Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author or Editor: Joseph Neal x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Joseph C. Neal and Andrew F. Senesac

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).

Free access

Joseph C. Neal, Marvin P. Pritts, and Andrew F. Senesac

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).

Free access

Clara E. Trueblood, Thomas G. Ranney, Nathan P. Lynch, Joseph C. Neal, and Richard T. Olsen

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.

Open access

Julieta Trevino Sherk, Wenyan Fu, and Joseph C. Neal

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.

Free access

Kirk W. Pomper*, Joseph G. Masabni, Desmond R. Layne, Sheri B. Crabtree, R. Neal Peterson, and Dwight Wolfe

The pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal] has great potential as a new fruit crop. A pawpaw variety trial was established in Fall 1995 in Princeton, Ky. as a joint Kentucky State Univ.-Univ. of Kentucky research effort with the objective to identify superior varieties for Kentucky. A randomized block experimental design was used with 8 replicates of 28 grafted scion selections on seedling rootstock. Cultivars being tested included Middletown, Mitchell, NC-1, Overleese, PA-Golden, Rappahannock, Shenandoah, Sunflower, Susquehanna, Taylor, Tay-two, Wells, and Wilson. The other 15 clones were selections from the PawPaw Foundation. In 2002 and 2003, the following parameters were examined: tree survival, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), average fruit weight, total fruit harvested per tree, average fruit per cluster, total yield per tree, and yield efficiency. In 2003, 54% of the trees had survived, with `Susquehanna' (13%) showing the poorest survival. Based on TCSA, most selections displayed excellent vigor, with the exception of the selections: 5-5 and `Overleese'. Average fruit weight was greatest in 1-7-2 (194 g), 1-68 (167g), 4-2 (321 g), 5-5 (225 g), 7-90 (166g), 9-58 (176 g), 10-35 (167 g), NC-1 (180 g), `Sunflower' (204 g), and `Shenandoah' (168g), with the smallest fruit in `Middletown' (70 g), `Wells' (78 g), and `Wilson' (88 g). The selections `Wilson' (81), `Middletown' (75), and `Wells' (70) had the greatest average number of fruit per tree, whereas 4-2 (9), 5-5 (17) and 8-20 (15) the fewest. Yield efficiency and average fruit per cluster also varied greatly among selections. Several pawpaw selections in the trial show promise for production in Kentucky.

Full access

Anthony LeBude, Amy Fulcher, Jean-Jacque Dubois, S. Kris Braman, Matthew Chappell, J.-H (J.C.) Chong, Jeffrey Derr, Nicole Gauthier, Frank Hale, William Klingeman, Gary Knox, Joseph Neal, and Alan Windham

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.

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.

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.