Citation
Living Mulch and Microirrigation for Runoff and Erosion Reduction during Bare-root Strawberry Transplant Establishment

Material Information

Title:
Living Mulch and Microirrigation for Runoff and Erosion Reduction during Bare-root Strawberry Transplant Establishment
Creator:
Pride, Lillian R
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
Chase,Carlene Ann
Committee Co-Chair:
Migliaccio,Kati White
Committee Members:
Brym,Zachary Thomas
Graduation Date:
5/3/2019

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
strawberry
Hillsborough County ( local )
Central Florida ( local )
Live mulches ( jstor )
Strawberries ( jstor )
Sprinkler irrigation ( jstor )
Genre:
Unknown ( sobekcm )

Notes

General Note:
High volumes of sprinkler irrigation are used in Florida for bare-root strawberry transplant establishment. To reduce water use and to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of the irrigation, the effects of microirrigation and living mulch treatments on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water in the row middles between plastic-mulched raised beds during strawberry establishment were investigated. Strawberry growth and yield later in the season were also investigated. The experimental design was split-plot, the main plot factor sprinkler irrigation during bare-root establishment (conventional impact sprinklers or microsprinklers) replicated four times with a restriction on randomization, and the subplot factor was living mulch, terminated directly prior to strawberry harvest. In Citra, FL, living mulch treatments were hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta L.), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.), and slenderleaf rattlebox (Crotalaria ochroleuca G. Don), with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied during transplant establishment from Oct. 26 to Nov. 2, 2017. At Dover, FL, cool-season living mulches were used: oats (Avena sativa L.), rye (Secale cereale L.), and triticale (xTriticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus.), with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied from Jan. 20 to Feb. 2, 2018. A control with no living mulch was included at both locations. Bare-root strawberry transplants, Sensation Brand 'Florida127', were planted only at Citra. Compared to conventional impact sprinklers, microsprinklers resulted in one third the water use at Citra and one fourth at Dover; decreases in runoff and erosion at Citra and erosion and soil pore water at Dover; and increases in early strawberry yield and growth parameters at Citra. Living mulch treatments at Citra and Dover had no significant effects on runoff, erosion, and strawberry yield. These results suggest that using microsprinklers may be a viable option for decreasing water use, runoff, and erosion while still successfully establishing bare-root strawberry transplants in Florida.High volumes of sprinkler irrigation are used in Florida for bare-root strawberry transplant establishment. To reduce water use and to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of the irrigation, the effects of microirrigation and living mulch treatments on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water in the row middles between plastic-mulched raised beds during strawberry establishment were investigated. Strawberry growth and yield later in the season were also investigated. The experimental design was split-plot, the main plot factor sprinkler irrigation during bare-root establishment (conventional impact sprinklers or microsprinklers) replicated four times with a restriction on randomization, and the subplot factor was living mulch, terminated directly prior to strawberry harvest. In Citra, FL, living mulch treatments were hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta L.), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.), and slenderleaf rattlebox (Crotalaria ochroleuca G. Don), with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied during transplant establishment from Oct. 26 to Nov. 2, 2017. At Dover, FL, cool-season living mulches were used: oats (Avena sativa L.), rye (Secale cereale L.), and triticale (xTriticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus.), with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied from Jan. 20 to Feb. 2, 2018. A control with no living mulch was included at both locations. Bare-root strawberry transplants, Sensation Brand 'Florida127', were planted only at Citra. Compared to conventional impact sprinklers, microsprinklers resulted in one third the water use at Citra and one fourth at Dover; decreases in runoff and erosion at Citra and erosion and soil pore water at Dover; and increases in early strawberry yield and growth parameters at Citra. Living mulch treatments at Citra and Dover had no significant effects on runoff, erosion, an

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright by Pride, Lillian R Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2021

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

LIVING MULCH AND MICROIRRIGATION FOR RUNOFF AND EROSION REDUCTION DURING BARE ROOT STRAWBERRY TRANSPLANT ESTABLISHMENT By LILLIAN ROSE PRIDE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2019

PAGE 2

© 201 9 Lillian R Pride

PAGE 3

To the Florida strawberry growers and horticultural industry, may this research be a valuable tool for your innovation.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank my God for making every day a treasure and b eing my strength, and my family and friends for their love and encouragement through every adventure. I would also like to thank my source of funding for my research . The work upon which this thesis is based was funded, in whole or in part through a subrecipient grant The Greening of Strawberry Plasticulture awarded by the United States Department of Agriculture through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The contents do not necessarily r eflect the views or policies of the United States Department of Agriculture nor does mention of trade names, commercial productions, services, or organization imply endorsement of the U.S. Government. I also want to express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. C arlene Chase for her mentorship and for entrusting me with the opportunity to contribute to scientific knowledge, and the rest of my committee as well (Drs. Kati Migliaccio and Zachary Brym) for their invaluable feedback and kind support. I am also very th ankful for the CA Chase Lab Biologist Laila Khandaker, and my colleagues Prosanta Dash, Sunehali Sharma, Preeti Ahuja, Robyn Adair, Trequan McGee, Bhagatveer Sangha, Jean M aude Louizias, and Jordan Morales and other peers from my department; it is both a p leasure and an honor to work alongside each one of them, and they br ing out the best in me . I also want to thank Dr. Edzard van Santen and James Colee for their great help with the statistics for this experiment. I also thank Buck Nelson and the entire cre w at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit at Citra , FL, for the great help they gave me for my research. Finally, I would about strawberry production an d having the heart to help a research student at UF, and Florida

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTI ON ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Conventional Strawberry Production in Florida ................................ ................................ ..... 12 The Importance of Strawberries in Florida ................................ ................................ ..... 12 The Challenges Associated with Water Use in Florida Strawberry Establishment ........ 12 Addressing the Challenges of Water Use in Florida Strawberry Establishment with ..... 16 Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Combatting groundwater drawdowns ................................ ................................ ...... 17 Combatting runoff and erosion ................................ ................................ ................. 18 Microsprinklers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Definitions and Benefits/Drawbacks of Microirrigation and Microsprinklers ................ 19 Microsprinklers in Plasticulture ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 Living Mulches ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Definitions and Benefits/Drawbacks of Cover Crops and Living Mulches .................... 20 Living Mulches in Plasticu lture ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Runoff and erosion effects ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Cash crop effects ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 21 Weed control effects, and a plasticulture living mulch planter ................................ 21 Living Mulches for Florida Plasticulture ................................ ................................ ........ 22 Challenges in selecting living mulches for plasticulture in Florida ......................... 22 Selecting living mulches for plasticulture in Florida strawberry production ........... 22 Objectives and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 31 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Site Description and Study Setup ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 For Both Locations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 35 Experimental design ................................ ................................ ................................ . 35 Main plots ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 35 Subplots ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36 Runoff/erosion capturing device installation and description ................................ .. 36 Lysimeter installation ................................ ................................ ............................... 37 Site specific Description Citra ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 Management overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 39

PAGE 6

6 Site specific Description Dover ................................ ................................ ................... 41 Management overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Data Collect ion Procedures ................................ ................................ ............................. 44 Water flow ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 44 Living mulch parameters ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 Runoff, erosion, and soil pore water ................................ ................................ ........ 45 Strawberry data ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 Calculation of Sprinkler Irrigation Water Utilization ................................ ..................... 46 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 46 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............................. 57 Water Use and Water Volume in the Row Middles ................................ ............................... 57 Living Mulches before Application of Sprinkler Irrigation ................................ .................... 57 Runoff, Erosion, and Soil Pore Water ................................ ................................ .................... 59 Strawberry Yield and Growth Parameters ................................ ................................ .............. 61 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 63 APPENDIX A RESULTS OF A DATABASE SEARCH ON STING NEMATODE HOST STATUS ....... 80 Materials and Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 80 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 80 B BIOASSAY SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 94 C PROCEDURE FOR RESETTING THE LYSIMETER ................................ ......................... 98 Troubleshooting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 98 D CALCULATIN G IRRIGATION UTILIZATION WITHIN THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 100 Workbook Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 100 Workbook Use for This Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 102 E THE EFFECT OF RAINFALL ON RUNOFF, EROSION, AND SOIL PORE WATER AT DOVER ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 Materials and Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 115 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 116 LITERATURE CITED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 141

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Ci tra field management overview. ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 2 2 Dover field management overview. ................................ ................................ ................... 49 2 3 Citra data collection schedule. ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 2 4 Dover data collection schedule. ................................ ................................ ......................... 51 2 6 GLIMMIX models in SAS. ................................ ................................ ................................ 52 3 1 Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on weed, mulch, and total biomass directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra, Florida, in 2017 2018. ............... 66 3 2 Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on weed, mulch, and total biomass directly prior to applying irrigation tr eatments at Dover, Florida, in 2017 2018. ............. 67 3 3 Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on living mulch height and Leaf Area Index (LAI) directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra, Florida, in 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 3 4 Effect of living mulch t ype and irrigation zone on living mulch height separated by irrigation type directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra, Florida, in 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 69 3 5 Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on living mulch height and Leaf Area Index (LAI) directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Dover, Florida, 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 70 3 6 Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on Leaf Area Index (LAI) separated by irrigation type directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Dover, Flori da, 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 71 3 7 Effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on average total erosion and daily averages of runoff and s oil pore water at Citra, Florida, 2017 2018. ................................ 72 3 8 Effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on average total erosion and daily averages of runoff and soil pore water at Dover, Florida, 2017 2018. .............................. 73 3 9 The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on marketable and unmarketable strawberry yield and fruit number from the first eight weeks of harvest at Citra, Florida, in 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 74 3 10 The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on strawberry growth parameters from the first eight weeks of harvest at Citra, Florida, in 2017 2018. ............................... 75

PAGE 8

8 A 1 Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer reviewed studies 1950 present, UF Web of Science All Databases. ................................ .......................... 82 D 1 Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. ................................ ................................ ................................ 103 E 1 The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on the first three days of erosion including the first rain event, and daily runoff and soil pore water from the first rain event at Dover, Florida, in 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ............ 118 E 2 The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on the last 8 days of erosion including the second rain event, and daily runoff and soil pore water from the second rain event at Dover, Florida, in 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ..... 119

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Daily average air temperatures in Dover, FL, September 15, 2013, to September 15, 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 32 1 2 Daily minimum and maximum air temperatures in Dover, FL, September 15, 2013, to September 15, 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 1 3 Daily distances from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (sea level) and trended rain in Dover, FL, September 15, 2009, to September 15, 2013. ......................... 34 2 1 Plot map at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit (PSREU) location, Citra, FL. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 53 2 2 Plot map at the Florida Strawberry Growers Association (FSGA) location, Dover, FL. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 54 2 3 Runoff/erosion capturing device. ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 2 4 Runoff/erosion capturing device, lid off. Photo credit: Lillian Pride. ............................... 56 3 1 Marketable strawberry harvest by week at Citra, FL, 2017 2018. ................................ .... 76 3 2 Effect of irrigation type and time of harvest on total season marketable strawberry yield at Citra, FL, 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ............................ 77 3 3 Tukey Kramer designations for average marketable strawberry harvest by week at Citra, FL, 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 78 3 4 Effect of irrigation type and time of harvest on unmarketable strawberry yield at Citra, FL, 2017 2018. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 79 B 1 Broadleaf results from one replication for the Dover bioassay. ................................ ........ 96 B 2 Winter cereal cover results from one replication for the Dover bioassay. ......................... 97 D 1 Emitter formation classification for edge scenarios. ................................ ........................ 110 D 2 Emitter formatio n classification for corner scenarios. ................................ ..................... 111 D 3 Emitter formation classification for three side scenarios. ................................ ............... 112 D 4 Two examples of how distances were labelled for calculation purposes. ....................... 113 D 5 Component breakdown of non segments and segments for calculation. ......................... 114

PAGE 10

10 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 LIVING MULCH AND MICROIRRIGATION FOR RUNOFF AND EROSION REDUCTION DURING BARE R OOT STRAWBERRY TRANSPLANT ESTABLISHMENT By Lillian Pride May 2019 Chair: Carlene A. Chase Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology High volumes of sprinkler irrigation are used in Florida for bare root strawberry transplant esta blishment. To reduce water use an d to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of the irrigation, the effects of micro irrigation and living mulch treatments on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water in the row middles between plastic mulched raised beds during strawberry establishment were investigated. S trawberry growth and yield later in the season were also investigated. The e xperimental design was split plot , the main plot factor sprinkler irrigation during bare root establishment (conventional impact sprinklers or mic rosprinklers ) replicated four times with a restrict ion on randomization, and the subplot factor was living mulch , terminated directly prior to strawberry harvest . In Citra , FL, living mulch treatments were hairy indigo ( Indigofera hirsuta L .), sunn hemp ( C rotalaria juncea L. ), and slenderleaf rattlebox ( Crotalaria ochroleuca G. Don) , with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied during transplant establishment from Oct. 26 to Nov. 2, 2017 . At Dover , FL, cool season living mulc h es were used oats ( Avena sativa L. ), rye ( Secale cereale L. ), and triticale ( × Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus. ), with conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation applied from Jan. 20 to Feb. 2, 2018. A control with no living mulch was included at both locations. Bare root strawberry transplants,

PAGE 11

11 were planted only at Citra . Compared to conventional impact sprinklers , microsprinkler s resulted in one third the water us e at Citra and one fo urth at Dover ; decreases in runoff and erosion at Citra and erosion and soil pore water at Dover; and increases in early strawberry yield and growth parameters at Citra. Living mulch treatments at Citra and Dover had no significant effects on runoff, erosi on , and strawberry yield. These r esults suggest that using microsprinklers may be a viable option for decreasing water use , runoff, and erosion while still successfully establishing bare root strawberry transplant s in Florida .

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Conventional Strawberry Production in Florida The Importance of Strawberries in Florida Florida is the second largest producer of strawberries in the nation. In 2017, California ( NASS , 2018) . Florida is the main domestic provider of strawberries for the United States during the winter, as much of California's acreage s , with the major exception s of acreage s in Ventura, Orange, and San Diego counties, cease to be harvesting during the winter ( CSC , 2018; NASS , 2012a) . First harvest in Florida is generally in No vember, when California's Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Barbara counties finish their strawberry harvest, with small volumes on the market resulting in high prices . The Florida strawberry season generally ends in March , Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Barbara counties begin harvest ing . Strawberries are an important crop for Florida, with a value of utilized production of $337 million in 2017, and 242 farms supported as of 2012 ( NASS , 2012b; NASS , 2018) . Most of in Hillsborough County. The most recent county level United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) Census of Agriculture in Florida in 2012 revealed that Hillsborough County contained 78% of the reported strawberry acreage for the state. The Florida Stra wberry Growers Association estimates that total economic contribution of strawberries in the Hillsborough County area exceeds $700 million ( FSGA , 2018; NASS , 2012b) . The Challenges Associated with Wat er Use in Florida Strawberry Establishment Conventionally , strawberry growers establish their strawberry plants from transplants rather than seed. In Florida, 80% of strawberry growers use bare root transplant s ( S AMBHAV ,

PAGE 13

13 PERSONAL COMMUNICATI ON ). B are root transplants have exposed roots, with few intact root hairs. In order for a transplant with exposed roots to establish, it needs a period of favorable conditions for new root hairs to emerge . Usually growers will provide sprinkler irrigation to cool the air and soil around the transplant ( T ORRES Q UEZADA AND S ANTOS , 2013) . W hen the strawberries are transplanted in F lorida in late September to mid October, temperatures in Florida often exceed 27 C (Fig. 1 1 ) , which is the upper temperature range for strawberry plants ( FAWN , 2018; UF/IFAS , 2018) . Temperatures in Dover peak around September 15, regularly exceeding 40 C with the possibility to exceed 50 C (Fig. 1 2 ). In order to maintain the temperature of the strawberry plants at or below 27 C, strawberry growers in Florida use sprinkler irrigation to cool the strawberry beds . The black plastic mulch covering the stra wberry beds usually absorbs and reradiates heat from the sun, resulting in heat stres s for the strawberry transplant. However, i f the bed is wet when absorbing heat energy from the sun , some of the heat energy wi ll energize the water molecules rather than the bed . The quantity of energy required to convert water from a liquid to a gaseous state is the latent heat of evaporation, or 596 calories of heat energy for every gram of water. The effect of this energy consumption by the evaporating wate r is to cool the plant , as radiation which would have been absorbed by the plant instead energizes and evaporates the water ( D ESCHAMPS AND A GEHARA , 2018; G ERBER AND M ARTSOLF , 1965) . Santos et al. (2014) estimated that strawberry growers in Florida use 1400 2200 m 3 /ha of sprinkler irrigation over 10 14 days to establish bare root transplants. Wi th most Flori da strawberry acreage in Hillsborough County, that translates into a withdrawa l of 3.8 6.0 billion m 3 over 5 weeks in Hillsborough County for strawberry establishment, or 5 8% of Hillsborough ( FDACS , 2017; NASS , 2012b; NASS , 2018) . This is

PAGE 14

14 problematic, as sudden , heavy water usage can contribute to water level drawdowns and saltwater intrusion in the Floridan Aquifer System ( M ARELLA AND B ERNDT , 2005) . T he distance of the surface of the water in the aquifer to sea level follows a predictable pattern in the Dover/Plant City area (Fig. 1 3) . First , rainfall peak s in the summer , recharging the aquifers to peak volume ( FAWN , 2018) . F rom peak vol ume, water levels are drawn down coinciding with irrigation for strawberry establishment late September through October . This leads into the cold part of the year whe n the land is not heated to same degree by solar radiation from the sun , and thus less wat er vapor above the ocean moves towards the negative pressure created by warm air rising from the heat of the land , and there is less precipitation. The precipitation which does occur recharges the aquifers, but usually not to peak levels until summer , when the land once again heats and precipitation is more plentiful. In the winter, b etween water level drawdowns during strawberry establishment and summer rains, each frost which occurs uses sprinkler irrigation for fros t protection (an average of 200 300 m 3 / ha for a , r esulting in a sharp drop in aquifer level ( S ANTOS et al., 2014) . D ue to very high simultaneous demand , d eclines in groundwater during frost events usually exceed declines during strawberry establishment. Precipitation surrounding t he frost event will recharge the aquifers, but once again usually not to peak levels until summer rains, where the cycle starts over. Water use during the fall and winter can influence long term storage capability of the Floridan Aquifer System. Due to th e karst geomorphology native to west Florida, coupled with t he simultaneous emptying of groundwater pockets and sudden increase in surface water weight, sprinkler irrigation for strawberry frost protection has been documented as causing sinkhole formation in the Dover/Plant City area ( T IHANSKY , 1999) . T he steep drop in water levels noted

PAGE 15

15 in Fig. 1 3 in January 2010 resulted in 750 residential wells with lowered water tables and 140 sinkholes form ing ( Z AMORA R E et al., 2016) . E ach sinkhole results in long term losses in the Floridan Aquifer System water storage capacity ( M ARELLA AND B ERNDT , 2005) . Less storage capacity means less storage at pe ak replenishment and less water availability for future seasons, compounding the need for water conservation. When water is removed from an aquifer, two things happen: A hollow space previously occupied and supported by water is now empty and filled with a ir, and the heavy water which used to be inside the hollow space now adds weight to the surface of the land. Both of these changes leave the hollow space vulnerable to collapse a phenomenon referred to as sinkhole formation ( T IHANSKY , 1999) . Compared to those coinciding with frost protection, w ater drawdowns are lower and more gradual during strawberry establishment are usually gradual and mild, and usually do not result in sinkhole formation . Ho wever, they are still large enough in magnitude that t he Southwest Florida Water Management District has received complaints from other existing legal water users in the Dover/Plant City area regarding wells running dry September October , coinciding with s trawberry transplant establishment ( B RIAN S ZENAY , PERSONAL COMMUNICATI ON ). S ince aquifer re charge between transplant establishment drawdowns and frost protection drawdowns is generally incomplete, if drawdowns due to establishment were reduced it might result in more complete replenishment prior to frost and thus higher groundwater levels during frost protection, resulting in fewer sinkholes and greater long term aquifer storage capacity . S trawberry transplant establishment with conventional impact sprinkler s also can have adverse effects on surface water. S ince the 1950s, strawberries have been grown using raised bed plasticulture, termed the annual hill system because strawberries are planted each y ear rather

PAGE 16

16 than growing them as a perennial, multiyear crop . In this system, raised planting beds are created, fumigated, and covered with plastic mulch film ( H UFFMAN , 1955; UF/IFAS , 2016) . Drip tape is also laid as plastic mulch is applied and is used to provide 1400 1800 m 3 /ha irrigatio n and fertilizer to sustain the strawberry plants for the remainder of the season following establishment ( S ANTOS et al., 2012) . Since the plastic mulch covering the raised beds is impermeable and water is applied sprinkler in large amounts over a short time period for establishment , water accumulat es in the row middles, resulting in runoff and erosion ( A RNHOLD et al., 2013; C LARK et al., 1989; R UIDISCH et al., 2013; Z HANG et al., 2013a) . This has also resu lted in off site flood complaints during strawberry establishment in the Dover/Plant City area ( B RIAN S ZENAY , PERSONAL COMMUNICATI ON ). Addressing the Challenges of Water Use in Florida Strawberry Establishment with Best Management P ractices ( BMPs ) Best Man individual practices or combinations of practices that, based on research, field testing, and expert review, have been determined to be the most effective and practicable means for maintaining or improving the water quali ty of surface and ground waters ( FDACS , 2015) . 1, 2018 , the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) ( FDACS , 2018) . Due to adverse impacts of agricultural practices on water quality and quantity, FDACS developed BMPs for plastic mulc h production systems in Florida. The FDACS BMPs for plastic mulch production were developed via a rigorous process of review and field testing. In order to develop their BMPs, FDACS : 1) review s the existing literature re garding potential solutions to water quality/quantity problems and pulls out pertinent practices; 2) forms an advisory committee of industry, water management, farm commodity, and

PAGE 17

17 academic ex perts to assess those practices; 3 ) seeks out on farm demonstrations or to fund research testing the practices; 4 ) works with the Department of Environm ental Protection which conduct s their own literature review and research to assess the effectiveness of the proposed BMPs; 5) adopt s the BMPs; and 6 ) periodically (every five years or so) review s and update s the BMPs ( K ATHRYN H OLLAND , PERSONAL COMMUNICAT IO N ) . The FDACS committee publishes a ( FDACS , 2015) . Combatting g roundwater drawdowns One way to reduce groundwater drawdowns during strawberry establishment is to decrease water usage during strawberry establishment. Containerized or plug transplant s can be produced by rooting r unner tips in artificial media , with the result that the root systems of plug transplants are not exposed the degree of injury incurred by bare root transplants . In Florida, plug transplants require little to no sprinkler irrigation, establish more quickly , and produce greater early yield. While e ach plug transplant is more expensive than the bare root equivalent, the added expense may be offset by early yield premiums ( H OCHMUTH et al., 2006a; H OCHMUTH et al., 2006b) . In another study in California, t he inexpensive bare root transplants were successfully maintained without sprinkler irrigation with an increased number of drip tapes ( D AUGOVISH et al., 2016) . Nevertheless, temperatures in California are much cooler than Florida during establishment, and this system has yet to be tested in Florida. Another strategy which has been tested in Florida is to cut down the number of days tha t sprinkler irrigation is necessary for strawberry plant establishment from 10 14 days to 6 8 days by spraying kaolin clay, a white clay which creates a white, reflective particle film on the strawberry plants to keep them cool ( S ANTOS et al., 2012) . Alternatively, the total water used can be reduced via tailwater retention ponds (where water is reused), deficit irrigation, precision

PAGE 18

18 irrigation, pulsed/intermittent irrigation, pressure regulation , spacing, or microsprinklers ( C OSTA et al., 2007; D ARA et al., 2016; G OLDEN et al., 2003; L ETOURNEAU et al., 2015; Z AZUETA et al., 1986) . D ecrease d water use due to adoption of microsprinkler irrigation for bare root transplant establishment in Florida should limit groundwater drawdowns. Combatting r unoff and erosion Any strategy which decreases water use will also ameliorate runoff and erosion. However, assuming that the volume of water used remain s the same, there are other possible strategies which can also be employed to reduce runoff and/or erosion during bare root transplant establishment . One possibility is the use of polyacrylamide (PAM) or other flocculating agents which increase soil cohesion, strengthen soil aggregates, and flocculate (group small particles into larger masses) suspended sediment ( L ENTZ AND S OJKA , 2009) . P olyacrylamide increases infiltration and reduces runoff by preventing soil crusting a nd improving soil structure. Polyacrylamide also decreases erosion for the same reason, and because flocculation decreases runoff turbidity, making sediment settle out of the runoff. The ability of PAM to decrease runoff and erosion has been well documented for furrow irrigation and construction sites , as flocculating agents are rout inely used in hydromulches ( C ALTRANS , 2003; L ENTZ AND S OJKA , 2009; M EGAHAN et al., 2001) . Another strategy is to improve the permeability of the plas tic mulch via perforations or biodegradability ( R UIDISCH et al., 2013) . Making the plastic coated raised beds wider can also decrease the amount of water which runs into the row middles by increasing the amount of water that flows into the planting holes ( Z HANG et al., 2013b) . Finally, various mulches (dead and live plant m atter, etc . ) have proven to be effective at decreasing runoff and erosion and promoting infiltration in the row middles ( R ICE et al., 2007a) .

PAGE 19

19 Microsprinklers Definitions and Benefits/Drawbacks of Microirrigation and Microsprinklers One way to address high water use is microirrigation. frequent application of water directly to a relatively small area adjacent to the individual plants through sprinkler s pla ced along a water delivery line ( Z OTARELLI et al., 2012) . Some advantages of m icroirrigation are that it 1) reduces the irrigation water volume used to grow crops; 2) allo ws for flexibility in the timing and amount of applied water and nutrients; 3) reduces nutrient leaching; and 4) allows for the use of polyethylene mulch and drip tape . Microirrigation also 5) can protect small h orticultural crops from freezes; 6) reduces pest/di sease problems; 7) reduces surface crusting of the soil compar ed to greater volume irrigation , 8) and enhances yield earliness and crop uniformity. Other benefits are 9) lower pumping needs; 10) the possibility of automation ; and 11) easy conform ation to the shape of the field. Some drawbacks of microirrigation are that it requires an economic investment, knowledge for correct management and maintenance, and high quality water for small sprinkler s ( Z OTARELLI et al., 2012) . Microsprinklers are a form of microirriga e in a small spray or mist by a sprinkler 6 12 inches above the soil surface. Application rates are ( Z OTARELLI et al., 2012) . Microsprinklers in Plasticulture Beyond t he aforementioned benefits and limitations of microirrigation, microspri nklers have been specifically documented as lessening the severity of powdery mildew ( Sphaerotheca macularis (Wallr.:Fr.) Jacz. F. sp. fragariae Peries ) and botrytis fruit rot ( Botrytis cinerea Pers.) on strawberries in California compared to the conve ntional aluminum pipe Rain Bird ® impact sprinklers ( D ARA et al., 2016) . This was the only study identified on microsp r inkler use for strawberry establishment. The authors reported that conventional impact sprinkler irrigation

PAGE 20

20 water use was only 1,122 m 3 /ha, whereas microsp r inklers used about one third of that, or 763 m 3 /ha. Similar studies have yet to be published for Florida proving microsprinklers are a valid means of establishing bare root strawberries i n Florida. Living Mulches Definitions and Benefits/Drawbacks of Cover Crops and Living Mulches C over crops are crops generally grown off season for their ecosystem services, including erosion control; improved soil structure, moisture, and nutrient content ; increased beneficial soil biota; weed suppression; the provision of habitat for beneficial predatory insects, pollinators, and wildlife; the provision of forage for farm animals; and energy savings via nitrogen fixation and improved soil nutrient availab ility ( USDA , 2018a) . Some d rawbacks include cost of seed and management , possible weediness of the cover crops , and the possibility that the cover crop may be a host for some of the cash crop 's pests and diseases. Living mulches are cover crops planted before or with the main crop and maintained as a living ground cover throughout the growing season ( H ARTWIG AND A MMON , 2002) . The benefits and drawbacks of living mulches are similar to those of off season cover crops. An additional concern is that livi ng mulches may suppress cash crop growth and yield due to competition and/or allelopathy. Living Mulches in Plasticulture Runoff and erosion effects Previous research has been done regarding the effect of growing living mulches planted in the row middles o f plasticulture system s . A study conducted in Maryland growing tomatoes with 50 75% of the field covered with impervious plastic mulch demonstrated that cereal rye planted at a dense seeding rate of 200 kg/ha decreased runoff from rainfall and simulated ra in events by more than 40%, soil erosion by more than 80%, and pesticide loads by 48 74% compared to poly bare control ( R ICE et al., 2007b) . Another study conducted in California found

PAGE 21

21 that barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) and triticale planted in strawberry row middles reduced turbidity and suspended sedimen ts from rain events by as much as 70% compared to the unplanted control, with decreases in P and N of 40% and 47% respectively ( C AHN et al., 2006) . Cash crop effects Various studies have also been done to determine the effect of living mulches on the vegetable crops and strawberries. Different turf grasses and white clover ( Trifolium repens L.) grown in the row middles during strawberry production in Viljandimaa, Estonia had variable effects on strawberry yields or the size or quality of the fruit compared to a fallow control ( U NIVER et al., 2009) . In Virginia, pearl millet planted in the row middles of a tomato plasticulture system maintained by mowing at 20 cm resulted in no significant yield impacts ( S TERRETT et al., 2005) . One study from the University of New Hampshire in Durham, NH found that a 1:1 living mulch treatment of Italian ryegrass and white clover planted between plastic mulched broccoli beds and maintained at 20 cm by mowing resulted in no yiel d losses at the highest fertilizer rate, but yield decreases of 28% and 63% occurred at lower rates of fertilizer , with differences in leaf SPAD values suggesting competition for nitrogen ( W ARREN et al., 2015) . Weed contr ol effects, and a plasticulture living mulch planter One of the most exciting recent innovations for living mulches in a plasticulture system was the development of a row middle planter, with the capability of laying drip tape on the surface of the row mid dle simultaneous to drilling seed ( B RENNAN AND S MITH , 2018) . In an experiment with mustard in Salinas, CA , in Nov/Dec , either one or three rows of mustard ( Sinapis alb a L. ) were planted in the row middles between the beds of cash crops . Living mulches were planted at 54 or 162 mustard plants per meter , respectively, resulting in successful establishment with weed reductions of 29% and 40% , respectively. Most of the surviving weeds

PAGE 22

22 were near the shoulders of the beds. Mowing in February successfully terminated the crop, though weeds still accounted for a t least 28% of row middle biomass ( B RENNAN AND S MITH , 2018) . This technology has the potential to increase the efficiency of planting living mulches in the row middles for growers in the not too distant future. Living Mulches for Florida Plasticulture Challenges in selecting living mulches for plasticulture in Florida Many of the living mulches which have been tested in the row middles of plasticulture systems are not s uitable for Florida temperatures prior to and during strawberry establishment. While the recommended planting dates for mustard extend into September for Florida, rye and triticale are cool season plants recommended to be planted starting Oct. 15 . P earl mi llet is a warm season plant and does best when planted after Mar. 15 . These planting dates occur after most strawberry plants have already been planted and irrigation for establishment has begun ( V ALLAD et al., 2017; W RIGHT et al., 1992) . Further, turf and clover species tested are good host s for sting nematode ( Belonolaimus longicaudatus Rau), the number one strawberry pest in Florida ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; N EUWEILER et al., 2003; N OLING , 1997; R OBBINS , 1973; S HANKS AND C HAMBERLAIN , 1993; Y OHALEM AND H ALL , 2009) . Sting nematode host status has yet to be determined for the mustard species used by Brennan and Smith ( 2018 ). Selecting living mulches for plasticulture in Florida strawberry production A great deal of previous work has been done cataloguing the effect of sting nematode on various plant species. Species studied for their sting nematode host status were compiled and summarized in a table with scientific name, common name, host status, and citation (Appendix A, Table A 1) . A dissertation on the morphology and ecology of sting nematode s is perhaps the most comprehensive study of plant host status for sting nematode that has been done to date

PAGE 23

23 ( R OBBINS , 1973) . The host status of many of the same species and cultivar s were also reported by a second author three years later ( E SSER , 1976) . A useful methodology was developed for assessing plant host status via a comparison of sting nematode popula tion starting with a set inoculation rate and dividing the final population of sting nematodes with the initial inoculation and has been utilized for a comprehensive assessment of many plant species ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000) . Additional work on the host status of many diverse specie s has also been accomplished ( B OYD , 1970; B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; B OYD et al., 1973; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; I NSERRA AND R HOADES , 1989; R HOADES , 1964; R HOADES , 1965; R HOADES , 1967 ; R HOADES , 1969; R HOADES , 1978; R HOADES , 1980b; R HOADES , 1985; R HOADES , 1988) . It should be noted that experiments have shown different plant species accessions exhibit different sting nematode host statuses for the same strain of sting nematode, and further that different strains of sting ne matode exhibit variable colonization of the same plant species accession ( C HASE et al., 2015; R OBBINS , 1973) . Of the 175 species listed in Table A 1 , 21 were specific non woody species which were resistant to , were non hosts of , or decreased sting nematode populations (Table A 2) . American jointvetch ( Aeschynomene americana L.) is reported as a vigorous species with good erosion control, and many studies document good control of Meloidogyne incognita Chitwood race 1 ( C RAIG AND S MITH , 1980; M C S ORLEY , 1999; M C S ORLEY AND D ICKSON , 1995) . It has however also been rep orted as weedy, and a recent study reported that American jointvetch supported a high population of M . incognita ( K OKALIS B URELLE AND R OSSKOPF , 2012) . Wild garlic ( Allium vine ale L.) , though allelopathic, is not suited to erosion control, and can be either non competitive or weedy depending upon management ( A RN et al., 1997) .

PAGE 24

24 M ining fern ( Asparagus macowanii Baker ) and garden asparagus ( A . officinalis L. ) are perenniels with deep root structures. S pears emerge narrow and tender in the early spring , soon growing woody and robust. They die back from the first frost. Since strawberry row middles are narrow, if the root structure spreads to areas where strawberry beds are laid, spears may e merge in the strawberry beds. M ining fern is a lso a host for M . incognita ( S TAMPS et al., 1995) . While a great deal of research has been done for Mexican tea ( Chenopodium am brosioides (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants ) as a weed, l imited research has been done regarding it as a cover crop. Its essential oils have been recorded as having utility for bone and joint health , inflammation, and bacterial control, and they have also been suc cessfully utilized as a biopesticide for ( Haemonchus contortus (Rudolphi, 1803) Cobb, 1898 ) and two spotted spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae Koch ) ( A BALLAY et al., 2004; B OUFOUS et al., 2017; M USA et al., 2017; R IOS et al., 2017; Z AMILPA et al., 2018) . Though very little research has been done utilizing w atermelon ( Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai ) as a cover crop, low growing varieties melon, where the seed in the melon is harvested rather than the melon t o thicken stews) have been utilized as cover crop s in the past , protecting the soil from erosion in high rainfall areas ( G AUDEFROY D EMOMBYNES , 1957; IITA , 1980) . To date, no research has been done using the current popular watermelon cultivars as cover crops. As a relatively high value crop, watermelon may be more effectively utilized as a double crop in sequence with strawberries rather than as a living mulch. E thiopian rattlebox ( Crotalaria brevidens Benth.) has been successfully utilized for weed and erosion control during the rainy season in Arenito Caiua , Brazil , also promoting the growth of the subsequent coffee crop due to improved soil temperature and moisture regime ( M UZILLI et

PAGE 25

25 al., 1992) . It also promotes suicidal germination of St riga sp , a common weed genus in Kenya ( A BUKUTSA O NYANGO , 2007) . Unlike many other Crotalaria sp ., Ethiopian rattlebox has low enough levels of p yrrolizidine alkaloids that it is regarded as safe for forage ( H EUZÉ et al., 2017; U ISO AND J OHNS , 1996) . Ethiopian rattlebox has also been recorded as decreasing b oth B. longicaudatus and Meloidogyne incognita populations in Gainesville , FL, once incorporated, 1979 1981 ( R EDDI , 1983) . It is als o a good source of protein and beta carotene, and is regularly consumed by residents of Kenya and Tanzania ( A BUKUTSA O NYANGO , 2007; C HWEYA , 1985; I MBAMBA , 1973; U ISO AND J OHNS , 1996) . S unn hemp ( C rotalaria juncea ) has been recorded as decreasing runoff and erosion compared to a fallow control, and also as preventing nutrient leaching due to its large biomass production ( R YDER AND F ARES , 2008; S INGH et al., 2017; W ANG et al., 2012) . It also suppresses a diverse population of nematodes , including M . incognita and sting nematode ( B RAZ et al., 2016; W ANG et al., 2002a) . S mooth rattle box ( C . mucronata Desv.) decreased erosion over two years in old tea land in Guatemala that had a slope of 25 39%, from 89 t/ha in year 1 and 51 t/ha in year 2 whe n clean weeded , to 32 and 5 t/ha, respectively ( S ANDANAM AND R AJASINGHAM , 1982) . Little research has been done about the effect of slenderleaf rattlebox ( C . ochroleuca ) on runoff, erosion, and infiltration. More research has been done regarding its use for weed control, with 20 46% reductions in weed biomass in rice, and significant reductions in weeds in Tocantins, Brazil and the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria ( D ELGADO H et al., 2009; E KELEME et al., 2003; E RASMO et al., 2004) . It also is resistant to many Meloidogyne sp ., including M. incognita ( C LAUDIUS C OLE et al., 2015; O SORIO R OSA et al., 201 5) .

PAGE 26

26 S howy rattlebox ( C. spectabilis Roth ) had lower biomass and maximum leaf area index ( LAI ) / photosynthetically active radiation ( PAR ) than C. ochroleuca , higher biomass and maximum LAI/ PAR than C. juncea , and more nitrogen production than both of them ( P ASSOS et al., 2017) . All of the Crotalaria sp . provided nitrogen inputs, and while C. juncea broke down slowly , C. spectabilis had quick nutrient release ( F ERREIRA et al., 2010; M ATOS et al., 2011; P EREIRA et al., 2016) . Show y rattlebox was capable of controlling purple nu tsedge to 30% fallow levels , and M . aren ar ia , M. incognita , and M. javanica failed to reproduce on showy rattlebox ( A RAUJO et al., 2015; I NOMOTO et al., 2008; O SEI et al., 2010) . However, it is also highly toxic to cattle , non native, and easily spread ( P IRES et al., 2015; S OURAKOV , 2015) . The only grass es that were reported to have species with resistance to the sting ne matode are rhodes grass ( Chloris gayana Kunth) and digitgrass ( Digitaria eriantha ; D . gazensis ; and D . procumbens Steud. ) . G rass es t end to form thicker sod than broadleaf species, and also to scavenge nitrogen rather than provide nitrogen like legumes . Therefore , having grasses in the arsenal of sting nematode non hosts is positive, as t here may be some circumstances for which grasses are more suited . Scientists have assessed rhode s grass for erosion control with favorable results , going back at least as far as the 1930s ( B ECKLEY , 1935; TAES , 1942; T HOMPSON , 1935) . Rhodes grass can produce good aboveground biomass while exposed to many pathogenic nematodes, and has been recorded as increasing infiltration, decreasing water and wind erosion, reducing runoff, and reducing weed populations ( B ERRY AND R HODES , 2006; C ASWELL et al., 1991; C LEMENT AND D E F RANK , 1998; C OWLEY , 1951; G ARDINER AND K AWABE , 1983; J UNOR , 1978; R ATTRAY , 1947; R ENSBURG , 1955; S INGH et al., 2014; V ILJOEN AND G ROENEWALD , 1995) . It also tends to be frost sensitive ( M OORE et al., 2014; SCA VA , 1971) .

PAGE 27

27 D igitgrass may be useful for controlling erosion. As part of a mix of native species , D. eriantha prevented erosion from man made nickel industry tai ling ponds. Compared to planting nothing in the tailing ponds, the digitgrass reduced surface erosion by 95% ( H ERNANDEZ C OLUMBIE AND G UARDADO L ACABA , 201 4) . At the Deochanda catchment in India, D . eriantha was found to be useful for erosion control and soil stabi lization under rainy conditions ( G UHA AND P ANDEY , 1960) . D igitaria eriantha is an indigenous Africa grass that was released in Fl orida in 1954, and was the focus of a University of Florida (UF) forage breeding program ( H AROON AND S MART , 1982) . D igitaria eriantha never became an ecological problem in Florida though sown in the open field perhaps because native species like Bermuda grass ( Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) are more competitive ( M ISLEVY , 1979) . The UF breeding program developed and released the Transvala and Slenderstem cultivars . 'Transvala' was released in 1973 ( Q UESENBERRY , 1978; S CHANK et al., 1990) . athogenic nematodes than ngola , with the exception of M. incognita ( H AROON AND S MART , 1984; H AYSLIP AND ET AL . , 1964) . While the original African D . eriantha cv. Pangola is susceptible to B . longicaudatus and resistant to M . incognita , D. eriantha cv. Tra nsvala is susceptible to M. incognita but resistant to B. longicaudatus . Wh en they are both combined , the mix is resistant to both M. incognita and B. longicaudatus ( H AROON AND S MART , 1982) . Unfortunately, there is no easily accessible supply propagules in the US ( J OAO V ENDRAMINI , PERSONAL COMMUNICAT ION ). While Transvala digitgrass is referenced in mod ern research studies on forage in Central and Latin America, it is difficult to determine whether these cultivars of Transvala are genetically the same as that evaluated by Haroon and Smart ( 1982 ) . The University of Florida 's UF547, UF1 and the USDA 's PI 299601, PI 299752, PI 299837, and PI 364619 from South Africa were all found to

PAGE 28

28 be identical and are thus all referred to as Transva la , a vegetatively propagated triploid with 3x 27 chromosomes ( S CHANK et al., 1990) . While all the other UF and USDA codes have no clear entity maintaining them, USDA PI 299837 is presently maintained by the Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit in Griffin, GA , and is referred to as S waziland fingergrass, D . eriantha Steud . ( NPGS , 1964) . In general, Digitaria sp . are a good example of how different accessions of the same species can have different susceptibility to the same strain of sting nematode. Literature regarding D . gazensis refers to its relative winter hardiness compared to D . eriantha cultivars Pangola, Slenderstem, and Transvala; its sting nematode non host status (some are non host and some are hosts ) ; how D. gazensis fits in the local ecology in east central Sudan ; and how it can be controlled ( B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; B UNTING AND L EA , 1962; O AKES et al., 1980; W ALLIS , 1962; W ILLIAMS , 1953) . Literature regarding D . procumbens is similarly sparse ; however, some accessions are reported to be susceptible to sting nematode whereas others are not ( B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970) . No reports were found on Jerusalem oak goosefoot ( Dysphania botrys (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants ) use as a cover crop. Research regarding Jerusalem oak goosefoot generally describe it as a wild plant, widespread in Asia, the Mediterranean, and Central Asia although Jerusalem oak germination properties were also explored ( B ANNAYAN et al., 2006; U OTILA , 2013) . H orseweed ( Erigeron cana densis (L.) Cronquist ) is also generally described as a weed. Horseweed plants accumulate biomass quickly and develop a vegetative cover in a relatively short period of time ( Y ANG et al ., 2014) . It has wind dispersed seed, which most likely contributes to its status as a weed ( M INETA et al., 1997) . A high population of E . canadensis

PAGE 29

29 usually means a low population of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and vice versa ; the nature of their antagonism is unknown ( F U ELLEMAN AND G RABER , 1938) . Besides being recorded as a non host for sting nematode in some studies ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000) and a host in others ( E SSER , 1976) , o kra ( Hibiscus esculentus (L.) Moench ) has been found to be a good host for M . incognita and M. arenaria ( M C S ORLEY AND D ICKSON , 1995; R ITZINGER et al., 1998; T HROWER , 1958) . H airy indigo ( Indigofera hirsuta ) is a legume that has been used both as a cover crop and as a forage and is reported to be competitive against weeds ( C REAMER AND B ALDWIN , 2000; F OSHEE et al., 1995; L INARES et al., 2008) . It has also been found to be suppressive of multiple plant pathogenic nematodes, including M . incognit a , even to the same degree as various pesticidal chlorinated hydrocarbons ( M C S ORLEY et al., 1994; R HOADES , 1975; R HOADES , 1976; R HOADES , 1978; R HOADES , 1983; R ODRIGUEZ K ABANA AND C ANULLO , 1992; S OFFES et al., 1980) . Finally, hairy indigo can produce biomass and control erosion in areas strip mined for phosphate a nd lime ( C RAIG AND S MITH , 1979; C RAIG AND S MITH , 1980) . L upin ( Lupinus angustifolius L.) is a legume that has been demonstrated to be weed suppress ive. , Suppression of Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats ranged from 64 70% and weed suppression was 2 3 % compared to the control in two other studies ( G AWEDA et al., 2014; M ASILIONYTE et al., 2017; M URUNGU et al., 2010; W EBSTER et al., 2013) . Lupin has been reported to be a host both to M . incognita race 1 and 2 and other pathogenic nematodes. It is also recorded as having suppressed M. incognita and Pratylenchus sp . ( W ANG AND M C S ORLEY , 2005; W ANG et al., 2004c; W ANG et al., 20 02a) . Biomass production by lupin is low when compared to other legumes and cover crop species ( M URUNGU et al., 2011; P ARR et al., 2011) .

PAGE 30

30 Throughout the history of t obacco ( Nicotiana tabacum L.) , tobacco product ion has been plagued with runoff and erosion, not because of the crop but because of the circumstances in which it is grown and the field management. In Brazil, e rosion is associated with tobacco due to poor farmers growing on land with poor agricultural p otential with steep hillsides and traditional cultivation practices ( A LBANIS AND M ANO S , 1995; M ERTEN AND M INELLA , 2005) . Thus, though tobacco is often associated with erosion, tobacco has not been assesse d for use as a cover crop . I t may have some viability as a cover crop and provide value as a cash crop . Nevertheless, many species of tobacco have been confirmed as weedy ( J ESSICA N IFONG , PERSONAL COMMUNICATION ), and N. tabacum in particular has been confirmed as a good host for P . brachyurus and M . incognita ( C HARCHAR AND H UANG , 1981; S OUTHARDS AND N ICHOLS , 1972) . English plantain ( Plantago lanceolata L.) has been recorded as effective for erosion control as part of a mix of native species for permanent per ennial living mulch for vineyards ( C ROZIER , 1998; D ELABAYS et al., 2000; D ONKO et al., 2015; M IGLECZ et al., 2015) . No r esearch has as yet been done to evaluate its utility for erosion control when grown in monoculture, perhaps because this species is considered to be weedy . Literature regarding cover crops for w ild marigold ( Tagetes minuta L.) reinforce its use as a resistant cover against M . arenaria , M. incognita , and M. javanica , reducing the latter two populations by up to 80% (1965; K IMENJU et al., 2007; M C S ORLEY , 1999; N AVARRO , 1969) . The three most readily accessible spec ies for trial were sunn hemp, slenderl eaf rattlebox, and hairy indigo. These species are also reported to be resistant to root knot nematode. Trials with other suitable sting nematode resistant species (ex: Ethiopian rattle box , or D . eriantha 'Transvala' a nd 'Pangola' combination) may also be worthwhile if seeds and propagules were readily available .

PAGE 31

31 Objectives and Hypotheses T he first objective of this study was to determine the effects of microsprinklers compared to conventional aluminum impact sprinklers and living mulches (hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox ; oats, rye, and triticale ) compared to weedy control on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water during bare root transplant establishment . The hypothesis was that microsprinkler irrigation would produce significant decreases in runoff, erosion, and soil pore water compared to the conventional impact sprinklers . It was further hypothesized that living mulches would significantly decrease runoff and erosion compared to the fallow c ontrol, and significantly increase soil pore water compared to the fallow control . The second objective was to evaluate strawberry growth and yield responses to microsprinklers during establishment and living mulches terminated prior to strawberry harvest . The hypothesis was that neither type of sprinkler irrigation at transplant establishment nor the presence of a living mulch in the row middles during transplant establishment would have any significant effect on strawberry yield and growth parameters.

PAGE 32

32 Figure 1 1 . Daily average air temperatures in Dover , FL, September 15, 2013 , to September 15, 201 8 . Data is from the Florida Automated Weather Network Data Access Report Generator, Dover daily averages temperature at 60 cm height . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Temperature ( ° C) Year at September 15

PAGE 33

33 Figure 1 2. Daily minimum and maximum air temperatures in Dover, FL, September 15, 2013, to September 15, 2018. Minim ums are in blue and maximums are in red. Data is from the Florida Automated Weather Network Data Access Report Generator, Dover daily averages temperature at 60 cm height . -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Temperature ( ° C) Year at September 15

PAGE 34

34 Figure 1 3 . Daily distances from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (sea level) and trended rain in Dover , FL, September 15, 2009 , to September 15, 2013 . Daily distances to the NGVD are in blue and rain events are in black . NGVD data is from the Water Management Information System, district site name DV 1 avpk (18796 ) . Rain fall data are from the Florida Automated Weather Network Data Access Report Generator, Dover daily averages rainfall , averaging 30 day periods for each day to make a continuous line . drawdown corresponding to frost event drawdown corresponding to establishment irrigation

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS Site Description a nd Study Setup For Both Locations Experimental design The study consisted of two trials : one at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit (PSREU) in Citra , FL, and one at the Florida Strawberry Growers Association (FSGA) in Dover, FL. The e xperimental design at both locations was split plot , the main plot factor irrigation (conventional or mic rosprinkler during transplant establishment ) , and the subplot factor living m ulch ( a no living mulch control and 3 living mulches , species varied by location ) . Main plot treatments were arranged in four blocks with a restriction on randomization. Subplot t reatments were randomly allocated to each main plot. Fig. 2 1 and 2 2 illustrate the experimental layout at Citra and Dover, respectively . Main plot s At each location , the trial comprised 18 raised b eds covered in plastic mulch that were 32.92 m in length. Nine beds were allocated to the conventional impact sprinkler irrigati on treatment for transplant establishment , resulting in a conventional sprinkler irrigation zone . The other nine beds comprising the microsprinkler zone were separated from t he conventional sprinkler irrigation zone by 16.76 m , to prevent irrigation drift from the conventional irrigation zone onto the microsprinkler zone. Conventional sprinkler irrigation utilized impact sprinklers (9/64 Rain Bi rd Impact nozzles; Azusa, CA ; 15 .33 L /min at 345 kPa , 12 m radius ). Microsprinkler irrigation consisted of microsprinklers (NetaFim SuperNet 0.045 in model #28 light green, LR swivel color purple; Tel Aviv, Israel ; 28.01 L /hr at 139 kPa , 6 m radius ) . Since research plots only received a fraction of the sprinkler irrigation from the bare root transplant

PAGE 36

36 establishment, accurate m 3 /ha irrigation rates were calculated by a Microsoft E xcel workbook (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) for the research plot after bare root tran splant establishment based on flow meter readings. (See Data Collection Calculation of Irrigation Water Utilization, and Appendix D Using and Making the Irrigation Calculation Workbook.) After adjusting for water that fell outside the plot, conventiona l and microsprinkler irrigation for eight days of bare root establishment at Citra was 3,321 m 3 /ha and 1,103 m 3 /ha, respectively. The irrigation water use at Dover was 4,218 m 3 /ha for conventional impact sprinklers and 1,101 m 3 /ha for microsprinklers. Outp ut radii were 12.2 m for conventional impact sprinklers and 6.0 m for microsprinklers. Subplot s Each living mulch subplot treatment consisted of a 6.10 m section of a raised bed with a living mulch treatment in the row middle on either side of the strawber ry bed , bordered on the outside of the plot on both sides by an empty raised bed . Runoff/erosion capturing device installation and description Each subplot contain ed one lab crafted device to assess runoff/erosion that was buried in one of the two row middles (Fig. 2 3 and 2 4) . In each subplot, t he row middle s were selected at random, except at Citra in the conventional sprinkler irrigation zone , where aluminum irrigation pipe laid in the peripheral row middles prevented randomization . Runoff/erosion capturing devices consisted of 13 cm landscape edging (Master Mark Plastics 95340 Terrace Board Landscape Edging Coil; Paynesville, MN) at both sides of the selected subplot row middle (straight at the top of the slope and a 45 degree angle at the bottom o f the slope ), two 38 L buckets (microsprinkler irrigation zone ; Continental 1001WH Huskee; St. Louis, MO ) or one 38 L bucket and another 76 L bucket in tandem ( conventional sprinkler irrigation zone; Rubbermaid Commercial Brute Grey Round ; Winchester, VA ) with lids , joined

PAGE 37

37 by a 2.54 cm PVC pipe running between them , and a PVC elbow and arm extending from a hole at soil level in the 45 degree landscape edging into the proximal bucket through a hole in the proximal 38 L bucket lid . In each row middle where measurements were taken, the buckets were placed at the lower end of the field slope. The landscape edging at the higher end of the subplot stopped water from uphill flowing into the runoff/erosion capturing devices, and the landscape edging at the lower end formed a 45 degree V which guided the water into a hole with a PVC pipe draining into the runoff/erosion capturing device. A 38 L cloth pot (HydroFarm Dirt Port; Petaluma, CA ) was also placed inside the proximal 38 L bucket to filter the s oil particles from the runoff in order to quantify erosion . Along the entire length of each sprinkler irrigation zone , a 10 cm corrugated , perforated pipe (Advanced Drainage Systems 10 cm x 15.24 m Corex Drain Pipe Perforated; Hilliard, OH) was buried past the erosion/runoff capturing devices 36 cm deep at an incline to an off field drainage ditch on the field periphery . The purpose of this pipe was to drain excess water not from the research plots away from the runoff/erosion capturing devices and off the field , to prevent water leakage into the runoff/erosion capturing devices from sources other than the subplots . Addit ionally, at Dover only, due to the slow drainage of the water around the buckets allowing water to leak into the buckets from sources other than the subplots , three more 2.54 cm PVC pipes were installed to speed drain age of the area around each bucket by p roviding a highway for the water to travel from around the buckets directly into the corrugated , perforated pipe (Fig. 2 3) . Lysimeter installation For measurement of soil pore water , stainless steel , suction lysimeters (Soil Measurement Systems SW 074; T ucson, AZ ) were buried centrally in each row middle that contained a runoff/erosion capturing device. L ysimeters and tubing were assembled based on manufacturer instructions and left to soak in water until installation. A round , 3.81 cm diameter , 61 cm de p th

PAGE 38

38 hole was created for each lysimeter . Holes were made by using a hollow metal pipe both to form a hole and to remove the soil from the hole formed. Other tools included a sledge hammer for hammering the ho llow metal pipe into the ground , a wood b lock to transfer kinetic energy from the hammer to the metal pipe without damaging the lip of the metal pipe , a pipe stand to provide something to grip onto to remove the pipe from the ground after it was hammered in , and a thin ner diameter metal rod to di slodg e the soil from the hollow metal pipe after removal of the hollow metal pipe from the ground. The lysimeters were then placed in the holes with their tubing extending beyond the surface of the soil by a few feet . Next, w ater was poured into the holes, and s and which had been removed from the research site at 61 cm depth and dried for a week at 49 C in a PSREU drying room was added, leaving some space at the top . Benseal U nifor m G ranular Wyoming Sodium B entonite (Baroid Industrial Drilling Products; Ho uston, TX) was then added, and more water and sand added to c ap off the hole. The loose l ysimeter tubing was then tied and left until the sprinkler irrigation treatments began. Directly prior to sprinkler tubing was connected to a 1 L Erlenmeyer flask ( Neck Heavy Duty Glass Erlenmeyer Flask ; Corning, NY ) via a two hole rubber stopper ( Hole Rubber Stoppers ; Waltham, MA ) according to manufacturer instructions . Site specific D esc ription Citra The Citra , FL, trial was conducted from Aug. 17, 2017, to Feb. 29, 2018. The soil at the site was a Candler sand (Hyperthermic, uncoated Lamellic Quartzipsamm ents) with 1.36% organic matter and a pH of 5.7 ( USDA , 2018b) . A transit level was used to determine that the field had a 2% slope. The setup at Citra for the conventional sprinkler irrigation consisted of 2 rows of 4 sprinkler s , with each row placed on the inside of the empty border bed at 13.87 m apart

PAGE 39

39 perpendicular to the beds and 12.19 m apart parallel to the beds . M icrosprinkler s were installed in 4 rows of 10 sprinkler s per row , 3.96 m perpendicular to the beds , 3 .66 m parallel to the beds , placed in the row middles . Management overview T he study at Citra can be broken down into 33 weeks of activity , summarized in Table 2 1 beginning with bed preparation (Aug . 17, 2017). Prior to beds being formed, the field was t illed twice at 20 cm depth. Planting beds were formed individually on Aug . 17 with a Kennco one bed 91 cm plastic mulch layer with fumigation gas knives and drip tape layer (Ruskin, FL), 91 cm wide at the base, 76 cm wide at the top, and 20 cm high. Simultaneously with bedding, the soil was fumigated with Pic Clor 60 (1,3 dichloropropene 39%, chloropicrin 59.6%, Soil Chem ical Corporation; Hollister, CA ) at a rate of 2 80 kg / ha , and beds were fertilized with 10 10 10 fe rtilizer at 4 48 kg/ha (Southern States Cooperative; Richmond, VA ) . One drip tape line ( 1.89 L/30.48 m per min, 30 cm between emitters , North F lorida Irrigation; Ocala, FL ) was buried concurrent with plastic mulch application . Beds were covered with totally impermeable film black plastic mulch (Intergro; Clearwater, FL). L iquid 6 0 8 fertilizer with minors (Mayo Fertilizer, Inc.; Lee, FL) was applied to the strawberry plants through the drip irrigation system once a week, for a total of 72.6 kg for the seaso n. Row middles varied in width from 81 to 122 cm . Living mulches at Citra were hairy indigo ( Indigofera hirsut a ); sunn hemp ( Crotalaria juncea ); and slenderleaf rattlebox ( C . ochroleuca ). Hairy indigo seed was scarified using sulfuric acid in order to ove rcome hard seed dormancy ( C ANTLIFFE et al., 1980) . Since the width of the row middles varied, s eed weight was calculated and weighed in dividually for each row middle at seeding rates of 2 2 kg / ha for hairy indigo, 45 kg / ha for sunn hemp, and 45 kg / ha for slenderleaf rattlebox. Seed was inoculated using Guard N Seed Inoculant directly prior to planting at 11.57

PAGE 40

40 g /kg seed (Verdesian ; Cary, N C) and the seed was broadcast by hand in week 5 (Sep. 15). The living mulches germinated poorly, likely due to inadequate seed to soil contact and/or lack of moisture. Gramoxone SL 2.0 p araquat ( Syngenta; Basel, Switzerland ) was sprayed on Sep. 26 at 2.34 L / ha to control weeds and to terminate the few living mulch plants that had emerged. Living mulches were replanted in week 7 (Sep . 27), and seeds were incorporated with a rake and irrigated with a rain gun each day for three days post planting. Lysimeters were installed 6 weeks prior to the first day soil water data were gathered (installed week 4, Sep. 6). Runoff/erosion capturing devices were installed and root strawberry transplants ( Production Lareault Inc; Quebec, Canada) were planted in week 11 (Oct . 26) directly after roots were dipped in 0.42 g/L RootShield PLUS biological fungicide (BioWorks; Victor, NY) . Conventional sprinkler irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation were initiated immediately after pla nting and applied for seven additional days from 9 am to 5 pm for a total of eight days in week s 11 12 (Oct. 26 Nov. 1) during transplant establishment . During bare root establishment at Citra, total conventional impact sprinkler microsprinkler irrigatio n rate was 51.89 m 3 /ha per h ou r and 17.23 m 3 /ha per hour , respectively. Irrigation rate for bare root establishment at Dover was 65.91 m 3 /ha per hour for conventional impact sprinklers and 17.20 m 3 /ha per hour for microsprinklers . Output radii were 12.2 m for conventional impact sprinklers and 6.0 m for microsprinklers. Surround® WP k aolin ( Nova S ource Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. ; Phoenix, AZ ) was sprayed at 56 kg/ha at the end of the sprinkler irrigation on Nov. 1 to alleviate heat str ess for the remainder of the transplant estab lishment while conserving water, and drip irrigation began (45 minutes in the morning, 45 minutes in the afternoon) on week 12. L ivi ng mulches were terminated with Gramoxone SL 2.0 paraquat (Syngenta; Basel, Swi tzerland) at 2.34 L/ha on Dec. 14. Spical predatory mites

PAGE 41

41 ( Neoseiulus californicus McGregor, Koppert Biological Systems ; Howell, MI) were applied ( 30 /m 2 , Dec. 15) to the strawberry plants for biological control of twospotted spider mite ( Tetranychus urtica e C. L. Koch ) in week 18. Bonide® Captan 50% WP for botrytis ( 7.02 L / ha , Bonide Products, Inc.; Oriskany, NY ) and Agri Mek ® SC Abamectin (Syngenta; Basel, Switzerland ) for two spotted spider mites ( 585 mL / ha ) were applied in week 26 (Feb. 9). D rip irrigation switched from 45 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon to 60 minutes in the morning and 60 minutes in the afternoon (Feb. 22), and Acramite ® 50WS ( Bifenazate, 1 .12 kg/ha, Feb. 23 , Chemtura Corporation; Middlebury, CT ) was applie d to the conventional section of the field for twospotted spider mites in week 28. The f irst strawberry harv est occurred in week 19 (Dec. 18) and the last strawberry harvest was in week 33 ( Mar . 29) . Site specific D escription Dover The Dover , FL, trial was conducted Aug. 10 , 2017 , to Feb. 26 , 2018. The s oil type was Ona fine sand (sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Typic Alaquods) with 3% organic matter, and a pH of 4.8 ( USDA , 2018b) . Google Earth was used to determine that the field had a 1.4% slope. The irrigation setup at Dover for the conventional irrigation consisted of 2 rows of 4 Rain Bird impact sprinkler s spaced 12.19 m apart. Sprinkler s were also spaced 12.19 m apart within each row . The microsprinkler irrigation consisted of 3 rows of 9 sprinkler s per row , which were installed along the beds. The spacing between rows and sprinkler s was 4.27 m. Management overview The Dover study can be broken down into 27 weeks, summarized in Table 2 2, beginning with bed preparation (Sep. 1, 2017). On Aug 10, 2017 the soil was tilled with a Taylor 8 inches deep to ensure proper soil tilth . It was then rolled flat with a 2.44 m wide water filled roller in order to compact soil to pr event runoff (manufactured by Florida Ag Research; Thonotosassa, FL). Then on Sep. 1

PAGE 42

42 the beds were laid with Durban equipment (acquired by Hartline Fabrication, Inc. and Kennco Manufacturing, Inc.; Plant City , FL, and Ruskin, FL, respectively ) , which consi sts of a two row fumigation bed press and a two row plastic laying machine. The fumigant Pic Clor 60 (Soil Chemicals Corporation; Hollister, CA) was applied at 3 36 kg / ha with 2 shanks spaced approximately 33 36 cm apart on each bed, and beds were pressed t o a dimension of 69 cm wide at the top and 76 cm wide at the bottom, with 23 cm tall side wall s , 30 cm center height , and 1.23 m spacing center to center between beds ( 46 cm row middles). TIF black plastic mulch (1.25 mm thick , 1.5 m wide , Berry Global; Evansville, IN ) and drip tape (Netafim USA; Fresno, CA) were applied immediately following soil fumigation . A single drip tape was placed approximately 2.54 cm deep down the center of the bed ( 63 mL/min per sprinkler spaced at 30 cm apart). In anticipation of planting strawberry transplants, holes were measured and the plastic slit in double rows with 36 cm spacing within each row, and 30 cm between rows. The strawberries were never planted, however, due to season lateness a t the time that living mulches were large enough for irrigation to be applied. Due to a miscommunication, in week 5, 2.5% Buccaneer Plus glyphosate herbicide (Tenkoz, Inc.; Alpharetta, GA) was sprayed ( Sep. 25 ) in order to control weeds, and five days late r (Sep. 30), 1.52 L/ha Gramoxone SL 2.0 p araquat (Syngenta; Basel, Switzerland) was sprayed for the same reason . The terminated weeds were removed and the same living mulches which were planted at Citra were plante d at Dover on week 6 (Oct. 2). H airy indig o, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox were planted on Oct. 2, 2017 , with the same seeding rates and inoculation as were used at Citra. Seeds were broadcast, raked in, and irrigated with solid set Rain Bird sprinkler s for 30 minutes each day for three day s following planting. The 30 minutes a day impact sprinkler irrigation was enough for water to pool and run off and may have resulted

PAGE 43

43 in seed being dislodged and carried off field with runoff. Subplot sizes were uniform enough in Dover that each subplot replication received the same mass of its respective seed treatment ( 9.08 kg/ha for hairy indigo, and 18.15 kg/ha for sunn hemp and slenderleaf rattlebox) . The living mulches germinated but did not establish well, especially in the micro sprinkler i rrigation zone. After removing the emerged living mulch plants and the weeds from the first planting, the sam e living mulches were replanted on week 8 (Oct. 17). The replanted living mulches were watered for three days at 15 minutes each day. When the liv ing mulches germinated but did not establish well a second time (primarily in the micro sprinkler irrigation zone), a bioassay was conducted Nov. 11 Nov 28 to determine the cause ( weeks 11 14 ) , following a modified bioassay procedure ( R ASHID et al., 2001) . Appendix B summarizes the bioassay procedure and results. In order to still conceptually evaluate the effect of living mulches on runoff, erosion, and infiltration at the Dover location even though the leguminous cover crops could not establish at Dover, winter cereal species were planted at Dover on week 15 (Dec. 6). O ats , rye , and triticale were used at a seeding rate of 224 kg/ha for all three winter cereal species. See d was broadcast, incorporated with a rake, and irrigated with solid set Rain Bird sprinkler s for 15 minutes each day for three days post planting. The next week, 21% n itrate am monium sulfate (APF, Inc.; Tampa, FL) was applied (22 kg/ha, Dec. 16) and 15 min utes of conventional sprinkler irrigation from the Rain Bird nozzles applied to activate it . Runoff/erosion capturing devices were installed on Oct. 5 (week 6). L ysimeters were installed directly prior to irrigation application on Jan. 16 ( week 21 ) . Due to the delays in the development of the living mulches, strawberries were never planted. Nevertheless, when living mulches were six weeks old, conventional and micro sprinkler irrigation were applied fro m 9 am

PAGE 44

44 to 5 pm on Jan. 20 Jan 22 ( weeks 21 22 ) . Flow of water into the runoff/erosion capturing devices from sources other than the subplots led to the installation of three more 2.54 cm PVC pipes directly draining the area around the buckets into the corrugated, perforated pipe ( Fig. 2 3), and the di tches draining the conventional sprinkler irrigation zone were also dug deeper, week 22 (Jan. 23 24). Conventional s prinkler and microsprinkler irrigation were resumed on Jan. 25 Feb. 2, excluding Jan. 27. By Jan. 27 it was determined that water was pool ing in the field because the corrugated pipes had not been buried deeply enough nor were the ditches dug deeply enough to prevent backflow into the erosion capturing devices. It was decided at that point not to alter the experimental set up any further and to simply finish gathering data, evaluating which data were valid later. Living mulches were terminated by cultivation on Feb. 26 ( week 27 ) . Data C ollection Table 2 3 summarizes the data collection schedule at Citra , FL, and Table 2 4 does the same for Do ver , FL . At Citra, the data gathered were living mulch height, living mulch leaf area index (LAI), row middle biomass, runoff, erosion, soil pore water, strawberry leaf number, strawberry crown diameter, strawberry canopy diameter, strawberry plant stand, strawberry runners, and strawberry marketable and unmarketab le berry number and weight. The same data was collected at Dover, minus the strawberry data (living mulch height, living mulch LAI, row middle biomass, runoff, erosion, and soil pore water). Data Collection Procedures Water flow Drip and sprinkler irrigation were recorded throughout the season with a water meter for microsprinkler s and conventional impact sprinkler s and drip irrigation in each zone, for four flow meters in all at each location, or eigh t total (Daniel L. Jerman 100 1 inch water meter; Hackensack, NJ ) .

PAGE 45

45 Living mulch parameters Plant heights were determined using a yard stick, five heights per subplot. Leaf area index ( LAI ) was measur ed with a ceptometer (AccuPAR LP 80, Decagon Devices; Pullman, WA ) , t wo samples each subplot . Shoot b iomass was collected using two samples per plot with a randomly placed 25 cm x 25 cm quadrat . P lants within the quadrat were harvested at soil l evel, identified , sorted, and quantified by category ( living mulch treatment, broadleaf weed , grass weed , and sedge weed) , bagged separately by category, dried in a PSREU dryer room at 49 C for a week, and then weighed. Runoff, e rosion, and soil pore wate r Runoff was recorded daily between 5 pm and 9 am by measuring the water collected in the runoff/erosion capturing devices . Daily after 5 pm, the volume of water that flowed into the buckets was determined and recorded and the water was carried off the fie ld and poured out. Erosion sediment was captured in a cloth pot inside the erosion/runoff capturing device. The cloth pot was removed at the end of the eight day sprinkler irrigation period and dried for a week in a PSREU dryer room at 49 C , where it was then weighed. Relative infiltration between plots was estimated by proxy by measuring soil pore water with stainless steel, suction lysimeters, utilizing vacuum suction to capture soil pore water. Soil pore water was recorded directly prior to 9 am using a field scale for weighing soil pore water and a hand pump provided by the lysimeter manufacturer for resetting the lysimeters based on manufacturer instructions. See Appendix C for specific instructions for gathering data from the lysimeters and resetting the lysimeters for the next data cycle. Strawberry data Two plants were labelled from each subplot and the same plants measured throughout the season for leaf number, crown diameter (with an electronic caliper), and leaf canopy diameter

PAGE 46

46 (with a m eter stick ). Survivability was determined for each subplot by counting the number of plants classified as dead and alive in the subplot. R unner data were collected for each subplot by pinching runners from their mother plant and counting them . Harvested fr uit was sorted into marketable and unmarketable categories and weighed. Fruit was defined as marketable if it weighed more than 10 g, was free of damage and disease, and was more than 80% red. When it was anticipated that harvest could only be accomplished once in a week (as when the frost cover was required every night in a week or labor for harvest was limited), hard picks were conducted. Hard picks classified fruit as marketable and unmarketable in the same way as the normal pick, except that fruit was p icked at full size but pink, and classified as marketable if greater than 10 g and free of damage even if the fruit was less than 80% red . Calculation of Sprinkler Irrigation Water Utilization The sprinkler s used in both zones applied irrigation water ove r a circular area. O nly a portion of that c ircular area contributed irrigation water to the experimental plot s. In order to properly compare the amount of irrigation used between conventional impact sprinkler and micro sprinkler irrigation treatments , the a mount of irrigation water that was applied within the experimental plot was calculated ( Appendix D ) . Statistical Analysis Runoff, erosion, soil pore water , biomass, and strawberry data were analyzed using GLIMMIX generalized linear mixed model s (Statistica l Analy sis System , version 9.4; Cary, NC ) . The statistical model used for the results presented in each table in the Results section (Chapter 3) is described in Table 2 6. Results presented on the tables are untransformed means. Strawberry data (leaf, crow n, canopy, marketable yield, unmarketable yield) are only available for the Citra trial.

PAGE 47

47 Where the full dataset was in some way invalidated or irrelevant , data were subset before analysis. Data were rendered invalid for runoff when water leaking into the buckets from sources other than the research plots in the conventional impact sprinkler zone at Dover (Table 3 8) , and were thus subset by irrigation zone. Data were rendered invalid/irrelevant for strawberry yield data (marketable and unmarketable fru it number and yield , and leaf, crown, and canopy measurements ) as the time interval between the application of sprinkler irrigation and living mulch treatments became wider, and also when Acramite was only sprayed on the conventional impact sprinkler irrig ation zone on harvest week 10 for a mite study, resulting in strawberry yield and plant growth data only being analyzed for the first eight weeks after harvest began. When data did not exhibit a normal distribution based on the specified model and confirm ed through visual inspection of conditional studentized residuals (residual linear predictor, histogram, quantile, and boxplot figures) , they were transformed by square root or log transformation to better conform to a normal distribution. Weed biomass and erosion data were log transformed and runoff and soil pore water data were square root transformed, except for rain event data , where only soil pore water data were transformed (Table 2 6) . Mean separation was accomplished using the Tukey Kramer adjustmen t of the GLIMMIX procedure at a critical p value of 0.05.

PAGE 48

48 Table 2 1. Citra field management overview. Management Date Week Bed preparation 08/17/2017 1 Lysimeters installed 09/06/2017 4 Living mulch planting 09/15/2017 5 Runoff/erosion capturing devices installed 09/26/2017 5 Paraquat sprayed (2.34 L/ha) for weed control 09/26/2017 7 Living mulches replanted 09/27/2017 7 Strawberry transplants planted 10/26/2017 11 Sprinkler irrigation applied 10/26/2017 11/01/2017 11 12 Kaolin sprayed (56 kg/ha) to alleviate heat stress 11/01/2017 12 Drip irrigation applied (45 minutes morning, 45 minutes afternoon) 11/01/2017 02/22/2018 12 28 Paraquat sprayed (2.34 L/ha) for living mulch termination 12/14/2017 18 Spical predatory mites applied ( 30/ m 2 ) 12/15/2017 18 First strawberry harvest 12/18/2017 19 Capitan sprayed (7.02 L/ha) for botrytis 02/09/2018 26 Abamec tin sprayed (585 mL/ha) for two spotted spider mites 02/09/2018 26 Drip irrigation rate changed (60 minutes morning, 60 minutes afternoon) 02/22/2018 28 Acramite sprayed (1.12 kg/ha) convent ional irrigation for two spotted spider mites 02/28/2018 28 Last strawberry harvest 03 /29/2018 3 3

PAGE 49

49 Table 2 2. Dover field management overview. Management Date Week Bed preparation 09/01/2017 1 Glyphosate sprayed (Buccaneer 2.5%) for weed control 09/25/2017 5 Paraquat sprayed (1.52 L/ha) for weed control 09/30/2017 5 Living mulches planted (hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox) 10/02/2017 6 Runoff/erosion capturing devices installed 10/05/2017 6 Living mulches replanted (same) 10/17/2017 8 Bioassay conducted 11/11/2017 11/28/2017 11 14 Living mulches planted (oats, rye, and triticale) 12/06/2017 15 Lysimeters installed 01/16/2018 21 Sprinkler irrigation applied 01/20/2018 01/22/2018 21 22 PVC pipes to corrugated pipe installed and ditches dug deeper 01/23/2018 01/24/2018 22 Sprinkler irrigation resumed 01/25/2018 02/02/2018 minus 01/27 22 23 Living mulches terminated by cultivation 02/26/2018 27

PAGE 50

50 Table 2 3 . Citra data collection schedule. Data Study week Weeks after LM z planted Weeks after S y planted S y harvest week Living mulch height 9, 11, 13, 16 2, 4, 6, 9 0, 2, 5 Leaf area index 9, 11, 13, 16 2, 4, 6, 9 0, 2, 5 Row middle biomass 11, 16 4, 9 0, 5 Runoff 11 12 4 5 0 1 Soil pore water 11 12 4 5 0 1 Erosion 12 5 1 Leaf number 14, 18, 20, 23, 27, 30, 33 7, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22 2, 5, 9, 12, 15 Crown diameter 14, 18, 20, 23, 27, 30, 33 7, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22 2, 5, 9, 12, 15 Canopy diameter 14, 18, 20, 23, 27, 30, 33 7, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22 2, 5, 9, 12, 15 Plant stand 18, 29, 33 11, 22, 26 7, 18, 22 11, 15 Runners 18, 29 11, 22 7, 18 11 Harvest data 19 33 12 26 8 22 1 15 z LM stands for living mulch. y S stands for strawberry.

PAGE 51

51 Table 2 4 . Dover data collection schedule . Data Study week Weeks after LM z planted Living mulch height 22, 26 7, 11 Leaf area index 22, 26 7, 11 Row middle biomass 21, 26 6, 11 Runoff 21 22, 22 23 6 7, 7 8 Soil pore water 21 22, 22 23 6 7, 7 8 Erosion 22, 23 7, 8 z LM stands for living mulch.

PAGE 52

52 Table 2 6. GLIMMIX models in SAS. Model Table/ Figure Fixed Random LSMeans Data L D Irr LM B D Irr D Irr LM Tr A T 3 1 weed b iomass by by ---log -mulch biomass by by -----total biomass by by ----T 3 2 weed b iomass by by --log -mulch biomass by by ----total biomass by by ----T 3 3 height by by ----leaf area index by by -----T 3 4 height by by -----T 3 5 height by by -----leaf area index by by ----T 3 6 leaf area index by by -----T 3 7 runoff by --sqrt erosion by ----log -soil pore water by --sqrt h T 3 8 runoff by S ----sqrt erosion by ----log -soil pore water by --sqrt h T 3 9 marketable yield -S ---h marketable number -S ---h unmarketable yield -S ---h unmarketable number -S ---h T 3 10 leaf number -S ----crown diameter -S -----canopy diameter -S ---F 3 1 runoff by ---sqrt F 3 2 marketable yield --F 3 3 marketable yield -S ---h F 3 4 unmarketable yield -S --h T C 1 runoff by by --------erosion by by ---log -soil pore water by by ----sqrt -T C 2 runoff by by --------erosion by by ---log -soil pore water by by ---sqrt -Header labels are LSMeans=Least Square Means, L=Location, D=Date, Irr=Irrigation, LM=Living Mulch, B=Block, Tr=Transformation, and A=Autoregressive order of 1. In the Table/Figure column, T=Table and F=Figure. In the Loc and Fixed columns, S=subset of data . In the Tr column, sqrt=square root transformation and log=logarithmic transformation. In the Ar column, h indicates that for each date of the autoregressive order, variance changes. In columns Irr Ar, a checkmark ( ) indicates the designated variable is included in the model. Whenever more than one variable is included in any given larger header category (F ixed, Random, LSMeans ), all interactions are also included in the GLIMMIX procedure for that category.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 2 1. Plot map at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit (PSREU) location , Citra , FL . = Erosion/Runoff Capturing Device = Lysimeter = = Drainage Ditch C = Fallow Control HI = Hairy Indigo ( Indigofera hirsuta L. ) SH = Sunn Hemp ( Crotalaria j uncea L. cv. A U Golden ) SR = Slenderleaf Rattlebox ( Crotalaria ochroleuca L. )

PAGE 54

54 Figure 2 2. Plot map at the Florida Strawberry Growers Association (FSGA) location , Dover , FL . = Erosion/Runoff Capturing Device = Lysimeter = = Drainage Ditch C = Fallow Control O = Oats ( Avena sativa L. ) R = Rye ( Secale cereale L. ) T = Triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus. )

PAGE 55

55 Figure 2 3 . Runoff/erosion capturing device . Beyond the initial design of the runoff/erosion capturing device as described in the materials and methods, problems with water leaking into the buckets from sources other than the subplots i n the Dover location led to the installation of three more 2.54 cm PVC pipes directly draining the area around the buckets into the corrugated, perforated pipe . Photo credit: Lillian Pride . buckets (buried) and lids PVC elbow and arm 45 degree landscape edging PVC to corrugated pipes

PAGE 56

56 Figure 2 4 . Runoff/erosion capturing device , lid off. Photo credit: Lillian Pride. cloth pot

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Water Use and Water Volume in the Row Middles After adjusting for water that fell outside the plot (see Appendix D) , conventional and microsprinkler irrigation for eight days of bare root establishment at Citra was 3,321 m 3 /ha and 1,103 m 3 /ha , respectively. At Dover , irrigation for bare root establishment was 4,218 m 3 /ha for conventional impact sprinklers and 1,101 m 3 /ha for microsprinklers . Output radii were 12.2 m for conventional impact sprinklers and 6.0 m for microsprinklers. M icrosprinkler irrigation was 26 33 % of the water used for the conventional system. With greater irrigation volume per unit area and higher percentage of land covere d in plas tic mulch (49 % Citra, 60 % Dover), Dover had greater volume of irrigation water c hannel ed into the row middles ( 12.30 cm and 3.21 cm daily in the conventional sprinkler and microsprinkler sections respectively) than Citra ( 7.71 cm and 2.56 cm in th e conventional sprinkler and microsprinkler sections respectively). Therefore, the potential for runoff and erosion was greater at Dover. To contextualize these findings, centimeters of irrigation are not eq uivalent to centimeters of rain. R ain generally f alls on a much larger area than a strawberry grower's field, resulting in considerable runoff from even just a few centimeters of rain as water can flow onto the field from areas surrounding the grower's field. Further, it should be noted that according to rainfall records obtained from the Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN) 1998 2017, 84% of daily rainfall occurrence s in Dover result in less than 1 cm and 99% and 88% less than 7.71 and 2.56 cm, respectively. Living Mulches before Application of Sprin kler Irrigation At Citra, living mulch biomass and total biomass prior to the application of sprinkler or drip irrigation were significantly greater in the conventional sprinkler zone than the micro sprinkler irrigation zone (Table 3 1). No difference in weed biomass was observed between

PAGE 58

58 zones. Hairy indigo was the only living mulch at Citra that suppressed weed biomass to a lower level than the control. All living mulches had significantly more total biomass t han the control . Slenderleaf rattlebox had more total biomass than hairy indigo, but was not significantly different from sunn hemp. At Dover, all three categories of biomass (weed, living mulch, and total) were higher in the conventional sprinkler zone th an the micro sprinkler irrigation zone (Table 3 2 ). Although oats had significantly more living mulch biomass than the rye and triticale, both oats and rye living mulches had significantly less weed biomass than the control. Oats also had significantly more total biomass than rye and triticale, which had significantly more biomass than the control. At Citra, for living mulch height there was a significant interaction between irrigation type for transplant establishment and living mulch (Table 3 3). When anal yzed by sprinkler irrigation type , sunn hemp was significantly taller than both the hairy indigo and the slenderleaf rattlebox in both irrigation zones, and slenderleaf rattlebox was significantly taller than the hairy indigo only in the conventional sprin kler irrigation zone (Table 3 4) . There was no significant difference attributable to irrigation for leaf area index (LAI) at Citra, but hairy indigo and sunn hemp both had significantly greater LAI compared to the control (Table 3 3) . At Dover, living mu lches in the conventional sprinkler irrigation zone were significantly taller than in the microirrigation zone (Table 3 5 ). There was a significant interaction between sprinkler irrigation type and living mulch treatments for LAI at Dover. When analyzed by sprinkler irrigation type , LAI for all the living mulches was significantly greater than the control for both sprinkler irrigation zones, and LAI for the triticale was significantly greater than the oats for the conventional sprinkler irrigation zone (Tab le 3 6) . The LAI for of oats, rye, and triticale were all higher in the conventional zone than the microirrigation zone.

PAGE 59

59 Past research findings are consistent with the control plots having greater weed density than the plots planted with living mulches , an d plots planted with living mulches having greater total biomass than the weedy control ( B RENNAN AND S MITH , 2018) . It is also reasonable to expect significant differen ces in living mulch and total biomass between unique species of living mulches. The one surprising result was the superior growth of the living mulches in the conventional impact sprinkler zones at both locations compared to the microsprinkler irrigation z ones. Since both zones were treated the same prior to the application of sprinkler irrigation , it was expected that biomass findings would be similar between irrigation zones. Nevertheless, biomass samples taken after sprinkler irrigation treatments had no significant difference s between irrigation zones, indicating that different research plots in the same field may produce differences in weed, living mulch, and total biomasses prior to treatment during living mulch development, but that those difference disappear once the living mulches have the opportunity to mature. Runoff, Erosion, and Soil Pore Water At Citra , there were significant differences in runoff and erosion in r esponse to irrigation (Table 3 7 ). Conventional sprinkler irrigation resulted in greater runoff and erosion than microsprinkler irrigation. Although significant difference in soil pore water volume w ere not apparent with irrigation treatment, living mulch treatment did have a significant effect such that the control had significantly m ore soil pore water than the sunn hemp treatment. At Dover, runoff data were invalidated in the conventional irrigation zone, d ue to difficulties with the runoff/erosion capturing devices . Runoff data were only analyzed for the microsprinkler irrigation z one, where there were no significant differenc es except due to date (Table 3 8 ). On day 6, Dover experienced a rain event. Data for runoff were omitted, since the runoff overflowed the buckets. After the buckets were emptied, subsequent drizzle and irrigat ion

PAGE 60

60 resulted in more runoff than usual during the following runoff collection cycle on day 7 (Fig. 3 1). Since runoff was still measurable on day 7, runoff data from day 7 was kept. Erosion and soil pore water were greater with the conventional sprinkler i rrigation than with the microsprinkler irrigation. These results support the alternative hypothesis that microsprinkler irrigation would produce significant decreases in runoff, erosion, and soil pore water compared to the conventional irrig ation. These r esults are also consistent with the literature, where microsprinkler irrigation produced significant decreases in runoff, erosion, and infiltration . ( A RNOLD et al., 2004; B AMBERG et al., 2011; C HEN et al., 2002; L ETOURNEAU et al., 2015) . Since there were no significant differences between leguminous living mulche s and fallow control for runoff and erosion, and soil pore water decreased for sunn hemp , the results support the rejection of the second alternative hypothesis that hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox would significantly decrease runoff and erosion compared to the fallow control and significantly increase soil pore water compared to the fallow control. These results are contrary to other literature where living mulches have produced significant decreases in runoff and erosion, and increased s oil pore water , and also contrary to the results at the Dover location where average erosion was 7 8 times greater in the control plots and it was only the high variability of the erosion between specific control plots which made differences between contro l plots and living mulch treatments statistically insignificant ( C HOI et al., 2011; D ELGADO et al., 1999; K ASPAR et al., 2001; M ARTIN et al., 2010; S ILLER et a l., 2016) . One possible explanation is that since the hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox never became very large at the Citra location, and since weeds were allowed to grow in th e control plots, the living mulch plots did not greatly impede runoff and erosion compared to the weedy control plots .

PAGE 61

61 Strawberry Yield and Growth Parameters Strawberry yield and growth parameter data were only collected for Citra, FL. Results are only ana lyzed to test thesis hypotheses during the first 8 weeks of harvest for yield and growth parameters due to confounding factors (proximity of the low volume section to TSSM vectoring blueberry bushes) and subsequent differential twospotted spider mite management between conventional and micro sprinkler irrigation zones starting in harvest week 6 for an overlaid p esticide trial in the conventional zone (Fig. 3 2) . Significant differences in marketable fruit weight and number occurred in response to irrigation and time of harvest (Table 3 9 and Fi g. 3 3 ). The microsprinkler irrigation zone had greater marketable fru it weight and fruit number than the conventional irrigation zone, and marketable fruit weight peaked during week 4 and then declined. Yield decreases were most likely due to botrytis and twospotted spidermite (measured by cull fruit) . Decreases were greate st in week 8, corresponding with high numbers of twospotted spider mite eggs on the abaxial surface of strawberry leaves . For unmarketable yield and fruit number, there were significant interactions between sprinkler irrigation type and date (Table 3 9 ). There w as a larger number of unmarketable fruit from the living mulch treatments than from the control. When y ield data were separated by date (Fig. 3 5 ), differences between sprinkler irrigation zones were significant . Significant differences in unmarketa ble fruit weight sometimes showed greater unmarketable fruit weight from the conventional sprinkler irrigation treatment (weeks 3 and 6) and other times greater unmarketable fruit weight from the microsprinkler irrigation treatment (week 5). Unmarketable f ruit yield peaked at week 5 and then dropped off , most likely for reasons similar to that of marketable fruit yield because the plants were stressed and producing less fruit due to botrytis and twospotted spider mites .

PAGE 62

62 Strawberry plants that received the microsprinkler irrigation treatment had more leaves and larger crown and canopy diameters than those with the conventional sprinkler irrigation treatment (Table 3 10 ). However, the effect of living mulch on leaf number was not significant. There was no sig nificant effect of sprinkler irrigation type or living mulch treatments on crown diameter or canopy diameter. The hypothesis was that neither varying the rate of irrigation nor planting a living mulch in the row middles would have any significant effect o n strawberr y yield and growth parameters , but the results showed differences between irrigation treatments. In another recent study assessing the effect of microsprinkler irrigation on strawberry yield in California, microsprinkler irrigation had no effect on yield, and microsprinkler irrigation was reported to lessen the severity of powdery mildew and botrytis fruit rot compared to conventional impact sprinklers ( D ARA et al., 2016) . Further, the delay in twospotted spidermite (TSSM) population peak ( 482 on a trifoliate leaf ) until around harvest w eek 9 implies that both sprinkler types were effective for controlling TSSM during establishment. This finding is consistent with a greenhou se study in 2006 , which found watering overhead with a water breaker nozzle to be more effective in controlling twospotted spider mites than drip irrigation treatments which left the foliage dry ( O PIT et al., 2006) . D ata collected for the mite study conducted starting in harvest week 6 found similar populations of twospotted spider mites between sprinkler irrigation zones p rior to treatment on Jan. 25 ( no statistically significant differences, 110 and 131 on a trifoliate leaf for conventional impact sprinkler and microspri nkler irrigation, respectively). This implies that the different sprinkler irrigations were similarly ef fective in TSSM control .

PAGE 63

63 Since the microsprinklers had no negative effect on yield, the findings of the current study are consistent with the literature. Regarding living mulch treatments, data showed no significant differences . This contradicts previous findings that indicated differences between strawberry yields in the annual hill system depending upon the living mulch grown in the row middle ( U NIVER et al., 2009) , though in that study evaluated primarily grasses as livin g mulch and the only legume assessed was white clover. Additionally, the living mulches in Univer et al. (2009) were retained throughout the season. Although managed with mowing they could have resulted in competition for resources that could have negative ly impacted yield. Two possible explanations are that since our living mulches never became very large at the Citra location and are nitrogen fixers, they most likely did not compete substantially for nutrients, and since they were non hosts for a sting an d root knot nematode, they also did not affect the strawberry crop by the proliferation of pathogenic nematodes. Conclusion Progress was achieved towards the goal of characterizing the effects of decreasing sprinkler irrigation during bare root establishme nt and of introducing living mulches on runoff, erosion, infiltration, and strawberry fruit yield. The study results suggest that if growers utilized microsprinklers rather than the conventional impact sprinklers during bare root establishment, they could decrease water usage, runoff, and erosion in the Hillsborough County area without any losses in strawberry yield. While the effects of the living mulch treatments were small, increasing seeding density and/or having an earlier living mulch planting date wh en this study is repeated may result in greater living mulch growth and treatment effects. T he first objective of this study was to determine the effects of microsprinkler irrigation compared to conventional impact sprinkler irrigation and living mulches (hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox ; oats, rye, and triticale ) compared to a control without living

PAGE 64

64 mulch on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water during bare root transplant establishment . This study supports the use of microsprinkler irrigation for decreasing runoff and erosion compared to conventional impact sprinklers for strawberry bare root transplant establishment in Florida, because r egardless of the living mulches used (hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rat tlebox or oats, rye, and triticale), using microsprinklers resulted in less runoff, erosion, and soil pore water than using conventional impact sprinklers for bare root transplant establishment. Although no significant differences were detected between th e weedy control and the leguminous and cereal living mulch treatments for runoff and erosion, this is largely due to wide variance between weedy control plots at Dover, and may have been because the leguminous species at Citra, FL established poorly with little ground cover. The success of the oats, rye, and triticale at the Dover, FL location for impeding runoff and erosion supports th e hypothesis that obtaining a better li ving mulch plant stand at Citra may improve the performance of hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox to decrease runoff and erosion. Since the two trials differed in the living mulch species used, the study will need to be repeated with increa ses in planting density to determine if hairy indigo, sunn hemp, and slenderleaf rattlebox can be used effectively like oats, rye, and triticale to reduce runoff and erosion. The results also highlighted multiple fruitful areas for further research. Data a nalysis from rain events at Dover suggest s that studies with similar design should be conducted regarding the effect of living mulches on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water during rain events (see Appendix E ) . It may also be beneficial to examine the eff ectiveness of other sting and root knot nematode resistant species for the prevention of runoff and erosion, especially the grasses (ex: 'Transvala' and 'Pangola' combo). Since these are perennial grasses , their suitability for use

PAGE 65

65 in annual crops and the likelihood of introducing a living mulch that may be difficult to manage will need to be considered. Conventional strawberry production occurs on farms the size of which would be impractical to hand seed and rake to in corporate living mulch seeds . Options for mechanical seeding such as that reported by Brennan et al. (2018) should be explored in Florida. Also, since the same sprinkler irrigation equipment will most likely be utilized by growers both for bare root transplant establishment and frost protecti on, the strawberry industry in Florida and environmental/water quality in Hillsborough County c ould benefit from studies to determine the minimum water requirements for bare root transplant establishment and frost protection. Since sinkhole formation is me asurably correlated with strawberry frost protection in Hillsborough County ( A URIT et al., 2013; T IHANSKY , 1999) , a single irrigation system effective for both bare root transplant establishment and frost protection uniformly delivering decreased water volumes during the winter in particular may produce measurable decreases in sinkhole formation in Hillsborough County, and may also prevent long term water level drawdowns and saltwater intrusion i n the Upper Floridan Aquifer ( L EWELLING et al., 1998) . The study will be repeated to confirm the benefits of microirrigation for strawberry bare root transplant establishment and to optimize the plant stands of the legume l iving mulch es to improve their efficacy for imped ing runoff and erosion.

PAGE 66

66 Table 3 1. Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on weed, mulch, and total biomass directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra , Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Biomass z Weed y Mulch Total (g/m 2 ) (g/m 2 ) (g/m 2 ) Irrigation conventional 4 26 a .. 24 a .. microsprinklers 4 18 b .. 17 b .. Living mulch control 5 a ... --5 c .. hairy indigo 2 b ... 19 20 b .. sunn hemp 3 ab . 24 27 ab slenderleaf rattlebox 7 a ... 24 31 a .. Significance x Irr w NS v ... 0.0224 0.0058 . LM w 0.0229 . NS . .. . < 0.0001 . Irr * LM NS . . .. NS . .. . NS ... z D ata presented are raw, untransformed means. y For analysis, w eed data w ere log transformed. x Least squares means were separated using the Tukey Kramer adjustment; lsmeans in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different . w LM and Irr are living mulch and irrigation , respectively. v NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 67

67 Table 3 2 . Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on weed, mulch, and total biomass directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Dover, Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Biomass z Weed y Mulch Total (g/m 2 ) (g/m 2 ) (g/m 2 ) Irrigation conventional 16 a ... 104 a .. 94 a .. microsprinklers 5 b ... 54 b .. 45 b .. Living mulch control 25 a ... --25 c .. oats 4 b ... 97 a 101 a .. rye 5 b . .. 73 b 77 b .. triticale 8 a b . 68 b 75 b .. Significance x Irr w < 0.00 01 . < 0.0001 < 0.0001 LM w 0.0004 . 0.0 074 . < 0.0001 Irr *LM NS v ... NS ... NS ... z D ata presented are raw, untransformed means. y For analysis, weed data were log transformed. x Least squares means were separated using the Tukey Kramer adjustment; lsmeans in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different . w Irr and LM are i rrigation and living mulch , respectively. v NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 3 . Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on living mulch height and Leaf Area Index ( LAI ) directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra , Florida , in 2017 2018 . Treatment Height z LAI z (cm ) Irrigation . . conventional 12 0.22 ... microsprinklers 13 0.24 ... Living mulch control --0.05 b .. hairy indigo 6 c .... 0.28 a .. sunn hemp 19 a .... 0.36 a .. slenderleaf rattlebox 11 b .... 0.22 ab Significance y Irr x NS NS w .. .. LM x < 0.0001 . . 0.0007 . .. Irr *LM 0.0129 .. NS . . . .. z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y Simple effects and main effects means followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. x Irr and LM stand for irrigation and living mulch, respectively . w NS is nonsig nificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 4 . Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on living mulch height separated by irrigation type directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Citra , Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Height z (cm ) CV y MS y Living mulch hairy indigo 6 c .... 7 bc . . sunn hemp 19 a .... 23 a .. .. slenderleaf rattlebox 11 b .... 11 b .. .. Significance x LM y < 0.0001 . < 0.0001 . z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y CV, MS, and LM stand for conventional irrigation, microsprinkler irrigation, and living mulch, respectively . x Simple effects and main effects means followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Signifi cance is determined at P > 0.05.

PAGE 70

70 Table 3 5 . Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on living mulch height and Leaf Area Index ( LAI ) directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Dover , Florida, 2017 2018 . Treatment Height z LAI z (cm ) Irrigation conventional 27 a ... ... . 1.08 a microsprinklers 17 b ... ... . 0.50 b Living mulch control --0. 09 c .. . oats 22 0.90 b .. . rye 23 0.98 a b . triticale 21 1. 17 a .. . Significance y Irr x < 0.00 01 0.0112 .. LM x NS w ... ... . < 0.0001 . Irr * LM NS .. . . .... . 0.0003 .. z Da ta presented are raw, untransformed means. y Simple effects and main effects means followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. x Irr and LM stand for irrigation and living mulch, respectively . w NS is nonsig nificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 6 . Effect of living mulch type and irrigation zone on Leaf Area Index (LAI) separated by irrigation type directly prior to applying irrigation treatments at Dover, Florida, 2017 2018 . Treatment LAI z CV y MS y Living mulch control 0.12 de . 0.07 e ... oats 1.22 b .. . 0.58 cd . rye 1.30 a b . 0.67 c ... triticale 1.66 a .. . 0.69 c .. . Significance x LM y < 0.0001 0.000 1 z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y CV, MS, and LM stand for conventional irrigation, microsprinkler irrigation, and living mulch, respectively . x Simple effects and main effects means followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Signifi cance is determined at P > 0.05.

PAGE 72

72 Table 3 7 . Effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on average total erosion and daily averages of runoff and soil pore water at Citra , Florida, 2017 2018 . Treatment Runoff z y Erosion z y Soil pore water z y ( m 3 /ha ) ( kg/ha ) ( cm 3 ) Irrigation conventional 4.52 a . 20.00 a 36 .. . . ..... microsprinklers 1.02 b . 4 .20 b 30 . ... ..... Living mulch control 3.09 ... 9.18 ... 68 a ........ hairy indigo 2.75 ... 10.89 ... 19 ab ...... sunn hemp 2.51 ... 11.50 ... 13 b ........ slenderleaf rattlebox 2.73 ... 16.82 ... 32 ab ...... Significance x Irr w < 0.000 1 < 0.0001 NS . ... ..... LM w NS v . NS . . 0.0341 . .. ... Irr*LM NS . . NS . . NS . ....... Date NS . . --. . NS . ....... Irr*Date NS . . --.. . NS . ....... LM*Date NS . . --.. . NS . ....... Irr*LM *Date NS . . --.. . NS . ....... z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y For analysis, r unoff da ta were square root transformed, e rosion data were log transformed, and s oil pore water data were square root transformed. x Least squares means were separated using the Tukey Kramer adjustment; lsmeans in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different . w LM and Irr stand for living mulch and irrigation, respectively. v NS is nonsignificant , P > 0.05.

PAGE 73

73 Table 3 8 . Effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on average total erosion and daily averages of runoff and soil pore water at Dover, Florida, 2017 2018 . Treatment Runoff z y Erosion zy Soil pore water z y ( m 3 /ha ) ( kg/ha ) ( cm 3 ) Irrigation conventional --106 a .. 66 a ....... microsprinklers --14 b .. 23 b ....... Living mulch control 1.20 169 .... 50 oats 0.83 22 .... 45 rye 0.99 24 .... 36 triticale 2.10 23 .... 48 Significance x Irr w --< 0.00 01 . < 0.0001 ..... LM w NS v .. . NS .. . . NS . ...... Irr*LM --NS . . . NS . ...... Date < 0.0001 --NS . ...... Irr*Date ----NS . ...... LM*Date NS --NS . ...... Irr* LM*Date ----NS . ...... z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y For analysis, runoff data were square root transformed, e rosion data were log transformed, and soil pore water data were square root transformed. x Least squares means were separated using the Tukey Kramer adjustment; lsmeans in columns followed by the same letter are no t significantly different . w LM and Irr stand for living mulch and irrigation, respectively. v NS is nonsignificant , P > 0.05.

PAGE 74

74 Table 3 9 . The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on marketable and unmarketable strawberry yield and fruit number from the first eight weeks of harvest at Citra , Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Marketable yield z Marketable fruit number z Unmarketable yield z Unmarketable fruit number z (t/ha ) (t/ha ) Irrigation CV y 2.4 b .... . 7 b . ..... . 2. 2 11 MS y 3.1 a .... . 9 a . ..... . 2.1 1 1 Living mulch C y 2.9 9 1.8 9 b HI y 2.5 8 2.0 1 2 a SH y 3.0 9 2.4 12 a SR y 2.5 8 2.3 12 a Significance x Irr y 0.03 67 . .. 0.0 010 .... NS NS LM y NS w .... NS ... .... NS 0.00 80 Irr * LM NS .... . . NS . .... .. NS NS Date < 0.0001 .. < 0.0001 . .. < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Irr*Date NS .... . . NS . .... .. < 0.0001 < 0.0001 LM*Date NS .... . . NS . .... .. NS NS Irr * LM* Date NS .... . . NS . .... .. NS NS z Data presented are raw, untransformed means for total early yield . y CV, MS, C, HI, SH, SR, Irr, and LM stand for conventional irrigation, microsprinkler irrigation, control, hairy indigo, sunn hemp, slenderleaf rattlebox, irrigation, and living mulch, respectively. x Least squares means were separated using the Tukey Kramer ad justment; lsmeans in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different . w NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 75

75 Table 3 10 . The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on strawberry growth parameters from the first eight weeks of harvest at Citra , Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Leaf number z Crown diameter z Canopy diameter z ( mm ) ( cm ) Irrigation CV y 11 b .. 20 b 28 b MS y 14 a .. 27 a 31 a Living mulch C y 14 25 29 a y HI y 13 25 31 a SH y 11 24 32 a SR y 11 22 29 a Significance x Irr y 0.0 350 0.0209 0.0340 LM y NS w . NS 0.0312 Irr * LM NS ... NS NS Date NS ... < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Irr*Date NS ... 0.00 01 0.00 71 LM*Date NS ... NS NS Irr * LM* Date NS ... NS NS z Data presented are raw, untransformed means. y CV , MS, C, HI, SH, SR, Irr, and LM stand for conventional irrigation, microsprinkler irrigation, control, hairy indigo, sunn hemp, slenderleaf rattlebox, irrigation, and living mulch, respectively. x Simple effects and main effects means followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. w NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 76

76 Figure 3 1. Marketable strawberry harvest b y week at Citra, FL, 2017 2018. Data presented are raw, untransformed means. Runoff data were log transformed for analysis. Least square means separation was done with the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure and LSmeans with the same letter are not significantly different . 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Runoff (m 3 /ha) Day of Sample Collection a a a a a b a a a a

PAGE 77

77 Figure 3 2 . Effect of irrigation type and time of harvest on total season marketable strawberry yield at Citra , FL, 2017 2018. Data presented are raw, untransformed means. Least square mean separation was done with the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure and LSmeans with the same letter are not significantly different . * indicates significant differences between irrigation type at P values of < 0.05. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yield (t/ha) Harvest Week CV MS Spray Abamectin (mites; all) and Capitan (botrytis; all) Increase irrigation (all), spray Acramite (mites; CV only) ijklmn fgh hijk hijkl ghij jklmn op lmn ef hijkl p no klmn de ghi op hijkl bcde abcd bcde efg mno hijkl gh abc abc a ab hijk cde * * * * * *

PAGE 78

78 Figure 3 3 . Tukey Kramer designations for average marketable strawberry harvest by week at Citra , FL, 2017 2018. L etter designations are determined by least square means with Tukey Kramer adjustments . While the entire model (irrigations, living mulches, and all interactions between them) was execu ted for each week, only the average was included, as harvest least square means differences were only significant at the week level. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yield (t/ha) Harvest Week e b b a b c c d

PAGE 79

79 Figure 3 4 . Effect of irrigation type and time of harvest on unmarketable strawberry yield at Citra , FL, 2017 2018. Data presented are raw, untransformed means. Least square mean separation was done with the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure and LSmeans with the same letter are not significantly different . * indicate s significant differences between irr igation type at P values of < 0.05. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yield (t/ha) Week Fruit Harvested CV MS c a b d e f fg d * * * def d bc efg g def de bc fg g

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A RESULTS OF A DATABASE SEARCH ON STING NEMATODE HOST STATUS Sting nematode ( B . longicaudatus ) is on ( R OSSKOPF et al., 2005) , infesting as much as strawberry acreage ( N OLING , 2015) , with yield losses of up to 21% in affected fields and reductions of as much as $354,000 in utilized produc tion value for growers with heavily infested sites ( NASS , 2018; N OLING , 2011) . As a result, in order to select suitable plants for use as for use as living mulches in the row middles of a strawberry production study aimed at reducing runoff and erosion during bare root transplant establishment , the decision was made to focus on plants that were non hosts or poor ho sts of the sting nematode. In order to select suitable candidates, a comprehensive database search and an assessment of pertinent literature w ere conducted. Materials and Methods The search was executed using the scientific citation index Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philade l phia, PA). An Advanced Search was conducted with the query (the non targeted root knot nematode searches. Results and Disc ussion Searches resulted in a total of 327 relevant sources sorted from 1 , 287 search results spanning from 1950 to 2018 . Some search results listing turf grasses, off season cover crops, and woody plants that are host s to sting were not included a s well as some sources for which only the

PAGE 81

81 abstract was available . A n initial list of non hosts or poor hosts and plants which maintain or decrease the number of sting nematodes was developed (Table A 1). Though not indicated in the ( R AU , 1958) may have confused Belonolaimus longicaudatus with B. gracilis , and sources after 1958 are referring to B. longicaudatus . This list in Table A 1 was used to derive a shortlist of plants that deserve d further study, and then finally candidates that were appropriate for the present research project . The candidates selected were all herbaceous legumes (Fabaceae family) : hairy indigo ( Indigofera hirsut a ); sunn hemp ( Crotalaria juncea ); and slenderleaf rattlebox ( C . ochroleuca ). The first two species are reported to be nonhosts of sting nematode and root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne incognita ) in the literature, and slenderleaf rattlebox in the field (Table A 1) .

PAGE 82

82 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Abelmoschus esculentus okra ('Clemson Spineless' 4th source ) 1 * 0 v 0.4 +/ 0.06 or 0.6 +/ 0.2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; B ROOKS , 1954; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Acer rubrum red maple * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Aeschynomene americana jointvetch v~ v~ ( R EDDI , 1983; R HOADES , 1980b; R HOADES , 1985) Agrostis palustris creeping bentgrass ('Penncross') * 1 ^^ 33.0 +/ 4.4 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Albizia julibrissin pink silk t ree * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Allium sp. onion and leek residues 1 ( A RNAULT et al., 2013; R HOADES , 1969) Allium cepa onion ('Southport White Globe' 2nd source) * ^^ 14.5 +/ 3.3, v Verticillium ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; R OBBINS , 1973; Y OHALEM AND H ALL , 2009) Allium vineale wild garlic * v ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Alysicarpus sp . Alyceclover ^ ( M ASHELA et al., 1992) Amaranthus blitoides prostrate pigweed ^^ 6.3 +/ 1.6 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Amaryllis sp. Easter lily * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Ambrosia sp . ragweed ~ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Apios americana American groundnut * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Arachis hypogaea peanut ('GFA Spanish' 4th source; 'Florigiant' 5th source) ^ ^ 3.6 +/ 0.6 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; K UTSUWA et al., 2015; L AUTZ , 1959; R OBBINS , 1973) Asparagus macowanii mining fern v ^ ( S TAMPS et al., 1995) Asparagus officinalis garden asparagus * v ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Avena sativa oats ('Coker 242' 3rd source) ^ ^ ( A NDREEVA , 1983; E SSER , 1 976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; R OBBINS , 1973) Beta vulgaris beets * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976; W INKLER AND O TTO , 1979) Bidens sp. burr marigold 0 ( L AUTZ , 1959)

PAGE 83

83 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Bidens bipinnata Spanish needle * 1 ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Bougainvillea sp . papelillo * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Brassica kaber wild mustard ^^ 17.2 +/ 6.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Brassica napus/rapa/juncea canola/turnip ('Seven Top' 2nd source) ^^ 6.1 +/ 2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; L A M ONDIA , 1999) Brassica oleracea (var. capitata 5th source) broccoli, cabbage ('Jersey Wakefield' 5th source) * 1 ^ v v Verticillium ( E SSER , 1976; K HUONG AND S MART , 1975; L AUTZ , 1959; L OPEZ P EREZ et al., 2010; R OBBINS , 1973; Z AVATTA et al., 2014) Brassica rapa Turnip ('Seven T op') * 1 ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Camellia japonica r ose of winter * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Camellia sasanqua camellia * ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Capsicum sp . hot pepper ~ ^ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; L AUTZ , 1959) Capsicum annuum bell pepper ('California Wonder' 4th source) ^ ~ 3.8 +/ 1.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; B ROOKS , 1954; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Capsicum frutescens pepper ('California W onder') * 1 ^^ 1/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Capsella bursa pastoris shepherdspurse ^ 10.0 +/ 2.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Carya illinoensis pecan * 1 ^^ 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Celtis laevigata hackberry * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Cenchrus pauciflorus sandbur * v ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar/cypress * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Chenopodium album lambsquarters * ^^ 10.8 +/ 2.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea * * ( E SSER , 1976) Chloris gayana Rhodes grass * * ( B OYD , 1970; B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; E SSER , 1976) Chrysanthemum sp . chrysanthemum * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrus aurantium marmalade orange * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrullus lanatus watermelon/citrus melon * * ( E SSER , 1976) Continued

PAGE 84

84 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus watermelon v * 0 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Citrullus lanatus watermelon 'Solid Gold' 0 0.7 +/ 0.2 or 0.9 +/ 0.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Citrullus lanatus subsp. vulgaris watermelon 'Garrisonian' v ( R OBBINS , 1973) Citrus limon lemon * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrus mitis calamondin * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrus × paradisi grapefruit * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrus reticulata mandarin orange * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Citrus × sinensis sweet orange group (sweet orange, blood orange, navel orange) * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Cocos nucifera coconut tree * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Conyza sp . horseweed v ( H OLDEMAN AN D G RAHAM , 1953) Cornus florida flowering dogwood * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Crotalaria sp . c rotalaria v ( B ROOKS , 1945; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Crotalaria brevidens rattle pod v v ( R EDDI , 1983) Crotalaria breviflora shortflower rattlebox 1 ( C HASE et al., 2015) Continued

PAGE 85

85 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Crotalaria juncea sunn hemp * v * v v v strawberries ( A DEKUNLE , 2011; A RAKI et al., 1991; B ELLO et al., 2014; B HAN et al., 2010; B RAZ et al., 2016; C HELLEMI et al., 2014; H ARENDER et al., 2012; K IM et al., 2011; K IMARU et al., 2013; K IME NJU et al., 2008; M ARAHATTA et al., 2010; M ARLA et al., 2008; M C S ORLEY , 1999; P HOMPANJAI et al., 2013; R OBINSON et al., 1998; S EIGIES AND P RITTS , 2006; S IPES AND A RAKAKI , 1997; S OSAMMA AND J AYASREE , 2002; V AN B ILJON et al., 2015; W ANG et al., 2008; W ANG et al., 2004b; W ANG et al., 2002b; W ANG et al., 2007a; W ANG et al., 2007b) Crot alaria mucronata smooth rattlebox * * ( E SSER , 1976) Crotalaria ochroleuca slenderleaf rattlebox 0 ( C HASE et al., 2015) Crotalaria spectabilis showy rattlebox * v v ( E SSER , 1976; R EDDI , 1983; R HOADES , 1965; R HOADES , 1967; R HOADES , 1985) Cucumis melo muskmelon * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Cucumis melo var. cantalupo cantaloupe ('Sierra Gold' 2nd source) ^^ 12.7 +/ 4.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; L AUTZ , 1959) Cucumis sativus cucumber ('Kidma' 5th source; 'Model' 6th source) ^ ^ v 2.6 +/ 0.9 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; L AUTZ , 1959; P IEDRA B UENA et al., 2006; R OBBINS , 1973) Cucurbita sp. squash ^ ^ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; L AUTZ , 1959) Cucurbita maxima squash 'Prelude' ^ 2.3 +/ 0.7 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Cucurbita pepo summer squash * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Continued

PAGE 86

86 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass ('Sahara' 4th source; 'Arizona C ommon' 4th source) ^ ^^ 20.7 +/ 5.1; 27.9 +/ 3.9 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; L AUTZ , 1959; R OBBINS , 1973) Cyperus esculentus yellow nutsedge ^^ 16.5 +/ 4.5 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Cyperus rotundus nutsedge (purple 2nd source) * 1 ^^ ^ 12.2 +/ 2.7 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R HOADES , 1964) Dactyloctenium sp. crowfoot grass ~ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum crowfoot grass * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Datura stramonium jimson weed ^ 1/4 ( E SSER , 1976) Daucus carota carrot ('Goldmine' 4th s ource; wild 5th source; 'Royal C hantenay' 5th source) * 1 ^ ~ 3.1 +/ 0.8 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; E SSER , 1976; L AUTZ , 1959; L OPEZ P EREZ et al., 2010; R OBBINS , 1973) Delonix regia royal poinciana * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Desmodium tortuosum Florida beggarweed ^ ^ ( E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; O VERMAN , 1970; W EBSTER AND C ARDINA , 2004) Dichanthelium laxiflorum rosette grass *1 *1 ( E SSER , 1976) Digitaria sp . crabgrass/digitgrass ^ ( B ROOKS , 1945; B ROOKS , 1954; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Digitaria eriantha digitgrass * * ^ ( B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; E SSER , 1976; W IN CHESTER et al., 1962) Digitaria eriantha cv. Slenderstem slenderstem digitgrass ( E SSER , 1976) Digitaria eriantha cv. Transvala Transvala digitgrass v ^ ( B OYD et al., 1973; H AROON AND S MART , 1982) Digitaria eriantha Pangola grass ^ v ( B OYD et al., 1973; H AROON AND S MART , 1982) Digitaria gazensis digitgrass * * ( B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; E SSER , 1976) Digitaria procumbens digitgrass * * ( E SSER , 1976) Continued

PAGE 87

87 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Digitaria sanguinalis hairy crabgrass * 1 ^^ 50.0 +/ 7.2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Dysphania botrys Jerusalem oak v ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass ^^ 50.1 +/ 6.5 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Eremochloa ophiuroides centipedegrass * 1 ^^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Erigeron canadensis horseweed * * ( E SSER , 1976) Euphorbia glyptosperma Engelm. ridgeseed spurge ^ 2.2 +/ 0.9 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Euphorbia pulche r rima 'Freedom Red' poinsettia ^ ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; C OX et al., 2006) Festuca arundinacea tall fescue ('Short Top' 2nd source; 'Marathon' 2nd source; 'Kentucky 31' 3rd source) * 1 ^^ 23.8 +/ 5.2; 48.5 +/ 9.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; P RITTS , 1991; R OBBINS , 1973) Fragaria × ananassa strawberry ^ v~ ( B OSHER , 1954; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; L OPEZ P EREZ et al., 2010; P IEDRA B UENA et al., 2006) Fragaria virginiana strawberry 'Earlibelle' * 1 ^^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Fraxinus profunda pumpkin ash * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Glycine max soybean ('Norchie f' 3rd source; 'Horosay' 3rd source; 'Lee' 4th source) ^ ^^ 11.5 +/ 3.4; 19.2 +/ 4.8, v root rot ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; R OBBINS , 1973; W EST AND H ILDEBRAND , 1941) Gladiolus × hortulanus glad iolus ('Beverly A nn') * ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Gossypium sp. cotton ^ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Gossypium hirsutum Cotton ('Maxxa'; 'Stoneville 7A' 3rd source) * 1 ^ 58.6 +/ 9.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; C ROW et al., 2000b; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Helianthus annuus sunflower * 1 ^ ( E SSER , 1976; O VERMAN , 1970; R ICH AND D UNN , 1982) Hemarthria altissima swamp grass * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Continued

PAGE 88

88 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Hemerocallis sp. daylily * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Hordeum vulgare barley ('603' 1st source; 'Wade' 4th source) ^ ^^ 15.8 +/ 4.2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; R OBBINS , 1973) Ilex crenata Japanese holly ('Convexa'; 'Helleri'; 'Latifolia') * ^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Ilex opaca American holly * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Indigofera hirsuta hairy indigo * v v^* ( E SSER , 1976; M ORRIS AND W ALKER , 2002; O VERMAN , 1970; R EDDI , 1983; R HOADES , 1978; R HOADES , 1985; R ICH AND R AHI , 1995; R ODRIGUEZ K ABANA AND C ANULLO , 1992; T AYLOR et al., 1985) Ipomoea batatas sweet potato ('Century' 3rd source) ^ ^ ^ ( C LARK AND M OYER , 1988; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; R OBBINS , 1973) Ipomoea purpur ea purple morning glory * 1 ^^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Jun iperus chinensis Pfitzer Chinese juniper * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Gymnosporangium j uniperus virginia nae Virginia red juniper * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Lactuca canadensis lettuce ('Yuma') v^^ 11.4 +/ 3.2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Lactuca sativa let tuce ('Great L akes') * 1 ^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Lespedeza sp . Japanese clover * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Lespedeza striata var. k obe Kobe lespedza ~ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Liatris spicata dense blazing star * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Liquidamba r styraciflua American sweetgum * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Liriodendron tulipifera tulip tree * * ( E SSER , 1976) Lolium sp . ryegrass ^ ( L AUTZ , 1959) Lolium multi florum Tetila/Italian ryegrass * 1 ^ ^ 36.1 +/ 5.9 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; M C L EOD , 1994) Continued

PAGE 89

89 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass ^ 43.1 +/ 6.3, v Verticillium 2nd source ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; S HANKS AND C HAMBERLAIN , 1993; Y OHALEM AND H ALL , 2009) Lupinus angustifolius bitter blue lupine v ( G OOD AND T HORNTON , 1956) Lupinus micranthus lupine 'Russell's Hybrid' ^ 6.8 +/ 1.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Lupinus luteus sweet yellow lupine ~ * 1 ( E SSER , 1976; G OOD AND T HORNTON , 1956) Lycoper sicon esculentum tomato ('Pixie'; 'Floradel' 3r d source) * 1 ^ *1 ^ v~ 13.6 +/ 4.5 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953 ; L OPEZ P EREZ et al., 2010; P IEDRA B UENA et al., 2006; R OBBINS , 1973) Magnolia virginiana sweetbay magnolia * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Malus sylvestris apple * 1 ^^ 1/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Medicago sativa alfalfa ('CUF 10' 3rd source) ^ 3.7 +/ 0.7, v black root rot ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; S EIGIES AND P RITTS , 2003) Melilotus alba Hubam sweetclover ~ * 1 ( E SSER , 1976; G OOD AND T HORNTON , 1956) Mentha spicata spearmint ^ ( I NSERRA AND R HOADES , 1989) Mucuna sp. velvet bean ~ ( B ROOKS , 1945; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Mucuna pruriens velvet bean *1 ^ ( C ROW et al., 2001; E SSER , 1976) Musa sp . banana/plantain * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Nephrolepis exaltata sword fern * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Nicotiana sp . tobacco v ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Nicotiana tabacum tobacco ('Hicks' 3rd source) * v 0.5 +/ 0.08 or 0.2 +/ 0.06 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 2000; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Ocimum basilicum common basil ^ ^ ( R HOADES , 1988) Oxalis sp . wood sorrel * 1 ^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Continued

PAGE 90

90 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass ~ ^^ 22.5 +/ 4.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Paspalum notatum cv. 'Pensacola' Bahiagrass * 0 ^ ( B OYD AND P ERRY , 1970; E SSER , 1976) Paspalum vaginatum seashore paspalum ( P ANG et al., 2011) Pennisetum glaucum pearl millet ('TifGrain 102'; 'Starr' 3rd source) ^^ 20.6 +/ 4.5 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R O BBINS , 1973; T IMPER AND H ANNA , 2005) Pennisetum typhoideum bajra grain * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Phaseolus lunatus lima bean 'Henderson Bush' ^^ 44.6 +/ 8.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Phaseolus vulgaris Bush bean ('Blue Lake Bush'; 'Wade stringless' 2nd source) * 1 ^^ 26.8 +/ 4.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Philodendron obtusum philodendron * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Philodendron oxycardium heart leaf philodendron * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Phytolacca americana pokeweed * 0 v ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Pinus clausa Florida spruce * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Pinus palustris longleaf pine seedling s * 1 ~ ( E SSER , 1976; R UEHLE , 1973) Pinus taeda loblolly pine * 1 ^ 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Pisum sativum pea, Austrian winter pea ~ * 1 University of Florida 1973 ( E SSER , 1976; G OOD AND T HORNT ON , 1956; P UDASAINI et al., 2006) Plantago lanceolata English plaintain * v ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Platanus occidentalis sycamore seedlings; American sycamore * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976; R UEHLE , 1967) Poa annua annual bluegrass ^^ 13.1 +/ 5.2 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; R OBBINS , 1973) Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass ^^ 25.0 +/ 6.0 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Polys tichum adiantiformis leatherleaf fern * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Portulaca oleracea purslane ^^ 19.2 +/ 4.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Prunus persica peach ('Lovell') * 1 ^ 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Continued

PAGE 91

91 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Pyrus communis common pear * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Quercus nigra white oak * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. sativus radish ('Cherry Belle' 2nd source) ^ 14.3 +/ 5.0, v Verticillium ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; Y OHALEM AND H ALL , 2009) Rhododendron × obtusum Azalea ('Redwing') ^^ 3/4 ( R OBBINS , 1973) Rosa fortuni ana evergreen Cherokee rose * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Rumex crispus curly/yellow dock * 1 ^^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Sabal palmetto palmetto * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Saccharum officinarum sugarcane * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) C asuarina equisetifolia Australian pine tree * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Secale cereale rye (winter rye 4th source; 'Abruzzi' 5th source) ^ ^ 57.0 +/ 12, v Verticillium dahliae loamy & >v sandy (3rd source) ( A NDREEVA , 1983; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; M ICHEL AND L AZZERI , 2011; R OBBINS , 1973) Sesbania grandiflora hummingbird tree *1 ^ ^ ( E SSER , 1976) Sesbania herbacea sesbania *1 ^ *1 ^ ^ ( B ROOKS , 1954; E SSER , 1976; O VERMAN , 1970; R HOADES , 1967; R HOADES , 1978; R HOADES , 1985) Sisymbrium irio London rocket ^ 8.5 +/ 1.8 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Solanum melongena eggplant ('Bambino' 2nd source; 'Black beauty' 3rd source) ^ ^^ 33.5 +/ 3.6 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; B ROOKS , 1954; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Solanum nigru m black nightshade ^^ 32.7 +/ 6.5 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Solanum tuberosum potato ('California White'; Irish potato 3rd source) * 1 ^^ 12.4 +/ 6.1 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; C ROW et al., 2000a; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Sorghum bicolor grain sorghum/ sudangrass ^ ~ ( R HOADES , 1978) Sorghum bicolor subsp. drummondii sudangrass *1 *1 ( E SSER , 1976) Sorghum bicolor × S. ar undinaceum sorghum sudangrass ('Red Top' 4th source; 'Sanita' 4th source) ^ ^ 22.0 +/ 5.8; 52.3 +/ 10.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; C ROW et al., 2001; O VERMAN , 1970; R HOADES , 1985) Continued

PAGE 92

92 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Sorghum hale pense Johnsongrass * 1 ^^ 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Sorghum × sudanense sorghum sudangrass ^ 33.9 +/ 4.8, v Verticillium ( B E KAL AND B ECKER , 1998; Y OHALEM AND H ALL , 2009) Spinacia oleracea spinach 'Bloomsdale' ^^ 18.4 +/ 4.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Sporobolus indicus smutgrass ^^ 49.7 +/ 11 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Sporobolus virginicus seashore dropseed * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976 ) Syagrus romanzoffiana queen palm *1 *1 ( E SSER , 1976) Tagetes minuta wild marigold * * ( E SSER , 1976) Tagetes patula French Minuet marigold ^ 0 ( M C L EOD , 1994; R HOADES , 1980a) Taraxacum officinale common dandelion * 1 v 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Tradescantia fluminensis river spiderwort * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Trichostema dichotomum forked bluecurls * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Trifolium incarnatum crimson clover ~ * 1 ( E SSER , 1976; G OOD AND T HORNTON , 1956; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; T HORNTON et al., 1956) Trifolium pratense red clover * 1 ^ ( E SSER , 1976; H ILDEBRAND AND W EST , 1941; R OBBINS , 1973) Trifolium repens ladino clover *1 ~ *1 ( E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Trifolium repens white clover; 'Regal L adino' (3rd source) ^ ( N EUWEILER et al., 2003; R OBBINS , 1973; S HANKS AND C HAMBERLAIN , 1993) Triticum aestivum Wheat ('Yecora Rojo'; 'Blueboy' 2nd source) * 1 ^^ 5.3 +/ 1.3 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Ulmus americana var. floridana Florida elm * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm * 1 ^^ 1/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Uniola paniculata seaside oats * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) Vaccinium ashe i blueberry (rabbit eye 'Garden B lue') * 1 ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Continued

PAGE 93

93 Table A 1. Sting nematode host status and other related information from peer rev iewed studies 1950 present , UF Web of Science All Databases. Scientific Name Common Name B.g. B.l. M.i. Other Source Vaccinium corymbosum blueberry (highbush 'Atlantic') * 1 ^ 3/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Vicia villosa hairy vetch ~ ~ ^ ( E SSER , 1976; G OOD AND T HORNTON , 1956; M ALEK AND J ENKINS , 1964; T HORNT ON et al., 1956) Vigna unguiculata cow pea ('Iron Clay' 4th source; 'Pinkeye Purple Hull' 4th source) ^ *1 ^ *1 v 21.2 +/ 6.2; 30.0 +/ 5.6 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953; R HOADES , 1985; W ANG et al., 20 04a) Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape * 1 ^^ ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Vitis vinifera grape cuttings ^ ( S CHENCK et al., 1962) Xanthium sp . cocklebur ~ ( H OLDEMAN AND G RAHAM , 1953) Xanthium pennsylvanicum common cocklebur * 0 ^ 2/4 ( E SSER , 1976; R OBBINS , 1973) Zea mays subsp. m ays maize ('Golden Jubilee' 3rd source; 'Pionee r 309 AMF' 4th source; 'Golden M idget' 4th source) * 1 ^^ 30.6 +/ 8.1 ( A NDREEVA , 1983; B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998; E SSER , 1976; L AUTZ , 1959; R OBBINS , 1973) Zoysia sp. zoysiagrass ('De Anza'; 'Emerald'; 'Victoria') ^^ 16.1 +/ 3.7; 9.2 +/ 1.5; 20.9 +/ 4.7 ( B EKAL AND B ECKER , 1998) Zoy sia japonica zenith zoysia * 1 * 1 ( E SSER , 1976) B.g. = Belonolaimus gracilis , B.l. = Belonolaimus longicaudatus , M.i. = Meloidogyne incognita , 0 = non host , 1 = host , = resistant , ~ = maintains population , ^ = increases population , ^^ = more than four fold increase in population , v = decreases population could either be referring to B.g. or B.l . S ymbols with fractional exponent s display the indicated propert ies for as many of four strains of B . longicaudatus as are de signated in the numerator based on Robbins , 1973 . Information in the M.i. column are incidental to the designated searches . Host information for root knot nematode is available for many of the plants listed which do not have a data entry for the M.i. column. Numbers in the Other column represent final B . longicaudatus numbers at the end of a referenced study divided by initia l numbers. Other details included in the Other column are incidental to the designated search es , and are not comprehensive of other properties in the literature. Continued

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX B BIOASSAY SUMMARY Materials for the bioassay included foam bowls (Hefty Foam Bowls, 20 Oz; Lincolnshire, IL, USA), potting mix (Foxfarm Soil & Fertilizer Company, Ocean Forest, Smart Naturals® Potting Soil; Pageland, SC, USA), soil from Dover, and eight kinds of seed (oats , cv. LAO500 6 ; oats , cv. Legend 567 ; cucumber, Cucumis sativas L. cv. Straight Eight ; flax, Linum usitatissimum L.; radish, Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. sativus L. Domin cv. Cherry Belle ; rye , cv. FL 401 ; rye, cv. Wrens Abruzzi ; triticale, cv. Trical® 342 ). The potting mix contained the equ ivalent of 4 1 7 fertilizer (NPK) , and was composed of aged forest products, peat moss, sea going fish emulsion, crab meal, shrimp meal, earthworm castings, bat guano, kelp meal, oyster shell, and 5% perlite. Each seed type had four foam bowls of potting mix (the control) and four foam bowls of Dover soil, except the flax, which only had two of each due to limited Dover soil supply. In each bowl, seed was planted in an equidistant five by three grid. Pictures were taken and germination/emergence rates reco rded every day Nov. 11 Nov. 28 except Nov. 18 and 23, and heights taken Nov. 17, 20, and 28. Replication of this bioassay design could be improved by matching nitrogen rates in the control and the Dover soil. Fertilizer was not added to the Dover soil b owls, which may have had some confounding effects on the results due to the 4 1 7 balance of the potting mix control. It would also be ideal to water more frequently than once daily, because the soil dried out quickly. According to Dr. Ramdas Kanissery who has expertise in the fate and degradation of herbicides in the soil, the differences observed between the Dover and control soils appeared to be consistent with herbicide residue, and it was considered unlikely either the glyphosate or the paraquat were t he source of the herbicide residue. It was further concluded that Dover soil

PAGE 95

95 negatively affected the broadleaf species evaluated ( Fig. B 1), and the winter cereal species evaluated in the bioassay appeared to be more tolerant than the broadleaf sp ecies ( Fi g. B 2).

PAGE 96

96 Figure B 1. Broadleaf results from one replication for the Dover bioassay. Broadleaf plants in the potting mixture had better emergence and growth. Broadleaf plants in the Dover soil had poor emergence and deformed leaves. Photo credit: Lillian Pride. cucumber soil flax soil radish soil cucumber control flax control radish control

PAGE 97

97 Figure B 2. Winter cereal cover results from one replication for the Dover bioassay. Winter cereals grew similarly in both the potting mix and the Dover soil media, although the rapidity of soil drying in the Dover soil resulted in plant dryness. Photo credit: Lillian Pride. soil oats soil soil control oats control control soil control triticale soil triticale control

PAGE 98

98 APPENDIX C PROCEDURE FOR RESET TING THE LYSIMETER When the ratchet clamp attached to the tube going to the lysimeter is unclamped, it caus es water in the tubing and the lysimeter to drain towards the negative vacuum pressure of the Erlenmeyer flask. When the pressure is released, the tubing should be left open until water stops moving into the Erlenmeyer flask . If there is a lot of water in the tubing, it may take a few seconds before the first drop is drawn into the Erlenmeyer flask, and water may drip slowly at first. One obvious indication of when the tubing is empty is when the flow speeds up and the tube s tarts audibly sucking air , though that does not always happen. If no water is drawn into the Erlenmeyer flask, progress to the next step. After all the water in the lysimeter is drawn into the Erlenmeyer flask , t he ratchet clamp attached to the tube going to the lysimeter should then be reclamped. Remove t he rubber stopper from the Erlenmeyer flask and pour the water from the Erlenmeyer flask into a cup marked to measure volume and record the volume . (For this study, the water was weighed.) Dampen the rubb er stopper and place the rubber stopper securely in the mouth of the Erlenmeyer flask again . Unclamp the ratchet clamp attached to the tube going to the Erlenmeyer flask and insert the nozzle of the hand pump into the tube . Pump until the pressure indicator r ises to 40 kPa vacuum pressure. Re clamp t he ratchet clamp attached to the tube going to the Erlenmeyer flask and remove the hand pump from the tube. Troubleshooting If the pump cannot be pressurized to 40 kPa vacuum pressure , two possible problems are that the pump might be dirty or the lysimeter might be dry. Dirt in the pump components may cause tiny gaps at their joining from which air can escape. Dry lysimeters also cannot hold pressure. Lysimeters need to be saturated in order to work properly, and if they were not

PAGE 99

99 saturated prior to insertion or they were left in dry soil for an extended period of time, they will be dry and un able to hold pressure. A dirty hand pump is the easier fix, so troubleshooting should begin wit h cleaning the pump. Take the hand pump apart, wash each piece with water, and put it back together again. If that was the only problem, it should now be possible to pump the lysimeter to 40 kPa vacuum pressure. If that does not fix the problem , use a syri nge to inject water into the lysimeter by unclamping the ratchet clamp attached to the tube going to the lysi meter and injecting water into the tubing with the syringe , until it is either no longer possible to inject water or water starts dripping into the Erlenmeyer flask. Reclamp that tube , and unclamp the other one. If there is any water in the Erlenmeyer flask, remove the rubber stopper from the Erlenmeyer flask, pour out the water from the Erlenmeyer flask, and place the rubber stopper again securely i n the mouth of the Erlenmeyer flask. Place the nozzle of the hand pump in the unclamped tube and try pressurizing the lysimeter to 40 kPa vacuum pressure. Since injecting the water removed all vacuum pressure, it may be necessary to pump many times before the gauge indicator moves, but if the problem was that the lysimeters had previously been dry, it should now be possible to pump the lysimeter to 40 kPa vacuum pressure. All other troubleshooting questions should be directed to the Soil Measurement Systems technical team (Tucson, AZ; 520 742 4471) .

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX D CALCULATING IRRIGATION UTILIZATION WITHIN THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOT Since only part of the sprinkler output area fell inside the research plot, a Microsoft® E xcel workbook (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond , WA) was designed to determine the irrigation that was utilized within the experimental plot . Based on the assumption that the water distributed by each sprinkler was uniform within its entire irrigated area, a workbook was used to complete the following calculations: 1) Total sprinkler output outside the plot Percentage sprinkler output area outside the plot multiplied by total sprinkler output, summed for all sprinklers. 2) Total sprinkler output inside the pl ot Total sprinkler output for all sprinklers subtracted by total sprinkler output outside the plot for all sprinklers. Workbook Development Equations for calculating the sprinkler number, scenario name, and area by scenario code for each possible sprinkler formation classification were developed in a Code Generator spreadsheet also included in the workbook. The code generator linked to the appropriate data cells for each sprinkler formation classification and then applied the appropriate equation to every s prinkler formation classification. Developing the equation portion of the data entry spreadsheet in this way minimized human error within each equation, optimized traceability, and allowed for easy equation corrections and user manipulations if desired. An y changes to the spreadsheets (inserting cells, etc) will not alter the accuracy of the equations in the Code Generator as long as the user links the cells of the Code Generator to the appropriate spreadsheet prior to changes. The Code Generator is current ly linked to the Blank Sheet spreadsheet. After the Code Generator generated the number, scenario name, and area by scenario code equations for each formation classification, the equations were copied into the equation portion of the Blank Sheet spreadshee t.

PAGE 101

101 In order to produce the equations in the Code Generator which were then copied into the Blank Sheet, all possible sprinkler output scenarios were identified (Table D 1). In order to limit the amount of information needed for the calculations, the equations for quantifying the area irrigated by a sprinkler outside the plot under each scenario were developed based on the relative position of each sprinkler to each plot edge, the output radius of the sprinkler, and the sprinkler flow rate. Sprinklers were classified both by their position in the sprinkler formation (formation classification) and their position relative to the plot edges (scenario type; Fig. D 1, D 2, and D 3). By crafting the equations in that way, the only data requi red to be entered into the workbook were sprinkler spacing, sprinkler formation, plot dimensions, sprinkler output radius, and sprinkler flow rate. The workbook was then used to determine how many sprinklers there are for each formation classification base d on that information, and under what scenario they belonged. If the sprinklers were not equally spaced on all edges, the distance of the distalmost sprinkler to its closest plot edge was input manually and the workbook calculated the distance of the dista lmost sprinkler to the other plot edges and the distance of the central sprinkler to all plot edges, based on the criteria illustrated in Fig. D 4. If equally spaced, the workbook did all those calculations automatically based on the sprinkler formation an d plot size. The distance of the sprinkler to the plot edges was then combined with sprinkler output radius entered manually into the workbook to calculate sprinkler area, non segments, and segments (Fig. D 5), which were the building blocks of all the sce nario equations in Table D 1. The sprinkler flow rate was calculated for each location (Citra, Dover) and sprinkler type (conventional, microsprinkler) by dividing the total sprinkler flow recorded on the field flow meters by the number of sprinklers and t he length of time the sprinklers were running. The one exception is that since the flow meter malfunctioned for the conventional impact sprinklers at Citra, sprinkler flow rate for the

PAGE 102

102 conventional impact sprinklers at Citra is based on readings from the c onventional impact sprinklers at Dover. Combined inches of irrigation water accumulated in the row middles were estimated based on the assumption that half of the irrigation falling on the distalmost impermeable beds ran off distally (outside the research plot) and half ran off proximally (toward the first row middle of the research plot), and all of the irrigation water of the central impermeable beds ran off into the row middles. Gallons per acre and inches were then converted to cubic meters per hectare and centimeters, respectively. The workbook includes instructions and assumptions at the beginning of the data entry spreadsheet. The generic version of the data entry spreadsheet is named Blank Sheet. The Blank Sheet spreadsheet is meant to be copied so t here are as many copies as there are different irrigation setups. Each spreadsheet is then supposed to be renamed and data entered based on the circumstances of each irrigation setup. Data entry cells in the data entry spreadsheets requiring data entry fro m the workbook user are highlighted for ease of user identification. Workbook Use for This Study This study included four irrigation setups : Citra (C) conventional ( CV ) irrigation, C microsprinkler ( MS ) irrigation, Dover (D) CV irrigation, and D MS irriga tion. T he Blank Sheet was copied four times , renamed by acronym, and filled in appropriately. After irrigation within the research plot was calculated for each irrigation setup, an Overall Calculations spreadsheet was generated which calculated the m 3 /ha d uring the eight days of establishment under each setup, the ratio of CV to MS irrigation and MS to CV irrigation at each location, percent permeable plot area under each setup, percent impermeable plot area under each setup, and combined inches of irrigati on water accumulated in the row middles under each setup.

PAGE 103

103 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation circular segment 1 edge 1.1 segment inside 1 sg1 half circle 1 edge 1.2 half on 1 0.5 * A circle area minus circular segment 1 edge 1.3 minus outside 1 A sg1 two circular segments across 2 two edge 2e.1 segment segment inside inside r < d2 1 sg1 + sg3

PAGE 104

104 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation half circle plus circular segment 2 two edge 2e.2 segment half inside on r < d2 2 sg1 + 0.5 * A circle area minus close plus far circular segments 2 two edge 2e.3 segment minus inside outside r < d2 2 A + sg1 sg3 two circular segments adjacent 2 corner 2c.1 segment segment inside inside r < SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) r > d2 1 sg1 + sg2 two overlapping circular segments 2 corner 2c.2 segment segment inside inside r > SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) 1 A nsg12 Continued

PAGE 105

105 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation half circle plus half circular segment 2 corner 2c.3 segment half inside on 2 0.5 * (sg1 + A ) circle area minus circular segment plus overlap 2 corner 2c.4 segment minus inside outside r > d2 2 sg1 + nsg12 three quarters 2 corner 2c.5 half half on on 1 0.75 * A circle area minus half circular segment 2 corner 2c.6 half minus on outside 2 A 0.5 * sg2 Continued

PAGE 106

106 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation circular area minus circular segment overlap 2 corner 2c.7 minus minus outside outside 1 2 * A (nsg12 + sg1 + sg2) three circular segments 3 three side 3.1 segment segment segment inside inside inside r < SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) r < SQRT (d2 2 + d3 2 ) 1 sg1 + sg2 + sg3 three circular segments one overlap 3 three side 3.2 segment segment segment inside inside inside r > SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) r < SQRT (d2 2 + d3 2 ) 2 A nsg12 + sg3 three overlapping circular segments 3 three side 3.3 segment segment segment inside inside inside r > SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) r > SQRT (d2 2 + d3 2 ) 1 2 * A nsg12 nsg23 sg2 Continued

PAGE 107

107 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation half circle plus half and whole circular segments 3 three side 3.4 segment segment half inside inside on r < SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) 2 sg1 + 0.5 * (A + sg2) half circle plus overlapping half and whole circular segments 3 three side 3.5 segment segment half inside inside on r > SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) 2 1.5 * A 0.5 * sg2 nsg12 half circle plus two half circular segments 3 three side 3.6 segment half segment inside on inside 1 0.5 * (A + sg1 + sg3 ) circle area minus close plus far circular segment plus close segment overlap 3 three side 3.7 segment segment minus inside inside outside r < SQRT (d1 2 + d2 2 ) 2 sg1 + sg2 + nsg23 Continued

PAGE 108

108 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation circle area minus close plus far circular segment plus close minus far segment overlap 3 three side 3.8 segment segment minus inside inside outside r > SQRT (d1 2 + d 2 2 ) 2 A nsg12 + nsg23 circle area minus circular segment plus two overlaps 3 three side 3.9 segment minus segment inside outside inside 1 sg1 + nsg12 + (sg2 + sg3 + nsg2 3 A) three quarters plus half circular segment 3 three side 3.10 segment half half inside on on 2 0.5 * sg1 + 0.75 * A circle area minus half close plus half far circular segment 3 three side 3.11 segment half minus inside on outside 2 A + 0.5 * (sg1 sg3 ) Continued

PAGE 109

109 Table D 1 . Sprinkler properties under each possible scenario where part of the sprinkler output area falls outside the plot. Scenario name Scenario visual Nu mber of edges Scenario type Scenario code Area categories Edge categories Condition(s) Number of formations General area equation circle area minus half close circular segment plus segment overlap 3 three side 3.12 segment minus half inside outside on 2 sg1 + nsg12 + 0.5 * sg2 circle area minus close plus far segment overlap 3 three side 3.13 segment minus minus inside outside outside 2 A + sg1 + nsg12 nsg23 sg3 Regarding h ere the sprinkler output radius extends outside the plot; sprinkler output area (circular segment, half circle, circular are a minus circular segment) sprinkler in relation to the categorized with the same categories but different general area equations; me; and of the sprinkler sprinkler output radius, SQRT = square root, d = the distance from the sprinkler to the specified plot edge, sg = circular segment (the area of the circular segment formed by the sprinkler output area and the specified plot edge), A = sprinkler output area, and nsg = non segment (the sprinkler output area leftover after subtracting the area of two overlapping circular segments formed by the sprinkler output area and the specified plot edges). Continued

PAGE 110

110 Figure D 1. Emitter formation classification for edge scenarios. If emitter output area falls outside two parallel edges or only one edge, it will be classified first as an edge and then further classified based on cardinal edge (N, S, E, W) and position relative to the other emitters (distal, central). Distal emitters are the emitters closest to the edge and central emitters are the next closest to the edge. North and east are prioritized above south and west to the third emitter. The box represents the plot edges, the lines represent the axes, and the red dots represent the possible emitter placement. north distal north central south distal south central west distal west central east distal east central

PAGE 111

111 Figure D 2. Emitter formation classification for corner scenarios. If emitter output area falls outside two perpendicular edges, it will be classified first as a corner and then further classified based on cardin al edges (N, S, E, W) and position relative to the other emitters (distal, central). Distal emitters are the emitters closest to the edge and central emitters are the next closest to the edge. North and east are prioritized above south and west to the thir d emitter. The box represents the plot edges, the lines represent the axes, and the red dots represent the possible emitter placement. north distal east distal north distal east central north central east distal north central east central north distal west central north distal west distal north central west central north central west distal south central east distal south central east central south central west central south central west distal south distal east distal south distal east central south distal west central south distal west distal

PAGE 112

112 Figure D 3. Emitter formation classification for three side scenarios. If emitter output area falls outside three edges, it will be classified first as a three side and then further classified based on cardinal edges (N, S, E, W) and position relative to the other emitters (distal, cen tral). Distal emitters are the emitters closest to the edge and central emitters are the next closest to the edge. North and east are prioritized above south and west to the third emitter for the first cardinal direction in the name. The boxes represent th e plot edges, the lines represent the axes, and the red dots represent the possible emitter placement. northeast central eastnorth central eastnorth distal eastsouth distal eastsouth central northeast distal southeast central southeast distal westnorth distal westsouth distal westnorth central westsouth central northwest distal northwest central southwest central southwest distal

PAGE 113

113 Figure D 4. Two examples of how distances were labelled for calculation purposes. The dot in the center of the circle represents the emitter, and the circle surrounding the dot the output area of the emitter. Emitter output area inside the plot is colored white, whereas emitter output area outside the plot is colored grey. The definition of d1 is the distance of the emitter from a plot edge specified by the first directional term of the emitter placement for an edge and a corner and the second directional term for a three side. The definition of d2 is the distance of the emitter from a plot edge specif ied by the second directional term of the emitter placement for an edge and a corner and the first direction term for a three side. The definition of d3 is the distance of the emitter to the plot edge parallel to d1. The depicted examples are both three si de emitters with eastnorth emitter placement. The emitter can be inside the plot (left picture) or outside the plot (right picture). d1 d2 d3 d2 d1 d3

PAGE 114

114 Figure D 5. Component breakdown of non segments and segments for calculation. Non segments are calculated as a sum of the areas of the square, two triangles, and circular sector formed by the two distances to the edges and the two radii to the edges. Segments are calculated as the difference between the circular sector formed by two radii to the edge and the two triangles formed by the distance to the edge. The dot in the center of the circle represents the emitter, and the circle surrounding the dot the output area of the emitter. Emitter output area inside the plot is colored white, whereas emitter output area outside the plot is colored grey. d1 d2 r r d1

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX E THE EFFECT OF RAIN FALL ON RUNOFF, EROSION, AND SOIL PORE WATER AT DOVER There were two rain events at Dover between Jan . 20 and Feb . 2, 2018 while runoff, erosion, and soil pore water data were being gathered. While the intention of this study was to determine the effect of irrigation applied on runoff, erosion, and soil pore water , data were also gathered for the rain events and are p resented here. Materials and Methods According to FAWN weather data, during the first rain event 0. 25 cm of rain fell from 11 pm on Jan . 22 to 10 am on Jan . 23, and during the second rain event 5.74 cm of rain fell from 4 pm Jan . 28 to 6 am on Jan . 29. Ero sion data were collected Jan . 24 and Feb . 2. Since an erosion sample is a cumulative figure from the period the cloth pot was in place to capture sediment, Jan . 24 data captured the from three days of irrigation and the first rain event, and Feb . 2 data captured the erosion from eight days of irrigation and the second rain event. Data from a single day was analyzed for each rain event analyzed for both runoff and soil pore water. T he day analyzed for the first rain event was the day of the rain event itself for both runoff and soil pore water. Th e day analyzed for the second rain event was the day of the rain event for the soil pore water and the day after for run off. The capacity of all the buckets in both irrigation zones was overwhelmed during the second rain event, and water leaking into the buckets in the conventional irrigation zone from sources other than the designated subplot row middle throughout the stud y invalidated runoff data from the conventional irrigation zone. For that reason, runoff from only the microsprinkler irrigation zone the day after the second rain event was used for analysis during the second rain event. Data analysis was conducted using a GLIMMIX generalized linear mixed model (Statistical Analy sis System , version 9.4; Cary, NC , US) as specified in Table 2 6.

PAGE 116

116 Results and Discussion F or the first (0. 25 cm ) rain event no significant difference in runoff, erosion, and soil pore water was obs erved due to living mulch treatment (Table E 1) . Erosion due to rainfall in the microsprinkler sprinkler irrigation zone was significantly less than in the conventional irrigation zone. Erosion seemed to follow a pattern either of almost total stability or catastrophic erosion hence the reluctance of statistical analysis to yield significant results even though a look at the raw data means clearly shows differences. Most research plots had little erosion, but research plots with erosion had a lot of it, and the research plot which exhibited erosion also varied by day erosion data was taken, implying that erosion did not normally occur, but where it began it continued. Rainfall appeared to be an event of large enough magnitude that it triggered the beginning of erosion. The conventional irrigation was powerful enough that it continued the erosion once it began, and in some cases appeared to trigger the beginning of erosion. Soil pore water did not differ with irrigation zone. T he second ( 5.74 cm ) rain event sh owed no significant difference s for runoff or erosion due to living mulch treatment, but significantly more soil pore water was detected with living mulch treatments than with the no living mulch control (Table E 2) . There was significantly less erosion in the microsprinkler irrigation treatment (51 kg/ha) compared to the conventional irrigation treatment (384 kg/ha). The results indicate that small grain living mulches had greater soil pore water during large rain events than the control. The effects of m ore rain events of various sizes should be assess ed in order to confirm this relationship. Rain events may also exacerbate the erosive capabilities of irrigation. Further, in order to prevent data losses, field drainage and runoff/erosion captu ring device designs should be modified to more effectively assess runoff and

PAGE 117

117 erosion for rain events (larger buckets, modifications to prevent leakage from sources other than the research plots) .

PAGE 118

118 Table E 1. The effect of living mulch and irrigation treat ments on the first three days of erosion including the first rain event , and daily runoff and soil pore water from the first rain event at Dover , Florida, in 2017 2018 . Treatment Runoff zy Erosion yx Soil pore water yx ( m 3 /ha ) ( kg/ha ) ( cm 3 ) Irrigation conventional -... . 8 a .... 79 microsprinklers -.... 1 b .... 49 Living mulch c ontrol 1.00 5 67 o ats 0.54 4 67 r ye 0.81 5 67 t riticale 0.81 5 55 Significance w Irr v -0.00 52 NS ... .... ... LM v NS u . . . NS NS ... .... ... Irr*LM --NS NS ... .... ... z Due to water leaking in from sources other than the designated subplot row middle in the conventional irrigation zone, runoff data from the conventional irrigation zone were omitted . y Data presented are raw, untransformed means. Missing values were accounted for automatically through the SAS GLIMMIX procedure using maximum likelihood analysis. x For analysis, e r osion data were log transformed and s oil pore water data were square root transformed. w Least squares means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS . v Irr and LM stand for irrigation and living mulch , respectively. u NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 119

119 Table E 2. The effect of living mulch and irrigation treatments on the last 8 days of erosion including the second rain event , and daily runoff and soil pore water from the second rain event at Dover , Florida, in 2017 20 18 . Treatment Runoff zy Erosion yx Soil pore water yx ( m 3 /ha ) ( kg/ha ) ( cm 3 ) Irrigation conventional z .. . 384 a .. 57 .. ........ .. microsprinklers -... . 51 b .. 58 .. ........ .. Living mulch c ontrol 2.27 . 164 15 b o ats 1.91 18 70 a r ye 1.99 19 68 a t riticale 12.00 .. 18 76 a Significance w Irr v -0.0004 NS .... ..... .. LM v NS u ... NS 0.0078 . ..... .. Irr*LM --NS NS .... ..... .. z Due to water leaking in from sources other than the designated subplot row middle in the conventional irrigation zone, runoff data from the conventional irrigation zone were omitted . Runoff from the microirrigation plots came from the day after rather than the day of the precipitation event because the microirrigation zone buckets were also overwhelmed by the second rain event. y Data presented are raw, untransformed means. Missing val ues were accounted for automatically through the SAS GLIMMIX procedure using maximum likelihood analysis. x For analysis, erosion data were log transformed and soil pore water data were square root transformed. w Least squares means in columns followed by th e same letter are not significantly different according to the Tukey Kramer adjustment of the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS . v Irr and LM stand for irrigation and living mulch , respectively. u NS is nonsignificant, P > 0.05.

PAGE 120

120 LITERATURE CITED Aballay, E., Sepulveda, R., and Insunza, V., 2004. Evaluation of five nematode antagonistic plants used as green manure to control Xiphinema index Thorne et Allen on Vitis vinifera L. Nematropica 34:45 51. Abukutsa Onyango, M., 2007. Response of slenderleaf ( Crotalaria brevidens Benth) to inorganic nitrogen application. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 7:1 10. Adekunle, O.K., 2011. Amendment of soil with African marigold and su nn hemp for management of Meloidogyne incognita in selected legumes. Crop Protection 30:1392 1395. Albanis, T.A. and Manos, G., 1995. Loss of pendimethalin on surface runoff from plots untilled and tilled with tobacco. International Journal of Environmenta l Analytical Chemistry 58:265 273. Andreeva, V.I., 1983. Results of the testing of some agrotechnical strategies for the control of the strawberry stem nematode. Steblevye nematody sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur i mery bor'by s nimi. (Materialy simpoziuma , Voronezh, 27 29 Sentyabrya 1983 g.). 111 117. Araki, M., Inoue, T., and Sudo, M. 1991. The effects of marketed forage crops on the population of root knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita under field conditions, Association for Plant Protection of Kyushu C onference, 1991. (Proceedings of the Association for Plant Protection of Kyushu 37). Araujo, L.S., Cunha, P.C., Silveira, P.M., Netto, M.S., and Oliveira, F.C., 2015. Potential of ground coverage and suppression of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) by cov er crop residues. Revista Ceres 62:483 488. Arn, D., Gigon, A., and Gut, D., 1997. Bulbous geophytes in vineyards in north eastern Switzerland: conservation and 'close to nature' vineyard management. Zeitschrift fur Okologie und Naturschutz 6:65 74. Arnaul t, I., Fleurance, C., Vey, F., Du Fretay, G., and Auger, J., 2013. Use of Alliaceae residues to control soil borne pathogens. Industrial Crops and Products 49:265 272. Arnhold, S., Ruidisch, M., Bartsch, S., Shope, C.L., and Huwe, B., 2013. Simulation of r unoff patterns and soil erosion on mountainous farmland with and without plastic covered ridge furrow cultivation in South Korea. Transactions of the Asabe 56:667 679. Arnold, M.A., Lesikar, B.J., McDonald, G.V., and Wilkerson, D.C., 2004. A comparison of subcanopy versus overhead application of constructed wetland treated nursery runoff on short and long rotation nursery crops. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 22:217 224.

PAGE 121

121 Aurit, M.D., Peterson, R.O., and Blanford, J.I., 2013. A GIS analysis of the rel ationship between sinkholes, dry well complaints and groundwater pumping for frost freeze protection of winter strawberry production in Florida. PLoS ONE 8. Bamberg, A.L., Cornelis, W.M., Timm, L.C., Gabriels, D., Pauletto, E.A., and Pinto, L.F.S., 2011. T emporal changes of soil physical and hydraulic properties in strawberry fields. Soil Use and Management 27:385 394. Bannayan, M., Nadjafi, F., Rastgoo, M., and Tabrizi, L., 2006. Germination properties of some wild medicinal plants from Iran. Seed Technolo gy 28:80 86. Beckley, V.A., 1935. Soil erosion. Kenya, Department of Agriculture Bulletin :78. Bekal, S. and Becker, J.O., 1998. Host reactions to the California population of sting nematode Belonolaimus longicaudatus . Phytopathology 88:S7. Bekal, S. and Be cker, J.O., 2000. Host range of a California sting nematode population. Hortscience 35:1276 1278. Bello, T.T., Fawole, B., and Claudius Cole, A., 2014. Management of root knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp) on tomato using antagonistic plants. Journal of Biol ogy, Agriculture and Healthcare 4:97 100. Berry, S. and Rhodes, R. 2006. Green manure crops: Agronomic characteristics and effect on nematodes, Annual Congress of the South African Sugar Technologists Association. (Proceedings of the Annual Congress of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 80). Bhan, M., McSorley, R., and Chase, C.A., 2010. Effect of cropping system complexity on plant parasitic nematodes associated with organically grown vegetables in Florida. Nematropica 40:53 70. Bosher, J.E. , 1954. Root lesion nematodes associated with root decline of small fruits and other crops in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science 34:429 431. Boufous, H., Marhoume, F., Chait, A., and Bagri, A., 2017. Ethnopharmacological survey of m edicinal plants with hallucinogenic effect and used against pain, inflammatory diseases, diabetes and urinary lithiasis in Zagora "Morocco". Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology 6:342 350. Boyd, F.T. 1970. Response of various pasture grasses to root injury by the sting nematode (Belonolaimus longicaudatus), Association of Southern Agricultural Workers Conference, 1970. (Proceedings of the Association of Southern Agricultural Workers 71). Boyd, F.T. and Perry, V.G. 1970. The effect of sting nematodes o n establishment, yield, and growth of forage grasses on Florida sandy soils, Annual meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, 1970. (Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 29).

PAGE 122

122 Boyd, F.T., Schank, S.C., Smith, R.L., Hodg es, E.M., West, S.H., Kretschmer, A.E., Jr., Brolmann, J.B., and Moore, J.E., 1973. Transvala digitgrass: A tropical forage resistant to 1. sting nematode, 2. Pangola stunt virus. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station 222:16. Braz, G.B.P., Oliveira, R.S. , Jr., Crow, W.T., and Chase, C.A., 2016. Susceptibility of different accessions of Crotalaria juncea to Belonolaimus longicaudatus . Nematropica 46:31 37. Brennan, E.B. and Smith, R.F., 2018. Mustard cover crop growth and weed suppression in organic, strawberry furrows in California. HortScience 53:432 440. Brooks, A.N., 1945. Strawberry production. Bulletin of the Florida Agricultural Extension Service 125: 1 20. Brooks, A.N. 1954. The sting nematode, Belonolaimus gracilis , Steiner, Annual meeting of the Soil Science Society of Florida, 1954. (Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of Florida 14). Bunting, A.H. and Lea, J.D., 1962. The soils and vegetation o f the Fung, East Central Sudan. Journal of Ecology 50:529 568. Cahn, M., Bolda, M., and Smith, R., 2006. Winter cover crops for reducing storm run off and protecting water quality in strawberries. Crop Notes 6:2 4. Caltrans, 2003. Storm water quality handb ooks, Construction site best management practices manual. State of California Department of Transportation, California. Cantliffe, D.J., Tang, A.C., and Guedes, A.C., 1980. Seed treatment of hairy indigo ( Indigofera hirsuta L) to overcome hard seed dormanc y. HortScience 15:518 520. Caswell, E.P., Defrank, J., Apt, W.J., and Tang, C.S., 1991. Influence of non host plants on population decline of Rotylenchulus reniformis . Journal of Nematology 23:91 98. Charchar, J.M. and Huang, C.S., 1981. Host range of Prat ylenchus brachyurus , 3: Different species. Fitopatologia Brasileira 6:469 474. Chase, C.A., Braz, G., and Garrick, T. 2015. Off season weed and sting nematode management for organic strawberry, American Society for Horticultural Science Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. (Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science 112). Chellemi, D.O., Noling, J.W., and Sambhav, S., 2014. Organic amendments and pathogen control: Phytopathological and agronomic aspects. Acta Horticulturae 1044:95 103. Che n, C.C., Roseberg, R.J., and Selker, J.S., 2002. Using microsprinkler irrigation to reduce leaching in a shrink/swell clay soil. Agricultural Water Management 54:159 171.

PAGE 123

123 Choi, B., Kim, C., Seong, K., Jeon, W., Cho, H., Jeong, K., Uom, S., Lee, Y., and Kang, U. 2011. Effects of legume cover crops on corn growth and soil conservation in no till, Third Scientific Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research, Namyangju, Korea Republic 2011. (Proceedings of the International Societ y of Organic Agriculture Research 1). Chweya, J.A., 1985. Identification and nutritional importance of indigenous green leaf vegetables in Kenya. Acta Horticulturae 153:99 108. Clark, C.A. and Moyer, J.W., 1988. Nematode diseases, p. 41 49, Compendium of s weet potato diseases. Clark, G.A., Stanley, C.D., Albregts, E.E., and Zazueta, F.S. 1989. Surface runoff during sprinkler irrigation of mulched bed grown strawberries, Annual meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, 1989. (Proceedings of th e Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 48). Claudius Cole, A.O., Fawole, B., and Asiedu, R., 2015. Population changes of plant parasitic nematodes associated with cover crops following a yam ( Dioscorea rotundata ) crop. Tropical Plant Pathology 40:193 1 99. Clement, C.R. and DeFrank, J., 1998. The use of ground covers during the establishment of heart of palm plantations in Hawaii. HortScience 33:814 815. Costa, J.M., Ortuno, M.F., and Chaves, M.M., 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: Ph ysiology and potential application to horticulture. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49:1421 1434. Cowley, G.S., 1951. Restoration of grass cover in semi arid regions in E. Africa. New Commonwealth 21:407 408. Cox, C.J., McCarty, L.B., Toler, J.E., Lew is, S.A., and Martin, S.B., 2006. Suppressing sting nematodes with Brassica sp., poinsettia, and spotted spurge extracts. Agronomy Journal 98:962 967. Craig, R.M. and Smith, D.C. 1979. Vegetation in areas stripmined for limestone, Annual meeting of the Soi l and Crop Science and Society of Florida, 1979. (Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 38). Craig, R.M. and Smith, D.C. 1980. Vegetation in areas stripmined for phosphate, Annual meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florid a, 1980. (Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 39). Creamer, N.G. and Baldwin, K.R., 2000. An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. HortScience 35:600 603.

PAGE 124

124 Crow, W.T., Weingartner , D.P., Dickson, D.W., and McSorley, R., 2001. Effect of sorghum sudangrass and velvetbean cover crops on plant parasitic nematodes associated with potato production in Florida. Journal of Nematology 33:285 288. Crow, W.T., Weingartner, D.P., McSorley, R., and Dickson, D.W., 2000a. Damage function and economic threshold for Belonolaimus longicaudatus on potato. Journal of Nematology 32:318 322. Crow, W.T., Weingartner, D.P., McSorley, R., and Dickson, D.W., 2000b. Population dynamics of Belonolaimus longica udatus in a cotton production system. Journal of Nematology 32:210 214. Crozier, P., 1998. Permanent ground cover and mulch: Agricultural aspects (in French). Phytoma 511:42 45. Crops and Soils (CS). 1965. Marigold cover crop reduces nematodes. Crops and Soils . 18:17. California Strawberry Commission (CSC), 2018. California strawberry farming. California Strawberry Commission, Watsonville, CA. 20 Nov 2018. < http://www.calstrawberry.com/Portals/2/Reports/Industry Reports/Industry Fact Sheets/C alifornia Strawberry Farming Fact Sheet 2018.pdf?ver=2018 03 08 115600 790 >. Dara, S.K., Sandoval Solis, S., and Peck, D., 2016. Improving strawberry irrigation with micro sprinklers and their impact on pest management. Agricultural Sciences 7:859 868. Dau govish, O., Faber, B., Cahn, M., and Dara, S., 2016. Increasing number of drip irrigation lines for water conservation during strawberry establishment. International Journal of Fruit Science 16:108 117. Delabays, N., Spring, J.L., Ancay, A., Mosimann, E., and Schmid, A., 2000. Selection of species for ground cover in special crops. Revue Suisse de Viticulture, d'Arboriculture et d'Horticulture 32:95 104. Delgado H, H., Navas R, G.E., Salamanca S, C.R., and Chacon D, A., 2009. Legume improved fallows: a prom issory agroecological alternative for allelopathic weed control in rice and maize crops in the Colombian Eastern Plains. Agronomia Colombiana 27:227 235. Delgado, J., Reeves, W., and Follett, R., 1999. Use of winter cover crops to conserve soil and water q uality in the San Luis Valley of South Central Colorado . CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Deschamps, S. and Agehara, S., 2018. Stripes are back in style: Using metalized striped plastic mulch to improve early strawberry yields. Quarterly FSHS Newsletter 27:5 6. Donko, A., Miglecz, T., Valko, O., Tothmeresz, B., Deak, B., Kelemen, A., Torok, P., Zanathy, G., Zsigrai, G., and Drexler, D., 2015. Intercropping experiments in Hungarian vineyards. Hungarian Agricultural Research 24:31 34.

PAGE 125

125 Ekeleme, F., Akobundu, I.O., F adayomi, R.O., Chikoye, D., and Abayomi, Y.A., 2003. Characterization of legume cover crops for weed suppression in the moist savanna of Nigeria. Weed Technology 17:1 13. Erasmo, E.A.L., Azevedo, W.R., Sarmento, R.A., Cunha, A.M., and Garcia, S.L.R., 2004. Potential of species used as green manure in the integrated weed management. Planta Daninha 22:337 342. Esser, R.P., 1976. Sting nematodes, devastating parasites of Florida crops. Nematology Circulars, Division of Plant Industry, Florida 18:1 2. Florida A utomated Weather Network (FAWN), 2018. Data access: Report generator. IFAS Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 11 Jun 2018. < https://fawn.ifas.ufl.edu/ >. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consum er Services (FDACS), 2015. Water quality/quantity best management practices for Florida vegetable and agronomic crops. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL. 04 Jul 2018. < https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/77230/2220421/vegAgCropBMP loRes.pdf >. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), 2017. Florida statewide agricultural irrigation demand: Estimated agricultural water demand, 2015 2040. The Balmoral Group, Winter Park, FL. 06 Jul 2018. < https://www.freshfromflorida.com/Business Services/Water/Agricultural Water Supply Planning >. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), 2018. Status of implementation of agricultural nonpoint source best management practices. Office of Agricultural Water Policy, Tallahassee , FL. 20 Jul 2018. Ferreira, A.C., Lamas, F.M., Carvalho, M.C., Salton, J.C., and Suassuna, N.D., 2010. Cover crops biomass production and cotton yield in no tillage system. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 45:546 553. Foshee, W.G., Goff, W.D., Patterson, M.G., and Ball, D.M., 1995. Orchard floor crops reduce growth of young pecan trees. Hortscience 30:979 980. Florida Strawberry Growers Association (FSGA), 2018. Florida Strawberry Growers Association website. Florida Strawberry Growers Association, Plant City, FL. 26 Nov 2018. < https://floridastrawberry.org/ >. Fuelleman, R.F. and Graber, L.F., 1938. Renovation and its effect on the populations of weeds in pastures. Jour nal of the Amer ican Soc iety of Agron omy 30:616 623. Gardiner, T.J. and Kawabe, Y., 1983. A note on soil conservation by pasture improvement. Journal of Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales 39:102 104.

PAGE 126

126 Gaudefroy Demombynes, P., 1957. Observations on soil cover (in French). Bull Agron 15: 25 33. Gaweda, D., Wesolowski, M., and Kwiatkowski, C.A., 2014. Weed infestation of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) depending on the cover crop and weed control method. Acta Agrobotanica 67:77 84. Gerber, J.F. and Martsolf, J.D. 1965. Protecting citrus from cold damage. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Golden, E.A., Duval, J.R., Albregts, E.E., and Howard, C.M., 2003. HS947 Intermittent sprinkler irrigation for establishment of bare root strawberry transplants. Hort icultural Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Dover, FL. < http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/IR /00/00/27/24/00001/HS19200.pdf >. Good, J.M. and Thornton, G.D., 1956. Relative increases of populations of sting nematode, Belonolaimus gracilis , on six winter legumes. Plant Dis Reporter 40:1050 1053. Guha, D.P. and Pandey, S.N., 1960. Performance trial o f grasses and legumes at Deochanda. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation in India 8:20 29. Harender, K., Pankaj, and Jagan, L., 2012. Crotalaria juncea for the management of root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Indian Journal of Nematology 42:53 56. Haroon, S. and Smart, G.C., 1984. Effects of 8 species of nematodes on Pangola and Transvala digitgrasses. Nematologica 30:241 243. Haroon, S.A. and Smart, G.C., 1982. An evaluation of 2 cultivars of Digitaria decumbens as biological control agents of some endo parasitic and ecto parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology 14:444 445. Hartwig, N.L. and Ammon, H.U., 2002. Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Science 50:688 699. Hayslip, N.C. and et al., 1964. Tomato and pangolagrass rotation for sandy soils of south Florida. Circulars of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station S 153:24. Hernandez Columbie, T. and Guardado Lacaba, R., 2014. Erosion control in the tailings ponds of nickel industries using bioengineering techniques. Mineria y Geologia 30:55 69. Heuzé, V., Thiollet, H., and Tran, G., 2017. Slenderleaf ( Crotalaria brevidens ). Feedipedia, 30 Jul 2018. < https://www.feedipedia.org/node/315 >. Hildebrand, A.A. and West, P.M., 1941. Strawberry root rot in relation to microbiological changes induced in root rot soil by the incorporation of certain cover crops. Canadian Journal of Research, Section C: Botany Science 19:183 198.

PAGE 127

127 Hochmuth, G., Cantliffe, D., Chandler, C., Stanley, C., Bish, E., Waldo, E., Legard, D., and Duval, J., 2006a. Containerized strawberry transplants reduce establishment period water use and enhance early grow th and flowering compared with bare root plants. HortTechnology 16:46 54. Hochmuth, G., Cantliffe, D., Chandler, C., Stanley, C., Bish, E., Waldo, E., Legard, D., and Duval, J., 2006b. Fruiting responses and economics of containerized and bare root strawbe rry transplants established with different irrigation methods. HortTechnology 16:205 210. Holdeman, Q.L. and Graham, T.W., 1953. The effect of different plant species on the population trends of the sting nematode. Plant Disease Reporter 37:497 500. Huffma n, J.W., 1955. Plastic mulch reduces strawberry fruit rot. Market Growers' Journal 84:9 9. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), 1980. Research highlights 1979. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. <://CABI:19580700922>. Imbamba, S.K., 1973. Leaf protein content of some Kenya vegetables. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 38:246 251. Inomoto, M.M., Antedomenico, S.R., Santos, V.P., Silva, R.A., and Almeida, G.C., 2008. Greenhouse evaluati on of the potential of sorghum, pearl millet and crotalaria in the management of Meloidogyne javanica . Tropical Plant Pathology 33:125 129. Inserra, R.N. and Rhoades, H.L., 1989. Some nematode problems of spearmint in Florida. Nematology Circular 167:3. Ju nor, R.S., 1978. Control of wind erosion on coal ash. Journal of the Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales 34:8 13. Kaspar, T.C., Radke, J.K., and Laflen, J.M., 2001. Small grain cover crops and wheel traffic effects on infiltration, runoff, and ero sion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56:160 164. Khuong, N.B. and Smart, G.C., Jr., 1975. The effects of Belonolaimus longicaudatus on growth of collard, kale and cauliflower. Plant Disease Reporter 59:819 822. Kim, H.W., Kim, H.J., and JungWooJin, 2011. Effects of green manure crops on red pepper yields and soil physico chemical properties in the vinyl house. Korea Journal of Organic Agriculture 19:215 228. Kimaru, S.L., Kimenju, J.W., Onyango, C.M., and Kilalo, D. 2013. Effect of root knot nematod es on the growth of indigenous leafy vegetables in Kenya, African Crop Science Conference, Entebbe, Uganda 2013. (Proceedings of the African Crop Science Conference 11).

PAGE 128

128 Kimenju, J.W., Kagundu, A.M., Nderitu, J.H., Mambala, F., Mutua, G.K., and Kariuki, G. M., 2008. Incorporation of green manure plants into bean cropping systems contribute to root knot nematode suppression. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 7:404 408. Kimenju, J.W., Kagundu, A.M., Nderitu, J.H., Omuolo, F.M., and Mutua, G.K. 2007. Use of green manure plants in cropping systems to suppress root knot nematodes, African Crop Science Society Conference, El Minia, Egypt 2007. (Proceedings of the African Crop Science Society Conference 8). Kokalis Burelle, N. and Rosskopf, E.N., 2012. Susceptibility of several common subtropical weeds to Meloidogyne arenaria , M. incognita , and M. javanica . Journal of Nematology 44:142 147. Kutsuwa, K., Dickson, D.W., Brito, J.A., Jeyaprakash, A., and Drew, A., 2015. Belonolaimus longicaudatus : An Emerging Pathogen of Peanut in Florida. Journal of Nematology 47:87 96. LaMondia, J.A., 1999. Influence of rotation crops on the strawberry pathogens Pratylenchus penetrans , Meloidogyne hapla , and Rhizoctonia fragariae . Journal of Nematology 31:650 65 5. Lautz, W.H., 1959. Increase of Belonolaimus longicaudatus on various plant species in artificially inoculated soil. Plant Disease Reporter 43:48 50. Lentz, R.D. and Sojka, R.E., 2009. Long term polyacrylamide formulation effects on soil erosion, water i nfiltration, and yields of furrow irrigated crops. Agronomy Journal 101:305 314. Letourneau, G., Caron, J., Anderson, L., and Cormier, J., 2015. Matric potential based irrigation management of field grown strawberry: Effects on yield and water use efficien cy. Agricultural Water Management 161:102 113. Lewelling, B.R., Tihansky, A.B., and Kindinger, J.L. 1998. Assessment of the hydraulic connection between ground water and the Peace River, West Central Florida. US Geological Survey, Department of the Interio r, Tallahassee, FL. Linares, J., Scholberg, J., Boote, K., Chase, C.A., Ferguson, J.J., and McSorley, R., 2008. Use of the cover crop weed index to evaluate weed suppression by cover crops in organic citrus orchards. HortScience 43:27 34. Lopez Perez, J.A., Roubtsova, T., De Cara Garcia, M., and Ploeg, A., 2010. The potential of five winter grown crops to reduce root knot nematode damage and increase yield of tomato. Journal of Nematology 42:120 127. Malek, R.B. and Jenkins, W.R., 1964. Asp ects of the host parasite relationships of nematodes and hairy vetch. Bull. New Fers. Agriec. Experiment Station 813:31.

PAGE 129

129 Marahatta, S.P., Wang, K. H., Sipes, B.S., and Hooks, C.R.R., 2010. Strip tilled Cover Cropping for Managing Nematodes, Soil Mesoarthro pods, and Weeds in a Bitter Melon Agroecosystem. Journal of Nematology 42:111 119. Marella, R.L. and Berndt, M.P. 2005. Water withdrawals and trends from the Floridan Aquifer System in the southeastern United States, 1950 2000. Reston, VA. Marla, S.R., Hue ttel, R.N., and Mosjidis, J., 2008. Evaluation of Crotalaria juncea populations as hosts and antagonistic crops to manage Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus reniformis . Nematropica 38:155 161. Martin, P., Joannon, A., and Piskiewicz, N., 2010. Tempora l variability of surface runoff due to cropping systems in cultivated catchment areas: Use of the DIAR model for the assessment of environmental public policies in the Pays de Caux (France). Journal of Environmental Management 91:869 878. Mashela, P., McSo rley, R., and Duncan, L.W., 1992. Damage potential and reproduction of Belonolaimus longicaudatus and Hoplolaimus galeatus on alyceclover. Journal of Nematology 24:438 441. Masilionyte, L., Maiksteniene, S., Kriauciuniene, Z., Jablonskyte Rasce, D., Zou, L ., and Sarauskis, E., 2017. Effect of cover crops in smothering weeds and volunteer plants in alternative farming systems. Crop Protection 91:74 81. Matos, E.d.S., Cardoso, I.M., Souto, R.L., de Lima, P.C., and Mendonca, E.d.S., 2011. Characteristics, resi due decomposition, and carbon mineralization of leguminous and spontaneous plants in coffee systems. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42:489 502. McLeod, R., 1994. Covercrops and inter row nematode infestation in vineyards 3. Further tests on increase of root knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica ) and tests on increase of citrus nematode ( Tylenchulus semipenetrans ). Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 369:45 47. McSorley, R., 1999. Host suitability of potential cover crops for root knot nematodes. Journal of Nematology 31:619 623. McSorley, R. and Dickson, D.W., 1995. Effect of tropical rotation crops on Meloidogyne incognita and other plant parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology 27:535 543. McSorley, R., Dickson, D.W., Debrito, J.A., Hewlett, T.E., and Frederick, J.J., 1994. Effects of tropical rotation crops on Meloidogyne arenaria population densities and vegetable yields in microplots. Journal of Nematology 26:175 181. Megahan, W.F., Wilson, M., and Monsen, S.B., 2001 . Sediment production from granitic cutslopes on forest roads in Idaho, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:153 163.

PAGE 130

130 Merten, G.H. and Minella, J.P., 2005. Impact on sediment yield due to intensification of tobacco production in a catchment in Sou thern Brazil. Ciência Rural 36:669 672. Michel, V. and Lazzeri, L., 2011. Green manures to control Verticillium wilt of strawberry. International Organization for Biological Integrated Control, West Palaearctic Regional Section Bulletin 70:81 86. Miglecz, T., Valko, O., Toeroek, P., Deak, B., Kelemen, A., Donko, A., Drexler, D., and Tothmeresz, B., 2015. Establishment of three cover crop mixtures in vineyards. Scientia Horticulturae 197:117 123. Mineta, T., Hidaka, K., Enomoto, T., and Oki, Y., 1997. Change s in weed communities in direct seeded paddy fields under Astragalus sinicus L. living mulch and no tillage cultivation during three years. Journal of Weed Science and Technology 42:88 96. Mislevy, P. 1979. Encroachment of common Bermudagrass ( Cynodon dact ylon L.) in subtropical and tropical perennial grasses, Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference, Beltsville, MD. (Proceedings of the Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference 36). Moore, G.A., Albertsen, T.O., Ramankutty, P., Nichols, P.G.H., Titterington, J.W., and Barrett Lennard, P., 2014. Production and persistence of subtropical grasses in environments with Mediterranean climates. Crop & Pasture Science 65:798 816. Morris, J.B. and Walker, J.T., 2002. Non traditional legum es as potential soil amendments for nematode control. Journal of Nematology 34:358 361. Murungu, F.S., Chiduza, C., and Muchaonyerwa, P., 2010. Biomass accumulation, weed dynamics and nitrogen uptake by winter cover crops in a warm temperate region of Sout h Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:1632 1642. Murungu, F.S., Chiduza, C., Muchaonyerwa, P., and Mnkeni, P.N.S., 2011. Mulch effects on soil moisture and nitrogen, weed growth and irrigated maize productivity in a warm temperate climate of South Africa. Soil & Tillage Research 112:58 65. Musa, A., Medo, I., Maric, I., and Marcic, D., 2017. Acaricidal and sublethal effects of a Chenopodium based biopesticide on the two spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae ). Experimental and Applied Acar ology 71:211 226. Muzilli, O., Lugao, S.M.B., Fidalski, J., Soares, D., Ribeiro, M.F.S., and Fagundes, A.C., 1992. Green manuring for improving soils under coffee in the region of Arenito Caiua. Preliminary results for the season 1989/90. Informe da Pesquisa Instituto Agr onomico do Parana 16:14. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2012a. California 2012 census volume 1, chapter 2: County level data. United States Department of Agriculture, 17 Nov 2018. < https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapt er_2_County_Level/California/st06_2_033_033.pdf >.

PAGE 131

131 National Agricultural Statistics Servic e (NASS), 2012b. Florida 2012 census volume 1, chapter 2: County level data. United States Department of Agriculture, 05 Jul 2018. < https: //www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_ County_Level/Florida/ >. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2018. Vegetables 2017 summary. United States Department of Agriculture, 07 Jun 2018. < http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm 02 13 2018.pdf >. Navarro, A.R. 1969. Crop rotation for the control of parasitic nematodes in the Cauca Valley, Annual meet ing of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. (Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 28). Neuweiler, R., Bertschinger, L., Stamp, P., and Feil, B., 2003. The impact of ground cover management on soil nitrogen levels, parameters of vegetative crop development, yield and fruit quality of strawberries. European Journal of Horticultural Science 68: 183 191. Noling, J.W., 1997. ENY 031/NG031 Nematode management in strawberries. Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL. 29 Jun 2018. < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ng031 >. Noling, J.W. 20 11. Estimating strawberry yield and sting nematode impacts using counts of plant sizes and fruit stems, Florida State Horticultural Society Annual Meeting. (Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 124). Noling, J.W., 2015. New insights relat ing the spatial distribution and management of nematodes in Florida soils. Journal of Nematology 47:260 260. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), 1964. Accession: PI 299837 GRIN Global Web v 1.10.2.8. National Plant Germplasm System, Beltsville, MD. 3 1 Jul 2018. < https://training.ars grin.gov/gringlobal/AccessionDetail.aspx?id=1226445 >. Oakes, A.J., Langford, W.R., Schank, S.C., Roush, R.D., and Hodges, E.M., 1980. Winter hardiness in new Digitaria germplasm. Agronomy Journal 72:457 459. Opit, G.P., Fitch, G.K., Margolies, D.C., Nechols, J.R., and Williams, K.A., 2006. Overhead and drip tube irrigation affect twospotted spider mites and their biological control by a predatory mite on impatiens. HortScience 41:691 694. Osei, K., Gowen, S.R., Pembroke, B., Brandenburg, R.L., and Jordan, D.L., 2010. Potential of Leguminous Cover Crops in Management of a Mixed Population of Root knot Nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.). Journal of Nematology 42:173 178. Osorio Rosa, J.M., Westerich, J.N., and Siciliano Wilcken, S.R., 2015. Meloidogyne enterolobii reproduction on vegetable crops and plants used as green manure. Revista Ciencia Agronomica 46:826 835.

PAGE 132

132 Overman, A.J. 1970. Nematodes and cover crops in chrysanthemum ranges, Florida State Horticultural Society Annual Meeting. (Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 82). Pang, W., Luc, J.E., Crow, W.T., Kenworthy, K.E., McSorley, R., Kruse, J.K., and Giblin Davis, R.M., 2 011. Responses of Seashore Paspalum Cultivars to Sting and Spiral Nematodes. Crop Science 51:2864 2867. Parr, M., Grossman, J.M., Reberg Horton, S.C., Brinton, C., and Crozier, C., 2011. Nitrogen delivery from legume cover crops in no till organic corn pro duction. Agronomy Journal 103:1578 1590. Passos, A.M., Aker, A.M., Costa, R.S., Santos, F.C., Leite, V.P., and Marcolan, A.L., 2017. Effect of cover crops on physico chemical attributes of soil in a short term experiment in the Southwestern Amazon region. African Journal of Agricultural Research 12:3339 3347. Pereira, N.S., Soares, I., and de Miranda, F.R., 2016. Decomposition and nutrient release of leguminous green manure species in the Jaguaribe Apodi region, Ceara, Brazil. Ciencia Rural 46:970 975. Phom panjai, P., Kogram, C., Tungjitsomkid, N., Srisombat, N., Srithongchai, W., Jansong, N., and Saithanu, B. 2013. Control of root gall disease in chili caused by root knot nematodes, SEAVEG Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand. (Proceedings of SEAVEG 1). PiedraB uena, A., Garcia Alvarez, A., Diez Rojo, M.A., and Bello, A., 2006. Use of crop residues for the control of Meloidogyne incognita under laboratory conditions. Pest Management Science 62:919 926. Pires, A.P.C., Oliveira, M.C., Braga, K.M., Malafaia, P., Bar ros, J.P.N., Tokarnia, C.H., and Brito, M.F., 2015. Study about the sensitivity of goats to the toxicity of Crotalarias poisonous for cattle aiming their use for prophylactic measures. Pesquisa Veterinaria Brasileira 35:501 512. Pritts, M.P., 1991. Use of cover crops in pest management strategies for strawberries. HortScience 26:791 791. Pudasaini, M.P., Viaene, N., and Moens, M., 2006. Effect of marigold ( Tagetes patula ) on population dynamics of Pratylenchus penetrans in a field. Nematology 8:477 484. Que senberry, K.H. 1978. Forage grass breeding at the University of Florida USA, Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference. (Proceedings of the Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference 35). Rashid, A., Sharma, P., and Evans, I. 200 1. Plant bioassay techniques for detecting and identifying herbicide residues in soil. Alberta Research Council, Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Vegreville, Alberta.

PAGE 133

133 Rattray, J.M., 1947. Giant Rhodes grass pastures at Trelawney. Rhodesia Ag ricultural Journal 44:259 263. Rau, G.J. 1958. A new species of sting nematode, Meeting of the Helminthol Society of Washington, 1958. (Proceedings of the Helminthol Society of Washington 25). Reddi, C.K., 1983. Nitrogen fixation and nematode resistance of 13 tropical legumes. Dissertation Abstracts International, B 44:380B 380B. Rensburg, H.J., 1955. Run off and soil erosion tests, Mpwapwa, Central Tanganyika. East African Agricultural Journal 20:228 231. Rhoades, H.L., 1964. Nutsedge, and important host o f plant nematodes in Florida. Plant De Rep 48:994 995. Rhoades, H.L. 1965. Effect of Crotalaria spectabilis and Sesbania exaltata on plant nematode populations and subsequent yield of snap beans and cabbage, Florida State Horticultural Society Annual Meeti ng. (Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 77). Rhoades, H.L., 1967. Nematodes: Their effects and control on vegetable and ornamental crops. Annual Report Florida Agricultural Experimental Stations :113. Rhoades, H.L., 1969. Nematicide effi cacy in controlling sting and stubbyroot nematodes attacking onions in Central Florida. Plant Disease Reporter 53:728 730. Rhoades, H.L., 1975. Effect of Indigofera hirsuta L. on populations of Belonolaimus longicaudatus , Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and subsequent yields of cabbage, cucumbers and snap beans. Nematropica 5:27 28. Rhoades, H.L., 1976. Effect of Indigofera hirsuta on Belonolaimus longicaudatus , Meloidogyne incognita , and Meloidogyne javanica and subsequent crop yields. Plant Dis ease Reporter 60:384 386. Rhoades, H.L. 1978. Indigofera hirsuta as a summer cover crop for controlling Belonolaimus longicaudatus and Meloidogyne incognita in Florida, U.S.A, International Congress of Plant Pathology, Munchen, GFR 1978. (Proceedings of th e International Congress of Plant Pathology 3). Rhoades, H.L. 1980a. Effects of summer cover crops on nematodes attacking vegetables in Florida, International Nematology Symposium of the European Society of Nematologists, Bari, Italy 1980. (Proceedings of the European Society of Nematologists 15). Rhoades, H.L., 1980b. Relative susceptibility of Tagetes patula and Aeschynomene americana to plant nematodes in Florida, USA. Nematropica 10:116 120. Rhoades, H.L., 1983. Effects of cover crops and fallowing on p opulations of Belonolaimus longicaudatus and Meloidogyne incognita and subsequent crop yields. Nematropica 13:9 16.

PAGE 134

134 Rhoades, H.L., 1985. Effects of summer cover crops and fallowing on populations of Belonolaimus longicaudatus and Meloidogyne incognita and yields of subsequent vegetable crops. Nematropica 15:122 122. Rhoades, H.L., 1988. Effects of several phytoparasitic nematodes on the growth of basil, Ocimum basilicum. Journal of nematology 20:22 24. Rice, P.J., Hapeman, C.J., McConnell, L.L., Sadeghi, A. M., Teasdale, J.R., Coffman, C.B., McCarty, G.W., Abdul Baki, A.A., and Starr, J.L., 2007a. Evaluation of vegetable production management practices to reduce the ecological risk of pesticides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:2455 2464. Rice, P.J. , Harman Fetcho, J.A., Sadeghi, A.M., McConnell, L.L., Coffman, C.B., Teasdale, J.R., Abdul Baki, A., Starr, J.L., McCarty, G.W., Herbert, R.R., and Hapeman, C.J., 2007b. Reducing insecticide and fungicide loads in runoff from plastic mulch with vegetative covered furrows. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55:1377 1384. Rich, J.R. and Dunn, R.A., 1982. Pathogenicity and control of nematodes affecting sunflower in north central Florida. Plant Disease 66:297 298. Rich, J.R. and Rahi, G.S., 1995. Supp ression of Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita on tomato with ground seed of castor, crotalaria, hairy indigo, and wheat. Nematropica 25:159 164. Rios, C.E., Abreu, A.G., Braga Filho, J.F., Nascimento, J.R., Guerra, R.N., Amaral, F.M., Maciel, M.C., and Nascimento, F.R., 2017. Chenopodium ambrosioides L. improves phagocytic activity and decreases bacterial growth and the systemic inflammatory response in sepsis induced by cecal ligation and puncture. Frontiers in Microbiology 8:148. Ritzinger, C.H.S.P., M cSorley, R., and Gallaher, R.N., 1998. Effect of Meloidogyne arenaria and mulch type on okra in microplot experiments. Journal of Nematology 30:616 623. Robbins, R.T., 1973. Morphology and ecology of the sting nematode, Belonolaimus longicaudatus . Disserta tion Abstracts International 33B:5605 5606. Robinson, A.F., Cook, C.G., and Bridges, A.C. 1998. Comparative reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita race 3 (cotton root knot nematode) and Rotylenchulus reniformis (reniform nematode) on cotton, kenaf, and sunn hemp, Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Diego, CA. (Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences 1). Rodriguez Kabana, R. and Canullo, G.H., 1992. Cropping systems for the management of phytonematodes. Phytoparasitica 20:211 224. Rosskopf, E.N., Chellemi, D.O., Kokalis Burelle, N., and Church, G.T., 2005. Alternatives to methyl bromide: A Florida perspective. Plant Health Progress :1 25. Ruehle, J.L., 1967. Sting nematode damage to sycamore seedlings. Nematologica 13:151 &.

PAGE 135

135 Ruehle, J.L., 1973. Influence of plant parasitic nematodes on longleaf pine seedlings. Journal of Nematology 5:7 9. Ruidisch, M., Kettering, J., Arnhold, S., and Huwe, B., 2013. Modeling water flow in a plastic mulched ridge cultivation system on hillslopes affected by South Korean summer monsoon. Agricultural Water Management 116:204 217. Ryder, M.H. and Fares, A., 2008. Evaluating cover crops (sudex, sunn hemp, oats) for use as vegetative filters to control sediment and nutrient loading from agricultural runoff in a Hawaiian watershed. J ournal of the American Water Resources Association 44:640 653. Sandanam, S. and Rajasingham, C.C., 1982. Effects of mulching and cover crops on soil erosion and yield of young tea. Tea Quarterly 51:21 26. Santos, B.M., Huang, P.W., Salame Donoso, T.P., and Whidden, A.J., 2014. Strategies on water management for strawberry establishment and freeze protection in Florida. Acta Horticulturae 1049:509 512. Santos, B.M., Salame Donoso, T.P., and Whidden, A.J., 2012. Reducing sprinkler irrigation volumes for straw berry transplant establishment in Florida. HortTechnology 22:224 227. Soil Conservation Authority, Victoria. (SCA VA). 1971. Agronomical studies: Stabilization of eroded areas. Soil Conservation Authority, Victoria. 22:30 32. Schank, S.C., Boyd, F.T., Smith, R.L., Hodges, E.M., West, S.H., Kretschmer, A.E., Brolmann, J.B., a nd Moore, J.E., 1990. Registration of Transvala digitgrass. Crop Science 30:1368 1369. Schenck, N.C., Mortensen, J.A., and Stover, L., 1962. Sting nematode on grape cuttings in Florida. Plant Disease Reporter 46:446 447. Seigies, A. and Pritts, M., 2003. C over crop alternatives for strawberry replant preparation. HortScience 38:658 659. Seigies, A. and Pritts, M., 2006. Cover crop rotations alter soil microbiology and reduce replant disorders in strawberry. HortScience 41:1303 1308. Shanks, C.H. and Chamberlain, J.D., 1993. Strawberry fruit yield and vegetative growth and pest populations in plantings with and without cover crops. HortScience 28:1172 1173. Siller, A.R.S., Albrecht, K.A., and Jokela, W.E., 2016. Soil erosion and nutrient runoff in corn silage production with aura clover living mulch and winter rye. Agronomy Journal 108:989 999.

PAGE 136

136 Singh, R.J., Ghosh, B.N., Sharma, N.K., Patra, S., Dadhwal, K.S., Meena, V.S., Deshwal, J.S., and Mishra, P.K., 2017. Effect of seven years of nutrient supplementation through organic and inorganic sources on productivity, soil and water conservatio n, and soil fertility changes of maize wheat rotation in north western Indian Himalayas. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 249:177 186. Singh, Y.P., Singh, G., and Sharma, D.K., 2014. Bio amelioration of alkali soils through agroforestry systems in cent ral Indo Gangetic plains of India. Journal of Forestry Research 25:887 896. Sipes, B.S. and Arakaki, A.S., 1997. Root knot nematode management in dryland taro with tropical cover crops. Journal of Nematology 29:721 724. Soffes, A.R., Prine, G.M., and Dunn, R.A., 1980. Nitrogen fixation and effect on plant parasitic nematodes by eight legume cover crops. Agronomy Abstracts, American Society of Agronomy 72:105. Sosamma, V.K. and Jayasree, D., 2002. Effect of leaf extracts on the mortality of root knot nematod e, Meloidogyne incognita , juveniles. Indian Journal of Nematology 32:201 203. Sourakov, A., 2015. You are what you eat: Native versus exotic Crotalaria species ( Fabaceae ) as host plants of the Ornate Bella Moth, Utetheisa ornatrix ( Lepidoptera : Erebidae : A rctiinae ). Journal of Natural History 49:2397 2415. Southards, C.J. and Nichols, B.C., 1972. Population dynamics of Meloidogyne incognita in crop rotations of tobacco, sod and forage crops. Journal of Nematology 4:234. Stamps, R.H., Fowler, R., and Rhoades , H.L. 1995. Effects of nematodes on growth of ming fern ( Asparagus macowanii) , Florida State Horticultural Society Annual Meeting, 1995. (Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 108). Sterrett, S.B., Hohlt, H.E., and Savage, C.P., 2005. Alt ernative management strategies for tomato affect cultural and economic sustainability. HortScience 40:602 606. TAES, 1942. TEXAS Agricultural Experiment Station fifty fifth and fifty sixth annual reports. Annual report of the TEXAS Agricultural Experiment Station 55 56:45. Taylor, S.G., Baltensperger, D.D., and Prine, G.M., 1985. Reaction of pigeonpea lines and five other warm season legumes to root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 4:45 47. Thompson, W.R., 1935. Rainfall, soil erosion and run off in South Africa. University of Pretoria Serial No. I 29:31. Thornton, G.D., Eno, C.F., and Smith, F.B., 1956. Influence of soil management practices on nematodes in Florida soils. Report of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stati ons :134.

PAGE 137

137 Thrower, L.B., 1958. Observations on the root knot nematode in Papua New Guinea. Tropical Agriculture 35:213 217. Tihansky, A.B., 1999. Sinkholes, West Central Florida: A link between surface water and ground water. United States Geological Survey Circular, 17 Jun 2018. < https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/15WCFlorida.pdf >. Timper, P. and Hanna, W.W., 2005. Reproduction of Belonolaimus longicaudatus , Meloidogyne javanica , Paratrichodorus minor , and Pratylenchus brachyurus on pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum ). Journal of Nematology 37:214 219. Torres Quezada, E.A. and Santos, B.M., 2013. Effects of plugging methods on the performance of containerized strawberry transplants. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 126:128 130. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS), 2016. Raised bed plastic mulch integrated system. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 05 Jul 2018. < https://research.ifas.ufl.edu/main menu tab/research/greatest ufifas unit accomplishments/raised bed plastic mul ch integrated system/ >. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS), 2018. Growing strawberries. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 06 Jul 2018. < http://sfyl.ifas.ufl.edu/lawn and garden/growing strawberries/ >. Uiso, F.C. and Johns, T., 1996. Risk assessment of the consumption of a pyrrolizidine alkaloid containing indigenous vegetable Crotalaria brevidens (Mitoo). Ecology of Food and Nutriti on 35:111 119. Univer, T., Pork, K., and Univer, N., 2009. Living grass mulches in strawberry cultivation. Agronomy Research 7:532 535. Uotila, P., 2013. Dysphania sect. Botryoides ( Amaranthaceae s.lat.) in Asia. Willdenowia 43:65 80. United States Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA), 2018a. PLANTS Database: Cover crops. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 29 Apr 2018. < https://plants.usda.gov/about_cover_crops.html >. United States Department o f Agriculture (USDA), 2018b. Web soil survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 19 Apr 2017. < https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx >. Vallad, G.E., Smith, H.A., Dictar, P.J., and Freeman, J.H. 2017. 2017 2018 Vegetable production handbook of Florida. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Van Biljon, E.R., Mc Donald, A.H., and Fourie, H., 2015. Population responses of plant parasitic nematodes in selected crop rotations over five seasons in organic cotton production. Nematropica 45:102 112.

PAGE 138

138 Viljoen, P. and Groenewald, W., 1995. The use of grasses as a weed management technique in a degraded riparian site. South African Forestry Journal 173:49 52 . Wallis, J.A.N. 1962. Herbicides in Kenya coffee 1962, British Weed Control Conference, Brighton, ENG 1962. (Proceedings of the British Weed Control Conference 6). Wang, K. and McSorley, R., 2005. Screening leguminous cover crops for suppressiveness again st Meloidogyne incognita . Phytopathology 95:S109. Wang, K. H., McSorley, R., Gallaher, R.N., and Kokalis Burelle, N., 2008. Cover crops and organic mulches for nematode, weed and plant health management. Nematology 10:231 242. Wang, K.H., McGovern, R.J., M cSorley, R., and Gallaher, R.N. 2004a. Cowpea cover crop and solarization for managing root knot and other plant parasitic nematodes in herb and vegetable crops, Annual meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. (Proceedings of the Soil and C rop Science Society of Florida 63). Wang, K.H., McSorley, R., and Gallaher, R.N., 2004b. Effect of Crotalaria juncea amendment on squash infected with Meloidogyne incognita . Journal of Nematology 36:290 296. Wang, K.H., McSorley, R., and Gallaher, R.N., 20 04c. Effect of winter cover crops on nematode population levels in north Florida. Journal of Nematology 36:517 523. Wang, K.H., McSorley, R., Gallaher, R.N., and Tubbs, R.S. 2002a. Effects of winter and fall cover crops on plant parasitic nematode populati on development, Annual Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture, Auburn, AL 2002. (Proceedings of the Annual Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture 25). Wang, K.H., Sipes, B.S., and Schmitt, D.P., 2 002b. Crotalaria as a cover crop for nematode management: A review. Nematropica 32:35 57. Wang, Q., Li, Y., Handoo, Z., and Klassen, W., 2007a. Influence of cover crops on populations of soil nematodes. Nematropica 37:79 92. Wang, Q., Li, Y., Klassen, W., and Alva, A., 2012. High retention of N P nutrients, soil organic carbon, and fine particles by cover crops under tropical climate. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32:781 790. Wang, Q., Li, Y., Klassen, W., and Handoo, Z., 2007b. Influence of cover cr ops and soil amendments on okra ( Abelmoschus esculentus L.) production and soil nematodes. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:41 53. Warren, N.D., Smith, R.G., and S ideman, R.G., 2015. Effects of living m ulc h and fertilizer on the performance of bro ccoli in p lasticulture. HortScience 50:218 224.

PAGE 139

139 Webster, T.M. and Cardina, J., 2004. A review of the biology and ecology of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Science 52:185 200. Webster, T.M., Scully, B.T., Grey, T.L., and Culpepper, A.S., 2013. Winter cover crops influence Amaranthus palmeri establishment. Crop Protection 52:130 135. West, P.M. and Hildebrand, A.A., 1941. The microbiological balance of strawberry root rot soil as related to the rhizosphere and decomposition effects of certain cover crops. Canadian Journal of Research 19:199 210. Williams, F.R., 1953. Pasture Research SubStation, Melsetter. Report on experimental work for the year ended 30th September, 1952. Rhodes ia Agricultural Journal 50:391 406. Winchester, J.A., Hayslip, N.C., and Kretschmer, A.E. 1962. Plant nematode distribution as affected by crop history of sandy soils in South Florida, Florida State Horticultural Society Annual Meeting, 1962. (Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 75). Winkler, H. and Otto, G., 1979. Replant losses with strawberries and suggestions for their reduction. Gartenbau 26:212 213. Wright, D.L., Whitty, E.B., and Blount, A.R., 1992. SS AGR 150/AA127 Planting dates, rates, and methods of agronomic crops. Agronomy Department, UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL. 29 Apr 2016. Yang, S., Liang, S., Yi, L., Xu, B., Cao, J., Guo, Y., and Zhou, Y., 2014. Heavy metal accumulation and phytostabilization potential of dominant plant species growing on manganese mine tailings. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 8:394 404. Yohalem, D. and Hall, D., 2009. Selection and partial characterisation of biofumigants for management of Verticillium wilt in strawberries. intern ational organisation for biological and integrated control/Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Intégrée (IOPC/WPRS) Bulletin 42:201 206. Zamilpa, A., Garcia Alanis, C., Lopez Arellano, M.E., Hernandez Velazquez, V.M., Valladares Cisneros, M. G., Salinas Sanchez, D.O., and Mendoza de Gives, P., 2018. In vitro nematicidal effect of Chenopodium ambrosioides and Castela tortuosa n hexane extracts against Haemonchus contortus ( Nematoda ) and their anthelmintic effect in gerbils. Journal of Helmintho logy 92:1 6. Zamora Re, M.I., Dukes, M.D., Stanley, C.D., and Werner, H., 2016. Sprinkler irrigation pressure and spacing effect for cold protection of strawberries. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 142. Zavatta, M., Shennan, C., Muramoto, J. , Baird, G., Koike, S.T., Bolda, M.P., and Klonsky, K., 2014. Integrated rotation systems for soilborne disease, weed and fertility management in strawberry/vegetable production. Acta Horticulturae 1044:269 274.

PAGE 140

140 Zazueta, F.S., Albregts, E.E., and Stanley, C.D. 1986. Rainwater harvesting and irrigation tailwater recovery to reduce water use for fruiting strawberry, Annual meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. (Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 45). Zhang, G.S., Li , J.C., Hu, X.B., and Zhang, X.X., 2013a. On farm assessment of soil erosion and non point source pollution in a rain fed vegetable production system at Dianchi lake's catchment, southwestern China. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 96:67 77. Zhang, G.S., Zhang, X.X., and Hu, X.B., 2013b. Runoff and soil erosion as affected by plastic mulch patterns in vegetable field at Dianchi lake's catchment, China. Agricultural Water Management 122:20 27. Zotarelli, L., Fraisse, C., and Dourte, D., 2012. H S1203 Agricultural management options for climate variability and change: Microirrigation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 23 Nov 2015. < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs1203 >.

PAGE 141

141 BIOGRAPHICAL SKET CH Lillian R. Pride was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. In May 2016, she received her BS in Horticultural Sciences Food Production with an Agronomy minor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Beginning that fall, she started her MS degree in Inte rdisciplinary Ecology at the University of Florida under the guidance of Dr. Carlene A. Chase in the Horticultural Sciences Department. Lillian presented at the Florida State Horticultural Society in 2018 . S he currently works as OPS with at the UF Gulf Coast Research and Education Center , setting up research studies and gathering/analyzing research data . She is enthusiastic about using her education to positively impact her community .