Search Results

Preemergent herbicide phytotoxicity was evaluated for six species of container-grown ornamental grasses: beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata Fern.), pampas grass [Cortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult. f.) Asch. & Graebn.], tufted hair grass [Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauvois.], blue fescue [Festuca ovina cv. glauca (Lam.) W.D.J. Koch], fountain grass [Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov.], and ribbon grass (Phalaris arundinacea cv. picta L.). Herbicides included isoxaben, metolachlor, MON 15151, napropamide, oryzalin, oxadiazon, pendimethalin, prodiamine, and trifluralin; the granular combination products of benefin plus trifluralin; and oxyfluorfen plus pendimethalin. Metolachlor, granular or spray, and oryzalin severely injured all species tested, except beachgrass, which was not injured by metolachlor granule. Napropamide injured pampas grass, fountain, grass, blue fescue, and tufted hair grass, but was safe on ribbon grass and beach grass. Pendimethalin, prodiamine, trifluralin; MON 15151, isoxaben, oxyfluorfen plus pendimethalin, and benefin plus trifluralin were safe on all six species. Chemical names used: N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine(benefin);N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dimethoxybenzamide(isoxaben);2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyll-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide (metolachlor); S,S-dimethyl 2-(difluoromethyl)-4-(2-methylpropyl)-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3,5-pyridinedicarbothioate(MON 15151);N,N-diethyl-2-(l-naphthalenyloxy)propanamide (napropamide); 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitro-benzenesulfonamide (oryzalin); 3-[2,4-dichloro-5-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-(3H)-one (oxadiazon); 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzene (oxyfluorfen); N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine (pendimethalin); N³,N³-di-n-propyl-2,4-dinitro-6-(trifluoromethyl)-m-phenylenediamine (prodiamine); 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine (trifluralin).

Abstract

Several juniper species and cultivars were compared for sensitivity to labeled and experimental postemergence graminicides. The junipers treated were: Juniperus horizontalis Moench. ‘Wiltonii’ (blue rug), J. h. ‘Bar Harbor’ (Bar Harbor)), J. h. ‘Youngstown’ (Youngstown Andorra), J. chinensis L. ‘Pfitzeriana’ (Pfitzer), J. c. ‘Parsonii’ (Parson’s), J. c. ‘Sargentii’ (Sargent’s), and J. conferta Parl, (shore). The herbicide treatments were fluazifop-p, sethoxydim, haloxyfop, quizalofop, cycloxydim, and fenoxaprop at recommended rates for annual grassy weed control, with recommended spray adjuvants. ‘Bar Harbor’ juniper was injured, in decreasing order of severity, by haloxyfop, fenoxaprop, quizalofop, and fluazifop. Sethoxydim and cycloxydim produced no reduction in plant fresh weight for the juniper cultivars tested. However, sethoxydim plus adjuvants did reduce ‘Bar Harbor’ juniper visual quality ratings in 1986. Pfitzer juniper was slightly injured by haloxyfop in 1985 and by fenoxaprop in 1986. The other junipers were unaffected by herbicide treatments. Chemical names used: (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acid (fluazifop-p), (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acid (fenoxaprop), 2-[4-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acid (haloxyfop), (±)-2[-4-[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy] propanic acid (quizalofop), 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one (sethoxydim), and 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2H-tetrahydrothiopyran-3-yl)-2-cyclohexen-1-one (cycloxydim).

Five greenhouse and two Geld experiments were conducted to evaluate tissue culture-propagated (TC) raspberry (Rubus idaeus cv. Heritage) sensitivity to preemergent herbicides. Plant performance was measured by plant vigor, above-ground fresh weight, root development, and primocane number. Simazine and oryzalin caused significant injury to newly planted TC raspberry plants in greenhouse and field experiments. The severity of injury was generally linear with respect to herbicide rate, but no appreciable differences in injury were observed between the granular and spray applications. Napropamide wettable powder caused some foliar injury, but plants recovered within one growing season and growth was equal or superior to the hand-weeded controls. The granular formulation of napropamide produced similar results, but did not cause the initial foliar burn. Pre-plant dipping of roots into a slurry of activated carbon did not prevent simazine or oryzalin injury, but injury was reduced when herbicide applications were delayed. Simazine applied 4 weeks after planting was not Injurious, and oqzalin applied 2 or 4 weeks after planting caused some foliar injury, hut no reduction in plant fresh weight. Delayed treatments of napropamide increased foliar injury. Herbicide tolerance of tissue-cultured plantlets appeared to be less than that of conventionally propagated plants. Chemical names used: N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy)propanamide (napropamide), 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrobenzenesulfonamide (oryzalin), 6-chloro-N,N'diethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine (simazine).

Compared with traditional roofing, green roofs (GRs) have quantifiable environmental and economic benefits, yet limited research exists on GR plant survival, maintenance practices, and costs related to plant performance. The objective of this study was to assess plant cover, site conditions, and maintenance practices on 10 extensive GRs in the Research Triangle Area of North Carolina. Green roof maintenance professionals were surveyed to assess plant performance, maintenance practices, and maintenance costs. Vegetation cover on each site was characterized. Relationships among plant performance and environmental and physical site characteristics, and maintenance practices were evaluated. Survey respondents ranked weed control as the most problematic maintenance task, followed by irrigation, pruning, and debris removal. No single design or maintenance factor was highly correlated with increased plant cover. Green roof age, substrate organic matter, and modular planting methods were not correlated with greater plant cover. Results showed a trend that irrigation increased plant cover. Plants persisting on GRs included several species of stonecrop (Sedum sp.), but flame flower (Talium calycinum) and ice plant (Delosperma basuticum) were also present in high populations on at least one roof each. Green roof maintenance costs ranged from $0.13/ft² to $3.45/ft² per year, and were greater on sites with more weeds and frequent hand watering.

Although Hypericum androsaemum L. is a valuable landscape plant, the species can be weedy and potentially invasive in certain locations. Infertile, non-invasive cultivars of H. androsaemum with desirable ornamental features would be ecologically beneficial and valuable for the horticultural industry. The male and female fertility of 10 triploid H. androsaemum, developed with a combination of variegation and foliage colors, was investigated under greenhouse (controlled pollination) and field conditions (natural pollination). Male fertility was evaluated based on pollen viability tests (pollen staining and pollen germination). Female fertility was based on fruit set, seed set, germinative capacity of seeds, and number of seedlings produced for each flower. Although values for different measures of fertility varied among triploid clones, pollen germination was significantly reduced for all triploids and nine of the 10 triploids produced no viable seed. These results represent 100% failure of ≈171,000 potential fertilization events based on fertility levels of diploid controls. The remaining triploid clone produced two seedlings per flower compared with 260 seedlings per flower for the controls. However, the seedlings produced by the triploid clone died shortly after germination. This research documented that the triploid H. androsaemum tested are highly infertile with no measurable female fertility. These clones will provide ideal alternatives to fertile forms of H. androsaemum where invasiveness is a concern. These methods also provide a useful protocol for evaluating fertility of other taxa that are selected or developed as non-invasive cultivars of potentially weedy species.

Three, 2-day hands-on experiential learning workshops were presented in three southeastern United States cities in June 2014, by the Southern Nursery Integrated Pest Management (SNIPM) working group. Attendees were provided 4 hours of instruction including hands-on demonstrations in horticultural management, arthropods, plant diseases, and weeds. Participants completed initial surveys for gains in knowledge, skills, and abilities as well as their intentions to adopt various integrated pest management (IPM) practices after the workshop. After 3 years, participants were again surveyed to determine practice adoption. Respondents changed their IPM practice behavior because of attending the workshops. Those returning the survey set aside more time to scout deliberately for pests, plant diseases, and weeds; used a standardized sampling plan when scouting; and adopted more sanitation practices to prevent plant disease. Fewer horticultural management practices were adopted than respondents originally intended. Future emphasis should be placed on using monitoring techniques to estimate pest emergence, for example, traps and pheromone lures, as well as plant phenology and record keeping. However, more work is needed to highlight both the immediate and long-term economic benefits of IPM practice adoption in southeastern U.S. nursery production.

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.

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.