@article{sims_mitchem_jennings_monks_jordan_hoffmann_2023, title={Tolerance of muscadine grape to 2,4-D choline postemergence-directed}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2023.8}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Sims, Kira C. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Jordan, David L. and Hoffmann, Mark}, year={2023}, month={Feb} }
 @article{sims_jennings_monks_jordan_hoffmann_mitchem_2022, title={Tolerance of plasticulture strawberry to 2,4-D choline applied to row middles}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2022.27}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Sims, Kira C. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Jordan, David L. and Hoffmann, Mark and Mitchem, Wayne E.}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{sims_jennings_monks_mitchem_jordan_hoffmann_2022, title={Tolerance of southern highbush blueberry to 2,4-D choline postemergence-directed}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2022.33}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Sims, Kira C. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Jordan, David L. and Hoffmann, Mark}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{buckelew_mitchem_chaudhari_monks_jennings_2018, title={Evaluating weed control and response of newly planted peach trees to herbicides}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1553-8621"]}, DOI={10.1080/15538362.2018.1441772}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Field experiments were conducted in North Carolina to determine peach response to herbicides. Mesotrione, rimsulfuron, and sulfentrazone did not injure newly planted peach trees. However, halosulfuron at the higher rate caused injury to peach trees, but did not reduce tree cross-sectional area or winter pruning weight. Another field experiment was conducted to determine the effect of herbicide-based programs on weed control. Sulfentrazone alone controlled common lamb’s-quarters and henbit but provided poor control of large crabgrass and yellow foxtail. However, a tank mix of norflurazon or oryzalin with sulfentrazone improved control of these weeds over sulfentrazone alone. Terbacil alone or in tank mix rimsulfuron, and flumioxazin alone gave excellent control of large crabgrass and yellow foxtail.}, number={4}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE}, author={Buckelew, Juliana K. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Chaudhari, Sushila and Monks, David W. and Jennings, Katie M.}, year={2018}, pages={383–393} }
 @article{basinger_jennings_monks_mitchem_perkins-veazie_chaudhari_2018, title={In-row Vegetation-free Strip Width Effect on Established 'Navaho' Blackberry}, volume={32}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2017.85}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Basinger, Nicholas T. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Perkins-Veazie, Penelope M. and Chaudhari, Sushila}, year={2018}, pages={85–89} }
 @article{fisk_parker_mitchem_2015, title={Vegetation-free width and irrigation impact peach tree growth, fruit yield, fruit size, and incidence of hemipteran insect damage}, volume={50}, number={5}, journal={HortScience}, author={Fisk, C. L. and Parker, M. L. and Mitchem, W.}, year={2015}, pages={699–704} }
 @book{albertson_mitchem_poling_safley_sutton_2007, title={The North Carolina winegrape grower's guide}, publisher={Raleigh, NC: N.C. Cooperative Extension Service}, author={Albertson, A. L. and Mitchem, W. E. and Poling, E. B. and Safley, C. D. and Sutton, T. B.}, year={2007} }
 @article{macrae_mitchem_monks_parker_galloway_2007, title={Tree growth, fruit size, and yield response of mature peach to weed-free intervals}, volume={21}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-06-002.1}, abstractNote={An experiment was conducted at one location in 1999 and two locations in 2000 to determine the critical weed-free period for peach in North Carolina. The cultivars for the three locations were ‘Contender’, ‘Norman’, and ‘Summerprince’. Weed-free intervals of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 wk after peach tree bloom were established. Paraquat at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus nonionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v was applied every 10 d, after treatments were initiated at peach bloom, to maintain weed-free plots. Large crabgrass, hairy vetch, and smooth crabgrass were the primary weeds in Contender. Horseweed, smooth crabgrass, and large crabgrass were the primary weeds in Norman. Bermudagrass, smooth pigweed, and common lambsquarters were the primary weeds in Summerprince. No differences in trunk cross-sectional area were observed between the weed-free periods. Maintaining the orchard floor weed-free for 12 wk after peach tree bloom resulted in the greatest fruit size (individual fruit weight and diameter), total yield, and fruit number.}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={MacRae, Andrew W. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Monks, David W. and Parker, Michael L. and Galloway, Roger K.}, year={2007}, pages={102–105} }
 @article{starke_monks_mitchem_macrae_2006, title={Response of five summer-squash (Cucurbita pepo) cultivars to halosulfuron}, volume={20}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-03-144R3.1}, abstractNote={Response of ‘Dixie’, ‘Lemondrop’, ‘Multipik’, ‘Superpik’, and ‘Seneca Prolific’ summer squash to halosulfuron PRE or POST at 0.036, 0.053, and 0.072 kg ai/ha, or halosulfuron PRE fb halosulfuron POST at 0.018 fb 0.018, 0.027 fb 0.027, and 0.036 fb 0.036 kg/ha was field evaluated in 1997 and 1998. All halosulfuron treatments and rates reduced the height of cultivars 17–19% at 6 WAP (weeks after planting) and summer-squash injury (chlorosis and necrosis of crop foliage) was 6, 14, and 11% from halosulfuron PRE, POST, and PRE fb POST, respectively. Early summer-squash flowering was reduced 32–82% by halosulfuron, resulting in reduced early yields. Dixie was the cultivar most tolerant to halosulfuron. Early flowering of Dixie was reduced 32–36% compared to 32–82% for the other cultivars. Marketable yield of summer squash was reduced 20–30% by all rates of halosulfuron when averaged over all application timings. Marketable yield of Seneca Prolific, Superpik, Dixie, Multipik, and Lemondrop was reduced 0–17% by halosulfuron PRE. Halosulfuron POST or PRE fb POST reduced marketable yield of all summer-squash cultivars by 25–46%. Thus, summer squash was not tolerant of POST halosulfuron; however, Dixie, Multipik, Seneca Prolific, and Superpik exhibited tolerance to halosulfuron PRE.}, number={3}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Starke, Keith D. and Monks, David W. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Macrae, Andrew W.}, year={2006}, pages={617–621} }
 @article{silvey_mitchem_macrae_monks_2006, title={Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to halosulfuron PRE, POST, or PRE followed by POST}, volume={20}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-05-046.1}, abstractNote={A field experiment was conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine snap bean tolerance to halosulfuron based on crop injury, height, and yield. Halosulfuron was applied preemergence (PRE), postemergence (POST), and sequentially PRE followed by (fb) POST at 35, 53, and 70 g ai/ha, respectively. For comparison, a hand-weeded check was included. When data were averaged across years and halosulfuron rates, halosulfuron PRE, POST, and PRE fb POST provided similar yellow nutsedge control (74 to 82%) at snap bean harvest. Halosulfuron PRE resulted in 4% snap bean injury at harvest. Similarly, halosulfuron PRE fb POST resulted in 5% injury, while halosulfuron POST caused the most damage at 8%. Snap bean height at harvest was reduced 14% with halosulfuron POST compared to the weed-free check, with only 5 and 6% reduction caused by halosulfuron PRE and PRE fb POST, respectively. Halosulfuron POST reduced yield 39% compared to the weed-free check, while the PRE and PRE fb POST application timings produced yield similar to the check. When averaged across years and halosulfuron application timings, an increase in halosulfuron rate had no effect on yellow nutsedge control or snap bean yield. A linear trend was found for snap bean injury and plant height at harvest with snap bean injury increasing with an increase in halosulfuron rate while snap bean plant height decreased with an increase in halosulfuron rate. Application of halosulfuron PRE is the safest means to control yellow nutsedge in snap bean in North Carolina.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Silvey, Brandy D. and Mitchem, Wayne E. and Macrae, Andrew W. and Monks, David W.}, year={2006}, pages={873–876} }
 @article{macrae_mitchem_monks_parker_2005, title={White clover (Trifolium repens) control and flower head suppression in apple orchards}, volume={19}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-02-024}, abstractNote={White clover is a weed in apple orchards that competes with the crop; also, flowers of this weed are unwanted attractants of honey bees at times when insecticides, which are harmful to these pollinators, are being applied. In 1997 and 1998, white clover flower head and plant control by clopyralid alone and with 2,4-D and apple tolerance to these herbicides were determined. Treatments consisted of clopyralid at 0.10 and 0.21 kg ae/ha, 2,4-D at 1.1 kg ae/ha, and 2,4-D at 1.1 kg ae/ha plus 0.03 or 0.05 kg ae/ha clopyralid, which were applied 2 wk before full apple bloom and 2 wk after full apple bloom, and a nontreated check. No crop injury occurred with any treatment. All herbicide treatments provided some white clover control and flower head suppression. No differences in white clover bloom reduction were observed through May among treatments containing clopyralid. As summer progressed, the effect of clopyralid rate became more apparent. Clopyralid at 0.21, regardless of application time, provided 99% vegetative control and 100% flower head reduction through July. Clopyralid plus 2,4-D controlled white clover better than 2,4-D alone. However, vegetative control and flower head reduction with clopyralid at reduced rates (0.03 or 0.05 kg ae/ha) plus 2,4-D were not acceptable (76% or less and 78% or less, respectively). Thus, clopyralid at 0.10 and 0.21 kg ae/ha will be necessary for acceptable white clover vegetation control and flower head reduction.}, number={2}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={MacRae, AW and Mitchem, WE and Monks, DW and Parker, ML}, year={2005}, pages={219–223} }
 @article{mitchem_rick_monks_1998, title={Weed control in apple and peach orchards with Azafenidin}, volume={51}, number={1998}, journal={Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society}, author={Mitchem, W. E. and Rick, S. K. and Monks, D. W.}, year={1998}, pages={98} }
 @article{mitchem_monks_mills_1997, title={Response of transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) to ethalfluralin applied PPI, PRE, and POST}, volume={11}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1017/s0890037x00041397}, abstractNote={Field experiments conducted in 1992 and 1993 evaluated transplanted watermelon tolerance to ethalfluralin applied PPI, PRE (before transplanting), and POST (immediately after transplanting) at 1.2 or 2.4 kg ai/ha. Other treatments for comparison included the registered herbicides ethalfluralin POST-directed spray (PDS), ethalfluralin PDS followed by (fb) naptalam POST, bensulide plus naptalam PPI, and a nontreated check. All treatments controlled common lambsquarters and goosegrass 83 to 100% 2 and 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Watermelon was injured 30 to 77% in 1992 and 14 to 83% in 1993 by ethalfluralin PPI or PRE at 1.2 or 2.4 kg/ha. Ethalfluralin POST was not injurious to watermelon. In 1992, watermelon treated with ethalfluralin POST at 1.2 and 2.4 kg/ha yielded 52 to 62% more fruit than watermelon from the nontreated check. In 1993, yield of transplanted watermelon treated with ethalfluralin POST was similar to that in the nontreated check.}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Mitchem, WE and Monks, DW and Mills, RJ}, year={1997}, pages={88–91} }