<%BANNER%>

Seed Biology and Chemical Control of Giant and Small Smutgrass

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024543/00001

Material Information

Title: Seed Biology and Chemical Control of Giant and Small Smutgrass
Physical Description: 1 online resource (66 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wilder, Barton
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: hexazinone, smutgrass
Agronomy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agronomy thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SEED BIOLOGY AND CHEMICAL CONTROL OF GIANT AND SMALL SMUTGRASS By Barton J. Wilder May 2009 Chair: Jason Ferrell Co-chair: Brent Sellers Major: Agronomy Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) is a perennial weed that affects improved pastures in Florida. Smutgrass is a bunch-type grass that is believed to have originated in tropical Southeast Asia. There are two species of smutgrass currently in Florida: small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis). Small smutgrass was first observed in Florida in the 1950s and by the 1970s, it was estimated that it infested greater than 70% of the improved pastures of central Florida. Giant smutgrass was first detected in south Florida in the early 1990s and rapidly displaced small smutgrass in central and south Florida. Regardless of variety, smutgrass is problematic in grazed pastures due to its low palatably and rapid spread. Hexazinone is currently the only herbicide labeled for control of both smutgrass varieties. However, giant smutgrass is clearly more aggressive than small and it is unknown if a higher hexazinone rate is required for control. Smutgrass research has been conducted in Florida since the 1950s, but since giant smutgrass has only recently arrived in Florida there less known about the plant. This research was conducted to explore the differences between small and giant smutgrass. The first section compared seed germination characteristics of both varieties. Significant differences were found in temperature, pH, light, and depth of burial between giant and small smutgrass. The second section was a rate titration experiment to determine if separate recommendations were needed for small and giant smutgrass. There were no significant differences found in the optimum hexazinone rate needed to control both smutgrass varieties. The third section examined whether spray adjuvants could be used to improve the efficacy of hexazinone on giant smutgrass. Two experiments were conducted. The first experiment tested varying amounts of the commercial adjuvant ?Optima??. The second experiment tested Optima? along with different types of adjuvants. It was observed in both experiments that the addition of spray adjuvants did not statistically improve smutgrass control relative to hexazinone applied alone.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Barton Wilder.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ferrell, Jason A.
Local: Co-adviser: Sellers, Brent Alan.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024543:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024543/00001

Material Information

Title: Seed Biology and Chemical Control of Giant and Small Smutgrass
Physical Description: 1 online resource (66 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wilder, Barton
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: hexazinone, smutgrass
Agronomy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agronomy thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SEED BIOLOGY AND CHEMICAL CONTROL OF GIANT AND SMALL SMUTGRASS By Barton J. Wilder May 2009 Chair: Jason Ferrell Co-chair: Brent Sellers Major: Agronomy Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) is a perennial weed that affects improved pastures in Florida. Smutgrass is a bunch-type grass that is believed to have originated in tropical Southeast Asia. There are two species of smutgrass currently in Florida: small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis). Small smutgrass was first observed in Florida in the 1950s and by the 1970s, it was estimated that it infested greater than 70% of the improved pastures of central Florida. Giant smutgrass was first detected in south Florida in the early 1990s and rapidly displaced small smutgrass in central and south Florida. Regardless of variety, smutgrass is problematic in grazed pastures due to its low palatably and rapid spread. Hexazinone is currently the only herbicide labeled for control of both smutgrass varieties. However, giant smutgrass is clearly more aggressive than small and it is unknown if a higher hexazinone rate is required for control. Smutgrass research has been conducted in Florida since the 1950s, but since giant smutgrass has only recently arrived in Florida there less known about the plant. This research was conducted to explore the differences between small and giant smutgrass. The first section compared seed germination characteristics of both varieties. Significant differences were found in temperature, pH, light, and depth of burial between giant and small smutgrass. The second section was a rate titration experiment to determine if separate recommendations were needed for small and giant smutgrass. There were no significant differences found in the optimum hexazinone rate needed to control both smutgrass varieties. The third section examined whether spray adjuvants could be used to improve the efficacy of hexazinone on giant smutgrass. Two experiments were conducted. The first experiment tested varying amounts of the commercial adjuvant ?Optima??. The second experiment tested Optima? along with different types of adjuvants. It was observed in both experiments that the addition of spray adjuvants did not statistically improve smutgrass control relative to hexazinone applied alone.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Barton Wilder.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ferrell, Jason A.
Local: Co-adviser: Sellers, Brent Alan.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024543:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 S EED BIOLOGY AND CHEMICAL CONTROL OF GIANT AND SMALL S MUTGRASS By BARTON J. WILDER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTE R OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Barton J. Wilder

PAGE 3

3 To Maggie

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chair Dr. Jason Ferrell and co -chair Dr. Brent Sellers for all of t heir assistance with the completion of this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Greg M a cDonald for his expertise on seed germination and all around knowledge. I would also like to thank all of the graduate students in the weed science program fo r their help and encouragement over the past two years. Special thanks to Michael Dobrow, Brandon Fast, and Kurt Vollmer. My deepest gratitude also goes to technicians Justin Snyder and Walt Beatty. Additional thanks go to Ed Perry, Carlton Ranch, the U niversity of Florida Beef Research Unit, and all those who made my research possible. I would also like to thank my parents for their support and love. I feel very privileged to have been raised in such a loving home. I also wish to thank them for instil ling in me a love of agriculture from a very young age. Finally, I would like to express my sincere and deep appreciation to my fiance, Maggie. I will never forget the late nights spent counting seeds at the Weed Shop. Thank you for motivating me, even when I resisted, to complete my thesis. I am looking forward to spending the rest of my life with you I love y ou.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 7 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12 Smutgrass Biology ...................................................................................................................... 14 Smutgrass Dispersal .................................................................................................................... 15 Smutgrass in Forages .................................................................................................................. 16 Hexazinone Application and Mode of Action ........................................................................... 18 Adjuvants and Their Use ............................................................................................................ 19 3 THE INFLUENCE OF ADJUVANTS ON THE CONTROL OF GIANT SMUTGRASS WITH HEXAZINONE HERBICIDE .............................................................. 22 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 22 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................ 23 Experiment One ................................................................................................................... 23 Experiment Two .................................................................................................................. 24 Experimental Design and Analysis ..................................................................................... 24 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 25 Experiment One ................................................................................................................... 25 Experiment Two .................................................................................................................. 25 4 FACTORS AFFECTING SEED GERMINATION OF S MALL AND GIANT SMUTGRASS ............................................................................................................................. 30 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 30 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................ 31 Seed Source .......................................................................................................................... 31 Germination Protocol .......................................................................................................... 31 Base Line Germination ........................................................................................................ 31 Temperature ......................................................................................................................... 32 Light ...................................................................................................................................... 32 pH ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Osmotic Potential................................................................................................................. 32 Depth of Burial .................................................................................................................... 33 Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis ................................................................... 33

PAGE 6

6 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 33 Baseline Germination .......................................................................................................... 33 Light ...................................................................................................................................... 35 pH ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Osmotic Potential................................................................................................................. 36 Depth of Burial .................................................................................................................... 36 5 HEXAZINONE HERBICIDE RATE TITRATION FOR GIANT AND AND SMALL SMUTGRASS ............................................................................................................................. 44 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 44 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................ 46 Results and Discuss ion ............................................................................................................... 47 6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 62 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 63 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 66

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Giant smutgrass control with hexazinone and Optima Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ...................................................................................................... 27 3 2 Optima control rates 12 months after treatment. Values repre sented with 95% confidence intervals. .............................................................................................................. 28 3 3 Various adjuvants with 1.12 kg/ha hexazinone. 12 months after treatment. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ......................................................................... 29 4 1 Baseline germination of two smutgrass varieties. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. .............................................................................................................. 38 4 2 The ef fect of temperature on small smutgrass germination. Values represent ed with 95% confidence intervals ...................................................................................................... 39 4 3 The effect of temperature on Giant smutgrass germination. Values repres ented with 95% confidence intervals. ...................................................................................................... 40 4 4 The effect of light on small and giant smutgrass germination. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ............................................................................................. 41 4 5 The effect of pH on small and giant smutgrass germination. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ...................................................................................................... 42 4 6 The effect of seed burial depth on small and giant smutgrass germination. Bars represent standard error. ........................................................................................................ 43 5 1 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 10 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ................ 50 5 2 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 10 r eplications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ................ 51 5 3 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 10 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. ................ 52 5 4 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Value s represented with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 53 5 5 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values re presented with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 54

PAGE 8

8 5 6 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values repre sented with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 55 5 7 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represente d with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 56 5 8 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented wi th 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 57 5 9 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 58 5 10 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 59 5 11 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% con fidence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 60 5 12 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confi dence intervals. .................................................................................................................................. 61

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SEED BIOLOGY AND CHEMICAL CONTROL OF GIANT AND SMALL SMUTGRASS By Barton J. Wilder May 2009 Chair: Jason Ferrell Co -chair: Brent Sellers Major: Agronomy Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) is a perennial weed that affects improved pastures in Florida. Smutgrass is a bunchtype gra ss that is believed to have originated in tropical Southeast Asia. There are two species of smutgrass currently in Florida: small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis) Small smutgrass was first observed in Florida in the 1950s and by the 1970s, it was estimated that it infested greater than 70% of the improved pastures of central Florida. Giant smutgrass was first detected in south Florida in the early 1990s and rapidly displaced small smutgrass in centr al and south Florida. Regardless of variety smutgrass is problematic in grazed pastures due to its low palatably and rapid spread. Hexazinone is currently the only herbicide labeled for control of both smutgrass varieties. However, giant smutgrass is c learly more aggressive than small and it is unknown if a high er hexazinone rate is required for control. Smutgrass research has been conducted in Florida since the 1950s but since giant smutgrass has only recently arrived in Florida there less known abou t the plant. This research was conducted to explore the differences between small and giant smutgrass. The first section compared seed germination characteristics of both varieties. Significant differences were found in temperature, pH, light, and depth of burial between giant and small smutgrass. The second section was a rate titration experiment to determine if separate

PAGE 10

10 recommendations were needed for small and giant smutgrass There were no significant differences found in the optimum hexazinone rat e needed to control both smutgrass variet ies T he third section examined whether spray adjuvants could be used to improve the efficacy of hexazinone on giant smutgrass. Two experiments were conducted. The first experiment tested varying amounts of the c ommercial adjuvant Optima The second experiment test ed Optima along with different types of adjuvants. It was observed in both experiments that the addition of spray adjuvants did not statistically improve smutgrass control relative to hexazinone applied alone.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) was first discovered as a pasture weed in Florida in the early 1950s. By the 1970s, it had become the dominant and most serious pasture weed in central Florida. In t he early 1990s, giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis) was detected in south Florida. By the end of the decade giant smutgrass had displaced small smutgrass as the dominant variety in central and south Florida. Previous r esearch has concentrated on small smutgrass biology, espe cially seed germination characteristics, in the past H owever there has been limited research on seed germination for giant smutgrass. This thesis will in part, describe results from studies test ing factors required for germination of both small and gi ant smutgrass. This research will provide a better understanding of these weeds thus allow ing for better management recommendations. The second section of the thesis addresses the role of adjuvants in improving hexazinone efficacy, which is the only her bicide labeled for selective smutgrass control in pastures Experiments were conducted on varying rates of different types of adjuvants for hexazinone efficacy. The final part of the thesis is a rate titration study to determine the minimum hexazinone rate in (kg/ha) to achieve consistent 90% control for small or giant smutgrass

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The total cost of weed control can be staggering. It is estimated that the total accumulated cost of non-native species (animals, plants, and mic robes) control in the United States is $7 billion per year ( Pimentel et al. 2000). In the United States, more than 700,000 hectares are invaded each year to non -native plant species (Pimentel et al. 2000). In Florida, more than 25,000 plant species have been introduced for ornamental use ( Pimentel et al. 2000). Of these 25,000 species, approximately 900 have escaped and naturalized into various ecosystems (Pimentel et al. 2000). In pastures, where approximately $10 billion of the U.S. forage crops are grown annually (USDA 1998) 45% of the weeds are non-native (Pimentel et al. 2000). The annual forage loss due to nonnative weeds in the U.S. totals nearly $1 billion on av erage and i n 1998, ranchers spent $5 billion in pasture weed control (Pimentel et al. 2001). Pasture weeds can cause problems for ranchers including, but not limited to ; competition with desirable forage s for light and other nutrients, di splacement of desirable forages, reduction in stocking rate, animal discomfort; and animal toxicity Due to its low palatability and ability to out -compete desirable grasses such as bahiagrass and bermudagrass for light and nutrients, sm utgrass (Sporobolus indicus) is considered one of the worst pasture weeds in Florida (Crawford 2003). Smutgrass (Sp orobolus sp ) also known in Australia as giant paramatta grass is a serious perennial weed in improved pastures on the sandy soils of Florida (McCaleb and Hodges 1971) It is found in 23 states around the southeast, Midwest, eastern seaboard, as well as the Pacific coast (McCaleb and Hodges 1971). It is also found throughout the world in Japan and the Philippines. Smutgrass, a member of the Poaceae family, is a bunch type grass with a long single stalk inflorescence that is often infected with a

PAGE 13

13 dark c olored fungus (Bipolaris spp.) from which the weed is named (Mislevy et al. 2002) Smutgrass is believed to have originated in tropical Southeast Asia (Mears et al. 1996). Smutgrass is a problem in pastures due to its low palatability and ability to dis place desirable forages in improved pastures. Since cattle will not preferentially graze smutgrass, interspecific competition is reduced and smutgrass spread increases (Mears et al. 1996). In Australia, Mears et al. (1996) found that giant Parramatta gra ss digestibility was 47% with a nitrogen concentration of only 0.68%. This compare s to 57.6% digestibility and 9 11% nitrogen concentration in bahiagrass. However, smutgrass regrowth following an intensive grazing program has similar forage quality to ba hiagrass (Mullahey 2000). In the 1970s, it was estimated that 75% of improved pastures in central Florida were infested with small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) (Mislevy and Martin 1985). It was not until the 1990s that giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicu s var. pyramidalis) was first detected in south Florida (Adjei et al. 2003). Since that time it has continued to spread and is now the dominant smutgrass species in central and south Florida (Adjei et al. 2003). Smutgrass has proven to be a difficult we ed to control. In the past, mowing, fertility management, intensive rotational grazing, and use of the herbicide dalapon ( 2, 2 Dichloropropionic acid) were the only viable control options. Dalapon was the most effective h erbicide option It was found th at mowing 5 weeks after dalapon treatment greatly improved control and increased bahiagrass ground cover (Mislevy and Currey 1980; Mislevy et al. 1980) However, t he rate of dalapon required to achieve greater than 80% smutgrass control also reduced bahia grass stand density by 50% (Mislevy and Currey 1980). Dalapon is no longer registered for use in pastures (Mislevy et al. 1999), but hexazinone (Velpar ) provides good control of small smutgrass with less bahiagrass toxicity compared to dalapon (Brecke 19 81;

PAGE 14

14 Meyer and Baur 1979). Research has shown that hexazinone is also effective in controlling giant smutgrass; however, bahiagrass injury remains a concern (Mislevy et al. 1999). Smutgrass reduces the quality of a pasture for cow -calf production. Howev er, it can take several years before smutgrass is present in sufficient densities to reduce fo rage production (Currey et al. 1972). The colonizing plants are, at first, inconspicuous and cause little concern. However, if not properly controlled, smutgras s will quickly become the domina nt species in the pasture ( Currey et al. 1972). Cattle avoid mature smutgrass, but young stands may be grazed (Simon and Jacobs 1999). Mullahey (2000) found that when giant smutgrass is managed intensively, cattle readily consume the tender shoots. However, intensive grazing management may not be suitable for all cattle operations due to the short 2 week window of smutgrass palatability after burning and high cost of rotational grazing. Smutgrass Biology Small s mutgrass is described as a dark green, tufted erect plant; leaves smooth, usually folded, seedhead usually elongated and spike like, and is often infected with a black smut fungus (Elmore 2006). It is a perennial grass that grows up to 1.1 m tall in 20 25 cm clump s The leaf blades are 15 48 cm long by 1 5 mm wide, with a smooth sheath. The leaves are usually folded but can be either flat or rolled with a small (<0.1 mm) membranous ligule Seed production is continuous with floweri ng to shattering of mature seed occurring simultaneously on the same plant and on the same inflorescence ( Currey et al. 1972). Seed production takes place from April to December ( Currey et al. 1972). The 40 cm long panicle is spike -like, but interrupted. It is also branched, appresse d, or ascending with shining spikelets about 2 cm long. G lumes are obtuse, unequal and about half as long as the spikelet. The lemma is pointed and is slightly longer than the blunt p a lea ( Currey et al.1972) Giant smutgrass is similar in appearance to small

PAGE 15

15 smutgrass, however, is it 1.2 1.5 m tall, with clump diameter of 30 46 cm in diameter. Its seed head is also more open and branching compared to small smutgrass. Mature seeds are red and free of the smut fungus. Each plant produces around 30 seed heads per plant and each mature panicle can produce up to 1,400 seeds ( Currey et al. 1972). The amount of time the seeds stay on the panicle before shatter ing depends on weather conditions or mechanical forces ( Currey et al. 1972). Field germination studies indicated that small smutgrass germination ranges from 1 to 9%, but scarification increased germination between 94 and 98% (Currey et al. 1972). The seeds have been shown to be viable for two or more years by (Currey et al. 1972). Smutgrass D ispersal Smutgrass seeds are able to quickly disperse due to their viability after ingestion and excretion by livestock (Andrews 1995). Research by Andrews (1995) revealed that it takes an average of 3 and 7 days for 50 and 100%, respectively, of smutgrass seeds to pass through a cows digestive system. On average, only about 19% of the seeds fed to the cattle were viable after passing through the digestive process. The highest number of viable smutgrass seeds was collected in cattle manure on day two and three, with approximately 300 and 150 viable seeds per heifer, respectively. Since smutgrass seed heads are unpalatable to cattle, Andrews (1995) suggested the following possible indirect ingestion mechanisms: 1) smutgrass seeds stick to other palatable specie s growing in their proximity, 2) and/or seeds are spread by cattle licking their hair and that of other cattle This is further supported by the fact that mature grains of smutgrass h ave a loose pericarp and become mucilaginous and sticky when wet. Andre ws (1995) also found that after seven months no smutgrass seedlings were found manure exposed to natural conditions and that all remaining seeds in manure were nonviable. Other species of grass seedlings and other viable seeds were found in the manure, wh ich suggests that smutgrass seeds

PAGE 16

16 are possibly unable to remain viable in manure for extended periods Andrews (1995) concluded that smutgrass dispersion by seed ingestion is not likely unless the manure is dispersed right after excretion. Dispersion cou ld be accomplished by heavy rain or by hosing out of cattle trailers. Andrews (1995) believes that it is much more probable that the seeds stick to the hair of the cattle and are brushed off in adjacent pastures. This could be a major problem in Florida since direct or indirect ingestion would take place in the rainy season. This would allow smutgrass to easily spread into new pastures. Smutgrass in Forages Smutgrass can be a serious weed in forages, especially bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) There are currently two varieties of smutgrass affecting the pastures of Florida, small smutgrass and giant smutgrass. Hexazinone (Velpar) has been shown to be effective in control of both smutgrass varieties One of the most serious problems with smutgrass is th at it reduces the stocking rate of a pasture. The stocking rate directly corresponds to the number of cow -calf pai rs that a pasture can support. It has been shown that smutgrass is detrimental to cattle production in Florida. A s smutgrass density in a pasture increases, at the expense of bahiagrass or other desirable forage, the stocking rate of a pasture will decrease unless it is supplemented by purchased feeds due to smutgrass low palatability and nutrition (Ferrell et al. 2006) If additional fora ge is unavailable the end result will be a lower calving percentage and/or decreased calf weaning weight (Ferrell et al. 2006). Bahiagrass yield is influenced by smutgrass infestations. Ferrell et al (2006) found that bahiagrass yield in pastures with a low density of smutgrass (<20%) was 1164 kg/ha*mo. As the smutgrass groundcover increased to medium density (20 70%), bahiagrass yield was reduced to 590 kg/ha*mo, a reduction of 51% compared to low density infested bahi a grass. At a high

PAGE 17

17 smutgrass den sity (>70%), bahiagrass yield decreased to 154 kg/ha*mo, a reduction of 87% from low densities (Ferrell et al. 2006). Hexazinone is known to cause phytotoxicity in bahiagrass. In 1999, Mislevy et al. observed that chlorosis in bahiagrass can persist up to 20 days after hexazinone treatment, but no data on yield reduction was taken Ferrell et al. (2006) found that hexazinone application resulted in at least a 25% reduction in bahiagrass yield compared to non treated bahiagrass when infested with <20% sm utgrass. Bahiagrass yield was reduced by 13% following hexazinone application compared to non -treated bahiagrass when infested with 20 70% smutgrass. It was concluded that the reduction in yield from hexazinone treatment is more pronounced than yield red uction from smutgrass competition at low and medium densities (Ferrell et al 2006). It was not until the high smutgrass densities (greater than 80% smutgrass) that the reduction in yield from smutgrass competition was greater than the reduction from hexa zinone treatment. One year after hexazinone treatment in the medium levels of smutgrass infestation the bahiagrass biomass increased by 31%. In the high smutgrass densities, the bahiagrass biomass increased by 45% (Ferrell et al 2006). There was not a significant difference between the low smutgrass densities and the untreated check. In light of this data, it was concluded that any attempts to control smutgrass with hexazinone at less than 20% groundcover will result in a net loss of bahiagrass forage production (Ferrell et al 2006). T he cost of weed control should be less than the cost of infestation. Stocking rates of pastures with medium and high levels of smutgrass infestations are significantly lower than smutgrass free pastures and treatment of smutgrass is often economically justified (Ferrell et al. 2006) However, there was no difference in stocking rate between low smutgrass -densities and

PAGE 18

18 no -smutgrass pastures. Therefore, treating a pasture with a low level of smutgrass infestation will result in a net economic loss (Ferrell et al. 2006). It is important for a rancher to realize when smutgrass infestations should be controlled in order to maximize bahiagrass forage production. Ferrell et al. (2006) determined that the breakeven smutgra ss density when hexazinone should be applied is approximately 35%. When smutgrass density is less than 35%, the cost of control would be greater than the net return based upon bahiagrass yield. It is also important to mention that many variables must be taken into account for the break -even analysis. The cost of infestation will increase with higher calf prices, animal performance levels and bahiagrass productivity. For example, if the market calf price fell to $1.10 per kg a rancher would lose money by spraying hexazinone, regardless of density However, if the price increased to $2.65 per kg it would be economical to control low densities of giant smutgrass. Overall, the most important variable in determining a break -even point is bahiagrass product ivity. As bahiagrass production increases, so will the monetary gain from controlling giant smutgrass. In addition as the bahiagrass biomass increases the stocking rate of the pasture will also increase decreasing the cost of giant smutgrass control. Hexazinone Application and Mode of Action Hexazinone is a member of the s triazine family. It is sold under the trade names Velpar and Pronone and is registered for the edible crops pineapple and sugarcane. The only other crop s it is registered for are dormant or semi -dormant alfalfa, before b ud break in first year Christmas trees, site prep for conifer reforestation bermudagrass and bahiagrass pastures (Vencill 2002) In non -cropland sites, hexazinone is registered for industrial sites, railroads, right -of -ways, and storage areas. Hexazinone is effective against many annual and perennial broadleaf weeds and brush species.

PAGE 19

19 Hexazinone is soil active and xylem mobile (Vencill 2002) The primary mode of absorption for hexazinone is through the roots H owever, some limited foliar absorption occurs despite the fact that it undergoes little translocation due to its lack of phloem mobility. Once hexazinone enters the plant, it inhibits photosynthesis. Its mechanism of action is the following: It binds to the Qb binding site on the D1 protein i n photosystem II, blocking electron flow from Qa to Qb (Vencill 2002) This blocks the formation of NADPH and ATP, which are needed in the dark reactions of photosynthesis. However, these reactions do not lead to plant death. Since hexazinone blocks ele ctron flow, the buildup of electrons is passed to the chlorophyll molecule forming triplet state chlorophyll (Vencill 2002) Triplet state chlorophyll reacts with the oxygen in the ce ll to form radical oxygen. These collectively attack lipid membranes ca using a free radical chain reaction cau s ing cell membrane disruption (Vencill 2002) C ell organelles leak and are destroyed. Plants treated with hexazinone typically display foliar chlorosis followed by necrosis. Adjuvant s and Their Use Adjuvants are a critical component of chemical weed control The use of adjuvants worldwide accounted for over 1 billion dollars annually (Underwood 2000). In the year 2000, the US adjuvant market alone was worth 400 million dollars or around 40% of the worldwide adjuva nt market (Underwood 2000). They have been used as far back as 1889 for increasing arsenical herbicide efficacy (Hazen 2000). According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) an adjuvant is any material added to a tank mix to aid or mod ify the action of an agrichemical, or the physical characteristics of the mixture. Adjuvants typically consist of the following: surfactants, oils, solvents, polymers, salts, diluents, humectants, and water (Hazen 2000). However, adjuvants are grouped into just two categories: 1) those that modify the physical characteristics of the spray mixture, and 2) those that enhance the biological efficacy of

PAGE 20

20 the crop production chemical (Hazen 2000). The second group of adjuvants is known as activator adjuvants There are four types of activator adjuvants: wetter -spreader adjuvants, sticker adjuvants, humectants, and penetration agents. Wetter -spreader adjuvants are the most common type of adjuvant. They are comprised of surface active agents (surfactants) t hat lower the free energy of the substrate being wetted (Hazen 2000). This causes the herbicide droplet to flatten and spread out, hence the name spreader. Wetter -spreader adjuvants also lower the surfac e tension of the spray solution, causing the spray solution to spread. In addition this allows the spray solution to lie as a thin film on a waxy surface such as a leaf cuticle (Hazen 2000). Sticker adjuvants are commonly used in wettable powder and granular suspensions spray mixes to aid in keeping the solid herbicide material on the leaf surface after drying ( Hazen 2000). The longer the herbicide can remain on the leaf the greater the herbicide uptake. Rain, wind, and physical contact can remove the herbicide deposits on a leaf surface. Sticker adjuvants are not water -soluble and aid in rainfastness. Humectants are a variation of sticker adjuvants. Humectants increase the drying time of individual droplets (Hazen 2000) This allows the herbicide to remain in liquid form longer. As the spray solution begins to dry, the herbicide in the droplet begins to crystallize, thus reducing the herbicides bioavailability (Hazen 2000). Some humectants behave like salt and wick moisture from the surrounding air, maintaining high humidity around the spray droplet (Hazen 2000). Penetration agents assist in moving the herbicide from the leaf surface, through the plants natural barriers, and into the susceptible plant tissue (Hazen 2000). This is accomplished in variety of ways First is by dissolving, s oftening, or plasticizing the leafs waxy cuticle. The

PAGE 21

21 s econd method is by infiltrating the plants stomata (Hazen 2000). The goal of both methods is to allow the herbicide to penetrate to the more hydrophilic tissue s beneath the leaf surface (Hazen 2000). Summary and Research Objectives Chapter 3 addresses research conducted on the efficacy of adjuvants on giant smutgrass control using hexazinone Some ranchers have even reported improved control using adjuvants such as Optima 1 and Dyne -Amic2. Howe ver, many of these adjuvants are expensive, adding 3 4 dollars per acre in spray costs. Many ranchers have asked IFAS E xtension to research the efficacy of these adjuvants on smutgrass control. The objective of chapter 4 is to determine if there are diffe rences in the two smutgrass varieties that could provide giant smutgrass a competitive advantage over small smutgrass. All previous seed germination studies were conducted on small smutgrass only due to it s prevalence in Florida prior to the 1990s Curre ntly, there is no information available concerning giant smutgrass germination including f actors such as pH, temperature, depth of emergence light and osmotic potential T he objective of chapter 5 is to establish whether small and giant smutgrass requi re separate hexazinone rate recommendations to achieve 90% control. 1 Helena Chemical Co mpany 2 Helena Chemical Company

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 3 THE INFLUENCE OF ADJUVANTS ON THE CONTROL OF GIANT SMUTGRASS WITH HEXAZINONE HERBICIDE Introduction An adjuvant is any material added to a tank mix to aid or modify the action of an agrichemical, or the physical characteristics of the mixture (Penner 2000). Adjuvants usually consist of at least one of the following: surfactants, oils, solvents, polymers, salts, diluents, humectants, and water (Hazen 2000) and are generally gr ouped into two categories: utility adjuvants or activator adjuvants. Utility adjuvants do not directly affect herbicide efficacy. They work by minimizing or reducing the negative effects of herbicides during application or mixing (McMullan 2000). There are five primary types of utility adjuvants: compatibility agent, defoaming agent, drift control agent, deposition agent, water conditioning agent. The goal of utility adjuvants is to mitigate any external factor that could lower the efficacy of the herbi cide. Activator adjuvants enhance the biological efficacy of the crop protection chemical being applied (Hazen 2000). There are four types of activator adjuvants: wetter -spreader adjuvants, sticker adjuvants, humectants, and penetration agents. The goal of activator adjuvants is to increase the herbicide uptake Adjuvants are a critical component to postemergence weed management by generally increas ing pesticide absorption. Some herbicides require the use of adjuvants to achieve acceptable level s of weed control. Jordan et al (1996) found that a crop oil adjuvant was needed when using clethodim for consistent control of barnyardgrass, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass Jordan et al (1996) also found that applying clethodim at a rate of 70 g/ha i n conjunction with methylated seed oil adjuvants provided equivalent or better control than 140 g/ha of clethodim with any other adjuvant.

PAGE 23

23 Hexazinone is currently the only herbicide labeled for selective smutgrass control in pastures Hexazinone is a s -triazine and therefore, xylem mobile (McNeil et al. 1984) Hexazinone is absorbed by leaf tissue, but it is poorly translocated throughout the plant due to lack of phloem mobility (Vencill 2002). Since leaf absorption does not allow sufficient hexazinon e translocation for effective smutgrass control, there must be an alternative absorption route. The primary absorption route for hexazinone is through the plants roots (Vencill 2002). Since hexazinone is the only available herbicide for smutgrass contr ol, ranchers have expressed a great deal of interest in the use of adjuvants to increase smutgrass control or as a way to reduce hexazinone use rate s Ranchers specifically requested that research be conducted on the adjuvant Optima to determine its effect on giant smutgrass control. Optima is a combination adjuvant made up of various proprietary surfactants and buffering agents Some ranchers have claimed increased control of giant smutgrass when using Optima In addition, the re has been limited research into the effects of other adjuvant types for giant smutgrass control with hexazinone Al though it is known that leaf absorption plays a minimal role in hexazinone activity, adjuvants such as crop oils have been used with s triazine herbicides to improve herbicide efficacy ( LeBaron et al 2008) This research will investigate if there are any benefits to applying hexazinone with adjuvants. Materials and Methods Experiment One Experiments examining the impact of the adjuvant Optima on hexazinone efficacy w ere conducted at two different locations over two years. Experiments were conducted in Clewiston, Florida in 2005 and in Ona, Florida in 2006. Giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis) was the only species of smut grass present at both locations. Experime nts were initiated on June 28 and August 2 in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The soil type present in

PAGE 24

24 Clewiston was Oldsmar sand ( sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Alfic Arenic Alaquods ). The soil type in Ona was Pomo na sand ( sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic ultic Alaquods ). Hexaz in one was applied at 0.81 and 1.13 kg/ha alone and with Optima at rates of 0.13, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0% v/v. Smutgrass control was visually evaluated 1 and 12 months after treatment (MAT). Visual estimates of smutgrass control was based on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 equals no smutgrass control and 100 equals complete smutgrass control. Experiment Two Various surfactants from different classes were evaluated to determine the influence on hexazinone efficacy E xperiments were initiated near Ona, Florida on July 31, 2006 and July 28, 2007. The soil type at bot h experimental sites was a Pomona sand Hexazinone was applied at 1.12 kg/ha alone or with methylated seed oil (MSO ) at 1.17 L/ha Optima at 0.5% v/v, Kinetic1 at 0.1% v/v, Dyne -Amic at 0.5% v/v, or Induce2 at 0.25% v/v. Smutgrass control w as visually estimated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, after herbicide application. Visual estimates of smutgrass control was based on a scale of 0 to 100, w h ere 0 equals no smutgrass control and 100 equals complete smutgrass control. Experimental Design and Analysis All experiments were established with plots measuring 3 m wide by 15 m long. A 3 m untreated strip was inc lud ed between all treated plots to aid in visual estimations of smutgrass control. Herbicides were applied using flat fan nozzles calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha. The first experiment was a 2 X 6 factorial with four replications. The second experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. All data were subjected to ANOVA and treatment means were separated using Fishers LSD (0.05) Data were combined over years 1 Helena Chemical Company 2 Helena Chemical Company

PAGE 25

25 and locations when no significant year by treatment interaction was present and da ta were homogeneous. Results and Discussion Experiment One There was no treatment by location observed and data were pooled across years There were no significant differences (P=0.23) in giant smutgrass control between the 0.84 kg/ha hexazinone rate an d 1.12 kg/ha hexazinone rate at both 1 and 12 months after treatment (MAT) (Fig. 3 1) There were also no significant differences in giant smutgrass control between the different rates of Optima at 1 and 12 MAT (Fig. 3 2) All treatments including the c ontrol with out adjuvant provided at least 90% control of giant smutgrass. Therefore the addition of Optima does not improve control of giant smutgrass at either the 0.84 kg/ha or the 1.12 kg/ha hexazinone rate. Experiment Two There was no treatment by location interaction so data from both locations were pooled. T here were no significant differences (P= 0.505) between any of the treatments 1 MAT (data not shown) All treatments including the control with no adjuvant provided at le a st 90% control of giant smutgrass (Fig. 3 3) The results revealed a similar trend 12 MAT (P=0.408). Therefore it can be concluded that the use of adjuvants does not increase giant smutgrass control with hexazinone The data from both experiments show that the additio n of adjuvants do not increase hexazinone efficacy compared to hexazinone alone This is because hexazinone, a s tria zine herbicide is mobile only in the xylem tissue of the plant. Foliar application of s triazine herbicides undergo little to no transloc ation within the plant, therefore acting like a contact herbicide. Since hexazinone is mobile only with the xylem, the primary absorption rout e of the

PAGE 26

26 herbicide is through the roots, not the leaves. Thus, t he addition of adjuvants that increas e foliar ab sorption would have little effect on hexazi n one efficacy This corresponds with data from Chachalis et al (2001), in which the addition of adjuvants did not always improve redvine and trumpet creeper control with glyphosate Additionally, O'Sullivan and Bouw (1997) found that the addition of adjuvants to metolachlor and cyanazine at a X rate did not improve weed control.

PAGE 27

27 % Control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Hexazinone rate 0.84 kg/ha 1.12 kg/ha Figure 3 1. Giant smutgrass control with hexazinone and Optima Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 28

28 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Optima rate No surfactant optima 0.125% optima 0.25% optima 0.5% optima 0.75% optima 1.0% Figure 3 2. Optima control rates 12 months after treatment. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 29

29 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 adjuvants Induce 0.25% Dyne-Amic 0.5% Kinetic 0.1% Optima 0.5% MSO 1 pt No surfactant Fig ure 3 3. Various a djuvants with 1.12 kg/ha hexazinone. 12 months after treatment. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 4 FACTORS AFFECTING SEED GERMINATION OF SMALL AND GIANT SMUTGRASS Introduction There are two varieties of smutgr ass currently found in Florida: small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis) Both are believed to have originated in tropical Southeast Asia. Giant smutgrass is also known as West Indian dropseed (Mislevy 2002). Small smutgrass is a noxious invasive weed throughout the southe rn U.S. while giant smutgrass is limited to Florida and Puerto Rico (USDA 2009) Small smutgrass was first detected in Florida in the 1950s and progressed across the state s pastur es over the next 25 years In 1972, seed germination tests were conducted on small smutgrass (Currey et al. 1972). It was observed that seed germination was very low, ranging between 1 and 9%. Currey et al. (1972) also found that, on average, each sma ll smutgrass plant will produce 45,824 seeds with mature and immature seeds on the same panicle simultaneously It was not until the early 1990s that giant smutgrass was first detected in south Florida. However, in the past 10 years giant smutgrass has dis placed small smutgrass as the dominant species in central and south Florida while continuing to spread north. It is unknown why giant smutgrass was able to displace small smutgrass and why it is spreading at such an accelerated rate It is hypothesized t hat the scarification requirements of small smutgrass seeds inhibit their ability to spread (Currey 1972) while giant smutgrass seed do not have these same requirements This could, in turn, provide a competitive advantage to giant smutgrass. However, t he germination profiles of giant smutgrass are currently unknown. The objective of this experiment is to determine if differences in seed germination exist between the small and giant smutgrass varieties. The response of b oth varieties of smutgrass to di ffering l ight, temperature, pH, osmotic potential, and depth of burial will be observed Since giant smutgrass has spread at a

PAGE 31

31 much more robust pace than small smutgrass, these tests will serve as an important tool to test for any differences that might g ive giant smutgrass a competitive advantage over small smutgrass. It is the goal of this research to provide a better understanding of the seed biology of both smutgrass varieties in order to develop a more integrated approach for control of the se weed s Materials and Methods Seed Source Small smutgrass seeds were collected at the Beef Research Unit north of Gainesville, Florida while g iant smutgrass seeds were collected from various pastures near Ona and Plant City, Florida. The seedheads were dried at r oom temperature for 3 days. S eeds were rubbed free from the dried seedheads and cleaned using differential airflow All seeds were stored at room temperature for the duration of the experiment Germination Protocol A husk covers the seed of both varietie s of smutgrass Since earlier seed germination tests documented poor germination with the seed husk still intact (Currey et al. 1972) husks were removed using a seed blower G ermination tests were conducted in Petri dishes containing blotter paper moist ened with 5 ml of deionized water and sealed with parafilm. Unless otherwise stated the seeds were placed in a growth chamber operating at 30 C with 16 h of light and 20 C for 8 h of darkness The seeds were incubated for two weeks in a growth chamber S eeds were considered germinated when the radical and cotyledon emerged from the seed coat. Base Line Germination Prior seed germination research conducted by Currey et al. (1972) revealed a germination rate of only 9% for small smutgrass, which indicate d a high probability of seed dormancy. To test for base line germination both species of smutgrass seeds were grown in growth chamber

PAGE 32

32 After two weeks, seeds that had not germinated were tested with 0.25 % tetrazolium solution as described in the Handbook on Tetrazolium Testing (Moore, 1985). S eeds were immersed in tetrazolium solution for 3 hours under dark conditions. The seeds were then dissected at 20X magnification the p resence of a red pigment indicated that seeds were viable. Temperature The se eds of both species were tested at the following constant temperatures: 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 C. All tests were conducted in the growth chambers at constant light. Light To test if light is a requirement for germination, Petri dishes were prepa red as described above. Seeds were placed in the dish in presence of the green light only. The dishes were then fully wrapped with two layers of aluminum foil to shield all incoming light. The control dishes remained unwrapped. pH To test the effects of pH on smutgrass germination, the seeds were germinated in various buffer solutions. Blotting paper was moistened with 5 ml of buffer solution. Buffer solutions were prepared using 100mM Citric Acid NaOH (pH 4), 25mM MES (potassium hydrogen phthalate, 2[4 -morpholino] ethanesulfonic acid) (pH 6), 50mM HEPES (N 2(2 -hydroxyethyl) piperazine N 2 -ethanesulfonic acid) (pH 8), and 100mM Glycine NaOH (pH 10). Osmotic Potential To test the effects of osmotic potential on smutgrass germination, the seeds were germinated in various osmotic potentials. Seed blotting paper was moistened using 5 ml of pre measured concentrations of polyethylene glycol solutions. The following osmotic potentials, as measured with a vapor pressure osmometer were tested: 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 MPa.

PAGE 33

33 Depth of Burial In order to test the effects of burial depth, the seeds were placed in 3.5 cm by 18 cm cone containers. The seeds were buried at depths of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 cm with each planting depth in a different container Eight seeds were planted in each container The growth chamber was set in 16-hour day, 8 -hour night diurnal mode running at 30 C and 20 C respectively. The containers were visually checked for seed emergence after 2 weeks. The containers were w atered as needed to keep soil moist. Experimental D esign and Statistical A nalysis All experiment s w ere conducted as completely randomized design with four replications. All experiments were conducted twice. Data were evaluated using analysis of variance via PROC GLM and means separated using 95% confidence intervals Simple regression analysis was used to determine the effect of temperature, planting depth, and pH on germination of each variety Results and Discussion Baseline Germination Previous resear ch conducted by Currey et al. (1972) resulted in a germination rate of only 9%. However, in Currey s germination test the smutgrass seeds were still in the seed husk. It was theorized that removal of the seed husks by a seed blower would increase germin ation. For the baseline germination tests the average germination rate for both varieties was 88% and no statistical differences were observed (Fig 4 1) The germination rate of giant smutgrass seeds was more variable, with a standard deviation of 11% compared to 7% for small smutgrass. Tetrazolium test s of the non-germinating seeds found them all to be non viable Therefore, seed dormancy was not observed with either smutgrass variety and it can be concluded that smutgrass seed is readily viable and able to germinate under optimum environmental conditions. These

PAGE 34

34 data also infer that the seeds selected for these experiments are consistent and of sufficient quality for the following experiments. Temperature For the temperature germination test there w as no trial by treatment interaction and the data were pooled across experimental runs However, significant differences between the two smutgrass varieties were detected Unlike the other germination tests each temperature in this experiment w as held c onstant This caused some unusual germination data especially for small smutgrass. The small smutgrass followed a common hyperbolic response to temperature with 0% germination at 10 and 40 C with maximum germination of 55% occurring at 30 C (Fig 4 2) This hyperbolic response is commonly observed among several plant species, but even tropical species such as tropical signalgrass, tropical soda apple and dogfennel show maximum germination between 64 and 70% w ith nearly 0% at 40 C (MacDonald et al. 1992; Akanda et al. 1996). Conversely, g iant smutgrass germination followed a near linear trend with respect to temperature (Fig 4 3) Giant smutgrass had maximum germination at 35 C with 85% germination, but still maintained 69% germination at 40 C. The lo west temperature at which either variety germinated was 15 C and n either had any germination at 10 C. Small smutgrass seeds that germinated at the 30:20 C had an average germination of 88% Conversely, g iant smutgrass seeds when subjected to constant 30 C had a germination rate of only 35%, compared to 88% germination when subjected to the diurnal temperature flux. These results are similar to results found on giant paramatta grass (GPG) (Sporobolus indicus var major ) in Australia ( Andrews et al 1997). Andrews et al (1997 ) found that maximum GPG germination took place under 30/15 C temperature combinations while s eed germination was depressed under constant temperature ( Andrews et al 1997 ). It is unknown

PAGE 35

35 why giant smutgrass germination increased dra matically from 37% to 85% at 30 and 35 C. However, these data indicate that giant smutgrass is capable to enduring high temperatures more effectively than small smutgrass. The fact that giant smutgrass has a higher maximum germination temperature than sm all smutgrass may explain why it is displacing the small smutgrass in south and central Florida. Light There was a significant difference between the giant and small smutgrass in light germination experiment (Fig. 4 4 ). The seeds were grown under a 30: 2 0 C day: night regiment. The germination rate of giant smutgrass seeds that were grown under dark conditions had an average germination rate of 5 3 %. The small smutgrass grown under dark conditions had an average germination rate of 27%. The control had 8 8% germination for both varieties. The germination percentage for both giant and small smutgrass decreased in the dark. However, light is not a requirement for germination for both giant and small smutgrass as both varieties did germinate in the absence of light Research conducted by Andrews et al (199 7 ) also found that light did not have an effect on GPG germination. p H There was a significant difference between the two smutgrass varieties. The highest germination for b oth species occurred at pH 6. At this pH small and giant smutgrass had germination rate s of 8 7 and 68%, respectively. As the pH decreased to 4 the small and giant smutgrass had germination rate of 5 5 % and 53% respectively. At pH 8 small and giant smutgrass germination was reduced by 3% and 1% respectively. However, at pH 10 germination was only 4% for both varieties These results are similar to results by Teuton et al (2 004) on tropical signalgrass ( Urochola subquadripara) another perennial invasive grass. Teuton et al. (2004) found that tropical signalgrass had reduced germination at pH less than 5 and no

PAGE 36

36 germination at pH 10. Both giant and small smutgrass seeds germinate over a wide pH range indicating that soil pH is unlikely to be a limiting factor in germination. O smot ic Potential For the osmotic potential germination test (data not shown) there was no trial by treatment interaction and data were pooled over experimental runs A significant difference was detected between varieties at 0.2 MPa. At 0.2 MPa the small an d giant smutgrass seeds had germination rates of 91 and 86%, respectively (data not shown) However, no germination was observed for either variety at water potentials greater than 0.2 MPa. Teuton et al. (2004) found similar results for tropical signalgrass. Tropical signalgrass germination was highest at 0 and 0.2 MPa Tropical signalgrass germination was reduced to 5% or less a t osmotic potentials greater than 0.2 MPa. From this data, it can be concluded that both giant and small smutgrass are not tolerant of drought stress and require sufficient soil moisture to germinate. Data collected from the Florida Automated Weather Network ( FAWN ) shows that the months of February through May are typically the driest time of the year. Therefore, giant and small smutgrass are unlikely to germinate un til early to mid June typical ly when summer rains begin. Depth of Burial There was no trial by treatment interaction and the data w ere pooled across experimental runs Both giant smutgrass and small smutgrass had the highest germination when placed on the soil surface. Surprisingly, no germination was observed in small smutgrass when seeds were placed at any depth below the surface level. Conversely, giant smutgrass emerged from 3 cm, though at a greatly reduced rate. The giant smutgrass seeds did not germinate at any depth greater than 3 cm. Benvenuti et al (2001) examined the depth of germination for 20 weed species. They found that none of the weed species they tested would germinate at depths greater than 12 cm. Their research also showed that all species tested had a slight decrease at 2cm burial

PAGE 37

37 and an exponential decrease as burial depth increased. Since small smutgrass only germinated at the soil surface and giant smutgrass did not germinate at a n y depth below 3 cm deep tillage may be and effective pasture renovation technique. However tillage would have its limitations. Care must be taken to ensure that the seeds remain adequately covered for this control strategy to work as f uture disking or tillage could resurface the seeds and allow them to germinate. Data collected by Currey et al. (1972) documented that germination of small smutgrass seeds were approximately 9%, unless scarification techniques were employed. From these data it was hypoth esized that giant smutgrass produces highly viable seeds and has overtaken the small variety due to inherently poor seed germination in small smutgrass. However, it was found that small smutgrass does not have inherently low germination since diurnal temperature fluctuation results in 88% germination. Additionally, data presented here indicate that few differences in germination exist between the small and giant variety. Of the varietal differences that do exist, the magnitude of these differences is not likely to be sufficient to explain why giant smutgrass has displaced small smutgrass in south and central Florida.

PAGE 38

38 % germination 0 10 2030 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Small Giant Figure 4 1 Baseline germination of two smutgrass varieties. Values represented with 95% confi dence intervals.

PAGE 39

39 y=0.13x22-8.88x +83.84 R2=0.65 Temperature (C) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 % germination 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 4 2. The effect of temperature on small smutgrass germination. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 40

40 y=0.017x2+1.8x+-22.6 R 2 =0.88 Temperature (C) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 % germination -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 4 3 The effect of temper ature on Giant smutgrass germination. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 41

41 Smutgrass variety % germination 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Small-dark Small-light Giant-dark Giant-light Figure 4 4 The e ffect of light on small and giant smutgrass germination. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 42

42 pH 4 6 8 10 % germination 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 pH vs Small pH vs Giant y=4.92-60.7x+113.9 R2=0.96 y=7.04x2-90.7x+197.5 R 2 =0.98 Figure 4 5. The effect of pH on small and giant smutgrass germination Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 43

43 burial depth (cm) 0 3 % germination 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Small Giant Figure 4 6 The e ffect of seed burial depth on small and giant smutgrass germination Bars represent standard error.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 5 HEXAZINONE HERBICIDE RATE TITRATION FOR GIANT AND AND SMALL SMUTGRASS Introduction T here are two varieties of smutgrass in Florida: small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var pyramidalis) Small smutgrass was first documented as invasive in the 1950s and by the mid 1970s had s pread throughout central and south Florida (McCaleb and Hodges 1971). Giant smutgrass was first detected in south Flo rida in the early 1990s and by the end of the decade had become the dominant species of smutgrass in central and south Florida. Small smutgrass is now observed mostly in northern Florida but is occasionally found in central and south Florida Smutgrass control methods have been investigated since it was first identified as a significant pest in improved grass pastures. Some of the earliest work with smutgrass management investigated the effects of mowing. Regardless of the time or mowing, height of mo wing, or the number of mowing operations, mowing had no significant impact on smutgrass control (McCaleb and Hodges 1971). Mowing resulted in a decrease in the diameter of smutgrass clump s, but the number of total plants increased; suggesting that mowing aids smutgrass seed dispersal (McCaleb and Hodges 1971) Other cultural methods, such as tillage, resulted in inconsistent results, and complete pasture renovation was deemed too expensive (McCaleb and Hodges 1971). Therefore, potential herbicide treatme nts were investigated. One of the first herbicides to be investigated for small smutgrass control was dalapon. McCaleb and Hodges (1971) reported that 6.7 kg/ha dalapon applied at any time of the growing season resulted in acceptable small smutgrass contr ol. However sequential applications were needed for complete eradication and this high rate of dalapon resulted in significant bahiagrass injury. Mislevy et al. (1980) determined that 3.3 kg/ha dalapon provided >85% control of small

PAGE 45

45 smutgrass in pasture s, but bahiagra ss injury remained a concern. Further research determined that mowing the pasture 2 wk and fertiliz ing with 1 1225 93 kg/ha N -P -K 6 w ee k s after an application of 3.3 kg/ha dalapon resulted in increased small smutgrass control and decreased bahiagrass injury (Mislevy et al. 1980). Other herbicides, including atrazine, bromacil, MSMA, tebuthiruon and hexazinone, have been investigated for small smutgrass control. Exceedingly high rates of atrazine (4.4 kg/ha) were needed to obtain excellent control of small smutgrass (Smith et al. 1974; Johnson 1975). Sequential application s of 1.1 kg/ha or single applications of 2.2 kg/ha bromacil provided good to excellent control of small smutgrass (Smith et al. 1974; Johnson 1975). The herbicide MSMA a lone at 2.2 and 4.5 kg/ha provided fair control of small smutgrass (Smith et al. 1974; Johnson 1975; Nishimoto and Murdoch 1994). However, the addition of atrazine at 2.2 kg/ha to either 2.2 or 4.5 kg/ha MSMA resulted in excellent small smutgrass control (Nishimoto and Murdoch 1994). High rates of tebuthiuron (3.4 kg/ha) were needed to obtain adequate control of small smutgrass (Brecke 1981). However, all herbicides mentioned thus far with the exception of hexazinone and tebuthiuron are not, or are no l onger labeled for pasture use. Currently, h exazinone is the only herbicide that is labeled for pastures that provides good to excellent smutgrass control. Brecke (1981 ) reported that spring application of hexazinone resulted in poor to good control of small smutgrass with 0.8 and 1.7 kg/ha, respectively. Delaying applications of hexazinone to the fall, increased the control of small smutgrass with 0.8 kg/ha to at least 79% in north Florida (Brecke 1981). Mislevy et al. (1999) determined that 0.56 kg/ha hexazinone was necessary to control small smutgrass when applied in the summer or the fall, but 0.84 kg/ha was needed if hexazinone was to be applied in the spring. Ferrell and Mullahey (2006) found that 1.1 kg/ha hexazinone was needed to consistently p rovide good to

PAGE 46

46 excellent control of giant smutgrass in south Florida. Unlike with dalapon, mowing had no impact on small and giant smutgrass control in conjunction with hexazinone applications (Mislevy et al. 1999; Ferrell and Mullahey 2006). Currently, hexazinone is the only herbicide labeled for selective control of both smutgrass varieties in pastures. However, hexazinone is an expensive herbicide that cost s around $16 per liter. H exazinone costs approximately $ 64/ ha (Ferrell and Mullahey 2006). Th e estimated recommendation for giant smutgrass contr ol is hexazinone at 1.1 kg/ha. This increases the cost to approximately $73/ha. T here have not been any experiment s conducted to determine if separate control recommendations are needed for giant and sm all smutgrass The current theory is that giant smutgrass the larger of the two varieties would require a higher hexazinone rate for optimum control. The re are two objective s for this experiment First is to determine if separate recommendations are needed for the two smutgrass varieties. Second, is to determine the lowest hexazinone rate that provide s 90% control of giant and small smutgrass. Materials and Methods E xperiment s w ere conducted over 2 years in bahiagrass pastures containing dense infe stations of giant or small smutgrass. The small smutgrass experiments were conducted in two locations at the University of Florida Beef Research Unit and near Alachua, Florida The soil type present in the Alachua site was Arredondo fine sand (loamy, sil iceous, semiactive, hyperthermic Grossarenic Paleudults ) Experiments were initiated on 25 July and 2 July in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Giant smutgrass experiment s w ere conducted at 3 locations near Ona, Florida ; one location was utilized in 2006 (Loc ation 1) and two in 2007 (Locations 2 and 3) Experiments were initiated on 30 July and 28 July in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The soil type present at all three locations near Ona was Pomona sand (sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic ultic Alaquods)

PAGE 47

47 Hexaz inone was applied to small and giant smutgrass at 0, 0.28, 0.56, 0.81, 1.12, 1.4 and 1.68 kg / ha. All treatments were applied using flat -fan nozzles calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha. Plot sizes were 7 by 18m and 3 by 15m for small and giant smutgrass, respe ctively. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Smutgrass control and bahiagrass injury w as visually estimated at 1, 3, a nd 12 months after herbicide application. Visual estimates of weed control w ere based on a sca le of 0 to 100, where 0 equals no smutgrass control 100 equals complete smutgrass control All data were subjected to ANOVA and m eans were separated using Fishers LSD (P= 0.05). R egression analysis was used to determine the effective concentration (EC) of hexazinone needed to obtain consistent 90% control of small and giant smutgrass. Results and Discussion Data from the small smutgrass locations were pooled as a location by treatment interaction was not detected. No treatment provided greater than 80% control one mon th after treatment (MAT) (Fig. 5 1). At 3 MAT, 1.4 and 1.68 kg/ha hexazinone provided the highest level of control, but was less than 90% (Fig. 5 2). The only evaluation timing where at least 90% control wa s recorded was at 12 MAT (Fig 5 3) with 1.12 and 1.68 kg/ha hexazinone. Through regression analysis, the EC90 of hexazinone for small smutgrass control was 1.13 kg/ha. These results differ from that of previous studies. Brecke (1981) found that small smutgrass control with 0.8 kg/ha hexazinone was 90% in one location, but was significantly lower (79%) at a separate location. Similarly, Mislevy et al. (1999) found that 0.56 kg/ha hexazinone resulted in at least 89% control of small smutgrass when applied in mid-summer and early f all. The reason for the differences among studies may be due to the drought conditions that were prevalent in Florida from 2006 200 7 According to climatological reports from the Range Cattle Research and Education Centers in Ona, FL the year 2006 rece ived 35.86 inches of rain which was 33.5%

PAGE 48

48 less that the 65 year average (Sellers 2007 ). The year 2007 received 41.66 inches of rain which was 22.6% less 66 year average (Sellers 2008 ). Less rainfall would result in less available hexazinone in the soil s olution for root uptake by smutgrass plants. Therefore, a higher application rate would be necessary to obtain satisfactory control. There was a significant location by treatment interaction for the giant smutgrass data. Therefore, data from each locat ion will be discussed separately. The only rate of hexazinone that resulted in greater than 90% control 1 MAT at Location 1 in 2006 was 1.68 kg/ha ( Fig. 5 4). At 3 MAT, no treatments provided greater than 90% control (Fig. 5 5). Only hexazinone at 1.12 and 1.68 kg/ha provided greater than 90% control 12 MAT; EC90 of hexazinone for giant smutgrass control at this location was determined to be 1.11 kg/ha (Fig. 5 6) Hexazinone at 1.68 kg/ha was the only treatment that provided greater than 90% control of giant smutgrass 1 MAT at Location 2 (Fig. 5 7) At least 0.84 kg/ha was required to provide greater than 90% control of giant smutgrass 3 and 12 MAT (Fig s 5 8 and 5 -9) At this location, the EC90 of hexazinone for giant smutgrass control was 0.95 kg/ha At Location 3, 1 MAT at least 1.12 kg/ha hexazinone was required to obtain at least 9 0% control of hexazinone (Fig. 5 10). At 3 and 12 MAT, at least 0.84 kg/ha hexazinone was required to obtain 90% control of giant smutgrass (Fig s 5 11 and 5 12). The EC90 of hexazinone for giant smutgrass control at this location was 0.73 kg/ha. The EC90 for giant smutgrass control varied among locations Ferrell and Mullahey (2006) also demonstrated this variability in hexazinone efficacy on giant smutgrass T hey conducted a similar experiment on giant smutgrass control resulting in an EC90 of 0.83 and 1.38 kg / ha over two years Ferrell and Mullahey (2006) suggested that the higher EC90 value was due to hexazinone leaching caused by excessive rainfall during t hat year. Although a drought existed in

PAGE 49

49 2006 and 2007 in Florida, there was sufficient rainfall following hexazinone application s for uptake by giant smutgrass plants. Therefore, rainfall may not be the only limiting factor causing variability among expe riments on smutgrass control. H exazinone is an expensive herbicide and many producers often try to lower the application rate in order to reduce costs. However, environmental factors cannot be controlled and the amount of variability observed among the three giant smutgrass locations with regards to the EC90 is disconcerting. Furthermore, results reported in the literature on small smutgrass control suggests that control of small smutgrass can be quite variable among locations (Brecke 1981 ; Mislevy et a l. 1999). To decrease the likelihood of hexazinone failure, it may be logical to recommend hexazinone at no less than 1.12 kg/ha for consist ent smutgrass control. The results from these experiments indicate that a separate recommendation for the two smut grass varieties is not warranted and that 1.1 kg/ha hexazinone will provide consistent control of both smutgrass species Although the two varieties vary greatly in size, the amount of hexazinone required to obtain consistent control over various environm ents should be no less than 1.12 kg/ha.

PAGE 50

50 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y = 9.7x 2 17.3x +28.2 R 2 =0.89 Figure 5 1 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 1 m onth after treatment. Means of 10 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 51

51 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=9x 2 62.5x+14.5 R 2 =0.98 Figure 5 2 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 10 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 52

52 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=56.2x 2 144.2x +1.8 R 2 =0.92 F igure 5 3 The effect of hexazinone rate on small smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 10 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 53

53 Hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.40.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=70.5x 2 -154.6x-12.9 R 2 =0.87 Figure 5 4. The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 54

54 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=58x 2 136x 6 R 2 = 0.98 Figure 5 5 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgr ass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 55

55 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y = 58.6x 2 150.7 x + 1.7 R 2 =96.5 Figure 5 6 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 1 giant smutgrass control 12 months after tr eatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 56

56 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=70.5x 2 154.6x 12.9 R 2 =0.87 Figure 5 7 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replicat ions. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 57

57 hexazinone (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=68x 2 170x+ 5.1 R 2 =0.97 Figure 5 8 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented wit h 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 58

58 hexzinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y = 71x 2 176x +8.5 R 2 =0.94 Figure 5 9 The effect of hexazinone rate on location 2 giant smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 59

59 hexzinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y=63x 2 162x+2.3 R 2 =0.99 Figure 5 10. The effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 1 month after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 60

60 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y = 65x 2 171x + 9 R 2 =0.94 Figure 5 11. The effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 3 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 61

61 hexazinone rate (kg/ha) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 y = 78x 2 173x +10.8 R 2 =0.92 Figure 5 12. T he effect of hexazinone rate on location 3 giant smutgrass control 12 months after treatment. Means of 12 replications. Values represented with 95% confidence intervals.

PAGE 62

62 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Both varieties of smutgrass did not show any dormancy wit h an average germination rate of 88%. Small smutgrass had its highest germination at 30 C while giant smutgrass had maximum germination at 35 C. Both small and giant smutgrass had their maxim um germination at a pH of 6. However, small smutgrass had higher germination percentages across all pH values. Neither of the varieties requires light for germination, as both species germinated under dark conditions though at a reduced rate. Both species also require very moist soil for germination. Neither vari ety germinated at water potentials greater than 0.2 MPa. Finally, there were some differences in depth of emergence for the two varieties. Tests showed that small smutgrass germinates only on the soil surface. Giant smutgrass germinates on the soil sur face and to a maximum depth of 3cm. The data from the Optima adjuvant study revealed no significant increase in hexa z inone efficacy at both the 0.84 and 1.12 kg/ha rates. The data from the various adjuvants experiment resulted in no significant increas e in hexa z inone efficacy as well. This data, in conjunction with the fact that hexazinone uptake is primarily through the smutgrass roots suggests that the use of adjuvants to increase hexazinone efficacy in giant smutgrass is not warranted. For the rate titration experiment, the initial theory was that giant smutgrass, being the larger of the two varieties, would require a higher hexazinone rate for control compared to small smutgrass. That theory proved to be incorrect. The data from the small smutgra ss and the data from the 3 giant smutgrass locations are not significantly different at the 0.56, 0.84, 1.12, 1.4, 1.68 kg/ha treatments. Only at the 0.28 kg/ha treatment are the two varieties significantly different from one another. However, that rate is well below the recommended control rate.

PAGE 63

63 LIST OF REFERENCES Adjei M. B., J. J. Mullahey, P. Mislevy, and R. S. Kalmbacher 2003. Smutgrass Control in Perennial Grass P astures. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperat ive Extension Ser vice SS -AGR 18 4 p. Akanda, R.U., J. J. Mullahey, D G. Shilling. Environmental Factors Affecting Germination of Tropical Soda Apple ( Solanum viarum ). Weed Science 44: 570574. Andrews T S 1995. Dispersal of Seeds of G iant Sporobolus spp. After Ingestion by Grazing Cattle Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35: 353 356 An drews T S., C. E. Jones and R. D. B. Whalley. 199 7 Factors Affecting the G ermination of Giant Parramatta G rass Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37: 439436. Benvenuti S., M. Macchia and S. Mi ele. 2001. Quantitative Analysis of Emerg ence of Seedlings from Buried Weed Seeds with Increasing Soil D epth. Weed Science. 49:528 535 Brecke, B.J. 1981. Smutgrass ( Sporobolus poiretii ) Control in Bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ) Pastures. Weed Science. 29:553 555. Chachalis, D., K.D. Reddy, C.D. Elmore. 2001. Characterization of Leaf S urface, W ax Composition, and Control of R edvine and T rumpetcreeper w ith G lyphosate Weed Science. 49:156163. Crawford, S.C. 2003. Beef Forage Range Practices in South Florida. Institute of Food and Agri cultural Sciences. Curre y, W.L., R. Parrado, and D.W. Jones 1972. Seed Characteristics of S mutgrass Proc eedings Soil Crop Science Soc iety of Florida 32:53 54. Elmore, C.D. 2006. Weed Identification Guide. Southern Weed Science Society. Ferrel l J A and J.J. Mullahey 2006. Effect of Mowing and Hexazinone Application on Giant Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis ) Control Weed Technology. 20: 90 94. Ferrell J A J J Mullahey, J A Dusky F M Roka 2 006. Competition of Giant S mutgrass (Sporobolus indicus ) in a Bahiagrass P asture Weed Science 54: 100 105 Hazen J L 2000. Adjuvants Terminology, Classification, and Chemistry. Weed Technology 14: 773 784. Johnson, B.J. Smutgrass Control with He rbicides in Turfgrass. 1975. Weed Science. 23: 8790. Jordan, D. L., P. Vidrine, J. Griffin and D. B. Reynolds. 1996. Influence of Adjuvants on Efficacy of Cle thodim. Weed Technology. 10: 738743. LeBaron, H.M., J. McFarland, and O. Burnside 2008. The Triazine Herbicides. Elsevier.

PAGE 64

64 MacDonald, G.E. B.J. Brecke and D.G. Shilling. Factors Affecting Germination of Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium ) and Yankeeweed ( Eupatorium compositifolium ). Weed Science. 40: 424428. McCaleb, J. E., and E. M. Hodges. 1971. Smutgrass C ontrol at Range Cattle Station; Ona, Florida Proc eedings Southern Weed Sci ence Society 24:182186. McMullan P.M. 2000. Utility Adjuvants Weed Technology. 14: 792 797 McNeil W.K., J. F. Stritzke and E. Basler 1 984. Absorption, Translocation, and Degradation of Tebuthiuron and Hexazinone in Woody Species Weed Science. 32: 7 39-743. Mears, P.T., D.W. Hennessy, P.J. Williamson, and D .J. McLennan. 1996. Growth and Forage Intake of Herford Steers Fed Giant Parr amatta Grass H ay ( Sporobolus indicus ) and the Effects of Dietary N itrogen S upplements. Aust ralian Journal of Experimental Agric ulture 36:1 7. Meyer, R.E., and J.R. Baur. 1979. Smutgrass ( Sporobolus poiretii ) Control in Pastures with Herbicides. Weed Science. 27:361366. Mislevy, P. and W.L. Currey 1980. Smutgrass ( Sporobolus poiretii ) Control in South Florida. Weed Science. 28:316 320. Mislevy, P., W.L. Currey and B.J. Brecke. 1980. Herbicide and Cultural Practices in Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) Control. Weed Science. 28:585588. Misle vy, P. and F. G. Martin. 1985. Smutgrass Control and Subsequent Forage Production with Fall Application of Dalapon. Proc eedings Soil Crop Society of Florida. 44:203205. Mislevy, P F.G. Martin and D .W. Hall. 2002. West Indian Dropseed/Giant Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis ) Control in Bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ) Pastures. Weed Technology. 16:707 711 Mislevy, P D.G. Shilling, F.G. Martin, and S.L. Hatch. 1999. Smutgrass ( Sporo bolus indicus ) Control in Bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ) Pastures. Weed Technology 13:571575. Moore, R. P. 1985. Handbook on Tetrazolium Testing. International Seed Testing Assoc iation Zurich, Switzerland. 7 15. Mullahey J. J. 2000. Evaluating Gr azing Management Systems to Control Giant S mutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis ). Proceeding Southern Weed Science Society. 53: 59. Nishimoto, R.K., C.L. Murdoch. Smutgrass ( Sporobolus indicus ) Control in Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Turf wi th Triazine -MSMA Applications Weed Technology. 8: 836839. O'Sullivan, J. and W.J. Bouw. 1997. Effect of Timing and Adjuvants on the Efficacy of Reduced Herbicide Rates for Sweet Corn ( Zea mays ). Weed Technology. 11: 720724.

PAGE 65

65 Penner D. 2000. Acti vator Adjuvants Weed Technology. 14: 785 791 Pimentel D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Mor rison 2000. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non indigenous S pecies in the United States. Bioscience. 50:53 65. Pimentel D S. McNair, J. Janec ka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. OConnell, E. Wong, L. Russel, J. Zern, T. Aquino and T. Tsomondo. 2001. Economic and Environmental T hreats of Alien P lant, Animal, and Microbe I nvasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 84:120. Sellers, B.A. 2 007. Climatological Report 2006 Range Cattle Research and Education Center. Research Report RC 20071. Sellers, B.A. 2008. Climatological Report 2007 Range Cattle Research and Education Center. Research Report RC 20081. Simon B. K. and S.W.L. Jacob s 1999. Revision of the G enus Sporobolus in Australia Australia Systemic Botany. 16:165 176. Smith, A.E. 1974. Chemi cal Control of Smutgrass ( Sporobolus poiretii ). Weed Science 30: 231234. Teuton, T.C., B.J. Brecke J.B. Unruh, G.E. MacDo nald, G.L.Miller, J.T. Ducar. 2004. Factors Affecting Seed Germination of Tropical Signalgrass ( Urochloa subquadripara). Weed Science. 52: 376381. Vencill W.K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook 8th ed. Weed Science Society of America 371 3 74. Underwood A K 2000. Adjuvant Trends for the New Millennium Weed Technology. 14:765 772. United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. Agricultural Statistics. Washington (DC). United States Department of Agriculture. 2009. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPINP2

PAGE 66

66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Barton James Wilder grew up in Plant City, Florida on a small farm. Barton is the son of two educators. He graduated high school in May 2001 and enrolled in the University of Florida that fall. Barton received a Bachelor of Science degree in a gricultural o perations m anagement in December 2005. As a student at the University of Florida, Barton was active in AOM Club, a member of Al pha Zeta Honor Fraternity, Gamma Si gma Delta, and Alpha Gamma Rho fra ternity. Barton began the Master of Science program in the Fall of 2006. He is currently the Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Agent for Alachua County.