IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program · 2010-09-02 · IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Form Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis 2 PRNumber(s): 29033, 29048

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Form

Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis 1 PRNumber(s): 29033, 29048

Project Title: Phytotoxicity of Biathlon 2.75G (Oxyfluorfen + prodiamine) applied over the top to selected ornamental plants (September 2009 Trials) Protocol #: 09-020 Narrative Summary (Results/Discussion) Mahonia aquifolium (Berberis aquifolium) Phytotoxicity. No significant differences in phytotoxicity ratings were seen between the control plants and those treated with Biathlon during week 1 – 8 (Tables 1 and 6a, Figures 1 and 2a). Plant Growth. No significant treatment effect of Biathlon on Mahonia was noted for height, width or volume increase (Tables 2 and 6a, Figure 2a). Biathlon can be considered safe for over the top application on Mahonia. Pieris japonica ‘Shojo’ A number of plants in all the treatments died due to unknown causes. This occurred in all treatments so that no conclusions from either the phytotoxicity or plant growth data can be drawn as to the safety of Biathlon for over the top application on Pieris. Materials & Methods Plant Material and Culture. The plants for these trials were grown as indicated in Table 3. The experiment ran from September 24, 2009 to December 3, 2009 in an outdoor nursery under 50% shade. The plants were irrigated by hand as needed during the 10-week experiment. Environmental conditions during the trial are summarized in Table 4. Experimental Procedure. Mahonia. Twenty plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with 0 (Control), 1X, 2X or 4X rates of the herbicide with 5 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 09-020 (Appendix A). The material was applied on September 24, 2009 (week 0) and again on November 5, 2009 (week 6). Pieris. Thirty-six plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with 0 (Control), 1X, 2X or 4X rates of the herbicide with 9 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 09-020 (Appendix A). The material was applied on September 24, 2009 (week 0) and again on November 5, 2009 (week 6). Data Collection. Phytotoxicity ratings were taken at week 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10. The dates for those observations were September 24, October 1, 8 and 22, November 5, 12 and 19, and December 3, 2009. Visual phytotoxicity evaluations were based on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no injury) to 10 (complete kill) (Table 5). Plant height and width were measured at week 0 (September 24, 2009) and week 10 (December 3, 2009). Plant height (cm) was



measured from the container soil surface to the top of the canopy. Plant width (cm) was measured twice along perpendicular lines at the widest part of the plant, resulting in W1 and W2. For each observation a canopy volume index was calculated so as to be able to determine if canopy volume was affected by the application of herbicide. The calculation was made as H*W1*W2, where H is the height and W1 and W2 are two width measurements. The usefulness of this index is based on the fact that many of the models for such a volume calculation are of the form a*H*W1*W2. The constant “a” depends on the assumption of the shape of the canopy. Since analyses of variance are scale-independent, the conclusion will thus be for the volume of the plant canopy. Statistical Analysis. The data were analyzed using JMP 8.0 statistical software (SAS Institute). The phytotoxicity and change in mean value from the starting plant height, width and volume index were analyzed for significant differences using t-tests. Acknowledgements The research was supported through funding from the USDA IR-4 Program, Western Region based at UC Davis, Davis, CA. Personnel involved in this project included Linda Dodge (trial coordination, data collection, report compilation), Ron Lane (pesticide application, pest management), David La, Maria Contador and Ho-Yun Kim (plant culture, data collection). The materials being tested were supplied by the manufacturer/distributor. The Mahonia and Pieris plants were propagated from stock plants at UC Davis.



Table 1. Phytotoxicity changes over 10 weeks for plants treated with 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Biathlon 2.75G at weeks 0 and 6. Differing letters a, b, c… designate significant differences among the four means; "Yes" or "no" indicates whether there was an overall significant treatment effect at the 5% level (NA means no variation in data; "yes at 10%" means treatment effect was significant at 10% but not at the 5% level). Means ± SE (n=5 for Mahonia and n = 9 for Pieris)

Phytotoxicity Effect of Biathlon on Mahonia Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week no 2 weeks no 4 weeks no 6 weeks no

0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a

1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a

2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a

4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a

Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 7 weeks no 8 weeks no 10 week yes at 10%

0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 b

1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 b

2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.20 ± 0.20 ab

4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.60 ± 0.24 a

Phytotoxicity Effect of Biathlon on Pieris Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 1 week

(NA) 2 weeks

yes 4 weeks

yes 6 weeks no

0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 2.56 ± 1.19 a 2.56 ± 1.19 a 3.89 ± 1.59 a

1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.56 ± 0.18 b

2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 1.78 ± 0.76 ab 1.78 ± 0.76 ab 3.67 ± 1.18 ab

4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.44 ± 0.44 b 0.44 ± 0.44 b 1.78 ± 1.05 ab

Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 7 weeks no 8 weeks no 10 week no

0X 4.22 ± 1.68 a 4.33 ± 1.72 ab 4.78 ± 1.68 ab

1X 0.67 ± 0.24 b 1.00 ± 0.44 b 1.67 ± 0.73 b

2X 3.89 ± 1.16 ab 4.67 ± 1.28 a 6.11 ± 1.35 a

4X 2.00 ± 1.03 ab 2.44 ± 1.18 ab 4.00 ± 1.31 ab



0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex

0 20 40 60Day of trial

Control1X2X4X

Species: MahoniaMaterial: Biathlon

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex

0 20 40 60Day of trial

Control1X2X4X

Species: PierisMaterial: Biathlon

Figure 1. Phytotoxicity ratings for plants exposed to 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Biathlon 2.75G at weeks 0 and 6. See Table 5 for explanation of ratings.



Table 2. Growth changes over 10 weeks for plants treated with 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Biathlon 2.75G at weeks 0 and 6. Differing letters a, b, c… designate significant differences among the four means; "Yes" or "no" indicates whether there was an overall significant treatment effect at the 5% level (NA means no variation in data; "yes at 10%" means treatment effect was significant at 10% but not at the 5% level). Means ± SE (n=5 for Mahonia and n = 9 for Pieris)

Growth Effect of Biathlon on Mahonia Increase by week 10 of: Treatment Height (cm) yes at 10% Average Width (cm) no Volume Index no

0X 4.70 ± 0.86 ab 6.45 ± 2.12 a 8641.48 ±2378.01 a

1X 6.20 ± 0.51 a 6.90 ± 1.78 a 7723.75 ±1319.32 a

2X 2.20 ± 1.68 b 5.95 ± 0.77 a 4931.18 ±1182.24 a

4X 6.50 ± 1.04 a 5.45 ± 1.71 a 7922.30 ±2784.29 a

Growth Effect of Biathlon on Pieris Increase by week 10 of: Treatment Height (cm) no Average Width (cm) yes Volume Index no

0X 0.00 ± 0.60 ab -2.69 ± 1.49 b -70.17 ± 122.66 ab

1X 1.17 ± 0.66 a 0.83 ± 0.39 a 187.08 ± 67.71 a

2X -0.39 ± 0.27 b -2.06 ± 0.97 b -117.72 ± 52.45 b

4X 0.56 ± 0.49 ab -0.86 ± 0.79 ab -0.75 ± 101.41 ab



CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 2a. Mahonia plants 10 weeks after 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Biathlon 2.75G at weeks 0 and 6.



Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 2b. Pieris plants 10 weeks after 2 applications of 0 (Control), 100 (1X), 200 (2X) or 400 (4X) lb. per acre Biathlon 2.75G at weeks 0 and 6.



Table 3. Materials & Methods/Recordkeeping Protocol number 09-020 09-020 Product Short Name Biathlon 2.75G (Oxyfluorfen +

prodiamine) Biathlon 2.75G (Oxyfluorfen + prodiamine)

Production Site Description Field Container

Field Container

PR Number 29033 29048 Crop Latin Name Mahonia aquifolium (Berberis

aquifolium Pieris japonica

Crop Common Name Oregon Grape Lily of the Valley Shrub Crop Cultivar Shojo Plant Source Cuttings from UCD stock plants

stuck 2009_04_14 Cuttings from UCD stock plants stuck 2009_06_12

Transplant Date 2009_05_15 2009_09_13 Potting Mix UC Mix UC Mix Pot Size 1-gallon 1-gallon Spacing Pot-to-pot Pot-to-pot Expt. Design Completely randomized design RCB Number of Reps n = 5 3 blocks with 3 reps per block = 9 Fertilizer Type Osmocote 15-9-12 Osmocote 15-9-12 Fertilizer Application Date 2009_05_15 2009_09_13 Other Actions Plants pruned back 2009_08_31 Irrigation type and frequency Hand watered as needed Hand watered as needed First Application and Measurements Date

2009_09_24 2009_09_24

Second Application 2009_11_04 2009_11_04 Final Measurements Date 2009_12_03 2009_12_03



Table 4. Environmental conditions during the experiment from 2009_09_24 to 2009_12_03.

Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp

(°F)

Min Air Temp

(°F)

Avg Vap

(mBars)

Avg wSpd

(MPH)Precip

(in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel

Hum (%)

9/24/2009 487 93.1 53.1 12.3 3.4 0 0.18 49 9/25/2009 491 99.5 48.7 11.2 3.1 0 0.18 41 9/26/2009 476 102.7 55.9 11.4 2.6 0 0.18 36 9/27/2009 463 99.6 58.2 11.7 3.2 0 0.18 38 9/28/2009 458 84 55.1 10.9 6.9 0 0.2 46 9/29/2009 517 72.5 -- 6.9 5.6 0 0.15 33 9/30/2009 481 74.2 46.8 5.1 10.6 0 0.24 27 10/1/2009 472 79.5 52 5.3 3.8 0 0.18 24 10/2/2009 462 82.8 46.1 6.5 4.2 0 0.18 31 10/3/2009 446 73.5 51.1 6.7 7 0 0.2 34 10/4/2009 399 66.1 45 5.4 6 0 0.16 36 10/5/2009 441 70.3 39 5.6 4.7 0 0.16 39 10/6/2009 438 76.4 47.8 5.6 5.6 0 0.18 31 10/7/2009 444 80.9 43.9 6.6 4 0 0.16 35 10/8/2009 429 74.5 43.4 9.5 3.6 0 0.13 58 10/9/2009 423 79.2 41.4 9.3 3.7 0 0.13 55

10/10/2009 415 79.8 41.9 9.5 3.8 0 0.13 58 10/11/2009 406 69.7 41.6 9.4 5.2 0 0.12 65 10/12/2009 240 63 32 10.7 5.4 0 0.06 59 10/13/2009 25 61.4 55 13.9 4 0.29 0.01 84 10/14/2009 245 72.7 58.6 16.4 3.7 0.01 0.07 81 10/15/2009 274 71.5 60.6 17.5 5.9 0.02 0.08 83 10/16/2009 398 82.8 54 16.1 3.5 0 0.12 73 10/17/2009 358 78.9 55.9 17.8 2.8 0 0.1 78 10/18/2009 203 69.5 53.3 14.7 7.3 0 0.07 79 10/19/2009 132 61.2 52.1 12.7 6.5 0.19 0.03 84 10/20/2009 395 72.6 48.9 12.3 5.3 0 0.11 74 10/21/2009 333 74.5 49.6 13.5 2.7 0 0.08 80 10/22/2009 365 74.5 50.7 13.1 4.5 0 0.12 72 10/23/2009 356 75.9 48.9 13.4 3.1 0 0.1 71 10/24/2009 368 76.1 50.3 12.8 5.2 0 0.12 65 10/25/2009 351 80.4 56.9 7.8 9.7 0 0.21 34 10/26/2009 351 78.1 50.4 11.7 5.2 0 0.12 58 10/27/2009 311 63 51.3 4.7 12 0 0.19 29 10/28/2009 360 61.1 46.8 4.3 13.1 0 0.19 31 10/29/2009 336 70.6 45.5 5.9 7 0 0.15 38 10/30/2009 339 74.9 40.9 8.7 2.6 0 0.09 58 10/31/2009 329 75.8 41.9 10.7 2.2 0 0.08 69 11/1/2009 333 76.8 46.1 11.4 4.5 0 0.12 67



Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp

(°F)

Min Air Temp

(°F)

Avg Vap

(mBars)

Avg wSpd

(MPH)Precip

(in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel

Hum (%)

11/2/2009 335 76.5 42.7 10.2 3 0 0.1 63 11/3/2009 324 76.4 45.4 9.7 2.9 0 0.1 58 11/4/2009 302 70.9 43.4 10.3 3.5 0 0.09 67 11/5/2009 250 67 45.9 11.3 4.9 0 0.07 73 11/6/2009 180 65.9 49.9 13 5.5 0 0.05 83 11/7/2009 318 67.6 44.8 8 5.8 0 0.11 55 11/8/2009 302 66.5 38.8 6.2 5.6 0 0.11 48 11/9/2009 200 61.9 33.6 7.7 2.6 0 0.05 67

11/10/2009 202 63.6 45.5 8.7 2.8 0 0.06 62 11/11/2009 214 65.3 47.7 9.7 3 0 0.04 66 11/12/2009 283 62 37.6 7 5.2 0 0.1 55 11/13/2009 256 60.6 34.4 6 3.1 0 0.07 56 11/14/2009 288 62.2 35.7 5.6 6.4 0 0.11 49 11/15/2009 283 62.7 32.1 4.9 3.1 0 0.08 45 11/16/2009 281 64.4 33.5 6.2 2.3 0 0.07 59 11/17/2009 282 65.4 31.2 8.6 4.3 0.08 0.07 73 11/18/2009 286 59.2 35.5 6.9 6.2 0 0.09 63 11/19/2009 270 58.9 29.8 6.5 2.3 0 0.06 69 11/20/2009 105 56.9 33.8 8.6 7.3 0.18 0.03 80 11/21/2009 195 56 33.8 7.6 5.2 0 0.05 78 11/22/2009 119 58.3 41.4 9.2 7 0 0.03 79 11/23/2009 226 65.3 41 6.3 8.5 0 0.11 46 11/24/2009 219 64.3 35.1 8 2.3 0 0.05 72 11/25/2009 248 66.3 33.9 7.9 2.5 0 0.06 70 11/26/2009 206 65.3 33.7 8.4 2.6 0 0.05 75 11/27/2009 141 61.7 46.3 9.3 7.6 0.02 0.06 68 11/28/2009 252 64.6 50.1 3.8 9.3 0 0.17 25 11/29/2009 252 69.5 38.9 4.3 8.7 0 0.15 29 11/30/2009 233 62.1 31.3 6.5 2.2 0 0.05 64 12/1/2009 214 59.8 32 6.7 2.5 0 0.05 68 12/2/2009 299 61.1 32 7.3 3.1 0 0.06 62 12/3/2009 233 56.9 28.7 6.6 2.8 0 0.05 77



Table 5. Numerical plant damage rating scale used for phytotoxicity determinations.

Rating Description of plant damage 0 No damage 1 No visible damage but unintended (non-permanent) impact 2 Slight leaf/tissue damage (curling leaves, necrosis, etc.) 3 Marginal chlorosis on some leaves (damage on up to 10% of plant) 4 10% – 20% of plant damaged 5 Significant damage to much of plant (30% - 40%) 6 40% – 60% of plant damaged 7 Chlorosis or necrosis on most of plant (60% - 70%) 8 Abscised leaves, branch dieback 9 Tissue severely damaged (80% - 100% of plant) 10 Complete kill



Table 6a Raw Data for Mahonia Phytotoxicity Report Form

Mahonia Biathlon IR4 Trial Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 10

Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2

Treatment Rep 0 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Control 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.5 26.5 17.5 25.5 26 16.5

Control 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 24.5 19 21 31.5 22

Control 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 27 16 27 40 23

Control 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 17.5 15 17 28.5 17.5

Control 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 20 17 26.5 38 21.5

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 23.1 16.9 23.4 32.8 20.1

1X 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 19.5 16 23 21.5 24.5

1X 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16.5 14.5 16.5 29 30

1X 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 17 11 15 22.5 15

1X 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 23 18 27 29 22.5

1X 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 19.5 18 23.5 21 27

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 19.1 15.5 21.0 24.6 23.8

2X 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 24 21 21 29 22.5

2X 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 18.5 13 22.5 22.5 20.5

2X 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 16 21.5 27 22

2X 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 17.5 15 10 23 22

2X 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.5 22 12 19 30 17

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 16.6 19.8 15.4 18.8 26.3 20.8

4X 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.5 16 14 29 22.5 25.5

4X 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 18 14 25 20 19

4X 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 24 23.5 27.5 40.5 25

4X 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 20 16 27 21 15

4X 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 14.5 7 19.5 17 16

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 19.1 18.5 14.9 25.6 24.2 20.1



Table 6b Raw Data for Pieris Phytotoxicity Report Form

Pieris Biathlon IR4 Trial Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 10

Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2

Treatment Block Rep 0 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Control A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 8 6.5 6 9.5 8.5

Control A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 9.5 8 5.5 10 8.5

Control A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 9.5 7.5 9.5 12 8.5

Control B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 9.5 9 6.5 12.5 9

Control B 2 0 0 4 4 9 10 10 10 6.5 11 10 5.5 4.5 3

Control B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 8.5 7.5 5 8.5 6.5

Control C 1 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 9.5 9.5 3 1 1

Control C 2 0 0 3 3 6 8 9 10 3.5 11.5 10.5 3.5 6 1

Control C 3 0 0 6 6 10 10 10 10 5.5 8 7 2 1 1

Mean 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.8 5.2 9.4 8.4 5.2 7.2 5.2

1X A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10.5 7 7 11 5.5

1X A 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7 4 10.5 10 3.5 9.5 8.5

1X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 10.5 9.5 6.5 11.5 9.5

1X B 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 4.5 9.5 8 3.5 11 10

1X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 10 8.5 6.5 12 11

1X B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 9.5 6 4.5 10.5 9

1X C 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 10 8 5 11.5 9.5

1X C 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 9 9 7.5 11 8

1X C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 9 8.5 8 10 9

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.7 4.6 9.8 8.3 5.8 10.9 8.9

2X A 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4.5 9.5 8 4.5 10.5 9.5

2X A 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 6 10 9 7 8 8

2X A 3 0 0 3 3 5 6 8 10 5.5 9 7 4 8 5

2X B 1 0 0 4 4 8 8 10 10 4 9 6 4 1 1

2X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6.5 8.5 7.5 6.5 9 7

2X B 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5.5 10 8 5.5 10 9.5

2X C 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 4.5 10 8 3 9 8

2X C 2 0 0 3 3 5 5 6 10 4.5 8 7 3.5 5 1

2X C 3 0 0 6 6 10 10 10 10 5.5 10 7.5 5 3 2.5

Mean 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 3.7 3.9 4.7 6.1 5.2 9.3 7.6 4.8 7.1 5.7

4X A 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5.5 8.5 8 7.5 10 7.5

4X A 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 6 10 4.5 11 8.5 4.5 9 4

4X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 8 7.5 10 8

4X B 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 3 8.5 6.5 2.5 7.5 6.5

4X B 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 10 8 8 11 11

4X B 3 0 0 4 4 9 9 10 10 6.5 10.5 8.5 5.5 4.5 3

4X C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 9.5 9 8 9 8

4X C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 8 7.5 5.5 10 7

4X C 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 4 11 9 3 9.5 8

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.8 2.0 2.4 4.0 5.2 9.6 8.1 5.8 8.9 7.0


Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis PRNumber(s): 29033, 29048

14

Appendix A 2009 Crop Safety with Over-the-top Applications of Select Herbicide Materials Ornamental Protocol Number: 09-020 Objective: Determine phytotoxicity of Biathlon to ornamental horticulture plants.

Experimental Design: Plot Size: Must be adequate to reflect actual use conditions.

Replicates: Minimum of 3 replications (preferably 4) with 3 plants per replicate

Application Instructions: Two applications are to be made approximately 6 weeks apart. Applications should be made over the top of the plants using application equipment consistent with conventional commercial equipment. Target dry foliage. If dew is present at the time of application, note it. Irrigate with ½ inch water between 1 and 4 hours after application.

Plant Materials: Contact your Regional Coordinator for an up-to-date list. Plants grown in field containers are preferred to in-ground.

Treatments:

Product Priority Rate Product (ai) per

acre

Special Instructions

Contact Information to obtain materials

100 lb (2.75 lb ai) 200 lb (5.5 lb ai)

Biathlon C

400 lb (11.0 lb ai)

OHP, Dave Barcel, 262-392-3004, [email protected]

Untreated -- --

Evaluations: Record plant height & width at initial and final evaluations only. At 1, 2, and 4 weeks after each application, record phytotoxicity on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No phytotoxicity; 10 = Complete kill). If appropriate, also include ratings for chlorosis, defoliation, stunting or other growth effects on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = No effect; 10 = Complete plant affected). If any phytotoxicity is observed in treated plants, take pictures comparing treated and untreated plant material.

Recordkeeping: Keep detailed records of weather conditions including temperature and precipitation, soil-type or soil-less media, application equipment, irrigation, liner size, plant height & width, and plant growth stage at application and data collection dates.

Reports:

Reports submitted electronically on the standard IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Research Report Form are preferred.

A report submitted electronically is preferred but not required. If the report is provided electronically, the basic report can be sent in MS Word or WordPerfect, the recordkeeping information as pdf or other electronic documents, and the raw data in MS Excel or other suitable program such as ARM.

Please direct questions to: Cristi Palmer, IR-4 HQ, Rutgers University, 681 US Hwy 1 S, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, Phone 732-932-9575 x4629, [email protected] OR Ely Vea, 308 Aston Forest Lane, Crownsville, MD 21032, Phone & FAX#: 410-923-4880, E-mail: [email protected].

Draft Date: 6/2/09 Revised By: CLP

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program · 2010-09-02 · IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Form Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis 2 PRNumber(s): 29033, 29048