Vol. 66â2012 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

PROCEEDINGS - VOLUME 6666 th Annual Meeting of theNortheastern Weed Science SocietyWeed Science Funding: New Avenues for a Changing LandscapeJanuary 3-6, 2012 ▪ Sheraton Society Hill Hotel ▪ Philadelphia, PAAnnual Meeting of theNortheast RegionAmerican Society forHorticultural Science

Meeting LocationSheraton Society Hill HotelOne Dock StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106(215)-238-60002013 Joint Meeting with WSSA:February 4 - 7, 2013Monday through ThursdayLocation: Hilton, Baltimore, MDTo order a copy of the Proceedings contact:Irene Tsontakis-BradleyCornell Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center3059 Sound Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901Ph: 631-727-3595it21@cornell.eduFor information regarding the Annual Meeting of the Northeast Region-American Society for Horticultural Science contact:Nick Polanin at polanin@njaes.rutgers.edu.The cover photo of common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) provided byJennifer D’Appollonio of the University of Maine was the winning photo of the2011 NEWSS Photo Contest.

Proceedingsof theSixty-sixth Annual Meetingof theNortheastern Weed Science SocietyDarren W. Lycan, Editor

NORTHEASTERNWEED SCIENCE SOCIETY2012 Sustaining MembersPlatinumGoldSilverBronzeACDSReality ResearchWEEDS, Inc.Gylling Data ManagementLABServicesii

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS .......................................................................... 1EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS .......................................................................... 2SECTION CHAIRS .......................................................................................................... 3COMMITTEES ................................................................................................................ 42011 NEWSS ANNUAL MEETING AWARD WINNERS ................................................ 62011 WEED OLYMPICS WINNERS ............................................................................... 7NEWSS POSTERS ......................................................................................................... 8THE SINNEMAHONNING COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (SIPMA) GETS TO WORK. T.J. MEYER,J. ZOSCHG, AND M.A. BRAVO*, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (1) ... 8GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES. M.A. BRAVO*, I.D.BOWERS, AND J. ZOSCHG, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (2) ........ 9COMPARING HERBICIDE TOLERANCES OF RARE AND COMMON PLANTS IN LANCASTER COUNTY, PA.I.M. GRAHAM*, J. EGAN, AND D. MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA(3) ................................................................................................................................... 10EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE, SPRAY DROPLET SIZE AND SPRAY VOLUME ON CROP TOLERANCE ANDWEED CONTROL WITH ENLIST DUO. B.D. OLSON*, D.M. SIMPSON, D.E. HILLGER, C.C. LOVE, AND D.T.ELLIS, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (4) ..................................................................... 11MODELING OF VOLATILITY OF 2,4-D ESTER, DMA AND CHOLINE FORMULATIONS. B.D. OLSON*, D.E.HILLGER, P. HAVENS, J.A. HUFF, R.B. LASSITER, AND J.S. RICHBURG, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA,NY (5) .............................................................................................................................. 12METHODOLOGY FOR UTILIZING LOW TUNNEL STRUCTURES TO EVALUATE DIFFERENCES IN HERBICIDEVOLATILITY. B.D. OLSON*, D.D. RUEN, D.E. HILLGER, AND E.F. SCHERDER, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,GENEVA, NY (6).................................................................................................................. 13EFFECTS OF METHIOZOLIN RATES ON CREEPING BENTGRASS AND ANNUAL BLUEGRASS ROOTGROWTH. K.A. VENNER*, S. ASKEW, AND S. KOO, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (7)..................... 14CROP ROTATION: SEQUENCE BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS. C.L. MOHLER*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA,NY (8) .............................................................................................................................. 15HERBICIDE EVALUATION FOR WATERMELON GROWN WITH PLASTICULTURE. S.A. MATHEW*, B.A. SCOTT,AND M.J. VANGESSEL, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, CAMBRIDGE, MD (9)......................................... 16EVALUATION OF PACLOBUTRAZOL FORMULATIONS AND RATES FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROLON PUTTING GREENS. A. POST*, S. ASKEW, M.C. COX, AND J. CORBETT, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG,VA (10) ............................................................................................................................. 17EFFECT OF WEED REMOVAL TIMING IN CORN AS INFLUENCED BY NITROGEN SOURCE AND RATE. W.J.EVERMAN*, A. KNIGHT, AND J. HINTON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (11) ........ 18A NEW POCKET SCOUTING GUIDE FOR AQUATIC WEEDS. B. LASSITER, R.J. RICHARDSON*, AND G.WILKERSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (12) .......................................... 19HAIRY VETCH SEEDBANK PERSISTENCE AS INFLUENCED BY MECHANICAL SCARIFICATION AND SOILDEPTH. B.C. CROCKETT*, S. MIRSKY, AND W.S. CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITYPARK, PA (13) .................................................................................................................... 20iii

IMPACTS OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA ON SOIL ENZYME ACTIVITY AND FERTILITY. Q.ZHONG*, X. JUNFANG, Q. GUOMING, Z. JIA-EN, M. DANJUAN, AND A. DITOMMASO, SOUTH CHINAAGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, GUANGZHOU, CHINA (14) .............................................................. 21PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA TODIFFERENT IRRADIANCES. M. DANJUAN, Q. ZHONG*, Q. GUOMING, Z. JIA-EN, X. JUNFANG, AND A.DITOMMASO, SOUTH CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, GUANGZHOU, CHINA (15) ......................... 22MODELLING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA IN CHINA. Q.ZHONG*, A. DITOMMASO, C.L. MOHLER, AND Z. JIA-EN, SOUTH CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,GUANGZHOU, CHINA (16) ..................................................................................................... 23SEEDLING EMERGENCE OF SEVERAL WEED SPECIES AS AFFECTED BY FURROW LOCATION, CORNPLANTING DENSITY AND PATTERN. F. KORDBACHEH*, H. RAHIMIAN MASHHADI, AND A. DITOMMASO,UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN, TEHRAN, IRAN (17) ............................................................................ 24THE EFFECT OF TIMING AND THE METHOD OF CONTROL ON JAPANESE STILTGRASS SEEDPRODUCTION. J.L. HUFFMAN*, E.S. RAUSCHERT, A.E. GOVER, AND A.N. NORD, PENNSYLVANIE STATEUNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (18) .................................................................................. 25PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF DICAMBA PERFORMANCE IN DICAMBA TOLERANT SOYBEANS INTHE NORTHEAST. D.J. MAYONADO*, R.L. RITTER, M.J. VANGESSEL, AND H.P. WILSON, MONSANTO,SALISBURY, MD (19) ............................................................................................................ 26SWEET VERNALGRASS: A NEW WEED PROBLEM FOR NORTHEASTERN TURFGRASS. A.N. SMITH* AND S.ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (20) ......................................................................... 27WEED MANAGEMENT WITH TEMBOTRIONE AND ISOXAFLUTOLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. W.J. EVERMAN*, J.HINTON, AND M. ROSEMOND, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (21) ..................... 28INVESTIGATING POKEWEED MANAGEMENT IN FIELD CROPS. K.M. PATCHES* AND W.S. CURRAN,PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (22) ................................................... 29MECHANICAL AND CULTURAL EFFECTS ON LIMA BEAN WEED CONTROL. B.A. SCOTT*, M.J. VANGESSEL,AND Q. JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (23) ......................................... 30THE WEEDOLYMPICS: A NATIONAL WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. J.T. BROSNAN*, G. ARMEL, G.K. BREEDEN,J.J. VARGAS, AND M.J. VANGESSEL, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (24) ...................... 31TANK MIXTURES AND APPLICATION INTERVALS FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROL WITHMETAMIFOP. M.C. COX* AND S. ASKEW, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (25) ................................ 32TALL FESCUE TOLERANCE TO TOWER® (DIMETHENAMID) AND FREEHAND (DIMETHENAMID +PENDIMETHALIN). D. GOMEZ DE BARREDA* AND P. MCCULLOUGH, POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OFVALENCIA, VALENCIA, SPAIN (26) ........................................................................................... 33STUDENT PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................... 34EFFECT OF SAFLUFENACIL APPLICATION TIMING ON SOYBEAN AND ITS ROLE IN MANAGINGGLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED. J.T. IKLEY* AND R.L. RITTER, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,COLLEGE PARK, MD (38) ...................................................................................................... 34ABSORPTION, TRANSLOCATION, AND METABOLISM OF AMINOCYCLO-PYRACHLOR IN LOBLOLLY PINE(PINUS TAEDA). R.L. ROTEN* AND R.J. RICHARDSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC(39) ................................................................................................................................. 35CONTROL OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS BIOTYPES WITH THREE POSTEMERGENT HERBICIDES. K.M. HAN*AND J.E. KAMINSKI, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (40) ......................... 36HERBICIDAL ACTIVITY OF HETEROCYCLIC ANALOGUES OF DICHLOBENIL ON VARIOUS WEED ANDORNAMENTAL SPECIES. J.W. THOMAS*, G. ARMEL, M.D. BEST, W. KLINGEMAN, C-L. DO-THANH, AND H.E.BOSTIC, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (41) .......................................................... 37iv

EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES IN TENNESSEE.J.J. VARGAS*, G. ARMEL, W. KLINGEMAN, P. FLANAGAN, R.M. EVANS, R.J. RICHARDSON, AND R.L. ROTEN,UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (42) ...................................................................... 38FINE FESCUE VARIETAL TOLERANCE TO GLYPHOSATE RATES. M.C. COX*, S. ASKEW, W. ASKEW, AND J.GOATLEY JR., VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (43) ................................................................. 39EFFECTS OF ROOTING DEPTH ON HYBRID BERMUDAGRASS (C. DACTYLON X. C. TRANSVAALENSIS)INJURY WITH INDAZIFLAM IN VARIOUS SOILS. P.A. JONES*, J.T. BROSNAN, G.K. BREEDEN, AND M.T.ELMORE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE, KNOXVILLE, TN (44) ......................................... 40EFFECT OF CORN HERBICIDES ON SUCCESSFUL COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT. C.S. DILLON* AND W.S.CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (45) ...................................... 41PARTITIONING OUT THE EFFECTS OF NUTRIENTS FROM COMPOSTED MANURE ON WEEDS AND CROPS.N.G. LITTLE*, C.L. MOHLER, A. DITOMMASO, AND Q.M. KETTERINGS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY(46) ................................................................................................................................. 42EFFECTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT LEGACY ON WEED-CROP COMPETITION. H.J. POFFENBARGER*, S.MIRSKY, J. TEASDALE, J. SPARGO, D. TIMLIN, J. MAUL, AND M. CAVIGELLI, USDA-ARS, BELTSVILLE, MD (47)...................................................................................................................................... 43EVALUATING INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT FOR NO-TILL DAIRY CROPPING SYSTEMS. E.M.SNYDER*, W.S. CURRAN, H.D. KARSTEN, AND G.M. MALCOLM, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (48) ................................................................................................... 44THE EFFECT OF ROW SPACING ON WEED PRESSURE, YIELD AND ECONOMICS IN SOYBEAN. J.M.ORLOWSKI*, W.J. COX, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (49) ......................... 45EFFECTIVENESS OF SHALLOW HIGH-RESIDUE CULTIVATION IN NO-TILL SOYBEAN. W.S. CURRAN ANDC.L. KEENE*, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (50) .................................. 46IMPACT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ON PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL USING MICROWAVERADIATION. A. RANA* AND J.F. DERR, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (51) .................................. 47INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF BIOENERGY CROPS USING THE NEW APHIS ASSESSMENT: HOW RISKY ISRENEWABLE ENERGY? L.L. SMITH* AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (52) ............ 48INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS FOR SILVERY THREAD MOSSON PUTTING GREENS. A. POST*, S. ASKEW, AND D. MCCALL, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (53) .... 49NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY OF THE “INVASIVE” MISCANTHUS SINENSIS POPULATIONS OF EASTERNNORTH AMERICA. R.F. DOUGHERTY*, L. QUINN, T. VOIGT, B. ENDRES, AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH,BLACKSBURG, VA (54) ......................................................................................................... 50DO DEER BROWSE ON INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS? DEER PREFERENCE TRIAL RESULTS FOR NATIVEAND INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS IN PENNSYLVANIA. K.M. AVERILL* AND D. MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIASTATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (55) ........................................................................ 51ECONOMICS, EFFICACY, AND NON-TARGET EFFECTS OF MANAGING THE FOREST UNDERSTORYINVADER MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM. D. TEKIELA*, A. POST, S. ASKEW, AND J.N. BARNEY, VIRGINIA TECH,BLACKSBURG, VA (56) ......................................................................................................... 52NITROGEN-ENHANCED EFFICACY OF MESOTRIONE AND TOPRAMEZONE FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS(DIGITARIA ISCHAEMUM) CONTROL. M.T. ELMORE*, J.T. BROSNAN, G.K. BREEDEN, AND P.A. JONES,UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (57) ...................................................................... 53QUANTIFYING VAPOR DRIFT OF DICAMBA HERBICIDES APPLIED TO SOYBEAN. J. EGAN* AND D.MORTENSEN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (58) ................................. 54NICOSULFURON-RESISTANT JOHNSONGRASS EXHIBITS DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY TO GLYPHOSATE.A.N. SMITH* AND E. HAGOOD, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (59) ............................................. 55v

WEED BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY .............................................................................. 56THE NON-NATIVE VASCULAR FLORA OF MONOMOY ISLANDS, MASSACHUSETTS. R. STALTER*, ST.JOHN’S UNIVERSITY, QUEENS, NY (60) .................................................................................... 56COMPOST INCREASES WEED ABUNDANCE IN AN ORGANIC GRAIN CROPPING SYSTEM. C.A.MARSCHNER*, C.L. MOHLER, B.A. CALDWELL, AND A. DITOMMASO, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY(61) ................................................................................................................................. 59INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO DODDER SPECIES VARIATION IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. K.M.GHANTOUS*, S. STEFANOVIC, AND H.A. SANDLER, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, EAST WAREHAM,MA (62) ............................................................................................................................. 60EARLY SEASON PHENOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF CEREAL RYE PERFORMANCE. S. MIRSKY*, J. SPARGO,W.S. CURRAN, M.R. RYAN, AND S. C. REBERG-HORTON, USDA-ARS, BELTSVILLE, MD (63)................... 61ORNAMENTALS .......................................................................................................... 62BEDDING PLANT RESPONSE TO DIMETHENAMID. J.F. DERR*, VIRGINIA TECH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (64) 62EARLY POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF BITTERCRESS (CARDAMINE HIRSUTA) IN CONTAINER PLANTPRODUCTION. C. MARBLE*, C. GILLIAM, AND A. ALEXANDER, AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AUBURN, AL (65) .... 63IR-4 2011 CROP INJURY SUMMARY OF SEVERAL HERBICIDES ON ORNAMENTAL NURSERY CROPS. K.A.HESTER*, C.L. PALMER, E. VEA, AND J. BARON, THE IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (66) .................... 64IR-4 2011 SUMMARY OF POSTEMERGENT LIVERWORT CONTROL IN NURSERY CONTAINERS. K.A.HESTER*, C.L. PALMER, E. LURVEY, AND J. BARON, THE IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (67) ............... 65PHENOXY HERBICIDE SAFETY IN CONTAINER PRODUCTION OF MUHLENBERGIA AND MISCANTHUS. C.HARLOW* AND J.C. NEAL, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (68) .......................... 66TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO MESOTRIONE, DIMETHENAMID-P, ANDPENDIMETHALIN PLUS DIMETHENAMID-P APPLICATIONS. T.L. MERVOSH* AND J.F. AHRENS,CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WINDSOR, CT (69) ...................................... 67POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF MONOCOTYLEDONOUS WEEDS IN SELECTED CONTAINER-GROWNORNAMENTALS. A.F. SENESAC*, CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, RIVERHEAD, NY (70) .............. 68SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF MULCH AND MULCH / HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS IN PANSY BEDS. J.C. NEAL*,C. HARLOW, AND B. FAIR, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (71) .......................... 69TOLERANCE OF CONIFERS TO MESOTRIONE ALONE OR COMBINED WITH OTHER HERBICIDES. J.F.AHRENS* AND T.L. MERVOSH, CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, WINDSOR, CT (72)...................................................................................................................................... 70FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ....................................................................................... 71FRUIT TREE TOLERANCE TO ALION HERBICIDE. M. MAHONEY*, D. UNLAND, AND B. DEWEESE, BAYERCROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (73) .......................................................................................... 71THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M. ARSENOVIC*, D. KUNKEL,AND J. BARON, IR-4 PROJECT, PRINCETON, NJ (74) .................................................................... 72SWEET CORN WEED CONTROL: NO-TILL, NO ATRAZINE, NO WAY? D.D. LINGENFELTER*, M.J.VANGESSEL, B.A. SCOTT, AND Q. JOHNSON, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA(75) ................................................................................................................................. 73SULFENTRAZONE FOR LIMA BEANS: ARE WE CHARGING FORWARD? M.J. VANGESSEL*, B.A. SCOTT, ANDQ. JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, GEORGETOWN, DE (76) ............................................... 75PREEMERGENT COMBINATIONS OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILD BLUEBERRY FIELDS. D.E.YARBOROUGH* AND J.L. D'APPOLLONIO, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO, ME (77) ............................ 76vi

INJURY FROM DELAYED APPLICATIONS OF DICHLOBENIL ON FOUR CRANBERRY VARIETIES. H.A.SANDLER*, UMASS CRANBERRY STATION, EAST WAREHAM, MA (78) ............................................. 77MINI-SYMPOSIUM:SWALLOW-WORTS ..................................................................... 78THE SWALLOW-WORTS: WHERE TO NEXT? A. DITOMMASO*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (79) ... 78PALE AND BLACK SWALLOW-WORT GROWTH AND SURVIVAL IN NEW YORK STATE. K.M. AVERILL* ANDA. DITOMMASO, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (80) .............................. 79APPROACHES FOR SWALLOW-WORT CONTROL - DECIDING HOW TO BEGIN. N.P. CAIN* AND T.L.MERVOSH, CAIN VEGETATION, ACTON, ON (81) ......................................................................... 80SWALLOW-WORT (VINCETOXICUM SPP.) BIOLOGICAL CONTROL UPDATE. L.R. MILBRATH*, USDA-ARS,ITHACA, NY (82).................................................................................................................. 81VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION ................................................ 82GOATSRUE CONTROL PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. BRAVO*, J. ZOSCHG, L. ROSS, AND I.D.BOWERS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA (83) ........................... 82COMPARISON OF HERBICIDES FOR EARLY SEASON CONTROL OF MILE-A-MINUTE AND IMPACT ON NON-TARGET VEGETATION. A.E. GOVER* AND J.L. HUFFMAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITYPARK, PA (84) .................................................................................................................... 83F9007: A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN PASTURE AND WHEAT. J.P. REED*, T.W. MIZE, G.G.STRATMAN, AND B.A. NEUBERGER, FMC, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR (85) ........................................ 84ABSORPTION AND TRANSLOCATION OF 14 C-AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN THREE AQUATIC SPECIES. R.L.ROTEN* AND R.J. RICHARDSON, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (86) ................. 85TURION BIOLOGY OF MONOECIOUS HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA. R.J. RICHARDSON* AND S.T. HOYLE,NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (87)............................................................ 86SYMPOSIUM: MOVING BEYOND ROTATING MODES OF ACTION: ADVANCINGTHE CONCEPT AND APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT ...... 87DIVERSIFICATION, SOIL QUALITY AND INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT. E. GALLANDT*, UNIVERSITYOF MAINE, ORONO, ME (88)................................................................................................... 87CLASHING PERSPECTIVES LIMIT IWM ADOPTION IN THE NORTHEAST. D.D. LINGENFELTER*,PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (89) ................................................... 88IWM: WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? J. LINDQUIST*, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NE (90) ............ 89INTERACTIONS THAT MATTER: IMPROVING EFFICACY WITH STRATEGIC COMBINATIONS OF CULTURALWEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. M.R. RYAN*, D. MORTENSEN, J. TEASDALE, R.G. SMITH, S. MIRSKY,AND W.S. CURRAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (91) ......................... 90ARE ORGANIC FARMING AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE THE LAST HOPES FOR IWM? A VIEW FROMCANADA. S. SHIRTLIFFE*, UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN, SASKATOON, SK (92) ........................... 91WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT WEEDS? ADDRESSING THE ROOTS OF A PERENNIAL PROBLEM.R.G. SMITH*, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DURHAM, NH (93)................................................. 92TURFGRASS AND PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ............................................... 93METHIOZOLIN PROGRAMS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS PUTTINGGREENS IN TENNESSEE. J.T. BROSNAN* AND G.K. BREEDEN, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE,TN (94) ............................................................................................................................. 93ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS WITH SPRING APPLICATIONS OFMETHIOZOLIN. S. ASKEW* AND S.-J. KOO, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (95) ............................. 94vii

USE OF METHIOZOLIN FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA L.) CONTROL ON CREEPING BENTGRASS(AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA) GREENS. K.A. VENNER*, S. HART, S. ASKEW, AND C.J. MANSUE, RUTGERSUNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (96) ................................................................................... 95SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF AN ANNUAL BLUEGRASS PUTTING GREEN. J. BORGER*, M.B. NAEDEL, ANDK.R. HIVNER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (97) .................................. 96GROUND IVY CONTROL AS AFFECTED BY MOWING PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING HERBICIDEAPPLICATIONS. A.J. PATTON* AND D.V. WEISENBERGER, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN (98)...................................................................................................................................... 97BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS USING ALTERNATIVES TO SYNTHETIC HERBICIDES. D.T.LINDE* AND S.J. MCDONALD, DELAWARE VALLEY COLLEGE, DOYLESTOWN, PA (99) ......................... 98USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENOMICS FOR NATURAL PRODUCTS DISCOVERY OF NOVEL HERBICIDES.J.T. KAO-KNIFFIN*, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (100) ........................................................ 99INFLUENCE OF EARLY APPLICATIONS ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION WITHETHEPHON AND MEFLUIDIDE. S. ASKEW* AND A.N. SMITH, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA (101) ... 100TALL FESCUE (FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA) TOLERANCE TO SPRING AND FALL AMICARBAZONEAPPLICATIONS. G.K. BREEDEN*, J.T. BROSNAN, AND P. MCCULLOUGH, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE,KNOXVILLE, TN (102) ......................................................................................................... 101MESOTRIONE AND AMICARBAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA) CONTROL.M.T. ELMORE*, J.T. BROSNAN, AND G.K. BREEDEN, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN (103) 102POTENTIAL ANTAGONISM OF SULFENTRAZONE AND FENOXAPROP TANK-MIXES FOR GOOSEGRASSCONTROL. A.J. PATTON*, D.V. WEISENBERGER, J.T. BROSNAN, AND G.K. BREEDEN, PURDUE UNIVERSITY,WEST LAFAYETTE, IN (104) ................................................................................................. 103COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS RESEEDING INTERVALS FOR METHIOZOLIN. P. MCCULLOUGH AND D.GOMEZ DE BARREDA*, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, GA (105) ....................................................... 104AGRONOMY ............................................................................................................... 105ENLIST CORN TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH PRE FOLLOWED BY POST HERBICIDEPROGRAMS. B.D. OLSON*, S.C. DITMARSEN, C.A. GALLUP, M.W. MELICHAR, AND P.L. PRASIFKA, DOWAGROSCIENCES LLC, GENEVA, NY (106) ................................................................................ 105REDUCED RATE RESIDUAL HERBICIDES PREVENT DANDELION ESTABLISHMENT IN ZONE-TILLAGE CORNAND SOYBEANS. R.R. HAHN*, R.J. RICHTMYER III, AND J.M. ORLOWSKI, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA,NY (107) ......................................................................................................................... 106ZEMAX: A NEW MESOTRIONE PLUS S-METOLACHLOR FORMULATION IN CORN. E. HITCHNER*, R. LINS,M. URWILER, AND G.D. VAIL, SYNGENTA, 08098, NJ (108) ........................................................... 107PERFORMANCE OF F9310 AND F9316 IN THE NORTHEAST PRE AND POST CORN TRIALS IN 2010 AND2011. J.P. REED*, J.S. WILSON, G.G. STRATMAN, B.A. NEUBERGER, AND T.W. MIZE, FMC CORPORATION,NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR (109) ............................................................................................ 108EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERSIFY BURNDOWN OPTIONS IN NO-TILL CROP PRODUCTIONSYSTEMS. W.S. CURRAN* AND D.D. LINGENFELTER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITYPARK, PA (110) ................................................................................................................. 109DEFINING GEOGRAPHIC AND BIOCLIMATIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF TROUBLESOME WEEDS IN GRAIN CROPS.E.M. BUCK*, A. DITOMMASO, S.J. RIHA, AND A.J. MCDONALD, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY (111) 110HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - A CRITICAL STEP IN PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT. W.J. EVERMAN*,L. GLASGOW, L. INGEGNERI, J. SCHROEDER, D. SHAW, J. SOTERES, J. STACHLER, AND F. TARDIF, NORTHCAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC (112) ................................................................... 111STEWARDSHIP OF DICAMBA IN DICAMBA TOLERANT CROPPING SYSTEMS. W.E. THOMAS*, S.J. BOWE,L.L. BOZEMAN, M. STAAL, T. CANNAN, AND S.W. MURDOCK, BASF CORPORATION, RESEARCH TRIANGLEPARK, NC (113) ................................................................................................................ 112viii

EFFICACY OF F9310 AND SULFENTRAZONE PREMIXES IN THE NORTHEAST SOYBEAN TRIALS IN 2011.J.P. REED*, J.S. WILSON, G.G. STRATMAN, B.A. NEUBERGER, AND T.W. MIZE, FMC CORPORATION, NORTHLITTLE ROCK, AR (114) ....................................................................................................... 113UPDATE ON HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP AND CONTROL OPTIONS IN CORN AND SOYBEANS. K.D.BURNELL*, V.K. SHIVRAIN, A.S. FRANSSEN, AND G.D. VAIL, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, PENFIELD, NY(115) .............................................................................................................................. 114SELECTIVITY OF GLYPHOSATE AND HPPD INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN A NEW SOYBEAN EVENT. M.MAHONEY*, J. ALLEN, AND J. HINZ, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, OXFORD, MD (116) ............................... 115ANTHEM TM AND ANTHEM ATZ TM :TWO NEW HERBICIDES FOR PRE-EMERGENCE AND POST-EMERGENCECONTROL OF KEY BROADLEAF AND GRASS WEED PESTS. J.S. WILSON*, T.W. MIZE, T. MARTIN, J.P.REED, G.G. STRATMAN, AND B.A. NEUBERGER, FMC CORPORATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA (117)........... 116GENERAL SESSION .................................................................................................. 117OUTCOME FUNDING AND THE NORTHEAST SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEACH AND EDUCATION(SARE) GRANT PROGRAM. T.F. MORRIS* AND J.C. MCALLISTER, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS,CT (118).......................................................................................................................... 117NEWSS FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 2010 .................................. 118NEWSS YEAR-END REPORT 2010 ........................................................................... 119MINUTES FROM 65 TH ANNUAL MEETING, JAN. 2011 ............................................ 133NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTS ..................................................................................... 136AWARD OF MERIT .................................................................................................... 137NEWSS FELLOW ....................................................................................................... 138OUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD ................................................................. 139OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD ...................................................................... 140SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD ............................................................................ 140OUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER CONTEST ......................................................... 140DR. ROBERT D. SWEET OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT ......................... 142COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS ............................................................. 143RESEARCH POSTER AWARDS ............................................................................... 146INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR ...................................................................................... 149OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS .................... 150OUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, ANDVEGETATION MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 150OUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS ............................................................................ 1502011 NEWSS MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY ............................................................... 156AUTHOR INDEX ......................................................................................................... 166KEY WORD INDEX ..................................................................................................... 168ix

NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETYSheraton Society HillPhiladelphia, PAEXECUTIVE COMMITTEEOFFICERSPresidentM.J. VanGesselUniversity of Delaware16483 County Seat HwyGeorgetown, DE 19947mjv@udel.eduPresident-ElectA. DiTommasoCornell University903 Bradfield HallIthaca, NY 14853ad97@cornell.eduVice PresidentD.D. LingenfelterPenn State University116 ASI BuildingUniversity Park, PAdxl18@psu.eduSecretary/TreasurerM.A. BravoPA Department of Agriculture2301 North Cameron StreetHarrisburg, PA 17110mab36@psu.eduPast PresidentH.A. SandlerUMass Cranberry StationP.O. Box 569East Wareham, MA 02538hsandler@umext.umass.edu1

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERSEditorPublic RelationsResearch &EducationCoordinatorSustainingMembershipCAST RepresentativeGraduate StudentRepresentativeWSSA RepresentativeScience Policy DirectorD.W. LycanSyngenta Lawn & Garden18 Appleridge StreetBaldwinsville, NY 13027darren.lycan@syngenta.comB.A. ScottUniversity of Delaware16483 County Seat HwyGeorgetown, DE 19947bascott@udel.eduJ.B. WillisMonsanto Company1305 Sanders RoadTroy, OHjohn.b.willis@monsanto.comJ.H. O’BarrBASF Corporation108 Whippoorwill LaneHummelstown, PA 17036john.obarr@basf.comR.G. ProstakUniversity of MassachusettsBowditch Hall, Rm 206Amherst, MA 01003rprostak@umext.umass.eduA.N. SmithVirginia Tech435 Old Glade RoadBlacksburg, VA 24061urzsmith@vt.eduJ. N. BarneyVirginia Tech435 Old Glade RoadBlacksburg, VA 24061jnbarney@vt.eduL. Van Wychen900 2 nd St. NE, Suite 205Washington, DC 200022

SECTION CHAIRSAgronomyChair: K. BurnellChair-elect: R. RichtmyerStudent Paper ContestStudent Poster ContestOrnamentalsChair: H. SandlerMember: D. YarboroughMember: J. BaronMember: R. KeeseMember: W. CurranChair: Q. JohnsonMember: K. KalmowitzMember: D. GanskeMember: K. BurnellMember: G. EvansChair: C. BeckerChair-elect: K. HesterResearch PostersChair: K. HesterChair-elect: J. D’AppollonioTurfgrass and PlantGrowth RegulatorsChair: J. BrosnanChair-elect: A. PattonVegetables and FruitVegetation Management andRestorationChair: R. DunstChair-elect: D. KunkelChair: B. McDonnellChair-elect: J. JohnsonWeed Biology and EcologyChair: J. BarneyChair-elect: K. Ghantous3

COMMITTEESSite Selection Committee:Antonio DiTommaso Chair, 607-254-4702 ad97@cornell.eduMark VanGessel 302-856-7303 ext 510 mjv@udel.eduMelissa Bravo 717-787-7204 mbravo@state.pa.usAwards Committee:Hilary Sandler Chair 508-295-2212 ext 21 hsandler@umext.umass.eduDavid Yarborough 207-581-2923 davidy@maine.eduJerry Baron 732-932-9575 ext 4605 jbaron@aesop.rutgers.eduRenee Keese 919-547-2791 renee.keese@basf.comBill Curran 814-863-1014 wcurran@psu.eduNomination Committee:David Yarborough Chair, 207-581-2923 davidy@maine.eduRenee Keese 215-817-0637 renee.keese@basf.comDan Kunkel 732-932-9575 ext 4616 kunkel@aesop.rutgers.eduQuintin Johnson 302-856-7303 ext 513 quintin@udel.eduKristine Averill 860-248-9969 kma236@psu.eduResolutions Committee:Todd Mervosh Chair, 860-683-4984 todd.mervosh@po.state.ct.usJon Johnson 814-863-1184 jmj5@psu.eduKathleen Hester 732-932-9575 ext 4625 hester@aesop.rutgers.eduCollegiate Weed Contest:Mark VanGessel Chair, 302-856-7303 ext 510 mjv@udel.eduAntonio DiTommaso 607-254-4702 ad97@cornell.eduGreg Armel 865-974-8829 garmel@utk.eduDwight Lingenfelter 814-865-2242 dxl18@psu.eduAdam Smith 540-231-5835 urzsmith@vt.eduJohn Willis 937-418-5667 john.b.willis@monsanto.comAudit Committee:Melissa Bravo Chair, 717-787-7204 mbravo@state.pa.usJim Steffel 610-562-5055 jim@labservices.comTodd Mervosh 860-683-4984 todd.mervosh@ct.govArchives Committee:Dan Kunkel Chair 732-932-9575 ext 4616 kunkel@aesop.rutgers.eduHilary Sandler 508-295-2212 ext 21 hsandler@umext.umass.edu4

Photo Awards Committee:Greg Armel Chair 865-974-8829 garmel@utk.eduDarren Lycan 315-635-2818 darren.lycan@syngenta.comAnneMarie Pennucci 603-895-8460 aapennuci@yahoo.comJoe Ikley 410-596-9091 jikley@umd.eduMatt Mahoney 410-822-5215 matt.mahoney@bayer.comErin Hitchner 609-980-8832 erin.hitchner@syngenta.comStudent Paper Awards Committee:Hilary Sandler Chair 508-295-2212 ext 21 hsandler@umext.umass.eduDavid Yarborough 207-581-2923 davidy@maine.eduJerry Baron 732-932-9575 ext 4605 jbaron@aesop.rutgers.eduRenee Keese 919-547-2791 renee.keese@basf.comBill Curran 814-863-1014 wcurran@psu.eduPoster Awards Committee:Quintin Johnson Chair 302-856-7303 ext 513 quintin@udel.eduKathie Kalmowitz 919-270-4592 kathie.kalmowitz@basf.comDonald Ganske 540-662-6011 donald.d.ganske@usa.dupont.comKeith Burnell 315-209-7580 keith.burnell@syngenta.comGlenn Evans 607-255-9085 gje2@cornell.eduWeed Science Field Days Committee:John Willis 937-418-5667 john.b.willis@monsanto.comQuintin Johnson 302-856-7303 ext 513 quintin@udel.eduPast Presidents Committee:Roy Johnson Chair 215-348-5535 rjoh834880@aol.comHilary Sandler 508-295-2212 ext 21 hsandler@umext.umass.eduHerbicide Resistance Plant Committee:Mark VanGessel Chair 302-856-7303 ext 510 mjv@udel.eduRuss Hahn 607-255-1759 rrh4@cornell.eduBill Curran 814-863-1014 wcurran@psu.eduBrian Olson 315-781-0140 bdolson@dowagro.comDan Kunkel 732-932-9575 ext 4616 kunkel@aesop.rutgers.eduDave Mayonado 410-726-4222 david.j.mayonado@monsanto.com5

2011 NEWSS ANNUAL MEETING AWARD WINNERSStudent Paper Contest (L-R):1 st : Scott Wells (NCSU)2 nd : Brendan McNulty (VA Tech)Student PosterContest (L-R):1 st : Katelyn Venner(Rutgers)2 nd : Ian Bowers(Penn State)3 rd : Kyung Han(Penn State)Photo Contest (L-R):1 st : Jennifer D’Appollonio (Univ of Maine)2 nd : Cory Johnson (not pictured,PA Dept of Ag)3 rd : Aaron Patton (Purdue University)Robin Bellinder Robert Richardson Scott HagoodFellow Award Outstanding Researcher Award of MeritGreg Breeden Robert Dickerson Kristine AverillService Recognition Service Recognition Dr. Robert D. Sweet OutstandingGraduate Student (M.S.)6

NEWSS WINNING INDIVIDUALS1 st Graduate: Dustin Lewis, North Carolina State1 st Undergraduate: Dan Tekiela, Virginia TechNATIONAL COMPETITION WINNERS1 st UndergraduateTeam: University of Guelph- Thomas Judd,Adam Parker, Michael Vanhie, and Jessica Gal1 st Undergraduate Individual: Dan Tekiela, Virginia Tech1 st GraduateTeam: Purdue University1 st Graduate Individual: Jason Parrish, Ohio State Univ.7

THE SINNEMAHONNING COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (SIPMA) GETS TOWORK. T.J. Meyer, J. Zoschg, and M.A. Bravo*, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,Harrisburg, PA (1)ABSTRACTCooperative Weed Management Areas are growing in the Northeast. In 2008, with thesupport of the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Agriculture, the PA Department ofConservation and Natural Resources, the PA Invasive Species Council, the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Forest Service and others, a group of concerned land managers inNorth central Pennsylvania, formed a Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) called theSinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area (SIPMA), to work together to control noxiousand invasive weeds.Invasive and noxious plant species are a growing threat to biodiversity in the hardwoodforests of Northern Central Pennsylvania, and it is still possible to control many species that arenot yet common or widespread. The Sinnemahoning Cooperative Weed Management Area –the Sinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area (SIPMA) is working together to performearly detection and rapid response to weed populations in the watershed, monitor treated sites,and to educate the general public and the landowners about the problem. Various fundingsources have supported the start up of the organization since 2008. In early 2011, funds weregranted to hire a CWMA coordinator, who will be dedicated to implementing the goals of theCWMA partners. The SIPMA is composed of public agencies, private landowners, and nonprofits.Since 2008, The Bucktail Watershed Association (BWA), has been writing grants andobtaining funds for managing weed control projects, working to eradicate localized populationsof Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), mile-a-minute vine (Polygonum perfoliatum)and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). The PA Department of Agriculture has assistedlandowners with survey, detection and control of two state noxious weeds of limited distributionin the SIPMA area: mile-a-minute, and the federal noxious weed goatsrue (Galega officinalis).PDA field staff has assisted 41 landowners with the identification, detection and control of 24acres of private lands adjacent to Sinnemahoning State Park in Cameron and Potter Countiesthat are infested with mile-a-minute. Herbicide reference plots (meter square) indicate that 0, 28,and 8 seedlings emerged in the same area where the previous year’s data detected 206, 261,and 114 respectively - these reference plots having been treated consecutively in 2007 and2008. By contrast a control plot yielded 243 seedlings in 2011 down from 1,184 seedlings in2010 – indicating that environmental conditions are also contributing to mile-a-minute demise.Observations of the beetle Rhinocominus latipes feeding indicate mile-a-minute cover droppedfrom 70% at one release site in August of 2010 to 5% cover as of September 2011.The Cameron County Conservation District has been writing grants for weed controlprojects and is doing education and outreach in schools and to the general public. Other stateagencies are also working with the SIMPA to control localized populations of key species. ThePA Game Commission is controlling buckthorn on state game lands in the SIMPA region. Thereare two PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Forests, the Elk andSusquehannock, as well as the Sinnemahoning State Park, who are working to controlJapanese barberry, (Berberis thunbergii), Japanese knotweed and mile-a-minute vine, as wellas some very limited populations of goatsrue discovered in recent years.8

GIANT HOGWEED ERADICATION IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES. M.A.Bravo*, I.D. Bowers, and J. Zoschg, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (2)ABSTRACTIn 1983, the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Health InspectionService (USDA-APHIS) declared the plant a federal noxious weed and targeted giant hogweed(GH) for eradication nationwide. As of 2011, GH had been found in 18 states and in Canada. Itwas added to the PA Noxious Weed Control List in 2000. The Pennsylvania Department ofAgriculture (PDA) and USDA/APHIS launched the GH Hotline in 1998 and created a nationalgiant hogweed campaign to promote awareness of this poisonous plant and created a PA statehotline (1-877-464-9333).Since the PA state program began, 453 sites have been found in 17 PA counties. Thetargeted eradication program has been very successful and 325 of these sites have beendeclared eradicated. More than 55% of the Pennsylvania populations are found in Erie County.Nearby sites are still known in Crawford, Mercer, McKean, Venango, and Warren Counties.Isolated sites are also known from Elk, Potter, Butler, Blair, Huntingdon, Carbon, and Waynecounties. PA also assists neighboring states with site specific eradication programs.The goal for eradiation of this federal noxious weed from Pennsylvania and neighboringstates requires field staff to monitor sites every year for at least 3 consecutive years to ensurethe seedbank has been exhausted. Each season, between May and August, field staff in theNoxious Weed Program are regularly surveying active sites; assisting property owners withcontrol measures (chemical and mechanical); monitoring released sites; and responding to thehotline calls. For Pennsylvania, these continued surveys detected 11 new sites of gianthogweed in 2011, that are, for all intents and purposes relate to existing sites on an adjoininglandowner’s property. In all only 74 (16%) of the 453 known sites in the state remain active.With the cooperation of the PA Dept. of Agriculture and USDA-APHIS, OHIO has beentreating several sites in Ashtabula and Lake Counties. In 2011 a new site was found inCuyahoga County. Ohio will continue to monitor all known sites until GHW is eradicated andrelies heavily on the local townships and municipalities for their help in reporting and controllingGHW whenever possible. Maine reports that Giant hogweed is not prevalent with less than 25known sites in the state, and new sites have been reported each year. In New York, the gianthogweed program is in its 3rd field season with more than 800 sites surveyed, monitored orcontrolled by the NYDEC program in 2010. As of 2011, more than 900 sites have been detectedin 35 counties since the media began extensively reporting on the location of infestations.9

COMPARING HERBICIDE TOLERANCES OF RARE AND COMMON PLANTS INLANCASTER COUNTY, PA. I.M. Graham*, J. Egan, and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA (3)ABSTRACTPlant diversity contributes to valuable services in agroecosystems, but has been in declinein many agricultural regions over the past half century. While this decline has often beenattributed to escalating use of chemical herbicides, other changes in farming practice includingthe clearing of semi-natural habitat fragments have occurred over the same period andconfound the influence of herbicides. Recent innovations in biotechnology will likely result infurther changes in the quality and quantity of herbicide use. Understanding the extent to whichherbicides shape plant communities in agricultural landscapes therefore remains an open andhighly relevant area of research. If herbicides are in fact a key factor shaping agricultural plantdiversity, we would expect to see the signal of past herbicide impacts in the current plantcommunity composition of an intensively farmed region, with common, successful species moretolerant than rare or declining species. By combining data from an extensive field survey ofplant diversity in Lancaster County, PA with greenhouse herbicide bioassay experiments, wetested the hypothesis that common species possess higher herbicide tolerances than rarespecies. Our experiments included congeneric contrasts with the common species Asclepiassyriaca, Bidens frondosa, Elymus riparius, Polygonum convolvulus, and Verbena utricifolia andthe rare species A. tuberosa, B. cernua, E. hystrix, P. lapathifolia, and V. hastata. We exposedeach species to four doses of the herbicides atrazine, dicamba, and glyphosate plus a watercontrol. Plants were treated 4-6 weeks after emergence and assessed 28 days after treatmentfor clonal shoot production in Asclepias and Elymus, flower production in Verbena and aboveground biomass in all genera. Based on EC50 for clonal shoots, flowers, or biomass,preliminary analysis of our data did not indicate a statistically significant difference in tolerancebetween rare and common species for any of the genera for any of the herbicides. Theseresults suggest that plant communities in agricultural landscapes may be more strongly shapedby growth rate, life history traits, and land-use patterns than herbicide tolerances.10

EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE, SPRAY DROPLET SIZE AND SPRAY VOLUME ON CROPTOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH ENLIST DUO. B.D. Olson*, D.M. Simpson, D.E.Hillger, C.C. Love, and D.T. Ellis, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (4)ABSTRACTDow AgroSciences is committed to stewardship of the Enlist Weed Control System.Enlist Duo featuring Colex-D Technology will be a new herbicide solution with reducedpotential for drift and low volatility of 2,4-D. The types of nozzles used in an application will alsogreatly impact the potential for drift. Dow AgroSciences will provide comprehensive stewardshipguidance for deploying this technology system along with recommendations for the types ofnozzles to use that reduce potential for drift.In 2011, field research trials were conducted under two separate protocols to evaluatecrop tolerance and weed efficacy results using XR TeeJet © , TurboTeeJet © , AIXR TeeJet © andTurboTeeJet © Induction spray nozzles delivering spray droplet sizes ranging from fine to ultracoarse. In the crop response study, these nozzles were used to apply the high- end 2X use rateof the lead premix formulation of new 2,4-D choline + glyphosate, plus or minus 2.5% v/v AMSat 7.5 and 15 gallons per acre spray volume over-top Enlist corn stacked with SmartStax ® andEnlist soybean stacked with glyphosate tolerance. Likewise, these nozzle types at 10 gallonsper acre spray volume, were used to apply multiple, sub 1X to low- end 1X use rates of the new2,4-D choline+glyphosate premix, to evaluate the effect of drift reducing nozzles on weedcontrol over-top Roundup Ready ® 2 Corn. Results from these trials support previous technicalassumptions that nozzle tip selection criteria for reduced drift can be obtained without effect oncrop tolerance or weed control. Enlist, Enlist Duo and Colex-D are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the Enlist WeedControl System have not yet received regulatory approvals; approvals are pending. Enlist Duo herbicide is notregistered for sale or use. The information provided here is not an offer for sale. Always read and follow labeldirections.©2011 Dow AgroSciences LLC©XR TeeJet, TurboTeeJet, AIXR TeeJet and TurboTeeJet Induction are trademarks of Spraying System Co.SmartStax ® multi-event technology developed by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences LLC.Roundup Ready ® Corn 2, SmartStax and the SmartStax logo are trademarks of Monsanto Technology, LLC11

MODELING OF VOLATILITY OF 2,4-D ESTER, DMA AND CHOLINE FORMULATIONS. B.D.Olson*, D.E. Hillger, P. Havens, J.A. Huff, R.B. Lassiter, and J.S. Richburg, Dow AgroSciencesLLC, Geneva, NY (5)ABSTRACTDow AgroSciences conducted multi-year field trials (2010- 2011) at four different locationsto evaluate the volatility of a new form of 2,4-D on both a comparative and quantitative basis.Large, multi-hectare field plots were treated with a single application of either 2,4-D ethylhexylester, 2,4-D dimethylamine salt or a novel 2,4-D choline salt. Air concentrations and sensitiveplant injury were measured in a spoke and wheel fashion at distances of 5 and 15-m from thefield edge, respectively. Volatility flux estimates, based upon back calculation procedures,suggest the reduction of volatile emissions from the new 2,4-D choline formulation was an orderof magnitude or more lower than other 2,4-D forms, with no visible injury to sensitive plantsplaced around the field. When 2,4-D choline volatility flux estimates are integrated into theISCST and CALPUFF air dispersion models, the estimated exposures to 2,4-D vapors weremuch lower than the levels that would affect sensitive vegetation.12

METHODOLOGY FOR UTILIZING LOW TUNNEL STRUCTURES TO EVALUATEDIFFERENCES IN HERBICIDE VOLATILITY. B.D. Olson*, D.D. Ruen, D.E. Hillger, and E.F.Scherder, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (6)ABSTRACTDow AgroSciences is committed to stewardship of the Enlist Weed Control System.Enlist Duo TM herbicide featuring Colex-D TM technology will be a new herbicide solution withreduced potential for drift, ultra low volatility, and reduced odor. A key component of Colex-DTechnology is new 2,4-D choline. Qualitative and quantitative laboratory studies have beenreported that clearly show lower volatility of 2,4-D choline compared to 2,4-D ester and 2,4-Ddimethylamine formulations (DMA). Large 0.5-5.5 acre field studies using both quantitative andqualitative methods have validated the laboratory studies. For demonstration and training ofsales representatives, growers, dealers and applicators, it is desirable to develop reproduciblesmall plot methodology for comparing performance of various formulations.Previous work at Dow AgroSciences has shown the use of plastic row covers, referred toas low tunnel structures, will trap volatile emissions from treated surfaces, concentrate thevapors close to the row crop canopy and demonstrate the volatility effects of differentformulations on susceptible plant species. Moveable low tunnel structures were constructedwith ½” metal electrical conduit and 1 inch by 4 inch by 12 ft sideboards. A 5 ft long conduitwas bent at 90 angles to result in 18 inch tall by 24 inch wide “u-shape”. The bottoms of fiveconduit u-shapes spaced 3 ft apart were connected to the inside of two boards. Clear, 1 mmplastic was stretched over the structure and attached to the conduit with ½ copper tubinghangers. Flats (10.5 x 21 x 2.5 inch) filled with sand were treated with herbicide at a location atleast 1000 ft from the cotton field to avoid any potential physical drift. Applications were madewith a back pack CO 2 sprayer with three TT11002 nozzles spaced at 20 inches delivering 15GPA.A series of experiments were conducted in 2011 to evaluate various factors in theexperimental design to optimize results. The first experiment evaluated crop injury resultingfrom 2,4-D DMA applied at 1120, 2240 and 4480 g ae/ha. After application, three treated flatswere placed in the center of a 24 ft by 30 inch low tunnel structure in two reps. After 48 hoursthe low tunnels and flats were removed. A second experiment evaluated the impact of thelength of exposure (24 vs 48 hours) on crop injury for 2,4-D DMA at 2240 and 4480 g ae/ha. Athird experiment evaluated the effect of area treated by comparing 3 flats treated with 2,4-D at2240 g ae/ha to 1.5 flats treated with 2,4-D DMA at 4480 g ae/ha and 3 flats treated with 2,4-DDMA at 4480 g ae/ha. A fourth experiment evaluated the effect of soil type (silty clay loam vssand) on volatility injury from 2,4-D DMA. In the fourth experiment, plots were 2.5 x 12 ft with asingle treated flat placed in the middle of the plot. Results from these experiments show that2,4-D DMA rate has minimum impact on level of injury under these conditions and that most ofthe injury results from volatility that occurred in the first 24 hours. The treated area can beminimized as long as the total amount of product applied is the same as that applied to largerarea. Injury to cotton from volatility of 2,4-D DMA was not significantly impacted by the soiltype. Results from these experiments validate the use of low tunnel structures to assess 2,4-Dvolatility on susceptible crops. Enlist, Enlist Duo, and Colex-D Technology are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Components of the EnlistWeed Control System are pending regulatory approvals. Enlist Duo herbicide is not registered for sale or use. Theinformation provided here is not an offer for sale. Always read and follow label directions.©2011 Dow AgroSciencesLLC13

EFFECTS OF METHIOZOLIN RATES ON CREEPING BENTGRASS AND ANNUALBLUEGRASS ROOT GROWTH. K.A. Venner*, S. Askew, and S. Koo, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, VA (7)ABSTRACTMethiozolin (MRC-01) has controlled annual bluegrass on golf putting greens in severalresearch trials in the US and other countries but little is known about the method of selectivitybetween creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass. The proposed mode of action ofmethiozolin is cell wall biosynthesis inhibition and research is currently working on furtherelucidating this mode of action and the mechanism of selectivity. In this study, we evaluated theeffect of direct root exposure to methiozolin rates in nutrient solution on creeping bentgrass andannual bluegrass root regeneration in an aeroponics system.Studies were conducted in greenhouse and growth chamber environments with day/nighttemperatures of 29/21 C and supplemental light supplied by high-efficiency T-5 lampsgenerating 325 PAR on a 14 hr photoperiod. Two aeroponics systems were used in replicatingtreatments. The first consists of large chambers housing 6 annual bluegrass plants and 6creeping bentgrass plants in a random arrangement. The system uses a sump containingnutrient water that is pumped into another chamber where spray nozzles mist plant rootssuspended from the chamber lid. Excess nutrient drains out of the upper chamber back into thesump. Plants started as single tiller shoots placed in foam plugs. After 5 weeks, plants had 53to 135 tillers and roots were 30 cm. Plants were separated into size classes that were uniformlydistributed between chambers. Roots were cut to 2 cm and the study was initiated. Nutrientsumps contained 38 L of nutrient water and methiozolin at 8, 16, 32, 65, 196, and 328 ppb.These concentrations represent field application rates between 2.5 and 500 g ai/ha. Bensulideat a concentration to mimic the field application rate of 9 kg ai/ha was included as a standard.After 21 days the first replicate was completed and data showed that a rapid drop in percentageroot growth (% of NTC) occurred between 2.5 and 25 g ai/ha methiozolin and then percentreduction leveled at approximately 85 and 60% reduction of annual bluegrass and creepingbentgrass root length, respectively. The system was cleaned and prepared for the secondreplication; however, plant roots would not grow in the chambers that previously held the highermethiozolin rates. Scrubbing and pumping with ammonia water was not sufficient to cleanplasticware of methiozolin because methiozolin is not water soluble. It was recommended weclean the system with an organic solvent such as methanol. Before doing so, we allowed plantsto grow in the system for three months to evaluate root regeneration. After three months,bentgrass roots showed a clear advantage over annual bluegrass. In fact, many annualbluegrass plants died while creeping bentgrass plants continued to increase in size. In thechamber that contained 338 ppb methiozolin before cleaning, no bentgrass or annual bluegrassroots were longer than the 2 cm cut length after 3 months. A new system was created to allowfor simultaneously replicated treatments. This system uses smaller sumps of 500 ml capacityand pumps nutrient solution in tubing to dribble down plant roots rather than spraying plant rootswith nutrient. Results from this second replicated experiment will be presented. It appearsmethiozolin has a significant impact on root growth of both creeping bentgrass and annualbluegrass but there appears to be significantly more reduction of annual bluegrass than ofcreeping bentgrass. We are not able to make conclusions at this time but a preliminaryassumption is that differential root response to methiozolin may be one mechanism that allowsfor competitive displacement of annual bluegrass by creeping bentgrass on putting greenstreated with methiozolin.14

CROP ROTATION: SEQUENCE BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS. C.L. Mohler*, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY (8)ABSTRACTMuch information on the problems and benefits associated with particular crop sequencescan be found in the scientific literature of various disciplines. Until recently, this information washighly scattered, but it was collated in an appendix in the recently published book Crop Rotationon Organic Farms: A Planning Manual, Charles L. Mohler and Sue Ellen Johnson, eds.,NRAES, 2009. This table has now been reprinted as an attractive poster which is availablefrom NRAES (web address). The chart shows potential problems and benefits of following acrop shown on the left with a crop shown at the top. Most vegetable crops, field crops andcover crops grown in the Northeast are included in the chart. The letters in the body of the chartindicate potential problems: D, disease; W, weeds; I, insects; N, nutrients; S, soil structure; C,other agronomic problems such as timing issues. A minus sign following a letter indicates thatthe sequence is potentially beneficial. A booklet of notes shipped with the poster explains inmore detail the nature of the problem or benefit indicated in the chart along with the sourcereference. The poster is useful in extension work as a means for motivating discussions of croprotation and is invaluable for farmers as an at-a-glance reference when planning the season’splantings.15

HERBICIDE EVALUATION FOR WATERMELON GROWN WITH PLASTICULTURE. S.A.Mathew*, B.A. Scott, and M.J. VanGessel, University of Maryland, Cambridge, MD (9)ABSTRACTBroadleaf and grass weed species growing between the rows of plastic mulch forcommercial watermelon production in Mid-Atlantic pose a challenge. Growers typically useresidual herbicides tank mixed with non-selective herbicide applied using hooded sprayers forweed control in row middles of plastic mulch. The herbicide application time is usually twoweeks after transplanting or before vines start to run off of the plastic whichever comes first.The herbicide options for watermelons are limited, but flumioxazin has been recently labeled forthis use. This study was initiated to evaluate crop safety and weed control with flumioxazin as acomponent of herbicide programs for row middles of watermelon.The study was conducted between 2010 and 2011 at two locations on Delmarva Peninsula.The study locations were University of Delaware’s Research and Education Center nearGeorgetown, DE and University of Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore Research and EducationCenter, Salisbury Facility. Herbicide treatments were evaluated for weed control efficacy andwatermelon crop injury. Residual broadleaf herbicides included flumioxazin, fomesafen,clomazone, and halosulfuron; and these were all applied in combination with ethalfluralin forgrass control. All treatments included paraquat, except untreated check, for non-selectivecontrol. Treatments were replicated three times and arranged in a randomized complete blockdesign. Plot size was one watermelon row (rows were 8 feet apart), 35 feet long. Both sides ofthe watermelon rows were sprayed with the herbicide treatment using a hooded sprayer.Standard triploid watermelon variety “Millionaire” was used for the study at both locations.In 2010 at UM-LESREC or UD-REC, there were no differences between treatments forwatermelon injury or yield. Watermelons at Delaware location showed slight leaf burn andstunting but were not consistent across treatments. Paraquat alone provided at least 85% weedcontrol, and there were no differences in weed control between the various residual herbicidetreatments in either location during 2010.Weed control in 2011, at UD-REC was similar for all treatments with residual herbicidesexcept clomazone plus ethalfluralin which resulted in lower morningglory species and largecrabgrass control. At UM-LESREC, this same treatment resulted in less control of largecrabgrass and smooth pigweed.In 2011 at UD-REC, flumioxazin treatments resulted in higher levels of watermelon injury 6days after treatment (10 to 13%), than other treatments. However, treatments with flumioxazinresulted in the highest yields. At UM-LESREC, there were no differences between treatmentsfor watermelon injury or watermelon yield.Early-season injury of watermelon often does affect yields. Paraquat alone provided (>75%control) good control of initial weed flush, residual herbicides were often needed for weedcontrol through the harvest season. Season-long weed control is important for efficient harvestand ease of plastic removal. Flumioxazin could provide improved morningglory and largecrabgrass control, provided the growers were willing to accept the risk of slightly higher cropinjury.16

EVALUATION OF PACLOBUTRAZOL FORMULATIONS AND RATES FOR ANNUALBLUEGRASS CONTROL ON PUTTING GREENS. A. Post*, S. Askew, M.C. Cox, and J.Corbett, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (10)ABSTRACTAnnual bluegrass is the most prevalent weed problem on creeping bentgrass golf puttinggreens. There are no effective selective controls to manage it well. Most superintendants relyon plant growth regulators to slow the growth of annual bluegrass and effectively suppressseedhead production. A plant growth regulator program requires repeated applicationsthroughout the season to maintain control. For example paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl aretypically applied together 6 to 8 times at three week intervals beginning in late spring andcontinuing into the fall. Patents recently expired for both paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl andnew formulations have been registered.The objective of this study was to compare PGR programs using new generic formulationsof paclobutrazol and trinexapac ethyl compared to the original proprietary products. Studieswere established as randomized complete block designs at two sites in 2011, Draper ValleyCountry Club in Draper, VA and Spotswood Country Club in Harrisonburg, VA. Trials wereinitiated May 13 th and May 14 th , respectively and treatments were repeated every three weeks.Treatment programs included the following: 1) paclobutrazol (Trimmit 2SC) applied twice inspring and three times in fall at 0.28 kg ai/ha and three times in summer at 0.14 kg ai/ha plustrinexapac ethyl (Primo Maxx) at 0.05 kg ai/ha; 2) paclobutrazol (Tide Paclo) applied at samerates and timings as treatment 1 with the exception that the summer addition of trinexapac ethylconsisted of the product T-Nex instead of Primo Maxx; 3) same as treatment 1 except allpaclobutrazol rates are reduced by half; 4) same as treatment 2 except all paclobutrazol ratesare reduced by half; 5) flurprimidol (Cutless 50WP) applied twice in spring and three times in fallat 0.3 kg ai/ha and three times in summer at 0.15 kg ai/ha plus trinexapac ethyl (Primo Maxx) at0.05 kg ai/ha. A nontreated check was also included and treatments were replicated threetimes at each site. Annual bluegrass cover was 35-47% at Draper when the trials wereinitiated. In mid July, annual bluegrass cover at Draper was 62% in the nontreated check and13 to 27% and equivalent for both formulations at the low paclobutrazol rate and 4.0 to 4.7%and equivalent in both formulations at the high paclobutrazol rate and the flurprimidol program.Thus, there was a significant rate response and all treatments reduced annual bluegrass covercompared to the nontreated control but product formulation did not significantly impact annualbluegrass cover. Turf injury was never evident and quality was never significantly different fromthe nontreated check at Draper. Annual bluegrass cover ranged from 58-67% at Spotswood attrial initiation. On June 23, the nontreated control had 50% annual bluegrass cover and alltreatments significantly reduced cover to 21 to 33% with no differences between treatments. InJuly and August, no differences were noted in annual bluegrass cover at Spotswood. Althoughcreeping bentgrass was never injured by various treatment programs, on June 15 turfgrassquality was significantly decreased by both high-rate paclobutrazol programs due tophytotoxicity to annual bluegrass. On June 23, all treatment programs significantly increasedturf quality compared to the nontreated control, presumably due to the addition of trinexapacethyl for summer treatments. These programs are undergoing fall treatments now and fallratings will be discussed at the annual meeting.17

EFFECT OF WEED REMOVAL TIMING IN CORN AS INFLUENCED BY NITROGEN SOURCEAND RATE. W.J. Everman*, A. Knight, and J. Hinton, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,NC (11)ABSTRACTTimely weed control and adequate nitrogen supply are both necessary to maximize corngrain yield and economic return. A field study was established in 2011 at locations, the CentralCrops Research Station near Clayton, NC and the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station nearRocky Mount, NC to investigate the effect of nitrogen source and rate on critical time of weedremoval and grain yield. Three nitrogen sources (urea ammonium nitrate, sulfur coated urea,and chicken litter), four nitrogen preplant application rates (0, 67, 134, and 202 kg N ha-1) and 2weed removal timings (0, 7.5, and 15 cm) were evaluated. Weed removal timings were definedby weed canopy height to include control when weeds were 7.5 and 15 cm tall. Weed speciespresent and evaluated consisted of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and large crabgrass(Digitaria sanguinalis). Plots were maintained weed free after each weed removal timing. Ateach weed removal timing, biomass samples were collected by species and fresh and dryweights recorded. Total nitrogen will also be measured in each weed species using the Dumasmethod. Yield was determined at 15% grain moisture.18

A NEW POCKET SCOUTING GUIDE FOR AQUATIC WEEDS. B. Lassiter, R.J. Richardson*,and G. Wilkerson, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (12)ABSTRACTA new identification guide for common aquatic plants of the southern Mid-Atlantic region ofthe United States has been created by North Carolina State University. This guide is designedto be field portable; it will fit in a large pocket and is printed on water tolerant stock. Colorphotographs, comparison tables, line drawings, and text descriptions of approximately 60species are included to aid users in identification. These species include selected algae, ferns,and vascular plants that are common and/or problematic. Both invasive species and commonnatives are included. Sample pages and ordering information for this guide will be displayed.19

HAIRY VETCH SEEDBANK PERSISTENCE AS INFLUENCED BY MECHANICALSCARIFICATION AND SOIL DEPTH. B.C. Crockett*, S. Mirsky, and W.S. Curran, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park, PA (13)ABSTRACTHairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) is a legume cover crop commonly used in the Northeastregion. It can be beneficial as a nitrogen fixer, while providing weed suppression and erosioncontrol. Although the benefits of hairy vetch can be significant, adoption by some producers hasbeen limited due to the perception that it can become an invasive weed. Hairy vetch is known tocontain hard seed which can result in persistent seedbanks. Persistent seed and the viningcompetitive growth habit of the plant can lead to both crop yield loss and harvesting difficulties,particularly in organic systems. The goal of this study was to quantify seedbank persistence andseedling emergence of hairy vetch over time as influenced by soil burial depth, mechanical seedscarification and plant cultivar. Experiments were conducted from 2009 to 2011 at the RussellLarson Research and Education Center in Centre County, PA and the Beltsville AgriculturalResearch Center in Beltsville, MD. Five hundred seeds of two hairy vetch cultivars (Albert Leaand Groff Early Cover) were placed at the bottom of mesh cages at two burial depths of 3 and15 cm. Half the seeds were mechanically scarified, while the other half were not (scarified vs.non-scarified). The experiment was structured as a split-split-plot with four replications and itwas repeated over time. Emerged seedlings were counted approximately every two weeksthroughout the study and cages were excavated at three time intervals (6, 12, 18 months). Intactseeds were collected and quantified for each excavation date and tested for viability. Resultsshowed that scarified treatments contained no viable seed after six months at both locations,while non-scarified treatments had a maximum of 8% remaining. Nearly all observed hairy vetchemergence occurred within six months. Seed at the 15 cm depth showed decreased emergenceat both locations and tended to increase seed bank persistence compared to the 3 cm depth.These results suggest that mechanical scarification of hairy vetch prior to planting has potentialto eliminate hard seed and seed bank persistence without lowering emergence potential andcould be used as a management tool.20

IMPACTS OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIA ON SOIL ENZYME ACTIVITY ANDFERTILITY. Q. Zhong*, X. Junfang, Q. Guoming, Z. Jia-en, M. Danjuan, and A. DiTommaso,South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China (14)ABSTRACTThe rapid spread of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed) in China has beenpurported to cause substantial deleterious effects to the structure, biodiversity, and function ofecosystems colonized. The study reported herein was undertaken to better understand theimpacts of A. artemisiifolia invasion on soil microbial communities and related microbiologicalparameters. Soils were sampled from four experimental areas including: (1) an historicallyinvadedarea, (2) newly-invaded area, (3) grassland area, and (4) native-plant area fromOctober 2009 to July 2010. Soil chemical properties, enzyme activities, microbial biomass andfunctional diversities based on community level physiological profile (CLPP) assays withBIOLOG plates were determined. A. artemisiifolia invasion altered chemical and soil microbialcommunity properties. In areas with longer A. artemisiifolia invasion history, soil microbialcommunity performance was enhanced and appears to have improved soil fertility andaccelerated soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles. In contrast, the microbial communityin invaded areas showed relatively lower efficiency in carbon source utilization, especially forcarbohydrates and amino acids. The improvement of soil fertility as well as microbial communityfunctioning in invaded soils may be beneficial for the successful invasion and growth of A.artemisiifolia in new habitats.21

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF INVASIVE AMBROSIAARTEMISIIFOLIA TO DIFFERENT IRRADIANCES. M. Danjuan, Q. Zhong*, Q. Guoming, Z.Jia-en, X. Junfang, and A. DiTommaso, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China(15)ABSTRACTThe southward spread of A. artemisiifolia (common ragweed) in China in recent years hasbecome a serious environmental problem. To better understand how A. artemisiifolia acclimateto these new habitats, we compared irradiance plasticity, capture ability, and adaptability of A.artemisiifolia and Urena lobata L., a native co-occurring species. We also explored relevantunderlying mechanisms for response differences between the two species and effects of varyingirradiance conditions on their antioxidant enzyme systems. We hypothesized that A.artemisiifolia will display higher plasticity than U. lobata in traits pertaining to biomasspartitioning, growth, and photosynthesis and have unique strategies to regulate how theactivities of its antioxidant enzymes acclimate to varying irradiances. To test this hypothesis, weconducted an experiment from November 2009 to June 2010 using seedlings of A. artemisiifoliaand U. lobata grown under four irradiance regimes (10%, 30%, 55%, and 100% irradiance). A.artemisiifolia showed significantly higher total biomass, total leaf area, specific leaf area (SLA),relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate(NAR) but lower root mass fraction (RMF) andsupport organ mass fraction (SMF) than U. lobata in sun and partial shade. It also exhibitedhigher light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Pmax), light saturation points (LSPTs), darkrespiration rate (R d ) except at 10% irradiance. A. artemisiifolia had a greater capacity forscavenging oxygen radicals at higher irradiance by significantly enhancing catalase (CAT)activities and peroxidases (POD), reduced gluthathione (GSH) and tea polyphenol (TP) contentthough superoxide dismutase (SOD) content was not greatly improved. Lower irradiancereduced antioxidant metabolism of both species, especially A. artemisiifolia. We conclude thatA. artemisiifolia has higher irradiance plasticity in traits pertaining to biomass partitioning, growthand plant structure. It also exhibits greater ability to adjust photosynthetic capacities in responseto varying light availability. Moreover, A. artemisiifolia possess a higher capacity for scavengingoxygen radicals at higher irradiance than at lower irradiance. The differential responses ofantioxidant enzymes between A. artemisiifolia and U. lobata may be a possible mechanism fordifferences in irradiance acclimatization between the two species.22

MODELLING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE AMBROSIA ARTEMISIIFOLIAIN CHINA. Q. Zhong*, A. DiTommaso, C.L. Mohler, and Z. Jia-en, South China AgriculturalUniversity, Guangzhou, China (16)ABSTRACTAmbrosia artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed) an invader with high colonization potential iscurrently rapidly expanding its range in China where it is considered a serious threat toagricultural production and human health. The ability of A. artemisiifolia to colonize new regionsfar away from its native North American range has raised considerable concern. Modelspredicting the potential geographical distribution of A. artemisiifolia can provide valuable insightson the extent of its future spread and information about how different ecological factors mayaffect its invasion potential. In this study, we used an ecological niche model, maximum entropy(Maxent), based on recorded global occurrence points to identify climatically suitable areas forA. artemisiifolia colonization in China. The models generated by Maxent were imported into GISwith which we performed a spatial analysis to probe the potential occurrence and establishmentareas of A. artemisiifolia in China. Estimated latitude and longitude range with high occurrenceprobabilities of A. artemisiifolia were concentrated between 24.5°~45.5°N, 101.5°~125.5°E,covering the provinces of Jiangxi, Anhui, Hunan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Hubei, Liaoning, southernJilin and northern areas of Guangdong province. Also, most of Sichuan, Heilongjiang andnorthern Taiwan were suitable establishment areas for A. artemisiifolia. A jackknife test inMaxent indicated that the maximum temperature in November was the most importantenvironmental variable affecting the distribution of A. artemisiifolia in China. Based on thesefindings, there is a need to develop and implement practical management strategies to preventfurther colonization and expansion of A. artemisiifolia in China.23

SEEDLING EMERGENCE OF SEVERAL WEED SPECIES AS AFFECTED BY FURROWLOCATION, CORN PLANTING DENSITY AND PATTERN. F. Kordbacheh*, H. RahimianMashhadi, and A. DiTommaso, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (17)ABSTRACTWeed seeds in the soil seed bank may experience different microenvironments dependingon the above-ground plant community and therefore may exhibit variation in their emergenceresponse. This hypothesis was investigated in a field experiment that assessed the emergenceof seven weed species under a corn canopy. Corn was planted at three densities (8, 12, 16plant/m 2 ) and two planting patterns (single and double-row). Seeds of seven weed species weresown perpendicular to corn rows at the same time and included, redroot pigweed (Amaranthusretroflexus), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), commonlambsquarters (Chenopodium album), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), black nightshade(Solanum nigrum) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). During the experiment,temperature, and light quality and quantity at the soil surface were measured. The number ofemerged seedlings of each weed species was measured at two distance intervals (0-10 cm and10-20 cm) from the corn rows during three sample periods. Temperature fluctuations at the soilsurface did not vary with corn density or planting pattern; but were reduced by the presence of acorn canopy relative to bare ground. We observed three general patterns of seedlingemergence for the seven weed species: (1) small-seeded species such as redroot pigweedshowed only one emergence flush as the corn canopy closed but emergence was not affectedby canopy cover; (2) the number of emerged seedlings of other small-seeded species such asannual bluegrass, common lambsquarters, and green foxtail was significantly higher in bareground than in the various corn canopy treatments. Moreover, seedling emergence was higherin the corn double-row versus corn single-row planting pattern with species exhibiting threeemergence flushes; and (3) for relatively large-seeded species such as jimsonweed and blacknightshade, the number of emerged seedlings did not differ significantly between bare groundand the different corn canopy treatments. However, the number of emerged seedlings ofJohnsongrass under the corn canopy plots was greater than in the bare ground plots. For all ofthese three large-seeded weed species, the number of emerged seedlings was higher indouble-row corn plantings relative to single-row plantings. Jimsonweed showed threegermination flushes; whereas both black nightshade and Johnsongrass produced only oneemergence flush. These findings can aid in better predicting the timing and density of seedlingemergence flushes of major agronomic weeds in a corn canopy during the growing season. Inturn, this information will more effectively guide the proper timing of weed managementstrategies such as cultivation and herbicide application.24

THE EFFECT OF TIMING AND THE METHOD OF CONTROL ON JAPANESE STILTGRASSSEED PRODUCTION. J.L. Huffman*, E.S. Rauschert, A.E. Gover, and A.N. Nord, PennsylvanieState University, University Park, PA (18)ABSTRACTJapanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) invades native understory vegetation in awide range of environments encompassing full sun to full shade. As an annual plant, controllingseed production is critical for management, yet the optimal timing of control and how this isinfluenced by the control method is not well quantified. We were specifically interested inassessing whether controlling too early would lead to further germination or regrowth. We testedthe effect of timing and method of removal on Japanese stiltgrass seed production. Thetreatments consisted of string-trimming, hand pulling, and applying glyphosate at a rate of 1.68kg ae/ha. Treatments were conducted at three different times during the mid/late summer. Nosubsequent germination was observed, and regrowth was very limited, mainly in the stringtrimmed and hand pulled controlled plots. At the end of the growing season, stem and seedcounts were taken. Glyphosate was the most effective treatment. While mechanical treatmentsgreatly reduced seed production compared to controls, resprouting did lead to some seedproduction, which could sustain populations for subsequent years. Timing did not affect theefficacy of glyphosate, but it appears that early mechanical control leads to more seedproduction than later mechanical control. These results suggest that it is most effective tocontrol Japanese stiltgrass chemically at any time mid/late summer or mechanically in latesummer, prior to the formation of viable seeds.25

PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF DICAMBA PERFORMANCE IN DICAMBATOLERANT SOYBEANS IN THE NORTHEAST. D.J. Mayonado*, R.L. Ritter, M.J. VanGessel,and H.P. Wilson, Monsanto, Salisbury, MD (19)ABSTRACTWeed control in Northeastern soybeans improved dramatically in the late 1990’s with theintroduction of Roundup Ready ® soybeans. A multitude of herbicide mixtures was replaced byone or two in-crop applications of glyphosate. This both improved crop safety and overall weedcontrol. However, a few years after the introduction of Roundup Ready ® soybeans, populationsof glyphosate resistant marestail (Conyza canadensis) began to appear. As time hasprogressed, concerns have mounted about the development of other glyphosate resistantweeds. These concerns emphasize the need to modify the weed control programs used inRoundup Ready ® soybeans. In the short term, weed control programs in soybeans must bediversified to include other non-glyphosate herbicides. Longer term, the development of otherherbicide tolerant traits stacked with the Roundup Ready ® trait will provide growers withadditional herbicide tools for managing weeds. Monsanto is developing dicamba tolerance insoybeans (DTS) to stack with Roundup Ready 2 Yield ® soybeans to provide more herbicideoptions for growers.In 2011, multiple trials were conducted on the Delmarva Peninsula examining potentialweed control systems in soybeans stacked with glyphosate and dicamba tolerance. These trialsshowed that the inclusion of dicamba as a component of a burndown herbicide treatment couldresult in significant residual weed control. It was also shown that if dicamba is applied in-crop,applications to smaller weeds are most effective.26

SWEET VERNALGRASS: A NEW WEED PROBLEM FOR NORTHEASTERN TURFGRASS.A.N. Smith* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (20)ABSTRACTSweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) is a perennial grass weed found in coolseasonturfgrass that has recently become a concern in Virginia. It is highly competitive in thespring due to its rapid growth, early flowering, and potential allelopathic suppression. Researchhas shown that sweet vernalgrass has high phenotypic plasticity, allowing it to easily adapt tonew environmental conditions. Experiments were conducted near Richmond, Virginia in 2010and 2011 to determine herbicide options for sweet vernalgrass control in cool-season turf.Seven herbicide treatments were evaluated. In 2010, treatments were initially applied on June15 th , with a subsequent mesotrione application applied on July 6 th . At 34 DAT, MSMA at 2.1 kga.i. ha -1 , mesotrione applied once at 0.28 kg a.i. ha -1 , and mesotrione applied twice at 0.14 kga.i. ha -1 controlled sweet vernalgrass 73, 63, and 57%, respectively. At 71 DAT, control byMSMA declined to 40%, whereas mesotrione applied once and mesotrione applied twicecontrolled sweet vernalgrass 100 and 67%, respectively. In 2011, initial treatments wereapplied April 20 th , with a subsequent application of mesotrione applied on May 11 th . Mesotrioneapplied once and mesotrione applied twice were the only herbicides that controlled sweetvernalgrass. However, mesotrione applied once did not maintain control and at 71 DAT, controlwas 0%. For mesotrione applied twice, control was 100% at 71 DAT. Fenoxaprop, quinclorac,amicarbazone, methiozolin, and sulfentrazone did not control sweet vernalgrass. In 2010, thedecline of MSMA control can likely be explained by MSMA’s contact activity and the perennialnature of sweet vernalgrass. The differences seen with mesotrione applications between 2010and 2011 may be explained by application timing. In 2010, rapid growth of sweet vernalgrass inthe spring might explain why mesotrione applied once provided the best control as this herbicidetends to be more effective during rapid growth phases of susceptible plants and applying moreactive ingredient during sweet vernalgrass peak growth may play an important role in itscontrol. In 2011, however, mesotrione was applied almost two months earlier. A singleapplication may have been too early in the growing season, allowing the weed to recover.Additional research will be conducted on application timing of mesotrione to sweet vernalgrass.Delaying application may result in sufficient control without the need for an additionalapplication.27

WEED MANAGEMENT WITH TEMBOTRIONE AND ISOXAFLUTOLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.W.J. Everman*, J. Hinton, and M. Rosemond, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (21)ABSTRACTPalmer amaranth has become a driving force in weed management decisions in NorthCarolina due to widespread glyphosate and ALS-inhibitor resistance in the state. Growers arecontinually looking for options in primary crops as well as rotation options that allow for greatercontrol. Recently tembotrione was introduced for weed management in corn in North Carolina;however, isoxaflutole currently is not labeled for use in North Carolina. Therefore, studies wereinitiated to investigate the effectiveness of tembotrione and isoxaflutole on various weeds andsoils in North Carolina. Trials were conducted at the Central Crops Research Station nearClayton, NC, the Upper Coastal Plains Research Station near Rocky Mount, NC, and at theTidewater Research Station near Plymouth, NC to provide a wide range of environmentalconditions, weed species, and corn yield potential. Weed control varied by location withgenerally greater control eight weeks after planting on the sandier soils at Clayton and reducedcontrol at the other locations. Large seeded broadleaf weeds such as morningglory species andlarge crabgrass had the lowest control ratings at eight to ten weeks after planting.28

INVESTIGATING POKEWEED MANAGEMENT IN FIELD CROPS. K.M. Patches* and W.S.Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (22)ABSTRACTCommon pokeweed (Phytolacca americana L.) is a perennial broadleaf weed with a largepersistent taproot that is also capable of abundant seed production. It has become a frequentproblem in agronomic crops in Pennsylvania. Traditionally, plowing was used to managepokeweed; however, the wide-spread adoption of conservation tillage and a decline in the useof soil residual herbicides in soybean may have allowed pokeweed populations to increase inrecent years.Our objective is to identify opportunities to better manage pokeweed in corn, soybeans, andother Northeast cropping systems. We believe an integrated approach that includes bothcultural and chemical tactics could be successful in conservation tillage systems. We propose toconduct a number of experiments during the next two years that investigate the biology andcontrol of common pokeweed in Pennsylvania. Plant biology experiments will examineemergence periodicity, seed longevity, and plant growth and fecundity. Herbicide experimentswill be conducted in both corn and soybeans.In 2011, a preliminary experiment was conducted in no-till corn at the Russell LarsonResearch and Education Center near State College, Pennsylvania, to evaluate herbicideeffectiveness on common pokeweed. Seven POST treatments were evaluated which included:glyphosate (0.84 and 1.22 kg ae/ha), dicamba + diflufenzopyr at two rates (0.19 and 0.39 kgae/ha), glyphosate plus dicamba + diflufenzopyr (0.84 kg/ha + 0.19 kg/ha), glyphosate plusmesotrione (0.84 kg/ha + 0.10 kg ai/ha), and glyphosate plus halosulfuron + dicamba (0.84kg/ha + 0.18 kg ai/ha). Appropriate adjuvants were included in all treatments. The herbicideswere applied on June 17 when the common pokeweed ranged from seedling to establishedvegetative plant and averaged 89 cm tall. The experiment was replicated three times and thetreatments were visually evaluated on July 7 and September 27 on a scale from 0 to 100%control. On August 12, three common pokeweed plants from each plot were harvested and bothfresh and dry weights were measured. Untreated plants from outside the plots were alsocollected for comparison. Preliminary results showed that the high rate of glyphosate providedabout 80% control, reducing plant biomass by about 95%. The lower glyphosate rate provided55% control but still reduced biomass by 91%. Including mesotrione with glyphosate enhancedperformance, increasing control to 79% and reducing the biomass by 92%. Other treatmentsranged from 36 to 79% control and reduced biomass 48 to 92%. Treatments will be assessednext year for longer-term control and additional trials will further explore both corn and soybeanherbicides for common pokeweed control.29

MECHANICAL AND CULTURAL EFFECTS ON LIMA BEAN WEED CONTROL. B.A. Scott*,M.J. VanGessel, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (23)ABSTRACTWeed control in lima bean has become more complex in recent years in the Mid-Atlanticregion due to an increase of Group 2 resistant pigweed (Amaranthus) species. Growers haverelied heavily upon imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control, and with limited options withdifferent modes of action, growers need to implement additional integrated weed managementstrategies.Two trials were conducted in 2010 and 2011 in order to determine if lima bean weeddensities would be affected by 1) various cultivation equipment and timing of cultivation and 2)cultural production methods, particularly crop preceding lima bean and respective planting date.Each trial was a randomized complete block design with four replications.Treatments in the lima bean cultivation trial were a factorial arrangement of cultivator andcultivation timing. The two cultivators were a standard s-tine cultivator and an in-row cultivator(Bezzerides TM ). Cultivation was initiated at lima bean unifoliate stage, first trifoliate, secondtrifoliate, or rotary hoe at five days after planting (DAP) with cultivation at the unifoliate stage.All treatments with cultivation were cultivated twice, first time as noted followed by cultivation 7days later. Comparison treatments include standard cultivator at unifoliate followed by 0.75 lbsai/A of bentazon seven days later, 0.75 lbs ai/A of bentazon at the first trifoliate followed bystandard cultivation seven days later, and an untreated check. Trial area had a residualherbicide application at planting.Treatments in the lima bean rotation trial were: early-season lima bean following peas;early-season lima bean with no preceding crop; mid-season lima bean planted after barleyharvest; mid-season lima bean into no-till bare ground; late-season lima bean after sweet cornwhich had no cultivations; and late-season lima bean planted after sweet corn which had twocultivations. All treatments were planted following soil preparation with heavy disking and/orfield cultivation, with the exception of the one no-till treatment. Each lima bean plantingreceived a PRE treatment of 1 lb ai/A of s-metolachlor.Weed counts over a 25 ft 2 area were completed at lima bean flower and at harvest. Allplots were harvested and yields recorded.In the lima bean cultivation trial pigweed density was lower when cultivation was delayeduntil the second trifoliate stage of the lima bean. There were no differences detected in weeddensities between the in-row and standard cultivators. Pigweed densities were similar with orwithout the rotary hoeing followed by cultivation at the unifoliate stage.Lima bean rotation influenced pigweed and morningglory densities. Pigweed andmorningglory densities were less in late-planted lima bean. Also, yield by treatment interactionswere observed. Yields differed by preceding crop as well as planting date.30

THE WEEDOLYMPICS: A NATIONAL WEED SCIENCE CONTEST. J.T. Brosnan*, G. Armel,G.K. Breeden, J.J. Vargas, and M.J. VanGessel, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (24)ABSTRACTThe WeedOlympics was the first national weed science contest involving student membersof the Northeastern Weed Science Society (NEWSS), the North Central Weed Science Society(NCWSS), the Southern Weed Science Society (SWSS), and the Western Society of WeedScience (WSWS). A total of 137 graduate and undergraduate students from across the UnitedStates and Canada participated in this event hosted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville,TN) in 2011. A total of 56 NEWSS students participated in the WeedOlympics. Universitiesrepresented included North Carolina State University, the University of Guelph, CornellUniversity, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), and thePennsylvania State University. At the regional level, University of Guelph Team #4 (ThomasJudd, Adam Parker, Michael Vanhie, and Jessica Gal) took top honors in the undergraduatecompetition. This team also placed first in the overall national undergraduate team competition.A team from North Carolina State University (Dustin Lewis, Stephen Meyers, and Bill Foote)placed first in the graduate competition at the regional level. The top graduate team at thenational level was from Purdue University (Jared Roskamp, Ryan Terry, Chad Barbham, andPaul Marquardt). The top undergraduate and graduate individuals at the regional level were DanTekiela (Virginia Tech) and Dustin Lewis (North Carolina State). Dan Tekiela was also theoverall national winner in the individual undergraduate competition. The overall national winnerin the graduate competition was Jason Parrish from The Ohio State University. DistinguishedNEWSS member, Dr. Gary Schnappinger, spoke at the awards banquet on the history of theNEWSS student contest and presented NEWSS students with their awards along with currentNEWSS president, Dr. Mark VanGessel. Thank you to all the students, coaches, andvolunteers who made the WeedOlympics a great event.31

TANK MIXTURES AND APPLICATION INTERVALS FOR SMOOTH CRABGRASS CONTROLWITH METAMIFOP. M.C. Cox* and S. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (25)ABSTRACTMetamifop is a new herbicide under development in US markets by Summit Agro.Metamifop controls annual grasses without injuring desirable cool season turfgrass species.Already marketed in 9 other Asian and 6 Middle Eastern countries as a postemergent annualgrass herbicide in cereal crops and rice, metamifop shows great potential for future expansionto Japan and North America. Metamifop inhibits acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) which is theenzyme that catalyzes the first step in fatty acid synthesis. This enzyme inhibition preventsproduction of phospholipids which are the building blocks for new membranes and cell growth.Cool-season turfgrasses are said to gain tolerance to metamifop via an altered ACCase bindingsite, which makes this herbicide unique among other ACCase inhibitors that rely on rapidmetabolism for turf safety. Field trials conducted in Blacksburg, VA evaluated the use ofmetamifop in application intervals and metamifop in conjunction with the broadleaf herbicides2,4-D + dicamba + MCPP (Trimec Classic, PBI Gordon Corporation), carfentrazone(Quicksilver, FMC Corporation), and mesotrione (Tenacity, Syngenta) for control of smoothcrabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). The experiments were implemented in Kentucky bluegrass(Poa pratensis) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) maintained at fairway height.Treatments for the metamifop interval trial consisted of metamifop applied at 300 g ai/ha aloneor followed by an additional application at 3, 6, or 8 weeks after initial application. Treatmentsfor the metamifop/broadleaf herbicides combination trial consisted of metamifop applied at 300g ai/ha alone, Trimec Classic alone at 4.68 L/ha, Quicksilver alone at 0.15 L/ha, Tenacity aloneat 0.58 L/ha, metamifop + Trimec (same rates as single treatments), metamifop + Quicksilver,and metamifop + Tenacity. A nontreated check was included in all trials for comparison. Whenapplied alone at 3, 6, or 8 week intervals, metamifop controlled smooth crabgrass 88 to 98%and significantly better than metamifop applied once. These treatments did not injure Kentuckybluegrass or perennial ryegrass at any time during the study. Applications of metamifop alone,metamifop + Quicksilver, and metamifop + Tenacity controlled smooth crabgrass 65-90%initially and 55-63% 12 weeks after treatment (WAT). Metamifop + Trimec only controlledcrabgrass 10% initially and 6% 12 WAT, suggesting a possible antagonism between the twoherbicides. Likewise, Trimec alone controlled dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 90% 12 WATand significantly better than metamifop + Trimec at 57% control 12 WAT. Nevertheless,metamifop + Trimec controlled white clover (Trifolium repens) 97% 12 WAT and significantlybetter than all other treatments. According to these data, metamifop is an effective herbicide forcontrolling smooth crabgrass in cool season turfgrasses when applied twice at 3, 6, or 8 weekintervals. In addition, although metamifop may have safety when added to some broadleafherbicides, an antagonistic response resulted when it was combined with Trimec Classic as acrabgrass/broadleaf herbicide tank mix. 2,4-D and MCPP, two active ingredients in TrimecClassic, are also known antagonist of other ACCase inhibiting herbicides such as fenoxaprop.32

TALL FESCUE TOLERANCE TO TOWER ® (DIMETHENAMID) AND FREEHAND (DIMETHENAMID + PENDIMETHALIN). D. Gomez de Barreda* and P. McCullough,Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain (26)ABSTRACTFreehand (1.75G) contains dimethenamid (0.75%) and pendimethalin at (1%) and is beingevaluated for potential use as a preemergence herbicide in turf. The objective of this fieldexperiment was to investigate tolerance of a ‘Talladega’ tall fescue field established in fall 2010to spring applications of Freehand in 2011. Treatments included Freehand at 0, 2.94, 3.92,5.9, and 7.85 kg a.i./ha, Tower ® 6L (dimethenamid) at 1.68 and 3.36 kg a.i./ha, and Pendulum ®3.8ME (pendimethalin) at 2.24 kg a.i./ha. All treatments were applied May 16 and again onJune 28, 2011. Freehand injured tall fescue 11 to 34% by 6 weeks after initial treatments(WAIT) while all other treatments caused ≤15% injury. After the second application, tall fescueinjury from Freehand ranged 19 to 50% by 10 WAIT but sequential applications of Pendulum ®and Tower ® caused 2.94 kg a.i./ha reduced turf quality onseveral dates from the untreated but Tower ® and Pendulum ® applied separately did not reducequality.33

EFFECT OF SAFLUFENACIL APPLICATION TIMING ON SOYBEAN AND ITS ROLE INMANAGING GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED. J.T. Ikley* and R.L. Ritter, Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD (38)ABSTRACTThe commercial release of the herbicide saflufenacil (trade name Sharpen) in 2010 hasprovided a new tool to help farmers manage the growing population of glyphosate-resistanthorseweed (Conyza canadensis L.). The original labels for Sharpen and the prepackaged mixof saflufenacil + imazethapyr (trade name Op-Till) restricted applications to 30 days preplant(DPP) for soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr ] planted on coarse-type soils with less than 2%organic matter. In 2011, a supplemental label allowed up to 1.5 oz/acre of saflufenacil oncoarse-type soils with a 44 day interval from application to planting. Much of the farmland onthe Delmarva Peninsula is categorized as coarse or coarse-type soils. Up to 50% of horseweedplants in Maryland do not germinate until the spring, leaving growers with a small windowbetween using a burndown herbicide application and planting their soybean crop. Sensitive andnon-sensitive soybean varieties have been identified when saflufenacil is applied within 30 DPPon coarse-type soils.Field studies were conducted in the summers of 2010 and 2011 at the Wye Researchand Education Center (WREC) located in Queenstown, MD, and the Central MarylandResearch and Education Center (CMREC) located in Beltsville, MD, on the effect of saflufenacilpreplant application timing on full-season no-till soybeans. The WREC site was selected for itsmedium-type soils, while the CMREC site was selected for its coarse-type soils. Studiesincluded one saflufenacil-susceptible soybean variety, and one saflufenacil-tolerant soybeanvariety at each location. Treatment combinations consisted of the following: glyphosate at 0.95lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.045 lb ai/A +glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, and Op-Till at 0.085 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A. Ammoniumsulfate and a methylated seed oil were added to all saflufenacil containing treatments. Thesetreatments were repeated at 0, 15, and 30 DPP on separate plots. All treatments received asubsequent postemergence application of glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A. Stand counts and heightmeasurements were taken at 4, 7, and 10 weeks after planting (WAP). In 2010, crop injury andreduced yields were observed for the treatments containing saflufenacil at 0.045 lb ai/A at 0 and15 DPP, as well as the treatment containing saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A at 0 DPP in thesensitive soybean variety at CMREC. No significant differences were noted in the other studies.Greenhouse studies were conducted in 2011 on the efficacy of saflufenacil on bothglyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible horseweed. Treatment combinationsconsisted of the following: glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at 0.022 lb ai/A, saflufenacil at0.022 lb ai/A + glyphosate at 0.95 lb ai/A, and Op-Till at 0.085 lb ai/A. As in the field studies,ammonium sulfate and a methylated seed oil were added to all saflufenacil containingtreatments. Treatments were applied to horseweed rosettes that were 0.5, 2.0, and 3.5 inchestall for both biotypes. Visual assessments were made on treatment efficacy at 1, 2, and 4weeks after treatment (WAT). At 4 WAT, fresh and dry weights of the plants were taken. Thecombination of glyphosate + saflufenacil provided significantly better control than othertreatments for the resistant-biotype. Both the glyphosate and the glyphosate + saflufenaciltreatments provided the most effective control for the susceptible-biotype.34

ABSORPTION, TRANSLOCATION, AND METABOLISM OF AMINOCYCLO-PYRACHLOR INLOBLOLLY PINE (PINUS TAEDA). R.L. Roten* and R.J. Richardson, North Carolina StateUniversity, Raleigh, NC (39)ABSTRACTGreenhouse and laboratory trials were conducted using 14 C-aminocyclopyrachlor toevaluate root and foliar absorption, translocation, and metabolism in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).Pine seedling plugs were used for all experiments. Trees designated for foliar experiments werefirst treated with formulated aminocyclopyrachlor in an overhead track sprayer beforeapplying radiolabeled aminocyclopyrachlor to a single needle. Trees for root absorption studieswere grown in half strength Hogland’s solution spiked with 14 C-aminocyclopyrachlor. Plantswere harvested at 1, 2, 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours after treatment (HAT) for all experiments. Plantswith foliar treatments were harvested and divided into roots, lower stem, upper stem, bud,treated needle with fascicle, and untreated needle(s). Plants treated by root application wereharvested and divided into roots, lower stem, upper stem, and bud. All partitioned plant partswere stored in envelopes at -20C. To determine absorption and translocation designated plantparts were dried, homogenized and radiation was quantified using liquid spectroscopy afterbeing combusted in a biological oxidizer. Aminocyclopyrachlor metabolism was determined onlyin the treated needle and fascicle. The tissue was extracted in 90% methanol, and evidence ofmetabolism was determined using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. The resultsdemonstrated that a maximum of 37% of the aminocyclopyrachlor (free acid) was absorbedafter foliar application. Absorption was rapid, with the maximum by one hour. No significantdifference was found in translocation regardless of harvest interval; 59% of the free acidremained within the treated needle and fascicle, 27% in the upper stem section, and all otherparts had significantly less aminocyclopyrachlor with a range of 0.5 to 9%. Root absorptionoccurred in a linear fashion at a rate of one percent per hour and showed great xylem mobilityafter 48 HAT. Lastly, no metabolism of the aminocyclopyrachlor free acid was seen between 1and 48 HAT when foliar applied.35

CONTROL OF ANNUAL BLUEGRASS BIOTYPES WITH THREE POSTEMERGENTHERBICIDES. K.M. Han* and J.E. Kaminski, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA(40)ABSTRACTAnnual bluegrass (Poa annua L.; ABG) is one of the most widely distributed turfgrassspecies in the world and is generally considered a weed on golf course putting greens. Variationin ABG populations exists and is dependent upon a large number of factors. Due to this naturalvariation, control of the various biotypes can be highly variable. The objective of this study wasto investigate the tolerance of perennial ABG biotypes to methiozolin, amicarbazone andbispyribac-sodium. Greenhouse studies were conducted in 2011. A total of 30 ABG biotypeswere seeded at a rate of 98 kg seed/ha into pots measuring 79.2 cm 2 on 3 May and 16September. Pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with five replications.Prior to treatment, ABG was fertilized and treated with fungicides to prevent diseases. Herbicidetreatments included amicarbazone (0.147 kg a.i./ha), bispyribac-sodium (0.074 kg a.i./ha),methiozolin (2.0 kg a.i/ha), and an untreated control. All treatments were applied twice on a 14-day interval in 815 L H 2 0/ha using a CO 2 backpack sprayer (276 kPa). The ABG pots treatedwith amicarbazone were severely injured within 1 week of initial application. Turfgrass treatedwith bispyribac-sodium or methiozolin resulted in a less rapid decline when compared toamicarbazone. In general, all 30 ABG biotypes were killed within 3 and 6 weeks when treatedwith amicarbazone and methiozolin, respectively. At the conclusion of the study, control of ABGwas highly variable in pots treated with bispyribac-sodium. Based on the initial trial,amicarbazone and methiozolin provided complete control of all 30 ABG biotypes evaluated inthis study. Amicarbazone appears to be most useful in situations of minimal ABG populationand/or where a rapid kill is desired. Methiozolin provided a slower suppression of ABG and maybe useful in situations where high populations are present or limited disruption to the puttingsurface is desired. The study is current being repeated and results of the completed study willbe discussed.36

HERBICIDAL ACTIVITY OF HETEROCYCLIC ANALOGUES OF DICHLOBENIL ON VARIOUSWEED AND ORNAMENTAL SPECIES. J.W. Thomas*, G. Armel, M.D. Best, W. Klingeman, C-L. Do-Thanh, and H.E. Bostic, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (41)ABSTRACTDiscovery of novel chemistries which target herbicide sites of action that have little to noweed resistance issues is imperative for the future management of resistant weed biotypes. Theherbicide dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) is an inhibitor of cellulose biosynthesis that isimplemented for preemergence (PRE) control of various grass, broadleaf, and sedge weeds inorchards, ornamental nurseries, and various non-crop systems. To date there is only one weedbiotype that is resistant to an inhibitor of cellulose biosynthesis. Greenhouse and laboratorystudies were conducted at the University of Tennessee to evaluate various nitrogen containingheterocyclic analogues of dichlobenil for PRE weed control in ornamental containers, whilemaintaining crop safety to forsythia (Forsythia x intermedia “Lynnwood Gold”) and JapaneseHolly (Ilex Cronata (“Noble Upright”). This paper will discuss the changes in herbicidal responsewith those novel analogues for weed management in ornamental production.37

EVALUATION OF AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR FOR CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTSPECIES IN TENNESSEE. J.J. Vargas*, G. Armel, W. Klingeman, P. Flanagan, R.M. Evans,R.J. Richardson, and R.L. Roten, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (42)ABSTRACTThe cost of managing invasive plant species annually in the United States is estimated tobe $35 billion dollars (Pimentel et al. 2004). According to the Center for Invasive Species andEcosystems Health, there are 388 invasive plant species in the state of Tennessee and thesespecies are categorized as aquatic plants, forbs or herbs, grasses, hardwood trees, shrubs andvines. The University of Tennessee has established multiple studies from 2009 to 2011 toevaluate how the auxin mimic herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor controls key invasive species.Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate aminocyclopyrachlor alone and inmixtures for control of species like sericea lespedeza (Sericea lespedeza), kudzu (Puerariamontana), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Treatments included aminocyclopyrachlorapplied at 16 to 263 g ai/ha alone or in mixtures with metsulfuron at 21 to 82 g ai/ha, 2,4-D at1080 g ai/ha, imazapyr at 177 to 3730 g ai/ha, glyphosate at 1512 to 2030 g ai/ha, indaziflam at70 g ai/ha, hexazinone at 2240 g ai/ha and/or fosamine at 6730 g ai/ha. Additional industrystandard treatments included aminopyralid applied at 123 g ai/ha and triclopyr at 5050 g ai/ha.All treatments were applied POST and included 1% v/v of methylated seed oil or 0.5 to 1% v/vof non ionic surfactant. All mixtures containing aminocyclopyrachlor provided 100% control oflespedeza by 120 days after treatment (DAT). Aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 66 g ai/ha plusmetsulfuron at 21 g ai/ha plus 2,4-D at 1080 g ai/ha provided 96% control of kudzu by one yearafter treatment (YAT). The addition of metsulfuron to the mixture of aminocyclopyrachlor plus2,4-D was more effective in the control of kudzu than that observed by aminocyclopyrachlor plus2,4-D. In the greenhouse, aminocyclopyrachlor applied at 66 g ai/ha plus 2,4-D at 1080 g ai/haprovided 53% visual control and 63% biomass reduction of Chinese privet. In the field,aminocyclopyrachlor at 263 g ai/ha plus metsulfuron at 84 g ai/ha provided 99% control ofChinese privet by 1 YAT when applied as a foliar broadcast application and was significantlymore effective than responses observed with aminocyclopyrachlor applied alone at 263 g ai/ha.These observations indicate that mixtures of aminocyclopyrachlor plus the addition of otherauxin mimic herbicides and/or active ingredients that affect acetolactate synthase greatlyincrease the control of invasive species over that provided by any products applied alone.38

FINE FESCUE VARIETAL TOLERANCE TO GLYPHOSATE RATES. M.C. Cox*, S. Askew, W.Askew, and J. Goatley Jr., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (43)ABSTRACTAs the current economic turn down affects golf budgets, more scrutiny is placed onmanaged turf areas to reduce fertility and mowing costs. Non-mow areas, or secondary roughs,are a cost effective and visually appealing approach to maintaining out-of-play areas on the golfcourse. Fine fescues are typically used for these areas because they are shorter than othergrasses and tend to allow golfers to find and advance errant shots. A unique set of weeds existin non-mow situations and weed control programs are lacking. Some fine fescues havedemonstrated tolerance to glyphosate in past research, and glyphosate would be a valuable toolfor controlling various perennial grass weeds in non-mow areas. More information is needed todetermine which fine fescue varieties are more tolerant to glyphosate and how glyphosate ratesaffect visual quality and seedhead production of fine fescues. The objective of this study was toevaluate glyphosate at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/ha for effects on visual quality, NDVI, andseedhead production of 56 fine fescue varieties.Glyphosate was applied at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/ha with an 18 inch wide sprayer on May16, 2011. The 56 fine fescue varieties were comprised of 1 sheep fescue, 3 slender creepingfescues, 12 hard fescues, 13 Chewings fescues, and 27 strong creeping fescues. All plots weremowed in April approximately 5 weeks prior to treatment and not mowed again for the durationof the study. Glyphosate injured fine fescue most at 1 month after treatment. At this timing, 22,9, and 2 varieties maintained acceptable quality when treated with 0.6, 0.8, and 1.4 kg ai/haglyphosate, respectively. Of the 22 varieties that maintained acceptable quality 1 month after0.6 kg ai/ha glyphosate, 12 were hard fescues, 8 were strong creeping, 1 was a slendercreeping, and 1 was a sheep fescue. The following 7 hard fescue and 1 sheep fescue varietiesmaintained acceptable quality 1 month after 0.8 kg ai/ha glyphosate: SPM, Pick HF#2,Berkshire, Quatro, IS-FL 28, Scaldis, SRX 3K, Oxford, and Heron. Only Quatro sheep fescueand Oxford hard fescue maintained acceptable quality 1 month after glyphosate at 1.4 kg ai/ha.When not treated with glyphosate, the following 9 hard fescues and 5 strong creeping finefescue varieties had seedheads on 25% of plots or less: Predator, SPM, A0163Rel, C-SMX,Pick HF#2, Berkshire, DLF-RCM, IS-FRR30, IS-FL 28, SR 3000, Oxford, DP 77-9360, DP 77-9579, and Heron. When not treated with glyphosate, the following 12 Chewings fescues, 2strong creeping fescues, and 1 slender creeping fescue had seedheads on 70% or more of plotarea: 7 Seas, ACF 174, Jamestown 5, ACF 188, LongFellow II, IS-FRC17, BUR 4601, SRX51G, SRX 55R, Ambassador, DP 77-9885, DP 77-9886, PST-4TZ, Musica, and Navigator.When treated with 0.6 kg ai/ha glyphosate, seedhead coverage was less than 6% regardless ofvariety and seedheads were not produced by any variety when treated with the two higherglyphosate rates. These data suggest Chewings fescues produce the most seedheads whilehard fescues and sheep fescues have better glyphosate tolerance.39

EFFECTS OF ROOTING DEPTH ON HYBRID BERMUDAGRASS (C. DACTYLON X. C.TRANSVAALENSIS) INJURY WITH INDAZIFLAM IN VARIOUS SOILS. P.A. Jones*, J.T.Brosnan, G.K. Breeden, and M.T. Elmore, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN (44)ABSTRACTIndaziflam is a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor used for annual grassy weed control in warmseasonturfgrass. Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) injury following indaziflam treatment has beenobserved by turfgrass managers. Research was initiated in 2011 to determine the effect ofrooting depth on bermudagrass injury with indaziflam in various soils.Hybrid bermudagrass (C. dactylon x. C. transvaalensis Burtt-Davey, cv. Tifway) wasestablished from washed sod in mini-rhizotrons at the University of Tennessee in August 2011.Silica sand and silt loam soil were poured and packed into each mini-rhizotron at a density of1.6 Mg m -3 . An overhead irrigation system was used to promote active growth. Plants weremaintained at a height of 3.8 cm and were fertilized weekly at 49 kg N ha -1 with a completefertilizer (20N: 20P 2 O 5 : 20K 2 O).The experiment was arranged in a 2 x 3 x 6 factorial, randomized complete block, designwith four replications. Plants established in each soil were treated with six herbicides once rootgrowth had reached three depth thresholds (5, 10, and 15 cm). Herbicide treatments includedindaziflam (35, 52.5, and 70 g ha -1 ), prodiamine (595 and 840 g ha -1 ) and oxadiazon (3360 g ha -1 ). An untreated control was included for comparison. Treatments were applied with a CO 2 -powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 281 L ha -1 utilizing flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124kPa. Treatments were watered in (~6 mm) after application.Bermudagrass injury was visually evaluated weekly after application using a 0 (no injury) to100 (complete kill) scale. Digital image analysis was also performed to support visualassessments of injury. At 6 weeks after treatment (WAT) roots were washed free of debris andexcised as close to the crown as possible. WinRhizo software was used to characterize rootlength, root length density, and root surface area. Leaf tissues were also analyzed for macroandmicronutrient content.Significant soil-by-rooting depth and soil-by-treatment interactions were detected in visualinjury by 5 WAT. In sand, treatments initiated at the 5 cm rooting depth injured bermudagrass26% compared to 9% injury for treatments initiated at 10 and 15 cm. In silt loam, bermudagrassinjury measured

EFFECT OF CORN HERBICIDES ON SUCCESSFUL COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT. C.S.Dillon* and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (45)ABSTRACTCover crops are becoming an integral part of agricultural production systems due to themany benefits that they provide to the crop, soil, and environment. These benefits include thecover crops ability to scavenge and/or fix nitrogen, improve soil structure and add organicmatter, reduce erosion and transport of nutrients into waterways as well as potentially providinga forage source for livestock. Despite these numerous benefits, many farmers are still notincluding cover crops in their rotation. There are several important reasons for this including theadded cost associated with cover crop seed and the extra trips across the field forestablishment. In addition, the late fall timing of corn or soybean grain harvest can limit timelycover crop establishment. Finally, producers using soil residual herbicides in corn and soybeanmay limit cover crop options due to concerns for subsequent herbicide injury.Studies were conducted at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center near StateCollege, Pennsylvania to study opportunities for inter-seeding cover crops in corn andto evaluate the effects of corn herbicides on subsequent cover crop establishment. The studieswere conducted in 2010 and are continuing in 2011. The inter-seeding study evaluated aprototype cover crops seeder that inter-seeds cover crops in no-tillage corn at the V6 to V8growth stages. Cover crops included red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), white clover (Trifoliumrepens L), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), and a red clover-ryegrass mix. The studywas conducted at two locations with the first in corn following corn and the second in cornfollowing soybean. Corn grain yield was quantified for each treatment and cover crop dry matterwas collected following corn harvest and in the following spring. The herbicide experimentexamined the effect of PRE and POST corn herbicides for successful cover crop establishmentwith the inter-seeder or after corn silage. Some small grains and winter annual legumes wereincluded in the fall evaluation. Cover crops were visually evaluated for percent stand.First year results showed that inter-seeded cover crops did not impact corn yield. Cornplanted into corn residue averaged about140 bu/acre, while yields averaged 170 bu/acrefollowing soybean. Cover crop dry matter yields ranged from 100 to 500 lb/acre in late fall and200 to 1450 lb/acre in the spring. Annual ryegrass and annual ryegrass plus red clover yieldswere higher than for other treatments. In the herbicide experiment, most herbicides had littleeffect on the fall seeded species. With the inter-seeding, metolachlor, atrazine, pendimethalin,and post-applied nicosulfuron reduced annual ryegrass establishment, while cloverestablishment varied across the experiment. These studies continue in 2011 and results willhopefully help farmers make better decisions about cover crop selection, time of seeding, andherbicide management.41

PARTITIONING OUT THE EFFECTS OF NUTRIENTS FROM COMPOSTED MANURE ONWEEDS AND CROPS. N.G. Little*, C.L. Mohler, A. DiTommaso, and Q.M. Ketterings, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY (46)ABSTRACTMost experienced organic farmers consider weeds to be the worst pest problem theyface. This problem can be exacerbated by fertility management that does not take weed ecologyinto account. Increased weed growth and competition is observed in response to manyinorganic fertilizers. The purpose of this research project is to partition out the effects on weedsand crops of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) from organic nutrientamendments. The long-term goal of this project is to contribute to integrated weed and fertilitymanagement by providing growers with information that will help them supply crops withnecessary nutrients while minimizing weed pressure.Field and greenhouse experiments were carried out over two years, using blood meal foran organic source of N, bone char for P, and potassium sulfate for K. Three crops were studied:field corn (Zea mays cv. ‘VK6710’), lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. ‘New Red Fire’), and kale(Brassica oleracea cultivar ‘Lacinato’). Four weeds were studied: Powell amaranth(Amaranthus powellii S. Wats.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), giant foxtail(Setaria faberi Herrm.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.).One of the main conclusions of this project is that some weed species, Powell amaranth inparticular, benefit from high compost amendments much more than some crops, particularlyfield corn. Lettuce may benefit somewhat from high compost amendment levels, but good weedmanagement would be crucial to maintain that benefit since the weeds respond strongly to thecompost and are inherently more competitive than lettuce.42

EFFECTS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT LEGACY ON WEED-CROP COMPETITION. H.J.Poffenbarger*, S. Mirsky, J. Teasdale, J. Spargo, D. Timlin, J. Maul, and M. Cavigelli, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD (47)ABSTRACTCropping systems research has shown that organic systems can have comparable yields toconventional systems at higher weed biomass levels. Higher weed tolerance in the organicsystems could be due to differences in labile soil organic matter and subsequent nitrogenmineralization potential. The objective of our study was to test whether inherent soil nitrogen (N)mineralization potential differences in organic and conventionally-managed systems within along-term cropping system experiment result in different weed-crop competition relationships.Greenhouse experiments were first conducted to determine the densities of corn (Zea mays L),smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi L.) that result inequivalent N uptake. Initial experiments tested N use by a range of monoculture densities over asingle 41- or 31-day after planting (DAP) timeframe and a subsequent experiment tested asubset of monoculture densities over several timeframes between 21 and 46 DAP. We used leafarea, shoot biomass and shoot N measured in these experiments to determine functionaldensities. The empirically determined functional densities were then utilized within areplacement series experiment to determine differences in weed-crop competition among thetwo soil management legacies. The corn:weed mixtures at proportions of 100:0, 75:25, 50:50,25:75 and 0:100 were planted in three replicates in each soil, with 100% corn equal to 4 plantspot -1 (105 plants m -2 ) and 100% giant foxtail and smooth pigweed equal to 36 plants pot -1 (947plants m -2 ). Species-specific shoot biomass and shoot N content, total root biomass, and soilinorganic N concentration were measured at each of three 24-, 35- and 43-DAP harvests. Totaldry weight and N uptake by the species in mixture relative to monoculture were calculated forplants grown in each soil at the three harvests. Determination of functional densities andrelationships observed in the competition experiment will be demonstrated.43

EVALUATING INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT FOR NO-TILL DAIRY CROPPINGSYSTEMS. E.M. Snyder*, W.S. Curran, H.D. Karsten, and G.M. Malcolm, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA (48)ABSTRACTSmall dairy farms characterize much of the Pennsylvania landscape, many producing theforage and some of the grain consumed by their herd. Rotating annual grain crops withperennial forages is common, and many farmers have adopted no-till practices. Weedpopulations in conventional no-till crops are managed with herbicides, often involving multipleapplications per year. However, interest in reducing herbicide use is increasing as concerngrows over environmental consequences of herbicides and the development of herbicideresistantweeds. While no-till practices offer many benefits, they exclude the use of tillage forweed control. Weed management programs that minimally disturb soil, reduce herbicide use,rely more on cultural control tactics, and discourage the evolution of herbicide-resistant weedswill help sustain northeast cropping systems into the future.The Sustainable Dairy Cropping Systems Project, funded by the Northeast SustainableAgriculture Research and Education (NE-SARE) program, consists of two diverse six-year croprotations, each containing three years each of annual and perennial crops. The experiment isbeing conducted at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Station at The PennsylvaniaState University near State College, PA, and is modeled after an average-sized 60-cow dairyfarm. The “Forage” rotation produces most of the needed forage, and features a comparison ofmanure management methods. The “Grain” rotation produces corn grain and soybean, as wellas forage. It compares an herbicide-based “Standard Herbicide” weed management programwith a “Reduced Herbicide” program which includes a combination of mechanical, cultural, andchemical control tactics. Both rotations also include canola that is utilized as an energy crop.Applying diverse tactics for weed control can have synergistic effects whereby the efficacyof one tactic is enhanced by use of another. The “Reduced Herbicide” program combinesbanding herbicide over the crop row, suppressing weed emergence with rolled cover cropmulch, and using a high-residue cultivator to control weeds between the rows in corn andsoybean. Planting companion crops is compared with herbicide application for weed controlefficacy in establishment-year alfalfa. Weed density and biomass are quantified to testtreatment effectiveness, and crop yields and quality are collected and analyzed for correlationwith weed density or biomass. Weed data is collected both from resident populations, and fromsubplots that have been supplemented with three species of weed seeds.First year results showed differences in weed density and biomass between weedmanagement programs in both corn and soybean. Weed density and biomass were greater in“Reduced Herbicide” corn grain before, and in both corn and soybean after post-emergenceweed management, as compared with “Standard Herbicide” management. There was nodifference in corn and soybean grain yield between weed management programs in 2010; 2011yields are still being collected. In alfalfa, there were no differences in percent weed compositionor forage yield between treatments, and forage quality is currently being analyzed.44

THE EFFECT OF ROW SPACING ON WEED PRESSURE, YIELD AND ECONOMICS INSOYBEAN. J.M. Orlowski*, W.J. Cox, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (49)ABSTRACTSoybean production has increased steadily in the United States and New York State in thelast 20 years. As new soybean growers enter production, agronomic factors such as selectionof row spacing become increasingly important. Soybeans are currently planted in 19 cm rowsusing a grain drill or in 38 and 76 cm rows using a row crop planter. Most studies show thatplanting soybeans in narrow rows lead to a yield advantage over soybeans planted in widerrows in northern latitudes. One of the goals of this 2-year field study was to determine theimpact of soybean row spacing and weed management program on weed abundance, soybeanyield and farm profitability. This research was initiated in 2010 on two collaborator farms in themajor soybean production regions of New York. At both locations, soybeans were seeded atapproximate populations of 309,000 and 420,000 plants/ha at three row spacings (19, 38, and76 cm widths). There were three replicates of each row spacing/seeding rate treatment at eachlocation. One of the sites was chisel plowed, disc harrowed and received a pre-emergenceapplication of Enlite (premix of flumioxazin, chlorimuron- ethyl and thifensulfuron-methyl at0.204 liters /ha), which resulted in very low weed densities during both growing seasons. Theother site was planted under no-till conditions in both years. In 2010 the site received an earlypre-plant burndown application of glyphosate 672 g ai/ha, 2-4 D at 512 g ai/ha, and tribenuronat 279 g/ha. In 2011 due to wet spring conditions a pre-emergence application glyphosate wasapplied as a burndown two days after planting. In both years, post emergent applications ofglyphosate occurred 4-5 weeks after planting. Weed densities were determined before postemergentand at five weeks after post-emergent glyphosate applications in both years in a 2 msampling area of each treatment combination using a 1 x 0.5 m quadrat. Dry weed biomasswithin each row spacing/seeding rate treatment was determined at harvest. Soybeans plantedin narrow rows (19 and 38 cm) had substantially lower weed densities compared to soybeansplanted at 76 cm row spacing after herbicide application at both populations at the no-till site.The narrow row soybeans also had lower weed biomass at harvest compared with the widerrow spacing at the no-till site. Nevertheless, soybean yield did not differ in either year at the notillsite. At the tilled site, soybeans in 19-cm row spacing yielded 3.5% higher than soybeans in76-cm row spacing. Planting soybeans in narrow rows led to an increase in net farm profitabilitybecause of the yield increase at the tilled site and because of a decrease in the cost ofcontrolling perennial weeds in subsequent rotational crops at the no-till site.45

EFFECTIVENESS OF SHALLOW HIGH-RESIDUE CULTIVATION IN NO-TILL SOYBEAN.W.S. Curran and C.L. Keene*, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (50)ABSTRACTThe integration of cover crops and shallow high-residue cultivation into no-till soybeanproduction will increase cropping system sustainability and reduce selection pressure forherbicide resistant weeds. Cover crops decrease erosion, improve soil quality and diversifycrop rotations, while shallow high-residue cultivation can be coupled with banded herbicideapplication to control between row weeds and reduce total herbicide load. Though high-residuecultivation has the potential to contribute to integrated weed management, one barrier toadoption is the lack of information regarding when and how often to use this tool for effective,efficient weed control. An experiment was conducted at the Penn State Russell LarsonResearch and Education Center near State College, PA in the summer of 2011 to test theeffects of different timings and frequencies of shallow high-residue cultivation on weed densityand biomass and soybean density and yield. A split-plot design was used in which no-tillsoybean was planted in 76-cm rows into a terminated cereal rye (Secale cereal L. cv.‘Aroostook’) cover crop or into a low surface residue environment. Prior to planting, the entirearea was treated with 0.84 kg ae/ha glyphosate plus 0.56 kg ae/ha 2,4-DLVE and the covercrop was managed with a roller crimper. At planting, 0.22 kg ai/ha metribuzin, 0.037 kg ai/hachlorimuron and 1.42 kg ai/ha s-metolachlor were sprayed in a 25-cm band over the row.Shallow high-residue cultivation treatments occurred at 4, 5 and 6 weeks after planting in allpossible combinations and an uncultivated treatment was included for comparison. Weeddensity data were collected immediately before the first cultivation and one week after the finalcultivation in each plot. Weed biomass data were collected on August 24 in all plots. First yearresults showed that cultivation reduced weed biomass compared to the uncultivated check plotsand that the reduction was greatest in treatments cultivated two and three times compared to asingle or no cultivation. Weed biomass amounts in treatments cultivated only once variedgreatly depending on timing. Frequency of rainfall and subsequent soil moisture as well asweed density and maturity at cultivation likely impacted control with more frequent rainfallgenerally reducing cultivator efficacy. This experiment will be repeated in 2012 and expandedto include no-till corn planted into a hairy vetch cover crop. Our results will provide insight intoeffective use of shallow high-residue cultivation and will inform decision-making associated withintegrating alternative weed management strategies into no-till production systems.46

IMPACT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ON PREEMERGENCE WEED CONTROL USINGMICROWAVE RADIATION. A. Rana* and J.F. Derr, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (51)ABSTRACTThis study evaluated the impact of soil properties on the effectiveness of microwaveradiation for preemergence weed control. Controlling weeds prior to emergence avoidscompetition with the crop compared to postemergence weed control. Obtaining preemergenceweed control is a challenge for organic farmers, though, since few options are available. Withthe phase-out of methyl bromide, additional preplant weed control measures are needed bygrowers using conventional methods. Conventional preemergence herbicides form a barrier inthe soil to prevent weed seed germination or establishment. Their performance relies onfavorable environmental conditions. Long-residual chemicals can pose production concerns forsubsequent sensitive crops. Microwave radiations (2.45GHz), however, kills weed seed in soilbefore germination without leaving any residue and thus may be an option for organic andconventional growers. Microwave radiation penetrated soil depths up to 25 centimeters in ourexperiments, depending upon soil density, texture, and most important, soil moisture. Highermoisture content results in most of the radiation energy being absorbed in the upper soil layer,limiting downward penetration. We observed greater control of southern crabgrass [Digitariaciliaris (Retz.) Koel.] when seed was treated under lower compared to higher soil moisturelevels when using a magnetron operating at 900 watt. The energy requirement forpreemergence weed control using microwave radiation is comparatively much higher than thatneeded for postemergence weed control. Although certain properties like soil texture cannot beeasily modified on a large scale, one can improve the effectiveness of microwave radiation forpreemergence weed control by making applications at optimum soil moisture levels.47

INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF BIOENERGY CROPS USING THE NEW APHIS ASSESSMENT:HOW RISKY IS RENEWABLE ENERGY? L.L. Smith* and J.N. Barney, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, VA (52)ABSTRACTThrough the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the federal government hasmandated tremendous increases in the production of cellulosic-based fuel. Many species ofrhizomatous perennial grasses proposed for cultivation, bearing desirable traits for large-scaleproduction, have caused concern for their potential to become invasive. Therefore, onecomponent of identifying the invasive risk of these potentially valuable crops is to conduct aweed risk assessment, which has become standard practice in many parts of the world. TheAustralian Weed Risk Assessment (A-WRA) has become the global standard, but the Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) PPQ weed risk assessment (PPQ-WRA) will bethe new US standard for evaluating the invasive potential of new species. We compared theoutcomes of both assessments to evaluate the invasive potential of proposed biofuel cropsagainst invasive species that were introduced for agronomic purposes, as well as otheragronomic crops that are not invasive. These species include both known weeds such asElymus repens and Dactylis glomerata, along with plants proposed for wide spread cultivationas biofuels including Arundo donax, Miscanthus sinensis, M. x giganteus, and Panicumvirgatum. These two risk assessment models can be used to predict the invasive potential offuture bioenergy crops in this emerging industry, with the potential to assist in future policy andmanagement decisions. Both assessments suggest that many of the leading biofuel candidateshave the potential to become weedy in specific ecoregions of the United States. Differences inthe screening process are evident in the percentage of plants rejected by the Australian model(82%) in contrast to those receiving a high risk rating by the APHIS model (72%). However itshould be noted, despite the similar percentage of high risk recommendation by theassessments, the species receiving acceptable or low risk ratings was not identical between thetwo assessments. Befits of the PPQ-WRA include the ability to include uncertainty and leavesmanagement decisions to other decision-makers. Based on the outcomes of these assessmentswe can be better prepared identify aspects contributing to potential invasiveness of these crops,while also planning ahead for improved stewardship in those that are predicted to be of highrisk.48

INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CONTROLS FORSILVERY THREAD MOSS ON PUTTING GREENS. A. Post*, S. Askew, and D. McCall, VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, VA (53)ABSTRACTSince the loss of mercury and other heavy metal based herbicides silvery threadmoss(Bryum argenteum) has become an increasing problem on golf course putting greens.Superintendants continue to reduce mowing heights and fertility on putting greens to meet golferdemands for faster playing surfaces. This creates optimal conditions for competitivedisplacement of creeping bentgrass by silvery threadmoss. Only one herbicide, carfentrazone(Quicksilver) and two fungicides, chlorothalonil (Daconil) and mancozeb (Manzeb) are labeledfor moss control on putting greens currently. The objective of this study was to widely screenavailable crop protection chemicals for effects on silvery threadmoss and provide new optionsfor its control on golf course putting greens.Two trials were initiated to examine herbicide effectiveness on silvery threadmoss. Eachwas a randomized complete block design with ten replications and forty-nine herbicidetreatments applied at one and two times the labeled use rates as well as a nontreated control.After herbicide treatment, moss plugs were randomly placed into 24-well cell culture plateswhere they remained for the duration of the study. Digital photos were taken for image analysisat 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment (DAT). Each one was then cropped to includea single plot per image. Data was captured in Sigma Scan Pro 5 and managed in ARM 8.Sigma Scan was set to count green pixels in a range from hue=38 to 100 and saturation=0 to100. When compared to the zero-day after treatment pixel counts this provides a % reduction ingreen color for each moss plug which equates to a measure of control. Data were subject toANOVA and means separated by fishers protected LSD (p=0.05). Herbicides whichsignificantly reduced green color included: carfentrazone, flumioxazin, MSMA, glufosinate,sulfentrazone, and an experimental. By 10 DAT, several herbicides reduced green color bymore than 90% including flumioxazin, carfentrazone, fosamine, diquat, and sulfentrazone.Successful treatments will be examined in the field next growing season to evaluate theirefficacy and safety for potential supplemental registrations.49

NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY OF THE “INVASIVE” MISCANTHUS SINENSIS POPULATIONSOF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. R.F. Dougherty*, L. Quinn, T. Voigt, B. Endres, and J.N.Barney, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (54)ABSTRACTMiscanthus sinensis is a perennial, C 4 grass native to Southeast Asia. This species wasintroduced as an ornamental by the Biltmore estate in Asheville, North Carolina in the late 19 thcentury. Genetic testing has shown that this introduction was one of many, as the plant’sdistribution quickly spread north to Washington DC and New York City by 1920. Today M.sinensis remains a popular ornamental grass, with annual sales exceeding $39 million in NorthCarolina alone as of 2008. Miscanthus sinensis has since escaped the cultivated environmentand naturalized across much of its introduced range, where it is now considered an invasivespecies. Miscanthus x giganteus, a sterile triploid hybrid of M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, isbeing used as a bioenergy crop with concern that it may escape and become invasive. Unlikethe weedy parents, M. x giganteus does not produce seed, but has a much faster growth rateand grows much larger.To better understand the invasiveness of the Miscanthus species, we must firstcharacterize M. sinensis across its naturalized range in the United States to better understandits invasiveness. This study surveys the current range of M. sinensis across the northeast fromTennessee to Maine. Demographic and environmental data was collected from populations in20 locations. Nearly all populations were located in low value, high disturbance areas such asroadsides, highways, railroads, power line right-of-ways, as well as abandoned gardens andnurseries. Population sizes ranged from 15 individuals to over 1000. These populations werecompared across a large latitudinal gradient, which resulted in several significant trends. Bothaverage tiller height and approximate basal area decreased as populations moved north. Inorder to fully assess the risk of wide spread M. sinensis cultivation, we must continue to gain abetter understanding of this species in its naturalized range.50

DO DEER BROWSE ON INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS? DEER PREFERENCE TRIALRESULTS FOR NATIVE AND INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS IN PENNSYLVANIA. K.M. Averill*and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (55)ABSTRACTWhite-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) affect invasive plant dynamics in forestunderstories. The argument stands that selective deer browsing could result in plantcommunities that are more susceptible to invasion, resulting in increases in exotic invasive plantabundance. As part of a region-wide analysis, deer exclusion studies revealed that whileabundance of some invasive plants increased in the presence of deer, other invasive plantsdecreased. Differences in the palatability of native and non-native flora could explain thispattern. However, the palatability of weedy and invasive plants has not been directlyinvestigated. In August and October 2011, we conducted deer preference trials using captivedeer to test the palatability of eight exotic and seven native plant species that commonly occurin northeastern forests. Based on preliminary analysis of field plot data collected across thestudy region, we hypothesized that half of the native and half of the exotic species would bepalatable to deer. We determined (1) percentage of leafy plant biomass of each trial speciesconsumed by deer and (2) order of trial species preference by deer for each trial species usingvideography. Biomass and videography results indicate that Oriental bittersweet (Celastrusorbiculatus), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), and common privet (Ligustrum vulgare)were highly palatable to deer. More than 78% of the leafy biomass of these three invasive plantswas consumed, which was comparable to the consumption of the highly preferred nativespecies, red maple (Acer rubrum) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Only 20%or less of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)biomass was consumed in trials. Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) was the leastpreferred species, with no browsing in August trials and consumption limited to 14% in October.Large populations of deer have the capacity to decimate populations of palatable plant species,granting a competitive advantage to unpalatable species. Minimal deer herbivory of unpalatableinvasive plant species may help explain their large spatial extent and abundance in the studyregion. Explanations other than deer browsing likely explain why the highly preferred species(C. orbiculatus, L. morrowii, and L. vulgare) have become invasive, such as high growth ratesand/or increased tolerance of deer herbivory.51

ECONOMICS, EFFICACY, AND NON-TARGET EFFECTS OF MANAGING THE FORESTUNDERSTORY INVADER MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM. D. Tekiela*, A. Post, S. Askew, andJ.N. Barney, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (56)ABSTRACTMicrostegium vimineum is a shade tolerant annual C 4 grass that is an invasive species inthe Mid-Atlantic and upper Southeastern US, and has been shown to negatively impact speciesdiversity and composition in eastern native hardwood forests. Glyphosate (2% spray to wet) iscurrently the most common method for controlling M. vimineum invasions. However, littleinformation exists on the long-term efficacy, costs, and non-target consequences of large-scaleeradication of this understory invader. Therefore, a study was established in Southwest Virginiato compare the cost and efficacy of understory management practices that included mechanicalremoval (string trimmer) and spot applications of standard rate glyphosate (2%), reduced rateglyphosate (0.045 kg ai ha -1 ), and sethoxydim (1.5% spray to wet). We used a split-plot designto assess the efficacy of both a single seasonal application, and a multiple application treatmentwith the management goal of 100% M. vimineum control.Prior to treatment, M. vimineum groundcover was 51% (±18.6%). Costs of fuel, herbicide,and labor were recorded for each plot to find the total cost of management per treated hectare.Plant community data was recorded before and after treatment application to assess the nontargetspecies effects. Sethoxydim, standard rate glyphosate, and reduced rate glyphosateachieved near 100% M. vimineum control with a single application. Impact on non-targetspecies was greatest in standard rate glyphosate plots (26% cover reduction) and lowest insethoxydim plots (3% cover reduction). Sethoxydim also had no effect on tree seedlingrecruitment unlike all other treatments, which were reduced by 15-26%. Labor was >95% oftotal cost for all treatments, and herbicide costs did not greatly differ. On average herbicidetreatments cost $237 ha -1 for single treatments and $348 ha -1 for 100% control (multipleapplications). Mechanical treatment was >200% more expensive than any herbicide applicationdue to longer application time requirements. It appears that a single treatment of low-rateglyphosate or sethoxydim was adequate for single-season M. vimineum control. The additionalcost of labor for multiple applications per season may be unnecessary, and glyphosate has thegreatest negative impact on the surrounding community. Both reduced rate glyphosate andsethoxydim are just as effective while having reduced impacts on the native flora, which may bealternative methods for managers in M. vimineum management.52

NITROGEN-ENHANCED EFFICACY OF MESOTRIONE AND TOPRAMEZONE FORSMOOTH CRABGRASS (DIGITARIA ISCHAEMUM) CONTROL. M.T. Elmore*, J.T. Brosnan,G.K. Breeden, and P.A. Jones, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (57)ABSTRACTThe herbicides mesotrione and topramezone inhibit 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase(HPPD) and have efficacy against smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). Research wasconducted to determine the impacts of soil-applied nitrogen (N) fertilizer on the efficacy ofmesotrione and topramezone for smooth crabgrass control.Dose-response experiments evaluated the response of smooth crabgrass to mesotrione (0,70, 140, 280, 560 and 1120 g ha -1 ) and topramezone (0, 4.5, 9, 18, 36 and 72 g ha -1 ) with 0 or49 kg N ha -1 . Smooth crabgrass was seeded into 10-cm pots filled with a Sequatchie silt loamsoil blended with calcined clay in a 3:1 ratio. Treatments were applied with small-plot sprayequipment at 280 L ha -1 to 3- to 5-tiller crabgrass plants. Percent visual control was evaluated 4,7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT). Aboveground dry biomass was determined 21 DAT.Log-logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the herbicide dose required toprovide 50% visual crabgrass control (I 50 ).Further greenhouse research evaluated changes in visual necrosis, weight, chlorophylland carotenoid pigment concentrations of smooth crabgrass leaf tissue following treatment withmesotrione (280 g ha -1 ) and topramezone (18 g ha -1 ) with 0 or 49 kg ha -1 . Smooth crabgrasswas seeded into 20-cm pots filled with a Sequatchie silt loam soil blended with calcined clay in a3:1 ratio. Treatments were applied using a spray chamber at 430 L ha -1 to 3- to 5-tiller crabgrassplants. Leaves present at the time of herbicide application (except for the bud leaf) were markedwith indelible ink, designating leaves as those fully emerged before and after herbicideapplication. Chlorophyll and carotenoid pigments were extracted from leaf tissue harvested 10days after treatment and quantified via high-performance liquid chromatography. All herbicidetreatments were applied with a NIS at 0.25% v/v.In dose-response experiments, N application reduced I 50 values for mesotrione andtopramezone by 50 and 65%, respectively, 21 days after treatment (DAT). Reductions inaboveground biomass with both herbicides were greater when applied following N treatment aswell. In leaf-response experiments, N decreased total chlorophyll and xanthophyll cycle pigmentconcentrations and weight of leaves that emerged after treatment with topramezone. Treatmentwith N also increased necrosis of leaves emerged after herbicide application in mesotrionetreatedplants. Responses of leaves fully emerged before herbicide treatment were not affectedby N. Future research should investigate whether increased translocation of these herbicides tomeristimatic regions contributed to N-enhanced efficacy.53

QUANTIFYING VAPOR DRIFT OF DICAMBA HERBICIDES APPLIED TO SOYBEAN. J. Egan*and D. Mortensen, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (58)ABSTRACTRecent advances in biotechnology have produced cultivars of corn, soybean, and cottonresistant to the synthetic auxin herbicide dicamba. This technology will allow dicamba herbicidesto be applied in new crops, at new times of years, and over greatly expanded acreages,including postemergence applications in soybean. From past and current use in corn and smallgrains, dicamba vapor drift and subsequent crop injury to sensitive broadleaf crops has been aproblem. In this study, we measured dicamba vapor drift in the field from postemergenceapplications to soybean using greenhouse-grown soybean as a bioassay system. We foundthat when the volatile DMA formulation is applied, vapor drift could be detected at meanconcentrations of 0.561 g a.e. dicamba/ha (0.1% of the applied rate) at 20 m away from atreated 18.3m x 18.3m plot. Applying the DGA formulation of dicamba reduced vapor drift by96.0%. With the DMA formulation, the extent and severity of vapor drift was significantlycorrelated with air temperature, indicating elevated risks if DMA dicamba is applied early to midsummerin many growing regions. Additional research is needed to more fully understand theeffects of vapor drift level exposures to non-target crops and wild plants.54

NICOSULFURON-RESISTANT JOHNSONGRASS EXHIBITS DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITYTO GLYPHOSATE. A.N. Smith* and E. Hagood, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (59)ABSTRACTJohnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a common and difficult to control weed in cornproduction. The use of glyphosate- or glufosinate-tolerant corn varieties has led to a decreasein the number of herbicide modes of action used in field corn. Producers planting thesevarieties typically rely on glyphosate/glufosinate or nicosulfuron as their main options for grassweed control. This change in herbicide use patterns has inadvertently led to increased selectionpressure for weedy biotypes resistant to these herbicides. Research has confirmed glyphosateand nicosulfuron resistant johnsongrass, but there are no reports of multiple resistance to theseherbicides. A nicosulfuron-resistant Johnsongrass population was reported to have failed to becontrolled by 0.88 kg a.e. ha -1 of glyphosate for two growing seasons in Virginia. Fieldexperiments subjected Johnsongrass to four rates of nicosulfuron and five rates of glyphosate.Visual control was measured and seed was collected from surviving Johnsongrass plants. At0.88 kg a.e. ha -1 , control with glyphosate was 65%. At 3.52 kg a.e. ha -1 , control was 90%. At0.057 kg a.i. ha -1 , control with nicosulfuron was 9%. In greenhouse experiments usingJohnsongrass seedlings grown from collected seed, glyphosate at 0.22 kg a.e. ha -1 and 0.44a.e. ha -1 provided no control, but surviving seedlings had visibly diminished vigor. Experimentswere conducted to evaluate differential glyphosate sensitivity between individual biotypes.Several biotypes, when compared to a wild type, failed to be controlled by 0.22 kg a.e. ha -1 and0.44 kg a.e. ha -1 rates of glyphosate. Additionally, greenhouse experiments were conductedwith rhizomatous plants. Several individual plants treated with 0.22 kg a.e. ha -1 of glyphosate,while visibly injured, had increased vigor when compared to a wild type receiving the samerate. Moreover, plant regrowth was measured and several individuals had regrowth afterapplication. These results suggest that this suspect Johnsongrass population may exhibitdifferential sensitivity to glyphosate, but additional confirmation is needed.55

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe preliminary list of the vascular flora at Monomoy Island consists of 126 species in 99genera in 50 families. The largest family in the flora was Asteraceae (24 species); no otherfamily had more than 10 species. Native species, 79.4% of the flora, were the major componentof the flora. Polygonum glaucum, a coastal dune species was the only Massachusettsendangered or threatened species of the flora.Monomoy’s non-native plant species, 20.6% of the flora, was only slightly higher thanthe percentage of non-native vascular plant species on Gardiner’s Island observed by Hehre(1977), 19.1%. Both Gardiner’s and Monomoy experience little human activity. National Fishand Wildlife Refuge personnel observe and record bird and seal populations at Monomoy.Portions of Monomoy’s dune community are burned each October to provide appropriatenesting habitat for the island’s tern populations. Gardiner’s Island has been occupied by asuccession of Gardeners since the 1600s! With the exception of a caretaker and ornithologistsinvolved with a Christmas bird count, no “outsiders” have access to the island (Table 2). PlumIsland, the site of the USDA’s Animal Disease Research Center, has limited human disturbance,the activity of the scientists who work at the main laboratory and at the animal researchfacilities. Great Gull Island, a small island east of Plum Island, has no permanent residents, butis the site of the American Museum of Natural History’s tern research colonies. The land atGreat Gull Island is plowed and mowed yearly each spring to provide appropriate habitat fornesting terns; the plowed soil provides excellent habitat for invasive non-native vascular plants.The percentage of alien non-native taxa At Orient Beach State Park, N.Y. is misleading.Humans rarely visit the western portion of the park which supports a non-native plant speciespopulation of approximately 20% while the often visited eastern side of the park has a nonnativeplant species population of greater than 40% (Table 2). Human population density maybe related to non native species richness on coastal northeastern islands (McMaster 2005).While population density influences species diversity, MacMaster (2005) found that theinfluence of island area was approximately six times stronger than that of human populationdensity in his study of vascular plant diversity on 22 coastal islands.Monomoy Island’s vascular flora has been documented since 1954 (Table 3). Theearliest investigators, Cross and Cross recorded 66 plant species in 1954. The greatest numberof plant species was recorded by Lortie et al, who identified 201 species during their 8 yearstudy, 1981-1989. The most recent study by Stalter, September 2010/2011 included 135taxa. Additional plants will be added to this list when the grasses (Poaceae) and sedges(Cyperaceae) are identified and additional plant species are collected and identified during the2012 growing season.LITERATURE CITEDBAILEY, W. 1965. Plant List of Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts.Contribution No. 2, Monomoy Light Research Station. Massachusetts Audubon Society, SouthWellfleet, MA.GLEASON H.A. & A. CRONQUIST. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern UnitedStates & Adjacent Canada. 2 nd Ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 910.HEHRE, E.J. 1977. The flora of Gardiners Island. Rhodora 79:214-239.LEATHERMAN, S.P. 1979. Barrier Islands Handbook. National Park Service CooperativeResearch Unit. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.57

LAMONT, E.E. & R. STALTER. 1991. The Vascular Flora of Oriental Beach State Park, LongIsland, New York. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 118: 459-468.MCMASTER. R.T. 2005. Factors influencing vascular plant diversity on 22 islands off the coastof eastern North America. J. Biogeography 32: 475-492.MOUL, E.T. 1969. Flora of Monomoy Island, Massachusetts. Rhodora 71:18-28.Table 1. A statistical summary of the vascular flora of the Monomoy Islands, MassachusettsSpore Plants Gymnosperms Dicots Monocots TotalFamilies 3 1 38 8 50Genera 4 2 79 14 99Species 5 2 100 19 126Native Species 5 1 75 19 100Introduced Species 0 1 25 0 26Table 2. Frequencies of native versus non-native plants at Plum Island, NY, Orient Beach StatePark, NY (Lamont and Stalter 1991), Gardner’s Island, NY (Hehre 1977), Great Gull Island, NY(Stalter and Lamont 2001), and Monomoy Islands, MA.Plum Island,NYGardner’sIsland, NYGreat GullIsland, NYOrient B.,NYMonomoyIslands, MANative Species 240 318 88 156 100Non-Native Species 151 75 115 121 26%Non-Native Species 38.6% 19.1% 56.7% 43.7% 20.6%Total Species 412 393 203 277 126Table 3. Summary of the flora of Monomoy Islands, prepared by various investigators from1954 to 2011. The floras listed chronologically, are those of Cross and Cross (1954) in Lortie etal (1991), Bailey (1965), Moul (1969), Lortie et al (1991) and Stalter (2011).Cross/Cross Bailey Moul Lortie et al StalterSpore Plants 1 6 3 6 5Gymnosperms 1 3 3 3 2Dicots 47 103 73 139 101Monocots 17 41 29 63 27Total 66 153 108 201 13558

COMPOST INCREASES WEED ABUNDANCE IN AN ORGANIC GRAIN CROPPINGSYSTEM. C.A. Marschner*, C.L. Mohler, B.A. Caldwell, and A. DiTommaso, Cornell University,Ithaca, NY (61)ABSTRACTA long term cropping systems experiment in central New York State compared threeorganic systems that differ in nutrient inputs and intensity of weed management. The threesystems were: a moderate nutrient-input system that approximated Cornell University fertilityrecommendations using chicken manure compost as the principal nutrient source; a low inputsystem that minimized inputs to control costs; and a weed control system that combined lowinputs with intensive weed management. The three cropping systems employed a three yearrotation of corn, soybean and spelt undersown with red clover. Two of the three crops weregrown each year. The experiment was conducted on moderately well drained silt loam soil, andresults are presented for 2005-2011. Weed biomass increased over time to some extent in allthree systems, but weed biomass in the low-input and intensive weed management systems,rarely exceeded 500 kg/ha at early August sampling and was often less. This level of weedpressure is acceptable to most organic grain producers. Weed biomass in the standard fertilitysystem increased to a much higher level than the two lower-input systems. The corn andsoybean yields in all three systems were the same, but spelt yields were higher with theadditional nutrients. Several weed species responded more strongly to nutrient additions thandid corn or soybean, leading to serious weed problems over time. Using typical universityfertility recommendations for corn and soybeans in an organic system did not increase yieldsand contributed to weed problems.59

INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO DODDER SPECIES VARIATION IN SOUTHEASTERNMASSACHUSETTS. K.M. Ghantous*, S. Stefanovic, and H.A. Sandler, University ofMassachusetts, East Wareham, MA (62)ABSTRACTDodder (Cuscuta spp.) is an obligate parasitic plant that can infest cranberry bogs andpresents a significant threat to cranberry yields. This weed is being reported on increasingnumbers of farms, and its control is a high priority goal for Massachusetts cranberry growers.The species found on cranberry bogs has been traditionally considered to be Cuscuta gronovii.Dodders are very difficult to distinguish, and their taxonomy based on morphology iscontroversial. Dodder populations have been reported with visual variations in stem color, stemthickness, and temporally distinct flowering times. We speculated that some of these variationsin phenotype may actually be variations in genotype. In addition, growers and researchers alikehave experienced and reported variable results and/or failures when managing this pest withherbicides or/or non-chemical methods. Subsequent discussions lent some credence to thepossibility that differences in dodder species or ecotypes may play a role in the inconsistentmanagement of dodder on some farms.Our objectives were to survey at least two dozen sites, collect dodder stems, and use DNAto identify which species are present in Southeastern Massachusetts. During the 2011 season,we collected dodder samples from 41 sites consisting of 39 commercial bogs and 2 naturallyoccurring populations. The sampled sites represented 23 towns, most of which were in a 25 -mile radius around Carver, MA, the production center of the cranberry growing region. Doddersamples were sent to a DNA laboratory where polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used toidentify species. Identifications are being made based on recent work on dodder phylogeny byStefanovic et al. (American Journal of Botany 94(4): 568–589. 2007). Preliminary results from 5bogs indicate that at least one species in addition to C. gronovii is present in SoutheasternMassachusetts.60

EARLY SEASON PHENOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF CEREAL RYE PERFORMANCE. S.Mirsky*, J. Spargo, W.S. Curran, M.R. Ryan, and S. C. Reberg-Horton, USDA-ARS, Beltsville,MD (63)ABSTRACTCover crops have the potential to be used as multifunctional tool to enhance ecosystemservices. However, maximizing the function of one service can hinder the performance ofanother. For example, cereal rye (Secale cereale) is used to both scavenge nitrogen (N) andsuppress weeds. High levels of cereal rye biomass are necessary for adequate nonchemicalweed suppression when used as a mulch. Residual inorganic soil nitrogen in the fall may not besufficient to achieve biomass levels in the spring necessary for weed suppression. Severalcover crop cost share programs prohibit fall applications of fertilizer. Furthermore, inadequatecereal rye biomass levels should be incorporated through tillage, in early spring, in order foroptimal seedbed preparations. Early spring cereal rye phenological traits that effectivelyestimate mature cereal rye biomass and responsiveness to nitrogen fertilizer applications canaid with farmer decision making. We tested the effects of fall and spring soil N levels on cerealrye biomass accumulation at anthesis, and the relationships between spring shoot density attillering and shoot elongation with mature cereal rye biomass. A normalized vegetation index(NDVI) was calculated using remote sensing techniques (active crop canopy reflectancesensors) and regressed with mature cereal rye biomass. Cereal rye shoot density at the tilleringstage and NDVI measurements were both good estimates of mature cover crop biomass. Dueto annual variations in the relationship between NDVI, at tillering, with mature cereal ryebiomass, site-specific calibration may be required.61

BEDDING PLANT RESPONSE TO DIMETHENAMID. J.F. Derr*, Virginia Tech, Virginia Beach,VA (64)ABSTRACTThere are limited options for weed management in bedding plants. Dimethenamid, arelatively new herbicide for the nursery and landscape industries, may be an option for weedcontrol in annual flowers. Both a sprayable EC formulation (Tower) and a granular productcontaining dimethenamid plus pendimethalin (FreeHand) were evaluated in field trials.No injury to gazania ‘Rose Kiss Hybrid’ , marigold ‘Queen Sophia’ , vinca ‘Pacifica Lilac’, lanceleaf coreopsis ‘Early Sunrise’ , geranium ‘Multibloom Red’ , coleus ‘Wizard Mix’ wasseen 8 DAT at FreeHand rates ranging from 1.75 to 7.0 lb ai/A. There was no reduction inflowering at 20 DAT. At 29 and 51 DAT, flower count in marigold and vinca decreased as theFreeHand rate increased, but there was no reduction at 1.75 lb ai/A when compared to theuntreated. At 41 DAT, vinca flower count decreased as the FreeHand rate increased. Reducedflowering in gazania was noted at the highest rate of FreeHand at 41 and 51 DAT. At 58 DAT,marigold flower count decreased as the FreeHand rate increased but less reduction in vincaflowering was noted compared to earlier counts. At 60 DAT, there was injury (29%) in coleus atthe highest FreeHand rate, but no injury was noted in marigold, vinca, or lanceleaf coreopsis.At 15 DAT, reduced flowering in impatiens ‘Dazzler Orange’, alyssum ‘WonderlandRose’, and petunia ‘Fantasy Red’ was noted as the FreeHand rate increased. At 27, 37, and45 DAT, impatiens flower count decreased as FreeHand rate increased, but no decrease wasseen in petunia, vinca ‘Pacifica Lilac’, geranium ‘Multibloom Red’, or zinnia angustifolia‘Stargold’. At 27 and 37 DAT, there appeared to be a slight decrease in vinca flowering at thehighest rate of FreeHand. At 47 DAT, injury was only seen at the highest rate of FreeHand inimpatiens and alyssum, with no injury at lower FreeHand rates.Tower at 1.0 to 4.0 lb ai/A and FreeHand at 2.6 to 10.5 lb ai/A appeared to reduce floweringin zinnia ‘Stargold’ at 15 and 22 DAT, but no reductions were noted at 36 DAT. The highest rateof Freehand injured ‘Magnus’ purple coneflower and gazania. Flowering in purple coneflowerappeared to decrease as the FreeHand rate increased. The highest rate of FreeHand andTower reduced flowering in impatiens. In begonia ‘Cocktail Vodka’, flower count and plantstand decreased significantly as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased. In alyssum ‘NewCarpet of Snow’, flowering decreased as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased. The highestrate of both chemicals reduced alyssum stand. In impatiens ‘Super Elfin Hot Mix’, floweringdecreased as the Tower or FreeHand rate increased at 30, 41 and 75 DAT.Gazania, marigold, vinca, petunia, lanceleaf coreopsis, geranium, purple coneflower, zinnia,and coleus appear to have good tolerance to FreeHand at the 1.75 lb ai/A rate, but somereduction in flowering can occur at 4 times that rate. Flowering in impatiens decreases as theFreeHand rate increases. The cultivars of begonia, alyssum, and certain ones of impatiens usedin these trials do not have acceptable tolerance to Tower or FreeHand.62

EARLY POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF BITTERCRESS (CARDAMINE HIRSUTA) INCONTAINER PLANT PRODUCTION. C. Marble*, C. Gilliam, and A. Alexander, AuburnUniversity, Auburn, AL (65)ABSTRACTEarly postemergence control of bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) was evaluated usingpreemergent active herbicides. Bittercress seed were surface sown by hand onto 3.5 inch potsfilled with a pinebark:sand (6:1 v:v) media that had been previously amended with standardfertilizer amendments on April 6, and April 18, 2011 in separate pots resulting in two stages ofgrowth: 2 to 4 leaf (2-4L) and 6 to 8 leaf (6-8L) stages. On April 28, 2011, all bittercress weretreated with the following herbicides: Dimension 2 EW [0.5 lbs active ingredient per acre (ai/A)],Gallery 75DF (0.66 lbs ai/A and 1.0 lbs ai/A), and Showcase (5 lbs ai/A). Spray-appliedherbicides were applied with a CO 2 backpack sprayer (80-04 nozzle, 25 psi) using anapplication volume of 60 gallons of water per acre. Showcase was applied using a hand-shaker.Herbicides were applied to dry foliage and bittercress received no irrigation for 3.5 hours exceptfor bittercress treated with Showcase which were sprinkled with water prior to treatment.Bittercress were grown under a shade structure and received daily irrigation via overheadimpact sprinklers (0.5 in). Postemergence control was assessed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks aftertreatment (WAT) on a scale of 0 to 100, 0 = no injury, 100 = dead plant. Fresh weights werealso taken at 30 days after treatment. At 4 WAT, bittercress in the 2-4L stage had the highestinjury ratings (100) when treated with Gallery (both rates), followed by bittercress treated withShowcase (90) and Dimension (83.8). All bittercress receiving a herbicide treatment had similarfresh weights at the conclusion of the study. Once bittercress reached the 6-8L stage, controlratings dropped slightly in all treatments. At 4 WAT, bittercress had injury ratings of 86 or higherwhen treated with Gallery (both rates), or Showcase. At this time, bittercress treated withDimension had injury ratings of 60.0 and injury ratings were significantly less than all otherherbicide treatments. Fresh weights indicated that Gallery (both rates), and Showcase allprovided similar bittercress control. Bittercress treated with Dimension had higher fresh weightsthan bittercress treated with other herbicide treatments, but were significantly less than the nontreatedcontrol, indicating that Dimension had some postemergence activity. Results from thistrial indicate that bittercress can be effectively controlled in the 2-4L stage with Gallery,Showcase, and Dimension at label rates. Once bittercress reached the 6-8L stage, Dimensionwas less effective as a postemergent application, but did provide some postemergent activitywhen compared to non-treated plants.63

IR-4 2011 CROP INJURY SUMMARY OF SEVERAL HERBICIDES ON ORNAMENTALNURSERY CROPS. K.A. Hester*, C.L. Palmer, E. Vea, and J. Baron, The IR-4 Project,Princeton, NJ (66)ABSTRACTThe 2011 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored crop safety testing ofover-the-top applications on several different herbicide products. Biathlon (oxyfluorfen +prodiamine) was tested on 9 crops, Broadstar 0.25 VC1604 (flumioxazin) on 5 crops, Certainty(sulfosulfuron) on 25 crops, F6875 (sulfentrazone + prodiamine) on 20 crops, Freehand G(dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin) on 40 crops, Gallery (isoxaben) on 9 crops, indaziflam on 17crops, mesotrione on 13 crops, Sedgehammer (halosulfuron) on 13 crops, Snapshot (trifluralin +isoxaben) on 31 crops, and Tower EC (dimethenamid-p) on 24 crops. The goal of this researchwas to screen these herbicides for safety on container grown woody ornamentals andherbaceous perennial crops in nurseries. Applications were made at dormancy andapproximately 6 weeks later for all products with the exception of Broadstar 0.25G VC1604which was applied once at the later application date. The results from this research will aid inthe development of the product labels and will help growers and landscape care professionalsmake more informed product choices.64

IR-4 2011 SUMMARY OF POSTEMERGENT LIVERWORT CONTROL IN NURSERYCONTAINERS. K.A. Hester*, C.L. Palmer, E. Lurvey, and J. Baron, The IR-4 Project, Princeton,NJ (67)ABSTRACTThe 2011 IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Program sponsored efficacy testing ofseveral postemergent herbicides for liverwort, Marchantia sp., control in containers grownprimarily under cover in greenhouses and hoop houses where few herbicides are registered foruse. Applications were made across the United States using Bryophyter (oregano oil),FlowerPharm (cinnamon and rosemary oil), Greenmatch (d-limonene), Racer (ammoniumnonanoate), Scythe (pelargonic acid), Sporotec (rosemary, clove and thyme oil), SureGuard(flumioxazin), Terra Cyte Pro G (sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate), Tower (dimethenamid-p),and WeedPharm (acetic acid). The results from these trials provide ornamental growersinformation on postemergence herbicides effective in controlling this troublesome pest, as wellas, data for label expansion.65

PHENOXY HERBICIDE SAFETY IN CONTAINER PRODUCTION OF MUHLENBERGIA ANDMISCANTHUS. C. Harlow* and J.C. Neal, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (68)ABSTRACTTriamine II, Tri-Power, and Triplet Low Odor safeties to Miscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus’and Muhlenbergia capillaris were evaluated. The experiment was conducted at Hoffman’sNursery, Rougemont, N.C., a specialty nursery that focuses on ornamental grass production.Plants were irrigated as needed and insect pests were controlled by the nursery personnelaccording to common grower practice. Divisions of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus’ andseedlings of Muhlenbergia capillaris, in 3.5 inch cells, were potted to 1 gallon containers using apine bark/peanut hull/coir based substrate on July 20, 2010. Plants were maintained understandard nursery practices until new growth was adequate for postemergence herbicidephytotoxicity evaluations. Treatments included a non-treated control, Triamine II @ 3, 6, and 12pt/A, Tri-Power @ 3, 6, and 12 pt/A, and Triplet Low Odor @ 2.5, 5, and 10 pt/A. Treatmentswere arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates and 3 plants of eachspecies per plot. Herbicide treatments were applied on August 4, 2010 and reapplied onSeptember 16, 2010. Miscanthus showed no injury of practical significance following the firstapplication in all treatments. Following the second application, foliage was uninjured by 1Xapplications of Triamine II and Triplet Low Odor but was injured by all higher doses and alldoses of Tri-Power. All herbicides reduced flowering at all application rates. Muhlenbergiafoliage was uninjured by 1X applications of the herbicides throughout the experiment andshowed little injury following the first application of the 2X rates. Significant injury was seen at4X rates and following the second application of the 2X rates. However, Muhlenbergia floweringwas reduced by all herbicides at all application rates. The experiment is being repeated in 2011.66

TOLERANCES OF CONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS TO MESOTRIONE,DIMETHENAMID-P, AND PENDIMETHALIN PLUS DIMETHENAMID-P APPLICATIONS. T.L.Mervosh* and J.F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT (69)ABSTRACTWe conducted two experiments in 2011 to evaluate herbicide tolerances of ornamentalgrasses (Experiment 1) and woody shrubs (Experiment 2) in containers.In Experiment 1, species were Calamagrostis x acutiflora ‘Avalanche’ (feather reedgrass), Panicum virgatum ‘Heavy Metal’ (switch grass), Pennisetum alopecuroides ‘Hameln’(fountain grass) and Schizachyrium scoparium ‘Prairie Blues’ (little bluestem). Plants werepotted in 1-gallon containers on June 29. Each plot contained three pots of each species plusthree plantless pots (container mix only). Treatments were replicated four times in a RCBdesign. Sprays were applied at 50 gal/A using a CO 2 -pressurized boom with TeeJet 8004VStips. All treatment solutions (including the control) contained non-ionic surfactant (0.25% v/v).Treatments were mesotrione (Tenacity 4F) at 0.187 lb ai/A and at 0.374 lb ai/A, mesotrione at0.187 lb ai/A plus s-metolachlor (Pennant Magnum) at 1.91 lb ai/A, and mesotrione at 0.187 lbai/A plus prodiamine (Barricade 65WG) at 0.65 lb ai/A. Treatments were applied on July 5 (T-1)and August 4 (T-2) over the top of dry foliage. Overhead irrigation for 45 min began 2 to 4 hlater. On July 15, seeds of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) were spread in all plantlesspots.Plant injury (0 to 10 scale) was observed as foliar whitening due to mesotrione. Theinjury level was not affected by s-metolachlor or prodiamine. The following injury ratings wererecorded on July 19 (2 WAT-1): Calamagrostis, 0 to 0.7; Schizachyrium, 0.7 to 1.6;Pennisetum, 1.0 to 2.2; and Panicum, 2.3 to 2.8. By August 1, whitening had decreased on allgrasses. On August 18 (2 WAT-2), injury on Panicum ranged from 1.5 to 3.2, but all othergrasses had injury ratings below 1. Injury to Panicum subsided but remained significant inSeptember. Crabgrass control (0 to 10) was evaluated on August 1 (PRE activity after T-1) andSeptember 21 (PRE + POST activity after T-2). Mesotrione at 0.187 lb ai/A was not effective atcontrolling crabgrass (

POSTEMERGENCE CONTROL OF MONOCOTYLEDONOUS WEEDS IN SELECTEDCONTAINER-GROWN ORNAMENTALS. A.F. Senesac*, Cornell Cooperative Extension,Riverhead, NY (70)ABSTRACTCertain container grown ornamental crops are vulnerable to invasion frommonocotyledonous weeds such as yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), rice flatsedge(Cyperus iria) and annual grasses. In 2011, a local commercial nursery growing hydrangeacultivars and perennials such as Achillea millefolium 'Moonshine' and Perovskia atriplicifolia‘Little Spire’ became heavily infested with these weeds shortly after the crops were transplantedoutdoors. Yellow nutsedge was the most severe weed species, however, several annualgrasses such as fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) and large crabgrass (Digitariasanguinalis) were also very competitive. Bentazon can be an effective management tool ofyellow nutsedge. Some historical data indicates a level of tolerance to bentazon from somethese ornamentals. Fenoxaprop-P and sethoxydim were evaluated for post emergence controlof the annual grasses. The trial was conducted at a commercial nursery on Long Island, NY.Spray treatments were applied on July 8, 2011 and again on July 20, 2011. Treatments wereapplied over the top with standard CO2 backpack equipment. Bentazon was evaluated at 0.375and 0.5 lbs a.i./A with and without 0.5% methylated seed oil. Fenoxaprop-P and sethoxydimwere evaluated at 0.373 lbs a.i./A, alone and with bentazon. Visual evaluation of crop responseand control efficacy was recorded four times after treatment.The results indicate that the hydrangea cultivars tested were severely injured by all ratesand combinations of bentazon. Perovskia was well tolerated by all treatments. Achillea wasmoderately injured by bentazon, but tolerated sethoxydim well.Yellow nutsedge was well controlled by both rates of bentazon even without adjuvant.Annual grass control was excellent with sethoxydim or fenoxaprop-P.These results suggest that bentazon is not a good candidate for registration as an over thetop treatment on modern hydrangea cultivars. However, further testing on the two perennialspecies appears to be warranted.68

SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF MULCH AND MULCH / HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS IN PANSYBEDS. J.C. Neal*, C. Harlow, and B. Fair, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (71)ABSTRACTThe safety and efficacy of mulches and mulch / herbicide combinations were evaluated inpansy (Viola x wittrockiana ‘Giant Yellow’). Prior to planting the field bed was rototilled andfertilizer incorporated at a rate of 1 lb N per 1000 sq. ft. On November 11, 2010, five pansyplants, grown in 18-cell packs, were planted in the center of each sq meter plot. After planting,mulches and herbicides were applied. Treatments included: Bare soil and no treatment, baresoil treated with Preen (trifluralin 1.47G) @ 4 lb ai/A, composted leaf mulch, triple shreddedhardwood bark, Pine straw +/- Preen, pine bark mulch +/- Snapshot TG (trifluralin + isoxaben2.5G), black dyed wood chips (Bella Vista) or black dyed wood chips impregnated with 0.0033%trifluralin + 0.00008% isoxaben (Preen Plus Mulch). Each mulch was applied to a depth of oneinch (= one cubic foot of mulch per sq m). Treatments were arranged in a randomized completeblock design with 4 replications. In a separate area, these treatments were repeated in theabsence of pansy plants for weed control evaluations. Additional treatments included in theefficacy experiment were pine bark mulch top dressed with 2.65 lb ai/A Freehand(dimethenamid-p + pendimethalin 1.75G) or 3 lb ai/A Pendulum 2G and wood chipsimpregnated with trifluralin (Bella Vista with Weed Block). In both tests, henbit plants per plotwere counted in March and April. Weeds were hand-removed from the pansy test to minimizecompetition. Pansy plant quality was visually evaluated monthly in the spring on a 0 to 5 scalewhere 5 = the best plants in the test and 0 = all plants dead. Pansy flowers were counted onMarch 2 nd and April 4, 2011. Similar to prior reports, pine straw reduced pansy growth andflowering compared to non-treated plants. Snapshot applied at 3.75 lb ai/A also reduced pansyflowering and growth. Triple shredded hardwood bark mulch reduced early season pansy vigorand final fresh weight, but did not reduce flower counts. Herbicide impregnated mulches did notreduce pansy growth or flowering. Henbit control was good with all herbicide and herbicide +mulch combinations. Pine straw, pine bark, leaf mulch and hardwood bark reduced henbitpopulations greater than did wood chip mulches alone.69

TOLERANCE OF CONIFERS TO MESOTRIONE ALONE OR COMBINED WITH OTHERHERBICIDES. J.F. Ahrens* and T.L. Mervosh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station,Windsor, CT (72)ABSTRACTA field experiment was conducted in 2011 with mesotrione alone and in combination withother herbicides at The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Valley Laboratory inWindsor, CT. The soil type is a sandy loam with about 4% organic matter. Six conifer species[white spruce (Picea glauca), Colorado spruce (Picea pungens), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) and white pine (Pinus strobus)]were planted between April 19 and April 21. White pines were 3-year seedlings (3-0), and allother conifers were 4-year transplants (2-2). Plots were 6 ft by 26 ft. Each plot contained fiveplants of each species, spaced 1.5 ft apart in two rows spaced 3 ft apart. The five herbicidetreatments and the control were replicated four times in a RCBD. Herbicides were applied witha CO 2 -powered backpack sprayer, equipped with four TeeJet 8003VS nozzles and calibrated todeliver 30 gal / A at 28 psi. The treatments included mesotrione 4F (Tenacity) alone at 0.187and 0.374 lb ai / A, and mesotrione 4F at 0.187 lb ai / A plus either s-metolachlor (PennantMagnum) at 1.91 lb ai / A, prodiamine (Barricade 65 WG) at 0.65 lb ai / A, or fluazifop-p-butyl(Fusilade DX) at 0.5 lb ai / A. A non-ionic surfactant (Induce) was added to each treatment at0.25% v/v. The controls were sprayed with water plus surfactant. Treatments were appliedover active conifer growth and weeds on June 27 and again on July 26. Weed speciesprevalence in each plot was rated on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being few, 2 being several, and 3being many weeds, before each application. Control of individual weeds was rated at 4 weeksafter each treatment, on a scale of 0 to10, with 0 as no control and 10 as complete control.Injury to the conifers was rated at several intervals during the season on a scale of 0 to 10, with0 being no injury and 10 being dead plants. Fertilizer (10-10-10) was applied at the rate of 400lb per acre on June 1, about 6 weeks after planting. Although 2011 was much wetter thannormal, July was quite dry and we irrigated twice, applying about 0.5 inch of water each time.The June 27 application was made on dry foliage, but on July 26 foliage of large crabgrass(Digitaria sanguinalis) was still wet with dew. The primary goal of this experiment was toevaluate conifer tolerances during their active growth. As a result, the weeds were mostly toolarge for optimal susceptibility to mesotrione, although carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata) andlambsquarters (Chenopodium album) were highly susceptible to all the treatments. The bestcontrol of large crabgrass was with mesotrione plus fluazifop-p-butyl. Mortality was high forsome of the conifer species (even in control plots), but none of the treatments caused significantinjury to any of the conifers.70

FRUIT TREE TOLERANCE TO ALION HERBICIDE. M. Mahoney*, D. Unland, and B.DeWeese, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (73)ABSTRACTBayer CropScience has registered indaziflam (trade name Alion) for preemergence weedcontrol in pome fruit, stone fruit, citrus, tree nuts and pistachios. Two years of crop tolerancestudies in pome and stone fruit indicate no adverse indaziflam effects on yield, trunk growth andshoot growth at 10 and 20 oz/acre Alion per year.71

THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL PROJECTS (FOOD USES). M.Arsenovic*, D. Kunkel, and J. Baron, IR-4 Project, Princeton, NJ (74)ABSTRACTThe IR-4 Project is a publicly funded effort to support the registration of pest controlproducts on specialty crops. The IR-4 Project continues to meet specialty-crop grower’s needsfor weed control options despite the challenges of a mature market for herbicides and theselectivity of specialty crops to many of the more-recently-introduced herbicides. The PesticideRegistration Improvement Act continues to effect IR-4 submissions and EPA reviews ofpackages. IR-4 submitted herbicide petitions to the EPA from October 2010 to October 2011 for:Sulfentrazone use on turnip, rhubarb, Wheat (PNW only), Sunflower subgroup 20B.FromOctober 2010 through October 2011, EPA has published Notices of Filing in the FederalRegister for: Clopyralid on apple, Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B, Rapeseed subgroup 20A,except gold of pleasure, Pendimethalin on leaf lettuce, Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B,turnip greens, Melon subgroup 9A, Soybean, vegetable, succulent, Fruit, small vine climbing,except grape, subgroup 13-07E;Rimsulfuron on Caneberry subgroup 13-07A and Bushberrysubgroup 13-07B; Rimsulfuron on chicory; Rimsulfuron + thifensulfuron-methyl on chicory; S-metolachlor on cilantro and garden beet leaves; Paraquat on Perennial Tropical and SubtropicalFruit Trees; Quizalofop-p-ethyl on sorghum (grain), and Rapeseed subgroup 20A. EPAestablished tolerances from October 2010 to October 2011for: Dicamba +2,4-D on teff;Fomesafen on pepper (bell and non-bell), potato, and tomato; Sulfentrazone on Vegetable,tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A, Brassica leafygreens, subgroup 5B, vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, melon subgroup 9A, pea succulent,Strawberry, and flax, and Triflusulfuron-methyl on garden beet.72

SWEET CORN WEED CONTROL: NO-TILL, NO ATRAZINE, NO WAY? D.D. Lingenfelter*,M.J. VanGessel, B.A. Scott, and Q. Johnson, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,PA (75)ABSTRACTAtrazine continues to be a very effective yet economical herbicide for broadleaf weedcontrol in sweet corn, yet it is not without controversy for various reasons. Many growers haveinquired about herbicide programs that allow flexibility for successional crops. Furthermore,glufosinate-resistant sweet corn varieties are expected to be registered soon, allowing over-thetopglufosinate applications and shorter crop rotation intervals. Also, as more producers areusing no-till farming techniques for vegetable production, herbicide programs plays a key role ineffective weed management. Research evaluating non-atrazine herbicide programs andglufosinate in no-till sweet corn is very limited.Field studies were conducted in 2011 at two locations, Rock Springs, Pennsylvania andGeorgetown, Delaware, to examine various herbicide programs in no-till sweet corn (Zea mayssuccharata, var. ‘BC0805’) that contain either atrazine or non-atrazine alternatives to determinetheir effectiveness on annual weed control. PRE and PRE fb POST programs were evaluated.PRE only treatments included: s-metolachlor + atrazine + mesotrione premix (2.47 lb ai/A); s-metolachlor + atrazine premix (2.9 lb) and pendimethalin (1.43 lb); s-metolachlor + mesotrionepremix (1.83 lb); and dimethenamid-P + saflufenacil premix (0.65 lb); whereas, s-metolachlor +atrazine premix (2.2 lb); s-metolachlor + mesotrione premix (1.83 lb); dimethenamid-P +saflufenacil premix (0.65 lb); s-metolachlor (1.6 lb); and pyroxasulfone (0.133 lb) were appliedPRE followed by a POST application of one or a combination of the following herbicides:topramezone (0.0164 lb); glufosinate (0.4 lb); atrazine (0.5 lb); foramsulfuron (0.033 lb); and2,4-D (0.25 lb). Necessary adjuvants were included in the POST spray mixtures. Visual weedcontrol evaluations were taken periodically throughout the growing period. Sweet corn yielddata and crop phytotoxicity ratings were also collected (data not included). Small-plot studieswere arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications.At Rock Springs, evaluations just prior to the POST application revealed that PREacetamide-only herbicide treatments provided approximately 83% control of commonlambsquarters (Chenopodium album), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), smooth pigweed(Amaranthus hybridus), and ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria); however in PRE treatmentsthat included atrazine or an HPPD- or PPO-inhibitor, control of these same species was ≥95%.Late season ratings show that control from PRE only treatments provided 63-92% control ofgiant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and fall panicum (Panicum dichitomiflorum), whereas the PRE fbPOST treatments increased control of these species to 90-96%. Common ragweed (Ambrosiaartemisiifolia) control ranged from 78-94% and 91-97% for the PRE only and the PRE fb POSTtreatments, respectively. All treatments provided 89-97% control of velvetleaf and smoothpigweed. At both locations, treatments provided 91-100% control of common lambsquarters.Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control ranged from 58-92% for the total PRE treatmentsat both locations and the two-pass programs provided 92-96% control at Rock Springs and 83-97% control at Georgetown. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control at Georgetownranged from 78-100% across treatments whereas annual morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.)control was 53-87%.In summary, atrazine does improve control of certain weed species (as is well documentedthrough various research) and is still a very effective yet economical herbicide for broadleafweed control in sweet corn, including no-till systems. However, depending on weed speciespresent, reducing the rate of atrazine or eliminating it could be possible if there are concernsabout carryover to rotational crops, especially vegetables, and cover crops following field orsweet corn production. Problems with atrazine residues causing injury to rotational crops variesdepending on use rates, soil types, rainfall, and other environmental conditions. However,73

simply replacing atrazine with another product such as an HPPD- or PPO-inhibiting herbicidewill not necessarily eliminate the aforementioned concerns. Several of these types of productshave stringent crop rotation restrictions as well. Once registered, glufosinate may have a goodfit in sweet corn production.74

SULFENTRAZONE FOR LIMA BEANS: ARE WE CHARGING FORWARD? M.J. VanGessel*,B.A. Scott, and Q. Johnson, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE (76)ABSTRACTALS-resistant smooth pigweed infestations have been documented in a number of theprocessing lima bean fields in Delaware. These resistant biotypes have been very problematicto manage since broadleaf weed control options are limited. Furthermore, infestations ofPalmer amaranth have been identified in Delaware, a species prone to developing resistance.The options for Amaranthus spp. control are either Group 2 herbicides or bentazon which is noteffective for Amaranthus control. Growers are often relying on wiper application of glyphosateto control Amaranthus species prior to harvest. In 2011, FMC supported a 24c label for the useof sulfentrazone (Charge Charge) as a preemergence herbicide in lima beans. A series of trialswith similar treatments have been conducted in 2010 and 2011 examining lima bean safety andAmaranthus control with sulfentrazone.Sulfentrazone use rates in lima bean are lower rates than used for soybeans. Two trialswere conducted in 2010 and one in 2011 at the UD Research and Education Center on sandyloam soils with overhead irrigation. Core treatments were similar for the three trials.Treatments included sulfentrazone alone at 0.0312, 0.07, 0.094, 0.14, and 0.187 lbs ai/A, andan untreated check. Also, two trials included sulfentrazone at 0.07 or 0.094 applied with s-metolachlor (1.5 lbs ai/A), and in 2011, s-metolachlor (1.5 lbs ai/A) plus imazethapyr (0.02 lbsai/A) was included. Treatments were applied within 24 hrs of planting and irrigation was appliedprior to lima bean emergence. Data collected included stand counts, number of malformedseedlings, visual lima bean injury or stunting, pigweed control (smooth pigweed and Palmeramaranth), yield, and yield components.Lima bean injury did vary by site and evaluation date. Lima bean injury was similar for0.0312 to 0.09 lbs ai/A at all rating dates, except for the site in 2011when there was a significantdifference between 0.07 and 0.09 lbs ai/A. Ratings for rates of 0.09 lbs ai/A or less were ≤8% at3 weeks after treatment.Parameters for stand counts, yield, and yield components were similar across the threetrials. Stand counts and number of malformed seedlings were not different for sulfentrazonetreatments. There were no differences for yield/A, number of pods per 4 plants, and number ofplump, flat, and dry pods.Amaranthus control did not differ between sites. There were no significant differencesbetween 0.07 and 0.09 lbs ai/A with ratings at least 78%. Control was similar at 3 and 5 WATwith these two rates. Amaranthus control improved at higher rates.The optimum sulfentrazone rate range for weed control and crop safety on loamy sandsoil is 0.07 to 0.09 lbs ai/A. Lima bean injury increases with rates above 0.09 lbs ai/A, requiringuniform and careful application. However, early-season lima bean injury did not significantlyimpact yield or yield components.75

PREEMERGENT COMBINATIONS OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN WILDBLUEBERRY FIELDS. D.E. Yarborough* and J.L. D'Appollonio, University of Maine, Orono, ME(77)ABSTRACTA study to assess the effects of pre-emergence herbicide combinations on wild blueberrycover, phytotoxicity, and broadleaf and grass weed cover was conducted using an RCBDdesign with 6 replications: a check (C), the industry standard hexazinone (2.4 lbs a.i./gal) 1 lb/a+ surfactant 1 qt/a (S), terbacil 2 lb/a (T), terbacil 2 lb/a + mesotrione 6 oz/a (TM), terbacil 2 lb/a+ rimsulfuron 4 oz/a (TR), terbacil 2 lb/a + linuron 2 lb/a (TL), terbacil 2 lb/a + linuron 2 lb/a +diuron 2 lb/a (TLD), terbacil 2 lb/a + hexazinone 1 lb/a + diuron 2 lb/a (THD), halosulfuron 1 oz/a(H), rimsulfuron 4 oz/a (R), and indaziflam at 5 and 10 oz/a (I). The treatments were applied on18 May 2011 and plots were evaluated approximately 1, 2 and 3 months post-treatment. Alldata were analyzed using a nonparametric median two-sample exact test with α=0.05;treatments were compared individually to C and S. In June, the TM and TL treatments hadsignificantly higher blueberry cover than the check. In July, only TL blueberry cover wassignificantly higher than the C and S. By August blueberry cover in all the T treatments wascomparable to the C or S. Phytotoxicity, observed primarily as chlorosis, was

INJURY FROM DELAYED APPLICATIONS OF DICHLOBENIL ON FOUR CRANBERRYVARIETIES. H.A. Sandler*, UMass Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA (78)ABSTRACTDodder management protocols dictate that effective applications of dichlobenil be madeprior to seedling emergence. Dichlobenil applications are typically applied in May, with mostgoing out during the second and third week of the month. Research has indicated that dodderhas an extended germination period in cranberry; it starts typically in mid-April and maycontinue through June. Dichlobenil applications made in May are likely not effective againstthese late-emerging populations. There is concern, however, that applications made late in Mayand/or in June will cause vine injury. Growers are reluctant to apply dichlobenil at this time ofyear even though dodder seedlings are continuing to germinate. The purpose of this study wasto evaluate the injury and yield response of cranberry vines to dichlobenil applications made inMay and June.In both 2009 and 2010, four distinct commercial cranberry sites in the vicinity of Wareham,MA, were selected, each planted in one of four common cranberry varieties: Ben Lear (BL),Stevens (ST), Early Black (EB) and Howes (H). Dichlobenil was applied, using a hand-heldshaker, to 1 x 2 m plots arranged in a RCBD with 5 replicates. Treatments were made as singleapplications made on a weekly schedule, starting in early May and continuing to mid-June.Growth stage assessments were made at each application date. A high (67 kg/ha) and low (45kg/ha) herbicide rate, typically used for dodder control, was applied at all timing intervals.Injury ratings were visually assessed in the year of treatment and the year followingtreatment. Injury ratings were based on ease of spotting the injury (denoted by yellow vinesymptoms) and by how prevalent the damage was in the plot. Yield was collected in the year oftreatment by harvesting all fruit within a randomly placed 930-cm 2 quadrat. The EB site washarvested (commercially) before the fruit could be collected (2009 and 2010), so yield data arenot available for EB. Fruit were counted, assessed for any damage and weighed by the lastweek of October in each year.Ben Lear vines exhibited stress symptoms in both years and Stevens vines showed stressin one year. No phytotoxicity was noted for Early Blacks or Howes. Data indicate thatapplications made during growth spurts have the potential to cause the most injury. In all cases,visual symptoms abated by the end of the season. No impact on yield (weight of fruit per unitarea) was detected. Data from the present study can guide management decisions for doddercontrol to a limited extent. However, longer studies are needed to fully evaluate the repetitiveuse of dichlobenil on cranberry vines and yield production. Further work is also needed todocument efficacy of delayed applications of dichlobenil.77

THE SWALLOW-WORTS: WHERE TO NEXT? A. DiTommaso*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY(79)ABSTRACTVincetoxicum nigrum (L.) Moench. [Cynanchum louiseae Kartesz & Gandhi] (black swallowwort)and V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar. [Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi] (paleswallow-wort) are herbaceous perennial vines in the Apocynaceae (subfamily Asclepiadoideae)native to Europe. Both species are considered invasive in their introduced ranges in thenortheastern United States and southeastern Canada, where they form dense stands,especially in high light environments such as old fields and field-woodland ecotones. TheseVincetoxicum species were introduced into North America in the late 1800s, likely asornamentals, and soon after escaped cultivation. Numerous rare and sensitive plant and animalspecies have been negatively impacted by these two invasives since their introduction includingthe monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus L., whose natural plant host and food source the nativeperennial herb Asclepias syriaca (common milkweed) may be displaced from areas where thespecies co-occur. The two Vincetoxicum species can also serve as population sinks formonarchs – attracting and stimulating female monarch oviposition despite their unsuitability forlarval development. We have learned much about the biology, ecology, and management ofthese two invasive vines during the last decade of active work by several researchers in theU.S., Canada, and Europe. We currently have a much better understanding of those factors thatallow for their successful establishment and spread including seedling survival, vegetativeexpansion, and effects of allelochemicals and competition on the resident vegetation andmicrobial soil community for example. We have also learned much about managing these twoinvasive vines using herbicidal, cultural, and/or biological tactics. Despite these importantknowledge gains during the past decade, research on these two Vincetoxicum species needs toremain active as it is likely that the two species will continue to expand their North Americanrange in the coming years and negatively impact susceptible ecosystems in additional regions.78

PALE AND BLACK SWALLOW-WORT GROWTH AND SURVIVAL IN NEW YORK STATE.K.M. Averill* and A. DiTommaso, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (80)ABSTRACTThe invasive swallow-wort species [Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar. and V.nigrum (L.) Moench] pose challenges for land managers, as the species increase their rangesand invade new areas in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada.Communicating current knowledge on the establishment, seasonal vegetative expansion,seasonal fecundity, and survival of swallow-wort plants will aid managers confronted with theseinvasive perennial vines. Data are based on demographic studies across 9 field locations inNew York State, 3 of which included both old-field and forest habitats. Pale swallow-wortestablishment ranged from 1.6% to 15% during 2 growing seasons following sowing.Establishment varied based on site and, to a lesser degree, on the level of pre-existing sitedisturbance. Survival of mature swallow-wort plants was nearly perfect (99.6 -100%) during 4growing seasons. Mature pale swallow-wort individuals increased in number of stems per plantmore rapidly in old-field habitats (60% yr -1 ) than in forested habitats (5% yr -1 ) across 3 locationsand 4 years. Mature black swallow-wort individuals increased in number of stems by 42% yr -1 .Pale swallow-wort fecundity in old-field habitats (130 seeds stem -1 yr -1 ) was generally greaterthan in forested habitats (45 seeds stem -1 yr -1 ), but was highly dependent on location. Blackswallow-wort fecundity was approximately 100 seeds stem -1 yr -1 across all 3 locations.Understanding differences in swallow-wort survival, growth, and fecundity between species andacross locations will provide new managers of these invasive species with baselines from whichto gauge the necessary management approaches.79

APPROACHES FOR SWALLOW-WORT CONTROL - DECIDING HOW TO BEGIN. N.P. Cain*and T.L. Mervosh, Cain Vegetation, Acton, ON (81)ABSTRACTPale swallow-wort (PSW) [Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopov) Borhidi or Vincetoxicumrossicum (Kleopov) Barbar.], an invasive perennial in the milkweed family, has invaded manywoody and herbaceous ecosystems and rights-of-way in south central and eastern Ontario andis spreading in New England. Only one herbicide, imazapyr (Arsenal, Habitat, etc.), listsswallow-wort among weeds controlled. PSW requires a whole-site management approachusing herbicides for effective reduction of the weed. Our objectives are to identify herbicidetreatments that control PSW with minimal harm to perennial grasses, forest tree species andother plants.Four forestry trials in southern Ontario evaluated various herbicide programs for PSWcontrol. The sites were a moderately-infested white pine stand in the Durham County Forestnear Whitby and a heavily-infested red pine forest on Crown lands in Orono. The DurhamForest trial compared two triclopyr (Release) and two glyphosate (Vantage Forestry) programstreated in 2008 and 2009. A second 2009 trial, evaluated imazapyr (Arsenal) treatmentscompared with glyphosate. A third trial treated in 2009 and 2010 evaluated a two-year triclopyrprogram. The Orono forest trial, treated in 2009 and 2010, compared two triclopyr and twoglyphosate programs with imazapyr.Imazapyr treatments provided one to two-season control of established PSW, dependingon the level of infestation and seed bank. Glyphosate applied twice one year and once thefollowing year, provided excellent control of established and seedling plants. Similarly, twoapplications of triclopyr provided good to fair control of PSW at the Durham site and moreconsistent control at Orono.A PSW control experiment was initiated in 2007 at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refugeon Mt. Tom, near Holyoke, MA. Herbicide treatments were sprayed over plots on June 15;some plots were sprayed again on August 29. Treatments consisted of imazapic (Plateau),metsulfuron (Escort XP), triclopyr (Garlon 3A), triclopyr plus metsulfuron, glyphosate (AccordConcentrate), and triclopyr (June 15) plus glyphosate (August 29). Imazapic and low dose ofmetsulfuron had little effect on PSW growth in 2008. The other herbicides provided greaterreduction in PSW cover and total pod weights when applied twice. Triclopyr applied once at1.13 lb/A ae reduced PSW pod weight by 66% and had a control rating (0 to 10) of 7.0 in August2008; the same dose applied twice reduced pods by 87% with a control rating of 8.3.Glyphosate applied once at 1.0 lb/A ae reduced PSW pod weight by 71% and had a controlrating of 7.8; the same dose applied twice reduced pods by 97% with a control rating of 9.5.Single treatments of imazapyr and programs of glyphosate or triclopyr provide effectivePSW control. Triclopyr and imazapyr use is limited in forests with desirable understory speciesor hardwood saplings. Triclopyr provides selective control of PSW among grasses and othermonocots. The choice of herbicide program for PSW control depends on the desirable species,the future use of the site and planting intentions.80

SWALLOW-WORT (VINCETOXICUM SPP.) BIOLOGICAL CONTROL UPDATE. L.R. Milbrath*,USDA-ARS, Ithaca, NY (82)ABSTRACTPale swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum rossicum = Cynanchum rossicum) and black swallow-wort(V. nigrum = C. louiseae) are herbaceous, perennial, viny milkweeds introduced from Europe(Apocynaceae-subfamily Asclepiadoideae). Both species are becoming increasingly invasive ina variety of natural and managed habitats in the northeastern United States and southeasternCanada, especially New York State, southern New England, and Ontario. Mechanical controlhas been ineffective. Chemical control can be effective but expensive due to repeatapplications, and non-target damage from either approach is a concern in natural areas.Biological control is considered the only long-term control option for swallow-worts. Althoughlittle to no damage by arthropods, diseases, or vertebrates has been reported to occur in NorthAmerica on swallow-worts, some potentially specialized natural enemies of Vincetoxicum spp.are known from Europe. Therefore, identifying host-specific biological control agents appearspromising. To date, several potential agents associated with Vincetoxicum spp. have beencollected in Europe and Asia. Different species of Chrysochus leaf beetles, which possess aroot-feeding larval stage, are potentially quite damaging to the plants, but based on host-rangetests appear to present a risk to some native milkweeds. In contrast, defoliating moths in thegenus Abrostola appear mostly specific to swallow-worts. However, swallow-wort in open fieldsis fairly tolerant of defoliation damage, so the moths’ efficacy is questionable. Additional naturalenemies have yet to be assessed, such as the pathogen Colletotrichum lineola, a leafanthracnose, and a seed-pod infesting fly, Euphranta connexa, and foreign surveys arecontinuing. The recent discovery of the pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii attacking pale swallow-wortin New York may offer potential as a bio-herbicide if it can be demonstrated that this isolate hasa restricted host range. Plant demography models are being developed to identify potentiallyeffective guilds of natural enemies, and they may indicate the need for an integrated approachto swallow-wort management.81

GOATSRUE CONTROL PROGRAM IN PENNSYLVANIA. M.A. Bravo*, J. Zoschg, L. Ross, andI.D. Bowers, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA (83)ABSTRACTGoatsrue (Galega officinalis) is a federally listed noxious weed with limited nationwidedistribution. The largest site is a county in Utah, which in 1981 reported 38,000 acres (60 squaremiles) of infested cropland, irrigation waterways, pastures, fence lines, roadways and wet,marshy areas. Goatsrue is capable of forming a monoculture in wetland communities, displacingnative or beneficial plants. Goatsrue is also fatal to most animals if ingested, particularly tosheep and cattle. In 1981 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) declaredgoatsrue a federal noxious weed and targeted it for eradication. Since then, USDA has beenworking cooperatively with state agencies to identify populations and limit any further spread ofthis federal noxious weed. The Utah State University and Utah Agricultural ExperimentalStation have conducted numerous studies on the biology, ecology and control of goatsrue in theUnited States.Goatsrue was discovered in Pennsylvania at six locations in 1998 as a result of the USDAsurveys. Three of these locations were in McKean County and goatsrue was added to thePennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) Noxious Weed Control List in 2000. Additionalsurveys in 2009 identified more goatsrue populations were emerging throughout McKeanCounty in the vicinity of Smethport. PDA responded and began intensively surveying the countyin the fall of 2009. The surge in the number of sites appears related to the dredging ofthe town's Hamlin Lake and the subsequent dispersal of goatsrue seed that was in the lakedredgings. It is unknown when the goatsrue was planted in the vicinity of the lake and no datahas been found to suggest it was a recent occurrence. Since its discovery, the PDA hasassisted property owners in the affected counties with control measures to prevent theflowering, and further spread of this noxious weed. As of 2011, less than 7,000 square feet ofinfested roadside ditches, meadows, and streams are known from 8 sites in Cameron, Potterand Montgomery Counties. Less than a ½ acre has been found in Elk County, along forestroads in the Alleghany National Forest and Elk State Forest. These sites are being targeted forcomplete eradication.In McKean County, approximately 43 acres of goatsrue has been discovered. Theinfestations can be found along roadside ditches, driveways, cropland meadows, and edges ofwaterways (streams, lakes, rivers) on 169 properties in 11 municipalities throughout. Thirty-sixsites are state owned, 30 sites are municipality owned, 2 sites are federally owned and 101sites are privately owned. These sites are being targeted by the PDA Noxious Weed programand partners for containment, and on a site-by-site basis, for eradication. Since the programbegan in the fall of 2009 at least 85% if not more of the known locations have been preventedfrom producing new seed once detected. In 2011, The PDA field staff extensively surveyed thiscounties back roads, watercourses and private lanes with few additional discoveries. Fieldresults in 2011 indicate that once new seed production has been prevented, the surfaceseedbank is rapidly being depleted at these sites over consecutive years of chemical treatment.This is encouraging and landowners are confident that continued control measures will preventfurther expansion- with the exception of the sites where seasonal high water scouring, duemostly to intensive periods of heavy rainfall, continues to spread seeds further in infestedditches and streams.82

COMPARISON OF HERBICIDES FOR EARLY SEASON CONTROL OF MILE-A-MINUTE ANDIMPACT ON NON-TARGET VEGETATION. A.E. Gover* and J.L. Huffman, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA (84)ABSTRACTPendimethalin is the current preferred herbicide for selective PRE suppression of mile-aminute(Polygonum perfoliatum L., POLPF) in Pennsylvania state parks due to efficacy andminimal impact to established non-target species. Pendimethalin is not effective when seedgermination has occurred, and is not labeled for use in wetland settings. An experiment wasestablished in a floodplain at Bald Eagle State Park in Howard, PA, on April 21, 2011, toevaluate alternative treatments for selective suppression of mile-a-minute and Japanesestiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus var. imberbe (Nees) Honda, MCGVM),which were both beginning to emerge. Soil temperatures were 17, 11, and 9 C at 2.5, 7.5, and15 cm deep, respectively. Treatments included pendimethalin at 4.4 kg/ha, imazapic at 0.18kg/ha alone or added to pendimethalin at 4.4 kg/ha, prodiamine at 1.6 kg/ha, or oryzalin at 4.5kg/ha; and flumioxazin at 0.29 or 0.43 kg/ha. A methylated seed oil surfactant was added totreatments containing imazapic or flumioxazin, at 0.5 percent, v/v. Imazapic was added to see ifit would provide enough activity to control germinated seedlings without causing injury toestablished plants. Flumioxazin has contact and residual activity, and aquatic labeling.Treatments were applied in a carrier volume of 190 L/ha to a 2.3 by 4.6 m area in a 3.8 by 4.6 mplot, leaving a 1.5 by 4.6 m untreated strip in each plot. The plots were arranged in arandomized complete block with three replications. Data collected included visual ratings oftotal cover, and POLPF and MCGVM reduction on May 24; percent total, POLPF, and MCGVMcover on July 29; and dry weight of POLPF, MCGVM, and the combination of all remainingspecies on August 17, 2011. POLPF was harvested from the entire plot, and the other sampleswere collected from a 0.5 m 2 subplot. For each plot, data were collected separately from thetreated and untreated portions. Data were subjected to analysis of variance, and separatedusing Fisher’s Protected LSD.POLPF pressure was light, averaging 3.7 g/m 2 in untreated plots, and 0.1 g/m 2 in treatedplots. Common non-target species were boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum L.), goldenrodspecies (Solidago spp.), American burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius (L.) Raf. ex DC.),beggarslice (Hackelia virginiana (L.) I.M. Johnston), and several sedge (Carex spp.) species.Suppression of MCGVM was the only significant treatment effect at the end of the season, withimazapic alone averaging 192 g/m 2 , pendimethalin alone 66 g/m 2 , and all other treatmentsaveraging 1.6 g/m 2 or less. The primary difference between the July and August data was anapparent increase in the proportion of stiltgrass in plots treated with pendimethalin alone fromJuly to August.The addition of imazapic did improve suppression from pendimethalin, and in combinationwith prodiamine or oryzalin provided equal suppression to the pendimethalin combination. Theimazapic rate was low enough to enhance suppression from pendimethalin without causingreduction in non-target species biomass. Flumioxazin provided excellent suppression of POLPFand MCGVM, and the contact activity was transient enough to cause no reduction in non-targetor total biomass.83

F9007: A NEW HERBICIDE FOR WEED CONTROL IN PASTURE AND WHEAT. J.P. Reed*,T.W. Mize, G.G. Stratman, and B.A. Neuberger, FMC, North Little Rock, AR (85)ABSTRACTF9007 is a new proprietary herbicide comprised of the active ingredients, carfentrazone andmetsulfuron for use in pastures and wheat to control broadleaf weeds. F9007 is formulated asa 35% dry flowable (DF) with excellent characteristics such as practically no volatility and nograzing or haying restriction. F9007 herbicide (aka Marshal) requires use of an Non-IonicSurfactant and under hotter, drier conditions a COC or MSO adjuvant has shown morecountry. Research trials conducted by FMC and Universities with F9007 have shown rates inpasture, range from 1 oz F9007 product/A (0.022 lbs ai/A) to 2 oz F9007 product/A (0.044 lbsai/A) with higher rates used for taller, larger broadleaf weeds. In wheat, trials havedemonstrated 0.4 oz F9007 product/A (0.0044 lbs ai/A) as the highest rate needed for controland excellent crop safety. Excellent safety was observed in fescue, Bermuda grass and grassmixtures by all rates of F9007 tested in grass pastures. No rate response by F9007 wasobserved in controlling spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.),and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.) while a slight rate response was observed in controlling woollycroton (Crotalaria capitatus) and groundsel (Senecio spp.) and other annual broadleaves.Rate responses by F9007 were observed in control of various thistle species providingcomparable or superior control with consistently greater speed of control. The addition of 2,4-D LVE (0.5 lbs ai/A) enhanced control of taller western ragweed and speedwell spp. (Veronicaspp.) while horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) control was unaffected or reduced. Semiwoodyspecies such as Lespedeza sericea, marshelder (Iva annua), brambles (Rubus spp),narrow leaf cudweed (Gnaphium falcatum) and multi-floral rose (Rosa multiflora) as well asvines such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Virgina creeper (Parthenocissusquinquefolium) are easily controlled when applications are made to newer, green woody growthup to flowering. Last, F9007 at lower rates provided comparable or superior control of leafyspurge, while higher rates provided superior leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) to standardherbicides.84

ABSORPTION AND TRANSLOCATION OF 14 C-AMINOCYCLOPYRACHLOR IN THREEAQUATIC SPECIES. R.L. Roten* and R.J. Richardson, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, NC (86)ABSTRACTGreenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate 14 C-aminocyclopyrachlor absorption andtranslocation in alligatorweed, water hyacinth, and water lettuce. Alligatorweed plants weretreated at the seven-node stage, water hyacinth was treated at the five-leaf stage, while waterlettuce was treated at the eight-leaf stage. All plants were oversprayed with non-labeledaminocyclopyrachlor at a rate of 0.14 kg ai/ha with 1% MSO. 14 C-aminocyclopyrachlor was thenapplied to a protected leaf, and plants were harvested at 1, 2, 4, 12, 24, and 96 HAT.Radioactivity was determined in the treated leaf, shoots above treated leaf, shoots belowtreated leaf, roots, and growing solution. Absorption was 17 and 79% in alligatorweed at 1 and96 HAT, respectively. Absorption was 59% or greater at all harvest times for water hyacinth andwater lettuce. In alligatorweed at 96 HAT, 43% of absorbed 14 C translocated to shoots abovethe treated leaf and 17% translocated to lower shoot tissue. Water hyacinth shoots above andbelow the treated leaf each contained 17% of absorbed 14 C at 96 HAT. For water lettuce at 96HAT, 53 and 36% of absorbed radioactivity was located above the treated leaf and in thegrowing solution, respectively.85

TURION BIOLOGY OF MONOECIOUS HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA. R.J. Richardson* and S.T.Hoyle, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (87)ABSTRACTSince the discovery of Hydrilla verticillata in the United States, much research has beenconducted to find weaknesses in its life cycle. Most of this work has been done on the dioeciousform, which has historically been the most prevalent and problematic. However, the monoeciousform is rapidly expanding in range and significant differences may exist in the biology of the twobiotypes. Recent research at North Carolina State University into the dynamics of monoecioushydrilla tuber sprouting has revealed interesting, and sometimes surprising results. Growthchamber trials have indicated similarities in sprouting of both biotypes under temperature andlight manipulation. Research has also been conducted to determine the effect on tubersprouting under exposure to a range of pH, salinity, or herbicides. Tubers sprouted in solutionswith pH between 4.0 and 10.0 with few differences in initial growth. Tubers exposed to a salinitylevel of 24 part per thousand for 2 weeks sprouted when placed into a solution of deionizedwater, but did not sprout under constant salinity exposure. It was also observed thatmonoecious hydrilla tubers have multiple axillary buds preformed within dormant tubers that arecapable of producing secondary shoots even when the terminal shoot is removed. Thesefindings can help refine management plans to best exploit weaknesses in the biology ofmonoecious hydrilla.86

DIVERSIFICATION, SOIL QUALITY AND INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT. E. Gallandt*,University of Maine, Orono, ME (88)ABSTRACTFew crops can be grown without some form of direct weed control, usually seedlingfocused,and usually achieved with application of herbicide, or cultivation. Where seedlingdensity is low, and efficacy is high, competition from a well-managed crop will minimize yieldloss, weed biomass and seed rain. This simple approach to weed management begins to fail,however, when efficacy is reduced, as is often the case for cultivation, or with herbicide resistantweeds. One solution is to focus efforts on new or alternative cultivation or herbicide options witha high level of efficacy. Another approach aims to exploit multiple stresses on weed populationsto reduce seedling density and thus the requisite efficacy for herbicide or cultivation events.The view that “Many Little Hammers” can impose stresses at multiple life-history stages ofweeds and thereby reduce the burden of weed management placed on seedling control isincreasingly accepted in the organic farming community. Organic farmers are often diverse andthey share a philosophy that places soil quality as a priority area for management. Soilimprovingmanagement in particular adds diversification and opportunity to reduce the weedseedbank, multiple benefits that farmers value.Our cover cropping component and systems experiments over the past ten years haveincluded research on allelopathy or residue effects on seedling establishment, weed seedpredation, weed/crop interference, weed seed rain, and seedbank dynamics. Cover cropdiversification generally affects these processes in ways that benefit weed management efforts,but particular practices can result in high levels of weed seed rain. Organic farmers frequentlycite crop rotation and cover cropping as important weed management practices, aftercultivation. However, observation and on-farm weed seedbank data demonstrate that thesepractices do not guarantee successful weed management. Clearly, it is not diversification, butrather management that drives weed dynamics, and in this regard, context may be everything.Where weed seedbank densities are low, moderate cultivation efficacy, crop competition, seedpredation, and perhaps green manuring to reduce the abundance of safe-sites, may result inacceptable weed control. However, these same practices, lacking positive density-dependenteffects, will likely fail where an initial seedbank is extremely high. In this situation, successfulweed management requires practices that deplete the seedbank and preempt seed rain.Simulation models and case studies of successful organic farmers support this conceptualframework that efficacy of multiple stresses should be considered over a range of realistic weeddensities.87

CLASHING PERSPECTIVES LIMIT IWM ADOPTION IN THE NORTHEAST. D.D. Lingenfelter*,Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (89)ABSTRACTThere are many reasons why farmers are not utilizing more integrated weed management(IWM) practices. These reasons can be traced to many factors that ultimately influence thegrower’s decision to incorporate various weed management options into a cropping system.Farmer’s decisions are not only influenced by their own beliefs and circumstances but alsoagricultural service providers, regulatory agency rules, academic recommendations, andsocietal leanings. These perspectives often conflict and limit the adoption on IWM techniques inNortheastern cropping systems. Some of these forces are based on traditions or ideologies,while others are driven by larger factors outside the producer’s control. Certain clashes ormisunderstandings could possibly be overcome with communication and education but otherelements are more difficult to manage since economics, government policy, personal beliefsand individual circumstances, and agronomic factors are all entwined. As agriculturalists weneed to start asking some questions to better direct the stewardship of our weed managementresources. For example: “What currently drives IWM?”; “What are farmer’s doing now and whatlimits them from using more IWM?”; “How are companies marketing herbicides and seed traitsto encourage (or discourage) product stewardship/longevity and IWM tactics?”; and “Aregovernment programs helping or hindering this process?” These and other questions need todiscussed and addressed if we are to better deal with the dynamic nature of weeds with moreintegrated approaches.88

IWM: WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? J. Lindquist*, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (90)ABSTRACTIntegrated Weed Management (IWM) has been defined in many ways and many times. It isnot the objective on this presentation to redefine it. However, the core principles of IWM will bediscussed and a description of how some of my research is relevant to IWM will be given.89

INTERACTIONS THAT MATTER: IMPROVING EFFICACY WITH STRATEGICCOMBINATIONS OF CULTURAL WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. M.R. Ryan*, D.Mortensen, J. Teasdale, R.G. Smith, S. Mirsky, and W.S. Curran, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA (91)ABSTRACTIntegrated Weed Management (IWM) calls for the use of multiple practices, but determiningwhich practices to combine is not entirely clear. Combining some practices can result inantagonistic effects, whereas others can interact synergistically. Although there is a rich body ofliterature on testing for synergism and antagonism between herbicides, relatively little attentionhas been given to developing systematic tests of multiple cultural, physical, and/or biologicalweed management practices. We introduce a straightforward protocol for systematically testingthe combined effects of non-chemical weed management practices. This protocol is illustratedusing data collected from an experiment that tested the effect of crop planting rate and winterrye mulch amount in no-till planted soybean. Increasing mulch and planting rate resulted in asynergistic interaction between practices, defined as a statistically significant, positive deviationfrom a multiplicative reference model. We speculate the increased mulch delayed weed seedgermination, allowing soybean, which has a relatively large seed, to emerge, form a competitivecanopy, and effectively preempt weeds. In addition to management practices whose effects actsimultaneously, interactions between practices applied sequentially also have importantimplications for IWM. Empirically testing the effects of sequences of practices applied todifferent cohorts of weeds at different life stages can be challenging and has generally beendone by modeling population dynamics. Because some weed management practices can bedensity dependent (i.e., efficacy is greater at lower densities), previously applied practices canaffect the efficacy of subsequent practices. Although not necessarily a synergistic interaction,such interactions between density dependent practices are important and deserve recognition.Harnessing synergistic interactions between practices applied simultaneously and strategicsequences of practices that result in effective non-chemical weed control is a promising solutionto weed management challenges associated with herbicide resistance and organic croppingsystems. Future research should aim to develop methods and approaches to testing the weedcropcompetition, population, and community level effects of interactions between cultural,physical, and biological management practices.90

ARE ORGANIC FARMING AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE THE LAST HOPES FOR IWM? AVIEW FROM CANADA. S. Shirtliffe*, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK (92)ABSTRACTIntegrated Weed Management has been advocated by the weed science community forover 20 years yet there appears to be little adoption. The objective of this talk is to highlightresearch recent results from our IWM studies in our lab and explore reasons why the perceivedadoption of IWM has been low. Organic weed management is inherently difficult because of theprohibition of synthetic herbicides. Because of this, organic farmers rely mostly on cultural andmechanical weed control. We have found that by combining increased seeding rates,competitive crop cultivars and in-crop harrowing in organic oat that we have been able to reduceweed biomass by 70% compared to standard agronomy. In a current study, we are investigatingthe utility of “organic” weed control benefits for controlling imadazolinone resistant broadleafweeds in lentils. I believe that most people seek simplicity in life. Therefore, the expectations ofweed scientists that farmers should increase the complexity of their weed control regimeproactively may be unreasonable.91

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT WEEDS? ADDRESSING THE ROOTS OF APERENNIAL PROBLEM. R.G. Smith*, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH (93)ABSTRACTWeeds remain a perennial challenge to agricultural productivity despite decades ofadvancement in weed control practices intended to eliminate weeds. This paradox is in largepart a consequence of our cropping practices, which effectively maintain cropping systems in astate of very early succession. As early successional plants, weeds are adapted to takeadvantage of the weed-promoting conditions that our cropping practices create, namely anabundance of resources and space. While Integrated Weed Management (IWM) programsoften focus on the use of multiple control tactics aimed at diversifying the selection pressuresthat act on existing weed populations, an equally important, yet often overlooked principle ofIWM is to address the factors that make cropping systems susceptible to weeds and theirimpacts in the first place. Understanding the ecological basis for why weeds are present andproblematic in our cropping systems, and then explicitly addressing these factors throughconsideration of successional processes, may provide opportunities for the development andadoption of more robust IWM programs. The most robust of these programs are likely toinclude integrated management practices that promote or mimic the characteristics of latersuccessional plant communities.92

METHIOZOLIN PROGRAMS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL IN CREEPINGBENTGRASS PUTTING GREENS IN TENNESSEE. J.T. Brosnan* and G.K. Breeden,University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (94)ABSTRACTMethiozolin is a new cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor being evaluated for selective control ofannual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) in creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L). Research wasinitiated in 2010 evaluating the efficacy of single and sequential methiozolin programs for annualbluegrass control.Research was conducted at Lambert Acres Golf Course (Alcoa, TN) on ‘Penncross’creeping bentgrass green naturally infested with annual bluegrass. Turf was established as anative soil pushup green. Turf was mowed daily at 3 mm and irrigated to promote optimumcreeping bentgrass growth. Fertility was applied at 4.9 kg N ha -1 per week using a completefertilizer (18N: 3P 2 O 5 : 6K 2 O). Applications of triticonazole, chlorothalonil, fosetyl-al, iprodione,and mefenoxam were applied on as-needed basis at labeled rates.Methiozolin was applied singly and sequentially at 0.5 and 1 kg ha -1 at three fall timings:October, November, and December. Programs of two and three sequential methiozolinapplications (applied on a three-week interval) were evaluated at each timing and compared toa sequential application program (three week interval) of paclobutrazol at 0.28 kg ha -1 initiated inOctober. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. Alltreatments were applied using a CO 2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 30 gpa usingfour, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 18 psi, configured to provide a 1-m spray swath. Creepingbentgrass injury was rated on a 0 (no turf injury) to 100% (complete kill of all turf) scale relativeto an untreated control throughout the fall and winter of 2010. Annual bluegrass control wasrated on a 0 (no control) to 100% (complete kill) scale in the spring of 2011. Annual bluegrassplant counts were made 25 weeks after initial treatment (WAIT) using a 1-m by 1-m grid with100 intersection points.Applications of MRC-01 effectively controlled annual bluegrass in this study. Annualbluegrass control increased throughout the spring with control ranging from 73 to 100% by 25WAIT. With the exception of a single application in October, annual bluegrass control 25 WAITwith methiozolin at 1 kg ha -1 exceeded 90% regardless of application frequency. All MRC-01treatments controlled annual bluegrass greater than paclobutrazol at 25 WAIT as well. By 28WAIT, all sequential methiozolin programs at 1 kg ha -1 reduced annual bluegrass plant counts >90% compared to 49% for paclobutrazol. Results suggest that MRC-01 is highly efficacious forannual bluegrass control in creeping bentgrass putting greens in Tennessee. However,additional research is needed to evaluate programs involving both fall and spring applicationson sand and soil-based rootzones.93

ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON GOLF PUTTING GREENS WITH SPRINGAPPLICATIONS OF METHIOZOLIN. S. Askew* and S.-J. Koo, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA(95)ABSTRACTMethiozolin (MRC-01) is a new herbicide under development by Moghu Research Center ofSouth Korea for use on golf putting greens in the US and other countries. Previous researchhas shown that annual bluegrass control increased when methiozolin was applied in fallcompared to spring or early summer treatments. Fall treatments work well in southern climateswhere annual bluegrass populations are typically less than 15% coverage and perennialbiotypes are most commonly encountered. In the north, annual bluegrass populations onputting greens can exceed 70% and have a higher proportion of annual biotypes. Annualbiotypes are easier to kill and fall treatments in the north may result in rapid control of largeannual bluegrass populations, resulting in thin turf or bare areas on the putting green thefollowing spring. In addition, creeping bentgrass does not have opportunity to fill voided areasof turf during the winter. Since spring and early summer is the time when most golf revenue isgenerated in the Northeast, loss of putting green canopy is unacceptable during this time. Sincespring treatments are known to be less effective at controlling annual bluegrass, wehypothesized that repeated treatments in spring will result in a slower, smoother transition fromannual bluegrass to creeping bentgrass. Our objective was to evaluate several treatmentprograms that included 4 kg ai/ha methiozolin split into 4, 6, or 8 treatments during spring andearly summer compared to a program that included two high-rate spring applications followedby an additional application in fall.Two studies were conducted on golf courses in Blacksburg and Harrisonburg, VA. Studieswere arranged in randomized complete block designs with 3 replications. Plots were 2 m by 2m in Blacksburg and 2 m by 5 m in Harrisonburg. The larger plots in Harrisonburg allowed formeasurement of ball speed (stimp). Treatments were initiated on March 4, 2011 atHarrisonburg and March 20, 2011 at Blacksburg. Methiozolin was applied in 280 L/ha waterusing TeeJet 11004 TTI nozzles. Treatments included 8 applications of 500 g/ha at 2 wkintervals, 6 applications of 667 g/ha at 2 wk intervals, 4 applications of 1000 g/ha at 4 wkintervals, and 3 applications of 1120 g/ha in March, April, and October. On June 15, 2011,Methiozolin applied 8, 6, or 4 times in spring reduced annual bluegrass cover from 58% innontreated plots to 2, 1, and 5%, respectively. The spring + fall program had received two ofthree treatments at this time and reduced annual bluegrass cover to 15%. Similar reduction inannual bluegrass cover was noted in Blacksburg. On June 3, 2011 in Harrisonburg, stimp onnontreated plots was 8.4 feet and significantly higher (9.5 to 10.0 feet) in methiozolin treatedplots. Methiozolin did not injure creeping bentgrass at any assessment date. Putting green turfquality and NDVI was significantly lower than nontreated turf in April but equivalent in March,May, June, July, and October. The loss of NDVI and quality in April was attributed to loss ofannual bluegrass vigor. The greatest loss of turf quality from methiozolin treatment was on April28 when nontreated plots had quality of 6.5 and the worst methiozolin treatment had quality of5.83, where 6.0 is minimally acceptable. Such transient loss of quality was actually deemedacceptable by golf course personnel due to the reduction in annual bluegrass. Turf quality wassignificantly higher in methiozolin-treated plots from May through October. NDVI was equivalentin all plots from June through October. These data suggest spring programs can successfullycontrol annual bluegrass while having minimal impact on putting green quality on golf puttinggreens having greater than 50% annual bluegrass infestation.94

USE OF METHIOZOLIN FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POA ANNUA L.) CONTROL ONCREEPING BENTGRASS (AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA) GREENS. K.A. Venner*, S. Hart, S.Askew, and C.J. Mansue, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (96)ABSTRACTField studies were conducted in Virginia and New Jersey from 2010 to 2011 to evaluate theuse of methiozolin for annual bluegrass control in creeping bentgrass putting greens. In Virginia,non-replicated demonstrations were established on four different putting greens at two golfcourses. At Spotswood Country Club (CC), three strips (2m by 25m) were treated withmethiozolin at 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 kg ai/ha on March 18, April 15, and Oct 20, 2011. At LakeviewCC, three different putting greens were treated with methiozolin at 1.0 kg/ha on April 15, May13, and Oct 20, 2011. Initial annual bluegrass populations were 40 to 60% cover at alllocations. When assessed in November 2011, annual bluegrass cover reduction was 20, 75,and 95% in plots treated with 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 kg/ha methiozolin, respectively. At Lakeview,annual bluegrass cover reduction was 90, 60, and 30% on the three test sites. In New Jersey,studies were established in the fall of 2010 at Riverton, Metedeconk, and Charleston SpringsCC. Methiozolin treatment regimes were 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 kg/ha applied twice in Sept/Oct,Oct/Nov, and once in Nov. Methiozolin at 0.5 and 1.0 kg/ha was also applied three times inSept/Oct/Nov. Annual bluegrass populations were high at Riverton (> 50%), low at CharlestonSprings (

SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF AN ANNUAL BLUEGRASS PUTTING GREEN. J. Borger*,M.B. Naedel, and K.R. Hivner, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (97)ABSTRACTThree annual bluegrass (Poa annua, ABG) seedhead suppression studies were conductedusing various materials and application timings. The first two studies, in 2009 and 2010, wereconducted on a mature monostand of ABG at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center, PennState University, University Park, PA. The third study, conducted in 2011, was conducted on a‘Pencross’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) and ABG putting green at the PennsylvaniaState University Blue Golf Course, University Park, PA. The objective of the studies was todetermine if selected materials could suppress seedhead formation of 1000 ft 2 under simulatedgolf course greens conditions. All trials were randomized complete block designs with threereplications. For the first study, treatments were applied on April 1 (EARLY), April 13 (bootstage, BT), and May 6, 2009 (3 WABT). For the second study, treatments were applied April 2(EARLY), April 20 (BT), and May 5, 2010 (3 WABT). For the third study, treatments wereapplied April 7 (EARLY), April 21 (BT), and May 12, 2011 (3 WABT). Treatments were appliedusing a three foot CO 2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 80 gpa using one, flat fan,TP9508EVS nozzle at 40 psi. Test areas at the Valentine Turfgrass Research Center weremaintained at 0.125 inch using a Toro triplex reel mower. The test area at the Penn State BlueGolf Course was maintained at 0.140 inch using a Jacobsen walking reel mower. Turf wasirrigated as needed to prevent moisture stress at both test sites. Test sites consisted ofapproximately 65% annual bluegrass seedhead cover in the untreated plots at the times of datacollection. Annual bluegrass seedhead cover was visually evaluated on May 6, 2009, May 17,2010, and May 16, 2011. Data were transformed into a percent suppression value via Abbott’sTransformation using Agricultural Research Manager software. In the first study, Primo Maxx at0.125 oz/1000 ft 2 (M) plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or in combination with ProGibbT&O at 0.06 g ai/A at various timings. All treated turf revealed a significant level of ABGseedhead suppression compared to the untreated turf, with the exception of Primo Maxx plusProxy with a single application at boot stage (BT). Primo Maxx, Proxy, and ProGibb T&Oapplied EARLY and BT resulted in significantly higher seedhead suppression than turf treatedwith Primo Maxx plus Proxy applied once at BT. In the second study, Primo Maxx at 0.125oz/M plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or in combination with ProGibb T&O at 0.06 gai/A at various timings. All treated turf with the exception of ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A appliedalone at any timing (except the EARLY timing) and Primo Maxx plus Proxy plus ProGibb T&Oapplied EARLY, did not significantly reduce seedhead cover. Notable results include asignificant increase in seedhead suppression when Primo Maxx, Proxy, and ProGibb T&O werecombined compared to Primo Maxx plus Proxy without ProGibb T&O applied EARLY or insuccession (EARLY, BT). However, when these treatments were compared to one another withthree total applications (EARLY, BT, and 3 WABT), no significant differences were found. In thethird study, Primo Maxx at 0.125 oz/M plus Proxy at 5 oz/M were evaluated alone or incombination with ProGibb T&O at 0.06 g ai/A at various timings. All treated turf, with theexception of ProGibb T&O applied alone three times (EARLY, BT, and 3 WABT), revealed asignificant reduction of seedhead cover when compared to untreated turf. When ProGibb T&Owas added to Primo Maxx plus Proxy applied three times, a significant increase in seedheadsuppression was observed. More research will investigate the addition of gibberellic acid intoannual bluegrass seedhead suppression strategies for golf course putting greens.96

GROUND IVY CONTROL AS AFFECTED BY MOWING PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWINGHERBICIDE APPLICATIONS. A.J. Patton* and D.V. Weisenberger, Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN (98)ABSTRACTExtension bulletins and turf herbicide labels often recommend not to mow turf 24 hoursbefore or after application of a herbicide to maximize weed control. However, the effect ofmowing on herbicide efficacy has not been sufficiently explored. The ability to make a herbicideapplication soon after mowing or prior to mowing would give turf managers more flexibility inscheduling applications and help lawn care operators who often make herbicide applications tolawns but do not have control of the mowing schedule for these properties. The objectives andthis research were to 1) determine which herbicides most effectively control ground ivy(Glechoma hederacea), 2) determine the effects of mowing on ground ivy control, and 3)determine if any herbicide by mowing timing interactions exist. The experiment was arranged asa 3 X 6 factorial with main effects of mowing timing and herbicide selection. Individual plot sizewas 2.25 m 2 . Three mowing timings included mowing 30 minutes before application, mowing 30minutes after application, and no mowing 72 hours before or after application. These mowingtreatments were designed to simulate a worst case scenario of mowing either immediately priorto or after a mowing. Plots were mown at 5 cm removing 1.3 to 3.8 cm of Kentucky bluegrass(Poa pratensis) leaf tissue. Ground ivy was dispersed through the turf canopy at heights of 1.3to 7.6 cm prior to mowing and the mowing treatments removed approximately 30-40% of theground ivy leaf tissue. The seven herbicide treatments were 2,4-D ester at 3.2 kg ae/ha;metsulfuron at 0.02 kg/ha; aminocyclopyrachlor at 0.08 kg ae/ha; 2,4-D + mecoprop + dicamba;triclopyr at 1.12 kg ae/ha, and the untreated check. The herbicide was mostly dry on the leafsurface when mowing 30 minutes following an application; however, the deck of the mower wascleaned with a blower to remove debris after each plot was mown to reduce the potential totrack herbicide from one plot to another. Plots were treated with herbicide 29 October 2010.Herbicides were applied in 814 L/ha water with a CO 2 -pressurized sprayer at 207 kPa. Groundivy coverage was visually rated. All data were analyzed using SAS (SAS Institute, Inc). The datawere analyzed as a 3 X 5 Factorial without the untreated check. Means were separated usingFisher’s protected least significant difference when F tests were significant at α=0.05. Whenrated 17 November (3 weeks after application) there were no immediate visible effects of theherbicide treatments. However, on each spring rating date there was a significant effect of theherbicide. When rated on 8 July 2011, the 29 October 2010 application of aminocyclopyrachlorreduced ground ivy coverage most. The excellent control of ground ivy fromaminocyclopyrachlor was consistent with other research done at this location. At no point in theexperiment did the main effect of mowing have a significant impact on ground ivy coverage norwas there a significant mowing by herbicide interaction. Thus, this preliminary data suggeststhat whether or not turf is mown before or after an application may not be as important aspreviously thought for controlling broadleaf weeds. This experiment will be repeated in 2011-2012.97

BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN TURFGRASS USING ALTERNATIVES TO SYNTHETICHERBICIDES. D.T. Linde* and S.J. McDonald, Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA (99)ABSTRACTPublic pressure to ban or limit synthetic pesticide use on turfgrass has greatly increased thepast few years. Very little research has been published or presented concerning alternatives tosynthetic herbicides for broadleaf weed control in turfgrass. A 3-year study was conducted toevaluate broadleaf weed control in turfgrass using various alternatives to synthetic herbicides.In September 2009, 11 treatments were applied to a lawn area in Doylestown, PA thatcontained about 20% broadleaf weeds and 80% cool-season turfgrasses. Treatments includedhand-pull, Burnout II (citric acid, clove oil, sodium lauryl sulfate), Weed-A-Tak (clove oil,phenethyl propionate, corn gluten meal), household vinegar, compost, corn gluten meal,glyphosate, synthetic herbicide (2,4-D, MCPP & dicamba), Burnout II/seed perennial ryegrass,an experimental organic extract, and an untreated control. Treatments that were liquids wereapplied as spot treatments for the weeds using a hand-pump spray bottle and were re-applied 7days after initial application to any remaining weeds. On adjacent sites, the study was repeatedin September 2010 and September 2011 with 4 additional treatments— FeHEDTA, propanetorching, ammoniated soap of fatty acids, and sodium tetraborate. Weeds were spot-treated 0and 14 days after initial treatment (DAIT) for all treatments except corn gluten meal andcompost which were blanket treatments.Percent weed cover by weed species was evaluated approximately every 7 DAIT for 70days. Since each weed species did not always appear in each plot, percent weed cover byspecies were combined for each plot. Statistical analysis was conducted on total percent weedcover data since treatments had similar percent weed cover at 0 DAIT. Total percent weedcover data were subjected to the square root transformation to stabilize variance and thensubjected to ANOVA with means separated with Tukey’s HSD. Untreated control plots wereincluded in statistical analysis. Turf quality was assessed visually according to NTEP standardpractices where 9 was outstanding or ideal turf and 1 was the poorest or dead turf. A rating of 6or greater was considered acceptable.Most treatments significantly reduced percent weed cover, however some of thesetreatments (Burnout II, Weed-A-Tak, glyphosate, vinegar, organic extract, ammoniated soap offatty acids) killed turfgrass as well and resulted in very poor turf quality. Hand-pull, FeHEDTA,and the synthetic herbicide treatments killed the weeds without decreasing turf quality. Sometreatments (hand-pull, Burnout II, Weed-A-Tak, glyphosate, FeHEDTA, ammoniated soap offatty acids, organic extract) controlled weeds as well as the synthetic herbicide. Varioustreatments needed multiple applications since the initial application caused only leaf necrosisand the weed resurged. The corn gluten meal and compost treatments did not significantlycontrol weeds compared to the untreated control. The corn gluten meal significantly improvedturf quality, however, growth was excessive.98

USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENOMICS FOR NATURAL PRODUCTS DISCOVERY OFNOVEL HERBICIDES. J.T. Kao-Kniffin*, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (100)ABSTRACTIn the past 15 years, environmental genomics-based research has advanced newdevelopments in the biomedical and manufacturing industries, but few products have beendeveloped for agricultural and landscape management. Environmental genomics provides anew set of tools for the discovery of compounds that suppress weeds or enhance target plantgrowth. Direct genomic extraction from natural environments and complex communities intoclone libraries allows researchers to screen for biosynthetic herbicides or growth-enhancingbioinoculants. I will be discussing examples of screening methods to isolate genes and geneclusters captured in clone libraries expressing the production of biosynthetic compoundsrelevant to weed management. Further isolation of the biosynthetic compounds in cell-freesuspensions can elucidate the potential of the compounds as active ingredients in herbicides.Environmental genomics may provide a cost-efficient alternative to the development of newsynthetic herbicides, as the cost of synthetic pesticide development continues to rise.99

INFLUENCE OF EARLY APPLICATIONS ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS SEEDHEADSUPPRESSION WITH ETHEPHON AND MEFLUIDIDE. S. Askew* and A.N. Smith, VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, VA (101)ABSTRACTAnnual bluegrass comprises a large portion of putting green turf in the Northeast. Failedattempts to control this weed have led to its adoption as part of the playing surface and culturalpractices have been adapted to improve putting conditions in a mixed creeping bentgrass andannual bluegrass turf. One such practice is the use of plant growth regulators such asmefluidide and ethephon for suppressing annual bluegrass seedheads in spring. The two mostcommon programs include application of mefluidide plus foliar iron or ethephon plus trinexapacethyl when growing degree days at base 50 (GDD 50 ) reach 50 units. These programs arenotoriously inconsistent for annual bluegrass seedhead suppression. Suppression varies eachyear and ranges from 20% to 95% for ethephon and 40% to 95% for mefluidide. Attempts toreduce application frequency or increase the number of spring applications have led to turfgrassinjury. Close observation of annual bluegrass on golf putting greens in early spring will showthat many plants have already initiated seedhead production before 50 GDD 50 . Some plantshave been observed to produce an occasional seedhead under snow. We hypothesized thatinconsistency in seedhead suppression over years is largely due to variable amounts of annualbluegrass plants that initiate seedhead production during winter, driven primarily by periodicwarm winter temperatures or thermal heating under snow. Our objective was to determine ifapplications made in late winter could improve annual bluegrass seedhead suppression fromstandard ethephon or mefluidide programs compared to these programs without the earlytreatment. We also included demethylation inhibiting fungicides (DMI) in some treatments todetermine if several combined components of the program might accumulate and lead toturfgrass injury if mixed with use of a plant growth regulating fungicide. Two field trials wereconducted on putting greens mown at 3 mm. One trial was in Blacksburg, VA and the other wasin Harrisonburg, VA. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design withthree replications. The "early" application was applied on March 4 and the putting green wasstill brown from winter stress. The normal program application dates were April 15 applied at 48GDD 50 and four weeks later. On April 28, annual bluegrass seedhead coverage was 47% in thenontreated check and equivalent in the ethephon early treatment, ethephon normal program,and with a single treatment of triadimefon. When the ethephon early treatment was combinedwith the normal program, however, seedhead coverage was reduced to 0 to 7%. The earlytreatment of mefluidide reduced seedhead coverage to 20% and all normal programs ofmefluidide either alone, with the early treatment, or with the early treatment and triadimefoncompletely eliminated seedhead production. Similar trends occurred on May13 th ; however, onMay 26 th , all normal program treatments regardless of early treatment or DMI fungicidecompletely controlled annual bluegrass seedheads, presumably because the second normalprogram treatment had been applied prior to this rating. Early treatments and/or triadimefon didnot increase turfgrass injury compared to normal mefluidide or ethephon programs alone;however, the normal program of mefluidide injured turf 30 to 60% and significantly decreasednormalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) from April 15 to May 13 while ethephon did notcause injury or decrease NDVI. These data suggest an early application of seedhead inhibitorscan improve annual bluegrass seedhead suppression when applied prior to a normal GDD 50 -timed program, especially in the case of ethephon.100

TALL FESCUE (FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA) TOLERANCE TO SPRING AND FALLAMICARBAZONE APPLICATIONS. G.K. Breeden*, J.T. Brosnan, and P. McCullough,University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (102)ABSTRACTAmicarbazone is a new photosystem II inhibitor being evaluated for use in cool-seasonturfgrass. Data describing cool-season turfgrass tolerance to amicarbazone are limited.Research was conducted from 2010 to 2011 evaluating tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)tolerance to spring and fall to applications of amicarbazone.Separate trials were conducted to determine tolerance to spring and fall amicarbazoneapplications. The site for each trial was a mature stand of ‘Coyote II’ tall fescue maintained as agolf course rough at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center-Plant Sciences Unit(Knoxville, TN). Plots (1.5 by 3 m) were arranged in a randomized complete block design withthree replications. Amicarbazone (98 g ha -1 , 196 g ha -1 and 392 g ha -1 ) and bispyribac-sodium(111 g ha -1 ) were applied sequentially on a two-week interval. An untreated control was includedfor comparison. Four application timings were evaluated in the fall trial: September, October,November, and December. The same treatments were applied in the spring trial in March andApril. All herbicides were applied with a CO 2 powered boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 280.5 Lha -1 utilizing four, flat-fan, 8002 nozzles at 124 kPa, configured to provide a 1.5-m spray swath.Tall fescue injury was evaluated visually utilizing a 0 (no turf injury) to 100% (complete kill) scaleat 7, 14, 28 49, 62, 91, and 144 days after initial treatment (DAIT).Injury present 21 DAIT with amicarbazone at ≥196 g ha -1 ranged from 40 to 92% fortreatments in September and October. By 66 DAIT, tall fescue injury with these treatments was>40%. Applied in November and December, these treatments induced 20 to 60% injury 21DAIT. Applications of amicarbazone at 98 g ha -1 in November injured tall fescue from 0 to 36%at 21 DAIT. By 144 DAIT, amicarbazone at < 196 g ha -1 in September, October, and Novemberinjured tall fescue ≤ 8%. At 392 g ha -1 these treatments injured tall fescue ≥ 85% at 144 DAIT.Bispyribac-sodium applied at all fall timings injured tall fescue ≤ 42% at 28 DAIT. By 62 DAIT,bispyribac-sodium in September and December injured tall fescue ≤ 3%, while October andNovember applications injured tall fescue ≤ 38%.Spring applications were less injurious to tall fescue as no injury was observed withamicarbazone at 98 and 196 g ha -1 in March. Amicarbazone at 392 g ha -1 in March injured tallfescue 25% by 49 DAIT, but declined to 0% by 91 DAIT. Injury with April applications ofamicarbazone at ≤ 196 g ha -1 ranged from 0 to 12%, with no injury present 21 days afterapplication. Amicarbazone at 392 g ha -1 in April injured tall fescue 50% by 28 DAIT. By 62 DAITinjury had decreased to ≤ 23%. Comparatively, bispyribac-sodium at all spring applicationtimings injured tall fescue ≤ 25% through the end of the study. These data suggest that fallapplications of amicarbazone should be avoided on tall fescue, while spring amicarbazoneapplications at ≤ 196 g ha -1 do not result in significant tall fescue injury.101

MESOTRIONE AND AMICARBAZONE COMBINATIONS FOR ANNUAL BLUEGRASS (POAANNUA) CONTROL. M.T. Elmore*, J.T. Brosnan, and G.K. Breeden, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, TN (103)ABSTRACTMesotrione efficacy for annual bluegrass (Poa annua) control can be inconsistent.Amicarbazone is a photosystem II-inhibiting herbicide with activity against annual bluegrass.Field and greenhouse experiments were initiated in 2011 at the University of Tennesseeevaluating the efficacy of mesotrione and amicarbazone for annual bluegrass control.Annual bluegrass was collected from the East Tennessee Research and Education Center(Knoxville, TN). Single tillers were transplanted to cone-tainers filled with Sequatchie silt-loamsoil. Plants were allowed to acclimate for 4 weeks and contained 5 to 7 tillers when treatmentswere applied. Nitrogen was soil-applied at 49 kg ha -1 (46N:0P:0K) prior to treatment application.Treatments were arranged in a 2-by-2 factorial, completely randomized, design with tenreplications. Treatments consisted of mesotrione (280 g ha -1 ) or topramezone (14.5 g ha -1 )applied with amicarbazone (0 and 79 g ha -1 ). An untreated-control was included for comparison.Herbicide treatments were applied singly with a nonionic surfactant (NIS) at 0.25% v/v and 340L ha -1 water using a spray chamber. Two experimental runs were conducted in 2011. Annualbluegrass control was evaluated visually on a 0 (no control) to 100% (complete control) scaleand using chlorophyll fluorescence yield (F v /F m ) at 3, 5, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT).Aboveground dry biomass was measured 21 DAT.Field experiments were conducted on a dormant bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) fairwayoverseeded with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) at 440 kg ha -1 . Treatments were arrangedin 2-by-4 factorial, randomized complete block, design with three replications. Treatmentsconsisted of mesotrione (280 g ha -1 ) or topramezone (14.5 g ha -1 ) applied with amicarbazone (0,79, 160 or 240 g ha -1 ). An untreated-control, bispyribac-sodium (78 g ha -1 ) and methiozolin (1.5kg ha -1 ) were included for comparison. All herbicide treatments were applied singly with NIS at0.25% v/v and 280 L ha -1 of water using small-plot spray equipment. Treatment responses wereevaluated visually from 7 to 56 DAT. Grid counts were conducted 56 DAT as well.In greenhouse experiments, amicarbazone alone provided < 5% annual bluegrass controlon all rating dates. By 21 DAT, mesotrione only controlled annual bluegrass 44%. The additionof amicarbazone (79 g ha -1 ) to mesotrione increased control to 74% by 21 DAT. Topramezonealone or in combination with amicarbazone provided < 10% annual bluegrass control on allrating dates. F v /F m and biomass data supported visual observations.In field experiments, mesotrione provided 78% annual bluegrass control 56 DAT.Amicarbazone alone provided 58, 78 and 96% control at the 79, 160 and 240 g ha -1 rates,respectively, 56 DAT. Mesotrione + amicarbazone provided > 96% control 56 DAT at all rates.These data indicate annual bluegrass control provided by mesotrione can be improved by theaddition of amicarbazone.102

POTENTIAL ANTAGONISM OF SULFENTRAZONE AND FENOXAPROP TANK-MIXES FORGOOSEGRASS CONTROL. A.J. Patton*, D.V. Weisenberger, J.T. Brosnan, and G.K. Breeden,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (104)ABSTRACTSeveral herbicides are known antagonize grassy weed control when tank-mixed withfenoxaprop. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sulfentrazone and fenoxapropapplied alone and in combination with one another for postemergence goosegrass (Eleusineindica) and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control. Initial experiments were conductedon separate stands of goosegrass and crabgrass at the W.H. Daniel Research and DiagnosticCenter in West Lafayette, IN in 2010. Treatments included the factorial combination offenoxaprop (0.05 and 0.075 kg/ha) and sulfentrazone (0.28 kg/ha). An untreated control wasincluded for comparison. Experimental design was randomized complete block with threereplications and plot size measured 2.25 m 2 . Treatments were applied to 2 to 3 tiller goosegrassand 4 to 5 tiller crabgrass in 814 L/ha water with a CO 2 -pressurized sprayer at 207 kPa. In 2010in West Lafayette, goosegrass coverage was lowest from treatments containing fenoxaprop.Goosegrass was not effectively controlled when sulfentrazone was applied at 2-3 tillers. Whensulfentrazone was tank-mixed with fenoxaprop, higher goosegrass coverage was presentfollowing applications than when fenoxaprop was applied alone suggesting that antagonism wasoccurring when these products are tank-mixed. No antagonism was observed with thesetreatments on crabgrass. Experiments were replicated in 2011 at the W.H. Daniel Research andDiagnostic Center (West Lafayette, IN) and the East Tennessee Research and EducationCenter-Plant Sciences Unit (Knoxville, TN). Treatments included the factorial combination offenoxaprop (0.05, 0.075, and 0.1 kg/ha), and sulfentrazone (0.28 kg/ha) with an untreatedcontrol also included for comparison. Results in 2011 in Indiana mirrored those observed in2010. In Tennessee, no antagonism was observed with fenoxaprop and sulfentrazone tankmixturesapplied to goosegrass or smooth crabgrass. Additional research will be conducted in2012 to determine the reason for the inconsistent response between locations.103

COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS RESEEDING INTERVALS FOR METHIOZOLIN. P. McCulloughand D. Gomez de Barreda*, University of Georgia, GA (105)ABSTRACTMethiozolin has potential for selective annual bluegrass control in cool-season grasses andpractitioners may wish to reseed in treated areas after applications. The objective of this fieldexperiment was to evaluate reseeding intervals of three cool-season turfgrasses followingmethiozolin applications at four application timings before seeding. Methiozolin (2.1 EC) wasapplied at 0, 0.56, 1.1, or 2.2 kg a.i./ha and compared to bispyribac-sodium (Velocity 17.6WG)at 45 g ai/acre. Herbicide treatments were applied 0, 2, 4, or 6 weeks before seeding on April13, 2011. A broadcast glyphosate application was made 7 days before seeding to kill existingvegetation and facilitate visual assessment of creeping bentgrass, perennial ryegrass, and tallfescue seeded perpendicular to herbicide treatments.All methiozolin applications on the day of seeding reduced turf cover by approximately 75 to90% from the untreated for all grasses at 14 days after seeding and were more injurious thanbispyribac-sodium by eight weeks after treatments. Methiozolin at 1.1 and 2.2 kg/ha appliedtwo weeks before seeding reduced cover of all three grasses by approximately 35 to 50% fromthe untreated after 14 days but 0.56 kg/ha at this timing did not reduce final ground cover.Grasses established in plots treated with 0.56 and 1.1 kg/ha two weeks before seeding hadsimilar cover to the untreated after six weeks. However, 2.2 kg/ha of methiozolin reducedestablishment of all three grasses after eight weeks. Methiozolin at 2.2 kg/ha was the only ratethat reduced creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass cover from the untreated when appliedfour weeks before seeding, but did not inhibit tall fescue establishment. All herbicides appliedsix weeks before seeding did not reduce establishment of the three grasses on any otherevaluation date. Results suggest reseeding intervals after methiozolin applications varydepending on turf species and application rate. Due to temporary stunting and potential turfcover reductions, it appears practitioners should wait two, four, and six weeks before seeding inareas treated with methiozolin at 0.56, 1.1, and 2.2 kg/ha, respectively.104

ENLIST CORN TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL WITH PRE FOLLOWED BY POSTHERBICIDE PROGRAMS. B.D. Olson*, S.C. Ditmarsen, C.A. Gallup, M.W. Melichar, and P.L.Prasifka, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Geneva, NY (106)ABSTRACTThe Enlist TM trait in field corn has been extensively evaluated in research trials since 2006.Enlist corn has demonstrated excellent tolerance to 2,4-D in single and sequential treatmentsapplied preemergence and postemergence at rates up to 4480 g ae/ha per application. TheEnlist trait has been stacked with SmartStax® traits to confer both 2,4-D and glyphosatetolerance. Enlist Duo herbicide is a novel premix containing the active ingredients 2,4-Dcholine and glyphosate dimethylamine (DMA) under development by Dow AgroSciences for useon Enlist crops. Dow AgroSciences will be recommending the use of soil residual herbicides asa part of the Enlist Weed Control system to provide early season weed control for crop yieldprotection and weed resistance management by providing additional modes of action.Field research trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate a system approach involving GF-2726, the lead formulation of Enlist Duo, in conjunction with SureStart herbicide (acetochlor +clopyralid + flumetsulam). Crop tolerance studies included GF-2726 plus SureStart at 1X and2X recommended rates applied at spike stage or 10-11 inch corn. Additionally, sequentialapplications of SureStart at 1X and 2X rates applied PRE followed by a POST application ofGF-2726 at 1X and 2X rates to 10-11 inch corn were evaluated. Applications of SureStart plusGF-2726 at spike stage resulted in

REDUCED RATE RESIDUAL HERBICIDES PREVENT DANDELION ESTABLISHMENT INZONE-TILLAGE CORN AND SOYBEANS. R.R. Hahn*, R.J. Richtmyer III, and J.M. Orlowski,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (107)ABSTRACTA rotation experiment was established near Aurora, NY in 2010 to determine the value ofreduced rates of residual herbicides in preventing dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber inWiggers) encroachment into zone-tillage corn (Zea mays L.) and soybeans (Glycine maxMerrill). The field was fall plowed in 2009 to eliminate established dandelions. Four-yearrotations established as main plots (12 rows by 300 ft) with five replications were: 1) continuouscorn with residual herbicides, 2) corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans with residual herbicides in bothcrops, 3) soybeans, corn, soybeans, corn with residual herbicides in both crops, 4) corn,soybeans, corn, soybeans with residual herbicides in corn only, and 5) soybeans, corn,soybeans, corn with residual herbicides in corn only. Sub-plots (12 rows by 75 ft) within cropsreceived no residual herbicides, one-half, two-thirds, or full labeled rates of residual herbicides.Corn sub-plots were treated early postemergence (EPOST) with 0.77 lb ae/A of glyphosatealone or tank-mixed with 1.23, 1.64, or 2.46 lb ai/A of a premix of S-metolachlor, atrazine, andmesotrione (Lumax). Soybean main plots were split into six row strips so two residual programscould be compared. In one strip, sub-plots received no residual or a premix of metribuzin andchlorimuron-ethyl (Canopy) at 0.84, 1.13, or 1.69 oz ai/A preemergence (PRE) followed by 0.77lb/A of glyphosate mid-postemergence (MPOST). In the other strip, sub-plots received noresidual or a premix of chlorimuron-ethyl, flumiclorac, and thifensulfuron-methyl (Enlite) at 0.67,0.89, or 1.34 oz ai/A PRE followed by 0.77 lb/A of glyphosate alone or tank-mixed with a premixof chlorimuron-ethyl and thifensulfuron-methyl (Synchrony XP) at 0.05, 0.07, or 0.11 oz ai/AMPOST. Glyphosate resistant corn ‘DKC 4272’ and soybeans ‘AG 2130’ were planted May 17and 25, 2010 respectively. EPOST corn herbicides were applied June 15 to 7 inch corn. PREsoybean herbicides were applied May 27 and MPOST soybean herbicides were applied June25 to 6 inch soybeans. Preliminary dandelion counts were made in a 7.5 by 75 ft area in thecenter of each sub-plot May 2, 2011. Counts for corn sub-plot treatments were averagedacross rotations since all were treated the same in 2010. Dandelion counts for corn averaged182, 3, 2, and 1/1,000 sq ft for sub-plots receiving none, one-half, two-thirds, and full rates ofthe residual premix respectively. There were no differences in dandelion counts between thetwo residual soybean programs and counts averaged 80, 4, 1, and 2/1,000 sq ft for sub-plotsreceiving none, one-half, two-thirds, and full rates of these residual programs respectively.There were more dandelions in May 2011 following EPOST glyphosate alone in corn (182/1,000sq ft) than following MPOST glyphosate alone in soybeans (80/1,000 sq ft). This difference maybe due to the 10 day difference between glyphosate applications in corn and soybeans or todifferences in canopies and shading between the two crops.106

ZEMAX: A NEW MESOTRIONE PLUS S-METOLACHLOR FORMULATION IN CORN. E.Hitchner*, R. Lins, M. Urwiler, and G.D. Vail, Syngenta, 08098, NJ (108)ABSTRACTZemax TM is a new corn herbicide for pre-emergence and postemergence residual control ofgrasses and broadleaf weeds. Zemax can be applied pre-plant, pre-emergence and postemergence.The Zemax formulation is based on the same capsule-suspension formulationtechnology as Halex GT. The product is formulated for optimized handling, compatibility withsulfur-containing nitrogen fertilizers and other critical tank mix partners, and designed tominimize the effects of overwintering. Zemax TM is the latest product in the Callisto PlantTechnology ® family of herbicides.107

PERFORMANCE OF F9310 AND F9316 IN THE NORTHEAST PRE AND POST CORNTRIALS IN 2010 AND 2011. J.P. Reed*, J.S. Wilson, G.G. Stratman, B.A. Neuberger, and T.W.Mize, FMC Corporation, North Little Rock, AR (109)ABSTRACTF9310 and F9316 are two new herbicides under development by FMC for preplant,preemergence and postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in corn. F9310 is acombination of pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet-methyl. F9316 combines pyroxasulfone, fluthiacetmethyland atrazine. Field research trials have been conducted in the US in 2010 and 2011 toevaluate crop safety and weed control provided by these two herbicides as well as comparisonsto other standard PRE and Post herbicides for corn. Trials were conducted primarily atuniversity research locations as well as independent contract sites across the Midwestern andEastern Corn Belt, Middle Atlantic States and Southern corn production areas. Applicationsincluded early preplant, preemergence and early postemergence timings across various soiltypes and geographic distribution of corn growing areas. Rates of F9310 included 113 to 151,132 to 169, and 151 to 188 g ai/ha on coarse, medium and fine soils, respectively. Rates ofF9316 ranged from 0.95 kg ai/ha to 1.58 kg/ha across all three soil classes. Visual evaluationscrop response as well as both grass and broadleaf weed control were evaluated. Cropresponse was low across most trials. F9310 and F9316 demonstrated excellent crop safetyacross all trials with a maximum of 5% crop response with F9316 recorded in 1 trial out of 39sites. F9310 did not show any crop response from preemergence applications. Crop responsefrom postemergence applications was low, averaging 5% with both F9310 and F9316 as leafspeckling or spotting from the fluthiacet-methyl as reported at 7- 30 DAT. Results at 3-6 weeksafter treatment indicated excellent control of foxtail and panicum species and similar to otherpreemergence grass herbicides. Both F9310 and F9316 applied preemergence providedexcellent control of several key broadleaf weed species including tall waterhemp, Palmeramaranth, common lambsquarters, and velvetleaf. F9316 provided greater overall control oncommon and giant ragweed, morningglories, velvetleaf, and greater consistency of control onwaterhemp and common lambsquarters versus F9310. Both F9310 and F9316 providedexcellent control of grass and broadleaf weeds when tank-mixed with glyphosate and appliedpostemergence. Control of foxtails, waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, lambsquarters, andmorningglories, and velvetleaf was 90% or greater at 15-30 DAT. Excellent residual of bothF9310 and F9316 when applied postemergence was observed. Lower levels of control wereobserved with treatments of glyphosate alone during this same evaluation period due to newweed flushes. F9316 provided greater control of giant ragweed, waterhemp than F9310 duringthe same evaluation period. Both F9310 and F9316 have been shown to be effective grassand broadleaf tools for flexible weed management in corn. Further research to develop effectiveweed management programs incorporating these herbicides is needed.108

EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERSIFY BURNDOWN OPTIONS IN NO-TILL CROPPRODUCTION SYSTEMS. W.S. Curran* and D.D. Lingenfelter, Pennsylvania State University,University Park, PA (110)ABSTRACTAdoption of no-tillage agriculture holds a number of benefits including soil and waterconservation, potential improvements in soil quality, reduced energy costs, and implications forcarbon sequestration. At the same time, no-tillage systems rely chiefly on herbicides for weedmanagement increasing some environmental risks and the evolution of herbicide resistantweeds. Diversifying crop rotations can help alleviate many pest problems including weeds andis even more important in continuous no-till systems. In no-till, herbicides are often required forcontrol of emerged vegetation at the time of crop establishment. Glyphosate is the dominantnonselective burndown herbicide choice in many no-till systems and a number of selectiveherbicides can be included depending on the crop and application timing. However, for anumber of reasons, glyphosate is often applied without tank-mix partners to control emergedvegetation. Using a single mode of action is a particular concern for herbicide resistance, soadding other effective herbicide modes of action to the program is warranted. The addition of2,4-D can help broaden the weed control spectrum and reduce the potential for herbicideresistant broadleaf weeds. Although this combination is frequently used in no-till corn andsoybean, labeling restrictions and concerns about crop injury have limited its utility in othercrops.To test the safety of 2,4-D in no-till establishment of some minor crops, an experiment wasconducted in 2011 at the Russell Larson Research and Education Center near State College,Pennsylvania. The ester formulation (LVE) of 2,4-D was applied at 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 lbae/acre to wheat stubble in late summer. The amine formulation of 2,4-D and the diglycolaminesalt of dicamba were also included at 0.5 lb ae/acre each. Glyphosate was tank-mixed with allherbicides at 0.75 lb ae/acre to aid in the control of emerged vegetation. Alfalfa (Medicagosativa L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), crimson clover(Trifolium incarnatum L.), canola (Brassica napus L.), and daikon radish (Raphanus sativus L.)were seeded the same day of herbicide application (0 day), and 7, 14, and 21 days afterherbicide application. About one month after seeding, crops were evaluated visually for injuryand in selected treatments above-ground biomass was harvested about 8 weeks after seeding.In the 0 day seeding, 2,4-D LVE injury increased with rate ranging from 32 to 85% foralfalfa, 27 to 80% for red clover, 20 to 72% for crimson clover, 27 to 70% for hairy vetch, 21 to81% for canola, and 16 to 76% for daikon radish. By 7 days after application, alfalfa injury didnot exceed 19%, red clover 17%, crimson clover 11%, hairy vetch 14%, canola 29%, anddaikon radish 12%. By 14 days after application, crop injury was mostly undetected even at the2.0 lb rate of 2,4-D. Crop injury from the amine formulation was similar to the ester. Dicambacrop injury was observed in all species at up to 7 days after application, but had also mostlydissipated by 14 days. Rainfall during the experiment was frequent and exceeded normal(almost 13 inches for August and September) and may have helped increase the rate ofdissipation. The results from this trial suggest that 2,4-D tank mixtures may have greater utilityfor burndown application in minor use crops, but additional research is necessary before reliablerecommendations can be made.109

DEFINING GEOGRAPHIC AND BIOCLIMATIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF TROUBLESOME WEEDSIN GRAIN CROPS. E.M. Buck*, A. DiTommaso, S.J. Riha, and A.J. McDonald, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY (111)ABSTRACTTroublesome weed species are those which are most difficult for farmers to control. Lifecycle, herbicide resistance, high compatibility with crop management systems, and ideal climaticconditions are a few factors that can contribute to a weed’s designation as “troublesome”. In thissurvey, we identified which weeds are most troublesome for grain corn, silage corn, soybean,and winter wheat growers in fourteen Northeastern U.S. states and investigated whether cropmanagement practices influenced weed species composition. We sought to determine if certainweeds are troublesome within their total range or a portion of their range by comparing theiroccurrence distributions within temperature and rainfall-defined sub-regions. Current weeddistribution maps, when paired with these climatic data, can be used to predict rangeexpansions of “troublesome” weed species over time. We also examined whether herbicideresistance contributed to the designation of a weed as being “troublesome”. A survey wasdeveloped and electronically mailed to 462 cooperative extension employees, certified cropadvisors, researchers, and industry professionals and the NEWSS member list-serve. As of lateOctober 2011, a total of 70 participants contributed 120 survey submissions providing more than1142 listings of “troublesome” weeds from 37 of the 62 sub-regions. Preliminary data indicatedthat climate region and herbicide resistance both influenced the distribution of some“troublesome” species. For example, the species considered most “troublesome” in NewHampshire (NH) corn cropping systems were yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.),common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), quackgrass (Elymus repens (L.) Gould), andvelvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.). Moving south, the most “troublesome” weeds inPennsylvania (PA) corn crops were burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus L.), common cocklebur(Xanthium strumarium L.), common lambsquarters, and common ragweed (Ambrosiaartemisiifolia L.) while in Virginia (VA) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.),morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), and fallpanicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.) were considered most troublesome in corn systems.Species tended to be most troublesome in only a subset of their known range. A morninggloryspecies (Ipomoea spp.) was reported as troublesome once in New England and ranked 29 th outof the 39 reported species. Rankings of 13 of 33 in PA, 2 of 28 in VA, and 1 of 28 in the Mid-Atlantic states suggest that morningglories are most problematic in more southern regions of theNortheast. Herbicide resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) contributed to itsbeing considered “troublesome” in soybean crops. Delaware (DE) and PA ranked horseweed asthe most “troublesome” soybean weed, with resistance reported in all cases in DE and 11 of 13cases in PA. Horseweed was not a top troublesome species in VA, Vermont, or New Jersey,where 50% or less of responses indicated herbicide resistance. On-going work will focus ondeveloping “troublesome” distribution maps for various species, examining the effect of climate,tillage, herbicide resistance, and cropping system on “troublesome” weed ranges. Once datahave been compiled, results will be made available to all participants.110

HERBICIDE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - A CRITICAL STEP IN PROACTIVEMANAGEMENT. W.J. Everman*, L. Glasgow, L. Ingegneri, J. Schroeder, D. Shaw, J. Soteres,J. Stachler, and F. Tardif, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (112)ABSTRACTHerbicide resistance education and training have been identified as critical paths towardadvancing the adoption of proactive best management practices to delay and mitigate theevolution of herbicide-resistant weeds. In September 2011, the Weed Science Society ofAmerica (WSSA) introduced a training program designed to educate certified crop advisors,agronomists, pesticide retailers and applicators, growers, students, and other interested partieson the topic of herbicide resistance in weeds. A peer reviewed, five-lesson curriculum iscurrently available at the Society’s web page via web-based training and PowerPoint slides.Topics include: (1) An introduction to herbicide resistance in weeds (2) How do herbicideswork? (3) What is herbicide resistance? (4) How do I scout for and identify herbicide resistancein weeds? and (5) How do I manage resistance? The lessons are unique among herbicideresistance training materials in that, for the first time, the WSSA presents a unified message onthe causes of herbicide resistance and offers several strategies for identifying and mitigatingherbicide resistance in weeds. The lessons contain the most up-to-date definitions for use in thefield, including those for low- and high-level resistance, a video on how to scout for herbicideresistantweeds, and an emphasis on proactive management. The lessons utilize animations toshowcase these important points. A Spanish-language version has been also produced.Greater than 380 downloads were documented within the first two months that the lessons wereavailable.111

STEWARDSHIP OF DICAMBA IN DICAMBA TOLERANT CROPPING SYSTEMS. W.E.Thomas*, S.J. Bowe, L.L. Bozeman, M. Staal, T. Cannan, and S.W. Murdock, BASFCorporation, Research Triangle Park, NC (113)ABSTRACTNew weed control options are needed to manage a growing weed resistance problem thatis limiting control tactics and in some areas cropping options. Glyphosate is an importantherbicide in many cropping systems, but problematic weeds like Palmer amaranth (Amaranthuspalmeri), waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), andhorseweed (Conyza canadensis) have been confirmed resistant to it in at least 24 states. Andmany of these populations are also resistant to more than one herbicide mode of action. Giventhe limited herbicide options in many cropping systems, these weeds present significantmanagement problems for producers. The dicamba tolerant cropping system will offer growersa new weed management option in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max).Dicamba complements the weed control spectrum of glyphosate and controls many broadleafweeds that have been reported to be resistant to glyphosate. However, proper implementationof the dicamba tolerant cropping system is required to ensure its long term sustainability. Aspart of an integrated strategy, one should consider several stewardship tactics to address weedresistance management and on-target deposition. Weed management programs shouldconsider an integrated system using multiple herbicide modes of action, effective rates andtimings, and site monitoring as well as mechanical weed control when necessary. Maximizingon-target deposition can be addressed with formulation and application techniques includingnozzle selection, boom height, and spray pressure. Environmental conditions such as wind andinversions also have significant influence on the level of on-target deposition and need to beconsidered before application. The goal of such a stewardship program is to allow growers tomaintain flexibility and control of their farming operation. A training and education program canassist growers in achieving this goal. An improved formulation, optimized applicationtechniques, and integration of other effective weed control tactics like alternate modes of action,tillage, and crop rotation will ultimately provide the most sustainable production system.112

EFFICACY OF F9310 AND SULFENTRAZONE PREMIXES IN THE NORTHEAST SOYBEANTRIALS IN 2011. J.P. Reed*, J.S. Wilson, G.G. Stratman, B.A. Neuberger, and T.W. Mize, FMCCorporation, North Little Rock, AR (114)ABSTRACTF9310 (Anthem ) is a new herbicides under development by FMC Corporation for preplant,preemergence and postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in soybeans. F9310 is acombination of pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet-methyl. Field research trials have been conductedat university sites in 2011 to evaluate crop safety and weed control provided by F9310, alongwith comparisons to other standard PRE and Post herbicides for soybeans. Trials wereconducted primarily at university research locations in Midwestern and Eastern Corn Belt,Middle Atlantic States and Southern corn production areas.. Applications includedpreemergence and early postemergence timings across various soil types and geographiclocations of major soybean growing areas. Rates of F9310 included 146 g ai/ha appliedpreemergence, 110 g ai/ha applied postemergence, and 91 g ai/ha applied postemergence in atreatment combination or an overlap system with a sulfentrazone herbicide appliedpreemergence. Visual evaluations included crop response at 14 and 28 days after cropemergence for preemergence applications, and 7 and 21 days after postemergenceapplications. Preemergence applications of F9310 demonstrated excellent crop safety acrossall trials and was comparable to other standard preemergence herbicides. Crop response frompostemergence applications of F9310 was low and was reported as minor leaf speckling orspotting associated from the fluthiacet-methyl. Weed control ratings for preemergenceapplication were taken just prior to a glyphosate postemergence treatment. Results at 3-4weeks after treatment indicated excellent control of foxtail species with results similar or slightlybetter than standard preemergence grass herbicides. F9310 applied preemergence alsoprovided excellent control of several key broadleaf weed species including tall waterhemp, andgood control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and velvetleaf. F9310 providedexcellent control of grass and broadleaf weeds when tank-mixed with glyphosate and appliedpostemergence. F9310 (Anthem) has shown to be an effective grass and broadleaf tool forflexible weed management in soybeans.113

UPDATE ON HPPD-RESISTANT WATERHEMP AND CONTROL OPTIONS IN CORN ANDSOYBEANS. K.D. Burnell*, V.K. Shivrain, A.S. Franssen, and G.D. Vail, Syngenta CropProtection, Penfield, NY (115)ABSTRACTField studies were conducted on waterhemp (A. tuberculatus, syn. rudis) which is resistantto post-emergence HPPD inhibiting herbicides. Pre-emergence application of mesotrione aloneand in combination with s-metolachlor and atrazine provided effective control. Also, s-metolachlor in combination with metribuzin and fomesafen applied pre-emergence controlledthe waterhemp. Post- emergence herbicides including glyphosate, glufosinate, fomesafen andsynthetic auxins provided effective control.114

SELECTIVITY OF GLYPHOSATE AND HPPD INHIBITING HERBICIDES IN A NEW SOYBEANEVENT. M. Mahoney*, J. Allen, and J. Hinz, Bayer CropScience, Oxford, MD (116)ABSTRACTM.S. Technologies and Bayer CropScience are developing a new soybean event that istolerant to both glyphosate and p-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitorherbicides. Tolerance to glyphosate is similar to commercially available soybean lines. There isdifferential tolerance to HPPD inhibiting herbicides in this new event. This event is tolerant topreemergence applications of isoxaflutole and mesotrione. There are varying levels oftolerance to postemergence applied HPPD inhibitors. This event exhibits the bestpostemergence tolerance to isoxaflutole. There is reduced tolerance to mesotrione andtembotrione in this soybean event.115

ANTHEM TM AND ANTHEM ATZ TM :TWO NEW HERBICIDES FOR PRE-EMERGENCE ANDPOST-EMERGENCE CONTROL OF KEY BROADLEAF AND GRASS WEED PESTS. J.S.Wilson*, T.W. Mize, T. Martin, J.P. Reed, G.G. Stratman, and B.A. Neuberger, FMCCorporation, Philadelphia, PA (117)ABSTRACTAnthem is a new proprietary herbicide premix than contains pyroxasulfone and fluthiacetmethylthat provides growers a convenient and flexible product for pre-emergence and earlypost emergence grass and broadleaf weed control. Anthem is formulated as a 2.15 pound pergallon suspoemulsion liquid. Anthem will be labeled for both corn and soybean uses. AnthemATZ is a new three way herbicide premix than contains pyroxasulfone, atrazine and fluthiacetmethylthat provide growers a convenient and flexible product for pre-emergence and early postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control. Anthem ATZ is formulated as a 4.5 pound pergallon suspoemulsion liquid. Anthem ATZ will be labeled for corn uses only. Both Anthem andAnthem ATZ offers growers several modes of action for control of weeds, including weedsresistant to glyphosate and many difficult to control species. Both products provide excellentcrop safety when used at the recommended pre-emergence rates for the particular soil type orin post applications. Anthem uses rates will vary from 6-13 fluid ounces per acre and AnthemATZ uses rates will vary from 1.5 to 4 pints per acre. Research trials conducted by FMC andUniversity researchers has shown excellent grass and broadleaf weed control with both Anthemand Anthem ATZ.116

OUTCOME FUNDING AND THE NORTHEAST SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEACHAND EDUCATION (SARE) GRANT PROGRAM. T.F. Morris* and J.C. McAllister, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT (118)ABSTRACTThe Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NESARE) program hasused an outcome funding framework since 2000. Other USDA grant programs such as some ofthe National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) programs have recently switched to anoutcome funding framework. One of the main reasons NESARE switched to outcome fundingwas to obtain more adoption of research findings by farmers, which is NESARE’s primarymandate from Congress. Outcome funding enables more adoption of new information byfarmers because it requires that researchers have measurable goals for changes in thebehavior or condition of farmers that are engaged with their research. Accomplishing thesegoals requires all research projects to have an educational program, deliberate and intensiveengagement with farmers, and a plan for verifying changes resulting from the engagement.Most non-outcome funded research grant programs focus on obtaining research results, withonly a small emphasis on the adoption of these results by the clientele being served. Thechange to outcome funding by NESARE made it difficult for some researchers to compete forNESARE grant funds. Researchers who were not accustomed to thinking in terms of how theirresearch could be adopted by farmers were at a disadvantage. Researchers who were alreadyworking with farmers to plan, implement and evaluate their research, however, became highlysuccessful in NESARE’s program after 2000. Writing competitive proposals in an outcomefunded grant program like NESARE’s requires close cooperation with farmers, knowledge abouthow adults learn, and an effective verification plan to document the amount of adoption at theend of a grant, rather than a description of the type and quantity of activities that will occur. Thispresentation will provide a mini-workshop about outcome funding as practiced by NESARE. Keyconcepts used in outcome funding will be explained and characteristics of strong proposals willbe discussed.117

118

NEWSS Year-End Report2010Submitted by the Executive CommitteeFor the 65th Annual MeetingJanuary 5, 2011Renaissance Harborplace HotelBaltimore, MDPRESIDENT’S REPORT – Hilary A. SandlerThe 64th annual meeting in Cambridge was very successful with the theme of Meeting theChallenge for Food Production in Africa. There were two workshops: one on Weed Seed Banksand another on Extension and Technology; both were well received. We continued to hold ontoa significant deficit for our 2010 fiscal year because of expenses that were previously omitted(but paid in this fiscal year) and low attendance at the Cambridge meeting (likely due to hardeconomic times for many people as well as the northern location). There has been a concertedeffort to have members who do not attend the annual meeting stay current with their duespayment. New members to the Executive Committee were Toni DiTommaso as Vice President,John O’Barr as Sustaining Membership, Darren Lycan as Editor, and Randy Prostak as CASTRepresentative. Work began soon after the meeting for the Executive Committee to plan anotherconference, schedule the Collegiate Weed Contest and continue moving the society forward.Continuing in the cost-savings mode, we did not mail out the 2010 Annual Meeting program butposted it on the web site along with the meeting at a glance schedule. This was similar to the2009 meeting and seemed to work well. Registration was available through the society websitevia ACTEVA, which charged a fee but allowed us to track the registration; there was also anoption to mail in the registration without a fee. Title and abstracts were hosted on the WSSAweb site for the second year. The downloading of information seemed to proceed more smoothlythan in 2009, its first year of use.As stated in our Manual of Operating Procedures (MOPs), Executive Committee board meetingswere scheduled, agendas circulated and hotel arrangements made. Committee Lists wereupdated, reviewed, approved and posted on the website. Proceedings are also posted on the website one year after printing. Changes and modifications were submitted to the MOPs as needed.An invitation was again offered to the Northeastern American Society of Horticultural Science tohold our meetings jointly in January 2011 and they accepted. In 2011, we are physically holdingour poster session jointly and will be having two workshops that were developed by bothsocieties. NE-ASHS rescheduled their meeting days to more closely correspond with ourmeeting dates; in this way, their members could participate in both the symposium and jointworkshops. We scheduled the Society Social for Tuesday night so NE-ASHS members couldparticipate; both organizations are invited to the dessert social on Wednesday evening. In aneffort to keep the Society solvent and perhaps gain some ground fiscally, we opted to not hold119

the Awards Luncheon and will present Society Awards during the General Session and BusinessMeeting.The NEWSS EC and two representatives from NE-ASHS met to review the hotel space inOctober 2010 and final arrangements were made for the social, coffee breaks, and audio-visualset ups with the Renaissance Hotel staff. We were just able to make our minimum number ofroom nights as of the hotel room cut-off date. As of this writing, we have exceeded our roomnight minimum by approximately 30 nights. Renee Keese successfully solicited sustainingmembers for a contribution for the dessert and nightcap social, which will be held on Wednesdaynight. This open event continues to be very popular with the membership (taking the place ofindividual hospitality suites).No Resolutions were brought forward by the Resolutions Committee in 2010. We have anexcellent Vice-President candidate for 2011, Dwight Lingenfelter, who has previously served asPublic Relations Representative on our executive committee and has been very active as a WeedContest Coach for many years. My sincere thanks to the entire NEWSS Executive Committee;you are a dedicated and hard-working group of volunteers.PRESIDENT-ELECT REPORT –Mark VanGesselThe theme of the annual meeting is “Impact of Regulation on Agriculture”. Speakers and titleswere finalized for the general session and symposium. The topic of the symposium wasdeveloped by Toni DiTommaso, who was instrumental in organizing the symposium. Thegeneral session includes a Welcome Address from Nicole Sherry, head groundskeeper for theBaltimore Orioles at Camden Yard. NEWSS President Hilary Sandler will deliver her address,“The Benefits of Membership”. David Yarborough will deliver NEWSS awards includingAward of Merit to E. Scott Hagood, Fellow Award to Robin Bellinder, and OutstandingResearcher Award to Robert Richardson. The symposium speakers are Edwin Kee, Secretary ofAgriculture for Delaware and the title of his presentation is “Barriers and Progress: AgricultureSince 1970”. Mark Dubin from University of Maryland Extension who works extensively withwater quality issues will discuss “The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Executive Order: What itMay Mean for Agriculture”. Ed Gertler from Maryland’s Department of the Environment willdiscuss the “Status of Maryland Pesticide Discharge Permit Program”. The final speaker isCarlton Layne, executive director of Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation will discuss“NPDES: A View from the Boat”.Two workshops have been organized. The first one was organized by Northeast Branch ofAmerican Society of Horticultural Sciences and deals with on-farm research and demonstration.Titles and speakers are “Organizing On-Farm Demonstration Days” with Dave Wilson, King’sSeeds; Dan Ward from Rutgers University will speak on “Statistical and Experimental DesignConsiderations for Conducting On-Farm Research”; Jack Gurley from Calvert’s Gift Farm willdiscuss “Working with Farmers: a Farmer Perspective”; Ron Hoover from Penn State willdiscuss “Issues to Consider When Planning Successful On-Farm Research”. The secondsymposium will discuss the next generation of herbicide-resistant crops. Presentations will bemade by representatives from Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Pioneer/DuPont, DowAgroSciences, and Monsanto. The final speaker will be Bill Curran from Penn State to give hisperspective on these HR-crops from a state extension weed specialist perspective.120

In addition to the invited speakers we have 88 submitted titles, down slightly from previous fewyears. The Weed Biology and Ecology section has fewer titles than normal. There are fourteenstudent papers, 16 posters (includes 6 student posters), 11 Agronomy, 9 Ornamental, 10 Turf, 6Weed Ecology/Biology, 10 Fruit and Vegetable, and 12 Vegetation Management andRestoration. Sections chairs assisted with arranging order of titles.We used a computer program designed by the WSSA for title and abstract submission. This wasthe second year we used online submission. It allows for more participation of the section chairsin coordinating the meeting.After a lengthy search, the 2012 NEWSS Meeting will be held at the Sheraton on Society Hill inPhiladelphia, although no formal contract has been signed. The other two final hotels forconsideration were the Marriott in Lancaster, PA and the Loews in Annapolis, MD.VICE-PRESIDENT REPORT – Toni DiTommasoThis past year most of my efforts focused on developing the theme for the NEWSS 2011 AnnualMeeting General Symposium in Baltimore, MD. There was strong collaboration in developingthe theme with President-Elect Mark VanGessel. This year’s symposium theme was: Impact ofEnvironmental Regulations on Agriculture and we invited a number of excellent speakersincluding Edwin Kee, Secretary of Agriculture for Delaware who gave the keynote addresstitled: “Barriers and Progress: Agriculture since 1970”. The other speakers included NicoleSherry, Head Groundskeeper, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Mark Dubin, University ofMaryland Extension and USDA-NIFA Mid-Atlantic Water Program, Ed Gertler, WaterManagement Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, and Carlton Layne,Executive Director of the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation.In other matters, this was the first year that the Vice-President was charged with taking theminutes at NEWSS Executive Committee (EC) meetings. Similarly, the President-Elect wasresponsible for developing and coordinating the 2011 NEWSS annual meeting program. Thisreorganization of tasks appeared to work well as it afforded the Vice-President an opportunity tomake use of the first year on the Executive Committee to become familiar with the way in whichthe EC functions as well as current issues being discussed.PAST PRESIDENT’S REPORT – David E. YarboroughDocuments for 2009 were compiled and brought to the annual meeting to be submitted to DanKunkel for storage in the IR-4 Project Headquarters archive room.The Awards Committee this year consisted of David Yarborough as Chair, Jerry Baron, ReneeKeese, Bill Curran, and Tim Dutt. Nominations were received for awards included: Presidentrecognition - Hilary Sandler, Award of Merit - Dr. Scott Hagood, Fellow (Previously wasDistinguished Member Award) – Dr. Robin Bellinder, Outstanding Educator Award – none,Outstanding Researcher Award - Dr. Robert J. Richardson, Robert D. Sweet OutstandingGraduate Student Award - Kristine M. Averill (masters level), Service Recognition Award (2) -Greg Breeden and Robert Dickerson. Plaques were ordered for all the award winners and will bepresented at the annual meeting general session and business meeting.The Awards Program was prepared by David Yarborough with edits from the committee andprinted through IR-4.121

The Past President’s breakfast was scheduled for Wednesday morning January 5, 2011.The Manual of Operating Procedures was updated and 60 new copies printed for the AnnualBusiness Meeting and new Executive Committee members. There was a change with theDistinguished Member Award to Fellow to be consistent with the national recognition. Changeswere made to the appendix to reflect the -10 points if the student paper were not on time andposter size was set to 3 x 4 feet and the criteria points were changed to give more weight to thestudy vs. presentation.SECRETARY-TREASURER REPORT – Melissa BravoBanking information: Signatories on the bank accounts are primary -Melissa Bravo; secondary-Hilary Sandler, and tertiary-Mark VanGessel. Due to increasing bank security precautions it willbe necessary for outgoing EC board members to update the signatory cards immediately after theannual business meeting. The NEWSS also has a limited daily total transaction use ($1,000.00)mac card issued to the primary holder of the account. Please note that this bank charges a $15.00foreign (Canadian and Euro) check processing fee unless the check is drawn on a United StatesBank or received as a money order in American dollars.Insurance: The Society holds a Dishonesty Bond Insurance Policy with Fingar Insurance ofNew York for the E.C Board. This policy is current and remains in effect through February 16,2011. The policy will be renewed with Fingar Insurance. The Society held a Liability Insurancepolicy with Western Mutual that expired in August of 2009. This policy was not renewedbecause Western Mutual does not have bonded agents in Pennsylvania and the Business addressfor the Society is now in Pennsylvania. At this time the Society does not hold a Liability Policy.Instead, single event (Weed Contest, NIVM short course) liability policies were purchased whenrequested by the Event Facility. Therefore, any event that requires NEWSS be bonded forliability must be sent to the Secretary 6 months prior to the event in order to acquire a LiabilityPolicy (e.g. as done for NIVM in 2008 and 2009) and that liability fee then added onto the eventbudget accordingly.Standing Orders: Current year and archived Proceedings continue to be received by Irene T.Bradley and shipped from Cornell University. Past proceedings are also scanned and archived onthe web.Web site: Updates and maintenance continues to be provided by Rob Dickerson at Penn StateUniversity. Melissa and Barb Scott worked with Rob to post the updated EC Contacts, annualmeeting registration links and other society information.Weed Contest: Contest expenditures were approved by the EC board and paid to CornellUniversity for hosting the contest. Monies received by NEWSS for the Contest in 2010 were$4K from Sustaining members and $3,930.15 from contestant participation fees. CornellUniversity absorbed additional costs above this amount.Annual meeting: Registration fees and forms were approved by the EC and posted to thewebsite in November. We are using ACTEVA again, an event company that the Society hascontracted with, to allow for credit card purchases of event registration. As this is the secondyear of this on-line option, we would appreciate any feedback you may have. Other than delaysin receiving disbursement of funds (every payment has been late) the process has been an122

uneventful one and the support staff does respond promptly to assist with any queries. The onlineregistration database provided by ACTEVA and additional registrations received by mail and atthe annual meeting are used to generate the membership directory.Membership update: As of November, 2010, there are 237 members in the Updated Directory(2006-2010 Meeting Attendees). This includes 91 additional contacts in the NEWSS Listservewho are inactive members. In all, 99 inactive members were removed from the Directory andListserve during this update process which had not been done since at least 2007. Beginning inJanuary, members who have not been active in the society in the past 3 years will be removedfrom the printed directory if not registered at the 2011 meeting or if they have not paid dues($50.00) for the 2011 fiscal year.51% of our members attended the annual meeting in 2010. * Indicates number is notincluded in annual meeting attendance percentage.o 2010 Meeting Proceedings Sales (57); Proceedings and CD Sales (30); Standing OrdersSales (50)o 2009 Meeting Proceedings Sales (85); Proceedings and CD Sales (43); Standing Orders(50)Hotel Tax Exempt Form: Thanks to the resourcefulness of Dan Kunkel, Andrew Senesac andothers we were finally approved for Maryland Tax Exempt status after 3 previous rejections dueto outdated by-laws and changes Maryland wanted to see regarding official incorporation papersand dissolution of funds.PUBLIC RELATIONS REPORT – Barbara Scott Compiled, edited and distributed three NEWSS Newsletters via email and web. Created a NEWSS News supplement to August newsletter dedicated solely to the 2010collegiate weed science competition. Submitted two NEWSS News articles to the WSSA Newsletter (April and October). Photographed NEWSS major events for inclusion in newsletters, website, and othermedia. Distributed NEWSS notifications, announcements throughout the year via list serve. Updated forms/information/website content and provided to Rob Dickerson for theNEWSS website. Verified authenticity of NEWSS.org site links on the extension and weed id pages,123

evised as needed.Created a poster of the NEWSS collegiate weed science competition for display at theannual meeting.Created and assembled new annual meeting session identification signs.Assisted the President-elect with editing of 2011 Annual Meeting Program.Assisted Secretary-Treasury with periodic update of NEWSS listserve.Assisted Poster Contest Committee with revision of grading sheet.EDITOR’S REPORT – Darren LycanAbstracts and titles were again submitted via the WSSA submission website for our 2011 annualmeeting. As Program Chair, Mark VanGessel structured and formatted the Program booklet andI, as Editor, structured and formatted the Proceedings. There were 16 abstracts submitted forposters and 76 abstracts submitted for oral presentations. Program and Proceeding files were sentto Omnipress by December 17, 2010 and edits to the proofs were returned on December 20,2010.We ordered 230 Programs and 175 Proceedings (50 of which were for Standing Orders).Omnipress charged a total of $3930 for Programs and Proceedings. In addition, 50 CDscontaining Adobe PDF versions of our Proceedings were created. The cover for both theProgram and the Proceedings featured the winning photo of the 2010 NEWSS Photo Contest:wild carrot (Daucus carota) taken by Randy Prostak of the University of Massachusetts. Thisyear the herbicide reference lists were omitted from the Proceedings as it was agreed by theExecutive Committee that this material can be found elsewhere (WSSA, on-line, etc.) and thereduction in pages could lead to reduced costs of production. Special thanks go to David Kruegerfrom AgRenaissance Software, LLC for technical support for the website; Greg Armel for hisassistance at the beginning of the year as he and I transitioned the role of Editor; and SyngentaLawn & Garden for providing materials for the CD format (CDs, labels, and sleeves) at no costto the Society.RESEARCH & EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Rakesh S. ChandranRecertification credits provided at the NEWSS annual meetings at Cambridge Marriott, Boston,Jan 4-7, 2010, is summarized below. A total of 121 individuals secured state credits, and 15individuals secured CCA-CEU credits during the various sessions.Necessary steps were taken to provide credits at the upcoming annual meeting in Baltimore,January 2011. All states have approved credits for the program. Certain states including NewJersey, Rhode Island, and New York did not issue credits for the symposium and Workshop I(On Farm Research). CCA-CEU credits were approved for all sessions.124

125

WSSA REPRESENTATIVE - Jacob BarneyNEWSS is in negotiation for a joint meeting with WSSA for 2013. A proposal willbe submitted to WSSA, which will vote on it in February at the annual meeting.The next WSSA meeting will be held in Portland, OR February 7-10, 2011 at theHilton Portland & Executive Tower and features:- A Practitioners Forum will be held on Feb 10 to bring academic weed science to weedManagers- Six organized symposia- The U.S. Witchweed Eradication Effort Turns 50: A Retrospective and Look-Ahead onParasitic Weed Management- The Science of Herbicide Discovery- Significance and Use of Sulfonylurea Herbicides in Turfgrass and LandscapeEnvironments- Non-Chemical Tactics in Herbicide Resistance Management: Current Needs and FutureProspects- Navigating the Universe of Grants, Contracts, and Gifts in the 21st Century- Advances in Dose-Response Methodology Applied to the Science of Weed ControlFuture WSSA Meeting Sites:‣ 2011 Feb 7-10 Portland, Oregon‣ 2012 Feb 6-9 Big Island, Hawai’i‣ 2013 Feb 4-7 Baltimore, Maryland (possible joint meeting with NEWSS)WSSA has become a sponsor of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Website(http://pesticidestewardship.org).GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE – Angela PostThis was a successful year for graduate students in Northeastern Weed Science Society.We had over 100 students from ten schools in three regions participate in the 2010 CollegiateWeed Science Competition. The event was graciously held at Cornell University in Ithaca, NYthis year on July 27th. It was great practice for the National Weed Science Competition slated for2011 in Knoxville, TN.At the 2011 meeting in Baltimore, there will be 14 student presentations in the oral competition,up from nine in 2010, and five posters, equal to 2010. Again this year we opted to have adeadline for student presentation upload. All student presentations are to be submitted byMonday evening before the student mixer or lose 10 points on the total score. The student mixerwill be held jointly with NE-ASHS students, and we hope for some good networking. Industryrepresentatives and professors seeking graduate students for the upcoming year have beenencouraged to attend to make announcements and meet with students.I will rotate off the board (early) this year to make way for our new graduate studentrepresentative, Adam Smith, a PhD student at Virginia Tech. He will be serving you for the nexttwo years. Please feel free to contact him with student related concerns: email:urzsmith@vt.edu, office phone: 540-231-5835, Please leave messages with Julie Keating.126

SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP – John O’BarrA request for Sustaining Membership was sent to all current sustaining members and prospectivenew members in fall 2010. We have received commitments from 21 organizations for 2011. Wewere able to recruit 5 new members in 2011 substantially increasing revenues for the society in2011 vs. 2010.The 2011 Sustaining Membership breakdown is as follows: 3-Platinum, 8-Gold, 4-Silver, and 6-Bronze confirmed for a total commitment of $16,500 which is $3,000 more than in2010. Therefore, overall support has increased.2011 Sustaining Members will be recognized at the 2011 annual meeting and at the 2011collegiate weed contest. No organization requested a commercial display table for the 2011annual meeting in Baltimore.I would like to personally thank each Sustaining member for their generous support of theSociety.CAST REPORT - Randy Prostak2010 Overview. 2010 was a very exciting year for the Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology. Throughout the year the organization continues to implement changes in the wayCAST operates. This year a Board of Trustees (see list of members below) was established thatis intended to do the work that was previous done by previous CAST committees. CAST127

continues to thrive despite financial challenges. The CAST bylaws were updated this year toreflect the new organization structure and operational changes.Publications. 2010 was an active year for the completion of CAST publication (new publicationsince July 2009 and forthcoming publications are listed below)Special PublicationSustainability of U.S. Soybean ProductionIssue PapersEthical Implications of Animal Biotechnology: Considerations for Animal WelfareDecision Making Part 9, "Animal Agriculture’s Future through Biotechnology.Agricultural Productivity Strategies for the Future: Addressing U.S. and GlobalChallenges.Water, People, and the Future: Water Availability for Agriculture in the United States(video post on CAST website, You Tube and SchoolTube).Animal Productivity and Genetic Diversity Part 8, "Animal Agriculture’s Future throughBiotechnology”.CAST CommentaryConvergence of Agriculture and Energy: IV. Infrastructure Considerations forBiomass Harvest, Transportation, and Storage.The Endangered Species Act: Interfacing with Agricultural and Natural EcosystemsFood Safety and Fresh Produce: An Update (include videos on CAST website)Forthcoming PublicationsAir Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North American Perspective(Issue Paper)Agricultural Research for the American Public (Commentary)Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture: Effects on Food Production, Animal andHuman Health, and Public Policy (Commentary, Video & Social Media, Task Force Report)Assessing the Health of Streams in Agricultural Landscapes: How Land ManagementChanges Impact Water Quality (Special Publication)Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in US Agriculture: Challenges andOpportunities for Mitigation (Task Force Report)Convergence of Conservation Tillage and Weed Resistance (Issue Paper)Energy Flow in Agricultural Systems: Corn and Soybean Production (Issue Paper)128

Food, Fuel, and Plant Nutrient Use in the Future (Issue Paper)The Science and Regulation of Food from Genetically Engineered Animals (CASTCommentary)Water and Land Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North AmericanPerspective (Issue Paper)2010 Board Meeting. The CAST Fall 2010 Board Meeting was held in Sacramento, CA onOctober 5-8, 2010. Randy Prostak, the NEWSS representative will serve from Oct 8, 2010 toFall 2011 Board meeting as Vice Chair and from Fall 2011 CAST Board meeting to 2012 FallCAST Board meeting as Chair of Plant Agriculture and Environmental Issues Working Group.CAST Board of TrusteesMax Armstrong, Director of Broadcasting, Farm Progress CompaniesJames C. Borel, Executive Vice President, DuPontClaude E. Brown, President and Founder, Ag Industrial Manufacturing, Inc.Gale Buchanan, (Chair), Former Dean and Director of the University of GeorgiaCollege of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences & Former USDA ChiefScientist and Under Secretary for Research, Education, and EconomicsGregory J. Coleman, (Secretary) V.P., Grower Relations, E. & J. Gallo WineryChuck Conner, President and CEO, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,Former Acting Secretary of AgricultureMark A. Hussey, (Vice Chair) Vice Chancellor and Dean for Agriculture and LifeSciences, Texas A&M University, College StationStanley Johnson, Chair of the Board of the National Center for Food andAgricultural Policy and Assistant to the Dean for Special Projects, College ofAgriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada, RenoCollin Kaltenbach, Vice Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,University of ArizonaBob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau FederationWendy Wintersteen, Dean, College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames,IACAST Member Scientific Societies, Companies and OrganizationsAmerican Academy of Veterinary & Comp. ToxicologyAmerican Academy of Veterinary & Comparative Toxicology and American Boardof Veterinary ToxicologyAmerican Association of Avian PathologistsAmerican Association of Bovine PractitionersAmerican Association of Pesticide Safety EducatorsAmerican Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources– Agricultural ManagementAmerican Board of Veterinary ToxicologyAmerican Dairy Science AssociationAmerican Farm Bureau FederationAmerican Forage and Grassland CouncilAmerican Forage and Grassland Council129

American Meat Science AssociationAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Meteorological Society, Committee on Agricultural and Forest MeteorologyAmerican Society for NutritionAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological EngineersAmerican Society of AgronomyAmerican Society of Animal ScienceAmerican Society of Plant BiologistsAmerican Veterinary Medical AssociationAquatic Plant Management SocietyCouncil of Entomology Department AdministratorsCropLife AmericaElanco Animal HealthLand O'LakesNational Cattlemen's Beef AssociationNorth Central Weed Science SocietyNortheastern Weed Science SocietyNovus International, Inc.Poultry Science AssociationSociety for In Vitro BiologySociety of NematologistsSyngenta Crop Protection, Inc.United Soybean BoardWeed Science Society of AmericaWestern Society of Weed ScienceLEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT - Lee Van WychenThe core activities of the DSP are:- To monitor and report on activities in Washington, DC which are relevant to the societies.- To make the expertise of the societies known and readily available to the Congress, Federaldepartments, and agencies.- To comment on specific science issues that are of concern to the societies or where the societieshave specific competencies.- To pursue specific interests of the societies as a group, or as individual societies, when there isa compelling need.- To provide leadership in drafting analytical statements and position papers- To attend national and regional weed science annual meetings as requested by thePresident of each society- To participate in the planning of National Invasive Species Awareness Week (NISAW)1. USDA-NIFA funding for Weed Science. The restructuring of USDA’s research areas afterthe 2008 Farm Bill will have many long term impacts. I have devoted much of my time to ensurethat USDA’s programs (research, extension, regulatory, natural resources and environment) willsupport weed science priorities and have worked with other coalitions to make sure thatCongress provides the funding for this to happen. After we learned that the new NationalInstitute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA – pronounced NIFF-uh) did not include a FoundationalGrant Program for weed research in their first release of their grant program last spring, it130

ecame my top policy priority to change this. I had several meetings with Dr. Roger Beachy,NIFA’s first Director, and got him to attend the WSSA annual meeting in Denver. While there,he met with the WSSA executive committee where they expressed their concerns for the futurefunding of weed science research, including maintaining formula funding. I worked with theWSSA Research and Competitive Grants committee to develop our disciplines research prioritiesfor multiple NIFA stakeholder meetings and have submitted a letter to Dr. Beachy on behalf theNational and Regional Weed Science Societies discussing the need for funding weed scienceresearch in NIFA. I am happy to report that NIFA has included a separate Foundational Grantprogram for “Weeds and Invasive Plants” in FY 2011 and that it will likely receive around $5million, which is more funding that it ever had as the old NRI grants program.2. APHIS and EPA funding for glyphosate resistance publications. I secured $93,000 fromAPHIS and EPA for weed scientists to write two “state of the science” review papers. The first ison the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and weed shifts that are linked to theintroduction of GE herbicide-tolerant corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, alfalfa and switchgrass.The second is on herbicide resistance management strategies. The goal is to publish both reviewpapers via “open access” in Weed Science in the coming year.3. Common sense resistance management regulations. EPA has decided, at the Director of theOffice of Pesticide Programs (OPP) level that the Agency will become more greatly involved inresistance management especially for glyphosate. The goal is to have mode of action labeling onall herbicide labels. Herbicide resistance management will likely be my highest priority issue inthe coming year. I am working closely with the WSSA special committee on HerbicideResistance Education to move forward on several big events in Washington DC this year thatwill highlight the work of this committee and the National and Regional Weed Science Societies.4. NPDES Permits. I have helped organize two NPDES fact finding trips, one to Florida in May,2009 and a 2nd to New Mexico in August, 2010 for key personnel in the EPA Office of Waterand Office of Pesticide Programs who are in charge of writing the NPDES permit language. TheOffice of Water and EPA have made great use of these trips to shape their approach toagriculture. The Office of Water Permitting Branch had no experience with any type ofagriculture previous to my involvement and no academic partner that could stand as anindependent resource for information. While EPA has been mandated to establish NPDESpermits by the courts, we have had a huge impact in educating the Agency and shaping theirNPDES permit language. I submitted comments on behalf of the six National and RegionalWeed Science Societies regarding the EPA’s draft NPDES permit language in July. I amcurrently working with other coalitions to get a Congressional “fix” passed that would exemptFIFRA applied pesticides from Clean Water Act requirements. I will be circulating a supportletter directed at members of Congress in this regard that I’d like each weed science society tosign in the near future.5. Spray Drift. I submitted comments on behalf of the WSSA, the American PhytopathologicalSociety and the Entomology Society of America Plant-Insect Section in March regarding EPA’sproposed new regulations for pesticide drift labeling and drift labeling interpretation. Togetherthese three societies represent a healthy fraction of all agricultural research and extension effortson pest management. EPA has received over 35,000 comments on their proposed pesticide driftlabel changes and will be moving forward with their modified language in the next six months. Itis my understanding that they have addressed some of our concerns, but will be monitoring this131

closely. I also helped organize a symposium on improvements in spray drift reductiontechnologies at both EPA and American Farm Bureau with the assistance of our WSSA SubjectMatter Expert (SME), Jill Schroeder.6. Weed Science Public Relations. Prior to the formation of the Director of Science Policyposition, the National and Regional Weed Science Societies had minimal, if any, outreach to thepublic and policy makers. I strongly advocated for the formation of the WSSA Public Relationscommittee and Janis McFarland has performed admirably as the committee chair over the past 4years. We meet via conference call every other Thursday and welcome all input andparticipation. We have prepared and distributed over 30 press releases through PRWeb and 80 daily newspapers in key markets that include trade publications, smaller daily andweekly newspapers, broadcast news outlets and online publications. We have also drafted anddesigned a new Weed Science Careers Brochure and established a Twitter account. Our pressreleases have reached publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times andhave helped influence public policy makers (e.g. Secretary Vilsack on funding weed scienceresearch).7. National Invasive Species Awareness Week (NISAW). February 28 – March 4, 2010. I haveworked to make this an all taxa awareness event to achieve greater impact. It was a big step tohave the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) step up to coordinate the week of activitiesthis year, which includes education and awareness events during each day by different NGO andfederal invasive species stakeholders. See: http://www.nisaw.org/schedule.pdf.End.132

4:50pm Start meetingNEWSS 65 th Annual ConferenceBusiness MeetingJanuary 5, 2011(Recorded and edited by I.A. Bowers and M.A. Bravo)President (H. Sandler)First order of business: accept minutes from last meeting. Dave Vitolo makes a motion from thefloor. No discussion. Many “ayes”. Motion passed.Award Ceremony continued (D. Yarborough)- Robert D. Sweet Outstanding Graduate Student Award: Kristine Averill acceptancespeech.- Service Recognition Award Greg Breeden U. Tenn. Greg Armel accepts in his stead.- Robert Dickerson Penn State. Dwight accepts award in his stead.- Recap the awards given out during General Sessiono Fellow Award – Robin Bellindero Outstanding Researcher – Robert Richardsono Award of Merit – Scott HagoodNecrology Report (R. Prostak for M. Bravo)- Went over recently deceased members (Richard Ilnickey, Les Mehrhoff)- Any additional from the floor -no response- Moment of silence in recognition of the passing of members.- Eulogies from the floor (Dave)5:00 Year End Reports: Executive CommitteePresident (H. Sandler)- Recognizing people who contributed to meeting- Sustaining members- Maryland tax exemption – big deal, saves many dollars- Met contractual agreement 188 attendees (break down of numbers) successful- Feedback about joint meeting with horticulture- “Thanks” all aroundSecretary/Treasurer (M. Bravo)- Went over handout on financial update- Check directory to make corrections for listserv- Discussed proceedings- Questions? None.- Treasury report handout. We are in good shape! Thank you to all members and especiallythe Sustaining members for supporting the Society in 2011.Audit Committee (Jim Steffel, Todd Mervosh, Art Gover):o Jim Steffel met with Secretary Treasurer in October to review accounts.133

o Jim Steffel, Todd Mervosh and Art Gover met again with Treasurer at thismeeting for final audit. Everything checked out good: Thanks MelissaArchive report (Jerry Baron in Dan. Kunkel’s stead)- Everything is good, documents are safe.Director of Science Policy Report (L. Van Wychen)- Thank you’s- Comments about activities on the Hill….- USDA Funding:o Continuing resolution. Everything is flat lined from last year’s levels. Losingsome funding for a couple of areas. AFRI – didn’t get as much money as theyhoped. Hopefully it gets put back. Won’t know until probably March. Hugeincrease in HATCH ACT-not as good as it looks.o Herbicide Resistance: huge issue. “Superweed” hearings by house committee.End result trying to limit interstate movement of noxious weeds. Trying to stopthese weed resistant weeds. Pretty much impossible.o NPDS issue: WSSA has always supported. Need clean water act permit. Startedfrom people being dumb and not following the LABEL!Awards Committee Reports (D. Yarborough)Weed Contest: Tony Summarized 2010 Weed Contest hosted by Cornell. Huge success. Wentover winners (also in handout).Student Awards (D. Yarborough)- Best Paper presentation. CommentsStudents in general were speaking too fast &misspellings:o 2 nd : “Controlling Annual Bluegrass and Roughstalk Bluegrass in Cool SeasonLawns with Methiozolin.” Brendan McNulty and Sean Askew, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, Virginia.o 1 st : “The Effect of Rye Roll-Killed Mulch on N-Immobilization.” M. Scott Wells,C. Reberg-Horton, and A. Smith, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NorthCarolina.- Poster Awards. Comments good looking posters do not always mean good content orgood presentation.o 3 rd : “Influence of Nitrogen Plant Growth Regulators and Ferrous Sulfate onAnnual Bluegrass Populations.” Kyung M. Han and J.E. Kaminski, Penn StateUniversity, University Park, Pennsylvania.o 2 nd : “Improving Survey Methods for the Detection of Giant Hogweed inPennsylvania. Ian D. Bowers, Melissa Bravo and Jim Zoschg. Penn StateUniversity, University Park, Pennsylvania.o 1 st: “Length of Residual Annual Bluegrass Control of Mesotrione Relative toOther Preemergence Weed Control Products.” Katelyn Venner, Steve Hart andCarrie Mansue. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.134

Photo Awards (Greg Armel)- Comments Fun committee. 20 photos, 7 photographers:o Honorable Mention - Jim O’Connell, and Aaron Patton Purdue Univ.o 3 rd : Aaron Patton, Purdue. - “Spring Beauty” – Claytonia virginicao 2 nd : Cory Johnson – PA Dept. Agric. – “Mile a Minute” Polygonum perfoliatumo 1 st : Jennifer D’Appollonio – Univ. of Maine. “Common Yarrow” AchilleamillefoliumNew President Announcement (H. Sandler)Transfer of Gavel. H. Sandler to Mark VanGesselNew Business (Mark VanGessel)Any Resolutions from the floor? None.Nominating Committee: Dwight Lingenfelter for Vice President. Accepted.Committee Appointments:- New nominating committee: Dan Kunkel. Christine Averill, Quintin Johnson (D.Yarbarough, R. Keese)- New Resolutions committee: Kathleen Hester, John Johnson (Todd Mervosh).- Standing committees. See attached list.2011 WeedOlympics (Greg Armel)- July 25-27, 2011 at the University of Tenn. – East Tenn. Research and Education Center,Knoxville.- Lodging. Everyone at the Knoxville Airport Hilton- Transportation provided to and from the Hotel to the Event.- Teams from all regions. Cross university teams encouraged- Contact info: www.weedolympics2011.org- President’s comments about WeedOlympics and final announcements.Next meeting (Mark VanGessel)- -Jan 3-6, 2012 Philadelphia, Society Hill Sheraton. Next year’s meeting starts on Tuesdaybecause Monday is a holiday for state and federal workers. Meeting ends on Friday.- -2013 NEWSS Meeting. February 4-7, 2013 Baltimore Hilton meeting jointly with WSSA.Introduce 2012 Executive Committee (Mark VanGessel, President)-Mark VanGessel (Pres.), Antonio DiTomasso (Pres.-Elect), Dwight Lingenfelter (VicePresident), Melissa Bravo (Sec.-Treas.), Hilary Sandler (Past-Pres.), Darren Lycan(Editor), Barbara Scott (Public Relations), John Willis (Research/Education Coord.),John O’Barr (Sustaining Membership), Randy Prostak (CAST), Adam Smith(Grad.Student), Jacob Barney (Virginia Tech).END TIME: 5:53 p.m. Motion to adjourn: Dave Vitolo motion, Dave Yarborough seconded.Respectfully Submitted,Melissa A. Bravo,Secretary, NEWSS (2008-2012)135

NEWSS PAST PRESIDENTSGilbert H. Ahlgren 1947-49Robert D. Sweet 1949-50Howard L. Yowell 1950-51Stephen M. Raleigh 1951-52Charles E. Minarik 1952-53Robert H. Beatty 1953-54Albin O. Kuhn 1954-55John Van Geluwe 1955-56L. Danielson 1956-57Charles L. Hovey 1957-58Stanford N. Fertig 1958-59Gordon Utter 1959-60E. M. Rahn 1960-61Lawrence Southwick 1961-62Donald A. Shallock 1962-63Anthony J. Tafuro 1963-64Robert A. Peters 1964-65Gideon D. Hill 1965-66Richard D. Ilnicki 1966-67John E. Gallagher 1967-68John A. Meade 1968-69Homer M. Lebaron 1969-70John F. Ahrens 1970-71George H. Bayer 1971-72Arthur Bing 1972-73Ralph Hansen 1973-74Walter A. Gentner 1974-75Henry P. Wilson 1975-76Richard J. Marrese 1976-77C. Edward Beste 1977-78James D. Riggleman 1978-79James V. Parochetti 1979-80M. Garry Schnappinger 1980-81Raymond B. Taylorson 1981-82Stephan Dennis 1982-83Thomas L. Watschke 1983-84James C. Graham 1984-85Russell R. Hahn 1985-86Edward R. Higgins 1986-87Maxwell L. McCormack 1987-88Roy R. Johnson 1988-89Stanley F. Gorski 1989-90John B. Dobson 1990-91Prasanta C. Bhowmik 1991-92Stanley W. Pruss 1992-93Ronald L. Ritter 1993-94Wayne G. Wright 1994-95Bradley A. Majek 1995-96Thomas E. Vrabel 1996-97Joseph C. Neal 1997-98136David B. Vitolo 1998-99A. Richard Bonanno 1999-00Brian D. Olson 2000-01Jeffrey F. Derr 2001-02David J. Mayonado 2002-03D. Scott Glenn 2003-04Robin R. Bellinder 2004-05Timothy E. Dutt 2005-06William S. Curran 2006-07Renee Keese 2007-08Jerry Baron 2008-09David Yarborough 2009-10Hilary Sandler 2010-11

AWARD OF MERIT1971 Gilbert H. Ahlgren Rutgers UniversityHomer NevilleL.I. Ag. & Tech, Farmingdale, NYClaude E. PhillipsUniversity of DelawareM. S. Pridham Cornell UniversityStephen A. RaleighPenn State University1972 Robert Bell University of Rhode IslandStuart DunnUniversity of New HampshireAlfred FletcherNJ State Dept. of HealthFrank N. HewetsonPenn Fruit Res. Lab.Madelene E. PierceVassar CollegeCollins VeatchWest Virginia UniversityHoward L. YowellEsso Research Lab.1973 Moody F. Trevett University of Maine1974 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc.Arthur HawkinsUniversity of Connecticut1975 Philip Gorlin NY City Environ. Cont.Herb PassCIBA-GEIGY Corp.Robert D. SweetCornell University1976 C. E. Langer University of New HampshireCharles E. MinarikUS Dept. of Agriculture-ARSHerb PassCIBA-GEIGY Corp.1977 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARSMadelene E. PierceVassar CollegeLawrence SouthwickDow Chemical CompanyJohn StennisUS Bureau of Fish & Wildlife1978 None Awarded1979 Carl M. Monroe Shell Chemical CompanyCharles Joseph NollPenn State UniversityJonas VengrisUniversity of Massachusetts1980 Otis F. Curtis, Jr. NY Agricultural Experiment Sta.Theodore R. FlanaganUniversity of VermontOscar E. ShubertVirginia University1981 Dayton L. Klingman US Dept. of Agriculture-ARSHugh J. MurphyUniversity of MaineJohn Van GeluweCIBA-GEIGY Corp.1982 Robert D. Shipman Penn State University1983 Arthur Bing Cornell UniversityWilliam E. ChappelVirginia TechBarbara H. EmersonUnion Carbide Agricultural Prod.1984 William H. Mitchell University of DelawareRoger S. YoungWest Virginia University1985 John A. Jagschitz University of Rhode Island1986 John R. Havis University of Massachusetts1987 None Awarded1988 J. Lincoln Pearson University of Rhode Island1989 Robert A. Peter University of Connecticut1990 Bryant L. Walworth American Cyanamid Co.1991 Don Warholic Cornell University1992 Robert Duel Rutgers University137

Richard IlnickiRutgers UniversityWilliam V. WelkerUSDA/ARS1993 None Awarded1994 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta.John B. DobsonAmerican CyanamidJ. Ray Frank USDA-ARS/IR-41995 Francis J. Webb University of Delaware1996 Robert M. Devlin University of MassachusettsWilber F. EvansRhone-Poulenc Ag. Co.Raymond B. TaylorsonUniversity of Rhode IslandS. Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech1997 Jean P. Cartier Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co.1998 Stan Pruss Novartis Crop ProtectionMax McCormack, Jr.University of Maine1999 None awarded2000 Richard J. Marrese Hoechst-NorAm2001 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State UniversityEdward R. HigginsNovartis Crop2002 Garry Schnappinger Syngenta Crop Protection2003 None Awarded2004 C. Edward Beste Univ of Maryland-EmeritusJames C. GrahamMonsanto (retired)2005 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University2006 Steve Dennis Syngenta Crop Protection2007 None awarded2008 Domingo Riego Monsanto2009 None awarded2010 Betty Marose Marose Ag. Consulting2011 Scott Hagood Virginia TechNEWSS FELLOW1979 George H. Bayer Agway, Inc.Robert A. PetersUniversity of ConnecticutRobert D. SweetCornell University1980 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta.John E. GallagherUnion Carbide Agric. Prod.Richard IlnickiRutgers University1981 Robert H. Beatty Amchem Products, Inc.Arthur BingCornell UniversityJohn A. MeadeRutgers University1982 Walter A. Gentner US Dept. of Agriculture-ARSHugh J. MurphyUniversity of Maine1983 L. L. Danielson US Dept. of Agriculture-ARS1984 Barbara H. Emerson Union Carbide Agric. Prod.Henry P. WilsonVirginia Tech1985 None Awarded1986 Chiko Haramaki Penn State UniversityDean L. LinscottUSDA-ARS/Cornell University1987 Gideon D. Hill E. I. DuPont DeNemoursWilliams V. WelkerUS Dept. of Agric-ARS1988 Wendell R. Mullison Dow Chemical138

James V. ParochettiUS Dept. of Agriculture-CSRS1989 None Awarded1990 Robert M. Devlin University of Massachusetts1991 John (Jack) B. Dobson American CyanamidRobert D. ShipmanPenn State University1992 Gary Schnappinger Ciba-Geigy Corp.1993 Steve Dennis Zeneca Ag. ProductsJames GrahamMonsanto Ag. Co.1994 Russell Hahn Cornell UniversityMaxwell McCormickUniversity of Maine1995 Richard Ashly University of ConnecticutRichard MarreseHoechst-NorAm1996 Roy R. Johnson Waldrum Specialist Inc.Edward R. HigginsCiba Crop Protection1997 Raymond B. Taylorson UDSA-ARSWayne G. WrightDowElancoStanley F. GorskiOhio State University1998 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts1999 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland2000 J. Ray Frank IR-4 ProjectStanley W. PrussCiba Crop Protection2001 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland2002 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers UniversityThomas L. WatschkePenn State University2003 Nathan L. Hartwig Penn State University2004 C. Benjamin Coffman USDAJoseph C. NealNorth Carolina State University2005 David Vitolo Syngenta Crop Protection2006 A. Richard Bonnano University of MassachusettsThomas VrabelEco Soil Systems, Central H.S.2007 Larry Kuhns Penn State UniversityBrian OlsenDow Agrosciences2008 Jeff Derr Virginia Tech2009 David Mayonado Monsanto Co.Andrew SenesacCornell University2010 Scott Glenn University of Maryland2011 Robin Bellinder Cornell UniversityOUTSTANDING RESEARCHER AWARD1999 Garry Schnappinger Novartis Crop Protection2000 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts2001 Robin Bellinder Cornell University2002 Jerry J. Baron IR-4 Project, Rutgers University2003 Arthur E. Gover Penn State University2004 Mark J. VanGessel University of Delaware2005 Bradley A. Majek Rutgers University2006 Grant Jordan ACDS Research2007 Peter Dernoeden University of Maryland2008 Shawn Askew Virginia Tech2009 Joseph Neal North Carolina State University2010 Todd Mervosh Connecticut Ag Experiments Station2011 Robert Richardson North Carolina State University139

OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AWARD1999 Douglas Goodale SUNY Cobleskill2000 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University2001 C. Edward Beste University of Maryland2002 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech University2003 Andrew F. Senesac Cornell University2004 William S. Curran Pennsylvania State University2005 Antonio DiTomasso Cornell University2006 Russell Hahn Cornell University2007 Prasanta Bhowmik University of Massachusetts2008 Mike Fidanza Penn State University2009 Scott Glenn University of Maryland2010 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University2011 None awardedSERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD2009 Thomas Hines Virginia Tech2010 Irene Tsontakis-Bradley Cornell University2011 Greg Breeden University of TennesseeRobert DickersonPenn State UniversityOUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER CONTEST1979 1 Bradley Majek Cornell University2 Betty J. Hughes Cornell University1980 1 John Cardi Penn State University2 Timothy Malefyt Cornell University1981 1 A. Douglas Brede Penn State University2 Ann S. McCue Cornell University1982 1 Thomas C. Harris University of Maryland2 Barbara J. Hook University of MarylandHM L. K. Thompson Virginia TechHM Timothy Malefyt Cornell University1983 1 Anna M. Pennucci University of Rhode Island2 Michael A. Ruizzo Ohio State UniversityHM I. M. Detlefson Rutgers University1984 1 Robert S. Peregoy University of Maryland2 Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut1985 1 Stephan Reiners Ohio State University2 Erin Hynes Penn State University140

1986 1 Elizabeth Hirsh University of Maryland2 (tie) Ralph E. DeGregorio University of Connecticut2 (tie) Avraham Y. Teitz Ohio State University1987 1 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University2 (tie) Daniel E. Edwards Penn State University2 (tie) Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts1988 1 William K. Vencill Virginia Tech2 Lewis K. Walker Virginia TechHM Scott Guiser Penn State UniversityHM Frank J. Himmelstein University of Massachusetts1989 1 Frank S. Rossi Cornell University1 Amy E. Stowe Cornell University1990 1 William J. Chism Virginia Tech2 Russell W. Wallace Cornell University1991 1 Elizabeth Maynard Cornell University2 Daniel L. Kunkel Cornell University1992 1 J. DeCastro Rutgers University2 Ted Blomgren Cornell University3 Fred Katz Rutgers University1993 1 Eric D. Wilkens Cornell University2 Henry C. Wetzel University of Maryland1994 1 Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University2 Eric D. Wilkins Cornell University1995 1 Sydha Salihu Virginia Tech2 John A. Ackley Virginia TechHM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University1996 1 Dwight Lingenfelter Penn State University2 Mark Issacs University of DelawareHM Jed B. Colquhoun Cornell University1997 1 David Messersmith Penn State University2 Sowmya Mitra University of MassachusettsHM Mark Issacs University of Delaware1998 1 Dan Poston Virginia Tech2 Travis Frye Penn State University3 David B. Lowe Clemson University1999 1 Hennen Cummings North Carolina State University2 John Isgrigg North Carolina State University2000 1 Matthew Fagerness North Carolina State University2 Steven King Virginia Tech141

3 Gina Penny North Carolina State University2001 1 Robert Nurse University of Guelph2 (tie) W. Andrew Bailey Virginia Tech2 (tie) Steven King Virginia Tech2002 1. G. Michael Elston University of Massachusetts2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University2003 1. Matt Myers Penn State University2. J. Scott McElroy North Carolina State University3. Robert Nurse Cornell University2004 1. Whitnee L. Barker Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ.2. Caren A. Judge North Carolina State University3. Erin R. Haramoto University of Maine2005 1. Jacob Barney Cornell University2. Steven Mirsky Penn State University2006 1. Steven Mirsky Penn State University1. Robert Shortell Rutgers University2. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University2007 1. Bryan Dillehay Penn State University2. John Willis Virginia Poly Inst. & State Univ.3. Glenn Evans Cornell University2008 1. Glenn Evans Cornell University2. Alex Putnam University of Connecticut3. Angela Post North Carolina State University2009 1. Dustin Lewis University of Tennessee2. Kristine Averill Cornell University3. Angela Post North Carolina State University2010 1. Katherine Ghantous University of Massachusetts2. Angela Post Virginia Tech3. Matthew Cutulle Virginia Tech2011 1. Scott Wells North Carolina State2. Brendan McNulty Virginia TechDR. ROBERT D. SWEET OUTSTANDING GRADUATE STUDENT2009 Jacob Barney (PhD) Virginia Tech2010 Matt Ryan (PhD) Penn State UniversityKatherine Ghantous (MS)University of Massachusetts2011 Kristine Averill (MS) Penn State University142

COLLEGIATE WEED CONTEST WINNERS1983 - Wye Research Center, MarylandGraduate Team: University of GuelphUndergraduate Team: Penn State UniversityGraduate Individual: Mike Donnelly, University of GuelphUndergraduate Individual: Bob Annet, University of Guelph1984 - Rutgers Research and Development Center, Bridgeton, New JerseyGraduate Team: University of GuelphUndergraduate Individual: D. Wright, University of GuelphGraduate Individual: N. Harker, University of Guelph1985 – Rohm and Haas, Spring House, PennsylvaniaGraduate Team: University of MarylandUndergraduate Individual: Finlay Buchanan, University of GuelphGraduate Individual: David Vitolo, Rutgers University1986 - FMC, Princeton, New JerseyGraduate Team:Undergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: R. Jain, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Bill Litwin, University of Guelph1987 - DuPont, Newark, DelawareGraduate Team: University of GuelphUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Lewis Walker, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Allen Eadie, University of Guelph1988 - Ciba-Geigy Corp., Hudson, New YorkGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphUndergraduate Individual: Del Voight, Penn State UniversityGraduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech1989 - American Cyanamid, Princeton, New JerseyGraduate Team: Cornell UniversityUndergraduate Team: SUNY CobleskillGraduate Individual: Paul Stachowski, Cornell UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Anita Dielman, University of Guelph1990 - Agway Farm Research Center, Tully, New YorkGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: SUNY CobleskillGraduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State University1991 - Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New JerseyGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Carol Moseley, Virginia Tech143

Undergraduate Individual: Tim Borro, University of Guelph1992 - Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario, CANADAGraduate Team: Michigan State UniversityUndergraduate Team: Ohio StateGraduate Individual: Troy Bauer, Michigan State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Jeff Stackler, Ohio State University1993 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VirginiaGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: SUNY CobleskillGraduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Brian Cook, University of Guelph1994 - Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Salisbury, MarylandGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Brian Manley, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Robert Maloney, University of Guelph1995 - Thompson Vegetable Research Farm, Freeville, New YorkGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Jimmy Summerlin, North Carolina State University1996 - Penn State Agronomy Farm, Rock Springs, PennsylvaniaGraduate Team: Michigan State UniversityUndergraduate Team: SUNY, CobleskillGraduate Individual: John Isgrigg, North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Mark Brock, University of Guelph1997 - North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North CarolinaGraduate Team: Michigan State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Brett Thorpe, Michigan State University1998 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, DelawareGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Kevin Ego, University of Guelph1999 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VirginiaGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: Nova Scotia Agricultural CollegeGraduate Individual: Rob Richardson, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Keith Burnell, North Carolina State University2000 - University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CANADAGraduate Team: Virginia TechUndergraduate Team: Ohio State UniversityGraduate Individual: Shawn Askew, North Carolina State University144

Undergraduate Individual: Luke Case, Ohio State University2001 - University of Connecticut, Storrs, ConnecticutGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: Penn State UniversityGraduate Individual: Matt Myers, Penn State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Shawn Heinbaugh, Penn State University2002 - ACDS Research Facility, North Rose, New YorkGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityGraduate Individual: Scott McElroy, North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Sarah Hans, North Carolina State University2003 – Syngenta Crop Protection, Eastern Region Technical Center, Hudson, NYGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Andrew MacRae, North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Jonathan Kapwyk, University of Guelph2004 – North Carolina University, Raleigh, NCGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Jenny English, University of Guelph2005 – Pennsylvania State University, Landisville, PAGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: John Willis, Virginia TechUndergraduate Individual: Gerard Pynenborg, University of Guelph2006 – DuPont Crop Protection, Stine Haskell Research Center, Newark, DEGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Virender Kumar, Cornell UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Adam Pfeffer, University of Guelph2007 - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VirginiaGraduate Team: North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: George Place, North Carolina State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Craig Reid, University of Guelph2008 - University of Delaware, Georgetown, DelawareGraduate Team: Penn State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Matt Ryan, Penn State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Blair Scott, University of Guelph2009 - ABG Ag Services, Sheridan, Indiana (joint contest with the NCWSS)Graduate Team: Penn State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of Guelph145

Graduate Individual: Angela Post, Cornell UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Andrew Reid, University of Guelph2010- Cornell University, Freeville, New YorkGraduate Team: Michigan State UniversityUndergraduate Team: University of GuelphGraduate Individual: Jason Parish, Ohio State UniversityUndergraduate Individual: Cory Chelko, Penn State University2011-University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (joint contest with NCWSS, SWSS, WSWS)Graduate Team:NEWSS: North Carolina State UniversityOverall: Purdue UniversityUndergraduate Team:NEWSS and Overall: University of GuelphGraduate Individual:NEWSS: Dustin Lewis, North Carolina State UniversityOverall: Jason Parrish, The Ohio State UniversityUndergraduate Individual:NEWSS and Overall: Dan Tekiela, Virginia TechRESEARCH POSTER AWARDS1983 1. Herbicide Impregnated Fertilizer of Weed Control in No-Tillage Corn - R. Uruatowskiand W. H. Mitchell, Univ. of Delaware, Newark2. Effect of Wiper Application of Several Herbicides and Cutting on Black Chokeberry - D.E. Yarborough and A. A. Ismail, Univ. of Maine, OronoHM. Corn Chamomile Control in Winter Wheat - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New Yorkand P. W. Kanouse, New York State Cooperative Extension, Mt. Morris1984 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, Painter2. Triazine Resistant Weeds in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NYHM. A Roller for Applying Herbicides at Ground Level - W. V. Welker and D. L. Peterson,USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV1985 1. No-Tillage Cropping Systems in a Crown Vetch Living Mulch - N. L. Hartwig, Penn StateUniv., University Park2. Anesthetic Release of Dormancy in Amaranthus retroflexus Seeds - R. B. Taylorson,USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD and K. Hanyadi, Univ. of Agricultural Science, Keszthely,Hungary2. Triazine Resistant Weed Survey in Maryland - B. H. Marose, Univ. of Maryland, CollegeParkHM. Wild Proso Millet in New York State - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1986 1. Discharge Rate of Metolachlor from Slow Release Tablets - S. F. Gorski, M. K. Wertzand S. Refiners, Ohio State Univ., Columbus2. Glyphosate and Wildlife Habitat in Maine - D. Santillo, Univ. of Maine, Orono146

1987 1. Mycorrhiza and Transfer of Glyphosate Between Plants - M. A. Kaps and L. J. Khuns,Penn State Univ., University Park2. Redroot Pigweed Competition Study in No-Till Potatoes - R. W. Wallace, R. R.Bellinder, and D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1988 1. Growth Suppression of Peach Trees With Competition - W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn,USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV2. Smooth Bedstraw Control in Pastures and Hayfields - R. R. Hahn, Cornell Univ., Ithaca,NY1989 1. Burcucumber Responses to Sulfonylurea Herbicides - H. P. Wilson and T. E. Hines,Virginia Tech, Painter, VA2. Water Conservation in the Orchard Environment Through Management - W. V. Welker,Jr., USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Res. Sta., Kearneysville, WV1990 1. Reduced Rates of Postemergence Soybean Herbicides - E. Prostko, J. A. Meade, andJ. Ingerson-Mahar, Rutgers Coop. Ext. Mt. Holly, NJ2. The Tolerance of Fraxinus, Juglans, and Quercus Seedings to Imazaquin andImazethapyr - L. J. Kuhns and J. Loose, Penn State Univ., University Park1991 1. Johnsongrass Recovery from Sulfonylurea Herbicides - T. E. Hines and H. P. Wilson,Virginia Tech, Painter, VA2. Growth Response to Young Peach Trees to Competition With Several Grass Species -W. V. Welker and D. M. Glenn, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV1992 1. Teaching Weed Identification with Videotape - B. Marose, N. Anderson, L.Kauffman-Alfera, and T. Patten, Univ. of Maryland, College Park2. Biological Control of Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L. Reptans) with Xanthomonascampestris (MYX-7148) Under Field Conditions - N. D. Webber and J. C. Neal, CornellUniv., Ithaca, NY1993 1. Development of an Identification Manual for Weeds of the Northeastern United States -R H. Uva and J. C. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY2. Optimum Time of Cultivation for Weed Control in Corn - Jane Mt. Pleasant, R. Burt andJ. Frisch, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1994 1. Herbicide Contaminant Injury Symptoms on Greenhouse Grown Poinsettia andGeranium - M. Macksel and A. Senesac, Long Island Horticultural Res. Lab, Riverhead,NY and J. Neal, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY2. Mow-kill Regulation of Winter Cereals Grown for Spring No-till Crop Production - E. D.Wilkins and R. R. Bellinder, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1995 1. A Comparison of Broadleaf and Blackseed Plantains Identification and Control - J. C.Neal and C. C. Morse, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY2. Using the Economic Threshold Concept as a Determinant for Velvetleaf Control in FieldCorn - E. L. Werner and W. S. Curran, Penn State Univ., University Park1996 1. Preemergence and Postemergence Weed Management in 38 and 76 cm Corn - C. B.Coffman, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD2. Common Cocklebur Response to Chlorimuron and Imazaquin - B. S. Manley, H. P.Wilson and T. E. Hines, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA1997 None Awarded147

1998 1. Weed Control Studies with Rorippa sylvestris - L. J. Kuhns and T. Harpster, Penn StateUniv., University Park, PA2. Postemergence Selectivity and Safety of Isoxaflutole in Cool Season Turfgrass - P. C.Bhowmik and J. A. Drohen, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA1999 1. Winter Squash Cultivars Differ in Response to Weed Competition - E. T. Maynard,Purdue Univ., Hammond, IN2. Effectiveness of Row Spacing, Herbicide Rate, and Application Method on HarvestEfficiency of Lima Beans - S. Sankula, M. J. VanGessel, W. E. Kee, and J. L. Glancey,Univ. of Delaware, Georgetown, DE2000 1. Weed Control and Nutrient Release With Composted Poultry Litter Mulch in a PeachOrchard - P. L. Preusch, Hood College, Frederick, MD; and T. J. Tworkoski, USDA-ARS, Hearneysville, WV2 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, NY2 Pollen Transport from Genetically Modified Corn – J. M. Jemison and M. Vayda, Univ. ofMaine, Orono, ME2001 1. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for yellow nutsedge control in plasticulturetomato - 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 croprotations - 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 agriculturalresearch. 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 anddemonstrations. A. Senesac, I. Tsontakis-Bradley, J. Allaire, and L. Weston. CornellUniv.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.2. Carfentrazone, quinclorac, and trifloxysulfuron effects on seeded bermudagrassestablishment and crabgrass control. J. Willis, D.B. Ricker, and S.D. Askew. VirginiaTech, Blacksburg.2006 1. Mesotrione for preemergence broadleaf weed control in turf. D. Ricker, J. Willis, andS. Askew, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.148

2. Using a wet blade mower for pest control, fertility, and growth retardation in fineturfgrass. J. Willis and S.D. Askew. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.2007 1. Effects of emergence periodicity on growth and fecundity of horseweed. J. Dauer, B.A.Scott, M.J. VanGessel, and D.A. Mortensen. Penn State University, College Park.2. Vascular weed control in container production using selected non-chemical top-dresstreatments. A. Burtt. University of Vermont, Burlington.2008 1. Evaluation of the impact of an adventitious herbivore on an invasive plant, yellowtoadflax, in Colorado USA. J.F. Egan and R.E. Irwin. Penn State University, StateCollege.1. Organic weed management: what the farmers think. M.R. Ryan, D.A. Mortensen, D.O.Wilson, and P.R. Hepperly. Penn State University, University Park.2009 1. Turfgrass response to herbicide-treated irrigation water. R.L. Roten, R.J.Richardson, and A.P. Gardner. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.2. Response of cranberry vines to hand-held flame cultivators- initial yearevaluation. K.M. Ghantous, H.A. Sandler, and P.Jeranyama. University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.2010 1. Comparison of genetic diversity of weedy and domesticated populations ingenus Cichorium. T. Zavada. University of Massachusetts, Boston.2. Use of mesotrione for annual bluegrass control at Kentucky bluegrassestablishment. K. Venner, S. Hart, and C. Mansue. Rutgers University, New Brunswick3. The effects of herbicide mixtures with Brassica meal on weed control and yield ofstrawberry. J. Cummins, G. Armel, C. Sams, D. Deyton, and J. Vargas. University ofTennessee, Knoxville.2011 1. Length of residual annual bluegrass control of mesotrione relative to otherpreemergence weed control products. S. Hart, C.J. Manuse, and K.A. Venner.Rutgers University, New Brunswick2. Improving survey methods for the detection of giant hogweed in Pennsylvania.I.D. Bowers, M.A. Bravo, and J. Zoschg. Penn State University, University Park3. Influence of nitrogen, plant growth regulators, and ferrous sulfate on annualbluegrass populations. K.M. Han and J.E. Kaminski. Penn State University,University ParkINNOVATOR OF THE YEAR1986 Nathan Hartwig Penn State University1987 Thomas Welker USDA/ARS Appl. Fruit Res. Sta.1988 None Awarded1989 John E. Waldrum Union Carbide Agric. Prod.1990 None Awarded1991 Thomas L. Watschke Penn State University1992 E. Scott Hagood Virginia TechRonald L. RitterUniversity of Maryland1993 None Awarded1994 George Hamilton Penn State University1995 Kent D. Redding DowElanco149

1996 James Orr Asplundh Tree Expert Co.1997 George Hamilton Penn State University1998 None Awarded1999 Award DiscontinuedOUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN FOOD AND FEED CROPS1991 Russell R. Hahn Cornell University1992 Henry P. Wilson Virginia Tech1993 None Awarded1994 Robin Bellinder Cornell University1995 None Awarded1996 E. Scott Hagood Virginia Tech1997 Ronald L. Ritter University of Maryland1998 None Awarded1999 Award DiscontinuedOUTSTANDING APPLIED RESEARCH IN TURF, ORNAMENTALS, ANDVEGETATION MANAGEMENT1991 Wayne Bingham Virginia Tech1992 John F. Ahrens CT Agricultural Experiment Sta.1993 Joseph C. Neal Cornell University1994 Prasanta C. Bhowmik University of Massachusetts1995 Andrew F. Senesac Long Island Hort. Research Lab1996 Larry J. Kuhns Penn State University1997 Jeffrey F. Derr Virginia Tech1998 None Awarded1999 Award DiscontinuedOUTSTANDING PAPER AWARDS1954 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, MDThe Effect of Soil Organic Matter Levels on Several Herbicides - S. L. Dallyn, LongIsland Vegetable Research Farm, Riverhead, NYExperimental Use of Herbicides Impregnated on Clay Granules for Control of Weeds inCertain Vegetable Crops - L. L. Danielson, Virginia Truck Expt. Station, Norfolk, VACultural vs. Chemical Weed Control in Soybeans - W. E. Chappell, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute, Blacksburg, VAPublic Health Significance of Ragweed Control Demonstrated in Detroit - J. H. Ruskin,Department of Health, Detroit, MI1955 A Comparison of MCP and 2,4-D for Weed Control in Forage Legumes - M. M.Schreiber, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY150

1956 None Awarded1957 Herbicidal Effectiveness of 2,4-D, MCPB, Neburon and Others as Measured by WeedControl and Yields of Seedling Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil - A. J. Kerkin and R. A.Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, StorrsProgress Report #4 - Effects of Certain Common Brush Control Techniques andMaterial 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 Park1958 Effects of 2,4-D on Turnips - C. M. Switzer, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph,CanadaRagweed Free Areas in Quebec and the Maritimes - E. E. Compagna, Universite Lavalat Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Quebec, Canada1959 Yields of Legume-Forage Grass Mixtures as Affected by Several Herbicides AppliedAlone or in a Combination During Establishment - W. G. Wells and R. A. Peters, Univ. ofConnecticut, StorrsInfluence of Soil Moisture on Activity of EPTC, CDEC and CIPC - J. R. Havis, R. L.Ticknor and P. F. Boblua, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst1960 The Influence of Cultivation on Corn Yields When Weeds are Controlled by Herbicides -W. F. Meggitt, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ1961 Preliminary Investigation of a Growth Inhibitor Found in Yellow Foxtail (Setaria glaucaL.) - H. C. Yokum, M. J. Jutras, and R. A. Peters, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs1962 The Effects of Chemical and Cultural Treatment on the Survival of Rhizomes and on theYield of Underground Food Reserves of Quackgrass - H. M. LeBaron and S. N. Gertig,Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NYObservations on Distribution and Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Chesapeake Bay,1961 - V. D. Stotts and C. R. Gillette, Annapolis, MD1963 The Relation of Certain Environmental Conditions to the Effectiveness of DNBP ofPost-Emergence Weed Control in Peas - G. R. Hamilton and E. M. Rahn, Univ. ofDelaware, NewarkThe Influence of Soil Surface and Granular Carrier Moisture on the Activity of EPTC - J.C. Cialone and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NYThe Determination of Residues of Kuron in Birdsfoot Trefoil and Grasses - M. G. Merkleand S. N. Fertig, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1964 Control of Riparian Vegetation with Phenoxy Herbicides and the Effect on StreamflowQuality - I. C. Reigner, USDA-Forest Service, New Lisbon, NJ; W. E. Sopper, PennState Univ., University Park; and R. R. Johnson, Amchem Products, Inc., Ambler, PAEPTC Incorporation by Band Placement and Standard Methods in Establishment ofBirdsfoot Trefoil - D. L. Linscott and R. D. Hagin, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY151

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,NJ2. The Physical Properties of Viscous Sprays for Reduction of Herbicide Drift - J. W.Suggitt, The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Canada1966 1. Weed Control Under Clear Plastic Mulch - Carl Bucholz, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY2. A Chemical Team For Aerial Brush Control on Right-of-Way - B. C. Byrd and C. A.Reimer, Dow Chemical Co1967 1. Influence of Time of Seeding on the Effectiveness of Several Herbicides Used forEstablishing an Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixture - R. T. Leanard and R. C. Wakefield, Univ.of New Hampshire, Durham2. Weed Competition in Soybeans - L. E. Wheetley and R. H. Cole, Univ. of Delaware,Newark1968 None Awarded1969 1. Weed and Crop Responses in Cucumbers and Watermelons - H. P. Wilson and R. L.Waterfield, Virginia Truck and Orn. Res. Sta., Painter2. Effect of Several Combinations of Herbicides on the Weight and Development ofMidway Strawberry Plants in the Greenhouse - O. E. Schubert, West Virginia Univ.,Morgantown1970 1. Effects of RH-315 on Quackgrass and Established Alfalfa - W. B. Duke, Cornell Univ.,Ithaca, NY1971 1. Activity of Nitralin, Trifluralin and ER-5461 on Transplant Tomato and Eggplant - D. E.Broaden and J. C. Cialone, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ2. Field Investigations of the Activities of Several Herbicides for the Control of YellowNutsedge - H. P. Wilson, R. L. Waterfield, Jr., and C. P. Savage, Jr., Virginia Truck andOrn. Res. Sta., Painter1972 1. Study of Organisms Living in the Heated Effluent of a Power Plant - M. E. Pierce,Vassar College and D. Allessandrello, Marist College2. Effect of Pre-treatment Environment on Herbicide Response and MorphologicalVariation of Three Species - A. R. Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick,MD1973 1. A Simple Method of Expressing the Relative Efficacy of Plant Growth Regulators - A. R.Templeton and W. Hurtt, USDA-ARS, Fort Detrick, MD2. Agronomic Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Glyphosate for Quackgrass Control–F. E. Brockman, W. B. Duke, and J. F. Hunt, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1974 1. Weed Control in Peach Nurseries - O. F. Curtis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY152

2. Persistence of Napropamide and U-267 in a Sandy Loam Soil - R. C. Henne, CampbellInstitute for Agr. Res., Napoleon, OH1975 1. Control of Jimsonweed and Three Broadleaf Weeds in Soybeans - J. V. Parochetti,Univ. of Maryland, College ParkHM.The Influence of Norflurazon on Chlorophyll Content and Growth of Potomogetonpectinatus - R. M. Devlin and S. J. Karcyzk, Univ. of Massachusetts, East WarehamHM. Germination, Growth, and Flowering of Shepherdspurse - E. K. Stillwell and R. D.Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1976 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, KingstonHM.HM.Selective Control of Poa annua in Kentucky Bluegrass - P. J. Jacquemin, O. M. Scottand Sons, and P. R. Henderlong, Ohio State Univ., ColumbusEffects of DCPA on Growth of Dodder - L. L. Danielson, USDA ARS, Beltsville, MD1977 1. The Effects of Stress on Stand and Yield of Metribuzin Treated Tomato Plants - E. H.Nelson and R. A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, StorrsHM. 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, PennState Univ., University Park1978 1. Annual Weedy Grass Competition in Field Corn - Jonas Vengris, Univ. ofMassachusetts, AmherstHM.Metribuzin Utilization with Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute ofAgr. Res., Napoleon, OH1979 1. Herbicides for Ground Cover Plantings - J. F. Ahrens, Connecticut Agric. Expt. Station,Windsor2. Weed Control Systems in Transplanted Tomatoes - R. C. Henne, Campbell Institute ofAgr. Res. Napoleon, OH1980 1. Integrated Weed Control Programs for Carrots and Tomatoes - R. C. Henne and T. L.Poulson, Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH2. Suppression of Crownvetch for No-Tillage Corn - J. Carina and N. L. Hartwig, PennState Univ., University ParkHM.Effect of Planting Equipment and Time of Application on Injury to No-tillage Corn fromPendimethalin-Triazine Mixtures - N. L. Hartwig, Penn State Univ., University Park1981 1. Weed Control in Cucumbers in Northwest Ohio - R. C. Henne and T. L. Poulson,Campbell Institute of Agr. Res. Napoleon, OH153

2. Prostrate Spurge Control in Turfgrass Using Herbicides - J. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of RhodeIsland, KingstonHM.Some Ecological Observations of Hempstead Plains, Long Island - R. Stalter, St. John'sUniv., Jamaica, NY1982 1. Differential Growth Responses to Temperature Between Two Biotypes ofChenopodium album - P. C. Bhowmik, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst2. Chemical Control of Spurge and Other Broadleaf Weeds in Turfgrass - J. S. Ebdon andJ. A. Jagschitz, Univ. of Rhode Island, KingstonHM. 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 WarehamHM.Analysis of Weed Control Components for Conventional, Wide-row Soybeans inDelaware - D. K. Regehr, Univ. of Delaware, Newark1983 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, Painter2. The Plant Communities Along the Long Island Expressway, Long Island, New York - R.Stalter, St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NYHM.Effect of Morning, Midday and Evening Applications on Control of Large Crabgrass bySeveral Postemergence Herbicides - B. G. Ennis and R.A. Ashley, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs1984 1. Pre-transplant Oxyfluorfen for Cabbage - J. R. Teasdale, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD2. 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,Painter1985 1. Peach Response to Several Postemergence Translocated Herbicides - B. A. Majek,Rutgers Univ., Bridgeton, NJ1986 1. Influence of Mefluidide Timing and Rate on Poa annua Quality Under Golf CourseConditions - R. J. Cooper, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst; K. J. Karriok, Univ. ofGeorgia, Athens, and P. R. Henderlong and J. R. Street, Ohio State Univ., Columbus2. 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., StillwaterHM.Field Evaluation of a Proposed IPM Approach for Weed Control in Potatoes - D. P. Kainand J. B. Sieczka, Cornell Univ., Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory,Riverhead, NY and R. D. Sweet, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY1987 None Awarded154

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. Bellinderand D. T. Warholic, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; M. P. Mascianica, BASF Corp.,Parsippany, NJ; and L. S. Morrow, Univ. of Maine, Orono2. Effects of Herbicide Residues on Germination and Early Survival of Red Oak Acorns -R. D. Shipman and T. J. Prunty, Penn State Univ., University Park2. 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,Orono1989 None Awarded1990 None Awarded1991 Award Discontinued155

2011 NEWSS MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORYLast Name First Organization Address City State Zip Phone No. Email AddressAbbey TimPenn StateCooperativeExtension112 PleasantAcres Road York PA 17402717-840-7408 tma13@psu.eduAckleyBruceThe Ohio StateUniversity 2021 Coffey Rd. Columbus OH 43210740-225-2014 ackley.19@osu.eduAgnewAhrensMichaelJohnSyngenta CropProtection302 Rose GlenLaneKennettSquare PA 19348Connecticut Ag.Exp Station(Emeritus) P.O. Box 248 Windsor CT 06095610-444-2063 michael.agnew@syngenta.com860-683-4985 john.ahrens@ct.govAlea Stephanie Rutgers University 59 Dudley RdArmelGregUniversity ofTennesseeNewBrunswick NJ 08901252 EllingtonPlant SciencesBldg. Knoxville TN 37996732-932-9711 x 116 stephya@eden.rutgers.edu865-974-8829 garmel@utk.eduArsenovicAshleyMarijaJamesRutgers - IR-4HeadquartersEvonikGoldschmidtCorporation500 College AveSuite 201W Princeton NJ 08540710 South 6thAvenue Hopewell VA 23860732-932-9575 x 4609 arsenovic@aesop.rutgers.edu804-452-5692 james.ashley@evonik.comAskew Shawn Virginia TechAtland James USDA-ARS ATRU435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061208 Ag. Eng.Building Wooster OH 44691540-231-5807 saskew@vt.edu330-263-3870 James.altland@ars.usda.govAverillKristinePenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802860-248-9969 kma236@psu.eduBaker Robert Scotts CompanyBarcel David OHP Inc.14111 ScottslawnRd. Marysville OH 43041W331 S4122Saddleback Dr. Genesee WI 53118937-645-2628 robert.baker@scotts.com262-392-3004 dbarcel@ohp.comBarkmanGaryMontgomery WeedControl Inc.18410 MuncasterRoad Derwood MD 20855301-503-6024 gbarkmansr@gmail.comBarolli Sali Imperial NurseriesBaronJerryRutgers - IR-4Headquarters176 Lost AcresRd Granby CT 06035500 CollegeRoad, East, Suite201 Princeton NJ 08540860-653-1509 saizba@yahoo.com732-932-9575 x 4605 jbaron@aesop.rutgers.eduBarrettMikeArgyle CountryClub14600 ArgyleClub Road Silver Spring MD 20906301-774-5102 turfgod1@CS.comBatesBattsRyanRogerPenn StateUniversityNorth CarolinaState University -IR-4 Center116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802Box 7523, NCSUCampus Raleigh NC 27606814-863-1014 rtb175@psu.edu919-515-1668 roger_batts@ncsu.eduBaxterDavidDuPont CropProtectionStine-Haskell1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714302-366-5065 david.a.baxter@usa.dupont.comBeckerChrisBAAR ScientificLLC 6374 Rte. 89 Romulus NY 14541607-342-3610 becker89@fltg.netBellinder Robin Cornell UniversityUniv. Maryland,Salisbury FacilityBeste Ed(Emeritus)164 PlantScience Bldg Ithaca NY 1485327664 NanticokeRoad Salisbury MD 21801607-255-7890 rrb3@cornell.edu410-742-8788 ebeste@umd.eduBhowmikPrasantaUniversity ofMassachusettsStockbridge HallRoom 10 Amherst MA01002-2901413-545-5223 pbhowmik@pssci.umass.eduBonannoRichardUniversity ofMassachusetts255 MerrimackStreet Methuen MA 01844978-361-5650 rbonanno@umext.umass.eduBorgerJeffreyPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-865-3005 jab267@psu.eduBowe Steve BASF Corp. 26 Davis DriveResearchTriangle Park NC 27709156919-547-2559 steven.bowe@basf.com

BradleyIreneNEWSS StandingOrders3059 SoundAvenue Riverhead NY 11901631-727-3595 it21@cornell.eduBravoMelissaPennsylvania DeptAgriculture2301 NorthCameron Street Harrisburg PA 17110717-787-7204 mbravo@state.pa.usBreedenGregoryUniversity ofTennessee252 EllingtonPlant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996865-974-7208 gbreeden@utk.eduBrooksThomasCrop ManagementStrategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056610-767-1944 tjb_cms@fast.netBrosnanJamesUniversity ofTennessee252 EllingtonPlant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996865-974-8603 jbrosnan@utk.eduBuckBulckeJennyRobertWildflowerPhotographerGhent University,Weed ScienceLaboratory121 Curtis PointDrive Mantoloking NJ 08738Coupure Links653 B-9000 Gent Belgium732-892-5507 jebuck_1@yahoo.com+32-(0)9-264.60.98 robert.bulcke@ugent.beBurchPatrickDow AgroSciencesLLC3425 Elk CreekRoad Christiansburg VA 24073540-382-3062 plburch@dow.comBurnellKeithSyngenta CropProtection 49 Hillside Road Penfield NY 14526315-209-7580 keith.burnell@syngenta.comCainNancyCain VegetationInc.4 SpruceBoulevard Acton ONL7J2Y2519-853-3081 cain.vegetation@gmail.comCalabroJillValent USACorporation 1305 Colony Dr Annapolis MD 21403443-235-0612 jill.calabro@valent.comCaseLukeThe Ohio StateUniversity 2001Fayette Ct. Columbus OH 43210614-292-0209 case.49@osu.eduChamberlinJoeValent USACorporation2386 Clower St.Ste. E-100B Snellville GA 30078770-985-0303 jcham@valent.comChandranRakeshWest VirginiaUniversity1076 AgriculturalSci PO Box 6108 Morgantown VA 26506304-293-6131 rschandran@mail.wvu.eduChism Bill US EPA, OPP P.O Box 258 Point of Rocks MD 2177710300 BaltimoreAve Building 001Room 110 BARC-Coffman Benjamin USDA-ARS West Beltsville MD 20705703-308-8136 chism.bill@epa.gov301-504-5398 ben.coffman@ars.usda.govCorbett Jerry Quali-ProCox Michael Virginia Tech423 Batten PondRoad Selma NC 27576435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061919-279-2584 jerryc@quali-pro.com540-231-5835 mcc83@vt.eduCranmerJohnValent USACorporation202 Davis GroveCircle-Suite 103 Cary NC 27519919-387-2013 jcran@valent.comCumminsJohnUniversity ofTennessee 1705 Lee Cr. New Market TN 37820865-228-9789 recon77@utk.eduCurranWilliamPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-863-1014 wcurran@psu.eduCushmanMarkThe ScottCompany14111 ScottslawnRd. Marysville OH 43041937-644-0011 mark.cushman@scotts.comCustisGaryPBI GordonCorporation1217 W. 12thStreet Kansas City MO 64101816-460-6215 gcustis@pbigordon.comCutulle Matthew Virginia Tech1444 DiamondSprings Road Virginia Beach VA 23455757-363-3884 cmatthew@vt.eduD'Appollonio Jennifer University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469207-581-2924 jennifer.dappollonio@maine.eduDavid Paul Gowan Company343 RumfordRoad Lititz PA 17543717-560-8352 pdavid@gowanco.comDavisJamesVegetationManagers Inc.5574 ClearfieldWoodland Hwy Clearfield PA 16830814-765-5875 vminc1@verizon.netDavisToddDelaware Dept.Agriculture2320 S CedarCrest Blvd Dover DE 19901302-697-4468 Todd.Davis@state.de.usDavis Vince University of Illinois320 ERML, 1201W. Gregory Dr. Urbana IL 61801157217-333-1531 davisv@illinois.edu

DernoedenPeterUniversity ofMarylandDerr Jeffrey Virginia Tech1112 W.J.Patterson Hall College Park MD 20742Hampton Rds,AREC 1444Diamond Spring Virginia Beach VA 23455301-405-1337 pd@umd.edu757-363-3912 jderr@vt.eduDillehay BryanMonsantoCompany 276 Decker Road Centre Hall PA 16828903 Bradfield HallDept. of Crop &DiTommaso Antonio Cornell University Soil Ithaca NY 14853814-404-2683 bryan.dillehay@monsanto.com607-254-4702 ad97@cornell.eduDobbs Jeffrey OHP Inc.Dougherty Ryan Virginia Tech1095 ApplecrossDrive Roswell GA 30075435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061770-992-0121 jdobbs@ohp.com540-231-6323 dougherty@vt.eduDufoe Allan FMC Corporation 735 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19106Cornell Lake ErieResearch and 6592 West MainDunst Richard Extension Lab Rd. Portland NY 14769410-570-6206 allan.d.dufoe@fmc.com716-785-9910 rdunst@netsync.netDutt Timothy LABServices342 South ThirdStreet Hamburg PA 19526610-562-5055 tedutt@ptd.netEganJohnPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-865-6679 jfe121@psu.eduEkinsRickFMC ProfessionalSolutions1735 MarketStreet Philadelphia PA 19103215-299-5836 rick.ekins@fmc.comElmoreMatthewUniversity ofTennessee252 EllingtonPlant Sciences Knoxville TN 37996865-974-7324 melmore6@utk.eduEstesTonyUnited PhosphorusInc.206 StonewallHeights Abingdon VA 24210864-202-7526 tony.estes@uniphos.comEvans Glenn Cornell University146A PlantScience Bldg. Ithaca NY 14853607-255-9085 gje2@cornell.eduEvermanWesleyNorth CarolinaState University7620 WilliamsHall Raleigh NC 27695919-518-0488 wes_everman@ncsu.eduFarrington Steven Gowan Company724 Wrights MillRoad Auburn Al 36830334-275-5396 sfarrington@gowanco.comFauseyFidanzaJasonMichaelValent USACorporationPenn StateUniversity111 W. Co. Rd.173 Fremont OH 43420Berks Campus,2080TulpehockenRoad Reading PA 19610419-307-7666 jason.fausey@valent.com610-396-6330 maf100@psu.eduForneyRaymondDupont CropProtectionStine-Haskell1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714302-561-0027raymond.forney@usa.dupont.comGallandt Eric University of Maine7 Mountain ViewDrive Orono ME 04473207-581-2933 gallandt@maine.eduGanskeDonaldDuPont CropProtection125 Cotton RidgeRd Winchester VA 22603540-662-6011donald.d.ganske@usa.dupont.comGhantousKatherineUMass CranberryStationPO Box 569, 1State Bog RdEastWareham MA 02538508-295-2212 kghantous@psis.umass.eduGianessiLeonardCropLifeFoundation1156 15th StreetNW Washington DC 20005202-872-3865 lgianessi@croplifefoundation.orgGilliam Charles Auburn University101 FunchessHall Auburn AL 36849334-844-3045 murphan@auburn.eduGlasgow Les Syngenta 410 S Swing Rd Greensboro NC 27409336-632-5501 les.glasgow@syngenta.comGlennScottUniversity ofMaryland0115 HJPatterson Hall College Park MD 20742301-405-1331 sglenn@umd.eduGoddard Matt Virginia Tech435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061540-231-5835 mgoddard@vt.eduGoverArtPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-863-9904 aeg2@psu.edu158

Graham James Monsanto (Retired)Graves Dean Chevy Chase ClubGreen Jerry PioneerPenn StateCooperativeGuiser ScottExtensionHahn Russell Cornell University12381 CountryGlen Lane Creve Coeur MO 631416100 ConnecticutAvenue Chevy Chase MD 208151521 YeatmansStation Road Landenberg PA 193501282 AlmshouseRoad Doylestown PA 18901238A EmersonHall Ithaca NY 14853314-805-7867 jcgrah@charter.net301-656-6323 deang@chevychaseclub.org484-574-7761 jerry.m.green@pioneer.com215-345-3283 sxg6@psu.edu607-255-1759 rrh4@cornell.eduHanKyungPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-863-1014 kmh373@psu.eduHannigHanrahanGregoryRichardDupont CropProtectionBayerEnvironmentalScience1199Canandaigua Rd. Palmyra NY 14522100 East PalisideAve C-42 Englewood NJ 07631302-299-7304 greg.hannig@usa.dupont.com201-294-5217rich.hanrahan@bayercropscience.comHarlowChrisNorth CarolinaState University70 Kilgor Hall,Box 7609 Raleigh NC 27695919-515-8097 chris_harlow@ncsu.eduHarpsterTracyPenn StateUniversity102 TysonBuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-865-3190 tlh8@psu.eduHart Stephen Rutgers University 59 Dudley RdNewBrunswick NJ 08901732-932-9711 x 166 hart@aesop.rutgers.eduHearnHedbergHeimerBrianRobLaneUniversity ofDelawareUSDA NationalInstitute ofAgricultureMarylandDepartment ofAgriculture16483 CountySeat Highway Georgetown DE 199475612 McleanDrive Bethesda MD 2081450 Harry S.Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401302-856-7303 bhearn@udel.edu202-720-5384 rhedberg@nifa.usda.gov410-841-5920 laneheimer@gmail.comHerrick Robert FMC CorporationHessDwayneJ.C. Ehrlich Co.,Inc.11 WolfpackCourt Hamilton NJ 08619500 Spring RdigeDrive, P.O. Box13848 Reading PA 19612609-951-3792 bob.herrick@fmc.com610-372-9750 dwayne.hess@jcehrlich.comHester Kathleen Temple University 508 Heather Rd Exton PA 19341484-868-2063 hester@aesop.rutgers.eduHiggins Simone Monsanto800 N. LindberghBlvd St. Louis MO 63167314-330-3053simone.seiferthiggins@monsanto.comHinesThomasEastern ShoreAREC VPI/SU33446 ResearchDrive Painter VA 23420757-414-0724 thhines@vt.eduHitchnerErinSyngenta CropProtection 380 Jefferson Rd Elmer NJ 08318609-980-8832 erin.hitchner@syngenta.comHodges Duane Scotts Company14111 ScottslawnRd. Marysville OH 43041 duane.hodges@scotts.comHoffer Michael BASF Corp. 26 Davis DriveResearchTriangle Park NC 2770910100 N.Ambass. DriveHooten Robert FMC Corporation Suite 400 Liberty MO 60468919-244-8973 mike.hofer@basf.com816-589-5547 robert_hooten@fmc.comHortonChrisNorth CarolinaState UniversityCampus Box7620 Raleigh NC 27695919-515-7597 chris_reberg-horton@ncsu.eduHouseworth Doug Arysta LifeScience2777 OceanOaks Dr. S.FernandinaBeach FL 32034904-321-0795doug.houseworth@arystalifescience.comHuttoKendallFMC ProfessionalSolutions136 Spring ValleyRd. Westerville OH 43081614-392-1384 kendall.hutto@fmc.comIkleyJosephUniversity ofMaryland6423 ChurchStreet Sykesville MD 21784410-596-9091 jikley@umd.eduIsaacsMarkUniversity ofDelaware16483 CountySeat Highway Georgetown DE 19947302-856-7303 isaacs@udel.eduJamesJ.R.Syngenta CropProtection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409159336-632-6000 j_r.james@syngenta.com

JemisonJohnUniversity of Maine- CooperativeExtension495 CollegeAvenue Orono ME 04469207-581-3241 jjemison@umext.maine.eduJester Jen Virginia Tech435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061540-231-5835 jesterj@vt.eduJohnsonJohnsonJonQuintinPenn StateUniversityUniversity ofDelaware102 Tyson Bldg.UniversityPark PA 16802Carvel REC16483 CountySeat Hwy Georgetown DE 19947814-863-1184 jmj5@psu.edu302-856-2585 quintin@udel.eduJohnson David Pioneer Research7250 NW 62ndAve Johnston IA 50131515-727-7234 david.h.johnson@pioneer.comJohnsonRoyWaldrumSpecialties Inc1727 E ButlerPike Ambler PA19002-2431215-817-0637 rjoh834880@aol.comJonesPatrickUniversity ofTennessee2431 JoeJohnson Drive Knoxville TN 37996865-974-6730 patajone@utk.eduJordanGrantA.C.D.S. ResearchInc.9813 GlenmarkRoad North Rose NY 14516315-587-2140 gljordan@acdsresearch.comJotcham Jim Marbicon Inc. Box 280, Berwick Nova ScotiaKahlJerryJ.C. Ehrlich Co.,Inc.CanadaB0P1E0500 Spring RidgeDrive, P.O. Box13848 Reading PA 19612902-538-7101 marbicon@eastlink.ca610-372-9750 jerry.kahl@jcehrlich.comKalmowitz Kathie BASF Corp.3955 Stags LeapCircle Raleigh NC 27612919-270-4592 kathie.kalmowitz@basf.comKeese Renee BASF Corp. 26 Davis DrResearchTriangle Park NC 27709Anne ArundelCounty RecreationKelly Patrick and Parks Dept. 301 Hope Road Centreville MD 21617919-547-2791 renee.keese@basf.com443-262-9655 rpkell96@aacounty.orgKirfmanGaryValent USACorporation6088 WinthropAve. Ada MI 49301616-560-2510 gkirf@valent.comKoepke-HillBeckyUniversity ofTennessee9182 Fox LakeDrive Knoxville TN 37923865-329-6399 koepkeb@gmail.comKunkelKydeDanKerrieRutgers - IR-4HeadquartersMarylandDepartment ofNatural Resources500 College AveSuite 201W Princeton NJ 08540WHS 11960Clopper Road Gaithersburg MD 20878732-932-9575 kunkel@aesop.rutgers.edu301-948-8243 kkyde@dnr.state.md.usLarson Steven BASF Corp. 26 Davis Dr.ResearchTriangle Park NC 27709281-684-4542 steven.larson@basf.comLeahey Caitlin Cornell UniversityWest VirginiaUniversityLeather Gerald Extension Service503 East BuffaloSt, Apt 3 Ithaca NY 1485366 N. High St.,P.O. Box 1880 Romney WV 26757607-255-4747 caitlin.leahey@gmail.com304-822-5013 gerald.leather@mail.wvu.eduLightfootRachelCrop ManagementStrategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056610-767-1944 ral_cms@fast.netLingenfelterDwightPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-865-2242 dwight@psu.eduLittle Neith Cornell UniversityRoom 907Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853607-346-5958 ngl7@cornell.eduLittleDanielNorth CarolinaState University 5616B Thea Ln Raleigh NC 27606517-974-3000 dalittle@ncsu.eduLloydKirstenPenn StateUniversity102 Tyson BldgUniversityPark PA 16802814-863-1184 kll24@psu.eduLoecke David PBI Gordon5701 NorthChatham Ct. Kansas City MO 64151816-547-8373 vcline@pbigordon.comLohmannHenryNicholls University(Retired) P.O. Box 22 Bellport NY 11713631-286-1078 halohmann@aol.comLough Katherine University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469207-581-2923 klough@maine.eduLoughnerDanDow AgroSciencesLLC55 Armour Road,Princeton, NJ Princeton NJ 08540160609-921-1856 dloughner@Dow.com

LurveyEdithCornell University -NYSAES 630 W. North St. Geneva NY 14456315-787-2308 ell10@cornell.eduLycan DarrenSyngenta Lawnand Garden 18 Appleridge St. Baldwinsville NY 130275601 SunnysideAve GWCC Rm20705-Lydon John USDA-ARS 4-2238 Beltsville MD 5139316-635-2818 darren.lycan@syngenta.com301-504-6470 john.lydon@ars.usda.govMahoneyMatthewBayerCropScience4773 SailorsRetreat Rd Oxford MD 21654410-822-5215matt.mahoney@bayercropscience.comMajek Bradley Rutgers University1128 RainbowCircle Pittsgrove NJ 08318856-455-3100 majek@aesop.rutgers.eduManleyBrianSyngentaBiotechnology, Inc.3054 E.Cornwallis Road Durham NC 27709919-281-2162 brian.manley@syngenta.comMansue Carrie Rutgers University 59 Dudley RdNewBrunswick NJ 0890110300 BaltimoreAve Building 001Room 110 BARC-Marose Betty USDA-ARS West Beltsville MD 20705732-932-9711 x 116 cmansue@aesop.rutgers.edu301-504-5156 bhmarose@comcast.netMathersHannahOhio StateUniversity256 B HowlettHall Columbus OH 43210614-247-6195 mathers.7@osu.eduMatthewsMichaelFor-Shore WeedControl P.O. Box 536 Waretown NJ 08757609-693-6999 mike@for-shore.comMayonadoDavidMonsantoCompany6075 WestbrookeDrive Salisbury MD 21801410-726-4222david.j.mayonado@monsanto.comMcCulloughPatrickUniversity ofGeorgia1109 ExperimentSt Griffin GA 30223770-228-7276 pmccull@uga.eduMcDonaldStevenTurfgrass DiseaseSolutions LLC38 BertoletSchool Road Spring City PA 19475610-633-1878turfgrassdiseasesolutions@yahoo.comMcDonnellBrianNational ParkService 1 River Rd Bushkill PA 18324570-588-0534 brian_mcdonnell@nps.govMcNulty Brendon Virginia Tech435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24060540-231-5807 bmcnulty@vt.eduMervosh Todd L.Connecticut Ag.Exp StationCAES Valley Lab153 Cook Hill Rd Windsor CT 06095860-683-4984 todd.mervosh@ct.govMilbrathLindseyUSDA-ARS RobertW. Holley Center 538 Tower Road Ithaca NY 14853607-254-7268 lindsey.milbrath@ars.usda.govMillerMirskyRaymondStevenDow AgroSciencesLLCUSDA-ARS ANRISASL4020 CollinwoodAve Fort Worth TX 7610710300 BaltimoreAve Building 001Room 110 BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705813-363-9059 rcmiller2@dow.com301-504-7199 steven.mirsky@ars.usda.govMohler Charles Cornell UniversityRoom 907Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853607-255-0199 clm11@cornell.eduMortensenDavidPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-865-6679 dmortensen@psu.eduMosdellDeanSyngenta CropProtection501-I S. ReinoRd. #183 Newbury Park CA 91320805-480-0514 dean.mosdell@syngenta.comMunstermanChrisSyngenta CropProtection11 QuicksilverCourt Martinsburg WV 25404304-261-9564chris.munsterman@syngenta.comMyers Donald D.NaedelMatthewBayer CropSciencePenn StateUniversity2 T.W. AlexanderDriveValentineTurfgrass Ctr.Univ. Drive Ext.ResearchTriangle Park NC 27709UniversityPark PA 16802919-5492529 don.myers@bayer.com814-863-1613 mbn112@psu.eduNealJosephNorth CarolinaState University262 Kilgore HallBox 7609 Raleigh NC 27606919-515-9379 joe_neal@ncsu.eduNordNortonEricLawrencePenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802BayerEnvironmentalScience 4233 Harriet Lane Bethlehem PA 18017814-865-9021 ericnord@psu.edu610-814-6220larry.norton@bayercropscience.com161

O'Barr John H. BASF Corp.108 WhippoorwillLaneHummelstownPA 17036717-386-8259 john.obarr@basf.comO'ConnellJamesUMass CranberryStation P.O Box 569EastWareham MA 02538508-295-2212 jameso@umext.umass.eduOlsonBrianDow AgroSciencesLLC 22 Delancey Dr. Geneva NY 14456317-337-7245 bdolson@dow.comO'NealWilliamAMVAC ChemicalCorporation102 Bay ViewDrive Chapel Hill NC 27516919-619-3095 boneal@sprynet.comO'Neill Brian Weeds Inc 250 Bodley Rd Aston PA 19014O'Neill Drew Weeds Inc 250 Bodley Rd Aston PA 19014610-358-9430 bgon58@aol.com610-358-9430 weeds@weedsinc.comOrlowski John Cornell UniversityRoom 907Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853518-596-9311 jmo35@cornell.eduOrr James Asplundh708 Blair MillRoad Willow Grove PA 190901-800-248-TREEjimorr@asplundh.comPacchioliMarcCrop ManagementStrategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056610-767-1944 cms1@fast.netPalmerCristiRutgers - IR-4Headquarters500 College AveSuite 201W Princeton NJ 08540732-932-9575 palmer@aesop.rutgers.eduPalmer Butch Reality Research 5916 South Ave. Williamson NY 14589Pannill PhilipU.S. Fish andWildlife698 ConservationWayShepherdstownWV 25443BayerEnvironmentalParker AstridScience 981 NC42 East Clayton NC 27527Mail Stop 222014thParochetti James USDA-NIFA &Independence Washington DC 20250315-945-0945 whpalmer@localnet.com304-876-7432 phil_pannill@fws.gov919-625-3350 astrid.parker@bayer.com202-401-4354 jparochetti@nifa.usda.govParrishJasonOhio StateUniversity2001 Fyffe Ct256 Howlett Hall Columbus OH 43210440-225-4831 parrish.174@osu.eduPatton Aaron Purdue UniversityLilly Hall 915West State StreetWestLafayetteIN47907-2054765-494-9737 ajpatton@purdue.eduPawlakPennucciJohnAnnamarieValent USACorporationNortheast Turf &OrnamentalResearch4 EnglewoodDrive Raymond NH 03077847-968-4700 jpawlak@valent.com610-895-8480 aapennucci@yahoo.comPhillips Bill US EPA, OPPPhillips Jeffery Monsanto1200 PennylvaniaAve., N.W. Washington DC 2046042 BotsfordStreet Poland OH 44514703-308-8099 phillips.bill@epa.gov330-402-2591 jeffrey.i.phillips@monsanto.comPieczarka David Gowan Company 1630 Berry Road Lafayette NY 13084 Pieczarka@gowanco.com435 Old GladePost Angela Virginia TechRoad CampusBox 0330 Blacksburg VA 24060540-231-5807 arpost@vt.eduProstakRandyUniversity ofMassachusettsDept. Plant & SoilFrench HallRoom 2 Amherst MA 01033413-577-1738 rprostak@umext.umass.eduPrussStanleyCIBA-Geigy(Retired) 443 Moninger Rd Washington PA 15301724-2224831 spruss@hughes.netPyleQinSteveZhongSyngenta CropProtection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409South China c/o CornellAgricultureUniversity RoomUniversity905 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853336-632-2236 steve.pyle@syngenta.com607-254-5365 q_breeze@126.c0mRana Aman Virginia Tech 813 flaton trace Chesapeake VA 23322757-237-3412 ranaaman29@gmail.comRardonPatrickDupont CropProtectionStine-Haskell1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19711302-366-5546 patrick.l.rardon@usa.dupont.comRatnayake Sunil US EPA1200 PA Ave.N.W. Mail Stop Washington DC 20460162703-308-8191 ratnayake.sunil@epa.gov

ReebBryanThe Ohio StateUniversity 2021 Coffey Rd. Columbus OH 43210740-225-2014 reeb.22@osu.eduReed Joseph FMC Corportion5284 MayberryPl., Dayton OH 45415217-649-3249 joseph.reed@fmc.comRichardsonRobertNorth CarolinaState UniversityBox 7620Williams Hall Raleigh NC 27695919-515-5653 rob_richardson@ncsu.eduRichtmyer III Richard Cornell University3179 County LineRoad Watkins Glen NY 14891607-342-1695 rjr39@cornell.eduRiffleMichaelValent USACorporationmriff@valent.comRitter Ronald L.University ofMaryland12901 NorthPoint Lane Laurel MD 20708301-405-1329 rlritter@umd.eduRogersRoremRuppGregoryKentPeterDuPont CropProtection 58 Middlecroft Rd Elkton MD 21921North CarolinaDepartment of 3800 CastleAgricultureHayne Rd. Castle Hayne NC 28429MarylandDepartment ofAgriculture50 Harry S.Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401443-309-0148gregory.s.rogers@usa.dupont.com910-675-2314 kent.rorem@ncagr.gov410-841-5920 halletdc@mda.state.md.usRutenRoryNorth CarolinaState UniversityCampus Box7620 Raleigh NC 27695919-610-6165 rory_roten@ncsu.eduRyanMatthewPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-574-3028 mrr203@psu.eduSandlerHilaryUMass CranberryStation P.O. Box 569EastWareham MA 02538508-295-2212 x 21 hsandler@umext.umass.eduSandyDavePenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802814-404-9001 djs230@psu.eduSaundersDavidDuPont CropProtection 24087 230th st. Dallas Center IA 50063515-334-4485david.w.saunders@usa.dupont.comSchnappingerGarrySyngenta -Retired 930 Starr Road Centreville MD 21617410-758-1419 schnapg@hughes.netSchou Bert ACRES Research P.O. Box 99 Green Bank WV 24944304-456-5558 bertschou@aol.comScoresby Rene Green Light1058 BlueberryLane Mosinee WI 54455715-298-3315 renescoresby@yahoo.comScottSellmanBarbaraLeroyUniversity ofDelawareMarylandDepartment ofAgriculture16483 CountySeat Hwy George-town DE 1994750 Harry S.Truman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401302-856-2585 bascott@udel.edu410-841-5920 halletdc@mda.state.md.usSenesacAndrewCornell UniversityCooperative Ext.3059 SoundAvenue Riverhead NY 11901631-727-3595 afs2@cornell.eduSerensitsThomasPenn StateUniversity116 ASI BuildingUniversityPark PA 16802610-360-5985 tjs204@psu.eduSharma Shiv FMC CorporationSkibo Andrew FMC Corporation1735 MarketStreet Philadelphia PA 19103701PrincetonSouthCorporate Center Ewing NJ 086282152996871 shiv.sharma@fmc.com609-963-6733 Andrew.Skibo@fmc.comSmithSmithRichardMarkUniversity of NewHampshire 56 College Rd Durham NH 03824MarylandDepartment of 50 Harry S.AgricultureTruman Pkwy. Annapolis MD 21401603-862-2724 richard.smith@unh.edu410-841-5920 smithmj@mda.state.md.usSmith Adam Virginia TechSmith Lyrissa Virginia TechBayerEnvironmentalSpak DavidScienceStachowski Paul Cornell University435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061981 Highway 42East Clayton NC 275201256 PoplarRidge Rd. Aurora NY 13026163540-231-5835 urzsmith@vt.edu540-231-6323 lls14@vt.edu919-625-3350david.spak@bayercropscience.com315-364-8296 pjs16@cornell.edu

StalterRichardSt. John'sUniversityDept. of Biology8000 UtopiaParkway Queens NY 11439718-990-6288 stalterr@stjohns.eduSteffel James LABServicesSwantonSweetSzylvianClarenceRobertAndreaUniversity ofGuelphCornell University(Emeritus)US EPA, Region 1Pesticide Program342 South ThirdStreet Hamburg PA 19526610-562-5055 jim@labservices.com519-824-4120 x53392 cswanton@uoguelph.ca50 Stone Rd. E.,GuelphOntarioCanadaN1G2W1c/o MaxineWelcome, HortDept., 167 PlantSciences Bld Ithaca NY 14853Post Office Sq.Suite 100 OES05-4 Boston MA 02109607-273-7106 mw45@cornell.edu617-918-1198 szylvian.andrea@epa.govTan Siyuan BASF Corp. 26 Davis Dr.TardifFrancoisUniversity ofGuelph50 Stone Rd. E.,GuelphResearchTriangle Park NC 27709Ontario919-547-2679 siyuan.tan@basf.com519-824-4120 x53395 ftardif@uoguelph.caCanadaN1G2W1Taylorson RaymondUSDA & URI(Retired) 8721 Orchard Dr. Chestertown MD 2162010300 BaltimoreAve Building 001Room 110 BARC-Teasdale John USDA-ARS West Beltsville MD 20705410- 778-9088 raymondtaylorson@verizon.net301-504-5504 john.teasdale@ars.usda.govTekiela Dan Virginia Tech435 Old GladeRoad Blacksburg VA 24061540-231-6323 tekiela2@vt.eduThomas Gar BASF Corp.1002 BethelRoaddChesapeakeCity MD 21915410-885-5920 garfield.thomas@basf.comThomas Walter BASF Corp. 26 Davis DriveResearchTriangle Park NC 27709919-547-2549 walter.e.thomas@basf.comToressen Kristine Cornell UniversityTranel Patrick University of IllinoisRoom 907Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853320 ERML, 1201W. Gregory Dr. Urbana IL 61801518-596-9311 kst49@cornell.edu217-333-1531 tranel@illinois.eduTrueSarahNorth CarolinaState UniversityCampus Box7620 Raleigh NC 27695919-812-5679 sltrue@ncsu.eduVailGordonSyngenta CropProtection 410 Swing Road Greensboro NC 27409336-632-5596 gordon.vail@syngenta.comVanderwerkerVanGesselCindyMarkNational ParkService 648 Rt. 32 Stillwater NY 12170Research &University of Education 16684DelawareCounty Seat H Georgetown DE 19947518-664-9821 cindy_vanderwerker@nps.gov302-856-7303 mjv@udel.eduVaniniJ.TimNew DimensionsTurf 9 Colvin Ave Buffalo NY 14216716-319-7495 tim@ndturf.comVargasJ.JavierUniversity ofTennesseeEllington PlantSciences Bldg. Knoxville TN 37996865-974-7324 jvargas@utk.eduVea Elymar V. IR-4 Headquarters308 Aston ForestLane Crownsville MD 21032410-923-4880 evvea@comcast.netVenner Katelyn Rutgers University 59 Dudley RoadNewBrunswick NJ 08901732-932-9711 x 116 katevenn@eden.rutgers.eduVitoloDavidSyngenta CropProtection303 W FarrissAve High Point NC 27262916-316-6951 david.vitolo@syngenta.comWalls Bobby FMC Corporation501 ParkwoodLane Goldsboro NC 27530919-735-3862 bobby.walls@fmc.comWelterlenMarkPBI/GordonCorporation1217 W. 12thStreet Kansas City MO 64101816-460-6205 mwelterlen@pbigordon.comWestAmandaNorth CarolinaState UniversityCampus Box7620 Raleigh NC 27695919-812-5679 amwest@ncsu.eduWhiteLindaNational ParkService 648 Rt. 32 Stillwater NY 12170518-664-9821 linda_white@nps.govWhiteTimCrop ManagementStrategies P.O. Box 510 Hereford PA 18056164610-767-1944 cms1@fast.net

Whitehouse Stephanie Cornell University 905 Bradfield Hall Ithaca NY 14853607-255-4747 sew54@cornell.eduWillisJohnMonsantoCompanyWilson Henry Virginia TechWilson Samuel FMC CorportionWollamJohnBayer CropScience1305 SandersRoad Troy OH 45373Eastern ShoreARC 33446Research Drive Painter VA 23420113 ArlingtonRidge Road Cary NC 27513P.O Box 4913,8400 HawthornRoad Kansas City MO 64120937-418-5667 john.b.willis@monsanto.com757-414-0724 hwilson@vt.edu803-413-7824 Sam.Wilson@fmc.com816 242-2000john.wollam@bayercropscience.comWynnJohnDupont CropProtectionStine-Haskell1090 Elkton Road Newark DE 19714302-451-5835 w-wynn.john@usa.dupont.comYarborough David University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall Orono ME 04469207-581-2923 davidy@maine.eduZawierucha Joe BASF Corp. 26 Davis DriveResearchTriangle Park NC 27709919-547-2095 joseph.zawierucha@basf.comZelnaZontekJeffreyStanleySyngenta CropProtection 4598 Reliant Rd Jamesville NY 13078USGA GreenSection, Mid- 485 BaltimoreAtlantic Region Pike, Suite 203 Glen Mills PA 19342315-498-4259 jeff.zelna@syngenta.com610-558-9066 szontek@usga.org165

AUTHOR INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERSAhrens, John F. 69, 72Alexander, Anita 65Allen, Jayla 116Armel, Greg 24, 41, 42Arsenovic, Marija 74Askew, Shawn 7, 10, 20, 25, 43, 53, 56, 95, 96, 101Askew, Whitnee 43Averill, Kristine M. 55, 80Barney, Jacob N. 52, 54, 56Baron, Jerry 66, 67, 74Best, Michael D. 41Borger, Jeffrey 97Bostic, Heidi E. 41Bowe, Steven J. 113Bowers, Ian D. 2, 83Bozeman, Luke L. 113Bravo, Melissa A. 1, 2, 83Breeden, Gregory K. 24, 44, 57, 94, 102, 103, 104Brosnan, James T. 24, 44, 57, 94, 102, 103, 104Buck, Elizabeth M. 111Burnell, Keith D. 115Cain, Nancy P. 81Caldwell, Brian A. 61Cannan, Terrance 113Cavigelli, Michel 47Corbett, Jerry 10Cox, Michael C. 10, 25, 43Cox, William J. 49Crockett, Benjamin C. 13Curran, William S. 13, 22, 45, 48, 50, 63, 91, 110D'Appollonio, Jennifer L. 77Danjuan, Mao 14, 15Derr, Jeffrey F. 51, 64DeWeese, Bill 73Dillon, Cory S. 45Ditmarsen, Scott C. 106DiTommaso, Antonio 14, 15, 16, 17, 46, 49, 61, 79, 80, 111Do-Thanh, Chi-Linh 41Dougherty, Ryan F. 54Egan, J. Franklin 3, 58Ellis, Drew T. 4Elmore, Matthew T. 44, 57, 103Endres, Bryan 54Evans, Richard M. 42Everman, Wesley J. 11, 21, 112Fair, Barbara 71Flanagan, Phil 42Franssen, Aaron S. 115Gallandt, Eric 88Gallup, Courtney A. 106Ghantous, Katherine M. 62Gilliam, Charles 65Glasgow, Les 112166Goatley Jr., J M 43Gomez de Barreda, Diego 26, 105Gover, Arthur E. 18, 84Graham, Ian M. 3Guoming, Quan 14, 15Hagood, E. Scott 59Hahn, Russell R. 107Han, Kyung M. 40Harlow, Chris 68, 71Hart, Stephen 96Havens, Patrick 5Hester, Kathleen A. 66, 67Hillger, David E. 4, 5, 6Hinton, James 11, 21Hinz, John 116Hitchner, Erin 108Hivner, Kyle R. 97Hoyle, Steve T. 87Huff, Jonathan A. 5Huffman, Janel L. 18, 84Ikley, Joseph T. 38Ingegneri, Lynn 112Jia-en, Zhang 14, 15, 16Johnson, Quintin 23, 75, 76Jones, Patrick A. 44, 57Junfang, Xie 14, 15Kaminski, John E. 40Kao-Kniffin, Jenny T. 100Karsten, Heather D. 48Keene, Clair L. 50Ketterings, Quirine M. 46Klingeman, William 41, 42Knight, Alexandra 11Koo, Suk-Jin 7, 95Kordbacheh, Farnaz 17Kunkel, Daniel 74Lassiter, Bridget 12Lassiter, Ralph B. 5Linde, Douglas T. 99Lindquist, John 90Lingenfelter, Dwight D. 75, 89, 110Lins, Ryan 108Little, Neith G. 46Love, Christopher C. 4Lurvey, Edith 67Mahoney, Matt 73, 116Malcolm, Glenna M. 48Mansue, Carrie J. 96Marble, Chris 65Marschner, Caroline A. 61Martin, Timothy 117Mathew, Sudeep A. 9

AUTHOR INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERSMaul, Jude 47Mayonado, David J. 19McAllister, Janet C. 118McCall, David 53McCullough, Patrick 26, 102, 105McDonald, Andrew J. 111McDonald, Steven J. 99Melichar, Mike W. 106Mervosh, Todd L. 69, 72, 81Meyer, Tanya J. 1Milbrath, Lindsey R. 82Mirsky, Steven 13, 47, 63, 91Mize, Terry W. 85, 109, 114, 117Mohler, Charles L. 8, 16, 46, 61Morris, Thomas F. 118Mortensen, David 3, 55, 58, 91Murdock, Shea W. 113Naedel, Matthew B. 97Neal, Joseph C. 68, 71Neuberger, Brent A. 85, 109, 114, 117Nord, Andrea N. 18Olson, Brian D. 4, 5, 6, 106Orlowski, John M. 49, 107Palmer, Cristi L. 66, 67Patches, Kelly M. 22Patton, Aaron J. 98, 104Poffenbarger, Hanna J. 47Post, Angela 10, 53, 56Prasifka, Patricia L. 106Quinn, Lauren 54Rahimian Mashhadi,17HamidRana, Aman 51Rauschert, Emily S. 18Reberg-Horton, S. Chris 63Reed, Joseph P. 85, 109, 114, 117Richardson, Robert J. 12, 39, 42, 86, 87Richburg, John S. 5Richtmyer III, R. J. 107Riha, Susan J. 111Ritter, Ronald L. 19, 38Rosemond, Malone 21Ross, Lachlan 83Roten, Rory L. 39, 42, 86Ruen, David D. 6Ryan, Matthew R. 63, 91Sandler, Hilary A. 62, 78Scherder, Eric F. 6Schroeder, Jill 112Scott, Barb A. 9, 23, 75, 76Senesac, Andrew F. 70Shaw, David 112Shirtliffe, Steve 92Shivrain, Vinod K. 115Simpson, David M. 4Smith, Adam N. 20, 59, 101Smith, Larissa L. 52Smith, Richard G. 91, 93Snyder, Elina M. 48Soteres, John 112Spargo, John 47, 63Staal, Maarten 113Stachler, Jeff 112Stalter, Richard 60Stefanovic, Sasa 62Stratman, Gail G. 85, 109, 114, 117Tardif, Francois 112Teasdale, John 47, 91Tekiela, Dan 56Thomas, Joseph W. 41Thomas, Walter E. 113Timlin, Dennis 47Unland, Darren 73Urwiler, Michael 108Vail, Gordon D. 108, 115VanGessel, Mark J. 9, 19, 23, 24, 75, 76Vargas, Jose J. 24, 42Vea, Ely 66Venner, Katelyn A. 7, 96Voigt, Thomas 54Weisenberger, Dan V. 98, 104Wilkerson, Gail 12Wilson, Henry P. 19Wilson, John S. 109, 114, 117Yarborough, David E. 77Zhong, Qin 14, 15, 16Zoschg, Jim 1, 2, 83167

KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERS2,4-D 4, 5, 68, 85, 98, 99, 106, 1102,4-D choline 6Abies balsamea 72Abies fraseri 72Absorption 86Acetic acid 67Achellia millefolium 70Agrostis stolonifera 94, 96, 97Alfalfa 110Alion 73Allelopathy 88Alternanthera philoxeroides 86Alyssum 64Amaranthus hybridus 23, 76Amaranthus palmeri 11, 21, 23, 76Amaranthus retroflexus 17Ambrosia artemisiifolia 14, 15, 16Amicarbazone 40, 103Aminocyclopyrachlor 39, 86, 98Aminopyralid 83Ammonium nonanoate 67Antioxidant enzyme 15Application timing 96Application, banded 48Application, methods 4Aquatic environment 12, 86Areas, natural 12, 55, 80, 82, 84, 86Asclepias syriaca 3Atrazine 3, 75, 109, 115, 117Bean, lima 23, 76Begonia 64Bensulide 7Bentazon 70Bentgrass, creeping 94, 97Berberis thunbergii 1Bidens frondosa 3Bioassay 58Bioclimatic 111Biodiversity 3Biological control 82Biology, weed 55, 79, 80Bispyribac-sodium 40Black nightshade 17Blueberry 77Bluegrass 7, 10, 95Broadleaf weed99controlButterfly, monarch 79Calamagrosti acutiflora 69Canola 48, 110Carfentrazone-ethyl 85Cereal rye 63Chenopodium album 17China 14, 15, 16168Christmas trees 72Clethra alnifolia 69Clover 45, 110Competition 88Compost 99Conifers 72Conservation tillage 22Conyza canadensis 38, 72, 111Cooperative Weed Management Area 1Corn 11, 22, 45, 48, 107, 108, 109, 111, 115, 117Corn, herbicide-resistant 106Corn, sweet 75Cornus kousa 69Cover crop 13, 45, 48, 63, 88, 91, 110Cranberry 62, 78Crop tolerance 78Cropping systems 89Crops, minor 78, 110Cultivation 23, 48, 88Cultural practices 91Cuscuta gronovii 62, 78Cynanchum louiseae 79, 82Cynanchum rossicum 79, 81, 82Cynodon dactylon 44Cyperus esculentus 70Cyperus iria 70D-limonene 67Danaus plexippus 79Datura stramonium 17Diakon radish 110Dicamba 3, 19, 22, 58, 68, 98Dichlobenil 78Dichlorprop (2,4-DP) 68Digitaria ciliaris 51Digitaria ischaemum 57, 104Digitaria sanguinalis 11, 69, 70, 72Dimethenamid-P 64, 66, 67, 69, 71Diuron 77Dog-strangling vine 79, 81Dormancy, seed 13Dose-response 3, 57Drift control 4, 6, 58Ecology, weed 55, 79, 80, 93Education 24, 89, 112Eichhornia crassipes 12, 86Eleusine indica 104Emergence, weed 13, 17Enhanced-efficacy 57Enzyme activity 14Ethephon 97, 101Exotic weed 55, 80, 82Extension 8, 112F9007 85F9310 109, 114

KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERSF9316 109FeHEDTA 99Fenoxaprop 70, 104Fertility 11Fine fescue 43Fir, balsam 72Fir, Douglas 72Fir, Fraser 72Fluazifop-P 72Flumioxazin 66, 67, 84Fluthiacet-methyl 109, 114, 117Fomesafen 115Forages 48Forest 39, 55, 72, 80, 81, 82Formulation 5Functional diversity 14Galega officinalis 1, 83Genetic diversity 62Genetically modified58cropsGibberillic acid 97Glechoma hederacea 98Glufosinate 59, 75, 115Gluten, corn 99Glycine max 38, 58, 91, 107, 115Glyphosate 3, 4, 19, 22, 38, 43, 59, 81, 83, 99, 106,107, 109, 114, 115, 116Glyphosate resistance 19, 38Grant program 118Greens, golf 94Habitats, disturbed 82Habitats, natural 1, 39, 82Habitats, semi-natural 55, 82Hairy vetch 110Halosulfuron 66, 77Heracleum mantegazzianum 2Herbicide injury 45Herbicide reduction 48Herbicide resistance 59, 110, 111, 112Herbicide symptomology 72Herbicide tolerance 72Hexazinone 77High-residue cultivator 50Hydrangea macrophylla 69, 70Hydrilla verticillata 12, 87Imazapic 81, 84Imazapyr 81Impatiens 64Indaziflam 44, 66, 73, 77Integrated weed management 12, 48,50, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93Interseeding 45Invasive species 15, 55, 79, 80, 81, 82Ipomoea hederacea 23Ipomoea lacunosa 23169Ipomoea spp. 111IR-4 Project 66Irradiance 15Isoxaben 66, 71Isoxaflutole 21, 116Japanese stiltgrass 84Johnson grass 17Label 66, 67Lamium amplexicaule 71Light availability 15Light quality 17Light quantity 17Linuron 77Lolium 45Lolium perenne 103Low tunnel structures 6Management, alternative 93Marchantia sp. 67Maxent 16Mechanical weed control 50Mecoprop (MCPP) 68Mefluidide 101Mesotrione 22, 57, 66,69, 72, 77, 103,108,115,116Methiozolin 7, 40, 94, 95, 96Metsulfuron 81, 85, 98Microbial biomass 14Microstegium vimineum var. imberbe 84Mile-a-minute 84Miscanthus sinensis 68Modeling 16Mowing 98Muhlenbergia capillaris 68Mulch 71Myriophyllum aquaticum 12Myriophyllum heterophyllum 12Myriophyllum spicatum 12NE SARE 118Nicosulfuron 59Nitrogen 57No-tillage 45, 50, 75, 110Non-chemical weed control 99Non-crop 55, 80Non-native plants 60Noxious weed 2Nurseries 66, 68, 72Nursery production 67, 68, 70Nutrient content 44Nuts 73Oregano oil 67Organic agriculture 99Ornamentals 66Oryzalin 84Outcome funding 118Oxadiazon 44

KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERSPaclobutrazol 10Panicum dichotomiflorum 70Panicum virgatum 69Parks 55, 60, 80Pastures 85Pelargonic acid 67Pendimethalin 66, 69, 71, 84Pennisetum alopecur 69Perovskia atriplicifolia 70Petunia 64Phaseolus lunatus 23Photosynthesis 15Physiological 80Phytolacca americana 22Phytotoxicity 77Picea glauca 72Picea pungens 72Pine bark 71Pine, eastern white 72Pinus strobus 72Pistia stratiotes 86Plant growth regulators 10, 101Planting population 17Poa annua 17, 40, 94, 96, 97, 101, 103Poa pratensis 98Poisonous plants 2Polygonum convolvulus 3Polygonum cuspidatum 1Polygonum perfoliatum 1, 84Preplant weed control 51Prodiamine 44, 66, 69, 72, 84Propane torch 99Pseudotsuga menzesii 72Putting green 97Pyroxasulfone 109, 114, 117Quality, turf 97Reduced rates 107Residual herbicides 107Resistance management 93Rhamnus cathartica 1Right-of-way 39Rimsulfuron 77Roadsides 80Roots 44Rosemary 67Rotation, crop 8Ryegrass 45S-metolachlor 69, 72, 108Safety 66, 71Saflufenacil 38Schizachyrium scoparium 69Seed scarification 13Seedbank 13Setaria viridis 17170Sethoxydim 70Soil depths 13Soil fertility 14Soil sterilization 51Sorghum halepense 59Soybean 48, 58, 91,107, 111, 114, 115, 117Soybean, dicamba-tolerant 19Soybean, glyphosate-resistant 38, 1166Soybean, HPPD-resistant 116Spruce, Colorado 72Spruce, white 72Stewardship, product 89Sulfentrazone 66, 76, 104, 114Sulfometuron methyl 83Sulfosulfuron 66Survey, weed 62, 111Sustainable agriculture 91Sweet vernalgrass 20Synergy 91Synthetic herbicides 99Taraxacum officinale 107Tembotrione 21, 116Temperature fluctuation 17Terbacil 77Tillage 111Tolerance 3Topramezone 57, 103Translocation 39, 86Tree fruit 73Triclopyr 81, 83, 98Trifluralin 71Trifolium spp. 45Trinexapac ethyl 10, 97, 101Tsuga canadensis 69Turfgrass 10, 40, 44, 57, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104Urena lobata 15Vaccinium angustifolium 77Vaccinium marcrocarpon 62, 78Vegetation management 55Verbena urticifolia 3Vicia villosa 13Vinca 64Vincetoxicum nigrum 79, 80, 82Vincetoxicum rossicum 80, 81, 82Vinegar 99Viola tricolor 71Virginia 59Volatility 5Weed competition 11Weed distribution 16, 79Weed management 16, 21, 23, 77Weed suppression 93Wetlands 62, 78Wheat 85, 111

KEYWORD INDEX: ABSTRACT NUMBERS ARE LISTED NOT PAGE NUMBERSWinter rye cover crop 50Zea mays 107Zemax 108Zone-till 107171

Vol. 66â2012 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

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

Delete template?

Save as template?

Vol. 66â2012 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society