LATEST STORIES Robert Bolick paced San Beda with 15 points, five rebounds, and two assists, while Donald Tankoua got 14 markers and nine boards.AC Soberano also shot 2-of-5 from three to wound up with nine points, while Javee Mocon got eight markers and 14 rebounds in the win.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSRedemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie ThompsonSPORTSMayweather beats Pacquiao, Canelo for ‘Fighter of the Decade’SPORTSFederer blasts lack of communication on Australian Open smog“We’re happy we got this win, but we got to go back and think about our priorities,” said coach Boyet Fernandez, obviously disappointed with how the Red Lions played against the Altas.“We only had 11 assists and that’s too low for a San Beda basketball team. Our defense stepped up, but our offense is questionable. We have to go back and review everything. We had a really hard time playing against Perpetual, they’re well-coached. We’re happy we got this one.” Margot Robbie talks about filming ‘Bombshell’s’ disturbing sexual harassment scene Photo by Tristan Tamayo/ INQUIRER.netSan Beda escaped the tough challenge from Perpetual and scored a 55-50 victory in the NCAA Season 93 men’s basketball tournament Tuesday at Filoil Flying V Centre in San Juan.The Red Lions survived the gallant stand from the pesky Altas as they were forced to play in the low-scoring affair before pulling out their 13th straight win and improve to 14-1.ADVERTISEMENT For the complete collegiate sports coverage including scores, schedules and stories, visit Inquirer Varsity. Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next OSG plea to revoke ABS-CBN franchise ‘a duplicitous move’ – Lacson Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. It’s too early to present Duterte’s ‘legacy’ – Lacson Derek Jeter’s group closes on purchase of Miami Marlins Mos Burger to open in Manila; teases with a pop-up In ‘Jojo Rabbit,’ Comedy and Drama Collide DAY6 is for everybody The Scores:SAN BEDA 55 – Bolick 15, Tankoua 14, Soberano 9, Mocon 8, Cabanag 6, Noah 3, Abuda 0, Adamos 0, Bahio 0, Doliguez 0, Oftana 0, Presbitero 0, Tongco 0.PERPETUAL 50 – Coronel 9, Dagangon 9, Pido 9, Eze 8, Ylagan 7, Sadiwa 3, Lucente 2, Yuhico 2, Mangalino 1, Singontiko 0, Tamayo 0.Quarters: 11-11, 27-19, 43-34, 55-50. MOST READ With Perpetual making a huge run late after back-to-back layups from Keith Pido to cut the San Beda lead down to five, 49-44, San Beda went to Tankoua in the last four minutes as he made two timely buckets to quash the uprising.Bolick then put the finishing touches as he canned his freebies in the final minute while also blocking Flash Sadiwa’s late attempt.The Altas fourth straight loss eliminated them out of the playoff race with their 4-10 record.Pido, AJ Coronel, and Gab Dagangon all had nine points and four rebounds in the losing effort.The San Beda defense held Perpetual main man Prince Eze to just eight markers and 11 boards in the loss.ADVERTISEMENT Jake says relationship with Shaina ‘goes beyond physical attraction’ Redemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie Thompson Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard PLAY LIST 02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award How to help the Taal evacuees View comments
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest We have spent a lot of time educating and warning about Palmer amaranth, but while we were doing this, waterhemp has become a more widespread problem. Waterhemp is only a little less fun to deal with than Palmer amaranth, and has a tendency to fairly rapidly develop resistance to any new sites of action used repeatedly against it in POST treatments.Submitted questions and photos to confirm identification of this weed increased substantially this summer over previous years. Waterhemp infestations can be found around the state, with a concentration in west central Ohio. We assume all waterhemp populations are resistant to site 2 herbicides (ALS), but in our screening so far, not all populations are resistant to glyphosate. Populations in western Ohio tend to be glyphosate-resistant at this point, but populations in other parts of Ohio not necessarily so. Some populations that are glyphosate-resistant appear to have developed at least a low level of resistance to site 14 (PPO) herbicides as well.In areas of the Corn Belt further west where waterhemp has been the major glyphosate-resistant weed problem for some time, the evolution of multiple resistance is common. Recent surveys by the University of Illinois determined that approximately 60% of Illinois waterhemp populations were resistant to glyphosate and also to site 2 and 14 herbicides. Due to the tendency for waterhemp to evolve resistance to new sites of action used against it, the U of I recommends a strategy of not using a new site of action (usually PPO) until resistance to glyphosate has been confirmed. So in a field situation where a grower is unsure about resistance, they suggest applying glyphosate to small waterhemp plants, and then monitoring to determine if the population is responding. If there is no response, the next step is immediate application with a PPO inhibitor. The drawback here of course is that glyphosate-resistant waterhemp will continue to grow during this brief period of evaluation following glyphosate application, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the PPO herbicide.Waterhemp requires a combination of residual and POST herbicides, with the goal of applying POST herbicides to plants not more than six inches tall. In a number of Ohio fields with waterhemp that we know of, growers were either unaware they had waterhemp and inadvertently let it get far bigger than this, or were apparently still adhering to the “I’ll spray glyphosate whenever I get around to it — what, me worry” approach. Waterhemp produces a lot of seed and one or two years of this approach will guarantee the presence of waterhemp for years to come.It’s largely too late to provide much helpful guidance for this summer’s waterhemp control programs. What’s essential to accomplish still this year though, for future planning, is to figure out whether a waterhemp population is resistant to glyphosate and/or site 14 herbicides. Fortunately, there is a painless way to do this, through a service offered by the University of Illinois Plant Clinic. Link to the U of I newsletter article that provides the needed information at: http://web.extension.illinois.edu/plantclinic/downloads/WaterhempForm.pdf.In a nutshell, you collect five new leaves that have developed following an herbicide application, and send them to U of I via rapid delivery along with one sample submission form per sample. Cost is $50 per sample, which includes screening for both glyphosate and site 14 herbicides. We highly recommend making this investment where resistance characteristics of a waterhemp population are unknown. This information will inform future decisions on herbicides for control of waterhemp, ensuring that appropriate herbicides are used and that the population does not develop resistance to site 14 herbicides as rapidly. The LibertyLink soybean system is, of course, another option for management of waterhemp, as well as Xtend and Enlist soybean systems whenever they become available. It should be noted that: 1) use of glufosinate, dicamba, or 2,4-D to help manage this weed does not change the approach, and these herbicides must be applied to small plants to control waterhemp; and 2) the assumption is that inappropriate and continued use of these herbicides would lead to the development of resistance to them. And in fact there are already some populations of waterhemp farther west with resistance to 2,4-D.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest One of the requirements for the registration of XtendiMAx, Engenia, and FeXapan is the investigation of any non-performance (ineffective control) by the respective companies, which then has to be reported to the U.S. EPA. The goal of this reporting is apparently to try to track the development of resistance as soon as it occurs in a few fields, which would then allow time to modify practices so that the rate of resistance in other fields is slowed. We encourage growers and consultants to take the time to scout for non-performance, within 14 days after application according to information from labels. Problems with control can be reported to the three companies via online sites or toll-free numbers as follows, or directly to company representatives.Monsanto (XtendiMax) – 1-844-RRXTENDBASF (Engenia) – www.Non-Performance.BASF.USDuPont (FeXapan) – 1-888-6-DUPONTProblems with off-target movement from spray particle drift or vapor drift (volatility) can be reported to the three companies the same way. We would encourage growers experiencing these problems to contact the companies or their representatives, but unlike non-performance, they are not required to investigate and report these to the USEPA. Given that these problems are usually the result of not following label guidelines or appropriate application practices, the primary contact would be the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Contact the ODA Pesticide and Fertilizer Regulation Section at 614-728-6987.