ir-4 ornamental horticulture program trial reportlieth.ucdavis.edu/pub/replim/replim228 gypsophila...

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Trial Report

Researcher(s): Heiner Lieth, UC Davis PRNumber(s): 26040 1

Project Title: Evaluation of phytotoxicity of V-10142 75WG on

Baby’s Breath (Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’)

IR4 PR#:

26040

Report date:

May 29, 2007

Authors: Heiner Lieth and Linda Dodge Department of Plant Sciences University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616

Narrative Summary: Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ plants growing in 1-gallon containers received two applications of V-10142 75WG at 0.5 oz/acre (1X), 1 oz/acre (2X) or 2 oz/acre (4X) rates as described in the Materials and Methods section of this report. The interval between applications was 4 weeks. The plants in the Control group received no V-10142 75WG. The trial was conducted outdoors over 8 weeks from January 5, 2007 to March 5, 2007. The plants were then grown on in a greenhouse for 4 weeks from March 5, 2007 to April 2, 2007. Results: All Gypsophila plants treated with V-10142 75WG showed some phytotoxicity after the second application but the effect was relatively minor with phytotoxicity index levels typically below 2 by day 60 (Tables 1 and 4, Figures 1 and 3). The plants did not grow significantly during this time due to low winter temperatures so the plants were transferred to a greenhouse and the trial was continued for an additional 4 weeks. By day 89 the control plants did grow substantially as part of a spring growth surge. The plants subjected to V-10142 75WG all showed significant growth inhibition with no new growth being added on (Tables 1 and 4; Figures 2, 4 and 5). Also by day 89, significant leaf necrosis was observed resulting in average phytotoxicity ratings of over 4. Discussion: The initial lack of growth during the first 60 days was due to low winter temperatures in the outdoor nursery. During the relatively dormant period, the plants did not suffer much from the herbicide application, but there were just enough blemishes to cause concern that more damage would occur at higher temperatures. The plants were transferred to a greenhouse and the trial was extended so as to include a period of more rapid growth. During this time we observed significant phytotoxicity so we conclude that Sedgehammer causes harm to Gypsophila both through growth suppression (which is extensive) and phytotoxicity. This product is not safe for “over the top” application on Gypsophila. Acknowledgements: The research was supported through funding from the USDA IR-4 Program, Western Region based at UC Davis, Davis, CA. Personnel involved in this project included: Ron Lane (pesticide application, pest management) and Priyasheila Singh (plant culture, data collection). The materials being tested were supplied by the manufacturer/distributor. Plants were provided by EuroAmerican Propagators, Bonsall CA.



Results Table Table 1. Phytotoxicity and growth changes over 8 weeks for Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4. Different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). “Yes”/”No” designations refer to significant treatment effects at the 5% level. Means ± SE (n=8)

Phytotoxicity Effect of V-10142 on Gypsophila Phytotoxicity Index Increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 2 week (NA) 4 weeks no 5 weeks yes

0X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.25 ± 0.16 b 1X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.13 ± 0.13 a 0.88 ± 0.13 a 2X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.88 ± 0.13 a 4X 0.00 ± 0.00 a 0.25 ± 0.25 a 0.50 ± 0.19 ab Phytotoxicity Index increase from beginning of trial until: Treatment 6 weeks yes 8 weeks yes 12 week yes

0X 0.13 ± 0.13 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b 1X 1.25 ± 0.31 a 2.38 ± 0.26 a 9.50 ± 0.50 a 2X 1.00 ± 0.27 a 2.13 ± 0.23 a 8.13 ± 0.83 a 4X 0.75 ± 0.25 ab 2.00 ± 0.27 a 9.13 ± 0.35 a

Growth Effect of V-10142 on Gypsophila Increase by week 8 of:

Treatment Height (cm) no Average Width (cm)

no Volume Index no

0X -0.75 ± 0.28 a 0.25 ± 0.51 a -39.69 ± 40.83 a 1X -1.38 ± 0.21 a -0.28 ± 0.24 a -91.16 ± 17.59 ab 2X -1.56 ± 0.22 a -0.88 ± 0.46 a -150.69 ± 31.25 b 4X -1.19 ± 0.38 a -0.41 ± 0.42 a -87.97 ± 31.17 ab

Increase by week 12 of:

Treatment Height (cm) yes Average Width (cm)

yes Volume Index yes

0X 12.31 ± 2.12 a 8.53 ± 0.77 a 4191.06 ± 512.05 a 1X -1.69 ± 0.27 b -2.28 ± 0.28 b -169.63 ± 18.50 b 2X -1.81 ± 0.38 b -2.59 ± 0.47 b -225.75 ± 36.46 b 4X -1.38 ± 0.41 b -3.50 ± 0.19 b -198.56 ± 20.25 b



0

2

4

6

8

10

Phy

toto

xici

ty In

dex

0 20 40 60 80 100Day of trial

Control1X2X4X

Species: Gypsophila -- Material: V-10142

Figure 1. Phytotoxicity results for Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4. SE bars shown. (n = 8)



0

5

10

15

20H

eigh

t (cm

)

0

5

10

15

Wid

th (c

m)

0

2000

4000

6000

Volu

me

Inde

x

-5

0

5

10

15

Cha

nge

(cm

)

-5

0

5

10

15

Cha

nge

(cm

)

-5

0

5

10

15

Cha

nge

(cm

)

-5

0

5

10

15

Cha

nge

(cm

)

0100020003000400050006000

Cha

nge

0100020003000400050006000

Cha

nge

0 20 40 60 80 100Day of trial

0 20 40 60 80 100Day of trial

0 20 40 60 80 100Day of trial

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Ctrl 1X 2X 4X

Species: Gypsophila -- Material: V-10142

Day 59

Day 89

Day 59

Day 89

Day 59

Day 89

Figure 2. Growth results for Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ treated with 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4. Both means and cumulative changes over time are plotted for plant height, plant width and plant volume index Histograms show changes over the 8-week and 12-week trial periods. SE bars shown. (n = 8)



Phyto rating = 6

Phyto rating = 8

Phyto rating = 9 Figure 3. Examples of phytotoxicity ratings given to plants of Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ 12 weeks after 2 applications of V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4.



Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 4. Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ 8 weeks after two applications of 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4.



Block A

Block B

Block C CONTROL 1X 2X 4X Figure 5. Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ 12 weeks after two applications of 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4.



Materials & Methods/Recordkeeping: Crop History

Crop Cultivar/Variety: Baby’s Breath (Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’)

Date of Seeding: Date of Emergence:

Date of Transplanting: Liners received from EuroAmerican 12/22/06, transplanted 12/28/06

Potting Mix: UC Mix: 1/3 sand, 1/3 peat, 1/3 bark (by volume) Pot size & spacing: 1-gallon pots spaced on 12-inch centers Row spacing:

Product(s) applied prior to start of experiment:

Product Rate Application Type

Date of Application

Crop Growth Stage

Application Volume

Osmocote 15-9-12 1 tbs./pot Topdress 12/28/06 Actively growing NA Experiment Information

Experimental Design: Randomized complete block Number of Reps: 8 (3 blocks x 3 reps for block A and B, 2 reps for Block C)

Application Equipment: Manual spray bottles for V-10142 75WG Product(s) applied during experiment (including treatments, fertilizers, etc): Product Rate(s) Application

Type Date of Application

Crop Growth Stage Application Volume

V-10142 75WG

0.5, 1, 2 lb ai/acre

Foliar spray 1/5/07 Actively growing

V-10142 75WG

0.5, 1, 2 lb ai/acre

Foliar spray 2/5/07 Actively growing

Materials & Methods: Plant Material and Culture. Liners of Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ were received from EuroAmerican Propagators (Bonsall CA) on December 22, 2006. The plants were transplanted to 1-gallon pots containing UC Mix on December 28, 2006. The experiment ran from January 5, 2007 to March 5, 2007 in an outdoor nursery under 50% shade (Table 3). The plants were then transferred to a greenhouse with day/night temperatures of 75°/65° F for 4 additional weeks (Figure 6). The plants were irrigated as needed during the 12-week experiment by hand with tap



water. Applications of pesticides as part of a normal pest management program were made as needed (see above). Experimental Procedure. Thirty-two plants were randomly chosen and individually tagged for treatment with 0 (Control), 0.5 lb ai/acre (1X), 1 lb ai/acre (2X) or 2 lb ai/acre (4X) V-10142 75WG with 8 replicates per treatment. These dosages were prescribed in IR4 Ornamental Protocol 06-010 (Appendix A). The plants received the first foliar spray application on January 5, 2007 and the second application 4 weeks later on February 5, 2007. Data Collection. Phytotoxicity ratings were taken at week 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12, (January 5, 12, 18 and 31, February 12 and 19, March 5 and April 2, 2007). Visual phytotoxicity evaluations were based on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no injury) to 10 (complete kill) (Table 2). Table 2. Numerical plant damage rating scale used for phytotoxicity determinations.

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

Plant height and width were measured at week 0 (January 5, 2007), week 8 (March 5, 2007) and week 12 (April 2, 2007). Plant height (cm) was measured from the container soil surface to the top of the canopy. Plant width (cm) was measured twice along perpendicular lines at the widest part of the plant, resulting in W1 and W2. For each observation a canopy volume index was calculated so as to be able to determine if canopy volume was affected by the application of herbicide. The calculation was made as H*W1*W2, where H is the height and W1 and W2 are two width measurements. The usefulness of this index is based on the fact that many of the models for such a volume calculation are of the form a*H*W1*W2. The constant “a” depends on the assumption of the shape of the canopy. Since analyses of variance are scale-independent, the conclusion will thus be for the volume of the plant canopy. Statistical Analysis. The data were analyzed using Proc GLM of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The phytotoxicity and change in mean value from the starting plant height, width and volume index were analyzed for significant differences using t-tests.



Environmental conditions during the experiment: Table 3. Environmental conditions during weeks 0-8 of the experiment to determine phytotoxicity of V-10142 75WG on Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’.

Date Sol Rad (Ly/day)

Max Air Temp (°F)

Min Air Temp (°F)

Avg wSpd (MPH) Precip (in)

CIMIS ETo (in)

Avg Rel Hum (%)

1/4/2007 123 58.5 42.2 9 0 0.06 65 1/5/2007 234 52.8 38.6 15.7 0 0.15 38 1/6/2007 215 54.5 29 4.4 0 0.05 60 1/7/2007 231 57.2 34 4.8 0 0.06 66 1/8/2007 234 58.9 29.8 2.3 0 0.05 77 1/9/2007 236 62.2 29 1.5 0 0.05 80

1/10/2007 183 62.4 31.3 6 0 0.05 78 1/11/2007 255 50.1 32.1 6.8 0 0.08 44 1/12/2007 261 44.3 29.9 15.3 0 0.12 36 1/13/2007 257 48.8 25.5 6.9 0 0.08 31 1/14/2007 259 50.9 19.8 6.2 0 0.07 44 1/15/2007 262 50.9 26.5 3.4 0 0.06 48 1/16/2007 237 49.4 21.5 3.8 0 0.06 57 1/17/2007 258 58.8 30.4 10.4 0 0.13 42 1/18/2007 250 58 28 4.1 0 0.07 47 1/19/2007 229 57 27.5 2.3 0 0.05 64 1/20/2007 239 63.2 27.1 7.6 0 0.11 47 1/21/2007 261 60.2 41 16.2 0 0.21 24 1/22/2007 278 59.5 28.5 3 0 0.07 42 1/23/2007 267 60.9 28.9 2.8 0 0.07 53 1/24/2007 275 61 26.2 2.8 0 0.07 58 1/25/2007 272 63 27.3 2.4 0 0.07 58 1/26/2007 253 61.7 27.7 2.4 0 0.06 68 1/27/2007 234 59.2 32.8 2.6 0 0.05 75 1/28/2007 169 57.4 35.5 3.2 0 0.04 75 1/29/2007 289 68.2 38.1 7.5 0 0.12 50 1/30/2007 258 62.7 34 4.7 0 0.07 70 1/31/2007 225 56.8 34.9 3.7 0 0.05 83 2/1/2007 86 49.6 31 4 0 0.01 85 2/2/2007 201 56.6 36 2.8 0 0.04 75 2/3/2007 272 59.5 30.7 3.7 0 0.07 69 2/4/2007 266 66.1 32.2 1.7 0 0.06 59 2/5/2007 215 63.6 36.2 3.1 0 0.06 64 2/6/2007 256 67.1 41.7 4.6 0 0.07 67 2/7/2007 127 58.9 49.2 7.1 0.19 0.03 80 2/8/2007 93 54.9 46.2 4 0.44 0.01 90 2/9/2007 68 55.6 52.6 5.1 0.54 0 92

2/10/2007 89 58.8 51.9 8.6 0.81 0.01 93 2/11/2007 310 62.3 43.8 7.1 0 0.08 76 2/12/2007 256 59.2 38.5 4.2 0.15 0.06 82 2/13/2007 288 60.5 39 4.5 0 0.07 80 2/14/2007 307 62.2 38.9 3.8 0 0.08 69 2/15/2007 218 66.8 32 5.4 0 0.09 67 2/16/2007 305 72.7 40.7 10.2 0 0.15 60 2/17/2007 311 70.7 50.2 6.3 0 0.1 63 2/18/2007 292 64.6 39.8 6.4 0 0.1 68 2/19/2007 336 64.1 43.3 10.7 0 0.17 40 2/20/2007 287 59.9 41.4 8.6 0 0.09 73 2/21/2007 129 58.3 41.9 7.6 0 0.05 74 2/22/2007 246 56.1 39.8 9 0.2 0.08 73 2/23/2007 326 55.4 31.6 3.4 0 0.08 64 2/24/2007 145 53.4 39.2 7.7 0.22 0.04 82 2/25/2007 214 57.1 45.6 7.6 0.05 0.06 77 2/26/2007 115 51.9 42.6 6.6 0.37 0.02 85 2/27/2007 191 49.3 33.1 7.2 0.26 0.04 81 2/28/2007 316 53.3 30.3 3.4 0 0.07 76 3/1/2007 262 56.4 31.3 3.2 0 0.06 76 3/2/2007 358 62.4 35.3 5.5 0 0.1 70 3/3/2007 356 64.8 37.7 3.8 0 0.09 71 3/4/2007 304 68.2 42.7 3.7 0 0.09 71 3/5/2007 363 72.3 45.9 3.5 0 0.11 65 3/6/2007 362 72.1 41.2 3.6 0 0.11 65



Air Temperature - Greenhouse 180

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2/27/2

007

3/4/20

07

3/9/20

07

3/14/2

007

3/19/2

007

3/24/2

007

3/29/2

007

4/3/20

07

4/8/20

07

Air

Tem

pera

ture

(F)

Figure 6. Greenhouse temperatures during weeks 9-12 of the experiment to determine phytotoxicity of V-10142 75WG on Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’.



Raw Data: Table 4. Phytotoxicity and plant growth data collected for plants of Gypsophila paniculata ‘Festival Star’ treated with two applications of 0 (Control), 0.5 (1X), 1 (2X) or 2 (4X) lb ai/acre V-10142 75WG at weeks 0 and 4 of a 12-week experiment. Phytotoxicity Report Form Gypsophila V-10142 Phytotoxicity at week Plant Size at week 0 Plant Size at week 8 Plant Size at week 12 Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2 Height Width1 Width 2 Treatment Block Rep 0 1 2 4 5 6 8 12 (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Control A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 8 6 3.5 9 7 18 17 17 Control A 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 10 6 3.5 10 8 17 17 16.5 Control A 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 10 9 3.5 6.5 10 15 17 17 Control B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 7 3 7 9 11 16 16 Control B 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 6 4 7.5 8 12.5 18 18 Control B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 9 5 11 7 29 17 15 Control C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 7 3 8 5.5 11 16 16 Control C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 11 6.5 9.5 6 23 14 14 Control C 3

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.0 7.6 4.0 8.6 7.6 17.1 16.5 16.2 1X A 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 10 3.5 9 8 3 9 8 2 5 6 1X A 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 4 8 8.5 3 8 6 2 5 5 1X A 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 10 4 7 7 2 7.5 5 2 4 4 1X B 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 10 5 8 8 3 7 7 3 5 6 1X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5 8 6 4 8 6.5 3 5 5 1X B 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 5 8 8 4 7 8 5 7 7 1X C 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 4.5 8 7 2.5 9 7 2 6 5 1X C 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 4.5 6 7 3 8.5 5.5 3 4 6 1X C 3 Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 2.4 9.5 4.4 7.8 7.4 3.1 8.0 6.6 2.8 5.1 5.5

2X A 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5 7 8.5 3 9.5 8 3 6 6 2X A 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 5 8 7 3 6 6.5 3 5 6 2X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 8 8 3.5 7 5.5 3.5 7 6 2X B 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 5 9 10 4 7 6 3.5 6 4 2X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 10 4.5 9 8 3 7 6.5 2 4 4 2X B 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 10 5 8 7 3.5 7.5 7 2 5 4 2X C 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 4.5 6 8 4 7.5 7 5 6 6 2X C 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 10 5.5 9 9 3 9 8.5 3 6 7 2X C 3 Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 2.1 8.1 4.9 8.0 8.2 3.4 7.6 6.9 3.1 5.6 5.4

4X A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 4.5 8 7 2 8 6.5 2 4 4 4X A 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 10 5 8 8 2.5 5 6 2 4 4 4X A 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 3 8 6 2.5 9 6.5 2 4 4 4X B 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 8 4 9 9 3 9 7.5 3 5 4.5 4X B 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 10 4.5 6 9 2.5 8 6 2 4 4 4X B 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8 4 9 7 4.5 7 7 4 4 4.5 4X C 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 4 7 8 3 9 9 3 5 5 4X C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 4 9 7 3.5 8 7 4 4 5 4X C 3 Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 2.0 9.1 4.1 8.0 7.6 2.9 7.9 6.9 2.8 4.3 4.4



APPENDIX A Phytotoxicity to ornamental horticulture plants from tools to manage broadleaf weeds and sedges. Ornamental Protocol Number: 06-010 Objective: Determine phytotoxicity of Sedgehammer 75WG (halosulfuron), Sulfentrazone 0.2G, and V-10142 to

unlabelled perennial plants commonly grown in nurseries.

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

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

Application Instructions: Apply first application over the top of plants just breaking dormancy or, under climates where plants do not go totally dormant, apply prior to active growth in the spring. See table for product specific information.

Plant Materials: See attached list of plant materials. Plants grown in field containers are preferred to in-ground.

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

If different application methods or evaluations are made, please clearly specify differences in final report and explain how they enhanced results.

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

Treatments: Product Rates Special Instructions Contact Information

to obtain materials and any needed adjuvants

Sedgehammer 75WG (halosulfuron)

1 oz per acre (0.047 lb ai) 2 oz per acre (0.094 lb ai) 4 oz per acre (0.188 lb ai)

Always use 0.25% v/v of a non ionic surfactant. If severe phyto symptoms do not occur and where feasible apply a second application 4-6 weeks later at identical rates.

Kory Wheeler 928-819-1592 [email protected]

Sulfentrazone 0.2G (sulfentrazone – 0.2% active)

0.125 lb ai/acre 0.25 lb ai/acre 0.5 lb ai/acre

2 applications on a 4 week interval

FMC, Bobby Walls, 919-735-3862, [email protected]

V-10142 75WG 0.5 lb ai/acre 1.0 lb ai/acre 2.0 lb ai/acre

2 applications on a 4 week interval

Valent, Joe Chamberlin, 770-985-0303, [email protected]

Untreated ------ ------ Reports:

Reports must include: Results summary (no more than one page) Summary table with appropriate statistical analyses Experimental design and materials and methods Appendices: raw data and recordkeeping information as listed above If pictures were taken, please include them. A report submitted electronically is preferred but not required. If the report is provided electronically, the basic report can be

sent in MS Word or WordPerfect, the recordkeeping information as pdf or other electronic documents, and the raw data in MS Excel or other suitable program such as ARM.

Please direct questions to: Cristi Palmer, IR-4 HQ, Rutgers University, 681 US Hwy 1 S, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, Phone 732-932-9575 x629, [email protected] OR Ely Vea, 308 Aston Forest Lane, Crownsville, MD 21032, Phone & FAX#: 410-923-4880, E-mail: [email protected].

ir-4 ornamental horticulture program trial reportlieth.ucdavis.edu/pub/replim/replim228 gypsophila...

Documents