Common bermudagrass is a problematic weed within tall fescue turfgrass. Field research was conducted from 2010 to 2012 in Knoxville, TN, evaluating the efficacy of sequential applications of topramezone (12.5 and 25 g ha−1), triclopyr (1,120 g ha−1), and mixtures of topramezone + triclopyr for bermudagrass control in tall fescue turf. Sequential applications of fenoxaprop + triclopyr (100 + 1,120 g ha−1) were included for comparison. Three applications of each treatment were applied at 21-d intervals during July, August, and September of 2010 and 2011. Plots were stripped to receive tall fescue interseeding at 0 or 490 kg ha−1 during September 2010 and 2011. Bermudagrass control with topramezone + triclopyr mixtures was greater than topramezone or triclopyr applied alone 14 wk after initial treatment (WAIT) each year. In the second year of this study, topramezone + triclopyr mixtures controlled bermudagrass 27 to 50% compared to 27% for fenoxaprop + triclopyr by 52 WAIT. However, bermudagrass control with topramezone + triclopyr mixtures increased to 88 to 92% by 52 WAIT when accompanied with tall fescue interseeding at 490 kg ha−1. Future research should evaluate effects of interseeding on the efficacy of different herbicides for weed control in cool- and warm-season turf.

Turfgrass weed scientists commonly use visual ratings (VR) to assign a numerical value to a turfgrass or weed response. These ratings lack quantifiable numerical values and are considered subjective. Alternatives to VR, including line intersect analysis (LIA) and digital image analysis (DIA), have been used to varying extents in turfgrass research. Alternatives can be expensive, labor intensive, and can require extensive calibration and increased time for data acquisition. Minimal research has been conducted evaluating rating methods used in turfgrass weed science. Trials were conducted in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate ratings methods used to quantify large crabgrass populations as influenced by tall fescue mowing height (2.5, 5.1, 7.6, and 10.2 cm). Percent large crabgrass cover was assessed utilizing VR, LIA, and DIA to determine if differences existed among evaluation methods. Pairwise comparisons, Pearson's correlation, and linear regression were performed to compare evaluations. All rating methods were significantly correlated to one another. Differences of large crabgrass cover estimates existed between LIA and DIA data at all mowing heights and between VR and DIA data at the 7.6 and 10.2 cm mowing heights in 2007. Authors believe that shadows produced by the turf canopy at higher (≥ 7.6 cm) mowing heights increased DIA estimates of large crabgrass cover. At trial initiation in 2007, researchers did not capture calibration images because the methodology to eliminate a shadow influence using a standard digital image had not been published. Additional DIA calibration in 2008 corrected for canopy shadows, and no differences were observed in large crabgrass cover between all evaluation methods indicated by nonsignificance pairwise comparisons and estimated regression parameters. These data indicate VR are no different than LIA or DIA in estimating large crabgrass cover as affected by tall fescue mowing height.