Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ... Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
48 ALFALFA/GRASS FORAGE MIXTURES USING GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT ALFALFA. B.L. Dillehay, W.S. Curran, M.H. Hall, and D.A. Mortensen, The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. ABSTRACT Alfalfa/grass mixtures are popular forages that are well adapted to the cool climates of the northern United States. The addition of a grass to an alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) crop in this region aids in weed management, winter survival, and forage yield, among other variables. During establishment, few herbicides are labeled for control of weeds in alfalfa/grass mixtures. Although some selective herbicides safely control broadleaf weeds in alfalfa/grass mixtures, choices are limited due to the lack of labeled products. In addition, nothing is available to control grassy weeds in seedling alfalfa/grass forage mixtures. Glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready alfalfa became commercially available in late summer 2005. This technology offers unprecedented weed control and crop safety in pure alfalfa stands, but may benefit alfalfa/grass forage stands as well. The objective of this research was to evaluate the potential use of glyphosate for weed control in seedling Roundup Ready alfalfa/grass mixtures. By varying the planting date of the grass in relation to alfalfa planting and a glyphosate application, the potential for good weed control exists. In treatments that included herbicide application, glyphosate was applied 4 weeks after alfalfa planting. Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) was seeded into the alfalfa at 3 different times; seeded with the alfalfa, seeded 4 weeks after alfalfa, and seeded 5 weeks after alfalfa. All of the treatments included an untreated check. In alfalfa/grass mixtures not treated with glyphosate, alfalfa and orchardgrass dry matter was lower, and weed dry matter was higher than the respective treatments that included a postemergence glyphosate application. Preliminary results suggest that the trends for increased alfalfa and orchardgrass, and decreased weed dry matter in the later seeded glyphosate applications appear to persist into the second year. Initial observations show that Roundup Ready alfalfa could be a successful addition to weed management for alfalfa/grass mixtures. 30
49 IMPROVING ELECTRONIC MANUSCRIPT REVIEW: NEW TECHNOLOGIES MAKE IT FASTER, EASIER, AND MORE BENEFICIAL. M.G. Burton and J.W. Wilcut, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh. ABSTRACT Editors and reviewers alike have been frustrated in recent years by the increased time required to translate and type editorial remarks for web-based publication and editing systems. Not surprisingly, authors and associate editors frequently note that reviews are of reduced quality, and the consequential increase in the responsibility placed upon associate editors. Portable computer and software technologies have now advanced sufficiently to allow on-screen review and editing of manuscripts and galley proofs. "Tablet" personal notebook computers (Tablet PCs) and software systems (e.g. Windows Journal or Adobe Acrobat 7.0 or 8.0) allow a reviewer to make editorial corrections directly on the manuscript with a stylus (or by typing). Authors ultimately receive an electronically annotated version of their manuscript in a file type that can be viewed with a web-browser or other free software (e.g. Adobe Reader 7.0). The reviewer benefits from having the ability to make simple or complex editorial suggestions with the stroke of a “pen”, fewer forgotten comments during translation and typing remarks to the author, and from time savings. Authors and associate editors benefit from more complete reviewer remarks, which appear directly on the manuscript (as with “old school” pen and paper manuscript reviews). The publisher continues to benefit from reduced costs associated with postage and paper handling/storage. In summary, the new approach to manuscript and galley proof editing affords a continuation of all of the benefits of the current web-based system, and offers the opportunity to improve upon the speed, simplicity, and clarity of the reviewer's efforts on behalf of the author. Planned improvements to the web-based publication system will further simplify and improve the process. 31
- 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 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
49<br />
IMPROVING ELECTRONIC MANUSCRIPT REVIEW: NEW TECHNOLOGIES MAKE IT<br />
FASTER, EASIER, AND MORE BENEFICIAL. M.G. Burton and J.W. Wilcut, North<br />
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
Editors and reviewers alike have been frustrated in recent years by <strong>the</strong> increased<br />
time required to translate and type editorial remarks for web-based publication and<br />
editing systems. Not surprisingly, authors and associate editors frequently note that<br />
reviews are <strong>of</strong> reduced quality, and <strong>the</strong> consequential increase in <strong>the</strong> responsibility<br />
placed upon associate editors. Portable computer and s<strong>of</strong>tware technologies have now<br />
advanced sufficiently to allow on-screen review and editing <strong>of</strong> manuscripts and galley<br />
pro<strong>of</strong>s. "Tablet" personal notebook computers (Tablet PCs) and s<strong>of</strong>tware systems (e.g.<br />
Windows Journal or Adobe Acrobat 7.0 or 8.0) allow a reviewer to make editorial<br />
corrections directly on <strong>the</strong> manuscript with a stylus (or by typing). Authors ultimately<br />
receive an electronically annotated version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir manuscript in a file type that can be<br />
viewed with a web-browser or o<strong>the</strong>r free s<strong>of</strong>tware (e.g. Adobe Reader 7.0). The<br />
reviewer benefits from having <strong>the</strong> ability to make simple or complex editorial<br />
suggestions with <strong>the</strong> stroke <strong>of</strong> a “pen”, fewer forgotten comments during translation and<br />
typing remarks to <strong>the</strong> author, and from time savings. Authors and associate editors<br />
benefit from more complete reviewer remarks, which appear directly on <strong>the</strong> manuscript<br />
(as with “old school” pen and paper manuscript reviews). The publisher continues to<br />
benefit from reduced costs associated with postage and paper handling/storage. In<br />
summary, <strong>the</strong> new approach to manuscript and galley pro<strong>of</strong> editing affords a<br />
continuation <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current web-based system, and <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity to improve upon <strong>the</strong> speed, simplicity, and clarity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reviewer's efforts on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> author. Planned improvements to <strong>the</strong> web-based publication system will<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r simplify and improve <strong>the</strong> process.<br />
31
Change language