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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

74 EFFECTS OF BUCKWHEAT RESIDUE ON EMERGENCE AND EARLY GROWTH OF EIGHT WEED SPECIES. V. Kumar, D.C. Brainard, and R.R. Bellinder, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. ABSTRACT Cover crops and their residues improve soil health and suppress weeds. Buckwheat is a rapidly growing, summer annual cover crop that is widely grown by organic farmers in the Northeast, but little is known about the effects of buckwheat residue on weed suppression. The objectives of this research were (1) to evaluate the effects of buckwheat residue on emergence and early growth of eight weeds, and (2) to evaluate the possible role of nitrogen and allelochemicals in the suppression of sensitive weed species by buckwheat residue. To achieve these objectives, both field and growth chamber experiments were conducted in 2005 and 2006. For growth chamber trials, field-grown buckwheat was mowed and incorporated 40 days after planting. Soil was taken from plots with and without buckwheat residue 0 and 15 days after incorporation. Seeds of four summer annuals: Powell amaranth (PA); hairy galinsoga (HG); barnyardgrass (BYG); and common purslane (CP), and four winter annuals: yellow rocket (YR); corn chamomile (CCM); common chickweed (CK); and shepherd's purse (SP) were sown in pots and both emergence and growth were monitored daily for 20 days. The possible role of nitrogen in suppression of three sensitive species (PA. CCM, and SP) was tested by applying 0, 40, 80, and 160 kg/ha N to both buckwheat and bare ground pots. To determine the possible role of allelochemicals in weed suppression, a separate growth chamber study was conducted in which activated carbon (50ml/l) was applied to weeds grown in both buckwheat (greenhouse grown) and bare soil pots. In 2005, fresh buckwheat residues significantly reduced the emergence (36 to 74%) and biomass (36 to 90%) of all weed species except barnyardgrass. After 15 days, only PA suppression occurred. In 2006, fresh buckwheat residues suppressed emergence of only three species (PA, CP, CK) either had no effect or enhanced early growth of all eight weed species. Addition of N overcame the suppression of emergence and growth of CCM and SP but not that of PA. For PA, buckwheat residue suppressed emergence in the absence of activated carbon (p=0.053), but had no effect on emergence in the presence of activated carbon (p=0.46). In field trials conducted in 2006, PA, BYG, CK, and SP were sown in bare soil and buckwheat plots, immediately after buckwheat incorporation. Emergence of PA, CK, and BYG was reduced under buckwheat plots compared to bare soil by 72, 45, and 20%, respectively, but had no significant effect on SP. The preliminary results suggest that CCM and SP are suppressed by buckwheat residue due to lack of available nitrogen, whereas allelopathy may play an important role in suppressing PA emergence. Ongoing research will examine (i) nitrogen dynamics following buckwheat incorporation to further elucidate the role of nitrogen in weed suppression and (ii) the potential role of fungal pathogens in suppression of emergence of sensitive species. 56
75 EVALUATION OF VARIOUS TRICLOPYR, CARFENTRAZONE-ETHYL, AND GLYPHOSATE COMBINATIONS POST-APPLIED ON JAPANESE KNOTWEED, INCLUDING THE EXPERIMENTAL HERBICIDE F-4113. A.Z. Skibo and M.A. Isaacs, Univ. of Delaware, Newark. ABSTRACT A field study was conducted over 2005-2006 to evaluate the single season efficacy of selected POST-applied triclopyr, carfentrazone-ethyl, and glyphosate combinations on Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum syn fallopia japonica syn reynoutria japonica). Data collected included percent visual control (0-100%) at 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT, fresh weights consisting of all above ground biomass, taken as three m2 sub-samples per plot, were collected 28 DAT and 218 DAT (30 DAE) and weighed, then dried to a constant moisture and dry weights were recorded. Data were subjected to generalized linear model (GLM). Treatment means were separated using Duncan's multiple range test at the 0.05 level of significance. There was no significant difference between the herbicide treatments of triclopyr plus carfentrazone-ethyl with COC (0.56 and 0.28, 0.093 kg ai/ha, 1% v/v respectively), 91% and 88% control 28 DAT respectively, the combinations of triclopyr plus carfentrazone-ethyl plus mesotrione with COC (0.14, 0.093, 0.105 kg ai/ha, 1% v/v respectively), 81% control 28 DAT, and the prepackaged mixture of glyphosate and carfentrazone-ethyl with COC (5.6, 0.22 kg ai/ha, 1% v/v, respectively), 73% control 28 DAT. Slightly less control was obtained when applying triclopyr alone with COC (0.56 Kg ai/ha, 1% v/v respectively). The treatments providing the best control 218 DAT/30 DAE were the combinations of glyphosate plus carfentrazone-ethyl with COC (5.6, 0.22 kg ai/ha, 1% v/v) and all three glyphosate treatments (1.85, 3.1, 3.65 kg ai/ha). There was no significant difference between rates of glyphosate applied alone suggesting that the lowest rate, 1.85 kg ai/ha, is adequate for the control of Japanese knotweed. All of the other treatments were relatively ineffective in controlling Japanese knotweed regrowth the following season (2006). 57
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 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 118 and 119: 118 WEED CONTROL IN NO-TILL PUMPKIN
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?