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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

90 Table 1. Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii, LONMO) was treated with foliar herbicide applications on June 29, 2005. Visual ratings of percent canopy reduction were taken September 1, 2005 and July 10, 2006, 9 and 51 weeks after treatment (WAT). Each value is the mean of five replications. One shrub was not located during the rating at 51 WAT. Means for 51 WAT followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's Protected LSD at p=0.05. Application LONMO canopy reduction Treatment rate 9 WAT 51 WAT kg ae/ha --------------- % ---------------- untreated --- 0 0 c metsulfuron 0.042 97 80 a metsulfuron 0.084 100 98 a metsulfuron 0.13 100 100 a fosamine 4.0 33 48 b fosamine 8.1 57 84 a fosamine 4.0 40 52 b imazapyr 0.07 glyphosate 3.4 82 93 a glyphosate 3.4 93 99 a imazapyr 0.07 metsulfuron 0.042 100 96 a dicamba + 0.28 diflufenzopyr 0.11 Protected LSD (p=0.05) 20 --- 72
91 EFFICACY OF GLYPHOSATE, IMAZAPYR AND TRICLOPYR FOR PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT IN A CONNECTICUT MARSH. T.L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor; and D.P. Roach, All Habitat Services LLC, Madison, CT. ABSTRACT Common reed or phragmites (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.) is an invasive grass that dominates many wetland areas, including freshwater and brackish marshes throughout the Northeast. This extremely tall, rhizomatous perennial displaces cattails (Typha spp.) and other native plants. The efficacy of three herbicides was evaluated in a study in a tidal marsh along the lower Connecticut River in Old Saybrook. The area was mowed in March 2005 to cut down dry standing stalks of Phragmites. Plots were arranged in a RCB design with three replicates per treatment. Plot dimensions were 20 ft x 20 ft, and untreated alleyways (10 ft) surrounded each plot. Herbicide products with aquatic use registrations were evaluated. Isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, isopropylamine salt of imazapyr, and/or triethylamine salt of triclopyr were sprayed over the top of Phragmites-dominated plots at one of three timings in 2005: June 2 (‘A’), June 24 (‘B’), or September 14 (‘C’). Herbicide treatments were prepared in 2-L bottles. Based on calibration tests before each application, bottles were filled with CO 2 to a specific pressure. For the ‘A’ timing, Phragmites was an average of 4 ft tall, and herbicides were applied using a hand-held, four-nozzle spray boom with TeeJet 8003VS tips. Spray volume was 25 gallons/A. For the ‘B’ and ‘C’ timings, Phragmites was an average of 8 ft and 11 ft tall, respectively. Herbicides were applied from an elevated platform mounted on an amphibious all-terrain vehicle driven in the alleyways. Treatments were sprayed with a Hypro XT-043 boomless nozzle in two passes from opposite ends of each plot. Spray volume was 50 gallons/A. In addition to an untreated check, the following treatments were applied at all three application timings: triclopyr at 1.5, 2.25 or 3 lb ai/A; glyphosate at 2 lb ai/A; glyphosate + triclopyr (1 + 1.5 lb ai/A, or 2 + 0.75 lb ai/A); imazapyr at 0.5 lb ai/A; imazapyr + triclopyr (0.125 + 1.5 lb ai/A, or 0.125 + 2.25 lb ai/A). For the ‘A’ and ‘B’ timings, two additional treatments were included in which triclopyr at 1.5 or 2.25 lb ai/A was applied a second time to the same plots on September 9, 2005. All treatments included a non-ionic surfactant (1 qt/A) in the spray solution. Plots were evaluated periodically through September 2006 for height, relative number of stems, vigor, injury symptoms, and effects on other plants. Most treatments were more effective when applied in September 2005 (‘C’) than when applied in June 2005 (‘A’ or ‘B’). Treatments containing glyphosate and/or imazapyr were better than treatments containing only triclopyr at reducing growth in 2006. Although triclopyr suppressed Phragmites following 2005 applications, Phragmites growth the next year was reduced substantially only when glyphosate or imazapyr was combined with triclopyr. The imazapyr (0.5 lb ai/A) treatment and those containing glyphosate at 2 lb ai/A provided the best control of Phragmites in 2006. Plots will be evaluated in 2007 for Phragmites and for other plant species that emerge. Triclopyr did not perform as well in this experiment as it has in large-scale Phragmites management projects conducted by D. Roach. Application parameters such as timing, spray volume and coverage are factors that likely influence triclopyr efficacy. 73
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 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?