Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

MINUTES NE-1047 Conference Call Meeting Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:30 am EST Meeting convened at: 11:35 am Members attending: Erin Hill, Kevin Gibson (past chair 2014), Chuck Mohler, Robin Bellinder, Toni DiTommaso, Russ Hahn, Steven Mirsky, Carlene Chase, Alan Taylor, Eric Gallandt, Bill Curran, Markah Frost (Brainard group), Thomas Björkman, Mark VanGessel, and Karen Renner (Chair 2015) Members not attending: Erin Haramoto, Dan Brainard, Fred Servello Objective updates: Objective 1: Determine how soil conditions affect efficacy and selectivity of cultivation implements for the control of various weed species. (Bill and Eric) Bill Curran (poster): Clair Keene thesis project. This work is done and being written up in Claire’s thesis with expected defense in late summer 2015. Topic: high-residue cultivation as part of IWM for inter-row weed control in no-till soybean and corn. Residue/no residue did not really impact results (though it was a small amount of residue due to management with herbicides sprayed 1 week before planting, 2-3,000 lbs dry matter). Timing and frequency of cultivation were the most important. High residue cultivators are different than conventional cultivators, intended to use later in the season for control of larger weeds. Results: Run twice to get good weed control. This project was done for 3 years (2 corn; 3 soybean) and so this work is complete. Farmers are not interested in adopting this practice. No-till farmers do not want to disturb the soil at all. Trash wheels included on no-till planter. Banding herbicides worked well; no negative interactions with cover crop residue. They plan to publish a paper in a refereed journal from this research. Eric Gallandt: They did 3 years looking at cultivation efficacy vs soil/residue parameters…not a lot of success. They are interested in switching to the potential for natural populations of weed seedlings to be the source of variability in cultivation success (first year of research in 2014). They evaluated the early growth rate of four weed species, cotyledon through 6-8 leaves and included growth rate, root/shoot partitioning, root architecture. They are processing the data to determine how these parameters influence cultivation efficacy or variability in efficacy. Ex. Crabgrass with one leaf has a large root system…efficacy of cultivation drops off quickly as growth in crabgrass progresses. Objective 2: Determine the reproductive growth stage at which summer annual weeds can be terminated and still produce viable seeds and quantify the effect of method of life-termination on seed production. Erin Hill and Karen Renner: We presented our poster from WSSA. This work is done and is currently in the process of being submitted as a manuscript to Weed Science in April 2015. Mark VanGessel: Presented poster from WSSA. The poster focused on the short amount of time between flowering and viable seed formation, and concluded that there are about 2 weeks to control weeds after flowering before seeds form. Next step is formulating a fact sheet and make it available on a site such as eOrganic. Mark would like to include photos of the flowering stages of these species. Eric G. will send photos of Hairy galinsoga. This project was completed in 2013. No future trials related to this project are projected for 2014. Robin Bellinder: Completed common ragweed data set in 2013 and 2014. The 2014 data is still being processed. She is interested in the possibility of included the common ragweed data set in the MSU and DE publication (common ragweed was not a species in MI or DE). Objective 3: Determine the extent to which soil amendments such as green manures and compost affect seed mortality of various weed species. Erin Hill and Karen Renner (report): We gave a brief summary of our report, highlighting the differences with the other Universities (shorter pull times, higher cover crop rates, organic system with more disturbances). This work is complete. It was included in Erin Hill’s dissertation and was recently submitted as part of an article to Weed Science. Thomas Bjorkman (report): Gave a summary of his report. They were interested in knowing if a growing cover crop and/or a decomposing cover crop kill weed seeds? Weed seeds included foxtail (ended up being dead) and redroot pigweed. Buckwheat and sorghum sudangrass did not appear to impact weed seed mortality in their research. Markah Frost, Dan Brainard, Erin Haramoto (report): Report will be sent out to the group was sent out at 3 p.m. today. The last seed bags were pulled up in 2014 and they are in the final phases of processing seed bags. Powell amaranth and large crabgrass were the two weed species studied; cover crops included rye and rye + hairy vetch under two tillage regimes (i.e. strip tillage and moldboard plow). Strip tillage increased longevity of P. amaranth seeds compared to moldboard plow; large crabgrass had low viability across all experimental treatments. Faucets of this project may continue, but they are uncertain at this time. Chuck Mohler (slides): Run 1 done, Run 2 underway but will not be done until spring 2016. Trtmts- Rye, hairy vetch, bare ground control (planted in same plots in all years) Species- Powell amaranth, C. lambsquarters, velvetleaf, giant foxtail Pull times- 6 months, 1.5 and 2.5 years after burial (Run 1 fall 2011, Run 2 fall 2013) Results Mortality often higher following hairy vetch (proposed mechanism=release of N stimulating germination deep in the soil) No pattern following rye, inconsistent Questions to the group Is the statistical analysis appropriate (i.e. logistic regression)? Convert to % of initial (% mortality)- Erin Hill and Bill Eric- Logistic regression, doesn’t require replications, more x values is what is wanted. How do we know we have enough x values to compensate for replications? Steven- modeled as a % of the total, if the span of x values desired isn’t covered then it would be appropriate Carlene- analyzing count data using Proc GLIMMIX (Chuck using GENMOD) Conclusion: need to consult with a statistician on this data set Carlene Chase- Initially had bags in the ground, but lack of personnel led to dismissing the project. Currently working on another related project, looking at cover crops to suppress weeds during the off season (summer time) and for Sting nematode control in strawberry (see report emailed out). Cover crops included: sunhemp, hairy indigo, American joint vetch, and short-flower rattlebox. Good results for weed suppression, in addition to data analysis did an evaluation of stakeholder interest. They were interested in these cover crops and mixtures. Stakeholders want a cover crop that they can get $$ for. Last year they used the cover crops in a 4-way mixture and also included sesame. Sunhemp dominated the mix. Annual report is due 60 days following the annual meeting. Kevin sent a report in for 2013-2014. Karen needs to send in the report for 2014-2015 by May 25 if there is no summer annual meeting. This project terminates in September 2016. Someone from this group will need to chair the group in 2016 and write the final report. If the group plans to rewrite a renewal – this should be started in July/August of this year with the renewal turned in spring 2016. Summer meeting: Who can go? What dates work well? Where? Focus on future direction. Summary: Reaction not overwhelming to continue. The number of people who would participate depends on the focus area. It sounded like we need to float project ideas around and then based on who is interested in setting up a meeting time and place, if enough interest is generated. Do we want to collaborate or merge with NC1191 group? Summary: Uncertain if we want to collaborate. It would depend on their chosen focus. Individual comments Eric: Enthusiasm is high during the writing year, then without extra support we aren’t able to carry out all of the plans. Interest depends on the focal area. Keeping it very focused is important. Mark: Like idea of concept, rewarding, but moving forward we need to write a proposal that even those with limited resources could participate and contribute. Keep it focused so that when we are all done the outcomes align and can be written together. Maybe just have one objective with a uniform protocol. We need to be able to come out of this with a manuscript. Chuck: Does not plan to participate; technically retired for the past 4 years. Toni: Cover crop impact on weed seed mortality was not significant enough to reduce the weed seed bank. He doesn’t want to keep on with this portion of the project because of the results. Russ: Unlikely to participate in future projects. Bill: Inquired about what the NC group was doing. Steven: Happy to participate if the subject matter is of interest. There is probably no need to continue with the seed decay portion. He would like a simple common experiment. Summer meeting would work, depends on where. Beltsville would be good. Alan: Enjoys multi-state projects and sees the benefits. Some funding opportunities come to them as a result of participating in the multi-state project. Specifically participated because 2 of 3 objectives had a seed component which is why he was invited on. If the new focus is nonseed, Alan will not likely participate. Carlene: Would rather spend time working on a grant together. Same comment that focus needs to be simple. Focus would need to be applicable to FL cropping systems. Would like to collaborate, but is not counting on it because of the differences. Dan/Markah: Get in touch with him in mid-May to see his interest in future participation. Kevin: His interest is waning. Initially had resources, but couldn’t continue. Future participation would really depend on what the topic was. Chuck: Propose an idea, send it around, see who is interested, and then those that are interested need to rally together. Erin/Chuck: What are we already doing that would be of interest with multiple locations? Carlene: Has interest in developing weed seed suppressive soils over time. Can we do it? Maybe we aren’t affecting the soil microbial biomass as much as we would like to in the short-term, but in long-term we may. Interested in soil health over time, how does this impact the weed suppressiveness of the soil over time? After 4 years there may be additive results. Look at reduced tillage practices and expect that it will have longer lasting impacts. Cover crop mixtures also of interest, but will have to work well in the south as well as in the north. Meeting concluded at: 1:05 pm EST Minutes submitted by Erin Hill

Objective 1: Determine how soil conditions affect efficacy and selectivity of cultivation implements for the control of various weed species. (Bill and Eric) Bill Curran: Clair Keene’s thesis project. This work is done and being written up in Claire’s thesis with expected defense in late summer 2015. Topic: high-residue cultivation as part of IWM for inter-row weed control in no-till soybean and corn. Residue/no residue did not really impact results (though it was a small amount of residue due to management with herbicides sprayed 1 week before planting, 2-3,000 lbs dry matter). Timing and frequency of cultivation were the most important. High residue cultivators are different than conventional cultivators, intended to use later in the season for control of larger weeds. Results: Run twice to get good weed control. This project was done for 3 years (2 corn; 3 soybean) and so this work is complete. Farmers are not interested in adopting this practice. No-till farmers do not want to disturb the soil at all. Trash wheels included on no-till planter. Banding herbicides worked well; no negative interactions with cover crop residue. They plan to publish a paper in a refereed journal from this research. Eric Gallandt: They did 3 years looking at cultivation efficacy vs soil/residue parameters…not a lot of success. They are interested in switching to the potential for natural populations of weed seedlings to be the source of variability in cultivation success (first year of research in 2014). They evaluated the early growth rate of four weed species, cotyledon through 6-8 leaves and included growth rate, root/shoot partitioning, root architecture. They are processing the data to determine how these parameters influence cultivation efficacy or variability in efficacy. Ex. Crabgrass with one leaf has a large root system…efficacy of cultivation drops off quickly as growth in crabgrass progresses. Eric’s research is ongoing and collaboration with MSU (Brainard) on cultivation tools – funded for 3 years. Objective 2: Determine the reproductive growth stage at which summer annual weeds can be terminated and still produce viable seeds and quantify the effect of method of termination on seed production. (Karen, Erin Hill, Mark VanGessel, Robin Bellinder, Eric Gallandt) This project was completed in 2014 by all states involved. No future trials related to this project are being conducted in 2015. Erin Hill and Karen Renner: A poster was presented at WSSA that included four species with multiple year and location data. A manuscript was submitted to Weed Science in June 2015 that combined data from Delaware, New York (Cornell), and Michigan. Mark VanGessel: Presented an Extension poster at WSSA. The poster focused on the short amount of time between flowering and viable seed formation, and included weed information from all species in this objective. The next step is formulating a fact sheet and having it available on a site such as eOrganic. Mark would like to include photos of the flowering stages of these species. Eric G. will send photos of Hairy galinsoga. Robin Bellinder: Completed common ragweed data set in 2013 and 2014. The 2014 data was still being processed at the time of the meeting. Since that time processing was completed and the data sent to MSU and included in the publication submitted to Weed Science. Objective 3: Determine the extent to which soil amendments such as green manures and compost affect seed mortality of various weed species. (Karen, Erin Hill, Dan Brainard, Erin Haramoto, Markah Frost (all MSU), Chuck Mohler, Thomas Bjorkman, Carlene Chase) Erin Hill and Karen Renner (report): A brief summary of their report is attached, highlighting the differences with the other Universities (shorter pull times, higher cover crop rates, organic system with more disturbances). This work is complete and was a component of Erin Hill’s dissertation and is part of a journal article being revised and resubmitted in early July 2015 to Weed Science. Karen is continuing work with other amendments and soil incubations under controlled laboratory conditions. Thomas Bjorkman (report): Their lab group is interested in knowing if a growing cover crop and/or a decomposing cover crop kill weed seeds? Weed seeds included foxtail (ended up being dead) and redroot pigweed. Buckwheat and sorghum sudangrass did not appear to impact weed seed mortality in their research. Markah Frost, Dan Brainard, Erin Haramoto (report): A report is also attached. The last seed bags were pulled up in 2014 and they are in the final phases of processing seed bags in spring 2015. Powell amaranth and large crabgrass were the two weed species studied; cover crops included rye and rye + hairy vetch under two tillage regimes (i.e. strip tillage and moldboard plow). Strip tillage increased longevity of P. amaranth seeds compared to moldboard plow; large crabgrass had low viability across all experimental treatments. Markah Frost is continuing work with these two weed species for her MS research. Chuck Mohler: Treatments include rye, hairy vetch and a bare ground control. Weed species include Powell amaranth, C. lambsquarters, velvetleaf, and giant foxtail. Pull times of seed samples are 6 months, 1.5 and 2.5 years after burial. Therefore this project will not be completed until 2016. Run 1 commenced in fall 2011; Run 2 commenced in fall 2013. Results to date include higher mortality following hairy vetch (proposed mechanism= release of N stimulating germination deep in the soil) and no consistent pattern following rye. Carlene Chase: Looking at cover crops to suppress weeds during the off season (summer time) and for Sting nematode control in strawberry (see report). Cover crops included: sunhemp, hairy indigo, American joint vetch, and short-flower rattlebox. Good results for weed suppression, in addition to data analysis did an evaluation of stakeholder interest. They were interested in these cover crops and mixtures. Stakeholders want a cover crop that they can get $$ for. Last year they used the cover crops in a 4-way mixture and also included sesame. Sunhemp dominated the mix.

Bellinder, R., J.B. France. Evaluating Herbicide Programs for Zone-Till Dry Beans. 2014. Northeastern Weed Science Society Proceedings, Vol. 68. Caldwell1, B., C. L. Mohler, Q. M. Ketterings, and A. DiTommaso. 2014. Yields and profitability during and after transition in organic grain cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 106:871-880. Clements, D.R., A. DiTommaso, and T. Hyvönen. 2014. Chapter 2. Ecology and Management of Weeds in a Changing Climate. In: B.S. Chauhan and G. Mahajan, eds. Recent Advances in Weed Management. Springer Science+Media, New York, NY, USA pp. 13-37. Kikkert, J.R., and R. Bellinder. Documentation and Management of Linuron-Resistant Weeds in Processing Carrot Fields in New York. 2014 Northeastern Weed Science Society, Proceedings, Vol. 68.