NE 187 Meeting Minutes

The meeting, located at 115 Woodward Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, was called to order at 1:05 p.m., August 28, 2000, by Bridget Rummele.

Present: Steve Alm, Paul Backman, Mark Carroll, Bruce Clarke, Richard Cowles, Scott Ebden, Steven Fales, Karl Guillard, Richard Hull, Noel Jackson, Zhongchun Jiang, Preston Jones (USDA-CSREES), Peter Landschoot, Pim Larsson-Kovach, James Lin (USEPA), Bill Meyer, Kevin Morris (NTEP), Bridget Ruemmele, and Mike Sullivan. Patricia Vittum was present during the second day of the meeting.

Following introductions, Paul Backman, our AES advisor, gave us a report. Because this project started so late in 1999, we were not required to file a report. Our first report will be due on November 11, 2000. Other comments and advice:

- Look to form new collaborations with other group members within NE-187

- One opportunity is the IFAS (Integrated Food and Agriculure Systems) Program

- Remember that there are now legislated demands that we document our relevance and impact to stakeholders (citizens and industry)

- Integrated research programs are rapidly growing, most have outreach component

- Department of Energy has grants, mostly involving biomaterials

Preston Jones, our CSREES advisor, gave us a report. He anticipates level or slightly increased formula funding.

- There is a greater emphasis on competitive (vs. formula funded) grants

- The IFAS program funds projects from savings derived from the Freedom to Farm Act. Watch news on Sept. 12 to see who this year’s recipients are. This program does fund large, multi-state and multi-disciplinary projects.

- Also look to the Special Integrated Research Program for funding.

- The expectation is that the NE-187 Project can act as a catalyst for bringing together collaborative, interstate projects.

- The shift from formula funding to competitive grants-based funding (such as the NRI Program) will make it more challenging to guarantee that applied research is relevant to stakeholders. IFAS serves as an example as a program that can fill the void in supporting problem-solving applied research.

State Reports

Objective 1. Evaluate Germplasm Compatible with Best Management Practices to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Pesticides and Nutrients.

Diseases. Bill Meyer has distributed seed for evaluation in many studies at several states. Bill has observed some variation in susceptibility to brown patch and dollar spot. The inoculation method is to distribute infected seed with a drop spreader over plots. Peter Landschoot commented that he’s evaluating red leaf spot, dollar spot, and interactions and tolerance to herbicides. A general discussion started regarding a new disease of bentgrass, bluegrass dead spot, Ophiosphaerella agrostis, which may be recently introduced. This disease forcibly ejects spores. The infection site starts on the foliage and grows downward into and kills the crown. It also affects Poa trivialis and possibly other species. In PA, diseases on bentgrass have not been affected by applications of silica. At Rutgers, dollar spot has been less of a problem on high N plots, low N reduces brown spot problems, though. Reduced cutting height on greens increases disease problems.

Weeds. Research in NJ has demonstrated that seeding date greatly influences the competitiveness of bentgrass over annual bluegrass. This very practical finding has already influenced some growers. In PA, basamid is being used to kill Poa annua seed. This fumigant (350 lb/Acre) is highly effective but costs $1100 - $1400 per acre.

Entomology. Steve Alm (URI) has been doing feeding studies of black cutworm development (time to pupation, pupal weight) using clippings from the new bentgrass accessions. PA reported increased problems with northern masked chafer and Asiatic garden beetle, and are looking for chlorpyrifos replacements against several pests. In NJ, Albrecht Koppenhofer has been mostly focusing on white grubs. In MA, Pat Vittum has been studying annual bluegrass weevil, which also feeds on bentgrass. Conserve (spinosad) can be effective at higher rates than the label currently allows.

Objective 2. Assess the environmental fate of pesticides and nutrients associated with conventional and best management practices used in turf systems.

Nitrates. Karl Guillard (University of Connecticut) reported on his studies of nitrate movement. His group uses ion exchange membranes (normally used in water purification systems) buried in the soil to capture mobile nitrate. Researchers at URI reported on August 29. Michael Sullivan and Zhongchun Jiang at URI have been doing studies similar in principle to those of Karl Guillard, but with ion exchange resin held in a mesh ball against the soil. This inexpensive test ($8 - $10) has already allowed sod farm managers to fine-tune fertilization practices to avoid nitrate leaching (and waste of fertilizer). Richard Hull reported that a 5-year study with Kentucky bluegrass/ryegrass mix has completed its first phase. Low rates of nitrogen (1 lb N per year, applied in the spring) can provide the same quality turf as 3 lb N per year, but with slower springtime green-up. Analysis of the biochemical kinetics to select for faster conversion of nitrate to amino acids in turf roots could favorably reduce shoot elongation. This could prevent heat stress in cool-season turf. He also reported an unexpected discovery, that the time of day may affect a shift in allocation of plant resources to the roots. Bluegrass clipped in the evening had 25% greater root mass than those clipped in the morning.

Phosphates. Mark Carroll reported that application of P improves establishment even where P levels test as adequate. Therefore, phosphate application may still be warranted to get quick cover.

Pesticides. In MA, John Clark is doing human exposure studies in turfgrass, while Prasanta Bhowmik is doing PGR and pesticide work. In MD, Mark Carroll has been studying 2,4-D, triclopyr, carbaryl, dicamba, and chlorothalonil movement in soil vs. soil+thatch columns. Comparison of convective dispersive, kinetic, and 2-site models determined that the latter worked best, while available models (GLEAN and PRZM) over- and underestimate leaching.

Guest speaker: modeling. James Lin explained to the group his role within US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) as an Environmental Engineer. He works within the Environmental Fate and Effects Department, which is 1 of the 9 divisions within OPP. Within the EFED Department, there are 5 Environmental Risk Branches (I – V), for which each branch works on different chemicals. Each branch consists of teams of 10 – 15 scientists, who may also share their expertise with other ERBs as members of technical teams. Technical teams have specialties, such as aquatic or terrestrial impact. The EFED department estimates effects based on the principles of toxicology: namely that the impact is determined by the exposure interaction of stressors with receptors, which is a function of the duration, intensity, and number of exposure events. Several models are used for impact assessment. PRZM is used to study the movement of pesticides in soil and groundwater, AgDrift looks at movement at the time of application, and EXAMS looks at chemical and water properties to model decay and the exposure scenario for aquatic organisms (exposure, fate, and persistence of the chemical). Output from these models is then used to determine likely responses of aquatic organisms, based on standard toxicological data.

Business Meeting

Selection of officers. In the interest of rotating positions from major institutions, Frank Rossi (Cornell University) was selected as the new chair. Scott Ebdon was nominated as secretary, but then withdrew. Peter Landschoot was elected to be secretary.

Annual Report. The final report will be due November 11, 2000. This year, the project will be written in the same manner as in past years (it will be principally assembled from state reports by Bridget Ruemmele), since there is insufficient time for leaders to pull together the subject matter from different groups. In the future, a representative for each discipline (e.g., entomologist) will assemble the appropriate sections for the annual report by pulling together the information from colleagues at the participating institutions. To be included in this year’s report, state reports need to be submitted as soon as possible.

Outside participants. We discussed inviting R&D personnel from industry, along with national or international experts on subjects relevant to our group. One idea is to split the informational (educational) portion from the technical committee portions of the meeting. A motion followed to “Delegate to the Executive Committee the opportunity to invite non-university research representatives to the NE-187 meeting.” The motion met unanimous approval.

Membership issues. Paul Backman then reminded the group that non-participation in the NE-187 group will lead to removal of status as a participant. Two years without either a report or attendance at the NE-187 meeting will result in the party being eliminated as a participant. There was a question about the process for others to join the group. Dr. Backman responded that, as long as the scientist’s agricultural experiment station was already participating, that there was no need for formal project amendment to include the scientist in our group.

Amendments to the Project. The scope of the original project was limited so it could remain focused on a central topic. Members expressed interest in broadening the scope to include other topics. Some of the topics that need to be considered under the aegis of this project include: study of bentgrass dead spot, use of colonial and velvet bentgrasses on both fairways and greens, and management of white grubs and annual bluegrass weevil. Paul Backman indicated that such flexibility and broadening of a project should be expected, so that it can address needs as they arise. He also pointed out that scientists waiting for their topic of study (species of turf or particular pest) to show up in the region project work plan need to attend the meeting to effect change on their own behalf.

Meeting date and location. A general discussion of meeting time determined that meeting concurrently with ASA or the GCSA national meetings could increase participation. The meeting date and time will be left up to Frank Rossi, but the group favored meeting in the summer, in Toronto with the ASA national meeting in 2001, and possibly at the Long Island Horticultural Research Station in 2002.

NTEP Report. Peter Landschoot reported on NTEP. The 1999 NTEP project is evaluating 173 Kentucky bluegrass varieties. He expressed the concern that participants may experience rating-fatigue with so many entries. Bill Meyer suggested that for some species, a preliminary screening of varieties might cut down on unnecessary entries. NTEP and USDA have cosponsored 5 statistical analyses of data, all of which have been completed and for which reports are now being written. Kevin Morris has upgraded the NTEP web site. Clients can now request customized reports from NTEP. NTEP is lobbying congress for funding a USDA turfgrass scientist position. The senate version of the agriculture bill includes funding for this position. A videotape on rating turfgrass is being prepared. NTEP’s strategic plan is being reviewed.

Concluding remarks from Paul Backman:

It appears that the next meeting will be in Toronto, followed by LIHRS.

In this year’s report, eliminate portions not conforming to project plan.

Remember to allow inclusion of the project’s amended subject matter next year (dead spot, white grubs, etc…). Note “Amendments” section above.

Dr. Backman will send out electronically the new format for doing reports. He anticipates that we will soon be on a paper-less reporting system.

A web site for the regional project would be a good idea.

Concluding remarks from Preston Jones:

Opening up the meeting to outside participants will have to be balanced by the need for focus. This can be accomplished by keeping the business portion of the meeting separate. Break-out groups are best for planning and coordination, while all benefit from state reports.

Rotating the location of the meeting allows participants to experience the different research facilities.

People working on pesticide and nutrient modeling need to be brought in to the meeting to participate and lend expertise.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 a.m. on August 29, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard S. Cowles, Secretary