Hort Notes 2024 Vol. 35:10

A monthly e-newsletter from UMass Extension for landscapers, arborists, and other Green Industry professionals, including monthly tips for home gardeners.

Click on the headings below to jump to that section of the newsletter.

The 2025 Mass Aggie Seminars

UMass Extension's Fruit Team honors the tradition of bringing agricultural knowledge to the commonwealth through this series of seminars - the Mass Aggies, detailing the best ways to raise fruit in Massachusetts. Through this series of seminars and workshops the Fruit Team provides a platform for small scale backyard growers and agricultural enthusiasts of all types to come together to learn the latest developments in fruit production. Delve into the cutting-edge information shared in our seminars, curated to empower individuals with the tools and knowledge needed to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of agriculture.

2025 Dates & Topics:

• February 15 - Insects; Pests and Beneficials
• February 22 - Ecological Weed Management in the Home Orchard
• March 1 - Orchard Sustainability Through IPM
• March 22 - Orchard Pruning
• March 29 - Orchard Establishment

For more information, or to register online or by mail visit: https://ag.umass.edu/fruit/news/announcing-2025-mass-aggie-seminar-series

Other Upcoming Events

• February 5 - UMass Extension Periodical Cicada Conference: Brood XIV is Coming to the Bay State!
• March 4 - Community Tree Conference

Featured Plant

Microbiota decussata

Looking for an alternative to groundcover juniper? Siberian carpet cypress has a similar mat forming habit with the fan-like, soft foliage of arborvitae. Microbiota decussata is the singular species in the genus Microbioata. It is closely related to the genus Platycladus, formerly known as Biota. The specific epithet decussata is in reference to the arrangement of the foliage – opposite pairs of scale like leaves held at right angles to the pairs above and below. It’s other common name, Russian arborvitae, refers to its native habitat of Russia where it is endemic to the Sikhote-Alin mountains.

Microbiota decussata is a spreading groundcover growing 8-18” tall and spreading 3-12’ wide, similar in form to groundcover juniper but with branch tips nodding downward. The foliage is dominantly scale-like in flat fan-like spray similar to arborvitae. It occasionally has awl-like foliage but in general has the softer texture of arborvitae. Foliage is bright green in the summer turning bronze-purple in fall and winter. The fruit is tiny berry-like cones with woody scales.

Hardy to zones 3-7, Siberian carpet cypress prefers cooler climates and is not suited for areas with hot humid summers. It does best in an average well-drained soil in full sun to part shade. Although it does best with more sun it is tolerant of more shade. Overall Microbiota decussata is very low maintenance but does not tolerate poorly drained soil which will lead to root rot.  It also has good deer resistance. It is best used as a groundcover for banks and slopes but can also be used a specimen.

Cultivars:

‘Prides’ – Celtic Pride – disease resistant variety; 1-3’ tall and 4-5’ wide

‘Condavis’ Fuzzball – fuzzy bright green foliage; 1-2’ tall by 3’ wide

‘Condrew’ Drew’s Blue – blue-green summer color; 1-2 x 2-3

‘Gold Spot’ – patches of yellow variegation

  ​​​​​​​

Amanda Bayer, Horticulturist

Trouble Maker of the Month

Didymascella leaf blight of Green Giant arborvitae

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Didymascella leaf blight (Didymascella thujina) can be a serious disease of western red-cedar (Thuja plicata) and Oriental arborvitae (Platycladus orientalis) (Sinclair and Lyon 2005). Other common names for the disease include Keithia leaf blight and Cedar leaf blight. In recent years, Green Giant arborvitae (T. plicata × standishii ‘Green Giant’) has become very popular in New England due to their rapid growth rates and dense canopies for screening between neighboring properties. While Japanese arborvitae (T. standishii) is considered resistant to infection, the hybridization with western red-cedar makes Green Giant susceptible. Northern white-cedar (T. occidentalis) is resistant to the disease along with false-cypress (Chamaecyparis species). Therefore, the most common arborvitae cultivars in this region, such as Emerald Green (T. occidentalis ‘Smargd’) and Dark American (T. occidentalis ‘Dark American’), are not considered at risk for the disease.

Due to the popularity of the Green Giant arborvitae, it's conceivable that Didymascella leaf blight may also become more common in future years. However, it’s important to note that this is not a lethal disease of mature trees and is most severe on young seedlings and saplings. Abundant rainfall or overhead irrigation during fungal sporulation can help to initiate disease outbreaks. Needle blight diseases of conifers often develop in the lower canopy where shade and moisture are more abundant. Over time, they can spread upward in the canopy. Regular scouting during the late spring and early summer for the foliar lesions can help to manage this disease. When the immature lesions are detected, these shoots can be pruned and discarded from the canopy before the fungus can sporulate. In certain cases, chemical management may provide some level of additional control. Because the disease is considered relatively rare in the region, regular sanitation pruning may effectively control the pathogen when it's detected.   

Citations

Kope HH. 2018. Cedar Leaf Blight. Pp. 123–125, In Compendium of Conifer Diseases, 2nd edn. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

Sinclair WA and Lyon HH. 2005. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Nicholas J. Brazee, UMass Extension Plant Pathologist

Q&A 

Q: My distributor told me about a new product called Stricore.  What can you tell me about this herbicide that might help me determine If I should use it in my 2025 weed management programs?

A: The active ingredient in Stricore is pethoxamid.  This herbicide is a WSSA group 15 mode of action.  The Group 15 herbicides disrupt the synthesis of certain long-chain fatty acids (VLCFA), hindering plant growth; it is most effective when applied as a pre-emergent herbicide to the soil before weeds germinate.  Dimethenamid, used in the green industry as Tower (dimethenamid only) and Freehand (dimethenamid + pendimethalin), has the same mode of action.

A SePRO product, Stricore is labeled for use on cool-season turf and field-grown, woody ornamentals in a nursery setting.  It is labeled for the control of the following broadleaf weeds: carpetweed, common chickweed, mouseear chickweed, hairy bittercress, henbit, prostrate knotweed, purslane, shephardspurse, speedwell, spotted surge and yellow wood sorrel.  It is labeled for the control of the following grassy weeds and sedges: barnyardgrass, annual bluegrass, large crabgrass, smooth crabgrass, yellow foxtail, goosegrass, fall panicum, sandbur and yellow nutsedge.

With an overview of this new product behind us, let discuss whether you should use Stricore in your 2025 weed management program.  When a new product becomes available the best advice is “go low and go slow”.  You should avoid the temptation to think “wow, shiny, let’s go hog-wild” as there is often a direct correlation between how much of a hurry we are in and how likely things are to go wrong.  With that said, perhaps the best way to go is to purchase this new product and give it a try on a small, limited basis until you get familiar with how it works and what it might be able to bring your weed management programs.

Q: In recent years, I have seen many apps that can be used for identification of weeds.  Do they work and how reliable are they?

A: This is a common topic of discussion among weed scientist,s as it is important that a correct identification is achieved before any weed management attempts are performed.  Correct weed identification is the cornerstone of successful weed management. So much so, that Lynn Sosnoskie, Assistant Professor of Weed Science from Cornell University, explored two of the more common smartphone apps used for weed identification (Pl@ntnet and iNaturalist) and presented a research poster at the 2020 Northeast Plant Pest and Soils Conference.  Rather than share bits and pieces of Dr. Sosnoskie’s poster I feel it is more informative if I have the entire text of the poster.  Below is the text of the poster discussion outlining the findings of her work.

_____________________________________________________________________

My thoughts. Do they work? It depends.  It seems as though the age of the plant, the tissue selected for use in the identification process, and, likely, the genus and family (not testable due to small numbers of samples) of the specimen influence success.  The quality of the images (particularly the amount of background that can be a distraction) is also another factor that affects the ability to achieve an ID.  The taxonomic knowledge of the person making the submission may also impact app performance; a trained weed scientist may bias results, favorably, by purposely selecting and submitting images highlighting characteristic/distinguishing traits.  I recommend my clientele always double check identification against a trusted source (e.g. guidebooks, knowledgeable extension staff, curated/vetted web sites).

Study 1. Evaluate the performance of Pl@ntNet for identifying weeds in California

• Pl@ntNet database selected: Plants of the United States
• 60 images of 46 species (39 broadleaf, 7 grass/grass like) in 21 plant families were submitted to the app
• Most represented families: Asteraceae (14), Poaceae (7), Malvaceae (6), Amaranthaceae (4)
• All images were of adult (non-seedling) plant specimens growing under natural/field conditions
• Image breakdown: 31 of leaves, 8 of leaves/flowers, 14 of flowers, 7 of flowers/fruit
• Specimen identity confirmed using ‘Weeds of California and Other Western States’ (ISBN 13: 978 1879906693)
• 72% of specimens were identified correctly by 1st (60%) and 2nd (12%) hits in Pl@ntNet
• 15% of specimens did not have a correct identification (no hits) recommended by Pl@ntNet
• 86% of floral images and 75% of leaf/flower images were identified correctly (1st hit) by Pl@ntNet
• 52% of leaf images and 43% of flower/fruit images were identified correctly (1st hit) by Pl@ntNet

Study 2. Compare Pl@ntNet to iNaturlist for identifying weeds in California and New York

• Pl@ntNet database selected: Plants of the World (to match iNaturalist’s worldwide database (not selectable))
• 60 images of 60 species (45 broadleaf, 15 grass/grass like) in 23 plant families were submitted to the apps
• Most represented families: Poaceae (13), Asteraceae (13), Amaranthaceae (5)
• Seedlings (12) and adult (48) plants were both represented in the images
• All specimens were growing under natural/field conditions
• Image breakdown: 27 of leaves, 5 of leaves/flowers, 24 of flowers, 4 of flowers/fruit
• Specimen identity confirmed using ‘Weeds of California and Other Western States’ (ISBN 13: 978 1879906693)
• For broadleaves, 78% of specimens were identified correctly by 1st hit in iNaturalist
• For broadleaves, 69% of specimens were identified correctly by 1st hit in Pl@ntNet
• For broadleaves, 71% of Naturalist’s and Pl@ntNet’s 1st hits matched each other
• iNaturalist and Pl@ntNet correctly identified adult broadleaves 85% and 73% of time, respectively, with the 1st hit (58% correct for seedlings)
• 89% of floral images (both apps) and 100% (iNaturalist) and 75% (Pl@ntNet) of flower/fruit images were identified correctly with 1st hit
• 67% (iNaturalist) and 63% (Pl@ntNet) of leaf images and 100% iNaturalist) and 60% (Pl@ntNet) of leaf/flower images were identified correctly with 1st hit
• All images of grass/grass like specimens were of flowers/flower spikes/flower clusters
• For grasses, 47% of specimens were identified correctly by 1st hit in iNaturalist, 33% of specimens were identified correctly by 1st hit in Pl@ntNet
• For grasses, 33% of Naturalist’s and Pl@ntNet’s 1st hits matched each other

Garden Clippings: Tips of the Month

January is the month to . . . .

• Consider winter watering if possible.  Low soil moisture conditions this past fall and in winter can greatly increase the risk of winter injuries from desiccation, with broadleaved and needled evergreens being most susceptible.  While the hose may be already put away, consider hauling it out on a mild day if soil remains dry.  Lath or burlap screens can also be useful to protect from drying winter winds.  Anti-dessicants may also be a viable option in some situations.

• Cut the boughs off when taking down the Christmas tree to use the boughs for winter protection.  The boughs can be laid over perennials and herbs providing some additional protection from desiccating winds and drastic temperature fluctuations.

• Monitor deicer use. Deicers used on walkways and driveways have the potential to cause damage to nearby plants through soil accumulation or aerial spray.  Deicers are primarily salts and some salts have a higher potential to cause damage than others.  Sodium chloride is widely available and cheap, however it has the most potential to damage plants.  Calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and potassium chloride are less likely to damage plants, especially if applied at labeled rates.  Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) is often considered the safest for use in environmentally sensitive areas.  Of course don’t forget sand – while not a deicer it improves traction and is readily available.

• Double check for rodent activity.  Voles and rabbits gnaw at the base of trees and shrubs, essentially girdling the plants.  Damage is frequently seen on fruit trees and other thin-barked ornamentals, roses and evergreens like creeping junipers.  Damage varies from year to year based on populations and available food.  Keep areas with sensitive plant material clean of debris such as tall weeds or thick ground covers, these become ideal habitat and cover for rodents.  Cardboard wraps or wire/mesh cages can be used to protect susceptible plants; cages should be buried 1-2 inches into the ground or kept tight to the ground using landscape staples.  Repellents can be useful, especially when feeding pressure is light.

• Check houseplants frequently.  Houseplants frequently suffer during the mid-winter when light is both short and dim.  Soil moisture is one of the most frequently encountered issues with houseplants over the winter.  Overwatering as a result of slow growth, low light and cool temperatures frequently leads to root rots and fungus gnat problems.  Before watering, do a 3-point check.  Does the soil look dry, does the soil feel dry and is the container light.  Lifting a pot is often the most useful method of assessing soil moisture – a light pot is dry and a heavy pot is wet.  Let soils dry between waterings.

• Get tools ready for late winter and early spring pruning.  Clean and sharpen loppers and hand pruners.  Use high quality sharpening stones, start with the coarsest and finish with fine stones.  Hold pruners with the sharp edge facing you and bevel up.  Push the stone away against the edge starting at the base and working toward the tip, maintaining manufacturer bevel angle.  Chrome plated tools are more durable for those that want to spend less time sharpening. 

Russell Norton, Horticulturist, Cape Cod Cooperative Extension

Understanding Volunteers in Urban Forestry

Introduction

Members of the public may play a valuable and multi-faceted role in establishing, stewarding, and studying urban trees and green spaces [3]. Volunteers typically engage in a spectrum of tasks that include tree-related maintenance practices like watering or pruning, and perhaps most notably, the installation of urban trees often as part of a community tree planting initiative (see Figs. 1-4) [4].

​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​

Volunteers may also educate fellow community members and advocate before local government officials on behalf of the urban forest [5]. They may also find themselves assisting with data collection as part of a formal study or participating in a host of duties related to urban forest inventory initiatives (see Figs. 5 & 6) [6]. 

​​​​​​​ In an era where operational costs continue to increase and municipal budgets continue to be stretched, volunteer contributions to the urban forestry sector are increasingly important. In an attempt to synthesize and summarize the current state of knowledge we conducted a review of the literature regarding the topic of volunteers in urban forestry.

Why Individuals Volunteer

Volunteers are typically highly motivated by the emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual values associated with community trees [7]. Volunteers often indicate that they wish to beautify and generally improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, as well as make a positive contribution to the environment [8,9]. Individuals also indicate that they volunteer as an exercise of their personal values, out of a desire to contribute and give back; they also wish to acquire new skills, gain further education and participate in social interaction [10–12].

Who is Volunteering

Though community-wide citizen engagement initiatives should incorporate participation from volunteers who are reflective and representative of the community [13], urban forestry-related volunteer efforts have historically incorporated limited, non-representative subsets of the urban population [14]. Urban forestry volunteers tend to be well-educated, middle-class white women that are employed full-time, own their own home, and have established long-term residence in their community [9,11,12,15,16,17]. Urban forestry volunteers also tend to be well-educated (i.e., college graduates), with earnings in the middle-upper income range [15,18].

Volunteer Engagement and Barriers

Urban forestry-related programs – such as community tree planting – should commence with a dialogue between citizens, decision-makers and other stakeholders aimed at first understanding the character of a place according to its inhabitants [19]. This may proactively address potential challenges and setbacks that include a lack of foreknowledge of specific urban forestry initiatives by the populace [20], as well as help allay concerns that residents may be left out of the decision-making process [19]. Trees, after all, have a number of dis-services (i.e., falling leaves, branches, fruit) and maintenance-related costs that may foster resistance and an aversion to their presence; thus, residents may wish to express these concerns, as well as have the choice of opting out of an urban forestry-related initiative or program.

Value of Urban Forestry Volunteers

It is estimated that more than 77 million individuals, or approximately one in four American adults, is currently engaged in some form of volunteerism [21]. As well as being an important mechanism through which individuals may give their time, knowledge, and resources to the community around them, volunteering generates an estimated $187.7 billion USD in annual value to the U.S. economy [21]. Within the context of urban forestry, it is estimated that Americans annually volunteer almost 1.5 million hours on activities relating to municipal trees [22]. This equates to an estimated value of $35 million USD and amounts to almost 5% of the total time required for tree care in a community. According to Daniels et al. (2014) volunteers themselves bear about a third of the costs associated with an environmental programme or initiative, including time, travel, equipment, and salary-related expenses [23].

Volunteer Recruitement and Retention

Volunteer participation rates in the U.S. fluctuate annually and volunteers themselves express concern regarding future citizen volunteer recruitment and retention efforts [5]. The most effective recruitment efforts may occur by word of mouth and through the media [12,16,24]. Still & Gerhold (1997) noted that half of those asked to join an organization did so because of a direct request and would otherwise not have joined [8]. Thus, recruitment efforts might best be directed at advertising urban forestry-related events and volunteer opportunities through these channels.

Accuracy of Tasks Performed by Volunteers

Successful urban forestry-related research and operations require sound data. Volunteers may find themselves assisting with aspects of data collection or coordinating these activities in their entirety. Bloniarz & Ryan (1996) concluded that after 12-hours of in-class and hands-on field instruction, street tree inventory data collected by trained urban forestry volunteers was valid, and the accuracy compared “favourably” to results from a control group of certified arborists [6]. Volunteer-based urban tree data collection efforts in Minnesota availed that after formal training in identifying trees, measuring diameter (DBH) and crown width, as well as assigning a qualitative condition rating, agreement among the groups exceeded 90% in relation to tree identification to the level of genera and achieved nearly 70% agreement in relation to tree condition rating [25].

Conclusions

Community volunteers in the urban forestry sector find themselves working at an intersection where social elements and human interests interact with physical factors like trees and urban infrastructure [5,26]. It is in these venues that volunteers may provide essential experience and perspectives, and in turn benefit by deriving new skills and broadening social networks.

As populations continue to age and individuals continue to relocate to more densely populated areas, the social benefits of volunteering in urban forestry-related activities should continue to be investigated. As populations continue to diversify, the sense of community often derived from volunteering may help to build new networks and create a sense of belonging. As operational costs continue to increase and municipal budgets continue to be stretched, a heightened emphasis may be placed on the use of community volunteers for urban forestry-related activities. Though short-term labour savings may be realized with the use of volunteers, many important questions remain relative to expenses related to training, liability, support and education. Studies aimed at investigating how these efforts can be conducted most efficiently and effectively should ensue.

The complexity and dynamism behind urban forestry-related activities and operations – including the involvement of volunteers – necessitates regular and ongoing investigation.

References

1. City of Austin (TX, USA). What is impervious cover? Accessed: https://www.austintexas.gov/faq/impervious-cover-what-impervious-cover
2. Nowak, D. J., & Greenfield, E. J. (2018). U.S. urban forest statistics, values, and projections. Journal of Forestry, 116(2), 164-177.
3. Roman, L. A., Campbell, L. K., & Jordan, R. C. (2018). Civic science in urban forestry: An introduction. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 44(2), 41-48.
4. Fazio, J. R. (2015). Tree board handbook. Lincoln, NE: Arbor Day Foundation.
5. Harper, R. W., Huff, E. S., Bloniarz, D. V., DeStefano, S., & Nicolson, C. R. (2018). Exploring the characteristics of successful volunteer-led urban forest tree committees in Massachusetts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 34, 311-317.
6. Bloniarz, D. V., & Ryan, D. P. (1996). The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboriculture, 22(2), 75-82.
7. Westphal, L. M. (2003). Urban greening and social benefits: A study of empowerment outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 137-147.
8. Still, D. T., & Gerhold H. D. (1997). Motivations and task preferences of urban forestry volunteers. Journal of Arboriculture, 23(3), 116-130.
9. Johnson, M. L., Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., & Silva, P. (2018). Why count trees? Volunteer motivations and experiences with tree monitoring in New York city. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 44(2), 59-72.
10. Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2013). Practical implications of understanding the influence of motivations on commitment to voluntary urban conservation stewardship. Conservation Biology, 27(4), 866-875.
11. Asah, S. T., Lenentine, M. M., & Blahna, D. J. (2014). Benefits of urban landscape eco-volunteerism: Mixed methods segmentation analysis and implications for volunteer retention. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123(3), 108-113.
12. Locke, D. H., Roman, L. A., & Murphy-Dunning, C. (2015). Why opt-in to a planting program? Long-term residents value street tree aesthetics. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(6), 324-333.
13. Locke, D. H., & Grove, J. M. (2016). Doing the hard work where it’s easiest? Examining the relationships between urban greening programs and social and ecological characteristics. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 9(1), 77-96.
14. Martinez, T. A. & McMullin, S. L. (2004). Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in nongovernmental organizations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 112-126.
15. Guiney, M. S., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2009). Conservation volunteers' connection to nature. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 187-197.
16. Still, D. T., & Gerhold H. D. (1997). Motivations and task preferences of urban forestry volunteers. Journal of Arboriculture, 23(3), 116-130.
17. Summit, J., & McPherson, E. G. (1998). Residential tree planting and care: a study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture, 24(2), 89-97.
18. Zhang, Y., Hussain, A., Deng, J., & Letson, N. (2007). Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 797-81.
19. Carmichael, C. E., & McDonough, M. H. (2019). Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Society & Natural Resources, 32(5), 588-605.
20. Straka, T. J., Marsinko, A. P., & Childers, C. J. (2005). Individual characteristics affecting participation in urban and community forestry programs in South Carolina, U. S. Journal of Arboriculture, 31(3), 131-137.
21. Independent Sector. (2021). Independent sector releases new value of volunteer time of $27.20 per hour. Accessed: https://independentsector.org/news-post/new-value-of-volunteer-time-2019/
22. Hauer R. J. & Peterson W. D. (2016). Municipal tree care and management in the United States: A 2014 urban & community forestry census of tree activities. (16-1), College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.
23. Daniels, J. M., Robbins, A. S., Brinkley, W. R., Wolf, K. L., & Chase, J. M. (2014). Toward estimating the value of stewardship volunteers: A cost-based valuation approach in King County, Washington, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(2), 285-289.
24. Summit, J., & Sommer, R. (1998). Urban tree-planting programs—A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior. Atmospheric Environment, 32(1), 1-5.
25. Bancks, N., North, E. A., & Johnson, G. A. (2018). An analysis of agreement between volunteer- and researcher-collected urban tree inventory data. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 44(2), 3-86.
26. Mincey, S. K., Hutten, M., Fischer, B. C., Evans, T. P., Stewart, S. I., & Vogt, J. M. (2013). Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: a key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems, 16, 553-571.

Alexander J. Elton, Richard W. Harper, Lauren F. Bullard, and Benjamin S. Weil; Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts

Eric E. Griffith; Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity, Duke University

Additional Resources

For detailed reports on growing conditions and pest activity – Check out the Landscape Message

For professional turf managers - Check out our Turf Management Updates

For commercial growers of greenhouse crops and flowers - Check out the New England Greenhouse Update website

For pollinator interests - Check out the Pollinator Buzz

For home gardeners and garden retailers - Check out our home lawn and garden resources

TickTalk webinars - To view recordings of past webinars in this series, go to: https://ag.umass.edu/landscape/education-events/ticktalk-with-tickreport-webinars

Diagnostic Services

Landscape and Turf Problem Diagnostics - The UMass Plant Diagnostic Lab is accepting plant disease, insect pest and invasive plant/weed samples. By mail is preferred, but clients who would like to hand-deliver samples may do so by leaving them in the bin marked "Diagnostic Lab Samples" near the back door of French Hall. The lab serves commercial landscape contractors, turf managers, arborists, nurseries and other green industry professionals. It provides woody plant and turf disease analysis, woody plant and turf insect identification, turfgrass identification, weed identification, and offers a report of pest management strategies that are research based, economically sound and environmentally appropriate for the situation. Accurate diagnosis for a turf or landscape problem can often eliminate or reduce the need for pesticide use. See our website for instructions on sample submission and for a sample submission form at http://ag.umass.edu/diagnostics. 

Soil and Plant Nutrient Testing - The lab is accepting orders for Routine Soil Analysis (including optional Organic Matter, Soluble Salts, and Nitrate testing), Particle Size Analysis, Pre-Sidedress Nitrate (PSNT), Total Sorbed Metals, and Soilless Media (no other types of soil analyses available at this time). Testing services are available to all. The lab provides test results and recommendations that lead to the wise and economical use of soils and soil amendments. For updates and order forms, visit the UMass Soil and Plant Nutrient Testing Laboratory web site. 

Tick Testing - The UMass Center for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment provides a list of potential tick identification and testing options at: https://ag.umass.edu/resources/tick-testing-resources.