Investigating low-dose herbicide programs for goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control on creeping bentgrass greens

Only four herbicides are registered for smooth crabgrass or goosegrass control on creeping bentgrass golf putting greens. None of the four herbicides control weedy grasses for the entire season or control weeds postemergence when applied once at labeled rates. Three of these have product labels that prohibit repeated use or application during stressful summer conditions. We hypothesized frequently applying herbicides at low doses could provide season-long control of summer grasses while minimizing turf injury. Seven field experiments were conducted on creeping bentgrass putting greens to evaluate various herbicides applied monthly, biweekly, or weekly for postemergence and residual control of goosegrass and smooth crabgrass as well as creeping bentgrass putting green tolerance. Metamifop applied twice monthly at 200 g ai ha−1, topramezone applied eight times weekly at 1.5 g ae ha−1, and siduron applied weekly at 5.6 kg ai ha−1 or four times biweekly at 11 kg ha−1 did not injure creeping bentgrass greater than 10% and maintained creeping bentgrass quality and cover equivalent to nontreated turf. Weekly or biweekly programs of fenoxaprop or quinclorac caused unacceptable injury and quality decline. Metamifop applied monthly and either fenoxaprop program controlled both smooth crabgrass and goosegrass 97 to 99% throughout the growing season. Programs containing either quinclorac or siduron controlled smooth crabgrass 99 to 100% but did not control goosegrass greater than 39%. All topramezone programs controlled smooth crabgrass 69 to 77% and goosegrass 93 to 98%. In additional studies, siduron applied five times biweekly did not injure creeping bentgrass putting greens and controlled smooth crabgrass greater than 90% at seasonal, cumulative rates between 17 and 65 kg ai ha−1. This method of frequent, low-dose herbicide treatment to control smooth crabgrass and goosegrass on golf putting greens is novel and could be legally implemented currently with siduron.

Influence of sugarcane straw on weed germination control

This research studied the effectiveness of herbicide treatments in weed control and during different periods of emergence, when applied to varying amounts of straw. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse with pre-emergent herbicides: amicarbazone, metribuzin, indaziflam, isoxaflutole, amicarbazone + indaziflam, metribuzin + indaziflam, and isoxaflutole + indaziflam, against three species (Sorghum halepense, Rottboellia exaltata, and Mucuna aterrima). The experimental design was completely randomized in a 5x4 factorial scheme, with five amounts of straw (0, 1, 2, 3, and 5 t/ha) and four periods of weed emergence (0, 30, 60, and 90 days after treatments). The residual control of indaziflam was influenced by the amount of straw. Metribuzin presented a low residual control, while isoxaflutole was not affected by the amount of straw. Amicarbazone offered residual control for Mucuna aterrima. The association between indaziflam + isoxaflutole displayed a suitable residual control against Sorghum halepense and Rottboellia exaltata. The association of indaziflam + metribuzin adequately controlled Mucuna aterrima and Sorghum halepense. herbicide physical-chemical characteristics can influence their performance, and the association of products may increase residual and weed spectrum control. Highlights This partial or total removal of remaining sugarcane straw from the soil surface alters weeds dynamics in sugarcane fields. In this situation we have monocot and dicot weeds infesting the sugarcane crops. Among these species, some plants are even more difficult to control, such as Sorghum halepense, Rottboellia exaltata, and Mucuna aterrima Indaziflam herbicide presented a better performance in controlling monocotyledonous plants than eudicot plants. The herbicides amicarbazone and metribuzin presented adequate control of Mucuna aterrima despite having lower residual control. The association of indaziflam + metribuzin, resulted in satisfactory results for Mucuna aterrima, Sorghum halepense, and Rottboellia exaltata.

Evaluating Efficacy of Preemergence Soybean Herbicides Using Field Treated Soil in Greenhouse Bioassays

Amidst widespread occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the United States, the use of PRE herbicides and cover crops have resurged once again as important strategies for weed management in cropping systems. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the length of soil residual weed control from PRE soybean herbicides and the detrimental impact of these herbicides on cover crop species using field treated soil in greenhouse bioassays. Greenhouse bioassays were conducted using soil from field experiments conducted in 2018 and 2019 at Arlington and Lancaster, WI. PRE herbicides consisted of imazethapyr, chlorimuron-ethyl, and cloransulam-methyl (acetolactate synthase [ALS]-inhibitors), metribuzin (photosystem II [PSII]-inhibitor), sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, and saflufenacil (protoporphyrinogen oxidase [PPO]-inhibitors), acetochlor, S-metolachlor, dimethenamid-P, and pyroxasulfone (very long-chain fatty acid [VLCFA]-inhibitors), and a nontreated control. Greenhouse bioassays were conducted using soil (0-10 cm depth) sampled at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 d after treatment (DAT). Palmer amaranth and giant foxtail (weeds), and radish and cereal rye (cover crops) were used as bioindicators of herbicide levels in the soil. Bioassay results showed extended soil residual control of Palmer amaranth with sulfentrazone and pyroxasulfone; extended residual control of giant foxtail was observed with pyroxasulfone and S-metolachlor. Chlorimuron-ethyl and metribuzin were the most injurious herbicides to radish and cereal rye shortly after application, respectively, but minimal injury was observed from soil samples collected 50 DAT indicating the use of PRE and fall seeded cover crops in southern Wisconsin can be compatible. These results can support growers and practitioners with selection of effective PRE herbicides for Palmer amaranth and giant foxtail control and reduced impact on fall seeded radish and cereal rye cover crops altogether leading to more effective, diverse and sustainable weed management programs.

Previsão da exportação brasileira de açúcar avaliada por meio de gráficos de controle de resíduos

Sugar production and exportation are important factors for the Brazilian economy, because Brazil produces the largest amount of sugar and accounts for almost half of the world´s sugar exports. This research aimed to monitor the sugar export from January 2000 to April 2019, by means of residual control charts with pretreatment of autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models. The data used in the study were collected from the Portal Única website. We opted for the application of ARIMA modeling because the data was not stationarity and presented autocorrelated values. The best model to predict the Brazilian sugar exports was SARIMA (1,1,1)(1,0,1)6 due to the seasonal behavior of the series, which may be related to the sugarcane planting and harvesting period. It was possible to observe the presence of upper-limit outliers in the residual control chart, in October 2012 and February 2016, which characterize a sugar exports higher than forecasted exports.

Property Theory of Corporate Law

The dominant view of the corporation in legal scholarship is contractarian, one that sees the corporation as a “nexus of contracts” among the various suppliers of inputs to the business, such as investors, creditors, and employees. According to this view, the holders of common stock—those who are traditionally the primary focus of corporate law—are not the owners of the corporation, but just one of many contractual claimants. As a result, the corporation is a free-floating nexus of contracts with no property interests in the corporation itself or its assets. Thus, corporate law is seen as essentially a specialized branch of contract law. The contractarian metaphor has largely persuaded the academy and much of the corporate law bench, evidenced by the regularity in which Delaware courts interpret charter documents as “contracts.” Courts and commentators alike regard corporate law as essentially a set of “off-the-rack” contractual default rules provided by the state. Yet the contractarian metaphor has struggled to account for some of the most fundamental features of corporate law. For example, the nexus of contracts view fails to adequately explain why fiduciary duties attach uniquely to shareholders and not to other contractual claimants on the corporation. Equally important, the nexus of contracts approach also fails to account for the many in rem features of the corporation that contract law could not easily replicate. There is a piece missing in the contractarian account of the corporation. This Article argues that property law provides the missing piece of the contractarian puzzle in demarcating the boundaries of corporate law and explaining the distinctive features of it. In the property theory, the corporation is an ownership structure—a device for turning a messy set of in personam claims into an orderly package of in rem property rights, called “shares.” The in rem structure depersonalizes these rights, allowing them to be divided and transferred without contractual assent and without entangling the personal attributes of the holder. The key to the proprietary nature of this ownership interest is the residual control—voting rights—that solidify the status of common stock as a property interest rather than a contractual interest. The property theory’s assertion that claims on the corporation are a mix of property and contract rights provides traction in otherwise slippery areas of corporate law. If there is a line to be drawn between contract and property, this dividing line identifies the boundaries of distinctively corporate law from contract law. Accordingly, the rationale for shareholder-only fiduciary duties is not primarily that shareholders are the residual claimants in the economic sense, but that they have a residual control right constituting an ownership interest unique among corporate claimants. The property theory of corporate law best explains many features of corporate law and clarifies otherwise murky line drawing exercises in defining the scope of fiduciary duties.

Study on the control effect of 7 kinds of insecticides to ficus gallforming thripid

The toxicity and control efect of 7 kinds of insectcides to Ficus gall-forming thripid are evaluated in this paper. The results showed the toxicity of Decis is the highest. The toxicites of Imidacloprid and Cypermethrin are higher than that of the other 4 kinds of insectcides,the toxicity of Regent is the lowest. Decis, Admire and Chlorpyrifos provided efectve rapid control efects, which are 99. 3%, 98. 9% and 94. 2% respectvely at 3 days afer the treatment. Admire and Chlorpyrifos provided efectve residual control efects, which are 92.8% and 86.5% respectvely at 21 day s afer the treatment.

Efficacy of residual herbicides influenced by cover-crop residue for control of Amaranthus palmeri and A. tuberculatus in soybean

Field studies were conducted in 2018 and 2019 in Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee to determine if cover-crop residue interfered with herbicides that provide residual control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp in no-till soybean. The experiments were established in the fall with planting of cover crops (cereal rye + hairy vetch). Herbicide treatments consisted of a nontreated or no residual, acetochlor, dimethenamid-P, flumioxazin, pyroxasulfone + flumioxazin, pendimethalin, metribuzin, pyroxasulfone, and S-metolachlor. Palmer amaranth took 18 d and waterhemp took 24 d in the cover crop–alone (nontreated) treatment to reach a height of 10 cm. Compared with this treatment, all herbicides except metribuzin increased the number of days until 10-cm Palmer amaranth was present. Flumioxazin applied alone or in a mixture with pyroxasulfone were the best at delaying Palmer amaranth growing to a height of 10 cm (35 d and 33 d, respectively). The herbicides that resulted in the lowest Palmer amaranth density (1.5 to 4 times less) integrated with a cover crop were pyroxasulfone + flumioxazin, flumioxazin, pyroxasulfone, and acetochlor. Those four herbicide treatments also delayed Palmer amaranth emergence for the longest period (27 to 34 d). Waterhemp density was 7 to 14 times less with acetochlor than all the other herbicides present. Yield differences were observed for locations with waterhemp. This research supports previous research indicating that utilizing soil-residual herbicides along with cover crops improves control of Palmer amaranth and/or waterhemp.

Evaluation of a Non-Chemical Compared to a Non-Chemical Plus Silica Gel Approach to Bed Bug Management

Bed bug resistance to commonly used pesticide sprays has led to exploring new pesticides and other strategies for bed bug management. Non-chemical methods are effective in bed bug management; however, they do not provide residual protection. Compared to insecticide sprays, dust formulations are considered to provide longer residual control. We evaluated two bed bug management programs in apartment buildings. A building-wide inspection was initially conducted to identify bed bug infested apartments. Selected apartments were divided into two treatment groups: non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment (10 apartments) and non-chemical treatment (11 apartments). After initial treatment, apartments were re-visited monthly for up to 6 months. During each visit, the total bed bug count per apartment was obtained by examining interceptor traps placed in the apartments and conducting a visual inspection. Mean bed bug count was reduced by 99% and 89% in non-chemical plus silica gel dust and non-chemical treatment, respectively. Non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment caused significantly higher bed bug count reduction than the non-chemical treatment at 6 months. Bed bugs were eradicated from 40% and 36% of apartments treated with non-chemical plus silica gel dust treatment and non-chemical treatment, respectively.