Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

---------T---~~-- 118 EVALUA ON OF HERBICIDES FOR CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE IN FINE FESCUE Chad W. Spackman, Jon M. Johnson, and Larry J. Kuhnsl/ ABSTRACf As part of a cooperative project between the Pennsylvania State University and the Pennsylv .a Department of Transportation, a trial was established to evaluate several herbicides for selectiv control of Canada thistle (CirsiumarvenseL.) within a stand of fine fescue. The study area as located within an established stand of fine fescue, comprised predominantly of hard fescue (Fe tucalongifoliaThuill.), at Penn State's Landscape Management Research Center and arranged' a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments included an untreated c eck, 0.75 lbs/ac diglycolamine salt of dicamba (dicamba), 0.35 lbs/ac SAN 1269H alone and' combination with O.5lbs/ac dicamba, 0.23lbslac clopyralid, 0.75lbs/ac dicamba in combinati n with 0.12Ibs/ac clopyralid or 0.0121bs/ac metsulfuron methyl, 2lbs/ac glyphosate, 1 lb/ac tricl yr, and 0.1881bs/ac imazameth. All treatments, except glyphosate, contained 0.125% (v/v) surf tant21and all contained 0.25% (v/v) drift control agent 3 /. Application was made to 6 by 10 ft plots n June 12, 1996, using a C02-powered hand held sprayer equipped with Spraying Systems 8004 VS spray tips, delivering 40 GPA at 35 psi. Ground cover ratings of the fine fescue we taken June 12; July 24, 43 days after treatment (DAT); and August 30, 79 DAT. An initial cou t of thistle stems within the plots was taken June 12. A count of uncontrolled thistle stems and istle resprouts was taken July 24 and August 30. These values were utilized for determinin percent thistle resprouts and percent thistle decline, which evaluates the extent of decline of e originally treated stems and was affected by either treatment or natural senescence. Percent de line and resprouting results are reported in Table 1. All tre tments, except triclopyr or imazameth, provided similar levels of thistle decline at the July 24 ra ng. Triclopyr was slightly lower, while imazameth was not different from theuntreated check. D to natural senescence of the thistle plants, an increase in thistle decline was evident at the Augus rating, as the untreated check escalated from 15 percent decline in July to 64 percent in August. I other treatments, excluding the check and imazameth, provided similar levels of decline at e August rating. Percent thistle resprouting values at the July rating were similar for all treatments except triclopyr with the highest level at 37 percent. There was no significant difference among treatments at the August rating except for imazameth, which actually resprouted by 151 pe nt. None of the treatments thinned the fine fescue stand but imazameth provided slight n sis to the leaf tips. All tre tments, except imazameth, provided selective control of treated thistles; but all still had significan resprouting occur. No treatment provided an overall acceptable level of control, therefore peat applications would benecessary to eliminate the thistle. 1/ Researc Technologist, Project Assistant, and Professor of Ornamental Horticulture, respectively, The Penns lvania State University, University Park, PA. 21Qwik:W 357 (Exacto Inc.) 3/ Polytex 1001 (Exacto Inc.)
119 TABLE 1: Herbi .de treatments were applied June 12, 1996. Percentage of Canada thistle decline and percentage of istle resprouts from ratings taken July 24 and August 30, 1996. Each value is the mean of three lications. App canon Herbicidel/ Rate Au st 30 (lbs ac) ------- ) untreated check 15 64 dicamba 0.75 90 98 SAN 1269H 0.35 90 99 dicamba 0.5 94 98 SAN 1269H 0.35 clopyralid dicamba clopyralid dicamba metsulfuron meth I glyphosate triclopyr 0.23 0.75 0.12 0.75 0.012 2 1 0.188 80 90 87 96 78 28 15 1 99 99 98 99 98 84 11 13 21 12 20 37 10 . 22 52 49 78 34 78 151 0.1 72 11All treatments, e cept glyphosate, contained QwikWet 357 (Exacto Inc.) @ 0.125% (v/v) and all treatments contained the ft control agent Polytex AlOOl @ 0.25% (v/v).
Page 1 and 2:
1 DE~LOPING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTIC
Page 3 and 4:
3 MATERIALSANDMETHODS Experiments w
Page 5 and 6:
I 5 I Table 3. Stand density of oat
Page 7 and 8:
7 TaL~NCEaFHNE~CU~TaCL~HarnM Larry
Page 9 and 10:
9 I CONTROLLING QUACKGRASS WITH CLE
Page 11 and 12:
BELTSV~LLE 11 SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTUR
Page 13 and 14:
Ii 13 I The 1996NEWSSCollegiateWeed
Page 15 and 16:
15 EFFECTOF rREPLANT TILLAGEANDNICO
Page 17 and 18:
17 i PENNMUjLCH, A NEW MULCH FOR TU
Page 19 and 20:
19 cover the sta~es in the Northeas
Page 21 and 22:
21 I TABLEt CORN WEED CONTROL EFFIC
Page 23 and 24:
23 COMMON LAMBSQUARTERS CONTROL IN
Page 25 and 26:
I I 25 I Table 2. Effectivaness of
Page 27 and 28:
27 PERFORMANCE OF PREEMERGENCE TREA
Page 29 and 30:
I i I i I I 29 EFFECT OF TANK-MIXIN
Page 31 and 32:
I 31 I EVALVATIONOF WEED CONTROLA
Page 33 and 34:
I I i 33 I EFFECT$ OF EXP 31130A AN
Page 35 and 36:
35 Effect OfPO~T ApplicationTimingo
Page 37 and 38:
II I ! I ! Ii I I 37 PREE~ERGENCE C
Page 39 and 40:
I 39 U+ OF SLUDGE BASED FERTILIZERS
Page 41 and 42:
i I 41 I EFFECT OF fSOXABEN APPLIED
Page 43 and 44:
I 43 ~STCRABGRASS CONTROL AS lWO os
Page 45 and 46:
I II 45 iI Gallery* f,r Weed Preven
Page 47 and 48:
I POTENTIAL I I 47 USE OF EXP-31130
Page 49 and 50:
I" i 49 j PFMERGENCE CONTROL OF PRO
Page 51 and 52:
51 TIIE E...·rL"",,- L OF TRINEXAP
Page 53 and 54:
53 PERF011MANICEOF ISOXAFLUTOLE IN
Page 55 and 56:
55 ISOXAFL OLE COMBINATIONSWITH PRE
Page 57 and 58:
57 Weed Interference in Full Season
Page 59 and 60:
59 HERBICIDE TRATEGIES FOR CONTROL
Page 61 and 62:
61 Table 1.Eff ct of WeedControlTre
Page 63 and 64:
63 DETECTION ND MOVEMENT PATTERN OF
Page 65 and 66:
65 TRAILERING AFETY: A TRAINING COU
Page 67 and 68: 67 EV ALUATIO OF WIT..DFLOWER ESTAB
Page 69 and 70: 69 LlNGSNOW ECOSYSTEM PROJECT: MICR
Page 71 and 72: 71 TABLE 1: Tree . jury provided by
Page 74 and 75: 74 GSNOW ECOSYSTEM PROJECT: WHITE S
Page 76 and 77: 16 cherry (Pnmus se otina ranks fou
Page 78 and 79: .J 78 Table 1. Density, (D), relati
Page 80 and 81: ~---------_._-~---_.._--- 80 A NEW
Page 82 and 83: 82 WEED AFFINITY GROUPS AS A TOOL I
Page 84 and 85: 84 NEW TE HNIQUE TO COMPARE EFFICAC
Page 86 and 87: 86 PRO UCTION PERFORMANCE OF GLYPHO
Page 88 and 89: 88 Managing nterseeded Cover Crops
Page 90 and 91: -----------t----~--- 90 Since weed
Page 92 and 93: 92 The mechanistic model (equ. I) a
Page 94 and 95: 94 Exploring the Feasibility of Pro
Page 96 and 97: 96 INHIBI ING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CI
Page 98 and 99: 98 However it .ncreased the control
Page 100 and 101: 100 LIVERWORT AND PEARLWORT MANAGEM
Page 102 and 103: 102 ULFENTRAZONEAND HALOSULFURON:HE
Page 104 and 105: 104 estern New York Nursery IPM Pro
Page 106 and 107: 106 C MMONRAGWEEDCONTROLIN FIELD CO
Page 108 and 109: 108 CGA-77102: A New Herbicide for
Page 110 and 111: 110 POSTEMERGENCEWEEDCONTROLIN SOYB
Page 112 and 113: 112 E FECTS OF REPEATEDLATE-WINTERH
Page 114 and 115: 114 GSNOW ECOSYSTEl\1 PROJECT: NITR
Page 116 and 117: 116 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION GI fosin
Page 120 and 121: 120 B USB CONTROL PROVIDED BY LOW V
Page 122 and 123: ------- 122 W VOLUMEWEED AND BRUSH
Page 124 and 125: 124 EVA UATION OFGLYPHOSATEFOR DORM
Page 126 and 127: 126 E ALUATION OF IMAZAMETH FOR WEE
Page 128 and 129: 128 Presidential Address Delivered
Page 130 and 131: 130 Ho much land can ten billion pe
Page 132 and 133: Waggone December 24, 1994 132 count
Page 134 and 135: Waggone December 24, 1994 134 25 Pa
Page 136 and 137: Waggone December 24, 1994 136 which
Page 138 and 139: December 24, 1994 138 sets the pecu
Page 140 and 141: ----------+---- Waggone December 24
Page 142 and 143: Waggone December 24, 1994 142 soil
Page 144 and 145: Waggone December 24, 1994 144 ~oo~
Page 146 and 147: Waggoner December 24, 1994 146 350
Page 148 and 149: 148 Appendix Calculate the environm
Page 150 and 151: 150 alone ac eptably controls typic
Page 152 and 153: 152 opportu ity to use sethoxydim a
Page 154 and 155: ---------+----------- 154 IMPACT OF
Page 156 and 157: 156 The STS® time line: • 1986 -
Page 158 and 159: -------_. __ ._._--- d •••..
Page 160 and 161: -----_._~-_._.__.- 160 SYNCBRONYTM.
Page 162 and 163: 162 Government approvals for Roundu
Page 164 and 165: HH i ! 164 AG6101 l.oundup Ready®
Page 166 and 167: 166 n Lib rty LinkTM soybeans will
Page 168 and 169:
168 IMITMCORN YIELD PERFORMANCE* (H
Page 170 and 171:
170 to $15 an ere depending upon ho
Page 172 and 173:
172 e recent occurrence has been th
Page 174 and 175:
174 He bicide was added to the tiss
Page 176 and 177:
176 it can at ti es be a weed in Ke
Page 178 and 179:
178 ty's main campus that Rhizocton
Page 180 and 181:
180 weight conclu qualit treatm and
Page 182 and 183:
182 during the st or 2nd growing se
Page 184 and 185:
184 TABLE 1. Mean raspberry cover (
Page 186 and 187:
186 (A) STEM VOLUME - SPRING TRTM.,
Page 188 and 189:
188 concluded at 5.1 em of simulate
Page 190 and 191:
190 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ank United Agr
Page 192 and 193:
192 AGRICULTURE NEEDS MORE WEED SCI
Page 194 and 195:
194 Who is going to provide the edu
Page 196 and 197:
20 18 - 16 A v 14 e r 12 a g 10 e s
Page 198 and 199:
198 50th Annual Business Meeting of
Page 200 and 201:
200 • Graduate team winners were:
Page 202 and 203:
202 solclose to the New Year, as it
Page 204 and 205:
----~------ 204 e Committee Reports
Page 206 and 207:
! I 206 I Administration $1,527.23
Page 208 and 209:
208 Glickman comments that his "hig
Page 210 and 211:
210 York Sta~e. It is still unclear
Page 212 and 213:
I I I Bingham, SamuJ Wayne Virginia
Page 214 and 215:
214 Cianessi, Leonard Nat. Center o
Page 216 and 217:
L I • I I I I Langston, Vemon Dow
Page 218 and 219:
__________ m---+---m__ .... 218 Rie
Page 220 and 221:
-----------~ I I 220 Whalen, Mark Z
Page 222 and 223:
Helicopter Applicators, Inc. Martin
Page 224 and 225:
224 Employers of NEWSS members in 1
Page 226 and 227:
.l I I I I 226 NEWSSPASTPRESIDENTS
Page 228 and 229:
228 AWARD OF MERIT 1971 1972 1973 1
Page 230 and 231:
1995 I I I 230 Fra~cis J. Webb •
Page 232 and 233:
II II 232 1995 1'R~chard Ashly Univ
Page 234 and 235:
234 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1
Page 236 and 237:
I, I 236 1989 - AmeriJan Cyanamid,
Page 238 and 239:
--------_.~-------- 238 RESEARCH PO
Page 240 and 241:
1995 1 - iAComparison of Broadleaf
Page 242 and 243:
242 1960 1961 1962 . The Influence
Page 244 and 245:
244 1975 1 - Control of Jimsonweed
Page 246 and 247:
246 1984 1 - Pre-TransplantOxyfluor
Page 248 and 249:
248 Common or Code name trade Name
Page 250 and 251:
250 Common or Code name , rrade Nam
Page 252 and 253:
252 I Common ot Code namel I I flur
Page 254 and 255:
254 Common o~ Code name' I I i Trad
Page 256 and 257:
256 Common or i Code name I Trade N
Page 258 and 259:
258 , Ackley, J.A .• 7 Adams, R.G
Page 260 and 261:
260 1 I 2,4-D 2, 14, 1~, 22, 23,28,
Page 262 and 263:
262 I Agrosticpalus(ris 47, 48 Agro
Page 264 and 265:
SUBJECT INDEX Application T~mings 4
Page 266 and 267:
266 WEED INDEX Abutilon theop~rosti
show all

Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 51â1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society