Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Discussion of completion of the current project: We are in our final year of the current 5-year research project. The final report is due in December 2015 (no decision on who will lead the report writing but all present were willing to participate). All data collection has been completed and the raw data sent to Frank Forcella. Frank is the sole person analyzing the data after Adam Davis stepped down. Unfortunately it was not known how data analysis is progressing, although Greta believed a manuscript was in progress based on the field pennycress data. Action: Sharon is going to contact Frank to determine what progress has been made, and if he needed any assistance from the group. John suggested a meeting to discuss data analysis may be necessary this fall depending on the outcome of Sharon’s discussion with Frank. Discussion on how to move forward: September 15th is the deadline for submitting our intent: there are three options, which include continuing as a research, changing to a discussion group, or disbanding. Consequently, most of the meeting time was dedicated to discussing which of these approaches we should take. There was no support amongst those present of disbanding the group. Overall people were supportive of and interested in remaining a research group but concerns over the reduction or lack of institutional support to perform field research was a major concern of several of the attendees. Several members reiterated that they believe these multistate collaborations have been very beneficial to them professionally, and to weed science as a discipline and would like to maintain connection with colleagues in some format. While there was general interest in performing experiments to evaluate the effect of climate change (increased temperature and reduced moisture) and nitrogen deposition on weed and crop performance at the 2014 annual meeting there was general concern that this would take more resources than available to members. No alternative research projects were proposed this year. Anita floated the idea of revaluating weed loss with respect to Zimdahl’s Fundamentals of Weed Loss, or WeedSoft. There was support for this, which developed into a broader discussion on the benefits of becoming a discussion group. Karen Renner summarized the research conducted by the NE group that she is part of. This group has been having similar issues to us, with decreased participation by many original members and a decrease in institutional support. They too are evaluating the values of becoming a discussion group and there may be interest in the two groups coming together in the future. There was general support for becoming a discussion group because that would allow us to read new research and discuss emerging concepts in a more interdisciplinary manner, as well as generate new research ideas. Several members did not want to rule out the possibility of returning to being a research group in the future. The idea of having virtual meetings at intervals throughout the year to discuss new research papers or concepts, as well as one in person meeting per year was generally considered a good idea. It was suggested a poll should be taken to see what time of year it would be best for people to meet in person, and if tacking the multistate meeting onto a regional or national meeting, or having a separate meeting would be best. No-one in the group knew much about the procedure to change to a discussion group, or what the reporting requirements were. Doug Buhler couldn’t attend the 8-11 am meeting but had agreed to talk with Christy and a few others at 12 MT time to receive a report on the annual meeting, and provide advise on procedural matters. Anita will report on this meeting. In summary: There was some interest in remaining, or being able to return to a research group status after a couple years, but the general consensus was to become a discussion group. However, no-one offered to lead the new group, though several people (Anita, John and Lisa with help from Greta if time allows) offered to help develop the new discussion framework and write the proposal.

Activities: This year marked the completion of of four years of data collection on the phenology of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti L.). This common garden experiment was conducted in KS, MI, NE, ND, MN, OR, SD. For each weed species, seeds from common and local accessions were planted. Experimental units consisted of 1 m2 quadrats with two types of measurements taken within: seedling emergence, and monitoring of flowering and seed maturation within the quadrat as a whole. Each 1 m2 quadrat contained four evenly spaced rows (0.25 m between rows) of a given experimental species seeded at 30 seeds row-1 (populations were ultimately thinned to 2-4 plants per row, for a total of 12 plants per quadrat). Phenology measurements included seedling emergence over time, floral initiation (onset of anthesis), and species-specific measures of seed maturation. Weed seedling emergence was recorded non-destructively twice a week until there were at least 2-4 plants per row, then thinned to the target density of 2-4 plants per row. Floral initiation and seed maturation for each marked individual in each plot was recorded. Results from this experiment have been compiled and are currently being analyzed by Dr. Frank Forcella’s group. We expect results will allow us to develop more accurate predictions of weed phenology in support of weed management. Given that our common research protocols had been met, much of the discussion at the 2015 meeting revolved around whether to continue as a research committee or change to a discussion group once our five year cycle is completed. There was interest in remaining a research group, but also concern about resources to carry out common research protocols. It was subsequently decided that the group would apply for a new discussion group following the completion of the current cycle. Milestones: We have collected three full cycles of weed phenology data that are required to improve modeling approaches for more accurate weed phenology predictions. Data were summarized by each participant and presented at the annual meetings. The data have been compiled for all locations and are currently being analyzed in preparation for one or more manuscripts on the topic. Outputs: A regional-scale data set on the phenology of summer annual and winter annual weeds of the north central region have been generated. These data will be used to update and improve weed seedling emergence models.