Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 17 of 17 items for

  • Author or Editor: William E. Klingeman x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Andrew H. Jeffers, William E. Klingeman, Charles R. Hall, Marco A. Palma, David S. Buckley, and Dean A. Kopsell

Ornamental plant growers must be able to accurately assess production costs associated with woody liner stock to gain profit potential in a highly competitive industry. Fixed and variable cost inputs may not be intuitive or readily apparent to growers and may even differ between common types of production in the trade. To help liner producers identify profit-based price points for their woody ornamental liner stock, we modeled costs associated with producing familiar species and cultivars of a representative deciduous shade tree, a broadleaf evergreen, and a needle leaf evergreen liner. Production costs are projected down to individual plant units for each of the three most common liner production systems, including a field ground bed system, a polyhouse-covered (plant protection structure sheathed with one layer of 6-mil polyethylene film) ground bed system, and a polyhouse-covered container system. Production costs for individual plants varied due to the actual growing space available within each system. The field ground bed system offered greatest flexibility in crop planting density, with cost potentially distributed among the largest number of salable units. In addition to modeled costs, advantages and disadvantages of each liner cropping system are discussed.

Full access

Joseph E. Beeler, Gregory R. Armel, James T. Brosnan, Jose J. Vargas, William E. Klingeman, Rebecca M. Koepke-Hill, Gary E. Bates, Dean A. Kopsell, and Phillip C. Flanagan

Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) is a native, perennial, weedy vine of pastures, row crops, fence rows, and right-of-ways throughout most of the eastern United States. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 near Newport, TN, and in Knoxville, TN, to evaluate aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl and aminopyralid alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D and diflufenzopyr for selective trumpetcreeper control when applied postemergence in an abandoned nursery. These treatments were compared with commercial standards of dicamba and a prepackaged mixture of triclopyr plus 2,4-D. In the field, aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl alone controlled trumpetcreeper 77% to 93%, while aminopyralid alone only controlled trumpetcreeper 0% to 20% by 12 months after treatment (MAT). The addition of diflufenzopyr or 2,4-D to aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl did not improve trumpetcreeper control in the field; however, the addition of 2,4-D to aminopyralid improved control of trumpetcreeper from 50% to 58%. All aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl treatments controlled trumpetcreeper greater than or equal to dicamba and the prepackaged mixture of triclopyr plus 2,4-D. In the greenhouse, aminocyclopyrachlor and aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl applied at 8.75 to 35 g·ha−1 controlled trumpetcreeper 58% to 72% by 1 MAT. When both herbicides were applied at 70 g·ha−1, aminocyclopyrachlor controlled trumpetcreeper 64%, while aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl controlled trumpetcreeper 99%, similar to dicamba.

Free access

Deborah Dean, Phillip A. Wadl, Xinwang Wang, William E. Klingeman, Bonnie H. Ownley, Timothy A. Rinehart, Brian E. Scheffler, and Robert N. Trigiano

Viburnum dilatatum is a popular and economically important ornamental shrub. The wide range of desirable horticultural traits, paired with a propensity for seedlings to become invasive, has created interest in the genetics and breeding of this species. To investigate the genetic diversity of V. dilatatum, microsatellite loci were identified from a GT-enriched genomic library constructed from V. dilatatum ‘Asian Beauty’. Eleven microsatellite loci have been characterized on a group of 16 different related V. dilatatum cultivars and hybrids. Two to 12 alleles were identified per locus, and the polymorphism information content (PIC) values ranged from 0.36 to 0.87. Expected heterozygosity (He) ranged from 0.48 to 0.88 and observed heterozygosity (Ho) ranged from 0 to 0.73. This set of molecular markers also exhibited expected transferability between various V. dilatatum cultivars and two hybrids with V. japonicum. As a consequence, these markers will aid in breeding for new cultivar development, assist with early detection and screening of plants that have escaped cultivation, and are expected to help in refining the phylogenetic relationship of V. dilatatum to other species and genera within the Adoxaceae.

Free access

Deborah Dean, Phillip A. Wadl, Denita Hadziabdic, William E. Klingeman, Bonnie H. Ownley, Timothy A. Rinehart, Adam J. Dattilo, Brian Scheffler, and Robert N. Trigiano

Viburnum rufidulum is a deciduous tree native to North America that has four-season appeal, which provides commercial horticultural value. In addition, the plant has unique and attractive red pubescence on leaf buds and petioles, common to no other Viburnum species. As habitat undergoes development and subsequent fragmentation of native plant populations, it is important to have baseline genetic information for this species. Little is known about the genetic diversity within populations of V. rufidulum. In this study, seven microsatellite loci were used to measure genetic diversity, population structure, and gene flow of 235 V. rufidulum trees collected from 17 locations in Kentucky and Tennessee. The genotype data were used to infer population genetic structure using the program InStruct and to construct an unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean dendrogram. A single population was indicated by the program InStruct and the dendrogram clustered the locations into two groups; however, little bootstrap support was evident. Observed and expected heterozygosity were 0.49 and 0.78, respectively. Low-to-moderate genetic differentiation (F ST = 0.06) with evidence of gene flow (Nm = 4.82) was observed among 17 populations of V. rufidulum. A significant level of genetic diversity was evident among V. rufidulum populations with most of the genetic variations among individual trees (86.37%) rather than among populations (13.63%), and a Mantel test revealed significant correlation between genetic and geographical distance (r = 0.091, P = 0.001). The microsatellites developed herein provide an initial assessment or a baseline of genetic diversity for V. rufidulum in a limited area of the southeastern region of the United States. The markers are a genetic resource and can be of assistance in breeding programs, germplasm assessment, and future studies of V. rufidulum populations, as this is the first study to provide genetic diversity data for this native species.

Full access

Matthew A. Cutulle, Gregory R. Armel, James T. Brosnan, Dean A. Kopsell, William E. Klingeman, Phillip C. Flanagan, Gregory K. Breeden, Jose J. Vargas, Rebecca Koepke-Hill, and Mark A. Halcomb

Selective weed control in ornamental plant production can be difficult as many herbicides can cause unacceptable injury. Research was conducted to evaluate the tolerance of several ornamental species to applications of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides for the control of problematic weeds in ornamental production. Mestotrione (0.09, 0.18, and 0.36 lb/acre), tembotrione (0.08, 0.16, and 0.32 lb/acre), and topramezone (0.016, 0.032, and 0.064 lb/acre) were applied alone postemergence (POST) in comparison with the photosystem II-inhibiting herbicide, bentazon (0.5 lb/acre). All herbicide treatments, with the exception of the two highest rates of tembotrione, caused less than 8% injury to ‘Noble Upright’ japanese holly (Ilex crenata) and ‘Compactus’ burning bush (Euonymus alatus). Similarly, no herbicide treatment caused greater than 12% injury to ‘Girard’s Rose’ azalea (Azalea). Conversely, all herbicides injured flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) 10% to 23%. Mesotrione- and tembotrione-injured ‘Radrazz’ rose (Rosa) 18% to 55%, compared with only 5% to 18% with topramezone. ‘Siloam June Bug’ daylily (Hemerocallis) injury with topramezone and tembotrione was less than 10%. Topramezone was the only herbicide evaluated that provided at least 93% control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with all application rates by 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). Redroot pigweed was controlled 67% to 100% with mesotrione and tembotrione by 4 WAT, but this activity was variable among application rates. Spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata) was only adequately controlled by mesotrione applications at 0.18 and 0.36 lb/acre, whereas chamberbitter (Phyllanthus urinaria) was not controlled sufficiently with any herbicide evaluated in these studies. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) was suppressed 72% to 87% with mesotrione applications at 0.18 lb/acre or higher and with bentazon at 0.5 lb/acre by 4 WAT. All other herbicide treatments provided less than 58% control of yellow nutsedge. In the second study, ‘Patriot’ hosta (Hosta), ‘Green Sheen’ pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis), autumn fern (Dryopteris erythrosora), ‘Little Princess’ spirea (Spiraea japonica), ‘Green Giant’ arborvitae (Thuja plicata), and ‘Rosea’ weigela (Weigela florida) displayed no response to topramezone when applied at 0.024 and 0.095 lb/acre. Since 10 ornamental species in our studies exhibited less than 10% herbicidal response with all rates of at least one HPPD-inhibiting herbicide then it is possible that these herbicides may provide selective POST weed control in ornamental production systems.

Full access

Amy Fulcher, Sarah A. White, Juang-Horng (JC) Chong, Joseph C. Neal, Jean L. Williams-Woodward, Craig R. Adkins, S. Kristine Braman, Matthew R. Chappell, Jeffrey F. Derr, Winston C. Dunwell, Steven D. Frank, Stanton A. Gill, Frank A. Hale, William E. Klingeman, Anthony V. LeBude, Karen Rane, and Alan S. Windham

Mobile device applications (apps) have the potential to become a mainstream delivery method, providing services, information, and tools to extension clientele. Testing, promoting, and launching an app are key components supporting the successful development of this new technology. This article summarizes the considerations and steps that must be taken to successfully test, promote, and launch an app and is based on the authors’ experience developing two horticulture apps, IPMPro and IPMLite. These apps provide information for major pests and plant care tasks and prompt users to take action on time-sensitive tasks with push notifications scheduled specifically for their location. App testing and evaluation is a continual process. Effective tactics for app testing and evaluation include garnering focus group input throughout app development and postlaunch, in-house testing with simulators, beta testing and the advantages of services that enhance information gained during beta testing, and postlaunch evaluations. Differences in promotional and bulk purchasing options available among the two main device platforms, Android and iOS, are explored as are general preparations for marketing the launch of a new app. Finally, navigating the app submission process is discussed. Creating an app is an involved process, but one that can be rewarding and lead to a unique portal for extension clientele to access information, assistance, and tools.

Full access

Amy Fulcher, Juang-Horng (JC) Chong, Sarah A. White, Joseph C. Neal, Jean L. Williams-Woodward, Craig R. Adkins, S. Kristine Braman, Matthew R. Chappell, Jeffrey F. Derr, Winston C. Dunwell, Steven D. Frank, Stanton A. Gill, Frank A. Hale, William E. Klingeman, Anthony V. LeBude, Karen Rane, and Alan S. Windham

With increased mobile device usage, mobile applications (apps) are emerging as an extension medium, well suited to “place-less” knowledge transfer. Conceptualizing, designing, and developing an app can be a daunting process. This article summarizes the considerations and steps that must be taken to successfully develop an app and is based on the authors’ experience developing two horticulture apps, IPMPro and IPMLite. These apps provide information for major pests and plant care tasks and prompt users to take action on time-sensitive tasks with push notifications scheduled specifically for their location. Topics such as selecting between a web app and a native app, choosing the platform(s) for native apps, and designing the user interface are covered. Whether to charge to download the app or have free access, and navigating the intra- and interinstitutional agreements and programming contract are also discussed. Lastly, the nonprogramming costs such as creating, editing, and uploading content, as well as ongoing app management and updates are discussed.