Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 WEED CONTROL IN NO-TILL PUMPKINS. D.H. Johnson, The Pennsylvania State Univ., Manheim and D.D. Lingenfelter, The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. ABSTRACT Weed control and pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) injury from several products were tested in no-till production at two locations in Pennsylvania. Pumpkins (cv. 'Spirit' and ‘Sugar or Pie’) were planted no-till into previously killed (glyphosate) and rolled rye in Lancaster (Landisville) and Centre (Rock Springs) Counties, respectively, in mid June. Several herbicides were applied preemergence just after planting, followed by postemergence herbicides approximately one month later. Most herbicides tested are not currently labeled for pumpkin production. These were flumioxazin (0.08 lb ai/A), imazamox (0.03 lb ai/A), rimsulfuron (0.047 lb ai/A), and fomesafen (0.375 lb ai/A), all applied preemergence in A tank mix with dimethenamid-P (0.75 lb ai/A), KIH-485 (0.16 lb ai/A) applied preemergence alone, or imazamox (0.03 lb ai/A) applied postemergence. Additional treatments included standards: clomazone (0.49 lb ai/A) + ethalfluralin (0.75 lb ai/A) + halosulfuron-methyl (0.035 lb ai/A) applied pre, halosulfuronmethyl pre followed by clethodim (0.125 lb ai/A) postemergence, or halosulfuron-methyl + clethodim post. Weed control, crop injury, and pumpkin yield were determined. Studies were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Flumioxazin and rimsulfuron (both tank mixed with dimethenamid-P) caused high pumpkin injury (up to 78%) and yield loss at Landisville. Injury was lower (45%) at Rock Springs, and yield was not significantly reduced. The other products did not cause significant crop injury. Weed control at Rock Springs was generally better than at Landisville. At Rock Springs, the standards clomazone + ethalfluralin + halosulfuron-methyl gave 90% or better velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) control. The combinations of newer herbicides plus dimethenamid-P and KIH-485 applied alone gave similar control for all of these except yellow nutsedge. Imazamox + dimethenamid-P was also weak on common ragweed. At Landisville, clomazone + ethalfluralin + halosulfuron-methyl gave only 45 and 77% common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) control, respectively. Most combinations of newer herbicides with dimethenamid-P gave better control. These results show dimethenamid-P, imazamox, fomesafen, and KIH-485 have potential for weed control in pumpkins with good crop safety. More testing on other pumpkin varieties and in other climates and soils would need to be done to ensure adequate crop safety. 100
119 EVALUATING TRIKETONES IN SWEET CORN. R.R. Bellinder and C.A. Benedict, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. ABSTRACT Effective postemergence (POST) weed control is essential when preemergence (PRE) herbicides fail. New triketone herbicides for use POST are available, but their effectiveness has not been thoroughly tested. In 2006, five field trials evaluated weed control and varietal tolerance to mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone. Weed pressure at the time of application was heavy and highly uneven across trials. Broadleaf weed control was variable based on product and surfactants. Broadleaf weed control decreased with all three triketones (1X rate) when they were applied without atrazine. At the 1X rate, tembotrione and topramezone provided adequate control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Tembotrione at the 2X rate provided better broadleaf control than did 2X rates of mesotrione and topramezone. Foxtail species (Setaria spp.) were common in all trials, but large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) populations were variable. Mesotrione inadequately controlled crabgrass in one trial; however control increased with rate and addition of atrazine. Due to their large size (8-12 in.) at the time of application Setaria spp. control was inadequate regardless of rate. Weed control was better when MSO was used with atrazine, topramezone, and UAN than when a non-ionic surfactant was used. Tembotrione controlled crabgrass adequately at 6 DAT, but control broke at 21 however, adding atrazine increased control with the 1X rate substantially. A field trial evaluated ten varieties for crop tolerance. Two varieties, 'Argent' and ‘Silverking’ showed initial sensitivity to all three of the triketones, but outgrew this injury. There was no reduction in weight in any of these varieties. In another trial, there was a decrease in ear number and total weight with a 2X rate of mesotrione. Ongoing greenhouse trials are taking a closer look at the application timing of these herbicides for control of annual broadleaves and grasses. Preliminary results suggest that timing is crucial to the effectiveness of these herbicides. 101
Page 1 and 2:
1 Proceedings of the Sixty-first An
Page 3 and 4:
3 NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY
Page 5 and 6:
5 SECTION CHAIRS Agronomy Chair: J.
Page 7 and 8:
7 CARFENTRAZONE AND QUINCLORAC FOR
Page 9 and 10:
9 THE EFFICACY AND CROP TOLERANCE O
Page 11 and 12:
11 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
Page 13 and 14:
13 BEING HEARD BY THE IR-4 PROJECT.
Page 15 and 16:
15 ABSTRACTS FROM THE 7 TH CONFEREN
Page 17:
17 HERBICIDE NAMES: COMMON, TRADE,
Page 20 and 21:
20 INTEGRATING WEED CONTROL STRATEG
Page 22 and 23:
22 GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION IN PEN
Page 24 and 25:
24 EFFECTS OF EMERGENCE PERIODICITY
Page 26 and 27:
26 PRODUCER AND PRODUCTION IMPACTS
Page 28 and 29:
28 A SIMPLE METHOD FOR CLEANING TUF
Page 30 and 31:
30 EMERGENCE AND PERFORMANCE OF TWO
Page 32 and 33:
32 CARFENTRAZONE AND QUINCLORAC FOR
Page 34 and 35:
34 2006 NEWSS SUMMER WEED CONTEST R
Page 36 and 37:
36 INVASIVE AQUATIC WEEDS IN NORTH
Page 38 and 39:
38 AMMONIUM PELARGONATE AS A BIOHER
Page 40 and 41:
40 TRINEXAPAC-ETHYL INFLUENCES EFFI
Page 42 and 43:
42 Table 1. Insect feeding damage,
Page 44 and 45:
44 WEED CONTROL WITH TOPRAMEZONE PR
Page 46 and 47:
46 ROTARY HOE EFFICACY IN CORN: INF
Page 48 and 49:
48 ALFALFA/GRASS FORAGE MIXTURES US
Page 50 and 51:
50 CONTROL OF NEW WEED SPECIES IN T
Page 52 and 53:
52 Table 1. Results of 2006 contain
Page 54 and 55:
54 TOLERANCES OF ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS
Page 56 and 57:
56 2006 WEED MANAGEMENT TRIALS IN C
Page 58 and 59:
58 THE RESPONSE OF FIELD AND CONTAI
Page 60 and 61:
60 THE EFFICACY AND CROP TOLERANCE
Page 62 and 63:
62 Table 2. Plant quality ratings o
Page 64 and 65:
64 EVALUATION OF PROLINE-LINKED PEN
Page 66 and 67:
66 ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND DOLLAR SPOT
Page 68 and 69: 68 Table 1. Autumn 2005 versus spri
Page 70 and 71: 70 A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE NON-N
Page 72 and 73: 72 native species, covering and smo
Page 74 and 75: 74 EFFECTS OF BUCKWHEAT RESIDUE ON
Page 76 and 77: 76 Japanese knotweed control 28 DAT
Page 78 and 79: 78 ENHANCED TOLERANCE TO WEED COMPE
Page 80 and 81: 80 EFFECTS OF PLANTING AND TERMINAT
Page 82 and 83: 82 A UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR SPECIES
Page 84 and 85: 84 BIOLOGY OF MULTIFLORA ROSE: AN I
Page 86 and 87: 86 AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION. M.J. Van
Page 88 and 89: 88 HERBICIDE COMPARISON IN WET BLAD
Page 90 and 91: 90 Table 1. Morrow's honeysuckle (L
Page 92 and 93: 92 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
Page 94 and 95: 94 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
Page 96 and 97: 96 HOT WATER SYSTEMS FOR VEGETATION
Page 98 and 99: 98 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL B
Page 100 and 101: 100 ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS CONTROL WI
Page 102 and 103: 102 EFFECT OF DEW AND GRANULAR FORM
Page 104 and 105: 104 USE OF TRICLOPYR TO REDUCE ANTI
Page 106 and 107: 106 YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL WITH SU
Page 108 and 109: 108 PRE AND POST EMERGENT ANNUAL BL
Page 110 and 111: 110 PUMPKIN RESPONSE TO HALOSUFSULF
Page 112 and 113: 112 Figure 1. Grass cover following
Page 114 and 115: 114 CHEMICAL CONTROL OF APPLE ROOT
Page 116 and 117: 116 STRAWBERRY PLANTING YEAR WEED C
Page 120 and 121: 120 NATURAL PRODUCT POTENTIAL FOR W
Page 122 and 123: 122 THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HER
Page 124 and 125: 124 PEDIGREE OF A PESTICIDE. D.R. S
Page 126 and 127: 126 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL
Page 128 and 129: 128 APPLICATIONS FOR SULFENTRAZONE
Page 130 and 131: 130 HORSEWEED: FROM OBSCURITY TO TH
Page 132 and 133: 132 RECENT FINDINGS ON THE FIELD BE
Page 134 and 135: 134 HORSEWEED RESPONSE TO NO-TILL P
Page 136 and 137: 136 THE MASSACHUSETTS EXAMPLE: ONE
Page 138 and 139: 138 Supplemental NEWSS Abstracts (p
Page 140 and 141: 140 ABSTRACTS AND BIOGRAPHIES FOR P
Page 142 and 143: 142 EVALUATION OF AN HERBICIDE APPL
Page 144 and 145: 144 ALUMINUM TREATMENT FOR PHOSPHOR
Page 146 and 147: 146 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AQUATIC W
Page 148 and 149: 148 THE 2002 FARM BILL AND ITS EFFE
Page 150 and 151: 150 LAND USE PRACTICE IMPACTS ON NO
Page 152 and 153: 152 A NEW STANDARD FOR DEFINING AQU
Page 154 and 155: 154 PORTRAIT OF THE HEALTH STATUS O
Page 156 and 157: 156 TEN YEARS OF VARIABLE WATER MIL
Page 158 and 159: 158 Northeastern Weed Science Socie
Page 160 and 161: 160 meeting attendance numbers have
Page 162 and 163: 162 members or to members of the Ex
Page 164 and 165: 164 primary areas that had increase
Page 166 and 167: 166 1 st place: Evaluation of Kentu
Page 168 and 169:
168 d) Resolutions Committee Appoin
Page 170 and 171:
170 2005, Hilary Sandler and Brent
Page 172 and 173:
172 (Ornamentals), Rakesh Chandran
Page 174 and 175:
174 Total Expenses $38,227.24 Total
Page 176 and 177:
176 PUBLIC RELATIONS Brent Lackey A
Page 178 and 179:
178 • 2 nd place team: Guelph tea
Page 180 and 181:
180 WSSA REPRESENTATIVE Jeffrey Der
Page 182 and 183:
182 b. Legislative Visits training
Page 184 and 185:
184 b. Selection of a WSSA Member f
Page 186 and 187:
186 WSSA Provides Comments to the C
Page 188 and 189:
188 $179 million, in contrast to a
Page 190 and 191:
190 NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS Gilbert H
Page 192 and 193:
192 1986 John R. Havis University o
Page 194 and 195:
194 DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS 2002 Brad
Page 196 and 197:
196 1991 1 Elizabeth Maynard Cornel
Page 198 and 199:
198 COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS
Page 200 and 201:
200 1996 - Penn State Agronomy Farm
Page 202 and 203:
202 RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS 1983 1.
Page 204 and 205:
204 1998 1. Weed Control Studies wi
Page 206 and 207:
206 INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR 1986 Nath
Page 208 and 209:
208 1960 The Influence of Cultivati
Page 210 and 211:
210 1975 1. Control of Jimsonweed a
Page 212 and 213:
212 1985 1. Peach Response to Sever
Page 214 and 215:
214 Chris Benedict Cornell Universi
Page 216 and 217:
216 Robert A. DeWaine Monsanto 505
Page 218 and 219:
218 Robert Hedberg USDA/CSREES Scie
Page 220 and 221:
220 Brian G Lackey Weeds Inc. 250 B
Page 222 and 223:
222 Thomas Molloy University of Mai
Page 224 and 225:
224 John Roy RWC, Inc. PO Box 876 2
Page 226 and 227:
226 John R. Teasdale USDA-ARS Build
Page 228 and 229:
228 HERBICIDE NAMES: COMMON, TRADE,
Page 230 and 231:
230 Common Name Trade Name Chemical
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
238 COMMON PRE-PACKAGED HERBICIDES
Page 240 and 241:
240 Trade Name Resolve SG Rhino Rou
Page 242 and 243:
242 COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF HE
Page 244 and 245:
244 Heck, G.R., 114 Henry, G.M., 15
Page 246 and 247:
246 MAIN SUBJECT INDEX (Herbicides,
Page 248 and 249:
248 glyphosate, 29, 38, 39, 57, 70,
Page 250:
250 shepherd's purse, 56 s-metolach
show all

Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?