1	Weed Control and Management of Turfgrass Lawns with Wet Blade Technology J.B. Willis, D.B. Ricker, and S.D. Askew Turfgrass Weed Science
2	Introduction– Wet Blade Technology Principal Operational mower Cuts leaf tissue and wipes product onto cut leaf blade tips Benefits Low GPA, high product concentration No opportunity for drift Public perception, no visible herbicide application
3	Introduction– Wet Blade Technology
4	Objective Evaluate Herbicide, Plant Growth Regulator, and Fertilizer Application Using:
5	Methods Four Experiments Crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) White Clover (Trifolium repens) Fertilizer on Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Plant Growth Regulators (PGR) on Tall Fescue RCBD, 3 replications Plot size, 6 by 20’ with Wet Blade, 6 by 6’ Spray Nontreated control or running sprayed check
6	Methods – Crabgrass Mixed Digitaria Population Smooth Crabgrass [Digitaria ischaemum (DIGIS)] Southern Crabgrass (Digitaria ciliata) Turf injury, color, and quality
7	Turf Injury – Wet Blade vs. Spray 31 DAT
8	DIGIS – Wet Blade vs. Spray 31 DAT
9	Results – DIGIS DIGIS control with Wet Blade technology is possible Dense DIGIS stand limited control Many products require sequential applications for DIGIS control
10	Methods – White Clover 3 species rated White Clover (TRFRE) Broadleaf plantain [Plantago major (PLAMA)] Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale (TAROF)]
11	TRFRE– Wet Blade vs. Spray 20 DAT
12	PLAMA– Wet Blade vs. Spray 20 DAT
13	TAROF – Wet Blade vs. Spray 20 DAT
14	Results – TRFRE TRFRE control can be achieved with Wet Blade technology PLAMA and TAROF control potential with Wet Blade is indeterminate Variable data
15	Methods – Fertilizer Treatments applied weekly Comparison Nontreated 46-0-0 applied biweekly Wet Blade Liquid Urea 33-0-0 (L) Ferromec 15-0-0 (L) Peters 20-20-20 (DG) 28-0-0 Slow release (DG) TurfVigor 9-3-6 (L)
16	Results – Fertilizer No Significant Differences Turf Color Turf Quality Turf Injury Clipping Weight
17	Methods – Plant Growth Regulators Factorial treatment arrangement 3 Products applied at 4 wk intervals - Primo 33 fl oz/A, Proxy 218 fl oz/A, Embark 5 pt/A Ferromec – 0, 2.5 gal/A applied 2 wks after PGR
18	PGR – Wet Blade vs. Spray Clipping Weight 9 wk after Initial
19	PGR – Wet Blade vs. Spray FESAR Injury
20	PGR - Results Embark injured turf Primo and Proxy applied with Wet Blade reduced clippings without injuring turf
21	White Clover Demo Fine Fescue Drive @ 1 lb/A No TAROF control 4 MAT
22
23
24	Future Research Expand weed species evaluations Sequential applications Different rates Evaluate effects of deposited turfgrass clippings on surrounding ornamentals Alter PGR application frequency Evaluate fertilizer overlap effects on turf quality