Vol. 62—2008 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
E
R
N
W
E
E
D
S
C
I
E
N
C
E
S
O
C
I
E
T
Y
VOL
62
2008
VOLUME 62
____________________________________
PROCEEDINGS
NORTHEASTERN
WEED SCIENCE
SOCIETY
January 7, 8, 9, and 10, 2008
Sheraton Society Hill
Philadelphia, PA
37212_newss_proceedings_nk.indd 1
12/13/2007 9:22:59 AM

Meeting Location
Sheraton Society Hill Hotel
One Dock Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 238-6000
Website:
www.sheraton.com/society/hill
Site of 2009 NEWSS Meeting
Renaissance Harborplace Hotel
Baltimore, MD
* The cover photo of fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata) was the winning
picture from our 2007 NEWSS Weed Photo Contest. This photo was provided by
our contest winner, Dr. Robert Richardson of North Carolina State University.
37212_newss_proceedings_nk.indd 2
12/13/2007 9:22:59 AM

Proceedings
of the
Sixty-second Annual Meeting
of the
Northeastern Weed Science Society
Gregory R. Armel, Editor
University of Tennessee
Knoxville

SUSTAINING MEMBERS
Platinum Level
Gold Level
Silver Level
AMVAC
BAAR Scientific LLC
Gowan Company
K-I Chemical USA
IR-4
OHP
PBI Gordon Corporation
Bronze Level
ACDS Research
Fore-Shore Weed Control
LABServices Inc.
IR-4 Project
Marbicon, Inc.
Reality Research
Valent USA Corp
USGA
Weeds, Inc.
ii

NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY
Sheraton Society Hill Hotel
Philadelphia, PA
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OFFICERS
President
President-Elect
Vice President
R.J. Keese
Syngenta Crop Protection
985 Arrowhead Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
J.J. Baron
IR-4 Project
500 College Rd. East, 201 West
Princeton, NJ 08540
D.E. Yarborough
The University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
Secretary/Treasurer C.M. Becker
BAAR Scientific LLC
P.O. Box 34
Romulus, NY 14541
Past President
W. S. Curran
The Pennsylvania State University
Dept. Crop and Soil Sciences
423 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
iii

COMMITTEES
Editor
Legislative
Public Relations
Research & Education
Coordinator
G.R. Armel
The University of Tennessee
2431 Joe Johnson Drive
252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996
D.L. Kunkel
IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers University
500 College Road East, Suite 201W
Princeton, NJ 08540
D.D. Lingenfelter
The Pennsylvania State University
Dept Crop and Soil Sciences
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
K.E. Kalmowitz
BASF Corporation
26 Davis Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Sustaining Membership D.R. Spak
Bayer Environmental Science
113 Willow Ridge
New Holland, PA 17557
CAST Representative
Graduate Student Rep.
WSSA Representative
R.D. Sweet
Cornell University
Dept. of Horticulture
Ithaca, NY 14853
M. Ryan
The Pennsylvania State University
Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences
University Park, PA 16802
A. DiTommaso
Cornell University
Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences
903 Bradfield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
iv

SECTION CHAIRS
Agronomy
Chair: G. Armel
Chair-elect: G. Jordan
Conservation, Forestry
and Industrial
Chair: N. Cain
Chair-elect: A. Gover
Graduate Student Contest
Ornamentals
Chair: D. Yarborough
Moderator: M. Ryan
Moderator: M. Goddard
Moderator: V. Kumar
Chair: M. Marshal
Chair-elect: R. Prostak
Research Posters
Chair: C. Palmer
Chair-elect: C. Judge
Turfgrass and Plant
Growth Regulators
Chair: M. Agnew
Chair-elect: S. Hart
Vegetables and Fruit
Chair: R. Lins
Chair-elect: R. Chandran
Weed Biology and Ecology
Chair: M. VanGessel
Chair-elect: D. Mortensen
Effect of Climate Change on Weeds
PGR Turfgrass Symposium
Moderator: J. Barron
Moderator: M. Agnew
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH POSTERS
EFFECTS OF TRIKETONE HERBICIDES ON SEEDED PERENNIAL RYEGRASS AND
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS. J.B. Willis and S.D. Askew .................................................. 1
PENNSYLVANIA GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION PROGRAM UPDATE. M.A.
Bravo, M. Polach, R. Grieneisen, J. Diesing ................................................................... 2
WEED CONTROL UNDER PLASTIC WITH FALL DAZOMET SOIL FUMIGANT
APPLICATION. B.A. Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and Q.R. Johnson..................................... 3
ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL OF LAKE GASTON VOLUNTEERS TO CREATE
MANAGEMENT-QUALITY INVASIVE PLANT MAPS. B.R. Lassiter, R.J. Richardson,
G.G. Wilkerson, and M.C. Sturgill ................................................................................... 4
PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE PROGRAMS UTILIZING MESOTRIONE. M.J. Goddard
and S.D. Askew, and R.J. Keese and J.R. James .......................................................... 5
PALE SWALLOW-WORT ESTABLISHMENT AND SURVIVAL ACROSS FOUR
DISTURBANCE REGIMES. K. M. Averill, A. DiTommaso, C.L. Mohler, L.R. Milbrath.... 6
THE RESPONSE OF ACTIVELY GROWING ORNAMENTAL CROPS TO
DIMETHENAMID-P AND MESOTRIONE. M.W. Marshall and B.H. Zandstra................. 7
MECHANICAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN HIGH RESIDUE CONSERVATION TILLAGE
SYSTEMS. R.T. Bates, R.S. Gallagher, and W.S. Curran .............................................. 8
WEED CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR ORGANIC FORAGE PRODUCTION: A FOUR-
YEAR SUMMARY. J.M. Jemison, Jr. and M. Kirby ......................................................... 9
EFFICACY OF HAND-HELD "WET BLADE" HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS ON SWEET
GUM, MAPLE, AND TULIP POPLAR. D.A. Little, A.R. Post, and J.C. Neal,
C.A. Judge .................................................................................................................... 10
RESPONSE OF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS AND TALL FESCUE TO BYSPYRIBAC-
SODIUM HERBICIDE. S.E. Hart and P.E. McCullough ................................................ 11
MESOTRIONE AND HEXAZINONE COMBINATIONS FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILD
BLUEBERRIES. D.E. Yarborough and J. D'Appollonio................................................. 12
CONVERTING COOL-SEASON ATHLETIC FIELDS TO PATRIOT BERMUDAGRASS
USING CHEMICALS AND ROW PLANTING. T.L. Mittlesteadt, J.M. Goatley, S.D.
Askew, and M. Sullenberger ......................................................................................... 14
vi

ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS FAIRWAYS
WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM AND SULFOSULFURON. P.E. McCullough
and S.E. Hart................................................................................................................. 15
BROCCOLI AND CAULIFLOWER RESPONSES TO POSTEMERGENCE
APPLICATIONS OF VINEGAR FOR WEED MANAGEMENT. C. B. Coffman, J.
Radhakrishnan, and J. R. Teasdale .............................................................................. 16
ORGANIC WEED MANAGEMENT: WHAT THE FARMERS THINK. M. R. Ryan, D. A.
Mortensen, D. O. Wilson, and P. R. Hepperly ............................................................... 17
A SIX-YEAR COMPARISON OF PREEMERGENCE CRABGRASS CONTROL WITH
PROFESSIONAL TURF HERBICIDES. J.L. Jester, J.B. Willis, and S.D. Askew.......... 18
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF AN ADVENTITIOUS HERBIVORE ON AN
INVASIVE PLANT, YELLOW TOADFLAX, IN COLORADO USA. J.F. Egan, and R. E.
Irwin............................................................................................................................... 19
EVALUATION OF AT-SEEDING GRANULAR HERBICIDES IN KENTUCKY
BLUEGRASS TURF. R.S. Chandran and R.J. Keese.................................................. 20
DOES SOIL PH INFLUENCE SWALLOW-WORT DISTRIBUTION IN ITS CURRENT
RANGE? L.C. Magidow, A. DiTommaso, Q.M. Ketterings, and L.R. Milbrath ............... 21
WAVYLEAF BASKETGRASS IN MARYLAND – An EDRR in Progress. K.L. Kyde and
B.H. Marose .................................................................................................................. 22
GRADUATE STUDENT CONTEST
EFFECTS OF BUCKWHEAT COVER CROP ON WINTER WHEAT ESTABLISHMENT,
YIELD, AND WEED SUPPRESSION. V. Kumar, D.C. Brainard, R.R. Bellinder, and R.R.
Hahn.............................................................................................................................. 23
BUSHKILLER BIOLOGY AND RESPONSE TO HERBICIDES. A.M. West, R.J.
Richardson, A.P. Gardner, and J. Matthews ................................................................. 24
PHRAGMITES RESPONSE TO SELECTED HERBICIDES. S.L. True, R.J. Richardson,
A.P. Gardner, and P.L. Hipkins ..................................................................................... 25
LONGEVITY OF WEED CONTROL IN CONTAINERS WITH BAS 659H. R.P.M.
Atwood, L.C. Walker, J.C. Neal, C.A. Judge ................................................................. 26
vii

CARDAMINE WEED SPECIES IN UNITED STATES NURSERIES. A.R. Post, J.C.
Neal, A. Krings, B.R. Sosinski, and Q. Xiang ................................................................ 27
AMICARBAZONE AND FLUCARBAZONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS.
M.J. Goddard, T.L. Mittlesteadt, and S.D. Askew, and L.D. Houseworth ...................... 28
EFFECTS OF TOPDRESSING COLOR ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SPRIGGED
PATRIOT BERMUDAGRASS. T.L. Mittlesteadt, J.L. Jester, and S.D. Askew .............. 29
SPRAY ADJUVANTS INFLUENCE BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM EFFICACY FOR ANNUAL
BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS. P.E. McCullough and S.E.
Hart ............................................................................................................................... 30
PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR AND NITROGEN AFFECT SEASONAL
CARBOHYDRATE PARTITIONING IN CREEPING BENTGRASS. D. Sarkar, P. C.
Bhowmik, M. DaCosta................................................................................................... 31
INFLUENCE OF BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM ON BROWN PATCH SEVERITY. A.I. Putman
and J.E. Kaminski ......................................................................................................... 32
THE POTENTIAL USE OF VINEGAR AS A BANDED APPLICATION, DIRECTED AT
THE BASE OF TRANSPLANTED PEPPERS AND BRUSSEL SPROUTS. G.J. Evans
and R.R. Bellinder ......................................................................................................... 33
TOLERANCE OF BUTTERNUT SQUASH TO PREEMERGENCE AND
POSTEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF HALOSULFURON-METHYL. .
M. J.VanGessel, Q. R. Johnson, B. A. Scott, and H. P. Wilson..................................... 34
THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL-SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON SUCCESS
OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS. A.N. Nord and D.A. Mortensen.................................... 35
ROLLING RYE FOR WEED SUPPRESSION IN NO-TILL SOYBEANS. R. Mick, W.S.
Curran, and S. Duiker.................................................................................................... 36
MANIPULATION OF SOIL NITROGEN LEVELS AND ITS EFFECTS ON WEED VIGOR
AND FECUNDITY. S.E. Whitehouse, A. DiTommaso, and C.L. Mohler........................ 37
ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL WEED MANAGEMENT EFFICACY AND STABILITY
IN A LONG-TERM CROPPING SYSTEM TRIAL. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, W.S.
Curran, R. Seidel, P.R. Hepperly, and J.R. Teasdale ................................................... 38
WEEDS, ETHANOL, AND DISAPPEARING BEES; TALES OF LANDSCAPE
BIODIVERSITY. N.B. DeBarros .................................................................................... 39
viii

AGRONOMY I
IS IT TIME TO RELINQUISH ATRAZINE IN CORN? W.S. Curran............................... 40
LOOKING FOR POSTEMERGENCE SOLUTIONS TO TRIAZINE RESISTANCE
WEEDS IN POTATOES. J.M. Jemison, Jr., P. Sexton, and L. Titus............................. 41
ALS- AND ACCASE-RESISTANT ITALIAN RYEGRASS IN WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA. J.B. Beam and A.C. York .......................................................................... 42
HALEX GT: NEW POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR GLYPHOSATE
TOLERANT CORN. G.D. Vail and C.M. Moseley ......................................................... 43
HALEX GT WEED CONTROL IN GLYPHOSATE TOLERANT CORN. R.D. Lins, B.R.
Miller, B.D. Black........................................................................................................... 44
FALL BURNDOWN: DOES IT HAVE A FIT IN DELAWARE. M.J. VanGessel, Q.R.
Johnson, and B.A. Scott................................................................................................ 45
ORNAMENTALS I
IR-4 AND ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE IN THE NORTHEAST. E. L. Lurvey ....... 46
COMPETITION FROM BLACK COTTONWOOD IN NURSERY CONTAINERS. J.E.
Altland ........................................................................................................................... 47
EFFICACY AND PERSISTANCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS APPLIED TO
ROOTED CUTTINGS OF TWO CULTIVARS OF RHODODENDRON BEFORE
POTTING. S. Barolli ...................................................................................................... 48
DIMETHENAMID-P: A NEW ACTIVE INGREDIENT FOR PREEMERGENCE WEED
CONTROL IN PRODUCTION ORNAMENTALS. C.A. Judge, K.M. Kalmowitz, and J.
Zawierucha.................................................................................................................... 49
EFFICACY OF DIMETHENAMID-P + PENDIMETHALIN GRANULAR COMBINATIONS
IN CONTAINERS. J.C. Neal ......................................................................................... 50
ix

TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS I
ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AND CREEPING BENTGRASS QUALITY AND
COLOR IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT TURF AS INFLUENCED BY PLANT GROWTH
REGULATOR PROGRAMS WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM. S. J. McDonald................ 51
EARLY POST-EMERGENT CONTROL OF SMOOTH CRABGRASS AND BULL
PASPALUM WITH TANK-MIXES OF VARIOUS HERBICIDES. S.J. McDonald........... 52
TOLERANCE OF SEEDLING BLUE GRAMMA AND LITTLE BLUESTEM TO
POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. J.L. Jester and S.D. Askew.................................. 53
POSTEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS AND WHITE CLOVER CONTROL WITH
MESOTRIONE. P.H. Dernoeden and J. Fu................................................................... 54
YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURF. S.E. Hart, C. Mansue,
and P.E. McCullough..................................................................................................... 55
PREEMERGENCE YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN SPRING SEEDED TALL
FESCUE. P.H. Dernoeden and J. Fu ............................................................................ 57
WEED BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY
A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE NON-NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA, R. Stalter, A.
Jung, E. Youssef, J. Jelovic .......................................................................................... 58
DEPLETING THE GERMINABLE WEED SEEDBANK WITH SOIL DISTURBANCE
AND COVER CROPPING PRACTICES. S.B. Mirsky, E.R. Gallandt, D.A. Mortensen,
W.S. Curran, and D.L. Shumway .................................................................................. 62
HERBICIDE EFFECTIVENESS ON GIANT HOGWEED FOR PENNSYLVANIA
ERADICATION PROGRAM. M.A. Bravo....................................................................... 63
FIRST YEAR AFTER TREATMENT RESULTS: PILOT KUDZU ERADICATION
PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo and P. Broady ....................................... 64
BIOLOGY OF DODDER: A NOXIOUS WEED. P.C. Bhowmik and D. Sarkar............... 65
RISKY ENERGY: BIOFUELS AND INVASIVE SPECIES. J. Barney and J. DiTomaso 66
x

CONSERVATION, FORESTRY, AND INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS INVASIVE PLANT ADVISORY
GROUP AND THE MASSACHUSETTS PROHIBITED PLANT LIST. R.G. Prostak, A.R.
Bonanno, and B. Mitchell .............................................................................................. 67
VEGETABLES AND FRUITS I
SQUASH RESPONSE TO FOMESAFEN, HALOSULFURON, METOLACHLOR, AND
TERBACIL APPLIED AT PLANTING. J.B. Beam, R.B. Batts, and W.E. Mitchem ....... 69
POTENTIAL HERBICIDE PROGRAMS FOR SNAP BEANS. D.D. Lingenfelter, and M.J.
VanGessel..................................................................................................................... 70
EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF PREFIX IN MULTIPLE VEGETABLE
CROPS. R.R. Bellinder and C.A. Benedict.................................................................... 71
ANNUAL GRASS CONTROL IN SWEET CORN. D.H. Johnson and D.D. Lingenfelter,
M.J. VanGessel, Q.R. Johnson, and B.A. Scott ............................................................ 72
FLUMIOXAZIN USE AT PLANTING IN MATTED ROW STRAWBERRIES. S.D. Guiser
and K. Demachak.......................................................................................................... 73
PERENNIAL WEED CONTROL AND CROP TOLERANCE WITH MESOTRIONE AND
TOPRAMEZONE IN CRANBERRIES. H.A. Sandler and K.M. Ghantous ..................... 75
AGRONOMY II
HERBICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR IMPACT ON
EXTENSION. M.J. VanGessel and B.A. Scott .............................................................. 76
ITALIAN RYEGRASS CONTROL IN WHEAT. R.L. Ritter and H. Menbere .................. 77
NEW POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL OPTIONS FOR USE IN CORN. H.
Menbere and R.L. Ritter ................................................................................................ 78
ANNUAL GRASS BURNDOWN IN CORN WITH HPPD INHIBITORS. R.R. Hahn and
P.J. Stachowski............................................................................................................. 79
xi

NEW POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL OPTIONS FOR USE IN CORN. H.
Menbere and R.L. Ritter ................................................................................................ 78
ANNUAL GRASS BURNDOWN IN CORN WITH HPPD INHIBITORS. R.R. Hahn and
P.J. Stachowski............................................................................................................. 79
ORNAMENTALS II
PREEMERGENCE CONTROL OF DOVEWEED IN NURSERY CROPS. J.F. Derr, and
J.C. Neal .......................................................................................................................80
TOLERANCE OF FRASER FIR TO HERBICIDES APPLIED BEFORE AND AFTER
BUD BREAK. J. F. Ahrens and T. L. Mervosh .............................................................. 81
TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO EXPERIMENTAL AND
REGISTERED HERBICIDES. T. L. Mervosh and J. F. Ahrens .................................... 82
SHOWCASE EFFICACY AND SAFETY IN CONTAINER GROWN NURSERY
CROPS. D. A. Little and J. C. Neal ............................................................................... 83
UPDATE ON 2007 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL
HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C.L. Palmer, J. Baron, and E. Vea............................... 84
TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS II
EFFECTS OF DITHIOPYR AND TRICLOPYR ON ANTICHROMATIC EFFECTS OF
MESOTRIONE ON TURFGRASS AND SELECTED WEEDS. J.B. Willis, M.J. Goddard,
and S.D. Askew............................................................................................................. 85
BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL WITH FLUROXYPYR IN COOL-SEASON
TURFGRASS. C. Mansue and S.E. Hart ...................................................................... 86
TENACITY: A NEW HERBICIDE FOR TURFGRASS MANAGERS. R. J. Keese, J.
Driver and D. Cox.......................................................................................................... 87
PREEMERGENCE ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL. J.A. Borger
and M.B. Naedel ........................................................................................................... 88
PREEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL. M.B. Naedel
and J.A. Borger ............................................................................................................. 89
xii

PRE- AND EARLY-POSTEMERGENT CONTROL OF FALSE GREEN KYLLINGA IN
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND. J.E. Kaminski............................................................... 90
POSTEMERGENT CONTROL OF FALSE GREEN KYLLINGA IN SOUTHERN NEW
ENGLAND. J.E. Kaminski ............................................................................................. 91
USE OF MESOTRIONE HERBICIDE FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AT
COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS ESTABLISHMENT. S.E. Hart, P.E. McCullough, and C.
Mansue ......................................................................................................................... 92
CRABGRASS CONTROL INFLUENCED BY GROWTH STAGE AND BROADLEAF
WEED HERBICIDES. P.E. McCullough and S.E. Hart.................................................. 93
VEGETABLES AND FRUIT II
IR-4 IN THE NORTHEAST. E. L. Lurvey....................................................................... 94
IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HERBICIDE REGISTRATION (FOOD USES).
F.P. Salzman, D.L. Kunkel, and J.J. Baron. .................................................................. 95
THE USE OF MESOTRIONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN MINOR CROPS. D. Lycan, V.
Lengkeek, and G. Vail................................................................................................... 96
THE ADVANTAGES TO USING THE GRANULAR FORMULATION OF FLUMIOXAZIN
IN TOMATOES, POTATOES, AND SWEET POTATOES. B.A. Majek ........................ 97
SNAP BEAN RESPONSE TO POSTEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF
ACIFLUORFEN, BENTAZON, AND FOMESAFEN. R. B. Batts, R.W. Wallace, and A.K.
Petty.............................................................................................................................. 98
SYMPOSIUM: THE LATEST IN PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS FOR
TURGRASS USE
GROWTH REGULATORS AND TURFGRASSES---A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
T.L. Watschke ............................................................................................................... 99
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WITH PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS. D.P.
Shepard....................................................................................................................... 100
xiii

ANTHRACNOSE DISEASE MANAGEMENT WITH PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS.
J.C. Inguagiato, J.A. Murphy, and B.B. Clarke ............................................................ 101
ETIOLATED TILLER SYMPTOMS OF TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH
REGULATORS. M.A. Fidanza .................................................................................... 102
USING PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS REMOVAL. J.
A. Borger and M. B. Naedel ........................................................................................ 103
USE OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON SPORTS TURF. S.D. Askew .......... 104
USING PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON GOLF COURSES IN THE MID-
ATLANTIC REGION. S.J. Zontek................................................................................ 105
REPORTS, AWARDS, MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY, HERBICIDE LISTS,
AND INDICES
NEWSS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ................................................ 106
NEWSS FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 2007 ........................................................... 116
NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS..................................................................................... 117
AWARD OF MERIT..................................................................................................... 118
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS ..................................................................................... 120
OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD .................................................................. 121
OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD....................................................................... 121
OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER CONTEST .................................... 122
COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS .............................................................. 125
RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS................................................................................ 129
INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR ...................................................................................... 133
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS..................... 133
OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS,........................ 133
xiv

HERBICIDE NAMES: COMMON, TRADE, AND CHEMICAL .................................... 155
COMMON PRE-PACKAGED HERBICIDES ............................................................... 173
EXPERIMENTAL HERBICIDES.................................................................................. 178
PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS.............................................................................. 178
COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF HERBICIDE MODIFIERS........................... 179
AUTHOR’S INDEX...................................................................................................... 180
MAIN SUBJECT INDEX .............................................................................................. 182
xv

xvi

EFFECTS OF TRIKETONE HERBICIDES ON SEEDED PERENNIAL RYEGRASS AND
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS. J.B. Willis and S.D. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
Initial screenings of topramezone and tembotrione revealed turfgrass tolerance
and weed control comparable to mesotrione (Tenacity). Mesotrione will be the first
HPPD inhibitor registered for use in turf and offers both preemergent and postemergent
broad-spectrum weed control and weed control options during establishment of coolseason
turfgrass. Our objectives are to determine the usefulness of topramezone and
tembotrione during establishment of cool-season turfgrass. Three trials were conducted
in Blacksburg, VA to evaluate rates and sequential treatments of topramezone and
tembotrione during establishment of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) (KBG) and
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) (PR). Two trials were seeded September 6, 2007
with PR and KBG at the Glade Road Research Facility and one trial was strip seeded
with PR and KBG on October 11, 2007 at the Turfgrass Research Center. Trials at the
Glade Road Research Facility were mown three times per week at 0.6 inches and the
trial at the Turfgrass Research Center was mown once per week at 2.5 inches.
Treatments were topramezone at 0.016 and 0.05 lb ai/A, tembotrione at 0.12 and 0.37
lb ai/A, mesotrione at 0.25 lb ai/A, quinclorac at 0.56 lb ai/A, and siduron at 6 lb ai/A
each applied at seeding and at seeding with a 4 week after emergence sequential
treatment. Weed control, turfgrass injury and color were all evaluated over the course
of the trials. Topramezone and tembotrione when applied at seeding of Kentucky
bluegrass did not cause turf injury. These herbicides controlled smooth crabgrass
(Digitaria ischaemum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
chickweed (Stellaria media), and broadleaf plantain (Plantago major). Mesotrione and
tembotrione both injured perennial ryegrass when applied at seeding while
topramezone, siduron, and quinclorac injured PR less than 20%. Only topramezone
reduced establishment of PR by reducing turf cover 30%. Sequential treatments of
quinclorac, mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone discolored Kentucky bluegrass
as much as 26, 76, 83, and 29%, respectively and perennial ryegrass as much as 19,
75, 89, and 55%, respectively depending on rate. Injury by these postemergence
treatments was transient, occurring 4 days after treatment and lasting an additional 3
weeks. Previous trials with these herbicides applied to mature turfgrass have rarely
resulted in turfgrass injury in excess of 30%. Although more studies are needed,
tembotrione and topramezone appear to be suited for use in cool-season turfgrass in
ways similar to that of mesotrione.
1

PENNSYLVANIA GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION PROGRAM UPDATE. M.A.
Bravo, M. Polach, R. Grieneisen, Pennsylvania Department Agriculture, Harrisburg and
J. Diesing, USDA-APHIS, Carlisle.
ABSTRACT
Pennsylvania (PA) discovered its first wild population of giant hogweed
(Heracleum mantegazzianum) (GH) in 1985 in Erie County, two years after the federal
government (USDA) declared the plant a noxious weed. Undoubtedly GH was in
Pennsylvania a number of years prior to the initial detection, but only in the last 20 years
have wild populations been reported to officials. Currently, 16 states (WA, OR, WI, IL,
IN, MI, OH, PA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, NH, VT, ME) have confirmed finding giant
hogweed. Giant hogweed seems especially well adapted to -20 to -10ºF or Plant
Hardiness Zones 5 (USDA Plant Hardiness Zone MAP) with a few locations in Zone 6
and Zone 7(MD, D.C).
A joint effort between the PA Department of Agriculture (PDA) and the USDA in
1998 established the Giant Hogweed Eradication Program. Pennsylvania's success has
resulted from continued support (personnel and funding) from USDA-APHIS and PDA’s
ability to utilize existing regional staff to launch the eradication program via the toll free
hotline and Giant Hogweed Coordinator position. By 2005, Pennsylvania’s outreach
efforts had identified more than 500 populations in 15 counties and helped identify
previously undiscovered populations in neighboring northeastern Ohio. The number of
new sites peaked in 2003 and has steadily dropped in subsequent years and the
number of controlled sites has increased indicating the outreach and treatments have
been successful at eradicating wild populations of giant hogweed. This has allowed
Pennsylvania (USDA and PDA) to shift the work load of the Giant Hogweed Coordinator
to 3 seasonal technicians working out of the Western area of the state. Outlying sites in
other areas of the state are controlled by the Harrisburg office or staff at regional offices.
All known sites of GH are visited during the growing season and viable plants are
treated either with a 2.5% or a 5.0% v/v triclopyr aqueous based or THINVERT based
solution. In previous years, fluroxypyr was added to the mixture. At the end of 2007,
fluroxypyr was replaced with aminopyralid at a rate of 0.45% v/v after field plot
comparisons showed significant root injury for plants treated with aminopyralid.
Approximately 160 of 524 sites in 12 of 17 counties were viable in 2007. An effort to
identify sites to be released indicates that more than 150 sites are no longer viable and
can be released from the Pennsylvania program. Pennsylvania continues to assist
neighboring states with training, data standardization and program outreach.
2

WEED CONTROL UNDER PLASTIC WITH FALL DAZOMET SOIL FUMIGANT
APPLICATION. B.A. Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and Q.R. Johnson, University of Delaware,
Georgetown.
ABSTRACT
Dazomet is a soil fumigant used to control weeds, fungi, and nematodes. It has
been used in turf, ornamentals, field nurseries including Christmas trees, and in
strawberry and tomato production. Expanding the use of dazomet in vegetable
production settings with the use of plasticulture needs to be investigated. In 2006, a
field trial was initiated in Georgetown, DE. The objective was to determine the efficacy
of fall dazomet application for weed control under plastic laid in the fall versus the
standard practice of herbicide application and plastic mulch laid in the spring.
Trial area was chisel plowed, disked and field cultivated in October 2006.
dazomet (400 lbs/A) was applied with a drop spreader and incorporated. Dazomet
treatments differed by incorporation methods. Dazomet was incorporated immediately
with a roto-tiller (to a 6-inch depth) prior to bedding and laying plastic; no roto-till, but
incorporated within 30 minutes by bedding procedure and laying plastic; or roto-tilled
then water-sealed over a five day period with overhead irrigation. Water sealed
treatments were bedded and plastic mulch laid in the spring. Comparison treatments
included Sandea (0.67 oz wt/A) applied in the spring one day prior to bedding and
laying plastic and no weed control under plastic mulch. All treatments involving laying
plastic mulch in the spring were roto-tilled 5 inches deep to facilitate bedding. All plots
had drip irrigation laid under the plastic mulch. ‘Millionaire’ seedless watermelons and
pollinators were transplanted on May 10, 2007. Plots were 40 foot long, top of beds
were 30 inches wide and each was on 8 foot centers. Weed control in row middles was
treated the same for all plots. This study was arranged as a randomized complete block
with five replications.
At 7 weeks after transplanting (WATRP), dazomet with plastic mulch laid in the
fall provided the most consistent weed control. Weed control evaluation showed poor
large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea)
control in the spring plastic treatments. Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album),
pigweed species (Amaranthus spp.), and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control
was reduced in the dazomet spring plastic treatment as compared to the two fall
dazomet treatments and Sandea under plastic.
At the end of each plot, one square foot sections of plastic were cut and removed
at 3 WATRP to expose soil and allow for weed growth. At 9 WATRP, weed counts
taken from the 1 ft 2 sections showed dazomet treatments with plastic laid in the fall
provided the most consistent control.
Watermelon yield in the dazomet, roto-tilled, with plastic mulch laid in the fall was
significantly greater (>60%) than with Sandea under plastic, dazomet no roto-till with
plastic in the fall, and the untreated check. Yield in the dazomet, plastic in the spring
did not differ from any other treatment.
Fall dazomet followed by roto-tilling and plastic provided the most consistent
results across all the parameters. For the initial year, roto-tilling, plastic mulch in the fall
improved the effectiveness of dazomet for weed control, watermelon health, and yield.
3

ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL OF LAKE GASTON VOLUNTEERS TO CREATE
MANAGEMENT-QUALITY INVASIVE PLANT MAPS. B.R. Lassiter, R.J. Richardson,
G.G. Wilkerson, and M.C. Sturgill, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
ABSTRACT
Lake Gaston is a 20,000 acre multiple-use reservoir residing in both North
Carolina and Virginia. This body of water has been infested in recent years with Hydrilla
(Hydrilla verticillata), Egeria (Egeria densa), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum), brittle naiad (Najas minor), and Lyngbya species. Approximately 3,000 acres
of hydrilla were present in 2007 with smaller acreages of the other species. Yearly
surveys of aquatic plant distributions are a key factor in the determination of specific
management plans. A project was initiated in 2007 to determine the feasibility of
equipping, training, and supporting a volunteer group to survey aquatic vegetation. An
initial training session covered identification of approximately 8 key species and basic
scouting and mapping techniques. GPS and PDA units were purchased and provided
for distribution to the volunteers. Volunteers selected a specific region of the lake to
focus individual efforts and reported results to a central database. This database will be
used for the generation of distribution maps for initial comparison to maps generated by
a professional contractor. Effectiveness of this volunteer effort will be evaluated and
implications for other management areas will be discussed.
4

PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE PROGRAMS UTILIZING MESOTRIONE. M.J. Goddard
and S.D. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and R.J. Keese and J.R. James, Syngenta
Professional Products, Greensboro, NC.
ABSTRACT
Mesotrione is a triketone herbicide soon to be registered for use in turfgrass
under the trade name Tenacity (Syngenta Professional Products). Tenacity will be
a product offering control of many annual and perennial broadleaved and grassy weeds.
Mesotrione can be applied as a pre or a post-emergence herbicide. This quality will
serve as a major benefit to lawn care operators and their approach to weed control in
cool season turfgrass. Two trials were initiated on lawn height Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis) in 2007 at Virginia Tech's Turfgrass Research Center in Blacksburg, VA.
These trials included 8 treatment options which combined and/or compared the use of
mesotrione and standard preemergence and postemergence herbicides to provide
broad-spectrum weed control through the growing season. A randomized complete
block experimental design with 4 replications was used. Treatments were applied on
April 3 (pre), May 15 (early post), July 1 (post), and September 1 (post). Treatments
included 4 combinations of a granular formulation of mesotrione plus prodiamine
followed by 3 applications of granular mesotrione at varying rates, a granular dithiopyr
formulation followed by 3 applications of Trimec ® Herbicide (PBI Gordon Corp.) on a 22-
0-4 fertilizer carrier, a 22-0-4 fertilizer applied with a foliar broadcast of liquid dithiopyr
(Dimension ® 2EW, Dow AgroSciences LLC) followed by 2 applications of a 22-0-4
fertilizer applied with foliar broadcast application of Triplet ® Sensitive Herbicide (Nufarm
Turf & Specialty), 4 applications of a 22-0-4 fertilizer applied alone at 42.6 kg/ha
throughout the season, and an untreated check. All of the treatments combining
mesotrione with preemergence herbicides controlled smooth crabgrass (Digitaria
ischaemum) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 90 to 100% throughout the growing
season. Treatments containing regular fertilizer applications alone increased turf quality
and reduced weed pressure by 50% over the untreated check. Overall turfgrass quality
was significantly greater in treated plots than in untreated plots. Mesotrione proved to
be an effective addition to a lawn care operator’s management program providing an
option for preeemergence and postemergence control of broadleaved and grassy
weeds.
5

PALE SWALLOW-WORT ESTABLISHMENT AND SURVIVAL ACROSS FOUR
DISTURBANCE REGIMES. K. M. Averill, A. DiTommaso, C.L. Mohler, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY; and L.R. Milbrath USDA-ARS, Ithaca, NY.
ABSTRACT
Pale swallow-wort [Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi] is an increasingly
problematic invasive perennial vine in the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada.
Currently, sufficient biological data on this herbaceous species is lacking. Such data
are necessary for further development of a biological control program, already
underway for this species. In November 2006, we planted pale swallow-wort seeds in
old fields subjected to four disturbance regimes at two sites in central New York State.
We hypothesized that emergence would be greater in treatments with greater
disturbance. The treatments were: (1) an initial glyphosate (3.0 kg a.e. ha-1) and
dicamba (1.9 kg a.e. ha-1) application followed by roto-tillage to 15 cm depth, (2) an
initial glyphosate and dicamba application, (3) mowing to approximately 20 cm once per
year, and (4) an undisturbed control. Here we present emergence and survival results
from 2007. A concurrent seed stratification and germination trial for seeds collected at
the same time and location as field-planted seeds was conducted under controlled
conditions and resulted in 87 ± 4 % germination. Seedling emergence was lower under
field conditions. At the Mount Pleasant (MTP) field site, total emergence in the following
growing season was 18 ± 1 % and did not differ between treatments. At the Hanshaw
(HS) field site, emergence varied by treatment (P < 0.001). At HS, mowed plots (21 ± 3
%) had greater total seedling emergence than all other treatment plots: glyphosate +
tilled (4 ± 1 %), glyphosate (7 ± 2 %), and control (11 ± 2 %). Control plots had greater
emergence than glyphosate + tilled plots. At MTP, May seedling emergence (as a
percentage of total seedling emergence) was greater in the glyphosate + tillage (61 ± 5
%) and glyphosate (52 ± 11 %) treatment plots than in the control (5 ± 3 %) and mowed
(4 ± 3 %) treatment plots (P < 0.001). At MTP, June seedling emergence did not vary
between treatment plots, but in early July, control (33 ± 10 %) plots had greater
emergence than the more closed glyphosate + tilled (4 ± 2 %) and glyphosate (3 ± 1 %)
plots (P = 0.01). Thus, emergence was delayed in control plots relative to the more
open glyphosate and glyphosate + tilled plots. At HS, seedling emergence was not
affected by treatment in any of the months. At both sites, seedling emergence declined
after the first large flush. Most mortality occurred within the first three weeks after
emergence at both sites and in all treatments. At both sites, survival to September of
May- and June-emerging seedling cohorts was not affected by treatment. At MTP,
which is at a greater elevation and is better drained than HS, the May cohort survival
was 73 ± 7 % and the June cohort had 88 ± 3 % survival. At HS, the May cohort
survival was 40 ± 7 % and the June cohort had 43 ± 9 % survival. These first-year
results indicate that pale swallow-wort emergence and survival varies depending on the
site and extent of disturbance. Here, elevation and soil drainage appeared to be factors
contributing to the variations in pale swallow-wort emergence and survival between
sites.
6

THE RESPONSE OF ACTIVELY GROWING ORNAMENTAL CROPS TO
DIMETHENAMID-P AND MESOTRIONE. M.W. Marshall and B.H. Zandstra, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted in 2007 to evaluate tolerance of field grown
ornamentals to various rates of dimethenamid-P and mesotrione. Treatments included
dimethenamid-P at 1.09, 2.17, and 4.35 kg/ha and mesotrione at 0.21, 0.28, and 0.41
kg/ha. An untreated control was included for comparison. Field grown ornamental
species included burning bush (Euonymus alatus ‘Compactus’), azalea (Azalea
‘Cannon’s Double’), boxwood, daylily (Hemerocallis ‘Evelyn Claar’), coral bells
(Heuchera micrantha ‘Palace Purple’), hosta (Hosta fortunei 'Gold Standard'), and
Shasta daisy (Leucanthemum x superbum 'Snowcap'). Dimethenamid-P was applied
on May 30, 2007 and July 11, 2007 and mesotrione was applied on May 30, 2007.
Experimental design was a randomized complete block design with 3 replications.
Individual plot dimensions were 1.8 by 10.6 m. Plant injury ratings were evaluated 7
and 28 days after treatment (DAT) on a 0 to 9 scale with 0 indicating no injury and 9
equal to crop death. Herbicides were applied in water over-the-top of actively growing
ornamentals at a carrier volume of 187 L/ha with a pressure of 207 KPa. Burning bush
injury was less than 2.5 at 28 DAT, across the dimethenamid-P rates. However,
significant burning bush, azalea, daylily, coral bell, hosta, and Shasta daisy injury was
noted with the 0.37 lb/A rate of mesotrione (3.0 to 4.0). The 0.21 and 0.28 kg/ha rate of
mesotrione was generally safe on burning bush, boxwood, azalea, daylily, coral bell,
hosta, and Shasta daisy, regardless of timing. Boxwood injury from mesotrione
appeared as white chlorosis at the leaf tips followed by leaf drop. Burning bush, azalea,
boxwood, daylily, coral bell, hosta, and Shasta daisy were fairly tolerant of
dimethenamid-P (2.17 kg/ha or lower rate) [less than 2.3]. The response of the
ornamental species examined to postemergence applications of dimethenamid-P in
order of the least sensitive was burning bush = boxwood = coral bell > azalea > hosta >
daylily > Shasta daisy. Mesotrione response in order of most sensitive was Shasta
daisy = daylily > coral bell > azalea > burning bush > hosta. Overall, woody and
herbaceous ornamentals appeared to be tolerant of the low- and mid-range rate of
dimethenamid-P and mesotrione. More testing is needed to ensure safety on other
species and varieties of ornamental crops.
7

MECHANICAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN HIGH RESIDUE CONSERVATION TILLAGE
SYSTEMS. R.T. Bates, R.S. Gallagher, and W.S. Curran, Penn State University,
University Park.
ABSTRACT
Various conservation tillage corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.)
Merr.] systems have been widely adopted by agricultural producers. These systems
have reduced soil erosion, but have relied heavily on herbicides for weed control.
Increase dependence on pesticides is leading to herbicide resistance in weeds and
raises the potential for off site impacts. Integrated weed management can reduce
negative effects of herbicides, while maintaining more realistic levels of weed control.
The objective of our study is to evaluate surface tillage implements for their
incorporation into an integrated weed management plan in high residue direct-seeded
corn and soybean systems. Eight individual treatments have been created to evaluate a
vertical coulter implement, a rotary harrow, a high residue rotary hoe, and a high
residue row cultivator with pre-plant broadcast, pre-plant band, and post emerge
herbicide applications incorporated into treatments. Results from our preliminary
research shows a combination of the vertical coulter, a rotary harrow, and three timed
passes of a rotary hoe or one pass of the high residue row cultivator can obtain similar
weed control to the herbicide dependent corn system. We believe that this research will
demonstrate that a combination of mechanical weed control while maintaining sufficient
plant residue and herbicides can provide effective weed control while reducing the
number of applications or the application area of herbicides. Crop residue levels will
also illustrate the impact that the mechanical weed control implements have on soil
erosion potential. The results from this research will help both organic farmers who
desire to reduce tillage associated with weed management and conventional reduced
tillage farmers who desire to use less herbicide.
8

WEED CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR ORGANIC FORAGE PRODUCTION: A FOUR-
YEAR SUMMARY. J.M. Jemison, Jr. and M. Kirby, University of Maine Cooperative
Extension, Orono.
ABSTRACT
In much of New England, demand for organic milk exceeds supply. Water quality
implications for increasing the number of organic dairies include reduced: 1) pesticide
loss to surface and ground waters of the region; 2) nutrient loss to water resources due
to slower nutrient release; and 3) soil loss from fields with continuous cropping.
However, producing quality forage with minimal weed pressure remains the greatest
challenge for organic dairy producers. Growers need information on effective crop
rotations and cultivation methods to maximize forage yield and quality. The University of
Maine Cooperative Extension initiated an experiment in 2004 to evaluate alternative
cropping system strategies that might better balance crop emergence, growth, and time
to canopy closure compared to organic silage corn. Our interest was to: 1) quantify
yield, quality, and weed pressure of winter and spring small grains and brown midrib
sorghum sudan grass (BMRSS) double crops compared to intensively cultivated organic
silage corn; and 2) determine if narrow crop row spacing would more effectively control
weeds compared to intensively cultivated organic corn. Corn was cultivated twice with a
tine cultivator and twice with a row cultivator. No weed control was used in the small
grain double crops. Small grains evaluated in at least three years of the study included
spring barley, spring wheat, winter barley, winter wheat, and winter triticale. Comparing
three of four production seasons, triticale and BMRSS provided equivalent yield to
silage corn (10,830 vs. 10,504 lbs dry matter/acre). The winter wheat BMRSS double
crop produced lower but substantial yield (9650 lbs DM/ac). Weed biomass was three
times higher on a percentage of total yield over the four year period. Surviving weeds
in the double crop system produce fewer weed seeds, improving the potential for longterm
cropping system success. The greatest difference between the systems is forage
energy. Corn silage consistently produced higher forage energy than any double crop
system.
9

EFFICACY OF HAND-HELD "WET BLADE" HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS ON SWEET
GUM, MAPLE, AND TULIP POPLAR. D.A. Little, A.R. Post, and J.C. Neal, Department
of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh and C. A. Judge,
BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
ABSTRACT
The control of herbaceous vegetation using hand-held wet-blade techniques has
been shown to be effective. In 2005 and 2006, field studies were initiated in Goldsboro,
N.C. to evaluate the efficiency of wet-blade applications on deciduous tree species. In
April 2005, one year-old sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) were transplanted in individual rows according
to species. In November 2005, applications of triclopyr 3SC (50, 25, 10, 5, or 1% v/v),
glyphosate 4SC (50, 25, 10, 5, or 1% v/v), or imazapyr 2AS (10, 5, 2.5, 1, or 0.5% v/v)
were applied to individual stems of each species. Treatments were applied by applying
5 ml of treatment solution to the cutting surface of lopping shears and each stem was
cut about 10 cm above the ground. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete
block design with four replications with one stem from each species making a plot. In
November 2006, the study was repeated on new stems that were one year older than
those treated in 2005. Regrowth heights were measured 10 months after treatments. A
year by treatment interaction occurred for red maple and sweet gum but not for tulip
poplar. In the 2005 study, triclopyr (50% v/v), glyphosate (50% v/v), and all rates of
imazapyr suppressed regrowth in red maple. However, in the 2006 study, no treatment
controlled red maple regrowth. Imazapyr (10, 5, 2.5, and 1% v/v) and triclopyr (50 and
25%) suppressed regrowth of sweet gum in the 2005 study, but suppression in the 2006
study was only observed with 5% and 10% imazapyr. Tulip poplar suppression was
achieved using imazapyr (10, 5, 2.5, and 1% v/v) and glyphosate (50 and 10% v/v).
Imazapyr (10 and 5% v/v) provided the most consistent suppression. These data
demonstrate that tree age and or size will impact the efficacy of wet-blade applied
herbicides.
10

RESPONSE OF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS AND TALL FESCUE TO BYSPYRIBAC-
SODIUM HERBICIDE. S.E. Hart and P.E. McCullough, Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted in the summer of 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the
response of tall fescue 'Avenger', and perennial ryegrass ‘Gator 3’ to bispyribac-sodium
herbicide. Annual bluegrass control was also evaluated. In 2007, fine fescue
‘Ambassodor’ was also included. Sequential applications of bispyribac-sodium were
applied at rates ranging from 37 g ai/ha to 296 g/ha at approximately a three week
interval. Experiments were initiated on May 30 and May 31 in 2006 and 2007,
respectively. All treatments were applied using a single nozzle CO 2 pressured sprayer
calibrated to deliver a total of 375 L/ha. Nozzles used were 9504E and CO 2 regulators
were set for 220 kPa. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four
replications. Turfgrass chlorosis was rated on a percent scale where 0 equaled no
chlorosis and 100 equaled complete desiccation. Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) cover
was evaluated prior to herbicide application and 10 weeks after initial treatment (WAIT).
In 2006, bispyribac-sodium caused some chlorosis to tall fescue and perennial
ryegrass; however injury did not exceed 20%. The highest levels of chlorosis were
observed 10 days following the sequential application of bispyribac-sodium at 222 and
296 g/ha. All bispyribac-sodium treatments provide substantial control of annual
bluegrass but rates exceeding 74 g/ha were required to obtain nearly complete control,
especially in perennial ryegrass. In 2007, tall fescue and perennial ryegrass injury did
not exceed 5% at any evaluation time. Fine fescue was not injured by bispyribacsodium.
By 6 WAIT, annual bluegrass control was only 24, 65, and 78% in tall fescue
when bispyribac-sodium was applied at 74, 148, and 222 g/ha, respectively. However,
296 g/ha provided nearly complete control. Control levels in perennial ryegrass tended
to be greater but rates above 74 g/ha were required to achieve 80% or greater control.
11

MESOTRIONE AND HEXAZINONE COMBINATIONS FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILD
BLUEBERRIES. D.E. Yarborough and J. D'Appollonio, Univ. of Maine, Orono.
ABSTRACT
Hexazinone has been the standard herbicide used on Maine wild blueberry
(Vaccinium angustifolium) fields for over twenty years and shifts in weed populations
have resulted in a lack of control of many weeds. A study to evaluate the effects of the
herbicide mesotrione with and without hexazinone was initiated in 2006 and continued
in 2007 with harvest of the 2006 blocks, and the addition of six split design blocks on six
wild blueberry fields across Maine in order to account for soil type and weed species
diversity. Blocks were established in the townships of Union, Northport, Orland,
Penobscot, T19, and the Blueberry Hill Experimental Farm in Jonesboro. Each block
measured 22 x 29 m and was comprised of four 7 x 22 m mesotrione treatments
including 437 mL/ha pre-emergence; 217 mL/ha pre-emergence and post-emergence;
217 mL/ha post-emergence application; and none (untreated control). At right angles to
the mesotrione treatments, 1.1 kg/ha hexazinone was applied pre-emergence to half of
each block. In 2007 pre-emergence treatments were applied on May 9 to 11, and postemergent
treatments were applied on June 14 and 15. Blueberry and weed cover, as
well as blueberry phytotoxicity, were assessed June 27 to July 9 and on August 17 to
21. Treatment effects were assessed for blueberry, broadleaf weeds, grasses and ferns
using a Daubenmire cover scale, and for phytotoxicity as percent injury. Broadleaf
weed cover was highest in the untreated control treatment for both evaluations
(Figure1). Mesotrione at 217 mL/ac post-emergence combined with hexazinone
suppressed broadleaf weeds more so than other treatments at the June evaluation, but
by the August evaluation broadleaf weed cover was not significantly different from any
other herbicide treatment. Although amounts of broadleaf weed cover were not
statistically different for either evaluation, the combination of hexazinone and
mesotrione and/or pre- and post-emergence applications tended to suppress broadleaf
weeds more effectively than a single herbicide or application. Grass cover was highest
in the untreated control and the mesotrione 437 mL/ha pre-emergence treatment at the
June evaluation, while at the August evaluation the mesotrione 217 mL/ac pre- and
post-emergence treatment had the highest grass cover (Figure 2). Grass cover in the
mesotrione 217 mL/ac pre-and post-emergence treatment with hexazinone was
significantly lower than the former at the June evaluation, but did not differ from the
hexazinone, mesotrione 437 mL/ha pre-emergence with hexazinone or 217 mL/ha postemergence
with hexazinone treatments. Grass cover in the hexazinone, mesotrione
437 mL/ha pre-emergence with hexazinone, 217 mL/ha pre-and post-emergence with
hexazinone and 217 mL/ha post-emergence with hexazinone were significantly lower
than the latter at the August evaluation, but did not differ from each other, the untreated
control or remaining mesotrione treatments. Although for the most part the mesotrione
treatments in combination with hexazinone did not significantly suppress grasses
compared to mesotrione alone. Overall grass cover increased with time although there
was a trend of better grass suppression when both herbicides were applied.
12

Figure 1. Effect of hexazinone and mesotrione on broadleaf weeds.
Figure 2. Effect of hexazinone and mesotrione on grass weeds.
13

CONVERTING COOL-SEASON ATHLETIC FIELDS TO PATRIOT BERMUDAGRASS
USING CHEMICALS AND ROW PLANTING. T.L. Mittlesteadt, J.M. Goatley, and S.D.
Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and M. Sullenberger, Game Day, Inc., Arlington, VA.
ABSTRACT
Improved cold tolerance of 'Patriot' Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) has
increased the desire to convert cool-season athletic fields to bermudagrass in the
transition zone and northern states. The goals of this experiment were to evaluate preplanting
vegetation-management treatments as they affect the establishment of rowplanted
‘Patriot’ bermudagrass and to determine if a cool-season turf can be converted
to bermudagrass in a manner that minimizes effects on turf use. Trials were conducted
at the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Center in Blacksburg, VA and Bridgewater
College near Harrisonburg, VA in 2006. In 2007, the trial was repeated at the Virginia
Tech Golf Course in Blacksburg. On May 19, 2006 and May 17, 2007, four pre-planting
treatments were applied to the cool-season turf, which was a mixture of Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). These four
treatments were: nontreated control, partially kill existing vegetation in 5 cm-wide strips
on 15-cm centers using glyphosate at 4.5 kg ai/ha in 561 L/ha carrier volume,
completely kill existing vegetation using glyphosate at 4.5 kg ai/ha in 280 L/ha, and
regulate existing vegetation with trinexapac ethyl at 0.39 kg ai/ha in 281 L/ha. On May
26, 2006 and May 24, 2007 ‘Patriot’ bermudagrass was sprigged at a level of 430
sprigs/sq m. Visual estimations of percentage total cover of green turf and
bermudagrass establishment, and quality ratings were made periodically.
Results from these three trials indicate that totally killing the cool-season turf or
partially killing turf in strips results in a quicker conversion to bermudagrass. However,
turf quality and percentage of total ground cover are sacrificed up to 10 weeks after
planting when totally killing existing turf. Nontreated and trinexapac ethyl resulted in
similar bermudagrass establishment rates of 50 to 80% after 10 weeks. An advantage
to these treatments is that total ground cover never dropped below 90% and turf could
remain in use the entire time. Partial-kill plots were similar in that turf cover was at least
70% for the duration of the study and could sustain moderate field use. Although
sprigged bermudagrass can be rapidly established after killing existing vegetation, our
results indicate that higher turfgrass quality can be maintained by row-planting
bermudagrass sprigs directly into existing turf. Partially killing existing turf can
substantially speed establishment while maintaining acceptable turf quality. Trinexapac
ethyl and the nontreated plots maintained the highest turfgrass quality with the slowest,
but acceptable, establishment rate.
14

ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS FAIRWAYS
WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM AND SULFOSULFURON. P.E. McCullough and S.E.
Hart, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Bispyribac-sodium and sulfosulfuron are new ALS-inhibiting herbicides registered
for use in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) fairways for selective roughstalk
bluegrass (Poa trivialis L.) control but limited comprehensive investigations have been
conducted to evaluate efficacy for long-term management. Field experiments were
conducted from June 2005 to October 2007 at New Jersey National Golf Club in
Basking Ridge, NJ. Bispyribac-sodium was applied twice at 37, 74, or 111 g a.i./ha or
thrice at 37 or 74 g/ha. Sulfosulfuron was applied twice or thrice at 6.5, 13, or 26 g
a.i./ha or once at 26 g/ha. Applications were made in June and July at 220 L/ha and a
nonionic surfactant was included at 0.25% v/v for sulfosulfuron treatments. Creeping
bentgrass chlorosis from herbicides was acceptable (< 20%) by 2 to 3 weeks after
applications while all treatments provided substantial reductions in roughstalk bluegrass
cover (>90%) by late July. However, roughstalk bluegrass had regrown by October in
both years suggesting herbicide applications visually eliminated foliage but did not
control vegetative reproductive structures. Since roughstalk bluegrass has a wide
genetic diversity, further investigations are needed to determine if these results are
correlated with biotype tolerance to herbicide applications or from ineffective herbicide
translocation. Overall, bispyribac-sodium and sulfosulfuron effectively eliminated
roughstalk bluegrass ground cover in summer months but regrowth during fall months
prevented long-term successful control.
15

BROCCOLI AND CAULIFLOWER RESPONSES TO POSTEMERGENCE
APPLICATIONS OF VINEGAR FOR WEED MANAGEMENT. C. B. Coffman, J.
Radhakrishnan, and J. R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD
ABSTRACT
According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Marilynn Marter dated
17 May, 2007, the number of farmer's markets in the United States has risen from 1755
in 1994 to 4385 in 2006. She further cites reports by The Farmers Markets Coalition
that state some 30,000 farmers are now selling their products directly to more than 3
million consumers a year at farmer’s markets. Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var.
italica) and cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis) are commonly grown by
farmers who sell at farmer’s markets. Broccoli and cauliflower are generally grown as
spring or fall crops in the mid-Atlantic. Weed control methods include synthetic
herbicides as well as cultural practices such as crop rotation, cultivation, mulches, and
cover crops. Experimental weed control methods have included essential oils, corn
gluten, and vinegar. Fall broccoli and cauliflower response to vinegar application was
investigated at the Beltsville Agricultural research Center in 2007. The objective was to
evaluate crop responses to basal applications of 20% acetic acid vinegar for within-row
weed control. Broccoli (var. 'Packman’) seeds were sown in the greenhouse 7 July,
2007, and transplanted into a clean-cultivated field on 9 August. Broccoli plants were 18
inches apart in five-foot wide, 20-foot long rows. Cauliflower (var. Snowball Y) seeds
were sown in the greenhouse 21 June and transplanted on 26 July. Plants were 14
inches apart in five-foot wide, 20-foot long rows. Treatments were applied to the center
row of three row plots and included (1) vinegar applications, (2) un-weeded control, and
(3) hand-weeded control. Treatments were replicated four times and were randomly
placed in the field. Vinegar applications to broccoli and cauliflower were made on 12
and 19 September, respectively, using a hand sprayer. Vinegar was applied to weeds
to achieve complete coverage until runoff. Broccoli plants were 8 to 13 inches high
when treatments were applied whereas cauliflower plants ranged from 14 to 26 inches
high. Weeds between rows were controlled by cultivation. Weeds in the hand-weeded
control were removed once during the growing season. Broccoli treatments were
visually rated 17 September, and harvested 9 and 15 October. Mean broccoli injury
score in the vinegar treatment was 52, which on a scale of 0 to 100, is unacceptable,
and significantly higher than the score (0) for the hand-weeded and un-weeded
treatments. Broccoli plants treated with vinegar showed diminished leaf turgor within 30
minutes of application and chlorotic tissue within 24 hours. Mean cauliflower injury score
in the vinegar treatment was 25, which is acceptable on the above rating scale. There
was slight to no loss of leaf turgor or leaf chlorosis in cauliflower plants treated with
vinegar. Broccoli head counts from plants in the vinegar treatment were 22% lower
than the un-weeded and hand-weeded controls. Mean individual head weights were 12
and 19% lower for the vinegar treatments than for the hand-weeded and un-weeded
controls, respectively.
16

ORGANIC WEED MANAGEMENT: WHAT THE FARMERS THINK. M. R. Ryan, D. A.
Mortensen, Penn State University, University Park, D. O. Wilson, and P. R. Hepperly,
The Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA.
ABSTRACT
Organic farming is gaining popularity in ways few outside the organic farming
community would have imagined only ten years ago. In the US, farmland planted to
certified organic vegetables and grain crops increased 104% and 109%, respectively,
from 1997 to 2005. To identify challenges to organic weed management and farmers’
attitudes, a survey was conducted via the NewFarm.org website from March to July of
2007. The majority of the respondents were from the US, and approximately 85% of the
respondents indicated that they were farming organically or were in transition to organic
production. A variety of diverse cropping systems were represented with 65% of the
respondents indicating they grew vegetables, 41% grew fruits, 19% grew feed grains,
and 15% grew food grains.
Respondents indicated they use diverse weed management strategies with 85%
indicating they use at least three weed management practices, and on average
respondents identified six practices to manage weeds on their farms. Hand weeding
was the most common practice. Mechanical control practices were listed as the second
most common practice among respondents, and almost half of the respondents stated
they use between-row cultivation. Other physical weed control practices commonly
practiced include mulching, flame weeding, and stale seed bedding. Over half of the
respondents use cover crops as a weed management tool, and approximately 40%
have diverse rotations which help manage weed populations. Between 20 and 40% of
respondents stated that they adjust seeding rates and row-width, manage fertility wisely,
and alter planting dates to give crop plants a competitive advantage.
‘Lack of time’, selected by 68% of respondents, was the top challenge to effective
weed management. ‘Weather conditions’ was the next major obstacle, cited by almost
half of participants. As part of the survey we asked respondents to indicate whether or
not they agree with a series of statements to better gauge farmer attitudes toward
farming and weed management. One of the strongest responses was in agreement with
the statement ‘I am concerned that the use of chemicals in farming is a health risk to me
and my family’. There was not a strong consensus in regard to the statement ‘Weed
management is my number one production constraint’; however, slightly more people
agreed with the statement than disagreed, indicating that weed management is the top
production constraint faced by approximately 50% of the responding farmers. Although,
most respondents disagreed with the statement ‘Organic weed management practices
cannot be as effective as conventional, chemical based ones’, respondents suggested a
need for additional research on organic weed management.
17

A SIX-YEAR COMPARISON OF PREEMERGENCE CRABGRASS CONTROL WITH
PROFESSIONAL TURF HERBICIDES. J.L. Jester, J.B. Willis, and S.D. Askew, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
Crabgrass remains the most important weed of improved turfgrass based on
dollars spent for preemergence and postemergence control. Despite numerous
herbicides available for crabgrass control in lawns, lawn care professionals and home
owners continue to report control failures. Professionals are particularly interested in
crabgrass control programs that provide season-long control and consistency from one
site to another and across seasons. Several preemergence herbicides have been
evaluated at Virginia Tech annually between 2002 and 2007. The objectives are to
determine herbicide effectiveness and application intervals that will provide the most
consistent smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control late in the season.
Field trials were conducted each year for six years on tall fescue or Kentucky
bluegrass turf maintained at 2.5 inches in Blacksburg, VA. Studies were conducted as
randomized complete block factorial designs with treatments replicated three times.
Treatment factors included herbicide and application with 6 herbicides each applied
once at a full rate or twice at reduced rates. A nontreated control was included for
comparison. Herbicides included benefin at 1.5 lb ai/A and 1.5 followed by (fb) 1.5 lb
ai/A, benefin plus trifluralin at 2.0 lb ai/A and 1.5 fb 1.5 lb ai/A, dithiopyr at 0.5 lb ai/A
and 0.25 fb 0.25 lb ai/A, oxadiazon at 4.0 lb ai/A and 2.0 fb 2.0 lb ai/A, pendimethalin at
3.0 lb ai/A and 1.5 fb 1.5 lb ai/A, and prodiamine at 0.94 lb ai/A and 0.66 fb 0.66 lb ai/A.
Initial treatment times were based on GDD 50 between 70 and 140 and occurred
between April 4th and April 27th depending on year. Repeat treatments were applied
approximately eight weeks later and occurred between May 26 and June 7 depending
on year. Crabgrass control was evaluated by visual estimation of crabgrass cover and
percentage reduction in crabgrass compared to nontreated controls.
In annual studies between 2002 and 2007, dithiopyr, pendimethalin, and
prodiamine controlled smooth crabgrass between 80 and 100% when applied as two
split-rate treatments and between 50 and 100% when applied as a single full-rate
treatment with few exceptions. Consistency of weed control increased when sequential
treatments were applied compared to single treatments for all herbicides except
oxadiazon. In general, single applications performed better in years of limited rainfall
and poorly in years of adequate or excessive rainfall. Benefin and benefin plus trifluralin
controlled crabgrass less than dithiopyr, pendimethalin, and prodiamine in most years.
18

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF AN ADVENTITIOUS HERBIVORE ON AN
INVASIVE PLANT, YELLOW TOADFLAX, IN COLORADO USA. J.F. Egan, Penn State
University, State College and R. E. Irwin, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Rocky
Mountain Biological Lab, Crested Butte, CO.
ABSTRACT
Many invasive plants arrive into their new range without their associated
herbivores. However for others, their herbivores arrive prior to, with, or after the
introduction of the plant, re-establishing the link between natural enemies and invaders
in the introduced range. Research documenting the effects of adventitiously introduced
herbivores on their target plants in the introduced range, and the mechanisms by which
those effects occur, can provide insight into biological weed control. We studied the
effects of an accidentally introduced beetle Brachypterolus pulicarius on the growth and
reproduction of its host, the invasive plant yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), growing
under field conditions from 2002-2004 across eight sites in western Colorado, USA. We
found that feeding by B. pulicarius on yellow toadflax was variable among three years
and across eight local sites. Variation in damage was partially explained by ramet
density; sites with greater ramet density experienced more damage. In an observational
study across two years, damage was positively correlated with estimates of sexual
reproduction, ramet growth, and clonal shoot production. However, opposite trends
were observed in an experimental study; damage by B. pulicarius decreased estimates
of sexual reproduction. Differences between the results of the observations and
experiments were likely driven by selective feeding by B. pulicarius on larger ramets.
Nonetheless, the ability of B. pulicarius to control established yellow toadflax population
growth remains uncertain under the environmental conditions we studied. In both the
observational and experimental study, B. pulicarius did not affect yellow toadflax
survival, and we found no evidence that established yellow toadflax populations were
seed limited, suggesting that reductions in seeds may not translate into demographic
changes in heavily infested populations. Interactions among insect foraging behavior,
individual plant responses to damage, and the demographic consequences of seed
production may help to explain the varying degrees to which herbivores affect plants
and populations.
19

EVALUATION OF AT-SEEDING GRANULAR HERBICIDES IN KENTUCKY
BLUEGRASS TURF. R.S. Chandran, West Virginia University, Morgantown; and R.J.
Keese, Syngenta Professional Products, Carmel, IN.
ABSTRACT
A field experiment established in Morgantown, WV, evaluated the herbicides
mesotrione and siduron applied at the time of seeding Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis L. 'Moonstruck') for turfgrass injury and weed control up to three months after
seeding. The site had a silt loam soil and was seeded on May 1, 2007, and the
fertilizer-based granular herbicides were applied the following day. Herbicide
treatments consisted of mesotrione applied at 0.15, 0.2 or 0.6 lb ai/A, or siduron at 5 lb
ai/A, or different rates of mesotrione applied along with siduron rates up to 15 lb ai/A.
Fertilizer-treated and untreated plots were also established as control plots. Routine
cultural practices were carried out during the establishment period. Injury ratings and
weed control data were analyzed for variance (ANOVA) and means were separated
using Least Significant Difference (LSD, p= 0.05). The highest rates of herbicides did
not cause visual injury to turf at 4 weeks after treatment (WAT), however, they reduced
percent turf cover by 25-30%. At 12 WAT, all treatments provided complete turf cover.
Mesotrione applied at 0.6 lb ai/A provided >90% control of wild violet (Viola spp.), yellow
wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) at 12 WAT,
and >90% white clover (Trifolium repens) at 8 WAT. Addition of 15 lb ai/A of siduron to
this treatment did not result in significant increases in weed control. A lower rate of
mesotrione + siduron (0.45 + 7.5 lb ai/A) provided weed control similar to levels from
mesotrione applied alone at 0.6 lb ai/A. Siduron applied alone at 5 lb ai/A did not
provide acceptable levels of weed control at any of the evaluation timings. Fertilizertreated
plots and untreated plots resulted in more than 75% weed cover, mostly smooth
crabgrass, at 12 WAT.
20

DOES SOIL PH INFLUENCE SWALLOW-WORT DISTRIBUTION IN ITS CURRENT
RANGE? L.C. Magidow, A. DiTommaso, Q.M. Ketterings, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
and L.R. Milbrath, USDA-ARS, Ithaca, NY.
ABSTRACT
The perennial non-native vines, pale swallow-wort [Vincetoxicum rossicum
(Kleopow) Barbar] and black swallow-wort [Vincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench], are
established invaders in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada, and
are spreading westward. The swallow-worts typically colonize forest-field margins, road
edges, tree nurseries, and rare limestone barrens. In open areas, they can form dense,
monospecific stands where they out-compete and displace resident vegetation.
Previous research and observations indicate that these vines may occupy distinct
ranges, with pale swallow-wort associated with basic, limestone-based soils, while black
swallow-wort is associated with more acidic soils. To gain a better understanding of the
chemical characteristics of soils colonized by these two swallow-wort species, soil
samples were collected by volunteers across the distribution range of these plants.
Samples were then submitted to the Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratory for chemical
analysis. As of October 2007, nearly 100 samples were received from over 25
volunteers, with new samples arriving weekly. Preliminary results indicate that pale
swallow-wort occurs on soils with an average pH = 6.7, and ranging from 4.7 to 7.9, and
black swallow-wort occurs on soils with an average pH = 6.4, and ranging from 5.2 to
8.0. Despite the similar range in pH of soils colonized by these two species, the
geographic distributions of pale and black swallow-wort do appear distinct. These
preliminary findings suggest that differences in pH of soils colonized by the two swallowwort
species may not be an important factor influencing the current distribution pattern
of these two invasive vines.
21

WAVYLEAF BASKETGRASS IN MARYLAND – AN EDRR IN PROGRESS.
K.L. Kyde, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis and B.H. Marose,
University of Maryland, College Park.
ABSTRACT
A Southeast Asian grass first discovered in a Maryland state park 10 years ago
has spread to cover many hectares of forested land in central Maryland. This
population is the only reported occurrence of Wavyleaf basketgrass (Oplismenus
hirtellus ssp. Undulatifolius) on the North American continent. Perennial, stoloniferous,
and highly shade-tolerant, this grass occupies the same mesic forest habitats as
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and may be even more aggressive than
that annual species. Wavyleaf basketgrass appears to spread both vegetatively and by
seed via sticky awns, but little is known about its phenology, germination rate or rate of
spread. Early fall applications of glyphosate achieved only 70% mortality in test plots.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources believes that eradication is necessary
and possible. This presentation serves as an introduction to and warning about this
invasive forest grass.
22

EFFECTS OF BUCKWHEAT COVER CROP ON WINTER WHEAT ESTABLISHMENT,
YIELD, AND WEED SUPPRESSION. V. Kumar, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, D.C.
Brainard, Michigan State University, East Lansing, R.R. Bellinder, and R.R. Hahn,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
ABSTRACT
Cover crops offer both soil improvement and weed control benefits. Field and pot
bioassay studies were conducted from 2005 through 2007 in Central NY to examine the
potential of including buckwheat as a cover crop in a niche between harvest of early
vegetable crops (in July) and planting of winter-wheat (in late September). The
objectives of this research were to determine (1) in-season weed suppressive ability of
buckwheat, and (2) the effects of buckwheat residue on establishment of weeds, winter
wheat, and on the germinable weed seedbank. In a field study, buckwheat was sown
either in mid July (early buckwheat) or early August (late buckwheat). At the second
planting date, two buckwheat treatments were established to allow comparison of tilled
versus no-till wheat planting in buckwheat residue following termination of buckwheat
cover crop. A bare soil and 2 weedy control treatments (one for each planting date)
were also included. Buckwheat was mowed 10-d after anthesis and either disked or left
on the soil surface (buckwheat late, no-till). Wheat was sown with a no-till drill in all
treatments on September 19. Immediately after buckwheat early incorporation, common
chickweed, and shepherd’s purse were sown in bare soil and buckwheat early plots.
Soil samples from buckwheat residue and bare soil plots were taken the following year
in May for estimating weed seed banks. In a complementary growth chamber study,
seeds of Powell amaranth, hairy galinsoga, barnyardgrass, common purslane, yellow
rocket, corn chamomile, common chickweed, and shepherd’s-purse were sown in pots
filled with field soil from buckwheat residue and bare soil plots taken 0 and 15-d after
buckwheat incorporation. Emergence and growth of these species were monitored for
20 days. During in-season, buckwheat reduced weed biomass ranging from 75-99%
compared to weedy checks. In the 2005 pot study, fresh buckwheat residues reduced
the emergence (27 to 72%) of all weed species except barnyardgrass, and reduced the
dry weight of all weed species (66-94%). In 15 day old residue, only Powell amaranth
suppression occurred. In 2006, fresh buckwheat residues suppressed emergence of
Powell amaranth, common purslane, and common chickweed and had no effect on the
dry weight of any weed species. In the field, emergence of common chickweed and
shepherd’s-purse was reduced 35 and 57% in buckwheat compared to bare soil plots
following buckwheat incorporation. Winter wheat emergence was not affected by
buckwheat residue but early growth of winter wheat was reduced in buckwheat residue
compared to non-residue plots in both years. However, no differences in yields of winter
wheat were detected in either year. Germinable weed seedbank density was similar in
buckwheat residue and bare soil plots in 2006, however, in 2007, pigweed seedbank
density was 43% lower in buckwheat residue plots. Our results demonstrate that
inclusion of buckwheat before wheat planting can contribute to weed management
through direct interference with weeds and through residue mediated effects on weed
emergence, growth and germinable seedbank density.
23

BUSHKILLER BIOLOGY AND RESPONSE TO HERBICIDES. A.M. West, R.J.
Richardson, A.P. Gardner, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and J.
Matthews, Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program, Charlotte, NC.
ABSTRACT
Bushkiller [Cayratia japonica (Thunb. ex Murray) Gagnepain] is a perennial vine
in the Vitaceae family. The genus is distributed primarily in tropical to sub-tropical
regions of Africa, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Islands. Bushkiller has been reported
in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and North Carolina and is considered an invasive
species. Research trials were conducted at NCSU to determine bushkiller response to
selected herbicides and the regenerative capability of roots in response to planting
depth. In the herbicide trial, bushkiller, Virginia creeper [Parthenocissus quinquefolia
(L.) Planch.], and trumpetcreeper [Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. ex Bureau] were
treated with triclopyr, 2,4-D, aminopyralid, and glyphosate either alone or applied in
selected combinations. Control of bushkiller was at least 88% with all treatments
containing triclopyr and with 2,4-D alone. Virginia creeper response was generally
similar to that of bushkiller, while control of trumpetcreeper was generally lower. In the
planting depth trial, bushkiller was planted at various depths with root length of 1, 2, or 4
cm of uniform diameter. Plant size was affected by root length, but was less affected by
planting depth. Bushkiller consistently emerged from planting depths of up to 20 cm.
24

PHRAGMITES RESPONSE TO SELECTED HERBICIDES. S.L. True, R.J. Richardson,
A.P. Gardner, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and P.L. Hipkins, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
ABSTRACT
Research was conducted in 2006 and 2007 to determine the response of
Phragmites or common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.] to selected
herbicide applications. The first trial was applied in both North Carolina and Virginia. In
North Carolina, treatments included imazapyr (160, 320, and 480 oz / 100 gal),
glyphosate (160, 320, and 640 oz / 100 gal), triclopyr (640 and 1920 oz / 100 gal), and
penoxsulam (7.1, 14.3, 28.6, and 57 oz / 100 gal) applied as spray to wet applications.
In Virginia, treatments included imazapyr (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 lb ai/A), glyphosate (1, 2,
and 4 lb ai/A), triclopyr (3 and 9 lb ai/A), and penoxsulam (25, 50, and 100 g ai/A)
applied as broadcast applications. A nonionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v was included with
each treatment and certain herbicide mixtures were also applied. In North Carolina at 8
WAT, phragmites control was greatest with triclopyr and 6.64% v/v glyphosate at 91 to
100%. Control with treatments containing imazapyr ranged 50 to 80% and control was
not visible from penoxsulam. At 16 WAT, control with all imazapyr, glyphosate, and
triclopyr treatments was at least 87%. Phragmites was not controlled with the
penoxsulam rates evaluated. In Virginia unmowed plots, only 9 lb ae/A triclopyr
controlled Phragmites (80%). Control was 60 to 67% with 4 lb ae/A glyphosate and
glyphosate plus penoxsulam at 16 WAT, but control with other treatments did not
exceed 33%. In mowed plots, results were quite different. Control was 52 to 73% at 8
WAT across all imazapyr and glyphosate treatments except glyphosate plus
penoxsulam. At 12 WAT, control was greatest at 73 to 87% with all imazapyr
treatments, as well as 2 and 4 lb ae/A glyphosate. Control with triclopyr and
penoxsulam did not exceed 30%. In conclusion, Phragmites control was variable
across sites and possibly affected by size at application (mowing), application method,
and presence or absence of standing water.
25

LONGEVITY OF WEED CONTROL IN CONTAINERS WITH BAS 659H. R.P.M.
Atwood, University of Warwick, UK, L.C. Walker, J.C. Neal, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, and C. A. Judge, BASF Corp, Research Triangle Park, NC.
ABSTRACT
Nursery crop producers rely upon preemergence herbicides applied every 8-10
weeks; yet, even with this frequent herbicide treatment regime, weeds emerge and must
be removed by supplemental hand weeding. Prior research has demonstrated that the
half-life of preemergence herbicides is generally shorter in container nurseries than in
field soils. Furthermore, longevity of weed control in containers depends upon the
herbicide used and the weed species present. Recent research has shown that a
granular combination dimethenamid-P + pendimethalin controls many common nursery
weeds however, the longevity of weed control in containers has not been evaluated. An
experiment to determine the longevity of weed control in containers with BAS 659H
1.75G (0.75% dimethenamid-P + 1% pendimethalin) compared with industry standards
was conducted at Castle Hayne Research Station, NC. Pots were filled with pine bark +
sand substrate on 9 May 2007 then treated on 8 June 2007 with 3 lb ai/A OH2 ® , 5 lb
ai/A Snapshot ® TG, 0.38 lb ai/A Broadstar, and 1.75, 2.6 & 3.5 lb ai/A BAS 659H.
Five weed species, hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta), eclipta (Eclipta prostrata),
large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata) and
doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora), were surface seeded 0, 4, 6 and 8 weeks after
treatment; each species and seeding date in separate pots. Treatments were arranged
in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications with 3 pots of each species
per experimental unit. Visual ratings of the overall % weed control were recorded every
two weeks after treatment using an abbreviated percent scale of 0 to 10, where 0 =no
injury and 10 = dead plants (100% control). Data were subjected to ANOVA and means
separation by seeding date and rating date. Additionally data were fit to a logistic nonlinear
regression model and number of weeks above 80% control was estimated from
the resulting regression equations. When seeded the day of treatment, all treatments
except the lowest rate of BAS 659H provided at least 94% control of all weed species
tested. Weed control decreased over time for all species and treatments except
bittercress control with OH2 ® . OH2 ® provided about 8 weeks of >80% bittercress
control whereas other treatments provided less than 4 weeks. Eight weeks after
treatment the two higher rates of BAS 659H provided superior control of doveweed and
spurge; and the high rate of BAS 659H provided significantly better control of crabgrass
and eclipta compared to the other treatments. These data suggest that, compared to
industry standard herbicides, BAS 659H may provide longer residual control of spurge,
crabgrass, doveweed, and eclipta in containers. However, OH2 ® provided longer
residual control of bittercress under the same conditions.
26

CARDAMINE WEED SPECIES IN UNITED STATES NURSERIES. A.R. Post, J.C.
Neal, A. Krings, B.R. Sosinski, and Q. Xiang, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
ABSTRACT
Cardamine is one of the most common and problematic weeds of container
nurseries in the United States. Historically, almost all Cardamine specimens collected
from nurseries have been identified as Cardamine hirsuta L. However, the movement
of nursery stock around the United States, and even worldwide, has likely resulted in
the introduction and dispersion of several closely related Cardamine species. A
previous study indicated that Cardamine flexuosa With. and Cardamine scutata Thunb.
also occur in container nurseries. These species exhibit great morphological variability
making them difficult to distinguish from the cosmopolitan Cardamine hirsuta. Due to
reports of isoxaben-resistant haplotypes of Cardamine flexuosa in Europe, it is
important that nurserymen correctly identify these species to ensure adequate control.
For this study, Cardamine specimens were collected from 21 nurseries in California,
New York, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, and Oregon to determine which
species of Cardamine were present. These species were then characterized
morphologically through examination of voucher specimens, type specimens and
additional herbarium sheets from material on loan from 12 herbaria. Identification was
confirmed through analysis of molecular sequence data of each sample, in comparison
with known sequences of each species. Preliminary results indicate Cardamine
flexuosa and Cardamine oligosperma Nutt. occur in United States nurseries alongside
the typical Cardamine hirsuta. One other species is present which has not previously
been reported for the United States. It is also suspected that Cardamine pensylvanica
Muhl. ex Willd. and Cardamine scutata may occur in United States nurseries but this
has not yet been confirmed. Updated taxonomic keys are being developed to aid
nurserymen in differentiating these species.
27

AMICARBAZONE AND FLUCARBAZONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS.
M.J. Goddard, T.L. Mittlesteadt, and S.D. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and L.D.
Houseworth, Arysta LifeScience North America, Fernandina Beach, FL.
ABSTRACT
Amicarbazone and flucarbazone (70 WG, Arysta LifeScience) are both members
of the triazolone chemical family and are being evaluated for use in the turfgrass
industry. Amicarbazone inhibits photosynthesis at photosystem II and is registered in
corn as an atrazine alternative. Flucarbazone inhibits branched chain amino acid
production by inhibiting the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS), and is used in cereals
for postemergence and preemergence control of grassy weeds and selected
broadleaved weeds. Field trials conducted in Blacksburg, VA evaluated the use of
amicarbazone and flucarbazone for control of annual grasses and broadleaved weeds,
as well as turfgrass tolerance. A study to evaluate cool-season turfgrass tolerance of
these herbicides in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis), fine fescue, and creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) was initiated in
2007. Treatments included single applications of flucarbazone applied at 21 and 42
g/ha, and amicarbazone at 248, 495, and 743 g/ha, compared to currently labeled
triazolone herbicides carfentrazone and sulfentrazone at 1 and 2 times label suggested
rates to determine turfgrass tolerance. Amicarbazone treatments were the most
injurious overall with the highest rates resulting in greater than 70% injury to creeping
bentgrass and Kentucky bluegrass. Flucarbazone treatments resulted in minimal injury
to fine fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, and creeping bentgrass, but unacceptable injury
(chlorosis and stunted growth) to tall fescue. In two trials that evaluated amicarbazone
applied preemergence at 743 g/ha and flucarbazone applied preemergence and
postemergence at 42 g/ha for smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control in
Kentucky bluegrass, neither of these two products significantly reduced crabgrass
presence whether applied preemergence or postemergence. However, it was observed
that both herbicides had activity on annual and perennial broadleaved weeds. It was
also observed that amicarbazone injured Kentucky bluegrass more than 50% at both
locations. In other trials, amicarbazone and flucarbazone applied at 743 g/ha and 42
g/ha, respectively, were compared to Speedzone ® (PBI/Gordon Corporation), an
industry standard, applied at 4.7 L/ha, for postemergence broadleaf control in lawn
height tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass. White clover (Trifolium repens) was
controlled by amicarbazone 87 and 100%, flucarbazone 47 and 87%, and Speedzone ®
100% in tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively. Minimal injury was noticed in
all treatments when applied to tall fescue, but amicarbazone injured Kentucky bluegrass
90% or more.
28

EFFECTS OF TOPDRESSING COLOR ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SPRIGGED
PATRIOT BERMUDAGRASS. T.L. Mittlesteadt, J.L. Jester, and S.D. Askew, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
Bermudagrass is widely used on athletic fields because of its tolerances to
drought, heat, and wear. The improved cold tolerance in some newer varieties of
bermudagrass, such as 'Patriot', are allowing use of bermudagrass in athletic fields
further north than in the past. The most common methods for establishing
bermudagrass are: seeding, sprigging, and sod. Sprigging remains the most common
approach due to availability and costs issues. Bermudagrass can be slow to establish
from sprigs when compared to sod. Sand-based field construction is more common in
recent years owing to improved drainage and compaction resistance with sand-based
media. Due to costs of transportation, sand for field construction is typically limited to
local quarries. In several instances, Virginia Tech researchers have observed slow
establishment rates on white sand. We hypothesized that topdressing color could have
an influence on the establishment rate. Therefore, a study was conducted to evaluate
bermudagrass establishment when topdressed with particles of several colors and
textures.
A field trial was established July 19, 2007 on sprigged ‘Patriot’ bermudagrass at
Virginia Tech’s turfgrass research center with each plot ranging from 20 to 30%
bermudagrass cover. The trial area was constructed to simulate Worsham Field with
respect to drainage, irrigation, and sand-based growing media with the exception that a
modular substructure was not installed. The study was established as a randomized
complete block design with six treatments and three replications. Two particle sizes
included sand between 0.05 and 2 mm diameter and Turface between 6 and 9 mm
diameter. The six treatments were: brown Turface, green Turface, red Turface,
brown sand, white sand, and black sand each uniformly applied to a depth of 3.2 mm in
1.2 by 1.8 m plots. Starting July 19, 2007 weekly ratings were taken for percentage
bermudagrass cover using a 100-grid count and by visual estimation. Prior to
bermudagrass dormancy on October 10, 10-cm diameter core samples were removed
from each plot, dried, and weighed to determine biomass of stolons and leaves.
The percent change of cover based on the 100-grid count revealed that plots
treated with white sand actually displayed equivalent or faster establishment rates
compared to other topdressing materials. However, visual percentage bermudagrass
cover ratings revealed that plots treated with green Turface displayed the fastest
establishment rates. Discrepancies between grid counts and visual estimations
probably occurred due to high contrast between turfgrass tissue and white sand
compared to the low contrast between turfgrass tissue and green Turface. Lateseason
biomass of ‘Patriot’ bermudagrass was equivalent regardless of topdressing
color during establishment and extrapolates to a range between 3.3 and 4.1 kg per
square meter. Thus, white sand does not appear to actually deter bermudagrass
growth but does leave the viewer with the impression that the bermudagrass is thin.
This psychological effect should be considered as it could be the difference between
praise and retribution for field managers.
29

SPRAY ADJUVANTS INFLUENCE BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM EFFICACY FOR ANNUAL
BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS. P.E. McCullough and S.E.
Hart, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Field and laboratory experiments were conducted in New Jersey to investigate
the influence of spray adjuvants on foliar absorption and efficacy of bispyribac-sodium
on annual bluegrass (Poa annua), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). In laboratory experiments on annual bluegrass,
14 C-bispyribac-sodium applied without an adjuvant had 25% foliar absorption by eight
hours after treatment while absorption increased to 45, 46, and 75% when applied with
crop oil concentrate, nonionic surfactant, and methylated seed oil, respectively. In
creeping bentgrass fairways, bispyribac-sodium at 37 g ai/ha with spray adjuvants
controlled annual bluegrass similarly to 74 g ai/ha without adjuvants. In perennial
ryegrass, treatments with methylated seed oil and nonionic surfactant required 25 and
50% lower bispyribac-sodium rates, respectively, to obtain annual bluegrass control
levels comparable to bispyribac-sodium rates without adjuvants. Spray adjuvants did
not exacerbate turfgrass discoloration from bispyribac-sodium. Overall, spray adjuvant
use with bispyribac-sodium may allow practitioners to reduce application rates and
enhance efficacy for annual bluegrass control.
30

PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR AND NITROGEN AFFECT SEASONAL
CARBOHYDRATE PARTITIONING IN CREEPING BENTGRASS. D. Sarkar, P. C.
Bhowmik, M. DaCosta, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
ABSTRACT
The concentrations of total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) in plants serve
several important functions. The quantification of TNC in turfgrass has proven valuable
in investigations of assimilate translocation and physiological response of turfgrass to
environmental and cultural factors. The major TNC found in turfgrass shoots consists of
the monosaccharides, glucose and fructose, the disaccharide sucrose, various
oligosaccharides of the β-2→6 linked polyfructosylsucrose type, starch, and long chain
fructans. Seasonal variations of TNC in turfgrass roots and shoots determine their
performance under stress conditions. Furthermore, TNC content can be influenced by
different turfgrass management practices, such as nitrogen fertilization. However,
limited information is available on the effects of N fertility on TNC of creeping bentgrass
(Agrostis stolonifera L.) under putting green conditions. Trinexapac-ethyl (TE), a
gibberellic acid synthesis inhibitor is a widely utilized plant growth regulator for
improving putting green quality and performance. Some reports indicated improved
performance of TE-treated turf under abiotic stress conditions, but physiological and
biochemical mechanisms for improved stress tolerance is not clearly understood. The
objectives of this study were to determine the effects of N fertilization and TE on total
nonstructural carbohydrate partitioning of creeping bentgrass ('Penncross') under
putting green conditions. The study was initiated in the spring of 2006 on a 4-yr old
sand based putting green at Joseph Troll Turf Research Center, South Deerfield, MA.
This experiment was arranged as a split-plot design, with nitrogen fertilization as the
main plot (3, 5, and 8 lb N/1000 ft -2 year -1 ) and TE as the sub-plot (with and without TE)
with four replications. Nitrogen was applied monthly from May to October, and TE
(Primo ® Maxx) was applied (0.125 fl. oz/ 1000 ft -2 ) in three applications from April to
August. Root and shoot samples were collected from each plot at 15-d intervals. Root
and shoot samples were washed to remove soil and then oven dried (80º C) for 5 days.
TNC were extracted from leaves and roots and the absorbance of the extract was
measured at 515 nm using a spectrophotometer. Higher visual turf quality (8.5 to 9) was
observed with increasing nitrogen rate throughout the growing season. Visual turf
quality was also improved 3 to 8 days after the each application of TE. Detailed results
of seasonal carbohydrate partitioning as affected by nitrogen and TE application will be
presented.
31

INFLUENCE OF BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM ON BROWN PATCH SEVERITY. A.I. Putman
and J.E. Kaminski, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
ABSTRACT
Bispyribac-sodium (BPS) can be used to selectively remove annual bluegrass
(Poa annua L) and roughstalk bluegrass (Poa trivialis L.) from creeping bentgrass
(Agrostis stolonifera L.). Although unacceptable levels of yellowing often occurs
following the application of BPS, tank-mixing BPS with iron + N products have been
shown to reduce or mask this discoloration. In addition to the ability to selectively
control undesirable weed species, BPS has also been shown to reduce the incidence of
dollar spot caused by Sclerotinia homoeocarpa F.T. Bennett. Limited information,
however, is available regarding the positive or negative effects of BPS on other
common turfgrass diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of
BPS and BPS tank-mixed with an iron + N product on brown patch (Rhizoctonia solani
Kuhns) in colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris L.). This field study was conducted in
2007 at the University of Connecticut Plant Science Research and Education Facility in
Storrs, CT. In September 2006, an area was seeded to 'Allister' colonial bentgrass.
Turf was mowed 3 times per week to a height of 0.5 inches. Bispyribac-sodium was
applied twice at 30 g ai/A or three times at 20 or 30 g ai/A. The aforementioned
treatments were applied alone or in combination with Lesco’s 12-0-0 Chelated Iron Plus
Micronutrients (Fe + N at 6.0 oz/1000 ft 2 ). All treatments were applied at 44 gpa using a
CO 2 pressurized (40 psi) sprayer equipped with a flat-fan nozzle. Treatments were
applied on 10 and 24 July and 7 August. Plots measured 3 ft x 6 ft and were arranged
in a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Brown patch severity was visually
rated on a percent scale in which 0 = no brown patch symptoms visible and 100 = entire
plot area affected by R. solani.
Trace levels of brown patch were observed when treatments were initiated on 10
July. One week after treatment (WAT), brown patch severity was greater in plots
receiving only BPS (19 to 25%), when compared to the untreated control (11%). By 24
July (2 WAT), all plots treated with BPS and BPS tank-mixed with Fe + N plots generally
had greater levels of brown patch when compared to the untreated control. Brown
patch severity peaked approximately 2 weeks after the second application of BPS (6
August). On 6 August, all BPS treatments contained between 23 and 34% brown patch
and few differences existed among BPS treatments. All BPS treatments, however, had
significantly greater levels of brown patch on 6 August when compared to the untreated
control (11%). On 21 August, brown patch was greatest in plots receiving 3 applications
of BPS or BPS tank-mixed with Fe + N at 30 g ai/A. Treatments in which BPS or BPS
tank-mixed with Fe + N was applied twice or applied three times at 20 g ai/A had brown
patch levels similar to the untreated control on 21 August. Results from this field study
suggest that BPS may increase the severity of brown patch on highly susceptible
turfgrass species such as colonial bentgrass and additional chemical management
strategies may be necessary to adequately suppress disease symptoms.
32

THE POTENTIAL USE OF VINEGAR AS A BANDED APPLICATION, DIRECTED AT
THE BASE OF TRANSPLANTED PEPPERS AND BRUSSEL SPROUTS. G.J. Evans
and R.R. Bellinder, Cornell University, Ithaca NY.
ABSTRACT
Vinegar (acetic acid) may aid in weed control. Vinegar works on contact to burn
back exposed plant parts. Two limitations to its use in vegetable crops are: 1) injury to
the crop, and; 2) the cost of the high volume needed for adequate weed control.
Directed applications of vinegar below a crop canopy could minimize product contact
with the crop. Banded vinegar applications in-row, coupled with between-row
cultivation, could reduce product usage and expense. Field trials were conducted in
2007 using 200-grain vinegar (20% acetic acid), at 68 GPA, in transplanted bell peppers
and brussel sprouts. Treatments were applied as 10-in wide bands, centered on each
crop row. Applications were made with a customized tractor-mounted sprayer, with
nozzles oriented below, and to each side, of the crop canopy. This sprayer was fixed
onto an S-tine cultivator to allow for simultaneous in-row spraying and between-row
cultivation. Vinegar treatments were compared to between-row cultivation, betweenrow
cultivation with in-row handweeding, and a weedy check. Applications were made
to pepper varieties ‘Ace’ and ‘Lipstick’ either 27 or 33 days after transplanting. Weeds
in the early and late treatments were, on average, at the 2-leaf or the 4-leaf stage,
respectively. Initial injuries to the peppers 2 days after treatment (DAT) were less than
10%, and included lower leaf dieback and scarring of the stem. However, by 29 DAT,
the early injury to the stem facilitated a basal rot and subsequent death of a number of
pepper plants. Yields were significantly reduced in both vinegar treatments.
Applications were made to brussel sprouts ‘Oliver’ at either 28 or 34 days after
transplanting. Injury was greater in the early vinegar application (43%, 2 DAT). An
uneven soil surface and a small margin between the height of the sprayer nozzles and
the height of the plants contributed to increased spray contact on the brussel sprouts.
By the late application, the height differential between the sprayer nozzles and the plant
apexes had increased, and only the lowest leaves were injured (10%, 2 DAT). Yields in
both vinegar treatments were not significantly different from the handweeded treatment.
In both crops, 2 days after the early application of vinegar, there was an 88% reduction
in the number of in-row weeds present, relative to the weedy check. The later
application of vinegar reduced the number of weeds in both crops by greater than 74%.
By 15 DAT, the number of weeds in the early vinegar-in-pepper treatment was still 82%
less than the weedy check. In comparison, 15 days after weeding the handweeded
pepper treatment, there remained only a 47% reduction in the number of in-row weeds.
Vinegar can provide adequate weed control and may offer a longer window of
suppression than handweeding. However, crop injury remains an issue. Directed
applications around more mature plants, particularly tough-stemmed plants like brussel
sprouts, may reduce crop injury to tolerable levels. The use of spray shielding may also
limit crop injury.
33

TOLERANCE OF BUTTERNUT SQUASH TO PREEMERGENCE AND
POSTEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF HALOSULFURON-METHYL. J. Wright, M.A.
Isaacs, M.J. VanGessel, Q.R. Johnson, B.A. Scott, University of Delaware,
Georgetown, H.P. Wilson, Virginia Tech, Painter.
ABSTRACT
A field study was conducted in 2007 at the University of Delaware Research and
Education Farm, located in Georgetown, DE. The objective was to determine the
tolerance of butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata) to PRE and POST applications of
halosulfuron-methyl at selected rates. PRE application rates of halosulfuron-methyl
included 0.0234 lb ai/A, 0.047 lb ai/A, and 0.094 lb ai/A. POST applications of
halosulfuron-methyl also contained the aforementioned rates, but were also applied with
0.25 % v/v nonionic surfactant. A randomized factorial design containing four
replications was implemented, with the factors being halosulfuron-methyl rate,
application timing, and butternut squash variety. Plots were 15 feet wide by 50 feet
long. Two rows were centered in each plot, one containing Atlas butternut squash and
the other containing Betternut butternut squash. Rows were planted with a Monosem
planter 5 feet apart with approximately 36 inch seed spacing. To minimize weed
competition or injury to butternut squash, a PRE application of ethalfluralin and
clomazone (Strategy 2.5 pt/A) was applied. Cultivation and hoeing were performed in
efforts to maintain the study as "weed-free" as possible, and plots were irrigated. Also,
POST applications of mefenoxam and chlorothalonil were made weekly for disease
control. All treatments were applied using a tractor-mounted sprayer with compressed
air at 29 PSI and a spray volume of 25 GPA. PRE applications were applied one day
after planting, and POST applications at the 10 to 12 leaf stage of squash (27 days after
planting). Data collected included percent visual injury (stunting and overall biomass
reduction) and yields number of squash and weights).
Squash injury from PRE applications were rated 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, and 56 days
after treatment (DAT). As expected, both the A and B squash varieties responded with
progressively higher injury with increasing halosulfuron-methyl rates. Halosulfuronmethyl
at 0.0234 lb ai/A, 0.047 lb ai/A, and 0.094 lb ai/A caused the following injury:
variety A had 45, 65, and 80% injury 21 DAT and 12, 30, and 65% injury 56 DAT,
respectively; variety B had 55, 56, and 83% injury 21 DAT and 14, 25, and 66% injury
56 DAT, respectively. POST applications resulted in less injury than PRE and were
rated 8, 15, 22 and 29 DAT. The same halosulfuron-methyl rates applied POST caused
the following injury: variety A had 16, 29, and 44% injury 8 DAT and 1, 9, and 14%
injury 29 DAT, respectively; variety B had 21, 35, and 50% injury 8 DAT and 4, 14, and
15% injury 29 DAT, respectively. These results indicate that the squash were able to
recover from early season herbicide injury. The number of squash harvested per plot
did not significantly differ for any of the treatments for variety A; however, the total
weight (wt)/plot and average wt/squash differed significantly based on herbicide rate
alone. For variety B, # squash/plot significantly differed based solely on application
timing, yet total wt/plot and avg. wt/squash were significantly different due to both
halosulfuron-methyl rate and application timing.
34

THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL-SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON SUCCESS
OF JAPANESE STILTGRASS. A.N. Nord* and D.A. Mortensen, Penn State University,
University Park.
ABSTRACT
Most studies of invasive species consider only later stages of successful
invasions. However, much insight into what fosters a successful invasion can be gained
by monitoring the initial stages. Thirty patches of the invasive annual Japanese
Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) were planted in four habitats within a forested
landscape in central Pennsylvania in 2003. Recruitment, seed production, and spatial
spread were quantified in each patch until they were eradicated in July 2006. In general
patches in the roadside habitat expanded most, while most populations under intact
forest canopy declined. Wet meadow and disturbed forest habitats were intermediate.
However, these differences were not statistically significant due to extremely high
within-habitat variation in growth rates. Environmental measurements taken at each
plot early in the experiment and repeated in the final year are being used in an attempt
to explain this variability. Results suggest that small-scale environmental factors such
as available light and soil chemistry have a large impact on the success of Japanese
stiltgrass. Changes in population growth trajectories in response to small-scale
environmental changes imply that habitat susceptibility to invasion by this species is not
static.
35

ROLLING RYE FOR WEED SUPPRESSION IN NO-TILL SOYBEANS. R. Mick, W.S.
Curran, and S. Duiker. Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
A roller/crimper is used to manage cereal rye cover crops. The roller/crimper
consists of a hollow drum with flat, blunt blades that crush plant's vascular tissue. The
rolled cover crop lays flat upon the soil surface creating a uniform mat that can act as a
suppressive barrier to weeds similar to any surface mulch. In this study, we compared
weed suppression from rolling rye along with a burn-down herbicide to rolling along with
a burn-down plus postemergence glyphosate application. This was done across two
different planting dates (early and late) at two locations in Pennsylvania. For early and
late plots, ‘Aroostook’ rye was drilled in late September at 157 kg/ha and burned-down
with glyphosate (0.84 kg ae/ha) the following spring. A no-rye treatment was included
for comparison. One to two days after burn-down the plots were rolled with a
roller/crimper and planted to soybeans. Six weeks after planting the postemergence
herbicide was applied. Weed counts were taken 4, 6, 8 and 10 weeks after planting and
at 10 weeks weed biomass was collected from each plot. Soybean grain yield was
collected from each plot in early to mid October.
Total weed biomass was the greatest where no rye was planted. Using a burndown
herbicide resulted in a ten-fold decrease in weed biomass compared to no rye. A
second herbicide application further reduced weed biomass. Rolling and planting later
may allow a producer to omit the postemergence herbicide application. This study will
be repeated another field season and an economic cost/benefit analysis will be done to
confirm findings.
36

MANIPULATION OF SOIL NITROGEN LEVELS AND ITS EFFECTS ON WEED VIGOR
AND FECUNDITY. S.E. Whitehouse, A. DiTommaso, and C.L. Mohler - Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
ABSTRACT
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album),
and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) are three weed species which plague conventional and
organic field grain farms alike in the Northeastern region of the United States. Growers
employ a number of mechanical, chemical, and biological strategies to manage the
impact these species have on crop loss. Manipulation of the available nitrogen and
carbon: nitrogen ratios in the soil environment may be used as a possible method for
weed control. The primary objectives of this experiment were (1) to document the
growth, vigor, and fecundity of velvetleaf, common lambsquarters, and giant foxtail at
three different nitrogen levels, and (2) to characterize the plasticity of the three species
in various competition environments. We hypothesized that (1) with greater nitrogen
availability, weed vigor and fecundity increase, and (2) weeds grown in weed-only
environments demonstrate significant increases in vigor. Sections of a maize field were
divided into three replicates using a randomized block design, each with three nitrogen
fertilization treatments (0/15/50 kg/ha) and seven varying plant environments for each
weed species (maize-only, weed-only, mixed stand). Hand-sown weed densities of 15
plants / m 2 were observed in 2007. Initial statistical analyses demonstrated significant
differences in height compared to nitrogen levels for velvetleaf and common
lambsquarters in weed-only communities. Giant foxtail showed opposite results, with
significant differences in height for mixed stand communities. However, conclusions
may change when final weed biomass and seed production rates are analyzed and
compared to height measurements and nitrogen levels. Further study of the growth and
vigor of these species will continue in 2008, with possible investigation into the
presence of pathogens.
37

ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL WEED MANAGEMENT EFFICACY AND STABILITY
IN A LONG-TERM CROPPING SYSTEM TRIAL. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, W.S.
Curran, Penn State University, University Park, R. Seidel, P.R. Hepperly, The Rodale
Institute, Kutztown, PA, and J.R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS Beltsville, MD.
Effective weed suppression can be achieved without the use of herbicides
through strategic ecologically-based weed management. However, organic farmers
have repeatedly stated that weed management is their primary production constraint as
efficacy of organic weed management is often more variable than herbicide-based
methods. Long-term studies are essential to assess the magnitude and source of
variation in weed management efficacy and to quantify the effects of reduced efficacy in
“poor” weed control years on crop yield and weed population trajectories. The Rodale
Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) was initiated in 1981, and provides a unique
twenty-six year history of conventional and organic corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean
[Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production and associated weed management. In this analysis,
we used weed biomass in corn and soybean to define weed management efficacy.
Weed biomass variation was greatest in organically managed corn and soybean and
was sensitive to environmental stochasticity, specifically to fluctuations in rainfall timing
and amount. Weed management efficacy was more stable and consistently high in the
conventional system. Although corn yields were significantly higher in the single
conventional system at the onset of the trial, within four years corn yields in the two
organic systems equaled or exceeded conventional corn despite weed biomass
averaging 6 times higher in organic corn. These results suggest that organically grown
corn is well buffered in years of “poor” weed control and offers hope that further
improvements in weed management could significantly increase organic corn yields.
Although initially higher, organic soybean yield decreased to levels lower than
conventional soybean. The result demonstrates the need for careful planning when
developing an integrated cropping system to limit the negative effects of “poor” years
when growing weed intolerant crops such as soybean.
38

WEEDS, ETHANOL, AND DISAPPEARING BEES; TALES OF LANDSCAPE
BIODIVERSITY. N.B. DeBarros, Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Growing concerns over global climate change and dependence on foreign oil
have sparked national interest in biofuels. Increased demand for agricultural land could
have a significant impact on current landscapes, as field margins, woodlots, and forests
are cleared to maximize crop production. Homogenization of the agricultural landscape
in the Northeast could facilitate weed dispersal while negatively impacting local
biodiversity and the ecological services provided by non-crop areas. In particular, native
pollinator populations which are already on the decline may be further affected by
habitat and resource loss. Existing literature on these topics will be summarized and
their implications will be explored in a model-in-progress. In addition, proposed research
on habitat management within farming systems will be addressed.
39

IS IT TIME TO RELINQUISH ATRAZINE IN CORN? W.S. Curran, Penn State
University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Atrazine use continues to be controversial in agro-ecosystems. US corn
producers rely heavily on the atrazine where it is ranked the second most widely used
pesticides in the US after glyphosate. Atrazine continues to be detected in surface and
ground water and was detected most frequently in aquifers underlying agricultural
regions in studies conducted nationwide. Atrazine has more recently been linked to
reduced amphibian fitness from hermaphrodism, increased susceptibility to infection,
and overall reduced survivorship at ecologically relevant doses. Most notably, the
triazine family of herbicides has been linked to growth inhibition and developmental
anomalies in amphibians, mammals, and fish and has been identified as an endocrine
disruptor. There is special concern since herbicide applications in the spring or early
summer also coincide with amphibian breeding periods and have been related to the
global amphibian population declines. Finally, atrazine along with the other triazines
has been subject to resistance development and in corn/soybean systems in the
Northeast, resistance to the triazine herbicides is quite prevalent. Do these negatives
offset the advantages of this long-time corn herbicide standard and is it time to
relinquish atrazine in corn?
In 2006 and 2007, field trials were established in Pennsylvania examining the
effectiveness of herbicide programs for corn. These programs examined both atrazine
containing and non-atrazine based programs. Weed species included velvetleaf,
common ragweed, common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and yellow nutsedge. Nonatrazine
alternatives included mesotrione, isoxaflutole, flumetsulam, rimsulfuron,
halosulfuron, several plant growth regulators, and glyphosate. The results from these
two trials showed that commercially acceptable weed control can be achieved both with
soil applied programs and with two-pass programs that do not include atrazine. Weed
species prevalence certainly will help determine the effectiveness of the program. In
addition, with any assessment, a complete economic analysis should be included that
also considers environmental and ecological implications. In the end, atrazine use
could be more limited to those areas not deemed sensitive and appropriate use
restrictions imposed in areas with greater risk. Is it our responsibility as scientists and
as an industry to ensure that we do not encourage the use of pesticides that have
demonstrated negative performance, especially when acceptable alternatives exist?
*Specific literature citations have been omitted due to page limitations, but are available
from the author upon request.
40

LOOKING FOR POSTEMERGENCE SOLUTIONS TO TRIAZINE RESISTANCE
WEEDS IN POTATOES. J.M. Jemison, Jr., P. Sexton, University of Maine Cooperative
Extension, Orono, and L. Titus, Ag Matters Consulting.
ABSTRACT
Throughout the potato production areas of Maine, triazine resistance is
developing in broadleaf weeds, particularly lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.).
Metribuzin has long been a standard for broadleaf weed control in potato production.
Despite the fact that potatoes are produced in a given field no more than one year in
two (frequently one year in three), the intense mechanical cultivation and hilling, and
that the most common rotation crop does not generally receive a triazine based
herbicide, triazine resistant (TR) lambsquarters is becoming increasingly problematic to
potato producers in Maine.
While other broadleaf herbicides are available for potatoes, many growers may
not know they have resistant weeds and use metribuzin anyway. We found producers
in 2007 that had used alternative herbicides but still needed a postemergence material
to control TR lambsquarters. There are no good materials available to control TR
lambsquarters postemergence.
A study was initiated in 2007 to study whether the addition of 2,4-D to Matrix ®
(rimsulfuron) would provide improved control of TR lambsquarters. The farm where the
trial was conducted was located in Corinna, Maine in the Central Maine potato
production area. Herbicide combinations included applied Matrix at either 1 or 1.5 oz/ac
with either 1.25, 2.5 or 5 oz/ac of 2,4-D and nonionic surfactant added at 0.25% v/v.
We took weed ratings and apparent crop injury ratings at 7 and 14 days after treatment.
Yield samples were taken from 15 feet of row. Potatoes were graded and rated for skin
set and specific gravity.
We found significant differences in the level of crop injury in the second rating (14
DAT) between the 5 oz/ac application rate and the 2.5 oz rate. It did not affect yield but
some leaf curling/cupping was noted. Differences were also found in lambsquarters,
annual grass, and mustard control between those receiving 2,4-D and the control. No
significant differences were found in US. No 1 or total potato yield, skin set or in specific
gravity ratings. Yields averaged between 260 and 300 ctw/ac for this numbered Frito
Lay variety. Use of 2,4-D postemergence in potato production appears to be an
effective way to control TR lambsquarters. No yield reduction was seen, and only slight
leaf injury was noted. More work is needed with other varieties to see if there are any
other issues with this herbicide combination.
41

ALS- AND ACCASE-RESISTANT ITALIAN RYEGRASS IN WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA. J.B. Beam and A.C. York, North Carolina State University, Lincolnton and
Raleigh, NC.
ABSTRACT
Herbicide resistance in weeds has become more prevalent as farmers rely more
on herbicides and less upon tillage and other means to control weeds. Herbicide
resistance in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) has been reported in Chile,
France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and seven states in the United States
(www.weedscience.org). Italian ryegrass resistant to diclofop (Hoelon) and
sethoxydim was reported in western North Carolina in 1990. Resistance is now
widespread in the state. For a number of years, growers used the ALS-inhibiting
herbicides chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron (Finesse) to suppress diclofop-resistant
ryegrass. Mesosulfuron (Osprey), another ALS inhibitor, was registered in 2006 and
is now widely used to control diclofop-resistant ryegrass. Pinoxaden (Axial), an
ACCase inhibitor that sometimes controls diclofop-resistant ryegrass, was registered in
2006. Growers in Lincoln and Union counties in North Carolina began reporting control
failures with mesosulfuron and pinoxaden in the spring of 2007. Seed collected from
eight fields were planted in greenhouse along with seed from a field with no history of
any herbicide applications to ryegrass and another field where mesosulfuron worked
very well. Plants were screened for response to pinoxaden, diclofop, and mesosulfuron
applied at 0.25 to 32X rates. Ryegrass from Lincoln and Union counties survived 32X
rates of mesosulfuron and diclofop and 8X rates of pinoxaden. This is the first report of
mesosulfuron-resistant ryegrass in the United States and the first report of multiple
herbicide resistance in North Carolina.
42

HALEX GT: NEW POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR GLYPHOSATE
TOLERANT CORN. G.D. Vail and C.M. Moseley, Syngenta Crop Protection,
Greensboro, NC.
ABSTRACT
Halex GT is the latest product in the Callisto ® Plant Technology family of
herbicides. Halex GT is a new post-emergence corn herbicide specifically designed for
glyphosate tolerant (GT) corn that provides the convenience of a one-pass, postemergence
glyphosate program that also includes residual weed control. Halex GT
was developed for growers committed to a total post-emergence weed control program.
Five years of product development has demonstrated that Halex GT can deliver
higher corn yield versus one application of glyphosate and equal or higher yield versus
two applications of glyphosate. Because Halex GT controls emerged weeds and
provides residual weed control, it is more flexible and effective than glyphosate alone.
43

HALEX GT WEED CONTROL IN GLYPHOSATE TOLERANT CORN. R.D. Lins, B.R.
Miller, B.D. Black, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC.
ABSTRACT
Halex GT is a new post-emergence corn herbicide specifically designed for
glyphosate tolerant (GT) corn that provides the convenience of a one-pass, postemergence
glyphosate program plus residual weed control. It combines the active
ingredients mesotrione, s-metolachlor and glyphosate into a unique product with
excellent crop safety that controls tough grass and broadleaf weeds in corn. The target
use rate of 2.21 to 2.46 kg ai/H (3.6 to 4 pt/acre) controls the most important weeds
including those that have developed resistance to glyphosate, triazine or ALS-inhibiting
herbicides. Halex GT will require the addition of a nonionic surfactant (NIS) for
optimal weed control. Halex GT can be tank mixed with atrazine for added broadleaf
weed control or when glyphosate resistant broadleaf weeds are present or suspected.
The mixture of active ingredients in Halex GT when tank mixed with atrazine provides
an effective glyphosate resistance management strategy in GT corn.
44

FALL BURNDOWN: DOES IT HAVE A FIT IN DELAWARE. M.J. VanGessel, Q.R.
Johnson, and B.A. Scott, University of Delaware, Georgetown.
No-till crop production has been popular in Delaware for a number of years.
Typically, a non-selective herbicide is applied in the spring prior to planting to kill
existing vegetation and provide a weed-free field at or shortly after planting. However, it
is difficult to apply all non-selective treatments in a timely fashion in most springs, and
as a result farmers are trying to control large winter annual weeds with higher herbicide
rates and multiple herbicides tank mixed in combination. Fall herbicide applications are
one approach to controlling weeds when they are small and lessen the spring workload.
This will require a residual herbicide to increase the likelihood that the field is weed-free
at planting time. At least 12 trials have been conducted in Delaware since 2002
examining various herbicides for utility in a fall application approach with no-till
production programs. Replicated small-plot research has examined glyphosate,
paraquat, 2,4-D and dicamba for control of existing vegetation. Chlorimuron (alone or in
combination with various prepackage mixtures), cloransulam, flumioxazin, metribuzin,
simazine, sulfentrazone, and tribenuron have all been evaluated in at least three trials.
The most common species evaluated include horseweed, field pansy, cress species,
common chickweed, mouseear chickweed, and henbit or deadnettle.
The residual herbicides included in these trials typically do not provide adequate
control of emerged vegetation, and including only dicamba or 2,4-D often does not
provide commercially acceptable control. The addition of paraquat or glyphosate is
needed to provide effective control of emerged vegetation. Due to the size and
susceptibility of weeds at time of fall application, reduced rates of glyphosate or
paraquat provided excellent control. Chlorimuron plus tribenuron (at 0.04 lb ai/A) and
simazine (1 lb ai/A) have provided the most consistent broad-spectrum weed control.
Herbicide-resistance management is a concern with fall herbicide applications
utilizing long residual products (particularly Group 2). The lack of a crop canopy
intensifies selection pressure. Coupled with the fact that the most widely used
herbicides in small grains are also Group 2, resistance management is important to the
long-term utility of this approach.
45

IR-4 AND ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE IN THE NORTHEAST. E. L. Lurvey,
Northeast Region IR-4 Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY.
The mission of the IR-4 Program is to provide data in support of the registration
of pest management tools for minor/specialty crops, including ornamental horticulture.
Over the last few years, the process has been refined in order to more effectively focus
our research. The emphasis has changed from individual chemical/crop combinations
to specific pest/weed problems, then working on the solutions. The important
pest/weed problems are identified, in part, with the use of survey available on the
website (http://ir4.rutgers.edu/ornamentals.html), as well as hard copies distributed at
meetings and conventions. Final decisions on research projects will be made every two
years at an IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Workshop. It is important, therefore, to work
with me, your IR-4 Regional Coordinator for the Northeast, to insure that projects of
importance you are selected for research. Contact information: Edith Lurvey, Tel. No.
315-787-2308; E-mail ell10@cornell.edu.
46

COMPETITION FROM BLACK COTTONWOOD IN NURSERY CONTAINERS. J.E.
Altland, USDA/ARS, Application Technology Research Unit, Wooster, OH.
ABSTRACT
Cottonwood species (Populus spp.) are weedy in container nursery production
throughout much of the U.S. Cottonwood species vary throughout the country, with
black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray) predominating Oregon and other
parts of the Pacific Northwest U.S. Cottonwood release seed in early summer. After
landing in a suitable environment, cottonwood seed germinate in 8 to 24 hours.
Cottonwood can grow 6 to 8 ft in a single season with sufficient resources. The
objective of this research was to document competition from one or more black
cottonwood seedlings on growth of two common nursery shrubs.
On May 15, 2006, hydrangea [Hydrangea macrophylla (Thunb.) Ser. ssp. serrata
(Thunb.) Makino 'Nikko Blue'] and holly (Ilex x meserveae S. Y. Hu ‘Blue Girl’) were
potted into #1 containers filled with 100% Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel)
Franco] bark amended with 9.5 kg/m 3 Apex 18-6-12, 3.0/m 3 kg of dolomitic lime, and 0.9
kg/m 3 Micromax micronutrients. Containers were placed on a wagon and moved
beneath a mature black cottonwood tree in order to collect falling seed. The wagon was
moved daily to the nursery production site and irrigated, then returned to beneath the
tree. On June 5, containers were moved to the nursery production site and remained
there until the conclusion of the experiment. The number of seedlings in each container
was thinned to 0, 1, 3, or 5 seedlings, with three single plant replications per treatment
and shrub species. On August 8, containers were irrigated thoroughly to saturation.
Containers were weighed just after saturation, and then again 3, 6, and 24 hours after
saturation. Percent water loss from the time of saturation was calculated (Table 1). On
September 21, cottonwood and shrubs were harvested for shoot dry weight (SDW).
Data were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance and means were
separated with Tukey’s honest significant difference test.
Water loss in holly and hydrangea was affected by an interaction between
cottonwood seedling number and time, indicating different water loss response over
time depending on the number of seedlings present. Among both species, water loss
increased linearly with increasing number of cottonwood seedlings. By 24 hours, water
loss in hydrangea and holly growing among five cottonwood seedlings was almost three
times as much as those growing without cottonwood. By the conclusion of the study,
SDW of poplar was similar regardless of whether 1, 3, or 5 seedlings were allowed to
grow. This suggests that the #1 container (approximately 2.7 L) limited poplar growth
such that one seedling grew equally large as five seedlings. Among holly, only 5
seedlings reduced SDW compared to containers with no seedlings; however, contrast
analyses (not shown) revealed that SDW of holly was less with 1, 3, or 5 seedlings
compared to containers with no seedlings (p = 0.0683). Hydrangea SDW was reduced
with either 1, 3, or 5 seedlings. These data demonstrate the competitive effects of
cottonwood on water availability and growth of containerized nursery crops, especially
those growing in small (#1 containers) with limited soil volume.
47

EFFICACY AND PERSISTANCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS APPLIED TO
ROOTED CUTTINGS OF TWO CULTIVARS OF RHODODENDRON BEFORE
POTTING. S. Barolli, Imperial Nurseries, Granby, CT.
ABSTRACT
In growing rhododendrons, trimming and pinching take many hours of labor.
Producing well branched, compact plants with plant growth regulators (PGR) could
greatly reduce production costs. Previous studies have shown that certain PGR can
greatly affect stem length and branching of rhododendron. We experimented on two
cultivars of Rhododendron: 'Roseum Elegans’ and ‘PJM’ using GR on 2.5-inch cells of
fully rooted cuttings taken in October 2006.
For each application we treated 20 plants in each of four replications. There were
a total of 16 treatments including 2 untreated. They included drenches and sprays,
some early and some just before potting. For drenching, approximately 30 ml of solution
was used 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, two passes, 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
20 ml/L; 5) Atrimmec-40 ml/L-spray; 6) Florel ® (ethephon)-spray 8 oz/gal; 7) Florel ® -16
oz/gal-spray; 8) Bonzi ® - drench 4 ppm+Atrimmec ® -spray 20ml/L; 9) Bonzi ® -drench 4
ppm+Atrimmec ® -spray 40 ml/L; 10) Bonzi ® -drench 4 ppm+Florel ® -spray 8 oz/gal; 11)
Bonzi ® - drench 4 ppm+ Florel ® -spray 16 oz/gal; 12) cyclanilide 112 ppm+Surfix ®
0.1oz/gal and 13) cyclanilide 223ppm+Surfix ® (-beta pinene polymer- nonionic spray
adjuvant) 0.1 oz/gal as sprays. Number (12) and (13) were re-applied after one month.
Bonzi ® treatments were applied on April 3rd and all the sprays on April 10th. ‘Roseum
Elegans’ was not trimmed before treatment and did not have new growth. The PJMs
were lightly trimmed 10 days prior to treatment and were actively growing. The two
cultivars were kept in separate greenhouses. The later applications were on June 14th
on finished liners: 14) Untreated; 15) the same as Bonzi ® #2 and 16) the same as
Bonzi ® #3. At this point ‘Roseum Elegans’ had been trimmed twice and the ‘PJM’ three
or more times. All other growing procedures were done as in normal practice.
On June 19, 10 liners from each treatment were potted into 2 gal pots, replicated
four times. Before potting all but the Bonzi ® treated rhododendron ‘Roseum Elegans’,
were cut back because they were too tall. All plants were held 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 high rates of Atrimmec ® (5) and (9) caused early injury and these plants
recovered later. Treatments (5) and (9) also caused the most branching. Growth
reduction was the best with Bonzi ® (3), (16), (15), (8) and (9) and these effects persisted
after potting. All others did not reduce growth significantly. All Bonzi ® treatments
significantly increased the number of flower buds. Increased branching was also
observed in the flats but no further effects were observed after potting.
Further evaluation is needed of rates and timing of Bonzi ® and Atrimmec ® to
ascertain that growth reduction does not persist into the 2nd season.
48

DIMETHENAMID-P: A NEW ACTIVE INGREDIENT FOR PREEMERGENCE WEED
CONTROL IN PRODUCTION ORNAMENTALS. C.A. Judge, K.M. Kalmowitz, and J.
Zawierucha, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
ABSTRACT
Dimethenamid-P is being developed for preemergence control of annual grasses,
small-seeded broadleaves, and sedges in ornamentals. Dimethenamid-P is a
chloroacetamide herbicide absorbed by emerging grass shoots and broadleaf shoots
and roots controlling susceptible weeds as they germinate. Field container research
trials have been implemented across the US to evaluate weed control and crop safety
with a 1.75% combination granule containing dimethenamid-P (0.75%) and
pendimethalin (1%) with the trade name FreeHand 1.75G. Research has indicated that
in addition to the weeds controlled by pendimethalin such as annual bluegrass,
crabgrass, chickweeds, spurge sp., and woodsorrel, the combination product provides
additional control of weeds such as common groundsel, doveweed, eclipta, hairy
bittercress, galinsoga, phyllanthus sp., liverwort, and sedges. Six to 10 weeks of
residual weed control in container ornamental production has been observed from
application rates ranging from 1.9 to 3.9 kg ai per ha. Furthermore, good crop tolerance
has been observed in research trials from FreeHand 1.75G across many woody
ornamentals, herbaceous perennials, and annual bedding plants.
49

EFFICACY OF DIMETHENAMID-P + PENDIMETHALIN GRANULAR COMBINATIONS
IN CONTAINERS. J.C. Neal, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
ABSTRACT
There are currently no granular formulations of preemergence herbicides
available for yellow nutsedge control in landscape plantings. Dimethenamid-P has been
shown to provide yellow nutsedge control comparable to s-metolachlor. Recently a
granular formulation of dimethenamid-P has been developed for use in ornamentals.
Prior research demonstrated that combining dimethenamid with a dinitroanaline
herbicide provided broader spectrum annual weed control than either product applied
alone. Therefore, a series of dose-response experiments were conducted to evaluate
the efficacy of granular formulations of dimethenamid-P applied alone or in combination
with pendimethalin on common nursery and landscape weeds. In three studies,
dimethenamid-P 2G @ 0.48, 0.73 and 0.97 lb ai/A was applied alone or in factorial
combinations with pendimethalin 2G at 0, 2 or 3 lb ai/A. Weeds included in the tests
were spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata), bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta),
crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), goosegrass (Eleusine indica), rice flat sedge (Cyperus
iria), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), spiny sowthistle (Sonchus asper), and
doveweed (Murdannia nudiflora). Pots were filled with a pine bark + sand (7:1 v/v)
substrate, irrigated, then treated. Pots were irrigated after treatment then surface
seeded with weeds. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design
with four replicates and three pots of each species per plot. Percent weed control was
visually evaluated 4, 6 and 8 weeks after treatment. Increasing doses of dimethenamid-
P improved control of most species. Applied alone, dimethenamid-P controlled spurge,
rice flat sedge, and doveweed. Combinations with pendimethalin improved control of
goosegrass, sowthistle, bittercress and crabgrass. Although, control of groundsel,
sowthistle and bittercress improved with increasing doses and combinations, maximum
control of these species was not adequate. A third experiment was conducted with a
higher dose of dimethenamid-P, 1.5 lb ai/A, applied alone or in combination with
pendimethalin at 0, 2 or 3 lb ai/A. At 1.5 lb ai/A dimethenamid controlled doveweed,
eclipta (Eclipta prostrata), goosegrass, crabgrass, spotted spurge and American
burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolia). For these species, combining dimethenamid-P with
pendimethalin did not improve control over dimethenamid-P at 1.5 lb ai/A. Long stalked
phyllanthus (Phyllanthus tenellus) control was greater with combinations of
pendimethalin + dimethenamid-P compared to either herbicide applied alone. These
data demonstrate that a granular formulation of dimethenamid-P controls many
common nursery and landscape weeds. Combinations with pendimethalin may
enhance the control of some species particularly at lower dimethenamid-P doses.
50

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AND CREEPING BENTGRASS QUALITY AND
COLOR IN FAIRWAY HEIGHT TURF AS INFLUENCED BY PLANT GROWTH
REGULATOR PROGRAMS WITH BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM. S. J. McDonald, Turfgrass
Disease Solutions, LLC, Pottstown, PA.
ABSTRACT
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera Huds.) is one of the most commonly
grown turf species for fairway turf. In creeping bentgrass fairways, annual bluegrass
(Poa annua L.) (POAAN) is considered a grassy weed. Golf course superintendents
employ many different plant growth regulator programs to fairway height turf. In coolseason
turfgrass fairways, three different plant growth regulators are standard. These
include: paclobutrazol (PB), flurprimodol (FP), and trinexapac-ethyl (TE). Furthermore,
bispyribac-sodium (BPS) is labeled for the control of POAAN in fairway height creeping
bentgrass. Research has shown that Velocity does have a potential to significantly
reduce the population of POAAN in fairway height turf. One issue with the use of this
herbicide is that if a stand is comprised of greater than 10% POAAN and the herbicide
is applied, the area previously inhibited with POAAN becomes bareground. The
purpose of this trial was to evaluate aggressive season long plant growth regulator
programs with and without two mid-season applications of BPS for their effects on
POAAN populations, turfgrass color, and percent bareground. The trial was conducted
on turfgrass maintained as an actual golf course fairway at Brookside Country Club,
located in Pottstown, PA. The experimental design was a randomized complete block
with four replications. Plots were 2.5 x 6 ft. The site originally consisted of 75-85%
creeping bentgrass, 15-20% POAAN, and minor (

EARLY POST-EMERGENT CONTROL OF SMOOTH CRABGRASS AND BULL
PASPALUM WITH TANK-MIXES OF VARIOUS HERBICIDES. S.J. McDonald,
Turfgrass Disease Solutions, LLC, Pottstown, PA.
ABSTRACT
Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) and Paspalum species are problematic
grassy weeds in cool-season turfgrass. In southeastern Pennsylvania, bull or thin
paspalum (Paspalum setaceum Michx.) has been observed inhibiting many lowmaintenance
areas. Two sequential applications of MSMA are the standard approach
employed to control paspalum species. In a pilot study conducted in 2006, it was
observed that sequential applications of mesotrione at various rates + 0.25% v/v
nonionic surfactant caused significant injury to mature bull paspalum and smooth
crabgrass. Other researchers have reported that there are possible synergistic effects
of mixing mesotrione with other herbicides. Therefore, the objective of this trial was to
evaluate mesotrione applied alone and tank-mixed with selected herbicides and
compare those treatments to the commercial standard (MSMA) for their ability to postemergently
control smooth crabgrass and bull paspalum in a stand of fine fescue turf.
Including the untreated control, there were a total of twelve treatments in this
experiment. Mesotrione (8.0 fl oz/A) was applied alone and tank mixed with quinclorac
(1 lb product/A), fenoxaprop (20 fl oz/A), carfentrazone (6.7 fl oz/A), sulfentrazone (4.0 fl
oz/A), and fluazifop (24.0 fl oz/A). Sulfentrazone (4.0 fl oz/A) was applied alone and
tank-mixed with quinclorac (1 lb product/A). Carfentrazone (6.7 fl oz/A) and quinclorac
(1 lb product/A) were also applied alone. Nonionic surfactant and spray adjuvant were
added as suggested by individual product labels.
Initially, the site consisted of 70-85% cover by fine fescue. Treatments were
initially applied on 13 June 2007 when smooth crabgrass was in the 6-7 leaf stage with
2-3 tillers and paspalum was in the 2-4 leaf stage. Treatments were first applied 17
days after paspalum emergence. All treatments were re-applied on 1 July 2007. The
experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three replications.
The site was mowed weekly at 3 inches with a rotary mower.
One week after treatment (1 WAT), plots treated with mesotrione-alone or any
combination of mesotrione plus another herbicide induced significant injury to both
crabgrass and paspalum (>2.0 on 0 to 5 scale). The level of injury was equal the
MSMA treated plots. At 2 WAT, the highest level of treatment induced injury to
crabgrass and paspalum was observed in plots treated with mesotrione-alone,
mesotrione + fenoxaprop, mesotrione + fluazifop and MSMA-alone. The highest level of
desirable turf (fine fescue) injury occurred in plots treated with mesotrione mixed with
quinclorac and MSMA.
In this trial, few distinct differences between the mesotrione-alone and the
mixtures in the level of crabgrass and paspalum control were observed. Two
applications of mesotrione-alone at (8.0 fl oz/A) provided a high level of control of
smooth crabgrass and bull paspalum. Plots treated alone with carfentrazone-alone,
sulfentrazone-alone, and quinclorac-alone had equal percent plot area covered by
paspalum as the untreated control throughout the entire trial.
52

TOLERANCE OF SEEDLING BLUE GRAMMA AND LITTLE BLUESTEM TO
POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. J.L. Jester and S.D. Askew, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
The addition of adaptable perennial grasses typically referred to as "native
species" to golf courses is a relatively new practice. Unlike conservation efforts, golf
courses must establish cover quickly for aesthetics and weed control. Utilizing methods
such as increased seeding rates and scheduled watering can expedite the maturation of
the stand but weeds still pose a constant problem. Herbicides are critical to promote
development of slow-maturing perennial grasses by reducing weed competition. The
selection of herbicide depends on its effectiveness and level of tolerance by the grass
species. Evaluating the effects of commonly used herbicides on blue grama grass
(Bouteloua gracilis) and little bluestem grass (Schizachyrium scoparium) can provide
data necessary to make herbicide selection easier while protecting the developing
stand. Our objectives were to evaluate 25 herbicides or herbicide combinations for
effects on blue gramma grass and little bluestem.
Little bluestem and blue grama grass were seeded in rows at 50 pounds of seed
per acre on June 22, 2007 in Blacksburg, VA. Initial plant densities ranged from 1 to 78
blue grama plants and 18 to 103 little bluestem plants per plot. The study was
established as a randomized complete block design with 3 replications and 26
treatments. Little bluestem and blue grama grass had a minimum of three leaves at
time of application. Herbicides included in this study are: Amicarbazone; aminopyralid;
bentazon; carfentrazone; carfentrazone + 2,4-D + MCPP + dicamba; chlorsulfuron; 2,4-
D + MCPP + dicamba; fenoxaprop; flazasulfuron; fluazifop; flucarbazone; foramsulfuron;
halosulfuron; imazapic; mesotrione; metsulfuron; nicosulfuron; primisulfuron; quinclorac;
simazine; sulfentrazone; sulfosulfuron; tembotrione; topramezone; and trifloxysulfuron.
All herbicides were applied with appropriate adjuvant and at label-recommended rates
for crops on which the products are registered. Blue grama grass and little bluestem
injury and plant densities were assessed weekly for 6 week by visually estimating plant
discoloration stand reduction, and stunting compared to the non-treated control and by
plant counts.
Little bluestem was not significantly injured by the following: aminopyralid;
bentazon; carfentrazone; carfentrazone + 2,4-D + MCPP + dicamba; chlorsulfuron; 2,4-
D + MCPP + dicamba; fenoxaprop; flazasulfuron ; fluazifop; foramsulfuron; ;
halosulfuron; imazapic; nicosulfuron; primisulfuron; simazine; sulfentrazone;
sulfosulfuron and topramezone. Amicarbazone; flucarbazone; mesotrione; metsulfuron;
tembotrione and trifloxysulfuron injured little bluestem 40% or more. Blue grama grass
was not significantly injured by the following herbicides: bentazon; carfentrazone; 2,4-D
+ MCPP + dicamba; fenoxaprop; fluazifop; flucarbazone; and simazine. All other
herbicides caused unacceptable injury to blue grama grass. These data indicate that
several herbicides are safe to use on these adaptable perennial grasses.
53

POSTEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS AND WHITE CLOVER CONTROL WITH
MESOTRIONE. P.H. Dernoeden and J. Fu, University of Maryland, College Park.
ABSTRACT
Smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) and white clover (Trifolium repens) are
among the most common and invasive turf weeds. Mesotrione has broad-spectrum
activity on diverse weed species, but effective use rates and timings for postemergence
crabgrass and white clover control in summer has not been established in Maryland. In
the crabgrass study, various herbicide rates were applied once or twice in two timings
as follows: mid-post when crabgrass was in the 4-leaf to 2-tiller stage (28 June;
sequential 12 July 2007) and late-post when crabgrass was in the 3- to 8-tiller stage (18
July; sequential 1 August 2007). In the white clover study, mesotrione was applied three
times beginning 28 June 2007. Fenoxaprop and quinclorac were applied as standards.
Mesotrione and quinclorac were tank-mixed with 0.25% v/v X-77 nonionic surfactant
and 1% v/v methylated seed oil, respectively. Herbicides were applied in 50 GPA using
a CO 2 pressurized (35 psi) sprayer equipped with an 8004 flat fan nozzle. The study
areas were irrigated within 48 hrs of each application and thereafter to prevent drought
stress. Soil was a Keyport silt loam with a pH of about 5.7 and 2.2% OM. Plots were 5
ft x 5 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block (crabgrass study) or were
completely randomized (white clover study) with four replications. Tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea) color and percent of plot area covered by crabgrass and white clover were
assessed visually. Crabgrass and white clover pressure were uniform and severe
across the sites. Data were subjected to the analysis of variance and significantly
different means were separated at P≤0.05 using Fisher's least significant difference test.
Treatments providing commercially acceptable crabgrass control (i.e., < 5%
cover) by 31 August 2007 included: mesotrione applied at 0.250+0.250 lb ai/A mid- and
late-post and fenoxaprop (0.125+0.125 lb ai/A) and quinclorac (0.5+0.5 lb ai/A) applied
late-post. Treatments providing statistically equivalent control to the aforementioned
were: mesotrione applied at 0.187+0.187 lb ai/A mid-and late-post (8% crabgrass
cover); mesotrione applied at 0.125+0.125 lb ai/A late-post (19% crabgrass cover); and
fenoxaprop (0.09 lb ai/A) and quinclorac (0.75 lb ai/A) in the mid-post timing (14-15%
crabgrass cover). Mesotrione (0.250 lb ai/A) applied once performed better in the midpost
versus the late-post timing. Data indicated that the lowest effective rate of
mesotrione in a sequential application, given the conditions of the study, was 0.187
+0.187 lb ai/A. Mesotrione elicited an objectionable level of chlorosis in tall fescue for
about 20 days. Mesotrione slowly reduced white clover cover following two applications
on 28 June and 12 July, but the level of control was unacceptable. Following a third
application on 1 August, plots treated with 0.125, 0.187 and 0.250 lb ai/A mesotrione
had white clover cover ratings ranging from 0 to 6%, which were statistically equivalent
to white clover levels in plots treated once with quinclorac at 0.75 lb ai/A on 28 June
(1% white clover cover).
54

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN COOL-SEASON TURF. S.E. Hart, C. Mansue,
and P.E. McCullough, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,
NJ.
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Adelphia, NJ to evaluate
postemergence applications of halosulfuron, sulfosulfuron, sulfentrazone, and V-10142
for yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne
L. 'Manhattan II'). All herbicide treatments were applied once or twice on an
approximately 5 week interval. Halosulfuron was applied at 35 or 70 g ai/ha,
sulfosulfuron was applied at 13, 26, and 39 g ai/ha, sulfentrazone was applied at 140,
280 or 420 g ai/ha, and V-10142 was applied at 280, 560, or 840 g ai/ha. Halosulfuron,
sulfosulfuron and V-10142 treatments included nonionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v.
Herbicide application dates were June 20 and July 24 in 2006 and July 2 and August 13
in 2007. Turfgrass injury and yellow nutsedge control were evaluated 3 weeks after
initial treatment (WAIT), prior to sequential applications, and 9 and 12 WAIT.
Treatments were applied to 0.9 by 3 m plots with a single-nozzle CO 2 backpack sprayer
system utilizing a 9504EVS nozzle tip which delivered 374 L/ha of spray solution at 221
kPa. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications per
treatment. In 2006, prior to the sequential application yellow nutsedge control ranged
from 89 to 95% for halosulfuron, 56 to 86% for sulfosulfuron, 63 to 90% for
sulfentrazone, and 60 to 71% for V-10142. There was no turfgrass injury detected from
any of the herbicide treatments. At 9 WAIT, perennial ryegrass injury from sequential
sulfosulfuron treatments ranged from 15 to 31%. Injury from these treatments increased
substantially at 12 WAIT and ranged from 26 to 50%. Injury observed was in the form of
chlorosis and stand thinning. At 12 WAIT halosulfuron provided 87 to 98% yellow
nutsedge control. Sequential treatments of halosulfuron did not increase yellow
nutsedge control relative to single applications. Single applications of sulfosulfuron
provided 60 to 74% yellow nutsedge control but sequential applications increased
yellow nutsedge control to 85 to 96%. Single applications of sulfentrazone provided 70
to 90% control but sequential applications at 240 and 420 g ai/ha improved control to 93
and 97%, respectively. Single applications of V-10142 provided 43 to 51% control but
sequential applications improved control to 76 to 80%. In 2007, prior to the sequential
application yellow nutsedge control ranged from 78 to 91% for halosulfuron, 44 to 85%
for sulfosulfuron, 28 to 88% for sulfentrazone, and 35 to 45% for V-10142. There was
no turfgrass injury detected from any of the herbicide treatments. At 9 WAIT, no
turfgrass injury was detected from any of the sequential herbicide treatments. At 12
WAIT, halosulfuron provided 77 to 84% yellow nutsedge control. Sequential treatments
of halosulfuron increased control to 91 to 94%. Single applications of sulfosulfuron
performed much better in 2007 providing 84 to 90% and sequential applications at all
three rates 96 to 97% control. Single applications of sulfentrazone provided 75 to 82%
control, similar to observations in 2006. Sequential applications at 240 and 420 g ai/ha
improved control to 91 and 93%, respectively. Single applications of V-10142 provided
62 to 70% control but sequential applications improved control to 80 to 90%. The results
of these studies suggest that sulfosulfuron and sulfentrazone may provide a viable
55

alternative to halosulfuron for yellow nutsedge control especially when applied
sequentially. It does not appear that single applications of V-10142 can provide
commercially acceptable levels of yellow nutsedge control and sequential applications
provided significantly less control than sequential applications of halosulfuron,
sulfentrazone, and sulfosulfuron.
56

PREEMERGENCE YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN SPRING SEEDED TALL
FESCUE. P.H. Dernoeden and J. Fu, University of Maryland, College Park.
ABSTRACT
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) (CYPES) is a common weed in turfgrass,
which generally is controlled postemergence. Yellow nutsedge can be an aggressive
competitor in spring seeded turfgrass and using a herbicide safely and effectively to
control this weed at the time of seeding would be advantageous. In this study, three
herbicides were applied at the time of seeding a stand of tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea) (TF) in spring 2007. The site was treated with glyphosate on 5 April and
disk-seeded to Cochise III TF on 10 April 2007. The herbicides were applied
preemergence to both TF and CYPES on 20 April and sequential applications of some
treatments were made 21 May 2007. The herbicides and rates evaluated were as
follows: mesotrione (0.25, 0.125 + 0.125, and 0.187 + 0.187 lb ai/A); sulfentrazone (0.25
and 0.125 + 0.125 lb ai/A); and a pre-packaged mixture of sulfentrazone + prodiamine
(0.57 and 0.75 lb ai/A). Soil was a Keyport silt loam with a pH of 5.7 and 2.1% OM. Turf
was maintained at a height of 2.5 inches and the site was irrigated frequently during
summer to prevent drought stress. Herbicides were applied in 50 GPA using a CO 2
pressurized (35 psi) backpack sprayer equipped with an 8004 flat fan nozzle. Plots were
5 ft by 5 ft and arranged in a randomized complete block with four replications. Tall
fescue and CYPES cover were assessed visually on a linear 0 to 100% scale where 0 =
no CYPES or TF and 100 = entire plot area covered with CYPES or TF. Data were
subjected to the analysis of variance and significantly different means were separated
using Fisher's LSD test at P≤ 0.05.
Tall fescue seedlings and shoots of CYPES emanating from tubers began
emerging in late April and early May 2007. In plots treated with mesotrione, CYPES
shoots emerged and turned white and many plants died over a period of weeks. In plots
treated with sulfentrazone and sulfentrazone + prodiamine, emerging shoots of CYPES
were not observed. On 31 May, 10 days had passed since sequential applications were
made and all treatments had reduced CYPES levels. Plots treated with sulfentrazone
and sulfentrazone + prodiamine had lower CYPES levels than plots treated with
mesotrione on 31 May. By 1 August, plots treated with mesotrione at 0.125 + 0.125 and
0.187 + 0.187 lb ai/A (3 to 11% CYPES cover) had CYPES levels statistically equivalent
to sulfentrazone and sulfentrazone + prodiamine (trace to 10% CYPES cover). Plots
treated with sulfentrazone at 0.125 + 0.125 lb ai/A, however, were almost free of
CYPES on 1 August. While sulfentrazone and sulfentrazone + prodiamine provided
effective preemergence CYPES control, they adversely affected TF seedling
emergence. On 1 August, sulfentrazone-treated plots had 48 to 70% TF cover;
whereas, plots treated with sulfentrazone + prodiamine had only 8 to 18% TF cover.
Conversely, mesotrione had no adverse effects on TF seedlings and plots treated twice
at 0.125 and 0.187 lb ai/A achieved 72 to 85% TF cover by 8 June, respectively, and
retained this cover level the entire summer.
57

A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE NON-NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA, R. Stalter, A.
Jung, E. Youssef, J. Jelovic. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long Island, New York.
ABSTRACT
This preliminary study was conducted at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long
Island, New York. The objective of this three year study was to collect and document
the native and non-native vascular flora at the laboratory. Collecting trips were made to
the laboratory at two week intervals beginning in April, 2007, terminating on August 15,
2007. Over 500 species were collected. The preliminary list of the non-native vascular
flora includes 103 species, 37% of the flora. Families with the greatest numbers of nonnative
species were the Poaceae and Asteraceae with 19 and 16 species respectively.
Plant families composed exclusively of alien taxa were the Alliaceae, Commelinaceae,
Elaeagnaceae and Molluginaceae. The study will be completed in October, 2009.
INTRODUCTION
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is situated in eastern central Long Island,
New York (40.9°N Latitude 72.9°W Longitude). The laboratory extends North from the
Long Island Expressway Service Road (exit 68) and borders the William Floyd Parkway
on the West. Brookhaven National Laboratory is composed of approximately 2,226
hectares of terrestrial habitat including several small ephemeral freshwater ponds.
Little change in the forest vegetation where the laboratory is situated today
occurred during the first two centuries of European habitation beginning in 1651. The
land was logged extensively in the 1850’s. A severe fire burned hundreds of hectares of
the site in 1865. In 1917, a portion of the site was developed to house Camp Upton, a
major training center for World War 1 veterans. Camp Upton was utilized by the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCP) in the 1930’s. The CCP planted white pine (Pinus strobus)
and red pine (Pinus resinosa) on approximately 162 ha; these stands exist today. In
1947 the Cold War necessitated the development of Brookhaven National Laboratory as
a research facility to counter the bellicose actions of the Soviet Union.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Seven Plant communities occur here. These are the Pinus rigida /Quercus spp.)
community; the Quercus dominated forest; ruderal (disturbed sites) including lawns,
roadsides, disturbed/developed areas including the sewage treatment plant, retention
basins and additional lightly cleared areas; successional fields; planted pine plantations;
ponds, streams and wetlands. The most unique community, the “Gamma Forest”, was
the site of the Woodwell’s Ce-137 irradiated Pine Oak woodland (Woodwell and
Rebuck, 1967). The senior author, Stalter, is currently comparing the vascular flora at
the four irradiated communities described by Woodwell and Rebuck (1967) with the
vascular plant species present at these sites in 2007. The objective of the present
preliminary study was to collect and identify the non-native vascular plant species at
Brookhaven National Laboratory.
58

CLIMATE
The climate at Brookhaven National Laboratory is humid continental (Garwood
1996). Detailed climatological data for the laboratory is provided by an on-site National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather center. July is the warmest month
averaging 22 degrees Celsius, while January, the coldest month averages -1.5 degrees
Celsius. The average length of the growing season is 185 days. Generally, the last frost
in spring occurs around April 22, while the first frost in autumn occurs on October 15.
Mean annual rainfall is 959 mm.
METHODS
Collecting trips were made to study area approximately twice a month beginning
April 2007 through August 15, 2007. Additional trips to the site will be made through
October 2009, when the study will be completed. Objectives for each trip included the
collection of voucher specimens and an accumulation of information on abundance and
apparent habitat preference for each species. Classification of the vascular plant
species follows Gleason and Cronquist (1991). Bailey (1949) and Gleason and
Cronquist (1991) were used to determine the non- native status of the plant species at
BNL (Table 1). Families with large numbers of non-native vascular plant species and/or
composed exclusively of non-native taxa are presented in Table 2. Potentially
aggressive alien taxa are presented in Table 3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The preliminary list of the vascular flora at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
based on collections from 15 April to 15 August, 2007, was composed of 278 species in
201 genera in 83 families. One hundred three species, 37% of the flora, were not native
to the region (Table 1). This percentage of non-native vascular plant species was
slightly higher than New York States’ non-native plant species, 35%.
The Asteraceae, 37 species, and Poaceae, 32 species, were the largest families
in the flora. The Cyperaceae ranked third with 15 species. The largest genera were
Carex and Quercus, each with 7 species. Plant families with the greatest number of
non-native taxa were the Asteraceae and Poaceae with 19 and 16 species respectively.
More than half of the Asteraceae and 50% of the Poaceae were composed of nonnative
species. Non-native dicots (81) were more abundant then alien monocots (18),
and composed (+/- 40%) of the dicot flora. Four families, the Alliaceae (formerly the
Liliaceae), Commelinaceae, Elaeagnaceae and Molluginaceae were composed
exclusively of non-native taxa (Table 2). Two thirds of the Gymnosperms, were not
native to the site.
Several non-native taxa pose a threat to BNL’s native flora (Table 3). Eragrostis
curvula is the dominant taxon at the roadside right-of-way bordering the William Floyd
Parkway. The well established shrub, Gaylussacia baccata, has (and will) prevent the
alien E. curvula from becoming established in the Oak and Pine-Oak forest
59

communities. Periodic mowing may prevent and/or restrict the E. curvula from invading
the ruderal areas in the future.
Alliaria petiolata and Celastrus orbiculatus are two recent invaders; both have
become well established at Brookhaven and are now a dominant part of the flora.
Neither species can be eradicated except pulled by hand in small local plots. Celastrus
may also be treated with herbicides where it has become established locally in fields.
Celastrus orbiculatus is the most abundant woody alien invader, festooning trees and
shrubs, especially along roadside borders. This woody vine may occupy a greater
portion of the BNL’s fields and woodlands in the future.
Berberis vulgaris is a common understory shrub in woodlands and also thrives on
roadsides and fields. Coronaria varia is common in fields and roadsides. Elaeagnus
angustifolia has become established in successional fields and may be controlled by
herbicides and/or cutting and brush-hogging. Phragmites australis has invaded
wetlands and moist open sites, and may pose a bigger threat to native wetland species
in the future.
Polygonum cuspidatum occurs in pure stands along roadsides and successional
fields. It may become more abundant at these sites in the future. Rosa multiflora is
abundant at BNL. Favoring roadsides and fields like P. cuspidatum and Phragmites, this
non-native woody shrub may become more widespread in the future.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Bailey L. H., 1949. Manual of Cultivated Plants. Macmillan, New York. 1116 pp.
2. Garwood, A. N. 1996. Weather America Milpitas California 217-223
3. Gleason, H. D. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of
Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. The New
York Botanical Garden, Bronx.
4. Woodwell, G. and A. Rebuck. 1967. Effects of chronic gamma radiation on
the structure and diversity of an oak-pine forest. Ecological Monographs 37:
53-69.
Table 1. A preliminary summary of the native and non-native vascular plant species at
Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Spore
Plants
Gymnosperms Dicots Monocots Total
Families 4 2 65 12 83
Genera 7 4 147 43 201
Species 8 6 203 61 278
Introduced
species
Native
Species
0 4 81 18 103
8 2 122 43 175
60

Table 2. Plant families with large numbers of non-native vascular plants species, and
families exclusively composed of non-native species.
Family Number of Alien Taxa Percent Alien Taxa
Alliaceae 1 100
Asteraceae 19 51
Poaceae 16 50
Commelinaceae 1 100
Elaeagnaceae 2 100
Molluginaceae 1 100
Table 3. A list of aggressive or potentially aggressive non-native vascular plant species
at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Species
Alliaria petiolata
Berberis vulgaris
Coronaria varia
Celastrus orbiculatus
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Eragrostis curvula
Phragmites australis
Polygonum cuspidatum
Rosa multiflora
61

DEPLETING THE GERMINABLE WEED SEEDBANK WITH SOIL DISTURBANCE
AND COVER CROPPING PRACTICES. S.B. Mirsky, E.R. Gallandt, D.A. Mortensen,
W.S. Curran, and D.L. Shumway, Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Ecologically based weed management is more variable than chemical weed
management and often results in additions of seed to the soil seedbank. Low initial
weed seedbank densities have been suggested to be critical to successful
implementation of low external input or organic weed management practices. Therefore,
to improve the likelihood of successful reduced external input and organic weed
management, methods of accomplishing seedbank depletion are needed. In this study,
we assess the impact of soil disturbance frequency and cover cropping practices on the
germinable seedbank of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), velvetleaf
(Abutilon theophrasti), and foxtail spp. (Setaria spp.) whose initial seedbank densities
were experimentally manipulated. The effects of varying initial weed seed population
levels on efficacy of weed management was tested in five cover and cash cropping
systems. Seedbanks were established at four densities in Pennsylvania and Maine in
the fall of 2003 and 2005. Cover crops, tine weeding and inter-row crop cultivation
comprised the integrated weed management systems. There was a positive linear
relationship between weed seedling recruitment and initial seedbank density. Of the six
cover cropping systems studied, the summer fallow and yellow mustard (Brassica
juncea) / buckwheat (Fagopyrum sagittatum) / winter canola (Brassica napus) were the
only cover cropping system that consistently decreased seedbanks of the target weeds
at both locations. In addition to a high soil disturbance frequency, a quality of both
systems was late season disturbance preempting weed seed rain. In the case where
weeds reached reproductive maturity, the deficit to the seedbank from early season soil
disturbances was overwhelmed by the subsequent seed rain.
62

HERBICIDE EFFECTIVENESS ON GIANT HOGWEED FOR PENNSYLVANIA
ERADICATION PROGRAM. M.A. Bravo, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,
Harrisburg.
ABSTRACT
Since the discovery of wild populations of giant hogweed [Heracleum
mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier] in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United
States several states have begun eradication programs for this Federal Noxious Weed.
Pennsylvania began its program in 1998 and relied on a triclopyr solution in a
THINVERT carrier as the core herbicide program. As the program evolved across the
country and additional states (16) discovered wild populations of giant hogweed,
questions regarding the most effective herbicide chemistry for giant hogweed control
have surfaced. Unfortunately, due to the isolated location of the wild populations and
difficulty germinating plants for greenhouse experiments, little herbicide efficacy data is
available for giant hogweed control in the United States. Triclopyr has remained the
core herbicide treatment in Pennsylvania and has proven effective at 2.5% v/v rates. In
2007 a field trial was conducted on a 92 x 40 foot section of a wild population in Carter
Camp, Pennsylvania containing more than 100 giant hogweed plants. The site was
mowed for the first time on May 16 th of 2007 and herbicide treatments were applied on
May 29, 2007. Foliar treatments (aminopyralid, clopyralid, glyphosate and imazapyr)
were applied to 3 stages of giant hogweed plants: cotyledons consisting of 1 leaf
treated; perennial rosettes with 2 leaves treated; and perennial rosettes with 5 leaves
treated. In addition to the test plot, a 2.5% (v/v) triclopyr and 0.75% (v/v) clopyralid
solution was foliarly applied to 228 giant hogweed plants on the same day as part of the
eradication program efforts in this area of Potter County. Treatments were evaluated on
June 19 th and control ratings were taken based on visual appraisal of foliar injury and
root tissue damage.
At the rates used in this study, glyphosate controlled all above ground biomass
and some evidence of translocation of the herbicide to the roots was apparent.
Imazapyr plants showed classic arrested growth and leaf chlorosis but roots appeared
unaffected by the treatments, however, imazapyr is known to translocated slowly and
the herbicide may not have translocated to the roots at the time of the evaluations.
Classic epinastic twisting of all treated foliage was evident in all aminopyralid and
clopyralid treatments and a few plants still attempted to produce flower umbels. Only 1
of 4 clopyralid treated plants showed any evidence of root injury while all aminopyralid
treated plants showed significant root damage. Evaluation of the 228 triclopyr/clopyralid
solution treated plants indicated that plants with high above ground biomass were not
controlled by the 3% solution while smaller plants were effectively killed.
63

FIRST YEAR AFTER TREATMENT RESULTS: PILOT KUDZU ERADICATION
PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo and P. Broady. Pennsylvania Department
of Agriculture, Harrisburg.
ABSTRACT
Due to its known noxious and invasive status in the Southern states, limited
distribution in Pennsylvania (PA), ability to produce viable seed in PA and to prevent
further establishment of this species, kudzu [Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.)
Maesen & S.M. Almeida] became a PA Noxious Weed in 1989. Current sites in PA are
most often roadside banks, forest-edge, quarries, slag mine deposits, homeowner
property boundaries and rarely open space locations such as pipelines. Kudzu is a host
for soybean rust, therefore renewed interest in limiting the spread of kudzu began in PA.
During the summer of 2006 PDA began confirming all known locations of kudzu in the
state and expanded upon this with a state wide hotline in the summer of 2007. As of
October, 115 sites consisting of 80 spatially distinct populations of kudzu are known in
PA. The current distribution of kudzu in PA seems limited to Zone 6 of the USNA Plant
Hardiness Zone Map (primarily in southern PA counties).
Due to the complexity of control options and the expansiveness of kudzu growth,
most property owners are not equipped to manage kudzu eradication without technical
assistance. PDA began assisting property owners in Pittsburgh and Cornwall in 2000
and these efforts have evolved into the state-wide Pilot Kudzu Eradication Program. As
of July 2007, 28 sites in 15 counties are enrolled in the program. Herbicides used in the
program since 2000 include aminopyralid, clopyralid, imazapyr, metsulfuron and
triclopyr. Mechanical control is also an integrated component of the program. The goal
of the Pilot program is to treat sites for 3 consecutive years to assist property owners in
eradicating kudzu.
Treatments at 6 sites in Cornwall, Lebanon County are being used as a research
plot to collect base line data on clopyralid efficacy, rate and longevity. Based on the
results in 2006, regardless of the coverage and effectiveness of the initial high volume
foliar application, several repeat visits to "find" and treat every mature, woody, kudzu
crown with a cut stump application is necessary to maintain season long control. The 1
YAT results indicate the 2006 treatment regiment is controlling 95% of the above
ground biomass and successful eradication of the root system at treated sites has either
been achieved or is expected after 3 consecutive years of treatments.
Historical information and the physical data collected at each site suggests all
current kudzu sites in PA are at least 30 years old if not older and were purposely
planted for soil stabilization or other recommended uses promoted in the late 1930's.
Based on the rings in the large woody vines and historical data collected, PDA believes
that many sites date back to at least the 1960’s. Sites are self-seeding underneath the
canopy of the current “parent” populations and seeds are viable. Wherever soil
disturbance and removal of the parent canopy has occurred, new seedlings are
emerging. This is especially true where developers have bulldozed large infestations
and distributed the soil and seed into open space areas.
64

BIOLOGY OF DODDER: A NOXIOUS WEED. P.C. Bhowmik and D. Sarkar, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
ABSTRACT
Dodder [Cuscuta spp.] is a rootless, leafless, parasitic plant, with annual or
sometimes perennial life cycle. Dodder is classified as a member of the morningglory
family (Convolvulaceae) or as a member of a separate dodder family (Cuscutaceae).
The genus contains more than 150 twinning species that are widely distributed
throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the world. Dodder is widely distributed
all over the United States and it is listed as a noxious weed. Dodder is also present
throughout the state of Massachusetts. Dodder parasitizes various kinds of wild and
cultivated plants, and is especially destructive to alfalfa, lespedeza, flax, clover,
potatoes and ornamental plants. The yield loss due to dodder infestation can go up to
57% in case of forage yield of alfalfa, and 50% in case of cranberry production. They
can rapidly colonize disturbed areas, where they grow in patches. Dodder probably
contains some chlorophyll in the buds, fruits and stems, but the amount of food
manufactured in the tissue is of little significance to the survival of the plant.
Dodder embryos and seedlings have no cotyledons, but have a small, swollen
root-like organ, which persist only a few days after emergence, and a shoot. Dodder
seedlings must attach to a suitable host within a few days of germination or they die.
After germination, seedlings of dodder undergo a non-parasitic phase of growth,
dependent on seed reserve, for 2-3 weeks. Like other holoparasites, Cuscuta plants
lack leaves and roots, so take water and minerals directly from host through a mass of
tissue known as “inner haustorium”, which penetrates and invades the host phloem and
xylem tissues. Host recognition of dodder is mediated by a phototrophic mechanism.
Dodder produces numerous white, pink, or yellowish, small flowers during early June to
the end of the growing season. Most of the flowers open in the morning, and a few
during the day. The fruit is about 1/8 inch in diameter, with thin papery walls and contain
1 to 4 seeds. A single plant of dodder can produce 16,000 seeds. Seeds are yellow to
brown or black, nearly round and have a fine rough surface with one round and two flat
sides. Dodder produces seed that drops to the ground and germinate in the next
growing season if a suitable host is present. Without suitable host, seeds may remain
dormant at least 10 yr in the field. The principle means of dodder seed dispersal is
through contaminated crop seeds.
Its wide host range and the long life of its dormant seeds make dodder hard to
control and nearly impossible to eradicate. Preemergent herbicides such as trifluralin
applied to the soil prior to seed germination will limit the infestation. Extensive research
is going on to find out the suitable bio-control agent for dodder management. Detailed
studies on the biology of this species and effective control measures of this parasitic
weed should be developed to prevent future infestation in different habitats.
65

RISKY ENERGY: BIOFUELS AND INVASIVE SPECIES. J. Barney and J. DiTomaso,
University of California, Davis.
ABSTRACT
In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expand domestic energy
production, and maintain economic growth, public and private investments are being
used to pursue dedicated feedstock crops for biofuel production. The leading
candidates for lignocellulose-based energy are primarily perennial rhizomatous grasses,
most of which are not native to the region for which production is proposed. From an
agronomic perspective, the life history characteristics, rapid growth rates, and tonnage
of biomass produced by these non-native grasses make them ideal feedstock crops.
Biofuel feedstocks grown as dedicated energy crops are being selected, bred, and
engineered from non-native taxa to possess few resident pests, tolerate poor growing
conditions, and produce highly competitive monospecific stands – traits which typify
much of our invasive flora. We used a weed risk assessment protocol, which
categorizes the risk of becoming invasive based on biogeography, history, and biology
and ecology, to qualify the potential invasiveness of three leading biofuel candidate
crops – switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), giant reed (Arundo donax), and miscanthus
(Miscanthus x giganteus) – under various assumptions. Switchgrass was found to have
a high invasive potential (‘reject’) in California, unless sterility was introduced (‘accept’).
Giant reed has a high invasive potential in Florida where large plantations are proposed,
while miscanthus poses little threat of escape in the United States. Additionally, each
biofuel crop shares many characteristics with established invasive weeds of similar life
history. Based on our qualitative assessment, we propose a target region by genotype
specific pre-introduction screen that comprises risk analysis, climate-matching
modeling, and ecological studies of fitness responses to various environmental
scenarios. This screening procedure will provide reasonable assurance that
economically beneficial biofuel crops will be environmentally benign with minimal risk of
escaping to native and managed environs.
66

ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS INVASIVE PLANT ADVISORY
GROUP AND THE MASSACHUSETTS PROHIBITED PLANT LIST. R.G. Prostak, A.R.
Bonanno, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and B. Mitchell Massachusetts
Department of Agricultural Resources, Boston.
ABSTRACT
The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG) was formed in 1999
by the Ad Hoc Native Plant Advisory Committee to begin addressing the invasive plant
issue in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
recognized it as part of the Massachusetts Council on Invasive Species which is
intended to serve as a coordinating mechanism for the various invasive-speciesmanagement
activities undertaken by state agencies, federal agencies, and private
organizations. MIPAG is a voluntary collaboration among public and private
organizations concerned about the problem of invasive plants in Massachusetts.
Eighteen entities are represented on MIPAG, including state and federal governmental
agencies in fish and wildlife, agriculture, and natural resources; the horticulture industry;
academic science institutions; and land management and nonprofit conservation
organizations.
In order to determine which plant species are invasive in Massachusetts, MIPAG
worked with Leslie Mehrhoff of the University of Connecticut to adopt definitions, create
a list of plant to be evaluated, and develop a set of biologically based criteria upon
which to evaluate objectively plants suspected to be invasive in the Commonwealth.
The group contracted with Leslie Mehrhoff to gather existing data about selected
species and help the group assess which currently are invasive and which have the
potential to become problematic. A total of 85 species were evaluated and identified as
Invasive, Likely Invasive, or Potentially Invasive. Species evaluated in which sufficient
information or evidence is currently lacking for an adequate evaluation were designated
as Do not list at this time. An annotated list of all species evaluated was developed.
Upon the completion of plant species evaluations, MIPAG developed and outlined
invasive-plant-management objectives for the Commonwealth in Strategic
Recommendations for Managing Invasive Plants in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), working
closely with the Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association, on January 1,
2006, under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 128 Section 2 and 16 - 31A, began a
two-step ban on the importation and sale of invasive plants in the Commonwealth. The
ban used the Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List which combines species from the
MIPAG list and the Federal Noxious Weed List. In order to minimize financial impacts
on Massachusetts agribusinesses, the regulation provides a "phase-out" exception for
14 species that are commonly sold in the ornamental trade. This “phase-out” allows an
extension until January 1, 2007 for herbaceous species and January 1, 2009 for woody
species. These 14 species cannot be imported in to the Commonwealth, but existing
instate nursery stock can be propagated and sold until the “phase-out” date. The ban is
limited to the importation, sale, trade, and distribution of listed plants and does not
impact existing plantings. MDAR nursery inspectors annually inspect every retail
nursery to ensure that pests are not brought into and/or spread throughout the
67

Commonwealth. Inspections for prohibited plants have become part of this annual
process. MDAR investigates all reports of illegal sales with many reports originating
from individuals in the general public who are interested in the issue of invasive plants.
During the 2006 and 2007 growing season, businesses that were in violation were
asked either to destroy or to send back illegal nursery stock. Beginning in 2008, MDAR
will issue fines for violation of the regulation.
68

SQUASH RESPONSE TO FOMESAFEN, HALOSULFURON, METOLACHLOR, AND
TERBACIL APPLIED AT PLANTING. J.B. Beam, R.B. Batts, and W.E. Mitchem, North
Carolina State University, Lincolnton and Raleigh, NC.
ABSTRACT
Summer squash is a labor intensive, high value crop in western, North Carolina.
Most summer squash growers rely upon conventional tillage and hand hoeing for weed
control in the early season before crop canopy. While cultivation is effective at
controlling weeds in row middles, hoeing is needed to control weeds in row and neither
one provides any residual weed control. Tests were conducted from 2005 to 2007 in
Lincoln County, NC to determine potential herbicide rates and timings for summer
squash production in the area. Herbicides tested included bentazon (0.5 lb ai/A),
chlorimuron (0.125 lb ai/A), cloransulam (0.026 lb ai/A), ethalfluralin (0.26) plus
clomazone (0.78 lb ai/A), fomesafen (0.25 lb ai/A), flumioxazin (0.0318 to 0.057 lb ai/A),
halosulfuron (0.02 to 0.03 lb ai/A), metolachlor (0.72 to 1.43 lb ai/A), pendimethalin
(1.05 lb ai/A), pyrithiobac (0.03 lb ai/A), and terbacil (0.1 to 0.4 lb ai/A). A non-treated
comparison treatment was included in each experiment. Chlorimuron, cloransulam,
flumioxazin, pendimethalin, pyrithiobac, and terbacil, applied at rates above 0.25 lb ai/A,
severely injured squash when applied at planting. Bentazon applied POST with a
nonionic surfactant (0.25% v/v) did not injure squash in 2005, but stunted squash in
2006. Fomesafen, halosulfuron, metolachlor, and terbacil at 0.1 lb ai/A applied at
planting did not alter the number of squash plants per plot and injured squash less than
10% in 8 experiments from 2005 to 2007. Yields taken in 2006 and 2007 showed that
total squash weight per plot and squash weight per plant were not different from the
nontreated when fomesafen, halosulfuron, metolachlor, or terbacil were applied.
In 2006 and 2007 metolachlor plus halosulfuron, metolachlor plus terbacil, and
metolachlor plus fomesafen did not increase squash injury and increased morningglory
species (Ipomoea sp.) and carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata L.) control compared to
metolachlor alone.
In 2007, ethalfluralin (0.26) plus clomazone (0.78 lb ai/A) (Strategy) was
applied as a comparison treatment to fomesafen at 0.25 lb, metolachlor at 1.0 lb,
halosulfuron at 0.023, and terbacil at 0.1 lb ai/A. No squash injury was noted by any
product either through visual estimation, plant counts, or yield. Fomesafen and terbacil
provided the best moringglory control, but control was less than 60%.
In 2007, fomesafen was applied at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 lb ai/A and metolachlor
was applied at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 lb ai/A. Neither fomesafen nor metolachlor injured
squash, decreased plant counts, nor impacted yield at any rate tested.
Fomesafen, halosulfuron, metolachlor, and terbacil were deemed safe to squash
at the rates tested on western NC clay soils.
69

POTENTIAL HERBICIDE PROGRAMS FOR SNAP BEANS. D.D. Lingenfelter, Penn
State University, University Park and M.J. VanGessel, University of Delaware,
Georgetown.
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Pennsylvania (Rock Springs)
and Delaware (Georgetown) to evaluate various herbicide programs for snap bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris) response and annual weed control. Studies were arranged in a
randomized complete block design with three replications. Snap bean (var. ‘Dusky’ in
PA and ‘Tapia’ in DE) was planted in early to mid-June. Most PRE treatments contained
s-metolachlor (1.67 lb ai/A) in combination with one of the following: clomazone (0.25
lb); halosulfuron (0.0314 lb); pendimethalin H 2 O (1.19 lb); imazethapyr (0.0234 lb);
cloransulam (0.0315 lb); and rimsulfuron (0.0156 lb). Other PRE treatments
combinations contained s-metolachlor plus fomesafen premix (1.33 and 2 lb);
fomesafen (0.312 lb); KIH-485 85WG (0.187 lb) and metolachlor (1.67 lb). POST
treatments included halosulfuron (0.0314 lb); bentazon (0.52 lb ai); imazamox (0.0313
lb); and clethodim (0.121 lb). POST treatments were applied to 1 to 2-trifoliate snap
bean (about 3-4 WAP) and necessary adjuvants were included in the spray mixtures.
Visual weed control and crop phytotoxicity ratings were taken periodically throughout
the growing period. Snap bean yield data were also collected.
Both locations contained pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). The PA
location also had velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), while
the DE location had annual morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria
sanguinalis). The PRE treatments of s-metolachlor plus fomesafen premix, s-
metolachlor or KIH-485 plus halosulfuron always provided >90% control of ragweed,
lambsquarters, pigweed, and velvetleaf. The treatments containing clomazone,
pendimethalin, rimsulfuron, and KIH-485 (alone) provided inconsistent ragweed control
across the studies ranging from 43 to 92%, while the other treatments ranged from 85 to
100% control. All PRE treatments except those containing cloransulam, rimsulfuron,
and KIH-485 (alone) provided >90% control of lambsquarters. PRE treatments that
included pendimethalin, imazethapyr, cloransulam, rimsulfuron, KIH-485, halosulfuron,
fomesafen, and the POST treatment containing bentazon and imazamox provided
>90% control of pigweed. Of all the treatments, metolachlor and s-metolachlor plus
halosulfuron and s-metolachlor plus cloransulam provided the best suppression of
morningglory, ranging from 76 to 79%, while the other treatments ranged from 30 to
73%. The s-metolachlor plus fomesafen premix, and those combinations containing
pendimethalin, rimsulfuron, and KIH-485 always provided >90% control of foxtail and
crabgrass.
In summary, since the number of active ingredients used in snap bean herbicide
products is limited, it is important that currently registered products are used judiciously
and new herbicide modes of action are identified. Cloransulam and KIH-485 could
potentially be used in snap bean production; however more research is needed to
identify sensitive varieties. Rimsulfuron provides effective control of certain weeds, but
generally causes unacceptable snap bean injury.
70

EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF PREFIX IN MULTIPLE VEGETABLE
CROPS. R.R. Bellinder and C.A. Benedict, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
ABSTRACT
Field testing of the preemergence herbicide, Prefix, previously CGA-77102,
began in 2005 in New York State. It is a tank mix of s-metolachlor (81%) and
fomesafen (19%) and the expected 1X use rate will be 2 pt/A (1.33 lb ai/A). Evaluation
of fomesafen and other diphenylethers for preemergence use began in beans in the late
1980's. IR-4 coordinated a multi-state trial with lactofen, acifluorfen and fomesafen in
snap beans in 1990. Fomesafen proved to have the greatest crop tolerance of the three
herbicides in these trials. Between 1991 and 2004, in addition to bean crops,
fomesafen has been tested preemergence in peas (5 trials), potatoes (5 trials), and
tomatoes (1 trial). From 2005 to 2007 Prefix treatments have been tested in all of
these crops and additionally in transplanted pumpkins. The preemergence registration
of fomesafen in snap and dry beans should be completed by the beginning of the 2008
growing season, enabling the use of Prefix. In only one year of pea trials (2006) did
fomesafen rates of 0.25, 0.375, and 0.5 lb cause transitory injury greater than 15%.
Usually no injury was observed. In 2006, a very wet season, s-metolachlor (0.94 lb)
and Prefix (1.33 lb) caused 20 and 17% injury respectively; yields were marginally
reduced with Prefix, only. Potatoes showed zero injury in 6 of 8 trials and less than
10% injury in the remaining 2 trials. Potato yields were consistently greater than or
equivalent to a chemical standard. Similarly, tomatoes and transplanted pumpkins (3
years) have consistently shown 0 -17% transitory injury without yield reductions in either
crop. Fomesafen residue trials have been conducted in peas, potatoes, and tomatoes
and the preparation of registration packages is in process. Crop safety with fomesafen
in the 4 crops is very good and with the possible exception of peas, Prefix will be a
welcome weed management tool for growers of these crops. The concern with peas is
that heavy rainfall and cool weather at the time of emergence in early plantings may
cause injury due to preemergence use of s-metolachlor under these conditions.
71

ANNUAL GRASS CONTROL IN SWEET CORN. D.H. Johnson and D.D. Lingenfelter,
Penn State University, Manheim and University Park, M.J. VanGessel, Q.R. Johnson,
and B.A. Scott, University of Delaware, Georgetown.
ABSTRACT
Weed control in sweet corn (Zea mays) from several current and potential
products were tested in at two locations in Pennsylvania and one in Delaware. Sweet
corn (cv. BC0805 (Bt and Liberty Link) was planted in Lancaster (Landisville) and
Centre (Rock Springs) Counties, PA, and Sussex County (Georgetown), DE. Several
herbicides were applied preemergence just after planting, followed by postemergence
herbicides approximately one month later. The focus of this work was the efficacy of
the relatively new HPPD inhibitors mesotrione (Callisto ® ), topramezone (Impact ® ), and
tembotrione (Laudis ® ) on annual grass weeds. These herbicides were applied in a
sequential program following s-metolachlor + atrazine (Bicep II Magnum ® ). Total post
programs included topramezone, topramezone + nicosulfuron (Accent ® ), and
mesotrione + nicosulfuron. These products were tank mixed with atrazine and
adjuvants as directed on the labels. Additionally, mesotrione + s-metolachlor + atrazine
(Lumax ® ), KIH-485, glufosinate (Liberty ® ), and dicamba + diflufenzopyr + the safener
isoxadifen-ethyl (Status ® ) plus nicosulfuron were included. The plots were evaluated for
weed control and yield measured at Georgetown and Landisville. Deer damage
prevented yield measurements at Rock Springs.
Most herbicide programs controlled annual grasses very well at Rock Springs
and Georgetown. At Rock Springs, all two-pass programs gave at least 95% giant
foxtail (Setaria faberi) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control. Large
crabgrass control was similar at Georgetown, except for Bicep II Magnum ® followed by
mesotrione + atrazine, which only gave 83% control of this weed. Grass weed control
was less at Landisville, where populations were extremely high. The only treatments
providing at least 95% season-long control of giant foxtail and large crabgrass were
Lumax ® , Bicep II Magnum ® followed by topramezone + atrazine and Bicep II Magnum ®
followed by glufosinate. Bicep II Magnum ® followed by tembotrione + atrazine gave
excellent control early and mid-season, but giant foxtail control was less (84%) at
harvest time. The Status ® + nicosulfuron program gave at least 90% grass weed
control at Rock Springs and Georgetown, but control was poor (

FLUMIOXAZIN USE AT PLANTING IN MATTED ROW STRAWBERRIES. S.D. Guiser
and K. Demachak, Penn State University, Doylestown and University Park.
ABSTRACT
A limited number of herbicides are labeled for use at the time of planting in
matted row strawberry production. Flumioxazin (Chateau ® 51WDG) is labeled for
strawberries but not for use in matted row production systems at planting. This
experiment was designed to evaluate the safety of flumioxazin in matted row
strawberries when applied at planting.
Dormant Earliglow strawberries (Fragaria x ananassa 'Earliglow') were planted
in a Klinesville shaly silt loam soil in Bedminster, Pennsylvania on April 25, 2007. The
intention was to apply flumioxazin immediately after planting, before growth began.
However, rainfall (2.5 inches) delayed application until four days after planting. At this
time, some green tissue had emerged from the plants.
On April 29, flumioxazin was applied at the rate of .063 and .188 pounds per acre
(1 and 3 ounces of product per acre) to plots which were replicated five times in a
randomized complete block design. Treatments were applied with a Solo 475 backpack
sprayer, fitted with 0C04 nozzles in a boom and operated at 30 PSI which delivered 24
GPA of spray solution. To achieve the .188 pounds per acre rate, plots were sprayed
three times at the .063 pounds per acre rate, resulting in 72 GPA. Check plots were not
sprayed. Rainfall of .1 inches occurred within 24 hours of application and .4 within four
days of application.
Phytotoxicity was rated on May 22, June 24 and July 22, 2007, which was 23, 56
and 84 days after treatment, respectively. Weed control was rated on June 3, 35 days
after treatment. Both the .063 and .188 pounds per acre rates of flumioxazin provided
excellent weed control (98 and 100 % respectively) when rated 35 days after treatment.
Both the .063 and .188 pounds per acre rates caused phytotoxicity (Table 1) The .188
pounds per acre rate resulted in severe injury in the form of stunting, leaf spotting and
necrosis. Injury was evident at the initial rating and plants did not recover from the
injury. The .063 pounds per acre rate caused moderate injury of the same nature.
Untreated plants grew normally.
While flumioxazin provided excellent weed control in this study, it resulted in
phytotoxicity that would be considered unacceptable to strawberry growers. Since the
herbicide has potential to provide excellent weed control, investigating the effects when
plants are fully dormant by making pre-plant applications or application immediately
after planting is still of interest.
73

Table 1. Injury to matted row strawberries following application of .063 lb and .188 of
flumioxazin (Chateau ® 51 WDG) per acre four days after planting. 1= no injury; 10 =
dead.
Rating Date
Product rate (lb/a) May 22 June 24 July 22
0 1.0 a 1 1.0 a 1.0 a
.063 3.0 b 2.0 b 2.4 b
.188 7.0 c 6.0 c 7.2 c
1
Means within columns followed by the same letter are not different at the 5 % level of
significance (DMRT).
74

PERENNIAL WEED CONTROL AND CROP TOLERANCE WITH MESOTRIONE AND
TOPRAMEZONE IN CRANBERRIES. H.A. Sandler and K.M. Ghantous, University of
Massachusetts Cranberry Station, East Wareham.
ABSTRACT
Several field trials were established in 2006 and 2007 to generate efficacy and
crop tolerance data for two herbicides that are not currently registered for use in
cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), mesotrione (Callisto ® ) and topramezone (Impact ® ).
Cranberry had excellent tolerance of mesotrione but was injured at all tested rates of
topramezone. Leaves had turned yellow when evaluated 16 days after treatment
(DAT), but partially recovered by 49 DAT. Leaves appeared smaller than usual and fruit
size was reduced. Topramezone provided good to excellent control of grasses.
Mesotrione provided very good to excellent control of nutsedge (Cyperus dentatus) (NS)
in several trials with no detrimental impact on yield. Postemergence applications can
cause injury to silverleaf sawbrier (Smilax glauca), dewberry (Rubus spp.),
narrowleaved goldenrod (Euthamia tenuifolia) (NLGR), and yellow loosestrife
(Lysmachia terrestris) (YLS). In 2006, mesotrione was applied as a postemergence
spray at 8 and 12 oz product/A (0.25 and 0.375 lb ai/A), two sprays of 8 oz/A, and one
spray of 12 oz/A followed by a spray of 4 oz/A (0.125 lb ai/A) to cranberry vines infested
with NS. A nonionic surfactant (X-77 ® ) was added to all sprays at 0.25% v:v.
Applications were made by CO 2 -powered backpack sprayer with a flat fan nozzle
simulating 30 gal water/A on 7 July and 28 July 2006. By 38 DAT, all treatments
provided good to excellent control of NS. In another study, mesotrione was applied
postememergence at 4, 8, 12, and 16 oz/A (one application) and two applications of 8
oz/A to infestations of sawbrier, dewberry, NLGR, and YLS. Applications were made 14
July and 11 August 2006. Two applications of 8 oz/A gave the highest injury rating for
the four weeds.
In the first year of a 2-year trial, these four weeds and cinquefoil (Potentilla
canadensis) were treated with one application of 4, 8, 12, and 16 oz/A or 2 applications
of 4 oz/A mesotrione postemergence. Applications were made 10 July and 26 July
2007. Two applications of 4 oz/A reduced the percent cover of cinquefoil, NLGR and
sawbrier and caused significant weed injury. The plots have been marked and will
receive the same herbicide treatments in 2008 and will be re-evaluated for weed control
and percent weed cover.
In a trial conducted in 2007, topramezone was applied as a single
postemergence application at 1, 2, and 4 oz product/A plus methylated seed oil (1%)
and urea ammonium nitrate (2.5%). Mesotrione (8 oz/A + 0.25% v:v X-77 ® ) was
included in the treatments along with an untreated check. The application was made as
described above on 10 July. By 16 DAT, cranberry leaves were injured (starkly yellow)
for all rates of topramezone. By 48 DAT, the vines had recovered their color somewhat
but were still given higher injury ratings than the check and the mesotrione treatments.
Fruit treated with any rate of topramezone were smaller than fruit treated with
mesotrione or left untreated.
75

HERBICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR IMPACT ON
EXTENSION. M.J. VanGessel and B.A. Scott, University of Delaware, Georgetown.
ABSTRACT
Chemical weed control is the mainstay of weed management in American
agriculture. The loss or reduction in the utility of herbicides is a concern to researchers,
agronomists, agribusiness, and farmers alike. Resistance is one mechanism of
reducing the utility of a herbicide. Since the early 1970's, herbicide resistance has been
an important issue for weed management. However, in the past few years resistance
has become a focal point of extension programming. A survey of University extension
personnel in the US conducted in the summer of 2007 revealed that herbicide-resistant
weeds have impacted educational programs. Over 80% of those responding said they
are spending more effort on herbicide resistance than they were ten years ago and
almost 70% said they expect herbicide resistance to continue to impact their extension
programming in the next five years. The two main issues extension is addressing are
management of a specific resistant biotype and resistance management to avoid the
development of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Glyphosate and ALS-resistance are the
two modes of action that university extension specialists are targeting for education on
herbicide resistance management. While triazines were mentioned as the third most
problematic biotypes, it lagged well behind glyphosate and ALS mode of action in terms
of extension programming. The most often mentioned weeds as troublesome were
pigweed species (Amaranthus spp.), horseweed (Conyza Canadensis), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album),
foxtail species (Setaria spp.), kochia (Kochia scoparia), ryegrass species (Lolium spp.),
wild oats (Avena fatua), and sorghum species (Sorghum spp.) also mentioned with
some frequency. Most of the extension specialists responding said alternate modes of
action were the most common method of resistance management, and weeds with few
herbicide options were the species they were most concerned about for resistance
management. Herbicide resistance is likely to increase in the United States. Weed
management approaches need to change in order to limit further development and
spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. A determined and long-term effort is needed by all
involved in agriculture for successful resistance management.
76

ITALIAN RYEGRASS CONTROL IN WHEAT. R.L. Ritter and H. Menbere, University of
Maryland, College Park.
ABSTRACT
Studies have been conducted at the Central Maryland Research and Education
Center located in Beltsville, MD, for the control of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum
Lam.) in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Early research demonstrated the utility of
preemergence (PRE) applications of s-metolachlor or flufenacet + metribuzin for Italian
ryegrass control in wheat with minimal injury to wheat. Flufenacet has been examined
as a PRE treatment with good Italian ryegrass control. However, wheat injury and
resulting yield loss were experienced as rates of flufenacet increased. Pendimethalin
has also been examined as a PRE treatment. Depending upon rate and time of
application, pendimethalin provided good Italian ryegrass control, no wheat injury, and
resulted in good yields. KIH-485 has also been examined as a PRE and delayed-PRE
application. Injury has been observed with both types of applications, but may be rain
dependent. In some years, better control was obtained with the delayed-PRE
applications, but this also may be rain dependent. Mesosulfuron-methyl and pinoxaden
have been examined for postemergence (POST) control of Italian ryegrass control in
wheat. Both products have provided excellent weed control, good crop tolerance, and
resulting good yields. Chlorsulfuron + flucarbazone-sodium have also been investigated
for control of Italian ryegrass control in wheat. Applications were made early fall, midfall,
and early spring. Injury was noted with all rates and timings. However, excellent
Italian ryegrass control was noted with no loss in wheat yield.
77

NEW POSTEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL OPTIONS FOR USE IN CORN. H.
Menbere and R.L. Ritter, University of Maryland, College Park.
ABSTRACT
Postemergence (POST) herbicides continue to be utilized in corn (Zea mays L.)
throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the U. S. Weeds escapes such as triazineresistant
weed species continue to plague farmers throughout the region. While many
older products such as 2,4-D and dicamba continue to be used, newer products such as
mesotrione, primisulfuron-methyl plus the sodium salt of dicamba, and newer
formulations of dicamba are taking their fair share of the market. A number of growers
have experimented with total POST programs. While glyphosate is available for overtop
applications in glyphosate-tolerant corn, choices are becoming more available for nonglyphosate-tolerant
corn. The pre-packaged mix of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus
atrazine is one of the choices many growers have chosen. It is generally recommended
that dicamba be added for additional broadleaf weed control. Other recent additions to
the POST arsenal include rimsulfuron, which can be applied preemergence (PRE) or
POST. The package-mix of nicosulfuron plus thifensulfuron is another new entry in the
POST market. Recently, we have seen a lot of activity within the agricultural chemical
industry, exploring the POST use of the HPPD inhibitors. This started with mesotrione
by Syngenta, topramezone by AMVAC, and tembotrione by Bayer. While all three
products seem to provide good broadleaf weed control, there are differences in the level
of grass control they provide.
78

ANNUAL GRASS BURNDOWN IN CORN WITH HPPD INHIBITORS. R.R. Hahn and
P.J. Stachowski. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
ABSTRACT
Three HPPD inhibitors and a sulfonylurea premix were evaluated for burndown
potential of large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] and giant foxtail (Setaria
faberi Herrm.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Postemergence burndown applications of 0.094 lb
ai/A of mesotrione, 0.082 lb ai/A of tembotrione, or 0.016 lb ai/A of topramezone were
compared with 0.035 lb ai/A of a 2:1 ratio premix of nicosulfuron / rimsulfuron in 2007.
All applications were made in 20 gal/A of water with 1% (v/v) of either crop oil
concentrate or methylated seed oil and 2.5% (v/v) of 28% urea ammonium nitrate.
Large crabgrass experiments were conducted near Valatie, NY. One experiment
compared early postemergence (EPOST) and mid-postemergence (MPOST)
applications of the HPPD inhibitors and the sulfonylurea premix in combinations with 0.5
lb ai/A of atrazine. Applications were made when large crabgrass was 0.5 and 4 inches
tall. When applied EPOST, large crabgrass burndown 4 weeks after treatment (WAT)
averaged 89% for mesotrione, tembotrione, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron. EPOST
burndown with topramezone was 70% 4 WAT. Large crabgrass burndown with MPOST
HPPD inhibitor applications averaged 91% compared with 68% with nicosulfuron /
rimsulfuron 3WAT. Grain corn yields averaged 127 Bu/A for these EPOST and MPOST
burndown treatments and there were no differences among treatments. The other large
crabgrass experiment compared EPOST residual combinations of 1 lb/A of atrazine plus
0.95 lb ai/A of s-metolachlor, 1.43 lb ai/A of pendimethalin, or 1.78 oz ai/A of KIH-485
alone and tank-mixed with the burndown herbicides. EPOST burndown was 78% with
s-metolachlor plus atrazine or KIH-485 plus atrazine 3 WAT while pendimethalin plus
atrazine provided 68% burndown. When the residual combinations were tank mixed
with the HPPD inhibitors or nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron, burndown averaged 98% 3 WAT.
Yield with EPOST application of the residual combinations alone averaged 126 Bu/A
while the average yield with burndown herbicides was 145 Bu/A. Experiments at
Valatie and Aurora, NY compared burndown of giant foxtail with s-metolachlor plus
atrazine or pendimethalin plus atrazine alone and in combinations with two HPPD
inhibitors or the sulfonylurea premix. At Aurora, EPOST applications were made when
giant foxtail averaged 2.5 inches tall. Burndown of giant foxtail with EPOST residual
combinations of metolachlor plus atrazine or pendimethalin plus atrazine increased from
58 and 42%, respectively, by 2 WAT to an average of 98 and 97%, respectively, when
tembotrione, topramezone, or nicosulfuron / rimsulfuron was included in the tank-mixes.
Corn yields averaged 135 Bu/A with the residual combinations alone and 161 Bu/A
when HPPD inhibitors or the nicosulfuron / rimsulfuron premix were added to these
residual combinations. At Valatie, similar treatments were applied MPOST when giant
foxtail was 4 inches tall. The residual s-metolachlor plus atrazine or pendimethalin plus
atrazine combinations provided 31% burndown 3 WAT. When applied with
topramezone or nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron, burndown averaged 93%. With tembotrione,
these residual combinations provided 81% giant foxtail burndown. Corn yield with the
residual combinations averaged 77 Bu/A while the average yield of the residual
combinations with burndown herbicides was112 Bu/A.
79

PREEMERGENCE CONTROL OF DOVEWEED IN NURSERY CROPS. J.F. Derr,
Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach, and J.C. Neal, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
ABSTRACT
Several new weed species have appeared in the nursery industry, including
doveweed [Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan] (DW). DW is a summer annual in the
Commelinaceae or spiderwort family that grows well in containers as well as in gravel
areas underneath pots. This weed germinates in hot, wet weather and forms a dense
mat. Leaves are 2 to 5 inches long and ¼ to ½ inch wide with parallel veins and
resemble grass leaves. Stems are succulent, trailing, and can root at the nodes.
Purplish 3-petaled flowers form in mid-summer until fall. DW propagates strictly by
seed. Little information is available on the control of this weed species. Development of
control programs now will allow nursery producers to manage this weed before
doveweed becomes established. Studies were established in Virginia and North
Carolina to determine the effectiveness of preemergence herbicides currently used in
container production for controlling doveweed. Experiments were conducted in 1 gallon
containers utilizing either 100% pine bark or pine bark plus sand (8:1, v/v) substrates.
Three pots of each weed species were seeded per plot. The herbicides tested were the
single active ingredient herbicides dimethenamid, flumioxazin, isoxaben, s-metolachlor,
oxyfluorfen, oryzalin, pendimethalin, prodiamine, and trifluralin, as well as the
combination products OH2 ® , Rout ® , Regal O-O ® , and Snapshot ® TG, at maximum userates.
In addition, Snapshot ® and oxadiazon were applied at 2.5 and 2.0 lb ai/A
respectively.
In trials conducted in VA and NC, dimethenamid, flumioxazin, and s-metolachlor
all gave excellent control of DW (95% or greater) by 4 to 8 weeks after treatment. In the
VA trial, OH2 ® , Rout ® , oxadiazon (only the 4 lb/A rate), and oryzalin reduced stand of
doveweed at 19 DAT, but these chemicals all provided less than 55% control at 4
weeks. Similarly, in the NC trial, 4 lb ai/A oxadiazon or oryzalin provided about 50%
suppression of DW; however in that trial, OH2 ® did not. In both VA and NC trials, Regal
O-O ® , isoxaben, oxyfluorfen, Snapshot ® , Showcase, pendimethalin, prodiamine, and
trifluralin did not control DW.
In other trials, OH2 ® at 3.0 lb/A, Showcase and Snapshot ® at 3.75 and 5.0 lb
/A reduced DW stand at 20 DAT but all provided less than 20% control at 35 DAT.
Oxadiazon at 3.0 lb ai/A did not reduce DW stand. In that study, Rout ® at 3 lb/A caused
greater reduction in DW stand than OH2 ® , with 43% control seen at 35 DAT compared
to 5% control with OH2 ® . Flumioxazin at 0.38 lb/A provided 83% control. Spray
applications of oryzalin at 2.0 lb/A, dithiopyr at 0.5 lb/A, isoxaben at 1.0 lb/A, oryzalin
plus isoxaben, and dithiopyr plus isoxaben did not reduce stand of DW. S-metolachlor
at 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 lb/A provided 95% or greater control of DW, while pendimethalin at
2, 4, and 8.0 lb/A and Snapshot ® at 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 lb/A all provided less than 20%
control.
Only three herbicides, dimethenamid, flumioxazin, and s-metolachlor, provide
acceptable control of DW, with only flumioxazin and s-metolachlor currently available to
nursery producers. Other preemergence herbicides available to container producers
might reduce DW stand, but they do not provide acceptable control of this weed.
80

TOLERANCE OF FRASER FIR TO HERBICIDES APPLIED BEFORE AND AFTER
BUD BREAK. J. F. Ahrens and T. L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station, Windsor.
ABSTRACT
Herbicides were evaluated in 2007 in a Christmas tree plantation of fraser fir
[Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir.] on a silt loam soil in Somers, CT. Some treatments
followed an IR-4 protocol and others were added to verify findings from earlier
experiments. Plots consisted of five or six trees (2- to 3-ft height) spaced 6 ft apart.
Sprays were applied over the top using a hand-held boom with 8003VS TeeJet nozzles
calibrated to deliver 30 gal/A. Treatments were replicated four times in randomized
complete blocks. The predominant weeds were large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis
(L.) Scop.] and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Horseweed [Conyza
canadensis ( L.). Cronq.], in the rosette stage in May, was also prevalent in some plots.
Dimethenamid-P [BAS 656h (63.9% EC)] was applied at 0.97, 1.94 and 3.9 lb
ai/A on May 7, before emergence of crabgrass and ragweed, when fir buds were
swollen but unopened. These treatments were reapplied over the same plots 10 weeks
later on July 18, when fir shoot growth was still expanding. Crabgrass was controlled in
June at all application rates, but ragweed was controlled only at the highest rate. The
firs were moderately injured in May only by the highest rate, but they recovered by late
June. No injury was observed following the second applications. Dimethenamid-P plus
pendimethalin 3.8CS was also applied on May 7 and on July 18 at 0.9 + 1.5 lb ai/A, 1.8
+ 3 lb ai/A and 2.7+ 4.5 lb ai/A. Ragweed control in June was poor to fair, but crabgrass
control was excellent at all rates. No firs were injured by any of these treatments.
Mesotrione 4SC was applied on May 7 at 0.187, 0.25 and 0.375 lb ai/A. These
treatments were repeated 4 weeks later (June 7), when the firs were rapidly growing.
Before the June applications, control of ragweed was good at 0.187 and 0.25 lb/A and
excellent at 0.375 lb/A. Crabgrass control was excellent at all rates. The second set of
treatments enhanced control of both weeds. No fir injury was observed in any
mesotrione treated plots. Imazasulfuron 75WG was applied at 1 lb ai/A to separate
plots on May 10, June 7 and June 28. The May application provided excellent
preemergence control of both ragweed and crabgrass, but the postemergence
applications in June were less effective. Only the June 7 application during rapid fir
growth caused moderate injury, in the form of persistent needle chlorosis.
Prior work showed that low-rate combinations of glyphosate, oxyfluorfen and
clopyralid in early to mid June effectively controlled seedling weeds in conifer plantings.
We compared a “standard” combination of glyphosate at 0.125 lb ai/A + oxyfluorfen 4F
at 0.25 lb ai/A + clopyralid at 0.09 lb ai/A (4 + 8 + 4 oz product/A) with the same
herbicides combined at either double these rates, or at higher rates of glyphosate only
(0.25 or 0.375 lb ai/A). Five weeks after treatment, the “standard” treatment gave
excellent control of ragweed and horseweed, but only fair control of mature crabgrass.
Increasing the rate of glyphosate to 0.375 lb/A improved crabgrass control but also
slightly injured the firs when sprayed over the top. Semi-directed sprays, where only
basal foliage of trees is treated, could reduce injury from this herbicide combination.
81

TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO EXPERIMENTAL AND
REGISTERED HERBICIDES. T. L. Mervosh and J. F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station, Windsor.
ABSTRACT
Based on protocols from the IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program, we
conducted an experiment to evaluate tolerances of four woody plants to herbicides
considered for possible ornamental use registrations. The shrubs were planted in 1-
gallon containers (6-in diameter) on May 22, 2007. All plants were less than 1 ft tall
when potted. Plants were juniper (Juniperus squamata ‘Blue Star’), emerald green
arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis ‘Smargd’), spirea (Spiraea x bumalda ‘Gold Mound’) and
doublefile viburnum (Viburnum plicatum ‘Shasta’). Each plot contained three plants of
each species. Treatments were replicated four times in randomized complete blocks.
Sprayable treatments consisted of dimethenamid-P 5.9EC [BAS 656h] at 0.97, 1.94 and
3.88 lb ai/A, and mesotrione 4SC at 0.187, 0.25 and 0.375 lb ai/A. Granular treatments
consisted of pendimethalin plus dimethenamid-P 1.75G [BAS 659h] at 2.65, 5.3 and
10.6 lb ai/A, prodiamine plus sulfentrazone 0.3G [F-6875] at 0.375, 0.75 and 1.5 lb ai/A,
and flumioxazin 0.25G [BroadStar] at 0.375 lb ai/A as a standard. All herbicides were
applied over the top of actively growing plants on May 30. Mesotrione treatments were
applied a second time over the same plots on June 27. All other treatments were reapplied
on July 26. Herbicide sprays were applied in a volume of 30 gal/A using a CO 2 -
pressurized sprayer with two 8003VS nozzle tips. Treatments were sprayed over the
top of pre-wetted plants. Plants were watered 20 to 30 min later by overhead irrigation
for 30 min. Granular herbicides were applied over dry foliage. F-6875 granules
(amount per 10 ft 2 ) and sieved sand of like size were mixed in a shaker jar and applied
uniformly over plants within a 10-ft 2 frame. The other granular treatments were applied
using a calibrated auger-feed drop spreader. Overhead irrigation began 20 to 50 min
after application of granules, and plants were watered for a 30-min period.
Plant injury (0 = no injury; 10 = dead) was evaluated periodically up to 8 weeks
after treatment applications. Juniper was tolerant of all herbicides except mesotrione,
which caused dose-dependent chlorosis after the second application (injury ratings of
1.0 to 2.9). Arborvitae was not injured by any granular treatment. The high dose of
BAS 656h caused slight injury (1.1) to arborvitae after the second spray. All doses of
mesotrione resulted in significant whitening of arborvitae and some foliar necrosis at the
middle and high doses (injury of 2.9 to 6.2 on August 9). Spirea tolerated the granular
herbicides, except that two applications of F-6875 at the high dose caused some injury
(1.8). After the second spray of BAS 656h at the high dose, minor injury (1.3) was
observed on spirea foliage. All mesotrione treatments were injurious to spirea (injury of
2.4 to 5.4 on August 9). Viburnum was tolerant of all the granular herbicide treatments.
BAS 656h sprays were slightly injurious to viburnum (injury of 0.9 to 1.6 after two
applications). Mesotrione caused severe whitening, stunting and/or death to viburnum
plants, with injury ratings of 4.7 to 8.8 on August 9. In summary, all four shrubs in this
experiment were susceptible to mesotrione sprays, whereas these species were quite
tolerant of the other herbicide treatments.
82

SHOWCASE EFFICACY AND SAFETY IN CONTAINER GROWN NURSERY
CROPS. D. A. Little and J. C. Neal. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
ABSTRACT
Showcase 2.5G (oxyfluorfen 0.25G + isoxaben 0.25G + trifluralin 2G) has been
recently registered for use in container grown nursery crops but few reports are
available that have compared its safety and efficacy with currently labeled herbicides.
Two studies were conducted at the Castle Hayne Research Station, Castle Hayne, N.C.
in 2006 and 2007, evaluating the safety and efficacy of Showcase 2.5G on 17
container grown ornamentals and eight weed species. Crops tested in 2006 were Ilex
vomitoria 'Nana', Ilex cornuta ‘Burfordii Nana’, Viburnum tinus ‘Compacta’, Lirope
muscari ‘Variegata’, Coloneaster horizontallis, Spirea japonica ‘Little Princes’,
Rhododendron x ‘Pink Gumpo’, and Lagerstroemia x ‘Tuscarora’. Crops tested in 2007
were Juniperus ‘Parsonii’, Buxus ‘Wintergreen’, Thuja orientalis ‘Green Giant’, Viburnum
x ‘Pragense’, Viburnum odoratissimum, Lagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’, Lantana x ‘New
Gold’, Loropetalum chinensis ‘Rudy’, and Rosa ‘Flower Carpet Red’. Weed species
tested both years were Cardamine hirsuta, Murdannia nudiflora, Phyllanthus tenellus,
Eclipta prostrata, Digitaria sanguinalis. Chamaesyce maculata was included in 2006
only. Chamaesyce nutans and Eupatorium capillifolium were tested in 2007.
Treatments in 2006 included Showcase (4.2 and 5.6 kg ai/ha), Snapshot ® TG
(isoxaben 0.5G + trifluralin 2G) (4.2 and 5.6 kg ai/ha), OH2 ® (oxyfluorfen 2G +
pendimethalin 1G) (3.4 kg ai/ha), and BroadStar (flumioxazin 0.25G) (0.42 kg ai/ha).
In 2007 three rates of Showcase (2.8, 4.2, and 5.6 kg ai/ha) were compared to
treatments of OH2 ® (3.4 kg ai/A), Rout ® (oryzalin 1G + oxyfluorfen 2G) (3.4 kg ai/ha),
Ronstar ® (oxadiazon 2G) (3.4 kg ai/ha), Regal O-O ® (oxadiazon 1G + oxyfluorfen
2G)(3.4 kg ai/ha) and Regalstar ® G (oxadiazon 1G + prodiamine 0.2G) (2.7 kg ai/ha).
Treatments were arranged in randomized complete block designs with three to four
replications and three pots of each species per plot. Herbicides were applied over the
top of crops using a hand-held shaker jar then irrigated. Weeds were seeded the day of
treatment. Data were recorded bi-weekly for eight weeks using a visual scale from 0-10
(0=no crop injury, no weed control and 10=complete crop death, complete weed
control). At six weeks after treatment (WAT), the weed pots were sprayed with
glyphosate (1.12 kg ai/ha) plus glufosinate (1.68 kg ai/ha). At eight weeks after
treatments, pots were hand-weeded and treatments were re-applied and evaluated for
an additional eight weeks. Only slight injury was observed on Lantana ‘New Gold’ and
variegated Lirope with the 4.2 and 5.6 kg ai/ha rates of Showcase. No injury was
observed on the other 15 crop species. Showcase (4.2 and 5.6 kg ai/ha) provided
greater than 80% control of Cardamine hirsuta, Chamaesyce maculata, Chamaesyce
nutans, Digitaria sanguinalis, and Eupatorium capillifolium. Showcase did not control
Murdannia nudiflora and Eclipta prostrata and provided inconsistent control of
Phyllanthus tenellus. BroadStar was the only treatment to control Murdannia
nudiflora and provide consistent control of Phyllanthus tenellus. Data show that
Showcase was relatively safe on the crop species tested, while providing good control
of five major container weeds with results similar to other herbicides commonly used in
container nursery crops.
83

UPDATE ON 2007 WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH IN THE IR-4 ORNAMENTAL
HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. C.L. Palmer, J.J. Baron, and E. Vea. IR-4 Project,
Princeton, NJ
ABSTRACT
The 2007 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored crop
safety testing of over-the-top applications on four different products: BAS 656 EC
(dimethenamid), BAS 659 G (dimethenamid + pendimethalin), F6875 0.3G
(sulfentrazone + prodiamine), and mesotrione 4SC. All four products were applied to
woody ornamental crops. BAS 659 G and F6875 0.3G were also applied to herbaceous
perennial crops. In the results received to date, BAS 656 EC exhibited some level of
injury with at least one of the rates tested in 11 out of 25 woody ornamental crops; this
injury tended to be slight to moderate and occurring at the highest tested rate. Sixteen
out of 38 crops showed some level of injury with BAS 659 G, but most crops were
herbaceous perennials. F6875 0.3G caused injury on 16 of 43 crops, both woody and
herbaceous perennials. Twenty-two of 31 crops were injured with mesotrione 4SC with
symptoms becoming more severe over time. The results from this research will aid in
the development of the labels for these products and will help growers and landscape
care professionals make more informed product choices.
84

EFFECTS OF DITHIOPYR AND TRICLOPYR ON ANTICHROMATIC EFFECTS OF
MESOTRIONE ON TURFGRASS AND SELECTED WEEDS. J.B. Willis, M.J. Goddard,
and S.D. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
Mesotrione will be the first p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor
(HPPD) registered for used in turfgrass. When HPPD inhibitors are applied to
susceptible plants, their foliage turns white. Susceptible plant response to HPPD
inhibitors has been described as antichromatic due to complete loss of color in treated
foliage. Many turfgrass managers have indicated that their clientele may be displeased
with the antichromatic response caused by mesotrione. Combinations of mesotrione
and triclopyr had better turf color than vegetation treated with mesotrione alone in
research at Virginia Tech. We speculate that dithiopyr, another pyridine herbicide, may
have the same response. Our objectives were to evaluate mesotrione plus triclopyr and
dithiopyr for effects on turfgrass and weed control.
Field trials evaluated mesotrione at 0.13 lb ai/A plus triclopyr at 1.0 lb ai/A
compared to each product alone for injury to Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass,
tall fescue, and fine fescue. Turfgrass injury, color, and weed control were evaluated at
2 and 4 WAT (weeks after treatment). A randomized complete block experimental
design was used with 3 replications. Greenhouse trials were conducted using 2- to 4-
tiller smooth crabgrass in 4-inch pots evaluated color and amount of white foliage. A 3
by 8 factorial arrangement of treatments with 3 levels of mesotrione including 0, 0.13,
and 0.25 lb ai/A and 8 levels of pyridine herbicide including dithiopyr at 0.06, 0.13, 0.25
and 0.50 lb ai/A and triclopyr at 0.13, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 lb ai/A. Additional comparison
treatments were mesotrione at 0, 0.13, and 0.25 lb ai/A and nonionic surfactant (NIS) at
0.25% v/v alone. All treatments including mesotrione were applied with NIS at 0.25 %
v/v.
Injury observed in these trials was only temporary and complete recovery was
noted by 4 WAT. The combination of mesotrione and triclopyr significantly controlled
white clover, corn speedwell, and dandelion postemergent, and crabgrass preemergent.
Crabgrass color was significantly reduced by mesotrione alone. Tank-mixing triclopyr at
0.50 and 1.0 lb ai/A with mesotrione improved turfgrass color by reducing the amount of
white foliage on individual plants. Nontreated plants and mesotrione treated plants had
observed color ratings of 6.3 and 2.3, respectively. Leaf counts indicate that only 3 to
18 % of crabgrass was white when triclopyr at 0.50 and 1.0 lb ai/A was included with
mesotrione while 40% of crabgrass foliage was white when mesotrione was used alone.
Single applications of mesotrione will not control crabgrass and tank-mixtures rarely
improved crabgrass control or decrease fresh weight. However, triclopyr at 0.50 and
1.0 lb ai/A addition to mesotrione significantly reduced the amount of white crabgrass
foliage compared to mesotrione alone. Mesotrione plus triclopyr is a promising
combination for improving broadleaf weed control while reducing antichromatic effects
of mesotrione toward grass species.
85

BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL WITH FLUROXYPYR IN COOL-SEASON
TURFGRASS. C. Mansue and S.E. Hart, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Field experiments have been conducted from 2004 to 2007 to evaluate
fluroxypyr, applied alone or in combination with other herbicides for broadleaf weed
control in cool-season turfgrass. Treatments were applied to 0.9 by 3 m plots with a
single-nozzle CO 2 backpack sprayer system utilizing a 9504EVS nozzle tip which
delivered 374 L/ha of spray solution at 221 kPa. Experimental design was a
randomized complete block with 4 replications per treatment in all experiments. In 2004,
fluroxypyr applied alone at 0.26 kg ai/h provided complete control of white clover 6
weeks after treatment (WAT) but only controlled dandelion and buckhorn plantain 70
and 67%, respectively. The addition of 2,4-D at 1.1 kg ai/h was required to obtain
complete control of these two weeds. In a 2005 timing study an experimental ester
combination of fluroxypyr + 2,4-D + dicamba provided nearly complete control of
dandelion, white clover, buckhorn plantain and mouseear chickweed when applied on
April 14, April 28, or May 27. In 2006 and 2007 experiments, the combination of
fluroxypyr + 2,4-D + dicamba applied in May continued to provide nearly complete
control of dandelion, buckhorn plantain and white clover 8 WAT. In some cases white
clover control was superior to control obtained with a combination of 2,4-D + MCPP +
dicamba and a combination of 2,4-D and triclopyr. In additional studies in 2007 the
combination of fluroxypyr + 2,4-D + dicamba provided 98% oxalis control 4 WAT while
all other herbicide combinations tested only provided 65% or less control with the
exception of a combination of 2,4-D + MCPP + dicamba + carfentrazone which provided
86% control. One weed that the combination of fluroxypyr + 2,4-D + dicamba was not
completely effective on was prostrate knotweed were only 70% control was obtained 8
WAT. The results of these studies over the last four years suggest that fluroxypyr can
provide very high and consistent levels of white clover control. Fluroxypyr was also
effective at providing nearly complete oxalis control
86

TENACITY : A NEW HERBICIDE FOR TURFGRASS MANAGERS. R. J. Keese, J.
Driver, and D. Cox, Syngenta Professional Products, Carmel, IN
ABSTRACT
Tenacity, comprised of the active ingredient mesotrione, is a new active
ingredient for the turfgrass market. The structure of mesotrione is based on
leptospermone, a naturally occurring compound with allelopathic activity which was
found around the bottlebrush plant (Callistemon citrinus). Mesotrione belongs to the
triketone herbicide family, and the mode of action belongs with the HPPD inhibitors (phydroxyphenylpyruvate
dioxygenase) which blocks formation of plastoquinone and
subsequent carotenoid production. The typical symptom observed from a Tenacity
application is bleaching, followed by necrosis and plant death.
Tenacity is safe when applied to cool season grasses such as Kentucky
bluegrass and tall fescue. Application rates up to 8 fl oz pr/A are allowed on these
species. On perennial ryegrass and fine fescues a maximum rate of 5 fl oz pr/A is
allowed. Tenacity has both foliar and soil activity. Sixteen (16) fl oz pr/A/year is the
maximum application, so users will need to plan their treatments according to what they
hope to accomplish, and keep in mind that a sequential application 3 weeks after the
initial treatment will be required.
The weed spectrum is varied, as Tenacity has both pre-emergence and postemergence
activity, and is active on grassy weed species, broadleaves and nutsedge.
Nimblewill control is excellent with Tenacity , and a unique fit for the turf markets. Preemergence
nutsedge activity is also unique. Tenacity will also selectively remove
bentgrass from cool season turf species such as bluegrass and fescues; three
applications of 4 oz pr/A are required, at 2-3 week intervals, to effectively remove the
bentgrass competition.
The most unique characteristic of Tenacity is the ability to prevent weed
competition when applied at seeding. No reduction in turf stand or interference with
emergence has been observed in 3-years of testing. Improved stands and turf quality
have been obtained due to removal of the weed competition. Seeding can be
accomplished in spring, early summer or fall.
87

PREEMERGENCE ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL. J.A. Borger and M.B. Naedel
Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Two separate studies were conducted using different materials and application
timings. Both studies evaluated the percent cover of newly seeded turfgrass. The first
study employed 'Amazing GS' perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) the second was a
patch mix material that consisted of ‘Nexus" and ‘Renaissance’ perennial ryegrass,
‘Clearwater’ and ‘Barron’ Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), and ‘Boreal’ creeping
red fescue (Festuca ruba ssp. littoralis). Both of these studies were conducted at the
Valentine Turfgrass Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, Pa. The
objective of these studies was to determine the control of the annual bluegrass (Poa
annua L.) during the establishment of turfgrass. The studies were a randomized
complete block design with three replications. Treatments of the first study were
applied on June 29 (4 WBS), July 12 (2 WBS), July 26 (SEED), August 24 (3 WAS),
and September 6 (5 WAS), 2007 using a three foot CO 2 powered boom sprayer
calibrated to deliver 40 gpa using one, flat fan, 11004E nozzle at 40 psi. Treatments of
the second study were applied on June 29 (4 WBS), July 12 (2 WBS), July 26 (SEED),
August 9 (2 WAS), August 22 (4 WAS), and September 13 (6 WAS), 2007 using a
shaker box. Glyphosate was applied to both test sites at a rate of 3 qts/A on June 6,
2007 prior to the application of test materials and was seeded July 26, 2007. Perennial
ryegrass germination was first noted on the first study on September 1, 2007 and on
September 2, 2007 for the second study. Once established, the new turf was mowed
once weekly at 2 inches with a rotary mower with clippings returned to the site.
Perennial ryegrass cover, of the first study, was evaluated four times during the study.
All treated turfgrass revealed some level of perennial ryegrass growth during the study.
On the final rating date, September 19th, there was 90% or greater perennial ryegrass
cover of treated or non treated turfgrass. Turfgrass cover, of the second study, was
rated six times during the study. On the final rating date, October 5th, all treated and
non treated turfgrass had at least 78% cover or greater. The percent cover of annual
bluegrass, of the first study, was rated on September 25th. All Tenacity treated
turfgrass had significantly less annual bluegrass cover when compared to non treated
turfgrass. The percent cover of annual bluegrass, of the second study, was rated on
October 5th. Turfgrass treated with Lockup at 150 lb/A (penoxsulam 0.015 lb ai/A +
2,4-D at 1.5 lb ae/A) applied 4 WBS or 2 WBS, and 6 WAS had significantly less annual
bluegrass cover when compared to non treated turfgrass.
88

PREEMERGENCE SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL. M.B. Naedel and J.A. Borger
Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Preemergence control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) was evaluated
on a mature stand of 'Jet Elite' perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) at the Valentine
Turfgrass Research Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA. The objectives
of the study were to determine the efficacy of selected preemergence herbicides for the
control of smooth crabgrass when applied early in the growing season compared to
normal application timing, the rates of materials, and the safety to desired turfgrass
species. This study was a randomized complete block design with three replications.
Treatments were applied on March 27, 2007 (EARLY), April 26 (PRE), and June 7 (1-
2LF), 2007 using a three foot CO 2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 80 gpa
using one, flat fan, 11008E nozzle at 40 psi. After the second and third application the
entire test site received approximately 0.5 inch of water. On May 8, 2007, 0.5 lb N/M
was applied from urea and 0.5 lb N/M from a 31-0-0 IBDU fertilizer was applied to the
entire test area. The site was mowed once per week with a rotary mower at one inch
with clippings returned to the site. The test site was over-seeded with a native source of
smooth crabgrass seed in the fall of at least two of the pervious growing seasons. The
test site had approximately 90% cover of smooth crabgrass in the non treated areas at
the conclusion of the study. Smooth crabgrass germination was first noted in the non
treated areas of the test site on May 1, 2007. Turfgrass phytotoxicity was evaluated four
times during the study (Table 1). No phytotoxicity was found during the study. The
percent control of smooth crabgrass was evaluated on August 6th (Table 2). All treated
turfgrass, except that treated with Pendulum ® 3.8CS at 0.5 lb ai/A applied early, had
significantly less crabgrass than non treated turfgrass. Turfgrass treated with
Dimension ® 40WP three times (EARLY/PRE/1-2LF) with a total of 0.5 lb ai/A applied
was not significantly different that turfgrass treated once with Dimension ® 40WP at 0.5
lb ai/A applied PRE. But, when Dimension ® was applied three times (EARLY/PRE/1-
2LF) with a total of 0.375 lb ai/A applied total was compared to turfgrass treated once
with Dimension ® 40WP at 0.5 lb ai/A applied PRE no significant difference was found in
the control of crabgrass. Turfgrass treated with Pendulum ® 3.8CS at 0.5 lb ai/A EARLY
plus Dimension ® 40WP at 0.5 lb ai/A 1-2 LF had significantly more control of crabgrass
compared to turfgrass treated with Pendulum ® 3.8CS at 0.5 lb ai/A EARLY plus
Dimension ® 40WP at 0.25 lb ai/A 1-2 LF. Turfgrass treated with Betasan ® 4E at 7.4
oz/M PRE was not significantly different than turfgrass treated with Betasan ® 4E at 3.7
oz/M EARLY plus Dimension ® 40WP at 0.5 lb ai/A 1-2 LF or Betasan ® 4E at 3.7 oz/M
EARLY plus Dimension ® 40WP at 0.25 lb ai/A 1-2 LF. Turfgrass treated with Barricade ®
65WG at 0.25 lb ai/A applied EARLY plus mesotrione 4SC at 0.125 lb ai/A applied
PRE/1-2 LF was not significantly different than turfgrass treated with Barricade ® 65WG
at 0.25 lb ai/A applied EARLY plus mesotrione 4SC at 0.125 lb ai/A applied 1-2 LF.
89

PRE- AND EARLY-POSTEMERGENT CONTROL OF FALSE GREEN KYLLINGA IN
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND. J.E. Kaminski, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
ABSTRACT
Although false green kyllinga (Kyllinga gracillima L.) (FGK) is a common weed
problem on golf courses in the southern region of the United States, its presence in
southern New England is rare. A severe infestation of FGK, however, has been
observed for several years at a golf course located in Greenwich, CT. Although a
perennial, FGK populations in CT appear to disappear during the winter months only to
regenerate by seed and/or surviving stolons in the spring. No information currently is
available with regards to herbicide efficacy or application timing to control FGK in the
northern United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate sulfentrazone,
sulfentrazone + prodiamine, prodiamine, and mesotrione for selective control of FGK
when applied at a preemergent (PRE) and early-postemergent (EP) timing. In 2007, a
field trial was conducted in a golf course rough at Burning Tree Country Club located in
Greenwich, CT. The turfgrass area was dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis L.), but also contained small percentages of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.)
and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). The area was mowed approximately 2
times per week to a height of 2.0 inches. Sulfentrazone (0.125 and 0.250 lb ai/A),
sulfentrazone + prodiamine 4SC and 0.3G (0.375 and 0.750 lb ai/A), prodiamine (0.5 lb
a.i./A) and mesotrione (0.125, 0.188, and 0.250 lb ai/A) were applied in two timings (1
and 17 May) just prior to and immediately following the emergence of FGK. All
mesotrione and carfentrazone treatments were applied with the nonionic surfactant X-
77 ® at 0.25% (v/v). All sprayable treatments were applied in 44 gpa using a CO 2
pressurized (40psi) sprayer equipped with a flat-fan nozzle. Granular treatments were
applied using a shaker bottle. Plots measured 6 ft x 6 ft and were arranged in a
randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Control of FGK was rated on a
percent scale where 0 = no visible FGK and 100 = entire plot area covered with FGK.
Populations of FGK in the untreated control plots averaged 70% on the final
rating date (17 July). At this time, excellent control (92 to 99%) was achieved in plots
treated at the PRE timing with sulfentrazone (0.25 lb ai/A), sulfentrazone + prodiamine
0.3G (0.750 lb ai/A), and all rates of mesotrione. Only moderate to good FGK
suppression (56 to 85%) was achieved from the PRE timing of sulfentrazone (0.125 lb
ai/A), sulfentrazone + prodiamine 4SC (0.375 and 0.750 lb ai/A) and 0.3G (0.375 lb
ai/A). When treatments were applied to newly emerging plants in the EP timing,
excellent control (92 to 97%) was achieved in plots treated with sulfentrazone (0.125
and 0.250 lb ai/A) and the highest rate of sulfentrazone + prodiamine (SC and G
formulations) and mesotrione. Moderate (59 to 73%) FGK control was achieved within
plots receiving the 0.375 lb ai/A and 0.188 lb ai/A rates of sulfentrazone + prodiamine
4SC and mesotrione, respectively. When applied at the EP timing, no FGK suppression
was achieved within plots treated with sulfentrazone + prodiamine 0.3G (0.375 lb ai/A),
prodiamine (0.50 lb ai/A), and mesotrione (0.125 lb ai/A), when compared to the
untreated control. Our results suggest that FGK growing in the northeastern United
States can be effectively suppressed with a single application of sulfentrazone or
mesotrione when applied prior to or shortly after plant emergence.
90

POSTEMERGENT CONTROL OF FALSE GREEN KYLLINGA IN SOUTHERN NEW
ENGLAND. J.E. Kaminski, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
ABSTRACT
Although uncommon in New England, a severe infestation of false green kyllinga
(Kyllinga gracillima L.) (FGK) has been observed for several years on a golf course
located in southwestern Connecticut. No information currently is available with regards
to postemergent control of this weed species in the northeastern United States. The
objectives of this study were to determine the ability of single and sequential
postemergent applications of sulfentrazone, mesotrione, halosulfuron-methyl, and
carfentrazone to control mature FGK.
A field study was conducted in a golf course rough at Burning Tree Country Club
in Greenwich, CT. The site was dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.),
but also contained small percentages of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) and perennial
ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). All sites were mowed approximately 2 times per week to
a height of 2.0 inches. Sulfentrazone (0.125, 0.188, and 0.250 lb ai/A), mesotrione
(0.125, 0.188 and 0.250 lb ai/A), halosulfuron-methyl (0.021, 0.031, and 0.062 lb ai/A),
and carfentrazone (0.013, 0.038, and 0.099 lb ai/A), and halosulfuron-methyl +
carfentrazone (0.021 lb ai/A + 0.038 lb ai/A) were applied on 3 June. In addition to the
single application treatments, sequential applications of sulfentrazone and mesotrione
also were applied on 24 June. All mesotrione, carfentrazone, and halosulfuron-methyl
treatments were applied with the nonionic surfactant X-77 ® at 0.25% (v/v). All
treatments were applied in 44 gpa using a CO 2 pressurized (40psi) sprayer equipped
with a flat-fan nozzle. Plots measured 3 ft x 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized
complete block design with 4 replications. Control of FGK was rated periodically
throughout the study on a percent scale where 0 = no visible FGK and 100 = entire plot
area covered with FGK.
Shortly after the initial application, all treatments except carfentrazone resulted in
injury to the FGK. Recovery of FGK, however, was observed in all plots receiving only
a single herbicide application by the final rating date (18 September). On 18
September, there were no differences in FGK populations among single application
treatments and the untreated control. Plots receiving sequential applications of
sulfentrazone (0.188 and 0.250 lb ai/A) and mesotrione (0.250 lb ai/A) resulted in good
(78 to 86%) suppression of FGK. Our results suggest that sequential applications of
mesotrione or sulfentrazone at higher rates likely is necessary when attempting to
control mature FGK in the northeastern United States. The long term efficacy of these
herbicides on the regeneration of FGK in subsequent years, however, remains
unknown.
91

USE OF MESOTRIONE HERBICIDE FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL AT
COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS ESTABLISHMENT. S.E. Hart, P.E. McCullough, and C.
Mansue, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Field studies were conducted in the fall of 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the
response of newly seeded and seedling Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and
tall fescue to mesotrione applied at planting (PRE), four weeks after turfgrass
emergence (4 WAE) and a sequential treatment at both timings. Mesotrione was
applied at rates ranging from 0.14 to 0.56 kg ai/ha using a single nozzle CO2 pressured
sprayer calibrated to deliver a total 375 L/ha. Nozzles used were 9504E and CO2
regulators were set for 220 kPa. Experimental design was a split-block with four
replications. Treatments were a factorial combination of four seedings (main plots, 1.8 x
68-m) with 12 mesotrione applications (sub-plots, 1 x 7.2-m). A non-seeded check strip
was also included as a main plot for weed control evaluations. Turfgrass chlorosis was
rated on a percent scale where 0 equaled no chlorosis and 100 equaled complete
chlorosis. Turfgrass and weed cover were rated visually on a percent scale. Overall,
mesotrione caused minimal turfgrass cover reductions applied PRE. However, 4 WAE
applications at the higher mesotrione rates tended to cause chlorosis on both tall fescue
and perennial ryegrass and in some experiments significant stand reductions especially
on Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue. Control of winter annual broadleaf weeds such
as chickweed and henbit were nearly complete with all mesotrione treatments.
Mesotrione exhibited potential to selectively control annual bluegrass applied PRE
especially at the 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha application rate. Annual bluegrass control was
lower with 4 WAE applications than PRE applications. The most complete annual
bluegrass control was observed with PRE applications followed by sequential
applications 4 WAE at 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha. In the fall 2005 and 2006 experiments these
treatments provided 94 to 99 and 73 to 91% annual bluegrass control the following
spring.
92

CRABGRASS CONTROL INFLUENCED BY GROWTH STAGE AND BROADLEAF
WEED HERBICIDES. P.E. McCullough and S.E. Hart, Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
Field experiments investigated influence of crabgrass growth stage on
mesotrione efficacy. Mesotrione at 0.28 kg ai/ha applied at the one leaf stage, multileaf,
and one-tiller stages controlled crabgrass similar to quinclorac at 0.84 kg ai/ha and
fenoxaprop at 0.1 kg ai/ha. However, mesotrione applied to multi-tiller crabgrass was
less efficacious than fenoxaprop. In other field experiments, fenoxaprop efficacy was
investigated for crabgrass control when tank-mixed with broadleaf weed herbicides.
2,4-D, clopyralid, dicamba, and triclopyr antagonized efficacy of fenoxaprop at 0.2 kg/ha
on six, five, two, and three dates, respectively. Crabgrass control from fenoxaprop at
0.1 kg/ha was minimal while antagonism from broadleaf weed herbicides was
inconsistent. Fluroxypyr did not reduce efficacy of fenoxaprop at either rate for
crabgrass control. Overall, fluroxypyr was the only broadleaf weed herbicide that did
not antagonize fenoxaprop efficacy for crabgrass control in turf.
93

IR-4 IN THE NORTHEAST. E. L. Lurvey, Northeast Region IR-4 Program, Cornell
University, Geneva, NY
ABSTRACT
The mission of the IR-4 Program is to provide data in support of the registration
of pest management tools for minor/specialty crops. The research selection process is
being refined to better serve that mission and its clients. IR-4 depends on the input
from growers, grower groups, agricultural researchers and extension personnel to
identify the important needs with potential solutions. As always, submitting a Project
Clearance Request (http://ir4.rutgers.edu/FoodUse/FOODRequestForm.cfm) is the first
step towards getting a new product or use on the IR-4 list of potential projects. Each
fall, the research projects are selected for the coming year. To focus attention on
projects of real importance, a nominating system was instituted two years ago. A
project must be nominated before it will be considered for research. The list of research
projects is generally posted on the IR-4 website in August Nominations are then take
until about two weeks prior to the IR-4 Food Use Workshop (September 16 – 18, 2008,
Sacramento, CA). Please work with me, your IR-4 Regional Coordinator for the
Northeast, to insure that projects of importance to you are actually selected for
research. Contact information: Edith Lurvey, Tel. No. 315-787-2308; E-mail
ell10@cornell.edu.
94

IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HERBICIDE REGISTRATION (FOOD USES).
M. Arsenovic, F.P. Salzman, D.L. Kunkel, and J.J. Baron. IR-4 Project, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey, Princeton.
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 (PRIA) continues to effect IR-4
submissions and EPA reviews of packages.
IR-4 submitted herbicide petitions to the EPA from October 2006 to September
2007 for: MCPB on mint; oxyfluorfen on rhubarb, cucurbit vegetable group, fruiting
vegetable group except tomato, okra, clover, and hearts of palm; pronamide on
cranberry; and sethoxydim on multiple oilseed crops; and thiobencarb on wild rice.
From October 2006 through September 2007, EPA has published Notices of
Filing in the Federal Register for: chlorimuron on cranberry; dichlobenil on rhubarb,
caneberry subgroup, and bushberry subgroup; dimethenamid on winter squash,
pumpkin, radish, rutabaga, turnip, and hops; flumioxazin on the bushberry subgroup,
asparagus, okra, dry bean, melon subgroup, fruiting vegetable group, and tree nut
group; fluroxypyr on pome fruit group and millet; pronamide on chicory, dandelion,
Belgian endive, and berry group.
EPA established tolerances from October 2006 though September 2007 for:
clethodim on leafy green subgroup, legume vegetable group, herb subgroup,
asparagus, flax, hops, safflower, and sesame; desmedipham on garden beets (roots
and tops) and spinach; dicamba on sweet corn; dimethenamid on grasses (seed);
diuron on prickly pear cactus and mint; fluroxypyr on dry bulb onion; foramsulfuron on
sweet corn and pop corn (exemption from tolerance); glufosinate on pistachio;
glyphosate on sunflower, safflower, dry pea, Indian mulberry, and legume vegetable
group; lactofen on the fruiting vegetable crop group and okra; linuron on celeriac and
rhubarb; pendimethalin on Brassica head and stem subgroup, artichoke, asparagus,
and grape; phenmedipham on spinach; pronamide on chicory, dandelion, Belgian
endive, and berry group; sethoxydim on buckwheat, okra, borage, dill, turnip greens,
and root and tuber vegetable group; and tribenuron on sunflower.
95

THE USE OF MESOTRIONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN MINOR CROPS. D. Lycan, V.
Lengkeek, and G.D. Vail, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC.
ABSTRACT
Field studies were initiated in 2004 to evaluate mesotrione for use in minor crops.
Trials in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were conducted to further refine the level of crop
tolerance and weed control from mesotrione. These field trials confirm that mesotrione
is effective for control of weeds in asparagus, blackberry, blueberry, cranberry, flax,
grasses grown for seed (tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass), millet
(proso and pearl), oats, okra, raspberry, rhubarb, sugarcane, sorghum (grain and
sweet).
96

THE ADVANTAGES TO USING THE GRANULAR FORMULATION OF FLUMIOXAZIN
IN TOMATOES, POTATOES, AND SWEET POTATOES. B.A. Majek, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey, Bridgeton.
ABSTRACT
Flumioxazin, formulated as Valor ® and Chateau ® 51WDG, has been evaluated
for use in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon lycopersicum Mill. 'Sunbeam'), white
potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Superior’), and sweet potatoes [Ipomoea batatas (L.)
Lam. ‘Beauregard’]. In tomatoes and white potatoes, the primary need for weed control
that flumioxazin can fill is nightshade (Solanum species) control and in white potatoes,
late season annual broadleaf weed control. The weeds than need to be controlled in
sweet potatoes with flumioxazin are annual broadleaf species. The 51WDG formulation
of flumioxazin applied to tomatoes pre-transplant, or as a directed and shielded spray
post-transplant or postemergence has resulted in unacceptable crop injury.
Applications to white potatoes preemergence or after drag-off, but before crop
emergence, have not provided late season weed control in fields where cultivation and
hilling are practiced after the crop has emerged. Treatments applied to sweet potatoes
pre-transplant also have not provided late season weed control in fields where
cultivation and hilling are practiced. Flumioxazin, formulated as BroadStar 0.5G, and
applied to tomatoes, white potatoes, and sweet potatoes postemergence when the
foliage was dry about the time the last cultivation or hilling did not cause injury to any of
the three crops.
97

SNAP BEAN RESPONSE TO POSTEMERGENCE APPLICATIONS OF
ACIFLUORFEN, BENTAZON, AND FOMESAFEN. R. B. Batts, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, R. W. Wallace and A. K. Petty, Texas A&M University, Lubbock.
ABSTRACT
Weed control, crop injury and yield were evaluated in 2007 for processing snap
beans grown in North Carolina and Texas by comparing selected rates of acifluorfen
(0.188, 0.25 and 0.375 lb ai/A) and fomesafen ( 0.188, 0.25, and 0.31 lb ai/A) to
bentazon (0.75 lb ai/A) when applied postemergence (POST) 21 days after planting
(DAP). Trifluralin applied pre-plant incorporated (PPI) at 0.75 lb ai was used as a
grower standard alone (without POST herbicides), and was applied over the entire test
site at both locations. Weed populations in North Carolina were low and no ratings
were recorded. In Texas, Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) and
common sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) were controlled by all three herbicide
treatments at 97% or better, regardless of rate. Crop injury (leaf chlorosis or necrosis)
with bentazon rated 28 DAP was higher (13%) in North Carolina, while no injury was
observed in Texas. In North Carolina, crop injury with all three rates of acifluorfen
ranged from 24 to 36%, while injury with fomesafen was 7.5% or less. In contrast, injury
from acifluorfen and fomesafen in Texas was 6.3% or less, regardless of rate.
Differences in crop injury between states may have been a factor of the choice of snap
bean variety (North Carolina = Bronco; Texas = Titan) as well as relative humidity
(North Carolina = high; Texas = low). While injury from acifluorfen observed in North
Carolina was high, yields from all treatments were equal to or greater than trifluralin
applied alone. Lower yields in the trifluralin alone treatment may have been due to
season-long weed pressure (even though it was low). There were no significant
differences in yields for any of the treatments applied in Texas; however, yields in
acifluorfen-treated plots averaged 25% less than the trifluralin alone or bentazon
treatments. Average yields in plots treated with fomesafen were equivalent to trifluralin
alone and the bentazon treatments. These results indicate that POST applications of
fomesafen to snap beans is safe within the range of rates tested, and that while
acifluorfen may cause significant early injury, yields may not necessarily be decreased.
However, as seen in the Texas trial, although weeds were successfully controlled and
bean injury low, yields may still be reduced, and this may prohibit its use under these
conditions.
98

GROWTH REGULATORS AND TURFGRASSES---A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
T.L. Watschke, Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
The first plant growth regulator applied to turf was done by Dr. Ralph Engel of
Rutgers University in 1959. Dr. Engel applied maleic hydrazide (MH) to ‘Merion’
Kentucky bluegrass in an attempt to suppress seedheads. Although the seedhead
suppression was mostly successful, the side effects were not (phytotoxicity). However,
since that time, many growth regulating compounds have been used successfully, for a
variety of objectives, on turfgrass. One of these compounds trinexapac-ethyl (Primo ®
MAXX) was actually synthesized specifically for use on turf.
Over the years since Dr. Engel applied MH, there has been a significant amount
of research conducted to assess growth regulators as to how they might be used to
manage turfgrass. The chronology of such products as to their impact on the
managerial use patterns of turfgrass practitioners will be presented.
99

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WITH PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS. D.P.
Shepard, Syngenta Professional Products, Franklin, TN.
ABSTRACT
Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are used on many of the estimated 17,000 golf
courses in the U.S. The PGRs that are used on high quality turf areas act by either
slowing the production of gibberellic acid, by slowing cell division, or by enhancing the
production of ethylene. Their primary uses on turfgrass include slowing turfgrass
growth, reducing clippings, mowing, and equipment wear, use in hard to mow areas for
safety, to improve turfgrass quality, suppress seedheads, enhance turf stress tolerance,
manage annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.), and use on putting greens to increase speed
and maintain putting consistency throughout the day. Questions often arise on which
PGR product(s) work best on various turfgrass species and cultivars for the intended
goal. The primary turfgrass species used on golf courses are bermudagrass, bentgrass,
annual bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass with other species such
as seashore paspalum, kikuyugrass and fine fescue finding limited use. Each turf
species has numerous cultivars which can vary in their response to PGRs, turfgrass
management practices and environmental stresses. Several questions that turf
managers often ask will be addressed. Examples include: 1) When should PGR
applications begin and when should they stop? 2) Do PGR application rates vary
throughout the year? 3) What other types of products can PGRs be mixed with? 4)
What types of spray nozzles and water volume are best for PGR applications? 5) What
is a good PGR program for suppressing annual bluegrass seedheads? 6) What effect
do PGRs have on seed germination and development? 8) How does turfgrass respond
to over-application of PGRs? Additional questions will be addressed.
100

ANTHRACNOSE DISEASE MANAGEMENT WITH PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS.
J.C. Inguagiato, J.A. Murphy, and B.B. Clarke. Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, New Brunswick.
ABSTRACT
The frequency and severity of anthracnose epiphytotics, caused by the fungus
Colletotrichum cereale, on golf course putting greens has increased over the past
decade. Concurrently, plant growth regulation has become an integral component of
putting green management, although their use has been suggested to encourage
anthracnose. Mefluidide (ME) and ethephon (ET) are applied in the spring to suppress
seedhead formation in annual bluegrass (ABG) putting green turf. Trinexapac-ethyl
(TE) is applied throughout the growing season to improve playability by reducing vertical
shoot growth and improving uniformity. More recently, TE has been increasingly used
at rates and intervals exceeding label recommendations. Growth regulator effects on
anthracnose development are currently unknown. The objectives of this study were to
determine TE rate and interval effects on anthracnose, evaluate spring regulation
influences on seedheads and disease, and to identify potential interactions between
seedhead and vegetative regulation practices relative to anthracnose development.
The study was conducted on an ABG putting green at the Horticultural Research
Farm II in North Brunswick, NJ from 2005 through 2007. The area was mowed daily at
3.2-mm and nitrogen was applied at 4.9 kg ha -1 every 14-d. Treatments were arranged
in a randomized complete block design with four replications. TE was applied at various
rates (0.3-, 0.4-, and 0.6-L ha -1 ) and intervals (7-,14-d) April to September 2005, March
to September 2006, and March to August 2007. ME (2.2-L ha -1 ) or ET (15.9-L ha -1 ) was
applied twice in late-March and early-April each year both without and with TE (0.4-L ha -
1 ) applied at two intervals (7- or 14-d) throughout the season. Comparisons of treatment
effects were made by planned F-tests.
TE did not affect anthracnose severity in the first year of study. However, TE
reduced disease in 2006 at rates ranging from 0.3 – 0.6 L ha -1 applied every 7- or 14-d.
Turf incurred 11 – 27% less anthracnose when treated with TE than untreated turf.
More frequent application of TE (i.e., 7- vs. 14-d) reduced disease on 3- and 21-July
2006 at both 0.4- and 0.6-L ha -1 . Anthracnose severity declined linearly with increasing
rate of TE in 2006, but not in 2005 or 2007. There was no interaction between
application interval and rate. Tolerance of ABG to low mowing heights may be
enhanced due to the reduced shoot elongation of TE treated turf reducing stress
associated with routine low mowing thus, reducing anthracnose.
The average ME treatment effect reduced anthracnose 6 – 21% relative to
untreated turf in 2005 and 2006, but had no effect in 2007. Whereas, ME-alone had 14
– 32% more disease compared to combinations of ME and TE over all three years.
ME+TE reduced disease 5 – 11% in 2005 and 2006 compared to TE-alone, but were no
different in 2007. The average ET treatment effect reduced anthracnose 13 – 35%
relative to untreated turf in 2005 and 2006. ET+TE reduced disease 16 – 35%
compared to ET-alone and 5 – 18% compared to TE-alone. Programs combining spring
seedhead suppression with season-long vegetative regulation provided the most
dramatic reduction of anthracnose.
101

ETIOLATED TILLER SYMPTOMS OF TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH
REGULATORS. M.A. Fidanza, Penn State University, Berks Campus, Reading.
ABSTRACT
"Mad tiller" symptoms, or more correctly described as “rapid etiolation” in coolseason
turfgrass, or “etiolated tiller symptoms” in turfgrass, has become a common,
visual nuisance on golf course fairways and greens. On the golf course, the
appearance of elongated or etiolated tillers and leaf blades can disrupt playability (i.e.,
ball roll) and contributes to a significant increase in mowing, since symptomatic turf
areas need to be mowed more often to provide a uniform and smooth playing surface.
At some locations, fungal pathogens (i.e., 'Ascocyta' spp., 'Fusarium' spp., 'Pythium'
spp., 'Rhizoctonia' spp.) have been associated with necrotic turf stands, and turf that
has collapsed in patches, which have exhibited prolonged etiolated tiller symptoms.
From a plant physiology perspective, an etiolated leaf blade is often the result of
excessive gibberellic acid production triggered by low light intensity (i.e., shade or
prolonged overcast and cloudy weather). The name “mad tiller” is attributed to bakanae
disease of rice, which translates to “mad tiller” disease of rice. The causal agent of
bakanae disease of rice is the soil-borne fungus 'Fusarium moniliforme'. This fungal
organism contributes to the production of gibberellic acid in the rice plant and ultimately
causes the plant to malfunction and produce an over-elongated tiller, which results in a
serious decrease in yield. At this time, the relationship between a Fusarium sp., or
other fungal pathogen, and etiolated tiller symptoms in turfgrass has not been
determined conclusively (i.e. pathogenicity proven by Koch's postulates). Currently,
unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence attempts to associate the occurrence of etiolated
tiller symptoms in cool-season turfgrass with the use of plant growth regulators. In
many cases, golf course superintendents use plant growth regulators to suppress or
minimize etiolated symptoms in turfgrass. However, other cultural and chemical
practices are often used in conjunction with plant growth regulators, and therefore the
exact cause of etiolated tiller symptoms in turfgrass can not be determined at this time.
Therefore, this etiolated tiller complex in turfgrass warrants further study to determine
the cause as well as possible management practices to help mitigate etiolated tiller
symptoms in turfgrass.
102

USING PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS REMOVAL. J.
A. Borger and M. B. Naedel, Penn State University, University Park.
ABSTRACT
Most often, annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) is considered a weed when growing
in golf course fairways or greens and can be difficult to manage. Annual bluegrass is
susceptible to adverse winter conditions, consequentially, there is a potential for voids in
the sward being present in the spring of the year. Annual bluegrass is not drought
tolerant. This can cause an increased irrigation demand during droughty periods in
order to sustain the annual bluegrass population. Annual bluegrass has a low tolerance
of many diseases. As a result, fairways and greens containing significant annual
bluegrass must be managed for such diseases in addition to those of the creeping
bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.). The aforementioned disadvantages of annual
bluegrass have an adverse impact on the aesthetics and playability of the turfgrass site
and could increase the cost of maintaining a turfgrass community. The selective post
emergence control of annual bluegrass has been quite varied over the years. Some
compounds have worked well in certain locations and conditions, but have not been as
successful in others. This variation will most likely persist, but there is a continued need
for research to assess plant growth regulators (PGRs) and strategies for the selective
post emergence control of annual bluegrass. Paclobutrazol (Trimmit ® ), flurprimidol
(Cutless), ethofumesate (Prograss ® ), and bispyribac-sodium (Velocity ® ) are the most
common PGRs employed to control annual bluegrass in a post emergence setting.
Rates, application timing, and product rotation are only some of the factors to evaluate
when using these products.
103

USE OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON SPORTS TURF. S.D. Askew, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg.
ABSTRACT
The science of sports turf management continues to evolve. Plant growth
regulators (PGRs) have been an important part of that evolution in the past 10 years.
There are several ways in which plant growth regulators are used on sports fields with
most uses aimed at reduction of clippings and reducing scalping. Trinexapac ethyl is
the most common product in use but flurprimidol, paclobutrazol, ethephon, and
mefluidide all have varying uses on different types of fields. Benefits of PGRs in athletic
fields include reduced scalping, less equipment wear, fewer clippings on the field, faster
mowing time, increased turfgrass density, improved stress tolerance, improved turfgrass
color, pre-stress conditioning, and improved establishment of over-seeded grasses.
Use of PGRs is more common on bermudagrass fields than on cool-season fields. With
dense bermudagrass types, such as Tifway or Patriot, bermudagrass scalping is an
issue any time mowing is delayed and especially in the fall when bermudagrass
morphology changes due to changes in light quality and the peak in bermudagrass
density is reached.
Patriot bermudagrass has been widely adopted in Virginia and other states in the
northern transition zone due to cold tolerance, aggressive growth and density. Because
of Patriot’s aggressive growth habit, PGRs are becoming an important tool in managing
this bermudagrass cultivar. Scalping is one of the most important issues with Patriot
bermudagrass. Scalping issues increase with decreasing mowing height, increasing
fertility applications, and irregular mowing frequency. PGRs such as trinexapac ethyl
can reduce scalping but will not eliminate the problem. Athletic field managers in
Virginia are finding that an “attitude adjustment” is in order to manage scalping of Patriot
bermudagrass in the fall. The angle of a reel mower’s bed knife to the ground is called
the “attitude.” As the angle is increased the attitude becomes more “aggressive” and as
the angle is decreased the attitude becomes more “flat.” For putting green
management, flat attitude is discouraged because it can cause streaks as the bedknife
rubs the turf. At taller heights of cut, such as 1 to 2 cm, a flat attitude will not pose
problems like it does on putting greens. Patriot bermudagrass becomes so dense in
late summer that the bulk of its canopy is stolons capped with only a thin layer of
leaves. Thus, routine PGR use, regular mowing, decreased fertility, and flat attitude are
the best combination to combat scalping.
When a PGR program is discontinued, turfgrass growth increases much beyond
that of turfgrass that was not on a PGR program. Field mangers will use this
phenomenon to advantage by discontinuing a PGR program briefly in conjunction with
stressful events such as concerts or increased field use. PGRs are also useful to
reduce growth of existing turfgrass when establishing an over-seeded species. PGR
rates may be doubled and applied 1 to 7 days prior to over-seeding. Trinexapac ethyl is
the best product for this use because it does not affect germination or emergence of
seeded grasses. Ethephon, mefluidide, and paclobutrazol continue to be important
PGRs in situations where cool-season fields are infested with annual bluegrass and
seedhead production in spring reduces field quality during the sporting event.
104

USING PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ON GOLF COURSES IN THE MID-
ATLANTIC REGION. S.J. Zontek, Director, USGA Green Section, Mid-Atlantic Region,
Glenn Mills, PA.
ABSTRACT
Plant growth regulators (PGR) have become an essential part of golf course
turfgrass management in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA as well as in other parts of
North America. In fact, the use of plant growth regulators has now extended to include
the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland. Golf course turfgrass managers, once they
experience the benefits from the use of plant growth regulators, they have readily been
adopted into their golf course maintenance and management programs.
This was not always the case. Initially, PGRs were used to control annual
bluegrass (Poa annua) seedheads. Results were variable and some turf damage even
occurred. When they did work, the results were spectacular. Turf managers began to
see the utility of these materials. Research continued to a point where PGRs are used
for any number of purposes on a golf course. These include; annual bluegrass
seedhead suppression and control; annual bluegrass suppression and control; annual
bluegrass maintenance; to regulate growth rates (and clipping production) on greens,
tees, fairways and increasingly, in roughs.
Plant growth regulators have become essential products in the maintenance of
golf courses in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA and beyond.
105

NEWSS Executive Committee Final Report
January 2007
William Curran, President
Over the past year it has been a pleasure to serve as your President. The Executive
committee has discussed a number of issues and the key ones include the Future
Committee Report and subsequent survey that will directly impact our future. You will
fill out a survey at the annual meeting in an attempt to gauge your views and opinions
about where our society should be headed. As an example of a new activity discussed
by the EC, we are hosting an Awards Luncheon this year, so let us know what you
think. With the guidance of David Spak, our Sustaining Membership Representative,
we also developed a new sustaining membership fee structure; Jacob Barney
championed a new Outstanding Graduate Student award, and several other key issues
were addressed during the year.
For 2007, Jerry Baron, VP and Program Chair with the help of many others have
developed a great program at the Renaissance Harborplace in Baltimore. Although we
tried to develop joint programs with a number of other organizations for 2007, we were
unable to identify a successful partner that impacted our program in a significant way.
This is the first year in several years that is a NEWSS program without other
organizational involvement. Having said this, we all look forward to building more
bridges and doing what we need to do to make this annual conference even more
successful.
We will be selling NEWSS Polo shirts for $30 at the annual meeting this year. These
are great shirts that help support the society and also allow you to look smart while
representing the NEWSS. Please support the NEWSS and buy a shirt.
Finally, we are interested in conducting an annual invasive plants workshop for federal,
state, and local people involved in invasive plant management. There is a strong need
for this and we would like to discuss this potential opportunity at the annual meeting.
We will be meeting on Friday at 1:30 pm to discuss this potential activity. Please join
us.
Renee Keese, President Elect
Thank you letters were sent to all session chairs and the invited speakers immediately
following the 2006 conference. The Collegiate Weed Contest was planned and
implemented on August 1, 2006, sponsored by Greg Armel and DuPont and held at
their Stine Haskell research facility in Newark, DE. We investigated several locations
for the 2008 conference including the Cambridge Marriot and Long Wharf Marriott in
Boston, the Westin Providence, and the Marriot, Loews, and Sheraton Society Hill in
Philadelphia. The 2008 annual NEWSS Conference was booked at the Sheraton
Society Hill in Philadelphia, PA for January 7-10th.
106

Joint meeting possibilities for 2008 appear slim. The NE-ESA and NE-APMS are not
available. Dialog was opened with the Canadian weed science group, but they already
have a site for 2008. Other options we could pursue still include training sessions
perhaps with invasive species organizations. In 2007, the Collegiate Weed Contest will
be hosted by the Weed Science group at Virginia Tech. Shawn Askew will be the key
contact and they look forward to this opportunity and are seeking input for the event.
For 2008, a Collegiate Weed Contest Site has not officially been determined, but Bayer
and NCSU have discussed hosting a co-sponsored event. The Editor position on the
Executive Committee will be filled by Greg Armel of DuPont, starting in January 2007.
Jerry Baron, Vice President
The theme for this January’s NEWSS Annual meeting in Baltimore, MD is Expanding
our Weed Science Horizons. With that we have a full day general session as well at
three exciting symposiums, one workshop and the traditional breakout sessions. The
general session will include the traditional Presidential Address by Bill Curran entitled
“The Times They Are A-Changing’”. Other speakers in this general session include Dr.
Janice McFarland of Syngenta Crop Protection discussing Where is the next generation
of Weed Scientists being trained?, Dr. Rich Bonanno discussing the NEWSS Futures
Committee Recommendations, Dr. Leonard Gianessi of Crop Life America Foundation
on The War of the Weeds, and myself speaking on New Technology in Weed
Management. The general session ends with a panel discussion on Government
Influence in Weed Science: Legislation, Regulation and Science Funding. The is
moderated by Dr. Daniel Kunkel and the participants include Dr. Rob Hedberg, USDA-
CSREES, Mr. Donald Stubbs, US EPA and Dr. Lee Van Wychen. Also included in the
General Session is an Awards Luncheon.
On Friday, January 5 th , we have scheduled three exciting symposia. The topics of the
symposia are (1) New and innovative herbicides compounds for turf and how they
impact golf course maintenance; (2) An invasive weeds symposium with the theme of
reforesting invaded riparian corridors; and (3) A horseweed biology/ecology symposium
to lead to better ways of managing this troublesome biotype. We are inviting participants
from outside the NEWSS to attend and participate in these symposiums. Please pass
the information about these symposiums on to other you think that might have interest.
Also on Friday, January 5 th is an organizational meeting to discuss the potential for an
Invasive Plant Management Course in the Northeast. The Western Society of Weed
Science currently offers an invasive plant course that is very popular and well attended.
Here we want to open the dialogue to discuss the need for an invasive plant course
similar to the one offered by the WSWS, determine if the Northeast Weed Science
Society would like to sponsor/participate in such a course, identify a task
group/committee that will plan, determine curriculum, instructors and organize and
identify partners, organizations for development and sponsorship of the course.
Chris Becker, Secretary/Treasurer
107

The 60 th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society was held (jointly
with the Northeast Aquatic Plant Management Society) at the Westin Hotel in
Providence, RI on January 3-6, 2006. The theme of the meeting was “Bridging
Technology with Partnerships in Aquatic and Terrestrial Weed Control.” In addition to
the typical seven sections, the conference was highlighted by three symposia:
“Education and Outreach”, “Recent Advances in Nursery Weed Management”, and
“Aquatic & Terrestrial Weed Control” (the latter brought together both societies and
contained an aquatic plant and algae ID workshop). There were 196 people in
attendance including 171 NEWSS members, 3 invited speakers, 7 attending only the
Aquatics workshop, and 14 attending only the ornamentals workshop.
Due to Brian Manley’s relocation to Switzerland, the EC acted according to the Society
Constitution and nominated a new Secretary/Treasurer to complete the term. Chris
Becker accepted the responsibility and all files have been successfully transferred to
him.
A new address was set up for NEWSS secretary or treasurer related activities and
correspondence and it is as follows:
NEWSS
PO Box 34; Romulus, NY 14541
Timothy Dutt, Past President
The Westin Providence Hotel was an excellent facility and venue for the 60 th Annual
Meeting held in Rhode Island. We had a successful joint meeting with the Northeast
Aquatic Plant Management Society (NEAPMS) with a total meeting attendance of 326
which included 130 in attendance from NEAPMS. We met our room night commitment,
and the hotel gave us a last minute concession which was not in our contract that saved
both organizations considerable money in sponsoring the social. The total group bill for
NEWSS from the hotel was settled at $10,282.
The Awards Committee members for the 2007 annual meeting were: Tim Dutt (Chair),
Robin Bellinder, Scott Glenn, Dave Mayonado, and Jeff Derr. We received and
reviewed nominations for Distinguished Member, Outstanding Researcher, and
Outstanding Educator. No nominations were received for the Award of Merit.
Recommendations were submitted to the Executive Committee for approval at the
October Board meeting. The Awards Committee also reviewed a proposal for a new
award for Outstanding Graduate Student. The student paper contest judges at the 2007
meeting will be Tim Dutt (Chair), Scott Glenn, Dave Mayonado, Jeff Derr, and Brian
Olson. Dave Johnson will chair the Poster Judging Committee and Grant Jordon will
chair the Photo Judging Committee. Roy Johnson chaired the Committee of Past
Presidents.
The archives for my year as President were given to the Archivist, Dan Kunkel. Items
included the 2006 Program, Volume 60 Proceedings, the Awards Presentation of the
60 th Annual Meeting, Newsletters (April, August, and November), minutes of the EC
108

meetings (2006 Annual Business Meeting and EC meetings for January, March, July,
and October), nomination letters for the Society’s Awards recipients, and the WSSA
poster on History of the Northeastern Weed Science Society (1947-2006). Items for the
awards brochure were prepared and plaques for the award recipients and the out-going
President were purchased. No revisions were made to the MOP (Manual of Operating
Procedures) with the last revisions made in October 2005 by Robin Bellinder.
Hilary Sandler, Editor
Two publications were produced for the 2007 Annual Meeting: the meeting program and
the Annual Proceedings. The program (compiled by Jerry Baron) was 44 pages long
with 103 titles (23 poster and 80 oral presentations), 20 symposia talks, and an
organizational meeting for an Invasive Plant Management course. Three hundred and
fifty (350) copies were purchased at a cost of $1,760. The programs were mailed out to
current members in early December by the editor using first-class postage. The
proceedings were 252 pages long and 225 copies were printed. One-hundred and fifty
books were delivered to the hotel and 75 books were sent to Riverhead, NY for standing
orders. Eighty-nine abstracts were printed in Volume 61. In addition, the Presidential
address from the 2006 meeting and 2 abstracts from the Providence meeting were
published in the supplement to the proceedings. The supplement also included 17
abstracts from the Northeastern Aquatic Plant Management Society (joint meeting in
Providence, RI in 2006). In 2007, approximately 86% of the authors who submitted
titles also submitted abstracts (excluding symposium presentations). Instructions for
Authors were modified slightly from the previous year.
Approximately 210 programs were mailed to those currently registered as NEWSS
members and to invited speakers; this was 160 fewer programs mailed than in 2005
($100 savings in stamps alone). Members who received their program in the mail were
strongly encouraged to bring the program to the meeting as fewer copies would be
available. We received 250 proceedings for the 2007 meeting (we had requested 225
copies, but received an extra 25 copies to due an administrative error).
We successfully transferred our web site host server functionality to Small Orange in the
spring 2006. This switch represents a significant cost savings to the society
(approximately $45 per month for hosting services alone). We have engaged the
services of Mr. Robert Dickerson of Penn State University to oversee the web site.
After a small amount of initial confusion over passwords (carryover from Host Depot
days), most members successfully submitted their abstracts and titles via the web site.
We are still considering other options for web host service, such as banding with WSSA
or other regions, but current plans are to stay with Small Orange until other financially
viable options are available.
Dwight Lingenfelter, Public Relations
Over the last year, I have compiled and edited three NEWSS Newsletters and
distributed them via email and on the web. I submitted two NEWSS News articles to the
109

WSSA Newsletter (July and October) and took photos at major NEWSS events for
inclusion in newsletters, website, and other media. At the 2006 annual meeting, I
produced CD versions of Proceedings for interested individuals. For 2007, I directed
the design and production of the NEWSS polo shirt. I also worked with Hilary Sandler in
moving the website server (A Small Orange) to Penn State (Rob Dickerson) and have
continued to work with our Webmaster and Editor.
Kathie Kalmowitz, Research and Education Coordinator
The Research and Education Committee has worked with the Program Chair in
assisting organization for the symposiums that will be offered through the annual
meeting in Baltimore. Organizers of the symposiums (Mark VanGessel- Horseweed;
Turfgrass-Larry Norton; Riparian Management-Art Gover; and, a workshop focused on
Research Methods in Ornamental Weed Control-James Altland) will have help from the
society to publicize their session to attract both members and outside participants into
the Annual Meeting. Symposium/Workshop Sessions invitations will target outside
groups in the MidAltantic who may want to participate in these educational events such
as the surrounding area GCSAA golf associations, the USGA Agronomists, Extension
personnel and other turfgrass managers; also, for the Riparian symposium groups such
as Mid Atlantic EPPC, Anacostia Watershed Society, Nature Conservancy and
Wissahickon Restoration Volunteers and others will be notified on the educational
opportunities. The Ornamental Workshop designed for sharing research methods will
have an open format with moderators chosen to lead topics with audience participation
encouraged. Using fliers and direct contacts with outside groups, notification of these
opportunities and the Annual Meeting program of the Northeast Weed Society meeting
will be extended to groups of interest up until the date of the meeting in January. Oneday
special non-member fees will be used on all fliers to encourage outreach
participation. Application for Pesticide License CEU’s in states from Maine to North
Carolina have been applied to as well as Agronomy Society sponsored Crop Advisor
certification points. For all turfgrass participants who are members of the GCSAA,
recertification credits have been applied for and the appropriate paperwork will be
available at the Symposium.
David Spak, Sustaining Membership
The revised NEWSS Sustaining Membership fee structure was sent to all current
sustaining members and prospective members for the year 2007. The tiered fee
structure included platinum, gold, silver and bronze levels. The new fee system is
attempting to simplify the process of sponsorship of the annual meeting and weed
competition. Some of the proposed benefits will include increased recognition at the
annual meeting, complimentary conference registrations, and weed competition
sponsorship (see below).
We have received commitment from 21 organizations for 2007 Sustaining Membership.
This represents an increase in one member from 2006; a few members decided not to
contribute this year for various reasons, and several new members are now on board.
110

Membership level was as follows: 2-Platinum, 5-Gold, 5-Silver, 9-Bronze for a total
commitment of $13,750 and an increase in income of $5850 compared to 2006.
Request had gone out to all sustaining members for company logos for recognition at
the annual meeting, and most have been received. Several posters are being produced
which will be displayed at the annual meeting. The posters will recognize the
Sustaining members and their level of membership. Also, a PowerPoint slide is being
made which will be given to Section Chairs to be used as a background.
Membership
Level
Total
Contribution*
Includes
Complimentary
Conference
Registration(s)**
Includes
Collegiate
Weed Contest
Support
Platinum $2000 2 $1000
Gold $1000 1 $500
Silver $500 1 none
Bronze $250 none none
*Supports social events, coffee breaks, and general meeting costs.
** Approximate value $160 per registration.
Jacob Barney, Graduate Student Representative
Survey of Weed Contest participants was conducted via email to all students and
coaches. I received about 5 replies to the survey (a typical response rate). Results of
this survey will be presented to the Weed Contest Committee in January.
Dialogue began with the EC and coaches of weed contest teams regarding alcohol and
student behavior at the weed contest. This will also be a topic of discussion during the
meeting of the Weed Contest Committee.
I proposed a new award to recognize Outstanding Graduate Students in NEWSS. The
OGSA will recognize a maximum of one masters and one doctoral student annually
based on specified criteria and will be based on nominations. The proposal for OGSA
was unanimously approved by the EC and was sent to the Awards Committee for final
approval and incorporation into the 2007 NEWSS program.
My replacement as NEWSS GSR will be Matt Ryan from Penn State, who will be
assuming responsibility in January.
Toni DiTommaso, WSSA Representative
The 47 th WSSA Annual meeting to be held at the Riverwalk Hyatt Regency Hotel in San
Antonio, TX February 4-8, 2007. The annual meeting will begin on Monday, February 5
at 4:15 p.m. with the General Session and Awards Ceremony followed by the
Awardees Reception. Dr. Gale Buchanan, USDA Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics has accepted our invitation to share his vision on the future
of Agricultural Research at the general session. On Wednesday, plan on attending the
111

society business meeting followed by our second member reception. Additional
program highlights include:
Graduate Student Activities: John Willis, President, and the Graduate Student
Organization are making plans for a symposium titled “Employment Opportunities and
How to make Yourself More Marketable” Tuesday morning followed by a luncheon
meeting. One of the presentations will be made by Holly Menninger of the American
Institute of Biological Sciences on “Techniques and Tips for Communicating Your
Science to the Media”. The students also plan to initiate a Student Night Out Activity
where non-student members pair with students to become acquainted over dinner and
discussion. This has been a successful and popular activity at the Western Society of
Weed Science annual meeting since it was proposed by Steve Dewey in 2002.
Symposia: Three symposia, in addition to the graduate student symposium, are
planned for the meeting. The Weed Biology and Physiology Sections have joined to
offer a symposium “Using Emerging Technologies to Study Weed Biology: an
educational forum” on Tuesday afternoon. James V. Anderson and Wun S. Chao are
organizing this session and plan to invite vendors whose products complement the
topics to display at the meeting. Debanjan Sanyal is organizing the second symposium
“Integrated Weed Management Revisited” which will be held on Wednesday afternoon.
Finally, a day long symposium “Nursery Stock vs. Invasive Plant: Which is it, and why
do we care?” will be held on Thursday and is being organized by Alan Tasker and
Nelroy Jackson in conjunction with the Turf and Ornamentals, Wildland and Aquatic
Invasives and Regulatory Affairs sections. They will be advertising this symposium to
attract a broad audience including local residents.
Roundtable Discussions and Mini-Symposia: The board of directors is planning a noontime
Roundtable discussion to provide information and obtain member input about the
proposed new society journal “Journal of Invasive Plant Science and Management”.
Fred Salzman, Chair, is planning a Specialty Crop Roundtable Discussion as part of the
Horticulture Section of the meeting. This will be an informal discussion of research
results and issues that are common across the regions. Susan Sun is planning a panel
discussion: Building Bridges between Industry and Academia in Formulation and
Adjuvant Technology as part of the Formulation, Adjuvant, and Application Technology
session. The Education and Extension session Thursday afternoon will include a minisymposium
that discusses first year results of a multi-state project designed to
investigate long-term weed shifts in Roundup Ready crops.
National Research Initiative Project Meeting: Michael A. Bowers, CSREES
National Program Leader-Ecology is chairing the 2007 Project Director meeting for the
NRI Program, Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species in Agro-ecosystems at the WSSA
meeting. Project directors will be presenting their research within the poster session. In
addition, the directors will participate in a discussion session and poster session
Tuesday afternoon that is open to all society members.
112

Jill Schroeder, Program Chair for the 2007 WSSA Annual Meeting, as well as program
section chairs and symposium organizers have worked hard to develop a strong
program for the meeting and they look forward to seeing you in warm San Antonio in
February! The WSSA website can be found at www.wssa.net .
Robert Sweet, CAST Rep
This past year was one of significant changes which have resulted in: improved morale
of paid staff, closing of the expensive D.C. Office, a wider area of outreach, several
shorter but timely publications. Unfortunately no improvement in the tight budget
situation.
CAST had been slowly losing productivity so in January the EVP left. The position was
widely advertised and 21 worthy applications were received. The EC narrowed the list
to 3 who were invited to the spring board meeting. The decision was difficult because
they were excellent. Finally Dr. James Bonner an animal scientist from “Land of Lakes”
was selected. He came on the job July 1st and has already proven to be a fine choice.
On August l, the office manager left under a cloud. No replacement yet.
To help ease the budget problems a serious effort is being made to increase
memberships in all classes, including individuals and local agricultural businesses.
Dan Kunkel, Legislative Liaison and Lee Van Wychen, WSSA Director of Science
Policy
Beginning, Mid-Career, and Retired Weed Scientists: Apply for AAAS Fellowship
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) solicits candidates
from a broad array of disciplinary backgrounds to apply for a year-long Science and
Technology Policy Fellowship in Washington DC. Fellows come from a range of
sectors, including academia, industry, and non-profits, representing a spectrum of
career stages, from recent PhD graduates to faculty on sabbatical, to retired scientists
and engineers. The age span in the past five classes of Fellows has been from the late
twenties to early seventies. The AAAS also serves as the “umbrella” organization for
other scientific societies that sponsor a Fellow, such as the Agronomy, Crop and Soil
Science Societies.
The Fellowship is a great opportunity to work closely with federal decision-makers in
agencies such as the USDA, EPA and the National Science Foundation among others.
Fellows receive a stipend of up to $87,000 for the year, which is based on years of
professional experience. Relocation expenses of up to $3500 are also provided. The
deadline for applications for the 2007-2008 Fellowship class is December 20, 2006. For
more information, please visit: http://fellowships.aaas.org
Applying for Federal Job Related to Weed Science
113

In June, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rejected the proposal for a federal
job series classification of weed science. In fact, OPM rejected every one of the job
series classifications requested by USDA and combined or eliminated some other job
series. There are several factors for this, but if you look at the newest federal job series
created, they are in the technology sector like “Information Technology Specialist”.
OPM has been working to “simplify” jobs to cater to the “re-toolable generalist”
approach. This is OPM’s final decision in a project that began in 1997 to develop a Job
Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for professional work in the Biological
Sciences Group, 0400. The new GS-400 classification standard can be viewed at:
http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs0400p.pdf. This 99 page document describes OPM’s
decisions in detail.
Not to panic weed scientists. The upside of this is anyone graduating with a degree
related to weed science or invasive plant management will qualify for just about any job
listed under the “GS-401: General Natural Resources and Biological Sciences” job
series. In addition, many weed science graduates qualify for other GS-400 series jobs
such as agronomy, horticulture, botany, plant physiology, forestry, rangeland, and
ecology positions. To search all Federal jobs, please visit USA jobs at:
http://www.usajobs.gov
I will continue to work with the Federal Agencies that hire and employ individuals
required to have more specialized training in weed science and invasive plant
management in order to help them include more specific language that defines the
knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary in our discipline.
WSSA Submits Comments on APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine Rule
In June, I worked with the WSSA’s Federal Noxious and Invasive Weeds Committee
(E4) to gather comments on how the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) can improve their Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Regulations. Thanks
to Jen Vollmer for her extensive remarks. Under the Plant Protection Act, states cannot
enact more stringent regulations governing a pest or weed than the rules that APHIS
has imposed. However, when APHIS is silent, states may act. The Plant Protection Act
provides that States may obtain an exemption from the Secretary of Agriculture if that
State faces a particularly severe threat - but no State has yet been granted such an
exemption.
The overall goal of this rule was to better define the process that States would pursue to
petition APHIS. The WSSA urged APHIS to delete proposed language requiring that
subdivisions of State act only through the State, and instead implement the Plant
Protection Act’s broader exemption that extends to allow political subdivisions to make
requests to APHIS directly. We also urged APHIS to add language to articulate the
agency’s process in circumstances where insufficient evidence may be present, and to
provide additional guidance regarding the quantity and quality of data required by
APHIS to support a Special Needs Request.
114

USDA-ARS Software Available for Site-Specific Weed Management
Scientists in the USDA-ARS Water Management Research Unit at Fort Collins, CO
have developed a software program to assist farmers in determining the best sitespecific
weed management (SSWM) strategy for their fields. The software, called
“WeedSite” was co-developed by WSSA member Lori Wiles and can be downloaded for
free at: http://arsagsoftware.ars.usda.gov
Growers draw weed maps of their fields based on a simple low-cost method that uses a
digital camera and a GPS unit. The software identifies weeds within the photographs,
and then constructs a weed map with links to the photos. WeedSite then uses that
information to calculate the effects of various SSWM practices.
EPA Publishes New Pesticide Container and Containment Rule
In August, the EPA published its final rule establishing standards for pesticide
containers and containment. The rule, which will be implemented over the next 3 to 5
years, establishes standards for refillable and non-refillable containers, including design
specifications for rinsing, durability, and standardized closures. Triple rinsing or
pressure rinsing to the 99.99 percent removal standard was considered an important
adoption in the final regulations. The rule also requires pesticide labels to provide
instructions on how to properly clean containers before disposal or recycling.
The regulations affect registrants, distributors, dealers, commercial applicators, and
custom blenders, but do not extend to containment at individual farms. The rule is
intended to promote the safe refill and reuse of refillable containers and to ensure that
pesticides will be stored and transferred under conditions that prevent spills and
releases of pesticides into the environment. Additional information about the rule and
who is affected can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/containers.htm
USDA Awards $4.1 Million in Grants to Manage Invasive Species Affecting Grazing
Lands
On July 28, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Mark Rey
awarded $4.1 million to fund projects to manage and control invasive plants, animals or
insects that adversely affect private and tribal grazing lands. Twenty-seven projects in
20 states received grants ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. This is the first year for
this grant program.
All of the 27 projects involved some aspect of invasive weed management. Grant
awardees ranged from county weed control and management districts to non-profit
groups, universities, and state departments of agriculture. The funds are administered
through the NRCS Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). To view the full listing
of grants and to get more information about the GLCI, please visit:
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/glci.
115

Category
NEWSS Financial Statement for 2006
November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007
Prepared by Chris Becker
Revenue
Amount
Annual Meeting Registration $9,905.00
Coffee Break Support $2,400.00
Individual Membership $2,850.00
Interest Income $793.15
Proceedings $4,545.81
CD's $220.00
Sustaining Membership $3,000.00
Symposium $750.00
Weed Contest $2,500.00
Total Revenue $26,963.96
Expenses
Administration $610.00
Annual Meeting $11,540.86
Annual Meeting Awards $1,565.78
CAST $1,328.80
Insurance $233.89
Newsletter $0.00
Proceedings $3,018.16
Programs (Annual Meeting) $1,622.00
Student Room Reimbursement $2,217.12
Website $767.50
Weed Contest $402.00
WSSA Director of Science Policy $994.90
Total Expenses $24,301.01
Total Revenue - Expenses (Excess or Deficit) $2,662.95
October 31, 2005 Savings Certificate Accounts (IDS - Ameriprise Financial) $22,669.10
October 31, 2005 Bank of America Savings Account $22,839.26
October 31, 2005 Bank of America Checking Account $176.62
Total Net Worth October 31, 2005 $45,684.98
October 31, 2006 Savings Certificate Accounts (IDS - Ameriprise Financial) $23,274.67
October 31, 2006 Bank of America Savings Account $27,687.43
October 31, 2006 Bank of America Checking Account $2,922.19
Total Net Worth October 31, 2006 $53,884.29
The Northeastern Weed Science Society Checking Account, Savings Account and Money Market
Accounts were reviewed by the undersigned and are in order.
David Johnson
Melissa Bravo
116

NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS
Gilbert H. Ahlgren 1947-49
Robert D. Sweet 1949-50
Howard L. Yowell 1950-51
Stephen M. Raleigh 1951-52
Charles E. Minarik 1952-53
Robert H. Beatty 1953-54
Albin O. Kuhn 1954-55
John Van Geluwe 1955-56
L. Danielson 1956-57
Charles L. Hovey 1957-58
Stanford N. Fertig 1958-59
Gordon Utter 1959-60
E. M. Rahn 1960-61
Lawrence Southwick 1961-62
Donald A. Shallock 1962-63
Anthony J. Tafuro 1963-64
Robert A. Peters 1964-65
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
Stanley W. Pruss 1992-93
Ronald L. Ritter 1993-94
Wayne G. Wright 1994-95
Bradley A. Majek 1995-96
Thomas E. Vrabel 1996-97
Joseph C. Neal 1997-98
David B. Vitolo 1998-99
A. Richard Bonanno 1999-00
Brian D. Olson 2000-01
Jeffrey F. Derr 2001-02
David J. Mayonado 2002-03
D. Scott Glenn 2003-04
Robin R. Bellinder 2004-05
Timothy E. Dutt 2005-06
William S. Curran 2006-07
117

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
1987 None Awarded
118

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
119

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
120

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
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
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
121

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
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
122

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
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
123

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
124

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
1989 - American Cyanamid, Princeton, New Jersey
Graduate Team: Cornell University
Undergraduate Team: SUNY Cobleskill
125

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
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
126

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
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
127

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
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
128

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
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
129

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
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
130

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.
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.
131

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, 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. 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.
132

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
133

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
1960 The Influence of Cultivation on Corn Yields When Weeds are Controlled by
Herbicides - W. F. Meggitt, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ
134

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
135

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
136

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
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
137

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
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
138

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
139

NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY
2007 MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
Michael L. Agnew
Syngenta
302 Rose Glen Lane
Kennett Square, PA 19348
(610) 444-2063
(610) 444-2093
michael.agnew@syngenta.com
John F. Ahrens
Connecticut Agricultural Exp
Station
PO Box 248
Windsor, CT 06095
(860) 683-4985
(860) 683-4987
john.ahrens@po.state.ct.us
James Altland
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
(330) 263-3854
altland.1@osu.edu
Gregory R. Armel
University of Tennessee
2431 Joe Johnson Dr.
252 Ellington Plant Sciences
Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4561
phone: 865-974-8829
email:garmel@utk.edu
Marija Arsenovic
Rutgers University
681 US Highway No 1,South
New Brunswick, NJ 08902-
(732) 932-9575
(732) 932-8481
arsenovic@aesop.rutgers.edu
James Ashley
AshGrow Crop Man
11913 Simsbury Place
Glen Allen,VA 23059
(804) 747-7148
(804) 747-7249
jeashley@ashgrow.com
Shawn Askew
Virginia Tech
435 Old Glade Road
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-5807
(540) 231-5755
saskew@vt.edu
John Atwood
ADAS
Boxworth Cambridgeshire
CB3 8NN United Kingdom
(147) 382-3460
(147) 382-3460
J.Atwood@ADAS.co.uk
Kristine Averill
Cornell University
905 Bradfield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-4747
kma25@cornell.edu
Mark Barczewski
DuPont Stine Haskell Res Center
1090 Elkton Rd
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 451-4616
(302) 366-6120
mark.j.barzewski@usa.dupont.com
Robert D. Baker
Scotts Company
14111 Scottslawn Rd
Marysville, OH 43041
(937) 645-2628
(937) 644-7153
robert.baker@scotts.com
Whitnee Barker
Virginia Tech
Glade Road Research F
435 Old Glade Road
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-5835
(540) 231-5755
wbarker@vt.edu
Gary A. Barkman
Montgomery Weed
2 Sandy Spring Ct. #2
Thurmont MD 21788
(301) 271-4247
gba-kmansr@msn.com
Jacob Barney
Cornell University
134A Plant Science
Dept. of Horticulture
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-0883
(607) 255-9998
jnb22@cornell.edu
Sali Barolli
Imperial Nurseries
90 Salmon Brook St PO Box 120
Granby, CT 06035
(860) 653-1509
(860) 844-8609
saizba@yahoo.com
Jerry J. Baron
IR-4 Rutgers University
681 US Highway 1 So
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
(732) 932-95
(757)932-8481
jbaron@aesop.rutgers.edu
M. Barrett
Argyle Country Club
14600 Argyle Club Rd
Silver Spring, MD 20906
(240) 876-9465
Rodger Batts
North Carolina State University
POBOX 7609
NCSU Campus
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-1668
roger.batts@ncsu.edu
140

David A. Baxter
DuPont Crop Prot
Stine-Haskell Research
1090 Elkton Road,
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5065
david.a.baxter@usa.dupont.com
Chris M. Becker
BAAR Scientific LLC
6374 Rte. 89
Romulus, NY 14541
(607) 342-3610
(315) 548-9259
becker89@fltg.net
Robin R. Bellinder
Cornell University
Dept. of Horticulture
164 Plant Science Bld
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-7890
(607) 255-0599
rrb3@cornell.edu
Chris Benedict
Cornell University
146A Plant Science Building
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 255-9085
cab223@cornell.edu
Diane L. Benoit
Agriculture & Ag
430 Gouin Blvd
Saint-Jean-sur-Riche
Quebec J3B 3E6
CANADA
(450) 346-4494
(450) 346-7740
benoitdl@agr.gc.ca
Dan Beran
BASF 1422 57th Place
Des Moines, IA 50311
(402) 669-5157
(515) 279-0916
berand@basf.com
Dana Berner
USDA ARS FDWSRU
1301 Ditto Avenue
Fort Detrick, MD 21702
(301) 619-7316
(301) 619-2880
dana.berner@ars.usda.gov
C. Edward Beste
University of Maryland
27664 Nanticoke Road
Salisbury, MD 21801
(410) 742-8788
(410) 742-1922
cbeste@umd.edu
Prasanta C. Bhowmik
University of Massachusetts
Stockbridge Hall Box 37245
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-5223
(413) 545-3958
pbhowmik@psis.umass.edu
Michele Bigger
Ohio State University
2001 FYFFE Ct Howlett Hall
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 488-6816
bigger.1@osu.edu
David Bilyea
Ridgetown Coll Univ of Guelph
120 Main Street East
Ridgetown Ontario N0P 2C0
(519) 674-1638
(519) 674-1600
dbilyea@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Clifford Blessing
Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
2320 S. Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 698-4582
(302) 687-4468
Paul.Blessing@state.de.us
Nola Bobsin
Rutgers Univ
Dept. of Plant Pathology
l59 Dudley Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-9711
(732) 932-9441
bobsin@aesop.rutgers.edu
A. Richard Bonanno
University of Mass
255 Merrimack Street
Methuen, MA 01844
(978) 682-9563
(978) 685-6691
rbonanno@umext.umass.edu
Jeffrey Borger
Penn State Univ
244 ASI Bld
University Drive Ex
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-3005
(814) 863-7043
jab267@psu.edu
Daniel Brainard
A440A Plant and Soil Sci
Michigan State Univ
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-5191x1417
brainar9@msu,edu
Melissa A. Bravo
Penn Dept of Agriculture
2301 North Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 787-7204
mbravo@state.pa.us
William L. Bruckart
USDA - ARS FDWSR
1301 Ditto Avenue
Ft. Detrick, MD 21702
(301) 619-2846
(301) 619-2880
wbruckart@fdwsr.ars.usda.gov
Patrick Burch
Dow AgroSciences
3425 Elk Creek Drive
Christiansburg, VA 24073
(540) 382-3062
plburch@dow.com
Michael Burton
North Car St Univ
Crop Science Dept.
Box 7620, 4402 Will
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 513-2860
(919) 515-5315
mike_burton@ncsu.edu
R. Andrew Burtt
University of Vermont
105 Carrigan Dr
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-0467
onfnvt@yahoo.com
141

Nancy Cain
Cain Vegetation
4 Spruce Blvd.
Acton Ontario L7J ZYZ
(519) 853-3081
(519) 853-0352
cain.vegetation@sympatico.ca
J. Boyd Carey
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh BF2EA
St. Louis, MO 63376
(314) 694-8684
(314) 694-4249
boyd.j.carey@monsanto.com
Luke Case
Ohio State Univ
2001 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-0209
(614) 292-3505
case.49@osu.edu
Mark S. Casini
DuPont Crop Protect
Stine-Haskell Research
1090 Elkton Road
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 451-0828
(302) 366-6120
mark.s.casini@usa.dupont.com
Craig Cavin
USDA-ARS
Foreign Disease Weed
1301 Ditto Avenue-F
Frederick, MD 21702
(301) 619-2308
(301) 619-2313
ccavin@fdwsr.arsusda.gov
Darlene Caviness
Home Nursery,
PO Box 307
Edwardsville, IL 62025
(800) 628-1966
(877) 731-9319
darlenec@homenursery.com
Joseph Chamberlin
Valent USA Corp.
2386 Clower Street Ste. E 100B
Snellville, GA 30078
(770) 985-0303
(925) 817-5097
jcham@valent.com
Rakesh S. Chandran
West Virginia Univ
1076 Agricultural Sci
PO Box 6108
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 293-6131
(304) 293-6954
rschandran@mail.wvu.edu
William Chism
US EPA PO Box 258
Point of Rocks, MD 21777
(703) 308-8136
(301) 874-6380
chism.bill@epa.gov
Kenneth Chisholm
Nichino America INC
4550 New Linden Hill Rd
Suite 501
Wilmington, DE 19808
(302) 636-9001
(302) 636-9122
kchiiz@nichino.net
Diana Cochran
Auburn University
101 Funchess Hall
Auburn, AL 36849
(334) 844-4087
cochrdr@auburn.edu
Benjamin Coffman
USDA-ARS Bld 001
10300 Baltimore Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 504-5398
(301) 504-8370
Ben.coffman@ars.usda.gov
Ronald T. Collins
USDA, ARS
10300 Baltimore Ave.
Bldg. 050, Rm 118A
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 352-9696
(301) 504-5823
rcollins@asrr.arsusda.gov
Eryn Cramer
Oregon State Univ
15210 NE Miley Road
Aurora, OR 97002
(503) 515-1243
cramere@onid.orst.edu
John R. Cranmer
Valent USA Corp
110 Iowa Lane Suite 201
Cary, NC 27511
(919) 467-6293
(919) 481-3599
jcran@valent.com
William S. Curran
Penn State University
Dept. Crop & Soil Sci
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1014
(814) 863-7043
wcurran@psu.edu
Gary Custis
PBI Gordon Corp
1217 W. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64101
(816) 460-6215
(816) 460-3715
gcustis@pbigordon.com
Sara da Silva
Nelson, Pope, & Vorhis
572 Walt Whitman Rd
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 427-5665
(631) 427-5620
sdasilva@nelsonpope.com
Joseph T. Dauer
Penn State Univ
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
jdauer@psu.edu
Paul J. David
Gowan Company
343 Rumford Road
Lititz, PA 17543
(717) 560-8352
(717) 560-9796
pdavid@gowanco.com
Todd Davis
Delaware Dept. of Agr.
2320 S. Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 698-4581
(302) 697-4468
Todd.Davis@state.de.us
142

Henry Davis
The Weed Doctor
204 S Cedar Crest Blvd
Allentown, PA 18104
(610) 439-2454
drweed@aol.com
Nelson DeBarros
38 Worcester St
Taunton, MA 02780
(774) 218-3820
ndebarros@gmail.com
Peter H. Dernoeden
University of Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources
1112 H.J. Petersen
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-1337
(301) 314-9041
pd9@umail.umd.edu
Jeffrey F. Derr
Virginia Tech
Hampton Roads AREC
1444 Diamond Spring
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
(757) 363-3912
(757) 363-3950
jderr@vt.edu
Robert A. DeWaine
Monsanto Co
505 W. Noyes Blvd.
Sherrill, NY 13461
(315) 363-3903
(315) 363-3903
bob.dewaine@monsanto.com
David A. Dick
West Virginia Dept Agr
Plant Industries Division
1900 Kanawha Blvd.,
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 558-2212
ddick@ag.state.wv.us
Bryan Dillehay
Penn State Univ Dept Crop Soil
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-7607
(814) 863-7043
BLD169@psu.edu
Antonio DiTommaso
Cornell Univ 903 Bradfield Hall
Dept. of Crop & Soil
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 254-4702
(607) 255-3207
ad97@cornell.edu
Jeffrey H. Dobbs
Olympic Horticulture
1095 Applecross Dr.
Roswell, GA 30075
(770) 992-0121
(770) 992-5564
jdobbs@ohp.com
John B. Dobson
2815 Lake Road
Williamson, NY 14589
(315) 589-8940
crispjack@aol.com
Lisa Doricchi
DuPont Crop Prot
Stine-Haskell Res
1090 Elkton Road, S
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5722
lisa.doricchi@usa.dupont.com
Cameron Douglass
Cornell University
134A Plant Science Bld
Dept Horticulture
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-0884
chd7@cornell.edu
Richard M. Dunst
Cornell Univ
Vineyard Research Lab
412 East Main Street
Fredonia, NY 14063
(716) 672-6464
(716) 672-8615
rmd7@cornell.edu
Timothy E. Dutt
LABServices
342 South Third Street
Hamburg, PA 19526
(610) 562-5055
(610) 562-5066
tedutt@ptd.net
Donna R. Ellis
University of Conn
Dept. of Plant Sci-Unit 4163
Storrs, CT 06269
(860) 486-6448
(860) 486-0534
donna.ellis@uconn.edu
Rick Ekins
FMC Professional Solutions
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 299-5836
rick.ekins@fmc.com
Greg A. Elmore
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh B
Mail Stop C3NE
St. Louis, MO 63167
(314) 694-4379
greg.a.elmore@monsanto.com
Barbara Emeneau
19 Pine Grove Park
Winchester, MA 01890
(781) 729-0725
(781) 729-0678
apismno@aol.com
Jill England
Imperial College
Department of Agr
Wye Campus, Wye,
AsKent TN24 9AJ
United Kingdom
(020) 759-4269
jill.england@imperial.ac.uk
Farivar Eskandari
USDA-ARS-FDWSRU
1301 Ditto Ave
Fort Detrick, MD 21702
(301) 619-2333
(301) 619-2890
feskandari@fdwsr.ars.usda.gov
Glenn J. Evans
Cornell Univ
134A Plant Sci Bldg.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 342-0128
gje2@cornell.edu
143

Glenn B. Fain
USDA-ARS Southern
PO Box 287
Poplarville, MS 39059
(601) 795-8751
(601) 795-4965
gfain@ars.usda.gov
Steven Farrington
Gowan
1425 W Yale St
Orlando, FL 32804
(407) 841-6892
sfarrington@gowanco.com
Jason Fausey
Valent USA
Corp Office Park West
530 South Creyts SuiteC
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 321-7380
(517) 321-7216
jason.fausey@valent.com
Stanford Fertig
Rutgers Univ
16919 Melbourne Drive
Laurel, MD 20707
301-776-2527
tfertig@iopener.net
Mike Fidanza
Penn State Univ
Berks Campus
PO Box 7009
Reading, PA 19610
(610) 396-6330
(610) 396-6024
maf100@psu.edu
Eric Gallandt
Univ of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-2913
(207) 581-2999
gallandt@maine.edu
Travis Gannon
N Carolina State U
Campus Box 7620
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 513-4655
(919) 515-7075
travis_gannon@ncsu.edu
Donald D. Ganske
DuPont Company
125 Cotton Ridge Road
Winchester, VA 22603
(540) 662-6011
(540) 662-6011
donald.d.ganske@usa.dupont.com
Saikat Ghosh
Univ of Massachusetts
Room 22, Stockbridge Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-2739
sghosh@psis.umass.edu
Leonard Gianessi
CropLife Foundation
1156 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 872-3865
(202) 463-0474
lgianessi@croplifefoundation.org
Charles Gilliam
Auburn Univ
101 Funchess Hall
Auburn, AL 36849
(334) 844-3045
(334) 844-3131
gillic1@auburn.edu
Les Glasgow
Syngenta
410 Swing Road
Greensboro, NC 27419
(336) 632-5501
(336) 632-6087
les.glasgow@syngenta.com
Scott Glenn
Univ of Maryland NRSL Dept.
0115 HJ Patterson Hall,
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-1331
(301) 314-9042
sglenn@umd.edu
Arthur E. Gover
Penn State University
LMRC, Orchard Road
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1184
(814) 863-1184
aeg2@psu.edu
James Graham
12381 Country Glen Lane
St. Louis, MO 63141
314-878-9815
314-469-5951
jcgrah@charter.net
Jeffrey Gregos
GEC 113 Great Oaks Drive
Moon Township, PA 15108
(412) 299-0211
jeff@GECTURF.com
Kerry FL Guiseppe
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04473
(207) 581-2924
klough@maine.edu
Scott Guiser
Penn State Coop Ext
Neshaminy Manor Center
1282 Almshouse Road
Doylestown, PA 18901
(215) 345-3283
(215) 343-1653
sxg6@psu.edu
Todd Hagenbuch
Alenza
100 North Conahan Drive
Hazelton, PA 18201
(570) 459-5048
(570) 459-5500
thagenbuch@dbiservices.com
Russell R. Hahn
Cornell Univ
238A Emerson Hall - CSS
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-1759
(607) 255-2644
rrh4@cornell.edu
Jim Haldeman
Monsanto
269 Pine View Lane
York, PA 17403
(717) 747-9923
(717) 747-9844
jim.haldeman@monsanto.com
144

Richard Hanrahan
Bayer Env 100 E Palisade Ave
C-42
Englewood, NJ 07631
(201) 394-5217
rich.hanrahan@bayercropscience.
com
Erin Haramoto
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-2972
(207) 581-2999
erin.haramoto@umit.maine.edu
Tracey Harpster
Penn State Univ
102 Tyson Bld
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-3190
(814) 863-6139
tlh8@psu.edu
Stephen E. Hart
Rutgers Univ Plant Sci Dept.
F59 Dudley Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-9711(732) 932-9441
hart@aesop.rutgers.edu
Brian Hearn
University of De1
6684 County Seat Hwy
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-1997
(302) 856-1994
bhearn@udel.edu
Jo Anna Hebberger
1446 Auction Road Penn State
Manheim, PA 17545
(717) 653-1052
jhebberger@yahoo.com
Robert Hedberg
USDA/CSREES
Science Policy and Legis Aff
334-A Whitten Build
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 720-4118
rhedberg@csrees.usda.gov
Lane K. Heimer
Maryland Dept. of Agr
13506 Little Antietam Road
Hagerstown, MD 21742
(301) 791-5766
lane_heimer@att.net
Gerald M. Henry
N Carolina St Univ
4401 Williams Hall
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-5654
(919) 515-5315
gmhenry@ncsu.edu
Robert M. Herrick
FMC
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 299-6967
(215) 299-6810
bob_herrick@FMC.com
Dwayne Hess
J.C. Ehrlich PO Box 13848
Reading, PA 19612
(610) 372-9700
(610) 378-9744
dwayne.hess@jcehrlich.com
Thomas E. Hines
Eastern Shore AR
33446 Research Drive
Painter, VA 23420
(757) 414-0724
(757) 414-0730
thhines@vt.edu
Adam C. Hixson
N Carolina St Univ
4401 Williams Hall
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-5654
(919) 515-5315
achixson@ncsu.edu
Duane Hodges
The Scotts Company
12640 SR 736
Marysville, OH 43040
(937) 644-7021
duane.hodges@scotts.com
Ronald J. Hoover
Penn State Univ
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6672
(814) 863-7043
rjh7@psu.edu
Todd Horton
BASF Corporation
3 Eason Circle P.O. Box 70
Macon, NC 27551
(252) 257-0245
(252) 257-2040
hortonc@basf.com
LeRoy F. Houck
DuPont Crop Prot
Stine-Haskell Research
1090 Elkton Road, S210/170-23
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5571
(302) 366-6120
Leroy.F.Houck@usa.dupont.com
Judith Hough-Gol
Univ. of Delaware
Dept. Entomology & Wildlife
Ecology
Newark, DE 19717
(302) 831-2526
(302) 831-8889
jhough@udel.edu
Lewis S. Howell
DuPont Crop Prot Stine-Haskell
Research
1090 Elkton Road, S210/170-48
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-6104
Lewis.S.Howell@usa.dupont.com
Leslie Huffman
Ontario Ministry
2585 Country Road 20
Harrow Ontario N0R 1G0
(519) 738-2251
(519) 738-4564
leslie.huffman@omaf.gov.on.ca
Andrew G. Hulting
Penn State Univ
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
agh11@psu.edu
145

Kris Hunter
BAAR Scientific LLC
PO Box 143
Phelps, NY 14532
(315) 664-2020
kristhehunter@hotmail.com
Richard Ilnicki
Rutgers Univ
403 Georges Rd
Dayton, NJ 08810
(732) 329-2858
hirich@msn.com
Marc Imlay
Anacostia Waters
2321 Woodberry Drive
Bryans Road, MD 20616
(301) 283-0808
ialm@erols.com
Mark Isaacs
University of Del
Research & Education
16684 County Seat H
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-1997
(302) 856-1994
isaacs@udel.edu
Jordi Izqvierdo
Politechnical Un187,
Urgell Escola
Superior D'A08036
Barcelona Catalonia
SPAIN
(814) 863-7638
jordi.izqvierdo@upc.es
Susan Jelinek
No Carolina St Univ
PO Box 7620
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-3492
(919) 515-5855
susan_jelinek@ncsu.edu
John M. Jemison
University of Maine
495 College Avenue
Orono, ME 04473
(207) 581-3241
(207) 581-1301
jemison@maine.edu
W. Wynn John
Stine-Haskell Research
PO Box 30
Newark, DE 19714
(302) 366-5383
(302) 351-7179
w-wynn.John@usa.dupont.com
Roy R. Johnson
Waldrum Speciali1ty
727 E Butler Pike
Ambler, PA 19002
(215) 817-0637
(215) 348-5541
rjoh834880@aol.com
Quintin R. Johnson
University of De1aware
6684 County Seat Highway
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-7303
(302) 856-1845
quintin@udel.edu
Dave Johnson
Penn State Univ
1446 Auction Road
Manheim, PA 17545
(717) 653-4728
(717) 653-6308
dhj3@psu.edu
Jon Johnson
Pennsylvania State Univ
LMRL, Orchard Road
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1184
(814) 863-1184
jmj5@psu.edu
Brian Jones
Penn State Univ
Dept of Crop & Soil Sci
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
(814) 863-7043
bpj2@psu.edu
Grant L. Jordan
A. C. D. S. Res
9813 Glenmark Road
North Rose, NY 14516
(315) 587-2240
(315) 587-2145
gjjordan@usadatanet.net
Caren Judge
BASF Corp
26 Davis Drive
RTP, NC 27709
(919) 547-2380
(919) 547-2488
carrie.judge@basf.com
Jerry Kahl
J. C. Ehrlich Co
PO Box 13848
Reading , PA 19612
(610) 372-9700
(610) 378-9744
jerry.kahl@jcehrlich.com
Kathie E. Kalmowitz
BASF Corporation
3955 Stags Leap Circle
Raleigh, NC 27612
(919) 547-2642
(919) 547-2410
kalmowk@basf.com
John E. Kaminski
University of Conn
Dept. of Plants and Soil
1376 Storrs Road,
Storrs, CT 06269
(860) 486-0162
john.kaminski@uconn.edu
Renee J. Keese
Syngenta Crop Protection
985 Arrowwood Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
(317) 846-8812
(317) 846-8832
renee.keese@syngenta.com
Richard Kersberge
University of Maine
992 Waterville Rd
Waldo, ME 04915
(207) 342-5971
richardk@umext.maine.edu
Steven E. King
Virginia Tech
Glade Road Research
C435 Old Glade Road
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-2463
(540) 231-5755
stking4@vt.edu
146

Hiromu Kobayashi
Nissan Chemical
1291 Cumberland Ave.,
Unit D
West Lafayette, IN 47906
(765) 497-1161
(765) 497-7917
kobayashi@nissan.wintek.com
Hyesuk Kong
USDA/ARS/SASL
Building 001, Room 242
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 504-6846
(301) 504-6491
kongh@ba.ars.usda.gov
Justin Kozak
Penn State University
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16801
(814) 865-6679
justinkozak@yahoo.com
Larry J. Kuhns
Penn State Univ
103 Tyson Bldg
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-2197
(814) 863-6139
ljk@psu.edu
Virender Kumar
Cornell Univ
149 Plant Science Bld
Department of Horticulture
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-1786
vk63@cornell.edu
Dan Kunkel
IR4 Headqt., Rutgers Univ.
500 College Rd East, 201W
Princeton, NJ 08540
(732) 932-9575
(732) 932-8481
kunkel@aesop.rutgers.edu
Kerrie L. Kyde
MD Dept. of Natural Res
580 Taylor Avenue, E-1
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 260-8534
(410) 260-8596
kkyde@dnr.state.md.us
Brent A. Lackey
Syngenta Crop Prot
140 Prescott Ridge
Madison, MS 39110
(601) 427-2774
(601) 427-2455
brentlackey@farmassist.com
Brian G. Lackey
Weeds Inc.
250 Bodley Road
Aston, PA 19014
(610) 358-9430
(610) 358-9438
Calvin W. Layton
Northern Tree Service
PO Box 790
Palmer, MA 01069
(800) 232-6132
(413) 283-9283
layton@northerntree.com
Rachel Lightfoot
CMS Inc
PO Box 510
Hereford, PA 18056
(610) 767-1944
(610) 767-1925
cms1@fast.net
Dwight Lingenfelter
Penn State Univ
Dept. of Crop & Soil
116 ASI Bldg
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-2242
(814) 863-7043
dxl18@psu.edu
Ryan Lins
Syngenta Crop Prot
959 Sudlersville Road
Clayton, DE 19938
(410) 490-4514
ryan.lins@syngenta.com
Daniel Little
Michigan State Univ
A432 Plant & Soil Science
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 974-3000
msuturf01@hotmail.com
Henry Lohmann
PO Box 22
Bellport, NY 11713
(631) 286-1078
(631) 286-1078
halohmann@aol.com
Kerry Lough
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-2924
(207) 581-2941
klough@maine.edu
Daniel L. Loughner
Dow AgroSciences
497 Leonard Road
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
(215) 947-0721
(215) 947-1921
dloughner@dow.com
Rosanna Louie
USEPA/OPP/SRRD
1200 Pennsylvania Ave
Mail Code 7508C
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-0037
(703) 308-8005
louie.rosanna@ea.gov
Sarah Low
Wissahickon Rest
3721 Midvale Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19119
(215) 951-0342
(215) 951-0342
sarah1@rhd.org
Edith Lurvey
Northeast IR-4
Dept. of Food Science
630 West North St.
Geneva, NY 14456
(315) 787-2308
(315) 787-2397
ell10@cornell.edu
Darren Lycan
Syngenta Crop Pr
3002 Village Blvd. South
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
(315) 635-2818
darren.lycan@syngenta.com
147

John Lydon
USDA/ARS/SASL
Building 001, Rm. 272
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 504-5379
(301) 504-6491
LydonJ@ba.ars.usda.gov
Bruce Maddy
Dow AgroSciences
102 Queensbury Ct.
Noblesville, IN 46060
(317) 877-3100
(317) 877-3068
bemaddy@dow.com
Matthew J. Mahoney
Bayer Crop Sciences
4773 Sailors Retreat Road
Oxford, MD 21654
(410) 822-5215
(410) 819-0286
matt.mahoney@bayercropscience
.com
Bradley A. Majek
Rutger University
Rutgers A.R.E.C.
121 Northville Road
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
(856) 455-3100
(856) 455-3133
majek@aesop.rutgers.edu
Mili Mandal
West Virginia Univ
Department of Agriculture
Room #1070,
Morgantown, WV 26505
(304) 685-4690
milimandal@yahoo.com
Brian S. Manley
Syngenta Crop Pr
WRO 1004.7.34
Schwarzwaldallee 21Basel 4058
Switzerland
(061) 323-9195
(061) 323-6855
brian.manley@syngenta.com
Carrie Mansue
Rutgers University
Plant Biology & Pathology
59 Dudley Rd
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-9711
cmansue@aesop.rutgers.edu
Betty H. Marose
University of Maryland
Dept. of Entomology
3138 Plant Science
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-3929
(301) 314-9290
marose@umd.edu
Michael W. Marshall
Michigan State Univ
A438 Plant & Soil Science Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-5191
(517) 432-2242
mmarshal@msu.edu
Hannah Mathers
Ohio State Univ
248C Howlett Hall
2001 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 247-6195
(614) 292-3505
mathers.7@osu.edu
Brian Maynard
Univ of Rhode Island
Dept. of Plant Sciences
Kingston, RI 02881
(401) 874-5372
(401) 874-2494
bmaynard@uri.edu
David J. Mayonado
Monsanto Company
6075 Westbrooke Drive
Salisbury, MD 21801
410-726-4222
410-219-3202
david.j.mayonado@monsanto.com
David McCall
Virginia Tech
119 Price Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-9598
dsmccall@vt.edu
Michael McComrick
DuPont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell Research
1090 Elkton Road, S
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5154
(302) 366-6120
michael.c.mccomrick@usa.dupo
nt.com
Maxwell L. McCormack
PO Box 644
Deer Isle, ME 04627
207-348-5243
(207) 348-5243
MLM@midmaine.com
Patrick E. McCullough
Rutgers Univ
59 Dudley Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-9711
(732) 932-9441
mccullough@aesop.rutgers.edu
Steven McDonald
University of Maryland
1112 H.J. Patterson Hall
College Park, MD 20742
(610) 633-1878
McDSJ@umed.edu
Brian McDonnell
NPS NE Exotic Plant Mgt Team
Delaware Water Gap NRA River
Rd
Bushkill, PA 18324
(570) 588-0534
(570) 588-0590
brian_mcdonnell@nps.gov
Chris McGill
FMC Corporation
1109 Old Post Circle
Garnet Valley, PA 19061
(215) 299-6590
(215) 299-6100
Christopher.mcgill@fmc.com
Kristen McNaughton
Ridgetown College
120 Main St. E
Ridgetown Ontario N0P 2C0
CANADA
(519) 674-1638
(519)674-1600
kmcnaugh@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
148

Hiwot Menbere
University of Maryland
7741 Patuxent Oak Ct.
Elkridge, MD 21075
(301) 405-1334
(301) 314-9041
hm@umd.edu
Todd L. Mervosh
Connecticut Agric Exp Sta
153 Cook Hill Road
PO Box 248
Windsor, CT 06095
(860) 683-4984
(860) 683-4987
Todd.Mervosh@po.state.ct.us
Lindsey R. Milbrath
USDA-ARS US Plant, Soil &
Nutrtion
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 254-7268
(607) 255-1132
lrm32@cornell.edu
Kyle Miller
BASF
14000 Princess Mary Road
Chesterfield, VA 23838
(804) 739-6044
(804) 739-7498
millerkj@basf.com
Mario R. Miranda-Sazo
Cornell University
146A Plant Science Bld
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-9085
mrm67@cornell.edu
Steven Mirsky
Penn State Univ
Dept. of Crop & Soil
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
(814) 863-7043
sbm138@psu.edu
Charles L. Mohler
Cornell Univ
Dept. of Crop & Soil
907 Bradfield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-0199
clm11@cornell.edu
Thomas Molloy
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-2926
Thomas.Molloy@unit.maine.edu
David A. Mortensen
Pennsylvania State Univ
Dept. of Crop and Soil
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-1906
(814) 863-7043
dmortensen@psu.edu
Aboud Mubareka
Sprout-Less Vegetation
1125 Power Road
St. Joseph de Madawa
New Brunswick CANADA
E7B 2M3
(506) 739-6447
(506) 735-7033
samco@sprout-less.com
Meredith Murray
Pennsylvania State Univ
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-7607
mjm58@psu.edu
Matt Naedel
Penn State University
mbn112@psu.edu
Joseph Neal
North Carolina State University
Dept. of Horticultural Science
262 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-9379
(919) 515-7747
joe_neal@ncsu.edu
Larry Norton
Bayer Environmental Science
739 Blair Road
Bethlehem, PA 18017
(610) 814-6220
(610) 814-6221
larry.norton@bayercropscience.com
Rob Nurse
Agriculture & Ag
2585 County Rd. 20
Harrow Ontario, NOR 1G0
CANADA
(519) 738-2251
(519) 738-2929
ren8@cornell.edu
Judith Okay
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Dr Suite 209
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 295-1311
(410) 267-5777
jokay@chesapeakebay.net
Brian D. Olson
Dow AgroSciences
PO Box 753
Geneva, NY 14456
(315) 781-0140
(315) 781-0387
dolson@dow.com
William B O'Neal
AMVAC Corp
102 Bay View Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(919) 968-7776
(919) 968-7763
boneal@sprynet.com
Marc Pacchioli
Crop Management Strategies
PO Box 510
Hereford, PA 18056
(610) 767-1944
(610) 767-1925
cms1@fast.net
W.H. Butch Palmer
Reality Research Co
916 South Avenue
Williamson, NY 14589
(315) 945-0945
(315) 589-4096
whpalmer@computerconnection.net
Cristi Palmer
IR4 Headqt., Rutgers Univ.
500 College Rd East, 201W
Princeton, NJ 08540
(782) 932-9575
(732) 932-8481
palmer@aesop.rutgers.edu
149

Philip D. Pannill
Maryland Forest
1260 Maryland Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21740
(301) 791-4010
(301) 791-0173
ppannill@dnr.state.md.us
James V. Parochetti
USDA-CSREES
Mail Stop 2220
14th & Independence
Washington, DC 20250
(202) 401-4354
(202) 401-4888
jparochetti@csrees.usda.gov
Stephanie Parrish
USDA-NRCS
52 Boyden Road, #100
Holden, MA 01520
(508) 829-4477
(508) 829-9508
stephanie.parrish@ma.usda.gov
Charles Pearson
Syngenta Crop Protection
PO Box 18300
Greensboro, NC 27419
(336) 632-5979
(336) 632-6950
charles.pearson@syngenta.com
Annamarie Pennucci
Northeast Turf
4 Englewood Drive
Raymond, NH 03077
(603) 895-8460
(603) 672-6332
aapennuci@yahoo.com
Nora Peskin
Pennsylvania State University
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
hup111@psu.edu
Paul W. Peters
3A Merrow Road
Storrs, CT 06268
(860) 429-6962
Robert A. Peters
Univ. of Connecticut
238 Maple Road
Storrs, CT 06268
860-429-4065
Bill Phillips
US EPA
Ariel Rios Bldg
1200 Pennsylvania A
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8099
Phillips.Bill@epa.gov
David Pieczarka
Gowan Company
1630 Berry Rd
LaFayette, NY 13084
(315) 447-0560
(315) 683-9405
dpieczarka@gowanco.com
Jenny Pope
Ohio State Univ
248A Howlett Hall
2001 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-0209
(614) 292-3505
pope.71@osu.edu
Peter Porpiglia
Kumiai America
11 Martine Ave Suite 970
White Plains, NY 10606
(914) 682-8934
(914) 682-9050
peter@kichem-usa.com
Angela Post
North Carolina State Univ
POBOX 7609 227 Kilgore Hall
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 625-9850
arricha3@ncsu.edu
Randall Prostak
University of Mass
Dept. of Plant & Soil
French Hall, Room 2
Amherst, MA 01033
(413) 577-1738
(413) 545-3075
rprostak@umext.umass.edu
Daniel Ramsdell
Crop Management
PO Box 510
Hereford, PA 18056
(610) 767-1944
(610) 767-1925
cms_glp@fast.net
Patrick L. Rardon
DuPont Crop Protection
1090 Elkton Road, S210/170
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5546
Patrick.L.Rardon@usa.dupont.com
Julie Ream
Oregon State Univ
15210 NE Miley Road
Aurora, OR 97002
(503) 329-2414
Chris Reberg-Horton
North Carolina State Univ
NCSU Campus Box 7620
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-7597
chris_reberg-horton@ncsu.edu
Robert J. Richardson
North Carolina State Univ
Box 7620,
Williams Hall
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-5653
(919) 515-5315
rob_richardson@ncsu.edu
Dan Ricker
Virginia Tech
435 Old Glade Road
Glade Road Research
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-5835
(540) 231-5755
dricker@vt.edu
Domingo C. Riego
Monsanto Company
1307 Cottonwood Ct
Carmel, IN 46033
(317) 575-8769
(317) 574-9157
domingo.c.riego@monsanto.com
150

Mike Riffle
Valent
9196 Shoal Creek Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32312
(850) 386-6453
mriff@valent.com
Ronald L. Ritter
University of Maryland
12901 North Point Lane
Laurel, MD 20708
(301) 405-1329
(301) 490-3754
rlritter@umd.edu
Don R. Robbins
Maryland Dept. of Agr
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-5871
(410) 841-5835
robbindr@mda.state.md.us
Darren E. Robinson
Ridgetown College
120 Main Street East
Ridgetown Ontario
N0P 2C0 CANADA
(519) 674-1604
(519) 674-1600
drobinso@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Greg S. Rogers
Dupont Crop Protection
58 Mary Jane Lane
Elkton, MD 21921
(443) 309-0148
(302) 451-4840
gregory.s.rogers@usa.dupont.co
m
John Roy
RWC, Inc.
PO Box 876
248 Lockhouse Rd
Westfield, MA 01086
(413) 562-5681
(413) 568-5584
Marc Ruggiero
DuPont Crop Protection
Stine-Haskell Research
1090 Elkton Road, S
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5513
Marc.Ruggiero@usa.Dupont.com
Peter O. Rupp
Maryland Dept. of Agr
6624 Mountain Church Road
Middletown, MD 21769
(301) 371-5317
PRupp81132@aol.com
Matthew Ryan
Penn State Univ
116 ASI Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-6679
Sue Salmons
National Park Service
Exotic Plant Management
4598 MacArthur Blvd NW
Washington, DC 2007
(202) 342-1443 X 217
sue_salmon@nps.gov
James Saik
Fingerlakes Agro
4467 Jordan Road
Skaneateles, NY 13152
(315) 952-9955
saikj@aol.com
Joe Sandbrink
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167
(314) 694-1200
joseph.j.sandbrink@monsanto.co
m
Hilary Sandler
University of Mass
PO Box 569
E Wareham, MA 02538
(508) 295-2212
(508) 295-6387
hsandler@umext.umass.edu
Sujatha Sankula
NCFAP
1616 P Street NW 1st Flr
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 328-5057
(202) 328-5133
sankula@ncfap.org
Debanjan Sanyal
University of Mass
16 Stockbridge Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-3072
(413) 545-3958
debanjan@psis.umass.edu
Dipayan Sarkar
University of Mass
Dept. of Plant & Soil
Stockbridge Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-3072
dsarkar@psis.umass.edu
David W. Saunders
DuPont Crop Protection
2401 230th Street
Dallas Ctr., IA 50063
(515) 334-4485
Carl D. Sawyer
University of Rhode Island
Dept. of Plant Science
9 East Alumni Ave
Kingston, RI 02881
(401) 874-2937
(401) 874-2494
ltn101@urc.edu
Charles F. Scheer
JHalf Hollow Nursery
P.O. Box 563
Laurel, NY 11948
(631) 298-9183
(631) 298-5722
hhn2@optonline.net
M. Gary Schnappinger
930 Starr Road
Centreville, MD 21617
(410) 758-1419
(410) 758-0656
schnapg@toadmail.com
William Sciarappa
Rutgers Cooperative Ext
20 Court Street
Freehold, NJ 07728
(732) 431-7260
(732) 409-4813
sciarappa@aesop.rutgers.edu
151

Rene Scoresby
The Scotts Co
14111 Scottslawn Road
Mt. Vernon, OH 43050
(937) 644-7563
(937) 644-7153
rene.scoresby@scotts.com
Barbara Scott
Univ of Delaware Res & Edu
16684 County Seat H
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-7303
(302) 856-1845
bascott@udel.edu
Leroy Sellman
Maryland Dept. of Agr
11212 Liberty Road
Owings Mills, MD 21117
(410) 841-5871
(410) 841-5835
csellman@erols.com
Andrew F. Senesac
Cornell Coop Ext -
LIHRELIHREC,
3059 Sound Ave
Riverhead, NY 11901
(631) 727-3595
(631) 727-3611
afs2@cornell.edu
Scott Serafin
DOD G3/Range Division
6034 Pickett Road
Ft. Knox, KY 40121
(270) 268-0178
scot.serafin@know.army.mil
Thomas Serensits
Virginia Tech
Hampton Roads Ag Res
1444 Diamond Spring
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
(610) 360-5985
tseren@vt.edu
Amanda Shearin
University of Maine
26 Deering Hall
Orono, ME 04469
(207) 581-2935
amanda.shearin@umit.maine.edu
Sandra L. Shinn
FMC
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Robert Shortell
Rutgers University
16 Hilltop Road
Milford, NJ 08848
(908) 797-8387
shortell@eden.rutgers.edu
Margaret Siligato
University Rhode Island
3 East Alumni Ave
Kingston, RI 02881
(401) 874-5997
siligato@uri.edu
Andrew Z. Skibo
University of De1eware
6684 County Seat Highway
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 462-0022
(302) 856-1994
zskibo@aol.com
Larissa Smith
Cornell University
Dept. of Crop & Soil
905 Bradfield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 351-2770
(607) 255-3207
lls14@cornell.edu
Mark Smith
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
50 Harry S Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-5932
(410) 841-5835
John Snitzer
Hood College
PO Box 38
Dickerson, MD 20842
(301) 349-2002
navajuela@earthlink.net
David R. Spak
Bayer Environmental Science
2 TW Alexander Drive
RTP, NC 27719
david.spak@bayercropscience.com
Paul Stachowski
Cornell University
Dept. of CSS,
107 LelCaldwell Road
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-7701
(607) 255-2644
pjs16@cornell.edu
Richard Stalter
St. John's University
Dept. of Biology
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439
(718) 990-6288
(718) 990-5958
stalterr@stjohns.edu
Michelle Starke
Monsanto Company
800 N Lindbergh Blvd A2NA
St. Louis, MO 63167
(314) 694-6913
(314) 694-4928
Mark Starrett
Univ of Vermont
105 Carrigan Dr
Burlington, Vt 05405
(802) 656-0467
mark.starrett@uvm.edu
Jennifer Steele
West Virginia University
PO Box 6108
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 293-6131
(304) 293-6954
jksteele@mail.wvu.edu
James Steffel
LABServices
342 South Third Street
Hamburg, PA 19526
(610) 562-5055
(610) 562-5066
jim@labservices.com
Stephen Strachan
DuPont Crop Protection
Stine Haskell Res Center
1090 Elkton Rd
Newark, DE 19711
(302) 366-5067
(302) 366-6120
Stephen.d.strachan.1@usa.dupont
.com
152

Robert D. Sweet
Cornell University
Dept. Horticulture
167 Plant Science Bld
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 273-7106
607-255-0599
sdt1@cornell.edu
Andrea M. Szylvian
US EPA - Region 1
Congress Street CPT Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 918-1198
(617) 918-1505
szylvian.andrea@epa.gov
Alan V. Tasker
USDA APHIS
4700 River Road,
Unit 134 5A45
Riverdale, MD 20737
(301) 734-5708
(301) 734-8584
Alan.V.Tasker@aphis.usda.gov
Raymond B. Taylorson
University of Rhode Island
Department of Plant Science
Kingston, RI 02881
(401) 874-2106
(401) 874-2494
raymondtaylorson@msn.com
John R. Teasdale
USDA-ARS
Bld 001, Room 245
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 504-5504
(301) 504-6491
teasdale@ba.ars.usda.gov
Nishanth Tharayil
Univ of Massachusetts
16 Stockbridge Hall
Dept. of Plant & Soil Sci
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-3072
nishanth@psis.umass.edu
Gar Thomas
BASF Corporation
1002 Bethel Road
Chesapeake City, MD 21915
(410) 885-5920
(410) 885-5975
thomasgg@basf.com
Stewart Throop
FMC Corporation
1735 Market St Room 1935
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 299-6847
(215) 299-6810
stu_throop@fmc.com
Robert Trumbule
Maryland Dept of Agr
50 Harry S Truman Prkwy
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 982-3224
(301) 982-3269
rtrumble@erols.com
Robert Uhlig
Michigan State University
5844 Haverhill Drive
Lansing, MI 48911
(517) 272-0106
uhlig@msu.edu
Mark J. Van Gessel
University of Delaware
Research & Education
16684 County Seat H
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-7303
(302) 856-1845
mjv@udel.edu
Terry Van Horn
Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
2320 S. Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 698-4580
(302) 697-4468
Terry.VanHorn@state.de.us
Lee Van Wychen
National and Regional
900 2nd St. NE Suite 205
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 408-5388
(202) 408-5385
Lee.VanWychen@WeedScience
Orgs.com
Ely Vea
IR-4 Hdqt. Rutgers Univ.
500 College Rd East, 201W
Princeton, NJ 08540
Christina Venable
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 685-9667
clvenable@yahoo.com
Daniel Vincent
DuPont Crop Protection
1090 Elkton Rd
Newark, DE 19771
(302) 451-4802
Daniel.r.vincent@usa.dupont.com
David Vitolo
Syngenta Crop Protection
2109 9th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95818
(916) 316-6951
david.vitolo@syngenta.com
F. R. Bobby Walls
FMC Corporation
501 Parkwood Lane
Goldsboro, NC 27530
(919) 735-3862
(919) 736-2686
bobby_walls@fmc.com
Thomas L. Watschke
Penn State University
425 ASI Bldg
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-7644
(814) 863-7043
tlw3@psu.edu
Cory M. Whaley
Virginia Tech
33446 Research Drive
Painter, VA 23420
(757) 414-0724
cwhaley@vt.edu
Tim White
CMS
PO BOX 510
Hereford, PA 18056
(610) 767-1944
cms1@fast.net
John Willis
Virginia Tech
435 Old Glade Road
Glade Road Research Station
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-5835
(540) 231-5755
jbwillis@vt.edu
153

Sam Wilson
FMC
117 Tealight Lane
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-1249
sam_wilson@fmc.com
Henry P. Wilson
Virginia Tech
Eastern Shore AREC
33446 Research Drive
Painter, VA 23420
(757) 414-0724
(757) 414-0730
hwilson@vt.edu
Robert E.Wooten
North Carolina State Univer
Dept. of Horticulture Box 7609
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-2650
(919) 515-7747
rob_wooten@ncsu.edu
Joe Zawierucha
BASF Corporation
26 Davis Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC
27709
(919) 547-2095
zawierj@basf.com
Magdalena Zazirska
Oregon State University
North Willamette Res.
15210 NE Miley Road
Aurora, OR 97002
(503) 678-1264
(503) 678-5986
Stanley Zontek
USGA Mid Atlantic
485 Baltimore Pike, Suite 203
Glen Mills, PA 19342
(610) 696-4747
(610)-696-4810
zontek@usga.org
Deneen Wortham
USDA-CREES
1400 Independence Ave SW
RM 304A
Washington, DC 20250
Jeff Wright
University of Delaware
16483 County Seat Highway
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-7303
wrightj@udel.edu
David Yarborough
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall
Rm 414
Orono, ME 04469
207-581-2923
207-581-2941
davidy@maine.edu
Kevin Young
Four Points Sheraton
35 Scudder Ave
Hyannis, MA 02601
(508) 862-6977
kevin.young@fourpoints.com
154

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
s, Surpass,
Topnotch,
Degree
2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphe
nyl) acetamide
acifluorfen
acrolein
alachlor
allyl alcohol
Blazer, Status
Blazer Ultra
Intrro, MicroTech,
Partner; many
5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenz
oic acid
2-propenal
2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)
acetamide
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
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
2-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]-5,6,7,8-
tetrahydro-1,2,4-triazolo[4,3-a]pyridin-3(2H)-one
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,
Neoban, Oatax,
many
4-chloro-2-butynyl 3-chlorophenylcarbamate
155

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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
bentazon
Bensumec,
Betason, Prefar
Basagran,
Lescogran
O,O-bis(1-methylethyl)S-[2-[(phenylsulfonyl)amino]
ethyl]phosphorodithioate
3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)
-one 2,2-dioxide
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,
Regiment
2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)oxy]benzoic
acid
bromacil Hyvar 5-bromo-6-methyl-3-(1-methylpropyl)-2,4(1H,
3H)pyrimidinedione
bromofenoxim Faneron 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde O-(2,4-
dinitrophenyl) oxime
bromoxynil Brominal, Buctril,
Moxy
3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile
butachlor
Butanox,
Pilarsete, many
N-(butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-N-(2,6-
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
156

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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,
TAMEX
4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N-(1-methylpropyl)-2,6-
dinitrobenzenamine
buturon
butylate
cacodylic acid
cambendichlor
carbetamide
Butafume,
Deccotane,
Tutane
Sutan+, Genate
Plus
Cotton-aide,
Montar, Phytar
560
Carbetamex,
Legurame,
Pradone
N'-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-(1-methyl-2-
propynyl)urea
S-ethyl bis(2-methylpropyl)carbamothioate
dimethyl arsinic acid
(phenylimino)di-2,1-ethanediyl bis(3,6-dichloro-2-
methoxybenzoate)
N-ethyl-2-
[[(phenylamino)carbonyl]oxy]propanamide (R)-
isomer
CDAA Randox 2-chloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide
carfentrazone Aim, Affinity,
QuickSilver IVM,
Stingray
α,2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-
dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]
-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid
CDEA
2-chloro-N,N-diethylacetamide
CDEC Vegadex 2-chloro-2-propenyl diethylcarbamodithioate
CEPC
2-chloroethyl (3-chlorophenyl)carbamate
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-Nmethylurea
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
157

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
chloroxuron Norex, Tenoran N'-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-N,N-dimethylurea
chlorpropham Gro-stop, Unicrop 1-methylethyl 3-chlorophenylcarbamate
chlorsulfuron
chlorthiamid
chlortoluron
cinmethylin
cisanilide
clethodim
Corsair, Glean,
Telar,
Glean,Lesco
TFCr
Alert, Culmus,
Tolurex, Toluron
Prism, Select,
Envoy
2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)
amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide
2,6-dichlorobenzenecarbothiamide
N'-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea
exo-(±)-1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-2-[(2-
methylphenyl) methoxy]-7-
oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane
cis-2,5-dimethyl-N-phenyl-1-
pyrrolidinecarboxamide
(E,E)-(±)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]prop
yl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-
3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one
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
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-Ndimethylformamidine
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
158

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
cyclosulfamuron Ichiyonmaru,
Nebiros
N-[[[2-(cyclopropylcarbonyl)phenyl]amino]sulfonyl]-
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
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
dicamba
Avadex, Botrizel,
Pyardex, many
Banvel, Clarity,
Vanquish
S-(2,3-dichloro-2-propenyl) bis(1-
methylethyl)carbamothioate
3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid
159

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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,Ndimethylurea
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 (S)-2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-
methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide
dinitramine Cobexo N 3 ,N 3 -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,
Reward
6,7-dihydrodipyrido[1,2-a:2',1'-c]pyrazinediiumion
160

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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,
Edge
N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(triflu
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
fenac
Fenatrol, Rack,
Trifene
2,3,6-trichlorobenzeneacetic acid
fenoxaprop
Acclaim, Horizon,
Puma, Whip
(±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]pro
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 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
161

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
fluazifop Fusilade,
Horizon,
Ornamec
(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenox
y]-propanoic acid
fluazifop-p
Fusilade II,
Venture
(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
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,
Flumizin,
Sumisoya, Valor,
SureGuard
2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4
-
benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-insoindole-
1,3(2H)- dione
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
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
162

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
fluroxypyr Starane,
Spotlight,
Tomahawk, Vista
[(4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acet
ic acid
flurtamone
Bacara, Carat,
Cline, Nikeyl,
Ingot, Benchmark
(±)-5-(methylamino)-2-phenyl-4-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3 (2H)-furanone
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,Ndimethylbenzamide
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
halosulfuron
Manage, Permit,
Sandea, Sempra,
Sedgehammer
3-chloro-5-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-1-
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,
Raptor, Odessey
2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H
- 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
163

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
imazapyr Arsenal,
Chopper, Stalker,
(±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo
-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,Ndipropylbenzenamine
isoproturon Zodiac, Crip, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[4-(1-methylethyl)phenyl]urea
Ingot
isouron
N'-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-isoxazolyl]-N,Ndimethylurea
isoxaben Gallery N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dim
eth- oxybenzamide
isoxaflutole
karbutilate
ketospiradox
KOCN
Balance, Balance
Pro
Backup, Tandex,
Tanzene
(5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-phenyl]methanone
3-[[(dimethylamino)carbonyl]amino]phenyl (1,1-
dimethylethyl)carbamate
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-)
potassium cyanate
lactofen Cobra (±)-2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl
5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenz
oate
164

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
lenacil
Lenazar, Venar,
Lanslide,
3-cyclohexyl-6,7-dihydro-1H-cyclopentapyrimidine-
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 many (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 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
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
165

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
s-metolachlor Cinch, Dual
Magnum
2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-
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,
Cimarron, Escort,
Manor
2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]
carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid
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
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,Ndipropylbenzenamine
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-1Hinden-5-yl)urea
3aa,4a,5a,7a,7aa-isomer
norflurazon
Evital, Solicam,
Predict, Zorial
4-chloro-5-(methylamino)-2-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phe
nyl)-3 (2H)-pyridazinone
2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-octachloro-2-cyclohexen-1-one
OCH
oryzalin Surflan 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrobenzenesulfonamide
166

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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
oxyfluorfen
paraquat
PBA
PCP
Homerun,
Samurai,
Thoroughbred
Goal
GoalTender
Boa, Cyclone,
Gramoxone,
Starfire
Dowicide, Penta,
Permatox,
Santophen, many
3-[1-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-1-methylethyl]-2,3-
dihydro-6-methyl-5-phenyl-4H-1,3-oxazin-4-one
2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluorome
thyl) benzene
1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridiniumion
chlorinated benzoic acid
pentachlorophenol
pebulate Tillam S-propyl butylethylcarbamothioate
pelargonic acid Scythe nonanoic acid
pendimethalin
Pentagon,
PendiMax,
Pendulum, Prowl,
Prowl H2O, many
N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzena
mine
penoxsulam Granite, Grasp 2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5,8-dimethoxy
[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,Odipropyl
phosphorodithioate
PMA
Seedtox,
Mersolite, many
(acetato-O)phenylmercury
167

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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,
RegalKade
2,4 dinitro-N3,N3-dipropyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-
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
Pro
N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazin
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,
Superwham
N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamide
propaquizafop
propazine
propham
Falcon, Shogun,
Prilan
Milogard,
Milocep, Milo-
Pro, Gesamil
Beet-Kleen,
Quintex,
Premalox, many
(R)-2-[[(1-methylethylidene)amino]oxy]ethyl 2-[4-
[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate
6-chloro-N,N'-bis(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diamine
1-methylethyl phenylcarbamate
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)-Nphenylacetamide
pyraflufen ET [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
168

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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
quinclorac Drive, Facet 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid
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
rimsulfuron Matrix, Tranxit N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3
- (ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide
secbumeton Etazine, Sumitol N-ethyl-6-methoxy-N'-(1-methylpropyl)-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diamine
sethoxydim Poast 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
169

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
sulfentrazone Authority,
Spartan
N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
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
swep
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TB
2,3,6-TBA
TCA
Maverick,
Outrider,
Certainty
Brush Killer,
Super D
Weedone, many
Benzac, Trysben,
many
Revenge, Varitox,
many
N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-
2-(ethylsulfonyl)imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-
sulfonamide
methyl(3,4-dichlorophenyl)carbamate
(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid
4-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid
2,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid
trichloroacetic acid
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,
Azimut, many
6-chloro-N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diamine
terbutol Azac, Azak, Azar 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenyl
methylcarbamate
terbutryn
Ternit, Terbutrex,
Sunter, Shortstop,
many
N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N'-ethyl-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diamine
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
170

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
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]
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,
Showdown
S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) bis(1-methylethyl)
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
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,
Pre-empt
6-chloro-N,N,N'-triethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine
trifloxysulfuron
trifluralin
Enfield, Envoke,
Monument
Treflan, Tri-4,
Trilin; many
N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-
3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-2-pyridinesulfonamide
2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzena
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,Ndimethylcarbamidate
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-1Hpyrazol-4-yl)methanone
vernolate Vernam S-propyl dipropylcarbamothioate
171

Common Name Trade Name Chemical Name
xylachlor
2-chloro-N-(2,3-dimethylphenyl)-N-(1-
methylethyl)acetamide
172

COMMON PRE-PACKAGED HERBICIDES
Common Pre-packaged Herbicides and Common Name of the Component
Chemicals
Trade Name
Accent Gold
Affinity Broadspec
Affinity Tank Mix
Agility SG
Ally Extra
Atrabute+
Authority First
Authority MTZ
Axiom
Backdraft
Basis
Basis Gold
Betamix
Bicep II Magnum
Bicep Lite II Magnum
Bison
Boundary
Brawl II ATZ
Breakfree ATZ
Breakfree ATZ Lite
Bromac
Bronate
Brox-M
Brozine
Brushmaster
Brush-Rhap
Buckle
Bullet
Cadence ATZ
Cadence ATZ Lite
Camix
Campaign
Canopy
Canopy XL
Canopy EX
Celebrity
Celebrity Plus
Charger MAX
Charger MAX Lite
Chaser
Cheyenne
Cimarron Max
Common Name of Individual Herbicides
clopyralid + flumetsulam + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron
tribenuron + thifensulfuron
tribenuron + thifensulfuron
tribenuron + thifensulfuron + metsulfuron + dicamba
tribenuron + thifensulfuron + metsulfuron
atrazine + butylate
sulfentrazone + cloransulam-methyl
sulfentrazone + metribuzin
flufenacet + metribuzin
glyphosate + imazaquin
rimsulfuron + thifensulfuron
atrazine + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron
desmedipham + phenmedipham
atrazine + s-metolachlor
atrazine + s-metolachlor
bromoxynil + MCPA
s-metolachlor + metribuzin
s-metolachlor + atrazine
acetochlor + atrazine
acetochlor + atrazine
bromoxynil + MCPA
bromoxynil + MCPA
bromoxynil + MCPA
bromoxynil + atrazine
dicamba + 2,4-D + 2,4-DP
dicamba + 2,4-D
triallate + trifluralin
alachlor + atrazine
acetochlor + atrazine
acetochlor + atrazine
s-metolachlor + mesotrione
glyphosate + 2,4-D
chlorimuron + metribuzin
chlorimuron + sulfentrazone
chlorimuron + tribenuron
dicamba + nicosulfuron
dicamba + nicosulfuron + diflufenzopyr
s-metolachlor + atrazine
s-metolachlor + atrazine
triclopyr + 2,4-D
fenoxaprop + MCPA + thifensulfuron + tribenuron
dicamba + metsulfuron + 2,4-D
173

Trade Name
Cinch ATZ
Clarion
CleanWave
Colt
Confidence Xtra
Confront
Cool Power
Commando
Commando M
CoStarr
Crossbow
Crossroad
Curtail
Curtail M
Cutback
Cutback M
Dakota
Degree Xtra
Dissolve
Distinct
Domain
Double Team
Eclipse
Enlite
Envive
Epic
Equip
Establish ATZ
Establish Lite
Event
Exceed
Expert
Extreme
Fallow Master
Fallow Star
FieldMaster
Finesse
Finesse Grass and Broadleaf
Fire Power
Forefront
Fuego
Frontrow
FulTime
Fusion
Gangster
GlyKamba
Grazon P+D
Guardsman Max
Common Name of Individual Herbicides
atrazine + s-metolachlor
nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron
aminopyralid + fluroxypyr
clopyralid + fluroxypyr
acetochlor + atrazine
clopyralid + triclopyr
dicamba + MCPA + triclopyr
clopyralid + 2,4-D
clopyralid + MCPA
glyphosate + dicamba
triclopyr + 2,4-D
triclopyr + 2,4-D
clopyralid + 2,4-D
clopyralid + MCPA
clopyralid + 2,4-D
clopyralid + MCPA
fenoxaprop + MCPA
acetochlor + atrazine
mecoprop + 2,4-D + 2,4-DP
dicamba + diflufenzopyr
flufenacet + metribuzin
acetochlor + atrazine
clopyralid + MCPA + 2,4-DP
chlorimuron + thifensulfuron + flumioxazin
chlorimuron + thifensulfuron + flumioxazin
flufenacet + isoxaflutole
mesosulfuron(AEF-130060) + iodosulfuron
dimethenamid-P + atrazine
dimethenamid-P + atrazine
imazapyr + imazethapyr
primisulfuron + prosulfuron
s-metolachlor + atrazine + glyphosate
glyphosate + imazethapyr
glyphosate + dicamba
glyphosate + dicamba
acetochlor + atrazine + glyphosate
chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron
chlorsulfuron + flucarbazone-sodium
glyphosate + oxyfluorfen
aminopyralid + 2,4-D
dicamba + triasulfuron
cloransulam-methyl + flumetsulam
acetochlor + atrazine
fenoxaprop + fluazifop
flumioxazin + cloransulam-methyl
glyphosate + dicamba
picloram + 2,4-D
atrazine + dimethenamid
174

Trade Name
Gunslinger
Halex GT
Harmony Extra
Harness Xtra
HiredHand P+D
Horizon 2000
Hornet
Horsepower
Huskie
Journey
Kambamaster
Kansel Plus
Keystone, Keystone LA
Krovar
Laddok S-12
Landmark XP
Landmaster
Lariat
Layby Pro
Lexar
Liberty ATZ
Lightning
Lumax
Marksman
Medal II AT
Milestone VM Plus
Millennium Ultra
Momentum
NorthStar
Oasis
OneStep
OH2 (Ornamental Herbicide)
Olympus Flex
Oustar
Oust Extra
Outlaw
Overdrive
Parallel Plus
PastureGard
Pathway
PD 2
Power Zone
PrePair
Prefix
Preview
Priority
Prompt
Progress
Common Name of Individual Herbicides
picloram + 2,4-D
s-metolachlor + glyphosate + mesotrione
thifensulfuron + tribenuron
acetochlor + atrazine
picloram + 2,4-D
fenoxaprop + fluazifop
clopyralid + flumetsulam
dicamba + triclopyr + 2,4-D
pyrasulfatole + bromoxynil
glyphosate + imazapic
dicamba + 2,4-D
oxadiazon + pendimethalin
acetochlor + atrazine
bromacil + diuron
atrazine + bentazon
chlorsulfuron + sulfometuron
glyphosate + 2,4-D
alachlor + atrazine
linuron + diuron
s-metolachlor + atrazine + mesotrione
atrazine + glufosinate
imazapyr + imazethapyr
atrazine + mesotrione + s-metolachlor
atrazine + dicamba
s-metolachlor + atrazine
aminopyralid + triclopyr
clopyralid + dicamba + 2,4-D
clopyralid + triclopyr + 2,4-D
dicamba + primisulfuron
imazapic + 2,4-D
imazapyr + glyphosate
oxyfluorfen + pendimethalin
propoxycarbazone-sodium + mesosulfuron-methyl
hexazinone + sulfometuron
metsulfuron + sulfometuron
dicamba + 2,4-D
dicamba + diflufenzopyr
metolachlor + atrazine
triclopyr + fluroxypyr
picloram + 2,4-D
picloram + 2,4-D + dicamba
carfentrazone + dicamba+ mecoprop + MCPA
napropamide + oxadiazon
s-metolachlor + fomesafen.
chlorimuron + metribuzin
carfentrazone-ethyl + halosulfuron-methyl
atrazine + bentazon
phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate
175

Trade Name
Pursuit Plus
Q4
QuikPro
Radius
Rage D-Tech
Range Star
Rave
Ready Master ATZ
Recoil
Redeem R&P
Refute
Regal O-O
RegalStar
Resolve SG
Rhino
Rifle D
Rifle Plus
Rimfire
Rout
Sahara
Salute
Sequence
Shotgun
Showcase
Simazat
Snapshot
Sonic
Speed Zone
Spirit
Squadron
Stampede
Starane NXT
Starane + Saber
Starane + Salvo
Starane + Sword
Status
Steadfast
Steadfast ATZ
Steel
Stellar
Sterling Plus
Stout
Strategy
Strike 3
Strike 3 Ultra
Strike 3 Ultra 2
Stronghold
SuperBrush Killer
Common Name of Individual Herbicides
imazethapyr + pendimethalin
quinclorac + sulfentrazone + 2,4-D + dicamba
diquat + glyphosate
flufenacet + isoxaflutole
carfentrazone + 2,4-D
dicamba + 2,4-D
triasulfuron + dicamba
atrazine + glyphosate
glyphosate + 2,4-D
clopyralid + triclopyr
clopyralid + triclopyr
oxadiazon + oxyfluorfen
oxadiazon + prodiamine
dicamba + imazethapyr
atrazine + butylate
2,4-D + dicamba
atrazine + dicamba
propoxycarbazone-sodium + mesosulfuron-methyl
oryzalin + oxyfluorfen
diuron + imazapyr
metribuzin + trifluralin
s-metolachlor + glyphosate
atrazine + 2,4-D
trifluralin + isoxaben + oxyfluorfen
atrazine + simazine
isoxaben + trifluralin
cloransulam + sulfentrazone
carfentrazone + dicamba + mecoprop + 2,4-D
primisulfuron + prosulfuron
imazaquin + pendimethalin
MCPA + propanil
fluroxypyr + bromoxynil
fluroxypyr + 2,4-D
fluroxypyr + 2,4-D
fluroxypyr + MCPA
dicamba + diflufenzopyr (plus isoxadifen-ethyl safener)
nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron
atrazine + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron
imazaquin + imazethapyr + pendimethalin
flumiclorac + lactofen
atrazine + dicamba
nicosulfuron + thifensulfuron
clomazone + ethalfluralin
2,4-D + dicamba + mecoprop-p
2,4-D + clopyralid + dichlorprop-p
2,4-D + fluroxypyr + dichlorprop-p
imazapyr + imazethapyr + mefluidide
2,4-D, dichlorprop + dicamba
176

Trade Name
Suprend
SureStart
Surge
Surmount
Synchrony STS
STS Broadleaf
Tailspin
Team
Telone C17, Telone C35
Thunder Master
Tiller
Tordon 101M
Tordon RTU
Total
Throttle XP
Triamine
Triangle
Tri-Ester
Trimec 992
Trimec Bentgrass Formula
Trimec Classic
Trimec Plus
Trimec Super
Tri-Scept
Trupower
Typhoon
Valor XLT
Velpar Alfamax
Velpar K-4
Vengeance
Volley ATZ
Volley ATZ Lite
Weed Blast
Weedmaster
Westar
Widematch
Wildcard Xtra
Wil-Power
XL 2G
Yukon
Common Name of Individual Herbicides
prometryn + trifloxysulfuron
acetochlor + flumetsulam + clopyralid
2,4-D, mecoprop-p, dicamba, sulfentrazone
picloram + fluroxypyr
chlorimuron + thifensulfuron
chlorimuron + thifensulfuron
fluroxypyr + triclopyr
benefin + trifluralin
chloropicrin + dichloropropene
glyphosate + imazethapyr
fenoxaprop + MCPA + 2,4-D
picloram + 2,4-D
picloram + 2,4-D
bromacil + diuron + sodium chlorate + sodium metaborate
chlorsulfuron + sulfometuron + sulfentrazone
mecoprop + 2,4-D + 2,4-DP
metolachlor + atrazine
mecoprop + 2,4-D + 2,4-DP
dicamba + mecoprop + 2,4-D
dicamba + mecoprop + 2,4-D
dicamba + mecoprop + 2,4-D
dicamba + mecoprop + 2,4-D + MSMA
dicamba + dichlorprop + 2,4-D
imazaquin + trifluralin
clopyralid + dicamba + MCPA
fluazifop + fomesafen
flumioxazin + chlorimuron-ethyl
hexazione + diuron
hexazione + diuron
dicamba + MCPA
acetochlor + atrazine
acetochlor + atrazine
bromacil + diuron
dicamba + 2,4-D
hexazinone + sulfometuron
clopyralid + fluroxypyr
bromoxynil + MCPA
MCPA + triclopyr + dichlorprop-p
benefin + oryzalin
dicamba + halosulfuron
177

EXPERIMENTAL HERBICIDES
Experimental Number
Common Name (Proposed),
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
178

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)-α-[(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.
179

AUTHOR’S INDEX
A
Ahrens, J.F., 81, 82
Altland, J.E., 47
Arsenovic, M., 95
Askew, S.D., 1, 5, 14, 18, 28, 29, 53, 85, 104
Atwood, R.P.M., 26
Averill, K.M., 6
B
Barney, J., 66
Barolli, S., 48
Baron, J.J., 84, 95
Bates, R.T., 8
Batts, R.B., 69, 98
Beam, J.B., 42, 69
Bellinder, R.R., 23, 33, 71
Benedict, C.A., 71
Bhowmik, P.C., 31, 65
Black, B.D., 44
Bonanno, A.R., 67
Borger, J.A., 88, 89, 103
Brainard, D.C., 23
Bravo, M.A., 2, 63, 64
Broady, P., 64
C
Chandran, R.S., 20
Clarke, B.B., 101
Coffman, C.B., 16
Cox, D., 87
Curran, W.S., 8, 36, 38, 40, 62
D
DaCosta, M., 31
D'Appollonio, J., 12
DeBarros, N.B., 39
Demachak, K., 73
Dernoeden, P.H., 54, 57
Derr, J.F., 80
Diesing, J., 2
DiTomaso, J., 66
DiTommaso, A., 6, 21, 37
Driver, J., 87
Duiker, S., 36
E
Egan, J.F., 19
Evans, G.J., 33
F
Fidanza, M.A., 102
Fu, J., 54, 57
G
Gallagher, R.S., 8
Gallandt, E.R., 62
Gardner, A.P., 24, 25
Ghantous, K.M., 75
Goatley, J.M., 14
Goddard, M.J., 5, 28, 85
Grieneisen, R., 2
Guiser, S.D., 73
H
Hahn, R.R., 23, 79
Hart, S.E., 11, 15, 30, 55, 86, 92, 93
Hepperly, P.R., 17, 38
Hipkins, P.L., 25
Houseworth, L.D., 28
I
Inguagiato, J.C., 101
Irwin, R.E., 19
Isaacs, M.A., 34
J
James, J.R., 5
Jelovic, J., 58
Jemison, J.M., 9, 41
Jester, J.L., 18, 29, 53
Johnson, D.H., 72
Johnson, Q.R., 3, 34, 45, 72
Judge, C.A., 10, 26, 49
Jung, A., 58
K
Kalmowitz, K.M., 49
Kaminski, J.E., 32, 90, 91
Keese, R.J., 5, 20, 87
Ketterings, Q.M., 21
Kirby, M., 9
Krings, A., 27
Kumar, V., 23
Kunkel, D.L., 95
Kyde, K.L., 22
L
Lassiter, B.R., 4
Lengkeek, V., 96
Lingenfelter, D.D., 70, 72
Lins, R.D., 44
Little, D.A., 10, 83
Lurvey, E.L., 46, 94
180

Lycan, D., 96
M
Magidow, L.C., 21
Majek, B.A., 97
Mansue, C., 55, 86, 92
Marose, B.H., 22
Marshall, M.W., 7
Matthews, J., 24
McCullough, P.E., 11, 15, 30, 55, 92, 93
McDonald, S.J., 51, 52
Menbere, H., 77, 78
Mervosh, T.L., 81, 82
Mick, R., 36
Milbrath, L.R., 6, 21
Miller, B.R., 44
Mirsky, S.B., 62
Mitchell, B., 67
Mitchem, W.E., 69
Mittlesteadt, T.L., 14, 28, 29
Mohler, C.L., 6, 37
Mortensen, D.A., 17, 35, 38, 62
Moseley, C.M., 43
Murphy, J.A., 101
N
Naedel, M.B., 88, 89, 103
Neal, J.C., 10, 26, 27, 50, 80, 83
Nord, A.N., 35
P
Palmer, C.L., 84
Petty, A.K., 98
Polach, M., 2
Post, A.R., 10, 27
Prostak, R.G., 67
Putman, A.I., 32
R
Radhakrishnan, J., 16
Richardson, R.J., 4, 24, 25
Ritter, R.L., 77, 78
Ryan, M.R., 17, 38
Sturgill, M.C., 4
Sullenberger, M., 14
T
Teasdale, J.R., 16, 38
Titus, L., 41
True, S.L., 25
V
Vail, G.D., 43, 96
VanGessel, M.J., 3, 34, 45, 70, 72, 76
Vea, E., 84
W
Walker, L.C., 26
Wallace, R.W., 98
Watschke, T.L., 99
West, A.M., 24
Whitehouse, S.E., 37
Wilkerson, G.G., 4
Willis, J.B., 1, 18, 85
Wilson, D.O., 17
Wilson, H.P., 34
Wright, J., 34
X
Xiang, Q., 27
Y
Yarborough, D.E., 12
York, A.C., 42
Youssef, E., 58
Z
Zandstra, B.H., 7
Zawierucha, J., 49
Zontek, S.J., 105
S
Salzman, F.P., 95
Sandler, H.A., 75
Sarkar, D., 31, 65
Scott, B.A., 3, 34, 45, 72, 76
Seidel, R., 38
Sexton, P., 41
Shepard, D.P., 100
Shumway, D.L., 62
Sosinski, B.R., 27
Stachowski, P.J., 79
Stalter, R., 58
181

MAIN SUBJECT INDEX (Herbicides, Weeds, Crops, Non-crops, and Subjects)
A
Abies fraseri, 81
Abutilon theophrasti, 37, 62, 70, 72
Acer rubrum, 10
acetic acid, 33
acifluorfen, 98
Agrostis capillaris, 32
Agrostis stolonifera, 15, 28, 30, 32, 103
Alliaceae, 58
Alliaria petiolata, 60
ALS-inhibiting, 44
ALS-inhibiting herbicides, 15
ALS-resistance, 76
Amaranthus hybridus, 72
Amaranthus palmeri, 98
Amaranthus spp, 3, 70, 76
Ambrosia artemisiifolia, 70, 72, 76, 81
American burnweed, 50
Amicarbazone, 28, 53
aminopyralid, 2, 24, 53, 63, 64
annual bedding plants, 49
annual bluegrass, 11, 30, 32, 49, 51, 88, 90, 91, 92,
100, 101, 103, 105
annual morningglory, 70
antagonize, 93
antichromatic, 85
aquatic, 4
Arundo donax, 66
Asteraceae, 58
atrazine, 40, 44, 72, 78, 79
Avena fatua, 76
azalea, 7
B
barnyardgrass, 23
BAS 656, 84
BAS 656h, 81, 82
BAS 659 G, 84
Benefin, 18
bentazon, 53, 69, 70, 98
bentgrass, 87
Berberis vulgaris, 60
bermudagrass, 14, 29, 104
biofuels, 39, 66
bispyribac-sodium, 11, 15, 30, 32, 51, 103
bittercress, 50
black cottonwood, 47
black swallow-wort, 21
blue grama grass, 53
Bouteloua gracilis, 53
boxwood, 7
Brachypterolus pulicarius, 19
Brassica juncea, 62
Brassica napus, 62
Brassica oleracea, 16
brittle naiad, 4
broadleaf plantain, 1
broccoli, 16
brown patch, 32
brussel sprouts, 33
buckhorn plantain, 86
buckwheat, 23, 62
bull paspalum, 52
burn-down, 36
burning bush, 7
Bushkiller, 24
butternut squash, 34
Buxus, 83
C
Campsis radicans, 24
carbohydrate partitioning, 31
cardamine, 27
Cardamine flexuosa, 27
Cardamine hirsuta, 26, 27, 50, 83
Cardamine oligosperma, 27
Cardamine pensylvanica, 27
Cardamine scutata, 27
Carex, 59
carfentrazone, 28, 52, 53, 86, 91
carpetweed, 69
cauliflower, 16
Cayratia japonica, 24
Celastrus orbiculatus, 60
Chamaesyce maculata, 26, 50, 83
Chamaesyce nutans, 83
Chenopodium album, 3, 37, 41, 62, 70, 72, 76
chickweed, 1, 49
chlorimuron, 45, 69, 95
chloroacetamide, 49
chlorosis, 7, 11, 15, 16, 28, 54, 55, 63, 81, 82, 92, 98
chlorsulfuron, 42, 53, 77
cinquefoil, 75
clethodim, 95
climate change, 39
clomazone, 69, 70
clopyralid, 63, 64, 81, 93
cloransulam, 45, 69, 70
Coloneaster horizontallis, 83
colonial bentgrass, 32
Commelinaceae, 58
182

common chickweed, 23
common groundsel, 49, 50
common lambsquarters, 3, 37, 40, 41, 62, 70, 72, 76
common purslane, 3, 23
common ragweed, 40, 70, 72, 76, 81
common reed, 25
common sunflower, 98
Convolvulaceae, 65
Conyza canadensis, 76, 81
coral bells, 7
corn, 8, 38, 43, 44, 78, 79
corn chamomile, 23
Coronaria varia, 60
cover crop, 23, 62
crabgrass, 18, 49, 50, 93
cranberry, 75
creeping bentgrass, 15, 28, 30, 32, 103
creeping red fescue, 88
crimper, 36
crop oil concentrate, 30, 79
crop rotation, 9, 16
Cucurbita moschata, 34
cultivation, 9, 16, 17, 33, 34, 41, 62, 69, 97
cultivator, 8
cultural practices, 16
Cuscuta spp, 65
Cuscutaceae, 65
cyclanilide, 48
Cynanchum rossicum, 6
Cynodon dactylon, 14
Cyperus dentatus, 75
Cyperus esculentus, 3, 55, 57
Cyperus iria, 50
D
2,4-D, 24, 41, 45, 53, 78, 86, 88, 93
dandelion, 1, 5, 86
daylily, 7
dazomet, 3
desmedipham, 95
dewberry, 75
dicamba, 45, 53, 72, 78, 86, 93, 95
dichlobenil, 95
diclofop, 42
diclofop-resistant ryegrass, 42
diflufenzopyr, 72
Digitaria ischaemum, 1, 5, 18, 20, 28, 52, 54, 89
Digitaria sanguinalis, 3, 26, 50, 70, 72, 79, 81, 83
dikegulac-sodium, 48
dimethenamid, 7, 26, 49, 50, 80, 81, 82, 84, 95
dithiopyr, 5, 18, 85
diuron, 95
dodder, 65
dollar spot, 32
doublefile viburnum, 82
Douglas fir, 47
doveweed, 26, 49, 50, 80
E
eclipta, 26, 49, 50
Eclipta prostrata, 26, 50, 83
Egeria, 4
Egeria densa, 4
Elaeagnaceae, 58
Elaeagnus angustifolia, 60
Eleusine indica, 50
emerald green arborvitae, 82
Eragrostis curvula, 59
Erechtites hieraciifolia, 50
establishment, 14, 29
establishment period, 20
ethalfluralin, 69
ethephon, 48, 101, 104
ethofumesate, 103
etiolated tiller, 102
Euonymus alatus, 7
Eupatorium capillifolium, 83
Eurasian watermilfoil, 4
Euthamia tenuifolia, 75
extension, 76
F
F6875, 84
Fagopyrum sagittatum, 62
fall burndown, 45
false green kyllinga, 90, 91
fecundity, 37
feedstock crops, 66
fenoxaprop, 52, 53, 54, 93
Festuca arundinacea, 28, 54, 57
Festuca ruba, 88
fine fescue, 11, 28, 87
flame weeding, 17
flazasulfuron, 53
fluazifop, 52, 53
flucarbazone, 28, 53, 77
flumetsulam, 40
flumioxazin, 45, 69, 73, 80, 82, 83, 95, 97
fluroxypyr, 2, 86, 93, 95
flurprimidol, 51, 103, 104
fomesafen, 69, 70, 71, 98
forage, 9
foramsulfuron, 53, 95
foxtail species, 62, 76
fraser fir, 81
fungal pathogens, 102
G
galinsoga, 49
germination, 6
giant foxtail, 37, 40, 70, 72, 79
giant hogweed, 2, 63
giant reed, 66
glufosinate, 72, 83, 95
Glycine max, 8, 38
glyphosate, 6, 10, 14, 22, 24, 25, 36, 40, 43, 44, 45,
63, 76, 81, 83, 88, 95
glyphosate resistant, 44
glyphosate tolerant, 43, 44
goosegrass, 50
183

growth regulator, 31
Gymnosperms, 59
H
habitat management, 39
hairy bittercress, 26, 49
hairy galinsoga, 23
halosulfuron, 34, 40, 53, 55, 69, 70, 91
hand weeding, 16, 17, 33
Helianthus annuus, 98
Hemerocallis, 7
henbit, 1
Heracleum mantegazzianum, 2, 63
herbaceous perennials, 49
herbicide-resistant biotypes, 76
herbivores, 19
Heuchera micrantha, 7
Hexazinone, 12
hilling, 41, 97
hoeing, 34, 69
holly, 47
horseweed, 76, 81
hosta, 7
Hosta fortunei, 7
HPPD inhibitors, 1, 78, 79, 85, 87
hydrangea, 47
Hydrangea macrophylla, 47
hydrilla, 4
Hydrilla verticillata, 4
I
Ilex cornuta, 83
Ilex vomitoria, 83
Ilex xmeserveae, 47
imazamox, 70
imazapic, 53
imazapyr, 10, 25, 63, 64
Imazasulfuron, 81
imazethapyr, 70
invasive vine, 6, 21
invasive plant, 19, 35, 64, 67
invasive potential, 66
Ipomoea batatas, 97
Ipomoea spp, 69, 70
IR-4, 46, 82, 84, 94, 95
isoxaben, 80, 83
isoxadifen-ethyl, 72
isoxaflutole, 40
Italian ryegrass, 42, 77
J
Japanese stiltgrass, 22, 35
juniper, 82
Juniperus, 83
Juniperus squamata, 82
K
Kentucky bluegrass, 1, 5, 14, 20, 28, 87, 88, 90, 91,
92, 99
KIH-485, 70, 72, 77, 79
kochia, 76
Kochia scoparia, 76
kudzu, 64
Kyllinga gracillima, 90, 91
L
lactofen, 95
Lagerstroemia, 83
Lamium amplexicaule, 1
landscape, 67, 84
Lantana, 83
large crabgrass, 3, 26, 70, 72, 79, 81
Leucanthemum x superbum, 7
Linaria vulgaris, 19
linuron, 95
Liquidambar styraciflua, 10
Liriodendron tulipifera, 10
Lirope muscari, 83
little bluestem grass, 53
liverwort, 49
Lolium multiflorum, 42, 77
Lolium perenne, 1, 14, 30, 55, 88, 89, 90, 91
Lolium spp, 76
Loropetalum chinensis, 83
Lycopersicon lycopersicum, 97
Lyngbya species, 4
Lysmachia terrestris, 75
M
Maine wild blueberry, 12
maleic hydrazide, 99
MCPP, 53, 86
mefluidide, 101, 104
mesosulfuron, 42, 77
mesosulfuron-resistant ryegrass, 42
mesotrione, 1, 5, 7, 12, 20, 40, 44, 52, 53, 54, 57, 72,
75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
96
methylated seed oil, 30, 54, 75, 79
metolachlor, 69
metribuzin, 45
metsulfuron, 42, 53, 64
Microstegium vimineum, 22, 35
minor crops, 46, 94, 96
miscanthus, 66
Miscanthus x giganteus, 66
Molluginaceae, 58
Mollugo verticillata, 69
morningglory species, 69
mouseear chickweed, 86
mowing, 6
MSMA, 52
mulching, 17
Murdannia nudiflora, 26, 50, 80, 83
184

mustard, 62
Myriophyllum spicatum, 4
N
Najas minor, 4
narrowleaved goldenrod, 75
necrosis, 73, 82, 87, 98
nicosulfuron, 53, 72, 78, 79
nightshade, 97
nimblewill, 87
nitrogen availability, 37
nonionic surfactant, 15, 25, 30, 34, 41, 44, 48, 52, 54,
55, 69, 75, 85, 90, 91
non-native taxa, 59
no-till, 45
noxious weed, 2, 64, 65
nurseries, 27, 47, 67, 80
nutsedge, 75, 87
O
Oplismenus hirtellus, 22
organic weed management, 9, 17, 38
ornamentals, 7, 46, 67, 82, 83, 84
oryzalin, 80
oxadiazon, 18, 80, 83
Oxalis stricta, 20
oxyfluorfen, 80, 81, 95
P
paclobutrazol, 48, 51, 103, 104
pale swallow-wort, 6, 21
Palmer amaranth, 98
Panicum virgatum, 66
paraquat, 45
parasitic plant, 65
Parthenocissus quinquefolia, 24
Paspalum setaceum, 52
peas, 71
pendimethalin, 18, 26, 49, 50, 69, 70, 79, 80, 81, 82,
84, 95
penoxsulam, 25, 88
pepper, 33
perennial weed, 21, 24
perennial ryegrass, 1, 11, 14, 30, 55, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91, 92
Phaseolus vulgaris, 70
phenmedipham, 95
photosystem II, 28
Phragmites, 25
Phragmites australis, 25, 60
phyllanthus sp, 49
Phyllanthus tenellus, 83
phytotoxicity, 12, 70, 73, 89, 99
pigweed species, 3, 70, 76
pinoxaden, 42, 77
Pinus resinosa, 58
Pinus rigida, 58
Pinus strobus, 58
plant growth regulators, 40, 48, 51, 100, 102, 103,
104, 105
Plantago major, 1
plastic mulch, 3
Poa annua, 11, 30, 32, 51, 88, 90, 91, 100, 103, 105
Poa pratensis, 1, 5, 14, 20, 28, 88, 90, 91
Poa trivialis, 15, 32
Poaceae, 58
pollinator, 39
Polygonum cuspidatum, 60
Populus trichocarpa, 47
Portulaca oleracea, 3
potato, 41, 71, 97
Potentilla canadensis, 75
Powell amaranth, 23
primisulfuron-methyl, 53, 78
prodiamine, 5, 18, 57, 80, 82, 83, 84, 90
pronamide, 95
prostrate knotweed, 86
Pseudotsuga menziesii, 47
Pueraria montana, 64
pumpkins, 71
pyridine herbicide, 85
pyrithiobac, 69
Q
Quercus, 58
quinclorac, 1, 52, 53, 54, 93
R
red maple, 10
red pine, 58
resistance, 42, 76
resistance management, 45
Rhizoctonia solani, 32
rhododendron, 48
Rhododendron, 83
rice flat sedge, 50
rimsulfuron, 40, 41, 70, 78, 79
roller, 36
Rosa, 83
Rosa multiflora, 60
rotary harrow, 8
rotary hoe, 8
roughstalk bluegrass, 15, 32
Rubus spp, 75
rye, 36
ryegrass species, 76
S
safener, 72
Schizachyrium scoparium, 53
Sclerotinia homoeocarpa, 32
sedges, 49
seed stratification, 6
seedbank, 23, 62
Senecio vulgaris, 50
Setaria faberi, 37, 70, 72, 79
185

Setaria spp, 62, 76
sethoxydim, 95
Shasta daisy, 7
shepherd’s-purse, 23
siduron, 1, 20
silage corn, 9
silverleaf sawbrier, 75
simazine, 45, 53
small grains, 9
s-metolachlor, 44, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80
Smilax glauca, 75
smooth crabgrass, 1, 5, 18, 20, 28, 52, 54, 89
smooth pigweed, 72
snap bean, 70, 98
soil fumigant, 3
Solanum, 97
Solanum tuberosum, 97
Sonchus asper, 50
Sorghum spp, 76
soybean, 8, 38
specialty crops, 46, 94, 95
spectrophotometer, 31
spiny sowthistle, 50
Spiraea x bumalda, 82
spirea, 82
Spirea japonica, 83
spotted spurge, 26, 50
Sprigging, 29
spring barley, 9
spring wheat, 9
spurge sp, 49
squash, 69
stale seed bedding, 17
Stellaria media, 1
strawberries, 73
sudan grass, 9
sulfentrazone, 28, 45, 52, 53, 55, 57, 82, 84, 90, 91
sulfonylurea, 79
sulfosulfuron, 15, 53, 55
survey, 17, 76
sweet corn, 72
sweet gum, 10
sweet potatoes, 97
switchgrass, 66
T
tall fescue, 11, 28, 54, 57, 87, 92
Taraxacum officinale, 1, 5
tembotrione, 1, 53, 72, 78, 79
terbacil, 69
thifensulfuron, 78
thin paspalum, 52
Thuja occidentalis, 82
Thuja orientalis, 83
tillage, 6, 8
tomato, 71, 97
topdressing, 29
topramezone, 1, 53, 72, 75, 78, 79
transition zone, 14
triazine resistant, 41
triazines, 40, 44
triazolone, 28
tribenuron, 45, 95
triclopyr, 2, 10, 24, 63, 64, 85, 86, 93
trifloxysulfuron, 53
trifluralin, 18, 80, 83
Trifluralin, 98
Trifolium repens, 20, 28, 54
triketone, 5
trinexapac ethyl, 14, 31, 51, 99, 101, 104
Triticum aestivum, 77
trumpetcreeper, 24
tulip poplar, 10
turfgrass, 1, 5, 11, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 51, 55, 86,
87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 100, 102, 105
turfgrass diseases, 32
U
urea ammonium nitrate, 75, 79
V
V-10142, 55
Vaccinium angustifolium, 12
Vaccinium macrocarpon, 75
vascular flora, 58
vegetable production, 3, 33
velvetleaf, 40, 62, 70, 72
Velvetleaf, 37
Viburnum, 83
Viburnum odoratissimum, 83
Viburnum plicatum, 82
Viburnum tinus, 83
Vincetoxicum nigrum, 21
Vincetoxicum rossicum, 21
vinegar, 16, 33
Viola spp, 20
Virginia creeper, 24
Vitaceae, 24
W
wavyleaf basketgrass, 22
wet-blade, 10
wetlands, 60
wheat, 23, 77
white clover, 20, 28, 54, 86
white pine, 58
wild oats, 76
wild violet, 20
winter barley, 9
winter canola, 62
winter triticale, 9
winter wheat, 9
woodsorrel, 49
woody ornamentals, 49
woody shrub, 60
woody vine, 60
186

Y
yellow loosestrife, 75
yellow nutsedge, 3, 40, 55, 57
yellow rocket, 23
yellow toadflax, 19
yellow wood sorrel, 20
Z
Zea mays, 8, 38, 72, 78, 79
187

188