined with either 21 g/ha metsulfuron, 73 g/ha imazapyr, or 7021 g/ha fosamine; 140 g/ha aminocyclopyrachlor alone, or combined with either 42 g/ha metsulfuron, 73 g/ha imazapyr, or 7021 g/ha fosamine; 210 g/ha aminocyclopyrachlor alone, or combined with 63 g/ha metsulfuron; and 3518 g/ha glyphosate. All herbicide treatments included methylated vegetable oil at 1% v/v. Treatments were applied on July 4, 2008 using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer equipped with a spray wand, TeeJet adjustable ConeJet nozzle, and X-6 tip. Percent control was visually rated 68 and 367 DAT. Cut surface treatments were applied to green ash, pin cherry, and bigtooth aspen within the infield of the SR 22/219S ramp in Ebensburg, PA. The trial was a completely randomized design with 8 treatments and 10 replications per species. Stems were up to 15 cm in diameter with some targets consisting of multiple stems. Treatments included an untreated check; 6, 12, 24, or 36 g/L aminocyclopyrachlor; 144 g/L triclopyr; 96 g/L triclopyr plus 2.4 g/L imazapyr; 24 g/L aminocyclopyrachlor plus 2.4 g/L imazapyr. All treatments were diluted in commercial basal oil1/. Treatments were applied to stumps immediately after cutting on September 19 or 22, 2008 using a CO2- powered sprayer equipped with a spray wand, TeeJet adjustable ConeJet nozzle, and Y-2 tip. Stems were rated 297 DAT and 362 DAT for the presence of first year resprouts within a 3.2 m radius. The diameter of all resprouts and maximum height were recorded, if present. All foliar treatments provided excellent control of black locust (100 percent), and no root sprouts were observed in the treated area. Similarly, the cut surface trials yielded only one stump with sprouts (found on green ash) among all the treated stems, regardless of treatment or species. Aminocyclopyrachlor has demonstrated its effectiveness in these applications. One concern discovered during the implementation of the cut surface trial was the chemicals inability to readily mix with the basal oil at high concentrations.

SUPPRESSION OF KOCHIA IN THE ROADSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY USING NEW CHEMISTRY. K. Lloyd, J. Johnson, and J. Sellmer, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Kochia (Kochia scoparia L.) presents a challenge in roadside bareground zones. Kochia has developed widespread resistance to ALS- and PSII inhibitors, including isolated reports of diuron-resistance; biotypes resistant to synthetic auxins have also been reported (Heap 2009; Mengistu et al. 2005). Indaziflam is a non-selective broad- spectrum herbicide in the chemical class alkylazines currently in development by Bayer CropScience. Aminocyclopyrachlor (DuPont Crop Protection) is a broad-spectrum herbicide with selectivity to grasses, belonging to the new chemical class pyrimidine carboxylic acids. Aminocyclopyrachlor and indaziflam were screened for early-season kochia activity in two RCBD trials (3 replications) on Pennsylvania roadsides. Indaziflam was applied either alone at 49, 98, or 140 g/ha; or mixed at the 98 g/ha rate with either sulfometuron, diuron, simazine, or sulfometuron plus metsulfuron at 158, 4480, 2340, or 118 plus 32 g/ha, respectively. Sulfometuron plus metsulfuron plus diuron at 158 plus 42 plus 7170 g/ha was also tested. All treatments included glyphosate at 3.37 kg ae/ha, except for an untreated check. Treatments were applied on May 19, 2009 using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer to 2 by 5 m plots at 300 L/ha. Kochia control was rated 30 DAT, and % kochia groundcover was rated 0, 63, 91, and 134 DAT. In a second trial, aminocyclopyrachlor was applied alone at either 204, 262, or 321 g/ha or mixed at 204 g/ha with sulfometuron plus chlorsulfuron at 119 plus 59 g/ha, respectively; at 210 g/ha mixed with sulfometuron plus metsulfuron at 157 plus 42 g/ha, respectively; at 262 g/ha in combination with sulfometuron at 157 g/ha and mixed with either chlorsulfuron, flumioxazin, sulfentrazone, or diuron at 79, 357, 420, or 3580 g/ha, respectively; and at 321 g/ha mixed with sulfometuron plus chlorsulfuron at 196 plus 98 g/ha. Bromacil plus diuron was also applied at 3.58 plus 3.58 kg/ha. All treatments included glyphosate at 2.24 kg ae/ha, except for an untreated check. Plots 1.3 by 8.1 m in size were treated on April 27, 2009 using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer at 280 L/ha. Total and kochia groundcover were rated 0, 12, 64, 100, and 147 DAT. All indaziflam treatments provided excellent initial kochia control (97 to 99%) at 30 DAT. For indaziflam alone, kochia cover ranged from 4 to 6% at 134 DAT and was not significantly different among the rates applied, while the untreated check had 9% kochia cover. Kochia cover ranged from 2 to 7% for the indaziflam mixes. Overall, diuron in combination either with indaziflam or with sulfometuron plus metsulfuron performed best against kochia. Kochia cover ranged from 0 to 2% at 147 DAT for the rates of aminocyclopyrachlor tested, while kochia cover ranged from 0 to 11% among all treatments. The treatments with the highest kochia cover (8 to 11%) were combinations of aminocyclopyrachlor with sulfometuron plus either metsulfuron or chlorsulfuron. Significantly lower kochia cover (0-1%) at 147 DAT was found with aminocyclopyrachlor combined with sulfometuron plus either diuron, flumioxazin, or sulfentrazone. These results suggest the presence of ALS-resistant kochia at the site.

QUINCLORAC FOR DODDER CONTROL IN CRANBERRIES. B. Majek, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ.

ABSTRACT

Weeds continue to cause serious problems in cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) production. Greenhouse and field screening has identified quinclorac as a potentially useful herbicide for use in cranberries with good crop safety more than ten years ago. Good crop safety has been observed at up to 1.0 lb ai/a applied to dormant cranberries in early spring or to actively growing and blooming cranberries in late spring or early summer. Experiments conducted to evaluate the control of serious cranberry weeds in growers’ bogs have indicated that quinclorac has the potential to control weeds that cannot currently be easily controlled in cranberries. Applied at 0.25 to 0.5 lb ai/a, quinclorac has controlled swampcandle (Lysimachia terrestris (L.) B.S.P.), also known as yellow loosestrife to cranberry growers, when applied in early summer after cranberry bloom and near or shortly after the weed blooms. False nutsedge (Cyperus strigosus L.) was controlled quinclorac was late spring or early summer. Dodder has been an increasing problem in cranberry bogs in recent years, since the cancellation of the chloropropham registration for cranberries. Pronamide, applied twice, provided excellent dodder control in cranberries through section 18 Emergency Exemptions, but the request was denied in 2009. Quinclorac applied at 0.25 lb ai/A plus 1 percent oil concentrate was evaluated for dodder(Cuscuta gronovii Willd.) control in cranberries in 2009. The herbicide was applied in June after dodder had germinated and begun to attach, in July after attachment, and at both timings. The June application initially controlled dodder, but recovery was evident by August. Dodder bloom was delayed from late July to mid August, but not prevented. The application of quinclorac in July did not control dodder. Two applications of quinclorac, in June and in July was the only treatment that provided season long dodder control. The failure of the July treatment to control dodder strongly indicates timing of the application is critical to obtaining acceptable control. Quinclorac applied earlier in the spring before attachment and at or immediately before dodder germination, followed by a second application in early summer are likely to provide the best control and need to be evaluated further.

INDAZIFLAM - A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN FRUIT, NUT, AND GRAPE CROPS. M. Mahoney and D. Unland, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD.

ABSTRACT

Indaziflam is a new cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor under development as a preemergence broadspectrum herbicide. This new active ingredient from Bayer CropScience will be formulated as a suspension concentrate and branded as Alion® for use in perennial fruit, nut, and grape crops. Pending approval by EPA, Alion® will provide residual preemergence control of monocot and dicot weeds for several months with excellent crop safety when applied alone or in a tankmix with other herbicides such as glufosinate. Alion® will be an effective tool to manage weed populations that are resistant to other modes of action including EPSP synthase inhibitors, ALS inhibitors, and PSII inhibitors. Alion® has very favorable toxicological properties with no evidence of effects on immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity or carcinogenicity. Based on residue tests results, Bayer CropScience anticipates a 14 day or less preharvest interval for all crops and no commodity trade restrictions. Over 50 common weed species will be included on the initial label such as pigweed sp. (Amaranthus species), coast fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), kochia (Kochia scoparia), annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), swinecress (Coronopus didymus), brome sp. (Bromus species), bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and foxtail sp. (Setaria species). Over 500 field trials have been conducted throughout the United States since 2003 and have demonstrated that the use rate of 73 – 95 g ai ha-1 Alion® will provide 80% or greater control of key weeds 90 days or longer after treatment. Length of control has been equal to or longer than all other registered products tested at the manufacturer’s recommended use rates. The application timing of Alion® is flexible and may be applied anytime of the year that the soil is not frozen to provide extended weed control and best control has been obtained when irrigation is applied or precipitation occurs soon after Alion® has been applied.

WINTER ANNUAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN PEACH ORCHARDS. P. Christoffoleti, M. VanGessel, and B. Scott, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE.

ABSTRACT

Herbicide-resistant biotypes are not limited to specific crops or specific regions. This study was developed as a companion trial to one conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on an orange plantation where glyphosate-resistant Conyza species had become a serious management issue (WSSA Abstracts 49:67). These studies were designed to examine residual herbicides for winter annual weed control, specifically Conyza, in a orchard or plantation setting. A set of six treatments were applied in two settings at UD- REC in the fall of 2007 and 2008. One setting was a non-crop area heavily infested with a range of winter annual weed species commonly observed in orchards. The second setting was a peach (Prunus persica) orchard over-seeded with glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Treatments were applied on the same day for both settings, in the respective year. Treatments include no residual herbicides, diuron (0.78 lb ai/A), simazine (2.5 lbs ai/A), norflurazon (1.5 lbs ai/A), flumioxazin (0.3 lbs ai/A), and diuron plus oryzalin (1.5 and 2 lbs ai/A, respectively). All treatments were tankmixed with glyphosate (0.5 lb ae/A) and applied November 20, 2007 and December 18, 2008. Treatments were applied with a CO2 back pack sprayer delivering 25 gpa at 25 psi. Plots in the non-crop area were 10 ft by 25 ft and were replicated four times. Plots in the peach orchard were 20 feet long and 8 ft wide (plots contained two established peach trees) and were replicated three times. Control of emerged plants was excellent in all sites and ratings reflect only plants emerging after application dates. Ratings were taken in mid to late May, six months following application. In the peach orchard site, all weed densities were variable and there were few significant differences between treatments. But some trends across years were observed. Norflurazon was not as effective as all other residual treatments for control of cutleaf evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Field pansy (Viola arvensis), horseweed, and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) control was lower with norflurazon in one of the two years. All other residual herbicides provided excellent control of the species mentioned. At the non-crop location, control of field pansy, cutleaf evening primrose, common lambsquarters, and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) was significantly lower with norflurazon compared to the other residual herbicides. Annual grass control was less with diuron or simazine compared to the other residual herbicides. Residual control of horseweed was achieved with all the residual herbicides tested except norflurazon. Norflurazon was not as effective as the other residual herbicides for consistent control of field pansy, cutleaf evening primrose, redstem filaree, and common lambsquarters. There are herbicides available to help manage glyphosate-resistant horseweed in an orchard setting, but increase management will be required to ensure the correct herbicide is applied and applied in a timely fashion.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EVALUATION OF TWO NOVEL CULTIVATION TOOLS. G. Evans and R. Bellinder, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Cultivation is a critical component of organic weed management, and has relevance in conventional farming. Limitations with current cultivation tools include high purchase and maintenance costs; limited efficacy; excessive soil disturbance, and; marginal applicability across a range of soil types, soil moisture conditions, and weed growth stages. The objective of this research was to develop cultivation tools that could address some of these limitations. Designs for two new tractor-mounted cultivators were loosely extracted from patents of antique hand-held tools. These new cultivators were drafted with the aid of engineering software and constructed in the Metal Technologies Working Lab at Cornell University. The first tool resembles a block plane, where a flat surface in the front of the tool rests against the soil and limits the entrance of a rear-mounted blade. As the tool is pulled across the soil the blade cuts in and lifts soil onto and over the course of the blade. The second tool is similar in appearance to a stirrup hoe, where a horizontal steel blade with a beveled front edge slices through the upper crust of the soil. Both cultivators were mounted on a toolbar alongside a traditional S-tine sweep, such that the relative merits of each novel cultivator could be compared directly with a common grower standard. In the summer of 2008, the tri-part cultivator was tested in 20 non-crop field events. In each event, four replicated cultivations were made at speeds of 2, 6, and 10 KPH. Weed control and weed reemergence data were collected from the cultivated area of each of the three tools, at each cultivation speed. Multivariate statistics were used to model the relative efficacy of each cultivator across the tested speeds and within specific environmental parameters, including: weed pressure (species, size and density), soil moisture, soil type, and rainfall level. Averaging across the three tested speeds, the block plane design provided significantly greater weed control than the S-tine sweeps in 17 of the 20 cultivation events (P=0.10). The stirrup design significantly improved weed control in 6 of the 20 cultivation events; provided control equivalent to the S-tine sweeps in 13 events; and lowered control in one event. The block plane design consistently increased weed control when monitored weeds were 15 cm or larger at the time of cultivation. In all 10 cultivation events in silt loam soils, the block plane design provided significantly greater weed control than the S-tine sweeps. The stirrup design was most effective in gravel loam soils, improving weed control over the S-tine sweep 50% of the time. The number of new weeds emerging 14 days after cultivation was not markedly different between the three cultivators. Both novel cultivators have demonstrable merit; particularly the block plane design. Further trials in 2009 were conducted to evaluate crop response when each tool was used in broccoli and bell pepper.

THE WEED MASTER: INNOVATIVE PHYSICAL WEED CONTROL TOOLS FOR THE SMALL FARM. E. Gallandt, University of Maine, Orono, ME.

ABSTRACT

Small-scale farmers are in great need of scale-appropriate weed management tools. In this project we imported from Finland the Weed Master®, an innovative set of cultivation and flame-weeding equipment, designed and built by a team of small-scale organic farmers. This is the first unit to be imported to North America. Farmers have been generally impressed. Our on-farm field evaluations, as well as a replicated comparison with widely-available weeding tools indicates that efficacy of weed control with the Weed Master is equal to hand weeding, hoeing or using a wheel hoe, but 60% to many times more efficient when working time is considered. The dramatically greater working speed translates directly into dollars saved weeding, and offers growers opportunity to cultivate several times to achieve a high level of weed control if necessary.

POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN BROCCOLI WITH A FLOWABLE FORMULATION OF OXYFLUORFEN. B. Majek, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ

ABSTRACT

Oxyfluorfen has been registered for use and recommended in New Jersey and many other northeastern states for use pre-transplant in cole crops including broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.) for many years. Oxyfluorfen, when formulated as a 1.6EC or a 2 EC, was too injurious to apply to these crops postemergence. This limited use to the transplanted crops and excluded direct seeded fields. Recently, a new flowable formulation of oxyfluorfen, GoalTender 4F, has been introduced. Postemergence applications of GoalTender 4F injure broccoli leaves contacted the spray, but the injury is less severe than when an EC formulation is used. The symptoms observed were typical for postemergence oxyfluorfen applications. Necrotic speckles were observed on mature foliage that intercepted the spray, and some crinkling and wrinkling of foliage was observed around necrotic speckles on immature foliage that intercepted spray. The injury observed at the standard use rate of 0.25 lb ai/A was not severe, and considered an acceptable level. Yield and earliness was not affected. Annual broadleaf weed control, including smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.), common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.), and hairy galinsoga (Galinsoga ciliate (Raf.) Blake) was excellent when applied to seedling weeds less than 2 inches tall with less than six true leaves. Larger hairy galinsoga plants in bloom at the time of treatment were only suppressed.

TANK-MIXING PESTICIDES AND ADJUVANTS WITH GOALTENDER IN CABBAGE. R. Bellinder and G. Evans, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

GoalTender (oxyfluorfen) has been recently registered in New York for postemergence use in cabbage. Growers have questioned whether fungicide and insecticide tank-mixtures with oxyfluorfen can be safely made. In 2009, oxyfluorfen, clopyralid, and clethodim (Select Max) were applied in combination with four insecticides (Entrust, Warrior, Thionex, Sevin) and two fungicides (Bravo, Quadris). Crop oil concentrate (COC) at 1% v/v was included with all tankmixtures. Transplants of cabbage ‘Checkmate’ were planted on 5/13. S-metolachlor at 0.96 lb ai/A was applied to the entire trial on 5/15. The original intention was to apply each treatment 3 times, at 2 wk intervals, beginning 2 wk after transplanting. However, significant injury occurred with oxyfluorfen tank-mix treatments after the first application. Due to the degree of initial injury, subsequent applications were omitted. While 15% or less injury occurred with oxyfluorfen alone, stunting injury with tankmixtures ranged from 26 to 53%, 8 days after treatment (DAT). By 36 DAT the level of injury had decreased by half in all affected treatments. Injury was most severe when oxyfluorfen was combined with Sevin and Thionex. Yields were reduced in 5 of 11 treatments, all of which contained an insecticide. It is not clear whether this was due to the nature of the products’ active ingredients or to specific formulation components. No injury was observed with any of the clopyralid or clethodim combinations. Two separate non-replicated trials were conducted in cabbage at 3 and 4 wk after transplanting. The first trial included: oxyfluorfen, clopyralid, oxyfluorfen + clopyralid, s- metolachlor, and oxyfluorfen + s-metolachlor (no COC). Clopyralid combined with oxyfluorfen did not injure cabbage. However, when oxyfluorfen was combined with s- metolachlor, there was significant stunting and damage to the developing cabbage heads. While previous research with this combination has not shown significant injury, it is to be remembered that this treatment was applied to the crop at 3 wk after transplanting, and not the day after as in previous trials. The second non-replicated trial included: oxyfluorfen +/- COC, clethodim + COC, and a tank-mix of oxyfluorfen + clethodim, +/- COC. Significant injury occurred with all oxyfluorfen treatments that included COC. Despite the injury in both of the unreplicated trials there were no visual impacts on harvested heads. Pesticides that are formulated as emulsifiable concentrates or which contain high-tech adjuvant systems (Select Max) may increase oxyfluorfen injury.

RESISTANCE TO PHOTOSYSTEM II-INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN COMMON LAMBSQUARTERS FROM SUGAR BEET: A TALE OF THE (UN)EXPECTED?. R. Bulcke, E. Mechant, T. De Marez, and J. Aper, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

ABSTRACT

Several inhibitors of electron transfer in Photosystem (PS) II are key herbicides in sugar beet: metamitron (as-triazinone), chloridazon (pyridazinone), lenacil (uracil), phenmedipham and desmedipham (phenyl-carbamate). Like the s-triazines, they are all classified into WSSA Group 5 (HRAC subgroup C1). Prior to the start of the present studies, the only known mechanism responsible for resistance to Group 5 herbicides in common lambsquarters, was a modified target site (the D1 herbicide binding protein of PS II) due to a Ser264 to Gly mutation in the psbA chloroplast gene. In recent years, European sugar beet growers are being confronted with unsatisfactory control of common lambsquarters. In most Belgian, French and Dutch “suspected” populations from sugar beet fields, resistance to metamitron, accompanied by cross-resistance at a high level to both metribuzin and atrazine, was confirmed. Finding common lambsquarters biotypes with such a resistance profile was not that surprising; indeed, as early as in the early 1980’s, in many Western European countries triazine-resistant biotypes with cross-resistance to the triazinones metamitron and metribuzin were recorded in maize under monoculture. In 2005, a population from Sweden was found to display a highly different response: a much higher level of resistance to metamitron and metribuzin but only a very low level to atrazine. Resistance in this Swedish biotype did evolve in an absolutely triazine-free environment. Given the unexpected, highly contrasting resistance profiles, it was decided to carry out a DNA sequence analysis of the psbA gene. The Ser264 to Gly mutation was confirmed in several Belgian populations from problem sugar beet fields. However, in the Swedish biotype with the aberrant resistance profile, a different psbA point mutation (Ala251 to Val) was identified. It was the first record of a higher plant from the field with this substitution at position 251 and resistance to PS II inhibitors. Whatever their mutation, metamitron- resistant biotypes were cross-resistant to metribuzin, lenacil and chloridazon but not to phenmedipham [all Group 5 (C1)] and linuron [Group 7 (C2)]. The resistant biotype with the mutation at position 251 was cross-resistant to bentazon [Group 6 (C3)] in contrast to the biotypes carrying the mutation at position 264 where negative cross-resistance was recorded. Both mutant types displayed negative cross-resistance to aclonifen and clomazone [Group 13 (F3)], both potato herbicides. Although detection methods (small pot bioassay, chlorophyll fluorescence) for confirming resistance to metamitron were available, they unexpectedly did not always guarantee clear-cut results when metamitron itself was used in the tests. The fact that metamitron-resistant biotypes are all cross-resistant to metribuzin, irrespective of their mutation, and the better distinction between sensitive and resistant biotypes by this triazinone justify its use for monitoring purposes. Mapping the results from a nationwide survey in sugar beet fields, revealed that the metamitron-resistant biotype carrying the Ser264 to Gly mutation, has spread over the whole sugar beet area in Belgium.

THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HERBICIDE REGISTRATION (FOOD USES). M. Arsenovic, D. Kunkel, and J. Baron, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ.

ABSTRACT

The IR-4 Project is a publicly funded effort to support the registration of pest control products on specialty crops. The IR-4 Project continues to meet specialty-crop grower’s needs for weed control options despite the challenges of a mature market for herbicides and the selectivity of specialty crops to many of the more-recently-introduced herbicides. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act continues to effect IR-4 submissions and EPA reviews of packages. IR-4 submitted herbicide petitions to the EPA from October 2008 to October 2009 for: Glufosinate-ammonium on sweet corn; Halosulfuron-methyl on vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1c; Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, rhubarb, apple, and okra; Linuron on dry pea and parsley; S-metolachlor on sesame, Melon subgroup 9A, Bushberry subgroup 13- 07B, lowbush blueberry, Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, sweet sorghum, Leafy Brassica Greens subgroup 5B, turnip greens, carrot, cucumber, okra, Onion bulb subgroup 3- 07A, and Onion Green subgroup 3-07B From October 2008 through October 2009, EPA has published Notices of Filing in the Federal Register for: Endothall on vegetable, root and tuber group; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber group; vegetable, bulb group; vegetable, leafy except Brassica group; Vegetable Brassica, leafy group; vegetable, legume group; vegetable fruiting group; vegetable cucurbit group; fruits, citrus group; fruit, pome group; fruit, stone group; berry and small fruit group; grape; nut tree group; grain, cereal group; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw group; grass, forage, fodder, and hay group; animal feed, non-grass group; mint and rice; Clopyralid on Swiss chard, Busberry subgroup 13-07B, and annual strawberry (FL); Clethodim on Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, peach, and globe artichoke; Flumioxazin on Leaf Petioles subgroup 4B, Vegetable Cucurbit group 9, and hops; Prometryn on Leaf Petioles subgroup 4B, carrot, celeriac, cilantro, okra and parsley; Pronamide on lowgrowing berry subgroup, except strawberry; and Sulfentrazone on vegetable, tuberous and corm subgroup; Brassica, head and stem subgroup, Brassica, leafy greens subgroup, vegetable, fruiting group, okra, succulent pea, flax, and strawberry. EPA established tolerances from October 2008 to October 2009 for: MCPB on mint; Clorimuron-methyl on Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H; Pendimethalin on olive and Pendimethalin on grasses (time-limited tolerance).

IMPROVED STAKEHOLDER INPUT - REVISED IR-4 PROJECT NOMINATION PROCESS. E. Lurvey, IR-4 Project, Geneva, NY.

ABSTRACT

Stakeholder participation in selecting projects is essential for identifying research that meets the real needs for minor crop food production. To that end, IR-4 began a nominations process three years ago to broaden input on priority research selection. Therefore a potential research project must be nominated from the researchable list, if it is to be discussed at the IR-4 Food Use Workshop (FUW). The intent is to focus on the development of pest management tools that provide real benefits. The nominations also streamline the prioritization process, by removing out of date projects. If a project is not nominated for three years, it is dropped from the active research list, although it can be revived by submitting a new Project Clearance Request (PCR). As a result, the number of projects reviewed at the workshop has gone from thousands per discipline to a few hundred over the past three years. For the 2009 nominations the system was tweaked to increase stakeholder influence. First, a nomination is now entered by selecting an A, B, or C priority for the project. An A priority nomination insures that it will be in the first round of projects discussed at the Food Use Workshop. Second, the number of high priority projects assigned at the FUW has gone from 36 to 55, so a larger percentage of the coming years research (~75%) is now chosen directly by the workshop participants The nominations page is posted on the IR-4 website (http://ir4.rutgers.edu/) for three to four weeks beginning in early August. Note that the nominations page has also been improved by adding a comments section and links to project information and performance data. For more information, contact me: Edith Lurvey, Tel. No. 315-787-2308; E-mail [email protected], or your IR-4 State Liaison: Todd Mervosh (CT - SAES), Susan King (U Delaware), Frank Caruso (UMass Cranberry Station), Dave Yarborough (U Maine), C. Edward Beste (MD -LESREC), Rebecca Sideman (U New Hampshire), Cesar Rodriguez (NJ Cranberry/Blueberry Station), Paul Heller (PSU), Anne Hazzlerigg (U Vermont), Rakesh Chandran (West Virginia University).

APPLICATIONS OF PUCCINIA PUNCTIFORMIS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE. A. Spangler, S. Conaway, and P. Backman, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Control of the noxious weed Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is extremely challenging and often requires integrated control efforts due to its perennial lifecycle and extensive root system. This species, often found in crop fields, pastures, and rangelands, is detrimental to yields because it competes for water, nutrients, and light. Efficient biological control technology may alleviate control costs and provide an alternative to chemical herbicides. The biological control of C. arvense is currently being investigated using the fungal pathogen Puccinia punctiformis, a host specific rust species. Field experiments were conducted along Interstate 80 in central Pennsylvania to test a method for delivering P. punctiformis into naturally established, healthy C. arvense patches. C. arvense infected with P. punctiformis were transplanted from diseased highway patches into five healthy roadside patches with corresponding control patches. A transect sampling scheme was used to monitor disease progression in the patches. Results for experiments conducted along Interstate 80 indicated epidemics failed to establish in patches exposed to P. punctiformis. Possible explanations for the failed epidemics were: inadequate levels of inoculum required of infection to occur; dates selected for transplanting diseased C. arvense did not coincide with the infection window, and C. arvense patches were not susceptible to P. punctiformis due to multiple genotypes.

NON-NATIVE VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES RICHNESS IN FOUR NORTHEASTERN CITIES. R. Stalter, B. Drexler, and A. Brunson, St. Johns University, New York, NY

ABSTRACT

We present and compare vascular plant species in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. a total of 3,657 species have been reported in these four urban areas. One thousand three hundred seventy two species, 37.52% of the total, are common to all four cities. Non-native species similarity is closest for New York and Philadelphia, the two nearest cities and least similar for the two distant cities, Boston and Washington, DC. Factors playing a role in non-native vascular plant diversity may be time of settlement, climatic variables (length of the growing season, minimum January temperature and maximum summer temperatures) and the land suitable for invasion and establishment of non-native taxa.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare non-native vascular plant species diversity in four urban northeastern cities, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC. Data for this study was gleaned from a larger study by Clements and Moore (1) who examined species richness in eight cities, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and the four reported in this study, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. Clements and Moore (1) found that non-native species richness was most strongly correlated with longitude, which may have been related to the time of settlement. Eastern cities, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC. were settled earlier than Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Louis. Generally, southern cities contain a richer flora than northern cities of the same size because of the longer growing season and milder winter temperature. In a recent publication, “A commemorative flora of large urban parks; intraurban and interurban similarity in the megalopolis of the northeastern United States,” Loeb (2) compared and analyzed the vascular plant flora of ten urban parks to, “Determine interpark similarities; and the relationship between species diversity and human population of the counties in which the parks are located.” Loeb (2) reported that fewer than 1% of the total number of vascular plant species were found in all ten parks and less than 2.5% were present in nine of the ten parks. Loeb concluded , “That a common urban park flora does not exist.” Loeb’s (2) comparative study of vascular flora of ten urban parks was based on collections from 1975-2000. Two of the ten studies were based on complete vouchers, three with no vouchers, and five studies contained incomplete vouchers. Three of the incomplete voucher studies were the work of Venezia and Cook (3) “in house studies” on the floras of Breezy Point, Jamaica Bay and Wildlife Refuge, all units of Gateway National Recreation Area. Omitted in Loeb’s study of the three Jamaica Bay units was the more complete vouchered work at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge by Stalter and Lamont (4). Venezia and Cook’s (3) study at Breezy Point listed 225 vascular plants, of which 25 species were vouchered, 11% of the total. Included in the species list at Breezy Point

51 were Viburnum acerifolium, Celastrus scandens (but not C. orbiculatus), Plantanus occidentalis (but not P. acerifolium) Asimina triloba and Morus rubra; none of these taxa are found at Breezy Point. “Native” Pinus strobus and Tsuga canadensis were reported at the Wildlife Refuge; these were planted and not native to the refuge. Juniperus virginiana and the ubiquitous Celastrus orbiculatus were absent from the Venezia and Cook list at Breezy Point (3).

METHODS

Data on non-native vascular plant species in the four northeastern cities selected for the study was obtained from Clements and Moore (1) who compiled an extensive database for all vascular plant species in the four cities. Species diversity for the four cities is presented in Table 1. Geographic climatic and historical data for the four urban areas are presented in Table 2. Climate data was obtained from Garwood (5).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The total number of vascular plant species ranged from 2306 in Boston to 2534 in Philadelphia. The number of species in Philadelphia and New York were remarkably similar, Philadelphia, 2,534, and 2,530 for New York. Washington DC. had the lowest number of non-native taxa, 813, and lowest percentage of non-native species, 34.25% of the total. Boston had the greatest number of alien taxa, 1054, and highest percent, 45.71% of its flora (Table 1). Three thousand six hundred fifty seven vascular plant species occurred at all four cities. Common to all four cities were 1,372 taxa, 37.52% of the total. Similarity of the non-native vascular plant species between cities was high ranging from 71.8% (Boston and Philadelphia) to 82.4% (Boston and New York). One thousand three hundred seventy two vascular plant species were common to all four cities, 37.52% of the total, a percentage 40 times higher than that reported by Loeb who reported that less than 1% of the total number of vascular plant species were common to all ten urban parks. One difference in the disparity in the percent of a common flora in the Loeb study is the size of the area sampled. The city floras were gleaned from urban areas at least ten times larger in size than the largest park flora sites in the city parks sampled cited by Loeb. More than 2,000 species compose the flora of each of the four northeastern cities while the number of vascular plant species in Loeb’s urban parks range from 225 species (Breezy Point) to 762 species at Pelham Bay Park, New York. Taxa found at Breezy Point are typical of the coast and of early community development, a far different flora than the one found at Wave Hill, New York, an inland city park (6). Loeb’s study of 10 urban city parks may be flawed because it was based on three sites with no vouchers, 3 sites within Gateway National Recreation Area, New York sampled by untrained botanists, and 5 sites that were incompletely vouchered. Moreover a number of taxa reported in his study were misidentified. Loeb lists Celastrus scandens at Breezy Point, NY.; it does not exist there while the common C.

52 orbiculatus is not on his list. Tsuga canadensis, and Pinus strobus were reported as native at the Wildlife Refuge, NY; both were planted. In any study of vascular flora of a particular area, many species are rare or infrequent while few few taxa are represented by large numbers of individuals or populations. Common to the four cities were 173 Asteraceae, over 100 Poaceae and 8 species of oaks. Alien taxa such as Digitaria spp., Chenopodium album, Amaranthus spp., and many more abound within the four northeastern cities. Thus we conclude that there is a common vascular plant flora within Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. All have the same weedy taxa, i.e.: Conyza canadensis, Chenopodium album, Amaranthus hybridus as well as common tree species such as Quercus alba, Q. velutina, Q. rubra, and Acer rubrum, as well as many others.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Clements, S.E. and G. Moore 2003. “Patterns of species diversity in eight northeastern United States Cities, Urban Floras.: publication online June 24, 2003. 2. Loeb, R. E. 2006. A comparative flora of large urban parks: intraurban and interurban similarity in the megalopolis of the northeastern United States. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133: 601-625. 3. Venezia K. and R.P. Cook. (1991) “Flora of Gateway National Recreation Area.” Unpublished report. USDI-NPS Gateway National Recreation Area. 4. Stalter R. and E.E. Lamont. (2002) “Vascular flora of Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Long Island, New York.” Journal of the Tonney Botanical Society 129:346-358. 5. Garwood 1996. “Weather America.” Toucan Valley Publications, Inc. Milpitas, CA 95035. 1412pp. 6. Yost, S.E., S. Antenen and G. Hartvigsen. 1991. “The vegetation of the Wave Hill natural area, Bronx, New York.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 118: 312-315.

Table 1: Vascular plant species diversity for four northeastern cities. Data from Clements & Moore (1). Y1- Native Species, Y2- Alien Species, Y3- Total Species, Y4- Percent Alien Species.

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

Boston 1252 1054 2396 45.71

New York City 1649 801 2430 34.82

Philadelphia 1612 922 2534 36.39

Washington DC. 1561 813 2374 34.25

Table 2: Geographic climatic and historical data for four urban areas, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC. Data from Clements & Moore (1) and Garwood (5).

Cities X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Boston 42.36 1783 -1.8 23.2 149 5.8 1091 1630 3.5 New York City 40.78 4212 -0.3 25.1 203 6.7 1083 1614 17.5 Philadelphia 39.87 2582 -0.8 25.2 181 11.6 1044 1638 3.8

Washington D.C. 39.18 1450 -0.1 25.3 207 44.5 1050 1690 4.6

X1 - Latitude X6- Elevation X2 - Area (sq miles) X7- Mean Rainfall (mm) X3 - Mean January Temp C X8- Settlement Date X4 - Mean July Temp C X9- Population in 2000 (millions) X5 - Growing Season Days

MAPPING THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED RANGES OF TWO SWALLOW-WORT INVASIVE VINES. N. Little, S. Morse, A. DiTommaso, and L. Milbrath, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Knowing whether a plant species is likely to be locally invasive is important to controlling the spread of such plants and protecting native ecosystems. This is made more difficult by the fact that some introduced plants become invasive in some areas but remain innocuous in other regions. Two species that have become invasive in northeastern North America, especially during the last two decades, are the perennial herbaceous vines: black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louiseae (L.) Kartesz & Gandhi [= Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench]) and pale swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi [= Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar.]) [Apocynaceae]. The goal of this study was to use herbaria records, data from individual swallow-wort researchers, and geographic information system (GIS) tools to map and analyze the current known range of these two species and, from this information, project potential distributions in the continental United States. At present, black swallow-wort locations are clustered in the northeastern and upper midwestern states. Records of black swallow-wort in California were of plants growing in the UC Riverside Botanical Garden. Pale swallow-wort locations are currently clustered in the northeastern states, with no records found for the upper midwest states. We found 199 records of black swallow-wort with locations in the following states: California (2), Connecticut (6), Illinois (26), Kansas (3), Massachusetts (22), Maryland (1), Maine (4), Michigan (2), Minnesota (5), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), New York (65), Pennsylvania (10), Rhode Island (12), Vermont (6), and Wisconsin (22). There were 138 records of pale swallow-wort, with locations in the following states: Connecticut (7), Massachusetts (6), New York (119), and Pennsylvania (1). Nine records of black swallow-wort and five records of pale swallow-wort had no state listed in the record (or information from which the state could be deduced), but were found in the database of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and so were likely collected in New York State. We generated three potential black swallow-wort distribution maps and two pale swallow-wort distribution maps based on the ranges of climate variables in their current known locations. Although the maps generated are rather coarse given the amount of data collected, they do suggest that projected ranges for these two invasive vines could expand substantially relative to current distributions. For example, the distribution of black swallow-wort is predicted to increase especially in the midwestern U.S., while the distribution of pale swallow-wort is expected to expand most in the Great Lakes region. These findings should help land managers in potentially affected regions to begin planning for early detection and rapid response programs against these two aggressive vines.

RESULTS FROM A PILOT PROGRAM USING SMOLDER (ALTERNARIA DESTRUENS) AS A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT FOR DODDER. H. Sandler, F. Caruso, J. Mika, J. Colquhoun, J. Perry, and J. Cascino, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA. ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in MA and WI in 2006-2007 to evaluate the efficacy of Smolder, a commercial product containing the fungal pathogen, Alternaria destruens, for the control of dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) in cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon). Demonstration studies on growers’ farms in 2006 indicated that PRE applications of the granular formulation were not very effective, but POST applications of the wettable powder formulation looked promising. Replicated field trials in 2007 using both formulations POST in multiple applications and at different timing sequences produced no disease symptoms on dodder. Subsequent culturing of the commercial product indicated that the pathogen had lost its pathogenicity. Due to high production costs and variable field performance, further use of this biological control product is not being pursued at this time.

INTRODUCTION

Dodder is a serious problem in MA cranberry production and can be found throughout the state (Devlin and Deubert 1980; Sandler and Ghantous 2007). Although less abundant in WI, control of dodder remains a constant concern for any cranberry grower who has infestations on the farm. Chemical options are not always effective (Sandler 2009) and other approaches need to be integrated together for successful dodder management (Sandler 2010). Alternaria destruens was originally cultured from symptomatic dodder found in a swamp in WI in 1983 (Bewick 1987). Although the pathogen (as a spore suspension) had been tested in field trials in MA and WI in the recent past, a commercial product was not available. The potential of making this pathogen into a commercial product was pursued for many years and finally Smolder (manufactured by Sylvan BioProducts) was approved for use in both WI and MA in late 2005. Two formulations were produced: a granule that was intended for PRE application and a wettable powder that was intended for POST application. The efficacy of biological control products must be demonstrated to encourage adoption by the grower community. The objectives of the study were to collect efficacy data on Smolder in demonstration and replicated trials and to develop recommendations for use in the cranberry industry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In all studies, the granular (G) product was applied at 56 kg/ha and the wettable powder (WP) was applied at 5.6 kg/ha with the addition of a secondary component as prescribed by the company. The granular formulation used in the studies was Smolder “A” (described below) unless noted otherwise.

56 2006 Replicated Trials. A replicated field trial (RCBD with 4 replicates) established on cv. Early Black at State Bog, East Wareham, MA, evaluated G- PRE (sprinkled by hand), WP- POST (via backpack sprayer), G- PRE+ WP POST, dichlobenil PRE at 56 kg/ha (sprinkled by hand), pronamide PRE at 1.1 kg/ha (via backpack sprayer), a spore suspension of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Cg) POST at 5x106 spores/ml (300 L water/ha), and an untreated control. Plots were 1 m2 and separated by at least 10 m. PRE applications were made 11-12 May 2006 and POST applications were (variable and) made when dodder was visible in the canopy but not yet blooming (mid June to mid July). Dodder cover was assessed by using the point transect method. Cranberry fruit present in 930-cm2 quadrats were collected from the study area and were evaluated for damage and counted. Another trial, also established in East Wareham and similar to the one above, evaluated three G formulations (labeled as Smolder A, B, and C) that were derived from different stages of the dry fermentation process. A RCBD study with 4 replicates was established on cv. Bergman; all Smolder applications were made PRE at 56 kg/ha (11- 15 May 2006) and included an additional treatment of pronamide at 1.1 kg/ha PRE. PRE plots for both studies were inoculated with 0.2 g (ca. 200 seeds) of scarified dodder seeds (collected in previous years from MA bogs) 5 d after treatment; POST plots were inoculated at the same time, which was several weeks prior to product application (timing as noted above). 2006 Demonstration trials. Non-replicated field studies were also conducted in 2006 in both WI and MA using commercial application equipment. Treatments were: the grower’s usual practice (typically dichlobenil or pronamide), G-PRE (ca. 5-18 May), WP-POST (ca. 3-20 July), G- PRE+ WP POST, and an untreated area. The exact sizes of the treated areas varied by grower site, but were large patches of dodder with at least 30 m between treatments. Dodder seeds were collected from as many sites as possible. Collected seeds were acid scarified (Buhler and Hoffman 1999) and evaluated for percentage germination. At the end of the season, a written survey was sent to the MA growers to gain feedback on their experience with Smolder. 2007 Trials. After evaluating the results from 2006, it was decided to pursue evaluation of various combinations of Smolder using replicated study designs instead of demonstration studies. It was also decided to apply both formulations POST since G- PRE performed poorly the previous year. The first design included 1, 2, or 3 applications of G or WP (to determine if more than 1 application would improve control) and an untreated control. Applications were made at 2-wk intervals. The second design included treatments that consisted of a single application of G or WP applied once per week over a period of 4 or 6 wk (to determine the best time to apply). No combination treatments were made in 2007. Each study was conducted on at least three farms (both WI and MA) and was established as a RCBD with 5 replicates. Plots were 0.5 m2, spaced at least 2 m apart. To collect quantitative data, digital photos of dodder cover were taken from 3 of the 5 replicates from each treatment each week (including one set prior to treatment application). Using Photoshop and SigmaScan, images were digitized and colorized to assess % cover of dodder in the cranberry canopy. Calculations were made to estimate the cumulative % change in dodder cover from first to last week. All data were analyzed

57 in SAS using a 2-way ANOVA. When treatment effects were significant, mean separations tests were done using Tukey’s HSD (P=0.05).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2006 Replicated Trials. Cumulative change in dodder cover was calculated from the point transect data for this study only. Negative numbers indicate that less dodder was present at the end of the observation period when compared to the initial observation period (1 wk, in this case). Although not statistically different, dodder cover (cv. Early Black) appeared to be lower 1 wk after treatment with Cg POST (-87%) and WG POST (-59%) compared to the untreated control (+1%) and the G-PRE (-28%). Dodder control was good enough in the Cg-plots to have higher mean number of good berries (77 fruit/quadrat) compared the Smolder treatments (G and WP, 24 and 9, respectively) (P=0.034). Treated plots did not sort from the controls (34 fruit/quadrat), however. Data were not available for the pronamide and dichlobenil plots. For the evaluation of the G-formulations study, percent cover (not cumulative change) of dodder seemed to be much lower for plots (cv. Bergman) treated with pronamide (3%) compared to PRE “C” (53%) but due to the high variability between plots, the P-value ended up slightly above the conventional cut-off (P=0.056). The PRE “A” (19%) and “B” (44%) formulations and the untreated control (36%) were similar to each other and to pronamide and “C”. 2006 Demonstration Trials. Seed collected from two MA grower sites indicated that none of the Smolder treatments (using Smolder A granular or WP) affected percent dodder seed germination compared to the control. Demonstration studies at WI grower sites using G-PRE (Smolder A) or WP-POST showed little control of dodder (poor disease development and good dodder growth). In addition, dodder growth was vigorous (no disease development) in WI demonstration plots treated PRE with Granular “A”, “B” and “C” formulations (applications made 30-31 May). No seed was collected in the WI trials. Survey Feedback. Based on survey responses from four MA growers, variable dodder control was attained by growers who conducted the demonstration studies. These growers felt the G formulation was not very effective. However, good control was reported with the WP applications overall, though one grower reported that response to the Smolder WP application was slow-acting and the dodder patches were quite heavy by the time disease symptoms started to show. 2007 Trials. General observations during the 2007 season indicated poor disease development in MA at all sites. Since visual observations from WI also indicated no treatment effects and since the digital analysis was so time-consuming, it was decided to analyze the MA data first to see if any treatment differences could be detected. Although occasional site-to-site differences were observed for the MA data, analyses confirmed visual observations; neither formulation reduced dodder cover more than the untreated control for either study at any location. Based on the lack of differences seen in the statistical analysis of the data obtained from the MA digital photos, it was decided to abort the analysis of the WI data. The failure of the biological control product containing A. destruens to consistently control dodder was certainly a disappointment. The company has opted

58 not to pursue further testing at this time. To delineate what might have caused the lack of control in both states, the commercial product was cultured to isolate the fungus and spores were produced. Multiple healthy dodder stems were inoculated at two MA locations and no disease development was observed. The loss of pathogenicity of the fungus present in the commercial product could be related to formulation processes and/or culture maintenance issues and helps to explain the lack of performance in the field. Future research should concentrate on the use and development of strains of Colletotrichum as potential biological control agents for dodder. Several pathogenic strains have been identified (Cartwright and Templeton 1989; Leach 1958; Templeton 1992) and C. gloeosporioides has been identified as a robust pathogen of dodder in cranberry both in this study and in previous work (Mika and Caruso 1999).

LITERATURE CITED

Bewick, T. A. 1987. Biology and control of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Horticulture. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 134 p. Buhler, D. D. and M. L. Hoffman. 1999. Andersen's guide to practical methods of propagating weeds and other plants. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Weed Science Society of America. 248 p. Cartwright, D. K. and G. E. Templeton. 1989. Preliminary evaluation of a dodder anthracnose fungus from China as a mycoherbicide for dodder control in the U.S. Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 43:15-18. Devlin, R. M. and K. H. Deubert. 1980. Control of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) on cranberry bogs with butralin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:399-405. Leach, C. M. 1958. A disease of dodder caused by the fungus Colletotrichum destructivum. Plant Dis. Rep. 42:827-829. Mika, J. S. and F. L. Caruso. 1999. The use of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides to control swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii Willd.). Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:56. Sandler, H. A. 2009. Weed management. Pages 21-41 in M. M. Sylvia, and N. Guerin, eds. Cranberry chart book-Management guide for Massachusetts. East Wareham, MA: UMass Amherst Cranberry Sta. Sandler, H. A. 2010. Managing dodder requires an integrated approach: a case study in cranberry. Sustainability Journal (invited paper, under review). Sandler, H. A. and K. M. Ghantous. 2007. Survey looks at management, obstacles to dodder control. Fruit Growers News 45:17-18. Templeton, G. E. 1992. Use of Colletotrichum strains as mycoherbicides. Pages 358- 380 in J. A. Bailey, and M. J. Jeger, eds. Colletotrichum: biology, pathology and control. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

ASSESSING AND EVALUATING MULTIFUNCTIONALITY IN AGROECOSYSTEMS: AN EDUCATION AND EXTENSION EXERCISE. R. Smith, T. Pisani Gareau, D. Mortensen, and M. Barbercheck, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Agroecosystems are inherently multifunctional and management practices aimed at maximizing one component of the system can have unintended consequences for other components of the system. Management decisions, therefore, can be informed by recognizing and assessing multifunctionality and trade-offs in agriculture. Exercises aimed at assessing and evaluating multiple functions and/or trade-offs in agriculture can be valuable education and extension tools and can provide opportunities for active/experiential learning. Here we introduce a tool for assessing and evaluating multifunctionality (the spider-plot) and present a case-study exercise in which we used this tool to evaluate the multi-functionality of different cover crops within a workshop format. We also provide examples of how this approach could be used to assess other properties of agroecosystems (such as different weed or soil management practices) and communicate multivariate concepts within a classroom or extension environment.

AN EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING APPROACH TO GERMINATION PERIODICITY. D. Mortensen, M. Ryan, S. Mirsky, and W. Curran, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Weedy species occurring in temperate cropping systems exhibit germination periodicity. This periodicity makes it possible to direct weed management actions at specific weed species. Over the past twenty two years, an experiential germination periodicity learning activity was developed, applied and refined. In the activity, a section of a field with a uniform (density and diversity) weed seedbank is identified. Over a period of three to six months, beginning in March, weed control treatments are applied in strips at intervals of approximately three weeks. Most often, that treatment has been tillage, though we have experimented with herbicide application as well. The study site is visited by students and farmers later in the summer or fall where learners are asked to survey the resulting weed flora and speculate about factors that would account for the species distribution across the study-site. Learners conclude that the time of soil disturbance largely controls the “realized” emerged weed flora for that growing season. This learning activity is routinely evaluated highly for it’s practical content, problem solving, and for conveying important concepts in integrated weed management.

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS VIA DIRECTED HERBICIDE APPLICATION. S. Askew and M. Goddard, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) continues to be one of the most troublesome weeds of golf putting greens. In the past thirty years, herbicides have not been registered for postemergence control of annual bluegrass on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) putting greens. It is often the risk of unpredictable injury that keeps products from being registered. With no options for annual bluegrass control, and few options for annual bluegrass population suppression, superintendents often use directed application (foam-dabbing) of non-selective herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate to kill annual bluegrass. It seems plausible that herbicides showing great promise for broadcast application on putting greens would yield better results than non- selective herbicides currently used for directed application. Likewise, the use of such herbicides would impart less risk to the putting green when applied as a directed application, than when broadcast applied. Studies were conducted to evaluate several herbicides and plant growth regulators for annual bluegrass control when applied directly to annual bluegrass. Three trials were established on three golf courses in Virginia and Maryland. The sites included a creeping bentgrass putting green at Massanutten Resort Lower Course (MRLC) near Harrisonburg, VA, a perennial ryegrass putting green collar at Massanutten Resort Upper Course (MRUC), and a creeping bentgrass tee at Chevy Chase Club (CCC) in Chevy Chase, MD. Mowing heights were 0.3, 1.0, and 0.6 cm at MRLC, MRUC, and CCC, respectively. Foam dabbers were purchased commercially and intended for marking paper score cards in games such as bingo. The dabbers were capped with foam and covered a 3.14 cm2 diameter per application. The dabbers were calibrated by measuring displacement of a known volume of water after 100 dabs on targeted turfgrass. Treatments included glyphosate at 2200 g ai/ha, bispyribac sodium at 148 g ai/ha, ethofumesate at 1120 g ai/ha, paclobutrazol at 280 g ai/ha, flurprimidol at 560 g ai/ha, metsulfuron at 84 g ai/ha, primisulfuron at 79 g ai/ha, and amicarbazone at 196 g ai/ha. Non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v was included with metsulfuron and primisulfuron. Treatments were applied on March 16, 2009 and March 17, 2009, depending on trial site. Glyphosate completely controlled annual bluegrass but caused unacceptable injury to creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Primisulfuron injured creeping bentgrass 35-93% depending on location and was not different than glyphosate. Other treatments caused transient creeping bentgrass injury but were generally acceptable. Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) was significantly reduced by glyphosate and primisulfuron at 16 and 37 DAT but NDVI readings between treatments did not differ at 65 DAT. Amicarbazone controlled annual bluegrass inconsistently between plots and appeared to dispense erratically when using foam dabbers. Among products that controlled annual bluegrass at least 70% at 37 DAT, turf quality seemed best when treated with ethofumesate, bispyribac sodium, paclobutrazol, and flurprimidol. Among these four, only ethofumesate continued to control annual bluegrass at 65 DAT.

CUMYLURON AND METIOZOLIN: POTENTIAL NEW HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS. B. McNulty, M. Goddard, and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) preemergence control is limited to bensulide, dithiopyr, and oxadiazon on United States golf putting greens. None of the three have post-emergence activity on annual bluegrass and despite their preemergence activity, annual bluegrass remains a problem weed on most golf greens in the north despite their use. Cumyluron is a new herbicide that is currently under evaluation by the Helena Chemical Company and metiozolin is another experimental herbicide under evaluation by the Moghu Research Center. Cumyluron and metiozolin are both preemergence herbicides with some postemergence activity on annual bluegrass. Studies were conducted at three golf course putting green locations to evaluate annual bluegrass population change and putting green turf response to these experimental herbicides and industry standards. Two trials were initiated at Spotswood Country Club close to Harrisonburg, VA [Spotswood East (SWE) and Spotswood West (SWW)] and one trial was established at Gypsy Hill Golf Course in Staunton, VA (GH). Trials were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Plots were treated on March 16th, 2009 at all locations. At two months after treatment (MAT), metiozolin applied at 0.5 and 0.75 kg ai/ha reduced annual bluegrass cover 80% at GH, 77% at SWW, and 75% at SWE while cumyluron at 2.1 kg ai/ha decreased annual bluegrass cover 77% at GH, 63% at SWE, and 70% at SWW. Bensulide at 9.0 kg ai/ha, bensulide+oxadiazon at 10.8 kg ai/ha, and cumyluron at 1.7 kg ai/ha did not reduce annual bluegrass cover at anytime during the experiment. Metiozolin was the only product to show significant annual bluegrass control 3 MAT. Although occasional turf color differences were noted due to changes in annual bluegrass population, normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) did not significantly differ between treatments at any time. Various treatments did not injure putting green turfgrass and acceptable turf quality was maintained during the experiment by all treatments.

GOOSEGRASS CONTROL IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND PERENNIAL RYE. S. McDonald, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA.

ABSTRACT

Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) is a difficult annual grass to control in fairway height cool-season turfgrass. Two trials were was conducted on the fourth fairway of Reston National Golf Course, located in Reston, VA. In 2008, the turfgrass was comprised of 80% perennial ryegrass (Lolium perrene) and 20% annual bluegrass (Poa annua). A different portion of the fairway was selected for use in 2009 and was comprised on 80% annua bluegrass and 20% perennial ryegrass. The site was mowed three times per week at 0.50 inches using a reel mower. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual plots were 5 ft x 5 ft. Treatments were applied in 50 gallons per acre (468 L per ha) in the late morning with a partially wet canopy. Overhead irrigation was supplied at 1/8 inch following treatment. In 2008, sprayable formulations of oxadiazon, dithiopyr and pendimethalin followed by (FB) granular formulations of dimethenamid were evaluated as pre- emergent treatments. Post emergent treatments of sulfentazone and sulfentrazone tank mixed with fenoxaprop were also evaluated. These treatments were applied on 11 April (pre-emergent), 10 June (sequential) and 24 June (Post). Although the sprayable formulations of oxadiazon did cause injury to the desirable turfgrass at 14 and 45 days following treatment, these materials provided for the highest level of goosegrass control in late summer. Pendimethalin FB granular formulations of dimethenamid, dithiopyr and the post-emergent treatments of sulfentazone and sulfentrazone tank mixed with fenoxaprop did not provide control that should be considered commercially acceptable. Acceptable control should be considered 85% under heavy pressure. In 2009, all treatments were applied at goosegrass pre-emergence on 10 April. Sequential applications were applied on 22 May. These treatments included: pendimethalin 1.5 lb ai/A FB pendimethalin at 1.5 lb ai/A; pendimethalin at 1.5 lb ai/A FB dimethenamid 1.5 at lb ai/A; dimethenamid at 1.5 lb ai/A FB dimethenamid at 1.5 lb ai/A; a tank mixture of pendimethalin at 1.5 lb ai/A and dimethenamid at 1.5 lb ai/A; oxadiazon as a sprayable at various rates and formulations with and without a chelated iron source granular oxadiazon, a pre-mixture of prodiamine plus sulfentrazone and dithiopyr. The 2009 data indicate that tank mixing a chelated iron source with liquid formulations of oxadiazon may help to mitigate some of the herbicide induced injury in cool-season turf. Dimethenamid applied alone or in various programs with pendimethalin due cause unacceptable injury to annual bluegrass turf following application. The top performers for goosegrass control were oxadiazon applied as a granular followed by sprayable formulations at highest rates. All of the various pendimethalin, dimethenamid, prodiamine plus sulfentrazone and dithiopyr failed to provide commercially acceptable levels of goosegrass control when applied as a pre- emergent treatment. Future trials with the newer chemistry, dimethenamid, should look at split rates throughout the growing season.

INDAZIFLAM - A NEW PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. D. Spak and D. Myers, Bayer Environmental Science, Raleigh, NC.

ABSTRACT

Indaziflam (BCS-AA10717) is a new herbicide being developed for preemergence control of annual monocot and dicot weeds in turf, ornamentals, and industrial areas. Indaziflam is a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor (CBI) and is classified as a HRAC Group L herbicide. Indaziflam is the most active CBI herbicide discovered to date, and therefore requires very low rates for effective weed control. It works by inhibiting crystalline cellulose deposition in the cell wall which severely affects cell wall formation as well as cell elongation and division. Thus, only actively growing meristematic regions are affected by indaziflam. Indaziflam acts primarily as a pre- emergent herbicide, but has early post-emergent control of some weed species such as annual bluegrass (Poa annua). However, best weed control of most weed species is achieved when indaziflam is applied prior to weed germination. Perennial weeds emerging from rhizomes or roots will not likely be controlled. Indaziflam has a water solubility of 2.8 mg/L with low soil mobility and moderate soil degradation rates. Use rates of indaziflam range between 30 and 100 g ai/ha depending on the weed species, use-site, and pattern of use. Since 2003, indaziflam has been evaluated in over 150 trials for turfgrass tolerance and weed control. Sprayable (WP and SC) and fertilizer granular formulations have been evaluated at rates of 12.5 to 150 g ai/ha. Warm season turfgrasses such as bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum), St. Augustinegrass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), and zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.) show excellent tolerance to indaziflam. Cool-season turfgrasses generally do not have sufficient tolerance to indaziflam and will not be labeled for use. Primary weeds controlled include large and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), goosegrass (Eleusine indica), annual bluegrass, annual sedges (Cyperus spp.) and kyllinga (Kyllinga spp.), as well as many broadleaf weeds. In ornamentals, indaziflam was safe when applied as a directed spray in field grown ornamentals or sprayed over-the-top of dormant, woody deciduous plants and conifers. Several granular formulations of indaziflam have been evaluated for weed control in newly-planted container ornamentals. Woody plants show very good tolerance of indaziflam at rates up to (60 to 90 g ai/ha). Indaziflam also provided excellent residual control of many annual weeds including several difficult to control weeds such as eclipta (Eclipta alba) and doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora). Initial uses for industrial vegetation management include forestry, roadside, and railroad rights-of-way. Trials have been conducted for several years evaluating indaziflam at rates from 50 to 150 g ai/ha alone and in combination with other residual and postemergence herbicides for weed control in bareground situations. Indaziflam is currently pending an expected registration with EPA in 2010.

APPLICATIONS OF INDAZIFLAM FOR CONTROL OF ANNUAL GRASSES IN WARM- SEASON TURF. J. Brosnan, G. Breeden, and M. Elmore, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Indaziflam is a new alkylazine herbicide that exhibits both preemergence and postemergence activity against certain annual grassy weeds by inhibiting cellulose biosynthesis and meristematic growth. Indaziflam offers an extended soil residual and lower application rate than many other commercially available preemergence herbicides labeled for use in turf. Two studies were conducted at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center (Knoxville, TN) in 2008-2009 to evaluate the efficacy of indaziflam for control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in fairway height bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) turf. Plots for both studies measured 1.5 by 3.0 m and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Study one evaluated the efficacy of indaziflam at 60 and 80 g ai/ha for smooth crabgrass control, compared to commercial standards of oxadiazon at 3360 g ai/ha, pendimethalin at 3360 g ai/ha, dithiopyr at 560 g ai/ha, prodiamine at 560 g ai/ha, and prodiamine + sulfentrazone at 1260 g ai/ha. Study two focused on annual bluegrass control. Single applications of indaziflam at 80 g ai/ha were applied on 2 September, 2 October, 29 October, and 2 December. These treatments were compared to single applications of prodiamine at 1120 g ai/ha on 2 September, indaziflam at 80 g ai/ha + foramsulfuron at 29 g ai/ha on 2 December, and foramsulfuron alone at 29 g ai/ha on 2 December. Treatments for both studies were applied with a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha. The sprayer boom contained four, flat-fan, nozzles spaced 25 cm apart. A wheeled aluminum frame maintained the boom height at 25 cm above the surface while spraying at 124 kPa. Weed control and bermudagrass injury were evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no control or injury) to 100 (complete control) % scale. In study one, indaziflam at 60 g ai/ha provided > 96% control of smooth crabgrass at 168 days after treatment (DAT), compared to < 87% for pendimethalin, dithiopyr, prodiamine, and sulfentrazone + prodiamine. Treatment with indaziflam at 80 g ai/ha did not improve control compared to treatment at 60 g ai/ha. In study two, a 2 September application of indaziflam at 80 g ai/ha provided the same level of control at 223 DAT as prodiamine at 1120 g ai/ha. At the conclusion of the study, 2 October and 29 October applications of indaziflam provided > 98% control of annual bluegrass compared to only 68% control for a 2 December application on the same evaluation date.

MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL. M. B. Naedel, J. A. Borger, K. R. Hivner, and D. L. Loughner, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Preemeergence control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) was evaluated on a mature stand of ‘Jet Elite’ perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) in three consecutive years at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. The objective of the studies were to determine the efficacy of selected preemergence herbicides for the control of smooth crabgrass when applied two or three times at reduced rates compared to industry standard rates and application timings. The studies were randomized complete block designs, each with three replications. Treatments in the 2007 trial were applied on March 27, April 26, and June 7, 2007 and treatments in the 2008 trial were applied on March 27, April 24, and June 17, 2008 and treatments in the 2009 trial were applied on March 26, April 20, and May 31, 2009. All treatments were applied using a three foot CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 80 gpa using one, flat fan, 11008E nozzle at 40 psi. After the second and third application of both studies, the test areas received approximately 0.5 inch of water. In early May of both years, 0.5 lb N/M from a 46-0-0 urea and 0.5 lb N/M from a 31-0-0 IBDU fertilizer was applied to the test areas. The sites were mowed once per week with a rotary mower at one inch with clippings returned. The test areas were overseeded with a native source of smooth crabgrass seed in the fall of at least two of the pervious growing seasons. The test sites consistently revealed approximately 90% cover of smooth crabgrass in the non-treated areas at the conclusion of each study. Smooth crabgrass germination was first noted in the non-treated areas of the test site on May 1, 2007, April 29, 2008, and April 28, 2009. Rates of Dimension were compared by total amount of active ingredient applied per growing season. On the August 15, 2008 rating for the first study, Dimension 2EW applied at 0.25 lb ai/A once in March had significantly less control of smooth crabgrass than Dimension 2EW applied at 0.125 lb ai/A twice in March and April and Dimension 2EW applied at 0.083 lb ai/A three times in March, April, and June. Dimension 2EW applied at 0.38 lb ai/A once in March and Dimension 2EW applied twice at 0.18 lb ai/A had significantly less crabgrass control than Dimension 2EW applied three times at 0.125 lb ai/A. Dimension 2EW applied three times at 0.167 lb ai/A revealed significantly greater control of smooth crabgrass than Dimension 2EW applied twice at 0.25 lb ai/A or once at 0.5 lb ai/A. On the August 6, 2007 rating date for the second study, Dimension 40WP applied three times at 0.2, 0.1, and 0.2 lb ai/A and Dimension 40WP applied three times at 0.125 lb ai/A revealed significantly greater crabgrass control than Dimension 40WP applied once at 0.5 lb ai/A. On August 20, 2009, the rating date of the third study, 2 or three applications of Dimension 2EW at the same rate of a single application at 0.5 or 0.38 lb ai/A did not significantly differ. All of these treatments revealed greater than a 92% reduction of the crabgrass population.

SEASONAL TIMING AND TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON THE EFFICACY AND COOL SEASON TURFGRASS SAFETY OF AMICARBAZONE. S. Hart, P. McCullough, C. Mansue, and Z. Reicher, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

ABSTRACT

Amicarbazone has potential for selective annual bluegrass control in cool-season turfgrasses but seasonal application timings may influence efficacy. To test this hypothesis, field experiments were initiated in New Jersey and Indiana from 2007 to 2008. In New Jersey, treatments were the factorial combination of five amicarbazone rates applied twice (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 kg a.i./ha) and two application timings (fall or spring). Primisulfuron and bispyribac-sodium were included for standard comparisons. Treatments to Kentucky bluegrass were made on October 16 and November 7, 2007 for fall treatments and April 16 and May 7, 2008 for spring treatments. Treatments to creeping bentgrass were made on October 17 and November 8, 2007 for fall treatments and April 17 and May 6, 2008 for spring treatments. In Indiana, treatments included sequential applications of three amicarbazone rates (0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 kg/ha) and bispyribac-sodium applied in fall or spring. Fall treatments were applied on October 23 and November 14 while spring treatments were applied on May 14 and June 4. In New Jersey, sequential applications from 0.2 to 0.5 kg/ha caused 21 to 81% injury to Kentucky bluegrass by eight WAIT, while in Indiana, injury ranged from 56 to 86% by six WAIT. Spring treatments of amicarbazone from 0.1 to 0.3 kg/ha at both locations injured Kentucky bluegrass less than 20%. Amicarbazone at 0.4 and 0.5 kg/ha in New Jersey injured Kentucky bluegrass 10 to 18% and 18 to 30% by two and four WAIT, respectively but injury declined to 3 and 24% by 8 WAIT. In New Jersey, creeping bentgrass injury from sequential fall applications of amicarbazone at 0.1 and 0.2 kg/ha was 13% or less at four and eight WAIT, while applications at 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 kg/ha injured creeping bentgrass 8, 11, and 28% by four WAIT, respectively, and injury increased to 31, 40, and 64% by eight WAIT, respectively. In Indiana, fall applications of amicarbazone from 0.1 to 0.3 kg/ha injured creeping bentgrass from 19 to 37% and 44 to 78% by four and six WAIT, respectively. In New Jersey, spring treatments of amicarbazone at 0.1 to 0.4 kg/ha injured creeping bentgrass by 12% or less but amicarbazone at 0.5 kg/ha injured creeping bentgrass 37 and 23% by four and eight WAIT, respectively. In Indiana, sequential spring amicarbazone applications from 0.1 to 0.3 kg/ha injured creeping bentgrass less than 12% by four and six WAIT. In New Jersey, all fall treatments of amicarbazone controlled annual bluegrass similarly ranging from 88 to 100% while primisulfuron provided only 57% control. Annual bluegrass control with spring treatments was less, averaging only 68%. In Indiana, fall applications of amicarbazone at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 kg/ha controlled annual bluegrass 23, 78, and 85%, respectively, while bispyribac-sodium controlled annual bluegrass by 29%. Spring applications of amicarbazone at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 kg/ha controlled annual bluegrass 23, 37, and 74%, respectively, while bispyribac-sodium provided 75% control. Fall treatments were more injurious to creeping bentgrass and Kentucky bluegrass and efficacious on annual bluegrass. Growth chamber experiments confirmed injury and clipping reductions were exacerbated by increased temperatures (10-30C) on all grasses suggesting application timing and temperature influence amicarbazone.

68 MESOTRIONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN SPRING SEEDED HARD FESCUE. S. McDonald and P. Dernoeden, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA.

ABSTRACT

Field trials were conducted in Maryland (MD) and Pennsylvania (PA) to better identify the potential level and spectrum of weed control provided by mesotrione in spring seeded 'Aurora Gold' hard fescue (Fesctuca brevipilia, HF). An important objective was to determine if mesotrione applied to the seedbed would affect HF seedling emergence and/or development. Prior to imposing treatments, both sites were treated with glyphosate, tilled and seeded with HF. The HF was seeded on 9 April at the MD site and on 25 April 2009 at the PA site. Mesotrione was applied once prior to both HF and weed emergence (preemergence= PRE) and a second postemergence (POST) application was made. Mesotrione rates were 0.5 lb ai/A applied once PRE and twice at 0.125 lb ai/A, 0.156 lb ai/A, 0.187 lb ai/A, and 0.25 lb ai/A (i.e., PRE and POST). The PRE treatments were applied on 13 and 28 April in MD and PA, respectively and the POST treatments were applied on 19 May 2009 at both sites. Three additional herbicide treatments were included in MD as follows: late postemergence treatments (LATE) of sulfentrazone a (0.125 lb ai/A), quinclorac (0.5 lb ai/A) and a tank- mix of sulfentrazone and quinclorac (same rates). In PA, sulfentrazone-alone and the tank mixture were applied, but not quinclorac-alone. The LATE treatments were applied on 10 and 14 June 2009 in MD and PA, respectively. In both locations, plots were mowed to a height of 3 inches weekly. Herbicides were applied using CO2 powered backpack sprayers in 50 GPA and plots were arranged in RCBD with four replications. At both sites, plots were assessed for percent weed cover and HF cover. Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum), annual lespedeza (Lespedeza striata) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus; YNS) were the predominant weed species in MD. All mesotrione rates applied PRE and POST were effective in controlling smooth crabgrass, lespedeza, and YNS. Some YNS did re-invade sequentially-treated mesotrione plots in late summer, but not crabgrass or lespedeza. The sulfentrazone and quinclorac LATE treatments were effective in controlling crabgrass and YNS, but these weeds eventually recovered and/or re-invaded these plots. By late summer, all mesotrione- treated plots, except mesotrione applied once at PRE at 0.5 lb ai/A (4%), had significantly higher HF cover ratings (20-35%) compared to untreated plots (< 1%). Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum; JSG) was the major weed species in the PA site. None of the mesotrione treatments effectively controlled JSG. The sulfentrazone and quinclorac LATE treatments, however, reduced JSG cover compared to the control, which helped to increase the HF cover in those plots by late summer, when compared to untreated and mesotrione-treated plots. Following death of the JSG in autumn, most mesotrione-treated as well as untreated plots averaged 80% HF cover. Plots treated with mesotrione at 0.5 lb ai/A PRE and the LATE sulfentrazone and quinclorac treatments, however, had reduced HF cover ratings (60%) compared to the control. Mesotrione applied twice at rates below 0.25 lb ai/A in the PRE and POST timings had the highest HF cover ratings at the end of the study at both locations. The lower HF cover ratings in MD were attributed to heavy, frequent rain throughout the spring and early summer, which killed many HF seedlings.

69 USE OF MESOTRIONE IN HYDROSEEDING, CONVENTIONAL SEEDING, AND SOD ESTABLISHMENT OF COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS. S. McDonald and M. Agnew, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA.

ABSTRACT

Establishment of cool-season turfgrass in summer months can be a daunting task due to weed pressure, especially from annual grasses. Three trials were conducted to determine the potential use of mesotrione (Tenacity 4SC) for use in hydroseeding applications, sod establishment and conventional seeding during summer. The purpose of study one was to investigate the safety of 'Pizzazz' perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne; PRG) and weed control spectrum of mesotrione used at establishment in a hydro-seeding spray and again 21 days following. There was six treatments including: 1.) spraying with a flat fan nozzle, 0.156 lb ai/A (5 fl oz product/A of mesotrione on bareground and applying the hydro-seed mix (i.e. seed, water, fibers) on top of the mesotrione treated soil; 2.) hydro seeded at 6 pounds of perennial ryegrass and mesotrione was sprayed on top of the hydro seed mix once it was dry on the same day using a flat fan nozzle; 3.) 0.156 lb ai/A (5 fl oz product/A) of mesotrione in the hydro-seed mix; 4.) conventionally seeded; 5.) treatment 3 applied twice over the plots; and 6.) hydro-seeded without mesotrione. Hydro-seed treatments were applied using a 50 gallon tractor mounted Tubro Turf Hydro Seeder. Plots were seeded 16 June 2009. The sequential application of mesotrione was applied on 7 July 2009. All plots receiving mesotrione at seeding had no ragweed plants per plot which was significantly less than the conventionally seeded and hydro-seeded-alone plots. All plots receiving mesotrione treatments had significantly less coverage from crabgrass on every rating date. Data from this trial indicate that mesotrione may have the potential to be recommended for use in the hydro-seeding tank with PRG and at rates evaluated will control broadleaf and grassy weeds that can be problematic at establishment. A second study evaluated mesotrione applied at 0.156 lb ai/A (5 fl oz product/A) below the placement (below sod) of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) sod, once the sod was laid (i.e. on top of sod) and below and once it was laid (i.e. once on top and once on bottom where 10 fl oz product/A total). All plots received a sequential application of mesotrione 21 days later. Little to no injury to the Kentucky bluegrass was observed on any rating date following applications. All mesotrione treated plots had significantly less smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum), when compared to the untreated. These data indicate that mesotrione applied below or on top of sod in heavily weed pressure may help to reduce the weed competition without negative effect to the sod. The third trial evaluated three seeding regimes (100% 'Pizzazz' PRG, 80% turf type tall fescue blended with 20% Kentucky bluegrass and non-seeded control) with and without mesotrione applied at seeding (7 September) and 21 days later (28 September). Weed pressure was low in this trial with only wild violet (Viola papilionacea) invading the treated and untreated plots. Mesotrione had little to no effect on seedling and turf establishment nor wild violet coverage, when compared to the untreated plots in all three seeding regimes.

TENACITY-SELECTIVE GRASS AND BROADLEAF CONTROL IN LAWNS AND SPORTS FIELDS. D. Lycan, M. Agnew, J. James, D. Mosdell, and T. Woods, Syngenta, Baldwinsville, NY.

ABSTRACT

Mesotrione, sold by Syngenta as Tenacity™ herbicide, was first registered for use in turfgrass on golf courses and sod farms only. The Tenacity label will now allow for use on turfgrass in athletic fields, parks, cemeteries, airports, and commercial properties. In addition, Tenacity can now be applied to buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides) turf at rates of 175-280 g ai/ha and dormant bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) at 175 gai/ha. Applications to semi-dormant bermudagrass may result in whitened turf. Tenacity has both preemergence and postemergence activity and will control a variety of annual and perennial grass and broadleaf weeds including crabgrass (Digitaria sp), goosegrass (Eleucine indica), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), dandelion (Taraxum officinale) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Applications made at seeding of tolerant turf species will control or suppress common chickweed (Stellaria media), mouseear chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum), annual bluegrass (Poa annua) and other weeds that are often problematic in newly established turfgrass. Future modifications to the Tenacity label will allow its use on residential turf. Key uses in residential turf will be weed control at establishment of tolerant turf species and renovation of existing turf to control troublesome grass weeds such as creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris) and nimblewill (Muhlenbergia shreberi).

SELECTIVE GRASS WEED CONTROL IN TURF WITH METAMIFOP. S. Askew and M. Goddard, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ABSTRACT

Metamifop is a potential new graminicide for selective weed control in cool season turfgrass. Only a few research trials have evaluated metamifop on turfgrass in the US. Initial reports indicate excellent cool season turfgrass tolerance and control of a variety of grass weed species. Fenoxaprop has the same mode of action as metamifop and is one of only four herbicides currently registered for postemergence grass weed control in turfgrass. One of the four registered herbicides, MSMA, is soon to be excluded from turfgrass uses, so any herbicide registered to control grass weeds in turfgrass postemergence would be welcome. Several studies were conducted in 2009 to evaluate tolerance of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) putting green and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) fairways and control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) and yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca). All trials were arranged as randomized complete block designs with three replications. On two golf putting greens, metamifop at 200 g ai/ha failed to control smooth crabgrass but 300 g ai/ha or more controlled smooth crabgrass 90% or greater, and equivalent to fenoxaprop at 100 g ai/ha 4 and 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Repeat application of 200 or 300 g ai/ha completely controlled smooth crabgrass. At fairway mowing height, only 300 and 400 g ai/ha controlled smooth crabgrass and yellow foxtail when applied once or twice. The only turfgrass injury noted in these trials, due to metamifop, occurred when 400 g ai/ha was applied to creeping bentgrass putting green turf and did not exceed 10%. Fenoxaprop did not injure fairway Kentucky bluegrass but completely killed creeping bentgrass putting green turf when applied at 100 g ai/ha.

BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL AND COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS SAFETY WITH AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR APPLIED ON A FERTILIZER GRANULAR. C. Mansue and S. Hart, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted from 2007 to 2009 to evaluate aminocyclopyrachlor applied as a fertilizer granule for broadleaf weed control on unimproved sites with mixed stands of weeds and turfgrass species. Cool-season turfgrass tolerance studies were also conducted on highly maintained stands of individual turfgrass species. Standard dry (2,4-D + MCPP) and spray (2,4-D + MCPP + dicamba) treatments were included in each study for comparison. All fertilizer treatments were applied by hand to dry foliage with a shaker can to plots that were 1.5 by 3 m for weed control trials and 0.9 by 3 m for turf tolerance trials. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Plots were visually evaluated at 1 and 2 weeks after treatment (WAT) and quantitatively evaluated by weed counts at 4 and 8 WAT. In 2007, an experiment to evaluate winter annual broadleaf weed control was established on 4-26 with application rates of aminocyclopyrachlor ranging from 0.08 to 0.2 kg ai/ha. Significant herbicidal activity was not evident until 4 WAT by which time henbit and common chickweed had completely dissipated from the experiment. At 8 WAT, aminocyclopyrachlor at 0.1 kg/ha provided nearly complete control of veronica and mouseear chickweed at while standard treatments failed to control either species. A second study was initiated on 5- 15 to evaluate white clover and buckhorn plantain control. Significant herbicide activity was not evident until 2 WAT but neither species was completely controlled. At 4 WAT, white clover control was nearly complete with all aminocyclopyrachlor treatments. At 8 WAT, white clover control was complete with all aminocyclopyrachlor treatments but rates of 0.16 to 0.2 kg/ha required for 85% or greater buckhorn plantain control. Standard dry treatment of 2,4-D + MCPP failed to control either species. A winter annual broadleaf weed control study was initiated on 4-22 in 2008 with application rates of aminocyclopyrachlor ranging from 0.03 to 0.1 kg/ha. Significant herbicidal activity was not evident until 8 WAT by which time henbit had completely dissipated from the experiment. At 8 WAT, aminocyclopyrachlor at 0.03 kg/ha provided nearly complete control of common chickweed. However, applications rates of 0.08 and 0.1 kg/ha were required for significant control of mouseear chickweed and veronica, respectively. Standard treatments failed to control either species. Two additional studies were initiated on 05-14 to evaluate buckhorn and broadleaf plantain as well as and black medic control. Significant herbicide activity was not evident until 4 WAT. Aminocyclopyrachlor application rates of 0.03 kg/ha provided complete control of black medic but rates of 0.08 to 0.1 kg/ha required for significant levels of buckhorn and broadleaf plantain control. In studies conducted in 2009, aminocyclopyrachlor continued to demonstrate exceptional white clover control as well as significant activity on dandelion. Buckhorn and broadleaf plantain were more tolerant to aminocyclopyrachlor but acceptable control could be obtained depending on application rate. In 2007, turfgrass tolerance studies were initiated on 06-27 evaluating aminocyclopyrachlor

73 applied at 0.17, 0.34, or 0.68 kg/ha as a fertilizer granule or spray treatment to dry foliage. Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass and tall fescue were tolerant of 0.3 kg/ha of aminocyclopyrachlor applied as a fertilizer granule. However, Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue were injured by 21 and 16%, respectively, at 8 WAT by 0.68 kg/ha. Spray treatments at any rate caused no significant injury on any of these species. In contrast, fine fescue injury was evident within 2 WAT at 0.34 and 0.68 kg/ha of aminocyclopyrachlor applied as a fertilized granule and injury persisted throughout the growing season. Fine fescue injury was greatest at 4 WAT ranging from 41 to 61% and 29 to 46% with aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 0.34 or 0.68 kg/ha as a fertilizer granule or spray, respectively. In 2008, studies were conducted on Kentucky bluegrass and fine fescue only. Aminocyclopyrachlor was applied at 0.08, 0.17 and 0.34 kg/ha as a fertilizer granule only to dry foliage. Kentucky bluegrass was injured 9, 29, and 51%, respectively, by aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 0.08, 0.17, and 0.34 kg/ha, respectively, at 8 WAT. Injury from aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 0.34 kg/ha persisted and was 18 and 30%, respectively, at 12 and 16 WAT. Similar injury trends were observed on fine fescue in 2008 as were observed in 2007. Injury was evident at 4 WAT from aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 0.17 or 0.34 kg/ha. Fine fescue injury was 11 and 36%, respectively, from these two treatments at 8 WAT but increased to 21 and 50%, respectively, at 12 WAT and continued to persist at 16 WAT. The results of these studies suggest that aminocyclopyrachlor can be effectively used as a fertilizer granule treatment applied to dry foliage for broadleaf weed control in cool-season turfgrass. However, injury observed on Kentucky bluegrass and especially fine fescue warrant further investigation.

CANADA THISTLE CONTROL IN FIRST YEAR HARD FESCUE. S. McDonald, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA.

ABSTRACT

Three separate field trials were conducted during 2008 and 2009 to evaluate various herbicides for early post emergent control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in the spring following an autumn seeding of ‘Aurora Gold’ Hard Fescue. All sites were mown once during the trial period. All treatments were applied in late April of each year. In 2008, the first trial evaluated granular formulations of DPX-KJM44-082, DPX- KJM440-87 (at rates from 0.0703-0.0938 lb ai/A or 125-165 lb product/A; KJM), DPX- MAT28-036, DPX-MAT28-035 (at rates ranging from 0.0703-0.1 lb ai/A or 78.81-112 lb product/A; MAT) and Momentum Force at 156.8 lb product/A (2,4-D; MCPA, and dicamba) and liquid sprayable formulations of DPX-KJM44 (0.0703 or 1.5 fl oz product/A), DPX-MAT28 (0.0703 lb ai/A or 4.5 fl oz product/A) and Confront (triclopyr and clopyralid) at 32 fl oz product/A. Treatments were applied to dry foliage on Canada thistle plants with 6-8 leaves. Most granular formulations of KJM and MAT provided up to 85% Canada thistle control which was significantly higher than that other granular material included (Momentum Force). The sprayable treatments provided a high level of control up to 60 days following treatment and were much quicker in their activity on Canada thistle, when compared to the granulars. KJM44 is aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl and MAT28 is aminocyclopyrachlor. No herbicide injury was observed to the hard fescue on any rating date. Another trial was conduced in 2008 which evaluated post-emergent control of Canada thistle with mesotrione (Tenacity 4SC) applied three times at 0.156 lb ai/A or twice at 0.25 lb ai/A on either a 22 day interval or 42 day interval. Other herbicide treatments included were: Confront at 32 fl oz product/A, Speedzone Southern (carfentrazone, 2, 4-D, MCPP, dicamba) at 66 fl oz product/A and Lontrel at 10.8 fl oz product/A (0.246 lb ai/A). Mesotrione provided the highest level of Canada thistle control when applied at 0.25 lb ai/A twice on a 22 day interval. At rates less than 0.25 lb ai/A or on a longer interval, an unacceptable level of control was observed. Confront, Speedzone Southern, and Lontrel where very effective in reducing thistle populations in a heavily infested hard fescue stand. No herbicide injury was observed to hard fescue. In 2009, Imprelis2SL (aminocyclopyrachlor) was evaluated at rates ranging from 0.0469 lb ai/A to 0.0938 (3.0-6.0 fl oz product/A) and Imprelis50SG was evaluated at 0.703 lb ai/A (2.25 oz product/A). The standard treatment was Confront at 32 fl oz product. Granular treatments of MAT28-070, MAT28-071 and Momentum Force were also included at similar rates mentioned above. All MAT treatments, both sprayable and granular, provided high level control of Canada thistle (>80%). Momentum Force did not provide commercially acceptable levels of Canada thistle control. The granular MAT28 treatments were much slower, when compared to the sprayable treatments of Imprelis and Confront and took greater than 45 days to provide greater than 80% control. The high level of control was still observed at 87 days following treatment with the granular materials and was similar to the sprayable treatments of Imprelis and Confront.

NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR TURFGRASS WEED SCIENCE. P. McCullough, C. Waltz, A. Martinez, and W. Hudson, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA.

ABSTRACT

Mobile phones with email, internet, and application programs help superintendents communicate and access information. Advanced “smart” phones, such as the Blackberry and iPhone, have become important tools for industry professionals and allow greater work flexibility while traveling or away from the office. Downloadable applications are relatively new features to mobile devices with potential to become tools for turf managers to access information and recommendations. An application for turfgrass management and weed control has been developed by the University of Georgia. The program contains information about turf weeds, diseases, and insects with pictures, information, and management recommendations. The program also contains a pesticide database for users to search for information by product common or trade name. Application design, development, and distribution will be presented.

WEED CONTROL AND COOL SEASON TURFGRASS RESPONSE TO METAMIFOP. S. Alea, S. Hart, and C. Mansue, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 to evaluate postemergence grassy weed control and cool-season turfgrass tolerance to metamifop. Grassy weed control studies were conducted on high infestations of crabgrass and goosegrass, while turf tolerance trials were conducted on highly maintained, weed free stands of Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass. Metamifop was applied at rates ranging from 100 to 400 g ai/ha as single or sequential applications (at 3 week intervals) in crabgrass and goosegrass control studies. Fenoxaprop was included in all studies as a comparison at 100 g/ha. In 2008, single applications of metamifop at 200 or 400 were equally as effective fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha in controlling 3-4 leaf and 2-3 tiller crabgrass. In 2009, metamifop applied at 200-400 g/ha provided 81 to 94% crabgrass control 3 weeks after initial treatment (WAIT) and was equivalent to fenoxaprop applied at 100 g/ha. At 6 WAIT crabgrass control with single applications of metamifop at 200-300 g/ha was equivalent (ranging from 75-88% control) to fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha. However, increasing the rate of metamifop to 400 g/ha increased control to 96% which was superior to single applications of fenoxaprop. Sequential applications of both herbicides provided 95-99% crabgrass control 6 WAIT. In a crabgrass timing study, metamifop applied at 200 or 400 g/ha or fenoxaprop at 100 or 200 g/ha provided nearly complete control of 3-4 leaf crabgrass 4 WAT. Metamifop at 200 g/ha and fenoxyprop at 100 and 200 g/ha provided equivalent control of 1-2 tiller crabgrass at 4 WAT (79-88%). Metamifop at 400 g/ha provided 96% control which was superior to metamifop at 200 g/ha (79%) and fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha (85%). Control of 3-4 tiller crabgrass was equivalent (78-83%) when metamifop was applied at 200 g/ha and fenoxaprop applied at 100 or 200 g/ha. However, metamifop applied at 400 g/ha provided superior crabgrass control (95%) relative to the other treatments. Control of 6+ tiller crabgrass was equivalent (73 to 80%) with metamifop at 200 or 400 g/ha and fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha. However, control was greatest at 89% with fenoxaprop at 200 g/ha. Goosegrass control studies conducted in 2008 demonstrated that control of 3-4 leaf goosegrass was equivalent with metamifop applied at 200 g/ha and fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha. However goosegrass control was only 74% with metamifop applied at 100 g/ha. Control of 2-3 tiller goosegrass was equivalent with metamifop at 200 or 400 g/ha and fenoxaprop at 100 g/ha ranging from 83 to 94% at 4 WAT. Metamifop applied at 100 g/ha was ineffective for 2-3 tiller goosegrass control. The results of these studies suggest that metamifop shows excellent potential (that is similar to fenoxaprop) for multi-tillered crabgrass and goosegrass control at application rates ranging from 200-400 g/ha. In 2008 Kentucky bluegrass tolerance studies, single applications of metamifop applied at 200-800 g/ha and sequential applications applied at 200-400 g/ha caused less than 3% injury to Kentucky bluegrass. Fenoxaprop applied at 200 g/ha caused 18 and 11% injury at 10 and 22 days after treatment (DAT), respectively. In 2009, Kentucky bluegrass injury was not evident at metamifop rates of 800 g/ha or lower at 1 WAT. Metamifop

77 applied at 1600 and 3200 g/ha caused 10 and 25% injury, respectively. At 3 WAT, visual injury was only evident at 3200 g/Ha of metamifop. In contrast, Kentucky bluegrass injury from fenoxaprop applied at 100 to 400 g/ha ranged from 14 to 40% at 1 WAT and increased to 10 to 66% at 2 WAT. Noticeable injury was still evident with fenoxaprop treatments at 3 WAT. In 2008 creeping bentgrass tolerance studies (maintained at 0.9 cm) injury ranged from 5 to 13% from initial applications of metamifop 1 WAT. However, injury was only evident from 800 g/ha metamifop 2 WAT. Sequential applications of these same rates of metamifop caused 10% or less injury to creeping bentgrass at any evaluation timing. In 2009, (creeping bentgrass maintained at 0.4 cm) initial applications of metamifop at 800 g/ha, fenoxaprop at 35 g/ha and quinclorac at 170 g/ha caused 9, 14 and 30% injury, respectively, 1 WAT. Injury from these treatments increased to 29, 23, and 35%, respectively, at 3 WAT. However, creeping bentgrass rapidly recovered and no injury was observed at 5 WAT. Metamifop applied at 200 and 400 g/ha and fenoxaprop applied at 18 g/ha did not cause significant injury to creeping bentgrass. Turfgrass tolerance studies suggest that metamifop may be used at much higher rates than required for weed control in Kentucky bluegrass leading to a much wider margin of safety relative to fenoxaprop. This may allow for more aggressive use of metamifop to control larger crabgrass and goosegrass as well as bermudagrass. The relative tolerance of creeping bentgrass to metamifop and fenoxaprop warrant further investigation. While far from conclusive, creeping bentgrass maintained at fairway and greens height appears to be tolerant to 200-400 g/ha of metamifop allowing for potential control of larger crabgrass plants relative to fenoxaprop at 18 g/ha.

HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY AND GOLF BALL ADVANCEMENT IN FINE FESCUE SECONDARY ROUGHS. A. Post, S. McDonald, and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

ABSTRACT

The use of "non-mow" areas on golf courses has increased in recent years due to heightened awareness of environmental benefits and economic restraints. Although most turf managers attempt to establish perennial grasses considered indigenous to the area, such attempts often fail and fine-leaf fescues are planted to fill voided areas. Little information is available for weed control recommendations in non-mow areas. Fine fescue (Festuca rubra) can create a dense stand of turf in secondary roughs, making it difficult or even impossible to locate and advance a golf ball. Three trials, conducted in Blacksburg, VA evaluated fine fescue tolerance and weed control from glyphosate. In addition, several plant growth regulators (PGRs) and glyphosate were evaluated for ability to thin fine fescue stands in secondary roughs to improve golf ball visibility and advancement. Experiments were established in a randomized complete block design with eight treatments replicated three times. Treatments in two of the trials included five rates of glyphosate: 0.28, 0.42 , 0.56, 0.84, and 1.12 kg ai/ha and two tank mixtures: glyphosate (0.56 kg/ha) + triclopyr (1.12 kg ae/ha) or glyphosate (0.56 kg/ha) + fluroxypyr (0.42 kg ae/ha). The third trial included PGRs: mefluidide(0.26 and 0.65 kg ai/ha), trinexapac-ethyl (0.18 kg ai/ha), and ethephon (3.81 kg ai/ha) alone, and tank mixtures: trinexapac ethyl + ethephon and mefluidide + glyphosate, as well as glyphosate alone at 0.56 kg ai/ha as a standard for comparison. A trial by treatment interaction was significant for the glyphosate trial due to severe fine fescue injury from all treatments at the Glade Road Facility (GRF) but not at the Brush Mountain (BM) site. Fine fescue injury was greatest at 3 weeks after treatment (WAT). At 3 WAT, the lowest rate of glyphosate injured fine fescue 63 and 3% at GRF and BM, respectively. Assuming 30% injury as an acceptable threshold, all glyphosate treatments exceeded threshold at GRF for a period of nine weeds but only rates greater than 0.56 kg/ha exceeded that threshold any time at BM. When triclopyr was mixed with 0.56 kg/ha glyphosate, fine fescue injury was decreased by at least half, and significantly at both locations. Fine fescue color ratings generally mirrored injury ratings. Except for the lowest rate in one trial, glyphosate at all rates and in all tank- mixes significantly reduced fine fescue density to between 6 and 67% of original density. In the PGR trial, mefluidide injured fine fescue 27 to 33% 3 WAT, while trinexapac-ethyl and ethephon alone did not injure fine fescue. PGR mixtures with 0.56 kg/ha glyphosate injured fine fescue 18 to 77% over time. At 9 WAT all PGR treatments injured fine fescue 10% or less, but differences in canopy structure and appearance were noted compared to the non-treated and glyphosate treatments. Mefluidide alone and trinexapac-ethyl alone did not significantly reduce fine fescue density at any rate. Trinexapac-ehtyl + ethephon, ethephon alone, and mefluidide + glyphosate

79 significantly decreased stand density to 50%, 58%, and 60% of original density, respectively, while maintaining acceptable turf color and appearance. Although glyphosate and several PGR treatments significantly thinned fine fescue stands in secondary roughs and altered canopy structure, few differences were noted in golf ball visibility and golfer accuracy evaluations. These trials suggest glyphosate rates should not exceed 0.56 kg/ha and addition of triclopyr could decrease injury responses while improving broadleaf weed control. Furthermore, use of ethephon and mefluidide could improve visibility and canopy density from a golfer’s perspective but more studies are needed to determine rates and application frequency.

POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE MIXTURES FOR STAR-OF-BETHLEHEM CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURF. G. Breeden, J. Brosnan, G. Armel, and J. Vargas, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Star-of-Bethlehem (Ornithogalum umbellatum) is a perennial ornamental plant that has become a troublesome weed in many turf and landscape areas. Data evaluating chemical options for selective Star-of-Bethlehem control in cool-season turf is limited. Two research trials were conducted in the spring of 2009 evaluating the efficacy of various herbicides alone, and in mixtures for postemergence control of Star- of-Bethlehem. The objective of trial one was to determine if mesotrione and sulfentrazone provided greater control of Star-of-Bethlehem than the current commercial standards of carfentrazone-ethyl and bromoxynil, while trial two evaluated the efficacy of mesotrione and topramezone applied alone, and in mixtures with photosystem II inhibiting herbicides, for Star-of-Bethlehem control. All trials were conducted on a mature stand of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) maintained as a golf course rough at the Plant Science Unit of the East Tennessee Research and Education Center in Knoxville, TN. Plots (1.5 by 3 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Herbicide treatments for trial one included bromoxynil (560 g ai/ha), sulfentrazone (280 g ai/ha and 420 g ai/ha), carfentrazone (35 g ai/ha), quinclorac + sulfentrazone + 2,4-D + dicamba (1730 g ai/ha), and sulfentrazone + 2,4-D+ MCPP+ dicamba (1220 g ai/ha). Herbicide treatments for trial two included topramezone (37 g ai/ha), mesotrione (280 g ai/ha), bentazon (560 g ai/ha) and bromoxynil (560 g ai/ha), and mixtures of mesotrione and topramezone with bentazon and bromoxynil. All treatments were applied on 10 March with a CO2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280.5 L/ha utilizing four, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124 kPa, configured to provide a 1.5-m spray swath. Weed control and turf injury were evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no weed control or turf injury) to 100 (complete weed control or turf injury) % scale. Data were collected at 7, 14, and 28 days after application (DAA). At no time during this study was tall fescue injury observed. At 4 weeks after treatment (WAT), applications of sulfentrazone at both rates provided > 95% control of Star-of-Bethlehem in trial one. Star-of-Bethlehem control following applications of quinclorac + sulfentrazone + 2,4-D + dicamba and sulfentrazone + 2,4-D+ MCPP+ dicamba was not significantly different from applications of sulfentrazone alone, at either rate, at 4 WAT. While carfentrazone-ethyl at 0.03 kg/ha provided 93% control at 2 WAT, control was reduced to 73% at 4 WAT. In trial two, Control following treatment with mesotrione + bromoxynil (93%) was significantly greater than mesotrione alone (61%) at 4 WAT. A similar response was also observed for topramezone alone (47%) and topramezone + bromoxynil (93%). These data suggest that sulfentrazone and mixtures of topramezone and mesotrione with bromoxynil can be used to provide postemergence control of Star-of-Bethlehem in cool-season turf.

POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS IN TALL FESCUE. S. McDonald, Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Spring City, PA.

ABSTRACT

Japanese Stiltgrass (JSG; Microstegium vimineum) is an invasive weed that is becoming more of a problem in the urban landscape throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States. The annual grassy weed is especially problematic in low light turfgrass areas. In some instances, it has also been observed in moderate sunny areas. This weed has the ability to out-compete many desirable plants, including cool-season turfgrass during summer months. Following cooler periods, JSG declines leaving behind voids or bareground which are also highly undesirable. This trial was undertaken to assess nine herbicide treatments applied once as a post-emergent application on mature JSG. The desirable turfgrass was tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). This trial was conducted in a home lawn mowed at 4 inches, two times a week. JSG coverage was 90% at the beginning of the trial. Plants were mature and did not show seedheads. Plots were 5 x 5 ft and treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. The nine herbicide treatments included: sulfentrazone at two rates (Dismiss at 4 fl oz product/A (0.125 lb a.i/A) and 8 fl oz product/A (0.250 lb ai/A); Fluazifop-p-butyl at 0.09 lb a.i./A (Fusilade at 6 fl oz product/A) + Activator 85 at 0.25%v/v; Sethoxydim at 0.28 lb a.i./A (Segment at 36 fl oz product/A); quinclorac at 12 oz a.i./A (Drive75DF at 16 oz product/A); fenoxaprop-p-ethyl at 0.08 lb a.i./A (Acclaim Extra at 20 fl oz product/A); Clethodim at 0.09 lb a.i./A (Envoy Plus at 12 fl oz product/A) + Activator 85 at 0.25% v/v; Solitaire (quinclorac + sulfentrazone) at 16 oz product/A and mesotrione at 0.25 lb a.i./A (Tenacity at 8 fl oz product/A) + Activator 85 at 0.25% v/v. All treatments were applied on 19 July 2009. In a home lawn situation and one month following application, the treatments providing greater than 90% JSG control and acceptable injury to the tall fescue from a single application were Dismiss, Acclaim and Solitaire. All other herbicides were either too injurious to the tall fescue or did not provide acceptable control of JSG. To my knowledge, this is the first trial evaluating sulfentrazone for JSG control. Future trials should evaluate timing, rates, and other factors affecting these herbicides for post emergent JSG control.

DETERMINATION OF GROUND COVER IN COVER CROP SYSTEMS USING OPEN SOURCE IMAGE ANALYSIS TOOLS. E. Nord, W. Curran, and D. Mortensen, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Ground cover from some combination of living crops or crop residues can strongly influence light availability at the soil surface and affect weed germination and emergence. For this reason, ground cover is often measured or estimated in studies of weed emergence. The accessibility of digital photography and computer processing power has made digital image analysis a convenient method for measurement of ground cover. This paper presents a general method for analyzing digital images using a combination of free and open-source software packages to determine percent ground cover in cropping systems that incorporate cover crops to enhance weed suppression. We also present as a case-study, analysis of ground cover in two winter-cover crops: cereal rye and hairy vetch, with several establishment and termination dates. Our analytical approach allowed relatively rapid assessment of ground cover from digital images, and allowed the detection of relatively small differences in percent ground cover associated with differences in timing of cover crop management. This analytical approach is highly flexible, and we anticipate that it could be adapted to a wide variety of contexts, including experiments that require detecting small differences between living and dead plant residues and the soil surface.

DISCOVERY OF SIGNIFICANT INFESTATION OF GOATSRUE IN MCKEAN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. M. Bravo, J. Miller, and J. Zoschg, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.

ABSTRACT

Galega officinalis, commonly called goatsrue, is a member of the Legume family (Fabaceae) and is native to southern Europe and western Asia. Historically, it has been a popular garden plant in both Europe and the United States. Goatsrue was introduced to the western United States in the late 1800s as a possible forage crop. Both the leaves and stems of the plants were later shown to contain a poisonous alkaloid called galegin, making it unpalatable to livestock. Feeding trials proved that ingesting plants could kill both sheep and cattle. This plant is also highly invasive in riparian areas. In 1980, it was designated a federal noxious weed and was declared a Pennsylvania Noxious Weed in 2000. In Pennsylvania, the species was targeted for eradication after confirmation of its presence in a few isolated non-cropland locations. Four known populations were discovered prior to 1993 in roadside ditches located in McKean County, while another important location dates back to the 1950’s at the Morris Arboretum in Montgomery County. During the summer of 2009, the problem in McKean County increased in importance when it was discovered that the infestation was not only in noncropland, but invading into cropland (hay) that involved multiple municipalities and private and public land owners. This new discovery resulted in the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and with the continued support of the USDA-APHIS PPQ to launch an early detection/rapid response (EDRR) program in McKean County. The objective of the EDRR program is to isolate, control and limit further spread of this noxious weed into cultivated cropland in McKean County and to restrict pathways of dispersal out of the infested geographical area.

WEEDY PASTURES: PASS THE BUTTER AND MUSTARD TO THE HORSES AND PIGS. D. Lingenfelter and W. Curran, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 at two locations in Pennsylvania (Kreider Farm, Lebanon Co. and Swartz Farm, Perry Co.) to examine various herbicide programs in pasture. In Lebanon Co. treatments were applied at two different timings (July 8 and September 24) in 2008, while treatments were applied in Perry Co. on July 20, 2009. Similar treatments at both locations included: aminopyralid (0.078 lb ae/A); aminopyralid + 2,4-D premix (0.56 and 0.75 lb ae/A); aminopyralid + metsulfuron premix (0.058, 0.0774, and 0.097 lb ae/A); and metsulfuron + chlorsulfuron premix (0.0098 lb ai/A). Additional treatments in Lebanon Co. were: dicamba (0.25 lb ae/A) + 2,4-D (0.75 lb ae/A); and dicamba (0.25 lb ae/A) + 2,4-D (0.75 lb ae/A) + metsulfuron (0.0094 lb ai/A). In Perry Co. other treatments included: metsulfuron (0.0094 lb ai/A); dicamba + diflufenzopyr premix (0.263 lb ae/A); and triclopyr + 2,4-D premix (2.25 lb ae/A). Necessary adjuvants were included in the spray mixtures. Visual weed control evaluations were taken periodically throughout the growing period. Grass forage phytotoxicity ratings were also collected. Studies were arranged in a RCBD with three or four replications. The primary weeds in Lebanon Co. were buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), spiny amaranth/spiny pigweed (Amaranthus spinosus), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major), and hedge mustard (Sisymbrium officinale). Evaluations of the July treatments in early fall revealed that treatments only provided 50-77% control of buttercup. In general, treatments that contained aminopyralid and/or metsulfuron provided 83-90% control of spiny amaranth. Aminopyralid alone only provided 53% and 17% control of broadleaf plantain and mustard, respectively, while the other treatments provided 82- 95% control of broadleaf plantain and 55-68% mustard control. In general, the September application provided better suppression of the weeds the year after treatment. The year after application, the July treatments provided 27-50% control of buttercup, 33-55% control of spiny amaranth, 32-62% control of broadleaf plantain, and 40-63% mustard control. The September applications provided 67-89% control of buttercup, 57-78% control of spiny amaranth, 45-65% control of broadleaf plantain, and 17-48% mustard control. Treatments that contained aminopyralid always provided 82- 89% control of buttercup when applied in September. Aminopyralid provided 86-94% control of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), with increasing rates always corresponding to improved control. The triclopyr + 2,4-D premix provided 84% control of the weed, whereas the remaining treatments only provided 63-75% control. Any treatment that contained metsulfuron caused 11-15% injury of tall fescue in the forage grass mixture. In summary, treatments that contain aminopyralid and/or metsulfuron combinations can provide adequate short-term control of buttercup, spiny amaranth, broadleaf plantain, and horsenettle, but application timing is critical depending on the weed species. Despite the benefits of effective weed control with either of these herbicides, some misuse concerns exist, including: drift, crop rotation, manure and hay management, and proper equipment cleaning.

WINTER GRAIN/CORN DOUBLE CROP FORAGE PRODUCTION SYSTEM EFFECTS ON WEED DYNAMICS. J. Jemison and H. Darby, University of Maine, Orono, ME.

ABSTRACT

Organic dairy production is a growth area of Northeast agriculture, but sustainability is largely dependent on growers producing quality feed and minimizing weed pressure. Due to high feed costs, producers must maximize on-farm forage and grain production. Growers must decide when to harvest grains (at boot or soft dough stage) and what type of corn to plant to maximize yield and quality. In 2008 we initiated a study to evaluate a double crop winter cereal short season corn double crop to a full season corn. We have completed three of seven site years of research. We have compared three winter cereals: wheat, triticale and barley double cropped with short season corn and compared yield, forage quality, and weed biomass compared to full season corn. Cultivation (tine and row) were done on all corn at the corn emergence, and V-2 stage and row cultivation was done at V4 and V6. No weed control was used in small grains. The yield of the double crop system is presented in Figure 1. We found significant interactions between small grain and double cropped corn. Winter barley winter kill lead to lower yields but despite the low productivity it matures between 10 and 14 days prior to the other cereals, and the corn appeared to respond to the longer production season. We theorized that little or no weed management would be needed in the winter cereal component of the trial. The low weed density presented in Table 1 supports this. We also found more weed biomass at the boot stage than we did at the soft dough stage. The densely planted cereals (150 lbs seed ac-1) allowed some weeds to germinate in the spring, but the weeds almost completely died by the soft dough harvest stage. Averaged over the two years, we found very little weed pressure in the wheat and triticale cereals, but due to winter kill, the winter barley had higher weed pressure (predominantly CHEAL and SINAR (Table 1). We also tested the hypothesis that corn planted later in the year would miss a broadleaf weed flush and would have less weed competition. Corn was planted in early-mid June following boot stage harvest. Corn was planted around the 10th of July following soft dough cereal harvest. We were not able to detect differences in weed pressure in the two corn systems in 2008, likely due to effective cultivation. Data for SY2 and SY3 are still being analyzed. But, in 2008 in Orono, we found no significant differences between the double crop and full season corn total weed biomass. In 2008, conditions for cultivating corn were better than 2009, and weed control even in full season corn was excellent. Total weed biomass yield was 209 and 192 kg/ha in the double crop and full season corn systems respectively. Lastly, very late planted corn can have limited yield if there is an early frost. In 2008, corn planted following soft dough cereal harvest reached optimum dry matter content. But, an early frost in 2009 reduced productivity influencing yield and quality results.

Figure 1. Yield of winter cereal / short season corn compared to full season corn, 2008 and 2009.

Table 1. Weed pressure in winter cereals.

Total Weed SY1 SY2 SY3 Biomass (kg ha-1) Winter Barley 59 a 269 a 582 a Triticale 6 b 16 b 132 b Winter Wheat 11 b 4 b 100 b LSD 0.05 21 62 205

CONTROL OF ITALIAN RYEGRASS IN WINTER WHEAT WITH POWERFLEX AND CROP SAFETY TO DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEANS. B. Olson, B. Haygood, and L. Walton, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY.

ABSTRACT

Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) is a major weed pest in winter wheat in the DELMARVA region. In late 2008, pyroxsulam (PowerFlex®) was registered for use on winter and spring wheat for postemergence control of key annual grasses including Italian ryegrass and downy brome (Bromus tectoru) and annual broadleaves such as Amaranthus spp., Brassica spp., Geranium spp. Veronica spp. and wild pansy (Viola tricolor). In the DELMARVA region after winter wheat is harvested in late June and early July and the fields are often planted to double crop soybeans. Postemergence control of Italian ryegrass in winter wheat with pyroxsulam is greatest in either late autumn when the Italian ryegrass main flush has occurred or in early spring before the Italian ryegrass begins to compete with the winter wheat crop. The crop rotation interval from the time of a pyroxsulam application in wheat and planting of soybeans was five months on the initial pyroxsulam Section 3 label. In early spring 2009 studies were conducted with pyroxsulam applications in winter wheat followed by double cropped soybeans to determine the safety of planting soybeans 90 days after a pyroxsulam application. Four trials using the same list of treatments were completed; two in Virginia and one each in Delaware and Maryland. The trials were set up as a factorial study where pyroxsulam, chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron (Finesse) and mesosulfuron-methyl (Osprey) were each applied at one, two and four times their standard use rates of 18.4, 26.3 and 4.76 grams active ingredient per hectare, respectively, in the early spring. The chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron treatment was included as a positive control where injury to soybeans at the high rates would be expected. In all the trials no injury to soybeans was observed with any of the pyroxsulam and mesosulfuron treatments. In both Virginia trials, Halifax and Painter locations, no injury to the soybeans were observed in any of the treatments. In the Maryland trial only the 4X rate of chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron caused growth inhibition to the soybeans (20%). The 2X and 4X rates of chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron caused growth inhibition to soybeans in the Delaware trial, 4 and 16%, respectively. Because of this data along with data collected on the same trial conducted in other regions in the United States, the Section 3 label for pyroxsulam has been changed to permit the planting of soybeans 90 days after the application of pyroxsulam in winter wheat in the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Efficacy trials with pyroxsulam against Italian ryegrass in winter wheat were also conducted at some of the same locations mentioned above. Pyroxsulam at 18.4 g ai/ha was compared with mesosulfuron-methyl at 15 g ai/ha, pinoxaden at 60 g ai/ha and diclofop-methyl at 840 g ae/HA. In all the trials pyroxsulam provided control of Italian ryegrass equal too or greater than mesosulfuron-methyl, pinoxaden and diclofop- methyl.

CAPRENO (THIENCARBAZONE-METHYL + TEMBOTRIONE + ISOXADIFEN- ETHYL): A NEW HERBICIDE FOR GRASS AND BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN CORN. M. Mahoney, J. Hora, G. Simkins, B. Philbrook, D. Lamore, and J. Bloomberg, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD.

ABSTRACT

Capreno is a new postemergence corn herbicide premix from Bayer CropScience that consists of thiencarbazone-methyl + tembotrione + isoxadifen-ethyl. It offers excellent burndown of grass and broadleaf weeds and strong residual control through crop canopy. Capreno may be used for either ‘one pass’ postemergence weed control or as part of a ‘traditional’ two-pass herbicide program. Capreno offers growers two differing modes of action for control of weeds, including weeds resistant to glyphosate and other chemical classes. Capreno is formulated as a 33.9% suspension concentrate (SC) formulation. The suggested use rate of Capreno is 90.7 g herbicide ai ha-1 and the product should always be tank mixed with an external adjuvant and a nitrogen fertilizer source to optimize weed control. Application timing is optimized in corn from V1 to V5 which prevents early weed competition and exploits the residual activity of Capreno. Research trials conducted by Bayer CropScience and University researchers have demonstrated excellent selective grass and broadleaf weed control offered by Capreno. .

SAFLUFENACIL FOR ANNUAL BROADLEAF WEEDS IN CORN. R. Hahn, P. Stachowski, and R. Richtmyer III, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

ABSTRACT

Saflufenacil premix and tank mix combinations were compared with standard preemergence (PRE) treatments for annual broadleaf weed control in field corn (Zea mays L.) in 2008 and 2009. The corn hybrid was ‘DKC 42-91’ and the main comparison was between a premix of saflufenacil and dimethenamid-P (Integrity) and a standard premix of mesotrione, S-metolachlor, and atrazine (Lumax). One experiment was conducted on a coarse sandy loam soil with 2.4% organic matter near Valatie, NY in 2008. Corn was planted and PRE herbicides applied May 15 and 16 respectively. Rainfall during the week after treatment (WAT) was 0.81 inches, with 0.41 inches recorded on May 18. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artimisiifolia L.) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) were more abundant than velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Integrity at 0.56 lb ai/A and Lumax at 2.46 lb ai/A each provided good to excellent control of all four species 4 WAT. Common ragweed control with Integrity was slightly better (99%) than with Lumax (93%) 16 WAT. A tank mix of 0.71 oz ai/A of saflufenacil plus 1.43 lb ai/A of pendimethalin controlled 100% of velvetleaf, common ragweed, and common lambsquarters 4 WAT. When applied alone at 0.71 oz/A, saflufenacil controlled more than 95% of velvetleaf, common ragweed, and common lambsquarters but only 67% of the wild radish 4 WAT. Grain yields with these two premix products were similar and averaged 143 bu/A. The tank mix of saflufenacil plus pendimethalin yielded 141 bu/A and the untreated check was 44 bu/A. Other experiments were conducted on a silt loam soil with about 3% organic matter near Aurora, NY in 2008 and 2009. Corn was planted and PRE herbicides were applied May 6, 2008 and April 30, 2009. Rainfall during the 2 WAT was only 0.72 inches and 1.16 inches in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Wild mustard [Brassica kaber (DC.) L. C. Wheeler] and common ragweed were the dominant broadleaf species. Wild mustard control was 100% with 0.87 lb/A of Integrity and with 2.46 lb/A of Lumax both years. Common ragweed control with these premixes 6 WAT was at least 98%, and ratings made 10 to 12 WAT were still greater than 95% both years. While the tank mix of 1.1 oz /A of saflufenacil plus 1.43 lb/A of pendimethalin provided 99% common ragweed control 10 WAT in 2009, control was only 83% 12 WAT in 2008. This difference was attributed to the fact that only 0.14 inches of rain was recorded during the first WAT in 2008. When applied alone in 2008, 1.07 oz/A of saflufenacil controlled 100 and 89% of common ragweed and common lambsquarters respectively 12 WAT. Grain yields with these two premix products were similar and averaged 222 bu/A in 2008. The tank mix of saflufenacil plus pendimethalin yielded 204 bu/A, and the untreated check yielded 204 and 57 bu/A respectively. There was no corn injury from saflufenacil in these experiments, even when saflufenacil was applied at 0.18 lb/A in combination with 1.43 lb/A of pendimethalin and 1 lb ai/A of atrazine at Aurora in 2009.

OPTIMUM®GAT® CORN HERBICIDE PROGRAMS FOR THE NORTHEASTERN STATES. D. Saunders and D. Ganske, DuPont, Johnston, IA.

ABSTRACT

Weed control programs designed for use on corn containing the Optimum® GAT® trait are under development. Integrated herbicide programs making use of preemergence, postemergence, and 2-pass weed control strategies were evaluated by DuPont, university, and contract investigators in 2009. Data will be presented supporting the use of Optimum® GAT® trait crops as new tools for managing weed control problems including herbicide resistance weeds across the Northeast. Seed products with the Optimum® GAT® trait will be available for sale pending regulatory approvals and field testing. New DuPont herbicides for the Optimum® GAT trait® are not currently registered for sale or use in the United States.

NEW TOOLS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED IN FULL-SEASON NO-TILL SOYBEANS. R. Ritter and J. Ikley, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

ABSTRACT

Studies have been conducted in 2008 and 2009 at the Wye Research and Education Center (WREC), located in Queenstown, MD, on the management of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.) in full-season no-till soybeans [Glycine max L. Merr]. In 2008, we examined saflufenacil (trade name Sharpen) applied preplant [(7 – 10 days preplant (DPP)] at three different rates, 0.022, 0.045 and 0.085 lb ai/A, either alone or with glyphosate. In 2009, we examined preplant (10-14 DPP) versus preemergence (PRE) applications of saflufenacil at the same rates, all in combination with glyphosate. All treatments provided excellent season-long control of horseweed regardless of rate or timing of application. Glyphosate applied alone, did not provide commercially acceptable control. Other studies conducted at the WREC examined the role that glufosinate- resistant soybeans (Liberty-Link soybeans) and the herbicide glufosinate (trade name Ignite 280) could play in the management of glyphosate-resistant horseweed. In 2008, glufosinate was applied PRE at 0.53, 0.65 and 0.78 lb ai/A. In 2009, glufosinate was applied PRE at 0.40, 0.53 and 0.65 lb ai/A. In both studies, all rates of glufosinate provided excellent season-long control of horseweed; whereas, glyphosate applied alone, did not provide commercially acceptable control.

ASSESSING SOME OPTIONS FOR THE CHEMICAL CONTROL OF SELECTED COVER CROPS IN NO-TILL CORN AND SOYBEAN. W. Curran and D. Lingenfelter, Penn State, University Park, PA.

ABSTRACT

Establishing direct seeded cash crops into winter annual cover crops using no-till has become very popular with farmers in portions of the Northeast. Herbicides for control of cover crops are an important component for the success of these systems. Several trials were conducted over the last few seasons examining cover crop control in no-till corn (Zea mays L.) or soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. In corn, herbicides were evaluated for control of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). In soybean, cereal rye control was examined. For the experiments, herbicides were applied either by hand using a backpack sprayer or with an ATV-type sprayer. All treatments were applied at 20 GPA. Cover crop control was evaluated on a visual scale from 0 to 100%. Hairy vetch control was examined over four site years. Across locations, 0.375 lb ae/acre 2,4-D LVE was the minimum rate necessary to achieve greater than 85% control. Glyphosate applied at 0.75 lb ae/acre provided less than 80% control and even at 2.25 lb/acre was not completely effective. The combination of 0.75 lb/acre glyphosate plus 0.25 lb/acre 2,4-D LVE as well as 0.75 lb ai/acre paraquat plus 0.125 lb/acre 2,4-D LVE provided 90% or greater control. Annual ryegrass control was examined at two locations in 2008. The 0.56 lb/acre rate of glyphosate averaged 86% control six weeks after application, while the 0.75 lb rate exceeded 90% control. The addition of atrazine to glyphosate did not improve performance. The 0.75 lb/acre rate of paraquat provided between 65 and 82% control. The addition of atrazine to paraquat improved performance providing between 79 and 95% control depending on location. Glufosinate alone at 0.655 lb ai/acre, in combination with atrazine, or glyphosate provided no more than 73% control of annual ryegrass. In a 2009 cereal rye control study, glyphosate provided effective control at the lowest rate (0.56 lb/acre) and the addition of adjuvants, other herbicides, or glyphosate brand did not impact performance. In contrast, 0.75 lb/acre paraquat provided only about 70% control, but the addition of atrazine increased control to almost 100%. In a 2009 application timing study, timing did not impact glyphosate performance which provided complete control of cereal rye. However, timing did influence paraquat performance; the earliest application on April 17 was less effective than the late April and early May timing. Finally, herbicide performance on wheat was very similar to what was observed with cereal rye; glyphosate was effective regardless of rate or combination and paraquat was only effective when tank-mixed with atrazine. However, farmers continue to have problems killing cover crops, especially in early spring when temperatures may play a larger role in herbicide performance. Future experiments will attempt control of these cover crops under more extreme environmental conditions, when larger differences in treatment results might occur.

UPDATE ON 2009 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C. Palmer, J. Baron, E. Vea, and E. Lurvey, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ.

ABSTRACT

The 2009 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored crop safety testing of over-the-top applications on six different herbicide products: Broadstar 0.25 VC1604 (flumioxazin), Freehand G (dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin), Mesotrione SC, Snapshot (trifluralin + isoxaben), Sulfosulfuron, Tower EC (dimethenamid-p) and V- 10142 0.5G (imazasulfuron). The goal of this research was to screen these new herbicides for safety on woody and herbaceous perennials grown primarily in container nurseries. Applications were made at dormancy and approximately 6 weeks later for all products with the exception of Broadstar 0.25G VC1604, which was applied once at the later application date. Broadstar 0.25G was applied to 35 crops; Freehand was tested on 86 crops; Mesotrione was applied to 10 crops; Snapshot was applied to 30 crops; Sulfosulfuron was tested on 74 crops; Tower was applied on 54 crops, and V-10142 0.5G was tested on 17 crops. The results from this research will aid in the development of the product labels and will help growers and landscape care professionals make more informed product choices.

USING GROWTH REGULATOR BONZI ON ROOTED CUTTINGS OF RHODODENDRON. S. Barolli and N. Zeka, Imperial Nurseries, Granby, CT.

ABSTRACT

Based on previous work done with Growth Regulators (GR) on fully rooted cuttings of rhododendron and our own experiment in 2007, we continued to experimented GR, to be able to produce well branched plants and reduce labor. Based on the results of the experiment in 2007, with 14 different applications (timing and rates) of 4 different GR, we continued to work with the best of them. In 2008 the experiment was done in same cultivars, Roseum Elegans and PJMs using GR on 2.5-inch cells of fully rooted cuttings taken in October. For each application we treated 20 plants in each of four replications. There were a total of 9 treatments including 2 untreated. They included drenches and sprays, some early and some just before potting. For drenching we used approximately 30 ml of solution for each cell by dipping the flat in a container for 20 seconds. The sprays were applied with a backpack spray at 60 gal/A, with an XR-8004-VS nozzle. The early applications were: 1)Untreated; 2)Bonzi (paclobutrazol) applied as a drench at 4 ppm; 3) Bonzi-10 ppm- drench; 4) Atrimmec (dikegulac-sodium)-spray 40 ml/L; 5)Bonzi-drench 4 ppm + Atrimmec-spray 40ml/L; 6)Bonzi-drench 10 ppm+Atrimmec-spray 40 ml/L; Bonzi treatments were applied on April 13th and all the sprays on April 23rd. Roseum Elegans was not trimmed before treatment and did have very little new growth. The PJMs were trimmed days prior to treatment and were actively growing. The later applications were on June 12th on finished liners; 7)Untreated; 8)the same as Bonzi #2 and 9)the same as Bonzi #3. At this point, Roseum Elegans had been trimmed twice and PJMs >3 times. On July 2nd, 10 liners from each treatment were potted into 2 gal pots, replicated four times. All plants were hold to evaluate effects on growth, branching and flower buds. Measurements on number and length of branches and length of plants were taken in the flats and after potting. Injury rated on a 0 to 10 scale. Only applications with Atrimmec (4), (5) and (6) caused early injury and these plants recovered later. Those treatments caused the most branching. Growth reduction was the best with Bonzi (3), (8) and (9), these effects persist after potting. All Bonzi treatments significantly increased the number of flower buds. For Bonzi increased branching was observed in the flats but no further effects were observed after potting. In 2009, the experiment was done in 4 different cultivars, English Roseum, Roseum Elegans, Purple Passion and Nearing. Plants are in the production plan. The treatments were Bonzi (3), (8) and (9). For each treatment more than 2000 plants were put in the trial. The same method as above was used. Atrimmec applications were not included, not only for the injury, but to make the growing practices simple and not costly. The results are consistent with two previous experiments. Treatments of Bonzi (3) and (9) gave us the best reduction of growth and the best-branched plants. Treatment (8) was good but not the same as two others. Even we are very confident about treatment (9) and will continue evaluate it further to ascertain that growth reduction does not persist into the 2nd season.

POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL IN ACTIVELY GROWING CONIFERS. J. F. Ahrens and T. L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor.

ABSTRACT

Weeds frequently invade fields previously treated with preemergence herbicides, often because of weather conditions that result in dissipation of herbicidal activity, or for other reasons. However, few herbicides are available that control broadleaf weeds as well as grasses and are safely applied over actively growing ornamentals such as Christmas trees and other coniferous nursery stock. Therefore, we investigated the application of mesotrione, a corn and turfgrass herbicide, and a three-way combination of glyphosate, oxyfluorfen and clopyralid for selectivity in ten actively growing conifer species that are commonly grown as Christmas trees and in nurseries. The herbicides were applied over-the-top in 25 gal/A using a four-nozzle hand-held boom with 8003-VS nozzles. Treatments were applied on newly planted liners (2008) and repeated for a second season (2009) on the same plants on a sandy loam soil in Windsor, CT. The planting year results were previously reported (Proceedings, NEWSS 63:61). There were five plants of each species per plot with treatments replicated four times in randomized complete blocks. The plants consisted of eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), fraser fir (Abies fraseri), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Norway spruce (Picea abies), white spruce (Picea glauca), Colorado spruce (Picea pungens), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis ‘Emerald Green’), Japanese yew (Taxus media ‘Hicksii’), and juniper (Juniperus horizontalis ‘Blue Star’). Mesotrione 4SC was applied at 0.125 and 0.25 lb/A either on dormant plants (May) and on the actively growing conifers (June), or applied only in June. The three- way combination of glyphosate (Roundup Original) plus oxyfluorfen (Goal Tender) plus clopyralid (Lontrel) at 0.125 lb ai/A plus 0.25 lb ai/A plus 0.094 lb ai/A and, separately at double these rates, was applied in June and reapplied in July. Following a dormant application of simazine at 1.5 lb/A, slight injury (ratings of 1.5 to 3 on a 0-10 scale) on Douglas-fir was caused by mesotrione in the planting year. However, mesotrione injured none of the ten conifers when reapplied during the second year. The three-way combination also did not significantly injure any of the conifers. Mesotrione controlled seedlings of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillatta) and fall panicum (Panicum capillare), and in another experiment newly-emerged yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), but gave only fair control of purslane (Portulaca oleracea). The three-way combination controlled most annual weeds and gave the longest residual control, but only suppressed quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Our experiments suggest that these treatments could fill a major role in the postemergence control of summer weeds in conifer plantings.

PREEMERGENCE WEED MANAGEMENT IN SPRING-FLOWERING BULBS. J. Derr, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, VA.

ABSTRACT

Bulbs are commonly planted in fall for spring color in landscape beds. There are a limited number of preemergence herbicides available for management of broadleaf weeds in bulb species. Experiments were conducted in the field to assess the tolerance of crocus (Crocus chrysanthus Herbert. 'Snowbunting'), Dutch iris (Iris x hollandica Hort. ex Todd. ‘Eye of the Tiger’), daffodil (Narcissus spp. L. ‘Falconet’), and tulip (Tulipa spp. L. ‘Salmon Pearl’) to four broadleaf herbicides. Bulbs were planted in October and then treated immediately after planting. Bulb species were evaluated in the spring following planting as well as in the following spring to determine long-term survival. Flumioxazin and sulfentrazone were evaluated at their maximum use rate of 0.38 lb ai/A and at twice that rate, and compared to isoxaben and simazine, each applied at 1.0 and 2.0 lb ai/A. Oryzalin was included as a standard at 3.0 lb ai/A. In the trial planted in the fall of 2007, flumioxazin caused approximately 10 to 15% injury in the four bulb species 3 months after treatment (MAT). Flumioxazin did not reduce flower counts in any species, however, compared to untreated plots. Sulfentrazone at 0.38 lb ai/A caused 31 and 70% injury to daffodil and iris, respectively, at 4 MAT but little to no injury to crocus and tulip. Sulfentrazone at both rates significantly reduced iris flower count, while only the higher rate reduced flowering in daffodil. Isoxaben, simazine, and oryzalin caused essentially no crop injury and did not reduce flower count in any bulb species. All herbicides provided excellent control of henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.) and lesser swinecress [Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm.] 4 MAT. All treatments except the lower rate of sulfentrazone gave excellent control of common chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Vill]. Flumioxazin and simazine caused the greatest reduction in white clover (Trifolium repens L.) cover when evaluated 6 MAT. No treatment reduced stand of crocus or tulip 16 MAT. Sulfentrazone was the only herbicide to reduce stand in iris, and the higher rate of sulfentrazone was the only treatment to reduce stand of daffodil 16 MAT. In the trial established in the fall of 2008, both rates of sulfentrazone caused significant injury to daffodil and iris. Sulfentrazone caused no injury to crocus and only 13% injury to tulip at the higher rate. The only treatments that reduced flower count were the higher rate of sulfentrazone in daffodil and both rates of sulfentrazone in iris. All herbicides provided complete control of hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsute L.) and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), and all treatments except isoxaben gave complete control of annual bluegrass (Poa annual L.). Sulfentrazone is too injurious for use in fall-planted bulbs. Flumioxazin should be evaluated at lower application rates as a possible way to reduce injury. Isoxaben and simazine are, in general, less injurious to fall-planted bulbs than flumioxazin or sulfentrazone.

FATE OF PENDIMETHALIN IN A SHRUB CANOPY. J. Altland and D. Richard, USDA- ARS, Wooster, OH.

ABSTRACT

Use of sprayed preemergence herbicides in container nursery crops is becoming more prevalent. When herbicides are sprayed over crops, overhead irrigation is used to simultaneously wash herbicides from the foliage and incorporate the herbicide into the substrate surface. Most labels stipulate 1.25 cm of irrigation following herbicide application. Irrigation is thus an intrinsic component of herbicide applications in ornamental nursery crops, and could greatly affect how preemergence herbicides move from shrub foliage into the substrate below. The objective of this research was to determine how irrigation before or after sprayed herbicide application affects herbicide deposition beneath a shrub canopy. On Sept. 17, 2009, hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata Sieb. ‘Pinky Winky’) growing in 10.2 L containers and approximately 67 cm tall and 55 cm wide were sprayed with pendimethalin (Pendulum Aquacap). Applications were made with a CO2 sprayer equipped with a three nozzle boom and calibrated to deliver 40 gal/A. Pendimethalin was applied at a rate of 4.2 qt/A. Pendimethalin was applied under each of the following three scenarios: 1) pendimethalin was applied to dry foliage, and foliage was allowed to dry after application for 30 min prior to irrigation, 2) pendimethalin was applied to dry foliage and irrigated immediately afterward, and 3) pendimethalin was applied to wet foliage and irrigated immediately afterward. Containers were also treated with no shrub canopy. In all cases, overhead irrigation following application was run for 17 min which resulted in approximately 1.25 cm water. Soil samples were collected following irrigation. Samples were collected by scraping substrate with a spoon approximately 1 cm deep. Four subsamples were collected from each container, each subsample representing about 12.5% of the container surface area. Samples were stored in separate glass jars. Soil samples were shaken with acetone, centrifuged, and supernatant poured through glass filter paper. The resulting solution was analyzed with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to determine pendimethalin quantity per gram of dry substrate (μg/g). There were three replications per treatment. Containers sprayed with no shrub canopy had 75.9 μg/g recoverable pendimethalin from the substrate. Allowing the herbicide to dry on foliage for 30 min prior to irrigation resulted in 109.5 μg/g pendimethalin, a significantly greater amount than containers with no shrub canopy. Shrub canopies were wider than the container, and thus herbicide may have been funneled from the wider canopy down into the container. Thus some shrub canopies might result in higher than labeled herbicide rates in the container. Irrigating immediately after application resulted in 41.3 or 54.3 μg/g when applied to foliage that was either dry or wet at the time of application, respectively, but irrigated immediately afterwards. These two values are significantly less than herbicide recovered in containers where irrigation was withheld for 30 minutes after application.

RESPONSE OF FIELD AND CONTAINER-GROWN HERBACEOUS ORNAMENTALS TO FREEHAND (DIMETHENAMID-P+PENDIMETHALIN). A. Senesac, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY.

ABSTRACT

Ten common bedding plant species were grown in 2" cell packs and transplanted on June 11, 2009 into Riverhead sandy loam covered with two inches of hardwood mulch. Treatments, which were applied on June 12, included Freehand 1.75 G Dimethenamid-P and pendimethalin) at 100, 200, and 400 lb. product per acre (1.75, 3.5, and 7.0 lb a.i./ac) and Preen at 267 lb. product per acre (4.0 lb a.i./ac). The results of aboveground and root evaluations for several weeks after treatment indicate that these bedding plant species tolerated these treatments with little or no injury. The bedding plants evaluated were: Ageratum houstonianum 'Marie White', Coleus x hybridus 'Wizard Coral Sunrise', Dahlia pinnata 'Patty Red', Dianthus chinensis 'Super Parfait Raspberry', Gomphrena globosa 'Buddy Purple', Portulaca grandiflora 'Margarita Fuschia', Salvia splendens 'Vista Salmon', Senecio cineraria 'Silverdust', Tagetes erecta 'Marvel Orange' (AF), and Zinnia marylandica 'Zahara Coral Rose'. A container study was conducted to evaluate the response of several perennial species to the same Freehand rates. Treatments were applied on May 22, 2009 to fresh transplants of the following species: Aster ericoides 'Snow Flurry', Astilbe chinensis 'Pumila', Coreopsis x 'Jethro Tull', Polystichum polyblepharum, Phlox paniculata , Physostegia virginiana, Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' While Rudbeckia was injured at all rates, the other species were tolerant of the lowest rate. Astilbe, Phlox and Physostegia were injured at the highest rate. Evaluations indicated that the upper layer of roots and rhizomes within the container were inhibited at the higher Freehand rates.

TOWER (DIMETHENAMID-P) SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN NURSERY CROPS. J. Neal and D. Little, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

ABSTRACT

Several experiments were conducted to examine the safety of Tower™ 6 EC (dimethenamid-p) on container grown nursery crops and efficacy on common nursery weeds. Several rates of Tower were tested between 1.1, 2.2 and 4.4 kg ai/ha (not all rates were present in every study). Crops tested were: several varieties of Ilex, Lagerstroemia, Rhododendron (azalea), Rosa (Knockout and Flower Carpet),and Viburnum, plus Abelia grandiflora, Achillea ‘Moonshine’, Aquilegia ‘Winky Mix’, Buxus sinica 'Wintergreen’, Caryopteris xclandonensis’Dark Knight’, Chamaecyparis thyoides, Cryptomeria japonica, Cupressus sempervirens, Hemercallis ‘Night Beacon’, Buddleia davidii ‘Pink Delight’, Hibiscus syriacus ‘Lucy’, Itea virginica ‘Henry’s Garnet’, Juniperus chinensis ‘Parsonii’, Lantana ‘New Gold’, Lavendula ‘Munstead’, Liriope muscari ‘Green Giant’, Loropetalum chinensis ‘Ruby’, Ligustrum japonicum‘Recurvifolum’, Myrica cerifera, Raphiolepis indica ‘Snow White’, and Thuja orientalis ‘Green Giant’. Weeds tested were Cardamine flexuosa, Chamaesyce maculata, Murdannia nudiflora, Oxalis stricta, Eclipta prostrata, Erechtites hieracifolia, Cyperus iria, Digitaria sanguinalis, and Phyllanthus tenellus. Treatments were arranged in a RCBD with 4 replications and three pots of each species per plot. Tower was applied using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer at 281 L/ha. Weeds were surface-seeded the day of treatment. About 6 weeks after each treatment (WAT), all weeds were treated with a non-selective herbicide; 8 WAT weeds were removed and treatments were re-applied to the same pots and weeds were re-seeded. Plant injury and weed control were visually evaluated approximately 1, 2, 4, 6, & 8 WAT. Slight and temporary injury from Tower 6EC was observed on Lantana ‘New Gold’, Viburnum plicatum tomentosum, and each of the Rosa varieties. This contact injury was similar to that caused by s-metolachlor EC. The injury was observed following the first application in the spring but not following summer treatments. Other species exhibited stunting when Tower was applied at higher rates. Stunting of Abelia, Achillea, Aquilegia, Loropetalum and Lavendula developed slowly and increased with increasing dose. Myrica seedlings were severely injured but one- year-old plants were not injured. Control of Digitaria, Cyperus, Chamaesyce, Murdannia, and Oxalis was consistently excellent with doses of 1 lb ai/A or greater. Control of Cardamine was variable with complete control in some experiments or rating dates but less than 50% control in others. Phyllanthus and Eclipta were controlled for several weeks then seedlings emerged.

100

INDAZIFLAM AND OXADIAZON COMBINATIONS FOR WEED CONTROL IN CONTAINERS. J. Neal and K. Rorem, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Castle Hayne, NC.

ABSTRACT

In prior research indaziflam controlled many common nursery weeds but caused some injury to certain nursery crops. This experiment was to determine the indaziflam dose required to control common nursery weeds applied with and without oxadiazon. The experiment was conducted at the Hort Crops Research Station, Castle Hayne, NC. On April 29, 2009, 7-Liter pots were filled with a pine bark + sand (8:1 v/v) substrate amended with slow release fertilizer, irrigated, . Pots were irrigated then herbicide treatments were applied on April 29, 2009. Treatments included indaziflam 0.0089% GR at 0.0, 0.013, 0.026 and 0.039 lb ai/A combined with oxadiazon 2G (Ronstar) at 0, 2 and 3 lb ai/A. Following treatment, pots were irrigated then surface seeded with large crabgrass, doveweed, eclipta, spotted spurge, flexuous bittercress, and common groundsel. On June 10th (6 weeks after treatment), all pots were treated with 0.25 lb ai/A glyphosate, then on June 22nd were hand weeded, retreated, and re-seeded. Experimental design was a RCB with 4 replicates and 3 pots of each species per plot. Weed control was visually evaluated 4, 6, and 8 weeks after each treatment. Indaziflam controlled all species in the study. Control increased with increasing dose up to 0.026 lb ai/A, except for spotted spurge that was controlled 100% by the lowest dose. Oxadiazon controlled bittercress but did not control eclipta or doveweed. Spurge control was greater at 3 lb ai/A than at 2 lb ai/A oxadiazon. From spring treatment, oxadiazon provided little control of crabgrass, but summer treatment resulting in greater control that was improved by increasing the dose. Common grounsel was controlled by all rates of indaziflam but was not well controlled by oxadiazon. For species not controlled by oxadiazon (doveweed and eclipta), or controlled by the lowest indaziflam dose (spurge) combining the herbicides did not improve control over indaziflam alone. Control of large crabgrass and bittercress was improved by combining indaziflam and oxadiazon. Essentially complete control of all test species was obtained with 0.26 lb ai/A indaziflam combined with 2 lb ai/A oxadiazon.

101

WEED CONTROL AND ORNAMENTAL TOLERANCE WITH INDAZIFLAM. A. Parker, D. Myers, and D. Spak, Bayer Environmental Science, Clayton, NC.

ABSTRACT

Indaziflam is a new pre-emergent herbicide being developed by Bayer Environmental Science. Indaziflam is classified as an alkylazine and acts as a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor (CBI) affecting the development of roots and shoots of emerging weed seeds. Indaziflam is a HRAC group L herbicide. Sprayable formulations of indaziflam have been field tested extensively for the last six years as a pre-emergent herbicide for weed control in warm-season turf. In 2008 and 2009 studies were conducted to determine the plant tolerance and pre-emergence weed control of experimental granular (G) formulations of indaziflam. Several experimental granular formulations, varying in concentration of indaziflam, were evaluated for use in container ornamentals. Studies were done at North Carolina State University, Virginia Tech University, Cornell University, and at the Bayer Environmental Science Development & Training Center in Clayton, NC. Efficacy studies were conducted in containers on bark/sand mix by artificially sowing the seed of selected weed species. Herbicide treatments were applied either before seeds were sown, or the seed was slightly incorporated into the soil mix before application. Indaziflam G was applied as a broadcast application at rates of 30-90 g ai/Ha. Pots were irrigated with sprinkler irrigation on a regular basis. Weed control was evaluated by counting emerged seedlings or by visually rating weed cover. Indaziflam G at 40 g ai/Ha provided excellent weed control for up to four months on many weed species, including hard-to-control weeds like eclipta (Eclipta alba), doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora), large and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis and D. ischaemum), and rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria). Ornamental tolerance studies were done by applying indaziflam G to liners transplanted into a bark/sand mix amended with slow release granular fertilizer, and evaluating injury symptoms, growth reduction and root development. More than 50 woody and herbaceous perennials were tested at rates ranging from 30-160 g ai/Ha. Indaziflam G was safe on the majority of ornamentals tested. Injury or growth reduction was observed on southern wax myrtles (Myrica cerifera) in seedling liners without woody growth, on hydrangea (H. microphylla), pieris (P. japonica var. Yak), spiraea , dwarf mouse-ear tickseed (Coreopsis auriculata), and croton (Codiaeum variegatum). In summary, indaziflam G provided excellent weed control of 17 weed species and had excellent safety on 46 ornamental species.

102

ASSESSING THE SAFETY OF FIELD AND CONTAINER GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO SELECT HERBICIDES. B. Koepke-Hill, G. Armel, W. Klingeman, J. Vargas, P. Flanagan, J. Beeler, and M. Halcomb, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Two field studies and two repeated shadehouse studies were performed during the summer and fall of 2009 in middle and eastern Tennessee to determine the safety and weed control efficacy of dimethenamid, topramezone, pendimethalin, saflufenacil, and bentazon applied to select ornamental plants. In field studies, arborvitae (Thuja plicata ‘Pyramidal’ and ‘Dark Green’) plants were treated with preemergence (PRE) applications of dimethenamid at 1100 and 1680 g ai/ha, combinations of dimethenamid plus pendimethalin at 1100 plus 2230 g ai/ha and 1680 plus 2230 g ai/ha, respectively. Plants were also exposed to POST-directed applications of saflufenacil alone at 50 g ai/ha and in combinations with pendimethalin and dimethenamid at 2230 and 1680g ai/ha, respectively. Additionally, a postemergence (POST) application of topramezone at 36.8 g ai/ha was included for comparison. In shadehouse studies, mugo pine (Pinus mugo var. mugo), Kentucky yellowwood [Cladrastis kentukea (Dum. Cours.) Rud], rose- of-sharon (Hibiscus syriacus ‘Aphrodite’), Indian hawthorn (Rhaphiolepsis indica ‘Eleanor Tabor’), common flowering quince (Chaenomeles speciosa ‘Texas Scarlet’), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sourwood [Oxydendrum arboreum (L.) DC.], osmanthus (Osmanthus x fortunei), and star magnolia [Magnolia stellata (Siebold & Zucc.) Maxim.] were treated with a PRE application of a pre-mix product containing dimethenamid + pendimethalin (Freehand™) at 2940, 5880, and 8820 g ai/ha. Forsythia (Forsythia x intermedia ‘Lynwood Gold’), willow (Salix matsudana ‘Scarlet Curls’), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidia ‘Purple Prince’), hosta (Hosta ‘Patriot’), pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis ‘Green Sheen’), autumn fern (Dryopteris erythrosora), salvia (Salvia x sylvestris ‘Purple Prince’), kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa), Japanese spirea (Spiraea japonica ‘Little Princess’), giant arborvitae (Thuja plicata ‘Green Giant’), and weigela (Weigela florida ‘Rosea’) were treated with PRE applications of dimethenamid alone at 1100, 1680, and 3352 g ai/ha, the pre-mix of dimethenamid + pendimethalin at 1960, 2940, 3920 and 5880 g ai/ha, and POST applications of topramezone at 25 and 97 g ai/ha, bentazon at 493 g ai/ha, and combinations of topramezone plus bentazon at 25 + 493 g ai/ha and 97 + 493 g ai/ha. Over all the trials, dimethenamid controlled large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) (90 to 98%), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) (90 to 91%), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) (80 to 95%), prickly sida (Sida spinosa) (84 to 93%), and eclipta (Eclipta prostrata) (88 to 100%). The addition of pendimethalin to dimethenamid (Freehand™) improved control of yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta) (99%) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) (89 to 99%), over dimethenamid alone (33 to 51% and 49 to 67%, respectively). Saflufenacil alone and in combinations with dimethenamid and pendimethalin, controlled common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) (96 to 99%), yellow woodsorrel (80 to 95%), ivyleaf morningglory (85 to 99%), and red maple (Acer rubrum) (99%). Saflufenacil needed to be applied in combinations with dimethenamid or pendimethalin to adequately control dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)

103 and annual grasses. Topramazone controlled common ragweed (88%), yellow woodsorrel (90%), eclipta (87 to 94%), and prickly sida (93 to 95%). Bentazon alone controlled prickly sida (91 to 95%), eclipta (85 to 98%), and smooth pigweed (85 to 86%). All rates of saflufenacil, dimethenamid, pendimethalin, and dimethenamid + pendimethalin provided no significant negative effects in either appearance or growth of any ornamentals at the aforementioned rates and timings. Topramezone and bentazon alone and in combinations also resulted in no phytotoxic or growth effects when applied to forsythia, hosta, pachysandra, autumn fern, flowering dogwood, arborvitae (‘Dark Green’, ‘Pyramidal’, and ‘Green Giant’), weigela, and Japanese spirea.

104

RESPONSE OF FINELEAF FESCUES TO HERBICIDES APPLIED DURING ESTABLISHMENT. A.E. Gover, J.M. Johnson, K.L. Lloyd, and J.C. Sellmer, Penn State Univ., University Park.

ABSTRACT

Planting a mixture of hard fescue (Festuca trachyphylla (Hack.) Krajina) and creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra ssp. rubra L.) as a replacement groundcover for crownvetch (Coronilla varia L.) is a weed management approach employed to manage Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.) in highway rights-of-way. Candidate herbicides for Canada thistle management were applied 30, 15, or 0 days before planting, or 15 or 30 days after emergence of a fineleaf fescue seeding to determine if they would inhibit establishment. Trials comparing no herbicide, 2,4-D at 2.1 kg/ha, aminopyralid at 0.12 kg/ha, clopyralid at 0.21 kg/ha, dicamba at 2.2 kg/ha, picloram at 0.56 kg/ha, or triclopyr at 1.7 kg/ha were seeded on September 7 in State College, PA and September 12, 2007, in Manheim, PA. Each site was treated with glyphosate at 3.3 kg/ha prior to study initiation and on the day of seeding. The State College site (Hagerstown-Opequon complex, lithic hapludalf) was perennial grasses and forbs, and the Manheim site (Hagerstown silt loam, typic hapludalf) was fallow following a pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) crop in 2006. Each site was seeded to 134 kg/ha of a 55/35/10 percent (w/w) mixture of hard fescue, creeping red fescue, and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) by drop seeding onto furrows created with a seeder, followed by two more passes with the seeder to incorporate the seed. Both sites were irrigated as needed to maintain a moist seedbed. Visual ratings of total, weed, and fescue cover were taken at each site in November 2007, and May 2008. Average ratings for total, weed, and fescue cover at State College were 75, 17, and 59 percent, respectively for November; and 77, 43, and 34 percent, respectively for May. Average ratings for total, weed, and fescue cover at Manheim were 81, 7, and 74 percent respectively for November; and 82, 2, and 81 percent respectively for May. There was no interaction between herbicide and application timing for fescue cover ratings at State College. Application timing was not a significant effect on fescue cover for either rating date, and herbicide effect was not significant in November. May fescue cover ratings were lowest for dicamba- or aminopyralid-treated plots at 27 and 29 percent, while ratings for the other treatments averaged 35 to 37 percent. There was a significant interaction between herbicide and application date for fescue cover at Manheim for the November and May ratings. When herbicide effects were analyzed by application date, there were no significant herbicide effects 30 or 15 days before seeding or 30 days after emergence. The most dramatic herbicide effects were seen at the 0 days before seeding application. Dicamba-treated plots averaged 34 percent fescue cover in November, while the other treatments had average ratings between 66 and 80 percent. In May, dicamba-treated plots averaged 66 percent fescue cover, while the other treatment ratings averaged 77 to 84 percent. For the applications made 15 days after emergence, there were significant herbicide effects at

105 the November rating, but not in May. In November, plots treated with dicamba or triclopyr averaged 67 and 61 percent fescue cover, while the remaining treatments averaged 74 to 84 percent.

106 NEWSS Year End Report 2008

Submitted by the Executive Committee For the 62nd Annual Meeting January 7, 2009 Renaissance Harborplace Hotel Baltimore, MD

PRESIDENT’s REPORT – Jerry Baron Under the leadership of Renee Keese, the 62nd NEWSS Annual meeting in Philadelphia was extremely successful. The Society sponsored a symposium on the Effect of Climate Change on Weeds. The irony of this timely and relevant topic was that the weather was unseasonably mild during the entire meeting.

Financially, we continue to remain solvent. Our Society’s culture is to be conservative in spending in order to maintain membership and meeting fee at reasonable levels. We have integrated some process changes in membership dues and meeting registrations to make NEWSS business transactions more “customer friendly”. Process changes include the acceptance of credit cards for membership dues and meeting registration via PayPal.

The 26th Annual NEWSS Collegiate Weed Contest was held on July 30, 2008 at the Elbert N. & Ann V. Carvel Research & Education Center, University of Delaware, Georgetown. This year’s contest was successfully hosted by Mark Isaacs and Mark VanGessel. Next year we will be cooperating with the North Central Weed Science Society and having a joint contest in Indianapolis.

On the recommendation of William Curran and through the coordination of Melissa Bravo NEWSS sponsored a Noxious and Invasive Management Short Course September 15 to 18. Financial assistance was provided through a grant to NEWSS from the United States Forest Service. The faculty of the program included several NEWSS members. Over 60 public and private land managers, policy makers; township and municipality supervisors; and contractors attended this week long program in Lebanon, PA to that want to gain a better understanding of noxious and invasive vegetation management in aquatic and non-cropland situations. Because of demand, plans are being made to have a second program in 2009. In addition to the educational benefits provided to the participants, NEWSS will clear some revenue from this years and next years Short Course.

New members to the Executive Committee joining during 2008 were Hilary Sadler as Vice President, Rakish Chandran as Research and Education and Caryn Judge as Sustaining Membership.

107

As President, Board meetings were scheduled, agendas circulated and hotel arrangements made when necessary. Committee Lists were updated, reviewed, approved and posted on the website. Changes/modifications were submitted to the Manual of Operating Procedures. No Resolutions were brought forward by the Resolutions Committee in 2008. However, Dan Kunkel, Legislative Committee Chair has submitted a Resolution to eliminate the Executive Committee position of Legislative Committee Chair and integrate the duties of this position into the WSSA Liaison Representative. Finally, an excellent Vice President candidate has been nominated; Dr. Mark VanGessel.

In closing, it has been a pleasure working with this Executive Committee, as they are dedicated and hard-working individuals who are dedicated to the success of Northeastern Weed Science Society. I specifically want to recognize the outgoing members of the Executive Committee, Chris Becker as Secretary/Treasurer, Renee Keese as Past President, Toni DiTommaso as WSSA Liaison, Dwight Lingenfelter as Public Relations, Dan Kunkel as Legislative and Matt Ryan as Graduate Student Representative.

PRESIDENT ELECT REPORT – David E. Yarborough Collegiate Weed Contest: Mark Isaacs and Mark VanGessel hoisted the 2008 Collegiate Weed Contest at the University of Delaware Elbert N & Ann V. Carvel Research and Education Center in Georgetown, Delaware on Wednesday, July 30.

They had total of 37 students competing this year (7 graduate and 5 undergraduate teams) from 5 universities including: North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Cornell, and Guelph. The meet started with an orientation dinner (barbeque) in the grove area. Students participated in four contest segments including weed identification, unknown herbicide identification, sprayer calibration, and farmer problems. The organizers have designed a challenging and entertaining Weed Contest. Many of us believe that the Weed Contest is one of the more important training exercises for the students. The Weed Contest is designed to not only prepare the students for real life situations it is also designed to be fun. Thanks from the Society go to Mark Isaacs and Mark VanGessel and also many other volunteers that should be acknowledged, including Gary Schnappinger and Dave Johnson. They have put a lot of time and efforts into making this event a success.

We have taken up the North Central Weed Science Society offer to allow teams from the Northeast participate in their contest. The NCWSS Contest will take place at the AgriBusiness Group (a private research/consulting company) near Indianapolis, IN The contest date will be July 23, 2009. Dwight Lingenfelter and Cary Judge are working out the details for the coordination of the NEWSS group at the NCWSS contest.

2010 and 2011 Annual Meeting: The 2010 NEWSS Annual meeting will be held at the Marriott Boston Cambridge, Two Cambridge Center, 50 Broadway, Cambridge, MA, on January 4-7, 2010. We have a room rate of $120 single/double. We last met at this location in 2004. We also have the option to sign a contract with the Renaissance Harbor Place Baltimore for our 2011 meeting, January 3-6 without penalty until January 30, 2009. This is the same property that hosed the 2009 Annual Meeting. We have negotiated a room rate of $125/night single or double,

108 complementary meeting space, a complementary reception for the Society, complementary podium and lavaliere microphones, reduced parking at $13/day, and several other incentives.

Executive Committee Members: Replacements for Executive Committee members whose terms have been completed have been identified. Shawn Askew will be the new WSSA representative replacing Toni DiTommaso and Melissa Bravo will relive Chris Becker as the new Secretary Treasurer. Barbra Smart will be replacing Dwight Lingenfelter as the new public relations replacement. Dan Kunkel will opt out of the legislative position and the new student representative taking Matt Ryan’s place will be Angela Post from Cornell.

VICE PRESIDENT REPORT – Hilary A. Sandler The theme for the 2009 meeting is “Use of Biofuels and the Implications for Weed Management. Stacy Bonos, Rutgers University, will be giving the keynote address entitled, “Biofuels 101: Can we grow our energy supply?” during Tuesday’s General Session. The full symposium will be on Wednesday and we have invited three speakers for the 2-hour Symposium. Tom Richard (Penn State Institute of Energy and the Environment) will lead off with a talk entitled, “After Abundance: Multi-functional Agriculture for a Carbon-Constrained World”. David Thomassen (US Department of Energy) will speak on “The Department of Energy’s Biofuels Research Program”, and Jacob Barney (University of California-Davis) will give a talk entitled, “Are We Risking Biosecurity for Bioenergy: The Potential for Biofuels to Become Invasive Weeds”.

A member survey indicated support to continue holding the graduate student paper presentations as separate sessions. Receiving 20 titles from graduate students, we have three sessions planned this year, one on Tuesday morning, one Tuesday afternoon, and one Wednesday morning following the symposium. The Awards Luncheon will be held on Tuesday at mid-day, bracketed by the graduate student papers.

We are hosting two special workshops on Tuesday afternoon (1.5 hr each): A Casual Review of Statistics and Spray Application Technology. In the Statistics Workshop, Chris Reberg- Horton (North Carolina State University) will speak on “Traditions and Conventions in the Use of Repeated Measures Analysis, Contrasts, and Pairwise Comparison” and Leslie Fuquay (Syngenta Crop Protection) will speak on “It’s a Sure Thing, Probably: The Influence of Variability on Trial Design, Sample Size, Replication, and Means Separation. In the Spray Technology Workshop, Robert Wolf (Kansas State University) will present information on “Making Effective Applications to Maximize Efficacy While Minimizing Spray Drift”. Member feedback about these sessions will influence whether we try this format again in another annual meeting.

Three concurrent oral sessions (Agronomy, Ornamentals, and Vegetation Management and Restoration) will be held Wednesday afternoon. The NEWSS Business Meeting will be held at the conclusion of the concurrent sessions and the evening will end with the traditional NEWSS evening social. On Thursday, in addition to three concurrent paper sessions (Weed Biology and Ecology, Vegetables and Fruit, and Turfgrass and Plant Growth Regulators), we are offering two

109 special workshops: Ornamentals and Turfgrass. The Annual Meeting will conclude at 1 PM on Thursday.

Abstract title submission date was September 19, 2008 (about 2 weeks later than in 2007) and abstracts were due October 17. Titles and abstracts continued to straggle in after the deadlines, but no additional call was needed to solicit extra titles. The program has 100 presentations (up 5 from 2008) with the following breakdown: 26 posters (includes 6 student posters), 20 student papers, 11 Agronomy papers, 11 Ornamental papers, 11 Vegetation Management and Restoration papers, 8 Weed Ecology/Biology papers, 5 Turfgrass/Growth Regulators papers, and 8 Vegetable/Fruit papers. There are also 3 presentations in the Biofuels symposium, 7 presentations in the Ornamental Workshop and 5 presentations in the Turfgrass Workshop. Major changes in the Program for 2009 included the addition of a new section entitled, Vegetation Management and Restoration (replacing Conservation, Forestry, and Industry), and the inclusion of 2 special 1.5-hour workshops (on statistics and spray technology). A new social was added to the meeting and will be held on Tuesday evening after the dinner hour. It is entitled, Industry Night Cap and Dessert social. Again, feedback on this social will help to determine if we will continue to offer this event to the membership.

A reminder was sent to the section chairs and chairs-elect at the end of December to remind them of their responsibilities to bring computers and LED projectors and to encourage them to attend the Program Committee meeting on Monday PM.

PAST PRESIDENT REPORT – Renee Keese Documents for 2007 were compiled and submitted to Dan Kunkel for archival.

The Awards Committee this year consists of myself as Chair, Bill Curran, Tim Dutt, Robin Bellinder and Scott Glenn. A new award was created called the Service Recognition Award to recognize outstanding contributions from staff personnel employed in the field of weed science. The first Service Recognition Award will be presented in January 2009 at the annual meeting. Nominations were received for all awards but the Award of Merit, and winners were decided by committee vote. Plaques were ordered for all the award winners, including a special recognition for Melissa Bravo for organizing the Invasive Weed Management Course. The Awards Luncheon Program was prepared and printed through IR-4.

The Past President’s breakfast was scheduled for Wednesday morning January 7th. The Manual of Operating Procedures was updated and 20 new copies printed for the Annual Business Meeting.

An Industry Night Cap Social was created when four companies agreed to co-sponsor the event. BASF, Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta will be the inaugural sponsors and the event will be held Tuesday January 6th from 9-11pm. Desserts, coffee and an open bar will be provided in a lounge-type atmosphere.

110 TREASURER REPORT - Chris Becker The Secretary Treasurer assisted Cheryl Ferrazoli with setting up a new process for registering for the NEWSS annual meeting. Assistance was provided with setting up PayPal, and providing past forms for registration receipts and nametags.

The income and expenses balance sheet for the previous season is near completion; final details from the Invasive Weed Short Course will be received at the Annual Meeting. Annual IRS tax forms will be processed after the annual meeting.

The Secretary Treasure files have been updated and will be transferred to Melissa Bravo at the annual meeting. Time will be allocated for training Melissa about the responsibilities of the Sec/Treas.

The MD tax exemption for NEWSS was declined, but was resubmitted with the reaffirmation that Scott Glenn is our “official” Maryland contact.

PUBLIC RELATIONS REPORT - Dwight Lingenfelter 2008 Overview  Compiled and edited three NEWSS Newsletters and distributed via email and web  Submitted two NEWSS News articles to WSSA Newsletter (April and October)  Took photos at major NEWSS events for inclusion in newsletters, website, and other media  Continued to maintain/improve website content on server (A Small Orange) with editor (Rob Dickerson)  Compiled a pictorial-summary Powerpoint of 2008 NEWSS events to display/scroll during NEWSS annual meeting

Extra activities  Serve as NEWSS rep. on WSSA Public Relations committee (Committee meets via conference call at least twice a month and helps develop weed science related articles for distribution through mass media outlets; articles are written specifically for a general public audience and to create awareness of weed science issues and to recognize WSSA and daughter societies; recent articles can be found on the WSSA website)  Serve on planning committee for upcoming 2009 NCWSS-NEWSS combined collegiate weed science contest on July 23 near Indianapolis, IN

EDITOR’S REPORT - Greg Armel Upon receiving the program from Hilary Sandler, minor adjustments were made to the titles and authors in order to more closely match information provided for our proceedings. In total, there were 25 posters and 94 oral paper presentations scheduled for our meeting at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel in Baltimore, MD. Topics of interest include invasive weed management, weed relationships to biofuel production, statistics, new sprayer technology, weed ecology and biology, herbicide resistance management, plant growth regulators, organic cropping systems, initial presentations on a few new herbicide active ingredients, and several weed control topics in

111 corn, soybeans, cereals, vegetables, ornamentals, turf, and total vegetation management. Once again the cover for both the program and the proceedings were developed based on the winning picture from our photo contest last year. Our second winner of this new honor was Dr. Randy Prostak of the University of Massachusetts, who won our photo contest back in January 2008 with a close-up photo of a dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) seedhead. In addition to the color cover, we were also able to add two colors pages on the inside of our proceedings this year. These two color pages highlight our award recipients from last year’s weed contest and annual meeting.

This year our proceedings were approximately 20 pages longer than what was budgeted (224 actual vs. 204 budgeted). This was due in part having more abstracts, having the Annual Business Meeting Minutes from January 2008, and expanding our chemical reference list in the back of the proceedings. Due to this increase in page numbers, Omnipress will charge us $3,070.00 for 225 copies of the proceedings in comparison to $2,880.00 quoted. In addition, 47 CDs containing Adobe PDF versions of our proceedings were created at the University of Tennessee. Hyperlinks were included in the table of contents that will take you to the abstract of interest in just one click. The expense for creating the CDs was negligible and they were therefore gifted to the NEWSS from the University of Tennessee.

WSSA REPRESENTATIVE REPORT TO NEWSS‐Toni DiTommaso The WSSA Annual Meeting in 2008 was held at the Chicago Hilton Hotel in Chicago, IL February 4-7. A total of 450 participants attended the meeting despite poor weather the day prior to the start of the meeting and also one day during the meeting making travel to Chicago especially difficult. A total of 309 presentations (oral + poster) were scheduled. There was a good turn out (40 participants) for the Sunday tour of the Chicago Botanic Garden and Hausermann’s Orchids facility. A total of six symposia were held including: Invasive Plant Species and the New Bioeconomy, Glyphosate Resistance Mechanisms: Current Understanding and New Insights, and a symposium targeted primarily at graduate students titled: Tips and Tricks for Journal Writing: What Everyone Needs to Know for Preparing Submissions to WSSA Journals. A GIS workshop ($100 cost per attendee) was also part of the Monday program.

The keynote speaker at the meeting was the entertaining WGN radio personality, Mr. Orion Samuelson, Agricultural Services Director for WGN radio in Chicago since 1960.

Several members of the NEWSS received WSSA awards at the Chicago Annual Meeting: Antonio (Toni) DiTommaso received the Outstanding Teacher Award and Jacob Barney received the Outstanding Graduate Student Award.

The 2009 WSSA Annual meeting will be held February 9-13 as a joint meeting with the Southern Weed Science Society (SWSS) at the Hilton in the Walt Disney World resort in Orlando, FL. The WSSA Board of Directors is looking at this joint meeting as a possible future meeting format and as a way to increase interactions with the regional societies.

112 The scientific program for the Joint WSSA/SWSS 2009 Annual Meeting will feature eight special topic symposia and poster and oral paper presentations on the latest weed science research.

The eight symposia topics in Orlando are: 1) Invasive Plant Web-Accessible Databases & Volunteer Monitoring 2) Impact of Usage of Below-Label Herbicide Rates 3) Plant Pathogens & Biological Control of Weeds: A Symposium in Honor of Dr. R. Charudattan 4) Emerging Palmer Amaranth Resistance to Glyphosate 5) Research Ethics & Mentoring in Weed Science 6) Technology Innovations in Weed Science Communication 7) New Directions in Weed Population & Community Modeling 8) Non-Herbicide Uses of Herbicides

David Shaw and Dan Reynolds, Co-Program Chairs, and the Program Committee have worked hard to develop this joint meeting of WSSA and SWSS and they look forward to seeing you in Orlando.

The IX International Bioherbicide Group Workshop will be held on Sunday, Feb. 8, 2009 as a satellite conference of the Joint WSSA/SWSS Annual Meeting.

The 2010 Annual Meeting will be held February 7-11 in Denver, CO in conjunction with The Society for Range Management.

The 5th International Weed Science Congress was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from June 23-27, 2008 and was a great success. The theme of the meeting was: “Weeds – Local problems, global change”. More than 500 abstracts were presented and nearly 550 participants from 48 countries attended the meeting. The WSSA was one of the sponsors for the Congress.

The USDA-ARS posted the job description for the National Program Leader (NPL) for Weed Science. The job posting was open until the end of October 2008 and will be based in Beltsville, MD. Dr. Ernest Delfosse was the previous NPL for Weed Science, but he was appointed Chair of the Department of Entomology at Michigan State University during 2008.

Dr. William Vencill from the University of Georgia was selected as the new Editor of Weed Science. Dr. Vencill will assume the position in February 2009 when the current editor, Dr. Robert Blackshaw (Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada- Lethbridge, Alberta) steps down.

The new Editor of the Herbicide Handbook is Dr. Francois Tardif from the University of Guelph. He will take over from Dr. Scott Senseman (Texas A&M University) who was editor of the most recent edition (9th – 2007) of this very valuable WSSA publication.

Dr. Steve Dewey, Utah State University who was appointed as the WSSA/EPA Invasive Terrestrial Weeds Subject Matter Expert completed his 18-month term in December 2008. In this position, Dr. Dewey provided advice and expertise to this federal agency in matters related to

113 invasive terrestrial plant management. Dr. Jill Schroeder, New Mexico State University, was selected as the new Subject Matter Expert succeeding Dr. Dewey.

The first issue of the new invasive plant journal sponsored by the WSSA: Invasive Plant Science and Management was unveiled during the 2008 WSSA Annual Meeting in Chicago. Joe DiTomaso (UC Davis) is the editor for the new journal.

GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE - Matt Ryan GS Mixer We are trying something new for the mixer this year. During the first half of the mixer, Dr. Rich Smith will give a short presentation to attending students on the benefits of networking. We will focus on breaking the ice and getting the students thinking about talking to future employers. Then the students will actually have a chance to apply their new skills during the second half of the mixer which will open to potential employers and post-docs.

Suggestion to Improve Communication It has come to my attention that the society may be well served by having a message board online for students and other members to post notes and announcements. Several students contacted me since September to ask if I knew of anyone looking for roommates at the meeting. While I certainly did not mind asking around and sending out e-mails, I think it would be more effective to have a “place” for members to post such requests or comments. I’m not sure how difficult this would be to set up, but I thought it was worth discussing.

New GSR Angela Post, PhD Candidate, Cornell University will be taking over as GSR starting at the Old and New meeting. Angela has s strong background in weed science and has been a regular competitor, and more recently a coach, at the Collegiate Weeds Competition. I am confident that she will be a great representative for the students.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT - Dan Kunkel A Resolution to incorporate the position of NEWSS Legislative Chair into the position of NEWSS WSSA Representative has been submitted. The resolution is as follows:

Whereas: The Northeastern Weed Science Society has provided funds to support the WSSA Director of Science Policy to provide important legislative information to the society and Whereas: The NEWSS WSSA Representatives has a more direct interaction with the WSSA legislative committee and WSSA board members and Whereas: The roles and responsibilities of the NEWSS Legislative Chair are no longer significant based on the above; Therefore, Be it resolved: That the Northeastern Weed Science Society Constitution and Manual of Operation be amended to remove the position of The Legislative Committee Chairperson and add the duties and assignments of this position to that of the WSSA Representative.

114 Statement The Legislative Committee Chair primarily serves as a source of information regarding issues related to Weed Science on a Regional basis and to maintain regular contact with the WSSA Director of Science Policy (DSP). This position also participates in the reviews and selection of the WSSA DSP. Over the past several years, the DSP position has evolved to the point where much of the information is provided directly to the society in the quarterly newsletter or via email “blast”. The DSP also provides occasional teleconference (1 to 2 times per year) where the Legislative Chair and NEWSS President are invited to join in the conference. Due to this evolution the duties of the Legislative Chair have diminished significantly. Therefore, considerations should be made to incorporate those duties into another existing position with the WSSA representative being the most logical for the reasons noted. The WSSA Representative has more direct contact with the WSSA Board members and can discuss issues regarding the DSP and the society more directly with those members. The WSSA Representative will also have more direct contact with the WSSA Legislative Representative and will be able to more readily discuss performance issues and be able to assist with the replacement of the DSP when needed. Changes to be made in the Northeastern Weed Science Society Constitution and Manual of Operation would include removing all citations regarding the Legislative Representative and provide additions as noted in italics below to the duties of the WSSA Representative.

SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP – Caryn Judge A request for Sustaining Membership was sent to all current sustaining members and prospective new members in October 2008. As of December 19, 2008, we have received commitments from 22 organizations for 2009, the same number as in 2008. We are awaiting confirmation from one current sustaining member. Two organizations that were sustaining members in 2008 decided not to contribute this year for various reasons, and four new members (For-Shore Weed Control, Gylling Data Management, TeeJet Spraying Systems, and USGA Mid-Atlantic Green Section) are new Sustaining Members for 2009.

The 2009 Sustaining Membership breakdown is as follows: 2-Platinum, 7-Gold, 7-Silver, 6- Bronze for a total commitment of $16,000, and potential for $16,250. Therefore, overall support has increased from 2008.

2009 NEWSS Sustaining Members Organization 2009 Level BASF Platinum Syngenta Platinum Bayer Crop Science/Bayer Environmental Science Gold Dow AgroSciences Gold Dupont Gold FMC Gold The IR-4 Project Gold Monsanto Gold Valent Gold Amvac Silver BAAR Scientific Silver For-Shore Weed Control Silver

115 OHP Silver PBI Gordon Silver Quali-PRO Silver TeeJet Silver ACDS Bronze Crop Management Strategies Bronze Gylling Data Management Bronze LABServices Bronze USGA Mid-Atlantic Green Section Bronze Weeds, Inc. Bronze Nichino America Bronze

2009 Sustaining Members will be recognized at the 2009 annual meeting and at the 2009 collegiate weed contest. One organization requested a commercial display table for the 2009 annual meeting in Baltimore.

116

117 NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS

Gilbert H. Ahlgren 1947-49 Stanley W. Pruss 1992-93 Robert D. Sweet 1949-50 Ronald L. Ritter 1993-94 Howard L. Yowell 1950-51 Wayne G. Wright 1994-95 Stephen M. Raleigh 1951-52 Bradley A. Majek 1995-96 Charles E. Minarik 1952-53 Thomas E. Vrabel 1996-97 Robert H. Beatty 1953-54 Joseph C. Neal 1997-98 Albin O. Kuhn 1954-55 David B. Vitolo 1998-99 John Van Geluwe 1955-56 A. Richard Bonanno 1999-00 L. Danielson 1956-57 Brian D. Olson 2000-01 Charles L. Hovey 1957-58 Jeffrey F. Derr 2001-02 Stanford N. Fertig 1958-59 David J. Mayonado 2002-03 Gordon Utter 1959-60 D. Scott Glenn 2003-04 E. M. Rahn 1960-61 Robin R. Bellinder 2004-05 Lawrence Southwick 1961-62 Timothy E. Dutt 2005-06 Donald A. Shallock 1962-63 William S. Curran 2006-07 Anthony J. Tafuro 1963-64 Renee Keese 2007-08 Robert A. Peters 1964-65 Jerry Baron 2008-09 Gideon D. Hill 1965-66 Richard D. Ilnicki 1966-67 John E. Gallagher 1967-68 John A. Meade 1968-69 Homer M. Lebaron 1969-70 John F. Ahrens 1970-71 George H. Bayer 1971-72 Arthur Bing 1972-73 Ralph Hansen 1973-74 Walter A. Gentner 1974-75 Henry P. Wilson 1975-76 Richard J. Marrese 1976-77 C. Edward Beste 1977-78 James D. Riggleman 1978-79 James V. Parochetti 1979-80 M. Garry Schnappinger 1980-81 Raymond B. Taylorson 1981-82 Stephan Dennis 1982-83 Thomas L. Watschke 1983-84 James C. Graham 1984-85 Russell R. Hahn 1985-86 Edward R. Higgins 1986-87 Maxwell L. McCormack 1987-88 Roy R. Johnson 1988-89 Stanley F. Gorski 1989-90 John B. Dobson 1990-91 Prasanta C. Bhowmik 1991-92

118 AWARD OF MERIT

1971 Gilbert H. Ahlgren Rutgers University Homer Neville L.I. Ag. & Tech, Farmingdale, NY Claude E. Phillips University of Delaware M. S. Pridham Cornell University Stephen A. Raleigh Penn State University 1972 Robert Bell University of Rhode Island Stuart Dunn University of New Hampshire Alfred Fletcher NJ State Dept. of Health Frank N. Hewetson Penn Fruit Res. Lab. Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Collins Veatch West Virginia University Howard L. Yowell Esso Research Lab. 1973 Moody F. Trevett University of Maine 1974 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc. Arthur Hawkins University of Connecticut 1975 Philip Gorlin NY City Environ. Cont. Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp. Robert D. Sweet Cornell University 1976 C. E. Langer University of New Hampshire Charles E. Minarik US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Herb Pass CIBA-GEIGY Corp. 1977 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Madelene E. Pierce Vassar College Lawrence Southwick Dow Chemical Company John Stennis US Bureau of Fish & Wildlife 1978 None Awarded 1979 Carl M. Monroe Shell Chemical Company Charles Joseph Noll Penn State University Jonas Vengris University of Massachusetts 1980 Otis F. Curtis, Jr. NY Agricultural Experiment Sta. Theodore R. Flanagan University of Vermont Oscar E. Shubert Virginia University 1981 Dayton L. Klingman US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine John Van Geluwe CIBA-GEIGY Corp. 1982 Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1983 Arthur Bing Cornell University William E. Chappel Virginia Tech Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agricultural Prod. 1984 William H. Mitchell University of Delaware Roger S. Young West Virginia University 1985 John A. Jagschitz University of Rhode Island 1986 John R. Havis University of Massachusetts

119 1987 None Awarded 1988 J. Lincoln Pearson University of Rhode Island 1989 Robert A. Peter University of Connecticut 1990 Bryant L. Walworth American Cyanamid Co. 1991 Don Warholic Cornell University 1992 Robert Duel Rutgers University Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University William V. Welker USDA/ARS 1993 None Awarded 1994 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. John B. Dobson American Cyanamid J. Ray Frank USDA-ARS/IR-4 1995 Francis J. Webb University of Delaware 1996 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts Wilber F. Evans Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. Raymond B. Taylorson University of Rhode Island S. Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech 1997 Jean P. Cartier Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. 1998 Stan Pruss Novartis Crop Protection Max McCormack, Jr. University of Maine 1999 None awarded 2000 Richard J. Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 2001 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University Edward R. Higgins Novartis Crop University 2002 Garry Schnappinger Syngenta Crop Protection 2003 None Awarded 2004 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland-Emeritus James C. Graham Monsanto (retired) 2005 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2006 Steve Dennis Syngenta Crop Protection 2007 None awarded 2008 Domingo Riego Monsanto 2009 None awarded

120 DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS

1979 George H. Bayer Agway, Inc. Robert A. Peters University of Connecticut Robert D. Sweet Cornell University 1980 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta. John E. Gallagher Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Richard Ilnicki Rutgers University 1981 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc. Arthur Bing Cornell University John A. Meade Rutgers University 1982 Walter A. Gentner US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS Hugh J. Murphy University of Maine 1983 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS 1984 Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech 1985 None Awarded 1986 Chiko Haramaki Penn State University Dean L. Linscott USDA-ARS/Cornell University 1987 Gideon D. Hill E. I. DuPont DeNemours Williams V. Welker US Dept. of Agric-ARS 1988 Wendell R. Mullison Dow Chemical James V. Parochetti US Dept. of Agriculture-CSRS 1989 None Awarded 1990 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts 1991 John (Jack) B. Dobson American Cyanamid Robert D. Shipman Penn State University 1992 Gary Schnappinger Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1993 Steve Dennis Zeneca Ag. Products James Graham Monsanto Ag. Co. 1994 Russell Hahn Cornell University Maxwell McCormick University of Maine 1995 Richard Ashly University of Connecticut Richard Marrese Hoechst-NorAm 1996 Roy R. Johnson Waldrum Specialist Inc. Edward R. Higgins Ciba Crop Protection 1997 Raymond B. Taylorson UDSA-ARS Wayne G. Wright DowElanco Stanley F. Gorski Ohio State University 1998 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts 1999 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland 2000 J. Ray Frank IR-4 Project Stanley W. Pruss Ciba Crop Protection 2001 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland

121 DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS

2002 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University 2003 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University 2004 C. Benjamin Coffman USDA Joseph C. Neal North Carolina State University 2005 David Vitolo Syngenta Crop Protection 2006 A. Richard Bonnano University of Massachusetts Thomas Vrabel Eco Soil Systems, Central H.S. 2007 Larry Kuhns Penn State University Brian Olsen Dow Agrosciences 2008 Jeff Derr Virginia Tech 2009 David Mayonado Monsanto Co. Andrew Senesac Cornell University

OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD

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

OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD

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

122

SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD

2009 Thomas Hines Virginia Tech

OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER CONTEST

1979 1 Bradley Majek Cornell University 2 Betty J. Hughes Cornell University

1980 1 John Cardi Penn State University 2 Timothy Malefyt Cornell University

1981 1 A. Douglas Brede Penn State University 2 Ann S. McCue Cornell University

1982 1 Thomas C. Harris University of Maryland 2 Barbara J. Hook University of Maryland HM L. K. Thompson Virginia Tech HM Timothy Malefyt Cornell University

1983 1 Anna M. Pennucci University of Rhode Island 2 Michael A. Ruizzo Ohio State University HM I. M. Detlefson Rutgers University

1984 1 Robert S. Peregoy University of Maryland 2 Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut

1985 1 Stephan Reiners Ohio State University 2 Erin Hynes Penn State University

1986 1 Elizabeth Hirsh University of Maryland 2 (tie) Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut 2 (tie) Avraham Y. Teitz Ohio State University

1987 1 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University 2 (tie) Daniel E. Edwards Penn State University 2 (tie) Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts

1988 1 William K. Vencill Virginia Tech 2 Lewis K. Walker Virginia Tech HM Scott Guiser Penn State University HM Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts

123 1989 1 Frank S. Rossi Cornell University 1 Amy E. Stowe Cornell University

1990 1 William J. Chism Virginia Tech 2 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University

1991 1 Elizabeth Maynard Cornell University 2 Daniel L. Kunkel Cornell University

1992 1 J. DeCastro Rutgers University 2 Ted Blomgren Cornell University 3 Fred Katz Rutgers University

1993 1 Eric D. Wilkens Cornell University 2 Henry C. Wetzel University of Maryland

1994 1 Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University 2 Eric D. Wilkins Cornell University

1995 1 Sydha Salihu Virginia Tech 2 John A. Ackley Virginia Tech HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University

1996 1 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University 2 Mark Issacs University of Delaware HM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University

1997 1 David Messersmith Penn State University 2 Sowmya Mitra University of Massachusetts HM Mark Issacs University of Delaware

1998 1 Dan Poston Virginia Tech 2 Travis Frye Penn State University 3 David B. Lowe Clemson University

1999 1 Hennen Cummings North Carolina State University 2 John Isgrigg North Carolina State University

2000 1 Matthew Fagerness North Carolina State University 2 Steven King Virginia Tech 3 Gina Penny North Carolina State University

2001 1 Robert Nurse University of Guelph 2 (tie) W. Andrew Bailey Virginia Tech 2 (tie) Steven King Virginia Tech

124 2002 1. G. Michael Elston University of Massachusetts 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University

2003 1. Matt Myers Penn State University 2. J. Scott McElroy North Carolina State University 3. Robert Nurse Cornell University

2004 1. Whitnee L. Barker Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University 3. Erin R. Haramoto University of Maine

2005 1. Jacob Barney Cornell University 2. Steven Mirsky Penn State University

2006 1. Steven Mirsky Penn State University 1. Robert Shortell Rutgers University 2. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University

2007 1. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University 2. John Willis Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ. 3. Glenn Evans Cornell University

2008 1. Glenn Evans Cornell University 2. Alex Putnam University of Connecticut 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University

2009 1. Dustin Lewis University of Tennessee 2. Kristine Averill Cornell University 3. Angela Post North Carolina State University

125 COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS

1983 - Wye Research Center, Maryland

Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Mike Donnelly, University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Bob Annet, University of Guelph

1984 - Rutgers Research and Development Center, Bridgeton, New Jersey

Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: D. Wright, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: N. Harker, University of Guelph

1985 – Rohm and Haas, Spring House, Pennsylvania

Graduate Team: University of Maryland Undergraduate Individual: Finlay Buchanan, University of Guelph Graduate Individual: David Vitolo, Rutgers University

1986 - FMC, Princeton, New Jersey

Graduate Team: Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: R. Jain, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Bill Litwin, University of Guelph

1987 - DuPont, Newark, Delaware

Graduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Lewis Walker, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Allen Eadie, University of Guelph

1988 - Ciba-Geigy Corp., Hudson, New York

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Undergraduate Individual: Del Voight, Penn State University Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech

126 1989 - American Cyanamid, Princeton, New Jersey

Graduate Team: Cornell University Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Paul Stachowski, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Anita Dielman, University of Guelph

1990 - Agway Farm Research Center, Tully, New York

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University

1991 - Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Tim Borro, University of Guelph

1992 - Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario, CANADA

Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: Ohio State Graduate Individual: Troy Bauer, Michigan State University Undergraduate Individual: Jeff Stackler, Ohio State University

1993 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Brian Cook, University of Guelph

1994 - Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury, Maryland

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Robert Maloney, University of Guelph

127 1995 - Thompson Vegetable Research Farm, Freeville, New York

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Jimmy Summerlin, North Carolina State University

1996 - Penn State Agronomy Farm, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania

Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: SUNY, Cobleskill Graduate Individual: John Isgrigg, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Mark Brock, University of Guelph

1997 - North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

Graduate Team: Michigan State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Brett Thorpe, Michigan State University

1998 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Kevin Ego, University of Guelph

1999 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Nova Scotia Agricultural College Graduate Individual: Rob Richardson, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Keith Burnell, North Carolina State University

2000 - University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA

Graduate Team: Virginia Tech Undergraduate Team: Ohio State University Graduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Luke Case, Ohio State University

128 2001 - University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: Penn State University Graduate Individual: Matt Myers, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Shawn Heinbaugh, Penn State University

2002 - ACDS Research Facility, North Rose, New York

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: North Carolina State University Graduate Individual: Scott McElroy, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Sarah Hans, North Carolina State University

2003 – Syngenta Crop Protection, Eastern Region Technical Center, Hudson, NY

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Andrew MacRae, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Jonathan Kapwyk, University of Guelph

2004 – North Carolina University, Raleigh, NC

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Jenny English, University of Guelph

2005 – Pennsylvania State University, Landisville, PA

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia Tech Undergraduate Individual: Gerard Pynenborg, University of Guelph

2006 – DuPont Crop Protection, Stine Haskell Research Center, Newark, DE

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Virender Kumar, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Adam Pfeffer, University of Guelph

129 2007 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

Graduate Team: North Carolina State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: George Place, North Carolina State University Undergraduate Individual: Craig Reid, University of Guelph

2007 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware

Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Matt Ryan, Penn State University Undergraduate Individual: Blair Scott, University of Guelph

2008 - ABG Ag Services, Sheridan, Indiana (joint contest with the NCWSS) Graduate Team: Penn State University Undergraduate Team: University of Guelph Graduate Individual: Angela Post, Cornell University Undergraduate Individual: Andrew Reid, University of Guelph

RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS

1983 1. Herbicide Impregnated Fertilizer of Weed Control in No-Tillage Corn - R. Uruatowski and W. H. Mitchell, Univ. of Delaware, Newark 2. Effect of Wiper Application of Several Herbicides and Cutting on Black Chokeberry - D. E. Yarborough and A. A. Ismail, Univ. of Maine, Orono HM. Corn Chamomile Control in Winter Wheat - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York and P. W. Kanouse, New York State Cooperative Extension, Mt. Morris

1984 1. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Ornamental Res. Station, Painter 2. Triazine Resistant Weeds in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY HM. A Roller for Applying Herbicides at Ground Level - W. V. Welker and D. L. Peterson, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV

1985 1. No-Tillage Cropping Systems in a Crown Vetch Living Mulch - N. L. Hartwig, Penn State Univ., University Park 2. Anesthetic Release of Dormancy in Amaranthus retroflexus Seeds - R. B. Taylorson, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD and K. Hanyadi, Univ. of Agricultural Science, Keszthely, Hungary 2. Triazine Resistant Weed Survey in Maryland - B. H. Marose, Univ. of Maryland, College Park HM. Wild Proso Millet in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

130

1986 1. Discharge Rate of Metolachlor from Slow Release Tablets - S. F. Gorski, M. K. Wertz and S. Refiners, Ohio State Univ., Columbus 2. Glyphosate and Wildlife Habitat in Maine - D. Santillo, Univ. of Maine, Orono

1987 1. Mycorrhiza and Transfer of Glyphosate Between Plants - M. A. Kaps and L. J. Khuns, Penn State Univ., University Park 2. Redroot Pigweed Competition Study in No-Till Potatoes - R. W. Wallace, R. R. Bellinder, and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1988 1. Growth Suppression of Peach Trees With Competition - W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 2. Smooth Bedstraw Control in Pastures and Hayfields - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1989 1. Burcucumber Responses to Sulfonylurea Herbicides - H. P. Wilson and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Water Conservation in the Orchard Environment Through Management - W. V. Welker, Jr., USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Res. Sta., Kearneysville, WV

1990 1. Reduced Rates of Postemergence Soybean Herbicides - E. Prostko, J. A. Meade, and J. Ingerson-Mahar, Rutgers Coop. Ext. Mt. Holly, NJ 2. The Tolerance of Fraxinus, Juglans, and Quercus Seedings to Imazaquin and Imazethapyr - L. J. Kuhns and J. Loose, Penn State Univ., University Park

1991 1. Johnsongrass Recovery from Sulfonylurea Herbicides - T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 2. Growth Response to Young Peach Trees to Competition With Several Grass Species - W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV

1992 1. Teaching Weed Identification with Videotape - B. Marose, N. Anderson, L. Kauffman-Alfera, and T. Patten, Univ. of Maryland, College Park 2. Biological Control of Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L. Reptans) with Xanthomonas campestris (MYX-7148) Under Field Conditions - N. D. Webber and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1993 1. Development of an Identification Manual for Weeds of the Northeastern United States - R H. Uva and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Optimum Time of Cultivation for Weed Control in Corn - Jane Mt. Pleasant, R. Burt and J. Frisch, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1994 1. Herbicide Contaminant Injury Symptoms on Greenhouse Grown Poinsettia and Geranium - M. Macksel and A. Senesac, Long Island Horticultural Res. Lab, Riverhead, NY and J. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Mow-kill Regulation of Winter Cereals Grown for Spring No-till Crop Production - E. D. Wilkins and R. R. Bellinder, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

131

1995 1. A Comparison of Broadleaf and Blackseed Plantains Identification and Control - J. C. Neal and C. C. Morse, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 2. Using the Economic Threshold Concept as a Determinant for Velvetleaf Control in Field Corn - E. L. Werner and W. S. Curran, Penn State Univ., University Park

1996 1. Preemergence and Postemergence Weed Management in 38 and 76 cm Corn - C. B. Coffman, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 2. Common Cocklebur Response to Chlorimuron and Imazaquin - B. S. Manley, H. P. Wilson and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

1997 None Awarded

1998 1. Weed Control Studies with Rorippa sylvestris - L. J. Kuhns and T. Harpster, Penn State Univ., University Park, PA 2. Postemergence Selectivity and Safety of Isoxaflutole in Cool Season Turfgrass - P. C. Bhowmik and J. A. Drohen, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

1999 1. Winter Squash Cultivars Differ in Response to Weed Competition - E. T. Maynard, Purdue Univ., Hammond, IN 2. Effectiveness of Row Spacing, Herbicide Rate, and Application Method on Harvest Efficiency of Lima Beans - S. Sankula, M. J. VanGessel, W. E. Kee, and J. L. Glancey, Univ. of Delaware, Georgetown, DE

2000 1. Weed Control and Nutrient Release With Composted Poultry Litter Mulch in a Peach Orchard - P. L. Preusch, Hood College, Frederick, MD; and T. J. Tworkoski, USDA-ARS, Hearneysville, WV 2 The Effect of Total Postemergence Herbicide Timings on Corn Yield - D. B. Vitolo, C. Pearson, M. G. Schnappinger, and R. Schmenk, Novartis Crop Protection, Hudson, NY 2 Pollen Transport from Genetically Modified Corn – J. M. Jemison and M. Vayda, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME

2001 1. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for yellow nutsedge control in plasticulture tomato - W. A. Bailey, H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA. 2. Evaluation of alternative control methods for annual ryegrass in typical Virginia crop rotations - S. R. King and E. S. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

2002 1. Effectiveness of mesotrione to control weeds in sweet corn. J. M. Jemison, Jr. and A. Nejako, Univ. Maine, Orono. 2. Flufenacet plus metribuzin for italian ryegrass control in Virginia wheat. W. A. Bailey, H. P. Wilson, and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Painter.

132

2003 1. Comparison of two methods to estimate weed populations in field-scale agricultural research. R. D. Stout, M. G. Burton, and H. M. Linker, North Carolina State Univ. 2. Diquat plus glyphosate for rapid-symptom vegetation control in turf. W. L. Barker, S. D. Askew, J. B. Beam, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; and D. C. Riego, Monsanto Co., Carmel, IN.

2004 1. Biology of the invasive plant pale swallow-wort. L. Smith, S. Greipsson, and A. DiTommaso. Cornell Univ. 2. Evaluating perennial groundcovers for weed suppression: Roadside trials and demonstrations. A. Senesac, I. Tsontakis-Bradley, J. Allaire, and L. Weston. Cornell Univ.

2005 1. Cover crop management impacts on the weed seed predator, Harpalus rufipes. A. Shearin, S.C. Reberg-Horton, E. Gallandt, and F. Drummond, Univ. Maine, Orono. 2. Carfentrazone, quinclorac, and trifloxysulfuron effects on seeded bermudagrass establishment and crabgrass control. J. Willis, D.B. Ricker, and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

2006 1. Mesotrione for preemergence broadleaf weed control in turf. D. Ricker, J. Willis, and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. 2. Using a wet blade mower for pest control, fertility, and growth retardation in fine turfgrass. J. Willis and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

2007 1. Effects of emergence periodicity on growth and fecundity of horseweed. J. Dauer, B.A. Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and D.A. Mortensen. Penn State University, College Park. 2. Vascular weed control in container production using selected non-chemical top-dress treatments. A. Burtt. University of Vermont, Burlington.

2008 1. Evaluation of the impact of an adventitious herbivore on an invasive plant, yellow toadflax, in Colorado USA. J.F. Egan and R.E. Irwin. Penn State University, State College. 1. Organic weed management: what the farmers think. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, D.O. Wilson, and P.R. Hepperly. Penn State University, University Park.

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

2. Response of cranberry vines to hand-held flame cultivators- initial year evaluation. K.M. Ghantous, H.A. Sandler, and P.Jeranyama. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

133 INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR

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

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

OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

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

134 OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS

1954 Studies on Entry of 2,4-D into Leaves - J. N. Yeatman, J. W. Brown, J. A. Thorne and J. R. Conover, Camp Detrick, Frederick, MD

The Effect of Soil Organic Matter Levels on Several Herbicides - S. L. Dallyn, Long Island Vegetable Research Farm, Riverhead, NY

Experimental Use of Herbicides Impregnated on Clay Granules for Control of Weeds in Certain Vegetable Crops - L. L. Danielson, Virginia Truck Expt. Station, Norfolk, VA

Cultural vs. Chemical Weed Control in Soybeans - W. E. Chappell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA

Public Health Significance of Ragweed Control Demonstrated in Detroit - J. H. Ruskin, Department of Health, Detroit, MI

1955 A Comparison of MCP and 2,4-D for Weed Control in Forage Legumes - M. M. Schreiber, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1956 None Awarded

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

Progress Report #4 - Effects of Certain Common Brush Control Techniques and Material on Game Food and Cover on a Power Line Right-of-Way - W. C. Bramble, W. R. Byrnes, and D. P. Worley, Penn State Univ., University Park

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

Ragweed Free Areas in Quebec and the Maritimes - E. E. Compagna, Universite Laval at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Quebec, Canada

1959 Yields of Legume-Forage Grass Mixtures as Affected by Several Herbicides Applied Alone or in a Combination During Establishment - W. G. Wells and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

Influence of Soil Moisture on Activity of EPTC, CDEC and CIPC - J. R. Havis, R. L. Ticknor and P. F. Boblua, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst

135 1960 The Influence of Cultivation on Corn Yields When Weeds are Controlled by Herbicides - W. F. Meggitt, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ

1961 Preliminary Investigation of a Growth Inhibitor Found in Yellow Foxtail (Setaria glauca L.) - H. C. Yokum, M. J. Jutras, and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

1962 The Effects of Chemical and Cultural Treatment on the Survival of Rhizomes and on the Yield of Underground Food Reserves of Quackgrass - H. M. LeBaron and S. N. Gertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

Observations on Distribution and Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Chesapeake Bay, 1961 - V. D. Stotts and C. R. Gillette, Annapolis, MD

1963 The Relation of Certain Environmental Conditions to the Effectiveness of DNBP of Post-Emergence Weed Control in Peas - G. R. Hamilton and E. M. Rahn, Univ. of Delaware, Newark

The Influence of Soil Surface and Granular Carrier Moisture on the Activity of EPTC - J. C. Cialone and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

The Determination of Residues of Kuron in Birdsfoot Trefoil and Grasses - M. G. Merkle and S. N. Fertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1964 Control of Riparian Vegetation with Phenoxy Herbicides and the Effect on Streamflow Quality - I. C. Reigner, USDA-Forest Service, New Lisbon, NJ; W. E. Sopper, Penn State Univ., University Park; and R. R. Johnson, Amchem Products, Inc., Ambler, PA

EPTC Incorporation by Band Placement and Standard Methods in Establishment of Birdsfoot Trefoil - D. L. Linscott and R. D. Hagin, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1965 1. Corn Chamomile (Anthemis arvensis L.) Responses to Some Benzoic Acid Derivatives - Barbara M. Metzger, Judy K. Baldwin and R. D. Ilnicki, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ

2. The Physical Properties of Viscous Sprays for Reduction of Herbicide Drift - J. W. Suggitt, The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Canada

1966 1. Weed Control Under Clear Plastic Mulch - Carl Bucholz, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

2. A Chemical Team For Aerial Brush Control on Right-of-Way - B. C. Byrd and C. A. Reimer, Dow Chemical Co

136 1967 1. Influence of Time of Seeding on the Effectiveness of Several Herbicides Used for Establishing an Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixture - R. T. Leanard and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham

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

1968 None Awarded

1969 1. Weed and Crop Responses in Cucumbers and Watermelons - H. P. Wilson and R. L. Waterfield, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter

2. Effect of Several Combinations of Herbicides on the Weight and Development of Midway Strawberry Plants in the Greenhouse - O. E. Schubert, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown

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

1971 1. Activity of Nitralin, Trifluralin and ER-5461 on Transplant Tomato and Eggplant - D. E. Broaden and J. C. Cialone, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ

2. Field Investigations of the Activities of Several Herbicides for the Control of Yellow Nutsedge - H. P. Wilson, R. L. Waterfield, Jr., and C. P. Savage, Jr., Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter

1972 1. Study of Organisms Living in the Heated Effluent of a Power Plant - M. E. Pierce, Vassar College and D. Allessandrello, Marist College

2. Effect of Pre-treatment Environment on Herbicide Response and Morphological Variation of Three Species - A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD

1973 1. A Simple Method of Expressing the Relative Efficacy of Plant Growth Regulators - A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD

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

1974 1. Weed Control in Peach Nurseries - O. F. Curtis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

2. Persistence of Napropamide and U-267 in a Sandy Loam Soil - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute for Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH

137 1975 1. Control of Jimsonweed and Three Broadleaf Weeds in Soybeans - J. V. Parochetti, Univ. of Maryland, College Park

HM. The Influence of Norflurazon on Chlorophyll Content and Growth of Potomogeton pectinatus - R. M. Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham

HM. Germination, Growth, and Flowering of Shepherdspurse - E. K. Stillwell and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1976 1. Top Growth and Root Response of Red Fescue to Growth Retardants - S. L. Fales, A. P. Nielson and R. C. Wakefield, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston

HM. Selective Control of Poa annua in Kentucky Bluegrass - P. J. Jacquemin, O. M. Scott and Sons, and P. R. Henderlong, Ohio State Univ., Columbus

HM. Effects of DCPA on Growth of Dodder - L. L. Danielson, USDA ARS, Beltsville, MD

1977 1. The Effects of Stress on Stand and Yield of Metribuzin Treated Tomato Plants - E. H. Nelson and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

HM. The Influence of Growth Regulators on the Absorption of Mineral Elements - R. M. Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham.

HM. Quantification of S-triazine Losses in Surface Runoff: A Summary - J. K. Hall, Penn State Univ., University Park

1978 1. Annual Weedy Grass Competition in Field Corn - Jonas Vengris, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst

HM. Metribuzin Utilization with Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH

1979 1. Herbicides for Ground Cover Plantings - J. F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agric. Expt. Station, Windsor

2. Weed Control Systems in Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH

138 1980 1. Integrated Weed Control Programs for Carrots and Tomatoes - R. C. Henne and T. L. Poulson, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH

2. Suppression of Crownvetch for No-Tillage Corn - J. Carina and N. L. Hartwig, Penn State Univ., University Park

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

1981 1. Weed Control in Cucumbers in Northwest Ohio - R. C. Henne and T. L. Poulson, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH

2. Prostrate Spurge Control in Turfgrass Using Herbicides - J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston

HM. Some Ecological Observations of Hempstead Plains, Long Island - R. Stalter, St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY

1982 1. Differential Growth Responses to Temperature Between Two Biotypes of Chenopodium album - P. C. Bhowmik, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst

2. Chemical Control of Spurge and Other Broadleaf Weeds in Turfgrass - J. S. Ebdon and J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston

HM. Influence of Norflurazon on the Light Activation of Oxyfluorfen - R. M. Devlin, S. J. Karczmarczyk, I. I. Zbiec and C. N. Saras, Univ. of Massachusetts, East Wareham

HM. Analysis of Weed Control Components for Conventional, Wide-row Soybeans in Delaware - D. K. Regehr, Univ. of Delaware, Newark

1983 1. Comparisons of Non-Selective Herbicides for Reduced Tillage Systems - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter

2. The Plant Communities Along the Long Island Expressway, Long Island, New York - R. Stalter, St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY

HM. Effect of Morning, Midday and Evening Applications on Control of Large Crabgrass by Several Postemergence Herbicides - B. G. Ennis and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs

139 1984 1. Pre-transplant Oxyfluorfen for Cabbage - J. R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD

2. Herbicide Programs and Tillage Systems for Cabbage - R. R. Bellinder, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Station, Painter

1985 1. Peach Response to Several Postemergence Translocated Herbicides - B. A. Majek, Rutgers Univ., Bridgeton, NJ

1986 1. Influence of Mefluidide Timing and Rate on Poa annua Quality Under Golf Course Conditions - R. J. Cooper, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst; K. J. Karriok, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, and P. R. Henderlong and J. R. Street, Ohio State Univ., Columbus

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

HM. Field Evaluation of a Proposed IPM Approach for Weed Control in Potatoes - D. P. Kain and J. B. Sieczka, Cornell Univ., Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory, Riverhead, NY and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

1987 None Awarded

1988 1. Bentazon and Bentazon-MCPB Tank-mixes for Weed Control in English Pea - G. A. Porter, Univ. of Maine, Orono; A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs; R. R. Bellinder and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; M. P. Mascianica, BASF Corp., Parsippany, NJ; and L. S. Morrow, Univ. of Maine, Orono

2. Effects of Herbicide Residues on Germination and Early Survival of Red Oak Acorns - R. D. Shipman and T. J. Prunty, Penn State Univ., University Park

2. Watershed Losses of Triclopyr after Aerial Application to Release Spruce Fir - C. T. Smith, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham and M. L. McCormack, Jr., Univ. of Maine, Orono

1989 None Awarded

1990 None Awarded

1991 Award Discontinued

140 NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY 2009 MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY

Michael L. Agnew John Atwood Roger Batts Syngenta ADAS North Carolina State University 302 Rose Glen Lane Boxworth Cambridgeshire POBOX 7609 Kennett Square, PA 19348 CB3 8NN United Kingdom NCSU Campus (610) 444-2063 (147) 382-3460 Raleigh, NC 27695 (610) 444-2093 (147) 382-3460 (919) 515-1668 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

John F. Ahrens Kristine Averill Chris M. Becker Connecticut Agricultural Exp Cornell University BAAR Scientific LLC Station 905 Bradfield Hall 6374 Rte. 89 32 Hoskins Road Ithaca, NY 14853 Romulus, NY 14541 Bloomfield, CT 06002 (860) 248-9969 (607) 342-3610 (860) 683-4985 [email protected] (315) 548-9259 (860) 683-4987 [email protected] [email protected] Robert D. Baker Scotts Company Robin R. Bellinder James Altland 14111 Scottslawn Rd Cornell University USDA-ARS Marysville, OH 43041 Dept. of Horticulture 1680 Madison Avenue (937) 645-2628 164 Plant Science Bld Wooster, Ohio 44691 (937) 644-7153 Ithaca, NY 14853 (330) 263-3870 [email protected] (607) 255-7890 [email protected] (607) 255-0599 Gary A. Barkman [email protected] Gregory R. Armel Montgomery Weed Control Inc. University of Tennessee 18410 Muncaster Road C. Edward Beste 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. Derwood, MD 220855 University of Maryland 252 Ellington Plant Sciences (301) 503-6024 27664 Nanticoke Road Bldg. [email protected] Salisbury, MD 21801 Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (410) 742-8788 (865) 974-8829 Sali Barolli (410) 742-1922 [email protected] Imperial Nurseries [email protected] 90 Salmon Brook St PO Box 120 Marija Arsenovic Granby, CT 06035 Prasanta C. Bhowmik IR-4 Project (860) 653-1509 University of Massachusetts 500 College Road East,Suite 201 (860) 844-8609 Stockbridge Hall Box 37245 Princeton, NJ 08540 [email protected] Amherst, MA 01003 (732) 932-9575, ext 4609 (413) 545-5223 [email protected] Jerry J. Baron (413) 545-3958 IR-4 Project [email protected] Shawn Askew 500 College Road East,Suite 201 Virginia Tech Princeton, NJ 08540 Clifford Blessing 435 Old Glade Road (732) 932-9575, ext 4605 Delaware Dept. of Agriculture Blacksburg, VA 24061 [email protected] 2320 S. Dupont Highway (540) 231-5807 Dover, DE 19901 (540) 231-5755 Ryan Bates (302) 698-4582 [email protected] Penn State University (302) 687-4468 116 ASI [email protected] University Park, PA 16802 (814) 359-6242 [email protected]

141 A. Richard Bonanno Patrick Burch Rakesh S. Chandran University of Mass Dow AgroSciences West Virginia Univ 255 Merrimack Street 3425 Elk Creek Drive 1076 Agricultural Sci Methuen, MA 01844 Christiansburg, VA 24073 PO Box 6108 (978) 682-9563 (540) 382-3062 Morgantown, WV 26506 (978) 685-6691 [email protected] (304) 293-6131 [email protected] (304) 293-6954 Keith Burnell [email protected] Jeffrey Borger Syngenta Penn State Univ 166 Bush Lane William Chism 244 ASI Bld Ithaca, NY 14850 US EPA University Drive Ex (315) 209-7580 PO Box 258 University Park, PA 16802 [email protected] Point of Rocks, MD 21777 (814) 865-3005 (703) 308-8136 (814) 863-7043 R. Andrew Burtt (301) 874-6380 [email protected] University of Vermont [email protected] 105 Carrigan Dr Melissa A. Bravo Burlington, VT 05405 Kenneth Chisholm Penn Dept of Agriculture (802) 656-0467 Nichino America INC 2301 North Cameron Street [email protected] 4550 New Linden Hill Rd Harrisburg, PA 17110 Suite 501 (717) 787-7204 Jill Calabro Wilmington, DE 19808 [email protected] Valent (302) 636-9001 1305 Colony Drive (302) 636-9122 Greg Breeden Annapolis, MD 21403 [email protected] University of Tennessee (443) 235-0612 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. [email protected] Benjamin Coffman 252 Ellington Plant Sciences USDA-ARS Bld 001 Bldg. Luke Case 10300 Baltimore Ave Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Ohio State Univ Beltsville, MD 20705 (865) 974-3248 2001 Fyffe Ct. (301) 504-5398 [email protected] Columbus, OH 43210 (301) 504-8370 (614) 292-0209 [email protected] James Brosnan (614) 292-3505 University of Tennessee [email protected] William S. Curran 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. Penn State University 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Mark S. Casini Dept. Crop & Soil Sci Bldg. DuPont Crop Protection 116 ASI Building Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Stine-Haskell Research University Park, PA 16802 (865) 974-8603 1090 Elkton Road (814) 863-1014 [email protected] Newark, DE 19711 (814) 863-7043 (302) 451-0828 [email protected] T.J. Brooks (302) 366-6120 CMS [email protected] Gary Custis P.O. Box 510 PBI Gordon Corp Hereford, PA18056 Joseph Chamberlin 1217 W. 12th Street (620) 767-1944 Valent USA Corp. Kansas City, MO 64101 [email protected] 2386 Clower Street Ste. E 100B (816) 679-1563 Snellville, GA 30078 [email protected] Wayne Bugg (770) 985-0303 Monsanto (925) 817-5097 Matthew Cutulle 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. [email protected] Virginia Tech St. Louis, MO 63167 2922 Greenlow Court (314) 694-7582 Ellicott City, MD 21042 [email protected] (443) 562-5492 [email protected]

142 Kyle Daniel Jeffrey F. Derr Rick Ekins Ohio State University Virginia Tech FMC Professional Solutions 256 Howlett Hall, 2001 Fyffe Hampton Roads AREC 1735 Market Street Court 1444 Diamond Spring Philadelphia, PA 19103 Columbus, OH 43210 Virginia Beach, VA 23455 (215) 299-5836 (614) 292-0209 (757) 363-3912 [email protected] [email protected] (757) 363-3950 [email protected] Matthew Elmore Jennifer D’Appollonio University of Tennessee University of Maine Bryan Dillehay 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. 5722 Deering Hall Monsanto Co. 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Orono, ME 04469 116 ASI Building Bldg. (207) 581-2924 276 Decker Road Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 [email protected] Centre Hall, PA 16828 (865) 974-7324 (814) 404-2683 [email protected] Paul J. David [email protected] Gowan Company Barbara Emeneau 343 Rumford Road Antonio DiTommaso 19 Pine Grove Park Lititz, PA 17543 Cornell Univ 903 Bradfield Hall Winchester, MA 01890 (717) 560-8352 Dept. of Crop & Soil (781) 729-0725 (717) 560-9796 Ithaca, NY 14853 (781) 729-0678 [email protected] (607) 254-4702 [email protected] (607) 255-3207 Todd Davis [email protected] Clara Englert Delaware Dept. of Agr. North Carolina State University 2320 S. Dupont Highway Jeffrey H. Dobbs Kilgore Hall Box 7609 Dover, DE 19901 Olympic Horticulture Raleigh, NC 27695 (302) 698-4581 1095 Applecross Dr. (412) 874-6384 (302) 697-4468 Roswell, GA 30075 [email protected] [email protected] (770) 992-0121 (770) 992-5564 Tony Estes Henry Davis [email protected] United Phosphorous The Weed Doctor 104 River Bend Trail 204 S Cedar Crest Blvd Richard M. Dunst Walhalla, SC 29691 Allentown, PA 18104 Cornell Univ (864) 202-7526 (610) 439-2454 Vineyard Research Lab (301) 619-2890 [email protected] 412 East Main Street [email protected] Fredonia, NY 14063 Nelson DeBarros (716) 672-6464 Glenn J. Evans 38 Worcester St (716) 672-8615 Cornell Univ Taunton, MA 02780 [email protected] 134A Plant Sci Bldg. (774) 218-3820 Ithaca, NY 14850 [email protected] Timothy E. Dutt (607) 342-0128 LABServices [email protected] Peter H. Dernoeden 342 South Third Street University of Maryland Hamburg, PA 19526 Steven Farrington Dept. of Natural Resources (610) 562-5055 Gowan 1112 H.J. Petersen (610) 562-5066 724 Wrights Mill Road College Park, MD 20742 [email protected] Auburn, AL 36830 (301) 405-1337 (334) 275-5396 (301) 314-9041 John Egan [email protected] [email protected] Penn State 116 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-6679 [email protected]

143 Jason Fausey Les Glasgow Tracey Harpster Valent USA Syngenta Penn State Univ Corp Office Park West 410 Swing Road 102 Tyson Bld 530 South Creyts SuiteC Greensboro, NC 27419 University Park, PA 16802 Lansing, MI 48917 (336) 632-5501 (814) 865-3190 (517) 321-7380 (336) 632-6087 (814) 863-6139 (517) 321-7216 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Scott Glenn Stephen E. Hart Mike Fidanza Univ of Maryland NRSL Dept. Rutgers Univ Plant Sci Dept. Penn State Univ 0115 HJ Patterson Hall, 59 Dudley Road Berks Campus College Park, MD 20742 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 PO Box 7009 (301) 405-1331 (732) 932-9711 ext 166 Reading, PA 19610 (301) 314-9042 (732) 932-9441 (610) 396-6330 [email protected] [email protected] (610) 396-6024 [email protected] Matt Goddard Brian Hearn Virginia Tech University of De1 Raymond Forney 435 Old Glade Road 6684 County Seat Hwy DuPont Crop Protection Blacksburg, VA 24061 Georgetown, DE 19947 Stine Haskell Research Center (540) 231-5835 (302) 856-1997 Newark, DE19714 [email protected] (302) 856-1994 (302) 561-0027 [email protected] [email protected] Arthur E. Gover Penn State University Lane K. Heimer Donald D. Ganske 102 Tyson Building Maryland Dept. of Agr DuPont Company University Park, PA 16802 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 125 Cotton Ridge Road (814) 863-1184 Annapolis, MD 21401 Winchester, VA 22603 (814) 863-1184 (410) 841-5920 (540) 662-6011 [email protected] [email protected] (540) 662-6011 [email protected] Matthew Grayson Robert M. Herrick Foxborough Nursery, Inc. FMC Katherine Ghantous 3611 Miller Road 11 Wolfpack Court Univ of Massachusetts Street, MD 21154 Hamilton, NJ 08619 7 Deepwood Drive (410) 836-7023 (609) 951-3792 Amherst, MA 01002 [email protected] [email protected] (508) 641-4252 om [email protected] Dwayne Hess Todd Hagenbuch J.C. Ehrlich Alenza 500 Spring Ridge Drive Leonard Gianessi 100 North Conahan Drive P.O. Box 13848 CropLife Foundation Hazelton, PA 18201 Reading, PA 19612 1156 15th Street NW (570) 459-5048 (610) 372-9750 Washington, DC 20005 (570) 459-5500 [email protected] (202) 872-3865 [email protected] (202) 463-0474 Thomas E. Hines [email protected] Russell R. Hahn Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Cornell Univ AREC Charles Gilliam 238A Emerson Hall - CSS 33446 Research Drive Auburn Univ Ithaca, NY 14853 Painter, VA 23420 101 Funchess Hall (607) 255-1759 (757) 414-0724 Auburn, AL 36849 (607) 255-2644 (757) 414-0730 (334) 844-3045 [email protected] [email protected] (334) 844-3131 [email protected]

144 Erin Hitchner W. Wynn John Caren Judge Syngenta Crop Protection Stine-Haskell Research BASF Corp 380 Jefferson Road PO Box 30 26 Davis Drive Elmer, NJ 08318 Newark, DE 19714 RTP, NC 27709 (609) 980-8832 (302) 366-5383 (919) 547-2380 [email protected] (302) 351-7179 (919) 547-2488 [email protected] [email protected] Kendall Hutto FMC Professional Solutions Roy R. Johnson Jerry Kahl 136 Spring Valley Road Waldrum Speciali1ty J. C. Ehrlich Co Westerville, OH 43081 727 E Butler Pike PO Box 13848 (614) 392-1384 Ambler, PA 19002 Reading , PA 19612 [email protected] (215) 817-0637 (610) 372-9750 (215) 348-5541 (610) 378-9744 Joseph Ikley [email protected] [email protected] University of Maryland 6423 Church Street Timothy Johnson Kathie E. Kalmowitz Sykesville, MD 21784 Marrone Organic Innovations BASF Corporation (410) 596-9091 14 Baldtop Heights 26 Davis Drive [email protected] Danville, PA 17821 Research Triangle Park, NC (570) 275-2359 27709 Richard Ilnicki [email protected] (919) 270-4592 Rutgers University [email protected] 403 Georges Rd Quintin R. Johnson Dayton, NJ 08810 University of De1aware Renee J. Keese (732) 329-2858 6684 County Seat Highway BASF Corporation [email protected] Georgetown, DE 19947 26 Davis Drive (302) 856-2585 ext 513 Research Triangle Park, NC Mark Isaacs [email protected] 27709 University of Delaware (919) 547-2791 Research & Education Jon Johnson [email protected] 16684 County Seat Hwy Pennsylvania State Univ Georgetown, DE 19947 102 Tyson Building Patrick Kelly (302) 856-7303 University Park, PA 16802 Anne Arundel County Recreation [email protected] (814) 863-1184 and Parks Department (814) 863-1184 301 Hope Road John M. Jemison [email protected] Centreville, MD 21617 University of Maine (443) 262-9655 495 College Avenue Brian Jones [email protected] Orono, ME 04473 VA Cooperative Extension (207) 581-3241 PO Box 590 Steve Kinneer (207) 581-1301 Verona, VA 24482 Penn State [email protected] (540) 245-5750 116 ASI Building [email protected] University Park, PA 16802 Jen Jester (814) 863-1303 Virginia Tech Grant L. Jordan [email protected] 435 Old Glade Road A. C. D. S. Research Blacksburg, VA 24061 9813 Glenmark Road Becky Koepke-Hill (540) 231-5835 North Rose, NY 14516 University of Tennessee [email protected] (315) 587-2140 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. (315) 587-2145 252 Ellington Plant Sciences [email protected] Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (865) 974-7324 [email protected]

145 Greg Kruger Dwight Lingenfelter Matthew J. Mahoney Purdue University Penn State Univ Bayer Crop Sciences 915 West State Street Dept. of Crop & Soil 4773 Sailors Retreat Road West Lafayette, IN 47907 116 ASI Bldg Oxford, MD 21654 (765) 496-6690 University Park, PA 16802 (410) 822-5215 [email protected] (814) 865-2242 (410) 819-0286 (814) 863-7043 matt.mahoney@bayercropscience Virender Kumar [email protected] .com Cornell Univ 149 Plant Science Bld Daniel Little Bradley A. Majek Department of Horticulture North Carolina State University Rutger University Ithaca, NY 14853 5616-B Thea Lane Rutgers A.R.E.C. (607) 255-1786 Raleigh, NC 27606 121 Northville Road [email protected] (919) 368-8051 Bridgeton, NJ 08302 [email protected] (856) 455-3100 ext 4122 Dan Kunkel (856) 455-3133 IR-4 Project Kirsten Lloyd [email protected] 500 College Road East, Suite 201 Penn State University Princeton, NJ 08540 102 Tyson Building (732) 932-9575, University Park, PA 16802 Carrie Mansue (732) 932-8481 (814) 863-1184 Rutgers University [email protected] [email protected] Plant Biology & Pathology 59 Dudley Rd Kerrie L. Kyde Henry Lohmann New Brunswick, NJ 08901 MD Dept. of Natural Res PO Box 22 (732) 932-9711 ext 116 WHS 11960 Clopper Road Bellport, NY 11713 [email protected] Gaithersburg, MD 20878 (631) 286-1078 (301) 948-8243 (631) 286-1078 Betty H. Marose [email protected] [email protected] University of Maryland Dept. of Entomology Gerald Leather Edith Lurvey 3138 Plant Science WVU Extension Service Northeast IR-4 College Park, MD 20742 66 N. High Street, P.O. Box 1880 Dept. of Food Science (301) 405-3929 Romney, WV 26757 630 West North St. (301) 314-9290 (304) 822-5013 Geneva, NY 14456 [email protected] [email protected] (315) 787-2308 (315) 787-2397 Hannah Mathers Dustin Lewis [email protected] Ohio State Univ University of Tennessee 256B Howlett Hall 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. Darren Lycan Columbus, OH 43210 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Syngenta Crop Pr (614) 247-6195 Bldg. 3002 Village Blvd. South (614) 292-3505 Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Baldwinsville, NY 13027 [email protected] (423) 506-8055 (315) 635-2818 [email protected] [email protected] David J. Mayonado Monsanto Company Rachel Lightfoot John Lydon 6075 Westbrooke Drive CMS Inc. USDA/ARS/SASL Salisbury, MD 21801 PO Box 510 Building 001, Rm. 272 410-726-4222 Hereford, PA 18056 Beltsville, MD 20705 410-219-3202 (610) 767-1944 (301) 504-5379 [email protected] (610) 767-1925 (301) 504-6491 [email protected] [email protected]

146 Steven McDonald Steven Mirsky Andrea Nord Turfgrass Disease Solutions USDA-ARS Penn State University 15 Plum Street 10300 Baltimore Avenue 116 ASI Pottstown, PA 1946 Beltsville, MD 20705 University Park, PA 16802 (610) 633-1878 (301) 504-5324 (814) 863-7638 turfgrassdiseasesolutions@yahoo [email protected] [email protected] .com Tyler Mittlesteadt Larry Norton Brian McDonnell Virginia Tech Bayer Environmental Science NPS 435 Old Glade Road 4233 Harriet Lane 1 River Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Bushkill, PA 18324 (540) 231-5835 (610) 814-6220 (570) 588-0534 [email protected] (610) 814-6221 (570) 588-0590 larry.norton@bayercropscience. [email protected] David A. Mortensen com Pennsylvania State Univ Mark Merrick Dept. of Crop and Soil John O’Barr Syngenta 116 ASI Building BASF Corporation 609 Woodbine Terrace University Park, PA 16802 108 Whippoorwill Lane Townson, MD 21204 (814) 865-1906 Hummelstown, PA 17036 (410) 365-9946 (814) 863-7043 (717) 386-8259 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dean Mosdell Todd L. Mervosh Syngenta Crop Protection John O’Brien Connecticut Agric Exp Sta 501-I S. Reino Road #183 NACS, LLC. 153 Cook Hill Road Newbury Park, CA 91320 65 Middlebury Road PO Box 248 (805) 480-0514 Watertown, CT 06795 Windsor, CT 06095 [email protected] (860) 945-6322 (860) 683-4984 [email protected] (860) 683-4987 Chris Munsterman [email protected] Syngenta Crop Protection Jim O’Connell 11 Quicksilver Court UMASS Cranberry Station Lindsey R. Milbrath Martinsburg, WV 25404 PO Box 569 USDA-ARS US Plant, Soil & (304) 261-9564 East Wareham, MA 02538 Nutrtion [email protected] (508) 295-2212 ext 51 Tower Road [email protected] Ithaca, NY 14853 Matt Naedel (607) 254-7268 Penn State University Brian D. Olson (607) 255-1132 Valentine Turfgrass Res. Center Dow AgroSciences [email protected] University Park, PA 16802 PO Box 753 (814) 863-1613 Geneva, NY 14456 Kyle Miller [email protected] (315) 781-0140 BASF (315) 781-0387 14000 Princess Mary Road Joseph Neal [email protected] Chesterfield, VA 23838 North Carolina State University (804) 739-6044 Dept. of Horticultural Science William B. O'Neal (804) 739-7498 262 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609 AMVAC Corp [email protected] Raleigh, NC 27695 102 Bay View Drive (919) 515-9379 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Raymond Miller (919) 515-7747 (919) 619-3095 Dow Agrosciences [email protected] [email protected] 4020 Collinwood Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76107 (813) 363-9059 [email protected]

147 Marc Pacchioli Angela Post Greg S. Rogers Crop Management Strategies Virginia Tech Dupont Crop Protection PO Box 510 435 Old Glade Road 58 Middlecroft Road Hereford, PA 18056 Glade Road Research Elkton, MD 21921 (610) 767-1944 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (443) 309-0148 (610) 767-1925 (302) 451-4840 [email protected] Randall Prostak [email protected] University of Mass Cristi Palmer 206 Bowditch Hall Rory Roten IR4 Headqt., Rutgers Univ. Amherst, MA 01033 North Carolina State University 500 College Rd East, 201W (413) 577-1738 Campus Box 7620 Princeton, NJ 08540 (413) 545-3075 Raleigh, NC 27695 (782) 932-9575 [email protected] (919) 812-5679 (732) 932-8481 [email protected] [email protected] Sunil Ratnayake EPA Thomas Rufty Philip D. Pannill 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue North Carolina State University U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mail Stop 7503 P Campus Box 7620 698 Conservation Way Washington, D.C. 20460 Raleigh, NC 27695 Shepherdstown, WV 25443 (703) 308-8191 (919) 515-3650 (304) 876-7432 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Emily Rauschert Peter O. Rupp James V. Parochetti Penn State Maryland Dept. of Agr USDA-CSREES 116 ASI Bldg. 50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy. Mail Stop 2220 University Park, PA 16802 Annapolis, MD 21401 14th & Independence (814) 863-4311 (410) 841-5920 Washington, DC 20250 [email protected] [email protected] (202) 401-4354 (202) 401-4888 Chris Reberg-Horton Matthew Ryan [email protected] North Carolina State Univ Penn State Univ NCSU Campus Box 7620 116 ASI Building Jason Parrish Raleigh, NC 27695 University Park, PA 16802 Ohio State University (919) 515-7597 (814) 865-6679 2001 Fyffe Ct. [email protected] [email protected]

256 Howlett Hall Hilary Sandler Columbus, OH 43210 Robert J. Richardson University of Mass (440) 225-4831 North Carolina State Univ PO Box 569 [email protected] Box 7620, E Wareham, MA 02538 Williams Hall (508) 295-2212 ext 21 Bill Phillips Raleigh, NC 27695 (508) 295-6387 US EPA (919) 515-5653 [email protected] Ariel Rios Bldg (919) 515-5315

1200 Pennsylvania A [email protected] Dave Sandy Washington, DC 20460 Penn State University (703) 308-8099 Ronald L. Ritter 116 ASI Building [email protected] University of Maryland University Park, PA 16802 12901 North Point Lane (814) 404-9001 Raymond Pigati Laurel, MD 20708 [email protected] University of Maryland (301) 405-1329 395 Greenmeade Drive (301) 490-3754 David W. Saunders College Park, MD 20742 [email protected] DuPont Crop Protection (301) 403-4234 24087 230th Street [email protected] Dallas Ctr., IA 50063 (515) 334-4485 [email protected]

148 M. Gary Schnappinger Matt Shipp Robert D. Sweet 930 Starr Road Evonik Godschmidt Corporation Cornell University Centreville, MD 21617 P.O. Box 1299 Dept. Horticulture (410) 758-1419 Hopewell, VA 23860 167 Plant Science Bld (410) 758-0656 (804) 452-5692 Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] [email protected] (607) 273-7106 [email protected] Bert Schou Mark Smith ACRES Research Maryland Dept. of Agriculture Siyuan Tan P.O. Box 99 50 Harry S Truman Parkway BASF Green Bank, WV 24944 Annapolis, MD 21401 26 Davis Drive (304) 456-5558 (410) 841-5932 RTP, NC 27709 [email protected] (410) 841-5835 (919) 547-2679 [email protected] Barbara Scott Richard Smith Univ of Delaware Res & Edu Penn State University Alan V. Tasker 16684 County Seat Hwy 116 ASI Building USDA APHIS Georgetown, DE 19947 University Park, PA 16802 4700 River Road, (302) 856-2585 ext 512 (814) 863-4309 Unit 134 5A45 [email protected] [email protected] Riverdale, MD 20737 (301) 734-5708 Leroy Sellman David R. Spak (301) 734-8584 Maryland Dept. of Agr Bayer Environmental Science [email protected] 50 Harry S. Truman Blvd. 403 Sir Walkder Lane Annapolis, MD 21402 Cary, NC 27519 John R. Teasdale (410) 841-5920 (919) 262-0205 USDA-ARS [email protected] [email protected] Bld 001, Room 245 Beltsville, MD 20705 Andrew F. Senesac Paul Stachowski (301) 504-5504 Cornell Coop Ext – Cornell University (301) 504-6491 3059 Sound Ave Dept. of CSS, [email protected] Riverhead, NY 11901 107 LelCaldwell Road (631) 727-3595 Ithaca, NY 14853 Gar Thomas (631) 727-3611 (607) 255-7701 BASF Corporation [email protected] (607) 255-2644 1002 Bethel Road [email protected] Chesapeake City, MD 21915 Thomas Serensits (410) 885-5920 Penn State University Richard Stalter (410) 885-5975 116 ASI Building St. John's University [email protected] University Park, PA 16802 Dept. of Biology (610) 360-5985 8000 Utopia Parkway Sarah True [email protected] Queens, NY 11439 North Carolina State University (718) 990-6288 Campus Box 7620 Danesha Seth Carley (718) 990-5958 Raleigh, NC 27695 North Carolina State University [email protected] (919) 812-5679 Campus Box 7620 [email protected] Raleigh, NC 27695 James Steffel (919) 515-4071 LABServices Robert Trumbule [email protected] 342 South Third Street Maryland Dept of Agr Hamburg, PA 19526 50 Harry S Truman Prkwy Shiv Sharma (610) 562-5055 Annapolis, MD 21401 FMC (610) 562-5066 (410) 841-5920 1735 Market Street [email protected] [email protected] Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 299-6871 [email protected]

149 Mark J. Van Gessel F. R. Bobby Walls James Willmott University of Delaware FMC Corporation Griffin Greenhouse and Nusery Research & Education 501 Parkwood Lane Supplies 16684 County Seat Hwy Goldsboro, NC 27530 120 West Centennial Drive Georgetown, DE 19947 (919) 735-3862 Medford, NJ 08055 (302) 856-7303 (919) 736-2686 (856) 651-8096 (302) 856-1845 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Thomas L. Watschke Henry P. Wilson Lee Van Wychen Penn State University Virginia Tech National and Regional 425 ASI Bldg Eastern Shore AREC 900 2nd St. NE Suite 205 University Park, PA 16802 33446 Research Drive Washington, DC 20002 (814) 863-7644 Painter, VA 23420 (202) 408-5388 (814) 863-7043 (757) 414-0724 (202) 408-5385 [email protected] (757) 414-0730 Lee.VanWychen@WeedScience [email protected] Orgs.com Mark Welterlen PBI Gordon Corporation Jeff Wright Jose J. Vargas 1217 W 12th Street University of Delaware University of Tennessee Kansas City, MO 64101 16483 County Seat Highway 2431 Joe Johnson Dr. (816) 460-6205 Georgetown, DE 19947 252 Ellington Plant Sciences [email protected] (302) 856-7303 Bldg. [email protected] Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Tim White (865) 974-7324 CMS David Yarborough [email protected] PO BOX 510 University of Maine Hereford, PA 18056 5722 Deering Hall Ely Vea (610) 767-1944 Rm 414 IR-4 Project. [email protected] Orono, ME 04469 308 Aston Forest Lane 207-581-2923 Crownsville, MD 21032 John Willis 207-581-2941 (410) 923-4880 Virginia Tech [email protected] [email protected] 435 Old Glade Road Glade Road Research Station Joe Zawierucha Lela Walker Blacksburg, VA 24061 BASF Corporation North Carolina State University (540) 231-5835 26 Davis Drive 7609 Kilgore Hall (540) 231-5755 Research Triangle Park, NC Raleigh, NC 27695 [email protected] 27709 (919) 818-3246 (919) 547-2095 [email protected] [email protected]

150 HERBICIDE NAMES: COMMON, TRADE, AND CHEMICAL

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by The Weed Science Society of America

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name acetochlor Breakfree;Harnes 2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphe s, Surpass, nyl) acetamide Topnotch, Degree, other acifluorfen Blazer, Status 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenz Blazer Ultra oic acid acrolein 2-propenal alachlor Intrro, MicroTech, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl) Partner; many acetamide allyl alcohol 2-propen-l-ol alloxydim Clout methyl 2,2-dimethyl-4,6-dioxo-5-[1-[(2- propenyloxy)amino]butylidene]cyclohexanecarboxy late ametryn Evik N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triaz ine-2,4- diamine amicarbazone Dinamic 4-amino-N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-(1- methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1- carboxamide amidosulfuron Hoestar, Gratil, N-[[[[4,6-dimethoxy-2- Adret pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sufonyl]-N- methylmethanesulfonamide aminocyclopyrachlor 6-amino-5-chloro-2-cyclopropyl-4- pyrimidinecarboxylic acid aminopyralid Milestone 2-pyridine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro- 2-pyridinecarboxylic acid amitrole Amitrol, Amizol, 1H-1,2,4-triazol-3-amine Azolan asulam Asulox methyl[(4-aminophenyl)sulfonyl]carbamate atraton Gesatamin N-ethyl-6-methoxy-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine atrazine Aatrex, many 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N’-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine- 2,4-diamine azafenidin Milestone 2-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]-5,6,7,8- tetrahydro-1,2,4-triazolo[4,3-a]pyridin-3(2H)-one

151 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name azimsulfuron Gulliver N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-1 -methyl-4- (2-methyl-2H-tetrazol-5-yl)-1H-pyrazole-5- sulfonamide barban Carbyne, 4-chloro-2-butynyl 3-chlorophenylcarbamate Neoban, Oatax, many BCPC 1-methylpropyl 3-chlorophenylcarbamate beflubutamid 2-[4-fluoro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N- (phenylmethyl)butanamide benazolin Galtak, Dasen, 4-chloro-2-oxo-3(2H)-benzothiazoleacetic acid Rescate benefin Balan N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenamine bensulfuron Londax 2-[[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]methyl]benzoic acid bensulide Bensumec, O,O-bis(1-methylethyl)S-[2-[(phenylsulfonyl)amino] Betasan, Prefar ethyl]phosphorodithioate bentazon Basagran, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H) Basagran T/O, -one 2,2-dioxide Lescogran, other benzadox Topcide [(benzoylamino)oxy]acetic acid benzfendizone methyl 2-[2-[[4-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4- (trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)pyrimidinyl)phenoxy]methyl]- 5-ethylphenoxy]propanoic acid benzipram 3,5-dimethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)-N- (phenylmethyl)benzamide benzofenap Yukawide 2-[4-(2,4-dichloro-m-toluoyl)-1,3-dimethylpyrazol-5- yloxy]-4’-methy-lacetophenone benzofluor N-[4-(ethylthio)-2- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanesulfonamide benzoylprop Suffix N-benzoyl-N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-DL-alanine benzthiazuron Gatnon N-2-benzothiazolyl-N'-methylurea bifenox Fox methyl 5-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-2-nitrobenzoate borax sodium tetraborate bispyribac Velocity, 2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)oxy]benzoic Regiment acid bromacil Hyvar 5-bromo-6-methyl-3-(1-methylpropyl)-2,4(1H, 3H)pyrimidinedione

152 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name bromofenoxim Faneron 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde O-(2,4- dinitrophenyl) oxime bromoxynil Brominal, Buctril, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile Moxy, many butachlor Butanox, N-(butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-N-(2,6- Pilarsete, many diethylphenyl)acetamide butafenacil Inspire 2-chloro-5-(3-methyl-2,6,dioxo-4-triflouromethyl- 3,6-dihydro-2H-pyrimidyl)-benzoic acid 1- allylocycarbonyl-1-methyl-ethyl-ester butam 2,2-dimethyl-N-(1-methylethyl)-N-(phenylmethyl) propanamide butamifos Cremart O-ethyl O-(5-methyl-2-nitrophenyl) 1- methylpropylphosphoramidothioate buthidazole 3-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-4- hydroxy-1-methyl-2-imidazolidinone butralin AMEX-820, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N-(1-methylpropyl)-2,6- TAMEX dinitrobenzenamine butroxydim Falcon 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-[2,4,6- trimethyl-3-(1-oxobutyl)phenyl]-2-cyclohexen-1-one buturon Butafume, N'-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-(1-methyl-2- Deccotane, propynyl)urea Tutane butylate Sutan+, Genate S-ethyl bis(2-methylpropyl)carbamothioate Plus cacodylic acid Cotton-aide, dimethyl arsinic acid Montar, Phytar 560 cambendichlor (phenylimino)di-2,1-ethanediyl bis(3,6-dichloro-2- methoxybenzoate) carbetamide Carbetamex, N-ethyl-2- Legurame, [[(phenylamino)carbonyl]oxy]propanamide (R)- Pradone isomer carfentrazone Aim, Affinity, ,2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5- QuickSilver IVM, dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl] Stingray -4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid CDAA Randox 2-chloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide CDEA 2-chloro-N,N-diethylacetamide CDEC Vegadex 2-chloro-2-propenyl diethylcarbamodithioate CEPC 2-chloroethyl (3-chlorophenyl)carbamate

153 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name chloramben Amiben, Amilon, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid Dynoram, Vegiben chlorazine 6-chloro-N,N,N',N'-tetraethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diamine chlorbromuron Maloran N'-(4-bromo-3-chlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N- methylurea chlorbufam Alicep, Alipur, 1-methyl-2-propynyl (3-chlorophenyl)carbamate Trixabon chlorflurenol Maintain, CF 125 2-chloro-9-hydroxy-9H-fluorene-9-carboxylic acid chlorimuron Classic 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carb onyl]a-mino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid chloroxuron Norex, Tenoran N'-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-N,N-dimethylurea chlorpropham Gro-stop, Unicrop 1-methylethyl 3-chlorophenylcarbamate chlorsulfuron Corsair, Glean, 2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) Telar, amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide Lesco TFCr chlorthiamid 2,6-dichlorobenzenecarbothiamide chlortoluron Alert, Culmus, N'-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea Tolurex, Toluron cinmethylin Cinch exo-(±)-1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-2-[(2- methylphenyl) methoxy]-7- oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane cisanilide cis-2,5-dimethyl-N-phenyl-1- pyrrolidinecarboxamide clethodim Prism, Select, (E,E)-(±)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]prop Select Max, yl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]- Envoy 3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one clodinafop Topik (R)-2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2- pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid clofop Alopex 2-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acid clomazone Command 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazoli dinone cloproxydim (E,E)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]butyl]- 5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1- one clopyralid Reclaim, Stinger, 3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid Transline, Lontrel cloransulam FirstRate 3-chloro-2-[[(5-ethoxy-7-fluoro[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c] pyrimidin-2yl)sulfonyl]amino]benzoic acid

154 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name copper sulfate Copper Sulfate copper sulfate 4-CPA Marks 4-CPA, (4-chlorophenoxy)acetic acid Poltomat, Tomadorane 4-CPB 4-(4-chlorophenoxy)butyric acid CPMF 1-chloro-N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-N- dimethylformamidine 4-CPP 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid CPPC 2-chloro-1-methylethyl (3-chlorophenyl)carbamate cyanazine Bladex 2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2- yl]amino]-2-methylpropanenitrile cycloate Ro-Neet S-ethyl cyclohexylethylcarbamothioate cyclosulfamuron Ichiyonmaru, N-[[[2-(cyclopropylcarbonyl)phenyl]amino]sulfonyl]- Nebiros N'-(4,6-dimethoxy-2- pyrimidinyl)urea Double-Up cycluron cyhalofop Clincher (R)-2-[4-(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)phenoxy]propa noic acid cyperquat 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium cyprazine Prefox, Outfox 6-chloro-N-cyclopropyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine cyprazole N-[5-(2-chloro-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol- 2-yl] cyclopropanecarboxamide cypromid Clobber N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)cyclopropanecarboxamide 2,4-D many (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid 3,4-DA (3,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid dalapon Dalapon, 2,2-dichloropropanoic acid Devipon, Dalacide, Depoxim, many dazomet Basamid tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thio ne 2,4-DB Butoxone, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid Butyrac 3,4-DB 4-(3,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid DCB 1,2-dichlorobenzene DCPA Dacthal dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate DCU Crag 2 N,N'-bis(2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)urea

155 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name 2,4-DEB 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)ethyl benzoate delachlor 2-chloro-N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-[(2- methylpropoxy)methyl] acetamide 2,4-DEP tris[2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)ethyl]phosphite desmedipham Betanex ethyl[3-[[(phenylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]carbam ate desmetryn Semeron N-methyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine diallate Avadex, Botrizel, S-(2,3-dichloro-2-propenyl) bis(1- Pyardex, many methylethyl)carbamothioate dicamba Banvel, Clarity, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid Vanquish dichlobenil Barrier, Casoron, 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile Dyclomec, Norosac dichlormate Rowmate 3,4-dichloro benzenemethanol methylcarbamate dichlorprop Weedone 2,4-DP (±)-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propanoic acid diclofop Hoelon, Illoxan (±)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acid diclosulam Strongarm N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-5-ethoxy-7-fluoro[1,2,4]triaz olo[1,5-c] pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide dicryl N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide diethatyl Antor N-(chloroacetyl)-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)glycine difenopenten (E)-(±)-4-[4-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]phenoxy]- 2-pentenoic acid difenoxuron Lironion, Pinoran N'-[4-(4-methoxyphenoxy)phenyl]-N,N- dimethylurea difenzoquat Avenge 1,2-dimethyl-3,5-diphenyl-1H-pyrazolium diflufenzopyr 2-[1-[[[(3,5- difluorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]ethyl]-3- pyridinecarboxylic acid dimethachlor Ohric 2-chloro-N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(2- methoxyethyl) acetamide dimethametryn Dimepax N-(1,2-dimethylpropyl)-N'-ethyl-6-(methylthio)- 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine dimethenamid Frontier 2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-methoxy- 1-methylethyl)acetamide dimethenamid-P Outlook, Tower (S)-2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2- methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide

156 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name dinitramine Cobexo N3,N3-diethyl-2,4-dinitro-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3- benzenediamine dinosam Sinox general 2-(1-methylbutyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol dinoseb Basanite, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol Dynamyte, Dyanap, many dinoterb Herbogil 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol diphenamid Enide N,N-dimethyl-a-phenyl benzeneacetamide dipropetryn Cotofor, Sancap 6-(ethylthio)-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine- 2,4-diamine diquat Diquat, Reglone, 6,7-dihydrodipyrido[1,2-a:2',1'-c]pyrazinediiumion Reward dithiopyr Dimension S,S-dimethyl 2-(difluoromethyl)-4-(2-methylpropyl)-6- trifluoromethyl)- 3,5-pyridinedicarbothioate diuron Karmex, Direx N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea DNOC Trifocide, Trifinox, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol Trifrina 3,4-DP 2-(3,4-dichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid DSMA Ansar, many disodium salt of MAA EBEP ethyl bis (2-ethylhexyl)phosphinate eglinazine N-(4-chloro-6-ethylamino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)glycine endothall Aquathol, 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid Accelerate, Desicate, H-273 EPTC Eptam, Eradicane S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioate Extra, Genep, Genep Plus erbon Baron, Novege 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)ethyl-2,2- dichloropropanoate ethalfluralin Sonalan, Curbit, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(triflu Edge oro-methyl)benzenamine ethametsulfuron Muster 2-[[[[[4-ethoxy-6-(methylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]a mino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid ethidimuron Ustilon N-(5-ethylsulfonyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N'- dimethylurea ethiolate Outfox, Prefox S-ethyl diethylcarbamothioate ethofumesate Nortron (±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofura nyl methanesulfonate EXD diethyl thioperoxydicarbonate

157 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name fenac Fenatrol, Rack, 2,3,6-trichlorobenzeneacetic acid Trifene fenoxaprop Acclaim, Horizon, (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]pro Puma, Whip panoic acid fenuron Dozer, Urab N,N-dimethyl-N'-phenylurea flamprop Barnon, Suffix N-benzoyl-N-(3-chloro-4-fluorophenyl)-DL-alanine BW, Mataven L flazasulfuron Mission, Katana N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]- 3-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide florasulam Primus, Boxer N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-8-fluoro-5- ethoxy[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidine-2- sulfonamide fluazifop Fusilade, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenox Horizon, y]-propanoic acid Ornamec fluazifop-p Fusilade II, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- Venture pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acid flucarbazone Everest 4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-[[2- (trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]-1H-1,2,4- triazole-1-carboxamide fluchloralin Basalin, Flusol N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4- (trifluoromethyl) benzenamine flufenacet Define N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2-[[5- (trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- yl]oxy]acetamide flumetsulam Python N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-methyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-a ] pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide flumiclorac Resource [2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(1,3,4,5,6,7-hexahydro-1,3-dio xo-2H- isoindol-2-yl)phenoxy]acetic acid flumioxazin Broadstar, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4 Flumizin, - Sumisoya, Valor, benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-insoindole- SureGuard, 1,3(2H)- dione Chateau, Payload fluometuron Cotoran N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]urea fluorochloridone Racer, Talis 3-chloro-4-(chloromethyl)-1-[3- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-pyrrolidinone fluorodifen Preforan 2-nitro-1-(4-nitrophenoxy)-4- trifluoromethylbenzene

158 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name fluoroglycofen Compete carboxymethyl 5-[2-chloro-4- (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate flupoxam 1-[4-chloro-3-[(2,2,3,3,3- pentafluoropropoxy)methyl]- phenyl]-5-phenyl-1H- 1,2,4-triazole-3-carboxamide flupropacil 1-methylethyl 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(triflu oromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]benzoate flupyrsulfuron Lexus 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]a mino]sulfonyl]-6-trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxyli c acid fluridone Avast, Sonar 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1 H)- pyridinone fluroxypyr Starane, [(4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acet Spotlight, ic acid Tomahawk, Vista flurtamone Bacara, Carat, (±)-5-(methylamino)-2-phenyl-4-[3- Cline, Nikeyl, (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3 (2H)-furanone Ingot, Benchmark fluthiacet Action, Appeal [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H,3H- [1,3,4]thiadiazolo[3,4-a]pyridazin-1- ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]acetic acid fomesafen Reflex, Flexstar 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methyls ulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide foramsulfuron Option, Revolver 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-4-(formylamino)-N,N- dimethylbenzamide fosamine Krenite ethyl hydrogen (aminocarbonyl)phosphonate glufosinate Finale, Liberty, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid Rely glyphosate Glyphomax, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine Glyphos, Roundup, Touchdown; many halosafen 5-[2-chloro-6-fluoro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N- (ethylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide haloxyfop Vulkan, Verdict (±)-2-[4-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- pyridinyl]oxy] phenoxy]propanoic acid

159 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name halosulfuron Manage, Permit, 3-chloro-5-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2- Sandea, Sempra, pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-1- Sedgehammer methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid hexaflurate potassium hexafluoroarsenate hexazinone Pronone, Velpar 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-tria zine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione imazamethabenz Assert (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo -1H- imidazol-2-yl]-4(and 5)-methylbenzoic acid (3:2) imazamox ClearCast, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H Raptor, Odessey - imiazol-2-yl]-5- (methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid imazapic Cadre, Plateau (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5- oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3- pyridinecarboxylic acid imazapyr Arsenal, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo Chopper, Stalker, -1H -imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid Habitat imazaquin Image, Scepter 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H - imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid imazethapyr NewPath, Pursuit 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H - imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid iodosulfuron Autumn, Husar 4-iodo-2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2- yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid ioxynil Actil, Axall, 4-hydroxy-3,5-diiodobenzonitrile Brittox, Bentrol, Oxytril, many ipazine Gesabal 6-chloro-N,N-diethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine IPX Goodrite n.i.x O-(1-methylethyl)carbonodithioate isocarbamid Merpelan AZ N-(2-methylpropyl)-2-oxo-1- imidazolidinecarboxamide isocil 5-bromo-6-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)-2,4(1H,3H)- pyrimidinedione isomethiozin Tantizon 6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-[(2- methylpropylidene)amino]-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4- triazin-5-(4H)-one isopropalin Paarlan 4-(1-methylethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N- dipropylbenzenamine isoproturon Zodiac, Crip, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[4-(1-methylethyl)phenyl]urea Ingot

160 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name isouron N'-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-isoxazolyl]-N,N- dimethylurea isoxaben Gallery N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dim eth- oxybenzamide isoxaflutole Balance, Balance (5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4- Pro (trifluoromethyl)-phenyl]methanone karbutilate Backup, Tandex, 3-[[(dimethylamino)carbonyl]amino]phenyl (1,1- Tanzene dimethylethyl)carbamate ketospiradox 2-[(2,3dihydro-5,8-dimethyl-1,1-dioxidospiro[4H-1- benzothiopyran-4,2’-[1,3]dioxolan]-6-yl)carbonyl]- 1,3-cyclohexanedione ion(1-) KOCN potassium cyanate lactofen Cobra (±)-2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenz oate lenacil Lenazar, Venar, 3-cyclohexyl-6,7-dihydro-1H-cyclopentapyrimidine- Lanslide, 2,4 (3H,5H)-dione Pyaracur, many linuron Lorox, Linex, N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea Afolan MAA methylarsonic acid MAMA monoammonium salt of MAA maleic hydrazide Royal MH30, 1,2-dihydro-3,6-pyridazinedione Royal Slo-Gro MCPA Rhonox, other (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid MCPB Cantrol, Thistrol 4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid mecoprop Mecomec, Super (±)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)propanoic acid Chickweed Killer mefluidide Embark, Vistar N-[2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]amino] phenyl]acetamide mesotrione Callisto, Tenacity 2-(4-mesyl-2-nitrobenzoyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-2- enone metamifop (R)-2-[4-(6-chloro-1,3-benzoxazol-2- yloxy)phenoxy]-2′-fluoro-N-methylpropionanilide metamitron Seismic, 4-amino-3-methyl-6-phenyl-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one Tornado, Danagan, many methalpropalin N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzenamine metham Vapam methylcarbamodithioic acid

161 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name methazole Probe 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4- oxadiazolidine-3,5-dione methibenzuron Tribull, Tribunil, N-(2-benzothiazolyl-N,N'-dimethylurea Trilixon methoprotryn Gesaran N-(3-methoxypropyl)-N'-(1-methylethyl)-6- (methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine methyl bromide Rotox, Metabrom, bromomethane Pestmaster, many metobromuron Patoran, N'-(4-bromophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea Pattonex metolachlor Dual, Pennant 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy- 1- methylethyl)acetamide s-metolachlor Cinch, Dual 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy- Magnum 1- methylethyl)acetamide, S-enantiomer Pennant Magnum metosulam Barko N-(2,6-dichloro-3-methylphenyl)-5,7-dimethoxy[1,2, 4] triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-2- sulfonamide metoxuron Dosaflo, Deftor, N'-(3-chloro-4-methoxyphenyl)-N,N-dimethyl urea many metribuzin Sencor 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4- triazin-5(4H)-one metsulfuron Ally, Blade, 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] Cimarron, Escort, carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid Manor molinate Ordram S-ethyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-1-carbothioate monalide Potablan N-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dimethylpentanamide monolinuron Aresin, Afesin, N'-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea Monamex, Premalin monuron Borea, Monurex, N'-(4-chlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea Telvar MSMA Ansar, Bueno, monosodium salt of MAA Daconate napropamide Devrinol N,N-diethyl-2-(1-naphthalenyloxy)propanamide naptalam Alanap 2-[(1-naphthalenylamino)carbonyl]benzoic acid neburon Granurex, N-butyl-N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methylurea Propuron, Neburex, many

162 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name nicosulfuron Accent 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]a mino] sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamide nitralin Planavin 4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N- dipropylbenzenamine nitrofen Trizilin 2,4-dichloro-1-(4-nitrophenoxy)benzene nitrofluorfen 2-chloro-1-(4-nitrophenoxy)-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzene norea Herban N,N-dimethyl-N'-(octahydro-4,7-methano-1H- inden-5-yl)urea 3aa,4a,5a,7a,7aa-isomer norflurazon Evital, Solicam, 4-chloro-5-(methylamino)-2-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phe Predict, Zorial nyl)-3 (2H)-pyridazinone OCH 2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-octachloro-2-cyclohexen-1-one oryzalin Surflan 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrobenzenesulfonamide oxadiargyl TopStar 3-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]-5-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2(3H)-one oxadiazon Ronstar 3-[2,4-dichloro-5-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-5-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-(3H)-one oxaziclomefone Homerun, 3-[1-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-1-methylethyl]-2,3- Samurai, dihydro-6-methyl-5-phenyl-4H-1,3-oxazin-4-one Thoroughbred oxyfluorfen Goal 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluorome GoalTender thyl) benzene paraquat Boa, Cyclone, 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridiniumion Gramoxone, Starfire PBA chlorinated benzoic acid PCP Dowicide, Penta, pentachlorophenol Permatox, Santophen, many pebulate Tillam S-propyl butylethylcarbamothioate pelargonic acid Scythe nonanoic acid pendimethalin Pentagon, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzena PendiMax, mine Pendulum, Prowl, Prowl H2O, many

163 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name penoxsulam Granite, Grasp, 2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5,8-dimethoxy LockUp, Sapphire [1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidin-2-yl)-6- (trifluoromethyl) benzenesulfonamide perfluidone Destun 1,1,1-trifluoro-N-[2-methyl-4- (phenylsulfonyl)phenyl] methanesulfonamide phenisopham Diconal, Verdinal 3-[[(1-methylethoxy)carbonyl]amino]phenyl ethylphenylcarbamate phenmedipham Spin-Aid 3-[(methoxycarbonyl)amino]phenyl (3-methylphenyl)carbamate picloram Tordon, Grazon 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid pinoxaden Axial 8-(2,6-diethyl-4-methylphenyl)-1,2,4,5-tetrahydro- 7-oxo-7H-pyrazolo[1,2-d][1,4,5]oxadiazepin-9- yl2,2-dimethylpropanoate piperophos Rilof, Avirosan S-[2-(2-methyl-1-piperidinyl)-2-oxoethyl]O,O- dipropyl phosphorodithioate PMA Seedtox, (acetato-O)phenylmercury Mersolite, many primisulfuron Beacon, Rifle 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid procyazine 2-[[4-chloro-6-(cyclopropylamino)-1,3,5-triazine-2- yl]amino]-2 -methylpropanenitrile prodiamine Barricade, Factor, 2,4 dinitro-N3,N3-dipropyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3- RegalKade benzenediamine profluralin Tolban N-(cyclopropylmethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzenamine proglinazine N-[4-chloro-6-(1-methylethylamino)-1,3,5-triazine- 2-yl]glycine prometon Pramitol 6-methoxy-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2, 4- diamine prometryn Caparol, Cotton N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazin Pro e-2,4- diamine pronamide Kerb 3,5-dichloro (N-1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide propachlor Ramrod 2-chloro-N-(1-methylethyl)-N-phenylacetamide propanil Propanil, Stam, N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamide Superwham propaquizafop Falcon, Shogun, (R)-2-[[(1-methylethylidene)amino]oxy]ethyl 2-[4- Prilan [(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate

164 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name propazine Milogard, 6-chloro-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- Milocep, Milo- diamine Pro, Gesamil propham Beet-Kleen, 1-methylethyl phenylcarbamate Quintex, Premalox, many prosulfalin N-[[4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrophenyl]sulfonyl]- S,S-dimethylsulfilimine prosulfuron Peak N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2- yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-(3,3,3- trifluoropropyl)benzenesulfonamide prynachlor Basamaize 2-chloro-N-(1-methyl-2-propynyl)-N- phenylacetamide pyraflufen ET, Vida [2-chloro-5-[4-chloro-5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl- 1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy]acetic acid pyrazon Pyramin 5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone pyrasulfatole (5-hydroxyl-1,3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)[2- (methylsulfonyl)-4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone pyrazolynate Kusakarin 4-(2,4-dichlorobenzoyl)-1,3-dimethylpyrazol-5-ylp- toluenesulfonate(2,4-dichloropheyl)[1,3-dimethyl-5- [[4-methylphenyl)sulfonyl]oxy]-1H-pyrazol-4- yl]methanone pyribenzoxium Pyanchlor diphenylmethanone O-[2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxy-2- pyrimidinyl)oxy]benzoyl]oxime pyrichlor Daxtron 2,3,5-trichloro-4-pyridinol pyridate Lentagran, Tough O-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl) S-octyl carbonothioate pyrithiobac Staple 2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)thio]benzo ic acid pyroxsulam PowerFlex N-(5,7-dimethoxy[1,2,4]triazole[1,5-a]pyrimidin-2- yl)-2-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3- pyridinesulfonamide quinclorac Drive, Drive 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid XLR8, Facet quinmerac Rebell, Fiesta, 7-chloro-3-methyl-8-quinolinecarboxylic aci Largo, many quinonamid 2,2-dichloro-N-(3-chloro-1,4-dihydro-1,4-dioxo-2- naphthalenyl)acetamide quizalofop Assure II, Targa (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]prop anoic acid

165 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name rimsulfuron Matrix, Tranxit N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3 - (ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide saflufenacil Sharpen, Treevix N-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl- 2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl)- N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide secbumeton Etazine, Sumitol N-ethyl-6-methoxy-N'-(1-methylpropyl)-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine sethoxydim Poast, Segment 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3- hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one sesone Crag I 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)ethyl hydrogen sulfate siduron Tupersan N-(2-methylcyclohexyl)-N'-phenylurea silvex AquaVex, Kuron, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propanoic acid many simazine Aquazine, 6-chloro-N,N'-diethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine Princep; many simeton Gesadural N,N'-diethyl-6-methoxy-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine simetryn Gy-bon N,N'-diethyl-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diamine sodium chlorate Defol sodium chlorate solan Solan N-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)-2-methylpentanamide (pentanochlor) sulcotrione Galleon 2-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)benzoyl]-1,3- cyclohexanedione sulfentrazone Authority, N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3- Spartan, Dismiss methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl] phenyl]methanesulfonamide sulfometuron Oust 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]am ino] sulfonyl]benzoic acid sulfosulfuron Maverick, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]- Outrider, 2-(ethylsulfonyl)imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3- Certainty sulfonamide swep methyl(3,4-dichlorophenyl)carbamate 2,4,5-T Brush Killer, (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid Super D Weedone, many 2,4,5-TB 4-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid 2,3,6-TBA Benzac, Trysben, 2,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid many TCA Revenge, Varitox, trichloroacetic acid many

166 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name tebuthiuron Spike N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N'- dimethylurea tembotrione Laudis 2-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)-3-[(2,2,2- (trifluoroethoxy)methyl]benzoyl]-1,3- cyclohexanedione terbacil Sinbar 5-chloro-3-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-methyl-2,4(1H,3H) - pyrimidinedione terbuchlor N-(butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-N-[2-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-6-methylphenyl]acetamide terbumeton Caragard N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl-6-methoxy-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine terbuthylazine Gardoprim, Click, 6-chloro-N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl-1,3,5- Azimut, many triazine-2,4-diamine terbutol Azac, Azak, Azar 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenyl methylcarbamate terbutryn Ternit, Terbutrex, N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5- Sunter, Short- triazine-2,4-diamine stop, many tetrafluron Tomilon N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-(1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethoxy)phenyl]urea thiazafluron Dropp N,N'-dimethyl-N-[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol -2-yl] urea thiazopyr Mandate, Visor methyl2-(difluoromethyl)-5-(4,5-dihydro-2-thiazolyl) -4-(2-methylpropyl) -6-(trifluoromethyl)-3- pyridinecarboxylate thifensulfuron Harmony GT, 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] Unity carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylic acid thiobencarb Bolero S-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]diethylcarbamothioate 2,2,3-TPA 2,2,3-trichloropropionic acid tralkoxydim Achieve 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6- trimethylphenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-one triallate Far-Go, Avadex, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) bis(1-methylethyl) Showdown carbamothioate triasulfuron Amber 2-(2-chloroethoxy)-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-t riazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide tribenuron Express 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methyla mino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid tricamba 2,3,5-trichloro-6-methoxy benzoic acid

167 Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name triclopyr Garlon, [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acid Grandstand, Pathfinder, Remedy, Turflon, Renovate tridiphane Tandem 2-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2,2,2- trichloroethyl)oxirane trietazine Bronox, Gesafloc, 6-chloro-N,N,N'-triethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine Pre-empt trifloxysulfuron Enfield, Envoke, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]- Monument 3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-2-pyridinesulfonamide trifluralin Treflan, Tri-4, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzena Trilin; many mine triflusulfuron UpBeet 2-[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1, 3,5- triazin-2-yl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3- methylbenzoic acid trimeturon methyl N'-(4-chlorophenyl)-N,N- dimethylcarbamidate tritac 1-[(2,3,6-trichlorophenyl)methoxy]-2-propanol topramezone Impact [3-(4,5-dihydo-3-isoxazolyl)-2-methyl-4- (methylsulfonyl) phenyl](5-hydoxy-1-methyl-1H- pyrazol-4-yl)methanone vernolate Vernam S-propyl dipropylcarbamothioate xylachlor 2-chloro-N-(2,3-dimethylphenyl)-N-(1- methylethyl)acetamide

168 COMMON PRE-PACKAGED HERBICIDES

Common Pre-packaged Herbicides and Common Name of the Component Chemicals

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] 875 BrushKiller 2,4-D (1.81 lbs or 19.49%) + mecoprop-p (0.96 lb or 10.37%) + dicamba (0.32 lb or 3.52%) ACE Dilutable Concentrate Lawn 2,4-D (0.54 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.13 lb) + dicamba (0.06 Weed Killer lb) Accent Gold clopyralid (51.4%) + flumetsulam (15.9%) + nicosulfuron (5.4%) + rimsulfuron (5.4%) Accent Q nicosulfuron (54.5%) + isoxadifen-ethyl Affinity Broadspec tribenuron (25%) + thifensulfuron (25%) Affinity Tank Mix tribenuron (10%) + thifensulfuron (40%) Agility SG tribenuron (2.4%) + thifensulfuron (4.7%) + metsulfuron (1.9%) + dicamba (57.8%) All-In-One Lawn Weed & 2,4-D (4.03%) + quinclorac (1.61%)+ dicamba (0.37%) Crabgrass Killer Ready-to-spray All-In-One Weed Killer for Lawns MSMA (9.81%) + 2,4-D (2.64%) + mecoprop-p (1.32%) + Concentrate dicamba (0.66%) All-In-One Weed Killer for Lawns MSMA (0.36%) + 2,4-D (0.1%) + mecoprop-p (0.05%) + Ready-to-use dicamba (0.02%) AllPro BK32 Brush Killer 2,4-D (0.92 lbs or 10.6%) + dichlorprop-p (0.94 lb or 10.9%) All-Season Brush-No-More 2,4-D (0.49 lb or 6.46%) + dichlorprop-p (0.24 lb or 3.23%) + dicamba (0.12 or 1.65%) Ally Extra tribenuron (18.75%) + thifensulfuron (37.5%) + metsulfuron (15%) Arrosolo 3.3E molinate (33.1%) + propanil (33.1%) Atra-bute atrazine (14.2%) + butylate (56.8%) Authority First sulfentrazone (62.1%) + cloransulam-methyl (7.9%) Authority MTZ sulfentrazone (18%) + metribuzin (27%) Axiom flufenacet (54.4%) + metribuzin (13.6%) Axiom AT flufenacet (19.6%) + metribuzin (4.9%) + atrazine (50.5%) Backdraft glyphosate (14.1% as its isopropylamine salt) + imazaquin (2.8%) Banvel + 2,4-D dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) + 2,4-D (2.87 lb or 29.6%) Banvel 720 dicamba (1 lb) + 2,4-D (1.9 lbs) Banvel-K + Atrazine dicamba (1.1 lbs or 11.45%) + atrazine (2.1 lbs or 22.23%) Barespot Monobor-chlorate sodium chlorate (30%) + sodium metaborate (48.5%) Basic Solutions Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D (0.26 lb) + dichlorprop-p (0.13 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.13 lb)

169

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Basis rimsulfuron (50%) + thifensulfuron (25%) Basis Gold atrazine (82.4%) + nicosulfuron (1.34%) + rimsulfuron (1.34%) Battleship triclopyr (0.27 lb) + clopyralid (0.13 lb) + MCPA (3 lbs) Betamix desmedipham (8%) + phenmedipham (8%) Bicep atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.9%- atrazine + related triazines) + metolachlor (3.28 lbs or 35.6%%) Bicep Lite atrazine (1.67 lbs or 18.3%- atrazine + related triazines) + metolachlor (3.35 lbs or 36.6%) Bicep II atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.8%- atrazine + related triazines) + metolachlor (3.18 lbs or 34.8%) Bicep Lite II atrazine (1.67 lbs or 18.3%- atrazine + related triazines) + metolachlor (3.23 lbs or 35.3%) Bicep II Magnum atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Bicep II Magnum FC atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Bicep Lite II Magnum atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (3.33 lbs or 35.8%) Bison bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Bison Advanced bromoxynil (2.5 lbs) + MCPA (2.5 lbs) BnB Plus phenmedipham (0.6 lb or 7%) + desmedipham (0.6 lb or 7%) + ethofumesate (0.6 lb or 7%) Boundary 6.5EC s-metolachlor (5.25 lbs or 58.2%) + metribuzin (1.25 lbs or 13.8%) Brash dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) + 2,4-D (2.87 lbs or 29.6%) Brawl II ATZ atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Brawn atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Breakfree ATZ acetochlor (3 lbs or 32.6%) + atrazine (2.25 lbs or 24.4%- atrazine + related triazines) Breakfree ATZ Lite acetochlor (4 lbs or 43.4%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Broadstrike + Dual flumetsulam (0.2 lb) + metolachlor (7.47 lb) Broadstrike SF + Dual flumetsulam (0.25 lb) + metolachlor (7.47 lb) Broadstrike + Treflan flumetsulam (0.25 lb) + trifluralin (3.4 lb) Bromac bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Bromac Advanced bromoxynil (2.5 lbs) + MCPA (2.5 lbs) Bromacil/Diuron 40/40 bromacil (40%) + diuron (40%) Bromox/MCPA bromoxynil (2 lbs) + MCPA (2 lbs) Bronate bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Bronate Advanced bromoxynil (2.5 lbs) + MCPA (2.5 lbs) Bronco alachlor (2.6 lbs) + glyphosate (1.04 lbs acid) Brox-M bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%)

170

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Brox-M Ultra bromoxynil (2.5 lbs) + MCPA (2.5 lbs) Brozine bromoxynil (1 lb or 10.81%) + atrazine (2 lbs or 21.62%) Brushbuster 2,4-D (1.9 lbs) + dicamba (1 lb) Brush Buster Woody Plant 2,4-D (0.78 lb or 10.6%) + dichlorprop-p (0.4 lb or 5.4%) Brush Killer 2,4-D (1.98 lbs or 21.54%) + mecoprop-p (0.53 lb or 5.73%) + dicamba (0.21 lb or 2.29%) Brush killer 2-2 2,4-D (34.7% of its 2-ethylhexyl ester) + 2,4,5-T (33.1% of its 2-ethylhexyl ester) Brush Killer Concentrate 2,4-D (0.51 lb or 6.46%) + dichlorprop-p (0.24 lb or 3.23%) + dicamba (0.13 lb or 1.65%) Brushmaster dicamba (0.24 lb or 3.01%) + 2,4-D (1.02 lbs or 12.5%) + dichlorprop-p (0.51 lb or 6.25%) Brush-no-more 2,4-D (0.51 lb) + dicamba (0.13 lb) + dichlorprop (0.51 lb) Brush-Rhap dicamba (1.8 lbs or 18.28%) + 2,4-D (2.4 lbs or 24.62%) Buckle triallate (10%) + trifluralin (3%) Buctril + Atrazine bromoxynil (1 lb) + atrazine (2 lb) Bullet alachlor (2.5 lbs or 25.4%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 15.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Cadence ATZ acetochlor (3 lbs or 32.6%) + atrazine (2.25 lbs or 24.4%- atrazine + related triazines) Cadence ATZ Lite acetochlor (4 lbs or 43.4%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Camix s-metolachlor (3.34 lbs or 36.8%) + mesotrione (0.33 lb or 3.68%) Campaign glyphosate (1.2 lbs or 12.9% as its isopropylamine salt) + 2,4-D (1.9 lbs or 20.6%) Cannon alachlor (2.5 lbs) + trifluralin (0.5 lb) Canon broadleaf weed killer 2,4-D (3.4% as its dimethylamine salt) + MCPP (4.3% as its diethanolamine salt) Canopy chlorimuron (10.7%) + metribuzin (64.3%) Canopy XL chlorimuron (9.4%) + sulfentrazone (46.9%) Canopy EX chlorimuron (22.7%) + tribenuron (6.8%) Canvas metsulfuron (15%) + thifensulfuron (37.5%) + tribenuron (18.75%) Celebrity dicamba (69.3% as its sodium salt) + nicosulfuron (7.5%) Celebrity Plus dicamba (42.4%) + nicosulfuron (10.6%) + diflufenzopyr (17%) Chaparral aminopyralid (0.525 lb ae or 52.5%) + metsulfuron (0.0945 lb or 9.45%) Charger MAX ATZ atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Charger MAX ATZ Lite atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (3.33 lbs or 35.8%) Chaser triclopyr (1 lb or 16.5% as its butoxyethyl ester)+ 2,4-D ( 2 lbs or 34.4% as its butoxyethyl ester)

171

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Chaser 2 triclopyr (1.07 lbs) 2,4-D (2.78 lbs) Chaser Ultra MCPA (3.2 lbs) + dicamba (0.18 lb) + dichlorprop-p (0.64 lb) Chaser Ultra 2 MCPA (3.2 lbs 33.97%) + fluroxypyr (0.32 lb or 3.4%) + dichlorprop-p (0.64 lb or 6.79%) Cheyenne fenoxaprop (0.79 lb) + MCPA (4 lbs) Cimarron Max Part A: metsulfuron (60%) Part B: dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) + 2,4-D (2.87 lbs or 29.6%) Cimarron Plus metsulfuron (48%) + chlorsulfuron (15%) Cimarron X-tra metsulfuron (30%) + chlorsulfuron (37.5%) Cinch ATZ atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) Cinch ATZ Lite atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.7%- atrazine + related triazines) + s-metolachlor (3.33 lbs or 35.8%) Clarion nicosulfuron (37.5%) + rimsulfuron (37.5%) Cleanout Brush & Stump Spray 2,4-D (0.49 lb or 6.46%) + mecoprop-p (0.24 lb or 3.23%) + dicamba (0.12 lb or 1.65%) CleanWave aminopyralid (0.085 lbs or 1%) + fluroxypyr (1.2 lbs or 14.03%) Clearmax Part A: imazamox (1 lb) + Part B: MCPA (3.7 lbs) Clearpath imazethapyr (13.02%) + quinclorac (61.98%) Colt clopyralid (0.75 lb or 8.6%) + fluroxypyr (0.75 lb or 8.6%) Colt AS clopyralid (0.75 lb or 8.6%) + fluroxypyr (0.75 lb or 8.6%) Conclude Ultra bentazon (1.69 lbs) + acifluorfen (0.84 lb) + sethoxydim (1.29 lbs) Conclude Xact bentazon (2.67 lbs) + acifluorfen (1.33 lbs) + sethoxydim (2 lbs) Conclude Xtra B bentazon (2.67 lbs) + acifluorfen (1.33 lbs) Confidence Xtra acetochlor (4.3 lbs or 46.3%) + atrazine (1.7 lbs or 18.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Confidence Xtra 5.6L acetochlor (3.1 lbs or 33.4%) + atrazine (2.5 lbs or 26.9%- atrazine + related triazines) Confront clopyralid (0.75 lb or 7.9%) + triclopyr (2.25 lbs or 23.7%) Contour imazethapyr (0.38 lb) + atrazine (3 lbs- atrazine + related triazines) Cool Power dicamba (0.3 lb and 3.6%) + MCPA (3 lbs or 36%) + triclopyr (0.3 lb and 3.6%) Commando clopyralid (0.38 lb or 3.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 20.9%) Commando M clopyralid (0.42 lb or 5%) + MCPA (2.35 lbs or 27.8%) Contour imazethapyr (0.38 lb) + atrazine (3 lbs) CoStarr glyphosate (1.1 lbs) + dicamba (0.5 lb) Crabgrass Preventer with Team benefin (1.33%) + trifluralin (0.67%) Crossbow triclopyr (1 lb or 11.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 23.7%) Crossbow L triclopyr (1 lb or 11.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 23.7%) Crossroad triclopyr (1 lb or 11.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 23.7%)

172

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Curtail clopyralid (0.38 lb or 3.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 20.9%) Curtail M clopyralid (0.42 lb or 5%) + MCPA (2.35 lbs or 27.8%) Cutback clopyralid (0.38 lb or 3.9%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 20.9%) Cutback M clopyralid (0.42 lb or 5%) + MCPA (2.35 lbs or 27.8%) Dakota fenoxaprop (0.234 lb) + MCPA (2.8 lbs) Degree Xtra acetochlor (2.70 lbs or 29%) + atrazine (1.34 lbs or 14.5%- atrazine + related triazines) Derby metolachlor (4%) + simazine (1%) DiBro 2 + 2 diuron (2%) + bromacil (2%) DiBro 4 + 2 diuron (4%) + bromacil (2%) Dilgent rimsulfuron + chlorimuron-ethyl + flumioxazin Dissolve premium granular weed MCPP (0.73% as its dimethylamine salt) + 2,4-D (1.4% as killer its dimethylamine salt) + 2,4-DP (0.71% as its dimethylamine salt) Distinct dicamba (50%) + diflufenzopyr (20%) Domain flufenacet (24%) + metribuzin (36%) Double O E-Pro oxyfluorfen (2%) + oryzalin (1%) DoublePlay acetochlor (1.4 lbs or 16.9%) + EPTC (5.6 lbs or 67.8%) Double Team acetochlor (3.5 lbs or 38.2%) + atrazine (1.78 lbs or 19.42%- atrazine + related triazines) Double Up B+D bromoxynil (2 lbs and 20.69%) + 2,4-D (1.9 lbs and 20.69%) Duet 60DF propanil (0.6 lb or 60%) + bensulfuron (2.1 grams or 0.46%) Duet CA propanil (4 lbs or 41.2%) + bensulfuron (14 grams or 0.32%) EndRun 2,4-D (2.38 lbs or 25.38%) + mecoprop-P (0.63 lb or 6.75%) + dicamba (0.21 lb or 2.3%) Enlite chlorimuron (2.85%) + thifensulfuron (8.8%) + flumioxazin (36.21%) Envert 171 2,4-D (0.95 lb) + dichlorprop-p (1.125 lbs) Envive chlorimuron (9.2%) + thifensulfuron (2.9%) + flumioxazin (29.2%) Epic flufenacet (48%) + isoxaflutole (10%) Equip foramsulfuron (30%) + iodosulfuron (2%) Escalade 2,4-D (3.2 lbs or 32.83%) + fluroxypyr (0.8 lb or 8.1%) + dicamba (0.4 lb or 4.1%) Escalade 2 2,4-D (3.2 lbs or 32.83%) + fluroxypyr (0.4 lb or 4.1%) + dicamba (0.4 lb or 4.1%) Escalade Low Odor 2,4-D (3.2 lbs or 27.12%) + fluroxypyr (0.8 lb or 5.09%) + dicamba (0.4 lb or 3.39%) Escalade Weed and Feed MC 2,4-D (69.75% as its 2-methylhexyl ester) + fluroxypyr (16.64% as its 1-methylheptyl ester) + dicamba (5.78% acid) Establish ATZ dimethenamid-P (1.7 lbs or 18.2%) + atrazine (3.3 lbs or

173

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] 35.3%) Establish Lite dimethenamid-P (2.25 lbs or 24.1%) + atrazine (2.75 lbs or 29.5%) Event imazapyr (0.64%) + imazethapyr (17.26%) Exceed primisulfuron (28.5%) + prosulfuron (28.5%) Expert s-metolachlor (1.74 lbs or 18.6%) + atrazine (2.14 or 22.9%- atrazine + related triazines + glyphosate (1 lb or 10.8% as its isopropylamine salt) Extreme glyphosate (2 lbs or 22% as its isopropylamine salt) + imazethapyr (0.17 lbs or 1.8%) Fallow Master glyphosate (1.6 lbs) + dicamba (0.4 lb or 4.1%) Fallow Star glyphosate (1.1 lbs) + dicamba (0.5 lb) Field Master acetochlor (2 lbs or 21.6%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.2%- atrazine + related triazines) + glyphosate (0.56 lbs acid or 0.75 lbs or 8.2% of its isopropylamine salt) Finesse chlorsulfuron (62.5%) + metsulfuron (12.5%) Finesse Grass and Broadleaf chlorsulfuron (25%) + flucarbazone (44%) Fire Power glyphosate (40% as its isopropylamine salt) + oxyfluorfen (2.5%) FirstShot SG thifensulfuron (25%) + tribenuron (25%) ForeFront R&P aminopyralid (0.33 lb or 3.4%) + 2,4-D (2.67 lbs or 27.2%) Four Power Plus 2,4-D (4 lbs or 40%) + dicamba (0.5 lb or 5%) Freedom alachlor (2.67 lbs or 31.7%) + trifluralin (0.33 lb or 3.9%) FreeHand dimethenamid-P (0.75%) + pendimethalin (1%) Freestyle thifensulfuron + tribenuron + chlorimuron-ethyl Frontrow Part A: cloransulam-methyl (0.84 lb or 84%) + Part B: flumetsulam (0.8 lb or 80%) Fuego Part A: dicamba (4 lbs) + Part B: triasulfuron (75%) FulTime acetochlor (2.4 lbs or 24.8%) + atrazine (1.6 lbs or 16.6%- atrazine + related triazines) Fusion fenoxaprop-P-ethyl (0.56 lb or 6.76%) + fluazifop-P-butyl (2 lbs or 24.15%) Galaxy bentazon (3 lbs or 33.4%) + acifluorfen (0.67 lb or 6.8%) Galigan Slapshot glyphosate (1 lb acid or 1.33 lbs or 14.2% as its isopropylamine salt) + oxyfluorfen (2 lbs or 21.1%) Gangster Part V: flumioxazin (51%) + Part FR: cloransulam-methyl (84%) GlyKamba glyphosate (1.6 lbs acid or 2.2 lbs or 23.3% as its isopropylamine salt) + dicamba (0.4 lb or 4.1%) GlyMix MT glyphosate (3 lbs) + 2,4-D (0.32 lb) G-Max Lite dimethenamid-P (2.25 lbs or 24.1%) + atrazine (2.75 lbs or 29.5%) Grazon P+D picloram (0.54 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) GroundClear Complete Vegetation glyphosate (5%) + imazapyr (0.08%) Killer Concentrate

174

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] GroundClear Complete Vegetation glyphosate (1%) + imazapyr (0.016%) Killer Ready-to-use Guardsman dimethenamid (2.33 lbs or 24.8%) + atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.4%) Guardsman Max dimethenamid-P (1.7 lbs or 18.2%) + atrazine (3.3 lbs or 35.3%) Gunslinger picloram (0.54 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) Gunslinger IVM picloram (0.54 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) Halex GT s-metolachlor (2.09 lbs or 20.5%) + glyphosate (2.09 lbs or 20.5%) + mesotrione (0.209 lb or 2.05%) Harmony Extra thifensulfuron (50%) + tribenuron (25%) Harness Xtra acetochlor (4.3 lbs or 46.3%) + atrazine (1.7 lbs or 18.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Harness Xtra 5.6L acetochlor (3.1 lbs or 33.4%) + atrazine (2.5 lbs or 26.9%- atrazine + related triazines) HiredHand P+D picloram (0.54 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) Horizon 2000 fenoxaprop-P-ethyl (0.56 lb or 6.76%) + fluazifop-P-butyl (2 lbs or 24.15%) Hornet clopyralid (62,5%) + flumetsulam (23.1%) Horsepower MCPA (3.8 lbs or 40%) + triclopyr (0.38 lb or 4%) + dicamba (0.38 lb or 4%) Huskie pyrasulfatole + bromoxynil Imperium acetochlor (1.4 lbs or 16.9%) + EPTC (5.6 lbs or 67.8%) Instigate rimsulfuron + chlorimuron-ethyl + mesotrione Integrity powered by Kixor saflufenacil (0.57 lbs ai/gal or 6.24%) + dimethenamid-P (5 lbs ai/gal or 55.04%) Journey glyphosate (1.5 lbs) + imazapic (0.75 lb or 8.13%) KambaMaster dicamba (1 lb) + 2,4-D (2.87 lbs) Kansel Plus oxadiazon (2%) + pendimethalin (1.25%) Keystone acetochlor (3 lbs or 32.6%) + atrazine (2.25 lbs or 24.4%- atrazine + related triazines) Keystone LA acetochlor (4 lbs or 43.4%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Krovar I DF bromacil (40%) + diuron (40%) Laddok S-12 bentazon (2.5 lbs or 27%) + atrazine (2.5 lbs or 25%- atrazine + related triazines) Landmark MP or XP chlorsulfuron (25%) + sulfometuron (50%) Landmark II MP chlorsulfuron (18.75%) + sulfometuron (56.25%) Landmaster glyphosate (0.9 lbs acid / 1.2 lbs or 12.9% as its isopropylamine salt) + 2,4-D (1.5 lbs acid / 1.9 lbs or 20.6% as its isopropylamine salt) Landmaster II glyphosate (0.9 lbs acid/ 1.2 lbs or 13.3% as its isopropylamine salt) + 2,4-D (0.8 lb acid / 1 lb or 11.1% as its isopropylamine salt) Landmaster BW glyphosate (0.9 lbs acid / 1.2 lbs or 12.9% as its

175

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] isopropylamine salt) + 2,4-D (1.5 lbs acid / 1.9 lbs or 20.6% as its isopropylamine salt) Lariat alachlor (2.5 lbs or 27.2%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Layby Pro linuron (2 lbs or 20.3%) + diuron (2 lbs or 20%) Leadoff dimethenamid (2.33 lbs or 24.8%) + atrazine (2.67 lbs or 28.4%- atrazine + related triazines) Lexar s-metolachlor (1.74 lbs or 19%) + atrazine (1.74 lbs or 19%- atrazine + related triazines) + mesotrione (0.224 lbs or 2.44%) Liberator 600 bromacil (0.98%) + 2,4-D (1.09%) Liberty ATZ atrazine (3.3 lbs- atrazine + related triazines) + glufosinate (1 lb) Lightning imazapyr (17.5%) + imazethapyr (52.5%) Lineage imazapyr (63.2%) + metsulfuron (9.5%) Lineage HWC imazapyr (37.5%) + sulfometuron (28.1%) + metsulfuron (7.5%) Lineage Prep imazapyr (54.5%) + sulfometuron (15.3%) + metsulfuron (4.1%) Lumax s-metolachlor (2.68 lbs or 29.4%) + atrazine (1 lb or 11%- atrazine + related triazines) + mesotrione (0.268 lbs or 2.94%) Maestro D bromoxynil (2 lbs or 20.69%) + 2,4-D (1.9 lbs or 20.69%) Maestro MA bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Marksman atrazine (2.1 lbs or 22.23%) + dicamba (1.1 lbs or 11.45%) Mec Amine-D Turf Herbicide 2,4-D (2.44 lbs or 25.38%) + mecoprop-p (0.65 lb or 6.75%) + dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.3%) Medal II AT s-metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) + atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%) Milestone VM Plus aminopyralid (0.1 lb or 1.15%) + triclopyr (1 lb or 11.63%) Millennium Ultra 2 clopyralid (0.183 lb or 1.93%) + dicamba (0.375 lb or 3.86%) + 2,4-D (3 lbs or 31%) Misty 2 Plus 2 bromacil (2%) + diuron (2%) Momentum Premium triclopyr (0.27 lb) + clopyralid (0.13 lb) r + 2,4-D (2.67 lbs) Momentum FX triclopyr (0.229 lb) + fluroxypyr (0.571 lb) + 2,4-D (2.286 lbs) Momentum FX2 triclopyr (0.263 lb or 2.77%) + fluroxypyr (0.278 lb or 2.92%) + 2,4-D (2.254 lbs or 23.7%) Momentum Force Weed and Feed 2,4-D (0.955%) + mecoprop-P (0.319%) + dicamba (0.08%) Moxy+Atrazine bromoxynil (1 lb) + atrazine (2 lbs) NorthStar dicamba (39.9%) + primisulfuron (7.5%) Oasis 2,4-D (58.2% as its 2-ethylhexyl ester) + imazapic (19.4%) OH2 (Ornamental Herbicide) oxyfluorfen (2%) + pendimethalin (1%) Olympus Flex propoxycarbazone-sodium (6.75%) + mesosulfuron-methyl (4.5%) OneStep imazapyr (0.637 lb or 6.82%) + glyphosate (1.531 lbs or

176

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] 16.4%) One-Step Non-Selective Weed bromacil (0.98%) + 2,4-D (1.09%) Killer Opensight aminopyralid (0.525 lb ae or 52.5%) + metsulfuron (0.0945 lb or 9.45%) Onetime quinclorac (1.5 lbs ae/gal or 15.95%) + mecoprop (0.75 lb ae/gal or 7.98%) + dicamba (0.2 lb ae/gal or 2.13%) OpTill dicamba (1 lb) + dimethenamid (5 lbs) OpTill powered by Kixor saflufenacil (0.178 lbs ai/gal or 17.8%) + imazethapyr (0.502 lbs ai/gal or 50.2%) Ornamental Herbicide II oxyfluorfen (2%) + pendimethalin (1%) Oustar hexazinone (63.2%) + sulfometuron (11.8%) Oust Extra metsulfuron (15%) + sulfometuron (56.25%) Outlaw dicamba (1.09 lbs or 12.18%) + 2,4-D (1.45 lbs or 16.1%) Overdrive dicamba (0.5 lb or 50%) + diflufenzopyr (0.2 lb or 20%) Overtime ATZ acetochlor (32.6%) + atrazine (24.4%) Overtime ATZ Lite acetochlor (43.4%) + atrazine (16.3%) Parallel Plus metolachlor (2.7 lbs or 28.9%) + atrazine (2.8 lbs or 30.5%- atrazine + related triazines) PastureGard triclopyr (1.5 lbs or 17.97%) + fluroxypyr (0.5 lb or 5.99%) PastureMaster 2,4-D (1.9 lbs) + dicamba (1 lb) Pasture MD 2,4-D (17.9% as its diethylamine salt) + dicamba (6.2% as its dimethylamine salt) + metsulfuron (30%) Patron 170 2,4-D (1.71 lbs or 21.3%) + dichlorprop-p (0.87 lb or 10.9%) Pathway picloram (3%) + 2,4-D (11.2%) PD 2 picloram (0.5 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) + dicamba (0.5 lb or 5.7%) Perdition Granular bromacil (4%) + diuron (2%) Phenaban 801 2,4-D (3.06 lbs) + dicamba (0.4 lb) Phenomec 2,4-D (1 lb) + mecoprop (2 lb) Phos Free Weed & Feed 5M 2,4-D (0.64%) + mecoprop-p (0.16%) + dicamba (0.03%) Power Zone carfentrazone (0.04 lb or 0.48%) + dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.69%) + mecoprop-p (0.44 lb or 5.39%) + MCPA (2.21 lbs or 26.92%) Pramitol 5 PS prometon (5%) + simazine (0.76%) + sodium chlorate (39.8%) + sodium metaborate (40%) PrePair napropamide (4%) + oxadiazon (2%) Prequel rimsulfuron (15%) + isoxaflutole (30%) Preen Brush Weed Killer 2,4-D (0.87 lb or 10.05%) + mecoprop-p (0.21 lb or 2.42%) Concentrate + dicamba (0.1 lb or 1.11%) Preen Brush Weed Killer Ready-to- 2,4-D (0.03 lb or 0.33%) + mecoprop-p (0.02 lb or 0.18%) use + dicamba (0.1 lb or 0.06%) Prefix s-metolachlor (4.34 lb or 46.4%) + fomesafen (0.95 lb or 9.7%)

177

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Preview chlorimuron (6.5%)+ metribuzin (68.5%) Priority carfentrazone-ethyl (50%)+ halosulfuron-methyl (12.5%) Prompt atrazine (17.5%) + bentazon (19.1% as its sodium salt) Prompt 5L atrazine (2.5 lbs or 25%) + bentazon (2.5 lbs or 27% as its sodium salt) Progress phenmedipham (0.6 lb or 7% + desmedipham (0.6 lb or 7%) + ethofumesate (0.6 lb or 7%) Prosecutor Swift-Acting Herbicide glyphosate (0.66 lb acid) + dicamba (0.03 lb) Pursuit Plus imazethapyr (0.2 lb or 2.24%) + pendimethalin (2.7 lbs or 30.24%) Q4 quinclorac (0.5 lb or 5.69%) + sulfentrazone (0.06 lb or 0.69%) + 2,4-D (0.88 lb or 9.98%) + dicamba (0.1 lb or 1.15%) QuikPro diquat (0.03 lb or 2.9% as it dibromide salt) + glyphosate (1 lb or 73.3% as its ammonium salt) Radius flufenacet (3.57 lbs or 35.7%) + isoxaflutole (0.43 lbs or 4.29%) Rage D-Tech carfentrazone (0.13 lb or 1.44%) + 2,4-D (3.93 lbs) Ramrod/Atrazine propachlor (3 lbs) + atrazine (1 lb) Range Star dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) + 2,4-D (2.87 lbs or 29.6%) Rave triasulfuron (8.8%) + dicamba (55%) Razor Burn diquat (0.11 lb active diquat or 0.21 lb or 2.1% as its dibromide salt) + glyphosate (3 lbs or 30.4% acid or 4 lbs or 41% as its isopropylamine salt) Ready Master ATZ atrazine (2 lbs or 20.9%) + glyphosate (1.5 lbs acid or 2 lbs or 20.9% as its isopropylamine salt) Recoil glyphosate (1.58 lbs acid or 2.13 lbs or 23.03% as its isopropylamine salt) + 2,4-D (1.07 lbs or 11.38%) Redeem R&P clopyralid (0.75 lb or 7.9%) + triclopyr (2.25 lbs or 23.7%) Refute clopyralid (0.75 lb or 7.9%) + triclopyr (2.25 lbs or 23.7%) Regal O-O oxadiazon (1%) + oxyfluorfen (2%) RegalStar G or II oxadiazon (1%) + prodiamine (0.2%) Require Q rimsulfuron (6.25%) + dicamba (48.12% or 52.94% as sodium salt of dicamba) + isoxadifen-ethyl Resolve SG dicamba (56.25% or 61.9% as its sodium salt) + imazethapyr (18.7%) Resolve Q rimsulfuron (18.4%) + thifensulfuron (4.0%) + isoxadifen- ethyl Rezult Part B: bentazon (5 lbs or 53%) Part G: sethoxydim (1 lb or 13%) Rhino bromoxynil (2.5 lbs) + MCPA (1.9 lbs) Rifle D 2,4-D (2.87 lbs or 29.6%) + dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) Rifle Plus atrazine (2.1 lbs or 22.23%) + dicamba (1.1 lbs or 11.45%) Rimfire propoxycarbazone-sodium (8.14%) + mesosulfuron-methyl (2.03%)

178

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Roundup Poison Ivy and Tough glyphosate (18%) + triclopyr (2%) Brush Killer Plus Concentrate Rout oryzalin (1%) + oxyfluorfen (2%) RT Master glyphosate (3 lbs) + 2,4-D (0.32 lb) Sahara DG diuron (62.22%) + imazapyr (7.78%) Salute metribuzin (14%) + trifluralin (28%) Schultz Lawn Weed Killer 2,4-D (0.54 lb or 6.3%) + mecoprop-p (0.129 lb or 1.51%) Concentrate + dicamba (0.059 lb or 0.69%) Schultz Lawn Weed Killer Ready- 2,4-D (0.493%) + mecoprop-p (0.119%) + dicamba to-use (0.055%) Scorpion III 2,4-D (50%) + clopyralid (25%) + flumetsulam (9.3%) Season-Long MAX Weed and oxyfluorfen (1.5%) + glyphosate (8%) + diquat (0.1%) Grass Killer plus Preventer Concentrate Season-Long MAX Weed and oxyfluorfen (0.25%) + glyphosate (0.25%) Grass Killer plus Preventer Ready- to-use Sequence s-metolachlor (3 lbs or 29%) + glyphosate (2.25 lbs or 21.8%) SFM + MSM E-Pro sulfometuron (56.25%) + metsulfuron (15%) Shotgun atrazine (2.25 lbs or 24.74%- atrazine + related triazines) + 2,4-D (1 lb of 2,4-D or 16.58% as its 2-ethylhexyl ester) Showcase trifluralin (2%) + isoxaben (0.25%) + oxyfluorfen (0.25%) Simazat 4L atrazine ( 2 lbs or 21.42%- atrazine + related triazines) + simazine (2 lbs or 21.41%) Simazat 90DF atrazine (45.01%- atrazine + related triazines) + simazine (45%) Snapshot 80DF isoxaben (20%) + oryzalin (60%) Snapshot 2.5TG isoxaben (0.5%) + trifluralin (2%) Sonic cloransulam (7.9%) + sulfentrazone (62.1%) Southern Weed Killer for Lawns 2,4-D (0.311% as its dimethylamine salt) + mecoprop-p Concentrate or Ready-to-spray (0.075% as its dimethylamine salt) + dicamba (0.034% as its dimethylamine salt) Southern Weed Killer for Lawns 2,4-D (6.3%) + mecoprop-p (1.51%) + dicamba (0.69%) Concentrate or Ready-to-use Speed Zone carfentrazone (0.05 lb or 0.62%) + dicamba (0.14 lb or 1.71%) + mecoprop (0.48 lb or 5.88%) + 2,4-D (1.53 lbs or 18.95%) Speed Zone Southern carfentrazone (0.04 lb or 0.54%) + dicamba (0.05 lb or 0.67%) + mecoprop (0.2 lb or 2.66%) + 2,4-D (0.52 lbs or 6.96%) Spike Treflan 6G tebuthiuron (2%) + trifluralin (4%) Sprakil SK-13 Granular Weed Killer tebuthiuron (1%) + diuron (3%) Sprakil SK-26 Granular Weed Killer tebuthiuron (2%) + diuron (6%) Spirit primisulfuron (42.8%) + prosulfuron (14.2%)

179

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Squadron imazaquin (0.33 lb or 3.84% as its monoammonium salt) + pendimethalin (2 lbs or 21.85%)) Stalwart Xtra metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) + atrazine (3.1 lbs or 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) Stampede CM MCPA (0.85 lbs acid or 1.4 lbs or 15% as its isooctyl ester) + propanil (3 lbs or 33%) Staple Plus pyrithiobac (1.7%) + glyphosate (40.2% as its isopropylamine salt) Starane NXT fluroxypyr (0.583 lb or 6.4%) + bromoxynil octanoate (2.33 lbs or 25.62%) Starane NXTcp Part A: fluroxypyr (1.5 lbs or 18.2%) + Part B: bromoxynil octanoate (2 lbs or 22.9%) Starane + Esteron fluroxypyr (0.75 lb) + 2,4-D (3 lbs) Starane + MCPA fluroxypyr (0.71 lb) + MCPA (2.84 lbs) Starane + Saber fluroxypyr (0.5 lb or 5.5%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 22%) Starane + Salvo fluroxypyr (0.75 lb or 8.4%) + 2,4-D (3 lbs or 33.6%) Starane + Sword fluroxypyr (0.71 lb or 8.3%) + MCPA (2.84 lbs or 33.3%) Status dicamba (40%) + diflufenzopyr (16%) + plus isoxadifen- ethyl safener Steadfast nicosulfuron (50%) + rimsulfuron (25%) Steadfast Q nicosulfuron (25.2%) + rimsulfuron (12.5%) + isoxadifen- ethyl Steadfast ATZ atrazine (85.3%) + nicosulfuron (2.7%) + rimsulfuron (1.3%) Steel imazaquin (1.9%) + imazethapyr (1.9%) + pendimethalin (25.4%) Stellar flumiclorac (7.6%) + lactofen (26.6%) Sterling Plus atrazine (2.1 lbs or 22.23%) + dicamba (1.1 lbs or 11.45%) Stout nicosulfuron (67.5%) + thifensulfuron (5%) Strategy clomazone (0.5 lb or 5.6%) + ethalfluralin (1.6 lbs or 18.2%) Strike 3 2,4-D (2.44 lbs or 25.38%)+ dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.3%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lb or 6.75%) Strike 3 Ultra 2,4-D (2.9 lbs or 30%) + clopyralid (0.15 lb or 1.5%) + dichlorprop-p (0.75 or 7.8%) Strike 3 Ultra 2 2,4-D (3.2 lbs or 32.64%) + fluroxypyr (0.4 lb or 4.08%) + dichlorprop-p (0.8 lb or 8.16%) Stronghold imazapyr (0.01 lb or 0.14%) + imazethapyr (0.35 lb or 3.86%) + mefluidide (1.46 lbs or 16.02%) SuperBrush Killer 2,4-D (1.89 lbs or 21.54%) + dichlorprop-p (0.94 lb or 10.77%) + dicamba (0.47 lb or 5.38%) Super Trimec 2,4-D (1.89 lbs or 21.54%) + dicamba (0.47 lb or 5.38%) + 2,4-DP-p (0.94 lbs or 10.77%) Suprend prometryn (79.3%) + trifloxysulfuron (0.7%) Surefire paraquat (2 lbs) + diuron (1 lb)

180

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] SureStart acetochlor (3.75 lbs or 41.67%) + flumetsulam (0.12 lb or 1.3%) + clopyralid (0.29 lb or 3.24%) Surge 2,4-D (1.4 lbs or 15.66%), mecoprop-p (0.5 lb or 5.62%), dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.52%), sulfentrazone (0.06 lb or 0.67%) Surmount picloram (0.67 lb acid or 1.19 lb or 13.24% as its triisopropanolamine salt) + fluroxypyr (0.67 lb acid or 0.96 lb or 10.64% as its 1-methylheptyl ester) Synchrony STS DF chlorimuron (18.7%) + thifensulfuron (6.3%) Synchrony XP chlorimuron (21.5%) + thifensulfuron (6.9%) STS Broadleaf chlorimuron (10%) + thifensulfuron (30%) Storm bentazon (2.67 lb or 29.2% as its sodium salt) + acifluorfen (1.33 lbs or 13.4% as its sodium salt) Tailspin fluroxypyr (0.33 lb or 3.87%) + triclopyr (1 lb or 11.62%) Team 2G benefin (1.33%) + trifluralin (0.67%) Team Pro benefin (0.43%) + trifluralin (0.43%) + fertilizer Telone C-15 chloropicrin (14.8%) + 1,3-dichloropropene (82.9%) Telone C-17 chloropicrin (1.75 lbs or 16.5%) + 1,3-dichloropropene (8.6 lbs or 81.2%) Telone C-35 chloropicrin (3.89 lbs or 34.7%) + 1,3-dichloropropene (7.1 lbs or 63.4%) Thunder Master glyphosate (2 lbs or 22% as its isopropylamine salt) + imazethapyr (0.17 lb or 1.8%) Tiller fenoxaprop (0.44 lb) + MCPA (1.75 lb) + 2,4-D (0.58 lb) TNT Broadleaf thifensulfuron (50%) + tribenuron (25%) Top gun 2,4-D (71.2%) + metribuzin (18.8%) Topsite 2G diuron (2%) + imazapyr (0.5%) Tordon 101 Mixture picloram (0.54 lb or 5.7%) + 2,4-D (2 lbs or 21.2%) Tordon RTU picloram (3%) + 2,4-D (11.2%) Total bromacil (2%) + diuron (2%) + sodium chlorate (40%) + sodium metaborate (40%) Three-way Ester II Selective MCPA (3 lbs) + triclopyr (0.3 lb) + dicamba (0.3 lb) Throttle XP chlorsulfuron (9%) + sulfometuron (18%) + sulfentrazone (48%) Traverse rimsulfuron + chlorimuron-ethyl Triamine mecoprop-p (0.62 lb or 6.8%) + 2,4-D (1.24 lbs or 13.6%) + dichlorprop-p (0.62 lb or 6.8%) Triamine Jet Spray Spot Weed mecoprop-p (0.011 lb or 0.135%) + 2,4-D (0.023 lbs or Killer 0.27%) + dichlorprop-p (0.011 lb or 0.135%) Triamine II mecoprop-p (0.63 lb or 7%) + MCPA (1.27 lbs or 14%) + dichlorprop-p (0.63 lb or 7%) Triangle metolachlor (3.2 lbs or 34.5%) + atrazine (2.7 lbs or 29.1%- atrazine + related triazines) Tri-Ester MCPP (24.4% as its isooctyl ester) + 2,4-D (24% as its 2- ethylhexyl ester) + 2,4-DP (33.5% as its isooctyl ester)

181

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Tri-Ester TM II MCPP (25% as its 2-ethylhexyl ester) + MCPA (25.6% as its 2-ethylhexyl ester) + 2,4-DP (24.2% as its 2-ethylhexyll ester) Trimec 899 dicamba (0.21 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lb) + 2,4-D (2.38 lbs) Trimec 959 dicamba (0.29 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lb) + 2,4-D (2.97 lbs) Trimec 992 or Trimec Turf dicamba (0.21 lb or 2.3%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lbs or Herbicide (891) 6.75%) + 2,4-D (2.38 lbs or 25.38%) Trimec Bentgrass Formula dicamba (0.18 lb or 2.1%) + mecoprop-p (0.71 lbs or 8.2%) + 2,4-D (0.44 lbs or 5.08%) Trimec Classic dicamba (0.21 lb or 2.29%) + mecoprop-p (0.53 lb or 5.73%) + 2,4-D (1.98 lbs or 21.54%) Trimec DMB 32 S.I. dicamba (4.3%) + mecoprop-p (10.2%) + 2,4-D (45.6%) Trimec Encore Broadleaf MCPA (2.97 lb or 31.59%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lb or 6.74%) + dicamba (0.29 lbs or 3.16%) Trimec LAF-637 dicamba (0.093 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.22 lb) + 2,4-D (0.75 lb) Trimec Lawn Weed Killer dicamba (0.13 lb or 1.39%) + mecoprop-p (0.55 lbs or 5.75%) + 2,4-D (3.28 lbs or 34.12%) Trimec Plus dicamba (0.12 lb or 1.21%) + mecoprop-p (0.24 lb or 2.42%) + 2,4-D (0.48 lb or 4.84%) + MSMA (1.8 lbs or 18%) Trimec Southern Broadleaf Weed dicamba (0.3 lb or 3.2%) + mecoprop-p (1.32 lbs or Killer 14.35%) + 2,4-D (1.44 lbs or 15.57%) Trimec (Super) 2,4-D (1.89 lbs or 21.54%)+ dicamba (0.47 lb or 5.38%) + 2,4-DP-p (0.94 lb or 10.77%) Trimec Turf dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.33%) + mecoprop (1.3 lbs or 13.5%) + 2,4-D (2.44 lbs or 25.38%) Triple Strike Grass Weed Root diquat (2.3% as its dibromide salt) + fluazifop-p-butyl Killer2 (0.75%) + dicamba (0.51% as its dimethylamine salt) Triple Threat Selective Herbicide 2,4-D (0.33 lb or 3.8%) + mecoprop (0.33 lb or 3.8%) + dichlorprop (0.33 lb or 3.8%) Triplet Hi-D 2,4-D (3.3 lb or 34.12%) + mecoprop-p (0.56 lbs or 5.75%) + dicamba (0.13 lb or 1.39%) Triplet Low Odor 2,4-D (2.38 lb or 25.38%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lbs or 6.75%) + dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.30%) Triplet Selective 2,4-D (2.38 lb or 25.38%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lbs or 6.75%) + dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.3%) Triplet Sensitive 2,4-D (0.82 lb or 9.02%) + mecoprop-p (1.43 lbs or 15.63%) + dicamba (0.35 lb or 3.84%) Triplet SF 2,4-D (2.38 lb or 25.38%) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lbs or 6.75%) + dicamba (0.22 lb or 2.30%) Tri-Scept Imazaquin (4.72% as its monoammonium salt) + trifluralin (28.6%) Trizmet II metolachlor (2.4 lbs or 26.1%) + atrazine (3.1 lbs or

182

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] 33.7%- atrazine + related triazines) TruPower clopyralid (0.37 or 3.93%) + dicamba (0.37 lb or 3.93%) + MCPA (3.75 lbs or 39.3%) TruPower II 2,4-D (2.45 lbs or 26%) + dicamba (0.31 lb or 3.24%) + mecoprop-p (0.61 lb or 6.5%) Turbo metolachlor (6.55 lbs or 70%) + metribuzin (1.45 lbs or 15%) Turf Weed & Brush 2,4-D (1.71 lbs or 21.3%) + dichlorprop-p (0.87lb or 10.9%) Turflon D 2,4-D (2 lbs) + triclopyr (1 lb) Turflon II Amine 2,4-D (2.78 lbs or 28.4%) + triclopyr (1.07 lbs or 10.9%) Typhoon fluazifop-p-butyl (5.3%) + fomesafen (11% as its sodium salt) Ureabor sodium metaborate (66.5%) + sodium chlorate (30%) + bromacil (1.5%) Vegemac 2,4-D (1%) + premeton (3.6%) Valor XLT flumioxazin (30%) + chlorimuron (10.3%) Velpar Alfamax hexazinone (35.3%) + diuron (42.4%) Velpar Alfamax Gold hexazinone (23.1%) + diuron (55.4%) Velpar K-4 Max hexazinone (17.3%) + diuron (61.5%) Vendetta bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Vengeance 2,4-D (2.5 lbs) + dicamba (1.25 lbs) Vengeance Plus MCPA (3.72 lbs or 38.27%) + triclopyr (0.75 lb or 7.65%) + dichlorprop-p (0.75 lb or 7.65%) Vessel dicamba (0.21 lb) + mecoprop-p (0.63 lb) + 2,4-D (2.38 lbs) Vigoro Ultra Turf Lawn Weed 2,4-D (1.37%) + mecoprop-p (0.31%) + dicamba (0.13%) Control Vigoro Ultra Turf Weed and Feed 2,4-D (0.26 lb or 2.7%) + mecoprop-p (0.13 lb or 1.35%) + dichlorprop-p (0.13 lb or 1.35%) Volley ATZ acetochlor (3 lbs or 32.6%) + atrazine (2.25 lbs or 24.4%- atrazine + related triazines) Volley ATZ Lite acetochlor (4 lbs or 43.4%) + atrazine (1.5 lbs or 16.3%- atrazine + related triazines) Weed and Grass Killer diquat (0.18% as its dibromide salt) + fluazifop-p-butyl (0.06%) + dicamba (0.04% as its dimethylamine salt) Weed-B-Gon MAX plus Crabgrass 2,4-D (0.12%) + quinclorac (10%) + MCPP (0.22%) + Control Ready-to-use dicamba (0.05%) Weed-B-Gon MAX Weed Killer for 2,4-D (0.12%) + MCPP (0.22%) + dicamba (0.05%) Lawns Ready-to-use Weed-B-Gon MAX Weed Killer for triclopyr (1.56%) + MCPA (13.72%) + dicamba (1.35%) Lawns Ready-spray or Concentrate Weed-B-Gon for Southern Lawns 2,4-D (3.05%) + MCPP (5.3%) + dicamba (1.3%) Ready-spray or Concentrate

183

Trade Name Common Name of Individual Herbicides [percent ai (liquid or dry) or lbs ai/gal (liquid) or lb ai/ lb product (dry) represented in parentheses] Weed Blast bromacil (4%) + diuron (4%) Weed Blast 4G bromacil (2%) + diuron (2%) Weed & Feed 5M 2,4-D (0.64%) + mecoprop-p (0.16%) + dicamba (0.03%) Weed & Feed 15M 2,4-D (1.108% as its ethylhexyl ester) + mecoprop-p (0.167%) + dicamba (0.71%) Weed Free 75 trifluralin (3%) + oxyfluorfen (2%) Weedking 2,4-D (2.87 lbs) + dicamba (1 lb) Weedmaster dicamba (1 lb or 10.3%) + 2,4-D (2.87 lbs or 29.6%) Weed Out 2,4-D (1.09%) + bromacil (0.98%) Weed Stop 2X Weed Killer for 2,4-D (0.54 lb or 6.31%) + mecoprop-p (0.19 lb or 2.25%) Lawns Concentrate + dicamba (0.05 lb or 0.59%) + sulfentrazone (0.02 lb or 0.18%) Weed Stop 2X Weed Killer for 2,4-D (0.285%) + mecoprop-p (0.102%) + dicamba Lawns Ready-to-use (0.027%) + sulfentrazone (0.008%) Westar hexazinone (68.6%) + sulfometuron (6.5%) WideMatch clopyralid (0.75 lb or 8.6%) + fluroxypyr (0.75 lb or 8.6%) WideMatch M Part S: fluroxypyr (1.5 lbs or 18.2%) + Part CM: clopyralid (0.42 lb or 5%) + MCPA (2.35 lbs or 27.8%) Wildcard Xtra bromoxynil (2 lbs or 21.8%) + MCPA (2 lbs or 21.8%) Wil-Power MCPA (3.72 lbs or 38.27%)+ triclopyr (0.75 lb or 7.65%) + dichlorprop-p (0.75 lb or 7.65%) XL 2G benefin (1%) + oryzalin (1%) Yukon dicamba (55% as its sodium salt) + halosulfuron (12.5%)

184 EXPERIMENTAL HERBICIDES

Common Name (Proposed), Experimental Number Trade Name, Company Name

AC-900001 ...... picolinafen/Pico, BASF BAS 620 ...... tepraloxydim/Aramo, Equinox, Honest, BASF BAY MKH 6561 ...... propoxycarbazone/Attribute, Olympus, Bayer BK-800 ...... Uniroyal CGA-277476 ...... oxasulfuron/Dynam, Syngenta F6875……………………………………….sulfentrazone + prodiamine, FMC KIH-485 ...... Kumiai V-3153 ...... flufenapyr, Valent F4113 ...... carfentrazone + glyphosate, FMC

PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS

Common Name Trade Name

AVG ...... Retain 6-benzyl adenine ...... BAP-10 chlorflurecol ...... Maintain chlormequat chloride ...... Cycocel clofencet ...... Detasselor copper ethylenediamine ...... Inferno diphenylamine ...... diminozide ...... B-nine ethephon ...... Florel forchlorfenuron ...... GA 4 7/G BA ...... Promalin, Rite Size GABA ...... Auxigro MBTA ...... Ecolyst mepiquat chloride ...... Mepex, Mepex Gin Out, Pix paclobutrazol ...... Bonzi, Clipper, Trimmet prohexadione ...... Apogee sodium nitrophenolate ...... Atonik trinexapac ...... Palisade, Primo uniconazole………… ...... Prunit, Sumagic

185 COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF HERBICIDE MODIFIERS

Common Name Chemical Name benoxacor ...... (RS)-4-dichloroacetyl-3,4-dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazine cloquintocet ...... (5-chloroquinolin-8-yloxy)acetic acid cyometrinil ...... (Z)--[(cyanomethoxy)imino]benzeneacetonitrile dichlormid ...... 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide dicyclonon ...... 1-(dichloroacetyl)hexahydro-3,3,8a-trimethylpyrrolo[1,2- α]pyrimidin-6(2H)-one dietholate ...... O,O-diethyl O-phenyl phosphorothioate fenchlorazole ...... 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-5-(trichloromethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-3- carboxylic acid fenclorim ...... 4,6-dichloro-2-phenylpyrimidine flurazole ...... phenylmethyl-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-5-thiazolecarboxylate fluxofenim ...... 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trifluoroethanone O-(1,3-dioxolan-2- ylmethyl)oxime furilazole ...... 3-(dichloroacetyl)-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine isoxadifen ...... 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid mefenpyr ...... 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5- dicarboxylic acid mephenate ...... 4-chlorophenyl methylcarbamate naphthalic anhydride ...... 1H,3H-naphtho[1,8-cd]-pyran-1,3-dione oxabetrinil ...... α-[(1,3-dioxolan-2-yl)methoxyimino]benzeneacetonitrile

Disclaimer Names for chemicals in these lists are correct to the best of the Editor’s ability and current information available at the time of printing. This information is provided as a courtesy to our members and readers of the Proceedings. Compounds may be added or removed from the market at any time. All persons using this information for official or other purposes should always verify the validity of the product information contained in these lists.

186 AUTHOR’S INDEX

Drexler, B...... 51 A Drinkwater, L...... 3 Adler, L...... 14 E Agnew, M...... 72 Ahrens, J...... 97 Elmore, M...... 7, 18, 66 Alea, S...... 78 Evans, G...... 43, 46 Altland, J...... 99 Aper, J...... 47 F Armel, G...... 2, 12, 18, 22, 82, 104 Flanagan, P...... 104 Arsenovic, M...... 48 Askew, S...... 9, 23, 62, 63, 73, 80 G Autio, W...... 19 Gallagher, R...... 26 Averill, K...... 21 Gallandt, E...... 28, 44 B Ganske, D...... 92 Ghantous, K...... 19 Backman, P...... 50 Goddard, M...... 23, 62, 63, 73 Barbercheck, M...... 10, 60 Gover, A...... 21, 34, 36, 38, 106 Barolli, S...... 96 Baron, J...... 48, 95 H Barsky, J...... 37 Hagood, S...... 4 Bates, R...... 26 Hahn, R...... 91 Beeler, J...... 104 Halcomb, M...... 104 Bellinder, R...... 43, 46 Hart, S...... 16, 68, 74, 78 Bittner, T...... 32 Haygood, B...... 89 Bloomberg, J...... 90 Hivner, K...... 67 Borger, J...... 67 Hora, J...... 90 Bravo, M...... 15, 33, 35, 85 Hudson, W...... 77 Breeden, G...... 7, 18, 66, 82 Hulting, A...... 27 Brosnan, J...... 2, 7, 18, 66, 82 Brunson, A...... 51 I Bulcke, R...... 47 Ikley, J...... 93 C J Cannan, T...... 6 James, J...... 72 Caruso, F...... 14, 56 Jemison, J...... 87 Cascino, J...... 56 Jeranyama, P...... 19 Chandran, R...... 4 Jester, J...... 9 Christoffoleti, P...... 42 Johnson, J...... 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 106 Colquhoun, J...... 56 Johnson, Q...... 11 Conaway, S...... 50 Cummins, J...... 12 K Curran, W...... 26, 27, 30, 61, 84, 86, 94 Kalmowitz, K...... 5, 6 Cutulle, M...... 24 Klingeman, W...... 104 D Koepke, R...... 18 Koepke-Hill, B...... 104 D'Appollonio, J...... 13 Kunkel, D...... 48 De Marez, T...... 47 Derr, J...... 24, 25, 98 L Deyton, D...... 12 Lamore, D...... 90 DiTommaso, A...... 3, 32, 55 Lingenfelter, D...... 86, 94

187 Little, D...... 101 Reis, A...... 7 Little, N...... 55 Richard, D...... 99 Lloyd, K...... 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 106 Richtmyer III, R...... 91 Lockwood, D...... 22 Ritter, R...... 93 Loughner, D...... 67 Rorem, K...... 102 Lurvey, E...... 49, 95 Ryan, M...... 29, 61 Lycan, D...... 72 S M Sams, C...... 12 Mack, B...... 9 Sandler, H...... 14, 19, 56 Mahoney, M...... 41, 90 Sandy, D...... 10, 30 Majek, B...... 40, 45 Saunders, D...... 92 Mansue, C...... 16, 68, 74, 78 Scott, B...... 1, 11, 42 Martinez, A...... 77 Seidel, R...... 29 McCullough, P...... 68, 77 Sellman, J...... 106 McDonald, S...... 64, 69, 71, 76, 80, 83 Sellmer, J...... 31, 34, 36, 38, 39 McNulty, B...... 9, 63 Senesac, A...... 100 Mechant, E...... 47 Sheppard, G...... 22 Mervosh, T...... 37, 97 Simkins, G...... 90 Mika, J...... 56 Smith, R...... 10, 29, 30, 60 Milbrath, L...... 32, 55 Spak, D...... 65, 103 Miller, J...... 33, 85 Spangler, A...... 50 Miller, K...... 5 Stachowski, P...... 91 Mirsky, S...... 27, 29, 61 Stalter, R...... 51 Morse, S...... 55 Mortensen, C...... 30 U Mortensen, D...... 10, 21, 27, 29, 30, 60, 61, 84 Unland, D...... 41 Mosdell, D...... 72 Myers, D...... 65, 103 V N VanGessel, M...... 1, 11, 42 Vargas, J...... 2, 12, 22, 82, 104 Naedel, M...... 67 Vea, E...... 95 Neal, J...... 101, 102 Venner, K...... 16 Nord, E...... 84 W O Walls, B...... 18 O'Connell, J...... 14 Walton, L...... 89 Oliver, G...... 6 Waltz, C...... 77 Olson, B...... 89 Ward, J...... 37 Whitehouse, S...... 3 P Woods, T...... 72 Palmer, C...... 95 Parker, A...... 103 Y Perry, J...... 56 Yarborough, D...... 13 Philbrook, B...... 90 Pisani Gareau, T...... 60 Z Polach, M...... 35 Zavada, T...... 17 Post, A...... 23, 80 Zawierucha, J...... 5, 6 R Zeka, N...... 96 Zoschg, J...... 35, 85 Rana, A...... 25 Reicher, Z...... 68

188 MAIN SUBJECT INDEX

Butterfly bush ...... 104 A C Abutilon theophrasti ...... 27, 91 Adjuvants...... 46, 89 Cabbage ...... 46 Agrostis palustris ...... 5, 78 Callisto ...... 13 37 ,86 ,26 ,9 ...... arefinolots sitsorgA arefinolots ...... ,9 ,26 ,86 37 Cardamine flexuous ...... 101, 102 Alfalfa ...... 85 Cardamine hirsuta...... 98 Alternaria destruens ...... 56 Carrier volume ...... 36 Amaranthus hybridus ...... 45 Chenopodium album ...... 42, 45, 47, 91 Amaranthus spinosus ...... 86 Cherry, pin ...... 38 19 ,24 ,11 ...... ailofiisimetra aisorbmA ailofiisimetra ...... ,11 ,24 19 Chickweed, common ...... 89, 98 Amicarbazone ...... 68 Cichorium ...... 17 Aminocyclopyrachlor ...... 74 Clethodim ...... 13, 46 Aminopyralid ...... 35 Clopyralid ...... 46 Application timing ...... 5, 13 Clover, white ...... 74, 98 Application, fall ...... 68, 89 Competition ...... 11 Application, granular ...... 74 Conservation Tillage ...... 26 Application, ground ...... 93 Conservation, forest ...... 32 99 ,26 ,32 ,51 ...... sdohtem ,noitacilppA sdohtem ...... ,51 ,32 ,26 99 Conyza canadensis ...... 42, 93 Application, sequential ...... 34, 78 Corn ...... 4, 91 Application, spring ...... 68, 89 Corn, sweet ...... 4 Areas, natural ...... 15, 35, 36, 37, 85 Cover ...... 32 Arrow ...... 13 Crabgrass ...... 6, 24, 25, 101 Ash, green ...... 38 Crabgrass, large ...... 78, 102 Atrazine ...... 47, 91 Crabgrass, smooth...... 23, 67, 73 Azalea ...... 101 Cranberry ...... 19, 40, 56 Crocus chrysanthus ...... 98 B Crop injury ...... 101 Barricade ...... 67 Crop tolerance ...... 89 Bean, lima ...... 11 Crownvetch ...... 85 Bedding plants ...... 100 Cultivation ...... 43 Bentgrass, creeping ...... 5, 9, 62, 68, 73, 78 Cumyluron ...... 9, 63 Bermudagrass ...... 24 Cuscuta gronovii ...... 40 Biodiversity, buffer zones, herbicide reduction, Cuscuta spp...... 56 runoff, atrazine, metolachlor, mesotrione ...... 4 Cutleaf evening primrose ...... 42 Bioherbicide ...... 56 Cutting ...... 37 Biological control ...... 56 Cynodon dactylon ...... 24 Bittercress ...... 101, 102 Cyperus esculentus ...... 25 Bittercress, hairy ...... 98 Cyperus spp...... 5 Black locust ...... 38 Cyperus strigosus ...... 40 Blueberry, wild ...... 13 D 86 ,36 ,26 ,61 ...... launna ,ssargeulB launna ...... ,61 ,26 ,36 86 Bluegrass, Kentucky ..... 5, 16, 67, 68, 73, 74, 78 Dewberry ...... 19 Bonzi ...... 96 Digitaria ciliaris ...... 24, 25 Brassica kaber ...... 91 Digitaria ischaemum ...... 23, 67, 73 Brassica oleracea ...... 45, 46 Digitaria sanguinalis ...... 78, 101, 102 Broadstar, Freehand, Tower ...... 95 Digitaria spp...... 4, 6, 24, 25 Broccoli ...... 45 Dimension ...... 67 Brush ...... 38 Dimethenamid ...... 5, 91, 100 Buttercup spp...... 86 Dimethenamid-p ...... 101

189 Ditches, ditchbanks ...... 85 H Diuron ...... 42 Dodder ...... 40, 56 Habitats, disturbed ...... 85 Dose-response ...... 102 Habitats, natural ...... 15, 21, 32 Habitats, semi-natural ...... 32 Double-crop ...... 89 Halosulfuron ...... 25 Doveweed ...... 102 Handweeding ...... 37 Drench ...... 96 Henbit ...... 98 E Heracleum mantegazzianum ...... 35 erbicide efficacy ...... 32 Eclipta ...... 5, 101, 102 H Herbicide formulation ...... 6 Eclipta prostrata ...... 5, 101, 102 Herbicide mode of action ...... 65 Ecology, weed ...... 15, 21 Herbicide resistance ...... 39, 42, 47 Education ...... 15 Holly ...... 101 Eleusine indica ...... 5, 78 Horseweed ...... 42, 93 Erodium cicutarium ...... 42 Hydrangea ...... 99 Ethephon ...... 9 Hydrangea paniculata ...... 99 Euphorbia humistrata ...... 5 Euphorbia maculata ...... 101, 102 I F Ignite 280 ...... 93 Ilex spp...... 101 Fenoxaprop ...... 25, 37, 78 Imazapic ...... 36, 37 Fescue, fine ...... 80 ndaziflam ...... 102 Fescue, tall ...... 5, 22, 23, 24, 74 I Industrial ...... 65 Festuca arundinacea ...... 5, 24, 74 Integrated weed management ...... 13, 26, 32 Festuca rubra ...... 80 Interactions, herbicide ...... 13, 102 Festuca spp...... 22 Invasive species ...... 15, 37 Flame cultivation ...... 19 Iris x hollandica ...... 98 laming ...... 37 F Isoxaben ...... 98 Flumioxazin ...... 42, 98 Itea virginica ...... 101 Flurprimidol ...... 9 Forest ...... 37 K Forest understory ...... 32 Foxtail, giant ...... 27 Knotweed, Japanese ...... 34 Foxtail, spp...... 31 Kochia ...... 39 Foxtail, yellow ...... 25, 73 Kochia scoparia ...... 5, 39 Fraxinum pennsylvanica ...... 38 Kyllinga brevifolia ...... 5 G L Lambsquarters, common ...... 42, 45, 91 Galega officinalis ...... 85 Galinsoga ciliata ...... 45 Lamium amplexicaule ...... 98 Galinsoga, hairy ...... 45 Landscapes ...... 98 Garlon ...... 32 Liberty-Link soybeans ...... 93 Genetic diversity ...... 17 Liriope ...... 101 Glufosinate ...... 37, 93 Lolium multiflorum ...... 89 Glycine max ...... 26, 89, 93 Lolium perenne ...... 5, 67, 74 Glyphosate ...... 32, 34, 37, 80, 93 Lysimachia terrestris ...... 40 GoalTender ...... 46 M Golf Course Superintendent...... 5 Goosegrass ...... 5, 78 Mechanical weed control ...... 26, 34, 43 Grape ...... 22 Medic, black, ...... 74 Green manure ...... 27 Medicago lupulina ...... 74 Greens, golf ...... 62, 63 Mefluidide ...... 9 Growth regulator ...... 96 Mesotrione ...... 13, 16, 23, 72, 91, 95 Growth stage influence ...... 96 Metamifop ...... 73, 78 Metamitron ...... 47 Metiozolin ...... 63

190 Metolachlor ...... 91 Polygonum perfoliatum ...... 36 Metribuzin ...... 47 Potato ...... 47 Metsulfuron ...... 86 Preemergence ...... 101 Microstegium vimineum ...... 36, 37 Pre-emergent ...... 104 Mile-a-minute ...... 36 Preserves, forest ...... 32 Milestone ...... 86 Production Cost ...... 26 Mowing ...... 32 Prunus pensylvanica ...... 38 Murdannia nudiflora ...... 102 Prunus persica ...... 42 Mustard, wild ...... 91 PsbA gene ...... 47 Public lands ...... 32 N Pyroxsulam ...... 89 Narcissus...... 98 Q Non-chemical weed control ...... 19 Non-crop ...... 31, 32, 34, 35, 39 Quinclorac ...... 6, 25, 40 Norflurazon ...... 42 No-tillage ...... 26 R Noxious weed ...... 35, 85 Radioactivity ...... 85 Nurseries ...... 65, 101, 104 Radish, wild ...... 91 Nursery production ...... 95, 98, 101 Ragweed, common ...... 11, 42, 91 Nursery, container production .....95, 96, 99, 100, Raphanus raphanistrum ...... 91 101, 102, 103 Redstem filaree ...... 42 Nutsedge, false ...... 40 Registration, pesticide ...... 72 Nutsedge, yellow ...... 25 Renovation, turfgrass ...... 72 Resistance management ...... 4, 26, 39 O Rhododendron liners ...... 96 Oenothera laciniata ...... 42 Rhododendron spp...... 96, 101 Old field ...... 32 Right-of-way ...... 15, 35, 38 Orchardgrass ...... 85 Riparian areas ...... 15, 34, 35, 85 Ornamentals, container-grown ...... 96 Roadsides ...... 35, 39, 85 Ornamentals, woody ...... 101 Robinia pseudoacacia ...... 38 Oryzalin ...... 42 Rooted cuttings ...... 96 Oxalis stricta ...... 101 Roundup-Ready soybeans ...... 93 Oxyfluorfen ...... 45, 46 Rubus spp...... 19 Rye ...... 94 P Ryegrass ...... 94 Paclobutrazol ...... 9 Ryegrass, Italian ...... 89 Pansy, field ...... 42 Ryegrass, perennial ...... 5, 74 Parasitic weed ...... 56 S Parks ...... 15, 34, 36 Pastures ...... 86 Saflufenacil ...... 91, 93 Peach ...... 42 Sawbrier ...... 19 Pelargonic acid ...... 37 Schedonorus phoenix ...... 24 Pendimethalin ...... 36, 37, 91, 99, 100 Sedge ...... 5 Pendulum ...... 99 Seed persistence ...... 27 Perennials, herbaceous ...... 100 Seedbank ...... 27 Phaseolus lunatus ...... 11 Select ...... 13 Phytotoxicity ...... 13 Setaria faberi ...... 27 Pigweed, smooth ...... 45 Setaria glauca ...... 4, 25, 73 Plant growth regulators ...... 9, 62, 80 Setaria pumila ...... 25 Plantago lanceolata ...... 74 Setaria spp...... 31 Plantago major ...... 74 Sharpen ...... 93 Plantain, broadleaf ...... 74 Simazine ...... 42, 98 Plantain, buckhorn ...... 74 S-metolachlor ...... 46 Poa annua ...... 16, 62, 63, 68 Smilax glauca ...... 19 Poa pratensis ...... 5, 16, 68, 73, 74, 78 Smolder ...... 56 Polygonum cuspidatum ...... 34 Soil disturbance ...... 27

191 Solanum carolinense ...... 86 Turf thinning ...... 80 Southern crabgrass ...... 24, 25 Turfgrass ... 5, 6, 9, 16, 23, 24, 25, 62, 63, 65, 67, Soybean ...... 89, 93 68, 72, 73, 74, 78, 80 Soybean, glufosinate-resistant ...... 93 Turfgrass establishment ...... 16 Soybean, glyphosate-resistant ...... 93 Turfgrass management ...... 16, 67 Spurge, prostrate ...... 5 Turfgrass tolerance ...... 74 Spurge, spotted ...... 101, 102 Stellaria media ...... 98 V Stiltgrass, Japanese ...... 36, 37 Vaccinium angustifolium ...... 13 Sugar beet ...... 47 Vaccinium marcrocarpon ...... 19, 40, 56 Sulfentrazone ...... 67, 98 Velvetleaf ...... 27, 91 Sulfometuron ...... 36 Veronica arvensis ...... 74 Sulfosulfuron ...... 95 Vicia villosa ...... 94 Suppression, sod ...... 22 Vincetoxicum rossicum ...... 32 Surface residue ...... 36 Vinegar ...... 37 Sustainable agriculture ...... 4 Viola arvensis ...... 42 Swallow-wort, pale ...... 32 Vitis vinifera ...... 22 Swampcandle ...... 40 W T Weed contest ...... 1 Tall fescue ...... 24 Weed management...... 5, 32 Tankmixtures ...... 9, 13, 46 Wheat ...... 89, 94 Tillage ...... 27 Winter annual weeds ...... 42 Tower ...... 101 Woodsorrel, yellow...... 101 Training ...... 15 Trefoil, birdsfoot ...... 85 Z Triclopyr ...... 34, 35, 85 Zea mays ...... 4, 26, 91 Trifolium repens ...... 74, 98 Zoysia japonica ...... 5 Trinexapac-ethyl ...... 9 Zoysiagrass ...... 5 Triticum aestivum ...... 89 Tulipa ...... 98

192