Golf Course Management

MAY 2014

Golf Course Management magazine is dedicated to advancing the golf course superintendent profession and helping GCSAA members achieve career success.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 54 of 155

50 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 05.14 vides pre- and post-emergent control of broad- leaf weeds, woody species, vines and grasses on several non-food use sites, such as rights of way, wildlife management areas, recreational areas, turf/lawns, golf courses and sod farms." The EPA also stated that DuPont con - ducted "roughly 400 effcacy and phytotoxicity feld trials" and that "they (DuPont) reported to EPA that they did not observe adverse ef - fects to trees." Imprelis posed minimal risks to people and pets. Before Imprelis was made available, Scott McElroy, Ph.D., an associate professor of turf - grass and weed science at Auburn University, participated in research trials of aminocyclopy - rachlor about eight years ago when he was an assistant professor of plant sciences at the Uni - versity of Tennessee. He says its broadleaf con- trol in tall fescue was outstanding. "It's still probably the best broadleaf control herbicide I ever worked with," McElroy says. "Don't get me wrong. We still have some great herbicides. But for a single active ingredient at low rates and with the ability to control a wide spectrum, specifcally cool-season turf, there's nothing like it." Labeled for use rates of 3.0 to 4.5 fuid ounces per acre, Imprelis was made to be ab - sorbed into the ground and destroy the root system of weeds. But when it came into contact with certain tree roots, particularly shallow, succulent roots, some of the results proved to be traumatic. The signs appeared in different ways. Nee - dles on frs turned orange or brown. Leaves curled up. Some fell to the ground. Tips of branches and buds showed stress. Tumor-like growths appeared. As part of its investigation into reports of possible damage to trees, the EPA sought to de - termine whether the damage was a "result of product misuse, inadequate warnings and use directions on the product label, persistence in soil and plant material, uptake of the product through the root systems and absorbed into the plant tissue, environmental factors, potential runoff issues or other possible causes." DuPont responded with action following the onslaught of damage claims. The company established open lines of communications for customers. It engaged multiple independent, certifed arborist com - panies to work with customers and evaluate their claims. Among the companies that Du - Pont listed for those fling claims under its Qualifed Tree Replacement process was one that is well-known to golf course superinten - dents, The Davey Tree Expert Co., who agreed to pricing and terms for tree replacement in - cluded in the Claims Resolution Agreement (CRA) that DuPont established. Davey, as did other arborist companies, agreed to provide a limited warranty for the trees that the company plants. One superintendent tells GCM the tree recovery process included slow-release fertiliz - ers, pest treatments and pruning. As part of the CRA, DuPont announced it would pay for care programs and replanting. The company also provided a two-year war - ranty to program participants for all replace- ment trees and paid for efforts to assist recovery of other trees impacted by Imprelis use. DuPont launched a website, http://, to feature the latest infor- mation and provide an avenue to report prob- lems to the company. DuPont also started a toll-free hotline to handle concerns. More than one superintendent told GCM that DuPont was helpful and followed through during the claims process. When it came into contact with certain tree roots, particularly shallow, succulent roots, some of the results proved to be traumatic. A mature white spruce shows signs of damage from Imprelis. 046-053_May14_Imprelis.indd 50 4/17/14 9:27 AM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - MAY 2014